/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# AProVE Commit ID: 794c25de1cacf0d048858bcd21c9a779e1221865 marcel 20200619 unpublished dirty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, 129 ms]
(2) BOUNDS(INF, INF)


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

(0)
Obligation:
Complexity Int TRS consisting of the following rules:
f2(A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I, J) -> Com_1(f2(A, B, K, L, M, F, G, H, I, J)) :|: B >= 1 + A
f2(A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I, J) -> Com_1(f300(A, B, K, L, E, M, G, H, I, J)) :|: A >= B
f1(A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I, J) -> Com_1(f2(A, B, C, D, E, F, K, L, L, K)) :|: TRUE

The start-symbols are:[f1_10]


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

(1) Loat Proof (FINISHED)


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



Initial linear ITS problem

   Start location: f1

      0: f2 -> f2 : C'=free_1, D'=free_2, E'=free, [ A>=1+B ], cost: 1

      1: f2 -> f300 : C'=free_4, D'=free_5, F'=free_3, [ B>=A ], cost: 1

      2: f1 -> f2 : G'=free_6, H'=free_7, Q'=free_7, J'=free_6, [], cost: 1



Checking for constant complexity:

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

      2: f1 -> f2 : G'=free_6, H'=free_7, Q'=free_7, J'=free_6, [], cost: 1



Removed unreachable and leaf rules:

   Start location: f1

      0: f2 -> f2 : C'=free_1, D'=free_2, E'=free, [ A>=1+B ], cost: 1

      2: f1 -> f2 : G'=free_6, H'=free_7, Q'=free_7, J'=free_6, [], cost: 1



### Simplification by acceleration and chaining ###



Accelerating simple loops of location 0.

   Accelerating the following rules:

      0: f2 -> f2 : C'=free_1, D'=free_2, E'=free, [ A>=1+B ], cost: 1



   Accelerated rule 0 with NONTERM, yielding the new rule 3.

   Removing the simple loops: 0.



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

   Start location: f1

      3: f2 -> [3] : [ A>=1+B ], cost: NONTERM

      2: f1 -> f2 : G'=free_6, H'=free_7, Q'=free_7, J'=free_6, [], cost: 1



Chained accelerated rules (with incoming rules):

   Start location: f1

      2: f1 -> f2 : G'=free_6, H'=free_7, Q'=free_7, J'=free_6, [], cost: 1

      4: f1 -> [3] : G'=free_6, H'=free_7, Q'=free_7, J'=free_6, [ A>=1+B ], cost: NONTERM



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

   Start location: f1

      4: f1 -> [3] : G'=free_6, H'=free_7, Q'=free_7, J'=free_6, [ A>=1+B ], cost: NONTERM



### Computing asymptotic complexity ###



Fully simplified ITS problem

   Start location: f1

      4: f1 -> [3] : G'=free_6, H'=free_7, Q'=free_7, J'=free_6, [ A>=1+B ], cost: NONTERM



Computing asymptotic complexity for rule 4

   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:  [ A>=1+B ]



NO


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

(2)
BOUNDS(INF, INF)