3.47/1.77	WORST_CASE(NON_POLY, ?)
3.67/1.78	proof of /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.koat
3.67/1.78	# AProVE Commit ID: 48fb2092695e11cc9f56e44b17a92a5f88ffb256 marcel 20180622 unpublished dirty
3.67/1.78	
3.67/1.78	
3.67/1.78	The runtime complexity of the given CpxIntTrs could be proven to be BOUNDS(INF, INF).
3.67/1.78	
3.67/1.78	(0) CpxIntTrs
3.67/1.78	(1) Loat Proof [FINISHED, 114 ms]
3.67/1.78	(2) BOUNDS(INF, INF)
3.67/1.78	
3.67/1.78	
3.67/1.78	----------------------------------------
3.67/1.78	
3.67/1.78	(0)
3.67/1.78	Obligation:
3.67/1.78	Complexity Int TRS consisting of the following rules:
3.67/1.78	f0(A) -> Com_1(f1(A)) :|: TRUE
3.67/1.78	f1(A) -> Com_1(f1(A + 1)) :|: A >= 200
3.67/1.78	
3.67/1.78	The start-symbols are:[f0_1]
3.67/1.78	
3.67/1.78	
3.67/1.78	----------------------------------------
3.67/1.78	
3.67/1.78	(1) Loat Proof (FINISHED)
3.67/1.78	
3.67/1.78	
3.67/1.78	### Pre-processing the ITS problem ###
3.67/1.78	
3.67/1.78	
3.67/1.78	
3.67/1.78	Initial linear ITS problem
3.67/1.78	
3.67/1.78	   Start location: f0
3.67/1.78	
3.67/1.78	      0: f0 -> f1 : [], cost: 1
3.67/1.78	
3.67/1.78	      1: f1 -> f1 : A'=1+A, [ A>=200 ], cost: 1
3.67/1.78	
3.67/1.78	
3.67/1.78	
3.67/1.78	### Simplification by acceleration and chaining ###
3.67/1.78	
3.67/1.78	
3.67/1.78	
3.67/1.78	Accelerating simple loops of location 1.
3.67/1.78	
3.67/1.78	   Accelerating the following rules:
3.67/1.78	
3.67/1.78	      1: f1 -> f1 : A'=1+A, [ A>=200 ], cost: 1
3.67/1.78	
3.67/1.78	
3.67/1.78	
3.67/1.78	   Accelerated rule 1 with NONTERM, yielding the new rule 2.
3.67/1.78	
3.67/1.78	   Removing the simple loops: 1.
3.67/1.78	
3.67/1.78	
3.67/1.78	
3.67/1.78	Accelerated all simple loops using metering functions (where possible):
3.67/1.78	
3.67/1.78	   Start location: f0
3.67/1.78	
3.67/1.78	      0: f0 -> f1 : [], cost: 1
3.67/1.78	
3.67/1.78	      2: f1 -> [2] : [ A>=200 ], cost: INF
3.67/1.78	
3.67/1.78	
3.67/1.78	
3.67/1.78	Chained accelerated rules (with incoming rules):
3.67/1.78	
3.67/1.78	   Start location: f0
3.67/1.78	
3.67/1.78	      0: f0 -> f1 : [], cost: 1
3.67/1.78	
3.67/1.78	      3: f0 -> [2] : [ A>=200 ], cost: INF
3.67/1.78	
3.67/1.78	
3.67/1.78	
3.67/1.78	Removed unreachable locations (and leaf rules with constant cost):
3.67/1.78	
3.67/1.78	   Start location: f0
3.67/1.78	
3.67/1.78	      3: f0 -> [2] : [ A>=200 ], cost: INF
3.67/1.78	
3.67/1.78	
3.67/1.78	
3.67/1.78	### Computing asymptotic complexity ###
3.67/1.78	
3.67/1.78	
3.67/1.78	
3.67/1.78	Fully simplified ITS problem
3.67/1.78	
3.67/1.78	   Start location: f0
3.67/1.78	
3.67/1.78	      3: f0 -> [2] : [ A>=200 ], cost: INF
3.67/1.78	
3.67/1.78	
3.67/1.78	
3.67/1.78	Computing asymptotic complexity for rule 3
3.67/1.78	
3.67/1.78	   Resulting cost INF has complexity: Nonterm
3.67/1.78	
3.67/1.78	
3.67/1.78	
3.67/1.78	Found new complexity Nonterm.
3.67/1.78	
3.67/1.78	
3.67/1.78	
3.67/1.78	Obtained the following overall complexity (w.r.t. the length of the input n):
3.67/1.78	
3.67/1.78	   Complexity:  Nonterm
3.67/1.78	
3.67/1.78	   Cpx degree:  Nonterm
3.67/1.78	
3.67/1.78	   Solved cost: INF
3.67/1.78	
3.67/1.78	   Rule cost:   INF
3.67/1.78	
3.67/1.78	   Rule guard:  [ A>=200 ]
3.67/1.78	
3.67/1.78	
3.67/1.78	
3.67/1.78	NO
3.67/1.78	
3.67/1.78	
3.67/1.78	----------------------------------------
3.67/1.78	
3.67/1.78	(2)
3.67/1.78	BOUNDS(INF, INF)
3.69/1.81	EOF