* Step 1: Sum WORST_CASE(?,O(1))
    + Considered Problem:
        - Strict TRS:
            and(not(not(x)),y,not(z)) -> and(y,band(x,z),x)
        - Signature:
            {and/3} / {band/2,not/1}
        - Obligation:
            innermost runtime complexity wrt. defined symbols {and} and constructors {band,not}
    + Applied Processor:
        Sum {left = someStrategy, right = someStrategy}
    + Details:
        ()
* Step 2: DependencyPairs WORST_CASE(?,O(1))
    + Considered Problem:
        - Strict TRS:
            and(not(not(x)),y,not(z)) -> and(y,band(x,z),x)
        - Signature:
            {and/3} / {band/2,not/1}
        - Obligation:
            innermost runtime complexity wrt. defined symbols {and} and constructors {band,not}
    + Applied Processor:
        DependencyPairs {dpKind_ = DT}
    + Details:
        We add the following dependency tuples:
        
        Strict DPs
          and#(not(not(x)),y,not(z)) -> c_1(and#(y,band(x,z),x))
        Weak DPs
          
        
        and mark the set of starting terms.
* Step 3: UsableRules WORST_CASE(?,O(1))
    + Considered Problem:
        - Strict DPs:
            and#(not(not(x)),y,not(z)) -> c_1(and#(y,band(x,z),x))
        - Weak TRS:
            and(not(not(x)),y,not(z)) -> and(y,band(x,z),x)
        - Signature:
            {and/3,and#/3} / {band/2,not/1,c_1/1}
        - Obligation:
            innermost runtime complexity wrt. defined symbols {and#} and constructors {band,not}
    + Applied Processor:
        UsableRules
    + Details:
        We replace rewrite rules by usable rules:
          and#(not(not(x)),y,not(z)) -> c_1(and#(y,band(x,z),x))
* Step 4: WeightGap WORST_CASE(?,O(1))
    + Considered Problem:
        - Strict DPs:
            and#(not(not(x)),y,not(z)) -> c_1(and#(y,band(x,z),x))
        - Signature:
            {and/3,and#/3} / {band/2,not/1,c_1/1}
        - Obligation:
            innermost runtime complexity wrt. defined symbols {and#} and constructors {band,not}
    + Applied Processor:
        WeightGap {wgDimension = 1, wgDegree = 0, wgKind = Algebraic, wgUArgs = UArgs, wgOn = WgOnAny}
    + Details:
        The weightgap principle applies using the following constant growth matrix-interpretation:
          We apply a matrix interpretation of kind constructor based matrix interpretation (containing no more than 0 non-zero interpretation-entries in the diagonal of the component-wise maxima):
          The following argument positions are considered usable:
            uargs(c_1) = {1}
          
          Following symbols are considered usable:
            all
          TcT has computed the following interpretation:
             p(and) = [4] x1 + [2] x2 + [1] x3 + [4]
            p(band) = [0]                           
             p(not) = [1]                           
            p(and#) = [1] x1 + [2] x2 + [0]         
             p(c_1) = [1] x1 + [0]                  
          
          Following rules are strictly oriented:
          and#(not(not(x)),y,not(z)) = [2] y + [1]             
                                     > [1] y + [0]             
                                     = c_1(and#(y,band(x,z),x))
          
          
          Following rules are (at-least) weakly oriented:
          
        Further, it can be verified that all rules not oriented are covered by the weightgap condition.
* Step 5: EmptyProcessor WORST_CASE(?,O(1))
    + Considered Problem:
        - Weak DPs:
            and#(not(not(x)),y,not(z)) -> c_1(and#(y,band(x,z),x))
        - Signature:
            {and/3,and#/3} / {band/2,not/1,c_1/1}
        - Obligation:
            innermost runtime complexity wrt. defined symbols {and#} and constructors {band,not}
    + Applied Processor:
        EmptyProcessor
    + Details:
        The problem is already closed. The intended complexity is O(1).

WORST_CASE(?,O(1))