MAYBE We are left with following problem, upon which TcT provides the certificate MAYBE. Strict Trs: { p(0()) -> 0() , p(s(x)) -> x , le(0(), y) -> true() , le(s(x), 0()) -> false() , le(s(x), s(y)) -> le(x, y) , minus(x, 0()) -> x , minus(x, s(y)) -> if(le(x, s(y)), 0(), p(minus(x, p(s(y))))) , if(true(), x, y) -> x , if(false(), x, y) -> y } Obligation: innermost runtime complexity Answer: MAYBE We add following dependency tuples: Strict DPs: { p^#(0()) -> c_1() , p^#(s(x)) -> c_2() , le^#(0(), y) -> c_3() , le^#(s(x), 0()) -> c_4() , le^#(s(x), s(y)) -> c_5(le^#(x, y)) , minus^#(x, 0()) -> c_6() , minus^#(x, s(y)) -> c_7(if^#(le(x, s(y)), 0(), p(minus(x, p(s(y))))), le^#(x, s(y)), p^#(minus(x, p(s(y)))), minus^#(x, p(s(y))), p^#(s(y))) , if^#(true(), x, y) -> c_8() , if^#(false(), x, y) -> c_9() } and mark the set of starting terms. We are left with following problem, upon which TcT provides the certificate MAYBE. Strict DPs: { p^#(0()) -> c_1() , p^#(s(x)) -> c_2() , le^#(0(), y) -> c_3() , le^#(s(x), 0()) -> c_4() , le^#(s(x), s(y)) -> c_5(le^#(x, y)) , minus^#(x, 0()) -> c_6() , minus^#(x, s(y)) -> c_7(if^#(le(x, s(y)), 0(), p(minus(x, p(s(y))))), le^#(x, s(y)), p^#(minus(x, p(s(y)))), minus^#(x, p(s(y))), p^#(s(y))) , if^#(true(), x, y) -> c_8() , if^#(false(), x, y) -> c_9() } Weak Trs: { p(0()) -> 0() , p(s(x)) -> x , le(0(), y) -> true() , le(s(x), 0()) -> false() , le(s(x), s(y)) -> le(x, y) , minus(x, 0()) -> x , minus(x, s(y)) -> if(le(x, s(y)), 0(), p(minus(x, p(s(y))))) , if(true(), x, y) -> x , if(false(), x, y) -> y } Obligation: innermost runtime complexity Answer: MAYBE We estimate the number of application of {1,2,3,4,6,8,9} by applications of Pre({1,2,3,4,6,8,9}) = {5,7}. Here rules are labeled as follows: DPs: { 1: p^#(0()) -> c_1() , 2: p^#(s(x)) -> c_2() , 3: le^#(0(), y) -> c_3() , 4: le^#(s(x), 0()) -> c_4() , 5: le^#(s(x), s(y)) -> c_5(le^#(x, y)) , 6: minus^#(x, 0()) -> c_6() , 7: minus^#(x, s(y)) -> c_7(if^#(le(x, s(y)), 0(), p(minus(x, p(s(y))))), le^#(x, s(y)), p^#(minus(x, p(s(y)))), minus^#(x, p(s(y))), p^#(s(y))) , 8: if^#(true(), x, y) -> c_8() , 9: if^#(false(), x, y) -> c_9() } We are left with following problem, upon which TcT provides the certificate MAYBE. Strict DPs: { le^#(s(x), s(y)) -> c_5(le^#(x, y)) , minus^#(x, s(y)) -> c_7(if^#(le(x, s(y)), 0(), p(minus(x, p(s(y))))), le^#(x, s(y)), p^#(minus(x, p(s(y)))), minus^#(x, p(s(y))), p^#(s(y))) } Weak DPs: { p^#(0()) -> c_1() , p^#(s(x)) -> c_2() , le^#(0(), y) -> c_3() , le^#(s(x), 0()) -> c_4() , minus^#(x, 0()) -> c_6() , if^#(true(), x, y) -> c_8() , if^#(false(), x, y) -> c_9() } Weak Trs: { p(0()) -> 0() , p(s(x)) -> x , le(0(), y) -> true() , le(s(x), 0()) -> false() , le(s(x), s(y)) -> le(x, y) , minus(x, 0()) -> x , minus(x, s(y)) -> if(le(x, s(y)), 0(), p(minus(x, p(s(y))))) , if(true(), x, y) -> x , if(false(), 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. { p^#(0()) -> c_1() , p^#(s(x)) -> c_2() , le^#(0(), y) -> c_3() , le^#(s(x), 0()) -> c_4() , minus^#(x, 0()) -> c_6() , if^#(true(), x, y) -> c_8() , if^#(false(), x, y) -> c_9() } We are left with following problem, upon which TcT provides the certificate MAYBE. Strict DPs: { le^#(s(x), s(y)) -> c_5(le^#(x, y)) , minus^#(x, s(y)) -> c_7(if^#(le(x, s(y)), 0(), p(minus(x, p(s(y))))), le^#(x, s(y)), p^#(minus(x, p(s(y)))), minus^#(x, p(s(y))), p^#(s(y))) } Weak Trs: { p(0()) -> 0() , p(s(x)) -> x , le(0(), y) -> true() , le(s(x), 0()) -> false() , le(s(x), s(y)) -> le(x, y) , minus(x, 0()) -> x , minus(x, s(y)) -> if(le(x, s(y)), 0(), p(minus(x, p(s(y))))) , if(true(), x, y) -> x , if(false(), 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: { minus^#(x, s(y)) -> c_7(if^#(le(x, s(y)), 0(), p(minus(x, p(s(y))))), le^#(x, s(y)), p^#(minus(x, p(s(y)))), minus^#(x, p(s(y))), p^#(s(y))) } We are left with following problem, upon which TcT provides the certificate MAYBE. Strict DPs: { le^#(s(x), s(y)) -> c_1(le^#(x, y)) , minus^#(x, s(y)) -> c_2(le^#(x, s(y)), minus^#(x, p(s(y)))) } Weak Trs: { p(0()) -> 0() , p(s(x)) -> x , le(0(), y) -> true() , le(s(x), 0()) -> false() , le(s(x), s(y)) -> le(x, y) , minus(x, 0()) -> x , minus(x, s(y)) -> if(le(x, s(y)), 0(), p(minus(x, p(s(y))))) , if(true(), x, y) -> x , if(false(), x, y) -> y } Obligation: innermost runtime complexity Answer: MAYBE We replace rewrite rules by usable rules: Weak Usable Rules: { p(0()) -> 0() , p(s(x)) -> x } We are left with following problem, upon which TcT provides the certificate MAYBE. Strict DPs: { le^#(s(x), s(y)) -> c_1(le^#(x, y)) , minus^#(x, s(y)) -> c_2(le^#(x, s(y)), minus^#(x, p(s(y)))) } Weak Trs: { p(0()) -> 0() , p(s(x)) -> x } Obligation: innermost runtime complexity Answer: MAYBE The input cannot be shown compatible Arrrr..