We are left with following problem, upon which TcT provides the
certificate YES(O(1),O(n^1)).
Strict Trs: { f(s(x), y, y) -> f(y, x, s(x)) }
Obligation:
runtime complexity
Answer:
YES(O(1),O(n^1))
We add the following weak dependency pairs:
Strict DPs: { f^#(s(x), y, y) -> c_1(f^#(y, x, s(x))) }
and mark the set of starting terms.
We are left with following problem, upon which TcT provides the
certificate YES(O(1),O(n^1)).
Strict DPs: { f^#(s(x), y, y) -> c_1(f^#(y, x, s(x))) }
Strict Trs: { f(s(x), y, y) -> f(y, x, s(x)) }
Obligation:
runtime complexity
Answer:
YES(O(1),O(n^1))
No rule is usable, rules are removed from the input problem.
We are left with following problem, upon which TcT provides the
certificate YES(O(1),O(n^1)).
Strict DPs: { f^#(s(x), y, y) -> c_1(f^#(y, x, s(x))) }
Obligation:
runtime complexity
Answer:
YES(O(1),O(n^1))
The weightgap principle applies (using the following constant
growth matrix-interpretation)
The following argument positions are usable:
none
TcT has computed the following constructor-restricted matrix
interpretation.
[s](x1) = [0]
[0]
[f^#](x1, x2, x3) = [1]
[0]
[c_1](x1) = [0]
[0]
The order satisfies the following ordering constraints:
[f^#(s(x), y, y)] = [1]
[0]
> [0]
[0]
= [c_1(f^#(y, x, s(x)))]
Further, it can be verified that all rules not oriented are covered by the weightgap condition.
We are left with following problem, upon which TcT provides the
certificate YES(?,O(n^1)).
Weak DPs: { f^#(s(x), y, y) -> c_1(f^#(y, x, s(x))) }
Obligation:
runtime complexity
Answer:
YES(?,O(n^1))
The following weak DPs constitute a sub-graph of the DG that is
closed under successors. The DPs are removed.
{ f^#(s(x), y, y) -> c_1(f^#(y, x, s(x))) }
We are left with following problem, upon which TcT provides the
certificate YES(?,O(n^1)).
Rules: Empty
Obligation:
runtime complexity
Answer:
YES(?,O(n^1))
We employ 'linear path analysis' using the following approximated
dependency graph:
empty
Hurray, we answered YES(O(1),O(n^1))