details

property	value
status	complete
benchmark	Ex1_GL02a.xml
ran by	Akihisa Yamada
cpu timeout	1200 seconds
wallclock timeout	300 seconds
memory limit	137438953472 bytes
execution host	n048.star.cs.uiowa.edu
space	Strategy_removed_CSR_05

run statistics

property	value
solver	AProVE
configuration	complexity
runtime (wallclock)	1.57291698456 seconds
cpu usage	3.35485893
max memory	1.774592E8

stage attributes

key	value
output-size	4143
starexec-result	WORST_CASE(NON_POLY, ?)

output

/export/starexec/sandbox/solver/bin/starexec_run_complexity /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.xml /export/starexec/sandbox/output/output_files -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- WORST_CASE(NON_POLY, ?) proof of /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.xml # AProVE Commit ID: 48fb2092695e11cc9f56e44b17a92a5f88ffb256 marcel 20180622 unpublished dirty The Runtime Complexity (full) of the given CpxTRS could be proven to be BOUNDS(INF, INF). (0) CpxTRS (1) RelTrsToDecreasingLoopProblemProof [LOWER BOUND(ID), 0 ms] (2) TRS for Loop Detection (3) DecreasingLoopProof [LOWER BOUND(ID), 0 ms] (4) BEST (5) proven lower bound (6) LowerBoundPropagationProof [FINISHED, 0 ms] (7) BOUNDS(n^1, INF) (8) TRS for Loop Detection (9) InfiniteLowerBoundProof [FINISHED, 0 ms] (10) BOUNDS(INF, INF) ---------------------------------------- (0) Obligation: The Runtime Complexity (full) of the given CpxTRS could be proven to be BOUNDS(INF, INF). The TRS R consists of the following rules: eq(0, 0) -> true eq(s(X), s(Y)) -> eq(X, Y) eq(X, Y) -> false inf(X) -> cons(X, inf(s(X))) take(0, X) -> nil take(s(X), cons(Y, L)) -> cons(Y, take(X, L)) length(nil) -> 0 length(cons(X, L)) -> s(length(L)) S is empty. Rewrite Strategy: FULL ---------------------------------------- (1) RelTrsToDecreasingLoopProblemProof (LOWER BOUND(ID)) Transformed a relative TRS into a decreasing-loop problem. ---------------------------------------- (2) Obligation: Analyzing the following TRS for decreasing loops: The Runtime Complexity (full) of the given CpxTRS could be proven to be BOUNDS(INF, INF). The TRS R consists of the following rules: eq(0, 0) -> true eq(s(X), s(Y)) -> eq(X, Y) eq(X, Y) -> false inf(X) -> cons(X, inf(s(X))) take(0, X) -> nil take(s(X), cons(Y, L)) -> cons(Y, take(X, L)) length(nil) -> 0 length(cons(X, L)) -> s(length(L)) S is empty. Rewrite Strategy: FULL ---------------------------------------- (3) DecreasingLoopProof (LOWER BOUND(ID)) The following loop(s) give(s) rise to the lower bound Omega(n^1): The rewrite sequence take(s(X), cons(Y, L)) ->^+ cons(Y, take(X, L)) gives rise to a decreasing loop by considering the right hand sides subterm at position [1]. The pumping substitution is [X / s(X), L / cons(Y, L)]. The result substitution is [ ]. ---------------------------------------- (4) Complex Obligation (BEST) ---------------------------------------- (5) Obligation: Proved the lower bound n^1 for the following obligation: popout

output may be truncated. 'popout' for the full output.

job log

popout

actions

all output return to Runti Compl Full Rewri 10127