/export/starexec/sandbox2/solver/bin/starexec_run_rcdcRelativeAlsoLower /export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.xml /export/starexec/sandbox2/output/output_files -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- WORST_CASE(?, O(n^1)) proof of /export/starexec/sandbox2/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# AProVE Commit ID: 794c25de1cacf0d048858bcd21c9a779e1221865 marcel 20200619 unpublished dirty The Derivational Complexity (full) of the given DCpxTrs could be proven to be BOUNDS(1, n^1).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), 35 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: b(a(b(c(c(b(x1)))))) -> a(b(b(c(c(b(a(x1))))))) 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(a(x_1)) -> a(encArg(x_1)) encArg(c(x_1)) -> c(encArg(x_1)) encArg(cons_b(x_1)) -> b(encArg(x_1)) encode_b(x_1) -> b(encArg(x_1)) encode_a(x_1) -> a(encArg(x_1)) encode_c(x_1) -> c(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: b(a(b(c(c(b(x1)))))) -> a(b(b(c(c(b(a(x1))))))) The (relative) TRS S consists of the following rules: encArg(a(x_1)) -> a(encArg(x_1)) encArg(c(x_1)) -> c(encArg(x_1)) encArg(cons_b(x_1)) -> b(encArg(x_1)) encode_b(x_1) -> b(encArg(x_1)) encode_a(x_1) -> a(encArg(x_1)) encode_c(x_1) -> c(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: b(a(b(c(c(b(x1)))))) -> a(b(b(c(c(b(a(x1))))))) The (relative) TRS S consists of the following rules: encArg(a(x_1)) -> a(encArg(x_1)) encArg(c(x_1)) -> c(encArg(x_1)) encArg(cons_b(x_1)) -> b(encArg(x_1)) encode_b(x_1) -> b(encArg(x_1)) encode_a(x_1) -> a(encArg(x_1)) encode_c(x_1) -> c(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: b(a(b(c(c(b(x1)))))) -> a(b(b(c(c(b(a(x1))))))) encArg(a(x_1)) -> a(encArg(x_1)) encArg(c(x_1)) -> c(encArg(x_1)) encArg(cons_b(x_1)) -> b(encArg(x_1)) encode_b(x_1) -> b(encArg(x_1)) encode_a(x_1) -> a(encArg(x_1)) encode_c(x_1) -> c(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. "[25, 26, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38] {(25,26,[b_1|0, encArg_1|0, encode_b_1|0, encode_a_1|0, encode_c_1|0]), (25,32,[a_1|1, c_1|1, b_1|1]), (25,33,[a_1|2]), (26,26,[a_1|0, c_1|0, cons_b_1|0]), (32,26,[encArg_1|1]), (32,32,[a_1|1, c_1|1, b_1|1]), (32,33,[a_1|2]), (33,34,[b_1|2]), (34,35,[b_1|2]), (35,36,[c_1|2]), (36,37,[c_1|2]), (37,38,[b_1|2]), (37,33,[a_1|2]), (38,32,[a_1|2])}" ---------------------------------------- (8) BOUNDS(1, n^1)