YES(?,O(n^1)) We are left with following problem, upon which TcT provides the certificate YES(?,O(n^1)). Strict Trs: { f(x, 0()) -> s(0()) , f(s(x), s(y)) -> s(f(x, y)) , g(0(), x) -> g(f(x, x), x) } Obligation: innermost runtime complexity Answer: YES(?,O(n^1)) We add following dependency tuples: Strict DPs: { f^#(x, 0()) -> c_1() , f^#(s(x), s(y)) -> c_2(f^#(x, y)) , g^#(0(), x) -> c_3(g^#(f(x, x), x), f^#(x, x)) } and mark the set of starting terms. We are left with following problem, upon which TcT provides the certificate YES(?,O(n^1)). Strict DPs: { f^#(x, 0()) -> c_1() , f^#(s(x), s(y)) -> c_2(f^#(x, y)) , g^#(0(), x) -> c_3(g^#(f(x, x), x), f^#(x, x)) } Weak Trs: { f(x, 0()) -> s(0()) , f(s(x), s(y)) -> s(f(x, y)) , g(0(), x) -> g(f(x, x), x) } Obligation: innermost runtime complexity Answer: YES(?,O(n^1)) We estimate the number of application of {1} by applications of Pre({1}) = {2,3}. Here rules are labeled as follows: DPs: { 1: f^#(x, 0()) -> c_1() , 2: f^#(s(x), s(y)) -> c_2(f^#(x, y)) , 3: g^#(0(), x) -> c_3(g^#(f(x, x), x), f^#(x, x)) } We are left with following problem, upon which TcT provides the certificate YES(?,O(n^1)). Strict DPs: { f^#(s(x), s(y)) -> c_2(f^#(x, y)) , g^#(0(), x) -> c_3(g^#(f(x, x), x), f^#(x, x)) } Weak DPs: { f^#(x, 0()) -> c_1() } Weak Trs: { f(x, 0()) -> s(0()) , f(s(x), s(y)) -> s(f(x, y)) , g(0(), x) -> g(f(x, x), x) } 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^#(x, 0()) -> c_1() } We are left with following problem, upon which TcT provides the certificate YES(?,O(n^1)). Strict DPs: { f^#(s(x), s(y)) -> c_2(f^#(x, y)) , g^#(0(), x) -> c_3(g^#(f(x, x), x), f^#(x, x)) } Weak Trs: { f(x, 0()) -> s(0()) , f(s(x), s(y)) -> s(f(x, y)) , g(0(), x) -> g(f(x, x), x) } Obligation: innermost runtime complexity Answer: YES(?,O(n^1)) Due to missing edges in the dependency-graph, the right-hand sides of following rules could be simplified: { g^#(0(), x) -> c_3(g^#(f(x, x), x), f^#(x, x)) } We are left with following problem, upon which TcT provides the certificate YES(?,O(n^1)). Strict DPs: { f^#(s(x), s(y)) -> c_1(f^#(x, y)) , g^#(0(), x) -> c_2(f^#(x, x)) } Weak Trs: { f(x, 0()) -> s(0()) , f(s(x), s(y)) -> s(f(x, y)) , g(0(), x) -> g(f(x, x), x) } Obligation: innermost runtime complexity Answer: YES(?,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(n^1)). Strict DPs: { f^#(s(x), s(y)) -> c_1(f^#(x, y)) , g^#(0(), x) -> c_2(f^#(x, x)) } Obligation: innermost runtime complexity Answer: YES(?,O(n^1)) Consider the dependency graph 1: f^#(s(x), s(y)) -> c_1(f^#(x, y)) -->_1 f^#(s(x), s(y)) -> c_1(f^#(x, y)) :1 2: g^#(0(), x) -> c_2(f^#(x, x)) -->_1 f^#(s(x), s(y)) -> c_1(f^#(x, y)) :1 Following roots of the dependency graph are removed, as the considered set of starting terms is closed under reduction with respect to these rules (modulo compound contexts). { g^#(0(), x) -> c_2(f^#(x, x)) } We are left with following problem, upon which TcT provides the certificate YES(?,O(n^1)). Strict DPs: { f^#(s(x), s(y)) -> c_1(f^#(x, y)) } Obligation: innermost runtime complexity Answer: YES(?,O(n^1)) The input was oriented with the instance of 'Small Polynomial Path Order (PS)' as induced by the safe mapping safe(s) = {1}, safe(f^#) = {2}, safe(c_1) = {} and precedence empty . Following symbols are considered recursive: {f^#} The recursion depth is 1. Further, following argument filtering is employed: pi(s) = [1], pi(f^#) = [1, 2], pi(c_1) = [1] Usable defined function symbols are a subset of: {f^#} For your convenience, here are the satisfied ordering constraints: pi(f^#(s(x), s(y))) = f^#(s(; x); s(; y)) > c_1(f^#(x; y);) = pi(c_1(f^#(x, y))) Hurray, we answered YES(?,O(n^1))