Spaces
Explore
Communities
Statistics
Reports
Cluster
Status
Help
Runtime_Complexity_Full_Rewriting 2019-04-01 06.11 pair #433307667
details
property
value
status
complete
benchmark
15.xml
ran by
Akihisa Yamada
cpu timeout
1200 seconds
wallclock timeout
300 seconds
memory limit
137438953472 bytes
execution host
n109.star.cs.uiowa.edu
space
Beerendonk_07
run statistics
property
value
solver
AProVE
configuration
complexity
runtime (wallclock)
291.548 seconds
cpu usage
304.744
user time
303.036
system time
1.70806
max virtual memory
1.8279384E7
max residence set size
5301068.0
stage attributes
key
value
starexec-result
WORST_CASE(Omega(n^1), ?)
output
304.64/291.50 WORST_CASE(Omega(n^1), ?) 304.64/291.51 proof of /export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.xml 304.64/291.51 # AProVE Commit ID: 48fb2092695e11cc9f56e44b17a92a5f88ffb256 marcel 20180622 unpublished dirty 304.64/291.51 304.64/291.51 304.64/291.51 The Runtime Complexity (full) of the given CpxTRS could be proven to be BOUNDS(n^1, INF). 304.64/291.51 304.64/291.51 (0) CpxTRS 304.64/291.51 (1) RelTrsToDecreasingLoopProblemProof [LOWER BOUND(ID), 0 ms] 304.64/291.51 (2) TRS for Loop Detection 304.64/291.51 (3) DecreasingLoopProof [LOWER BOUND(ID), 0 ms] 304.64/291.51 (4) BEST 304.64/291.51 (5) proven lower bound 304.64/291.51 (6) LowerBoundPropagationProof [FINISHED, 0 ms] 304.64/291.51 (7) BOUNDS(n^1, INF) 304.64/291.51 (8) TRS for Loop Detection 304.64/291.51 304.64/291.51 304.64/291.51 ---------------------------------------- 304.64/291.51 304.64/291.51 (0) 304.64/291.51 Obligation: 304.64/291.51 The Runtime Complexity (full) of the given CpxTRS could be proven to be BOUNDS(n^1, INF). 304.64/291.51 304.64/291.51 304.64/291.51 The TRS R consists of the following rules: 304.64/291.51 304.64/291.51 cond1(true, x, y) -> cond2(gr(x, 0), x, y) 304.64/291.51 cond2(true, x, y) -> cond1(gr(add(x, y), 0), p(x), y) 304.64/291.51 cond2(false, x, y) -> cond3(gr(y, 0), x, y) 304.64/291.51 cond3(true, x, y) -> cond1(gr(add(x, y), 0), x, p(y)) 304.64/291.51 cond3(false, x, y) -> cond1(gr(add(x, y), 0), x, y) 304.64/291.51 gr(0, x) -> false 304.64/291.51 gr(s(x), 0) -> true 304.64/291.51 gr(s(x), s(y)) -> gr(x, y) 304.64/291.51 add(0, x) -> x 304.64/291.51 add(s(x), y) -> s(add(x, y)) 304.64/291.51 p(0) -> 0 304.64/291.51 p(s(x)) -> x 304.64/291.51 304.64/291.51 S is empty. 304.64/291.51 Rewrite Strategy: FULL 304.64/291.51 ---------------------------------------- 304.64/291.51 304.64/291.51 (1) RelTrsToDecreasingLoopProblemProof (LOWER BOUND(ID)) 304.64/291.51 Transformed a relative TRS into a decreasing-loop problem. 304.64/291.51 ---------------------------------------- 304.64/291.51 304.64/291.51 (2) 304.64/291.51 Obligation: 304.64/291.51 Analyzing the following TRS for decreasing loops: 304.64/291.51 304.64/291.51 The Runtime Complexity (full) of the given CpxTRS could be proven to be BOUNDS(n^1, INF). 304.64/291.51 304.64/291.51 304.64/291.51 The TRS R consists of the following rules: 304.64/291.51 304.64/291.51 cond1(true, x, y) -> cond2(gr(x, 0), x, y) 304.64/291.51 cond2(true, x, y) -> cond1(gr(add(x, y), 0), p(x), y) 304.64/291.51 cond2(false, x, y) -> cond3(gr(y, 0), x, y) 304.64/291.51 cond3(true, x, y) -> cond1(gr(add(x, y), 0), x, p(y)) 304.64/291.51 cond3(false, x, y) -> cond1(gr(add(x, y), 0), x, y) 304.64/291.51 gr(0, x) -> false 304.64/291.51 gr(s(x), 0) -> true 304.64/291.51 gr(s(x), s(y)) -> gr(x, y) 304.64/291.51 add(0, x) -> x 304.64/291.51 add(s(x), y) -> s(add(x, y)) 304.64/291.51 p(0) -> 0 304.64/291.51 p(s(x)) -> x 304.64/291.51 304.64/291.51 S is empty. 304.64/291.51 Rewrite Strategy: FULL 304.64/291.51 ---------------------------------------- 304.64/291.51 304.64/291.51 (3) DecreasingLoopProof (LOWER BOUND(ID)) 304.64/291.51 The following loop(s) give(s) rise to the lower bound Omega(n^1): 304.64/291.51 304.64/291.51 The rewrite sequence 304.64/291.51 304.64/291.51 add(s(x), y) ->^+ s(add(x, y)) 304.64/291.51 304.64/291.51 gives rise to a decreasing loop by considering the right hand sides subterm at position [0]. 304.64/291.51 304.64/291.51 The pumping substitution is [x / s(x)]. 304.64/291.51 304.64/291.51 The result substitution is [ ]. 304.64/291.51 304.64/291.51 304.64/291.51 304.64/291.51 304.64/291.51 ---------------------------------------- 304.64/291.51 304.64/291.51 (4) 304.64/291.51 Complex Obligation (BEST) 304.64/291.51 304.64/291.51 ---------------------------------------- 304.64/291.51 304.64/291.51 (5) 304.64/291.51 Obligation: 304.64/291.51 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 Runtime_Complexity_Full_Rewriting 2019-04-01 06.11
