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


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


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# AProVE Commit ID: 794c25de1cacf0d048858bcd21c9a779e1221865 marcel 20200619 unpublished dirty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

(0) CpxTRS
(1) NestedDefinedSymbolProof [UPPER BOUND(ID), 0 ms]
(2) CpxTRS
    (3) RelTrsToTrsProof [UPPER BOUND(ID), 0 ms]
    (4) CpxTRS
    (5) CpxTrsMatchBoundsProof [FINISHED, 0 ms]
    (6) BOUNDS(1, n^1)
(7) RelTrsToDecreasingLoopProblemProof [LOWER BOUND(ID), 0 ms]
(8) TRS for Loop Detection
    (9) DecreasingLoopProof [LOWER BOUND(ID), 0 ms]
    (10) BEST
        (11) proven lower bound
            (12) LowerBoundPropagationProof [FINISHED, 0 ms]
            (13) BOUNDS(n^1, INF)
        (14) TRS for Loop Detection


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

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


The TRS R consists of the following rules:

   active(f(f(a))) -> mark(c(f(g(f(a)))))
   active(f(X)) -> f(active(X))
   active(g(X)) -> g(active(X))
   f(mark(X)) -> mark(f(X))
   g(mark(X)) -> mark(g(X))
   proper(f(X)) -> f(proper(X))
   proper(a) -> ok(a)
   proper(c(X)) -> c(proper(X))
   proper(g(X)) -> g(proper(X))
   f(ok(X)) -> ok(f(X))
   c(ok(X)) -> ok(c(X))
   g(ok(X)) -> ok(g(X))
   top(mark(X)) -> top(proper(X))
   top(ok(X)) -> top(active(X))

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

(1) NestedDefinedSymbolProof (UPPER BOUND(ID))
The following defined symbols can occur below the 0th argument of top: proper, active
The following defined symbols can occur below the 0th argument of proper: proper, active
The following defined symbols can occur below the 0th argument of active: proper, active

Hence, the left-hand sides of the following rules are not basic-reachable and can be removed:
active(f(f(a))) -> mark(c(f(g(f(a)))))
active(f(X)) -> f(active(X))
active(g(X)) -> g(active(X))
proper(f(X)) -> f(proper(X))
proper(c(X)) -> c(proper(X))
proper(g(X)) -> g(proper(X))

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

(2)
Obligation:
The Runtime Complexity (full) of the given CpxTRS could be proven to be BOUNDS(1, n^1).


The TRS R consists of the following rules:

   f(mark(X)) -> mark(f(X))
   g(mark(X)) -> mark(g(X))
   proper(a) -> ok(a)
   f(ok(X)) -> ok(f(X))
   c(ok(X)) -> ok(c(X))
   g(ok(X)) -> ok(g(X))
   top(mark(X)) -> top(proper(X))
   top(ok(X)) -> top(active(X))

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

(3) RelTrsToTrsProof (UPPER BOUND(ID))
transformed relative TRS to TRS
----------------------------------------

(4)
Obligation:
The Runtime Complexity (full) of the given CpxTRS could be proven to be BOUNDS(1, n^1).


The TRS R consists of the following rules:

   f(mark(X)) -> mark(f(X))
   g(mark(X)) -> mark(g(X))
   proper(a) -> ok(a)
   f(ok(X)) -> ok(f(X))
   c(ok(X)) -> ok(c(X))
   g(ok(X)) -> ok(g(X))
   top(mark(X)) -> top(proper(X))
   top(ok(X)) -> top(active(X))

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

(5) CpxTrsMatchBoundsProof (FINISHED)
A linear upper bound on the runtime complexity of the TRS R could be shown with a Match Bound [MATCHBOUNDS1,MATCHBOUNDS2] of 2. 
The certificate found is represented by the following graph.

"[25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35]
{(25,26,[f_1|0, g_1|0, proper_1|0, c_1|0, top_1|0]), (25,27,[mark_1|1]), (25,28,[ok_1|1]), (25,29,[mark_1|1]), (25,30,[ok_1|1]), (25,31,[ok_1|1]), (25,32,[ok_1|1]), (25,33,[top_1|1]), (25,34,[top_1|1]), (25,35,[top_1|2]), (26,26,[mark_1|0, a|0, ok_1|0, active_1|0]), (27,26,[f_1|1]), (27,27,[mark_1|1]), (27,28,[ok_1|1]), (28,26,[f_1|1]), (28,27,[mark_1|1]), (28,28,[ok_1|1]), (29,26,[g_1|1]), (29,29,[mark_1|1]), (29,30,[ok_1|1]), (30,26,[g_1|1]), (30,29,[mark_1|1]), (30,30,[ok_1|1]), (31,26,[a|1]), (32,26,[c_1|1]), (32,32,[ok_1|1]), (33,26,[proper_1|1]), (33,31,[ok_1|1]), (34,26,[active_1|1]), (35,31,[active_1|2])}"
----------------------------------------

(6)
BOUNDS(1, n^1)

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

(7) RelTrsToDecreasingLoopProblemProof (LOWER BOUND(ID))
Transformed a relative TRS into a decreasing-loop problem.
----------------------------------------

(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, n^1).


The TRS R consists of the following rules:

   active(f(f(a))) -> mark(c(f(g(f(a)))))
   active(f(X)) -> f(active(X))
   active(g(X)) -> g(active(X))
   f(mark(X)) -> mark(f(X))
   g(mark(X)) -> mark(g(X))
   proper(f(X)) -> f(proper(X))
   proper(a) -> ok(a)
   proper(c(X)) -> c(proper(X))
   proper(g(X)) -> g(proper(X))
   f(ok(X)) -> ok(f(X))
   c(ok(X)) -> ok(c(X))
   g(ok(X)) -> ok(g(X))
   top(mark(X)) -> top(proper(X))
   top(ok(X)) -> top(active(X))

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

(9) DecreasingLoopProof (LOWER BOUND(ID))
The following loop(s) give(s) rise to the lower bound Omega(n^1):

The rewrite sequence

c(ok(X)) ->^+ ok(c(X))

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

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

The result substitution is [ ].




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

(10)
Complex Obligation (BEST)

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

(11)
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, n^1).


The TRS R consists of the following rules:

   active(f(f(a))) -> mark(c(f(g(f(a)))))
   active(f(X)) -> f(active(X))
   active(g(X)) -> g(active(X))
   f(mark(X)) -> mark(f(X))
   g(mark(X)) -> mark(g(X))
   proper(f(X)) -> f(proper(X))
   proper(a) -> ok(a)
   proper(c(X)) -> c(proper(X))
   proper(g(X)) -> g(proper(X))
   f(ok(X)) -> ok(f(X))
   c(ok(X)) -> ok(c(X))
   g(ok(X)) -> ok(g(X))
   top(mark(X)) -> top(proper(X))
   top(ok(X)) -> top(active(X))

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

(12) LowerBoundPropagationProof (FINISHED)
Propagated lower bound.
----------------------------------------

(13)
BOUNDS(n^1, INF)

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

(14)
Obligation:
Analyzing the following TRS for decreasing loops:

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


The TRS R consists of the following rules:

   active(f(f(a))) -> mark(c(f(g(f(a)))))
   active(f(X)) -> f(active(X))
   active(g(X)) -> g(active(X))
   f(mark(X)) -> mark(f(X))
   g(mark(X)) -> mark(g(X))
   proper(f(X)) -> f(proper(X))
   proper(a) -> ok(a)
   proper(c(X)) -> c(proper(X))
   proper(g(X)) -> g(proper(X))
   f(ok(X)) -> ok(f(X))
   c(ok(X)) -> ok(c(X))
   g(ok(X)) -> ok(g(X))
   top(mark(X)) -> top(proper(X))
   top(ok(X)) -> top(active(X))

S is empty.
Rewrite Strategy: FULL