MAYBE
* Step 1: WeightGap MAYBE
    + Considered Problem:
        - Strict TRS:
            help(false(),x,y) -> 0()
            help(true(),x,y) -> s(minus(x,s(y)))
            lt(x,0()) -> false()
            lt(0(),s(x)) -> true()
            lt(s(x),s(y)) -> lt(x,y)
            minus(x,y) -> help(lt(y,x),x,y)
        - Signature:
            {help/3,lt/2,minus/2} / {0/0,false/0,s/1,true/0}
        - Obligation:
            innermost runtime complexity wrt. defined symbols {help,lt,minus} and constructors {0,false,s,true}
    + 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(help) = {1},
            uargs(s) = {1}
          
          Following symbols are considered usable:
            all
          TcT has computed the following interpretation:
                p(0) = [0]         
            p(false) = [15]        
             p(help) = [1] x1 + [1]
               p(lt) = [3]         
            p(minus) = [5]         
                p(s) = [1] x1 + [0]
             p(true) = [0]         
          
          Following rules are strictly oriented:
          help(false(),x,y) = [16]             
                            > [0]              
                            = 0()              
          
               lt(0(),s(x)) = [3]              
                            > [0]              
                            = true()           
          
                 minus(x,y) = [5]              
                            > [4]              
                            = help(lt(y,x),x,y)
          
          
          Following rules are (at-least) weakly oriented:
          help(true(),x,y) =  [1]             
                           >= [5]             
                           =  s(minus(x,s(y)))
          
                 lt(x,0()) =  [3]             
                           >= [15]            
                           =  false()         
          
             lt(s(x),s(y)) =  [3]             
                           >= [3]             
                           =  lt(x,y)         
          
        Further, it can be verified that all rules not oriented are covered by the weightgap condition.
* Step 2: WeightGap MAYBE
    + Considered Problem:
        - Strict TRS:
            help(true(),x,y) -> s(minus(x,s(y)))
            lt(x,0()) -> false()
            lt(s(x),s(y)) -> lt(x,y)
        - Weak TRS:
            help(false(),x,y) -> 0()
            lt(0(),s(x)) -> true()
            minus(x,y) -> help(lt(y,x),x,y)
        - Signature:
            {help/3,lt/2,minus/2} / {0/0,false/0,s/1,true/0}
        - Obligation:
            innermost runtime complexity wrt. defined symbols {help,lt,minus} and constructors {0,false,s,true}
    + 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(help) = {1},
            uargs(s) = {1}
          
          Following symbols are considered usable:
            all
          TcT has computed the following interpretation:
                p(0) = [0]          
            p(false) = [0]          
             p(help) = [1] x1 + [4] 
               p(lt) = [1]          
            p(minus) = [5]          
                p(s) = [1] x1 + [10]
             p(true) = [1]          
          
          Following rules are strictly oriented:
          lt(x,0()) = [1]    
                    > [0]    
                    = false()
          
          
          Following rules are (at-least) weakly oriented:
          help(false(),x,y) =  [4]              
                            >= [0]              
                            =  0()              
          
           help(true(),x,y) =  [5]              
                            >= [15]             
                            =  s(minus(x,s(y))) 
          
               lt(0(),s(x)) =  [1]              
                            >= [1]              
                            =  true()           
          
              lt(s(x),s(y)) =  [1]              
                            >= [1]              
                            =  lt(x,y)          
          
                 minus(x,y) =  [5]              
                            >= [5]              
                            =  help(lt(y,x),x,y)
          
        Further, it can be verified that all rules not oriented are covered by the weightgap condition.
* Step 3: Failure MAYBE
  + Considered Problem:
      - Strict TRS:
          help(true(),x,y) -> s(minus(x,s(y)))
          lt(s(x),s(y)) -> lt(x,y)
      - Weak TRS:
          help(false(),x,y) -> 0()
          lt(x,0()) -> false()
          lt(0(),s(x)) -> true()
          minus(x,y) -> help(lt(y,x),x,y)
      - Signature:
          {help/3,lt/2,minus/2} / {0/0,false/0,s/1,true/0}
      - Obligation:
          innermost runtime complexity wrt. defined symbols {help,lt,minus} and constructors {0,false,s,true}
  + Applied Processor:
      EmptyProcessor
  + Details:
      The problem is still open.
MAYBE