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: { p(0()) -> 0() , p(s(x)) -> x , minus(x, 0()) -> x , minus(x, s(y)) -> minus(p(x), y) } Obligation: innermost runtime complexity Answer: YES(O(1),O(n^1)) We add following weak dependency pairs: Strict DPs: { p^#(0()) -> c_1() , p^#(s(x)) -> c_2() , minus^#(x, 0()) -> c_3() , minus^#(x, s(y)) -> c_4(minus^#(p(x), y)) } 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: { p^#(0()) -> c_1() , p^#(s(x)) -> c_2() , minus^#(x, 0()) -> c_3() , minus^#(x, s(y)) -> c_4(minus^#(p(x), y)) } Strict Trs: { p(0()) -> 0() , p(s(x)) -> x , minus(x, 0()) -> x , minus(x, s(y)) -> minus(p(x), y) } Obligation: innermost runtime complexity Answer: YES(O(1),O(n^1)) We replace rewrite rules by usable rules: Strict Usable Rules: { p(0()) -> 0() , p(s(x)) -> x } We are left with following problem, upon which TcT provides the certificate YES(O(1),O(n^1)). Strict DPs: { p^#(0()) -> c_1() , p^#(s(x)) -> c_2() , minus^#(x, 0()) -> c_3() , minus^#(x, s(y)) -> c_4(minus^#(p(x), y)) } Strict Trs: { p(0()) -> 0() , p(s(x)) -> 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(minus^#) = {1}, Uargs(c_4) = {1} TcT has computed following constructor-restricted matrix interpretation. [p](x1) = [1] x1 + [2] [0] = [2] [s](x1) = [1] x1 + [1] [p^#](x1) = [1] x1 + [1] [c_1] = [1] [c_2] = [1] [minus^#](x1, x2) = [1] x1 + [2] x2 + [2] [c_3] = [1] [c_4](x1) = [1] x1 + [2] This order satisfies following ordering constraints: [p(0())] = [4] > [2] = [0()] [p(s(x))] = [1] x + [3] > [1] x + [0] = [x] 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: { minus^#(x, s(y)) -> c_4(minus^#(p(x), y)) } Weak DPs: { p^#(0()) -> c_1() , p^#(s(x)) -> c_2() , minus^#(x, 0()) -> c_3() } Weak Trs: { p(0()) -> 0() , p(s(x)) -> x } 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. { p^#(0()) -> c_1() , p^#(s(x)) -> c_2() , minus^#(x, 0()) -> c_3() } We are left with following problem, upon which TcT provides the certificate YES(?,O(n^1)). Strict DPs: { minus^#(x, s(y)) -> c_4(minus^#(p(x), y)) } Weak Trs: { p(0()) -> 0() , p(s(x)) -> x } Obligation: innermost runtime complexity Answer: YES(?,O(n^1)) The following argument positions are usable: Uargs(c_4) = {1} TcT has computed following constructor-based matrix interpretation satisfying not(EDA). [p](x1) = [0] [0] = [1] [s](x1) = [1] x1 + [1] [minus^#](x1, x2) = [1] x2 + [0] [c_4](x1) = [1] x1 + [0] This order satisfies following ordering constraints: [minus^#(x, s(y))] = [1] y + [1] > [1] y + [0] = [c_4(minus^#(p(x), y))] Hurray, we answered YES(O(1),O(n^1))