Problem Strategy outermost added 08 4.12a

Tool CaT

Execution Time	Unknown
Answer	MAYBE
Input	Strategy outermost added 08 4.12a

stdout:

MAYBE

Problem:
h(x,y) -> f(x,y,x)
f(0(),1(),x) -> h(x,x)
g(x,y) -> x
g(x,y) -> y

Proof:
Open

Tool IRC1

Execution Time	Unknown
Answer	MAYBE
Input	Strategy outermost added 08 4.12a

stdout:

MAYBE
Warning when parsing problem:

Unsupported strategy 'OUTERMOST'

Tool IRC2

Execution Time	Unknown
Answer	MAYBE
Input	Strategy outermost added 08 4.12a

stdout:

MAYBE

'Fastest (timeout of 60.0 seconds)'
-----------------------------------
Answer:           MAYBE
Input Problem:    innermost runtime-complexity with respect to
  Rules:
    {  h(x, y) -> f(x, y, x)
     , f(0(), 1(), x) -> h(x, x)
     , g(x, y) -> x
     , g(x, y) -> y}

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: h^#(x, y) -> c_0(f^#(x, y, x))
              , 2: f^#(0(), 1(), x) -> c_1(h^#(x, x))
              , 3: g^#(x, y) -> c_2()
              , 4: g^#(x, y) -> c_3()}

           Following Dependency Graph (modulo SCCs) was computed. (Answers to
           subproofs are indicated to the right.)

             ->{4}                                                       [    YES(?,O(1))     ]

             ->{3}                                                       [    YES(?,O(1))     ]

             ->{1,2}                                                     [       MAYBE        ]



         Sub-problems:
         -------------
           * Path {1,2}: MAYBE
             -----------------

             The usable rules of this path are empty.

             The weightgap principle applies, using the following adequate RMI:
               The following argument positions are usable:
                 Uargs(h) = {}, Uargs(f) = {}, Uargs(g) = {}, Uargs(h^#) = {},
                 Uargs(c_0) = {1}, Uargs(f^#) = {}, Uargs(c_1) = {1},
                 Uargs(g^#) = {}
               We have the following constructor-restricted matrix interpretation:
               Interpretation Functions:
                h(x1, x2) = [0 0 0] x1 + [0 0 0] x2 + [0]
                            [0 0 0]      [0 0 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]
                0() = [0]
                      [0]
                      [0]
                1() = [0]
                      [0]
                      [0]
                g(x1, x2) = [0 0 0] x1 + [0 0 0] x2 + [0]
                            [0 0 0]      [0 0 0]      [0]
                            [0 0 0]      [0 0 0]      [0]
                h^#(x1, x2) = [2 3 3] x1 + [0 0 0] x2 + [0]
                              [3 3 3]      [3 3 3]      [0]
                              [3 3 3]      [3 3 3]      [0]
                c_0(x1) = [1 0 0] x1 + [0]
                          [0 1 0]      [0]
                          [0 0 1]      [0]
                f^#(x1, x2, x3) = [0 0 0] x1 + [0 0 0] x2 + [2 3 3] x3 + [0]
                                  [3 3 3]      [3 3 3]      [3 3 3]      [0]
                                  [3 3 3]      [3 3 3]      [3 3 3]      [0]
                c_1(x1) = [1 0 0] x1 + [0]
                          [0 1 0]      [0]
                          [0 0 1]      [0]
                g^#(x1, x2) = [0 0 0] x1 + [0 0 0] x2 + [0]
                              [0 0 0]      [0 0 0]      [0]
                              [0 0 0]      [0 0 0]      [0]
                c_2() = [0]
                        [0]
                        [0]
                c_3() = [0]
                        [0]
                        [0]

             We apply the sub-processor on the resulting sub-problem:

             'matrix-interpretation of dimension 3'
             --------------------------------------
             Answer:           MAYBE
             Input Problem:    innermost DP runtime-complexity with respect to
               Strict Rules:
                 {  h^#(x, y) -> c_0(f^#(x, y, x))
                  , f^#(0(), 1(), x) -> c_1(h^#(x, x))}
               Weak Rules: {}

             Proof Output:
               The input cannot be shown compatible

           * Path {3}: YES(?,O(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(h) = {}, Uargs(f) = {}, Uargs(g) = {}, Uargs(h^#) = {},
                 Uargs(c_0) = {}, Uargs(f^#) = {}, Uargs(c_1) = {}, Uargs(g^#) = {}
               We have the following constructor-restricted matrix interpretation:
               Interpretation Functions:
                h(x1, x2) = [0 0 0] x1 + [0 0 0] x2 + [0]
                            [0 0 0]      [0 0 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]
                0() = [0]
                      [0]
                      [0]
                1() = [0]
                      [0]
                      [0]
                g(x1, x2) = [0 0 0] x1 + [0 0 0] x2 + [0]
                            [0 0 0]      [0 0 0]      [0]
                            [0 0 0]      [0 0 0]      [0]
                h^#(x1, x2) = [0 0 0] x1 + [0 0 0] x2 + [0]
                              [0 0 0]      [0 0 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]
                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]
                c_1(x1) = [0 0 0] x1 + [0]
                          [0 0 0]      [0]
                          [0 0 0]      [0]
                g^#(x1, x2) = [0 0 0] x1 + [0 0 0] x2 + [0]
                              [0 0 0]      [0 0 0]      [0]
                              [0 0 0]      [0 0 0]      [0]
                c_2() = [0]
                        [0]
                        [0]
                c_3() = [0]
                        [0]
                        [0]

             We apply the sub-processor on the resulting sub-problem:

             'matrix-interpretation of dimension 3'
             --------------------------------------
             Answer:           YES(?,O(1))
             Input Problem:    innermost DP runtime-complexity with respect to
               Strict Rules: {g^#(x, y) -> c_2()}
               Weak Rules: {}

             Proof Output:
               The following argument positions are usable:
                 Uargs(g^#) = {}
               We have the following constructor-restricted matrix interpretation:
               Interpretation Functions:
                g^#(x1, x2) = [0 0 0] x1 + [0 0 0] x2 + [7]
                              [0 0 0]      [0 0 0]      [7]
                              [0 0 0]      [0 0 0]      [7]
                c_2() = [0]
                        [3]
                        [3]

           * Path {4}: YES(?,O(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(h) = {}, Uargs(f) = {}, Uargs(g) = {}, Uargs(h^#) = {},
                 Uargs(c_0) = {}, Uargs(f^#) = {}, Uargs(c_1) = {}, Uargs(g^#) = {}
               We have the following constructor-restricted matrix interpretation:
               Interpretation Functions:
                h(x1, x2) = [0 0 0] x1 + [0 0 0] x2 + [0]
                            [0 0 0]      [0 0 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]
                0() = [0]
                      [0]
                      [0]
                1() = [0]
                      [0]
                      [0]
                g(x1, x2) = [0 0 0] x1 + [0 0 0] x2 + [0]
                            [0 0 0]      [0 0 0]      [0]
                            [0 0 0]      [0 0 0]      [0]
                h^#(x1, x2) = [0 0 0] x1 + [0 0 0] x2 + [0]
                              [0 0 0]      [0 0 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]
                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]
                c_1(x1) = [0 0 0] x1 + [0]
                          [0 0 0]      [0]
                          [0 0 0]      [0]
                g^#(x1, x2) = [0 0 0] x1 + [0 0 0] x2 + [0]
                              [0 0 0]      [0 0 0]      [0]
                              [0 0 0]      [0 0 0]      [0]
                c_2() = [0]
                        [0]
                        [0]
                c_3() = [0]
                        [0]
                        [0]

             We apply the sub-processor on the resulting sub-problem:

             'matrix-interpretation of dimension 3'
             --------------------------------------
             Answer:           YES(?,O(1))
             Input Problem:    innermost DP runtime-complexity with respect to
               Strict Rules: {g^#(x, y) -> c_3()}
               Weak Rules: {}

             Proof Output:
               The following argument positions are usable:
                 Uargs(g^#) = {}
               We have the following constructor-restricted matrix interpretation:
               Interpretation Functions:
                g^#(x1, x2) = [0 0 0] x1 + [0 0 0] x2 + [7]
                              [0 0 0]      [0 0 0]      [7]
                              [0 0 0]      [0 0 0]      [7]
                c_3() = [0]
                        [3]
                        [3]

    2) 'wdg' failed due to the following reason:
         Transformation Details:
         -----------------------
           We have computed the following set of weak (innermost) dependency pairs:

             {  1: h^#(x, y) -> c_0(f^#(x, y, x))
              , 2: f^#(0(), 1(), x) -> c_1(h^#(x, x))
              , 3: g^#(x, y) -> c_2()
              , 4: g^#(x, y) -> c_3()}

           Following Dependency Graph (modulo SCCs) was computed. (Answers to
           subproofs are indicated to the right.)

             ->{4}                                                       [    YES(?,O(1))     ]

             ->{3}                                                       [    YES(?,O(1))     ]

             ->{1,2}                                                     [       MAYBE        ]



         Sub-problems:
         -------------
           * Path {1,2}: MAYBE
             -----------------

             The usable rules of this path are empty.

             The weightgap principle applies, using the following adequate RMI:
               The following argument positions are usable:
                 Uargs(h) = {}, Uargs(f) = {}, Uargs(g) = {}, Uargs(h^#) = {},
                 Uargs(c_0) = {1}, Uargs(f^#) = {}, Uargs(c_1) = {1},
                 Uargs(g^#) = {}
               We have the following constructor-restricted matrix interpretation:
               Interpretation Functions:
                h(x1, x2) = [0 0] x1 + [0 0] x2 + [0]
                            [0 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]
                0() = [0]
                      [0]
                1() = [0]
                      [0]
                g(x1, x2) = [0 0] x1 + [0 0] x2 + [0]
                            [0 0]      [0 0]      [0]
                h^#(x1, x2) = [3 3] x1 + [0 0] x2 + [0]
                              [3 3]      [3 3]      [0]
                c_0(x1) = [1 0] x1 + [0]
                          [0 1]      [0]
                f^#(x1, x2, x3) = [0 0] x1 + [0 0] x2 + [3 3] x3 + [0]
                                  [3 3]      [3 3]      [3 3]      [0]
                c_1(x1) = [1 0] x1 + [0]
                          [0 1]      [0]
                g^#(x1, x2) = [0 0] x1 + [0 0] x2 + [0]
                              [0 0]      [0 0]      [0]
                c_2() = [0]
                        [0]
                c_3() = [0]
                        [0]

             We apply the sub-processor on the resulting sub-problem:

             'matrix-interpretation of dimension 2'
             --------------------------------------
             Answer:           MAYBE
             Input Problem:    innermost DP runtime-complexity with respect to
               Strict Rules:
                 {  h^#(x, y) -> c_0(f^#(x, y, x))
                  , f^#(0(), 1(), x) -> c_1(h^#(x, x))}
               Weak Rules: {}

             Proof Output:
               The input cannot be shown compatible

           * Path {3}: YES(?,O(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(h) = {}, Uargs(f) = {}, Uargs(g) = {}, Uargs(h^#) = {},
                 Uargs(c_0) = {}, Uargs(f^#) = {}, Uargs(c_1) = {}, Uargs(g^#) = {}
               We have the following constructor-restricted matrix interpretation:
               Interpretation Functions:
                h(x1, x2) = [0 0] x1 + [0 0] x2 + [0]
                            [0 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]
                0() = [0]
                      [0]
                1() = [0]
                      [0]
                g(x1, x2) = [0 0] x1 + [0 0] x2 + [0]
                            [0 0]      [0 0]      [0]
                h^#(x1, x2) = [0 0] x1 + [0 0] x2 + [0]
                              [0 0]      [0 0]      [0]
                c_0(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]
                c_1(x1) = [0 0] x1 + [0]
                          [0 0]      [0]
                g^#(x1, x2) = [0 0] x1 + [0 0] x2 + [0]
                              [0 0]      [0 0]      [0]
                c_2() = [0]
                        [0]
                c_3() = [0]
                        [0]

             We apply the sub-processor on the resulting sub-problem:

             'matrix-interpretation of dimension 2'
             --------------------------------------
             Answer:           YES(?,O(1))
             Input Problem:    innermost DP runtime-complexity with respect to
               Strict Rules: {g^#(x, y) -> c_2()}
               Weak Rules: {}

             Proof Output:
               The following argument positions are usable:
                 Uargs(g^#) = {}
               We have the following constructor-restricted matrix interpretation:
               Interpretation Functions:
                g^#(x1, x2) = [0 0] x1 + [0 0] x2 + [7]
                              [0 0]      [0 0]      [7]
                c_2() = [0]
                        [1]

           * Path {4}: YES(?,O(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(h) = {}, Uargs(f) = {}, Uargs(g) = {}, Uargs(h^#) = {},
                 Uargs(c_0) = {}, Uargs(f^#) = {}, Uargs(c_1) = {}, Uargs(g^#) = {}
               We have the following constructor-restricted matrix interpretation:
               Interpretation Functions:
                h(x1, x2) = [0 0] x1 + [0 0] x2 + [0]
                            [0 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]
                0() = [0]
                      [0]
                1() = [0]
                      [0]
                g(x1, x2) = [0 0] x1 + [0 0] x2 + [0]
                            [0 0]      [0 0]      [0]
                h^#(x1, x2) = [0 0] x1 + [0 0] x2 + [0]
                              [0 0]      [0 0]      [0]
                c_0(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]
                c_1(x1) = [0 0] x1 + [0]
                          [0 0]      [0]
                g^#(x1, x2) = [0 0] x1 + [0 0] x2 + [0]
                              [0 0]      [0 0]      [0]
                c_2() = [0]
                        [0]
                c_3() = [0]
                        [0]

             We apply the sub-processor on the resulting sub-problem:

             'matrix-interpretation of dimension 2'
             --------------------------------------
             Answer:           YES(?,O(1))
             Input Problem:    innermost DP runtime-complexity with respect to
               Strict Rules: {g^#(x, y) -> c_3()}
               Weak Rules: {}

             Proof Output:
               The following argument positions are usable:
                 Uargs(g^#) = {}
               We have the following constructor-restricted matrix interpretation:
               Interpretation Functions:
                g^#(x1, x2) = [0 0] x1 + [0 0] x2 + [7]
                              [0 0]      [0 0]      [7]
                c_3() = [0]
                        [1]

    3) 'wdg' failed due to the following reason:
         Transformation Details:
         -----------------------
           We have computed the following set of weak (innermost) dependency pairs:

             {  1: h^#(x, y) -> c_0(f^#(x, y, x))
              , 2: f^#(0(), 1(), x) -> c_1(h^#(x, x))
              , 3: g^#(x, y) -> c_2()
              , 4: g^#(x, y) -> c_3()}

           Following Dependency Graph (modulo SCCs) was computed. (Answers to
           subproofs are indicated to the right.)

             ->{4}                                                       [    YES(?,O(1))     ]

             ->{3}                                                       [    YES(?,O(1))     ]

             ->{1,2}                                                     [       MAYBE        ]



         Sub-problems:
         -------------
           * Path {1,2}: MAYBE
             -----------------

             The usable rules of this path are empty.

             The weightgap principle applies, using the following adequate RMI:
               The following argument positions are usable:
                 Uargs(h) = {}, Uargs(f) = {}, Uargs(g) = {}, Uargs(h^#) = {},
                 Uargs(c_0) = {1}, Uargs(f^#) = {}, Uargs(c_1) = {1},
                 Uargs(g^#) = {}
               We have the following constructor-restricted matrix interpretation:
               Interpretation Functions:
                h(x1, x2) = [0] x1 + [0] x2 + [0]
                f(x1, x2, x3) = [0] x1 + [0] x2 + [0] x3 + [0]
                0() = [0]
                1() = [0]
                g(x1, x2) = [0] x1 + [0] x2 + [0]
                h^#(x1, x2) = [3] x1 + [0] x2 + [0]
                c_0(x1) = [1] x1 + [0]
                f^#(x1, x2, x3) = [0] x1 + [0] x2 + [3] x3 + [0]
                c_1(x1) = [1] x1 + [0]
                g^#(x1, x2) = [0] x1 + [0] x2 + [0]
                c_2() = [0]
                c_3() = [0]

             We apply the sub-processor on the resulting sub-problem:

             'matrix-interpretation of dimension 1'
             --------------------------------------
             Answer:           MAYBE
             Input Problem:    innermost DP runtime-complexity with respect to
               Strict Rules:
                 {  h^#(x, y) -> c_0(f^#(x, y, x))
                  , f^#(0(), 1(), x) -> c_1(h^#(x, x))}
               Weak Rules: {}

             Proof Output:
               The input cannot be shown compatible

           * Path {3}: YES(?,O(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(h) = {}, Uargs(f) = {}, Uargs(g) = {}, Uargs(h^#) = {},
                 Uargs(c_0) = {}, Uargs(f^#) = {}, Uargs(c_1) = {}, Uargs(g^#) = {}
               We have the following constructor-restricted matrix interpretation:
               Interpretation Functions:
                h(x1, x2) = [0] x1 + [0] x2 + [0]
                f(x1, x2, x3) = [0] x1 + [0] x2 + [0] x3 + [0]
                0() = [0]
                1() = [0]
                g(x1, x2) = [0] x1 + [0] x2 + [0]
                h^#(x1, x2) = [0] x1 + [0] x2 + [0]
                c_0(x1) = [0] x1 + [0]
                f^#(x1, x2, x3) = [0] x1 + [0] x2 + [0] x3 + [0]
                c_1(x1) = [0] x1 + [0]
                g^#(x1, x2) = [0] x1 + [0] x2 + [0]
                c_2() = [0]
                c_3() = [0]

             We apply the sub-processor on the resulting sub-problem:

             'matrix-interpretation of dimension 1'
             --------------------------------------
             Answer:           YES(?,O(1))
             Input Problem:    innermost DP runtime-complexity with respect to
               Strict Rules: {g^#(x, y) -> c_2()}
               Weak Rules: {}

             Proof Output:
               The following argument positions are usable:
                 Uargs(g^#) = {}
               We have the following constructor-restricted matrix interpretation:
               Interpretation Functions:
                g^#(x1, x2) = [0] x1 + [0] x2 + [7]
                c_2() = [0]

           * Path {4}: YES(?,O(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(h) = {}, Uargs(f) = {}, Uargs(g) = {}, Uargs(h^#) = {},
                 Uargs(c_0) = {}, Uargs(f^#) = {}, Uargs(c_1) = {}, Uargs(g^#) = {}
               We have the following constructor-restricted matrix interpretation:
               Interpretation Functions:
                h(x1, x2) = [0] x1 + [0] x2 + [0]
                f(x1, x2, x3) = [0] x1 + [0] x2 + [0] x3 + [0]
                0() = [0]
                1() = [0]
                g(x1, x2) = [0] x1 + [0] x2 + [0]
                h^#(x1, x2) = [0] x1 + [0] x2 + [0]
                c_0(x1) = [0] x1 + [0]
                f^#(x1, x2, x3) = [0] x1 + [0] x2 + [0] x3 + [0]
                c_1(x1) = [0] x1 + [0]
                g^#(x1, x2) = [0] x1 + [0] x2 + [0]
                c_2() = [0]
                c_3() = [0]

             We apply the sub-processor on the resulting sub-problem:

             'matrix-interpretation of dimension 1'
             --------------------------------------
             Answer:           YES(?,O(1))
             Input Problem:    innermost DP runtime-complexity with respect to
               Strict Rules: {g^#(x, y) -> c_3()}
               Weak Rules: {}

             Proof Output:
               The following argument positions are usable:
                 Uargs(g^#) = {}
               We have the following constructor-restricted matrix interpretation:
               Interpretation Functions:
                g^#(x1, x2) = [0] x1 + [0] x2 + [7]
                c_3() = [0]

    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	Strategy outermost added 08 4.12a

stdout:

MAYBE
Warning when parsing problem:

Unsupported strategy 'OUTERMOST'

Tool RC2

Execution Time	Unknown
Answer	MAYBE
Input	Strategy outermost added 08 4.12a

stdout:

MAYBE

'Fastest (timeout of 60.0 seconds)'
-----------------------------------
Answer:           MAYBE
Input Problem:    runtime-complexity with respect to
  Rules:
    {  h(x, y) -> f(x, y, x)
     , f(0(), 1(), x) -> h(x, x)
     , g(x, y) -> x
     , g(x, y) -> y}

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: h^#(x, y) -> c_0(f^#(x, y, x))
              , 2: f^#(0(), 1(), x) -> c_1(h^#(x, x))
              , 3: g^#(x, y) -> c_2(x)
              , 4: g^#(x, y) -> c_3(y)}

           Following Dependency Graph (modulo SCCs) was computed. (Answers to
           subproofs are indicated to the right.)

             ->{4}                                                       [    YES(?,O(1))     ]

             ->{3}                                                       [    YES(?,O(1))     ]

             ->{1,2}                                                     [       MAYBE        ]



         Sub-problems:
         -------------
           * Path {1,2}: MAYBE
             -----------------

             The usable rules of this path are empty.

             The weightgap principle applies, using the following adequate RMI:
               The following argument positions are usable:
                 Uargs(h) = {}, Uargs(f) = {}, Uargs(g) = {}, Uargs(h^#) = {},
                 Uargs(c_0) = {1}, Uargs(f^#) = {}, Uargs(c_1) = {1},
                 Uargs(g^#) = {}, Uargs(c_2) = {}, Uargs(c_3) = {}
               We have the following constructor-restricted matrix interpretation:
               Interpretation Functions:
                h(x1, x2) = [0 0 0] x1 + [0 0 0] x2 + [0]
                            [0 0 0]      [0 0 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]
                0() = [0]
                      [0]
                      [0]
                1() = [0]
                      [0]
                      [0]
                g(x1, x2) = [0 0 0] x1 + [0 0 0] x2 + [0]
                            [0 0 0]      [0 0 0]      [0]
                            [0 0 0]      [0 0 0]      [0]
                h^#(x1, x2) = [2 3 3] x1 + [0 0 0] x2 + [0]
                              [3 3 3]      [3 3 3]      [0]
                              [3 3 3]      [3 3 3]      [0]
                c_0(x1) = [1 0 0] x1 + [0]
                          [0 1 0]      [0]
                          [0 0 1]      [0]
                f^#(x1, x2, x3) = [0 0 0] x1 + [0 0 0] x2 + [2 3 3] x3 + [0]
                                  [3 3 3]      [3 3 3]      [3 3 3]      [0]
                                  [3 3 3]      [3 3 3]      [3 3 3]      [0]
                c_1(x1) = [1 0 0] x1 + [0]
                          [0 1 0]      [0]
                          [0 0 1]      [0]
                g^#(x1, x2) = [0 0 0] x1 + [0 0 0] x2 + [0]
                              [0 0 0]      [0 0 0]      [0]
                              [0 0 0]      [0 0 0]      [0]
                c_2(x1) = [0 0 0] x1 + [0]
                          [0 0 0]      [0]
                          [0 0 0]      [0]
                c_3(x1) = [0 0 0] x1 + [0]
                          [0 0 0]      [0]
                          [0 0 0]      [0]

             We apply the sub-processor on the resulting sub-problem:

             'matrix-interpretation of dimension 3'
             --------------------------------------
             Answer:           MAYBE
             Input Problem:    DP runtime-complexity with respect to
               Strict Rules:
                 {  h^#(x, y) -> c_0(f^#(x, y, x))
                  , f^#(0(), 1(), x) -> c_1(h^#(x, x))}
               Weak Rules: {}

             Proof Output:
               The input cannot be shown compatible

           * Path {3}: YES(?,O(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(h) = {}, Uargs(f) = {}, Uargs(g) = {}, Uargs(h^#) = {},
                 Uargs(c_0) = {}, Uargs(f^#) = {}, Uargs(c_1) = {}, Uargs(g^#) = {},
                 Uargs(c_2) = {}, Uargs(c_3) = {}
               We have the following constructor-restricted matrix interpretation:
               Interpretation Functions:
                h(x1, x2) = [0 0 0] x1 + [0 0 0] x2 + [0]
                            [0 0 0]      [0 0 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]
                0() = [0]
                      [0]
                      [0]
                1() = [0]
                      [0]
                      [0]
                g(x1, x2) = [0 0 0] x1 + [0 0 0] x2 + [0]
                            [0 0 0]      [0 0 0]      [0]
                            [0 0 0]      [0 0 0]      [0]
                h^#(x1, x2) = [0 0 0] x1 + [0 0 0] x2 + [0]
                              [0 0 0]      [0 0 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]
                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]
                c_1(x1) = [0 0 0] x1 + [0]
                          [0 0 0]      [0]
                          [0 0 0]      [0]
                g^#(x1, x2) = [3 3 3] x1 + [0 0 0] x2 + [0]
                              [0 0 0]      [0 0 0]      [0]
                              [0 0 0]      [0 0 0]      [0]
                c_2(x1) = [1 1 1] x1 + [0]
                          [0 0 0]      [0]
                          [0 0 0]      [0]
                c_3(x1) = [0 0 0] x1 + [0]
                          [0 0 0]      [0]
                          [0 0 0]      [0]

             We apply the sub-processor on the resulting sub-problem:

             'matrix-interpretation of dimension 3'
             --------------------------------------
             Answer:           YES(?,O(1))
             Input Problem:    DP runtime-complexity with respect to
               Strict Rules: {g^#(x, y) -> c_2(x)}
               Weak Rules: {}

             Proof Output:
               The following argument positions are usable:
                 Uargs(g^#) = {}, Uargs(c_2) = {}
               We have the following constructor-restricted matrix interpretation:
               Interpretation Functions:
                g^#(x1, x2) = [7 7 7] x1 + [0 0 0] x2 + [7]
                              [7 7 7]      [0 0 0]      [7]
                              [7 7 7]      [0 0 0]      [7]
                c_2(x1) = [3 3 3] x1 + [0]
                          [3 1 3]      [1]
                          [1 1 1]      [1]

           * Path {4}: YES(?,O(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(h) = {}, Uargs(f) = {}, Uargs(g) = {}, Uargs(h^#) = {},
                 Uargs(c_0) = {}, Uargs(f^#) = {}, Uargs(c_1) = {}, Uargs(g^#) = {},
                 Uargs(c_2) = {}, Uargs(c_3) = {}
               We have the following constructor-restricted matrix interpretation:
               Interpretation Functions:
                h(x1, x2) = [0 0 0] x1 + [0 0 0] x2 + [0]
                            [0 0 0]      [0 0 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]
                0() = [0]
                      [0]
                      [0]
                1() = [0]
                      [0]
                      [0]
                g(x1, x2) = [0 0 0] x1 + [0 0 0] x2 + [0]
                            [0 0 0]      [0 0 0]      [0]
                            [0 0 0]      [0 0 0]      [0]
                h^#(x1, x2) = [0 0 0] x1 + [0 0 0] x2 + [0]
                              [0 0 0]      [0 0 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]
                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]
                c_1(x1) = [0 0 0] x1 + [0]
                          [0 0 0]      [0]
                          [0 0 0]      [0]
                g^#(x1, x2) = [3 3 3] x1 + [0 0 0] x2 + [0]
                              [0 0 0]      [0 0 0]      [0]
                              [0 0 0]      [0 0 0]      [0]
                c_2(x1) = [0 0 0] x1 + [0]
                          [0 0 0]      [0]
                          [0 0 0]      [0]
                c_3(x1) = [1 1 1] x1 + [0]
                          [0 0 0]      [0]
                          [0 0 0]      [0]

             We apply the sub-processor on the resulting sub-problem:

             'matrix-interpretation of dimension 3'
             --------------------------------------
             Answer:           YES(?,O(1))
             Input Problem:    DP runtime-complexity with respect to
               Strict Rules: {g^#(x, y) -> c_3(y)}
               Weak Rules: {}

             Proof Output:
               The following argument positions are usable:
                 Uargs(g^#) = {}, Uargs(c_3) = {}
               We have the following constructor-restricted matrix interpretation:
               Interpretation Functions:
                g^#(x1, x2) = [0 0 0] x1 + [7 7 7] x2 + [7]
                              [0 0 0]      [7 7 7]      [7]
                              [0 0 0]      [7 7 7]      [7]
                c_3(x1) = [3 3 3] x1 + [0]
                          [3 1 3]      [1]
                          [1 1 1]      [1]

    2) 'wdg' failed due to the following reason:
         Transformation Details:
         -----------------------
           We have computed the following set of weak (innermost) dependency pairs:

             {  1: h^#(x, y) -> c_0(f^#(x, y, x))
              , 2: f^#(0(), 1(), x) -> c_1(h^#(x, x))
              , 3: g^#(x, y) -> c_2(x)
              , 4: g^#(x, y) -> c_3(y)}

           Following Dependency Graph (modulo SCCs) was computed. (Answers to
           subproofs are indicated to the right.)

             ->{4}                                                       [    YES(?,O(1))     ]

             ->{3}                                                       [    YES(?,O(1))     ]

             ->{1,2}                                                     [       MAYBE        ]



         Sub-problems:
         -------------
           * Path {1,2}: MAYBE
             -----------------

             The usable rules of this path are empty.

             The weightgap principle applies, using the following adequate RMI:
               The following argument positions are usable:
                 Uargs(h) = {}, Uargs(f) = {}, Uargs(g) = {}, Uargs(h^#) = {},
                 Uargs(c_0) = {1}, Uargs(f^#) = {}, Uargs(c_1) = {1},
                 Uargs(g^#) = {}, Uargs(c_2) = {}, Uargs(c_3) = {}
               We have the following constructor-restricted matrix interpretation:
               Interpretation Functions:
                h(x1, x2) = [0 0] x1 + [0 0] x2 + [0]
                            [0 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]
                0() = [0]
                      [0]
                1() = [0]
                      [0]
                g(x1, x2) = [0 0] x1 + [0 0] x2 + [0]
                            [0 0]      [0 0]      [0]
                h^#(x1, x2) = [3 3] x1 + [0 0] x2 + [0]
                              [3 3]      [3 3]      [0]
                c_0(x1) = [1 0] x1 + [0]
                          [0 1]      [0]
                f^#(x1, x2, x3) = [0 0] x1 + [0 0] x2 + [3 3] x3 + [0]
                                  [3 3]      [3 3]      [3 3]      [0]
                c_1(x1) = [1 0] x1 + [0]
                          [0 1]      [0]
                g^#(x1, x2) = [0 0] x1 + [0 0] x2 + [0]
                              [0 0]      [0 0]      [0]
                c_2(x1) = [0 0] x1 + [0]
                          [0 0]      [0]
                c_3(x1) = [0 0] x1 + [0]
                          [0 0]      [0]

             We apply the sub-processor on the resulting sub-problem:

             'matrix-interpretation of dimension 2'
             --------------------------------------
             Answer:           MAYBE
             Input Problem:    DP runtime-complexity with respect to
               Strict Rules:
                 {  h^#(x, y) -> c_0(f^#(x, y, x))
                  , f^#(0(), 1(), x) -> c_1(h^#(x, x))}
               Weak Rules: {}

             Proof Output:
               The input cannot be shown compatible

           * Path {3}: YES(?,O(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(h) = {}, Uargs(f) = {}, Uargs(g) = {}, Uargs(h^#) = {},
                 Uargs(c_0) = {}, Uargs(f^#) = {}, Uargs(c_1) = {}, Uargs(g^#) = {},
                 Uargs(c_2) = {}, Uargs(c_3) = {}
               We have the following constructor-restricted matrix interpretation:
               Interpretation Functions:
                h(x1, x2) = [0 0] x1 + [0 0] x2 + [0]
                            [0 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]
                0() = [0]
                      [0]
                1() = [0]
                      [0]
                g(x1, x2) = [0 0] x1 + [0 0] x2 + [0]
                            [0 0]      [0 0]      [0]
                h^#(x1, x2) = [0 0] x1 + [0 0] x2 + [0]
                              [0 0]      [0 0]      [0]
                c_0(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]
                c_1(x1) = [0 0] x1 + [0]
                          [0 0]      [0]
                g^#(x1, x2) = [3 3] x1 + [0 0] x2 + [0]
                              [0 0]      [0 0]      [0]
                c_2(x1) = [1 1] x1 + [0]
                          [0 0]      [0]
                c_3(x1) = [0 0] x1 + [0]
                          [0 0]      [0]

             We apply the sub-processor on the resulting sub-problem:

             'matrix-interpretation of dimension 2'
             --------------------------------------
             Answer:           YES(?,O(1))
             Input Problem:    DP runtime-complexity with respect to
               Strict Rules: {g^#(x, y) -> c_2(x)}
               Weak Rules: {}

             Proof Output:
               The following argument positions are usable:
                 Uargs(g^#) = {}, Uargs(c_2) = {}
               We have the following constructor-restricted matrix interpretation:
               Interpretation Functions:
                g^#(x1, x2) = [7 7] x1 + [0 0] x2 + [7]
                              [7 7]      [0 0]      [7]
                c_2(x1) = [1 3] x1 + [0]
                          [3 1]      [3]

           * Path {4}: YES(?,O(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(h) = {}, Uargs(f) = {}, Uargs(g) = {}, Uargs(h^#) = {},
                 Uargs(c_0) = {}, Uargs(f^#) = {}, Uargs(c_1) = {}, Uargs(g^#) = {},
                 Uargs(c_2) = {}, Uargs(c_3) = {}
               We have the following constructor-restricted matrix interpretation:
               Interpretation Functions:
                h(x1, x2) = [0 0] x1 + [0 0] x2 + [0]
                            [0 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]
                0() = [0]
                      [0]
                1() = [0]
                      [0]
                g(x1, x2) = [0 0] x1 + [0 0] x2 + [0]
                            [0 0]      [0 0]      [0]
                h^#(x1, x2) = [0 0] x1 + [0 0] x2 + [0]
                              [0 0]      [0 0]      [0]
                c_0(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]
                c_1(x1) = [0 0] x1 + [0]
                          [0 0]      [0]
                g^#(x1, x2) = [3 3] x1 + [0 0] x2 + [0]
                              [0 0]      [0 0]      [0]
                c_2(x1) = [0 0] x1 + [0]
                          [0 0]      [0]
                c_3(x1) = [1 1] x1 + [0]
                          [0 0]      [0]

             We apply the sub-processor on the resulting sub-problem:

             'matrix-interpretation of dimension 2'
             --------------------------------------
             Answer:           YES(?,O(1))
             Input Problem:    DP runtime-complexity with respect to
               Strict Rules: {g^#(x, y) -> c_3(y)}
               Weak Rules: {}

             Proof Output:
               The following argument positions are usable:
                 Uargs(g^#) = {}, Uargs(c_3) = {}
               We have the following constructor-restricted matrix interpretation:
               Interpretation Functions:
                g^#(x1, x2) = [0 0] x1 + [7 7] x2 + [7]
                              [0 0]      [7 7]      [7]
                c_3(x1) = [1 3] x1 + [0]
                          [3 1]      [3]

    3) 'wdg' failed due to the following reason:
         Transformation Details:
         -----------------------
           We have computed the following set of weak (innermost) dependency pairs:

             {  1: h^#(x, y) -> c_0(f^#(x, y, x))
              , 2: f^#(0(), 1(), x) -> c_1(h^#(x, x))
              , 3: g^#(x, y) -> c_2(x)
              , 4: g^#(x, y) -> c_3(y)}

           Following Dependency Graph (modulo SCCs) was computed. (Answers to
           subproofs are indicated to the right.)

             ->{4}                                                       [    YES(?,O(1))     ]

             ->{3}                                                       [    YES(?,O(1))     ]

             ->{1,2}                                                     [       MAYBE        ]



         Sub-problems:
         -------------
           * Path {1,2}: MAYBE
             -----------------

             The usable rules of this path are empty.

             The weightgap principle applies, using the following adequate RMI:
               The following argument positions are usable:
                 Uargs(h) = {}, Uargs(f) = {}, Uargs(g) = {}, Uargs(h^#) = {},
                 Uargs(c_0) = {1}, Uargs(f^#) = {}, Uargs(c_1) = {1},
                 Uargs(g^#) = {}, Uargs(c_2) = {}, Uargs(c_3) = {}
               We have the following constructor-restricted matrix interpretation:
               Interpretation Functions:
                h(x1, x2) = [0] x1 + [0] x2 + [0]
                f(x1, x2, x3) = [0] x1 + [0] x2 + [0] x3 + [0]
                0() = [0]
                1() = [0]
                g(x1, x2) = [0] x1 + [0] x2 + [0]
                h^#(x1, x2) = [3] x1 + [0] x2 + [0]
                c_0(x1) = [1] x1 + [0]
                f^#(x1, x2, x3) = [0] x1 + [0] x2 + [3] x3 + [0]
                c_1(x1) = [1] x1 + [0]
                g^#(x1, x2) = [0] x1 + [0] x2 + [0]
                c_2(x1) = [0] x1 + [0]
                c_3(x1) = [0] x1 + [0]

             We apply the sub-processor on the resulting sub-problem:

             'matrix-interpretation of dimension 1'
             --------------------------------------
             Answer:           MAYBE
             Input Problem:    DP runtime-complexity with respect to
               Strict Rules:
                 {  h^#(x, y) -> c_0(f^#(x, y, x))
                  , f^#(0(), 1(), x) -> c_1(h^#(x, x))}
               Weak Rules: {}

             Proof Output:
               The input cannot be shown compatible

           * Path {3}: YES(?,O(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(h) = {}, Uargs(f) = {}, Uargs(g) = {}, Uargs(h^#) = {},
                 Uargs(c_0) = {}, Uargs(f^#) = {}, Uargs(c_1) = {}, Uargs(g^#) = {},
                 Uargs(c_2) = {}, Uargs(c_3) = {}
               We have the following constructor-restricted matrix interpretation:
               Interpretation Functions:
                h(x1, x2) = [0] x1 + [0] x2 + [0]
                f(x1, x2, x3) = [0] x1 + [0] x2 + [0] x3 + [0]
                0() = [0]
                1() = [0]
                g(x1, x2) = [0] x1 + [0] x2 + [0]
                h^#(x1, x2) = [0] x1 + [0] x2 + [0]
                c_0(x1) = [0] x1 + [0]
                f^#(x1, x2, x3) = [0] x1 + [0] x2 + [0] x3 + [0]
                c_1(x1) = [0] x1 + [0]
                g^#(x1, x2) = [3] x1 + [0] x2 + [0]
                c_2(x1) = [1] x1 + [0]
                c_3(x1) = [0] x1 + [0]

             We apply the sub-processor on the resulting sub-problem:

             'matrix-interpretation of dimension 1'
             --------------------------------------
             Answer:           YES(?,O(1))
             Input Problem:    DP runtime-complexity with respect to
               Strict Rules: {g^#(x, y) -> c_2(x)}
               Weak Rules: {}

             Proof Output:
               The following argument positions are usable:
                 Uargs(g^#) = {}, Uargs(c_2) = {}
               We have the following constructor-restricted matrix interpretation:
               Interpretation Functions:
                g^#(x1, x2) = [7] x1 + [0] x2 + [7]
                c_2(x1) = [1] x1 + [0]

           * Path {4}: YES(?,O(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(h) = {}, Uargs(f) = {}, Uargs(g) = {}, Uargs(h^#) = {},
                 Uargs(c_0) = {}, Uargs(f^#) = {}, Uargs(c_1) = {}, Uargs(g^#) = {},
                 Uargs(c_2) = {}, Uargs(c_3) = {}
               We have the following constructor-restricted matrix interpretation:
               Interpretation Functions:
                h(x1, x2) = [0] x1 + [0] x2 + [0]
                f(x1, x2, x3) = [0] x1 + [0] x2 + [0] x3 + [0]
                0() = [0]
                1() = [0]
                g(x1, x2) = [0] x1 + [0] x2 + [0]
                h^#(x1, x2) = [0] x1 + [0] x2 + [0]
                c_0(x1) = [0] x1 + [0]
                f^#(x1, x2, x3) = [0] x1 + [0] x2 + [0] x3 + [0]
                c_1(x1) = [0] x1 + [0]
                g^#(x1, x2) = [3] x1 + [0] x2 + [0]
                c_2(x1) = [0] x1 + [0]
                c_3(x1) = [1] x1 + [0]

             We apply the sub-processor on the resulting sub-problem:

             'matrix-interpretation of dimension 1'
             --------------------------------------
             Answer:           YES(?,O(1))
             Input Problem:    DP runtime-complexity with respect to
               Strict Rules: {g^#(x, y) -> c_3(y)}
               Weak Rules: {}

             Proof Output:
               The following argument positions are usable:
                 Uargs(g^#) = {}, Uargs(c_3) = {}
               We have the following constructor-restricted matrix interpretation:
               Interpretation Functions:
                g^#(x1, x2) = [0] x1 + [7] x2 + [7]
                c_3(x1) = [1] x1 + [0]

    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.