/export/starexec/sandbox2/solver/bin/starexec_run_complexity /export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.koat /export/starexec/sandbox2/output/output_files


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


WORST_CASE(NON_POLY, ?)
proof of /export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.koat
# AProVE Commit ID: 794c25de1cacf0d048858bcd21c9a779e1221865 marcel 20200619 unpublished dirty


The runtime complexity of the given CpxIntTrs could be proven to be BOUNDS(INF, INF).

(0) CpxIntTrs
(1) Loat Proof [FINISHED, 119 ms]
(2) BOUNDS(INF, INF)


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

(0)
Obligation:
Complexity Int TRS consisting of the following rules:
f0(A, B) -> Com_1(f4(C, 0)) :|: TRUE
f4(A, B) -> Com_1(f4(A, B + 1)) :|: 0 >= C + 1
f4(A, B) -> Com_1(f4(A, B + 1)) :|: TRUE
f4(A, B) -> Com_1(f14(A, B)) :|: A >= 0 && B >= A + 1
f4(A, B) -> Com_1(f14(A, B)) :|: 0 >= A + 1
f4(A, B) -> Com_1(f14(A, B)) :|: A >= 0 && A >= B
f4(A, B) -> Com_1(f14(A, B)) :|: 0 >= C + 1 && A >= 0 && B >= A + 1

The start-symbols are:[f0_2]


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

(1) Loat Proof (FINISHED)


### Pre-processing the ITS problem ###



Initial linear ITS problem

   Start location: f0

      0: f0 -> f4 : A'=free, B'=0, [], cost: 1

      1: f4 -> f4 : B'=1+B, [ 0>=1+free_1 ], cost: 1

      2: f4 -> f4 : B'=1+B, [], cost: 1

      3: f4 -> f14 : [ A>=0 && B>=1+A ], cost: 1

      4: f4 -> f14 : [ 0>=1+A ], cost: 1

      5: f4 -> f14 : [ A>=0 && A>=B ], cost: 1

      6: f4 -> f14 : [ 0>=1+free_2 && A>=0 && B>=1+A ], cost: 1



Checking for constant complexity:

   The following rule is satisfiable with cost >= 1, yielding constant complexity:

      0: f0 -> f4 : A'=free, B'=0, [], cost: 1



Removed unreachable and leaf rules:

   Start location: f0

      0: f0 -> f4 : A'=free, B'=0, [], cost: 1

      1: f4 -> f4 : B'=1+B, [ 0>=1+free_1 ], cost: 1

      2: f4 -> f4 : B'=1+B, [], cost: 1



Simplified all rules, resulting in:

   Start location: f0

      0: f0 -> f4 : A'=free, B'=0, [], cost: 1

      2: f4 -> f4 : B'=1+B, [], cost: 1



### Simplification by acceleration and chaining ###



Accelerating simple loops of location 1.

   Accelerating the following rules:

      2: f4 -> f4 : B'=1+B, [], cost: 1



   Accelerated rule 2 with NONTERM, yielding the new rule 7.

   Removing the simple loops: 2.



Accelerated all simple loops using metering functions (where possible):

   Start location: f0

      0: f0 -> f4 : A'=free, B'=0, [], cost: 1

      7: f4 -> [3] : [], cost: NONTERM



Chained accelerated rules (with incoming rules):

   Start location: f0

      0: f0 -> f4 : A'=free, B'=0, [], cost: 1

      8: f0 -> [3] : A'=free, B'=0, [], cost: NONTERM



Removed unreachable locations (and leaf rules with constant cost):

   Start location: f0

      8: f0 -> [3] : A'=free, B'=0, [], cost: NONTERM



### Computing asymptotic complexity ###



Fully simplified ITS problem

   Start location: f0

      8: f0 -> [3] : A'=free, B'=0, [], cost: NONTERM



Computing asymptotic complexity for rule 8

   Guard is satisfiable, yielding nontermination

   Resulting cost NONTERM has complexity: Nonterm



Found new complexity Nonterm.



Obtained the following overall complexity (w.r.t. the length of the input n):

   Complexity:  Nonterm

   Cpx degree:  Nonterm

   Solved cost: NONTERM

   Rule cost:   NONTERM

   Rule guard:  []



NO


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

(2)
BOUNDS(INF, INF)