*** 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,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(<) = [0]
p(Cons) = [1] x2 + [4]
p(False) = [0]
p(Nil) = [0]
p(S) = [1] x1 + [0]
p(True) = [0]
p(goal) = [2] x1 + [0]
p(notEmpty) = [0]
p(ordered) = [2] x1 + [0]
p(ordered[Ite]) = [1] x1 + [2] x2 + [0]
Following rules are strictly oriented:
ordered(Cons(x,Nil())) = [8]
> [0]
= True()
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 + [0]
>= [2] xs + [0]
= ordered(xs)
notEmpty(Cons(x,xs)) = [0]
>= [0]
= True()
notEmpty(Nil()) = [0]
>= [0]
= False()
ordered(Cons(x',Cons(x,xs))) = [2] xs + [16]
>= [2] xs + [16]
= ordered[Ite](<(x',x)
,Cons(x',Cons(x,xs)))
ordered(Nil()) = [0]
>= [0]
= True()
ordered[Ite](False(),xs) = [2] xs + [0]
>= [0]
= False()
ordered[Ite](True(),Cons(x,xs)) = [2] xs + [8]
>= [2] xs + [0]
= ordered(xs)
Further, it can be verified that all rules not oriented are covered by the weightgap condition.
*** 1.1 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',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(Cons(x,Nil())) -> True()
ordered[Ite](False(),xs) -> False()
ordered[Ite](True(),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(<) = [11]
p(Cons) = [1] x1 + [1] x2 + [0]
p(False) = [0]
p(Nil) = [3]
p(S) = [0]
p(True) = [5]
p(goal) = [2] x1 + [9]
p(notEmpty) = [8] x1 + [4]
p(ordered) = [2] x1 + [3]
p(ordered[Ite]) = [1] x1 + [2] x2 + [1]
Following rules are strictly oriented:
goal(xs) = [2] xs + [9]
> [2] xs + [3]
= ordered(xs)
notEmpty(Nil()) = [28]
> [0]
= False()
ordered(Nil()) = [9]
> [5]
= True()
Following rules are (at-least) weakly oriented:
<(x,0()) = [11]
>= [0]
= False()
<(0(),S(y)) = [11]
>= [5]
= True()
<(S(x),S(y)) = [11]
>= [11]
= <(x,y)
notEmpty(Cons(x,xs)) = [8] x + [8] xs + [4]
>= [5]
= True()
ordered(Cons(x,Nil())) = [2] x + [9]
>= [5]
= True()
ordered(Cons(x',Cons(x,xs))) = [2] x + [2] x' + [2] xs + [3]
>= [2] x + [2] x' + [2] xs + [12]
= ordered[Ite](<(x',x)
,Cons(x',Cons(x,xs)))
ordered[Ite](False(),xs) = [2] xs + [1]
>= [0]
= False()
ordered[Ite](True(),Cons(x,xs)) = [2] x + [2] xs + [6]
>= [2] xs + [3]
= 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,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] x1 + [0]
p(False) = [0]
p(Nil) = [0]
p(S) = [0]
p(True) = [0]
p(goal) = [9]
p(notEmpty) = [2]
p(ordered) = [0]
p(ordered[Ite]) = [1] x1 + [0]
Following rules are strictly oriented:
notEmpty(Cons(x,xs)) = [2]
> [0]
= True()
Following rules are (at-least) weakly oriented:
<(x,0()) = [3]
>= [0]
= False()
<(0(),S(y)) = [3]
>= [0]
= True()
<(S(x),S(y)) = [3]
>= [3]
= <(x,y)
goal(xs) = [9]
>= [0]
= ordered(xs)
notEmpty(Nil()) = [2]
>= [0]
= False()
ordered(Cons(x,Nil())) = [0]
>= [0]
= True()
ordered(Cons(x',Cons(x,xs))) = [0]
>= [3]
= ordered[Ite](<(x',x)
,Cons(x',Cons(x,xs)))
ordered(Nil()) = [0]
>= [0]
= True()
ordered[Ite](False(),xs) = [0]
>= [0]
= False()
ordered[Ite](True(),Cons(x,xs)) = [0]
>= [0]
= 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,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) = [1] x2 + [8]
p(False) = [0]
p(Nil) = [4]
p(S) = [0]
p(True) = [0]
p(goal) = [8] x1 + [9]
p(notEmpty) = [2] x1 + [4]
p(ordered) = [1] x1 + [8]
p(ordered[Ite]) = [8] x1 + [1] x2 + [0]
Following rules are strictly oriented:
ordered(Cons(x',Cons(x,xs))) = [1] xs + [24]
> [1] xs + [16]
= 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) = [8] xs + [9]
>= [1] xs + [8]
= ordered(xs)
notEmpty(Cons(x,xs)) = [2] xs + [20]
>= [0]
= True()
notEmpty(Nil()) = [12]
>= [0]
= False()
ordered(Cons(x,Nil())) = [20]
>= [0]
= True()
ordered(Nil()) = [12]
>= [0]
= True()
ordered[Ite](False(),xs) = [1] xs + [0]
>= [0]
= False()
ordered[Ite](True(),Cons(x,xs)) = [1] xs + [8]
>= [1] xs + [8]
= 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,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).