/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# AProVE Commit ID: 794c25de1cacf0d048858bcd21c9a779e1221865 marcel 20200619 unpublished dirty The Derivational Complexity (innermost) of the given DCpxTrs could be proven to be BOUNDS(n^1, INF).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), 279 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: active(f(b, X, c)) -> mark(f(X, c, X)) active(c) -> mark(b) active(f(X1, X2, X3)) -> f(X1, active(X2), X3) f(X1, mark(X2), X3) -> mark(f(X1, X2, X3)) proper(f(X1, X2, X3)) -> f(proper(X1), proper(X2), proper(X3)) proper(b) -> ok(b) proper(c) -> ok(c) f(ok(X1), ok(X2), ok(X3)) -> ok(f(X1, X2, X3)) top(mark(X)) -> top(proper(X)) top(ok(X)) -> top(active(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(b) -> b encArg(c) -> c encArg(mark(x_1)) -> mark(encArg(x_1)) encArg(ok(x_1)) -> ok(encArg(x_1)) encArg(cons_active(x_1)) -> active(encArg(x_1)) encArg(cons_f(x_1, x_2, x_3)) -> f(encArg(x_1), encArg(x_2), encArg(x_3)) encArg(cons_proper(x_1)) -> proper(encArg(x_1)) encArg(cons_top(x_1)) -> top(encArg(x_1)) encode_active(x_1) -> active(encArg(x_1)) encode_f(x_1, x_2, x_3) -> f(encArg(x_1), encArg(x_2), encArg(x_3)) encode_b -> b encode_c -> c encode_mark(x_1) -> mark(encArg(x_1)) encode_proper(x_1) -> proper(encArg(x_1)) encode_ok(x_1) -> ok(encArg(x_1)) encode_top(x_1) -> top(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: active(f(b, X, c)) -> mark(f(X, c, X)) active(c) -> mark(b) active(f(X1, X2, X3)) -> f(X1, active(X2), X3) f(X1, mark(X2), X3) -> mark(f(X1, X2, X3)) proper(f(X1, X2, X3)) -> f(proper(X1), proper(X2), proper(X3)) proper(b) -> ok(b) proper(c) -> ok(c) f(ok(X1), ok(X2), ok(X3)) -> ok(f(X1, X2, X3)) top(mark(X)) -> top(proper(X)) top(ok(X)) -> top(active(X)) The (relative) TRS S consists of the following rules: encArg(b) -> b encArg(c) -> c encArg(mark(x_1)) -> mark(encArg(x_1)) encArg(ok(x_1)) -> ok(encArg(x_1)) encArg(cons_active(x_1)) -> active(encArg(x_1)) encArg(cons_f(x_1, x_2, x_3)) -> f(encArg(x_1), encArg(x_2), encArg(x_3)) encArg(cons_proper(x_1)) -> proper(encArg(x_1)) encArg(cons_top(x_1)) -> top(encArg(x_1)) encode_active(x_1) -> active(encArg(x_1)) encode_f(x_1, x_2, x_3) -> f(encArg(x_1), encArg(x_2), encArg(x_3)) encode_b -> b encode_c -> c encode_mark(x_1) -> mark(encArg(x_1)) encode_proper(x_1) -> proper(encArg(x_1)) encode_ok(x_1) -> ok(encArg(x_1)) encode_top(x_1) -> top(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: active(f(b, X, c)) -> mark(f(X, c, X)) active(c) -> mark(b) active(f(X1, X2, X3)) -> f(X1, active(X2), X3) f(X1, mark(X2), X3) -> mark(f(X1, X2, X3)) proper(f(X1, X2, X3)) -> f(proper(X1), proper(X2), proper(X3)) proper(b) -> ok(b) proper(c) -> ok(c) f(ok(X1), ok(X2), ok(X3)) -> ok(f(X1, X2, X3)) top(mark(X)) -> top(proper(X)) top(ok(X)) -> top(active(X)) The (relative) TRS S consists of the following rules: encArg(b) -> b encArg(c) -> c encArg(mark(x_1)) -> mark(encArg(x_1)) encArg(ok(x_1)) -> ok(encArg(x_1)) encArg(cons_active(x_1)) -> active(encArg(x_1)) encArg(cons_f(x_1, x_2, x_3)) -> f(encArg(x_1), encArg(x_2), encArg(x_3)) encArg(cons_proper(x_1)) -> proper(encArg(x_1)) encArg(cons_top(x_1)) -> top(encArg(x_1)) encode_active(x_1) -> active(encArg(x_1)) encode_f(x_1, x_2, x_3) -> f(encArg(x_1), encArg(x_2), encArg(x_3)) encode_b -> b encode_c -> c encode_mark(x_1) -> mark(encArg(x_1)) encode_proper(x_1) -> proper(encArg(x_1)) encode_ok(x_1) -> ok(encArg(x_1)) encode_top(x_1) -> top(encArg(x_1)) 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: active(f(b, X, c)) -> mark(f(X, c, X)) active(c) -> mark(b) active(f(X1, X2, X3)) -> f(X1, active(X2), X3) f(X1, mark(X2), X3) -> mark(f(X1, X2, X3)) proper(f(X1, X2, X3)) -> f(proper(X1), proper(X2), proper(X3)) proper(b) -> ok(b) proper(c) -> ok(c) f(ok(X1), ok(X2), ok(X3)) -> ok(f(X1, X2, X3)) top(mark(X)) -> top(proper(X)) top(ok(X)) -> top(active(X)) The (relative) TRS S consists of the following rules: encArg(b) -> b encArg(c) -> c encArg(mark(x_1)) -> mark(encArg(x_1)) encArg(ok(x_1)) -> ok(encArg(x_1)) encArg(cons_active(x_1)) -> active(encArg(x_1)) encArg(cons_f(x_1, x_2, x_3)) -> f(encArg(x_1), encArg(x_2), encArg(x_3)) encArg(cons_proper(x_1)) -> proper(encArg(x_1)) encArg(cons_top(x_1)) -> top(encArg(x_1)) encode_active(x_1) -> active(encArg(x_1)) encode_f(x_1, x_2, x_3) -> f(encArg(x_1), encArg(x_2), encArg(x_3)) encode_b -> b encode_c -> c encode_mark(x_1) -> mark(encArg(x_1)) encode_proper(x_1) -> proper(encArg(x_1)) encode_ok(x_1) -> ok(encArg(x_1)) encode_top(x_1) -> top(encArg(x_1)) 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(ok(X1), ok(X2), ok(X3)) ->^+ ok(f(X1, X2, X3)) gives rise to a decreasing loop by considering the right hand sides subterm at position [0]. The pumping substitution is [X1 / ok(X1), X2 / ok(X2), X3 / ok(X3)]. The result substitution is [ ]. ---------------------------------------- (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: active(f(b, X, c)) -> mark(f(X, c, X)) active(c) -> mark(b) active(f(X1, X2, X3)) -> f(X1, active(X2), X3) f(X1, mark(X2), X3) -> mark(f(X1, X2, X3)) proper(f(X1, X2, X3)) -> f(proper(X1), proper(X2), proper(X3)) proper(b) -> ok(b) proper(c) -> ok(c) f(ok(X1), ok(X2), ok(X3)) -> ok(f(X1, X2, X3)) top(mark(X)) -> top(proper(X)) top(ok(X)) -> top(active(X)) The (relative) TRS S consists of the following rules: encArg(b) -> b encArg(c) -> c encArg(mark(x_1)) -> mark(encArg(x_1)) encArg(ok(x_1)) -> ok(encArg(x_1)) encArg(cons_active(x_1)) -> active(encArg(x_1)) encArg(cons_f(x_1, x_2, x_3)) -> f(encArg(x_1), encArg(x_2), encArg(x_3)) encArg(cons_proper(x_1)) -> proper(encArg(x_1)) encArg(cons_top(x_1)) -> top(encArg(x_1)) encode_active(x_1) -> active(encArg(x_1)) encode_f(x_1, x_2, x_3) -> f(encArg(x_1), encArg(x_2), encArg(x_3)) encode_b -> b encode_c -> c encode_mark(x_1) -> mark(encArg(x_1)) encode_proper(x_1) -> proper(encArg(x_1)) encode_ok(x_1) -> ok(encArg(x_1)) encode_top(x_1) -> top(encArg(x_1)) 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: active(f(b, X, c)) -> mark(f(X, c, X)) active(c) -> mark(b) active(f(X1, X2, X3)) -> f(X1, active(X2), X3) f(X1, mark(X2), X3) -> mark(f(X1, X2, X3)) proper(f(X1, X2, X3)) -> f(proper(X1), proper(X2), proper(X3)) proper(b) -> ok(b) proper(c) -> ok(c) f(ok(X1), ok(X2), ok(X3)) -> ok(f(X1, X2, X3)) top(mark(X)) -> top(proper(X)) top(ok(X)) -> top(active(X)) The (relative) TRS S consists of the following rules: encArg(b) -> b encArg(c) -> c encArg(mark(x_1)) -> mark(encArg(x_1)) encArg(ok(x_1)) -> ok(encArg(x_1)) encArg(cons_active(x_1)) -> active(encArg(x_1)) encArg(cons_f(x_1, x_2, x_3)) -> f(encArg(x_1), encArg(x_2), encArg(x_3)) encArg(cons_proper(x_1)) -> proper(encArg(x_1)) encArg(cons_top(x_1)) -> top(encArg(x_1)) encode_active(x_1) -> active(encArg(x_1)) encode_f(x_1, x_2, x_3) -> f(encArg(x_1), encArg(x_2), encArg(x_3)) encode_b -> b encode_c -> c encode_mark(x_1) -> mark(encArg(x_1)) encode_proper(x_1) -> proper(encArg(x_1)) encode_ok(x_1) -> ok(encArg(x_1)) encode_top(x_1) -> top(encArg(x_1)) Rewrite Strategy: INNERMOST