/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), O(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# AProVE Commit ID: 48fb2092695e11cc9f56e44b17a92a5f88ffb256 marcel 20180622 unpublished dirty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, n^1).

(0) CpxTRS
(1) NestedDefinedSymbolProof [UPPER BOUND(ID), 0 ms]
(2) CpxTRS
    (3) RcToIrcProof [BOTH BOUNDS(ID, ID), 0 ms]
    (4) CpxTRS
    (5) CpxTrsToCdtProof [UPPER BOUND(ID), 3 ms]
    (6) CdtProblem
    (7) CdtLeafRemovalProof [BOTH BOUNDS(ID, ID), 0 ms]
    (8) CdtProblem
    (9) CdtUsableRulesProof [BOTH BOUNDS(ID, ID), 0 ms]
    (10) CdtProblem
    (11) CdtRuleRemovalProof [UPPER BOUND(ADD(n^1)), 40 ms]
    (12) CdtProblem
    (13) SIsEmptyProof [BOTH BOUNDS(ID, ID), 0 ms]
    (14) BOUNDS(1, 1)
(15) RelTrsToDecreasingLoopProblemProof [LOWER BOUND(ID), 0 ms]
(16) TRS for Loop Detection
    (17) DecreasingLoopProof [LOWER BOUND(ID), 0 ms]
    (18) BEST
        (19) proven lower bound
            (20) LowerBoundPropagationProof [FINISHED, 0 ms]
            (21) BOUNDS(n^1, INF)
        (22) TRS for Loop Detection


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

(0)
Obligation:
The Runtime Complexity (full) of the given CpxTRS could be proven to be BOUNDS(n^1, n^1).


The TRS R consists of the following rules:

   :(:(x, y), z) -> :(x, :(y, z))
   :(+(x, y), z) -> +(:(x, z), :(y, z))
   :(z, +(x, f(y))) -> :(g(z, y), +(x, a))

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

(1) NestedDefinedSymbolProof (UPPER BOUND(ID))
The TRS does not nest defined symbols.
Hence, the left-hand sides of the following rules are not basic-reachable and can be removed:
:(:(x, y), z) -> :(x, :(y, z))

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

(2)
Obligation:
The Runtime Complexity (full) of the given CpxTRS could be proven to be BOUNDS(1, n^1).


The TRS R consists of the following rules:

   :(+(x, y), z) -> +(:(x, z), :(y, z))
   :(z, +(x, f(y))) -> :(g(z, y), +(x, a))

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

(3) RcToIrcProof (BOTH BOUNDS(ID, ID))
Converted rc-obligation to irc-obligation.

As the TRS does not nest defined symbols, we have rc = irc.
----------------------------------------

(4)
Obligation:
The Runtime Complexity (innermost) of the given CpxTRS could be proven to be BOUNDS(1, n^1).


The TRS R consists of the following rules:

   :(+(x, y), z) -> +(:(x, z), :(y, z))
   :(z, +(x, f(y))) -> :(g(z, y), +(x, a))

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

(5) CpxTrsToCdtProof (UPPER BOUND(ID))
Converted Cpx (relative) TRS to CDT
----------------------------------------

(6)
Obligation:
Complexity Dependency Tuples Problem

Rules:
   :(+(z0, z1), z2) -> +(:(z0, z2), :(z1, z2))
   :(z0, +(z1, f(z2))) -> :(g(z0, z2), +(z1, a))
Tuples:
   :'(+(z0, z1), z2) -> c(:'(z0, z2), :'(z1, z2))
   :'(z0, +(z1, f(z2))) -> c1(:'(g(z0, z2), +(z1, a)))
S tuples:
   :'(+(z0, z1), z2) -> c(:'(z0, z2), :'(z1, z2))
   :'(z0, +(z1, f(z2))) -> c1(:'(g(z0, z2), +(z1, a)))
K tuples:none
Defined Rule Symbols:   :_2

Defined Pair Symbols:   :'_2

Compound Symbols:   c_2, c1_1


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

(7) CdtLeafRemovalProof (BOTH BOUNDS(ID, ID))
Removed 1 trailing nodes:
   :'(z0, +(z1, f(z2))) -> c1(:'(g(z0, z2), +(z1, a)))

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

(8)
Obligation:
Complexity Dependency Tuples Problem

Rules:
   :(+(z0, z1), z2) -> +(:(z0, z2), :(z1, z2))
   :(z0, +(z1, f(z2))) -> :(g(z0, z2), +(z1, a))
Tuples:
   :'(+(z0, z1), z2) -> c(:'(z0, z2), :'(z1, z2))
S tuples:
   :'(+(z0, z1), z2) -> c(:'(z0, z2), :'(z1, z2))
K tuples:none
Defined Rule Symbols:   :_2

Defined Pair Symbols:   :'_2

Compound Symbols:   c_2


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

(9) CdtUsableRulesProof (BOTH BOUNDS(ID, ID))
The following rules are not usable and were removed:
   :(+(z0, z1), z2) -> +(:(z0, z2), :(z1, z2))
   :(z0, +(z1, f(z2))) -> :(g(z0, z2), +(z1, a))

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

(10)
Obligation:
Complexity Dependency Tuples Problem

Rules:none
Tuples:
   :'(+(z0, z1), z2) -> c(:'(z0, z2), :'(z1, z2))
S tuples:
   :'(+(z0, z1), z2) -> c(:'(z0, z2), :'(z1, z2))
K tuples:none
Defined Rule Symbols:none

Defined Pair Symbols:   :'_2

Compound Symbols:   c_2


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

(11) CdtRuleRemovalProof (UPPER BOUND(ADD(n^1)))
Found a reduction pair which oriented the following tuples strictly. Hence they can be removed from S.
   :'(+(z0, z1), z2) -> c(:'(z0, z2), :'(z1, z2))
We considered the (Usable) Rules:none
And the Tuples:
   :'(+(z0, z1), z2) -> c(:'(z0, z2), :'(z1, z2))
The order we found is given by the following interpretation:

Polynomial interpretation :

   POL(+(x_1, x_2)) = [1] + x_1 + x_2
   POL(:'(x_1, x_2)) = x_1
   POL(c(x_1, x_2)) = x_1 + x_2

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

(12)
Obligation:
Complexity Dependency Tuples Problem

Rules:none
Tuples:
   :'(+(z0, z1), z2) -> c(:'(z0, z2), :'(z1, z2))
S tuples:none
K tuples:
   :'(+(z0, z1), z2) -> c(:'(z0, z2), :'(z1, z2))
Defined Rule Symbols:none

Defined Pair Symbols:   :'_2

Compound Symbols:   c_2


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

(13) SIsEmptyProof (BOTH BOUNDS(ID, ID))
The set S is empty
----------------------------------------

(14)
BOUNDS(1, 1)

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

(15) RelTrsToDecreasingLoopProblemProof (LOWER BOUND(ID))
Transformed a relative TRS into a decreasing-loop problem.
----------------------------------------

(16)
Obligation:
Analyzing the following TRS for decreasing loops:

The Runtime Complexity (full) of the given CpxTRS could be proven to be BOUNDS(n^1, n^1).


The TRS R consists of the following rules:

   :(:(x, y), z) -> :(x, :(y, z))
   :(+(x, y), z) -> +(:(x, z), :(y, z))
   :(z, +(x, f(y))) -> :(g(z, y), +(x, a))

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

(17) DecreasingLoopProof (LOWER BOUND(ID))
The following loop(s) give(s) rise to the lower bound Omega(n^1):

The rewrite sequence

:(+(x, y), z) ->^+ +(:(x, z), :(y, z))

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

The pumping substitution is [x / +(x, y)].

The result substitution is [ ].




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

(18)
Complex Obligation (BEST)

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

(19)
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, n^1).


The TRS R consists of the following rules:

   :(:(x, y), z) -> :(x, :(y, z))
   :(+(x, y), z) -> +(:(x, z), :(y, z))
   :(z, +(x, f(y))) -> :(g(z, y), +(x, a))

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

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

(21)
BOUNDS(n^1, INF)

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

(22)
Obligation:
Analyzing the following TRS for decreasing loops:

The Runtime Complexity (full) of the given CpxTRS could be proven to be BOUNDS(n^1, n^1).


The TRS R consists of the following rules:

   :(:(x, y), z) -> :(x, :(y, z))
   :(+(x, y), z) -> +(:(x, z), :(y, z))
   :(z, +(x, f(y))) -> :(g(z, y), +(x, a))

S is empty.
Rewrite Strategy: FULL