*** 1 Progress [(O(1),O(1))] *** Considered Problem: Strict DP Rules: Strict TRS Rules: *(x,0()) -> 0() *(*(x,y),z) -> *(x,*(y,z)) *(1(),y) -> y *(i(x),x) -> 1() Weak DP Rules: Weak TRS Rules: Signature: {*/2} / {0/0,1/0,i/1} Obligation: Full basic terms: {*}/{0,1,i} Applied Processor: DependencyPairs {dpKind_ = DT} Proof: We add the following weak dependency pairs: Strict DPs *#(x,0()) -> c_1() *#(*(x,y),z) -> c_2(*#(x,*(y,z))) *#(1(),y) -> c_3(y) *#(i(x),x) -> c_4() Weak DPs and mark the set of starting terms. *** 1.1 Progress [(O(1),O(1))] *** Considered Problem: Strict DP Rules: *#(x,0()) -> c_1() *#(*(x,y),z) -> c_2(*#(x,*(y,z))) *#(1(),y) -> c_3(y) *#(i(x),x) -> c_4() Strict TRS Rules: *(x,0()) -> 0() *(*(x,y),z) -> *(x,*(y,z)) *(1(),y) -> y *(i(x),x) -> 1() Weak DP Rules: Weak TRS Rules: Signature: {*/2,*#/2} / {0/0,1/0,i/1,c_1/0,c_2/1,c_3/1,c_4/0} Obligation: Full basic terms: {*#}/{0,1,i} Applied Processor: UsableRules Proof: We replace rewrite rules by usable rules: *#(x,0()) -> c_1() *#(1(),y) -> c_3(y) *#(i(x),x) -> c_4() *** 1.1.1 Progress [(O(1),O(1))] *** Considered Problem: Strict DP Rules: *#(x,0()) -> c_1() *#(1(),y) -> c_3(y) *#(i(x),x) -> c_4() Strict TRS Rules: Weak DP Rules: Weak TRS Rules: Signature: {*/2,*#/2} / {0/0,1/0,i/1,c_1/0,c_2/1,c_3/1,c_4/0} Obligation: Full basic terms: {*#}/{0,1,i} Applied Processor: PredecessorEstimation {onSelection = all simple predecessor estimation selector} Proof: We estimate the number of application of {1,3} by application of Pre({1,3}) = {2}. Here rules are labelled as follows: 1: *#(x,0()) -> c_1() 2: *#(1(),y) -> c_3(y) 3: *#(i(x),x) -> c_4() *** 1.1.1.1 Progress [(O(1),O(1))] *** Considered Problem: Strict DP Rules: *#(1(),y) -> c_3(y) Strict TRS Rules: Weak DP Rules: *#(x,0()) -> c_1() *#(i(x),x) -> c_4() Weak TRS Rules: Signature: {*/2,*#/2} / {0/0,1/0,i/1,c_1/0,c_2/1,c_3/1,c_4/0} Obligation: Full basic terms: {*#}/{0,1,i} Applied Processor: RemoveWeakSuffixes Proof: Consider the dependency graph 1:S:*#(1(),y) -> c_3(y) -->_1 *#(i(x),x) -> c_4():3 -->_1 *#(x,0()) -> c_1():2 -->_1 *#(1(),y) -> c_3(y):1 2:W:*#(x,0()) -> c_1() 3:W:*#(i(x),x) -> c_4() The following weak DPs constitute a sub-graph of the DG that is closed under successors. The DPs are removed. 2: *#(x,0()) -> c_1() 3: *#(i(x),x) -> c_4() *** 1.1.1.1.1 Progress [(O(1),O(1))] *** Considered Problem: Strict DP Rules: *#(1(),y) -> c_3(y) Strict TRS Rules: Weak DP Rules: Weak TRS Rules: Signature: {*/2,*#/2} / {0/0,1/0,i/1,c_1/0,c_2/1,c_3/1,c_4/0} Obligation: Full basic terms: {*#}/{0,1,i} Applied Processor: NaturalMI {miDimension = 1, miDegree = 0, miKind = Algebraic, uargs = UArgs, urules = URules, selector = Just any strict-rules, greedy = NoGreedy} Proof: We apply a matrix interpretation of kind constructor based matrix interpretation (containing no more than 0 non-zero interpretation-entries in the diagonal of the component-wise maxima): The following argument positions are considered usable: none Following symbols are considered usable: {} TcT has computed the following interpretation: p(*) = [0] p(0) = [0] p(1) = [0] p(i) = [0] p(*#) = [1] x2 + [8] p(c_1) = [0] p(c_2) = [0] p(c_3) = [0] p(c_4) = [0] Following rules are strictly oriented: *#(1(),y) = [1] y + [8] > [0] = c_3(y) Following rules are (at-least) weakly oriented: *** 1.1.1.1.1.1 Progress [(O(1),O(1))] *** Considered Problem: Strict DP Rules: Strict TRS Rules: Weak DP Rules: *#(1(),y) -> c_3(y) Weak TRS Rules: Signature: {*/2,*#/2} / {0/0,1/0,i/1,c_1/0,c_2/1,c_3/1,c_4/0} Obligation: Full basic terms: {*#}/{0,1,i} Applied Processor: EmptyProcessor Proof: The problem is already closed. The intended complexity is O(1).