/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# AProVE Commit ID: 794c25de1cacf0d048858bcd21c9a779e1221865 marcel 20200619 unpublished dirty The Runtime Complexity (full) of the given CpxTRS could be proven to be BOUNDS(EXP, INF).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, 27 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))) 2ndspos(0, Z) -> rnil 2ndspos(s(N), cons(X, n__cons(Y, Z))) -> rcons(posrecip(activate(Y)), 2ndsneg(N, activate(Z))) 2ndsneg(0, Z) -> rnil 2ndsneg(s(N), cons(X, n__cons(Y, Z))) -> rcons(negrecip(activate(Y)), 2ndspos(N, activate(Z))) pi(X) -> 2ndspos(X, from(0)) plus(0, Y) -> Y plus(s(X), Y) -> s(plus(X, Y)) times(0, Y) -> 0 times(s(X), Y) -> plus(Y, times(X, Y)) square(X) -> times(X, X) from(X) -> n__from(X) s(X) -> n__s(X) cons(X1, X2) -> n__cons(X1, X2) activate(n__from(X)) -> from(activate(X)) activate(n__s(X)) -> s(activate(X)) activate(n__cons(X1, X2)) -> cons(activate(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(EXP, INF). The TRS R consists of the following rules: from(X) -> cons(X, n__from(n__s(X))) 2ndspos(0, Z) -> rnil 2ndspos(s(N), cons(X, n__cons(Y, Z))) -> rcons(posrecip(activate(Y)), 2ndsneg(N, activate(Z))) 2ndsneg(0, Z) -> rnil 2ndsneg(s(N), cons(X, n__cons(Y, Z))) -> rcons(negrecip(activate(Y)), 2ndspos(N, activate(Z))) pi(X) -> 2ndspos(X, from(0)) plus(0, Y) -> Y plus(s(X), Y) -> s(plus(X, Y)) times(0, Y) -> 0 times(s(X), Y) -> plus(Y, times(X, Y)) square(X) -> times(X, X) from(X) -> n__from(X) s(X) -> n__s(X) cons(X1, X2) -> n__cons(X1, X2) activate(n__from(X)) -> from(activate(X)) activate(n__s(X)) -> s(activate(X)) activate(n__cons(X1, X2)) -> cons(activate(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 activate(n__s(X)) ->^+ 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__s(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: from(X) -> cons(X, n__from(n__s(X))) 2ndspos(0, Z) -> rnil 2ndspos(s(N), cons(X, n__cons(Y, Z))) -> rcons(posrecip(activate(Y)), 2ndsneg(N, activate(Z))) 2ndsneg(0, Z) -> rnil 2ndsneg(s(N), cons(X, n__cons(Y, Z))) -> rcons(negrecip(activate(Y)), 2ndspos(N, activate(Z))) pi(X) -> 2ndspos(X, from(0)) plus(0, Y) -> Y plus(s(X), Y) -> s(plus(X, Y)) times(0, Y) -> 0 times(s(X), Y) -> plus(Y, times(X, Y)) square(X) -> times(X, X) from(X) -> n__from(X) s(X) -> n__s(X) cons(X1, X2) -> n__cons(X1, X2) activate(n__from(X)) -> from(activate(X)) activate(n__s(X)) -> s(activate(X)) activate(n__cons(X1, X2)) -> cons(activate(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(EXP, INF). The TRS R consists of the following rules: from(X) -> cons(X, n__from(n__s(X))) 2ndspos(0, Z) -> rnil 2ndspos(s(N), cons(X, n__cons(Y, Z))) -> rcons(posrecip(activate(Y)), 2ndsneg(N, activate(Z))) 2ndsneg(0, Z) -> rnil 2ndsneg(s(N), cons(X, n__cons(Y, Z))) -> rcons(negrecip(activate(Y)), 2ndspos(N, activate(Z))) pi(X) -> 2ndspos(X, from(0)) plus(0, Y) -> Y plus(s(X), Y) -> s(plus(X, Y)) times(0, Y) -> 0 times(s(X), Y) -> plus(Y, times(X, Y)) square(X) -> times(X, X) from(X) -> n__from(X) s(X) -> n__s(X) cons(X1, X2) -> n__cons(X1, X2) activate(n__from(X)) -> from(activate(X)) activate(n__s(X)) -> s(activate(X)) activate(n__cons(X1, X2)) -> cons(activate(X1), 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)