MAYBE We are left with following problem, upon which TcT provides the certificate MAYBE. Strict Trs: { cond1(true(), x, y) -> cond2(gr(x, 0()), x, y) , cond2(true(), x, y) -> cond1(or(gr(x, 0()), gr(y, 0())), p(x), y) , cond2(false(), x, y) -> cond3(gr(y, 0()), x, y) , gr(0(), x) -> false() , gr(s(x), 0()) -> true() , gr(s(x), s(y)) -> gr(x, y) , or(x, true()) -> true() , or(true(), x) -> true() , or(false(), false()) -> false() , p(0()) -> 0() , p(s(x)) -> x , cond3(true(), x, y) -> cond1(or(gr(x, 0()), gr(y, 0())), x, p(y)) , cond3(false(), x, y) -> cond1(or(gr(x, 0()), gr(y, 0())), x, y) } Obligation: innermost runtime complexity Answer: MAYBE We add following weak dependency pairs: Strict DPs: { cond1^#(true(), x, y) -> c_1(cond2^#(gr(x, 0()), x, y)) , cond2^#(true(), x, y) -> c_2(cond1^#(or(gr(x, 0()), gr(y, 0())), p(x), y)) , cond2^#(false(), x, y) -> c_3(cond3^#(gr(y, 0()), x, y)) , cond3^#(true(), x, y) -> c_12(cond1^#(or(gr(x, 0()), gr(y, 0())), x, p(y))) , cond3^#(false(), x, y) -> c_13(cond1^#(or(gr(x, 0()), gr(y, 0())), x, y)) , gr^#(0(), x) -> c_4() , gr^#(s(x), 0()) -> c_5() , gr^#(s(x), s(y)) -> c_6(gr^#(x, y)) , or^#(x, true()) -> c_7() , or^#(true(), x) -> c_8() , or^#(false(), false()) -> c_9() , p^#(0()) -> c_10() , p^#(s(x)) -> c_11() } and mark the set of starting terms. We are left with following problem, upon which TcT provides the certificate MAYBE. Strict DPs: { cond1^#(true(), x, y) -> c_1(cond2^#(gr(x, 0()), x, y)) , cond2^#(true(), x, y) -> c_2(cond1^#(or(gr(x, 0()), gr(y, 0())), p(x), y)) , cond2^#(false(), x, y) -> c_3(cond3^#(gr(y, 0()), x, y)) , cond3^#(true(), x, y) -> c_12(cond1^#(or(gr(x, 0()), gr(y, 0())), x, p(y))) , cond3^#(false(), x, y) -> c_13(cond1^#(or(gr(x, 0()), gr(y, 0())), x, y)) , gr^#(0(), x) -> c_4() , gr^#(s(x), 0()) -> c_5() , gr^#(s(x), s(y)) -> c_6(gr^#(x, y)) , or^#(x, true()) -> c_7() , or^#(true(), x) -> c_8() , or^#(false(), false()) -> c_9() , p^#(0()) -> c_10() , p^#(s(x)) -> c_11() } Strict Trs: { cond1(true(), x, y) -> cond2(gr(x, 0()), x, y) , cond2(true(), x, y) -> cond1(or(gr(x, 0()), gr(y, 0())), p(x), y) , cond2(false(), x, y) -> cond3(gr(y, 0()), x, y) , gr(0(), x) -> false() , gr(s(x), 0()) -> true() , gr(s(x), s(y)) -> gr(x, y) , or(x, true()) -> true() , or(true(), x) -> true() , or(false(), false()) -> false() , p(0()) -> 0() , p(s(x)) -> x , cond3(true(), x, y) -> cond1(or(gr(x, 0()), gr(y, 0())), x, p(y)) , cond3(false(), x, y) -> cond1(or(gr(x, 0()), gr(y, 0())), x, y) } Obligation: innermost runtime complexity Answer: MAYBE We replace rewrite rules by usable rules: Strict Usable Rules: { gr(0(), x) -> false() , gr(s(x), 0()) -> true() , gr(s(x), s(y)) -> gr(x, y) , or(x, true()) -> true() , or(true(), x) -> true() , or(false(), false()) -> false() , p(0()) -> 0() , p(s(x)) -> x } We are left with following problem, upon which TcT provides the certificate MAYBE. Strict DPs: { cond1^#(true(), x, y) -> c_1(cond2^#(gr(x, 0()), x, y)) , cond2^#(true(), x, y) -> c_2(cond1^#(or(gr(x, 0()), gr(y, 0())), p(x), y)) , cond2^#(false(), x, y) -> c_3(cond3^#(gr(y, 0()), x, y)) , cond3^#(true(), x, y) -> c_12(cond1^#(or(gr(x, 0()), gr(y, 0())), x, p(y))) , cond3^#(false(), x, y) -> c_13(cond1^#(or(gr(x, 0()), gr(y, 0())), x, y)) , gr^#(0(), x) -> c_4() , gr^#(s(x), 0()) -> c_5() , gr^#(s(x), s(y)) -> c_6(gr^#(x, y)) , or^#(x, true()) -> c_7() , or^#(true(), x) -> c_8() , or^#(false(), false()) -> c_9() , p^#(0()) -> c_10() , p^#(s(x)) -> c_11() } Strict Trs: { gr(0(), x) -> false() , gr(s(x), 0()) -> true() , gr(s(x), s(y)) -> gr(x, y) , or(x, true()) -> true() , or(true(), x) -> true() , or(false(), false()) -> false() , p(0()) -> 0() , p(s(x)) -> x } Obligation: innermost runtime complexity Answer: MAYBE The weightgap principle applies (using the following constant growth matrix-interpretation) The following argument positions are usable: Uargs(or) = {1, 2}, Uargs(cond1^#) = {1, 2, 3}, Uargs(c_1) = {1}, Uargs(cond2^#) = {1}, Uargs(c_2) = {1}, Uargs(c_3) = {1}, Uargs(cond3^#) = {1}, Uargs(c_6) = {1}, Uargs(c_12) = {1}, Uargs(c_13) = {1} TcT has computed following constructor-restricted matrix interpretation. [true] = [0] [gr](x1, x2) = [2] x2 + [1] [0] = [0] [or](x1, x2) = [1] x1 + [1] x2 + [1] [p](x1) = [1] x1 + [1] [false] = [0] [s](x1) = [1] x1 + [2] [cond1^#](x1, x2, x3) = [2] x1 + [1] x2 + [1] x3 + [0] [c_1](x1) = [1] x1 + [2] [cond2^#](x1, x2, x3) = [1] x1 + [1] x2 + [1] x3 + [1] [c_2](x1) = [1] x1 + [0] [c_3](x1) = [1] x1 + [2] [cond3^#](x1, x2, x3) = [2] x1 + [1] x2 + [1] x3 + [2] [gr^#](x1, x2) = [1] x1 + [2] x2 + [1] [c_4] = [0] [c_5] = [2] [c_6](x1) = [1] x1 + [1] [or^#](x1, x2) = [1] x1 + [1] x2 + [2] [c_7] = [1] [c_8] = [1] [c_9] = [1] [p^#](x1) = [2] x1 + [2] [c_10] = [1] [c_11] = [1] [c_12](x1) = [1] x1 + [0] [c_13](x1) = [1] x1 + [1] This order satisfies following ordering constraints: [gr(0(), x)] = [2] x + [1] > [0] = [false()] [gr(s(x), 0())] = [1] > [0] = [true()] [gr(s(x), s(y))] = [2] y + [5] > [2] y + [1] = [gr(x, y)] [or(x, true())] = [1] x + [1] > [0] = [true()] [or(true(), x)] = [1] x + [1] > [0] = [true()] [or(false(), false())] = [1] > [0] = [false()] [p(0())] = [1] > [0] = [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 MAYBE. Strict DPs: { cond1^#(true(), x, y) -> c_1(cond2^#(gr(x, 0()), x, y)) , cond2^#(true(), x, y) -> c_2(cond1^#(or(gr(x, 0()), gr(y, 0())), p(x), y)) , cond2^#(false(), x, y) -> c_3(cond3^#(gr(y, 0()), x, y)) , cond3^#(true(), x, y) -> c_12(cond1^#(or(gr(x, 0()), gr(y, 0())), x, p(y))) , cond3^#(false(), x, y) -> c_13(cond1^#(or(gr(x, 0()), gr(y, 0())), x, y)) } Weak DPs: { gr^#(0(), x) -> c_4() , gr^#(s(x), 0()) -> c_5() , gr^#(s(x), s(y)) -> c_6(gr^#(x, y)) , or^#(x, true()) -> c_7() , or^#(true(), x) -> c_8() , or^#(false(), false()) -> c_9() , p^#(0()) -> c_10() , p^#(s(x)) -> c_11() } Weak Trs: { gr(0(), x) -> false() , gr(s(x), 0()) -> true() , gr(s(x), s(y)) -> gr(x, y) , or(x, true()) -> true() , or(true(), x) -> true() , or(false(), false()) -> false() , p(0()) -> 0() , p(s(x)) -> x } 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. { gr^#(0(), x) -> c_4() , gr^#(s(x), 0()) -> c_5() , gr^#(s(x), s(y)) -> c_6(gr^#(x, y)) , or^#(x, true()) -> c_7() , or^#(true(), x) -> c_8() , or^#(false(), false()) -> c_9() , p^#(0()) -> c_10() , p^#(s(x)) -> c_11() } We are left with following problem, upon which TcT provides the certificate MAYBE. Strict DPs: { cond1^#(true(), x, y) -> c_1(cond2^#(gr(x, 0()), x, y)) , cond2^#(true(), x, y) -> c_2(cond1^#(or(gr(x, 0()), gr(y, 0())), p(x), y)) , cond2^#(false(), x, y) -> c_3(cond3^#(gr(y, 0()), x, y)) , cond3^#(true(), x, y) -> c_12(cond1^#(or(gr(x, 0()), gr(y, 0())), x, p(y))) , cond3^#(false(), x, y) -> c_13(cond1^#(or(gr(x, 0()), gr(y, 0())), x, y)) } Weak Trs: { gr(0(), x) -> false() , gr(s(x), 0()) -> true() , gr(s(x), s(y)) -> gr(x, y) , or(x, true()) -> true() , or(true(), x) -> true() , or(false(), false()) -> false() , p(0()) -> 0() , p(s(x)) -> x } Obligation: innermost runtime complexity Answer: MAYBE The input cannot be shown compatible Arrrr..