YES(O(1),O(n^1)) 239.71/67.51 YES(O(1),O(n^1)) 239.71/67.51 239.71/67.51 We are left with following problem, upon which TcT provides the 239.71/67.51 certificate YES(O(1),O(n^1)). 239.71/67.51 239.71/67.51 Strict Trs: 239.71/67.51 { a(x1) -> b(x1) 239.71/67.51 , a(a(x1)) -> a(b(a(x1))) 239.71/67.51 , a(a(a(x1))) -> a(a(b(a(a(x1))))) 239.71/67.51 , a(a(b(x1))) -> a(b(b(a(b(x1))))) 239.71/67.51 , a(b(x1)) -> b(b(b(x1))) 239.71/67.51 , a(b(a(x1))) -> a(b(b(a(b(x1))))) 239.71/67.51 , a(b(a(x1))) -> b(a(b(b(a(x1))))) 239.71/67.51 , a(b(b(x1))) -> b(b(b(b(b(x1))))) 239.71/67.51 , b(a(x1)) -> b(b(b(x1))) 239.71/67.51 , b(a(a(x1))) -> b(a(b(b(a(x1))))) 239.71/67.51 , b(b(a(x1))) -> b(b(b(b(b(x1))))) } 239.71/67.51 Obligation: 239.71/67.51 derivational complexity 239.71/67.51 Answer: 239.71/67.51 YES(O(1),O(n^1)) 239.71/67.51 239.71/67.51 The weightgap principle applies (using the following nonconstant 239.71/67.51 growth matrix-interpretation) 239.71/67.51 239.71/67.51 TcT has computed the following triangular matrix interpretation. 239.71/67.51 Note that the diagonal of the component-wise maxima of 239.71/67.51 interpretation-entries contains no more than 1 non-zero entries. 239.71/67.51 239.71/67.51 [a](x1) = [1] x1 + [1] 239.71/67.51 239.71/67.51 [b](x1) = [1] x1 + [0] 239.71/67.51 239.71/67.51 The order satisfies the following ordering constraints: 239.71/67.51 239.71/67.51 [a(x1)] = [1] x1 + [1] 239.71/67.51 > [1] x1 + [0] 239.71/67.51 = [b(x1)] 239.71/67.51 239.71/67.51 [a(a(x1))] = [1] x1 + [2] 239.71/67.51 >= [1] x1 + [2] 239.71/67.51 = [a(b(a(x1)))] 239.71/67.51 239.71/67.51 [a(a(a(x1)))] = [1] x1 + [3] 239.71/67.51 ? [1] x1 + [4] 239.71/67.51 = [a(a(b(a(a(x1)))))] 239.71/67.51 239.71/67.51 [a(a(b(x1)))] = [1] x1 + [2] 239.71/67.51 >= [1] x1 + [2] 239.71/67.51 = [a(b(b(a(b(x1)))))] 239.71/67.51 239.71/67.51 [a(b(x1))] = [1] x1 + [1] 239.71/67.51 > [1] x1 + [0] 239.71/67.51 = [b(b(b(x1)))] 239.71/67.51 239.71/67.51 [a(b(a(x1)))] = [1] x1 + [2] 239.71/67.51 >= [1] x1 + [2] 239.71/67.51 = [a(b(b(a(b(x1)))))] 239.71/67.51 239.71/67.51 [a(b(a(x1)))] = [1] x1 + [2] 239.71/67.51 >= [1] x1 + [2] 239.71/67.51 = [b(a(b(b(a(x1)))))] 239.71/67.51 239.71/67.51 [a(b(b(x1)))] = [1] x1 + [1] 239.71/67.51 > [1] x1 + [0] 239.71/67.51 = [b(b(b(b(b(x1)))))] 239.71/67.51 239.71/67.51 [b(a(x1))] = [1] x1 + [1] 239.71/67.51 > [1] x1 + [0] 239.71/67.51 = [b(b(b(x1)))] 239.71/67.51 239.71/67.51 [b(a(a(x1)))] = [1] x1 + [2] 239.71/67.51 >= [1] x1 + [2] 239.71/67.51 = [b(a(b(b(a(x1)))))] 239.71/67.51 239.71/67.51 [b(b(a(x1)))] = [1] x1 + [1] 239.71/67.51 > [1] x1 + [0] 239.71/67.51 = [b(b(b(b(b(x1)))))] 239.71/67.51 239.71/67.51 239.71/67.51 Further, it can be verified that all rules not oriented are covered by the weightgap condition. 239.71/67.51 239.71/67.51 We are left with following problem, upon which TcT provides the 239.71/67.51 certificate YES(O(1),O(n^1)). 239.71/67.51 239.71/67.51 Strict Trs: 239.71/67.51 { a(a(x1)) -> a(b(a(x1))) 239.71/67.51 , a(a(a(x1))) -> a(a(b(a(a(x1))))) 239.71/67.51 , a(a(b(x1))) -> a(b(b(a(b(x1))))) 239.71/67.51 , a(b(a(x1))) -> a(b(b(a(b(x1))))) 239.71/67.51 , a(b(a(x1))) -> b(a(b(b(a(x1))))) 239.71/67.51 , b(a(a(x1))) -> b(a(b(b(a(x1))))) } 239.71/67.51 Weak Trs: 239.71/67.51 { a(x1) -> b(x1) 239.71/67.51 , a(b(x1)) -> b(b(b(x1))) 239.71/67.51 , a(b(b(x1))) -> b(b(b(b(b(x1))))) 239.71/67.51 , b(a(x1)) -> b(b(b(x1))) 239.71/67.51 , b(b(a(x1))) -> b(b(b(b(b(x1))))) } 239.71/67.51 Obligation: 239.71/67.51 derivational complexity 239.71/67.51 Answer: 239.71/67.51 YES(O(1),O(n^1)) 239.71/67.51 239.71/67.51 We use the processor 'matrix interpretation of dimension 3' to 239.71/67.51 orient following rules strictly. 239.71/67.51 239.71/67.51 Trs: 239.71/67.51 { a(a(x1)) -> a(b(a(x1))) 239.71/67.51 , a(a(b(x1))) -> a(b(b(a(b(x1))))) 239.71/67.51 , b(a(a(x1))) -> b(a(b(b(a(x1))))) } 239.71/67.51 239.71/67.51 The induced complexity on above rules (modulo remaining rules) is 239.71/67.51 YES(?,O(n^1)) . These rules are moved into the corresponding weak 239.71/67.51 component(s). 239.71/67.51 239.71/67.51 Sub-proof: 239.71/67.51 ---------- 239.71/67.51 TcT has computed the following triangular matrix interpretation. 239.71/67.51 Note that the diagonal of the component-wise maxima of 239.71/67.51 interpretation-entries contains no more than 1 non-zero entries. 239.71/67.51 239.71/67.51 [1 0 1] [0] 239.71/67.51 [a](x1) = [0 0 0] x1 + [0] 239.71/67.51 [0 0 0] [1] 239.71/67.51 239.71/67.51 [1 0 0] [0] 239.71/67.51 [b](x1) = [0 0 0] x1 + [0] 239.71/67.51 [0 0 0] [0] 239.71/67.51 239.71/67.51 The order satisfies the following ordering constraints: 239.71/67.51 239.71/67.51 [a(x1)] = [1 0 1] [0] 239.71/67.51 [0 0 0] x1 + [0] 239.71/67.51 [0 0 0] [1] 239.71/67.51 >= [1 0 0] [0] 239.71/67.51 [0 0 0] x1 + [0] 239.71/67.51 [0 0 0] [0] 239.71/67.51 = [b(x1)] 239.71/67.51 239.71/67.51 [a(a(x1))] = [1 0 1] [1] 239.71/67.51 [0 0 0] x1 + [0] 239.71/67.51 [0 0 0] [1] 239.71/67.51 > [1 0 1] [0] 239.71/67.51 [0 0 0] x1 + [0] 239.71/67.51 [0 0 0] [1] 239.71/67.51 = [a(b(a(x1)))] 239.71/67.51 239.71/67.51 [a(a(a(x1)))] = [1 0 1] [2] 239.71/67.51 [0 0 0] x1 + [0] 239.71/67.51 [0 0 0] [1] 239.71/67.51 >= [1 0 1] [2] 239.71/67.51 [0 0 0] x1 + [0] 239.71/67.51 [0 0 0] [1] 239.71/67.51 = [a(a(b(a(a(x1)))))] 239.71/67.51 239.71/67.51 [a(a(b(x1)))] = [1 0 0] [1] 239.71/67.51 [0 0 0] x1 + [0] 239.71/67.51 [0 0 0] [1] 239.71/67.51 > [1 0 0] [0] 239.71/67.51 [0 0 0] x1 + [0] 239.71/67.51 [0 0 0] [1] 239.71/67.51 = [a(b(b(a(b(x1)))))] 239.71/67.51 239.71/67.51 [a(b(x1))] = [1 0 0] [0] 239.71/67.51 [0 0 0] x1 + [0] 239.71/67.51 [0 0 0] [1] 239.71/67.51 >= [1 0 0] [0] 239.71/67.51 [0 0 0] x1 + [0] 239.71/67.51 [0 0 0] [0] 239.71/67.51 = [b(b(b(x1)))] 239.71/67.51 239.71/67.51 [a(b(a(x1)))] = [1 0 1] [0] 239.71/67.51 [0 0 0] x1 + [0] 239.71/67.51 [0 0 0] [1] 239.71/67.51 >= [1 0 0] [0] 239.71/67.51 [0 0 0] x1 + [0] 239.71/67.51 [0 0 0] [1] 239.71/67.51 = [a(b(b(a(b(x1)))))] 239.71/67.51 239.71/67.51 [a(b(a(x1)))] = [1 0 1] [0] 239.71/67.51 [0 0 0] x1 + [0] 239.71/67.51 [0 0 0] [1] 239.71/67.51 >= [1 0 1] [0] 239.71/67.51 [0 0 0] x1 + [0] 239.71/67.51 [0 0 0] [0] 239.71/67.51 = [b(a(b(b(a(x1)))))] 239.71/67.51 239.71/67.51 [a(b(b(x1)))] = [1 0 0] [0] 239.71/67.51 [0 0 0] x1 + [0] 239.71/67.51 [0 0 0] [1] 239.71/67.51 >= [1 0 0] [0] 239.71/67.51 [0 0 0] x1 + [0] 239.71/67.51 [0 0 0] [0] 239.71/67.51 = [b(b(b(b(b(x1)))))] 239.71/67.51 239.71/67.51 [b(a(x1))] = [1 0 1] [0] 239.71/67.51 [0 0 0] x1 + [0] 239.71/67.51 [0 0 0] [0] 239.71/67.51 >= [1 0 0] [0] 239.71/67.51 [0 0 0] x1 + [0] 239.71/67.51 [0 0 0] [0] 239.71/67.51 = [b(b(b(x1)))] 239.71/67.51 239.71/67.51 [b(a(a(x1)))] = [1 0 1] [1] 239.71/67.51 [0 0 0] x1 + [0] 239.71/67.51 [0 0 0] [0] 239.71/67.51 > [1 0 1] [0] 239.71/67.51 [0 0 0] x1 + [0] 239.71/67.51 [0 0 0] [0] 239.71/67.51 = [b(a(b(b(a(x1)))))] 239.71/67.51 239.71/67.51 [b(b(a(x1)))] = [1 0 1] [0] 239.71/67.51 [0 0 0] x1 + [0] 239.71/67.51 [0 0 0] [0] 239.71/67.51 >= [1 0 0] [0] 239.71/67.51 [0 0 0] x1 + [0] 239.71/67.51 [0 0 0] [0] 239.71/67.51 = [b(b(b(b(b(x1)))))] 239.71/67.51 239.71/67.51 239.71/67.51 We return to the main proof. 239.71/67.51 239.71/67.51 We are left with following problem, upon which TcT provides the 239.71/67.51 certificate YES(O(1),O(n^1)). 239.71/67.51 239.71/67.51 Strict Trs: 239.71/67.51 { a(a(a(x1))) -> a(a(b(a(a(x1))))) 239.71/67.51 , a(b(a(x1))) -> a(b(b(a(b(x1))))) 239.71/67.51 , a(b(a(x1))) -> b(a(b(b(a(x1))))) } 239.71/67.51 Weak Trs: 239.71/67.51 { a(x1) -> b(x1) 239.71/67.51 , a(a(x1)) -> a(b(a(x1))) 239.71/67.51 , a(a(b(x1))) -> a(b(b(a(b(x1))))) 239.71/67.51 , a(b(x1)) -> b(b(b(x1))) 239.71/67.51 , a(b(b(x1))) -> b(b(b(b(b(x1))))) 239.71/67.51 , b(a(x1)) -> b(b(b(x1))) 239.71/67.51 , b(a(a(x1))) -> b(a(b(b(a(x1))))) 239.71/67.51 , b(b(a(x1))) -> b(b(b(b(b(x1))))) } 239.71/67.51 Obligation: 239.71/67.51 derivational complexity 239.71/67.51 Answer: 239.71/67.51 YES(O(1),O(n^1)) 239.71/67.51 239.71/67.51 We use the processor 'matrix interpretation of dimension 3' to 239.71/67.51 orient following rules strictly. 239.71/67.51 239.71/67.51 Trs: { a(a(a(x1))) -> a(a(b(a(a(x1))))) } 239.71/67.51 239.71/67.51 The induced complexity on above rules (modulo remaining rules) is 239.71/67.51 YES(?,O(n^1)) . These rules are moved into the corresponding weak 239.71/67.51 component(s). 239.71/67.51 239.71/67.51 Sub-proof: 239.71/67.51 ---------- 239.71/67.51 TcT has computed the following triangular matrix interpretation. 239.71/67.51 Note that the diagonal of the component-wise maxima of 239.71/67.51 interpretation-entries contains no more than 1 non-zero entries. 239.71/67.51 239.71/67.51 [1 1 0] [0] 239.71/67.51 [a](x1) = [0 0 1] x1 + [0] 239.71/67.51 [0 0 0] [1] 239.71/67.51 239.71/67.51 [1 0 0] [0] 239.71/67.51 [b](x1) = [0 0 0] x1 + [0] 239.71/67.51 [0 0 0] [0] 239.71/67.51 239.71/67.51 The order satisfies the following ordering constraints: 239.71/67.51 239.71/67.51 [a(x1)] = [1 1 0] [0] 239.71/67.51 [0 0 1] x1 + [0] 239.71/67.51 [0 0 0] [1] 239.71/67.51 >= [1 0 0] [0] 239.71/67.51 [0 0 0] x1 + [0] 239.71/67.51 [0 0 0] [0] 239.71/67.51 = [b(x1)] 239.71/67.51 239.71/67.51 [a(a(x1))] = [1 1 1] [0] 239.71/67.51 [0 0 0] x1 + [1] 239.71/67.51 [0 0 0] [1] 239.71/67.51 >= [1 1 0] [0] 239.71/67.51 [0 0 0] x1 + [0] 239.71/67.51 [0 0 0] [1] 239.71/67.51 = [a(b(a(x1)))] 239.71/67.51 239.71/67.51 [a(a(a(x1)))] = [1 1 1] [1] 239.71/67.51 [0 0 0] x1 + [1] 239.71/67.51 [0 0 0] [1] 239.71/67.51 > [1 1 1] [0] 239.71/67.51 [0 0 0] x1 + [1] 239.71/67.51 [0 0 0] [1] 239.71/67.51 = [a(a(b(a(a(x1)))))] 239.71/67.51 239.71/67.51 [a(a(b(x1)))] = [1 0 0] [0] 239.71/67.52 [0 0 0] x1 + [1] 239.71/67.52 [0 0 0] [1] 239.71/67.52 >= [1 0 0] [0] 239.71/67.52 [0 0 0] x1 + [0] 239.71/67.52 [0 0 0] [1] 239.71/67.52 = [a(b(b(a(b(x1)))))] 239.71/67.52 239.71/67.52 [a(b(x1))] = [1 0 0] [0] 239.71/67.52 [0 0 0] x1 + [0] 239.71/67.52 [0 0 0] [1] 239.71/67.52 >= [1 0 0] [0] 239.71/67.52 [0 0 0] x1 + [0] 239.71/67.52 [0 0 0] [0] 239.71/67.52 = [b(b(b(x1)))] 239.71/67.52 239.71/67.52 [a(b(a(x1)))] = [1 1 0] [0] 239.71/67.52 [0 0 0] x1 + [0] 239.71/67.52 [0 0 0] [1] 239.71/67.52 >= [1 0 0] [0] 239.71/67.52 [0 0 0] x1 + [0] 239.71/67.52 [0 0 0] [1] 239.71/67.52 = [a(b(b(a(b(x1)))))] 239.71/67.52 239.71/67.52 [a(b(a(x1)))] = [1 1 0] [0] 239.71/67.52 [0 0 0] x1 + [0] 239.71/67.52 [0 0 0] [1] 239.71/67.52 >= [1 1 0] [0] 239.71/67.52 [0 0 0] x1 + [0] 239.71/67.52 [0 0 0] [0] 239.71/67.52 = [b(a(b(b(a(x1)))))] 239.71/67.52 239.71/67.52 [a(b(b(x1)))] = [1 0 0] [0] 239.71/67.52 [0 0 0] x1 + [0] 239.71/67.52 [0 0 0] [1] 239.71/67.52 >= [1 0 0] [0] 239.71/67.52 [0 0 0] x1 + [0] 239.71/67.52 [0 0 0] [0] 239.71/67.52 = [b(b(b(b(b(x1)))))] 239.71/67.52 239.71/67.52 [b(a(x1))] = [1 1 0] [0] 239.71/67.52 [0 0 0] x1 + [0] 239.71/67.52 [0 0 0] [0] 239.71/67.52 >= [1 0 0] [0] 239.71/67.52 [0 0 0] x1 + [0] 239.71/67.52 [0 0 0] [0] 239.71/67.52 = [b(b(b(x1)))] 239.71/67.52 239.71/67.52 [b(a(a(x1)))] = [1 1 1] [0] 239.71/67.52 [0 0 0] x1 + [0] 239.71/67.52 [0 0 0] [0] 239.71/67.52 >= [1 1 0] [0] 239.71/67.52 [0 0 0] x1 + [0] 239.71/67.52 [0 0 0] [0] 239.71/67.52 = [b(a(b(b(a(x1)))))] 239.71/67.52 239.71/67.52 [b(b(a(x1)))] = [1 1 0] [0] 239.71/67.52 [0 0 0] x1 + [0] 239.71/67.52 [0 0 0] [0] 239.71/67.52 >= [1 0 0] [0] 239.71/67.52 [0 0 0] x1 + [0] 239.71/67.52 [0 0 0] [0] 239.71/67.52 = [b(b(b(b(b(x1)))))] 239.71/67.52 239.71/67.52 239.71/67.52 We return to the main proof. 239.71/67.52 239.71/67.52 We are left with following problem, upon which TcT provides the 239.71/67.52 certificate YES(O(1),O(n^1)). 239.71/67.52 239.71/67.52 Strict Trs: 239.71/67.52 { a(b(a(x1))) -> a(b(b(a(b(x1))))) 239.71/67.52 , a(b(a(x1))) -> b(a(b(b(a(x1))))) } 239.71/67.52 Weak Trs: 239.71/67.52 { a(x1) -> b(x1) 239.71/67.52 , a(a(x1)) -> a(b(a(x1))) 239.71/67.52 , a(a(a(x1))) -> a(a(b(a(a(x1))))) 239.71/67.52 , a(a(b(x1))) -> a(b(b(a(b(x1))))) 239.71/67.52 , a(b(x1)) -> b(b(b(x1))) 239.71/67.52 , a(b(b(x1))) -> b(b(b(b(b(x1))))) 239.71/67.52 , b(a(x1)) -> b(b(b(x1))) 239.71/67.52 , b(a(a(x1))) -> b(a(b(b(a(x1))))) 239.71/67.52 , b(b(a(x1))) -> b(b(b(b(b(x1))))) } 239.71/67.52 Obligation: 239.71/67.52 derivational complexity 239.71/67.52 Answer: 239.71/67.52 YES(O(1),O(n^1)) 239.71/67.52 239.71/67.52 We use the processor 'matrix interpretation of dimension 3' to 239.71/67.52 orient following rules strictly. 239.71/67.52 239.71/67.52 Trs: 239.71/67.52 { a(b(a(x1))) -> a(b(b(a(b(x1))))) 239.71/67.52 , a(b(a(x1))) -> b(a(b(b(a(x1))))) } 239.71/67.52 239.71/67.52 The induced complexity on above rules (modulo remaining rules) is 239.71/67.52 YES(?,O(n^1)) . These rules are moved into the corresponding weak 239.71/67.52 component(s). 239.71/67.52 239.71/67.52 Sub-proof: 239.71/67.52 ---------- 239.71/67.52 TcT has computed the following triangular matrix interpretation. 239.71/67.52 Note that the diagonal of the component-wise maxima of 239.71/67.52 interpretation-entries contains no more than 1 non-zero entries. 239.71/67.52 239.71/67.52 [1 1 1] [0] 239.71/67.52 [a](x1) = [0 0 2] x1 + [1] 239.71/67.52 [0 0 0] [1] 239.71/67.52 239.71/67.52 [1 0 0] [0] 239.71/67.52 [b](x1) = [0 0 1] x1 + [0] 239.71/67.52 [0 0 0] [0] 239.71/67.52 239.71/67.52 The order satisfies the following ordering constraints: 239.71/67.52 239.71/67.52 [a(x1)] = [1 1 1] [0] 239.71/67.52 [0 0 2] x1 + [1] 239.71/67.52 [0 0 0] [1] 239.71/67.52 >= [1 0 0] [0] 239.71/67.52 [0 0 1] x1 + [0] 239.71/67.52 [0 0 0] [0] 239.71/67.52 = [b(x1)] 239.71/67.52 239.71/67.52 [a(a(x1))] = [1 1 3] [2] 239.71/67.52 [0 0 0] x1 + [3] 239.71/67.52 [0 0 0] [1] 239.71/67.52 > [1 1 1] [1] 239.71/67.52 [0 0 0] x1 + [1] 239.71/67.52 [0 0 0] [1] 239.71/67.52 = [a(b(a(x1)))] 239.71/67.52 239.71/67.52 [a(a(a(x1)))] = [1 1 3] [6] 239.71/67.52 [0 0 0] x1 + [3] 239.71/67.52 [0 0 0] [1] 239.71/67.52 > [1 1 3] [5] 239.71/67.52 [0 0 0] x1 + [3] 239.71/67.52 [0 0 0] [1] 239.71/67.52 = [a(a(b(a(a(x1)))))] 239.71/67.52 239.71/67.52 [a(a(b(x1)))] = [1 0 1] [2] 239.71/67.52 [0 0 0] x1 + [3] 239.71/67.52 [0 0 0] [1] 239.71/67.52 > [1 0 1] [0] 239.71/67.52 [0 0 0] x1 + [1] 239.71/67.52 [0 0 0] [1] 239.71/67.52 = [a(b(b(a(b(x1)))))] 239.71/67.52 239.71/67.52 [a(b(x1))] = [1 0 1] [0] 239.71/67.52 [0 0 0] x1 + [1] 239.71/67.52 [0 0 0] [1] 239.71/67.52 >= [1 0 0] [0] 239.71/67.52 [0 0 0] x1 + [0] 239.71/67.52 [0 0 0] [0] 239.71/67.52 = [b(b(b(x1)))] 239.71/67.52 239.71/67.52 [a(b(a(x1)))] = [1 1 1] [1] 239.71/67.52 [0 0 0] x1 + [1] 239.71/67.52 [0 0 0] [1] 239.71/67.52 > [1 0 1] [0] 239.71/67.52 [0 0 0] x1 + [1] 239.71/67.52 [0 0 0] [1] 239.71/67.52 = [a(b(b(a(b(x1)))))] 239.71/67.52 239.71/67.52 [a(b(a(x1)))] = [1 1 1] [1] 239.71/67.52 [0 0 0] x1 + [1] 239.71/67.52 [0 0 0] [1] 239.71/67.52 > [1 1 1] [0] 239.71/67.52 [0 0 0] x1 + [1] 239.71/67.52 [0 0 0] [0] 239.71/67.52 = [b(a(b(b(a(x1)))))] 239.71/67.52 239.71/67.52 [a(b(b(x1)))] = [1 0 0] [0] 239.71/67.52 [0 0 0] x1 + [1] 239.71/67.52 [0 0 0] [1] 239.71/67.52 >= [1 0 0] [0] 239.71/67.52 [0 0 0] x1 + [0] 239.71/67.52 [0 0 0] [0] 239.71/67.52 = [b(b(b(b(b(x1)))))] 239.71/67.52 239.71/67.52 [b(a(x1))] = [1 1 1] [0] 239.71/67.52 [0 0 0] x1 + [1] 239.71/67.52 [0 0 0] [0] 239.71/67.52 >= [1 0 0] [0] 239.71/67.52 [0 0 0] x1 + [0] 239.71/67.52 [0 0 0] [0] 239.71/67.52 = [b(b(b(x1)))] 239.71/67.52 239.71/67.52 [b(a(a(x1)))] = [1 1 3] [2] 239.71/67.52 [0 0 0] x1 + [1] 239.71/67.52 [0 0 0] [0] 239.71/67.52 > [1 1 1] [0] 239.71/67.52 [0 0 0] x1 + [1] 239.71/67.52 [0 0 0] [0] 239.71/67.52 = [b(a(b(b(a(x1)))))] 239.71/67.52 239.71/67.52 [b(b(a(x1)))] = [1 1 1] [0] 239.71/67.52 [0 0 0] x1 + [0] 239.71/67.52 [0 0 0] [0] 239.71/67.52 >= [1 0 0] [0] 239.71/67.52 [0 0 0] x1 + [0] 239.71/67.52 [0 0 0] [0] 239.71/67.52 = [b(b(b(b(b(x1)))))] 239.71/67.52 239.71/67.52 239.71/67.52 We return to the main proof. 239.71/67.52 239.71/67.52 We are left with following problem, upon which TcT provides the 239.71/67.52 certificate YES(O(1),O(1)). 239.71/67.52 239.71/67.52 Weak Trs: 239.71/67.52 { a(x1) -> b(x1) 239.71/67.52 , a(a(x1)) -> a(b(a(x1))) 239.71/67.52 , a(a(a(x1))) -> a(a(b(a(a(x1))))) 239.71/67.52 , a(a(b(x1))) -> a(b(b(a(b(x1))))) 239.71/67.52 , a(b(x1)) -> b(b(b(x1))) 239.71/67.52 , a(b(a(x1))) -> a(b(b(a(b(x1))))) 239.71/67.52 , a(b(a(x1))) -> b(a(b(b(a(x1))))) 239.71/67.52 , a(b(b(x1))) -> b(b(b(b(b(x1))))) 239.71/67.52 , b(a(x1)) -> b(b(b(x1))) 239.71/67.52 , b(a(a(x1))) -> b(a(b(b(a(x1))))) 239.71/67.52 , b(b(a(x1))) -> b(b(b(b(b(x1))))) } 239.71/67.52 Obligation: 239.71/67.52 derivational complexity 239.71/67.52 Answer: 239.71/67.52 YES(O(1),O(1)) 239.71/67.52 239.71/67.52 Empty rules are trivially bounded 239.71/67.52 239.71/67.52 Hurray, we answered YES(O(1),O(n^1)) 239.85/67.66 EOF