/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# AProVE Commit ID: 794c25de1cacf0d048858bcd21c9a779e1221865 marcel 20200619 unpublished dirty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) RelTrsToTrsProof [UPPER BOUND(ID), 0 ms]
(2) CpxTRS
    (3) CpxTrsMatchBoundsTAProof [FINISHED, 0 ms]
    (4) BOUNDS(1, n^1)
(5) RenamingProof [BOTH BOUNDS(ID, ID), 0 ms]
(6) CpxTRS
    (7) TypeInferenceProof [BOTH BOUNDS(ID, ID), 0 ms]
    (8) typed CpxTrs
    (9) OrderProof [LOWER BOUND(ID), 0 ms]
    (10) typed CpxTrs
    (11) RewriteLemmaProof [LOWER BOUND(ID), 307 ms]
    (12) proven lower bound
    (13) LowerBoundPropagationProof [FINISHED, 0 ms]
    (14) BOUNDS(n^1, INF)


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

(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:

   +(0, y) -> y
   +(s(x), y) -> s(+(x, y))
   +(s(x), y) -> +(x, s(y))

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

(1) RelTrsToTrsProof (UPPER BOUND(ID))
transformed relative TRS to TRS
----------------------------------------

(2)
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:

   +(0, y) -> y
   +(s(x), y) -> s(+(x, y))
   +(s(x), y) -> +(x, s(y))

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

(3) 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 1. 

The compatible tree automaton used to show the Match-Boundedness (for constructor-based start-terms) is represented by: 
final states : [1]
transitions: 
00() -> 0
s0(0) -> 0
+0(0, 0) -> 1
+1(0, 0) -> 2
s1(2) -> 1
s1(0) -> 3
+1(0, 3) -> 1
+1(0, 3) -> 2
s1(2) -> 2
s1(3) -> 3
0 -> 1
0 -> 2
3 -> 1
3 -> 2

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

(4)
BOUNDS(1, n^1)

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

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

(6)
Obligation:
The Runtime Complexity (innermost) of the given CpxTRS could be proven to be BOUNDS(n^1, INF).


The TRS R consists of the following rules:

   +'(0', y) -> y
   +'(s(x), y) -> s(+'(x, y))
   +'(s(x), y) -> +'(x, s(y))

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

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

(8)
Obligation:
Innermost TRS:
Rules:
+'(0', y) -> y
+'(s(x), y) -> s(+'(x, y))
+'(s(x), y) -> +'(x, s(y))

Types:
+' :: 0':s -> 0':s -> 0':s
0' :: 0':s
s :: 0':s -> 0':s
hole_0':s1_0 :: 0':s
gen_0':s2_0 :: Nat -> 0':s

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

(9) OrderProof (LOWER BOUND(ID))
Heuristically decided to analyse the following defined symbols:
+'
----------------------------------------

(10)
Obligation:
Innermost TRS:
Rules:
+'(0', y) -> y
+'(s(x), y) -> s(+'(x, y))
+'(s(x), y) -> +'(x, s(y))

Types:
+' :: 0':s -> 0':s -> 0':s
0' :: 0':s
s :: 0':s -> 0':s
hole_0':s1_0 :: 0':s
gen_0':s2_0 :: Nat -> 0':s


Generator Equations:
gen_0':s2_0(0) <=> 0'
gen_0':s2_0(+(x, 1)) <=> s(gen_0':s2_0(x))


The following defined symbols remain to be analysed:
+'
----------------------------------------

(11) RewriteLemmaProof (LOWER BOUND(ID))
Proved the following rewrite lemma:
+'(gen_0':s2_0(n4_0), gen_0':s2_0(b)) -> gen_0':s2_0(+(n4_0, b)), rt in Omega(1 + n4_0)

Induction Base:
+'(gen_0':s2_0(0), gen_0':s2_0(b)) ->_R^Omega(1)
gen_0':s2_0(b)

Induction Step:
+'(gen_0':s2_0(+(n4_0, 1)), gen_0':s2_0(b)) ->_R^Omega(1)
s(+'(gen_0':s2_0(n4_0), gen_0':s2_0(b))) ->_IH
s(gen_0':s2_0(+(b, c5_0)))

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

(12)
Obligation:
Proved the lower bound n^1 for the following obligation:

Innermost TRS:
Rules:
+'(0', y) -> y
+'(s(x), y) -> s(+'(x, y))
+'(s(x), y) -> +'(x, s(y))

Types:
+' :: 0':s -> 0':s -> 0':s
0' :: 0':s
s :: 0':s -> 0':s
hole_0':s1_0 :: 0':s
gen_0':s2_0 :: Nat -> 0':s


Generator Equations:
gen_0':s2_0(0) <=> 0'
gen_0':s2_0(+(x, 1)) <=> s(gen_0':s2_0(x))


The following defined symbols remain to be analysed:
+'
----------------------------------------

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

(14)
BOUNDS(n^1, INF)