MAYBE 772.60/297.23 MAYBE 772.60/297.23 772.60/297.23 We are left with following problem, upon which TcT provides the 772.60/297.23 certificate MAYBE. 772.60/297.23 772.60/297.23 Strict Trs: 772.60/297.23 { f(X) -> cons(X, n__f(g(X))) 772.60/297.23 , f(X) -> n__f(X) 772.60/297.23 , g(0()) -> s(0()) 772.60/297.23 , g(s(X)) -> s(s(g(X))) 772.60/297.23 , sel(0(), cons(X, Y)) -> X 772.60/297.23 , sel(s(X), cons(Y, Z)) -> sel(X, activate(Z)) 772.60/297.23 , activate(X) -> X 772.60/297.23 , activate(n__f(X)) -> f(X) } 772.60/297.23 Obligation: 772.60/297.23 innermost runtime complexity 772.60/297.23 Answer: 772.60/297.23 MAYBE 772.60/297.23 772.60/297.23 None of the processors succeeded. 772.60/297.23 772.60/297.23 Details of failed attempt(s): 772.60/297.23 ----------------------------- 772.60/297.23 1) 'empty' failed due to the following reason: 772.60/297.23 772.60/297.23 Empty strict component of the problem is NOT empty. 772.60/297.23 772.60/297.23 2) 'Best' failed due to the following reason: 772.60/297.23 772.60/297.23 None of the processors succeeded. 772.60/297.23 772.60/297.23 Details of failed attempt(s): 772.60/297.23 ----------------------------- 772.60/297.23 1) 'With Problem ... (timeout of 297 seconds)' failed due to the 772.60/297.23 following reason: 772.60/297.23 772.60/297.23 Computation stopped due to timeout after 297.0 seconds. 772.60/297.23 772.60/297.23 2) 'Best' failed due to the following reason: 772.60/297.23 772.60/297.23 None of the processors succeeded. 772.60/297.23 772.60/297.23 Details of failed attempt(s): 772.60/297.23 ----------------------------- 772.60/297.23 1) 'With Problem ... (timeout of 148 seconds) (timeout of 297 772.60/297.23 seconds)' failed due to the following reason: 772.60/297.23 772.60/297.23 The weightgap principle applies (using the following nonconstant 772.60/297.23 growth matrix-interpretation) 772.60/297.23 772.60/297.23 The following argument positions are usable: 772.60/297.23 Uargs(cons) = {2}, Uargs(n__f) = {1}, Uargs(s) = {1}, 772.60/297.23 Uargs(sel) = {2} 772.60/297.23 772.60/297.23 TcT has computed the following matrix interpretation satisfying 772.60/297.23 not(EDA) and not(IDA(1)). 772.60/297.23 772.60/297.23 [f](x1) = [1] x1 + [5] 772.60/297.23 772.60/297.23 [cons](x1, x2) = [1] x1 + [1] x2 + [0] 772.60/297.23 772.60/297.23 [n__f](x1) = [1] x1 + [0] 772.60/297.23 772.60/297.23 [g](x1) = [0] 772.60/297.23 772.60/297.23 [0] = [0] 772.60/297.23 772.60/297.23 [s](x1) = [1] x1 + [0] 772.60/297.23 772.60/297.23 [sel](x1, x2) = [1] x2 + [0] 772.60/297.23 772.60/297.23 [activate](x1) = [1] x1 + [0] 772.60/297.23 772.60/297.23 The order satisfies the following ordering constraints: 772.60/297.23 772.60/297.23 [f(X)] = [1] X + [5] 772.60/297.23 > [1] X + [0] 772.60/297.23 = [cons(X, n__f(g(X)))] 772.60/297.23 772.60/297.23 [f(X)] = [1] X + [5] 772.60/297.23 > [1] X + [0] 772.60/297.23 = [n__f(X)] 772.60/297.23 772.60/297.23 [g(0())] = [0] 772.60/297.23 >= [0] 772.60/297.23 = [s(0())] 772.60/297.23 772.60/297.23 [g(s(X))] = [0] 772.60/297.23 >= [0] 772.60/297.23 = [s(s(g(X)))] 772.60/297.23 772.60/297.23 [sel(0(), cons(X, Y))] = [1] X + [1] Y + [0] 772.60/297.23 >= [1] X + [0] 772.60/297.23 = [X] 772.60/297.23 772.60/297.23 [sel(s(X), cons(Y, Z))] = [1] Y + [1] Z + [0] 772.60/297.23 >= [1] Z + [0] 772.60/297.23 = [sel(X, activate(Z))] 772.60/297.23 772.60/297.23 [activate(X)] = [1] X + [0] 772.60/297.23 >= [1] X + [0] 772.60/297.23 = [X] 772.60/297.23 772.60/297.23 [activate(n__f(X))] = [1] X + [0] 772.60/297.23 ? [1] X + [5] 772.60/297.23 = [f(X)] 772.60/297.23 772.60/297.23 772.60/297.23 Further, it can be verified that all rules not oriented are covered by the weightgap condition. 772.60/297.23 772.60/297.23 We are left with following problem, upon which TcT provides the 772.60/297.23 certificate MAYBE. 772.60/297.23 772.60/297.23 Strict Trs: 772.60/297.23 { g(0()) -> s(0()) 772.60/297.23 , g(s(X)) -> s(s(g(X))) 772.60/297.23 , sel(0(), cons(X, Y)) -> X 772.60/297.23 , sel(s(X), cons(Y, Z)) -> sel(X, activate(Z)) 772.60/297.23 , activate(X) -> X 772.60/297.23 , activate(n__f(X)) -> f(X) } 772.60/297.23 Weak Trs: 772.60/297.23 { f(X) -> cons(X, n__f(g(X))) 772.60/297.23 , f(X) -> n__f(X) } 772.60/297.23 Obligation: 772.60/297.23 innermost runtime complexity 772.60/297.23 Answer: 772.60/297.23 MAYBE 772.60/297.23 772.60/297.23 The weightgap principle applies (using the following nonconstant 772.60/297.23 growth matrix-interpretation) 772.60/297.23 772.60/297.23 The following argument positions are usable: 772.60/297.23 Uargs(cons) = {2}, Uargs(n__f) = {1}, Uargs(s) = {1}, 772.60/297.23 Uargs(sel) = {2} 772.60/297.23 772.60/297.23 TcT has computed the following matrix interpretation satisfying 772.60/297.23 not(EDA) and not(IDA(1)). 772.60/297.23 772.60/297.23 [f](x1) = [1] x1 + [7] 772.60/297.23 772.60/297.23 [cons](x1, x2) = [1] x1 + [1] x2 + [0] 772.60/297.23 772.60/297.23 [n__f](x1) = [1] x1 + [0] 772.60/297.23 772.60/297.23 [g](x1) = [0] 772.60/297.23 772.60/297.23 [0] = [0] 772.60/297.23 772.60/297.23 [s](x1) = [1] x1 + [0] 772.60/297.23 772.60/297.23 [sel](x1, x2) = [1] x2 + [0] 772.60/297.23 772.60/297.23 [activate](x1) = [1] x1 + [4] 772.60/297.23 772.60/297.23 The order satisfies the following ordering constraints: 772.60/297.23 772.60/297.23 [f(X)] = [1] X + [7] 772.60/297.23 > [1] X + [0] 772.60/297.23 = [cons(X, n__f(g(X)))] 772.60/297.23 772.60/297.23 [f(X)] = [1] X + [7] 772.60/297.23 > [1] X + [0] 772.60/297.23 = [n__f(X)] 772.60/297.23 772.60/297.23 [g(0())] = [0] 772.60/297.23 >= [0] 772.60/297.23 = [s(0())] 772.60/297.23 772.60/297.23 [g(s(X))] = [0] 772.60/297.23 >= [0] 772.60/297.23 = [s(s(g(X)))] 772.60/297.23 772.60/297.23 [sel(0(), cons(X, Y))] = [1] X + [1] Y + [0] 772.60/297.23 >= [1] X + [0] 772.60/297.23 = [X] 772.60/297.23 772.60/297.23 [sel(s(X), cons(Y, Z))] = [1] Y + [1] Z + [0] 772.60/297.23 ? [1] Z + [4] 772.60/297.23 = [sel(X, activate(Z))] 772.60/297.23 772.60/297.23 [activate(X)] = [1] X + [4] 772.60/297.23 > [1] X + [0] 772.60/297.23 = [X] 772.60/297.23 772.60/297.23 [activate(n__f(X))] = [1] X + [4] 772.60/297.23 ? [1] X + [7] 772.60/297.23 = [f(X)] 772.60/297.23 772.60/297.23 772.60/297.23 Further, it can be verified that all rules not oriented are covered by the weightgap condition. 772.60/297.23 772.60/297.23 We are left with following problem, upon which TcT provides the 772.60/297.23 certificate MAYBE. 772.60/297.23 772.60/297.23 Strict Trs: 772.60/297.23 { g(0()) -> s(0()) 772.60/297.23 , g(s(X)) -> s(s(g(X))) 772.60/297.23 , sel(0(), cons(X, Y)) -> X 772.60/297.23 , sel(s(X), cons(Y, Z)) -> sel(X, activate(Z)) 772.60/297.23 , activate(n__f(X)) -> f(X) } 772.60/297.23 Weak Trs: 772.60/297.23 { f(X) -> cons(X, n__f(g(X))) 772.60/297.23 , f(X) -> n__f(X) 772.60/297.23 , activate(X) -> X } 772.60/297.23 Obligation: 772.60/297.23 innermost runtime complexity 772.60/297.23 Answer: 772.60/297.23 MAYBE 772.60/297.23 772.60/297.23 The weightgap principle applies (using the following nonconstant 772.60/297.23 growth matrix-interpretation) 772.60/297.23 772.60/297.23 The following argument positions are usable: 772.60/297.23 Uargs(cons) = {2}, Uargs(n__f) = {1}, Uargs(s) = {1}, 772.60/297.23 Uargs(sel) = {2} 772.60/297.23 772.60/297.23 TcT has computed the following matrix interpretation satisfying 772.60/297.23 not(EDA) and not(IDA(1)). 772.60/297.23 772.60/297.23 [f](x1) = [1] x1 + [5] 772.60/297.23 772.60/297.23 [cons](x1, x2) = [1] x1 + [1] x2 + [4] 772.60/297.23 772.60/297.23 [n__f](x1) = [1] x1 + [0] 772.60/297.23 772.60/297.23 [g](x1) = [0] 772.60/297.23 772.60/297.23 [0] = [4] 772.60/297.23 772.60/297.23 [s](x1) = [1] x1 + [0] 772.60/297.23 772.60/297.23 [sel](x1, x2) = [1] x1 + [1] x2 + [0] 772.60/297.23 772.60/297.23 [activate](x1) = [1] x1 + [0] 772.60/297.23 772.60/297.23 The order satisfies the following ordering constraints: 772.60/297.23 772.60/297.23 [f(X)] = [1] X + [5] 772.60/297.23 > [1] X + [4] 772.60/297.23 = [cons(X, n__f(g(X)))] 772.60/297.23 772.60/297.23 [f(X)] = [1] X + [5] 772.60/297.23 > [1] X + [0] 772.60/297.23 = [n__f(X)] 772.60/297.23 772.60/297.23 [g(0())] = [0] 772.60/297.23 ? [4] 772.60/297.23 = [s(0())] 772.60/297.23 772.60/297.23 [g(s(X))] = [0] 772.60/297.23 >= [0] 772.60/297.23 = [s(s(g(X)))] 772.60/297.23 772.60/297.23 [sel(0(), cons(X, Y))] = [1] X + [1] Y + [8] 772.60/297.23 > [1] X + [0] 772.60/297.23 = [X] 772.60/297.23 772.60/297.23 [sel(s(X), cons(Y, Z))] = [1] X + [1] Y + [1] Z + [4] 772.60/297.23 > [1] X + [1] Z + [0] 772.60/297.23 = [sel(X, activate(Z))] 772.60/297.23 772.60/297.23 [activate(X)] = [1] X + [0] 772.60/297.23 >= [1] X + [0] 772.60/297.23 = [X] 772.60/297.23 772.60/297.23 [activate(n__f(X))] = [1] X + [0] 772.60/297.23 ? [1] X + [5] 772.60/297.23 = [f(X)] 772.60/297.23 772.60/297.23 772.60/297.23 Further, it can be verified that all rules not oriented are covered by the weightgap condition. 772.60/297.23 772.60/297.23 We are left with following problem, upon which TcT provides the 772.60/297.23 certificate MAYBE. 772.60/297.23 772.60/297.23 Strict Trs: 772.60/297.23 { g(0()) -> s(0()) 772.60/297.23 , g(s(X)) -> s(s(g(X))) 772.60/297.23 , activate(n__f(X)) -> f(X) } 772.60/297.23 Weak Trs: 772.60/297.23 { f(X) -> cons(X, n__f(g(X))) 772.60/297.23 , f(X) -> n__f(X) 772.60/297.23 , sel(0(), cons(X, Y)) -> X 772.60/297.23 , sel(s(X), cons(Y, Z)) -> sel(X, activate(Z)) 772.60/297.23 , activate(X) -> X } 772.60/297.23 Obligation: 772.60/297.23 innermost runtime complexity 772.60/297.23 Answer: 772.60/297.23 MAYBE 772.60/297.23 772.60/297.23 The weightgap principle applies (using the following nonconstant 772.60/297.23 growth matrix-interpretation) 772.60/297.23 772.60/297.23 The following argument positions are usable: 772.60/297.23 Uargs(cons) = {2}, Uargs(n__f) = {1}, Uargs(s) = {1}, 772.60/297.23 Uargs(sel) = {2} 772.60/297.23 772.60/297.23 TcT has computed the following matrix interpretation satisfying 772.60/297.23 not(EDA) and not(IDA(1)). 772.60/297.23 772.60/297.23 [f](x1) = [1] x1 + [0] 772.60/297.23 772.60/297.23 [cons](x1, x2) = [1] x1 + [1] x2 + [0] 772.60/297.23 772.60/297.23 [n__f](x1) = [1] x1 + [0] 772.60/297.23 772.60/297.23 [g](x1) = [0] 772.60/297.23 772.60/297.23 [0] = [0] 772.60/297.23 772.60/297.23 [s](x1) = [1] x1 + [4] 772.60/297.23 772.60/297.23 [sel](x1, x2) = [1] x1 + [1] x2 + [4] 772.60/297.23 772.60/297.23 [activate](x1) = [1] x1 + [1] 772.60/297.23 772.60/297.23 The order satisfies the following ordering constraints: 772.60/297.23 772.60/297.23 [f(X)] = [1] X + [0] 772.60/297.23 >= [1] X + [0] 772.60/297.23 = [cons(X, n__f(g(X)))] 772.60/297.23 772.60/297.23 [f(X)] = [1] X + [0] 772.60/297.23 >= [1] X + [0] 772.60/297.23 = [n__f(X)] 772.60/297.23 772.60/297.23 [g(0())] = [0] 772.60/297.23 ? [4] 772.60/297.23 = [s(0())] 772.60/297.23 772.60/297.23 [g(s(X))] = [0] 772.60/297.23 ? [8] 772.60/297.23 = [s(s(g(X)))] 772.60/297.23 772.60/297.23 [sel(0(), cons(X, Y))] = [1] X + [1] Y + [4] 772.60/297.24 > [1] X + [0] 772.60/297.24 = [X] 772.60/297.24 772.60/297.24 [sel(s(X), cons(Y, Z))] = [1] X + [1] Y + [1] Z + [8] 772.60/297.24 > [1] X + [1] Z + [5] 772.60/297.24 = [sel(X, activate(Z))] 772.60/297.24 772.60/297.24 [activate(X)] = [1] X + [1] 772.60/297.24 > [1] X + [0] 772.60/297.24 = [X] 772.60/297.24 772.60/297.24 [activate(n__f(X))] = [1] X + [1] 772.60/297.24 > [1] X + [0] 772.60/297.24 = [f(X)] 772.60/297.24 772.60/297.24 772.60/297.24 Further, it can be verified that all rules not oriented are covered by the weightgap condition. 772.60/297.24 772.60/297.24 We are left with following problem, upon which TcT provides the 772.60/297.24 certificate MAYBE. 772.60/297.24 772.60/297.24 Strict Trs: 772.60/297.24 { g(0()) -> s(0()) 772.60/297.24 , g(s(X)) -> s(s(g(X))) } 772.60/297.24 Weak Trs: 772.60/297.24 { f(X) -> cons(X, n__f(g(X))) 772.60/297.24 , f(X) -> n__f(X) 772.60/297.24 , sel(0(), cons(X, Y)) -> X 772.60/297.24 , sel(s(X), cons(Y, Z)) -> sel(X, activate(Z)) 772.60/297.24 , activate(X) -> X 772.60/297.24 , activate(n__f(X)) -> f(X) } 772.60/297.24 Obligation: 772.60/297.24 innermost runtime complexity 772.60/297.24 Answer: 772.60/297.24 MAYBE 772.60/297.24 772.60/297.24 None of the processors succeeded. 772.60/297.24 772.60/297.24 Details of failed attempt(s): 772.60/297.24 ----------------------------- 772.60/297.24 1) 'empty' failed due to the following reason: 772.60/297.24 772.60/297.24 Empty strict component of the problem is NOT empty. 772.60/297.24 772.60/297.24 2) 'With Problem ...' failed due to the following reason: 772.60/297.24 772.60/297.24 None of the processors succeeded. 772.60/297.24 772.60/297.24 Details of failed attempt(s): 772.60/297.24 ----------------------------- 772.60/297.24 1) 'empty' failed due to the following reason: 772.60/297.24 772.60/297.24 Empty strict component of the problem is NOT empty. 772.60/297.24 772.60/297.24 2) 'Fastest' failed due to the following reason: 772.60/297.24 772.60/297.24 None of the processors succeeded. 772.60/297.24 772.60/297.24 Details of failed attempt(s): 772.60/297.24 ----------------------------- 772.60/297.24 1) 'With Problem ...' failed due to the following reason: 772.60/297.24 772.60/297.24 None of the processors succeeded. 772.60/297.24 772.60/297.24 Details of failed attempt(s): 772.60/297.24 ----------------------------- 772.60/297.24 1) 'empty' failed due to the following reason: 772.60/297.24 772.60/297.24 Empty strict component of the problem is NOT empty. 772.60/297.24 772.60/297.24 2) 'With Problem ...' failed due to the following reason: 772.60/297.24 772.60/297.24 The weightgap principle applies (using the following nonconstant 772.60/297.24 growth matrix-interpretation) 772.60/297.24 772.60/297.24 The following argument positions are usable: 772.60/297.24 Uargs(cons) = {2}, Uargs(n__f) = {1}, Uargs(s) = {1}, 772.60/297.24 Uargs(sel) = {2} 772.60/297.24 772.60/297.24 TcT has computed the following matrix interpretation satisfying 772.60/297.24 not(EDA) and not(IDA(1)). 772.60/297.24 772.60/297.24 [f](x1) = [1 0] x1 + [4] 772.60/297.24 [0 1] [1] 772.60/297.24 772.60/297.24 [cons](x1, x2) = [1 0] x1 + [1 0] x2 + [1] 772.60/297.24 [0 1] [0 1] [0] 772.60/297.24 772.60/297.24 [n__f](x1) = [1 0] x1 + [0] 772.60/297.24 [0 1] [0] 772.60/297.24 772.60/297.24 [g](x1) = [1] 772.60/297.24 [1] 772.60/297.24 772.60/297.24 [0] = [0] 772.60/297.24 [0] 772.60/297.24 772.60/297.24 [s](x1) = [1 0] x1 + [0] 772.60/297.24 [0 1] [1] 772.60/297.24 772.60/297.24 [sel](x1, x2) = [0 7] x1 + [1 0] x2 + [0] 772.60/297.24 [0 1] [0 1] [0] 772.60/297.24 772.60/297.24 [activate](x1) = [1 0] x1 + [4] 772.60/297.24 [0 1] [1] 772.60/297.24 772.60/297.24 The order satisfies the following ordering constraints: 772.60/297.24 772.60/297.24 [f(X)] = [1 0] X + [4] 772.60/297.24 [0 1] [1] 772.60/297.24 > [1 0] X + [2] 772.60/297.24 [0 1] [1] 772.60/297.24 = [cons(X, n__f(g(X)))] 772.60/297.24 772.60/297.24 [f(X)] = [1 0] X + [4] 772.60/297.24 [0 1] [1] 772.60/297.24 > [1 0] X + [0] 772.60/297.24 [0 1] [0] 772.60/297.24 = [n__f(X)] 772.60/297.24 772.60/297.24 [g(0())] = [1] 772.60/297.24 [1] 772.60/297.24 > [0] 772.60/297.24 [1] 772.60/297.24 = [s(0())] 772.60/297.24 772.60/297.24 [g(s(X))] = [1] 772.60/297.24 [1] 772.60/297.24 ? [1] 772.60/297.24 [3] 772.60/297.24 = [s(s(g(X)))] 772.60/297.24 772.60/297.24 [sel(0(), cons(X, Y))] = [1 0] X + [1 0] Y + [1] 772.60/297.24 [0 1] [0 1] [0] 772.60/297.24 > [1 0] X + [0] 772.60/297.24 [0 1] [0] 772.60/297.24 = [X] 772.60/297.24 772.60/297.24 [sel(s(X), cons(Y, Z))] = [0 7] X + [1 0] Y + [1 0] Z + [8] 772.60/297.24 [0 1] [0 1] [0 1] [1] 772.60/297.24 > [0 7] X + [1 0] Z + [4] 772.60/297.24 [0 1] [0 1] [1] 772.60/297.24 = [sel(X, activate(Z))] 772.60/297.24 772.60/297.24 [activate(X)] = [1 0] X + [4] 772.60/297.24 [0 1] [1] 772.60/297.24 > [1 0] X + [0] 772.60/297.24 [0 1] [0] 772.60/297.24 = [X] 772.60/297.24 772.60/297.24 [activate(n__f(X))] = [1 0] X + [4] 772.60/297.24 [0 1] [1] 772.60/297.24 >= [1 0] X + [4] 772.60/297.24 [0 1] [1] 772.60/297.24 = [f(X)] 772.60/297.24 772.60/297.24 772.60/297.24 Further, it can be verified that all rules not oriented are covered by the weightgap condition. 772.60/297.24 772.60/297.24 We are left with following problem, upon which TcT provides the 772.60/297.24 certificate MAYBE. 772.60/297.24 772.60/297.24 Strict Trs: { g(s(X)) -> s(s(g(X))) } 772.60/297.24 Weak Trs: 772.60/297.24 { f(X) -> cons(X, n__f(g(X))) 772.60/297.24 , f(X) -> n__f(X) 772.60/297.24 , g(0()) -> s(0()) 772.60/297.24 , sel(0(), cons(X, Y)) -> X 772.60/297.24 , sel(s(X), cons(Y, Z)) -> sel(X, activate(Z)) 772.60/297.24 , activate(X) -> X 772.60/297.24 , activate(n__f(X)) -> f(X) } 772.60/297.24 Obligation: 772.60/297.24 innermost runtime complexity 772.60/297.24 Answer: 772.60/297.24 MAYBE 772.60/297.24 772.60/297.24 None of the processors succeeded. 772.60/297.24 772.60/297.24 Details of failed attempt(s): 772.60/297.24 ----------------------------- 772.60/297.24 1) 'empty' failed due to the following reason: 772.60/297.24 772.60/297.24 Empty strict component of the problem is NOT empty. 772.60/297.24 772.60/297.24 2) 'With Problem ...' failed due to the following reason: 772.60/297.24 772.60/297.24 None of the processors succeeded. 772.60/297.24 772.60/297.24 Details of failed attempt(s): 772.60/297.24 ----------------------------- 772.60/297.24 1) 'empty' failed due to the following reason: 772.60/297.24 772.60/297.24 Empty strict component of the problem is NOT empty. 772.60/297.24 772.60/297.24 2) 'With Problem ...' failed due to the following reason: 772.60/297.24 772.60/297.24 Empty strict component of the problem is NOT empty. 772.60/297.24 772.60/297.24 772.60/297.24 772.60/297.24 772.60/297.24 2) 'With Problem ...' failed due to the following reason: 772.60/297.24 772.60/297.24 None of the processors succeeded. 772.60/297.24 772.60/297.24 Details of failed attempt(s): 772.60/297.24 ----------------------------- 772.60/297.24 1) 'empty' failed due to the following reason: 772.60/297.24 772.60/297.24 Empty strict component of the problem is NOT empty. 772.60/297.24 772.60/297.24 2) 'With Problem ...' failed due to the following reason: 772.60/297.24 772.60/297.24 Empty strict component of the problem is NOT empty. 772.60/297.24 772.60/297.24 772.60/297.24 772.60/297.24 772.60/297.24 772.60/297.24 2) 'Best' failed due to the following reason: 772.60/297.24 772.60/297.24 None of the processors succeeded. 772.60/297.24 772.60/297.24 Details of failed attempt(s): 772.60/297.24 ----------------------------- 772.60/297.24 1) 'Polynomial Path Order (PS) (timeout of 297 seconds)' failed due 772.60/297.24 to the following reason: 772.60/297.24 772.60/297.24 The input cannot be shown compatible 772.60/297.24 772.60/297.24 2) 'bsearch-popstar (timeout of 297 seconds)' failed due to the 772.60/297.24 following reason: 772.60/297.24 772.60/297.24 The input cannot be shown compatible 772.60/297.24 772.60/297.24 772.60/297.24 3) 'Fastest (timeout of 24 seconds) (timeout of 297 seconds)' 772.60/297.24 failed due to the following reason: 772.60/297.24 772.60/297.24 None of the processors succeeded. 772.60/297.24 772.60/297.24 Details of failed attempt(s): 772.60/297.24 ----------------------------- 772.60/297.24 1) 'Bounds with minimal-enrichment and initial automaton 'match'' 772.60/297.24 failed due to the following reason: 772.60/297.24 772.60/297.24 match-boundness of the problem could not be verified. 772.60/297.24 772.60/297.24 2) 'Bounds with perSymbol-enrichment and initial automaton 'match'' 772.60/297.24 failed due to the following reason: 772.60/297.24 772.60/297.24 match-boundness of the problem could not be verified. 772.60/297.24 772.60/297.24 772.60/297.24 772.60/297.24 772.60/297.24 772.60/297.24 Arrrr.. 772.60/297.26 EOF