3.28/1.58	WORST_CASE(NON_POLY, ?)
3.28/1.58	proof of /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.xml
3.28/1.58	# AProVE Commit ID: 48fb2092695e11cc9f56e44b17a92a5f88ffb256 marcel 20180622 unpublished dirty
3.28/1.58	
3.28/1.58	
3.28/1.58	The Runtime Complexity (full) of the given CpxTRS could be proven to be BOUNDS(INF, INF).
3.28/1.58	
3.28/1.58	(0) CpxTRS
3.28/1.58	(1) RelTrsToDecreasingLoopProblemProof [LOWER BOUND(ID), 0 ms]
3.28/1.58	(2) TRS for Loop Detection
3.28/1.58	(3) InfiniteLowerBoundProof [FINISHED, 0 ms]
3.28/1.58	(4) BOUNDS(INF, INF)
3.28/1.58	
3.28/1.58	
3.28/1.58	----------------------------------------
3.28/1.58	
3.28/1.58	(0)
3.28/1.58	Obligation:
3.28/1.58	The Runtime Complexity (full) of the given CpxTRS could be proven to be BOUNDS(INF, INF).
3.28/1.58	
3.28/1.58	
3.28/1.58	The TRS R consists of the following rules:
3.28/1.58	
3.28/1.58	   f(g(a)) -> a
3.28/1.58	   f(f(x)) -> b
3.28/1.58	   g(x) -> f(g(x))
3.28/1.58	
3.28/1.58	S is empty.
3.28/1.58	Rewrite Strategy: FULL
3.28/1.58	----------------------------------------
3.28/1.58	
3.28/1.58	(1) RelTrsToDecreasingLoopProblemProof (LOWER BOUND(ID))
3.28/1.58	Transformed a relative TRS into a decreasing-loop problem.
3.28/1.58	----------------------------------------
3.28/1.58	
3.28/1.58	(2)
3.28/1.58	Obligation:
3.28/1.58	Analyzing the following TRS for decreasing loops:
3.28/1.58	
3.28/1.58	The Runtime Complexity (full) of the given CpxTRS could be proven to be BOUNDS(INF, INF).
3.28/1.58	
3.28/1.58	
3.28/1.58	The TRS R consists of the following rules:
3.28/1.58	
3.28/1.58	   f(g(a)) -> a
3.28/1.58	   f(f(x)) -> b
3.28/1.58	   g(x) -> f(g(x))
3.28/1.58	
3.28/1.58	S is empty.
3.28/1.58	Rewrite Strategy: FULL
3.28/1.58	----------------------------------------
3.28/1.58	
3.28/1.58	(3) InfiniteLowerBoundProof (FINISHED)
3.28/1.58	The following loop proves infinite runtime complexity:
3.28/1.58	
3.28/1.58	The rewrite sequence
3.28/1.58	
3.28/1.58	g(x) ->^+ f(g(x))
3.28/1.58	
3.28/1.58	gives rise to a decreasing loop by considering the right hand sides subterm at position [0].
3.28/1.58	
3.28/1.58	The pumping substitution is [ ].
3.28/1.58	
3.28/1.58	The result substitution is [ ].
3.28/1.58	
3.28/1.58	
3.28/1.58	
3.28/1.58	
3.28/1.58	----------------------------------------
3.28/1.58	
3.28/1.58	(4)
3.28/1.58	BOUNDS(INF, INF)
3.28/1.62	EOF