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

-- SCC decomposition.

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

p1: app#(app(plus(),app(s(),x)),y) -> app#(s(),app(app(plus(),x),y))
p2: app#(app(plus(),app(s(),x)),y) -> app#(app(plus(),x),y)
p3: app#(app(plus(),app(s(),x)),y) -> app#(plus(),x)
p4: app#(inc(),xs) -> app#(app(map(),app(plus(),app(s(),|0|()))),xs)
p5: app#(inc(),xs) -> app#(map(),app(plus(),app(s(),|0|())))
p6: app#(inc(),xs) -> app#(plus(),app(s(),|0|()))
p7: app#(inc(),xs) -> app#(s(),|0|())
p8: app#(app(map(),f),app(app(cons(),x),xs)) -> app#(app(cons(),app(f,x)),app(app(map(),f),xs))
p9: app#(app(map(),f),app(app(cons(),x),xs)) -> app#(cons(),app(f,x))
p10: app#(app(map(),f),app(app(cons(),x),xs)) -> app#(f,x)
p11: app#(app(map(),f),app(app(cons(),x),xs)) -> app#(app(map(),f),xs)

and R consists of:

r1: app(app(plus(),|0|()),y) -> y
r2: app(app(plus(),app(s(),x)),y) -> app(s(),app(app(plus(),x),y))
r3: app(inc(),xs) -> app(app(map(),app(plus(),app(s(),|0|()))),xs)
r4: app(app(map(),f),nil()) -> nil()
r5: app(app(map(),f),app(app(cons(),x),xs)) -> app(app(cons(),app(f,x)),app(app(map(),f),xs))

The estimated dependency graph contains the following SCCs:

  {p4, p10, p11}
  {p2}


-- Reduction pair.

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

p1: app#(app(map(),f),app(app(cons(),x),xs)) -> app#(f,x)
p2: app#(app(map(),f),app(app(cons(),x),xs)) -> app#(app(map(),f),xs)
p3: app#(inc(),xs) -> app#(app(map(),app(plus(),app(s(),|0|()))),xs)

and R consists of:

r1: app(app(plus(),|0|()),y) -> y
r2: app(app(plus(),app(s(),x)),y) -> app(s(),app(app(plus(),x),y))
r3: app(inc(),xs) -> app(app(map(),app(plus(),app(s(),|0|()))),xs)
r4: app(app(map(),f),nil()) -> nil()
r5: app(app(map(),f),app(app(cons(),x),xs)) -> app(app(cons(),app(f,x)),app(app(map(),f),xs))

The set of usable rules consists of

  (no rules)

Take the reduction pair:

  lexicographic combination of reduction pairs:
  
    1. weighted path order
    
      base order:
    
        matrix interpretations:
        
          carrier: N^2
          order: lexicographic order
          interpretations:
            app#_A(x1,x2) = ((1,0),(1,1)) x1 + ((1,0),(1,1)) x2
            app_A(x1,x2) = x1 + ((1,0),(1,1)) x2 + (1,1)
            map_A() = (0,0)
            cons_A() = (2,3)
            inc_A() = (7,22)
            plus_A() = (1,1)
            s_A() = (1,1)
            |0|_A() = (1,1)
    
      precedence:
      
        inc > s > app# = cons = plus = |0| > app > map
      
      partial status:
    
        pi(app#) = [2]
        pi(app) = [1, 2]
        pi(map) = []
        pi(cons) = []
        pi(inc) = []
        pi(plus) = []
        pi(s) = []
        pi(|0|) = []
    
    2. weighted path order
    
      base order:
    
        matrix interpretations:
        
          carrier: N^2
          order: lexicographic order
          interpretations:
            app#_A(x1,x2) = x2 + (10,6)
            app_A(x1,x2) = ((1,0),(0,0)) x1 + ((1,0),(0,0)) x2 + (2,3)
            map_A() = (1,1)
            cons_A() = (7,2)
            inc_A() = (9,4)
            plus_A() = (1,5)
            s_A() = (0,7)
            |0|_A() = (0,1)
    
      precedence:
      
        app = map = s > |0| > app# > plus > inc > cons
      
      partial status:
    
        pi(app#) = [2]
        pi(app) = []
        pi(map) = []
        pi(cons) = []
        pi(inc) = []
        pi(plus) = []
        pi(s) = []
        pi(|0|) = []
    

The next rules are strictly ordered:

  p3

We remove them from the problem.

-- SCC decomposition.

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

p1: app#(app(map(),f),app(app(cons(),x),xs)) -> app#(f,x)
p2: app#(app(map(),f),app(app(cons(),x),xs)) -> app#(app(map(),f),xs)

and R consists of:

r1: app(app(plus(),|0|()),y) -> y
r2: app(app(plus(),app(s(),x)),y) -> app(s(),app(app(plus(),x),y))
r3: app(inc(),xs) -> app(app(map(),app(plus(),app(s(),|0|()))),xs)
r4: app(app(map(),f),nil()) -> nil()
r5: app(app(map(),f),app(app(cons(),x),xs)) -> app(app(cons(),app(f,x)),app(app(map(),f),xs))

The estimated dependency graph contains the following SCCs:

  {p1, p2}


-- Reduction pair.

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

p1: app#(app(map(),f),app(app(cons(),x),xs)) -> app#(f,x)
p2: app#(app(map(),f),app(app(cons(),x),xs)) -> app#(app(map(),f),xs)

and R consists of:

r1: app(app(plus(),|0|()),y) -> y
r2: app(app(plus(),app(s(),x)),y) -> app(s(),app(app(plus(),x),y))
r3: app(inc(),xs) -> app(app(map(),app(plus(),app(s(),|0|()))),xs)
r4: app(app(map(),f),nil()) -> nil()
r5: app(app(map(),f),app(app(cons(),x),xs)) -> app(app(cons(),app(f,x)),app(app(map(),f),xs))

The set of usable rules consists of

  (no rules)

Take the reduction pair:

  lexicographic combination of reduction pairs:
  
    1. weighted path order
    
      base order:
    
        matrix interpretations:
        
          carrier: N^2
          order: lexicographic order
          interpretations:
            app#_A(x1,x2) = x2 + (5,1)
            app_A(x1,x2) = x1 + x2 + (2,2)
            map_A() = (1,2)
            cons_A() = (2,3)
    
      precedence:
      
        app# = app = map = cons
      
      partial status:
    
        pi(app#) = [2]
        pi(app) = [1, 2]
        pi(map) = []
        pi(cons) = []
    
    2. weighted path order
    
      base order:
    
        matrix interpretations:
        
          carrier: N^2
          order: lexicographic order
          interpretations:
            app#_A(x1,x2) = x2
            app_A(x1,x2) = ((1,0),(0,0)) x1 + x2 + (2,3)
            map_A() = (1,1)
            cons_A() = (2,2)
    
      precedence:
      
        app# = app = map > cons
      
      partial status:
    
        pi(app#) = [2]
        pi(app) = []
        pi(map) = []
        pi(cons) = []
    

The next rules are strictly ordered:

  p1, p2

We remove them from the problem.  Then no dependency pair remains.

-- Reduction pair.

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

p1: app#(app(plus(),app(s(),x)),y) -> app#(app(plus(),x),y)

and R consists of:

r1: app(app(plus(),|0|()),y) -> y
r2: app(app(plus(),app(s(),x)),y) -> app(s(),app(app(plus(),x),y))
r3: app(inc(),xs) -> app(app(map(),app(plus(),app(s(),|0|()))),xs)
r4: app(app(map(),f),nil()) -> nil()
r5: app(app(map(),f),app(app(cons(),x),xs)) -> app(app(cons(),app(f,x)),app(app(map(),f),xs))

The set of usable rules consists of

  (no rules)

Take the reduction pair:

  lexicographic combination of reduction pairs:
  
    1. weighted path order
    
      base order:
    
        matrix interpretations:
        
          carrier: N^2
          order: lexicographic order
          interpretations:
            app#_A(x1,x2) = ((0,0),(1,0)) x1 + x2 + (4,1)
            app_A(x1,x2) = x2 + (3,8)
            plus_A() = (1,2)
            s_A() = (2,3)
    
      precedence:
      
        app# = app = plus = s
      
      partial status:
    
        pi(app#) = []
        pi(app) = []
        pi(plus) = []
        pi(s) = []
    
    2. weighted path order
    
      base order:
    
        matrix interpretations:
        
          carrier: N^2
          order: lexicographic order
          interpretations:
            app#_A(x1,x2) = x2 + (2,2)
            app_A(x1,x2) = (1,1)
            plus_A() = (0,0)
            s_A() = (0,0)
    
      precedence:
      
        app > app# = plus = s
      
      partial status:
    
        pi(app#) = [2]
        pi(app) = []
        pi(plus) = []
        pi(s) = []
    

The next rules are strictly ordered:

  p1

We remove them from the problem.  Then no dependency pair remains.