(*  Title:      FOLP/IFOLP.thy

    Author:     Martin D Coen, Cambridge University Computer Laboratory

    Copyright   1992  University of Cambridge

*)

header {* Intuitionistic First-Order Logic with Proofs *}

theory IFOLP

imports Pure

begin

ML_file "~~/src/Tools/misc_legacy.ML"

setup Pure_Thy.old_appl_syntax_setup

classes "term"

default_sort "term"

typedecl p

typedecl o

consts

      (*** Judgements ***)

 Proof          ::   "[o,p]=>prop"

 EqProof        ::   "[p,p,o]=>prop"    ("(3_ /= _ :/ _)" [10,10,10] 5)

      (*** Logical Connectives -- Type Formers ***)

 eq             ::      "['a,'a] => o"  (infixl "=" 50)

 True           ::      "o"

 False          ::      "o"

 Not            ::      "o => o"        ("~ _" [40] 40)

 conj           ::      "[o,o] => o"    (infixr "&" 35)

 disj           ::      "[o,o] => o"    (infixr "|" 30)

 imp            ::      "[o,o] => o"    (infixr "-->" 25)

 iff            ::      "[o,o] => o"    (infixr "<->" 25)

      (*Quantifiers*)

 All            ::      "('a => o) => o"        (binder "ALL " 10)

 Ex             ::      "('a => o) => o"        (binder "EX " 10)

 Ex1            ::      "('a => o) => o"        (binder "EX! " 10)

      (*Rewriting gadgets*)

 NORM           ::      "o => o"

 norm           ::      "'a => 'a"

      (*** Proof Term Formers: precedence must exceed 50 ***)

 tt             :: "p"

 contr          :: "p=>p"

 fst            :: "p=>p"

 snd            :: "p=>p"

 pair           :: "[p,p]=>p"           ("(1<_,/_>)")

 split          :: "[p, [p,p]=>p] =>p"

 inl            :: "p=>p"

 inr            :: "p=>p"

 when           :: "[p, p=>p, p=>p]=>p"

 lambda         :: "(p => p) => p"      (binder "lam " 55)

 App            :: "[p,p]=>p"           (infixl "`" 60)

 alll           :: "['a=>p]=>p"         (binder "all " 55)

 app            :: "[p,'a]=>p"          (infixl "^" 55)

 exists         :: "['a,p]=>p"          ("(1[_,/_])")

 xsplit         :: "[p,['a,p]=>p]=>p"

 ideq           :: "'a=>p"

 idpeel         :: "[p,'a=>p]=>p"

 nrm            :: p

 NRM            :: p

syntax "_Proof" :: "[p,o]=>prop"    ("(_ /: _)" [51, 10] 5)

parse_translation {*

  let fun proof_tr [p, P] = Const (@{const_syntax Proof}, dummyT) $ P $ p

  in [(@{syntax_const "_Proof"}, proof_tr)] end

*}

(*show_proofs = true displays the proof terms -- they are ENORMOUS*)

ML {* val show_proofs = Attrib.setup_config_bool @{binding show_proofs} (K false) *}

print_translation (advanced) {*

  let

    fun proof_tr' ctxt [P, p] =

      if Config.get ctxt show_proofs then Const (@{syntax_const "_Proof"}, dummyT) $ p $ P

      else P

  in [(@{const_syntax Proof}, proof_tr')] end

*}

(**** Propositional logic ****)

(*Equality*)

(* Like Intensional Equality in MLTT - but proofs distinct from terms *)

axiomatization where

ieqI:      "ideq(a) : a=a" and

ieqE:      "[| p : a=b;  !!x. f(x) : P(x,x) |] ==> idpeel(p,f) : P(a,b)"

(* Truth and Falsity *)

axiomatization where

TrueI:     "tt : True" and

FalseE:    "a:False ==> contr(a):P"

(* Conjunction *)

axiomatization where

conjI:     "[| a:P;  b:Q |] ==> <a,b> : P&Q" and

conjunct1: "p:P&Q ==> fst(p):P" and

conjunct2: "p:P&Q ==> snd(p):Q"

(* Disjunction *)

axiomatization where

disjI1:    "a:P ==> inl(a):P|Q" and

disjI2:    "b:Q ==> inr(b):P|Q" and

disjE:     "[| a:P|Q;  !!x. x:P ==> f(x):R;  !!x. x:Q ==> g(x):R

           |] ==> when(a,f,g):R"

(* Implication *)

axiomatization where

impI:      "\<And>P Q f. (!!x. x:P ==> f(x):Q) ==> lam x. f(x):P-->Q" and

mp:        "\<And>P Q f. [| f:P-->Q;  a:P |] ==> f`a:Q"

(*Quantifiers*)

axiomatization where

allI:      "\<And>P. (!!x. f(x) : P(x)) ==> all x. f(x) : ALL x. P(x)" and

spec:      "\<And>P f. (f:ALL x. P(x)) ==> f^x : P(x)"

axiomatization where

exI:       "p : P(x) ==> [x,p] : EX x. P(x)" and

exE:       "[| p: EX x. P(x);  !!x u. u:P(x) ==> f(x,u) : R |] ==> xsplit(p,f):R"

(**** Equality between proofs ****)

axiomatization where

prefl:     "a : P ==> a = a : P" and

psym:      "a = b : P ==> b = a : P" and

ptrans:    "[| a = b : P;  b = c : P |] ==> a = c : P"

axiomatization where

idpeelB:   "[| !!x. f(x) : P(x,x) |] ==> idpeel(ideq(a),f) = f(a) : P(a,a)"

axiomatization where

fstB:      "a:P ==> fst(<a,b>) = a : P" and

sndB:      "b:Q ==> snd(<a,b>) = b : Q" and

pairEC:    "p:P&Q ==> p = <fst(p),snd(p)> : P&Q"

axiomatization where

whenBinl:  "[| a:P;  !!x. x:P ==> f(x) : Q |] ==> when(inl(a),f,g) = f(a) : Q" and

whenBinr:  "[| b:P;  !!x. x:P ==> g(x) : Q |] ==> when(inr(b),f,g) = g(b) : Q" and

plusEC:    "a:P|Q ==> when(a,%x. inl(x),%y. inr(y)) = a : P|Q"

axiomatization where

applyB:     "[| a:P;  !!x. x:P ==> b(x) : Q |] ==> (lam x. b(x)) ` a = b(a) : Q" and

funEC:      "f:P ==> f = lam x. f`x : P"

axiomatization where

specB:      "[| !!x. f(x) : P(x) |] ==> (all x. f(x)) ^ a = f(a) : P(a)"

(**** Definitions ****)

defs

not_def:              "~P == P-->False"

iff_def:         "P<->Q == (P-->Q) & (Q-->P)"

(*Unique existence*)

ex1_def:   "EX! x. P(x) == EX x. P(x) & (ALL y. P(y) --> y=x)"

(*Rewriting -- special constants to flag normalized terms and formulae*)

axiomatization where

norm_eq: "nrm : norm(x) = x" and

NORM_iff:        "NRM : NORM(P) <-> P"

(*** Sequent-style elimination rules for & --> and ALL ***)

schematic_lemma conjE:

  assumes "p:P&Q"

    and "!!x y.[| x:P; y:Q |] ==> f(x,y):R"

  shows "?a:R"

  apply (rule assms(2))

   apply (rule conjunct1 [OF assms(1)])

  apply (rule conjunct2 [OF assms(1)])

  done

schematic_lemma impE:

  assumes "p:P-->Q"

    and "q:P"

    and "!!x. x:Q ==> r(x):R"

  shows "?p:R"

  apply (rule assms mp)+

  done

schematic_lemma allE:

  assumes "p:ALL x. P(x)"

    and "!!y. y:P(x) ==> q(y):R"

  shows "?p:R"

  apply (rule assms spec)+

  done

(*Duplicates the quantifier; for use with eresolve_tac*)

schematic_lemma all_dupE:

  assumes "p:ALL x. P(x)"

    and "!!y z.[| y:P(x); z:ALL x. P(x) |] ==> q(y,z):R"

  shows "?p:R"

  apply (rule assms spec)+

  done

(*** Negation rules, which translate between ~P and P-->False ***)

schematic_lemma notI:

  assumes "!!x. x:P ==> q(x):False"

  shows "?p:~P"

  unfolding not_def

  apply (assumption | rule assms impI)+

  done

schematic_lemma notE: "p:~P \<Longrightarrow> q:P \<Longrightarrow> ?p:R"

  unfolding not_def

  apply (drule (1) mp)

  apply (erule FalseE)

  done

(*This is useful with the special implication rules for each kind of P. *)

schematic_lemma not_to_imp:

  assumes "p:~P"

    and "!!x. x:(P-->False) ==> q(x):Q"

  shows "?p:Q"

  apply (assumption | rule assms impI notE)+

  done

(* For substitution int an assumption P, reduce Q to P-->Q, substitute into

   this implication, then apply impI to move P back into the assumptions.*)

schematic_lemma rev_mp: "[| p:P;  q:P --> Q |] ==> ?p:Q"

  apply (assumption | rule mp)+

  done

(*Contrapositive of an inference rule*)

schematic_lemma contrapos:

  assumes major: "p:~Q"

    and minor: "!!y. y:P==>q(y):Q"

  shows "?a:~P"

  apply (rule major [THEN notE, THEN notI])

  apply (erule minor)

  done

(** Unique assumption tactic.

    Ignores proof objects.

    Fails unless one assumption is equal and exactly one is unifiable

**)

ML {*

local

  fun discard_proof (Const (@{const_name Proof}, _) $ P $ _) = P;

in

val uniq_assume_tac =

  SUBGOAL

    (fn (prem,i) =>

      let val hyps = map discard_proof (Logic.strip_assums_hyp prem)

          and concl = discard_proof (Logic.strip_assums_concl prem)

      in

          if exists (fn hyp => hyp aconv concl) hyps

          then case distinct (op =) (filter (fn hyp => Term.could_unify (hyp, concl)) hyps) of

                   [_] => assume_tac i

                 |  _  => no_tac

          else no_tac

      end);

end;

*}

(*** Modus Ponens Tactics ***)

(*Finds P-->Q and P in the assumptions, replaces implication by Q *)

ML {*

  fun mp_tac i = eresolve_tac [@{thm notE}, make_elim @{thm mp}] i  THEN  assume_tac i

*}

(*Like mp_tac but instantiates no variables*)

ML {*

  fun int_uniq_mp_tac i = eresolve_tac [@{thm notE}, @{thm impE}] i  THEN  uniq_assume_tac i

*}

(*** If-and-only-if ***)

schematic_lemma iffI:

  assumes "!!x. x:P ==> q(x):Q"

    and "!!x. x:Q ==> r(x):P"

  shows "?p:P<->Q"

  unfolding iff_def

  apply (assumption | rule assms conjI impI)+

  done

(*Observe use of rewrite_rule to unfold "<->" in meta-assumptions (prems) *)

schematic_lemma iffE:

  assumes "p:P <-> Q"

    and "!!x y.[| x:P-->Q; y:Q-->P |] ==> q(x,y):R"

  shows "?p:R"

  apply (rule conjE)

   apply (rule assms(1) [unfolded iff_def])

  apply (rule assms(2))

   apply assumption+

  done

(* Destruct rules for <-> similar to Modus Ponens *)

schematic_lemma iffD1: "[| p:P <-> Q; q:P |] ==> ?p:Q"

  unfolding iff_def

  apply (rule conjunct1 [THEN mp], assumption+)

  done

schematic_lemma iffD2: "[| p:P <-> Q; q:Q |] ==> ?p:P"

  unfolding iff_def

  apply (rule conjunct2 [THEN mp], assumption+)

  done

schematic_lemma iff_refl: "?p:P <-> P"

  apply (rule iffI)

   apply assumption+

  done

schematic_lemma iff_sym: "p:Q <-> P ==> ?p:P <-> Q"

  apply (erule iffE)

  apply (rule iffI)

   apply (erule (1) mp)+

  done

schematic_lemma iff_trans: "[| p:P <-> Q; q:Q<-> R |] ==> ?p:P <-> R"

  apply (rule iffI)

   apply (assumption | erule iffE | erule (1) impE)+

  done

(*** Unique existence.  NOTE THAT the following 2 quantifications

   EX!x such that [EX!y such that P(x,y)]     (sequential)

   EX!x,y such that P(x,y)                    (simultaneous)

 do NOT mean the same thing.  The parser treats EX!x y.P(x,y) as sequential.

***)

schematic_lemma ex1I:

  assumes "p:P(a)"

    and "!!x u. u:P(x) ==> f(u) : x=a"

  shows "?p:EX! x. P(x)"

  unfolding ex1_def

  apply (assumption | rule assms exI conjI allI impI)+

  done

schematic_lemma ex1E:

  assumes "p:EX! x. P(x)"

    and "!!x u v. [| u:P(x);  v:ALL y. P(y) --> y=x |] ==> f(x,u,v):R"

  shows "?a : R"

  apply (insert assms(1) [unfolded ex1_def])

  apply (erule exE conjE | assumption | rule assms(1))+

  apply (erule assms(2), assumption)

  done

(*** <-> congruence rules for simplification ***)

(*Use iffE on a premise.  For conj_cong, imp_cong, all_cong, ex_cong*)

ML {*

fun iff_tac prems i =

    resolve_tac (prems RL [@{thm iffE}]) i THEN

    REPEAT1 (eresolve_tac [asm_rl, @{thm mp}] i)

*}

schematic_lemma conj_cong:

  assumes "p:P <-> P'"

    and "!!x. x:P' ==> q(x):Q <-> Q'"

  shows "?p:(P&Q) <-> (P'&Q')"

  apply (insert assms(1))

  apply (assumption | rule iffI conjI |

    erule iffE conjE mp | tactic {* iff_tac @{thms assms} 1 *})+

  done

schematic_lemma disj_cong:

  "[| p:P <-> P'; q:Q <-> Q' |] ==> ?p:(P|Q) <-> (P'|Q')"

  apply (erule iffE disjE disjI1 disjI2 | assumption | rule iffI | tactic {* mp_tac 1 *})+

  done

schematic_lemma imp_cong:

  assumes "p:P <-> P'"

    and "!!x. x:P' ==> q(x):Q <-> Q'"

  shows "?p:(P-->Q) <-> (P'-->Q')"

  apply (insert assms(1))

  apply (assumption | rule iffI impI | erule iffE | tactic {* mp_tac 1 *} |

    tactic {* iff_tac @{thms assms} 1 *})+

  done

schematic_lemma iff_cong:

  "[| p:P <-> P'; q:Q <-> Q' |] ==> ?p:(P<->Q) <-> (P'<->Q')"

  apply (erule iffE | assumption | rule iffI | tactic {* mp_tac 1 *})+

  done

schematic_lemma not_cong:

  "p:P <-> P' ==> ?p:~P <-> ~P'"

  apply (assumption | rule iffI notI | tactic {* mp_tac 1 *} | erule iffE notE)+

  done

schematic_lemma all_cong:

  assumes "!!x. f(x):P(x) <-> Q(x)"

  shows "?p:(ALL x. P(x)) <-> (ALL x. Q(x))"

  apply (assumption | rule iffI allI | tactic {* mp_tac 1 *} | erule allE |

    tactic {* iff_tac @{thms assms} 1 *})+

  done

schematic_lemma ex_cong:

  assumes "!!x. f(x):P(x) <-> Q(x)"

  shows "?p:(EX x. P(x)) <-> (EX x. Q(x))"

  apply (erule exE | assumption | rule iffI exI | tactic {* mp_tac 1 *} |

    tactic {* iff_tac @{thms assms} 1 *})+

  done

(*NOT PROVED

bind_thm ("ex1_cong", prove_goal (the_context ())

    "(!!x.f(x):P(x) <-> Q(x)) ==> ?p:(EX! x.P(x)) <-> (EX! x.Q(x))"

 (fn prems =>

  [ (REPEAT   (eresolve_tac [ex1E, spec RS mp] 1 ORELSE ares_tac [iffI,ex1I] 1

      ORELSE   mp_tac 1

      ORELSE   iff_tac prems 1)) ]))

*)

(*** Equality rules ***)

lemmas refl = ieqI

schematic_lemma subst:

  assumes prem1: "p:a=b"

    and prem2: "q:P(a)"

  shows "?p : P(b)"

  apply (rule prem2 [THEN rev_mp])

  apply (rule prem1 [THEN ieqE])

  apply (rule impI)

  apply assumption

  done

schematic_lemma sym: "q:a=b ==> ?c:b=a"

  apply (erule subst)

  apply (rule refl)

  done

schematic_lemma trans: "[| p:a=b;  q:b=c |] ==> ?d:a=c"

  apply (erule (1) subst)

  done

(** ~ b=a ==> ~ a=b **)

schematic_lemma not_sym: "p:~ b=a ==> ?q:~ a=b"

  apply (erule contrapos)

  apply (erule sym)

  done

schematic_lemma ssubst: "p:b=a \<Longrightarrow> q:P(a) \<Longrightarrow> ?p:P(b)"

  apply (drule sym)

  apply (erule subst)

  apply assumption

  done

(*A special case of ex1E that would otherwise need quantifier expansion*)

schematic_lemma ex1_equalsE: "[| p:EX! x. P(x);  q:P(a);  r:P(b) |] ==> ?d:a=b"

  apply (erule ex1E)

  apply (rule trans)

   apply (rule_tac [2] sym)

   apply (assumption | erule spec [THEN mp])+

  done

(** Polymorphic congruence rules **)

schematic_lemma subst_context: "[| p:a=b |]  ==>  ?d:t(a)=t(b)"

  apply (erule ssubst)

  apply (rule refl)

  done

schematic_lemma subst_context2: "[| p:a=b;  q:c=d |]  ==>  ?p:t(a,c)=t(b,d)"

  apply (erule ssubst)+

  apply (rule refl)

  done

schematic_lemma subst_context3: "[| p:a=b;  q:c=d;  r:e=f |]  ==>  ?p:t(a,c,e)=t(b,d,f)"

  apply (erule ssubst)+

  apply (rule refl)

  done

(*Useful with eresolve_tac for proving equalties from known equalities.

        a = b

        |   |

        c = d   *)

schematic_lemma box_equals: "[| p:a=b;  q:a=c;  r:b=d |] ==> ?p:c=d"

  apply (rule trans)

   apply (rule trans)

    apply (rule sym)

    apply assumption+

  done

(*Dual of box_equals: for proving equalities backwards*)

schematic_lemma simp_equals: "[| p:a=c;  q:b=d;  r:c=d |] ==> ?p:a=b"

  apply (rule trans)

   apply (rule trans)

    apply (assumption | rule sym)+

  done

(** Congruence rules for predicate letters **)

schematic_lemma pred1_cong: "p:a=a' ==> ?p:P(a) <-> P(a')"

  apply (rule iffI)

   apply (tactic {* DEPTH_SOLVE (atac 1 ORELSE eresolve_tac [@{thm subst}, @{thm ssubst}] 1) *})

  done

schematic_lemma pred2_cong: "[| p:a=a';  q:b=b' |] ==> ?p:P(a,b) <-> P(a',b')"

  apply (rule iffI)

   apply (tactic {* DEPTH_SOLVE (atac 1 ORELSE eresolve_tac [@{thm subst}, @{thm ssubst}] 1) *})

  done

schematic_lemma pred3_cong: "[| p:a=a';  q:b=b';  r:c=c' |] ==> ?p:P(a,b,c) <-> P(a',b',c')"

  apply (rule iffI)

   apply (tactic {* DEPTH_SOLVE (atac 1 ORELSE eresolve_tac [@{thm subst}, @{thm ssubst}] 1) *})

  done

lemmas pred_congs = pred1_cong pred2_cong pred3_cong

(*special case for the equality predicate!*)

lemmas eq_cong = pred2_cong [where P = "op ="]

(*** Simplifications of assumed implications.

     Roy Dyckhoff has proved that conj_impE, disj_impE, and imp_impE

     used with mp_tac (restricted to atomic formulae) is COMPLETE for

     intuitionistic propositional logic.  See

   R. Dyckhoff, Contraction-free sequent calculi for intuitionistic logic

    (preprint, University of St Andrews, 1991)  ***)

schematic_lemma conj_impE:

  assumes major: "p:(P&Q)-->S"

    and minor: "!!x. x:P-->(Q-->S) ==> q(x):R"

  shows "?p:R"

  apply (assumption | rule conjI impI major [THEN mp] minor)+

  done

schematic_lemma disj_impE:

  assumes major: "p:(P|Q)-->S"

    and minor: "!!x y.[| x:P-->S; y:Q-->S |] ==> q(x,y):R"

  shows "?p:R"

  apply (tactic {* DEPTH_SOLVE (atac 1 ORELSE

      resolve_tac [@{thm disjI1}, @{thm disjI2}, @{thm impI},

        @{thm major} RS @{thm mp}, @{thm minor}] 1) *})

  done

(*Simplifies the implication.  Classical version is stronger.

  Still UNSAFE since Q must be provable -- backtracking needed.  *)

schematic_lemma imp_impE:

  assumes major: "p:(P-->Q)-->S"

    and r1: "!!x y.[| x:P; y:Q-->S |] ==> q(x,y):Q"

    and r2: "!!x. x:S ==> r(x):R"

  shows "?p:R"

  apply (assumption | rule impI major [THEN mp] r1 r2)+

  done

(*Simplifies the implication.  Classical version is stronger.

  Still UNSAFE since ~P must be provable -- backtracking needed.  *)

schematic_lemma not_impE:

  assumes major: "p:~P --> S"

    and r1: "!!y. y:P ==> q(y):False"

    and r2: "!!y. y:S ==> r(y):R"

  shows "?p:R"

  apply (assumption | rule notI impI major [THEN mp] r1 r2)+

  done

(*Simplifies the implication.   UNSAFE.  *)

schematic_lemma iff_impE:

  assumes major: "p:(P<->Q)-->S"

    and r1: "!!x y.[| x:P; y:Q-->S |] ==> q(x,y):Q"

    and r2: "!!x y.[| x:Q; y:P-->S |] ==> r(x,y):P"

    and r3: "!!x. x:S ==> s(x):R"

  shows "?p:R"

  apply (assumption | rule iffI impI major [THEN mp] r1 r2 r3)+

  done

(*What if (ALL x.~~P(x)) --> ~~(ALL x.P(x)) is an assumption? UNSAFE*)

schematic_lemma all_impE:

  assumes major: "p:(ALL x. P(x))-->S"

    and r1: "!!x. q:P(x)"

    and r2: "!!y. y:S ==> r(y):R"

  shows "?p:R"

  apply (assumption | rule allI impI major [THEN mp] r1 r2)+

  done

(*Unsafe: (EX x.P(x))-->S  is equivalent to  ALL x.P(x)-->S.  *)

schematic_lemma ex_impE:

  assumes major: "p:(EX x. P(x))-->S"

    and r: "!!y. y:P(a)-->S ==> q(y):R"

  shows "?p:R"

  apply (assumption | rule exI impI major [THEN mp] r)+

  done

schematic_lemma rev_cut_eq:

  assumes "p:a=b"

    and "!!x. x:a=b ==> f(x):R"

  shows "?p:R"

  apply (rule assms)+

  done

lemma thin_refl: "!!X. [|p:x=x; PROP W|] ==> PROP W" .

ML_file "hypsubst.ML"

ML {*

structure Hypsubst = Hypsubst

(

  (*Take apart an equality judgement; otherwise raise Match!*)

  fun dest_eq (Const (@{const_name Proof}, _) $

    (Const (@{const_name eq}, _)  $ t $ u) $ _) = (t, u);

  val imp_intr = @{thm impI}

  (*etac rev_cut_eq moves an equality to be the last premise. *)

  val rev_cut_eq = @{thm rev_cut_eq}

  val rev_mp = @{thm rev_mp}

  val subst = @{thm subst}

  val sym = @{thm sym}

  val thin_refl = @{thm thin_refl}

);

open Hypsubst;

*}

ML_file "intprover.ML"

(*** Rewrite rules ***)

schematic_lemma conj_rews:

  "?p1 : P & True <-> P"

  "?p2 : True & P <-> P"

  "?p3 : P & False <-> False"

  "?p4 : False & P <-> False"

  "?p5 : P & P <-> P"

  "?p6 : P & ~P <-> False"

  "?p7 : ~P & P <-> False"

  "?p8 : (P & Q) & R <-> P & (Q & R)"

  apply (tactic {* fn st => IntPr.fast_tac 1 st *})+

  done

schematic_lemma disj_rews:

  "?p1 : P | True <-> True"

  "?p2 : True | P <-> True"

  "?p3 : P | False <-> P"

  "?p4 : False | P <-> P"

  "?p5 : P | P <-> P"

  "?p6 : (P | Q) | R <-> P | (Q | R)"

  apply (tactic {* IntPr.fast_tac 1 *})+

  done

schematic_lemma not_rews:

  "?p1 : ~ False <-> True"

  "?p2 : ~ True <-> False"

  apply (tactic {* IntPr.fast_tac 1 *})+

  done

schematic_lemma imp_rews:

  "?p1 : (P --> False) <-> ~P"

  "?p2 : (P --> True) <-> True"

  "?p3 : (False --> P) <-> True"

  "?p4 : (True --> P) <-> P"

  "?p5 : (P --> P) <-> True"

  "?p6 : (P --> ~P) <-> ~P"

  apply (tactic {* IntPr.fast_tac 1 *})+

  done

schematic_lemma iff_rews:

  "?p1 : (True <-> P) <-> P"

  "?p2 : (P <-> True) <-> P"

  "?p3 : (P <-> P) <-> True"

  "?p4 : (False <-> P) <-> ~P"

  "?p5 : (P <-> False) <-> ~P"

  apply (tactic {* IntPr.fast_tac 1 *})+

  done

schematic_lemma quant_rews:

  "?p1 : (ALL x. P) <-> P"

  "?p2 : (EX x. P) <-> P"

  apply (tactic {* IntPr.fast_tac 1 *})+

  done

(*These are NOT supplied by default!*)

schematic_lemma distrib_rews1:

  "?p1 : ~(P|Q) <-> ~P & ~Q"

  "?p2 : P & (Q | R) <-> P&Q | P&R"

  "?p3 : (Q | R) & P <-> Q&P | R&P"

  "?p4 : (P | Q --> R) <-> (P --> R) & (Q --> R)"

  apply (tactic {* IntPr.fast_tac 1 *})+

  done

schematic_lemma distrib_rews2:

  "?p1 : ~(EX x. NORM(P(x))) <-> (ALL x. ~NORM(P(x)))"

  "?p2 : ((EX x. NORM(P(x))) --> Q) <-> (ALL x. NORM(P(x)) --> Q)"

  "?p3 : (EX x. NORM(P(x))) & NORM(Q) <-> (EX x. NORM(P(x)) & NORM(Q))"

  "?p4 : NORM(Q) & (EX x. NORM(P(x))) <-> (EX x. NORM(Q) & NORM(P(x)))"

  apply (tactic {* IntPr.fast_tac 1 *})+

  done

lemmas distrib_rews = distrib_rews1 distrib_rews2

schematic_lemma P_Imp_P_iff_T: "p:P ==> ?p:(P <-> True)"

  apply (tactic {* IntPr.fast_tac 1 *})

  done

schematic_lemma not_P_imp_P_iff_F: "p:~P ==> ?p:(P <-> False)"

  apply (tactic {* IntPr.fast_tac 1 *})

  done

end