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:

eq(0, 0) → true
eq(0, s(X)) → false
eq(s(X), 0) → false
eq(s(X), s(Y)) → eq(X, Y)
rm(N, nil) → nil
rm(N, add(M, X)) → ifrm(eq(N, M), N, add(M, X))
ifrm(true, N, add(M, X)) → rm(N, X)
ifrm(false, N, add(M, X)) → add(M, rm(N, X))
purge(nil) → nil
purge(add(N, X)) → add(N, purge(rm(N, 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:

eq(0, 0) → true
eq(0, s(X)) → false
eq(s(X), 0) → false
eq(s(X), s(Y)) → eq(X, Y)
rm(N, nil) → nil
rm(N, add(M, X)) → ifrm(eq(N, M), N, add(M, X))
ifrm(true, N, add(M, X)) → rm(N, X)
ifrm(false, N, add(M, X)) → add(M, rm(N, X))
purge(nil) → nil
purge(add(N, X)) → add(N, purge(rm(N, 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
eq(s(X), s(Y)) →⁺ eq(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)