```* Step 1: WeightGap WORST_CASE(?,O(n^2))
+ Considered Problem:
- Strict TRS:
plus(x,0()) -> x
plus(x,s(y)) -> s(plus(x,y))
times(x,0()) -> 0()
times(x,s(y)) -> plus(times(x,y),x)
- Signature:
{plus/2,times/2} / {0/0,s/1}
- Obligation:
innermost runtime complexity wrt. defined symbols {plus,times} and constructors {0,s}
+ Applied Processor:
WeightGap {wgDimension = 1, wgDegree = 1, wgKind = Algebraic, wgUArgs = UArgs, wgOn = WgOnAny}
+ Details:
The weightgap principle applies using the following nonconstant growth matrix-interpretation:
We apply a matrix interpretation of kind constructor based matrix interpretation:
The following argument positions are considered usable:
uargs(plus) = {1},
uargs(s) = {1}

Following symbols are considered usable:
all
TcT has computed the following interpretation:
p(0) = 
p(plus) =  x1 + 
p(s) =  x1 + 
p(times) =  x1 +  x2 + 

Following rules are strictly oriented:
times(x,0()) =  x + 
> 
= 0()

times(x,s(y)) =  x +  y + 
>  x +  y + 
= plus(times(x,y),x)

Following rules are (at-least) weakly oriented:
plus(x,0()) =   x + 
>=  x + 
=  x

plus(x,s(y)) =   x + 
>=  x + 
=  s(plus(x,y))

Further, it can be verified that all rules not oriented are covered by the weightgap condition.
* Step 2: WeightGap WORST_CASE(?,O(n^2))
+ Considered Problem:
- Strict TRS:
plus(x,0()) -> x
plus(x,s(y)) -> s(plus(x,y))
- Weak TRS:
times(x,0()) -> 0()
times(x,s(y)) -> plus(times(x,y),x)
- Signature:
{plus/2,times/2} / {0/0,s/1}
- Obligation:
innermost runtime complexity wrt. defined symbols {plus,times} and constructors {0,s}
+ Applied Processor:
WeightGap {wgDimension = 1, wgDegree = 1, wgKind = Algebraic, wgUArgs = UArgs, wgOn = WgOnAny}
+ Details:
The weightgap principle applies using the following nonconstant growth matrix-interpretation:
We apply a matrix interpretation of kind constructor based matrix interpretation:
The following argument positions are considered usable:
uargs(plus) = {1},
uargs(s) = {1}

Following symbols are considered usable:
all
TcT has computed the following interpretation:
p(0) = 
p(plus) =  x1 + 
p(s) =  x1 + 
p(times) =  x1 +  x2 + 

Following rules are strictly oriented:
plus(x,0()) =  x + 
>  x + 
= x

Following rules are (at-least) weakly oriented:
plus(x,s(y)) =   x + 
>=  x + 
=  s(plus(x,y))

times(x,0()) =   x + 
>= 
=  0()

times(x,s(y)) =   x +  y + 
>=  x +  y + 
=  plus(times(x,y),x)

Further, it can be verified that all rules not oriented are covered by the weightgap condition.
* Step 3: NaturalPI WORST_CASE(?,O(n^2))
+ Considered Problem:
- Strict TRS:
plus(x,s(y)) -> s(plus(x,y))
- Weak TRS:
plus(x,0()) -> x
times(x,0()) -> 0()
times(x,s(y)) -> plus(times(x,y),x)
- Signature:
{plus/2,times/2} / {0/0,s/1}
- Obligation:
innermost runtime complexity wrt. defined symbols {plus,times} and constructors {0,s}
+ Applied Processor:
NaturalPI {shape = Mixed 2, restrict = Restrict, uargs = UArgs, urules = URules, selector = Just any strict-rules}
+ Details:
We apply a polynomial interpretation of kind constructor-based(mixed(2)):
The following argument positions are considered usable:
uargs(plus) = {1},
uargs(s) = {1}

Following symbols are considered usable:
{plus,times}
TcT has computed the following interpretation:
p(0) = 0
p(plus) = x1 + 3*x2
p(s) = 1 + x1
p(times) = 2*x1 + 3*x1*x2 + x1^2

Following rules are strictly oriented:
plus(x,s(y)) = 3 + x + 3*y
> 1 + x + 3*y
= s(plus(x,y))

Following rules are (at-least) weakly oriented:
plus(x,0()) =  x
>= x
=  x

times(x,0()) =  2*x + x^2
>= 0
=  0()

times(x,s(y)) =  5*x + 3*x*y + x^2
>= 5*x + 3*x*y + x^2
=  plus(times(x,y),x)

* Step 4: EmptyProcessor WORST_CASE(?,O(1))
+ Considered Problem:
- Weak TRS:
plus(x,0()) -> x
plus(x,s(y)) -> s(plus(x,y))
times(x,0()) -> 0()
times(x,s(y)) -> plus(times(x,y),x)
- Signature:
{plus/2,times/2} / {0/0,s/1}
- Obligation:
innermost runtime complexity wrt. defined symbols {plus,times} and constructors {0,s}
+ Applied Processor:
EmptyProcessor
+ Details:
The problem is already closed. The intended complexity is O(1).

WORST_CASE(?,O(n^2))
```