*** 1 Progress [(?,O(n^3))] *** Considered Problem: Strict DP Rules: Strict TRS Rules: add(0(),X) -> X add(s(X),Y) -> s(add(X,Y)) dbl(0()) -> 0() dbl(s(X)) -> s(s(dbl(X))) first(0(),X) -> nil() first(s(X),cons(Y)) -> cons(Y) half(0()) -> 0() half(dbl(X)) -> X half(s(0())) -> 0() half(s(s(X))) -> s(half(X)) sqr(0()) -> 0() sqr(s(X)) -> s(add(sqr(X),dbl(X))) terms(N) -> cons(recip(sqr(N))) Weak DP Rules: Weak TRS Rules: Signature: {add/2,dbl/1,first/2,half/1,sqr/1,terms/1} / {0/0,cons/1,nil/0,recip/1,s/1} Obligation: Innermost basic terms: {add,dbl,first,half,sqr,terms}/{0,cons,nil,recip,s} Applied Processor: DependencyPairs {dpKind_ = DT} Proof: We add the following dependency tuples: Strict DPs add#(0(),X) -> c_1() add#(s(X),Y) -> c_2(add#(X,Y)) dbl#(0()) -> c_3() dbl#(s(X)) -> c_4(dbl#(X)) first#(0(),X) -> c_5() first#(s(X),cons(Y)) -> c_6() half#(0()) -> c_7() half#(dbl(X)) -> c_8() half#(s(0())) -> c_9() half#(s(s(X))) -> c_10(half#(X)) sqr#(0()) -> c_11() sqr#(s(X)) -> c_12(add#(sqr(X),dbl(X)),sqr#(X),dbl#(X)) terms#(N) -> c_13(sqr#(N)) Weak DPs and mark the set of starting terms. *** 1.1 Progress [(?,O(n^3))] *** Considered Problem: Strict DP Rules: add#(0(),X) -> c_1() add#(s(X),Y) -> c_2(add#(X,Y)) dbl#(0()) -> c_3() dbl#(s(X)) -> c_4(dbl#(X)) first#(0(),X) -> c_5() first#(s(X),cons(Y)) -> c_6() half#(0()) -> c_7() half#(dbl(X)) -> c_8() half#(s(0())) -> c_9() half#(s(s(X))) -> c_10(half#(X)) sqr#(0()) -> c_11() sqr#(s(X)) -> c_12(add#(sqr(X),dbl(X)),sqr#(X),dbl#(X)) terms#(N) -> c_13(sqr#(N)) Strict TRS Rules: Weak DP Rules: Weak TRS Rules: add(0(),X) -> X add(s(X),Y) -> s(add(X,Y)) dbl(0()) -> 0() dbl(s(X)) -> s(s(dbl(X))) first(0(),X) -> nil() first(s(X),cons(Y)) -> cons(Y) half(0()) -> 0() half(dbl(X)) -> X half(s(0())) -> 0() half(s(s(X))) -> s(half(X)) sqr(0()) -> 0() sqr(s(X)) -> s(add(sqr(X),dbl(X))) terms(N) -> cons(recip(sqr(N))) Signature: {add/2,dbl/1,first/2,half/1,sqr/1,terms/1,add#/2,dbl#/1,first#/2,half#/1,sqr#/1,terms#/1} / {0/0,cons/1,nil/0,recip/1,s/1,c_1/0,c_2/1,c_3/0,c_4/1,c_5/0,c_6/0,c_7/0,c_8/0,c_9/0,c_10/1,c_11/0,c_12/3,c_13/1} Obligation: Innermost basic terms: {add#,dbl#,first#,half#,sqr#,terms#}/{0,cons,nil,recip,s} Applied Processor: UsableRules Proof: We replace rewrite rules by usable rules: add(0(),X) -> X add(s(X),Y) -> s(add(X,Y)) dbl(0()) -> 0() dbl(s(X)) -> s(s(dbl(X))) sqr(0()) -> 0() sqr(s(X)) -> s(add(sqr(X),dbl(X))) add#(0(),X) -> c_1() add#(s(X),Y) -> c_2(add#(X,Y)) dbl#(0()) -> c_3() dbl#(s(X)) -> c_4(dbl#(X)) first#(0(),X) -> c_5() first#(s(X),cons(Y)) -> c_6() half#(0()) -> c_7() half#(dbl(X)) -> c_8() half#(s(0())) -> c_9() half#(s(s(X))) -> c_10(half#(X)) sqr#(0()) -> c_11() sqr#(s(X)) -> c_12(add#(sqr(X),dbl(X)),sqr#(X),dbl#(X)) terms#(N) -> c_13(sqr#(N)) *** 1.1.1 Progress [(?,O(n^3))] *** Considered Problem: Strict DP Rules: add#(0(),X) -> c_1() add#(s(X),Y) -> c_2(add#(X,Y)) dbl#(0()) -> c_3() dbl#(s(X)) -> c_4(dbl#(X)) first#(0(),X) -> c_5() first#(s(X),cons(Y)) -> c_6() half#(0()) -> c_7() half#(dbl(X)) -> c_8() half#(s(0())) -> c_9() half#(s(s(X))) -> c_10(half#(X)) sqr#(0()) -> c_11() sqr#(s(X)) -> c_12(add#(sqr(X),dbl(X)),sqr#(X),dbl#(X)) terms#(N) -> c_13(sqr#(N)) Strict TRS Rules: Weak DP Rules: Weak TRS Rules: add(0(),X) -> X add(s(X),Y) -> s(add(X,Y)) dbl(0()) -> 0() dbl(s(X)) -> s(s(dbl(X))) sqr(0()) -> 0() sqr(s(X)) -> s(add(sqr(X),dbl(X))) Signature: {add/2,dbl/1,first/2,half/1,sqr/1,terms/1,add#/2,dbl#/1,first#/2,half#/1,sqr#/1,terms#/1} / {0/0,cons/1,nil/0,recip/1,s/1,c_1/0,c_2/1,c_3/0,c_4/1,c_5/0,c_6/0,c_7/0,c_8/0,c_9/0,c_10/1,c_11/0,c_12/3,c_13/1} Obligation: Innermost basic terms: {add#,dbl#,first#,half#,sqr#,terms#}/{0,cons,nil,recip,s} Applied Processor: PredecessorEstimation {onSelection = all simple predecessor estimation selector} Proof: We estimate the number of application of {1,3,5,6,7,8,9,11} by application of Pre({1,3,5,6,7,8,9,11}) = {2,4,10,12,13}. Here rules are labelled as follows: 1: add#(0(),X) -> c_1() 2: add#(s(X),Y) -> c_2(add#(X,Y)) 3: dbl#(0()) -> c_3() 4: dbl#(s(X)) -> c_4(dbl#(X)) 5: first#(0(),X) -> c_5() 6: first#(s(X),cons(Y)) -> c_6() 7: half#(0()) -> c_7() 8: half#(dbl(X)) -> c_8() 9: half#(s(0())) -> c_9() 10: half#(s(s(X))) -> c_10(half#(X)) 11: sqr#(0()) -> c_11() 12: sqr#(s(X)) -> c_12(add#(sqr(X) ,dbl(X)) ,sqr#(X) ,dbl#(X)) 13: terms#(N) -> c_13(sqr#(N)) *** 1.1.1.1 Progress [(?,O(n^3))] *** Considered Problem: Strict DP Rules: add#(s(X),Y) -> c_2(add#(X,Y)) dbl#(s(X)) -> c_4(dbl#(X)) half#(s(s(X))) -> c_10(half#(X)) sqr#(s(X)) -> c_12(add#(sqr(X),dbl(X)),sqr#(X),dbl#(X)) terms#(N) -> c_13(sqr#(N)) Strict TRS Rules: Weak DP Rules: add#(0(),X) -> c_1() dbl#(0()) -> c_3() first#(0(),X) -> c_5() first#(s(X),cons(Y)) -> c_6() half#(0()) -> c_7() half#(dbl(X)) -> c_8() half#(s(0())) -> c_9() sqr#(0()) -> c_11() Weak TRS Rules: add(0(),X) -> X add(s(X),Y) -> s(add(X,Y)) dbl(0()) -> 0() dbl(s(X)) -> s(s(dbl(X))) sqr(0()) -> 0() sqr(s(X)) -> s(add(sqr(X),dbl(X))) Signature: {add/2,dbl/1,first/2,half/1,sqr/1,terms/1,add#/2,dbl#/1,first#/2,half#/1,sqr#/1,terms#/1} / {0/0,cons/1,nil/0,recip/1,s/1,c_1/0,c_2/1,c_3/0,c_4/1,c_5/0,c_6/0,c_7/0,c_8/0,c_9/0,c_10/1,c_11/0,c_12/3,c_13/1} Obligation: Innermost basic terms: {add#,dbl#,first#,half#,sqr#,terms#}/{0,cons,nil,recip,s} Applied Processor: RemoveWeakSuffixes Proof: Consider the dependency graph 1:S:add#(s(X),Y) -> c_2(add#(X,Y)) -->_1 add#(0(),X) -> c_1():6 -->_1 add#(s(X),Y) -> c_2(add#(X,Y)):1 2:S:dbl#(s(X)) -> c_4(dbl#(X)) -->_1 dbl#(0()) -> c_3():7 -->_1 dbl#(s(X)) -> c_4(dbl#(X)):2 3:S:half#(s(s(X))) -> c_10(half#(X)) -->_1 half#(s(0())) -> c_9():12 -->_1 half#(dbl(X)) -> c_8():11 -->_1 half#(0()) -> c_7():10 -->_1 half#(s(s(X))) -> c_10(half#(X)):3 4:S:sqr#(s(X)) -> c_12(add#(sqr(X),dbl(X)),sqr#(X),dbl#(X)) -->_2 sqr#(0()) -> c_11():13 -->_3 dbl#(0()) -> c_3():7 -->_1 add#(0(),X) -> c_1():6 -->_2 sqr#(s(X)) -> c_12(add#(sqr(X),dbl(X)),sqr#(X),dbl#(X)):4 -->_3 dbl#(s(X)) -> c_4(dbl#(X)):2 -->_1 add#(s(X),Y) -> c_2(add#(X,Y)):1 5:S:terms#(N) -> c_13(sqr#(N)) -->_1 sqr#(0()) -> c_11():13 -->_1 sqr#(s(X)) -> c_12(add#(sqr(X),dbl(X)),sqr#(X),dbl#(X)):4 6:W:add#(0(),X) -> c_1() 7:W:dbl#(0()) -> c_3() 8:W:first#(0(),X) -> c_5() 9:W:first#(s(X),cons(Y)) -> c_6() 10:W:half#(0()) -> c_7() 11:W:half#(dbl(X)) -> c_8() 12:W:half#(s(0())) -> c_9() 13:W:sqr#(0()) -> c_11() The following weak DPs constitute a sub-graph of the DG that is closed under successors. The DPs are removed. 9: first#(s(X),cons(Y)) -> c_6() 8: first#(0(),X) -> c_5() 13: sqr#(0()) -> c_11() 10: half#(0()) -> c_7() 11: half#(dbl(X)) -> c_8() 12: half#(s(0())) -> c_9() 7: dbl#(0()) -> c_3() 6: add#(0(),X) -> c_1() *** 1.1.1.1.1 Progress [(?,O(n^3))] *** Considered Problem: Strict DP Rules: add#(s(X),Y) -> c_2(add#(X,Y)) dbl#(s(X)) -> c_4(dbl#(X)) half#(s(s(X))) -> c_10(half#(X)) sqr#(s(X)) -> c_12(add#(sqr(X),dbl(X)),sqr#(X),dbl#(X)) terms#(N) -> c_13(sqr#(N)) Strict TRS Rules: Weak DP Rules: Weak TRS Rules: add(0(),X) -> X add(s(X),Y) -> s(add(X,Y)) dbl(0()) -> 0() dbl(s(X)) -> s(s(dbl(X))) sqr(0()) -> 0() sqr(s(X)) -> s(add(sqr(X),dbl(X))) Signature: {add/2,dbl/1,first/2,half/1,sqr/1,terms/1,add#/2,dbl#/1,first#/2,half#/1,sqr#/1,terms#/1} / {0/0,cons/1,nil/0,recip/1,s/1,c_1/0,c_2/1,c_3/0,c_4/1,c_5/0,c_6/0,c_7/0,c_8/0,c_9/0,c_10/1,c_11/0,c_12/3,c_13/1} Obligation: Innermost basic terms: {add#,dbl#,first#,half#,sqr#,terms#}/{0,cons,nil,recip,s} Applied Processor: RemoveHeads Proof: Consider the dependency graph 1:S:add#(s(X),Y) -> c_2(add#(X,Y)) -->_1 add#(s(X),Y) -> c_2(add#(X,Y)):1 2:S:dbl#(s(X)) -> c_4(dbl#(X)) -->_1 dbl#(s(X)) -> c_4(dbl#(X)):2 3:S:half#(s(s(X))) -> c_10(half#(X)) -->_1 half#(s(s(X))) -> c_10(half#(X)):3 4:S:sqr#(s(X)) -> c_12(add#(sqr(X),dbl(X)),sqr#(X),dbl#(X)) -->_2 sqr#(s(X)) -> c_12(add#(sqr(X),dbl(X)),sqr#(X),dbl#(X)):4 -->_3 dbl#(s(X)) -> c_4(dbl#(X)):2 -->_1 add#(s(X),Y) -> c_2(add#(X,Y)):1 5:S:terms#(N) -> c_13(sqr#(N)) -->_1 sqr#(s(X)) -> c_12(add#(sqr(X),dbl(X)),sqr#(X),dbl#(X)):4 Following roots of the dependency graph are removed, as the considered set of starting terms is closed under reduction with respect to these rules (modulo compound contexts). [(5,terms#(N) -> c_13(sqr#(N)))] *** 1.1.1.1.1.1 Progress [(?,O(n^3))] *** Considered Problem: Strict DP Rules: add#(s(X),Y) -> c_2(add#(X,Y)) dbl#(s(X)) -> c_4(dbl#(X)) half#(s(s(X))) -> c_10(half#(X)) sqr#(s(X)) -> c_12(add#(sqr(X),dbl(X)),sqr#(X),dbl#(X)) Strict TRS Rules: Weak DP Rules: Weak TRS Rules: add(0(),X) -> X add(s(X),Y) -> s(add(X,Y)) dbl(0()) -> 0() dbl(s(X)) -> s(s(dbl(X))) sqr(0()) -> 0() sqr(s(X)) -> s(add(sqr(X),dbl(X))) Signature: {add/2,dbl/1,first/2,half/1,sqr/1,terms/1,add#/2,dbl#/1,first#/2,half#/1,sqr#/1,terms#/1} / {0/0,cons/1,nil/0,recip/1,s/1,c_1/0,c_2/1,c_3/0,c_4/1,c_5/0,c_6/0,c_7/0,c_8/0,c_9/0,c_10/1,c_11/0,c_12/3,c_13/1} Obligation: Innermost basic terms: {add#,dbl#,first#,half#,sqr#,terms#}/{0,cons,nil,recip,s} Applied Processor: Decompose {onSelection = all cycle independent sub-graph, withBound = RelativeAdd} Proof: We analyse the complexity of following sub-problems (R) and (S). Problem (S) is obtained from the input problem by shifting strict rules from (R) into the weak component. Problem (R) Strict DP Rules: add#(s(X),Y) -> c_2(add#(X,Y)) Strict TRS Rules: Weak DP Rules: dbl#(s(X)) -> c_4(dbl#(X)) half#(s(s(X))) -> c_10(half#(X)) sqr#(s(X)) -> c_12(add#(sqr(X),dbl(X)),sqr#(X),dbl#(X)) Weak TRS Rules: add(0(),X) -> X add(s(X),Y) -> s(add(X,Y)) dbl(0()) -> 0() dbl(s(X)) -> s(s(dbl(X))) sqr(0()) -> 0() sqr(s(X)) -> s(add(sqr(X),dbl(X))) Signature: {add/2,dbl/1,first/2,half/1,sqr/1,terms/1,add#/2,dbl#/1,first#/2,half#/1,sqr#/1,terms#/1} / {0/0,cons/1,nil/0,recip/1,s/1,c_1/0,c_2/1,c_3/0,c_4/1,c_5/0,c_6/0,c_7/0,c_8/0,c_9/0,c_10/1,c_11/0,c_12/3,c_13/1} Obligation: Innermost basic terms: {add#,dbl#,first#,half#,sqr#,terms#}/{0,cons,nil,recip,s} Problem (S) Strict DP Rules: dbl#(s(X)) -> c_4(dbl#(X)) half#(s(s(X))) -> c_10(half#(X)) sqr#(s(X)) -> c_12(add#(sqr(X),dbl(X)),sqr#(X),dbl#(X)) Strict TRS Rules: Weak DP Rules: add#(s(X),Y) -> c_2(add#(X,Y)) Weak TRS Rules: add(0(),X) -> X add(s(X),Y) -> s(add(X,Y)) dbl(0()) -> 0() dbl(s(X)) -> s(s(dbl(X))) sqr(0()) -> 0() sqr(s(X)) -> s(add(sqr(X),dbl(X))) Signature: {add/2,dbl/1,first/2,half/1,sqr/1,terms/1,add#/2,dbl#/1,first#/2,half#/1,sqr#/1,terms#/1} / {0/0,cons/1,nil/0,recip/1,s/1,c_1/0,c_2/1,c_3/0,c_4/1,c_5/0,c_6/0,c_7/0,c_8/0,c_9/0,c_10/1,c_11/0,c_12/3,c_13/1} Obligation: Innermost basic terms: {add#,dbl#,first#,half#,sqr#,terms#}/{0,cons,nil,recip,s} *** 1.1.1.1.1.1.1 Progress [(?,O(n^3))] *** Considered Problem: Strict DP Rules: add#(s(X),Y) -> c_2(add#(X,Y)) Strict TRS Rules: Weak DP Rules: dbl#(s(X)) -> c_4(dbl#(X)) half#(s(s(X))) -> c_10(half#(X)) sqr#(s(X)) -> c_12(add#(sqr(X),dbl(X)),sqr#(X),dbl#(X)) Weak TRS Rules: add(0(),X) -> X add(s(X),Y) -> s(add(X,Y)) dbl(0()) -> 0() dbl(s(X)) -> s(s(dbl(X))) sqr(0()) -> 0() sqr(s(X)) -> s(add(sqr(X),dbl(X))) Signature: {add/2,dbl/1,first/2,half/1,sqr/1,terms/1,add#/2,dbl#/1,first#/2,half#/1,sqr#/1,terms#/1} / {0/0,cons/1,nil/0,recip/1,s/1,c_1/0,c_2/1,c_3/0,c_4/1,c_5/0,c_6/0,c_7/0,c_8/0,c_9/0,c_10/1,c_11/0,c_12/3,c_13/1} Obligation: Innermost basic terms: {add#,dbl#,first#,half#,sqr#,terms#}/{0,cons,nil,recip,s} Applied Processor: RemoveWeakSuffixes Proof: Consider the dependency graph 1:S:add#(s(X),Y) -> c_2(add#(X,Y)) -->_1 add#(s(X),Y) -> c_2(add#(X,Y)):1 2:W:dbl#(s(X)) -> c_4(dbl#(X)) -->_1 dbl#(s(X)) -> c_4(dbl#(X)):2 3:W:half#(s(s(X))) -> c_10(half#(X)) -->_1 half#(s(s(X))) -> c_10(half#(X)):3 4:W:sqr#(s(X)) -> c_12(add#(sqr(X),dbl(X)),sqr#(X),dbl#(X)) -->_3 dbl#(s(X)) -> c_4(dbl#(X)):2 -->_1 add#(s(X),Y) -> c_2(add#(X,Y)):1 -->_2 sqr#(s(X)) -> c_12(add#(sqr(X),dbl(X)),sqr#(X),dbl#(X)):4 The following weak DPs constitute a sub-graph of the DG that is closed under successors. The DPs are removed. 3: half#(s(s(X))) -> c_10(half#(X)) 2: dbl#(s(X)) -> c_4(dbl#(X)) *** 1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1 Progress [(?,O(n^3))] *** Considered Problem: Strict DP Rules: add#(s(X),Y) -> c_2(add#(X,Y)) Strict TRS Rules: Weak DP Rules: sqr#(s(X)) -> c_12(add#(sqr(X),dbl(X)),sqr#(X),dbl#(X)) Weak TRS Rules: add(0(),X) -> X add(s(X),Y) -> s(add(X,Y)) dbl(0()) -> 0() dbl(s(X)) -> s(s(dbl(X))) sqr(0()) -> 0() sqr(s(X)) -> s(add(sqr(X),dbl(X))) Signature: {add/2,dbl/1,first/2,half/1,sqr/1,terms/1,add#/2,dbl#/1,first#/2,half#/1,sqr#/1,terms#/1} / {0/0,cons/1,nil/0,recip/1,s/1,c_1/0,c_2/1,c_3/0,c_4/1,c_5/0,c_6/0,c_7/0,c_8/0,c_9/0,c_10/1,c_11/0,c_12/3,c_13/1} Obligation: Innermost basic terms: {add#,dbl#,first#,half#,sqr#,terms#}/{0,cons,nil,recip,s} Applied Processor: SimplifyRHS Proof: Consider the dependency graph 1:S:add#(s(X),Y) -> c_2(add#(X,Y)) -->_1 add#(s(X),Y) -> c_2(add#(X,Y)):1 4:W:sqr#(s(X)) -> c_12(add#(sqr(X),dbl(X)),sqr#(X),dbl#(X)) -->_1 add#(s(X),Y) -> c_2(add#(X,Y)):1 -->_2 sqr#(s(X)) -> c_12(add#(sqr(X),dbl(X)),sqr#(X),dbl#(X)):4 Due to missing edges in the depndency graph, the right-hand sides of following rules could be simplified: sqr#(s(X)) -> c_12(add#(sqr(X),dbl(X)),sqr#(X)) *** 1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1 Progress [(?,O(n^3))] *** Considered Problem: Strict DP Rules: add#(s(X),Y) -> c_2(add#(X,Y)) Strict TRS Rules: Weak DP Rules: sqr#(s(X)) -> c_12(add#(sqr(X),dbl(X)),sqr#(X)) Weak TRS Rules: add(0(),X) -> X add(s(X),Y) -> s(add(X,Y)) dbl(0()) -> 0() dbl(s(X)) -> s(s(dbl(X))) sqr(0()) -> 0() sqr(s(X)) -> s(add(sqr(X),dbl(X))) Signature: {add/2,dbl/1,first/2,half/1,sqr/1,terms/1,add#/2,dbl#/1,first#/2,half#/1,sqr#/1,terms#/1} / {0/0,cons/1,nil/0,recip/1,s/1,c_1/0,c_2/1,c_3/0,c_4/1,c_5/0,c_6/0,c_7/0,c_8/0,c_9/0,c_10/1,c_11/0,c_12/2,c_13/1} Obligation: Innermost basic terms: {add#,dbl#,first#,half#,sqr#,terms#}/{0,cons,nil,recip,s} Applied Processor: DecomposeDG {onSelection = all below first cut in WDG, onUpper = Just someStrategy, onLower = Nothing} Proof: We decompose the input problem according to the dependency graph into the upper component sqr#(s(X)) -> c_12(add#(sqr(X),dbl(X)),sqr#(X)) and a lower component add#(s(X),Y) -> c_2(add#(X,Y)) Further, following extension rules are added to the lower component. sqr#(s(X)) -> add#(sqr(X),dbl(X)) sqr#(s(X)) -> sqr#(X) *** 1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1 Progress [(?,O(n^1))] *** Considered Problem: Strict DP Rules: sqr#(s(X)) -> c_12(add#(sqr(X),dbl(X)),sqr#(X)) Strict TRS Rules: Weak DP Rules: Weak TRS Rules: add(0(),X) -> X add(s(X),Y) -> s(add(X,Y)) dbl(0()) -> 0() dbl(s(X)) -> s(s(dbl(X))) sqr(0()) -> 0() sqr(s(X)) -> s(add(sqr(X),dbl(X))) Signature: {add/2,dbl/1,first/2,half/1,sqr/1,terms/1,add#/2,dbl#/1,first#/2,half#/1,sqr#/1,terms#/1} / {0/0,cons/1,nil/0,recip/1,s/1,c_1/0,c_2/1,c_3/0,c_4/1,c_5/0,c_6/0,c_7/0,c_8/0,c_9/0,c_10/1,c_11/0,c_12/2,c_13/1} Obligation: Innermost basic terms: {add#,dbl#,first#,half#,sqr#,terms#}/{0,cons,nil,recip,s} Applied Processor: PredecessorEstimationCP {onSelectionCP = any intersect of rules of CDG leaf and strict-rules, withComplexityPair = NaturalMI {miDimension = 1, miDegree = 1, miKind = Algebraic, uargs = UArgs, urules = URules, selector = Nothing, greedy = NoGreedy}} Proof: We first use the processor NaturalMI {miDimension = 1, miDegree = 1, miKind = Algebraic, uargs = UArgs, urules = URules, selector = Nothing, greedy = NoGreedy} to orient following rules strictly: 1: sqr#(s(X)) -> c_12(add#(sqr(X) ,dbl(X)) ,sqr#(X)) The strictly oriented rules are moved into the weak component. *** 1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1 Progress [(?,O(n^1))] *** Considered Problem: Strict DP Rules: sqr#(s(X)) -> c_12(add#(sqr(X),dbl(X)),sqr#(X)) Strict TRS Rules: Weak DP Rules: Weak TRS Rules: add(0(),X) -> X add(s(X),Y) -> s(add(X,Y)) dbl(0()) -> 0() dbl(s(X)) -> s(s(dbl(X))) sqr(0()) -> 0() sqr(s(X)) -> s(add(sqr(X),dbl(X))) Signature: {add/2,dbl/1,first/2,half/1,sqr/1,terms/1,add#/2,dbl#/1,first#/2,half#/1,sqr#/1,terms#/1} / {0/0,cons/1,nil/0,recip/1,s/1,c_1/0,c_2/1,c_3/0,c_4/1,c_5/0,c_6/0,c_7/0,c_8/0,c_9/0,c_10/1,c_11/0,c_12/2,c_13/1} Obligation: Innermost basic terms: {add#,dbl#,first#,half#,sqr#,terms#}/{0,cons,nil,recip,s} Applied Processor: NaturalMI {miDimension = 1, miDegree = 1, miKind = Algebraic, uargs = UArgs, urules = URules, selector = Just first alternative for predecessorEstimation any intersect of rules of CDG leaf and strict-rules, greedy = NoGreedy} Proof: We apply a matrix interpretation of kind constructor based matrix interpretation: The following argument positions are considered usable: uargs(c_12) = {1,2} Following symbols are considered usable: {add#,dbl#,first#,half#,sqr#,terms#} TcT has computed the following interpretation: p(0) = [3] p(add) = [2] p(cons) = [1] x1 + [0] p(dbl) = [1] x1 + [0] p(first) = [0] p(half) = [4] x1 + [0] p(nil) = [0] p(recip) = [0] p(s) = [1] x1 + [6] p(sqr) = [2] p(terms) = [0] p(add#) = [5] p(dbl#) = [0] p(first#) = [1] x1 + [8] x2 + [0] p(half#) = [1] x1 + [0] p(sqr#) = [4] x1 + [2] p(terms#) = [8] x1 + [0] p(c_1) = [0] p(c_2) = [4] x1 + [0] p(c_3) = [0] p(c_4) = [1] x1 + [0] p(c_5) = [0] p(c_6) = [0] p(c_7) = [0] p(c_8) = [0] p(c_9) = [0] p(c_10) = [1] x1 + [0] p(c_11) = [2] p(c_12) = [2] x1 + [1] x2 + [6] p(c_13) = [0] Following rules are strictly oriented: sqr#(s(X)) = [4] X + [26] > [4] X + [18] = c_12(add#(sqr(X),dbl(X)) ,sqr#(X)) Following rules are (at-least) weakly oriented: *** 1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1 Progress [(?,O(1))] *** Considered Problem: Strict DP Rules: Strict TRS Rules: Weak DP Rules: sqr#(s(X)) -> c_12(add#(sqr(X),dbl(X)),sqr#(X)) Weak TRS Rules: add(0(),X) -> X add(s(X),Y) -> s(add(X,Y)) dbl(0()) -> 0() dbl(s(X)) -> s(s(dbl(X))) sqr(0()) -> 0() sqr(s(X)) -> s(add(sqr(X),dbl(X))) Signature: {add/2,dbl/1,first/2,half/1,sqr/1,terms/1,add#/2,dbl#/1,first#/2,half#/1,sqr#/1,terms#/1} / {0/0,cons/1,nil/0,recip/1,s/1,c_1/0,c_2/1,c_3/0,c_4/1,c_5/0,c_6/0,c_7/0,c_8/0,c_9/0,c_10/1,c_11/0,c_12/2,c_13/1} Obligation: Innermost basic terms: {add#,dbl#,first#,half#,sqr#,terms#}/{0,cons,nil,recip,s} Applied Processor: Assumption Proof: () *** 1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.2 Progress [(O(1),O(1))] *** Considered Problem: Strict DP Rules: Strict TRS Rules: Weak DP Rules: sqr#(s(X)) -> c_12(add#(sqr(X),dbl(X)),sqr#(X)) Weak TRS Rules: add(0(),X) -> X add(s(X),Y) -> s(add(X,Y)) dbl(0()) -> 0() dbl(s(X)) -> s(s(dbl(X))) sqr(0()) -> 0() sqr(s(X)) -> s(add(sqr(X),dbl(X))) Signature: {add/2,dbl/1,first/2,half/1,sqr/1,terms/1,add#/2,dbl#/1,first#/2,half#/1,sqr#/1,terms#/1} / {0/0,cons/1,nil/0,recip/1,s/1,c_1/0,c_2/1,c_3/0,c_4/1,c_5/0,c_6/0,c_7/0,c_8/0,c_9/0,c_10/1,c_11/0,c_12/2,c_13/1} Obligation: Innermost basic terms: {add#,dbl#,first#,half#,sqr#,terms#}/{0,cons,nil,recip,s} Applied Processor: RemoveWeakSuffixes Proof: Consider the dependency graph 1:W:sqr#(s(X)) -> c_12(add#(sqr(X),dbl(X)),sqr#(X)) -->_2 sqr#(s(X)) -> c_12(add#(sqr(X),dbl(X)),sqr#(X)):1 The following weak DPs constitute a sub-graph of the DG that is closed under successors. The DPs are removed. 1: sqr#(s(X)) -> c_12(add#(sqr(X) ,dbl(X)) ,sqr#(X)) *** 1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.2.1 Progress [(O(1),O(1))] *** Considered Problem: Strict DP Rules: Strict TRS Rules: Weak DP Rules: Weak TRS Rules: add(0(),X) -> X add(s(X),Y) -> s(add(X,Y)) dbl(0()) -> 0() dbl(s(X)) -> s(s(dbl(X))) sqr(0()) -> 0() sqr(s(X)) -> s(add(sqr(X),dbl(X))) Signature: {add/2,dbl/1,first/2,half/1,sqr/1,terms/1,add#/2,dbl#/1,first#/2,half#/1,sqr#/1,terms#/1} / {0/0,cons/1,nil/0,recip/1,s/1,c_1/0,c_2/1,c_3/0,c_4/1,c_5/0,c_6/0,c_7/0,c_8/0,c_9/0,c_10/1,c_11/0,c_12/2,c_13/1} Obligation: Innermost basic terms: {add#,dbl#,first#,half#,sqr#,terms#}/{0,cons,nil,recip,s} Applied Processor: EmptyProcessor Proof: The problem is already closed. The intended complexity is O(1). *** 1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.2 Progress [(?,O(n^2))] *** Considered Problem: Strict DP Rules: add#(s(X),Y) -> c_2(add#(X,Y)) Strict TRS Rules: Weak DP Rules: sqr#(s(X)) -> add#(sqr(X),dbl(X)) sqr#(s(X)) -> sqr#(X) Weak TRS Rules: add(0(),X) -> X add(s(X),Y) -> s(add(X,Y)) dbl(0()) -> 0() dbl(s(X)) -> s(s(dbl(X))) sqr(0()) -> 0() sqr(s(X)) -> s(add(sqr(X),dbl(X))) Signature: {add/2,dbl/1,first/2,half/1,sqr/1,terms/1,add#/2,dbl#/1,first#/2,half#/1,sqr#/1,terms#/1} / {0/0,cons/1,nil/0,recip/1,s/1,c_1/0,c_2/1,c_3/0,c_4/1,c_5/0,c_6/0,c_7/0,c_8/0,c_9/0,c_10/1,c_11/0,c_12/2,c_13/1} Obligation: Innermost basic terms: {add#,dbl#,first#,half#,sqr#,terms#}/{0,cons,nil,recip,s} Applied Processor: PredecessorEstimationCP {onSelectionCP = any intersect of rules of CDG leaf and strict-rules, withComplexityPair = NaturalPI {shape = Mixed 2, restrict = Restrict, uargs = UArgs, urules = URules, selector = Nothing, greedy = NoGreedy}} Proof: We first use the processor NaturalPI {shape = Mixed 2, restrict = Restrict, uargs = UArgs, urules = URules, selector = Nothing, greedy = NoGreedy} to orient following rules strictly: 1: add#(s(X),Y) -> c_2(add#(X,Y)) The strictly oriented rules are moved into the weak component. *** 1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.2.1 Progress [(?,O(n^2))] *** Considered Problem: Strict DP Rules: add#(s(X),Y) -> c_2(add#(X,Y)) Strict TRS Rules: Weak DP Rules: sqr#(s(X)) -> add#(sqr(X),dbl(X)) sqr#(s(X)) -> sqr#(X) Weak TRS Rules: add(0(),X) -> X add(s(X),Y) -> s(add(X,Y)) dbl(0()) -> 0() dbl(s(X)) -> s(s(dbl(X))) sqr(0()) -> 0() sqr(s(X)) -> s(add(sqr(X),dbl(X))) Signature: {add/2,dbl/1,first/2,half/1,sqr/1,terms/1,add#/2,dbl#/1,first#/2,half#/1,sqr#/1,terms#/1} / {0/0,cons/1,nil/0,recip/1,s/1,c_1/0,c_2/1,c_3/0,c_4/1,c_5/0,c_6/0,c_7/0,c_8/0,c_9/0,c_10/1,c_11/0,c_12/2,c_13/1} Obligation: Innermost basic terms: {add#,dbl#,first#,half#,sqr#,terms#}/{0,cons,nil,recip,s} Applied Processor: NaturalPI {shape = Mixed 2, restrict = Restrict, uargs = UArgs, urules = URules, selector = Just first alternative for predecessorEstimation any intersect of rules of CDG leaf and strict-rules, greedy = NoGreedy} Proof: We apply a polynomial interpretation of kind constructor-based(mixed(2)): The following argument positions are considered usable: uargs(c_2) = {1} Following symbols are considered usable: {add,dbl,sqr,add#,dbl#,first#,half#,sqr#,terms#} TcT has computed the following interpretation: p(0) = 0 p(add) = x1 + x2 p(cons) = 0 p(dbl) = 2*x1 p(first) = 0 p(half) = 1 + x1 p(nil) = 1 p(recip) = 0 p(s) = 1 + x1 p(sqr) = 2*x1^2 p(terms) = 2 + x1^2 p(add#) = 4 + 2*x1 p(dbl#) = 4 + x1^2 p(first#) = 2*x1 + 4*x2 p(half#) = 1 + x1 + 4*x1^2 p(sqr#) = 4*x1^2 p(terms#) = 4*x1^2 p(c_1) = 1 p(c_2) = x1 p(c_3) = 0 p(c_4) = 1 + x1 p(c_5) = 1 p(c_6) = 1 p(c_7) = 1 p(c_8) = 1 p(c_9) = 1 p(c_10) = 1 p(c_11) = 0 p(c_12) = 0 p(c_13) = 0 Following rules are strictly oriented: add#(s(X),Y) = 6 + 2*X > 4 + 2*X = c_2(add#(X,Y)) Following rules are (at-least) weakly oriented: sqr#(s(X)) = 4 + 8*X + 4*X^2 >= 4 + 4*X^2 = add#(sqr(X),dbl(X)) sqr#(s(X)) = 4 + 8*X + 4*X^2 >= 4*X^2 = sqr#(X) add(0(),X) = X >= X = X add(s(X),Y) = 1 + X + Y >= 1 + X + Y = s(add(X,Y)) dbl(0()) = 0 >= 0 = 0() dbl(s(X)) = 2 + 2*X >= 2 + 2*X = s(s(dbl(X))) sqr(0()) = 0 >= 0 = 0() sqr(s(X)) = 2 + 4*X + 2*X^2 >= 1 + 2*X + 2*X^2 = s(add(sqr(X),dbl(X))) *** 1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.2.1.1 Progress [(?,O(1))] *** Considered Problem: Strict DP Rules: Strict TRS Rules: Weak DP Rules: add#(s(X),Y) -> c_2(add#(X,Y)) sqr#(s(X)) -> add#(sqr(X),dbl(X)) sqr#(s(X)) -> sqr#(X) Weak TRS Rules: add(0(),X) -> X add(s(X),Y) -> s(add(X,Y)) dbl(0()) -> 0() dbl(s(X)) -> s(s(dbl(X))) sqr(0()) -> 0() sqr(s(X)) -> s(add(sqr(X),dbl(X))) Signature: {add/2,dbl/1,first/2,half/1,sqr/1,terms/1,add#/2,dbl#/1,first#/2,half#/1,sqr#/1,terms#/1} / {0/0,cons/1,nil/0,recip/1,s/1,c_1/0,c_2/1,c_3/0,c_4/1,c_5/0,c_6/0,c_7/0,c_8/0,c_9/0,c_10/1,c_11/0,c_12/2,c_13/1} Obligation: Innermost basic terms: {add#,dbl#,first#,half#,sqr#,terms#}/{0,cons,nil,recip,s} Applied Processor: Assumption Proof: () *** 1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.2.2 Progress [(O(1),O(1))] *** Considered Problem: Strict DP Rules: Strict TRS Rules: Weak DP Rules: add#(s(X),Y) -> c_2(add#(X,Y)) sqr#(s(X)) -> add#(sqr(X),dbl(X)) sqr#(s(X)) -> sqr#(X) Weak TRS Rules: add(0(),X) -> X add(s(X),Y) -> s(add(X,Y)) dbl(0()) -> 0() dbl(s(X)) -> s(s(dbl(X))) sqr(0()) -> 0() sqr(s(X)) -> s(add(sqr(X),dbl(X))) Signature: {add/2,dbl/1,first/2,half/1,sqr/1,terms/1,add#/2,dbl#/1,first#/2,half#/1,sqr#/1,terms#/1} / {0/0,cons/1,nil/0,recip/1,s/1,c_1/0,c_2/1,c_3/0,c_4/1,c_5/0,c_6/0,c_7/0,c_8/0,c_9/0,c_10/1,c_11/0,c_12/2,c_13/1} Obligation: Innermost basic terms: {add#,dbl#,first#,half#,sqr#,terms#}/{0,cons,nil,recip,s} Applied Processor: RemoveWeakSuffixes Proof: Consider the dependency graph 1:W:add#(s(X),Y) -> c_2(add#(X,Y)) -->_1 add#(s(X),Y) -> c_2(add#(X,Y)):1 2:W:sqr#(s(X)) -> add#(sqr(X),dbl(X)) -->_1 add#(s(X),Y) -> c_2(add#(X,Y)):1 3:W:sqr#(s(X)) -> sqr#(X) -->_1 sqr#(s(X)) -> sqr#(X):3 -->_1 sqr#(s(X)) -> add#(sqr(X),dbl(X)):2 The following weak DPs constitute a sub-graph of the DG that is closed under successors. The DPs are removed. 3: sqr#(s(X)) -> sqr#(X) 2: sqr#(s(X)) -> add#(sqr(X) ,dbl(X)) 1: add#(s(X),Y) -> c_2(add#(X,Y)) *** 1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.2.2.1 Progress [(O(1),O(1))] *** Considered Problem: Strict DP Rules: Strict TRS Rules: Weak DP Rules: Weak TRS Rules: add(0(),X) -> X add(s(X),Y) -> s(add(X,Y)) dbl(0()) -> 0() dbl(s(X)) -> s(s(dbl(X))) sqr(0()) -> 0() sqr(s(X)) -> s(add(sqr(X),dbl(X))) Signature: {add/2,dbl/1,first/2,half/1,sqr/1,terms/1,add#/2,dbl#/1,first#/2,half#/1,sqr#/1,terms#/1} / {0/0,cons/1,nil/0,recip/1,s/1,c_1/0,c_2/1,c_3/0,c_4/1,c_5/0,c_6/0,c_7/0,c_8/0,c_9/0,c_10/1,c_11/0,c_12/2,c_13/1} Obligation: Innermost basic terms: {add#,dbl#,first#,half#,sqr#,terms#}/{0,cons,nil,recip,s} Applied Processor: EmptyProcessor Proof: The problem is already closed. The intended complexity is O(1). *** 1.1.1.1.1.1.2 Progress [(?,O(n^2))] *** Considered Problem: Strict DP Rules: dbl#(s(X)) -> c_4(dbl#(X)) half#(s(s(X))) -> c_10(half#(X)) sqr#(s(X)) -> c_12(add#(sqr(X),dbl(X)),sqr#(X),dbl#(X)) Strict TRS Rules: Weak DP Rules: add#(s(X),Y) -> c_2(add#(X,Y)) Weak TRS Rules: add(0(),X) -> X add(s(X),Y) -> s(add(X,Y)) dbl(0()) -> 0() dbl(s(X)) -> s(s(dbl(X))) sqr(0()) -> 0() sqr(s(X)) -> s(add(sqr(X),dbl(X))) Signature: {add/2,dbl/1,first/2,half/1,sqr/1,terms/1,add#/2,dbl#/1,first#/2,half#/1,sqr#/1,terms#/1} / {0/0,cons/1,nil/0,recip/1,s/1,c_1/0,c_2/1,c_3/0,c_4/1,c_5/0,c_6/0,c_7/0,c_8/0,c_9/0,c_10/1,c_11/0,c_12/3,c_13/1} Obligation: Innermost basic terms: {add#,dbl#,first#,half#,sqr#,terms#}/{0,cons,nil,recip,s} Applied Processor: RemoveWeakSuffixes Proof: Consider the dependency graph 1:S:dbl#(s(X)) -> c_4(dbl#(X)) -->_1 dbl#(s(X)) -> c_4(dbl#(X)):1 2:S:half#(s(s(X))) -> c_10(half#(X)) -->_1 half#(s(s(X))) -> c_10(half#(X)):2 3:S:sqr#(s(X)) -> c_12(add#(sqr(X),dbl(X)),sqr#(X),dbl#(X)) -->_1 add#(s(X),Y) -> c_2(add#(X,Y)):4 -->_2 sqr#(s(X)) -> c_12(add#(sqr(X),dbl(X)),sqr#(X),dbl#(X)):3 -->_3 dbl#(s(X)) -> c_4(dbl#(X)):1 4:W:add#(s(X),Y) -> c_2(add#(X,Y)) -->_1 add#(s(X),Y) -> c_2(add#(X,Y)):4 The following weak DPs constitute a sub-graph of the DG that is closed under successors. The DPs are removed. 4: add#(s(X),Y) -> c_2(add#(X,Y)) *** 1.1.1.1.1.1.2.1 Progress [(?,O(n^2))] *** Considered Problem: Strict DP Rules: dbl#(s(X)) -> c_4(dbl#(X)) half#(s(s(X))) -> c_10(half#(X)) sqr#(s(X)) -> c_12(add#(sqr(X),dbl(X)),sqr#(X),dbl#(X)) Strict TRS Rules: Weak DP Rules: Weak TRS Rules: add(0(),X) -> X add(s(X),Y) -> s(add(X,Y)) dbl(0()) -> 0() dbl(s(X)) -> s(s(dbl(X))) sqr(0()) -> 0() sqr(s(X)) -> s(add(sqr(X),dbl(X))) Signature: {add/2,dbl/1,first/2,half/1,sqr/1,terms/1,add#/2,dbl#/1,first#/2,half#/1,sqr#/1,terms#/1} / {0/0,cons/1,nil/0,recip/1,s/1,c_1/0,c_2/1,c_3/0,c_4/1,c_5/0,c_6/0,c_7/0,c_8/0,c_9/0,c_10/1,c_11/0,c_12/3,c_13/1} Obligation: Innermost basic terms: {add#,dbl#,first#,half#,sqr#,terms#}/{0,cons,nil,recip,s} Applied Processor: SimplifyRHS Proof: Consider the dependency graph 1:S:dbl#(s(X)) -> c_4(dbl#(X)) -->_1 dbl#(s(X)) -> c_4(dbl#(X)):1 2:S:half#(s(s(X))) -> c_10(half#(X)) -->_1 half#(s(s(X))) -> c_10(half#(X)):2 3:S:sqr#(s(X)) -> c_12(add#(sqr(X),dbl(X)),sqr#(X),dbl#(X)) -->_2 sqr#(s(X)) -> c_12(add#(sqr(X),dbl(X)),sqr#(X),dbl#(X)):3 -->_3 dbl#(s(X)) -> c_4(dbl#(X)):1 Due to missing edges in the depndency graph, the right-hand sides of following rules could be simplified: sqr#(s(X)) -> c_12(sqr#(X),dbl#(X)) *** 1.1.1.1.1.1.2.1.1 Progress [(?,O(n^2))] *** Considered Problem: Strict DP Rules: dbl#(s(X)) -> c_4(dbl#(X)) half#(s(s(X))) -> c_10(half#(X)) sqr#(s(X)) -> c_12(sqr#(X),dbl#(X)) Strict TRS Rules: Weak DP Rules: Weak TRS Rules: add(0(),X) -> X add(s(X),Y) -> s(add(X,Y)) dbl(0()) -> 0() dbl(s(X)) -> s(s(dbl(X))) sqr(0()) -> 0() sqr(s(X)) -> s(add(sqr(X),dbl(X))) Signature: {add/2,dbl/1,first/2,half/1,sqr/1,terms/1,add#/2,dbl#/1,first#/2,half#/1,sqr#/1,terms#/1} / {0/0,cons/1,nil/0,recip/1,s/1,c_1/0,c_2/1,c_3/0,c_4/1,c_5/0,c_6/0,c_7/0,c_8/0,c_9/0,c_10/1,c_11/0,c_12/2,c_13/1} Obligation: Innermost basic terms: {add#,dbl#,first#,half#,sqr#,terms#}/{0,cons,nil,recip,s} Applied Processor: UsableRules Proof: We replace rewrite rules by usable rules: dbl#(s(X)) -> c_4(dbl#(X)) half#(s(s(X))) -> c_10(half#(X)) sqr#(s(X)) -> c_12(sqr#(X),dbl#(X)) *** 1.1.1.1.1.1.2.1.1.1 Progress [(?,O(n^2))] *** Considered Problem: Strict DP Rules: dbl#(s(X)) -> c_4(dbl#(X)) half#(s(s(X))) -> c_10(half#(X)) sqr#(s(X)) -> c_12(sqr#(X),dbl#(X)) Strict TRS Rules: Weak DP Rules: Weak TRS Rules: Signature: {add/2,dbl/1,first/2,half/1,sqr/1,terms/1,add#/2,dbl#/1,first#/2,half#/1,sqr#/1,terms#/1} / {0/0,cons/1,nil/0,recip/1,s/1,c_1/0,c_2/1,c_3/0,c_4/1,c_5/0,c_6/0,c_7/0,c_8/0,c_9/0,c_10/1,c_11/0,c_12/2,c_13/1} Obligation: Innermost basic terms: {add#,dbl#,first#,half#,sqr#,terms#}/{0,cons,nil,recip,s} Applied Processor: Decompose {onSelection = all cycle independent sub-graph, withBound = RelativeAdd} Proof: We analyse the complexity of following sub-problems (R) and (S). Problem (S) is obtained from the input problem by shifting strict rules from (R) into the weak component. Problem (R) Strict DP Rules: dbl#(s(X)) -> c_4(dbl#(X)) Strict TRS Rules: Weak DP Rules: half#(s(s(X))) -> c_10(half#(X)) sqr#(s(X)) -> c_12(sqr#(X),dbl#(X)) Weak TRS Rules: Signature: {add/2,dbl/1,first/2,half/1,sqr/1,terms/1,add#/2,dbl#/1,first#/2,half#/1,sqr#/1,terms#/1} / {0/0,cons/1,nil/0,recip/1,s/1,c_1/0,c_2/1,c_3/0,c_4/1,c_5/0,c_6/0,c_7/0,c_8/0,c_9/0,c_10/1,c_11/0,c_12/2,c_13/1} Obligation: Innermost basic terms: {add#,dbl#,first#,half#,sqr#,terms#}/{0,cons,nil,recip,s} Problem (S) Strict DP Rules: half#(s(s(X))) -> c_10(half#(X)) sqr#(s(X)) -> c_12(sqr#(X),dbl#(X)) Strict TRS Rules: Weak DP Rules: dbl#(s(X)) -> c_4(dbl#(X)) Weak TRS Rules: Signature: {add/2,dbl/1,first/2,half/1,sqr/1,terms/1,add#/2,dbl#/1,first#/2,half#/1,sqr#/1,terms#/1} / {0/0,cons/1,nil/0,recip/1,s/1,c_1/0,c_2/1,c_3/0,c_4/1,c_5/0,c_6/0,c_7/0,c_8/0,c_9/0,c_10/1,c_11/0,c_12/2,c_13/1} Obligation: Innermost basic terms: {add#,dbl#,first#,half#,sqr#,terms#}/{0,cons,nil,recip,s} *** 1.1.1.1.1.1.2.1.1.1.1 Progress [(?,O(n^2))] *** Considered Problem: Strict DP Rules: dbl#(s(X)) -> c_4(dbl#(X)) Strict TRS Rules: Weak DP Rules: half#(s(s(X))) -> c_10(half#(X)) sqr#(s(X)) -> c_12(sqr#(X),dbl#(X)) Weak TRS Rules: Signature: {add/2,dbl/1,first/2,half/1,sqr/1,terms/1,add#/2,dbl#/1,first#/2,half#/1,sqr#/1,terms#/1} / {0/0,cons/1,nil/0,recip/1,s/1,c_1/0,c_2/1,c_3/0,c_4/1,c_5/0,c_6/0,c_7/0,c_8/0,c_9/0,c_10/1,c_11/0,c_12/2,c_13/1} Obligation: Innermost basic terms: {add#,dbl#,first#,half#,sqr#,terms#}/{0,cons,nil,recip,s} Applied Processor: RemoveWeakSuffixes Proof: Consider the dependency graph 1:S:dbl#(s(X)) -> c_4(dbl#(X)) -->_1 dbl#(s(X)) -> c_4(dbl#(X)):1 2:W:half#(s(s(X))) -> c_10(half#(X)) -->_1 half#(s(s(X))) -> c_10(half#(X)):2 3:W:sqr#(s(X)) -> c_12(sqr#(X),dbl#(X)) -->_2 dbl#(s(X)) -> c_4(dbl#(X)):1 -->_1 sqr#(s(X)) -> c_12(sqr#(X),dbl#(X)):3 The following weak DPs constitute a sub-graph of the DG that is closed under successors. The DPs are removed. 2: half#(s(s(X))) -> c_10(half#(X)) *** 1.1.1.1.1.1.2.1.1.1.1.1 Progress [(?,O(n^2))] *** Considered Problem: Strict DP Rules: dbl#(s(X)) -> c_4(dbl#(X)) Strict TRS Rules: Weak DP Rules: sqr#(s(X)) -> c_12(sqr#(X),dbl#(X)) Weak TRS Rules: Signature: {add/2,dbl/1,first/2,half/1,sqr/1,terms/1,add#/2,dbl#/1,first#/2,half#/1,sqr#/1,terms#/1} / {0/0,cons/1,nil/0,recip/1,s/1,c_1/0,c_2/1,c_3/0,c_4/1,c_5/0,c_6/0,c_7/0,c_8/0,c_9/0,c_10/1,c_11/0,c_12/2,c_13/1} Obligation: Innermost basic terms: {add#,dbl#,first#,half#,sqr#,terms#}/{0,cons,nil,recip,s} Applied Processor: PredecessorEstimationCP {onSelectionCP = any intersect of rules of CDG leaf and strict-rules, withComplexityPair = NaturalPI {shape = Mixed 2, restrict = Restrict, uargs = UArgs, urules = URules, selector = Nothing, greedy = NoGreedy}} Proof: We first use the processor NaturalPI {shape = Mixed 2, restrict = Restrict, uargs = UArgs, urules = URules, selector = Nothing, greedy = NoGreedy} to orient following rules strictly: 1: dbl#(s(X)) -> c_4(dbl#(X)) The strictly oriented rules are moved into the weak component. *** 1.1.1.1.1.1.2.1.1.1.1.1.1 Progress [(?,O(n^2))] *** Considered Problem: Strict DP Rules: dbl#(s(X)) -> c_4(dbl#(X)) Strict TRS Rules: Weak DP Rules: sqr#(s(X)) -> c_12(sqr#(X),dbl#(X)) Weak TRS Rules: Signature: {add/2,dbl/1,first/2,half/1,sqr/1,terms/1,add#/2,dbl#/1,first#/2,half#/1,sqr#/1,terms#/1} / {0/0,cons/1,nil/0,recip/1,s/1,c_1/0,c_2/1,c_3/0,c_4/1,c_5/0,c_6/0,c_7/0,c_8/0,c_9/0,c_10/1,c_11/0,c_12/2,c_13/1} Obligation: Innermost basic terms: {add#,dbl#,first#,half#,sqr#,terms#}/{0,cons,nil,recip,s} Applied Processor: NaturalPI {shape = Mixed 2, restrict = Restrict, uargs = UArgs, urules = URules, selector = Just first alternative for predecessorEstimation any intersect of rules of CDG leaf and strict-rules, greedy = NoGreedy} Proof: We apply a polynomial interpretation of kind constructor-based(mixed(2)): The following argument positions are considered usable: uargs(c_4) = {1}, uargs(c_12) = {1,2} Following symbols are considered usable: {add#,dbl#,first#,half#,sqr#,terms#} TcT has computed the following interpretation: p(0) = 0 p(add) = 2 + x1 + x1*x2 p(cons) = x1 p(dbl) = 1 + x1 + x1^2 p(first) = 2 + 2*x1 + x1^2 + x2 + x2^2 p(half) = 1 + 8*x1 + x1^2 p(nil) = 0 p(recip) = 1 p(s) = 1 + x1 p(sqr) = x1^2 p(terms) = 1 + 4*x1 + x1^2 p(add#) = 4*x1 + x1*x2 + 2*x1^2 + x2^2 p(dbl#) = 1 + 2*x1 p(first#) = 2 + x1 + 8*x1^2 p(half#) = 0 p(sqr#) = 12 + 7*x1 + 2*x1^2 p(terms#) = 1 + x1 + x1^2 p(c_1) = 0 p(c_2) = 1 + x1 p(c_3) = 0 p(c_4) = 1 + x1 p(c_5) = 0 p(c_6) = 1 p(c_7) = 1 p(c_8) = 0 p(c_9) = 1 p(c_10) = 1 p(c_11) = 0 p(c_12) = x1 + x2 p(c_13) = x1 Following rules are strictly oriented: dbl#(s(X)) = 3 + 2*X > 2 + 2*X = c_4(dbl#(X)) Following rules are (at-least) weakly oriented: sqr#(s(X)) = 21 + 11*X + 2*X^2 >= 13 + 9*X + 2*X^2 = c_12(sqr#(X),dbl#(X)) *** 1.1.1.1.1.1.2.1.1.1.1.1.1.1 Progress [(?,O(1))] *** Considered Problem: Strict DP Rules: Strict TRS Rules: Weak DP Rules: dbl#(s(X)) -> c_4(dbl#(X)) sqr#(s(X)) -> c_12(sqr#(X),dbl#(X)) Weak TRS Rules: Signature: {add/2,dbl/1,first/2,half/1,sqr/1,terms/1,add#/2,dbl#/1,first#/2,half#/1,sqr#/1,terms#/1} / {0/0,cons/1,nil/0,recip/1,s/1,c_1/0,c_2/1,c_3/0,c_4/1,c_5/0,c_6/0,c_7/0,c_8/0,c_9/0,c_10/1,c_11/0,c_12/2,c_13/1} Obligation: Innermost basic terms: {add#,dbl#,first#,half#,sqr#,terms#}/{0,cons,nil,recip,s} Applied Processor: Assumption Proof: () *** 1.1.1.1.1.1.2.1.1.1.1.1.2 Progress [(O(1),O(1))] *** Considered Problem: Strict DP Rules: Strict TRS Rules: Weak DP Rules: dbl#(s(X)) -> c_4(dbl#(X)) sqr#(s(X)) -> c_12(sqr#(X),dbl#(X)) Weak TRS Rules: Signature: {add/2,dbl/1,first/2,half/1,sqr/1,terms/1,add#/2,dbl#/1,first#/2,half#/1,sqr#/1,terms#/1} / {0/0,cons/1,nil/0,recip/1,s/1,c_1/0,c_2/1,c_3/0,c_4/1,c_5/0,c_6/0,c_7/0,c_8/0,c_9/0,c_10/1,c_11/0,c_12/2,c_13/1} Obligation: Innermost basic terms: {add#,dbl#,first#,half#,sqr#,terms#}/{0,cons,nil,recip,s} Applied Processor: RemoveWeakSuffixes Proof: Consider the dependency graph 1:W:dbl#(s(X)) -> c_4(dbl#(X)) -->_1 dbl#(s(X)) -> c_4(dbl#(X)):1 2:W:sqr#(s(X)) -> c_12(sqr#(X),dbl#(X)) -->_1 sqr#(s(X)) -> c_12(sqr#(X),dbl#(X)):2 -->_2 dbl#(s(X)) -> c_4(dbl#(X)):1 The following weak DPs constitute a sub-graph of the DG that is closed under successors. The DPs are removed. 2: sqr#(s(X)) -> c_12(sqr#(X) ,dbl#(X)) 1: dbl#(s(X)) -> c_4(dbl#(X)) *** 1.1.1.1.1.1.2.1.1.1.1.1.2.1 Progress [(O(1),O(1))] *** Considered Problem: Strict DP Rules: Strict TRS Rules: Weak DP Rules: Weak TRS Rules: Signature: {add/2,dbl/1,first/2,half/1,sqr/1,terms/1,add#/2,dbl#/1,first#/2,half#/1,sqr#/1,terms#/1} / {0/0,cons/1,nil/0,recip/1,s/1,c_1/0,c_2/1,c_3/0,c_4/1,c_5/0,c_6/0,c_7/0,c_8/0,c_9/0,c_10/1,c_11/0,c_12/2,c_13/1} Obligation: Innermost basic terms: {add#,dbl#,first#,half#,sqr#,terms#}/{0,cons,nil,recip,s} Applied Processor: EmptyProcessor Proof: The problem is already closed. The intended complexity is O(1). *** 1.1.1.1.1.1.2.1.1.1.2 Progress [(?,O(n^1))] *** Considered Problem: Strict DP Rules: half#(s(s(X))) -> c_10(half#(X)) sqr#(s(X)) -> c_12(sqr#(X),dbl#(X)) Strict TRS Rules: Weak DP Rules: dbl#(s(X)) -> c_4(dbl#(X)) Weak TRS Rules: Signature: {add/2,dbl/1,first/2,half/1,sqr/1,terms/1,add#/2,dbl#/1,first#/2,half#/1,sqr#/1,terms#/1} / {0/0,cons/1,nil/0,recip/1,s/1,c_1/0,c_2/1,c_3/0,c_4/1,c_5/0,c_6/0,c_7/0,c_8/0,c_9/0,c_10/1,c_11/0,c_12/2,c_13/1} Obligation: Innermost basic terms: {add#,dbl#,first#,half#,sqr#,terms#}/{0,cons,nil,recip,s} Applied Processor: RemoveWeakSuffixes Proof: Consider the dependency graph 1:S:half#(s(s(X))) -> c_10(half#(X)) -->_1 half#(s(s(X))) -> c_10(half#(X)):1 2:S:sqr#(s(X)) -> c_12(sqr#(X),dbl#(X)) -->_2 dbl#(s(X)) -> c_4(dbl#(X)):3 -->_1 sqr#(s(X)) -> c_12(sqr#(X),dbl#(X)):2 3:W:dbl#(s(X)) -> c_4(dbl#(X)) -->_1 dbl#(s(X)) -> c_4(dbl#(X)):3 The following weak DPs constitute a sub-graph of the DG that is closed under successors. The DPs are removed. 3: dbl#(s(X)) -> c_4(dbl#(X)) *** 1.1.1.1.1.1.2.1.1.1.2.1 Progress [(?,O(n^1))] *** Considered Problem: Strict DP Rules: half#(s(s(X))) -> c_10(half#(X)) sqr#(s(X)) -> c_12(sqr#(X),dbl#(X)) Strict TRS Rules: Weak DP Rules: Weak TRS Rules: Signature: {add/2,dbl/1,first/2,half/1,sqr/1,terms/1,add#/2,dbl#/1,first#/2,half#/1,sqr#/1,terms#/1} / {0/0,cons/1,nil/0,recip/1,s/1,c_1/0,c_2/1,c_3/0,c_4/1,c_5/0,c_6/0,c_7/0,c_8/0,c_9/0,c_10/1,c_11/0,c_12/2,c_13/1} Obligation: Innermost basic terms: {add#,dbl#,first#,half#,sqr#,terms#}/{0,cons,nil,recip,s} Applied Processor: SimplifyRHS Proof: Consider the dependency graph 1:S:half#(s(s(X))) -> c_10(half#(X)) -->_1 half#(s(s(X))) -> c_10(half#(X)):1 2:S:sqr#(s(X)) -> c_12(sqr#(X),dbl#(X)) -->_1 sqr#(s(X)) -> c_12(sqr#(X),dbl#(X)):2 Due to missing edges in the depndency graph, the right-hand sides of following rules could be simplified: sqr#(s(X)) -> c_12(sqr#(X)) *** 1.1.1.1.1.1.2.1.1.1.2.1.1 Progress [(?,O(n^1))] *** Considered Problem: Strict DP Rules: half#(s(s(X))) -> c_10(half#(X)) sqr#(s(X)) -> c_12(sqr#(X)) Strict TRS Rules: Weak DP Rules: Weak TRS Rules: Signature: {add/2,dbl/1,first/2,half/1,sqr/1,terms/1,add#/2,dbl#/1,first#/2,half#/1,sqr#/1,terms#/1} / {0/0,cons/1,nil/0,recip/1,s/1,c_1/0,c_2/1,c_3/0,c_4/1,c_5/0,c_6/0,c_7/0,c_8/0,c_9/0,c_10/1,c_11/0,c_12/1,c_13/1} Obligation: Innermost basic terms: {add#,dbl#,first#,half#,sqr#,terms#}/{0,cons,nil,recip,s} Applied Processor: Decompose {onSelection = all cycle independent sub-graph, withBound = RelativeAdd} Proof: We analyse the complexity of following sub-problems (R) and (S). Problem (S) is obtained from the input problem by shifting strict rules from (R) into the weak component. Problem (R) Strict DP Rules: half#(s(s(X))) -> c_10(half#(X)) Strict TRS Rules: Weak DP Rules: sqr#(s(X)) -> c_12(sqr#(X)) Weak TRS Rules: Signature: {add/2,dbl/1,first/2,half/1,sqr/1,terms/1,add#/2,dbl#/1,first#/2,half#/1,sqr#/1,terms#/1} / {0/0,cons/1,nil/0,recip/1,s/1,c_1/0,c_2/1,c_3/0,c_4/1,c_5/0,c_6/0,c_7/0,c_8/0,c_9/0,c_10/1,c_11/0,c_12/1,c_13/1} Obligation: Innermost basic terms: {add#,dbl#,first#,half#,sqr#,terms#}/{0,cons,nil,recip,s} Problem (S) Strict DP Rules: sqr#(s(X)) -> c_12(sqr#(X)) Strict TRS Rules: Weak DP Rules: half#(s(s(X))) -> c_10(half#(X)) Weak TRS Rules: Signature: {add/2,dbl/1,first/2,half/1,sqr/1,terms/1,add#/2,dbl#/1,first#/2,half#/1,sqr#/1,terms#/1} / {0/0,cons/1,nil/0,recip/1,s/1,c_1/0,c_2/1,c_3/0,c_4/1,c_5/0,c_6/0,c_7/0,c_8/0,c_9/0,c_10/1,c_11/0,c_12/1,c_13/1} Obligation: Innermost basic terms: {add#,dbl#,first#,half#,sqr#,terms#}/{0,cons,nil,recip,s} *** 1.1.1.1.1.1.2.1.1.1.2.1.1.1 Progress [(?,O(n^1))] *** Considered Problem: Strict DP Rules: half#(s(s(X))) -> c_10(half#(X)) Strict TRS Rules: Weak DP Rules: sqr#(s(X)) -> c_12(sqr#(X)) Weak TRS Rules: Signature: {add/2,dbl/1,first/2,half/1,sqr/1,terms/1,add#/2,dbl#/1,first#/2,half#/1,sqr#/1,terms#/1} / {0/0,cons/1,nil/0,recip/1,s/1,c_1/0,c_2/1,c_3/0,c_4/1,c_5/0,c_6/0,c_7/0,c_8/0,c_9/0,c_10/1,c_11/0,c_12/1,c_13/1} Obligation: Innermost basic terms: {add#,dbl#,first#,half#,sqr#,terms#}/{0,cons,nil,recip,s} Applied Processor: RemoveWeakSuffixes Proof: Consider the dependency graph 1:S:half#(s(s(X))) -> c_10(half#(X)) -->_1 half#(s(s(X))) -> c_10(half#(X)):1 2:W:sqr#(s(X)) -> c_12(sqr#(X)) -->_1 sqr#(s(X)) -> c_12(sqr#(X)):2 The following weak DPs constitute a sub-graph of the DG that is closed under successors. The DPs are removed. 2: sqr#(s(X)) -> c_12(sqr#(X)) *** 1.1.1.1.1.1.2.1.1.1.2.1.1.1.1 Progress [(?,O(n^1))] *** Considered Problem: Strict DP Rules: half#(s(s(X))) -> c_10(half#(X)) Strict TRS Rules: Weak DP Rules: Weak TRS Rules: Signature: {add/2,dbl/1,first/2,half/1,sqr/1,terms/1,add#/2,dbl#/1,first#/2,half#/1,sqr#/1,terms#/1} / {0/0,cons/1,nil/0,recip/1,s/1,c_1/0,c_2/1,c_3/0,c_4/1,c_5/0,c_6/0,c_7/0,c_8/0,c_9/0,c_10/1,c_11/0,c_12/1,c_13/1} Obligation: Innermost basic terms: {add#,dbl#,first#,half#,sqr#,terms#}/{0,cons,nil,recip,s} Applied Processor: PredecessorEstimationCP {onSelectionCP = any intersect of rules of CDG leaf and strict-rules, withComplexityPair = NaturalMI {miDimension = 1, miDegree = 1, miKind = Algebraic, uargs = UArgs, urules = URules, selector = Nothing, greedy = NoGreedy}} Proof: We first use the processor NaturalMI {miDimension = 1, miDegree = 1, miKind = Algebraic, uargs = UArgs, urules = URules, selector = Nothing, greedy = NoGreedy} to orient following rules strictly: 1: half#(s(s(X))) -> c_10(half#(X)) The strictly oriented rules are moved into the weak component. *** 1.1.1.1.1.1.2.1.1.1.2.1.1.1.1.1 Progress [(?,O(n^1))] *** Considered Problem: Strict DP Rules: half#(s(s(X))) -> c_10(half#(X)) Strict TRS Rules: Weak DP Rules: Weak TRS Rules: Signature: {add/2,dbl/1,first/2,half/1,sqr/1,terms/1,add#/2,dbl#/1,first#/2,half#/1,sqr#/1,terms#/1} / {0/0,cons/1,nil/0,recip/1,s/1,c_1/0,c_2/1,c_3/0,c_4/1,c_5/0,c_6/0,c_7/0,c_8/0,c_9/0,c_10/1,c_11/0,c_12/1,c_13/1} Obligation: Innermost basic terms: {add#,dbl#,first#,half#,sqr#,terms#}/{0,cons,nil,recip,s} Applied Processor: NaturalMI {miDimension = 1, miDegree = 1, miKind = Algebraic, uargs = UArgs, urules = URules, selector = Just first alternative for predecessorEstimation any intersect of rules of CDG leaf and strict-rules, greedy = NoGreedy} Proof: We apply a matrix interpretation of kind constructor based matrix interpretation: The following argument positions are considered usable: uargs(c_10) = {1} Following symbols are considered usable: {add#,dbl#,first#,half#,sqr#,terms#} TcT has computed the following interpretation: p(0) = [2] p(add) = [2] p(cons) = [1] p(dbl) = [2] x1 + [1] p(first) = [8] x1 + [1] x2 + [1] p(half) = [0] p(nil) = [0] p(recip) = [2] p(s) = [1] x1 + [8] p(sqr) = [2] x1 + [2] p(terms) = [2] x1 + [1] p(add#) = [2] x1 + [1] x2 + [0] p(dbl#) = [0] p(first#) = [1] x1 + [1] x2 + [0] p(half#) = [1] x1 + [4] p(sqr#) = [8] p(terms#) = [1] p(c_1) = [1] p(c_2) = [2] x1 + [1] p(c_3) = [1] p(c_4) = [2] x1 + [4] p(c_5) = [4] p(c_6) = [0] p(c_7) = [8] p(c_8) = [4] p(c_9) = [0] p(c_10) = [1] x1 + [10] p(c_11) = [2] p(c_12) = [1] x1 + [1] p(c_13) = [4] Following rules are strictly oriented: half#(s(s(X))) = [1] X + [20] > [1] X + [14] = c_10(half#(X)) Following rules are (at-least) weakly oriented: *** 1.1.1.1.1.1.2.1.1.1.2.1.1.1.1.1.1 Progress [(?,O(1))] *** Considered Problem: Strict DP Rules: Strict TRS Rules: Weak DP Rules: half#(s(s(X))) -> c_10(half#(X)) Weak TRS Rules: Signature: {add/2,dbl/1,first/2,half/1,sqr/1,terms/1,add#/2,dbl#/1,first#/2,half#/1,sqr#/1,terms#/1} / {0/0,cons/1,nil/0,recip/1,s/1,c_1/0,c_2/1,c_3/0,c_4/1,c_5/0,c_6/0,c_7/0,c_8/0,c_9/0,c_10/1,c_11/0,c_12/1,c_13/1} Obligation: Innermost basic terms: {add#,dbl#,first#,half#,sqr#,terms#}/{0,cons,nil,recip,s} Applied Processor: Assumption Proof: () *** 1.1.1.1.1.1.2.1.1.1.2.1.1.1.1.2 Progress [(O(1),O(1))] *** Considered Problem: Strict DP Rules: Strict TRS Rules: Weak DP Rules: half#(s(s(X))) -> c_10(half#(X)) Weak TRS Rules: Signature: {add/2,dbl/1,first/2,half/1,sqr/1,terms/1,add#/2,dbl#/1,first#/2,half#/1,sqr#/1,terms#/1} / {0/0,cons/1,nil/0,recip/1,s/1,c_1/0,c_2/1,c_3/0,c_4/1,c_5/0,c_6/0,c_7/0,c_8/0,c_9/0,c_10/1,c_11/0,c_12/1,c_13/1} Obligation: Innermost basic terms: {add#,dbl#,first#,half#,sqr#,terms#}/{0,cons,nil,recip,s} Applied Processor: RemoveWeakSuffixes Proof: Consider the dependency graph 1:W:half#(s(s(X))) -> c_10(half#(X)) -->_1 half#(s(s(X))) -> c_10(half#(X)):1 The following weak DPs constitute a sub-graph of the DG that is closed under successors. The DPs are removed. 1: half#(s(s(X))) -> c_10(half#(X)) *** 1.1.1.1.1.1.2.1.1.1.2.1.1.1.1.2.1 Progress [(O(1),O(1))] *** Considered Problem: Strict DP Rules: Strict TRS Rules: Weak DP Rules: Weak TRS Rules: Signature: {add/2,dbl/1,first/2,half/1,sqr/1,terms/1,add#/2,dbl#/1,first#/2,half#/1,sqr#/1,terms#/1} / {0/0,cons/1,nil/0,recip/1,s/1,c_1/0,c_2/1,c_3/0,c_4/1,c_5/0,c_6/0,c_7/0,c_8/0,c_9/0,c_10/1,c_11/0,c_12/1,c_13/1} Obligation: Innermost basic terms: {add#,dbl#,first#,half#,sqr#,terms#}/{0,cons,nil,recip,s} Applied Processor: EmptyProcessor Proof: The problem is already closed. The intended complexity is O(1). *** 1.1.1.1.1.1.2.1.1.1.2.1.1.2 Progress [(?,O(n^1))] *** Considered Problem: Strict DP Rules: sqr#(s(X)) -> c_12(sqr#(X)) Strict TRS Rules: Weak DP Rules: half#(s(s(X))) -> c_10(half#(X)) Weak TRS Rules: Signature: {add/2,dbl/1,first/2,half/1,sqr/1,terms/1,add#/2,dbl#/1,first#/2,half#/1,sqr#/1,terms#/1} / {0/0,cons/1,nil/0,recip/1,s/1,c_1/0,c_2/1,c_3/0,c_4/1,c_5/0,c_6/0,c_7/0,c_8/0,c_9/0,c_10/1,c_11/0,c_12/1,c_13/1} Obligation: Innermost basic terms: {add#,dbl#,first#,half#,sqr#,terms#}/{0,cons,nil,recip,s} Applied Processor: RemoveWeakSuffixes Proof: Consider the dependency graph 1:S:sqr#(s(X)) -> c_12(sqr#(X)) -->_1 sqr#(s(X)) -> c_12(sqr#(X)):1 2:W:half#(s(s(X))) -> c_10(half#(X)) -->_1 half#(s(s(X))) -> c_10(half#(X)):2 The following weak DPs constitute a sub-graph of the DG that is closed under successors. The DPs are removed. 2: half#(s(s(X))) -> c_10(half#(X)) *** 1.1.1.1.1.1.2.1.1.1.2.1.1.2.1 Progress [(?,O(n^1))] *** Considered Problem: Strict DP Rules: sqr#(s(X)) -> c_12(sqr#(X)) Strict TRS Rules: Weak DP Rules: Weak TRS Rules: Signature: {add/2,dbl/1,first/2,half/1,sqr/1,terms/1,add#/2,dbl#/1,first#/2,half#/1,sqr#/1,terms#/1} / {0/0,cons/1,nil/0,recip/1,s/1,c_1/0,c_2/1,c_3/0,c_4/1,c_5/0,c_6/0,c_7/0,c_8/0,c_9/0,c_10/1,c_11/0,c_12/1,c_13/1} Obligation: Innermost basic terms: {add#,dbl#,first#,half#,sqr#,terms#}/{0,cons,nil,recip,s} Applied Processor: PredecessorEstimationCP {onSelectionCP = any intersect of rules of CDG leaf and strict-rules, withComplexityPair = NaturalMI {miDimension = 1, miDegree = 1, miKind = Algebraic, uargs = UArgs, urules = URules, selector = Nothing, greedy = NoGreedy}} Proof: We first use the processor NaturalMI {miDimension = 1, miDegree = 1, miKind = Algebraic, uargs = UArgs, urules = URules, selector = Nothing, greedy = NoGreedy} to orient following rules strictly: 1: sqr#(s(X)) -> c_12(sqr#(X)) The strictly oriented rules are moved into the weak component. *** 1.1.1.1.1.1.2.1.1.1.2.1.1.2.1.1 Progress [(?,O(n^1))] *** Considered Problem: Strict DP Rules: sqr#(s(X)) -> c_12(sqr#(X)) Strict TRS Rules: Weak DP Rules: Weak TRS Rules: Signature: {add/2,dbl/1,first/2,half/1,sqr/1,terms/1,add#/2,dbl#/1,first#/2,half#/1,sqr#/1,terms#/1} / {0/0,cons/1,nil/0,recip/1,s/1,c_1/0,c_2/1,c_3/0,c_4/1,c_5/0,c_6/0,c_7/0,c_8/0,c_9/0,c_10/1,c_11/0,c_12/1,c_13/1} Obligation: Innermost basic terms: {add#,dbl#,first#,half#,sqr#,terms#}/{0,cons,nil,recip,s} Applied Processor: NaturalMI {miDimension = 1, miDegree = 1, miKind = Algebraic, uargs = UArgs, urules = URules, selector = Just first alternative for predecessorEstimation any intersect of rules of CDG leaf and strict-rules, greedy = NoGreedy} Proof: We apply a matrix interpretation of kind constructor based matrix interpretation: The following argument positions are considered usable: uargs(c_12) = {1} Following symbols are considered usable: {add#,dbl#,first#,half#,sqr#,terms#} TcT has computed the following interpretation: p(0) = [0] p(add) = [0] p(cons) = [1] x1 + [0] p(dbl) = [0] p(first) = [0] p(half) = [0] p(nil) = [0] p(recip) = [2] p(s) = [1] x1 + [5] p(sqr) = [0] p(terms) = [0] p(add#) = [0] p(dbl#) = [0] p(first#) = [0] p(half#) = [0] p(sqr#) = [5] x1 + [0] p(terms#) = [0] p(c_1) = [0] p(c_2) = [0] p(c_3) = [0] p(c_4) = [0] p(c_5) = [0] p(c_6) = [0] p(c_7) = [0] p(c_8) = [0] p(c_9) = [0] p(c_10) = [8] x1 + [0] p(c_11) = [0] p(c_12) = [1] x1 + [0] p(c_13) = [1] Following rules are strictly oriented: sqr#(s(X)) = [5] X + [25] > [5] X + [0] = c_12(sqr#(X)) Following rules are (at-least) weakly oriented: *** 1.1.1.1.1.1.2.1.1.1.2.1.1.2.1.1.1 Progress [(?,O(1))] *** Considered Problem: Strict DP Rules: Strict TRS Rules: Weak DP Rules: sqr#(s(X)) -> c_12(sqr#(X)) Weak TRS Rules: Signature: {add/2,dbl/1,first/2,half/1,sqr/1,terms/1,add#/2,dbl#/1,first#/2,half#/1,sqr#/1,terms#/1} / {0/0,cons/1,nil/0,recip/1,s/1,c_1/0,c_2/1,c_3/0,c_4/1,c_5/0,c_6/0,c_7/0,c_8/0,c_9/0,c_10/1,c_11/0,c_12/1,c_13/1} Obligation: Innermost basic terms: {add#,dbl#,first#,half#,sqr#,terms#}/{0,cons,nil,recip,s} Applied Processor: Assumption Proof: () *** 1.1.1.1.1.1.2.1.1.1.2.1.1.2.1.2 Progress [(O(1),O(1))] *** Considered Problem: Strict DP Rules: Strict TRS Rules: Weak DP Rules: sqr#(s(X)) -> c_12(sqr#(X)) Weak TRS Rules: Signature: {add/2,dbl/1,first/2,half/1,sqr/1,terms/1,add#/2,dbl#/1,first#/2,half#/1,sqr#/1,terms#/1} / {0/0,cons/1,nil/0,recip/1,s/1,c_1/0,c_2/1,c_3/0,c_4/1,c_5/0,c_6/0,c_7/0,c_8/0,c_9/0,c_10/1,c_11/0,c_12/1,c_13/1} Obligation: Innermost basic terms: {add#,dbl#,first#,half#,sqr#,terms#}/{0,cons,nil,recip,s} Applied Processor: RemoveWeakSuffixes Proof: Consider the dependency graph 1:W:sqr#(s(X)) -> c_12(sqr#(X)) -->_1 sqr#(s(X)) -> c_12(sqr#(X)):1 The following weak DPs constitute a sub-graph of the DG that is closed under successors. The DPs are removed. 1: sqr#(s(X)) -> c_12(sqr#(X)) *** 1.1.1.1.1.1.2.1.1.1.2.1.1.2.1.2.1 Progress [(O(1),O(1))] *** Considered Problem: Strict DP Rules: Strict TRS Rules: Weak DP Rules: Weak TRS Rules: Signature: {add/2,dbl/1,first/2,half/1,sqr/1,terms/1,add#/2,dbl#/1,first#/2,half#/1,sqr#/1,terms#/1} / {0/0,cons/1,nil/0,recip/1,s/1,c_1/0,c_2/1,c_3/0,c_4/1,c_5/0,c_6/0,c_7/0,c_8/0,c_9/0,c_10/1,c_11/0,c_12/1,c_13/1} Obligation: Innermost basic terms: {add#,dbl#,first#,half#,sqr#,terms#}/{0,cons,nil,recip,s} Applied Processor: EmptyProcessor Proof: The problem is already closed. The intended complexity is O(1).