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:

foldl#3(x2, Nil) → x2
foldl#3(x16, Cons(x24, x6)) → foldl#3(Cons(x24, x16), x6)
main(x1) → foldl#3(Nil, x1)

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:

foldl#3(x2, Nil) → x2
foldl#3(x16, Cons(x24, x6)) → foldl#3(Cons(x24, x16), x6)
main(x1) → foldl#3(Nil, x1)

S is empty.
Rewrite Strategy: INNERMOST

(3) SlicingProof (LOWER BOUND(ID) transformation)

Sliced the following arguments:
Cons/0

(4) Obligation:

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

foldl#3(x2, Nil) → x2
foldl#3(x16, Cons(x6)) → foldl#3(Cons(x16), x6)
main(x1) → foldl#3(Nil, x1)

S is empty.
Rewrite Strategy: INNERMOST

(5) DecreasingLoopProof (EQUIVALENT transformation)

The following loop(s) give(s) rise to the lower bound Ω(n¹):
The rewrite sequence
foldl#3(x16, Cons(x6)) →⁺ foldl#3(Cons(x16), x6)
gives rise to a decreasing loop by considering the right hand sides subterm at position [].
The pumping substitution is [x6 / Cons(x6)].
The result substitution is [x16 / Cons(x16)].

(6) BOUNDS(n^1, INF)