YES
We show the termination of the TRS R:

  app(f(),|0|()) -> true()
  app(f(),|1|()) -> false()
  app(f(),app(s(),x)) -> app(f(),x)
  app(app(app(if(),true()),app(s(),x)),app(s(),y)) -> app(s(),x)
  app(app(app(if(),false()),app(s(),x)),app(s(),y)) -> app(s(),y)
  app(app(g(),x),app(c(),y)) -> app(c(),app(app(g(),x),y))
  app(app(g(),x),app(c(),y)) -> app(app(g(),x),app(app(app(if(),app(f(),x)),app(c(),app(app(g(),app(s(),x)),y))),app(c(),y)))
  app(app(map(),|fun|),nil()) -> nil()
  app(app(map(),|fun|),app(app(cons(),x),xs)) -> app(app(cons(),app(|fun|,x)),app(app(map(),|fun|),xs))
  app(app(filter(),|fun|),nil()) -> nil()
  app(app(filter(),|fun|),app(app(cons(),x),xs)) -> app(app(app(app(filter2(),app(|fun|,x)),|fun|),x),xs)
  app(app(app(app(filter2(),true()),|fun|),x),xs) -> app(app(cons(),x),app(app(filter(),|fun|),xs))
  app(app(app(app(filter2(),false()),|fun|),x),xs) -> app(app(filter(),|fun|),xs)

Instead we prove termination of the uncurried system:

  app(c_0(),y) -> c_1(y)
  app(cons_0(),y) -> cons_1(y)
  app(cons_1(x1),y) -> cons_2(x1,y)
  app(f_0(),y) -> f_1(y)
  app(filter_0(),y) -> filter_1(y)
  app(filter_1(x1),y) -> filter_2(x1,y)
  app(filter2_0(),y) -> filter2_1(y)
  app(filter2_1(x1),y) -> filter2_2(x1,y)
  app(filter2_2(x1,x2),y) -> filter2_3(x1,x2,y)
  app(filter2_3(x1,x2,x3),y) -> filter2_4(x1,x2,x3,y)
  app(g_0(),y) -> g_1(y)
  app(g_1(x1),y) -> g_2(x1,y)
  app(if_0(),y) -> if_1(y)
  app(if_1(x1),y) -> if_2(x1,y)
  app(if_2(x1,x2),y) -> if_3(x1,x2,y)
  app(map_0(),y) -> map_1(y)
  app(map_1(x1),y) -> map_2(x1,y)
  app(s_0(),y) -> s_1(y)
  f_1(|0|_0()) -> true_0()
  f_1(|1|_0()) -> false_0()
  f_1(s_1(x)) -> f_1(x)
  if_3(true_0(),s_1(x),s_1(y)) -> s_1(x)
  if_3(false_0(),s_1(x),s_1(y)) -> s_1(y)
  g_2(x,c_1(y)) -> c_1(g_2(x,y))
  g_2(x,c_1(y)) -> g_2(x,if_3(f_1(x),c_1(g_2(s_1(x),y)),c_1(y)))
  map_2(|fun|,nil_0()) -> nil_0()
  map_2(|fun|,cons_2(x,xs)) -> cons_2(app(|fun|,x),map_2(|fun|,xs))
  filter_2(|fun|,nil_0()) -> nil_0()
  filter_2(|fun|,cons_2(x,xs)) -> filter2_4(app(|fun|,x),|fun|,x,xs)
  filter2_4(true_0(),|fun|,x,xs) -> cons_2(x,filter_2(|fun|,xs))
  filter2_4(false_0(),|fun|,x,xs) -> filter_2(|fun|,xs)


-- SCC decomposition.

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

p1: app#(f_0(),y) -> f_1#(y)
p2: app#(filter_1(x1),y) -> filter_2#(x1,y)
p3: app#(filter2_3(x1,x2,x3),y) -> filter2_4#(x1,x2,x3,y)
p4: app#(g_1(x1),y) -> g_2#(x1,y)
p5: app#(if_2(x1,x2),y) -> if_3#(x1,x2,y)
p6: app#(map_1(x1),y) -> map_2#(x1,y)
p7: f_1#(s_1(x)) -> f_1#(x)
p8: g_2#(x,c_1(y)) -> g_2#(x,y)
p9: g_2#(x,c_1(y)) -> g_2#(x,if_3(f_1(x),c_1(g_2(s_1(x),y)),c_1(y)))
p10: g_2#(x,c_1(y)) -> if_3#(f_1(x),c_1(g_2(s_1(x),y)),c_1(y))
p11: g_2#(x,c_1(y)) -> f_1#(x)
p12: g_2#(x,c_1(y)) -> g_2#(s_1(x),y)
p13: map_2#(|fun|,cons_2(x,xs)) -> app#(|fun|,x)
p14: map_2#(|fun|,cons_2(x,xs)) -> map_2#(|fun|,xs)
p15: filter_2#(|fun|,cons_2(x,xs)) -> filter2_4#(app(|fun|,x),|fun|,x,xs)
p16: filter_2#(|fun|,cons_2(x,xs)) -> app#(|fun|,x)
p17: filter2_4#(true_0(),|fun|,x,xs) -> filter_2#(|fun|,xs)
p18: filter2_4#(false_0(),|fun|,x,xs) -> filter_2#(|fun|,xs)

and R consists of:

r1: app(c_0(),y) -> c_1(y)
r2: app(cons_0(),y) -> cons_1(y)
r3: app(cons_1(x1),y) -> cons_2(x1,y)
r4: app(f_0(),y) -> f_1(y)
r5: app(filter_0(),y) -> filter_1(y)
r6: app(filter_1(x1),y) -> filter_2(x1,y)
r7: app(filter2_0(),y) -> filter2_1(y)
r8: app(filter2_1(x1),y) -> filter2_2(x1,y)
r9: app(filter2_2(x1,x2),y) -> filter2_3(x1,x2,y)
r10: app(filter2_3(x1,x2,x3),y) -> filter2_4(x1,x2,x3,y)
r11: app(g_0(),y) -> g_1(y)
r12: app(g_1(x1),y) -> g_2(x1,y)
r13: app(if_0(),y) -> if_1(y)
r14: app(if_1(x1),y) -> if_2(x1,y)
r15: app(if_2(x1,x2),y) -> if_3(x1,x2,y)
r16: app(map_0(),y) -> map_1(y)
r17: app(map_1(x1),y) -> map_2(x1,y)
r18: app(s_0(),y) -> s_1(y)
r19: f_1(|0|_0()) -> true_0()
r20: f_1(|1|_0()) -> false_0()
r21: f_1(s_1(x)) -> f_1(x)
r22: if_3(true_0(),s_1(x),s_1(y)) -> s_1(x)
r23: if_3(false_0(),s_1(x),s_1(y)) -> s_1(y)
r24: g_2(x,c_1(y)) -> c_1(g_2(x,y))
r25: g_2(x,c_1(y)) -> g_2(x,if_3(f_1(x),c_1(g_2(s_1(x),y)),c_1(y)))
r26: map_2(|fun|,nil_0()) -> nil_0()
r27: map_2(|fun|,cons_2(x,xs)) -> cons_2(app(|fun|,x),map_2(|fun|,xs))
r28: filter_2(|fun|,nil_0()) -> nil_0()
r29: filter_2(|fun|,cons_2(x,xs)) -> filter2_4(app(|fun|,x),|fun|,x,xs)
r30: filter2_4(true_0(),|fun|,x,xs) -> cons_2(x,filter_2(|fun|,xs))
r31: filter2_4(false_0(),|fun|,x,xs) -> filter_2(|fun|,xs)

The estimated dependency graph contains the following SCCs:

  {p2, p3, p6, p13, p14, p15, p16, p17, p18}
  {p8, p12}
  {p7}


-- Reduction pair.

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

p1: map_2#(|fun|,cons_2(x,xs)) -> app#(|fun|,x)
p2: app#(map_1(x1),y) -> map_2#(x1,y)
p3: map_2#(|fun|,cons_2(x,xs)) -> map_2#(|fun|,xs)
p4: app#(filter2_3(x1,x2,x3),y) -> filter2_4#(x1,x2,x3,y)
p5: filter2_4#(false_0(),|fun|,x,xs) -> filter_2#(|fun|,xs)
p6: filter_2#(|fun|,cons_2(x,xs)) -> app#(|fun|,x)
p7: app#(filter_1(x1),y) -> filter_2#(x1,y)
p8: filter_2#(|fun|,cons_2(x,xs)) -> filter2_4#(app(|fun|,x),|fun|,x,xs)
p9: filter2_4#(true_0(),|fun|,x,xs) -> filter_2#(|fun|,xs)

and R consists of:

r1: app(c_0(),y) -> c_1(y)
r2: app(cons_0(),y) -> cons_1(y)
r3: app(cons_1(x1),y) -> cons_2(x1,y)
r4: app(f_0(),y) -> f_1(y)
r5: app(filter_0(),y) -> filter_1(y)
r6: app(filter_1(x1),y) -> filter_2(x1,y)
r7: app(filter2_0(),y) -> filter2_1(y)
r8: app(filter2_1(x1),y) -> filter2_2(x1,y)
r9: app(filter2_2(x1,x2),y) -> filter2_3(x1,x2,y)
r10: app(filter2_3(x1,x2,x3),y) -> filter2_4(x1,x2,x3,y)
r11: app(g_0(),y) -> g_1(y)
r12: app(g_1(x1),y) -> g_2(x1,y)
r13: app(if_0(),y) -> if_1(y)
r14: app(if_1(x1),y) -> if_2(x1,y)
r15: app(if_2(x1,x2),y) -> if_3(x1,x2,y)
r16: app(map_0(),y) -> map_1(y)
r17: app(map_1(x1),y) -> map_2(x1,y)
r18: app(s_0(),y) -> s_1(y)
r19: f_1(|0|_0()) -> true_0()
r20: f_1(|1|_0()) -> false_0()
r21: f_1(s_1(x)) -> f_1(x)
r22: if_3(true_0(),s_1(x),s_1(y)) -> s_1(x)
r23: if_3(false_0(),s_1(x),s_1(y)) -> s_1(y)
r24: g_2(x,c_1(y)) -> c_1(g_2(x,y))
r25: g_2(x,c_1(y)) -> g_2(x,if_3(f_1(x),c_1(g_2(s_1(x),y)),c_1(y)))
r26: map_2(|fun|,nil_0()) -> nil_0()
r27: map_2(|fun|,cons_2(x,xs)) -> cons_2(app(|fun|,x),map_2(|fun|,xs))
r28: filter_2(|fun|,nil_0()) -> nil_0()
r29: filter_2(|fun|,cons_2(x,xs)) -> filter2_4(app(|fun|,x),|fun|,x,xs)
r30: filter2_4(true_0(),|fun|,x,xs) -> cons_2(x,filter_2(|fun|,xs))
r31: filter2_4(false_0(),|fun|,x,xs) -> filter_2(|fun|,xs)

The set of usable rules consists of

  r28

Take the reduction pair:

  generalized weighted path order (>=MG, >G)
  
    base order 1:
  
      max/plus interpretation on natural numbers:
      
        map_2#_A(x1,x2) = max{x1 + 102, x2 - 1}
        cons_2_A(x1,x2) = max{x1 + 29, x2 + 32}
        app#_A(x1,x2) = max{x1 + 101, x2 + 27}
        map_1_A(x1) = max{56, x1 + 16}
        filter2_3_A(x1,x2,x3) = max{55, x1 - 100, x2 + 25}
        filter2_4#_A(x1,x2,x3,x4) = max{x2 + 125, x4 + 27}
        false_0_A = 25
        filter_2#_A(x1,x2) = max{x1 + 125, x2 + 27}
        filter_1_A(x1) = x1 + 24
        app_A(x1,x2) = max{55, x1 + 11}
        true_0_A = 25
        filter_2_A(x1,x2) = max{34, x1 - 33, x2 - 31}
        nil_0_A = 30
  
    base order 2:
  
      marked-algebra reduction triple (>=A, >=A!, >A!):
      
        matrix interpretation with standard point-wise order:
        
          carrier: N^1
          order: standard order
          interpretations:
            map_2#_A(x1,x2) = x1 + x2
            cons_2_A(x1,x2) = x1 + x2 + 5
            app#_A(x1,x2) = x1 + x2
            map_1_A(x1) = x1 + 3
            filter2_3_A(x1,x2,x3) = x1 + x2 + x3 + 11
            filter2_4#_A(x1,x2,x3,x4) = x2 + x4 + 3
            false_0_A() = 10
            filter_2#_A(x1,x2) = x1 + x2 + 3
            filter_1_A(x1) = x1 + 3
            app_A(x1,x2) = x1 + x2 + 1
            true_0_A() = 10
            filter_2_A(x1,x2) = x1 + x2 + 19
            nil_0_A() = 7
            map_2#!_A(x1,x2) = 10
            cons_2!_A(x1,x2) = x1 + x2
            app#!_A(x1,x2) = x1 + x2 + 8
            map_1!_A(x1) = 9
            filter2_3!_A(x1,x2,x3) = 5
            filter2_4#!_A(x1,x2,x3,x4) = x2 + x4 + 6
            false_0!_A() = 11
            filter_2#!_A(x1,x2) = x1 + x2 + 2
            filter_1!_A(x1) = 9
            app!_A(x1,x2) = x1 + x2 + 7
            true_0!_A() = 0
            filter_2!_A(x1,x2) = x2 + 12
            nil_0!_A() = 20
  
    partial status:
  
      pi(map_2#) = []
      pi(cons_2) = [1]
      pi(app#) = [1]
      pi(map_1) = [1]
      pi(filter2_3) = [2]
      pi(filter2_4#) = []
      pi(false_0) = []
      pi(filter_2#) = [1, 2]
      pi(filter_1) = []
      pi(app) = [1]
      pi(true_0) = []
      pi(filter_2) = []
      pi(nil_0) = []

The following rules are removed:

  p1, p2, p4, p5, p6, p7, p8, p9



-- SCC decomposition.

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

p1: map_2#(|fun|,cons_2(x,xs)) -> map_2#(|fun|,xs)

and R consists of:

r1: app(c_0(),y) -> c_1(y)
r2: app(cons_0(),y) -> cons_1(y)
r3: app(cons_1(x1),y) -> cons_2(x1,y)
r4: app(f_0(),y) -> f_1(y)
r5: app(filter_0(),y) -> filter_1(y)
r6: app(filter_1(x1),y) -> filter_2(x1,y)
r7: app(filter2_0(),y) -> filter2_1(y)
r8: app(filter2_1(x1),y) -> filter2_2(x1,y)
r9: app(filter2_2(x1,x2),y) -> filter2_3(x1,x2,y)
r10: app(filter2_3(x1,x2,x3),y) -> filter2_4(x1,x2,x3,y)
r11: app(g_0(),y) -> g_1(y)
r12: app(g_1(x1),y) -> g_2(x1,y)
r13: app(if_0(),y) -> if_1(y)
r14: app(if_1(x1),y) -> if_2(x1,y)
r15: app(if_2(x1,x2),y) -> if_3(x1,x2,y)
r16: app(map_0(),y) -> map_1(y)
r17: app(map_1(x1),y) -> map_2(x1,y)
r18: app(s_0(),y) -> s_1(y)
r19: f_1(|0|_0()) -> true_0()
r20: f_1(|1|_0()) -> false_0()
r21: f_1(s_1(x)) -> f_1(x)
r22: if_3(true_0(),s_1(x),s_1(y)) -> s_1(x)
r23: if_3(false_0(),s_1(x),s_1(y)) -> s_1(y)
r24: g_2(x,c_1(y)) -> c_1(g_2(x,y))
r25: g_2(x,c_1(y)) -> g_2(x,if_3(f_1(x),c_1(g_2(s_1(x),y)),c_1(y)))
r26: map_2(|fun|,nil_0()) -> nil_0()
r27: map_2(|fun|,cons_2(x,xs)) -> cons_2(app(|fun|,x),map_2(|fun|,xs))
r28: filter_2(|fun|,nil_0()) -> nil_0()
r29: filter_2(|fun|,cons_2(x,xs)) -> filter2_4(app(|fun|,x),|fun|,x,xs)
r30: filter2_4(true_0(),|fun|,x,xs) -> cons_2(x,filter_2(|fun|,xs))
r31: filter2_4(false_0(),|fun|,x,xs) -> filter_2(|fun|,xs)

The estimated dependency graph contains the following SCCs:

  {p1}


-- Reduction pair.

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

p1: map_2#(|fun|,cons_2(x,xs)) -> map_2#(|fun|,xs)

and R consists of:

r1: app(c_0(),y) -> c_1(y)
r2: app(cons_0(),y) -> cons_1(y)
r3: app(cons_1(x1),y) -> cons_2(x1,y)
r4: app(f_0(),y) -> f_1(y)
r5: app(filter_0(),y) -> filter_1(y)
r6: app(filter_1(x1),y) -> filter_2(x1,y)
r7: app(filter2_0(),y) -> filter2_1(y)
r8: app(filter2_1(x1),y) -> filter2_2(x1,y)
r9: app(filter2_2(x1,x2),y) -> filter2_3(x1,x2,y)
r10: app(filter2_3(x1,x2,x3),y) -> filter2_4(x1,x2,x3,y)
r11: app(g_0(),y) -> g_1(y)
r12: app(g_1(x1),y) -> g_2(x1,y)
r13: app(if_0(),y) -> if_1(y)
r14: app(if_1(x1),y) -> if_2(x1,y)
r15: app(if_2(x1,x2),y) -> if_3(x1,x2,y)
r16: app(map_0(),y) -> map_1(y)
r17: app(map_1(x1),y) -> map_2(x1,y)
r18: app(s_0(),y) -> s_1(y)
r19: f_1(|0|_0()) -> true_0()
r20: f_1(|1|_0()) -> false_0()
r21: f_1(s_1(x)) -> f_1(x)
r22: if_3(true_0(),s_1(x),s_1(y)) -> s_1(x)
r23: if_3(false_0(),s_1(x),s_1(y)) -> s_1(y)
r24: g_2(x,c_1(y)) -> c_1(g_2(x,y))
r25: g_2(x,c_1(y)) -> g_2(x,if_3(f_1(x),c_1(g_2(s_1(x),y)),c_1(y)))
r26: map_2(|fun|,nil_0()) -> nil_0()
r27: map_2(|fun|,cons_2(x,xs)) -> cons_2(app(|fun|,x),map_2(|fun|,xs))
r28: filter_2(|fun|,nil_0()) -> nil_0()
r29: filter_2(|fun|,cons_2(x,xs)) -> filter2_4(app(|fun|,x),|fun|,x,xs)
r30: filter2_4(true_0(),|fun|,x,xs) -> cons_2(x,filter_2(|fun|,xs))
r31: filter2_4(false_0(),|fun|,x,xs) -> filter_2(|fun|,xs)

The set of usable rules consists of

  r28

Take the reduction pair:

  generalized weighted path order (>=MG, >G)
  
    base order 1:
  
      max/plus interpretation on natural numbers:
      
        map_2#_A(x1,x2) = 0
        cons_2_A(x1,x2) = max{5, x2 - 17}
        filter_2_A(x1,x2) = max{19, x1 - 16, x2 + 8}
        nil_0_A = 20
  
    base order 2:
  
      marked-algebra reduction triple (>=A, >=A!, >A!):
      
        matrix interpretation with standard point-wise order:
        
          carrier: N^1
          order: standard order
          interpretations:
            map_2#_A(x1,x2) = x2
            cons_2_A(x1,x2) = x1 + x2 + 6
            filter_2_A(x1,x2) = x1 + x2 + 10
            nil_0_A() = 7
            map_2#!_A(x1,x2) = x2
            cons_2!_A(x1,x2) = x2 + 2
            filter_2!_A(x1,x2) = x2 + 4
            nil_0!_A() = 0
  
    partial status:
  
      pi(map_2#) = []
      pi(cons_2) = []
      pi(filter_2) = []
      pi(nil_0) = []

The following rules are removed:

  p1

Then no dependency pair remains.

-- Reduction pair.

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

p1: g_2#(x,c_1(y)) -> g_2#(s_1(x),y)
p2: g_2#(x,c_1(y)) -> g_2#(x,y)

and R consists of:

r1: app(c_0(),y) -> c_1(y)
r2: app(cons_0(),y) -> cons_1(y)
r3: app(cons_1(x1),y) -> cons_2(x1,y)
r4: app(f_0(),y) -> f_1(y)
r5: app(filter_0(),y) -> filter_1(y)
r6: app(filter_1(x1),y) -> filter_2(x1,y)
r7: app(filter2_0(),y) -> filter2_1(y)
r8: app(filter2_1(x1),y) -> filter2_2(x1,y)
r9: app(filter2_2(x1,x2),y) -> filter2_3(x1,x2,y)
r10: app(filter2_3(x1,x2,x3),y) -> filter2_4(x1,x2,x3,y)
r11: app(g_0(),y) -> g_1(y)
r12: app(g_1(x1),y) -> g_2(x1,y)
r13: app(if_0(),y) -> if_1(y)
r14: app(if_1(x1),y) -> if_2(x1,y)
r15: app(if_2(x1,x2),y) -> if_3(x1,x2,y)
r16: app(map_0(),y) -> map_1(y)
r17: app(map_1(x1),y) -> map_2(x1,y)
r18: app(s_0(),y) -> s_1(y)
r19: f_1(|0|_0()) -> true_0()
r20: f_1(|1|_0()) -> false_0()
r21: f_1(s_1(x)) -> f_1(x)
r22: if_3(true_0(),s_1(x),s_1(y)) -> s_1(x)
r23: if_3(false_0(),s_1(x),s_1(y)) -> s_1(y)
r24: g_2(x,c_1(y)) -> c_1(g_2(x,y))
r25: g_2(x,c_1(y)) -> g_2(x,if_3(f_1(x),c_1(g_2(s_1(x),y)),c_1(y)))
r26: map_2(|fun|,nil_0()) -> nil_0()
r27: map_2(|fun|,cons_2(x,xs)) -> cons_2(app(|fun|,x),map_2(|fun|,xs))
r28: filter_2(|fun|,nil_0()) -> nil_0()
r29: filter_2(|fun|,cons_2(x,xs)) -> filter2_4(app(|fun|,x),|fun|,x,xs)
r30: filter2_4(true_0(),|fun|,x,xs) -> cons_2(x,filter_2(|fun|,xs))
r31: filter2_4(false_0(),|fun|,x,xs) -> filter_2(|fun|,xs)

The set of usable rules consists of

  r28

Take the reduction pair:

  generalized weighted path order (>=MG, >G)
  
    base order 1:
  
      max/plus interpretation on natural numbers:
      
        g_2#_A(x1,x2) = max{0, x1 - 1}
        c_1_A(x1) = max{8, x1 - 9}
        s_1_A(x1) = max{0, x1 - 9}
        filter_2_A(x1,x2) = 15
        nil_0_A = 14
  
    base order 2:
  
      marked-algebra reduction triple (>=A, >=A!, >A!):
      
        matrix interpretation with standard point-wise order:
        
          carrier: N^1
          order: standard order
          interpretations:
            g_2#_A(x1,x2) = x1 + x2
            c_1_A(x1) = x1 + 5
            s_1_A(x1) = x1 + 4
            filter_2_A(x1,x2) = x2 + 19
            nil_0_A() = 16
            g_2#!_A(x1,x2) = x1 + x2 + 11
            c_1!_A(x1) = x1 + 1
            s_1!_A(x1) = x1 + 15
            filter_2!_A(x1,x2) = 18
            nil_0!_A() = 0
  
    partial status:
  
      pi(g_2#) = []
      pi(c_1) = []
      pi(s_1) = []
      pi(filter_2) = []
      pi(nil_0) = []

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: f_1#(s_1(x)) -> f_1#(x)

and R consists of:

r1: app(c_0(),y) -> c_1(y)
r2: app(cons_0(),y) -> cons_1(y)
r3: app(cons_1(x1),y) -> cons_2(x1,y)
r4: app(f_0(),y) -> f_1(y)
r5: app(filter_0(),y) -> filter_1(y)
r6: app(filter_1(x1),y) -> filter_2(x1,y)
r7: app(filter2_0(),y) -> filter2_1(y)
r8: app(filter2_1(x1),y) -> filter2_2(x1,y)
r9: app(filter2_2(x1,x2),y) -> filter2_3(x1,x2,y)
r10: app(filter2_3(x1,x2,x3),y) -> filter2_4(x1,x2,x3,y)
r11: app(g_0(),y) -> g_1(y)
r12: app(g_1(x1),y) -> g_2(x1,y)
r13: app(if_0(),y) -> if_1(y)
r14: app(if_1(x1),y) -> if_2(x1,y)
r15: app(if_2(x1,x2),y) -> if_3(x1,x2,y)
r16: app(map_0(),y) -> map_1(y)
r17: app(map_1(x1),y) -> map_2(x1,y)
r18: app(s_0(),y) -> s_1(y)
r19: f_1(|0|_0()) -> true_0()
r20: f_1(|1|_0()) -> false_0()
r21: f_1(s_1(x)) -> f_1(x)
r22: if_3(true_0(),s_1(x),s_1(y)) -> s_1(x)
r23: if_3(false_0(),s_1(x),s_1(y)) -> s_1(y)
r24: g_2(x,c_1(y)) -> c_1(g_2(x,y))
r25: g_2(x,c_1(y)) -> g_2(x,if_3(f_1(x),c_1(g_2(s_1(x),y)),c_1(y)))
r26: map_2(|fun|,nil_0()) -> nil_0()
r27: map_2(|fun|,cons_2(x,xs)) -> cons_2(app(|fun|,x),map_2(|fun|,xs))
r28: filter_2(|fun|,nil_0()) -> nil_0()
r29: filter_2(|fun|,cons_2(x,xs)) -> filter2_4(app(|fun|,x),|fun|,x,xs)
r30: filter2_4(true_0(),|fun|,x,xs) -> cons_2(x,filter_2(|fun|,xs))
r31: filter2_4(false_0(),|fun|,x,xs) -> filter_2(|fun|,xs)

The set of usable rules consists of

  r28

Take the reduction pair:

  generalized weighted path order (>=MG, >G)
  
    base order 1:
  
      max/plus interpretation on natural numbers:
      
        f_1#_A(x1) = x1 + 7
        s_1_A(x1) = x1 + 6
        filter_2_A(x1,x2) = 3
        nil_0_A = 2
  
    base order 2:
  
      marked-algebra reduction triple (>=A, >=A!, >A!):
      
        matrix interpretation with standard point-wise order:
        
          carrier: N^1
          order: standard order
          interpretations:
            f_1#_A(x1) = x1
            s_1_A(x1) = x1 + 11
            filter_2_A(x1,x2) = x2 + 14
            nil_0_A() = 16
            f_1#!_A(x1) = x1
            s_1!_A(x1) = x1 + 15
            filter_2!_A(x1,x2) = x2 + 1
            nil_0!_A() = 0
  
    partial status:
  
      pi(f_1#) = []
      pi(s_1) = [1]
      pi(filter_2) = []
      pi(nil_0) = []

The following rules are removed:

  p1

Then no dependency pair remains.