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# AProVE Commit ID: 794c25de1cacf0d048858bcd21c9a779e1221865 marcel 20200619 unpublished dirty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

(0) CpxTRS
(1) RcToIrcProof [BOTH BOUNDS(ID, ID), 0 ms]
(2) CpxTRS
    (3) RelTrsToWeightedTrsProof [BOTH BOUNDS(ID, ID), 0 ms]
    (4) CpxWeightedTrs
    (5) TypeInferenceProof [BOTH BOUNDS(ID, ID), 0 ms]
    (6) CpxTypedWeightedTrs
    (7) CompletionProof [UPPER BOUND(ID), 0 ms]
    (8) CpxTypedWeightedCompleteTrs
    (9) NarrowingProof [BOTH BOUNDS(ID, ID), 0 ms]
    (10) CpxTypedWeightedCompleteTrs
    (11) CpxTypedWeightedTrsToRntsProof [UPPER BOUND(ID), 0 ms]
    (12) CpxRNTS
    (13) SimplificationProof [BOTH BOUNDS(ID, ID), 0 ms]
    (14) CpxRNTS
    (15) CpxRntsAnalysisOrderProof [BOTH BOUNDS(ID, ID), 0 ms]
    (16) CpxRNTS
    (17) ResultPropagationProof [UPPER BOUND(ID), 0 ms]
    (18) CpxRNTS
    (19) IntTrsBoundProof [UPPER BOUND(ID), 199 ms]
    (20) CpxRNTS
    (21) IntTrsBoundProof [UPPER BOUND(ID), 64 ms]
    (22) CpxRNTS
    (23) ResultPropagationProof [UPPER BOUND(ID), 0 ms]
    (24) CpxRNTS
    (25) IntTrsBoundProof [UPPER BOUND(ID), 241 ms]
    (26) CpxRNTS
    (27) IntTrsBoundProof [UPPER BOUND(ID), 117 ms]
    (28) CpxRNTS
    (29) FinalProof [FINISHED, 0 ms]
    (30) BOUNDS(1, n^1)
(31) RelTrsToDecreasingLoopProblemProof [LOWER BOUND(ID), 0 ms]
(32) TRS for Loop Detection
    (33) DecreasingLoopProof [LOWER BOUND(ID), 0 ms]
    (34) BEST
        (35) proven lower bound
            (36) LowerBoundPropagationProof [FINISHED, 0 ms]
            (37) BOUNDS(n^1, INF)
        (38) 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:

   g(x, y) -> x
   g(x, y) -> y
   f(0, 1, x) -> f(s(x), x, x)
   f(x, y, s(z)) -> s(f(0, 1, z))

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

(1) RcToIrcProof (BOTH BOUNDS(ID, ID))
Converted rc-obligation to irc-obligation.

As the TRS does not nest defined symbols, we have rc = irc.
----------------------------------------

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


The TRS R consists of the following rules:

   g(x, y) -> x
   g(x, y) -> y
   f(0, 1, x) -> f(s(x), x, x)
   f(x, y, s(z)) -> s(f(0, 1, z))

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

(3) RelTrsToWeightedTrsProof (BOTH BOUNDS(ID, ID))
Transformed relative TRS to weighted TRS
----------------------------------------

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


The TRS R consists of the following rules:

   g(x, y) -> x [1]
   g(x, y) -> y [1]
   f(0, 1, x) -> f(s(x), x, x) [1]
   f(x, y, s(z)) -> s(f(0, 1, z)) [1]

Rewrite Strategy: INNERMOST
----------------------------------------

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

(6)
Obligation:
Runtime Complexity Weighted TRS with Types.
The TRS R consists of the following rules:

   g(x, y) -> x [1]
   g(x, y) -> y [1]
   f(0, 1, x) -> f(s(x), x, x) [1]
   f(x, y, s(z)) -> s(f(0, 1, z)) [1]

The TRS has the following type information:
g :: g -> g -> g
f :: 0:1:s -> 0:1:s -> 0:1:s -> 0:1:s
0 :: 0:1:s
1 :: 0:1:s
s :: 0:1:s -> 0:1:s

Rewrite Strategy: INNERMOST
----------------------------------------

(7) CompletionProof (UPPER BOUND(ID))
The transformation into a RNTS is sound, since:

(a) The obligation is a constructor system where every type has a constant constructor,

(b) The following defined symbols do not have to be completely defined, as they can never occur inside other defined symbols:

   g_2
   f_3

(c) The following functions are completely defined:
none

Due to the following rules being added:
none

And the following fresh constants:    const

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

(8)
Obligation:
Runtime Complexity Weighted TRS where critical functions are completely defined. The underlying TRS is:

Runtime Complexity Weighted TRS with Types.
The TRS R consists of the following rules:

   g(x, y) -> x [1]
   g(x, y) -> y [1]
   f(0, 1, x) -> f(s(x), x, x) [1]
   f(x, y, s(z)) -> s(f(0, 1, z)) [1]

The TRS has the following type information:
g :: g -> g -> g
f :: 0:1:s -> 0:1:s -> 0:1:s -> 0:1:s
0 :: 0:1:s
1 :: 0:1:s
s :: 0:1:s -> 0:1:s
const :: g

Rewrite Strategy: INNERMOST
----------------------------------------

(9) NarrowingProof (BOTH BOUNDS(ID, ID))
Narrowed the inner basic terms of all right-hand sides by a single narrowing step.
----------------------------------------

(10)
Obligation:
Runtime Complexity Weighted TRS where critical functions are completely defined. The underlying TRS is:

Runtime Complexity Weighted TRS with Types.
The TRS R consists of the following rules:

   g(x, y) -> x [1]
   g(x, y) -> y [1]
   f(0, 1, x) -> f(s(x), x, x) [1]
   f(x, y, s(z)) -> s(f(0, 1, z)) [1]

The TRS has the following type information:
g :: g -> g -> g
f :: 0:1:s -> 0:1:s -> 0:1:s -> 0:1:s
0 :: 0:1:s
1 :: 0:1:s
s :: 0:1:s -> 0:1:s
const :: g

Rewrite Strategy: INNERMOST
----------------------------------------

(11) CpxTypedWeightedTrsToRntsProof (UPPER BOUND(ID))
Transformed the TRS into an over-approximating RNTS by (improved) Size Abstraction.
The constant constructors are abstracted as follows:

   0 => 0
   1 => 1
   const => 0

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

(12)
Obligation:
Complexity RNTS consisting of the following rules:

   f(z', z'', z1) -{ 1 }-> f(1 + x, x, x) :|: x >= 0, z'' = 1, z1 = x, z' = 0
   f(z', z'', z1) -{ 1 }-> 1 + f(0, 1, z) :|: z >= 0, z' = x, z'' = y, x >= 0, y >= 0, z1 = 1 + z
   g(z', z'') -{ 1 }-> x :|: z' = x, z'' = y, x >= 0, y >= 0
   g(z', z'') -{ 1 }-> y :|: z' = x, z'' = y, x >= 0, y >= 0


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

(13) SimplificationProof (BOTH BOUNDS(ID, ID))
Simplified the RNTS by moving equalities from the constraints into the right-hand sides.
----------------------------------------

(14)
Obligation:
Complexity RNTS consisting of the following rules:

   f(z', z'', z1) -{ 1 }-> f(1 + z1, z1, z1) :|: z1 >= 0, z'' = 1, z' = 0
   f(z', z'', z1) -{ 1 }-> 1 + f(0, 1, z1 - 1) :|: z1 - 1 >= 0, z' >= 0, z'' >= 0
   g(z', z'') -{ 1 }-> z' :|: z' >= 0, z'' >= 0
   g(z', z'') -{ 1 }-> z'' :|: z' >= 0, z'' >= 0


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

(15) CpxRntsAnalysisOrderProof (BOTH BOUNDS(ID, ID))
Found the following analysis order by SCC decomposition:

   { g }
   { f }

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

(16)
Obligation:
Complexity RNTS consisting of the following rules:

   f(z', z'', z1) -{ 1 }-> f(1 + z1, z1, z1) :|: z1 >= 0, z'' = 1, z' = 0
   f(z', z'', z1) -{ 1 }-> 1 + f(0, 1, z1 - 1) :|: z1 - 1 >= 0, z' >= 0, z'' >= 0
   g(z', z'') -{ 1 }-> z' :|: z' >= 0, z'' >= 0
   g(z', z'') -{ 1 }-> z'' :|: z' >= 0, z'' >= 0

Function symbols to be analyzed: {g}, {f}

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

(17) ResultPropagationProof (UPPER BOUND(ID))
Applied inner abstraction using the recently inferred runtime/size bounds where possible.
----------------------------------------

(18)
Obligation:
Complexity RNTS consisting of the following rules:

   f(z', z'', z1) -{ 1 }-> f(1 + z1, z1, z1) :|: z1 >= 0, z'' = 1, z' = 0
   f(z', z'', z1) -{ 1 }-> 1 + f(0, 1, z1 - 1) :|: z1 - 1 >= 0, z' >= 0, z'' >= 0
   g(z', z'') -{ 1 }-> z' :|: z' >= 0, z'' >= 0
   g(z', z'') -{ 1 }-> z'' :|: z' >= 0, z'' >= 0

Function symbols to be analyzed: {g}, {f}

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

(19) IntTrsBoundProof (UPPER BOUND(ID))

Computed SIZE bound using CoFloCo for: g
after applying outer abstraction to obtain an ITS,
resulting in: O(n^1) with polynomial bound: z' + z''

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

(20)
Obligation:
Complexity RNTS consisting of the following rules:

   f(z', z'', z1) -{ 1 }-> f(1 + z1, z1, z1) :|: z1 >= 0, z'' = 1, z' = 0
   f(z', z'', z1) -{ 1 }-> 1 + f(0, 1, z1 - 1) :|: z1 - 1 >= 0, z' >= 0, z'' >= 0
   g(z', z'') -{ 1 }-> z' :|: z' >= 0, z'' >= 0
   g(z', z'') -{ 1 }-> z'' :|: z' >= 0, z'' >= 0

Function symbols to be analyzed: {g}, {f}
Previous analysis results are:
  g: runtime: ?, size: O(n^1) [z' + z'']

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

(21) IntTrsBoundProof (UPPER BOUND(ID))

Computed RUNTIME bound using CoFloCo for: g
after applying outer abstraction to obtain an ITS,
resulting in: O(1) with polynomial bound: 1

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

(22)
Obligation:
Complexity RNTS consisting of the following rules:

   f(z', z'', z1) -{ 1 }-> f(1 + z1, z1, z1) :|: z1 >= 0, z'' = 1, z' = 0
   f(z', z'', z1) -{ 1 }-> 1 + f(0, 1, z1 - 1) :|: z1 - 1 >= 0, z' >= 0, z'' >= 0
   g(z', z'') -{ 1 }-> z' :|: z' >= 0, z'' >= 0
   g(z', z'') -{ 1 }-> z'' :|: z' >= 0, z'' >= 0

Function symbols to be analyzed: {f}
Previous analysis results are:
  g: runtime: O(1) [1], size: O(n^1) [z' + z'']

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

(23) ResultPropagationProof (UPPER BOUND(ID))
Applied inner abstraction using the recently inferred runtime/size bounds where possible.
----------------------------------------

(24)
Obligation:
Complexity RNTS consisting of the following rules:

   f(z', z'', z1) -{ 1 }-> f(1 + z1, z1, z1) :|: z1 >= 0, z'' = 1, z' = 0
   f(z', z'', z1) -{ 1 }-> 1 + f(0, 1, z1 - 1) :|: z1 - 1 >= 0, z' >= 0, z'' >= 0
   g(z', z'') -{ 1 }-> z' :|: z' >= 0, z'' >= 0
   g(z', z'') -{ 1 }-> z'' :|: z' >= 0, z'' >= 0

Function symbols to be analyzed: {f}
Previous analysis results are:
  g: runtime: O(1) [1], size: O(n^1) [z' + z'']

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

(25) IntTrsBoundProof (UPPER BOUND(ID))

Computed SIZE bound using CoFloCo for: f
after applying outer abstraction to obtain an ITS,
resulting in: O(1) with polynomial bound: 0

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

(26)
Obligation:
Complexity RNTS consisting of the following rules:

   f(z', z'', z1) -{ 1 }-> f(1 + z1, z1, z1) :|: z1 >= 0, z'' = 1, z' = 0
   f(z', z'', z1) -{ 1 }-> 1 + f(0, 1, z1 - 1) :|: z1 - 1 >= 0, z' >= 0, z'' >= 0
   g(z', z'') -{ 1 }-> z' :|: z' >= 0, z'' >= 0
   g(z', z'') -{ 1 }-> z'' :|: z' >= 0, z'' >= 0

Function symbols to be analyzed: {f}
Previous analysis results are:
  g: runtime: O(1) [1], size: O(n^1) [z' + z'']
  f: runtime: ?, size: O(1) [0]

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

(27) IntTrsBoundProof (UPPER BOUND(ID))

Computed RUNTIME bound using KoAT for: f
after applying outer abstraction to obtain an ITS,
resulting in: O(n^1) with polynomial bound: 1 + 2*z1

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

(28)
Obligation:
Complexity RNTS consisting of the following rules:

   f(z', z'', z1) -{ 1 }-> f(1 + z1, z1, z1) :|: z1 >= 0, z'' = 1, z' = 0
   f(z', z'', z1) -{ 1 }-> 1 + f(0, 1, z1 - 1) :|: z1 - 1 >= 0, z' >= 0, z'' >= 0
   g(z', z'') -{ 1 }-> z' :|: z' >= 0, z'' >= 0
   g(z', z'') -{ 1 }-> z'' :|: z' >= 0, z'' >= 0

Function symbols to be analyzed: 
Previous analysis results are:
  g: runtime: O(1) [1], size: O(n^1) [z' + z'']
  f: runtime: O(n^1) [1 + 2*z1], size: O(1) [0]

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

(29) FinalProof (FINISHED)
Computed overall runtime complexity
----------------------------------------

(30)
BOUNDS(1, n^1)

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

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

(32)
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:

   g(x, y) -> x
   g(x, y) -> y
   f(0, 1, x) -> f(s(x), x, x)
   f(x, y, s(z)) -> s(f(0, 1, z))

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

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

The rewrite sequence

f(x, y, s(z)) ->^+ s(f(0, 1, z))

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

The pumping substitution is [z / s(z)].

The result substitution is [x / 0, y / 1].




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

(34)
Complex Obligation (BEST)

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

(35)
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:

   g(x, y) -> x
   g(x, y) -> y
   f(0, 1, x) -> f(s(x), x, x)
   f(x, y, s(z)) -> s(f(0, 1, z))

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

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

(37)
BOUNDS(n^1, INF)

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

(38)
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:

   g(x, y) -> x
   g(x, y) -> y
   f(0, 1, x) -> f(s(x), x, x)
   f(x, y, s(z)) -> s(f(0, 1, z))

S is empty.
Rewrite Strategy: FULL