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: { f(0()) -> s(0()) , f(s(x)) -> g(s(s(x))) , g(0()) -> s(0()) , g(s(0())) -> s(0()) , g(s(s(x))) -> f(x) } Obligation: innermost runtime complexity Answer: YES(O(1),O(n^1)) We add following weak dependency pairs: Strict DPs: { f^#(0()) -> c_1() , f^#(s(x)) -> c_2(g^#(s(s(x)))) , g^#(0()) -> c_3() , g^#(s(0())) -> c_4() , g^#(s(s(x))) -> c_5(f^#(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: { f^#(0()) -> c_1() , f^#(s(x)) -> c_2(g^#(s(s(x)))) , g^#(0()) -> c_3() , g^#(s(0())) -> c_4() , g^#(s(s(x))) -> c_5(f^#(x)) } Strict Trs: { f(0()) -> s(0()) , f(s(x)) -> g(s(s(x))) , g(0()) -> s(0()) , g(s(0())) -> s(0()) , g(s(s(x))) -> f(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: { f^#(0()) -> c_1() , f^#(s(x)) -> c_2(g^#(s(s(x)))) , g^#(0()) -> c_3() , g^#(s(0())) -> c_4() , g^#(s(s(x))) -> c_5(f^#(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_5) = {1} TcT has computed following constructor-restricted matrix interpretation. [0] = [0] [s](x1) = [0] [f^#](x1) = [1] [c_1] = [0] [c_2](x1) = [1] x1 + [1] [g^#](x1) = [0] [c_3] = [1] [c_4] = [1] [c_5](x1) = [1] x1 + [1] 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: { f^#(s(x)) -> c_2(g^#(s(s(x)))) , g^#(0()) -> c_3() , g^#(s(0())) -> c_4() , g^#(s(s(x))) -> c_5(f^#(x)) } Weak DPs: { f^#(0()) -> c_1() } Obligation: innermost runtime complexity Answer: YES(?,O(n^1)) We estimate the number of application of {2,3} by applications of Pre({2,3}) = {}. Here rules are labeled as follows: DPs: { 1: f^#(s(x)) -> c_2(g^#(s(s(x)))) , 2: g^#(0()) -> c_3() , 3: g^#(s(0())) -> c_4() , 4: g^#(s(s(x))) -> c_5(f^#(x)) , 5: f^#(0()) -> c_1() } We are left with following problem, upon which TcT provides the certificate YES(?,O(n^1)). Strict DPs: { f^#(s(x)) -> c_2(g^#(s(s(x)))) , g^#(s(s(x))) -> c_5(f^#(x)) } Weak DPs: { f^#(0()) -> c_1() , g^#(0()) -> c_3() , g^#(s(0())) -> c_4() } 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. { f^#(0()) -> c_1() , g^#(0()) -> c_3() , g^#(s(0())) -> c_4() } We are left with following problem, upon which TcT provides the certificate YES(?,O(n^1)). Strict DPs: { f^#(s(x)) -> c_2(g^#(s(s(x)))) , g^#(s(s(x))) -> c_5(f^#(x)) } Obligation: innermost runtime complexity Answer: YES(?,O(n^1)) The following argument positions are usable: Uargs(c_2) = {1}, Uargs(c_5) = {1} TcT has computed following constructor-based matrix interpretation satisfying not(EDA). [s](x1) = [1] x1 + [2] [f^#](x1) = [1] x1 + [3] [c_2](x1) = [1] x1 + [0] [g^#](x1) = [1] x1 + [0] [c_5](x1) = [1] x1 + [0] This order satisfies following ordering constraints: [f^#(s(x))] = [1] x + [5] > [1] x + [4] = [c_2(g^#(s(s(x))))] [g^#(s(s(x)))] = [1] x + [4] > [1] x + [3] = [c_5(f^#(x))] Hurray, we answered YES(O(1),O(n^1))