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(X, X) -> c(X) , f(X, c(X)) -> f(s(X), X) , f(s(X), X) -> f(X, a(X)) } Obligation: innermost runtime complexity Answer: YES(O(1),O(n^1)) We use the processor 'Small Polynomial Path Order (PS,1-bounded)' to orient following rules strictly. Trs: { f(X, X) -> c(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: ---------- The input was oriented with the instance of 'Small Polynomial Path Order (PS,1-bounded)' as induced by the safe mapping safe(f) = {1, 2}, safe(s) = {1}, safe(a) = {1}, safe(c) = {1} and precedence empty . Following symbols are considered recursive: {f} The recursion depth is 1. For your convenience, here are the satisfied ordering constraints: f(; X, X) > c(; X) f(; X, c(; X)) >= f(; s(; X), X) f(; s(; X), X) >= f(; X, a(; 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(X, c(X)) -> f(s(X), X) , f(s(X), X) -> f(X, a(X)) } Weak Trs: { f(X, X) -> c(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(X, c(X)) -> f(s(X), 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). [f](x1, x2) = [3] x1 + [1] x2 + [3] [s](x1) = [1] x1 + [0] [a](x1) = [1] x1 + [0] [c](x1) = [1] x1 + [2] This order satisfies the following ordering constraints: [f(X, X)] = [4] X + [3] > [1] X + [2] = [c(X)] [f(X, c(X))] = [4] X + [5] > [4] X + [3] = [f(s(X), X)] [f(s(X), X)] = [4] X + [3] >= [4] X + [3] = [f(X, a(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(X), X) -> f(X, a(X)) } Weak Trs: { f(X, X) -> c(X) , f(X, c(X)) -> f(s(X), 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(X), X) -> f(X, a(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). [f](x1, x2) = [3] x1 + [1] x2 + [3] [s](x1) = [1] x1 + [1] [a](x1) = [1] x1 + [0] [c](x1) = [1] x1 + [3] This order satisfies the following ordering constraints: [f(X, X)] = [4] X + [3] >= [1] X + [3] = [c(X)] [f(X, c(X))] = [4] X + [6] >= [4] X + [6] = [f(s(X), X)] [f(s(X), X)] = [4] X + [6] > [4] X + [3] = [f(X, a(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(X, X) -> c(X) , f(X, c(X)) -> f(s(X), X) , f(s(X), X) -> f(X, a(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))