YES(O(1),O(n^2)) We are left with following problem, upon which TcT provides the certificate YES(O(1),O(n^2)). Strict Trs: { f(s(x), y) -> f(x, g(x, y)) , f(0(), y) -> y , g(x, y) -> y } Obligation: innermost runtime complexity Answer: YES(O(1),O(n^2)) We use the processor 'matrix interpretation of dimension 2' to orient following rules strictly. Trs: { f(0(), y) -> y } The induced complexity on above rules (modulo remaining rules) is YES(?,O(n^2)) . 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) = [1 3] x1 + [2 1] x2 + [0] [0 1] [0 1] [0] [s](x1) = [1 0] x1 + [0] [1 1] [0] [g](x1, x2) = [1 0] x1 + [1 0] x2 + [0] [1 0] [0 1] [0] [0] = [2] [0] This order satisfies the following ordering constraints: [f(s(x), y)] = [4 3] x + [2 1] y + [0] [1 1] [0 1] [0] >= [4 3] x + [2 1] y + [0] [1 1] [0 1] [0] = [f(x, g(x, y))] [f(0(), y)] = [2 1] y + [2] [0 1] [0] > [1 0] y + [0] [0 1] [0] = [y] [g(x, y)] = [1 0] x + [1 0] y + [0] [1 0] [0 1] [0] >= [1 0] y + [0] [0 1] [0] = [y] We return to the main proof. We are left with following problem, upon which TcT provides the certificate YES(O(1),O(n^2)). Strict Trs: { f(s(x), y) -> f(x, g(x, y)) , g(x, y) -> y } Weak Trs: { f(0(), y) -> y } Obligation: innermost runtime complexity Answer: YES(O(1),O(n^2)) We use the processor 'matrix interpretation of dimension 2' to orient following rules strictly. Trs: { f(s(x), y) -> f(x, g(x, y)) } The induced complexity on above rules (modulo remaining rules) is YES(?,O(n^2)) . 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) = [1 3] x1 + [2 1] x2 + [0] [0 1] [0 1] [0] [s](x1) = [1 0] x1 + [2] [1 1] [0] [g](x1, x2) = [1 0] x1 + [1 0] x2 + [0] [1 0] [0 1] [0] [0] = [0] [0] This order satisfies the following ordering constraints: [f(s(x), y)] = [4 3] x + [2 1] y + [2] [1 1] [0 1] [0] > [4 3] x + [2 1] y + [0] [1 1] [0 1] [0] = [f(x, g(x, y))] [f(0(), y)] = [2 1] y + [0] [0 1] [0] >= [1 0] y + [0] [0 1] [0] = [y] [g(x, y)] = [1 0] x + [1 0] y + [0] [1 0] [0 1] [0] >= [1 0] y + [0] [0 1] [0] = [y] We return to the main proof. We are left with following problem, upon which TcT provides the certificate YES(O(1),O(n^2)). Strict Trs: { g(x, y) -> y } Weak Trs: { f(s(x), y) -> f(x, g(x, y)) , f(0(), y) -> y } Obligation: innermost runtime complexity Answer: YES(O(1),O(n^2)) We use the processor 'matrix interpretation of dimension 2' to orient following rules strictly. Trs: { g(x, y) -> y } The induced complexity on above rules (modulo remaining rules) is YES(?,O(n^2)) . 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) = [1 3] x1 + [1 0] x2 + [0] [0 0] [0 2] [0] [s](x1) = [1 0] x1 + [1] [1 1] [1] [g](x1, x2) = [3 0] x1 + [1 0] x2 + [1] [0 0] [0 1] [0] [0] = [0] [0] This order satisfies the following ordering constraints: [f(s(x), y)] = [4 3] x + [1 0] y + [4] [0 0] [0 2] [0] > [4 3] x + [1 0] y + [1] [0 0] [0 2] [0] = [f(x, g(x, y))] [f(0(), y)] = [1 0] y + [0] [0 2] [0] >= [1 0] y + [0] [0 1] [0] = [y] [g(x, y)] = [3 0] x + [1 0] y + [1] [0 0] [0 1] [0] > [1 0] y + [0] [0 1] [0] = [y] We return to the main proof. We are left with following problem, upon which TcT provides the certificate YES(O(1),O(1)). Weak Trs: { f(s(x), y) -> f(x, g(x, y)) , f(0(), y) -> y , g(x, y) -> y } Obligation: innermost runtime complexity Answer: YES(O(1),O(1)) Empty rules are trivially bounded Hurray, we answered YES(O(1),O(n^2))