*** 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).