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:

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))
+(0(x), j(y)) → j(+(x, y))
+(j(x), 0(y)) → j(+(x, y))
+(1(x), 1(y)) → j(+(+(x, y), 1(#)))
+(j(x), j(y)) → 1(+(+(x, y), j(#)))
+(1(x), j(y)) → 0(+(x, y))
+(j(x), 1(y)) → 0(+(x, y))
+(+(x, y), z) → +(x, +(y, z))
opp(#) → #
opp(0(x)) → 0(opp(x))
opp(1(x)) → j(opp(x))
opp(j(x)) → 1(opp(x))
-(x, y) → +(x, opp(y))
*(#, x) → #
*(0(x), y) → 0(*(x, y))
*(1(x), y) → +(0(*(x, y)), y)
*(j(x), y) → -(0(*(x, y)), y)
*(*(x, y), z) → *(x, *(y, z))

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))
+(0(x), j(y)) → j(+(x, y))
+(j(x), 0(y)) → j(+(x, y))
+(1(x), 1(y)) → j(+(+(x, y), 1(#)))
+(j(x), j(y)) → 1(+(+(x, y), j(#)))
+(1(x), j(y)) → 0(+(x, y))
+(j(x), 1(y)) → 0(+(x, y))
+(+(x, y), z) → +(x, +(y, z))
opp(#) → #
opp(0(x)) → 0(opp(x))
opp(1(x)) → j(opp(x))
opp(j(x)) → 1(opp(x))
-(x, y) → +(x, opp(y))
*(#, x) → #
*(0(x), y) → 0(*(x, y))
*(1(x), y) → +(0(*(x, y)), y)
*(j(x), y) → -(0(*(x, y)), y)
*(*(x, y), z) → *(x, *(y, z))

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
+(1(x), 1(y)) →⁺ j(+(+(x, y), 1(#)))
gives rise to a decreasing loop by considering the right hand sides subterm at position [0,0].
The pumping substitution is [x / 1(x), y / 1(y)].
The result substitution is [ ].

(4) BOUNDS(n^1, INF)