YES(O(1),O(1)) We are left with following problem, upon which TcT provides the certificate YES(O(1),O(1)). Strict Trs: { f(g(x), g(y)) -> f(p(f(g(x), s(y))), g(s(p(x)))) , g(s(p(x))) -> p(x) , p(0()) -> g(0()) } Obligation: innermost runtime complexity Answer: YES(O(1),O(1)) We add the following dependency tuples: Strict DPs: { f^#(g(x), g(y)) -> c_1(f^#(p(f(g(x), s(y))), g(s(p(x)))), p^#(f(g(x), s(y))), f^#(g(x), s(y)), g^#(x), g^#(s(p(x))), p^#(x)) , p^#(0()) -> c_3(g^#(0())) , g^#(s(p(x))) -> c_2(p^#(x)) } and mark the set of starting terms. We are left with following problem, upon which TcT provides the certificate YES(O(1),O(1)). Strict DPs: { f^#(g(x), g(y)) -> c_1(f^#(p(f(g(x), s(y))), g(s(p(x)))), p^#(f(g(x), s(y))), f^#(g(x), s(y)), g^#(x), g^#(s(p(x))), p^#(x)) , p^#(0()) -> c_3(g^#(0())) , g^#(s(p(x))) -> c_2(p^#(x)) } Weak Trs: { f(g(x), g(y)) -> f(p(f(g(x), s(y))), g(s(p(x)))) , g(s(p(x))) -> p(x) , p(0()) -> g(0()) } Obligation: innermost runtime complexity Answer: YES(O(1),O(1)) Consider the dependency graph: 1: f^#(g(x), g(y)) -> c_1(f^#(p(f(g(x), s(y))), g(s(p(x)))), p^#(f(g(x), s(y))), f^#(g(x), s(y)), g^#(x), g^#(s(p(x))), p^#(x)) -->_5 g^#(s(p(x))) -> c_2(p^#(x)) :3 -->_6 p^#(0()) -> c_3(g^#(0())) :2 2: p^#(0()) -> c_3(g^#(0())) 3: g^#(s(p(x))) -> c_2(p^#(x)) Only the nodes {2} are reachable from nodes {2} that start derivation from marked basic terms. The nodes not reachable are removed from the problem. We are left with following problem, upon which TcT provides the certificate YES(O(1),O(1)). Strict DPs: { p^#(0()) -> c_3(g^#(0())) } Weak Trs: { f(g(x), g(y)) -> f(p(f(g(x), s(y))), g(s(p(x)))) , g(s(p(x))) -> p(x) , p(0()) -> g(0()) } Obligation: innermost runtime complexity Answer: YES(O(1),O(1)) We estimate the number of application of {1} by applications of Pre({1}) = {}. Here rules are labeled as follows: DPs: { 1: p^#(0()) -> c_3(g^#(0())) } We are left with following problem, upon which TcT provides the certificate YES(O(1),O(1)). Weak DPs: { p^#(0()) -> c_3(g^#(0())) } Weak Trs: { f(g(x), g(y)) -> f(p(f(g(x), s(y))), g(s(p(x)))) , g(s(p(x))) -> p(x) , p(0()) -> g(0()) } Obligation: innermost runtime complexity Answer: YES(O(1),O(1)) The following weak DPs constitute a sub-graph of the DG that is closed under successors. The DPs are removed. { p^#(0()) -> c_3(g^#(0())) } We are left with following problem, upon which TcT provides the certificate YES(O(1),O(1)). Weak Trs: { f(g(x), g(y)) -> f(p(f(g(x), s(y))), g(s(p(x)))) , g(s(p(x))) -> p(x) , p(0()) -> g(0()) } Obligation: innermost runtime complexity Answer: YES(O(1),O(1)) No rule is usable, rules are removed from the input problem. We are left with following problem, upon which TcT provides the certificate YES(O(1),O(1)). Rules: Empty Obligation: innermost runtime complexity Answer: YES(O(1),O(1)) Empty rules are trivially bounded Hurray, we answered YES(O(1),O(1))