YES(O(1),O(n^1)) 0.00/0.19 YES(O(1),O(n^1)) 0.00/0.19 0.00/0.19 We are left with following problem, upon which TcT provides the 0.00/0.19 certificate YES(O(1),O(n^1)). 0.00/0.19 0.00/0.19 Strict Trs: 0.00/0.19 { and(not(not(x)), y, not(z)) -> and(y, band(x, z), x) } 0.00/0.19 Obligation: 0.00/0.19 innermost runtime complexity 0.00/0.19 Answer: 0.00/0.19 YES(O(1),O(n^1)) 0.00/0.19 0.00/0.19 We add the following weak dependency pairs: 0.00/0.19 0.00/0.19 Strict DPs: 0.00/0.19 { and^#(not(not(x)), y, not(z)) -> c_1(and^#(y, band(x, z), x)) } 0.00/0.19 0.00/0.19 and mark the set of starting terms. 0.00/0.19 0.00/0.19 We are left with following problem, upon which TcT provides the 0.00/0.19 certificate YES(O(1),O(n^1)). 0.00/0.19 0.00/0.19 Strict DPs: 0.00/0.19 { and^#(not(not(x)), y, not(z)) -> c_1(and^#(y, band(x, z), x)) } 0.00/0.19 Strict Trs: 0.00/0.19 { and(not(not(x)), y, not(z)) -> and(y, band(x, z), x) } 0.00/0.19 Obligation: 0.00/0.19 innermost runtime complexity 0.00/0.19 Answer: 0.00/0.19 YES(O(1),O(n^1)) 0.00/0.19 0.00/0.19 No rule is usable, rules are removed from the input problem. 0.00/0.19 0.00/0.19 We are left with following problem, upon which TcT provides the 0.00/0.19 certificate YES(O(1),O(n^1)). 0.00/0.19 0.00/0.19 Strict DPs: 0.00/0.19 { and^#(not(not(x)), y, not(z)) -> c_1(and^#(y, band(x, z), x)) } 0.00/0.19 Obligation: 0.00/0.19 innermost runtime complexity 0.00/0.19 Answer: 0.00/0.19 YES(O(1),O(n^1)) 0.00/0.19 0.00/0.19 The weightgap principle applies (using the following constant 0.00/0.19 growth matrix-interpretation) 0.00/0.19 0.00/0.19 The following argument positions are usable: 0.00/0.19 Uargs(c_1) = {1} 0.00/0.19 0.00/0.19 TcT has computed the following constructor-restricted matrix 0.00/0.19 interpretation. 0.00/0.19 0.00/0.19 [not](x1) = [0] 0.00/0.19 [2] 0.00/0.19 0.00/0.19 [band](x1, x2) = [1 0] x1 + [1 0] x2 + [0] 0.00/0.19 [0 0] [0 0] [0] 0.00/0.19 0.00/0.19 [and^#](x1, x2, x3) = [0 1] x1 + [0 1] x2 + [0] 0.00/0.19 [0 0] [0 0] [0] 0.00/0.19 0.00/0.19 [c_1](x1) = [1 0] x1 + [1] 0.00/0.19 [0 1] [0] 0.00/0.19 0.00/0.19 The order satisfies the following ordering constraints: 0.00/0.19 0.00/0.19 [and^#(not(not(x)), y, not(z))] = [0 1] y + [2] 0.00/0.19 [0 0] [0] 0.00/0.19 > [0 1] y + [1] 0.00/0.19 [0 0] [0] 0.00/0.19 = [c_1(and^#(y, band(x, z), x))] 0.00/0.19 0.00/0.19 0.00/0.19 Further, it can be verified that all rules not oriented are covered by the weightgap condition. 0.00/0.19 0.00/0.19 We are left with following problem, upon which TcT provides the 0.00/0.19 certificate YES(O(1),O(1)). 0.00/0.19 0.00/0.19 Weak DPs: 0.00/0.19 { and^#(not(not(x)), y, not(z)) -> c_1(and^#(y, band(x, z), x)) } 0.00/0.19 Obligation: 0.00/0.19 innermost runtime complexity 0.00/0.19 Answer: 0.00/0.19 YES(O(1),O(1)) 0.00/0.19 0.00/0.19 The following weak DPs constitute a sub-graph of the DG that is 0.00/0.19 closed under successors. The DPs are removed. 0.00/0.19 0.00/0.19 { and^#(not(not(x)), y, not(z)) -> c_1(and^#(y, band(x, z), x)) } 0.00/0.19 0.00/0.19 We are left with following problem, upon which TcT provides the 0.00/0.19 certificate YES(O(1),O(1)). 0.00/0.19 0.00/0.19 Rules: Empty 0.00/0.19 Obligation: 0.00/0.19 innermost runtime complexity 0.00/0.19 Answer: 0.00/0.19 YES(O(1),O(1)) 0.00/0.19 0.00/0.19 Empty rules are trivially bounded 0.00/0.19 0.00/0.19 Hurray, we answered YES(O(1),O(n^1)) 0.38/0.20 EOF