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

0 CpxTRS
↳1 RenamingProof (⇔, 0 ms)
↳2 CpxRelTRS
↳3 TypeInferenceProof (BOTH BOUNDS(ID, ID), 0 ms)
↳4 typed CpxTrs
↳5 OrderProof (LOWER BOUND(ID), 0 ms)
↳6 typed CpxTrs
↳7 RewriteLemmaProof (LOWER BOUND(ID), 796 ms)
↳8 BEST
    ↳9 typed CpxTrs
        ↳10 RewriteLemmaProof (LOWER BOUND(ID), 229 ms)
        ↳11 BEST
            ↳12 typed CpxTrs
                ↳13 NoRewriteLemmaProof (LOWER BOUND(ID), 0 ms)
                ↳14 typed CpxTrs
                ↳15 LowerBoundsProof (⇔, 0 ms)
                ↳16 BOUNDS(n^1, INF)
            ↳17 typed CpxTrs
                ↳18 LowerBoundsProof (⇔, 0 ms)
                ↳19 BOUNDS(n^1, INF)
    ↳20 typed CpxTrs
        ↳21 LowerBoundsProof (⇔, 0 ms)
        ↳22 BOUNDS(n^1, INF)

(0) Obligation:

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

minus(x, 0) → x
minus(s(x), s(y)) → minus(x, y)
quot(0, s(y)) → 0
quot(s(x), s(y)) → s(quot(minus(x, y), s(y)))
plus(0, y) → y
plus(s(x), y) → s(plus(x, y))
minus(minus(x, y), z) → minus(x, plus(y, z))

Rewrite Strategy: FULL

(1) RenamingProof (EQUIVALENT transformation)

Renamed function symbols to avoid clashes with predefined symbol.

(2) Obligation:

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

minus(x, 0') → x
minus(s(x), s(y)) → minus(x, y)
quot(0', s(y)) → 0'
quot(s(x), s(y)) → s(quot(minus(x, y), s(y)))
plus(0', y) → y
plus(s(x), y) → s(plus(x, y))
minus(minus(x, y), z) → minus(x, plus(y, z))

S is empty.
Rewrite Strategy: FULL

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

Infered types.

(4) Obligation:

TRS:
Rules:
minus(x, 0') → x
minus(s(x), s(y)) → minus(x, y)
quot(0', s(y)) → 0'
quot(s(x), s(y)) → s(quot(minus(x, y), s(y)))
plus(0', y) → y
plus(s(x), y) → s(plus(x, y))
minus(minus(x, y), z) → minus(x, plus(y, z))

Types:
minus :: 0':s → 0':s → 0':s
0' :: 0':s
s :: 0':s → 0':s
quot :: 0':s → 0':s → 0':s
plus :: 0':s → 0':s → 0':s
hole_0':s1_0 :: 0':s
gen_0':s2_0 :: Nat → 0':s

(5) OrderProof (LOWER BOUND(ID) transformation)

Heuristically decided to analyse the following defined symbols:
minus, quot, plus

They will be analysed ascendingly in the following order:
minus < quot
plus < minus

(6) Obligation:

TRS:
Rules:
minus(x, 0') → x
minus(s(x), s(y)) → minus(x, y)
quot(0', s(y)) → 0'
quot(s(x), s(y)) → s(quot(minus(x, y), s(y)))
plus(0', y) → y
plus(s(x), y) → s(plus(x, y))
minus(minus(x, y), z) → minus(x, plus(y, z))

Types:
minus :: 0':s → 0':s → 0':s
0' :: 0':s
s :: 0':s → 0':s
quot :: 0':s → 0':s → 0':s
plus :: 0':s → 0':s → 0':s
hole_0':s1_0 :: 0':s
gen_0':s2_0 :: Nat → 0':s

Generator Equations:
gen_0':s2_0(0) ⇔ 0'
gen_0':s2_0(+(x, 1)) ⇔ s(gen_0':s2_0(x))

The following defined symbols remain to be analysed:
plus, minus, quot

They will be analysed ascendingly in the following order:
minus < quot
plus < minus

(7) RewriteLemmaProof (LOWER BOUND(ID) transformation)

Proved the following rewrite lemma:
plus(gen_0':s2_0(n4_0), gen_0':s2_0(b)) → gen_0':s2_0(+(n4_0, b)), rt ∈ Ω(1 + n40)

Induction Base:
plus(gen_0':s2_0(0), gen_0':s2_0(b)) →RΩ(1)
gen_0':s2_0(b)

Induction Step:
plus(gen_0':s2_0(+(n4_0, 1)), gen_0':s2_0(b)) →RΩ(1)
s(plus(gen_0':s2_0(n4_0), gen_0':s2_0(b))) →IH
s(gen_0':s2_0(+(b, c5_0)))

We have rt ∈ Ω(n1) and sz ∈ O(n). Thus, we have ircR ∈ Ω(n).

(8) Complex Obligation (BEST)

(9) Obligation:

TRS:
Rules:
minus(x, 0') → x
minus(s(x), s(y)) → minus(x, y)
quot(0', s(y)) → 0'
quot(s(x), s(y)) → s(quot(minus(x, y), s(y)))
plus(0', y) → y
plus(s(x), y) → s(plus(x, y))
minus(minus(x, y), z) → minus(x, plus(y, z))

Types:
minus :: 0':s → 0':s → 0':s
0' :: 0':s
s :: 0':s → 0':s
quot :: 0':s → 0':s → 0':s
plus :: 0':s → 0':s → 0':s
hole_0':s1_0 :: 0':s
gen_0':s2_0 :: Nat → 0':s

Lemmas:
plus(gen_0':s2_0(n4_0), gen_0':s2_0(b)) → gen_0':s2_0(+(n4_0, b)), rt ∈ Ω(1 + n40)

Generator Equations:
gen_0':s2_0(0) ⇔ 0'
gen_0':s2_0(+(x, 1)) ⇔ s(gen_0':s2_0(x))

The following defined symbols remain to be analysed:
minus, quot

They will be analysed ascendingly in the following order:
minus < quot

(10) RewriteLemmaProof (LOWER BOUND(ID) transformation)

Proved the following rewrite lemma:
minus(gen_0':s2_0(+(1, n457_0)), gen_0':s2_0(+(1, n457_0))) → *3_0, rt ∈ Ω(n4570)

Induction Base:
minus(gen_0':s2_0(+(1, 0)), gen_0':s2_0(+(1, 0)))

Induction Step:
minus(gen_0':s2_0(+(1, +(n457_0, 1))), gen_0':s2_0(+(1, +(n457_0, 1)))) →RΩ(1)
minus(gen_0':s2_0(+(1, n457_0)), gen_0':s2_0(+(1, n457_0))) →IH
*3_0

We have rt ∈ Ω(n1) and sz ∈ O(n). Thus, we have ircR ∈ Ω(n).

(11) Complex Obligation (BEST)

(12) Obligation:

TRS:
Rules:
minus(x, 0') → x
minus(s(x), s(y)) → minus(x, y)
quot(0', s(y)) → 0'
quot(s(x), s(y)) → s(quot(minus(x, y), s(y)))
plus(0', y) → y
plus(s(x), y) → s(plus(x, y))
minus(minus(x, y), z) → minus(x, plus(y, z))

Types:
minus :: 0':s → 0':s → 0':s
0' :: 0':s
s :: 0':s → 0':s
quot :: 0':s → 0':s → 0':s
plus :: 0':s → 0':s → 0':s
hole_0':s1_0 :: 0':s
gen_0':s2_0 :: Nat → 0':s

Lemmas:
plus(gen_0':s2_0(n4_0), gen_0':s2_0(b)) → gen_0':s2_0(+(n4_0, b)), rt ∈ Ω(1 + n40)
minus(gen_0':s2_0(+(1, n457_0)), gen_0':s2_0(+(1, n457_0))) → *3_0, rt ∈ Ω(n4570)

Generator Equations:
gen_0':s2_0(0) ⇔ 0'
gen_0':s2_0(+(x, 1)) ⇔ s(gen_0':s2_0(x))

The following defined symbols remain to be analysed:
quot

(13) NoRewriteLemmaProof (LOWER BOUND(ID) transformation)

Could not prove a rewrite lemma for the defined symbol quot.

(14) Obligation:

TRS:
Rules:
minus(x, 0') → x
minus(s(x), s(y)) → minus(x, y)
quot(0', s(y)) → 0'
quot(s(x), s(y)) → s(quot(minus(x, y), s(y)))
plus(0', y) → y
plus(s(x), y) → s(plus(x, y))
minus(minus(x, y), z) → minus(x, plus(y, z))

Types:
minus :: 0':s → 0':s → 0':s
0' :: 0':s
s :: 0':s → 0':s
quot :: 0':s → 0':s → 0':s
plus :: 0':s → 0':s → 0':s
hole_0':s1_0 :: 0':s
gen_0':s2_0 :: Nat → 0':s

Lemmas:
plus(gen_0':s2_0(n4_0), gen_0':s2_0(b)) → gen_0':s2_0(+(n4_0, b)), rt ∈ Ω(1 + n40)
minus(gen_0':s2_0(+(1, n457_0)), gen_0':s2_0(+(1, n457_0))) → *3_0, rt ∈ Ω(n4570)

Generator Equations:
gen_0':s2_0(0) ⇔ 0'
gen_0':s2_0(+(x, 1)) ⇔ s(gen_0':s2_0(x))

No more defined symbols left to analyse.

(15) LowerBoundsProof (EQUIVALENT transformation)

The lowerbound Ω(n1) was proven with the following lemma:
plus(gen_0':s2_0(n4_0), gen_0':s2_0(b)) → gen_0':s2_0(+(n4_0, b)), rt ∈ Ω(1 + n40)

(16) BOUNDS(n^1, INF)

(17) Obligation:

TRS:
Rules:
minus(x, 0') → x
minus(s(x), s(y)) → minus(x, y)
quot(0', s(y)) → 0'
quot(s(x), s(y)) → s(quot(minus(x, y), s(y)))
plus(0', y) → y
plus(s(x), y) → s(plus(x, y))
minus(minus(x, y), z) → minus(x, plus(y, z))

Types:
minus :: 0':s → 0':s → 0':s
0' :: 0':s
s :: 0':s → 0':s
quot :: 0':s → 0':s → 0':s
plus :: 0':s → 0':s → 0':s
hole_0':s1_0 :: 0':s
gen_0':s2_0 :: Nat → 0':s

Lemmas:
plus(gen_0':s2_0(n4_0), gen_0':s2_0(b)) → gen_0':s2_0(+(n4_0, b)), rt ∈ Ω(1 + n40)
minus(gen_0':s2_0(+(1, n457_0)), gen_0':s2_0(+(1, n457_0))) → *3_0, rt ∈ Ω(n4570)

Generator Equations:
gen_0':s2_0(0) ⇔ 0'
gen_0':s2_0(+(x, 1)) ⇔ s(gen_0':s2_0(x))

No more defined symbols left to analyse.

(18) LowerBoundsProof (EQUIVALENT transformation)

The lowerbound Ω(n1) was proven with the following lemma:
plus(gen_0':s2_0(n4_0), gen_0':s2_0(b)) → gen_0':s2_0(+(n4_0, b)), rt ∈ Ω(1 + n40)

(19) BOUNDS(n^1, INF)

(20) Obligation:

TRS:
Rules:
minus(x, 0') → x
minus(s(x), s(y)) → minus(x, y)
quot(0', s(y)) → 0'
quot(s(x), s(y)) → s(quot(minus(x, y), s(y)))
plus(0', y) → y
plus(s(x), y) → s(plus(x, y))
minus(minus(x, y), z) → minus(x, plus(y, z))

Types:
minus :: 0':s → 0':s → 0':s
0' :: 0':s
s :: 0':s → 0':s
quot :: 0':s → 0':s → 0':s
plus :: 0':s → 0':s → 0':s
hole_0':s1_0 :: 0':s
gen_0':s2_0 :: Nat → 0':s

Lemmas:
plus(gen_0':s2_0(n4_0), gen_0':s2_0(b)) → gen_0':s2_0(+(n4_0, b)), rt ∈ Ω(1 + n40)

Generator Equations:
gen_0':s2_0(0) ⇔ 0'
gen_0':s2_0(+(x, 1)) ⇔ s(gen_0':s2_0(x))

No more defined symbols left to analyse.

(21) LowerBoundsProof (EQUIVALENT transformation)

The lowerbound Ω(n1) was proven with the following lemma:
plus(gen_0':s2_0(n4_0), gen_0':s2_0(b)) → gen_0':s2_0(+(n4_0, b)), rt ∈ Ω(1 + n40)

(22) BOUNDS(n^1, INF)