YES(O(1),O(n^2)) 170.22/60.02 YES(O(1),O(n^2)) 170.22/60.02 170.22/60.02 We are left with following problem, upon which TcT provides the 170.22/60.02 certificate YES(O(1),O(n^2)). 170.22/60.02 170.22/60.02 Strict Trs: { .(.(x, y), z) -> .(x, .(y, z)) } 170.22/60.02 Obligation: 170.22/60.02 derivational complexity 170.22/60.02 Answer: 170.22/60.02 YES(O(1),O(n^2)) 170.22/60.02 170.22/60.02 We use the processor 'matrix interpretation of dimension 2' to 170.22/60.02 orient following rules strictly. 170.22/60.02 170.22/60.02 Trs: { .(.(x, y), z) -> .(x, .(y, z)) } 170.22/60.02 170.22/60.02 The induced complexity on above rules (modulo remaining rules) is 170.22/60.02 YES(?,O(n^2)) . These rules are moved into the corresponding weak 170.22/60.02 component(s). 170.22/60.02 170.22/60.02 Sub-proof: 170.22/60.02 ---------- 170.22/60.02 TcT has computed the following triangular matrix interpretation. 170.22/60.02 170.22/60.02 [.](x1, x2) = [1 1] x1 + [1 0] x2 + [0] 170.22/60.02 [0 1] [0 1] [1] 170.22/60.02 170.22/60.02 The order satisfies the following ordering constraints: 170.22/60.02 170.22/60.02 [.(.(x, y), z)] = [1 2] x + [1 1] y + [1 0] z + [1] 170.22/60.02 [0 1] [0 1] [0 1] [2] 170.22/60.02 > [1 1] x + [1 1] y + [1 0] z + [0] 170.22/60.02 [0 1] [0 1] [0 1] [2] 170.22/60.02 = [.(x, .(y, z))] 170.22/60.02 170.22/60.02 170.22/60.02 We return to the main proof. 170.22/60.02 170.22/60.02 We are left with following problem, upon which TcT provides the 170.22/60.02 certificate YES(O(1),O(1)). 170.22/60.02 170.22/60.02 Weak Trs: { .(.(x, y), z) -> .(x, .(y, z)) } 170.22/60.02 Obligation: 170.22/60.02 derivational complexity 170.22/60.02 Answer: 170.22/60.02 YES(O(1),O(1)) 170.22/60.02 170.22/60.02 Empty rules are trivially bounded 170.22/60.02 170.22/60.02 Hurray, we answered YES(O(1),O(n^2)) 170.36/60.18 EOF