[Imprint][Data Privacy Statement][E-Mail]

View long theorem info. View the proof. Back to main index. View the specification. View theorem base summary, View theorem base listing, the used properties by spec, the dependency list, the symbol table,

Proof step 51 from proof unwind-BSRA-theorem (previous step)

validx(mkxview(view, eqrel)), xosc(mkxview(view, eqrel), trans, eqstate), xlrf(mkxview(view, eqrel), trans, eqstate), ∀ s. eqstate(s, s) ⊦ BSP_BSRA(mkxview(view, eqrel), trans)

User applied rule insert lemma

And obtained the following new goals

Proof step 1:
xlrf(mkxview(view, eqrel), trans, eqstate), xosc(mkxview(view, eqrel), trans, eqstate), ∀ ev1. view(ev1) = C → eqrel(ev1, ev1) ⊦ ∀ s1, s11, s2. ∀ tr. reachable(trans, s1) ∧ reachable(trans, s11) ∧ trans∃(trans, s1, tr, s2) ∧ eqstate(s1, s11) → (∃ tr0, s22. proj(tr0, VCview(view)) = proj(tr, VCview(view)) ∧ trans∃(trans, s11, tr0, s22) ∧ eqstate(s2, s22))

Rule argument

[x0lemmaarg: spec-name: instance-name: lemma-name: xlrf-property antecedent: xlrf(mkxview(view, eqrel), trans, eqstate), xosc(mkxview(view, eqrel), trans, eqstate), ∀ ev1. view(ev1) = C → eqrel(ev1, ev1) succedent: ∀ s1, s11, s2. ∀ tr. reachable(trans, s1) ∧ reachable(trans, s11) ∧ trans∃(trans, s1, tr, s2) ∧ eqstate(s1, s11) → (∃ tr0, s22. proj(tr0, VCview(view)) = proj(tr, VCview(view)) ∧ trans∃(trans, s11, tr0, s22) ∧ eqstate(s2, s22)) substlist: [view, eqrel, trans, eqstate] → [view, eqrel, trans, eqstate] add preconditions?: F is rewrite lemma?: F current spec?: T rotate lemma?: F replace all?: F paths: () dummy: () ]

Additional information

[[CONCRETESIMPRULES : ()], [EXTRATERMS : (view, eqrel, trans, eqstate)]]