```* Step 1: Bounds WORST_CASE(?,O(n^1))
+ Considered Problem:
- Strict TRS:
app(X1,mark(X2)) -> mark(app(X1,X2))
app(mark(X1),X2) -> mark(app(X1,X2))
app(ok(X1),ok(X2)) -> ok(app(X1,X2))
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))
prefix(mark(X)) -> mark(prefix(X))
prefix(ok(X)) -> ok(prefix(X))
proper(nil()) -> ok(nil())
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:
- Obligation:
innermost runtime complexity wrt. defined symbols {app,cons,from,prefix,proper,s,top
+ Applied Processor:
Bounds {initialAutomaton = minimal, enrichment = match}
+ Details:
The problem is match-bounded by 2.
The enriched problem is compatible with follwoing automaton.
active_0(2) -> 2
active_1(2) -> 4
active_2(3) -> 5
app_0(2,2) -> 1
app_1(2,2) -> 3
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
nil_0() -> 2
nil_1() -> 3
ok_0(2) -> 2
ok_1(3) -> 1
ok_1(3) -> 3
ok_1(3) -> 4
prefix_0(2) -> 1
prefix_1(2) -> 3
proper_0(2) -> 1
proper_1(2) -> 4
s_0(2) -> 1
s_1(2) -> 3
top_0(2) -> 1
top_1(4) -> 1
top_2(5) -> 1
* Step 2: EmptyProcessor WORST_CASE(?,O(1))
+ Considered Problem:
- Weak TRS:
app(X1,mark(X2)) -> mark(app(X1,X2))
app(mark(X1),X2) -> mark(app(X1,X2))
app(ok(X1),ok(X2)) -> ok(app(X1,X2))
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))
prefix(mark(X)) -> mark(prefix(X))
prefix(ok(X)) -> ok(prefix(X))
proper(nil()) -> ok(nil())
s(mark(X)) -> mark(s(X))
s(ok(X)) -> ok(s(X))
top(mark(X)) -> top(proper(X))
top(ok(X)) -> top(active(X))