Tool CaT
| Execution Time | Unknown |
|---|
| Answer | MAYBE |
|---|
| Input | AG01 3.54 |
|---|
stdout:
MAYBE
Problem:
f(g(x)) -> g(f(f(x)))
f(h(x)) -> h(g(x))
f'(s(x),y,y) -> f'(y,x,s(x))
Proof:
OpenTool IRC1
| Execution Time | Unknown |
|---|
| Answer | MAYBE |
|---|
| Input | AG01 3.54 |
|---|
stdout:
MAYBE
Tool IRC2
| Execution Time | Unknown |
|---|
| Answer | MAYBE |
|---|
| Input | AG01 3.54 |
|---|
stdout:
MAYBE
'Fastest (timeout of 60.0 seconds)'
-----------------------------------
Answer: MAYBE
Input Problem: innermost runtime-complexity with respect to
Rules:
{ f(g(x)) -> g(f(f(x)))
, f(h(x)) -> h(g(x))
, f'(s(x), y, y) -> f'(y, x, s(x))}
Proof Output:
None of the processors succeeded.
Details of failed attempt(s):
-----------------------------
1) 'wdg' failed due to the following reason:
Transformation Details:
-----------------------
We have computed the following set of weak (innermost) dependency pairs:
{ 1: f^#(g(x)) -> c_0(f^#(f(x)))
, 2: f^#(h(x)) -> c_1()
, 3: f'^#(s(x), y, y) -> c_2(f'^#(y, x, s(x)))}
Following Dependency Graph (modulo SCCs) was computed. (Answers to
subproofs are indicated to the right.)
->{3} [ YES(?,O(n^1)) ]
->{1} [ inherited ]
|
`->{2} [ MAYBE ]
Sub-problems:
-------------
* Path {1}: inherited
-------------------
This path is subsumed by the proof of path {1}->{2}.
* Path {1}->{2}: MAYBE
--------------------
The usable rules for this path are:
{ f(g(x)) -> g(f(f(x)))
, f(h(x)) -> h(g(x))}
The weight gap principle does not apply:
The input cannot be shown compatible
Complexity induced by the adequate RMI: MAYBE
We apply the sub-processor on the resulting sub-problem:
'matrix-interpretation of dimension 3'
--------------------------------------
Answer: MAYBE
Input Problem: innermost runtime-complexity with respect to
Rules:
{ f^#(g(x)) -> c_0(f^#(f(x)))
, f^#(h(x)) -> c_1()
, f(g(x)) -> g(f(f(x)))
, f(h(x)) -> h(g(x))}
Proof Output:
The input cannot be shown compatible
* Path {3}: YES(?,O(n^1))
-----------------------
The usable rules of this path are empty.
The weightgap principle applies, using the following adequate RMI:
The following argument positions are usable:
Uargs(f) = {}, Uargs(g) = {}, Uargs(h) = {}, Uargs(f') = {},
Uargs(s) = {}, Uargs(f^#) = {}, Uargs(c_0) = {}, Uargs(f'^#) = {},
Uargs(c_2) = {1}
We have the following constructor-restricted matrix interpretation:
Interpretation Functions:
f(x1) = [0 0 0] x1 + [0]
[0 0 0] [0]
[0 0 0] [0]
g(x1) = [0 0 0] x1 + [0]
[0 0 0] [0]
[0 0 0] [0]
h(x1) = [0 0 0] x1 + [0]
[0 0 0] [0]
[0 0 0] [0]
f'(x1, x2, x3) = [0 0 0] x1 + [0 0 0] x2 + [0 0 0] x3 + [0]
[0 0 0] [0 0 0] [0 0 0] [0]
[0 0 0] [0 0 0] [0 0 0] [0]
s(x1) = [1 0 0] x1 + [0]
[0 0 0] [0]
[0 0 0] [0]
f^#(x1) = [0 0 0] x1 + [0]
[0 0 0] [0]
[0 0 0] [0]
c_0(x1) = [0 0 0] x1 + [0]
[0 0 0] [0]
[0 0 0] [0]
c_1() = [0]
[0]
[0]
f'^#(x1, x2, x3) = [0 0 0] x1 + [0 0 0] x2 + [0 0 1] x3 + [0]
[3 3 3] [3 3 3] [3 3 3] [0]
[3 3 3] [3 3 3] [3 3 3] [0]
c_2(x1) = [1 0 0] x1 + [0]
[0 1 0] [0]
[0 0 1] [0]
We apply the sub-processor on the resulting sub-problem:
'matrix-interpretation of dimension 3'
--------------------------------------
Answer: YES(?,O(n^1))
Input Problem: innermost DP runtime-complexity with respect to
Strict Rules: {f'^#(s(x), y, y) -> c_2(f'^#(y, x, s(x)))}
Weak Rules: {}
Proof Output:
The following argument positions are usable:
Uargs(s) = {}, Uargs(f'^#) = {}, Uargs(c_2) = {1}
We have the following constructor-restricted matrix interpretation:
Interpretation Functions:
s(x1) = [1 1 0] x1 + [0]
[0 0 0] [1]
[0 0 0] [0]
f'^#(x1, x2, x3) = [1 1 0] x1 + [1 1 0] x2 + [0 0 0] x3 + [0]
[0 0 0] [4 0 0] [0 0 0] [0]
[0 0 0] [0 0 0] [0 0 0] [0]
c_2(x1) = [1 0 0] x1 + [0]
[0 0 0] [0]
[0 0 0] [0]
2) 'wdg' failed due to the following reason:
Transformation Details:
-----------------------
We have computed the following set of weak (innermost) dependency pairs:
{ 1: f^#(g(x)) -> c_0(f^#(f(x)))
, 2: f^#(h(x)) -> c_1()
, 3: f'^#(s(x), y, y) -> c_2(f'^#(y, x, s(x)))}
Following Dependency Graph (modulo SCCs) was computed. (Answers to
subproofs are indicated to the right.)
->{3} [ YES(?,O(n^1)) ]
->{1} [ inherited ]
|
`->{2} [ MAYBE ]
Sub-problems:
-------------
* Path {1}: inherited
-------------------
This path is subsumed by the proof of path {1}->{2}.
* Path {1}->{2}: MAYBE
--------------------
The usable rules for this path are:
{ f(g(x)) -> g(f(f(x)))
, f(h(x)) -> h(g(x))}
The weight gap principle does not apply:
The input cannot be shown compatible
Complexity induced by the adequate RMI: MAYBE
We apply the sub-processor on the resulting sub-problem:
'matrix-interpretation of dimension 2'
--------------------------------------
Answer: MAYBE
Input Problem: innermost runtime-complexity with respect to
Rules:
{ f^#(g(x)) -> c_0(f^#(f(x)))
, f^#(h(x)) -> c_1()
, f(g(x)) -> g(f(f(x)))
, f(h(x)) -> h(g(x))}
Proof Output:
The input cannot be shown compatible
* Path {3}: YES(?,O(n^1))
-----------------------
The usable rules of this path are empty.
The weightgap principle applies, using the following adequate RMI:
The following argument positions are usable:
Uargs(f) = {}, Uargs(g) = {}, Uargs(h) = {}, Uargs(f') = {},
Uargs(s) = {}, Uargs(f^#) = {}, Uargs(c_0) = {}, Uargs(f'^#) = {},
Uargs(c_2) = {1}
We have the following constructor-restricted matrix interpretation:
Interpretation Functions:
f(x1) = [0 0] x1 + [0]
[0 0] [0]
g(x1) = [0 0] x1 + [0]
[0 0] [0]
h(x1) = [0 0] x1 + [0]
[0 0] [0]
f'(x1, x2, x3) = [0 0] x1 + [0 0] x2 + [0 0] x3 + [0]
[0 0] [0 0] [0 0] [0]
s(x1) = [0 0] x1 + [0]
[0 1] [0]
f^#(x1) = [0 0] x1 + [0]
[0 0] [0]
c_0(x1) = [0 0] x1 + [0]
[0 0] [0]
c_1() = [0]
[0]
f'^#(x1, x2, x3) = [0 1] x1 + [0 1] x2 + [0 0] x3 + [0]
[3 3] [3 3] [3 3] [0]
c_2(x1) = [1 0] x1 + [0]
[0 1] [0]
We apply the sub-processor on the resulting sub-problem:
'matrix-interpretation of dimension 2'
--------------------------------------
Answer: YES(?,O(n^1))
Input Problem: innermost DP runtime-complexity with respect to
Strict Rules: {f'^#(s(x), y, y) -> c_2(f'^#(y, x, s(x)))}
Weak Rules: {}
Proof Output:
The following argument positions are usable:
Uargs(s) = {}, Uargs(f'^#) = {}, Uargs(c_2) = {1}
We have the following constructor-restricted matrix interpretation:
Interpretation Functions:
s(x1) = [0 0] x1 + [1]
[0 1] [1]
f'^#(x1, x2, x3) = [0 1] x1 + [0 1] x2 + [0 0] x3 + [3]
[4 4] [0 4] [4 0] [0]
c_2(x1) = [1 0] x1 + [0]
[0 0] [7]
3) 'wdg' failed due to the following reason:
Transformation Details:
-----------------------
We have computed the following set of weak (innermost) dependency pairs:
{ 1: f^#(g(x)) -> c_0(f^#(f(x)))
, 2: f^#(h(x)) -> c_1()
, 3: f'^#(s(x), y, y) -> c_2(f'^#(y, x, s(x)))}
Following Dependency Graph (modulo SCCs) was computed. (Answers to
subproofs are indicated to the right.)
->{3} [ YES(?,O(n^1)) ]
->{1} [ inherited ]
|
`->{2} [ MAYBE ]
Sub-problems:
-------------
* Path {1}: inherited
-------------------
This path is subsumed by the proof of path {1}->{2}.
* Path {1}->{2}: MAYBE
--------------------
The usable rules for this path are:
{ f(g(x)) -> g(f(f(x)))
, f(h(x)) -> h(g(x))}
The weight gap principle does not apply:
The input cannot be shown compatible
Complexity induced by the adequate RMI: MAYBE
We apply the sub-processor on the resulting sub-problem:
'matrix-interpretation of dimension 1'
--------------------------------------
Answer: MAYBE
Input Problem: innermost runtime-complexity with respect to
Rules:
{ f^#(g(x)) -> c_0(f^#(f(x)))
, f^#(h(x)) -> c_1()
, f(g(x)) -> g(f(f(x)))
, f(h(x)) -> h(g(x))}
Proof Output:
The input cannot be shown compatible
* Path {3}: YES(?,O(n^1))
-----------------------
The usable rules of this path are empty.
The weightgap principle applies, using the following adequate RMI:
The following argument positions are usable:
Uargs(f) = {}, Uargs(g) = {}, Uargs(h) = {}, Uargs(f') = {},
Uargs(s) = {}, Uargs(f^#) = {}, Uargs(c_0) = {}, Uargs(f'^#) = {},
Uargs(c_2) = {1}
We have the following constructor-restricted matrix interpretation:
Interpretation Functions:
f(x1) = [0] x1 + [0]
g(x1) = [0] x1 + [0]
h(x1) = [0] x1 + [0]
f'(x1, x2, x3) = [0] x1 + [0] x2 + [0] x3 + [0]
s(x1) = [1] x1 + [0]
f^#(x1) = [0] x1 + [0]
c_0(x1) = [0] x1 + [0]
c_1() = [0]
f'^#(x1, x2, x3) = [3] x1 + [3] x2 + [0] x3 + [0]
c_2(x1) = [1] x1 + [0]
We apply the sub-processor on the resulting sub-problem:
'matrix-interpretation of dimension 1'
--------------------------------------
Answer: YES(?,O(n^1))
Input Problem: innermost DP runtime-complexity with respect to
Strict Rules: {f'^#(s(x), y, y) -> c_2(f'^#(y, x, s(x)))}
Weak Rules: {}
Proof Output:
The following argument positions are usable:
Uargs(s) = {}, Uargs(f'^#) = {}, Uargs(c_2) = {1}
We have the following constructor-restricted matrix interpretation:
Interpretation Functions:
s(x1) = [1] x1 + [2]
f'^#(x1, x2, x3) = [2] x1 + [2] x2 + [0] x3 + [0]
c_2(x1) = [1] x1 + [3]
4) 'matrix-interpretation of dimension 1' failed due to the following reason:
The input cannot be shown compatible
5) 'Bounds with perSymbol-enrichment and initial automaton 'match'' failed due to the following reason:
match-boundness of the problem could not be verified.
6) 'Bounds with minimal-enrichment and initial automaton 'match'' failed due to the following reason:
match-boundness of the problem could not be verified.
Tool RC1
| Execution Time | Unknown |
|---|
| Answer | MAYBE |
|---|
| Input | AG01 3.54 |
|---|
stdout:
MAYBE
Tool RC2
| Execution Time | Unknown |
|---|
| Answer | MAYBE |
|---|
| Input | AG01 3.54 |
|---|
stdout:
MAYBE
'Fastest (timeout of 60.0 seconds)'
-----------------------------------
Answer: MAYBE
Input Problem: runtime-complexity with respect to
Rules:
{ f(g(x)) -> g(f(f(x)))
, f(h(x)) -> h(g(x))
, f'(s(x), y, y) -> f'(y, x, s(x))}
Proof Output:
None of the processors succeeded.
Details of failed attempt(s):
-----------------------------
1) 'wdg' failed due to the following reason:
Transformation Details:
-----------------------
We have computed the following set of weak (innermost) dependency pairs:
{ 1: f^#(g(x)) -> c_0(f^#(f(x)))
, 2: f^#(h(x)) -> c_1(x)
, 3: f'^#(s(x), y, y) -> c_2(f'^#(y, x, s(x)))}
Following Dependency Graph (modulo SCCs) was computed. (Answers to
subproofs are indicated to the right.)
->{3} [ YES(?,O(n^1)) ]
->{1} [ inherited ]
|
`->{2} [ MAYBE ]
Sub-problems:
-------------
* Path {1}: inherited
-------------------
This path is subsumed by the proof of path {1}->{2}.
* Path {1}->{2}: MAYBE
--------------------
The usable rules for this path are:
{ f(g(x)) -> g(f(f(x)))
, f(h(x)) -> h(g(x))}
The weight gap principle does not apply:
The input cannot be shown compatible
Complexity induced by the adequate RMI: MAYBE
We apply the sub-processor on the resulting sub-problem:
'matrix-interpretation of dimension 3'
--------------------------------------
Answer: MAYBE
Input Problem: runtime-complexity with respect to
Rules:
{ f^#(g(x)) -> c_0(f^#(f(x)))
, f^#(h(x)) -> c_1(x)
, f(g(x)) -> g(f(f(x)))
, f(h(x)) -> h(g(x))}
Proof Output:
The input cannot be shown compatible
* Path {3}: YES(?,O(n^1))
-----------------------
The usable rules of this path are empty.
The weightgap principle applies, using the following adequate RMI:
The following argument positions are usable:
Uargs(f) = {}, Uargs(g) = {}, Uargs(h) = {}, Uargs(f') = {},
Uargs(s) = {}, Uargs(f^#) = {}, Uargs(c_0) = {}, Uargs(c_1) = {},
Uargs(f'^#) = {}, Uargs(c_2) = {1}
We have the following constructor-restricted matrix interpretation:
Interpretation Functions:
f(x1) = [0 0 0] x1 + [0]
[0 0 0] [0]
[0 0 0] [0]
g(x1) = [0 0 0] x1 + [0]
[0 0 0] [0]
[0 0 0] [0]
h(x1) = [0 0 0] x1 + [0]
[0 0 0] [0]
[0 0 0] [0]
f'(x1, x2, x3) = [0 0 0] x1 + [0 0 0] x2 + [0 0 0] x3 + [0]
[0 0 0] [0 0 0] [0 0 0] [0]
[0 0 0] [0 0 0] [0 0 0] [0]
s(x1) = [1 0 0] x1 + [0]
[0 0 0] [0]
[0 0 0] [0]
f^#(x1) = [0 0 0] x1 + [0]
[0 0 0] [0]
[0 0 0] [0]
c_0(x1) = [0 0 0] x1 + [0]
[0 0 0] [0]
[0 0 0] [0]
c_1(x1) = [0 0 0] x1 + [0]
[0 0 0] [0]
[0 0 0] [0]
f'^#(x1, x2, x3) = [0 0 0] x1 + [0 0 0] x2 + [0 0 1] x3 + [0]
[3 3 3] [3 3 3] [3 3 3] [0]
[3 3 3] [3 3 3] [3 3 3] [0]
c_2(x1) = [1 0 0] x1 + [0]
[0 1 0] [0]
[0 0 1] [0]
We apply the sub-processor on the resulting sub-problem:
'matrix-interpretation of dimension 3'
--------------------------------------
Answer: YES(?,O(n^1))
Input Problem: DP runtime-complexity with respect to
Strict Rules: {f'^#(s(x), y, y) -> c_2(f'^#(y, x, s(x)))}
Weak Rules: {}
Proof Output:
The following argument positions are usable:
Uargs(s) = {}, Uargs(f'^#) = {}, Uargs(c_2) = {1}
We have the following constructor-restricted matrix interpretation:
Interpretation Functions:
s(x1) = [1 1 0] x1 + [0]
[0 0 0] [1]
[0 0 0] [0]
f'^#(x1, x2, x3) = [1 1 0] x1 + [1 1 0] x2 + [0 0 0] x3 + [0]
[0 0 0] [4 0 0] [0 0 0] [0]
[0 0 0] [0 0 0] [0 0 0] [0]
c_2(x1) = [1 0 0] x1 + [0]
[0 0 0] [0]
[0 0 0] [0]
2) 'wdg' failed due to the following reason:
Transformation Details:
-----------------------
We have computed the following set of weak (innermost) dependency pairs:
{ 1: f^#(g(x)) -> c_0(f^#(f(x)))
, 2: f^#(h(x)) -> c_1(x)
, 3: f'^#(s(x), y, y) -> c_2(f'^#(y, x, s(x)))}
Following Dependency Graph (modulo SCCs) was computed. (Answers to
subproofs are indicated to the right.)
->{3} [ YES(?,O(n^1)) ]
->{1} [ inherited ]
|
`->{2} [ MAYBE ]
Sub-problems:
-------------
* Path {1}: inherited
-------------------
This path is subsumed by the proof of path {1}->{2}.
* Path {1}->{2}: MAYBE
--------------------
The usable rules for this path are:
{ f(g(x)) -> g(f(f(x)))
, f(h(x)) -> h(g(x))}
The weight gap principle does not apply:
The input cannot be shown compatible
Complexity induced by the adequate RMI: MAYBE
We apply the sub-processor on the resulting sub-problem:
'matrix-interpretation of dimension 2'
--------------------------------------
Answer: MAYBE
Input Problem: runtime-complexity with respect to
Rules:
{ f^#(g(x)) -> c_0(f^#(f(x)))
, f^#(h(x)) -> c_1(x)
, f(g(x)) -> g(f(f(x)))
, f(h(x)) -> h(g(x))}
Proof Output:
The input cannot be shown compatible
* Path {3}: YES(?,O(n^1))
-----------------------
The usable rules of this path are empty.
The weightgap principle applies, using the following adequate RMI:
The following argument positions are usable:
Uargs(f) = {}, Uargs(g) = {}, Uargs(h) = {}, Uargs(f') = {},
Uargs(s) = {}, Uargs(f^#) = {}, Uargs(c_0) = {}, Uargs(c_1) = {},
Uargs(f'^#) = {}, Uargs(c_2) = {1}
We have the following constructor-restricted matrix interpretation:
Interpretation Functions:
f(x1) = [0 0] x1 + [0]
[0 0] [0]
g(x1) = [0 0] x1 + [0]
[0 0] [0]
h(x1) = [0 0] x1 + [0]
[0 0] [0]
f'(x1, x2, x3) = [0 0] x1 + [0 0] x2 + [0 0] x3 + [0]
[0 0] [0 0] [0 0] [0]
s(x1) = [0 0] x1 + [0]
[0 1] [0]
f^#(x1) = [0 0] x1 + [0]
[0 0] [0]
c_0(x1) = [0 0] x1 + [0]
[0 0] [0]
c_1(x1) = [0 0] x1 + [0]
[0 0] [0]
f'^#(x1, x2, x3) = [0 1] x1 + [0 1] x2 + [0 0] x3 + [0]
[3 3] [3 3] [3 3] [0]
c_2(x1) = [1 0] x1 + [0]
[0 1] [0]
We apply the sub-processor on the resulting sub-problem:
'matrix-interpretation of dimension 2'
--------------------------------------
Answer: YES(?,O(n^1))
Input Problem: DP runtime-complexity with respect to
Strict Rules: {f'^#(s(x), y, y) -> c_2(f'^#(y, x, s(x)))}
Weak Rules: {}
Proof Output:
The following argument positions are usable:
Uargs(s) = {}, Uargs(f'^#) = {}, Uargs(c_2) = {1}
We have the following constructor-restricted matrix interpretation:
Interpretation Functions:
s(x1) = [0 0] x1 + [1]
[0 1] [1]
f'^#(x1, x2, x3) = [0 1] x1 + [0 1] x2 + [0 0] x3 + [3]
[4 4] [0 4] [4 0] [0]
c_2(x1) = [1 0] x1 + [0]
[0 0] [7]
3) 'wdg' failed due to the following reason:
Transformation Details:
-----------------------
We have computed the following set of weak (innermost) dependency pairs:
{ 1: f^#(g(x)) -> c_0(f^#(f(x)))
, 2: f^#(h(x)) -> c_1(x)
, 3: f'^#(s(x), y, y) -> c_2(f'^#(y, x, s(x)))}
Following Dependency Graph (modulo SCCs) was computed. (Answers to
subproofs are indicated to the right.)
->{3} [ YES(?,O(n^1)) ]
->{1} [ inherited ]
|
`->{2} [ MAYBE ]
Sub-problems:
-------------
* Path {1}: inherited
-------------------
This path is subsumed by the proof of path {1}->{2}.
* Path {1}->{2}: MAYBE
--------------------
The usable rules for this path are:
{ f(g(x)) -> g(f(f(x)))
, f(h(x)) -> h(g(x))}
The weight gap principle does not apply:
The input cannot be shown compatible
Complexity induced by the adequate RMI: MAYBE
We apply the sub-processor on the resulting sub-problem:
'matrix-interpretation of dimension 1'
--------------------------------------
Answer: MAYBE
Input Problem: runtime-complexity with respect to
Rules:
{ f^#(g(x)) -> c_0(f^#(f(x)))
, f^#(h(x)) -> c_1(x)
, f(g(x)) -> g(f(f(x)))
, f(h(x)) -> h(g(x))}
Proof Output:
The input cannot be shown compatible
* Path {3}: YES(?,O(n^1))
-----------------------
The usable rules of this path are empty.
The weightgap principle applies, using the following adequate RMI:
The following argument positions are usable:
Uargs(f) = {}, Uargs(g) = {}, Uargs(h) = {}, Uargs(f') = {},
Uargs(s) = {}, Uargs(f^#) = {}, Uargs(c_0) = {}, Uargs(c_1) = {},
Uargs(f'^#) = {}, Uargs(c_2) = {1}
We have the following constructor-restricted matrix interpretation:
Interpretation Functions:
f(x1) = [0] x1 + [0]
g(x1) = [0] x1 + [0]
h(x1) = [0] x1 + [0]
f'(x1, x2, x3) = [0] x1 + [0] x2 + [0] x3 + [0]
s(x1) = [1] x1 + [0]
f^#(x1) = [0] x1 + [0]
c_0(x1) = [0] x1 + [0]
c_1(x1) = [0] x1 + [0]
f'^#(x1, x2, x3) = [3] x1 + [3] x2 + [0] x3 + [0]
c_2(x1) = [1] x1 + [0]
We apply the sub-processor on the resulting sub-problem:
'matrix-interpretation of dimension 1'
--------------------------------------
Answer: YES(?,O(n^1))
Input Problem: DP runtime-complexity with respect to
Strict Rules: {f'^#(s(x), y, y) -> c_2(f'^#(y, x, s(x)))}
Weak Rules: {}
Proof Output:
The following argument positions are usable:
Uargs(s) = {}, Uargs(f'^#) = {}, Uargs(c_2) = {1}
We have the following constructor-restricted matrix interpretation:
Interpretation Functions:
s(x1) = [1] x1 + [2]
f'^#(x1, x2, x3) = [2] x1 + [2] x2 + [0] x3 + [0]
c_2(x1) = [1] x1 + [3]
4) 'matrix-interpretation of dimension 1' failed due to the following reason:
The input cannot be shown compatible
5) 'Bounds with perSymbol-enrichment and initial automaton 'match'' failed due to the following reason:
match-boundness of the problem could not be verified.
6) 'Bounds with minimal-enrichment and initial automaton 'match'' failed due to the following reason:
match-boundness of the problem could not be verified.
Tool pair1rc
| Execution Time | Unknown |
|---|
| Answer | TIMEOUT |
|---|
| Input | AG01 3.54 |
|---|
stdout:
TIMEOUT
We consider the following Problem:
Strict Trs:
{ f(g(x)) -> g(f(f(x)))
, f(h(x)) -> h(g(x))
, f'(s(x), y, y) -> f'(y, x, s(x))}
StartTerms: basic terms
Strategy: none
Certificate: TIMEOUT
Application of 'pair1 (timeout of 60.0 seconds)':
-------------------------------------------------
Computation stopped due to timeout after 60.0 seconds
Arrrr..Tool pair2rc
| Execution Time | Unknown |
|---|
| Answer | TIMEOUT |
|---|
| Input | AG01 3.54 |
|---|
stdout:
TIMEOUT
We consider the following Problem:
Strict Trs:
{ f(g(x)) -> g(f(f(x)))
, f(h(x)) -> h(g(x))
, f'(s(x), y, y) -> f'(y, x, s(x))}
StartTerms: basic terms
Strategy: none
Certificate: TIMEOUT
Application of 'pair2 (timeout of 60.0 seconds)':
-------------------------------------------------
Computation stopped due to timeout after 60.0 seconds
Arrrr..Tool pair3irc
| Execution Time | Unknown |
|---|
| Answer | TIMEOUT |
|---|
| Input | AG01 3.54 |
|---|
stdout:
TIMEOUT
We consider the following Problem:
Strict Trs:
{ f(g(x)) -> g(f(f(x)))
, f(h(x)) -> h(g(x))
, f'(s(x), y, y) -> f'(y, x, s(x))}
StartTerms: basic terms
Strategy: innermost
Certificate: TIMEOUT
Application of 'pair3 (timeout of 60.0 seconds)':
-------------------------------------------------
Computation stopped due to timeout after 60.0 seconds
Arrrr..Tool pair3rc
| Execution Time | Unknown |
|---|
| Answer | TIMEOUT |
|---|
| Input | AG01 3.54 |
|---|
stdout:
TIMEOUT
We consider the following Problem:
Strict Trs:
{ f(g(x)) -> g(f(f(x)))
, f(h(x)) -> h(g(x))
, f'(s(x), y, y) -> f'(y, x, s(x))}
StartTerms: basic terms
Strategy: none
Certificate: TIMEOUT
Application of 'pair3 (timeout of 60.0 seconds)':
-------------------------------------------------
Computation stopped due to timeout after 60.0 seconds
Arrrr..Tool rc
| Execution Time | Unknown |
|---|
| Answer | TIMEOUT |
|---|
| Input | AG01 3.54 |
|---|
stdout:
TIMEOUT
We consider the following Problem:
Strict Trs:
{ f(g(x)) -> g(f(f(x)))
, f(h(x)) -> h(g(x))
, f'(s(x), y, y) -> f'(y, x, s(x))}
StartTerms: basic terms
Strategy: none
Certificate: TIMEOUT
Application of 'rc (timeout of 60.0 seconds)':
----------------------------------------------
Computation stopped due to timeout after 60.0 seconds
Arrrr..Tool tup3irc
| Execution Time | 60.05156ms |
|---|
| Answer | TIMEOUT |
|---|
| Input | AG01 3.54 |
|---|
stdout:
TIMEOUT
We consider the following Problem:
Strict Trs:
{ f(g(x)) -> g(f(f(x)))
, f(h(x)) -> h(g(x))
, f'(s(x), y, y) -> f'(y, x, s(x))}
StartTerms: basic terms
Strategy: innermost
Certificate: TIMEOUT
Application of 'tup3 (timeout of 60.0 seconds)':
------------------------------------------------
Computation stopped due to timeout after 60.0 seconds
Arrrr..