KILLED proof of input_gajiACyGs3.trs # AProVE Commit ID: aff8ecad908e01718a4c36e68d2e55d5e0f16e15 fuhs 20220216 unpublished The Runtime Complexity (parallel-innermost) of the given CpxTRS could be proven to be BOUNDS(1, INF). (0) CpxTRS (1) RenamingProof [BOTH BOUNDS(ID, ID), 0 ms] (2) CpxTRS (3) RelTrsToTrsProof [UPPER BOUND(ID), 0 ms] (4) CpxTRS (5) RelTrsToWeightedTrsProof [UPPER BOUND(ID), 0 ms] (6) CpxWeightedTrs (7) TypeInferenceProof [BOTH BOUNDS(ID, ID), 0 ms] (8) CpxTypedWeightedTrs (9) CompletionProof [UPPER BOUND(ID), 0 ms] (10) CpxTypedWeightedCompleteTrs (11) NarrowingProof [BOTH BOUNDS(ID, ID), 0 ms] (12) CpxTypedWeightedCompleteTrs (13) CpxTypedWeightedTrsToRntsProof [UPPER BOUND(ID), 0 ms] (14) CpxRNTS (15) InliningProof [UPPER BOUND(ID), 69 ms] (16) CpxRNTS (17) SimplificationProof [BOTH BOUNDS(ID, ID), 0 ms] (18) CpxRNTS (19) CpxRntsAnalysisOrderProof [BOTH BOUNDS(ID, ID), 0 ms] (20) CpxRNTS (21) ResultPropagationProof [UPPER BOUND(ID), 0 ms] (22) CpxRNTS (23) IntTrsBoundProof [UPPER BOUND(ID), 120 ms] (24) CpxRNTS (25) IntTrsBoundProof [UPPER BOUND(ID), 56 ms] (26) CpxRNTS (27) ResultPropagationProof [UPPER BOUND(ID), 0 ms] (28) CpxRNTS (29) IntTrsBoundProof [UPPER BOUND(ID), 1211 ms] (30) CpxRNTS (31) IntTrsBoundProof [UPPER BOUND(ID), 648 ms] (32) CpxRNTS (33) CompletionProof [UPPER BOUND(ID), 0 ms] (34) CpxTypedWeightedCompleteTrs (35) CpxTypedWeightedTrsToRntsProof [UPPER BOUND(ID), 0 ms] (36) CpxRNTS (37) CpxTrsToCdtProof [UPPER BOUND(ID), 0 ms] (38) CdtProblem (39) CdtLeafRemovalProof [ComplexityIfPolyImplication, 0 ms] (40) CdtProblem (41) CdtUsableRulesProof [BOTH BOUNDS(ID, ID), 0 ms] (42) CdtProblem (43) CdtInstantiationProof [BOTH BOUNDS(ID, ID), 0 ms] (44) CdtProblem (45) CdtInstantiationProof [BOTH BOUNDS(ID, ID), 0 ms] (46) CdtProblem ---------------------------------------- (0) Obligation: The Runtime Complexity (parallel-innermost) of the given CpxTRS could be proven to be BOUNDS(1, INF). The TRS R consists of the following rules: increase(Nil) -> number42(Nil) increase(Cons(x, xs)) -> increase(Cons(Cons(Nil, Nil), Cons(x, xs))) 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) -> increase(x) S is empty. Rewrite Strategy: PARALLEL_INNERMOST ---------------------------------------- (1) RenamingProof (BOTH BOUNDS(ID, ID)) Renamed function symbols to avoid clashes with predefined symbol. ---------------------------------------- (2) Obligation: The Runtime Complexity (parallel-innermost) of the given CpxTRS could be proven to be BOUNDS(1, INF). The TRS R consists of the following rules: increase(Nil) -> number42(Nil) increase(Cons(x, xs)) -> increase(Cons(Cons(Nil, Nil), Cons(x, xs))) 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) -> increase(x) S is empty. Rewrite Strategy: PARALLEL_INNERMOST ---------------------------------------- (3) RelTrsToTrsProof (UPPER BOUND(ID)) transformed relative TRS to TRS ---------------------------------------- (4) Obligation: The Runtime Complexity (parallel-innermost) of the given CpxTRS could be proven to be BOUNDS(1, INF). The TRS R consists of the following rules: increase(Nil) -> number42(Nil) increase(Cons(x, xs)) -> increase(Cons(Cons(Nil, Nil), Cons(x, xs))) 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) -> increase(x) S is empty. Rewrite Strategy: PARALLEL_INNERMOST ---------------------------------------- (5) RelTrsToWeightedTrsProof (UPPER BOUND(ID)) Transformed relative TRS to weighted TRS ---------------------------------------- (6) Obligation: The Runtime Complexity (innermost) of the given CpxWeightedTrs could be proven to be BOUNDS(1, INF). The TRS R consists of the following rules: increase(Nil) -> number42(Nil) [1] increase(Cons(x, xs)) -> increase(Cons(Cons(Nil, Nil), Cons(x, xs))) [1] 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)))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))) [1] goal(x) -> increase(x) [1] Rewrite Strategy: INNERMOST ---------------------------------------- (7) TypeInferenceProof (BOTH BOUNDS(ID, ID)) Infered types. ---------------------------------------- (8) Obligation: Runtime Complexity Weighted TRS with Types. The TRS R consists of the following rules: increase(Nil) -> number42(Nil) [1] increase(Cons(x, xs)) -> increase(Cons(Cons(Nil, Nil), Cons(x, xs))) [1] 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)))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))) [1] goal(x) -> increase(x) [1] The TRS has the following type information: increase :: Nil:Cons -> Nil:Cons Nil :: Nil:Cons number42 :: Nil:Cons -> Nil:Cons Cons :: Nil:Cons -> Nil:Cons -> Nil:Cons goal :: Nil:Cons -> Nil:Cons Rewrite Strategy: INNERMOST ---------------------------------------- (9) CompletionProof (UPPER BOUND(ID)) The transformation into a RNTS is sound, since: (a) The obligation is a constructor system where every type has a constant constructor, (b) The following defined symbols do not have to be completely defined, as they can never occur inside other defined symbols: increase_1 number42_1 goal_1 (c) The following functions are completely defined: none Due to the following rules being added: none And the following fresh constants: none ---------------------------------------- (10) Obligation: Runtime Complexity Weighted TRS where critical functions are completely defined. The underlying TRS is: Runtime Complexity Weighted TRS with Types. The TRS R consists of the following rules: increase(Nil) -> number42(Nil) [1] increase(Cons(x, xs)) -> increase(Cons(Cons(Nil, Nil), Cons(x, xs))) [1] 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)))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))) [1] goal(x) -> increase(x) [1] The TRS has the following type information: increase :: Nil:Cons -> Nil:Cons Nil :: Nil:Cons number42 :: Nil:Cons -> Nil:Cons Cons :: Nil:Cons -> Nil:Cons -> Nil:Cons goal :: Nil:Cons -> Nil:Cons Rewrite Strategy: INNERMOST ---------------------------------------- (11) NarrowingProof (BOTH BOUNDS(ID, ID)) Narrowed the inner basic terms of all right-hand sides by a single narrowing step. ---------------------------------------- (12) Obligation: Runtime Complexity Weighted TRS where critical functions are completely defined. The underlying TRS is: Runtime Complexity Weighted TRS with Types. The TRS R consists of the following rules: increase(Nil) -> number42(Nil) [1] increase(Cons(x, xs)) -> increase(Cons(Cons(Nil, Nil), Cons(x, xs))) [1] 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)))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))) [1] goal(x) -> increase(x) [1] The TRS has the following type information: increase :: Nil:Cons -> Nil:Cons Nil :: Nil:Cons number42 :: Nil:Cons -> Nil:Cons Cons :: Nil:Cons -> Nil:Cons -> Nil:Cons goal :: Nil:Cons -> Nil:Cons Rewrite Strategy: INNERMOST ---------------------------------------- (13) CpxTypedWeightedTrsToRntsProof (UPPER BOUND(ID)) Transformed the TRS into an over-approximating RNTS by (improved) Size Abstraction. The constant constructors are abstracted as follows: Nil => 0 ---------------------------------------- (14) Obligation: Complexity RNTS consisting of the following rules: goal(z) -{ 1 }-> increase(x) :|: x >= 0, z = x increase(z) -{ 1 }-> number42(0) :|: z = 0 increase(z) -{ 1 }-> increase(1 + (1 + 0 + 0) + (1 + x + xs)) :|: z = 1 + x + xs, xs >= 0, x >= 0 number42(z) -{ 1 }-> 1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + 0))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))) :|: x >= 0, z = x ---------------------------------------- (15) InliningProof (UPPER BOUND(ID)) Inlined the following terminating rules on right-hand sides where appropriate: number42(z) -{ 1 }-> 1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + 0))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))) :|: x >= 0, z = x ---------------------------------------- (16) Obligation: Complexity RNTS consisting of the following rules: goal(z) -{ 1 }-> increase(x) :|: x >= 0, z = x increase(z) -{ 1 }-> increase(1 + (1 + 0 + 0) + (1 + x + xs)) :|: z = 1 + x + xs, xs >= 0, x >= 0 increase(z) -{ 2 }-> 1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + 0))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))) :|: z = 0, x >= 0, 0 = x number42(z) -{ 1 }-> 1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + 0))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))) :|: x >= 0, z = x ---------------------------------------- (17) SimplificationProof (BOTH BOUNDS(ID, ID)) Simplified the RNTS by moving equalities from the constraints into the right-hand sides. ---------------------------------------- (18) Obligation: Complexity RNTS consisting of the following rules: goal(z) -{ 1 }-> increase(z) :|: z >= 0 increase(z) -{ 1 }-> increase(1 + (1 + 0 + 0) + (1 + x + xs)) :|: z = 1 + x + xs, xs >= 0, x >= 0 increase(z) -{ 2 }-> 1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + 0))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))) :|: z = 0, x >= 0, 0 = x number42(z) -{ 1 }-> 1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + 0))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))) :|: z >= 0 ---------------------------------------- (19) CpxRntsAnalysisOrderProof (BOTH BOUNDS(ID, ID)) Found the following analysis order by SCC decomposition: { number42 } { increase } { goal } ---------------------------------------- (20) Obligation: Complexity RNTS consisting of the following rules: goal(z) -{ 1 }-> increase(z) :|: z >= 0 increase(z) -{ 1 }-> increase(1 + (1 + 0 + 0) + (1 + x + xs)) :|: z = 1 + x + xs, xs >= 0, x >= 0 increase(z) -{ 2 }-> 1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + 0))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))) :|: z = 0, x >= 0, 0 = x number42(z) -{ 1 }-> 1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + 0))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))) :|: z >= 0 Function symbols to be analyzed: {number42}, {increase}, {goal} ---------------------------------------- (21) ResultPropagationProof (UPPER BOUND(ID)) Applied inner abstraction using the recently inferred runtime/size bounds where possible. ---------------------------------------- (22) Obligation: Complexity RNTS consisting of the following rules: goal(z) -{ 1 }-> increase(z) :|: z >= 0 increase(z) -{ 1 }-> increase(1 + (1 + 0 + 0) + (1 + x + xs)) :|: z = 1 + x + xs, xs >= 0, x >= 0 increase(z) -{ 2 }-> 1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + 0))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))) :|: z = 0, x >= 0, 0 = x number42(z) -{ 1 }-> 1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + 0))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))) :|: z >= 0 Function symbols to be analyzed: {number42}, {increase}, {goal} ---------------------------------------- (23) IntTrsBoundProof (UPPER BOUND(ID)) Computed SIZE bound using CoFloCo for: number42 after applying outer abstraction to obtain an ITS, resulting in: O(1) with polynomial bound: 42 ---------------------------------------- (24) Obligation: Complexity RNTS consisting of the following rules: goal(z) -{ 1 }-> increase(z) :|: z >= 0 increase(z) -{ 1 }-> increase(1 + (1 + 0 + 0) + (1 + x + xs)) :|: z = 1 + x + xs, xs >= 0, x >= 0 increase(z) -{ 2 }-> 1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + 0))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))) :|: z = 0, x >= 0, 0 = x number42(z) -{ 1 }-> 1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + 0))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))) :|: z >= 0 Function symbols to be analyzed: {number42}, {increase}, {goal} Previous analysis results are: number42: runtime: ?, size: O(1) [42] ---------------------------------------- (25) IntTrsBoundProof (UPPER BOUND(ID)) Computed RUNTIME bound using CoFloCo for: number42 after applying outer abstraction to obtain an ITS, resulting in: O(1) with polynomial bound: 1 ---------------------------------------- (26) Obligation: Complexity RNTS consisting of the following rules: goal(z) -{ 1 }-> increase(z) :|: z >= 0 increase(z) -{ 1 }-> increase(1 + (1 + 0 + 0) + (1 + x + xs)) :|: z = 1 + x + xs, xs >= 0, x >= 0 increase(z) -{ 2 }-> 1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + 0))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))) :|: z = 0, x >= 0, 0 = x number42(z) -{ 1 }-> 1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + 0))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))) :|: z >= 0 Function symbols to be analyzed: {increase}, {goal} Previous analysis results are: number42: runtime: O(1) [1], size: O(1) [42] ---------------------------------------- (27) ResultPropagationProof (UPPER BOUND(ID)) Applied inner abstraction using the recently inferred runtime/size bounds where possible. ---------------------------------------- (28) Obligation: Complexity RNTS consisting of the following rules: goal(z) -{ 1 }-> increase(z) :|: z >= 0 increase(z) -{ 1 }-> increase(1 + (1 + 0 + 0) + (1 + x + xs)) :|: z = 1 + x + xs, xs >= 0, x >= 0 increase(z) -{ 2 }-> 1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + 0))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))) :|: z = 0, x >= 0, 0 = x number42(z) -{ 1 }-> 1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + 0))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))) :|: z >= 0 Function symbols to be analyzed: {increase}, {goal} Previous analysis results are: number42: runtime: O(1) [1], size: O(1) [42] ---------------------------------------- (29) IntTrsBoundProof (UPPER BOUND(ID)) Computed SIZE bound using CoFloCo for: increase after applying outer abstraction to obtain an ITS, resulting in: O(1) with polynomial bound: 42 ---------------------------------------- (30) Obligation: Complexity RNTS consisting of the following rules: goal(z) -{ 1 }-> increase(z) :|: z >= 0 increase(z) -{ 1 }-> increase(1 + (1 + 0 + 0) + (1 + x + xs)) :|: z = 1 + x + xs, xs >= 0, x >= 0 increase(z) -{ 2 }-> 1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + 0))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))) :|: z = 0, x >= 0, 0 = x number42(z) -{ 1 }-> 1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + 0))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))) :|: z >= 0 Function symbols to be analyzed: {increase}, {goal} Previous analysis results are: number42: runtime: O(1) [1], size: O(1) [42] increase: runtime: ?, size: O(1) [42] ---------------------------------------- (31) IntTrsBoundProof (UPPER BOUND(ID)) Computed RUNTIME bound using CoFloCo for: increase after applying outer abstraction to obtain an ITS, resulting in: INF with polynomial bound: ? ---------------------------------------- (32) Obligation: Complexity RNTS consisting of the following rules: goal(z) -{ 1 }-> increase(z) :|: z >= 0 increase(z) -{ 1 }-> increase(1 + (1 + 0 + 0) + (1 + x + xs)) :|: z = 1 + x + xs, xs >= 0, x >= 0 increase(z) -{ 2 }-> 1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + 0))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))) :|: z = 0, x >= 0, 0 = x number42(z) -{ 1 }-> 1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + 0))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))) :|: z >= 0 Function symbols to be analyzed: {increase}, {goal} Previous analysis results are: number42: runtime: O(1) [1], size: O(1) [42] increase: runtime: INF, size: O(1) [42] ---------------------------------------- (33) CompletionProof (UPPER BOUND(ID)) The TRS is a completely defined constructor system, as every type has a constant constructor and the following rules were added: none And the following fresh constants: none ---------------------------------------- (34) Obligation: Runtime Complexity Weighted TRS where all functions are completely defined. The underlying TRS is: Runtime Complexity Weighted TRS with Types. The TRS R consists of the following rules: increase(Nil) -> number42(Nil) [1] increase(Cons(x, xs)) -> increase(Cons(Cons(Nil, Nil), Cons(x, xs))) [1] 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)))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))) [1] goal(x) -> increase(x) [1] The TRS has the following type information: increase :: Nil:Cons -> Nil:Cons Nil :: Nil:Cons number42 :: Nil:Cons -> Nil:Cons Cons :: Nil:Cons -> Nil:Cons -> Nil:Cons goal :: Nil:Cons -> Nil:Cons Rewrite Strategy: INNERMOST ---------------------------------------- (35) CpxTypedWeightedTrsToRntsProof (UPPER BOUND(ID)) Transformed the TRS into an over-approximating RNTS by (improved) Size Abstraction. The constant constructors are abstracted as follows: Nil => 0 ---------------------------------------- (36) Obligation: Complexity RNTS consisting of the following rules: goal(z) -{ 1 }-> increase(x) :|: x >= 0, z = x increase(z) -{ 1 }-> number42(0) :|: z = 0 increase(z) -{ 1 }-> increase(1 + (1 + 0 + 0) + (1 + x + xs)) :|: z = 1 + x + xs, xs >= 0, x >= 0 number42(z) -{ 1 }-> 1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + (1 + 0 + 0))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))) :|: x >= 0, z = x Only complete derivations are relevant for the runtime complexity. ---------------------------------------- (37) CpxTrsToCdtProof (UPPER BOUND(ID)) Converted Cpx (relative) TRS with rewrite strategy PARALLEL_INNERMOST to CDT ---------------------------------------- (38) Obligation: Complexity Dependency Tuples Problem Rules: increase(Nil) -> number42(Nil) increase(Cons(z0, z1)) -> increase(Cons(Cons(Nil, Nil), Cons(z0, z1))) number42(z0) -> 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(z0) -> increase(z0) Tuples: INCREASE(Nil) -> c(NUMBER42(Nil)) INCREASE(Cons(z0, z1)) -> c1(INCREASE(Cons(Cons(Nil, Nil), Cons(z0, z1)))) NUMBER42(z0) -> c2 GOAL(z0) -> c3(INCREASE(z0)) S tuples: INCREASE(Nil) -> c(NUMBER42(Nil)) INCREASE(Cons(z0, z1)) -> c1(INCREASE(Cons(Cons(Nil, Nil), Cons(z0, z1)))) NUMBER42(z0) -> c2 GOAL(z0) -> c3(INCREASE(z0)) K tuples:none Defined Rule Symbols: increase_1, number42_1, goal_1 Defined Pair Symbols: INCREASE_1, NUMBER42_1, GOAL_1 Compound Symbols: c_1, c1_1, c2, c3_1 ---------------------------------------- (39) CdtLeafRemovalProof (ComplexityIfPolyImplication) Removed 1 leading nodes: GOAL(z0) -> c3(INCREASE(z0)) Removed 2 trailing nodes: INCREASE(Nil) -> c(NUMBER42(Nil)) NUMBER42(z0) -> c2 ---------------------------------------- (40) Obligation: Complexity Dependency Tuples Problem Rules: increase(Nil) -> number42(Nil) increase(Cons(z0, z1)) -> increase(Cons(Cons(Nil, Nil), Cons(z0, z1))) number42(z0) -> 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(z0) -> increase(z0) Tuples: INCREASE(Cons(z0, z1)) -> c1(INCREASE(Cons(Cons(Nil, Nil), Cons(z0, z1)))) S tuples: INCREASE(Cons(z0, z1)) -> c1(INCREASE(Cons(Cons(Nil, Nil), Cons(z0, z1)))) K tuples:none Defined Rule Symbols: increase_1, number42_1, goal_1 Defined Pair Symbols: INCREASE_1 Compound Symbols: c1_1 ---------------------------------------- (41) CdtUsableRulesProof (BOTH BOUNDS(ID, ID)) The following rules are not usable and were removed: increase(Nil) -> number42(Nil) increase(Cons(z0, z1)) -> increase(Cons(Cons(Nil, Nil), Cons(z0, z1))) number42(z0) -> 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(z0) -> increase(z0) ---------------------------------------- (42) Obligation: Complexity Dependency Tuples Problem Rules:none Tuples: INCREASE(Cons(z0, z1)) -> c1(INCREASE(Cons(Cons(Nil, Nil), Cons(z0, z1)))) S tuples: INCREASE(Cons(z0, z1)) -> c1(INCREASE(Cons(Cons(Nil, Nil), Cons(z0, z1)))) K tuples:none Defined Rule Symbols:none Defined Pair Symbols: INCREASE_1 Compound Symbols: c1_1 ---------------------------------------- (43) CdtInstantiationProof (BOTH BOUNDS(ID, ID)) Use instantiation to replace INCREASE(Cons(z0, z1)) -> c1(INCREASE(Cons(Cons(Nil, Nil), Cons(z0, z1)))) by INCREASE(Cons(Cons(Nil, Nil), Cons(x0, x1))) -> c1(INCREASE(Cons(Cons(Nil, Nil), Cons(Cons(Nil, Nil), Cons(x0, x1))))) ---------------------------------------- (44) Obligation: Complexity Dependency Tuples Problem Rules:none Tuples: INCREASE(Cons(Cons(Nil, Nil), Cons(x0, x1))) -> c1(INCREASE(Cons(Cons(Nil, Nil), Cons(Cons(Nil, Nil), Cons(x0, x1))))) S tuples: INCREASE(Cons(Cons(Nil, Nil), Cons(x0, x1))) -> c1(INCREASE(Cons(Cons(Nil, Nil), Cons(Cons(Nil, Nil), Cons(x0, x1))))) K tuples:none Defined Rule Symbols:none Defined Pair Symbols: INCREASE_1 Compound Symbols: c1_1 ---------------------------------------- (45) CdtInstantiationProof (BOTH BOUNDS(ID, ID)) Use instantiation to replace INCREASE(Cons(Cons(Nil, Nil), Cons(x0, x1))) -> c1(INCREASE(Cons(Cons(Nil, Nil), Cons(Cons(Nil, Nil), Cons(x0, x1))))) by INCREASE(Cons(Cons(Nil, Nil), Cons(Cons(Nil, Nil), Cons(x0, x1)))) -> c1(INCREASE(Cons(Cons(Nil, Nil), Cons(Cons(Nil, Nil), Cons(Cons(Nil, Nil), Cons(x0, x1)))))) ---------------------------------------- (46) Obligation: Complexity Dependency Tuples Problem Rules:none Tuples: INCREASE(Cons(Cons(Nil, Nil), Cons(Cons(Nil, Nil), Cons(x0, x1)))) -> c1(INCREASE(Cons(Cons(Nil, Nil), Cons(Cons(Nil, Nil), Cons(Cons(Nil, Nil), Cons(x0, x1)))))) S tuples: INCREASE(Cons(Cons(Nil, Nil), Cons(Cons(Nil, Nil), Cons(x0, x1)))) -> c1(INCREASE(Cons(Cons(Nil, Nil), Cons(Cons(Nil, Nil), Cons(Cons(Nil, Nil), Cons(x0, x1)))))) K tuples:none Defined Rule Symbols:none Defined Pair Symbols: INCREASE_1 Compound Symbols: c1_1