*** 1 Progress [(O(1),O(n^1))]  ***
    Considered Problem:
      Strict DP Rules:
        
      Strict TRS Rules:
        concat(cons(U,V),Y) -> cons(U,concat(V,Y))
        concat(leaf(),Y) -> Y
        lessleaves(X,leaf()) -> false()
        lessleaves(cons(U,V),cons(W,Z)) -> lessleaves(concat(U,V),concat(W,Z))
        lessleaves(leaf(),cons(W,Z)) -> true()
      Weak DP Rules:
        
      Weak TRS Rules:
        
      Signature:
        {concat/2,lessleaves/2} / {cons/2,false/0,leaf/0,true/0}
      Obligation:
        Full
        basic terms: {concat,lessleaves}/{cons,false,leaf,true}
    Applied Processor:
      ToInnermost
    Proof:
      switch to innermost, as the system is overlay and right linear and does not contain weak rules
*** 1.1 Progress [(O(1),O(n^1))]  ***
    Considered Problem:
      Strict DP Rules:
        
      Strict TRS Rules:
        concat(cons(U,V),Y) -> cons(U,concat(V,Y))
        concat(leaf(),Y) -> Y
        lessleaves(X,leaf()) -> false()
        lessleaves(cons(U,V),cons(W,Z)) -> lessleaves(concat(U,V),concat(W,Z))
        lessleaves(leaf(),cons(W,Z)) -> true()
      Weak DP Rules:
        
      Weak TRS Rules:
        
      Signature:
        {concat/2,lessleaves/2} / {cons/2,false/0,leaf/0,true/0}
      Obligation:
        Innermost
        basic terms: {concat,lessleaves}/{cons,false,leaf,true}
    Applied Processor:
      Bounds {initialAutomaton = minimal, enrichment = match}
    Proof:
      The problem is match-bounded by 2.
      The enriched problem is compatible with follwoing automaton.
        concat_0(2,2) -> 1
        concat_1(2,2) -> 3
        concat_1(2,2) -> 4
        concat_1(2,2) -> 5
        concat_1(2,3) -> 3
        concat_1(2,3) -> 4
        concat_1(2,3) -> 5
        concat_2(2,3) -> 4
        concat_2(2,3) -> 5
        cons_0(2,2) -> 1
        cons_0(2,2) -> 2
        cons_0(2,2) -> 3
        cons_0(2,2) -> 4
        cons_0(2,2) -> 5
        cons_1(2,3) -> 1
        cons_1(2,3) -> 3
        cons_1(2,3) -> 4
        cons_1(2,3) -> 5
        false_0() -> 1
        false_0() -> 2
        false_0() -> 3
        false_0() -> 4
        false_0() -> 5
        false_1() -> 1
        leaf_0() -> 1
        leaf_0() -> 2
        leaf_0() -> 3
        leaf_0() -> 4
        leaf_0() -> 5
        lessleaves_0(2,2) -> 1
        lessleaves_1(3,3) -> 1
        lessleaves_2(4,5) -> 1
        true_0() -> 1
        true_0() -> 2
        true_0() -> 3
        true_0() -> 4
        true_0() -> 5
        true_1() -> 1
        2 -> 1
        2 -> 3
        2 -> 4
        2 -> 5
        3 -> 4
        3 -> 5
*** 1.1.1 Progress [(O(1),O(1))]  ***
    Considered Problem:
      Strict DP Rules:
        
      Strict TRS Rules:
        
      Weak DP Rules:
        
      Weak TRS Rules:
        concat(cons(U,V),Y) -> cons(U,concat(V,Y))
        concat(leaf(),Y) -> Y
        lessleaves(X,leaf()) -> false()
        lessleaves(cons(U,V),cons(W,Z)) -> lessleaves(concat(U,V),concat(W,Z))
        lessleaves(leaf(),cons(W,Z)) -> true()
      Signature:
        {concat/2,lessleaves/2} / {cons/2,false/0,leaf/0,true/0}
      Obligation:
        Innermost
        basic terms: {concat,lessleaves}/{cons,false,leaf,true}
    Applied Processor:
      EmptyProcessor
    Proof:
      The problem is already closed. The intended complexity is O(1).