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


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


WORST_CASE(NON_POLY, ?)
proof of /export/starexec/sandbox2/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# AProVE Commit ID: 794c25de1cacf0d048858bcd21c9a779e1221865 marcel 20200619 unpublished dirty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(EXP, INF).

(0) CpxTRS
(1) RenamingProof [BOTH BOUNDS(ID, ID), 0 ms]
(2) CpxTRS
(3) SlicingProof [LOWER BOUND(ID), 0 ms]
(4) CpxTRS
(5) TypeInferenceProof [BOTH BOUNDS(ID, ID), 0 ms]
(6) typed CpxTrs
(7) OrderProof [LOWER BOUND(ID), 0 ms]
(8) typed CpxTrs
(9) RewriteLemmaProof [LOWER BOUND(ID), 191 ms]
(10) BEST
    (11) proven lower bound
        (12) LowerBoundPropagationProof [FINISHED, 0 ms]
        (13) BOUNDS(n^1, INF)
    (14) typed CpxTrs
        (15) RewriteLemmaProof [FINISHED, 219 ms]
        (16) BOUNDS(EXP, INF)


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

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


The TRS R consists of the following rules:

   rev(nil) -> nil
   rev(cons(x, l)) -> cons(rev1(x, l), rev2(x, l))
   rev1(0, nil) -> 0
   rev1(s(x), nil) -> s(x)
   rev1(x, cons(y, l)) -> rev1(y, l)
   rev2(x, nil) -> nil
   rev2(x, cons(y, l)) -> rev(cons(x, rev2(y, l)))

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

(1) RenamingProof (BOTH BOUNDS(ID, ID))
Renamed function symbols to avoid clashes with predefined symbol.
----------------------------------------

(2)
Obligation:
The Runtime Complexity (innermost) of the given CpxTRS could be proven to be BOUNDS(EXP, INF).


The TRS R consists of the following rules:

   rev(nil) -> nil
   rev(cons(x, l)) -> cons(rev1(x, l), rev2(x, l))
   rev1(0', nil) -> 0'
   rev1(s(x), nil) -> s(x)
   rev1(x, cons(y, l)) -> rev1(y, l)
   rev2(x, nil) -> nil
   rev2(x, cons(y, l)) -> rev(cons(x, rev2(y, l)))

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

(3) SlicingProof (LOWER BOUND(ID))
Sliced the following arguments:
s/0

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

(4)
Obligation:
The Runtime Complexity (innermost) of the given CpxTRS could be proven to be BOUNDS(EXP, INF).


The TRS R consists of the following rules:

   rev(nil) -> nil
   rev(cons(x, l)) -> cons(rev1(x, l), rev2(x, l))
   rev1(0', nil) -> 0'
   rev1(s, nil) -> s
   rev1(x, cons(y, l)) -> rev1(y, l)
   rev2(x, nil) -> nil
   rev2(x, cons(y, l)) -> rev(cons(x, rev2(y, l)))

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

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

(6)
Obligation:
Innermost TRS:
Rules:
rev(nil) -> nil
rev(cons(x, l)) -> cons(rev1(x, l), rev2(x, l))
rev1(0', nil) -> 0'
rev1(s, nil) -> s
rev1(x, cons(y, l)) -> rev1(y, l)
rev2(x, nil) -> nil
rev2(x, cons(y, l)) -> rev(cons(x, rev2(y, l)))

Types:
rev :: nil:cons -> nil:cons
nil :: nil:cons
cons :: 0':s -> nil:cons -> nil:cons
rev1 :: 0':s -> nil:cons -> 0':s
rev2 :: 0':s -> nil:cons -> nil:cons
0' :: 0':s
s :: 0':s
hole_nil:cons1_0 :: nil:cons
hole_0':s2_0 :: 0':s
gen_nil:cons3_0 :: Nat -> nil:cons

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

(7) OrderProof (LOWER BOUND(ID))
Heuristically decided to analyse the following defined symbols:
rev, rev1, rev2

They will be analysed ascendingly in the following order:
rev1 < rev
rev = rev2

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

(8)
Obligation:
Innermost TRS:
Rules:
rev(nil) -> nil
rev(cons(x, l)) -> cons(rev1(x, l), rev2(x, l))
rev1(0', nil) -> 0'
rev1(s, nil) -> s
rev1(x, cons(y, l)) -> rev1(y, l)
rev2(x, nil) -> nil
rev2(x, cons(y, l)) -> rev(cons(x, rev2(y, l)))

Types:
rev :: nil:cons -> nil:cons
nil :: nil:cons
cons :: 0':s -> nil:cons -> nil:cons
rev1 :: 0':s -> nil:cons -> 0':s
rev2 :: 0':s -> nil:cons -> nil:cons
0' :: 0':s
s :: 0':s
hole_nil:cons1_0 :: nil:cons
hole_0':s2_0 :: 0':s
gen_nil:cons3_0 :: Nat -> nil:cons


Generator Equations:
gen_nil:cons3_0(0) <=> nil
gen_nil:cons3_0(+(x, 1)) <=> cons(0', gen_nil:cons3_0(x))


The following defined symbols remain to be analysed:
rev1, rev, rev2

They will be analysed ascendingly in the following order:
rev1 < rev
rev = rev2

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

(9) RewriteLemmaProof (LOWER BOUND(ID))
Proved the following rewrite lemma:
rev1(0', gen_nil:cons3_0(n5_0)) -> 0', rt in Omega(1 + n5_0)

Induction Base:
rev1(0', gen_nil:cons3_0(0)) ->_R^Omega(1)
0'

Induction Step:
rev1(0', gen_nil:cons3_0(+(n5_0, 1))) ->_R^Omega(1)
rev1(0', gen_nil:cons3_0(n5_0)) ->_IH
0'

We have rt in Omega(n^1) and sz in O(n). Thus, we have irc_R in Omega(n).
----------------------------------------

(10)
Complex Obligation (BEST)

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

(11)
Obligation:
Proved the lower bound n^1 for the following obligation:

Innermost TRS:
Rules:
rev(nil) -> nil
rev(cons(x, l)) -> cons(rev1(x, l), rev2(x, l))
rev1(0', nil) -> 0'
rev1(s, nil) -> s
rev1(x, cons(y, l)) -> rev1(y, l)
rev2(x, nil) -> nil
rev2(x, cons(y, l)) -> rev(cons(x, rev2(y, l)))

Types:
rev :: nil:cons -> nil:cons
nil :: nil:cons
cons :: 0':s -> nil:cons -> nil:cons
rev1 :: 0':s -> nil:cons -> 0':s
rev2 :: 0':s -> nil:cons -> nil:cons
0' :: 0':s
s :: 0':s
hole_nil:cons1_0 :: nil:cons
hole_0':s2_0 :: 0':s
gen_nil:cons3_0 :: Nat -> nil:cons


Generator Equations:
gen_nil:cons3_0(0) <=> nil
gen_nil:cons3_0(+(x, 1)) <=> cons(0', gen_nil:cons3_0(x))


The following defined symbols remain to be analysed:
rev1, rev, rev2

They will be analysed ascendingly in the following order:
rev1 < rev
rev = rev2

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

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

(13)
BOUNDS(n^1, INF)

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

(14)
Obligation:
Innermost TRS:
Rules:
rev(nil) -> nil
rev(cons(x, l)) -> cons(rev1(x, l), rev2(x, l))
rev1(0', nil) -> 0'
rev1(s, nil) -> s
rev1(x, cons(y, l)) -> rev1(y, l)
rev2(x, nil) -> nil
rev2(x, cons(y, l)) -> rev(cons(x, rev2(y, l)))

Types:
rev :: nil:cons -> nil:cons
nil :: nil:cons
cons :: 0':s -> nil:cons -> nil:cons
rev1 :: 0':s -> nil:cons -> 0':s
rev2 :: 0':s -> nil:cons -> nil:cons
0' :: 0':s
s :: 0':s
hole_nil:cons1_0 :: nil:cons
hole_0':s2_0 :: 0':s
gen_nil:cons3_0 :: Nat -> nil:cons


Lemmas:
rev1(0', gen_nil:cons3_0(n5_0)) -> 0', rt in Omega(1 + n5_0)


Generator Equations:
gen_nil:cons3_0(0) <=> nil
gen_nil:cons3_0(+(x, 1)) <=> cons(0', gen_nil:cons3_0(x))


The following defined symbols remain to be analysed:
rev2, rev

They will be analysed ascendingly in the following order:
rev = rev2

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

(15) RewriteLemmaProof (FINISHED)
Proved the following rewrite lemma:
rev2(0', gen_nil:cons3_0(n203_0)) -> gen_nil:cons3_0(n203_0), rt in Omega(EXP)

Induction Base:
rev2(0', gen_nil:cons3_0(0)) ->_R^Omega(1)
nil

Induction Step:
rev2(0', gen_nil:cons3_0(+(n203_0, 1))) ->_R^Omega(1)
rev(cons(0', rev2(0', gen_nil:cons3_0(n203_0)))) ->_IH
rev(cons(0', gen_nil:cons3_0(c204_0))) ->_R^Omega(1)
cons(rev1(0', gen_nil:cons3_0(n203_0)), rev2(0', gen_nil:cons3_0(n203_0))) ->_L^Omega(1 + n203_0)
cons(0', rev2(0', gen_nil:cons3_0(n203_0))) ->_IH
cons(0', gen_nil:cons3_0(c204_0))

We have rt in EXP and sz in O(n). Thus, we have irc_R in EXP
----------------------------------------

(16)
BOUNDS(EXP, INF)