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


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


WORST_CASE(?, O(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# AProVE Commit ID: 794c25de1cacf0d048858bcd21c9a779e1221865 marcel 20200619 unpublished dirty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(1, n^1).

(0) DCpxTrs
(1) DerivationalComplexityToRuntimeComplexityProof [BOTH BOUNDS(ID, ID), 0 ms]
(2) CpxRelTRS
(3) SInnermostTerminationProof [BOTH CONCRETE BOUNDS(ID, ID), 77 ms]
(4) CpxRelTRS
(5) RelTrsToTrsProof [UPPER BOUND(ID), 0 ms]
(6) CpxTRS
(7) CpxTrsMatchBoundsProof [FINISHED, 0 ms]
(8) BOUNDS(1, n^1)


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

(0)
Obligation:
The Derivational Complexity (innermost) of the given DCpxTrs could be proven to be BOUNDS(1, n^1).


The TRS R consists of the following rules:

   f(0) -> cons(0)
   f(s(0)) -> f(p(s(0)))
   p(s(0)) -> 0

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(0) -> 0
   encArg(cons(x_1)) -> cons(encArg(x_1))
   encArg(s(x_1)) -> s(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_0 -> 0
   encode_cons(x_1) -> cons(encArg(x_1))
   encode_s(x_1) -> s(encArg(x_1))
   encode_p(x_1) -> p(encArg(x_1))


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

(2)
Obligation:
The Runtime Complexity (innermost) of the given CpxRelTRS could be proven to be BOUNDS(1, n^1).


The TRS R consists of the following rules:

   f(0) -> cons(0)
   f(s(0)) -> f(p(s(0)))
   p(s(0)) -> 0

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

   encArg(0) -> 0
   encArg(cons(x_1)) -> cons(encArg(x_1))
   encArg(s(x_1)) -> s(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_0 -> 0
   encode_cons(x_1) -> cons(encArg(x_1))
   encode_s(x_1) -> s(encArg(x_1))
   encode_p(x_1) -> p(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(1, n^1).


The TRS R consists of the following rules:

   f(0) -> cons(0)
   f(s(0)) -> f(p(s(0)))
   p(s(0)) -> 0

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

   encArg(0) -> 0
   encArg(cons(x_1)) -> cons(encArg(x_1))
   encArg(s(x_1)) -> s(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_0 -> 0
   encode_cons(x_1) -> cons(encArg(x_1))
   encode_s(x_1) -> s(encArg(x_1))
   encode_p(x_1) -> p(encArg(x_1))

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

(5) RelTrsToTrsProof (UPPER BOUND(ID))
transformed relative TRS to TRS
----------------------------------------

(6)
Obligation:
The Runtime Complexity (innermost) of the given CpxTRS could be proven to be BOUNDS(1, n^1).


The TRS R consists of the following rules:

   f(0) -> cons(0)
   f(s(0)) -> f(p(s(0)))
   p(s(0)) -> 0
   encArg(0) -> 0
   encArg(cons(x_1)) -> cons(encArg(x_1))
   encArg(s(x_1)) -> s(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_0 -> 0
   encode_cons(x_1) -> cons(encArg(x_1))
   encode_s(x_1) -> s(encArg(x_1))
   encode_p(x_1) -> p(encArg(x_1))

S is empty.
Rewrite Strategy: INNERMOST
----------------------------------------

(7) CpxTrsMatchBoundsProof (FINISHED)
A linear upper bound on the runtime complexity of the TRS R could be shown with a Match Bound [MATCHBOUNDS1,MATCHBOUNDS2] of 3. 
The certificate found is represented by the following graph.

"[17, 18, 19, 21, 23, 24, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35]
{(17,18,[f_1|0, p_1|0, encArg_1|0, encode_f_1|0, encode_0|0, encode_cons_1|0, encode_s_1|0, encode_p_1|0, 0|1, 0|2]), (17,19,[cons_1|1, s_1|1, f_1|1, p_1|1]), (17,21,[f_1|1]), (17,31,[cons_1|2]), (17,32,[f_1|2]), (17,35,[cons_1|3]), (18,18,[0|0, cons_1|0, s_1|0, cons_f_1|0, cons_p_1|0]), (19,18,[0|1, encArg_1|1, 0|2]), (19,19,[cons_1|1, s_1|1, f_1|1, p_1|1]), (19,31,[cons_1|2]), (19,32,[f_1|2]), (19,35,[cons_1|3]), (21,23,[p_1|1]), (21,18,[0|2]), (23,24,[s_1|1]), (24,18,[0|1]), (31,18,[0|2]), (32,33,[p_1|2]), (32,18,[0|3]), (33,34,[s_1|2]), (34,18,[0|2]), (35,18,[0|3])}"
----------------------------------------

(8)
BOUNDS(1, n^1)