We are left with following problem, upon which TcT provides the
certificate YES(O(1),O(n^1)).
Strict Trs: { a(b(x)) -> b(b(a(x))) }
Obligation:
innermost runtime complexity
Answer:
YES(O(1),O(n^1))
We add the following weak dependency pairs:
Strict DPs: { a^#(b(x)) -> c_1(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(n^1)).
Strict DPs: { a^#(b(x)) -> c_1(a^#(x)) }
Strict Trs: { a(b(x)) -> b(b(a(x))) }
Obligation:
innermost runtime complexity
Answer:
YES(O(1),O(n^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(n^1)).
Strict DPs: { a^#(b(x)) -> c_1(a^#(x)) }
Obligation:
innermost runtime complexity
Answer:
YES(O(1),O(n^1))
The weightgap principle applies (using the following constant
growth matrix-interpretation)
The following argument positions are usable:
Uargs(c_1) = {1}
TcT has computed the following constructor-restricted matrix
interpretation.
[b](x1) = [1 0] x1 + [0]
[0 1] [1]
[a^#](x1) = [1 1] x1 + [0]
[0 0] [0]
[c_1](x1) = [1 0] x1 + [0]
[0 1] [0]
The order satisfies the following ordering constraints:
[a^#(b(x))] = [1 1] x + [1]
[0 0] [0]
> [1 1] x + [0]
[0 0] [0]
= [c_1(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)).
Weak DPs: { a^#(b(x)) -> c_1(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.
{ a^#(b(x)) -> c_1(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(n^1))