YES We show the termination of the TRS R: app(nil(),y) -> y app(add(n,x),y) -> add(n,app(x,y)) reverse(nil()) -> nil() reverse(add(n,x)) -> app(reverse(x),add(n,nil())) shuffle(nil()) -> nil() shuffle(add(n,x)) -> add(n,shuffle(reverse(x))) -- SCC decomposition. Consider the dependency pair problem (P, R), where P consists of p1: app#(add(n,x),y) -> app#(x,y) p2: reverse#(add(n,x)) -> app#(reverse(x),add(n,nil())) p3: reverse#(add(n,x)) -> reverse#(x) p4: shuffle#(add(n,x)) -> shuffle#(reverse(x)) p5: shuffle#(add(n,x)) -> reverse#(x) and R consists of: r1: app(nil(),y) -> y r2: app(add(n,x),y) -> add(n,app(x,y)) r3: reverse(nil()) -> nil() r4: reverse(add(n,x)) -> app(reverse(x),add(n,nil())) r5: shuffle(nil()) -> nil() r6: shuffle(add(n,x)) -> add(n,shuffle(reverse(x))) The estimated dependency graph contains the following SCCs: {p4} {p3} {p1} -- Reduction pair. Consider the dependency pair problem (P, R), where P consists of p1: shuffle#(add(n,x)) -> shuffle#(reverse(x)) and R consists of: r1: app(nil(),y) -> y r2: app(add(n,x),y) -> add(n,app(x,y)) r3: reverse(nil()) -> nil() r4: reverse(add(n,x)) -> app(reverse(x),add(n,nil())) r5: shuffle(nil()) -> nil() r6: shuffle(add(n,x)) -> add(n,shuffle(reverse(x))) The set of usable rules consists of r1, r2, r3, r4, r5 Take the monotone reduction pair: generalized weighted path order (>=MG, >MG) base order 1: matrix interpretation with standard point-wise order: carrier: N^1 order: standard order interpretations: shuffle#_A(x1) = x1 add_A(x1,x2) = x1 + x2 + 3 reverse_A(x1) = x1 + 1 app_A(x1,x2) = x1 + x2 nil_A() = 0 shuffle_A(x1) = x1 + 1 base order 2: precedence: shuffle > reverse > app > add > shuffle# = nil partial status: pi(shuffle#) = [1] pi(add) = [1, 2] pi(reverse) = [1] pi(app) = [1, 2] pi(nil) = [] pi(shuffle) = [1] 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: reverse#(add(n,x)) -> reverse#(x) and R consists of: r1: app(nil(),y) -> y r2: app(add(n,x),y) -> add(n,app(x,y)) r3: reverse(nil()) -> nil() r4: reverse(add(n,x)) -> app(reverse(x),add(n,nil())) r5: shuffle(nil()) -> nil() r6: shuffle(add(n,x)) -> add(n,shuffle(reverse(x))) The set of usable rules consists of r5 Take the monotone reduction pair: generalized weighted path order (>=MG, >MG) base order 1: matrix interpretation with standard point-wise order: carrier: N^1 order: standard order interpretations: reverse#_A(x1) = x1 add_A(x1,x2) = x1 + x2 + 3 shuffle_A(x1) = x1 + 1 nil_A() = 2 base order 2: precedence: add = shuffle > reverse# > nil partial status: pi(reverse#) = [1] pi(add) = [1, 2] pi(shuffle) = [1] pi(nil) = [] 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: app#(add(n,x),y) -> app#(x,y) and R consists of: r1: app(nil(),y) -> y r2: app(add(n,x),y) -> add(n,app(x,y)) r3: reverse(nil()) -> nil() r4: reverse(add(n,x)) -> app(reverse(x),add(n,nil())) r5: shuffle(nil()) -> nil() r6: shuffle(add(n,x)) -> add(n,shuffle(reverse(x))) The set of usable rules consists of r5 Take the monotone reduction pair: generalized weighted path order (>=MG, >MG) base order 1: matrix interpretation with standard point-wise order: carrier: N^1 order: standard order interpretations: app#_A(x1,x2) = x1 + x2 + 4 add_A(x1,x2) = x1 + x2 + 3 shuffle_A(x1) = x1 + 1 nil_A() = 2 base order 2: precedence: app# > add > shuffle > nil partial status: pi(app#) = [1, 2] pi(add) = [1, 2] pi(shuffle) = [1] pi(nil) = [] The following rules are removed: p1 Then no dependency pair remains.