/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# AProVE Commit ID: 48fb2092695e11cc9f56e44b17a92a5f88ffb256 marcel 20180622 unpublished dirty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 (innermost) 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 (innermost) of the given CpxTRS could be proven to be BOUNDS(n^1, INF).


The TRS R consists of the following rules:

   rev1(0, nil) -> 0
   rev1(s(X), nil) -> s(X)
   rev1(X, cons(Y, L)) -> rev1(Y, L)
   rev(nil) -> nil
   rev(cons(X, L)) -> cons(rev1(X, L), rev2(X, L))
   rev2(X, nil) -> nil
   rev2(X, cons(Y, L)) -> rev(cons(X, rev(rev2(Y, L))))

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

(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 (innermost) of the given CpxTRS could be proven to be BOUNDS(n^1, INF).


The TRS R consists of the following rules:

   rev1(0, nil) -> 0
   rev1(s(X), nil) -> s(X)
   rev1(X, cons(Y, L)) -> rev1(Y, L)
   rev(nil) -> nil
   rev(cons(X, L)) -> cons(rev1(X, L), rev2(X, L))
   rev2(X, nil) -> nil
   rev2(X, cons(Y, L)) -> rev(cons(X, rev(rev2(Y, L))))

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

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

The rewrite sequence

rev2(X, cons(Y, L)) ->^+ rev(cons(X, rev(rev2(Y, L))))

gives rise to a decreasing loop by considering the right hand sides subterm at position [0,1,0].

The pumping substitution is [L / cons(Y, L)].

The result substitution is [X / Y].




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

(4)
Complex Obligation (BEST)

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

(5)
Obligation:
Proved the lower bound n^1 for the following obligation:

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


The TRS R consists of the following rules:

   rev1(0, nil) -> 0
   rev1(s(X), nil) -> s(X)
   rev1(X, cons(Y, L)) -> rev1(Y, L)
   rev(nil) -> nil
   rev(cons(X, L)) -> cons(rev1(X, L), rev2(X, L))
   rev2(X, nil) -> nil
   rev2(X, cons(Y, L)) -> rev(cons(X, rev(rev2(Y, L))))

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

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

(7)
BOUNDS(n^1, INF)

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

(8)
Obligation:
Analyzing the following TRS for decreasing loops:

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


The TRS R consists of the following rules:

   rev1(0, nil) -> 0
   rev1(s(X), nil) -> s(X)
   rev1(X, cons(Y, L)) -> rev1(Y, L)
   rev(nil) -> nil
   rev(cons(X, L)) -> cons(rev1(X, L), rev2(X, L))
   rev2(X, nil) -> nil
   rev2(X, cons(Y, L)) -> rev(cons(X, rev(rev2(Y, L))))

S is empty.
Rewrite Strategy: INNERMOST