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