MAYBE * Step 1: DependencyPairs MAYBE + Considered Problem: - Strict TRS: activate(X) -> X activate(n__f(X)) -> f(activate(X)) activate(n__g(X)) -> g(activate(X)) f(X) -> cons(X,n__f(n__g(X))) f(X) -> n__f(X) g(X) -> n__g(X) g(0()) -> s(0()) g(s(X)) -> s(s(g(X))) sel(0(),cons(X,Y)) -> X sel(s(X),cons(Y,Z)) -> sel(X,activate(Z)) - Signature: {activate/1,f/1,g/1,sel/2} / {0/0,cons/2,n__f/1,n__g/1,s/1} - Obligation: innermost runtime complexity wrt. defined symbols {activate,f,g,sel} and constructors {0,cons,n__f,n__g,s} + Applied Processor: DependencyPairs {dpKind_ = DT} + Details: We add the following dependency tuples: Strict DPs activate#(X) -> c_1() activate#(n__f(X)) -> c_2(f#(activate(X)),activate#(X)) activate#(n__g(X)) -> c_3(g#(activate(X)),activate#(X)) f#(X) -> c_4() f#(X) -> c_5() g#(X) -> c_6() g#(0()) -> c_7() g#(s(X)) -> c_8(g#(X)) sel#(0(),cons(X,Y)) -> c_9() sel#(s(X),cons(Y,Z)) -> c_10(sel#(X,activate(Z)),activate#(Z)) Weak DPs and mark the set of starting terms. * Step 2: UsableRules MAYBE + Considered Problem: - Strict DPs: activate#(X) -> c_1() activate#(n__f(X)) -> c_2(f#(activate(X)),activate#(X)) activate#(n__g(X)) -> c_3(g#(activate(X)),activate#(X)) f#(X) -> c_4() f#(X) -> c_5() g#(X) -> c_6() g#(0()) -> c_7() g#(s(X)) -> c_8(g#(X)) sel#(0(),cons(X,Y)) -> c_9() sel#(s(X),cons(Y,Z)) -> c_10(sel#(X,activate(Z)),activate#(Z)) - Weak TRS: activate(X) -> X activate(n__f(X)) -> f(activate(X)) activate(n__g(X)) -> g(activate(X)) f(X) -> cons(X,n__f(n__g(X))) f(X) -> n__f(X) g(X) -> n__g(X) g(0()) -> s(0()) g(s(X)) -> s(s(g(X))) sel(0(),cons(X,Y)) -> X sel(s(X),cons(Y,Z)) -> sel(X,activate(Z)) - Signature: {activate/1,f/1,g/1,sel/2,activate#/1,f#/1,g#/1,sel#/2} / {0/0,cons/2,n__f/1,n__g/1,s/1,c_1/0,c_2/2,c_3/2 ,c_4/0,c_5/0,c_6/0,c_7/0,c_8/1,c_9/0,c_10/2} - Obligation: innermost runtime complexity wrt. defined symbols {activate#,f#,g#,sel#} and constructors {0,cons,n__f,n__g ,s} + Applied Processor: UsableRules + Details: We replace rewrite rules by usable rules: activate(X) -> X activate(n__f(X)) -> f(activate(X)) activate(n__g(X)) -> g(activate(X)) f(X) -> cons(X,n__f(n__g(X))) f(X) -> n__f(X) g(X) -> n__g(X) g(0()) -> s(0()) g(s(X)) -> s(s(g(X))) activate#(X) -> c_1() activate#(n__f(X)) -> c_2(f#(activate(X)),activate#(X)) activate#(n__g(X)) -> c_3(g#(activate(X)),activate#(X)) f#(X) -> c_4() f#(X) -> c_5() g#(X) -> c_6() g#(0()) -> c_7() g#(s(X)) -> c_8(g#(X)) sel#(0(),cons(X,Y)) -> c_9() sel#(s(X),cons(Y,Z)) -> c_10(sel#(X,activate(Z)),activate#(Z)) * Step 3: PredecessorEstimation MAYBE + Considered Problem: - Strict DPs: activate#(X) -> c_1() activate#(n__f(X)) -> c_2(f#(activate(X)),activate#(X)) activate#(n__g(X)) -> c_3(g#(activate(X)),activate#(X)) f#(X) -> c_4() f#(X) -> c_5() g#(X) -> c_6() g#(0()) -> c_7() g#(s(X)) -> c_8(g#(X)) sel#(0(),cons(X,Y)) -> c_9() sel#(s(X),cons(Y,Z)) -> c_10(sel#(X,activate(Z)),activate#(Z)) - Weak TRS: activate(X) -> X activate(n__f(X)) -> f(activate(X)) activate(n__g(X)) -> g(activate(X)) f(X) -> cons(X,n__f(n__g(X))) f(X) -> n__f(X) g(X) -> n__g(X) g(0()) -> s(0()) g(s(X)) -> s(s(g(X))) - Signature: {activate/1,f/1,g/1,sel/2,activate#/1,f#/1,g#/1,sel#/2} / {0/0,cons/2,n__f/1,n__g/1,s/1,c_1/0,c_2/2,c_3/2 ,c_4/0,c_5/0,c_6/0,c_7/0,c_8/1,c_9/0,c_10/2} - Obligation: innermost runtime complexity wrt. defined symbols {activate#,f#,g#,sel#} and constructors {0,cons,n__f,n__g ,s} + Applied Processor: PredecessorEstimation {onSelection = all simple predecessor estimation selector} + Details: We estimate the number of application of {1,4,5,6,7,9} by application of Pre({1,4,5,6,7,9}) = {2,3,8,10}. Here rules are labelled as follows: 1: activate#(X) -> c_1() 2: activate#(n__f(X)) -> c_2(f#(activate(X)),activate#(X)) 3: activate#(n__g(X)) -> c_3(g#(activate(X)),activate#(X)) 4: f#(X) -> c_4() 5: f#(X) -> c_5() 6: g#(X) -> c_6() 7: g#(0()) -> c_7() 8: g#(s(X)) -> c_8(g#(X)) 9: sel#(0(),cons(X,Y)) -> c_9() 10: sel#(s(X),cons(Y,Z)) -> c_10(sel#(X,activate(Z)),activate#(Z)) * Step 4: RemoveWeakSuffixes MAYBE + Considered Problem: - Strict DPs: activate#(n__f(X)) -> c_2(f#(activate(X)),activate#(X)) activate#(n__g(X)) -> c_3(g#(activate(X)),activate#(X)) g#(s(X)) -> c_8(g#(X)) sel#(s(X),cons(Y,Z)) -> c_10(sel#(X,activate(Z)),activate#(Z)) - Weak DPs: activate#(X) -> c_1() f#(X) -> c_4() f#(X) -> c_5() g#(X) -> c_6() g#(0()) -> c_7() sel#(0(),cons(X,Y)) -> c_9() - Weak TRS: activate(X) -> X activate(n__f(X)) -> f(activate(X)) activate(n__g(X)) -> g(activate(X)) f(X) -> cons(X,n__f(n__g(X))) f(X) -> n__f(X) g(X) -> n__g(X) g(0()) -> s(0()) g(s(X)) -> s(s(g(X))) - Signature: {activate/1,f/1,g/1,sel/2,activate#/1,f#/1,g#/1,sel#/2} / {0/0,cons/2,n__f/1,n__g/1,s/1,c_1/0,c_2/2,c_3/2 ,c_4/0,c_5/0,c_6/0,c_7/0,c_8/1,c_9/0,c_10/2} - Obligation: innermost runtime complexity wrt. defined symbols {activate#,f#,g#,sel#} and constructors {0,cons,n__f,n__g ,s} + Applied Processor: RemoveWeakSuffixes + Details: Consider the dependency graph 1:S:activate#(n__f(X)) -> c_2(f#(activate(X)),activate#(X)) -->_2 activate#(n__g(X)) -> c_3(g#(activate(X)),activate#(X)):2 -->_1 f#(X) -> c_5():7 -->_1 f#(X) -> c_4():6 -->_2 activate#(X) -> c_1():5 -->_2 activate#(n__f(X)) -> c_2(f#(activate(X)),activate#(X)):1 2:S:activate#(n__g(X)) -> c_3(g#(activate(X)),activate#(X)) -->_1 g#(s(X)) -> c_8(g#(X)):3 -->_1 g#(0()) -> c_7():9 -->_1 g#(X) -> c_6():8 -->_2 activate#(X) -> c_1():5 -->_2 activate#(n__g(X)) -> c_3(g#(activate(X)),activate#(X)):2 -->_2 activate#(n__f(X)) -> c_2(f#(activate(X)),activate#(X)):1 3:S:g#(s(X)) -> c_8(g#(X)) -->_1 g#(0()) -> c_7():9 -->_1 g#(X) -> c_6():8 -->_1 g#(s(X)) -> c_8(g#(X)):3 4:S:sel#(s(X),cons(Y,Z)) -> c_10(sel#(X,activate(Z)),activate#(Z)) -->_1 sel#(0(),cons(X,Y)) -> c_9():10 -->_2 activate#(X) -> c_1():5 -->_1 sel#(s(X),cons(Y,Z)) -> c_10(sel#(X,activate(Z)),activate#(Z)):4 -->_2 activate#(n__g(X)) -> c_3(g#(activate(X)),activate#(X)):2 -->_2 activate#(n__f(X)) -> c_2(f#(activate(X)),activate#(X)):1 5:W:activate#(X) -> c_1() 6:W:f#(X) -> c_4() 7:W:f#(X) -> c_5() 8:W:g#(X) -> c_6() 9:W:g#(0()) -> c_7() 10:W:sel#(0(),cons(X,Y)) -> c_9() The following weak DPs constitute a sub-graph of the DG that is closed under successors. The DPs are removed. 10: sel#(0(),cons(X,Y)) -> c_9() 6: f#(X) -> c_4() 7: f#(X) -> c_5() 5: activate#(X) -> c_1() 8: g#(X) -> c_6() 9: g#(0()) -> c_7() * Step 5: SimplifyRHS MAYBE + Considered Problem: - Strict DPs: activate#(n__f(X)) -> c_2(f#(activate(X)),activate#(X)) activate#(n__g(X)) -> c_3(g#(activate(X)),activate#(X)) g#(s(X)) -> c_8(g#(X)) sel#(s(X),cons(Y,Z)) -> c_10(sel#(X,activate(Z)),activate#(Z)) - Weak TRS: activate(X) -> X activate(n__f(X)) -> f(activate(X)) activate(n__g(X)) -> g(activate(X)) f(X) -> cons(X,n__f(n__g(X))) f(X) -> n__f(X) g(X) -> n__g(X) g(0()) -> s(0()) g(s(X)) -> s(s(g(X))) - Signature: {activate/1,f/1,g/1,sel/2,activate#/1,f#/1,g#/1,sel#/2} / {0/0,cons/2,n__f/1,n__g/1,s/1,c_1/0,c_2/2,c_3/2 ,c_4/0,c_5/0,c_6/0,c_7/0,c_8/1,c_9/0,c_10/2} - Obligation: innermost runtime complexity wrt. defined symbols {activate#,f#,g#,sel#} and constructors {0,cons,n__f,n__g ,s} + Applied Processor: SimplifyRHS + Details: Consider the dependency graph 1:S:activate#(n__f(X)) -> c_2(f#(activate(X)),activate#(X)) -->_2 activate#(n__g(X)) -> c_3(g#(activate(X)),activate#(X)):2 -->_2 activate#(n__f(X)) -> c_2(f#(activate(X)),activate#(X)):1 2:S:activate#(n__g(X)) -> c_3(g#(activate(X)),activate#(X)) -->_1 g#(s(X)) -> c_8(g#(X)):3 -->_2 activate#(n__g(X)) -> c_3(g#(activate(X)),activate#(X)):2 -->_2 activate#(n__f(X)) -> c_2(f#(activate(X)),activate#(X)):1 3:S:g#(s(X)) -> c_8(g#(X)) -->_1 g#(s(X)) -> c_8(g#(X)):3 4:S:sel#(s(X),cons(Y,Z)) -> c_10(sel#(X,activate(Z)),activate#(Z)) -->_1 sel#(s(X),cons(Y,Z)) -> c_10(sel#(X,activate(Z)),activate#(Z)):4 -->_2 activate#(n__g(X)) -> c_3(g#(activate(X)),activate#(X)):2 -->_2 activate#(n__f(X)) -> c_2(f#(activate(X)),activate#(X)):1 Due to missing edges in the depndency graph, the right-hand sides of following rules could be simplified: activate#(n__f(X)) -> c_2(activate#(X)) * Step 6: Failure MAYBE + Considered Problem: - Strict DPs: activate#(n__f(X)) -> c_2(activate#(X)) activate#(n__g(X)) -> c_3(g#(activate(X)),activate#(X)) g#(s(X)) -> c_8(g#(X)) sel#(s(X),cons(Y,Z)) -> c_10(sel#(X,activate(Z)),activate#(Z)) - Weak TRS: activate(X) -> X activate(n__f(X)) -> f(activate(X)) activate(n__g(X)) -> g(activate(X)) f(X) -> cons(X,n__f(n__g(X))) f(X) -> n__f(X) g(X) -> n__g(X) g(0()) -> s(0()) g(s(X)) -> s(s(g(X))) - Signature: {activate/1,f/1,g/1,sel/2,activate#/1,f#/1,g#/1,sel#/2} / {0/0,cons/2,n__f/1,n__g/1,s/1,c_1/0,c_2/1,c_3/2 ,c_4/0,c_5/0,c_6/0,c_7/0,c_8/1,c_9/0,c_10/2} - Obligation: innermost runtime complexity wrt. defined symbols {activate#,f#,g#,sel#} and constructors {0,cons,n__f,n__g ,s} + Applied Processor: EmptyProcessor + Details: The problem is still open. MAYBE