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) → 1
f(s(x)) → g(x, s(x))
g(0, y) → y
g(s(x), y) → g(x, +(y, s(x)))
+(x, 0) → x
+(x, s(y)) → s(+(x, y))
g(s(x), y) → g(x, s(+(y, x)))

Rewrite Strategy: FULL

(1) DecreasingLoopProof (EQUIVALENT transformation)

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

(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:

f(0') → 1'
f(s(x)) → g(x, s(x))
g(0', y) → y
g(s(x), y) → g(x, +'(y, s(x)))
+'(x, 0') → x
+'(x, s(y)) → s(+'(x, y))
g(s(x), y) → g(x, s(+'(y, x)))

S is empty.
Rewrite Strategy: FULL

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

Infered types.

(6) Obligation:

TRS:
Rules:
f(0') → 1'
f(s(x)) → g(x, s(x))
g(0', y) → y
g(s(x), y) → g(x, +'(y, s(x)))
+'(x, 0') → x
+'(x, s(y)) → s(+'(x, y))
g(s(x), y) → g(x, s(+'(y, x)))

Types:
f :: 0':1':s → 0':1':s
0' :: 0':1':s
1' :: 0':1':s
s :: 0':1':s → 0':1':s
g :: 0':1':s → 0':1':s → 0':1':s
+' :: 0':1':s → 0':1':s → 0':1':s
hole_0':1':s1_0 :: 0':1':s
gen_0':1':s2_0 :: Nat → 0':1':s

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

Heuristically decided to analyse the following defined symbols:
g, +'

They will be analysed ascendingly in the following order:
+' < g

(8) Obligation:

TRS:
Rules:
f(0') → 1'
f(s(x)) → g(x, s(x))
g(0', y) → y
g(s(x), y) → g(x, +'(y, s(x)))
+'(x, 0') → x
+'(x, s(y)) → s(+'(x, y))
g(s(x), y) → g(x, s(+'(y, x)))

Types:
f :: 0':1':s → 0':1':s
0' :: 0':1':s
1' :: 0':1':s
s :: 0':1':s → 0':1':s
g :: 0':1':s → 0':1':s → 0':1':s
+' :: 0':1':s → 0':1':s → 0':1':s
hole_0':1':s1_0 :: 0':1':s
gen_0':1':s2_0 :: Nat → 0':1':s

Generator Equations:
gen_0':1':s2_0(0) ⇔ 0'
gen_0':1':s2_0(+(x, 1)) ⇔ s(gen_0':1':s2_0(x))

The following defined symbols remain to be analysed:
+', g

They will be analysed ascendingly in the following order:
+' < g

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

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

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

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

Types:
f :: 0':1':s → 0':1':s
0' :: 0':1':s
1' :: 0':1':s
s :: 0':1':s → 0':1':s
g :: 0':1':s → 0':1':s → 0':1':s
+' :: 0':1':s → 0':1':s → 0':1':s
hole_0':1':s1_0 :: 0':1':s
gen_0':1':s2_0 :: Nat → 0':1':s

Lemmas:
+'(gen_0':1':s2_0(a), gen_0':1':s2_0(n4_0)) → gen_0':1':s2_0(+(n4_0, a)), rt ∈ Ω(1 + n4₀)

Generator Equations:
gen_0':1':s2_0(0) ⇔ 0'
gen_0':1':s2_0(+(x, 1)) ⇔ s(gen_0':1':s2_0(x))

The following defined symbols remain to be analysed:
g

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

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

(13) Obligation:

TRS:
Rules:
f(0') → 1'
f(s(x)) → g(x, s(x))
g(0', y) → y
g(s(x), y) → g(x, +'(y, s(x)))
+'(x, 0') → x
+'(x, s(y)) → s(+'(x, y))
g(s(x), y) → g(x, s(+'(y, x)))

Types:
f :: 0':1':s → 0':1':s
0' :: 0':1':s
1' :: 0':1':s
s :: 0':1':s → 0':1':s
g :: 0':1':s → 0':1':s → 0':1':s
+' :: 0':1':s → 0':1':s → 0':1':s
hole_0':1':s1_0 :: 0':1':s
gen_0':1':s2_0 :: Nat → 0':1':s

Lemmas:
+'(gen_0':1':s2_0(a), gen_0':1':s2_0(n4_0)) → gen_0':1':s2_0(+(n4_0, a)), rt ∈ Ω(1 + n4₀)

Generator Equations:
gen_0':1':s2_0(0) ⇔ 0'
gen_0':1':s2_0(+(x, 1)) ⇔ s(gen_0':1':s2_0(x))

No more defined symbols left to analyse.

(14) LowerBoundsProof (EQUIVALENT transformation)

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

(15) BOUNDS(n^1, INF)

(16) Obligation:

TRS:
Rules:
f(0') → 1'
f(s(x)) → g(x, s(x))
g(0', y) → y
g(s(x), y) → g(x, +'(y, s(x)))
+'(x, 0') → x
+'(x, s(y)) → s(+'(x, y))
g(s(x), y) → g(x, s(+'(y, x)))

Types:
f :: 0':1':s → 0':1':s
0' :: 0':1':s
1' :: 0':1':s
s :: 0':1':s → 0':1':s
g :: 0':1':s → 0':1':s → 0':1':s
+' :: 0':1':s → 0':1':s → 0':1':s
hole_0':1':s1_0 :: 0':1':s
gen_0':1':s2_0 :: Nat → 0':1':s

Lemmas:
+'(gen_0':1':s2_0(a), gen_0':1':s2_0(n4_0)) → gen_0':1':s2_0(+(n4_0, a)), rt ∈ Ω(1 + n4₀)

Generator Equations:
gen_0':1':s2_0(0) ⇔ 0'
gen_0':1':s2_0(+(x, 1)) ⇔ s(gen_0':1':s2_0(x))

No more defined symbols left to analyse.

(17) LowerBoundsProof (EQUIVALENT transformation)

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

(18) BOUNDS(n^1, INF)