WORST_CASE(?,O(n^1)) proof of input_AQpajCLetN.trs # AProVE Commit ID: aff8ecad908e01718a4c36e68d2e55d5e0f16e15 fuhs 20220216 unpublished The Runtime Complexity (parallel-innermost) of the given CpxTRS could be proven to be BOUNDS(1, n^1).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, 38 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: implies(not(x), y) -> or(x, y) implies(not(x), or(y, z)) -> implies(y, or(x, z)) implies(x, or(y, z)) -> or(y, implies(x, 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: implies(not(x), y) -> or(x, y) implies(not(x), or(y, z)) -> implies(y, or(x, z)) implies(x, or(y, z)) -> or(y, implies(x, 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 2. The compatible tree automaton used to show the Match-Boundedness (for constructor-based start-terms) is represented by: final states : [1] transitions: not0(0) -> 0 or0(0, 0) -> 0 implies0(0, 0) -> 1 or1(0, 0) -> 1 or1(0, 0) -> 2 implies1(0, 2) -> 1 implies1(0, 0) -> 3 or1(0, 3) -> 1 or1(0, 2) -> 1 or1(0, 0) -> 3 implies1(0, 2) -> 3 or1(0, 3) -> 3 implies2(0, 0) -> 4 or2(0, 4) -> 1 or1(0, 2) -> 3 or2(0, 4) -> 3 or1(0, 0) -> 4 implies1(0, 2) -> 4 or1(0, 3) -> 4 or1(0, 2) -> 4 or2(0, 4) -> 4 ---------------------------------------- (4) BOUNDS(1, n^1)