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:

U11(tt, M, N) → U12(tt, activate(M), activate(N))
U12(tt, M, N) → s(plus(activate(N), activate(M)))
plus(N, 0) → N
plus(N, s(M)) → U11(tt, M, N)
activate(X) → X

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:

U11(tt, M, N) → U12(tt, activate(M), activate(N))
U12(tt, M, N) → s(plus(activate(N), activate(M)))
plus(N, 0) → N
plus(N, s(M)) → U11(tt, M, N)
activate(X) → X

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
U11(tt, s(M279_3), N) →⁺ s(U11(tt, M279_3, activate(activate(N))))
gives rise to a decreasing loop by considering the right hand sides subterm at position [0].
The pumping substitution is [M279_3 / s(M279_3)].
The result substitution is [N / activate(activate(N))].

(4) BOUNDS(n^1, INF)