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


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


WORST_CASE(Omega(n^1), O(n^1))
proof of /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.xml
# AProVE Commit ID: 794c25de1cacf0d048858bcd21c9a779e1221865 marcel 20200619 unpublished dirty


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

(0) CpxTRS
(1) RelTrsToWeightedTrsProof [BOTH BOUNDS(ID, ID), 0 ms]
(2) CpxWeightedTrs
    (3) TypeInferenceProof [BOTH BOUNDS(ID, ID), 0 ms]
    (4) CpxTypedWeightedTrs
    (5) CompletionProof [UPPER BOUND(ID), 0 ms]
    (6) CpxTypedWeightedCompleteTrs
    (7) NarrowingProof [BOTH BOUNDS(ID, ID), 0 ms]
    (8) CpxTypedWeightedCompleteTrs
    (9) CpxTypedWeightedTrsToRntsProof [UPPER BOUND(ID), 4 ms]
    (10) CpxRNTS
    (11) SimplificationProof [BOTH BOUNDS(ID, ID), 4 ms]
    (12) CpxRNTS
    (13) CpxRntsAnalysisOrderProof [BOTH BOUNDS(ID, ID), 0 ms]
    (14) CpxRNTS
    (15) ResultPropagationProof [UPPER BOUND(ID), 0 ms]
    (16) CpxRNTS
    (17) IntTrsBoundProof [UPPER BOUND(ID), 1057 ms]
    (18) CpxRNTS
    (19) IntTrsBoundProof [UPPER BOUND(ID), 561 ms]
    (20) CpxRNTS
    (21) ResultPropagationProof [UPPER BOUND(ID), 0 ms]
    (22) CpxRNTS
    (23) IntTrsBoundProof [UPPER BOUND(ID), 137 ms]
    (24) CpxRNTS
    (25) IntTrsBoundProof [UPPER BOUND(ID), 42 ms]
    (26) CpxRNTS
    (27) ResultPropagationProof [UPPER BOUND(ID), 0 ms]
    (28) CpxRNTS
    (29) IntTrsBoundProof [UPPER BOUND(ID), 260 ms]
    (30) CpxRNTS
    (31) IntTrsBoundProof [UPPER BOUND(ID), 155 ms]
    (32) CpxRNTS
    (33) FinalProof [FINISHED, 0 ms]
    (34) BOUNDS(1, n^1)
(35) RelTrsToDecreasingLoopProblemProof [LOWER BOUND(ID), 0 ms]
(36) TRS for Loop Detection
    (37) DecreasingLoopProof [LOWER BOUND(ID), 0 ms]
    (38) BEST
        (39) proven lower bound
            (40) LowerBoundPropagationProof [FINISHED, 0 ms]
            (41) BOUNDS(n^1, INF)
        (42) TRS for Loop Detection


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

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


The TRS R consists of the following rules:

   cond1(true, x, y) -> cond2(gr(y, 0), x, y)
   cond2(true, x, y) -> cond2(gr(y, 0), x, p(y))
   cond2(false, x, y) -> cond1(gr(x, 0), p(x), y)
   gr(0, x) -> false
   gr(s(x), 0) -> true
   gr(s(x), s(y)) -> gr(x, y)
   p(0) -> 0
   p(s(x)) -> x

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

(1) RelTrsToWeightedTrsProof (BOTH BOUNDS(ID, ID))
Transformed relative TRS to weighted TRS
----------------------------------------

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


The TRS R consists of the following rules:

   cond1(true, x, y) -> cond2(gr(y, 0), x, y) [1]
   cond2(true, x, y) -> cond2(gr(y, 0), x, p(y)) [1]
   cond2(false, x, y) -> cond1(gr(x, 0), p(x), y) [1]
   gr(0, x) -> false [1]
   gr(s(x), 0) -> true [1]
   gr(s(x), s(y)) -> gr(x, y) [1]
   p(0) -> 0 [1]
   p(s(x)) -> x [1]

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

(3) TypeInferenceProof (BOTH BOUNDS(ID, ID))
Infered types.
----------------------------------------

(4)
Obligation:
Runtime Complexity Weighted TRS with Types.
The TRS R consists of the following rules:

   cond1(true, x, y) -> cond2(gr(y, 0), x, y) [1]
   cond2(true, x, y) -> cond2(gr(y, 0), x, p(y)) [1]
   cond2(false, x, y) -> cond1(gr(x, 0), p(x), y) [1]
   gr(0, x) -> false [1]
   gr(s(x), 0) -> true [1]
   gr(s(x), s(y)) -> gr(x, y) [1]
   p(0) -> 0 [1]
   p(s(x)) -> x [1]

The TRS has the following type information:
cond1 :: true:false -> 0:s -> 0:s -> cond1:cond2
true :: true:false
cond2 :: true:false -> 0:s -> 0:s -> cond1:cond2
gr :: 0:s -> 0:s -> true:false
0 :: 0:s
p :: 0:s -> 0:s
false :: true:false
s :: 0:s -> 0:s

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

(5) CompletionProof (UPPER BOUND(ID))
The transformation into a RNTS is sound, since:

(a) The obligation is a constructor system where every type has a constant constructor,

(b) The following defined symbols do not have to be completely defined, as they can never occur inside other defined symbols:

   cond1_3
   cond2_3

(c) The following functions are completely defined:

   gr_2
   p_1

Due to the following rules being added:
none

And the following fresh constants:    const

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

(6)
Obligation:
Runtime Complexity Weighted TRS where critical functions are completely defined. The underlying TRS is:

Runtime Complexity Weighted TRS with Types.
The TRS R consists of the following rules:

   cond1(true, x, y) -> cond2(gr(y, 0), x, y) [1]
   cond2(true, x, y) -> cond2(gr(y, 0), x, p(y)) [1]
   cond2(false, x, y) -> cond1(gr(x, 0), p(x), y) [1]
   gr(0, x) -> false [1]
   gr(s(x), 0) -> true [1]
   gr(s(x), s(y)) -> gr(x, y) [1]
   p(0) -> 0 [1]
   p(s(x)) -> x [1]

The TRS has the following type information:
cond1 :: true:false -> 0:s -> 0:s -> cond1:cond2
true :: true:false
cond2 :: true:false -> 0:s -> 0:s -> cond1:cond2
gr :: 0:s -> 0:s -> true:false
0 :: 0:s
p :: 0:s -> 0:s
false :: true:false
s :: 0:s -> 0:s
const :: cond1:cond2

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

(7) NarrowingProof (BOTH BOUNDS(ID, ID))
Narrowed the inner basic terms of all right-hand sides by a single narrowing step.
----------------------------------------

(8)
Obligation:
Runtime Complexity Weighted TRS where critical functions are completely defined. The underlying TRS is:

Runtime Complexity Weighted TRS with Types.
The TRS R consists of the following rules:

   cond1(true, x, 0) -> cond2(false, x, 0) [2]
   cond1(true, x, s(x')) -> cond2(true, x, s(x')) [2]
   cond2(true, x, 0) -> cond2(false, x, 0) [3]
   cond2(true, x, s(x'')) -> cond2(true, x, x'') [3]
   cond2(false, 0, y) -> cond1(false, 0, y) [3]
   cond2(false, s(x1), y) -> cond1(true, x1, y) [3]
   gr(0, x) -> false [1]
   gr(s(x), 0) -> true [1]
   gr(s(x), s(y)) -> gr(x, y) [1]
   p(0) -> 0 [1]
   p(s(x)) -> x [1]

The TRS has the following type information:
cond1 :: true:false -> 0:s -> 0:s -> cond1:cond2
true :: true:false
cond2 :: true:false -> 0:s -> 0:s -> cond1:cond2
gr :: 0:s -> 0:s -> true:false
0 :: 0:s
p :: 0:s -> 0:s
false :: true:false
s :: 0:s -> 0:s
const :: cond1:cond2

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

(9) CpxTypedWeightedTrsToRntsProof (UPPER BOUND(ID))
Transformed the TRS into an over-approximating RNTS by (improved) Size Abstraction.
The constant constructors are abstracted as follows:

   true => 1
   0 => 0
   false => 0
   const => 0

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

(10)
Obligation:
Complexity RNTS consisting of the following rules:

   cond1(z, z', z'') -{ 2 }-> cond2(1, x, 1 + x') :|: z' = x, z = 1, z'' = 1 + x', x >= 0, x' >= 0
   cond1(z, z', z'') -{ 2 }-> cond2(0, x, 0) :|: z'' = 0, z' = x, z = 1, x >= 0
   cond2(z, z', z'') -{ 3 }-> cond2(1, x, x'') :|: z' = x, z = 1, x >= 0, z'' = 1 + x'', x'' >= 0
   cond2(z, z', z'') -{ 3 }-> cond2(0, x, 0) :|: z'' = 0, z' = x, z = 1, x >= 0
   cond2(z, z', z'') -{ 3 }-> cond1(1, x1, y) :|: x1 >= 0, z'' = y, y >= 0, z' = 1 + x1, z = 0
   cond2(z, z', z'') -{ 3 }-> cond1(0, 0, y) :|: z'' = y, y >= 0, z = 0, z' = 0
   gr(z, z') -{ 1 }-> gr(x, y) :|: z' = 1 + y, x >= 0, y >= 0, z = 1 + x
   gr(z, z') -{ 1 }-> 1 :|: x >= 0, z = 1 + x, z' = 0
   gr(z, z') -{ 1 }-> 0 :|: z' = x, x >= 0, z = 0
   p(z) -{ 1 }-> x :|: x >= 0, z = 1 + x
   p(z) -{ 1 }-> 0 :|: z = 0


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

(11) SimplificationProof (BOTH BOUNDS(ID, ID))
Simplified the RNTS by moving equalities from the constraints into the right-hand sides.
----------------------------------------

(12)
Obligation:
Complexity RNTS consisting of the following rules:

   cond1(z, z', z'') -{ 2 }-> cond2(1, z', 1 + (z'' - 1)) :|: z = 1, z' >= 0, z'' - 1 >= 0
   cond1(z, z', z'') -{ 2 }-> cond2(0, z', 0) :|: z'' = 0, z = 1, z' >= 0
   cond2(z, z', z'') -{ 3 }-> cond2(1, z', z'' - 1) :|: z = 1, z' >= 0, z'' - 1 >= 0
   cond2(z, z', z'') -{ 3 }-> cond2(0, z', 0) :|: z'' = 0, z = 1, z' >= 0
   cond2(z, z', z'') -{ 3 }-> cond1(1, z' - 1, z'') :|: z' - 1 >= 0, z'' >= 0, z = 0
   cond2(z, z', z'') -{ 3 }-> cond1(0, 0, z'') :|: z'' >= 0, z = 0, z' = 0
   gr(z, z') -{ 1 }-> gr(z - 1, z' - 1) :|: z - 1 >= 0, z' - 1 >= 0
   gr(z, z') -{ 1 }-> 1 :|: z - 1 >= 0, z' = 0
   gr(z, z') -{ 1 }-> 0 :|: z' >= 0, z = 0
   p(z) -{ 1 }-> 0 :|: z = 0
   p(z) -{ 1 }-> z - 1 :|: z - 1 >= 0


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

(13) CpxRntsAnalysisOrderProof (BOTH BOUNDS(ID, ID))
Found the following analysis order by SCC decomposition:

   { cond2, cond1 }
   { p }
   { gr }

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

(14)
Obligation:
Complexity RNTS consisting of the following rules:

   cond1(z, z', z'') -{ 2 }-> cond2(1, z', 1 + (z'' - 1)) :|: z = 1, z' >= 0, z'' - 1 >= 0
   cond1(z, z', z'') -{ 2 }-> cond2(0, z', 0) :|: z'' = 0, z = 1, z' >= 0
   cond2(z, z', z'') -{ 3 }-> cond2(1, z', z'' - 1) :|: z = 1, z' >= 0, z'' - 1 >= 0
   cond2(z, z', z'') -{ 3 }-> cond2(0, z', 0) :|: z'' = 0, z = 1, z' >= 0
   cond2(z, z', z'') -{ 3 }-> cond1(1, z' - 1, z'') :|: z' - 1 >= 0, z'' >= 0, z = 0
   cond2(z, z', z'') -{ 3 }-> cond1(0, 0, z'') :|: z'' >= 0, z = 0, z' = 0
   gr(z, z') -{ 1 }-> gr(z - 1, z' - 1) :|: z - 1 >= 0, z' - 1 >= 0
   gr(z, z') -{ 1 }-> 1 :|: z - 1 >= 0, z' = 0
   gr(z, z') -{ 1 }-> 0 :|: z' >= 0, z = 0
   p(z) -{ 1 }-> 0 :|: z = 0
   p(z) -{ 1 }-> z - 1 :|: z - 1 >= 0

Function symbols to be analyzed: {cond2,cond1}, {p}, {gr}

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

(15) ResultPropagationProof (UPPER BOUND(ID))
Applied inner abstraction using the recently inferred runtime/size bounds where possible.
----------------------------------------

(16)
Obligation:
Complexity RNTS consisting of the following rules:

   cond1(z, z', z'') -{ 2 }-> cond2(1, z', 1 + (z'' - 1)) :|: z = 1, z' >= 0, z'' - 1 >= 0
   cond1(z, z', z'') -{ 2 }-> cond2(0, z', 0) :|: z'' = 0, z = 1, z' >= 0
   cond2(z, z', z'') -{ 3 }-> cond2(1, z', z'' - 1) :|: z = 1, z' >= 0, z'' - 1 >= 0
   cond2(z, z', z'') -{ 3 }-> cond2(0, z', 0) :|: z'' = 0, z = 1, z' >= 0
   cond2(z, z', z'') -{ 3 }-> cond1(1, z' - 1, z'') :|: z' - 1 >= 0, z'' >= 0, z = 0
   cond2(z, z', z'') -{ 3 }-> cond1(0, 0, z'') :|: z'' >= 0, z = 0, z' = 0
   gr(z, z') -{ 1 }-> gr(z - 1, z' - 1) :|: z - 1 >= 0, z' - 1 >= 0
   gr(z, z') -{ 1 }-> 1 :|: z - 1 >= 0, z' = 0
   gr(z, z') -{ 1 }-> 0 :|: z' >= 0, z = 0
   p(z) -{ 1 }-> 0 :|: z = 0
   p(z) -{ 1 }-> z - 1 :|: z - 1 >= 0

Function symbols to be analyzed: {cond2,cond1}, {p}, {gr}

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

(17) IntTrsBoundProof (UPPER BOUND(ID))

Computed SIZE bound using CoFloCo for: cond2
after applying outer abstraction to obtain an ITS,
resulting in: O(1) with polynomial bound: 0

Computed SIZE bound using CoFloCo for: cond1
after applying outer abstraction to obtain an ITS,
resulting in: O(1) with polynomial bound: 0

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

(18)
Obligation:
Complexity RNTS consisting of the following rules:

   cond1(z, z', z'') -{ 2 }-> cond2(1, z', 1 + (z'' - 1)) :|: z = 1, z' >= 0, z'' - 1 >= 0
   cond1(z, z', z'') -{ 2 }-> cond2(0, z', 0) :|: z'' = 0, z = 1, z' >= 0
   cond2(z, z', z'') -{ 3 }-> cond2(1, z', z'' - 1) :|: z = 1, z' >= 0, z'' - 1 >= 0
   cond2(z, z', z'') -{ 3 }-> cond2(0, z', 0) :|: z'' = 0, z = 1, z' >= 0
   cond2(z, z', z'') -{ 3 }-> cond1(1, z' - 1, z'') :|: z' - 1 >= 0, z'' >= 0, z = 0
   cond2(z, z', z'') -{ 3 }-> cond1(0, 0, z'') :|: z'' >= 0, z = 0, z' = 0
   gr(z, z') -{ 1 }-> gr(z - 1, z' - 1) :|: z - 1 >= 0, z' - 1 >= 0
   gr(z, z') -{ 1 }-> 1 :|: z - 1 >= 0, z' = 0
   gr(z, z') -{ 1 }-> 0 :|: z' >= 0, z = 0
   p(z) -{ 1 }-> 0 :|: z = 0
   p(z) -{ 1 }-> z - 1 :|: z - 1 >= 0

Function symbols to be analyzed: {cond2,cond1}, {p}, {gr}
Previous analysis results are:
  cond2: runtime: ?, size: O(1) [0]
  cond1: runtime: ?, size: O(1) [0]

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

(19) IntTrsBoundProof (UPPER BOUND(ID))

Computed RUNTIME bound using CoFloCo for: cond2
after applying outer abstraction to obtain an ITS,
resulting in: O(n^1) with polynomial bound: 21 + 5*z' + 3*z''

Computed RUNTIME bound using CoFloCo for: cond1
after applying outer abstraction to obtain an ITS,
resulting in: O(n^1) with polynomial bound: 23 + 5*z' + 3*z''

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

(20)
Obligation:
Complexity RNTS consisting of the following rules:

   cond1(z, z', z'') -{ 2 }-> cond2(1, z', 1 + (z'' - 1)) :|: z = 1, z' >= 0, z'' - 1 >= 0
   cond1(z, z', z'') -{ 2 }-> cond2(0, z', 0) :|: z'' = 0, z = 1, z' >= 0
   cond2(z, z', z'') -{ 3 }-> cond2(1, z', z'' - 1) :|: z = 1, z' >= 0, z'' - 1 >= 0
   cond2(z, z', z'') -{ 3 }-> cond2(0, z', 0) :|: z'' = 0, z = 1, z' >= 0
   cond2(z, z', z'') -{ 3 }-> cond1(1, z' - 1, z'') :|: z' - 1 >= 0, z'' >= 0, z = 0
   cond2(z, z', z'') -{ 3 }-> cond1(0, 0, z'') :|: z'' >= 0, z = 0, z' = 0
   gr(z, z') -{ 1 }-> gr(z - 1, z' - 1) :|: z - 1 >= 0, z' - 1 >= 0
   gr(z, z') -{ 1 }-> 1 :|: z - 1 >= 0, z' = 0
   gr(z, z') -{ 1 }-> 0 :|: z' >= 0, z = 0
   p(z) -{ 1 }-> 0 :|: z = 0
   p(z) -{ 1 }-> z - 1 :|: z - 1 >= 0

Function symbols to be analyzed: {p}, {gr}
Previous analysis results are:
  cond2: runtime: O(n^1) [21 + 5*z' + 3*z''], size: O(1) [0]
  cond1: runtime: O(n^1) [23 + 5*z' + 3*z''], size: O(1) [0]

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

(21) ResultPropagationProof (UPPER BOUND(ID))
Applied inner abstraction using the recently inferred runtime/size bounds where possible.
----------------------------------------

(22)
Obligation:
Complexity RNTS consisting of the following rules:

   cond1(z, z', z'') -{ 23 + 5*z' }-> s :|: s >= 0, s <= 0, z'' = 0, z = 1, z' >= 0
   cond1(z, z', z'') -{ 23 + 5*z' + 3*z'' }-> s' :|: s' >= 0, s' <= 0, z = 1, z' >= 0, z'' - 1 >= 0
   cond2(z, z', z'') -{ 24 + 5*z' }-> s'' :|: s'' >= 0, s'' <= 0, z'' = 0, z = 1, z' >= 0
   cond2(z, z', z'') -{ 21 + 5*z' + 3*z'' }-> s1 :|: s1 >= 0, s1 <= 0, z = 1, z' >= 0, z'' - 1 >= 0
   cond2(z, z', z'') -{ 26 + 3*z'' }-> s2 :|: s2 >= 0, s2 <= 0, z'' >= 0, z = 0, z' = 0
   cond2(z, z', z'') -{ 21 + 5*z' + 3*z'' }-> s3 :|: s3 >= 0, s3 <= 0, z' - 1 >= 0, z'' >= 0, z = 0
   gr(z, z') -{ 1 }-> gr(z - 1, z' - 1) :|: z - 1 >= 0, z' - 1 >= 0
   gr(z, z') -{ 1 }-> 1 :|: z - 1 >= 0, z' = 0
   gr(z, z') -{ 1 }-> 0 :|: z' >= 0, z = 0
   p(z) -{ 1 }-> 0 :|: z = 0
   p(z) -{ 1 }-> z - 1 :|: z - 1 >= 0

Function symbols to be analyzed: {p}, {gr}
Previous analysis results are:
  cond2: runtime: O(n^1) [21 + 5*z' + 3*z''], size: O(1) [0]
  cond1: runtime: O(n^1) [23 + 5*z' + 3*z''], size: O(1) [0]

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

(23) IntTrsBoundProof (UPPER BOUND(ID))

Computed SIZE bound using KoAT for: p
after applying outer abstraction to obtain an ITS,
resulting in: O(n^1) with polynomial bound: z

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

(24)
Obligation:
Complexity RNTS consisting of the following rules:

   cond1(z, z', z'') -{ 23 + 5*z' }-> s :|: s >= 0, s <= 0, z'' = 0, z = 1, z' >= 0
   cond1(z, z', z'') -{ 23 + 5*z' + 3*z'' }-> s' :|: s' >= 0, s' <= 0, z = 1, z' >= 0, z'' - 1 >= 0
   cond2(z, z', z'') -{ 24 + 5*z' }-> s'' :|: s'' >= 0, s'' <= 0, z'' = 0, z = 1, z' >= 0
   cond2(z, z', z'') -{ 21 + 5*z' + 3*z'' }-> s1 :|: s1 >= 0, s1 <= 0, z = 1, z' >= 0, z'' - 1 >= 0
   cond2(z, z', z'') -{ 26 + 3*z'' }-> s2 :|: s2 >= 0, s2 <= 0, z'' >= 0, z = 0, z' = 0
   cond2(z, z', z'') -{ 21 + 5*z' + 3*z'' }-> s3 :|: s3 >= 0, s3 <= 0, z' - 1 >= 0, z'' >= 0, z = 0
   gr(z, z') -{ 1 }-> gr(z - 1, z' - 1) :|: z - 1 >= 0, z' - 1 >= 0
   gr(z, z') -{ 1 }-> 1 :|: z - 1 >= 0, z' = 0
   gr(z, z') -{ 1 }-> 0 :|: z' >= 0, z = 0
   p(z) -{ 1 }-> 0 :|: z = 0
   p(z) -{ 1 }-> z - 1 :|: z - 1 >= 0

Function symbols to be analyzed: {p}, {gr}
Previous analysis results are:
  cond2: runtime: O(n^1) [21 + 5*z' + 3*z''], size: O(1) [0]
  cond1: runtime: O(n^1) [23 + 5*z' + 3*z''], size: O(1) [0]
  p: runtime: ?, size: O(n^1) [z]

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

(25) IntTrsBoundProof (UPPER BOUND(ID))

Computed RUNTIME bound using CoFloCo for: p
after applying outer abstraction to obtain an ITS,
resulting in: O(1) with polynomial bound: 1

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

(26)
Obligation:
Complexity RNTS consisting of the following rules:

   cond1(z, z', z'') -{ 23 + 5*z' }-> s :|: s >= 0, s <= 0, z'' = 0, z = 1, z' >= 0
   cond1(z, z', z'') -{ 23 + 5*z' + 3*z'' }-> s' :|: s' >= 0, s' <= 0, z = 1, z' >= 0, z'' - 1 >= 0
   cond2(z, z', z'') -{ 24 + 5*z' }-> s'' :|: s'' >= 0, s'' <= 0, z'' = 0, z = 1, z' >= 0
   cond2(z, z', z'') -{ 21 + 5*z' + 3*z'' }-> s1 :|: s1 >= 0, s1 <= 0, z = 1, z' >= 0, z'' - 1 >= 0
   cond2(z, z', z'') -{ 26 + 3*z'' }-> s2 :|: s2 >= 0, s2 <= 0, z'' >= 0, z = 0, z' = 0
   cond2(z, z', z'') -{ 21 + 5*z' + 3*z'' }-> s3 :|: s3 >= 0, s3 <= 0, z' - 1 >= 0, z'' >= 0, z = 0
   gr(z, z') -{ 1 }-> gr(z - 1, z' - 1) :|: z - 1 >= 0, z' - 1 >= 0
   gr(z, z') -{ 1 }-> 1 :|: z - 1 >= 0, z' = 0
   gr(z, z') -{ 1 }-> 0 :|: z' >= 0, z = 0
   p(z) -{ 1 }-> 0 :|: z = 0
   p(z) -{ 1 }-> z - 1 :|: z - 1 >= 0

Function symbols to be analyzed: {gr}
Previous analysis results are:
  cond2: runtime: O(n^1) [21 + 5*z' + 3*z''], size: O(1) [0]
  cond1: runtime: O(n^1) [23 + 5*z' + 3*z''], size: O(1) [0]
  p: runtime: O(1) [1], size: O(n^1) [z]

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

(27) ResultPropagationProof (UPPER BOUND(ID))
Applied inner abstraction using the recently inferred runtime/size bounds where possible.
----------------------------------------

(28)
Obligation:
Complexity RNTS consisting of the following rules:

   cond1(z, z', z'') -{ 23 + 5*z' }-> s :|: s >= 0, s <= 0, z'' = 0, z = 1, z' >= 0
   cond1(z, z', z'') -{ 23 + 5*z' + 3*z'' }-> s' :|: s' >= 0, s' <= 0, z = 1, z' >= 0, z'' - 1 >= 0
   cond2(z, z', z'') -{ 24 + 5*z' }-> s'' :|: s'' >= 0, s'' <= 0, z'' = 0, z = 1, z' >= 0
   cond2(z, z', z'') -{ 21 + 5*z' + 3*z'' }-> s1 :|: s1 >= 0, s1 <= 0, z = 1, z' >= 0, z'' - 1 >= 0
   cond2(z, z', z'') -{ 26 + 3*z'' }-> s2 :|: s2 >= 0, s2 <= 0, z'' >= 0, z = 0, z' = 0
   cond2(z, z', z'') -{ 21 + 5*z' + 3*z'' }-> s3 :|: s3 >= 0, s3 <= 0, z' - 1 >= 0, z'' >= 0, z = 0
   gr(z, z') -{ 1 }-> gr(z - 1, z' - 1) :|: z - 1 >= 0, z' - 1 >= 0
   gr(z, z') -{ 1 }-> 1 :|: z - 1 >= 0, z' = 0
   gr(z, z') -{ 1 }-> 0 :|: z' >= 0, z = 0
   p(z) -{ 1 }-> 0 :|: z = 0
   p(z) -{ 1 }-> z - 1 :|: z - 1 >= 0

Function symbols to be analyzed: {gr}
Previous analysis results are:
  cond2: runtime: O(n^1) [21 + 5*z' + 3*z''], size: O(1) [0]
  cond1: runtime: O(n^1) [23 + 5*z' + 3*z''], size: O(1) [0]
  p: runtime: O(1) [1], size: O(n^1) [z]

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

(29) IntTrsBoundProof (UPPER BOUND(ID))

Computed SIZE bound using CoFloCo for: gr
after applying outer abstraction to obtain an ITS,
resulting in: O(1) with polynomial bound: 1

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

(30)
Obligation:
Complexity RNTS consisting of the following rules:

   cond1(z, z', z'') -{ 23 + 5*z' }-> s :|: s >= 0, s <= 0, z'' = 0, z = 1, z' >= 0
   cond1(z, z', z'') -{ 23 + 5*z' + 3*z'' }-> s' :|: s' >= 0, s' <= 0, z = 1, z' >= 0, z'' - 1 >= 0
   cond2(z, z', z'') -{ 24 + 5*z' }-> s'' :|: s'' >= 0, s'' <= 0, z'' = 0, z = 1, z' >= 0
   cond2(z, z', z'') -{ 21 + 5*z' + 3*z'' }-> s1 :|: s1 >= 0, s1 <= 0, z = 1, z' >= 0, z'' - 1 >= 0
   cond2(z, z', z'') -{ 26 + 3*z'' }-> s2 :|: s2 >= 0, s2 <= 0, z'' >= 0, z = 0, z' = 0
   cond2(z, z', z'') -{ 21 + 5*z' + 3*z'' }-> s3 :|: s3 >= 0, s3 <= 0, z' - 1 >= 0, z'' >= 0, z = 0
   gr(z, z') -{ 1 }-> gr(z - 1, z' - 1) :|: z - 1 >= 0, z' - 1 >= 0
   gr(z, z') -{ 1 }-> 1 :|: z - 1 >= 0, z' = 0
   gr(z, z') -{ 1 }-> 0 :|: z' >= 0, z = 0
   p(z) -{ 1 }-> 0 :|: z = 0
   p(z) -{ 1 }-> z - 1 :|: z - 1 >= 0

Function symbols to be analyzed: {gr}
Previous analysis results are:
  cond2: runtime: O(n^1) [21 + 5*z' + 3*z''], size: O(1) [0]
  cond1: runtime: O(n^1) [23 + 5*z' + 3*z''], size: O(1) [0]
  p: runtime: O(1) [1], size: O(n^1) [z]
  gr: runtime: ?, size: O(1) [1]

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

(31) IntTrsBoundProof (UPPER BOUND(ID))

Computed RUNTIME bound using KoAT for: gr
after applying outer abstraction to obtain an ITS,
resulting in: O(n^1) with polynomial bound: 2 + z'

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

(32)
Obligation:
Complexity RNTS consisting of the following rules:

   cond1(z, z', z'') -{ 23 + 5*z' }-> s :|: s >= 0, s <= 0, z'' = 0, z = 1, z' >= 0
   cond1(z, z', z'') -{ 23 + 5*z' + 3*z'' }-> s' :|: s' >= 0, s' <= 0, z = 1, z' >= 0, z'' - 1 >= 0
   cond2(z, z', z'') -{ 24 + 5*z' }-> s'' :|: s'' >= 0, s'' <= 0, z'' = 0, z = 1, z' >= 0
   cond2(z, z', z'') -{ 21 + 5*z' + 3*z'' }-> s1 :|: s1 >= 0, s1 <= 0, z = 1, z' >= 0, z'' - 1 >= 0
   cond2(z, z', z'') -{ 26 + 3*z'' }-> s2 :|: s2 >= 0, s2 <= 0, z'' >= 0, z = 0, z' = 0
   cond2(z, z', z'') -{ 21 + 5*z' + 3*z'' }-> s3 :|: s3 >= 0, s3 <= 0, z' - 1 >= 0, z'' >= 0, z = 0
   gr(z, z') -{ 1 }-> gr(z - 1, z' - 1) :|: z - 1 >= 0, z' - 1 >= 0
   gr(z, z') -{ 1 }-> 1 :|: z - 1 >= 0, z' = 0
   gr(z, z') -{ 1 }-> 0 :|: z' >= 0, z = 0
   p(z) -{ 1 }-> 0 :|: z = 0
   p(z) -{ 1 }-> z - 1 :|: z - 1 >= 0

Function symbols to be analyzed: 
Previous analysis results are:
  cond2: runtime: O(n^1) [21 + 5*z' + 3*z''], size: O(1) [0]
  cond1: runtime: O(n^1) [23 + 5*z' + 3*z''], size: O(1) [0]
  p: runtime: O(1) [1], size: O(n^1) [z]
  gr: runtime: O(n^1) [2 + z'], size: O(1) [1]

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

(33) FinalProof (FINISHED)
Computed overall runtime complexity
----------------------------------------

(34)
BOUNDS(1, n^1)

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

(35) RelTrsToDecreasingLoopProblemProof (LOWER BOUND(ID))
Transformed a relative TRS into a decreasing-loop problem.
----------------------------------------

(36)
Obligation:
Analyzing the following TRS for decreasing loops:

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


The TRS R consists of the following rules:

   cond1(true, x, y) -> cond2(gr(y, 0), x, y)
   cond2(true, x, y) -> cond2(gr(y, 0), x, p(y))
   cond2(false, x, y) -> cond1(gr(x, 0), p(x), y)
   gr(0, x) -> false
   gr(s(x), 0) -> true
   gr(s(x), s(y)) -> gr(x, y)
   p(0) -> 0
   p(s(x)) -> x

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

(37) DecreasingLoopProof (LOWER BOUND(ID))
The following loop(s) give(s) rise to the lower bound Omega(n^1):

The rewrite sequence

gr(s(x), s(y)) ->^+ gr(x, y)

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

The pumping substitution is [x / s(x), y / s(y)].

The result substitution is [ ].




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

(38)
Complex Obligation (BEST)

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

(39)
Obligation:
Proved the lower bound n^1 for the following obligation:

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


The TRS R consists of the following rules:

   cond1(true, x, y) -> cond2(gr(y, 0), x, y)
   cond2(true, x, y) -> cond2(gr(y, 0), x, p(y))
   cond2(false, x, y) -> cond1(gr(x, 0), p(x), y)
   gr(0, x) -> false
   gr(s(x), 0) -> true
   gr(s(x), s(y)) -> gr(x, y)
   p(0) -> 0
   p(s(x)) -> x

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

(40) LowerBoundPropagationProof (FINISHED)
Propagated lower bound.
----------------------------------------

(41)
BOUNDS(n^1, INF)

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

(42)
Obligation:
Analyzing the following TRS for decreasing loops:

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


The TRS R consists of the following rules:

   cond1(true, x, y) -> cond2(gr(y, 0), x, y)
   cond2(true, x, y) -> cond2(gr(y, 0), x, p(y))
   cond2(false, x, y) -> cond1(gr(x, 0), p(x), y)
   gr(0, x) -> false
   gr(s(x), 0) -> true
   gr(s(x), s(y)) -> gr(x, y)
   p(0) -> 0
   p(s(x)) -> x

S is empty.
Rewrite Strategy: INNERMOST