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:

and(false, false) → false
and(true, false) → false
and(false, true) → false
and(true, true) → true
eq(nil, nil) → true
eq(cons(T, L), nil) → false
eq(nil, cons(T, L)) → false
eq(cons(T, L), cons(Tp, Lp)) → and(eq(T, Tp), eq(L, Lp))
eq(var(L), var(Lp)) → eq(L, Lp)
eq(var(L), apply(T, S)) → false
eq(var(L), lambda(X, T)) → false
eq(apply(T, S), var(L)) → false
eq(apply(T, S), apply(Tp, Sp)) → and(eq(T, Tp), eq(S, Sp))
eq(apply(T, S), lambda(X, Tp)) → false
eq(lambda(X, T), var(L)) → false
eq(lambda(X, T), apply(Tp, Sp)) → false
eq(lambda(X, T), lambda(Xp, Tp)) → and(eq(T, Tp), eq(X, Xp))
if(true, var(K), var(L)) → var(K)
if(false, var(K), var(L)) → var(L)
ren(var(L), var(K), var(Lp)) → if(eq(L, Lp), var(K), var(Lp))
ren(X, Y, apply(T, S)) → apply(ren(X, Y, T), ren(X, Y, S))
ren(X, Y, lambda(Z, T)) → lambda(var(cons(X, cons(Y, cons(lambda(Z, T), nil)))), ren(X, Y, ren(Z, var(cons(X, cons(Y, cons(lambda(Z, T), nil)))), T)))

Rewrite Strategy: INNERMOST

(1) DecreasingLoopProof (EQUIVALENT transformation)

The following loop(s) give(s) rise to the lower bound Ω(n¹):
The rewrite sequence
eq(cons(T, L), cons(Tp, Lp)) →⁺ and(eq(T, Tp), eq(L, Lp))
gives rise to a decreasing loop by considering the right hand sides subterm at position [0].
The pumping substitution is [T / cons(T, L), Tp / cons(Tp, Lp)].
The result substitution is [ ].

(2) BOUNDS(n^1, INF)