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


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


WORST_CASE(NON_POLY, ?)
proof of /export/starexec/sandbox2/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# AProVE Commit ID: 794c25de1cacf0d048858bcd21c9a779e1221865 marcel 20200619 unpublished dirty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, 31 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:

   from(X) -> cons(X, n__from(n__s(X)))
   head(cons(X, XS)) -> X
   2nd(cons(X, XS)) -> head(activate(XS))
   take(0, XS) -> nil
   take(s(N), cons(X, XS)) -> cons(X, n__take(N, activate(XS)))
   sel(0, cons(X, XS)) -> X
   sel(s(N), cons(X, XS)) -> sel(N, activate(XS))
   from(X) -> n__from(X)
   s(X) -> n__s(X)
   take(X1, X2) -> n__take(X1, X2)
   activate(n__from(X)) -> from(activate(X))
   activate(n__s(X)) -> s(activate(X))
   activate(n__take(X1, X2)) -> take(activate(X1), activate(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(EXP, INF).


The TRS R consists of the following rules:

   from(X) -> cons(X, n__from(n__s(X)))
   head(cons(X, XS)) -> X
   2nd(cons(X, XS)) -> head(activate(XS))
   take(0, XS) -> nil
   take(s(N), cons(X, XS)) -> cons(X, n__take(N, activate(XS)))
   sel(0, cons(X, XS)) -> X
   sel(s(N), cons(X, XS)) -> sel(N, activate(XS))
   from(X) -> n__from(X)
   s(X) -> n__s(X)
   take(X1, X2) -> n__take(X1, X2)
   activate(n__from(X)) -> from(activate(X))
   activate(n__s(X)) -> s(activate(X))
   activate(n__take(X1, X2)) -> take(activate(X1), activate(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

activate(n__take(X1, X2)) ->^+ take(activate(X1), activate(X2))

gives rise to a decreasing loop by considering the right hand sides subterm at position [0].

The pumping substitution is [X1 / n__take(X1, X2)].

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:

   from(X) -> cons(X, n__from(n__s(X)))
   head(cons(X, XS)) -> X
   2nd(cons(X, XS)) -> head(activate(XS))
   take(0, XS) -> nil
   take(s(N), cons(X, XS)) -> cons(X, n__take(N, activate(XS)))
   sel(0, cons(X, XS)) -> X
   sel(s(N), cons(X, XS)) -> sel(N, activate(XS))
   from(X) -> n__from(X)
   s(X) -> n__s(X)
   take(X1, X2) -> n__take(X1, X2)
   activate(n__from(X)) -> from(activate(X))
   activate(n__s(X)) -> s(activate(X))
   activate(n__take(X1, X2)) -> take(activate(X1), activate(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(EXP, INF).


The TRS R consists of the following rules:

   from(X) -> cons(X, n__from(n__s(X)))
   head(cons(X, XS)) -> X
   2nd(cons(X, XS)) -> head(activate(XS))
   take(0, XS) -> nil
   take(s(N), cons(X, XS)) -> cons(X, n__take(N, activate(XS)))
   sel(0, cons(X, XS)) -> X
   sel(s(N), cons(X, XS)) -> sel(N, activate(XS))
   from(X) -> n__from(X)
   s(X) -> n__s(X)
   take(X1, X2) -> n__take(X1, X2)
   activate(n__from(X)) -> from(activate(X))
   activate(n__s(X)) -> s(activate(X))
   activate(n__take(X1, X2)) -> take(activate(X1), activate(X2))
   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__from(X)) ->^+ cons(activate(X), n__from(n__s(activate(X))))

gives rise to a decreasing loop by considering the right hand sides subterm at position [0].

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

The result substitution is [ ].



The rewrite sequence

activate(n__from(X)) ->^+ cons(activate(X), n__from(n__s(activate(X))))

gives rise to a decreasing loop by considering the right hand sides subterm at position [1,0,0].

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

The result substitution is [ ].




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

(10)
BOUNDS(EXP, INF)