YES We show the termination of the relative TRS R/S: R: f(x,c(y)) -> f(x,s(f(y,y))) f(s(x),y) -> f(x,s(c(y))) S: rand(x) -> x rand(x) -> rand(s(x)) -- SCC decomposition. Consider the non-minimal dependency pair problem (P, R), where P consists of p1: f#(x,c(y)) -> f#(x,s(f(y,y))) p2: f#(x,c(y)) -> f#(y,y) p3: f#(s(x),y) -> f#(x,s(c(y))) and R consists of: r1: f(x,c(y)) -> f(x,s(f(y,y))) r2: f(s(x),y) -> f(x,s(c(y))) r3: rand(x) -> x r4: rand(x) -> rand(s(x)) The estimated dependency graph contains the following SCCs: {p2} {p3} -- Reduction pair. Consider the non-minimal dependency pair problem (P, R), where P consists of p1: f#(x,c(y)) -> f#(y,y) and R consists of: r1: f(x,c(y)) -> f(x,s(f(y,y))) r2: f(s(x),y) -> f(x,s(c(y))) r3: rand(x) -> x r4: rand(x) -> rand(s(x)) The set of usable rules consists of r1, r2, r3, r4 Take the reduction pair: weighted path order base order: matrix interpretations: carrier: N^1 order: lexicographic order interpretations: f#_A(x1,x2) = x2 + 1 c_A(x1) = x1 + 2 f_A(x1,x2) = x2 + 1 s_A(x1) = 0 rand_A(x1) = x1 + 1 precedence: f# = c = rand > f = s partial status: pi(f#) = [2] pi(c) = [] pi(f) = [2] pi(s) = [] pi(rand) = [1] The next rules are strictly ordered: p1 We remove them from the problem. Then no dependency pair remains. -- Reduction pair. Consider the non-minimal dependency pair problem (P, R), where P consists of p1: f#(s(x),y) -> f#(x,s(c(y))) and R consists of: r1: f(x,c(y)) -> f(x,s(f(y,y))) r2: f(s(x),y) -> f(x,s(c(y))) r3: rand(x) -> x r4: rand(x) -> rand(s(x)) The set of usable rules consists of r1, r2, r3, r4 Take the reduction pair: weighted path order base order: matrix interpretations: carrier: N^1 order: lexicographic order interpretations: f#_A(x1,x2) = x1 s_A(x1) = x1 c_A(x1) = 0 f_A(x1,x2) = 0 rand_A(x1) = x1 + 1 precedence: c > f# = s = f > rand partial status: pi(f#) = [1] pi(s) = [1] pi(c) = [] pi(f) = [] pi(rand) = [] The next rules are strictly ordered: p1 We remove them from the problem. Then no dependency pair remains.