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: { sum(0()) -> 0() , sum(s(x)) -> +(sum(x), s(x)) , sum1(0()) -> 0() , sum1(s(x)) -> s(+(sum1(x), +(x, x))) } Obligation: innermost runtime complexity Answer: YES(O(1),O(n^1)) We add following weak dependency pairs: Strict DPs: { sum^#(0()) -> c_1() , sum^#(s(x)) -> c_2(sum^#(x)) , sum1^#(0()) -> c_3() , sum1^#(s(x)) -> c_4(sum1^#(x)) } 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: { sum^#(0()) -> c_1() , sum^#(s(x)) -> c_2(sum^#(x)) , sum1^#(0()) -> c_3() , sum1^#(s(x)) -> c_4(sum1^#(x)) } Strict Trs: { sum(0()) -> 0() , sum(s(x)) -> +(sum(x), s(x)) , sum1(0()) -> 0() , sum1(s(x)) -> s(+(sum1(x), +(x, x))) } 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: { sum^#(0()) -> c_1() , sum^#(s(x)) -> c_2(sum^#(x)) , sum1^#(0()) -> c_3() , sum1^#(s(x)) -> c_4(sum1^#(x)) } 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_2) = {1}, Uargs(c_4) = {1} TcT has computed following constructor-restricted matrix interpretation. [0] = [0] [s](x1) = [1] x1 + [0] [sum^#](x1) = [1] [c_1] = [0] [c_2](x1) = [1] x1 + [1] [sum1^#](x1) = [0] [c_3] = [1] [c_4](x1) = [1] x1 + [2] 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: { sum^#(s(x)) -> c_2(sum^#(x)) , sum1^#(0()) -> c_3() , sum1^#(s(x)) -> c_4(sum1^#(x)) } Weak DPs: { sum^#(0()) -> c_1() } Obligation: innermost runtime complexity Answer: YES(?,O(n^1)) We estimate the number of application of {2} by applications of Pre({2}) = {3}. Here rules are labeled as follows: DPs: { 1: sum^#(s(x)) -> c_2(sum^#(x)) , 2: sum1^#(0()) -> c_3() , 3: sum1^#(s(x)) -> c_4(sum1^#(x)) , 4: sum^#(0()) -> c_1() } We are left with following problem, upon which TcT provides the certificate YES(?,O(n^1)). Strict DPs: { sum^#(s(x)) -> c_2(sum^#(x)) , sum1^#(s(x)) -> c_4(sum1^#(x)) } Weak DPs: { sum^#(0()) -> c_1() , sum1^#(0()) -> c_3() } 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. { sum^#(0()) -> c_1() , sum1^#(0()) -> c_3() } We are left with following problem, upon which TcT provides the certificate YES(?,O(n^1)). Strict DPs: { sum^#(s(x)) -> c_2(sum^#(x)) , sum1^#(s(x)) -> c_4(sum1^#(x)) } Obligation: innermost runtime complexity Answer: YES(?,O(n^1)) The following argument positions are usable: Uargs(c_2) = {1}, Uargs(c_4) = {1} TcT has computed following constructor-based matrix interpretation satisfying not(EDA). [s](x1) = [1] x1 + [2] [sum^#](x1) = [2] x1 + [0] [c_2](x1) = [1] x1 + [1] [sum1^#](x1) = [2] x1 + [0] [c_4](x1) = [1] x1 + [1] This order satisfies following ordering constraints: [sum^#(s(x))] = [2] x + [4] > [2] x + [1] = [c_2(sum^#(x))] [sum1^#(s(x))] = [2] x + [4] > [2] x + [1] = [c_4(sum1^#(x))] Hurray, we answered YES(O(1),O(n^1))