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:

min(x, 0) → 0
min(0, y) → 0
min(s(x), s(y)) → s(min(x, y))
max(x, 0) → x
max(0, y) → y
max(s(x), s(y)) → s(max(x, y))
-(x, 0) → x
-(s(x), s(y)) → -(x, y)
gcd(s(x), s(y)) → gcd(-(s(max(x, y)), s(min(x, y))), s(min(x, y)))

Rewrite Strategy: FULL

(1) RenamingProof (EQUIVALENT transformation)

Renamed function symbols to avoid clashes with predefined symbol.

(2) Obligation:

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

min(x, 0') → 0'
min(0', y) → 0'
min(s(x), s(y)) → s(min(x, y))
max(x, 0') → x
max(0', y) → y
max(s(x), s(y)) → s(max(x, y))
-(x, 0') → x
-(s(x), s(y)) → -(x, y)
gcd(s(x), s(y)) → gcd(-(s(max(x, y)), s(min(x, y))), s(min(x, y)))

S is empty.
Rewrite Strategy: FULL

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

Infered types.

(4) Obligation:

TRS:
Rules:
min(x, 0') → 0'
min(0', y) → 0'
min(s(x), s(y)) → s(min(x, y))
max(x, 0') → x
max(0', y) → y
max(s(x), s(y)) → s(max(x, y))
-(x, 0') → x
-(s(x), s(y)) → -(x, y)
gcd(s(x), s(y)) → gcd(-(s(max(x, y)), s(min(x, y))), s(min(x, y)))

Types:
min :: 0':s → 0':s → 0':s
0' :: 0':s
s :: 0':s → 0':s
max :: 0':s → 0':s → 0':s
- :: 0':s → 0':s → 0':s
gcd :: 0':s → 0':s → gcd
hole_0':s1_0 :: 0':s
hole_gcd2_0 :: gcd
gen_0':s3_0 :: Nat → 0':s

(5) OrderProof (LOWER BOUND(ID) transformation)

Heuristically decided to analyse the following defined symbols:
min, max, -, gcd

They will be analysed ascendingly in the following order:
min < gcd
max < gcd
- < gcd

(6) Obligation:

TRS:
Rules:
min(x, 0') → 0'
min(0', y) → 0'
min(s(x), s(y)) → s(min(x, y))
max(x, 0') → x
max(0', y) → y
max(s(x), s(y)) → s(max(x, y))
-(x, 0') → x
-(s(x), s(y)) → -(x, y)
gcd(s(x), s(y)) → gcd(-(s(max(x, y)), s(min(x, y))), s(min(x, y)))

Types:
min :: 0':s → 0':s → 0':s
0' :: 0':s
s :: 0':s → 0':s
max :: 0':s → 0':s → 0':s
- :: 0':s → 0':s → 0':s
gcd :: 0':s → 0':s → gcd
hole_0':s1_0 :: 0':s
hole_gcd2_0 :: gcd
gen_0':s3_0 :: Nat → 0':s

Generator Equations:
gen_0':s3_0(0) ⇔ 0'
gen_0':s3_0(+(x, 1)) ⇔ s(gen_0':s3_0(x))

The following defined symbols remain to be analysed:
min, max, -, gcd

They will be analysed ascendingly in the following order:
min < gcd
max < gcd
- < gcd

(7) RewriteLemmaProof (LOWER BOUND(ID) transformation)

Proved the following rewrite lemma:
min(gen_0':s3_0(n5_0), gen_0':s3_0(n5_0)) → gen_0':s3_0(n5_0), rt ∈ Ω(1 + n5₀)

Induction Base:
min(gen_0':s3_0(0), gen_0':s3_0(0)) →_R^Ω(1)
0'

Induction Step:
min(gen_0':s3_0(+(n5_0, 1)), gen_0':s3_0(+(n5_0, 1))) →_R^Ω(1)
s(min(gen_0':s3_0(n5_0), gen_0':s3_0(n5_0))) →_IH
s(gen_0':s3_0(c6_0))

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

(8) Complex Obligation (BEST)

(9) Obligation:

TRS:
Rules:
min(x, 0') → 0'
min(0', y) → 0'
min(s(x), s(y)) → s(min(x, y))
max(x, 0') → x
max(0', y) → y
max(s(x), s(y)) → s(max(x, y))
-(x, 0') → x
-(s(x), s(y)) → -(x, y)
gcd(s(x), s(y)) → gcd(-(s(max(x, y)), s(min(x, y))), s(min(x, y)))

Types:
min :: 0':s → 0':s → 0':s
0' :: 0':s
s :: 0':s → 0':s
max :: 0':s → 0':s → 0':s
- :: 0':s → 0':s → 0':s
gcd :: 0':s → 0':s → gcd
hole_0':s1_0 :: 0':s
hole_gcd2_0 :: gcd
gen_0':s3_0 :: Nat → 0':s

Lemmas:
min(gen_0':s3_0(n5_0), gen_0':s3_0(n5_0)) → gen_0':s3_0(n5_0), rt ∈ Ω(1 + n5₀)

Generator Equations:
gen_0':s3_0(0) ⇔ 0'
gen_0':s3_0(+(x, 1)) ⇔ s(gen_0':s3_0(x))

The following defined symbols remain to be analysed:
max, -, gcd

They will be analysed ascendingly in the following order:
max < gcd
- < gcd

(10) RewriteLemmaProof (LOWER BOUND(ID) transformation)

Proved the following rewrite lemma:
max(gen_0':s3_0(n299_0), gen_0':s3_0(n299_0)) → gen_0':s3_0(n299_0), rt ∈ Ω(1 + n299₀)

Induction Base:
max(gen_0':s3_0(0), gen_0':s3_0(0)) →_R^Ω(1)
gen_0':s3_0(0)

Induction Step:
max(gen_0':s3_0(+(n299_0, 1)), gen_0':s3_0(+(n299_0, 1))) →_R^Ω(1)
s(max(gen_0':s3_0(n299_0), gen_0':s3_0(n299_0))) →_IH
s(gen_0':s3_0(c300_0))

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

(11) Complex Obligation (BEST)

(12) Obligation:

TRS:
Rules:
min(x, 0') → 0'
min(0', y) → 0'
min(s(x), s(y)) → s(min(x, y))
max(x, 0') → x
max(0', y) → y
max(s(x), s(y)) → s(max(x, y))
-(x, 0') → x
-(s(x), s(y)) → -(x, y)
gcd(s(x), s(y)) → gcd(-(s(max(x, y)), s(min(x, y))), s(min(x, y)))

Types:
min :: 0':s → 0':s → 0':s
0' :: 0':s
s :: 0':s → 0':s
max :: 0':s → 0':s → 0':s
- :: 0':s → 0':s → 0':s
gcd :: 0':s → 0':s → gcd
hole_0':s1_0 :: 0':s
hole_gcd2_0 :: gcd
gen_0':s3_0 :: Nat → 0':s

Lemmas:
min(gen_0':s3_0(n5_0), gen_0':s3_0(n5_0)) → gen_0':s3_0(n5_0), rt ∈ Ω(1 + n5₀)
max(gen_0':s3_0(n299_0), gen_0':s3_0(n299_0)) → gen_0':s3_0(n299_0), rt ∈ Ω(1 + n299₀)

Generator Equations:
gen_0':s3_0(0) ⇔ 0'
gen_0':s3_0(+(x, 1)) ⇔ s(gen_0':s3_0(x))

The following defined symbols remain to be analysed:
-, gcd

They will be analysed ascendingly in the following order:
- < gcd

(13) RewriteLemmaProof (LOWER BOUND(ID) transformation)

Proved the following rewrite lemma:
-(gen_0':s3_0(n669_0), gen_0':s3_0(n669_0)) → gen_0':s3_0(0), rt ∈ Ω(1 + n669₀)

Induction Base:
-(gen_0':s3_0(0), gen_0':s3_0(0)) →_R^Ω(1)
gen_0':s3_0(0)

Induction Step:
-(gen_0':s3_0(+(n669_0, 1)), gen_0':s3_0(+(n669_0, 1))) →_R^Ω(1)
-(gen_0':s3_0(n669_0), gen_0':s3_0(n669_0)) →_IH
gen_0':s3_0(0)

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

(14) Complex Obligation (BEST)

(15) Obligation:

TRS:
Rules:
min(x, 0') → 0'
min(0', y) → 0'
min(s(x), s(y)) → s(min(x, y))
max(x, 0') → x
max(0', y) → y
max(s(x), s(y)) → s(max(x, y))
-(x, 0') → x
-(s(x), s(y)) → -(x, y)
gcd(s(x), s(y)) → gcd(-(s(max(x, y)), s(min(x, y))), s(min(x, y)))

Types:
min :: 0':s → 0':s → 0':s
0' :: 0':s
s :: 0':s → 0':s
max :: 0':s → 0':s → 0':s
- :: 0':s → 0':s → 0':s
gcd :: 0':s → 0':s → gcd
hole_0':s1_0 :: 0':s
hole_gcd2_0 :: gcd
gen_0':s3_0 :: Nat → 0':s

Lemmas:
min(gen_0':s3_0(n5_0), gen_0':s3_0(n5_0)) → gen_0':s3_0(n5_0), rt ∈ Ω(1 + n5₀)
max(gen_0':s3_0(n299_0), gen_0':s3_0(n299_0)) → gen_0':s3_0(n299_0), rt ∈ Ω(1 + n299₀)
-(gen_0':s3_0(n669_0), gen_0':s3_0(n669_0)) → gen_0':s3_0(0), rt ∈ Ω(1 + n669₀)

Generator Equations:
gen_0':s3_0(0) ⇔ 0'
gen_0':s3_0(+(x, 1)) ⇔ s(gen_0':s3_0(x))

The following defined symbols remain to be analysed:
gcd

(16) NoRewriteLemmaProof (LOWER BOUND(ID) transformation)

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

(17) Obligation:

TRS:
Rules:
min(x, 0') → 0'
min(0', y) → 0'
min(s(x), s(y)) → s(min(x, y))
max(x, 0') → x
max(0', y) → y
max(s(x), s(y)) → s(max(x, y))
-(x, 0') → x
-(s(x), s(y)) → -(x, y)
gcd(s(x), s(y)) → gcd(-(s(max(x, y)), s(min(x, y))), s(min(x, y)))

Types:
min :: 0':s → 0':s → 0':s
0' :: 0':s
s :: 0':s → 0':s
max :: 0':s → 0':s → 0':s
- :: 0':s → 0':s → 0':s
gcd :: 0':s → 0':s → gcd
hole_0':s1_0 :: 0':s
hole_gcd2_0 :: gcd
gen_0':s3_0 :: Nat → 0':s

Lemmas:
min(gen_0':s3_0(n5_0), gen_0':s3_0(n5_0)) → gen_0':s3_0(n5_0), rt ∈ Ω(1 + n5₀)
max(gen_0':s3_0(n299_0), gen_0':s3_0(n299_0)) → gen_0':s3_0(n299_0), rt ∈ Ω(1 + n299₀)
-(gen_0':s3_0(n669_0), gen_0':s3_0(n669_0)) → gen_0':s3_0(0), rt ∈ Ω(1 + n669₀)

Generator Equations:
gen_0':s3_0(0) ⇔ 0'
gen_0':s3_0(+(x, 1)) ⇔ s(gen_0':s3_0(x))

No more defined symbols left to analyse.

(18) LowerBoundsProof (EQUIVALENT transformation)

The lowerbound Ω(n¹) was proven with the following lemma:
min(gen_0':s3_0(n5_0), gen_0':s3_0(n5_0)) → gen_0':s3_0(n5_0), rt ∈ Ω(1 + n5₀)

(19) BOUNDS(n^1, INF)

(20) Obligation:

TRS:
Rules:
min(x, 0') → 0'
min(0', y) → 0'
min(s(x), s(y)) → s(min(x, y))
max(x, 0') → x
max(0', y) → y
max(s(x), s(y)) → s(max(x, y))
-(x, 0') → x
-(s(x), s(y)) → -(x, y)
gcd(s(x), s(y)) → gcd(-(s(max(x, y)), s(min(x, y))), s(min(x, y)))

Types:
min :: 0':s → 0':s → 0':s
0' :: 0':s
s :: 0':s → 0':s
max :: 0':s → 0':s → 0':s
- :: 0':s → 0':s → 0':s
gcd :: 0':s → 0':s → gcd
hole_0':s1_0 :: 0':s
hole_gcd2_0 :: gcd
gen_0':s3_0 :: Nat → 0':s

Lemmas:
min(gen_0':s3_0(n5_0), gen_0':s3_0(n5_0)) → gen_0':s3_0(n5_0), rt ∈ Ω(1 + n5₀)
max(gen_0':s3_0(n299_0), gen_0':s3_0(n299_0)) → gen_0':s3_0(n299_0), rt ∈ Ω(1 + n299₀)
-(gen_0':s3_0(n669_0), gen_0':s3_0(n669_0)) → gen_0':s3_0(0), rt ∈ Ω(1 + n669₀)

Generator Equations:
gen_0':s3_0(0) ⇔ 0'
gen_0':s3_0(+(x, 1)) ⇔ s(gen_0':s3_0(x))

No more defined symbols left to analyse.

(21) LowerBoundsProof (EQUIVALENT transformation)

The lowerbound Ω(n¹) was proven with the following lemma:
min(gen_0':s3_0(n5_0), gen_0':s3_0(n5_0)) → gen_0':s3_0(n5_0), rt ∈ Ω(1 + n5₀)

(22) BOUNDS(n^1, INF)

(23) Obligation:

TRS:
Rules:
min(x, 0') → 0'
min(0', y) → 0'
min(s(x), s(y)) → s(min(x, y))
max(x, 0') → x
max(0', y) → y
max(s(x), s(y)) → s(max(x, y))
-(x, 0') → x
-(s(x), s(y)) → -(x, y)
gcd(s(x), s(y)) → gcd(-(s(max(x, y)), s(min(x, y))), s(min(x, y)))

Types:
min :: 0':s → 0':s → 0':s
0' :: 0':s
s :: 0':s → 0':s
max :: 0':s → 0':s → 0':s
- :: 0':s → 0':s → 0':s
gcd :: 0':s → 0':s → gcd
hole_0':s1_0 :: 0':s
hole_gcd2_0 :: gcd
gen_0':s3_0 :: Nat → 0':s

Lemmas:
min(gen_0':s3_0(n5_0), gen_0':s3_0(n5_0)) → gen_0':s3_0(n5_0), rt ∈ Ω(1 + n5₀)
max(gen_0':s3_0(n299_0), gen_0':s3_0(n299_0)) → gen_0':s3_0(n299_0), rt ∈ Ω(1 + n299₀)

Generator Equations:
gen_0':s3_0(0) ⇔ 0'
gen_0':s3_0(+(x, 1)) ⇔ s(gen_0':s3_0(x))

No more defined symbols left to analyse.

(24) LowerBoundsProof (EQUIVALENT transformation)

The lowerbound Ω(n¹) was proven with the following lemma:
min(gen_0':s3_0(n5_0), gen_0':s3_0(n5_0)) → gen_0':s3_0(n5_0), rt ∈ Ω(1 + n5₀)

(25) BOUNDS(n^1, INF)

(26) Obligation:

TRS:
Rules:
min(x, 0') → 0'
min(0', y) → 0'
min(s(x), s(y)) → s(min(x, y))
max(x, 0') → x
max(0', y) → y
max(s(x), s(y)) → s(max(x, y))
-(x, 0') → x
-(s(x), s(y)) → -(x, y)
gcd(s(x), s(y)) → gcd(-(s(max(x, y)), s(min(x, y))), s(min(x, y)))

Types:
min :: 0':s → 0':s → 0':s
0' :: 0':s
s :: 0':s → 0':s
max :: 0':s → 0':s → 0':s
- :: 0':s → 0':s → 0':s
gcd :: 0':s → 0':s → gcd
hole_0':s1_0 :: 0':s
hole_gcd2_0 :: gcd
gen_0':s3_0 :: Nat → 0':s

Lemmas:
min(gen_0':s3_0(n5_0), gen_0':s3_0(n5_0)) → gen_0':s3_0(n5_0), rt ∈ Ω(1 + n5₀)

Generator Equations:
gen_0':s3_0(0) ⇔ 0'
gen_0':s3_0(+(x, 1)) ⇔ s(gen_0':s3_0(x))

No more defined symbols left to analyse.

(27) LowerBoundsProof (EQUIVALENT transformation)

The lowerbound Ω(n¹) was proven with the following lemma:
min(gen_0':s3_0(n5_0), gen_0':s3_0(n5_0)) → gen_0':s3_0(n5_0), rt ∈ Ω(1 + n5₀)

(28) BOUNDS(n^1, INF)