We are left with following problem, upon which TcT provides the
certificate YES(O(1),O(1)).
Strict Trs:
{ f(X, X) -> c(X)
, f(X, c(X)) -> f(s(X), X)
, f(s(X), X) -> f(X, a(X)) }
Obligation:
innermost runtime complexity
Answer:
YES(O(1),O(1))
We add the following weak dependency pairs:
Strict DPs:
{ f^#(X, X) -> c_1()
, f^#(X, c(X)) -> c_2(f^#(s(X), X))
, f^#(s(X), X) -> c_3(f^#(X, a(X))) }
and mark the set of starting terms.
We are left with following problem, upon which TcT provides the
certificate YES(O(1),O(1)).
Strict DPs:
{ f^#(X, X) -> c_1()
, f^#(X, c(X)) -> c_2(f^#(s(X), X))
, f^#(s(X), X) -> c_3(f^#(X, a(X))) }
Strict Trs:
{ f(X, X) -> c(X)
, f(X, c(X)) -> f(s(X), X)
, f(s(X), X) -> f(X, a(X)) }
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)).
Strict DPs:
{ f^#(X, X) -> c_1()
, f^#(X, c(X)) -> c_2(f^#(s(X), X))
, f^#(s(X), X) -> c_3(f^#(X, a(X))) }
Obligation:
innermost runtime complexity
Answer:
YES(O(1),O(1))
The weightgap principle applies (using the following constant
growth matrix-interpretation)
The following argument positions are usable:
Uargs(c_2) = {1}
TcT has computed the following constructor-restricted matrix
interpretation.
[s](x1) = [0]
[0]
[a](x1) = [0]
[0]
[c](x1) = [0]
[0]
[f^#](x1, x2) = [1]
[0]
[c_1] = [0]
[0]
[c_2](x1) = [1 0] x1 + [0]
[0 1] [0]
[c_3](x1) = [0]
[0]
The order satisfies the following ordering constraints:
[f^#(X, X)] = [1]
[0]
> [0]
[0]
= [c_1()]
[f^#(X, c(X))] = [1]
[0]
>= [1]
[0]
= [c_2(f^#(s(X), X))]
[f^#(s(X), X)] = [1]
[0]
> [0]
[0]
= [c_3(f^#(X, a(X)))]
Further, it can be verified that all rules not oriented are covered by the weightgap condition.
We are left with following problem, upon which TcT provides the
certificate YES(O(1),O(1)).
Strict DPs: { f^#(X, c(X)) -> c_2(f^#(s(X), X)) }
Weak DPs:
{ f^#(X, X) -> c_1()
, f^#(s(X), X) -> c_3(f^#(X, a(X))) }
Obligation:
innermost runtime complexity
Answer:
YES(O(1),O(1))
We estimate the number of application of {1} by applications of
Pre({1}) = {}. Here rules are labeled as follows:
DPs:
{ 1: f^#(X, c(X)) -> c_2(f^#(s(X), X))
, 2: f^#(X, X) -> c_1()
, 3: f^#(s(X), X) -> c_3(f^#(X, a(X))) }
We are left with following problem, upon which TcT provides the
certificate YES(O(1),O(1)).
Weak DPs:
{ f^#(X, X) -> c_1()
, f^#(X, c(X)) -> c_2(f^#(s(X), X))
, f^#(s(X), X) -> c_3(f^#(X, a(X))) }
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, X) -> c_1()
, f^#(X, c(X)) -> c_2(f^#(s(X), X))
, f^#(s(X), X) -> c_3(f^#(X, a(X))) }
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(1))