/export/starexec/sandbox/solver/bin/starexec_run_complexity /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.xml /export/starexec/sandbox/output/output_files


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


WORST_CASE(Omega(n^1), ?)
proof of /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.xml
# AProVE Commit ID: 48fb2092695e11cc9f56e44b17a92a5f88ffb256 marcel 20180622 unpublished dirty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:

   p(0) -> 0
   p(s(x)) -> x
   minus(x, 0) -> x
   minus(s(x), s(y)) -> minus(x, y)
   minus(x, s(y)) -> p(minus(x, y))
   div(0, s(y)) -> 0
   div(s(x), s(y)) -> s(div(minus(s(x), s(y)), s(y)))
   log(s(0), s(s(y))) -> 0
   log(s(s(x)), s(s(y))) -> s(log(div(minus(x, y), s(s(y))), s(s(y))))

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:

   p(0) -> 0
   p(s(x)) -> x
   minus(x, 0) -> x
   minus(s(x), s(y)) -> minus(x, y)
   minus(x, s(y)) -> p(minus(x, y))
   div(0, s(y)) -> 0
   div(s(x), s(y)) -> s(div(minus(s(x), s(y)), s(y)))
   log(s(0), s(s(y))) -> 0
   log(s(s(x)), s(s(y))) -> s(log(div(minus(x, y), s(s(y))), s(s(y))))

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

minus(s(x), s(y)) ->^+ minus(x, y)

gives rise to a decreasing loop by considering the right hand sides subterm at position [].

The pumping substitution is [x / s(x), y / s(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:

   p(0) -> 0
   p(s(x)) -> x
   minus(x, 0) -> x
   minus(s(x), s(y)) -> minus(x, y)
   minus(x, s(y)) -> p(minus(x, y))
   div(0, s(y)) -> 0
   div(s(x), s(y)) -> s(div(minus(s(x), s(y)), s(y)))
   log(s(0), s(s(y))) -> 0
   log(s(s(x)), s(s(y))) -> s(log(div(minus(x, y), s(s(y))), s(s(y))))

S is empty.
Rewrite Strategy: FULL
----------------------------------------

(6) LowerBoundPropagationProof (FINISHED)
Propagated lower bound.
----------------------------------------

(7)
BOUNDS(n^1, INF)

----------------------------------------

(8)
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:

   p(0) -> 0
   p(s(x)) -> x
   minus(x, 0) -> x
   minus(s(x), s(y)) -> minus(x, y)
   minus(x, s(y)) -> p(minus(x, y))
   div(0, s(y)) -> 0
   div(s(x), s(y)) -> s(div(minus(s(x), s(y)), s(y)))
   log(s(0), s(s(y))) -> 0
   log(s(s(x)), s(s(y))) -> s(log(div(minus(x, y), s(s(y))), s(s(y))))

S is empty.
Rewrite Strategy: FULL