Spaces
Explore
Communities
Statistics
Reports
Cluster
Status
Help
Runtime_Complexity_Full_Rewriting 2019-04-01 06.11 pair #433307663
details
property
value
status
complete
benchmark
21.xml
ran by
Akihisa Yamada
cpu timeout
1200 seconds
wallclock timeout
300 seconds
memory limit
137438953472 bytes
execution host
n019.star.cs.uiowa.edu
space
Beerendonk_07
run statistics
property
value
solver
AProVE
configuration
complexity
runtime (wallclock)
291.531 seconds
cpu usage
309.868
user time
308.086
system time
1.78152
max virtual memory
1.8281468E7
max residence set size
5193560.0
stage attributes
key
value
starexec-result
WORST_CASE(Omega(n^1), ?)
output
309.80/291.49 WORST_CASE(Omega(n^1), ?) 309.80/291.50 proof of /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.xml 309.80/291.50 # AProVE Commit ID: 48fb2092695e11cc9f56e44b17a92a5f88ffb256 marcel 20180622 unpublished dirty 309.80/291.50 309.80/291.50 309.80/291.50 The Runtime Complexity (full) of the given CpxTRS could be proven to be BOUNDS(n^1, INF). 309.80/291.50 309.80/291.50 (0) CpxTRS 309.80/291.50 (1) RelTrsToDecreasingLoopProblemProof [LOWER BOUND(ID), 0 ms] 309.80/291.50 (2) TRS for Loop Detection 309.80/291.50 (3) DecreasingLoopProof [LOWER BOUND(ID), 0 ms] 309.80/291.50 (4) BEST 309.80/291.50 (5) proven lower bound 309.80/291.50 (6) LowerBoundPropagationProof [FINISHED, 0 ms] 309.80/291.50 (7) BOUNDS(n^1, INF) 309.80/291.50 (8) TRS for Loop Detection 309.80/291.50 309.80/291.50 309.80/291.50 ---------------------------------------- 309.80/291.50 309.80/291.50 (0) 309.80/291.50 Obligation: 309.80/291.50 The Runtime Complexity (full) of the given CpxTRS could be proven to be BOUNDS(n^1, INF). 309.80/291.50 309.80/291.50 309.80/291.50 The TRS R consists of the following rules: 309.80/291.50 309.80/291.50 cond1(true, x, y, z) -> cond2(gr(y, z), x, y, z) 309.80/291.50 cond2(true, x, y, z) -> cond2(gr(y, z), p(x), p(y), z) 309.80/291.50 cond2(false, x, y, z) -> cond1(and(eq(x, y), gr(x, z)), x, y, z) 309.80/291.50 gr(0, x) -> false 309.80/291.50 gr(s(x), 0) -> true 309.80/291.50 gr(s(x), s(y)) -> gr(x, y) 309.80/291.50 p(0) -> 0 309.80/291.50 p(s(x)) -> x 309.80/291.50 eq(0, 0) -> true 309.80/291.50 eq(s(x), 0) -> false 309.80/291.50 eq(0, s(x)) -> false 309.80/291.50 eq(s(x), s(y)) -> eq(x, y) 309.80/291.50 and(true, true) -> true 309.80/291.50 and(false, x) -> false 309.80/291.50 and(x, false) -> false 309.80/291.50 309.80/291.50 S is empty. 309.80/291.50 Rewrite Strategy: FULL 309.80/291.50 ---------------------------------------- 309.80/291.50 309.80/291.50 (1) RelTrsToDecreasingLoopProblemProof (LOWER BOUND(ID)) 309.80/291.50 Transformed a relative TRS into a decreasing-loop problem. 309.80/291.50 ---------------------------------------- 309.80/291.50 309.80/291.50 (2) 309.80/291.50 Obligation: 309.80/291.50 Analyzing the following TRS for decreasing loops: 309.80/291.50 309.80/291.50 The Runtime Complexity (full) of the given CpxTRS could be proven to be BOUNDS(n^1, INF). 309.80/291.50 309.80/291.50 309.80/291.50 The TRS R consists of the following rules: 309.80/291.50 309.80/291.50 cond1(true, x, y, z) -> cond2(gr(y, z), x, y, z) 309.80/291.50 cond2(true, x, y, z) -> cond2(gr(y, z), p(x), p(y), z) 309.80/291.50 cond2(false, x, y, z) -> cond1(and(eq(x, y), gr(x, z)), x, y, z) 309.80/291.50 gr(0, x) -> false 309.80/291.50 gr(s(x), 0) -> true 309.80/291.50 gr(s(x), s(y)) -> gr(x, y) 309.80/291.50 p(0) -> 0 309.80/291.50 p(s(x)) -> x 309.80/291.50 eq(0, 0) -> true 309.80/291.50 eq(s(x), 0) -> false 309.80/291.50 eq(0, s(x)) -> false 309.80/291.50 eq(s(x), s(y)) -> eq(x, y) 309.80/291.50 and(true, true) -> true 309.80/291.50 and(false, x) -> false 309.80/291.50 and(x, false) -> false 309.80/291.50 309.80/291.50 S is empty. 309.80/291.50 Rewrite Strategy: FULL 309.80/291.50 ---------------------------------------- 309.80/291.50 309.80/291.50 (3) DecreasingLoopProof (LOWER BOUND(ID)) 309.80/291.50 The following loop(s) give(s) rise to the lower bound Omega(n^1): 309.80/291.50 309.80/291.50 The rewrite sequence 309.80/291.50 309.80/291.50 gr(s(x), s(y)) ->^+ gr(x, y) 309.80/291.50 309.80/291.50 gives rise to a decreasing loop by considering the right hand sides subterm at position []. 309.80/291.50 309.80/291.50 The pumping substitution is [x / s(x), y / s(y)]. 309.80/291.50 309.80/291.50 The result substitution is [ ]. 309.80/291.50 309.80/291.50 309.80/291.50 309.80/291.50 309.80/291.50 ---------------------------------------- 309.80/291.50 309.80/291.50 (4) 309.80/291.50 Complex Obligation (BEST)
popout
output may be truncated. 'popout' for the full output.
job log
popout
actions
all output
return to Runtime_Complexity_Full_Rewriting 2019-04-01 06.11
