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


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


WORST_CASE(NON_POLY, ?)
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# AProVE Commit ID: 794c25de1cacf0d048858bcd21c9a779e1221865 marcel 20200619 unpublished dirty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(EXP, INF).

(0) DCpxTrs
(1) DerivationalComplexityToRuntimeComplexityProof [BOTH BOUNDS(ID, ID), 0 ms]
(2) CpxRelTRS
(3) SInnermostTerminationProof [BOTH CONCRETE BOUNDS(ID, ID), 185 ms]
(4) CpxRelTRS
(5) RelTrsToDecreasingLoopProblemProof [LOWER BOUND(ID), 0 ms]
(6) TRS for Loop Detection
(7) DecreasingLoopProof [FINISHED, 0 ms]
(8) BOUNDS(EXP, INF)


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

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


The TRS R consists of the following rules:

   purge(nil) -> nil
   purge(.(x, y)) -> .(x, purge(remove(x, y)))
   remove(x, nil) -> nil
   remove(x, .(y, z)) -> if(=(x, y), remove(x, z), .(y, remove(x, z)))

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(nil) -> nil
   encArg(.(x_1, x_2)) -> .(encArg(x_1), encArg(x_2))
   encArg(if(x_1, x_2, x_3)) -> if(encArg(x_1), encArg(x_2), encArg(x_3))
   encArg(=(x_1, x_2)) -> =(encArg(x_1), encArg(x_2))
   encArg(cons_purge(x_1)) -> purge(encArg(x_1))
   encArg(cons_remove(x_1, x_2)) -> remove(encArg(x_1), encArg(x_2))
   encode_purge(x_1) -> purge(encArg(x_1))
   encode_nil -> nil
   encode_.(x_1, x_2) -> .(encArg(x_1), encArg(x_2))
   encode_remove(x_1, x_2) -> remove(encArg(x_1), encArg(x_2))
   encode_if(x_1, x_2, x_3) -> if(encArg(x_1), encArg(x_2), encArg(x_3))
   encode_=(x_1, x_2) -> =(encArg(x_1), encArg(x_2))


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

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


The TRS R consists of the following rules:

   purge(nil) -> nil
   purge(.(x, y)) -> .(x, purge(remove(x, y)))
   remove(x, nil) -> nil
   remove(x, .(y, z)) -> if(=(x, y), remove(x, z), .(y, remove(x, z)))

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

   encArg(nil) -> nil
   encArg(.(x_1, x_2)) -> .(encArg(x_1), encArg(x_2))
   encArg(if(x_1, x_2, x_3)) -> if(encArg(x_1), encArg(x_2), encArg(x_3))
   encArg(=(x_1, x_2)) -> =(encArg(x_1), encArg(x_2))
   encArg(cons_purge(x_1)) -> purge(encArg(x_1))
   encArg(cons_remove(x_1, x_2)) -> remove(encArg(x_1), encArg(x_2))
   encode_purge(x_1) -> purge(encArg(x_1))
   encode_nil -> nil
   encode_.(x_1, x_2) -> .(encArg(x_1), encArg(x_2))
   encode_remove(x_1, x_2) -> remove(encArg(x_1), encArg(x_2))
   encode_if(x_1, x_2, x_3) -> if(encArg(x_1), encArg(x_2), encArg(x_3))
   encode_=(x_1, x_2) -> =(encArg(x_1), encArg(x_2))

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(EXP, INF).


The TRS R consists of the following rules:

   purge(nil) -> nil
   purge(.(x, y)) -> .(x, purge(remove(x, y)))
   remove(x, nil) -> nil
   remove(x, .(y, z)) -> if(=(x, y), remove(x, z), .(y, remove(x, z)))

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

   encArg(nil) -> nil
   encArg(.(x_1, x_2)) -> .(encArg(x_1), encArg(x_2))
   encArg(if(x_1, x_2, x_3)) -> if(encArg(x_1), encArg(x_2), encArg(x_3))
   encArg(=(x_1, x_2)) -> =(encArg(x_1), encArg(x_2))
   encArg(cons_purge(x_1)) -> purge(encArg(x_1))
   encArg(cons_remove(x_1, x_2)) -> remove(encArg(x_1), encArg(x_2))
   encode_purge(x_1) -> purge(encArg(x_1))
   encode_nil -> nil
   encode_.(x_1, x_2) -> .(encArg(x_1), encArg(x_2))
   encode_remove(x_1, x_2) -> remove(encArg(x_1), encArg(x_2))
   encode_if(x_1, x_2, x_3) -> if(encArg(x_1), encArg(x_2), encArg(x_3))
   encode_=(x_1, x_2) -> =(encArg(x_1), encArg(x_2))

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(EXP, INF).


The TRS R consists of the following rules:

   purge(nil) -> nil
   purge(.(x, y)) -> .(x, purge(remove(x, y)))
   remove(x, nil) -> nil
   remove(x, .(y, z)) -> if(=(x, y), remove(x, z), .(y, remove(x, z)))

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

   encArg(nil) -> nil
   encArg(.(x_1, x_2)) -> .(encArg(x_1), encArg(x_2))
   encArg(if(x_1, x_2, x_3)) -> if(encArg(x_1), encArg(x_2), encArg(x_3))
   encArg(=(x_1, x_2)) -> =(encArg(x_1), encArg(x_2))
   encArg(cons_purge(x_1)) -> purge(encArg(x_1))
   encArg(cons_remove(x_1, x_2)) -> remove(encArg(x_1), encArg(x_2))
   encode_purge(x_1) -> purge(encArg(x_1))
   encode_nil -> nil
   encode_.(x_1, x_2) -> .(encArg(x_1), encArg(x_2))
   encode_remove(x_1, x_2) -> remove(encArg(x_1), encArg(x_2))
   encode_if(x_1, x_2, x_3) -> if(encArg(x_1), encArg(x_2), encArg(x_3))
   encode_=(x_1, x_2) -> =(encArg(x_1), encArg(x_2))

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

(7) DecreasingLoopProof (FINISHED)
The following loop(s) give(s) rise to the lower bound EXP:

The rewrite sequence

remove(x, .(y, z)) ->^+ if(=(x, y), remove(x, z), .(y, remove(x, z)))

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

The pumping substitution is [z / .(y, z)].

The result substitution is [ ].



The rewrite sequence

remove(x, .(y, z)) ->^+ if(=(x, y), remove(x, z), .(y, remove(x, z)))

gives rise to a decreasing loop by considering the right hand sides subterm at position [2,1].

The pumping substitution is [z / .(y, z)].

The result substitution is [ ].




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

(8)
BOUNDS(EXP, INF)