YES(O(1),O(n^1)) We are left with following problem, upon which TcT provides the certificate YES(O(1),O(n^1)). Strict Trs: { average(x, s(s(s(y)))) -> s(average(s(x), y)) , average(s(x), y) -> average(x, s(y)) , average(0(), s(s(0()))) -> s(0()) , average(0(), s(0())) -> 0() , average(0(), 0()) -> 0() } Obligation: innermost runtime complexity Answer: YES(O(1),O(n^1)) We add following weak dependency pairs: Strict DPs: { average^#(x, s(s(s(y)))) -> c_1(average^#(s(x), y)) , average^#(s(x), y) -> c_2(average^#(x, s(y))) , average^#(0(), s(s(0()))) -> c_3() , average^#(0(), s(0())) -> c_4() , average^#(0(), 0()) -> c_5() } and mark the set of starting terms. We are left with following problem, upon which TcT provides the certificate YES(O(1),O(n^1)). Strict DPs: { average^#(x, s(s(s(y)))) -> c_1(average^#(s(x), y)) , average^#(s(x), y) -> c_2(average^#(x, s(y))) , average^#(0(), s(s(0()))) -> c_3() , average^#(0(), s(0())) -> c_4() , average^#(0(), 0()) -> c_5() } Strict Trs: { average(x, s(s(s(y)))) -> s(average(s(x), y)) , average(s(x), y) -> average(x, s(y)) , average(0(), s(s(0()))) -> s(0()) , average(0(), s(0())) -> 0() , average(0(), 0()) -> 0() } Obligation: innermost runtime complexity Answer: YES(O(1),O(n^1)) No rule is usable, rules are removed from the input problem. We are left with following problem, upon which TcT provides the certificate YES(O(1),O(n^1)). Strict DPs: { average^#(x, s(s(s(y)))) -> c_1(average^#(s(x), y)) , average^#(s(x), y) -> c_2(average^#(x, s(y))) , average^#(0(), s(s(0()))) -> c_3() , average^#(0(), s(0())) -> c_4() , average^#(0(), 0()) -> c_5() } Obligation: innermost runtime complexity Answer: YES(O(1),O(n^1)) The weightgap principle applies (using the following constant growth matrix-interpretation) The following argument positions are usable: Uargs(c_1) = {1}, Uargs(c_2) = {1} TcT has computed following constructor-restricted matrix interpretation. [s](x1) = [1] x1 + [0] [0] = [0] [average^#](x1, x2) = [1] [c_1](x1) = [1] x1 + [0] [c_2](x1) = [1] x1 + [0] [c_3] = [0] [c_4] = [0] [c_5] = [0] This order satisfies following ordering constraints: Further, it can be verified that all rules not oriented are covered by the weightgap condition. We are left with following problem, upon which TcT provides the certificate YES(?,O(n^1)). Strict DPs: { average^#(x, s(s(s(y)))) -> c_1(average^#(s(x), y)) , average^#(s(x), y) -> c_2(average^#(x, s(y))) } Weak DPs: { average^#(0(), s(s(0()))) -> c_3() , average^#(0(), s(0())) -> c_4() , average^#(0(), 0()) -> c_5() } Obligation: innermost runtime complexity Answer: YES(?,O(n^1)) The following weak DPs constitute a sub-graph of the DG that is closed under successors. The DPs are removed. { average^#(0(), s(s(0()))) -> c_3() , average^#(0(), s(0())) -> c_4() , average^#(0(), 0()) -> c_5() } We are left with following problem, upon which TcT provides the certificate YES(?,O(n^1)). Strict DPs: { average^#(x, s(s(s(y)))) -> c_1(average^#(s(x), y)) , average^#(s(x), y) -> c_2(average^#(x, s(y))) } Obligation: innermost runtime complexity Answer: YES(?,O(n^1)) The following argument positions are usable: Uargs(c_1) = {1}, Uargs(c_2) = {1} TcT has computed following constructor-based matrix interpretation satisfying not(EDA). [s](x1) = [1] x1 + [2] [average^#](x1, x2) = [2] x1 + [1] x2 + [0] [c_1](x1) = [1] x1 + [1] [c_2](x1) = [1] x1 + [1] This order satisfies following ordering constraints: [average^#(x, s(s(s(y))))] = [2] x + [1] y + [6] > [2] x + [1] y + [5] = [c_1(average^#(s(x), y))] [average^#(s(x), y)] = [2] x + [1] y + [4] > [2] x + [1] y + [3] = [c_2(average^#(x, s(y)))] Hurray, we answered YES(O(1),O(n^1))