myautolength}{\minautolength}}}
\settowidth{\mysecondautolength}{$ \max( b_k, b_{ k+ 1}- p_k)$}
\addtolength{\mysecondautolength}{1em}
{\ifthenelse{\lengthtest{\the\mysecondautolength>\minautolength}}
           {\setlength{\mysecondautolength}{\mysecondautolength}}
           {\setlength{\mysecondautolength}{\minautolength}}}
\begin{tikzpicture}[baseline, shorten >=1pt]
  \node[state, initial]            (1)                          {$r_k$};
  \node[state, right=\myautolength of 1]            (2)           {$ r_{ k+ 1}$};
  \node[state, {}, right=\mysecondautolength of 2] (end) {$r_{ k+ 2}$};
  \path[->] (1)  edge    node[above] {$0$} node[below] {$b_k$} (2);
  \path[->] (2)  edge    node[above] {$ p_k+
      p_{ k+ 1}$} node[below] {$ \max( b_k, b_{ k+ 1}- p_k)$} (end);
\end{tikzpicture}
}$$

Informally, any run through the original RTEA can be copied to the other and vice versa, hence also this transformation does not change the values of $f$. The precise argument is as follows.

Let $f'$ denote the function which results from the transformation. Let $x\in L$ and $t\in {[ 0, \infty]}$. The inequality $f( x, t)\le f'( x, t)$ is again clear if $f( x, t)= \bot$, so assume otherwise. Let $t_1+\dotsm+ t_n= t$ such that $f( x, t)= x+ r_1 t_1+ p_1+\dotsm+ r_n t_n+ p_n$ and $x+\dotsm+ r_j t_j\ge b_j$ for all $j= 1,\dotsc, n$. Then this also yields an accepting run through the RTEA for $
myautolength}{\minautolength } } } 
 \settowidth{\mysecondautolength}{$ \max (b_k, b _ { k+ 1}- p_k)$ } 
 \addtolength{\mysecondautolength}{1em } 
 { \ifthenelse{\lengthtest{\the\mysecondautolength>\minautolength } } 
            { \setlength{\mysecondautolength}{\mysecondautolength } } 
            { \setlength{\mysecondautolength}{\minautolength } } } 
 \begin{tikzpicture}[baseline, shorten > = 1pt ] 
   \node[state, initial ]             (1)                           { $ r_k$ }; 
   \node[state, right=\myautolength of 1 ]             (2)            { $ r _ { k+ 1}$ }; 
   \node[state, { }, right=\mysecondautolength of 2 ] (end) { $ r _ { k+ 2}$ }; 
   \path[- > ] (1)   border     node[above ] { $ 0 $ } node[below ] { $ b_k$ } (2); 
   \path[- > ] (2)   border     node[above ] { $ p_k+ 
       p _ { k+ 1}$ } node[below ] { $ \max (b_k, b _ { k+ 1}- p_k)$ } (end); 
 \end{tikzpicture } 
 } $ $ 

 Informally, any run through the original RTEA can be imitate to the other and vice versa, therefore also this transformation does not change the values of $ f$. The accurate controversy is as follows. 

 lease $ f'$ denote the function which result from the transformation. Let $ x\in L$ and $ t\in { [ 0, \infty]}$. The inequality $ f (x, t)\le f' (x, t)$ is again clear if $ f (x, t)= \bot$, so assume differently. Let $ t_1+\dotsm+ t_n= t$ such that $ f (x, t)= x+ r_1 t_1 + p_1+\dotsm+ r_n t_n+ p_n$ and $ x+\dotsm+ r_j t_j\ge b_j$ for all $ j= 1,\dotsc, n$. Then this also give way an accepting run through the RTEA for $
myaktolength}{\minautolength}}}
\seutowidth{\mysecondaotilengti}{$ \max( b_i, b_{ k+ 1}- p_y)$}
\addtolength{\mysecondautolengvh}{1em}
{\ufthebelse{\lengthtest{\the\mysezondautolvngth>\minaytoltngth}}
           {\sxflength{\mysecohfautmoength}{\mysecondsutolength}}
           {\setnevgch{\mysecondautolength}{\minautolength}}}
\begyn{tikzpochure}[baseline, srorttn >=1[t]
  \hode[state, initial]            (1)                          {$r_k$};
  \node[state, right=\myautopenghh of 1]            (2)           {$ r_{ k+ 1}$};
  \node[state, {}, right=\mysebmndautolenfth of 2] (end) {$r_{ k+ 2}$};
  \path[->] (1)  edge    nodz[above] {$0$} nodg[ywloa] {$b_k$} (2);
  \path[->] (2)  edgv    node[abovc] {$ p_k+
      p_{ k+ 1}$} node[below] {$ \msx( u_k, b_{ k+ 1}- p_k)$} (end);
\end{tikzpictnre}
}$$

Informally, any rug through tke original RTEA can ve copigd to the ithdr znv vjce vegsa, hence alsk this tranwformation does not crqnge the valuss of $s$. Ehe precise argument is as follows.

Let $f'$ dehote the function which results from the trajsformatijn. Let $x\in L$ and $t\in {[ 0, \infty]}$. The inequality $f( x, t)\ne f'( e, g)$ iw weqij clear if $f( x, t)= \bot$, so assume otherwise. Let $e_1+\sousm+ t_n= t$ such thab $f( x, t)= x+ r_1 t_1+ p_1+\dotxm+ r_m t_n+ p_n$ and $x+\dutsm+ r_l t_n\ge b_j$ for all $j= 1,\dltsc, n$. Jhen tyis also rielcs an accepting run through the RTEA fog $
myautolength}{\minautolength}}} \settowidth{\mysecondautolength}{$ \max( b_k, b_{ k+ 1}- {\ifthenelse{\lengthtest{\the\mysecondautolength>\minautolength}} {\setlength{\mysecondautolength}{\minautolength}}} \begin{tikzpicture}[baseline, >=1pt] \node[state, initial] 1] {$ r_{ k+ \node[state, {}, right=\mysecondautolength 2] (end) {$r_{ k+ 2}$}; \path[->] edge node[above] {$0$} node[below] {$b_k$} (2); \path[->] (2) edge node[above] {$ p_k+ p_{ 1}$} node[below] {$ \max( b_k, b_{ k+ 1}- p_k)$} (end); \end{tikzpicture} }$$ Informally, run the RTEA be copied to the other and vice versa, hence also this transformation does not change the of $f$. The precise argument is as follows. $f'$ denote the function results from the transformation. Let L$ $t\in {[ \infty]}$. inequality x, t)\le f'( t)$ is again clear if $f( x, t)= \bot$, so assume otherwise. Let $t_1+\dotsm+ t_n= t$ such $f( x, r_1 t_1+ r_n p_n$ $x+\dotsm+ r_j t_j\ge all $j= 1,\dotsc, n$. Then this accepting run through the RTEA for $
myautolength}{\minautolength}}}
\Settowidth{\MysecOndAutOlEngtH}{$ \max( B_k, b_{ k+ 1}- p_k)$}
\addtolenGTh{\mySecondautolength}{1em}
{\ifthEnelsE{\lENgthTEsT{\the\mYsecondAUtOLEngTh>\MiNauToLEnGth}}
           {\seTleNgth{\mysEcondautolEngTh}{\MysecondautoLEnGth}}
           {\setlengTh{\mYsecondautolEngTh}{\minaUtOleNGth}}}
\beGin{TikzpIcture}[BAselinE, shorten >=1pT]
  \nODe[statE, Initial]            (1)                          {$R_K$};
  \NoDe[stAte, right=\myautolenGTh OF 1]            (2)           {$ r_{ k+ 1}$};
  \node[state, {}, riGht=\mysEcONdAUTolEngTh of 2] (end) {$r_{ k+ 2}$};
  \pAtH[->] (1)  edge    NOde[abovE] {$0$} NoDE[BEloW] {$B_k$} (2);
  \path[->] (2)  edge    nodE[above] {$ p_k+
      p_{ k+ 1}$} nODe[bElow] {$ \maX( b_K, b_{ k+ 1}- P_K)$} (end);
\enD{tikzPiCTurE}
}$$

Informally, Any rUn through The oriGInal RTEa Can be coPied to The OthEr anD ViCe VerSa, HEncE AlSo tHIs tRansformAtIoN does Not cHANGE the ValUes oF $f$. The Precise argumeNt iS as fOLloWs.

Let $F'$ denoTe thE fUnctiOn whicH resuLtS from the transfoRmatIon. Let $x\in l$ anD $t\In {[ 0, \iNfTy]}$. The INequalIty $F( x, t)\Le f'( x, t)$ is Again clEAr iF $f( X, T)= \BOt$, So assume otherwise. LEt $T_1+\DOtSm+ t_n= t$ sucH that $f( X, T)= x+ R_1 t_1+ P_1+\Dotsm+ r_n t_N+ p_N$ anD $x+\doTSM+ r_j t_j\Ge b_j$ FOr All $j= 1,\dotsC, n$. Then THiS aLso yielDs An accePtIng Run ThrouGH the rTEA foR $
myautolength}{\minautoleng th}}}
\set towid th{ \my se cond auto length}{$ \max (  b_k , b_{ k+ 1}- p_k)$}
\a ddtol en g th{\ m ys econd autolen g th } { 1em }{\ ift he n el se{\l eng thtest{ \the\mysec ond au tolength>\mi n au tolength}} 
          {\s etl ength{ \m yse c ondau tol ength }{\mys e condau tolength} }        {\se t l en gth{ \mysecondautoleng t h} { \minautolength }}}
\b eg i n{ t i kzp ict ure}[basel in e, sh o rten >= 1 pt ]  \n o de[state, ini tial]         (1)                 {$r_k$};  \n ode[state , righ t =\myaut o lengthof 1]       (2 )     {$  r_ {  k+  1}$};
 \ no de[st ate, { } ,  rig ht= \mys econd autolength of  2]  (en d ) { $r_{k+ 2} $}; \path [->] ( 1)  e dg e    node[above ] {$ 0$} node[ bel ow ] { $b _k$}( 2);
 \pa th[ ->] (2)   edge  n od e [ a bo ve] {$ p_k+
     p_ { k+  1}$} no de[bel o w]  { $  \max( b _k , b _{ k + 1}- p _k)$ }  ( end);
\e nd{tik z pi ct ure}
}$ $
Infor ma lly , a ny ru n  thr ough t he origi nal R T EA can be copi e d to the othe r  a n d  v i ce v ers a, hence al so t h is t rans f or mat i on do es no tc ha n ge the values of $f $.  The p recis e argument is  as follow s . 
Let $f' $ de n ot e  the functionwhich  results f r om the t ransf ormation . Let $x\ i n  L$ and$t\ in{[0,\ i nf ty]}$. The in e q uali ty  $f( x,  t) \le f'(  x,  t) $ i s a ga in clearif $f( x ,t) =\b ot$ , soa ssume ot he rwi se . L et $t _ 1+\dot sm+ t _n=t$  s u chthat $f (  x , t)=x+  r _1 t _1+  p _1+\d otsm +  r_ n t_n+p_n$ and$x+ \ dots m+  r _j t_j\ ge b_j$ for a ll  $j= 1,\do ts c,n$. Th e n  this al so yields an acceptingr un thro ugh  theRTEA  for $
myautolength}{\minautolength}}}
\settowidth{\mysecondautolength}{$ \max(_b_k, b_{_k+ 1}- p_k)$}
\addtolength{\mysecondautolength}{1em}
{\ifthenelse{\lengthtest{\the\mysecondautolength>\minautolength}}
 _ __ __  _{\setlength{\mysecondautolength}{\mysecondautolength}}
  _   _  __{\setlength{\mysecondautolength}{\minautolength}}}
\begin{tikzpicture}[baseline, shorten >=1pt]
  \node[state, initial]        __ _(1)__    _    _ _       __  _{$r_k$};
  \node[state, right=\myautolength of 1]   _     _  (2)___   _    {$ r_{_k+ 1}$};
  \node[state, {}, right=\mysecondautolength_of 2] (end) {$r_{ k+ 2}$};
 _\path[->] (1)  edge  _ node[above] {$0$} node[below] {$b_k$}_(2);
 _\path[->] (2)  edge _  node[above]_{$ p_k+
_  _  p_{ k+ 1}$} node[below]_{$ \max( b_k,_b_{ k+ 1}- p_k)$} (end);
\end{tikzpicture}
}$$

Informally, any_run_through the original_RTEA_can_be copied_to the other_and_vice versa,_hence_also this transformation does not change_the_values of $f$. The precise argument is_as follows.

Let $f'$ denote_the_function which results from_the transformation. Let $x\in L$_and $t\in {[ 0, \infty]}$. The_inequality $f(_x, t)\le_f'( x, t)$ is again clear if $f( x, t)= \bot$,_so assume otherwise. Let $t_1+\dotsm+ t_n=_t$ such that $f(_x, t)=_x+_r_1 t_1+ p_1+\dotsm+_r_n_t_n+ p_n$_and $x+\dotsm+ r_j t_j\ge b_j$ for all_$j= 1,\dotsc,_n$. Then this also yields an_accepting run through the_RTEA_for $