WORST_CASE(Omega(n^1),?) proof of /export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.trs # AProVE Commit ID: c69e44bd14796315568835c1ffa2502984884775 mhark 20210624 unpublished The Runtime Complexity (innermost) of the given CpxRelTRS could be proven to be BOUNDS(n^1, INF). (0) CpxRelTRS (1) SInnermostTerminationProof [BOTH CONCRETE BOUNDS(ID, ID), 860 ms] (2) CpxRelTRS (3) RelTrsToDecreasingLoopProblemProof [LOWER BOUND(ID), 0 ms] (4) TRS for Loop Detection (5) DecreasingLoopProof [LOWER BOUND(ID), 1 ms] (6) BEST (7) proven lower bound (8) LowerBoundPropagationProof [FINISHED, 0 ms] (9) BOUNDS(n^1, INF) (10) TRS for Loop Detection ---------------------------------------- (0) Obligation: The Runtime Complexity (innermost) of the given CpxRelTRS could be proven to be BOUNDS(n^1, INF). The TRS R consists of the following rules: A__F(a, b, z0) -> c1(A__F(mark(z0), z0, mark(z0)), MARK(z0)) A__F(a, b, z0) -> c2(A__F(mark(z0), z0, mark(z0)), MARK(z0)) A__F(z0, z1, z2) -> c3 A__C -> c4 A__C -> c5 A__C -> c6 MARK(f(z0, z1, z2)) -> c7(A__F(mark(z0), z1, mark(z2)), MARK(z0)) MARK(f(z0, z1, z2)) -> c8(A__F(mark(z0), z1, mark(z2)), MARK(z2)) MARK(c) -> c9(A__C) MARK(a) -> c10 MARK(b) -> c11 The (relative) TRS S consists of the following rules: a__f(a, b, z0) -> a__f(mark(z0), z0, mark(z0)) a__f(z0, z1, z2) -> f(z0, z1, z2) a__c -> a a__c -> b a__c -> c mark(f(z0, z1, z2)) -> a__f(mark(z0), z1, mark(z2)) mark(c) -> a__c mark(a) -> a mark(b) -> b Rewrite Strategy: INNERMOST ---------------------------------------- (1) SInnermostTerminationProof (BOTH CONCRETE BOUNDS(ID, ID)) proved innermost termination of relative rules ---------------------------------------- (2) Obligation: The Runtime Complexity (innermost) of the given CpxRelTRS could be proven to be BOUNDS(n^1, INF). The TRS R consists of the following rules: A__F(a, b, z0) -> c1(A__F(mark(z0), z0, mark(z0)), MARK(z0)) A__F(a, b, z0) -> c2(A__F(mark(z0), z0, mark(z0)), MARK(z0)) A__F(z0, z1, z2) -> c3 A__C -> c4 A__C -> c5 A__C -> c6 MARK(f(z0, z1, z2)) -> c7(A__F(mark(z0), z1, mark(z2)), MARK(z0)) MARK(f(z0, z1, z2)) -> c8(A__F(mark(z0), z1, mark(z2)), MARK(z2)) MARK(c) -> c9(A__C) MARK(a) -> c10 MARK(b) -> c11 The (relative) TRS S consists of the following rules: a__f(a, b, z0) -> a__f(mark(z0), z0, mark(z0)) a__f(z0, z1, z2) -> f(z0, z1, z2) a__c -> a a__c -> b a__c -> c mark(f(z0, z1, z2)) -> a__f(mark(z0), z1, mark(z2)) mark(c) -> a__c mark(a) -> a mark(b) -> b Rewrite Strategy: INNERMOST ---------------------------------------- (3) RelTrsToDecreasingLoopProblemProof (LOWER BOUND(ID)) Transformed a relative TRS into a decreasing-loop problem. ---------------------------------------- (4) Obligation: Analyzing the following TRS for decreasing loops: The Runtime Complexity (innermost) of the given CpxRelTRS could be proven to be BOUNDS(n^1, INF). The TRS R consists of the following rules: A__F(a, b, z0) -> c1(A__F(mark(z0), z0, mark(z0)), MARK(z0)) A__F(a, b, z0) -> c2(A__F(mark(z0), z0, mark(z0)), MARK(z0)) A__F(z0, z1, z2) -> c3 A__C -> c4 A__C -> c5 A__C -> c6 MARK(f(z0, z1, z2)) -> c7(A__F(mark(z0), z1, mark(z2)), MARK(z0)) MARK(f(z0, z1, z2)) -> c8(A__F(mark(z0), z1, mark(z2)), MARK(z2)) MARK(c) -> c9(A__C) MARK(a) -> c10 MARK(b) -> c11 The (relative) TRS S consists of the following rules: a__f(a, b, z0) -> a__f(mark(z0), z0, mark(z0)) a__f(z0, z1, z2) -> f(z0, z1, z2) a__c -> a a__c -> b a__c -> c mark(f(z0, z1, z2)) -> a__f(mark(z0), z1, mark(z2)) mark(c) -> a__c mark(a) -> a mark(b) -> b Rewrite Strategy: INNERMOST ---------------------------------------- (5) DecreasingLoopProof (LOWER BOUND(ID)) The following loop(s) give(s) rise to the lower bound Omega(n^1): The rewrite sequence MARK(f(z0, z1, z2)) ->^+ c8(A__F(mark(z0), z1, mark(z2)), MARK(z2)) gives rise to a decreasing loop by considering the right hand sides subterm at position [1]. The pumping substitution is [z2 / f(z0, z1, z2)]. The result substitution is [ ]. ---------------------------------------- (6) Complex Obligation (BEST) ---------------------------------------- (7) Obligation: Proved the lower bound n^1 for the following obligation: The Runtime Complexity (innermost) of the given CpxRelTRS could be proven to be BOUNDS(n^1, INF). The TRS R consists of the following rules: A__F(a, b, z0) -> c1(A__F(mark(z0), z0, mark(z0)), MARK(z0)) A__F(a, b, z0) -> c2(A__F(mark(z0), z0, mark(z0)), MARK(z0)) A__F(z0, z1, z2) -> c3 A__C -> c4 A__C -> c5 A__C -> c6 MARK(f(z0, z1, z2)) -> c7(A__F(mark(z0), z1, mark(z2)), MARK(z0)) MARK(f(z0, z1, z2)) -> c8(A__F(mark(z0), z1, mark(z2)), MARK(z2)) MARK(c) -> c9(A__C) MARK(a) -> c10 MARK(b) -> c11 The (relative) TRS S consists of the following rules: a__f(a, b, z0) -> a__f(mark(z0), z0, mark(z0)) a__f(z0, z1, z2) -> f(z0, z1, z2) a__c -> a a__c -> b a__c -> c mark(f(z0, z1, z2)) -> a__f(mark(z0), z1, mark(z2)) mark(c) -> a__c mark(a) -> a mark(b) -> b Rewrite Strategy: INNERMOST ---------------------------------------- (8) LowerBoundPropagationProof (FINISHED) Propagated lower bound. ---------------------------------------- (9) BOUNDS(n^1, INF) ---------------------------------------- (10) Obligation: Analyzing the following TRS for decreasing loops: The Runtime Complexity (innermost) of the given CpxRelTRS could be proven to be BOUNDS(n^1, INF). The TRS R consists of the following rules: A__F(a, b, z0) -> c1(A__F(mark(z0), z0, mark(z0)), MARK(z0)) A__F(a, b, z0) -> c2(A__F(mark(z0), z0, mark(z0)), MARK(z0)) A__F(z0, z1, z2) -> c3 A__C -> c4 A__C -> c5 A__C -> c6 MARK(f(z0, z1, z2)) -> c7(A__F(mark(z0), z1, mark(z2)), MARK(z0)) MARK(f(z0, z1, z2)) -> c8(A__F(mark(z0), z1, mark(z2)), MARK(z2)) MARK(c) -> c9(A__C) MARK(a) -> c10 MARK(b) -> c11 The (relative) TRS S consists of the following rules: a__f(a, b, z0) -> a__f(mark(z0), z0, mark(z0)) a__f(z0, z1, z2) -> f(z0, z1, z2) a__c -> a a__c -> b a__c -> c mark(f(z0, z1, z2)) -> a__f(mark(z0), z1, mark(z2)) mark(c) -> a__c mark(a) -> a mark(b) -> b Rewrite Strategy: INNERMOST