/export/starexec/sandbox2/solver/bin/starexec_run_complexity /export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.xml /export/starexec/sandbox2/output/output_files


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


WORST_CASE(Omega(n^1), ?)
proof of /export/starexec/sandbox2/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# AProVE Commit ID: 48fb2092695e11cc9f56e44b17a92a5f88ffb256 marcel 20180622 unpublished dirty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:

   app(x, y) -> helpa(0, plus(length(x), length(y)), x, y)
   plus(x, 0) -> x
   plus(x, s(y)) -> s(plus(x, y))
   length(nil) -> 0
   length(cons(x, y)) -> s(length(y))
   helpa(c, l, ys, zs) -> if(ge(c, l), c, l, ys, zs)
   ge(x, 0) -> true
   ge(0, s(x)) -> false
   ge(s(x), s(y)) -> ge(x, y)
   if(true, c, l, ys, zs) -> nil
   if(false, c, l, ys, zs) -> helpb(c, l, greater(ys, zs), smaller(ys, zs))
   greater(ys, zs) -> helpc(ge(length(ys), length(zs)), ys, zs)
   smaller(ys, zs) -> helpc(ge(length(ys), length(zs)), zs, ys)
   helpc(true, ys, zs) -> ys
   helpc(false, ys, zs) -> zs
   helpb(c, l, cons(y, ys), zs) -> cons(y, helpa(s(c), l, ys, zs))

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:

   app(x, y) -> helpa(0, plus(length(x), length(y)), x, y)
   plus(x, 0) -> x
   plus(x, s(y)) -> s(plus(x, y))
   length(nil) -> 0
   length(cons(x, y)) -> s(length(y))
   helpa(c, l, ys, zs) -> if(ge(c, l), c, l, ys, zs)
   ge(x, 0) -> true
   ge(0, s(x)) -> false
   ge(s(x), s(y)) -> ge(x, y)
   if(true, c, l, ys, zs) -> nil
   if(false, c, l, ys, zs) -> helpb(c, l, greater(ys, zs), smaller(ys, zs))
   greater(ys, zs) -> helpc(ge(length(ys), length(zs)), ys, zs)
   smaller(ys, zs) -> helpc(ge(length(ys), length(zs)), zs, ys)
   helpc(true, ys, zs) -> ys
   helpc(false, ys, zs) -> zs
   helpb(c, l, cons(y, ys), zs) -> cons(y, helpa(s(c), l, ys, zs))

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

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

gives rise to a decreasing loop by considering the right hand sides subterm at position [0].

The pumping substitution is [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:

   app(x, y) -> helpa(0, plus(length(x), length(y)), x, y)
   plus(x, 0) -> x
   plus(x, s(y)) -> s(plus(x, y))
   length(nil) -> 0
   length(cons(x, y)) -> s(length(y))
   helpa(c, l, ys, zs) -> if(ge(c, l), c, l, ys, zs)
   ge(x, 0) -> true
   ge(0, s(x)) -> false
   ge(s(x), s(y)) -> ge(x, y)
   if(true, c, l, ys, zs) -> nil
   if(false, c, l, ys, zs) -> helpb(c, l, greater(ys, zs), smaller(ys, zs))
   greater(ys, zs) -> helpc(ge(length(ys), length(zs)), ys, zs)
   smaller(ys, zs) -> helpc(ge(length(ys), length(zs)), zs, ys)
   helpc(true, ys, zs) -> ys
   helpc(false, ys, zs) -> zs
   helpb(c, l, cons(y, ys), zs) -> cons(y, helpa(s(c), l, ys, zs))

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:

   app(x, y) -> helpa(0, plus(length(x), length(y)), x, y)
   plus(x, 0) -> x
   plus(x, s(y)) -> s(plus(x, y))
   length(nil) -> 0
   length(cons(x, y)) -> s(length(y))
   helpa(c, l, ys, zs) -> if(ge(c, l), c, l, ys, zs)
   ge(x, 0) -> true
   ge(0, s(x)) -> false
   ge(s(x), s(y)) -> ge(x, y)
   if(true, c, l, ys, zs) -> nil
   if(false, c, l, ys, zs) -> helpb(c, l, greater(ys, zs), smaller(ys, zs))
   greater(ys, zs) -> helpc(ge(length(ys), length(zs)), ys, zs)
   smaller(ys, zs) -> helpc(ge(length(ys), length(zs)), zs, ys)
   helpc(true, ys, zs) -> ys
   helpc(false, ys, zs) -> zs
   helpb(c, l, cons(y, ys), zs) -> cons(y, helpa(s(c), l, ys, zs))

S is empty.
Rewrite Strategy: FULL