Problem Waldmann 07 size12 size-12-alpha-3-num-98

Tool CaT

Execution Time	Unknown
Answer	YES(?,O(n^1))
Input	Waldmann 07 size12 size-12-alpha-3-num-98

stdout:

YES(?,O(n^1))

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

Proof:
Bounds Processor:
  bound: 2
  enrichment: match
  automaton:
   final states: {3,2}
   transitions:
    a1(7) -> 8*
    a1(4) -> 5*
    a1(6) -> 7*
    b1(5) -> 6*
    b2(15) -> 16*
    c2(14) -> 15*
    a0(1) -> 2*
    b0(1) -> 1*
    c0(1) -> 3*
    1 -> 4,2
    4 -> 5*
    6 -> 14,7
    7 -> 8*
    8 -> 15,3
    16 -> 8,3
  problem:

  Qed

Tool IRC1

Execution Time	Unknown
Answer	YES(?,O(n^1))
Input	Waldmann 07 size12 size-12-alpha-3-num-98

stdout:

YES(?,O(n^1))

Tool IRC2

Execution Time	Unknown
Answer	YES(?,O(n^1))
Input	Waldmann 07 size12 size-12-alpha-3-num-98

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(x1) -> x1
     , a(a(x1)) -> b(c(x1))
     , c(b(b(x1))) -> a(a(b(a(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(x1) -> x1
          , a(a(x1)) -> b(c(x1))
          , c(b(b(x1))) -> a(a(b(a(x1))))}

     Proof Output:
       The problem is match-bounded by 2.
       The enriched problem is compatible with the following automaton:
       {  a_0(2) -> 1
        , a_1(2) -> 5
        , a_1(3) -> 1
        , a_1(3) -> 6
        , a_1(4) -> 1
        , a_1(4) -> 3
        , a_1(4) -> 6
        , b_0(2) -> 1
        , b_0(2) -> 2
        , b_0(2) -> 5
        , b_1(5) -> 1
        , b_1(5) -> 3
        , b_1(5) -> 4
        , b_1(5) -> 6
        , b_2(6) -> 1
        , b_2(6) -> 6
        , c_0(2) -> 1
        , c_2(4) -> 6}

Tool RC1

Execution Time	Unknown
Answer	YES(?,O(n^1))
Input	Waldmann 07 size12 size-12-alpha-3-num-98

stdout:

YES(?,O(n^1))

Tool RC2

Execution Time	Unknown
Answer	YES(?,O(n^1))
Input	Waldmann 07 size12 size-12-alpha-3-num-98

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(x1) -> x1
     , a(a(x1)) -> b(c(x1))
     , c(b(b(x1))) -> a(a(b(a(x1))))}

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

  Details:
  --------
    'Bounds with perSymbol-enrichment and initial automaton 'match'' succeeded with the following output:
     'Bounds with perSymbol-enrichment and initial automaton 'match''
     ----------------------------------------------------------------
     Answer:           YES(?,O(n^1))
     Input Problem:    runtime-complexity with respect to
       Rules:
         {  a(x1) -> x1
          , a(a(x1)) -> b(c(x1))
          , c(b(b(x1))) -> a(a(b(a(x1))))}

     Proof Output:
       The problem is match-bounded by 2.
       The enriched problem is compatible with the following automaton:
       {  a_0(2) -> 1
        , a_1(2) -> 6
        , a_1(4) -> 3
        , a_1(4) -> 7
        , a_1(5) -> 3
        , a_1(5) -> 4
        , a_1(5) -> 7
        , b_0(2) -> 1
        , b_0(2) -> 2
        , b_0(2) -> 6
        , b_1(6) -> 3
        , b_1(6) -> 4
        , b_1(6) -> 5
        , b_1(6) -> 7
        , b_2(7) -> 3
        , b_2(7) -> 7
        , c_0(2) -> 3
        , c_2(5) -> 7}