/export/starexec/sandbox/solver/bin/starexec_run_rcdcRelativeAlsoLower /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.xml /export/starexec/sandbox/output/output_files -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- WORST_CASE(Omega(n^1), ?) proof of /export/starexec/sandbox/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# AProVE Commit ID: 794c25de1cacf0d048858bcd21c9a779e1221865 marcel 20200619 unpublished dirty The Derivational Complexity (innermost) of the given DCpxTrs could be proven to be BOUNDS(n^1, INF).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), 39 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), 2121 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), 91 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: f(s(x1)) -> s(s(f(p(s(x1))))) f(0(x1)) -> 0(x1) p(s(x1)) -> x1 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(s(x_1)) -> s(encArg(x_1)) encArg(0(x_1)) -> 0(encArg(x_1)) encArg(cons_f(x_1)) -> f(encArg(x_1)) encArg(cons_p(x_1)) -> p(encArg(x_1)) encode_f(x_1) -> f(encArg(x_1)) encode_s(x_1) -> s(encArg(x_1)) encode_p(x_1) -> p(encArg(x_1)) encode_0(x_1) -> 0(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: f(s(x1)) -> s(s(f(p(s(x1))))) f(0(x1)) -> 0(x1) p(s(x1)) -> x1 The (relative) TRS S consists of the following rules: encArg(s(x_1)) -> s(encArg(x_1)) encArg(0(x_1)) -> 0(encArg(x_1)) encArg(cons_f(x_1)) -> f(encArg(x_1)) encArg(cons_p(x_1)) -> p(encArg(x_1)) encode_f(x_1) -> f(encArg(x_1)) encode_s(x_1) -> s(encArg(x_1)) encode_p(x_1) -> p(encArg(x_1)) encode_0(x_1) -> 0(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: f(s(x1)) -> s(s(f(p(s(x1))))) f(0(x1)) -> 0(x1) p(s(x1)) -> x1 The (relative) TRS S consists of the following rules: encArg(s(x_1)) -> s(encArg(x_1)) encArg(0(x_1)) -> 0(encArg(x_1)) encArg(cons_f(x_1)) -> f(encArg(x_1)) encArg(cons_p(x_1)) -> p(encArg(x_1)) encode_f(x_1) -> f(encArg(x_1)) encode_s(x_1) -> s(encArg(x_1)) encode_p(x_1) -> p(encArg(x_1)) encode_0(x_1) -> 0(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: f(s(x1)) -> s(s(f(p(s(x1))))) f(0(x1)) -> 0(x1) p(s(x1)) -> x1 The (relative) TRS S consists of the following rules: encArg(s(x_1)) -> s(encArg(x_1)) encArg(0(x_1)) -> 0(encArg(x_1)) encArg(cons_f(x_1)) -> f(encArg(x_1)) encArg(cons_p(x_1)) -> p(encArg(x_1)) encode_f(x_1) -> f(encArg(x_1)) encode_s(x_1) -> s(encArg(x_1)) encode_p(x_1) -> p(encArg(x_1)) encode_0(x_1) -> 0(encArg(x_1)) Rewrite Strategy: INNERMOST ---------------------------------------- (7) TypeInferenceProof (BOTH BOUNDS(ID, ID)) Infered types. ---------------------------------------- (8) Obligation: Innermost TRS: Rules: f(s(x1)) -> s(s(f(p(s(x1))))) f(0(x1)) -> 0(x1) p(s(x1)) -> x1 encArg(s(x_1)) -> s(encArg(x_1)) encArg(0(x_1)) -> 0(encArg(x_1)) encArg(cons_f(x_1)) -> f(encArg(x_1)) encArg(cons_p(x_1)) -> p(encArg(x_1)) encode_f(x_1) -> f(encArg(x_1)) encode_s(x_1) -> s(encArg(x_1)) encode_p(x_1) -> p(encArg(x_1)) encode_0(x_1) -> 0(encArg(x_1)) Types: f :: s:0:cons_f:cons_p -> s:0:cons_f:cons_p s :: s:0:cons_f:cons_p -> s:0:cons_f:cons_p p :: s:0:cons_f:cons_p -> s:0:cons_f:cons_p 0 :: s:0:cons_f:cons_p -> s:0:cons_f:cons_p encArg :: s:0:cons_f:cons_p -> s:0:cons_f:cons_p cons_f :: s:0:cons_f:cons_p -> s:0:cons_f:cons_p cons_p :: s:0:cons_f:cons_p -> s:0:cons_f:cons_p encode_f :: s:0:cons_f:cons_p -> s:0:cons_f:cons_p encode_s :: s:0:cons_f:cons_p -> s:0:cons_f:cons_p encode_p :: s:0:cons_f:cons_p -> s:0:cons_f:cons_p encode_0 :: s:0:cons_f:cons_p -> s:0:cons_f:cons_p hole_s:0:cons_f:cons_p1_2 :: s:0:cons_f:cons_p gen_s:0:cons_f:cons_p2_2 :: Nat -> s:0:cons_f:cons_p ---------------------------------------- (9) OrderProof (LOWER BOUND(ID)) Heuristically decided to analyse the following defined symbols: f, encArg They will be analysed ascendingly in the following order: f < encArg ---------------------------------------- (10) Obligation: Innermost TRS: Rules: f(s(x1)) -> s(s(f(p(s(x1))))) f(0(x1)) -> 0(x1) p(s(x1)) -> x1 encArg(s(x_1)) -> s(encArg(x_1)) encArg(0(x_1)) -> 0(encArg(x_1)) encArg(cons_f(x_1)) -> f(encArg(x_1)) encArg(cons_p(x_1)) -> p(encArg(x_1)) encode_f(x_1) -> f(encArg(x_1)) encode_s(x_1) -> s(encArg(x_1)) encode_p(x_1) -> p(encArg(x_1)) encode_0(x_1) -> 0(encArg(x_1)) Types: f :: s:0:cons_f:cons_p -> s:0:cons_f:cons_p s :: s:0:cons_f:cons_p -> s:0:cons_f:cons_p p :: s:0:cons_f:cons_p -> s:0:cons_f:cons_p 0 :: s:0:cons_f:cons_p -> s:0:cons_f:cons_p encArg :: s:0:cons_f:cons_p -> s:0:cons_f:cons_p cons_f :: s:0:cons_f:cons_p -> s:0:cons_f:cons_p cons_p :: s:0:cons_f:cons_p -> s:0:cons_f:cons_p encode_f :: s:0:cons_f:cons_p -> s:0:cons_f:cons_p encode_s :: s:0:cons_f:cons_p -> s:0:cons_f:cons_p encode_p :: s:0:cons_f:cons_p -> s:0:cons_f:cons_p encode_0 :: s:0:cons_f:cons_p -> s:0:cons_f:cons_p hole_s:0:cons_f:cons_p1_2 :: s:0:cons_f:cons_p gen_s:0:cons_f:cons_p2_2 :: Nat -> s:0:cons_f:cons_p Generator Equations: gen_s:0:cons_f:cons_p2_2(0) <=> hole_s:0:cons_f:cons_p1_2 gen_s:0:cons_f:cons_p2_2(+(x, 1)) <=> s(gen_s:0:cons_f:cons_p2_2(x)) The following defined symbols remain to be analysed: f, encArg They will be analysed ascendingly in the following order: f < encArg ---------------------------------------- (11) RewriteLemmaProof (LOWER BOUND(ID)) Proved the following rewrite lemma: f(gen_s:0:cons_f:cons_p2_2(+(1, n4_2))) -> *3_2, rt in Omega(n4_2) Induction Base: f(gen_s:0:cons_f:cons_p2_2(+(1, 0))) Induction Step: f(gen_s:0:cons_f:cons_p2_2(+(1, +(n4_2, 1)))) ->_R^Omega(1) s(s(f(p(s(gen_s:0:cons_f:cons_p2_2(+(1, n4_2))))))) ->_R^Omega(1) s(s(f(gen_s:0:cons_f:cons_p2_2(+(1, n4_2))))) ->_IH s(s(*3_2)) 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: f(s(x1)) -> s(s(f(p(s(x1))))) f(0(x1)) -> 0(x1) p(s(x1)) -> x1 encArg(s(x_1)) -> s(encArg(x_1)) encArg(0(x_1)) -> 0(encArg(x_1)) encArg(cons_f(x_1)) -> f(encArg(x_1)) encArg(cons_p(x_1)) -> p(encArg(x_1)) encode_f(x_1) -> f(encArg(x_1)) encode_s(x_1) -> s(encArg(x_1)) encode_p(x_1) -> p(encArg(x_1)) encode_0(x_1) -> 0(encArg(x_1)) Types: f :: s:0:cons_f:cons_p -> s:0:cons_f:cons_p s :: s:0:cons_f:cons_p -> s:0:cons_f:cons_p p :: s:0:cons_f:cons_p -> s:0:cons_f:cons_p 0 :: s:0:cons_f:cons_p -> s:0:cons_f:cons_p encArg :: s:0:cons_f:cons_p -> s:0:cons_f:cons_p cons_f :: s:0:cons_f:cons_p -> s:0:cons_f:cons_p cons_p :: s:0:cons_f:cons_p -> s:0:cons_f:cons_p encode_f :: s:0:cons_f:cons_p -> s:0:cons_f:cons_p encode_s :: s:0:cons_f:cons_p -> s:0:cons_f:cons_p encode_p :: s:0:cons_f:cons_p -> s:0:cons_f:cons_p encode_0 :: s:0:cons_f:cons_p -> s:0:cons_f:cons_p hole_s:0:cons_f:cons_p1_2 :: s:0:cons_f:cons_p gen_s:0:cons_f:cons_p2_2 :: Nat -> s:0:cons_f:cons_p Generator Equations: gen_s:0:cons_f:cons_p2_2(0) <=> hole_s:0:cons_f:cons_p1_2 gen_s:0:cons_f:cons_p2_2(+(x, 1)) <=> s(gen_s:0:cons_f:cons_p2_2(x)) The following defined symbols remain to be analysed: f, encArg They will be analysed ascendingly in the following order: f < encArg ---------------------------------------- (14) LowerBoundPropagationProof (FINISHED) Propagated lower bound. ---------------------------------------- (15) BOUNDS(n^1, INF) ---------------------------------------- (16) Obligation: Innermost TRS: Rules: f(s(x1)) -> s(s(f(p(s(x1))))) f(0(x1)) -> 0(x1) p(s(x1)) -> x1 encArg(s(x_1)) -> s(encArg(x_1)) encArg(0(x_1)) -> 0(encArg(x_1)) encArg(cons_f(x_1)) -> f(encArg(x_1)) encArg(cons_p(x_1)) -> p(encArg(x_1)) encode_f(x_1) -> f(encArg(x_1)) encode_s(x_1) -> s(encArg(x_1)) encode_p(x_1) -> p(encArg(x_1)) encode_0(x_1) -> 0(encArg(x_1)) Types: f :: s:0:cons_f:cons_p -> s:0:cons_f:cons_p s :: s:0:cons_f:cons_p -> s:0:cons_f:cons_p p :: s:0:cons_f:cons_p -> s:0:cons_f:cons_p 0 :: s:0:cons_f:cons_p -> s:0:cons_f:cons_p encArg :: s:0:cons_f:cons_p -> s:0:cons_f:cons_p cons_f :: s:0:cons_f:cons_p -> s:0:cons_f:cons_p cons_p :: s:0:cons_f:cons_p -> s:0:cons_f:cons_p encode_f :: s:0:cons_f:cons_p -> s:0:cons_f:cons_p encode_s :: s:0:cons_f:cons_p -> s:0:cons_f:cons_p encode_p :: s:0:cons_f:cons_p -> s:0:cons_f:cons_p encode_0 :: s:0:cons_f:cons_p -> s:0:cons_f:cons_p hole_s:0:cons_f:cons_p1_2 :: s:0:cons_f:cons_p gen_s:0:cons_f:cons_p2_2 :: Nat -> s:0:cons_f:cons_p Lemmas: f(gen_s:0:cons_f:cons_p2_2(+(1, n4_2))) -> *3_2, rt in Omega(n4_2) Generator Equations: gen_s:0:cons_f:cons_p2_2(0) <=> hole_s:0:cons_f:cons_p1_2 gen_s:0:cons_f:cons_p2_2(+(x, 1)) <=> s(gen_s:0:cons_f:cons_p2_2(x)) The following defined symbols remain to be analysed: encArg ---------------------------------------- (17) RewriteLemmaProof (LOWER BOUND(ID)) Proved the following rewrite lemma: encArg(gen_s:0:cons_f:cons_p2_2(+(1, n364_2))) -> *3_2, rt in Omega(0) Induction Base: encArg(gen_s:0:cons_f:cons_p2_2(+(1, 0))) Induction Step: encArg(gen_s:0:cons_f:cons_p2_2(+(1, +(n364_2, 1)))) ->_R^Omega(0) s(encArg(gen_s:0:cons_f:cons_p2_2(+(1, n364_2)))) ->_IH s(*3_2) We have rt in Omega(1) and sz in O(n). Thus, we have irc_R in Omega(n^0). ---------------------------------------- (18) BOUNDS(1, INF)