MAYBE We are left with following problem, upon which TcT provides the certificate MAYBE. Strict Trs: { f(n__b(), X, n__c()) -> f(X, c(), X) , c() -> n__c() , c() -> b() , b() -> n__b() , activate(X) -> X , activate(n__b()) -> b() , activate(n__c()) -> c() } Obligation: innermost runtime complexity Answer: MAYBE We use the processor 'matrix interpretation of dimension 1' to orient following rules strictly. Trs: { activate(X) -> X , activate(n__b()) -> b() , activate(n__c()) -> c() } The induced complexity on above rules (modulo remaining rules) is YES(?,O(n^1)) . These rules are moved into the corresponding weak component(s). Sub-proof: ---------- TcT has computed the following constructor-based matrix interpretation satisfying not(EDA). [f](x1, x2, x3) = [1] x1 + [3] x2 + [2] x3 + [1] [n__b] = [0] [n__c] = [0] [c] = [0] [b] = [0] [activate](x1) = [2] x1 + [1] This order satisfies the following ordering constraints: [f(n__b(), X, n__c())] = [3] X + [1] >= [3] X + [1] = [f(X, c(), X)] [c()] = [0] >= [0] = [n__c()] [c()] = [0] >= [0] = [b()] [b()] = [0] >= [0] = [n__b()] [activate(X)] = [2] X + [1] > [1] X + [0] = [X] [activate(n__b())] = [1] > [0] = [b()] [activate(n__c())] = [1] > [0] = [c()] We return to the main proof. We are left with following problem, upon which TcT provides the certificate MAYBE. Strict Trs: { f(n__b(), X, n__c()) -> f(X, c(), X) , c() -> n__c() , c() -> b() , b() -> n__b() } Weak Trs: { activate(X) -> X , activate(n__b()) -> b() , activate(n__c()) -> c() } Obligation: innermost runtime complexity Answer: MAYBE Empty strict component of the problem is NOT empty. Arrrr..