YES We show the termination of the TRS R: 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(minus(),x),|0|()) -> x app(app(minus(),app(s(),x)),app(s(),y)) -> app(app(minus(),x),y) app(app(div(),|0|()),app(s(),y)) -> |0|() app(app(div(),app(s(),x)),app(s(),y)) -> app(s(),app(app(div(),app(app(minus(),x),y)),app(s(),y))) 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(div_0(),y) -> div_1(y) app(div_1(x1),y) -> div_2(x1,y) app(map_0(),y) -> map_1(y) app(map_1(x1),y) -> map_2(x1,y) app(minus_0(),y) -> minus_1(y) app(minus_1(x1),y) -> minus_2(x1,y) app(s_0(),y) -> s_1(y) map_2(f,nil_0()) -> nil_0() map_2(f,cons_2(x,xs)) -> cons_2(app(f,x),map_2(f,xs)) minus_2(x,|0|_0()) -> x minus_2(s_1(x),s_1(y)) -> minus_2(x,y) div_2(|0|_0(),s_1(y)) -> |0|_0() div_2(s_1(x),s_1(y)) -> s_1(div_2(minus_2(x,y),s_1(y))) -- SCC decomposition. Consider the dependency pair problem (P, R), where P consists of p1: app#(div_1(x1),y) -> div_2#(x1,y) p2: app#(map_1(x1),y) -> map_2#(x1,y) p3: app#(minus_1(x1),y) -> minus_2#(x1,y) p4: map_2#(f,cons_2(x,xs)) -> app#(f,x) p5: map_2#(f,cons_2(x,xs)) -> map_2#(f,xs) p6: minus_2#(s_1(x),s_1(y)) -> minus_2#(x,y) p7: div_2#(s_1(x),s_1(y)) -> div_2#(minus_2(x,y),s_1(y)) p8: div_2#(s_1(x),s_1(y)) -> minus_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(div_0(),y) -> div_1(y) r4: app(div_1(x1),y) -> div_2(x1,y) r5: app(map_0(),y) -> map_1(y) r6: app(map_1(x1),y) -> map_2(x1,y) r7: app(minus_0(),y) -> minus_1(y) r8: app(minus_1(x1),y) -> minus_2(x1,y) r9: app(s_0(),y) -> s_1(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: minus_2(x,|0|_0()) -> x r13: minus_2(s_1(x),s_1(y)) -> minus_2(x,y) r14: div_2(|0|_0(),s_1(y)) -> |0|_0() r15: div_2(s_1(x),s_1(y)) -> s_1(div_2(minus_2(x,y),s_1(y))) The estimated dependency graph contains the following SCCs: {p2, p4, p5} {p7} {p6} -- Reduction pair. Consider the dependency pair problem (P, R), where P consists of p1: map_2#(f,cons_2(x,xs)) -> app#(f,x) p2: app#(map_1(x1),y) -> map_2#(x1,y) p3: 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(div_0(),y) -> div_1(y) r4: app(div_1(x1),y) -> div_2(x1,y) r5: app(map_0(),y) -> map_1(y) r6: app(map_1(x1),y) -> map_2(x1,y) r7: app(minus_0(),y) -> minus_1(y) r8: app(minus_1(x1),y) -> minus_2(x1,y) r9: app(s_0(),y) -> s_1(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: minus_2(x,|0|_0()) -> x r13: minus_2(s_1(x),s_1(y)) -> minus_2(x,y) r14: div_2(|0|_0(),s_1(y)) -> |0|_0() r15: div_2(s_1(x),s_1(y)) -> s_1(div_2(minus_2(x,y),s_1(y))) The set of usable rules consists of r1, r3, r5, r7, r9, r14, r15 Take the 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: map_2#_A(x1,x2) = x1 + x2 + 2 cons_2_A(x1,x2) = x1 + x2 + 5 app#_A(x1,x2) = x1 + x2 + 6 map_1_A(x1) = x1 + 3 app_A(x1,x2) = x2 + 4 cons_0_A() = 4 cons_1_A(x1) = 3 div_0_A() = 2 div_1_A(x1) = 1 map_0_A() = 1 minus_0_A() = 2 minus_1_A(x1) = 1 s_0_A() = 1 s_1_A(x1) = 2 div_2_A(x1,x2) = x1 + 5 |0|_0_A() = 1 minus_2_A(x1,x2) = x1 + x2 + 8 base order 2: precedence: map_2# = cons_0 = minus_2 > app# = cons_1 = s_1 = div_2 > cons_2 = app = div_0 = minus_0 = s_0 = |0|_0 > map_1 = div_1 = minus_1 > map_0 partial status: pi(map_2#) = [1] pi(cons_2) = [1, 2] pi(app#) = [2] pi(map_1) = [1] pi(app) = [2] pi(cons_0) = [] pi(cons_1) = [] pi(div_0) = [] pi(div_1) = [] pi(map_0) = [] pi(minus_0) = [] pi(minus_1) = [] pi(s_0) = [] pi(s_1) = [] pi(div_2) = [1] pi(|0|_0) = [] pi(minus_2) = [1] The following rules are removed: p1 -- SCC decomposition. 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) and R consists of: r1: app(cons_0(),y) -> cons_1(y) r2: app(cons_1(x1),y) -> cons_2(x1,y) r3: app(div_0(),y) -> div_1(y) r4: app(div_1(x1),y) -> div_2(x1,y) r5: app(map_0(),y) -> map_1(y) r6: app(map_1(x1),y) -> map_2(x1,y) r7: app(minus_0(),y) -> minus_1(y) r8: app(minus_1(x1),y) -> minus_2(x1,y) r9: app(s_0(),y) -> s_1(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: minus_2(x,|0|_0()) -> x r13: minus_2(s_1(x),s_1(y)) -> minus_2(x,y) r14: div_2(|0|_0(),s_1(y)) -> |0|_0() r15: div_2(s_1(x),s_1(y)) -> s_1(div_2(minus_2(x,y),s_1(y))) The estimated dependency graph contains the following SCCs: {p2} -- Reduction pair. Consider the dependency pair problem (P, R), where P consists of p1: 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(div_0(),y) -> div_1(y) r4: app(div_1(x1),y) -> div_2(x1,y) r5: app(map_0(),y) -> map_1(y) r6: app(map_1(x1),y) -> map_2(x1,y) r7: app(minus_0(),y) -> minus_1(y) r8: app(minus_1(x1),y) -> minus_2(x1,y) r9: app(s_0(),y) -> s_1(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: minus_2(x,|0|_0()) -> x r13: minus_2(s_1(x),s_1(y)) -> minus_2(x,y) r14: div_2(|0|_0(),s_1(y)) -> |0|_0() r15: div_2(s_1(x),s_1(y)) -> s_1(div_2(minus_2(x,y),s_1(y))) The set of usable rules consists of r14, r15 Take the 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: map_2#_A(x1,x2) = x2 cons_2_A(x1,x2) = x1 + x2 + 2 div_2_A(x1,x2) = x1 + 2 |0|_0_A() = 1 s_1_A(x1) = 2 minus_2_A(x1,x2) = x1 + x2 + 5 base order 2: precedence: minus_2 > div_2 > cons_2 = s_1 > map_2# = |0|_0 partial status: pi(map_2#) = [] pi(cons_2) = [1, 2] pi(div_2) = [1] pi(|0|_0) = [] pi(s_1) = [] pi(minus_2) = [] 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: div_2#(s_1(x),s_1(y)) -> div_2#(minus_2(x,y),s_1(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(div_0(),y) -> div_1(y) r4: app(div_1(x1),y) -> div_2(x1,y) r5: app(map_0(),y) -> map_1(y) r6: app(map_1(x1),y) -> map_2(x1,y) r7: app(minus_0(),y) -> minus_1(y) r8: app(minus_1(x1),y) -> minus_2(x1,y) r9: app(s_0(),y) -> s_1(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: minus_2(x,|0|_0()) -> x r13: minus_2(s_1(x),s_1(y)) -> minus_2(x,y) r14: div_2(|0|_0(),s_1(y)) -> |0|_0() r15: div_2(s_1(x),s_1(y)) -> s_1(div_2(minus_2(x,y),s_1(y))) The set of usable rules consists of r1, r3, r5, r7, r9, r12, r13 Take the 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: div_2#_A(x1,x2) = x1 + 1 s_1_A(x1) = x1 + 4 minus_2_A(x1,x2) = x1 + 2 app_A(x1,x2) = x2 + 5 cons_0_A() = 1 cons_1_A(x1) = x1 + 2 div_0_A() = 2 div_1_A(x1) = 1 map_0_A() = 2 map_1_A(x1) = 1 minus_0_A() = 2 minus_1_A(x1) = 1 s_0_A() = 5 |0|_0_A() = 1 base order 2: precedence: minus_0 > minus_1 > minus_2 = s_0 > s_1 > div_2# = app = div_0 = map_0 = |0|_0 > cons_1 = div_1 = map_1 > cons_0 partial status: pi(div_2#) = [1] pi(s_1) = [] pi(minus_2) = [1] pi(app) = [2] pi(cons_0) = [] pi(cons_1) = [1] pi(div_0) = [] pi(div_1) = [] pi(map_0) = [] pi(map_1) = [] pi(minus_0) = [] pi(minus_1) = [] pi(s_0) = [] pi(|0|_0) = [] 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: minus_2#(s_1(x),s_1(y)) -> minus_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(div_0(),y) -> div_1(y) r4: app(div_1(x1),y) -> div_2(x1,y) r5: app(map_0(),y) -> map_1(y) r6: app(map_1(x1),y) -> map_2(x1,y) r7: app(minus_0(),y) -> minus_1(y) r8: app(minus_1(x1),y) -> minus_2(x1,y) r9: app(s_0(),y) -> s_1(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: minus_2(x,|0|_0()) -> x r13: minus_2(s_1(x),s_1(y)) -> minus_2(x,y) r14: div_2(|0|_0(),s_1(y)) -> |0|_0() r15: div_2(s_1(x),s_1(y)) -> s_1(div_2(minus_2(x,y),s_1(y))) The set of usable rules consists of r1, r2, r3, r5, r7, r8, r9, r12, r13, r14 Take the 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: minus_2#_A(x1,x2) = x1 + x2 + 3 s_1_A(x1) = x1 + 2 app_A(x1,x2) = x1 + x2 + 4 cons_0_A() = 1 cons_1_A(x1) = x1 + 2 cons_2_A(x1,x2) = x1 + x2 + 3 div_0_A() = 1 div_1_A(x1) = x1 + 2 map_0_A() = 1 map_1_A(x1) = x1 + 2 minus_0_A() = 1 minus_1_A(x1) = x1 + 2 minus_2_A(x1,x2) = x1 + x2 + 4 s_0_A() = 1 |0|_0_A() = 1 div_2_A(x1,x2) = x1 + 1 base order 2: precedence: app > cons_2 = div_1 = minus_2 > minus_2# = div_2 > s_1 = cons_1 = div_0 = map_1 = minus_1 > cons_0 = map_0 = minus_0 = s_0 = |0|_0 partial status: pi(minus_2#) = [1] pi(s_1) = [1] pi(app) = [1] pi(cons_0) = [] pi(cons_1) = [1] pi(cons_2) = [2] pi(div_0) = [] pi(div_1) = [1] pi(map_0) = [] pi(map_1) = [1] pi(minus_0) = [] pi(minus_1) = [1] pi(minus_2) = [1, 2] pi(s_0) = [] pi(|0|_0) = [] pi(div_2) = [] The following rules are removed: p1 Then no dependency pair remains.