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