We consider the following Problem: Strict Trs: { g(X) -> h(X) , c() -> d() , h(d()) -> g(c())} StartTerms: basic terms Strategy: innermost Certificate: YES(?,O(n^1)) Proof: We consider the following Problem: Strict Trs: { g(X) -> h(X) , c() -> d() , h(d()) -> g(c())} StartTerms: basic terms Strategy: innermost Certificate: YES(?,O(n^1)) Proof: The weightgap principle applies, where following rules are oriented strictly: TRS Component: {g(X) -> h(X)} Interpretation of nonconstant growth: ------------------------------------- The following argument positions are usable: Uargs(g) = {1}, Uargs(h) = {} We have the following EDA-non-satisfying and IDA(1)-non-satisfying matrix interpretation: Interpretation Functions: g(x1) = [1 0] x1 + [3] [0 0] [1] h(x1) = [0 0] x1 + [1] [0 0] [1] c() = [0] [0] d() = [0] [0] The strictly oriented rules are moved into the weak component. We consider the following Problem: Strict Trs: { c() -> d() , h(d()) -> g(c())} Weak Trs: {g(X) -> h(X)} StartTerms: basic terms Strategy: innermost Certificate: YES(?,O(n^1)) Proof: The weightgap principle applies, where following rules are oriented strictly: TRS Component: {c() -> d()} Interpretation of nonconstant growth: ------------------------------------- The following argument positions are usable: Uargs(g) = {1}, Uargs(h) = {} We have the following EDA-non-satisfying and IDA(1)-non-satisfying matrix interpretation: Interpretation Functions: g(x1) = [1 3] x1 + [1] [0 0] [1] h(x1) = [0 0] x1 + [1] [0 0] [1] c() = [3] [3] d() = [0] [0] The strictly oriented rules are moved into the weak component. We consider the following Problem: Strict Trs: {h(d()) -> g(c())} Weak Trs: { c() -> d() , g(X) -> h(X)} StartTerms: basic terms Strategy: innermost Certificate: YES(?,O(n^1)) Proof: We consider the following Problem: Strict Trs: {h(d()) -> g(c())} Weak Trs: { c() -> d() , g(X) -> h(X)} StartTerms: basic terms Strategy: innermost Certificate: YES(?,O(n^1)) Proof: We have computed the following dependency pairs Strict DPs: {h^#(d()) -> g^#(c())} Weak DPs: { c^#() -> c_2() , g^#(X) -> h^#(X)} We consider the following Problem: Strict DPs: {h^#(d()) -> g^#(c())} Strict Trs: {h(d()) -> g(c())} Weak DPs: { c^#() -> c_2() , g^#(X) -> h^#(X)} Weak Trs: { c() -> d() , g(X) -> h(X)} StartTerms: basic terms Strategy: innermost Certificate: YES(?,O(n^1)) Proof: We replace strict/weak-rules by the corresponding usable rules: Weak Usable Rules: {c() -> d()} We consider the following Problem: Strict DPs: {h^#(d()) -> g^#(c())} Weak DPs: { c^#() -> c_2() , g^#(X) -> h^#(X)} Weak Trs: {c() -> d()} StartTerms: basic terms Strategy: innermost Certificate: YES(?,O(n^1)) Proof: We consider the following Problem: Strict DPs: {h^#(d()) -> g^#(c())} Weak DPs: { c^#() -> c_2() , g^#(X) -> h^#(X)} Weak Trs: {c() -> d()} StartTerms: basic terms Strategy: innermost Certificate: YES(?,O(n^1)) Proof: We use following congruence DG for path analysis ->2:{1,3} [ YES(O(1),O(1)) ] ->1:{2} [ YES(O(1),O(1)) ] Here dependency-pairs are as follows: Strict DPs: {1: h^#(d()) -> g^#(c())} WeakDPs DPs: { 2: c^#() -> c_2() , 3: g^#(X) -> h^#(X)} * Path 2:{1,3}: YES(O(1),O(1)) ---------------------------- We consider the following Problem: Strict DPs: {h^#(d()) -> g^#(c())} Weak Trs: {c() -> d()} StartTerms: basic terms Strategy: innermost Certificate: YES(O(1),O(1)) Proof: We consider the the dependency-graph 1: h^#(d()) -> g^#(c()) together with the congruence-graph ->1:{1} Noncyclic, trivial, SCC Here dependency-pairs are as follows: Strict DPs: {1: h^#(d()) -> g^#(c())} The following rules are either leafs or part of trailing weak paths, and thus they can be removed: {1: h^#(d()) -> g^#(c())} We consider the following Problem: Weak Trs: {c() -> d()} StartTerms: basic terms Strategy: innermost Certificate: YES(O(1),O(1)) Proof: We consider the following Problem: Weak Trs: {c() -> d()} 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:{2}: YES(O(1),O(1)) -------------------------- We consider the following Problem: Weak Trs: {c() -> d()} StartTerms: basic terms Strategy: innermost Certificate: YES(O(1),O(1)) Proof: We consider the following Problem: Weak Trs: {c() -> d()} StartTerms: basic terms Strategy: innermost Certificate: YES(O(1),O(1)) Proof: We consider the following Problem: Weak Trs: {c() -> d()} 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))