*** 1 Progress [(O(1),O(1))] *** Considered Problem: Strict DP Rules: Strict TRS Rules: gcd(x,0()) -> x gcd(0(),y) -> y gcd(s(x),s(y)) -> if(<(x,y),gcd(s(x),-(y,x)),gcd(-(x,y),s(y))) Weak DP Rules: Weak TRS Rules: Signature: {gcd/2} / {-/2,0/0,2,if/3,s/1} Obligation: Full basic terms: {gcd}/{-,0,<,if,s} Applied Processor: DependencyPairs {dpKind_ = DT} Proof: We add the following weak dependency pairs: Strict DPs gcd#(x,0()) -> c_1(x) gcd#(0(),y) -> c_2(y) gcd#(s(x),s(y)) -> c_3(x,y,gcd#(s(x),-(y,x)),gcd#(-(x,y),s(y))) Weak DPs and mark the set of starting terms. *** 1.1 Progress [(O(1),O(1))] *** Considered Problem: Strict DP Rules: gcd#(x,0()) -> c_1(x) gcd#(0(),y) -> c_2(y) gcd#(s(x),s(y)) -> c_3(x,y,gcd#(s(x),-(y,x)),gcd#(-(x,y),s(y))) Strict TRS Rules: gcd(x,0()) -> x gcd(0(),y) -> y gcd(s(x),s(y)) -> if(<(x,y),gcd(s(x),-(y,x)),gcd(-(x,y),s(y))) Weak DP Rules: Weak TRS Rules: Signature: {gcd/2,gcd#/2} / {-/2,0/0,2,if/3,s/1,c_1/1,c_2/1,c_3/4} Obligation: Full basic terms: {gcd#}/{-,0,<,if,s} Applied Processor: UsableRules Proof: We replace rewrite rules by usable rules: gcd#(x,0()) -> c_1(x) gcd#(0(),y) -> c_2(y) gcd#(s(x),s(y)) -> c_3(x,y,gcd#(s(x),-(y,x)),gcd#(-(x,y),s(y))) *** 1.1.1 Progress [(O(1),O(1))] *** Considered Problem: Strict DP Rules: gcd#(x,0()) -> c_1(x) gcd#(0(),y) -> c_2(y) gcd#(s(x),s(y)) -> c_3(x,y,gcd#(s(x),-(y,x)),gcd#(-(x,y),s(y))) Strict TRS Rules: Weak DP Rules: Weak TRS Rules: Signature: {gcd/2,gcd#/2} / {-/2,0/0,2,if/3,s/1,c_1/1,c_2/1,c_3/4} Obligation: Full basic terms: {gcd#}/{-,0,<,if,s} Applied Processor: SimplifyRHS Proof: Consider the dependency graph 1:S:gcd#(x,0()) -> c_1(x) -->_1 gcd#(s(x),s(y)) -> c_3(x,y,gcd#(s(x),-(y,x)),gcd#(-(x,y),s(y))):3 -->_1 gcd#(0(),y) -> c_2(y):2 -->_1 gcd#(x,0()) -> c_1(x):1 2:S:gcd#(0(),y) -> c_2(y) -->_1 gcd#(s(x),s(y)) -> c_3(x,y,gcd#(s(x),-(y,x)),gcd#(-(x,y),s(y))):3 -->_1 gcd#(0(),y) -> c_2(y):2 -->_1 gcd#(x,0()) -> c_1(x):1 3:S:gcd#(s(x),s(y)) -> c_3(x,y,gcd#(s(x),-(y,x)),gcd#(-(x,y),s(y))) -->_2 gcd#(s(x),s(y)) -> c_3(x,y,gcd#(s(x),-(y,x)),gcd#(-(x,y),s(y))):3 -->_1 gcd#(s(x),s(y)) -> c_3(x,y,gcd#(s(x),-(y,x)),gcd#(-(x,y),s(y))):3 -->_2 gcd#(0(),y) -> c_2(y):2 -->_1 gcd#(0(),y) -> c_2(y):2 -->_2 gcd#(x,0()) -> c_1(x):1 -->_1 gcd#(x,0()) -> c_1(x):1 Due to missing edges in the depndency graph, the right-hand sides of following rules could be simplified: gcd#(s(x),s(y)) -> c_3(x,y) *** 1.1.1.1 Progress [(O(1),O(1))] *** Considered Problem: Strict DP Rules: gcd#(x,0()) -> c_1(x) gcd#(0(),y) -> c_2(y) gcd#(s(x),s(y)) -> c_3(x,y) Strict TRS Rules: Weak DP Rules: Weak TRS Rules: Signature: {gcd/2,gcd#/2} / {-/2,0/0,2,if/3,s/1,c_1/1,c_2/1,c_3/2} Obligation: Full basic terms: {gcd#}/{-,0,<,if,s} 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(-) = [2] p(0) = [1] p(<) = [1] p(gcd) = [2] x1 + [1] x2 + [8] p(if) = [1] p(s) = [1] p(gcd#) = [11] x1 + [8] x2 + [0] p(c_1) = [8] x1 + [0] p(c_2) = [1] x1 + [1] p(c_3) = [6] Following rules are strictly oriented: gcd#(x,0()) = [11] x + [8] > [8] x + [0] = c_1(x) gcd#(0(),y) = [8] y + [11] > [1] y + [1] = c_2(y) gcd#(s(x),s(y)) = [19] > [6] = c_3(x,y) Following rules are (at-least) weakly oriented: *** 1.1.1.1.1 Progress [(O(1),O(1))] *** Considered Problem: Strict DP Rules: Strict TRS Rules: Weak DP Rules: gcd#(x,0()) -> c_1(x) gcd#(0(),y) -> c_2(y) gcd#(s(x),s(y)) -> c_3(x,y) Weak TRS Rules: Signature: {gcd/2,gcd#/2} / {-/2,0/0,2,if/3,s/1,c_1/1,c_2/1,c_3/2} Obligation: Full basic terms: {gcd#}/{-,0,<,if,s} Applied Processor: EmptyProcessor Proof: The problem is already closed. The intended complexity is O(1).