Spaces
Explore
Communities
Statistics
Reports
Cluster
Status
Help
Runtime_Complexity_Full_Rewriting 2019-04-01 06.11 pair #433308167
details
property
value
status
complete
benchmark
Ex9_BLR02_Z.xml
ran by
Akihisa Yamada
cpu timeout
1200 seconds
wallclock timeout
300 seconds
memory limit
137438953472 bytes
execution host
n061.star.cs.uiowa.edu
space
Transformed_CSR_04
run statistics
property
value
solver
AProVE
configuration
complexity
runtime (wallclock)
291.608 seconds
cpu usage
310.978
user time
308.244
system time
2.73387
max virtual memory
1.8279472E7
max residence set size
6106584.0
stage attributes
key
value
starexec-result
WORST_CASE(Omega(n^1), ?)
output
310.84/291.56 WORST_CASE(Omega(n^1), ?) 310.84/291.57 proof of /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.xml 310.84/291.57 # AProVE Commit ID: 48fb2092695e11cc9f56e44b17a92a5f88ffb256 marcel 20180622 unpublished dirty 310.84/291.57 310.84/291.57 310.84/291.57 The Runtime Complexity (full) of the given CpxTRS could be proven to be BOUNDS(n^1, INF). 310.84/291.57 310.84/291.57 (0) CpxTRS 310.84/291.57 (1) RelTrsToDecreasingLoopProblemProof [LOWER BOUND(ID), 0 ms] 310.84/291.57 (2) TRS for Loop Detection 310.84/291.57 (3) DecreasingLoopProof [LOWER BOUND(ID), 0 ms] 310.84/291.57 (4) BEST 310.84/291.57 (5) proven lower bound 310.84/291.57 (6) LowerBoundPropagationProof [FINISHED, 0 ms] 310.84/291.57 (7) BOUNDS(n^1, INF) 310.84/291.57 (8) TRS for Loop Detection 310.84/291.57 310.84/291.57 310.84/291.57 ---------------------------------------- 310.84/291.57 310.84/291.57 (0) 310.84/291.57 Obligation: 310.84/291.57 The Runtime Complexity (full) of the given CpxTRS could be proven to be BOUNDS(n^1, INF). 310.84/291.57 310.84/291.57 310.84/291.57 The TRS R consists of the following rules: 310.84/291.57 310.84/291.57 filter(cons(X, Y), 0, M) -> cons(0, n__filter(activate(Y), M, M)) 310.84/291.57 filter(cons(X, Y), s(N), M) -> cons(X, n__filter(activate(Y), N, M)) 310.84/291.57 sieve(cons(0, Y)) -> cons(0, n__sieve(activate(Y))) 310.84/291.57 sieve(cons(s(N), Y)) -> cons(s(N), n__sieve(filter(activate(Y), N, N))) 310.84/291.57 nats(N) -> cons(N, n__nats(s(N))) 310.84/291.57 zprimes -> sieve(nats(s(s(0)))) 310.84/291.57 filter(X1, X2, X3) -> n__filter(X1, X2, X3) 310.84/291.57 sieve(X) -> n__sieve(X) 310.84/291.57 nats(X) -> n__nats(X) 310.84/291.57 activate(n__filter(X1, X2, X3)) -> filter(X1, X2, X3) 310.84/291.57 activate(n__sieve(X)) -> sieve(X) 310.84/291.57 activate(n__nats(X)) -> nats(X) 310.84/291.57 activate(X) -> X 310.84/291.57 310.84/291.57 S is empty. 310.84/291.57 Rewrite Strategy: FULL 310.84/291.57 ---------------------------------------- 310.84/291.57 310.84/291.57 (1) RelTrsToDecreasingLoopProblemProof (LOWER BOUND(ID)) 310.84/291.57 Transformed a relative TRS into a decreasing-loop problem. 310.84/291.57 ---------------------------------------- 310.84/291.57 310.84/291.57 (2) 310.84/291.57 Obligation: 310.84/291.57 Analyzing the following TRS for decreasing loops: 310.84/291.57 310.84/291.57 The Runtime Complexity (full) of the given CpxTRS could be proven to be BOUNDS(n^1, INF). 310.84/291.57 310.84/291.57 310.84/291.57 The TRS R consists of the following rules: 310.84/291.57 310.84/291.57 filter(cons(X, Y), 0, M) -> cons(0, n__filter(activate(Y), M, M)) 310.84/291.57 filter(cons(X, Y), s(N), M) -> cons(X, n__filter(activate(Y), N, M)) 310.84/291.57 sieve(cons(0, Y)) -> cons(0, n__sieve(activate(Y))) 310.84/291.57 sieve(cons(s(N), Y)) -> cons(s(N), n__sieve(filter(activate(Y), N, N))) 310.84/291.57 nats(N) -> cons(N, n__nats(s(N))) 310.84/291.57 zprimes -> sieve(nats(s(s(0)))) 310.84/291.57 filter(X1, X2, X3) -> n__filter(X1, X2, X3) 310.84/291.57 sieve(X) -> n__sieve(X) 310.84/291.57 nats(X) -> n__nats(X) 310.84/291.57 activate(n__filter(X1, X2, X3)) -> filter(X1, X2, X3) 310.84/291.57 activate(n__sieve(X)) -> sieve(X) 310.84/291.57 activate(n__nats(X)) -> nats(X) 310.84/291.57 activate(X) -> X 310.84/291.57 310.84/291.57 S is empty. 310.84/291.57 Rewrite Strategy: FULL 310.84/291.57 ---------------------------------------- 310.84/291.57 310.84/291.57 (3) DecreasingLoopProof (LOWER BOUND(ID)) 310.84/291.57 The following loop(s) give(s) rise to the lower bound Omega(n^1): 310.84/291.57 310.84/291.57 The rewrite sequence 310.84/291.57 310.84/291.57 sieve(cons(s(N), n__sieve(X1_0))) ->^+ cons(s(N), n__sieve(filter(sieve(X1_0), N, N))) 310.84/291.57 310.84/291.57 gives rise to a decreasing loop by considering the right hand sides subterm at position [1,0,0]. 310.84/291.57 310.84/291.57 The pumping substitution is [X1_0 / cons(s(N), n__sieve(X1_0))]. 310.84/291.57 310.84/291.57 The result substitution is [ ]. 310.84/291.57 310.84/291.57 310.84/291.57 310.84/291.57 310.84/291.57 ---------------------------------------- 310.84/291.57 310.84/291.57 (4) 310.84/291.57 Complex Obligation (BEST) 310.84/291.57 310.84/291.57 ---------------------------------------- 310.84/291.57 310.84/291.57 (5)
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
