YES We show the termination of the TRS R: f(|0|(),|1|(),x) -> f(s(x),x,x) f(x,y,s(z)) -> s(f(|0|(),|1|(),z)) -- SCC decomposition. Consider the dependency pair problem (P, R), where P consists of p1: f#(|0|(),|1|(),x) -> f#(s(x),x,x) p2: f#(x,y,s(z)) -> f#(|0|(),|1|(),z) and R consists of: r1: f(|0|(),|1|(),x) -> f(s(x),x,x) r2: f(x,y,s(z)) -> s(f(|0|(),|1|(),z)) The estimated dependency graph contains the following SCCs: {p1, p2} -- Reduction pair. Consider the dependency pair problem (P, R), where P consists of p1: f#(|0|(),|1|(),x) -> f#(s(x),x,x) p2: f#(x,y,s(z)) -> f#(|0|(),|1|(),z) and R consists of: r1: f(|0|(),|1|(),x) -> f(s(x),x,x) r2: f(x,y,s(z)) -> s(f(|0|(),|1|(),z)) The set of usable rules consists of r1, r2 Take the reduction pair: generalized weighted path order (>=MG, >G) base order 1: trivial reduction triple (T x T, T x T, Φ) base order 2: model-based reduction triple (=A, >=A!, >A!): finite algebra: carrier: {0,1} interpretations: f#_A(0,0,0) = 1 f#_A(0,0,1) = 1 f#_A(0,1,0) = 1 f#_A(0,1,1) = 1 f#_A(1,0,0) = 1 f#_A(1,0,1) = 1 f#_A(1,1,0) = 1 f#_A(1,1,1) = 1 |0|_A = 0 |1|_A = 1 s_A(0) = 1 s_A(1) = 0 f_A(0,0,0) = 0 f_A(0,0,1) = 1 f_A(0,1,0) = 0 f_A(0,1,1) = 1 f_A(1,0,0) = 0 f_A(1,0,1) = 1 f_A(1,1,0) = 0 f_A(1,1,1) = 1 f#!_A(0,0,0) = 0 f#!_A(0,0,1) = 1 f#!_A(0,1,0) = 0 f#!_A(0,1,1) = 0 f#!_A(1,0,0) = 0 f#!_A(1,0,1) = 0 f#!_A(1,1,0) = 0 f#!_A(1,1,1) = 0 |0|!_A = 1 |1|!_A = 0 s!_A(0) = 0 s!_A(1) = 0 f!_A(0,0,0) = 0 f!_A(0,0,1) = 1 f!_A(0,1,0) = 0 f!_A(0,1,1) = 0 f!_A(1,0,0) = 0 f!_A(1,0,1) = 1 f!_A(1,1,0) = 1 f!_A(1,1,1) = 1 partial status: pi(f#) = [3] pi(|0|) = [] pi(|1|) = [] pi(s) = [1] pi(f) = [3] The following rules are removed: p2 -- SCC decomposition. Consider the dependency pair problem (P, R), where P consists of p1: f#(|0|(),|1|(),x) -> f#(s(x),x,x) and R consists of: r1: f(|0|(),|1|(),x) -> f(s(x),x,x) r2: f(x,y,s(z)) -> s(f(|0|(),|1|(),z)) The estimated dependency graph contains the following SCCs: (no SCCs)