We are left with following problem, upon which TcT provides the certificate YES(O(1),O(n^1)). Strict Trs: { 2nd(cons1(X, cons(Y, Z))) -> Y , 2nd(cons(X, X1)) -> 2nd(cons1(X, activate(X1))) , activate(X) -> X , activate(n__from(X)) -> from(X) , from(X) -> cons(X, n__from(s(X))) , from(X) -> n__from(X) } Obligation: runtime complexity Answer: YES(O(1),O(n^1)) We add the following weak dependency pairs: Strict DPs: { 2nd^#(cons1(X, cons(Y, Z))) -> c_1(Y) , 2nd^#(cons(X, X1)) -> c_2(2nd^#(cons1(X, activate(X1)))) , activate^#(X) -> c_3(X) , activate^#(n__from(X)) -> c_4(from^#(X)) , from^#(X) -> c_5(X, X) , from^#(X) -> c_6(X) } and mark the set of starting terms. We are left with following problem, upon which TcT provides the certificate YES(O(1),O(n^1)). Strict DPs: { 2nd^#(cons1(X, cons(Y, Z))) -> c_1(Y) , 2nd^#(cons(X, X1)) -> c_2(2nd^#(cons1(X, activate(X1)))) , activate^#(X) -> c_3(X) , activate^#(n__from(X)) -> c_4(from^#(X)) , from^#(X) -> c_5(X, X) , from^#(X) -> c_6(X) } Strict Trs: { 2nd(cons1(X, cons(Y, Z))) -> Y , 2nd(cons(X, X1)) -> 2nd(cons1(X, activate(X1))) , activate(X) -> X , activate(n__from(X)) -> from(X) , from(X) -> cons(X, n__from(s(X))) , from(X) -> n__from(X) } Obligation: runtime complexity Answer: YES(O(1),O(n^1)) We replace rewrite rules by usable rules: Strict Usable Rules: { activate(X) -> X , activate(n__from(X)) -> from(X) , from(X) -> cons(X, n__from(s(X))) , from(X) -> n__from(X) } We are left with following problem, upon which TcT provides the certificate YES(O(1),O(n^1)). Strict DPs: { 2nd^#(cons1(X, cons(Y, Z))) -> c_1(Y) , 2nd^#(cons(X, X1)) -> c_2(2nd^#(cons1(X, activate(X1)))) , activate^#(X) -> c_3(X) , activate^#(n__from(X)) -> c_4(from^#(X)) , from^#(X) -> c_5(X, X) , from^#(X) -> c_6(X) } Strict Trs: { activate(X) -> X , activate(n__from(X)) -> from(X) , from(X) -> cons(X, n__from(s(X))) , from(X) -> n__from(X) } Obligation: runtime complexity Answer: YES(O(1),O(n^1)) The weightgap principle applies (using the following constant growth matrix-interpretation) The following argument positions are usable: Uargs(cons1) = {2}, Uargs(2nd^#) = {1}, Uargs(c_2) = {1}, Uargs(c_4) = {1} TcT has computed the following constructor-restricted matrix interpretation. [cons1](x1, x2) = [1 0] x2 + [0] [0 0] [0] [cons](x1, x2) = [1 0] x2 + [0] [0 0] [0] [activate](x1) = [1 0] x1 + [2] [0 2] [0] [from](x1) = [1 0] x1 + [1] [0 0] [0] [n__from](x1) = [1 0] x1 + [0] [0 0] [0] [s](x1) = [0] [0] [2nd^#](x1) = [1 0] x1 + [0] [0 0] [0] [c_1](x1) = [0] [0] [c_2](x1) = [1 0] x1 + [0] [0 1] [0] [activate^#](x1) = [0] [0] [c_3](x1) = [0] [0] [c_4](x1) = [1 0] x1 + [0] [0 1] [1] [from^#](x1) = [0] [1] [c_5](x1, x2) = [0 0] x1 + [0 0] x2 + [0] [0 1] [0 1] [0] [c_6](x1) = [0] [0] The order satisfies the following ordering constraints: [activate(X)] = [1 0] X + [2] [0 2] [0] > [1 0] X + [0] [0 1] [0] = [X] [activate(n__from(X))] = [1 0] X + [2] [0 0] [0] > [1 0] X + [1] [0 0] [0] = [from(X)] [from(X)] = [1 0] X + [1] [0 0] [0] > [0] [0] = [cons(X, n__from(s(X)))] [from(X)] = [1 0] X + [1] [0 0] [0] > [1 0] X + [0] [0 0] [0] = [n__from(X)] [2nd^#(cons1(X, cons(Y, Z)))] = [1 0] Z + [0] [0 0] [0] >= [0] [0] = [c_1(Y)] [2nd^#(cons(X, X1))] = [1 0] X1 + [0] [0 0] [0] ? [1 0] X1 + [2] [0 0] [0] = [c_2(2nd^#(cons1(X, activate(X1))))] [activate^#(X)] = [0] [0] >= [0] [0] = [c_3(X)] [activate^#(n__from(X))] = [0] [0] ? [0] [2] = [c_4(from^#(X))] [from^#(X)] = [0] [1] ? [0 0] X + [0] [0 2] [0] = [c_5(X, X)] [from^#(X)] = [0] [1] >= [0] [0] = [c_6(X)] Further, it can be verified that all rules not oriented are covered by the weightgap condition. We are left with following problem, upon which TcT provides the certificate YES(O(1),O(n^1)). Strict DPs: { 2nd^#(cons1(X, cons(Y, Z))) -> c_1(Y) , 2nd^#(cons(X, X1)) -> c_2(2nd^#(cons1(X, activate(X1)))) , activate^#(X) -> c_3(X) , activate^#(n__from(X)) -> c_4(from^#(X)) , from^#(X) -> c_5(X, X) , from^#(X) -> c_6(X) } Weak Trs: { activate(X) -> X , activate(n__from(X)) -> from(X) , from(X) -> cons(X, n__from(s(X))) , from(X) -> n__from(X) } Obligation: runtime complexity Answer: YES(O(1),O(n^1)) We use the processor 'matrix interpretation of dimension 1' to orient following rules strictly. DPs: { 3: activate^#(X) -> c_3(X) , 4: activate^#(n__from(X)) -> c_4(from^#(X)) } Sub-proof: ---------- The following argument positions are usable: Uargs(c_2) = {1}, Uargs(c_4) = {1} TcT has computed the following constructor-based matrix interpretation satisfying not(EDA). [cons1](x1, x2) = [0] [cons](x1, x2) = [0] [activate](x1) = [0] [from](x1) = [0] [n__from](x1) = [1] x1 + [0] [s](x1) = [0] [2nd^#](x1) = [0] [c_1](x1) = [0] [c_2](x1) = [4] x1 + [0] [activate^#](x1) = [5] [c_3](x1) = [0] [c_4](x1) = [4] x1 + [0] [from^#](x1) = [0] [c_5](x1, x2) = [0] [c_6](x1) = [0] The order satisfies the following ordering constraints: [activate(X)] = [0] ? [1] X + [0] = [X] [activate(n__from(X))] = [0] >= [0] = [from(X)] [from(X)] = [0] >= [0] = [cons(X, n__from(s(X)))] [from(X)] = [0] ? [1] X + [0] = [n__from(X)] [2nd^#(cons1(X, cons(Y, Z)))] = [0] >= [0] = [c_1(Y)] [2nd^#(cons(X, X1))] = [0] >= [0] = [c_2(2nd^#(cons1(X, activate(X1))))] [activate^#(X)] = [5] > [0] = [c_3(X)] [activate^#(n__from(X))] = [5] > [0] = [c_4(from^#(X))] [from^#(X)] = [0] >= [0] = [c_5(X, X)] [from^#(X)] = [0] >= [0] = [c_6(X)] The strictly oriented rules are moved into the weak component. We are left with following problem, upon which TcT provides the certificate YES(O(1),O(n^1)). Strict DPs: { 2nd^#(cons1(X, cons(Y, Z))) -> c_1(Y) , 2nd^#(cons(X, X1)) -> c_2(2nd^#(cons1(X, activate(X1)))) , from^#(X) -> c_5(X, X) , from^#(X) -> c_6(X) } Weak DPs: { activate^#(X) -> c_3(X) , activate^#(n__from(X)) -> c_4(from^#(X)) } Weak Trs: { activate(X) -> X , activate(n__from(X)) -> from(X) , from(X) -> cons(X, n__from(s(X))) , from(X) -> n__from(X) } Obligation: runtime complexity Answer: YES(O(1),O(n^1)) We use the processor 'matrix interpretation of dimension 1' to orient following rules strictly. DPs: { 3: from^#(X) -> c_5(X, X) , 4: from^#(X) -> c_6(X) , 5: activate^#(X) -> c_3(X) , 6: activate^#(n__from(X)) -> c_4(from^#(X)) } Sub-proof: ---------- The following argument positions are usable: Uargs(c_2) = {1}, Uargs(c_4) = {1} TcT has computed the following constructor-based matrix interpretation satisfying not(EDA). [cons1](x1, x2) = [0] [cons](x1, x2) = [0] [activate](x1) = [0] [from](x1) = [0] [n__from](x1) = [1] x1 + [0] [s](x1) = [0] [2nd^#](x1) = [0] [c_1](x1) = [0] [c_2](x1) = [4] x1 + [0] [activate^#](x1) = [1] x1 + [5] [c_3](x1) = [0] [c_4](x1) = [1] x1 + [0] [from^#](x1) = [4] [c_5](x1, x2) = [0] [c_6](x1) = [0] The order satisfies the following ordering constraints: [activate(X)] = [0] ? [1] X + [0] = [X] [activate(n__from(X))] = [0] >= [0] = [from(X)] [from(X)] = [0] >= [0] = [cons(X, n__from(s(X)))] [from(X)] = [0] ? [1] X + [0] = [n__from(X)] [2nd^#(cons1(X, cons(Y, Z)))] = [0] >= [0] = [c_1(Y)] [2nd^#(cons(X, X1))] = [0] >= [0] = [c_2(2nd^#(cons1(X, activate(X1))))] [activate^#(X)] = [1] X + [5] > [0] = [c_3(X)] [activate^#(n__from(X))] = [1] X + [5] > [4] = [c_4(from^#(X))] [from^#(X)] = [4] > [0] = [c_5(X, X)] [from^#(X)] = [4] > [0] = [c_6(X)] The strictly oriented rules are moved into the weak component. We are left with following problem, upon which TcT provides the certificate YES(O(1),O(n^1)). Strict DPs: { 2nd^#(cons1(X, cons(Y, Z))) -> c_1(Y) , 2nd^#(cons(X, X1)) -> c_2(2nd^#(cons1(X, activate(X1)))) } Weak DPs: { activate^#(X) -> c_3(X) , activate^#(n__from(X)) -> c_4(from^#(X)) , from^#(X) -> c_5(X, X) , from^#(X) -> c_6(X) } Weak Trs: { activate(X) -> X , activate(n__from(X)) -> from(X) , from(X) -> cons(X, n__from(s(X))) , from(X) -> n__from(X) } Obligation: runtime complexity Answer: YES(O(1),O(n^1)) We use the processor 'matrix interpretation of dimension 1' to orient following rules strictly. DPs: { 1: 2nd^#(cons1(X, cons(Y, Z))) -> c_1(Y) , 3: activate^#(X) -> c_3(X) , 4: activate^#(n__from(X)) -> c_4(from^#(X)) } Sub-proof: ---------- The following argument positions are usable: Uargs(c_2) = {1}, Uargs(c_4) = {1} TcT has computed the following constructor-based matrix interpretation satisfying not(EDA). [cons1](x1, x2) = [0] [cons](x1, x2) = [0] [activate](x1) = [0] [from](x1) = [0] [n__from](x1) = [1] x1 + [0] [s](x1) = [0] [2nd^#](x1) = [4] [c_1](x1) = [1] [c_2](x1) = [1] x1 + [0] [activate^#](x1) = [4] [c_3](x1) = [0] [c_4](x1) = [4] x1 + [1] [from^#](x1) = [0] [c_5](x1, x2) = [0] [c_6](x1) = [0] The order satisfies the following ordering constraints: [activate(X)] = [0] ? [1] X + [0] = [X] [activate(n__from(X))] = [0] >= [0] = [from(X)] [from(X)] = [0] >= [0] = [cons(X, n__from(s(X)))] [from(X)] = [0] ? [1] X + [0] = [n__from(X)] [2nd^#(cons1(X, cons(Y, Z)))] = [4] > [1] = [c_1(Y)] [2nd^#(cons(X, X1))] = [4] >= [4] = [c_2(2nd^#(cons1(X, activate(X1))))] [activate^#(X)] = [4] > [0] = [c_3(X)] [activate^#(n__from(X))] = [4] > [1] = [c_4(from^#(X))] [from^#(X)] = [0] >= [0] = [c_5(X, X)] [from^#(X)] = [0] >= [0] = [c_6(X)] The strictly oriented rules are moved into the weak component. We are left with following problem, upon which TcT provides the certificate YES(O(1),O(1)). Strict DPs: { 2nd^#(cons(X, X1)) -> c_2(2nd^#(cons1(X, activate(X1)))) } Weak DPs: { 2nd^#(cons1(X, cons(Y, Z))) -> c_1(Y) , activate^#(X) -> c_3(X) , activate^#(n__from(X)) -> c_4(from^#(X)) , from^#(X) -> c_5(X, X) , from^#(X) -> c_6(X) } Weak Trs: { activate(X) -> X , activate(n__from(X)) -> from(X) , from(X) -> cons(X, n__from(s(X))) , from(X) -> n__from(X) } Obligation: runtime complexity Answer: YES(O(1),O(1)) We use the processor 'matrix interpretation of dimension 1' to orient following rules strictly. DPs: { 1: 2nd^#(cons(X, X1)) -> c_2(2nd^#(cons1(X, activate(X1)))) , 3: activate^#(X) -> c_3(X) , 4: activate^#(n__from(X)) -> c_4(from^#(X)) } Trs: { from(X) -> cons(X, n__from(s(X))) , from(X) -> n__from(X) } Sub-proof: ---------- The following argument positions are usable: Uargs(c_2) = {1}, Uargs(c_4) = {1} TcT has computed the following constructor-restricted matrix interpretation. Note that the diagonal of the component-wise maxima of interpretation-entries (of constructors) contains no more than 0 non-zero entries. [cons1](x1, x2) = [0] [cons](x1, x2) = [2] [activate](x1) = [1] x1 + [0] [from](x1) = [3] [n__from](x1) = [0] [s](x1) = [0] [2nd^#](x1) = [4] x1 + [0] [c_1](x1) = [0] [c_2](x1) = [1] x1 + [7] [activate^#](x1) = [1] [c_3](x1) = [0] [c_4](x1) = [4] x1 + [0] [from^#](x1) = [0] [c_5](x1, x2) = [0] [c_6](x1) = [0] The order satisfies the following ordering constraints: [activate(X)] = [1] X + [0] >= [1] X + [0] = [X] [activate(n__from(X))] = [0] ? [3] = [from(X)] [from(X)] = [3] > [2] = [cons(X, n__from(s(X)))] [from(X)] = [3] > [0] = [n__from(X)] [2nd^#(cons1(X, cons(Y, Z)))] = [0] >= [0] = [c_1(Y)] [2nd^#(cons(X, X1))] = [8] > [7] = [c_2(2nd^#(cons1(X, activate(X1))))] [activate^#(X)] = [1] > [0] = [c_3(X)] [activate^#(n__from(X))] = [1] > [0] = [c_4(from^#(X))] [from^#(X)] = [0] >= [0] = [c_5(X, X)] [from^#(X)] = [0] >= [0] = [c_6(X)] The strictly oriented rules are moved into the weak component. We are left with following problem, upon which TcT provides the certificate YES(O(1),O(1)). Weak DPs: { 2nd^#(cons1(X, cons(Y, Z))) -> c_1(Y) , 2nd^#(cons(X, X1)) -> c_2(2nd^#(cons1(X, activate(X1)))) , activate^#(X) -> c_3(X) , activate^#(n__from(X)) -> c_4(from^#(X)) , from^#(X) -> c_5(X, X) , from^#(X) -> c_6(X) } Weak Trs: { activate(X) -> X , activate(n__from(X)) -> from(X) , from(X) -> cons(X, n__from(s(X))) , from(X) -> n__from(X) } Obligation: runtime complexity Answer: YES(O(1),O(1)) The following weak DPs constitute a sub-graph of the DG that is closed under successors. The DPs are removed. { 2nd^#(cons1(X, cons(Y, Z))) -> c_1(Y) , 2nd^#(cons(X, X1)) -> c_2(2nd^#(cons1(X, activate(X1)))) , activate^#(X) -> c_3(X) , activate^#(n__from(X)) -> c_4(from^#(X)) , from^#(X) -> c_5(X, X) , from^#(X) -> c_6(X) } We are left with following problem, upon which TcT provides the certificate YES(O(1),O(1)). Weak Trs: { activate(X) -> X , activate(n__from(X)) -> from(X) , from(X) -> cons(X, n__from(s(X))) , from(X) -> n__from(X) } Obligation: runtime complexity Answer: YES(O(1),O(1)) No rule is usable, rules are removed from the input problem. We are left with following problem, upon which TcT provides the certificate YES(O(1),O(1)). Rules: Empty Obligation: runtime complexity Answer: YES(O(1),O(1)) Empty rules are trivially bounded Hurray, we answered YES(O(1),O(n^1))