YES
We show the termination of the TRS R:

  app(app(|:|(),app(app(|:|(),app(app(|:|(),app(app(|:|(),C()),x)),y)),z)),u) -> app(app(|:|(),app(app(|:|(),x),z)),app(app(|:|(),app(app(|:|(),app(app(|:|(),x),y)),z)),u))
  app(app(map(),f),nil()) -> nil()
  app(app(map(),f),app(app(cons(),x),xs)) -> app(app(cons(),app(f,x)),app(app(map(),f),xs))
  app(app(filter(),f),nil()) -> nil()
  app(app(filter(),f),app(app(cons(),x),xs)) -> app(app(app(app(filter2(),app(f,x)),f),x),xs)
  app(app(app(app(filter2(),true()),f),x),xs) -> app(app(cons(),x),app(app(filter(),f),xs))
  app(app(app(app(filter2(),false()),f),x),xs) -> app(app(filter(),f),xs)

Instead we prove termination of the uncurried system:

  app(cons_0(),y) -> cons_1(y)
  app(cons_1(x1),y) -> cons_2(x1,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(map_0(),y) -> map_1(y)
  app(map_1(x1),y) -> map_2(x1,y)
  app(|:|_0(),y) -> |:|_1(y)
  app(|:|_1(x1),y) -> |:|_2(x1,y)
  |:|_2(|:|_2(|:|_2(|:|_2(C_0(),x),y),z),u) -> |:|_2(|:|_2(x,z),|:|_2(|:|_2(|:|_2(x,y),z),u))
  map_2(f,nil_0()) -> nil_0()
  map_2(f,cons_2(x,xs)) -> cons_2(app(f,x),map_2(f,xs))
  filter_2(f,nil_0()) -> nil_0()
  filter_2(f,cons_2(x,xs)) -> filter2_4(app(f,x),f,x,xs)
  filter2_4(true_0(),f,x,xs) -> cons_2(x,filter_2(f,xs))
  filter2_4(false_0(),f,x,xs) -> filter_2(f,xs)


-- SCC decomposition.

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

p1: app#(filter_1(x1),y) -> filter_2#(x1,y)
p2: app#(filter2_3(x1,x2,x3),y) -> filter2_4#(x1,x2,x3,y)
p3: app#(map_1(x1),y) -> map_2#(x1,y)
p4: app#(|:|_1(x1),y) -> |:|_2#(x1,y)
p5: |:|_2#(|:|_2(|:|_2(|:|_2(C_0(),x),y),z),u) -> |:|_2#(|:|_2(x,z),|:|_2(|:|_2(|:|_2(x,y),z),u))
p6: |:|_2#(|:|_2(|:|_2(|:|_2(C_0(),x),y),z),u) -> |:|_2#(x,z)
p7: |:|_2#(|:|_2(|:|_2(|:|_2(C_0(),x),y),z),u) -> |:|_2#(|:|_2(|:|_2(x,y),z),u)
p8: |:|_2#(|:|_2(|:|_2(|:|_2(C_0(),x),y),z),u) -> |:|_2#(|:|_2(x,y),z)
p9: |:|_2#(|:|_2(|:|_2(|:|_2(C_0(),x),y),z),u) -> |:|_2#(x,y)
p10: map_2#(f,cons_2(x,xs)) -> app#(f,x)
p11: map_2#(f,cons_2(x,xs)) -> map_2#(f,xs)
p12: filter_2#(f,cons_2(x,xs)) -> filter2_4#(app(f,x),f,x,xs)
p13: filter_2#(f,cons_2(x,xs)) -> app#(f,x)
p14: filter2_4#(true_0(),f,x,xs) -> filter_2#(f,xs)
p15: filter2_4#(false_0(),f,x,xs) -> filter_2#(f,xs)

and R consists of:

r1: app(cons_0(),y) -> cons_1(y)
r2: app(cons_1(x1),y) -> cons_2(x1,y)
r3: app(filter_0(),y) -> filter_1(y)
r4: app(filter_1(x1),y) -> filter_2(x1,y)
r5: app(filter2_0(),y) -> filter2_1(y)
r6: app(filter2_1(x1),y) -> filter2_2(x1,y)
r7: app(filter2_2(x1,x2),y) -> filter2_3(x1,x2,y)
r8: app(filter2_3(x1,x2,x3),y) -> filter2_4(x1,x2,x3,y)
r9: app(map_0(),y) -> map_1(y)
r10: app(map_1(x1),y) -> map_2(x1,y)
r11: app(|:|_0(),y) -> |:|_1(y)
r12: app(|:|_1(x1),y) -> |:|_2(x1,y)
r13: |:|_2(|:|_2(|:|_2(|:|_2(C_0(),x),y),z),u) -> |:|_2(|:|_2(x,z),|:|_2(|:|_2(|:|_2(x,y),z),u))
r14: map_2(f,nil_0()) -> nil_0()
r15: map_2(f,cons_2(x,xs)) -> cons_2(app(f,x),map_2(f,xs))
r16: filter_2(f,nil_0()) -> nil_0()
r17: filter_2(f,cons_2(x,xs)) -> filter2_4(app(f,x),f,x,xs)
r18: filter2_4(true_0(),f,x,xs) -> cons_2(x,filter_2(f,xs))
r19: filter2_4(false_0(),f,x,xs) -> filter_2(f,xs)

The estimated dependency graph contains the following SCCs:

  {p1, p2, p3, p10, p11, p12, p13, p14, p15}
  {p5, p6, p7, p8, p9}


-- Reduction pair.

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

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

and R consists of:

r1: app(cons_0(),y) -> cons_1(y)
r2: app(cons_1(x1),y) -> cons_2(x1,y)
r3: app(filter_0(),y) -> filter_1(y)
r4: app(filter_1(x1),y) -> filter_2(x1,y)
r5: app(filter2_0(),y) -> filter2_1(y)
r6: app(filter2_1(x1),y) -> filter2_2(x1,y)
r7: app(filter2_2(x1,x2),y) -> filter2_3(x1,x2,y)
r8: app(filter2_3(x1,x2,x3),y) -> filter2_4(x1,x2,x3,y)
r9: app(map_0(),y) -> map_1(y)
r10: app(map_1(x1),y) -> map_2(x1,y)
r11: app(|:|_0(),y) -> |:|_1(y)
r12: app(|:|_1(x1),y) -> |:|_2(x1,y)
r13: |:|_2(|:|_2(|:|_2(|:|_2(C_0(),x),y),z),u) -> |:|_2(|:|_2(x,z),|:|_2(|:|_2(|:|_2(x,y),z),u))
r14: map_2(f,nil_0()) -> nil_0()
r15: map_2(f,cons_2(x,xs)) -> cons_2(app(f,x),map_2(f,xs))
r16: filter_2(f,nil_0()) -> nil_0()
r17: filter_2(f,cons_2(x,xs)) -> filter2_4(app(f,x),f,x,xs)
r18: filter2_4(true_0(),f,x,xs) -> cons_2(x,filter_2(f,xs))
r19: filter2_4(false_0(),f,x,xs) -> filter_2(f,xs)

The set of usable rules consists of

  r16

Take the reduction pair:

  generalized weighted path order (>=MG, >G)
  
    base order 1:
  
      max/plus interpretation on natural numbers:
      
        app#_A(x1,x2) = max{103, x2 + 21}
        filter_1_A(x1) = max{2, x1 + 1}
        filter_2#_A(x1,x2) = max{20, x2 + 6}
        cons_2_A(x1,x2) = max{104, x1 + 30, x2 + 22}
        map_1_A(x1) = max{41, x1 + 40}
        map_2#_A(x1,x2) = max{42, x2 + 21}
        filter2_3_A(x1,x2,x3) = max{41, x1 - 62, x2 - 62, x3 - 62}
        filter2_4#_A(x1,x2,x3,x4) = max{29, x4 + 7}
        false_0_A = 4
        app_A(x1,x2) = x2 + 29
        true_0_A = 1
        filter_2_A(x1,x2) = x2 + 4
        nil_0_A = 104
  
    base order 2:
  
      marked-algebra reduction triple (>=A, >=A!, >A!):
      
        matrix interpretation with standard point-wise order:
        
          carrier: N^1
          order: standard order
          interpretations:
            app#_A(x1,x2) = x1 + x2
            filter_1_A(x1) = x1 + 3
            filter_2#_A(x1,x2) = x1 + x2 + 3
            cons_2_A(x1,x2) = x1 + x2 + 8
            map_1_A(x1) = x1 + 3
            map_2#_A(x1,x2) = x1 + x2
            filter2_3_A(x1,x2,x3) = x1 + x2 + x3 + 8
            filter2_4#_A(x1,x2,x3,x4) = x2 + x4 + 3
            false_0_A() = 1
            app_A(x1,x2) = x1 + x2 + 1
            true_0_A() = 1
            filter_2_A(x1,x2) = x2 + 11
            nil_0_A() = 14
            app#!_A(x1,x2) = x1 + x2 + 12
            filter_1!_A(x1) = 0
            filter_2#!_A(x1,x2) = x2 + 3
            cons_2!_A(x1,x2) = x2 + 5
            map_1!_A(x1) = x1 + 15
            map_2#!_A(x1,x2) = x2
            filter2_3!_A(x1,x2,x3) = 16
            filter2_4#!_A(x1,x2,x3,x4) = x4 + 4
            false_0!_A() = 0
            app!_A(x1,x2) = x1 + 10
            true_0!_A() = 2
            filter_2!_A(x1,x2) = x2 + 1
            nil_0!_A() = 14
  
    partial status:
  
      pi(app#) = [2]
      pi(filter_1) = [1]
      pi(filter_2#) = [2]
      pi(cons_2) = [1]
      pi(map_1) = [1]
      pi(map_2#) = [2]
      pi(filter2_3) = []
      pi(filter2_4#) = [4]
      pi(false_0) = []
      pi(app) = [2]
      pi(true_0) = []
      pi(filter_2) = [2]
      pi(nil_0) = []

The following rules are removed:

  p1, p2, p3, p4, p5, p6, p7, p8, p9

Then no dependency pair remains.

-- Reduction pair.

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

p1: |:|_2#(|:|_2(|:|_2(|:|_2(C_0(),x),y),z),u) -> |:|_2#(|:|_2(x,z),|:|_2(|:|_2(|:|_2(x,y),z),u))
p2: |:|_2#(|:|_2(|:|_2(|:|_2(C_0(),x),y),z),u) -> |:|_2#(x,y)
p3: |:|_2#(|:|_2(|:|_2(|:|_2(C_0(),x),y),z),u) -> |:|_2#(|:|_2(x,y),z)
p4: |:|_2#(|:|_2(|:|_2(|:|_2(C_0(),x),y),z),u) -> |:|_2#(|:|_2(|:|_2(x,y),z),u)
p5: |:|_2#(|:|_2(|:|_2(|:|_2(C_0(),x),y),z),u) -> |:|_2#(x,z)

and R consists of:

r1: app(cons_0(),y) -> cons_1(y)
r2: app(cons_1(x1),y) -> cons_2(x1,y)
r3: app(filter_0(),y) -> filter_1(y)
r4: app(filter_1(x1),y) -> filter_2(x1,y)
r5: app(filter2_0(),y) -> filter2_1(y)
r6: app(filter2_1(x1),y) -> filter2_2(x1,y)
r7: app(filter2_2(x1,x2),y) -> filter2_3(x1,x2,y)
r8: app(filter2_3(x1,x2,x3),y) -> filter2_4(x1,x2,x3,y)
r9: app(map_0(),y) -> map_1(y)
r10: app(map_1(x1),y) -> map_2(x1,y)
r11: app(|:|_0(),y) -> |:|_1(y)
r12: app(|:|_1(x1),y) -> |:|_2(x1,y)
r13: |:|_2(|:|_2(|:|_2(|:|_2(C_0(),x),y),z),u) -> |:|_2(|:|_2(x,z),|:|_2(|:|_2(|:|_2(x,y),z),u))
r14: map_2(f,nil_0()) -> nil_0()
r15: map_2(f,cons_2(x,xs)) -> cons_2(app(f,x),map_2(f,xs))
r16: filter_2(f,nil_0()) -> nil_0()
r17: filter_2(f,cons_2(x,xs)) -> filter2_4(app(f,x),f,x,xs)
r18: filter2_4(true_0(),f,x,xs) -> cons_2(x,filter_2(f,xs))
r19: filter2_4(false_0(),f,x,xs) -> filter_2(f,xs)

The set of usable rules consists of

  r13

Take the reduction pair:

  generalized weighted path order (>=MG, >G)
  
    base order 1:
  
      max/plus interpretation on natural numbers:
      
        |:|_2#_A(x1,x2) = max{1, x1}
        |:|_2_A(x1,x2) = max{25, x1 + 2, x2}
        C_0_A = 24
  
    base order 2:
  
      marked-algebra reduction triple (>=A, >=A!, >A!):
      
        matrix interpretation with standard point-wise order:
        
          carrier: N^1
          order: standard order
          interpretations:
            |:|_2#_A(x1,x2) = 0
            |:|_2_A(x1,x2) = 5
            C_0_A() = 6
            |:|_2#!_A(x1,x2) = 3
            |:|_2!_A(x1,x2) = 4
            C_0!_A() = 0
  
    partial status:
  
      pi(|:|_2#) = [1]
      pi(|:|_2) = [1, 2]
      pi(C_0) = []

The following rules are removed:

  p1, p2, p3, p4, p5

Then no dependency pair remains.