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


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


WORST_CASE(NON_POLY, ?)
proof of /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.xml
# AProVE Commit ID: 794c25de1cacf0d048858bcd21c9a779e1221865 marcel 20200619 unpublished dirty


The Runtime Complexity (full) of the given CpxTRS could be proven to be BOUNDS(INF, INF).

(0) CpxTRS
(1) RelTrsToDecreasingLoopProblemProof [LOWER BOUND(ID), 0 ms]
(2) TRS for Loop Detection
(3) DecreasingLoopProof [LOWER BOUND(ID), 0 ms]
(4) BEST
    (5) proven lower bound
        (6) LowerBoundPropagationProof [FINISHED, 0 ms]
        (7) BOUNDS(n^1, INF)
    (8) TRS for Loop Detection
        (9) InfiniteLowerBoundProof [FINISHED, 0 ms]
        (10) BOUNDS(INF, INF)


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

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


The TRS R consists of the following rules:

   f(g(X), Y) -> f(X, n__f(g(X), activate(Y)))
   f(X1, X2) -> n__f(X1, X2)
   activate(n__f(X1, X2)) -> f(X1, X2)
   activate(X) -> X

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

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

(2)
Obligation:
Analyzing the following TRS for decreasing loops:

The Runtime Complexity (full) of the given CpxTRS could be proven to be BOUNDS(INF, INF).


The TRS R consists of the following rules:

   f(g(X), Y) -> f(X, n__f(g(X), activate(Y)))
   f(X1, X2) -> n__f(X1, X2)
   activate(n__f(X1, X2)) -> f(X1, X2)
   activate(X) -> X

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

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

The rewrite sequence

f(g(X), Y) ->^+ f(X, n__f(g(X), activate(Y)))

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

The pumping substitution is [X / g(X)].

The result substitution is [Y / n__f(g(X), activate(Y))].




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

(4)
Complex Obligation (BEST)

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

(5)
Obligation:
Proved the lower bound n^1 for the following obligation:

The Runtime Complexity (full) of the given CpxTRS could be proven to be BOUNDS(INF, INF).


The TRS R consists of the following rules:

   f(g(X), Y) -> f(X, n__f(g(X), activate(Y)))
   f(X1, X2) -> n__f(X1, X2)
   activate(n__f(X1, X2)) -> f(X1, X2)
   activate(X) -> X

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

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

(7)
BOUNDS(n^1, INF)

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

(8)
Obligation:
Analyzing the following TRS for decreasing loops:

The Runtime Complexity (full) of the given CpxTRS could be proven to be BOUNDS(INF, INF).


The TRS R consists of the following rules:

   f(g(X), Y) -> f(X, n__f(g(X), activate(Y)))
   f(X1, X2) -> n__f(X1, X2)
   activate(n__f(X1, X2)) -> f(X1, X2)
   activate(X) -> X

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

(9) InfiniteLowerBoundProof (FINISHED)
The following loop proves infinite runtime complexity:

The rewrite sequence

f(g(g(X1_0)), Y) ->^+ f(X1_0, n__f(g(X1_0), f(g(g(X1_0)), activate(Y))))

gives rise to a decreasing loop by considering the right hand sides subterm at position [1,1].

The pumping substitution is [ ].

The result substitution is [Y / activate(Y)].




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

(10)
BOUNDS(INF, INF)