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


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


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# AProVE Commit ID: 794c25de1cacf0d048858bcd21c9a779e1221865 marcel 20200619 unpublished dirty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

(0) DCpxTrs
(1) DerivationalComplexityToRuntimeComplexityProof [BOTH BOUNDS(ID, ID), 0 ms]
(2) CpxRelTRS
(3) SInnermostTerminationProof [BOTH CONCRETE BOUNDS(ID, ID), 148 ms]
(4) CpxRelTRS
(5) RelTrsToTrsProof [UPPER BOUND(ID), 0 ms]
(6) CpxTRS
(7) CpxTrsMatchBoundsTAProof [FINISHED, 60 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(x, f(a, a)) -> f(f(a, f(f(a, a), a)), 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(a) -> a
   encArg(cons_f(x_1, x_2)) -> f(encArg(x_1), encArg(x_2))
   encode_f(x_1, x_2) -> f(encArg(x_1), encArg(x_2))
   encode_a -> a


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

(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(x, f(a, a)) -> f(f(a, f(f(a, a), a)), x)

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

   encArg(a) -> a
   encArg(cons_f(x_1, x_2)) -> f(encArg(x_1), encArg(x_2))
   encode_f(x_1, x_2) -> f(encArg(x_1), encArg(x_2))
   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(1, n^1).


The TRS R consists of the following rules:

   f(x, f(a, a)) -> f(f(a, f(f(a, a), a)), x)

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

   encArg(a) -> a
   encArg(cons_f(x_1, x_2)) -> f(encArg(x_1), encArg(x_2))
   encode_f(x_1, x_2) -> f(encArg(x_1), encArg(x_2))
   encode_a -> a

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(x, f(a, a)) -> f(f(a, f(f(a, a), a)), x)
   encArg(a) -> a
   encArg(cons_f(x_1, x_2)) -> f(encArg(x_1), encArg(x_2))
   encode_f(x_1, x_2) -> f(encArg(x_1), encArg(x_2))
   encode_a -> a

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

(7) CpxTrsMatchBoundsTAProof (FINISHED)
A linear upper bound on the runtime complexity of the TRS R could be shown with a Match-Bound[TAB_LEFTLINEAR,TAB_NONLEFTLINEAR] (for contructor-based start-terms) of 2. 

The compatible tree automaton used to show the Match-Boundedness (for constructor-based start-terms) is represented by: 
final states : [1, 2, 3, 4]
transitions: 
a0() -> 0
cons_f0(0, 0) -> 0
f0(0, 0) -> 1
encArg0(0) -> 2
encode_f0(0, 0) -> 3
encode_a0() -> 4
a1() -> 2
encArg1(0) -> 5
encArg1(0) -> 6
f1(5, 6) -> 2
f1(5, 6) -> 3
a1() -> 4
a1() -> 5
a1() -> 6
f1(5, 6) -> 5
f1(5, 6) -> 6
a2() -> 8
a2() -> 11
f2(8, 11) -> 10
f2(10, 11) -> 9
f2(8, 9) -> 7
f2(7, 5) -> 2
f2(7, 5) -> 3
f2(7, 5) -> 5
f2(7, 5) -> 6
f2(7, 7) -> 2
f2(7, 7) -> 3
f2(7, 7) -> 5
f2(7, 7) -> 6

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

(8)
BOUNDS(1, n^1)