YES We show the termination of the TRS R: D(t()) -> |1|() D(constant()) -> |0|() D(+(x,y)) -> +(D(x),D(y)) D(*(x,y)) -> +(*(y,D(x)),*(x,D(y))) D(-(x,y)) -> -(D(x),D(y)) -- SCC decomposition. Consider the dependency pair problem (P, R), where P consists of p1: D#(+(x,y)) -> D#(x) p2: D#(+(x,y)) -> D#(y) p3: D#(*(x,y)) -> D#(x) p4: D#(*(x,y)) -> D#(y) p5: D#(-(x,y)) -> D#(x) p6: D#(-(x,y)) -> D#(y) and R consists of: r1: D(t()) -> |1|() r2: D(constant()) -> |0|() r3: D(+(x,y)) -> +(D(x),D(y)) r4: D(*(x,y)) -> +(*(y,D(x)),*(x,D(y))) r5: D(-(x,y)) -> -(D(x),D(y)) The estimated dependency graph contains the following SCCs: {p1, p2, p3, p4, p5, p6} -- Reduction pair. Consider the dependency pair problem (P, R), where P consists of p1: D#(+(x,y)) -> D#(x) p2: D#(-(x,y)) -> D#(y) p3: D#(-(x,y)) -> D#(x) p4: D#(*(x,y)) -> D#(y) p5: D#(*(x,y)) -> D#(x) p6: D#(+(x,y)) -> D#(y) and R consists of: r1: D(t()) -> |1|() r2: D(constant()) -> |0|() r3: D(+(x,y)) -> +(D(x),D(y)) r4: D(*(x,y)) -> +(*(y,D(x)),*(x,D(y))) r5: D(-(x,y)) -> -(D(x),D(y)) The set of usable rules consists of (no rules) Take the reduction pair: generalized weighted path order (>=MG, >G) base order 1: max/plus interpretation on natural numbers: D#_A(x1) = max{7, x1 + 4} +_A(x1,x2) = max{23, x1 + 6, x2 + 4} -_A(x1,x2) = max{38, x1 + 19, x2 + 4} *_A(x1,x2) = max{x1 + 36, x2 + 9} base order 2: marked-algebra reduction triple (>=A, >=A!, >A!): max/plus interpretation on natural numbers: D#_A(x1) = 0 +_A(x1,x2) = max{x1 + 19, x2 + 20} -_A(x1,x2) = max{17, x1 - 2, x2 - 1} *_A(x1,x2) = max{x1 - 2, x2 + 7} D#!_A(x1) = 1 +!_A(x1,x2) = max{3, x1 - 8, x2 - 2} -!_A(x1,x2) = max{3, x1 - 2, x2 - 17} *!_A(x1,x2) = max{4, x1 - 9} partial status: pi(D#) = [1] pi(+) = [] pi(-) = [1, 2] pi(*) = [1, 2] The following rules are removed: p1, p2, p3, p4, p5, p6 Then no dependency pair remains.