YES

We show the termination of the TRS R:

  msort(nil()) -> nil()
  msort(.(x,y)) -> .(min(x,y),msort(del(min(x,y),.(x,y))))
  min(x,nil()) -> x
  min(x,.(y,z)) -> if(<=(x,y),min(x,z),min(y,z))
  del(x,nil()) -> nil()
  del(x,.(y,z)) -> if(=(x,y),z,.(y,del(x,z)))

-- SCC decomposition.

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

p1: msort#(.(x,y)) -> min#(x,y)
p2: msort#(.(x,y)) -> msort#(del(min(x,y),.(x,y)))
p3: msort#(.(x,y)) -> del#(min(x,y),.(x,y))
p4: min#(x,.(y,z)) -> min#(x,z)
p5: min#(x,.(y,z)) -> min#(y,z)
p6: del#(x,.(y,z)) -> del#(x,z)

and R consists of:

r1: msort(nil()) -> nil()
r2: msort(.(x,y)) -> .(min(x,y),msort(del(min(x,y),.(x,y))))
r3: min(x,nil()) -> x
r4: min(x,.(y,z)) -> if(<=(x,y),min(x,z),min(y,z))
r5: del(x,nil()) -> nil()
r6: del(x,.(y,z)) -> if(=(x,y),z,.(y,del(x,z)))

The estimated dependency graph contains the following SCCs:

  {p2}
  {p4, p5}
  {p6}


-- Reduction pair.

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

p1: msort#(.(x,y)) -> msort#(del(min(x,y),.(x,y)))

and R consists of:

r1: msort(nil()) -> nil()
r2: msort(.(x,y)) -> .(min(x,y),msort(del(min(x,y),.(x,y))))
r3: min(x,nil()) -> x
r4: min(x,.(y,z)) -> if(<=(x,y),min(x,z),min(y,z))
r5: del(x,nil()) -> nil()
r6: del(x,.(y,z)) -> if(=(x,y),z,.(y,del(x,z)))

The set of usable rules consists of

  r3, r4, r5, r6

Take the reduction pair:

  weighted path order
  
    base order:
  
      matrix interpretations:
      
        carrier: N^1
        order: lexicographic order
        interpretations:
          msort#_A(x1) = x1
          ._A(x1,x2) = x1 + 4
          del_A(x1,x2) = x1 + 2
          min_A(x1,x2) = x1 + 1
          nil_A() = 1
          if_A(x1,x2,x3) = 0
          <=_A(x1,x2) = 2
          =_A(x1,x2) = 1
  
    precedence:
    
      msort# = min > . = <= > del = nil = if > =
    
    partial status:
  
      pi(msort#) = [1]
      pi(.) = [1]
      pi(del) = []
      pi(min) = [1]
      pi(nil) = []
      pi(if) = []
      pi(<=) = []
      pi(=) = []

The next rules are strictly ordered:

  p1

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: min#(x,.(y,z)) -> min#(x,z)
p2: min#(x,.(y,z)) -> min#(y,z)

and R consists of:

r1: msort(nil()) -> nil()
r2: msort(.(x,y)) -> .(min(x,y),msort(del(min(x,y),.(x,y))))
r3: min(x,nil()) -> x
r4: min(x,.(y,z)) -> if(<=(x,y),min(x,z),min(y,z))
r5: del(x,nil()) -> nil()
r6: del(x,.(y,z)) -> if(=(x,y),z,.(y,del(x,z)))

The set of usable rules consists of

  (no rules)

Take the reduction pair:

  weighted path order
  
    base order:
  
      matrix interpretations:
      
        carrier: N^1
        order: lexicographic order
        interpretations:
          min#_A(x1,x2) = x2
          ._A(x1,x2) = x1 + x2 + 1
  
    precedence:
    
      min# = .
    
    partial status:
  
      pi(min#) = []
      pi(.) = [2]

The next rules are strictly ordered:

  p1

We remove them from the problem.

-- SCC decomposition.

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

p1: min#(x,.(y,z)) -> min#(y,z)

and R consists of:

r1: msort(nil()) -> nil()
r2: msort(.(x,y)) -> .(min(x,y),msort(del(min(x,y),.(x,y))))
r3: min(x,nil()) -> x
r4: min(x,.(y,z)) -> if(<=(x,y),min(x,z),min(y,z))
r5: del(x,nil()) -> nil()
r6: del(x,.(y,z)) -> if(=(x,y),z,.(y,del(x,z)))

The estimated dependency graph contains the following SCCs:

  {p1}


-- Reduction pair.

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

p1: min#(x,.(y,z)) -> min#(y,z)

and R consists of:

r1: msort(nil()) -> nil()
r2: msort(.(x,y)) -> .(min(x,y),msort(del(min(x,y),.(x,y))))
r3: min(x,nil()) -> x
r4: min(x,.(y,z)) -> if(<=(x,y),min(x,z),min(y,z))
r5: del(x,nil()) -> nil()
r6: del(x,.(y,z)) -> if(=(x,y),z,.(y,del(x,z)))

The set of usable rules consists of

  (no rules)

Take the reduction pair:

  weighted path order
  
    base order:
  
      matrix interpretations:
      
        carrier: N^1
        order: lexicographic order
        interpretations:
          min#_A(x1,x2) = x2
          ._A(x1,x2) = x1 + x2 + 1
  
    precedence:
    
      min# = .
    
    partial status:
  
      pi(min#) = [2]
      pi(.) = [2]

The next rules are strictly ordered:

  p1

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: del#(x,.(y,z)) -> del#(x,z)

and R consists of:

r1: msort(nil()) -> nil()
r2: msort(.(x,y)) -> .(min(x,y),msort(del(min(x,y),.(x,y))))
r3: min(x,nil()) -> x
r4: min(x,.(y,z)) -> if(<=(x,y),min(x,z),min(y,z))
r5: del(x,nil()) -> nil()
r6: del(x,.(y,z)) -> if(=(x,y),z,.(y,del(x,z)))

The set of usable rules consists of

  (no rules)

Take the reduction pair:

  weighted path order
  
    base order:
  
      matrix interpretations:
      
        carrier: N^1
        order: lexicographic order
        interpretations:
          del#_A(x1,x2) = x1 + x2 + 2
          ._A(x1,x2) = x1 + x2 + 1
  
    precedence:
    
      del# = .
    
    partial status:
  
      pi(del#) = []
      pi(.) = [2]

The next rules are strictly ordered:

  p1

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