MAYBE We are left with following problem, upon which TcT provides the certificate MAYBE. Strict Trs: { f(X) -> if(X, c(), f(true())) , if(true(), X, Y) -> X , if(false(), X, Y) -> Y } Obligation: innermost runtime complexity Answer: MAYBE We use the processor 'matrix interpretation of dimension 1' to orient following rules strictly. Trs: { if(false(), X, Y) -> Y } 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) = [3] x1 + [3] [if](x1, x2, x3) = [3] x1 + [3] x2 + [1] x3 + [0] [c] = [0] [true] = [0] [false] = [1] This order satisfies the following ordering constraints: [f(X)] = [3] X + [3] >= [3] X + [3] = [if(X, c(), f(true()))] [if(true(), X, Y)] = [3] X + [1] Y + [0] >= [1] X + [0] = [X] [if(false(), X, Y)] = [3] X + [1] Y + [3] > [1] Y + [0] = [Y] We return to the main proof. We are left with following problem, upon which TcT provides the certificate MAYBE. Strict Trs: { f(X) -> if(X, c(), f(true())) , if(true(), X, Y) -> X } Weak Trs: { if(false(), X, Y) -> Y } Obligation: innermost runtime complexity Answer: MAYBE Empty strict component of the problem is NOT empty. Arrrr..