WORST_CASE(NON_POLY,?)
proof of /export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.trs
# AProVE Commit ID: c69e44bd14796315568835c1ffa2502984884775 mhark 20210624 unpublished


The Runtime Complexity (innermost) of the given CpxTRS could be proven to be BOUNDS(INF, INF).

(0) CpxTRS
(1) RelTrsToDecreasingLoopProblemProof [LOWER BOUND(ID), 0 ms]
(2) TRS for Loop Detection
(3) InfiniteLowerBoundProof [FINISHED, 0 ms]
(4) BOUNDS(INF, INF)


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

(0)
Obligation:
The Runtime Complexity (innermost) of the given CpxTRS could be proven to be BOUNDS(INF, INF).


The TRS R consists of the following rules:

   2nd(cons(X, cons(Y, Z))) -> Y
   from(X) -> cons(X, from(s(X)))

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

(1) RelTrsToDecreasingLoopProblemProof (LOWER BOUND(ID))
Transformed a relative TRS into a decreasing-loop problem.
----------------------------------------

(2)
Obligation:
Analyzing the following TRS for decreasing loops:

The Runtime Complexity (innermost) of the given CpxTRS could be proven to be BOUNDS(INF, INF).


The TRS R consists of the following rules:

   2nd(cons(X, cons(Y, Z))) -> Y
   from(X) -> cons(X, from(s(X)))

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

(3) InfiniteLowerBoundProof (FINISHED)
The following loop proves infinite runtime complexity:

The rewrite sequence

from(X) ->^+ cons(X, from(s(X)))

gives rise to a decreasing loop by considering the right hand sides subterm at position [1].

The pumping substitution is [ ].

The result substitution is [X / s(X)].




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

(4)
BOUNDS(INF, INF)