3.15/1.63	WORST_CASE(NON_POLY, ?)
3.15/1.64	proof of /export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.xml
3.15/1.64	# AProVE Commit ID: 48fb2092695e11cc9f56e44b17a92a5f88ffb256 marcel 20180622 unpublished dirty
3.15/1.64	
3.15/1.64	
3.15/1.64	The Runtime Complexity (full) of the given CpxTRS could be proven to be BOUNDS(EXP, INF).
3.15/1.64	
3.15/1.64	(0) CpxTRS
3.15/1.64	(1) RelTrsToDecreasingLoopProblemProof [LOWER BOUND(ID), 0 ms]
3.15/1.64	(2) TRS for Loop Detection
3.15/1.64	(3) DecreasingLoopProof [LOWER BOUND(ID), 0 ms]
3.15/1.64	(4) BEST
3.15/1.64	    (5) proven lower bound
3.15/1.64	        (6) LowerBoundPropagationProof [FINISHED, 0 ms]
3.15/1.64	        (7) BOUNDS(n^1, INF)
3.15/1.64	    (8) TRS for Loop Detection
3.15/1.64	        (9) DecreasingLoopProof [FINISHED, 0 ms]
3.15/1.64	        (10) BOUNDS(EXP, INF)
3.15/1.64	
3.15/1.64	
3.15/1.64	----------------------------------------
3.15/1.64	
3.15/1.64	(0)
3.15/1.64	Obligation:
3.15/1.64	The Runtime Complexity (full) of the given CpxTRS could be proven to be BOUNDS(EXP, INF).
3.15/1.64	
3.15/1.64	
3.15/1.64	The TRS R consists of the following rules:
3.15/1.64	
3.15/1.64	   from(X) -> cons(X, n__from(n__s(X)))
3.15/1.64	   length(n__nil) -> 0
3.15/1.64	   length(n__cons(X, Y)) -> s(length1(activate(Y)))
3.15/1.64	   length1(X) -> length(activate(X))
3.15/1.64	   from(X) -> n__from(X)
3.15/1.64	   s(X) -> n__s(X)
3.15/1.64	   nil -> n__nil
3.15/1.64	   cons(X1, X2) -> n__cons(X1, X2)
3.15/1.64	   activate(n__from(X)) -> from(activate(X))
3.15/1.64	   activate(n__s(X)) -> s(activate(X))
3.15/1.64	   activate(n__nil) -> nil
3.15/1.64	   activate(n__cons(X1, X2)) -> cons(activate(X1), X2)
3.15/1.64	   activate(X) -> X
3.15/1.64	
3.15/1.64	S is empty.
3.15/1.64	Rewrite Strategy: FULL
3.15/1.64	----------------------------------------
3.15/1.64	
3.15/1.64	(1) RelTrsToDecreasingLoopProblemProof (LOWER BOUND(ID))
3.15/1.64	Transformed a relative TRS into a decreasing-loop problem.
3.15/1.64	----------------------------------------
3.15/1.64	
3.15/1.64	(2)
3.15/1.64	Obligation:
3.15/1.64	Analyzing the following TRS for decreasing loops:
3.15/1.64	
3.15/1.64	The Runtime Complexity (full) of the given CpxTRS could be proven to be BOUNDS(EXP, INF).
3.15/1.64	
3.15/1.64	
3.15/1.64	The TRS R consists of the following rules:
3.15/1.64	
3.15/1.64	   from(X) -> cons(X, n__from(n__s(X)))
3.15/1.64	   length(n__nil) -> 0
3.15/1.64	   length(n__cons(X, Y)) -> s(length1(activate(Y)))
3.15/1.64	   length1(X) -> length(activate(X))
3.15/1.64	   from(X) -> n__from(X)
3.15/1.64	   s(X) -> n__s(X)
3.15/1.64	   nil -> n__nil
3.15/1.64	   cons(X1, X2) -> n__cons(X1, X2)
3.15/1.64	   activate(n__from(X)) -> from(activate(X))
3.15/1.64	   activate(n__s(X)) -> s(activate(X))
3.15/1.64	   activate(n__nil) -> nil
3.15/1.64	   activate(n__cons(X1, X2)) -> cons(activate(X1), X2)
3.15/1.64	   activate(X) -> X
3.15/1.64	
3.15/1.64	S is empty.
3.15/1.64	Rewrite Strategy: FULL
3.15/1.64	----------------------------------------
3.15/1.64	
3.15/1.64	(3) DecreasingLoopProof (LOWER BOUND(ID))
3.15/1.64	The following loop(s) give(s) rise to the lower bound Omega(n^1):
3.15/1.64	
3.15/1.64	The rewrite sequence
3.15/1.64	
3.15/1.64	activate(n__s(X)) ->^+ s(activate(X))
3.15/1.64	
3.15/1.64	gives rise to a decreasing loop by considering the right hand sides subterm at position [0].
3.15/1.64	
3.15/1.64	The pumping substitution is [X / n__s(X)].
3.15/1.64	
3.15/1.64	The result substitution is [ ].
3.15/1.64	
3.15/1.64	
3.15/1.64	
3.15/1.64	
3.15/1.64	----------------------------------------
3.15/1.64	
3.15/1.64	(4)
3.15/1.64	Complex Obligation (BEST)
3.15/1.64	
3.15/1.64	----------------------------------------
3.15/1.64	
3.15/1.64	(5)
3.15/1.64	Obligation:
3.15/1.64	Proved the lower bound n^1 for the following obligation:
3.15/1.64	
3.15/1.64	The Runtime Complexity (full) of the given CpxTRS could be proven to be BOUNDS(EXP, INF).
3.15/1.64	
3.15/1.64	
3.15/1.64	The TRS R consists of the following rules:
3.15/1.64	
3.15/1.64	   from(X) -> cons(X, n__from(n__s(X)))
3.15/1.64	   length(n__nil) -> 0
3.15/1.64	   length(n__cons(X, Y)) -> s(length1(activate(Y)))
3.15/1.64	   length1(X) -> length(activate(X))
3.15/1.64	   from(X) -> n__from(X)
3.15/1.64	   s(X) -> n__s(X)
3.15/1.64	   nil -> n__nil
3.15/1.64	   cons(X1, X2) -> n__cons(X1, X2)
3.15/1.64	   activate(n__from(X)) -> from(activate(X))
3.15/1.64	   activate(n__s(X)) -> s(activate(X))
3.15/1.64	   activate(n__nil) -> nil
3.15/1.64	   activate(n__cons(X1, X2)) -> cons(activate(X1), X2)
3.15/1.64	   activate(X) -> X
3.15/1.64	
3.15/1.64	S is empty.
3.15/1.64	Rewrite Strategy: FULL
3.15/1.64	----------------------------------------
3.15/1.64	
3.15/1.64	(6) LowerBoundPropagationProof (FINISHED)
3.15/1.64	Propagated lower bound.
3.15/1.64	----------------------------------------
3.15/1.64	
3.15/1.64	(7)
3.15/1.64	BOUNDS(n^1, INF)
3.15/1.64	
3.15/1.64	----------------------------------------
3.15/1.64	
3.15/1.64	(8)
3.15/1.64	Obligation:
3.15/1.64	Analyzing the following TRS for decreasing loops:
3.15/1.64	
3.15/1.64	The Runtime Complexity (full) of the given CpxTRS could be proven to be BOUNDS(EXP, INF).
3.15/1.64	
3.15/1.64	
3.15/1.64	The TRS R consists of the following rules:
3.15/1.64	
3.15/1.64	   from(X) -> cons(X, n__from(n__s(X)))
3.15/1.64	   length(n__nil) -> 0
3.15/1.64	   length(n__cons(X, Y)) -> s(length1(activate(Y)))
3.15/1.64	   length1(X) -> length(activate(X))
3.15/1.64	   from(X) -> n__from(X)
3.15/1.64	   s(X) -> n__s(X)
3.15/1.64	   nil -> n__nil
3.15/1.64	   cons(X1, X2) -> n__cons(X1, X2)
3.15/1.64	   activate(n__from(X)) -> from(activate(X))
3.15/1.64	   activate(n__s(X)) -> s(activate(X))
3.15/1.64	   activate(n__nil) -> nil
3.15/1.64	   activate(n__cons(X1, X2)) -> cons(activate(X1), X2)
3.15/1.64	   activate(X) -> X
3.15/1.64	
3.15/1.64	S is empty.
3.15/1.64	Rewrite Strategy: FULL
3.15/1.64	----------------------------------------
3.15/1.64	
3.15/1.64	(9) DecreasingLoopProof (FINISHED)
3.15/1.64	The following loop(s) give(s) rise to the lower bound EXP:
3.15/1.64	
3.15/1.64	The rewrite sequence
3.15/1.64	
3.15/1.64	activate(n__from(X)) ->^+ cons(activate(X), n__from(n__s(activate(X))))
3.15/1.64	
3.15/1.64	gives rise to a decreasing loop by considering the right hand sides subterm at position [0].
3.15/1.64	
3.15/1.64	The pumping substitution is [X / n__from(X)].
3.15/1.64	
3.15/1.64	The result substitution is [ ].
3.15/1.64	
3.15/1.64	
3.15/1.64	
3.15/1.64	The rewrite sequence
3.15/1.64	
3.15/1.64	activate(n__from(X)) ->^+ cons(activate(X), n__from(n__s(activate(X))))
3.15/1.64	
3.15/1.64	gives rise to a decreasing loop by considering the right hand sides subterm at position [1,0,0].
3.15/1.64	
3.15/1.64	The pumping substitution is [X / n__from(X)].
3.15/1.64	
3.15/1.64	The result substitution is [ ].
3.15/1.64	
3.15/1.64	
3.15/1.64	
3.15/1.64	
3.15/1.64	----------------------------------------
3.15/1.64	
3.15/1.64	(10)
3.15/1.64	BOUNDS(EXP, INF)
3.31/1.74	EOF