YES(?,O(n^1))
4.74/2.08	YES(?,O(n^1))
4.74/2.08	
4.74/2.08	We are left with following problem, upon which TcT provides the
4.74/2.08	certificate YES(?,O(n^1)).
4.74/2.08	
4.74/2.08	Strict Trs:
4.74/2.08	  { f(x, h1(y, z)) -> h2(0(), x, h1(y, z))
4.74/2.08	  , f(j(x, y), y) -> g(f(x, k(y)))
4.74/2.08	  , g(h2(x, y, h1(z, u))) -> h2(s(x), y, h1(z, u))
4.74/2.08	  , k(h1(x, y)) -> h1(s(x), y)
4.74/2.08	  , k(h(x)) -> h1(0(), x)
4.74/2.08	  , h2(x, j(y, h1(z, u)), h1(z, u)) -> h2(s(x), y, h1(s(z), u))
4.74/2.08	  , i(f(x, h(y))) -> y
4.74/2.08	  , i(h2(s(x), y, h1(x, z))) -> z }
4.74/2.08	Obligation:
4.74/2.08	  innermost runtime complexity
4.74/2.08	Answer:
4.74/2.08	  YES(?,O(n^1))
4.74/2.08	
4.74/2.08	The problem is match-bounded by 2. The enriched problem is
4.74/2.08	compatible with the following automaton.
4.74/2.08	{ f_0(2, 2) -> 1
4.74/2.08	, f_1(2, 6) -> 5
4.74/2.08	, j_0(2, 2) -> 2
4.74/2.08	, g_0(2) -> 1
4.74/2.08	, g_1(5) -> 1
4.74/2.08	, g_1(5) -> 5
4.74/2.08	, k_0(2) -> 1
4.74/2.08	, k_1(2) -> 6
4.74/2.08	, h1_0(2, 2) -> 2
4.74/2.08	, h1_1(2, 2) -> 4
4.74/2.08	, h1_1(3, 2) -> 1
4.74/2.08	, h1_1(3, 2) -> 6
4.74/2.08	, h1_1(7, 2) -> 1
4.74/2.08	, h1_1(7, 2) -> 6
4.74/2.08	, h1_2(3, 2) -> 9
4.74/2.08	, h1_2(7, 2) -> 9
4.74/2.08	, h2_0(2, 2, 2) -> 1
4.74/2.08	, h2_1(3, 2, 4) -> 1
4.74/2.08	, h2_1(7, 2, 6) -> 1
4.74/2.08	, h2_1(7, 2, 6) -> 5
4.74/2.08	, h2_1(11, 2, 6) -> 5
4.74/2.08	, h2_2(8, 2, 9) -> 5
4.74/2.08	, h2_2(10, 2, 9) -> 1
4.74/2.08	, h2_2(10, 2, 9) -> 5
4.74/2.08	, 0_0() -> 2
4.74/2.08	, 0_1() -> 3
4.74/2.08	, 0_2() -> 8
4.74/2.08	, s_0(2) -> 2
4.74/2.08	, s_1(2) -> 7
4.74/2.08	, s_1(3) -> 7
4.74/2.08	, s_1(7) -> 7
4.74/2.08	, s_1(8) -> 11
4.74/2.08	, s_1(10) -> 7
4.74/2.08	, s_1(11) -> 7
4.74/2.08	, s_2(7) -> 10
4.74/2.08	, s_2(8) -> 10
4.74/2.08	, s_2(10) -> 10
4.74/2.08	, s_2(11) -> 10
4.74/2.08	, i_0(2) -> 1
4.74/2.08	, h_0(2) -> 2 }
4.74/2.08	
4.74/2.08	Hurray, we answered YES(?,O(n^1))
4.74/2.09	EOF