We consider the following Problem:
Strict Trs:
{ f(0(), y) -> 0()
, f(s(x), y) -> f(f(x, y), y)}
StartTerms: basic terms
Strategy: innermost
Certificate: YES(?,O(n^1))
Proof:
We consider the following Problem:
Strict Trs:
{ f(0(), y) -> 0()
, f(s(x), y) -> f(f(x, y), y)}
StartTerms: basic terms
Strategy: innermost
Certificate: YES(?,O(n^1))
Proof:
The weightgap principle applies, where following rules are oriented strictly:
TRS Component: {f(0(), y) -> 0()}
Interpretation of nonconstant growth:
-------------------------------------
The following argument positions are usable:
Uargs(f) = {1}, Uargs(s) = {}
We have the following EDA-non-satisfying and IDA(1)-non-satisfying matrix interpretation:
Interpretation Functions:
f(x1, x2) = [1 0] x1 + [0 0] x2 + [1]
[0 0] [1 1] [1]
0() = [0]
[0]
s(x1) = [1 0] x1 + [0]
[0 0] [0]
The strictly oriented rules are moved into the weak component.
We consider the following Problem:
Strict Trs: {f(s(x), y) -> f(f(x, y), y)}
Weak Trs: {f(0(), y) -> 0()}
StartTerms: basic terms
Strategy: innermost
Certificate: YES(?,O(n^1))
Proof:
The weightgap principle applies, where following rules are oriented strictly:
TRS Component: {f(s(x), y) -> f(f(x, y), y)}
Interpretation of nonconstant growth:
-------------------------------------
The following argument positions are usable:
Uargs(f) = {1}, Uargs(s) = {}
We have the following EDA-non-satisfying and IDA(1)-non-satisfying matrix interpretation:
Interpretation Functions:
f(x1, x2) = [1 0] x1 + [0 0] x2 + [0]
[0 0] [1 1] [1]
0() = [0]
[0]
s(x1) = [1 0] x1 + [2]
[0 0] [0]
The strictly oriented rules are moved into the weak component.
We consider the following Problem:
Weak Trs:
{ f(s(x), y) -> f(f(x, y), y)
, f(0(), y) -> 0()}
StartTerms: basic terms
Strategy: innermost
Certificate: YES(O(1),O(1))
Proof:
We consider the following Problem:
Weak Trs:
{ f(s(x), y) -> f(f(x, y), y)
, f(0(), y) -> 0()}
StartTerms: basic terms
Strategy: innermost
Certificate: YES(O(1),O(1))
Proof:
Empty rules are trivially bounded
Hurray, we answered YES(?,O(n^1))