(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:
f(g(x)) → g(g(f(x)))
f(g(x)) → g(g(g(x)))
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:
f(g(x)) → g(g(f(x))) [1]
f(g(x)) → g(g(g(x))) [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:
f(g(x)) → g(g(f(x))) [1]
f(g(x)) → g(g(g(x))) [1]
The TRS has the following type information:
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:
f
(c) The following functions are completely defined:
none
Due to the following rules being added:
none
And the following fresh constants:
const
(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:
f(g(x)) → g(g(f(x))) [1]
f(g(x)) → g(g(g(x))) [1]
The TRS has the following type information:
f :: g → g g :: g → g const :: g
|
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:
f(g(x)) → g(g(f(x))) [1]
f(g(x)) → g(g(g(x))) [1]
The TRS has the following type information:
f :: g → g g :: g → g const :: g
|
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:
const => 0
(10) Obligation:
Complexity RNTS consisting of the following rules:
f(z) -{ 1 }→ 1 + (1 + f(x)) :|: x >= 0, z = 1 + x
f(z) -{ 1 }→ 1 + (1 + (1 + x)) :|: x >= 0, z = 1 + x
(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 + (1 + f(z - 1)) :|: z - 1 >= 0
f(z) -{ 1 }→ 1 + (1 + (1 + (z - 1))) :|: z - 1 >= 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 + (1 + f(z - 1)) :|: z - 1 >= 0
f(z) -{ 1 }→ 1 + (1 + (1 + (z - 1))) :|: z - 1 >= 0
Function symbols to be analyzed: {
f}
(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 + 2·z
(16) Obligation:
Complexity RNTS consisting of the following rules:
f(z) -{ 1 }→ 1 + (1 + f(z - 1)) :|: z - 1 >= 0
f(z) -{ 1 }→ 1 + (1 + (1 + (z - 1))) :|: z - 1 >= 0
Function symbols to be analyzed: {
f}
Previous analysis results are:
f: runtime: ?, size: O(n1) [1 + 2·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: 1 + z
(18) Obligation:
Complexity RNTS consisting of the following rules:
f(z) -{ 1 }→ 1 + (1 + f(z - 1)) :|: z - 1 >= 0
f(z) -{ 1 }→ 1 + (1 + (1 + (z - 1))) :|: z - 1 >= 0
Function symbols to be analyzed:
Previous analysis results are:
f: runtime: O(n1) [1 + z], size: O(n1) [1 + 2·z]
|
(19) FinalProof (EQUIVALENT transformation)
Computed overall runtime complexity
(20) BOUNDS(1, n^1)