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))