WORST_CASE(?,O(n^1))
proof of input_zUO3vJAULT.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# AProVE Commit ID: aff8ecad908e01718a4c36e68d2e55d5e0f16e15 fuhs 20220216 unpublished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, 29 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:

   h(f(x, y)) -> f(f(a, h(h(y))), 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:

   h(f(x, y)) -> f(f(a, h(h(y))), 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]
transitions: 
f0(0, 0) -> 0
a0() -> 0
h0(0) -> 1
a1() -> 3
h1(0) -> 5
h1(5) -> 4
f1(3, 4) -> 2
f1(2, 0) -> 1
f1(2, 0) -> 5
a2() -> 7
h2(0) -> 9
h2(9) -> 8
f2(7, 8) -> 6
f2(6, 2) -> 4
f1(2, 0) -> 9
f2(6, 2) -> 8

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

(4)
BOUNDS(1, n^1)