'Weak Dependency Graph [60.0]'
------------------------------
Answer:           YES(?,O(n^2))
Input Problem:    innermost runtime-complexity with respect to
  Rules:
    {  id(s(x)) -> s(id(x))
     , id(0()) -> 0()
     , f(s(x)) -> f(id(x))
     , f(0()) -> 0()}

Details:         
  We have computed the following set of weak (innermost) dependency pairs:
   {  id^#(s(x)) -> c_0(id^#(x))
    , id^#(0()) -> c_1()
    , f^#(s(x)) -> c_2(f^#(id(x)))
    , f^#(0()) -> c_3()}
  
  The usable rules are:
   {  id(s(x)) -> s(id(x))
    , id(0()) -> 0()}
  
  The estimated dependency graph contains the following edges:
   {id^#(s(x)) -> c_0(id^#(x))}
     ==> {id^#(0()) -> c_1()}
   {id^#(s(x)) -> c_0(id^#(x))}
     ==> {id^#(s(x)) -> c_0(id^#(x))}
   {f^#(s(x)) -> c_2(f^#(id(x)))}
     ==> {f^#(0()) -> c_3()}
   {f^#(s(x)) -> c_2(f^#(id(x)))}
     ==> {f^#(s(x)) -> c_2(f^#(id(x)))}
  
  We consider the following path(s):
   1) {  f^#(s(x)) -> c_2(f^#(id(x)))
       , f^#(0()) -> c_3()}
      
      The usable rules for this path are the following:
      {  id(s(x)) -> s(id(x))
       , id(0()) -> 0()}
      
        We have applied the subprocessor on the union of usable rules and weak (innermost) dependency pairs.
        
          'Weight Gap Principle'
          ----------------------
          Answer:           YES(?,O(n^2))
          Input Problem:    innermost runtime-complexity with respect to
            Rules:
              {  id(s(x)) -> s(id(x))
               , id(0()) -> 0()
               , f^#(s(x)) -> c_2(f^#(id(x)))
               , f^#(0()) -> c_3()}
          
          Details:         
            We apply the weight gap principle, strictly orienting the rules
            {  id(0()) -> 0()
             , f^#(0()) -> c_3()}
            and weakly orienting the rules
            {}
            using the following strongly linear interpretation:
              Processor 'Matrix Interpretation' oriented the following rules strictly:
              
              {  id(0()) -> 0()
               , f^#(0()) -> c_3()}
              
              Details:
                 Interpretation Functions:
                  0() = [0]
                  f(x1) = [0] x1 + [0]
                  s(x1) = [1] x1 + [0]
                  id(x1) = [1] x1 + [1]
                  id^#(x1) = [0] x1 + [0]
                  c_0(x1) = [0] x1 + [0]
                  c_1() = [0]
                  f^#(x1) = [1] x1 + [1]
                  c_2(x1) = [1] x1 + [1]
                  c_3() = [0]
              
            Finally we apply the subprocessor
            We apply the weight gap principle, strictly orienting the rules
            {f^#(s(x)) -> c_2(f^#(id(x)))}
            and weakly orienting the rules
            {  id(0()) -> 0()
             , f^#(0()) -> c_3()}
            using the following strongly linear interpretation:
              Processor 'Matrix Interpretation' oriented the following rules strictly:
              
              {f^#(s(x)) -> c_2(f^#(id(x)))}
              
              Details:
                 Interpretation Functions:
                  0() = [9]
                  f(x1) = [0] x1 + [0]
                  s(x1) = [1] x1 + [8]
                  id(x1) = [1] x1 + [1]
                  id^#(x1) = [0] x1 + [0]
                  c_0(x1) = [0] x1 + [0]
                  c_1() = [0]
                  f^#(x1) = [1] x1 + [8]
                  c_2(x1) = [1] x1 + [2]
                  c_3() = [0]
              
            Finally we apply the subprocessor
            'fastest of 'combine', 'Bounds with default enrichment', 'Bounds with default enrichment''
            ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Answer:           YES(?,O(n^2))
            Input Problem:    innermost relative runtime-complexity with respect to
              Strict Rules: {id(s(x)) -> s(id(x))}
              Weak Rules:
                {  f^#(s(x)) -> c_2(f^#(id(x)))
                 , id(0()) -> 0()
                 , f^#(0()) -> c_3()}
            
            Details:         
              The problem was solved by processor 'combine':
              'combine'
              ---------
              Answer:           YES(?,O(n^2))
              Input Problem:    innermost relative runtime-complexity with respect to
                Strict Rules: {id(s(x)) -> s(id(x))}
                Weak Rules:
                  {  f^#(s(x)) -> c_2(f^#(id(x)))
                   , id(0()) -> 0()
                   , f^#(0()) -> c_3()}
              
              Details:         
                'sequentially if-then-else, sequentially'
                -----------------------------------------
                Answer:           YES(?,O(n^2))
                Input Problem:    innermost relative runtime-complexity with respect to
                  Strict Rules: {id(s(x)) -> s(id(x))}
                  Weak Rules:
                    {  f^#(s(x)) -> c_2(f^#(id(x)))
                     , id(0()) -> 0()
                     , f^#(0()) -> c_3()}
                
                Details:         
                  'if Check whether the TRS is strict trs contains single rule then fastest else fastest'
                  ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                  Answer:           YES(?,O(n^2))
                  Input Problem:    innermost relative runtime-complexity with respect to
                    Strict Rules: {id(s(x)) -> s(id(x))}
                    Weak Rules:
                      {  f^#(s(x)) -> c_2(f^#(id(x)))
                       , id(0()) -> 0()
                       , f^#(0()) -> c_3()}
                  
                  Details:         
                    a) We first check the conditional [Success]:
                       We are considering a strict trs contains single rule TRS.
                    
                    b) We continue with the then-branch:
                       The problem was solved by processor 'fastest of 'Matrix Interpretation', 'Matrix Interpretation', 'Matrix Interpretation'':
                       'fastest of 'Matrix Interpretation', 'Matrix Interpretation', 'Matrix Interpretation''
                       --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                       Answer:           YES(?,O(n^2))
                       Input Problem:    innermost relative runtime-complexity with respect to
                         Strict Rules: {id(s(x)) -> s(id(x))}
                         Weak Rules:
                           {  f^#(s(x)) -> c_2(f^#(id(x)))
                            , id(0()) -> 0()
                            , f^#(0()) -> c_3()}
                       
                       Details:         
                         The problem was solved by processor 'Matrix Interpretation':
                         'Matrix Interpretation'
                         -----------------------
                         Answer:           YES(?,O(n^2))
                         Input Problem:    innermost relative runtime-complexity with respect to
                           Strict Rules: {id(s(x)) -> s(id(x))}
                           Weak Rules:
                             {  f^#(s(x)) -> c_2(f^#(id(x)))
                              , id(0()) -> 0()
                              , f^#(0()) -> c_3()}
                         
                         Details:         
                           Interpretation Functions:
                            0() = [0]
                                  [1]
                                  [1]
                            f(x1) = [0 0 0] x1 + [0]
                                    [0 0 0]      [0]
                                    [0 0 0]      [0]
                            s(x1) = [1 1 0] x1 + [0]
                                    [0 0 1]      [1]
                                    [0 0 1]      [1]
                            id(x1) = [1 0 1] x1 + [0]
                                     [0 1 0]      [0]
                                     [0 0 1]      [0]
                            id^#(x1) = [0 0 0] x1 + [0]
                                       [0 0 0]      [0]
                                       [0 0 0]      [0]
                            c_0(x1) = [0 0 0] x1 + [0]
                                      [0 0 0]      [0]
                                      [0 0 0]      [0]
                            c_1() = [0]
                                    [0]
                                    [0]
                            f^#(x1) = [1 1 0] x1 + [1]
                                      [0 0 0]      [1]
                                      [0 1 0]      [1]
                            c_2(x1) = [1 0 0] x1 + [1]
                                      [0 0 0]      [1]
                                      [0 0 0]      [1]
                            c_3() = [0]
                                    [0]
                                    [0]
      
   2) {f^#(s(x)) -> c_2(f^#(id(x)))}
      
      The usable rules for this path are the following:
      {  id(s(x)) -> s(id(x))
       , id(0()) -> 0()}
      
        We have applied the subprocessor on the union of usable rules and weak (innermost) dependency pairs.
        
          'Weight Gap Principle'
          ----------------------
          Answer:           YES(?,O(n^2))
          Input Problem:    innermost runtime-complexity with respect to
            Rules:
              {  id(s(x)) -> s(id(x))
               , id(0()) -> 0()
               , f^#(s(x)) -> c_2(f^#(id(x)))}
          
          Details:         
            We apply the weight gap principle, strictly orienting the rules
            {id(0()) -> 0()}
            and weakly orienting the rules
            {}
            using the following strongly linear interpretation:
              Processor 'Matrix Interpretation' oriented the following rules strictly:
              
              {id(0()) -> 0()}
              
              Details:
                 Interpretation Functions:
                  0() = [0]
                  f(x1) = [0] x1 + [0]
                  s(x1) = [1] x1 + [0]
                  id(x1) = [1] x1 + [1]
                  id^#(x1) = [0] x1 + [0]
                  c_0(x1) = [0] x1 + [0]
                  c_1() = [0]
                  f^#(x1) = [1] x1 + [1]
                  c_2(x1) = [1] x1 + [1]
                  c_3() = [0]
              
            Finally we apply the subprocessor
            We apply the weight gap principle, strictly orienting the rules
            {f^#(s(x)) -> c_2(f^#(id(x)))}
            and weakly orienting the rules
            {id(0()) -> 0()}
            using the following strongly linear interpretation:
              Processor 'Matrix Interpretation' oriented the following rules strictly:
              
              {f^#(s(x)) -> c_2(f^#(id(x)))}
              
              Details:
                 Interpretation Functions:
                  0() = [1]
                  f(x1) = [0] x1 + [0]
                  s(x1) = [1] x1 + [8]
                  id(x1) = [1] x1 + [1]
                  id^#(x1) = [0] x1 + [0]
                  c_0(x1) = [0] x1 + [0]
                  c_1() = [0]
                  f^#(x1) = [1] x1 + [8]
                  c_2(x1) = [1] x1 + [2]
                  c_3() = [0]
              
            Finally we apply the subprocessor
            'fastest of 'combine', 'Bounds with default enrichment', 'Bounds with default enrichment''
            ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Answer:           YES(?,O(n^2))
            Input Problem:    innermost relative runtime-complexity with respect to
              Strict Rules: {id(s(x)) -> s(id(x))}
              Weak Rules:
                {  f^#(s(x)) -> c_2(f^#(id(x)))
                 , id(0()) -> 0()}
            
            Details:         
              The problem was solved by processor 'combine':
              'combine'
              ---------
              Answer:           YES(?,O(n^2))
              Input Problem:    innermost relative runtime-complexity with respect to
                Strict Rules: {id(s(x)) -> s(id(x))}
                Weak Rules:
                  {  f^#(s(x)) -> c_2(f^#(id(x)))
                   , id(0()) -> 0()}
              
              Details:         
                'sequentially if-then-else, sequentially'
                -----------------------------------------
                Answer:           YES(?,O(n^2))
                Input Problem:    innermost relative runtime-complexity with respect to
                  Strict Rules: {id(s(x)) -> s(id(x))}
                  Weak Rules:
                    {  f^#(s(x)) -> c_2(f^#(id(x)))
                     , id(0()) -> 0()}
                
                Details:         
                  'if Check whether the TRS is strict trs contains single rule then fastest else fastest'
                  ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                  Answer:           YES(?,O(n^2))
                  Input Problem:    innermost relative runtime-complexity with respect to
                    Strict Rules: {id(s(x)) -> s(id(x))}
                    Weak Rules:
                      {  f^#(s(x)) -> c_2(f^#(id(x)))
                       , id(0()) -> 0()}
                  
                  Details:         
                    a) We first check the conditional [Success]:
                       We are considering a strict trs contains single rule TRS.
                    
                    b) We continue with the then-branch:
                       The problem was solved by processor 'fastest of 'Matrix Interpretation', 'Matrix Interpretation', 'Matrix Interpretation'':
                       'fastest of 'Matrix Interpretation', 'Matrix Interpretation', 'Matrix Interpretation''
                       --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                       Answer:           YES(?,O(n^2))
                       Input Problem:    innermost relative runtime-complexity with respect to
                         Strict Rules: {id(s(x)) -> s(id(x))}
                         Weak Rules:
                           {  f^#(s(x)) -> c_2(f^#(id(x)))
                            , id(0()) -> 0()}
                       
                       Details:         
                         The problem was solved by processor 'Matrix Interpretation':
                         'Matrix Interpretation'
                         -----------------------
                         Answer:           YES(?,O(n^2))
                         Input Problem:    innermost relative runtime-complexity with respect to
                           Strict Rules: {id(s(x)) -> s(id(x))}
                           Weak Rules:
                             {  f^#(s(x)) -> c_2(f^#(id(x)))
                              , id(0()) -> 0()}
                         
                         Details:         
                           Interpretation Functions:
                            0() = [1]
                                  [1]
                                  [0]
                            f(x1) = [0 0 0] x1 + [0]
                                    [0 0 0]      [0]
                                    [0 0 0]      [0]
                            s(x1) = [1 1 0] x1 + [0]
                                    [0 0 1]      [1]
                                    [0 0 1]      [1]
                            id(x1) = [1 0 1] x1 + [0]
                                     [0 1 0]      [0]
                                     [0 0 1]      [0]
                            id^#(x1) = [0 0 0] x1 + [0]
                                       [0 0 0]      [0]
                                       [0 0 0]      [0]
                            c_0(x1) = [0 0 0] x1 + [0]
                                      [0 0 0]      [0]
                                      [0 0 0]      [0]
                            c_1() = [0]
                                    [0]
                                    [0]
                            f^#(x1) = [1 1 0] x1 + [1]
                                      [0 1 0]      [0]
                                      [0 0 0]      [1]
                            c_2(x1) = [1 0 0] x1 + [0]
                                      [0 0 1]      [0]
                                      [0 0 0]      [1]
                            c_3() = [0]
                                    [0]
                                    [0]
      
   3) {  id^#(s(x)) -> c_0(id^#(x))
       , id^#(0()) -> c_1()}
      
      The usable rules for this path are empty.
      
        We have oriented the usable rules with the following strongly linear interpretation:
          Interpretation Functions:
           0() = [0]
           f(x1) = [0] x1 + [0]
           s(x1) = [0] x1 + [0]
           id(x1) = [0] x1 + [0]
           id^#(x1) = [0] x1 + [0]
           c_0(x1) = [0] x1 + [0]
           c_1() = [0]
           f^#(x1) = [0] x1 + [0]
           c_2(x1) = [0] x1 + [0]
           c_3() = [0]
        
        We have applied the subprocessor on the resulting DP-problem:
        
          'Weight Gap Principle'
          ----------------------
          Answer:           YES(?,O(n^1))
          Input Problem:    innermost DP runtime-complexity with respect to
            Strict Rules: {id^#(0()) -> c_1()}
            Weak Rules: {id^#(s(x)) -> c_0(id^#(x))}
          
          Details:         
            We apply the weight gap principle, strictly orienting the rules
            {id^#(0()) -> c_1()}
            and weakly orienting the rules
            {id^#(s(x)) -> c_0(id^#(x))}
            using the following strongly linear interpretation:
              Processor 'Matrix Interpretation' oriented the following rules strictly:
              
              {id^#(0()) -> c_1()}
              
              Details:
                 Interpretation Functions:
                  0() = [0]
                  f(x1) = [0] x1 + [0]
                  s(x1) = [1] x1 + [0]
                  id(x1) = [0] x1 + [0]
                  id^#(x1) = [1] x1 + [1]
                  c_0(x1) = [1] x1 + [0]
                  c_1() = [0]
                  f^#(x1) = [0] x1 + [0]
                  c_2(x1) = [0] x1 + [0]
                  c_3() = [0]
              
            Finally we apply the subprocessor
            'Empty TRS'
            -----------
            Answer:           YES(?,O(1))
            Input Problem:    innermost DP runtime-complexity with respect to
              Strict Rules: {}
              Weak Rules:
                {  id^#(0()) -> c_1()
                 , id^#(s(x)) -> c_0(id^#(x))}
            
            Details:         
              The given problem does not contain any strict rules
      
   4) {id^#(s(x)) -> c_0(id^#(x))}
      
      The usable rules for this path are empty.
      
        We have oriented the usable rules with the following strongly linear interpretation:
          Interpretation Functions:
           0() = [0]
           f(x1) = [0] x1 + [0]
           s(x1) = [0] x1 + [0]
           id(x1) = [0] x1 + [0]
           id^#(x1) = [0] x1 + [0]
           c_0(x1) = [0] x1 + [0]
           c_1() = [0]
           f^#(x1) = [0] x1 + [0]
           c_2(x1) = [0] x1 + [0]
           c_3() = [0]
        
        We have applied the subprocessor on the resulting DP-problem:
        
          'Weight Gap Principle'
          ----------------------
          Answer:           YES(?,O(n^1))
          Input Problem:    innermost DP runtime-complexity with respect to
            Strict Rules: {id^#(s(x)) -> c_0(id^#(x))}
            Weak Rules: {}
          
          Details:         
            We apply the weight gap principle, strictly orienting the rules
            {id^#(s(x)) -> c_0(id^#(x))}
            and weakly orienting the rules
            {}
            using the following strongly linear interpretation:
              Processor 'Matrix Interpretation' oriented the following rules strictly:
              
              {id^#(s(x)) -> c_0(id^#(x))}
              
              Details:
                 Interpretation Functions:
                  0() = [0]
                  f(x1) = [0] x1 + [0]
                  s(x1) = [1] x1 + [8]
                  id(x1) = [0] x1 + [0]
                  id^#(x1) = [1] x1 + [1]
                  c_0(x1) = [1] x1 + [3]
                  c_1() = [0]
                  f^#(x1) = [0] x1 + [0]
                  c_2(x1) = [0] x1 + [0]
                  c_3() = [0]
              
            Finally we apply the subprocessor
            'Empty TRS'
            -----------
            Answer:           YES(?,O(1))
            Input Problem:    innermost DP runtime-complexity with respect to
              Strict Rules: {}
              Weak Rules: {id^#(s(x)) -> c_0(id^#(x))}
            
            Details:         
              The given problem does not contain any strict rules