Termination w.r.t. Q of the given QTRS could be proven:

0 QTRS
↳1 DependencyPairsProof (⇔)
↳2 QDP
↳3 DependencyGraphProof (⇔)
↳4 AND
    ↳5 QDP
        ↳6 QDPOrderProof (⇔)
        ↳7 QDP
        ↳8 DependencyGraphProof (⇔)
        ↳9 QDP
        ↳10 QDPOrderProof (⇔)
        ↳11 QDP
        ↳12 PisEmptyProof (⇔)
        ↳13 TRUE
    ↳14 QDP
        ↳15 QDPOrderProof (⇔)
        ↳16 QDP
        ↳17 PisEmptyProof (⇔)
        ↳18 TRUE

(0) Obligation:

Q restricted rewrite system:
The TRS R consists of the following rules:

sort(nil) → nil
sort(cons(x, y)) → insert(x, sort(y))
insert(x, nil) → cons(x, nil)
insert(x, cons(v, w)) → choose(x, cons(v, w), x, v)
choose(x, cons(v, w), y, 0) → cons(x, cons(v, w))
choose(x, cons(v, w), 0, s(z)) → cons(v, insert(x, w))
choose(x, cons(v, w), s(y), s(z)) → choose(x, cons(v, w), y, z)

Q is empty.

(1) DependencyPairsProof (EQUIVALENT transformation)

Using Dependency Pairs [AG00,LPAR04] we result in the following initial DP problem.

(2) Obligation:

Q DP problem:
The TRS P consists of the following rules:

SORT(cons(x, y)) → INSERT(x, sort(y))
SORT(cons(x, y)) → SORT(y)
INSERT(x, cons(v, w)) → CHOOSE(x, cons(v, w), x, v)
CHOOSE(x, cons(v, w), 0, s(z)) → INSERT(x, w)
CHOOSE(x, cons(v, w), s(y), s(z)) → CHOOSE(x, cons(v, w), y, z)

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

sort(nil) → nil
sort(cons(x, y)) → insert(x, sort(y))
insert(x, nil) → cons(x, nil)
insert(x, cons(v, w)) → choose(x, cons(v, w), x, v)
choose(x, cons(v, w), y, 0) → cons(x, cons(v, w))
choose(x, cons(v, w), 0, s(z)) → cons(v, insert(x, w))
choose(x, cons(v, w), s(y), s(z)) → choose(x, cons(v, w), y, z)

Q is empty.
We have to consider all minimal (P,Q,R)-chains.

(3) DependencyGraphProof (EQUIVALENT transformation)

The approximation of the Dependency Graph [LPAR04,FROCOS05,EDGSTAR] contains 2 SCCs with 1 less node.

(4) Complex Obligation (AND)

(5) Obligation:

Q DP problem:
The TRS P consists of the following rules:

CHOOSE(x, cons(v, w), 0, s(z)) → INSERT(x, w)
INSERT(x, cons(v, w)) → CHOOSE(x, cons(v, w), x, v)
CHOOSE(x, cons(v, w), s(y), s(z)) → CHOOSE(x, cons(v, w), y, z)

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

sort(nil) → nil
sort(cons(x, y)) → insert(x, sort(y))
insert(x, nil) → cons(x, nil)
insert(x, cons(v, w)) → choose(x, cons(v, w), x, v)
choose(x, cons(v, w), y, 0) → cons(x, cons(v, w))
choose(x, cons(v, w), 0, s(z)) → cons(v, insert(x, w))
choose(x, cons(v, w), s(y), s(z)) → choose(x, cons(v, w), y, z)

Q is empty.
We have to consider all minimal (P,Q,R)-chains.

(6) QDPOrderProof (EQUIVALENT transformation)

We use the reduction pair processor [LPAR04].


The following pairs can be oriented strictly and are deleted.


CHOOSE(x, cons(v, w), 0, s(z)) → INSERT(x, w)
The remaining pairs can at least be oriented weakly.
Used ordering: SCNP Order with the following components:
Level mapping:
Top level AFS:
CHOOSE(x1, x2, x3, x4)  =  CHOOSE(x2)
INSERT(x1, x2)  =  INSERT(x2)

Tags:
CHOOSE has tags [4,4,0,0]
INSERT has tags [0,4]

Comparison: MAX
Underlying order for the size change arcs and the rules of R:
Polynomial interpretation [POLO]:

POL(0) = 0   
POL(cons(x1, x2)) = 1 + x2   
POL(s(x1)) = 0   

The following usable rules [FROCOS05] were oriented: none

(7) Obligation:

Q DP problem:
The TRS P consists of the following rules:

INSERT(x, cons(v, w)) → CHOOSE(x, cons(v, w), x, v)
CHOOSE(x, cons(v, w), s(y), s(z)) → CHOOSE(x, cons(v, w), y, z)

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

sort(nil) → nil
sort(cons(x, y)) → insert(x, sort(y))
insert(x, nil) → cons(x, nil)
insert(x, cons(v, w)) → choose(x, cons(v, w), x, v)
choose(x, cons(v, w), y, 0) → cons(x, cons(v, w))
choose(x, cons(v, w), 0, s(z)) → cons(v, insert(x, w))
choose(x, cons(v, w), s(y), s(z)) → choose(x, cons(v, w), y, z)

Q is empty.
We have to consider all minimal (P,Q,R)-chains.

(8) DependencyGraphProof (EQUIVALENT transformation)

The approximation of the Dependency Graph [LPAR04,FROCOS05,EDGSTAR] contains 1 SCC with 1 less node.

(9) Obligation:

Q DP problem:
The TRS P consists of the following rules:

CHOOSE(x, cons(v, w), s(y), s(z)) → CHOOSE(x, cons(v, w), y, z)

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

sort(nil) → nil
sort(cons(x, y)) → insert(x, sort(y))
insert(x, nil) → cons(x, nil)
insert(x, cons(v, w)) → choose(x, cons(v, w), x, v)
choose(x, cons(v, w), y, 0) → cons(x, cons(v, w))
choose(x, cons(v, w), 0, s(z)) → cons(v, insert(x, w))
choose(x, cons(v, w), s(y), s(z)) → choose(x, cons(v, w), y, z)

Q is empty.
We have to consider all minimal (P,Q,R)-chains.

(10) QDPOrderProof (EQUIVALENT transformation)

We use the reduction pair processor [LPAR04].


The following pairs can be oriented strictly and are deleted.


CHOOSE(x, cons(v, w), s(y), s(z)) → CHOOSE(x, cons(v, w), y, z)
The remaining pairs can at least be oriented weakly.
Used ordering: SCNP Order with the following components:
Level mapping:
Top level AFS:
CHOOSE(x1, x2, x3, x4)  =  CHOOSE(x3)

Tags:
CHOOSE has tags [2,3,0,0]

Comparison: MAX
Underlying order for the size change arcs and the rules of R:
Polynomial interpretation [POLO]:

POL(cons(x1, x2)) = x1 + x2   
POL(s(x1)) = 1 + x1   

The following usable rules [FROCOS05] were oriented: none

(11) Obligation:

Q DP problem:
P is empty.
The TRS R consists of the following rules:

sort(nil) → nil
sort(cons(x, y)) → insert(x, sort(y))
insert(x, nil) → cons(x, nil)
insert(x, cons(v, w)) → choose(x, cons(v, w), x, v)
choose(x, cons(v, w), y, 0) → cons(x, cons(v, w))
choose(x, cons(v, w), 0, s(z)) → cons(v, insert(x, w))
choose(x, cons(v, w), s(y), s(z)) → choose(x, cons(v, w), y, z)

Q is empty.
We have to consider all minimal (P,Q,R)-chains.

(12) PisEmptyProof (EQUIVALENT transformation)

The TRS P is empty. Hence, there is no (P,Q,R) chain.

(13) TRUE

(14) Obligation:

Q DP problem:
The TRS P consists of the following rules:

SORT(cons(x, y)) → SORT(y)

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

sort(nil) → nil
sort(cons(x, y)) → insert(x, sort(y))
insert(x, nil) → cons(x, nil)
insert(x, cons(v, w)) → choose(x, cons(v, w), x, v)
choose(x, cons(v, w), y, 0) → cons(x, cons(v, w))
choose(x, cons(v, w), 0, s(z)) → cons(v, insert(x, w))
choose(x, cons(v, w), s(y), s(z)) → choose(x, cons(v, w), y, z)

Q is empty.
We have to consider all minimal (P,Q,R)-chains.

(15) QDPOrderProof (EQUIVALENT transformation)

We use the reduction pair processor [LPAR04].


The following pairs can be oriented strictly and are deleted.


SORT(cons(x, y)) → SORT(y)
The remaining pairs can at least be oriented weakly.
Used ordering: SCNP Order with the following components:
Level mapping:
Top level AFS:
SORT(x1)  =  SORT(x1)

Tags:
SORT has tags [0]

Comparison: MAX
Underlying order for the size change arcs and the rules of R:
Polynomial interpretation [POLO]:

POL(cons(x1, x2)) = 1 + x2   

The following usable rules [FROCOS05] were oriented: none

(16) Obligation:

Q DP problem:
P is empty.
The TRS R consists of the following rules:

sort(nil) → nil
sort(cons(x, y)) → insert(x, sort(y))
insert(x, nil) → cons(x, nil)
insert(x, cons(v, w)) → choose(x, cons(v, w), x, v)
choose(x, cons(v, w), y, 0) → cons(x, cons(v, w))
choose(x, cons(v, w), 0, s(z)) → cons(v, insert(x, w))
choose(x, cons(v, w), s(y), s(z)) → choose(x, cons(v, w), y, z)

Q is empty.
We have to consider all minimal (P,Q,R)-chains.

(17) PisEmptyProof (EQUIVALENT transformation)

The TRS P is empty. Hence, there is no (P,Q,R) chain.

(18) TRUE