[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 224 from proof kappa-RED1 (previous step)

〈if ap(S _ t4 _ t3 _ t1) ∧ ap((S _ t4 _ t3 _ t1) .1) ∧ ap((S _ t4 _ t3 _ t1) .1 .1) ∧ (S _ t4 _ t3 _ t1) .1 .1 .1 = S then let v1 = (S _ t4 _ t3 _ t1) .1 .1 .2, v2 = (S _ t4 _ t3 _ t1) .1 .2, v3 = (S _ t4 _ t3 _ t1) .2 in if value(v1) ∧ value(v2) ∧ value(v3) then tn0 := some(v1 _ v3 _ (v2 _ v3)) else tn0 := none else tn0 := none〉 tn0 = none, 〈RED1(S _ t4 _ t3; tn2)〉 tn2 = some(t0), ∀ n0, t, tn1, tn0. n0 < m + 1 → (〈RED1(t; tn3): n0 〉 tn3 = tn1 ∧ 〈RED1(t; tn3)〉 tn3 = tn0 ∧ tn0 ≠ tn1 → false), m ≠ 0, t0 _ t1 ≠ t4 _ t1 _ (t3 _ t1), value(t4), value(t3), value(t1) ⊦

Heuristic symbolic execution applied rule if positive left

And obtained the following new goals

Proof step 223:
〈let v1 = (S _ t4 _ t3 _ t1) .1 .1 .2, v2 = (S _ t4 _ t3 _ t1) .1 .2, v3 = (S _ t4 _ t3 _ t1) .2 in if value(v1) ∧ value(v2) ∧ value(v3) then tn0 := some(v1 _ v3 _ (v2 _ v3)) else tn0 := none〉 tn0 = none, 〈RED1(S _ t4 _ t3; tn2)〉 tn2 = some(t0), ∀ n0, t, tn1, tn0. n0 < m + 1 → (〈RED1(t; tn3): n0 〉 tn3 = tn1 ∧ 〈RED1(t; tn3)〉 tn3 = tn0 ∧ tn0 ≠ tn1 → false), m ≠ 0, t0 _ t1 ≠ t4 _ t1 _ (t3 _ t1), value(t4), value(t3), value(t1) ⊦

Rule argument

[fmapos-arg: pos: left 1]

Additional information

[[CONCRETESIMPRULES : ([CSIMPSEQ : ⊦ ap(t _ t0)], [CSIMPSEQ : ⊦ (t _ t0) .1 = t])]]