WORST_CASE(Omega(n^1),O(n^1))
* Step 1: Sum WORST_CASE(Omega(n^1),O(n^1))
    + Considered Problem:
        - Strict TRS:
            minus(x,0()) -> x
            minus(s(x),s(y)) -> minus(x,y)
            quot(0(),s(y)) -> 0()
            quot(s(x),s(y)) -> s(quot(minus(x,y),s(y)))
        - Signature:
            {minus/2,quot/2} / {0/0,s/1}
        - Obligation:
            innermost runtime complexity wrt. defined symbols {minus,quot} and constructors {0,s}
    + Applied Processor:
        Sum {left = someStrategy, right = someStrategy}
    + Details:
        ()
** Step 1.a:1: DecreasingLoops WORST_CASE(Omega(n^1),?)
    + Considered Problem:
        - Strict TRS:
            minus(x,0()) -> x
            minus(s(x),s(y)) -> minus(x,y)
            quot(0(),s(y)) -> 0()
            quot(s(x),s(y)) -> s(quot(minus(x,y),s(y)))
        - Signature:
            {minus/2,quot/2} / {0/0,s/1}
        - Obligation:
            innermost runtime complexity wrt. defined symbols {minus,quot} and constructors {0,s}
    + Applied Processor:
        DecreasingLoops {bound = AnyLoop, narrow = 10}
    + Details:
        The system has following decreasing Loops:
          minus(x,y){x -> s(x),y -> s(y)} =
            minus(s(x),s(y)) ->^+ minus(x,y)
              = C[minus(x,y) = minus(x,y){}]

** Step 1.b:1: NaturalPI WORST_CASE(?,O(n^1))
    + Considered Problem:
        - Strict TRS:
            minus(x,0()) -> x
            minus(s(x),s(y)) -> minus(x,y)
            quot(0(),s(y)) -> 0()
            quot(s(x),s(y)) -> s(quot(minus(x,y),s(y)))
        - Signature:
            {minus/2,quot/2} / {0/0,s/1}
        - Obligation:
            innermost runtime complexity wrt. defined symbols {minus,quot} and constructors {0,s}
    + 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:
          uargs(quot) = {1},
          uargs(s) = {1}
        
        Following symbols are considered usable:
          {minus,quot}
        TcT has computed the following interpretation:
              p(0) = 0              
          p(minus) = 1 + x1         
           p(quot) = 6 + 4*x1 + 5*x2
              p(s) = 2 + x1         
        
        Following rules are strictly oriented:
            minus(x,0()) = 1 + x                   
                         > x                       
                         = x                       
        
        minus(s(x),s(y)) = 3 + x                   
                         > 1 + x                   
                         = minus(x,y)              
        
          quot(0(),s(y)) = 16 + 5*y                
                         > 0                       
                         = 0()                     
        
         quot(s(x),s(y)) = 24 + 4*x + 5*y          
                         > 22 + 4*x + 5*y          
                         = s(quot(minus(x,y),s(y)))
        
        
        Following rules are (at-least) weakly oriented:
        
** Step 1.b:2: EmptyProcessor WORST_CASE(?,O(1))
    + Considered Problem:
        - Weak TRS:
            minus(x,0()) -> x
            minus(s(x),s(y)) -> minus(x,y)
            quot(0(),s(y)) -> 0()
            quot(s(x),s(y)) -> s(quot(minus(x,y),s(y)))
        - Signature:
            {minus/2,quot/2} / {0/0,s/1}
        - Obligation:
            innermost runtime complexity wrt. defined symbols {minus,quot} and constructors {0,s}
    + Applied Processor:
        EmptyProcessor
    + Details:
        The problem is already closed. The intended complexity is O(1).

WORST_CASE(Omega(n^1),O(n^1))