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


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


WORST_CASE(Omega(n^1),O(n^1))
* Step 1: Sum.  WORST_CASE(Omega(n^1),O(n^1))
    + Considered Problem:
        - Strict TRS:
            +(0(),y) -> y
            +(s(x),y) -> +(x,s(y))
            +(s(x),y) -> s(+(x,y))
        - Signature:
            {+/2} / {0/0,s/1}
        - Obligation:
            innermost runtime complexity wrt. defined symbols {+} and constructors {0,s}
    + Applied Processor:
        Sum {left = someStrategy, right = someStrategy}
    + Details:
        ()
** Step 1.a:1: Sum.  WORST_CASE(Omega(n^1),?)
    + Considered Problem:
        - Strict TRS:
            +(0(),y) -> y
            +(s(x),y) -> +(x,s(y))
            +(s(x),y) -> s(+(x,y))
        - Signature:
            {+/2} / {0/0,s/1}
        - Obligation:
            innermost runtime complexity wrt. defined symbols {+} and constructors {0,s}
    + Applied Processor:
        Sum {left = someStrategy, right = someStrategy}
    + Details:
        ()
*** Step 1.a:1.a:1: Ara.  MAYBE
    + Considered Problem:
        - Strict TRS:
            +(0(),y) -> y
            +(s(x),y) -> +(x,s(y))
            +(s(x),y) -> s(+(x,y))
        - Signature:
            {+/2} / {0/0,s/1}
        - Obligation:
            innermost runtime complexity wrt. defined symbols {+} and constructors {0,s}
    + Applied Processor:
        Ara {minDegree = 1, maxDegree = 3, araTimeout = 15, araRuleShifting = Just 1, isBestCase = True, mkCompletelyDefined = False, verboseOutput = False}
    + Details:
        Signatures used:
        ----------------
          F (TrsFun "+") :: ["A"(1) x "A"(0)] -(1)-> "A"(0)
          F (TrsFun "0") :: [] -(0)-> "A"(1)
          F (TrsFun "main") :: ["A"(1) x "A"(0)] -(1)-> "A"(0)
          F (TrsFun "s") :: ["A"(1)] -(1)-> "A"(1)
          F (TrsFun "s") :: ["A"(0)] -(0)-> "A"(0)
        
        
        Cost-free Signatures used:
        --------------------------
        
        
        
        Base Constructor Signatures used:
        ---------------------------------
        
        
        
        Following Still Strict Rules were Typed as:
        -------------------------------------------
        1. Strict:
          +(0(),y) -> y
          +(s(x),y) -> +(x,s(y))
          +(s(x),y) -> s(+(x,y))
          main(x1,x2) -> +(x1,x2)
        2. Weak:
          
        

*** Step 1.a:1.b:1: DecreasingLoops.  WORST_CASE(Omega(n^1),?)
    + Considered Problem:
        - Strict TRS:
            +(0(),y) -> y
            +(s(x),y) -> +(x,s(y))
            +(s(x),y) -> s(+(x,y))
        - Signature:
            {+/2} / {0/0,s/1}
        - Obligation:
            innermost runtime complexity wrt. defined symbols {+} and constructors {0,s}
    + Applied Processor:
        DecreasingLoops {bound = AnyLoop, narrow = 10}
    + Details:
        The system has following decreasing Loops:
          +(x,y){x -> s(x)} =
            +(s(x),y) ->^+ +(x,s(y))
              = C[+(x,s(y)) = +(x,y){y -> s(y)}]

** Step 1.b:1: NaturalMI.  WORST_CASE(?,O(n^1))
    + Considered Problem:
        - Strict TRS:
            +(0(),y) -> y
            +(s(x),y) -> +(x,s(y))
            +(s(x),y) -> s(+(x,y))
        - Signature:
            {+/2} / {0/0,s/1}
        - Obligation:
            innermost runtime complexity wrt. defined symbols {+} and constructors {0,s}
    + 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(s) = {1}
        
        Following symbols are considered usable:
          {+}
        TcT has computed the following interpretation:
          p(+) = [4] x1 + [2] x2 + [2]
          p(0) = [4]                  
          p(s) = [1] x1 + [2]         
        
        Following rules are strictly oriented:
         +(0(),y) = [2] y + [18]        
                  > [1] y + [0]         
                  = y                   
        
        +(s(x),y) = [4] x + [2] y + [10]
                  > [4] x + [2] y + [6] 
                  = +(x,s(y))           
        
        +(s(x),y) = [4] x + [2] y + [10]
                  > [4] x + [2] y + [4] 
                  = s(+(x,y))           
        
        
        Following rules are (at-least) weakly oriented:
        
** Step 1.b:2: EmptyProcessor.  WORST_CASE(?,O(1))
    + Considered Problem:
        - Weak TRS:
            +(0(),y) -> y
            +(s(x),y) -> +(x,s(y))
            +(s(x),y) -> s(+(x,y))
        - Signature:
            {+/2} / {0/0,s/1}
        - Obligation:
            innermost runtime complexity wrt. defined symbols {+} and constructors {0,s}
    + Applied Processor:
        EmptyProcessor
    + Details:
        The problem is already closed. The intended complexity is O(1).

WORST_CASE(Omega(n^1),O(n^1))