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


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


WORST_CASE(Omega(n^1), ?)
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# AProVE Commit ID: 794c25de1cacf0d048858bcd21c9a779e1221865 marcel 20200619 unpublished dirty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(n^1, 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


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

(0)
Obligation:
The Runtime Complexity (full) of the given CpxTRS could be proven to be BOUNDS(n^1, INF).


The TRS R consists of the following rules:

   a__f(X) -> a__if(mark(X), c, f(true))
   a__if(true, X, Y) -> mark(X)
   a__if(false, X, Y) -> mark(Y)
   mark(f(X)) -> a__f(mark(X))
   mark(if(X1, X2, X3)) -> a__if(mark(X1), mark(X2), X3)
   mark(c) -> c
   mark(true) -> true
   mark(false) -> false
   a__f(X) -> f(X)
   a__if(X1, X2, X3) -> if(X1, X2, X3)

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(n^1, INF).


The TRS R consists of the following rules:

   a__f(X) -> a__if(mark(X), c, f(true))
   a__if(true, X, Y) -> mark(X)
   a__if(false, X, Y) -> mark(Y)
   mark(f(X)) -> a__f(mark(X))
   mark(if(X1, X2, X3)) -> a__if(mark(X1), mark(X2), X3)
   mark(c) -> c
   mark(true) -> true
   mark(false) -> false
   a__f(X) -> f(X)
   a__if(X1, X2, X3) -> if(X1, X2, X3)

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

mark(f(X)) ->^+ a__f(mark(X))

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

The pumping substitution is [X / f(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(n^1, INF).


The TRS R consists of the following rules:

   a__f(X) -> a__if(mark(X), c, f(true))
   a__if(true, X, Y) -> mark(X)
   a__if(false, X, Y) -> mark(Y)
   mark(f(X)) -> a__f(mark(X))
   mark(if(X1, X2, X3)) -> a__if(mark(X1), mark(X2), X3)
   mark(c) -> c
   mark(true) -> true
   mark(false) -> false
   a__f(X) -> f(X)
   a__if(X1, X2, X3) -> if(X1, X2, X3)

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(n^1, INF).


The TRS R consists of the following rules:

   a__f(X) -> a__if(mark(X), c, f(true))
   a__if(true, X, Y) -> mark(X)
   a__if(false, X, Y) -> mark(Y)
   mark(f(X)) -> a__f(mark(X))
   mark(if(X1, X2, X3)) -> a__if(mark(X1), mark(X2), X3)
   mark(c) -> c
   mark(true) -> true
   mark(false) -> false
   a__f(X) -> f(X)
   a__if(X1, X2, X3) -> if(X1, X2, X3)

S is empty.
Rewrite Strategy: FULL