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))