/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# AProVE Commit ID: 794c25de1cacf0d048858bcd21c9a779e1221865 marcel 20200619 unpublished dirty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) DependencyGraphProof [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:

   f(f(x)) -> f(c(f(x)))
   f(f(x)) -> f(d(f(x)))
   g(c(x)) -> x
   g(d(x)) -> x
   g(c(h(0))) -> g(d(1))
   g(c(1)) -> g(d(h(0)))
   g(h(x)) -> g(x)

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

(1) DependencyGraphProof (UPPER BOUND(ID))
The following rules are not reachable from basic terms in the dependency graph and can be removed:

f(f(x)) -> f(c(f(x)))
f(f(x)) -> f(d(f(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:

   g(c(x)) -> x
   g(d(x)) -> x
   g(c(h(0))) -> g(d(1))
   g(c(1)) -> g(d(h(0)))
   g(h(x)) -> g(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:

   g(c(x)) -> x
   g(d(x)) -> x
   g(c(h(0))) -> g(d(1))
   g(c(1)) -> g(d(h(0)))
   g(h(x)) -> g(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.

"[3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9]
{(3,4,[g_1|0, c_1|1, d_1|1, h_1|1, 0|1, 1|1, g_1|1, 1|2]), (3,5,[g_1|1]), (3,7,[g_1|1]), (3,9,[h_1|2]), (4,4,[c_1|0, d_1|0, h_1|0, 0|0, 1|0]), (5,6,[d_1|1]), (6,4,[1|1]), (7,8,[d_1|1]), (8,9,[h_1|1]), (9,4,[0|1])}"
----------------------------------------

(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:

   f(f(x)) -> f(c(f(x)))
   f(f(x)) -> f(d(f(x)))
   g(c(x)) -> x
   g(d(x)) -> x
   g(c(h(0))) -> g(d(1))
   g(c(1)) -> g(d(h(0)))
   g(h(x)) -> g(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

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

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

The pumping substitution is [x / h(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:

   f(f(x)) -> f(c(f(x)))
   f(f(x)) -> f(d(f(x)))
   g(c(x)) -> x
   g(d(x)) -> x
   g(c(h(0))) -> g(d(1))
   g(c(1)) -> g(d(h(0)))
   g(h(x)) -> g(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:

   f(f(x)) -> f(c(f(x)))
   f(f(x)) -> f(d(f(x)))
   g(c(x)) -> x
   g(d(x)) -> x
   g(c(h(0))) -> g(d(1))
   g(c(1)) -> g(d(h(0)))
   g(h(x)) -> g(x)

S is empty.
Rewrite Strategy: FULL