interpretations
Execution Time (secs) | - |
Answer | YES(?,O(n^1)) |
Input | SK90 4.45 |
YES(?,O(n^1))
We are left with following problem, upon which TcT provides the
certificate YES(?,O(n^1)).
Strict Trs:
{ f(x, x) -> a()
, f(g(x), y) -> f(x, y) }
Obligation:
innermost runtime complexity
Answer:
YES(?,O(n^1))
The following argument positions are usable:
Uargs(f) = {}, Uargs(g) = {}
TcT has computed following constructor-based matrix interpretation
satisfying not(EDA).
[f](x1, x2) = [2] x1 + [3]
[a] = [0]
[g](x1) = [1] x1 + [2]
This order satisfies following ordering constraints
[f(x, x)] = [2] x + [3]
> [0]
= [a()]
[f(g(x), y)] = [2] x + [7]
> [2] x + [3]
= [f(x, y)]
Hurray, we answered YES(?,O(n^1))
lmpo
Execution Time (secs) | - |
Answer | YES(?,ELEMENTARY) |
Input | SK90 4.45 |
YES(?,ELEMENTARY)
We are left with following problem, upon which TcT provides the
certificate YES(?,ELEMENTARY).
Strict Trs:
{ f(x, x) -> a()
, f(g(x), y) -> f(x, y) }
Obligation:
innermost runtime complexity
Answer:
YES(?,ELEMENTARY)
The input was oriented with the instance of 'Lightweight Multiset
Path Order' as induced by the safe mapping
safe(f) = {2}, safe(a) = {}, safe(g) = {1}
and precedence
empty .
Following symbols are considered recursive:
{f}
The recursion depth is 1.
For your convenience, here are the oriented rules in predicative
notation, possibly applying argument filtering:
Strict DPs:
Weak DPs :
Strict Trs:
{ f(x; x) -> a()
, f(g(; x); y) -> f(x; y) }
Weak Trs :
Hurray, we answered YES(?,ELEMENTARY)
mpo
Execution Time (secs) | - |
Answer | YES(?,PRIMREC) |
Input | SK90 4.45 |
YES(?,PRIMREC)
We are left with following problem, upon which TcT provides the
certificate YES(?,PRIMREC).
Strict Trs:
{ f(x, x) -> a()
, f(g(x), y) -> f(x, y) }
Obligation:
innermost runtime complexity
Answer:
YES(?,PRIMREC)
The input was oriented with the instance of'multiset path orders'
as induced by the precedence
f > a, f ~ g .
Hurray, we answered YES(?,PRIMREC)
popstar
Execution Time (secs) | 0.068 |
Answer | YES(?,POLY) |
Input | SK90 4.45 |
YES(?,POLY)
We are left with following problem, upon which TcT provides the
certificate YES(?,POLY).
Strict Trs:
{ f(x, x) -> a()
, f(g(x), y) -> f(x, y) }
Obligation:
innermost runtime complexity
Answer:
YES(?,POLY)
The input was oriented with the instance of 'Polynomial Path Order'
as induced by the safe mapping
safe(f) = {2}, safe(a) = {}, safe(g) = {1}
and precedence
empty .
Following symbols are considered recursive:
{f}
The recursion depth is 1.
For your convenience, here are the oriented rules in predicative
notation, possibly applying argument filtering:
Strict DPs:
Weak DPs :
Strict Trs:
{ f(x; x) -> a()
, f(g(; x); y) -> f(x; y) }
Weak Trs :
Hurray, we answered YES(?,POLY)
popstar-ps
Execution Time (secs) | 0.057 |
Answer | YES(?,POLY) |
Input | SK90 4.45 |
YES(?,POLY)
We are left with following problem, upon which TcT provides the
certificate YES(?,POLY).
Strict Trs:
{ f(x, x) -> a()
, f(g(x), y) -> f(x, y) }
Obligation:
innermost runtime complexity
Answer:
YES(?,POLY)
The input was oriented with the instance of 'Polynomial Path Order
(PS)' as induced by the safe mapping
safe(f) = {2}, safe(a) = {}, safe(g) = {1}
and precedence
empty .
Following symbols are considered recursive:
{f}
The recursion depth is 1.
For your convenience, here are the oriented rules in predicative
notation, possibly applying argument filtering:
Strict DPs:
Weak DPs :
Strict Trs:
{ f(x; x) -> a()
, f(g(; x); y) -> f(x; y) }
Weak Trs :
Hurray, we answered YES(?,POLY)