theory flash17Rev imports flashPub
begin
section{*Main defintions*}
lemma NI_FAckVsInv17:
    (*Rule0VsPInv2*)
  assumes   a1:"iInv1 \<le> N" and  a2:"iInv2 \<le> N" and  a3:"iInv1~=iInv2  "

  shows  "invHoldForRule' s (inv17  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_InvVsInv17:
    (*Rule1VsPInv2*)
  assumes   a1:"iRule1 \<le> N" and  a2:"iInv1 \<le> N" and  a3:"iInv2 \<le> N" and  a4:"iInv1~=iInv2  "

  shows  "invHoldForRule' s (inv17  iInv1  iInv2 ) (NI_Inv  iRule1 ) (invariants   N)" (is " ?P1 s\<or>?P2 s\<or>?P3 s")

    by (cut_tac  a1  a2  a3  a4 , auto)
 lemma NI_InvAck_1VsInv17:
    (*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 (inv17  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_HomeVsInv17:
    (*Rule1VsPInv2*)
  assumes   a1:"iRule1 \<le> N" and  a2:"iInv1 \<le> N" and  a3:"iInv2 \<le> N" and  a4:"iInv1~=iInv2  "

  shows  "invHoldForRule' s (inv17  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_2VsInv17:
    (*Rule1VsPInv2*)
  assumes   a1:"iRule1 \<le> N" and  a2:"iInv1 \<le> N" and  a3:"iInv2 \<le> N" and  a4:"iInv1~=iInv2  "

  shows  "invHoldForRule' s (inv17  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_GetXVsInv17:
    (*Rule1VsPInv2*)
  assumes   a1:"iRule1 \<le> N" and  a2:"iInv1 \<le> N" and  a3:"iInv2 \<le> N" and  a4:"iInv1~=iInv2  "

  shows  "invHoldForRule' s (inv17  iInv1  iInv2 ) (NI_Local_GetX_GetX  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 ''UniMsg_Cmd'' Home) )  ( Const UNI_Put ))    ( eqn ( IVar ( Global ''Dir_Pending'') )  ( Const false ))  ) ) " in exI,auto)

        done

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

        by blast

	                }
moreover
                {assume b1:"(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

	                }
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_Local_GetX_Nak1VsInv17:
    (*Rule1VsPInv2*)
  assumes   a1:"iRule1 \<le> N" and  a2:"iInv1 \<le> N" and  a3:"iInv2 \<le> N" and  a4:"iInv1~=iInv2  "

  shows  "invHoldForRule' s (inv17  iInv1  iInv2 ) (NI_Local_GetX_Nak1  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 "?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

	                }
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_Local_GetX_Nak2VsInv17:
    (*Rule1VsPInv2*)
  assumes   a1:"iRule1 \<le> N" and  a2:"iInv1 \<le> N" and  a3:"iInv2 \<le> N" and  a4:"iInv1~=iInv2  "

  shows  "invHoldForRule' s (inv17  iInv1  iInv2 ) (NI_Local_GetX_Nak2  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 "?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

	                }
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_Local_GetX_Nak3VsInv17:
    (*Rule1VsPInv2*)
  assumes   a1:"iRule1 \<le> N" and  a2:"iInv1 \<le> N" and  a3:"iInv2 \<le> N" and  a4:"iInv1~=iInv2  "

  shows  "invHoldForRule' s (inv17  iInv1  iInv2 ) (NI_Local_GetX_Nak3  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 "?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

	                }
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_Local_GetX_PutX1VsInv17:
    (*Rule1VsPInv2*)
  assumes   a1:"iRule1 \<le> N" and  a2:"iInv1 \<le> N" and  a3:"iInv2 \<le> N" and  a4:"iInv1~=iInv2  "

  shows  "invHoldForRule' s (inv17  iInv1  iInv2 ) (NI_Local_GetX_PutX1 N  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 "?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

	                }
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_Local_GetX_PutX2VsInv17:
    (*Rule1VsPInv2*)
  assumes   a1:"iRule1 \<le> N" and  a2:"iInv1 \<le> N" and  a3:"iInv2 \<le> N" and  a4:"iInv1~=iInv2  "

  shows  "invHoldForRule' s (inv17  iInv1  iInv2 ) (NI_Local_GetX_PutX2 N  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 "?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

	                }
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_Local_GetX_PutX3VsInv17:
    (*Rule1VsPInv2*)
  assumes   a1:"iRule1 \<le> N" and  a2:"iInv1 \<le> N" and  a3:"iInv2 \<le> N" and  a4:"iInv1~=iInv2  "

  shows  "invHoldForRule' s (inv17  iInv1  iInv2 ) (NI_Local_GetX_PutX3 N  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 "?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

	                }
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_Local_GetX_PutX4VsInv17:
    (*Rule1VsPInv2*)
  assumes   a1:"iRule1 \<le> N" and  a2:"iInv1 \<le> N" and  a3:"iInv2 \<le> N" and  a4:"iInv1~=iInv2  "

  shows  "invHoldForRule' s (inv17  iInv1  iInv2 ) (NI_Local_GetX_PutX4 N  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 "?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

	                }
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_Local_GetX_PutX5VsInv17:
    (*Rule1VsPInv2*)
  assumes   a1:"iRule1 \<le> N" and  a2:"iInv1 \<le> N" and  a3:"iInv2 \<le> N" and  a4:"iInv1~=iInv2  "

  shows  "invHoldForRule' s (inv17  iInv1  iInv2 ) (NI_Local_GetX_PutX5 N  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 "?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

	                }
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_Local_GetX_PutX6VsInv17:
    (*Rule1VsPInv2*)
  assumes   a1:"iRule1 \<le> N" and  a2:"iInv1 \<le> N" and  a3:"iInv2 \<le> N" and  a4:"iInv1~=iInv2  "

  shows  "invHoldForRule' s (inv17  iInv1  iInv2 ) (NI_Local_GetX_PutX6 N  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 "?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

	                }
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_Local_GetX_PutX7VsInv17:
    (*Rule1VsPInv2*)
  assumes   a1:"iRule1 \<le> N" and  a2:"iInv1 \<le> N" and  a3:"iInv2 \<le> N" and  a4:"iInv1~=iInv2  "

  shows  "invHoldForRule' s (inv17  iInv1  iInv2 ) (NI_Local_GetX_PutX7 N  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 "?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

	                }
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_Local_GetX_PutX8VsInv17:
    (*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 (inv17  iInv1  iInv2 ) (NI_Local_GetX_PutX8 N  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 "?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)"

                  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 \<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 "?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=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 \<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_Local_GetX_PutX8_homeVsInv17:
    (*Rule1VsPInv2*)
  assumes   a1:"iRule1 \<le> N" and  a2:"iInv1 \<le> N" and  a3:"iInv2 \<le> N" and  a4:"iInv1~=iInv2  "

  shows  "invHoldForRule' s (inv17  iInv1  iInv2 ) (NI_Local_GetX_PutX8_home N  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 "?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

	                }
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_Local_GetX_PutX9VsInv17:
    (*Rule1VsPInv2*)
  assumes   a1:"iRule1 \<le> N" and  a2:"iInv1 \<le> N" and  a3:"iInv2 \<le> N" and  a4:"iInv1~=iInv2  "

  shows  "invHoldForRule' s (inv17  iInv1  iInv2 ) (NI_Local_GetX_PutX9 N  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 "?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

	                }
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_Local_GetX_PutX10VsInv17:
    (*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 (inv17  iInv1  iInv2 ) (NI_Local_GetX_PutX10 N  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 "?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)"

                  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 \<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 "?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=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 \<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_Local_GetX_PutX10_homeVsInv17:
    (*Rule1VsPInv2*)
  assumes   a1:"iRule1 \<le> N" and  a2:"iInv1 \<le> N" and  a3:"iInv2 \<le> N" and  a4:"iInv1~=iInv2  "

  shows  "invHoldForRule' s (inv17  iInv1  iInv2 ) (NI_Local_GetX_PutX10_home N  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 "?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

	                }
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_Local_GetX_PutX11VsInv17:
    (*Rule1VsPInv2*)
  assumes   a1:"iRule1 \<le> N" and  a2:"iInv1 \<le> N" and  a3:"iInv2 \<le> N" and  a4:"iInv1~=iInv2  "

  shows  "invHoldForRule' s (inv17  iInv1  iInv2 ) (NI_Local_GetX_PutX11 N  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 "?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

	                }
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_Local_Get_GetVsInv17:
    (*Rule1VsPInv2*)
  assumes   a1:"iRule1 \<le> N" and  a2:"iInv1 \<le> N" and  a3:"iInv2 \<le> N" and  a4:"iInv1~=iInv2  "

  shows  "invHoldForRule' s (inv17  iInv1  iInv2 ) (NI_Local_Get_Get  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 ''UniMsg_Cmd'' iInv1) )  ( Const UNI_GetX ))    ( eqn ( IVar ( Para ''UniMsg_Cmd'' iInv1) )  ( Const UNI_Get ))  ) ) " in exI,auto)

        done

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

        by blast

	                }
moreover
                {assume b1:"(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

	                }
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_Local_Get_Nak1VsInv17:
    (*Rule1VsPInv2*)
  assumes   a1:"iRule1 \<le> N" and  a2:"iInv1 \<le> N" and  a3:"iInv2 \<le> N" and  a4:"iInv1~=iInv2  "

  shows  "invHoldForRule' s (inv17  iInv1  iInv2 ) (NI_Local_Get_Nak1  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 "?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

	                }
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_Local_Get_Nak2VsInv17:
    (*Rule1VsPInv2*)
  assumes   a1:"iRule1 \<le> N" and  a2:"iInv1 \<le> N" and  a3:"iInv2 \<le> N" and  a4:"iInv1~=iInv2  "

  shows  "invHoldForRule' s (inv17  iInv1  iInv2 ) (NI_Local_Get_Nak2  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 "?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

	                }
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_Local_Get_Nak3VsInv17:
    (*Rule1VsPInv2*)
  assumes   a1:"iRule1 \<le> N" and  a2:"iInv1 \<le> N" and  a3:"iInv2 \<le> N" and  a4:"iInv1~=iInv2  "

  shows  "invHoldForRule' s (inv17  iInv1  iInv2 ) (NI_Local_Get_Nak3  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 "?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

	                }
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_Local_Get_Put1VsInv17:
    (*Rule1VsPInv2*)
  assumes   a1:"iRule1 \<le> N" and  a2:"iInv1 \<le> N" and  a3:"iInv2 \<le> N" and  a4:"iInv1~=iInv2  "

  shows  "invHoldForRule' s (inv17  iInv1  iInv2 ) (NI_Local_Get_Put1 N  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 "?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

	                }
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_Local_Get_Put2VsInv17:
    (*Rule1VsPInv2*)
  assumes   a1:"iRule1 \<le> N" and  a2:"iInv1 \<le> N" and  a3:"iInv2 \<le> N" and  a4:"iInv1~=iInv2  "

  shows  "invHoldForRule' s (inv17  iInv1  iInv2 ) (NI_Local_Get_Put2  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 "?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

	                }
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_Local_Get_Put3VsInv17:
    (*Rule1VsPInv2*)
  assumes   a1:"iRule1 \<le> N" and  a2:"iInv1 \<le> N" and  a3:"iInv2 \<le> N" and  a4:"iInv1~=iInv2  "

  shows  "invHoldForRule' s (inv17  iInv1  iInv2 ) (NI_Local_Get_Put3  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 "?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

	                }
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_Local_PutVsInv17:
  (*Rule0VsPInv2*)
  assumes   a1:"iInv1 \<le> N" and  a2:"iInv2 \<le> N" and  a3:"iInv1~=iInv2  "

  shows  "invHoldForRule' s (inv17  iInv1  iInv2 ) (NI_Local_Put ) (invariants   N)" (is " ?P1 s\<or>?P2 s\<or>?P3 s")

  proof -
  fix s

      have "?P1 s"

        apply(cut_tac  a1  a2  a3 , auto)

        done

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

       by blast

 qed
lemma NI_Local_PutXAcksDoneVsInv17:
  (*Rule0VsPInv2*)
  assumes   a1:"iInv1 \<le> N" and  a2:"iInv2 \<le> N" and  a3:"iInv1~=iInv2  "

  shows  "invHoldForRule' s (inv17  iInv1  iInv2 ) (NI_Local_PutXAcksDone ) (invariants   N)" (is " ?P1 s\<or>?P2 s\<or>?P3 s")

  proof -
  fix s

      have "?P1 s"

        apply(cut_tac  a1  a2  a3 , auto)

        done

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

       by blast

 qed
lemma NI_NakVsInv17:
    (*Rule1VsPInv2*)
  assumes   a1:"iRule1 \<le> N" and  a2:"iInv1 \<le> N" and  a3:"iInv2 \<le> N" and  a4:"iInv1~=iInv2  "

  shows  "invHoldForRule' s (inv17  iInv1  iInv2 ) (NI_Nak  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 "?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

	                }
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_Nak_ClearVsInv17:
    (*Rule0VsPInv2*)
  assumes   a1:"iInv1 \<le> N" and  a2:"iInv2 \<le> N" and  a3:"iInv1~=iInv2  "

  shows  "invHoldForRule' s (inv17  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_HomeVsInv17:
  (*Rule0VsPInv2*)
  assumes   a1:"iInv1 \<le> N" and  a2:"iInv2 \<le> N" and  a3:"iInv1~=iInv2  "

  shows  "invHoldForRule' s (inv17  iInv1  iInv2 ) (NI_Nak_Home ) (invariants   N)" (is " ?P1 s\<or>?P2 s\<or>?P3 s")

  proof -
  fix s

      have "?P1 s"

        apply(cut_tac  a1  a2  a3 , auto)

        done

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

       by blast

 qed
lemma NI_Remote_GetX_NakVsInv17:
    (*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 (inv17  iInv1  iInv2 ) (NI_Remote_GetX_Nak  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 "?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)"

                  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 \<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 "?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=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 \<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_Nak_HomeVsInv17:
    (*Rule1VsPInv2*)
  assumes   a1:"iRule1 \<le> N" and  a2:"iInv1 \<le> N" and  a3:"iInv2 \<le> N" and  a4:"iInv1~=iInv2  "

  shows  "invHoldForRule' s (inv17  iInv1  iInv2 ) (NI_Remote_GetX_Nak_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 "?P1 s"

        apply(cut_tac  a1  a2  a3  a4  b1 , auto)

        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_PutXVsInv17:
    (*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 (inv17  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 "?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)"

                  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 \<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 "?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=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 \<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_HomeVsInv17:
    (*Rule1VsPInv2*)
  assumes   a1:"iRule1 \<le> N" and  a2:"iInv1 \<le> N" and  a3:"iInv2 \<le> N" and  a4:"iInv1~=iInv2  "

  shows  "invHoldForRule' s (inv17  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 "?P1 s"

        apply(cut_tac  a1  a2  a3  a4  b1 , auto)

        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_Nak1VsInv17:
    (*Rule1VsPInv2*)
  assumes   a1:"iRule1 \<le> N" and  a2:"iInv1 \<le> N" and  a3:"iInv2 \<le> N" and  a4:"iInv1~=iInv2  "

  shows  "invHoldForRule' s (inv17  iInv1  iInv2 ) (NI_Remote_Get_Nak1  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 "?P1 s"

        apply(cut_tac  a1  a2  a3  a4  b1 , auto)

        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_Nak2VsInv17:
    (*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 (inv17  iInv1  iInv2 ) (NI_Remote_Get_Nak2  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 "?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)"

                  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 \<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 "?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=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 \<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_Get_Put1VsInv17:
    (*Rule1VsPInv2*)
  assumes   a1:"iRule1 \<le> N" and  a2:"iInv1 \<le> N" and  a3:"iInv2 \<le> N" and  a4:"iInv1~=iInv2  "

  shows  "invHoldForRule' s (inv17  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 "?P3 s"

        apply(   cut_tac  a1  a2  a3  a4  b1 , simp)

        apply(rule_tac x=" (neg ( andForm ( andForm ( eqn ( IVar ( Para ''UniMsg_Cmd'' iInv1) )  ( Const UNI_GetX ))    ( eqn ( IVar ( Para ''UniMsg_Cmd'' Home) )  ( Const UNI_Get ))  )    ( eqn ( IVar ( Para ''UniMsg_proc'' iInv1) )   (Const iInv2))  ) ) " 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 ( andForm ( eqn ( IVar ( Para ''UniMsg_Cmd'' iInv1) )  ( Const UNI_GetX ))    ( eqn ( IVar ( Para ''UniMsg_Cmd'' Home) )  ( Const UNI_Get ))  )    ( eqn ( IVar ( Para ''UniMsg_proc'' iInv1) )   (Const iInv2))  ) ) " 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 "?P3 s"

        apply(   cut_tac  a1  a2  a3  a4  b1 , simp)

        apply(rule_tac x=" (neg ( andForm ( andForm ( eqn ( IVar ( Para ''UniMsg_Cmd'' iInv1) )  ( Const UNI_GetX ))    ( eqn ( IVar ( Para ''UniMsg_Cmd'' Home) )  ( Const UNI_Get ))  )    ( eqn ( IVar ( Para ''UniMsg_proc'' iInv1) )   (Const iInv2))  ) ) " in exI,auto)

        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_Put2VsInv17:
    (*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 (inv17  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 "?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)"

                  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 \<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 "?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=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 \<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_PutVsInv17:
    (*Rule1VsPInv2*)
  assumes   a1:"iRule1 \<le> N" and  a2:"iInv1 \<le> N" and  a3:"iInv2 \<le> N" and  a4:"iInv1~=iInv2  "

  shows  "invHoldForRule' s (inv17  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 "?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 "?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

	                }
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_PutXVsInv17:
    (*Rule1VsPInv2*)
  assumes   a1:"iRule1 \<le> N" and  a2:"iInv1 \<le> N" and  a3:"iInv2 \<le> N" and  a4:"iInv1~=iInv2  "

  shows  "invHoldForRule' s (inv17  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 "?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 "?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

	                }
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_ReplaceVsInv17:
    (*Rule1VsPInv2*)
  assumes   a1:"iRule1 \<le> N" and  a2:"iInv1 \<le> N" and  a3:"iInv2 \<le> N" and  a4:"iInv1~=iInv2  "

  shows  "invHoldForRule' s (inv17  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_ReplaceHomeVsInv17:
    (*Rule0VsPInv2*)
  assumes   a1:"iInv1 \<le> N" and  a2:"iInv2 \<le> N" and  a3:"iInv1~=iInv2  "

  shows  "invHoldForRule' s (inv17  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_ReplaceHomeShrVldVsInv17:
    (*Rule0VsPInv2*)
  assumes   a1:"iInv1 \<le> N" and  a2:"iInv2 \<le> N" and  a3:"iInv1~=iInv2  "

  shows  "invHoldForRule' s (inv17  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_ReplaceShrVldVsInv17:
    (*Rule1VsPInv2*)
  assumes   a1:"iRule1 \<le> N" and  a2:"iInv1 \<le> N" and  a3:"iInv2 \<le> N" and  a4:"iInv1~=iInv2  "

  shows  "invHoldForRule' s (inv17  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_ShWbVsInv17:
    (*Rule0VsPInv2*)
  assumes   a1:"iInv1 \<le> N" and  a2:"iInv2 \<le> N" and  a3:"iInv1~=iInv2  "

  shows  "invHoldForRule' s (inv17  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_WbVsInv17:
    (*Rule0VsPInv2*)
  assumes   a1:"iInv1 \<le> N" and  a2:"iInv2 \<le> N" and  a3:"iInv1~=iInv2  "

  shows  "invHoldForRule' s (inv17  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_GetX1VsInv17:
  (*Rule0VsPInv2*)
  assumes   a1:"iInv1 \<le> N" and  a2:"iInv2 \<le> N" and  a3:"iInv1~=iInv2  "

  shows  "invHoldForRule' s (inv17  iInv1  iInv2 ) (PI_Local_GetX_GetX1 ) (invariants   N)" (is " ?P1 s\<or>?P2 s\<or>?P3 s")

  proof -
  fix s

      have "?P1 s"

        apply(cut_tac  a1  a2  a3 , auto)

        done

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

       by blast

 qed
lemma PI_Local_GetX_GetX2VsInv17:
  (*Rule0VsPInv2*)
  assumes   a1:"iInv1 \<le> N" and  a2:"iInv2 \<le> N" and  a3:"iInv1~=iInv2  "

  shows  "invHoldForRule' s (inv17  iInv1  iInv2 ) (PI_Local_GetX_GetX2 ) (invariants   N)" (is " ?P1 s\<or>?P2 s\<or>?P3 s")

  proof -
  fix s

      have "?P1 s"

        apply(cut_tac  a1  a2  a3 , auto)

        done

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

       by blast

 qed
lemma PI_Local_GetX_PutX1VsInv17:
    (*Rule0VsPInv2*)
  assumes   a1:"iInv1 \<le> N" and  a2:"iInv2 \<le> N" and  a3:"iInv1~=iInv2  "

  shows  "invHoldForRule' s (inv17  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_PutX2VsInv17:
    (*Rule0VsPInv2*)
  assumes   a1:"iInv1 \<le> N" and  a2:"iInv2 \<le> N" and  a3:"iInv1~=iInv2  "

  shows  "invHoldForRule' s (inv17  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_PutX3VsInv17:
    (*Rule0VsPInv2*)
  assumes   a1:"iInv1 \<le> N" and  a2:"iInv2 \<le> N" and  a3:"iInv1~=iInv2  "

  shows  "invHoldForRule' s (inv17  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_PutX4VsInv17:
    (*Rule0VsPInv2*)
  assumes   a1:"iInv1 \<le> N" and  a2:"iInv2 \<le> N" and  a3:"iInv1~=iInv2  "

  shows  "invHoldForRule' s (inv17  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_GetVsInv17:
  (*Rule0VsPInv2*)
  assumes   a1:"iInv1 \<le> N" and  a2:"iInv2 \<le> N" and  a3:"iInv1~=iInv2  "

  shows  "invHoldForRule' s (inv17  iInv1  iInv2 ) (PI_Local_Get_Get ) (invariants   N)" (is " ?P1 s\<or>?P2 s\<or>?P3 s")

  proof -
  fix s

      have "?P1 s"

        apply(cut_tac  a1  a2  a3 , auto)

        done

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

       by blast

 qed
lemma PI_Local_Get_PutVsInv17:
    (*Rule0VsPInv2*)
  assumes   a1:"iInv1 \<le> N" and  a2:"iInv2 \<le> N" and  a3:"iInv1~=iInv2  "

  shows  "invHoldForRule' s (inv17  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_PutXVsInv17:
    (*Rule0VsPInv2*)
  assumes   a1:"iInv1 \<le> N" and  a2:"iInv2 \<le> N" and  a3:"iInv1~=iInv2  "

  shows  "invHoldForRule' s (inv17  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_ReplaceVsInv17:
    (*Rule0VsPInv2*)
  assumes   a1:"iInv1 \<le> N" and  a2:"iInv2 \<le> N" and  a3:"iInv1~=iInv2  "

  shows  "invHoldForRule' s (inv17  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_GetVsInv17:
    (*Rule1VsPInv2*)
  assumes   a1:"iRule1 \<le> N" and  a2:"iInv1 \<le> N" and  a3:"iInv2 \<le> N" and  a4:"iInv1~=iInv2  "

  shows  "invHoldForRule' s (inv17  iInv1  iInv2 ) (PI_Remote_Get  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 "?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

	                }
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_GetXVsInv17:
    (*Rule1VsPInv2*)
  assumes   a1:"iRule1 \<le> N" and  a2:"iInv1 \<le> N" and  a3:"iInv2 \<le> N" and  a4:"iInv1~=iInv2  "

  shows  "invHoldForRule' s (inv17  iInv1  iInv2 ) (PI_Remote_GetX  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 "?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

	                }
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_PutXVsInv17:
    (*Rule1VsPInv2*)
  assumes   a1:"iRule1 \<le> N" and  a2:"iInv1 \<le> N" and  a3:"iInv2 \<le> N" and  a4:"iInv1~=iInv2  "

  shows  "invHoldForRule' s (inv17  iInv1  iInv2 ) (PI_Remote_PutX  iRule1 ) (invariants   N)" (is " ?P1 s\<or>?P2 s\<or>?P3 s")

    by (cut_tac  a1  a2  a3  a4 , auto)
 lemma PI_Remote_ReplaceVsInv17:
    (*Rule1VsPInv2*)
  assumes   a1:"iRule1 \<le> N" and  a2:"iInv1 \<le> N" and  a3:"iInv2 \<le> N" and  a4:"iInv1~=iInv2  "

  shows  "invHoldForRule' s (inv17  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 StoreVsInv17:
    (*Rule1VsPInv2*)
  assumes   a1:"iRule1 \<le> N" and  a2:"iInv1 \<le> N" and  a3:"iInv2 \<le> N" and  a4:"iInv1~=iInv2  "

  shows  "invHoldForRule' s (inv17  iInv1  iInv2 ) (Store  iRule1 ) (invariants   N)" (is " ?P1 s\<or>?P2 s\<or>?P3 s")

    by (cut_tac  a1  a2  a3  a4 , auto)
 lemma StoreHomeVsInv17:
    (*Rule0VsPInv2*)
  assumes   a1:"iInv1 \<le> N" and  a2:"iInv2 \<le> N" and  a3:"iInv1~=iInv2  "

  shows  "invHoldForRule' s (inv17  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


theory SestoftCorrect
imports BalancedTraces "../Launchbury/Launchbury" Sestoft
begin

lemma lemma_2:
  assumes "\<Gamma> : e \<Down>\<^bsub>L\<^esub> \<Delta> : z"
  and     "fv (\<Gamma>, e, S) \<subseteq> set L \<union> domA \<Gamma>"
  shows "(\<Gamma>, e, S) \<Rightarrow>\<^sup>* (\<Delta>, z, S)"
using assms
proof(induction arbitrary: S  rule:reds.induct)
  case (Lambda \<Gamma> x e L)
  show ?case..
next
  case (Application y \<Gamma> e x L \<Delta> \<Theta> z e')
  from `fv (\<Gamma>, App e x, S) \<subseteq> set L \<union> domA \<Gamma>`
  have prem1: "fv (\<Gamma>, e, Arg x # S) \<subseteq> set L \<union> domA \<Gamma>" by simp

  from prem1 reds_pres_closed[OF `\<Gamma> : e \<Down>\<^bsub>L\<^esub> \<Delta> : Lam [y]. e'`] reds_doesnt_forget[OF `\<Gamma> : e \<Down>\<^bsub>L\<^esub> \<Delta> : Lam [y]. e'`]
  have prem2: "fv (\<Delta>, e'[y::=x], S) \<subseteq> set L \<union> domA \<Delta>" by (auto simp add: fv_subst_eq)

  have "(\<Gamma>, App e x, S) \<Rightarrow> (\<Gamma>, e, Arg x # S)"..
  also have "\<dots> \<Rightarrow>\<^sup>* (\<Delta>, Lam [y]. e', Arg x# S)" by (rule Application.IH(1)[OF prem1])
  also have "\<dots> \<Rightarrow> (\<Delta>, e'[y ::= x], S)"..
  also have "\<dots> \<Rightarrow>\<^sup>* (\<Theta>, z, S)" by (rule Application.IH(2)[OF prem2])
  finally show ?case.
next
case (Variable \<Gamma> x e L \<Delta> z S)
  from Variable(2)
  have "isVal z" by (rule result_evaluated)

  have "x \<notin> domA \<Delta>" by (rule reds_avoids_live[OF Variable(2), where x = x]) simp_all

  from `fv (\<Gamma>, Var x, S) \<subseteq> set L \<union> domA \<Gamma>`
  have prem: "fv (delete x \<Gamma>, e, Upd x # S) \<subseteq> set (x#L) \<union> domA (delete x \<Gamma>)"
    by (auto dest: set_mp[OF fv_delete_subset] set_mp[OF map_of_Some_fv_subset[OF `map_of \<Gamma> x = Some e`]])

  from `map_of \<Gamma> x = Some e`
  have "(\<Gamma>, Var x, S) \<Rightarrow> (delete x \<Gamma>, e, Upd x # S)"..
  also have "\<dots> \<Rightarrow>\<^sup>* (\<Delta>, z, Upd x # S)" by (rule Variable.IH[OF prem])
  also have "\<dots> \<Rightarrow> ((x,z)#\<Delta>, z, S)" using `x \<notin> domA \<Delta>` `isVal z` by (rule var\<^sub>2)
  finally show ?case.
next
case (Bool \<Gamma> b L S)
  show ?case..
next
case (IfThenElse \<Gamma> scrut L \<Delta> b e\<^sub>1 e\<^sub>2 \<Theta> z S)
  have "(\<Gamma>, scrut ? e\<^sub>1 : e\<^sub>2, S) \<Rightarrow> (\<Gamma>, scrut, Alts e\<^sub>1 e\<^sub>2 #S)"..
  also
  from IfThenElse.prems
  have prem1: "fv (\<Gamma>, scrut, Alts e\<^sub>1 e\<^sub>2 #S) \<subseteq> set L \<union> domA \<Gamma>" by auto
  hence "(\<Gamma>, scrut, Alts e\<^sub>1 e\<^sub>2 #S) \<Rightarrow>\<^sup>* (\<Delta>, Bool b, Alts e\<^sub>1 e\<^sub>2 #S)"
    by (rule IfThenElse.IH)
  also
  have "(\<Delta>, Bool b, Alts e\<^sub>1 e\<^sub>2 #S) \<Rightarrow> (\<Delta>, if b then e\<^sub>1 else e\<^sub>2, S)"..
  also
  from prem1 reds_pres_closed[OF IfThenElse(1)] reds_doesnt_forget[OF IfThenElse(1)]
  have prem2: "fv (\<Delta>, if b then e\<^sub>1 else e\<^sub>2, S) \<subseteq> set L \<union> domA \<Delta>"  by auto
  hence "(\<Delta>, if b then e\<^sub>1 else e\<^sub>2, S) \<Rightarrow>\<^sup>* (\<Theta>, z, S)" by (rule IfThenElse.IH(2))
  finally
  show ?case.
next
case (Let as \<Gamma> L body \<Delta> z S)
  from Let(4)
  have prem: "fv (as @ \<Gamma>, body, S) \<subseteq> set L \<union> domA (as @ \<Gamma>)" by auto

  from Let(1)
  have "atom ` domA as \<sharp>* \<Gamma>" by (auto simp add: fresh_star_Pair)
  moreover
  from Let(1)
  have "domA as \<inter> fv (\<Gamma>, L) = {}"
    by (rule fresh_distinct_fv)
  hence "domA as \<inter> (set L \<union> domA \<Gamma>) = {}"
    by (auto dest: set_mp[OF domA_fv_subset])
  with Let(4)
  have "domA as \<inter> fv S = {}"
    by auto
  hence "atom ` domA as \<sharp>* S"
    by (auto simp add: fresh_star_def fv_def fresh_def)
  ultimately
  have "(\<Gamma>, Terms.Let as body, S) \<Rightarrow> (as@\<Gamma>, body, S)"..
  also have "\<dots> \<Rightarrow>\<^sup>* (\<Delta>, z, S)"
    by (rule Let.IH[OF prem])
  finally show ?case.
qed

type_synonym trace = "conf list"

fun stack :: "conf \<Rightarrow> stack" where "stack (\<Gamma>, e, S) = S"

interpretation traces step.

abbreviation trace_syn ("_ \<Rightarrow>\<^sup>*\<^bsub>_\<^esub> _" [50,50,50] 50) where "trace_syn \<equiv> trace"

lemma conf_trace_induct_final[consumes 1, case_names trace_nil trace_cons]:
  "(\<Gamma>, e, S) \<Rightarrow>\<^sup>*\<^bsub>T\<^esub> final \<Longrightarrow> (\<And> \<Gamma> e S. final = (\<Gamma>, e, S) \<Longrightarrow> P \<Gamma> e S [] (\<Gamma>, e, S)) \<Longrightarrow> (\<And>\<Gamma> e S T \<Gamma>' e' S'. (\<Gamma>', e', S') \<Rightarrow>\<^sup>*\<^bsub>T\<^esub> final \<Longrightarrow> P \<Gamma>' e' S' T final \<Longrightarrow> (\<Gamma>, e, S) \<Rightarrow> (\<Gamma>', e', S') \<Longrightarrow> P \<Gamma> e S ((\<Gamma>', e', S') # T) final) \<Longrightarrow> P \<Gamma> e S T final"
  by (induction "(\<Gamma>, e, S)" T final arbitrary: \<Gamma> e S rule: trace_induct_final) auto

interpretation balance_trace step  stack
  apply standard
  apply (erule step.cases)
  apply auto
  done

abbreviation bal_syn ("_ \<Rightarrow>\<^sup>b\<^sup>*\<^bsub>_\<^esub> _" [50,50,50] 50) where "bal_syn \<equiv> bal"

lemma isVal_stops:
  assumes "isVal e"
  assumes "(\<Gamma>, e, S) \<Rightarrow>\<^sup>b\<^sup>*\<^bsub>T\<^esub> (\<Delta>, z, S)"
  shows "T=[]"
  using assms
  apply -
  apply (erule balE)
  apply (erule trace.cases)
  apply simp
  apply auto
  apply (auto elim!: step.cases)
  done

lemma Ball_subst[simp]:
  "(\<forall>p\<in>set (\<Gamma>[y::h=x]). f p) \<longleftrightarrow> (\<forall>p\<in>set \<Gamma>. case p of (z,e) \<Rightarrow> f (z, e[y::=x]))"
  by (induction \<Gamma>) auto

lemma lemma_3:
  assumes "(\<Gamma>, e, S) \<Rightarrow>\<^sup>b\<^sup>*\<^bsub>T\<^esub> (\<Delta>, z, S)"
  assumes "isVal z"
  shows "\<Gamma> : e \<Down>\<^bsub>upds_list S\<^esub> \<Delta> : z"
using assms
proof(induction T arbitrary: \<Gamma> e S \<Delta> z rule: measure_induct_rule[where f = length])
  case (less T \<Gamma> e S \<Delta> z)
  from `(\<Gamma>, e, S) \<Rightarrow>\<^sup>b\<^sup>*\<^bsub>T\<^esub> (\<Delta>, z, S)`
  have "(\<Gamma>, e, S) \<Rightarrow>\<^sup>*\<^bsub>T\<^esub> (\<Delta>, z, S)" and "\<forall> c'\<in>set T. S \<lesssim> stack c'" unfolding bal.simps by auto

  from this(1)
  show ?case
  proof(cases)
  case trace_nil
    from `isVal z`  trace_nil show ?thesis by (auto intro: reds_isValI)
  next
  case (trace_cons conf' T')
    from `T = conf' # T'` and `\<forall> c'\<in>set T. S \<lesssim> stack c'` have "S \<lesssim> stack conf'" by auto

    from `(\<Gamma>, e, S) \<Rightarrow> conf'`
    show ?thesis
    proof(cases)
    case (app\<^sub>1 e x)
      obtain T\<^sub>1 c\<^sub>3 c\<^sub>4 T\<^sub>2
      where "T' = T\<^sub>1 @ c\<^sub>4 # T\<^sub>2" and prem1: "(\<Gamma>, e, Arg x # S) \<Rightarrow>\<^sup>b\<^sup>*\<^bsub>T\<^sub>1\<^esub> c\<^sub>3" and "c\<^sub>3 \<Rightarrow> c\<^sub>4" and prem2: " c\<^sub>4 \<Rightarrow>\<^sup>b\<^sup>*\<^bsub>T\<^sub>2\<^esub> (\<Delta>, z, S)"
        by (rule bal_consE[OF  `bal _ T _`[unfolded app\<^sub>1 trace_cons]]) (simp, rule)

      from `T = _` `T' = _` have "length T\<^sub>1 < length T" and "length T\<^sub>2 < length T" by auto

      from prem1 have "stack c\<^sub>3 =  Arg x # S" by (auto dest:  bal_stackD)
      moreover
      from prem2 have "stack c\<^sub>4 = S" by (auto dest: bal_stackD)
      moreover
      note `c\<^sub>3 \<Rightarrow> c\<^sub>4`
      ultimately
      obtain \<Delta>' y e' where "c\<^sub>3 = (\<Delta>', Lam [y]. e', Arg x # S)" and "c\<^sub>4 = (\<Delta>', e'[y ::= x], S)"
        by (auto elim!: step.cases simp del: exp_assn.eq_iff)

      from less(1)[OF `length T\<^sub>1 < length T` prem1[unfolded `c\<^sub>3 = _` `c\<^sub>4 = _`]]
      have "\<Gamma> : e \<Down>\<^bsub>upds_list S\<^esub> \<Delta>' : Lam [y]. e'" by simp
      moreover
      from less(1)[OF `length T\<^sub>2 < length T` prem2[unfolded `c\<^sub>3 = _` `c\<^sub>4 = _`] `isVal z`]
      have "\<Delta>' : e'[y::=x] \<Down>\<^bsub>upds_list S\<^esub> \<Delta> : z" by simp
      ultimately
      show ?thesis unfolding app\<^sub>1
        by (rule reds_ApplicationI)
    next
    case (app\<^sub>2 y e x S')
      from `conf' =_` `S = _ # S'` `S \<lesssim> stack conf'`
      have False by (auto simp add: extends_def)
      thus ?thesis..
    next
    case (var\<^sub>1 x e)
      obtain T\<^sub>1 c\<^sub>3 c\<^sub>4 T\<^sub>2
      where "T' = T\<^sub>1 @ c\<^sub>4 # T\<^sub>2" and prem1: "(delete x \<Gamma>, e, Upd x # S) \<Rightarrow>\<^sup>b\<^sup>*\<^bsub>T\<^sub>1\<^esub> c\<^sub>3" and "c\<^sub>3 \<Rightarrow> c\<^sub>4" and prem2: "c\<^sub>4 \<Rightarrow>\<^sup>b\<^sup>*\<^bsub>T\<^sub>2\<^esub> (\<Delta>, z, S)"
        by (rule bal_consE[OF  `bal _ T _`[unfolded var\<^sub>1 trace_cons]]) (simp, rule)

      from `T = _` `T' = _` have "length T\<^sub>1 < length T" and "length T\<^sub>2 < length T" by auto

      from prem1 have "stack c\<^sub>3 = Upd x # S" by (auto dest:  bal_stackD)
      moreover
      from prem2 have "stack c\<^sub>4 = S" by (auto dest: bal_stackD)
      moreover
      note `c\<^sub>3 \<Rightarrow> c\<^sub>4`
      ultimately
      obtain \<Delta>' z' where "c\<^sub>3 = (\<Delta>', z', Upd x # S)" and "c\<^sub>4 = ((x,z')#\<Delta>', z', S)" and "isVal z'"
        by (auto elim!: step.cases simp del: exp_assn.eq_iff)

      from `isVal z'` and prem2[unfolded `c\<^sub>4 = _`]
      have "T\<^sub>2 = []" by (rule isVal_stops)
      with prem2 `c\<^sub>4 = _`
      have "z' = z" and "\<Delta> = (x,z)#\<Delta>'" by auto

      from less(1)[OF `length T\<^sub>1 < length T` prem1[unfolded `c\<^sub>3 = _` `c\<^sub>4 = _`  `z' = _`]  `isVal z`]
      have "delete x \<Gamma> : e \<Down>\<^bsub>x # upds_list S\<^esub> \<Delta>' : z" by simp
      with `map_of _ _ = _`
      show ?thesis unfolding var\<^sub>1(1) `\<Delta> = _` by rule
    next
    case (var\<^sub>2 x S')
      from `conf' = _` `S = _ # S'` `S \<lesssim> stack conf'`
      have False by (auto simp add: extends_def)
      thus ?thesis..
    next
    case (if\<^sub>1 scrut  e\<^sub>1 e\<^sub>2)
      obtain T\<^sub>1 c\<^sub>3 c\<^sub>4 T\<^sub>2
      where "T' = T\<^sub>1 @ c\<^sub>4 # T\<^sub>2" and prem1: "(\<Gamma>, scrut, Alts e\<^sub>1 e\<^sub>2 # S) \<Rightarrow>\<^sup>b\<^sup>*\<^bsub>T\<^sub>1\<^esub> c\<^sub>3" and "c\<^sub>3 \<Rightarrow> c\<^sub>4" and prem2: "c\<^sub>4 \<Rightarrow>\<^sup>b\<^sup>*\<^bsub>T\<^sub>2\<^esub> (\<Delta>, z, S)"
        by (rule bal_consE[OF  `bal _ T _`[unfolded if\<^sub>1 trace_cons]])  (simp, rule)

      from `T = _` `T' = _` have "length T\<^sub>1 < length T" and "length T\<^sub>2 < length T" by auto

      from prem1 have "stack c\<^sub>3 = Alts e\<^sub>1 e\<^sub>2 # S" by (auto dest:  bal_stackD)
      moreover
      from prem2 have "stack c\<^sub>4 = S" by (auto dest: bal_stackD)
      moreover
      note `c\<^sub>3 \<Rightarrow> c\<^sub>4`
      ultimately
      obtain \<Delta>' b where "c\<^sub>3 = (\<Delta>', Bool b, Alts e\<^sub>1 e\<^sub>2 # S)" and "c\<^sub>4 = (\<Delta>', (if b then e\<^sub>1 else e\<^sub>2), S)"
        by (auto elim!: step.cases simp del: exp_assn.eq_iff)

      from less(1)[OF `length T\<^sub>1 < length T` prem1[unfolded `c\<^sub>3 = _` `c\<^sub>4 = _` ] isVal_Bool]
      have "\<Gamma> : scrut \<Down>\<^bsub>upds_list S\<^esub> \<Delta>' : Bool b" by simp
      moreover
      from less(1)[OF `length T\<^sub>2 < length T` prem2[unfolded `c\<^sub>4 = _`] `isVal z`]
      have "\<Delta>' : (if b then e\<^sub>1 else e\<^sub>2) \<Down>\<^bsub>upds_list S\<^esub> \<Delta> : z".
      ultimately
      show ?thesis unfolding if\<^sub>1 by (rule reds.IfThenElse)
   next
    case (if\<^sub>2 b e1 e2 S')
      from `conf' = _` `S = _ # S'` `S \<lesssim> stack conf'`
      have False by (auto simp add: extends_def)
      thus ?thesis..
    next
    case (let\<^sub>1 as e)
      from `T = conf' # T'` have "length T' < length T" by auto
      moreover
      have "(as @ \<Gamma>, e, S) \<Rightarrow>\<^sup>b\<^sup>*\<^bsub>T'\<^esub> (\<Delta>, z, S)"
        using trace_cons `conf' = _`  `\<forall> c'\<in>set T. S \<lesssim> stack c'` by fastforce
      moreover
      note `isVal z`
      ultimately
      have "as @ \<Gamma> : e \<Down>\<^bsub>upds_list S\<^esub> \<Delta> : z" by (rule less)
      moreover
      from `atom \` domA as \<sharp>* \<Gamma>`  `atom \` domA as \<sharp>* S`
      have "atom ` domA as \<sharp>* (\<Gamma>, upds_list S)" by (auto simp add: fresh_star_Pair)
      ultimately
      show ?thesis unfolding let\<^sub>1  by (rule reds.Let[rotated])
    qed
  qed
qed

lemma dummy_stack_extended:
  "set S \<subseteq>  Dummy ` UNIV \<Longrightarrow> x \<notin> Dummy ` UNIV \<Longrightarrow> (S \<lesssim> x # S') \<longleftrightarrow>  S \<lesssim> S'"
  apply (auto simp add: extends_def)
  apply (case_tac S'')
  apply auto
  done

lemma dummy_stack_balanced:
  assumes "set S \<subseteq> Dummy ` UNIV"
  assumes "(\<Gamma>, e, S) \<Rightarrow>\<^sup>* (\<Delta>, z, S)"
  obtains T where "(\<Gamma>, e, S) \<Rightarrow>\<^sup>b\<^sup>*\<^bsub>T\<^esub> (\<Delta>, z, S)"
proof-
  from build_trace[OF assms(2)]
  obtain T where "(\<Gamma>, e, S) \<Rightarrow>\<^sup>*\<^bsub>T\<^esub> (\<Delta>, z, S)"..
  moreover
  hence "\<forall> c'\<in>set T. stack (\<Gamma>, e, S) \<lesssim> stack c'"
    by (rule conjunct1[OF traces_list_all])
       (auto elim: step.cases simp add: dummy_stack_extended[OF `set S \<subseteq> Dummy \` UNIV`])
  ultimately
  have "(\<Gamma>, e, S) \<Rightarrow>\<^sup>b\<^sup>*\<^bsub>T\<^esub> (\<Delta>, z, S)"
    by (rule balI) simp
  thus ?thesis by (rule that)
qed

end


(*  Title:      HOL/Auth/n_german_lemma_inv__29_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_german Protocol Case Study*}

theory n_german_lemma_inv__29_on_rules imports n_german_lemma_on_inv__29
begin
section{*All lemmas on causal relation between inv__29*}
lemma lemma_inv__29_on_rules:
  assumes b1: "r \<in> rules N" and b2: "(\<exists> p__Inv2. p__Inv2\<le>N\<and>f=inv__29  p__Inv2)"
  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_SendReqS  i)\<or>
    (\<exists> i. i\<le>N\<and>r=n_SendReqE__part__0  i)\<or>
    (\<exists> i. i\<le>N\<and>r=n_SendReqE__part__1  i)\<or>
    (\<exists> i. i\<le>N\<and>r=n_RecvReqS N i)\<or>
    (\<exists> i. i\<le>N\<and>r=n_RecvReqE 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__29) done
    }

    moreover {
      assume d1: "(\<exists> i. i\<le>N\<and>r=n_SendReqS  i)"
      have "invHoldForRule s f r (invariants N)"
      apply (cut_tac b2 d1, metis n_SendReqSVsinv__29) done
    }

    moreover {
      assume d1: "(\<exists> i. i\<le>N\<and>r=n_SendReqE__part__0  i)"
      have "invHoldForRule s f r (invariants N)"
      apply (cut_tac b2 d1, metis n_SendReqE__part__0Vsinv__29) done
    }

    moreover {
      assume d1: "(\<exists> i. i\<le>N\<and>r=n_SendReqE__part__1  i)"
      have "invHoldForRule s f r (invariants N)"
      apply (cut_tac b2 d1, metis n_SendReqE__part__1Vsinv__29) 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__29) done
    }

    moreover {
      assume d1: "(\<exists> i. i\<le>N\<and>r=n_RecvReqE N i)"
      have "invHoldForRule s f r (invariants N)"
      apply (cut_tac b2 d1, metis n_RecvReqEVsinv__29) 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__29) 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__29) 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__29) 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__29) 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__29) 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__29) 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__29) 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__29) done
    }

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

end