/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# AProVE Commit ID: 794c25de1cacf0d048858bcd21c9a779e1221865 marcel 20200619 unpublished dirty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, 0 ms]
        (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:

   p(0) -> 0
   p(s(X)) -> X
   leq(0, Y) -> true
   leq(s(X), 0) -> false
   leq(s(X), s(Y)) -> leq(X, Y)
   if(true, X, Y) -> X
   if(false, X, Y) -> Y
   diff(X, Y) -> if(leq(X, Y), 0, s(diff(p(X), Y)))

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:

   p(0) -> 0
   p(s(X)) -> X
   leq(0, Y) -> true
   leq(s(X), 0) -> false
   leq(s(X), s(Y)) -> leq(X, Y)
   if(true, X, Y) -> X
   if(false, X, Y) -> Y
   diff(X, Y) -> if(leq(X, Y), 0, s(diff(p(X), Y)))

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

leq(s(X), s(Y)) ->^+ leq(X, Y)

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

The pumping substitution is [X / s(X), Y / s(Y)].

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:

   p(0) -> 0
   p(s(X)) -> X
   leq(0, Y) -> true
   leq(s(X), 0) -> false
   leq(s(X), s(Y)) -> leq(X, Y)
   if(true, X, Y) -> X
   if(false, X, Y) -> Y
   diff(X, Y) -> if(leq(X, Y), 0, s(diff(p(X), Y)))

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:

   p(0) -> 0
   p(s(X)) -> X
   leq(0, Y) -> true
   leq(s(X), 0) -> false
   leq(s(X), s(Y)) -> leq(X, Y)
   if(true, X, Y) -> X
   if(false, X, Y) -> Y
   diff(X, Y) -> if(leq(X, Y), 0, s(diff(p(X), Y)))

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

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

The rewrite sequence

diff(X, Y) ->^+ if(leq(X, Y), 0, s(diff(p(X), Y)))

gives rise to a decreasing loop by considering the right hand sides subterm at position [2,0].

The pumping substitution is [ ].

The result substitution is [X / p(X)].




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

(10)
BOUNDS(INF, INF)