NO

Problem:
 +(1(),x) -> +(+(0(),1()),x)
 +(0(),x) -> x

Proof:
 Extended Uncurrying Processor:
  application symbol: +
  symbol table:
   0 ==> 00/0 01/1 02/2
   1 ==> 10/0 11/1
   
  uncurry-rules:
   +(10(),x2) -> 11(x2)
   +(01(x4),x5) -> 02(x4,x5)
   +(00(),x4) -> 01(x4)
  eta-rules:
   +(+(0(),x),x1) -> +(x,x1)
  problem:
   11(x) -> 02(10(),x)
   01(x) -> x
   02(x,x1) -> +(x,x1)
   +(10(),x2) -> 11(x2)
   +(01(x4),x5) -> 02(x4,x5)
   +(00(),x4) -> 01(x4)
  Matrix Interpretation Processor: dim=1
   
   interpretation:
    [11](x0) = x0 + 4,
    
    [+](x0, x1) = 4x0 + x1 + 4,
    
    [10] = 0,
    
    [00] = 2,
    
    [02](x0, x1) = 4x0 + x1 + 4,
    
    [01](x0) = x0 + 1
   orientation:
    11(x) = x + 4 >= x + 4 = 02(10(),x)
    
    01(x) = x + 1 >= x = x
    
    02(x,x1) = 4x + x1 + 4 >= 4x + x1 + 4 = +(x,x1)
    
    +(10(),x2) = x2 + 4 >= x2 + 4 = 11(x2)
    
    +(01(x4),x5) = 4x4 + x5 + 8 >= 4x4 + x5 + 4 = 02(x4,x5)
    
    +(00(),x4) = x4 + 12 >= x4 + 1 = 01(x4)
   problem:
    11(x) -> 02(10(),x)
    02(x,x1) -> +(x,x1)
    +(10(),x2) -> 11(x2)
   Unfolding Processor:
    loop length: 3
    terms:
     11(x39)
     02(10(),x39)
     +(10(),x39)
    context: []
    substitution:
     x39 -> x39
    Qed