3.85/1.90	WORST_CASE(NON_POLY, ?)
3.85/1.91	proof of /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.koat
3.85/1.91	# AProVE Commit ID: 48fb2092695e11cc9f56e44b17a92a5f88ffb256 marcel 20180622 unpublished dirty
3.85/1.91	
3.85/1.91	
3.85/1.91	The runtime complexity of the given CpxIntTrs could be proven to be BOUNDS(INF, INF).
3.85/1.91	
3.85/1.91	(0) CpxIntTrs
3.85/1.91	(1) Loat Proof [FINISHED, 132 ms]
3.85/1.91	(2) BOUNDS(INF, INF)
3.85/1.91	
3.85/1.91	
3.85/1.91	----------------------------------------
3.85/1.91	
3.85/1.91	(0)
3.85/1.91	Obligation:
3.85/1.91	Complexity Int TRS consisting of the following rules:
3.85/1.91	f1(A, B, C, D, E, F) -> Com_1(f2(G, G, C, D, E, F)) :|: TRUE
3.85/1.91	f2(A, B, C, D, E, F) -> Com_1(f2(A, B, C, D, G, F)) :|: D >= 1 + C
3.85/1.91	f2(A, B, C, D, E, F) -> Com_1(f300(A, B, C, D, E, G)) :|: C >= D
3.85/1.91	
3.85/1.91	The start-symbols are:[f1_6]
3.85/1.91	
3.85/1.91	
3.85/1.91	----------------------------------------
3.85/1.91	
3.85/1.91	(1) Loat Proof (FINISHED)
3.85/1.91	
3.85/1.91	
3.85/1.91	### Pre-processing the ITS problem ###
3.85/1.91	
3.85/1.91	
3.85/1.91	
3.85/1.91	Initial linear ITS problem
3.85/1.91	
3.85/1.91	   Start location: f1
3.85/1.91	
3.85/1.91	      0: f1 -> f2 : A'=free, B'=free, [], cost: 1
3.85/1.91	
3.85/1.91	      1: f2 -> f2 : E'=free_1, [ C>=1+D ], cost: 1
3.85/1.91	
3.85/1.91	      2: f2 -> f300 : F'=free_2, [ D>=C ], cost: 1
3.85/1.91	
3.85/1.91	
3.85/1.91	
3.85/1.91	Removed unreachable and leaf rules:
3.85/1.91	
3.85/1.91	   Start location: f1
3.85/1.91	
3.85/1.91	      0: f1 -> f2 : A'=free, B'=free, [], cost: 1
3.85/1.91	
3.85/1.91	      1: f2 -> f2 : E'=free_1, [ C>=1+D ], cost: 1
3.85/1.91	
3.85/1.91	
3.85/1.91	
3.85/1.91	### Simplification by acceleration and chaining ###
3.85/1.91	
3.85/1.91	
3.85/1.91	
3.85/1.91	Accelerating simple loops of location 1.
3.85/1.91	
3.85/1.91	   Accelerating the following rules:
3.85/1.91	
3.85/1.91	      1: f2 -> f2 : E'=free_1, [ C>=1+D ], cost: 1
3.85/1.91	
3.85/1.91	
3.85/1.91	
3.85/1.91	   Accelerated rule 1 with NONTERM, yielding the new rule 3.
3.85/1.91	
3.85/1.91	   Removing the simple loops: 1.
3.85/1.91	
3.85/1.91	
3.85/1.91	
3.85/1.91	Accelerated all simple loops using metering functions (where possible):
3.85/1.91	
3.85/1.91	   Start location: f1
3.85/1.91	
3.85/1.91	      0: f1 -> f2 : A'=free, B'=free, [], cost: 1
3.85/1.91	
3.85/1.91	      3: f2 -> [3] : [ C>=1+D ], cost: INF
3.85/1.91	
3.85/1.91	
3.85/1.91	
3.85/1.91	Chained accelerated rules (with incoming rules):
3.85/1.91	
3.85/1.91	   Start location: f1
3.85/1.91	
3.85/1.91	      0: f1 -> f2 : A'=free, B'=free, [], cost: 1
3.85/1.91	
3.85/1.91	      4: f1 -> [3] : A'=free, B'=free, [ C>=1+D ], cost: INF
3.85/1.91	
3.85/1.91	
3.85/1.91	
3.85/1.91	Removed unreachable locations (and leaf rules with constant cost):
3.85/1.91	
3.85/1.91	   Start location: f1
3.85/1.91	
3.85/1.91	      4: f1 -> [3] : A'=free, B'=free, [ C>=1+D ], cost: INF
3.85/1.91	
3.85/1.91	
3.85/1.91	
3.85/1.91	### Computing asymptotic complexity ###
3.85/1.91	
3.85/1.91	
3.85/1.91	
3.85/1.91	Fully simplified ITS problem
3.85/1.91	
3.85/1.91	   Start location: f1
3.85/1.91	
3.85/1.91	      4: f1 -> [3] : A'=free, B'=free, [ C>=1+D ], cost: INF
3.85/1.91	
3.85/1.91	
3.85/1.91	
3.85/1.91	Computing asymptotic complexity for rule 4
3.85/1.91	
3.85/1.91	   Resulting cost INF has complexity: Nonterm
3.85/1.91	
3.85/1.91	
3.85/1.91	
3.85/1.91	Found new complexity Nonterm.
3.85/1.91	
3.85/1.91	
3.85/1.91	
3.85/1.91	Obtained the following overall complexity (w.r.t. the length of the input n):
3.85/1.91	
3.85/1.91	   Complexity:  Nonterm
3.85/1.91	
3.85/1.91	   Cpx degree:  Nonterm
3.85/1.91	
3.85/1.91	   Solved cost: INF
3.85/1.91	
3.85/1.91	   Rule cost:   INF
3.85/1.91	
3.85/1.91	   Rule guard:  [ C>=1+D ]
3.85/1.91	
3.85/1.91	
3.85/1.91	
3.85/1.91	NO
3.85/1.91	
3.85/1.91	
3.85/1.91	----------------------------------------
3.85/1.91	
3.85/1.91	(2)
3.85/1.91	BOUNDS(INF, INF)
3.92/1.93	EOF