MAYBE We are left with following problem, upon which TcT provides the certificate MAYBE. Strict Trs: { minus(x, y) -> cond(equal(min(x, y), y), x, y) , cond(true(), x, y) -> s(minus(x, s(y))) , equal(s(x), s(y)) -> equal(x, y) , equal(s(x), 0()) -> false() , equal(0(), s(y)) -> false() , equal(0(), 0()) -> true() , min(u, 0()) -> 0() , min(s(u), s(v)) -> s(min(u, v)) , min(0(), v) -> 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: { minus^#(x, y) -> c_1(cond^#(equal(min(x, y), y), x, y)) , cond^#(true(), x, y) -> c_2(minus^#(x, s(y))) , equal^#(s(x), s(y)) -> c_3(equal^#(x, y)) , equal^#(s(x), 0()) -> c_4() , equal^#(0(), s(y)) -> c_5() , equal^#(0(), 0()) -> c_6() , min^#(u, 0()) -> c_7() , min^#(s(u), s(v)) -> c_8(min^#(u, v)) , min^#(0(), v) -> c_9() } and mark the set of starting terms. We are left with following problem, upon which TcT provides the certificate MAYBE. Strict DPs: { minus^#(x, y) -> c_1(cond^#(equal(min(x, y), y), x, y)) , cond^#(true(), x, y) -> c_2(minus^#(x, s(y))) , equal^#(s(x), s(y)) -> c_3(equal^#(x, y)) , equal^#(s(x), 0()) -> c_4() , equal^#(0(), s(y)) -> c_5() , equal^#(0(), 0()) -> c_6() , min^#(u, 0()) -> c_7() , min^#(s(u), s(v)) -> c_8(min^#(u, v)) , min^#(0(), v) -> c_9() } Strict Trs: { minus(x, y) -> cond(equal(min(x, y), y), x, y) , cond(true(), x, y) -> s(minus(x, s(y))) , equal(s(x), s(y)) -> equal(x, y) , equal(s(x), 0()) -> false() , equal(0(), s(y)) -> false() , equal(0(), 0()) -> true() , min(u, 0()) -> 0() , min(s(u), s(v)) -> s(min(u, v)) , min(0(), v) -> 0() } Obligation: runtime complexity Answer: MAYBE We estimate the number of application of {4,5,6,7,9} by applications of Pre({4,5,6,7,9}) = {3,8}. Here rules are labeled as follows: DPs: { 1: minus^#(x, y) -> c_1(cond^#(equal(min(x, y), y), x, y)) , 2: cond^#(true(), x, y) -> c_2(minus^#(x, s(y))) , 3: equal^#(s(x), s(y)) -> c_3(equal^#(x, y)) , 4: equal^#(s(x), 0()) -> c_4() , 5: equal^#(0(), s(y)) -> c_5() , 6: equal^#(0(), 0()) -> c_6() , 7: min^#(u, 0()) -> c_7() , 8: min^#(s(u), s(v)) -> c_8(min^#(u, v)) , 9: min^#(0(), v) -> c_9() } We are left with following problem, upon which TcT provides the certificate MAYBE. Strict DPs: { minus^#(x, y) -> c_1(cond^#(equal(min(x, y), y), x, y)) , cond^#(true(), x, y) -> c_2(minus^#(x, s(y))) , equal^#(s(x), s(y)) -> c_3(equal^#(x, y)) , min^#(s(u), s(v)) -> c_8(min^#(u, v)) } Strict Trs: { minus(x, y) -> cond(equal(min(x, y), y), x, y) , cond(true(), x, y) -> s(minus(x, s(y))) , equal(s(x), s(y)) -> equal(x, y) , equal(s(x), 0()) -> false() , equal(0(), s(y)) -> false() , equal(0(), 0()) -> true() , min(u, 0()) -> 0() , min(s(u), s(v)) -> s(min(u, v)) , min(0(), v) -> 0() } Weak DPs: { equal^#(s(x), 0()) -> c_4() , equal^#(0(), s(y)) -> c_5() , equal^#(0(), 0()) -> c_6() , min^#(u, 0()) -> c_7() , min^#(0(), v) -> c_9() } Obligation: runtime complexity Answer: MAYBE Empty strict component of the problem is NOT empty. Arrrr..