WORST_CASE(?,O(n^1)) proof of input_xmVhRgnWuN.trs # AProVE Commit ID: aff8ecad908e01718a4c36e68d2e55d5e0f16e15 fuhs 20220216 unpublished The Runtime Complexity (parallel-innermost) of the given CpxTRS could be proven to be BOUNDS(1, n^1).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: decrease(Cons(x, xs)) -> decrease(xs) decrease(Nil) -> number42(Nil) number42(x) -> Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Nil)))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))) goal(x) -> decrease(x) 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: decrease(Cons(x, xs)) -> decrease(xs) decrease(Nil) -> number42(Nil) number42(x) -> Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Cons(Nil, Nil)))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))) goal(x) -> decrease(x) 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, 2, 3] transitions: Cons0(0, 0) -> 0 Nil0() -> 0 decrease0(0) -> 1 number420(0) -> 2 goal0(0) -> 3 decrease1(0) -> 1 Nil1() -> 4 number421(4) -> 1 Nil1() -> 5 Nil1() -> 8 Cons1(5, 8) -> 7 Cons1(5, 7) -> 6 Cons1(5, 6) -> 6 Cons1(5, 6) -> 2 decrease1(0) -> 3 number421(4) -> 3 Nil2() -> 9 Nil2() -> 12 Cons2(9, 12) -> 11 Cons2(9, 11) -> 10 Cons2(9, 10) -> 10 Cons2(9, 10) -> 1 Cons2(9, 10) -> 3 ---------------------------------------- (4) BOUNDS(1, n^1)