The Runtime Complexity (full) of the given CpxTRS could be proven to be BOUNDS(n^2, INF).

(0) Obligation:

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

fac(s(x)) → *(fac(p(s(x))), s(x))
p(s(0)) → 0
p(s(s(x))) → s(p(s(x)))

Rewrite Strategy: FULL

(1) DecreasingLoopProof (EQUIVALENT transformation)

The following loop(s) give(s) rise to the lower bound Ω(n¹):
The rewrite sequence
p(s(s(x))) →⁺ s(p(s(x)))
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:

fac(s(x)) → *'(fac(p(s(x))), s(x))
p(s(0')) → 0'
p(s(s(x))) → s(p(s(x)))

S is empty.
Rewrite Strategy: FULL

(5) SlicingProof (LOWER BOUND(ID) transformation)

Sliced the following arguments:
*'/1

(6) Obligation:

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

fac(s(x)) → *'(fac(p(s(x))))
p(s(0')) → 0'
p(s(s(x))) → s(p(s(x)))

S is empty.
Rewrite Strategy: FULL

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

Infered types.

(8) Obligation:

TRS:
Rules:
fac(s(x)) → *'(fac(p(s(x))))
p(s(0')) → 0'
p(s(s(x))) → s(p(s(x)))

Types:
fac :: s:0' → *'
s :: s:0' → s:0'
*' :: *' → *'
p :: s:0' → s:0'
0' :: s:0'
hole_*'1_0 :: *'
hole_s:0'2_0 :: s:0'
gen_*'3_0 :: Nat → *'
gen_s:0'4_0 :: Nat → s:0'

(9) OrderProof (LOWER BOUND(ID) transformation)

Heuristically decided to analyse the following defined symbols:
fac, p

They will be analysed ascendingly in the following order:
p < fac

(10) Obligation:

TRS:
Rules:
fac(s(x)) → *'(fac(p(s(x))))
p(s(0')) → 0'
p(s(s(x))) → s(p(s(x)))

Types:
fac :: s:0' → *'
s :: s:0' → s:0'
*' :: *' → *'
p :: s:0' → s:0'
0' :: s:0'
hole_*'1_0 :: *'
hole_s:0'2_0 :: s:0'
gen_*'3_0 :: Nat → *'
gen_s:0'4_0 :: Nat → s:0'

Generator Equations:
gen_*'3_0(0) ⇔ hole_*'1_0
gen_*'3_0(+(x, 1)) ⇔ *'(gen_*'3_0(x))
gen_s:0'4_0(0) ⇔ 0'
gen_s:0'4_0(+(x, 1)) ⇔ s(gen_s:0'4_0(x))

The following defined symbols remain to be analysed:
p, fac

They will be analysed ascendingly in the following order:
p < fac

(11) RewriteLemmaProof (LOWER BOUND(ID) transformation)

Proved the following rewrite lemma:
p(gen_s:0'4_0(+(1, n6_0))) → gen_s:0'4_0(n6_0), rt ∈ Ω(1 + n6₀)

Induction Base:
p(gen_s:0'4_0(+(1, 0))) →_R^Ω(1)
0'

Induction Step:
p(gen_s:0'4_0(+(1, +(n6_0, 1)))) →_R^Ω(1)
s(p(s(gen_s:0'4_0(n6_0)))) →_IH
s(gen_s:0'4_0(c7_0))

We have rt ∈ Ω(n¹) and sz ∈ O(n). Thus, we have irc_R ∈ Ω(n).

(12) Complex Obligation (BEST)

(13) Obligation:

TRS:
Rules:
fac(s(x)) → *'(fac(p(s(x))))
p(s(0')) → 0'
p(s(s(x))) → s(p(s(x)))

Types:
fac :: s:0' → *'
s :: s:0' → s:0'
*' :: *' → *'
p :: s:0' → s:0'
0' :: s:0'
hole_*'1_0 :: *'
hole_s:0'2_0 :: s:0'
gen_*'3_0 :: Nat → *'
gen_s:0'4_0 :: Nat → s:0'

Lemmas:
p(gen_s:0'4_0(+(1, n6_0))) → gen_s:0'4_0(n6_0), rt ∈ Ω(1 + n6₀)

Generator Equations:
gen_*'3_0(0) ⇔ hole_*'1_0
gen_*'3_0(+(x, 1)) ⇔ *'(gen_*'3_0(x))
gen_s:0'4_0(0) ⇔ 0'
gen_s:0'4_0(+(x, 1)) ⇔ s(gen_s:0'4_0(x))

The following defined symbols remain to be analysed:
fac

(14) RewriteLemmaProof (LOWER BOUND(ID) transformation)

Proved the following rewrite lemma:
fac(gen_s:0'4_0(+(1, n213_0))) → *5_0, rt ∈ Ω(n213₀ + n213₀²)

Induction Base:
fac(gen_s:0'4_0(+(1, 0)))

Induction Step:
fac(gen_s:0'4_0(+(1, +(n213_0, 1)))) →_R^Ω(1)
*'(fac(p(s(gen_s:0'4_0(+(1, n213_0)))))) →_L^{Ω(2 + n213₀)}
*'(fac(gen_s:0'4_0(+(1, n213_0)))) →_IH
*'(*5_0)

We have rt ∈ Ω(n²) and sz ∈ O(n). Thus, we have irc_R ∈ Ω(n²).

(15) Complex Obligation (BEST)

(16) Obligation:

TRS:
Rules:
fac(s(x)) → *'(fac(p(s(x))))
p(s(0')) → 0'
p(s(s(x))) → s(p(s(x)))

Types:
fac :: s:0' → *'
s :: s:0' → s:0'
*' :: *' → *'
p :: s:0' → s:0'
0' :: s:0'
hole_*'1_0 :: *'
hole_s:0'2_0 :: s:0'
gen_*'3_0 :: Nat → *'
gen_s:0'4_0 :: Nat → s:0'

Lemmas:
p(gen_s:0'4_0(+(1, n6_0))) → gen_s:0'4_0(n6_0), rt ∈ Ω(1 + n6₀)
fac(gen_s:0'4_0(+(1, n213_0))) → *5_0, rt ∈ Ω(n213₀ + n213₀²)

Generator Equations:
gen_*'3_0(0) ⇔ hole_*'1_0
gen_*'3_0(+(x, 1)) ⇔ *'(gen_*'3_0(x))
gen_s:0'4_0(0) ⇔ 0'
gen_s:0'4_0(+(x, 1)) ⇔ s(gen_s:0'4_0(x))

No more defined symbols left to analyse.

(17) LowerBoundsProof (EQUIVALENT transformation)

The lowerbound Ω(n²) was proven with the following lemma:
fac(gen_s:0'4_0(+(1, n213_0))) → *5_0, rt ∈ Ω(n213₀ + n213₀²)

(18) BOUNDS(n^2, INF)

(19) Obligation:

TRS:
Rules:
fac(s(x)) → *'(fac(p(s(x))))
p(s(0')) → 0'
p(s(s(x))) → s(p(s(x)))

Types:
fac :: s:0' → *'
s :: s:0' → s:0'
*' :: *' → *'
p :: s:0' → s:0'
0' :: s:0'
hole_*'1_0 :: *'
hole_s:0'2_0 :: s:0'
gen_*'3_0 :: Nat → *'
gen_s:0'4_0 :: Nat → s:0'

Lemmas:
p(gen_s:0'4_0(+(1, n6_0))) → gen_s:0'4_0(n6_0), rt ∈ Ω(1 + n6₀)
fac(gen_s:0'4_0(+(1, n213_0))) → *5_0, rt ∈ Ω(n213₀ + n213₀²)

Generator Equations:
gen_*'3_0(0) ⇔ hole_*'1_0
gen_*'3_0(+(x, 1)) ⇔ *'(gen_*'3_0(x))
gen_s:0'4_0(0) ⇔ 0'
gen_s:0'4_0(+(x, 1)) ⇔ s(gen_s:0'4_0(x))

No more defined symbols left to analyse.

(20) LowerBoundsProof (EQUIVALENT transformation)

The lowerbound Ω(n²) was proven with the following lemma:
fac(gen_s:0'4_0(+(1, n213_0))) → *5_0, rt ∈ Ω(n213₀ + n213₀²)

(21) BOUNDS(n^2, INF)

(22) Obligation:

TRS:
Rules:
fac(s(x)) → *'(fac(p(s(x))))
p(s(0')) → 0'
p(s(s(x))) → s(p(s(x)))

Types:
fac :: s:0' → *'
s :: s:0' → s:0'
*' :: *' → *'
p :: s:0' → s:0'
0' :: s:0'
hole_*'1_0 :: *'
hole_s:0'2_0 :: s:0'
gen_*'3_0 :: Nat → *'
gen_s:0'4_0 :: Nat → s:0'

Lemmas:
p(gen_s:0'4_0(+(1, n6_0))) → gen_s:0'4_0(n6_0), rt ∈ Ω(1 + n6₀)

Generator Equations:
gen_*'3_0(0) ⇔ hole_*'1_0
gen_*'3_0(+(x, 1)) ⇔ *'(gen_*'3_0(x))
gen_s:0'4_0(0) ⇔ 0'
gen_s:0'4_0(+(x, 1)) ⇔ s(gen_s:0'4_0(x))

No more defined symbols left to analyse.

(23) LowerBoundsProof (EQUIVALENT transformation)

The lowerbound Ω(n¹) was proven with the following lemma:
p(gen_s:0'4_0(+(1, n6_0))) → gen_s:0'4_0(n6_0), rt ∈ Ω(1 + n6₀)

(24) BOUNDS(n^1, INF)