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:

-(x, 0) → x
-(0, s(y)) → 0
-(s(x), s(y)) → -(x, y)
f(0) → 0
f(s(x)) → -(s(x), g(f(x)))
g(0) → s(0)
g(s(x)) → -(s(x), f(g(x)))

Rewrite Strategy: FULL

(1) DecreasingLoopProof (EQUIVALENT transformation)

The following loop(s) give(s) rise to the lower bound Ω(n¹):
The rewrite sequence
-(s(x), s(y)) →⁺ -(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 [ ].

(2) BOUNDS(n^1, INF)

(3) RenamingProof (EQUIVALENT transformation)

Renamed function symbols to avoid clashes with predefined symbol.

(4) Obligation:

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

-(x, 0') → x
-(0', s(y)) → 0'
-(s(x), s(y)) → -(x, y)
f(0') → 0'
f(s(x)) → -(s(x), g(f(x)))
g(0') → s(0')
g(s(x)) → -(s(x), f(g(x)))

S is empty.
Rewrite Strategy: FULL

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

Infered types.

(6) Obligation:

TRS:
Rules:
-(x, 0') → x
-(0', s(y)) → 0'
-(s(x), s(y)) → -(x, y)
f(0') → 0'
f(s(x)) → -(s(x), g(f(x)))
g(0') → s(0')
g(s(x)) → -(s(x), f(g(x)))

Types:
- :: 0':s → 0':s → 0':s
0' :: 0':s
s :: 0':s → 0':s
f :: 0':s → 0':s
g :: 0':s → 0':s
hole_0':s1_0 :: 0':s
gen_0':s2_0 :: Nat → 0':s

(7) OrderProof (LOWER BOUND(ID) transformation)

Heuristically decided to analyse the following defined symbols:
-, f, g

They will be analysed ascendingly in the following order:
- < f
- < g
f = g

(8) Obligation:

TRS:
Rules:
-(x, 0') → x
-(0', s(y)) → 0'
-(s(x), s(y)) → -(x, y)
f(0') → 0'
f(s(x)) → -(s(x), g(f(x)))
g(0') → s(0')
g(s(x)) → -(s(x), f(g(x)))

Types:
- :: 0':s → 0':s → 0':s
0' :: 0':s
s :: 0':s → 0':s
f :: 0':s → 0':s
g :: 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:
-, f, g

They will be analysed ascendingly in the following order:
- < f
- < g
f = g

(9) RewriteLemmaProof (LOWER BOUND(ID) transformation)

Proved the following rewrite lemma:
-(gen_0':s2_0(n4_0), gen_0':s2_0(n4_0)) → gen_0':s2_0(0), rt ∈ Ω(1 + n4₀)

Induction Base:
-(gen_0':s2_0(0), gen_0':s2_0(0)) →_R^Ω(1)
gen_0':s2_0(0)

Induction Step:
-(gen_0':s2_0(+(n4_0, 1)), gen_0':s2_0(+(n4_0, 1))) →_R^Ω(1)
-(gen_0':s2_0(n4_0), gen_0':s2_0(n4_0)) →_IH
gen_0':s2_0(0)

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

(10) Complex Obligation (BEST)

(11) Obligation:

TRS:
Rules:
-(x, 0') → x
-(0', s(y)) → 0'
-(s(x), s(y)) → -(x, y)
f(0') → 0'
f(s(x)) → -(s(x), g(f(x)))
g(0') → s(0')
g(s(x)) → -(s(x), f(g(x)))

Types:
- :: 0':s → 0':s → 0':s
0' :: 0':s
s :: 0':s → 0':s
f :: 0':s → 0':s
g :: 0':s → 0':s
hole_0':s1_0 :: 0':s
gen_0':s2_0 :: Nat → 0':s

Lemmas:
-(gen_0':s2_0(n4_0), gen_0':s2_0(n4_0)) → gen_0':s2_0(0), 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:
g, f

They will be analysed ascendingly in the following order:
f = g

(12) NoRewriteLemmaProof (LOWER BOUND(ID) transformation)

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

(13) Obligation:

TRS:
Rules:
-(x, 0') → x
-(0', s(y)) → 0'
-(s(x), s(y)) → -(x, y)
f(0') → 0'
f(s(x)) → -(s(x), g(f(x)))
g(0') → s(0')
g(s(x)) → -(s(x), f(g(x)))

Types:
- :: 0':s → 0':s → 0':s
0' :: 0':s
s :: 0':s → 0':s
f :: 0':s → 0':s
g :: 0':s → 0':s
hole_0':s1_0 :: 0':s
gen_0':s2_0 :: Nat → 0':s

Lemmas:
-(gen_0':s2_0(n4_0), gen_0':s2_0(n4_0)) → gen_0':s2_0(0), 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:
f

They will be analysed ascendingly in the following order:
f = g

(14) NoRewriteLemmaProof (LOWER BOUND(ID) transformation)

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

(15) Obligation:

TRS:
Rules:
-(x, 0') → x
-(0', s(y)) → 0'
-(s(x), s(y)) → -(x, y)
f(0') → 0'
f(s(x)) → -(s(x), g(f(x)))
g(0') → s(0')
g(s(x)) → -(s(x), f(g(x)))

Types:
- :: 0':s → 0':s → 0':s
0' :: 0':s
s :: 0':s → 0':s
f :: 0':s → 0':s
g :: 0':s → 0':s
hole_0':s1_0 :: 0':s
gen_0':s2_0 :: Nat → 0':s

Lemmas:
-(gen_0':s2_0(n4_0), gen_0':s2_0(n4_0)) → gen_0':s2_0(0), 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.

(16) LowerBoundsProof (EQUIVALENT transformation)

The lowerbound Ω(n¹) was proven with the following lemma:
-(gen_0':s2_0(n4_0), gen_0':s2_0(n4_0)) → gen_0':s2_0(0), rt ∈ Ω(1 + n4₀)

(17) BOUNDS(n^1, INF)

(18) Obligation:

TRS:
Rules:
-(x, 0') → x
-(0', s(y)) → 0'
-(s(x), s(y)) → -(x, y)
f(0') → 0'
f(s(x)) → -(s(x), g(f(x)))
g(0') → s(0')
g(s(x)) → -(s(x), f(g(x)))

Types:
- :: 0':s → 0':s → 0':s
0' :: 0':s
s :: 0':s → 0':s
f :: 0':s → 0':s
g :: 0':s → 0':s
hole_0':s1_0 :: 0':s
gen_0':s2_0 :: Nat → 0':s

Lemmas:
-(gen_0':s2_0(n4_0), gen_0':s2_0(n4_0)) → gen_0':s2_0(0), 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.

(19) LowerBoundsProof (EQUIVALENT transformation)

The lowerbound Ω(n¹) was proven with the following lemma:
-(gen_0':s2_0(n4_0), gen_0':s2_0(n4_0)) → gen_0':s2_0(0), rt ∈ Ω(1 + n4₀)

(20) BOUNDS(n^1, INF)