3.42/1.79 WORST_CASE(NON_POLY, ?) 3.42/1.80 proof of /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.koat 3.42/1.80 # AProVE Commit ID: 48fb2092695e11cc9f56e44b17a92a5f88ffb256 marcel 20180622 unpublished dirty 3.42/1.80 3.42/1.80 3.42/1.80 The runtime complexity of the given CpxIntTrs could be proven to be BOUNDS(INF, INF). 3.42/1.80 3.42/1.80 (0) CpxIntTrs 3.42/1.80 (1) Loat Proof [FINISHED, 114 ms] 3.42/1.80 (2) BOUNDS(INF, INF) 3.42/1.80 3.42/1.80 3.42/1.80 ---------------------------------------- 3.42/1.80 3.42/1.80 (0) 3.42/1.80 Obligation: 3.42/1.80 Complexity Int TRS consisting of the following rules: 3.42/1.80 f3(A, B) -> Com_1(f2(A, B)) :|: TRUE 3.42/1.80 f2(A, B) -> Com_1(f2(-(1) + A, B)) :|: 1 >= A 3.42/1.80 f2(A, B) -> Com_1(f300(-(1) + A, C)) :|: A >= 2 3.42/1.80 3.42/1.80 The start-symbols are:[f3_2] 3.42/1.80 3.42/1.80 3.42/1.80 ---------------------------------------- 3.42/1.80 3.42/1.80 (1) Loat Proof (FINISHED) 3.42/1.80 3.42/1.80 3.42/1.80 ### Pre-processing the ITS problem ### 3.42/1.80 3.42/1.80 3.42/1.80 3.42/1.80 Initial linear ITS problem 3.42/1.80 3.42/1.80 Start location: f3 3.42/1.80 3.42/1.80 0: f3 -> f2 : [], cost: 1 3.42/1.80 3.42/1.80 1: f2 -> f2 : A'=-1+A, [ 1>=A ], cost: 1 3.42/1.80 3.42/1.80 2: f2 -> f300 : A'=-1+A, B'=free, [ A>=2 ], cost: 1 3.42/1.80 3.42/1.80 3.42/1.80 3.42/1.80 Removed unreachable and leaf rules: 3.42/1.80 3.42/1.80 Start location: f3 3.42/1.80 3.42/1.80 0: f3 -> f2 : [], cost: 1 3.42/1.80 3.42/1.80 1: f2 -> f2 : A'=-1+A, [ 1>=A ], cost: 1 3.42/1.80 3.42/1.80 3.42/1.80 3.42/1.80 ### Simplification by acceleration and chaining ### 3.42/1.80 3.42/1.80 3.42/1.80 3.42/1.80 Accelerating simple loops of location 1. 3.42/1.80 3.42/1.80 Accelerating the following rules: 3.42/1.80 3.42/1.80 1: f2 -> f2 : A'=-1+A, [ 1>=A ], cost: 1 3.42/1.80 3.42/1.80 3.42/1.80 3.42/1.80 Accelerated rule 1 with NONTERM, yielding the new rule 3. 3.42/1.80 3.42/1.80 Removing the simple loops: 1. 3.42/1.80 3.42/1.80 3.42/1.80 3.42/1.80 Accelerated all simple loops using metering functions (where possible): 3.42/1.80 3.42/1.80 Start location: f3 3.42/1.80 3.42/1.80 0: f3 -> f2 : [], cost: 1 3.42/1.80 3.42/1.80 3: f2 -> [3] : [ 1>=A ], cost: INF 3.42/1.80 3.42/1.80 3.42/1.80 3.42/1.80 Chained accelerated rules (with incoming rules): 3.42/1.80 3.42/1.80 Start location: f3 3.42/1.80 3.42/1.80 0: f3 -> f2 : [], cost: 1 3.42/1.80 3.42/1.80 4: f3 -> [3] : [ 1>=A ], cost: INF 3.42/1.80 3.42/1.80 3.42/1.80 3.42/1.80 Removed unreachable locations (and leaf rules with constant cost): 3.42/1.80 3.42/1.80 Start location: f3 3.42/1.80 3.42/1.80 4: f3 -> [3] : [ 1>=A ], cost: INF 3.42/1.80 3.42/1.80 3.42/1.80 3.42/1.80 ### Computing asymptotic complexity ### 3.42/1.80 3.42/1.80 3.42/1.80 3.42/1.80 Fully simplified ITS problem 3.42/1.80 3.42/1.80 Start location: f3 3.42/1.80 3.42/1.80 4: f3 -> [3] : [ 1>=A ], cost: INF 3.42/1.80 3.42/1.80 3.42/1.80 3.42/1.80 Computing asymptotic complexity for rule 4 3.42/1.80 3.42/1.80 Resulting cost INF has complexity: Nonterm 3.42/1.80 3.42/1.80 3.42/1.80 3.42/1.80 Found new complexity Nonterm. 3.42/1.80 3.42/1.80 3.42/1.80 3.42/1.80 Obtained the following overall complexity (w.r.t. the length of the input n): 3.42/1.80 3.42/1.80 Complexity: Nonterm 3.42/1.80 3.42/1.80 Cpx degree: Nonterm 3.42/1.80 3.42/1.80 Solved cost: INF 3.42/1.80 3.42/1.80 Rule cost: INF 3.42/1.80 3.42/1.80 Rule guard: [ 1>=A ] 3.42/1.80 3.42/1.80 3.42/1.80 3.42/1.80 NO 3.42/1.80 3.42/1.80 3.42/1.80 ---------------------------------------- 3.42/1.80 3.42/1.80 (2) 3.42/1.80 BOUNDS(INF, INF) 3.86/1.82 EOF