The Runtime Complexity (innermost) of the given CpxTRS could be proven to be BOUNDS(O(1), O(n^1)).

0 CpxTRS
↳1 CpxTrsToCdtProof (BOTH BOUNDS(ID, ID), 0 ms)
↳2 CdtProblem
↳3 CdtUsableRulesProof (⇔, 0 ms)
↳4 CdtProblem
↳5 CdtRuleRemovalProof (UPPER BOUND (ADD(O(n^1))), 63 ms)
↳6 CdtProblem
↳7 CdtRuleRemovalProof (UPPER BOUND (ADD(O(n^1))), 0 ms)
↳8 CdtProblem
↳9 SIsEmptyProof (BOTH BOUNDS(ID, ID), 0 ms)
↳10 BOUNDS(O(1), O(1))

(0) Obligation:

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

f(c(s(x), y)) → f(c(x, s(y)))
g(c(x, s(y))) → g(c(s(x), y))

Rewrite Strategy: INNERMOST

(1) CpxTrsToCdtProof (BOTH BOUNDS(ID, ID) transformation)

Converted Cpx (relative) TRS to CDT

(2) Obligation:

Complexity Dependency Tuples Problem
Rules:

f(c(s(z0), z1)) → f(c(z0, s(z1)))
g(c(z0, s(z1))) → g(c(s(z0), z1))
Tuples:

F(c(s(z0), z1)) → c1(F(c(z0, s(z1))))
G(c(z0, s(z1))) → c2(G(c(s(z0), z1)))
S tuples:

F(c(s(z0), z1)) → c1(F(c(z0, s(z1))))
G(c(z0, s(z1))) → c2(G(c(s(z0), z1)))
K tuples:none
Defined Rule Symbols:

f, g

Defined Pair Symbols:

F, G

Compound Symbols:

c1, c2

(3) CdtUsableRulesProof (EQUIVALENT transformation)

The following rules are not usable and were removed:

f(c(s(z0), z1)) → f(c(z0, s(z1)))
g(c(z0, s(z1))) → g(c(s(z0), z1))

(4) Obligation:

Complexity Dependency Tuples Problem
Rules:none
Tuples:

F(c(s(z0), z1)) → c1(F(c(z0, s(z1))))
G(c(z0, s(z1))) → c2(G(c(s(z0), z1)))
S tuples:

F(c(s(z0), z1)) → c1(F(c(z0, s(z1))))
G(c(z0, s(z1))) → c2(G(c(s(z0), z1)))
K tuples:none
Defined Rule Symbols:none

Defined Pair Symbols:

F, G

Compound Symbols:

c1, c2

(5) CdtRuleRemovalProof (UPPER BOUND (ADD(O(n^1))) transformation)

Found a reduction pair which oriented the following tuples strictly. Hence they can be removed from S.

G(c(z0, s(z1))) → c2(G(c(s(z0), z1)))
We considered the (Usable) Rules:none
And the Tuples:

F(c(s(z0), z1)) → c1(F(c(z0, s(z1))))
G(c(z0, s(z1))) → c2(G(c(s(z0), z1)))
The order we found is given by the following interpretation:
Polynomial interpretation :

POL(F(x1)) = 0   
POL(G(x1)) = [4]x1   
POL(c(x1, x2)) = x2   
POL(c1(x1)) = x1   
POL(c2(x1)) = x1   
POL(s(x1)) = [2] + x1   

(6) Obligation:

Complexity Dependency Tuples Problem
Rules:none
Tuples:

F(c(s(z0), z1)) → c1(F(c(z0, s(z1))))
G(c(z0, s(z1))) → c2(G(c(s(z0), z1)))
S tuples:

F(c(s(z0), z1)) → c1(F(c(z0, s(z1))))
K tuples:

G(c(z0, s(z1))) → c2(G(c(s(z0), z1)))
Defined Rule Symbols:none

Defined Pair Symbols:

F, G

Compound Symbols:

c1, c2

(7) CdtRuleRemovalProof (UPPER BOUND (ADD(O(n^1))) transformation)

Found a reduction pair which oriented the following tuples strictly. Hence they can be removed from S.

F(c(s(z0), z1)) → c1(F(c(z0, s(z1))))
We considered the (Usable) Rules:none
And the Tuples:

F(c(s(z0), z1)) → c1(F(c(z0, s(z1))))
G(c(z0, s(z1))) → c2(G(c(s(z0), z1)))
The order we found is given by the following interpretation:
Polynomial interpretation :

POL(F(x1)) = [4]x1   
POL(G(x1)) = 0   
POL(c(x1, x2)) = x1   
POL(c1(x1)) = x1   
POL(c2(x1)) = x1   
POL(s(x1)) = [4] + x1   

(8) Obligation:

Complexity Dependency Tuples Problem
Rules:none
Tuples:

F(c(s(z0), z1)) → c1(F(c(z0, s(z1))))
G(c(z0, s(z1))) → c2(G(c(s(z0), z1)))
S tuples:none
K tuples:

G(c(z0, s(z1))) → c2(G(c(s(z0), z1)))
F(c(s(z0), z1)) → c1(F(c(z0, s(z1))))
Defined Rule Symbols:none

Defined Pair Symbols:

F, G

Compound Symbols:

c1, c2

(9) SIsEmptyProof (BOTH BOUNDS(ID, ID) transformation)

The set S is empty

(10) BOUNDS(O(1), O(1))