WORST_CASE(?,O(n^1))
* Step 1: NaturalMI WORST_CASE(?,O(n^1))
    + Considered Problem:
        - Strict TRS:
            foldl#3(x16,Cons(x24,x6)) -> foldl#3(Cons(x24,x16),x6)
            foldl#3(x2,Nil()) -> x2
            main(x1) -> foldl#3(Nil(),x1)
        - Signature:
            {foldl#3/2,main/1} / {Cons/2,Nil/0}
        - Obligation:
            innermost runtime complexity wrt. defined symbols {foldl#3,main} and constructors {Cons,Nil}
    + 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:
          none
        
        Following symbols are considered usable:
          {foldl#3,main}
        TcT has computed the following interpretation:
             p(Cons) = [0]          
              p(Nil) = [4]          
          p(foldl#3) = [2] x1 + [2] 
             p(main) = [1] x1 + [11]
        
        Following rules are strictly oriented:
        foldl#3(x2,Nil()) = [2] x2 + [2]     
                          > [1] x2 + [0]     
                          = x2               
        
                 main(x1) = [1] x1 + [11]    
                          > [10]             
                          = foldl#3(Nil(),x1)
        
        
        Following rules are (at-least) weakly oriented:
        foldl#3(x16,Cons(x24,x6)) =  [2] x16 + [2]            
                                  >= [2]                      
                                  =  foldl#3(Cons(x24,x16),x6)
        
* Step 2: NaturalPI WORST_CASE(?,O(n^1))
    + Considered Problem:
        - Strict TRS:
            foldl#3(x16,Cons(x24,x6)) -> foldl#3(Cons(x24,x16),x6)
        - Weak TRS:
            foldl#3(x2,Nil()) -> x2
            main(x1) -> foldl#3(Nil(),x1)
        - Signature:
            {foldl#3/2,main/1} / {Cons/2,Nil/0}
        - Obligation:
            innermost runtime complexity wrt. defined symbols {foldl#3,main} and constructors {Cons,Nil}
    + Applied Processor:
        NaturalPI {shape = Linear, restrict = Restrict, uargs = UArgs, urules = URules, selector = Just any strict-rules}
    + Details:
        We apply a polynomial interpretation of kind constructor-based(linear):
        The following argument positions are considered usable:
          none
        
        Following symbols are considered usable:
          {foldl#3,main}
        TcT has computed the following interpretation:
             p(Cons) = 4 + x2     
              p(Nil) = 4          
          p(foldl#3) = 2*x1 + 4*x2
             p(main) = 8 + 9*x1   
        
        Following rules are strictly oriented:
        foldl#3(x16,Cons(x24,x6)) = 16 + 2*x16 + 4*x6        
                                  > 8 + 2*x16 + 4*x6         
                                  = foldl#3(Cons(x24,x16),x6)
        
        
        Following rules are (at-least) weakly oriented:
        foldl#3(x2,Nil()) =  16 + 2*x2        
                          >= x2               
                          =  x2               
        
                 main(x1) =  8 + 9*x1         
                          >= 8 + 4*x1         
                          =  foldl#3(Nil(),x1)
        
* Step 3: EmptyProcessor WORST_CASE(?,O(1))
    + Considered Problem:
        - Weak TRS:
            foldl#3(x16,Cons(x24,x6)) -> foldl#3(Cons(x24,x16),x6)
            foldl#3(x2,Nil()) -> x2
            main(x1) -> foldl#3(Nil(),x1)
        - Signature:
            {foldl#3/2,main/1} / {Cons/2,Nil/0}
        - Obligation:
            innermost runtime complexity wrt. defined symbols {foldl#3,main} and constructors {Cons,Nil}
    + Applied Processor:
        EmptyProcessor
    + Details:
        The problem is already closed. The intended complexity is O(1).

WORST_CASE(?,O(n^1))