YES
We show the termination of the TRS R:

  app(app(plus(),|0|()),y) -> y
  app(app(plus(),app(s(),x)),y) -> app(s(),app(app(plus(),x),y))
  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))
  inc() -> app(map(),app(plus(),app(s(),|0|())))

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(map_0(),y) -> map_1(y)
  app(map_1(x1),y) -> map_2(x1,y)
  app(plus_0(),y) -> plus_1(y)
  app(plus_1(x1),y) -> plus_2(x1,y)
  app(s_0(),y) -> s_1(y)
  plus_2(|0|_0(),y) -> y
  plus_2(s_1(x),y) -> s_1(plus_2(x,y))
  map_2(f,nil_0()) -> nil_0()
  map_2(f,cons_2(x,xs)) -> cons_2(app(f,x),map_2(f,xs))
  inc_0() -> map_1(plus_1(s_1(|0|_0())))


-- SCC decomposition.

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

p1: app#(map_1(x1),y) -> map_2#(x1,y)
p2: app#(plus_1(x1),y) -> plus_2#(x1,y)
p3: plus_2#(s_1(x),y) -> plus_2#(x,y)
p4: map_2#(f,cons_2(x,xs)) -> app#(f,x)
p5: map_2#(f,cons_2(x,xs)) -> map_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(map_0(),y) -> map_1(y)
r4: app(map_1(x1),y) -> map_2(x1,y)
r5: app(plus_0(),y) -> plus_1(y)
r6: app(plus_1(x1),y) -> plus_2(x1,y)
r7: app(s_0(),y) -> s_1(y)
r8: plus_2(|0|_0(),y) -> y
r9: plus_2(s_1(x),y) -> s_1(plus_2(x,y))
r10: map_2(f,nil_0()) -> nil_0()
r11: map_2(f,cons_2(x,xs)) -> cons_2(app(f,x),map_2(f,xs))
r12: inc_0() -> map_1(plus_1(s_1(|0|_0())))

The estimated dependency graph contains the following SCCs:

  {p1, p4, p5}
  {p3}


-- Reduction pair.

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

p1: app#(map_1(x1),y) -> map_2#(x1,y)
p2: map_2#(f,cons_2(x,xs)) -> map_2#(f,xs)
p3: map_2#(f,cons_2(x,xs)) -> app#(f,x)

and R consists of:

r1: app(cons_0(),y) -> cons_1(y)
r2: app(cons_1(x1),y) -> cons_2(x1,y)
r3: app(map_0(),y) -> map_1(y)
r4: app(map_1(x1),y) -> map_2(x1,y)
r5: app(plus_0(),y) -> plus_1(y)
r6: app(plus_1(x1),y) -> plus_2(x1,y)
r7: app(s_0(),y) -> s_1(y)
r8: plus_2(|0|_0(),y) -> y
r9: plus_2(s_1(x),y) -> s_1(plus_2(x,y))
r10: map_2(f,nil_0()) -> nil_0()
r11: map_2(f,cons_2(x,xs)) -> cons_2(app(f,x),map_2(f,xs))
r12: inc_0() -> map_1(plus_1(s_1(|0|_0())))

The set of usable rules consists of

  (no rules)

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:
  
      lexicographic combination of reduction triples:
      
        1. 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) = x2
              map_1_A(x1) = 3
              map_2#_A(x1,x2) = x2
              cons_2_A(x1,x2) = x1 + x2 + 5
              app#!_A(x1,x2) = x2 + 5
              map_1!_A(x1) = 8
              map_2#!_A(x1,x2) = x2
              cons_2!_A(x1,x2) = 6
        
        2. marked-algebra reduction triple (>=A, >=A!, >A!):
        
          max/plus interpretation on natural numbers:
          
            app#_A(x1,x2) = max{0, x1 - 10, x2 - 1}
            map_1_A(x1) = max{9, x1 + 2}
            map_2#_A(x1,x2) = max{0, x1 - 8, x2 - 5}
            cons_2_A(x1,x2) = max{x1 + 4, x2 + 1}
            app#!_A(x1,x2) = max{5, x1 - 3}
            map_1!_A(x1) = max{4, x1 - 3}
            map_2#!_A(x1,x2) = max{5, x1 - 2}
            cons_2!_A(x1,x2) = max{0, x1 - 18, x2 - 1}
        
  
    partial status:
  
      pi(app#) = []
      pi(map_1) = []
      pi(map_2#) = []
      pi(cons_2) = []

The following rules are removed:

  p1, p2



-- SCC decomposition.

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

p1: map_2#(f,cons_2(x,xs)) -> app#(f,x)

and R consists of:

r1: app(cons_0(),y) -> cons_1(y)
r2: app(cons_1(x1),y) -> cons_2(x1,y)
r3: app(map_0(),y) -> map_1(y)
r4: app(map_1(x1),y) -> map_2(x1,y)
r5: app(plus_0(),y) -> plus_1(y)
r6: app(plus_1(x1),y) -> plus_2(x1,y)
r7: app(s_0(),y) -> s_1(y)
r8: plus_2(|0|_0(),y) -> y
r9: plus_2(s_1(x),y) -> s_1(plus_2(x,y))
r10: map_2(f,nil_0()) -> nil_0()
r11: map_2(f,cons_2(x,xs)) -> cons_2(app(f,x),map_2(f,xs))
r12: inc_0() -> map_1(plus_1(s_1(|0|_0())))

The estimated dependency graph contains the following SCCs:

  (no SCCs)

-- Reduction pair.

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

p1: plus_2#(s_1(x),y) -> plus_2#(x,y)

and R consists of:

r1: app(cons_0(),y) -> cons_1(y)
r2: app(cons_1(x1),y) -> cons_2(x1,y)
r3: app(map_0(),y) -> map_1(y)
r4: app(map_1(x1),y) -> map_2(x1,y)
r5: app(plus_0(),y) -> plus_1(y)
r6: app(plus_1(x1),y) -> plus_2(x1,y)
r7: app(s_0(),y) -> s_1(y)
r8: plus_2(|0|_0(),y) -> y
r9: plus_2(s_1(x),y) -> s_1(plus_2(x,y))
r10: map_2(f,nil_0()) -> nil_0()
r11: map_2(f,cons_2(x,xs)) -> cons_2(app(f,x),map_2(f,xs))
r12: inc_0() -> map_1(plus_1(s_1(|0|_0())))

The set of usable rules consists of

  (no rules)

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:
  
      lexicographic combination of reduction triples:
      
        1. marked-algebra reduction triple (>=A, >=A!, >A!):
        
          matrix interpretation with standard point-wise order:
          
            carrier: N^1
            order: standard order
            interpretations:
              plus_2#_A(x1,x2) = 0
              s_1_A(x1) = 2
              plus_2#!_A(x1,x2) = x1
              s_1!_A(x1) = x1 + 5
        
        2. marked-algebra reduction triple (>=A, >=A!, >A!):
        
          max/plus interpretation on natural numbers:
          
            plus_2#_A(x1,x2) = 0
            s_1_A(x1) = max{11, x1 - 16}
            plus_2#!_A(x1,x2) = x2 + 2
            s_1!_A(x1) = 41
        
  
    partial status:
  
      pi(plus_2#) = [1]
      pi(s_1) = [1]

The following rules are removed:

  p1

Then no dependency pair remains.