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 = [div^#(s(_0),s(_1)) -> div^#(minus(_0,_1),s(_1))]
  TRS = {minus(_0,0) -> _0, minus(s(_0),s(_1)) -> p(minus(_0,_1)), p(s(_0)) -> _0, div(0,s(_0)) -> 0, div(s(_0),s(_1)) -> s(div(minus(_0,_1),s(_1)))}
    ## Trying with homeomorphic embeddings... Failed!
    ## Trying with polynomial interpretations... Too many coefficients (14)! Aborting!
    ## Trying with lexicographic path orders...
      The constraints are satisfied by the lexicographic path order using the precedence:
      s > [p, minus], div > [s, p, minus]
      and the argument filtering:
      {minus:[0], s:[0], div:[0], p:[0], div^#:[0, 1]}
  This DP problem is finite.
  ## DP problem: 
  Dependency pairs = [minus^#(s(_0),s(_1)) -> minus^#(_0,_1)]
  TRS = {minus(_0,0) -> _0, minus(s(_0),s(_1)) -> p(minus(_0,_1)), p(s(_0)) -> _0, div(0,s(_0)) -> 0, div(s(_0),s(_1)) -> s(div(minus(_0,_1),s(_1)))}
    ## 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 = 19