The Runtime Complexity (full) of the given CpxTRS could be proven to be 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))
plus(minus(x, s(0)), minus(y, s(s(z)))) → plus(minus(y, s(s(z))), minus(x, s(0)))
plus(plus(x, s(0)), plus(y, s(s(z)))) → plus(plus(y, s(s(z))), plus(x, s(0)))

Rewrite Strategy: FULL

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

Transformed TRS to relative TRS where S is empty.

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

S is empty.
Rewrite Strategy: FULL

(3) DecreasingLoopProof (EQUIVALENT transformation)

The following loop(s) give(s) rise to the lower bound Ω(n¹):
The rewrite sequence
minus(s(x), s(y)) →⁺ minus(x, y)
gives rise to a decreasing loop by considering the right hand sides subterm at position [].
The pumping substitution is [x / s(x), y / s(y)].
The result substitution is [ ].

(4) BOUNDS(n^1, INF)