MAYBE
* Step 1: NaturalMI MAYBE
    + Considered Problem:
        - Strict TRS:
            after(0(),XS) -> XS
            after(s(N),cons(X,XS)) -> after(N,XS)
            from(X) -> cons(X,from(s(X)))
        - Signature:
            {after/2,from/1} / {0/0,cons/2,s/1}
        - Obligation:
            innermost runtime complexity wrt. defined symbols {after,from} and constructors {0,cons,s}
    + Applied Processor:
        NaturalMI {miDimension = 1, miDegree = 1, miKind = Algebraic, uargs = UArgs, urules = URules, selector = Just any strict-rules}
    + Details:
        We apply a matrix interpretation of kind constructor based matrix interpretation:
        The following argument positions are considered usable:
          uargs(cons) = {2}
        
        Following symbols are considered usable:
          {after,from}
        TcT has computed the following interpretation:
              p(0) = [0]         
          p(after) = [2] x2 + [8]
           p(cons) = [1] x2 + [0]
           p(from) = [0]         
              p(s) = [0]         
        
        Following rules are strictly oriented:
        after(0(),XS) = [2] XS + [8]
                      > [1] XS + [0]
                      = XS          
        
        
        Following rules are (at-least) weakly oriented:
        after(s(N),cons(X,XS)) =  [2] XS + [8]      
                               >= [2] XS + [8]      
                               =  after(N,XS)       
        
                       from(X) =  [0]               
                               >= [0]               
                               =  cons(X,from(s(X)))
        
* Step 2: WeightGap MAYBE
    + Considered Problem:
        - Strict TRS:
            after(s(N),cons(X,XS)) -> after(N,XS)
            from(X) -> cons(X,from(s(X)))
        - Weak TRS:
            after(0(),XS) -> XS
        - Signature:
            {after/2,from/1} / {0/0,cons/2,s/1}
        - Obligation:
            innermost runtime complexity wrt. defined symbols {after,from} and constructors {0,cons,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(cons) = {2}
          
          Following symbols are considered usable:
            all
          TcT has computed the following interpretation:
                p(0) = [0]                  
            p(after) = [6] x1 + [9] x2 + [0]
             p(cons) = [1] x2 + [1]         
             p(from) = [8] x1 + [0]         
                p(s) = [1] x1 + [2]         
          
          Following rules are strictly oriented:
          after(s(N),cons(X,XS)) = [6] N + [9] XS + [21]
                                 > [6] N + [9] XS + [0] 
                                 = after(N,XS)          
          
          
          Following rules are (at-least) weakly oriented:
          after(0(),XS) =  [9] XS + [0]      
                        >= [1] XS + [0]      
                        =  XS                
          
                from(X) =  [8] X + [0]       
                        >= [8] X + [17]      
                        =  cons(X,from(s(X)))
          
        Further, it can be verified that all rules not oriented are covered by the weightgap condition.
* Step 3: Failure MAYBE
  + Considered Problem:
      - Strict TRS:
          from(X) -> cons(X,from(s(X)))
      - Weak TRS:
          after(0(),XS) -> XS
          after(s(N),cons(X,XS)) -> after(N,XS)
      - Signature:
          {after/2,from/1} / {0/0,cons/2,s/1}
      - Obligation:
          innermost runtime complexity wrt. defined symbols {after,from} and constructors {0,cons,s}
  + Applied Processor:
      EmptyProcessor
  + Details:
      The problem is still open.
MAYBE