*** 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).