MAYBE

We are left with following problem, upon which TcT provides the
certificate MAYBE.

Strict Trs:
  { f(0(), 1(), x) -> f(h(x), h(x), x)
  , h(0()) -> 0()
  , h(g(x, y)) -> y }
Obligation:
  innermost runtime complexity
Answer:
  MAYBE

We add following dependency tuples:

Strict DPs:
  { f^#(0(), 1(), x) -> c_1(f^#(h(x), h(x), x), h^#(x), h^#(x))
  , h^#(0()) -> c_2()
  , h^#(g(x, y)) -> c_3() }

and mark the set of starting terms.

We are left with following problem, upon which TcT provides the
certificate MAYBE.

Strict DPs:
  { f^#(0(), 1(), x) -> c_1(f^#(h(x), h(x), x), h^#(x), h^#(x))
  , h^#(0()) -> c_2()
  , h^#(g(x, y)) -> c_3() }
Weak Trs:
  { f(0(), 1(), x) -> f(h(x), h(x), x)
  , h(0()) -> 0()
  , h(g(x, y)) -> y }
Obligation:
  innermost runtime complexity
Answer:
  MAYBE

We estimate the number of application of {2,3} by applications of
Pre({2,3}) = {1}. Here rules are labeled as follows:

  DPs:
    { 1: f^#(0(), 1(), x) -> c_1(f^#(h(x), h(x), x), h^#(x), h^#(x))
    , 2: h^#(0()) -> c_2()
    , 3: h^#(g(x, y)) -> c_3() }

We are left with following problem, upon which TcT provides the
certificate MAYBE.

Strict DPs:
  { f^#(0(), 1(), x) -> c_1(f^#(h(x), h(x), x), h^#(x), h^#(x)) }
Weak DPs:
  { h^#(0()) -> c_2()
  , h^#(g(x, y)) -> c_3() }
Weak Trs:
  { f(0(), 1(), x) -> f(h(x), h(x), x)
  , h(0()) -> 0()
  , h(g(x, y)) -> y }
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.

{ h^#(0()) -> c_2()
, h^#(g(x, y)) -> c_3() }

We are left with following problem, upon which TcT provides the
certificate MAYBE.

Strict DPs:
  { f^#(0(), 1(), x) -> c_1(f^#(h(x), h(x), x), h^#(x), h^#(x)) }
Weak Trs:
  { f(0(), 1(), x) -> f(h(x), h(x), x)
  , h(0()) -> 0()
  , h(g(x, y)) -> y }
Obligation:
  innermost runtime complexity
Answer:
  MAYBE

Due to missing edges in the dependency-graph, the right-hand sides
of following rules could be simplified:

  { f^#(0(), 1(), x) -> c_1(f^#(h(x), h(x), x), h^#(x), h^#(x)) }

We are left with following problem, upon which TcT provides the
certificate MAYBE.

Strict DPs: { f^#(0(), 1(), x) -> c_1(f^#(h(x), h(x), x)) }
Weak Trs:
  { f(0(), 1(), x) -> f(h(x), h(x), x)
  , h(0()) -> 0()
  , h(g(x, y)) -> y }
Obligation:
  innermost runtime complexity
Answer:
  MAYBE

We replace rewrite rules by usable rules:

  Weak Usable Rules:
    { h(0()) -> 0()
    , h(g(x, y)) -> y }

We are left with following problem, upon which TcT provides the
certificate MAYBE.

Strict DPs: { f^#(0(), 1(), x) -> c_1(f^#(h(x), h(x), x)) }
Weak Trs:
  { h(0()) -> 0()
  , h(g(x, y)) -> y }
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..