*** 1 Progress [(O(1),O(n^1))] *** Considered Problem: Strict DP Rules: Strict TRS Rules: goal(xs) -> ordered(xs) notEmpty(Cons(x,xs)) -> True() notEmpty(Nil()) -> False() ordered(Cons(x,Nil())) -> True() ordered(Cons(x',Cons(x,xs))) -> ordered[Ite](<(x',x),Cons(x',Cons(x,xs))) ordered(Nil()) -> True() Weak DP Rules: Weak TRS Rules: <(x,0()) -> False() <(0(),S(y)) -> True() <(S(x),S(y)) -> <(x,y) ordered[Ite](False(),xs) -> False() ordered[Ite](True(),Cons(x',Cons(x,xs))) -> ordered(xs) Signature: {2,goal/1,notEmpty/1,ordered/1,ordered[Ite]/2} / {0/0,Cons/2,False/0,Nil/0,S/1,True/0} Obligation: Innermost basic terms: {<,goal,notEmpty,ordered,ordered[Ite]}/{0,Cons,False,Nil,S,True} Applied Processor: NaturalMI {miDimension = 1, miDegree = 1, miKind = Algebraic, uargs = UArgs, urules = URules, selector = Just any strict-rules, greedy = NoGreedy} Proof: We apply a matrix interpretation of kind constructor based matrix interpretation: The following argument positions are considered usable: uargs(ordered[Ite]) = {1} Following symbols are considered usable: {<,goal,notEmpty,ordered,ordered[Ite]} TcT has computed the following interpretation: p(0) = [0] p(<) = [0] p(Cons) = [0] p(False) = [0] p(Nil) = [0] p(S) = [0] p(True) = [0] p(goal) = [8] p(notEmpty) = [0] p(ordered) = [0] p(ordered[Ite]) = [1] x1 + [0] Following rules are strictly oriented: goal(xs) = [8] > [0] = ordered(xs) Following rules are (at-least) weakly oriented: <(x,0()) = [0] >= [0] = False() <(0(),S(y)) = [0] >= [0] = True() <(S(x),S(y)) = [0] >= [0] = <(x,y) notEmpty(Cons(x,xs)) = [0] >= [0] = True() notEmpty(Nil()) = [0] >= [0] = False() ordered(Cons(x,Nil())) = [0] >= [0] = True() ordered(Cons(x',Cons(x,xs))) = [0] >= [0] = ordered[Ite](<(x',x) ,Cons(x',Cons(x,xs))) ordered(Nil()) = [0] >= [0] = True() ordered[Ite](False(),xs) = [0] >= [0] = False() ordered[Ite](True() = [0] ,Cons(x',Cons(x,xs))) >= [0] = ordered(xs) *** 1.1 Progress [(O(1),O(n^1))] *** Considered Problem: Strict DP Rules: Strict TRS Rules: notEmpty(Cons(x,xs)) -> True() notEmpty(Nil()) -> False() ordered(Cons(x,Nil())) -> True() ordered(Cons(x',Cons(x,xs))) -> ordered[Ite](<(x',x),Cons(x',Cons(x,xs))) ordered(Nil()) -> True() Weak DP Rules: Weak TRS Rules: <(x,0()) -> False() <(0(),S(y)) -> True() <(S(x),S(y)) -> <(x,y) goal(xs) -> ordered(xs) ordered[Ite](False(),xs) -> False() ordered[Ite](True(),Cons(x',Cons(x,xs))) -> ordered(xs) Signature: {2,goal/1,notEmpty/1,ordered/1,ordered[Ite]/2} / {0/0,Cons/2,False/0,Nil/0,S/1,True/0} Obligation: Innermost basic terms: {<,goal,notEmpty,ordered,ordered[Ite]}/{0,Cons,False,Nil,S,True} 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(ordered[Ite]) = {1} Following symbols are considered usable: {} TcT has computed the following interpretation: p(0) = [0] p(<) = [3] p(Cons) = [1] p(False) = [0] p(Nil) = [3] p(S) = [1] x1 + [0] p(True) = [3] p(goal) = [9] x1 + [5] p(notEmpty) = [2] x1 + [0] p(ordered) = [5] p(ordered[Ite]) = [1] x1 + [1] x2 + [1] Following rules are strictly oriented: notEmpty(Nil()) = [6] > [0] = False() ordered(Cons(x,Nil())) = [5] > [3] = True() ordered(Nil()) = [5] > [3] = True() Following rules are (at-least) weakly oriented: <(x,0()) = [3] >= [0] = False() <(0(),S(y)) = [3] >= [3] = True() <(S(x),S(y)) = [3] >= [3] = <(x,y) goal(xs) = [9] xs + [5] >= [5] = ordered(xs) notEmpty(Cons(x,xs)) = [2] >= [3] = True() ordered(Cons(x',Cons(x,xs))) = [5] >= [5] = ordered[Ite](<(x',x) ,Cons(x',Cons(x,xs))) ordered[Ite](False(),xs) = [1] xs + [1] >= [0] = False() ordered[Ite](True() = [5] ,Cons(x',Cons(x,xs))) >= [5] = ordered(xs) Further, it can be verified that all rules not oriented are covered by the weightgap condition. *** 1.1.1 Progress [(O(1),O(n^1))] *** Considered Problem: Strict DP Rules: Strict TRS Rules: notEmpty(Cons(x,xs)) -> True() ordered(Cons(x',Cons(x,xs))) -> ordered[Ite](<(x',x),Cons(x',Cons(x,xs))) Weak DP Rules: Weak TRS Rules: <(x,0()) -> False() <(0(),S(y)) -> True() <(S(x),S(y)) -> <(x,y) goal(xs) -> ordered(xs) notEmpty(Nil()) -> False() ordered(Cons(x,Nil())) -> True() ordered(Nil()) -> True() ordered[Ite](False(),xs) -> False() ordered[Ite](True(),Cons(x',Cons(x,xs))) -> ordered(xs) Signature: {2,goal/1,notEmpty/1,ordered/1,ordered[Ite]/2} / {0/0,Cons/2,False/0,Nil/0,S/1,True/0} Obligation: Innermost basic terms: {<,goal,notEmpty,ordered,ordered[Ite]}/{0,Cons,False,Nil,S,True} 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(ordered[Ite]) = {1} Following symbols are considered usable: {} TcT has computed the following interpretation: p(0) = [2] p(<) = [15] p(Cons) = [1] x2 + [3] p(False) = [0] p(Nil) = [1] p(S) = [1] p(True) = [0] p(goal) = [2] x1 + [8] p(notEmpty) = [8] x1 + [2] p(ordered) = [2] x1 + [8] p(ordered[Ite]) = [1] x1 + [2] x2 + [1] Following rules are strictly oriented: notEmpty(Cons(x,xs)) = [8] xs + [26] > [0] = True() Following rules are (at-least) weakly oriented: <(x,0()) = [15] >= [0] = False() <(0(),S(y)) = [15] >= [0] = True() <(S(x),S(y)) = [15] >= [15] = <(x,y) goal(xs) = [2] xs + [8] >= [2] xs + [8] = ordered(xs) notEmpty(Nil()) = [10] >= [0] = False() ordered(Cons(x,Nil())) = [16] >= [0] = True() ordered(Cons(x',Cons(x,xs))) = [2] xs + [20] >= [2] xs + [28] = ordered[Ite](<(x',x) ,Cons(x',Cons(x,xs))) ordered(Nil()) = [10] >= [0] = True() ordered[Ite](False(),xs) = [2] xs + [1] >= [0] = False() ordered[Ite](True() = [2] xs + [13] ,Cons(x',Cons(x,xs))) >= [2] xs + [8] = ordered(xs) 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: Strict TRS Rules: ordered(Cons(x',Cons(x,xs))) -> ordered[Ite](<(x',x),Cons(x',Cons(x,xs))) Weak DP Rules: Weak TRS Rules: <(x,0()) -> False() <(0(),S(y)) -> True() <(S(x),S(y)) -> <(x,y) goal(xs) -> ordered(xs) notEmpty(Cons(x,xs)) -> True() notEmpty(Nil()) -> False() ordered(Cons(x,Nil())) -> True() ordered(Nil()) -> True() ordered[Ite](False(),xs) -> False() ordered[Ite](True(),Cons(x',Cons(x,xs))) -> ordered(xs) Signature: {2,goal/1,notEmpty/1,ordered/1,ordered[Ite]/2} / {0/0,Cons/2,False/0,Nil/0,S/1,True/0} Obligation: Innermost basic terms: {<,goal,notEmpty,ordered,ordered[Ite]}/{0,Cons,False,Nil,S,True} Applied Processor: NaturalMI {miDimension = 1, miDegree = 1, miKind = Algebraic, uargs = UArgs, urules = URules, selector = Just any strict-rules, greedy = NoGreedy} Proof: We apply a matrix interpretation of kind constructor based matrix interpretation: The following argument positions are considered usable: uargs(ordered[Ite]) = {1} Following symbols are considered usable: {<,goal,notEmpty,ordered,ordered[Ite]} TcT has computed the following interpretation: p(0) = [1] p(<) = [0] p(Cons) = [1] x1 + [1] x2 + [1] p(False) = [0] p(Nil) = [2] p(S) = [0] p(True) = [0] p(goal) = [2] x1 + [15] p(notEmpty) = [2] x1 + [9] p(ordered) = [2] x1 + [13] p(ordered[Ite]) = [1] x1 + [2] x2 + [10] Following rules are strictly oriented: ordered(Cons(x',Cons(x,xs))) = [2] x + [2] x' + [2] xs + [17] > [2] x + [2] x' + [2] xs + [14] = ordered[Ite](<(x',x) ,Cons(x',Cons(x,xs))) Following rules are (at-least) weakly oriented: <(x,0()) = [0] >= [0] = False() <(0(),S(y)) = [0] >= [0] = True() <(S(x),S(y)) = [0] >= [0] = <(x,y) goal(xs) = [2] xs + [15] >= [2] xs + [13] = ordered(xs) notEmpty(Cons(x,xs)) = [2] x + [2] xs + [11] >= [0] = True() notEmpty(Nil()) = [13] >= [0] = False() ordered(Cons(x,Nil())) = [2] x + [19] >= [0] = True() ordered(Nil()) = [17] >= [0] = True() ordered[Ite](False(),xs) = [2] xs + [10] >= [0] = False() ordered[Ite](True() = [2] x + [2] x' + [2] xs + [14] ,Cons(x',Cons(x,xs))) >= [2] xs + [13] = ordered(xs) *** 1.1.1.1.1 Progress [(O(1),O(1))] *** Considered Problem: Strict DP Rules: Strict TRS Rules: Weak DP Rules: Weak TRS Rules: <(x,0()) -> False() <(0(),S(y)) -> True() <(S(x),S(y)) -> <(x,y) goal(xs) -> ordered(xs) notEmpty(Cons(x,xs)) -> True() notEmpty(Nil()) -> False() ordered(Cons(x,Nil())) -> True() ordered(Cons(x',Cons(x,xs))) -> ordered[Ite](<(x',x),Cons(x',Cons(x,xs))) ordered(Nil()) -> True() ordered[Ite](False(),xs) -> False() ordered[Ite](True(),Cons(x',Cons(x,xs))) -> ordered(xs) Signature: {2,goal/1,notEmpty/1,ordered/1,ordered[Ite]/2} / {0/0,Cons/2,False/0,Nil/0,S/1,True/0} Obligation: Innermost basic terms: {<,goal,notEmpty,ordered,ordered[Ite]}/{0,Cons,False,Nil,S,True} Applied Processor: EmptyProcessor Proof: The problem is already closed. The intended complexity is O(1).