/export/starexec/sandbox/solver/bin/starexec_run_tct_rci /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.xml /export/starexec/sandbox/output/output_files -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- WORST_CASE(?,O(n^1)) * Step 1: Sum. WORST_CASE(?,O(n^1)) + Considered Problem: - Strict TRS: g(f(x),y) -> f(h(x,y)) h(x,y) -> g(x,f(y)) - Signature: {g/2,h/2} / {f/1} - Obligation: innermost runtime complexity wrt. defined symbols {g,h} and constructors {f} + Applied Processor: Sum {left = someStrategy, right = someStrategy} + Details: () ** Step 1.a:1: Sum. MAYBE + Considered Problem: - Strict TRS: g(f(x),y) -> f(h(x,y)) h(x,y) -> g(x,f(y)) - Signature: {g/2,h/2} / {f/1} - Obligation: innermost runtime complexity wrt. defined symbols {g,h} and constructors {f} + Applied Processor: Sum {left = someStrategy, right = someStrategy} + Details: () ** Step 1.a:2: Ara. MAYBE + Considered Problem: - Strict TRS: g(f(x),y) -> f(h(x,y)) h(x,y) -> g(x,f(y)) - Signature: {g/2,h/2} / {f/1} - Obligation: innermost runtime complexity wrt. defined symbols {g,h} and constructors {f} + Applied Processor: Ara {minDegree = 1, maxDegree = 3, araTimeout = 15, araRuleShifting = Just 1, isBestCase = True, mkCompletelyDefined = False, verboseOutput = False} + Details: Signatures used: ---------------- F (TrsFun "f") :: ["A"(0, 0, 0)] -(0)-> "A"(0, 0, 0) F (TrsFun "f") :: ["A"(1, 2, 1)] -(0)-> "A"(0, 1, 1) F (TrsFun "g") :: ["A"(0, 0, 0) x "A"(0, 1, 1)] -(1)-> "A"(0, 0, 0) F (TrsFun "h") :: ["A"(0, 0, 0) x "A"(1, 1, 1)] -(1)-> "A"(0, 0, 0) F (TrsFun "main") :: ["A"(0, 0, 0) x "A"(1, 1, 1)] -(1)-> "A"(0, 0, 0) Cost-free Signatures used: -------------------------- Base Constructor Signatures used: --------------------------------- Following Still Strict Rules were Typed as: ------------------------------------------- 1. Strict: g(f(x),y) -> f(h(x,y)) h(x,y) -> g(x,f(y)) main(x1,x2) -> h(x1,x2) 2. Weak: ** Step 1.b:1: NaturalMI. WORST_CASE(?,O(n^1)) + Considered Problem: - Strict TRS: g(f(x),y) -> f(h(x,y)) h(x,y) -> g(x,f(y)) - Signature: {g/2,h/2} / {f/1} - Obligation: innermost runtime complexity wrt. defined symbols {g,h} and constructors {f} + Applied Processor: NaturalMI {miDimension = 1, miDegree = 1, miKind = Algebraic, uargs = UArgs, urules = URules, selector = Just any strict-rules} + Details: We apply a matrix interpretation of kind constructor based matrix interpretation: The following argument positions are considered usable: uargs(f) = {1} Following symbols are considered usable: {g,h} TcT has computed the following interpretation: p(f) = [1] x1 + [2] p(g) = [8] x1 + [8] p(h) = [8] x1 + [9] Following rules are strictly oriented: g(f(x),y) = [8] x + [24] > [8] x + [11] = f(h(x,y)) h(x,y) = [8] x + [9] > [8] x + [8] = g(x,f(y)) Following rules are (at-least) weakly oriented: ** Step 1.b:2: EmptyProcessor. WORST_CASE(?,O(1)) + Considered Problem: - Weak TRS: g(f(x),y) -> f(h(x,y)) h(x,y) -> g(x,f(y)) - Signature: {g/2,h/2} / {f/1} - Obligation: innermost runtime complexity wrt. defined symbols {g,h} and constructors {f} + Applied Processor: EmptyProcessor + Details: The problem is already closed. The intended complexity is O(1). WORST_CASE(?,O(n^1))