* Step 1: WeightGap WORST_CASE(?,O(n^1)) + Considered Problem: - Strict TRS: active(c()) -> mark(b()) f(X1,mark(X2),X3) -> mark(f(X1,X2,X3)) f(ok(X1),ok(X2),ok(X3)) -> ok(f(X1,X2,X3)) proper(b()) -> ok(b()) proper(c()) -> ok(c()) top(mark(X)) -> top(proper(X)) top(ok(X)) -> top(active(X)) - Signature: {active/1,f/3,proper/1,top/1} / {b/0,c/0,mark/1,ok/1} - Obligation: innermost runtime complexity wrt. defined symbols {active,f,proper,top} and constructors {b,c,mark,ok} + Applied Processor: WeightGap {wgDimension = 1, wgDegree = 1, wgKind = Algebraic, wgUArgs = UArgs, wgOn = WgOnAny} + Details: The weightgap principle applies using the following nonconstant growth matrix-interpretation: We apply a matrix interpretation of kind constructor based matrix interpretation: The following argument positions are considered usable: uargs(mark) = {1}, uargs(ok) = {1}, uargs(top) = {1} Following symbols are considered usable: all TcT has computed the following interpretation: p(active) = [1] x1 + [0] p(b) = [5] p(c) = [0] p(f) = [2] x2 + [0] p(mark) = [1] x1 + [0] p(ok) = [1] x1 + [15] p(proper) = [1] x1 + [0] p(top) = [1] x1 + [0] Following rules are strictly oriented: f(ok(X1),ok(X2),ok(X3)) = [2] X2 + [30] > [2] X2 + [15] = ok(f(X1,X2,X3)) top(ok(X)) = [1] X + [15] > [1] X + [0] = top(active(X)) Following rules are (at-least) weakly oriented: active(c()) = [0] >= [5] = mark(b()) f(X1,mark(X2),X3) = [2] X2 + [0] >= [2] X2 + [0] = mark(f(X1,X2,X3)) proper(b()) = [5] >= [20] = ok(b()) proper(c()) = [0] >= [15] = ok(c()) top(mark(X)) = [1] X + [0] >= [1] X + [0] = top(proper(X)) Further, it can be verified that all rules not oriented are covered by the weightgap condition. * Step 2: WeightGap WORST_CASE(?,O(n^1)) + Considered Problem: - Strict TRS: active(c()) -> mark(b()) f(X1,mark(X2),X3) -> mark(f(X1,X2,X3)) proper(b()) -> ok(b()) proper(c()) -> ok(c()) top(mark(X)) -> top(proper(X)) - Weak TRS: f(ok(X1),ok(X2),ok(X3)) -> ok(f(X1,X2,X3)) top(ok(X)) -> top(active(X)) - Signature: {active/1,f/3,proper/1,top/1} / {b/0,c/0,mark/1,ok/1} - Obligation: innermost runtime complexity wrt. defined symbols {active,f,proper,top} and constructors {b,c,mark,ok} + Applied Processor: WeightGap {wgDimension = 1, wgDegree = 1, wgKind = Algebraic, wgUArgs = UArgs, wgOn = WgOnAny} + Details: The weightgap principle applies using the following nonconstant growth matrix-interpretation: We apply a matrix interpretation of kind constructor based matrix interpretation: The following argument positions are considered usable: uargs(mark) = {1}, uargs(ok) = {1}, uargs(top) = {1} Following symbols are considered usable: all TcT has computed the following interpretation: p(active) = [1] x1 + [0] p(b) = [0] p(c) = [5] p(f) = [11] p(mark) = [1] x1 + [5] p(ok) = [1] x1 + [0] p(proper) = [1] x1 + [0] p(top) = [1] x1 + [0] Following rules are strictly oriented: top(mark(X)) = [1] X + [5] > [1] X + [0] = top(proper(X)) Following rules are (at-least) weakly oriented: active(c()) = [5] >= [5] = mark(b()) f(X1,mark(X2),X3) = [11] >= [16] = mark(f(X1,X2,X3)) f(ok(X1),ok(X2),ok(X3)) = [11] >= [11] = ok(f(X1,X2,X3)) proper(b()) = [0] >= [0] = ok(b()) proper(c()) = [5] >= [5] = ok(c()) top(ok(X)) = [1] X + [0] >= [1] X + [0] = top(active(X)) Further, it can be verified that all rules not oriented are covered by the weightgap condition. * Step 3: WeightGap WORST_CASE(?,O(n^1)) + Considered Problem: - Strict TRS: active(c()) -> mark(b()) f(X1,mark(X2),X3) -> mark(f(X1,X2,X3)) proper(b()) -> ok(b()) proper(c()) -> ok(c()) - Weak TRS: f(ok(X1),ok(X2),ok(X3)) -> ok(f(X1,X2,X3)) top(mark(X)) -> top(proper(X)) top(ok(X)) -> top(active(X)) - Signature: {active/1,f/3,proper/1,top/1} / {b/0,c/0,mark/1,ok/1} - Obligation: innermost runtime complexity wrt. defined symbols {active,f,proper,top} and constructors {b,c,mark,ok} + Applied Processor: WeightGap {wgDimension = 1, wgDegree = 1, wgKind = Algebraic, wgUArgs = UArgs, wgOn = WgOnAny} + Details: The weightgap principle applies using the following nonconstant growth matrix-interpretation: We apply a matrix interpretation of kind constructor based matrix interpretation: The following argument positions are considered usable: uargs(mark) = {1}, uargs(ok) = {1}, uargs(top) = {1} Following symbols are considered usable: all TcT has computed the following interpretation: p(active) = [1] x1 + [0] p(b) = [0] p(c) = [0] p(f) = [0] p(mark) = [1] x1 + [7] p(ok) = [1] x1 + [0] p(proper) = [1] x1 + [7] p(top) = [1] x1 + [0] Following rules are strictly oriented: proper(b()) = [7] > [0] = ok(b()) proper(c()) = [7] > [0] = ok(c()) Following rules are (at-least) weakly oriented: active(c()) = [0] >= [7] = mark(b()) f(X1,mark(X2),X3) = [0] >= [7] = mark(f(X1,X2,X3)) f(ok(X1),ok(X2),ok(X3)) = [0] >= [0] = ok(f(X1,X2,X3)) top(mark(X)) = [1] X + [7] >= [1] X + [7] = top(proper(X)) top(ok(X)) = [1] X + [0] >= [1] X + [0] = top(active(X)) Further, it can be verified that all rules not oriented are covered by the weightgap condition. * Step 4: WeightGap WORST_CASE(?,O(n^1)) + Considered Problem: - Strict TRS: active(c()) -> mark(b()) f(X1,mark(X2),X3) -> mark(f(X1,X2,X3)) - Weak TRS: f(ok(X1),ok(X2),ok(X3)) -> ok(f(X1,X2,X3)) proper(b()) -> ok(b()) proper(c()) -> ok(c()) top(mark(X)) -> top(proper(X)) top(ok(X)) -> top(active(X)) - Signature: {active/1,f/3,proper/1,top/1} / {b/0,c/0,mark/1,ok/1} - Obligation: innermost runtime complexity wrt. defined symbols {active,f,proper,top} and constructors {b,c,mark,ok} + Applied Processor: WeightGap {wgDimension = 1, wgDegree = 1, wgKind = Algebraic, wgUArgs = UArgs, wgOn = WgOnAny} + Details: The weightgap principle applies using the following nonconstant growth matrix-interpretation: We apply a matrix interpretation of kind constructor based matrix interpretation: The following argument positions are considered usable: uargs(mark) = {1}, uargs(ok) = {1}, uargs(top) = {1} Following symbols are considered usable: all TcT has computed the following interpretation: p(active) = [0] p(b) = [0] p(c) = [0] p(f) = [6] x1 + [2] x2 + [1] x3 + [6] p(mark) = [1] x1 + [8] p(ok) = [1] x1 + [2] p(proper) = [3] p(top) = [1] x1 + [0] Following rules are strictly oriented: f(X1,mark(X2),X3) = [6] X1 + [2] X2 + [1] X3 + [22] > [6] X1 + [2] X2 + [1] X3 + [14] = mark(f(X1,X2,X3)) Following rules are (at-least) weakly oriented: active(c()) = [0] >= [8] = mark(b()) f(ok(X1),ok(X2),ok(X3)) = [6] X1 + [2] X2 + [1] X3 + [24] >= [6] X1 + [2] X2 + [1] X3 + [8] = ok(f(X1,X2,X3)) proper(b()) = [3] >= [2] = ok(b()) proper(c()) = [3] >= [2] = ok(c()) top(mark(X)) = [1] X + [8] >= [3] = top(proper(X)) top(ok(X)) = [1] X + [2] >= [0] = top(active(X)) Further, it can be verified that all rules not oriented are covered by the weightgap condition. * Step 5: WeightGap WORST_CASE(?,O(n^1)) + Considered Problem: - Strict TRS: active(c()) -> mark(b()) - Weak TRS: f(X1,mark(X2),X3) -> mark(f(X1,X2,X3)) f(ok(X1),ok(X2),ok(X3)) -> ok(f(X1,X2,X3)) proper(b()) -> ok(b()) proper(c()) -> ok(c()) top(mark(X)) -> top(proper(X)) top(ok(X)) -> top(active(X)) - Signature: {active/1,f/3,proper/1,top/1} / {b/0,c/0,mark/1,ok/1} - Obligation: innermost runtime complexity wrt. defined symbols {active,f,proper,top} and constructors {b,c,mark,ok} + Applied Processor: WeightGap {wgDimension = 1, wgDegree = 1, wgKind = Algebraic, wgUArgs = UArgs, wgOn = WgOnAny} + Details: The weightgap principle applies using the following nonconstant growth matrix-interpretation: We apply a matrix interpretation of kind constructor based matrix interpretation: The following argument positions are considered usable: uargs(mark) = {1}, uargs(ok) = {1}, uargs(top) = {1} Following symbols are considered usable: all TcT has computed the following interpretation: p(active) = [1] x1 + [0] p(b) = [0] p(c) = [1] p(f) = [0] p(mark) = [1] x1 + [0] p(ok) = [1] x1 + [0] p(proper) = [1] x1 + [0] p(top) = [1] x1 + [0] Following rules are strictly oriented: active(c()) = [1] > [0] = mark(b()) Following rules are (at-least) weakly oriented: f(X1,mark(X2),X3) = [0] >= [0] = mark(f(X1,X2,X3)) f(ok(X1),ok(X2),ok(X3)) = [0] >= [0] = ok(f(X1,X2,X3)) proper(b()) = [0] >= [0] = ok(b()) proper(c()) = [1] >= [1] = ok(c()) top(mark(X)) = [1] X + [0] >= [1] X + [0] = top(proper(X)) top(ok(X)) = [1] X + [0] >= [1] X + [0] = top(active(X)) Further, it can be verified that all rules not oriented are covered by the weightgap condition. * Step 6: EmptyProcessor WORST_CASE(?,O(1)) + Considered Problem: - Weak TRS: active(c()) -> mark(b()) f(X1,mark(X2),X3) -> mark(f(X1,X2,X3)) f(ok(X1),ok(X2),ok(X3)) -> ok(f(X1,X2,X3)) proper(b()) -> ok(b()) proper(c()) -> ok(c()) top(mark(X)) -> top(proper(X)) top(ok(X)) -> top(active(X)) - Signature: {active/1,f/3,proper/1,top/1} / {b/0,c/0,mark/1,ok/1} - Obligation: innermost runtime complexity wrt. defined symbols {active,f,proper,top} and constructors {b,c,mark,ok} + Applied Processor: EmptyProcessor + Details: The problem is already closed. The intended complexity is O(1). WORST_CASE(?,O(n^1))