KILLED
proof of input_U6Hqx86bzm.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# AProVE Commit ID: aff8ecad908e01718a4c36e68d2e55d5e0f16e15 fuhs 20220216 unpublished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) SimplificationProof [BOTH BOUNDS(ID, ID), 0 ms]
        (16) CpxRNTS
        (17) CpxRntsAnalysisOrderProof [BOTH BOUNDS(ID, ID), 0 ms]
        (18) CpxRNTS
        (19) ResultPropagationProof [UPPER BOUND(ID), 0 ms]
        (20) CpxRNTS
        (21) IntTrsBoundProof [UPPER BOUND(ID), 683 ms]
        (22) CpxRNTS
        (23) IntTrsBoundProof [UPPER BOUND(ID), 279 ms]
        (24) CpxRNTS
    (25) CompletionProof [UPPER BOUND(ID), 0 ms]
    (26) CpxTypedWeightedCompleteTrs
        (27) CpxTypedWeightedTrsToRntsProof [UPPER BOUND(ID), 0 ms]
        (28) CpxRNTS
(29) CpxTrsToCdtProof [UPPER BOUND(ID), 0 ms]
(30) CdtProblem
    (31) CdtLeafRemovalProof [ComplexityIfPolyImplication, 0 ms]
    (32) CdtProblem
    (33) CdtUsableRulesProof [BOTH BOUNDS(ID, ID), 0 ms]
    (34) CdtProblem
    (35) CdtInstantiationProof [BOTH BOUNDS(ID, ID), 0 ms]
    (36) CdtProblem
    (37) CdtInstantiationProof [BOTH BOUNDS(ID, ID), 0 ms]
    (38) 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:

   letexp(x, y) -> letexp(Cons(Cons(Nil, Nil), x), y)
   goal(x, y) -> letexp(x, y)

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:

   letexp(x, y) -> letexp(Cons(Cons(Nil, Nil), x), y)
   goal(x, y) -> letexp(x, y)

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:

   letexp(x, y) -> letexp(Cons(Cons(Nil, Nil), x), y)
   goal(x, y) -> letexp(x, y)

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:

   letexp(x, y) -> letexp(Cons(Cons(Nil, Nil), x), y) [1]
   goal(x, y) -> letexp(x, y) [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:

   letexp(x, y) -> letexp(Cons(Cons(Nil, Nil), x), y) [1]
   goal(x, y) -> letexp(x, y) [1]

The TRS has the following type information:
letexp :: Nil:Cons -> a -> letexp:goal
Cons :: Nil:Cons -> Nil:Cons -> Nil:Cons
Nil :: Nil:Cons
goal :: Nil:Cons -> a -> letexp:goal

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:

   letexp_2
   goal_2

(c) The following functions are completely defined:
none

Due to the following rules being added:
none

And the following fresh constants:    const, const1

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

(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:

   letexp(x, y) -> letexp(Cons(Cons(Nil, Nil), x), y) [1]
   goal(x, y) -> letexp(x, y) [1]

The TRS has the following type information:
letexp :: Nil:Cons -> a -> letexp:goal
Cons :: Nil:Cons -> Nil:Cons -> Nil:Cons
Nil :: Nil:Cons
goal :: Nil:Cons -> a -> letexp:goal
const :: letexp:goal
const1 :: a

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:

   letexp(x, y) -> letexp(Cons(Cons(Nil, Nil), x), y) [1]
   goal(x, y) -> letexp(x, y) [1]

The TRS has the following type information:
letexp :: Nil:Cons -> a -> letexp:goal
Cons :: Nil:Cons -> Nil:Cons -> Nil:Cons
Nil :: Nil:Cons
goal :: Nil:Cons -> a -> letexp:goal
const :: letexp:goal
const1 :: a

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
   const => 0
   const1 => 0

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

(14)
Obligation:
Complexity RNTS consisting of the following rules:

   goal(z, z') -{ 1 }-> letexp(x, y) :|: x >= 0, y >= 0, z = x, z' = y
   letexp(z, z') -{ 1 }-> letexp(1 + (1 + 0 + 0) + x, y) :|: x >= 0, y >= 0, z = x, z' = y


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

(15) SimplificationProof (BOTH BOUNDS(ID, ID))
Simplified the RNTS by moving equalities from the constraints into the right-hand sides.
----------------------------------------

(16)
Obligation:
Complexity RNTS consisting of the following rules:

   goal(z, z') -{ 1 }-> letexp(z, z') :|: z >= 0, z' >= 0
   letexp(z, z') -{ 1 }-> letexp(1 + (1 + 0 + 0) + z, z') :|: z >= 0, z' >= 0


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

(17) CpxRntsAnalysisOrderProof (BOTH BOUNDS(ID, ID))
Found the following analysis order by SCC decomposition:

   { letexp }
   { goal }

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

(18)
Obligation:
Complexity RNTS consisting of the following rules:

   goal(z, z') -{ 1 }-> letexp(z, z') :|: z >= 0, z' >= 0
   letexp(z, z') -{ 1 }-> letexp(1 + (1 + 0 + 0) + z, z') :|: z >= 0, z' >= 0

Function symbols to be analyzed: {letexp}, {goal}

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

(19) ResultPropagationProof (UPPER BOUND(ID))
Applied inner abstraction using the recently inferred runtime/size bounds where possible.
----------------------------------------

(20)
Obligation:
Complexity RNTS consisting of the following rules:

   goal(z, z') -{ 1 }-> letexp(z, z') :|: z >= 0, z' >= 0
   letexp(z, z') -{ 1 }-> letexp(1 + (1 + 0 + 0) + z, z') :|: z >= 0, z' >= 0

Function symbols to be analyzed: {letexp}, {goal}

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

(21) IntTrsBoundProof (UPPER BOUND(ID))

Computed SIZE bound using CoFloCo for: letexp
after applying outer abstraction to obtain an ITS,
resulting in: O(1) with polynomial bound: 0

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

(22)
Obligation:
Complexity RNTS consisting of the following rules:

   goal(z, z') -{ 1 }-> letexp(z, z') :|: z >= 0, z' >= 0
   letexp(z, z') -{ 1 }-> letexp(1 + (1 + 0 + 0) + z, z') :|: z >= 0, z' >= 0

Function symbols to be analyzed: {letexp}, {goal}
Previous analysis results are:
  letexp: runtime: ?, size: O(1) [0]

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

(23) IntTrsBoundProof (UPPER BOUND(ID))

Computed RUNTIME bound using CoFloCo for: letexp
after applying outer abstraction to obtain an ITS,
resulting in: INF with polynomial bound: ?

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

(24)
Obligation:
Complexity RNTS consisting of the following rules:

   goal(z, z') -{ 1 }-> letexp(z, z') :|: z >= 0, z' >= 0
   letexp(z, z') -{ 1 }-> letexp(1 + (1 + 0 + 0) + z, z') :|: z >= 0, z' >= 0

Function symbols to be analyzed: {letexp}, {goal}
Previous analysis results are:
  letexp: runtime: INF, size: O(1) [0]

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

(25) 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:    const, const1

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

(26)
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:

   letexp(x, y) -> letexp(Cons(Cons(Nil, Nil), x), y) [1]
   goal(x, y) -> letexp(x, y) [1]

The TRS has the following type information:
letexp :: Nil:Cons -> a -> letexp:goal
Cons :: Nil:Cons -> Nil:Cons -> Nil:Cons
Nil :: Nil:Cons
goal :: Nil:Cons -> a -> letexp:goal
const :: letexp:goal
const1 :: a

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

(27) 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
   const => 0
   const1 => 0

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

(28)
Obligation:
Complexity RNTS consisting of the following rules:

   goal(z, z') -{ 1 }-> letexp(x, y) :|: x >= 0, y >= 0, z = x, z' = y
   letexp(z, z') -{ 1 }-> letexp(1 + (1 + 0 + 0) + x, y) :|: x >= 0, y >= 0, z = x, z' = y

Only complete derivations are relevant for the runtime complexity.

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

(29) CpxTrsToCdtProof (UPPER BOUND(ID))
Converted Cpx (relative) TRS with rewrite strategy PARALLEL_INNERMOST to CDT
----------------------------------------

(30)
Obligation:
Complexity Dependency Tuples Problem

Rules:
   letexp(z0, z1) -> letexp(Cons(Cons(Nil, Nil), z0), z1)
   goal(z0, z1) -> letexp(z0, z1)
Tuples:
   LETEXP(z0, z1) -> c(LETEXP(Cons(Cons(Nil, Nil), z0), z1))
   GOAL(z0, z1) -> c1(LETEXP(z0, z1))
S tuples:
   LETEXP(z0, z1) -> c(LETEXP(Cons(Cons(Nil, Nil), z0), z1))
   GOAL(z0, z1) -> c1(LETEXP(z0, z1))
K tuples:none
Defined Rule Symbols:   letexp_2, goal_2

Defined Pair Symbols:   LETEXP_2, GOAL_2

Compound Symbols:   c_1, c1_1


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

(31) CdtLeafRemovalProof (ComplexityIfPolyImplication)
Removed 1 leading nodes:
   GOAL(z0, z1) -> c1(LETEXP(z0, z1))

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

(32)
Obligation:
Complexity Dependency Tuples Problem

Rules:
   letexp(z0, z1) -> letexp(Cons(Cons(Nil, Nil), z0), z1)
   goal(z0, z1) -> letexp(z0, z1)
Tuples:
   LETEXP(z0, z1) -> c(LETEXP(Cons(Cons(Nil, Nil), z0), z1))
S tuples:
   LETEXP(z0, z1) -> c(LETEXP(Cons(Cons(Nil, Nil), z0), z1))
K tuples:none
Defined Rule Symbols:   letexp_2, goal_2

Defined Pair Symbols:   LETEXP_2

Compound Symbols:   c_1


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

(33) CdtUsableRulesProof (BOTH BOUNDS(ID, ID))
The following rules are not usable and were removed:
   letexp(z0, z1) -> letexp(Cons(Cons(Nil, Nil), z0), z1)
   goal(z0, z1) -> letexp(z0, z1)

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

(34)
Obligation:
Complexity Dependency Tuples Problem

Rules:none
Tuples:
   LETEXP(z0, z1) -> c(LETEXP(Cons(Cons(Nil, Nil), z0), z1))
S tuples:
   LETEXP(z0, z1) -> c(LETEXP(Cons(Cons(Nil, Nil), z0), z1))
K tuples:none
Defined Rule Symbols:none

Defined Pair Symbols:   LETEXP_2

Compound Symbols:   c_1


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

(35) CdtInstantiationProof (BOTH BOUNDS(ID, ID))
Use instantiation to replace LETEXP(z0, z1) -> c(LETEXP(Cons(Cons(Nil, Nil), z0), z1)) by 
   LETEXP(Cons(Cons(Nil, Nil), x0), x1) -> c(LETEXP(Cons(Cons(Nil, Nil), Cons(Cons(Nil, Nil), x0)), x1))

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

(36)
Obligation:
Complexity Dependency Tuples Problem

Rules:none
Tuples:
   LETEXP(Cons(Cons(Nil, Nil), x0), x1) -> c(LETEXP(Cons(Cons(Nil, Nil), Cons(Cons(Nil, Nil), x0)), x1))
S tuples:
   LETEXP(Cons(Cons(Nil, Nil), x0), x1) -> c(LETEXP(Cons(Cons(Nil, Nil), Cons(Cons(Nil, Nil), x0)), x1))
K tuples:none
Defined Rule Symbols:none

Defined Pair Symbols:   LETEXP_2

Compound Symbols:   c_1


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

(37) CdtInstantiationProof (BOTH BOUNDS(ID, ID))
Use instantiation to replace LETEXP(Cons(Cons(Nil, Nil), x0), x1) -> c(LETEXP(Cons(Cons(Nil, Nil), Cons(Cons(Nil, Nil), x0)), x1)) by 
   LETEXP(Cons(Cons(Nil, Nil), Cons(Cons(Nil, Nil), x0)), x1) -> c(LETEXP(Cons(Cons(Nil, Nil), Cons(Cons(Nil, Nil), Cons(Cons(Nil, Nil), x0))), x1))

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

(38)
Obligation:
Complexity Dependency Tuples Problem

Rules:none
Tuples:
   LETEXP(Cons(Cons(Nil, Nil), Cons(Cons(Nil, Nil), x0)), x1) -> c(LETEXP(Cons(Cons(Nil, Nil), Cons(Cons(Nil, Nil), Cons(Cons(Nil, Nil), x0))), x1))
S tuples:
   LETEXP(Cons(Cons(Nil, Nil), Cons(Cons(Nil, Nil), x0)), x1) -> c(LETEXP(Cons(Cons(Nil, Nil), Cons(Cons(Nil, Nil), Cons(Cons(Nil, Nil), x0))), x1))
K tuples:none
Defined Rule Symbols:none

Defined Pair Symbols:   LETEXP_2

Compound Symbols:   c_1