We are left with following problem, upon which TcT provides the certificate YES(O(1),O(n^1)). Strict Trs: { f(x, c(y)) -> f(x, s(f(y, y))) , f(s(x), y) -> f(x, s(c(y))) } Obligation: innermost runtime complexity Answer: YES(O(1),O(n^1)) We add the following dependency tuples: Strict DPs: { f^#(x, c(y)) -> c_1(f^#(x, s(f(y, y))), f^#(y, y)) , f^#(s(x), y) -> c_2(f^#(x, s(c(y)))) } 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: { f^#(x, c(y)) -> c_1(f^#(x, s(f(y, y))), f^#(y, y)) , f^#(s(x), y) -> c_2(f^#(x, s(c(y)))) } Weak Trs: { f(x, c(y)) -> f(x, s(f(y, y))) , f(s(x), y) -> f(x, s(c(y))) } Obligation: innermost runtime complexity Answer: YES(O(1),O(n^1)) We use the processor 'matrix interpretation of dimension 2' to orient following rules strictly. DPs: { 1: f^#(x, c(y)) -> c_1(f^#(x, s(f(y, y))), f^#(y, y)) , 2: f^#(s(x), y) -> c_2(f^#(x, s(c(y)))) } Trs: { f(s(x), y) -> f(x, s(c(y))) } Sub-proof: ---------- The following argument positions are usable: Uargs(c_1) = {1, 2}, Uargs(c_2) = {1} TcT has computed the following constructor-based matrix interpretation satisfying not(EDA) and not(IDA(1)). [f](x1, x2) = [0 1] x1 + [7] [0 0] [0] [c](x1) = [1 1] x1 + [1] [0 0] [1] [s](x1) = [0 3] x1 + [0] [0 1] [4] [f^#](x1, x2) = [0 2] x1 + [2 0] x2 + [1] [0 0] [0 0] [1] [c_1](x1, x2) = [1 0] x1 + [1 0] x2 + [0] [0 0] [0 0] [0] [c_2](x1) = [1 1] x1 + [0] [0 0] [0] The order satisfies the following ordering constraints: [f(x, c(y))] = [0 1] x + [7] [0 0] [0] >= [0 1] x + [7] [0 0] [0] = [f(x, s(f(y, y)))] [f(s(x), y)] = [0 1] x + [11] [0 0] [0] > [0 1] x + [7] [0 0] [0] = [f(x, s(c(y)))] [f^#(x, c(y))] = [0 2] x + [2 2] y + [3] [0 0] [0 0] [1] > [0 2] x + [2 2] y + [2] [0 0] [0 0] [0] = [c_1(f^#(x, s(f(y, y))), f^#(y, y))] [f^#(s(x), y)] = [0 2] x + [2 0] y + [9] [0 0] [0 0] [1] > [0 2] x + [8] [0 0] [0] = [c_2(f^#(x, s(c(y))))] 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: { f^#(x, c(y)) -> c_1(f^#(x, s(f(y, y))), f^#(y, y)) , f^#(s(x), y) -> c_2(f^#(x, s(c(y)))) } Weak Trs: { f(x, c(y)) -> f(x, s(f(y, y))) , f(s(x), y) -> f(x, s(c(y))) } Obligation: innermost 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. { f^#(x, c(y)) -> c_1(f^#(x, s(f(y, y))), f^#(y, y)) , f^#(s(x), y) -> c_2(f^#(x, s(c(y)))) } We are left with following problem, upon which TcT provides the certificate YES(O(1),O(1)). Weak Trs: { f(x, c(y)) -> f(x, s(f(y, y))) , f(s(x), y) -> f(x, s(c(y))) } Obligation: innermost 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: innermost runtime complexity Answer: YES(O(1),O(1)) Empty rules are trivially bounded Hurray, we answered YES(O(1),O(n^1))