WORST_CASE(Omega(n^1),O(n^1))
proof of /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.trs
# AProVE Commit ID: c69e44bd14796315568835c1ffa2502984884775 mhark 20210624 unpublished


The Runtime Complexity (innermost) of the given CpxTRS could be proven to be BOUNDS(n^1, n^1).

(0) CpxTRS
(1) RelTrsToTrsProof [UPPER BOUND(ID), 0 ms]
(2) CpxTRS
    (3) CpxTrsMatchBoundsProof [FINISHED, 0 ms]
    (4) BOUNDS(1, n^1)
(5) RelTrsToDecreasingLoopProblemProof [LOWER BOUND(ID), 0 ms]
(6) TRS for Loop Detection
    (7) DecreasingLoopProof [LOWER BOUND(ID), 0 ms]
    (8) BEST
        (9) proven lower bound
            (10) LowerBoundPropagationProof [FINISHED, 0 ms]
            (11) BOUNDS(n^1, INF)
        (12) TRS for Loop Detection


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

(0)
Obligation:
The Runtime Complexity (innermost) of the given CpxTRS could be proven to be BOUNDS(n^1, n^1).


The TRS R consists of the following rules:

   a__f(f(X)) -> a__c(f(g(f(X))))
   a__c(X) -> d(X)
   a__h(X) -> a__c(d(X))
   mark(f(X)) -> a__f(mark(X))
   mark(c(X)) -> a__c(X)
   mark(h(X)) -> a__h(mark(X))
   mark(g(X)) -> g(X)
   mark(d(X)) -> d(X)
   a__f(X) -> f(X)
   a__c(X) -> c(X)
   a__h(X) -> h(X)

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

(1) RelTrsToTrsProof (UPPER BOUND(ID))
transformed relative TRS to TRS
----------------------------------------

(2)
Obligation:
The Runtime Complexity (innermost) of the given CpxTRS could be proven to be BOUNDS(1, n^1).


The TRS R consists of the following rules:

   a__f(f(X)) -> a__c(f(g(f(X))))
   a__c(X) -> d(X)
   a__h(X) -> a__c(d(X))
   mark(f(X)) -> a__f(mark(X))
   mark(c(X)) -> a__c(X)
   mark(h(X)) -> a__h(mark(X))
   mark(g(X)) -> g(X)
   mark(d(X)) -> d(X)
   a__f(X) -> f(X)
   a__c(X) -> c(X)
   a__h(X) -> h(X)

S is empty.
Rewrite Strategy: 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 3. 
The certificate found is represented by the following graph.

"[5, 6, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20]
{(5,6,[a__f_1|0, a__c_1|0, a__h_1|0, mark_1|0, f_1|1, d_1|1, c_1|1, h_1|1, a__c_1|1, g_1|1, d_1|2, c_1|2]), (5,11,[a__c_1|1, d_1|2, c_1|2]), (5,14,[a__c_1|1, d_1|2, c_1|2]), (5,15,[a__f_1|1, f_1|2]), (5,16,[a__h_1|1, h_1|2]), (5,17,[a__c_1|2, d_1|3, c_1|3]), (5,18,[a__c_1|2, d_1|3, c_1|3]), (6,6,[f_1|0, g_1|0, d_1|0, c_1|0, h_1|0]), (11,12,[f_1|1]), (12,13,[g_1|1]), (13,6,[f_1|1]), (14,6,[d_1|1]), (15,6,[mark_1|1, a__c_1|1, g_1|1, d_1|1, d_1|2, c_1|2]), (15,15,[a__f_1|1, f_1|2]), (15,16,[a__h_1|1, h_1|2]), (15,17,[a__c_1|2, d_1|3, c_1|3]), (15,18,[a__c_1|2, d_1|3, c_1|3]), (16,6,[mark_1|1, a__c_1|1, g_1|1, d_1|1, d_1|2, c_1|2]), (16,15,[a__f_1|1, f_1|2]), (16,16,[a__h_1|1, h_1|2]), (16,17,[a__c_1|2, d_1|3, c_1|3]), (16,18,[a__c_1|2, d_1|3, c_1|3]), (17,16,[d_1|2]), (18,19,[f_1|2]), (19,20,[g_1|2]), (20,15,[f_1|2])}"
----------------------------------------

(4)
BOUNDS(1, n^1)

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

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

(6)
Obligation:
Analyzing the following TRS for decreasing loops:

The Runtime Complexity (innermost) of the given CpxTRS could be proven to be BOUNDS(n^1, n^1).


The TRS R consists of the following rules:

   a__f(f(X)) -> a__c(f(g(f(X))))
   a__c(X) -> d(X)
   a__h(X) -> a__c(d(X))
   mark(f(X)) -> a__f(mark(X))
   mark(c(X)) -> a__c(X)
   mark(h(X)) -> a__h(mark(X))
   mark(g(X)) -> g(X)
   mark(d(X)) -> d(X)
   a__f(X) -> f(X)
   a__c(X) -> c(X)
   a__h(X) -> h(X)

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

(7) DecreasingLoopProof (LOWER BOUND(ID))
The following loop(s) give(s) rise to the lower bound Omega(n^1):

The rewrite sequence

mark(f(X)) ->^+ a__f(mark(X))

gives rise to a decreasing loop by considering the right hand sides subterm at position [0].

The pumping substitution is [X / f(X)].

The result substitution is [ ].




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

(8)
Complex Obligation (BEST)

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

(9)
Obligation:
Proved the lower bound n^1 for the following obligation:

The Runtime Complexity (innermost) of the given CpxTRS could be proven to be BOUNDS(n^1, n^1).


The TRS R consists of the following rules:

   a__f(f(X)) -> a__c(f(g(f(X))))
   a__c(X) -> d(X)
   a__h(X) -> a__c(d(X))
   mark(f(X)) -> a__f(mark(X))
   mark(c(X)) -> a__c(X)
   mark(h(X)) -> a__h(mark(X))
   mark(g(X)) -> g(X)
   mark(d(X)) -> d(X)
   a__f(X) -> f(X)
   a__c(X) -> c(X)
   a__h(X) -> h(X)

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

(10) LowerBoundPropagationProof (FINISHED)
Propagated lower bound.
----------------------------------------

(11)
BOUNDS(n^1, INF)

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

(12)
Obligation:
Analyzing the following TRS for decreasing loops:

The Runtime Complexity (innermost) of the given CpxTRS could be proven to be BOUNDS(n^1, n^1).


The TRS R consists of the following rules:

   a__f(f(X)) -> a__c(f(g(f(X))))
   a__c(X) -> d(X)
   a__h(X) -> a__c(d(X))
   mark(f(X)) -> a__f(mark(X))
   mark(c(X)) -> a__c(X)
   mark(h(X)) -> a__h(mark(X))
   mark(g(X)) -> g(X)
   mark(d(X)) -> d(X)
   a__f(X) -> f(X)
   a__c(X) -> c(X)
   a__h(X) -> h(X)

S is empty.
Rewrite Strategy: INNERMOST