YES(O(1), O(n^1)) 111.08/45.52 YES(O(1), O(n^1)) 111.08/45.52 111.08/45.52 111.08/45.52 111.08/45.52 111.08/45.52 111.08/45.52 Runtime Complexity (innermost) proof of /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.xml.xml 111.08/45.52 111.08/45.52 111.08/45.52
111.08/45.52
111.08/45.52
111.08/45.52
The Runtime Complexity (innermost) of the given CpxTRS could be proven to be BOUNDS(O(1), O(n^1)).

0 CpxTRS
111.08/45.52 
↳1 CpxTrsMatchBoundsTAProof (⇔)
111.08/45.52 
↳2 BOUNDS(O(1), O(n^1))
111.08/45.52
111.08/45.52 111.08/45.52
111.08/45.52
111.08/45.52

(0) Obligation:

Runtime Complexity TRS:
The TRS R consists of the following rules:

a(a(f(x, y))) → f(a(b(a(b(a(x))))), a(b(a(b(a(y)))))) 111.08/45.52
f(a(x), a(y)) → a(f(x, y)) 111.08/45.52
f(b(x), b(y)) → b(f(x, y))

Rewrite Strategy: INNERMOST
111.08/45.52
111.08/45.52

(1) 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]
transitions:
b0(0) → 0
a0(0) → 1
f0(0, 0) → 2
f1(0, 0) → 3
b1(3) → 2
b1(3) → 3
111.08/45.52
111.08/45.52

(2) BOUNDS(O(1), O(n^1))

111.08/45.52
111.08/45.52
111.08/45.59 EOF