MAYBE We are left with following problem, upon which TcT provides the certificate MAYBE. Strict Trs: { double(0()) -> 0() , double(s(x)) -> s(s(double(x))) , del(x, nil()) -> nil() , del(x, cons(y, xs)) -> if(eq(x, y), x, y, xs) , if(true(), x, y, xs) -> xs , if(false(), x, y, xs) -> cons(y, del(x, xs)) , eq(0(), 0()) -> true() , eq(0(), s(y)) -> false() , eq(s(x), 0()) -> false() , eq(s(x), s(y)) -> eq(x, y) , first(nil()) -> 0() , first(cons(x, xs)) -> x , doublelist(nil()) -> nil() , doublelist(cons(x, xs)) -> cons(double(x), doublelist(del(first(cons(x, xs)), cons(x, xs)))) } Obligation: innermost runtime complexity Answer: MAYBE We add following dependency tuples: Strict DPs: { double^#(0()) -> c_1() , double^#(s(x)) -> c_2(double^#(x)) , del^#(x, nil()) -> c_3() , del^#(x, cons(y, xs)) -> c_4(if^#(eq(x, y), x, y, xs), eq^#(x, y)) , if^#(true(), x, y, xs) -> c_5() , if^#(false(), x, y, xs) -> c_6(del^#(x, xs)) , eq^#(0(), 0()) -> c_7() , eq^#(0(), s(y)) -> c_8() , eq^#(s(x), 0()) -> c_9() , eq^#(s(x), s(y)) -> c_10(eq^#(x, y)) , first^#(nil()) -> c_11() , first^#(cons(x, xs)) -> c_12() , doublelist^#(nil()) -> c_13() , doublelist^#(cons(x, xs)) -> c_14(double^#(x), doublelist^#(del(first(cons(x, xs)), cons(x, xs))), del^#(first(cons(x, xs)), cons(x, xs)), first^#(cons(x, xs))) } and mark the set of starting terms. We are left with following problem, upon which TcT provides the certificate MAYBE. Strict DPs: { double^#(0()) -> c_1() , double^#(s(x)) -> c_2(double^#(x)) , del^#(x, nil()) -> c_3() , del^#(x, cons(y, xs)) -> c_4(if^#(eq(x, y), x, y, xs), eq^#(x, y)) , if^#(true(), x, y, xs) -> c_5() , if^#(false(), x, y, xs) -> c_6(del^#(x, xs)) , eq^#(0(), 0()) -> c_7() , eq^#(0(), s(y)) -> c_8() , eq^#(s(x), 0()) -> c_9() , eq^#(s(x), s(y)) -> c_10(eq^#(x, y)) , first^#(nil()) -> c_11() , first^#(cons(x, xs)) -> c_12() , doublelist^#(nil()) -> c_13() , doublelist^#(cons(x, xs)) -> c_14(double^#(x), doublelist^#(del(first(cons(x, xs)), cons(x, xs))), del^#(first(cons(x, xs)), cons(x, xs)), first^#(cons(x, xs))) } Weak Trs: { double(0()) -> 0() , double(s(x)) -> s(s(double(x))) , del(x, nil()) -> nil() , del(x, cons(y, xs)) -> if(eq(x, y), x, y, xs) , if(true(), x, y, xs) -> xs , if(false(), x, y, xs) -> cons(y, del(x, xs)) , eq(0(), 0()) -> true() , eq(0(), s(y)) -> false() , eq(s(x), 0()) -> false() , eq(s(x), s(y)) -> eq(x, y) , first(nil()) -> 0() , first(cons(x, xs)) -> x , doublelist(nil()) -> nil() , doublelist(cons(x, xs)) -> cons(double(x), doublelist(del(first(cons(x, xs)), cons(x, xs)))) } Obligation: innermost runtime complexity Answer: MAYBE We estimate the number of application of {1,3,5,7,8,9,11,12,13} by applications of Pre({1,3,5,7,8,9,11,12,13}) = {2,4,6,10,14}. Here rules are labeled as follows: DPs: { 1: double^#(0()) -> c_1() , 2: double^#(s(x)) -> c_2(double^#(x)) , 3: del^#(x, nil()) -> c_3() , 4: del^#(x, cons(y, xs)) -> c_4(if^#(eq(x, y), x, y, xs), eq^#(x, y)) , 5: if^#(true(), x, y, xs) -> c_5() , 6: if^#(false(), x, y, xs) -> c_6(del^#(x, xs)) , 7: eq^#(0(), 0()) -> c_7() , 8: eq^#(0(), s(y)) -> c_8() , 9: eq^#(s(x), 0()) -> c_9() , 10: eq^#(s(x), s(y)) -> c_10(eq^#(x, y)) , 11: first^#(nil()) -> c_11() , 12: first^#(cons(x, xs)) -> c_12() , 13: doublelist^#(nil()) -> c_13() , 14: doublelist^#(cons(x, xs)) -> c_14(double^#(x), doublelist^#(del(first(cons(x, xs)), cons(x, xs))), del^#(first(cons(x, xs)), cons(x, xs)), first^#(cons(x, xs))) } We are left with following problem, upon which TcT provides the certificate MAYBE. Strict DPs: { double^#(s(x)) -> c_2(double^#(x)) , del^#(x, cons(y, xs)) -> c_4(if^#(eq(x, y), x, y, xs), eq^#(x, y)) , if^#(false(), x, y, xs) -> c_6(del^#(x, xs)) , eq^#(s(x), s(y)) -> c_10(eq^#(x, y)) , doublelist^#(cons(x, xs)) -> c_14(double^#(x), doublelist^#(del(first(cons(x, xs)), cons(x, xs))), del^#(first(cons(x, xs)), cons(x, xs)), first^#(cons(x, xs))) } Weak DPs: { double^#(0()) -> c_1() , del^#(x, nil()) -> c_3() , if^#(true(), x, y, xs) -> c_5() , eq^#(0(), 0()) -> c_7() , eq^#(0(), s(y)) -> c_8() , eq^#(s(x), 0()) -> c_9() , first^#(nil()) -> c_11() , first^#(cons(x, xs)) -> c_12() , doublelist^#(nil()) -> c_13() } Weak Trs: { double(0()) -> 0() , double(s(x)) -> s(s(double(x))) , del(x, nil()) -> nil() , del(x, cons(y, xs)) -> if(eq(x, y), x, y, xs) , if(true(), x, y, xs) -> xs , if(false(), x, y, xs) -> cons(y, del(x, xs)) , eq(0(), 0()) -> true() , eq(0(), s(y)) -> false() , eq(s(x), 0()) -> false() , eq(s(x), s(y)) -> eq(x, y) , first(nil()) -> 0() , first(cons(x, xs)) -> x , doublelist(nil()) -> nil() , doublelist(cons(x, xs)) -> cons(double(x), doublelist(del(first(cons(x, xs)), cons(x, xs)))) } 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. { double^#(0()) -> c_1() , del^#(x, nil()) -> c_3() , if^#(true(), x, y, xs) -> c_5() , eq^#(0(), 0()) -> c_7() , eq^#(0(), s(y)) -> c_8() , eq^#(s(x), 0()) -> c_9() , first^#(nil()) -> c_11() , first^#(cons(x, xs)) -> c_12() , doublelist^#(nil()) -> c_13() } We are left with following problem, upon which TcT provides the certificate MAYBE. Strict DPs: { double^#(s(x)) -> c_2(double^#(x)) , del^#(x, cons(y, xs)) -> c_4(if^#(eq(x, y), x, y, xs), eq^#(x, y)) , if^#(false(), x, y, xs) -> c_6(del^#(x, xs)) , eq^#(s(x), s(y)) -> c_10(eq^#(x, y)) , doublelist^#(cons(x, xs)) -> c_14(double^#(x), doublelist^#(del(first(cons(x, xs)), cons(x, xs))), del^#(first(cons(x, xs)), cons(x, xs)), first^#(cons(x, xs))) } Weak Trs: { double(0()) -> 0() , double(s(x)) -> s(s(double(x))) , del(x, nil()) -> nil() , del(x, cons(y, xs)) -> if(eq(x, y), x, y, xs) , if(true(), x, y, xs) -> xs , if(false(), x, y, xs) -> cons(y, del(x, xs)) , eq(0(), 0()) -> true() , eq(0(), s(y)) -> false() , eq(s(x), 0()) -> false() , eq(s(x), s(y)) -> eq(x, y) , first(nil()) -> 0() , first(cons(x, xs)) -> x , doublelist(nil()) -> nil() , doublelist(cons(x, xs)) -> cons(double(x), doublelist(del(first(cons(x, xs)), cons(x, xs)))) } Obligation: innermost runtime complexity Answer: MAYBE Due to missing edges in the dependency-graph, the right-hand sides of following rules could be simplified: { doublelist^#(cons(x, xs)) -> c_14(double^#(x), doublelist^#(del(first(cons(x, xs)), cons(x, xs))), del^#(first(cons(x, xs)), cons(x, xs)), first^#(cons(x, xs))) } We are left with following problem, upon which TcT provides the certificate MAYBE. Strict DPs: { double^#(s(x)) -> c_1(double^#(x)) , del^#(x, cons(y, xs)) -> c_2(if^#(eq(x, y), x, y, xs), eq^#(x, y)) , if^#(false(), x, y, xs) -> c_3(del^#(x, xs)) , eq^#(s(x), s(y)) -> c_4(eq^#(x, y)) , doublelist^#(cons(x, xs)) -> c_5(double^#(x), doublelist^#(del(first(cons(x, xs)), cons(x, xs))), del^#(first(cons(x, xs)), cons(x, xs))) } Weak Trs: { double(0()) -> 0() , double(s(x)) -> s(s(double(x))) , del(x, nil()) -> nil() , del(x, cons(y, xs)) -> if(eq(x, y), x, y, xs) , if(true(), x, y, xs) -> xs , if(false(), x, y, xs) -> cons(y, del(x, xs)) , eq(0(), 0()) -> true() , eq(0(), s(y)) -> false() , eq(s(x), 0()) -> false() , eq(s(x), s(y)) -> eq(x, y) , first(nil()) -> 0() , first(cons(x, xs)) -> x , doublelist(nil()) -> nil() , doublelist(cons(x, xs)) -> cons(double(x), doublelist(del(first(cons(x, xs)), cons(x, xs)))) } Obligation: innermost runtime complexity Answer: MAYBE We replace rewrite rules by usable rules: Weak Usable Rules: { del(x, nil()) -> nil() , del(x, cons(y, xs)) -> if(eq(x, y), x, y, xs) , if(true(), x, y, xs) -> xs , if(false(), x, y, xs) -> cons(y, del(x, xs)) , eq(0(), 0()) -> true() , eq(0(), s(y)) -> false() , eq(s(x), 0()) -> false() , eq(s(x), s(y)) -> eq(x, y) , first(nil()) -> 0() , first(cons(x, xs)) -> x } We are left with following problem, upon which TcT provides the certificate MAYBE. Strict DPs: { double^#(s(x)) -> c_1(double^#(x)) , del^#(x, cons(y, xs)) -> c_2(if^#(eq(x, y), x, y, xs), eq^#(x, y)) , if^#(false(), x, y, xs) -> c_3(del^#(x, xs)) , eq^#(s(x), s(y)) -> c_4(eq^#(x, y)) , doublelist^#(cons(x, xs)) -> c_5(double^#(x), doublelist^#(del(first(cons(x, xs)), cons(x, xs))), del^#(first(cons(x, xs)), cons(x, xs))) } Weak Trs: { del(x, nil()) -> nil() , del(x, cons(y, xs)) -> if(eq(x, y), x, y, xs) , if(true(), x, y, xs) -> xs , if(false(), x, y, xs) -> cons(y, del(x, xs)) , eq(0(), 0()) -> true() , eq(0(), s(y)) -> false() , eq(s(x), 0()) -> false() , eq(s(x), s(y)) -> eq(x, y) , first(nil()) -> 0() , first(cons(x, xs)) -> x } 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: Following exception was raised: stack overflow 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..