diff -r 58186c507750 -r 32c3b7188c28 src/HOLCF/Fix.thy
--- a/src/HOLCF/Fix.thy	Mon May 23 23:32:07 2005 +0200
+++ b/src/HOLCF/Fix.thy	Tue May 24 05:03:54 2005 +0200
@@ -9,7 +9,7 @@
 header {* Fixed point operator and admissibility *}
 
 theory Fix
-imports Cfun Cprod
+imports Cfun Cprod Adm
 begin
 
 subsection {* Definitions *}
@@ -19,7 +19,6 @@
 iterate	:: "nat=>('a->'a)=>'a=>'a"
 Ifix	:: "('a->'a)=>'a"
 "fix"	:: "('a->'a)->'a"
-adm		:: "('a::cpo=>bool)=>bool"
 admw		:: "('a=>bool)=>bool"
 
 primrec
@@ -31,9 +30,6 @@
 Ifix_def:      "Ifix F == lub(range(%i. iterate i F UU))"
 fix_def:       "fix == (LAM f. Ifix f)"
 
-adm_def:       "adm P == !Y. chain(Y) --> 
-                        (!i. P(Y i)) --> P(lub(range Y))"
-
 admw_def:      "admw P == !F. (!n. P (iterate n F UU)) -->
                             P (lub(range (%i. iterate i F UU)))" 
 
@@ -236,24 +232,6 @@
 
 subsection {* Admissibility and fixed point induction *}
 
-text {* access to definitions *}
-
-lemma admI:
-   "(!!Y. [| chain Y; !i. P (Y i) |] ==> P (lub (range Y))) ==> adm P"
-apply (unfold adm_def)
-apply blast
-done
-
-lemma triv_admI: "!x. P x ==> adm P"
-apply (rule admI)
-apply (erule spec)
-done
-
-lemma admD: "[| adm(P); chain(Y); !i. P(Y(i)) |] ==> P(lub(range(Y)))"
-apply (unfold adm_def)
-apply blast
-done
-
 lemma admw_def2: "admw(P) = (!F.(!n. P(iterate n F UU)) --> 
                          P (lub(range(%i. iterate i F UU))))"
 apply (unfold admw_def)
@@ -308,224 +286,5 @@
 apply assumption
 done
 
-text {* for chain-finite (easy) types every formula is admissible *}
-
-lemma adm_max_in_chain: 
-"!Y. chain(Y::nat=>'a) --> (? n. max_in_chain n Y) ==> adm(P::'a=>bool)"
-apply (unfold adm_def)
-apply (intro strip)
-apply (rule exE)
-apply (rule mp)
-apply (erule spec)
-apply assumption
-apply (subst lub_finch1 [THEN thelubI])
-apply assumption
-apply assumption
-apply (erule spec)
-done
-
-lemmas adm_chfin = chfin [THEN adm_max_in_chain, standard]
-
-text {* some lemmata for functions with flat/chfin domain/range types *}
-
-lemma adm_chfindom: "adm (%(u::'a::cpo->'b::chfin). P(u$s))"
-apply (unfold adm_def)
-apply (intro strip)
-apply (drule chfin_Rep_CFunR)
-apply (erule_tac x = "s" in allE)
-apply clarsimp
-done
-
-(* adm_flat not needed any more, since it is a special case of adm_chfindom *)
-
-text {* improved admissibility introduction *}
-
-lemma admI2:
- "(!!Y. [| chain Y; !i. P (Y i); !i. ? j. i < j & Y i ~= Y j & Y i << Y j |] 
-  ==> P(lub (range Y))) ==> adm P"
-apply (unfold adm_def)
-apply (intro strip)
-apply (erule increasing_chain_adm_lemma)
-apply assumption
-apply fast
-done
-
-text {* admissibility of special formulae and propagation *}
-
-lemma adm_less [simp]: "[|cont u;cont v|]==> adm(%x. u x << v x)"
-apply (unfold adm_def)
-apply (intro strip)
-apply (frule_tac f = "u" in cont2mono [THEN ch2ch_monofun])
-apply assumption
-apply (frule_tac f = "v" in cont2mono [THEN ch2ch_monofun])
-apply assumption
-apply (erule cont2contlub [THEN contlubE, THEN spec, THEN mp, THEN ssubst])
-apply assumption
-apply (erule cont2contlub [THEN contlubE, THEN spec, THEN mp, THEN ssubst])
-apply assumption
-apply (blast intro: lub_mono)
-done
-
-lemma adm_conj [simp]: "[| adm P; adm Q |] ==> adm(%x. P x & Q x)"
-by (fast elim: admD intro: admI)
-
-lemma adm_not_free [simp]: "adm(%x. t)"
-apply (unfold adm_def)
-apply fast
-done
-
-lemma adm_not_less: "cont t ==> adm(%x.~ (t x) << u)"
-apply (unfold adm_def)
-apply (intro strip)
-apply (rule contrapos_nn)
-apply (erule spec)
-apply (rule trans_less)
-prefer 2 apply (assumption)
-apply (erule cont2mono [THEN monofun_fun_arg])
-apply (rule is_ub_thelub)
-apply assumption
-done
-
-lemma adm_all: "!y. adm(P y) ==> adm(%x.!y. P y x)"
-by (fast intro: admI elim: admD)
-
-lemmas adm_all2 = allI [THEN adm_all, standard]
-
-lemma adm_subst: "[|cont t; adm P|] ==> adm(%x. P (t x))"
-apply (rule admI)
-apply (simplesubst cont2contlub [THEN contlubE, THEN spec, THEN mp])
-apply assumption
-apply assumption
-apply (erule admD)
-apply (erule cont2mono [THEN ch2ch_monofun])
-apply assumption
-apply assumption
-done
-
-lemma adm_UU_not_less: "adm(%x.~ UU << t(x))"
-by simp
-
-lemma adm_not_UU: "cont(t)==> adm(%x.~ (t x) = UU)"
-apply (unfold adm_def)
-apply (intro strip)
-apply (rule contrapos_nn)
-apply (erule spec)
-apply (rule chain_UU_I [THEN spec])
-apply (erule cont2mono [THEN ch2ch_monofun])
-apply assumption
-apply (erule cont2contlub [THEN contlubE, THEN spec, THEN mp, THEN subst])
-apply assumption
-apply assumption
-done
-
-lemma adm_eq: "[|cont u ; cont v|]==> adm(%x. u x = v x)"
-by (simp add: po_eq_conv)
-
-text {* admissibility for disjunction is hard to prove. It takes 7 Lemmas *}
-
-lemma adm_disj_lemma1:
-  "\<forall>n::nat. P n \<or> Q n \<Longrightarrow> (\<forall>i. \<exists>j\<ge>i. P j) \<or> (\<forall>i. \<exists>j\<ge>i. Q j)"
-apply (erule contrapos_pp)
-apply clarsimp
-apply (rule exI)
-apply (rule conjI)
-apply (drule spec, erule mp)
-apply (rule le_maxI1)
-apply (drule spec, erule mp)
-apply (rule le_maxI2)
-done
-
-lemma adm_disj_lemma2: "[| adm P; \<exists>X. chain X & (!n. P(X n)) & 
-      lub(range Y)=lub(range X)|] ==> P(lub(range Y))"
-by (force elim: admD)
-
-lemma adm_disj_lemma3: 
-  "[| chain(Y::nat=>'a::cpo); \<forall>i. \<exists>j\<ge>i. P (Y j) |] ==> 
-            chain(%m. Y (LEAST j. m\<le>j \<and> P(Y j)))"
-apply (rule chainI)
-apply (erule chain_mono3)
-apply (rule Least_le)
-apply (rule conjI)
-apply (rule Suc_leD)
-apply (erule allE)
-apply (erule exE)
-apply (erule LeastI [THEN conjunct1])
-apply (erule allE)
-apply (erule exE)
-apply (erule LeastI [THEN conjunct2])
-done
-
-lemma adm_disj_lemma4: 
-  "[| \<forall>i. \<exists>j\<ge>i. P (Y j) |] ==> ! m. P(Y(LEAST j::nat. m\<le>j & P(Y j)))"
-apply (rule allI)
-apply (erule allE)
-apply (erule exE)
-apply (erule LeastI [THEN conjunct2])
-done
-
-lemma adm_disj_lemma5: 
-  "[| chain(Y::nat=>'a::cpo); \<forall>i. \<exists>j\<ge>i. P(Y j) |] ==> 
-            lub(range(Y)) = (LUB m. Y(LEAST j. m\<le>j & P(Y j)))"
- apply (rule antisym_less)
-  apply (rule lub_mono)
-    apply assumption
-   apply (erule adm_disj_lemma3)
-   apply assumption
-  apply (rule allI)
-  apply (erule chain_mono3)
-  apply (erule allE)
-  apply (erule exE)
-  apply (erule LeastI [THEN conjunct1])
- apply (rule lub_mono3)
-   apply (erule adm_disj_lemma3)
-   apply assumption
-  apply assumption
- apply (rule allI)
- apply (rule exI)
- apply (rule refl_less)
-done
-
-lemma adm_disj_lemma6:
-  "[| chain(Y::nat=>'a::cpo); \<forall>i. \<exists>j\<ge>i. P(Y j) |] ==> 
-            \<exists>X. chain X & (\<forall>n. P(X n)) & lub(range Y) = lub(range X)"
-apply (rule_tac x = "%m. Y (LEAST j. m\<le>j & P (Y j))" in exI)
-apply (fast intro!: adm_disj_lemma3 adm_disj_lemma4 adm_disj_lemma5)
-done
-
-lemma adm_disj_lemma7:
-"[| adm(P); chain(Y); \<forall>i. \<exists>j\<ge>i. P(Y j) |]==>P(lub(range(Y)))"
-apply (erule adm_disj_lemma2)
-apply (erule adm_disj_lemma6)
-apply assumption
-done
-
-lemma adm_disj: "[| adm P; adm Q |] ==> adm(%x. P x | Q x)"
-apply (rule admI)
-apply (erule adm_disj_lemma1 [THEN disjE])
-apply (rule disjI1)
-apply (erule adm_disj_lemma7)
-apply assumption
-apply assumption
-apply (rule disjI2)
-apply (erule adm_disj_lemma7)
-apply assumption
-apply assumption
-done
-
-lemma adm_imp: "[| adm(%x.~(P x)); adm Q |] ==> adm(%x. P x --> Q x)"
-by (subst imp_conv_disj, rule adm_disj)
-
-lemma adm_iff: "[| adm (%x. P x --> Q x); adm (%x. Q x --> P x) |]  
-            ==> adm (%x. P x = Q x)"
-by (subst iff_conv_conj_imp, rule adm_conj)
-
-lemma adm_not_conj: "[| adm (%x. ~ P x); adm (%x. ~ Q x) |] ==> adm (%x. ~ (P x & Q x))"
-by (subst de_Morgan_conj, rule adm_disj)
-
-lemmas adm_lemmas = adm_not_free adm_imp adm_disj adm_eq adm_not_UU
-        adm_UU_not_less adm_all2 adm_not_less adm_not_conj adm_iff
-
-declare adm_lemmas [simp]
-
 end