WORST_CASE(?,O(n^1))
proof of input_dA8mHFdJtk.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# AProVE Commit ID: aff8ecad908e01718a4c36e68d2e55d5e0f16e15 fuhs 20220216 unpublished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, 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:

   h(f(x), y) -> f(g(x, y))
   g(x, y) -> h(x, y)

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(g(x, y))
   g(x, y) -> h(x, y)

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]
transitions: 
f0(0) -> 0
h0(0, 0) -> 1
g0(0, 0) -> 2
g1(0, 0) -> 3
f1(3) -> 1
h1(0, 0) -> 2
f1(3) -> 2
h2(0, 0) -> 3
f1(3) -> 3

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

(4)
BOUNDS(1, n^1)