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:

cond(true, x, y, z) → cond(and(gr(x, z), gr(y, z)), p(x), p(y), z)
and(true, true) → true
and(x, false) → false
and(false, x) → false
gr(0, 0) → false
gr(0, x) → false
gr(s(x), 0) → true
gr(s(x), s(y)) → gr(x, y)
p(0) → 0
p(s(x)) → x

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:

cond(true, x, y, z) → cond(and(gr(x, z), gr(y, z)), p(x), p(y), z)
and(true, true) → true
and(x, false) → false
and(false, x) → false
gr(0, 0) → false
gr(0, x) → false
gr(s(x), 0) → true
gr(s(x), s(y)) → gr(x, y)
p(0) → 0
p(s(x)) → x

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
gr(s(x), s(y)) →⁺ gr(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)