The Runtime Complexity (innermost) of the given CpxTRS could be proven to be BOUNDS(1, n^1).

(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:

minus(minus(x)) → x
minus(h(x)) → h(minus(x))
minus(f(x, y)) → f(minus(y), minus(x))

Rewrite Strategy: INNERMOST

(1) NestedDefinedSymbolProof (BOTH BOUNDS(ID, ID) transformation)

The TRS does not nest defined symbols.
Hence, the left-hand sides of the following rules are not basic-reachable and can be removed:
minus(minus(x)) → x

(2) 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:

minus(f(x, y)) → f(minus(y), minus(x))
minus(h(x)) → h(minus(x))

Rewrite Strategy: INNERMOST

(3) TrsToWeightedTrsProof (BOTH BOUNDS(ID, ID) transformation)

Transformed TRS to weighted TRS

(4) 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:

minus(f(x, y)) → f(minus(y), minus(x)) [1]
minus(h(x)) → h(minus(x)) [1]

Rewrite Strategy: INNERMOST

(5) TypeInferenceProof (BOTH BOUNDS(ID, ID) transformation)

Infered types.

(6) Obligation:

Runtime Complexity Weighted TRS with Types.
The TRS R consists of the following rules:

minus(f(x, y)) → f(minus(y), minus(x)) [1]
minus(h(x)) → h(minus(x)) [1]

The TRS has the following type information:

minus :: f:h → f:h f :: f:h → f:h → f:h h :: f:h → f:h

Rewrite Strategy: INNERMOST

(7) 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:

minus

(c) The following functions are completely defined:
none

Due to the following rules being added:
none

And the following fresh constants:

const

(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: minus(f(x, y)) → f(minus(y), minus(x)) [1] minus(h(x)) → h(minus(x)) [1] The TRS has the following type information: minus :: f:h → f:h f :: f:h → f:h → f:h h :: f:h → f:h const :: f:h Rewrite Strategy: INNERMOST

(9) NarrowingProof (BOTH BOUNDS(ID, ID) transformation)

Narrowed the inner basic terms of all right-hand sides by a single narrowing step.

(10) 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: minus(f(x, y)) → f(minus(y), minus(x)) [1] minus(h(x)) → h(minus(x)) [1] The TRS has the following type information: minus :: f:h → f:h f :: f:h → f:h → f:h h :: f:h → f:h const :: f:h Rewrite Strategy: INNERMOST

(11) 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

(12) Obligation:

Complexity RNTS consisting of the following rules:

minus(z) -{ 1 }→ 1 + minus(x) :|: x >= 0, z = 1 + x
minus(z) -{ 1 }→ 1 + minus(y) + minus(x) :|: z = 1 + x + y, x >= 0, y >= 0

(13) SimplificationProof (BOTH BOUNDS(ID, ID) transformation)

Simplified the RNTS by moving equalities from the constraints into the right-hand sides.

(14) Obligation:

Complexity RNTS consisting of the following rules:

minus(z) -{ 1 }→ 1 + minus(z - 1) :|: z - 1 >= 0
minus(z) -{ 1 }→ 1 + minus(y) + minus(x) :|: z = 1 + x + y, x >= 0, y >= 0

(15) CpxRntsAnalysisOrderProof (BOTH BOUNDS(ID, ID) transformation)

Found the following analysis order by SCC decomposition:

{ minus }

(16) Obligation:

Complexity RNTS consisting of the following rules:

minus(z) -{ 1 }→ 1 + minus(z - 1) :|: z - 1 >= 0
minus(z) -{ 1 }→ 1 + minus(y) + minus(x) :|: z = 1 + x + y, x >= 0, y >= 0

Function symbols to be analyzed: {minus}

(17) IntTrsBoundProof (UPPER BOUND(ID) transformation)

Computed SIZE bound using CoFloCo for: minus
after applying outer abstraction to obtain an ITS,
resulting in: O(1) with polynomial bound: 0

(18) Obligation:

Complexity RNTS consisting of the following rules:

minus(z) -{ 1 }→ 1 + minus(z - 1) :|: z - 1 >= 0
minus(z) -{ 1 }→ 1 + minus(y) + minus(x) :|: z = 1 + x + y, x >= 0, y >= 0

Function symbols to be analyzed: {minus}
Previous analysis results are:

minus: runtime: ?, size: O(1) [0]

(19) IntTrsBoundProof (UPPER BOUND(ID) transformation)

Computed RUNTIME bound using CoFloCo for: minus
after applying outer abstraction to obtain an ITS,
resulting in: O(n¹) with polynomial bound: z

(20) Obligation:

Complexity RNTS consisting of the following rules:

minus(z) -{ 1 }→ 1 + minus(z - 1) :|: z - 1 >= 0
minus(z) -{ 1 }→ 1 + minus(y) + minus(x) :|: z = 1 + x + y, x >= 0, y >= 0

Function symbols to be analyzed:
Previous analysis results are:

minus: runtime: O(n1) [z], size: O(1) [0]

(21) FinalProof (EQUIVALENT transformation)

Computed overall runtime complexity

(22) BOUNDS(1, n^1)