*** 1 Progress [(O(1),O(n^2))] ***
Considered Problem:
Strict DP Rules:
Strict TRS Rules:
activate(X) -> X
and(tt(),X) -> activate(X)
plus(N,0()) -> N
plus(N,s(M)) -> s(plus(N,M))
x(N,0()) -> 0()
x(N,s(M)) -> plus(x(N,M),N)
Weak DP Rules:
Weak TRS Rules:
Signature:
{activate/1,and/2,plus/2,x/2} / {0/0,s/1,tt/0}
Obligation:
Full
basic terms: {activate,and,plus,x}/{0,s,tt}
Applied Processor:
WeightGap {wgDimension = 1, wgDegree = 1, 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(plus) = {1},
uargs(s) = {1}
Following symbols are considered usable:
{}
TcT has computed the following interpretation:
p(0) = [3]
p(activate) = [2] x1 + [4]
p(and) = [7] x1 + [4] x2 + [0]
p(plus) = [1] x1 + [1]
p(s) = [1] x1 + [7]
p(tt) = [1]
p(x) = [1] x1 + [3] x2 + [0]
Following rules are strictly oriented:
activate(X) = [2] X + [4]
> [1] X + [0]
= X
and(tt(),X) = [4] X + [7]
> [2] X + [4]
= activate(X)
plus(N,0()) = [1] N + [1]
> [1] N + [0]
= N
x(N,0()) = [1] N + [9]
> [3]
= 0()
x(N,s(M)) = [3] M + [1] N + [21]
> [3] M + [1] N + [1]
= plus(x(N,M),N)
Following rules are (at-least) weakly oriented:
plus(N,s(M)) = [1] N + [1]
>= [1] N + [8]
= s(plus(N,M))
Further, it can be verified that all rules not oriented are covered by the weightgap condition.
*** 1.1 Progress [(O(1),O(n^2))] ***
Considered Problem:
Strict DP Rules:
Strict TRS Rules:
plus(N,s(M)) -> s(plus(N,M))
Weak DP Rules:
Weak TRS Rules:
activate(X) -> X
and(tt(),X) -> activate(X)
plus(N,0()) -> N
x(N,0()) -> 0()
x(N,s(M)) -> plus(x(N,M),N)
Signature:
{activate/1,and/2,plus/2,x/2} / {0/0,s/1,tt/0}
Obligation:
Full
basic terms: {activate,and,plus,x}/{0,s,tt}
Applied Processor:
NaturalPI {shape = Mixed 2, restrict = Restrict, uargs = UArgs, urules = URules, selector = Just any strict-rules, greedy = NoGreedy}
Proof:
We apply a polynomial interpretation of kind constructor-based(mixed(2)):
The following argument positions are considered usable:
uargs(plus) = {1},
uargs(s) = {1}
Following symbols are considered usable:
{}
TcT has computed the following interpretation:
p(0) = 0
p(activate) = 4*x1
p(and) = 1 + 4*x1*x2 + x1^2 + 5*x2 + x2^2
p(plus) = x1 + 2*x2
p(s) = 1 + x1
p(tt) = 1
p(x) = 2*x1 + 2*x1*x2
Following rules are strictly oriented:
plus(N,s(M)) = 2 + 2*M + N
> 1 + 2*M + N
= s(plus(N,M))
Following rules are (at-least) weakly oriented:
activate(X) = 4*X
>= X
= X
and(tt(),X) = 2 + 9*X + X^2
>= 4*X
= activate(X)
plus(N,0()) = N
>= N
= N
x(N,0()) = 2*N
>= 0
= 0()
x(N,s(M)) = 2*M*N + 4*N
>= 2*M*N + 4*N
= plus(x(N,M),N)
*** 1.1.1 Progress [(O(1),O(1))] ***
Considered Problem:
Strict DP Rules:
Strict TRS Rules:
Weak DP Rules:
Weak TRS Rules:
activate(X) -> X
and(tt(),X) -> activate(X)
plus(N,0()) -> N
plus(N,s(M)) -> s(plus(N,M))
x(N,0()) -> 0()
x(N,s(M)) -> plus(x(N,M),N)
Signature:
{activate/1,and/2,plus/2,x/2} / {0/0,s/1,tt/0}
Obligation:
Full
basic terms: {activate,and,plus,x}/{0,s,tt}
Applied Processor:
EmptyProcessor
Proof:
The problem is already closed. The intended complexity is O(1).