Problem SK90 4.45

Tool CaT

Execution Time	Unknown
Answer	YES(?,O(n^1))
Input	SK90 4.45

stdout:

YES(?,O(n^1))

Problem:
f(x,x) -> a()
f(g(x),y) -> f(x,y)

Proof:
Bounds Processor:
  bound: 2
  enrichment: match
  automaton:
   final states: {4,3}
   transitions:
    f1(4,2) -> 3*
    f1(4,4) -> 3*
    f1(1,2) -> 3*
    f1(1,4) -> 3*
    f1(2,1) -> 3*
    f1(4,1) -> 3*
    f1(1,1) -> 3*
    f1(2,2) -> 3*
    f1(2,4) -> 3*
    a2() -> 1,4*,3
    g0(2) -> 2*
    g0(4) -> 2*
    g0(1) -> 2*
  problem:

  Qed

Tool IRC1

Execution Time	Unknown
Answer	YES(?,O(n^1))
Input	SK90 4.45

stdout:

YES(?,O(n^1))

Tool IRC2

Execution Time	Unknown
Answer	YES(?,O(n^1))
Input	SK90 4.45

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:
    {  f(x, x) -> a()
     , f(g(x), y) -> f(x, y)}

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:
         {  f(x, x) -> a()
          , f(g(x), y) -> f(x, y)}

     Proof Output:
       The problem is match-bounded by 2.
       The enriched problem is compatible with the following automaton:
       {  f_0(2, 2) -> 1
        , f_1(2, 2) -> 1
        , a_0() -> 2
        , a_1() -> 1
        , a_2() -> 1
        , g_0(2) -> 2}

Tool RC1

Execution Time	Unknown
Answer	YES(?,O(n^1))
Input	SK90 4.45

stdout:

YES(?,O(n^1))

Tool RC2

Execution Time	Unknown
Answer	YES(?,O(n^1))
Input	SK90 4.45

stdout:

YES(?,O(n^1))

'Fastest (timeout of 60.0 seconds)'
-----------------------------------
Answer:           YES(?,O(n^1))
Input Problem:    runtime-complexity with respect to
  Rules:
    {  f(x, x) -> a()
     , f(g(x), y) -> f(x, y)}

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:
         {  f(x, x) -> a()
          , f(g(x), y) -> f(x, y)}

     Proof Output:
       The problem is match-bounded by 2.
       The enriched problem is compatible with the following automaton:
       {  f_0(2, 2) -> 1
        , f_1(2, 2) -> 1
        , a_0() -> 2
        , a_1() -> 1
        , a_2() -> 1
        , g_0(2) -> 2}

Tool pair1rc

Execution Time	Unknown
Answer	YES(?,O(n^1))
Input	SK90 4.45

stdout:

YES(?,O(n^1))

We consider the following Problem:

  Strict Trs:
    {  f(x, x) -> a()
     , f(g(x), y) -> f(x, y)}
  StartTerms: basic terms
  Strategy: none

Certificate: YES(?,O(n^1))

Application of 'pair1 (timeout of 60.0 seconds)':
-------------------------------------------------
  The processor is not applicable, reason is:
   Input problem is not restricted to innermost rewriting

  We abort the transformation and continue with the subprocessor on the problem

  Strict Trs:
    {  f(x, x) -> a()
     , f(g(x), y) -> f(x, y)}
  StartTerms: basic terms
  Strategy: none

  1) 'Fastest' proved the goal fastest:

     'Fastest' proved the goal fastest:

     'Bounds with minimal-enrichment and initial automaton 'match'' proved the goal fastest:

     The problem is match-bounded by 2.
     The enriched problem is compatible with the following automaton:
     {  f_0(2, 2) -> 1
      , f_1(2, 2) -> 1
      , a_0() -> 2
      , a_1() -> 1
      , a_2() -> 1
      , g_0(2) -> 2}


Hurray, we answered YES(?,O(n^1))

Tool pair2rc

Execution Time	Unknown
Answer	YES(?,O(n^1))
Input	SK90 4.45

stdout:

YES(?,O(n^1))

We consider the following Problem:

  Strict Trs:
    {  f(x, x) -> a()
     , f(g(x), y) -> f(x, y)}
  StartTerms: basic terms
  Strategy: none

Certificate: YES(?,O(n^1))

Application of 'pair2 (timeout of 60.0 seconds)':
-------------------------------------------------
  The processor is not applicable, reason is:
   Input problem is not restricted to innermost rewriting

  We abort the transformation and continue with the subprocessor on the problem

  Strict Trs:
    {  f(x, x) -> a()
     , f(g(x), y) -> f(x, y)}
  StartTerms: basic terms
  Strategy: none

  1) 'Fastest' proved the goal fastest:

     'Fastest' proved the goal fastest:

     'Bounds with perSymbol-enrichment and initial automaton 'match'' proved the goal fastest:

     The problem is match-bounded by 2.
     The enriched problem is compatible with the following automaton:
     {  f_0(2, 2) -> 1
      , f_0(2, 3) -> 1
      , f_0(3, 2) -> 1
      , f_0(3, 3) -> 1
      , f_1(2, 2) -> 1
      , f_1(2, 3) -> 1
      , f_1(3, 2) -> 1
      , f_1(3, 3) -> 1
      , a_0() -> 2
      , a_1() -> 1
      , a_2() -> 1
      , g_0(2) -> 3
      , g_0(3) -> 3}


Hurray, we answered YES(?,O(n^1))

Tool pair3irc

Execution Time	Unknown
Answer	YES(?,O(n^1))
Input	SK90 4.45

stdout:

YES(?,O(n^1))

We consider the following Problem:

  Strict Trs:
    {  f(x, x) -> a()
     , f(g(x), y) -> f(x, y)}
  StartTerms: basic terms
  Strategy: innermost

Certificate: YES(?,O(n^1))

Application of 'pair3 (timeout of 60.0 seconds)':
-------------------------------------------------
  The input problem contains no overlaps that give rise to inapplicable rules.

  We abort the transformation and continue with the subprocessor on the problem

  Strict Trs:
    {  f(x, x) -> a()
     , f(g(x), y) -> f(x, y)}
  StartTerms: basic terms
  Strategy: innermost

  1) 'Fastest' proved the goal fastest:

     'Fastest' proved the goal fastest:

     'Bounds with minimal-enrichment and initial automaton 'match'' proved the goal fastest:

     The problem is match-bounded by 2.
     The enriched problem is compatible with the following automaton:
     {  f_0(2, 2) -> 1
      , f_1(2, 2) -> 1
      , a_0() -> 2
      , a_1() -> 1
      , a_2() -> 1
      , g_0(2) -> 2}


Hurray, we answered YES(?,O(n^1))

Tool pair3rc

Execution Time	Unknown
Answer	YES(?,O(n^1))
Input	SK90 4.45

stdout:

YES(?,O(n^1))

We consider the following Problem:

  Strict Trs:
    {  f(x, x) -> a()
     , f(g(x), y) -> f(x, y)}
  StartTerms: basic terms
  Strategy: none

Certificate: YES(?,O(n^1))

Application of 'pair3 (timeout of 60.0 seconds)':
-------------------------------------------------
  The processor is not applicable, reason is:
   Input problem is not restricted to innermost rewriting

  We abort the transformation and continue with the subprocessor on the problem

  Strict Trs:
    {  f(x, x) -> a()
     , f(g(x), y) -> f(x, y)}
  StartTerms: basic terms
  Strategy: none

  1) 'Fastest' proved the goal fastest:

     'Fastest' proved the goal fastest:

     'Bounds with perSymbol-enrichment and initial automaton 'match'' proved the goal fastest:

     The problem is match-bounded by 2.
     The enriched problem is compatible with the following automaton:
     {  f_0(2, 2) -> 1
      , f_0(2, 3) -> 1
      , f_0(3, 2) -> 1
      , f_0(3, 3) -> 1
      , f_1(2, 2) -> 1
      , f_1(2, 3) -> 1
      , f_1(3, 2) -> 1
      , f_1(3, 3) -> 1
      , a_0() -> 2
      , a_1() -> 1
      , a_2() -> 1
      , g_0(2) -> 3
      , g_0(3) -> 3}


Hurray, we answered YES(?,O(n^1))

Tool rc

Execution Time	Unknown
Answer	YES(?,O(n^1))
Input	SK90 4.45

stdout:

YES(?,O(n^1))

We consider the following Problem:

  Strict Trs:
    {  f(x, x) -> a()
     , f(g(x), y) -> f(x, y)}
  StartTerms: basic terms
  Strategy: none

Certificate: YES(?,O(n^1))

Application of 'rc (timeout of 60.0 seconds)':
----------------------------------------------
  'Fastest' proved the goal fastest:

  'Fastest' proved the goal fastest:

  'Bounds with perSymbol-enrichment and initial automaton 'match' (timeout of 5.0 seconds)' proved the goal fastest:

  The problem is match-bounded by 2.
  The enriched problem is compatible with the following automaton:
  {  f_0(2, 2) -> 1
   , f_0(2, 3) -> 1
   , f_0(3, 2) -> 1
   , f_0(3, 3) -> 1
   , f_1(2, 2) -> 1
   , f_1(2, 3) -> 1
   , f_1(3, 2) -> 1
   , f_1(3, 3) -> 1
   , a_0() -> 2
   , a_1() -> 1
   , a_2() -> 1
   , g_0(2) -> 3
   , g_0(3) -> 3}

Hurray, we answered YES(?,O(n^1))

Tool tup3irc

Execution Time	5.372257ms
Answer	YES(?,O(n^1))
Input	SK90 4.45

stdout:

YES(?,O(n^1))

We consider the following Problem:

  Strict Trs:
    {  f(x, x) -> a()
     , f(g(x), y) -> f(x, y)}
  StartTerms: basic terms
  Strategy: innermost

Certificate: YES(?,O(n^1))

Application of 'tup3 (timeout of 60.0 seconds)':
------------------------------------------------
  The input problem contains no overlaps that give rise to inapplicable rules.

  We abort the transformation and continue with the subprocessor on the problem

  Strict Trs:
    {  f(x, x) -> a()
     , f(g(x), y) -> f(x, y)}
  StartTerms: basic terms
  Strategy: innermost

  1) 'Fastest' proved the goal fastest:

     'Fastest' proved the goal fastest:

     'Bounds with perSymbol-enrichment and initial automaton 'match'' proved the goal fastest:

     The problem is match-bounded by 2.
     The enriched problem is compatible with the following automaton:
     {  f_0(2, 2) -> 1
      , f_0(2, 3) -> 1
      , f_0(3, 2) -> 1
      , f_0(3, 3) -> 1
      , f_1(2, 2) -> 1
      , f_1(2, 3) -> 1
      , f_1(3, 2) -> 1
      , f_1(3, 3) -> 1
      , a_0() -> 2
      , a_1() -> 1
      , a_2() -> 1
      , g_0(2) -> 3
      , g_0(3) -> 3}


Hurray, we answered YES(?,O(n^1))