MAYBE
proof of input_4s6qNlpM00.trs
# AProVE Commit ID: aff8ecad908e01718a4c36e68d2e55d5e0f16e15 fuhs 20220216 unpublished


The Runtime Complexity (parallel-innermost) of the given CpxTRS could be proven to be BOUNDS(1, INF).

(0) CpxTRS
(1) RenamingProof [BOTH BOUNDS(ID, ID), 0 ms]
(2) CpxTRS
(3) RelTrsToTrsProof [UPPER BOUND(ID), 0 ms]
(4) CpxTRS
(5) CpxTrsToCdtProof [BOTH BOUNDS(ID, ID), 0 ms]
(6) CdtProblem
    (7) CdtToCpxRelTrsProof [BOTH BOUNDS(ID, ID), 0 ms]
    (8) CpxRelTRS
    (9) RelTrsToDecreasingLoopProblemProof [LOWER BOUND(ID), 0 ms]
    (10) TRS for Loop Detection
    (11) RenamingProof [BOTH BOUNDS(ID, ID), 0 ms]
    (12) CpxRelTRS
        (13) TypeInferenceProof [BOTH BOUNDS(ID, ID), 0 ms]
        (14) typed CpxTrs
        (15) OrderProof [LOWER BOUND(ID), 6 ms]
        (16) typed CpxTrs
(17) CpxTrsToCdtProof [UPPER BOUND(ID), 0 ms]
(18) CdtProblem
    (19) CdtLeafRemovalProof [ComplexityIfPolyImplication, 0 ms]
    (20) CdtProblem
    (21) CdtUsableRulesProof [BOTH BOUNDS(ID, ID), 0 ms]
    (22) CdtProblem
    (23) CdtToCpxRelTrsProof [BOTH BOUNDS(ID, ID), 0 ms]
    (24) CpxTRS
    (25) RelTrsToTrsProof [UPPER BOUND(ID), 0 ms]
    (26) CpxTRS
    (27) RelTrsToWeightedTrsProof [BOTH BOUNDS(ID, ID), 0 ms]
    (28) CpxWeightedTrs
        (29) TypeInferenceProof [BOTH BOUNDS(ID, ID), 0 ms]
        (30) CpxTypedWeightedTrs
        (31) CompletionProof [UPPER BOUND(ID), 0 ms]
        (32) CpxTypedWeightedCompleteTrs
            (33) NarrowingProof [BOTH BOUNDS(ID, ID), 0 ms]
            (34) CpxTypedWeightedCompleteTrs
            (35) CpxTypedWeightedTrsToRntsProof [UPPER BOUND(ID), 0 ms]
            (36) CpxRNTS
            (37) SimplificationProof [BOTH BOUNDS(ID, ID), 0 ms]
            (38) CpxRNTS
            (39) CpxRntsAnalysisOrderProof [BOTH BOUNDS(ID, ID), 0 ms]
            (40) CpxRNTS
            (41) ResultPropagationProof [UPPER BOUND(ID), 0 ms]
            (42) CpxRNTS
            (43) IntTrsBoundProof [UPPER BOUND(ID), 1391 ms]
            (44) CpxRNTS
            (45) IntTrsBoundProof [UPPER BOUND(ID), 535 ms]
            (46) CpxRNTS
        (47) CompletionProof [UPPER BOUND(ID), 0 ms]
        (48) CpxTypedWeightedCompleteTrs
            (49) CpxTypedWeightedTrsToRntsProof [UPPER BOUND(ID), 0 ms]
            (50) CpxRNTS
(51) RelTrsToWeightedTrsProof [UPPER BOUND(ID), 0 ms]
(52) CpxWeightedTrs
    (53) TypeInferenceProof [BOTH BOUNDS(ID, ID), 0 ms]
    (54) CpxTypedWeightedTrs
    (55) CompletionProof [UPPER BOUND(ID), 0 ms]
    (56) CpxTypedWeightedCompleteTrs
        (57) NarrowingProof [BOTH BOUNDS(ID, ID), 0 ms]
        (58) CpxTypedWeightedCompleteTrs
        (59) CpxTypedWeightedTrsToRntsProof [UPPER BOUND(ID), 0 ms]
        (60) CpxRNTS
        (61) InliningProof [UPPER BOUND(ID), 27 ms]
        (62) CpxRNTS
        (63) SimplificationProof [BOTH BOUNDS(ID, ID), 0 ms]
        (64) CpxRNTS
        (65) CpxRntsAnalysisOrderProof [BOTH BOUNDS(ID, ID), 0 ms]
        (66) CpxRNTS
        (67) ResultPropagationProof [UPPER BOUND(ID), 0 ms]
        (68) CpxRNTS
        (69) IntTrsBoundProof [UPPER BOUND(ID), 50 ms]
        (70) CpxRNTS
        (71) IntTrsBoundProof [UPPER BOUND(ID), 7 ms]
        (72) CpxRNTS
        (73) ResultPropagationProof [UPPER BOUND(ID), 0 ms]
        (74) CpxRNTS
        (75) IntTrsBoundProof [UPPER BOUND(ID), 1227 ms]
        (76) CpxRNTS
        (77) IntTrsBoundProof [UPPER BOUND(ID), 627 ms]
        (78) CpxRNTS
    (79) CompletionProof [UPPER BOUND(ID), 0 ms]
    (80) CpxTypedWeightedCompleteTrs
        (81) CpxTypedWeightedTrsToRntsProof [UPPER BOUND(ID), 0 ms]
        (82) CpxRNTS


----------------------------------------

(0)
Obligation:
The Runtime Complexity (parallel-innermost) of the given CpxTRS could be proven to be BOUNDS(1, INF).


The TRS R consists of the following rules:

   equal0(Nil) -> number42(Nil)
   equal0(Cons(x, xs)) -> equal0(Cons(x, xs))
   number42(x) -> Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Nil))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))
   goal(x) -> equal0(x)

S is empty.
Rewrite Strategy: PARALLEL_INNERMOST
----------------------------------------

(1) RenamingProof (BOTH BOUNDS(ID, ID))
Renamed function symbols to avoid clashes with predefined symbol.
----------------------------------------

(2)
Obligation:
The Runtime Complexity (parallel-innermost) of the given CpxTRS could be proven to be BOUNDS(1, INF).


The TRS R consists of the following rules:

   equal0(Nil) -> number42(Nil)
   equal0(Cons(x, xs)) -> equal0(Cons(x, xs))
   number42(x) -> Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Nil))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))
   goal(x) -> equal0(x)

S is empty.
Rewrite Strategy: PARALLEL_INNERMOST
----------------------------------------

(3) RelTrsToTrsProof (UPPER BOUND(ID))
transformed relative TRS to TRS
----------------------------------------

(4)
Obligation:
The Runtime Complexity (parallel-innermost) of the given CpxTRS could be proven to be BOUNDS(1, INF).


The TRS R consists of the following rules:

   equal0(Nil) -> number42(Nil)
   equal0(Cons(x, xs)) -> equal0(Cons(x, xs))
   number42(x) -> Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Nil))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))
   goal(x) -> equal0(x)

S is empty.
Rewrite Strategy: PARALLEL_INNERMOST
----------------------------------------

(5) CpxTrsToCdtProof (BOTH BOUNDS(ID, ID))
Converted Cpx (relative) TRS with rewrite strategy PARALLEL_INNERMOST to CDT
----------------------------------------

(6)
Obligation:
Complexity Dependency Tuples Problem

Rules:
   equal0(Nil) -> number42(Nil)
   equal0(Cons(z0, z1)) -> equal0(Cons(z0, z1))
   number42(z0) -> Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Nil))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))
   goal(z0) -> equal0(z0)
Tuples:
   EQUAL0(Nil) -> c(NUMBER42(Nil))
   EQUAL0(Cons(z0, z1)) -> c1(EQUAL0(Cons(z0, z1)))
   NUMBER42(z0) -> c2
   GOAL(z0) -> c3(EQUAL0(z0))
S tuples:
   EQUAL0(Nil) -> c(NUMBER42(Nil))
   EQUAL0(Cons(z0, z1)) -> c1(EQUAL0(Cons(z0, z1)))
   NUMBER42(z0) -> c2
   GOAL(z0) -> c3(EQUAL0(z0))
K tuples:none
Defined Rule Symbols:   equal0_1, number42_1, goal_1

Defined Pair Symbols:   EQUAL0_1, NUMBER42_1, GOAL_1

Compound Symbols:   c_1, c1_1, c2, c3_1


----------------------------------------

(7) CdtToCpxRelTrsProof (BOTH BOUNDS(ID, ID))
Converted S to standard rules, and D \ S as well as R to relative rules.
----------------------------------------

(8)
Obligation:
The Runtime Complexity (innermost) of the given CpxRelTRS could be proven to be BOUNDS(1, INF).


The TRS R consists of the following rules:

   EQUAL0(Nil) -> c(NUMBER42(Nil))
   EQUAL0(Cons(z0, z1)) -> c1(EQUAL0(Cons(z0, z1)))
   NUMBER42(z0) -> c2
   GOAL(z0) -> c3(EQUAL0(z0))

The (relative) TRS S consists of the following rules:

   equal0(Nil) -> number42(Nil)
   equal0(Cons(z0, z1)) -> equal0(Cons(z0, z1))
   number42(z0) -> Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Nil))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))
   goal(z0) -> equal0(z0)

Rewrite Strategy: INNERMOST
----------------------------------------

(9) RelTrsToDecreasingLoopProblemProof (LOWER BOUND(ID))
Transformed a relative TRS into a decreasing-loop problem.
----------------------------------------

(10)
Obligation:
Analyzing the following TRS for decreasing loops:

The Runtime Complexity (innermost) of the given CpxRelTRS could be proven to be BOUNDS(1, INF).


The TRS R consists of the following rules:

   EQUAL0(Nil) -> c(NUMBER42(Nil))
   EQUAL0(Cons(z0, z1)) -> c1(EQUAL0(Cons(z0, z1)))
   NUMBER42(z0) -> c2
   GOAL(z0) -> c3(EQUAL0(z0))

The (relative) TRS S consists of the following rules:

   equal0(Nil) -> number42(Nil)
   equal0(Cons(z0, z1)) -> equal0(Cons(z0, z1))
   number42(z0) -> Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Nil))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))
   goal(z0) -> equal0(z0)

Rewrite Strategy: INNERMOST
----------------------------------------

(11) RenamingProof (BOTH BOUNDS(ID, ID))
Renamed function symbols to avoid clashes with predefined symbol.
----------------------------------------

(12)
Obligation:
The Runtime Complexity (innermost) of the given CpxRelTRS could be proven to be BOUNDS(1, INF).


The TRS R consists of the following rules:

   EQUAL0(Nil) -> c(NUMBER42(Nil))
   EQUAL0(Cons(z0, z1)) -> c1(EQUAL0(Cons(z0, z1)))
   NUMBER42(z0) -> c2
   GOAL(z0) -> c3(EQUAL0(z0))

The (relative) TRS S consists of the following rules:

   equal0(Nil) -> number42(Nil)
   equal0(Cons(z0, z1)) -> equal0(Cons(z0, z1))
   number42(z0) -> Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Nil))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))
   goal(z0) -> equal0(z0)

Rewrite Strategy: INNERMOST
----------------------------------------

(13) TypeInferenceProof (BOTH BOUNDS(ID, ID))
Inferred types.
----------------------------------------

(14)
Obligation:
Innermost TRS:
Rules:
EQUAL0(Nil) -> c(NUMBER42(Nil))
EQUAL0(Cons(z0, z1)) -> c1(EQUAL0(Cons(z0, z1)))
NUMBER42(z0) -> c2
GOAL(z0) -> c3(EQUAL0(z0))
equal0(Nil) -> number42(Nil)
equal0(Cons(z0, z1)) -> equal0(Cons(z0, z1))
number42(z0) -> Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Nil))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))
goal(z0) -> equal0(z0)

Types:
EQUAL0 :: Nil:Cons -> c:c1
Nil :: Nil:Cons
c :: c2 -> c:c1
NUMBER42 :: Nil:Cons -> c2
Cons :: Nil:Cons -> Nil:Cons -> Nil:Cons
c1 :: c:c1 -> c:c1
c2 :: c2
GOAL :: Nil:Cons -> c3
c3 :: c:c1 -> c3
equal0 :: Nil:Cons -> Nil:Cons
number42 :: Nil:Cons -> Nil:Cons
goal :: Nil:Cons -> Nil:Cons
hole_c:c11_4 :: c:c1
hole_Nil:Cons2_4 :: Nil:Cons
hole_c23_4 :: c2
hole_c34_4 :: c3
gen_c:c15_4 :: Nat -> c:c1
gen_Nil:Cons6_4 :: Nat -> Nil:Cons

----------------------------------------

(15) OrderProof (LOWER BOUND(ID))
Heuristically decided to analyse the following defined symbols:
EQUAL0, equal0
----------------------------------------

(16)
Obligation:
Innermost TRS:
Rules:
EQUAL0(Nil) -> c(NUMBER42(Nil))
EQUAL0(Cons(z0, z1)) -> c1(EQUAL0(Cons(z0, z1)))
NUMBER42(z0) -> c2
GOAL(z0) -> c3(EQUAL0(z0))
equal0(Nil) -> number42(Nil)
equal0(Cons(z0, z1)) -> equal0(Cons(z0, z1))
number42(z0) -> Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Nil))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))
goal(z0) -> equal0(z0)

Types:
EQUAL0 :: Nil:Cons -> c:c1
Nil :: Nil:Cons
c :: c2 -> c:c1
NUMBER42 :: Nil:Cons -> c2
Cons :: Nil:Cons -> Nil:Cons -> Nil:Cons
c1 :: c:c1 -> c:c1
c2 :: c2
GOAL :: Nil:Cons -> c3
c3 :: c:c1 -> c3
equal0 :: Nil:Cons -> Nil:Cons
number42 :: Nil:Cons -> Nil:Cons
goal :: Nil:Cons -> Nil:Cons
hole_c:c11_4 :: c:c1
hole_Nil:Cons2_4 :: Nil:Cons
hole_c23_4 :: c2
hole_c34_4 :: c3
gen_c:c15_4 :: Nat -> c:c1
gen_Nil:Cons6_4 :: Nat -> Nil:Cons


Generator Equations:
gen_c:c15_4(0) <=> c(c2)
gen_c:c15_4(+(x, 1)) <=> c1(gen_c:c15_4(x))
gen_Nil:Cons6_4(0) <=> Nil
gen_Nil:Cons6_4(+(x, 1)) <=> Cons(Nil, gen_Nil:Cons6_4(x))


The following defined symbols remain to be analysed:
EQUAL0, equal0
----------------------------------------

(17) CpxTrsToCdtProof (UPPER BOUND(ID))
Converted Cpx (relative) TRS with rewrite strategy PARALLEL_INNERMOST to CDT
----------------------------------------

(18)
Obligation:
Complexity Dependency Tuples Problem

Rules:
   equal0(Nil) -> number42(Nil)
   equal0(Cons(z0, z1)) -> equal0(Cons(z0, z1))
   number42(z0) -> Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Nil))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))
   goal(z0) -> equal0(z0)
Tuples:
   EQUAL0(Nil) -> c(NUMBER42(Nil))
   EQUAL0(Cons(z0, z1)) -> c1(EQUAL0(Cons(z0, z1)))
   NUMBER42(z0) -> c2
   GOAL(z0) -> c3(EQUAL0(z0))
S tuples:
   EQUAL0(Nil) -> c(NUMBER42(Nil))
   EQUAL0(Cons(z0, z1)) -> c1(EQUAL0(Cons(z0, z1)))
   NUMBER42(z0) -> c2
   GOAL(z0) -> c3(EQUAL0(z0))
K tuples:none
Defined Rule Symbols:   equal0_1, number42_1, goal_1

Defined Pair Symbols:   EQUAL0_1, NUMBER42_1, GOAL_1

Compound Symbols:   c_1, c1_1, c2, c3_1


----------------------------------------

(19) CdtLeafRemovalProof (ComplexityIfPolyImplication)
Removed 1 leading nodes:
   GOAL(z0) -> c3(EQUAL0(z0))
Removed 2 trailing nodes:
   EQUAL0(Nil) -> c(NUMBER42(Nil))
   NUMBER42(z0) -> c2

----------------------------------------

(20)
Obligation:
Complexity Dependency Tuples Problem

Rules:
   equal0(Nil) -> number42(Nil)
   equal0(Cons(z0, z1)) -> equal0(Cons(z0, z1))
   number42(z0) -> Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Nil))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))
   goal(z0) -> equal0(z0)
Tuples:
   EQUAL0(Cons(z0, z1)) -> c1(EQUAL0(Cons(z0, z1)))
S tuples:
   EQUAL0(Cons(z0, z1)) -> c1(EQUAL0(Cons(z0, z1)))
K tuples:none
Defined Rule Symbols:   equal0_1, number42_1, goal_1

Defined Pair Symbols:   EQUAL0_1

Compound Symbols:   c1_1


----------------------------------------

(21) CdtUsableRulesProof (BOTH BOUNDS(ID, ID))
The following rules are not usable and were removed:
   equal0(Nil) -> number42(Nil)
   equal0(Cons(z0, z1)) -> equal0(Cons(z0, z1))
   number42(z0) -> Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Nil))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))
   goal(z0) -> equal0(z0)

----------------------------------------

(22)
Obligation:
Complexity Dependency Tuples Problem

Rules:none
Tuples:
   EQUAL0(Cons(z0, z1)) -> c1(EQUAL0(Cons(z0, z1)))
S tuples:
   EQUAL0(Cons(z0, z1)) -> c1(EQUAL0(Cons(z0, z1)))
K tuples:none
Defined Rule Symbols:none

Defined Pair Symbols:   EQUAL0_1

Compound Symbols:   c1_1


----------------------------------------

(23) CdtToCpxRelTrsProof (BOTH BOUNDS(ID, ID))
Converted S to standard rules, and D \ S as well as R to relative rules.
----------------------------------------

(24)
Obligation:
The Runtime Complexity (innermost) of the given CpxTRS could be proven to be BOUNDS(1, INF).


The TRS R consists of the following rules:

   EQUAL0(Cons(z0, z1)) -> c1(EQUAL0(Cons(z0, z1)))

S is empty.
Rewrite Strategy: INNERMOST
----------------------------------------

(25) RelTrsToTrsProof (UPPER BOUND(ID))
transformed relative TRS to TRS
----------------------------------------

(26)
Obligation:
The Runtime Complexity (innermost) of the given CpxTRS could be proven to be BOUNDS(1, INF).


The TRS R consists of the following rules:

   EQUAL0(Cons(z0, z1)) -> c1(EQUAL0(Cons(z0, z1)))

S is empty.
Rewrite Strategy: INNERMOST
----------------------------------------

(27) RelTrsToWeightedTrsProof (BOTH BOUNDS(ID, ID))
Transformed relative TRS to weighted TRS
----------------------------------------

(28)
Obligation:
The Runtime Complexity (innermost) of the given CpxWeightedTrs could be proven to be BOUNDS(1, INF).


The TRS R consists of the following rules:

   EQUAL0(Cons(z0, z1)) -> c1(EQUAL0(Cons(z0, z1))) [1]

Rewrite Strategy: INNERMOST
----------------------------------------

(29) TypeInferenceProof (BOTH BOUNDS(ID, ID))
Infered types.
----------------------------------------

(30)
Obligation:
Runtime Complexity Weighted TRS with Types.
The TRS R consists of the following rules:

   EQUAL0(Cons(z0, z1)) -> c1(EQUAL0(Cons(z0, z1))) [1]

The TRS has the following type information:
EQUAL0 :: Cons -> c1
Cons :: a -> b -> Cons
c1 :: c1 -> c1

Rewrite Strategy: INNERMOST
----------------------------------------

(31) CompletionProof (UPPER BOUND(ID))
The transformation into a RNTS is sound, since:

(a) The obligation is a constructor system where every type has a constant constructor,

(b) The following defined symbols do not have to be completely defined, as they can never occur inside other defined symbols:

   EQUAL0_1

(c) The following functions are completely defined:
none

Due to the following rules being added:
none

And the following fresh constants:    const, const1, const2, const3

----------------------------------------

(32)
Obligation:
Runtime Complexity Weighted TRS where critical functions are completely defined. The underlying TRS is:

Runtime Complexity Weighted TRS with Types.
The TRS R consists of the following rules:

   EQUAL0(Cons(z0, z1)) -> c1(EQUAL0(Cons(z0, z1))) [1]

The TRS has the following type information:
EQUAL0 :: Cons -> c1
Cons :: a -> b -> Cons
c1 :: c1 -> c1
const :: c1
const1 :: Cons
const2 :: a
const3 :: b

Rewrite Strategy: INNERMOST
----------------------------------------

(33) NarrowingProof (BOTH BOUNDS(ID, ID))
Narrowed the inner basic terms of all right-hand sides by a single narrowing step.
----------------------------------------

(34)
Obligation:
Runtime Complexity Weighted TRS where critical functions are completely defined. The underlying TRS is:

Runtime Complexity Weighted TRS with Types.
The TRS R consists of the following rules:

   EQUAL0(Cons(z0, z1)) -> c1(EQUAL0(Cons(z0, z1))) [1]

The TRS has the following type information:
EQUAL0 :: Cons -> c1
Cons :: a -> b -> Cons
c1 :: c1 -> c1
const :: c1
const1 :: Cons
const2 :: a
const3 :: b

Rewrite Strategy: INNERMOST
----------------------------------------

(35) CpxTypedWeightedTrsToRntsProof (UPPER BOUND(ID))
Transformed the TRS into an over-approximating RNTS by (improved) Size Abstraction.
The constant constructors are abstracted as follows:

   const => 0
   const1 => 0
   const2 => 0
   const3 => 0

----------------------------------------

(36)
Obligation:
Complexity RNTS consisting of the following rules:

   EQUAL0(z) -{ 1 }-> 1 + EQUAL0(1 + z0 + z1) :|: z1 >= 0, z0 >= 0, z = 1 + z0 + z1


----------------------------------------

(37) SimplificationProof (BOTH BOUNDS(ID, ID))
Simplified the RNTS by moving equalities from the constraints into the right-hand sides.
----------------------------------------

(38)
Obligation:
Complexity RNTS consisting of the following rules:

   EQUAL0(z) -{ 1 }-> 1 + EQUAL0(1 + z0 + z1) :|: z1 >= 0, z0 >= 0, z = 1 + z0 + z1


----------------------------------------

(39) CpxRntsAnalysisOrderProof (BOTH BOUNDS(ID, ID))
Found the following analysis order by SCC decomposition:

   { EQUAL0 }

----------------------------------------

(40)
Obligation:
Complexity RNTS consisting of the following rules:

   EQUAL0(z) -{ 1 }-> 1 + EQUAL0(1 + z0 + z1) :|: z1 >= 0, z0 >= 0, z = 1 + z0 + z1

Function symbols to be analyzed: {EQUAL0}

----------------------------------------

(41) ResultPropagationProof (UPPER BOUND(ID))
Applied inner abstraction using the recently inferred runtime/size bounds where possible.
----------------------------------------

(42)
Obligation:
Complexity RNTS consisting of the following rules:

   EQUAL0(z) -{ 1 }-> 1 + EQUAL0(1 + z0 + z1) :|: z1 >= 0, z0 >= 0, z = 1 + z0 + z1

Function symbols to be analyzed: {EQUAL0}

----------------------------------------

(43) IntTrsBoundProof (UPPER BOUND(ID))

Computed SIZE bound using CoFloCo for: EQUAL0
after applying outer abstraction to obtain an ITS,
resulting in: O(1) with polynomial bound: 0

----------------------------------------

(44)
Obligation:
Complexity RNTS consisting of the following rules:

   EQUAL0(z) -{ 1 }-> 1 + EQUAL0(1 + z0 + z1) :|: z1 >= 0, z0 >= 0, z = 1 + z0 + z1

Function symbols to be analyzed: {EQUAL0}
Previous analysis results are:
  EQUAL0: runtime: ?, size: O(1) [0]

----------------------------------------

(45) IntTrsBoundProof (UPPER BOUND(ID))

Computed RUNTIME bound using CoFloCo for: EQUAL0
after applying outer abstraction to obtain an ITS,
resulting in: INF with polynomial bound: ?

----------------------------------------

(46)
Obligation:
Complexity RNTS consisting of the following rules:

   EQUAL0(z) -{ 1 }-> 1 + EQUAL0(1 + z0 + z1) :|: z1 >= 0, z0 >= 0, z = 1 + z0 + z1

Function symbols to be analyzed: {EQUAL0}
Previous analysis results are:
  EQUAL0: runtime: INF, size: O(1) [0]

----------------------------------------

(47) CompletionProof (UPPER BOUND(ID))
The TRS is a completely defined constructor system, as every type has a constant constructor and the following rules were added:

   EQUAL0(v0) -> null_EQUAL0 [0]

And the following fresh constants:    null_EQUAL0, const, const1, const2

----------------------------------------

(48)
Obligation:
Runtime Complexity Weighted TRS where all functions are completely defined. The underlying TRS is:

Runtime Complexity Weighted TRS with Types.
The TRS R consists of the following rules:

   EQUAL0(Cons(z0, z1)) -> c1(EQUAL0(Cons(z0, z1))) [1]
   EQUAL0(v0) -> null_EQUAL0 [0]

The TRS has the following type information:
EQUAL0 :: Cons -> c1:null_EQUAL0
Cons :: a -> b -> Cons
c1 :: c1:null_EQUAL0 -> c1:null_EQUAL0
null_EQUAL0 :: c1:null_EQUAL0
const :: Cons
const1 :: a
const2 :: b

Rewrite Strategy: INNERMOST
----------------------------------------

(49) CpxTypedWeightedTrsToRntsProof (UPPER BOUND(ID))
Transformed the TRS into an over-approximating RNTS by (improved) Size Abstraction.
The constant constructors are abstracted as follows:

   null_EQUAL0 => 0
   const => 0
   const1 => 0
   const2 => 0

----------------------------------------

(50)
Obligation:
Complexity RNTS consisting of the following rules:

   EQUAL0(z) -{ 0 }-> 0 :|: v0 >= 0, z = v0
   EQUAL0(z) -{ 1 }-> 1 + EQUAL0(1 + z0 + z1) :|: z1 >= 0, z0 >= 0, z = 1 + z0 + z1

Only complete derivations are relevant for the runtime complexity.

----------------------------------------

(51) RelTrsToWeightedTrsProof (UPPER BOUND(ID))
Transformed relative TRS to weighted TRS
----------------------------------------

(52)
Obligation:
The Runtime Complexity (innermost) of the given CpxWeightedTrs could be proven to be BOUNDS(1, INF).


The TRS R consists of the following rules:

   equal0(Nil) -> number42(Nil) [1]
   equal0(Cons(x, xs)) -> equal0(Cons(x, xs)) [1]
   number42(x) -> Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Nil)))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))) [1]
   goal(x) -> equal0(x) [1]

Rewrite Strategy: INNERMOST
----------------------------------------

(53) TypeInferenceProof (BOTH BOUNDS(ID, ID))
Infered types.
----------------------------------------

(54)
Obligation:
Runtime Complexity Weighted TRS with Types.
The TRS R consists of the following rules:

   equal0(Nil) -> number42(Nil) [1]
   equal0(Cons(x, xs)) -> equal0(Cons(x, xs)) [1]
   number42(x) -> Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Nil)))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))) [1]
   goal(x) -> equal0(x) [1]

The TRS has the following type information:
equal0 :: Nil:Cons -> Nil:Cons
Nil :: Nil:Cons
number42 :: Nil:Cons -> Nil:Cons
Cons :: Nil:Cons -> Nil:Cons -> Nil:Cons
goal :: Nil:Cons -> Nil:Cons

Rewrite Strategy: INNERMOST
----------------------------------------

(55) CompletionProof (UPPER BOUND(ID))
The transformation into a RNTS is sound, since:

(a) The obligation is a constructor system where every type has a constant constructor,

(b) The following defined symbols do not have to be completely defined, as they can never occur inside other defined symbols:

   equal0_1
   number42_1
   goal_1

(c) The following functions are completely defined:
none

Due to the following rules being added:
none

And the following fresh constants: none

----------------------------------------

(56)
Obligation:
Runtime Complexity Weighted TRS where critical functions are completely defined. The underlying TRS is:

Runtime Complexity Weighted TRS with Types.
The TRS R consists of the following rules:

   equal0(Nil) -> number42(Nil) [1]
   equal0(Cons(x, xs)) -> equal0(Cons(x, xs)) [1]
   number42(x) -> Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Nil)))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))) [1]
   goal(x) -> equal0(x) [1]

The TRS has the following type information:
equal0 :: Nil:Cons -> Nil:Cons
Nil :: Nil:Cons
number42 :: Nil:Cons -> Nil:Cons
Cons :: Nil:Cons -> Nil:Cons -> Nil:Cons
goal :: Nil:Cons -> Nil:Cons

Rewrite Strategy: INNERMOST
----------------------------------------

(57) NarrowingProof (BOTH BOUNDS(ID, ID))
Narrowed the inner basic terms of all right-hand sides by a single narrowing step.
----------------------------------------

(58)
Obligation:
Runtime Complexity Weighted TRS where critical functions are completely defined. The underlying TRS is:

Runtime Complexity Weighted TRS with Types.
The TRS R consists of the following rules:

   equal0(Nil) -> number42(Nil) [1]
   equal0(Cons(x, xs)) -> equal0(Cons(x, xs)) [1]
   number42(x) -> Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Nil)))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))) [1]
   goal(x) -> equal0(x) [1]

The TRS has the following type information:
equal0 :: Nil:Cons -> Nil:Cons
Nil :: Nil:Cons
number42 :: Nil:Cons -> Nil:Cons
Cons :: Nil:Cons -> Nil:Cons -> Nil:Cons
goal :: Nil:Cons -> Nil:Cons

Rewrite Strategy: INNERMOST
----------------------------------------

(59) CpxTypedWeightedTrsToRntsProof (UPPER BOUND(ID))
Transformed the TRS into an over-approximating RNTS by (improved) Size Abstraction.
The constant constructors are abstracted as follows:

   Nil => 0

----------------------------------------

(60)
Obligation:
Complexity RNTS consisting of the following rules:

   equal0(z) -{ 1 }-> number42(0) :|: z = 0
   equal0(z) -{ 1 }-> equal0(1 + x + xs) :|: z = 1 + x + xs, xs >= 0, x >= 0
   goal(z) -{ 1 }-> equal0(x) :|: x >= 0, z = x
   number42(z) -{ 1 }-> 1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + 0))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))) :|: x >= 0, z = x


----------------------------------------

(61) InliningProof (UPPER BOUND(ID))
Inlined the following terminating rules on right-hand sides where appropriate:

   number42(z) -{ 1 }-> 1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + 0))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))) :|: x >= 0, z = x

----------------------------------------

(62)
Obligation:
Complexity RNTS consisting of the following rules:

   equal0(z) -{ 1 }-> equal0(1 + x + xs) :|: z = 1 + x + xs, xs >= 0, x >= 0
   equal0(z) -{ 2 }-> 1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + 0))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))) :|: z = 0, x >= 0, 0 = x
   goal(z) -{ 1 }-> equal0(x) :|: x >= 0, z = x
   number42(z) -{ 1 }-> 1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + 0))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))) :|: x >= 0, z = x


----------------------------------------

(63) SimplificationProof (BOTH BOUNDS(ID, ID))
Simplified the RNTS by moving equalities from the constraints into the right-hand sides.
----------------------------------------

(64)
Obligation:
Complexity RNTS consisting of the following rules:

   equal0(z) -{ 1 }-> equal0(1 + x + xs) :|: z = 1 + x + xs, xs >= 0, x >= 0
   equal0(z) -{ 2 }-> 1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + 0))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))) :|: z = 0, x >= 0, 0 = x
   goal(z) -{ 1 }-> equal0(z) :|: z >= 0
   number42(z) -{ 1 }-> 1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + 0))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))) :|: z >= 0


----------------------------------------

(65) CpxRntsAnalysisOrderProof (BOTH BOUNDS(ID, ID))
Found the following analysis order by SCC decomposition:

   { number42 }
   { equal0 }
   { goal }

----------------------------------------

(66)
Obligation:
Complexity RNTS consisting of the following rules:

   equal0(z) -{ 1 }-> equal0(1 + x + xs) :|: z = 1 + x + xs, xs >= 0, x >= 0
   equal0(z) -{ 2 }-> 1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + 0))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))) :|: z = 0, x >= 0, 0 = x
   goal(z) -{ 1 }-> equal0(z) :|: z >= 0
   number42(z) -{ 1 }-> 1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + 0))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))) :|: z >= 0

Function symbols to be analyzed: {number42}, {equal0}, {goal}

----------------------------------------

(67) ResultPropagationProof (UPPER BOUND(ID))
Applied inner abstraction using the recently inferred runtime/size bounds where possible.
----------------------------------------

(68)
Obligation:
Complexity RNTS consisting of the following rules:

   equal0(z) -{ 1 }-> equal0(1 + x + xs) :|: z = 1 + x + xs, xs >= 0, x >= 0
   equal0(z) -{ 2 }-> 1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + 0))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))) :|: z = 0, x >= 0, 0 = x
   goal(z) -{ 1 }-> equal0(z) :|: z >= 0
   number42(z) -{ 1 }-> 1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + 0))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))) :|: z >= 0

Function symbols to be analyzed: {number42}, {equal0}, {goal}

----------------------------------------

(69) IntTrsBoundProof (UPPER BOUND(ID))

Computed SIZE bound using CoFloCo for: number42
after applying outer abstraction to obtain an ITS,
resulting in: O(1) with polynomial bound: 42

----------------------------------------

(70)
Obligation:
Complexity RNTS consisting of the following rules:

   equal0(z) -{ 1 }-> equal0(1 + x + xs) :|: z = 1 + x + xs, xs >= 0, x >= 0
   equal0(z) -{ 2 }-> 1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + 0))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))) :|: z = 0, x >= 0, 0 = x
   goal(z) -{ 1 }-> equal0(z) :|: z >= 0
   number42(z) -{ 1 }-> 1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + 0))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))) :|: z >= 0

Function symbols to be analyzed: {number42}, {equal0}, {goal}
Previous analysis results are:
  number42: runtime: ?, size: O(1) [42]

----------------------------------------

(71) IntTrsBoundProof (UPPER BOUND(ID))

Computed RUNTIME bound using CoFloCo for: number42
after applying outer abstraction to obtain an ITS,
resulting in: O(1) with polynomial bound: 1

----------------------------------------

(72)
Obligation:
Complexity RNTS consisting of the following rules:

   equal0(z) -{ 1 }-> equal0(1 + x + xs) :|: z = 1 + x + xs, xs >= 0, x >= 0
   equal0(z) -{ 2 }-> 1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + 0))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))) :|: z = 0, x >= 0, 0 = x
   goal(z) -{ 1 }-> equal0(z) :|: z >= 0
   number42(z) -{ 1 }-> 1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + 0))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))) :|: z >= 0

Function symbols to be analyzed: {equal0}, {goal}
Previous analysis results are:
  number42: runtime: O(1) [1], size: O(1) [42]

----------------------------------------

(73) ResultPropagationProof (UPPER BOUND(ID))
Applied inner abstraction using the recently inferred runtime/size bounds where possible.
----------------------------------------

(74)
Obligation:
Complexity RNTS consisting of the following rules:

   equal0(z) -{ 1 }-> equal0(1 + x + xs) :|: z = 1 + x + xs, xs >= 0, x >= 0
   equal0(z) -{ 2 }-> 1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + 0))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))) :|: z = 0, x >= 0, 0 = x
   goal(z) -{ 1 }-> equal0(z) :|: z >= 0
   number42(z) -{ 1 }-> 1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + 0))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))) :|: z >= 0

Function symbols to be analyzed: {equal0}, {goal}
Previous analysis results are:
  number42: runtime: O(1) [1], size: O(1) [42]

----------------------------------------

(75) IntTrsBoundProof (UPPER BOUND(ID))

Computed SIZE bound using CoFloCo for: equal0
after applying outer abstraction to obtain an ITS,
resulting in: O(1) with polynomial bound: 42

----------------------------------------

(76)
Obligation:
Complexity RNTS consisting of the following rules:

   equal0(z) -{ 1 }-> equal0(1 + x + xs) :|: z = 1 + x + xs, xs >= 0, x >= 0
   equal0(z) -{ 2 }-> 1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + 0))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))) :|: z = 0, x >= 0, 0 = x
   goal(z) -{ 1 }-> equal0(z) :|: z >= 0
   number42(z) -{ 1 }-> 1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + 0))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))) :|: z >= 0

Function symbols to be analyzed: {equal0}, {goal}
Previous analysis results are:
  number42: runtime: O(1) [1], size: O(1) [42]
  equal0: runtime: ?, size: O(1) [42]

----------------------------------------

(77) IntTrsBoundProof (UPPER BOUND(ID))

Computed RUNTIME bound using CoFloCo for: equal0
after applying outer abstraction to obtain an ITS,
resulting in: INF with polynomial bound: ?

----------------------------------------

(78)
Obligation:
Complexity RNTS consisting of the following rules:

   equal0(z) -{ 1 }-> equal0(1 + x + xs) :|: z = 1 + x + xs, xs >= 0, x >= 0
   equal0(z) -{ 2 }-> 1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + 0))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))) :|: z = 0, x >= 0, 0 = x
   goal(z) -{ 1 }-> equal0(z) :|: z >= 0
   number42(z) -{ 1 }-> 1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + 0))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))) :|: z >= 0

Function symbols to be analyzed: {equal0}, {goal}
Previous analysis results are:
  number42: runtime: O(1) [1], size: O(1) [42]
  equal0: runtime: INF, size: O(1) [42]

----------------------------------------

(79) CompletionProof (UPPER BOUND(ID))
The TRS is a completely defined constructor system, as every type has a constant constructor and the following rules were added:
none

And the following fresh constants: none

----------------------------------------

(80)
Obligation:
Runtime Complexity Weighted TRS where all functions are completely defined. The underlying TRS is:

Runtime Complexity Weighted TRS with Types.
The TRS R consists of the following rules:

   equal0(Nil) -> number42(Nil) [1]
   equal0(Cons(x, xs)) -> equal0(Cons(x, xs)) [1]
   number42(x) -> Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Nil)))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))) [1]
   goal(x) -> equal0(x) [1]

The TRS has the following type information:
equal0 :: Nil:Cons -> Nil:Cons
Nil :: Nil:Cons
number42 :: Nil:Cons -> Nil:Cons
Cons :: Nil:Cons -> Nil:Cons -> Nil:Cons
goal :: Nil:Cons -> Nil:Cons

Rewrite Strategy: INNERMOST
----------------------------------------

(81) CpxTypedWeightedTrsToRntsProof (UPPER BOUND(ID))
Transformed the TRS into an over-approximating RNTS by (improved) Size Abstraction.
The constant constructors are abstracted as follows:

   Nil => 0

----------------------------------------

(82)
Obligation:
Complexity RNTS consisting of the following rules:

   equal0(z) -{ 1 }-> number42(0) :|: z = 0
   equal0(z) -{ 1 }-> equal0(1 + x + xs) :|: z = 1 + x + xs, xs >= 0, x >= 0
   goal(z) -{ 1 }-> equal0(x) :|: x >= 0, z = x
   number42(z) -{ 1 }-> 1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + 0))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))) :|: x >= 0, z = x

Only complete derivations are relevant for the runtime complexity.