MAYBE We are left with following problem, upon which TcT provides the certificate MAYBE. Strict Trs: { tower(x) -> f(a(), x, s(0())) , f(a(), s(x), y) -> f(b(), y, s(x)) , f(a(), 0(), y) -> y , f(b(), y, x) -> f(a(), half(x), exp(y)) , half(s(s(x))) -> s(half(x)) , half(s(0())) -> half(0()) , half(0()) -> double(0()) , exp(s(x)) -> double(exp(x)) , exp(0()) -> s(0()) , double(s(x)) -> s(s(double(x))) , double(0()) -> 0() } Obligation: innermost runtime complexity Answer: MAYBE We add following dependency tuples: Strict DPs: { tower^#(x) -> c_1(f^#(a(), x, s(0()))) , f^#(a(), s(x), y) -> c_2(f^#(b(), y, s(x))) , f^#(a(), 0(), y) -> c_3() , f^#(b(), y, x) -> c_4(f^#(a(), half(x), exp(y)), half^#(x), exp^#(y)) , half^#(s(s(x))) -> c_5(half^#(x)) , half^#(s(0())) -> c_6(half^#(0())) , half^#(0()) -> c_7(double^#(0())) , exp^#(s(x)) -> c_8(double^#(exp(x)), exp^#(x)) , exp^#(0()) -> c_9() , double^#(s(x)) -> c_10(double^#(x)) , double^#(0()) -> c_11() } and mark the set of starting terms. We are left with following problem, upon which TcT provides the certificate MAYBE. Strict DPs: { tower^#(x) -> c_1(f^#(a(), x, s(0()))) , f^#(a(), s(x), y) -> c_2(f^#(b(), y, s(x))) , f^#(a(), 0(), y) -> c_3() , f^#(b(), y, x) -> c_4(f^#(a(), half(x), exp(y)), half^#(x), exp^#(y)) , half^#(s(s(x))) -> c_5(half^#(x)) , half^#(s(0())) -> c_6(half^#(0())) , half^#(0()) -> c_7(double^#(0())) , exp^#(s(x)) -> c_8(double^#(exp(x)), exp^#(x)) , exp^#(0()) -> c_9() , double^#(s(x)) -> c_10(double^#(x)) , double^#(0()) -> c_11() } Weak Trs: { tower(x) -> f(a(), x, s(0())) , f(a(), s(x), y) -> f(b(), y, s(x)) , f(a(), 0(), y) -> y , f(b(), y, x) -> f(a(), half(x), exp(y)) , half(s(s(x))) -> s(half(x)) , half(s(0())) -> half(0()) , half(0()) -> double(0()) , exp(s(x)) -> double(exp(x)) , exp(0()) -> s(0()) , double(s(x)) -> s(s(double(x))) , double(0()) -> 0() } Obligation: innermost runtime complexity Answer: MAYBE We estimate the number of application of {3,9,11} by applications of Pre({3,9,11}) = {1,4,7,8,10}. Here rules are labeled as follows: DPs: { 1: tower^#(x) -> c_1(f^#(a(), x, s(0()))) , 2: f^#(a(), s(x), y) -> c_2(f^#(b(), y, s(x))) , 3: f^#(a(), 0(), y) -> c_3() , 4: f^#(b(), y, x) -> c_4(f^#(a(), half(x), exp(y)), half^#(x), exp^#(y)) , 5: half^#(s(s(x))) -> c_5(half^#(x)) , 6: half^#(s(0())) -> c_6(half^#(0())) , 7: half^#(0()) -> c_7(double^#(0())) , 8: exp^#(s(x)) -> c_8(double^#(exp(x)), exp^#(x)) , 9: exp^#(0()) -> c_9() , 10: double^#(s(x)) -> c_10(double^#(x)) , 11: double^#(0()) -> c_11() } We are left with following problem, upon which TcT provides the certificate MAYBE. Strict DPs: { tower^#(x) -> c_1(f^#(a(), x, s(0()))) , f^#(a(), s(x), y) -> c_2(f^#(b(), y, s(x))) , f^#(b(), y, x) -> c_4(f^#(a(), half(x), exp(y)), half^#(x), exp^#(y)) , half^#(s(s(x))) -> c_5(half^#(x)) , half^#(s(0())) -> c_6(half^#(0())) , half^#(0()) -> c_7(double^#(0())) , exp^#(s(x)) -> c_8(double^#(exp(x)), exp^#(x)) , double^#(s(x)) -> c_10(double^#(x)) } Weak DPs: { f^#(a(), 0(), y) -> c_3() , exp^#(0()) -> c_9() , double^#(0()) -> c_11() } Weak Trs: { tower(x) -> f(a(), x, s(0())) , f(a(), s(x), y) -> f(b(), y, s(x)) , f(a(), 0(), y) -> y , f(b(), y, x) -> f(a(), half(x), exp(y)) , half(s(s(x))) -> s(half(x)) , half(s(0())) -> half(0()) , half(0()) -> double(0()) , exp(s(x)) -> double(exp(x)) , exp(0()) -> s(0()) , double(s(x)) -> s(s(double(x))) , double(0()) -> 0() } Obligation: innermost runtime complexity Answer: MAYBE We estimate the number of application of {6} by applications of Pre({6}) = {3,4,5}. Here rules are labeled as follows: DPs: { 1: tower^#(x) -> c_1(f^#(a(), x, s(0()))) , 2: f^#(a(), s(x), y) -> c_2(f^#(b(), y, s(x))) , 3: f^#(b(), y, x) -> c_4(f^#(a(), half(x), exp(y)), half^#(x), exp^#(y)) , 4: half^#(s(s(x))) -> c_5(half^#(x)) , 5: half^#(s(0())) -> c_6(half^#(0())) , 6: half^#(0()) -> c_7(double^#(0())) , 7: exp^#(s(x)) -> c_8(double^#(exp(x)), exp^#(x)) , 8: double^#(s(x)) -> c_10(double^#(x)) , 9: f^#(a(), 0(), y) -> c_3() , 10: exp^#(0()) -> c_9() , 11: double^#(0()) -> c_11() } We are left with following problem, upon which TcT provides the certificate MAYBE. Strict DPs: { tower^#(x) -> c_1(f^#(a(), x, s(0()))) , f^#(a(), s(x), y) -> c_2(f^#(b(), y, s(x))) , f^#(b(), y, x) -> c_4(f^#(a(), half(x), exp(y)), half^#(x), exp^#(y)) , half^#(s(s(x))) -> c_5(half^#(x)) , half^#(s(0())) -> c_6(half^#(0())) , exp^#(s(x)) -> c_8(double^#(exp(x)), exp^#(x)) , double^#(s(x)) -> c_10(double^#(x)) } Weak DPs: { f^#(a(), 0(), y) -> c_3() , half^#(0()) -> c_7(double^#(0())) , exp^#(0()) -> c_9() , double^#(0()) -> c_11() } Weak Trs: { tower(x) -> f(a(), x, s(0())) , f(a(), s(x), y) -> f(b(), y, s(x)) , f(a(), 0(), y) -> y , f(b(), y, x) -> f(a(), half(x), exp(y)) , half(s(s(x))) -> s(half(x)) , half(s(0())) -> half(0()) , half(0()) -> double(0()) , exp(s(x)) -> double(exp(x)) , exp(0()) -> s(0()) , double(s(x)) -> s(s(double(x))) , double(0()) -> 0() } Obligation: innermost runtime complexity Answer: MAYBE We estimate the number of application of {5} by applications of Pre({5}) = {3,4}. Here rules are labeled as follows: DPs: { 1: tower^#(x) -> c_1(f^#(a(), x, s(0()))) , 2: f^#(a(), s(x), y) -> c_2(f^#(b(), y, s(x))) , 3: f^#(b(), y, x) -> c_4(f^#(a(), half(x), exp(y)), half^#(x), exp^#(y)) , 4: half^#(s(s(x))) -> c_5(half^#(x)) , 5: half^#(s(0())) -> c_6(half^#(0())) , 6: exp^#(s(x)) -> c_8(double^#(exp(x)), exp^#(x)) , 7: double^#(s(x)) -> c_10(double^#(x)) , 8: f^#(a(), 0(), y) -> c_3() , 9: half^#(0()) -> c_7(double^#(0())) , 10: exp^#(0()) -> c_9() , 11: double^#(0()) -> c_11() } We are left with following problem, upon which TcT provides the certificate MAYBE. Strict DPs: { tower^#(x) -> c_1(f^#(a(), x, s(0()))) , f^#(a(), s(x), y) -> c_2(f^#(b(), y, s(x))) , f^#(b(), y, x) -> c_4(f^#(a(), half(x), exp(y)), half^#(x), exp^#(y)) , half^#(s(s(x))) -> c_5(half^#(x)) , exp^#(s(x)) -> c_8(double^#(exp(x)), exp^#(x)) , double^#(s(x)) -> c_10(double^#(x)) } Weak DPs: { f^#(a(), 0(), y) -> c_3() , half^#(s(0())) -> c_6(half^#(0())) , half^#(0()) -> c_7(double^#(0())) , exp^#(0()) -> c_9() , double^#(0()) -> c_11() } Weak Trs: { tower(x) -> f(a(), x, s(0())) , f(a(), s(x), y) -> f(b(), y, s(x)) , f(a(), 0(), y) -> y , f(b(), y, x) -> f(a(), half(x), exp(y)) , half(s(s(x))) -> s(half(x)) , half(s(0())) -> half(0()) , half(0()) -> double(0()) , exp(s(x)) -> double(exp(x)) , exp(0()) -> s(0()) , double(s(x)) -> s(s(double(x))) , double(0()) -> 0() } Obligation: innermost runtime complexity Answer: MAYBE The following weak DPs constitute a sub-graph of the DG that is closed under successors. The DPs are removed. { f^#(a(), 0(), y) -> c_3() , half^#(s(0())) -> c_6(half^#(0())) , half^#(0()) -> c_7(double^#(0())) , exp^#(0()) -> c_9() , double^#(0()) -> c_11() } We are left with following problem, upon which TcT provides the certificate MAYBE. Strict DPs: { tower^#(x) -> c_1(f^#(a(), x, s(0()))) , f^#(a(), s(x), y) -> c_2(f^#(b(), y, s(x))) , f^#(b(), y, x) -> c_4(f^#(a(), half(x), exp(y)), half^#(x), exp^#(y)) , half^#(s(s(x))) -> c_5(half^#(x)) , exp^#(s(x)) -> c_8(double^#(exp(x)), exp^#(x)) , double^#(s(x)) -> c_10(double^#(x)) } Weak Trs: { tower(x) -> f(a(), x, s(0())) , f(a(), s(x), y) -> f(b(), y, s(x)) , f(a(), 0(), y) -> y , f(b(), y, x) -> f(a(), half(x), exp(y)) , half(s(s(x))) -> s(half(x)) , half(s(0())) -> half(0()) , half(0()) -> double(0()) , exp(s(x)) -> double(exp(x)) , exp(0()) -> s(0()) , double(s(x)) -> s(s(double(x))) , double(0()) -> 0() } Obligation: innermost runtime complexity Answer: MAYBE Consider the dependency graph 1: tower^#(x) -> c_1(f^#(a(), x, s(0()))) -->_1 f^#(a(), s(x), y) -> c_2(f^#(b(), y, s(x))) :2 2: f^#(a(), s(x), y) -> c_2(f^#(b(), y, s(x))) -->_1 f^#(b(), y, x) -> c_4(f^#(a(), half(x), exp(y)), half^#(x), exp^#(y)) :3 3: f^#(b(), y, x) -> c_4(f^#(a(), half(x), exp(y)), half^#(x), exp^#(y)) -->_3 exp^#(s(x)) -> c_8(double^#(exp(x)), exp^#(x)) :5 -->_2 half^#(s(s(x))) -> c_5(half^#(x)) :4 -->_1 f^#(a(), s(x), y) -> c_2(f^#(b(), y, s(x))) :2 4: half^#(s(s(x))) -> c_5(half^#(x)) -->_1 half^#(s(s(x))) -> c_5(half^#(x)) :4 5: exp^#(s(x)) -> c_8(double^#(exp(x)), exp^#(x)) -->_1 double^#(s(x)) -> c_10(double^#(x)) :6 -->_2 exp^#(s(x)) -> c_8(double^#(exp(x)), exp^#(x)) :5 6: double^#(s(x)) -> c_10(double^#(x)) -->_1 double^#(s(x)) -> c_10(double^#(x)) :6 Following roots of the dependency graph are removed, as the considered set of starting terms is closed under reduction with respect to these rules (modulo compound contexts). { tower^#(x) -> c_1(f^#(a(), x, s(0()))) } We are left with following problem, upon which TcT provides the certificate MAYBE. Strict DPs: { f^#(a(), s(x), y) -> c_2(f^#(b(), y, s(x))) , f^#(b(), y, x) -> c_4(f^#(a(), half(x), exp(y)), half^#(x), exp^#(y)) , half^#(s(s(x))) -> c_5(half^#(x)) , exp^#(s(x)) -> c_8(double^#(exp(x)), exp^#(x)) , double^#(s(x)) -> c_10(double^#(x)) } Weak Trs: { tower(x) -> f(a(), x, s(0())) , f(a(), s(x), y) -> f(b(), y, s(x)) , f(a(), 0(), y) -> y , f(b(), y, x) -> f(a(), half(x), exp(y)) , half(s(s(x))) -> s(half(x)) , half(s(0())) -> half(0()) , half(0()) -> double(0()) , exp(s(x)) -> double(exp(x)) , exp(0()) -> s(0()) , double(s(x)) -> s(s(double(x))) , double(0()) -> 0() } Obligation: innermost runtime complexity Answer: MAYBE We replace rewrite rules by usable rules: Weak Usable Rules: { half(s(s(x))) -> s(half(x)) , half(s(0())) -> half(0()) , half(0()) -> double(0()) , exp(s(x)) -> double(exp(x)) , exp(0()) -> s(0()) , double(s(x)) -> s(s(double(x))) , double(0()) -> 0() } We are left with following problem, upon which TcT provides the certificate MAYBE. Strict DPs: { f^#(a(), s(x), y) -> c_2(f^#(b(), y, s(x))) , f^#(b(), y, x) -> c_4(f^#(a(), half(x), exp(y)), half^#(x), exp^#(y)) , half^#(s(s(x))) -> c_5(half^#(x)) , exp^#(s(x)) -> c_8(double^#(exp(x)), exp^#(x)) , double^#(s(x)) -> c_10(double^#(x)) } Weak Trs: { half(s(s(x))) -> s(half(x)) , half(s(0())) -> half(0()) , half(0()) -> double(0()) , exp(s(x)) -> double(exp(x)) , exp(0()) -> s(0()) , double(s(x)) -> s(s(double(x))) , double(0()) -> 0() } Obligation: innermost runtime complexity Answer: MAYBE None of the processors succeeded. Details of failed attempt(s): ----------------------------- 1) 'matrices' failed due to the following reason: None of the processors succeeded. Details of failed attempt(s): ----------------------------- 1) 'matrix interpretation of dimension 4' failed due to the following reason: The input cannot be shown compatible 2) 'matrix interpretation of dimension 3' failed due to the following reason: The input cannot be shown compatible 3) 'matrix interpretation of dimension 3' failed due to the following reason: The input cannot be shown compatible 4) 'matrix interpretation of dimension 2' failed due to the following reason: The input cannot be shown compatible 5) 'matrix interpretation of dimension 2' failed due to the following reason: The input cannot be shown compatible 6) 'matrix interpretation of dimension 1' failed due to the following reason: The input cannot be shown compatible 2) 'empty' failed due to the following reason: Empty strict component of the problem is NOT empty. Arrrr..