/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# AProVE Commit ID: 48fb2092695e11cc9f56e44b17a92a5f88ffb256 marcel 20180622 unpublished dirty The Runtime Complexity (full) of the given CpxTRS could be proven to be BOUNDS(n^1, INF).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: le(0, y) -> true le(s(x), 0) -> false le(s(x), s(y)) -> le(x, y) pred(s(x)) -> x minus(x, 0) -> x minus(x, s(y)) -> pred(minus(x, y)) gcd(0, y) -> y gcd(s(x), 0) -> s(x) gcd(s(x), s(y)) -> if_gcd(le(y, x), s(x), s(y)) if_gcd(true, s(x), s(y)) -> gcd(minus(x, y), s(y)) if_gcd(false, s(x), s(y)) -> gcd(minus(y, x), s(x)) 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: le(0, y) -> true le(s(x), 0) -> false le(s(x), s(y)) -> le(x, y) pred(s(x)) -> x minus(x, 0) -> x minus(x, s(y)) -> pred(minus(x, y)) gcd(0, y) -> y gcd(s(x), 0) -> s(x) gcd(s(x), s(y)) -> if_gcd(le(y, x), s(x), s(y)) if_gcd(true, s(x), s(y)) -> gcd(minus(x, y), s(y)) if_gcd(false, s(x), s(y)) -> gcd(minus(y, x), s(x)) 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(x, s(y)) ->^+ pred(minus(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: le(0, y) -> true le(s(x), 0) -> false le(s(x), s(y)) -> le(x, y) pred(s(x)) -> x minus(x, 0) -> x minus(x, s(y)) -> pred(minus(x, y)) gcd(0, y) -> y gcd(s(x), 0) -> s(x) gcd(s(x), s(y)) -> if_gcd(le(y, x), s(x), s(y)) if_gcd(true, s(x), s(y)) -> gcd(minus(x, y), s(y)) if_gcd(false, s(x), s(y)) -> gcd(minus(y, x), s(x)) 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: le(0, y) -> true le(s(x), 0) -> false le(s(x), s(y)) -> le(x, y) pred(s(x)) -> x minus(x, 0) -> x minus(x, s(y)) -> pred(minus(x, y)) gcd(0, y) -> y gcd(s(x), 0) -> s(x) gcd(s(x), s(y)) -> if_gcd(le(y, x), s(x), s(y)) if_gcd(true, s(x), s(y)) -> gcd(minus(x, y), s(y)) if_gcd(false, s(x), s(y)) -> gcd(minus(y, x), s(x)) S is empty. Rewrite Strategy: FULL