We consider the following Problem:
Strict Trs:
{ cond1(true(), x, y, z) -> cond2(gr(y, z), x, y, z)
, cond2(true(), x, y, z) -> cond2(gr(y, z), x, p(y), z)
, cond2(false(), x, y, z) -> cond1(gr(x, z), p(x), y, z)
, gr(0(), x) -> false()
, gr(s(x), 0()) -> true()
, gr(s(x), s(y)) -> gr(x, y)
, p(0()) -> 0()
, p(s(x)) -> x}
StartTerms: basic terms
Strategy: innermost
Certificate: YES(?,O(n^1))
Proof:
We consider the following Problem:
Strict Trs:
{ cond1(true(), x, y, z) -> cond2(gr(y, z), x, y, z)
, cond2(true(), x, y, z) -> cond2(gr(y, z), x, p(y), z)
, cond2(false(), x, y, z) -> cond1(gr(x, z), p(x), y, z)
, gr(0(), x) -> false()
, gr(s(x), 0()) -> true()
, gr(s(x), s(y)) -> gr(x, y)
, p(0()) -> 0()
, p(s(x)) -> x}
StartTerms: basic terms
Strategy: innermost
Certificate: YES(?,O(n^1))
Proof:
The weightgap principle applies, where following rules are oriented strictly:
TRS Component:
{cond2(false(), x, y, z) -> cond1(gr(x, z), p(x), y, z)}
Interpretation of nonconstant growth:
-------------------------------------
The following argument positions are usable:
Uargs(cond1) = {1, 2}, Uargs(cond2) = {1, 3}, Uargs(gr) = {},
Uargs(p) = {}, Uargs(s) = {}
We have the following EDA-non-satisfying and IDA(1)-non-satisfying matrix interpretation:
Interpretation Functions:
cond1(x1, x2, x3, x4) = [1 0] x1 + [1 1] x2 + [1 1] x3 + [1 1] x4 + [1]
[0 0] [0 0] [0 0] [0 0] [1]
true() = [0]
[0]
cond2(x1, x2, x3, x4) = [1 1] x1 + [0 1] x2 + [1 1] x3 + [1 1] x4 + [1]
[0 0] [0 0] [0 0] [0 0] [1]
gr(x1, x2) = [0 0] x1 + [0 0] x2 + [0]
[0 0] [0 0] [0]
p(x1) = [0 1] x1 + [0]
[0 0] [0]
false() = [3]
[2]
0() = [0]
[0]
s(x1) = [0 0] x1 + [0]
[1 0] [0]
The strictly oriented rules are moved into the weak component.
We consider the following Problem:
Strict Trs:
{ cond1(true(), x, y, z) -> cond2(gr(y, z), x, y, z)
, cond2(true(), x, y, z) -> cond2(gr(y, z), x, p(y), z)
, gr(0(), x) -> false()
, gr(s(x), 0()) -> true()
, gr(s(x), s(y)) -> gr(x, y)
, p(0()) -> 0()
, p(s(x)) -> x}
Weak Trs: {cond2(false(), x, y, z) -> cond1(gr(x, z), p(x), y, z)}
StartTerms: basic terms
Strategy: innermost
Certificate: YES(?,O(n^1))
Proof:
The weightgap principle applies, where following rules are oriented strictly:
TRS Component: {p(0()) -> 0()}
Interpretation of nonconstant growth:
-------------------------------------
The following argument positions are usable:
Uargs(cond1) = {1, 2}, Uargs(cond2) = {1, 3}, Uargs(gr) = {},
Uargs(p) = {}, Uargs(s) = {}
We have the following EDA-non-satisfying and IDA(1)-non-satisfying matrix interpretation:
Interpretation Functions:
cond1(x1, x2, x3, x4) = [1 0] x1 + [1 1] x2 + [1 1] x3 + [1 1] x4 + [1]
[0 0] [0 0] [0 0] [0 0] [1]
true() = [0]
[0]
cond2(x1, x2, x3, x4) = [1 0] x1 + [0 1] x2 + [1 1] x3 + [1 1] x4 + [1]
[0 0] [0 0] [0 0] [0 0] [1]
gr(x1, x2) = [0 0] x1 + [0 0] x2 + [0]
[0 0] [0 0] [1]
p(x1) = [0 1] x1 + [0]
[0 0] [2]
false() = [2]
[0]
0() = [0]
[1]
s(x1) = [0 0] x1 + [0]
[1 0] [0]
The strictly oriented rules are moved into the weak component.
We consider the following Problem:
Strict Trs:
{ cond1(true(), x, y, z) -> cond2(gr(y, z), x, y, z)
, cond2(true(), x, y, z) -> cond2(gr(y, z), x, p(y), z)
, gr(0(), x) -> false()
, gr(s(x), 0()) -> true()
, gr(s(x), s(y)) -> gr(x, y)
, p(s(x)) -> x}
Weak Trs:
{ p(0()) -> 0()
, cond2(false(), x, y, z) -> cond1(gr(x, z), p(x), y, z)}
StartTerms: basic terms
Strategy: innermost
Certificate: YES(?,O(n^1))
Proof:
The weightgap principle applies, where following rules are oriented strictly:
TRS Component:
{cond2(true(), x, y, z) -> cond2(gr(y, z), x, p(y), z)}
Interpretation of nonconstant growth:
-------------------------------------
The following argument positions are usable:
Uargs(cond1) = {1, 2}, Uargs(cond2) = {1, 3}, Uargs(gr) = {},
Uargs(p) = {}, Uargs(s) = {}
We have the following EDA-non-satisfying and IDA(1)-non-satisfying matrix interpretation:
Interpretation Functions:
cond1(x1, x2, x3, x4) = [1 0] x1 + [1 1] x2 + [1 1] x3 + [1 1] x4 + [1]
[0 0] [0 0] [0 0] [0 0] [1]
true() = [0]
[2]
cond2(x1, x2, x3, x4) = [1 1] x1 + [0 1] x2 + [1 1] x3 + [1 1] x4 + [1]
[0 0] [0 0] [0 0] [0 0] [1]
gr(x1, x2) = [0 0] x1 + [0 0] x2 + [0]
[0 0] [0 0] [0]
p(x1) = [0 1] x1 + [0]
[0 0] [0]
false() = [0]
[0]
0() = [0]
[0]
s(x1) = [0 0] x1 + [0]
[1 0] [0]
The strictly oriented rules are moved into the weak component.
We consider the following Problem:
Strict Trs:
{ cond1(true(), x, y, z) -> cond2(gr(y, z), x, y, z)
, gr(0(), x) -> false()
, gr(s(x), 0()) -> true()
, gr(s(x), s(y)) -> gr(x, y)
, p(s(x)) -> x}
Weak Trs:
{ cond2(true(), x, y, z) -> cond2(gr(y, z), x, p(y), z)
, p(0()) -> 0()
, cond2(false(), x, y, z) -> cond1(gr(x, z), p(x), y, z)}
StartTerms: basic terms
Strategy: innermost
Certificate: YES(?,O(n^1))
Proof:
The weightgap principle applies, where following rules are oriented strictly:
TRS Component: {p(s(x)) -> x}
Interpretation of nonconstant growth:
-------------------------------------
The following argument positions are usable:
Uargs(cond1) = {1, 2}, Uargs(cond2) = {1, 3}, Uargs(gr) = {},
Uargs(p) = {}, Uargs(s) = {}
We have the following EDA-non-satisfying and IDA(1)-non-satisfying matrix interpretation:
Interpretation Functions:
cond1(x1, x2, x3, x4) = [1 0] x1 + [1 0] x2 + [1 1] x3 + [1 1] x4 + [1]
[0 0] [0 0] [0 0] [0 0] [1]
true() = [0]
[0]
cond2(x1, x2, x3, x4) = [1 0] x1 + [1 0] x2 + [1 1] x3 + [1 1] x4 + [1]
[0 0] [0 1] [0 0] [0 0] [1]
gr(x1, x2) = [0 0] x1 + [0 0] x2 + [0]
[0 0] [0 1] [3]
p(x1) = [1 0] x1 + [0]
[0 1] [0]
false() = [0]
[0]
0() = [0]
[1]
s(x1) = [1 0] x1 + [2]
[0 1] [0]
The strictly oriented rules are moved into the weak component.
We consider the following Problem:
Strict Trs:
{ cond1(true(), x, y, z) -> cond2(gr(y, z), x, y, z)
, gr(0(), x) -> false()
, gr(s(x), 0()) -> true()
, gr(s(x), s(y)) -> gr(x, y)}
Weak Trs:
{ p(s(x)) -> x
, cond2(true(), x, y, z) -> cond2(gr(y, z), x, p(y), z)
, p(0()) -> 0()
, cond2(false(), x, y, z) -> cond1(gr(x, z), p(x), y, z)}
StartTerms: basic terms
Strategy: innermost
Certificate: YES(?,O(n^1))
Proof:
The weightgap principle applies, where following rules are oriented strictly:
TRS Component: {cond1(true(), x, y, z) -> cond2(gr(y, z), x, y, z)}
Interpretation of nonconstant growth:
-------------------------------------
The following argument positions are usable:
Uargs(cond1) = {1, 2}, Uargs(cond2) = {1, 3}, Uargs(gr) = {},
Uargs(p) = {}, Uargs(s) = {}
We have the following EDA-non-satisfying and IDA(1)-non-satisfying matrix interpretation:
Interpretation Functions:
cond1(x1, x2, x3, x4) = [1 0] x1 + [1 0] x2 + [1 1] x3 + [1 1] x4 + [1]
[0 0] [0 0] [0 0] [0 0] [1]
true() = [0]
[0]
cond2(x1, x2, x3, x4) = [1 0] x1 + [1 0] x2 + [1 1] x3 + [1 1] x4 + [0]
[0 0] [0 0] [0 0] [0 0] [1]
gr(x1, x2) = [0 0] x1 + [0 0] x2 + [0]
[0 0] [0 0] [1]
p(x1) = [1 0] x1 + [0]
[0 1] [0]
false() = [2]
[0]
0() = [0]
[0]
s(x1) = [1 0] x1 + [0]
[0 1] [0]
The strictly oriented rules are moved into the weak component.
We consider the following Problem:
Strict Trs:
{ gr(0(), x) -> false()
, gr(s(x), 0()) -> true()
, gr(s(x), s(y)) -> gr(x, y)}
Weak Trs:
{ cond1(true(), x, y, z) -> cond2(gr(y, z), x, y, z)
, p(s(x)) -> x
, cond2(true(), x, y, z) -> cond2(gr(y, z), x, p(y), z)
, p(0()) -> 0()
, cond2(false(), x, y, z) -> cond1(gr(x, z), p(x), y, z)}
StartTerms: basic terms
Strategy: innermost
Certificate: YES(?,O(n^1))
Proof:
The weightgap principle applies, where following rules are oriented strictly:
TRS Component: {gr(0(), x) -> false()}
Interpretation of nonconstant growth:
-------------------------------------
The following argument positions are usable:
Uargs(cond1) = {1, 2}, Uargs(cond2) = {1, 3}, Uargs(gr) = {},
Uargs(p) = {}, Uargs(s) = {}
We have the following EDA-non-satisfying and IDA(1)-non-satisfying matrix interpretation:
Interpretation Functions:
cond1(x1, x2, x3, x4) = [1 1] x1 + [1 1] x2 + [1 1] x3 + [0 1] x4 + [0]
[0 0] [0 0] [0 0] [1 0] [1]
true() = [0]
[3]
cond2(x1, x2, x3, x4) = [1 1] x1 + [1 1] x2 + [1 1] x3 + [0 1] x4 + [1]
[0 0] [0 0] [0 0] [1 0] [1]
gr(x1, x2) = [0 0] x1 + [0 0] x2 + [1]
[0 0] [0 0] [1]
p(x1) = [0 1] x1 + [0]
[1 0] [0]
false() = [0]
[1]
0() = [0]
[0]
s(x1) = [0 1] x1 + [1]
[1 0] [1]
The strictly oriented rules are moved into the weak component.
We consider the following Problem:
Strict Trs:
{ gr(s(x), 0()) -> true()
, gr(s(x), s(y)) -> gr(x, y)}
Weak Trs:
{ gr(0(), x) -> false()
, cond1(true(), x, y, z) -> cond2(gr(y, z), x, y, z)
, p(s(x)) -> x
, cond2(true(), x, y, z) -> cond2(gr(y, z), x, p(y), z)
, p(0()) -> 0()
, cond2(false(), x, y, z) -> cond1(gr(x, z), p(x), y, z)}
StartTerms: basic terms
Strategy: innermost
Certificate: YES(?,O(n^1))
Proof:
We consider the following Problem:
Strict Trs:
{ gr(s(x), 0()) -> true()
, gr(s(x), s(y)) -> gr(x, y)}
Weak Trs:
{ gr(0(), x) -> false()
, cond1(true(), x, y, z) -> cond2(gr(y, z), x, y, z)
, p(s(x)) -> x
, cond2(true(), x, y, z) -> cond2(gr(y, z), x, p(y), z)
, p(0()) -> 0()
, cond2(false(), x, y, z) -> cond1(gr(x, z), p(x), y, z)}
StartTerms: basic terms
Strategy: innermost
Certificate: YES(?,O(n^1))
Proof:
We have computed the following dependency pairs
Strict DPs:
{ gr^#(s(x), 0()) -> c_1()
, gr^#(s(x), s(y)) -> gr^#(x, y)}
Weak DPs:
{ gr^#(0(), x) -> c_3()
, cond1^#(true(), x, y, z) -> cond2^#(gr(y, z), x, y, z)
, p^#(s(x)) -> c_5()
, cond2^#(true(), x, y, z) -> cond2^#(gr(y, z), x, p(y), z)
, p^#(0()) -> c_7()
, cond2^#(false(), x, y, z) -> cond1^#(gr(x, z), p(x), y, z)}
We consider the following Problem:
Strict DPs:
{ gr^#(s(x), 0()) -> c_1()
, gr^#(s(x), s(y)) -> gr^#(x, y)}
Strict Trs:
{ gr(s(x), 0()) -> true()
, gr(s(x), s(y)) -> gr(x, y)}
Weak DPs:
{ gr^#(0(), x) -> c_3()
, cond1^#(true(), x, y, z) -> cond2^#(gr(y, z), x, y, z)
, p^#(s(x)) -> c_5()
, cond2^#(true(), x, y, z) -> cond2^#(gr(y, z), x, p(y), z)
, p^#(0()) -> c_7()
, cond2^#(false(), x, y, z) -> cond1^#(gr(x, z), p(x), y, z)}
Weak Trs:
{ gr(0(), x) -> false()
, cond1(true(), x, y, z) -> cond2(gr(y, z), x, y, z)
, p(s(x)) -> x
, cond2(true(), x, y, z) -> cond2(gr(y, z), x, p(y), z)
, p(0()) -> 0()
, cond2(false(), x, y, z) -> cond1(gr(x, z), p(x), y, z)}
StartTerms: basic terms
Strategy: innermost
Certificate: YES(?,O(n^1))
Proof:
We replace strict/weak-rules by the corresponding usable rules:
Strict Usable Rules:
{ gr(s(x), 0()) -> true()
, gr(s(x), s(y)) -> gr(x, y)}
Weak Usable Rules:
{ gr(0(), x) -> false()
, p(s(x)) -> x
, p(0()) -> 0()}
We consider the following Problem:
Strict DPs:
{ gr^#(s(x), 0()) -> c_1()
, gr^#(s(x), s(y)) -> gr^#(x, y)}
Strict Trs:
{ gr(s(x), 0()) -> true()
, gr(s(x), s(y)) -> gr(x, y)}
Weak DPs:
{ gr^#(0(), x) -> c_3()
, cond1^#(true(), x, y, z) -> cond2^#(gr(y, z), x, y, z)
, p^#(s(x)) -> c_5()
, cond2^#(true(), x, y, z) -> cond2^#(gr(y, z), x, p(y), z)
, p^#(0()) -> c_7()
, cond2^#(false(), x, y, z) -> cond1^#(gr(x, z), p(x), y, z)}
Weak Trs:
{ gr(0(), x) -> false()
, p(s(x)) -> x
, p(0()) -> 0()}
StartTerms: basic terms
Strategy: innermost
Certificate: YES(?,O(n^1))
Proof:
We consider the following Problem:
Strict DPs:
{ gr^#(s(x), 0()) -> c_1()
, gr^#(s(x), s(y)) -> gr^#(x, y)}
Strict Trs:
{ gr(s(x), 0()) -> true()
, gr(s(x), s(y)) -> gr(x, y)}
Weak DPs:
{ gr^#(0(), x) -> c_3()
, cond1^#(true(), x, y, z) -> cond2^#(gr(y, z), x, y, z)
, p^#(s(x)) -> c_5()
, cond2^#(true(), x, y, z) -> cond2^#(gr(y, z), x, p(y), z)
, p^#(0()) -> c_7()
, cond2^#(false(), x, y, z) -> cond1^#(gr(x, z), p(x), y, z)}
Weak Trs:
{ gr(0(), x) -> false()
, p(s(x)) -> x
, p(0()) -> 0()}
StartTerms: basic terms
Strategy: innermost
Certificate: YES(?,O(n^1))
Proof:
We use following congruence DG for path analysis
->4:{2} [ YES(?,O(n^1)) ]
|
|->6:{1} [ YES(?,O(n^1)) ]
|
`->5:{3} [ YES(O(1),O(1)) ]
->3:{4,8,6} [ YES(O(1),O(1)) ]
->2:{5} [ YES(O(1),O(1)) ]
->1:{7} [ YES(O(1),O(1)) ]
Here dependency-pairs are as follows:
Strict DPs:
{ 1: gr^#(s(x), 0()) -> c_1()
, 2: gr^#(s(x), s(y)) -> gr^#(x, y)}
WeakDPs DPs:
{ 3: gr^#(0(), x) -> c_3()
, 4: cond1^#(true(), x, y, z) -> cond2^#(gr(y, z), x, y, z)
, 5: p^#(s(x)) -> c_5()
, 6: cond2^#(true(), x, y, z) -> cond2^#(gr(y, z), x, p(y), z)
, 7: p^#(0()) -> c_7()
, 8: cond2^#(false(), x, y, z) -> cond1^#(gr(x, z), p(x), y, z)}
* Path 4:{2}: YES(?,O(n^1))
-------------------------
We consider the following Problem:
Strict DPs: {gr^#(s(x), s(y)) -> gr^#(x, y)}
Strict Trs:
{ gr(s(x), 0()) -> true()
, gr(s(x), s(y)) -> gr(x, y)}
Weak Trs:
{ gr(0(), x) -> false()
, p(s(x)) -> x
, p(0()) -> 0()}
StartTerms: basic terms
Strategy: innermost
Certificate: YES(?,O(n^1))
Proof:
We consider the following Problem:
Strict DPs: {gr^#(s(x), s(y)) -> gr^#(x, y)}
Strict Trs:
{ gr(s(x), 0()) -> true()
, gr(s(x), s(y)) -> gr(x, y)}
Weak Trs:
{ gr(0(), x) -> false()
, p(s(x)) -> x
, p(0()) -> 0()}
StartTerms: basic terms
Strategy: innermost
Certificate: YES(?,O(n^1))
Proof:
We consider the following Problem:
Strict DPs: {gr^#(s(x), s(y)) -> gr^#(x, y)}
Strict Trs:
{ gr(s(x), 0()) -> true()
, gr(s(x), s(y)) -> gr(x, y)}
Weak Trs:
{ gr(0(), x) -> false()
, p(s(x)) -> x
, p(0()) -> 0()}
StartTerms: basic terms
Strategy: innermost
Certificate: YES(?,O(n^1))
Proof:
No rule is usable.
We consider the following Problem:
Strict DPs: {gr^#(s(x), s(y)) -> gr^#(x, y)}
StartTerms: basic terms
Strategy: innermost
Certificate: YES(?,O(n^1))
Proof:
The problem is match-bounded by 1.
The enriched problem is compatible with the following automaton:
{ s_0(2) -> 2
, gr^#_0(2, 2) -> 1
, gr^#_1(2, 2) -> 1}
* Path 4:{2}->6:{1}: YES(?,O(n^1))
--------------------------------
We consider the following Problem:
Strict DPs: {gr^#(s(x), 0()) -> c_1()}
Strict Trs:
{ gr(s(x), 0()) -> true()
, gr(s(x), s(y)) -> gr(x, y)}
Weak DPs: {gr^#(s(x), s(y)) -> gr^#(x, y)}
Weak Trs:
{ gr(0(), x) -> false()
, p(s(x)) -> x
, p(0()) -> 0()}
StartTerms: basic terms
Strategy: innermost
Certificate: YES(?,O(n^1))
Proof:
We consider the following Problem:
Strict DPs: {gr^#(s(x), 0()) -> c_1()}
Strict Trs:
{ gr(s(x), 0()) -> true()
, gr(s(x), s(y)) -> gr(x, y)}
Weak DPs: {gr^#(s(x), s(y)) -> gr^#(x, y)}
Weak Trs:
{ gr(0(), x) -> false()
, p(s(x)) -> x
, p(0()) -> 0()}
StartTerms: basic terms
Strategy: innermost
Certificate: YES(?,O(n^1))
Proof:
We consider the following Problem:
Strict DPs: {gr^#(s(x), 0()) -> c_1()}
Strict Trs:
{ gr(s(x), 0()) -> true()
, gr(s(x), s(y)) -> gr(x, y)}
Weak DPs: {gr^#(s(x), s(y)) -> gr^#(x, y)}
Weak Trs:
{ gr(0(), x) -> false()
, p(s(x)) -> x
, p(0()) -> 0()}
StartTerms: basic terms
Strategy: innermost
Certificate: YES(?,O(n^1))
Proof:
No rule is usable.
We consider the following Problem:
Strict DPs: {gr^#(s(x), 0()) -> c_1()}
Weak DPs: {gr^#(s(x), s(y)) -> gr^#(x, y)}
StartTerms: basic terms
Strategy: innermost
Certificate: YES(?,O(n^1))
Proof:
The problem is match-bounded by 1.
The enriched problem is compatible with the following automaton:
{ 0_0() -> 2
, s_0(2) -> 2
, gr^#_0(2, 2) -> 1
, c_1_1() -> 1}
* Path 4:{2}->5:{3}: YES(O(1),O(1))
---------------------------------
We consider the following Problem:
Strict Trs:
{ gr(s(x), 0()) -> true()
, gr(s(x), s(y)) -> gr(x, y)}
Weak DPs: {gr^#(s(x), s(y)) -> gr^#(x, y)}
Weak Trs:
{ gr(0(), x) -> false()
, p(s(x)) -> x
, p(0()) -> 0()}
StartTerms: basic terms
Strategy: innermost
Certificate: YES(O(1),O(1))
Proof:
We consider the following Problem:
Strict Trs:
{ gr(s(x), 0()) -> true()
, gr(s(x), s(y)) -> gr(x, y)}
Weak DPs: {gr^#(s(x), s(y)) -> gr^#(x, y)}
Weak Trs:
{ gr(0(), x) -> false()
, p(s(x)) -> x
, p(0()) -> 0()}
StartTerms: basic terms
Strategy: innermost
Certificate: YES(O(1),O(1))
Proof:
We consider the following Problem:
Strict Trs:
{ gr(s(x), 0()) -> true()
, gr(s(x), s(y)) -> gr(x, y)}
Weak DPs: {gr^#(s(x), s(y)) -> gr^#(x, y)}
Weak Trs:
{ gr(0(), x) -> false()
, p(s(x)) -> x
, p(0()) -> 0()}
StartTerms: basic terms
Strategy: innermost
Certificate: YES(O(1),O(1))
Proof:
No rule is usable.
We consider the following Problem:
Weak DPs: {gr^#(s(x), s(y)) -> gr^#(x, y)}
StartTerms: basic terms
Strategy: innermost
Certificate: YES(O(1),O(1))
Proof:
Empty rules are trivially bounded
* Path 3:{4,8,6}: YES(O(1),O(1))
------------------------------
We consider the following Problem:
Strict Trs:
{ gr(s(x), 0()) -> true()
, gr(s(x), s(y)) -> gr(x, y)}
Weak Trs:
{ gr(0(), x) -> false()
, p(s(x)) -> x
, p(0()) -> 0()}
StartTerms: basic terms
Strategy: innermost
Certificate: YES(O(1),O(1))
Proof:
We consider the following Problem:
Strict Trs:
{ gr(s(x), 0()) -> true()
, gr(s(x), s(y)) -> gr(x, y)}
Weak Trs:
{ gr(0(), x) -> false()
, p(s(x)) -> x
, p(0()) -> 0()}
StartTerms: basic terms
Strategy: innermost
Certificate: YES(O(1),O(1))
Proof:
We consider the following Problem:
Strict Trs:
{ gr(s(x), 0()) -> true()
, gr(s(x), s(y)) -> gr(x, y)}
Weak Trs:
{ gr(0(), x) -> false()
, p(s(x)) -> x
, p(0()) -> 0()}
StartTerms: basic terms
Strategy: innermost
Certificate: YES(O(1),O(1))
Proof:
No rule is usable.
We consider the following Problem:
StartTerms: basic terms
Strategy: innermost
Certificate: YES(O(1),O(1))
Proof:
Empty rules are trivially bounded
* Path 2:{5}: YES(O(1),O(1))
--------------------------
We consider the following Problem:
Strict Trs:
{ gr(s(x), 0()) -> true()
, gr(s(x), s(y)) -> gr(x, y)}
Weak Trs:
{ gr(0(), x) -> false()
, p(s(x)) -> x
, p(0()) -> 0()}
StartTerms: basic terms
Strategy: innermost
Certificate: YES(O(1),O(1))
Proof:
We consider the following Problem:
Strict Trs:
{ gr(s(x), 0()) -> true()
, gr(s(x), s(y)) -> gr(x, y)}
Weak Trs:
{ gr(0(), x) -> false()
, p(s(x)) -> x
, p(0()) -> 0()}
StartTerms: basic terms
Strategy: innermost
Certificate: YES(O(1),O(1))
Proof:
We consider the following Problem:
Strict Trs:
{ gr(s(x), 0()) -> true()
, gr(s(x), s(y)) -> gr(x, y)}
Weak Trs:
{ gr(0(), x) -> false()
, p(s(x)) -> x
, p(0()) -> 0()}
StartTerms: basic terms
Strategy: innermost
Certificate: YES(O(1),O(1))
Proof:
No rule is usable.
We consider the following Problem:
StartTerms: basic terms
Strategy: innermost
Certificate: YES(O(1),O(1))
Proof:
Empty rules are trivially bounded
* Path 1:{7}: YES(O(1),O(1))
--------------------------
We consider the following Problem:
Strict Trs:
{ gr(s(x), 0()) -> true()
, gr(s(x), s(y)) -> gr(x, y)}
Weak Trs:
{ gr(0(), x) -> false()
, p(s(x)) -> x
, p(0()) -> 0()}
StartTerms: basic terms
Strategy: innermost
Certificate: YES(O(1),O(1))
Proof:
We consider the following Problem:
Strict Trs:
{ gr(s(x), 0()) -> true()
, gr(s(x), s(y)) -> gr(x, y)}
Weak Trs:
{ gr(0(), x) -> false()
, p(s(x)) -> x
, p(0()) -> 0()}
StartTerms: basic terms
Strategy: innermost
Certificate: YES(O(1),O(1))
Proof:
We consider the following Problem:
Strict Trs:
{ gr(s(x), 0()) -> true()
, gr(s(x), s(y)) -> gr(x, y)}
Weak Trs:
{ gr(0(), x) -> false()
, p(s(x)) -> x
, p(0()) -> 0()}
StartTerms: basic terms
Strategy: innermost
Certificate: YES(O(1),O(1))
Proof:
No rule is usable.
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))