/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# AProVE Commit ID: 794c25de1cacf0d048858bcd21c9a779e1221865 marcel 20200619 unpublished dirty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, 296 ms]
(2) BOUNDS(INF, INF)


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

(0)
Obligation:
Complexity Int TRS consisting of the following rules:
f2(A, B) -> Com_1(f2(-(2) + C, B)) :|: 0 >= A + 1
f2(A, B) -> Com_1(f2(2 + C, B)) :|: A >= 1
f3(A, B) -> Com_1(f2(A, B)) :|: TRUE
f2(A, B) -> Com_1(f300(A, C)) :|: A >= 0 && A <= 0

The start-symbols are:[f3_2]


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

(1) Loat Proof (FINISHED)


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



Initial linear ITS problem

   Start location: f3

      0: f2 -> f2 : A'=-2+free, [ 0>=1+A ], cost: 1

      1: f2 -> f2 : A'=2+free_1, [ A>=1 ], cost: 1

      3: f2 -> f300 : B'=free_2, [ A==0 ], cost: 1

      2: f3 -> f2 : [], cost: 1



Checking for constant complexity:

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

      2: f3 -> f2 : [], cost: 1



Removed unreachable and leaf rules:

   Start location: f3

      0: f2 -> f2 : A'=-2+free, [ 0>=1+A ], cost: 1

      1: f2 -> f2 : A'=2+free_1, [ A>=1 ], cost: 1

      2: f3 -> f2 : [], cost: 1



### Simplification by acceleration and chaining ###



Accelerating simple loops of location 0.

   Accelerating the following rules:

      0: f2 -> f2 : A'=-2+free, [ 0>=1+A ], cost: 1

      1: f2 -> f2 : A'=2+free_1, [ A>=1 ], cost: 1



   Accelerated rule 0 with NONTERM (after strengthening guard), yielding the new rule 4.

   Accelerated rule 1 with NONTERM (after strengthening guard), yielding the new rule 5.

   Removing the simple loops:.



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

   Start location: f3

      0: f2 -> f2 : A'=-2+free, [ 0>=1+A ], cost: 1

      1: f2 -> f2 : A'=2+free_1, [ A>=1 ], cost: 1

      4: f2 -> [3] : [ 0>=1+A && 0>=-1+free ], cost: NONTERM

      5: f2 -> [3] : [ A>=1 && 2+free_1>=1 ], cost: NONTERM

      2: f3 -> f2 : [], cost: 1



Chained accelerated rules (with incoming rules):

   Start location: f3

      2: f3 -> f2 : [], cost: 1

      6: f3 -> f2 : A'=-2+free, [ 0>=1+A ], cost: 2

      7: f3 -> f2 : A'=2+free_1, [ A>=1 ], cost: 2

      8: f3 -> [3] : [ 0>=1+A ], cost: NONTERM

      9: f3 -> [3] : [ A>=1 ], cost: NONTERM



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

   Start location: f3

      8: f3 -> [3] : [ 0>=1+A ], cost: NONTERM

      9: f3 -> [3] : [ A>=1 ], cost: NONTERM



### Computing asymptotic complexity ###



Fully simplified ITS problem

   Start location: f3

      8: f3 -> [3] : [ 0>=1+A ], cost: NONTERM

      9: f3 -> [3] : [ A>=1 ], 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:  [ 0>=1+A ]



NO


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

(2)
BOUNDS(INF, INF)