(0) 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
Rewrite Strategy: INNERMOST
(1) TrsToWeightedTrsProof (BOTH BOUNDS(ID, ID) transformation)
Transformed TRS to weighted TRS
(2) Obligation:
The Runtime Complexity (innermost) of the given
CpxWeightedTrs could be proven to be
BOUNDS(1, n^1).
The TRS R consists of the following rules:
g(s(x)) → f(x) [1]
f(0) → s(0) [1]
f(s(x)) → s(s(g(x))) [1]
g(0) → 0 [1]
Rewrite Strategy: INNERMOST
(3) TypeInferenceProof (BOTH BOUNDS(ID, ID) transformation)
Infered types.
(4) Obligation:
Runtime Complexity Weighted TRS with Types.
The TRS R consists of the following rules:
g(s(x)) → f(x) [1]
f(0) → s(0) [1]
f(s(x)) → s(s(g(x))) [1]
g(0) → 0 [1]
The TRS has the following type information:
g :: s:0 → s:0 s :: s:0 → s:0 f :: s:0 → s:0 0 :: s:0
|
Rewrite Strategy: INNERMOST
(5) CompletionProof (UPPER BOUND(ID) transformation)
The transformation into a RNTS is sound, since:
(a) The obligation is a constructor system where every type has a constant constructor,
(b) The following defined symbols do not have to be completely defined, as they can never occur inside other defined symbols:
g
f
(c) The following functions are completely defined:
none
Due to the following rules being added:
none
And the following fresh constants: none
(6) Obligation:
Runtime Complexity Weighted TRS where critical functions are completely defined. The underlying TRS is:
Runtime Complexity Weighted TRS with Types. The TRS R consists of the following rules:
g(s(x)) → f(x) [1]
f(0) → s(0) [1]
f(s(x)) → s(s(g(x))) [1]
g(0) → 0 [1]
The TRS has the following type information:
g :: s:0 → s:0 s :: s:0 → s:0 f :: s:0 → s:0 0 :: s:0
|
Rewrite Strategy: INNERMOST |
(7) NarrowingProof (BOTH BOUNDS(ID, ID) transformation)
Narrowed the inner basic terms of all right-hand sides by a single narrowing step.
(8) Obligation:
Runtime Complexity Weighted TRS where critical functions are completely defined. The underlying TRS is:
Runtime Complexity Weighted TRS with Types. The TRS R consists of the following rules:
g(s(x)) → f(x) [1]
f(0) → s(0) [1]
f(s(x)) → s(s(g(x))) [1]
g(0) → 0 [1]
The TRS has the following type information:
g :: s:0 → s:0 s :: s:0 → s:0 f :: s:0 → s:0 0 :: s:0
|
Rewrite Strategy: INNERMOST |
(9) CpxTypedWeightedTrsToRntsProof (UPPER BOUND(ID) transformation)
Transformed the TRS into an over-approximating RNTS by (improved) Size Abstraction.
The constant constructors are abstracted as follows:
0 => 0
(10) Obligation:
Complexity RNTS consisting of the following rules:
f(z) -{ 1 }→ 1 + 0 :|: z = 0
f(z) -{ 1 }→ 1 + (1 + g(x)) :|: x >= 0, z = 1 + x
g(z) -{ 1 }→ f(x) :|: x >= 0, z = 1 + x
g(z) -{ 1 }→ 0 :|: z = 0
(11) SimplificationProof (BOTH BOUNDS(ID, ID) transformation)
Simplified the RNTS by moving equalities from the constraints into the right-hand sides.
(12) Obligation:
Complexity RNTS consisting of the following rules:
f(z) -{ 1 }→ 1 + 0 :|: z = 0
f(z) -{ 1 }→ 1 + (1 + g(z - 1)) :|: z - 1 >= 0
g(z) -{ 1 }→ f(z - 1) :|: z - 1 >= 0
g(z) -{ 1 }→ 0 :|: z = 0
(13) CpxRntsAnalysisOrderProof (BOTH BOUNDS(ID, ID) transformation)
Found the following analysis order by SCC decomposition:
(14) Obligation:
Complexity RNTS consisting of the following rules:
f(z) -{ 1 }→ 1 + 0 :|: z = 0
f(z) -{ 1 }→ 1 + (1 + g(z - 1)) :|: z - 1 >= 0
g(z) -{ 1 }→ f(z - 1) :|: z - 1 >= 0
g(z) -{ 1 }→ 0 :|: z = 0
Function symbols to be analyzed: {
f,
g}
(15) IntTrsBoundProof (UPPER BOUND(ID) transformation)
Computed SIZE bound using KoAT for: f
after applying outer abstraction to obtain an ITS,
resulting in: O(n1) with polynomial bound: 1 + z
Computed SIZE bound using CoFloCo for: g
after applying outer abstraction to obtain an ITS,
resulting in: O(n1) with polynomial bound: z
(16) Obligation:
Complexity RNTS consisting of the following rules:
f(z) -{ 1 }→ 1 + 0 :|: z = 0
f(z) -{ 1 }→ 1 + (1 + g(z - 1)) :|: z - 1 >= 0
g(z) -{ 1 }→ f(z - 1) :|: z - 1 >= 0
g(z) -{ 1 }→ 0 :|: z = 0
Function symbols to be analyzed: {
f,
g}
Previous analysis results are:
f: runtime: ?, size: O(n1) [1 + z] g: runtime: ?, size: O(n1) [z]
|
(17) IntTrsBoundProof (UPPER BOUND(ID) transformation)
Computed RUNTIME bound using KoAT for: f
after applying outer abstraction to obtain an ITS,
resulting in: O(n1) with polynomial bound: 2 + 2·z
Computed RUNTIME bound using CoFloCo for: g
after applying outer abstraction to obtain an ITS,
resulting in: O(n1) with polynomial bound: 1 + 2·z
(18) Obligation:
Complexity RNTS consisting of the following rules:
f(z) -{ 1 }→ 1 + 0 :|: z = 0
f(z) -{ 1 }→ 1 + (1 + g(z - 1)) :|: z - 1 >= 0
g(z) -{ 1 }→ f(z - 1) :|: z - 1 >= 0
g(z) -{ 1 }→ 0 :|: z = 0
Function symbols to be analyzed:
Previous analysis results are:
f: runtime: O(n1) [2 + 2·z], size: O(n1) [1 + z] g: runtime: O(n1) [1 + 2·z], size: O(n1) [z]
|
(19) FinalProof (EQUIVALENT transformation)
Computed overall runtime complexity
(20) BOUNDS(1, n^1)