We consider the following Problem:
Strict Trs:
{ minus(minus(x)) -> x
, minus(h(x)) -> h(minus(x))
, minus(f(x, y)) -> f(minus(y), minus(x))}
StartTerms: basic terms
Strategy: innermost
Certificate: YES(?,O(n^1))
Proof:
We consider the following Problem:
Strict Trs:
{ minus(minus(x)) -> x
, minus(h(x)) -> h(minus(x))
, minus(f(x, y)) -> f(minus(y), minus(x))}
StartTerms: basic terms
Strategy: innermost
Certificate: YES(?,O(n^1))
Proof:
The weightgap principle applies, where following rules are oriented strictly:
TRS Component: {minus(minus(x)) -> x}
Interpretation of nonconstant growth:
-------------------------------------
The following argument positions are usable:
Uargs(minus) = {}, Uargs(h) = {1}, Uargs(f) = {1, 2}
We have the following EDA-non-satisfying and IDA(1)-non-satisfying matrix interpretation:
Interpretation Functions:
minus(x1) = [1 0] x1 + [2]
[0 1] [1]
h(x1) = [1 0] x1 + [0]
[0 1] [0]
f(x1, x2) = [1 0] x1 + [1 0] x2 + [0]
[0 0] [1 1] [0]
The strictly oriented rules are moved into the weak component.
We consider the following Problem:
Strict Trs:
{ minus(h(x)) -> h(minus(x))
, minus(f(x, y)) -> f(minus(y), minus(x))}
Weak Trs: {minus(minus(x)) -> x}
StartTerms: basic terms
Strategy: innermost
Certificate: YES(?,O(n^1))
Proof:
We consider the following Problem:
Strict Trs:
{ minus(h(x)) -> h(minus(x))
, minus(f(x, y)) -> f(minus(y), minus(x))}
Weak Trs: {minus(minus(x)) -> x}
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:
{ minus_0(2) -> 1
, minus_1(2) -> 3
, h_0(2) -> 2
, h_1(3) -> 1
, h_1(3) -> 3
, f_0(2, 2) -> 2
, f_1(3, 3) -> 1
, f_1(3, 3) -> 3}
Hurray, we answered YES(?,O(n^1))