'Weak Dependency Graph [60.0]'
------------------------------
Answer:           YES(?,O(n^1))
Input Problem:    innermost runtime-complexity with respect to
  Rules:
    {  c(c(c(y))) -> c(c(a(y, 0())))
     , c(a(a(0(), x), y)) -> a(c(c(c(0()))), y)
     , c(y) -> y}

Details:         
  We have computed the following set of weak (innermost) dependency pairs:
   {  c^#(c(c(y))) -> c_0(c^#(c(a(y, 0()))))
    , c^#(a(a(0(), x), y)) -> c_1(c^#(c(c(0()))))
    , c^#(y) -> c_2()}
  
  The usable rules are:
   {  c(c(c(y))) -> c(c(a(y, 0())))
    , c(a(a(0(), x), y)) -> a(c(c(c(0()))), y)
    , c(y) -> y}
  
  The estimated dependency graph contains the following edges:
   {c^#(c(c(y))) -> c_0(c^#(c(a(y, 0()))))}
     ==> {c^#(a(a(0(), x), y)) -> c_1(c^#(c(c(0()))))}
   {c^#(c(c(y))) -> c_0(c^#(c(a(y, 0()))))}
     ==> {c^#(y) -> c_2()}
   {c^#(c(c(y))) -> c_0(c^#(c(a(y, 0()))))}
     ==> {c^#(c(c(y))) -> c_0(c^#(c(a(y, 0()))))}
   {c^#(a(a(0(), x), y)) -> c_1(c^#(c(c(0()))))}
     ==> {c^#(y) -> c_2()}
   {c^#(a(a(0(), x), y)) -> c_1(c^#(c(c(0()))))}
     ==> {c^#(a(a(0(), x), y)) -> c_1(c^#(c(c(0()))))}
   {c^#(a(a(0(), x), y)) -> c_1(c^#(c(c(0()))))}
     ==> {c^#(c(c(y))) -> c_0(c^#(c(a(y, 0()))))}
  
  We consider the following path(s):
   1) {  c^#(c(c(y))) -> c_0(c^#(c(a(y, 0()))))
       , c^#(a(a(0(), x), y)) -> c_1(c^#(c(c(0()))))
       , c^#(y) -> c_2()}
      
      The usable rules for this path are the following:
      {  c(c(c(y))) -> c(c(a(y, 0())))
       , c(a(a(0(), x), y)) -> a(c(c(c(0()))), y)
       , c(y) -> y}
      
        We have applied the subprocessor on the union of usable rules and weak (innermost) dependency pairs.
        
          'Weight Gap Principle'
          ----------------------
          Answer:           YES(?,O(n^1))
          Input Problem:    innermost runtime-complexity with respect to
            Rules:
              {  c(c(c(y))) -> c(c(a(y, 0())))
               , c(a(a(0(), x), y)) -> a(c(c(c(0()))), y)
               , c(y) -> y
               , c^#(c(c(y))) -> c_0(c^#(c(a(y, 0()))))
               , c^#(a(a(0(), x), y)) -> c_1(c^#(c(c(0()))))
               , c^#(y) -> c_2()}
          
          Details:         
            We apply the weight gap principle, strictly orienting the rules
            {c^#(y) -> c_2()}
            and weakly orienting the rules
            {}
            using the following strongly linear interpretation:
              Processor 'Matrix Interpretation' oriented the following rules strictly:
              
              {c^#(y) -> c_2()}
              
              Details:
                 Interpretation Functions:
                  c(x1) = [1] x1 + [0]
                  a(x1, x2) = [1] x1 + [1] x2 + [0]
                  0() = [0]
                  c^#(x1) = [1] x1 + [1]
                  c_0(x1) = [1] x1 + [0]
                  c_1(x1) = [1] x1 + [0]
                  c_2() = [0]
              
            Finally we apply the subprocessor
            We apply the weight gap principle, strictly orienting the rules
            {  c(a(a(0(), x), y)) -> a(c(c(c(0()))), y)
             , c^#(a(a(0(), x), y)) -> c_1(c^#(c(c(0()))))}
            and weakly orienting the rules
            {c^#(y) -> c_2()}
            using the following strongly linear interpretation:
              Processor 'Matrix Interpretation' oriented the following rules strictly:
              
              {  c(a(a(0(), x), y)) -> a(c(c(c(0()))), y)
               , c^#(a(a(0(), x), y)) -> c_1(c^#(c(c(0()))))}
              
              Details:
                 Interpretation Functions:
                  c(x1) = [1] x1 + [0]
                  a(x1, x2) = [1] x1 + [1] x2 + [8]
                  0() = [0]
                  c^#(x1) = [1] x1 + [0]
                  c_0(x1) = [1] x1 + [8]
                  c_1(x1) = [1] x1 + [9]
                  c_2() = [0]
              
            Finally we apply the subprocessor
            We apply the weight gap principle, strictly orienting the rules
            {c(y) -> y}
            and weakly orienting the rules
            {  c(a(a(0(), x), y)) -> a(c(c(c(0()))), y)
             , c^#(a(a(0(), x), y)) -> c_1(c^#(c(c(0()))))
             , c^#(y) -> c_2()}
            using the following strongly linear interpretation:
              Processor 'Matrix Interpretation' oriented the following rules strictly:
              
              {c(y) -> y}
              
              Details:
                 Interpretation Functions:
                  c(x1) = [1] x1 + [1]
                  a(x1, x2) = [1] x1 + [1] x2 + [2]
                  0() = [0]
                  c^#(x1) = [1] x1 + [2]
                  c_0(x1) = [1] x1 + [2]
                  c_1(x1) = [1] x1 + [0]
                  c_2() = [0]
              
            Finally we apply the subprocessor
            'fastest of 'combine', 'Bounds with default enrichment', 'Bounds with default enrichment''
            ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Answer:           YES(?,O(n^1))
            Input Problem:    innermost relative runtime-complexity with respect to
              Strict Rules:
                {  c(c(c(y))) -> c(c(a(y, 0())))
                 , c^#(c(c(y))) -> c_0(c^#(c(a(y, 0()))))}
              Weak Rules:
                {  c(y) -> y
                 , c(a(a(0(), x), y)) -> a(c(c(c(0()))), y)
                 , c^#(a(a(0(), x), y)) -> c_1(c^#(c(c(0()))))
                 , c^#(y) -> c_2()}
            
            Details:         
              The problem was solved by processor 'Bounds with default enrichment':
              'Bounds with default enrichment'
              --------------------------------
              Answer:           YES(?,O(n^1))
              Input Problem:    innermost relative runtime-complexity with respect to
                Strict Rules:
                  {  c(c(c(y))) -> c(c(a(y, 0())))
                   , c^#(c(c(y))) -> c_0(c^#(c(a(y, 0()))))}
                Weak Rules:
                  {  c(y) -> y
                   , c(a(a(0(), x), y)) -> a(c(c(c(0()))), y)
                   , c^#(a(a(0(), x), y)) -> c_1(c^#(c(c(0()))))
                   , c^#(y) -> c_2()}
              
              Details:         
                The problem is Match-bounded by 1.
                The enriched problem is compatible with the following automaton:
                {  c_0(3) -> 6
                 , c_0(3) -> 7
                 , c_0(7) -> 6
                 , c_1(10) -> 9
                 , a_0(2, 2) -> 2
                 , a_0(2, 3) -> 2
                 , a_0(3, 2) -> 2
                 , a_0(3, 3) -> 2
                 , a_1(3, 11) -> 9
                 , a_1(3, 11) -> 10
                 , 0_0() -> 3
                 , 0_0() -> 6
                 , 0_0() -> 7
                 , 0_1() -> 11
                 , c^#_0(2) -> 4
                 , c^#_0(3) -> 4
                 , c^#_0(6) -> 5
                 , c^#_1(9) -> 8
                 , c_0_1(8) -> 5
                 , c_1_0(5) -> 4
                 , c_2_0() -> 4
                 , c_2_0() -> 5
                 , c_2_1() -> 8}
      
   2) {  c^#(c(c(y))) -> c_0(c^#(c(a(y, 0()))))
       , c^#(a(a(0(), x), y)) -> c_1(c^#(c(c(0()))))}
      
      The usable rules for this path are the following:
      {  c(c(c(y))) -> c(c(a(y, 0())))
       , c(a(a(0(), x), y)) -> a(c(c(c(0()))), y)
       , c(y) -> y}
      
        We have applied the subprocessor on the union of usable rules and weak (innermost) dependency pairs.
        
          'Weight Gap Principle'
          ----------------------
          Answer:           YES(?,O(n^1))
          Input Problem:    innermost runtime-complexity with respect to
            Rules:
              {  c(c(c(y))) -> c(c(a(y, 0())))
               , c(a(a(0(), x), y)) -> a(c(c(c(0()))), y)
               , c(y) -> y
               , c^#(c(c(y))) -> c_0(c^#(c(a(y, 0()))))
               , c^#(a(a(0(), x), y)) -> c_1(c^#(c(c(0()))))}
          
          Details:         
            We apply the weight gap principle, strictly orienting the rules
            {  c(a(a(0(), x), y)) -> a(c(c(c(0()))), y)
             , c^#(a(a(0(), x), y)) -> c_1(c^#(c(c(0()))))}
            and weakly orienting the rules
            {}
            using the following strongly linear interpretation:
              Processor 'Matrix Interpretation' oriented the following rules strictly:
              
              {  c(a(a(0(), x), y)) -> a(c(c(c(0()))), y)
               , c^#(a(a(0(), x), y)) -> c_1(c^#(c(c(0()))))}
              
              Details:
                 Interpretation Functions:
                  c(x1) = [1] x1 + [0]
                  a(x1, x2) = [1] x1 + [1] x2 + [8]
                  0() = [0]
                  c^#(x1) = [1] x1 + [0]
                  c_0(x1) = [1] x1 + [0]
                  c_1(x1) = [1] x1 + [0]
                  c_2() = [0]
              
            Finally we apply the subprocessor
            We apply the weight gap principle, strictly orienting the rules
            {c(y) -> y}
            and weakly orienting the rules
            {  c(a(a(0(), x), y)) -> a(c(c(c(0()))), y)
             , c^#(a(a(0(), x), y)) -> c_1(c^#(c(c(0()))))}
            using the following strongly linear interpretation:
              Processor 'Matrix Interpretation' oriented the following rules strictly:
              
              {c(y) -> y}
              
              Details:
                 Interpretation Functions:
                  c(x1) = [1] x1 + [1]
                  a(x1, x2) = [1] x1 + [1] x2 + [2]
                  0() = [0]
                  c^#(x1) = [1] x1 + [2]
                  c_0(x1) = [1] x1 + [0]
                  c_1(x1) = [1] x1 + [2]
                  c_2() = [0]
              
            Finally we apply the subprocessor
            'fastest of 'combine', 'Bounds with default enrichment', 'Bounds with default enrichment''
            ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Answer:           YES(?,O(n^1))
            Input Problem:    innermost relative runtime-complexity with respect to
              Strict Rules:
                {  c(c(c(y))) -> c(c(a(y, 0())))
                 , c^#(c(c(y))) -> c_0(c^#(c(a(y, 0()))))}
              Weak Rules:
                {  c(y) -> y
                 , c(a(a(0(), x), y)) -> a(c(c(c(0()))), y)
                 , c^#(a(a(0(), x), y)) -> c_1(c^#(c(c(0()))))}
            
            Details:         
              The problem was solved by processor 'Bounds with default enrichment':
              'Bounds with default enrichment'
              --------------------------------
              Answer:           YES(?,O(n^1))
              Input Problem:    innermost relative runtime-complexity with respect to
                Strict Rules:
                  {  c(c(c(y))) -> c(c(a(y, 0())))
                   , c^#(c(c(y))) -> c_0(c^#(c(a(y, 0()))))}
                Weak Rules:
                  {  c(y) -> y
                   , c(a(a(0(), x), y)) -> a(c(c(c(0()))), y)
                   , c^#(a(a(0(), x), y)) -> c_1(c^#(c(c(0()))))}
              
              Details:         
                The problem is Match-bounded by 1.
                The enriched problem is compatible with the following automaton:
                {  c_0(3) -> 6
                 , c_0(3) -> 7
                 , c_0(7) -> 6
                 , c_1(10) -> 9
                 , a_0(2, 2) -> 2
                 , a_0(2, 3) -> 2
                 , a_0(3, 2) -> 2
                 , a_0(3, 3) -> 2
                 , a_1(3, 11) -> 9
                 , a_1(3, 11) -> 10
                 , 0_0() -> 3
                 , 0_0() -> 6
                 , 0_0() -> 7
                 , 0_1() -> 11
                 , c^#_0(2) -> 4
                 , c^#_0(3) -> 4
                 , c^#_0(6) -> 5
                 , c^#_1(9) -> 8
                 , c_0_1(8) -> 5
                 , c_1_0(5) -> 4}