Problem Secret 05 SRS torpa1

Tool CaT

Execution Time	Unknown
Answer	YES(?,O(n^1))
Input	Secret 05 SRS torpa1

stdout:

YES(?,O(n^1))

Problem:
a(d(x1)) -> d(b(c(b(d(x1)))))
a(x1) -> b(b(f(b(b(x1)))))
b(d(b(x1))) -> a(d(x1))
d(f(x1)) -> b(d(x1))

Proof:
Bounds Processor:
  bound: 1
  enrichment: match
  automaton:
   final states: {5,4,3}
   transitions:
    b1(20) -> 21*
    b1(10) -> 11*
    b1(7) -> 8*
    b1(9) -> 10*
    b1(6) -> 7*
    b1(23) -> 24*
    d1(30) -> 31*
    d1(22) -> 23*
    f1(8) -> 9*
    a0(2) -> 3*
    a0(1) -> 3*
    d0(2) -> 5*
    d0(1) -> 5*
    b0(2) -> 4*
    b0(1) -> 4*
    c0(2) -> 1*
    c0(1) -> 1*
    f0(2) -> 2*
    f0(1) -> 2*
    1 -> 30,6
    2 -> 22,20
    11 -> 3*
    21 -> 7*
    24 -> 23,5
    31 -> 23*
  problem:

  Qed

Tool IRC1

Execution Time	Unknown
Answer	YES(?,O(n^1))
Input	Secret 05 SRS torpa1

stdout:

YES(?,O(n^1))

Tool IRC2

Execution Time	Unknown
Answer	YES(?,O(n^1))
Input	Secret 05 SRS torpa1

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:
    {  a(d(x1)) -> d(b(c(b(d(x1)))))
     , a(x1) -> b(b(f(b(b(x1)))))
     , b(d(b(x1))) -> a(d(x1))
     , d(f(x1)) -> b(d(x1))}

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:
         {  a(d(x1)) -> d(b(c(b(d(x1)))))
          , a(x1) -> b(b(f(b(b(x1)))))
          , b(d(b(x1))) -> a(d(x1))
          , d(f(x1)) -> b(d(x1))}

     Proof Output:
       The problem is match-bounded by 1.
       The enriched problem is compatible with the following automaton:
       {  a_0(2) -> 1
        , d_0(2) -> 1
        , d_1(2) -> 3
        , b_0(2) -> 1
        , b_1(2) -> 6
        , b_1(3) -> 1
        , b_1(3) -> 3
        , b_1(4) -> 3
        , b_1(6) -> 5
        , c_0(2) -> 2
        , f_0(2) -> 2
        , f_1(5) -> 4}

Tool RC1

Execution Time	Unknown
Answer	YES(?,O(n^1))
Input	Secret 05 SRS torpa1

stdout:

YES(?,O(n^1))

Tool RC2

Execution Time	Unknown
Answer	YES(?,O(n^1))
Input	Secret 05 SRS torpa1

stdout:

YES(?,O(n^1))

'Fastest (timeout of 60.0 seconds)'
-----------------------------------
Answer:           YES(?,O(n^1))
Input Problem:    runtime-complexity with respect to
  Rules:
    {  a(d(x1)) -> d(b(c(b(d(x1)))))
     , a(x1) -> b(b(f(b(b(x1)))))
     , b(d(b(x1))) -> a(d(x1))
     , d(f(x1)) -> b(d(x1))}

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:
         {  a(d(x1)) -> d(b(c(b(d(x1)))))
          , a(x1) -> b(b(f(b(b(x1)))))
          , b(d(b(x1))) -> a(d(x1))
          , d(f(x1)) -> b(d(x1))}

     Proof Output:
       The problem is match-bounded by 1.
       The enriched problem is compatible with the following automaton:
       {  a_0(2) -> 1
        , d_0(2) -> 1
        , d_1(2) -> 3
        , b_0(2) -> 1
        , b_1(2) -> 6
        , b_1(3) -> 1
        , b_1(3) -> 3
        , b_1(4) -> 3
        , b_1(6) -> 5
        , c_0(2) -> 2
        , f_0(2) -> 2
        , f_1(5) -> 4}