YES

We show the termination of the TRS R:

  if(true(),x,y) -> x
  if(false(),x,y) -> y
  eq(|0|(),|0|()) -> true()
  eq(|0|(),s(x)) -> false()
  eq(s(x),|0|()) -> false()
  eq(s(x),s(y)) -> eq(x,y)
  app(nil(),l) -> l
  app(cons(x,l1),l2) -> cons(x,app(l1,l2))
  app(app(l1,l2),l3) -> app(l1,app(l2,l3))
  mem(x,nil()) -> false()
  mem(x,cons(y,l)) -> ifmem(eq(x,y),x,l)
  ifmem(true(),x,l) -> true()
  ifmem(false(),x,l) -> mem(x,l)
  inter(x,nil()) -> nil()
  inter(nil(),x) -> nil()
  inter(app(l1,l2),l3) -> app(inter(l1,l3),inter(l2,l3))
  inter(l1,app(l2,l3)) -> app(inter(l1,l2),inter(l1,l3))
  inter(cons(x,l1),l2) -> ifinter(mem(x,l2),x,l1,l2)
  inter(l1,cons(x,l2)) -> ifinter(mem(x,l1),x,l2,l1)
  ifinter(true(),x,l1,l2) -> cons(x,inter(l1,l2))
  ifinter(false(),x,l1,l2) -> inter(l1,l2)

-- SCC decomposition.

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

p1: eq#(s(x),s(y)) -> eq#(x,y)
p2: app#(cons(x,l1),l2) -> app#(l1,l2)
p3: app#(app(l1,l2),l3) -> app#(l1,app(l2,l3))
p4: app#(app(l1,l2),l3) -> app#(l2,l3)
p5: mem#(x,cons(y,l)) -> ifmem#(eq(x,y),x,l)
p6: mem#(x,cons(y,l)) -> eq#(x,y)
p7: ifmem#(false(),x,l) -> mem#(x,l)
p8: inter#(app(l1,l2),l3) -> app#(inter(l1,l3),inter(l2,l3))
p9: inter#(app(l1,l2),l3) -> inter#(l1,l3)
p10: inter#(app(l1,l2),l3) -> inter#(l2,l3)
p11: inter#(l1,app(l2,l3)) -> app#(inter(l1,l2),inter(l1,l3))
p12: inter#(l1,app(l2,l3)) -> inter#(l1,l2)
p13: inter#(l1,app(l2,l3)) -> inter#(l1,l3)
p14: inter#(cons(x,l1),l2) -> ifinter#(mem(x,l2),x,l1,l2)
p15: inter#(cons(x,l1),l2) -> mem#(x,l2)
p16: inter#(l1,cons(x,l2)) -> ifinter#(mem(x,l1),x,l2,l1)
p17: inter#(l1,cons(x,l2)) -> mem#(x,l1)
p18: ifinter#(true(),x,l1,l2) -> inter#(l1,l2)
p19: ifinter#(false(),x,l1,l2) -> inter#(l1,l2)

and R consists of:

r1: if(true(),x,y) -> x
r2: if(false(),x,y) -> y
r3: eq(|0|(),|0|()) -> true()
r4: eq(|0|(),s(x)) -> false()
r5: eq(s(x),|0|()) -> false()
r6: eq(s(x),s(y)) -> eq(x,y)
r7: app(nil(),l) -> l
r8: app(cons(x,l1),l2) -> cons(x,app(l1,l2))
r9: app(app(l1,l2),l3) -> app(l1,app(l2,l3))
r10: mem(x,nil()) -> false()
r11: mem(x,cons(y,l)) -> ifmem(eq(x,y),x,l)
r12: ifmem(true(),x,l) -> true()
r13: ifmem(false(),x,l) -> mem(x,l)
r14: inter(x,nil()) -> nil()
r15: inter(nil(),x) -> nil()
r16: inter(app(l1,l2),l3) -> app(inter(l1,l3),inter(l2,l3))
r17: inter(l1,app(l2,l3)) -> app(inter(l1,l2),inter(l1,l3))
r18: inter(cons(x,l1),l2) -> ifinter(mem(x,l2),x,l1,l2)
r19: inter(l1,cons(x,l2)) -> ifinter(mem(x,l1),x,l2,l1)
r20: ifinter(true(),x,l1,l2) -> cons(x,inter(l1,l2))
r21: ifinter(false(),x,l1,l2) -> inter(l1,l2)

The estimated dependency graph contains the following SCCs:

  {p9, p10, p12, p13, p14, p16, p18, p19}
  {p5, p7}
  {p1}
  {p2, p3, p4}


-- Reduction pair.

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

p1: ifinter#(false(),x,l1,l2) -> inter#(l1,l2)
p2: inter#(l1,cons(x,l2)) -> ifinter#(mem(x,l1),x,l2,l1)
p3: ifinter#(true(),x,l1,l2) -> inter#(l1,l2)
p4: inter#(cons(x,l1),l2) -> ifinter#(mem(x,l2),x,l1,l2)
p5: inter#(l1,app(l2,l3)) -> inter#(l1,l3)
p6: inter#(l1,app(l2,l3)) -> inter#(l1,l2)
p7: inter#(app(l1,l2),l3) -> inter#(l2,l3)
p8: inter#(app(l1,l2),l3) -> inter#(l1,l3)

and R consists of:

r1: if(true(),x,y) -> x
r2: if(false(),x,y) -> y
r3: eq(|0|(),|0|()) -> true()
r4: eq(|0|(),s(x)) -> false()
r5: eq(s(x),|0|()) -> false()
r6: eq(s(x),s(y)) -> eq(x,y)
r7: app(nil(),l) -> l
r8: app(cons(x,l1),l2) -> cons(x,app(l1,l2))
r9: app(app(l1,l2),l3) -> app(l1,app(l2,l3))
r10: mem(x,nil()) -> false()
r11: mem(x,cons(y,l)) -> ifmem(eq(x,y),x,l)
r12: ifmem(true(),x,l) -> true()
r13: ifmem(false(),x,l) -> mem(x,l)
r14: inter(x,nil()) -> nil()
r15: inter(nil(),x) -> nil()
r16: inter(app(l1,l2),l3) -> app(inter(l1,l3),inter(l2,l3))
r17: inter(l1,app(l2,l3)) -> app(inter(l1,l2),inter(l1,l3))
r18: inter(cons(x,l1),l2) -> ifinter(mem(x,l2),x,l1,l2)
r19: inter(l1,cons(x,l2)) -> ifinter(mem(x,l1),x,l2,l1)
r20: ifinter(true(),x,l1,l2) -> cons(x,inter(l1,l2))
r21: ifinter(false(),x,l1,l2) -> inter(l1,l2)

The set of usable rules consists of

  r3, r4, r5, r6, r10, r11, r12, r13

Take the reduction pair:

  lexicographic combination of reduction pairs:
  
    1. matrix interpretations:
    
      carrier: N^2
      order: standard order
      interpretations:
        ifinter#_A(x1,x2,x3,x4) = x2 + ((1,1),(0,0)) x3 + ((1,1),(0,0)) x4 + (1,0)
        false_A() = (1,1)
        inter#_A(x1,x2) = ((1,1),(0,0)) x1 + ((1,1),(0,0)) x2
        cons_A(x1,x2) = ((1,1),(1,1)) x1 + ((1,0),(1,1)) x2 + (0,2)
        mem_A(x1,x2) = x1 + x2 + (2,1)
        true_A() = (1,1)
        app_A(x1,x2) = ((1,1),(1,1)) x1 + ((1,1),(1,1)) x2 + (1,1)
        eq_A(x1,x2) = x1 + (1,1)
        |0|_A() = (1,1)
        s_A(x1) = ((1,1),(1,1)) x1 + (1,1)
        ifmem_A(x1,x2,x3) = x2 + ((1,0),(1,1)) x3 + (2,1)
        nil_A() = (1,1)
    
    2. matrix interpretations:
    
      carrier: N^2
      order: standard order
      interpretations:
        ifinter#_A(x1,x2,x3,x4) = ((1,1),(1,0)) x2 + x3 + x4
        false_A() = (4,4)
        inter#_A(x1,x2) = ((1,1),(1,0)) x1 + x2 + (1,1)
        cons_A(x1,x2) = x1 + x2 + (0,1)
        mem_A(x1,x2) = x1 + x2 + (1,1)
        true_A() = (2,4)
        app_A(x1,x2) = ((1,1),(1,1)) x1 + ((1,1),(1,0)) x2 + (1,1)
        eq_A(x1,x2) = ((1,0),(1,1)) x1 + (2,1)
        |0|_A() = (1,1)
        s_A(x1) = (0,1)
        ifmem_A(x1,x2,x3) = x2 + x3 + (1,1)
        nil_A() = (1,1)
    
    3. matrix interpretations:
    
      carrier: N^2
      order: standard order
      interpretations:
        ifinter#_A(x1,x2,x3,x4) = x2
        false_A() = (5,3)
        inter#_A(x1,x2) = ((0,1),(0,0)) x1 + ((1,1),(1,1)) x2 + (1,1)
        cons_A(x1,x2) = ((1,0),(1,0)) x1 + ((0,0),(1,1)) x2 + (1,2)
        mem_A(x1,x2) = ((0,1),(0,0)) x1 + ((0,1),(0,1)) x2 + (1,1)
        true_A() = (3,2)
        app_A(x1,x2) = ((1,1),(0,1)) x1 + ((0,0),(1,0)) x2 + (1,1)
        eq_A(x1,x2) = x1 + (1,1)
        |0|_A() = (3,1)
        s_A(x1) = (1,1)
        ifmem_A(x1,x2,x3) = ((0,1),(0,0)) x2 + ((0,1),(0,1)) x3 + (2,1)
        nil_A() = (1,0)
    

The next rules are strictly ordered:

  p1, p2, p3, p4, p5, p6, p7, p8

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: ifmem#(false(),x,l) -> mem#(x,l)
p2: mem#(x,cons(y,l)) -> ifmem#(eq(x,y),x,l)

and R consists of:

r1: if(true(),x,y) -> x
r2: if(false(),x,y) -> y
r3: eq(|0|(),|0|()) -> true()
r4: eq(|0|(),s(x)) -> false()
r5: eq(s(x),|0|()) -> false()
r6: eq(s(x),s(y)) -> eq(x,y)
r7: app(nil(),l) -> l
r8: app(cons(x,l1),l2) -> cons(x,app(l1,l2))
r9: app(app(l1,l2),l3) -> app(l1,app(l2,l3))
r10: mem(x,nil()) -> false()
r11: mem(x,cons(y,l)) -> ifmem(eq(x,y),x,l)
r12: ifmem(true(),x,l) -> true()
r13: ifmem(false(),x,l) -> mem(x,l)
r14: inter(x,nil()) -> nil()
r15: inter(nil(),x) -> nil()
r16: inter(app(l1,l2),l3) -> app(inter(l1,l3),inter(l2,l3))
r17: inter(l1,app(l2,l3)) -> app(inter(l1,l2),inter(l1,l3))
r18: inter(cons(x,l1),l2) -> ifinter(mem(x,l2),x,l1,l2)
r19: inter(l1,cons(x,l2)) -> ifinter(mem(x,l1),x,l2,l1)
r20: ifinter(true(),x,l1,l2) -> cons(x,inter(l1,l2))
r21: ifinter(false(),x,l1,l2) -> inter(l1,l2)

The set of usable rules consists of

  r3, r4, r5, r6

Take the reduction pair:

  lexicographic combination of reduction pairs:
  
    1. matrix interpretations:
    
      carrier: N^2
      order: standard order
      interpretations:
        ifmem#_A(x1,x2,x3) = ((1,1),(0,0)) x1 + ((1,1),(1,1)) x3
        false_A() = (1,1)
        mem#_A(x1,x2) = ((1,1),(1,1)) x2 + (1,0)
        cons_A(x1,x2) = ((1,1),(1,1)) x1 + ((1,1),(1,1)) x2 + (1,2)
        eq_A(x1,x2) = (2,1)
        |0|_A() = (1,1)
        true_A() = (0,0)
        s_A(x1) = ((0,1),(1,1)) x1 + (1,1)
    
    2. matrix interpretations:
    
      carrier: N^2
      order: standard order
      interpretations:
        ifmem#_A(x1,x2,x3) = ((1,1),(0,0)) x1 + (0,2)
        false_A() = (2,2)
        mem#_A(x1,x2) = ((0,1),(1,0)) x2
        cons_A(x1,x2) = ((1,1),(0,0)) x1 + ((0,1),(0,1)) x2 + (1,1)
        eq_A(x1,x2) = (1,1)
        |0|_A() = (1,1)
        true_A() = (2,2)
        s_A(x1) = (1,1)
    
    3. matrix interpretations:
    
      carrier: N^2
      order: standard order
      interpretations:
        ifmem#_A(x1,x2,x3) = ((0,1),(0,1)) x1
        false_A() = (2,1)
        mem#_A(x1,x2) = (2,2)
        cons_A(x1,x2) = x1 + (1,0)
        eq_A(x1,x2) = (1,3)
        |0|_A() = (1,1)
        true_A() = (2,4)
        s_A(x1) = (1,1)
    

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: eq#(s(x),s(y)) -> eq#(x,y)

and R consists of:

r1: if(true(),x,y) -> x
r2: if(false(),x,y) -> y
r3: eq(|0|(),|0|()) -> true()
r4: eq(|0|(),s(x)) -> false()
r5: eq(s(x),|0|()) -> false()
r6: eq(s(x),s(y)) -> eq(x,y)
r7: app(nil(),l) -> l
r8: app(cons(x,l1),l2) -> cons(x,app(l1,l2))
r9: app(app(l1,l2),l3) -> app(l1,app(l2,l3))
r10: mem(x,nil()) -> false()
r11: mem(x,cons(y,l)) -> ifmem(eq(x,y),x,l)
r12: ifmem(true(),x,l) -> true()
r13: ifmem(false(),x,l) -> mem(x,l)
r14: inter(x,nil()) -> nil()
r15: inter(nil(),x) -> nil()
r16: inter(app(l1,l2),l3) -> app(inter(l1,l3),inter(l2,l3))
r17: inter(l1,app(l2,l3)) -> app(inter(l1,l2),inter(l1,l3))
r18: inter(cons(x,l1),l2) -> ifinter(mem(x,l2),x,l1,l2)
r19: inter(l1,cons(x,l2)) -> ifinter(mem(x,l1),x,l2,l1)
r20: ifinter(true(),x,l1,l2) -> cons(x,inter(l1,l2))
r21: ifinter(false(),x,l1,l2) -> inter(l1,l2)

The set of usable rules consists of

  (no rules)

Take the monotone reduction pair:

  lexicographic combination of reduction pairs:
  
    1. matrix interpretations:
    
      carrier: N^2
      order: standard order
      interpretations:
        eq#_A(x1,x2) = ((1,1),(1,1)) x1 + ((1,1),(1,1)) x2
        s_A(x1) = ((1,1),(1,1)) x1 + (1,1)
    
    2. matrix interpretations:
    
      carrier: N^2
      order: standard order
      interpretations:
        eq#_A(x1,x2) = ((1,0),(1,1)) x1 + ((1,0),(1,1)) x2
        s_A(x1) = ((1,1),(1,1)) x1 + (1,1)
    
    3. matrix interpretations:
    
      carrier: N^2
      order: standard order
      interpretations:
        eq#_A(x1,x2) = ((1,1),(1,1)) x1 + ((1,1),(1,1)) x2
        s_A(x1) = ((1,1),(1,1)) x1 + (1,1)
    

The next rules are strictly ordered:

  p1
  r1, r2, r3, r4, r5, r6, r7, r8, r9, r10, r11, r12, r13, r14, r15, r16, r17, r18, r19, r20, r21

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#(cons(x,l1),l2) -> app#(l1,l2)
p2: app#(app(l1,l2),l3) -> app#(l2,l3)
p3: app#(app(l1,l2),l3) -> app#(l1,app(l2,l3))

and R consists of:

r1: if(true(),x,y) -> x
r2: if(false(),x,y) -> y
r3: eq(|0|(),|0|()) -> true()
r4: eq(|0|(),s(x)) -> false()
r5: eq(s(x),|0|()) -> false()
r6: eq(s(x),s(y)) -> eq(x,y)
r7: app(nil(),l) -> l
r8: app(cons(x,l1),l2) -> cons(x,app(l1,l2))
r9: app(app(l1,l2),l3) -> app(l1,app(l2,l3))
r10: mem(x,nil()) -> false()
r11: mem(x,cons(y,l)) -> ifmem(eq(x,y),x,l)
r12: ifmem(true(),x,l) -> true()
r13: ifmem(false(),x,l) -> mem(x,l)
r14: inter(x,nil()) -> nil()
r15: inter(nil(),x) -> nil()
r16: inter(app(l1,l2),l3) -> app(inter(l1,l3),inter(l2,l3))
r17: inter(l1,app(l2,l3)) -> app(inter(l1,l2),inter(l1,l3))
r18: inter(cons(x,l1),l2) -> ifinter(mem(x,l2),x,l1,l2)
r19: inter(l1,cons(x,l2)) -> ifinter(mem(x,l1),x,l2,l1)
r20: ifinter(true(),x,l1,l2) -> cons(x,inter(l1,l2))
r21: ifinter(false(),x,l1,l2) -> inter(l1,l2)

The set of usable rules consists of

  r7, r8, r9

Take the reduction pair:

  lexicographic combination of reduction pairs:
  
    1. matrix interpretations:
    
      carrier: N^2
      order: standard order
      interpretations:
        app#_A(x1,x2) = ((1,0),(1,0)) x1 + x2
        cons_A(x1,x2) = ((0,1),(0,0)) x1 + x2
        app_A(x1,x2) = x1 + x2
        nil_A() = (1,1)
    
    2. matrix interpretations:
    
      carrier: N^2
      order: standard order
      interpretations:
        app#_A(x1,x2) = ((1,0),(1,1)) x1 + x2
        cons_A(x1,x2) = ((1,1),(0,0)) x2 + (0,1)
        app_A(x1,x2) = ((1,1),(0,0)) x1 + ((1,1),(0,0)) x2 + (0,1)
        nil_A() = (1,1)
    
    3. matrix interpretations:
    
      carrier: N^2
      order: standard order
      interpretations:
        app#_A(x1,x2) = ((1,0),(1,0)) x1
        cons_A(x1,x2) = x2 + (0,1)
        app_A(x1,x2) = ((1,1),(1,1)) x1 + x2 + (1,1)
        nil_A() = (1,1)
    

The next rules are strictly ordered:

  p2, p3

We remove them from the problem.

-- SCC decomposition.

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

p1: app#(cons(x,l1),l2) -> app#(l1,l2)

and R consists of:

r1: if(true(),x,y) -> x
r2: if(false(),x,y) -> y
r3: eq(|0|(),|0|()) -> true()
r4: eq(|0|(),s(x)) -> false()
r5: eq(s(x),|0|()) -> false()
r6: eq(s(x),s(y)) -> eq(x,y)
r7: app(nil(),l) -> l
r8: app(cons(x,l1),l2) -> cons(x,app(l1,l2))
r9: app(app(l1,l2),l3) -> app(l1,app(l2,l3))
r10: mem(x,nil()) -> false()
r11: mem(x,cons(y,l)) -> ifmem(eq(x,y),x,l)
r12: ifmem(true(),x,l) -> true()
r13: ifmem(false(),x,l) -> mem(x,l)
r14: inter(x,nil()) -> nil()
r15: inter(nil(),x) -> nil()
r16: inter(app(l1,l2),l3) -> app(inter(l1,l3),inter(l2,l3))
r17: inter(l1,app(l2,l3)) -> app(inter(l1,l2),inter(l1,l3))
r18: inter(cons(x,l1),l2) -> ifinter(mem(x,l2),x,l1,l2)
r19: inter(l1,cons(x,l2)) -> ifinter(mem(x,l1),x,l2,l1)
r20: ifinter(true(),x,l1,l2) -> cons(x,inter(l1,l2))
r21: ifinter(false(),x,l1,l2) -> inter(l1,l2)

The estimated dependency graph contains the following SCCs:

  {p1}


-- Reduction pair.

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

p1: app#(cons(x,l1),l2) -> app#(l1,l2)

and R consists of:

r1: if(true(),x,y) -> x
r2: if(false(),x,y) -> y
r3: eq(|0|(),|0|()) -> true()
r4: eq(|0|(),s(x)) -> false()
r5: eq(s(x),|0|()) -> false()
r6: eq(s(x),s(y)) -> eq(x,y)
r7: app(nil(),l) -> l
r8: app(cons(x,l1),l2) -> cons(x,app(l1,l2))
r9: app(app(l1,l2),l3) -> app(l1,app(l2,l3))
r10: mem(x,nil()) -> false()
r11: mem(x,cons(y,l)) -> ifmem(eq(x,y),x,l)
r12: ifmem(true(),x,l) -> true()
r13: ifmem(false(),x,l) -> mem(x,l)
r14: inter(x,nil()) -> nil()
r15: inter(nil(),x) -> nil()
r16: inter(app(l1,l2),l3) -> app(inter(l1,l3),inter(l2,l3))
r17: inter(l1,app(l2,l3)) -> app(inter(l1,l2),inter(l1,l3))
r18: inter(cons(x,l1),l2) -> ifinter(mem(x,l2),x,l1,l2)
r19: inter(l1,cons(x,l2)) -> ifinter(mem(x,l1),x,l2,l1)
r20: ifinter(true(),x,l1,l2) -> cons(x,inter(l1,l2))
r21: ifinter(false(),x,l1,l2) -> inter(l1,l2)

The set of usable rules consists of

  (no rules)

Take the reduction pair:

  lexicographic combination of reduction pairs:
  
    1. matrix interpretations:
    
      carrier: N^2
      order: standard order
      interpretations:
        app#_A(x1,x2) = ((1,1),(1,1)) x1
        cons_A(x1,x2) = ((1,1),(1,1)) x1 + ((1,1),(1,1)) x2 + (1,1)
    
    2. matrix interpretations:
    
      carrier: N^2
      order: standard order
      interpretations:
        app#_A(x1,x2) = ((1,0),(1,0)) x1
        cons_A(x1,x2) = x1 + ((1,1),(0,0)) x2 + (1,1)
    
    3. matrix interpretations:
    
      carrier: N^2
      order: standard order
      interpretations:
        app#_A(x1,x2) = ((1,1),(1,1)) x1
        cons_A(x1,x2) = ((1,1),(1,1)) x1 + ((1,1),(1,1)) x2 + (1,1)
    

The next rules are strictly ordered:

  p1

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