WORST_CASE(INF,?)

### Pre-processing the ITS problem ###

Initial linear ITS problem
   Start location: __init
      0: f1_0_main_Load -> f127_0_eq_LE : arg1'=arg1P_1, arg2'=arg2P_1, [ arg1P_1>-1 && arg2>1 && arg2P_1>-1 && arg1>0 ], cost: 1
      1: f127_0_eq_LE -> f127_0_eq_LE : arg1'=arg1P_2, arg2'=arg2P_2, [ arg2>0 && arg1>0 && -1+arg1<arg1 && -1+arg2<arg2 && -1+arg1==arg1P_2 && -1+arg2==arg2P_2 ], cost: 1
      2: __init -> f1_0_main_Load : arg1'=arg1P_3, arg2'=arg2P_3, [], cost: 1

Checking for constant complexity:
   The following rule is satisfiable with cost >= 1, yielding constant complexity:
      2: __init -> f1_0_main_Load : arg1'=arg1P_3, arg2'=arg2P_3, [], cost: 1

Simplified all rules, resulting in:
   Start location: __init
      0: f1_0_main_Load -> f127_0_eq_LE : arg1'=arg1P_1, arg2'=arg2P_1, [ arg1P_1>-1 && arg2>1 && arg2P_1>-1 && arg1>0 ], cost: 1
      1: f127_0_eq_LE -> f127_0_eq_LE : arg1'=-1+arg1, arg2'=-1+arg2, [ arg2>0 && arg1>0 ], cost: 1
      2: __init -> f1_0_main_Load : arg1'=arg1P_3, arg2'=arg2P_3, [], cost: 1

### Simplification by acceleration and chaining ###

Accelerating simple loops of location 1.
   Accelerating the following rules:
      1: f127_0_eq_LE -> f127_0_eq_LE : arg1'=-1+arg1, arg2'=-1+arg2, [ arg2>0 && arg1>0 ], cost: 1

   Accelerated rule 1 with metering function arg2 (after adding arg1>=arg2), yielding the new rule 3.
   Accelerated rule 1 with metering function arg1 (after adding arg1<=arg2), yielding the new rule 4.
   Removing the simple loops: 1.

Accelerated all simple loops using metering functions (where possible):
   Start location: __init
      0: f1_0_main_Load -> f127_0_eq_LE : arg1'=arg1P_1, arg2'=arg2P_1, [ arg1P_1>-1 && arg2>1 && arg2P_1>-1 && arg1>0 ], cost: 1
      3: f127_0_eq_LE -> f127_0_eq_LE : arg1'=arg1-arg2, arg2'=0, [ arg2>0 && arg1>0 && arg1>=arg2 ], cost: arg2
      4: f127_0_eq_LE -> f127_0_eq_LE : arg1'=0, arg2'=-arg1+arg2, [ arg2>0 && arg1>0 && arg1<=arg2 ], cost: arg1
      2: __init -> f1_0_main_Load : arg1'=arg1P_3, arg2'=arg2P_3, [], cost: 1

Chained accelerated rules (with incoming rules):
   Start location: __init
      0: f1_0_main_Load -> f127_0_eq_LE : arg1'=arg1P_1, arg2'=arg2P_1, [ arg1P_1>-1 && arg2>1 && arg2P_1>-1 && arg1>0 ], cost: 1
      5: f1_0_main_Load -> f127_0_eq_LE : arg1'=-arg2P_1+arg1P_1, arg2'=0, [ arg2>1 && arg1>0 && arg2P_1>0 && arg1P_1>0 && arg1P_1>=arg2P_1 ], cost: 1+arg2P_1
      6: f1_0_main_Load -> f127_0_eq_LE : arg1'=0, arg2'=arg2P_1-arg1P_1, [ arg2>1 && arg1>0 && arg2P_1>0 && arg1P_1>0 && arg1P_1<=arg2P_1 ], cost: 1+arg1P_1
      2: __init -> f1_0_main_Load : arg1'=arg1P_3, arg2'=arg2P_3, [], cost: 1

Removed unreachable locations (and leaf rules with constant cost):
   Start location: __init
      5: f1_0_main_Load -> f127_0_eq_LE : arg1'=-arg2P_1+arg1P_1, arg2'=0, [ arg2>1 && arg1>0 && arg2P_1>0 && arg1P_1>0 && arg1P_1>=arg2P_1 ], cost: 1+arg2P_1
      6: f1_0_main_Load -> f127_0_eq_LE : arg1'=0, arg2'=arg2P_1-arg1P_1, [ arg2>1 && arg1>0 && arg2P_1>0 && arg1P_1>0 && arg1P_1<=arg2P_1 ], cost: 1+arg1P_1
      2: __init -> f1_0_main_Load : arg1'=arg1P_3, arg2'=arg2P_3, [], cost: 1

Eliminated locations (on tree-shaped paths):
   Start location: __init
      7: __init -> f127_0_eq_LE : arg1'=-arg2P_1+arg1P_1, arg2'=0, [ arg2P_3>1 && arg1P_3>0 && arg2P_1>0 && arg1P_1>0 && arg1P_1>=arg2P_1 ], cost: 2+arg2P_1
      8: __init -> f127_0_eq_LE : arg1'=0, arg2'=arg2P_1-arg1P_1, [ arg2P_3>1 && arg1P_3>0 && arg2P_1>0 && arg1P_1>0 && arg1P_1<=arg2P_1 ], cost: 2+arg1P_1

### Computing asymptotic complexity ###

Fully simplified ITS problem
   Start location: __init
      7: __init -> f127_0_eq_LE : arg1'=-arg2P_1+arg1P_1, arg2'=0, [ arg2P_3>1 && arg1P_3>0 && arg2P_1>0 && arg1P_1>0 && arg1P_1>=arg2P_1 ], cost: 2+arg2P_1
      8: __init -> f127_0_eq_LE : arg1'=0, arg2'=arg2P_1-arg1P_1, [ arg2P_3>1 && arg1P_3>0 && arg2P_1>0 && arg1P_1>0 && arg1P_1<=arg2P_1 ], cost: 2+arg1P_1

Computing asymptotic complexity for rule 7
   Solved the limit problem by the following transformations:
      Created initial limit problem:
      arg2P_1 (+/+!), -1+arg2P_3 (+/+!), 2+arg2P_1 (+), 1-arg2P_1+arg1P_1 (+/+!), arg1P_1 (+/+!), arg1P_3 (+/+!) [not solved]

      removing all constraints (solved by SMT)
      resulting limit problem: [solved]

      applying transformation rule (C) using substitution {arg2P_1==n,arg2P_3==n,arg1P_1==1+n,arg1P_3==1}
      resulting limit problem:
      [solved]

   Solution:
      arg2P_1 / n
      arg2P_3 / n
      arg1P_1 / 1+n
      arg1P_3 / 1
   Resulting cost 2+n has complexity: Unbounded

Found new complexity Unbounded.

Obtained the following overall complexity (w.r.t. the length of the input n):
   Complexity:  Unbounded
   Cpx degree:  Unbounded
   Solved cost: 2+n
   Rule cost:   2+arg2P_1
   Rule guard:  [ arg2P_3>1 && arg1P_3>0 && arg2P_1>0 && arg1P_1>0 && arg1P_1>=arg2P_1 ]

WORST_CASE(INF,?)