WORST_CASE(?,O(n^2)) * Step 1: WeightGap WORST_CASE(?,O(n^2)) + Considered Problem: - Strict TRS: add(0(),y) -> y add(s(x),y) -> s(add(x,y)) mult(0(),y) -> 0() mult(s(x),y) -> add(x,mult(x,y)) - Signature: {add/2,mult/2} / {0/0,s/1} - Obligation: innermost runtime complexity wrt. defined symbols {add,mult} and constructors {0,s} + Applied Processor: WeightGap {wgDimension = 1, wgDegree = 1, wgKind = Algebraic, wgUArgs = UArgs, wgOn = WgOnAny} + Details: The weightgap principle applies using the following nonconstant growth matrix-interpretation: We apply a matrix interpretation of kind constructor based matrix interpretation: The following argument positions are considered usable: uargs(add) = {2}, uargs(s) = {1} Following symbols are considered usable: all TcT has computed the following interpretation: p(0) = [0] p(add) = [1] x2 + [8] p(mult) = [13] p(s) = [1] x1 + [2] Following rules are strictly oriented: add(0(),y) = [1] y + [8] > [1] y + [0] = y mult(0(),y) = [13] > [0] = 0() Following rules are (at-least) weakly oriented: add(s(x),y) = [1] y + [8] >= [1] y + [10] = s(add(x,y)) mult(s(x),y) = [13] >= [21] = add(x,mult(x,y)) Further, it can be verified that all rules not oriented are covered by the weightgap condition. * Step 2: WeightGap WORST_CASE(?,O(n^2)) + Considered Problem: - Strict TRS: add(s(x),y) -> s(add(x,y)) mult(s(x),y) -> add(x,mult(x,y)) - Weak TRS: add(0(),y) -> y mult(0(),y) -> 0() - Signature: {add/2,mult/2} / {0/0,s/1} - Obligation: innermost runtime complexity wrt. defined symbols {add,mult} and constructors {0,s} + Applied Processor: WeightGap {wgDimension = 1, wgDegree = 1, wgKind = Algebraic, wgUArgs = UArgs, wgOn = WgOnAny} + Details: The weightgap principle applies using the following nonconstant growth matrix-interpretation: We apply a matrix interpretation of kind constructor based matrix interpretation: The following argument positions are considered usable: uargs(add) = {2}, uargs(s) = {1} Following symbols are considered usable: all TcT has computed the following interpretation: p(0) = [0] p(add) = [1] x2 + [0] p(mult) = [1] x1 + [4] x2 + [0] p(s) = [1] x1 + [8] Following rules are strictly oriented: mult(s(x),y) = [1] x + [4] y + [8] > [1] x + [4] y + [0] = add(x,mult(x,y)) Following rules are (at-least) weakly oriented: add(0(),y) = [1] y + [0] >= [1] y + [0] = y add(s(x),y) = [1] y + [0] >= [1] y + [8] = s(add(x,y)) mult(0(),y) = [4] y + [0] >= [0] = 0() Further, it can be verified that all rules not oriented are covered by the weightgap condition. * Step 3: NaturalPI WORST_CASE(?,O(n^2)) + Considered Problem: - Strict TRS: add(s(x),y) -> s(add(x,y)) - Weak TRS: add(0(),y) -> y mult(0(),y) -> 0() mult(s(x),y) -> add(x,mult(x,y)) - Signature: {add/2,mult/2} / {0/0,s/1} - Obligation: innermost runtime complexity wrt. defined symbols {add,mult} and constructors {0,s} + Applied Processor: NaturalPI {shape = Mixed 2, restrict = Restrict, uargs = UArgs, urules = URules, selector = Just any strict-rules} + Details: We apply a polynomial interpretation of kind constructor-based(mixed(2)): The following argument positions are considered usable: uargs(add) = {2}, uargs(s) = {1} Following symbols are considered usable: {add,mult} TcT has computed the following interpretation: p(0) = 0 p(add) = 6 + 4*x1 + x2 p(mult) = 3 + 2*x1 + x1^2 + x2 p(s) = 2 + x1 Following rules are strictly oriented: add(s(x),y) = 14 + 4*x + y > 8 + 4*x + y = s(add(x,y)) Following rules are (at-least) weakly oriented: add(0(),y) = 6 + y >= y = y mult(0(),y) = 3 + y >= 0 = 0() mult(s(x),y) = 11 + 6*x + x^2 + y >= 9 + 6*x + x^2 + y = add(x,mult(x,y)) * Step 4: EmptyProcessor WORST_CASE(?,O(1)) + Considered Problem: - Weak TRS: add(0(),y) -> y add(s(x),y) -> s(add(x,y)) mult(0(),y) -> 0() mult(s(x),y) -> add(x,mult(x,y)) - Signature: {add/2,mult/2} / {0/0,s/1} - Obligation: innermost runtime complexity wrt. defined symbols {add,mult} and constructors {0,s} + Applied Processor: EmptyProcessor + Details: The problem is already closed. The intended complexity is O(1). WORST_CASE(?,O(n^2))