WORST_CASE(Omega(n^1),O(n^1))
proof of input_tA8UYxiVMl.trs
# AProVE Commit ID: aff8ecad908e01718a4c36e68d2e55d5e0f16e15 fuhs 20220216 unpublished


The Runtime Complexity (parallel-innermost) of the given CpxTRS could be proven to be BOUNDS(n^1, n^1).

(0) CpxTRS
(1) RelTrsToTrsProof [UPPER BOUND(ID), 0 ms]
(2) CpxTRS
    (3) CpxTrsMatchBoundsTAProof [FINISHED, 0 ms]
    (4) BOUNDS(1, n^1)
(5) CpxTrsToCdtProof [BOTH BOUNDS(ID, ID), 0 ms]
(6) CdtProblem
    (7) CdtToCpxRelTrsProof [BOTH BOUNDS(ID, ID), 0 ms]
    (8) CpxRelTRS
    (9) RenamingProof [BOTH BOUNDS(ID, ID), 0 ms]
    (10) CpxRelTRS
    (11) TypeInferenceProof [BOTH BOUNDS(ID, ID), 0 ms]
    (12) typed CpxTrs
    (13) OrderProof [LOWER BOUND(ID), 0 ms]
    (14) typed CpxTrs
    (15) RewriteLemmaProof [LOWER BOUND(ID), 19.5 s]
    (16) BEST
        (17) proven lower bound
            (18) LowerBoundPropagationProof [FINISHED, 0 ms]
            (19) BOUNDS(n^1, INF)
        (20) typed CpxTrs
            (21) RewriteLemmaProof [LOWER BOUND(ID), 797 ms]
            (22) BOUNDS(1, INF)


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

(0)
Obligation:
The Runtime Complexity (parallel-innermost) of the given CpxTRS could be proven to be BOUNDS(n^1, n^1).


The TRS R consists of the following rules:

   f(S(x), x2) -> f(x2, x)
   f(0, x2) -> 0

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

(1) RelTrsToTrsProof (UPPER BOUND(ID))
transformed relative TRS to TRS
----------------------------------------

(2)
Obligation:
The Runtime Complexity (parallel-innermost) of the given CpxTRS could be proven to be BOUNDS(1, n^1).


The TRS R consists of the following rules:

   f(S(x), x2) -> f(x2, x)
   f(0, x2) -> 0

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

(3) CpxTrsMatchBoundsTAProof (FINISHED)
A linear upper bound on the runtime complexity of the TRS R could be shown with a Match-Bound[TAB_LEFTLINEAR,TAB_NONLEFTLINEAR] (for contructor-based start-terms) of 1. 

The compatible tree automaton used to show the Match-Boundedness (for constructor-based start-terms) is represented by: 
final states : [1]
transitions: 
S0(0) -> 0
00() -> 0
f0(0, 0) -> 1
f1(0, 0) -> 1
01() -> 1

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

(4)
BOUNDS(1, n^1)

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

(5) CpxTrsToCdtProof (BOTH BOUNDS(ID, ID))
Converted Cpx (relative) TRS with rewrite strategy PARALLEL_INNERMOST to CDT
----------------------------------------

(6)
Obligation:
Complexity Dependency Tuples Problem

Rules:
   f(S(z0), z1) -> f(z1, z0)
   f(0, z0) -> 0
Tuples:
   F(S(z0), z1) -> c(F(z1, z0))
   F(0, z0) -> c1
S tuples:
   F(S(z0), z1) -> c(F(z1, z0))
   F(0, z0) -> c1
K tuples:none
Defined Rule Symbols:   f_2

Defined Pair Symbols:   F_2

Compound Symbols:   c_1, c1


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

(7) CdtToCpxRelTrsProof (BOTH BOUNDS(ID, ID))
Converted S to standard rules, and D \ S as well as R to relative rules.
----------------------------------------

(8)
Obligation:
The Runtime Complexity (innermost) of the given CpxRelTRS could be proven to be BOUNDS(n^1, INF).


The TRS R consists of the following rules:

   F(S(z0), z1) -> c(F(z1, z0))
   F(0, z0) -> c1

The (relative) TRS S consists of the following rules:

   f(S(z0), z1) -> f(z1, z0)
   f(0, z0) -> 0

Rewrite Strategy: INNERMOST
----------------------------------------

(9) RenamingProof (BOTH BOUNDS(ID, ID))
Renamed function symbols to avoid clashes with predefined symbol.
----------------------------------------

(10)
Obligation:
The Runtime Complexity (innermost) of the given CpxRelTRS could be proven to be BOUNDS(n^1, INF).


The TRS R consists of the following rules:

   F(S(z0), z1) -> c(F(z1, z0))
   F(0', z0) -> c1

The (relative) TRS S consists of the following rules:

   f(S(z0), z1) -> f(z1, z0)
   f(0', z0) -> 0'

Rewrite Strategy: INNERMOST
----------------------------------------

(11) TypeInferenceProof (BOTH BOUNDS(ID, ID))
Inferred types.
----------------------------------------

(12)
Obligation:
Innermost TRS:
Rules:
F(S(z0), z1) -> c(F(z1, z0))
F(0', z0) -> c1
f(S(z0), z1) -> f(z1, z0)
f(0', z0) -> 0'

Types:
F :: S:0' -> S:0' -> c:c1
S :: S:0' -> S:0'
c :: c:c1 -> c:c1
0' :: S:0'
c1 :: c:c1
f :: S:0' -> S:0' -> S:0'
hole_c:c11_2 :: c:c1
hole_S:0'2_2 :: S:0'
gen_c:c13_2 :: Nat -> c:c1
gen_S:0'4_2 :: Nat -> S:0'

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

(13) OrderProof (LOWER BOUND(ID))
Heuristically decided to analyse the following defined symbols:
F, f
----------------------------------------

(14)
Obligation:
Innermost TRS:
Rules:
F(S(z0), z1) -> c(F(z1, z0))
F(0', z0) -> c1
f(S(z0), z1) -> f(z1, z0)
f(0', z0) -> 0'

Types:
F :: S:0' -> S:0' -> c:c1
S :: S:0' -> S:0'
c :: c:c1 -> c:c1
0' :: S:0'
c1 :: c:c1
f :: S:0' -> S:0' -> S:0'
hole_c:c11_2 :: c:c1
hole_S:0'2_2 :: S:0'
gen_c:c13_2 :: Nat -> c:c1
gen_S:0'4_2 :: Nat -> S:0'


Generator Equations:
gen_c:c13_2(0) <=> c1
gen_c:c13_2(+(x, 1)) <=> c(gen_c:c13_2(x))
gen_S:0'4_2(0) <=> 0'
gen_S:0'4_2(+(x, 1)) <=> S(gen_S:0'4_2(x))


The following defined symbols remain to be analysed:
F, f
----------------------------------------

(15) RewriteLemmaProof (LOWER BOUND(ID))
Proved the following rewrite lemma:
F(gen_S:0'4_2(n6_2), gen_S:0'4_2(n6_2)) -> gen_c:c13_2(*(2, n6_2)), rt in Omega(1 + n6_2)

Induction Base:
F(gen_S:0'4_2(0), gen_S:0'4_2(0)) ->_R^Omega(1)
c1

Induction Step:
F(gen_S:0'4_2(+(n6_2, 1)), gen_S:0'4_2(+(n6_2, 1))) ->_R^Omega(1)
c(F(gen_S:0'4_2(+(n6_2, 1)), gen_S:0'4_2(n6_2))) ->_R^Omega(1)
c(c(F(gen_S:0'4_2(n6_2), gen_S:0'4_2(n6_2)))) ->_IH
c(c(gen_c:c13_2(*(2, c7_2))))

We have rt in Omega(n^1) and sz in O(n). Thus, we have irc_R in Omega(n).
----------------------------------------

(16)
Complex Obligation (BEST)

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

(17)
Obligation:
Proved the lower bound n^1 for the following obligation:

Innermost TRS:
Rules:
F(S(z0), z1) -> c(F(z1, z0))
F(0', z0) -> c1
f(S(z0), z1) -> f(z1, z0)
f(0', z0) -> 0'

Types:
F :: S:0' -> S:0' -> c:c1
S :: S:0' -> S:0'
c :: c:c1 -> c:c1
0' :: S:0'
c1 :: c:c1
f :: S:0' -> S:0' -> S:0'
hole_c:c11_2 :: c:c1
hole_S:0'2_2 :: S:0'
gen_c:c13_2 :: Nat -> c:c1
gen_S:0'4_2 :: Nat -> S:0'


Generator Equations:
gen_c:c13_2(0) <=> c1
gen_c:c13_2(+(x, 1)) <=> c(gen_c:c13_2(x))
gen_S:0'4_2(0) <=> 0'
gen_S:0'4_2(+(x, 1)) <=> S(gen_S:0'4_2(x))


The following defined symbols remain to be analysed:
F, f
----------------------------------------

(18) LowerBoundPropagationProof (FINISHED)
Propagated lower bound.
----------------------------------------

(19)
BOUNDS(n^1, INF)

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

(20)
Obligation:
Innermost TRS:
Rules:
F(S(z0), z1) -> c(F(z1, z0))
F(0', z0) -> c1
f(S(z0), z1) -> f(z1, z0)
f(0', z0) -> 0'

Types:
F :: S:0' -> S:0' -> c:c1
S :: S:0' -> S:0'
c :: c:c1 -> c:c1
0' :: S:0'
c1 :: c:c1
f :: S:0' -> S:0' -> S:0'
hole_c:c11_2 :: c:c1
hole_S:0'2_2 :: S:0'
gen_c:c13_2 :: Nat -> c:c1
gen_S:0'4_2 :: Nat -> S:0'


Lemmas:
F(gen_S:0'4_2(n6_2), gen_S:0'4_2(n6_2)) -> gen_c:c13_2(*(2, n6_2)), rt in Omega(1 + n6_2)


Generator Equations:
gen_c:c13_2(0) <=> c1
gen_c:c13_2(+(x, 1)) <=> c(gen_c:c13_2(x))
gen_S:0'4_2(0) <=> 0'
gen_S:0'4_2(+(x, 1)) <=> S(gen_S:0'4_2(x))


The following defined symbols remain to be analysed:
f
----------------------------------------

(21) RewriteLemmaProof (LOWER BOUND(ID))
Proved the following rewrite lemma:
f(gen_S:0'4_2(n8103_2), gen_S:0'4_2(n8103_2)) -> gen_S:0'4_2(0), rt in Omega(0)

Induction Base:
f(gen_S:0'4_2(0), gen_S:0'4_2(0)) ->_R^Omega(0)
0'

Induction Step:
f(gen_S:0'4_2(+(n8103_2, 1)), gen_S:0'4_2(+(n8103_2, 1))) ->_R^Omega(0)
f(gen_S:0'4_2(+(n8103_2, 1)), gen_S:0'4_2(n8103_2)) ->_R^Omega(0)
f(gen_S:0'4_2(n8103_2), gen_S:0'4_2(n8103_2)) ->_IH
gen_S:0'4_2(0)

We have rt in Omega(1) and sz in O(n). Thus, we have irc_R in Omega(n^0).
----------------------------------------

(22)
BOUNDS(1, INF)