/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# AProVE Commit ID: 794c25de1cacf0d048858bcd21c9a779e1221865 marcel 20200619 unpublished dirty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) RelTrsToTrsProof [UPPER BOUND(ID), 0 ms]
(2) CpxTRS
    (3) CpxTrsMatchBoundsProof [FINISHED, 0 ms]
    (4) BOUNDS(1, n^1)
(5) RelTrsToDecreasingLoopProblemProof [LOWER BOUND(ID), 0 ms]
(6) TRS for Loop Detection
    (7) DecreasingLoopProof [LOWER BOUND(ID), 0 ms]
    (8) BEST
        (9) proven lower bound
            (10) LowerBoundPropagationProof [FINISHED, 0 ms]
            (11) BOUNDS(n^1, INF)
        (12) 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:

   f(g(x)) -> g(g(f(x)))
   f(g(x)) -> g(g(g(x)))

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

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

(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(g(x)) -> g(g(f(x)))
   f(g(x)) -> g(g(g(x)))

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

(3) CpxTrsMatchBoundsProof (FINISHED)
A linear upper bound on the runtime complexity of the TRS R could be shown with a Match Bound [MATCHBOUNDS1,MATCHBOUNDS2] of 1. 
The certificate found is represented by the following graph.

"[1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6]
{(1,2,[f_1|0]), (1,3,[g_1|1]), (1,5,[g_1|1]), (2,2,[g_1|0]), (3,4,[g_1|1]), (4,2,[f_1|1]), (4,3,[g_1|1]), (4,5,[g_1|1]), (5,6,[g_1|1]), (6,2,[g_1|1])}"
----------------------------------------

(4)
BOUNDS(1, n^1)

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

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

(6)
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:

   f(g(x)) -> g(g(f(x)))
   f(g(x)) -> g(g(g(x)))

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

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

The rewrite sequence

f(g(x)) ->^+ g(g(f(x)))

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

The pumping substitution is [x / g(x)].

The result substitution is [ ].




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

(8)
Complex Obligation (BEST)

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

(9)
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:

   f(g(x)) -> g(g(f(x)))
   f(g(x)) -> g(g(g(x)))

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

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

(11)
BOUNDS(n^1, INF)

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

(12)
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:

   f(g(x)) -> g(g(f(x)))
   f(g(x)) -> g(g(g(x)))

S is empty.
Rewrite Strategy: FULL