/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# AProVE Commit ID: 794c25de1cacf0d048858bcd21c9a779e1221865 marcel 20200619 unpublished dirty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) 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) InfiniteLowerBoundProof [FINISHED, 138.5 s]
        (10) 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:

   zeros -> cons(0, n__zeros)
   U11(tt, L) -> U12(tt, activate(L))
   U12(tt, L) -> s(length(activate(L)))
   U21(tt, IL, M, N) -> U22(tt, activate(IL), activate(M), activate(N))
   U22(tt, IL, M, N) -> U23(tt, activate(IL), activate(M), activate(N))
   U23(tt, IL, M, N) -> cons(activate(N), n__take(activate(M), activate(IL)))
   length(nil) -> 0
   length(cons(N, L)) -> U11(tt, activate(L))
   take(0, IL) -> nil
   take(s(M), cons(N, IL)) -> U21(tt, activate(IL), M, N)
   zeros -> n__zeros
   take(X1, X2) -> n__take(X1, X2)
   activate(n__zeros) -> zeros
   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(INF, INF).


The TRS R consists of the following rules:

   zeros -> cons(0, n__zeros)
   U11(tt, L) -> U12(tt, activate(L))
   U12(tt, L) -> s(length(activate(L)))
   U21(tt, IL, M, N) -> U22(tt, activate(IL), activate(M), activate(N))
   U22(tt, IL, M, N) -> U23(tt, activate(IL), activate(M), activate(N))
   U23(tt, IL, M, N) -> cons(activate(N), n__take(activate(M), activate(IL)))
   length(nil) -> 0
   length(cons(N, L)) -> U11(tt, activate(L))
   take(0, IL) -> nil
   take(s(M), cons(N, IL)) -> U21(tt, activate(IL), M, N)
   zeros -> n__zeros
   take(X1, X2) -> n__take(X1, X2)
   activate(n__zeros) -> zeros
   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(INF, INF).


The TRS R consists of the following rules:

   zeros -> cons(0, n__zeros)
   U11(tt, L) -> U12(tt, activate(L))
   U12(tt, L) -> s(length(activate(L)))
   U21(tt, IL, M, N) -> U22(tt, activate(IL), activate(M), activate(N))
   U22(tt, IL, M, N) -> U23(tt, activate(IL), activate(M), activate(N))
   U23(tt, IL, M, N) -> cons(activate(N), n__take(activate(M), activate(IL)))
   length(nil) -> 0
   length(cons(N, L)) -> U11(tt, activate(L))
   take(0, IL) -> nil
   take(s(M), cons(N, IL)) -> U21(tt, activate(IL), M, N)
   zeros -> n__zeros
   take(X1, X2) -> n__take(X1, X2)
   activate(n__zeros) -> zeros
   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(INF, INF).


The TRS R consists of the following rules:

   zeros -> cons(0, n__zeros)
   U11(tt, L) -> U12(tt, activate(L))
   U12(tt, L) -> s(length(activate(L)))
   U21(tt, IL, M, N) -> U22(tt, activate(IL), activate(M), activate(N))
   U22(tt, IL, M, N) -> U23(tt, activate(IL), activate(M), activate(N))
   U23(tt, IL, M, N) -> cons(activate(N), n__take(activate(M), activate(IL)))
   length(nil) -> 0
   length(cons(N, L)) -> U11(tt, activate(L))
   take(0, IL) -> nil
   take(s(M), cons(N, IL)) -> U21(tt, activate(IL), M, N)
   zeros -> n__zeros
   take(X1, X2) -> n__take(X1, X2)
   activate(n__zeros) -> zeros
   activate(n__take(X1, X2)) -> take(activate(X1), activate(X2))
   activate(X) -> X

S is empty.
Rewrite Strategy: FULL
----------------------------------------

(9) InfiniteLowerBoundProof (FINISHED)
The following loop proves infinite runtime complexity:

The rewrite sequence

length(cons(N, n__zeros)) ->^+ s(length(cons(0, n__zeros)))

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

The pumping substitution is [ ].

The result substitution is [N / 0].




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

(10)
BOUNDS(INF, INF)