WORST_CASE(?,O(n^1))
proof of input_hYZdn33mdh.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# AProVE Commit ID: aff8ecad908e01718a4c36e68d2e55d5e0f16e15 fuhs 20220216 unpublished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) CpxTrsMatchBoundsProof [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:

   f(s(x)) -> s(s(f(p(s(x)))))
   f(0) -> 0
   p(s(x)) -> 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:

   f(s(x)) -> s(s(f(p(s(x)))))
   f(0) -> 0
   p(s(x)) -> x

S is empty.
Rewrite Strategy: PARALLEL_INNERMOST
----------------------------------------

(3) CpxTrsMatchBoundsProof (FINISHED)
A linear upper bound on the runtime complexity of the TRS R could be shown with a Match Bound [MATCHBOUNDS1,MATCHBOUNDS2] of 2. 
The certificate found is represented by the following graph.

"[1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10]
{(1,2,[f_1|0, p_1|0, 0|1, s_1|1]), (1,3,[s_1|1]), (2,2,[s_1|0, 0|0]), (3,4,[s_1|1]), (4,5,[f_1|1]), (4,7,[s_1|2]), (4,2,[0|2]), (5,6,[p_1|1]), (5,2,[s_1|1, 0|1]), (6,2,[s_1|1]), (7,8,[s_1|2]), (8,9,[f_1|2]), (8,7,[s_1|2]), (8,2,[0|2]), (9,10,[p_1|2]), (9,2,[s_1|1, 0|1]), (10,2,[s_1|2])}"
----------------------------------------

(4)
BOUNDS(1, n^1)