/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# AProVE Commit ID: 48fb2092695e11cc9f56e44b17a92a5f88ffb256 marcel 20180622 unpublished dirty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:

   if(true, t, e) -> t
   if(false, t, e) -> e
   member(x, nil) -> false
   member(x, cons(y, ys)) -> if(eq(x, y), true, member(x, ys))
   eq(nil, nil) -> true
   eq(O(x), 0(y)) -> eq(x, y)
   eq(0(x), 1(y)) -> false
   eq(1(x), 0(y)) -> false
   eq(1(x), 1(y)) -> eq(x, y)
   negate(0(x)) -> 1(x)
   negate(1(x)) -> 0(x)
   choice(cons(x, xs)) -> x
   choice(cons(x, xs)) -> choice(xs)
   guess(nil) -> nil
   guess(cons(clause, cnf)) -> cons(choice(clause), guess(cnf))
   verify(nil) -> true
   verify(cons(l, ls)) -> if(member(negate(l), ls), false, verify(ls))
   sat(cnf) -> satck(cnf, guess(cnf))
   satck(cnf, assign) -> if(verify(assign), assign, unsat)

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:

   if(true, t, e) -> t
   if(false, t, e) -> e
   member(x, nil) -> false
   member(x, cons(y, ys)) -> if(eq(x, y), true, member(x, ys))
   eq(nil, nil) -> true
   eq(O(x), 0(y)) -> eq(x, y)
   eq(0(x), 1(y)) -> false
   eq(1(x), 0(y)) -> false
   eq(1(x), 1(y)) -> eq(x, y)
   negate(0(x)) -> 1(x)
   negate(1(x)) -> 0(x)
   choice(cons(x, xs)) -> x
   choice(cons(x, xs)) -> choice(xs)
   guess(nil) -> nil
   guess(cons(clause, cnf)) -> cons(choice(clause), guess(cnf))
   verify(nil) -> true
   verify(cons(l, ls)) -> if(member(negate(l), ls), false, verify(ls))
   sat(cnf) -> satck(cnf, guess(cnf))
   satck(cnf, assign) -> if(verify(assign), assign, unsat)

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

member(x, cons(y, ys)) ->^+ if(eq(x, y), true, member(x, ys))

gives rise to a decreasing loop by considering the right hand sides subterm at position [2].

The pumping substitution is [ys / cons(y, ys)].

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:

   if(true, t, e) -> t
   if(false, t, e) -> e
   member(x, nil) -> false
   member(x, cons(y, ys)) -> if(eq(x, y), true, member(x, ys))
   eq(nil, nil) -> true
   eq(O(x), 0(y)) -> eq(x, y)
   eq(0(x), 1(y)) -> false
   eq(1(x), 0(y)) -> false
   eq(1(x), 1(y)) -> eq(x, y)
   negate(0(x)) -> 1(x)
   negate(1(x)) -> 0(x)
   choice(cons(x, xs)) -> x
   choice(cons(x, xs)) -> choice(xs)
   guess(nil) -> nil
   guess(cons(clause, cnf)) -> cons(choice(clause), guess(cnf))
   verify(nil) -> true
   verify(cons(l, ls)) -> if(member(negate(l), ls), false, verify(ls))
   sat(cnf) -> satck(cnf, guess(cnf))
   satck(cnf, assign) -> if(verify(assign), assign, unsat)

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:

   if(true, t, e) -> t
   if(false, t, e) -> e
   member(x, nil) -> false
   member(x, cons(y, ys)) -> if(eq(x, y), true, member(x, ys))
   eq(nil, nil) -> true
   eq(O(x), 0(y)) -> eq(x, y)
   eq(0(x), 1(y)) -> false
   eq(1(x), 0(y)) -> false
   eq(1(x), 1(y)) -> eq(x, y)
   negate(0(x)) -> 1(x)
   negate(1(x)) -> 0(x)
   choice(cons(x, xs)) -> x
   choice(cons(x, xs)) -> choice(xs)
   guess(nil) -> nil
   guess(cons(clause, cnf)) -> cons(choice(clause), guess(cnf))
   verify(nil) -> true
   verify(cons(l, ls)) -> if(member(negate(l), ls), false, verify(ls))
   sat(cnf) -> satck(cnf, guess(cnf))
   satck(cnf, assign) -> if(verify(assign), assign, unsat)

S is empty.
Rewrite Strategy: FULL