We are left with following problem, upon which TcT provides the
certificate YES(O(1),O(n^2)).

Strict Trs:
  { *(x, *(y, z)) -> *(otimes(x, y), z)
  , *(x, oplus(y, z)) -> oplus(*(x, y), *(x, z))
  , *(1(), y) -> y
  , *(+(x, y), z) -> oplus(*(x, z), *(y, z)) }
Obligation:
  innermost runtime complexity
Answer:
  YES(O(1),O(n^2))

We add the following weak dependency pairs:

Strict DPs:
  { *^#(x, *(y, z)) -> c_1(*^#(otimes(x, y), z))
  , *^#(x, oplus(y, z)) -> c_2(*^#(x, y), *^#(x, z))
  , *^#(1(), y) -> c_3()
  , *^#(+(x, y), z) -> c_4(*^#(x, z), *^#(y, z)) }

and mark the set of starting terms.

We are left with following problem, upon which TcT provides the
certificate YES(O(1),O(n^2)).

Strict DPs:
  { *^#(x, *(y, z)) -> c_1(*^#(otimes(x, y), z))
  , *^#(x, oplus(y, z)) -> c_2(*^#(x, y), *^#(x, z))
  , *^#(1(), y) -> c_3()
  , *^#(+(x, y), z) -> c_4(*^#(x, z), *^#(y, z)) }
Strict Trs:
  { *(x, *(y, z)) -> *(otimes(x, y), z)
  , *(x, oplus(y, z)) -> oplus(*(x, y), *(x, z))
  , *(1(), y) -> y
  , *(+(x, y), z) -> oplus(*(x, z), *(y, z)) }
Obligation:
  innermost runtime complexity
Answer:
  YES(O(1),O(n^2))

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^2)).

Strict DPs:
  { *^#(x, *(y, z)) -> c_1(*^#(otimes(x, y), z))
  , *^#(x, oplus(y, z)) -> c_2(*^#(x, y), *^#(x, z))
  , *^#(1(), y) -> c_3()
  , *^#(+(x, y), z) -> c_4(*^#(x, z), *^#(y, z)) }
Obligation:
  innermost runtime complexity
Answer:
  YES(O(1),O(n^2))

The weightgap principle applies (using the following constant
growth matrix-interpretation)

The following argument positions are usable:
  Uargs(c_1) = {1}, Uargs(c_2) = {1, 2}, Uargs(c_4) = {1, 2}

TcT has computed the following constructor-restricted matrix
interpretation.

       [*](x1, x2) = [1]                      
                     [1]                      
                                              
  [otimes](x1, x2) = [0]                      
                     [0]                      
                                              
               [1] = [0]                      
                     [0]                      
                                              
       [+](x1, x2) = [1 0] x1 + [1 0] x2 + [0]
                     [0 0]      [0 0]      [0]
                                              
   [oplus](x1, x2) = [1 0] x1 + [1 0] x2 + [1]
                     [0 0]      [0 0]      [1]
                                              
     [*^#](x1, x2) = [0 0] x1 + [0 0] x2 + [2]
                     [1 1]      [1 1]      [0]
                                              
         [c_1](x1) = [1 0] x1 + [2]           
                     [0 1]      [0]           
                                              
     [c_2](x1, x2) = [1 0] x1 + [1 0] x2 + [2]
                     [0 1]      [0 1]      [2]
                                              
             [c_3] = [0]                      
                     [0]                      
                                              
     [c_4](x1, x2) = [1 0] x1 + [1 0] x2 + [2]
                     [0 1]      [0 1]      [2]

The order satisfies the following ordering constraints:

      [*^#(x, *(y, z))] = [0 0] x + [2]                    
                          [1 1]     [2]                    
                        ? [0 0] z + [4]                    
                          [1 1]     [0]                    
                        = [c_1(*^#(otimes(x, y), z))]      
                                                           
  [*^#(x, oplus(y, z))] = [0 0] x + [0 0] y + [0 0] z + [2]
                          [1 1]     [1 0]     [1 0]     [2]
                        ? [0 0] x + [0 0] y + [0 0] z + [6]
                          [2 2]     [1 1]     [1 1]     [2]
                        = [c_2(*^#(x, y), *^#(x, z))]      
                                                           
          [*^#(1(), y)] = [0 0] y + [2]                    
                          [1 1]     [0]                    
                        > [0]                              
                          [0]                              
                        = [c_3()]                          
                                                           
      [*^#(+(x, y), z)] = [0 0] x + [0 0] y + [0 0] z + [2]
                          [1 0]     [1 0]     [1 1]     [0]
                        ? [0 0] x + [0 0] y + [0 0] z + [6]
                          [1 1]     [1 1]     [2 2]     [2]
                        = [c_4(*^#(x, z), *^#(y, z))]      
                                                           

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(n^2)).

Strict DPs:
  { *^#(x, *(y, z)) -> c_1(*^#(otimes(x, y), z))
  , *^#(x, oplus(y, z)) -> c_2(*^#(x, y), *^#(x, z))
  , *^#(+(x, y), z) -> c_4(*^#(x, z), *^#(y, z)) }
Weak DPs: { *^#(1(), y) -> c_3() }
Obligation:
  innermost runtime complexity
Answer:
  YES(O(1),O(n^2))

The following weak DPs constitute a sub-graph of the DG that is
closed under successors. The DPs are removed.

{ *^#(1(), y) -> c_3() }

We are left with following problem, upon which TcT provides the
certificate YES(O(1),O(n^2)).

Strict DPs:
  { *^#(x, *(y, z)) -> c_1(*^#(otimes(x, y), z))
  , *^#(x, oplus(y, z)) -> c_2(*^#(x, y), *^#(x, z))
  , *^#(+(x, y), z) -> c_4(*^#(x, z), *^#(y, z)) }
Obligation:
  innermost runtime complexity
Answer:
  YES(O(1),O(n^2))

We use the processor 'custom shape polynomial interpretation' to
orient following rules strictly.

DPs:
  { 3: *^#(+(x, y), z) -> c_4(*^#(x, z), *^#(y, z)) }

Sub-proof:
----------
  The following argument positions are considered usable:
    Uargs(c_1) = {1}, Uargs(c_2) = {1, 2}, Uargs(c_4) = {1, 2}
  TcT has computed the following constructor-restricted polynomial
  interpretation.
       [*](x1, x2) = 2*x2                   
                                            
  [otimes](x1, x2) = 0                      
                                            
       [+](x1, x2) = 2 + x1 + x2            
                                            
   [oplus](x1, x2) = 1 + x1 + x2            
                                            
     [*^#](x1, x2) = 1 + 2*x1 + 2*x1*x2 + x2
                                            
         [c_1](x1) = x1                     
                                            
     [c_2](x1, x2) = x1 + x2                
                                            
     [c_4](x1, x2) = 2 + x1 + x2            
                                            
  
  This order satisfies the following ordering constraints.
  
        [*^#(x, *(y, z))] =  1 + 2*x + 4*x*z + 2*z              
                          >= 1 + z                              
                          =  [c_1(*^#(otimes(x, y), z))]        
                                                                
    [*^#(x, oplus(y, z))] =  2 + 4*x + 2*x*y + 2*x*z + y + z    
                          >= 2 + 4*x + 2*x*y + y + 2*x*z + z    
                          =  [c_2(*^#(x, y), *^#(x, z))]        
                                                                
        [*^#(+(x, y), z)] =  5 + 2*x + 2*y + 5*z + 2*x*z + 2*y*z
                          >  4 + 2*x + 2*x*z + 2*z + 2*y + 2*y*z
                          =  [c_4(*^#(x, z), *^#(y, z))]        
                                                                

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(n^2)).

Strict DPs:
  { *^#(x, *(y, z)) -> c_1(*^#(otimes(x, y), z))
  , *^#(x, oplus(y, z)) -> c_2(*^#(x, y), *^#(x, z)) }
Weak DPs: { *^#(+(x, y), z) -> c_4(*^#(x, z), *^#(y, z)) }
Obligation:
  innermost runtime complexity
Answer:
  YES(O(1),O(n^2))

We use the processor 'custom shape polynomial interpretation' to
orient following rules strictly.

DPs:
  { 1: *^#(x, *(y, z)) -> c_1(*^#(otimes(x, y), z)) }

Sub-proof:
----------
  The following argument positions are considered usable:
    Uargs(c_1) = {1}, Uargs(c_2) = {1, 2}, Uargs(c_4) = {1, 2}
  TcT has computed the following constructor-restricted polynomial
  interpretation.
       [*](x1, x2) = 1 + x2             
                                        
  [otimes](x1, x2) = 0                  
                                        
       [+](x1, x2) = 1 + x1 + x2        
                                        
   [oplus](x1, x2) = 1 + x1 + x2        
                                        
     [*^#](x1, x2) = 1 + x1 + x1*x2 + x2
                                        
         [c_1](x1) = x1                 
                                        
     [c_2](x1, x2) = x1 + x2            
                                        
     [c_4](x1, x2) = x1 + x2            
                                        
  
  This order satisfies the following ordering constraints.
  
        [*^#(x, *(y, z))] =  2 + 2*x + x*z + z          
                          >  1 + z                      
                          =  [c_1(*^#(otimes(x, y), z))]
                                                        
    [*^#(x, oplus(y, z))] =  2 + 2*x + x*y + x*z + y + z
                          >= 2 + 2*x + x*y + y + x*z + z
                          =  [c_2(*^#(x, y), *^#(x, z))]
                                                        
        [*^#(+(x, y), z)] =  2 + x + y + 2*z + x*z + y*z
                          >= 2 + x + x*z + 2*z + y + y*z
                          =  [c_4(*^#(x, z), *^#(y, z))]
                                                        

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(n^2)).

Strict DPs: { *^#(x, oplus(y, z)) -> c_2(*^#(x, y), *^#(x, z)) }
Weak DPs:
  { *^#(x, *(y, z)) -> c_1(*^#(otimes(x, y), z))
  , *^#(+(x, y), z) -> c_4(*^#(x, z), *^#(y, z)) }
Obligation:
  innermost runtime complexity
Answer:
  YES(O(1),O(n^2))

We use the processor 'custom shape polynomial interpretation' to
orient following rules strictly.

DPs:
  { 1: *^#(x, oplus(y, z)) -> c_2(*^#(x, y), *^#(x, z))
  , 2: *^#(x, *(y, z)) -> c_1(*^#(otimes(x, y), z))
  , 3: *^#(+(x, y), z) -> c_4(*^#(x, z), *^#(y, z)) }

Sub-proof:
----------
  The following argument positions are considered usable:
    Uargs(c_1) = {1}, Uargs(c_2) = {1, 2}, Uargs(c_4) = {1, 2}
  TcT has computed the following constructor-restricted polynomial
  interpretation.
       [*](x1, x2) = 2 + x2               
                                          
  [otimes](x1, x2) = 0                    
                                          
       [+](x1, x2) = 1 + x1 + x2          
                                          
   [oplus](x1, x2) = 2 + x1 + x2          
                                          
     [*^#](x1, x2) = 1 + 2*x1 + x1*x2 + x2
                                          
         [c_1](x1) = x1                   
                                          
     [c_2](x1, x2) = x1 + x2              
                                          
     [c_4](x1, x2) = x1 + x2              
                                          
  
  This order satisfies the following ordering constraints.
  
        [*^#(x, *(y, z))] = 3 + 4*x + x*z + z              
                          > 1 + z                          
                          = [c_1(*^#(otimes(x, y), z))]    
                                                           
    [*^#(x, oplus(y, z))] = 3 + 4*x + x*y + x*z + y + z    
                          > 2 + 4*x + x*y + y + x*z + z    
                          = [c_2(*^#(x, y), *^#(x, z))]    
                                                           
        [*^#(+(x, y), z)] = 3 + 2*x + 2*y + 2*z + x*z + y*z
                          > 2 + 2*x + x*z + 2*z + 2*y + y*z
                          = [c_4(*^#(x, z), *^#(y, z))]    
                                                           

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:
  { *^#(x, *(y, z)) -> c_1(*^#(otimes(x, y), z))
  , *^#(x, oplus(y, z)) -> c_2(*^#(x, y), *^#(x, z))
  , *^#(+(x, y), z) -> c_4(*^#(x, z), *^#(y, z)) }
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.

{ *^#(x, *(y, z)) -> c_1(*^#(otimes(x, y), z))
, *^#(x, oplus(y, z)) -> c_2(*^#(x, y), *^#(x, z))
, *^#(+(x, y), z) -> c_4(*^#(x, z), *^#(y, z)) }

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^2))