YES

Prover = TRS(tech=PATTERN_RULES, nb_unfoldings=unlimited, max_nb_unfolded_rules=200)

** BEGIN proof argument **
All the DP problems were proved finite.
As all the involved DP processors are sound,
the TRS under analysis terminates.
** END proof argument **

** BEGIN proof description **
## Searching for a generalized rewrite rule
(a rule whose right-hand side contains a variable
that does not occur in the left-hand side)...
No generalized rewrite rule found!

## Applying the DP framework...
## Round 1:
  ## DP problem: 
  Dependency pairs = [and^#(_0,or(_1,_2)) -> and^#(_0,_1), and^#(_0,or(_1,_2)) -> and^#(_0,_2), and^#(_0,and(_1,_1)) -> and^#(_0,_1)]
  TRS = {and(_0,or(_1,_2)) -> or(and(_0,_1),and(_0,_2)), and(_0,and(_1,_1)) -> and(_0,_1), or(or(_0,_1),and(_1,_2)) -> or(_0,_1), or(_0,and(_0,_1)) -> _0, or(true,_0) -> true, or(_0,false) -> _0, or(_0,_0) -> _0, or(_0,or(_1,_1)) -> or(_0,_1), and(_0,true) -> _0, and(false,_0) -> false, and(_0,_0) -> _0}
    ## Trying with homeomorphic embeddings... Success!
  This DP problem is finite.
  ## DP problem: 
  Dependency pairs = [or^#(or(_0,_1),and(_1,_2)) -> or^#(_0,_1), or^#(_0,or(_1,_1)) -> or^#(_0,_1)]
  TRS = {and(_0,or(_1,_2)) -> or(and(_0,_1),and(_0,_2)), and(_0,and(_1,_1)) -> and(_0,_1), or(or(_0,_1),and(_1,_2)) -> or(_0,_1), or(_0,and(_0,_1)) -> _0, or(true,_0) -> true, or(_0,false) -> _0, or(_0,_0) -> _0, or(_0,or(_1,_1)) -> or(_0,_1), and(_0,true) -> _0, and(false,_0) -> false, and(_0,_0) -> _0}
    ## Trying with homeomorphic embeddings... Success!
  This DP problem is finite.

** END proof description **

Proof stopped at iteration 0
Number of unfolded rules generated by this proof = 0
Number of unfolded rules generated by all the parallel proofs = 0