/export/starexec/sandbox2/solver/bin/starexec_run_rcdcRelativeAlsoLower /export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.xml /export/starexec/sandbox2/output/output_files


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


WORST_CASE(Omega(n^1), ?)
proof of /export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.xml
# AProVE Commit ID: 794c25de1cacf0d048858bcd21c9a779e1221865 marcel 20200619 unpublished dirty


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

(0) DCpxTrs
(1) DerivationalComplexityToRuntimeComplexityProof [BOTH BOUNDS(ID, ID), 0 ms]
(2) CpxRelTRS
(3) SInnermostTerminationProof [BOTH CONCRETE BOUNDS(ID, ID), 191 ms]
(4) CpxRelTRS
(5) RelTrsToDecreasingLoopProblemProof [LOWER BOUND(ID), 0 ms]
(6) TRS for Loop Detection
(7) DecreasingLoopProof [LOWER BOUND(ID), 0 ms]
(8) BEST
    (9) proven lower bound
        (10) LowerBoundPropagationProof [FINISHED, 0 ms]
        (11) BOUNDS(n^1, INF)
    (12) TRS for Loop Detection


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

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


The TRS R consists of the following rules:

   f(h(x), y) -> h(f(y, f(x, h(f(a, a)))))

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

(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(h(x_1)) -> h(encArg(x_1))
   encArg(a) -> a
   encArg(cons_f(x_1, x_2)) -> f(encArg(x_1), encArg(x_2))
   encode_f(x_1, x_2) -> f(encArg(x_1), encArg(x_2))
   encode_h(x_1) -> h(encArg(x_1))
   encode_a -> a


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

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


The TRS R consists of the following rules:

   f(h(x), y) -> h(f(y, f(x, h(f(a, a)))))

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

   encArg(h(x_1)) -> h(encArg(x_1))
   encArg(a) -> a
   encArg(cons_f(x_1, x_2)) -> f(encArg(x_1), encArg(x_2))
   encode_f(x_1, x_2) -> f(encArg(x_1), encArg(x_2))
   encode_h(x_1) -> h(encArg(x_1))
   encode_a -> a

Rewrite Strategy: INNERMOST
----------------------------------------

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

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


The TRS R consists of the following rules:

   f(h(x), y) -> h(f(y, f(x, h(f(a, a)))))

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

   encArg(h(x_1)) -> h(encArg(x_1))
   encArg(a) -> a
   encArg(cons_f(x_1, x_2)) -> f(encArg(x_1), encArg(x_2))
   encode_f(x_1, x_2) -> f(encArg(x_1), encArg(x_2))
   encode_h(x_1) -> h(encArg(x_1))
   encode_a -> a

Rewrite Strategy: INNERMOST
----------------------------------------

(5) RelTrsToDecreasingLoopProblemProof (LOWER BOUND(ID))
Transformed a relative TRS into a decreasing-loop problem.
----------------------------------------

(6)
Obligation:
Analyzing the following TRS for decreasing loops:

The Runtime Complexity (innermost) of the given CpxRelTRS could be proven to be BOUNDS(n^1, INF).


The TRS R consists of the following rules:

   f(h(x), y) -> h(f(y, f(x, h(f(a, a)))))

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

   encArg(h(x_1)) -> h(encArg(x_1))
   encArg(a) -> a
   encArg(cons_f(x_1, x_2)) -> f(encArg(x_1), encArg(x_2))
   encode_f(x_1, x_2) -> f(encArg(x_1), encArg(x_2))
   encode_h(x_1) -> h(encArg(x_1))
   encode_a -> a

Rewrite Strategy: INNERMOST
----------------------------------------

(7) DecreasingLoopProof (LOWER BOUND(ID))
The following loop(s) give(s) rise to the lower bound Omega(n^1):

The rewrite sequence

f(h(x), y) ->^+ h(f(y, f(x, h(f(a, a)))))

gives rise to a decreasing loop by considering the right hand sides subterm at position [0,1].

The pumping substitution is [x / h(x)].

The result substitution is [y / h(f(a, a))].




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

(8)
Complex Obligation (BEST)

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

(9)
Obligation:
Proved the lower bound n^1 for the following obligation:

The Runtime Complexity (innermost) of the given CpxRelTRS could be proven to be BOUNDS(n^1, INF).


The TRS R consists of the following rules:

   f(h(x), y) -> h(f(y, f(x, h(f(a, a)))))

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

   encArg(h(x_1)) -> h(encArg(x_1))
   encArg(a) -> a
   encArg(cons_f(x_1, x_2)) -> f(encArg(x_1), encArg(x_2))
   encode_f(x_1, x_2) -> f(encArg(x_1), encArg(x_2))
   encode_h(x_1) -> h(encArg(x_1))
   encode_a -> a

Rewrite Strategy: INNERMOST
----------------------------------------

(10) LowerBoundPropagationProof (FINISHED)
Propagated lower bound.
----------------------------------------

(11)
BOUNDS(n^1, INF)

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

(12)
Obligation:
Analyzing the following TRS for decreasing loops:

The Runtime Complexity (innermost) of the given CpxRelTRS could be proven to be BOUNDS(n^1, INF).


The TRS R consists of the following rules:

   f(h(x), y) -> h(f(y, f(x, h(f(a, a)))))

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

   encArg(h(x_1)) -> h(encArg(x_1))
   encArg(a) -> a
   encArg(cons_f(x_1, x_2)) -> f(encArg(x_1), encArg(x_2))
   encode_f(x_1, x_2) -> f(encArg(x_1), encArg(x_2))
   encode_h(x_1) -> h(encArg(x_1))
   encode_a -> a

Rewrite Strategy: INNERMOST