Problem Maude 06 PALINDROME nosorts-noand

Tool IRC1

Execution Time	Unknown
Answer	YES(?,O(n^1))
Input	Maude 06 PALINDROME nosorts-noand

stdout:

YES(?,O(n^1))

Tool IRC2

Execution Time	Unknown
Answer	YES(?,O(n^1))
Input	Maude 06 PALINDROME nosorts-noand

stdout:

YES(?,O(n^1))

'Fastest (timeout of 60.0 seconds)'
-----------------------------------
Answer:           YES(?,O(n^1))
Input Problem:    innermost runtime-complexity with respect to
  Rules:
    {  __(__(X, Y), Z) -> __(X, __(Y, Z))
     , __(X, nil()) -> X
     , __(nil(), X) -> X
     , U11(tt()) -> U12(tt())
     , U12(tt()) -> tt()
     , isNePal(__(I, __(P, I))) -> U11(tt())}

Proof Output:
  'Bounds with minimal-enrichment and initial automaton 'match'' proved the best result:

  Details:
  --------
    'Bounds with minimal-enrichment and initial automaton 'match'' succeeded with the following output:
     'Bounds with minimal-enrichment and initial automaton 'match''
     --------------------------------------------------------------
     Answer:           YES(?,O(n^1))
     Input Problem:    innermost runtime-complexity with respect to
       Rules:
         {  __(__(X, Y), Z) -> __(X, __(Y, Z))
          , __(X, nil()) -> X
          , __(nil(), X) -> X
          , U11(tt()) -> U12(tt())
          , U12(tt()) -> tt()
          , isNePal(__(I, __(P, I))) -> U11(tt())}

     Proof Output:
       The problem is match-bounded by 2.
       The enriched problem is compatible with the following automaton:
       {  ___0(2, 2) -> 1
        , nil_0() -> 1
        , nil_0() -> 2
        , U11_0(2) -> 1
        , tt_0() -> 1
        , tt_0() -> 2
        , tt_1() -> 1
        , tt_1() -> 3
        , tt_2() -> 1
        , U12_0(2) -> 1
        , U12_1(3) -> 1
        , isNePal_0(2) -> 1}

Tool RC1

Execution Time	Unknown
Answer	YES(?,O(n^1))
Input	Maude 06 PALINDROME nosorts-noand

stdout:

YES(?,O(n^1))

Tool RC2

Execution Time	Unknown
Answer	YES(?,O(n^1))
Input	Maude 06 PALINDROME nosorts-noand

stdout:

YES(?,O(n^1))

'Fastest (timeout of 60.0 seconds)'
-----------------------------------
Answer:           YES(?,O(n^1))
Input Problem:    runtime-complexity with respect to
  Rules:
    {  __(__(X, Y), Z) -> __(X, __(Y, Z))
     , __(X, nil()) -> X
     , __(nil(), X) -> X
     , U11(tt()) -> U12(tt())
     , U12(tt()) -> tt()
     , isNePal(__(I, __(P, I))) -> U11(tt())}

Proof Output:
  'Bounds with minimal-enrichment and initial automaton 'match'' proved the best result:

  Details:
  --------
    'Bounds with minimal-enrichment and initial automaton 'match'' succeeded with the following output:
     'Bounds with minimal-enrichment and initial automaton 'match''
     --------------------------------------------------------------
     Answer:           YES(?,O(n^1))
     Input Problem:    runtime-complexity with respect to
       Rules:
         {  __(__(X, Y), Z) -> __(X, __(Y, Z))
          , __(X, nil()) -> X
          , __(nil(), X) -> X
          , U11(tt()) -> U12(tt())
          , U12(tt()) -> tt()
          , isNePal(__(I, __(P, I))) -> U11(tt())}

     Proof Output:
       The problem is match-bounded by 2.
       The enriched problem is compatible with the following automaton:
       {  ___0(2, 2) -> 1
        , nil_0() -> 1
        , nil_0() -> 2
        , U11_0(2) -> 1
        , tt_0() -> 1
        , tt_0() -> 2
        , tt_1() -> 1
        , tt_1() -> 3
        , tt_2() -> 1
        , U12_0(2) -> 1
        , U12_1(3) -> 1
        , isNePal_0(2) -> 1}