YES
We show the termination of the TRS R:

  |0|(|#|()) -> |#|()
  +(x,|#|()) -> x
  +(|#|(),x) -> x
  +(|0|(x),|0|(y)) -> |0|(+(x,y))
  +(|0|(x),|1|(y)) -> |1|(+(x,y))
  +(|1|(x),|0|(y)) -> |1|(+(x,y))
  +(|1|(x),|1|(y)) -> |0|(+(+(x,y),|1|(|#|())))
  +(+(x,y),z) -> +(x,+(y,z))
  *(|#|(),x) -> |#|()
  *(|0|(x),y) -> |0|(*(x,y))
  *(|1|(x),y) -> +(|0|(*(x,y)),y)
  *(*(x,y),z) -> *(x,*(y,z))
  *(x,+(y,z)) -> +(*(x,y),*(x,z))
  app(nil(),l) -> l
  app(cons(x,l1),l2) -> cons(x,app(l1,l2))
  sum(nil()) -> |0|(|#|())
  sum(cons(x,l)) -> +(x,sum(l))
  sum(app(l1,l2)) -> +(sum(l1),sum(l2))
  prod(nil()) -> |1|(|#|())
  prod(cons(x,l)) -> *(x,prod(l))
  prod(app(l1,l2)) -> *(prod(l1),prod(l2))


-- SCC decomposition.

Consider the dependency pair problem (P, R), where P consists of

p1: +#(|0|(x),|0|(y)) -> |0|#(+(x,y))
p2: +#(|0|(x),|0|(y)) -> +#(x,y)
p3: +#(|0|(x),|1|(y)) -> +#(x,y)
p4: +#(|1|(x),|0|(y)) -> +#(x,y)
p5: +#(|1|(x),|1|(y)) -> |0|#(+(+(x,y),|1|(|#|())))
p6: +#(|1|(x),|1|(y)) -> +#(+(x,y),|1|(|#|()))
p7: +#(|1|(x),|1|(y)) -> +#(x,y)
p8: +#(+(x,y),z) -> +#(x,+(y,z))
p9: +#(+(x,y),z) -> +#(y,z)
p10: *#(|0|(x),y) -> |0|#(*(x,y))
p11: *#(|0|(x),y) -> *#(x,y)
p12: *#(|1|(x),y) -> +#(|0|(*(x,y)),y)
p13: *#(|1|(x),y) -> |0|#(*(x,y))
p14: *#(|1|(x),y) -> *#(x,y)
p15: *#(*(x,y),z) -> *#(x,*(y,z))
p16: *#(*(x,y),z) -> *#(y,z)
p17: *#(x,+(y,z)) -> +#(*(x,y),*(x,z))
p18: *#(x,+(y,z)) -> *#(x,y)
p19: *#(x,+(y,z)) -> *#(x,z)
p20: app#(cons(x,l1),l2) -> app#(l1,l2)
p21: sum#(nil()) -> |0|#(|#|())
p22: sum#(cons(x,l)) -> +#(x,sum(l))
p23: sum#(cons(x,l)) -> sum#(l)
p24: sum#(app(l1,l2)) -> +#(sum(l1),sum(l2))
p25: sum#(app(l1,l2)) -> sum#(l1)
p26: sum#(app(l1,l2)) -> sum#(l2)
p27: prod#(cons(x,l)) -> *#(x,prod(l))
p28: prod#(cons(x,l)) -> prod#(l)
p29: prod#(app(l1,l2)) -> *#(prod(l1),prod(l2))
p30: prod#(app(l1,l2)) -> prod#(l1)
p31: prod#(app(l1,l2)) -> prod#(l2)

and R consists of:

r1: |0|(|#|()) -> |#|()
r2: +(x,|#|()) -> x
r3: +(|#|(),x) -> x
r4: +(|0|(x),|0|(y)) -> |0|(+(x,y))
r5: +(|0|(x),|1|(y)) -> |1|(+(x,y))
r6: +(|1|(x),|0|(y)) -> |1|(+(x,y))
r7: +(|1|(x),|1|(y)) -> |0|(+(+(x,y),|1|(|#|())))
r8: +(+(x,y),z) -> +(x,+(y,z))
r9: *(|#|(),x) -> |#|()
r10: *(|0|(x),y) -> |0|(*(x,y))
r11: *(|1|(x),y) -> +(|0|(*(x,y)),y)
r12: *(*(x,y),z) -> *(x,*(y,z))
r13: *(x,+(y,z)) -> +(*(x,y),*(x,z))
r14: app(nil(),l) -> l
r15: app(cons(x,l1),l2) -> cons(x,app(l1,l2))
r16: sum(nil()) -> |0|(|#|())
r17: sum(cons(x,l)) -> +(x,sum(l))
r18: sum(app(l1,l2)) -> +(sum(l1),sum(l2))
r19: prod(nil()) -> |1|(|#|())
r20: prod(cons(x,l)) -> *(x,prod(l))
r21: prod(app(l1,l2)) -> *(prod(l1),prod(l2))

The estimated dependency graph contains the following SCCs:

  {p23, p25, p26}
  {p28, p30, p31}
  {p11, p14, p15, p16, p18, p19}
  {p2, p3, p4, p6, p7, p8, p9}
  {p20}


-- Reduction pair.

Consider the dependency pair problem (P, R), where P consists of

p1: sum#(app(l1,l2)) -> sum#(l2)
p2: sum#(app(l1,l2)) -> sum#(l1)
p3: sum#(cons(x,l)) -> sum#(l)

and R consists of:

r1: |0|(|#|()) -> |#|()
r2: +(x,|#|()) -> x
r3: +(|#|(),x) -> x
r4: +(|0|(x),|0|(y)) -> |0|(+(x,y))
r5: +(|0|(x),|1|(y)) -> |1|(+(x,y))
r6: +(|1|(x),|0|(y)) -> |1|(+(x,y))
r7: +(|1|(x),|1|(y)) -> |0|(+(+(x,y),|1|(|#|())))
r8: +(+(x,y),z) -> +(x,+(y,z))
r9: *(|#|(),x) -> |#|()
r10: *(|0|(x),y) -> |0|(*(x,y))
r11: *(|1|(x),y) -> +(|0|(*(x,y)),y)
r12: *(*(x,y),z) -> *(x,*(y,z))
r13: *(x,+(y,z)) -> +(*(x,y),*(x,z))
r14: app(nil(),l) -> l
r15: app(cons(x,l1),l2) -> cons(x,app(l1,l2))
r16: sum(nil()) -> |0|(|#|())
r17: sum(cons(x,l)) -> +(x,sum(l))
r18: sum(app(l1,l2)) -> +(sum(l1),sum(l2))
r19: prod(nil()) -> |1|(|#|())
r20: prod(cons(x,l)) -> *(x,prod(l))
r21: prod(app(l1,l2)) -> *(prod(l1),prod(l2))

The set of usable rules consists of

  (no rules)

Take the reduction pair:

  generalized weighted path order (>=MG, >G)
  
    base order 1:
  
      matrix interpretation with standard point-wise order:
      
        carrier: N^1
        order: standard order
        interpretations:
          sum#_A(x1) = x1
          app_A(x1,x2) = x1 + x2 + 9
          cons_A(x1,x2) = x1 + x2 + 8
  
    base order 2:
  
      marked-algebra reduction triple (>=A, >=A!, >A!):
      
        max/plus interpretation on natural numbers:
        
          sum#_A(x1) = max{0, x1 - 2}
          app_A(x1,x2) = max{61, x1 + 1, x2 + 1}
          cons_A(x1,x2) = max{54, x1 - 2, x2 + 1}
          sum#!_A(x1) = 6
          app!_A(x1,x2) = max{7, x1 - 99}
          cons!_A(x1,x2) = max{x1 + 6, x2 - 98}
  
    partial status:
  
      pi(sum#) = [1]
      pi(app) = [1, 2]
      pi(cons) = [2]

The following rules are removed:

  p1, p2, p3

Then no dependency pair remains.

-- Reduction pair.

Consider the dependency pair problem (P, R), where P consists of

p1: prod#(app(l1,l2)) -> prod#(l2)
p2: prod#(app(l1,l2)) -> prod#(l1)
p3: prod#(cons(x,l)) -> prod#(l)

and R consists of:

r1: |0|(|#|()) -> |#|()
r2: +(x,|#|()) -> x
r3: +(|#|(),x) -> x
r4: +(|0|(x),|0|(y)) -> |0|(+(x,y))
r5: +(|0|(x),|1|(y)) -> |1|(+(x,y))
r6: +(|1|(x),|0|(y)) -> |1|(+(x,y))
r7: +(|1|(x),|1|(y)) -> |0|(+(+(x,y),|1|(|#|())))
r8: +(+(x,y),z) -> +(x,+(y,z))
r9: *(|#|(),x) -> |#|()
r10: *(|0|(x),y) -> |0|(*(x,y))
r11: *(|1|(x),y) -> +(|0|(*(x,y)),y)
r12: *(*(x,y),z) -> *(x,*(y,z))
r13: *(x,+(y,z)) -> +(*(x,y),*(x,z))
r14: app(nil(),l) -> l
r15: app(cons(x,l1),l2) -> cons(x,app(l1,l2))
r16: sum(nil()) -> |0|(|#|())
r17: sum(cons(x,l)) -> +(x,sum(l))
r18: sum(app(l1,l2)) -> +(sum(l1),sum(l2))
r19: prod(nil()) -> |1|(|#|())
r20: prod(cons(x,l)) -> *(x,prod(l))
r21: prod(app(l1,l2)) -> *(prod(l1),prod(l2))

The set of usable rules consists of

  (no rules)

Take the reduction pair:

  generalized weighted path order (>=MG, >G)
  
    base order 1:
  
      matrix interpretation with standard point-wise order:
      
        carrier: N^1
        order: standard order
        interpretations:
          prod#_A(x1) = x1
          app_A(x1,x2) = x1 + x2 + 9
          cons_A(x1,x2) = x1 + x2 + 8
  
    base order 2:
  
      marked-algebra reduction triple (>=A, >=A!, >A!):
      
        max/plus interpretation on natural numbers:
        
          prod#_A(x1) = max{0, x1 - 4}
          app_A(x1,x2) = max{6, x1, x2 + 3}
          cons_A(x1,x2) = max{7, x1 - 1, x2 + 3}
          prod#!_A(x1) = max{1, x1 - 165}
          app!_A(x1,x2) = max{8, x1 - 164, x2 - 83}
          cons!_A(x1,x2) = max{7, x2 - 87}
  
    partial status:
  
      pi(prod#) = [1]
      pi(app) = [2]
      pi(cons) = [2]

The following rules are removed:

  p1, p2, p3

Then no dependency pair remains.

-- Reduction pair.

Consider the dependency pair problem (P, R), where P consists of

p1: *#(x,+(y,z)) -> *#(x,z)
p2: *#(x,+(y,z)) -> *#(x,y)
p3: *#(*(x,y),z) -> *#(y,z)
p4: *#(*(x,y),z) -> *#(x,*(y,z))
p5: *#(|1|(x),y) -> *#(x,y)
p6: *#(|0|(x),y) -> *#(x,y)

and R consists of:

r1: |0|(|#|()) -> |#|()
r2: +(x,|#|()) -> x
r3: +(|#|(),x) -> x
r4: +(|0|(x),|0|(y)) -> |0|(+(x,y))
r5: +(|0|(x),|1|(y)) -> |1|(+(x,y))
r6: +(|1|(x),|0|(y)) -> |1|(+(x,y))
r7: +(|1|(x),|1|(y)) -> |0|(+(+(x,y),|1|(|#|())))
r8: +(+(x,y),z) -> +(x,+(y,z))
r9: *(|#|(),x) -> |#|()
r10: *(|0|(x),y) -> |0|(*(x,y))
r11: *(|1|(x),y) -> +(|0|(*(x,y)),y)
r12: *(*(x,y),z) -> *(x,*(y,z))
r13: *(x,+(y,z)) -> +(*(x,y),*(x,z))
r14: app(nil(),l) -> l
r15: app(cons(x,l1),l2) -> cons(x,app(l1,l2))
r16: sum(nil()) -> |0|(|#|())
r17: sum(cons(x,l)) -> +(x,sum(l))
r18: sum(app(l1,l2)) -> +(sum(l1),sum(l2))
r19: prod(nil()) -> |1|(|#|())
r20: prod(cons(x,l)) -> *(x,prod(l))
r21: prod(app(l1,l2)) -> *(prod(l1),prod(l2))

The set of usable rules consists of

  r2, r3, r9

Take the reduction pair:

  generalized weighted path order (>=MG, >G)
  
    base order 1:
  
      matrix interpretation with standard point-wise order:
      
        carrier: N^1
        order: standard order
        interpretations:
          *#_A(x1,x2) = x1 + 1
          +_A(x1,x2) = x1 + x2 + 3
          *_A(x1,x2) = x1 + x2 + 8
          |1|_A(x1) = x1 + 7
          |0|_A(x1) = x1 + 2
          |#|_A() = 1
  
    base order 2:
  
      marked-algebra reduction triple (>=A, >=A!, >A!):
      
        max/plus interpretation on natural numbers:
        
          *#_A(x1,x2) = max{0, x1 - 98}
          +_A(x1,x2) = max{65, x1 + 1, x2 + 1}
          *_A(x1,x2) = max{66, x1 + 1, x2 + 1}
          |1|_A(x1) = max{92, x1 + 90}
          |0|_A(x1) = x1 + 97
          |#|_A = 95
          *#!_A(x1,x2) = max{1, x1 - 225}
          +!_A(x1,x2) = max{5, x1 - 170, x2 - 225}
          *!_A(x1,x2) = max{6, x1 - 96, x2 - 222}
          |1|!_A(x1) = max{2, x1 - 137}
          |0|!_A(x1) = max{4, x1 - 224}
          |#|!_A = 3
  
    partial status:
  
      pi(*#) = [1]
      pi(+) = [1]
      pi(*) = [1, 2]
      pi(|1|) = [1]
      pi(|0|) = [1]
      pi(|#|) = []

The following rules are removed:

  p3, p4, p5, p6



-- SCC decomposition.

Consider the dependency pair problem (P, R), where P consists of

p1: *#(x,+(y,z)) -> *#(x,z)
p2: *#(x,+(y,z)) -> *#(x,y)

and R consists of:

r1: |0|(|#|()) -> |#|()
r2: +(x,|#|()) -> x
r3: +(|#|(),x) -> x
r4: +(|0|(x),|0|(y)) -> |0|(+(x,y))
r5: +(|0|(x),|1|(y)) -> |1|(+(x,y))
r6: +(|1|(x),|0|(y)) -> |1|(+(x,y))
r7: +(|1|(x),|1|(y)) -> |0|(+(+(x,y),|1|(|#|())))
r8: +(+(x,y),z) -> +(x,+(y,z))
r9: *(|#|(),x) -> |#|()
r10: *(|0|(x),y) -> |0|(*(x,y))
r11: *(|1|(x),y) -> +(|0|(*(x,y)),y)
r12: *(*(x,y),z) -> *(x,*(y,z))
r13: *(x,+(y,z)) -> +(*(x,y),*(x,z))
r14: app(nil(),l) -> l
r15: app(cons(x,l1),l2) -> cons(x,app(l1,l2))
r16: sum(nil()) -> |0|(|#|())
r17: sum(cons(x,l)) -> +(x,sum(l))
r18: sum(app(l1,l2)) -> +(sum(l1),sum(l2))
r19: prod(nil()) -> |1|(|#|())
r20: prod(cons(x,l)) -> *(x,prod(l))
r21: prod(app(l1,l2)) -> *(prod(l1),prod(l2))

The estimated dependency graph contains the following SCCs:

  {p1, p2}


-- Reduction pair.

Consider the dependency pair problem (P, R), where P consists of

p1: *#(x,+(y,z)) -> *#(x,z)
p2: *#(x,+(y,z)) -> *#(x,y)

and R consists of:

r1: |0|(|#|()) -> |#|()
r2: +(x,|#|()) -> x
r3: +(|#|(),x) -> x
r4: +(|0|(x),|0|(y)) -> |0|(+(x,y))
r5: +(|0|(x),|1|(y)) -> |1|(+(x,y))
r6: +(|1|(x),|0|(y)) -> |1|(+(x,y))
r7: +(|1|(x),|1|(y)) -> |0|(+(+(x,y),|1|(|#|())))
r8: +(+(x,y),z) -> +(x,+(y,z))
r9: *(|#|(),x) -> |#|()
r10: *(|0|(x),y) -> |0|(*(x,y))
r11: *(|1|(x),y) -> +(|0|(*(x,y)),y)
r12: *(*(x,y),z) -> *(x,*(y,z))
r13: *(x,+(y,z)) -> +(*(x,y),*(x,z))
r14: app(nil(),l) -> l
r15: app(cons(x,l1),l2) -> cons(x,app(l1,l2))
r16: sum(nil()) -> |0|(|#|())
r17: sum(cons(x,l)) -> +(x,sum(l))
r18: sum(app(l1,l2)) -> +(sum(l1),sum(l2))
r19: prod(nil()) -> |1|(|#|())
r20: prod(cons(x,l)) -> *(x,prod(l))
r21: prod(app(l1,l2)) -> *(prod(l1),prod(l2))

The set of usable rules consists of

  r2, r3

Take the reduction pair:

  generalized weighted path order (>=MG, >G)
  
    base order 1:
  
      matrix interpretation with standard point-wise order:
      
        carrier: N^1
        order: standard order
        interpretations:
          *#_A(x1,x2) = x1 + x2
          +_A(x1,x2) = x1 + x2 + 2
          |#|_A() = 2
  
    base order 2:
  
      marked-algebra reduction triple (>=A, >=A!, >A!):
      
        max/plus interpretation on natural numbers:
        
          *#_A(x1,x2) = max{0, x2 - 18}
          +_A(x1,x2) = max{33, x1 + 14, x2 + 17}
          |#|_A = 46
          *#!_A(x1,x2) = max{4, x1 - 1, x2 - 35}
          +!_A(x1,x2) = max{3, x1 - 35, x2 - 36}
          |#|!_A = 1
  
    partial status:
  
      pi(*#) = [1]
      pi(+) = [1, 2]
      pi(|#|) = []

The following rules are removed:

  p1, p2

Then no dependency pair remains.

-- Reduction pair.

Consider the dependency pair problem (P, R), where P consists of

p1: +#(|0|(x),|0|(y)) -> +#(x,y)
p2: +#(+(x,y),z) -> +#(y,z)
p3: +#(+(x,y),z) -> +#(x,+(y,z))
p4: +#(|1|(x),|1|(y)) -> +#(x,y)
p5: +#(|1|(x),|1|(y)) -> +#(+(x,y),|1|(|#|()))
p6: +#(|0|(x),|1|(y)) -> +#(x,y)
p7: +#(|1|(x),|0|(y)) -> +#(x,y)

and R consists of:

r1: |0|(|#|()) -> |#|()
r2: +(x,|#|()) -> x
r3: +(|#|(),x) -> x
r4: +(|0|(x),|0|(y)) -> |0|(+(x,y))
r5: +(|0|(x),|1|(y)) -> |1|(+(x,y))
r6: +(|1|(x),|0|(y)) -> |1|(+(x,y))
r7: +(|1|(x),|1|(y)) -> |0|(+(+(x,y),|1|(|#|())))
r8: +(+(x,y),z) -> +(x,+(y,z))
r9: *(|#|(),x) -> |#|()
r10: *(|0|(x),y) -> |0|(*(x,y))
r11: *(|1|(x),y) -> +(|0|(*(x,y)),y)
r12: *(*(x,y),z) -> *(x,*(y,z))
r13: *(x,+(y,z)) -> +(*(x,y),*(x,z))
r14: app(nil(),l) -> l
r15: app(cons(x,l1),l2) -> cons(x,app(l1,l2))
r16: sum(nil()) -> |0|(|#|())
r17: sum(cons(x,l)) -> +(x,sum(l))
r18: sum(app(l1,l2)) -> +(sum(l1),sum(l2))
r19: prod(nil()) -> |1|(|#|())
r20: prod(cons(x,l)) -> *(x,prod(l))
r21: prod(app(l1,l2)) -> *(prod(l1),prod(l2))

The set of usable rules consists of

  r1, r2, r3, r4, r5, r6, r7, r8, r9

Take the reduction pair:

  generalized weighted path order (>=MG, >G)
  
    base order 1:
  
      matrix interpretation with standard point-wise order:
      
        carrier: N^1
        order: standard order
        interpretations:
          +#_A(x1,x2) = x1 + x2 + 2
          |0|_A(x1) = x1 + 1
          +_A(x1,x2) = x1 + x2 + 3
          |1|_A(x1) = x1 + 5
          |#|_A() = 0
          *_A(x1,x2) = x1 + x2
  
    base order 2:
  
      marked-algebra reduction triple (>=A, >=A!, >A!):
      
        max/plus interpretation on natural numbers:
        
          +#_A(x1,x2) = 0
          |0|_A(x1) = 40
          +_A(x1,x2) = max{9, x1 + 4, x2}
          |1|_A(x1) = 39
          |#|_A = 14
          *_A(x1,x2) = max{35, x2 - 36}
          +#!_A(x1,x2) = 55
          |0|!_A(x1) = max{22, x1 - 12}
          +!_A(x1,x2) = max{54, x1 + 6, x2 + 2}
          |1|!_A(x1) = max{55, x1 - 15}
          |#|!_A = 21
          *!_A(x1,x2) = max{53, x1 + 6, x2 + 4}
  
    partial status:
  
      pi(+#) = [1]
      pi(|0|) = []
      pi(+) = []
      pi(|1|) = []
      pi(|#|) = []
      pi(*) = [1, 2]

The following rules are removed:

  p1, p2, p3, p4, p5, p6, p7

Then no dependency pair remains.

-- Reduction pair.

Consider the dependency pair problem (P, R), where P consists of

p1: app#(cons(x,l1),l2) -> app#(l1,l2)

and R consists of:

r1: |0|(|#|()) -> |#|()
r2: +(x,|#|()) -> x
r3: +(|#|(),x) -> x
r4: +(|0|(x),|0|(y)) -> |0|(+(x,y))
r5: +(|0|(x),|1|(y)) -> |1|(+(x,y))
r6: +(|1|(x),|0|(y)) -> |1|(+(x,y))
r7: +(|1|(x),|1|(y)) -> |0|(+(+(x,y),|1|(|#|())))
r8: +(+(x,y),z) -> +(x,+(y,z))
r9: *(|#|(),x) -> |#|()
r10: *(|0|(x),y) -> |0|(*(x,y))
r11: *(|1|(x),y) -> +(|0|(*(x,y)),y)
r12: *(*(x,y),z) -> *(x,*(y,z))
r13: *(x,+(y,z)) -> +(*(x,y),*(x,z))
r14: app(nil(),l) -> l
r15: app(cons(x,l1),l2) -> cons(x,app(l1,l2))
r16: sum(nil()) -> |0|(|#|())
r17: sum(cons(x,l)) -> +(x,sum(l))
r18: sum(app(l1,l2)) -> +(sum(l1),sum(l2))
r19: prod(nil()) -> |1|(|#|())
r20: prod(cons(x,l)) -> *(x,prod(l))
r21: prod(app(l1,l2)) -> *(prod(l1),prod(l2))

The set of usable rules consists of

  (no rules)

Take the reduction pair:

  generalized weighted path order (>=MG, >G)
  
    base order 1:
  
      matrix interpretation with standard point-wise order:
      
        carrier: N^1
        order: standard order
        interpretations:
          app#_A(x1,x2) = x1
          cons_A(x1,x2) = x1 + x2 + 8
  
    base order 2:
  
      marked-algebra reduction triple (>=A, >=A!, >A!):
      
        max/plus interpretation on natural numbers:
        
          app#_A(x1,x2) = max{0, x1 - 2}
          cons_A(x1,x2) = max{11, x1 - 1, x2 + 1}
          app#!_A(x1,x2) = max{7, x1 - 112, x2 - 1}
          cons!_A(x1,x2) = max{6, x1 - 50, x2 - 113}
  
    partial status:
  
      pi(app#) = [1]
      pi(cons) = [1]

The following rules are removed:

  p1

Then no dependency pair remains.