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