MAYBE We are left with following problem, upon which TcT provides the certificate MAYBE. Strict Trs: { f(X) -> f(c()) , c() -> b() } Obligation: innermost runtime complexity Answer: MAYBE We add following weak dependency pairs: Strict DPs: { f^#(X) -> c_1(f^#(c())) , c^#() -> c_2() } and mark the set of starting terms. We are left with following problem, upon which TcT provides the certificate MAYBE. Strict DPs: { f^#(X) -> c_1(f^#(c())) , c^#() -> c_2() } Strict Trs: { f(X) -> f(c()) , c() -> b() } Obligation: innermost runtime complexity Answer: MAYBE We replace rewrite rules by usable rules: Strict Usable Rules: { c() -> b() } We are left with following problem, upon which TcT provides the certificate MAYBE. Strict DPs: { f^#(X) -> c_1(f^#(c())) , c^#() -> c_2() } Strict Trs: { c() -> b() } Obligation: innermost runtime complexity Answer: MAYBE The weightgap principle applies (using the following constant growth matrix-interpretation) The following argument positions are usable: Uargs(f^#) = {1}, Uargs(c_1) = {1} TcT has computed following constructor-restricted matrix interpretation. [c] = [2] [b] = [1] [f^#](x1) = [1] x1 + [1] [c_1](x1) = [1] x1 + [1] [c^#] = [2] [c_2] = [1] This order satisfies following ordering constraints: [c()] = [2] > [1] = [b()] 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: { f^#(X) -> c_1(f^#(c())) } Weak DPs: { c^#() -> c_2() } Weak Trs: { c() -> b() } 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. { c^#() -> c_2() } We are left with following problem, upon which TcT provides the certificate MAYBE. Strict DPs: { f^#(X) -> c_1(f^#(c())) } Weak Trs: { c() -> b() } Obligation: innermost runtime complexity Answer: MAYBE The input cannot be shown compatible Arrrr..