*** 1 Progress [(O(1),O(1))] ***
Considered Problem:
Strict DP Rules:
Strict TRS Rules:
*(x,+(y,z)) -> +(*(x,y),*(x,z))
*(+(x,y),z) -> +(*(x,z),*(y,z))
+(x,0()) -> x
+(x,i(x)) -> 0()
+(+(x,y),z) -> +(x,+(y,z))
Weak DP Rules:
Weak TRS Rules:
Signature:
{*/2,+/2} / {0/0,i/1}
Obligation:
Full
basic terms: {*,+}/{0,i}
Applied Processor:
DependencyPairs {dpKind_ = DT}
Proof:
We add the following weak dependency pairs:
Strict DPs
*#(x,+(y,z)) -> c_1(+#(*(x,y),*(x,z)))
*#(+(x,y),z) -> c_2(+#(*(x,z),*(y,z)))
+#(x,0()) -> c_3(x)
+#(x,i(x)) -> c_4()
+#(+(x,y),z) -> c_5(+#(x,+(y,z)))
Weak DPs
and mark the set of starting terms.
*** 1.1 Progress [(O(1),O(1))] ***
Considered Problem:
Strict DP Rules:
*#(x,+(y,z)) -> c_1(+#(*(x,y),*(x,z)))
*#(+(x,y),z) -> c_2(+#(*(x,z),*(y,z)))
+#(x,0()) -> c_3(x)
+#(x,i(x)) -> c_4()
+#(+(x,y),z) -> c_5(+#(x,+(y,z)))
Strict TRS Rules:
*(x,+(y,z)) -> +(*(x,y),*(x,z))
*(+(x,y),z) -> +(*(x,z),*(y,z))
+(x,0()) -> x
+(x,i(x)) -> 0()
+(+(x,y),z) -> +(x,+(y,z))
Weak DP Rules:
Weak TRS Rules:
Signature:
{*/2,+/2,*#/2,+#/2} / {0/0,i/1,c_1/1,c_2/1,c_3/1,c_4/0,c_5/1}
Obligation:
Full
basic terms: {*#,+#}/{0,i}
Applied Processor:
UsableRules
Proof:
We replace rewrite rules by usable rules:
+#(x,0()) -> c_3(x)
+#(x,i(x)) -> c_4()
*** 1.1.1 Progress [(O(1),O(1))] ***
Considered Problem:
Strict DP Rules:
+#(x,0()) -> c_3(x)
+#(x,i(x)) -> c_4()
Strict TRS Rules:
Weak DP Rules:
Weak TRS Rules:
Signature:
{*/2,+/2,*#/2,+#/2} / {0/0,i/1,c_1/1,c_2/1,c_3/1,c_4/0,c_5/1}
Obligation:
Full
basic terms: {*#,+#}/{0,i}
Applied Processor:
PredecessorEstimation {onSelection = all simple predecessor estimation selector}
Proof:
We estimate the number of application of
{2}
by application of
Pre({2}) = {1}.
Here rules are labelled as follows:
1: +#(x,0()) -> c_3(x)
2: +#(x,i(x)) -> c_4()
*** 1.1.1.1 Progress [(O(1),O(1))] ***
Considered Problem:
Strict DP Rules:
+#(x,0()) -> c_3(x)
Strict TRS Rules:
Weak DP Rules:
+#(x,i(x)) -> c_4()
Weak TRS Rules:
Signature:
{*/2,+/2,*#/2,+#/2} / {0/0,i/1,c_1/1,c_2/1,c_3/1,c_4/0,c_5/1}
Obligation:
Full
basic terms: {*#,+#}/{0,i}
Applied Processor:
RemoveWeakSuffixes
Proof:
Consider the dependency graph
1:S:+#(x,0()) -> c_3(x)
-->_1 +#(x,i(x)) -> c_4():2
-->_1 +#(x,0()) -> c_3(x):1
2:W:+#(x,i(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,i(x)) -> c_4()
*** 1.1.1.1.1 Progress [(O(1),O(1))] ***
Considered Problem:
Strict DP Rules:
+#(x,0()) -> c_3(x)
Strict TRS Rules:
Weak DP Rules:
Weak TRS Rules:
Signature:
{*/2,+/2,*#/2,+#/2} / {0/0,i/1,c_1/1,c_2/1,c_3/1,c_4/0,c_5/1}
Obligation:
Full
basic terms: {*#,+#}/{0,i}
Applied Processor:
WeightGap {wgDimension = 1, wgDegree = 0, wgKind = Algebraic, wgUArgs = UArgs, wgOn = WgOnAny}
Proof:
The weightgap principle applies using the following constant growth matrix-interpretation:
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]
p(0) = [0]
p(i) = [0]
p(*#) = [0]
p(+#) = [1]
p(c_1) = [0]
p(c_2) = [0]
p(c_3) = [0]
p(c_4) = [0]
p(c_5) = [0]
Following rules are strictly oriented:
+#(x,0()) = [1]
> [0]
= c_3(x)
Following rules are (at-least) weakly oriented:
Further, it can be verified that all rules not oriented are covered by the weightgap condition.
*** 1.1.1.1.1.1 Progress [(O(1),O(1))] ***
Considered Problem:
Strict DP Rules:
Strict TRS Rules:
Weak DP Rules:
+#(x,0()) -> c_3(x)
Weak TRS Rules:
Signature:
{*/2,+/2,*#/2,+#/2} / {0/0,i/1,c_1/1,c_2/1,c_3/1,c_4/0,c_5/1}
Obligation:
Full
basic terms: {*#,+#}/{0,i}
Applied Processor:
EmptyProcessor
Proof:
The problem is already closed. The intended complexity is O(1).