/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# AProVE Commit ID: 794c25de1cacf0d048858bcd21c9a779e1221865 marcel 20200619 unpublished dirty The Runtime Complexity (full) of the given CpxTRS could be proven to be BOUNDS(EXP, INF).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) DecreasingLoopProof [FINISHED, 23 ms] (10) BOUNDS(EXP, INF) ---------------------------------------- (0) Obligation: The Runtime Complexity (full) of the given CpxTRS could be proven to be BOUNDS(EXP, INF). The TRS R consists of the following rules: fact(X) -> if(zero(X), n__s(n__0), n__prod(X, n__fact(n__p(X)))) add(0, X) -> X add(s(X), Y) -> s(add(X, Y)) prod(0, X) -> 0 prod(s(X), Y) -> add(Y, prod(X, Y)) if(true, X, Y) -> activate(X) if(false, X, Y) -> activate(Y) zero(0) -> true zero(s(X)) -> false p(s(X)) -> X s(X) -> n__s(X) 0 -> n__0 prod(X1, X2) -> n__prod(X1, X2) fact(X) -> n__fact(X) p(X) -> n__p(X) activate(n__s(X)) -> s(activate(X)) activate(n__0) -> 0 activate(n__prod(X1, X2)) -> prod(activate(X1), activate(X2)) activate(n__fact(X)) -> fact(activate(X)) activate(n__p(X)) -> p(activate(X)) 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(EXP, INF). The TRS R consists of the following rules: fact(X) -> if(zero(X), n__s(n__0), n__prod(X, n__fact(n__p(X)))) add(0, X) -> X add(s(X), Y) -> s(add(X, Y)) prod(0, X) -> 0 prod(s(X), Y) -> add(Y, prod(X, Y)) if(true, X, Y) -> activate(X) if(false, X, Y) -> activate(Y) zero(0) -> true zero(s(X)) -> false p(s(X)) -> X s(X) -> n__s(X) 0 -> n__0 prod(X1, X2) -> n__prod(X1, X2) fact(X) -> n__fact(X) p(X) -> n__p(X) activate(n__s(X)) -> s(activate(X)) activate(n__0) -> 0 activate(n__prod(X1, X2)) -> prod(activate(X1), activate(X2)) activate(n__fact(X)) -> fact(activate(X)) activate(n__p(X)) -> p(activate(X)) 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 activate(n__p(X)) ->^+ p(activate(X)) gives rise to a decreasing loop by considering the right hand sides subterm at position [0]. The pumping substitution is [X / n__p(X)]. The result substitution is [ ]. ---------------------------------------- (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(EXP, INF). The TRS R consists of the following rules: fact(X) -> if(zero(X), n__s(n__0), n__prod(X, n__fact(n__p(X)))) add(0, X) -> X add(s(X), Y) -> s(add(X, Y)) prod(0, X) -> 0 prod(s(X), Y) -> add(Y, prod(X, Y)) if(true, X, Y) -> activate(X) if(false, X, Y) -> activate(Y) zero(0) -> true zero(s(X)) -> false p(s(X)) -> X s(X) -> n__s(X) 0 -> n__0 prod(X1, X2) -> n__prod(X1, X2) fact(X) -> n__fact(X) p(X) -> n__p(X) activate(n__s(X)) -> s(activate(X)) activate(n__0) -> 0 activate(n__prod(X1, X2)) -> prod(activate(X1), activate(X2)) activate(n__fact(X)) -> fact(activate(X)) activate(n__p(X)) -> p(activate(X)) 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(EXP, INF). The TRS R consists of the following rules: fact(X) -> if(zero(X), n__s(n__0), n__prod(X, n__fact(n__p(X)))) add(0, X) -> X add(s(X), Y) -> s(add(X, Y)) prod(0, X) -> 0 prod(s(X), Y) -> add(Y, prod(X, Y)) if(true, X, Y) -> activate(X) if(false, X, Y) -> activate(Y) zero(0) -> true zero(s(X)) -> false p(s(X)) -> X s(X) -> n__s(X) 0 -> n__0 prod(X1, X2) -> n__prod(X1, X2) fact(X) -> n__fact(X) p(X) -> n__p(X) activate(n__s(X)) -> s(activate(X)) activate(n__0) -> 0 activate(n__prod(X1, X2)) -> prod(activate(X1), activate(X2)) activate(n__fact(X)) -> fact(activate(X)) activate(n__p(X)) -> p(activate(X)) activate(X) -> X S is empty. Rewrite Strategy: FULL ---------------------------------------- (9) DecreasingLoopProof (FINISHED) The following loop(s) give(s) rise to the lower bound EXP: The rewrite sequence activate(n__fact(X)) ->^+ if(zero(activate(X)), n__s(n__0), n__prod(activate(X), n__fact(n__p(activate(X))))) gives rise to a decreasing loop by considering the right hand sides subterm at position [0,0]. The pumping substitution is [X / n__fact(X)]. The result substitution is [ ]. The rewrite sequence activate(n__fact(X)) ->^+ if(zero(activate(X)), n__s(n__0), n__prod(activate(X), n__fact(n__p(activate(X))))) gives rise to a decreasing loop by considering the right hand sides subterm at position [2,0]. The pumping substitution is [X / n__fact(X)]. The result substitution is [ ]. ---------------------------------------- (10) BOUNDS(EXP, INF)