YES(O(1),O(n^1)) We are left with following problem, upon which TcT provides the certificate YES(O(1),O(n^1)). Strict Trs: { f(0()) -> s(0()) , f(s(0())) -> s(0()) , f(s(s(x))) -> f(f(s(x))) } Obligation: innermost runtime complexity Answer: YES(O(1),O(n^1)) We use the processor 'matrix interpretation of dimension 1' to orient following rules strictly. Trs: { f(s(0())) -> s(0()) } 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) = [1] x1 + [2] [0] = [2] [s](x1) = [1] x1 + [2] This order satisfies the following ordering constraints: [f(0())] = [4] >= [4] = [s(0())] [f(s(0()))] = [6] > [4] = [s(0())] [f(s(s(x)))] = [1] x + [6] >= [1] x + [6] = [f(f(s(x)))] We return to the main proof. We are left with following problem, upon which TcT provides the certificate YES(O(1),O(n^1)). Strict Trs: { f(0()) -> s(0()) , f(s(s(x))) -> f(f(s(x))) } Weak Trs: { f(s(0())) -> s(0()) } Obligation: innermost runtime complexity Answer: YES(O(1),O(n^1)) We use the processor 'matrix interpretation of dimension 2' to orient following rules strictly. Trs: { f(0()) -> s(0()) } 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) and not(IDA(1)). [f](x1) = [1 1] x1 + [0] [0 2] [0] [0] = [2] [2] [s](x1) = [1 0] x1 + [0] [0 0] [0] This order satisfies the following ordering constraints: [f(0())] = [4] [4] > [2] [0] = [s(0())] [f(s(0()))] = [2] [0] >= [2] [0] = [s(0())] [f(s(s(x)))] = [1 0] x + [0] [0 0] [0] >= [1 0] x + [0] [0 0] [0] = [f(f(s(x)))] We return to the main proof. We are left with following problem, upon which TcT provides the certificate YES(O(1),O(n^1)). Strict Trs: { f(s(s(x))) -> f(f(s(x))) } Weak Trs: { f(0()) -> s(0()) , f(s(0())) -> s(0()) } Obligation: innermost runtime complexity Answer: YES(O(1),O(n^1)) We use the processor 'matrix interpretation of dimension 2' to orient following rules strictly. Trs: { f(s(s(x))) -> f(f(s(x))) } 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) and not(IDA(1)). [f](x1) = [1 1] x1 + [0] [0 0] [1] [0] = [2] [2] [s](x1) = [1 0] x1 + [2] [0 0] [0] This order satisfies the following ordering constraints: [f(0())] = [4] [1] >= [4] [0] = [s(0())] [f(s(0()))] = [4] [1] >= [4] [0] = [s(0())] [f(s(s(x)))] = [1 0] x + [4] [0 0] [1] > [1 0] x + [3] [0 0] [1] = [f(f(s(x)))] 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(0()) -> s(0()) , f(s(0())) -> s(0()) , f(s(s(x))) -> f(f(s(x))) } Obligation: innermost runtime complexity Answer: YES(O(1),O(1)) Empty rules are trivially bounded Hurray, we answered YES(O(1),O(n^1))