/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# AProVE Commit ID: 794c25de1cacf0d048858bcd21c9a779e1221865 marcel 20200619 unpublished dirty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), 145 ms]
(4) CpxRelTRS
(5) RenamingProof [BOTH BOUNDS(ID, ID), 0 ms]
(6) CpxRelTRS
(7) TypeInferenceProof [BOTH BOUNDS(ID, ID), 0 ms]
(8) typed CpxTrs
(9) OrderProof [LOWER BOUND(ID), 0 ms]
(10) typed CpxTrs
(11) RewriteLemmaProof [LOWER BOUND(ID), 563 ms]
(12) BEST
    (13) proven lower bound
        (14) LowerBoundPropagationProof [FINISHED, 0 ms]
        (15) BOUNDS(n^1, INF)
    (16) typed CpxTrs
        (17) RewriteLemmaProof [LOWER BOUND(ID), 78 ms]
        (18) BOUNDS(1, INF)


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

(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:

   +(+(x, y), z) -> +(x, +(y, z))
   +(f(x), f(y)) -> f(+(x, y))
   +(f(x), +(f(y), z)) -> +(f(+(x, y)), 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(f(x_1)) -> f(encArg(x_1))
   encArg(cons_+(x_1, x_2)) -> +(encArg(x_1), encArg(x_2))
   encode_+(x_1, x_2) -> +(encArg(x_1), encArg(x_2))
   encode_f(x_1) -> f(encArg(x_1))


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

(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:

   +(+(x, y), z) -> +(x, +(y, z))
   +(f(x), f(y)) -> f(+(x, y))
   +(f(x), +(f(y), z)) -> +(f(+(x, y)), z)

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

   encArg(f(x_1)) -> f(encArg(x_1))
   encArg(cons_+(x_1, x_2)) -> +(encArg(x_1), encArg(x_2))
   encode_+(x_1, x_2) -> +(encArg(x_1), encArg(x_2))
   encode_f(x_1) -> f(encArg(x_1))

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:

   +(+(x, y), z) -> +(x, +(y, z))
   +(f(x), f(y)) -> f(+(x, y))
   +(f(x), +(f(y), z)) -> +(f(+(x, y)), z)

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

   encArg(f(x_1)) -> f(encArg(x_1))
   encArg(cons_+(x_1, x_2)) -> +(encArg(x_1), encArg(x_2))
   encode_+(x_1, x_2) -> +(encArg(x_1), encArg(x_2))
   encode_f(x_1) -> f(encArg(x_1))

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

(5) RenamingProof (BOTH BOUNDS(ID, ID))
Renamed function symbols to avoid clashes with predefined symbol.
----------------------------------------

(6)
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:

   +'(+'(x, y), z) -> +'(x, +'(y, z))
   +'(f(x), f(y)) -> f(+'(x, y))
   +'(f(x), +'(f(y), z)) -> +'(f(+'(x, y)), z)

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

   encArg(f(x_1)) -> f(encArg(x_1))
   encArg(cons_+(x_1, x_2)) -> +'(encArg(x_1), encArg(x_2))
   encode_+(x_1, x_2) -> +'(encArg(x_1), encArg(x_2))
   encode_f(x_1) -> f(encArg(x_1))

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

(7) TypeInferenceProof (BOTH BOUNDS(ID, ID))
Infered types.
----------------------------------------

(8)
Obligation:
Innermost TRS:
Rules:
+'(+'(x, y), z) -> +'(x, +'(y, z))
+'(f(x), f(y)) -> f(+'(x, y))
+'(f(x), +'(f(y), z)) -> +'(f(+'(x, y)), z)
encArg(f(x_1)) -> f(encArg(x_1))
encArg(cons_+(x_1, x_2)) -> +'(encArg(x_1), encArg(x_2))
encode_+(x_1, x_2) -> +'(encArg(x_1), encArg(x_2))
encode_f(x_1) -> f(encArg(x_1))

Types:
+' :: f:cons_+ -> f:cons_+ -> f:cons_+
f :: f:cons_+ -> f:cons_+
encArg :: f:cons_+ -> f:cons_+
cons_+ :: f:cons_+ -> f:cons_+ -> f:cons_+
encode_+ :: f:cons_+ -> f:cons_+ -> f:cons_+
encode_f :: f:cons_+ -> f:cons_+
hole_f:cons_+1_0 :: f:cons_+
gen_f:cons_+2_0 :: Nat -> f:cons_+

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

(9) OrderProof (LOWER BOUND(ID))
Heuristically decided to analyse the following defined symbols:
+', encArg

They will be analysed ascendingly in the following order:
+' < encArg

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

(10)
Obligation:
Innermost TRS:
Rules:
+'(+'(x, y), z) -> +'(x, +'(y, z))
+'(f(x), f(y)) -> f(+'(x, y))
+'(f(x), +'(f(y), z)) -> +'(f(+'(x, y)), z)
encArg(f(x_1)) -> f(encArg(x_1))
encArg(cons_+(x_1, x_2)) -> +'(encArg(x_1), encArg(x_2))
encode_+(x_1, x_2) -> +'(encArg(x_1), encArg(x_2))
encode_f(x_1) -> f(encArg(x_1))

Types:
+' :: f:cons_+ -> f:cons_+ -> f:cons_+
f :: f:cons_+ -> f:cons_+
encArg :: f:cons_+ -> f:cons_+
cons_+ :: f:cons_+ -> f:cons_+ -> f:cons_+
encode_+ :: f:cons_+ -> f:cons_+ -> f:cons_+
encode_f :: f:cons_+ -> f:cons_+
hole_f:cons_+1_0 :: f:cons_+
gen_f:cons_+2_0 :: Nat -> f:cons_+


Generator Equations:
gen_f:cons_+2_0(0) <=> hole_f:cons_+1_0
gen_f:cons_+2_0(+(x, 1)) <=> f(gen_f:cons_+2_0(x))


The following defined symbols remain to be analysed:
+', encArg

They will be analysed ascendingly in the following order:
+' < encArg

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

(11) RewriteLemmaProof (LOWER BOUND(ID))
Proved the following rewrite lemma:
+'(gen_f:cons_+2_0(+(1, n4_0)), gen_f:cons_+2_0(+(1, n4_0))) -> *3_0, rt in Omega(n4_0)

Induction Base:
+'(gen_f:cons_+2_0(+(1, 0)), gen_f:cons_+2_0(+(1, 0)))

Induction Step:
+'(gen_f:cons_+2_0(+(1, +(n4_0, 1))), gen_f:cons_+2_0(+(1, +(n4_0, 1)))) ->_R^Omega(1)
f(+'(gen_f:cons_+2_0(+(1, n4_0)), gen_f:cons_+2_0(+(1, n4_0)))) ->_IH
f(*3_0)

We have rt in Omega(n^1) and sz in O(n). Thus, we have irc_R in Omega(n).
----------------------------------------

(12)
Complex Obligation (BEST)

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

(13)
Obligation:
Proved the lower bound n^1 for the following obligation:

Innermost TRS:
Rules:
+'(+'(x, y), z) -> +'(x, +'(y, z))
+'(f(x), f(y)) -> f(+'(x, y))
+'(f(x), +'(f(y), z)) -> +'(f(+'(x, y)), z)
encArg(f(x_1)) -> f(encArg(x_1))
encArg(cons_+(x_1, x_2)) -> +'(encArg(x_1), encArg(x_2))
encode_+(x_1, x_2) -> +'(encArg(x_1), encArg(x_2))
encode_f(x_1) -> f(encArg(x_1))

Types:
+' :: f:cons_+ -> f:cons_+ -> f:cons_+
f :: f:cons_+ -> f:cons_+
encArg :: f:cons_+ -> f:cons_+
cons_+ :: f:cons_+ -> f:cons_+ -> f:cons_+
encode_+ :: f:cons_+ -> f:cons_+ -> f:cons_+
encode_f :: f:cons_+ -> f:cons_+
hole_f:cons_+1_0 :: f:cons_+
gen_f:cons_+2_0 :: Nat -> f:cons_+


Generator Equations:
gen_f:cons_+2_0(0) <=> hole_f:cons_+1_0
gen_f:cons_+2_0(+(x, 1)) <=> f(gen_f:cons_+2_0(x))


The following defined symbols remain to be analysed:
+', encArg

They will be analysed ascendingly in the following order:
+' < encArg

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

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

(15)
BOUNDS(n^1, INF)

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

(16)
Obligation:
Innermost TRS:
Rules:
+'(+'(x, y), z) -> +'(x, +'(y, z))
+'(f(x), f(y)) -> f(+'(x, y))
+'(f(x), +'(f(y), z)) -> +'(f(+'(x, y)), z)
encArg(f(x_1)) -> f(encArg(x_1))
encArg(cons_+(x_1, x_2)) -> +'(encArg(x_1), encArg(x_2))
encode_+(x_1, x_2) -> +'(encArg(x_1), encArg(x_2))
encode_f(x_1) -> f(encArg(x_1))

Types:
+' :: f:cons_+ -> f:cons_+ -> f:cons_+
f :: f:cons_+ -> f:cons_+
encArg :: f:cons_+ -> f:cons_+
cons_+ :: f:cons_+ -> f:cons_+ -> f:cons_+
encode_+ :: f:cons_+ -> f:cons_+ -> f:cons_+
encode_f :: f:cons_+ -> f:cons_+
hole_f:cons_+1_0 :: f:cons_+
gen_f:cons_+2_0 :: Nat -> f:cons_+


Lemmas:
+'(gen_f:cons_+2_0(+(1, n4_0)), gen_f:cons_+2_0(+(1, n4_0))) -> *3_0, rt in Omega(n4_0)


Generator Equations:
gen_f:cons_+2_0(0) <=> hole_f:cons_+1_0
gen_f:cons_+2_0(+(x, 1)) <=> f(gen_f:cons_+2_0(x))


The following defined symbols remain to be analysed:
encArg
----------------------------------------

(17) RewriteLemmaProof (LOWER BOUND(ID))
Proved the following rewrite lemma:
encArg(gen_f:cons_+2_0(+(1, n1460_0))) -> *3_0, rt in Omega(0)

Induction Base:
encArg(gen_f:cons_+2_0(+(1, 0)))

Induction Step:
encArg(gen_f:cons_+2_0(+(1, +(n1460_0, 1)))) ->_R^Omega(0)
f(encArg(gen_f:cons_+2_0(+(1, n1460_0)))) ->_IH
f(*3_0)

We have rt in Omega(1) and sz in O(n). Thus, we have irc_R in Omega(n^0).
----------------------------------------

(18)
BOUNDS(1, INF)