WORST_CASE(?,O(n^1))
proof of input_m1O5G2v0xx.trs
# AProVE Commit ID: aff8ecad908e01718a4c36e68d2e55d5e0f16e15 fuhs 20220216 unpublished


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

(0) CpxTRS
(1) RelTrsToTrsProof [UPPER BOUND(ID), 0 ms]
(2) CpxTRS
(3) CpxTrsMatchBoundsTAProof [FINISHED, 0 ms]
(4) BOUNDS(1, n^1)


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

(0)
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:

   g(f(x, y), z) -> f(x, g(y, z))
   g(h(x, y), z) -> g(x, f(y, z))
   g(x, h(y, z)) -> h(g(x, y), z)

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:

   g(f(x, y), z) -> f(x, g(y, z))
   g(h(x, y), z) -> g(x, f(y, z))
   g(x, h(y, z)) -> h(g(x, y), z)

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: 
f0(0, 0) -> 0
h0(0, 0) -> 0
g0(0, 0) -> 1
g1(0, 0) -> 2
f1(0, 2) -> 1
f1(0, 0) -> 3
g1(0, 3) -> 1
g1(0, 0) -> 4
h1(4, 0) -> 1
g1(0, 3) -> 2
f1(0, 2) -> 2
f1(0, 2) -> 4
f1(0, 3) -> 3
g1(0, 3) -> 4
h1(4, 0) -> 2
h1(4, 0) -> 4

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

(4)
BOUNDS(1, n^1)