We are left with following problem, upon which TcT provides the
certificate YES(O(1),O(n^1)).
Strict Trs:
{ U11(tt(), N) -> activate(N)
, activate(X) -> X
, activate(n__0()) -> 0()
, activate(n__plus(X1, X2)) -> plus(X1, X2)
, activate(n__isNat(X)) -> isNat(X)
, activate(n__s(X)) -> s(X)
, U21(tt(), M, N) -> s(plus(activate(N), activate(M)))
, s(X) -> n__s(X)
, plus(X1, X2) -> n__plus(X1, X2)
, plus(N, s(M)) -> U21(and(isNat(M), n__isNat(N)), M, N)
, plus(N, 0()) -> U11(isNat(N), N)
, and(tt(), X) -> activate(X)
, isNat(X) -> n__isNat(X)
, isNat(n__0()) -> tt()
, isNat(n__plus(V1, V2)) ->
and(isNat(activate(V1)), n__isNat(activate(V2)))
, isNat(n__s(V1)) -> isNat(activate(V1))
, 0() -> n__0() }
Obligation:
innermost runtime complexity
Answer:
YES(O(1),O(n^1))
Arguments of following rules are not normal-forms:
{ plus(N, s(M)) -> U21(and(isNat(M), n__isNat(N)), M, N)
, plus(N, 0()) -> U11(isNat(N), N) }
All above mentioned rules can be savely removed.
We are left with following problem, upon which TcT provides the
certificate YES(O(1),O(n^1)).
Strict Trs:
{ U11(tt(), N) -> activate(N)
, activate(X) -> X
, activate(n__0()) -> 0()
, activate(n__plus(X1, X2)) -> plus(X1, X2)
, activate(n__isNat(X)) -> isNat(X)
, activate(n__s(X)) -> s(X)
, U21(tt(), M, N) -> s(plus(activate(N), activate(M)))
, s(X) -> n__s(X)
, plus(X1, X2) -> n__plus(X1, X2)
, and(tt(), X) -> activate(X)
, isNat(X) -> n__isNat(X)
, isNat(n__0()) -> tt()
, isNat(n__plus(V1, V2)) ->
and(isNat(activate(V1)), n__isNat(activate(V2)))
, isNat(n__s(V1)) -> isNat(activate(V1))
, 0() -> n__0() }
Obligation:
innermost runtime complexity
Answer:
YES(O(1),O(n^1))
The weightgap principle applies (using the following nonconstant
growth matrix-interpretation)
The following argument positions are usable:
Uargs(s) = {1}, Uargs(plus) = {1, 2}, Uargs(and) = {1, 2},
Uargs(isNat) = {1}, Uargs(n__isNat) = {1}
TcT has computed the following matrix interpretation satisfying
not(EDA) and not(IDA(1)).
[U11](x1, x2) = [1] x1 + [1] x2 + [4]
[tt] = [0]
[activate](x1) = [1] x1 + [0]
[U21](x1, x2, x3) = [1] x1 + [1] x2 + [1] x3 + [2]
[s](x1) = [1] x1 + [0]
[plus](x1, x2) = [1] x1 + [1] x2 + [0]
[and](x1, x2) = [1] x1 + [1] x2 + [0]
[isNat](x1) = [1] x1 + [0]
[n__0] = [0]
[n__plus](x1, x2) = [1] x1 + [1] x2 + [0]
[n__isNat](x1) = [1] x1 + [0]
[n__s](x1) = [1] x1 + [0]
[0] = [1]
The order satisfies the following ordering constraints:
[U11(tt(), N)] = [1] N + [4]
> [1] N + [0]
= [activate(N)]
[activate(X)] = [1] X + [0]
>= [1] X + [0]
= [X]
[activate(n__0())] = [0]
? [1]
= [0()]
[activate(n__plus(X1, X2))] = [1] X1 + [1] X2 + [0]
>= [1] X1 + [1] X2 + [0]
= [plus(X1, X2)]
[activate(n__isNat(X))] = [1] X + [0]
>= [1] X + [0]
= [isNat(X)]
[activate(n__s(X))] = [1] X + [0]
>= [1] X + [0]
= [s(X)]
[U21(tt(), M, N)] = [1] N + [1] M + [2]
> [1] N + [1] M + [0]
= [s(plus(activate(N), activate(M)))]
[s(X)] = [1] X + [0]
>= [1] X + [0]
= [n__s(X)]
[plus(X1, X2)] = [1] X1 + [1] X2 + [0]
>= [1] X1 + [1] X2 + [0]
= [n__plus(X1, X2)]
[and(tt(), X)] = [1] X + [0]
>= [1] X + [0]
= [activate(X)]
[isNat(X)] = [1] X + [0]
>= [1] X + [0]
= [n__isNat(X)]
[isNat(n__0())] = [0]
>= [0]
= [tt()]
[isNat(n__plus(V1, V2))] = [1] V1 + [1] V2 + [0]
>= [1] V1 + [1] V2 + [0]
= [and(isNat(activate(V1)), n__isNat(activate(V2)))]
[isNat(n__s(V1))] = [1] V1 + [0]
>= [1] V1 + [0]
= [isNat(activate(V1))]
[0()] = [1]
> [0]
= [n__0()]
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^1)).
Strict Trs:
{ activate(X) -> X
, activate(n__0()) -> 0()
, activate(n__plus(X1, X2)) -> plus(X1, X2)
, activate(n__isNat(X)) -> isNat(X)
, activate(n__s(X)) -> s(X)
, s(X) -> n__s(X)
, plus(X1, X2) -> n__plus(X1, X2)
, and(tt(), X) -> activate(X)
, isNat(X) -> n__isNat(X)
, isNat(n__0()) -> tt()
, isNat(n__plus(V1, V2)) ->
and(isNat(activate(V1)), n__isNat(activate(V2)))
, isNat(n__s(V1)) -> isNat(activate(V1)) }
Weak Trs:
{ U11(tt(), N) -> activate(N)
, U21(tt(), M, N) -> s(plus(activate(N), activate(M)))
, 0() -> n__0() }
Obligation:
innermost runtime complexity
Answer:
YES(O(1),O(n^1))
The weightgap principle applies (using the following nonconstant
growth matrix-interpretation)
The following argument positions are usable:
Uargs(s) = {1}, Uargs(plus) = {1, 2}, Uargs(and) = {1, 2},
Uargs(isNat) = {1}, Uargs(n__isNat) = {1}
TcT has computed the following matrix interpretation satisfying
not(EDA) and not(IDA(1)).
[U11](x1, x2) = [1] x1 + [1] x2 + [4]
[tt] = [0]
[activate](x1) = [1] x1 + [0]
[U21](x1, x2, x3) = [1] x2 + [1] x3 + [0]
[s](x1) = [1] x1 + [0]
[plus](x1, x2) = [1] x1 + [1] x2 + [0]
[and](x1, x2) = [1] x1 + [1] x2 + [0]
[isNat](x1) = [1] x1 + [0]
[n__0] = [0]
[n__plus](x1, x2) = [1] x1 + [1] x2 + [1]
[n__isNat](x1) = [1] x1 + [0]
[n__s](x1) = [1] x1 + [0]
[0] = [5]
The order satisfies the following ordering constraints:
[U11(tt(), N)] = [1] N + [4]
> [1] N + [0]
= [activate(N)]
[activate(X)] = [1] X + [0]
>= [1] X + [0]
= [X]
[activate(n__0())] = [0]
? [5]
= [0()]
[activate(n__plus(X1, X2))] = [1] X1 + [1] X2 + [1]
> [1] X1 + [1] X2 + [0]
= [plus(X1, X2)]
[activate(n__isNat(X))] = [1] X + [0]
>= [1] X + [0]
= [isNat(X)]
[activate(n__s(X))] = [1] X + [0]
>= [1] X + [0]
= [s(X)]
[U21(tt(), M, N)] = [1] N + [1] M + [0]
>= [1] N + [1] M + [0]
= [s(plus(activate(N), activate(M)))]
[s(X)] = [1] X + [0]
>= [1] X + [0]
= [n__s(X)]
[plus(X1, X2)] = [1] X1 + [1] X2 + [0]
? [1] X1 + [1] X2 + [1]
= [n__plus(X1, X2)]
[and(tt(), X)] = [1] X + [0]
>= [1] X + [0]
= [activate(X)]
[isNat(X)] = [1] X + [0]
>= [1] X + [0]
= [n__isNat(X)]
[isNat(n__0())] = [0]
>= [0]
= [tt()]
[isNat(n__plus(V1, V2))] = [1] V1 + [1] V2 + [1]
> [1] V1 + [1] V2 + [0]
= [and(isNat(activate(V1)), n__isNat(activate(V2)))]
[isNat(n__s(V1))] = [1] V1 + [0]
>= [1] V1 + [0]
= [isNat(activate(V1))]
[0()] = [5]
> [0]
= [n__0()]
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^1)).
Strict Trs:
{ activate(X) -> X
, activate(n__0()) -> 0()
, activate(n__isNat(X)) -> isNat(X)
, activate(n__s(X)) -> s(X)
, s(X) -> n__s(X)
, plus(X1, X2) -> n__plus(X1, X2)
, and(tt(), X) -> activate(X)
, isNat(X) -> n__isNat(X)
, isNat(n__0()) -> tt()
, isNat(n__s(V1)) -> isNat(activate(V1)) }
Weak Trs:
{ U11(tt(), N) -> activate(N)
, activate(n__plus(X1, X2)) -> plus(X1, X2)
, U21(tt(), M, N) -> s(plus(activate(N), activate(M)))
, isNat(n__plus(V1, V2)) ->
and(isNat(activate(V1)), n__isNat(activate(V2)))
, 0() -> n__0() }
Obligation:
innermost runtime complexity
Answer:
YES(O(1),O(n^1))
The weightgap principle applies (using the following nonconstant
growth matrix-interpretation)
The following argument positions are usable:
Uargs(s) = {1}, Uargs(plus) = {1, 2}, Uargs(and) = {1, 2},
Uargs(isNat) = {1}, Uargs(n__isNat) = {1}
TcT has computed the following matrix interpretation satisfying
not(EDA) and not(IDA(1)).
[U11](x1, x2) = [1] x1 + [1] x2 + [4]
[tt] = [1]
[activate](x1) = [1] x1 + [0]
[U21](x1, x2, x3) = [1] x1 + [1] x2 + [1] x3 + [7]
[s](x1) = [1] x1 + [1]
[plus](x1, x2) = [1] x1 + [1] x2 + [0]
[and](x1, x2) = [1] x1 + [1] x2 + [0]
[isNat](x1) = [1] x1 + [0]
[n__0] = [0]
[n__plus](x1, x2) = [1] x1 + [1] x2 + [0]
[n__isNat](x1) = [1] x1 + [0]
[n__s](x1) = [1] x1 + [0]
[0] = [5]
The order satisfies the following ordering constraints:
[U11(tt(), N)] = [1] N + [5]
> [1] N + [0]
= [activate(N)]
[activate(X)] = [1] X + [0]
>= [1] X + [0]
= [X]
[activate(n__0())] = [0]
? [5]
= [0()]
[activate(n__plus(X1, X2))] = [1] X1 + [1] X2 + [0]
>= [1] X1 + [1] X2 + [0]
= [plus(X1, X2)]
[activate(n__isNat(X))] = [1] X + [0]
>= [1] X + [0]
= [isNat(X)]
[activate(n__s(X))] = [1] X + [0]
? [1] X + [1]
= [s(X)]
[U21(tt(), M, N)] = [1] N + [1] M + [8]
> [1] N + [1] M + [1]
= [s(plus(activate(N), activate(M)))]
[s(X)] = [1] X + [1]
> [1] X + [0]
= [n__s(X)]
[plus(X1, X2)] = [1] X1 + [1] X2 + [0]
>= [1] X1 + [1] X2 + [0]
= [n__plus(X1, X2)]
[and(tt(), X)] = [1] X + [1]
> [1] X + [0]
= [activate(X)]
[isNat(X)] = [1] X + [0]
>= [1] X + [0]
= [n__isNat(X)]
[isNat(n__0())] = [0]
? [1]
= [tt()]
[isNat(n__plus(V1, V2))] = [1] V1 + [1] V2 + [0]
>= [1] V1 + [1] V2 + [0]
= [and(isNat(activate(V1)), n__isNat(activate(V2)))]
[isNat(n__s(V1))] = [1] V1 + [0]
>= [1] V1 + [0]
= [isNat(activate(V1))]
[0()] = [5]
> [0]
= [n__0()]
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^1)).
Strict Trs:
{ activate(X) -> X
, activate(n__0()) -> 0()
, activate(n__isNat(X)) -> isNat(X)
, activate(n__s(X)) -> s(X)
, plus(X1, X2) -> n__plus(X1, X2)
, isNat(X) -> n__isNat(X)
, isNat(n__0()) -> tt()
, isNat(n__s(V1)) -> isNat(activate(V1)) }
Weak Trs:
{ U11(tt(), N) -> activate(N)
, activate(n__plus(X1, X2)) -> plus(X1, X2)
, U21(tt(), M, N) -> s(plus(activate(N), activate(M)))
, s(X) -> n__s(X)
, and(tt(), X) -> activate(X)
, isNat(n__plus(V1, V2)) ->
and(isNat(activate(V1)), n__isNat(activate(V2)))
, 0() -> n__0() }
Obligation:
innermost runtime complexity
Answer:
YES(O(1),O(n^1))
The weightgap principle applies (using the following nonconstant
growth matrix-interpretation)
The following argument positions are usable:
Uargs(s) = {1}, Uargs(plus) = {1, 2}, Uargs(and) = {1, 2},
Uargs(isNat) = {1}, Uargs(n__isNat) = {1}
TcT has computed the following matrix interpretation satisfying
not(EDA) and not(IDA(1)).
[U11](x1, x2) = [1] x2 + [4]
[tt] = [4]
[activate](x1) = [1] x1 + [0]
[U21](x1, x2, x3) = [1] x1 + [1] x2 + [1] x3 + [4]
[s](x1) = [1] x1 + [6]
[plus](x1, x2) = [1] x1 + [1] x2 + [2]
[and](x1, x2) = [1] x1 + [1] x2 + [0]
[isNat](x1) = [1] x1 + [1]
[n__0] = [0]
[n__plus](x1, x2) = [1] x1 + [1] x2 + [4]
[n__isNat](x1) = [1] x1 + [0]
[n__s](x1) = [1] x1 + [0]
[0] = [5]
The order satisfies the following ordering constraints:
[U11(tt(), N)] = [1] N + [4]
> [1] N + [0]
= [activate(N)]
[activate(X)] = [1] X + [0]
>= [1] X + [0]
= [X]
[activate(n__0())] = [0]
? [5]
= [0()]
[activate(n__plus(X1, X2))] = [1] X1 + [1] X2 + [4]
> [1] X1 + [1] X2 + [2]
= [plus(X1, X2)]
[activate(n__isNat(X))] = [1] X + [0]
? [1] X + [1]
= [isNat(X)]
[activate(n__s(X))] = [1] X + [0]
? [1] X + [6]
= [s(X)]
[U21(tt(), M, N)] = [1] N + [1] M + [8]
>= [1] N + [1] M + [8]
= [s(plus(activate(N), activate(M)))]
[s(X)] = [1] X + [6]
> [1] X + [0]
= [n__s(X)]
[plus(X1, X2)] = [1] X1 + [1] X2 + [2]
? [1] X1 + [1] X2 + [4]
= [n__plus(X1, X2)]
[and(tt(), X)] = [1] X + [4]
> [1] X + [0]
= [activate(X)]
[isNat(X)] = [1] X + [1]
> [1] X + [0]
= [n__isNat(X)]
[isNat(n__0())] = [1]
? [4]
= [tt()]
[isNat(n__plus(V1, V2))] = [1] V1 + [1] V2 + [5]
> [1] V1 + [1] V2 + [1]
= [and(isNat(activate(V1)), n__isNat(activate(V2)))]
[isNat(n__s(V1))] = [1] V1 + [1]
>= [1] V1 + [1]
= [isNat(activate(V1))]
[0()] = [5]
> [0]
= [n__0()]
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^1)).
Strict Trs:
{ activate(X) -> X
, activate(n__0()) -> 0()
, activate(n__isNat(X)) -> isNat(X)
, activate(n__s(X)) -> s(X)
, plus(X1, X2) -> n__plus(X1, X2)
, isNat(n__0()) -> tt()
, isNat(n__s(V1)) -> isNat(activate(V1)) }
Weak Trs:
{ U11(tt(), N) -> activate(N)
, activate(n__plus(X1, X2)) -> plus(X1, X2)
, U21(tt(), M, N) -> s(plus(activate(N), activate(M)))
, s(X) -> n__s(X)
, and(tt(), X) -> activate(X)
, isNat(X) -> n__isNat(X)
, isNat(n__plus(V1, V2)) ->
and(isNat(activate(V1)), n__isNat(activate(V2)))
, 0() -> n__0() }
Obligation:
innermost runtime complexity
Answer:
YES(O(1),O(n^1))
The weightgap principle applies (using the following nonconstant
growth matrix-interpretation)
The following argument positions are usable:
Uargs(s) = {1}, Uargs(plus) = {1, 2}, Uargs(and) = {1, 2},
Uargs(isNat) = {1}, Uargs(n__isNat) = {1}
TcT has computed the following matrix interpretation satisfying
not(EDA) and not(IDA(1)).
[U11](x1, x2) = [1] x2 + [4]
[tt] = [4]
[activate](x1) = [1] x1 + [0]
[U21](x1, x2, x3) = [1] x1 + [1] x2 + [1] x3 + [5]
[s](x1) = [1] x1 + [4]
[plus](x1, x2) = [1] x1 + [1] x2 + [0]
[and](x1, x2) = [1] x1 + [1] x2 + [0]
[isNat](x1) = [1] x1 + [0]
[n__0] = [0]
[n__plus](x1, x2) = [1] x1 + [1] x2 + [4]
[n__isNat](x1) = [1] x1 + [0]
[n__s](x1) = [1] x1 + [1]
[0] = [5]
The order satisfies the following ordering constraints:
[U11(tt(), N)] = [1] N + [4]
> [1] N + [0]
= [activate(N)]
[activate(X)] = [1] X + [0]
>= [1] X + [0]
= [X]
[activate(n__0())] = [0]
? [5]
= [0()]
[activate(n__plus(X1, X2))] = [1] X1 + [1] X2 + [4]
> [1] X1 + [1] X2 + [0]
= [plus(X1, X2)]
[activate(n__isNat(X))] = [1] X + [0]
>= [1] X + [0]
= [isNat(X)]
[activate(n__s(X))] = [1] X + [1]
? [1] X + [4]
= [s(X)]
[U21(tt(), M, N)] = [1] N + [1] M + [9]
> [1] N + [1] M + [4]
= [s(plus(activate(N), activate(M)))]
[s(X)] = [1] X + [4]
> [1] X + [1]
= [n__s(X)]
[plus(X1, X2)] = [1] X1 + [1] X2 + [0]
? [1] X1 + [1] X2 + [4]
= [n__plus(X1, X2)]
[and(tt(), X)] = [1] X + [4]
> [1] X + [0]
= [activate(X)]
[isNat(X)] = [1] X + [0]
>= [1] X + [0]
= [n__isNat(X)]
[isNat(n__0())] = [0]
? [4]
= [tt()]
[isNat(n__plus(V1, V2))] = [1] V1 + [1] V2 + [4]
> [1] V1 + [1] V2 + [0]
= [and(isNat(activate(V1)), n__isNat(activate(V2)))]
[isNat(n__s(V1))] = [1] V1 + [1]
> [1] V1 + [0]
= [isNat(activate(V1))]
[0()] = [5]
> [0]
= [n__0()]
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^1)).
Strict Trs:
{ activate(X) -> X
, activate(n__0()) -> 0()
, activate(n__isNat(X)) -> isNat(X)
, activate(n__s(X)) -> s(X)
, plus(X1, X2) -> n__plus(X1, X2)
, isNat(n__0()) -> tt() }
Weak Trs:
{ U11(tt(), N) -> activate(N)
, activate(n__plus(X1, X2)) -> plus(X1, X2)
, U21(tt(), M, N) -> s(plus(activate(N), activate(M)))
, s(X) -> n__s(X)
, and(tt(), X) -> activate(X)
, isNat(X) -> n__isNat(X)
, isNat(n__plus(V1, V2)) ->
and(isNat(activate(V1)), n__isNat(activate(V2)))
, isNat(n__s(V1)) -> isNat(activate(V1))
, 0() -> n__0() }
Obligation:
innermost runtime complexity
Answer:
YES(O(1),O(n^1))
The weightgap principle applies (using the following nonconstant
growth matrix-interpretation)
The following argument positions are usable:
Uargs(s) = {1}, Uargs(plus) = {1, 2}, Uargs(and) = {1, 2},
Uargs(isNat) = {1}, Uargs(n__isNat) = {1}
TcT has computed the following matrix interpretation satisfying
not(EDA) and not(IDA(1)).
[U11](x1, x2) = [1] x1 + [1] x2 + [4]
[tt] = [0]
[activate](x1) = [1] x1 + [0]
[U21](x1, x2, x3) = [1] x2 + [1] x3 + [0]
[s](x1) = [1] x1 + [0]
[plus](x1, x2) = [1] x1 + [1] x2 + [0]
[and](x1, x2) = [1] x1 + [1] x2 + [0]
[isNat](x1) = [1] x1 + [1]
[n__0] = [0]
[n__plus](x1, x2) = [1] x1 + [1] x2 + [0]
[n__isNat](x1) = [1] x1 + [0]
[n__s](x1) = [1] x1 + [0]
[0] = [5]
The order satisfies the following ordering constraints:
[U11(tt(), N)] = [1] N + [4]
> [1] N + [0]
= [activate(N)]
[activate(X)] = [1] X + [0]
>= [1] X + [0]
= [X]
[activate(n__0())] = [0]
? [5]
= [0()]
[activate(n__plus(X1, X2))] = [1] X1 + [1] X2 + [0]
>= [1] X1 + [1] X2 + [0]
= [plus(X1, X2)]
[activate(n__isNat(X))] = [1] X + [0]
? [1] X + [1]
= [isNat(X)]
[activate(n__s(X))] = [1] X + [0]
>= [1] X + [0]
= [s(X)]
[U21(tt(), M, N)] = [1] N + [1] M + [0]
>= [1] N + [1] M + [0]
= [s(plus(activate(N), activate(M)))]
[s(X)] = [1] X + [0]
>= [1] X + [0]
= [n__s(X)]
[plus(X1, X2)] = [1] X1 + [1] X2 + [0]
>= [1] X1 + [1] X2 + [0]
= [n__plus(X1, X2)]
[and(tt(), X)] = [1] X + [0]
>= [1] X + [0]
= [activate(X)]
[isNat(X)] = [1] X + [1]
> [1] X + [0]
= [n__isNat(X)]
[isNat(n__0())] = [1]
> [0]
= [tt()]
[isNat(n__plus(V1, V2))] = [1] V1 + [1] V2 + [1]
>= [1] V1 + [1] V2 + [1]
= [and(isNat(activate(V1)), n__isNat(activate(V2)))]
[isNat(n__s(V1))] = [1] V1 + [1]
>= [1] V1 + [1]
= [isNat(activate(V1))]
[0()] = [5]
> [0]
= [n__0()]
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^1)).
Strict Trs:
{ activate(X) -> X
, activate(n__0()) -> 0()
, activate(n__isNat(X)) -> isNat(X)
, activate(n__s(X)) -> s(X)
, plus(X1, X2) -> n__plus(X1, X2) }
Weak Trs:
{ U11(tt(), N) -> activate(N)
, activate(n__plus(X1, X2)) -> plus(X1, X2)
, U21(tt(), M, N) -> s(plus(activate(N), activate(M)))
, s(X) -> n__s(X)
, and(tt(), X) -> activate(X)
, isNat(X) -> n__isNat(X)
, isNat(n__0()) -> tt()
, isNat(n__plus(V1, V2)) ->
and(isNat(activate(V1)), n__isNat(activate(V2)))
, isNat(n__s(V1)) -> isNat(activate(V1))
, 0() -> n__0() }
Obligation:
innermost runtime complexity
Answer:
YES(O(1),O(n^1))
The weightgap principle applies (using the following nonconstant
growth matrix-interpretation)
The following argument positions are usable:
Uargs(s) = {1}, Uargs(plus) = {1, 2}, Uargs(and) = {1, 2},
Uargs(isNat) = {1}, Uargs(n__isNat) = {1}
TcT has computed the following matrix interpretation satisfying
not(EDA) and not(IDA(1)).
[U11](x1, x2) = [1] x2 + [5]
[tt] = [4]
[activate](x1) = [1] x1 + [1]
[U21](x1, x2, x3) = [1] x1 + [1] x2 + [1] x3 + [4]
[s](x1) = [1] x1 + [5]
[plus](x1, x2) = [1] x1 + [1] x2 + [1]
[and](x1, x2) = [1] x1 + [1] x2 + [0]
[isNat](x1) = [1] x1 + [1]
[n__0] = [4]
[n__plus](x1, x2) = [1] x1 + [1] x2 + [3]
[n__isNat](x1) = [1] x1 + [0]
[n__s](x1) = [1] x1 + [3]
[0] = [5]
The order satisfies the following ordering constraints:
[U11(tt(), N)] = [1] N + [5]
> [1] N + [1]
= [activate(N)]
[activate(X)] = [1] X + [1]
> [1] X + [0]
= [X]
[activate(n__0())] = [5]
>= [5]
= [0()]
[activate(n__plus(X1, X2))] = [1] X1 + [1] X2 + [4]
> [1] X1 + [1] X2 + [1]
= [plus(X1, X2)]
[activate(n__isNat(X))] = [1] X + [1]
>= [1] X + [1]
= [isNat(X)]
[activate(n__s(X))] = [1] X + [4]
? [1] X + [5]
= [s(X)]
[U21(tt(), M, N)] = [1] N + [1] M + [8]
>= [1] N + [1] M + [8]
= [s(plus(activate(N), activate(M)))]
[s(X)] = [1] X + [5]
> [1] X + [3]
= [n__s(X)]
[plus(X1, X2)] = [1] X1 + [1] X2 + [1]
? [1] X1 + [1] X2 + [3]
= [n__plus(X1, X2)]
[and(tt(), X)] = [1] X + [4]
> [1] X + [1]
= [activate(X)]
[isNat(X)] = [1] X + [1]
> [1] X + [0]
= [n__isNat(X)]
[isNat(n__0())] = [5]
> [4]
= [tt()]
[isNat(n__plus(V1, V2))] = [1] V1 + [1] V2 + [4]
> [1] V1 + [1] V2 + [3]
= [and(isNat(activate(V1)), n__isNat(activate(V2)))]
[isNat(n__s(V1))] = [1] V1 + [4]
> [1] V1 + [2]
= [isNat(activate(V1))]
[0()] = [5]
> [4]
= [n__0()]
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^1)).
Strict Trs:
{ activate(n__0()) -> 0()
, activate(n__isNat(X)) -> isNat(X)
, activate(n__s(X)) -> s(X)
, plus(X1, X2) -> n__plus(X1, X2) }
Weak Trs:
{ U11(tt(), N) -> activate(N)
, activate(X) -> X
, activate(n__plus(X1, X2)) -> plus(X1, X2)
, U21(tt(), M, N) -> s(plus(activate(N), activate(M)))
, s(X) -> n__s(X)
, and(tt(), X) -> activate(X)
, isNat(X) -> n__isNat(X)
, isNat(n__0()) -> tt()
, isNat(n__plus(V1, V2)) ->
and(isNat(activate(V1)), n__isNat(activate(V2)))
, isNat(n__s(V1)) -> isNat(activate(V1))
, 0() -> n__0() }
Obligation:
innermost runtime complexity
Answer:
YES(O(1),O(n^1))
The weightgap principle applies (using the following nonconstant
growth matrix-interpretation)
The following argument positions are usable:
Uargs(s) = {1}, Uargs(plus) = {1, 2}, Uargs(and) = {1, 2},
Uargs(isNat) = {1}, Uargs(n__isNat) = {1}
TcT has computed the following matrix interpretation satisfying
not(EDA) and not(IDA(1)).
[U11](x1, x2) = [1] x1 + [1] x2 + [5]
[tt] = [0]
[activate](x1) = [1] x1 + [1]
[U21](x1, x2, x3) = [1] x2 + [1] x3 + [7]
[s](x1) = [1] x1 + [1]
[plus](x1, x2) = [1] x1 + [1] x2 + [4]
[and](x1, x2) = [1] x1 + [1] x2 + [1]
[isNat](x1) = [1] x1 + [0]
[n__0] = [0]
[n__plus](x1, x2) = [1] x1 + [1] x2 + [4]
[n__isNat](x1) = [1] x1 + [0]
[n__s](x1) = [1] x1 + [1]
[0] = [1]
The order satisfies the following ordering constraints:
[U11(tt(), N)] = [1] N + [5]
> [1] N + [1]
= [activate(N)]
[activate(X)] = [1] X + [1]
> [1] X + [0]
= [X]
[activate(n__0())] = [1]
>= [1]
= [0()]
[activate(n__plus(X1, X2))] = [1] X1 + [1] X2 + [5]
> [1] X1 + [1] X2 + [4]
= [plus(X1, X2)]
[activate(n__isNat(X))] = [1] X + [1]
> [1] X + [0]
= [isNat(X)]
[activate(n__s(X))] = [1] X + [2]
> [1] X + [1]
= [s(X)]
[U21(tt(), M, N)] = [1] N + [1] M + [7]
>= [1] N + [1] M + [7]
= [s(plus(activate(N), activate(M)))]
[s(X)] = [1] X + [1]
>= [1] X + [1]
= [n__s(X)]
[plus(X1, X2)] = [1] X1 + [1] X2 + [4]
>= [1] X1 + [1] X2 + [4]
= [n__plus(X1, X2)]
[and(tt(), X)] = [1] X + [1]
>= [1] X + [1]
= [activate(X)]
[isNat(X)] = [1] X + [0]
>= [1] X + [0]
= [n__isNat(X)]
[isNat(n__0())] = [0]
>= [0]
= [tt()]
[isNat(n__plus(V1, V2))] = [1] V1 + [1] V2 + [4]
> [1] V1 + [1] V2 + [3]
= [and(isNat(activate(V1)), n__isNat(activate(V2)))]
[isNat(n__s(V1))] = [1] V1 + [1]
>= [1] V1 + [1]
= [isNat(activate(V1))]
[0()] = [1]
> [0]
= [n__0()]
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^1)).
Strict Trs:
{ activate(n__0()) -> 0()
, plus(X1, X2) -> n__plus(X1, X2) }
Weak Trs:
{ U11(tt(), N) -> activate(N)
, activate(X) -> X
, activate(n__plus(X1, X2)) -> plus(X1, X2)
, activate(n__isNat(X)) -> isNat(X)
, activate(n__s(X)) -> s(X)
, U21(tt(), M, N) -> s(plus(activate(N), activate(M)))
, s(X) -> n__s(X)
, and(tt(), X) -> activate(X)
, isNat(X) -> n__isNat(X)
, isNat(n__0()) -> tt()
, isNat(n__plus(V1, V2)) ->
and(isNat(activate(V1)), n__isNat(activate(V2)))
, isNat(n__s(V1)) -> isNat(activate(V1))
, 0() -> n__0() }
Obligation:
innermost runtime complexity
Answer:
YES(O(1),O(n^1))
The weightgap principle applies (using the following nonconstant
growth matrix-interpretation)
The following argument positions are usable:
Uargs(s) = {1}, Uargs(plus) = {1, 2}, Uargs(and) = {1, 2},
Uargs(isNat) = {1}, Uargs(n__isNat) = {1}
TcT has computed the following matrix interpretation satisfying
not(EDA) and not(IDA(1)).
[U11](x1, x2) = [1] x1 + [1] x2 + [4]
[tt] = [1]
[activate](x1) = [1] x1 + [1]
[U21](x1, x2, x3) = [1] x1 + [1] x2 + [1] x3 + [7]
[s](x1) = [1] x1 + [3]
[plus](x1, x2) = [1] x1 + [1] x2 + [3]
[and](x1, x2) = [1] x1 + [1] x2 + [0]
[isNat](x1) = [1] x1 + [1]
[n__0] = [0]
[n__plus](x1, x2) = [1] x1 + [1] x2 + [2]
[n__isNat](x1) = [1] x1 + [0]
[n__s](x1) = [1] x1 + [3]
[0] = [1]
The order satisfies the following ordering constraints:
[U11(tt(), N)] = [1] N + [5]
> [1] N + [1]
= [activate(N)]
[activate(X)] = [1] X + [1]
> [1] X + [0]
= [X]
[activate(n__0())] = [1]
>= [1]
= [0()]
[activate(n__plus(X1, X2))] = [1] X1 + [1] X2 + [3]
>= [1] X1 + [1] X2 + [3]
= [plus(X1, X2)]
[activate(n__isNat(X))] = [1] X + [1]
>= [1] X + [1]
= [isNat(X)]
[activate(n__s(X))] = [1] X + [4]
> [1] X + [3]
= [s(X)]
[U21(tt(), M, N)] = [1] N + [1] M + [8]
>= [1] N + [1] M + [8]
= [s(plus(activate(N), activate(M)))]
[s(X)] = [1] X + [3]
>= [1] X + [3]
= [n__s(X)]
[plus(X1, X2)] = [1] X1 + [1] X2 + [3]
> [1] X1 + [1] X2 + [2]
= [n__plus(X1, X2)]
[and(tt(), X)] = [1] X + [1]
>= [1] X + [1]
= [activate(X)]
[isNat(X)] = [1] X + [1]
> [1] X + [0]
= [n__isNat(X)]
[isNat(n__0())] = [1]
>= [1]
= [tt()]
[isNat(n__plus(V1, V2))] = [1] V1 + [1] V2 + [3]
>= [1] V1 + [1] V2 + [3]
= [and(isNat(activate(V1)), n__isNat(activate(V2)))]
[isNat(n__s(V1))] = [1] V1 + [4]
> [1] V1 + [2]
= [isNat(activate(V1))]
[0()] = [1]
> [0]
= [n__0()]
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^1)).
Strict Trs: { activate(n__0()) -> 0() }
Weak Trs:
{ U11(tt(), N) -> activate(N)
, activate(X) -> X
, activate(n__plus(X1, X2)) -> plus(X1, X2)
, activate(n__isNat(X)) -> isNat(X)
, activate(n__s(X)) -> s(X)
, U21(tt(), M, N) -> s(plus(activate(N), activate(M)))
, s(X) -> n__s(X)
, plus(X1, X2) -> n__plus(X1, X2)
, and(tt(), X) -> activate(X)
, isNat(X) -> n__isNat(X)
, isNat(n__0()) -> tt()
, isNat(n__plus(V1, V2)) ->
and(isNat(activate(V1)), n__isNat(activate(V2)))
, isNat(n__s(V1)) -> isNat(activate(V1))
, 0() -> n__0() }
Obligation:
innermost runtime complexity
Answer:
YES(O(1),O(n^1))
The weightgap principle applies (using the following nonconstant
growth matrix-interpretation)
The following argument positions are usable:
Uargs(s) = {1}, Uargs(plus) = {1, 2}, Uargs(and) = {1, 2},
Uargs(isNat) = {1}, Uargs(n__isNat) = {1}
TcT has computed the following matrix interpretation satisfying
not(EDA) and not(IDA(1)).
[U11](x1, x2) = [1] x2 + [5]
[tt] = [1]
[activate](x1) = [1] x1 + [1]
[U21](x1, x2, x3) = [1] x1 + [1] x2 + [1] x3 + [7]
[s](x1) = [1] x1 + [3]
[plus](x1, x2) = [1] x1 + [1] x2 + [3]
[and](x1, x2) = [1] x1 + [1] x2 + [0]
[isNat](x1) = [1] x1 + [1]
[n__0] = [0]
[n__plus](x1, x2) = [1] x1 + [1] x2 + [3]
[n__isNat](x1) = [1] x1 + [0]
[n__s](x1) = [1] x1 + [3]
[0] = [0]
The order satisfies the following ordering constraints:
[U11(tt(), N)] = [1] N + [5]
> [1] N + [1]
= [activate(N)]
[activate(X)] = [1] X + [1]
> [1] X + [0]
= [X]
[activate(n__0())] = [1]
> [0]
= [0()]
[activate(n__plus(X1, X2))] = [1] X1 + [1] X2 + [4]
> [1] X1 + [1] X2 + [3]
= [plus(X1, X2)]
[activate(n__isNat(X))] = [1] X + [1]
>= [1] X + [1]
= [isNat(X)]
[activate(n__s(X))] = [1] X + [4]
> [1] X + [3]
= [s(X)]
[U21(tt(), M, N)] = [1] N + [1] M + [8]
>= [1] N + [1] M + [8]
= [s(plus(activate(N), activate(M)))]
[s(X)] = [1] X + [3]
>= [1] X + [3]
= [n__s(X)]
[plus(X1, X2)] = [1] X1 + [1] X2 + [3]
>= [1] X1 + [1] X2 + [3]
= [n__plus(X1, X2)]
[and(tt(), X)] = [1] X + [1]
>= [1] X + [1]
= [activate(X)]
[isNat(X)] = [1] X + [1]
> [1] X + [0]
= [n__isNat(X)]
[isNat(n__0())] = [1]
>= [1]
= [tt()]
[isNat(n__plus(V1, V2))] = [1] V1 + [1] V2 + [4]
> [1] V1 + [1] V2 + [3]
= [and(isNat(activate(V1)), n__isNat(activate(V2)))]
[isNat(n__s(V1))] = [1] V1 + [4]
> [1] V1 + [2]
= [isNat(activate(V1))]
[0()] = [0]
>= [0]
= [n__0()]
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 Trs:
{ U11(tt(), N) -> activate(N)
, activate(X) -> X
, activate(n__0()) -> 0()
, activate(n__plus(X1, X2)) -> plus(X1, X2)
, activate(n__isNat(X)) -> isNat(X)
, activate(n__s(X)) -> s(X)
, U21(tt(), M, N) -> s(plus(activate(N), activate(M)))
, s(X) -> n__s(X)
, plus(X1, X2) -> n__plus(X1, X2)
, and(tt(), X) -> activate(X)
, isNat(X) -> n__isNat(X)
, isNat(n__0()) -> tt()
, isNat(n__plus(V1, V2)) ->
and(isNat(activate(V1)), n__isNat(activate(V2)))
, isNat(n__s(V1)) -> isNat(activate(V1))
, 0() -> n__0() }
Obligation:
innermost runtime complexity
Answer:
YES(O(1),O(1))
Empty rules are trivially bounded
Hurray, we answered YES(O(1),O(n^1))