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# AProVE Commit ID: c69e44bd14796315568835c1ffa2502984884775 mhark 20210624 unpublished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), 16 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:

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

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:

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

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 1. 
The certificate found is represented by the following graph.

"[1, 2, 3, 4, 5]
{(1,2,[g_1|0, f_1|0, f_1|1, 0|1]), (1,3,[s_1|1]), (1,4,[s_1|1]), (2,2,[s_1|0, 0|0]), (3,2,[0|1]), (4,5,[s_1|1]), (5,2,[g_1|1, f_1|1, 0|1]), (5,3,[s_1|1]), (5,4,[s_1|1])}"
----------------------------------------

(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:

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

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

g(s(s(x1_0))) ->^+ s(s(g(x1_0)))

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

The pumping substitution is [x1_0 / s(s(x1_0))].

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:

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

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:

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

S is empty.
Rewrite Strategy: INNERMOST