```* Step 1: Bounds WORST_CASE(?,O(n^1))
+ Considered Problem:
- Strict TRS:
2nd(mark(X)) -> mark(2nd(X))
2nd(ok(X)) -> ok(2nd(X))
cons(mark(X1),X2) -> mark(cons(X1,X2))
cons(ok(X1),ok(X2)) -> ok(cons(X1,X2))
from(mark(X)) -> mark(from(X))
from(ok(X)) -> ok(from(X))
s(mark(X)) -> mark(s(X))
s(ok(X)) -> ok(s(X))
top(mark(X)) -> top(proper(X))
top(ok(X)) -> top(active(X))
- Signature:
{2nd/1,cons/2,from/1,s/1,top/1} / {active/1,mark/1,ok/1,proper/1}
- Obligation:
innermost runtime complexity wrt. defined symbols {2nd,cons,from,s,top} and constructors {active,mark,ok
,proper}
+ Applied Processor:
Bounds {initialAutomaton = minimal, enrichment = match}
+ Details:
The problem is match-bounded by 1.
The enriched problem is compatible with follwoing automaton.
2nd_0(2) -> 1
2nd_1(2) -> 3
active_0(2) -> 2
active_1(2) -> 4
cons_0(2,2) -> 1
cons_1(2,2) -> 3
from_0(2) -> 1
from_1(2) -> 3
mark_0(2) -> 2
mark_1(3) -> 1
mark_1(3) -> 3
ok_0(2) -> 2
ok_1(3) -> 1
ok_1(3) -> 3
proper_0(2) -> 2
proper_1(2) -> 4
s_0(2) -> 1
s_1(2) -> 3
top_0(2) -> 1
top_1(4) -> 1
* Step 2: EmptyProcessor WORST_CASE(?,O(1))
+ Considered Problem:
- Weak TRS:
2nd(mark(X)) -> mark(2nd(X))
2nd(ok(X)) -> ok(2nd(X))
cons(mark(X1),X2) -> mark(cons(X1,X2))
cons(ok(X1),ok(X2)) -> ok(cons(X1,X2))
from(mark(X)) -> mark(from(X))
from(ok(X)) -> ok(from(X))
s(mark(X)) -> mark(s(X))
s(ok(X)) -> ok(s(X))
top(mark(X)) -> top(proper(X))
top(ok(X)) -> top(active(X))
- Signature:
{2nd/1,cons/2,from/1,s/1,top/1} / {active/1,mark/1,ok/1,proper/1}
- Obligation:
innermost runtime complexity wrt. defined symbols {2nd,cons,from,s,top} and constructors {active,mark,ok
,proper}
+ Applied Processor:
EmptyProcessor
+ Details:
The problem is already closed. The intended complexity is O(1).

WORST_CASE(?,O(n^1))
```