details

property	value
status	complete
benchmark	ma96.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	Rubio_04

run statistics

property	value
solver	AProVE
configuration	complexity
runtime (wallclock)	2.28772 seconds
cpu usage	5.9545
user time	5.62591
system time	0.328584
max virtual memory	1.827736E7
max residence set size	815372.0

stage attributes

key	value
starexec-result	WORST_CASE(NON_POLY, ?)

output

WORST_CASE(NON_POLY, ?) proof of /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.xml # AProVE Commit ID: 794c25de1cacf0d048858bcd21c9a779e1221865 marcel 20200619 unpublished dirty The Runtime Complexity (full) of the given CpxTRS could be proven to be BOUNDS(EXP, INF). (0) CpxTRS (1) RelTrsToDecreasingLoopProblemProof [LOWER BOUND(ID), 0 ms] (2) TRS for Loop Detection (3) DecreasingLoopProof [LOWER BOUND(ID), 0 ms] (4) BEST (5) proven lower bound (6) LowerBoundPropagationProof [FINISHED, 0 ms] (7) BOUNDS(n^1, INF) (8) TRS for Loop Detection (9) DecreasingLoopProof [FINISHED, 377 ms] (10) BOUNDS(EXP, INF) ---------------------------------------- (0) Obligation: The Runtime Complexity (full) of the given CpxTRS could be proven to be BOUNDS(EXP, INF). The TRS R consists of the following rules: and(false, false) -> false and(true, false) -> false and(false, true) -> false and(true, true) -> true eq(nil, nil) -> true eq(cons(T, L), nil) -> false eq(nil, cons(T, L)) -> false eq(cons(T, L), cons(Tp, Lp)) -> and(eq(T, Tp), eq(L, Lp)) eq(var(L), var(Lp)) -> eq(L, Lp) eq(var(L), apply(T, S)) -> false eq(var(L), lambda(X, T)) -> false eq(apply(T, S), var(L)) -> false eq(apply(T, S), apply(Tp, Sp)) -> and(eq(T, Tp), eq(S, Sp)) eq(apply(T, S), lambda(X, Tp)) -> false eq(lambda(X, T), var(L)) -> false eq(lambda(X, T), apply(Tp, Sp)) -> false eq(lambda(X, T), lambda(Xp, Tp)) -> and(eq(T, Tp), eq(X, Xp)) if(true, var(K), var(L)) -> var(K) if(false, var(K), var(L)) -> var(L) ren(var(L), var(K), var(Lp)) -> if(eq(L, Lp), var(K), var(Lp)) ren(X, Y, apply(T, S)) -> apply(ren(X, Y, T), ren(X, Y, S)) ren(X, Y, lambda(Z, T)) -> lambda(var(cons(X, cons(Y, cons(lambda(Z, T), nil)))), ren(X, Y, ren(Z, var(cons(X, cons(Y, cons(lambda(Z, T), nil)))), T))) S is empty. Rewrite Strategy: FULL ---------------------------------------- (1) RelTrsToDecreasingLoopProblemProof (LOWER BOUND(ID)) Transformed a relative TRS into a decreasing-loop problem. ---------------------------------------- (2) Obligation: Analyzing the following TRS for decreasing loops: The Runtime Complexity (full) of the given CpxTRS could be proven to be BOUNDS(EXP, INF). The TRS R consists of the following rules: and(false, false) -> false and(true, false) -> false and(false, true) -> false and(true, true) -> true eq(nil, nil) -> true eq(cons(T, L), nil) -> false eq(nil, cons(T, L)) -> false eq(cons(T, L), cons(Tp, Lp)) -> and(eq(T, Tp), eq(L, Lp)) eq(var(L), var(Lp)) -> eq(L, Lp) eq(var(L), apply(T, S)) -> false eq(var(L), lambda(X, T)) -> false eq(apply(T, S), var(L)) -> false eq(apply(T, S), apply(Tp, Sp)) -> and(eq(T, Tp), eq(S, Sp)) eq(apply(T, S), lambda(X, Tp)) -> false eq(lambda(X, T), var(L)) -> false eq(lambda(X, T), apply(Tp, Sp)) -> false eq(lambda(X, T), lambda(Xp, Tp)) -> and(eq(T, Tp), eq(X, Xp)) if(true, var(K), var(L)) -> var(K) if(false, var(K), var(L)) -> var(L) ren(var(L), var(K), var(Lp)) -> if(eq(L, Lp), var(K), var(Lp)) ren(X, Y, apply(T, S)) -> apply(ren(X, Y, T), ren(X, Y, S)) ren(X, Y, lambda(Z, T)) -> lambda(var(cons(X, cons(Y, cons(lambda(Z, T), nil)))), ren(X, Y, ren(Z, var(cons(X, cons(Y, cons(lambda(Z, T), nil)))), T))) S is empty. Rewrite Strategy: FULL ---------------------------------------- (3) DecreasingLoopProof (LOWER BOUND(ID)) The following loop(s) give(s) rise to the lower bound Omega(n^1): The rewrite sequence popout

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

job log

popout

actions

all output return to Runtime Complexity: TRS