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