details

property	value
status	complete
benchmark	32.xml
ran by	Akihisa Yamada
cpu timeout	1200 seconds
wallclock timeout	300 seconds
memory limit	137438953472 bytes
execution host	n144.star.cs.uiowa.edu
space	Der95

run statistics

property	value
solver	AProVE
configuration	complexity
runtime (wallclock)	291.504 seconds
cpu usage	330.503
user time	327.745
system time	2.75868
max virtual memory	1.8279408E7
max residence set size	5953620.0

stage attributes

key	value
starexec-result	WORST_CASE(Omega(n^1), ?)

output

WORST_CASE(Omega(n^1), ?) proof of /export/starexec/sandbox2/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# AProVE Commit ID: 794c25de1cacf0d048858bcd21c9a779e1221865 marcel 20200619 unpublished dirty The Runtime Complexity (full) of the given CpxTRS could be proven to be BOUNDS(n^1, INF).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 ---------------------------------------- (0) Obligation: The Runtime Complexity (full) of the given CpxTRS could be proven to be BOUNDS(n^1, INF). The TRS R consists of the following rules: sort(nil) -> nil sort(cons(x, y)) -> insert(x, sort(y)) insert(x, nil) -> cons(x, nil) insert(x, cons(v, w)) -> choose(x, cons(v, w), x, v) choose(x, cons(v, w), y, 0) -> cons(x, cons(v, w)) choose(x, cons(v, w), 0, s(z)) -> cons(v, insert(x, w)) choose(x, cons(v, w), s(y), s(z)) -> choose(x, cons(v, w), y, z) 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(n^1, INF). The TRS R consists of the following rules: sort(nil) -> nil sort(cons(x, y)) -> insert(x, sort(y)) insert(x, nil) -> cons(x, nil) insert(x, cons(v, w)) -> choose(x, cons(v, w), x, v) choose(x, cons(v, w), y, 0) -> cons(x, cons(v, w)) choose(x, cons(v, w), 0, s(z)) -> cons(v, insert(x, w)) choose(x, cons(v, w), s(y), s(z)) -> choose(x, cons(v, w), y, z) 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 sort(cons(x, y)) ->^+ insert(x, sort(y)) gives rise to a decreasing loop by considering the right hand sides subterm at position [1]. The pumping substitution is [y / cons(x, y)]. The result substitution is [ ]. ---------------------------------------- (4) Complex Obligation (BEST) ---------------------------------------- (5) Obligation: Proved the lower bound n^1 for the following obligation: The Runtime Complexity (full) of the given CpxTRS could be proven to be BOUNDS(n^1, INF). The TRS R consists of the following rules: sort(nil) -> nil sort(cons(x, y)) -> insert(x, sort(y)) insert(x, nil) -> cons(x, nil) insert(x, cons(v, w)) -> choose(x, cons(v, w), x, v) popout

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

job log

popout

actions

all output return to Runtime Complexity: TRS