LMPO
| Execution Time (secs) | 0.113 |
| Answer | MAYBE |
| Input | SK90 2.45 |
MAYBE
We consider the following Problem:
Strict Trs:
{ admit(x, nil()) -> nil()
, admit(x, .(u, .(v, .(w(), z)))) ->
cond(=(sum(x, u, v), w()),
.(u, .(v, .(w(), admit(carry(x, u, v), z)))))
, cond(true(), y) -> y}
StartTerms: basic terms
Strategy: innermost
Certificate: MAYBE
Proof:
The input cannot be shown compatible
Arrrr..
MPO
| Execution Time (secs) | 0.206 |
| Answer | MAYBE |
| Input | SK90 2.45 |
MAYBE
We consider the following Problem:
Strict Trs:
{ admit(x, nil()) -> nil()
, admit(x, .(u, .(v, .(w(), z)))) ->
cond(=(sum(x, u, v), w()),
.(u, .(v, .(w(), admit(carry(x, u, v), z)))))
, cond(true(), y) -> y}
StartTerms: basic terms
Strategy: innermost
Certificate: MAYBE
Proof:
The input cannot be shown compatible
Arrrr..
POP*
| Execution Time (secs) | 0.118 |
| Answer | MAYBE |
| Input | SK90 2.45 |
MAYBE
We consider the following Problem:
Strict Trs:
{ admit(x, nil()) -> nil()
, admit(x, .(u, .(v, .(w(), z)))) ->
cond(=(sum(x, u, v), w()),
.(u, .(v, .(w(), admit(carry(x, u, v), z)))))
, cond(true(), y) -> y}
StartTerms: basic terms
Strategy: innermost
Certificate: MAYBE
Proof:
The input cannot be shown compatible
Arrrr..
POP* (PS)
| Execution Time (secs) | 0.182 |
| Answer | YES(?,POLY) |
| Input | SK90 2.45 |
YES(?,POLY)
We consider the following Problem:
Strict Trs:
{ admit(x, nil()) -> nil()
, admit(x, .(u, .(v, .(w(), z)))) ->
cond(=(sum(x, u, v), w()),
.(u, .(v, .(w(), admit(carry(x, u, v), z)))))
, cond(true(), y) -> y}
StartTerms: basic terms
Strategy: innermost
Certificate: YES(?,POLY)
Proof:
The input was oriented with the instance of
Polynomial Path Order (PS) as induced by the safe mapping
safe(admit) = {1}, safe(nil) = {}, safe(.) = {1, 2}, safe(w) = {},
safe(cond) = {1, 2}, safe(=) = {1, 2}, safe(sum) = {1, 2, 3},
safe(carry) = {1, 2, 3}, safe(true) = {}
and precedence
admit > cond .
Following symbols are considered recursive:
{admit, cond}
The recursion depth is 2 .
For your convenience, here are the oriented rules in predicative
notation (possibly applying argument filtering):
Strict DPs: {}
Weak DPs : {}
Strict Trs:
{ admit(nil(); x) -> nil()
, admit(.(; u, .(; v, .(; w(), z))); x) ->
cond(; =(; sum(; x, u, v), w()),
.(; u, .(; v, .(; w(), admit(z; carry(; x, u, v))))))
, cond(; true(), y) -> y}
Weak Trs : {}
Hurray, we answered YES(?,POLY)
Small POP*
| Execution Time (secs) | 0.116 |
| Answer | MAYBE |
| Input | SK90 2.45 |
MAYBE
We consider the following Problem:
Strict Trs:
{ admit(x, nil()) -> nil()
, admit(x, .(u, .(v, .(w(), z)))) ->
cond(=(sum(x, u, v), w()),
.(u, .(v, .(w(), admit(carry(x, u, v), z)))))
, cond(true(), y) -> y}
StartTerms: basic terms
Strategy: innermost
Certificate: MAYBE
Proof:
The input cannot be shown compatible
Arrrr..
Small POP* (PS)
| Execution Time (secs) | 0.434 |
| Answer | YES(?,O(n^1)) |
| Input | SK90 2.45 |
YES(?,O(n^1))
We consider the following Problem:
Strict Trs:
{ admit(x, nil()) -> nil()
, admit(x, .(u, .(v, .(w(), z)))) ->
cond(=(sum(x, u, v), w()),
.(u, .(v, .(w(), admit(carry(x, u, v), z)))))
, cond(true(), y) -> y}
StartTerms: basic terms
Strategy: innermost
Certificate: YES(?,O(n^1))
Proof:
The input was oriented with the instance of
Small Polynomial Path Order (WSC,
PS,
Nat 1-bounded) as induced by the safe mapping
safe(admit) = {1}, safe(nil) = {}, safe(.) = {1, 2}, safe(w) = {},
safe(cond) = {1, 2}, safe(=) = {1, 2}, safe(sum) = {1, 2, 3},
safe(carry) = {1, 2, 3}, safe(true) = {}
and precedence
admit > cond .
Following symbols are considered recursive:
{admit}
The recursion depth is 1 .
For your convenience, here are the oriented rules in predicative
notation (possibly applying argument filtering):
Strict DPs: {}
Weak DPs : {}
Strict Trs:
{ admit(nil(); x) -> nil()
, admit(.(; u, .(; v, .(; w(), z))); x) ->
cond(; =(; sum(; x, u, v), w()),
.(; u, .(; v, .(; w(), admit(z; carry(; x, u, v))))))
, cond(; true(), y) -> y}
Weak Trs : {}
Hurray, we answered YES(?,O(n^1))