(0) Obligation:
The Runtime Complexity (full) of the given
CpxTRS could be proven to be
BOUNDS(1, n^1).
The TRS R consists of the following rules:
active(f(g(X), Y)) → mark(f(X, f(g(X), Y)))
active(f(X1, X2)) → f(active(X1), X2)
active(g(X)) → g(active(X))
f(mark(X1), X2) → mark(f(X1, X2))
g(mark(X)) → mark(g(X))
proper(f(X1, X2)) → f(proper(X1), proper(X2))
proper(g(X)) → g(proper(X))
f(ok(X1), ok(X2)) → ok(f(X1, X2))
g(ok(X)) → ok(g(X))
top(mark(X)) → top(proper(X))
top(ok(X)) → top(active(X))
Rewrite Strategy: FULL
(1) NestedDefinedSymbolProof (BOTH BOUNDS(ID, ID) transformation)
The following defined symbols can occur below the 0th argument of top: proper, active
The following defined symbols can occur below the 0th argument of proper: proper, active
The following defined symbols can occur below the 0th argument of active: proper, active
Hence, the left-hand sides of the following rules are not basic-reachable and can be removed:
active(f(g(X), Y)) → mark(f(X, f(g(X), Y)))
active(f(X1, X2)) → f(active(X1), X2)
active(g(X)) → g(active(X))
proper(f(X1, X2)) → f(proper(X1), proper(X2))
proper(g(X)) → g(proper(X))
(2) Obligation:
The Runtime Complexity (full) of the given
CpxTRS could be proven to be
BOUNDS(1, n^1).
The TRS R consists of the following rules:
f(mark(X1), X2) → mark(f(X1, X2))
g(ok(X)) → ok(g(X))
top(ok(X)) → top(active(X))
f(ok(X1), ok(X2)) → ok(f(X1, X2))
g(mark(X)) → mark(g(X))
top(mark(X)) → top(proper(X))
Rewrite Strategy: FULL
(3) RcToIrcProof (BOTH BOUNDS(ID, ID) transformation)
Converted rc-obligation to irc-obligation.
As the TRS does not nest defined symbols, we have rc = irc.
(4) 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:
f(mark(X1), X2) → mark(f(X1, X2))
g(ok(X)) → ok(g(X))
top(ok(X)) → top(active(X))
f(ok(X1), ok(X2)) → ok(f(X1, X2))
g(mark(X)) → mark(g(X))
top(mark(X)) → top(proper(X))
Rewrite Strategy: INNERMOST
(5) CpxTrsMatchBoundsTAProof (EQUIVALENT transformation)
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 1.
The compatible tree automaton used to show the Match-Boundedness (for constructor-based start-terms) is represented by:
final states : [1, 2, 3]
transitions:
mark0(0) → 0
ok0(0) → 0
active0(0) → 0
proper0(0) → 0
f0(0, 0) → 1
g0(0) → 2
top0(0) → 3
f1(0, 0) → 4
mark1(4) → 1
g1(0) → 5
ok1(5) → 2
active1(0) → 6
top1(6) → 3
f1(0, 0) → 7
ok1(7) → 1
g1(0) → 8
mark1(8) → 2
proper1(0) → 9
top1(9) → 3
mark1(4) → 4
mark1(4) → 7
ok1(5) → 5
ok1(5) → 8
ok1(7) → 4
ok1(7) → 7
mark1(8) → 5
mark1(8) → 8
(6) BOUNDS(1, n^1)