/export/starexec/sandbox/solver/bin/starexec_run_rcdcRelativeAlsoLower /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.xml /export/starexec/sandbox/output/output_files


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


WORST_CASE(?, O(n^1))
proof of /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.xml
# AProVE Commit ID: 794c25de1cacf0d048858bcd21c9a779e1221865 marcel 20200619 unpublished dirty


The Derivational Complexity (full) of the given DCpxTrs could be proven to be BOUNDS(1, n^1).

(0) DCpxTrs
(1) DerivationalComplexityToRuntimeComplexityProof [BOTH BOUNDS(ID, ID), 0 ms]
(2) CpxRelTRS
(3) SInnermostTerminationProof [BOTH CONCRETE BOUNDS(ID, ID), 59 ms]
(4) CpxRelTRS
(5) RelTrsToTrsProof [UPPER BOUND(ID), 0 ms]
(6) CpxTRS
(7) CpxTrsMatchBoundsProof [FINISHED, 0 ms]
(8) BOUNDS(1, n^1)


----------------------------------------

(0)
Obligation:
The Derivational Complexity (full) of the given DCpxTrs could be proven to be BOUNDS(1, n^1).


The TRS R consists of the following rules:

   f(f(x)) -> g(f(x))

S is empty.
Rewrite Strategy: FULL
----------------------------------------

(1) DerivationalComplexityToRuntimeComplexityProof (BOTH BOUNDS(ID, ID))
The following rules have been added to S to convert the given derivational complexity problem to a runtime complexity problem:

   encArg(g(x_1)) -> g(encArg(x_1))
   encArg(cons_f(x_1)) -> f(encArg(x_1))
   encode_f(x_1) -> f(encArg(x_1))
   encode_g(x_1) -> g(encArg(x_1))


----------------------------------------

(2)
Obligation:
The Runtime Complexity (full) of the given CpxRelTRS could be proven to be BOUNDS(1, n^1).


The TRS R consists of the following rules:

   f(f(x)) -> g(f(x))

The (relative) TRS S consists of the following rules:

   encArg(g(x_1)) -> g(encArg(x_1))
   encArg(cons_f(x_1)) -> f(encArg(x_1))
   encode_f(x_1) -> f(encArg(x_1))
   encode_g(x_1) -> g(encArg(x_1))

Rewrite Strategy: FULL
----------------------------------------

(3) SInnermostTerminationProof (BOTH CONCRETE BOUNDS(ID, ID))
proved innermost termination of relative rules
----------------------------------------

(4)
Obligation:
The Runtime Complexity (full) of the given CpxRelTRS could be proven to be BOUNDS(1, n^1).


The TRS R consists of the following rules:

   f(f(x)) -> g(f(x))

The (relative) TRS S consists of the following rules:

   encArg(g(x_1)) -> g(encArg(x_1))
   encArg(cons_f(x_1)) -> f(encArg(x_1))
   encode_f(x_1) -> f(encArg(x_1))
   encode_g(x_1) -> g(encArg(x_1))

Rewrite Strategy: FULL
----------------------------------------

(5) RelTrsToTrsProof (UPPER BOUND(ID))
transformed relative TRS to TRS
----------------------------------------

(6)
Obligation:
The Runtime Complexity (full) of the given CpxTRS could be proven to be BOUNDS(1, n^1).


The TRS R consists of the following rules:

   f(f(x)) -> g(f(x))
   encArg(g(x_1)) -> g(encArg(x_1))
   encArg(cons_f(x_1)) -> f(encArg(x_1))
   encode_f(x_1) -> f(encArg(x_1))
   encode_g(x_1) -> g(encArg(x_1))

S is empty.
Rewrite Strategy: FULL
----------------------------------------

(7) CpxTrsMatchBoundsProof (FINISHED)
A linear upper bound on the runtime complexity of the TRS R could be shown with a Match Bound [MATCHBOUNDS1,MATCHBOUNDS2] of 2. 
The certificate found is represented by the following graph.

"[29, 30, 31, 32]
{(29,30,[f_1|0, encArg_1|0, encode_f_1|0, encode_g_1|0]), (29,31,[g_1|1, f_1|1]), (29,32,[g_1|2]), (30,30,[g_1|0, cons_f_1|0]), (31,30,[encArg_1|1]), (31,31,[g_1|1, f_1|1]), (31,32,[g_1|2]), (32,31,[f_1|2]), (32,32,[g_1|2])}"
----------------------------------------

(8)
BOUNDS(1, n^1)