* Step 1: Bounds WORST_CASE(?,O(n^1)) + Considered Problem: - Strict TRS: app(cons(X),YS) -> cons(X) app(nil(),YS) -> YS from(X) -> cons(X) prefix(L) -> cons(nil()) zWadr(XS,nil()) -> nil() zWadr(cons(X),cons(Y)) -> cons(app(Y,cons(X))) zWadr(nil(),YS) -> nil() - Signature: {app/2,from/1,prefix/1,zWadr/2} / {cons/1,nil/0} - Obligation: innermost runtime complexity wrt. defined symbols {app,from,prefix,zWadr} and constructors {cons,nil} + Applied Processor: Bounds {initialAutomaton = minimal, enrichment = match} + Details: The problem is match-bounded by 2. The enriched problem is compatible with follwoing automaton. app_0(2,2) -> 1 app_0(2,2) -> 2 app_1(2,1) -> 1 app_1(2,1) -> 2 cons_0(2) -> 1 cons_0(2) -> 2 cons_1(2) -> 1 cons_1(2) -> 2 cons_2(2) -> 1 cons_2(2) -> 2 from_0(2) -> 1 from_0(2) -> 2 nil_0() -> 1 nil_0() -> 2 nil_1() -> 1 nil_1() -> 2 prefix_0(2) -> 1 prefix_0(2) -> 2 zWadr_0(2,2) -> 1 zWadr_0(2,2) -> 2 1 -> 2 2 -> 1 * Step 2: EmptyProcessor WORST_CASE(?,O(1)) + Considered Problem: - Weak TRS: app(cons(X),YS) -> cons(X) app(nil(),YS) -> YS from(X) -> cons(X) prefix(L) -> cons(nil()) zWadr(XS,nil()) -> nil() zWadr(cons(X),cons(Y)) -> cons(app(Y,cons(X))) zWadr(nil(),YS) -> nil() - Signature: {app/2,from/1,prefix/1,zWadr/2} / {cons/1,nil/0} - Obligation: innermost runtime complexity wrt. defined symbols {app,from,prefix,zWadr} and constructors {cons,nil} + Applied Processor: EmptyProcessor + Details: The problem is already closed. The intended complexity is O(1). WORST_CASE(?,O(n^1))