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, +(y, z)) → +(*(x, y), *(x, z))
*(+(x, y), z) → +(*(x, z), *(y, z))
*(x, 1) → x
*(1, 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:

*(x, +(y, z)) → +(*(x, y), *(x, z))
*(+(x, y), z) → +(*(x, z), *(y, z))
*(x, 1) → x
*(1, y) → y

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

(4) BOUNDS(n^1, INF)