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

(0) Obligation:

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

eq(n__0, n__0) → true
eq(n__s(X), n__s(Y)) → eq(activate(X), activate(Y))
eq(X, Y) → false
inf(X) → cons(X, n__inf(n__s(X)))
take(0, X) → nil
take(s(X), cons(Y, L)) → cons(activate(Y), n__take(activate(X), activate(L)))
length(nil) → 0
length(cons(X, L)) → s(n__length(activate(L)))
0 → n__0
s(X) → n__s(X)
inf(X) → n__inf(X)
take(X1, X2) → n__take(X1, X2)
length(X) → n__length(X)
activate(n__0) → 0
activate(n__s(X)) → s(X)
activate(n__inf(X)) → inf(activate(X))
activate(n__take(X1, X2)) → take(activate(X1), activate(X2))
activate(n__length(X)) → length(activate(X))
activate(X) → X

Rewrite Strategy: FULL

(1) DecreasingLoopProof (EQUIVALENT transformation)

The following loop(s) give(s) rise to the lower bound Ω(2ⁿ):
The rewrite sequence
activate(n__inf(X)) →⁺ cons(activate(X), n__inf(n__s(activate(X))))
gives rise to a decreasing loop by considering the right hand sides subterm at position [0].
The pumping substitution is [X / n__inf(X)].
The result substitution is [ ].

The rewrite sequence
activate(n__inf(X)) →⁺ cons(activate(X), n__inf(n__s(activate(X))))
gives rise to a decreasing loop by considering the right hand sides subterm at position [1,0,0].
The pumping substitution is [X / n__inf(X)].
The result substitution is [ ].

(2) BOUNDS(2^n, INF)