MAYBE
* Step 1: WeightGap MAYBE
    + Considered Problem:
        - Strict TRS:
            cond(false(),x,y) -> 0()
            cond(true(),x,y) -> s(minus(x,s(y)))
            gt(0(),v) -> false()
            gt(s(u),0()) -> true()
            gt(s(u),s(v)) -> gt(u,v)
            minus(x,y) -> cond(gt(x,y),x,y)
        - Signature:
            {cond/3,gt/2,minus/2} / {0/0,false/0,s/1,true/0}
        - Obligation:
            innermost runtime complexity wrt. defined symbols {cond,gt,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(cond) = {1},
            uargs(s) = {1}
          
          Following symbols are considered usable:
            all
          TcT has computed the following interpretation:
                p(0) = [0]                  
             p(cond) = [1] x1 + [4] x2 + [5]
            p(false) = [0]                  
               p(gt) = [5]                  
            p(minus) = [4] x1 + [11]        
                p(s) = [1] x1 + [0]         
             p(true) = [0]                  
          
          Following rules are strictly oriented:
          cond(false(),x,y) = [4] x + [5]      
                            > [0]              
                            = 0()              
          
                  gt(0(),v) = [5]              
                            > [0]              
                            = false()          
          
               gt(s(u),0()) = [5]              
                            > [0]              
                            = true()           
          
                 minus(x,y) = [4] x + [11]     
                            > [4] x + [10]     
                            = cond(gt(x,y),x,y)
          
          
          Following rules are (at-least) weakly oriented:
          cond(true(),x,y) =  [4] x + [5]     
                           >= [4] x + [11]    
                           =  s(minus(x,s(y)))
          
             gt(s(u),s(v)) =  [5]             
                           >= [5]             
                           =  gt(u,v)         
          
        Further, it can be verified that all rules not oriented are covered by the weightgap condition.
* Step 2: Failure MAYBE
  + Considered Problem:
      - Strict TRS:
          cond(true(),x,y) -> s(minus(x,s(y)))
          gt(s(u),s(v)) -> gt(u,v)
      - Weak TRS:
          cond(false(),x,y) -> 0()
          gt(0(),v) -> false()
          gt(s(u),0()) -> true()
          minus(x,y) -> cond(gt(x,y),x,y)
      - Signature:
          {cond/3,gt/2,minus/2} / {0/0,false/0,s/1,true/0}
      - Obligation:
          innermost runtime complexity wrt. defined symbols {cond,gt,minus} and constructors {0,false,s,true}
  + Applied Processor:
      EmptyProcessor
  + Details:
      The problem is still open.
MAYBE