The Runtime Complexity (innermost) 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:

0(#) → #
+(x, #) → x
+(#, x) → x
+(0(x), 0(y)) → 0(+(x, y))
+(0(x), 1(y)) → 1(+(x, y))
+(1(x), 0(y)) → 1(+(x, y))
+(1(x), 1(y)) → 0(+(+(x, y), 1(#)))
+(+(x, y), z) → +(x, +(y, z))
*(#, x) → #
*(0(x), y) → 0(*(x, y))
*(1(x), y) → +(0(*(x, y)), y)
*(*(x, y), z) → *(x, *(y, z))
*(x, +(y, z)) → +(*(x, y), *(x, z))
app(nil, l) → l
app(cons(x, l1), l2) → cons(x, app(l1, l2))
sum(nil) → 0(#)
sum(cons(x, l)) → +(x, sum(l))
sum(app(l1, l2)) → +(sum(l1), sum(l2))
prod(nil) → 1(#)
prod(cons(x, l)) → *(x, prod(l))
prod(app(l1, l2)) → *(prod(l1), prod(l2))

Rewrite Strategy: INNERMOST

(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:

0(#) → #
+(x, #) → x
+(#, x) → x
+(0(x), 0(y)) → 0(+(x, y))
+(0(x), 1(y)) → 1(+(x, y))
+(1(x), 0(y)) → 1(+(x, y))
+(1(x), 1(y)) → 0(+(+(x, y), 1(#)))
+(+(x, y), z) → +(x, +(y, z))
*(#, x) → #
*(0(x), y) → 0(*(x, y))
*(1(x), y) → +(0(*(x, y)), y)
*(*(x, y), z) → *(x, *(y, z))
*(x, +(y, z)) → +(*(x, y), *(x, z))
app(nil, l) → l
app(cons(x, l1), l2) → cons(x, app(l1, l2))
sum(nil) → 0(#)
sum(cons(x, l)) → +(x, sum(l))
sum(app(l1, l2)) → +(sum(l1), sum(l2))
prod(nil) → 1(#)
prod(cons(x, l)) → *(x, prod(l))
prod(app(l1, l2)) → *(prod(l1), prod(l2))

S is empty.
Rewrite Strategy: INNERMOST

(3) DecreasingLoopProof (EQUIVALENT transformation)

The following loop(s) give(s) rise to the lower bound Ω(n¹):
The rewrite sequence
+(1(x), 1(y)) →⁺ 0(+(+(x, y), 1(#)))
gives rise to a decreasing loop by considering the right hand sides subterm at position [0,0].
The pumping substitution is [x / 1(x), y / 1(y)].
The result substitution is [ ].

(4) BOUNDS(n^1, INF)