/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# AProVE Commit ID: 794c25de1cacf0d048858bcd21c9a779e1221865 marcel 20200619 unpublished dirty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) RenamingProof [BOTH BOUNDS(ID, ID), 0 ms]
(2) CpxTRS
(3) TypeInferenceProof [BOTH BOUNDS(ID, ID), 0 ms]
(4) typed CpxTrs
(5) OrderProof [LOWER BOUND(ID), 0 ms]
(6) typed CpxTrs
(7) RewriteLemmaProof [LOWER BOUND(ID), 265 ms]
(8) BEST
    (9) proven lower bound
        (10) LowerBoundPropagationProof [FINISHED, 0 ms]
        (11) BOUNDS(n^1, INF)
    (12) typed CpxTrs


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

(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:

   -(x, 0) -> x
   -(s(x), s(y)) -> -(x, y)
   p(s(x)) -> x
   f(s(x), y) -> f(p(-(s(x), y)), p(-(y, s(x))))
   f(x, s(y)) -> f(p(-(x, s(y))), p(-(s(y), x)))

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

(1) RenamingProof (BOTH BOUNDS(ID, ID))
Renamed function symbols to avoid clashes with predefined symbol.
----------------------------------------

(2)
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:

   -(x, 0') -> x
   -(s(x), s(y)) -> -(x, y)
   p(s(x)) -> x
   f(s(x), y) -> f(p(-(s(x), y)), p(-(y, s(x))))
   f(x, s(y)) -> f(p(-(x, s(y))), p(-(s(y), x)))

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

(3) TypeInferenceProof (BOTH BOUNDS(ID, ID))
Infered types.
----------------------------------------

(4)
Obligation:
TRS:
Rules:
-(x, 0') -> x
-(s(x), s(y)) -> -(x, y)
p(s(x)) -> x
f(s(x), y) -> f(p(-(s(x), y)), p(-(y, s(x))))
f(x, s(y)) -> f(p(-(x, s(y))), p(-(s(y), x)))

Types:
- :: 0':s -> 0':s -> 0':s
0' :: 0':s
s :: 0':s -> 0':s
p :: 0':s -> 0':s
f :: 0':s -> 0':s -> f
hole_0':s1_0 :: 0':s
hole_f2_0 :: f
gen_0':s3_0 :: Nat -> 0':s

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

(5) OrderProof (LOWER BOUND(ID))
Heuristically decided to analyse the following defined symbols:
-, f

They will be analysed ascendingly in the following order:
- < f

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

(6)
Obligation:
TRS:
Rules:
-(x, 0') -> x
-(s(x), s(y)) -> -(x, y)
p(s(x)) -> x
f(s(x), y) -> f(p(-(s(x), y)), p(-(y, s(x))))
f(x, s(y)) -> f(p(-(x, s(y))), p(-(s(y), x)))

Types:
- :: 0':s -> 0':s -> 0':s
0' :: 0':s
s :: 0':s -> 0':s
p :: 0':s -> 0':s
f :: 0':s -> 0':s -> f
hole_0':s1_0 :: 0':s
hole_f2_0 :: f
gen_0':s3_0 :: Nat -> 0':s


Generator Equations:
gen_0':s3_0(0) <=> 0'
gen_0':s3_0(+(x, 1)) <=> s(gen_0':s3_0(x))


The following defined symbols remain to be analysed:
-, f

They will be analysed ascendingly in the following order:
- < f

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

(7) RewriteLemmaProof (LOWER BOUND(ID))
Proved the following rewrite lemma:
-(gen_0':s3_0(n5_0), gen_0':s3_0(n5_0)) -> gen_0':s3_0(0), rt in Omega(1 + n5_0)

Induction Base:
-(gen_0':s3_0(0), gen_0':s3_0(0)) ->_R^Omega(1)
gen_0':s3_0(0)

Induction Step:
-(gen_0':s3_0(+(n5_0, 1)), gen_0':s3_0(+(n5_0, 1))) ->_R^Omega(1)
-(gen_0':s3_0(n5_0), gen_0':s3_0(n5_0)) ->_IH
gen_0':s3_0(0)

We have rt in Omega(n^1) and sz in O(n). Thus, we have irc_R in Omega(n).
----------------------------------------

(8)
Complex Obligation (BEST)

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

(9)
Obligation:
Proved the lower bound n^1 for the following obligation:

TRS:
Rules:
-(x, 0') -> x
-(s(x), s(y)) -> -(x, y)
p(s(x)) -> x
f(s(x), y) -> f(p(-(s(x), y)), p(-(y, s(x))))
f(x, s(y)) -> f(p(-(x, s(y))), p(-(s(y), x)))

Types:
- :: 0':s -> 0':s -> 0':s
0' :: 0':s
s :: 0':s -> 0':s
p :: 0':s -> 0':s
f :: 0':s -> 0':s -> f
hole_0':s1_0 :: 0':s
hole_f2_0 :: f
gen_0':s3_0 :: Nat -> 0':s


Generator Equations:
gen_0':s3_0(0) <=> 0'
gen_0':s3_0(+(x, 1)) <=> s(gen_0':s3_0(x))


The following defined symbols remain to be analysed:
-, f

They will be analysed ascendingly in the following order:
- < f

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

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

(11)
BOUNDS(n^1, INF)

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

(12)
Obligation:
TRS:
Rules:
-(x, 0') -> x
-(s(x), s(y)) -> -(x, y)
p(s(x)) -> x
f(s(x), y) -> f(p(-(s(x), y)), p(-(y, s(x))))
f(x, s(y)) -> f(p(-(x, s(y))), p(-(s(y), x)))

Types:
- :: 0':s -> 0':s -> 0':s
0' :: 0':s
s :: 0':s -> 0':s
p :: 0':s -> 0':s
f :: 0':s -> 0':s -> f
hole_0':s1_0 :: 0':s
hole_f2_0 :: f
gen_0':s3_0 :: Nat -> 0':s


Lemmas:
-(gen_0':s3_0(n5_0), gen_0':s3_0(n5_0)) -> gen_0':s3_0(0), rt in Omega(1 + n5_0)


Generator Equations:
gen_0':s3_0(0) <=> 0'
gen_0':s3_0(+(x, 1)) <=> s(gen_0':s3_0(x))


The following defined symbols remain to be analysed:
f