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, y) → y
+(s(x), y) → s(+(x, y))
+(s(x), y) → +(x, s(y))

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

+'(0', y) → y
+'(s(x), y) → s(+'(x, y))
+'(s(x), y) → +'(x, s(y))

S is empty.
Rewrite Strategy: FULL

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

Infered types.

(6) Obligation:

TRS:
Rules:
+'(0', y) → y
+'(s(x), y) → s(+'(x, y))
+'(s(x), y) → +'(x, s(y))

Types:
+' :: 0':s → 0':s → 0':s
0' :: 0':s
s :: 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:
+'

(8) Obligation:

TRS:
Rules:
+'(0', y) → y
+'(s(x), y) → s(+'(x, y))
+'(s(x), y) → +'(x, s(y))

Types:
+' :: 0':s → 0':s → 0':s
0' :: 0':s
s :: 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:
+'

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

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

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

Induction Step:
+'(gen_0':s2_0(+(n4_0, 1)), gen_0':s2_0(b)) →_R^Ω(1)
s(+'(gen_0':s2_0(n4_0), gen_0':s2_0(b))) →_IH
s(gen_0':s2_0(+(b, c5_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:
+'(0', y) → y
+'(s(x), y) → s(+'(x, y))
+'(s(x), y) → +'(x, s(y))

Types:
+' :: 0':s → 0':s → 0':s
0' :: 0':s
s :: 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(b)) → gen_0':s2_0(+(n4_0, b)), 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.

(12) LowerBoundsProof (EQUIVALENT transformation)

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

(13) BOUNDS(n^1, INF)

(14) Obligation:

TRS:
Rules:
+'(0', y) → y
+'(s(x), y) → s(+'(x, y))
+'(s(x), y) → +'(x, s(y))

Types:
+' :: 0':s → 0':s → 0':s
0' :: 0':s
s :: 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(b)) → gen_0':s2_0(+(n4_0, b)), 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.

(15) LowerBoundsProof (EQUIVALENT transformation)

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

(16) BOUNDS(n^1, INF)