details

property	value
status	complete
benchmark	seq.koat
ran by	Akihisa Yamada
cpu timeout	1200 seconds
wallclock timeout	300 seconds
memory limit	137438953472 bytes
execution host	n058.star.cs.uiowa.edu
space	T2

run statistics

property	value
solver	AProVE
configuration	complexity
runtime (wallclock)	1.80897 seconds
cpu usage	4.00483
user time	3.76597
system time	0.238861
max virtual memory	1.8519744E7
max residence set size	214036.0

stage attributes

key	value
starexec-result	WORST_CASE(Omega(n^1), O(n^1))

output

3.95/1.78 WORST_CASE(Omega(n^1), O(n^1)) 3.95/1.79 proof of /export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.koat 3.95/1.79 # AProVE Commit ID: 48fb2092695e11cc9f56e44b17a92a5f88ffb256 marcel 20180622 unpublished dirty 3.95/1.79 3.95/1.79 3.95/1.79 The runtime complexity of the given CpxIntTrs could be proven to be BOUNDS(n^1, max(1, 2 + Arg_0)). 3.95/1.79 3.95/1.79 (0) CpxIntTrs 3.95/1.79 (1) Koat2 Proof [FINISHED, 26 ms] 3.95/1.79 (2) BOUNDS(1, max(1, 2 + Arg_0)) 3.95/1.79 (3) Loat Proof [FINISHED, 129 ms] 3.95/1.79 (4) BOUNDS(n^1, INF) 3.95/1.79 3.95/1.79 3.95/1.79 ---------------------------------------- 3.95/1.79 3.95/1.79 (0) 3.95/1.79 Obligation: 3.95/1.79 Complexity Int TRS consisting of the following rules: 3.95/1.79 f1(A) -> Com_1(f0(A)) :|: TRUE 3.95/1.79 f0(A) -> Com_1(f0(A - 1)) :|: A >= 0 3.95/1.79 3.95/1.79 The start-symbols are:[f1_1] 3.95/1.79 3.95/1.79 3.95/1.79 ---------------------------------------- 3.95/1.79 3.95/1.79 (1) Koat2 Proof (FINISHED) 3.95/1.79 YES( ?, max([1, 2+Arg_0]) {O(n)}) 3.95/1.79 3.95/1.79 3.95/1.79 3.95/1.79 Initial Complexity Problem: 3.95/1.79 3.95/1.79 Start: f1 3.95/1.79 3.95/1.79 Program_Vars: Arg_0 3.95/1.79 3.95/1.79 Temp_Vars: 3.95/1.79 3.95/1.79 Locations: f0, f1 3.95/1.79 3.95/1.79 Transitions: 3.95/1.79 3.95/1.79 f0(Arg_0) -> f0(Arg_0-1):|:0 <= Arg_0 3.95/1.79 3.95/1.79 f1(Arg_0) -> f0(Arg_0):|: 3.95/1.79 3.95/1.79 3.95/1.79 3.95/1.79 Timebounds: 3.95/1.79 3.95/1.79 Overall timebound: max([1, 2+Arg_0]) {O(n)} 3.95/1.79 3.95/1.79 1: f0->f0: max([0, 1+Arg_0]) {O(n)} 3.95/1.79 3.95/1.79 0: f1->f0: 1 {O(1)} 3.95/1.79 3.95/1.79 3.95/1.79 3.95/1.79 Costbounds: 3.95/1.79 3.95/1.79 Overall costbound: max([1, 2+Arg_0]) {O(n)} 3.95/1.79 3.95/1.79 1: f0->f0: max([0, 1+Arg_0]) {O(n)} 3.95/1.79 3.95/1.79 0: f1->f0: 1 {O(1)} 3.95/1.79 3.95/1.79 3.95/1.79 3.95/1.79 Sizebounds: 3.95/1.79 3.95/1.79 `Lower: 3.95/1.79 3.95/1.79 1: f0->f0, Arg_0: -1 {O(1)} 3.95/1.79 3.95/1.79 0: f1->f0, Arg_0: Arg_0 {O(n)} 3.95/1.79 3.95/1.79 `Upper: 3.95/1.79 3.95/1.79 1: f0->f0, Arg_0: Arg_0 {O(n)} 3.95/1.79 3.95/1.79 0: f1->f0, Arg_0: Arg_0 {O(n)} 3.95/1.79 3.95/1.79 3.95/1.79 ---------------------------------------- 3.95/1.79 3.95/1.79 (2) 3.95/1.79 BOUNDS(1, max(1, 2 + Arg_0)) 3.95/1.79 3.95/1.79 ---------------------------------------- 3.95/1.79 3.95/1.79 (3) Loat Proof (FINISHED) 3.95/1.79 3.95/1.79 3.95/1.79 ### Pre-processing the ITS problem ### 3.95/1.79 3.95/1.79 3.95/1.79 3.95/1.79 Initial linear ITS problem popout

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

job log

popout

actions

all output return to Complexity_ITS 2019-03-21 04.46