YES(O(1),O(n^1)) 0.00/0.17 YES(O(1),O(n^1)) 0.00/0.17 0.00/0.17 We are left with following problem, upon which TcT provides the 0.00/0.17 certificate YES(O(1),O(n^1)). 0.00/0.17 0.00/0.17 Strict Trs: 0.00/0.17 { and(not(not(x)), y, not(z)) -> and(y, band(x, z), x) } 0.00/0.17 Obligation: 0.00/0.17 runtime complexity 0.00/0.17 Answer: 0.00/0.17 YES(O(1),O(n^1)) 0.00/0.17 0.00/0.17 We add the following weak dependency pairs: 0.00/0.17 0.00/0.17 Strict DPs: 0.00/0.17 { and^#(not(not(x)), y, not(z)) -> c_1(and^#(y, band(x, z), x)) } 0.00/0.17 0.00/0.17 and mark the set of starting terms. 0.00/0.17 0.00/0.17 We are left with following problem, upon which TcT provides the 0.00/0.17 certificate YES(O(1),O(n^1)). 0.00/0.17 0.00/0.17 Strict DPs: 0.00/0.17 { and^#(not(not(x)), y, not(z)) -> c_1(and^#(y, band(x, z), x)) } 0.00/0.17 Strict Trs: 0.00/0.17 { and(not(not(x)), y, not(z)) -> and(y, band(x, z), x) } 0.00/0.17 Obligation: 0.00/0.17 runtime complexity 0.00/0.17 Answer: 0.00/0.17 YES(O(1),O(n^1)) 0.00/0.17 0.00/0.17 No rule is usable, rules are removed from the input problem. 0.00/0.17 0.00/0.17 We are left with following problem, upon which TcT provides the 0.00/0.17 certificate YES(O(1),O(n^1)). 0.00/0.17 0.00/0.17 Strict DPs: 0.00/0.17 { and^#(not(not(x)), y, not(z)) -> c_1(and^#(y, band(x, z), x)) } 0.00/0.17 Obligation: 0.00/0.17 runtime complexity 0.00/0.17 Answer: 0.00/0.17 YES(O(1),O(n^1)) 0.00/0.17 0.00/0.17 The weightgap principle applies (using the following constant 0.00/0.17 growth matrix-interpretation) 0.00/0.17 0.00/0.17 The following argument positions are usable: 0.00/0.17 Uargs(c_1) = {1} 0.00/0.17 0.00/0.17 TcT has computed the following constructor-restricted matrix 0.00/0.17 interpretation. 0.00/0.17 0.00/0.17 [not](x1) = [0] 0.00/0.17 [2] 0.00/0.17 0.00/0.17 [band](x1, x2) = [1 0] x1 + [1 0] x2 + [0] 0.00/0.17 [0 0] [0 0] [0] 0.00/0.17 0.00/0.17 [and^#](x1, x2, x3) = [0 1] x1 + [0 1] x2 + [0] 0.00/0.17 [0 0] [0 0] [0] 0.00/0.17 0.00/0.17 [c_1](x1) = [1 0] x1 + [1] 0.00/0.17 [0 1] [0] 0.00/0.17 0.00/0.17 The order satisfies the following ordering constraints: 0.00/0.17 0.00/0.17 [and^#(not(not(x)), y, not(z))] = [0 1] y + [2] 0.00/0.17 [0 0] [0] 0.00/0.17 > [0 1] y + [1] 0.00/0.17 [0 0] [0] 0.00/0.17 = [c_1(and^#(y, band(x, z), x))] 0.00/0.17 0.00/0.17 0.00/0.17 Further, it can be verified that all rules not oriented are covered by the weightgap condition. 0.00/0.17 0.00/0.17 We are left with following problem, upon which TcT provides the 0.00/0.17 certificate YES(?,O(n^1)). 0.00/0.17 0.00/0.17 Weak DPs: 0.00/0.17 { and^#(not(not(x)), y, not(z)) -> c_1(and^#(y, band(x, z), x)) } 0.00/0.17 Obligation: 0.00/0.17 runtime complexity 0.00/0.17 Answer: 0.00/0.17 YES(?,O(n^1)) 0.00/0.17 0.00/0.17 The following weak DPs constitute a sub-graph of the DG that is 0.00/0.17 closed under successors. The DPs are removed. 0.00/0.17 0.00/0.17 { and^#(not(not(x)), y, not(z)) -> c_1(and^#(y, band(x, z), x)) } 0.00/0.17 0.00/0.17 We are left with following problem, upon which TcT provides the 0.00/0.17 certificate YES(?,O(n^1)). 0.00/0.17 0.00/0.17 Rules: Empty 0.00/0.17 Obligation: 0.00/0.17 runtime complexity 0.00/0.17 Answer: 0.00/0.17 YES(?,O(n^1)) 0.00/0.17 0.00/0.17 We employ 'linear path analysis' using the following approximated 0.00/0.17 dependency graph: 0.00/0.17 empty 0.00/0.17 0.00/0.17 0.00/0.17 Hurray, we answered YES(O(1),O(n^1)) 0.00/0.18 EOF