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:

f(0, y) → y
f(x, 0) → x
f(i(x), y) → i(x)
f(f(x, y), z) → f(x, f(y, z))
f(g(x, y), z) → g(f(x, z), f(y, z))
f(1, g(x, y)) → x
f(2, g(x, y)) → y

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:

f(0, y) → y
f(x, 0) → x
f(i(x), y) → i(x)
f(f(x, y), z) → f(x, f(y, z))
f(g(x, y), z) → g(f(x, z), f(y, z))
f(1, g(x, y)) → x
f(2, g(x, y)) → y

S is empty.
Rewrite Strategy: FULL

(3) SlicingProof (LOWER BOUND(ID) transformation)

Sliced the following arguments:
i/0

(4) Obligation:

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

f(0, y) → y
f(x, 0) → x
f(i, y) → i
f(f(x, y), z) → f(x, f(y, z))
f(g(x, y), z) → g(f(x, z), f(y, z))
f(1, g(x, y)) → x
f(2, g(x, y)) → y

S is empty.
Rewrite Strategy: FULL

(5) DecreasingLoopProof (EQUIVALENT transformation)

The following loop(s) give(s) rise to the lower bound Ω(n¹):
The rewrite sequence
f(g(x, y), z) →⁺ g(f(x, z), f(y, z))
gives rise to a decreasing loop by considering the right hand sides subterm at position [0].
The pumping substitution is [x / g(x, y)].
The result substitution is [ ].

(6) BOUNDS(n^1, INF)