/export/starexec/sandbox2/solver/bin/starexec_run_tct_dc /export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.xml /export/starexec/sandbox2/output/output_files -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- WORST_CASE(?,O(n^2)) * Step 1: WeightGap. WORST_CASE(?,O(n^2)) + Considered Problem: - Strict TRS: minus(f(x,y)) -> f(minus(y),minus(x)) minus(h(x)) -> h(minus(x)) minus(minus(x)) -> x - Signature: {minus/1} / {f/2,h/1} - Obligation: derivational complexity wrt. signature {f,h,minus} + Applied Processor: WeightGap {wgDimension = 1, wgDegree = 1, wgKind = Algebraic, wgUArgs = NoUArgs, wgOn = WgOnAny} + Details: The weightgap principle applies using the following nonconstant growth matrix-interpretation: We apply a matrix interpretation of kind triangular matrix interpretation: Following symbols are considered usable: all TcT has computed the following interpretation: p(f) = [1] x1 + [1] x2 + [0] p(h) = [1] x1 + [0] p(minus) = [1] x1 + [2] Following rules are strictly oriented: minus(minus(x)) = [1] x + [4] > [1] x + [0] = x Following rules are (at-least) weakly oriented: minus(f(x,y)) = [1] x + [1] y + [2] >= [1] x + [1] y + [4] = f(minus(y),minus(x)) minus(h(x)) = [1] x + [2] >= [1] x + [2] = h(minus(x)) Further, it can be verified that all rules not oriented are covered by the weightgap condition. * Step 2: NaturalMI. WORST_CASE(?,O(n^2)) + Considered Problem: - Strict TRS: minus(f(x,y)) -> f(minus(y),minus(x)) minus(h(x)) -> h(minus(x)) - Weak TRS: minus(minus(x)) -> x - Signature: {minus/1} / {f/2,h/1} - Obligation: derivational complexity wrt. signature {f,h,minus} + Applied Processor: NaturalMI {miDimension = 2, miDegree = 2, miKind = Algebraic, uargs = NoUArgs, urules = NoURules, selector = Just any strict-rules} + Details: We apply a matrix interpretation of kind triangular matrix interpretation: Following symbols are considered usable: all TcT has computed the following interpretation: p(f) = [1 0] x1 + [1 0] x2 + [7] [0 1] [0 1] [2] p(h) = [1 0] x1 + [0] [0 1] [0] p(minus) = [1 4] x1 + [0] [0 1] [0] Following rules are strictly oriented: minus(f(x,y)) = [1 4] x + [1 4] y + [15] [0 1] [0 1] [2] > [1 4] x + [1 4] y + [7] [0 1] [0 1] [2] = f(minus(y),minus(x)) Following rules are (at-least) weakly oriented: minus(h(x)) = [1 4] x + [0] [0 1] [0] >= [1 4] x + [0] [0 1] [0] = h(minus(x)) minus(minus(x)) = [1 8] x + [0] [0 1] [0] >= [1 0] x + [0] [0 1] [0] = x * Step 3: NaturalMI. WORST_CASE(?,O(n^2)) + Considered Problem: - Strict TRS: minus(h(x)) -> h(minus(x)) - Weak TRS: minus(f(x,y)) -> f(minus(y),minus(x)) minus(minus(x)) -> x - Signature: {minus/1} / {f/2,h/1} - Obligation: derivational complexity wrt. signature {f,h,minus} + Applied Processor: NaturalMI {miDimension = 2, miDegree = 2, miKind = Algebraic, uargs = NoUArgs, urules = NoURules, selector = Just any strict-rules} + Details: We apply a matrix interpretation of kind triangular matrix interpretation: Following symbols are considered usable: all TcT has computed the following interpretation: p(f) = [1 0] x1 + [1 0] x2 + [4] [0 1] [0 1] [6] p(h) = [1 0] x1 + [0] [0 1] [1] p(minus) = [1 1] x1 + [0] [0 1] [0] Following rules are strictly oriented: minus(h(x)) = [1 1] x + [1] [0 1] [1] > [1 1] x + [0] [0 1] [1] = h(minus(x)) Following rules are (at-least) weakly oriented: minus(f(x,y)) = [1 1] x + [1 1] y + [10] [0 1] [0 1] [6] >= [1 1] x + [1 1] y + [4] [0 1] [0 1] [6] = f(minus(y),minus(x)) minus(minus(x)) = [1 2] x + [0] [0 1] [0] >= [1 0] x + [0] [0 1] [0] = x * Step 4: EmptyProcessor. WORST_CASE(?,O(1)) + Considered Problem: - Weak TRS: minus(f(x,y)) -> f(minus(y),minus(x)) minus(h(x)) -> h(minus(x)) minus(minus(x)) -> x - Signature: {minus/1} / {f/2,h/1} - Obligation: derivational complexity wrt. signature {f,h,minus} + Applied Processor: EmptyProcessor + Details: The problem is already closed. The intended complexity is O(1). WORST_CASE(?,O(n^2))