MAYBE We are left with following problem, upon which TcT provides the certificate MAYBE. Strict Trs: { plus(0(), x) -> x , plus(s(x), y) -> s(plus(p(s(x)), y)) , p(s(0())) -> 0() , p(s(s(x))) -> s(p(s(x))) , times(0(), y) -> 0() , times(s(x), y) -> plus(y, times(p(s(x)), y)) , fac(0(), x) -> x , fac(s(x), y) -> fac(p(s(x)), times(s(x), y)) , factorial(x) -> fac(x, s(0())) } Obligation: runtime complexity Answer: MAYBE None of the processors succeeded. Details of failed attempt(s): ----------------------------- 1) 'WithProblem (timeout of 60 seconds)' failed due to the following reason: Computation stopped due to timeout after 60.0 seconds. 2) 'Best' failed due to the following reason: None of the processors succeeded. Details of failed attempt(s): ----------------------------- 1) 'WithProblem (timeout of 30 seconds) (timeout of 60 seconds)' failed due to the following reason: Computation stopped due to timeout after 30.0 seconds. 2) 'Best' failed due to the following reason: None of the processors succeeded. Details of failed attempt(s): ----------------------------- 1) 'bsearch-popstar (timeout of 60 seconds)' failed due to the following reason: The processor is inapplicable, reason: Processor only applicable for innermost runtime complexity analysis 2) 'Polynomial Path Order (PS) (timeout of 60 seconds)' failed due to the following reason: The processor is inapplicable, reason: Processor only applicable for innermost runtime complexity analysis 3) 'Fastest (timeout of 5 seconds) (timeout of 60 seconds)' failed due to the following reason: None of the processors succeeded. Details of failed attempt(s): ----------------------------- 1) 'Bounds with perSymbol-enrichment and initial automaton 'match'' failed due to the following reason: match-boundness of the problem could not be verified. 2) 'Bounds with minimal-enrichment and initial automaton 'match'' failed due to the following reason: match-boundness of the problem could not be verified. 3) 'Innermost Weak Dependency Pairs (timeout of 60 seconds)' failed due to the following reason: We add the following weak dependency pairs: Strict DPs: { plus^#(0(), x) -> c_1(x) , plus^#(s(x), y) -> c_2(plus^#(p(s(x)), y)) , p^#(s(0())) -> c_3() , p^#(s(s(x))) -> c_4(p^#(s(x))) , times^#(0(), y) -> c_5() , times^#(s(x), y) -> c_6(plus^#(y, times(p(s(x)), y))) , fac^#(0(), x) -> c_7(x) , fac^#(s(x), y) -> c_8(fac^#(p(s(x)), times(s(x), y))) , factorial^#(x) -> c_9(fac^#(x, s(0()))) } and mark the set of starting terms. We are left with following problem, upon which TcT provides the certificate MAYBE. Strict DPs: { plus^#(0(), x) -> c_1(x) , plus^#(s(x), y) -> c_2(plus^#(p(s(x)), y)) , p^#(s(0())) -> c_3() , p^#(s(s(x))) -> c_4(p^#(s(x))) , times^#(0(), y) -> c_5() , times^#(s(x), y) -> c_6(plus^#(y, times(p(s(x)), y))) , fac^#(0(), x) -> c_7(x) , fac^#(s(x), y) -> c_8(fac^#(p(s(x)), times(s(x), y))) , factorial^#(x) -> c_9(fac^#(x, s(0()))) } Strict Trs: { plus(0(), x) -> x , plus(s(x), y) -> s(plus(p(s(x)), y)) , p(s(0())) -> 0() , p(s(s(x))) -> s(p(s(x))) , times(0(), y) -> 0() , times(s(x), y) -> plus(y, times(p(s(x)), y)) , fac(0(), x) -> x , fac(s(x), y) -> fac(p(s(x)), times(s(x), y)) , factorial(x) -> fac(x, s(0())) } Obligation: runtime complexity Answer: MAYBE We estimate the number of application of {3,5} by applications of Pre({3,5}) = {1,4,7}. Here rules are labeled as follows: DPs: { 1: plus^#(0(), x) -> c_1(x) , 2: plus^#(s(x), y) -> c_2(plus^#(p(s(x)), y)) , 3: p^#(s(0())) -> c_3() , 4: p^#(s(s(x))) -> c_4(p^#(s(x))) , 5: times^#(0(), y) -> c_5() , 6: times^#(s(x), y) -> c_6(plus^#(y, times(p(s(x)), y))) , 7: fac^#(0(), x) -> c_7(x) , 8: fac^#(s(x), y) -> c_8(fac^#(p(s(x)), times(s(x), y))) , 9: factorial^#(x) -> c_9(fac^#(x, s(0()))) } We are left with following problem, upon which TcT provides the certificate MAYBE. Strict DPs: { plus^#(0(), x) -> c_1(x) , plus^#(s(x), y) -> c_2(plus^#(p(s(x)), y)) , p^#(s(s(x))) -> c_4(p^#(s(x))) , times^#(s(x), y) -> c_6(plus^#(y, times(p(s(x)), y))) , fac^#(0(), x) -> c_7(x) , fac^#(s(x), y) -> c_8(fac^#(p(s(x)), times(s(x), y))) , factorial^#(x) -> c_9(fac^#(x, s(0()))) } Strict Trs: { plus(0(), x) -> x , plus(s(x), y) -> s(plus(p(s(x)), y)) , p(s(0())) -> 0() , p(s(s(x))) -> s(p(s(x))) , times(0(), y) -> 0() , times(s(x), y) -> plus(y, times(p(s(x)), y)) , fac(0(), x) -> x , fac(s(x), y) -> fac(p(s(x)), times(s(x), y)) , factorial(x) -> fac(x, s(0())) } Weak DPs: { p^#(s(0())) -> c_3() , times^#(0(), y) -> c_5() } Obligation: runtime complexity Answer: MAYBE Empty strict component of the problem is NOT empty. Arrrr..