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))