(0) Obligation:
Runtime Complexity TRS:
The TRS R consists of the following rules:
f(g(X)) → g(f(f(X)))
f(h(X)) → h(g(X))
Rewrite Strategy: FULL
(1) DecreasingLoopProof (EQUIVALENT transformation)
The following loop(s) give(s) rise to the lower bound Ω(n1):
The rewrite sequence
f(g(X)) →+ g(f(f(X)))
gives rise to a decreasing loop by considering the right hand sides subterm at position [0,0].
The pumping substitution is [X / g(X)].
The result substitution is [ ].
(2) BOUNDS(n^1, INF)
(3) RenamingProof (EQUIVALENT transformation)
Renamed function symbols to avoid clashes with predefined symbol.
(4) Obligation:
Runtime Complexity Relative TRS:
The TRS R consists of the following rules:
f(g(X)) → g(f(f(X)))
f(h(X)) → h(g(X))
S is empty.
Rewrite Strategy: FULL
(5) SlicingProof (LOWER BOUND(ID) transformation)
Sliced the following arguments:
h/0
(6) Obligation:
Runtime Complexity Relative TRS:
The TRS R consists of the following rules:
f(g(X)) → g(f(f(X)))
f(h) → h
S is empty.
Rewrite Strategy: FULL
(7) TypeInferenceProof (BOTH BOUNDS(ID, ID) transformation)
Infered types.
(8) Obligation:
TRS:
Rules:
f(g(X)) → g(f(f(X)))
f(h) → h
Types:
f :: g:h → g:h
g :: g:h → g:h
h :: g:h
hole_g:h1_0 :: g:h
gen_g:h2_0 :: Nat → g:h
(9) OrderProof (LOWER BOUND(ID) transformation)
Heuristically decided to analyse the following defined symbols:
f
(10) Obligation:
TRS:
Rules:
f(
g(
X)) →
g(
f(
f(
X)))
f(
h) →
hTypes:
f :: g:h → g:h
g :: g:h → g:h
h :: g:h
hole_g:h1_0 :: g:h
gen_g:h2_0 :: Nat → g:h
Generator Equations:
gen_g:h2_0(0) ⇔ h
gen_g:h2_0(+(x, 1)) ⇔ g(gen_g:h2_0(x))
The following defined symbols remain to be analysed:
f
(11) RewriteLemmaProof (EQUIVALENT transformation)
Proved the following rewrite lemma:
f(
gen_g:h2_0(
n4_0)) →
gen_g:h2_0(
n4_0), rt ∈ Ω(2
n)
Induction Base:
f(gen_g:h2_0(0)) →RΩ(1)
h
Induction Step:
f(gen_g:h2_0(+(n4_0, 1))) →RΩ(1)
g(f(f(gen_g:h2_0(n4_0)))) →IH
g(f(gen_g:h2_0(c5_0))) →IH
g(gen_g:h2_0(c5_0))
We have rt ∈ Ω(2n) and sz ∈ O(n). Thus, we have ircR ∈ Ω(2n)
(12) BOUNDS(2^n, INF)