[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 23 from proof termination-RED1 (previous step)

∀ t0. #(t0) < #(t1 _ t2) → (¬ hasS(t0) → 〈RED1(t0; tn)〉 (tn ≠ none → ¬ hasS(tn) ∧ #(tn) < #(t0))), t1 .1 .1 = S, ap(t1), ap(t1 .1), ¬ hasS(t1), ¬ hasS(t2), ¬ (value(t1 .1 .2) ∧ value(t1 .2) ∧ value(t2)), ¬ (t1 .1 = K ∧ value(t1 .2) ∧ value(t2)) ⊦ 〈RED1(t1; tn)〉〈if tn ≠ none then tn := some(tn .t _ t2) else if value(t1) then { RED1(t2; tn) ; if tn ≠ none then tn := some(t1 _ tn .t) }〉 (tn ≠ none → ¬ hasS(tn) ∧ ¬ #(t1) + #(t2) < #(tn))

Heuristic elimination applied rule insert elim lemma

And obtained the following new goals

Proof step 22:
∀ t0. #(t0) < #(t1 _ t2) → (¬ hasS(t0) → 〈RED1(t0; tn)〉 (tn ≠ none → ¬ hasS(tn) ∧ #(tn) < #(t0))), t3 .1 = S, ap(t1), ap(t3), ¬ hasS(t1), ¬ hasS(t2), ¬ (value(t3 .2) ∧ value(t4) ∧ value(t2)), ¬ (t3 = K ∧ value(t4) ∧ value(t2)), t1 = t3 _ t4 ⊦ 〈RED1(t1; tn)〉〈if tn ≠ none then tn := some(tn .t _ t2) else if value(t1) then { RED1(t2; tn) ; if tn ≠ none then tn := some(t1 _ tn .t) }〉 (tn ≠ none → ¬ hasS(tn) ∧ ¬ #(t1) + #(t2) < #(tn))

Rule argument

[x0lemmaarg: spec-name: term instance-name: lemma-name: elim antecedent: succedent: ap(t) → (t0 = t .1 ∧ t1 = t .2 ↔ t = t0 _ t1) substlist: [t, t0, t1] → [t1, t, t3] add preconditions?: F is rewrite lemma?: F current spec?: F rotate lemma?: T replace all?: T paths: () dummy: () ]

Additional information

[[CONCRETESIMPRULES : ([CSIMPELIM : ⊦ ap(t) → ( t0 = t .1 ∧ t1 = t .2 ↔ t = t0 _ t1)])], [EXTRATERMS : (t1, t, t3)]]