Spaces
Explore
Communities
Statistics
Reports
Cluster
Status
Help
Runtime_Complexity_Innermost_Rewriting 2019-04-01 06.40 pair #433313797
details
property
value
status
complete
benchmark
nestimeql.xml
ran by
Akihisa Yamada
cpu timeout
1200 seconds
wallclock timeout
300 seconds
memory limit
137438953472 bytes
execution host
n150.star.cs.uiowa.edu
space
Frederiksen_Glenstrup
run statistics
property
value
solver
AProVE
configuration
complexity
runtime (wallclock)
1.7187 seconds
cpu usage
3.49506
user time
3.34156
system time
0.153494
max virtual memory
1.8277336E7
max residence set size
233696.0
stage attributes
key
value
starexec-result
WORST_CASE(NON_POLY, ?)
output
3.35/1.66 WORST_CASE(NON_POLY, ?) 3.35/1.68 proof of /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.xml 3.35/1.68 # AProVE Commit ID: 48fb2092695e11cc9f56e44b17a92a5f88ffb256 marcel 20180622 unpublished dirty 3.35/1.68 3.35/1.68 3.35/1.68 The Runtime Complexity (innermost) of the given CpxTRS could be proven to be BOUNDS(INF, INF). 3.35/1.68 3.35/1.68 (0) CpxTRS 3.35/1.68 (1) RelTrsToDecreasingLoopProblemProof [LOWER BOUND(ID), 0 ms] 3.35/1.68 (2) TRS for Loop Detection 3.35/1.68 (3) DecreasingLoopProof [LOWER BOUND(ID), 0 ms] 3.35/1.68 (4) BEST 3.35/1.68 (5) proven lower bound 3.35/1.68 (6) LowerBoundPropagationProof [FINISHED, 0 ms] 3.35/1.68 (7) BOUNDS(n^1, INF) 3.35/1.68 (8) TRS for Loop Detection 3.35/1.68 (9) InfiniteLowerBoundProof [FINISHED, 29 ms] 3.35/1.68 (10) BOUNDS(INF, INF) 3.35/1.68 3.35/1.68 3.35/1.68 ---------------------------------------- 3.35/1.68 3.35/1.68 (0) 3.35/1.68 Obligation: 3.35/1.68 The Runtime Complexity (innermost) of the given CpxTRS could be proven to be BOUNDS(INF, INF). 3.35/1.68 3.35/1.68 3.35/1.68 The TRS R consists of the following rules: 3.35/1.68 3.35/1.68 immatcopy(Cons(x, xs)) -> Cons(Nil, immatcopy(xs)) 3.35/1.68 nestimeql(Nil) -> number42(Nil) 3.35/1.68 nestimeql(Cons(x, xs)) -> nestimeql(immatcopy(Cons(x, xs))) 3.35/1.68 immatcopy(Nil) -> Nil 3.35/1.68 number42(x) -> Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Nil)))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))) 3.35/1.68 goal(x) -> nestimeql(x) 3.35/1.68 3.35/1.68 S is empty. 3.35/1.68 Rewrite Strategy: INNERMOST 3.35/1.68 ---------------------------------------- 3.35/1.68 3.35/1.68 (1) RelTrsToDecreasingLoopProblemProof (LOWER BOUND(ID)) 3.35/1.68 Transformed a relative TRS into a decreasing-loop problem. 3.35/1.68 ---------------------------------------- 3.35/1.68 3.35/1.68 (2) 3.35/1.68 Obligation: 3.35/1.68 Analyzing the following TRS for decreasing loops: 3.35/1.68 3.35/1.68 The Runtime Complexity (innermost) of the given CpxTRS could be proven to be BOUNDS(INF, INF). 3.35/1.68 3.35/1.68 3.35/1.68 The TRS R consists of the following rules: 3.35/1.68 3.35/1.68 immatcopy(Cons(x, xs)) -> Cons(Nil, immatcopy(xs)) 3.35/1.68 nestimeql(Nil) -> number42(Nil) 3.35/1.68 nestimeql(Cons(x, xs)) -> nestimeql(immatcopy(Cons(x, xs))) 3.35/1.68 immatcopy(Nil) -> Nil 3.35/1.68 number42(x) -> Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Nil)))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))) 3.35/1.68 goal(x) -> nestimeql(x) 3.35/1.68 3.35/1.68 S is empty. 3.35/1.68 Rewrite Strategy: INNERMOST 3.35/1.68 ---------------------------------------- 3.35/1.68 3.35/1.68 (3) DecreasingLoopProof (LOWER BOUND(ID)) 3.35/1.68 The following loop(s) give(s) rise to the lower bound Omega(n^1): 3.35/1.68 3.35/1.68 The rewrite sequence 3.35/1.68 3.35/1.68 immatcopy(Cons(x, xs)) ->^+ Cons(Nil, immatcopy(xs)) 3.35/1.68 3.35/1.68 gives rise to a decreasing loop by considering the right hand sides subterm at position [1]. 3.35/1.68 3.35/1.68 The pumping substitution is [xs / Cons(x, xs)]. 3.35/1.68 3.35/1.68 The result substitution is [ ]. 3.35/1.68 3.35/1.68 3.35/1.68 3.35/1.68 3.35/1.68 ---------------------------------------- 3.35/1.68 3.35/1.68 (4) 3.35/1.68 Complex Obligation (BEST) 3.35/1.68 3.35/1.68 ---------------------------------------- 3.35/1.68 3.35/1.68 (5) 3.35/1.68 Obligation: 3.35/1.68 Proved the lower bound n^1 for the following obligation: 3.35/1.68 3.35/1.68 The Runtime Complexity (innermost) of the given CpxTRS could be proven to be BOUNDS(INF, INF). 3.35/1.68 3.35/1.68 3.35/1.68 The TRS R consists of the following rules: 3.35/1.68 3.35/1.68 immatcopy(Cons(x, xs)) -> Cons(Nil, immatcopy(xs)) 3.35/1.68 nestimeql(Nil) -> number42(Nil) 3.35/1.68 nestimeql(Cons(x, xs)) -> nestimeql(immatcopy(Cons(x, xs))) 3.35/1.68 immatcopy(Nil) -> Nil
popout
output may be truncated. 'popout' for the full output.
job log
popout
actions
all output
return to Runtime_Complexity_Innermost_Rewriting 2019-04-01 06.40
