We consider the following Problem:
Strict Trs:
{ q(x, 0(), s(z)) -> s(q(x, s(z), s(z)))
, q(s(x), s(y), z) -> q(x, y, z)
, q(0(), s(y), s(z)) -> 0()}
StartTerms: basic terms
Strategy: innermost
Certificate: YES(?,O(n^1))
Proof:
We consider the following Problem:
Strict Trs:
{ q(x, 0(), s(z)) -> s(q(x, s(z), s(z)))
, q(s(x), s(y), z) -> q(x, y, z)
, q(0(), s(y), s(z)) -> 0()}
StartTerms: basic terms
Strategy: innermost
Certificate: YES(?,O(n^1))
Proof:
The weightgap principle applies, where following rules are oriented strictly:
TRS Component: {q(0(), s(y), s(z)) -> 0()}
Interpretation of nonconstant growth:
-------------------------------------
The following argument positions are usable:
Uargs(s) = {1}, Uargs(q) = {}
We have the following EDA-non-satisfying and IDA(1)-non-satisfying matrix interpretation:
Interpretation Functions:
0() = [0]
[0]
s(x1) = [1 2] x1 + [0]
[0 0] [1]
q(x1, x2, x3) = [0 0] x1 + [0 0] x2 + [0 0] x3 + [1]
[0 0] [0 0] [0 0] [0]
The strictly oriented rules are moved into the weak component.
We consider the following Problem:
Strict Trs:
{ q(x, 0(), s(z)) -> s(q(x, s(z), s(z)))
, q(s(x), s(y), z) -> q(x, y, z)}
Weak Trs: {q(0(), s(y), s(z)) -> 0()}
StartTerms: basic terms
Strategy: innermost
Certificate: YES(?,O(n^1))
Proof:
The weightgap principle applies, where following rules are oriented strictly:
TRS Component: {q(s(x), s(y), z) -> q(x, y, z)}
Interpretation of nonconstant growth:
-------------------------------------
The following argument positions are usable:
Uargs(s) = {1}, Uargs(q) = {}
We have the following EDA-non-satisfying and IDA(1)-non-satisfying matrix interpretation:
Interpretation Functions:
0() = [0]
[0]
s(x1) = [1 3] x1 + [0]
[0 0] [1]
q(x1, x2, x3) = [1 1] x1 + [0 0] x2 + [0 0] x3 + [0]
[0 0] [0 0] [0 1] [3]
The strictly oriented rules are moved into the weak component.
We consider the following Problem:
Strict Trs: {q(x, 0(), s(z)) -> s(q(x, s(z), s(z)))}
Weak Trs:
{ q(s(x), s(y), z) -> q(x, y, z)
, q(0(), s(y), s(z)) -> 0()}
StartTerms: basic terms
Strategy: innermost
Certificate: YES(?,O(n^1))
Proof:
We consider the following Problem:
Strict Trs: {q(x, 0(), s(z)) -> s(q(x, s(z), s(z)))}
Weak Trs:
{ q(s(x), s(y), z) -> q(x, y, z)
, q(0(), s(y), s(z)) -> 0()}
StartTerms: basic terms
Strategy: innermost
Certificate: YES(?,O(n^1))
Proof:
We have computed the following dependency pairs
Strict DPs: {q^#(x, 0(), s(z)) -> q^#(x, s(z), s(z))}
Weak DPs:
{ q^#(s(x), s(y), z) -> q^#(x, y, z)
, q^#(0(), s(y), s(z)) -> c_3()}
We consider the following Problem:
Strict DPs: {q^#(x, 0(), s(z)) -> q^#(x, s(z), s(z))}
Strict Trs: {q(x, 0(), s(z)) -> s(q(x, s(z), s(z)))}
Weak DPs:
{ q^#(s(x), s(y), z) -> q^#(x, y, z)
, q^#(0(), s(y), s(z)) -> c_3()}
Weak Trs:
{ q(s(x), s(y), z) -> q(x, y, z)
, q(0(), s(y), s(z)) -> 0()}
StartTerms: basic terms
Strategy: innermost
Certificate: YES(?,O(n^1))
Proof:
No rule is usable.
We consider the following Problem:
Strict DPs: {q^#(x, 0(), s(z)) -> q^#(x, s(z), s(z))}
Weak DPs:
{ q^#(s(x), s(y), z) -> q^#(x, y, z)
, q^#(0(), s(y), s(z)) -> c_3()}
StartTerms: basic terms
Strategy: innermost
Certificate: YES(?,O(n^1))
Proof:
We consider the following Problem:
Strict DPs: {q^#(x, 0(), s(z)) -> q^#(x, s(z), s(z))}
Weak DPs:
{ q^#(s(x), s(y), z) -> q^#(x, y, z)
, q^#(0(), s(y), s(z)) -> c_3()}
StartTerms: basic terms
Strategy: innermost
Certificate: YES(?,O(n^1))
Proof:
We use following congruence DG for path analysis
->1:{1,2} [ YES(O(1),O(1)) ]
|
`->2:{3} [ YES(O(1),O(1)) ]
Here dependency-pairs are as follows:
Strict DPs:
{1: q^#(x, 0(), s(z)) -> q^#(x, s(z), s(z))}
WeakDPs DPs:
{ 2: q^#(s(x), s(y), z) -> q^#(x, y, z)
, 3: q^#(0(), s(y), s(z)) -> c_3()}
* Path 1:{1,2}: YES(O(1),O(1))
----------------------------
We consider the following Problem:
Strict DPs: {q^#(x, 0(), s(z)) -> q^#(x, s(z), s(z))}
StartTerms: basic terms
Strategy: innermost
Certificate: YES(O(1),O(1))
Proof:
We consider the the dependency-graph
1: q^#(x, 0(), s(z)) -> q^#(x, s(z), s(z))
together with the congruence-graph
->1:{1} Noncyclic, trivial, SCC
Here dependency-pairs are as follows:
Strict DPs:
{1: q^#(x, 0(), s(z)) -> q^#(x, s(z), s(z))}
The following rules are either leafs or part of trailing weak paths, and thus they can be removed:
{1: q^#(x, 0(), s(z)) -> q^#(x, s(z), s(z))}
We consider the following Problem:
StartTerms: basic terms
Strategy: innermost
Certificate: YES(O(1),O(1))
Proof:
We consider the following Problem:
StartTerms: basic terms
Strategy: innermost
Certificate: YES(O(1),O(1))
Proof:
Empty rules are trivially bounded
* Path 1:{1,2}->2:{3}: YES(O(1),O(1))
-----------------------------------
We consider the following Problem:
Weak DPs:
{ q^#(s(x), s(y), z) -> q^#(x, y, z)
, q^#(x, 0(), s(z)) -> q^#(x, s(z), s(z))}
StartTerms: basic terms
Strategy: innermost
Certificate: YES(O(1),O(1))
Proof:
We consider the the dependency-graph
1: q^#(s(x), s(y), z) -> q^#(x, y, z)
-->_1 q^#(x, 0(), s(z)) -> q^#(x, s(z), s(z)) :2
-->_1 q^#(s(x), s(y), z) -> q^#(x, y, z) :1
2: q^#(x, 0(), s(z)) -> q^#(x, s(z), s(z))
-->_1 q^#(s(x), s(y), z) -> q^#(x, y, z) :1
together with the congruence-graph
->1:{1,2} Weak SCC
Here dependency-pairs are as follows:
WeakDPs DPs:
{ 1: q^#(s(x), s(y), z) -> q^#(x, y, z)
, 2: q^#(x, 0(), s(z)) -> q^#(x, s(z), s(z))}
The following rules are either leafs or part of trailing weak paths, and thus they can be removed:
{ 1: q^#(s(x), s(y), z) -> q^#(x, y, z)
, 2: q^#(x, 0(), s(z)) -> q^#(x, s(z), s(z))}
We consider the following Problem:
StartTerms: basic terms
Strategy: innermost
Certificate: YES(O(1),O(1))
Proof:
We consider the following Problem:
StartTerms: basic terms
Strategy: innermost
Certificate: YES(O(1),O(1))
Proof:
Empty rules are trivially bounded
* Path 1:{1,2}->2:{3}: YES(O(1),O(1))
-----------------------------------
We consider the following Problem:
Weak DPs:
{ q^#(s(x), s(y), z) -> q^#(x, y, z)
, q^#(x, 0(), s(z)) -> q^#(x, s(z), s(z))}
StartTerms: basic terms
Strategy: innermost
Certificate: YES(O(1),O(1))
Proof:
We consider the the dependency-graph
1: q^#(s(x), s(y), z) -> q^#(x, y, z)
-->_1 q^#(x, 0(), s(z)) -> q^#(x, s(z), s(z)) :2
-->_1 q^#(s(x), s(y), z) -> q^#(x, y, z) :1
2: q^#(x, 0(), s(z)) -> q^#(x, s(z), s(z))
-->_1 q^#(s(x), s(y), z) -> q^#(x, y, z) :1
together with the congruence-graph
->1:{1,2} Weak SCC
Here dependency-pairs are as follows:
WeakDPs DPs:
{ 1: q^#(s(x), s(y), z) -> q^#(x, y, z)
, 2: q^#(x, 0(), s(z)) -> q^#(x, s(z), s(z))}
The following rules are either leafs or part of trailing weak paths, and thus they can be removed:
{ 1: q^#(s(x), s(y), z) -> q^#(x, y, z)
, 2: q^#(x, 0(), s(z)) -> q^#(x, s(z), s(z))}
We consider the following Problem:
StartTerms: basic terms
Strategy: innermost
Certificate: YES(O(1),O(1))
Proof:
We consider the following Problem:
StartTerms: basic terms
Strategy: innermost
Certificate: YES(O(1),O(1))
Proof:
Empty rules are trivially bounded
Hurray, we answered YES(?,O(n^1))