/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# AProVE Commit ID: 794c25de1cacf0d048858bcd21c9a779e1221865 marcel 20200619 unpublished dirty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(INF, INF).

(0) DCpxTrs
(1) DerivationalComplexityToRuntimeComplexityProof [BOTH BOUNDS(ID, ID), 0 ms]
(2) CpxRelTRS
(3) SInnermostTerminationProof [BOTH CONCRETE BOUNDS(ID, ID), 177 ms]
(4) CpxRelTRS
(5) RelTrsToDecreasingLoopProblemProof [LOWER BOUND(ID), 0 ms]
(6) TRS for Loop Detection
(7) InfiniteLowerBoundProof [FINISHED, 46 ms]
(8) BOUNDS(INF, INF)


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

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


The TRS R consists of the following rules:

   f(n__a, X, X) -> f(activate(X), b, n__b)
   b -> a
   a -> n__a
   b -> n__b
   activate(n__a) -> a
   activate(n__b) -> b
   activate(X) -> X

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(n__a) -> n__a
   encArg(n__b) -> n__b
   encArg(cons_f(x_1, x_2, x_3)) -> f(encArg(x_1), encArg(x_2), encArg(x_3))
   encArg(cons_b) -> b
   encArg(cons_a) -> a
   encArg(cons_activate(x_1)) -> activate(encArg(x_1))
   encode_f(x_1, x_2, x_3) -> f(encArg(x_1), encArg(x_2), encArg(x_3))
   encode_n__a -> n__a
   encode_activate(x_1) -> activate(encArg(x_1))
   encode_b -> b
   encode_n__b -> n__b
   encode_a -> a


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

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


The TRS R consists of the following rules:

   f(n__a, X, X) -> f(activate(X), b, n__b)
   b -> a
   a -> n__a
   b -> n__b
   activate(n__a) -> a
   activate(n__b) -> b
   activate(X) -> X

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

   encArg(n__a) -> n__a
   encArg(n__b) -> n__b
   encArg(cons_f(x_1, x_2, x_3)) -> f(encArg(x_1), encArg(x_2), encArg(x_3))
   encArg(cons_b) -> b
   encArg(cons_a) -> a
   encArg(cons_activate(x_1)) -> activate(encArg(x_1))
   encode_f(x_1, x_2, x_3) -> f(encArg(x_1), encArg(x_2), encArg(x_3))
   encode_n__a -> n__a
   encode_activate(x_1) -> activate(encArg(x_1))
   encode_b -> b
   encode_n__b -> n__b
   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(INF, INF).


The TRS R consists of the following rules:

   f(n__a, X, X) -> f(activate(X), b, n__b)
   b -> a
   a -> n__a
   b -> n__b
   activate(n__a) -> a
   activate(n__b) -> b
   activate(X) -> X

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

   encArg(n__a) -> n__a
   encArg(n__b) -> n__b
   encArg(cons_f(x_1, x_2, x_3)) -> f(encArg(x_1), encArg(x_2), encArg(x_3))
   encArg(cons_b) -> b
   encArg(cons_a) -> a
   encArg(cons_activate(x_1)) -> activate(encArg(x_1))
   encode_f(x_1, x_2, x_3) -> f(encArg(x_1), encArg(x_2), encArg(x_3))
   encode_n__a -> n__a
   encode_activate(x_1) -> activate(encArg(x_1))
   encode_b -> b
   encode_n__b -> n__b
   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(INF, INF).


The TRS R consists of the following rules:

   f(n__a, X, X) -> f(activate(X), b, n__b)
   b -> a
   a -> n__a
   b -> n__b
   activate(n__a) -> a
   activate(n__b) -> b
   activate(X) -> X

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

   encArg(n__a) -> n__a
   encArg(n__b) -> n__b
   encArg(cons_f(x_1, x_2, x_3)) -> f(encArg(x_1), encArg(x_2), encArg(x_3))
   encArg(cons_b) -> b
   encArg(cons_a) -> a
   encArg(cons_activate(x_1)) -> activate(encArg(x_1))
   encode_f(x_1, x_2, x_3) -> f(encArg(x_1), encArg(x_2), encArg(x_3))
   encode_n__a -> n__a
   encode_activate(x_1) -> activate(encArg(x_1))
   encode_b -> b
   encode_n__b -> n__b
   encode_a -> a

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

(7) InfiniteLowerBoundProof (FINISHED)
The following loop proves infinite runtime complexity:

The rewrite sequence

f(n__a, n__b, n__b) ->^+ f(n__a, n__b, n__b)

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

The pumping substitution is [ ].

The result substitution is [ ].




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

(8)
BOUNDS(INF, INF)