*** 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).