YES(O(1),O(1)) 0.00/0.33 YES(O(1),O(1)) 0.00/0.33 0.00/0.33 We are left with following problem, upon which TcT provides the 0.00/0.33 certificate YES(O(1),O(1)). 0.00/0.33 0.00/0.33 Strict Trs: 0.00/0.33 { *(x, 0()) -> 0() 0.00/0.33 , *(*(x, y), z) -> *(x, *(y, z)) 0.00/0.33 , *(i(x), x) -> 1() 0.00/0.33 , *(1(), y) -> y } 0.00/0.33 Obligation: 0.00/0.33 innermost runtime complexity 0.00/0.33 Answer: 0.00/0.33 YES(O(1),O(1)) 0.00/0.33 0.00/0.33 We add the following weak dependency pairs: 0.00/0.33 0.00/0.33 Strict DPs: 0.00/0.33 { *^#(x, 0()) -> c_1() 0.00/0.33 , *^#(*(x, y), z) -> c_2(*^#(x, *(y, z))) 0.00/0.33 , *^#(i(x), x) -> c_3() 0.00/0.33 , *^#(1(), y) -> c_4() } 0.00/0.33 0.00/0.33 and mark the set of starting terms. 0.00/0.33 0.00/0.33 We are left with following problem, upon which TcT provides the 0.00/0.33 certificate YES(O(1),O(1)). 0.00/0.33 0.00/0.33 Strict DPs: 0.00/0.33 { *^#(x, 0()) -> c_1() 0.00/0.33 , *^#(*(x, y), z) -> c_2(*^#(x, *(y, z))) 0.00/0.33 , *^#(i(x), x) -> c_3() 0.00/0.33 , *^#(1(), y) -> c_4() } 0.00/0.33 Strict Trs: 0.00/0.33 { *(x, 0()) -> 0() 0.00/0.33 , *(*(x, y), z) -> *(x, *(y, z)) 0.00/0.33 , *(i(x), x) -> 1() 0.00/0.33 , *(1(), y) -> y } 0.00/0.33 Obligation: 0.00/0.33 innermost runtime complexity 0.00/0.33 Answer: 0.00/0.33 YES(O(1),O(1)) 0.00/0.33 0.00/0.33 The weightgap principle applies (using the following constant 0.00/0.33 growth matrix-interpretation) 0.00/0.33 0.00/0.33 The following argument positions are usable: 0.00/0.33 Uargs(*) = {2}, Uargs(*^#) = {2}, Uargs(c_2) = {1} 0.00/0.33 0.00/0.33 TcT has computed the following constructor-restricted matrix 0.00/0.33 interpretation. 0.00/0.33 0.00/0.33 [*](x1, x2) = [2 0] x1 + [1 0] x2 + [1] 0.00/0.33 [0 0] [0 1] [0] 0.00/0.33 0.00/0.33 [i](x1) = [0] 0.00/0.33 [0] 0.00/0.33 0.00/0.33 [1] = [0] 0.00/0.33 [0] 0.00/0.33 0.00/0.33 [0] = [0] 0.00/0.33 [0] 0.00/0.33 0.00/0.33 [*^#](x1, x2) = [2 0] x1 + [1 0] x2 + [0] 0.00/0.33 [0 0] [0 0] [0] 0.00/0.33 0.00/0.33 [c_1] = [1] 0.00/0.33 [0] 0.00/0.33 0.00/0.33 [c_2](x1) = [1 0] x1 + [1] 0.00/0.33 [0 1] [2] 0.00/0.33 0.00/0.33 [c_3] = [1] 0.00/0.33 [0] 0.00/0.33 0.00/0.33 [c_4] = [1] 0.00/0.33 [0] 0.00/0.33 0.00/0.33 The order satisfies the following ordering constraints: 0.00/0.33 0.00/0.33 [*(x, 0())] = [2 0] x + [1] 0.00/0.33 [0 0] [0] 0.00/0.33 > [0] 0.00/0.33 [0] 0.00/0.33 = [0()] 0.00/0.33 0.00/0.33 [*(*(x, y), z)] = [4 0] x + [2 0] y + [1 0] z + [3] 0.00/0.33 [0 0] [0 0] [0 1] [0] 0.00/0.33 > [2 0] x + [2 0] y + [1 0] z + [2] 0.00/0.33 [0 0] [0 0] [0 1] [0] 0.00/0.33 = [*(x, *(y, z))] 0.00/0.33 0.00/0.33 [*(i(x), x)] = [1 0] x + [1] 0.00/0.33 [0 1] [0] 0.00/0.33 > [0] 0.00/0.33 [0] 0.00/0.33 = [1()] 0.00/0.33 0.00/0.33 [*(1(), y)] = [1 0] y + [1] 0.00/0.33 [0 1] [0] 0.00/0.33 > [1 0] y + [0] 0.00/0.33 [0 1] [0] 0.00/0.33 = [y] 0.00/0.33 0.00/0.33 [*^#(x, 0())] = [2 0] x + [0] 0.00/0.33 [0 0] [0] 0.00/0.33 ? [1] 0.00/0.33 [0] 0.00/0.33 = [c_1()] 0.00/0.33 0.00/0.33 [*^#(*(x, y), z)] = [4 0] x + [2 0] y + [1 0] z + [2] 0.00/0.33 [0 0] [0 0] [0 0] [0] 0.00/0.33 ? [2 0] x + [2 0] y + [1 0] z + [2] 0.00/0.33 [0 0] [0 0] [0 0] [2] 0.00/0.33 = [c_2(*^#(x, *(y, z)))] 0.00/0.33 0.00/0.33 [*^#(i(x), x)] = [1 0] x + [0] 0.00/0.33 [0 0] [0] 0.00/0.33 ? [1] 0.00/0.33 [0] 0.00/0.33 = [c_3()] 0.00/0.33 0.00/0.33 [*^#(1(), y)] = [1 0] y + [0] 0.00/0.33 [0 0] [0] 0.00/0.33 ? [1] 0.00/0.33 [0] 0.00/0.33 = [c_4()] 0.00/0.33 0.00/0.33 0.00/0.33 Further, it can be verified that all rules not oriented are covered by the weightgap condition. 0.00/0.33 0.00/0.33 We are left with following problem, upon which TcT provides the 0.00/0.33 certificate YES(O(1),O(1)). 0.00/0.33 0.00/0.33 Strict DPs: 0.00/0.33 { *^#(x, 0()) -> c_1() 0.00/0.33 , *^#(*(x, y), z) -> c_2(*^#(x, *(y, z))) 0.00/0.33 , *^#(i(x), x) -> c_3() 0.00/0.33 , *^#(1(), y) -> c_4() } 0.00/0.33 Weak Trs: 0.00/0.33 { *(x, 0()) -> 0() 0.00/0.33 , *(*(x, y), z) -> *(x, *(y, z)) 0.00/0.33 , *(i(x), x) -> 1() 0.00/0.33 , *(1(), y) -> y } 0.00/0.33 Obligation: 0.00/0.33 innermost runtime complexity 0.00/0.33 Answer: 0.00/0.33 YES(O(1),O(1)) 0.00/0.33 0.00/0.33 Consider the dependency graph: 0.00/0.33 0.00/0.33 1: *^#(x, 0()) -> c_1() 0.00/0.33 0.00/0.33 2: *^#(*(x, y), z) -> c_2(*^#(x, *(y, z))) 0.00/0.33 -->_1 *^#(i(x), x) -> c_3() :3 0.00/0.33 -->_1 *^#(x, 0()) -> c_1() :1 0.00/0.33 0.00/0.33 3: *^#(i(x), x) -> c_3() 0.00/0.33 0.00/0.33 4: *^#(1(), y) -> c_4() 0.00/0.33 0.00/0.33 0.00/0.33 Only the nodes {1,3,4} are reachable from nodes {1,3,4} that start 0.00/0.33 derivation from marked basic terms. The nodes not reachable are 0.00/0.33 removed from the problem. 0.00/0.33 0.00/0.33 We are left with following problem, upon which TcT provides the 0.00/0.33 certificate YES(O(1),O(1)). 0.00/0.33 0.00/0.33 Strict DPs: 0.00/0.33 { *^#(x, 0()) -> c_1() 0.00/0.33 , *^#(i(x), x) -> c_3() 0.00/0.33 , *^#(1(), y) -> c_4() } 0.00/0.33 Weak Trs: 0.00/0.33 { *(x, 0()) -> 0() 0.00/0.33 , *(*(x, y), z) -> *(x, *(y, z)) 0.00/0.33 , *(i(x), x) -> 1() 0.00/0.33 , *(1(), y) -> y } 0.00/0.33 Obligation: 0.00/0.33 innermost runtime complexity 0.00/0.33 Answer: 0.00/0.33 YES(O(1),O(1)) 0.00/0.33 0.00/0.33 We estimate the number of application of {1,2,3} by applications of 0.00/0.33 Pre({1,2,3}) = {}. Here rules are labeled as follows: 0.00/0.33 0.00/0.33 DPs: 0.00/0.33 { 1: *^#(x, 0()) -> c_1() 0.00/0.33 , 2: *^#(i(x), x) -> c_3() 0.00/0.33 , 3: *^#(1(), y) -> c_4() } 0.00/0.33 0.00/0.33 We are left with following problem, upon which TcT provides the 0.00/0.33 certificate YES(O(1),O(1)). 0.00/0.33 0.00/0.33 Weak DPs: 0.00/0.33 { *^#(x, 0()) -> c_1() 0.00/0.33 , *^#(i(x), x) -> c_3() 0.00/0.33 , *^#(1(), y) -> c_4() } 0.00/0.33 Weak Trs: 0.00/0.33 { *(x, 0()) -> 0() 0.00/0.33 , *(*(x, y), z) -> *(x, *(y, z)) 0.00/0.33 , *(i(x), x) -> 1() 0.00/0.33 , *(1(), y) -> y } 0.00/0.33 Obligation: 0.00/0.33 innermost runtime complexity 0.00/0.33 Answer: 0.00/0.33 YES(O(1),O(1)) 0.00/0.33 0.00/0.33 The following weak DPs constitute a sub-graph of the DG that is 0.00/0.33 closed under successors. The DPs are removed. 0.00/0.33 0.00/0.33 { *^#(x, 0()) -> c_1() 0.00/0.33 , *^#(i(x), x) -> c_3() 0.00/0.33 , *^#(1(), y) -> c_4() } 0.00/0.33 0.00/0.33 We are left with following problem, upon which TcT provides the 0.00/0.33 certificate YES(O(1),O(1)). 0.00/0.33 0.00/0.33 Weak Trs: 0.00/0.33 { *(x, 0()) -> 0() 0.00/0.33 , *(*(x, y), z) -> *(x, *(y, z)) 0.00/0.33 , *(i(x), x) -> 1() 0.00/0.33 , *(1(), y) -> y } 0.00/0.33 Obligation: 0.00/0.33 innermost runtime complexity 0.00/0.33 Answer: 0.00/0.33 YES(O(1),O(1)) 0.00/0.33 0.00/0.33 No rule is usable, rules are removed from the input problem. 0.00/0.33 0.00/0.33 We are left with following problem, upon which TcT provides the 0.00/0.33 certificate YES(O(1),O(1)). 0.00/0.33 0.00/0.33 Rules: Empty 0.00/0.33 Obligation: 0.00/0.33 innermost runtime complexity 0.00/0.33 Answer: 0.00/0.33 YES(O(1),O(1)) 0.00/0.33 0.00/0.33 Empty rules are trivially bounded 0.00/0.33 0.00/0.33 Hurray, we answered YES(O(1),O(1)) 0.00/0.34 EOF