(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:
flatten(nil) → nil
flatten(unit(x)) → flatten(x)
flatten(++(x, y)) → ++(flatten(x), flatten(y))
flatten(++(unit(x), y)) → ++(flatten(x), flatten(y))
flatten(flatten(x)) → flatten(x)
rev(nil) → nil
rev(unit(x)) → unit(x)
rev(++(x, y)) → ++(rev(y), rev(x))
rev(rev(x)) → x
++(x, nil) → x
++(nil, y) → y
++(++(x, y), z) → ++(x, ++(y, z))
Rewrite Strategy: INNERMOST
(1) DependencyGraphProof (BOTH BOUNDS(ID, ID) transformation)
The following rules are not reachable from basic terms in the dependency graph and can be removed:
rev(++(x, y)) → ++(rev(y), rev(x))
rev(rev(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:
flatten(nil) → nil
rev(unit(x)) → unit(x)
flatten(++(unit(x), y)) → ++(flatten(x), flatten(y))
flatten(++(x, y)) → ++(flatten(x), flatten(y))
++(++(x, y), z) → ++(x, ++(y, z))
rev(nil) → nil
flatten(flatten(x)) → flatten(x)
flatten(unit(x)) → flatten(x)
++(x, nil) → x
++(nil, y) → y
Rewrite Strategy: INNERMOST
(3) 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:
flatten(++(unit(x), y)) → ++(flatten(x), flatten(y))
flatten(++(x, y)) → ++(flatten(x), flatten(y))
++(++(x, y), z) → ++(x, ++(y, z))
flatten(flatten(x)) → flatten(x)
(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:
flatten(nil) → nil
rev(unit(x)) → unit(x)
rev(nil) → nil
flatten(unit(x)) → flatten(x)
++(x, nil) → x
++(nil, y) → y
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:
nil0() → 0
unit0(0) → 0
flatten0(0) → 1
rev0(0) → 2
++0(0, 0) → 3
nil1() → 1
unit1(0) → 2
nil1() → 2
flatten1(0) → 1
0 → 3
(6) BOUNDS(1, n^1)