The Runtime Complexity (full) of the given CpxTRS could be proven to be BOUNDS(2^n, INF).

(0) Obligation:

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

0(#) → #
+(x, #) → x
+(#, x) → x
+(0(x), 0(y)) → 0(+(x, y))
+(0(x), 1(y)) → 1(+(x, y))
+(1(x), 0(y)) → 1(+(x, y))
+(1(x), 1(y)) → 0(+(+(x, y), 1(#)))
*(#, x) → #
*(0(x), y) → 0(*(x, y))
*(1(x), y) → +(0(*(x, y)), y)
sum(nil) → 0(#)
sum(cons(x, l)) → +(x, sum(l))
prod(nil) → 1(#)
prod(cons(x, l)) → *(x, prod(l))

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:

0(#) → #
+(x, #) → x
+(#, x) → x
+(0(x), 0(y)) → 0(+(x, y))
+(0(x), 1(y)) → 1(+(x, y))
+(1(x), 0(y)) → 1(+(x, y))
+(1(x), 1(y)) → 0(+(+(x, y), 1(#)))
*(#, x) → #
*(0(x), y) → 0(*(x, y))
*(1(x), y) → +(0(*(x, y)), y)
sum(nil) → 0(#)
sum(cons(x, l)) → +(x, sum(l))
prod(nil) → 1(#)
prod(cons(x, l)) → *(x, prod(l))

S is empty.
Rewrite Strategy: FULL

(3) DecreasingLoopProof (EQUIVALENT transformation)

The following loop(s) give(s) rise to the lower bound Ω(2ⁿ):
The rewrite sequence
prod(cons(1(x13789_2), l)) →⁺ +(0(*(x13789_2, prod(l))), prod(l))
gives rise to a decreasing loop by considering the right hand sides subterm at position [0,0,1].
The pumping substitution is [l / cons(1(x13789_2), l)].
The result substitution is [ ].

The rewrite sequence
prod(cons(1(x13789_2), l)) →⁺ +(0(*(x13789_2, prod(l))), prod(l))
gives rise to a decreasing loop by considering the right hand sides subterm at position [1].
The pumping substitution is [l / cons(1(x13789_2), l)].
The result substitution is [ ].

(4) BOUNDS(2^n, INF)