diff --git a/src/HOL/HOL.thy b/src/HOL/HOL.thy
--- a/src/HOL/HOL.thy
+++ b/src/HOL/HOL.thy
@@ -1,2141 +1,2144 @@
 (*  Title:      HOL/HOL.thy
     Author:     Tobias Nipkow, Markus Wenzel, and Larry Paulson
 *)
 
 section \<open>The basis of Higher-Order Logic\<close>
 
 theory HOL
 imports Pure Tools.Code_Generator
 keywords
   "try" "solve_direct" "quickcheck" "print_coercions" "print_claset"
     "print_induct_rules" :: diag and
   "quickcheck_params" :: thy_decl
 abbrevs "?<" = "\<exists>\<^sub>\<le>\<^sub>1"
 begin
 
 ML_file \<open>~~/src/Tools/misc_legacy.ML\<close>
 ML_file \<open>~~/src/Tools/try.ML\<close>
 ML_file \<open>~~/src/Tools/quickcheck.ML\<close>
 ML_file \<open>~~/src/Tools/solve_direct.ML\<close>
 ML_file \<open>~~/src/Tools/IsaPlanner/zipper.ML\<close>
 ML_file \<open>~~/src/Tools/IsaPlanner/isand.ML\<close>
 ML_file \<open>~~/src/Tools/IsaPlanner/rw_inst.ML\<close>
 ML_file \<open>~~/src/Provers/hypsubst.ML\<close>
 ML_file \<open>~~/src/Provers/splitter.ML\<close>
 ML_file \<open>~~/src/Provers/classical.ML\<close>
 ML_file \<open>~~/src/Provers/blast.ML\<close>
 ML_file \<open>~~/src/Provers/clasimp.ML\<close>
 ML_file \<open>~~/src/Tools/eqsubst.ML\<close>
 ML_file \<open>~~/src/Provers/quantifier1.ML\<close>
 ML_file \<open>~~/src/Tools/atomize_elim.ML\<close>
 ML_file \<open>~~/src/Tools/cong_tac.ML\<close>
 ML_file \<open>~~/src/Tools/intuitionistic.ML\<close> setup \<open>Intuitionistic.method_setup \<^binding>\<open>iprover\<close>\<close>
 ML_file \<open>~~/src/Tools/project_rule.ML\<close>
 ML_file \<open>~~/src/Tools/subtyping.ML\<close>
 ML_file \<open>~~/src/Tools/case_product.ML\<close>
 
 
 ML \<open>Plugin_Name.declare_setup \<^binding>\<open>extraction\<close>\<close>
 
 ML \<open>
   Plugin_Name.declare_setup \<^binding>\<open>quickcheck_random\<close>;
   Plugin_Name.declare_setup \<^binding>\<open>quickcheck_exhaustive\<close>;
   Plugin_Name.declare_setup \<^binding>\<open>quickcheck_bounded_forall\<close>;
   Plugin_Name.declare_setup \<^binding>\<open>quickcheck_full_exhaustive\<close>;
   Plugin_Name.declare_setup \<^binding>\<open>quickcheck_narrowing\<close>;
 \<close>
 ML \<open>
   Plugin_Name.define_setup \<^binding>\<open>quickcheck\<close>
    [\<^plugin>\<open>quickcheck_exhaustive\<close>,
     \<^plugin>\<open>quickcheck_random\<close>,
     \<^plugin>\<open>quickcheck_bounded_forall\<close>,
     \<^plugin>\<open>quickcheck_full_exhaustive\<close>,
     \<^plugin>\<open>quickcheck_narrowing\<close>]
 \<close>
 
 
 subsection \<open>Primitive logic\<close>
 
 text \<open>
 The definition of the logic is based on Mike Gordon's technical report @{cite "Gordon-TR68"} that
 describes the first implementation of HOL. However, there are a number of differences.
 In particular, we start with the definite description operator and introduce Hilbert's \<open>\<epsilon>\<close> operator
 only much later. Moreover, axiom \<open>(P \<longrightarrow> Q) \<longrightarrow> (Q \<longrightarrow> P) \<longrightarrow> (P = Q)\<close> is derived from the other
 axioms. The fact that this axiom is derivable was first noticed by Bruno Barras (for Mike Gordon's
 line of HOL systems) and later independently by Alexander Maletzky (for Isabelle/HOL).
 \<close>
 
 subsubsection \<open>Core syntax\<close>
 
 setup \<open>Axclass.class_axiomatization (\<^binding>\<open>type\<close>, [])\<close>
 default_sort type
 setup \<open>Object_Logic.add_base_sort \<^sort>\<open>type\<close>\<close>
 
 setup \<open>Proofterm.set_preproc (Proof_Rewrite_Rules.standard_preproc [])\<close>
 
 axiomatization where fun_arity: "OFCLASS('a \<Rightarrow> 'b, type_class)"
 instance "fun" :: (type, type) type by (rule fun_arity)
 
 axiomatization where itself_arity: "OFCLASS('a itself, type_class)"
 instance itself :: (type) type by (rule itself_arity)
 
 typedecl bool
 
 judgment Trueprop :: "bool \<Rightarrow> prop"  ("(_)" 5)
 
 axiomatization implies :: "[bool, bool] \<Rightarrow> bool"  (infixr "\<longrightarrow>" 25)
   and eq :: "['a, 'a] \<Rightarrow> bool"
   and The :: "('a \<Rightarrow> bool) \<Rightarrow> 'a"
 
 notation (input)
   eq  (infixl "=" 50)
 notation (output)
   eq  (infix "=" 50)
 
 text \<open>The input syntax for \<open>eq\<close> is more permissive than the output syntax
 because of the large amount of material that relies on infixl.\<close>
 
 subsubsection \<open>Defined connectives and quantifiers\<close>
 
 definition True :: bool
   where "True \<equiv> ((\<lambda>x::bool. x) = (\<lambda>x. x))"
 
 definition All :: "('a \<Rightarrow> bool) \<Rightarrow> bool"  (binder "\<forall>" 10)
   where "All P \<equiv> (P = (\<lambda>x. True))"
 
 definition Ex :: "('a \<Rightarrow> bool) \<Rightarrow> bool"  (binder "\<exists>" 10)
   where "Ex P \<equiv> \<forall>Q. (\<forall>x. P x \<longrightarrow> Q) \<longrightarrow> Q"
 
 definition False :: bool
   where "False \<equiv> (\<forall>P. P)"
 
 definition Not :: "bool \<Rightarrow> bool"  ("\<not> _" [40] 40)
   where not_def: "\<not> P \<equiv> P \<longrightarrow> False"
 
 definition conj :: "[bool, bool] \<Rightarrow> bool"  (infixr "\<and>" 35)
   where and_def: "P \<and> Q \<equiv> \<forall>R. (P \<longrightarrow> Q \<longrightarrow> R) \<longrightarrow> R"
 
 definition disj :: "[bool, bool] \<Rightarrow> bool"  (infixr "\<or>" 30)
   where or_def: "P \<or> Q \<equiv> \<forall>R. (P \<longrightarrow> R) \<longrightarrow> (Q \<longrightarrow> R) \<longrightarrow> R"
 
 definition Uniq :: "('a \<Rightarrow> bool) \<Rightarrow> bool"
   where "Uniq P \<equiv> (\<forall>x y. P x \<longrightarrow> P y \<longrightarrow> y = x)"
 
 definition Ex1 :: "('a \<Rightarrow> bool) \<Rightarrow> bool"
   where "Ex1 P \<equiv> \<exists>x. P x \<and> (\<forall>y. P y \<longrightarrow> y = x)"
 
 
 subsubsection \<open>Additional concrete syntax\<close>
 
 syntax (ASCII) "_Uniq" :: "pttrn \<Rightarrow> bool \<Rightarrow> bool"  ("(4?< _./ _)" [0, 10] 10)
 syntax "_Uniq" :: "pttrn \<Rightarrow> bool \<Rightarrow> bool"  ("(2\<exists>\<^sub>\<le>\<^sub>1 _./ _)" [0, 10] 10)
 translations "\<exists>\<^sub>\<le>\<^sub>1x. P" \<rightleftharpoons> "CONST Uniq (\<lambda>x. P)"
 
 print_translation \<open>
  [Syntax_Trans.preserve_binder_abs_tr' \<^const_syntax>\<open>Uniq\<close> \<^syntax_const>\<open>_Uniq\<close>]
 \<close> \<comment> \<open>to avoid eta-contraction of body\<close>
 
 
 syntax (ASCII)
   "_Ex1" :: "pttrn \<Rightarrow> bool \<Rightarrow> bool"  ("(3EX! _./ _)" [0, 10] 10)
 syntax (input)
   "_Ex1" :: "pttrn \<Rightarrow> bool \<Rightarrow> bool"  ("(3?! _./ _)" [0, 10] 10)
 syntax "_Ex1" :: "pttrn \<Rightarrow> bool \<Rightarrow> bool"  ("(3\<exists>!_./ _)" [0, 10] 10)
 translations "\<exists>!x. P" \<rightleftharpoons> "CONST Ex1 (\<lambda>x. P)"
 
 print_translation \<open>
  [Syntax_Trans.preserve_binder_abs_tr' \<^const_syntax>\<open>Ex1\<close> \<^syntax_const>\<open>_Ex1\<close>]
 \<close> \<comment> \<open>to avoid eta-contraction of body\<close>
 
 
 syntax
   "_Not_Ex" :: "idts \<Rightarrow> bool \<Rightarrow> bool"  ("(3\<nexists>_./ _)" [0, 10] 10)
   "_Not_Ex1" :: "pttrn \<Rightarrow> bool \<Rightarrow> bool"  ("(3\<nexists>!_./ _)" [0, 10] 10)
 translations
   "\<nexists>x. P" \<rightleftharpoons> "\<not> (\<exists>x. P)"
   "\<nexists>!x. P" \<rightleftharpoons> "\<not> (\<exists>!x. P)"
 
 
 abbreviation not_equal :: "['a, 'a] \<Rightarrow> bool"  (infix "\<noteq>" 50)
   where "x \<noteq> y \<equiv> \<not> (x = y)"
 
 notation (ASCII)
   Not  ("~ _" [40] 40) and
   conj  (infixr "&" 35) and
   disj  (infixr "|" 30) and
   implies  (infixr "-->" 25) and
   not_equal  (infix "~=" 50)
 
 abbreviation (iff)
   iff :: "[bool, bool] \<Rightarrow> bool"  (infixr "\<longleftrightarrow>" 25)
   where "A \<longleftrightarrow> B \<equiv> A = B"
 
 syntax "_The" :: "[pttrn, bool] \<Rightarrow> 'a"  ("(3THE _./ _)" [0, 10] 10)
 translations "THE x. P" \<rightleftharpoons> "CONST The (\<lambda>x. P)"
 print_translation \<open>
   [(\<^const_syntax>\<open>The\<close>, fn _ => fn [Abs abs] =>
       let val (x, t) = Syntax_Trans.atomic_abs_tr' abs
       in Syntax.const \<^syntax_const>\<open>_The\<close> $ x $ t end)]
 \<close>  \<comment> \<open>To avoid eta-contraction of body\<close>
 
 nonterminal letbinds and letbind
 syntax
   "_bind"       :: "[pttrn, 'a] \<Rightarrow> letbind"              ("(2_ =/ _)" 10)
   ""            :: "letbind \<Rightarrow> letbinds"                 ("_")
   "_binds"      :: "[letbind, letbinds] \<Rightarrow> letbinds"     ("_;/ _")
   "_Let"        :: "[letbinds, 'a] \<Rightarrow> 'a"                ("(let (_)/ in (_))" [0, 10] 10)
 
 nonterminal case_syn and cases_syn
 syntax
   "_case_syntax" :: "['a, cases_syn] \<Rightarrow> 'b"  ("(case _ of/ _)" 10)
   "_case1" :: "['a, 'b] \<Rightarrow> case_syn"  ("(2_ \<Rightarrow>/ _)" 10)
   "" :: "case_syn \<Rightarrow> cases_syn"  ("_")
   "_case2" :: "[case_syn, cases_syn] \<Rightarrow> cases_syn"  ("_/ | _")
 syntax (ASCII)
   "_case1" :: "['a, 'b] \<Rightarrow> case_syn"  ("(2_ =>/ _)" 10)
 
 notation (ASCII)
   All  (binder "ALL " 10) and
   Ex  (binder "EX " 10)
 
 notation (input)
   All  (binder "! " 10) and
   Ex  (binder "? " 10)
 
 
 subsubsection \<open>Axioms and basic definitions\<close>
 
 axiomatization where
   refl: "t = (t::'a)" and
   subst: "s = t \<Longrightarrow> P s \<Longrightarrow> P t" and
   ext: "(\<And>x::'a. (f x ::'b) = g x) \<Longrightarrow> (\<lambda>x. f x) = (\<lambda>x. g x)"
     \<comment> \<open>Extensionality is built into the meta-logic, and this rule expresses
          a related property.  It is an eta-expanded version of the traditional
          rule, and similar to the ABS rule of HOL\<close> and
 
   the_eq_trivial: "(THE x. x = a) = (a::'a)"
 
 axiomatization where
   impI: "(P \<Longrightarrow> Q) \<Longrightarrow> P \<longrightarrow> Q" and
   mp: "\<lbrakk>P \<longrightarrow> Q; P\<rbrakk> \<Longrightarrow> Q" and
 
   True_or_False: "(P = True) \<or> (P = False)"
 
 definition If :: "bool \<Rightarrow> 'a \<Rightarrow> 'a \<Rightarrow> 'a" ("(if (_)/ then (_)/ else (_))" [0, 0, 10] 10)
   where "If P x y \<equiv> (THE z::'a. (P = True \<longrightarrow> z = x) \<and> (P = False \<longrightarrow> z = y))"
 
 definition Let :: "'a \<Rightarrow> ('a \<Rightarrow> 'b) \<Rightarrow> 'b"
   where "Let s f \<equiv> f s"
 
 translations
   "_Let (_binds b bs) e"  \<rightleftharpoons> "_Let b (_Let bs e)"
   "let x = a in e"        \<rightleftharpoons> "CONST Let a (\<lambda>x. e)"
 
 axiomatization undefined :: 'a
 
 class default = fixes default :: 'a
 
 
 subsection \<open>Fundamental rules\<close>
 
 subsubsection \<open>Equality\<close>
 
 lemma sym: "s = t \<Longrightarrow> t = s"
   by (erule subst) (rule refl)
 
 lemma ssubst: "t = s \<Longrightarrow> P s \<Longrightarrow> P t"
   by (drule sym) (erule subst)
 
 lemma trans: "\<lbrakk>r = s; s = t\<rbrakk> \<Longrightarrow> r = t"
   by (erule subst)
 
 lemma trans_sym [Pure.elim?]: "r = s \<Longrightarrow> t = s \<Longrightarrow> r = t"
   by (rule trans [OF _ sym])
 
 lemma meta_eq_to_obj_eq:
   assumes "A \<equiv> B"
   shows "A = B"
   unfolding assms by (rule refl)
 
 text \<open>Useful with \<open>erule\<close> for proving equalities from known equalities.\<close>
      (* a = b
         |   |
         c = d   *)
 lemma box_equals: "\<lbrakk>a = b; a = c; b = d\<rbrakk> \<Longrightarrow> c = d"
   by (iprover intro: sym trans)
 
 text \<open>For calculational reasoning:\<close>
 
 lemma forw_subst: "a = b \<Longrightarrow> P b \<Longrightarrow> P a"
   by (rule ssubst)
 
 lemma back_subst: "P a \<Longrightarrow> a = b \<Longrightarrow> P b"
   by (rule subst)
 
 
 subsubsection \<open>Congruence rules for application\<close>
 
 text \<open>Similar to \<open>AP_THM\<close> in Gordon's HOL.\<close>
 lemma fun_cong: "(f :: 'a \<Rightarrow> 'b) = g \<Longrightarrow> f x = g x"
   by (iprover intro: refl elim: subst)
 
 text \<open>Similar to \<open>AP_TERM\<close> in Gordon's HOL and FOL's \<open>subst_context\<close>.\<close>
 lemma arg_cong: "x = y \<Longrightarrow> f x = f y"
   by (iprover intro: refl elim: subst)
 
 lemma arg_cong2: "\<lbrakk>a = b; c = d\<rbrakk> \<Longrightarrow> f a c = f b d"
   by (iprover intro: refl elim: subst)
 
 lemma cong: "\<lbrakk>f = g; (x::'a) = y\<rbrakk> \<Longrightarrow> f x = g y"
   by (iprover intro: refl elim: subst)
 
 ML \<open>fun cong_tac ctxt = Cong_Tac.cong_tac ctxt @{thm cong}\<close>
 
 
 subsubsection \<open>Equality of booleans -- iff\<close>
 
 lemma iffD2: "\<lbrakk>P = Q; Q\<rbrakk> \<Longrightarrow> P"
   by (erule ssubst)
 
 lemma rev_iffD2: "\<lbrakk>Q; P = Q\<rbrakk> \<Longrightarrow> P"
   by (erule iffD2)
 
 lemma iffD1: "Q = P \<Longrightarrow> Q \<Longrightarrow> P"
   by (drule sym) (rule iffD2)
 
 lemma rev_iffD1: "Q \<Longrightarrow> Q = P \<Longrightarrow> P"
   by (drule sym) (rule rev_iffD2)
 
 lemma iffE:
   assumes major: "P = Q"
     and minor: "\<lbrakk>P \<longrightarrow> Q; Q \<longrightarrow> P\<rbrakk> \<Longrightarrow> R"
   shows R
   by (iprover intro: minor impI major [THEN iffD2] major [THEN iffD1])
 
 
 subsubsection \<open>True (1)\<close>
 
 lemma TrueI: True
   unfolding True_def by (rule refl)
 
 lemma eqTrueE: "P = True \<Longrightarrow> P"
   by (erule iffD2) (rule TrueI)
 
 
 subsubsection \<open>Universal quantifier (1)\<close>
 
 lemma spec: "\<forall>x::'a. P x \<Longrightarrow> P x"
   unfolding All_def by (iprover intro: eqTrueE fun_cong)
 
 lemma allE:
   assumes major: "\<forall>x. P x" and minor: "P x \<Longrightarrow> R"
   shows R
   by (iprover intro: minor major [THEN spec])
 
 lemma all_dupE:
   assumes major: "\<forall>x. P x" and minor: "\<lbrakk>P x; \<forall>x. P x\<rbrakk> \<Longrightarrow> R"
   shows R
   by (iprover intro: minor major major [THEN spec])
 
 
 subsubsection \<open>False\<close>
 
 text \<open>
   Depends upon \<open>spec\<close>; it is impossible to do propositional
   logic before quantifiers!
 \<close>
 
 lemma FalseE: "False \<Longrightarrow> P"
   unfolding False_def by (erule spec)
 
 lemma False_neq_True: "False = True \<Longrightarrow> P"
   by (erule eqTrueE [THEN FalseE])
 
 
 subsubsection \<open>Negation\<close>
 
 lemma notI:
   assumes "P \<Longrightarrow> False"
   shows "\<not> P"
   unfolding not_def by (iprover intro: impI assms)
 
 lemma False_not_True: "False \<noteq> True"
   by (iprover intro: notI elim: False_neq_True)
 
 lemma True_not_False: "True \<noteq> False"
   by (iprover intro: notI dest: sym elim: False_neq_True)
 
 lemma notE: "\<lbrakk>\<not> P; P\<rbrakk> \<Longrightarrow> R"
   unfolding not_def
   by (iprover intro: mp [THEN FalseE])
 
 
 subsubsection \<open>Implication\<close>
 
 lemma impE:
   assumes "P \<longrightarrow> Q" P "Q \<Longrightarrow> R"
   shows R
   by (iprover intro: assms mp)
 
 text \<open>Reduces \<open>Q\<close> to \<open>P \<longrightarrow> Q\<close>, allowing substitution in \<open>P\<close>.\<close>
 lemma rev_mp: "\<lbrakk>P; P \<longrightarrow> Q\<rbrakk> \<Longrightarrow> Q"
   by (rule mp)
 
 lemma contrapos_nn:
   assumes major: "\<not> Q"
     and minor: "P \<Longrightarrow> Q"
   shows "\<not> P"
   by (iprover intro: notI minor major [THEN notE])
 
 text \<open>Not used at all, but we already have the other 3 combinations.\<close>
 lemma contrapos_pn:
   assumes major: "Q"
     and minor: "P \<Longrightarrow> \<not> Q"
   shows "\<not> P"
   by (iprover intro: notI minor major notE)
 
 lemma not_sym: "t \<noteq> s \<Longrightarrow> s \<noteq> t"
   by (erule contrapos_nn) (erule sym)
 
 lemma eq_neq_eq_imp_neq: "\<lbrakk>x = a; a \<noteq> b; b = y\<rbrakk> \<Longrightarrow> x \<noteq> y"
   by (erule subst, erule ssubst, assumption)
 
 
 subsubsection \<open>Disjunction (1)\<close>
 
 lemma disjE:
   assumes major: "P \<or> Q"
     and minorP: "P \<Longrightarrow> R"
     and minorQ: "Q \<Longrightarrow> R"
   shows R
   by (iprover intro: minorP minorQ impI
       major [unfolded or_def, THEN spec, THEN mp, THEN mp])
 
 
 subsubsection \<open>Derivation of \<open>iffI\<close>\<close>
 
 text \<open>In an intuitionistic version of HOL \<open>iffI\<close> needs to be an axiom.\<close>
 
 lemma iffI:
   assumes "P \<Longrightarrow> Q" and "Q \<Longrightarrow> P"
   shows "P = Q"
 proof (rule disjE[OF True_or_False[of P]])
   assume 1: "P = True"
   note Q = assms(1)[OF eqTrueE[OF this]]
   from 1 show ?thesis
   proof (rule ssubst)
     from True_or_False[of Q] show "True = Q"
     proof (rule disjE)
       assume "Q = True"
       thus ?thesis by(rule sym)
     next
       assume "Q = False"
       with Q have False by (rule rev_iffD1)
       thus ?thesis by (rule FalseE)
     qed
   qed
 next
   assume 2: "P = False"
   thus ?thesis
   proof (rule ssubst)
     from True_or_False[of Q] show "False = Q"
     proof (rule disjE)
       assume "Q = True"
       from 2 assms(2)[OF eqTrueE[OF this]] have False by (rule iffD1)
       thus ?thesis by (rule FalseE)
     next
       assume "Q = False"
       thus ?thesis by(rule sym)
     qed
   qed
 qed
 
 
 subsubsection \<open>True (2)\<close>
 
 lemma eqTrueI: "P \<Longrightarrow> P = True"
   by (iprover intro: iffI TrueI)
 
 
 subsubsection \<open>Universal quantifier (2)\<close>
 
 lemma allI:
   assumes "\<And>x::'a. P x"
   shows "\<forall>x. P x"
   unfolding All_def by (iprover intro: ext eqTrueI assms)
 
 
 subsubsection \<open>Existential quantifier\<close>
 
 lemma exI: "P x \<Longrightarrow> \<exists>x::'a. P x"
   unfolding Ex_def by (iprover intro: allI allE impI mp)
 
 lemma exE:
   assumes major: "\<exists>x::'a. P x"
     and minor: "\<And>x. P x \<Longrightarrow> Q"
   shows "Q"
   by (rule major [unfolded Ex_def, THEN spec, THEN mp]) (iprover intro: impI [THEN allI] minor)
 
 
 subsubsection \<open>Conjunction\<close>
 
 lemma conjI: "\<lbrakk>P; Q\<rbrakk> \<Longrightarrow> P \<and> Q"
   unfolding and_def by (iprover intro: impI [THEN allI] mp)
 
 lemma conjunct1: "\<lbrakk>P \<and> Q\<rbrakk> \<Longrightarrow> P"
   unfolding and_def by (iprover intro: impI dest: spec mp)
 
 lemma conjunct2: "\<lbrakk>P \<and> Q\<rbrakk> \<Longrightarrow> Q"
   unfolding and_def by (iprover intro: impI dest: spec mp)
 
 lemma conjE:
   assumes major: "P \<and> Q"
     and minor: "\<lbrakk>P; Q\<rbrakk> \<Longrightarrow> R"
   shows R
 proof (rule minor)
   show P by (rule major [THEN conjunct1])
   show Q by (rule major [THEN conjunct2])
 qed
 
 lemma context_conjI:
   assumes P "P \<Longrightarrow> Q"
   shows "P \<and> Q"
   by (iprover intro: conjI assms)
 
 
 subsubsection \<open>Disjunction (2)\<close>
 
 lemma disjI1: "P \<Longrightarrow> P \<or> Q"
   unfolding or_def by (iprover intro: allI impI mp)
 
 lemma disjI2: "Q \<Longrightarrow> P \<or> Q"
   unfolding or_def by (iprover intro: allI impI mp)
 
 
 subsubsection \<open>Classical logic\<close>
 
 lemma classical:
   assumes "\<not> P \<Longrightarrow> P"
   shows P
 proof (rule True_or_False [THEN disjE])
   show P if "P = True"
     using that by (iprover intro: eqTrueE)
   show P if "P = False"
   proof (intro notI assms)
     assume P
     with that show False
       by (iprover elim: subst)
   qed
 qed
 
 lemmas ccontr = FalseE [THEN classical]
 
 text \<open>\<open>notE\<close> with premises exchanged; it discharges \<open>\<not> R\<close> so that it can be used to
   make elimination rules.\<close>
 lemma rev_notE:
   assumes premp: P
     and premnot: "\<not> R \<Longrightarrow> \<not> P"
   shows R
   by (iprover intro: ccontr notE [OF premnot premp])
 
 
 text \<open>Double negation law.\<close>
 lemma notnotD: "\<not>\<not> P \<Longrightarrow> P"
   by (iprover intro: ccontr notE )
 
 lemma contrapos_pp:
   assumes p1: Q
     and p2: "\<not> P \<Longrightarrow> \<not> Q"
   shows P
   by (iprover intro: classical p1 p2 notE)
 
 
 subsubsection \<open>Unique existence\<close>
 
 lemma Uniq_I [intro?]:
   assumes "\<And>x y. \<lbrakk>P x; P y\<rbrakk> \<Longrightarrow> y = x"
   shows "Uniq P"
   unfolding Uniq_def by (iprover intro: assms allI impI)
 
 lemma Uniq_D [dest?]: "\<lbrakk>Uniq P; P a; P b\<rbrakk> \<Longrightarrow> a=b"
   unfolding Uniq_def by (iprover dest: spec mp)
 
 lemma ex1I:
   assumes "P a" "\<And>x. P x \<Longrightarrow> x = a"
   shows "\<exists>!x. P x"
   unfolding Ex1_def by (iprover intro: assms exI conjI allI impI)
 
 text \<open>Sometimes easier to use: the premises have no shared variables. Safe!\<close>
 lemma ex_ex1I:
   assumes ex_prem: "\<exists>x. P x"
     and eq: "\<And>x y. \<lbrakk>P x; P y\<rbrakk> \<Longrightarrow> x = y"
   shows "\<exists>!x. P x"
   by (iprover intro: ex_prem [THEN exE] ex1I eq)
 
 lemma ex1E:
   assumes major: "\<exists>!x. P x" and minor: "\<And>x. \<lbrakk>P x; \<forall>y. P y \<longrightarrow> y = x\<rbrakk> \<Longrightarrow> R"
   shows R
 proof (rule major [unfolded Ex1_def, THEN exE])
   show "\<And>x. P x \<and> (\<forall>y. P y \<longrightarrow> y = x) \<Longrightarrow> R"
     by (iprover intro: minor elim: conjE)
 qed
 
 lemma ex1_implies_ex: "\<exists>!x. P x \<Longrightarrow> \<exists>x. P x"
   by (iprover intro: exI elim: ex1E)
 
 subsubsection \<open>Classical intro rules for disjunction and existential quantifiers\<close>
 
 lemma disjCI:
   assumes "\<not> Q \<Longrightarrow> P"
   shows "P \<or> Q"
   by (rule classical) (iprover intro: assms disjI1 disjI2 notI elim: notE)
 
 lemma excluded_middle: "\<not> P \<or> P"
   by (iprover intro: disjCI)
 
 text \<open>
   case distinction as a natural deduction rule.
   Note that \<open>\<not> P\<close> is the second case, not the first.
 \<close>
 lemma case_split [case_names True False]:
   assumes "P \<Longrightarrow> Q" "\<not> P \<Longrightarrow> Q"
   shows Q
   using excluded_middle [of P]
     by (iprover intro: assms elim: disjE)
 
 text \<open>Classical implies (\<open>\<longrightarrow>\<close>) elimination.\<close>
 lemma impCE:
   assumes major: "P \<longrightarrow> Q"
     and minor: "\<not> P \<Longrightarrow> R" "Q \<Longrightarrow> R"
   shows R
   using excluded_middle [of P]
   by (iprover intro: minor major [THEN mp] elim: disjE)+
 
 text \<open>
   This version of \<open>\<longrightarrow>\<close> elimination works on \<open>Q\<close> before \<open>P\<close>.  It works best for
   those cases in which \<open>P\<close> holds "almost everywhere".  Can't install as
   default: would break old proofs.
 \<close>
 lemma impCE':
   assumes major: "P \<longrightarrow> Q"
     and minor: "Q \<Longrightarrow> R" "\<not> P \<Longrightarrow> R"
   shows R
   using assms by (elim impCE)
 
 
 text \<open>Classical \<open>\<longleftrightarrow>\<close> elimination.\<close>
 lemma iffCE:
   assumes major: "P = Q"
     and minor: "\<lbrakk>P; Q\<rbrakk> \<Longrightarrow> R" "\<lbrakk>\<not> P; \<not> Q\<rbrakk> \<Longrightarrow> R"
   shows R
   by (rule major [THEN iffE]) (iprover intro: minor elim: impCE notE)
 
 lemma exCI:
   assumes "\<forall>x. \<not> P x \<Longrightarrow> P a"
   shows "\<exists>x. P x"
   by (rule ccontr) (iprover intro: assms exI allI notI notE [of "\<exists>x. P x"])
 
 
 subsubsection \<open>Intuitionistic Reasoning\<close>
 
 lemma impE':
   assumes 1: "P \<longrightarrow> Q"
     and 2: "Q \<Longrightarrow> R"
     and 3: "P \<longrightarrow> Q \<Longrightarrow> P"
   shows R
 proof -
   from 3 and 1 have P .
   with 1 have Q by (rule impE)
   with 2 show R .
 qed
 
 lemma allE':
   assumes 1: "\<forall>x. P x"
     and 2: "P x \<Longrightarrow> \<forall>x. P x \<Longrightarrow> Q"
   shows Q
 proof -
   from 1 have "P x" by (rule spec)
   from this and 1 show Q by (rule 2)
 qed
 
 lemma notE':
   assumes 1: "\<not> P"
     and 2: "\<not> P \<Longrightarrow> P"
   shows R
 proof -
   from 2 and 1 have P .
   with 1 show R by (rule notE)
 qed
 
 lemma TrueE: "True \<Longrightarrow> P \<Longrightarrow> P" .
 lemma notFalseE: "\<not> False \<Longrightarrow> P \<Longrightarrow> P" .
 
 lemmas [Pure.elim!] = disjE iffE FalseE conjE exE TrueE notFalseE
   and [Pure.intro!] = iffI conjI impI TrueI notI allI refl
   and [Pure.elim 2] = allE notE' impE'
   and [Pure.intro] = exI disjI2 disjI1
 
 lemmas [trans] = trans
   and [sym] = sym not_sym
   and [Pure.elim?] = iffD1 iffD2 impE
 
 
 subsubsection \<open>Atomizing meta-level connectives\<close>
 
 axiomatization where
   eq_reflection: "x = y \<Longrightarrow> x \<equiv> y"  \<comment> \<open>admissible axiom\<close>
 
 lemma atomize_all [atomize]: "(\<And>x. P x) \<equiv> Trueprop (\<forall>x. P x)"
 proof
   assume "\<And>x. P x"
   then show "\<forall>x. P x" ..
 next
   assume "\<forall>x. P x"
   then show "\<And>x. P x" by (rule allE)
 qed
 
 lemma atomize_imp [atomize]: "(A \<Longrightarrow> B) \<equiv> Trueprop (A \<longrightarrow> B)"
 proof
   assume r: "A \<Longrightarrow> B"
   show "A \<longrightarrow> B" by (rule impI) (rule r)
 next
   assume "A \<longrightarrow> B" and A
   then show B by (rule mp)
 qed
 
 lemma atomize_not: "(A \<Longrightarrow> False) \<equiv> Trueprop (\<not> A)"
 proof
   assume r: "A \<Longrightarrow> False"
   show "\<not> A" by (rule notI) (rule r)
 next
   assume "\<not> A" and A
   then show False by (rule notE)
 qed
 
 lemma atomize_eq [atomize, code]: "(x \<equiv> y) \<equiv> Trueprop (x = y)"
 proof
   assume "x \<equiv> y"
   show "x = y" by (unfold \<open>x \<equiv> y\<close>) (rule refl)
 next
   assume "x = y"
   then show "x \<equiv> y" by (rule eq_reflection)
 qed
 
 lemma atomize_conj [atomize]: "(A &&& B) \<equiv> Trueprop (A \<and> B)"
 proof
   assume conj: "A &&& B"
   show "A \<and> B"
   proof (rule conjI)
     from conj show A by (rule conjunctionD1)
     from conj show B by (rule conjunctionD2)
   qed
 next
   assume conj: "A \<and> B"
   show "A &&& B"
   proof -
     from conj show A ..
     from conj show B ..
   qed
 qed
 
 lemmas [symmetric, rulify] = atomize_all atomize_imp
   and [symmetric, defn] = atomize_all atomize_imp atomize_eq
 
 
 subsubsection \<open>Atomizing elimination rules\<close>
 
 lemma atomize_exL[atomize_elim]: "(\<And>x. P x \<Longrightarrow> Q) \<equiv> ((\<exists>x. P x) \<Longrightarrow> Q)"
   by rule iprover+
 
 lemma atomize_conjL[atomize_elim]: "(A \<Longrightarrow> B \<Longrightarrow> C) \<equiv> (A \<and> B \<Longrightarrow> C)"
   by rule iprover+
 
 lemma atomize_disjL[atomize_elim]: "((A \<Longrightarrow> C) \<Longrightarrow> (B \<Longrightarrow> C) \<Longrightarrow> C) \<equiv> ((A \<or> B \<Longrightarrow> C) \<Longrightarrow> C)"
   by rule iprover+
 
 lemma atomize_elimL[atomize_elim]: "(\<And>B. (A \<Longrightarrow> B) \<Longrightarrow> B) \<equiv> Trueprop A" ..
 
 
 subsection \<open>Package setup\<close>
 
 ML_file \<open>Tools/hologic.ML\<close>
 ML_file \<open>Tools/rewrite_hol_proof.ML\<close>
 
 setup \<open>Proofterm.set_preproc (Proof_Rewrite_Rules.standard_preproc Rewrite_HOL_Proof.rews)\<close>
 
 
 subsubsection \<open>Sledgehammer setup\<close>
 
 text \<open>
   Theorems blacklisted to Sledgehammer. These theorems typically produce clauses
   that are prolific (match too many equality or membership literals) and relate to
   seldom-used facts. Some duplicate other rules.
 \<close>
 
 named_theorems no_atp "theorems that should be filtered out by Sledgehammer"
 
 
 subsubsection \<open>Classical Reasoner setup\<close>
 
 lemma imp_elim: "P \<longrightarrow> Q \<Longrightarrow> (\<not> R \<Longrightarrow> P) \<Longrightarrow> (Q \<Longrightarrow> R) \<Longrightarrow> R"
   by (rule classical) iprover
 
 lemma swap: "\<not> P \<Longrightarrow> (\<not> R \<Longrightarrow> P) \<Longrightarrow> R"
   by (rule classical) iprover
 
 lemma thin_refl: "\<lbrakk>x = x; PROP W\<rbrakk> \<Longrightarrow> PROP W" .
 
 ML \<open>
 structure Hypsubst = Hypsubst
 (
   val dest_eq = HOLogic.dest_eq
   val dest_Trueprop = HOLogic.dest_Trueprop
   val dest_imp = HOLogic.dest_imp
   val eq_reflection = @{thm eq_reflection}
   val rev_eq_reflection = @{thm meta_eq_to_obj_eq}
   val imp_intr = @{thm impI}
   val rev_mp = @{thm rev_mp}
   val subst = @{thm subst}
   val sym = @{thm sym}
   val thin_refl = @{thm thin_refl};
 );
 open Hypsubst;
 
 structure Classical = Classical
 (
   val imp_elim = @{thm imp_elim}
   val not_elim = @{thm notE}
   val swap = @{thm swap}
   val classical = @{thm classical}
   val sizef = Drule.size_of_thm
   val hyp_subst_tacs = [Hypsubst.hyp_subst_tac]
 );
 
 structure Basic_Classical: BASIC_CLASSICAL = Classical;
 open Basic_Classical;
 \<close>
 
 setup \<open>
   (*prevent substitution on bool*)
   let
     fun non_bool_eq (\<^const_name>\<open>HOL.eq\<close>, Type (_, [T, _])) = T <> \<^typ>\<open>bool\<close>
       | non_bool_eq _ = false;
     fun hyp_subst_tac' ctxt =
       SUBGOAL (fn (goal, i) =>
         if Term.exists_Const non_bool_eq goal
         then Hypsubst.hyp_subst_tac ctxt i
         else no_tac);
   in
     Context_Rules.addSWrapper (fn ctxt => fn tac => hyp_subst_tac' ctxt ORELSE' tac)
   end
 \<close>
 
 declare iffI [intro!]
   and notI [intro!]
   and impI [intro!]
   and disjCI [intro!]
   and conjI [intro!]
   and TrueI [intro!]
   and refl [intro!]
 
 declare iffCE [elim!]
   and FalseE [elim!]
   and impCE [elim!]
   and disjE [elim!]
   and conjE [elim!]
 
 declare ex_ex1I [intro!]
   and allI [intro!]
   and exI [intro]
 
 declare exE [elim!]
   allE [elim]
 
 ML \<open>val HOL_cs = claset_of \<^context>\<close>
 
 lemma contrapos_np: "\<not> Q \<Longrightarrow> (\<not> P \<Longrightarrow> Q) \<Longrightarrow> P"
   by (erule swap)
 
 declare ex_ex1I [rule del, intro! 2]
   and ex1I [intro]
 
 declare ext [intro]
 
 lemmas [intro?] = ext
   and [elim?] = ex1_implies_ex
 
 text \<open>Better than \<open>ex1E\<close> for classical reasoner: needs no quantifier duplication!\<close>
 lemma alt_ex1E [elim!]:
   assumes major: "\<exists>!x. P x"
     and minor: "\<And>x. \<lbrakk>P x; \<forall>y y'. P y \<and> P y' \<longrightarrow> y = y'\<rbrakk> \<Longrightarrow> R"
   shows R
 proof (rule ex1E [OF major minor])
   show "\<forall>y y'. P y \<and> P y' \<longrightarrow> y = y'" if "P x" and \<section>: "\<forall>y. P y \<longrightarrow> y = x" for x
     using \<open>P x\<close> \<section> \<section> by fast
 qed assumption
 
 text \<open>And again using Uniq\<close>
 lemma alt_ex1E':
   assumes  "\<exists>!x. P x" "\<And>x. \<lbrakk>P x; \<exists>\<^sub>\<le>\<^sub>1x. P x\<rbrakk> \<Longrightarrow> R"
   shows R
   using assms unfolding Uniq_def by fast
 
 lemma ex1_iff_ex_Uniq: "(\<exists>!x. P x) \<longleftrightarrow> (\<exists>x. P x) \<and> (\<exists>\<^sub>\<le>\<^sub>1x. P x)"
   unfolding Uniq_def by fast
 
 
 ML \<open>
   structure Blast = Blast
   (
     structure Classical = Classical
     val Trueprop_const = dest_Const \<^const>\<open>Trueprop\<close>
     val equality_name = \<^const_name>\<open>HOL.eq\<close>
     val not_name = \<^const_name>\<open>Not\<close>
     val notE = @{thm notE}
     val ccontr = @{thm ccontr}
     val hyp_subst_tac = Hypsubst.blast_hyp_subst_tac
   );
   val blast_tac = Blast.blast_tac;
 \<close>
 
 
 subsubsection \<open>THE: definite description operator\<close>
 
 lemma the_equality [intro]:
   assumes "P a"
     and "\<And>x. P x \<Longrightarrow> x = a"
   shows "(THE x. P x) = a"
   by (blast intro: assms trans [OF arg_cong [where f=The] the_eq_trivial])
 
 lemma theI:
   assumes "P a"
     and "\<And>x. P x \<Longrightarrow> x = a"
   shows "P (THE x. P x)"
   by (iprover intro: assms the_equality [THEN ssubst])
 
 lemma theI': "\<exists>!x. P x \<Longrightarrow> P (THE x. P x)"
   by (blast intro: theI)
 
 text \<open>Easier to apply than \<open>theI\<close>: only one occurrence of \<open>P\<close>.\<close>
 lemma theI2:
   assumes "P a" "\<And>x. P x \<Longrightarrow> x = a" "\<And>x. P x \<Longrightarrow> Q x"
   shows "Q (THE x. P x)"
   by (iprover intro: assms theI)
 
 lemma the1I2:
   assumes "\<exists>!x. P x" "\<And>x. P x \<Longrightarrow> Q x"
   shows "Q (THE x. P x)"
   by (iprover intro: assms(2) theI2[where P=P and Q=Q] ex1E[OF assms(1)] elim: allE impE)
 
 lemma the1_equality [elim?]: "\<lbrakk>\<exists>!x. P x; P a\<rbrakk> \<Longrightarrow> (THE x. P x) = a"
   by blast
 
 lemma the1_equality': "\<lbrakk>\<exists>\<^sub>\<le>\<^sub>1x. P x; P a\<rbrakk> \<Longrightarrow> (THE x. P x) = a"
   unfolding Uniq_def by blast
 
 lemma the_sym_eq_trivial: "(THE y. x = y) = x"
   by blast
 
 
 subsubsection \<open>Simplifier\<close>
 
 lemma eta_contract_eq: "(\<lambda>s. f s) = f" ..
 
 lemma simp_thms:
   shows not_not: "(\<not> \<not> P) = P"
   and Not_eq_iff: "((\<not> P) = (\<not> Q)) = (P = Q)"
   and
     "(P \<noteq> Q) = (P = (\<not> Q))"
     "(P \<or> \<not>P) = True"    "(\<not> P \<or> P) = True"
     "(x = x) = True"
   and not_True_eq_False [code]: "(\<not> True) = False"
   and not_False_eq_True [code]: "(\<not> False) = True"
   and
     "(\<not> P) \<noteq> P"  "P \<noteq> (\<not> P)"
     "(True = P) = P"
   and eq_True: "(P = True) = P"
   and "(False = P) = (\<not> P)"
   and eq_False: "(P = False) = (\<not> P)"
   and
     "(True \<longrightarrow> P) = P"  "(False \<longrightarrow> P) = True"
     "(P \<longrightarrow> True) = True"  "(P \<longrightarrow> P) = True"
     "(P \<longrightarrow> False) = (\<not> P)"  "(P \<longrightarrow> \<not> P) = (\<not> P)"
     "(P \<and> True) = P"  "(True \<and> P) = P"
     "(P \<and> False) = False"  "(False \<and> P) = False"
     "(P \<and> P) = P"  "(P \<and> (P \<and> Q)) = (P \<and> Q)"
     "(P \<and> \<not> P) = False"    "(\<not> P \<and> P) = False"
     "(P \<or> True) = True"  "(True \<or> P) = True"
     "(P \<or> False) = P"  "(False \<or> P) = P"
     "(P \<or> P) = P"  "(P \<or> (P \<or> Q)) = (P \<or> Q)" and
     "(\<forall>x. P) = P"  "(\<exists>x. P) = P"  "\<exists>x. x = t"  "\<exists>x. t = x"
   and
     "\<And>P. (\<exists>x. x = t \<and> P x) = P t"
     "\<And>P. (\<exists>x. t = x \<and> P x) = P t"
     "\<And>P. (\<forall>x. x = t \<longrightarrow> P x) = P t"
     "\<And>P. (\<forall>x. t = x \<longrightarrow> P x) = P t"
     "(\<forall>x. x \<noteq> t) = False"  "(\<forall>x. t \<noteq> x) = False"
   by (blast, blast, blast, blast, blast, iprover+)
 
 lemma disj_absorb: "A \<or> A \<longleftrightarrow> A"
   by blast
 
 lemma disj_left_absorb: "A \<or> (A \<or> B) \<longleftrightarrow> A \<or> B"
   by blast
 
 lemma conj_absorb: "A \<and> A \<longleftrightarrow> A"
   by blast
 
 lemma conj_left_absorb: "A \<and> (A \<and> B) \<longleftrightarrow> A \<and> B"
   by blast
 
 lemma eq_ac:
   shows eq_commute: "a = b \<longleftrightarrow> b = a"
     and iff_left_commute: "(P \<longleftrightarrow> (Q \<longleftrightarrow> R)) \<longleftrightarrow> (Q \<longleftrightarrow> (P \<longleftrightarrow> R))"
     and iff_assoc: "((P \<longleftrightarrow> Q) \<longleftrightarrow> R) \<longleftrightarrow> (P \<longleftrightarrow> (Q \<longleftrightarrow> R))"
   by (iprover, blast+)
 
 lemma neq_commute: "a \<noteq> b \<longleftrightarrow> b \<noteq> a" by iprover
 
 lemma conj_comms:
   shows conj_commute: "P \<and> Q \<longleftrightarrow> Q \<and> P"
     and conj_left_commute: "P \<and> (Q \<and> R) \<longleftrightarrow> Q \<and> (P \<and> R)" by iprover+
 lemma conj_assoc: "(P \<and> Q) \<and> R \<longleftrightarrow> P \<and> (Q \<and> R)" by iprover
 
 lemmas conj_ac = conj_commute conj_left_commute conj_assoc
 
 lemma disj_comms:
   shows disj_commute: "P \<or> Q \<longleftrightarrow> Q \<or> P"
     and disj_left_commute: "P \<or> (Q \<or> R) \<longleftrightarrow> Q \<or> (P \<or> R)" by iprover+
 lemma disj_assoc: "(P \<or> Q) \<or> R \<longleftrightarrow> P \<or> (Q \<or> R)" by iprover
 
 lemmas disj_ac = disj_commute disj_left_commute disj_assoc
 
 lemma conj_disj_distribL: "P \<and> (Q \<or> R) \<longleftrightarrow> P \<and> Q \<or> P \<and> R" by iprover
 lemma conj_disj_distribR: "(P \<or> Q) \<and> R \<longleftrightarrow> P \<and> R \<or> Q \<and> R" by iprover
 
 lemma disj_conj_distribL: "P \<or> (Q \<and> R) \<longleftrightarrow> (P \<or> Q) \<and> (P \<or> R)" by iprover
 lemma disj_conj_distribR: "(P \<and> Q) \<or> R \<longleftrightarrow> (P \<or> R) \<and> (Q \<or> R)" by iprover
 
 lemma imp_conjR: "(P \<longrightarrow> (Q \<and> R)) = ((P \<longrightarrow> Q) \<and> (P \<longrightarrow> R))" by iprover
 lemma imp_conjL: "((P \<and> Q) \<longrightarrow> R) = (P \<longrightarrow> (Q \<longrightarrow> R))" by iprover
 lemma imp_disjL: "((P \<or> Q) \<longrightarrow> R) = ((P \<longrightarrow> R) \<and> (Q \<longrightarrow> R))" by iprover
 
 text \<open>These two are specialized, but \<open>imp_disj_not1\<close> is useful in \<open>Auth/Yahalom\<close>.\<close>
 lemma imp_disj_not1: "(P \<longrightarrow> Q \<or> R) \<longleftrightarrow> (\<not> Q \<longrightarrow> P \<longrightarrow> R)" by blast
 lemma imp_disj_not2: "(P \<longrightarrow> Q \<or> R) \<longleftrightarrow> (\<not> R \<longrightarrow> P \<longrightarrow> Q)" by blast
 
 lemma imp_disj1: "((P \<longrightarrow> Q) \<or> R) \<longleftrightarrow> (P \<longrightarrow> Q \<or> R)" by blast
 lemma imp_disj2: "(Q \<or> (P \<longrightarrow> R)) \<longleftrightarrow> (P \<longrightarrow> Q \<or> R)" by blast
 
 lemma imp_cong: "(P = P') \<Longrightarrow> (P' \<Longrightarrow> (Q = Q')) \<Longrightarrow> ((P \<longrightarrow> Q) \<longleftrightarrow> (P' \<longrightarrow> Q'))"
   by iprover
 
 lemma de_Morgan_disj: "\<not> (P \<or> Q) \<longleftrightarrow> \<not> P \<and> \<not> Q" by iprover
 lemma de_Morgan_conj: "\<not> (P \<and> Q) \<longleftrightarrow> \<not> P \<or> \<not> Q" by blast
 lemma not_imp: "\<not> (P \<longrightarrow> Q) \<longleftrightarrow> P \<and> \<not> Q" by blast
 lemma not_iff: "P \<noteq> Q \<longleftrightarrow> (P \<longleftrightarrow> \<not> Q)" by blast
 lemma disj_not1: "\<not> P \<or> Q \<longleftrightarrow> (P \<longrightarrow> Q)" by blast
 lemma disj_not2: "P \<or> \<not> Q \<longleftrightarrow> (Q \<longrightarrow> P)" by blast  \<comment> \<open>changes orientation :-(\<close>
 lemma imp_conv_disj: "(P \<longrightarrow> Q) \<longleftrightarrow> (\<not> P) \<or> Q" by blast
 lemma disj_imp: "P \<or> Q \<longleftrightarrow> \<not> P \<longrightarrow> Q" by blast
 
 lemma iff_conv_conj_imp: "(P \<longleftrightarrow> Q) \<longleftrightarrow> (P \<longrightarrow> Q) \<and> (Q \<longrightarrow> P)" by iprover
 
 
 lemma cases_simp: "(P \<longrightarrow> Q) \<and> (\<not> P \<longrightarrow> Q) \<longleftrightarrow> Q"
   \<comment> \<open>Avoids duplication of subgoals after \<open>if_split\<close>, when the true and false\<close>
   \<comment> \<open>cases boil down to the same thing.\<close>
   by blast
 
 lemma not_all: "\<not> (\<forall>x. P x) \<longleftrightarrow> (\<exists>x. \<not> P x)" by blast
 lemma imp_all: "((\<forall>x. P x) \<longrightarrow> Q) \<longleftrightarrow> (\<exists>x. P x \<longrightarrow> Q)" by blast
 lemma not_ex: "\<not> (\<exists>x. P x) \<longleftrightarrow> (\<forall>x. \<not> P x)" by iprover
 lemma imp_ex: "((\<exists>x. P x) \<longrightarrow> Q) \<longleftrightarrow> (\<forall>x. P x \<longrightarrow> Q)" by iprover
 lemma all_not_ex: "(\<forall>x. P x) \<longleftrightarrow> \<not> (\<exists>x. \<not> P x)" by blast
 
 declare All_def [no_atp]
 
 lemma ex_disj_distrib: "(\<exists>x. P x \<or> Q x) \<longleftrightarrow> (\<exists>x. P x) \<or> (\<exists>x. Q x)" by iprover
 lemma all_conj_distrib: "(\<forall>x. P x \<and> Q x) \<longleftrightarrow> (\<forall>x. P x) \<and> (\<forall>x. Q x)" by iprover
 
 text \<open>
   \<^medskip> The \<open>\<and>\<close> congruence rule: not included by default!
   May slow rewrite proofs down by as much as 50\%\<close>
 
 lemma conj_cong: "P = P' \<Longrightarrow> (P' \<Longrightarrow> Q = Q') \<Longrightarrow> (P \<and> Q) = (P' \<and> Q')"
   by iprover
 
 lemma rev_conj_cong: "Q = Q' \<Longrightarrow> (Q' \<Longrightarrow> P = P') \<Longrightarrow> (P \<and> Q) = (P' \<and> Q')"
   by iprover
 
 text \<open>The \<open>|\<close> congruence rule: not included by default!\<close>
 
 lemma disj_cong: "P = P' \<Longrightarrow> (\<not> P' \<Longrightarrow> Q = Q') \<Longrightarrow> (P \<or> Q) = (P' \<or> Q')"
   by blast
 
 
 text \<open>\<^medskip> if-then-else rules\<close>
 
 lemma if_True [code]: "(if True then x else y) = x"
   unfolding If_def by blast
 
 lemma if_False [code]: "(if False then x else y) = y"
   unfolding If_def by blast
 
 lemma if_P: "P \<Longrightarrow> (if P then x else y) = x"
   unfolding If_def by blast
 
 lemma if_not_P: "\<not> P \<Longrightarrow> (if P then x else y) = y"
   unfolding If_def by blast
 
 lemma if_split: "P (if Q then x else y) = ((Q \<longrightarrow> P x) \<and> (\<not> Q \<longrightarrow> P y))"
 proof (rule case_split [of Q])
   show ?thesis if Q
     using that by (simplesubst if_P) blast+
   show ?thesis if "\<not> Q"
     using that by (simplesubst if_not_P) blast+
 qed
 
 lemma if_split_asm: "P (if Q then x else y) = (\<not> ((Q \<and> \<not> P x) \<or> (\<not> Q \<and> \<not> P y)))"
   by (simplesubst if_split) blast
 
 lemmas if_splits [no_atp] = if_split if_split_asm
 
 lemma if_cancel: "(if c then x else x) = x"
   by (simplesubst if_split) blast
 
 lemma if_eq_cancel: "(if x = y then y else x) = x"
   by (simplesubst if_split) blast
 
 lemma if_bool_eq_conj: "(if P then Q else R) = ((P \<longrightarrow> Q) \<and> (\<not> P \<longrightarrow> R))"
   \<comment> \<open>This form is useful for expanding \<open>if\<close>s on the RIGHT of the \<open>\<Longrightarrow>\<close> symbol.\<close>
   by (rule if_split)
 
 lemma if_bool_eq_disj: "(if P then Q else R) = ((P \<and> Q) \<or> (\<not> P \<and> R))"
   \<comment> \<open>And this form is useful for expanding \<open>if\<close>s on the LEFT.\<close>
   by (simplesubst if_split) blast
 
 lemma Eq_TrueI: "P \<Longrightarrow> P \<equiv> True" unfolding atomize_eq by iprover
 lemma Eq_FalseI: "\<not> P \<Longrightarrow> P \<equiv> False" unfolding atomize_eq by iprover
 
 text \<open>\<^medskip> let rules for simproc\<close>
 
 lemma Let_folded: "f x \<equiv> g x \<Longrightarrow> Let x f \<equiv> Let x g"
   by (unfold Let_def)
 
 lemma Let_unfold: "f x \<equiv> g \<Longrightarrow> Let x f \<equiv> g"
   by (unfold Let_def)
 
 text \<open>
   The following copy of the implication operator is useful for
   fine-tuning congruence rules.  It instructs the simplifier to simplify
   its premise.
 \<close>
 
 definition simp_implies :: "prop \<Rightarrow> prop \<Rightarrow> prop"  (infixr "=simp=>" 1)
   where "simp_implies \<equiv> (\<Longrightarrow>)"
 
 lemma simp_impliesI:
   assumes PQ: "(PROP P \<Longrightarrow> PROP Q)"
   shows "PROP P =simp=> PROP Q"
   unfolding simp_implies_def
   by (iprover intro: PQ)
 
 lemma simp_impliesE:
   assumes PQ: "PROP P =simp=> PROP Q"
     and P: "PROP P"
     and QR: "PROP Q \<Longrightarrow> PROP R"
   shows "PROP R"
   by (iprover intro: QR P PQ [unfolded simp_implies_def])
 
 lemma simp_implies_cong:
   assumes PP' :"PROP P \<equiv> PROP P'"
     and P'QQ': "PROP P' \<Longrightarrow> (PROP Q \<equiv> PROP Q')"
   shows "(PROP P =simp=> PROP Q) \<equiv> (PROP P' =simp=> PROP Q')"
   unfolding simp_implies_def
 proof (rule equal_intr_rule)
   assume PQ: "PROP P \<Longrightarrow> PROP Q"
     and P': "PROP P'"
   from PP' [symmetric] and P' have "PROP P"
     by (rule equal_elim_rule1)
   then have "PROP Q" by (rule PQ)
   with P'QQ' [OF P'] show "PROP Q'" by (rule equal_elim_rule1)
 next
   assume P'Q': "PROP P' \<Longrightarrow> PROP Q'"
     and P: "PROP P"
   from PP' and P have P': "PROP P'" by (rule equal_elim_rule1)
   then have "PROP Q'" by (rule P'Q')
   with P'QQ' [OF P', symmetric] show "PROP Q"
     by (rule equal_elim_rule1)
 qed
 
 lemma uncurry:
   assumes "P \<longrightarrow> Q \<longrightarrow> R"
   shows "P \<and> Q \<longrightarrow> R"
   using assms by blast
 
 lemma iff_allI:
   assumes "\<And>x. P x = Q x"
   shows "(\<forall>x. P x) = (\<forall>x. Q x)"
   using assms by blast
 
 lemma iff_exI:
   assumes "\<And>x. P x = Q x"
   shows "(\<exists>x. P x) = (\<exists>x. Q x)"
   using assms by blast
 
 lemma all_comm: "(\<forall>x y. P x y) = (\<forall>y x. P x y)"
   by blast
 
 lemma ex_comm: "(\<exists>x y. P x y) = (\<exists>y x. P x y)"
   by blast
 
 ML_file \<open>Tools/simpdata.ML\<close>
 ML \<open>open Simpdata\<close>
 
 setup \<open>
   map_theory_simpset (put_simpset HOL_basic_ss) #>
   Simplifier.method_setup Splitter.split_modifiers
 \<close>
 
 simproc_setup defined_Ex ("\<exists>x. P x") = \<open>K Quantifier1.rearrange_Ex\<close>
 simproc_setup defined_All ("\<forall>x. P x") = \<open>K Quantifier1.rearrange_All\<close>
+simproc_setup defined_all("\<And>x. PROP P x") = \<open>K Quantifier1.rearrange_all\<close>
+
+declare [[simproc del: defined_all]]
 
 text \<open>Simproc for proving \<open>(y = x) \<equiv> False\<close> from premise \<open>\<not> (x = y)\<close>:\<close>
 
 simproc_setup neq ("x = y") = \<open>fn _ =>
   let
     val neq_to_EQ_False = @{thm not_sym} RS @{thm Eq_FalseI};
     fun is_neq eq lhs rhs thm =
       (case Thm.prop_of thm of
         _ $ (Not $ (eq' $ l' $ r')) =>
           Not = HOLogic.Not andalso eq' = eq andalso
           r' aconv lhs andalso l' aconv rhs
       | _ => false);
     fun proc ss ct =
       (case Thm.term_of ct of
         eq $ lhs $ rhs =>
           (case find_first (is_neq eq lhs rhs) (Simplifier.prems_of ss) of
             SOME thm => SOME (thm RS neq_to_EQ_False)
           | NONE => NONE)
        | _ => NONE);
   in proc end
 \<close>
 
 simproc_setup let_simp ("Let x f") = \<open>
   let
     fun count_loose (Bound i) k = if i >= k then 1 else 0
       | count_loose (s $ t) k = count_loose s k + count_loose t k
       | count_loose (Abs (_, _, t)) k = count_loose  t (k + 1)
       | count_loose _ _ = 0;
     fun is_trivial_let (Const (\<^const_name>\<open>Let\<close>, _) $ x $ t) =
       (case t of
         Abs (_, _, t') => count_loose t' 0 <= 1
       | _ => true);
   in
     fn _ => fn ctxt => fn ct =>
       if is_trivial_let (Thm.term_of ct)
       then SOME @{thm Let_def} (*no or one ocurrence of bound variable*)
       else
         let (*Norbert Schirmer's case*)
           val t = Thm.term_of ct;
           val (t', ctxt') = yield_singleton (Variable.import_terms false) t ctxt;
         in
           Option.map (hd o Variable.export ctxt' ctxt o single)
             (case t' of Const (\<^const_name>\<open>Let\<close>,_) $ x $ f => (* x and f are already in normal form *)
               if is_Free x orelse is_Bound x orelse is_Const x
               then SOME @{thm Let_def}
               else
                 let
                   val n = case f of (Abs (x, _, _)) => x | _ => "x";
                   val cx = Thm.cterm_of ctxt x;
                   val xT = Thm.typ_of_cterm cx;
                   val cf = Thm.cterm_of ctxt f;
                   val fx_g = Simplifier.rewrite ctxt (Thm.apply cf cx);
                   val (_ $ _ $ g) = Thm.prop_of fx_g;
                   val g' = abstract_over (x, g);
                   val abs_g'= Abs (n, xT, g');
                 in
                   if g aconv g' then
                     let
                       val rl =
                         infer_instantiate ctxt [(("f", 0), cf), (("x", 0), cx)] @{thm Let_unfold};
                     in SOME (rl OF [fx_g]) end
                   else if (Envir.beta_eta_contract f) aconv (Envir.beta_eta_contract abs_g')
                   then NONE (*avoid identity conversion*)
                   else
                     let
                       val g'x = abs_g' $ x;
                       val g_g'x = Thm.symmetric (Thm.beta_conversion false (Thm.cterm_of ctxt g'x));
                       val rl =
                         @{thm Let_folded} |> infer_instantiate ctxt
                           [(("f", 0), Thm.cterm_of ctxt f),
                            (("x", 0), cx),
                            (("g", 0), Thm.cterm_of ctxt abs_g')];
                     in SOME (rl OF [Thm.transitive fx_g g_g'x]) end
                 end
             | _ => NONE)
         end
   end
 \<close>
 
 lemma True_implies_equals: "(True \<Longrightarrow> PROP P) \<equiv> PROP P"
 proof
   assume "True \<Longrightarrow> PROP P"
   from this [OF TrueI] show "PROP P" .
 next
   assume "PROP P"
   then show "PROP P" .
 qed
 
 lemma implies_True_equals: "(PROP P \<Longrightarrow> True) \<equiv> Trueprop True"
   by standard (intro TrueI)
 
 lemma False_implies_equals: "(False \<Longrightarrow> P) \<equiv> Trueprop True"
   by standard simp_all
 
 (* It seems that making this a simp rule is slower than using the simproc below *)
 lemma implies_False_swap:
   "(False \<Longrightarrow> PROP P \<Longrightarrow> PROP Q) \<equiv> (PROP P \<Longrightarrow> False \<Longrightarrow> PROP Q)"
   by (rule swap_prems_eq)
 
 ML \<open>
 fun eliminate_false_implies ct =
   let
     val (prems, concl) = Logic.strip_horn (Thm.term_of ct)
     fun go n =
       if n > 1 then
         Conv.rewr_conv @{thm Pure.swap_prems_eq}
         then_conv Conv.arg_conv (go (n - 1))
         then_conv Conv.rewr_conv @{thm HOL.implies_True_equals}
       else
         Conv.rewr_conv @{thm HOL.False_implies_equals}
   in
     case concl of
       Const (@{const_name HOL.Trueprop}, _) $ _ => SOME (go (length prems) ct)
     | _ => NONE
   end
 \<close>
 
 simproc_setup eliminate_false_implies ("False \<Longrightarrow> PROP P") = \<open>K (K eliminate_false_implies)\<close>
 
 
 lemma ex_simps:
   "\<And>P Q. (\<exists>x. P x \<and> Q)   = ((\<exists>x. P x) \<and> Q)"
   "\<And>P Q. (\<exists>x. P \<and> Q x)   = (P \<and> (\<exists>x. Q x))"
   "\<And>P Q. (\<exists>x. P x \<or> Q)   = ((\<exists>x. P x) \<or> Q)"
   "\<And>P Q. (\<exists>x. P \<or> Q x)   = (P \<or> (\<exists>x. Q x))"
   "\<And>P Q. (\<exists>x. P x \<longrightarrow> Q) = ((\<forall>x. P x) \<longrightarrow> Q)"
   "\<And>P Q. (\<exists>x. P \<longrightarrow> Q x) = (P \<longrightarrow> (\<exists>x. Q x))"
   \<comment> \<open>Miniscoping: pushing in existential quantifiers.\<close>
   by (iprover | blast)+
 
 lemma all_simps:
   "\<And>P Q. (\<forall>x. P x \<and> Q)   = ((\<forall>x. P x) \<and> Q)"
   "\<And>P Q. (\<forall>x. P \<and> Q x)   = (P \<and> (\<forall>x. Q x))"
   "\<And>P Q. (\<forall>x. P x \<or> Q)   = ((\<forall>x. P x) \<or> Q)"
   "\<And>P Q. (\<forall>x. P \<or> Q x)   = (P \<or> (\<forall>x. Q x))"
   "\<And>P Q. (\<forall>x. P x \<longrightarrow> Q) = ((\<exists>x. P x) \<longrightarrow> Q)"
   "\<And>P Q. (\<forall>x. P \<longrightarrow> Q x) = (P \<longrightarrow> (\<forall>x. Q x))"
   \<comment> \<open>Miniscoping: pushing in universal quantifiers.\<close>
   by (iprover | blast)+
 
 lemmas [simp] =
   triv_forall_equality  \<comment> \<open>prunes params\<close>
   True_implies_equals implies_True_equals  \<comment> \<open>prune \<open>True\<close> in asms\<close>
   False_implies_equals  \<comment> \<open>prune \<open>False\<close> in asms\<close>
   if_True
   if_False
   if_cancel
   if_eq_cancel
   imp_disjL \<comment> \<open>In general it seems wrong to add distributive laws by default: they
     might cause exponential blow-up.  But \<open>imp_disjL\<close> has been in for a while
     and cannot be removed without affecting existing proofs.  Moreover,
     rewriting by \<open>(P \<or> Q \<longrightarrow> R) = ((P \<longrightarrow> R) \<and> (Q \<longrightarrow> R))\<close> might be justified on the
     grounds that it allows simplification of \<open>R\<close> in the two cases.\<close>
   conj_assoc
   disj_assoc
   de_Morgan_conj
   de_Morgan_disj
   imp_disj1
   imp_disj2
   not_imp
   disj_not1
   not_all
   not_ex
   cases_simp
   the_eq_trivial
   the_sym_eq_trivial
   ex_simps
   all_simps
   simp_thms
 
 lemmas [cong] = imp_cong simp_implies_cong
 lemmas [split] = if_split
 
 ML \<open>val HOL_ss = simpset_of \<^context>\<close>
 
 text \<open>Simplifies \<open>x\<close> assuming \<open>c\<close> and \<open>y\<close> assuming \<open>\<not> c\<close>.\<close>
 lemma if_cong:
   assumes "b = c"
     and "c \<Longrightarrow> x = u"
     and "\<not> c \<Longrightarrow> y = v"
   shows "(if b then x else y) = (if c then u else v)"
   using assms by simp
 
 text \<open>Prevents simplification of \<open>x\<close> and \<open>y\<close>:
   faster and allows the execution of functional programs.\<close>
 lemma if_weak_cong [cong]:
   assumes "b = c"
   shows "(if b then x else y) = (if c then x else y)"
   using assms by (rule arg_cong)
 
 text \<open>Prevents simplification of t: much faster\<close>
 lemma let_weak_cong:
   assumes "a = b"
   shows "(let x = a in t x) = (let x = b in t x)"
   using assms by (rule arg_cong)
 
 text \<open>To tidy up the result of a simproc.  Only the RHS will be simplified.\<close>
 lemma eq_cong2:
   assumes "u = u'"
   shows "(t \<equiv> u) \<equiv> (t \<equiv> u')"
   using assms by simp
 
 lemma if_distrib: "f (if c then x else y) = (if c then f x else f y)"
   by simp
 
 lemma if_distribR: "(if b then f else g) x = (if b then f x else g x)"
   by simp
 
 lemma all_if_distrib: "(\<forall>x. if x = a then P x else Q x) \<longleftrightarrow> P a \<and> (\<forall>x. x\<noteq>a \<longrightarrow> Q x)"
   by auto
 
 lemma ex_if_distrib: "(\<exists>x. if x = a then P x else Q x) \<longleftrightarrow> P a \<or> (\<exists>x. x\<noteq>a \<and> Q x)"
   by auto
 
 lemma if_if_eq_conj: "(if P then if Q then x else y else y) = (if P \<and> Q then x else y)"
   by simp
 
 text \<open>As a simplification rule, it replaces all function equalities by
   first-order equalities.\<close>
 lemma fun_eq_iff: "f = g \<longleftrightarrow> (\<forall>x. f x = g x)"
   by auto
 
 
 subsubsection \<open>Generic cases and induction\<close>
 
 text \<open>Rule projections:\<close>
 ML \<open>
 structure Project_Rule = Project_Rule
 (
   val conjunct1 = @{thm conjunct1}
   val conjunct2 = @{thm conjunct2}
   val mp = @{thm mp}
 );
 \<close>
 
 context
 begin
 
 qualified definition "induct_forall P \<equiv> \<forall>x. P x"
 qualified definition "induct_implies A B \<equiv> A \<longrightarrow> B"
 qualified definition "induct_equal x y \<equiv> x = y"
 qualified definition "induct_conj A B \<equiv> A \<and> B"
 qualified definition "induct_true \<equiv> True"
 qualified definition "induct_false \<equiv> False"
 
 lemma induct_forall_eq: "(\<And>x. P x) \<equiv> Trueprop (induct_forall (\<lambda>x. P x))"
   by (unfold atomize_all induct_forall_def)
 
 lemma induct_implies_eq: "(A \<Longrightarrow> B) \<equiv> Trueprop (induct_implies A B)"
   by (unfold atomize_imp induct_implies_def)
 
 lemma induct_equal_eq: "(x \<equiv> y) \<equiv> Trueprop (induct_equal x y)"
   by (unfold atomize_eq induct_equal_def)
 
 lemma induct_conj_eq: "(A &&& B) \<equiv> Trueprop (induct_conj A B)"
   by (unfold atomize_conj induct_conj_def)
 
 lemmas induct_atomize' = induct_forall_eq induct_implies_eq induct_conj_eq
 lemmas induct_atomize = induct_atomize' induct_equal_eq
 lemmas induct_rulify' [symmetric] = induct_atomize'
 lemmas induct_rulify [symmetric] = induct_atomize
 lemmas induct_rulify_fallback =
   induct_forall_def induct_implies_def induct_equal_def induct_conj_def
   induct_true_def induct_false_def
 
 lemma induct_forall_conj: "induct_forall (\<lambda>x. induct_conj (A x) (B x)) =
     induct_conj (induct_forall A) (induct_forall B)"
   by (unfold induct_forall_def induct_conj_def) iprover
 
 lemma induct_implies_conj: "induct_implies C (induct_conj A B) =
     induct_conj (induct_implies C A) (induct_implies C B)"
   by (unfold induct_implies_def induct_conj_def) iprover
 
 lemma induct_conj_curry: "(induct_conj A B \<Longrightarrow> PROP C) \<equiv> (A \<Longrightarrow> B \<Longrightarrow> PROP C)"
 proof
   assume r: "induct_conj A B \<Longrightarrow> PROP C"
   assume ab: A B
   show "PROP C" by (rule r) (simp add: induct_conj_def ab)
 next
   assume r: "A \<Longrightarrow> B \<Longrightarrow> PROP C"
   assume ab: "induct_conj A B"
   show "PROP C" by (rule r) (simp_all add: ab [unfolded induct_conj_def])
 qed
 
 lemmas induct_conj = induct_forall_conj induct_implies_conj induct_conj_curry
 
 lemma induct_trueI: "induct_true"
   by (simp add: induct_true_def)
 
 text \<open>Method setup.\<close>
 
 ML_file \<open>~~/src/Tools/induct.ML\<close>
 ML \<open>
 structure Induct = Induct
 (
   val cases_default = @{thm case_split}
   val atomize = @{thms induct_atomize}
   val rulify = @{thms induct_rulify'}
   val rulify_fallback = @{thms induct_rulify_fallback}
   val equal_def = @{thm induct_equal_def}
   fun dest_def (Const (\<^const_name>\<open>induct_equal\<close>, _) $ t $ u) = SOME (t, u)
     | dest_def _ = NONE
   fun trivial_tac ctxt = match_tac ctxt @{thms induct_trueI}
 )
 \<close>
 
 ML_file \<open>~~/src/Tools/induction.ML\<close>
 
 declaration \<open>
   fn _ => Induct.map_simpset (fn ss => ss
     addsimprocs
       [Simplifier.make_simproc \<^context> "swap_induct_false"
         {lhss = [\<^term>\<open>induct_false \<Longrightarrow> PROP P \<Longrightarrow> PROP Q\<close>],
          proc = fn _ => fn _ => fn ct =>
           (case Thm.term_of ct of
             _ $ (P as _ $ \<^const>\<open>induct_false\<close>) $ (_ $ Q $ _) =>
               if P <> Q then SOME Drule.swap_prems_eq else NONE
           | _ => NONE)},
        Simplifier.make_simproc \<^context> "induct_equal_conj_curry"
         {lhss = [\<^term>\<open>induct_conj P Q \<Longrightarrow> PROP R\<close>],
          proc = fn _ => fn _ => fn ct =>
           (case Thm.term_of ct of
             _ $ (_ $ P) $ _ =>
               let
                 fun is_conj (\<^const>\<open>induct_conj\<close> $ P $ Q) =
                       is_conj P andalso is_conj Q
                   | is_conj (Const (\<^const_name>\<open>induct_equal\<close>, _) $ _ $ _) = true
                   | is_conj \<^const>\<open>induct_true\<close> = true
                   | is_conj \<^const>\<open>induct_false\<close> = true
                   | is_conj _ = false
               in if is_conj P then SOME @{thm induct_conj_curry} else NONE end
             | _ => NONE)}]
     |> Simplifier.set_mksimps (fn ctxt =>
         Simpdata.mksimps Simpdata.mksimps_pairs ctxt #>
         map (rewrite_rule ctxt (map Thm.symmetric @{thms induct_rulify_fallback}))))
 \<close>
 
 text \<open>Pre-simplification of induction and cases rules\<close>
 
 lemma [induct_simp]: "(\<And>x. induct_equal x t \<Longrightarrow> PROP P x) \<equiv> PROP P t"
   unfolding induct_equal_def
 proof
   assume r: "\<And>x. x = t \<Longrightarrow> PROP P x"
   show "PROP P t" by (rule r [OF refl])
 next
   fix x
   assume "PROP P t" "x = t"
   then show "PROP P x" by simp
 qed
 
 lemma [induct_simp]: "(\<And>x. induct_equal t x \<Longrightarrow> PROP P x) \<equiv> PROP P t"
   unfolding induct_equal_def
 proof
   assume r: "\<And>x. t = x \<Longrightarrow> PROP P x"
   show "PROP P t" by (rule r [OF refl])
 next
   fix x
   assume "PROP P t" "t = x"
   then show "PROP P x" by simp
 qed
 
 lemma [induct_simp]: "(induct_false \<Longrightarrow> P) \<equiv> Trueprop induct_true"
   unfolding induct_false_def induct_true_def
   by (iprover intro: equal_intr_rule)
 
 lemma [induct_simp]: "(induct_true \<Longrightarrow> PROP P) \<equiv> PROP P"
   unfolding induct_true_def
 proof
   assume "True \<Longrightarrow> PROP P"
   then show "PROP P" using TrueI .
 next
   assume "PROP P"
   then show "PROP P" .
 qed
 
 lemma [induct_simp]: "(PROP P \<Longrightarrow> induct_true) \<equiv> Trueprop induct_true"
   unfolding induct_true_def
   by (iprover intro: equal_intr_rule)
 
 lemma [induct_simp]: "(\<And>x::'a::{}. induct_true) \<equiv> Trueprop induct_true"
   unfolding induct_true_def
   by (iprover intro: equal_intr_rule)
 
 lemma [induct_simp]: "induct_implies induct_true P \<equiv> P"
   by (simp add: induct_implies_def induct_true_def)
 
 lemma [induct_simp]: "x = x \<longleftrightarrow> True"
   by (rule simp_thms)
 
 end
 
 ML_file \<open>~~/src/Tools/induct_tacs.ML\<close>
 
 
 subsubsection \<open>Coherent logic\<close>
 
 ML_file \<open>~~/src/Tools/coherent.ML\<close>
 ML \<open>
 structure Coherent = Coherent
 (
   val atomize_elimL = @{thm atomize_elimL};
   val atomize_exL = @{thm atomize_exL};
   val atomize_conjL = @{thm atomize_conjL};
   val atomize_disjL = @{thm atomize_disjL};
   val operator_names = [\<^const_name>\<open>HOL.disj\<close>, \<^const_name>\<open>HOL.conj\<close>, \<^const_name>\<open>Ex\<close>];
 );
 \<close>
 
 
 subsubsection \<open>Reorienting equalities\<close>
 
 ML \<open>
 signature REORIENT_PROC =
 sig
   val add : (term -> bool) -> theory -> theory
   val proc : morphism -> Proof.context -> cterm -> thm option
 end;
 
 structure Reorient_Proc : REORIENT_PROC =
 struct
   structure Data = Theory_Data
   (
     type T = ((term -> bool) * stamp) list;
     val empty = [];
     val extend = I;
     fun merge data : T = Library.merge (eq_snd (op =)) data;
   );
   fun add m = Data.map (cons (m, stamp ()));
   fun matches thy t = exists (fn (m, _) => m t) (Data.get thy);
 
   val meta_reorient = @{thm eq_commute [THEN eq_reflection]};
   fun proc phi ctxt ct =
     let
       val thy = Proof_Context.theory_of ctxt;
     in
       case Thm.term_of ct of
         (_ $ t $ u) => if matches thy u then NONE else SOME meta_reorient
       | _ => NONE
     end;
 end;
 \<close>
 
 
 subsection \<open>Other simple lemmas and lemma duplicates\<close>
 
 lemma all_cong1: "(\<And>x. P x = P' x) \<Longrightarrow> (\<forall>x. P x) = (\<forall>x. P' x)"
   by auto
 
 lemma ex_cong1: "(\<And>x. P x = P' x) \<Longrightarrow> (\<exists>x. P x) = (\<exists>x. P' x)"
   by auto
 
 lemma all_cong: "(\<And>x. Q x \<Longrightarrow> P x = P' x) \<Longrightarrow> (\<forall>x. Q x \<longrightarrow> P x) = (\<forall>x. Q x \<longrightarrow> P' x)"
   by auto
 
 lemma ex_cong: "(\<And>x. Q x \<Longrightarrow> P x = P' x) \<Longrightarrow> (\<exists>x. Q x \<and> P x) = (\<exists>x. Q x \<and> P' x)"
   by auto
 
 lemma ex1_eq [iff]: "\<exists>!x. x = t" "\<exists>!x. t = x"
   by blast+
 
 lemma choice_eq: "(\<forall>x. \<exists>!y. P x y) = (\<exists>!f. \<forall>x. P x (f x))" (is "?lhs = ?rhs")
 proof (intro iffI allI)
   assume L: ?lhs
   then have \<section>: "\<forall>x. P x (THE y. P x y)"
     by (best intro: theI')
   show ?rhs
     by (rule ex1I) (use L \<section> in \<open>fast+\<close>)
 next
   fix x
   assume R: ?rhs
   then obtain f where f: "\<forall>x. P x (f x)" and f1: "\<And>y. (\<forall>x. P x (y x)) \<Longrightarrow> y = f"
     by (blast elim: ex1E)
   show "\<exists>!y. P x y"
   proof (rule ex1I)
     show "P x (f x)"
       using f by blast
     show "y = f x" if "P x y" for y
     proof -
       have "P z (if z = x then y else f z)" for z
         using f that by (auto split: if_split)
       with f1 [of "\<lambda>z. if z = x then y else f z"] f
       show ?thesis
         by (auto simp add: split: if_split_asm dest: fun_cong)
     qed
   qed
 qed
 
 lemmas eq_sym_conv = eq_commute
 
 lemma nnf_simps:
   "(\<not> (P \<and> Q)) = (\<not> P \<or> \<not> Q)"
   "(\<not> (P \<or> Q)) = (\<not> P \<and> \<not> Q)"
   "(P \<longrightarrow> Q) = (\<not> P \<or> Q)"
   "(P = Q) = ((P \<and> Q) \<or> (\<not> P \<and> \<not> Q))"
   "(\<not> (P = Q)) = ((P \<and> \<not> Q) \<or> (\<not> P \<and> Q))"
   "(\<not> \<not> P) = P"
   by blast+
 
 
 subsection \<open>Basic ML bindings\<close>
 
 ML \<open>
 val FalseE = @{thm FalseE}
 val Let_def = @{thm Let_def}
 val TrueI = @{thm TrueI}
 val allE = @{thm allE}
 val allI = @{thm allI}
 val all_dupE = @{thm all_dupE}
 val arg_cong = @{thm arg_cong}
 val box_equals = @{thm box_equals}
 val ccontr = @{thm ccontr}
 val classical = @{thm classical}
 val conjE = @{thm conjE}
 val conjI = @{thm conjI}
 val conjunct1 = @{thm conjunct1}
 val conjunct2 = @{thm conjunct2}
 val disjCI = @{thm disjCI}
 val disjE = @{thm disjE}
 val disjI1 = @{thm disjI1}
 val disjI2 = @{thm disjI2}
 val eq_reflection = @{thm eq_reflection}
 val ex1E = @{thm ex1E}
 val ex1I = @{thm ex1I}
 val ex1_implies_ex = @{thm ex1_implies_ex}
 val exE = @{thm exE}
 val exI = @{thm exI}
 val excluded_middle = @{thm excluded_middle}
 val ext = @{thm ext}
 val fun_cong = @{thm fun_cong}
 val iffD1 = @{thm iffD1}
 val iffD2 = @{thm iffD2}
 val iffI = @{thm iffI}
 val impE = @{thm impE}
 val impI = @{thm impI}
 val meta_eq_to_obj_eq = @{thm meta_eq_to_obj_eq}
 val mp = @{thm mp}
 val notE = @{thm notE}
 val notI = @{thm notI}
 val not_all = @{thm not_all}
 val not_ex = @{thm not_ex}
 val not_iff = @{thm not_iff}
 val not_not = @{thm not_not}
 val not_sym = @{thm not_sym}
 val refl = @{thm refl}
 val rev_mp = @{thm rev_mp}
 val spec = @{thm spec}
 val ssubst = @{thm ssubst}
 val subst = @{thm subst}
 val sym = @{thm sym}
 val trans = @{thm trans}
 \<close>
 
 locale cnf
 begin
 
 lemma clause2raw_notE: "\<lbrakk>P; \<not>P\<rbrakk> \<Longrightarrow> False" by auto
 lemma clause2raw_not_disj: "\<lbrakk>\<not> P; \<not> Q\<rbrakk> \<Longrightarrow> \<not> (P \<or> Q)" by auto
 lemma clause2raw_not_not: "P \<Longrightarrow> \<not>\<not> P" by auto
 
 lemma iff_refl: "(P::bool) = P" by auto
 lemma iff_trans: "[| (P::bool) = Q; Q = R |] ==> P = R" by auto
 lemma conj_cong: "[| P = P'; Q = Q' |] ==> (P \<and> Q) = (P' \<and> Q')" by auto
 lemma disj_cong: "[| P = P'; Q = Q' |] ==> (P \<or> Q) = (P' \<or> Q')" by auto
 
 lemma make_nnf_imp: "[| (\<not>P) = P'; Q = Q' |] ==> (P \<longrightarrow> Q) = (P' \<or> Q')" by auto
 lemma make_nnf_iff: "[| P = P'; (\<not>P) = NP; Q = Q'; (\<not>Q) = NQ |] ==> (P = Q) = ((P' \<or> NQ) \<and> (NP \<or> Q'))" by auto
 lemma make_nnf_not_false: "(\<not>False) = True" by auto
 lemma make_nnf_not_true: "(\<not>True) = False" by auto
 lemma make_nnf_not_conj: "[| (\<not>P) = P'; (\<not>Q) = Q' |] ==> (\<not>(P \<and> Q)) = (P' \<or> Q')" by auto
 lemma make_nnf_not_disj: "[| (\<not>P) = P'; (\<not>Q) = Q' |] ==> (\<not>(P \<or> Q)) = (P' \<and> Q')" by auto
 lemma make_nnf_not_imp: "[| P = P'; (\<not>Q) = Q' |] ==> (\<not>(P \<longrightarrow> Q)) = (P' \<and> Q')" by auto
 lemma make_nnf_not_iff: "[| P = P'; (\<not>P) = NP; Q = Q'; (\<not>Q) = NQ |] ==> (\<not>(P = Q)) = ((P' \<or> Q') \<and> (NP \<or> NQ))" by auto
 lemma make_nnf_not_not: "P = P' ==> (\<not>\<not>P) = P'" by auto
 
 lemma simp_TF_conj_True_l: "[| P = True; Q = Q' |] ==> (P \<and> Q) = Q'" by auto
 lemma simp_TF_conj_True_r: "[| P = P'; Q = True |] ==> (P \<and> Q) = P'" by auto
 lemma simp_TF_conj_False_l: "P = False ==> (P \<and> Q) = False" by auto
 lemma simp_TF_conj_False_r: "Q = False ==> (P \<and> Q) = False" by auto
 lemma simp_TF_disj_True_l: "P = True ==> (P \<or> Q) = True" by auto
 lemma simp_TF_disj_True_r: "Q = True ==> (P \<or> Q) = True" by auto
 lemma simp_TF_disj_False_l: "[| P = False; Q = Q' |] ==> (P \<or> Q) = Q'" by auto
 lemma simp_TF_disj_False_r: "[| P = P'; Q = False |] ==> (P \<or> Q) = P'" by auto
 
 lemma make_cnf_disj_conj_l: "[| (P \<or> R) = PR; (Q \<or> R) = QR |] ==> ((P \<and> Q) \<or> R) = (PR \<and> QR)" by auto
 lemma make_cnf_disj_conj_r: "[| (P \<or> Q) = PQ; (P \<or> R) = PR |] ==> (P \<or> (Q \<and> R)) = (PQ \<and> PR)" by auto
 
 lemma make_cnfx_disj_ex_l: "((\<exists>(x::bool). P x) \<or> Q) = (\<exists>x. P x \<or> Q)" by auto
 lemma make_cnfx_disj_ex_r: "(P \<or> (\<exists>(x::bool). Q x)) = (\<exists>x. P \<or> Q x)" by auto
 lemma make_cnfx_newlit: "(P \<or> Q) = (\<exists>x. (P \<or> x) \<and> (Q \<or> \<not>x))" by auto
 lemma make_cnfx_ex_cong: "(\<forall>(x::bool). P x = Q x) \<Longrightarrow> (\<exists>x. P x) = (\<exists>x. Q x)" by auto
 
 lemma weakening_thm: "[| P; Q |] ==> Q" by auto
 
 lemma cnftac_eq_imp: "[| P = Q; P |] ==> Q" by auto
 
 end
 
 ML_file \<open>Tools/cnf.ML\<close>
 
 
 section \<open>\<open>NO_MATCH\<close> simproc\<close>
 
 text \<open>
   The simplification procedure can be used to avoid simplification of terms
   of a certain form.
 \<close>
 
 definition NO_MATCH :: "'a \<Rightarrow> 'b \<Rightarrow> bool"
   where "NO_MATCH pat val \<equiv> True"
 
 lemma NO_MATCH_cong[cong]: "NO_MATCH pat val = NO_MATCH pat val"
   by (rule refl)
 
 declare [[coercion_args NO_MATCH - -]]
 
 simproc_setup NO_MATCH ("NO_MATCH pat val") = \<open>fn _ => fn ctxt => fn ct =>
   let
     val thy = Proof_Context.theory_of ctxt
     val dest_binop = Term.dest_comb #> apfst (Term.dest_comb #> snd)
     val m = Pattern.matches thy (dest_binop (Thm.term_of ct))
   in if m then NONE else SOME @{thm NO_MATCH_def} end
 \<close>
 
 text \<open>
   This setup ensures that a rewrite rule of the form \<^term>\<open>NO_MATCH pat val \<Longrightarrow> t\<close>
   is only applied, if the pattern \<open>pat\<close> does not match the value \<open>val\<close>.
 \<close>
 
 
 text\<open>
   Tagging a premise of a simp rule with ASSUMPTION forces the simplifier
   not to simplify the argument and to solve it by an assumption.
 \<close>
 
 definition ASSUMPTION :: "bool \<Rightarrow> bool"
   where "ASSUMPTION A \<equiv> A"
 
 lemma ASSUMPTION_cong[cong]: "ASSUMPTION A = ASSUMPTION A"
   by (rule refl)
 
 lemma ASSUMPTION_I: "A \<Longrightarrow> ASSUMPTION A"
   by (simp add: ASSUMPTION_def)
 
 lemma ASSUMPTION_D: "ASSUMPTION A \<Longrightarrow> A"
   by (simp add: ASSUMPTION_def)
 
 setup \<open>
 let
   val asm_sol = mk_solver "ASSUMPTION" (fn ctxt =>
     resolve_tac ctxt [@{thm ASSUMPTION_I}] THEN'
     resolve_tac ctxt (Simplifier.prems_of ctxt))
 in
   map_theory_simpset (fn ctxt => Simplifier.addSolver (ctxt,asm_sol))
 end
 \<close>
 
 
 subsection \<open>Code generator setup\<close>
 
 subsubsection \<open>Generic code generator preprocessor setup\<close>
 
 lemma conj_left_cong: "P \<longleftrightarrow> Q \<Longrightarrow> P \<and> R \<longleftrightarrow> Q \<and> R"
   by (fact arg_cong)
 
 lemma disj_left_cong: "P \<longleftrightarrow> Q \<Longrightarrow> P \<or> R \<longleftrightarrow> Q \<or> R"
   by (fact arg_cong)
 
 setup \<open>
   Code_Preproc.map_pre (put_simpset HOL_basic_ss) #>
   Code_Preproc.map_post (put_simpset HOL_basic_ss) #>
   Code_Simp.map_ss (put_simpset HOL_basic_ss #>
   Simplifier.add_cong @{thm conj_left_cong} #>
   Simplifier.add_cong @{thm disj_left_cong})
 \<close>
 
 
 subsubsection \<open>Equality\<close>
 
 class equal =
   fixes equal :: "'a \<Rightarrow> 'a \<Rightarrow> bool"
   assumes equal_eq: "equal x y \<longleftrightarrow> x = y"
 begin
 
 lemma equal: "equal = (=)"
   by (rule ext equal_eq)+
 
 lemma equal_refl: "equal x x \<longleftrightarrow> True"
   unfolding equal by rule+
 
 lemma eq_equal: "(=) \<equiv> equal"
   by (rule eq_reflection) (rule ext, rule ext, rule sym, rule equal_eq)
 
 end
 
 declare eq_equal [symmetric, code_post]
 declare eq_equal [code]
 
 setup \<open>
   Code_Preproc.map_pre (fn ctxt =>
     ctxt addsimprocs
       [Simplifier.make_simproc \<^context> "equal"
         {lhss = [\<^term>\<open>HOL.eq\<close>],
          proc = fn _ => fn _ => fn ct =>
           (case Thm.term_of ct of
             Const (_, Type (\<^type_name>\<open>fun\<close>, [Type _, _])) => SOME @{thm eq_equal}
           | _ => NONE)}])
 \<close>
 
 
 subsubsection \<open>Generic code generator foundation\<close>
 
 text \<open>Datatype \<^typ>\<open>bool\<close>\<close>
 
 code_datatype True False
 
 lemma [code]:
   shows "False \<and> P \<longleftrightarrow> False"
     and "True \<and> P \<longleftrightarrow> P"
     and "P \<and> False \<longleftrightarrow> False"
     and "P \<and> True \<longleftrightarrow> P"
   by simp_all
 
 lemma [code]:
   shows "False \<or> P \<longleftrightarrow> P"
     and "True \<or> P \<longleftrightarrow> True"
     and "P \<or> False \<longleftrightarrow> P"
     and "P \<or> True \<longleftrightarrow> True"
   by simp_all
 
 lemma [code]:
   shows "(False \<longrightarrow> P) \<longleftrightarrow> True"
     and "(True \<longrightarrow> P) \<longleftrightarrow> P"
     and "(P \<longrightarrow> False) \<longleftrightarrow> \<not> P"
     and "(P \<longrightarrow> True) \<longleftrightarrow> True"
   by simp_all
 
 text \<open>More about \<^typ>\<open>prop\<close>\<close>
 
 lemma [code nbe]:
   shows "(True \<Longrightarrow> PROP Q) \<equiv> PROP Q"
     and "(PROP Q \<Longrightarrow> True) \<equiv> Trueprop True"
     and "(P \<Longrightarrow> R) \<equiv> Trueprop (P \<longrightarrow> R)"
   by (auto intro!: equal_intr_rule)
 
 lemma Trueprop_code [code]: "Trueprop True \<equiv> Code_Generator.holds"
   by (auto intro!: equal_intr_rule holds)
 
 declare Trueprop_code [symmetric, code_post]
 
 text \<open>Equality\<close>
 
 declare simp_thms(6) [code nbe]
 
 instantiation itself :: (type) equal
 begin
 
 definition equal_itself :: "'a itself \<Rightarrow> 'a itself \<Rightarrow> bool"
   where "equal_itself x y \<longleftrightarrow> x = y"
 
 instance
   by standard (fact equal_itself_def)
 
 end
 
 lemma equal_itself_code [code]: "equal TYPE('a) TYPE('a) \<longleftrightarrow> True"
   by (simp add: equal)
 
 setup \<open>Sign.add_const_constraint (\<^const_name>\<open>equal\<close>, SOME \<^typ>\<open>'a::type \<Rightarrow> 'a \<Rightarrow> bool\<close>)\<close>
 
 lemma equal_alias_cert: "OFCLASS('a, equal_class) \<equiv> (((=) :: 'a \<Rightarrow> 'a \<Rightarrow> bool) \<equiv> equal)"
   (is "?ofclass \<equiv> ?equal")
 proof
   assume "PROP ?ofclass"
   show "PROP ?equal"
     by (tactic \<open>ALLGOALS (resolve_tac \<^context> [Thm.unconstrainT @{thm eq_equal}])\<close>)
       (fact \<open>PROP ?ofclass\<close>)
 next
   assume "PROP ?equal"
   show "PROP ?ofclass" proof
   qed (simp add: \<open>PROP ?equal\<close>)
 qed
 
 setup \<open>Sign.add_const_constraint (\<^const_name>\<open>equal\<close>, SOME \<^typ>\<open>'a::equal \<Rightarrow> 'a \<Rightarrow> bool\<close>)\<close>
 
 setup \<open>Nbe.add_const_alias @{thm equal_alias_cert}\<close>
 
 text \<open>Cases\<close>
 
 lemma Let_case_cert:
   assumes "CASE \<equiv> (\<lambda>x. Let x f)"
   shows "CASE x \<equiv> f x"
   using assms by simp_all
 
 setup \<open>
   Code.declare_case_global @{thm Let_case_cert} #>
   Code.declare_undefined_global \<^const_name>\<open>undefined\<close>
 \<close>
 
 declare [[code abort: undefined]]
 
 
 subsubsection \<open>Generic code generator target languages\<close>
 
 text \<open>type \<^typ>\<open>bool\<close>\<close>
 
 code_printing
   type_constructor bool \<rightharpoonup>
     (SML) "bool" and (OCaml) "bool" and (Haskell) "Bool" and (Scala) "Boolean"
 | constant True \<rightharpoonup>
     (SML) "true" and (OCaml) "true" and (Haskell) "True" and (Scala) "true"
 | constant False \<rightharpoonup>
     (SML) "false" and (OCaml) "false" and (Haskell) "False" and (Scala) "false"
 
 code_reserved SML
   bool true false
 
 code_reserved OCaml
   bool
 
 code_reserved Scala
   Boolean
 
 code_printing
   constant Not \<rightharpoonup>
     (SML) "not" and (OCaml) "not" and (Haskell) "not" and (Scala) "'! _"
 | constant HOL.conj \<rightharpoonup>
     (SML) infixl 1 "andalso" and (OCaml) infixl 3 "&&" and (Haskell) infixr 3 "&&" and (Scala) infixl 3 "&&"
 | constant HOL.disj \<rightharpoonup>
     (SML) infixl 0 "orelse" and (OCaml) infixl 2 "||" and (Haskell) infixl 2 "||" and (Scala) infixl 1 "||"
 | constant HOL.implies \<rightharpoonup>
     (SML) "!(if (_)/ then (_)/ else true)"
     and (OCaml) "!(if (_)/ then (_)/ else true)"
     and (Haskell) "!(if (_)/ then (_)/ else True)"
     and (Scala) "!(if ((_))/ (_)/ else true)"
 | constant If \<rightharpoonup>
     (SML) "!(if (_)/ then (_)/ else (_))"
     and (OCaml) "!(if (_)/ then (_)/ else (_))"
     and (Haskell) "!(if (_)/ then (_)/ else (_))"
     and (Scala) "!(if ((_))/ (_)/ else (_))"
 
 code_reserved SML
   not
 
 code_reserved OCaml
   not
 
 code_identifier
   code_module Pure \<rightharpoonup>
     (SML) HOL and (OCaml) HOL and (Haskell) HOL and (Scala) HOL
 
 text \<open>Using built-in Haskell equality.\<close>
 code_printing
   type_class equal \<rightharpoonup> (Haskell) "Eq"
 | constant HOL.equal \<rightharpoonup> (Haskell) infix 4 "=="
 | constant HOL.eq \<rightharpoonup> (Haskell) infix 4 "=="
 
 text \<open>\<open>undefined\<close>\<close>
 code_printing
   constant undefined \<rightharpoonup>
     (SML) "!(raise/ Fail/ \"undefined\")"
     and (OCaml) "failwith/ \"undefined\""
     and (Haskell) "error/ \"undefined\""
     and (Scala) "!sys.error(\"undefined\")"
 
 
 subsubsection \<open>Evaluation and normalization by evaluation\<close>
 
 method_setup eval = \<open>
   let
     fun eval_tac ctxt =
       let val conv = Code_Runtime.dynamic_holds_conv ctxt
       in
         CONVERSION (Conv.params_conv ~1 (K (Conv.concl_conv ~1 conv)) ctxt) THEN'
         resolve_tac ctxt [TrueI]
       end
   in
     Scan.succeed (SIMPLE_METHOD' o eval_tac)
   end
 \<close> "solve goal by evaluation"
 
 method_setup normalization = \<open>
   Scan.succeed (fn ctxt =>
     SIMPLE_METHOD'
       (CHANGED_PROP o
         (CONVERSION (Nbe.dynamic_conv ctxt)
           THEN_ALL_NEW (TRY o resolve_tac ctxt [TrueI]))))
 \<close> "solve goal by normalization"
 
 
 subsection \<open>Counterexample Search Units\<close>
 
 subsubsection \<open>Quickcheck\<close>
 
 quickcheck_params [size = 5, iterations = 50]
 
 
 subsubsection \<open>Nitpick setup\<close>
 
 named_theorems nitpick_unfold "alternative definitions of constants as needed by Nitpick"
   and nitpick_simp "equational specification of constants as needed by Nitpick"
   and nitpick_psimp "partial equational specification of constants as needed by Nitpick"
   and nitpick_choice_spec "choice specification of constants as needed by Nitpick"
 
 declare if_bool_eq_conj [nitpick_unfold, no_atp]
   and if_bool_eq_disj [no_atp]
 
 
 subsection \<open>Preprocessing for the predicate compiler\<close>
 
 named_theorems code_pred_def "alternative definitions of constants for the Predicate Compiler"
   and code_pred_inline "inlining definitions for the Predicate Compiler"
   and code_pred_simp "simplification rules for the optimisations in the Predicate Compiler"
 
 
 subsection \<open>Legacy tactics and ML bindings\<close>
 
 ML \<open>
   (* combination of (spec RS spec RS ...(j times) ... spec RS mp) *)
   local
     fun wrong_prem (Const (\<^const_name>\<open>All\<close>, _) $ Abs (_, _, t)) = wrong_prem t
       | wrong_prem (Bound _) = true
       | wrong_prem _ = false;
     val filter_right = filter (not o wrong_prem o HOLogic.dest_Trueprop o hd o Thm.prems_of);
     fun smp i = funpow i (fn m => filter_right ([spec] RL m)) [mp];
   in
     fun smp_tac ctxt j = EVERY' [dresolve_tac ctxt (smp j), assume_tac ctxt];
   end;
 
   local
     val nnf_ss =
       simpset_of (put_simpset HOL_basic_ss \<^context> addsimps @{thms simp_thms nnf_simps});
   in
     fun nnf_conv ctxt = Simplifier.rewrite (put_simpset nnf_ss ctxt);
   end
 \<close>
 
 hide_const (open) eq equal
 
 end
diff --git a/src/HOL/Library/Quantified_Premise_Simproc.thy b/src/HOL/Library/Quantified_Premise_Simproc.thy
--- a/src/HOL/Library/Quantified_Premise_Simproc.thy
+++ b/src/HOL/Library/Quantified_Premise_Simproc.thy
@@ -1,9 +1,9 @@
 (* Author: Florian Haftmann, TU München *)
 
 theory Quantified_Premise_Simproc
   imports Main
 begin
 
-simproc_setup defined_all ("\<And>x. PROP P x") = \<open>K Quantifier1.rearrange_all\<close>
+declare [[simproc add: defined_all]]
 
 end