Problem Strategy outermost added 08 Ex1 2 Luc02c

Tool CaT

Execution Time	Unknown
Answer	MAYBE
Input	Strategy outermost added 08 Ex1 2 Luc02c

stdout:

MAYBE

Problem:
2nd(cons(X,cons(Y,Z))) -> Y
from(X) -> cons(X,from(s(X)))

Proof:
Open

Tool IRC1

Execution Time	Unknown
Answer	MAYBE
Input	Strategy outermost added 08 Ex1 2 Luc02c

stdout:

MAYBE
Warning when parsing problem:

Unsupported strategy 'OUTERMOST'

Tool IRC2

Execution Time	Unknown
Answer	MAYBE
Input	Strategy outermost added 08 Ex1 2 Luc02c

stdout:

MAYBE

'Fastest (timeout of 60.0 seconds)'
-----------------------------------
Answer:           MAYBE
Input Problem:    innermost runtime-complexity with respect to
  Rules:
    {  2nd(cons(X, cons(Y, Z))) -> Y
     , from(X) -> cons(X, from(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: 2nd^#(cons(X, cons(Y, Z))) -> c_0()
              , 2: from^#(X) -> c_1(from^#(s(X)))}

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

             ->{2}                                                       [       MAYBE        ]

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



         Sub-problems:
         -------------
           * Path {1}: 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(2nd) = {}, Uargs(cons) = {}, Uargs(from) = {}, Uargs(s) = {},
                 Uargs(2nd^#) = {}, Uargs(from^#) = {}, Uargs(c_1) = {}
               We have the following constructor-restricted matrix interpretation:
               Interpretation Functions:
                2nd(x1) = [0 0 0] x1 + [0]
                          [0 0 0]      [0]
                          [0 0 0]      [0]
                cons(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]
                from(x1) = [0 0 0] x1 + [0]
                           [0 0 0]      [0]
                           [0 0 0]      [0]
                s(x1) = [0 0 0] x1 + [0]
                        [0 0 0]      [0]
                        [0 0 0]      [0]
                2nd^#(x1) = [0 0 0] x1 + [0]
                            [0 0 0]      [0]
                            [0 0 0]      [0]
                c_0() = [0]
                        [0]
                        [0]
                from^#(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]

             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: {2nd^#(cons(X, cons(Y, Z))) -> c_0()}
               Weak Rules: {}

             Proof Output:
               The following argument positions are usable:
                 Uargs(cons) = {}, Uargs(2nd^#) = {}
               We have the following constructor-restricted matrix interpretation:
               Interpretation Functions:
                cons(x1, x2) = [0 0 0] x1 + [0 0 2] x2 + [2]
                               [0 0 0]      [0 0 2]      [0]
                               [0 0 0]      [0 0 0]      [0]
                2nd^#(x1) = [2 0 0] x1 + [7]
                            [0 2 0]      [7]
                            [0 0 0]      [7]
                c_0() = [0]
                        [1]
                        [1]

           * Path {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(2nd) = {}, Uargs(cons) = {}, Uargs(from) = {}, Uargs(s) = {},
                 Uargs(2nd^#) = {}, Uargs(from^#) = {}, Uargs(c_1) = {1}
               We have the following constructor-restricted matrix interpretation:
               Interpretation Functions:
                2nd(x1) = [0 0 0] x1 + [0]
                          [0 0 0]      [0]
                          [0 0 0]      [0]
                cons(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]
                from(x1) = [0 0 0] x1 + [0]
                           [0 0 0]      [0]
                           [0 0 0]      [0]
                s(x1) = [1 1 0] x1 + [0]
                        [0 0 1]      [0]
                        [0 0 0]      [0]
                2nd^#(x1) = [0 0 0] x1 + [0]
                            [0 0 0]      [0]
                            [0 0 0]      [0]
                c_0() = [0]
                        [0]
                        [0]
                from^#(x1) = [3 3 3] x1 + [0]
                             [3 3 3]      [0]
                             [3 3 3]      [0]
                c_1(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:           MAYBE
             Input Problem:    innermost DP runtime-complexity with respect to
               Strict Rules: {from^#(X) -> c_1(from^#(s(X)))}
               Weak Rules: {}

             Proof Output:
               The input cannot be shown compatible

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

             {  1: 2nd^#(cons(X, cons(Y, Z))) -> c_0()
              , 2: from^#(X) -> c_1(from^#(s(X)))}

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

             ->{2}                                                       [       MAYBE        ]

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



         Sub-problems:
         -------------
           * Path {1}: 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(2nd) = {}, Uargs(cons) = {}, Uargs(from) = {}, Uargs(s) = {},
                 Uargs(2nd^#) = {}, Uargs(from^#) = {}, Uargs(c_1) = {}
               We have the following constructor-restricted matrix interpretation:
               Interpretation Functions:
                2nd(x1) = [0 0] x1 + [0]
                          [0 0]      [0]
                cons(x1, x2) = [0 0] x1 + [0 0] x2 + [0]
                               [0 0]      [0 0]      [0]
                from(x1) = [0 0] x1 + [0]
                           [0 0]      [0]
                s(x1) = [0 0] x1 + [0]
                        [0 0]      [0]
                2nd^#(x1) = [0 0] x1 + [0]
                            [0 0]      [0]
                c_0() = [0]
                        [0]
                from^#(x1) = [0 0] x1 + [0]
                             [0 0]      [0]
                c_1(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:    innermost DP runtime-complexity with respect to
               Strict Rules: {2nd^#(cons(X, cons(Y, Z))) -> c_0()}
               Weak Rules: {}

             Proof Output:
               The following argument positions are usable:
                 Uargs(cons) = {}, Uargs(2nd^#) = {}
               We have the following constructor-restricted matrix interpretation:
               Interpretation Functions:
                cons(x1, x2) = [0 0] x1 + [0 2] x2 + [2]
                               [0 0]      [0 0]      [0]
                2nd^#(x1) = [2 0] x1 + [7]
                            [0 0]      [3]
                c_0() = [0]
                        [1]

           * Path {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(2nd) = {}, Uargs(cons) = {}, Uargs(from) = {}, Uargs(s) = {},
                 Uargs(2nd^#) = {}, Uargs(from^#) = {}, Uargs(c_1) = {1}
               We have the following constructor-restricted matrix interpretation:
               Interpretation Functions:
                2nd(x1) = [0 0] x1 + [0]
                          [0 0]      [0]
                cons(x1, x2) = [0 0] x1 + [0 0] x2 + [0]
                               [0 0]      [0 0]      [0]
                from(x1) = [0 0] x1 + [0]
                           [0 0]      [0]
                s(x1) = [1 0] x1 + [0]
                        [0 1]      [0]
                2nd^#(x1) = [0 0] x1 + [0]
                            [0 0]      [0]
                c_0() = [0]
                        [0]
                from^#(x1) = [3 3] x1 + [0]
                             [3 3]      [0]
                c_1(x1) = [1 0] x1 + [0]
                          [0 1]      [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: {from^#(X) -> c_1(from^#(s(X)))}
               Weak Rules: {}

             Proof Output:
               The input cannot be shown compatible

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

             {  1: 2nd^#(cons(X, cons(Y, Z))) -> c_0()
              , 2: from^#(X) -> c_1(from^#(s(X)))}

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

             ->{2}                                                       [       MAYBE        ]

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



         Sub-problems:
         -------------
           * Path {1}: 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(2nd) = {}, Uargs(cons) = {}, Uargs(from) = {}, Uargs(s) = {},
                 Uargs(2nd^#) = {}, Uargs(from^#) = {}, Uargs(c_1) = {}
               We have the following constructor-restricted matrix interpretation:
               Interpretation Functions:
                2nd(x1) = [0] x1 + [0]
                cons(x1, x2) = [0] x1 + [0] x2 + [0]
                from(x1) = [0] x1 + [0]
                s(x1) = [0] x1 + [0]
                2nd^#(x1) = [0] x1 + [0]
                c_0() = [0]
                from^#(x1) = [0] x1 + [0]
                c_1(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:    innermost DP runtime-complexity with respect to
               Strict Rules: {2nd^#(cons(X, cons(Y, Z))) -> c_0()}
               Weak Rules: {}

             Proof Output:
               The following argument positions are usable:
                 Uargs(cons) = {}, Uargs(2nd^#) = {}
               We have the following constructor-restricted matrix interpretation:
               Interpretation Functions:
                cons(x1, x2) = [0] x1 + [0] x2 + [2]
                2nd^#(x1) = [2] x1 + [7]
                c_0() = [0]

           * Path {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(2nd) = {}, Uargs(cons) = {}, Uargs(from) = {}, Uargs(s) = {},
                 Uargs(2nd^#) = {}, Uargs(from^#) = {}, Uargs(c_1) = {1}
               We have the following constructor-restricted matrix interpretation:
               Interpretation Functions:
                2nd(x1) = [0] x1 + [0]
                cons(x1, x2) = [0] x1 + [0] x2 + [0]
                from(x1) = [0] x1 + [0]
                s(x1) = [0] x1 + [0]
                2nd^#(x1) = [0] x1 + [0]
                c_0() = [0]
                from^#(x1) = [3] x1 + [0]
                c_1(x1) = [1] x1 + [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: {from^#(X) -> c_1(from^#(s(X)))}
               Weak Rules: {}

             Proof Output:
               The input cannot be shown compatible

    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 Ex1 2 Luc02c

stdout:

MAYBE
Warning when parsing problem:

Unsupported strategy 'OUTERMOST'

Tool RC2

Execution Time	Unknown
Answer	MAYBE
Input	Strategy outermost added 08 Ex1 2 Luc02c

stdout:

MAYBE

'Fastest (timeout of 60.0 seconds)'
-----------------------------------
Answer:           MAYBE
Input Problem:    runtime-complexity with respect to
  Rules:
    {  2nd(cons(X, cons(Y, Z))) -> Y
     , from(X) -> cons(X, from(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: 2nd^#(cons(X, cons(Y, Z))) -> c_0(Y)
              , 2: from^#(X) -> c_1(X, from^#(s(X)))}

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

             ->{2}                                                       [       MAYBE        ]

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



         Sub-problems:
         -------------
           * Path {1}: YES(?,O(n^3))
             -----------------------

             The usable rules of this path are empty.

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

             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: {2nd^#(cons(X, cons(Y, Z))) -> c_0(Y)}
               Weak Rules: {}

             Proof Output:
               The following argument positions are usable:
                 Uargs(cons) = {}, Uargs(2nd^#) = {}, Uargs(c_0) = {}
               We have the following constructor-restricted matrix interpretation:
               Interpretation Functions:
                cons(x1, x2) = [1 0 0] x1 + [0 2 0] x2 + [0]
                               [0 0 0]      [0 0 0]      [0]
                               [0 0 0]      [0 0 0]      [0]
                2nd^#(x1) = [2 0 0] x1 + [7]
                            [0 0 0]      [7]
                            [2 0 0]      [7]
                c_0(x1) = [0 0 0] x1 + [0]
                          [0 0 0]      [1]
                          [0 0 0]      [1]

           * Path {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(2nd) = {}, Uargs(cons) = {}, Uargs(from) = {}, Uargs(s) = {},
                 Uargs(2nd^#) = {}, Uargs(c_0) = {}, Uargs(from^#) = {},
                 Uargs(c_1) = {2}
               We have the following constructor-restricted matrix interpretation:
               Interpretation Functions:
                2nd(x1) = [0 0 0] x1 + [0]
                          [0 0 0]      [0]
                          [0 0 0]      [0]
                cons(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]
                from(x1) = [0 0 0] x1 + [0]
                           [0 0 0]      [0]
                           [0 0 0]      [0]
                s(x1) = [0 1 0] x1 + [0]
                        [0 0 0]      [0]
                        [0 0 1]      [0]
                2nd^#(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]
                from^#(x1) = [1 3 3] x1 + [0]
                             [3 3 3]      [0]
                             [3 3 3]      [0]
                c_1(x1, x2) = [0 1 0] x1 + [1 0 0] x2 + [0]
                              [0 0 0]      [0 1 0]      [0]
                              [0 0 0]      [0 0 1]      [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: {from^#(X) -> c_1(X, from^#(s(X)))}
               Weak Rules: {}

             Proof Output:
               The input cannot be shown compatible

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

             {  1: 2nd^#(cons(X, cons(Y, Z))) -> c_0(Y)
              , 2: from^#(X) -> c_1(X, from^#(s(X)))}

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

             ->{2}                                                       [       MAYBE        ]

             ->{1}                                                       [   YES(?,O(n^2))    ]



         Sub-problems:
         -------------
           * Path {1}: YES(?,O(n^2))
             -----------------------

             The usable rules of this path are empty.

             The weightgap principle applies, using the following adequate RMI:
               The following argument positions are usable:
                 Uargs(2nd) = {}, Uargs(cons) = {}, Uargs(from) = {}, Uargs(s) = {},
                 Uargs(2nd^#) = {}, Uargs(c_0) = {}, Uargs(from^#) = {},
                 Uargs(c_1) = {}
               We have the following constructor-restricted matrix interpretation:
               Interpretation Functions:
                2nd(x1) = [0 0] x1 + [0]
                          [0 0]      [0]
                cons(x1, x2) = [1 1] x1 + [0 0] x2 + [0]
                               [0 1]      [0 0]      [0]
                from(x1) = [0 0] x1 + [0]
                           [0 0]      [0]
                s(x1) = [0 0] x1 + [0]
                        [0 0]      [0]
                2nd^#(x1) = [3 3] x1 + [0]
                            [0 0]      [0]
                c_0(x1) = [1 0] x1 + [0]
                          [0 0]      [0]
                from^#(x1) = [0 0] x1 + [0]
                             [0 0]      [0]
                c_1(x1, x2) = [0 0] x1 + [0 0] x2 + [0]
                              [0 0]      [0 0]      [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: {2nd^#(cons(X, cons(Y, Z))) -> c_0(Y)}
               Weak Rules: {}

             Proof Output:
               The following argument positions are usable:
                 Uargs(cons) = {}, Uargs(2nd^#) = {}, Uargs(c_0) = {}
               We have the following constructor-restricted matrix interpretation:
               Interpretation Functions:
                cons(x1, x2) = [1 0] x1 + [0 2] x2 + [2]
                               [0 1]      [0 1]      [0]
                2nd^#(x1) = [3 0] x1 + [7]
                            [2 4]      [7]
                c_0(x1) = [0 0] x1 + [0]
                          [0 0]      [1]

           * Path {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(2nd) = {}, Uargs(cons) = {}, Uargs(from) = {}, Uargs(s) = {},
                 Uargs(2nd^#) = {}, Uargs(c_0) = {}, Uargs(from^#) = {},
                 Uargs(c_1) = {2}
               We have the following constructor-restricted matrix interpretation:
               Interpretation Functions:
                2nd(x1) = [0 0] x1 + [0]
                          [0 0]      [0]
                cons(x1, x2) = [0 0] x1 + [0 0] x2 + [0]
                               [0 0]      [0 0]      [0]
                from(x1) = [0 0] x1 + [0]
                           [0 0]      [0]
                s(x1) = [1 1] x1 + [0]
                        [0 0]      [0]
                2nd^#(x1) = [0 0] x1 + [0]
                            [0 0]      [0]
                c_0(x1) = [0 0] x1 + [0]
                          [0 0]      [0]
                from^#(x1) = [1 3] x1 + [0]
                             [3 3]      [0]
                c_1(x1, x2) = [0 1] x1 + [1 0] x2 + [0]
                              [0 0]      [0 1]      [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: {from^#(X) -> c_1(X, from^#(s(X)))}
               Weak Rules: {}

             Proof Output:
               The input cannot be shown compatible

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

             {  1: 2nd^#(cons(X, cons(Y, Z))) -> c_0(Y)
              , 2: from^#(X) -> c_1(X, from^#(s(X)))}

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

             ->{2}                                                       [       MAYBE        ]

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



         Sub-problems:
         -------------
           * Path {1}: 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(2nd) = {}, Uargs(cons) = {}, Uargs(from) = {}, Uargs(s) = {},
                 Uargs(2nd^#) = {}, Uargs(c_0) = {}, Uargs(from^#) = {},
                 Uargs(c_1) = {}
               We have the following constructor-restricted matrix interpretation:
               Interpretation Functions:
                2nd(x1) = [0] x1 + [0]
                cons(x1, x2) = [1] x1 + [0] x2 + [0]
                from(x1) = [0] x1 + [0]
                s(x1) = [0] x1 + [0]
                2nd^#(x1) = [3] x1 + [0]
                c_0(x1) = [1] x1 + [0]
                from^#(x1) = [0] x1 + [0]
                c_1(x1, x2) = [0] x1 + [0] x2 + [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: {2nd^#(cons(X, cons(Y, Z))) -> c_0(Y)}
               Weak Rules: {}

             Proof Output:
               The following argument positions are usable:
                 Uargs(cons) = {}, Uargs(2nd^#) = {}, Uargs(c_0) = {}
               We have the following constructor-restricted matrix interpretation:
               Interpretation Functions:
                cons(x1, x2) = [1] x1 + [0] x2 + [0]
                2nd^#(x1) = [0] x1 + [7]
                c_0(x1) = [0] x1 + [0]

           * Path {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(2nd) = {}, Uargs(cons) = {}, Uargs(from) = {}, Uargs(s) = {},
                 Uargs(2nd^#) = {}, Uargs(c_0) = {}, Uargs(from^#) = {},
                 Uargs(c_1) = {2}
               We have the following constructor-restricted matrix interpretation:
               Interpretation Functions:
                2nd(x1) = [0] x1 + [0]
                cons(x1, x2) = [0] x1 + [0] x2 + [0]
                from(x1) = [0] x1 + [0]
                s(x1) = [0] x1 + [0]
                2nd^#(x1) = [0] x1 + [0]
                c_0(x1) = [0] x1 + [0]
                from^#(x1) = [3] x1 + [0]
                c_1(x1, x2) = [2] x1 + [1] x2 + [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: {from^#(X) -> c_1(X, from^#(s(X)))}
               Weak Rules: {}

             Proof Output:
               The input cannot be shown compatible

    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.