(*  Title:      HOL/Auth/Guard/Analz.thy
    Author:     Frederic Blanqui, University of Cambridge Computer Laboratory
    Copyright   2001  University of Cambridge
*)

section\<open>Decomposition of Analz into two parts\<close>

theory Analz imports Extensions begin

text\<open>decomposition of @{term analz} into two parts:
      @{term pparts} (for pairs) and analz of @{term kparts}\<close>

subsection\<open>messages that do not contribute to analz\<close>

inductive_set
  pparts :: "msg set => msg set"
  for H :: "msg set"
where
  Inj [intro]: "[| X:H; is_MPair X |] ==> X:pparts H"
| Fst [dest]: "[| \<lbrace>X,Y\<rbrace>:pparts H; is_MPair X |] ==> X:pparts H"
| Snd [dest]: "[| \<lbrace>X,Y\<rbrace>:pparts H; is_MPair Y |] ==> Y:pparts H"

subsection\<open>basic facts about @{term pparts}\<close>

lemma pparts_is_MPair [dest]: "X:pparts H ==> is_MPair X"
by (erule pparts.induct, auto)

lemma Crypt_notin_pparts [iff]: "Crypt K X ~:pparts H"
by auto

lemma Key_notin_pparts [iff]: "Key K ~:pparts H"
by auto

lemma Nonce_notin_pparts [iff]: "Nonce n ~:pparts H"
by auto

lemma Number_notin_pparts [iff]: "Number n ~:pparts H"
by auto

lemma Agent_notin_pparts [iff]: "Agent A ~:pparts H"
by auto

lemma pparts_empty [iff]: "pparts {} = {}"
by (auto, erule pparts.induct, auto)

lemma pparts_insertI [intro]: "X:pparts H ==> X:pparts (insert Y H)"
by (erule pparts.induct, auto)

lemma pparts_sub: "[| X:pparts G; G<=H |] ==> X:pparts H"
by (erule pparts.induct, auto)

lemma pparts_insert2 [iff]: "pparts (insert X (insert Y H))
= pparts {X} Un pparts {Y} Un pparts H"
by (rule eq, (erule pparts.induct, auto)+)

lemma pparts_insert_MPair [iff]: "pparts (insert \<lbrace>X,Y\<rbrace> H)
= insert \<lbrace>X,Y\<rbrace> (pparts ({X,Y} \<union> H))"
apply (rule eq, (erule pparts.induct, auto)+)
apply (rule_tac Y=Y in pparts.Fst, auto)
apply (erule pparts.induct, auto)
by (rule_tac X=X in pparts.Snd, auto)

lemma pparts_insert_Nonce [iff]: "pparts (insert (Nonce n) H) = pparts H"
by (rule eq, erule pparts.induct, auto)

lemma pparts_insert_Crypt [iff]: "pparts (insert (Crypt K X) H) = pparts H"
by (rule eq, erule pparts.induct, auto)

lemma pparts_insert_Key [iff]: "pparts (insert (Key K) H) = pparts H"
by (rule eq, erule pparts.induct, auto)

lemma pparts_insert_Agent [iff]: "pparts (insert (Agent A) H) = pparts H"
by (rule eq, erule pparts.induct, auto)

lemma pparts_insert_Number [iff]: "pparts (insert (Number n) H) = pparts H"
by (rule eq, erule pparts.induct, auto)

lemma pparts_insert_Hash [iff]: "pparts (insert (Hash X) H) = pparts H"
by (rule eq, erule pparts.induct, auto)

lemma pparts_insert: "X:pparts (insert Y H) ==> X:pparts {Y} Un pparts H"
by (erule pparts.induct, blast+)

lemma insert_pparts: "X:pparts {Y} Un pparts H ==> X:pparts (insert Y H)"
by (safe, erule pparts.induct, auto)

lemma pparts_Un [iff]: "pparts (G Un H) = pparts G Un pparts H"
by (rule eq, erule pparts.induct, auto dest: pparts_sub)

lemma pparts_pparts [iff]: "pparts (pparts H) = pparts H"
by (rule eq, erule pparts.induct, auto)

lemma pparts_insert_eq: "pparts (insert X H) = pparts {X} Un pparts H"
by (rule_tac A=H in insert_Un, rule pparts_Un)

lemmas pparts_insert_substI = pparts_insert_eq [THEN ssubst]

lemma in_pparts: "Y:pparts H ==> EX X. X:H & Y:pparts {X}"
by (erule pparts.induct, auto)

subsection\<open>facts about @{term pparts} and @{term parts}\<close>

lemma pparts_no_Nonce [dest]: "[| X:pparts {Y}; Nonce n ~:parts {Y} |]
==> Nonce n ~:parts {X}"
by (erule pparts.induct, simp_all)

subsection\<open>facts about @{term pparts} and @{term analz}\<close>

lemma pparts_analz: "X:pparts H ==> X:analz H"
by (erule pparts.induct, auto)

lemma pparts_analz_sub: "[| X:pparts G; G<=H |] ==> X:analz H"
by (auto dest: pparts_sub pparts_analz)

subsection\<open>messages that contribute to analz\<close>

inductive_set
  kparts :: "msg set => msg set"
  for H :: "msg set"
where
  Inj [intro]: "[| X:H; not_MPair X |] ==> X:kparts H"
| Fst [intro]: "[| \<lbrace>X,Y\<rbrace> \<in> pparts H; not_MPair X |] ==> X:kparts H"
| Snd [intro]: "[| \<lbrace>X,Y\<rbrace> \<in> pparts H; not_MPair Y |] ==> Y:kparts H"

subsection\<open>basic facts about @{term kparts}\<close>

lemma kparts_not_MPair [dest]: "X:kparts H ==> not_MPair X"
by (erule kparts.induct, auto)

lemma kparts_empty [iff]: "kparts {} = {}"
by (rule eq, erule kparts.induct, auto)

lemma kparts_insertI [intro]: "X:kparts H ==> X:kparts (insert Y H)"
by (erule kparts.induct, auto dest: pparts_insertI)

lemma kparts_insert2 [iff]: "kparts (insert X (insert Y H))
= kparts {X} Un kparts {Y} Un kparts H"
by (rule eq, (erule kparts.induct, auto)+)

lemma kparts_insert_MPair [iff]: "kparts (insert \<lbrace>X,Y\<rbrace> H)
= kparts ({X,Y} \<union> H)"
by (rule eq, (erule kparts.induct, auto)+)

lemma kparts_insert_Nonce [iff]: "kparts (insert (Nonce n) H)
= insert (Nonce n) (kparts H)"
by (rule eq, erule kparts.induct, auto)

lemma kparts_insert_Crypt [iff]: "kparts (insert (Crypt K X) H)
= insert (Crypt K X) (kparts H)"
by (rule eq, erule kparts.induct, auto)

lemma kparts_insert_Key [iff]: "kparts (insert (Key K) H)
= insert (Key K) (kparts H)"
by (rule eq, erule kparts.induct, auto)

lemma kparts_insert_Agent [iff]: "kparts (insert (Agent A) H)
= insert (Agent A) (kparts H)"
by (rule eq, erule kparts.induct, auto)

lemma kparts_insert_Number [iff]: "kparts (insert (Number n) H)
= insert (Number n) (kparts H)"
by (rule eq, erule kparts.induct, auto)

lemma kparts_insert_Hash [iff]: "kparts (insert (Hash X) H)
= insert (Hash X) (kparts H)"
by (rule eq, erule kparts.induct, auto)

lemma kparts_insert: "X:kparts (insert X H) ==> X:kparts {X} Un kparts H"
by (erule kparts.induct, (blast dest: pparts_insert)+)

lemma kparts_insert_fst [rule_format,dest]: "X:kparts (insert Z H) ==>
X ~:kparts H --> X:kparts {Z}"
by (erule kparts.induct, (blast dest: pparts_insert)+)

lemma kparts_sub: "[| X:kparts G; G<=H |] ==> X:kparts H"
by (erule kparts.induct, auto dest: pparts_sub)

lemma kparts_Un [iff]: "kparts (G Un H) = kparts G Un kparts H"
by (rule eq, erule kparts.induct, auto dest: kparts_sub)

lemma pparts_kparts [iff]: "pparts (kparts H) = {}"
by (rule eq, erule pparts.induct, auto)

lemma kparts_kparts [iff]: "kparts (kparts H) = kparts H"
by (rule eq, erule kparts.induct, auto)

lemma kparts_insert_eq: "kparts (insert X H) = kparts {X} Un kparts H"
by (rule_tac A=H in insert_Un, rule kparts_Un)

lemmas kparts_insert_substI = kparts_insert_eq [THEN ssubst]

lemma in_kparts: "Y:kparts H ==> EX X. X:H & Y:kparts {X}"
by (erule kparts.induct, auto dest: in_pparts)

lemma kparts_has_no_pair [iff]: "has_no_pair (kparts H)"
by auto

subsection\<open>facts about @{term kparts} and @{term parts}\<close>

lemma kparts_no_Nonce [dest]: "[| X:kparts {Y}; Nonce n ~:parts {Y} |]
==> Nonce n ~:parts {X}"
by (erule kparts.induct, auto)

lemma kparts_parts: "X:kparts H ==> X:parts H"
by (erule kparts.induct, auto dest: pparts_analz)

lemma parts_kparts: "X:parts (kparts H) ==> X:parts H"
by (erule parts.induct, auto dest: kparts_parts
intro: parts.Fst parts.Snd parts.Body)

lemma Crypt_kparts_Nonce_parts [dest]: "[| Crypt K Y:kparts {Z};
Nonce n:parts {Y} |] ==> Nonce n:parts {Z}"
by auto

subsection\<open>facts about @{term kparts} and @{term analz}\<close>

lemma kparts_analz: "X:kparts H ==> X:analz H"
by (erule kparts.induct, auto dest: pparts_analz)

lemma kparts_analz_sub: "[| X:kparts G; G<=H |] ==> X:analz H"
by (erule kparts.induct, auto dest: pparts_analz_sub)

lemma analz_kparts [rule_format,dest]: "X:analz H ==>
Y:kparts {X} --> Y:analz H"
by (erule analz.induct, auto dest: kparts_analz_sub)

lemma analz_kparts_analz: "X:analz (kparts H) ==> X:analz H"
by (erule analz.induct, auto dest: kparts_analz)

lemma analz_kparts_insert: "X:analz (kparts (insert Z H)) ==> X:analz (kparts {Z} Un kparts H)"
by (rule analz_sub, auto)

lemma Nonce_kparts_synth [rule_format]: "Y:synth (analz G)
==> Nonce n:kparts {Y} --> Nonce n:analz G"
by (erule synth.induct, auto)

lemma kparts_insert_synth: "[| Y:parts (insert X G); X:synth (analz G);
Nonce n:kparts {Y}; Nonce n ~:analz G |] ==> Y:parts G"
apply (drule parts_insert_substD, clarify)
apply (drule in_sub, drule_tac X=Y in parts_sub, simp)
apply (auto dest: Nonce_kparts_synth)
done

lemma Crypt_insert_synth:
  "[| Crypt K Y:parts (insert X G); X:synth (analz G); Nonce n:kparts {Y}; Nonce n ~:analz G |]
   ==> Crypt K Y:parts G"
by (metis Fake_parts_insert_in_Un Nonce_kparts_synth UnE analz_conj_parts synth_simps(5))

subsection\<open>analz is pparts + analz of kparts\<close>

lemma analz_pparts_kparts: "X:analz H ==> X:pparts H | X:analz (kparts H)"
by (erule analz.induct, auto)

lemma analz_pparts_kparts_eq: "analz H = pparts H Un analz (kparts H)"
by (rule eq, auto dest: analz_pparts_kparts pparts_analz analz_kparts_analz)

lemmas analz_pparts_kparts_substI = analz_pparts_kparts_eq [THEN ssubst]
lemmas analz_pparts_kparts_substD = analz_pparts_kparts_eq [THEN sym, THEN ssubst]

end


theory flash87Rev imports flashPub
begin
section{*Main defintions*}
lemma NI_FAckVsInv87:
  (*Rule0VsPInv2*)
  assumes   a1:"iInv1 \<le> N" and  a2:"iInv2 \<le> N" and  a3:"iInv1~=iInv2  "

  shows  "invHoldForRule' s (inv87  iInv1  iInv2 ) (NI_FAck ) (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_InvVsInv87:
    (*Rule1VsPInv2*)
  assumes   a1:"iRule1 \<le> N" and  a2:"iInv1 \<le> N" and  a3:"iInv2 \<le> N" and  a4:"iInv1~=iInv2  "

  shows  "invHoldForRule' s (inv87  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_1VsInv87:
    (*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 (inv87  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_HomeVsInv87:
    (*Rule1VsPInv2*)
  assumes   a1:"iRule1 \<le> N" and  a2:"iInv1 \<le> N" and  a3:"iInv2 \<le> N" and  a4:"iInv1~=iInv2  "

  shows  "invHoldForRule' s (inv87  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_2VsInv87:
    (*Rule1VsPInv2*)
  assumes   a1:"iRule1 \<le> N" and  a2:"iInv1 \<le> N" and  a3:"iInv2 \<le> N" and  a4:"iInv1~=iInv2  "

  shows  "invHoldForRule' s (inv87  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_GetXVsInv87:
    (*Rule1VsPInv2*)
  assumes   a1:"iRule1 \<le> N" and  a2:"iInv1 \<le> N" and  a3:"iInv2 \<le> N" and  a4:"iInv1~=iInv2  "

  shows  "invHoldForRule' s (inv87  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 "?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=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_Local_GetX_Nak1VsInv87:
    (*Rule1VsPInv2*)
  assumes   a1:"iRule1 \<le> N" and  a2:"iInv1 \<le> N" and  a3:"iInv2 \<le> N" and  a4:"iInv1~=iInv2  "

  shows  "invHoldForRule' s (inv87  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 "?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=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_Local_GetX_Nak2VsInv87:
    (*Rule1VsPInv2*)
  assumes   a1:"iRule1 \<le> N" and  a2:"iInv1 \<le> N" and  a3:"iInv2 \<le> N" and  a4:"iInv1~=iInv2  "

  shows  "invHoldForRule' s (inv87  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 "?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=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_Local_GetX_Nak3VsInv87:
    (*Rule1VsPInv2*)
  assumes   a1:"iRule1 \<le> N" and  a2:"iInv1 \<le> N" and  a3:"iInv2 \<le> N" and  a4:"iInv1~=iInv2  "

  shows  "invHoldForRule' s (inv87  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 "?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=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_Local_GetX_PutX1VsInv87:
    (*Rule1VsPInv2*)
  assumes   a1:"iRule1 \<le> N" and  a2:"iInv1 \<le> N" and  a3:"iInv2 \<le> N" and  a4:"iInv1~=iInv2  "

  shows  "invHoldForRule' s (inv87  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 "?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=iInv2)"

      have "?P3 s"

        apply(   cut_tac  a1  a2  a3  a4  b1 , simp)

        apply(rule_tac x=" (neg ( andForm ( eqn ( IVar ( Global ''ShWbMsg_Cmd'') )  ( Const SHWB_FAck ))    ( 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~=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_PutX2VsInv87:
    (*Rule1VsPInv2*)
  assumes   a1:"iRule1 \<le> N" and  a2:"iInv1 \<le> N" and  a3:"iInv2 \<le> N" and  a4:"iInv1~=iInv2  "

  shows  "invHoldForRule' s (inv87  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 "?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=iInv2)"

      have "?P3 s"

        apply(   cut_tac  a1  a2  a3  a4  b1 , simp)

        apply(rule_tac x=" (neg ( andForm ( eqn ( IVar ( Global ''ShWbMsg_Cmd'') )  ( Const SHWB_FAck ))    ( 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~=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_PutX3VsInv87:
    (*Rule1VsPInv2*)
  assumes   a1:"iRule1 \<le> N" and  a2:"iInv1 \<le> N" and  a3:"iInv2 \<le> N" and  a4:"iInv1~=iInv2  "

  shows  "invHoldForRule' s (inv87  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 "?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=iInv2)"

      have "?P3 s"

        apply(   cut_tac  a1  a2  a3  a4  b1 , simp)

        apply(rule_tac x=" (neg ( andForm ( eqn ( IVar ( Global ''ShWbMsg_Cmd'') )  ( Const SHWB_FAck ))    ( 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~=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_PutX4VsInv87:
    (*Rule1VsPInv2*)
  assumes   a1:"iRule1 \<le> N" and  a2:"iInv1 \<le> N" and  a3:"iInv2 \<le> N" and  a4:"iInv1~=iInv2  "

  shows  "invHoldForRule' s (inv87  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 "?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=iInv2)"

      have "?P3 s"

        apply(   cut_tac  a1  a2  a3  a4  b1 , simp)

        apply(rule_tac x=" (neg ( andForm ( eqn ( IVar ( Global ''ShWbMsg_Cmd'') )  ( Const SHWB_FAck ))    ( 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~=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_PutX5VsInv87:
    (*Rule1VsPInv2*)
  assumes   a1:"iRule1 \<le> N" and  a2:"iInv1 \<le> N" and  a3:"iInv2 \<le> N" and  a4:"iInv1~=iInv2  "

  shows  "invHoldForRule' s (inv87  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 "?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=iInv2)"

      have "?P3 s"

        apply(   cut_tac  a1  a2  a3  a4  b1 , simp)

        apply(rule_tac x=" (neg ( andForm ( eqn ( IVar ( Global ''ShWbMsg_Cmd'') )  ( Const SHWB_FAck ))    ( 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~=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_PutX6VsInv87:
    (*Rule1VsPInv2*)
  assumes   a1:"iRule1 \<le> N" and  a2:"iInv1 \<le> N" and  a3:"iInv2 \<le> N" and  a4:"iInv1~=iInv2  "

  shows  "invHoldForRule' s (inv87  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 "?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=iInv2)"

      have "?P3 s"

        apply(   cut_tac  a1  a2  a3  a4  b1 , simp)

        apply(rule_tac x=" (neg ( andForm ( eqn ( IVar ( Global ''ShWbMsg_Cmd'') )  ( Const SHWB_FAck ))    ( 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~=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_PutX7VsInv87:
    (*Rule1VsPInv2*)
  assumes   a1:"iRule1 \<le> N" and  a2:"iInv1 \<le> N" and  a3:"iInv2 \<le> N" and  a4:"iInv1~=iInv2  "

  shows  "invHoldForRule' s (inv87  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 "?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=iInv2)"

      have "?P3 s"

        apply(   cut_tac  a1  a2  a3  a4  b1 , simp)

        apply(rule_tac x=" (neg ( andForm ( eqn ( IVar ( Global ''ShWbMsg_Cmd'') )  ( Const SHWB_FAck ))    ( 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~=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_PutX8VsInv87:
    (*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 (inv87  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 "?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>(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 "?P3 s"

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

        apply(rule_tac x=" (neg ( andForm ( eqn ( IVar ( Global ''ShWbMsg_Cmd'') )  ( Const SHWB_FAck ))    ( 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\<and>(iRule2~=iInv1 \<and>iRule2~=iInv2 ))"

      have "?P3 s"

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

        apply(rule_tac x=" (neg ( andForm ( eqn ( IVar ( Global ''ShWbMsg_Cmd'') )  ( Const SHWB_FAck ))    ( 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~=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_homeVsInv87:
    (*Rule1VsPInv2*)
  assumes   a1:"iRule1 \<le> N" and  a2:"iInv1 \<le> N" and  a3:"iInv2 \<le> N" and  a4:"iInv1~=iInv2  "

  shows  "invHoldForRule' s (inv87  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 "?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=iInv2)"

      have "?P3 s"

        apply(   cut_tac  a1  a2  a3  a4  b1 , simp)

        apply(rule_tac x=" (neg ( andForm ( eqn ( IVar ( Global ''ShWbMsg_Cmd'') )  ( Const SHWB_FAck ))    ( 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~=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_PutX9VsInv87:
    (*Rule1VsPInv2*)
  assumes   a1:"iRule1 \<le> N" and  a2:"iInv1 \<le> N" and  a3:"iInv2 \<le> N" and  a4:"iInv1~=iInv2  "

  shows  "invHoldForRule' s (inv87  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 "?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=iInv2)"

      have "?P3 s"

        apply(   cut_tac  a1  a2  a3  a4  b1 , simp)

        apply(rule_tac x=" (neg ( andForm ( eqn ( IVar ( Global ''ShWbMsg_Cmd'') )  ( Const SHWB_FAck ))    ( 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~=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_PutX10VsInv87:
    (*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 (inv87  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 "?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>(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 "?P3 s"

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

        apply(rule_tac x=" (neg ( andForm ( eqn ( IVar ( Global ''ShWbMsg_Cmd'') )  ( Const SHWB_FAck ))    ( 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\<and>(iRule2~=iInv1 \<and>iRule2~=iInv2 ))"

      have "?P3 s"

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

        apply(rule_tac x=" (neg ( andForm ( eqn ( IVar ( Global ''ShWbMsg_Cmd'') )  ( Const SHWB_FAck ))    ( 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~=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_homeVsInv87:
    (*Rule1VsPInv2*)
  assumes   a1:"iRule1 \<le> N" and  a2:"iInv1 \<le> N" and  a3:"iInv2 \<le> N" and  a4:"iInv1~=iInv2  "

  shows  "invHoldForRule' s (inv87  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 "?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=iInv2)"

      have "?P3 s"

        apply(   cut_tac  a1  a2  a3  a4  b1 , simp)

        apply(rule_tac x=" (neg ( andForm ( eqn ( IVar ( Global ''ShWbMsg_Cmd'') )  ( Const SHWB_FAck ))    ( 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~=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_PutX11VsInv87:
    (*Rule1VsPInv2*)
  assumes   a1:"iRule1 \<le> N" and  a2:"iInv1 \<le> N" and  a3:"iInv2 \<le> N" and  a4:"iInv1~=iInv2  "

  shows  "invHoldForRule' s (inv87  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 "?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=iInv2)"

      have "?P3 s"

        apply(   cut_tac  a1  a2  a3  a4  b1 , simp)

        apply(rule_tac x=" (neg ( andForm ( eqn ( IVar ( Global ''ShWbMsg_Cmd'') )  ( Const SHWB_FAck ))    ( 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~=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_GetVsInv87:
    (*Rule1VsPInv2*)
  assumes   a1:"iRule1 \<le> N" and  a2:"iInv1 \<le> N" and  a3:"iInv2 \<le> N" and  a4:"iInv1~=iInv2  "

  shows  "invHoldForRule' s (inv87  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_Nak1VsInv87:
    (*Rule1VsPInv2*)
  assumes   a1:"iRule1 \<le> N" and  a2:"iInv1 \<le> N" and  a3:"iInv2 \<le> N" and  a4:"iInv1~=iInv2  "

  shows  "invHoldForRule' s (inv87  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 "?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=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_Local_Get_Nak2VsInv87:
    (*Rule1VsPInv2*)
  assumes   a1:"iRule1 \<le> N" and  a2:"iInv1 \<le> N" and  a3:"iInv2 \<le> N" and  a4:"iInv1~=iInv2  "

  shows  "invHoldForRule' s (inv87  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 "?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=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_Local_Get_Nak3VsInv87:
    (*Rule1VsPInv2*)
  assumes   a1:"iRule1 \<le> N" and  a2:"iInv1 \<le> N" and  a3:"iInv2 \<le> N" and  a4:"iInv1~=iInv2  "

  shows  "invHoldForRule' s (inv87  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 "?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=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_Local_Get_Put1VsInv87:
    (*Rule1VsPInv2*)
  assumes   a1:"iRule1 \<le> N" and  a2:"iInv1 \<le> N" and  a3:"iInv2 \<le> N" and  a4:"iInv1~=iInv2  "

  shows  "invHoldForRule' s (inv87  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 "?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=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_Local_Get_Put2VsInv87:
    (*Rule1VsPInv2*)
  assumes   a1:"iRule1 \<le> N" and  a2:"iInv1 \<le> N" and  a3:"iInv2 \<le> N" and  a4:"iInv1~=iInv2  "

  shows  "invHoldForRule' s (inv87  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 "?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=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_Local_Get_Put3VsInv87:
    (*Rule1VsPInv2*)
  assumes   a1:"iRule1 \<le> N" and  a2:"iInv1 \<le> N" and  a3:"iInv2 \<le> N" and  a4:"iInv1~=iInv2  "

  shows  "invHoldForRule' s (inv87  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 "?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=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_Local_PutVsInv87:
    (*Rule0VsPInv2*)
  assumes   a1:"iInv1 \<le> N" and  a2:"iInv2 \<le> N" and  a3:"iInv1~=iInv2  "

  shows  "invHoldForRule' s (inv87  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_PutXAcksDoneVsInv87:
    (*Rule0VsPInv2*)
  assumes   a1:"iInv1 \<le> N" and  a2:"iInv2 \<le> N" and  a3:"iInv1~=iInv2  "

  shows  "invHoldForRule' s (inv87  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_NakVsInv87:
    (*Rule1VsPInv2*)
  assumes   a1:"iRule1 \<le> N" and  a2:"iInv1 \<le> N" and  a3:"iInv2 \<le> N" and  a4:"iInv1~=iInv2  "

  shows  "invHoldForRule' s (inv87  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 "?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=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_Nak_ClearVsInv87:
    (*Rule0VsPInv2*)
  assumes   a1:"iInv1 \<le> N" and  a2:"iInv2 \<le> N" and  a3:"iInv1~=iInv2  "

  shows  "invHoldForRule' s (inv87  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_HomeVsInv87:
    (*Rule0VsPInv2*)
  assumes   a1:"iInv1 \<le> N" and  a2:"iInv2 \<le> N" and  a3:"iInv1~=iInv2  "

  shows  "invHoldForRule' s (inv87  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_NakVsInv87:
    (*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 (inv87  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 "?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>(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 "?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)"

                  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_HomeVsInv87:
    (*Rule1VsPInv2*)
  assumes   a1:"iRule1 \<le> N" and  a2:"iInv1 \<le> N" and  a3:"iInv2 \<le> N" and  a4:"iInv1~=iInv2  "

  shows  "invHoldForRule' s (inv87  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_PutXVsInv87:
    (*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 (inv87  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 "?P3 s"

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

        apply(rule_tac x=" (neg ( andForm ( eqn ( IVar ( Para ''UniMsg_Cmd'' iInv2) )  ( Const UNI_PutX ))    ( eqn ( IVar ( Para ''CacheState'' iInv2) )  ( Const CACHE_E ))  ) ) " in exI,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 "?P3 s"

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

        apply(rule_tac x=" (neg ( andForm ( eqn ( IVar ( Para ''CacheState'' iRule2) )  ( 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=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 "?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)"

      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_HomeVsInv87:
    (*Rule1VsPInv2*)
  assumes   a1:"iRule1 \<le> N" and  a2:"iInv1 \<le> N" and  a3:"iInv2 \<le> N" and  a4:"iInv1~=iInv2  "

  shows  "invHoldForRule' s (inv87  iInv1  iInv2 ) (NI_Remote_GetX_PutX_Home  iRule1 ) (invariants   N)" (is " ?P1 s\<or>?P2 s\<or>?P3 s")

    by (cut_tac  a1  a2  a3  a4 , auto)
 lemma NI_Remote_Get_Nak1VsInv87:
    (*Rule1VsPInv2*)
  assumes   a1:"iRule1 \<le> N" and  a2:"iInv1 \<le> N" and  a3:"iInv2 \<le> N" and  a4:"iInv1~=iInv2  "

  shows  "invHoldForRule' s (inv87  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_Nak2VsInv87:
    (*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 (inv87  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 "?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>(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 "?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)"

                  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_Put1VsInv87:
    (*Rule1VsPInv2*)
  assumes   a1:"iRule1 \<le> N" and  a2:"iInv1 \<le> N" and  a3:"iInv2 \<le> N" and  a4:"iInv1~=iInv2  "

  shows  "invHoldForRule' s (inv87  iInv1  iInv2 ) (NI_Remote_Get_Put1  iRule1 ) (invariants   N)" (is " ?P1 s\<or>?P2 s\<or>?P3 s")

    by (cut_tac  a1  a2  a3  a4 , auto)
 lemma NI_Remote_Get_Put2VsInv87:
    (*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 (inv87  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 "?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 "?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)"

      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_PutVsInv87:
    (*Rule1VsPInv2*)
  assumes   a1:"iRule1 \<le> N" and  a2:"iInv1 \<le> N" and  a3:"iInv2 \<le> N" and  a4:"iInv1~=iInv2  "

  shows  "invHoldForRule' s (inv87  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 "?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=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_PutXVsInv87:
    (*Rule1VsPInv2*)
  assumes   a1:"iRule1 \<le> N" and  a2:"iInv1 \<le> N" and  a3:"iInv2 \<le> N" and  a4:"iInv1~=iInv2  "

  shows  "invHoldForRule' s (inv87  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 "?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=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_ReplaceVsInv87:
    (*Rule1VsPInv2*)
  assumes   a1:"iRule1 \<le> N" and  a2:"iInv1 \<le> N" and  a3:"iInv2 \<le> N" and  a4:"iInv1~=iInv2  "

  shows  "invHoldForRule' s (inv87  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_ReplaceHomeVsInv87:
    (*Rule0VsPInv2*)
  assumes   a1:"iInv1 \<le> N" and  a2:"iInv2 \<le> N" and  a3:"iInv1~=iInv2  "

  shows  "invHoldForRule' s (inv87  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_ReplaceHomeShrVldVsInv87:
    (*Rule0VsPInv2*)
  assumes   a1:"iInv1 \<le> N" and  a2:"iInv2 \<le> N" and  a3:"iInv1~=iInv2  "

  shows  "invHoldForRule' s (inv87  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_ReplaceShrVldVsInv87:
    (*Rule1VsPInv2*)
  assumes   a1:"iRule1 \<le> N" and  a2:"iInv1 \<le> N" and  a3:"iInv2 \<le> N" and  a4:"iInv1~=iInv2  "

  shows  "invHoldForRule' s (inv87  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_ShWbVsInv87:
  (*Rule0VsPInv2*)
  assumes   a1:"iInv1 \<le> N" and  a2:"iInv2 \<le> N" and  a3:"iInv1~=iInv2  "

  shows  "invHoldForRule' s (inv87  iInv1  iInv2 ) (NI_ShWb N ) (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_WbVsInv87:
    (*Rule0VsPInv2*)
  assumes   a1:"iInv1 \<le> N" and  a2:"iInv2 \<le> N" and  a3:"iInv1~=iInv2  "

  shows  "invHoldForRule' s (inv87  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_GetX1VsInv87:
    (*Rule0VsPInv2*)
  assumes   a1:"iInv1 \<le> N" and  a2:"iInv2 \<le> N" and  a3:"iInv1~=iInv2  "

  shows  "invHoldForRule' s (inv87  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_GetX2VsInv87:
    (*Rule0VsPInv2*)
  assumes   a1:"iInv1 \<le> N" and  a2:"iInv2 \<le> N" and  a3:"iInv1~=iInv2  "

  shows  "invHoldForRule' s (inv87  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_PutX1VsInv87:
    (*Rule0VsPInv2*)
  assumes   a1:"iInv1 \<le> N" and  a2:"iInv2 \<le> N" and  a3:"iInv1~=iInv2  "

  shows  "invHoldForRule' s (inv87  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_PutX2VsInv87:
    (*Rule0VsPInv2*)
  assumes   a1:"iInv1 \<le> N" and  a2:"iInv2 \<le> N" and  a3:"iInv1~=iInv2  "

  shows  "invHoldForRule' s (inv87  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_PutX3VsInv87:
    (*Rule0VsPInv2*)
  assumes   a1:"iInv1 \<le> N" and  a2:"iInv2 \<le> N" and  a3:"iInv1~=iInv2  "

  shows  "invHoldForRule' s (inv87  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_PutX4VsInv87:
    (*Rule0VsPInv2*)
  assumes   a1:"iInv1 \<le> N" and  a2:"iInv2 \<le> N" and  a3:"iInv1~=iInv2  "

  shows  "invHoldForRule' s (inv87  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_GetVsInv87:
    (*Rule0VsPInv2*)
  assumes   a1:"iInv1 \<le> N" and  a2:"iInv2 \<le> N" and  a3:"iInv1~=iInv2  "

  shows  "invHoldForRule' s (inv87  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_PutVsInv87:
    (*Rule0VsPInv2*)
  assumes   a1:"iInv1 \<le> N" and  a2:"iInv2 \<le> N" and  a3:"iInv1~=iInv2  "

  shows  "invHoldForRule' s (inv87  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_PutXVsInv87:
    (*Rule0VsPInv2*)
  assumes   a1:"iInv1 \<le> N" and  a2:"iInv2 \<le> N" and  a3:"iInv1~=iInv2  "

  shows  "invHoldForRule' s (inv87  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_ReplaceVsInv87:
    (*Rule0VsPInv2*)
  assumes   a1:"iInv1 \<le> N" and  a2:"iInv2 \<le> N" and  a3:"iInv1~=iInv2  "

  shows  "invHoldForRule' s (inv87  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_GetVsInv87:
    (*Rule1VsPInv2*)
  assumes   a1:"iRule1 \<le> N" and  a2:"iInv1 \<le> N" and  a3:"iInv2 \<le> N" and  a4:"iInv1~=iInv2  "

  shows  "invHoldForRule' s (inv87  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 "?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=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_GetXVsInv87:
    (*Rule1VsPInv2*)
  assumes   a1:"iRule1 \<le> N" and  a2:"iInv1 \<le> N" and  a3:"iInv2 \<le> N" and  a4:"iInv1~=iInv2  "

  shows  "invHoldForRule' s (inv87  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 "?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=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_PutXVsInv87:
    (*Rule1VsPInv2*)
  assumes   a1:"iRule1 \<le> N" and  a2:"iInv1 \<le> N" and  a3:"iInv2 \<le> N" and  a4:"iInv1~=iInv2  "

  shows  "invHoldForRule' s (inv87  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_ReplaceVsInv87:
    (*Rule1VsPInv2*)
  assumes   a1:"iRule1 \<le> N" and  a2:"iInv1 \<le> N" and  a3:"iInv2 \<le> N" and  a4:"iInv1~=iInv2  "

  shows  "invHoldForRule' s (inv87  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 StoreVsInv87:
    (*Rule1VsPInv2*)
  assumes   a1:"iRule1 \<le> N" and  a2:"iInv1 \<le> N" and  a3:"iInv2 \<le> N" and  a4:"iInv1~=iInv2  "

  shows  "invHoldForRule' s (inv87  iInv1  iInv2 ) (Store  iRule1 ) (invariants   N)" (is " ?P1 s\<or>?P2 s\<or>?P3 s")

    by (cut_tac  a1  a2  a3  a4 , auto)
 lemma StoreHomeVsInv87:
    (*Rule0VsPInv2*)
  assumes   a1:"iInv1 \<le> N" and  a2:"iInv2 \<le> N" and  a3:"iInv1~=iInv2  "

  shows  "invHoldForRule' s (inv87  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


section\<open>An Observationally Equivalent Model\<close>
text\<open>This theory defines a second formalisation of the drinks machine example which produces
identical output to the first model. This property is called \emph{observational equivalence} and is
discussed in more detail in \cite{foster2018}.\<close>
theory Drinks_Machine_2
  imports Drinks_Machine
begin

(* Only imports Drinks_Machine_LTL so I can easily open all three at once for testing *)

definition vend_nothing :: "transition" where
"vend_nothing \<equiv> \<lparr>
        Label = (STR ''vend''),
        Arity = 0,
        Guards = [],
        Outputs =  [],
        Updates = [(1, V (R 1)), (2, V (R 2))]
      \<rparr>"

lemmas transitions = Drinks_Machine.transitions vend_nothing_def

definition drinks2 :: transition_matrix where
"drinks2 = {|
              ((0,1), select),
              ((1,1), vend_nothing),
              ((1,2), coin),
              ((2,2), coin),
              ((2,2), vend_fail),
              ((2,3), vend)
         |}"

lemma possible_steps_0:
  "length i = 1 \<Longrightarrow>
   possible_steps drinks2 0 r ((STR ''select'')) i = {|(1, select)|}"
  apply (simp add: possible_steps_def drinks2_def transitions)
  by force

lemma possible_steps_1:
  "length i = 1 \<Longrightarrow>
   possible_steps drinks2 1 r ((STR ''coin'')) i = {|(2, coin)|}"
  apply (simp add: possible_steps_def drinks2_def transitions)
  by force

lemma possible_steps_2_coin:
  "length i = 1 \<Longrightarrow>
   possible_steps drinks2 2 r ((STR ''coin'')) i = {|(2, coin)|}"
  apply (simp add: possible_steps_def drinks2_def transitions)
  by force

lemma possible_steps_2_vend:
  "r $ 2 = Some (Num n) \<Longrightarrow>
   n \<ge> 100 \<Longrightarrow>
   possible_steps drinks2 2 r ((STR ''vend'')) [] = {|(3, vend)|}"
  apply (simp add: possible_steps_singleton drinks2_def)
  apply safe
  by (simp_all add: transitions apply_guards_def value_gt_def join_ir_def connectives)

lemma recognises_first_select:
  "recognises_execution drinks 0 r ((aa, b) # as) \<Longrightarrow> aa = STR ''select'' \<and> length b = 1"
  using recognises_must_be_possible_step[of drinks 0 r "(aa, b)" as]
  apply simp
  apply clarify
  by (metis first_step_select recognises_possible_steps_not_empty drinks_0_rejects fst_conv snd_conv)

lemma drinks2_vend_insufficient:
  "possible_steps drinks2 1 r ((STR ''vend'')) [] = {|(1, vend_nothing)|}"
  apply (simp add: possible_steps_def drinks2_def transitions)
  by force

lemma drinks2_vend_insufficient2:
  "r $ 2 = Some (Num x1) \<Longrightarrow>
   x1 < 100 \<Longrightarrow>
   possible_steps drinks2 2 r ((STR ''vend'')) [] = {|(2, vend_fail)|}"
  apply (simp add: possible_steps_singleton drinks2_def)
  apply safe
  by (simp_all add: transitions apply_guards_def value_gt_def join_ir_def connectives)

lemma drinks2_vend_sufficient: "r $ 2 = Some (Num x1) \<Longrightarrow>
                \<not> x1 < 100 \<Longrightarrow>
                possible_steps drinks2 2 r ((STR ''vend'')) [] = {|(3, vend)|}"
  apply (simp add: possible_steps_singleton drinks2_def)
  apply safe
  by (simp_all add: transitions apply_guards_def value_gt_def join_ir_def connectives)

lemma recognises_1_2: "recognises_execution drinks 1 r t \<longrightarrow> recognises_execution drinks2 2 r t"
proof(induct t arbitrary: r)
  case Nil
  then show ?case
    by (simp add: recognises_execution.base)
next
  case (Cons a as)
  then show ?case
    apply (cases a)
    apply (simp add: recognises_step_equiv)
    apply (case_tac "a=(STR ''vend'', [])")
     apply (case_tac "\<exists>n. r$2 = Some (Num n)")
      apply clarify
      apply (case_tac "n < 100")
       apply (simp add: drinks_vend_insufficient drinks2_vend_insufficient2)
      apply (simp add: drinks_vend_sufficient drinks2_vend_sufficient)
      apply (metis recognises_prim recognises_prim.elims(3) drinks_rejects_future)
    using drinks_vend_invalid apply blast
    apply (case_tac "\<exists>i. a=(STR ''coin'', [i])")
     apply clarify
     apply (simp add: possible_steps_1_coin possible_steps_2_coin)
    by (metis recognises_execution.simps drinks_1_rejects_trace fBexE old.prod.exhaust)
qed

lemma drinks_reject_0_2:
  "\<nexists>i. a = (STR ''select'', [i]) \<Longrightarrow>
   possible_steps drinks 0 r (fst a) (snd a) = {||}"
  apply (rule drinks_0_rejects)
  by (cases a, case_tac "snd a", auto)

lemma drinks2_0_invalid:
  "\<not> (aa = (STR ''select'') \<and> length (b) = 1) \<Longrightarrow>
    (possible_steps drinks2 0 <> aa b) = {||}"
  apply (simp add: drinks2_def possible_steps_def transitions)
  by force

lemma drinks2_vend_r2_none:
  "r $ 2 = None \<Longrightarrow> possible_steps drinks2 2 r ((STR ''vend'')) [] = {||}"
  apply (simp add: possible_steps_empty drinks2_def can_take_transition_def can_take_def transitions)
  by (simp add: value_gt_def)

lemma drinks2_vend_r2_String: "r $ 2 = Some (value.Str x2) \<Longrightarrow>
                possible_steps drinks2 2 r ((STR ''vend'')) [] = {||}"
  apply (simp add: possible_steps_empty drinks2_def)
  apply safe
  by (simp_all add: transitions can_take_transition_def can_take_def value_gt_def)

lemma drinks2_2_invalid:
  "fst a = (STR ''coin'') \<longrightarrow> length (snd a) \<noteq> 1 \<Longrightarrow>
          a \<noteq> ((STR ''vend''), []) \<Longrightarrow>
          possible_steps drinks2 2 r (fst a) (snd a) = {||}"
  apply (simp add: possible_steps_empty drinks2_def transitions can_take_transition_def can_take_def)
  by (metis prod.collapse)

lemma drinks2_1_invalid:
  "\<not>(a = (STR ''coin'') \<and> length b = 1) \<Longrightarrow>
      \<not>(a = (STR ''vend'') \<and> b = []) \<Longrightarrow>
    possible_steps drinks2 1 r a b = {||}"
  apply (simp add: possible_steps_empty drinks2_def)
  apply safe
  by (simp_all add: transitions can_take_transition_def can_take_def value_gt_def)

lemma drinks2_vend_invalid:
  "\<nexists>n. r $ 2 = Some (Num n) \<Longrightarrow>
   possible_steps drinks2 2 r (STR ''vend'') [] = {||}"
  apply (simp add: possible_steps_empty drinks2_def)
  apply safe
  by (simp_all add: transitions can_take_transition_def can_take_def value_gt_def MaybeBoolInt_not_num_1)

lemma equiv_1_2: "executionally_equivalent drinks 1 r drinks2 2 r x"
proof(induct x arbitrary: r)
  case Nil
  then show ?case
    by simp
next
  case (Cons a t)
  then show ?case
    apply (cases a, clarsimp)
    apply (simp add: executionally_equivalent_step)
    apply (case_tac "fst a = STR ''coin'' \<and> length (snd a) = 1")
     apply (simp add: Drinks_Machine.possible_steps_1_coin possible_steps_2_coin)
    apply (case_tac "a = (STR ''vend'', [])")
      defer using drinks2_2_invalid drinks_no_possible_steps_1 apply auto[1]
    apply (case_tac "\<exists>n. r $ 2 = Some (Num n)")
     defer using drinks_vend_invalid drinks2_vend_invalid apply simp
    apply clarify
    apply (case_tac "n < 100")
     apply (simp add: Drinks_Machine.drinks_vend_insufficient drinks2_vend_insufficient2)
    apply (simp add: Drinks_Machine.drinks_vend_sufficient drinks2_vend_sufficient)
    apply (induct t)
     apply simp
    apply (case_tac aa, clarsimp)
    by (simp add: executionally_equivalent_step drinks_end drinks2_end)
qed

lemma equiv_1_1: "r$2 = Some (Num 0) \<Longrightarrow> executionally_equivalent drinks 1 r drinks2 1 r x"
proof(induct x)
  case Nil
  then show ?case
    by simp
next
  case (Cons a t)
  then show ?case
    apply (cases a, clarsimp)
    apply (simp add: executionally_equivalent_step)
    apply (case_tac "aa = STR ''coin'' \<and> length b = 1")
     apply (simp add: possible_steps_1_coin possible_steps_1 equiv_1_2)
    apply (case_tac "a = (STR ''vend'', [])")
     apply clarsimp
     apply (simp add: drinks_vend_insufficient drinks2_vend_insufficient)
     apply (simp add: vend_fail_def vend_nothing_def apply_updates_def)
     apply (metis finfun_upd_triv)
    by (simp add: drinks2_1_invalid drinks_no_possible_steps_1)
qed

(* Corresponds to Example 3 in Foster et. al. *)
lemma executional_equivalence: "executionally_equivalent drinks 0 <> drinks2 0 <> t"
proof(induct t)
  case Nil
  then show ?case
    by simp
next
  case (Cons a t)
  then show ?case
    apply (cases a, clarify)
    apply (simp add: executionally_equivalent_step)
    apply (case_tac "aa = STR ''select'' \<and> length b = 1")
     apply (simp add: Drinks_Machine.possible_steps_0 possible_steps_0)
     apply (simp add: apply_updates_def select_def equiv_1_1)
    by (simp add: drinks2_0_invalid possible_steps_0_invalid)
qed

lemma observational_equivalence: "trace_equivalent drinks drinks2"
  by (simp add: executional_equivalence executionally_equivalent_trace_equivalent)

end


(*  Title:      ZF/Constructible/MetaExists.thy
    Author:     Lawrence C Paulson, Cambridge University Computer Laboratory
*)

section{*The meta-existential quantifier*}

theory MetaExists imports Main begin

text{*Allows quantification over any term having sort @{text logic}.  Used to
quantify over classes.  Yields a proposition rather than a FOL formula.*}

definition
  ex :: "(('a::{}) => prop) => prop"  (binder "?? " 0) where
  "ex(P) == (!!Q. (!!x. PROP P(x) ==> PROP Q) ==> PROP Q)"

notation (xsymbols)
  ex  (binder "\<Or>" 0)

lemma meta_exI: "PROP P(x) ==> (?? x. PROP P(x))"
proof (unfold ex_def)
  assume P: "PROP P(x)"
  fix Q
  assume PQ: "\<And>x. PROP P(x) \<Longrightarrow> PROP Q"
  from P show "PROP Q" by (rule PQ)
qed

lemma meta_exE: "[| ?? x. PROP P(x);  !!x. PROP P(x) ==> PROP R |] ==> PROP R"
proof (unfold ex_def)
  assume QPQ: "\<And>Q. (\<And>x. PROP P(x) \<Longrightarrow> PROP Q) \<Longrightarrow> PROP Q"
  assume PR: "\<And>x. PROP P(x) \<Longrightarrow> PROP R"
  from PR show "PROP R" by (rule QPQ)
qed

end