*** 1 Progress [(O(1),O(n^1))] *** Considered Problem: Strict DP Rules: Strict TRS Rules: f(f(x)) -> f(x) f(s(x)) -> f(x) g(s(0())) -> g(f(s(0()))) Weak DP Rules: Weak TRS Rules: Signature: {f/1,g/1} / {0/0,s/1} Obligation: Full basic terms: {f,g}/{0,s} Applied Processor: DependencyPairs {dpKind_ = DT} Proof: We add the following weak dependency pairs: Strict DPs f#(f(x)) -> c_1(f#(x)) f#(s(x)) -> c_2(f#(x)) g#(s(0())) -> c_3(g#(f(s(0())))) Weak DPs and mark the set of starting terms. *** 1.1 Progress [(O(1),O(n^1))] *** Considered Problem: Strict DP Rules: f#(f(x)) -> c_1(f#(x)) f#(s(x)) -> c_2(f#(x)) g#(s(0())) -> c_3(g#(f(s(0())))) Strict TRS Rules: f(f(x)) -> f(x) f(s(x)) -> f(x) g(s(0())) -> g(f(s(0()))) Weak DP Rules: Weak TRS Rules: Signature: {f/1,g/1,f#/1,g#/1} / {0/0,s/1,c_1/1,c_2/1,c_3/1} Obligation: Full basic terms: {f#,g#}/{0,s} Applied Processor: UsableRules Proof: We replace rewrite rules by usable rules: f(f(x)) -> f(x) f(s(x)) -> f(x) f#(f(x)) -> c_1(f#(x)) f#(s(x)) -> c_2(f#(x)) g#(s(0())) -> c_3(g#(f(s(0())))) *** 1.1.1 Progress [(O(1),O(n^1))] *** Considered Problem: Strict DP Rules: f#(f(x)) -> c_1(f#(x)) f#(s(x)) -> c_2(f#(x)) g#(s(0())) -> c_3(g#(f(s(0())))) Strict TRS Rules: f(f(x)) -> f(x) f(s(x)) -> f(x) Weak DP Rules: Weak TRS Rules: Signature: {f/1,g/1,f#/1,g#/1} / {0/0,s/1,c_1/1,c_2/1,c_3/1} Obligation: Full basic terms: {f#,g#}/{0,s} Applied Processor: WeightGap {wgDimension = 1, wgDegree = 0, wgKind = Algebraic, wgUArgs = UArgs, wgOn = WgOnAny} Proof: The weightgap principle applies using the following nonconstant growth matrix-interpretation: We apply a matrix interpretation of kind constructor based matrix interpretation: The following argument positions are considered usable: uargs(g#) = {1}, uargs(c_1) = {1}, uargs(c_2) = {1}, uargs(c_3) = {1} Following symbols are considered usable: {} TcT has computed the following interpretation: p(0) = [4] p(f) = [4] x1 + [4] p(g) = [2] p(s) = [1] x1 + [0] p(f#) = [2] x1 + [0] p(g#) = [1] x1 + [0] p(c_1) = [1] x1 + [0] p(c_2) = [1] x1 + [0] p(c_3) = [1] x1 + [4] Following rules are strictly oriented: f#(f(x)) = [8] x + [8] > [2] x + [0] = c_1(f#(x)) f(f(x)) = [16] x + [20] > [4] x + [4] = f(x) Following rules are (at-least) weakly oriented: f#(s(x)) = [2] x + [0] >= [2] x + [0] = c_2(f#(x)) g#(s(0())) = [4] >= [24] = c_3(g#(f(s(0())))) f(s(x)) = [4] x + [4] >= [4] x + [4] = f(x) Further, it can be verified that all rules not oriented are covered by the weightgap condition. *** 1.1.1.1 Progress [(O(1),O(n^1))] *** Considered Problem: Strict DP Rules: f#(s(x)) -> c_2(f#(x)) g#(s(0())) -> c_3(g#(f(s(0())))) Strict TRS Rules: f(s(x)) -> f(x) Weak DP Rules: f#(f(x)) -> c_1(f#(x)) Weak TRS Rules: f(f(x)) -> f(x) Signature: {f/1,g/1,f#/1,g#/1} / {0/0,s/1,c_1/1,c_2/1,c_3/1} Obligation: Full basic terms: {f#,g#}/{0,s} Applied Processor: WeightGap {wgDimension = 1, wgDegree = 0, wgKind = Algebraic, wgUArgs = UArgs, wgOn = WgOnAny} Proof: The weightgap principle applies using the following nonconstant growth matrix-interpretation: We apply a matrix interpretation of kind constructor based matrix interpretation: The following argument positions are considered usable: uargs(g#) = {1}, uargs(c_1) = {1}, uargs(c_2) = {1}, uargs(c_3) = {1} Following symbols are considered usable: {} TcT has computed the following interpretation: p(0) = [0] p(f) = [1] p(g) = [0] p(s) = [1] x1 + [2] p(f#) = [0] p(g#) = [1] x1 + [9] p(c_1) = [1] x1 + [0] p(c_2) = [1] x1 + [0] p(c_3) = [1] x1 + [0] Following rules are strictly oriented: g#(s(0())) = [11] > [10] = c_3(g#(f(s(0())))) Following rules are (at-least) weakly oriented: f#(f(x)) = [0] >= [0] = c_1(f#(x)) f#(s(x)) = [0] >= [0] = c_2(f#(x)) f(f(x)) = [1] >= [1] = f(x) f(s(x)) = [1] >= [1] = f(x) Further, it can be verified that all rules not oriented are covered by the weightgap condition. *** 1.1.1.1.1 Progress [(O(1),O(n^1))] *** Considered Problem: Strict DP Rules: f#(s(x)) -> c_2(f#(x)) Strict TRS Rules: f(s(x)) -> f(x) Weak DP Rules: f#(f(x)) -> c_1(f#(x)) g#(s(0())) -> c_3(g#(f(s(0())))) Weak TRS Rules: f(f(x)) -> f(x) Signature: {f/1,g/1,f#/1,g#/1} / {0/0,s/1,c_1/1,c_2/1,c_3/1} Obligation: Full basic terms: {f#,g#}/{0,s} Applied Processor: WeightGap {wgDimension = 1, wgDegree = 0, wgKind = Algebraic, wgUArgs = UArgs, wgOn = WgOnAny} Proof: The weightgap principle applies using the following nonconstant growth matrix-interpretation: We apply a matrix interpretation of kind constructor based matrix interpretation: The following argument positions are considered usable: uargs(g#) = {1}, uargs(c_1) = {1}, uargs(c_2) = {1}, uargs(c_3) = {1} Following symbols are considered usable: {} TcT has computed the following interpretation: p(0) = [0] p(f) = [1] x1 + [0] p(g) = [0] p(s) = [1] x1 + [9] p(f#) = [1] x1 + [0] p(g#) = [1] x1 + [0] p(c_1) = [1] x1 + [0] p(c_2) = [1] x1 + [0] p(c_3) = [1] x1 + [0] Following rules are strictly oriented: f#(s(x)) = [1] x + [9] > [1] x + [0] = c_2(f#(x)) f(s(x)) = [1] x + [9] > [1] x + [0] = f(x) Following rules are (at-least) weakly oriented: f#(f(x)) = [1] x + [0] >= [1] x + [0] = c_1(f#(x)) g#(s(0())) = [9] >= [9] = c_3(g#(f(s(0())))) f(f(x)) = [1] x + [0] >= [1] x + [0] = f(x) 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: f#(f(x)) -> c_1(f#(x)) f#(s(x)) -> c_2(f#(x)) g#(s(0())) -> c_3(g#(f(s(0())))) Weak TRS Rules: f(f(x)) -> f(x) f(s(x)) -> f(x) Signature: {f/1,g/1,f#/1,g#/1} / {0/0,s/1,c_1/1,c_2/1,c_3/1} Obligation: Full basic terms: {f#,g#}/{0,s} Applied Processor: EmptyProcessor Proof: The problem is already closed. The intended complexity is O(1).