/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# AProVE Commit ID: 794c25de1cacf0d048858bcd21c9a779e1221865 marcel 20200619 unpublished dirty The Runtime Complexity (full) of the given CpxTRS could be proven to be BOUNDS(INF, INF).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) InfiniteLowerBoundProof [FINISHED, 23 ms] (4) 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: c -> f(n__g(n__c)) f(n__g(X)) -> g(activate(X)) g(X) -> n__g(X) c -> n__c activate(n__g(X)) -> g(X) activate(n__c) -> c 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: c -> f(n__g(n__c)) f(n__g(X)) -> g(activate(X)) g(X) -> n__g(X) c -> n__c activate(n__g(X)) -> g(X) activate(n__c) -> c activate(X) -> X S is empty. Rewrite Strategy: FULL ---------------------------------------- (3) InfiniteLowerBoundProof (FINISHED) The following loop proves infinite runtime complexity: The rewrite sequence c ->^+ g(c) gives rise to a decreasing loop by considering the right hand sides subterm at position [0]. The pumping substitution is [ ]. The result substitution is [ ]. ---------------------------------------- (4) BOUNDS(INF, INF)