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


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


WORST_CASE(NON_POLY, ?)
proof of /export/starexec/sandbox/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# AProVE Commit ID: 794c25de1cacf0d048858bcd21c9a779e1221865 marcel 20200619 unpublished dirty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, 106 ms]
(2) BOUNDS(INF, INF)


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

(0)
Obligation:
Complexity Int TRS consisting of the following rules:
f3(A, B, C, D) -> Com_1(f1(0, B, C, D)) :|: TRUE
f1(A, B, C, D) -> Com_1(f2(A, B, C, E)) :|: B >= C
f1(A, B, C, D) -> Com_1(f2(1, 1 + B, C, E)) :|: B + 1 >= C && B + 1 <= C && A >= 0 && A <= 0
f1(A, B, C, D) -> Com_1(f1(0, 1 + B, 1 + C, D)) :|: C >= 2 + B && C >= 1 + B && A >= 0 && A <= 0

The start-symbols are:[f3_4]


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

(1) Loat Proof (FINISHED)


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



Initial linear ITS problem

   Start location: f3

      0: f3 -> f1 : A'=0, [], cost: 1

      1: f1 -> f2 : D'=free, [ B>=C ], cost: 1

      2: f1 -> f2 : A'=1, B'=1+B, D'=free_1, [ 1+B==C && A==0 ], cost: 1

      3: f1 -> f1 : A'=0, B'=1+B, C'=1+C, [ C>=2+B && C>=1+B && A==0 ], cost: 1



Checking for constant complexity:

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

      0: f3 -> f1 : A'=0, [], cost: 1



Removed unreachable and leaf rules:

   Start location: f3

      0: f3 -> f1 : A'=0, [], cost: 1

      3: f1 -> f1 : A'=0, B'=1+B, C'=1+C, [ C>=2+B && C>=1+B && A==0 ], cost: 1



Simplified all rules, resulting in:

   Start location: f3

      0: f3 -> f1 : A'=0, [], cost: 1

      3: f1 -> f1 : A'=0, B'=1+B, C'=1+C, [ C>=2+B && A==0 ], cost: 1



### Simplification by acceleration and chaining ###



Accelerating simple loops of location 1.

   Accelerating the following rules:

      3: f1 -> f1 : A'=0, B'=1+B, C'=1+C, [ C>=2+B && A==0 ], cost: 1



   Accelerated rule 3 with NONTERM, yielding the new rule 4.

   Removing the simple loops: 3.



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

   Start location: f3

      0: f3 -> f1 : A'=0, [], cost: 1

      4: f1 -> [3] : [ C>=2+B && A==0 ], cost: NONTERM



Chained accelerated rules (with incoming rules):

   Start location: f3

      0: f3 -> f1 : A'=0, [], cost: 1

      5: f3 -> [3] : A'=0, [ C>=2+B ], cost: NONTERM



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

   Start location: f3

      5: f3 -> [3] : A'=0, [ C>=2+B ], cost: NONTERM



### Computing asymptotic complexity ###



Fully simplified ITS problem

   Start location: f3

      5: f3 -> [3] : A'=0, [ C>=2+B ], cost: NONTERM



Computing asymptotic complexity for rule 5

   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:  [ C>=2+B ]



NO


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

(2)
BOUNDS(INF, INF)