*** 1 Progress [(O(1),O(n^1))] ***
Considered Problem:
Strict DP Rules:
Strict TRS Rules:
activate(X) -> X
activate(n__from(X)) -> from(X)
after(0(),XS) -> XS
after(s(N),cons(X,XS)) -> after(N,activate(XS))
from(X) -> cons(X,n__from(s(X)))
from(X) -> n__from(X)
Weak DP Rules:
Weak TRS Rules:
Signature:
{activate/1,after/2,from/1} / {0/0,cons/2,n__from/1,s/1}
Obligation:
Full
basic terms: {activate,after,from}/{0,cons,n__from,s}
Applied Processor:
DependencyPairs {dpKind_ = DT}
Proof:
We add the following weak dependency pairs:
Strict DPs
activate#(X) -> c_1(X)
activate#(n__from(X)) -> c_2(from#(X))
after#(0(),XS) -> c_3(XS)
after#(s(N),cons(X,XS)) -> c_4(after#(N,activate(XS)))
from#(X) -> c_5(X,X)
from#(X) -> c_6(X)
Weak DPs
and mark the set of starting terms.
*** 1.1 Progress [(O(1),O(n^1))] ***
Considered Problem:
Strict DP Rules:
activate#(X) -> c_1(X)
activate#(n__from(X)) -> c_2(from#(X))
after#(0(),XS) -> c_3(XS)
after#(s(N),cons(X,XS)) -> c_4(after#(N,activate(XS)))
from#(X) -> c_5(X,X)
from#(X) -> c_6(X)
Strict TRS Rules:
activate(X) -> X
activate(n__from(X)) -> from(X)
after(0(),XS) -> XS
after(s(N),cons(X,XS)) -> after(N,activate(XS))
from(X) -> cons(X,n__from(s(X)))
from(X) -> n__from(X)
Weak DP Rules:
Weak TRS Rules:
Signature:
{activate/1,after/2,from/1,activate#/1,after#/2,from#/1} / {0/0,cons/2,n__from/1,s/1,c_1/1,c_2/1,c_3/1,c_4/1,c_5/2,c_6/1}
Obligation:
Full
basic terms: {activate#,after#,from#}/{0,cons,n__from,s}
Applied Processor:
UsableRules
Proof:
We replace rewrite rules by usable rules:
activate(X) -> X
activate(n__from(X)) -> from(X)
from(X) -> cons(X,n__from(s(X)))
from(X) -> n__from(X)
activate#(X) -> c_1(X)
activate#(n__from(X)) -> c_2(from#(X))
after#(0(),XS) -> c_3(XS)
after#(s(N),cons(X,XS)) -> c_4(after#(N,activate(XS)))
from#(X) -> c_5(X,X)
from#(X) -> c_6(X)
*** 1.1.1 Progress [(O(1),O(n^1))] ***
Considered Problem:
Strict DP Rules:
activate#(X) -> c_1(X)
activate#(n__from(X)) -> c_2(from#(X))
after#(0(),XS) -> c_3(XS)
after#(s(N),cons(X,XS)) -> c_4(after#(N,activate(XS)))
from#(X) -> c_5(X,X)
from#(X) -> c_6(X)
Strict TRS Rules:
activate(X) -> X
activate(n__from(X)) -> from(X)
from(X) -> cons(X,n__from(s(X)))
from(X) -> n__from(X)
Weak DP Rules:
Weak TRS Rules:
Signature:
{activate/1,after/2,from/1,activate#/1,after#/2,from#/1} / {0/0,cons/2,n__from/1,s/1,c_1/1,c_2/1,c_3/1,c_4/1,c_5/2,c_6/1}
Obligation:
Full
basic terms: {activate#,after#,from#}/{0,cons,n__from,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(after#) = {2},
uargs(c_2) = {1},
uargs(c_3) = {1},
uargs(c_4) = {1}
Following symbols are considered usable:
{}
TcT has computed the following interpretation:
p(0) = [0]
p(activate) = [1] x1 + [5]
p(after) = [0]
p(cons) = [1] x2 + [0]
p(from) = [1] x1 + [0]
p(n__from) = [1] x1 + [0]
p(s) = [1] x1 + [0]
p(activate#) = [0]
p(after#) = [1] x2 + [0]
p(from#) = [0]
p(c_1) = [0]
p(c_2) = [1] x1 + [0]
p(c_3) = [1] x1 + [0]
p(c_4) = [1] x1 + [0]
p(c_5) = [0]
p(c_6) = [0]
Following rules are strictly oriented:
activate(X) = [1] X + [5]
> [1] X + [0]
= X
activate(n__from(X)) = [1] X + [5]
> [1] X + [0]
= from(X)
Following rules are (at-least) weakly oriented:
activate#(X) = [0]
>= [0]
= c_1(X)
activate#(n__from(X)) = [0]
>= [0]
= c_2(from#(X))
after#(0(),XS) = [1] XS + [0]
>= [1] XS + [0]
= c_3(XS)
after#(s(N),cons(X,XS)) = [1] XS + [0]
>= [1] XS + [5]
= c_4(after#(N,activate(XS)))
from#(X) = [0]
>= [0]
= c_5(X,X)
from#(X) = [0]
>= [0]
= c_6(X)
from(X) = [1] X + [0]
>= [1] X + [0]
= cons(X,n__from(s(X)))
from(X) = [1] X + [0]
>= [1] X + [0]
= n__from(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:
activate#(X) -> c_1(X)
activate#(n__from(X)) -> c_2(from#(X))
after#(0(),XS) -> c_3(XS)
after#(s(N),cons(X,XS)) -> c_4(after#(N,activate(XS)))
from#(X) -> c_5(X,X)
from#(X) -> c_6(X)
Strict TRS Rules:
from(X) -> cons(X,n__from(s(X)))
from(X) -> n__from(X)
Weak DP Rules:
Weak TRS Rules:
activate(X) -> X
activate(n__from(X)) -> from(X)
Signature:
{activate/1,after/2,from/1,activate#/1,after#/2,from#/1} / {0/0,cons/2,n__from/1,s/1,c_1/1,c_2/1,c_3/1,c_4/1,c_5/2,c_6/1}
Obligation:
Full
basic terms: {activate#,after#,from#}/{0,cons,n__from,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(after#) = {2},
uargs(c_2) = {1},
uargs(c_3) = {1},
uargs(c_4) = {1}
Following symbols are considered usable:
{}
TcT has computed the following interpretation:
p(0) = [0]
p(activate) = [1] x1 + [0]
p(after) = [0]
p(cons) = [1] x2 + [0]
p(from) = [1] x1 + [0]
p(n__from) = [1] x1 + [0]
p(s) = [1] x1 + [7]
p(activate#) = [0]
p(after#) = [1] x2 + [0]
p(from#) = [1]
p(c_1) = [0]
p(c_2) = [1] x1 + [0]
p(c_3) = [1] x1 + [0]
p(c_4) = [1] x1 + [0]
p(c_5) = [0]
p(c_6) = [0]
Following rules are strictly oriented:
from#(X) = [1]
> [0]
= c_5(X,X)
from#(X) = [1]
> [0]
= c_6(X)
Following rules are (at-least) weakly oriented:
activate#(X) = [0]
>= [0]
= c_1(X)
activate#(n__from(X)) = [0]
>= [1]
= c_2(from#(X))
after#(0(),XS) = [1] XS + [0]
>= [1] XS + [0]
= c_3(XS)
after#(s(N),cons(X,XS)) = [1] XS + [0]
>= [1] XS + [0]
= c_4(after#(N,activate(XS)))
activate(X) = [1] X + [0]
>= [1] X + [0]
= X
activate(n__from(X)) = [1] X + [0]
>= [1] X + [0]
= from(X)
from(X) = [1] X + [0]
>= [1] X + [7]
= cons(X,n__from(s(X)))
from(X) = [1] X + [0]
>= [1] X + [0]
= n__from(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:
activate#(X) -> c_1(X)
activate#(n__from(X)) -> c_2(from#(X))
after#(0(),XS) -> c_3(XS)
after#(s(N),cons(X,XS)) -> c_4(after#(N,activate(XS)))
Strict TRS Rules:
from(X) -> cons(X,n__from(s(X)))
from(X) -> n__from(X)
Weak DP Rules:
from#(X) -> c_5(X,X)
from#(X) -> c_6(X)
Weak TRS Rules:
activate(X) -> X
activate(n__from(X)) -> from(X)
Signature:
{activate/1,after/2,from/1,activate#/1,after#/2,from#/1} / {0/0,cons/2,n__from/1,s/1,c_1/1,c_2/1,c_3/1,c_4/1,c_5/2,c_6/1}
Obligation:
Full
basic terms: {activate#,after#,from#}/{0,cons,n__from,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(after#) = {2},
uargs(c_2) = {1},
uargs(c_3) = {1},
uargs(c_4) = {1}
Following symbols are considered usable:
{}
TcT has computed the following interpretation:
p(0) = [0]
p(activate) = [1] x1 + [0]
p(after) = [0]
p(cons) = [1] x2 + [5]
p(from) = [0]
p(n__from) = [0]
p(s) = [1] x1 + [0]
p(activate#) = [0]
p(after#) = [1] x2 + [0]
p(from#) = [0]
p(c_1) = [0]
p(c_2) = [1] x1 + [0]
p(c_3) = [1] x1 + [0]
p(c_4) = [1] x1 + [0]
p(c_5) = [0]
p(c_6) = [0]
Following rules are strictly oriented:
after#(s(N),cons(X,XS)) = [1] XS + [5]
> [1] XS + [0]
= c_4(after#(N,activate(XS)))
Following rules are (at-least) weakly oriented:
activate#(X) = [0]
>= [0]
= c_1(X)
activate#(n__from(X)) = [0]
>= [0]
= c_2(from#(X))
after#(0(),XS) = [1] XS + [0]
>= [1] XS + [0]
= c_3(XS)
from#(X) = [0]
>= [0]
= c_5(X,X)
from#(X) = [0]
>= [0]
= c_6(X)
activate(X) = [1] X + [0]
>= [1] X + [0]
= X
activate(n__from(X)) = [0]
>= [0]
= from(X)
from(X) = [0]
>= [5]
= cons(X,n__from(s(X)))
from(X) = [0]
>= [0]
= n__from(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(n^1))] ***
Considered Problem:
Strict DP Rules:
activate#(X) -> c_1(X)
activate#(n__from(X)) -> c_2(from#(X))
after#(0(),XS) -> c_3(XS)
Strict TRS Rules:
from(X) -> cons(X,n__from(s(X)))
from(X) -> n__from(X)
Weak DP Rules:
after#(s(N),cons(X,XS)) -> c_4(after#(N,activate(XS)))
from#(X) -> c_5(X,X)
from#(X) -> c_6(X)
Weak TRS Rules:
activate(X) -> X
activate(n__from(X)) -> from(X)
Signature:
{activate/1,after/2,from/1,activate#/1,after#/2,from#/1} / {0/0,cons/2,n__from/1,s/1,c_1/1,c_2/1,c_3/1,c_4/1,c_5/2,c_6/1}
Obligation:
Full
basic terms: {activate#,after#,from#}/{0,cons,n__from,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(after#) = {2},
uargs(c_2) = {1},
uargs(c_3) = {1},
uargs(c_4) = {1}
Following symbols are considered usable:
{}
TcT has computed the following interpretation:
p(0) = [0]
p(activate) = [1] x1 + [0]
p(after) = [0]
p(cons) = [1] x2 + [0]
p(from) = [1] x1 + [0]
p(n__from) = [1] x1 + [0]
p(s) = [1] x1 + [0]
p(activate#) = [9] x1 + [0]
p(after#) = [1] x2 + [9]
p(from#) = [9] x1 + [0]
p(c_1) = [9] x1 + [0]
p(c_2) = [1] x1 + [0]
p(c_3) = [1] x1 + [0]
p(c_4) = [1] x1 + [0]
p(c_5) = [9] x1 + [0]
p(c_6) = [9] x1 + [0]
Following rules are strictly oriented:
after#(0(),XS) = [1] XS + [9]
> [1] XS + [0]
= c_3(XS)
Following rules are (at-least) weakly oriented:
activate#(X) = [9] X + [0]
>= [9] X + [0]
= c_1(X)
activate#(n__from(X)) = [9] X + [0]
>= [9] X + [0]
= c_2(from#(X))
after#(s(N),cons(X,XS)) = [1] XS + [9]
>= [1] XS + [9]
= c_4(after#(N,activate(XS)))
from#(X) = [9] X + [0]
>= [9] X + [0]
= c_5(X,X)
from#(X) = [9] X + [0]
>= [9] X + [0]
= c_6(X)
activate(X) = [1] X + [0]
>= [1] X + [0]
= X
activate(n__from(X)) = [1] X + [0]
>= [1] X + [0]
= from(X)
from(X) = [1] X + [0]
>= [1] X + [0]
= cons(X,n__from(s(X)))
from(X) = [1] X + [0]
>= [1] X + [0]
= n__from(X)
Further, it can be verified that all rules not oriented are covered by the weightgap condition.
*** 1.1.1.1.1.1.1 Progress [(O(1),O(n^1))] ***
Considered Problem:
Strict DP Rules:
activate#(X) -> c_1(X)
activate#(n__from(X)) -> c_2(from#(X))
Strict TRS Rules:
from(X) -> cons(X,n__from(s(X)))
from(X) -> n__from(X)
Weak DP Rules:
after#(0(),XS) -> c_3(XS)
after#(s(N),cons(X,XS)) -> c_4(after#(N,activate(XS)))
from#(X) -> c_5(X,X)
from#(X) -> c_6(X)
Weak TRS Rules:
activate(X) -> X
activate(n__from(X)) -> from(X)
Signature:
{activate/1,after/2,from/1,activate#/1,after#/2,from#/1} / {0/0,cons/2,n__from/1,s/1,c_1/1,c_2/1,c_3/1,c_4/1,c_5/2,c_6/1}
Obligation:
Full
basic terms: {activate#,after#,from#}/{0,cons,n__from,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(after#) = {2},
uargs(c_2) = {1},
uargs(c_3) = {1},
uargs(c_4) = {1}
Following symbols are considered usable:
{}
TcT has computed the following interpretation:
p(0) = [0]
p(activate) = [1] x1 + [0]
p(after) = [0]
p(cons) = [1] x2 + [0]
p(from) = [1] x1 + [0]
p(n__from) = [1] x1 + [0]
p(s) = [1] x1 + [0]
p(activate#) = [1]
p(after#) = [1] x2 + [0]
p(from#) = [0]
p(c_1) = [0]
p(c_2) = [1] x1 + [0]
p(c_3) = [1] x1 + [0]
p(c_4) = [1] x1 + [0]
p(c_5) = [0]
p(c_6) = [0]
Following rules are strictly oriented:
activate#(X) = [1]
> [0]
= c_1(X)
activate#(n__from(X)) = [1]
> [0]
= c_2(from#(X))
Following rules are (at-least) weakly oriented:
after#(0(),XS) = [1] XS + [0]
>= [1] XS + [0]
= c_3(XS)
after#(s(N),cons(X,XS)) = [1] XS + [0]
>= [1] XS + [0]
= c_4(after#(N,activate(XS)))
from#(X) = [0]
>= [0]
= c_5(X,X)
from#(X) = [0]
>= [0]
= c_6(X)
activate(X) = [1] X + [0]
>= [1] X + [0]
= X
activate(n__from(X)) = [1] X + [0]
>= [1] X + [0]
= from(X)
from(X) = [1] X + [0]
>= [1] X + [0]
= cons(X,n__from(s(X)))
from(X) = [1] X + [0]
>= [1] X + [0]
= n__from(X)
Further, it can be verified that all rules not oriented are covered by the weightgap condition.
*** 1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1 Progress [(O(1),O(n^1))] ***
Considered Problem:
Strict DP Rules:
Strict TRS Rules:
from(X) -> cons(X,n__from(s(X)))
from(X) -> n__from(X)
Weak DP Rules:
activate#(X) -> c_1(X)
activate#(n__from(X)) -> c_2(from#(X))
after#(0(),XS) -> c_3(XS)
after#(s(N),cons(X,XS)) -> c_4(after#(N,activate(XS)))
from#(X) -> c_5(X,X)
from#(X) -> c_6(X)
Weak TRS Rules:
activate(X) -> X
activate(n__from(X)) -> from(X)
Signature:
{activate/1,after/2,from/1,activate#/1,after#/2,from#/1} / {0/0,cons/2,n__from/1,s/1,c_1/1,c_2/1,c_3/1,c_4/1,c_5/2,c_6/1}
Obligation:
Full
basic terms: {activate#,after#,from#}/{0,cons,n__from,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(after#) = {2},
uargs(c_2) = {1},
uargs(c_3) = {1},
uargs(c_4) = {1}
Following symbols are considered usable:
{}
TcT has computed the following interpretation:
p(0) = [6]
p(activate) = [1] x1 + [1]
p(after) = [8] x1 + [1] x2 + [8]
p(cons) = [1] x2 + [0]
p(from) = [1] x1 + [1]
p(n__from) = [1] x1 + [0]
p(s) = [1] x1 + [3]
p(activate#) = [3] x1 + [13]
p(after#) = [3] x1 + [1] x2 + [3]
p(from#) = [8]
p(c_1) = [3] x1 + [2]
p(c_2) = [1] x1 + [0]
p(c_3) = [1] x1 + [1]
p(c_4) = [1] x1 + [4]
p(c_5) = [1]
p(c_6) = [2]
Following rules are strictly oriented:
from(X) = [1] X + [1]
> [1] X + [0]
= n__from(X)
Following rules are (at-least) weakly oriented:
activate#(X) = [3] X + [13]
>= [3] X + [2]
= c_1(X)
activate#(n__from(X)) = [3] X + [13]
>= [8]
= c_2(from#(X))
after#(0(),XS) = [1] XS + [21]
>= [1] XS + [1]
= c_3(XS)
after#(s(N),cons(X,XS)) = [3] N + [1] XS + [12]
>= [3] N + [1] XS + [8]
= c_4(after#(N,activate(XS)))
from#(X) = [8]
>= [1]
= c_5(X,X)
from#(X) = [8]
>= [2]
= c_6(X)
activate(X) = [1] X + [1]
>= [1] X + [0]
= X
activate(n__from(X)) = [1] X + [1]
>= [1] X + [1]
= from(X)
from(X) = [1] X + [1]
>= [1] X + [3]
= cons(X,n__from(s(X)))
Further, it can be verified that all rules not oriented are covered by the weightgap condition.
*** 1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1 Progress [(O(1),O(n^1))] ***
Considered Problem:
Strict DP Rules:
Strict TRS Rules:
from(X) -> cons(X,n__from(s(X)))
Weak DP Rules:
activate#(X) -> c_1(X)
activate#(n__from(X)) -> c_2(from#(X))
after#(0(),XS) -> c_3(XS)
after#(s(N),cons(X,XS)) -> c_4(after#(N,activate(XS)))
from#(X) -> c_5(X,X)
from#(X) -> c_6(X)
Weak TRS Rules:
activate(X) -> X
activate(n__from(X)) -> from(X)
from(X) -> n__from(X)
Signature:
{activate/1,after/2,from/1,activate#/1,after#/2,from#/1} / {0/0,cons/2,n__from/1,s/1,c_1/1,c_2/1,c_3/1,c_4/1,c_5/2,c_6/1}
Obligation:
Full
basic terms: {activate#,after#,from#}/{0,cons,n__from,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(after#) = {2},
uargs(c_2) = {1},
uargs(c_3) = {1},
uargs(c_4) = {1}
Following symbols are considered usable:
{}
TcT has computed the following interpretation:
p(0) = [0]
p(activate) = [1] x1 + [6]
p(after) = [1] x2 + [0]
p(cons) = [1] x2 + [0]
p(from) = [8]
p(n__from) = [2]
p(s) = [1] x1 + [4]
p(activate#) = [8] x1 + [4]
p(after#) = [4] x1 + [1] x2 + [1]
p(from#) = [8]
p(c_1) = [0]
p(c_2) = [1] x1 + [0]
p(c_3) = [1] x1 + [1]
p(c_4) = [1] x1 + [0]
p(c_5) = [8]
p(c_6) = [2]
Following rules are strictly oriented:
from(X) = [8]
> [2]
= cons(X,n__from(s(X)))
Following rules are (at-least) weakly oriented:
activate#(X) = [8] X + [4]
>= [0]
= c_1(X)
activate#(n__from(X)) = [20]
>= [8]
= c_2(from#(X))
after#(0(),XS) = [1] XS + [1]
>= [1] XS + [1]
= c_3(XS)
after#(s(N),cons(X,XS)) = [4] N + [1] XS + [17]
>= [4] N + [1] XS + [7]
= c_4(after#(N,activate(XS)))
from#(X) = [8]
>= [8]
= c_5(X,X)
from#(X) = [8]
>= [2]
= c_6(X)
activate(X) = [1] X + [6]
>= [1] X + [0]
= X
activate(n__from(X)) = [8]
>= [8]
= from(X)
from(X) = [8]
>= [2]
= n__from(X)
Further, it can be verified that all rules not oriented are covered by the weightgap condition.
*** 1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1 Progress [(O(1),O(1))] ***
Considered Problem:
Strict DP Rules:
Strict TRS Rules:
Weak DP Rules:
activate#(X) -> c_1(X)
activate#(n__from(X)) -> c_2(from#(X))
after#(0(),XS) -> c_3(XS)
after#(s(N),cons(X,XS)) -> c_4(after#(N,activate(XS)))
from#(X) -> c_5(X,X)
from#(X) -> c_6(X)
Weak TRS Rules:
activate(X) -> X
activate(n__from(X)) -> from(X)
from(X) -> cons(X,n__from(s(X)))
from(X) -> n__from(X)
Signature:
{activate/1,after/2,from/1,activate#/1,after#/2,from#/1} / {0/0,cons/2,n__from/1,s/1,c_1/1,c_2/1,c_3/1,c_4/1,c_5/2,c_6/1}
Obligation:
Full
basic terms: {activate#,after#,from#}/{0,cons,n__from,s}
Applied Processor:
EmptyProcessor
Proof:
The problem is already closed. The intended complexity is O(1).