(*  Title:      HOL/Library/Rewrite.thy
    Author:     Christoph Traut, Lars Noschinski, TU Muenchen

Proof method "rewrite" with support for subterm-selection based on patterns.
*)

theory Rewrite
imports MainRLT
begin

consts rewrite_HOLE :: "'a::{}"  ("\<hole>")

lemma eta_expand:
  fixes f :: "'a::{} \<Rightarrow> 'b::{}"
  shows "f \<equiv> \<lambda>x. f x" .

lemma imp_cong_eq:
  "(PROP A \<Longrightarrow> (PROP B \<Longrightarrow> PROP C) \<equiv> (PROP B' \<Longrightarrow> PROP C')) \<equiv>
    ((PROP B \<Longrightarrow> PROP A \<Longrightarrow> PROP C) \<equiv> (PROP B' \<Longrightarrow> PROP A \<Longrightarrow> PROP C'))"
  apply (intro Pure.equal_intr_rule)
     apply (drule (1) cut_rl; drule Pure.equal_elim_rule1 Pure.equal_elim_rule2; assumption)+
   apply (drule Pure.equal_elim_rule1 Pure.equal_elim_rule2; assumption)+
  done

ML_file \<open>cconv.ML\<close>
ML_file \<open>rewrite.ML\<close>

end


(*
   Title: Psi-calculi
   Author/Maintainer: Jesper Bengtson (jebe@itu.dk), 2012
*)
theory Weaken_Transition
  imports Weakening
begin

context weak
begin

definition weakenTransition :: "'b \<Rightarrow> ('a, 'b, 'c) psi \<Rightarrow> 'a action \<Rightarrow> ('a, 'b, 'c) psi \<Rightarrow> bool" ("_ \<rhd> _ \<Longrightarrow>_ \<prec> _" [80, 80, 80, 80] 80)
where
  "\<Psi> \<rhd> P \<Longrightarrow>\<alpha> \<prec> P' \<equiv> (\<exists>P''' P''. \<Psi> \<rhd> P \<Longrightarrow>\<^sup>^\<^sub>\<tau> P''' \<and> \<Psi> \<rhd> P''' \<longmapsto>\<alpha> \<prec> P'' \<and> \<Psi> \<rhd> P'' \<Longrightarrow>\<^sup>^\<^sub>\<tau> P') \<or> (P = P' \<and> \<alpha> = \<tau>)"

lemma weakenTransitionCases[consumes 1, case_names cBase cStep]:
  assumes "\<Psi> \<rhd> P \<Longrightarrow>\<alpha> \<prec> P'"
  and "Prop (\<tau>) P"
  and "\<And>P''' P''. \<lbrakk>\<Psi> \<rhd> P \<Longrightarrow>\<^sup>^\<^sub>\<tau> P'''; \<Psi> \<rhd> P''' \<longmapsto>\<alpha> \<prec> P''; \<Psi> \<rhd> P'' \<Longrightarrow>\<^sup>^\<^sub>\<tau> P'\<rbrakk> \<Longrightarrow> Prop \<alpha> P'"

  shows "Prop \<alpha> P'"
using assms
by(auto simp add: weakenTransition_def)

lemma statImpTauChainDerivative:
  fixes \<Psi>   :: 'b
  and   P    :: "('a, 'b, 'c) psi"
  and   P'   :: "('a, 'b, 'c) psi"

  assumes "\<Psi> \<rhd> P \<Longrightarrow>\<^sup>^\<^sub>\<tau> P'"

  shows "insertAssertion (extractFrame P) \<Psi> \<hookrightarrow>\<^sub>F insertAssertion (extractFrame P') \<Psi>"
using assms
by(induct rule: tauChainInduct) (auto intro: statImpTauDerivative dest: FrameStatImpTrans)

lemma weakenTauChain:
  fixes \<Psi>  :: 'b
  and   P  :: "('a, 'b, 'c) psi"
  and   P' :: "('a, 'b, 'c) psi"
  and   \<Psi>' :: 'b

  assumes "\<Psi> \<rhd> P \<Longrightarrow>\<^sup>^\<^sub>\<tau> P'"
  shows "\<Psi> \<otimes> \<Psi>' \<rhd> P \<Longrightarrow>\<^sup>^\<^sub>\<tau> P'"
using assms
proof(induct rule: tauChainInduct)
  case(TauBase P)
  thus ?case by simp
next
  case(TauStep P P' P'')
  note \<open>\<Psi> \<otimes> \<Psi>' \<rhd> P \<Longrightarrow>\<^sup>^\<^sub>\<tau> P'\<close>
  moreover from \<open>\<Psi> \<rhd> P' \<longmapsto>\<tau> \<prec> P''\<close> have "\<Psi> \<otimes> \<Psi>' \<rhd> P' \<longmapsto>\<tau> \<prec> P''" by(rule weakenTransition)
  ultimately show ?case by(auto dest: tauActTauChain)
qed

end

end


(*  Title:      HOL/Auth/n_german_lemma_on_inv__8.thy
    Author:     Yongjian Li and Kaiqiang Duan, State Key Lab of Computer Science, Institute of Software, Chinese Academy of Sciences
    Copyright    2016 State Key Lab of Computer Science, Institute of Software, Chinese Academy of Sciences
*)

(*header{*The n_german Protocol Case Study*}*)

theory n_german_lemma_on_inv__8 imports n_german_base
begin
section{*All lemmas on causal relation between inv__8 and some rule r*}
lemma n_SendInvAckVsinv__8:
assumes a1: "(\<exists> i. i\<le>N\<and>r=n_SendInvAck  i)" and
a2: "(\<exists> p__Inv2. p__Inv2\<le>N\<and>f=inv__8  p__Inv2)"
shows "invHoldForRule s f r (invariants N)" (is "?P1 s \<or> ?P2 s \<or> ?P3 s")
proof -
from a1 obtain i where a1:"i\<le>N\<and>r=n_SendInvAck  i" apply fastforce done
from a2 obtain p__Inv2 where a2:"p__Inv2\<le>N\<and>f=inv__8  p__Inv2" apply fastforce done
have "(i=p__Inv2)\<or>(i~=p__Inv2)\<or>(i~=p__Inv2)" apply (cut_tac a1 a2, auto) done
moreover {
  assume b1: "(i=p__Inv2)"
  have "?P1 s"
  proof(cut_tac a1 a2 b1, auto) qed
  then have "invHoldForRule s f r (invariants N)" by auto
}
moreover {
  assume b1: "(i~=p__Inv2)"
  have "?P2 s"
  proof(cut_tac a1 a2 b1, auto) qed
  then have "invHoldForRule s f r (invariants N)" by auto
}
moreover {
  assume b1: "(i~=p__Inv2)"
  have "?P2 s"
  proof(cut_tac a1 a2 b1, auto) qed
  then have "invHoldForRule s f r (invariants N)" by auto
}
ultimately show "invHoldForRule s f r (invariants N)" by satx
qed

lemma n_RecvInvAckVsinv__8:
assumes a1: "(\<exists> i. i\<le>N\<and>r=n_RecvInvAck  i)" and
a2: "(\<exists> p__Inv2. p__Inv2\<le>N\<and>f=inv__8  p__Inv2)"
shows "invHoldForRule s f r (invariants N)" (is "?P1 s \<or> ?P2 s \<or> ?P3 s")
proof -
from a1 obtain i where a1:"i\<le>N\<and>r=n_RecvInvAck  i" apply fastforce done
from a2 obtain p__Inv2 where a2:"p__Inv2\<le>N\<and>f=inv__8  p__Inv2" apply fastforce done
have "(i=p__Inv2)\<or>(i~=p__Inv2)\<or>(i~=p__Inv2)" apply (cut_tac a1 a2, auto) done
moreover {
  assume b1: "(i=p__Inv2)"
  have "((formEval (eqn (IVar (Ident ''ExGntd'')) (Const true)) s))\<or>((formEval (neg (eqn (IVar (Ident ''ExGntd'')) (Const true))) s))" by auto
  moreover {
    assume c1: "((formEval (eqn (IVar (Ident ''ExGntd'')) (Const true)) s))"
    have "?P3 s"
    apply (cut_tac a1 a2 b1 c1, simp, rule_tac x="(neg (andForm (eqn (IVar (Field (Para (Ident ''Chan3'') p__Inv2) ''Cmd'')) (Const InvAck)) (eqn (IVar (Field (Para (Ident ''Cache'') p__Inv2) ''State'')) (Const E))))" in exI, auto) done
    then have "invHoldForRule s f r (invariants N)" by auto
  }
  moreover {
    assume c1: "((formEval (neg (eqn (IVar (Ident ''ExGntd'')) (Const true))) s))"
    have "?P2 s"
    proof(cut_tac a1 a2 b1 c1, auto) qed
    then have "invHoldForRule s f r (invariants N)" by auto
  }
  ultimately have "invHoldForRule s f r (invariants N)" by satx
}
moreover {
  assume b1: "(i~=p__Inv2)"
  have "((formEval (eqn (IVar (Ident ''ExGntd'')) (Const true)) s))\<or>((formEval (neg (eqn (IVar (Ident ''ExGntd'')) (Const true))) s))" by auto
  moreover {
    assume c1: "((formEval (eqn (IVar (Ident ''ExGntd'')) (Const true)) s))"
    have "?P3 s"
    apply (cut_tac a1 a2 b1 c1, simp, rule_tac x="(neg (andForm (eqn (IVar (Field (Para (Ident ''Chan3'') i) ''Cmd'')) (Const InvAck)) (eqn (IVar (Field (Para (Ident ''Cache'') p__Inv2) ''State'')) (Const E))))" in exI, auto) done
    then have "invHoldForRule s f r (invariants N)" by auto
  }
  moreover {
    assume c1: "((formEval (neg (eqn (IVar (Ident ''ExGntd'')) (Const true))) s))"
    have "?P2 s"
    proof(cut_tac a1 a2 b1 c1, auto) qed
    then have "invHoldForRule s f r (invariants N)" by auto
  }
  ultimately have "invHoldForRule s f r (invariants N)" by satx
}
moreover {
  assume b1: "(i~=p__Inv2)"
  have "((formEval (eqn (IVar (Ident ''ExGntd'')) (Const true)) s))\<or>((formEval (neg (eqn (IVar (Ident ''ExGntd'')) (Const true))) s))" by auto
  moreover {
    assume c1: "((formEval (eqn (IVar (Ident ''ExGntd'')) (Const true)) s))"
    have "?P3 s"
    apply (cut_tac a1 a2 b1 c1, simp, rule_tac x="(neg (andForm (eqn (IVar (Field (Para (Ident ''Chan3'') i) ''Cmd'')) (Const InvAck)) (eqn (IVar (Field (Para (Ident ''Cache'') p__Inv2) ''State'')) (Const E))))" in exI, auto) done
    then have "invHoldForRule s f r (invariants N)" by auto
  }
  moreover {
    assume c1: "((formEval (neg (eqn (IVar (Ident ''ExGntd'')) (Const true))) s))"
    have "?P2 s"
    proof(cut_tac a1 a2 b1 c1, auto) qed
    then have "invHoldForRule s f r (invariants N)" by auto
  }
  ultimately have "invHoldForRule s f r (invariants N)" by satx
}
ultimately show "invHoldForRule s f r (invariants N)" by satx
qed

lemma n_SendGntEVsinv__8:
assumes a1: "(\<exists> i. i\<le>N\<and>r=n_SendGntE N i)" and
a2: "(\<exists> p__Inv2. p__Inv2\<le>N\<and>f=inv__8  p__Inv2)"
shows "invHoldForRule s f r (invariants N)" (is "?P1 s \<or> ?P2 s \<or> ?P3 s")
proof -
from a1 obtain i where a1:"i\<le>N\<and>r=n_SendGntE N i" apply fastforce done
from a2 obtain p__Inv2 where a2:"p__Inv2\<le>N\<and>f=inv__8  p__Inv2" apply fastforce done
have "(i=p__Inv2)\<or>(i~=p__Inv2)\<or>(i~=p__Inv2)" apply (cut_tac a1 a2, auto) done
moreover {
  assume b1: "(i=p__Inv2)"
  have "?P1 s"
  proof(cut_tac a1 a2 b1, auto) qed
  then have "invHoldForRule s f r (invariants N)" by auto
}
moreover {
  assume b1: "(i~=p__Inv2)"
  have "?P1 s"
  proof(cut_tac a1 a2 b1, auto) qed
  then have "invHoldForRule s f r (invariants N)" by auto
}
moreover {
  assume b1: "(i~=p__Inv2)"
  have "?P1 s"
  proof(cut_tac a1 a2 b1, auto) qed
  then have "invHoldForRule s f r (invariants N)" by auto
}
ultimately show "invHoldForRule s f r (invariants N)" by satx
qed

lemma n_RecvGntSVsinv__8:
assumes a1: "(\<exists> i. i\<le>N\<and>r=n_RecvGntS  i)" and
a2: "(\<exists> p__Inv2. p__Inv2\<le>N\<and>f=inv__8  p__Inv2)"
shows "invHoldForRule s f r (invariants N)" (is "?P1 s \<or> ?P2 s \<or> ?P3 s")
proof -
from a1 obtain i where a1:"i\<le>N\<and>r=n_RecvGntS  i" apply fastforce done
from a2 obtain p__Inv2 where a2:"p__Inv2\<le>N\<and>f=inv__8  p__Inv2" apply fastforce done
have "(i=p__Inv2)\<or>(i~=p__Inv2)\<or>(i~=p__Inv2)" apply (cut_tac a1 a2, auto) done
moreover {
  assume b1: "(i=p__Inv2)"
  have "?P1 s"
  proof(cut_tac a1 a2 b1, auto) qed
  then have "invHoldForRule s f r (invariants N)" by auto
}
moreover {
  assume b1: "(i~=p__Inv2)"
  have "?P2 s"
  proof(cut_tac a1 a2 b1, auto) qed
  then have "invHoldForRule s f r (invariants N)" by auto
}
moreover {
  assume b1: "(i~=p__Inv2)"
  have "?P2 s"
  proof(cut_tac a1 a2 b1, auto) qed
  then have "invHoldForRule s f r (invariants N)" by auto
}
ultimately show "invHoldForRule s f r (invariants N)" by satx
qed

lemma n_RecvGntEVsinv__8:
assumes a1: "(\<exists> i. i\<le>N\<and>r=n_RecvGntE  i)" and
a2: "(\<exists> p__Inv2. p__Inv2\<le>N\<and>f=inv__8  p__Inv2)"
shows "invHoldForRule s f r (invariants N)" (is "?P1 s \<or> ?P2 s \<or> ?P3 s")
proof -
from a1 obtain i where a1:"i\<le>N\<and>r=n_RecvGntE  i" apply fastforce done
from a2 obtain p__Inv2 where a2:"p__Inv2\<le>N\<and>f=inv__8  p__Inv2" apply fastforce done
have "(i=p__Inv2)\<or>(i~=p__Inv2)\<or>(i~=p__Inv2)" apply (cut_tac a1 a2, auto) done
moreover {
  assume b1: "(i=p__Inv2)"
  have "?P3 s"
  apply (cut_tac a1 a2 b1, simp, rule_tac x="(neg (andForm (eqn (IVar (Field (Para (Ident ''Chan2'') p__Inv2) ''Cmd'')) (Const GntE)) (eqn (IVar (Ident ''ExGntd'')) (Const false))))" in exI, auto) done
  then have "invHoldForRule s f r (invariants N)" by auto
}
moreover {
  assume b1: "(i~=p__Inv2)"
  have "?P2 s"
  proof(cut_tac a1 a2 b1, auto) qed
  then have "invHoldForRule s f r (invariants N)" by auto
}
moreover {
  assume b1: "(i~=p__Inv2)"
  have "?P2 s"
  proof(cut_tac a1 a2 b1, auto) qed
  then have "invHoldForRule s f r (invariants N)" by auto
}
ultimately show "invHoldForRule s f r (invariants N)" by satx
qed

lemma n_SendReqE__part__1Vsinv__8:
  assumes a1: "\<exists> i. i\<le>N\<and>r=n_SendReqE__part__1  i" and
  a2: "(\<exists> p__Inv2. p__Inv2\<le>N\<and>f=inv__8  p__Inv2)"
  shows "invHoldForRule s f r (invariants N)"
  apply (rule noEffectOnRule, cut_tac a1 a2, auto) done

lemma n_StoreVsinv__8:
  assumes a1: "\<exists> i d. i\<le>N\<and>d\<le>N\<and>r=n_Store  i d" and
  a2: "(\<exists> p__Inv2. p__Inv2\<le>N\<and>f=inv__8  p__Inv2)"
  shows "invHoldForRule s f r (invariants N)"
  apply (rule noEffectOnRule, cut_tac a1 a2, auto) done

lemma n_SendGntSVsinv__8:
  assumes a1: "\<exists> i. i\<le>N\<and>r=n_SendGntS  i" and
  a2: "(\<exists> p__Inv2. p__Inv2\<le>N\<and>f=inv__8  p__Inv2)"
  shows "invHoldForRule s f r (invariants N)"
  apply (rule noEffectOnRule, cut_tac a1 a2, auto) done

lemma n_RecvReqEVsinv__8:
  assumes a1: "\<exists> i. i\<le>N\<and>r=n_RecvReqE N i" and
  a2: "(\<exists> p__Inv2. p__Inv2\<le>N\<and>f=inv__8  p__Inv2)"
  shows "invHoldForRule s f r (invariants N)"
  apply (rule noEffectOnRule, cut_tac a1 a2, auto) done

lemma n_SendInv__part__0Vsinv__8:
  assumes a1: "\<exists> i. i\<le>N\<and>r=n_SendInv__part__0  i" and
  a2: "(\<exists> p__Inv2. p__Inv2\<le>N\<and>f=inv__8  p__Inv2)"
  shows "invHoldForRule s f r (invariants N)"
  apply (rule noEffectOnRule, cut_tac a1 a2, auto) done

lemma n_SendReqE__part__0Vsinv__8:
  assumes a1: "\<exists> i. i\<le>N\<and>r=n_SendReqE__part__0  i" and
  a2: "(\<exists> p__Inv2. p__Inv2\<le>N\<and>f=inv__8  p__Inv2)"
  shows "invHoldForRule s f r (invariants N)"
  apply (rule noEffectOnRule, cut_tac a1 a2, auto) done

lemma n_SendInv__part__1Vsinv__8:
  assumes a1: "\<exists> i. i\<le>N\<and>r=n_SendInv__part__1  i" and
  a2: "(\<exists> p__Inv2. p__Inv2\<le>N\<and>f=inv__8  p__Inv2)"
  shows "invHoldForRule s f r (invariants N)"
  apply (rule noEffectOnRule, cut_tac a1 a2, auto) done

lemma n_SendReqSVsinv__8:
  assumes a1: "\<exists> i. i\<le>N\<and>r=n_SendReqS  i" and
  a2: "(\<exists> p__Inv2. p__Inv2\<le>N\<and>f=inv__8  p__Inv2)"
  shows "invHoldForRule s f r (invariants N)"
  apply (rule noEffectOnRule, cut_tac a1 a2, auto) done

lemma n_RecvReqSVsinv__8:
  assumes a1: "\<exists> i. i\<le>N\<and>r=n_RecvReqS N i" and
  a2: "(\<exists> p__Inv2. p__Inv2\<le>N\<and>f=inv__8  p__Inv2)"
  shows "invHoldForRule s f r (invariants N)"
  apply (rule noEffectOnRule, cut_tac a1 a2, auto) done

end


(*  Title:       variants/e_all_abcd/OAodv.thy
    License:     BSD 2-Clause. See LICENSE.
    Author:      Timothy Bourke, Inria
*)

section "The `open' AODV model"

theory E_OAodv
imports E_Aodv AWN.OAWN_SOS_Labels AWN.OAWN_Convert
begin

text \<open>Definitions for stating and proving global network properties over individual processes.\<close>

definition \<sigma>\<^sub>A\<^sub>O\<^sub>D\<^sub>V' :: "((ip \<Rightarrow> state) \<times> ((state, msg, pseqp, pseqp label) seqp)) set"
where "\<sigma>\<^sub>A\<^sub>O\<^sub>D\<^sub>V' \<equiv> {(\<lambda>i. aodv_init i, \<Gamma>\<^sub>A\<^sub>O\<^sub>D\<^sub>V PAodv)}"

abbreviation opaodv
  :: "ip \<Rightarrow> ((ip \<Rightarrow> state) \<times> (state, msg, pseqp, pseqp label) seqp, msg seq_action) automaton"
where
  "opaodv i \<equiv> \<lparr> init = \<sigma>\<^sub>A\<^sub>O\<^sub>D\<^sub>V', trans = oseqp_sos \<Gamma>\<^sub>A\<^sub>O\<^sub>D\<^sub>V i \<rparr>"

lemma initiali_aodv [intro!, simp]: "initiali i (init (opaodv i)) (init (paodv i))"
  unfolding \<sigma>\<^sub>A\<^sub>O\<^sub>D\<^sub>V_def \<sigma>\<^sub>A\<^sub>O\<^sub>D\<^sub>V'_def by rule simp_all

lemma oaodv_control_within [simp]: "control_within \<Gamma>\<^sub>A\<^sub>O\<^sub>D\<^sub>V (init (opaodv i))"
  unfolding \<sigma>\<^sub>A\<^sub>O\<^sub>D\<^sub>V'_def by (rule control_withinI) (auto simp del: \<Gamma>\<^sub>A\<^sub>O\<^sub>D\<^sub>V_simps)

lemma \<sigma>\<^sub>A\<^sub>O\<^sub>D\<^sub>V'_labels [simp]: "(\<sigma>, p) \<in> \<sigma>\<^sub>A\<^sub>O\<^sub>D\<^sub>V' \<Longrightarrow>  labels \<Gamma>\<^sub>A\<^sub>O\<^sub>D\<^sub>V p = {PAodv-:0}"
  unfolding \<sigma>\<^sub>A\<^sub>O\<^sub>D\<^sub>V'_def by simp

lemma oaodv_init_kD_empty [simp]:
  "(\<sigma>, p) \<in> \<sigma>\<^sub>A\<^sub>O\<^sub>D\<^sub>V' \<Longrightarrow> kD (rt (\<sigma> i)) = {}"
  unfolding \<sigma>\<^sub>A\<^sub>O\<^sub>D\<^sub>V'_def kD_def by simp

lemma oaodv_init_vD_empty [simp]:
  "(\<sigma>, p) \<in> \<sigma>\<^sub>A\<^sub>O\<^sub>D\<^sub>V' \<Longrightarrow> vD (rt (\<sigma> i)) = {}"
  unfolding \<sigma>\<^sub>A\<^sub>O\<^sub>D\<^sub>V'_def vD_def by simp

lemma oaodv_trans: "trans (opaodv i) = oseqp_sos \<Gamma>\<^sub>A\<^sub>O\<^sub>D\<^sub>V i"
  by simp

declare
  oseq_invariant_ctermsI [OF aodv_wf oaodv_control_within aodv_simple_labels oaodv_trans, cterms_intros]
  oseq_step_invariant_ctermsI [OF aodv_wf oaodv_control_within aodv_simple_labels oaodv_trans, cterms_intros]

end


(* Title: IND_CCA2.thy
  Author: Andreas Lochbihler, ETH Zurich *)

theory IND_CCA2 imports
  CryptHOL.Computational_Model
  CryptHOL.Negligible
  CryptHOL.Environment_Functor
begin

locale pk_enc =
  fixes key_gen :: "security \<Rightarrow> ('ekey \<times> 'dkey) spmf" \<comment> \<open>probabilistic\<close>
  and encrypt :: "security \<Rightarrow> 'ekey \<Rightarrow> 'plain \<Rightarrow> 'cipher spmf"  \<comment> \<open>probabilistic\<close>
  and decrypt :: "security \<Rightarrow> 'dkey \<Rightarrow> 'cipher \<Rightarrow> 'plain option" \<comment> \<open>deterministic, but not used\<close>
  and valid_plain :: "security \<Rightarrow> 'plain \<Rightarrow> bool" \<comment> \<open>checks whether a plain text is valid, i.e., has the right format\<close>

subsection \<open>The IND-CCA2 game for public-key encryption\<close>

text \<open>
  We model an IND-CCA2 security game in the multi-user setting as described in
  \<^cite>\<open>"BellareBoldyrevaMicali2000EUROCRYPT"\<close>.
\<close>

locale ind_cca2 = pk_enc +
  constrains key_gen :: "security \<Rightarrow> ('ekey \<times> 'dkey) spmf"
  and encrypt :: "security \<Rightarrow> 'ekey \<Rightarrow> 'plain \<Rightarrow> 'cipher spmf"
  and decrypt :: "security \<Rightarrow> 'dkey \<Rightarrow> 'cipher \<Rightarrow> 'plain option"
  and valid_plain :: "security \<Rightarrow> 'plain \<Rightarrow> bool"
begin

type_synonym ('ekey', 'dkey', 'cipher') state_oracle = "('ekey' \<times> 'dkey' \<times> 'cipher' list) option"

fun decrypt_oracle
  :: "security \<Rightarrow> ('ekey, 'dkey, 'cipher) state_oracle \<Rightarrow> 'cipher
  \<Rightarrow> ('plain option \<times> ('ekey, 'dkey, 'cipher) state_oracle) spmf"
where
  "decrypt_oracle \<eta> None cipher = return_spmf (None, None)"
| "decrypt_oracle \<eta> (Some (ekey, dkey, cstars)) cipher = return_spmf
   (if cipher \<in> set cstars then None else decrypt \<eta> dkey cipher, Some (ekey, dkey, cstars))"

fun ekey_oracle
  :: "security \<Rightarrow> ('ekey, 'dkey, 'cipher) state_oracle \<Rightarrow> unit \<Rightarrow> ('ekey \<times> ('ekey, 'dkey, 'cipher) state_oracle) spmf"
where
  "ekey_oracle \<eta> None _ = do {
      (ekey, dkey) \<leftarrow> key_gen \<eta>;
      return_spmf (ekey, Some (ekey, dkey, []))
    }"
| "ekey_oracle \<eta> (Some (ekey, rest)) _ = return_spmf (ekey, Some (ekey, rest))"

lemma ekey_oracle_conv:
  "ekey_oracle \<eta> \<sigma> x =
  (case \<sigma> of None \<Rightarrow> map_spmf (\<lambda>(ekey, dkey). (ekey, Some (ekey, dkey, []))) (key_gen \<eta>)
   | Some (ekey, rest) \<Rightarrow> return_spmf (ekey, Some (ekey, rest)))"
by(cases \<sigma>)(auto simp add: map_spmf_conv_bind_spmf split_def)

context notes bind_spmf_cong[fundef_cong] begin
function encrypt_oracle
  :: "bool \<Rightarrow> security \<Rightarrow> ('ekey, 'dkey, 'cipher) state_oracle \<Rightarrow> 'plain \<times> 'plain
  \<Rightarrow> ('cipher \<times> ('ekey, 'dkey, 'cipher) state_oracle) spmf"
where
  "encrypt_oracle b \<eta> None m01 = do { (_, \<sigma>) \<leftarrow> ekey_oracle \<eta> None (); encrypt_oracle b \<eta> \<sigma> m01 }"
| "encrypt_oracle b \<eta> (Some (ekey, dkey, cstars)) (m0, m1) =
  (if valid_plain \<eta> m0 \<and> valid_plain \<eta> m1 then do {
     let pb = (if b then m0 else m1);
     cstar \<leftarrow> encrypt \<eta> ekey pb;
     return_spmf (cstar, Some (ekey, dkey, cstar # cstars))
   } else return_pmf None)"
by pat_completeness auto
termination by(relation "Wellfounded.measure (\<lambda>(b, \<eta>, \<sigma>, m01). case \<sigma> of None \<Rightarrow> 1 | _ \<Rightarrow> 0)") auto
end

subsubsection \<open>Single-user setting\<close>

type_synonym ('plain', 'cipher') call\<^sub>1 = "unit + 'cipher' + 'plain' \<times> 'plain'"
type_synonym ('ekey', 'plain', 'cipher') ret\<^sub>1 = "'ekey' + 'plain' option + 'cipher'"

definition oracle\<^sub>1 :: "bool \<Rightarrow> security
  \<Rightarrow> (('ekey, 'dkey, 'cipher) state_oracle, ('plain, 'cipher) call\<^sub>1, ('ekey, 'plain, 'cipher) ret\<^sub>1) oracle'"
where "oracle\<^sub>1 b \<eta> = ekey_oracle \<eta> \<oplus>\<^sub>O (decrypt_oracle \<eta> \<oplus>\<^sub>O encrypt_oracle b \<eta>)"

lemma oracle\<^sub>1_simps [simp]:
  "oracle\<^sub>1 b \<eta> s (Inl x) = map_spmf (apfst Inl) (ekey_oracle \<eta> s x)"
  "oracle\<^sub>1 b \<eta> s (Inr (Inl y)) = map_spmf (apfst (Inr \<circ> Inl)) (decrypt_oracle \<eta> s y)"
  "oracle\<^sub>1 b \<eta> s (Inr (Inr z)) = map_spmf (apfst (Inr \<circ> Inr)) (encrypt_oracle b \<eta> s z)"
by(simp_all add: oracle\<^sub>1_def spmf.map_comp apfst_compose o_def)

type_synonym ('ekey', 'plain', 'cipher') adversary\<^sub>1' =
  "(bool, ('plain', 'cipher') call\<^sub>1, ('ekey', 'plain', 'cipher') ret\<^sub>1) gpv"
type_synonym ('ekey', 'plain', 'cipher') adversary\<^sub>1 =
  "security \<Rightarrow> ('ekey', 'plain', 'cipher') adversary\<^sub>1'"

definition ind_cca2\<^sub>1 :: "('ekey, 'plain, 'cipher) adversary\<^sub>1 \<Rightarrow> security \<Rightarrow> bool spmf"
where
  "ind_cca2\<^sub>1 \<A> \<eta> = TRY do {
    b \<leftarrow> coin_spmf;
    (guess, s) \<leftarrow> exec_gpv (oracle\<^sub>1 b \<eta>) (\<A> \<eta>) None;
    return_spmf (guess = b)
  } ELSE coin_spmf"

definition advantage\<^sub>1 :: "('ekey, 'plain, 'cipher) adversary\<^sub>1 \<Rightarrow> advantage"
where "advantage\<^sub>1 \<A> \<eta> = \<bar>spmf (ind_cca2\<^sub>1 \<A> \<eta>) True - 1/2\<bar>"

lemma advantage\<^sub>1_nonneg: "advantage\<^sub>1 \<A> \<eta> \<ge> 0" by(simp add: advantage\<^sub>1_def)

abbreviation secure_for\<^sub>1 :: "('ekey, 'plain, 'cipher) adversary\<^sub>1 \<Rightarrow> bool"
where "secure_for\<^sub>1 \<A> \<equiv> negligible (advantage\<^sub>1 \<A>)"

definition ibounded_by\<^sub>1' :: "('ekey, 'plain, 'cipher) adversary\<^sub>1' \<Rightarrow> nat \<Rightarrow> bool"
where "ibounded_by\<^sub>1' \<A> q = interaction_any_bounded_by \<A> q"

abbreviation ibounded_by\<^sub>1 :: "('ekey, 'plain, 'cipher) adversary\<^sub>1 \<Rightarrow> (security \<Rightarrow> nat) \<Rightarrow> bool"
where "ibounded_by\<^sub>1 \<equiv> rel_envir ibounded_by\<^sub>1'"

definition lossless\<^sub>1' :: "('ekey, 'plain, 'cipher) adversary\<^sub>1' \<Rightarrow> bool"
where "lossless\<^sub>1' \<A> = lossless_gpv \<I>_full \<A>"

abbreviation lossless\<^sub>1 :: "('ekey, 'plain, 'cipher) adversary\<^sub>1 \<Rightarrow> bool"
where "lossless\<^sub>1 \<equiv> pred_envir lossless\<^sub>1'"

lemma lossless_decrypt_oracle [simp]: "lossless_spmf (decrypt_oracle \<eta> \<sigma> cipher)"
by(cases "(\<eta>, \<sigma>, cipher)" rule: decrypt_oracle.cases) simp_all

lemma lossless_ekey_oracle [simp]:
  "lossless_spmf (ekey_oracle \<eta> \<sigma> x) \<longleftrightarrow> (\<sigma> = None \<longrightarrow> lossless_spmf (key_gen \<eta>))"
by(cases "(\<eta>, \<sigma>, x)" rule: ekey_oracle.cases)(auto)

lemma lossless_encrypt_oracle [simp]:
  "\<lbrakk> \<sigma> = None \<Longrightarrow> lossless_spmf (key_gen \<eta>);
    \<And>ekey m. valid_plain \<eta> m \<Longrightarrow> lossless_spmf (encrypt \<eta> ekey m) \<rbrakk>
  \<Longrightarrow> lossless_spmf (encrypt_oracle b \<eta> \<sigma> (m0, m1)) \<longleftrightarrow> valid_plain \<eta> m0 \<and> valid_plain \<eta> m1"
apply(cases "(b, \<eta>, \<sigma>, (m0, m1))" rule: encrypt_oracle.cases)
apply(auto simp add: split_beta dest: lossless_spmfD_set_spmf_nonempty split: if_split_asm)
done

subsubsection \<open>Multi-user setting\<close>

definition oracle\<^sub>n :: "bool \<Rightarrow> security
   \<Rightarrow> ('i \<Rightarrow> ('ekey, 'dkey, 'cipher) state_oracle, 'i \<times> ('plain, 'cipher) call\<^sub>1, ('ekey, 'plain, 'cipher) ret\<^sub>1) oracle'"
where "oracle\<^sub>n b \<eta> = family_oracle (\<lambda>_. oracle\<^sub>1 b \<eta>)"

lemma oracle\<^sub>n_apply [simp]:
  "oracle\<^sub>n b \<eta> s (i, x) = map_spmf (apsnd (fun_upd s i)) (oracle\<^sub>1 b \<eta> (s i) x)"
by(simp add: oracle\<^sub>n_def)

type_synonym ('i, 'ekey', 'plain', 'cipher') adversary\<^sub>n' =
  "(bool, 'i \<times> ('plain', 'cipher') call\<^sub>1, ('ekey', 'plain', 'cipher') ret\<^sub>1) gpv"
type_synonym ('i, 'ekey', 'plain', 'cipher') adversary\<^sub>n =
  "security \<Rightarrow> ('i, 'ekey', 'plain', 'cipher') adversary\<^sub>n'"

definition ind_cca2\<^sub>n :: "('i, 'ekey, 'plain, 'cipher) adversary\<^sub>n \<Rightarrow> security \<Rightarrow> bool spmf"
where
  "ind_cca2\<^sub>n \<A> \<eta> = TRY do {
    b \<leftarrow> coin_spmf;
    (guess, \<sigma>) \<leftarrow> exec_gpv (oracle\<^sub>n b \<eta>) (\<A> \<eta>) (\<lambda>_. None);
    return_spmf (guess = b)
  } ELSE coin_spmf"

definition advantage\<^sub>n :: "('i, 'ekey, 'plain, 'cipher) adversary\<^sub>n \<Rightarrow> advantage"
where "advantage\<^sub>n \<A> \<eta> = \<bar>spmf (ind_cca2\<^sub>n \<A> \<eta>) True - 1/2\<bar>"

lemma advantage\<^sub>n_nonneg: "advantage\<^sub>n \<A> \<eta> \<ge> 0" by(simp add: advantage\<^sub>n_def)

abbreviation secure_for\<^sub>n :: "('i, 'ekey, 'plain, 'cipher) adversary\<^sub>n \<Rightarrow> bool"
where "secure_for\<^sub>n \<A> \<equiv> negligible (advantage\<^sub>n \<A>)"

definition ibounded_by\<^sub>n' :: "('i, 'ekey, 'plain, 'cipher) adversary\<^sub>n' \<Rightarrow> nat \<Rightarrow> bool"
where "ibounded_by\<^sub>n' \<A> q = interaction_any_bounded_by \<A> q"

abbreviation ibounded_by\<^sub>n :: "('i, 'ekey, 'plain, 'cipher) adversary\<^sub>n \<Rightarrow> (security \<Rightarrow> nat) \<Rightarrow> bool"
where "ibounded_by\<^sub>n \<equiv> rel_envir ibounded_by\<^sub>n'"

definition lossless\<^sub>n' :: "('i, 'ekey, 'plain, 'cipher) adversary\<^sub>n' \<Rightarrow> bool"
where "lossless\<^sub>n' \<A> = lossless_gpv \<I>_full \<A>"

abbreviation lossless\<^sub>n :: "('i, 'ekey, 'plain, 'cipher) adversary\<^sub>n \<Rightarrow> bool"
where "lossless\<^sub>n \<equiv> pred_envir lossless\<^sub>n'"

definition cipher_queries :: "('i \<Rightarrow> ('ekey, 'dkey, 'cipher) state_oracle) \<Rightarrow> 'cipher set"
where "cipher_queries ose = (\<Union>(_, _, ciphers)\<in>ran ose. set ciphers)"

lemma cipher_queriesI:
  "\<lbrakk> ose n = Some (ek, dk, ciphers); x \<in> set ciphers \<rbrakk> \<Longrightarrow> x \<in> cipher_queries ose"
by(auto simp add: cipher_queries_def ran_def)

lemma cipher_queriesE:
  assumes "x \<in> cipher_queries ose"
  obtains (cipher_queries) n ek dk ciphers where "ose n = Some (ek, dk, ciphers)" "x \<in> set ciphers"
using assms by(auto simp add: cipher_queries_def ran_def)

lemma cipher_queries_updE:
  assumes "x \<in> cipher_queries (ose(n \<mapsto> (ek, dk, ciphers)))"
  obtains (old) "x \<in> cipher_queries ose" "x \<notin> set ciphers" | (new) "x \<in> set ciphers"
using assms by(cases "x \<in> set ciphers")(fastforce elim!: cipher_queriesE split: if_split_asm intro: cipher_queriesI)+

lemma cipher_queries_empty [simp]: "cipher_queries Map.empty = {}"
by(simp add: cipher_queries_def)

end

end


theory flash1Rev imports flashPub
begin
section{*Main defintions*}
lemma NI_FAckVsInv1:
    (*Rule0VsPInv2*)
  assumes   a1:"iInv1 \<le> N" and  a2:"iInv2 \<le> N" and  a3:"iInv1~=iInv2  "

  shows  "invHoldForRule' s (inv1  iInv1  iInv2 ) (NI_FAck ) (invariants   N)" (is " ?P1 s\<or>?P2 s\<or>?P3 s")

  proof -

     have "?P2 s"

     by (cut_tac a1 a2 a3, auto  )
   then show "?P1 s\<or>?P2 s\<or>?P3 s"
      by auto
 qed
  lemma NI_InvVsInv1:
    (*Rule1VsPInv2*)
  assumes   a1:"iRule1 \<le> N" and  a2:"iInv1 \<le> N" and  a3:"iInv2 \<le> N" and  a4:"iInv1~=iInv2  "

  shows  "invHoldForRule' s (inv1  iInv1  iInv2 ) (NI_Inv  iRule1 ) (invariants   N)" (is " ?P1 s\<or>?P2 s\<or>?P3 s")

  proof -

     have allCases:"(iRule1=iInv1)   \<or>(iRule1=iInv2)   \<or>((iRule1~=iInv1 \<and>iRule1~=iInv2 ))   "
	                      by( cut_tac  a1  a2  a3  a4  , auto)
moreover
                {assume b1:"(iRule1=iInv1)"

      have "?P1 s"

        apply(cut_tac  a1  a2  a3  a4  b1 , auto)

        done

        then  have "?P1 s\<or> ?P2 s \<or> ?P3 s"

       by blast

	                }
moreover
                {assume b1:"(iRule1=iInv2)"

      have "?P1 s"

        apply(cut_tac  a1  a2  a3  a4  b1 , auto)

        done

        then  have "?P1 s\<or> ?P2 s \<or> ?P3 s"

       by blast

	                }
moreover
                {assume b1:"((iRule1~=iInv1 \<and>iRule1~=iInv2 ))"

                  have "?P2 s"

  apply(cut_tac  a1  a2  a3  a4  b1 , auto intro!:forallVars1 simp  add :invHoldForRule2'_def varsOfVar_def)

  done

  then  have "?P1 s\<or> ?P2 s \<or> ?P3 s"

        by blast

	                }
   ultimately show "?P1 s\<or> ?P2 s\<or> ?P3 s"

	                         by metis

 qed
lemma NI_InvAck_1VsInv1:
    (*Rule2VsPInv2*)
  assumes   a1:"iRule1 \<le> N" and  a2:"iRule2 \<le> N" and  a3:"iInv1 \<le> N" and  a4:"iInv2 \<le> N" and  a5:"iInv1~=iInv2  " and  a6:"iRule1~=iRule2  "

  shows  "invHoldForRule' s (inv1  iInv1  iInv2 ) (NI_InvAck_1  iRule1  iRule2 ) (invariants   N)" (is " ?P1 s\<or>?P2 s\<or>?P3 s")

  proof -

     have "?P2 s"

     by (cut_tac a1 a2 a3 a4 a5 a6,auto  )
   then show "?P1 s\<or>?P2 s\<or>?P3 s"
      by auto
 qed
  lemma NI_InvAck_1_HomeVsInv1:
    (*Rule1VsPInv2*)
  assumes   a1:"iRule1 \<le> N" and  a2:"iInv1 \<le> N" and  a3:"iInv2 \<le> N" and  a4:"iInv1~=iInv2  "

  shows  "invHoldForRule' s (inv1  iInv1  iInv2 ) (NI_InvAck_1_Home  iRule1 ) (invariants   N)" (is " ?P1 s\<or>?P2 s\<or>?P3 s")

    by (cut_tac  a1  a2  a3  a4 , auto)
 lemma NI_InvAck_2VsInv1:
    (*Rule1VsPInv2*)
  assumes   a1:"iRule1 \<le> N" and  a2:"iInv1 \<le> N" and  a3:"iInv2 \<le> N" and  a4:"iInv1~=iInv2  "

  shows  "invHoldForRule' s (inv1  iInv1  iInv2 ) (NI_InvAck_2 N  iRule1 ) (invariants   N)" (is " ?P1 s\<or>?P2 s\<or>?P3 s")

    by (cut_tac  a1  a2  a3  a4 , auto)
 lemma NI_Local_GetX_GetXVsInv1:
    (*Rule1VsPInv2*)
  assumes   a1:"iRule1 \<le> N" and  a2:"iInv1 \<le> N" and  a3:"iInv2 \<le> N" and  a4:"iInv1~=iInv2  "

  shows  "invHoldForRule' s (inv1  iInv1  iInv2 ) (NI_Local_GetX_GetX  iRule1 ) (invariants   N)" (is " ?P1 s\<or>?P2 s\<or>?P3 s")

    by (cut_tac  a1  a2  a3  a4 , auto)
 lemma NI_Local_GetX_Nak1VsInv1:
    (*Rule1VsPInv2*)
  assumes   a1:"iRule1 \<le> N" and  a2:"iInv1 \<le> N" and  a3:"iInv2 \<le> N" and  a4:"iInv1~=iInv2  "

  shows  "invHoldForRule' s (inv1  iInv1  iInv2 ) (NI_Local_GetX_Nak1  iRule1 ) (invariants   N)" (is " ?P1 s\<or>?P2 s\<or>?P3 s")

    by (cut_tac  a1  a2  a3  a4 , auto)
 lemma NI_Local_GetX_Nak2VsInv1:
    (*Rule1VsPInv2*)
  assumes   a1:"iRule1 \<le> N" and  a2:"iInv1 \<le> N" and  a3:"iInv2 \<le> N" and  a4:"iInv1~=iInv2  "

  shows  "invHoldForRule' s (inv1  iInv1  iInv2 ) (NI_Local_GetX_Nak2  iRule1 ) (invariants   N)" (is " ?P1 s\<or>?P2 s\<or>?P3 s")

    by (cut_tac  a1  a2  a3  a4 , auto)
 lemma NI_Local_GetX_Nak3VsInv1:
    (*Rule1VsPInv2*)
  assumes   a1:"iRule1 \<le> N" and  a2:"iInv1 \<le> N" and  a3:"iInv2 \<le> N" and  a4:"iInv1~=iInv2  "

  shows  "invHoldForRule' s (inv1  iInv1  iInv2 ) (NI_Local_GetX_Nak3  iRule1 ) (invariants   N)" (is " ?P1 s\<or>?P2 s\<or>?P3 s")

    by (cut_tac  a1  a2  a3  a4 , auto)
 lemma NI_Local_GetX_PutX1VsInv1:
    (*Rule1VsPInv2*)
  assumes   a1:"iRule1 \<le> N" and  a2:"iInv1 \<le> N" and  a3:"iInv2 \<le> N" and  a4:"iInv1~=iInv2  "

  shows  "invHoldForRule' s (inv1  iInv1  iInv2 ) (NI_Local_GetX_PutX1 N  iRule1 ) (invariants   N)" (is " ?P1 s\<or>?P2 s\<or>?P3 s")

    by (cut_tac  a1  a2  a3  a4 , auto)
 lemma NI_Local_GetX_PutX2VsInv1:
    (*Rule1VsPInv2*)
  assumes   a1:"iRule1 \<le> N" and  a2:"iInv1 \<le> N" and  a3:"iInv2 \<le> N" and  a4:"iInv1~=iInv2  "

  shows  "invHoldForRule' s (inv1  iInv1  iInv2 ) (NI_Local_GetX_PutX2 N  iRule1 ) (invariants   N)" (is " ?P1 s\<or>?P2 s\<or>?P3 s")

    by (cut_tac  a1  a2  a3  a4 , auto)
 lemma NI_Local_GetX_PutX3VsInv1:
    (*Rule1VsPInv2*)
  assumes   a1:"iRule1 \<le> N" and  a2:"iInv1 \<le> N" and  a3:"iInv2 \<le> N" and  a4:"iInv1~=iInv2  "

  shows  "invHoldForRule' s (inv1  iInv1  iInv2 ) (NI_Local_GetX_PutX3 N  iRule1 ) (invariants   N)" (is " ?P1 s\<or>?P2 s\<or>?P3 s")

    by (cut_tac  a1  a2  a3  a4 , auto)
 lemma NI_Local_GetX_PutX4VsInv1:
    (*Rule1VsPInv2*)
  assumes   a1:"iRule1 \<le> N" and  a2:"iInv1 \<le> N" and  a3:"iInv2 \<le> N" and  a4:"iInv1~=iInv2  "

  shows  "invHoldForRule' s (inv1  iInv1  iInv2 ) (NI_Local_GetX_PutX4 N  iRule1 ) (invariants   N)" (is " ?P1 s\<or>?P2 s\<or>?P3 s")

    by (cut_tac  a1  a2  a3  a4 , auto)
 lemma NI_Local_GetX_PutX5VsInv1:
    (*Rule1VsPInv2*)
  assumes   a1:"iRule1 \<le> N" and  a2:"iInv1 \<le> N" and  a3:"iInv2 \<le> N" and  a4:"iInv1~=iInv2  "

  shows  "invHoldForRule' s (inv1  iInv1  iInv2 ) (NI_Local_GetX_PutX5 N  iRule1 ) (invariants   N)" (is " ?P1 s\<or>?P2 s\<or>?P3 s")

    by (cut_tac  a1  a2  a3  a4 , auto)
 lemma NI_Local_GetX_PutX6VsInv1:
    (*Rule1VsPInv2*)
  assumes   a1:"iRule1 \<le> N" and  a2:"iInv1 \<le> N" and  a3:"iInv2 \<le> N" and  a4:"iInv1~=iInv2  "

  shows  "invHoldForRule' s (inv1  iInv1  iInv2 ) (NI_Local_GetX_PutX6 N  iRule1 ) (invariants   N)" (is " ?P1 s\<or>?P2 s\<or>?P3 s")

    by (cut_tac  a1  a2  a3  a4 , auto)
 lemma NI_Local_GetX_PutX7VsInv1:
    (*Rule1VsPInv2*)
  assumes   a1:"iRule1 \<le> N" and  a2:"iInv1 \<le> N" and  a3:"iInv2 \<le> N" and  a4:"iInv1~=iInv2  "

  shows  "invHoldForRule' s (inv1  iInv1  iInv2 ) (NI_Local_GetX_PutX7 N  iRule1 ) (invariants   N)" (is " ?P1 s\<or>?P2 s\<or>?P3 s")

    by (cut_tac  a1  a2  a3  a4 , auto)
 lemma NI_Local_GetX_PutX8VsInv1:
    (*Rule2VsPInv2*)
  assumes   a1:"iRule1 \<le> N" and  a2:"iRule2 \<le> N" and  a3:"iInv1 \<le> N" and  a4:"iInv2 \<le> N" and  a5:"iInv1~=iInv2  " and  a6:"iRule1~=iRule2  "

  shows  "invHoldForRule' s (inv1  iInv1  iInv2 ) (NI_Local_GetX_PutX8 N  iRule1  iRule2 ) (invariants   N)" (is " ?P1 s\<or>?P2 s\<or>?P3 s")

  proof -

     have "?P2 s"

     by (cut_tac a1 a2 a3 a4 a5 a6,auto  )
   then show "?P1 s\<or>?P2 s\<or>?P3 s"
      by auto
 qed
  lemma NI_Local_GetX_PutX8_homeVsInv1:
    (*Rule1VsPInv2*)
  assumes   a1:"iRule1 \<le> N" and  a2:"iInv1 \<le> N" and  a3:"iInv2 \<le> N" and  a4:"iInv1~=iInv2  "

  shows  "invHoldForRule' s (inv1  iInv1  iInv2 ) (NI_Local_GetX_PutX8_home N  iRule1 ) (invariants   N)" (is " ?P1 s\<or>?P2 s\<or>?P3 s")

    by (cut_tac  a1  a2  a3  a4 , auto)
 lemma NI_Local_GetX_PutX9VsInv1:
    (*Rule1VsPInv2*)
  assumes   a1:"iRule1 \<le> N" and  a2:"iInv1 \<le> N" and  a3:"iInv2 \<le> N" and  a4:"iInv1~=iInv2  "

  shows  "invHoldForRule' s (inv1  iInv1  iInv2 ) (NI_Local_GetX_PutX9 N  iRule1 ) (invariants   N)" (is " ?P1 s\<or>?P2 s\<or>?P3 s")

    by (cut_tac  a1  a2  a3  a4 , auto)
 lemma NI_Local_GetX_PutX10VsInv1:
    (*Rule2VsPInv2*)
  assumes   a1:"iRule1 \<le> N" and  a2:"iRule2 \<le> N" and  a3:"iInv1 \<le> N" and  a4:"iInv2 \<le> N" and  a5:"iInv1~=iInv2  " and  a6:"iRule1~=iRule2  "

  shows  "invHoldForRule' s (inv1  iInv1  iInv2 ) (NI_Local_GetX_PutX10 N  iRule1  iRule2 ) (invariants   N)" (is " ?P1 s\<or>?P2 s\<or>?P3 s")

  proof -

     have "?P2 s"

     by (cut_tac a1 a2 a3 a4 a5 a6,auto  )
   then show "?P1 s\<or>?P2 s\<or>?P3 s"
      by auto
 qed
  lemma NI_Local_GetX_PutX10_homeVsInv1:
    (*Rule1VsPInv2*)
  assumes   a1:"iRule1 \<le> N" and  a2:"iInv1 \<le> N" and  a3:"iInv2 \<le> N" and  a4:"iInv1~=iInv2  "

  shows  "invHoldForRule' s (inv1  iInv1  iInv2 ) (NI_Local_GetX_PutX10_home N  iRule1 ) (invariants   N)" (is " ?P1 s\<or>?P2 s\<or>?P3 s")

    by (cut_tac  a1  a2  a3  a4 , auto)
 lemma NI_Local_GetX_PutX11VsInv1:
    (*Rule1VsPInv2*)
  assumes   a1:"iRule1 \<le> N" and  a2:"iInv1 \<le> N" and  a3:"iInv2 \<le> N" and  a4:"iInv1~=iInv2  "

  shows  "invHoldForRule' s (inv1  iInv1  iInv2 ) (NI_Local_GetX_PutX11 N  iRule1 ) (invariants   N)" (is " ?P1 s\<or>?P2 s\<or>?P3 s")

    by (cut_tac  a1  a2  a3  a4 , auto)
 lemma NI_Local_Get_GetVsInv1:
    (*Rule1VsPInv2*)
  assumes   a1:"iRule1 \<le> N" and  a2:"iInv1 \<le> N" and  a3:"iInv2 \<le> N" and  a4:"iInv1~=iInv2  "

  shows  "invHoldForRule' s (inv1  iInv1  iInv2 ) (NI_Local_Get_Get  iRule1 ) (invariants   N)" (is " ?P1 s\<or>?P2 s\<or>?P3 s")

    by (cut_tac  a1  a2  a3  a4 , auto)
 lemma NI_Local_Get_Nak1VsInv1:
    (*Rule1VsPInv2*)
  assumes   a1:"iRule1 \<le> N" and  a2:"iInv1 \<le> N" and  a3:"iInv2 \<le> N" and  a4:"iInv1~=iInv2  "

  shows  "invHoldForRule' s (inv1  iInv1  iInv2 ) (NI_Local_Get_Nak1  iRule1 ) (invariants   N)" (is " ?P1 s\<or>?P2 s\<or>?P3 s")

    by (cut_tac  a1  a2  a3  a4 , auto)
 lemma NI_Local_Get_Nak2VsInv1:
    (*Rule1VsPInv2*)
  assumes   a1:"iRule1 \<le> N" and  a2:"iInv1 \<le> N" and  a3:"iInv2 \<le> N" and  a4:"iInv1~=iInv2  "

  shows  "invHoldForRule' s (inv1  iInv1  iInv2 ) (NI_Local_Get_Nak2  iRule1 ) (invariants   N)" (is " ?P1 s\<or>?P2 s\<or>?P3 s")

    by (cut_tac  a1  a2  a3  a4 , auto)
 lemma NI_Local_Get_Nak3VsInv1:
    (*Rule1VsPInv2*)
  assumes   a1:"iRule1 \<le> N" and  a2:"iInv1 \<le> N" and  a3:"iInv2 \<le> N" and  a4:"iInv1~=iInv2  "

  shows  "invHoldForRule' s (inv1  iInv1  iInv2 ) (NI_Local_Get_Nak3  iRule1 ) (invariants   N)" (is " ?P1 s\<or>?P2 s\<or>?P3 s")

    by (cut_tac  a1  a2  a3  a4 , auto)
 lemma NI_Local_Get_Put1VsInv1:
    (*Rule1VsPInv2*)
  assumes   a1:"iRule1 \<le> N" and  a2:"iInv1 \<le> N" and  a3:"iInv2 \<le> N" and  a4:"iInv1~=iInv2  "

  shows  "invHoldForRule' s (inv1  iInv1  iInv2 ) (NI_Local_Get_Put1 N  iRule1 ) (invariants   N)" (is " ?P1 s\<or>?P2 s\<or>?P3 s")

    by (cut_tac  a1  a2  a3  a4 , auto)
 lemma NI_Local_Get_Put2VsInv1:
    (*Rule1VsPInv2*)
  assumes   a1:"iRule1 \<le> N" and  a2:"iInv1 \<le> N" and  a3:"iInv2 \<le> N" and  a4:"iInv1~=iInv2  "

  shows  "invHoldForRule' s (inv1  iInv1  iInv2 ) (NI_Local_Get_Put2  iRule1 ) (invariants   N)" (is " ?P1 s\<or>?P2 s\<or>?P3 s")

    by (cut_tac  a1  a2  a3  a4 , auto)
 lemma NI_Local_Get_Put3VsInv1:
    (*Rule1VsPInv2*)
  assumes   a1:"iRule1 \<le> N" and  a2:"iInv1 \<le> N" and  a3:"iInv2 \<le> N" and  a4:"iInv1~=iInv2  "

  shows  "invHoldForRule' s (inv1  iInv1  iInv2 ) (NI_Local_Get_Put3  iRule1 ) (invariants   N)" (is " ?P1 s\<or>?P2 s\<or>?P3 s")

    by (cut_tac  a1  a2  a3  a4 , auto)
 lemma NI_Local_PutVsInv1:
    (*Rule0VsPInv2*)
  assumes   a1:"iInv1 \<le> N" and  a2:"iInv2 \<le> N" and  a3:"iInv1~=iInv2  "

  shows  "invHoldForRule' s (inv1  iInv1  iInv2 ) (NI_Local_Put ) (invariants   N)" (is " ?P1 s\<or>?P2 s\<or>?P3 s")

  proof -

     have "?P2 s"

     by (cut_tac a1 a2 a3, auto  )
   then show "?P1 s\<or>?P2 s\<or>?P3 s"
      by auto
 qed
  lemma NI_Local_PutXAcksDoneVsInv1:
    (*Rule0VsPInv2*)
  assumes   a1:"iInv1 \<le> N" and  a2:"iInv2 \<le> N" and  a3:"iInv1~=iInv2  "

  shows  "invHoldForRule' s (inv1  iInv1  iInv2 ) (NI_Local_PutXAcksDone ) (invariants   N)" (is " ?P1 s\<or>?P2 s\<or>?P3 s")

  proof -

     have "?P2 s"

     by (cut_tac a1 a2 a3, auto  )
   then show "?P1 s\<or>?P2 s\<or>?P3 s"
      by auto
 qed
  lemma NI_NakVsInv1:
    (*Rule1VsPInv2*)
  assumes   a1:"iRule1 \<le> N" and  a2:"iInv1 \<le> N" and  a3:"iInv2 \<le> N" and  a4:"iInv1~=iInv2  "

  shows  "invHoldForRule' s (inv1  iInv1  iInv2 ) (NI_Nak  iRule1 ) (invariants   N)" (is " ?P1 s\<or>?P2 s\<or>?P3 s")

    by (cut_tac  a1  a2  a3  a4 , auto)
 lemma NI_Nak_ClearVsInv1:
    (*Rule0VsPInv2*)
  assumes   a1:"iInv1 \<le> N" and  a2:"iInv2 \<le> N" and  a3:"iInv1~=iInv2  "

  shows  "invHoldForRule' s (inv1  iInv1  iInv2 ) (NI_Nak_Clear ) (invariants   N)" (is " ?P1 s\<or>?P2 s\<or>?P3 s")

  proof -

     have "?P2 s"

     by (cut_tac a1 a2 a3, auto  )
   then show "?P1 s\<or>?P2 s\<or>?P3 s"
      by auto
 qed
  lemma NI_Nak_HomeVsInv1:
    (*Rule0VsPInv2*)
  assumes   a1:"iInv1 \<le> N" and  a2:"iInv2 \<le> N" and  a3:"iInv1~=iInv2  "

  shows  "invHoldForRule' s (inv1  iInv1  iInv2 ) (NI_Nak_Home ) (invariants   N)" (is " ?P1 s\<or>?P2 s\<or>?P3 s")

  proof -

     have "?P2 s"

     by (cut_tac a1 a2 a3, auto  )
   then show "?P1 s\<or>?P2 s\<or>?P3 s"
      by auto
 qed
  lemma NI_Remote_GetX_NakVsInv1:
    (*Rule2VsPInv2*)
  assumes   a1:"iRule1 \<le> N" and  a2:"iRule2 \<le> N" and  a3:"iInv1 \<le> N" and  a4:"iInv2 \<le> N" and  a5:"iInv1~=iInv2  " and  a6:"iRule1~=iRule2  "

  shows  "invHoldForRule' s (inv1  iInv1  iInv2 ) (NI_Remote_GetX_Nak  iRule1  iRule2 ) (invariants   N)" (is " ?P1 s\<or>?P2 s\<or>?P3 s")

  proof -

     have "?P2 s"

     by (cut_tac a1 a2 a3 a4 a5 a6,auto  )
   then show "?P1 s\<or>?P2 s\<or>?P3 s"
      by auto
 qed
  lemma NI_Remote_GetX_Nak_HomeVsInv1:
    (*Rule1VsPInv2*)
  assumes   a1:"iRule1 \<le> N" and  a2:"iInv1 \<le> N" and  a3:"iInv2 \<le> N" and  a4:"iInv1~=iInv2  "

  shows  "invHoldForRule' s (inv1  iInv1  iInv2 ) (NI_Remote_GetX_Nak_Home  iRule1 ) (invariants   N)" (is " ?P1 s\<or>?P2 s\<or>?P3 s")

    by (cut_tac  a1  a2  a3  a4 , auto)
 lemma NI_Remote_GetX_PutXVsInv1:
    (*Rule2VsPInv2*)
  assumes   a1:"iRule1 \<le> N" and  a2:"iRule2 \<le> N" and  a3:"iInv1 \<le> N" and  a4:"iInv2 \<le> N" and  a5:"iInv1~=iInv2  " and  a6:"iRule1~=iRule2  "

  shows  "invHoldForRule' s (inv1  iInv1  iInv2 ) (NI_Remote_GetX_PutX  iRule1  iRule2 ) (invariants   N)" (is " ?P1 s\<or>?P2 s\<or>?P3 s")

  proof -

     have allCases:"(iRule1=iInv1\<and>iRule2=iInv2)   \<or>(iRule1=iInv1\<and>(iRule2~=iInv1 \<and>iRule2~=iInv2 ))   \<or>(iRule1=iInv2\<and>iRule2=iInv1)   \<or>(iRule1=iInv2\<and>(iRule2~=iInv1 \<and>iRule2~=iInv2 ))   \<or>((iRule1~=iInv1 \<and>iRule1~=iInv2 )\<and>iRule2=iInv1)   \<or>((iRule1~=iInv1 \<and>iRule1~=iInv2 )\<and>iRule2=iInv2)   \<or>((iRule1~=iInv1 \<and>iRule1~=iInv2 )\<and>(iRule2~=iInv1 \<and>iRule2~=iInv2 ))   "
	                      by( cut_tac  a1  a2  a3  a4  a5  a6  , auto)
moreover
                {assume b1:"(iRule1=iInv1\<and>iRule2=iInv2)"

      have "?P1 s"

        apply(cut_tac  a1  a2  a3  a4  a5  a6  b1 , auto)

        done

        then  have "?P1 s\<or> ?P2 s \<or> ?P3 s"

       by blast

	                }
moreover
                {assume b1:"(iRule1=iInv1\<and>(iRule2~=iInv1 \<and>iRule2~=iInv2 ))"

                  have "?P2 s"

  apply(cut_tac  a1  a2  a3  a4  a5  a6  b1 , auto intro!:forallVars1 simp  add :invHoldForRule2'_def varsOfVar_def)

  done

  then  have "?P1 s\<or> ?P2 s \<or> ?P3 s"

        by blast

	                }
moreover
                {assume b1:"(iRule1=iInv2\<and>iRule2=iInv1)"

      have "?P1 s"

        apply(cut_tac  a1  a2  a3  a4  a5  a6  b1 , auto)

        done

        then  have "?P1 s\<or> ?P2 s \<or> ?P3 s"

       by blast

	                }
moreover
                {assume b1:"(iRule1=iInv2\<and>(iRule2~=iInv1 \<and>iRule2~=iInv2 ))"

                  have "?P2 s"

  apply(cut_tac  a1  a2  a3  a4  a5  a6  b1 , auto intro!:forallVars1 simp  add :invHoldForRule2'_def varsOfVar_def)

  done

  then  have "?P1 s\<or> ?P2 s \<or> ?P3 s"

        by blast

	                }
moreover
                {assume b1:"((iRule1~=iInv1 \<and>iRule1~=iInv2 )\<and>iRule2=iInv1)"

      have "?P1 s"

        apply(cut_tac  a1  a2  a3  a4  a5  a6  b1 , auto)

        done

        then  have "?P1 s\<or> ?P2 s \<or> ?P3 s"

       by blast

	                }
moreover
                {assume b1:"((iRule1~=iInv1 \<and>iRule1~=iInv2 )\<and>iRule2=iInv2)"

      have "?P1 s"

        apply(cut_tac  a1  a2  a3  a4  a5  a6  b1 , auto)

        done

        then  have "?P1 s\<or> ?P2 s \<or> ?P3 s"

       by blast

	                }
moreover
                {assume b1:"((iRule1~=iInv1 \<and>iRule1~=iInv2 )\<and>(iRule2~=iInv1 \<and>iRule2~=iInv2 ))"

                  have "?P1 s \<or> ?P2 s"

  apply(cut_tac  a1  a2  a3  a4  a5  a6  b1 , auto intro!:forallVars1 simp  add :invHoldForRule2'_def varsOfVar_def)

  done

  then  have "?P1 s\<or> ?P2 s \<or> ?P3 s"

        by blast

	                }
   ultimately show "?P1 s\<or> ?P2 s\<or> ?P3 s"

	                         by metis

 qed
lemma NI_Remote_GetX_PutX_HomeVsInv1:
    (*Rule1VsPInv2*)
  assumes   a1:"iRule1 \<le> N" and  a2:"iInv1 \<le> N" and  a3:"iInv2 \<le> N" and  a4:"iInv1~=iInv2  "

  shows  "invHoldForRule' s (inv1  iInv1  iInv2 ) (NI_Remote_GetX_PutX_Home  iRule1 ) (invariants   N)" (is " ?P1 s\<or>?P2 s\<or>?P3 s")

  proof -

     have allCases:"(iRule1=iInv1)   \<or>(iRule1=iInv2)   \<or>((iRule1~=iInv1 \<and>iRule1~=iInv2 ))   "
	                      by( cut_tac  a1  a2  a3  a4  , auto)
moreover
                {assume b1:"(iRule1=iInv1)"

      have "?P1 s"

        apply(cut_tac  a1  a2  a3  a4  b1 , auto)

        done

        then  have "?P1 s\<or> ?P2 s \<or> ?P3 s"

       by blast

	                }
moreover
                {assume b1:"(iRule1=iInv2)"

      have "?P1 s"

        apply(cut_tac  a1  a2  a3  a4  b1 , auto)

        done

        then  have "?P1 s\<or> ?P2 s \<or> ?P3 s"

       by blast

	                }
moreover
                {assume b1:"((iRule1~=iInv1 \<and>iRule1~=iInv2 ))"

                  have "?P2 s"

  apply(cut_tac  a1  a2  a3  a4  b1 , auto intro!:forallVars1 simp  add :invHoldForRule2'_def varsOfVar_def)

  done

  then  have "?P1 s\<or> ?P2 s \<or> ?P3 s"

        by blast

	                }
   ultimately show "?P1 s\<or> ?P2 s\<or> ?P3 s"

	                         by metis

 qed
lemma NI_Remote_Get_Nak1VsInv1:
    (*Rule1VsPInv2*)
  assumes   a1:"iRule1 \<le> N" and  a2:"iInv1 \<le> N" and  a3:"iInv2 \<le> N" and  a4:"iInv1~=iInv2  "

  shows  "invHoldForRule' s (inv1  iInv1  iInv2 ) (NI_Remote_Get_Nak1  iRule1 ) (invariants   N)" (is " ?P1 s\<or>?P2 s\<or>?P3 s")

    by (cut_tac  a1  a2  a3  a4 , auto)
 lemma NI_Remote_Get_Nak2VsInv1:
    (*Rule2VsPInv2*)
  assumes   a1:"iRule1 \<le> N" and  a2:"iRule2 \<le> N" and  a3:"iInv1 \<le> N" and  a4:"iInv2 \<le> N" and  a5:"iInv1~=iInv2  " and  a6:"iRule1~=iRule2  "

  shows  "invHoldForRule' s (inv1  iInv1  iInv2 ) (NI_Remote_Get_Nak2  iRule1  iRule2 ) (invariants   N)" (is " ?P1 s\<or>?P2 s\<or>?P3 s")

  proof -

     have "?P2 s"

     by (cut_tac a1 a2 a3 a4 a5 a6,auto  )
   then show "?P1 s\<or>?P2 s\<or>?P3 s"
      by auto
 qed
  lemma NI_Remote_Get_Put1VsInv1:
    (*Rule1VsPInv2*)
  assumes   a1:"iRule1 \<le> N" and  a2:"iInv1 \<le> N" and  a3:"iInv2 \<le> N" and  a4:"iInv1~=iInv2  "

  shows  "invHoldForRule' s (inv1  iInv1  iInv2 ) (NI_Remote_Get_Put1  iRule1 ) (invariants   N)" (is " ?P1 s\<or>?P2 s\<or>?P3 s")

  proof -

     have allCases:"(iRule1=iInv1)   \<or>(iRule1=iInv2)   \<or>((iRule1~=iInv1 \<and>iRule1~=iInv2 ))   "
	                      by( cut_tac  a1  a2  a3  a4  , auto)
moreover
                {assume b1:"(iRule1=iInv1)"

      have "?P1 s"

        apply(cut_tac  a1  a2  a3  a4  b1 , auto)

        done

        then  have "?P1 s\<or> ?P2 s \<or> ?P3 s"

       by blast

	                }
moreover
                {assume b1:"(iRule1=iInv2)"

      have "?P1 s"

        apply(cut_tac  a1  a2  a3  a4  b1 , auto)

        done

        then  have "?P1 s\<or> ?P2 s \<or> ?P3 s"

       by blast

	                }
moreover
                {assume b1:"((iRule1~=iInv1 \<and>iRule1~=iInv2 ))"

                  have "?P2 s"

  apply(cut_tac  a1  a2  a3  a4  b1 , auto intro!:forallVars1 simp  add :invHoldForRule2'_def varsOfVar_def)

  done

  then  have "?P1 s\<or> ?P2 s \<or> ?P3 s"

        by blast

	                }
   ultimately show "?P1 s\<or> ?P2 s\<or> ?P3 s"

	                         by metis

 qed
lemma NI_Remote_Get_Put2VsInv1:
    (*Rule2VsPInv2*)
  assumes   a1:"iRule1 \<le> N" and  a2:"iRule2 \<le> N" and  a3:"iInv1 \<le> N" and  a4:"iInv2 \<le> N" and  a5:"iInv1~=iInv2  " and  a6:"iRule1~=iRule2  "

  shows  "invHoldForRule' s (inv1  iInv1  iInv2 ) (NI_Remote_Get_Put2  iRule1  iRule2 ) (invariants   N)" (is " ?P1 s\<or>?P2 s\<or>?P3 s")

  proof -

     have allCases:"(iRule1=iInv1\<and>iRule2=iInv2)   \<or>(iRule1=iInv1\<and>(iRule2~=iInv1 \<and>iRule2~=iInv2 ))   \<or>(iRule1=iInv2\<and>iRule2=iInv1)   \<or>(iRule1=iInv2\<and>(iRule2~=iInv1 \<and>iRule2~=iInv2 ))   \<or>((iRule1~=iInv1 \<and>iRule1~=iInv2 )\<and>iRule2=iInv1)   \<or>((iRule1~=iInv1 \<and>iRule1~=iInv2 )\<and>iRule2=iInv2)   \<or>((iRule1~=iInv1 \<and>iRule1~=iInv2 )\<and>(iRule2~=iInv1 \<and>iRule2~=iInv2 ))   "
	                      by( cut_tac  a1  a2  a3  a4  a5  a6  , auto)
moreover
                {assume b1:"(iRule1=iInv1\<and>iRule2=iInv2)"

      have "?P1 s"

        apply(cut_tac  a1  a2  a3  a4  a5  a6  b1 , auto)

        done

        then  have "?P1 s\<or> ?P2 s \<or> ?P3 s"

       by blast

	                }
moreover
                {assume b1:"(iRule1=iInv1\<and>(iRule2~=iInv1 \<and>iRule2~=iInv2 ))"

                  have "?P2 s"

  apply(cut_tac  a1  a2  a3  a4  a5  a6  b1 , auto intro!:forallVars1 simp  add :invHoldForRule2'_def varsOfVar_def)

  done

  then  have "?P1 s\<or> ?P2 s \<or> ?P3 s"

        by blast

	                }
moreover
                {assume b1:"(iRule1=iInv2\<and>iRule2=iInv1)"

      have "?P1 s"

        apply(cut_tac  a1  a2  a3  a4  a5  a6  b1 , auto)

        done

        then  have "?P1 s\<or> ?P2 s \<or> ?P3 s"

       by blast

	                }
moreover
                {assume b1:"(iRule1=iInv2\<and>(iRule2~=iInv1 \<and>iRule2~=iInv2 ))"

                  have "?P2 s"

  apply(cut_tac  a1  a2  a3  a4  a5  a6  b1 , auto intro!:forallVars1 simp  add :invHoldForRule2'_def varsOfVar_def)

  done

  then  have "?P1 s\<or> ?P2 s \<or> ?P3 s"

        by blast

	                }
moreover
                {assume b1:"((iRule1~=iInv1 \<and>iRule1~=iInv2 )\<and>iRule2=iInv1)"

      have "?P1 s"

        apply(cut_tac  a1  a2  a3  a4  a5  a6  b1 , auto)

        done

        then  have "?P1 s\<or> ?P2 s \<or> ?P3 s"

       by blast

	                }
moreover
                {assume b1:"((iRule1~=iInv1 \<and>iRule1~=iInv2 )\<and>iRule2=iInv2)"

      have "?P1 s"

        apply(cut_tac  a1  a2  a3  a4  a5  a6  b1 , auto)

        done

        then  have "?P1 s\<or> ?P2 s \<or> ?P3 s"

       by blast

	                }
moreover
                {assume b1:"((iRule1~=iInv1 \<and>iRule1~=iInv2 )\<and>(iRule2~=iInv1 \<and>iRule2~=iInv2 ))"

                  have "?P1 s \<or> ?P2 s"

  apply(cut_tac  a1  a2  a3  a4  a5  a6  b1 , auto intro!:forallVars1 simp  add :invHoldForRule2'_def varsOfVar_def)

  done

  then  have "?P1 s\<or> ?P2 s \<or> ?P3 s"

        by blast

	                }
   ultimately show "?P1 s\<or> ?P2 s\<or> ?P3 s"

	                         by metis

 qed
lemma NI_Remote_PutVsInv1:
    (*Rule1VsPInv2*)
  assumes   a1:"iRule1 \<le> N" and  a2:"iInv1 \<le> N" and  a3:"iInv2 \<le> N" and  a4:"iInv1~=iInv2  "

  shows  "invHoldForRule' s (inv1  iInv1  iInv2 ) (NI_Remote_Put  iRule1 ) (invariants   N)" (is " ?P1 s\<or>?P2 s\<or>?P3 s")

  proof -

     have allCases:"(iRule1=iInv1)   \<or>(iRule1=iInv2)   \<or>((iRule1~=iInv1 \<and>iRule1~=iInv2 ))   "
	                      by( cut_tac  a1  a2  a3  a4  , auto)
moreover
                {assume b1:"(iRule1=iInv1)"

                     have allCases:"formEval  ( eqn ( IVar ( Para ''InvMarked'' iInv1) )  ( Const true ))  s  \<or>formEval   (neg ( eqn ( IVar ( Para ''InvMarked'' iInv1) )  ( Const true )) )  s  "
	                      by auto

    moreover
                       {assume c1:"formEval ( eqn ( IVar ( Para ''InvMarked'' iInv1) )  ( Const true ))  s"

      have "?P1 s"

        apply(cut_tac  a1  a2  a3  a4  b1  c1 , auto)

        done

        then  have "?P1 s\<or> ?P2 s \<or> ?P3 s"

       by blast
    }

    moreover
                       {assume c1:"formEval  (neg ( eqn ( IVar ( Para ''InvMarked'' iInv1) )  ( Const true )) )  s"

      have "?P1 s"

        apply(cut_tac  a1  a2  a3  a4  b1  c1 , auto)

        done

        then  have "?P1 s\<or> ?P2 s \<or> ?P3 s"

       by blast
    }
   ultimately have "?P1 s\<or> ?P2 s\<or> ?P3 s"

	                         by metis

	                }
moreover
                {assume b1:"(iRule1=iInv2)"

                     have allCases:"formEval  ( eqn ( IVar ( Para ''InvMarked'' iInv2) )  ( Const true ))  s  \<or>formEval   (neg ( eqn ( IVar ( Para ''InvMarked'' iInv2) )  ( Const true )) )  s  "
	                      by auto

    moreover
                       {assume c1:"formEval ( eqn ( IVar ( Para ''InvMarked'' iInv2) )  ( Const true ))  s"

      have "?P1 s"

        apply(cut_tac  a1  a2  a3  a4  b1  c1 , auto)

        done

        then  have "?P1 s\<or> ?P2 s \<or> ?P3 s"

       by blast
    }

    moreover
                       {assume c1:"formEval  (neg ( eqn ( IVar ( Para ''InvMarked'' iInv2) )  ( Const true )) )  s"

      have "?P1 s"

        apply(cut_tac  a1  a2  a3  a4  b1  c1 , auto)

        done

        then  have "?P1 s\<or> ?P2 s \<or> ?P3 s"

       by blast
    }
   ultimately have "?P1 s\<or> ?P2 s\<or> ?P3 s"

	                         by metis

	                }
moreover
                {assume b1:"((iRule1~=iInv1 \<and>iRule1~=iInv2 ))"

                  have "?P2 s"

  apply(cut_tac  a1  a2  a3  a4  b1 , auto intro!:forallVars1 simp  add :invHoldForRule2'_def varsOfVar_def)

  done

  then  have "?P1 s\<or> ?P2 s \<or> ?P3 s"

        by blast

	                }
   ultimately show "?P1 s\<or> ?P2 s\<or> ?P3 s"

	                         by metis

 qed
lemma NI_Remote_PutXVsInv1:
    (*Rule1VsPInv2*)
  assumes   a1:"iRule1 \<le> N" and  a2:"iInv1 \<le> N" and  a3:"iInv2 \<le> N" and  a4:"iInv1~=iInv2  "

  shows  "invHoldForRule' s (inv1  iInv1  iInv2 ) (NI_Remote_PutX  iRule1 ) (invariants   N)" (is " ?P1 s\<or>?P2 s\<or>?P3 s")

  proof -

     have allCases:"(iRule1=iInv1)   \<or>(iRule1=iInv2)   \<or>((iRule1~=iInv1 \<and>iRule1~=iInv2 ))   "
	                      by( cut_tac  a1  a2  a3  a4  , auto)
moreover
                {assume b1:"(iRule1=iInv1)"

      have "?P3 s"

        apply(   cut_tac  a1  a2  a3  a4  b1 , simp)

        apply(rule_tac x=" (neg ( andForm ( eqn ( IVar ( Para ''CacheState'' iInv2) )  ( Const CACHE_E ))    ( eqn ( IVar ( Para ''UniMsg_Cmd'' iInv1) )  ( Const UNI_PutX ))  ) ) " in exI,auto)

        done

       then  have "?P1 s\<or> ?P2 s \<or> ?P3 s"

        by blast

	                }
moreover
                {assume b1:"(iRule1=iInv2)"

      have "?P3 s"

        apply(   cut_tac  a1  a2  a3  a4  b1 , simp)

        apply(rule_tac x=" (neg ( andForm ( eqn ( IVar ( Para ''CacheState'' iInv1) )  ( Const CACHE_E ))    ( eqn ( IVar ( Para ''UniMsg_Cmd'' iInv2) )  ( Const UNI_PutX ))  ) ) " in exI,auto)

        done

       then  have "?P1 s\<or> ?P2 s \<or> ?P3 s"

        by blast

	                }
moreover
                {assume b1:"((iRule1~=iInv1 \<and>iRule1~=iInv2 ))"

                  have "?P2 s"

  apply(cut_tac  a1  a2  a3  a4  b1 , auto intro!:forallVars1 simp  add :invHoldForRule2'_def varsOfVar_def)

  done

  then  have "?P1 s\<or> ?P2 s \<or> ?P3 s"

        by blast

	                }
   ultimately show "?P1 s\<or> ?P2 s\<or> ?P3 s"

	                         by metis

 qed
lemma NI_ReplaceVsInv1:
    (*Rule1VsPInv2*)
  assumes   a1:"iRule1 \<le> N" and  a2:"iInv1 \<le> N" and  a3:"iInv2 \<le> N" and  a4:"iInv1~=iInv2  "

  shows  "invHoldForRule' s (inv1  iInv1  iInv2 ) (NI_Replace  iRule1 ) (invariants   N)" (is " ?P1 s\<or>?P2 s\<or>?P3 s")

    by (cut_tac  a1  a2  a3  a4 , auto)
 lemma NI_ReplaceHomeVsInv1:
    (*Rule0VsPInv2*)
  assumes   a1:"iInv1 \<le> N" and  a2:"iInv2 \<le> N" and  a3:"iInv1~=iInv2  "

  shows  "invHoldForRule' s (inv1  iInv1  iInv2 ) (NI_ReplaceHome ) (invariants   N)" (is " ?P1 s\<or>?P2 s\<or>?P3 s")

  proof -

     have "?P2 s"

     by (cut_tac a1 a2 a3, auto  )
   then show "?P1 s\<or>?P2 s\<or>?P3 s"
      by auto
 qed
  lemma NI_ReplaceHomeShrVldVsInv1:
    (*Rule0VsPInv2*)
  assumes   a1:"iInv1 \<le> N" and  a2:"iInv2 \<le> N" and  a3:"iInv1~=iInv2  "

  shows  "invHoldForRule' s (inv1  iInv1  iInv2 ) (NI_ReplaceHomeShrVld ) (invariants   N)" (is " ?P1 s\<or>?P2 s\<or>?P3 s")

  proof -

     have "?P2 s"

     by (cut_tac a1 a2 a3, auto  )
   then show "?P1 s\<or>?P2 s\<or>?P3 s"
      by auto
 qed
  lemma NI_ReplaceShrVldVsInv1:
    (*Rule1VsPInv2*)
  assumes   a1:"iRule1 \<le> N" and  a2:"iInv1 \<le> N" and  a3:"iInv2 \<le> N" and  a4:"iInv1~=iInv2  "

  shows  "invHoldForRule' s (inv1  iInv1  iInv2 ) (NI_ReplaceShrVld  iRule1 ) (invariants   N)" (is " ?P1 s\<or>?P2 s\<or>?P3 s")

    by (cut_tac  a1  a2  a3  a4 , auto)
 lemma NI_ShWbVsInv1:
    (*Rule0VsPInv2*)
  assumes   a1:"iInv1 \<le> N" and  a2:"iInv2 \<le> N" and  a3:"iInv1~=iInv2  "

  shows  "invHoldForRule' s (inv1  iInv1  iInv2 ) (NI_ShWb N ) (invariants   N)" (is " ?P1 s\<or>?P2 s\<or>?P3 s")

  proof -

     have "?P2 s"

     by (cut_tac a1 a2 a3, auto  )
   then show "?P1 s\<or>?P2 s\<or>?P3 s"
      by auto
 qed
  lemma NI_WbVsInv1:
    (*Rule0VsPInv2*)
  assumes   a1:"iInv1 \<le> N" and  a2:"iInv2 \<le> N" and  a3:"iInv1~=iInv2  "

  shows  "invHoldForRule' s (inv1  iInv1  iInv2 ) (NI_Wb ) (invariants   N)" (is " ?P1 s\<or>?P2 s\<or>?P3 s")

  proof -

     have "?P2 s"

     by (cut_tac a1 a2 a3, auto  )
   then show "?P1 s\<or>?P2 s\<or>?P3 s"
      by auto
 qed
  lemma PI_Local_GetX_GetX1VsInv1:
    (*Rule0VsPInv2*)
  assumes   a1:"iInv1 \<le> N" and  a2:"iInv2 \<le> N" and  a3:"iInv1~=iInv2  "

  shows  "invHoldForRule' s (inv1  iInv1  iInv2 ) (PI_Local_GetX_GetX1 ) (invariants   N)" (is " ?P1 s\<or>?P2 s\<or>?P3 s")

  proof -

     have "?P2 s"

     by (cut_tac a1 a2 a3, auto  )
   then show "?P1 s\<or>?P2 s\<or>?P3 s"
      by auto
 qed
  lemma PI_Local_GetX_GetX2VsInv1:
    (*Rule0VsPInv2*)
  assumes   a1:"iInv1 \<le> N" and  a2:"iInv2 \<le> N" and  a3:"iInv1~=iInv2  "

  shows  "invHoldForRule' s (inv1  iInv1  iInv2 ) (PI_Local_GetX_GetX2 ) (invariants   N)" (is " ?P1 s\<or>?P2 s\<or>?P3 s")

  proof -

     have "?P2 s"

     by (cut_tac a1 a2 a3, auto  )
   then show "?P1 s\<or>?P2 s\<or>?P3 s"
      by auto
 qed
  lemma PI_Local_GetX_PutX1VsInv1:
    (*Rule0VsPInv2*)
  assumes   a1:"iInv1 \<le> N" and  a2:"iInv2 \<le> N" and  a3:"iInv1~=iInv2  "

  shows  "invHoldForRule' s (inv1  iInv1  iInv2 ) (PI_Local_GetX_PutX1 N ) (invariants   N)" (is " ?P1 s\<or>?P2 s\<or>?P3 s")

  proof -

     have "?P2 s"

     by (cut_tac a1 a2 a3, auto  )
   then show "?P1 s\<or>?P2 s\<or>?P3 s"
      by auto
 qed
  lemma PI_Local_GetX_PutX2VsInv1:
    (*Rule0VsPInv2*)
  assumes   a1:"iInv1 \<le> N" and  a2:"iInv2 \<le> N" and  a3:"iInv1~=iInv2  "

  shows  "invHoldForRule' s (inv1  iInv1  iInv2 ) (PI_Local_GetX_PutX2 N ) (invariants   N)" (is " ?P1 s\<or>?P2 s\<or>?P3 s")

  proof -

     have "?P2 s"

     by (cut_tac a1 a2 a3, auto  )
   then show "?P1 s\<or>?P2 s\<or>?P3 s"
      by auto
 qed
  lemma PI_Local_GetX_PutX3VsInv1:
    (*Rule0VsPInv2*)
  assumes   a1:"iInv1 \<le> N" and  a2:"iInv2 \<le> N" and  a3:"iInv1~=iInv2  "

  shows  "invHoldForRule' s (inv1  iInv1  iInv2 ) (PI_Local_GetX_PutX3 ) (invariants   N)" (is " ?P1 s\<or>?P2 s\<or>?P3 s")

  proof -

     have "?P2 s"

     by (cut_tac a1 a2 a3, auto  )
   then show "?P1 s\<or>?P2 s\<or>?P3 s"
      by auto
 qed
  lemma PI_Local_GetX_PutX4VsInv1:
    (*Rule0VsPInv2*)
  assumes   a1:"iInv1 \<le> N" and  a2:"iInv2 \<le> N" and  a3:"iInv1~=iInv2  "

  shows  "invHoldForRule' s (inv1  iInv1  iInv2 ) (PI_Local_GetX_PutX4 ) (invariants   N)" (is " ?P1 s\<or>?P2 s\<or>?P3 s")

  proof -

     have "?P2 s"

     by (cut_tac a1 a2 a3, auto  )
   then show "?P1 s\<or>?P2 s\<or>?P3 s"
      by auto
 qed
  lemma PI_Local_Get_GetVsInv1:
    (*Rule0VsPInv2*)
  assumes   a1:"iInv1 \<le> N" and  a2:"iInv2 \<le> N" and  a3:"iInv1~=iInv2  "

  shows  "invHoldForRule' s (inv1  iInv1  iInv2 ) (PI_Local_Get_Get ) (invariants   N)" (is " ?P1 s\<or>?P2 s\<or>?P3 s")

  proof -

     have "?P2 s"

     by (cut_tac a1 a2 a3, auto  )
   then show "?P1 s\<or>?P2 s\<or>?P3 s"
      by auto
 qed
  lemma PI_Local_Get_PutVsInv1:
    (*Rule0VsPInv2*)
  assumes   a1:"iInv1 \<le> N" and  a2:"iInv2 \<le> N" and  a3:"iInv1~=iInv2  "

  shows  "invHoldForRule' s (inv1  iInv1  iInv2 ) (PI_Local_Get_Put ) (invariants   N)" (is " ?P1 s\<or>?P2 s\<or>?P3 s")

  proof -

     have "?P2 s"

     by (cut_tac a1 a2 a3, auto  )
   then show "?P1 s\<or>?P2 s\<or>?P3 s"
      by auto
 qed
  lemma PI_Local_PutXVsInv1:
    (*Rule0VsPInv2*)
  assumes   a1:"iInv1 \<le> N" and  a2:"iInv2 \<le> N" and  a3:"iInv1~=iInv2  "

  shows  "invHoldForRule' s (inv1  iInv1  iInv2 ) (PI_Local_PutX ) (invariants   N)" (is " ?P1 s\<or>?P2 s\<or>?P3 s")

  proof -

     have "?P2 s"

     by (cut_tac a1 a2 a3, auto  )
   then show "?P1 s\<or>?P2 s\<or>?P3 s"
      by auto
 qed
  lemma PI_Local_ReplaceVsInv1:
    (*Rule0VsPInv2*)
  assumes   a1:"iInv1 \<le> N" and  a2:"iInv2 \<le> N" and  a3:"iInv1~=iInv2  "

  shows  "invHoldForRule' s (inv1  iInv1  iInv2 ) (PI_Local_Replace ) (invariants   N)" (is " ?P1 s\<or>?P2 s\<or>?P3 s")

  proof -

     have "?P2 s"

     by (cut_tac a1 a2 a3, auto  )
   then show "?P1 s\<or>?P2 s\<or>?P3 s"
      by auto
 qed
  lemma PI_Remote_GetVsInv1:
    (*Rule1VsPInv2*)
  assumes   a1:"iRule1 \<le> N" and  a2:"iInv1 \<le> N" and  a3:"iInv2 \<le> N" and  a4:"iInv1~=iInv2  "

  shows  "invHoldForRule' s (inv1  iInv1  iInv2 ) (PI_Remote_Get  iRule1 ) (invariants   N)" (is " ?P1 s\<or>?P2 s\<or>?P3 s")

    by (cut_tac  a1  a2  a3  a4 , auto)
 lemma PI_Remote_GetXVsInv1:
    (*Rule1VsPInv2*)
  assumes   a1:"iRule1 \<le> N" and  a2:"iInv1 \<le> N" and  a3:"iInv2 \<le> N" and  a4:"iInv1~=iInv2  "

  shows  "invHoldForRule' s (inv1  iInv1  iInv2 ) (PI_Remote_GetX  iRule1 ) (invariants   N)" (is " ?P1 s\<or>?P2 s\<or>?P3 s")

    by (cut_tac  a1  a2  a3  a4 , auto)
 lemma PI_Remote_PutXVsInv1:
    (*Rule1VsPInv2*)
  assumes   a1:"iRule1 \<le> N" and  a2:"iInv1 \<le> N" and  a3:"iInv2 \<le> N" and  a4:"iInv1~=iInv2  "

  shows  "invHoldForRule' s (inv1  iInv1  iInv2 ) (PI_Remote_PutX  iRule1 ) (invariants   N)" (is " ?P1 s\<or>?P2 s\<or>?P3 s")

  proof -

     have allCases:"(iRule1=iInv1)   \<or>(iRule1=iInv2)   \<or>((iRule1~=iInv1 \<and>iRule1~=iInv2 ))   "
	                      by( cut_tac  a1  a2  a3  a4  , auto)
moreover
                {assume b1:"(iRule1=iInv1)"

      have "?P1 s"

        apply(cut_tac  a1  a2  a3  a4  b1 , auto)

        done

        then  have "?P1 s\<or> ?P2 s \<or> ?P3 s"

       by blast

	                }
moreover
                {assume b1:"(iRule1=iInv2)"

      have "?P1 s"

        apply(cut_tac  a1  a2  a3  a4  b1 , auto)

        done

        then  have "?P1 s\<or> ?P2 s \<or> ?P3 s"

       by blast

	                }
moreover
                {assume b1:"((iRule1~=iInv1 \<and>iRule1~=iInv2 ))"

                  have "?P2 s"

  apply(cut_tac  a1  a2  a3  a4  b1 , auto intro!:forallVars1 simp  add :invHoldForRule2'_def varsOfVar_def)

  done

  then  have "?P1 s\<or> ?P2 s \<or> ?P3 s"

        by blast

	                }
   ultimately show "?P1 s\<or> ?P2 s\<or> ?P3 s"

	                         by metis

 qed
lemma PI_Remote_ReplaceVsInv1:
    (*Rule1VsPInv2*)
  assumes   a1:"iRule1 \<le> N" and  a2:"iInv1 \<le> N" and  a3:"iInv2 \<le> N" and  a4:"iInv1~=iInv2  "

  shows  "invHoldForRule' s (inv1  iInv1  iInv2 ) (PI_Remote_Replace  iRule1 ) (invariants   N)" (is " ?P1 s\<or>?P2 s\<or>?P3 s")

    by (cut_tac  a1  a2  a3  a4 , auto)
 lemma StoreVsInv1:
    (*Rule1VsPInv2*)
  assumes   a1:"iRule1 \<le> N" and  a2:"iInv1 \<le> N" and  a3:"iInv2 \<le> N" and  a4:"iInv1~=iInv2  "

  shows  "invHoldForRule' s (inv1  iInv1  iInv2 ) (Store  iRule1 ) (invariants   N)" (is " ?P1 s\<or>?P2 s\<or>?P3 s")

    by (cut_tac  a1  a2  a3  a4 , auto)
 lemma StoreHomeVsInv1:
    (*Rule0VsPInv2*)
  assumes   a1:"iInv1 \<le> N" and  a2:"iInv2 \<le> N" and  a3:"iInv1~=iInv2  "

  shows  "invHoldForRule' s (inv1  iInv1  iInv2 ) (StoreHome ) (invariants   N)" (is " ?P1 s\<or>?P2 s\<or>?P3 s")

  proof -

     have "?P2 s"

     by (cut_tac a1 a2 a3, auto  )
   then show "?P1 s\<or>?P2 s\<or>?P3 s"
      by auto
 qed
  end


(*  Title:      HOL/Auth/n_germanSimp_lemma_inv__37_on_rules.thy
    Author:     Yongjian Li and Kaiqiang Duan, State Key Lab of Computer Science, Institute of Software, Chinese Academy of Sciences
    Copyright    2016 State Key Lab of Computer Science, Institute of Software, Chinese Academy of Sciences
*)

header{*The n_germanSimp Protocol Case Study*}

theory n_germanSimp_lemma_inv__37_on_rules imports n_germanSimp_lemma_on_inv__37
begin
section{*All lemmas on causal relation between inv__37*}
lemma lemma_inv__37_on_rules:
  assumes b1: "r \<in> rules N" and b2: "(\<exists> p__Inv4. p__Inv4\<le>N\<and>f=inv__37  p__Inv4)"
  shows "invHoldForRule s f r (invariants N)"
  proof -
  have c1: "(\<exists> i d. i\<le>N\<and>d\<le>N\<and>r=n_Store  i d)\<or>
    (\<exists> i. i\<le>N\<and>r=n_RecvReqS N i)\<or>
    (\<exists> i. i\<le>N\<and>r=n_RecvReqE__part__0 N i)\<or>
    (\<exists> i. i\<le>N\<and>r=n_RecvReqE__part__1 N i)\<or>
    (\<exists> i. i\<le>N\<and>r=n_SendInv__part__0  i)\<or>
    (\<exists> i. i\<le>N\<and>r=n_SendInv__part__1  i)\<or>
    (\<exists> i. i\<le>N\<and>r=n_SendInvAck  i)\<or>
    (\<exists> i. i\<le>N\<and>r=n_RecvInvAck  i)\<or>
    (\<exists> i. i\<le>N\<and>r=n_SendGntS  i)\<or>
    (\<exists> i. i\<le>N\<and>r=n_SendGntE N i)\<or>
    (\<exists> i. i\<le>N\<and>r=n_RecvGntS  i)\<or>
    (\<exists> i. i\<le>N\<and>r=n_RecvGntE  i)"
  apply (cut_tac b1, auto) done
    moreover {
      assume d1: "(\<exists> i d. i\<le>N\<and>d\<le>N\<and>r=n_Store  i d)"
      have "invHoldForRule s f r (invariants N)"
      apply (cut_tac b2 d1, metis n_StoreVsinv__37) done
    }

    moreover {
      assume d1: "(\<exists> i. i\<le>N\<and>r=n_RecvReqS N i)"
      have "invHoldForRule s f r (invariants N)"
      apply (cut_tac b2 d1, metis n_RecvReqSVsinv__37) done
    }

    moreover {
      assume d1: "(\<exists> i. i\<le>N\<and>r=n_RecvReqE__part__0 N i)"
      have "invHoldForRule s f r (invariants N)"
      apply (cut_tac b2 d1, metis n_RecvReqE__part__0Vsinv__37) done
    }

    moreover {
      assume d1: "(\<exists> i. i\<le>N\<and>r=n_RecvReqE__part__1 N i)"
      have "invHoldForRule s f r (invariants N)"
      apply (cut_tac b2 d1, metis n_RecvReqE__part__1Vsinv__37) done
    }

    moreover {
      assume d1: "(\<exists> i. i\<le>N\<and>r=n_SendInv__part__0  i)"
      have "invHoldForRule s f r (invariants N)"
      apply (cut_tac b2 d1, metis n_SendInv__part__0Vsinv__37) done
    }

    moreover {
      assume d1: "(\<exists> i. i\<le>N\<and>r=n_SendInv__part__1  i)"
      have "invHoldForRule s f r (invariants N)"
      apply (cut_tac b2 d1, metis n_SendInv__part__1Vsinv__37) done
    }

    moreover {
      assume d1: "(\<exists> i. i\<le>N\<and>r=n_SendInvAck  i)"
      have "invHoldForRule s f r (invariants N)"
      apply (cut_tac b2 d1, metis n_SendInvAckVsinv__37) done
    }

    moreover {
      assume d1: "(\<exists> i. i\<le>N\<and>r=n_RecvInvAck  i)"
      have "invHoldForRule s f r (invariants N)"
      apply (cut_tac b2 d1, metis n_RecvInvAckVsinv__37) done
    }

    moreover {
      assume d1: "(\<exists> i. i\<le>N\<and>r=n_SendGntS  i)"
      have "invHoldForRule s f r (invariants N)"
      apply (cut_tac b2 d1, metis n_SendGntSVsinv__37) done
    }

    moreover {
      assume d1: "(\<exists> i. i\<le>N\<and>r=n_SendGntE N i)"
      have "invHoldForRule s f r (invariants N)"
      apply (cut_tac b2 d1, metis n_SendGntEVsinv__37) done
    }

    moreover {
      assume d1: "(\<exists> i. i\<le>N\<and>r=n_RecvGntS  i)"
      have "invHoldForRule s f r (invariants N)"
      apply (cut_tac b2 d1, metis n_RecvGntSVsinv__37) done
    }

    moreover {
      assume d1: "(\<exists> i. i\<le>N\<and>r=n_RecvGntE  i)"
      have "invHoldForRule s f r (invariants N)"
      apply (cut_tac b2 d1, metis n_RecvGntEVsinv__37) done
    }

  ultimately show "invHoldForRule s f r (invariants N)"
  by satx
qed

end