* Step 1: DependencyPairs WORST_CASE(?,O(1)) + Considered Problem: - Strict TRS: *(x,+(y,z)) -> +(*(x,y),*(x,z)) *(+(x,y),z) -> +(*(x,z),*(y,z)) +(x,0()) -> x +(x,i(x)) -> 0() +(+(x,y),z) -> +(x,+(y,z)) - Signature: {*/2,+/2} / {0/0,i/1} - Obligation: runtime complexity wrt. defined symbols {*,+} and constructors {0,i} + Applied Processor: DependencyPairs {dpKind_ = DT} + Details: We add the following weak dependency pairs: Strict DPs *#(x,+(y,z)) -> c_1(+#(*(x,y),*(x,z))) *#(+(x,y),z) -> c_2(+#(*(x,z),*(y,z))) +#(x,0()) -> c_3(x) +#(x,i(x)) -> c_4() +#(+(x,y),z) -> c_5(+#(x,+(y,z))) Weak DPs and mark the set of starting terms. * Step 2: UsableRules WORST_CASE(?,O(1)) + Considered Problem: - Strict DPs: *#(x,+(y,z)) -> c_1(+#(*(x,y),*(x,z))) *#(+(x,y),z) -> c_2(+#(*(x,z),*(y,z))) +#(x,0()) -> c_3(x) +#(x,i(x)) -> c_4() +#(+(x,y),z) -> c_5(+#(x,+(y,z))) - Strict TRS: *(x,+(y,z)) -> +(*(x,y),*(x,z)) *(+(x,y),z) -> +(*(x,z),*(y,z)) +(x,0()) -> x +(x,i(x)) -> 0() +(+(x,y),z) -> +(x,+(y,z)) - Signature: {*/2,+/2,*#/2,+#/2} / {0/0,i/1,c_1/1,c_2/1,c_3/1,c_4/0,c_5/1} - Obligation: runtime complexity wrt. defined symbols {*#,+#} and constructors {0,i} + Applied Processor: UsableRules + Details: We replace rewrite rules by usable rules: +#(x,0()) -> c_3(x) +#(x,i(x)) -> c_4() * Step 3: PredecessorEstimation WORST_CASE(?,O(1)) + Considered Problem: - Strict DPs: +#(x,0()) -> c_3(x) +#(x,i(x)) -> c_4() - Signature: {*/2,+/2,*#/2,+#/2} / {0/0,i/1,c_1/1,c_2/1,c_3/1,c_4/0,c_5/1} - Obligation: runtime complexity wrt. defined symbols {*#,+#} and constructors {0,i} + Applied Processor: PredecessorEstimation {onSelection = all simple predecessor estimation selector} + Details: We estimate the number of application of {2} by application of Pre({2}) = {1}. Here rules are labelled as follows: 1: +#(x,0()) -> c_3(x) 2: +#(x,i(x)) -> c_4() * Step 4: RemoveWeakSuffixes WORST_CASE(?,O(1)) + Considered Problem: - Strict DPs: +#(x,0()) -> c_3(x) - Weak DPs: +#(x,i(x)) -> c_4() - Signature: {*/2,+/2,*#/2,+#/2} / {0/0,i/1,c_1/1,c_2/1,c_3/1,c_4/0,c_5/1} - Obligation: runtime complexity wrt. defined symbols {*#,+#} and constructors {0,i} + Applied Processor: RemoveWeakSuffixes + Details: Consider the dependency graph 1:S:+#(x,0()) -> c_3(x) -->_1 +#(x,i(x)) -> c_4():2 -->_1 +#(x,0()) -> c_3(x):1 2:W:+#(x,i(x)) -> c_4() The following weak DPs constitute a sub-graph of the DG that is closed under successors. The DPs are removed. 2: +#(x,i(x)) -> c_4() * Step 5: MI WORST_CASE(?,O(1)) + Considered Problem: - Strict DPs: +#(x,0()) -> c_3(x) - Signature: {*/2,+/2,*#/2,+#/2} / {0/0,i/1,c_1/1,c_2/1,c_3/1,c_4/0,c_5/1} - Obligation: runtime complexity wrt. defined symbols {*#,+#} and constructors {0,i} + Applied Processor: MI {miKind = MaximalMatrix (UpperTriangular (Multiplicity (Just 0))), miDimension = 1, miUArgs = UArgs, miURules = URules, miSelector = Just any strict-rules} + Details: We apply a matrix interpretation of kind MaximalMatrix (UpperTriangular (Multiplicity (Just 0))): The following argument positions are considered usable: none Following symbols are considered usable: all TcT has computed the following interpretation: p(*) = [0] p(+) = [0] p(0) = [2] p(i) = [0] p(*#) = [8] p(+#) = [1] x_1 + [2] x_2 + [0] p(c_1) = [0] p(c_2) = [0] p(c_3) = [0] p(c_4) = [0] p(c_5) = [0] Following rules are strictly oriented: +#(x,0()) = [1] x + [4] > [0] = c_3(x) Following rules are (at-least) weakly oriented: * Step 6: EmptyProcessor WORST_CASE(?,O(1)) + Considered Problem: - Weak DPs: +#(x,0()) -> c_3(x) - Signature: {*/2,+/2,*#/2,+#/2} / {0/0,i/1,c_1/1,c_2/1,c_3/1,c_4/0,c_5/1} - Obligation: runtime complexity wrt. defined symbols {*#,+#} and constructors {0,i} + Applied Processor: EmptyProcessor + Details: The problem is already closed. The intended complexity is O(1). WORST_CASE(?,O(1))