
diff -r fb7756087101 -r 38b049cd3aad src/Doc/Implementation/Logic.thy
--- a/src/Doc/Implementation/Logic.thy	Wed Dec 16 16:31:36 2015 +0100
+++ b/src/Doc/Implementation/Logic.thy	Wed Dec 16 17:28:49 2015 +0100
@@ -7,110 +7,97 @@
 chapter \<open>Primitive logic \label{ch:logic}\<close>
 
 text \<open>
-  The logical foundations of Isabelle/Isar are that of the Pure logic,
-  which has been introduced as a Natural Deduction framework in
-  @{cite paulson700}.  This is essentially the same logic as ``\<open>\<lambda>HOL\<close>'' in the more abstract setting of Pure Type Systems (PTS)
-  @{cite "Barendregt-Geuvers:2001"}, although there are some key
-  differences in the specific treatment of simple types in
-  Isabelle/Pure.
+  The logical foundations of Isabelle/Isar are that of the Pure logic, which
+  has been introduced as a Natural Deduction framework in @{cite paulson700}.
+  This is essentially the same logic as ``\<open>\<lambda>HOL\<close>'' in the more abstract
+  setting of Pure Type Systems (PTS) @{cite "Barendregt-Geuvers:2001"},
+  although there are some key differences in the specific treatment of simple
+  types in Isabelle/Pure.
 
-  Following type-theoretic parlance, the Pure logic consists of three
-  levels of \<open>\<lambda>\<close>-calculus with corresponding arrows, \<open>\<Rightarrow>\<close> for syntactic function space (terms depending on terms), \<open>\<And>\<close> for universal quantification (proofs depending on terms), and
-  \<open>\<Longrightarrow>\<close> for implication (proofs depending on proofs).
+  Following type-theoretic parlance, the Pure logic consists of three levels
+  of \<open>\<lambda>\<close>-calculus with corresponding arrows, \<open>\<Rightarrow>\<close> for syntactic function space
+  (terms depending on terms), \<open>\<And>\<close> for universal quantification (proofs
+  depending on terms), and \<open>\<Longrightarrow>\<close> for implication (proofs depending on proofs).
 
   Derivations are relative to a logical theory, which declares type
-  constructors, constants, and axioms.  Theory declarations support
-  schematic polymorphism, which is strictly speaking outside the
-  logic.\<^footnote>\<open>This is the deeper logical reason, why the theory
-  context \<open>\<Theta>\<close> is separate from the proof context \<open>\<Gamma>\<close>
-  of the core calculus: type constructors, term constants, and facts
-  (proof constants) may involve arbitrary type schemes, but the type
-  of a locally fixed term parameter is also fixed!\<close>
+  constructors, constants, and axioms. Theory declarations support schematic
+  polymorphism, which is strictly speaking outside the logic.\<^footnote>\<open>This is the
+  deeper logical reason, why the theory context \<open>\<Theta>\<close> is separate from the proof
+  context \<open>\<Gamma>\<close> of the core calculus: type constructors, term constants, and
+  facts (proof constants) may involve arbitrary type schemes, but the type of
+  a locally fixed term parameter is also fixed!\<close>
 \<close>
 
 
 section \<open>Types \label{sec:types}\<close>
 
 text \<open>
-  The language of types is an uninterpreted order-sorted first-order
-  algebra; types are qualified by ordered type classes.
+  The language of types is an uninterpreted order-sorted first-order algebra;
+  types are qualified by ordered type classes.
 
   \<^medskip>
-  A \<^emph>\<open>type class\<close> is an abstract syntactic entity
-  declared in the theory context.  The \<^emph>\<open>subclass relation\<close> \<open>c\<^sub>1 \<subseteq> c\<^sub>2\<close> is specified by stating an acyclic
-  generating relation; the transitive closure is maintained
-  internally.  The resulting relation is an ordering: reflexive,
-  transitive, and antisymmetric.
+  A \<^emph>\<open>type class\<close> is an abstract syntactic entity declared in the theory
+  context. The \<^emph>\<open>subclass relation\<close> \<open>c\<^sub>1 \<subseteq> c\<^sub>2\<close> is specified by stating an
+  acyclic generating relation; the transitive closure is maintained
+  internally. The resulting relation is an ordering: reflexive, transitive,
+  and antisymmetric.
 
-  A \<^emph>\<open>sort\<close> is a list of type classes written as \<open>s = {c\<^sub>1,
-  \<dots>, c\<^sub>m}\<close>, it represents symbolic intersection.  Notationally, the
-  curly braces are omitted for singleton intersections, i.e.\ any
-  class \<open>c\<close> may be read as a sort \<open>{c}\<close>.  The ordering
-  on type classes is extended to sorts according to the meaning of
-  intersections: \<open>{c\<^sub>1, \<dots> c\<^sub>m} \<subseteq> {d\<^sub>1, \<dots>, d\<^sub>n}\<close> iff \<open>\<forall>j. \<exists>i. c\<^sub>i \<subseteq> d\<^sub>j\<close>.  The empty intersection \<open>{}\<close> refers to
-  the universal sort, which is the largest element wrt.\ the sort
-  order.  Thus \<open>{}\<close> represents the ``full sort'', not the
-  empty one!  The intersection of all (finitely many) classes declared
-  in the current theory is the least element wrt.\ the sort ordering.
+  A \<^emph>\<open>sort\<close> is a list of type classes written as \<open>s = {c\<^sub>1, \<dots>, c\<^sub>m}\<close>, it
+  represents symbolic intersection. Notationally, the curly braces are omitted
+  for singleton intersections, i.e.\ any class \<open>c\<close> may be read as a sort
+  \<open>{c}\<close>. The ordering on type classes is extended to sorts according to the
+  meaning of intersections: \<open>{c\<^sub>1, \<dots> c\<^sub>m} \<subseteq> {d\<^sub>1, \<dots>, d\<^sub>n}\<close> iff \<open>\<forall>j. \<exists>i. c\<^sub>i \<subseteq>
+  d\<^sub>j\<close>. The empty intersection \<open>{}\<close> refers to the universal sort, which is the
+  largest element wrt.\ the sort order. Thus \<open>{}\<close> represents the ``full
+  sort'', not the empty one! The intersection of all (finitely many) classes
+  declared in the current theory is the least element wrt.\ the sort ordering.
 
   \<^medskip>
-  A \<^emph>\<open>fixed type variable\<close> is a pair of a basic name
-  (starting with a \<open>'\<close> character) and a sort constraint, e.g.\
-  \<open>('a, s)\<close> which is usually printed as \<open>\<alpha>\<^sub>s\<close>.
-  A \<^emph>\<open>schematic type variable\<close> is a pair of an indexname and a
-  sort constraint, e.g.\ \<open>(('a, 0), s)\<close> which is usually
-  printed as \<open>?\<alpha>\<^sub>s\<close>.
+  A \<^emph>\<open>fixed type variable\<close> is a pair of a basic name (starting with a \<open>'\<close>
+  character) and a sort constraint, e.g.\ \<open>('a, s)\<close> which is usually printed
+  as \<open>\<alpha>\<^sub>s\<close>. A \<^emph>\<open>schematic type variable\<close> is a pair of an indexname and a sort
+  constraint, e.g.\ \<open>(('a, 0), s)\<close> which is usually printed as \<open>?\<alpha>\<^sub>s\<close>.
 
-  Note that \<^emph>\<open>all\<close> syntactic components contribute to the identity
-  of type variables: basic name, index, and sort constraint.  The core
-  logic handles type variables with the same name but different sorts
-  as different, although the type-inference layer (which is outside
-  the core) rejects anything like that.
+  Note that \<^emph>\<open>all\<close> syntactic components contribute to the identity of type
+  variables: basic name, index, and sort constraint. The core logic handles
+  type variables with the same name but different sorts as different, although
+  the type-inference layer (which is outside the core) rejects anything like
+  that.
 
-  A \<^emph>\<open>type constructor\<close> \<open>\<kappa>\<close> is a \<open>k\<close>-ary operator
-  on types declared in the theory.  Type constructor application is
-  written postfix as \<open>(\<alpha>\<^sub>1, \<dots>, \<alpha>\<^sub>k)\<kappa>\<close>.  For
-  \<open>k = 0\<close> the argument tuple is omitted, e.g.\ \<open>prop\<close>
-  instead of \<open>()prop\<close>.  For \<open>k = 1\<close> the parentheses
-  are omitted, e.g.\ \<open>\<alpha> list\<close> instead of \<open>(\<alpha>)list\<close>.
-  Further notation is provided for specific constructors, notably the
-  right-associative infix \<open>\<alpha> \<Rightarrow> \<beta>\<close> instead of \<open>(\<alpha>,
-  \<beta>)fun\<close>.
+  A \<^emph>\<open>type constructor\<close> \<open>\<kappa>\<close> is a \<open>k\<close>-ary operator on types declared in the
+  theory. Type constructor application is written postfix as \<open>(\<alpha>\<^sub>1, \<dots>, \<alpha>\<^sub>k)\<kappa>\<close>.
+  For \<open>k = 0\<close> the argument tuple is omitted, e.g.\ \<open>prop\<close> instead of \<open>()prop\<close>.
+  For \<open>k = 1\<close> the parentheses are omitted, e.g.\ \<open>\<alpha> list\<close> instead of
+  \<open>(\<alpha>)list\<close>. Further notation is provided for specific constructors, notably
+  the right-associative infix \<open>\<alpha> \<Rightarrow> \<beta>\<close> instead of \<open>(\<alpha>, \<beta>)fun\<close>.
   
-  The logical category \<^emph>\<open>type\<close> is defined inductively over type
-  variables and type constructors as follows: \<open>\<tau> = \<alpha>\<^sub>s | ?\<alpha>\<^sub>s |
-  (\<tau>\<^sub>1, \<dots>, \<tau>\<^sub>k)\<kappa>\<close>.
+  The logical category \<^emph>\<open>type\<close> is defined inductively over type variables and
+  type constructors as follows: \<open>\<tau> = \<alpha>\<^sub>s | ?\<alpha>\<^sub>s | (\<tau>\<^sub>1, \<dots>, \<tau>\<^sub>k)\<kappa>\<close>.
 
-  A \<^emph>\<open>type abbreviation\<close> is a syntactic definition \<open>(\<^vec>\<alpha>)\<kappa> = \<tau>\<close> of an arbitrary type expression \<open>\<tau>\<close> over
-  variables \<open>\<^vec>\<alpha>\<close>.  Type abbreviations appear as type
-  constructors in the syntax, but are expanded before entering the
-  logical core.
+  A \<^emph>\<open>type abbreviation\<close> is a syntactic definition \<open>(\<^vec>\<alpha>)\<kappa> = \<tau>\<close> of an
+  arbitrary type expression \<open>\<tau>\<close> over variables \<open>\<^vec>\<alpha>\<close>. Type abbreviations
+  appear as type constructors in the syntax, but are expanded before entering
+  the logical core.
 
-  A \<^emph>\<open>type arity\<close> declares the image behavior of a type
-  constructor wrt.\ the algebra of sorts: \<open>\<kappa> :: (s\<^sub>1, \<dots>,
-  s\<^sub>k)s\<close> means that \<open>(\<tau>\<^sub>1, \<dots>, \<tau>\<^sub>k)\<kappa>\<close> is
-  of sort \<open>s\<close> if every argument type \<open>\<tau>\<^sub>i\<close> is
-  of sort \<open>s\<^sub>i\<close>.  Arity declarations are implicitly
-  completed, i.e.\ \<open>\<kappa> :: (\<^vec>s)c\<close> entails \<open>\<kappa> ::
+  A \<^emph>\<open>type arity\<close> declares the image behavior of a type constructor wrt.\ the
+  algebra of sorts: \<open>\<kappa> :: (s\<^sub>1, \<dots>, s\<^sub>k)s\<close> means that \<open>(\<tau>\<^sub>1, \<dots>, \<tau>\<^sub>k)\<kappa>\<close> is of
+  sort \<open>s\<close> if every argument type \<open>\<tau>\<^sub>i\<close> is of sort \<open>s\<^sub>i\<close>. Arity declarations
+  are implicitly completed, i.e.\ \<open>\<kappa> :: (\<^vec>s)c\<close> entails \<open>\<kappa> ::
   (\<^vec>s)c'\<close> for any \<open>c' \<supseteq> c\<close>.
 
   \<^medskip>
-  The sort algebra is always maintained as \<^emph>\<open>coregular\<close>,
-  which means that type arities are consistent with the subclass
-  relation: for any type constructor \<open>\<kappa>\<close>, and classes \<open>c\<^sub>1 \<subseteq> c\<^sub>2\<close>, and arities \<open>\<kappa> ::
-  (\<^vec>s\<^sub>1)c\<^sub>1\<close> and \<open>\<kappa> ::
-  (\<^vec>s\<^sub>2)c\<^sub>2\<close> holds \<open>\<^vec>s\<^sub>1 \<subseteq>
-  \<^vec>s\<^sub>2\<close> component-wise.
+  The sort algebra is always maintained as \<^emph>\<open>coregular\<close>, which means that type
+  arities are consistent with the subclass relation: for any type constructor
+  \<open>\<kappa>\<close>, and classes \<open>c\<^sub>1 \<subseteq> c\<^sub>2\<close>, and arities \<open>\<kappa> :: (\<^vec>s\<^sub>1)c\<^sub>1\<close> and \<open>\<kappa> ::
+  (\<^vec>s\<^sub>2)c\<^sub>2\<close> holds \<open>\<^vec>s\<^sub>1 \<subseteq> \<^vec>s\<^sub>2\<close> component-wise.
 
   The key property of a coregular order-sorted algebra is that sort
   constraints can be solved in a most general fashion: for each type
-  constructor \<open>\<kappa>\<close> and sort \<open>s\<close> there is a most general
-  vector of argument sorts \<open>(s\<^sub>1, \<dots>, s\<^sub>k)\<close> such
-  that a type scheme \<open>(\<alpha>\<^bsub>s\<^sub>1\<^esub>, \<dots>,
-  \<alpha>\<^bsub>s\<^sub>k\<^esub>)\<kappa>\<close> is of sort \<open>s\<close>.
-  Consequently, type unification has most general solutions (modulo
-  equivalence of sorts), so type-inference produces primary types as
-  expected @{cite "nipkow-prehofer"}.
+  constructor \<open>\<kappa>\<close> and sort \<open>s\<close> there is a most general vector of argument
+  sorts \<open>(s\<^sub>1, \<dots>, s\<^sub>k)\<close> such that a type scheme \<open>(\<alpha>\<^bsub>s\<^sub>1\<^esub>, \<dots>, \<alpha>\<^bsub>s\<^sub>k\<^esub>)\<kappa>\<close> is of
+  sort \<open>s\<close>. Consequently, type unification has most general solutions (modulo
+  equivalence of sorts), so type-inference produces primary types as expected
+  @{cite "nipkow-prehofer"}.
 \<close>
 
 text %mlref \<open>
@@ -135,48 +122,42 @@
 
   \<^descr> Type @{ML_type class} represents type classes.
 
-  \<^descr> Type @{ML_type sort} represents sorts, i.e.\ finite
-  intersections of classes.  The empty list @{ML "[]: sort"} refers to
-  the empty class intersection, i.e.\ the ``full sort''.
+  \<^descr> Type @{ML_type sort} represents sorts, i.e.\ finite intersections of
+  classes. The empty list @{ML "[]: sort"} refers to the empty class
+  intersection, i.e.\ the ``full sort''.
 
-  \<^descr> Type @{ML_type arity} represents type arities.  A triple
-  \<open>(\<kappa>, \<^vec>s, s) : arity\<close> represents \<open>\<kappa> ::
-  (\<^vec>s)s\<close> as described above.
+  \<^descr> Type @{ML_type arity} represents type arities. A triple \<open>(\<kappa>, \<^vec>s, s)
+  : arity\<close> represents \<open>\<kappa> :: (\<^vec>s)s\<close> as described above.
 
-  \<^descr> Type @{ML_type typ} represents types; this is a datatype with
-  constructors @{ML TFree}, @{ML TVar}, @{ML Type}.
+  \<^descr> Type @{ML_type typ} represents types; this is a datatype with constructors
+  @{ML TFree}, @{ML TVar}, @{ML Type}.
 
-  \<^descr> @{ML Term.map_atyps}~\<open>f \<tau>\<close> applies the mapping \<open>f\<close> to all atomic types (@{ML TFree}, @{ML TVar}) occurring in
-  \<open>\<tau>\<close>.
+  \<^descr> @{ML Term.map_atyps}~\<open>f \<tau>\<close> applies the mapping \<open>f\<close> to all atomic types
+  (@{ML TFree}, @{ML TVar}) occurring in \<open>\<tau>\<close>.
 
-  \<^descr> @{ML Term.fold_atyps}~\<open>f \<tau>\<close> iterates the operation
-  \<open>f\<close> over all occurrences of atomic types (@{ML TFree}, @{ML
-  TVar}) in \<open>\<tau>\<close>; the type structure is traversed from left to
-  right.
+  \<^descr> @{ML Term.fold_atyps}~\<open>f \<tau>\<close> iterates the operation \<open>f\<close> over all
+  occurrences of atomic types (@{ML TFree}, @{ML TVar}) in \<open>\<tau>\<close>; the type
+  structure is traversed from left to right.
 
-  \<^descr> @{ML Sign.subsort}~\<open>thy (s\<^sub>1, s\<^sub>2)\<close>
-  tests the subsort relation \<open>s\<^sub>1 \<subseteq> s\<^sub>2\<close>.
+  \<^descr> @{ML Sign.subsort}~\<open>thy (s\<^sub>1, s\<^sub>2)\<close> tests the subsort relation \<open>s\<^sub>1 \<subseteq>
+  s\<^sub>2\<close>.
 
-  \<^descr> @{ML Sign.of_sort}~\<open>thy (\<tau>, s)\<close> tests whether type
-  \<open>\<tau>\<close> is of sort \<open>s\<close>.
+  \<^descr> @{ML Sign.of_sort}~\<open>thy (\<tau>, s)\<close> tests whether type \<open>\<tau>\<close> is of sort \<open>s\<close>.
 
-  \<^descr> @{ML Sign.add_type}~\<open>ctxt (\<kappa>, k, mx)\<close> declares a
-  new type constructors \<open>\<kappa>\<close> with \<open>k\<close> arguments and
-  optional mixfix syntax.
+  \<^descr> @{ML Sign.add_type}~\<open>ctxt (\<kappa>, k, mx)\<close> declares a new type constructors \<open>\<kappa>\<close>
+  with \<open>k\<close> arguments and optional mixfix syntax.
 
-  \<^descr> @{ML Sign.add_type_abbrev}~\<open>ctxt (\<kappa>, \<^vec>\<alpha>, \<tau>)\<close>
-  defines a new type abbreviation \<open>(\<^vec>\<alpha>)\<kappa> = \<tau>\<close>.
+  \<^descr> @{ML Sign.add_type_abbrev}~\<open>ctxt (\<kappa>, \<^vec>\<alpha>, \<tau>)\<close> defines a new type
+  abbreviation \<open>(\<^vec>\<alpha>)\<kappa> = \<tau>\<close>.
 
-  \<^descr> @{ML Sign.primitive_class}~\<open>(c, [c\<^sub>1, \<dots>,
-  c\<^sub>n])\<close> declares a new class \<open>c\<close>, together with class
-  relations \<open>c \<subseteq> c\<^sub>i\<close>, for \<open>i = 1, \<dots>, n\<close>.
+  \<^descr> @{ML Sign.primitive_class}~\<open>(c, [c\<^sub>1, \<dots>, c\<^sub>n])\<close> declares a new class \<open>c\<close>,
+  together with class relations \<open>c \<subseteq> c\<^sub>i\<close>, for \<open>i = 1, \<dots>, n\<close>.
 
-  \<^descr> @{ML Sign.primitive_classrel}~\<open>(c\<^sub>1,
-  c\<^sub>2)\<close> declares the class relation \<open>c\<^sub>1 \<subseteq>
-  c\<^sub>2\<close>.
+  \<^descr> @{ML Sign.primitive_classrel}~\<open>(c\<^sub>1, c\<^sub>2)\<close> declares the class relation
+  \<open>c\<^sub>1 \<subseteq> c\<^sub>2\<close>.
 
-  \<^descr> @{ML Sign.primitive_arity}~\<open>(\<kappa>, \<^vec>s, s)\<close> declares
-  the arity \<open>\<kappa> :: (\<^vec>s)s\<close>.
+  \<^descr> @{ML Sign.primitive_arity}~\<open>(\<kappa>, \<^vec>s, s)\<close> declares the arity \<open>\<kappa> ::
+  (\<^vec>s)s\<close>.
 \<close>
 
 text %mlantiq \<open>
@@ -201,92 +182,84 @@
   @@{ML_antiquotation typ} type
   \<close>}
 
-  \<^descr> \<open>@{class c}\<close> inlines the internalized class \<open>c\<close> --- as @{ML_type string} literal.
-
-  \<^descr> \<open>@{sort s}\<close> inlines the internalized sort \<open>s\<close>
-  --- as @{ML_type "string list"} literal.
-
-  \<^descr> \<open>@{type_name c}\<close> inlines the internalized type
-  constructor \<open>c\<close> --- as @{ML_type string} literal.
-
-  \<^descr> \<open>@{type_abbrev c}\<close> inlines the internalized type
-  abbreviation \<open>c\<close> --- as @{ML_type string} literal.
-
-  \<^descr> \<open>@{nonterminal c}\<close> inlines the internalized syntactic
-  type~/ grammar nonterminal \<open>c\<close> --- as @{ML_type string}
+  \<^descr> \<open>@{class c}\<close> inlines the internalized class \<open>c\<close> --- as @{ML_type string}
   literal.
 
-  \<^descr> \<open>@{typ \<tau>}\<close> inlines the internalized type \<open>\<tau>\<close>
-  --- as constructor term for datatype @{ML_type typ}.
+  \<^descr> \<open>@{sort s}\<close> inlines the internalized sort \<open>s\<close> --- as @{ML_type "string
+  list"} literal.
+
+  \<^descr> \<open>@{type_name c}\<close> inlines the internalized type constructor \<open>c\<close> --- as
+  @{ML_type string} literal.
+
+  \<^descr> \<open>@{type_abbrev c}\<close> inlines the internalized type abbreviation \<open>c\<close> --- as
+  @{ML_type string} literal.
+
+  \<^descr> \<open>@{nonterminal c}\<close> inlines the internalized syntactic type~/ grammar
+  nonterminal \<open>c\<close> --- as @{ML_type string} literal.
+
+  \<^descr> \<open>@{typ \<tau>}\<close> inlines the internalized type \<open>\<tau>\<close> --- as constructor term for
+  datatype @{ML_type typ}.
 \<close>
 
 
 section \<open>Terms \label{sec:terms}\<close>
 
 text \<open>
-  The language of terms is that of simply-typed \<open>\<lambda>\<close>-calculus
-  with de-Bruijn indices for bound variables (cf.\ @{cite debruijn72}
-  or @{cite "paulson-ml2"}), with the types being determined by the
-  corresponding binders.  In contrast, free variables and constants
-  have an explicit name and type in each occurrence.
+  The language of terms is that of simply-typed \<open>\<lambda>\<close>-calculus with de-Bruijn
+  indices for bound variables (cf.\ @{cite debruijn72} or @{cite
+  "paulson-ml2"}), with the types being determined by the corresponding
+  binders. In contrast, free variables and constants have an explicit name and
+  type in each occurrence.
 
   \<^medskip>
-  A \<^emph>\<open>bound variable\<close> is a natural number \<open>b\<close>,
-  which accounts for the number of intermediate binders between the
-  variable occurrence in the body and its binding position.  For
-  example, the de-Bruijn term \<open>\<lambda>\<^bsub>bool\<^esub>. \<lambda>\<^bsub>bool\<^esub>. 1 \<and> 0\<close> would
-  correspond to \<open>\<lambda>x\<^bsub>bool\<^esub>. \<lambda>y\<^bsub>bool\<^esub>. x \<and> y\<close> in a named
-  representation.  Note that a bound variable may be represented by
-  different de-Bruijn indices at different occurrences, depending on
-  the nesting of abstractions.
+  A \<^emph>\<open>bound variable\<close> is a natural number \<open>b\<close>, which accounts for the number
+  of intermediate binders between the variable occurrence in the body and its
+  binding position. For example, the de-Bruijn term \<open>\<lambda>\<^bsub>bool\<^esub>. \<lambda>\<^bsub>bool\<^esub>. 1 \<and> 0\<close>
+  would correspond to \<open>\<lambda>x\<^bsub>bool\<^esub>. \<lambda>y\<^bsub>bool\<^esub>. x \<and> y\<close> in a named representation.
+  Note that a bound variable may be represented by different de-Bruijn indices
+  at different occurrences, depending on the nesting of abstractions.
 
-  A \<^emph>\<open>loose variable\<close> is a bound variable that is outside the
-  scope of local binders.  The types (and names) for loose variables
-  can be managed as a separate context, that is maintained as a stack
-  of hypothetical binders.  The core logic operates on closed terms,
-  without any loose variables.
+  A \<^emph>\<open>loose variable\<close> is a bound variable that is outside the scope of local
+  binders. The types (and names) for loose variables can be managed as a
+  separate context, that is maintained as a stack of hypothetical binders. The
+  core logic operates on closed terms, without any loose variables.
 
-  A \<^emph>\<open>fixed variable\<close> is a pair of a basic name and a type, e.g.\
-  \<open>(x, \<tau>)\<close> which is usually printed \<open>x\<^sub>\<tau>\<close> here.  A
-  \<^emph>\<open>schematic variable\<close> is a pair of an indexname and a type,
-  e.g.\ \<open>((x, 0), \<tau>)\<close> which is likewise printed as \<open>?x\<^sub>\<tau>\<close>.
+  A \<^emph>\<open>fixed variable\<close> is a pair of a basic name and a type, e.g.\ \<open>(x, \<tau>)\<close>
+  which is usually printed \<open>x\<^sub>\<tau>\<close> here. A \<^emph>\<open>schematic variable\<close> is a pair of an
+  indexname and a type, e.g.\ \<open>((x, 0), \<tau>)\<close> which is likewise printed as
+  \<open>?x\<^sub>\<tau>\<close>.
 
   \<^medskip>
-  A \<^emph>\<open>constant\<close> is a pair of a basic name and a type,
-  e.g.\ \<open>(c, \<tau>)\<close> which is usually printed as \<open>c\<^sub>\<tau>\<close>
-  here.  Constants are declared in the context as polymorphic families
-  \<open>c :: \<sigma>\<close>, meaning that all substitution instances \<open>c\<^sub>\<tau>\<close> for \<open>\<tau> = \<sigma>\<vartheta>\<close> are valid.
+  A \<^emph>\<open>constant\<close> is a pair of a basic name and a type, e.g.\ \<open>(c, \<tau>)\<close> which is
+  usually printed as \<open>c\<^sub>\<tau>\<close> here. Constants are declared in the context as
+  polymorphic families \<open>c :: \<sigma>\<close>, meaning that all substitution instances \<open>c\<^sub>\<tau>\<close>
+  for \<open>\<tau> = \<sigma>\<vartheta>\<close> are valid.
 
-  The vector of \<^emph>\<open>type arguments\<close> of constant \<open>c\<^sub>\<tau>\<close> wrt.\
-  the declaration \<open>c :: \<sigma>\<close> is defined as the codomain of the
-  matcher \<open>\<vartheta> = {?\<alpha>\<^sub>1 \<mapsto> \<tau>\<^sub>1, \<dots>, ?\<alpha>\<^sub>n \<mapsto> \<tau>\<^sub>n}\<close> presented in
-  canonical order \<open>(\<tau>\<^sub>1, \<dots>, \<tau>\<^sub>n)\<close>, corresponding to the
-  left-to-right occurrences of the \<open>\<alpha>\<^sub>i\<close> in \<open>\<sigma>\<close>.
-  Within a given theory context, there is a one-to-one correspondence
-  between any constant \<open>c\<^sub>\<tau>\<close> and the application \<open>c(\<tau>\<^sub>1,
-  \<dots>, \<tau>\<^sub>n)\<close> of its type arguments.  For example, with \<open>plus :: \<alpha>
-  \<Rightarrow> \<alpha> \<Rightarrow> \<alpha>\<close>, the instance \<open>plus\<^bsub>nat \<Rightarrow> nat \<Rightarrow> nat\<^esub>\<close> corresponds to
+  The vector of \<^emph>\<open>type arguments\<close> of constant \<open>c\<^sub>\<tau>\<close> wrt.\ the declaration \<open>c
+  :: \<sigma>\<close> is defined as the codomain of the matcher \<open>\<vartheta> = {?\<alpha>\<^sub>1 \<mapsto> \<tau>\<^sub>1,
+  \<dots>, ?\<alpha>\<^sub>n \<mapsto> \<tau>\<^sub>n}\<close> presented in canonical order \<open>(\<tau>\<^sub>1, \<dots>, \<tau>\<^sub>n)\<close>, corresponding
+  to the left-to-right occurrences of the \<open>\<alpha>\<^sub>i\<close> in \<open>\<sigma>\<close>. Within a given theory
+  context, there is a one-to-one correspondence between any constant \<open>c\<^sub>\<tau>\<close> and
+  the application \<open>c(\<tau>\<^sub>1, \<dots>, \<tau>\<^sub>n)\<close> of its type arguments. For example, with
+  \<open>plus :: \<alpha> \<Rightarrow> \<alpha> \<Rightarrow> \<alpha>\<close>, the instance \<open>plus\<^bsub>nat \<Rightarrow> nat \<Rightarrow> nat\<^esub>\<close> corresponds to
   \<open>plus(nat)\<close>.
 
-  Constant declarations \<open>c :: \<sigma>\<close> may contain sort constraints
-  for type variables in \<open>\<sigma>\<close>.  These are observed by
-  type-inference as expected, but \<^emph>\<open>ignored\<close> by the core logic.
-  This means the primitive logic is able to reason with instances of
-  polymorphic constants that the user-level type-checker would reject
-  due to violation of type class restrictions.
+  Constant declarations \<open>c :: \<sigma>\<close> may contain sort constraints for type
+  variables in \<open>\<sigma>\<close>. These are observed by type-inference as expected, but
+  \<^emph>\<open>ignored\<close> by the core logic. This means the primitive logic is able to
+  reason with instances of polymorphic constants that the user-level
+  type-checker would reject due to violation of type class restrictions.
 
   \<^medskip>
-  An \<^emph>\<open>atomic term\<close> is either a variable or constant.
-  The logical category \<^emph>\<open>term\<close> is defined inductively over atomic
-  terms, with abstraction and application as follows: \<open>t = b |
-  x\<^sub>\<tau> | ?x\<^sub>\<tau> | c\<^sub>\<tau> | \<lambda>\<^sub>\<tau>. t | t\<^sub>1 t\<^sub>2\<close>.  Parsing and printing takes care of
-  converting between an external representation with named bound
-  variables.  Subsequently, we shall use the latter notation instead
-  of internal de-Bruijn representation.
+  An \<^emph>\<open>atomic term\<close> is either a variable or constant. The logical category
+  \<^emph>\<open>term\<close> is defined inductively over atomic terms, with abstraction and
+  application as follows: \<open>t = b | x\<^sub>\<tau> | ?x\<^sub>\<tau> | c\<^sub>\<tau> | \<lambda>\<^sub>\<tau>. t | t\<^sub>1 t\<^sub>2\<close>.
+  Parsing and printing takes care of converting between an external
+  representation with named bound variables. Subsequently, we shall use the
+  latter notation instead of internal de-Bruijn representation.
 
-  The inductive relation \<open>t :: \<tau>\<close> assigns a (unique) type to a
-  term according to the structure of atomic terms, abstractions, and
-  applications:
+  The inductive relation \<open>t :: \<tau>\<close> assigns a (unique) type to a term according
+  to the structure of atomic terms, abstractions, and applications:
   \[
   \infer{\<open>a\<^sub>\<tau> :: \<tau>\<close>}{}
   \qquad
@@ -296,47 +269,46 @@
   \]
   A \<^emph>\<open>well-typed term\<close> is a term that can be typed according to these rules.
 
-  Typing information can be omitted: type-inference is able to
-  reconstruct the most general type of a raw term, while assigning
-  most general types to all of its variables and constants.
-  Type-inference depends on a context of type constraints for fixed
-  variables, and declarations for polymorphic constants.
+  Typing information can be omitted: type-inference is able to reconstruct the
+  most general type of a raw term, while assigning most general types to all
+  of its variables and constants. Type-inference depends on a context of type
+  constraints for fixed variables, and declarations for polymorphic constants.
 
   The identity of atomic terms consists both of the name and the type
-  component.  This means that different variables \<open>x\<^bsub>\<tau>\<^sub>1\<^esub>\<close> and \<open>x\<^bsub>\<tau>\<^sub>2\<^esub>\<close> may become the same after
-  type instantiation.  Type-inference rejects variables of the same
-  name, but different types.  In contrast, mixed instances of
+  component. This means that different variables \<open>x\<^bsub>\<tau>\<^sub>1\<^esub>\<close> and \<open>x\<^bsub>\<tau>\<^sub>2\<^esub>\<close> may
+  become the same after type instantiation. Type-inference rejects variables
+  of the same name, but different types. In contrast, mixed instances of
   polymorphic constants occur routinely.
 
   \<^medskip>
-  The \<^emph>\<open>hidden polymorphism\<close> of a term \<open>t :: \<sigma>\<close>
-  is the set of type variables occurring in \<open>t\<close>, but not in
-  its type \<open>\<sigma>\<close>.  This means that the term implicitly depends
-  on type arguments that are not accounted in the result type, i.e.\
-  there are different type instances \<open>t\<vartheta> :: \<sigma>\<close> and
-  \<open>t\<vartheta>' :: \<sigma>\<close> with the same type.  This slightly
-  pathological situation notoriously demands additional care.
+  The \<^emph>\<open>hidden polymorphism\<close> of a term \<open>t :: \<sigma>\<close> is the set of type variables
+  occurring in \<open>t\<close>, but not in its type \<open>\<sigma>\<close>. This means that the term
+  implicitly depends on type arguments that are not accounted in the result
+  type, i.e.\ there are different type instances \<open>t\<vartheta> :: \<sigma>\<close> and
+  \<open>t\<vartheta>' :: \<sigma>\<close> with the same type. This slightly pathological
+  situation notoriously demands additional care.
 
   \<^medskip>
-  A \<^emph>\<open>term abbreviation\<close> is a syntactic definition \<open>c\<^sub>\<sigma> \<equiv> t\<close> of a closed term \<open>t\<close> of type \<open>\<sigma>\<close>,
-  without any hidden polymorphism.  A term abbreviation looks like a
-  constant in the syntax, but is expanded before entering the logical
-  core.  Abbreviations are usually reverted when printing terms, using
-  \<open>t \<rightarrow> c\<^sub>\<sigma>\<close> as rules for higher-order rewriting.
+  A \<^emph>\<open>term abbreviation\<close> is a syntactic definition \<open>c\<^sub>\<sigma> \<equiv> t\<close> of a closed term
+  \<open>t\<close> of type \<open>\<sigma>\<close>, without any hidden polymorphism. A term abbreviation looks
+  like a constant in the syntax, but is expanded before entering the logical
+  core. Abbreviations are usually reverted when printing terms, using \<open>t \<rightarrow>
+  c\<^sub>\<sigma>\<close> as rules for higher-order rewriting.
 
   \<^medskip>
-  Canonical operations on \<open>\<lambda>\<close>-terms include \<open>\<alpha>\<beta>\<eta>\<close>-conversion: \<open>\<alpha>\<close>-conversion refers to capture-free
-  renaming of bound variables; \<open>\<beta>\<close>-conversion contracts an
-  abstraction applied to an argument term, substituting the argument
-  in the body: \<open>(\<lambda>x. b)a\<close> becomes \<open>b[a/x]\<close>; \<open>\<eta>\<close>-conversion contracts vacuous application-abstraction: \<open>\<lambda>x. f x\<close> becomes \<open>f\<close>, provided that the bound variable
-  does not occur in \<open>f\<close>.
+  Canonical operations on \<open>\<lambda>\<close>-terms include \<open>\<alpha>\<beta>\<eta>\<close>-conversion: \<open>\<alpha>\<close>-conversion
+  refers to capture-free renaming of bound variables; \<open>\<beta>\<close>-conversion contracts
+  an abstraction applied to an argument term, substituting the argument in the
+  body: \<open>(\<lambda>x. b)a\<close> becomes \<open>b[a/x]\<close>; \<open>\<eta>\<close>-conversion contracts vacuous
+  application-abstraction: \<open>\<lambda>x. f x\<close> becomes \<open>f\<close>, provided that the bound
+  variable does not occur in \<open>f\<close>.
 
-  Terms are normally treated modulo \<open>\<alpha>\<close>-conversion, which is
-  implicit in the de-Bruijn representation.  Names for bound variables
-  in abstractions are maintained separately as (meaningless) comments,
-  mostly for parsing and printing.  Full \<open>\<alpha>\<beta>\<eta>\<close>-conversion is
-  commonplace in various standard operations (\secref{sec:obj-rules})
-  that are based on higher-order unification and matching.
+  Terms are normally treated modulo \<open>\<alpha>\<close>-conversion, which is implicit in the
+  de-Bruijn representation. Names for bound variables in abstractions are
+  maintained separately as (meaningless) comments, mostly for parsing and
+  printing. Full \<open>\<alpha>\<beta>\<eta>\<close>-conversion is commonplace in various standard
+  operations (\secref{sec:obj-rules}) that are based on higher-order
+  unification and matching.
 \<close>
 
 text %mlref \<open>
@@ -361,56 +333,52 @@
   @{index_ML Sign.const_instance: "theory -> string * typ list -> typ"} \\
   \end{mldecls}
 
-  \<^descr> Type @{ML_type term} represents de-Bruijn terms, with comments
-  in abstractions, and explicitly named free variables and constants;
-  this is a datatype with constructors @{index_ML Bound}, @{index_ML
-  Free}, @{index_ML Var}, @{index_ML Const}, @{index_ML Abs},
-  @{index_ML_op "$"}.
+  \<^descr> Type @{ML_type term} represents de-Bruijn terms, with comments in
+  abstractions, and explicitly named free variables and constants; this is a
+  datatype with constructors @{index_ML Bound}, @{index_ML Free}, @{index_ML
+  Var}, @{index_ML Const}, @{index_ML Abs}, @{index_ML_op "$"}.
 
-  \<^descr> \<open>t\<close>~@{ML_text aconv}~\<open>u\<close> checks \<open>\<alpha>\<close>-equivalence of two terms.  This is the basic equality relation
-  on type @{ML_type term}; raw datatype equality should only be used
-  for operations related to parsing or printing!
-
-  \<^descr> @{ML Term.map_types}~\<open>f t\<close> applies the mapping \<open>f\<close> to all types occurring in \<open>t\<close>.
+  \<^descr> \<open>t\<close>~@{ML_text aconv}~\<open>u\<close> checks \<open>\<alpha>\<close>-equivalence of two terms. This is the
+  basic equality relation on type @{ML_type term}; raw datatype equality
+  should only be used for operations related to parsing or printing!
 
-  \<^descr> @{ML Term.fold_types}~\<open>f t\<close> iterates the operation
-  \<open>f\<close> over all occurrences of types in \<open>t\<close>; the term
-  structure is traversed from left to right.
+  \<^descr> @{ML Term.map_types}~\<open>f t\<close> applies the mapping \<open>f\<close> to all types occurring
+  in \<open>t\<close>.
+
+  \<^descr> @{ML Term.fold_types}~\<open>f t\<close> iterates the operation \<open>f\<close> over all
+  occurrences of types in \<open>t\<close>; the term structure is traversed from left to
+  right.
 
-  \<^descr> @{ML Term.map_aterms}~\<open>f t\<close> applies the mapping \<open>f\<close> to all atomic terms (@{ML Bound}, @{ML Free}, @{ML Var}, @{ML
-  Const}) occurring in \<open>t\<close>.
+  \<^descr> @{ML Term.map_aterms}~\<open>f t\<close> applies the mapping \<open>f\<close> to all atomic terms
+  (@{ML Bound}, @{ML Free}, @{ML Var}, @{ML Const}) occurring in \<open>t\<close>.
 
-  \<^descr> @{ML Term.fold_aterms}~\<open>f t\<close> iterates the operation
-  \<open>f\<close> over all occurrences of atomic terms (@{ML Bound}, @{ML
-  Free}, @{ML Var}, @{ML Const}) in \<open>t\<close>; the term structure is
-  traversed from left to right.
+  \<^descr> @{ML Term.fold_aterms}~\<open>f t\<close> iterates the operation \<open>f\<close> over all
+  occurrences of atomic terms (@{ML Bound}, @{ML Free}, @{ML Var}, @{ML
+  Const}) in \<open>t\<close>; the term structure is traversed from left to right.
 
-  \<^descr> @{ML fastype_of}~\<open>t\<close> determines the type of a
-  well-typed term.  This operation is relatively slow, despite the
-  omission of any sanity checks.
+  \<^descr> @{ML fastype_of}~\<open>t\<close> determines the type of a well-typed term. This
+  operation is relatively slow, despite the omission of any sanity checks.
 
-  \<^descr> @{ML lambda}~\<open>a b\<close> produces an abstraction \<open>\<lambda>a. b\<close>, where occurrences of the atomic term \<open>a\<close> in the
-  body \<open>b\<close> are replaced by bound variables.
+  \<^descr> @{ML lambda}~\<open>a b\<close> produces an abstraction \<open>\<lambda>a. b\<close>, where occurrences of
+  the atomic term \<open>a\<close> in the body \<open>b\<close> are replaced by bound variables.
 
-  \<^descr> @{ML betapply}~\<open>(t, u)\<close> produces an application \<open>t u\<close>, with topmost \<open>\<beta>\<close>-conversion if \<open>t\<close> is an
-  abstraction.
+  \<^descr> @{ML betapply}~\<open>(t, u)\<close> produces an application \<open>t u\<close>, with topmost
+  \<open>\<beta>\<close>-conversion if \<open>t\<close> is an abstraction.
 
-  \<^descr> @{ML incr_boundvars}~\<open>j\<close> increments a term's dangling
-  bound variables by the offset \<open>j\<close>.  This is required when
-  moving a subterm into a context where it is enclosed by a different
-  number of abstractions.  Bound variables with a matching abstraction
-  are unaffected.
+  \<^descr> @{ML incr_boundvars}~\<open>j\<close> increments a term's dangling bound variables by
+  the offset \<open>j\<close>. This is required when moving a subterm into a context where
+  it is enclosed by a different number of abstractions. Bound variables with a
+  matching abstraction are unaffected.
 
-  \<^descr> @{ML Sign.declare_const}~\<open>ctxt ((c, \<sigma>), mx)\<close> declares
-  a new constant \<open>c :: \<sigma>\<close> with optional mixfix syntax.
+  \<^descr> @{ML Sign.declare_const}~\<open>ctxt ((c, \<sigma>), mx)\<close> declares a new constant \<open>c ::
+  \<sigma>\<close> with optional mixfix syntax.
 
-  \<^descr> @{ML Sign.add_abbrev}~\<open>print_mode (c, t)\<close>
-  introduces a new term abbreviation \<open>c \<equiv> t\<close>.
+  \<^descr> @{ML Sign.add_abbrev}~\<open>print_mode (c, t)\<close> introduces a new term
+  abbreviation \<open>c \<equiv> t\<close>.
 
-  \<^descr> @{ML Sign.const_typargs}~\<open>thy (c, \<tau>)\<close> and @{ML
-  Sign.const_instance}~\<open>thy (c, [\<tau>\<^sub>1, \<dots>, \<tau>\<^sub>n])\<close>
-  convert between two representations of polymorphic constants: full
-  type instance vs.\ compact type arguments form.
+  \<^descr> @{ML Sign.const_typargs}~\<open>thy (c, \<tau>)\<close> and @{ML Sign.const_instance}~\<open>thy
+  (c, [\<tau>\<^sub>1, \<dots>, \<tau>\<^sub>n])\<close> convert between two representations of polymorphic
+  constants: full type instance vs.\ compact type arguments form.
 \<close>
 
 text %mlantiq \<open>
@@ -433,33 +401,31 @@
   @@{ML_antiquotation prop} prop
   \<close>}
 
-  \<^descr> \<open>@{const_name c}\<close> inlines the internalized logical
-  constant name \<open>c\<close> --- as @{ML_type string} literal.
+  \<^descr> \<open>@{const_name c}\<close> inlines the internalized logical constant name \<open>c\<close> ---
+  as @{ML_type string} literal.
+
+  \<^descr> \<open>@{const_abbrev c}\<close> inlines the internalized abbreviated constant name \<open>c\<close>
+  --- as @{ML_type string} literal.
 
-  \<^descr> \<open>@{const_abbrev c}\<close> inlines the internalized
-  abbreviated constant name \<open>c\<close> --- as @{ML_type string}
-  literal.
+  \<^descr> \<open>@{const c(\<^vec>\<tau>)}\<close> inlines the internalized constant \<open>c\<close> with precise
+  type instantiation in the sense of @{ML Sign.const_instance} --- as @{ML
+  Const} constructor term for datatype @{ML_type term}.
 
-  \<^descr> \<open>@{const c(\<^vec>\<tau>)}\<close> inlines the internalized
-  constant \<open>c\<close> with precise type instantiation in the sense of
-  @{ML Sign.const_instance} --- as @{ML Const} constructor term for
+  \<^descr> \<open>@{term t}\<close> inlines the internalized term \<open>t\<close> --- as constructor term for
   datatype @{ML_type term}.
 
-  \<^descr> \<open>@{term t}\<close> inlines the internalized term \<open>t\<close>
-  --- as constructor term for datatype @{ML_type term}.
-
-  \<^descr> \<open>@{prop \<phi>}\<close> inlines the internalized proposition
-  \<open>\<phi>\<close> --- as constructor term for datatype @{ML_type term}.
+  \<^descr> \<open>@{prop \<phi>}\<close> inlines the internalized proposition \<open>\<phi>\<close> --- as constructor
+  term for datatype @{ML_type term}.
 \<close>
 
 
 section \<open>Theorems \label{sec:thms}\<close>
 
 text \<open>
-  A \<^emph>\<open>proposition\<close> is a well-typed term of type \<open>prop\<close>, a
-  \<^emph>\<open>theorem\<close> is a proven proposition (depending on a context of
-  hypotheses and the background theory).  Primitive inferences include
-  plain Natural Deduction rules for the primary connectives \<open>\<And>\<close> and \<open>\<Longrightarrow>\<close> of the framework.  There is also a builtin
+  A \<^emph>\<open>proposition\<close> is a well-typed term of type \<open>prop\<close>, a \<^emph>\<open>theorem\<close> is a
+  proven proposition (depending on a context of hypotheses and the background
+  theory). Primitive inferences include plain Natural Deduction rules for the
+  primary connectives \<open>\<And>\<close> and \<open>\<Longrightarrow>\<close> of the framework. There is also a builtin
   notion of equality/equivalence \<open>\<equiv>\<close>.
 \<close>
 
@@ -467,16 +433,14 @@
 subsection \<open>Primitive connectives and rules \label{sec:prim-rules}\<close>
 
 text \<open>
-  The theory \<open>Pure\<close> contains constant declarations for the
-  primitive connectives \<open>\<And>\<close>, \<open>\<Longrightarrow>\<close>, and \<open>\<equiv>\<close> of
-  the logical framework, see \figref{fig:pure-connectives}.  The
-  derivability judgment \<open>A\<^sub>1, \<dots>, A\<^sub>n \<turnstile> B\<close> is
-  defined inductively by the primitive inferences given in
-  \figref{fig:prim-rules}, with the global restriction that the
-  hypotheses must \<^emph>\<open>not\<close> contain any schematic variables.  The
-  builtin equality is conceptually axiomatized as shown in
-  \figref{fig:pure-equality}, although the implementation works
-  directly with derived inferences.
+  The theory \<open>Pure\<close> contains constant declarations for the primitive
+  connectives \<open>\<And>\<close>, \<open>\<Longrightarrow>\<close>, and \<open>\<equiv>\<close> of the logical framework, see
+  \figref{fig:pure-connectives}. The derivability judgment \<open>A\<^sub>1, \<dots>, A\<^sub>n \<turnstile> B\<close>
+  is defined inductively by the primitive inferences given in
+  \figref{fig:prim-rules}, with the global restriction that the hypotheses
+  must \<^emph>\<open>not\<close> contain any schematic variables. The builtin equality is
+  conceptually axiomatized as shown in \figref{fig:pure-equality}, although
+  the implementation works directly with derived inferences.
 
   \begin{figure}[htb]
   \begin{center}
@@ -523,26 +487,29 @@
   \end{center}
   \end{figure}
 
-  The introduction and elimination rules for \<open>\<And>\<close> and \<open>\<Longrightarrow>\<close> are analogous to formation of dependently typed \<open>\<lambda>\<close>-terms representing the underlying proof objects.  Proof terms
-  are irrelevant in the Pure logic, though; they cannot occur within
-  propositions.  The system provides a runtime option to record
+  The introduction and elimination rules for \<open>\<And>\<close> and \<open>\<Longrightarrow>\<close> are analogous to
+  formation of dependently typed \<open>\<lambda>\<close>-terms representing the underlying proof
+  objects. Proof terms are irrelevant in the Pure logic, though; they cannot
+  occur within propositions. The system provides a runtime option to record
   explicit proof terms for primitive inferences, see also
-  \secref{sec:proof-terms}.  Thus all three levels of \<open>\<lambda>\<close>-calculus become explicit: \<open>\<Rightarrow>\<close> for terms, and \<open>\<And>/\<Longrightarrow>\<close> for proofs (cf.\ @{cite "Berghofer-Nipkow:2000:TPHOL"}).
+  \secref{sec:proof-terms}. Thus all three levels of \<open>\<lambda>\<close>-calculus become
+  explicit: \<open>\<Rightarrow>\<close> for terms, and \<open>\<And>/\<Longrightarrow>\<close> for proofs (cf.\ @{cite
+  "Berghofer-Nipkow:2000:TPHOL"}).
 
-  Observe that locally fixed parameters (as in \<open>\<And>\<hyphen>intro\<close>) need not be recorded in the hypotheses, because
-  the simple syntactic types of Pure are always inhabitable.
-  ``Assumptions'' \<open>x :: \<tau>\<close> for type-membership are only
-  present as long as some \<open>x\<^sub>\<tau>\<close> occurs in the statement
-  body.\<^footnote>\<open>This is the key difference to ``\<open>\<lambda>HOL\<close>'' in
-  the PTS framework @{cite "Barendregt-Geuvers:2001"}, where hypotheses
-  \<open>x : A\<close> are treated uniformly for propositions and types.\<close>
+  Observe that locally fixed parameters (as in \<open>\<And>\<hyphen>intro\<close>) need not be recorded
+  in the hypotheses, because the simple syntactic types of Pure are always
+  inhabitable. ``Assumptions'' \<open>x :: \<tau>\<close> for type-membership are only present
+  as long as some \<open>x\<^sub>\<tau>\<close> occurs in the statement body.\<^footnote>\<open>This is the key
+  difference to ``\<open>\<lambda>HOL\<close>'' in the PTS framework @{cite
+  "Barendregt-Geuvers:2001"}, where hypotheses \<open>x : A\<close> are treated uniformly
+  for propositions and types.\<close>
 
   \<^medskip>
-  The axiomatization of a theory is implicitly closed by
-  forming all instances of type and term variables: \<open>\<turnstile>
-  A\<vartheta>\<close> holds for any substitution instance of an axiom
-  \<open>\<turnstile> A\<close>.  By pushing substitutions through derivations
-  inductively, we also get admissible \<open>generalize\<close> and \<open>instantiate\<close> rules as shown in \figref{fig:subst-rules}.
+  The axiomatization of a theory is implicitly closed by forming all instances
+  of type and term variables: \<open>\<turnstile> A\<vartheta>\<close> holds for any substitution
+  instance of an axiom \<open>\<turnstile> A\<close>. By pushing substitutions through derivations
+  inductively, we also get admissible \<open>generalize\<close> and \<open>instantiate\<close> rules as
+  shown in \figref{fig:subst-rules}.
 
   \begin{figure}[htb]
   \begin{center}
@@ -560,40 +527,39 @@
   \end{center}
   \end{figure}
 
-  Note that \<open>instantiate\<close> does not require an explicit
-  side-condition, because \<open>\<Gamma>\<close> may never contain schematic
-  variables.
+  Note that \<open>instantiate\<close> does not require an explicit side-condition, because
+  \<open>\<Gamma>\<close> may never contain schematic variables.
 
-  In principle, variables could be substituted in hypotheses as well,
-  but this would disrupt the monotonicity of reasoning: deriving
-  \<open>\<Gamma>\<vartheta> \<turnstile> B\<vartheta>\<close> from \<open>\<Gamma> \<turnstile> B\<close> is
-  correct, but \<open>\<Gamma>\<vartheta> \<supseteq> \<Gamma>\<close> does not necessarily hold:
-  the result belongs to a different proof context.
+  In principle, variables could be substituted in hypotheses as well, but this
+  would disrupt the monotonicity of reasoning: deriving \<open>\<Gamma>\<vartheta> \<turnstile>
+  B\<vartheta>\<close> from \<open>\<Gamma> \<turnstile> B\<close> is correct, but \<open>\<Gamma>\<vartheta> \<supseteq> \<Gamma>\<close> does not
+  necessarily hold: the result belongs to a different proof context.
 
   \<^medskip>
-  An \<^emph>\<open>oracle\<close> is a function that produces axioms on the
-  fly.  Logically, this is an instance of the \<open>axiom\<close> rule
-  (\figref{fig:prim-rules}), but there is an operational difference.
-  The system always records oracle invocations within derivations of
-  theorems by a unique tag.
+  An \<^emph>\<open>oracle\<close> is a function that produces axioms on the fly. Logically, this
+  is an instance of the \<open>axiom\<close> rule (\figref{fig:prim-rules}), but there is
+  an operational difference. The system always records oracle invocations
+  within derivations of theorems by a unique tag.
 
-  Axiomatizations should be limited to the bare minimum, typically as
-  part of the initial logical basis of an object-logic formalization.
-  Later on, theories are usually developed in a strictly definitional
-  fashion, by stating only certain equalities over new constants.
+  Axiomatizations should be limited to the bare minimum, typically as part of
+  the initial logical basis of an object-logic formalization. Later on,
+  theories are usually developed in a strictly definitional fashion, by
+  stating only certain equalities over new constants.
 
-  A \<^emph>\<open>simple definition\<close> consists of a constant declaration \<open>c :: \<sigma>\<close> together with an axiom \<open>\<turnstile> c \<equiv> t\<close>, where \<open>t
-  :: \<sigma>\<close> is a closed term without any hidden polymorphism.  The RHS
-  may depend on further defined constants, but not \<open>c\<close> itself.
-  Definitions of functions may be presented as \<open>c \<^vec>x \<equiv>
-  t\<close> instead of the puristic \<open>c \<equiv> \<lambda>\<^vec>x. t\<close>.
+  A \<^emph>\<open>simple definition\<close> consists of a constant declaration \<open>c :: \<sigma>\<close> together
+  with an axiom \<open>\<turnstile> c \<equiv> t\<close>, where \<open>t :: \<sigma>\<close> is a closed term without any hidden
+  polymorphism. The RHS may depend on further defined constants, but not \<open>c\<close>
+  itself. Definitions of functions may be presented as \<open>c \<^vec>x \<equiv> t\<close>
+  instead of the puristic \<open>c \<equiv> \<lambda>\<^vec>x. t\<close>.
 
-  An \<^emph>\<open>overloaded definition\<close> consists of a collection of axioms
-  for the same constant, with zero or one equations \<open>c((\<^vec>\<alpha>)\<kappa>) \<equiv> t\<close> for each type constructor \<open>\<kappa>\<close> (for
-  distinct variables \<open>\<^vec>\<alpha>\<close>).  The RHS may mention
-  previously defined constants as above, or arbitrary constants \<open>d(\<alpha>\<^sub>i)\<close> for some \<open>\<alpha>\<^sub>i\<close> projected from \<open>\<^vec>\<alpha>\<close>.  Thus overloaded definitions essentially work by
-  primitive recursion over the syntactic structure of a single type
-  argument.  See also @{cite \<open>\S4.3\<close> "Haftmann-Wenzel:2006:classes"}.
+  An \<^emph>\<open>overloaded definition\<close> consists of a collection of axioms for the same
+  constant, with zero or one equations \<open>c((\<^vec>\<alpha>)\<kappa>) \<equiv> t\<close> for each type
+  constructor \<open>\<kappa>\<close> (for distinct variables \<open>\<^vec>\<alpha>\<close>). The RHS may mention
+  previously defined constants as above, or arbitrary constants \<open>d(\<alpha>\<^sub>i)\<close> for
+  some \<open>\<alpha>\<^sub>i\<close> projected from \<open>\<^vec>\<alpha>\<close>. Thus overloaded definitions
+  essentially work by primitive recursion over the syntactic structure of a
+  single type argument. See also @{cite \<open>\S4.3\<close>
+  "Haftmann-Wenzel:2006:classes"}.
 \<close>
 
 text %mlref \<open>
@@ -635,101 +601,89 @@
   Defs.entry -> Defs.entry list -> theory -> theory"} \\
   \end{mldecls}
 
-  \<^descr> @{ML Thm.peek_status}~\<open>thm\<close> informs about the current
-  status of the derivation object behind the given theorem.  This is a
-  snapshot of a potentially ongoing (parallel) evaluation of proofs.
-  The three Boolean values indicate the following: \<^verbatim>\<open>oracle\<close>
-  if the finished part contains some oracle invocation; \<^verbatim>\<open>unfinished\<close>
-  if some future proofs are still pending; \<^verbatim>\<open>failed\<close> if some future
-  proof has failed, rendering the theorem invalid!
+  \<^descr> @{ML Thm.peek_status}~\<open>thm\<close> informs about the current status of the
+  derivation object behind the given theorem. This is a snapshot of a
+  potentially ongoing (parallel) evaluation of proofs. The three Boolean
+  values indicate the following: \<^verbatim>\<open>oracle\<close> if the finished part contains some
+  oracle invocation; \<^verbatim>\<open>unfinished\<close> if some future proofs are still pending;
+  \<^verbatim>\<open>failed\<close> if some future proof has failed, rendering the theorem invalid!
 
-  \<^descr> @{ML Logic.all}~\<open>a B\<close> produces a Pure quantification
-  \<open>\<And>a. B\<close>, where occurrences of the atomic term \<open>a\<close> in
-  the body proposition \<open>B\<close> are replaced by bound variables.
-  (See also @{ML lambda} on terms.)
+  \<^descr> @{ML Logic.all}~\<open>a B\<close> produces a Pure quantification \<open>\<And>a. B\<close>, where
+  occurrences of the atomic term \<open>a\<close> in the body proposition \<open>B\<close> are replaced
+  by bound variables. (See also @{ML lambda} on terms.)
 
-  \<^descr> @{ML Logic.mk_implies}~\<open>(A, B)\<close> produces a Pure
-  implication \<open>A \<Longrightarrow> B\<close>.
+  \<^descr> @{ML Logic.mk_implies}~\<open>(A, B)\<close> produces a Pure implication \<open>A \<Longrightarrow> B\<close>.
 
-  \<^descr> Types @{ML_type ctyp} and @{ML_type cterm} represent certified
-  types and terms, respectively.  These are abstract datatypes that
-  guarantee that its values have passed the full well-formedness (and
-  well-typedness) checks, relative to the declarations of type
-  constructors, constants etc.\ in the background theory.  The
-  abstract types @{ML_type ctyp} and @{ML_type cterm} are part of the
-  same inference kernel that is mainly responsible for @{ML_type thm}.
-  Thus syntactic operations on @{ML_type ctyp} and @{ML_type cterm}
-  are located in the @{ML_structure Thm} module, even though theorems are
-  not yet involved at that stage.
+  \<^descr> Types @{ML_type ctyp} and @{ML_type cterm} represent certified types and
+  terms, respectively. These are abstract datatypes that guarantee that its
+  values have passed the full well-formedness (and well-typedness) checks,
+  relative to the declarations of type constructors, constants etc.\ in the
+  background theory. The abstract types @{ML_type ctyp} and @{ML_type cterm}
+  are part of the same inference kernel that is mainly responsible for
+  @{ML_type thm}. Thus syntactic operations on @{ML_type ctyp} and @{ML_type
+  cterm} are located in the @{ML_structure Thm} module, even though theorems
+  are not yet involved at that stage.
 
-  \<^descr> @{ML Thm.ctyp_of}~\<open>ctxt \<tau>\<close> and @{ML
-  Thm.cterm_of}~\<open>ctxt t\<close> explicitly check types and terms,
-  respectively.  This also involves some basic normalizations, such
-  expansion of type and term abbreviations from the underlying
-  theory context.
-  Full re-certification is relatively slow and should be avoided in
-  tight reasoning loops.
+  \<^descr> @{ML Thm.ctyp_of}~\<open>ctxt \<tau>\<close> and @{ML Thm.cterm_of}~\<open>ctxt t\<close> explicitly
+  check types and terms, respectively. This also involves some basic
+  normalizations, such expansion of type and term abbreviations from the
+  underlying theory context. Full re-certification is relatively slow and
+  should be avoided in tight reasoning loops.
 
-  \<^descr> @{ML Thm.apply}, @{ML Thm.lambda}, @{ML Thm.all}, @{ML
-  Drule.mk_implies} etc.\ compose certified terms (or propositions)
-  incrementally.  This is equivalent to @{ML Thm.cterm_of} after
-  unchecked @{ML_op "$"}, @{ML lambda}, @{ML Logic.all}, @{ML
-  Logic.mk_implies} etc., but there can be a big difference in
-  performance when large existing entities are composed by a few extra
-  constructions on top.  There are separate operations to decompose
+  \<^descr> @{ML Thm.apply}, @{ML Thm.lambda}, @{ML Thm.all}, @{ML Drule.mk_implies}
+  etc.\ compose certified terms (or propositions) incrementally. This is
+  equivalent to @{ML Thm.cterm_of} after unchecked @{ML_op "$"}, @{ML lambda},
+  @{ML Logic.all}, @{ML Logic.mk_implies} etc., but there can be a big
+  difference in performance when large existing entities are composed by a few
+  extra constructions on top. There are separate operations to decompose
   certified terms and theorems to produce certified terms again.
 
-  \<^descr> Type @{ML_type thm} represents proven propositions.  This is
-  an abstract datatype that guarantees that its values have been
-  constructed by basic principles of the @{ML_structure Thm} module.
-  Every @{ML_type thm} value refers its background theory,
-  cf.\ \secref{sec:context-theory}.
+  \<^descr> Type @{ML_type thm} represents proven propositions. This is an abstract
+  datatype that guarantees that its values have been constructed by basic
+  principles of the @{ML_structure Thm} module. Every @{ML_type thm} value
+  refers its background theory, cf.\ \secref{sec:context-theory}.
 
-  \<^descr> @{ML Thm.transfer}~\<open>thy thm\<close> transfers the given
-  theorem to a \<^emph>\<open>larger\<close> theory, see also \secref{sec:context}.
-  This formal adjustment of the background context has no logical
-  significance, but is occasionally required for formal reasons, e.g.\
-  when theorems that are imported from more basic theories are used in
-  the current situation.
+  \<^descr> @{ML Thm.transfer}~\<open>thy thm\<close> transfers the given theorem to a \<^emph>\<open>larger\<close>
+  theory, see also \secref{sec:context}. This formal adjustment of the
+  background context has no logical significance, but is occasionally required
+  for formal reasons, e.g.\ when theorems that are imported from more basic
+  theories are used in the current situation.
 
-  \<^descr> @{ML Thm.assume}, @{ML Thm.forall_intr}, @{ML
-  Thm.forall_elim}, @{ML Thm.implies_intr}, and @{ML Thm.implies_elim}
-  correspond to the primitive inferences of \figref{fig:prim-rules}.
+  \<^descr> @{ML Thm.assume}, @{ML Thm.forall_intr}, @{ML Thm.forall_elim}, @{ML
+  Thm.implies_intr}, and @{ML Thm.implies_elim} correspond to the primitive
+  inferences of \figref{fig:prim-rules}.
 
-  \<^descr> @{ML Thm.generalize}~\<open>(\<^vec>\<alpha>, \<^vec>x)\<close>
-  corresponds to the \<open>generalize\<close> rules of
-  \figref{fig:subst-rules}.  Here collections of type and term
-  variables are generalized simultaneously, specified by the given
-  basic names.
+  \<^descr> @{ML Thm.generalize}~\<open>(\<^vec>\<alpha>, \<^vec>x)\<close> corresponds to the
+  \<open>generalize\<close> rules of \figref{fig:subst-rules}. Here collections of type and
+  term variables are generalized simultaneously, specified by the given basic
+  names.
 
-  \<^descr> @{ML Thm.instantiate}~\<open>(\<^vec>\<alpha>\<^sub>s,
-  \<^vec>x\<^sub>\<tau>)\<close> corresponds to the \<open>instantiate\<close> rules
-  of \figref{fig:subst-rules}.  Type variables are substituted before
-  term variables.  Note that the types in \<open>\<^vec>x\<^sub>\<tau>\<close>
-  refer to the instantiated versions.
+  \<^descr> @{ML Thm.instantiate}~\<open>(\<^vec>\<alpha>\<^sub>s, \<^vec>x\<^sub>\<tau>)\<close> corresponds to the
+  \<open>instantiate\<close> rules of \figref{fig:subst-rules}. Type variables are
+  substituted before term variables. Note that the types in \<open>\<^vec>x\<^sub>\<tau>\<close> refer
+  to the instantiated versions.
 
-  \<^descr> @{ML Thm.add_axiom}~\<open>ctxt (name, A)\<close> declares an
-  arbitrary proposition as axiom, and retrieves it as a theorem from
-  the resulting theory, cf.\ \<open>axiom\<close> in
-  \figref{fig:prim-rules}.  Note that the low-level representation in
-  the axiom table may differ slightly from the returned theorem.
+  \<^descr> @{ML Thm.add_axiom}~\<open>ctxt (name, A)\<close> declares an arbitrary proposition as
+  axiom, and retrieves it as a theorem from the resulting theory, cf.\ \<open>axiom\<close>
+  in \figref{fig:prim-rules}. Note that the low-level representation in the
+  axiom table may differ slightly from the returned theorem.
 
-  \<^descr> @{ML Thm.add_oracle}~\<open>(binding, oracle)\<close> produces a named
-  oracle rule, essentially generating arbitrary axioms on the fly,
-  cf.\ \<open>axiom\<close> in \figref{fig:prim-rules}.
+  \<^descr> @{ML Thm.add_oracle}~\<open>(binding, oracle)\<close> produces a named oracle rule,
+  essentially generating arbitrary axioms on the fly, cf.\ \<open>axiom\<close> in
+  \figref{fig:prim-rules}.
 
-  \<^descr> @{ML Thm.add_def}~\<open>ctxt unchecked overloaded (name, c
-  \<^vec>x \<equiv> t)\<close> states a definitional axiom for an existing constant
-  \<open>c\<close>.  Dependencies are recorded via @{ML Theory.add_deps},
-  unless the \<open>unchecked\<close> option is set.  Note that the
-  low-level representation in the axiom table may differ slightly from
-  the returned theorem.
+  \<^descr> @{ML Thm.add_def}~\<open>ctxt unchecked overloaded (name, c \<^vec>x \<equiv> t)\<close>
+  states a definitional axiom for an existing constant \<open>c\<close>. Dependencies are
+  recorded via @{ML Theory.add_deps}, unless the \<open>unchecked\<close> option is set.
+  Note that the low-level representation in the axiom table may differ
+  slightly from the returned theorem.
 
-  \<^descr> @{ML Theory.add_deps}~\<open>ctxt name c\<^sub>\<tau> \<^vec>d\<^sub>\<sigma>\<close>
-  declares dependencies of a named specification for constant \<open>c\<^sub>\<tau>\<close>, relative to existing specifications for constants \<open>\<^vec>d\<^sub>\<sigma>\<close>.  This also works for type constructors.
+  \<^descr> @{ML Theory.add_deps}~\<open>ctxt name c\<^sub>\<tau> \<^vec>d\<^sub>\<sigma>\<close> declares dependencies of
+  a named specification for constant \<open>c\<^sub>\<tau>\<close>, relative to existing
+  specifications for constants \<open>\<^vec>d\<^sub>\<sigma>\<close>. This also works for type
+  constructors.
 \<close>
 
-
 text %mlantiq \<open>
   \begin{matharray}{rcl}
   @{ML_antiquotation_def "ctyp"} & : & \<open>ML_antiquotation\<close> \\
@@ -755,46 +709,42 @@
     @'by' method method?
   \<close>}
 
-  \<^descr> \<open>@{ctyp \<tau>}\<close> produces a certified type wrt.\ the
-  current background theory --- as abstract value of type @{ML_type
-  ctyp}.
+  \<^descr> \<open>@{ctyp \<tau>}\<close> produces a certified type wrt.\ the current background theory
+  --- as abstract value of type @{ML_type ctyp}.
+
+  \<^descr> \<open>@{cterm t}\<close> and \<open>@{cprop \<phi>}\<close> produce a certified term wrt.\ the current
+  background theory --- as abstract value of type @{ML_type cterm}.
 
-  \<^descr> \<open>@{cterm t}\<close> and \<open>@{cprop \<phi>}\<close> produce a
-  certified term wrt.\ the current background theory --- as abstract
-  value of type @{ML_type cterm}.
+  \<^descr> \<open>@{thm a}\<close> produces a singleton fact --- as abstract value of type
+  @{ML_type thm}.
 
-  \<^descr> \<open>@{thm a}\<close> produces a singleton fact --- as abstract
-  value of type @{ML_type thm}.
-
-  \<^descr> \<open>@{thms a}\<close> produces a general fact --- as abstract
-  value of type @{ML_type "thm list"}.
+  \<^descr> \<open>@{thms a}\<close> produces a general fact --- as abstract value of type
+  @{ML_type "thm list"}.
 
-  \<^descr> \<open>@{lemma \<phi> by meth}\<close> produces a fact that is proven on
-  the spot according to the minimal proof, which imitates a terminal
-  Isar proof.  The result is an abstract value of type @{ML_type thm}
-  or @{ML_type "thm list"}, depending on the number of propositions
-  given here.
+  \<^descr> \<open>@{lemma \<phi> by meth}\<close> produces a fact that is proven on the spot according
+  to the minimal proof, which imitates a terminal Isar proof. The result is an
+  abstract value of type @{ML_type thm} or @{ML_type "thm list"}, depending on
+  the number of propositions given here.
 
-  The internal derivation object lacks a proper theorem name, but it
-  is formally closed, unless the \<open>(open)\<close> option is specified
-  (this may impact performance of applications with proof terms).
+  The internal derivation object lacks a proper theorem name, but it is
+  formally closed, unless the \<open>(open)\<close> option is specified (this may impact
+  performance of applications with proof terms).
 
-  Since ML antiquotations are always evaluated at compile-time, there
-  is no run-time overhead even for non-trivial proofs.  Nonetheless,
-  the justification is syntactically limited to a single @{command
-  "by"} step.  More complex Isar proofs should be done in regular
-  theory source, before compiling the corresponding ML text that uses
-  the result.
+  Since ML antiquotations are always evaluated at compile-time, there is no
+  run-time overhead even for non-trivial proofs. Nonetheless, the
+  justification is syntactically limited to a single @{command "by"} step.
+  More complex Isar proofs should be done in regular theory source, before
+  compiling the corresponding ML text that uses the result.
 \<close>
 
 
 subsection \<open>Auxiliary connectives \label{sec:logic-aux}\<close>
 
-text \<open>Theory \<open>Pure\<close> provides a few auxiliary connectives
-  that are defined on top of the primitive ones, see
-  \figref{fig:pure-aux}.  These special constants are useful in
-  certain internal encodings, and are normally not directly exposed to
-  the user.
+text \<open>
+  Theory \<open>Pure\<close> provides a few auxiliary connectives that are defined on top
+  of the primitive ones, see \figref{fig:pure-aux}. These special constants
+  are useful in certain internal encodings, and are normally not directly
+  exposed to the user.
 
   \begin{figure}[htb]
   \begin{center}
@@ -812,37 +762,32 @@
   \end{center}
   \end{figure}
 
-  The introduction \<open>A \<Longrightarrow> B \<Longrightarrow> A &&& B\<close>, and eliminations
-  (projections) \<open>A &&& B \<Longrightarrow> A\<close> and \<open>A &&& B \<Longrightarrow> B\<close> are
-  available as derived rules.  Conjunction allows to treat
-  simultaneous assumptions and conclusions uniformly, e.g.\ consider
-  \<open>A \<Longrightarrow> B \<Longrightarrow> C &&& D\<close>.  In particular, the goal mechanism
-  represents multiple claims as explicit conjunction internally, but
-  this is refined (via backwards introduction) into separate sub-goals
-  before the user commences the proof; the final result is projected
-  into a list of theorems using eliminations (cf.\
-  \secref{sec:tactical-goals}).
+  The introduction \<open>A \<Longrightarrow> B \<Longrightarrow> A &&& B\<close>, and eliminations (projections) \<open>A &&& B
+  \<Longrightarrow> A\<close> and \<open>A &&& B \<Longrightarrow> B\<close> are available as derived rules. Conjunction allows to
+  treat simultaneous assumptions and conclusions uniformly, e.g.\ consider \<open>A
+  \<Longrightarrow> B \<Longrightarrow> C &&& D\<close>. In particular, the goal mechanism represents multiple claims
+  as explicit conjunction internally, but this is refined (via backwards
+  introduction) into separate sub-goals before the user commences the proof;
+  the final result is projected into a list of theorems using eliminations
+  (cf.\ \secref{sec:tactical-goals}).
 
-  The \<open>prop\<close> marker (\<open>#\<close>) makes arbitrarily complex
-  propositions appear as atomic, without changing the meaning: \<open>\<Gamma> \<turnstile> A\<close> and \<open>\<Gamma> \<turnstile> #A\<close> are interchangeable.  See
-  \secref{sec:tactical-goals} for specific operations.
+  The \<open>prop\<close> marker (\<open>#\<close>) makes arbitrarily complex propositions appear as
+  atomic, without changing the meaning: \<open>\<Gamma> \<turnstile> A\<close> and \<open>\<Gamma> \<turnstile> #A\<close> are
+  interchangeable. See \secref{sec:tactical-goals} for specific operations.
 
-  The \<open>term\<close> marker turns any well-typed term into a derivable
-  proposition: \<open>\<turnstile> TERM t\<close> holds unconditionally.  Although
-  this is logically vacuous, it allows to treat terms and proofs
-  uniformly, similar to a type-theoretic framework.
+  The \<open>term\<close> marker turns any well-typed term into a derivable proposition: \<open>\<turnstile>
+  TERM t\<close> holds unconditionally. Although this is logically vacuous, it allows
+  to treat terms and proofs uniformly, similar to a type-theoretic framework.
 
-  The \<open>TYPE\<close> constructor is the canonical representative of
-  the unspecified type \<open>\<alpha> itself\<close>; it essentially injects the
-  language of types into that of terms.  There is specific notation
-  \<open>TYPE(\<tau>)\<close> for \<open>TYPE\<^bsub>\<tau> itself\<^esub>\<close>.
-  Although being devoid of any particular meaning, the term \<open>TYPE(\<tau>)\<close> accounts for the type \<open>\<tau>\<close> within the term
-  language.  In particular, \<open>TYPE(\<alpha>)\<close> may be used as formal
-  argument in primitive definitions, in order to circumvent hidden
-  polymorphism (cf.\ \secref{sec:terms}).  For example, \<open>c
-  TYPE(\<alpha>) \<equiv> A[\<alpha>]\<close> defines \<open>c :: \<alpha> itself \<Rightarrow> prop\<close> in terms of
-  a proposition \<open>A\<close> that depends on an additional type
-  argument, which is essentially a predicate on types.
+  The \<open>TYPE\<close> constructor is the canonical representative of the unspecified
+  type \<open>\<alpha> itself\<close>; it essentially injects the language of types into that of
+  terms. There is specific notation \<open>TYPE(\<tau>)\<close> for \<open>TYPE\<^bsub>\<tau> itself\<^esub>\<close>. Although
+  being devoid of any particular meaning, the term \<open>TYPE(\<tau>)\<close> accounts for the
+  type \<open>\<tau>\<close> within the term language. In particular, \<open>TYPE(\<alpha>)\<close> may be used as
+  formal argument in primitive definitions, in order to circumvent hidden
+  polymorphism (cf.\ \secref{sec:terms}). For example, \<open>c TYPE(\<alpha>) \<equiv> A[\<alpha>]\<close>
+  defines \<open>c :: \<alpha> itself \<Rightarrow> prop\<close> in terms of a proposition \<open>A\<close> that depends on
+  an additional type argument, which is essentially a predicate on types.
 \<close>
 
 text %mlref \<open>
@@ -857,8 +802,7 @@
 
   \<^descr> @{ML Conjunction.intr} derives \<open>A &&& B\<close> from \<open>A\<close> and \<open>B\<close>.
 
-  \<^descr> @{ML Conjunction.elim} derives \<open>A\<close> and \<open>B\<close>
-  from \<open>A &&& B\<close>.
+  \<^descr> @{ML Conjunction.elim} derives \<open>A\<close> and \<open>B\<close> from \<open>A &&& B\<close>.
 
   \<^descr> @{ML Drule.mk_term} derives \<open>TERM t\<close>.
 
@@ -866,35 +810,35 @@
 
   \<^descr> @{ML Logic.mk_type}~\<open>\<tau>\<close> produces the term \<open>TYPE(\<tau>)\<close>.
 
-  \<^descr> @{ML Logic.dest_type}~\<open>TYPE(\<tau>)\<close> recovers the type
-  \<open>\<tau>\<close>.
+  \<^descr> @{ML Logic.dest_type}~\<open>TYPE(\<tau>)\<close> recovers the type \<open>\<tau>\<close>.
 \<close>
 
 
 subsection \<open>Sort hypotheses\<close>
 
-text \<open>Type variables are decorated with sorts, as explained in
-  \secref{sec:types}.  This constrains type instantiation to certain
-  ranges of types: variable \<open>\<alpha>\<^sub>s\<close> may only be assigned to types
-  \<open>\<tau>\<close> that belong to sort \<open>s\<close>.  Within the logic, sort
-  constraints act like implicit preconditions on the result \<open>\<lparr>\<alpha>\<^sub>1 : s\<^sub>1\<rparr>, \<dots>, \<lparr>\<alpha>\<^sub>n : s\<^sub>n\<rparr>, \<Gamma> \<turnstile> \<phi>\<close> where the type variables \<open>\<alpha>\<^sub>1, \<dots>, \<alpha>\<^sub>n\<close> cover the propositions \<open>\<Gamma>\<close>, \<open>\<phi>\<close>, as
-  well as the proof of \<open>\<Gamma> \<turnstile> \<phi>\<close>.
+text \<open>
+  Type variables are decorated with sorts, as explained in \secref{sec:types}.
+  This constrains type instantiation to certain ranges of types: variable
+  \<open>\<alpha>\<^sub>s\<close> may only be assigned to types \<open>\<tau>\<close> that belong to sort \<open>s\<close>. Within the
+  logic, sort constraints act like implicit preconditions on the result \<open>\<lparr>\<alpha>\<^sub>1
+  : s\<^sub>1\<rparr>, \<dots>, \<lparr>\<alpha>\<^sub>n : s\<^sub>n\<rparr>, \<Gamma> \<turnstile> \<phi>\<close> where the type variables \<open>\<alpha>\<^sub>1, \<dots>, \<alpha>\<^sub>n\<close> cover
+  the propositions \<open>\<Gamma>\<close>, \<open>\<phi>\<close>, as well as the proof of \<open>\<Gamma> \<turnstile> \<phi>\<close>.
 
-  These \<^emph>\<open>sort hypothesis\<close> of a theorem are passed monotonically
-  through further derivations.  They are redundant, as long as the
-  statement of a theorem still contains the type variables that are
-  accounted here.  The logical significance of sort hypotheses is
-  limited to the boundary case where type variables disappear from the
-  proposition, e.g.\ \<open>\<lparr>\<alpha>\<^sub>s : s\<rparr> \<turnstile> \<phi>\<close>.  Since such dangling type
-  variables can be renamed arbitrarily without changing the
-  proposition \<open>\<phi>\<close>, the inference kernel maintains sort
-  hypotheses in anonymous form \<open>s \<turnstile> \<phi>\<close>.
+  These \<^emph>\<open>sort hypothesis\<close> of a theorem are passed monotonically through
+  further derivations. They are redundant, as long as the statement of a
+  theorem still contains the type variables that are accounted here. The
+  logical significance of sort hypotheses is limited to the boundary case
+  where type variables disappear from the proposition, e.g.\ \<open>\<lparr>\<alpha>\<^sub>s : s\<rparr> \<turnstile> \<phi>\<close>.
+  Since such dangling type variables can be renamed arbitrarily without
+  changing the proposition \<open>\<phi>\<close>, the inference kernel maintains sort hypotheses
+  in anonymous form \<open>s \<turnstile> \<phi>\<close>.
 
-  In most practical situations, such extra sort hypotheses may be
-  stripped in a final bookkeeping step, e.g.\ at the end of a proof:
-  they are typically left over from intermediate reasoning with type
-  classes that can be satisfied by some concrete type \<open>\<tau>\<close> of
-  sort \<open>s\<close> to replace the hypothetical type variable \<open>\<alpha>\<^sub>s\<close>.\<close>
+  In most practical situations, such extra sort hypotheses may be stripped in
+  a final bookkeeping step, e.g.\ at the end of a proof: they are typically
+  left over from intermediate reasoning with type classes that can be
+  satisfied by some concrete type \<open>\<tau>\<close> of sort \<open>s\<close> to replace the hypothetical
+  type variable \<open>\<alpha>\<^sub>s\<close>.
+\<close>
 
 text %mlref \<open>
   \begin{mldecls}
@@ -902,17 +846,18 @@
   @{index_ML Thm.strip_shyps: "thm -> thm"} \\
   \end{mldecls}
 
-  \<^descr> @{ML Thm.extra_shyps}~\<open>thm\<close> determines the extraneous
-  sort hypotheses of the given theorem, i.e.\ the sorts that are not
-  present within type variables of the statement.
+  \<^descr> @{ML Thm.extra_shyps}~\<open>thm\<close> determines the extraneous sort hypotheses of
+  the given theorem, i.e.\ the sorts that are not present within type
+  variables of the statement.
 
-  \<^descr> @{ML Thm.strip_shyps}~\<open>thm\<close> removes any extraneous
-  sort hypotheses that can be witnessed from the type signature.
+  \<^descr> @{ML Thm.strip_shyps}~\<open>thm\<close> removes any extraneous sort hypotheses that
+  can be witnessed from the type signature.
 \<close>
 
-text %mlex \<open>The following artificial example demonstrates the
-  derivation of @{prop False} with a pending sort hypothesis involving
-  a logically empty sort.\<close>
+text %mlex \<open>
+  The following artificial example demonstrates the derivation of @{prop
+  False} with a pending sort hypothesis involving a logically empty sort.
+\<close>
 
 class empty =
   assumes bad: "\<And>(x::'a) y. x \<noteq> y"
@@ -922,55 +867,54 @@
 
 ML_val \<open>@{assert} (Thm.extra_shyps @{thm false} = [@{sort empty}])\<close>
 
-text \<open>Thanks to the inference kernel managing sort hypothesis
-  according to their logical significance, this example is merely an
-  instance of \<^emph>\<open>ex falso quodlibet consequitur\<close> --- not a collapse
-  of the logical framework!\<close>
+text \<open>
+  Thanks to the inference kernel managing sort hypothesis according to their
+  logical significance, this example is merely an instance of \<^emph>\<open>ex falso
+  quodlibet consequitur\<close> --- not a collapse of the logical framework!
+\<close>
 
 
 section \<open>Object-level rules \label{sec:obj-rules}\<close>
 
 text \<open>
-  The primitive inferences covered so far mostly serve foundational
-  purposes.  User-level reasoning usually works via object-level rules
-  that are represented as theorems of Pure.  Composition of rules
-  involves \<^emph>\<open>backchaining\<close>, \<^emph>\<open>higher-order unification\<close> modulo
-  \<open>\<alpha>\<beta>\<eta>\<close>-conversion of \<open>\<lambda>\<close>-terms, and so-called
-  \<^emph>\<open>lifting\<close> of rules into a context of \<open>\<And>\<close> and \<open>\<Longrightarrow>\<close> connectives.  Thus the full power of higher-order Natural
-  Deduction in Isabelle/Pure becomes readily available.
+  The primitive inferences covered so far mostly serve foundational purposes.
+  User-level reasoning usually works via object-level rules that are
+  represented as theorems of Pure. Composition of rules involves
+  \<^emph>\<open>backchaining\<close>, \<^emph>\<open>higher-order unification\<close> modulo \<open>\<alpha>\<beta>\<eta>\<close>-conversion of
+  \<open>\<lambda>\<close>-terms, and so-called \<^emph>\<open>lifting\<close> of rules into a context of \<open>\<And>\<close> and \<open>\<Longrightarrow>\<close>
+  connectives. Thus the full power of higher-order Natural Deduction in
+  Isabelle/Pure becomes readily available.
 \<close>
 
 
 subsection \<open>Hereditary Harrop Formulae\<close>
 
 text \<open>
-  The idea of object-level rules is to model Natural Deduction
-  inferences in the style of Gentzen @{cite "Gentzen:1935"}, but we allow
-  arbitrary nesting similar to @{cite extensions91}.  The most basic
-  rule format is that of a \<^emph>\<open>Horn Clause\<close>:
+  The idea of object-level rules is to model Natural Deduction inferences in
+  the style of Gentzen @{cite "Gentzen:1935"}, but we allow arbitrary nesting
+  similar to @{cite extensions91}. The most basic rule format is that of a
+  \<^emph>\<open>Horn Clause\<close>:
   \[
   \infer{\<open>A\<close>}{\<open>A\<^sub>1\<close> & \<open>\<dots>\<close> & \<open>A\<^sub>n\<close>}
   \]
-  where \<open>A, A\<^sub>1, \<dots>, A\<^sub>n\<close> are atomic propositions
-  of the framework, usually of the form \<open>Trueprop B\<close>, where
-  \<open>B\<close> is a (compound) object-level statement.  This
-  object-level inference corresponds to an iterated implication in
-  Pure like this:
+  where \<open>A, A\<^sub>1, \<dots>, A\<^sub>n\<close> are atomic propositions of the framework, usually of
+  the form \<open>Trueprop B\<close>, where \<open>B\<close> is a (compound) object-level statement.
+  This object-level inference corresponds to an iterated implication in Pure
+  like this:
   \[
   \<open>A\<^sub>1 \<Longrightarrow> \<dots> A\<^sub>n \<Longrightarrow> A\<close>
   \]
-  As an example consider conjunction introduction: \<open>A \<Longrightarrow> B \<Longrightarrow> A \<and>
-  B\<close>.  Any parameters occurring in such rule statements are
-  conceptionally treated as arbitrary:
+  As an example consider conjunction introduction: \<open>A \<Longrightarrow> B \<Longrightarrow> A \<and> B\<close>. Any
+  parameters occurring in such rule statements are conceptionally treated as
+  arbitrary:
   \[
   \<open>\<And>x\<^sub>1 \<dots> x\<^sub>m. A\<^sub>1 x\<^sub>1 \<dots> x\<^sub>m \<Longrightarrow> \<dots> A\<^sub>n x\<^sub>1 \<dots> x\<^sub>m \<Longrightarrow> A x\<^sub>1 \<dots> x\<^sub>m\<close>
   \]
 
-  Nesting of rules means that the positions of \<open>A\<^sub>i\<close> may
-  again hold compound rules, not just atomic propositions.
-  Propositions of this format are called \<^emph>\<open>Hereditary Harrop
-  Formulae\<close> in the literature @{cite "Miller:1991"}.  Here we give an
-  inductive characterization as follows:
+  Nesting of rules means that the positions of \<open>A\<^sub>i\<close> may again hold compound
+  rules, not just atomic propositions. Propositions of this format are called
+  \<^emph>\<open>Hereditary Harrop Formulae\<close> in the literature @{cite "Miller:1991"}. Here
+  we give an inductive characterization as follows:
 
   \<^medskip>
   \begin{tabular}{ll}
@@ -980,29 +924,26 @@
   \end{tabular}
   \<^medskip>
 
-  Thus we essentially impose nesting levels on propositions formed
-  from \<open>\<And>\<close> and \<open>\<Longrightarrow>\<close>.  At each level there is a prefix
-  of parameters and compound premises, concluding an atomic
-  proposition.  Typical examples are \<open>\<longrightarrow>\<close>-introduction \<open>(A \<Longrightarrow> B) \<Longrightarrow> A \<longrightarrow> B\<close> or mathematical induction \<open>P 0 \<Longrightarrow> (\<And>n. P n
-  \<Longrightarrow> P (Suc n)) \<Longrightarrow> P n\<close>.  Even deeper nesting occurs in well-founded
-  induction \<open>(\<And>x. (\<And>y. y \<prec> x \<Longrightarrow> P y) \<Longrightarrow> P x) \<Longrightarrow> P x\<close>, but this
-  already marks the limit of rule complexity that is usually seen in
-  practice.
+  Thus we essentially impose nesting levels on propositions formed from \<open>\<And>\<close>
+  and \<open>\<Longrightarrow>\<close>. At each level there is a prefix of parameters and compound
+  premises, concluding an atomic proposition. Typical examples are
+  \<open>\<longrightarrow>\<close>-introduction \<open>(A \<Longrightarrow> B) \<Longrightarrow> A \<longrightarrow> B\<close> or mathematical induction \<open>P 0 \<Longrightarrow> (\<And>n. P n
+  \<Longrightarrow> P (Suc n)) \<Longrightarrow> P n\<close>. Even deeper nesting occurs in well-founded induction
+  \<open>(\<And>x. (\<And>y. y \<prec> x \<Longrightarrow> P y) \<Longrightarrow> P x) \<Longrightarrow> P x\<close>, but this already marks the limit of
+  rule complexity that is usually seen in practice.
 
   \<^medskip>
-  Regular user-level inferences in Isabelle/Pure always
-  maintain the following canonical form of results:
+  Regular user-level inferences in Isabelle/Pure always maintain the following
+  canonical form of results:
 
-  \<^item> Normalization by \<open>(A \<Longrightarrow> (\<And>x. B x)) \<equiv> (\<And>x. A \<Longrightarrow> B x)\<close>,
-  which is a theorem of Pure, means that quantifiers are pushed in
-  front of implication at each level of nesting.  The normal form is a
-  Hereditary Harrop Formula.
+  \<^item> Normalization by \<open>(A \<Longrightarrow> (\<And>x. B x)) \<equiv> (\<And>x. A \<Longrightarrow> B x)\<close>, which is a theorem of
+  Pure, means that quantifiers are pushed in front of implication at each
+  level of nesting. The normal form is a Hereditary Harrop Formula.
 
-  \<^item> The outermost prefix of parameters is represented via
-  schematic variables: instead of \<open>\<And>\<^vec>x. \<^vec>H \<^vec>x
-  \<Longrightarrow> A \<^vec>x\<close> we have \<open>\<^vec>H ?\<^vec>x \<Longrightarrow> A ?\<^vec>x\<close>.
-  Note that this representation looses information about the order of
-  parameters, and vacuous quantifiers vanish automatically.
+  \<^item> The outermost prefix of parameters is represented via schematic variables:
+  instead of \<open>\<And>\<^vec>x. \<^vec>H \<^vec>x \<Longrightarrow> A \<^vec>x\<close> we have \<open>\<^vec>H
+  ?\<^vec>x \<Longrightarrow> A ?\<^vec>x\<close>. Note that this representation looses information
+  about the order of parameters, and vacuous quantifiers vanish automatically.
 \<close>
 
 text %mlref \<open>
@@ -1010,43 +951,42 @@
   @{index_ML Simplifier.norm_hhf: "Proof.context -> thm -> thm"} \\
   \end{mldecls}
 
-  \<^descr> @{ML Simplifier.norm_hhf}~\<open>ctxt thm\<close> normalizes the given
-  theorem according to the canonical form specified above.  This is
-  occasionally helpful to repair some low-level tools that do not
-  handle Hereditary Harrop Formulae properly.
+  \<^descr> @{ML Simplifier.norm_hhf}~\<open>ctxt thm\<close> normalizes the given theorem
+  according to the canonical form specified above. This is occasionally
+  helpful to repair some low-level tools that do not handle Hereditary Harrop
+  Formulae properly.
 \<close>
 
 
 subsection \<open>Rule composition\<close>
 
 text \<open>
-  The rule calculus of Isabelle/Pure provides two main inferences:
-  @{inference resolution} (i.e.\ back-chaining of rules) and
-  @{inference assumption} (i.e.\ closing a branch), both modulo
-  higher-order unification.  There are also combined variants, notably
-  @{inference elim_resolution} and @{inference dest_resolution}.
+  The rule calculus of Isabelle/Pure provides two main inferences: @{inference
+  resolution} (i.e.\ back-chaining of rules) and @{inference assumption}
+  (i.e.\ closing a branch), both modulo higher-order unification. There are
+  also combined variants, notably @{inference elim_resolution} and @{inference
+  dest_resolution}.
 
-  To understand the all-important @{inference resolution} principle,
-  we first consider raw @{inference_def composition} (modulo
-  higher-order unification with substitution \<open>\<vartheta>\<close>):
+  To understand the all-important @{inference resolution} principle, we first
+  consider raw @{inference_def composition} (modulo higher-order unification
+  with substitution \<open>\<vartheta>\<close>):
   \[
   \infer[(@{inference_def composition})]{\<open>\<^vec>A\<vartheta> \<Longrightarrow> C\<vartheta>\<close>}
   {\<open>\<^vec>A \<Longrightarrow> B\<close> & \<open>B' \<Longrightarrow> C\<close> & \<open>B\<vartheta> = B'\<vartheta>\<close>}
   \]
-  Here the conclusion of the first rule is unified with the premise of
-  the second; the resulting rule instance inherits the premises of the
-  first and conclusion of the second.  Note that \<open>C\<close> can again
-  consist of iterated implications.  We can also permute the premises
-  of the second rule back-and-forth in order to compose with \<open>B'\<close> in any position (subsequently we shall always refer to
-  position 1 w.l.o.g.).
+  Here the conclusion of the first rule is unified with the premise of the
+  second; the resulting rule instance inherits the premises of the first and
+  conclusion of the second. Note that \<open>C\<close> can again consist of iterated
+  implications. We can also permute the premises of the second rule
+  back-and-forth in order to compose with \<open>B'\<close> in any position (subsequently
+  we shall always refer to position 1 w.l.o.g.).
 
-  In @{inference composition} the internal structure of the common
-  part \<open>B\<close> and \<open>B'\<close> is not taken into account.  For
-  proper @{inference resolution} we require \<open>B\<close> to be atomic,
-  and explicitly observe the structure \<open>\<And>\<^vec>x. \<^vec>H
-  \<^vec>x \<Longrightarrow> B' \<^vec>x\<close> of the premise of the second rule.  The
-  idea is to adapt the first rule by ``lifting'' it into this context,
-  by means of iterated application of the following inferences:
+  In @{inference composition} the internal structure of the common part \<open>B\<close>
+  and \<open>B'\<close> is not taken into account. For proper @{inference resolution} we
+  require \<open>B\<close> to be atomic, and explicitly observe the structure \<open>\<And>\<^vec>x.
+  \<^vec>H \<^vec>x \<Longrightarrow> B' \<^vec>x\<close> of the premise of the second rule. The idea
+  is to adapt the first rule by ``lifting'' it into this context, by means of
+  iterated application of the following inferences:
   \[
   \infer[(@{inference_def imp_lift})]{\<open>(\<^vec>H \<Longrightarrow> \<^vec>A) \<Longrightarrow> (\<^vec>H \<Longrightarrow> B)\<close>}{\<open>\<^vec>A \<Longrightarrow> B\<close>}
   \]
@@ -1065,10 +1005,10 @@
    \end{tabular}}
   \]
 
-  Continued resolution of rules allows to back-chain a problem towards
-  more and sub-problems.  Branches are closed either by resolving with
-  a rule of 0 premises, or by producing a ``short-circuit'' within a
-  solved situation (again modulo unification):
+  Continued resolution of rules allows to back-chain a problem towards more
+  and sub-problems. Branches are closed either by resolving with a rule of 0
+  premises, or by producing a ``short-circuit'' within a solved situation
+  (again modulo unification):
   \[
   \infer[(@{inference_def assumption})]{\<open>C\<vartheta>\<close>}
   {\<open>(\<And>\<^vec>x. \<^vec>H \<^vec>x \<Longrightarrow> A \<^vec>x) \<Longrightarrow> C\<close> & \<open>A\<vartheta> = H\<^sub>i\<vartheta>\<close>~~\text{(for some~\<open>i\<close>)}}
@@ -1089,133 +1029,125 @@
   @{index_ML_op "OF": "thm * thm list -> thm"} \\
   \end{mldecls}
 
-  \<^descr> \<open>rule\<^sub>1 RSN (i, rule\<^sub>2)\<close> resolves the conclusion of
-  \<open>rule\<^sub>1\<close> with the \<open>i\<close>-th premise of \<open>rule\<^sub>2\<close>,
-  according to the @{inference resolution} principle explained above.
-  Unless there is precisely one resolvent it raises exception @{ML
-  THM}.
+  \<^descr> \<open>rule\<^sub>1 RSN (i, rule\<^sub>2)\<close> resolves the conclusion of \<open>rule\<^sub>1\<close> with the
+  \<open>i\<close>-th premise of \<open>rule\<^sub>2\<close>, according to the @{inference resolution}
+  principle explained above. Unless there is precisely one resolvent it raises
+  exception @{ML THM}.
 
-  This corresponds to the rule attribute @{attribute THEN} in Isar
-  source language.
+  This corresponds to the rule attribute @{attribute THEN} in Isar source
+  language.
 
-  \<^descr> \<open>rule\<^sub>1 RS rule\<^sub>2\<close> abbreviates \<open>rule\<^sub>1 RSN (1,
-  rule\<^sub>2)\<close>.
+  \<^descr> \<open>rule\<^sub>1 RS rule\<^sub>2\<close> abbreviates \<open>rule\<^sub>1 RSN (1, rule\<^sub>2)\<close>.
 
-  \<^descr> \<open>rules\<^sub>1 RLN (i, rules\<^sub>2)\<close> joins lists of rules.  For
-  every \<open>rule\<^sub>1\<close> in \<open>rules\<^sub>1\<close> and \<open>rule\<^sub>2\<close> in
-  \<open>rules\<^sub>2\<close>, it resolves the conclusion of \<open>rule\<^sub>1\<close> with
-  the \<open>i\<close>-th premise of \<open>rule\<^sub>2\<close>, accumulating multiple
-  results in one big list.  Note that such strict enumerations of
-  higher-order unifications can be inefficient compared to the lazy
-  variant seen in elementary tactics like @{ML resolve_tac}.
+  \<^descr> \<open>rules\<^sub>1 RLN (i, rules\<^sub>2)\<close> joins lists of rules. For every \<open>rule\<^sub>1\<close> in
+  \<open>rules\<^sub>1\<close> and \<open>rule\<^sub>2\<close> in \<open>rules\<^sub>2\<close>, it resolves the conclusion of \<open>rule\<^sub>1\<close>
+  with the \<open>i\<close>-th premise of \<open>rule\<^sub>2\<close>, accumulating multiple results in one
+  big list. Note that such strict enumerations of higher-order unifications
+  can be inefficient compared to the lazy variant seen in elementary tactics
+  like @{ML resolve_tac}.
 
-  \<^descr> \<open>rules\<^sub>1 RL rules\<^sub>2\<close> abbreviates \<open>rules\<^sub>1 RLN (1,
-  rules\<^sub>2)\<close>.
+  \<^descr> \<open>rules\<^sub>1 RL rules\<^sub>2\<close> abbreviates \<open>rules\<^sub>1 RLN (1, rules\<^sub>2)\<close>.
 
-  \<^descr> \<open>[rule\<^sub>1, \<dots>, rule\<^sub>n] MRS rule\<close> resolves \<open>rule\<^sub>i\<close>
-  against premise \<open>i\<close> of \<open>rule\<close>, for \<open>i = n, \<dots>,
-  1\<close>.  By working from right to left, newly emerging premises are
-  concatenated in the result, without interfering.
+  \<^descr> \<open>[rule\<^sub>1, \<dots>, rule\<^sub>n] MRS rule\<close> resolves \<open>rule\<^sub>i\<close> against premise \<open>i\<close> of
+  \<open>rule\<close>, for \<open>i = n, \<dots>, 1\<close>. By working from right to left, newly emerging
+  premises are concatenated in the result, without interfering.
 
-  \<^descr> \<open>rule OF rules\<close> is an alternative notation for \<open>rules MRS rule\<close>, which makes rule composition look more like
-  function application.  Note that the argument \<open>rules\<close> need
-  not be atomic.
+  \<^descr> \<open>rule OF rules\<close> is an alternative notation for \<open>rules MRS rule\<close>, which
+  makes rule composition look more like function application. Note that the
+  argument \<open>rules\<close> need not be atomic.
 
-  This corresponds to the rule attribute @{attribute OF} in Isar
-  source language.
+  This corresponds to the rule attribute @{attribute OF} in Isar source
+  language.
 \<close>
 
 
 section \<open>Proof terms \label{sec:proof-terms}\<close>
 
-text \<open>The Isabelle/Pure inference kernel can record the proof of
-  each theorem as a proof term that contains all logical inferences in
-  detail.  Rule composition by resolution (\secref{sec:obj-rules}) and
-  type-class reasoning is broken down to primitive rules of the
-  logical framework.  The proof term can be inspected by a separate
-  proof-checker, for example.
+text \<open>
+  The Isabelle/Pure inference kernel can record the proof of each theorem as a
+  proof term that contains all logical inferences in detail. Rule composition
+  by resolution (\secref{sec:obj-rules}) and type-class reasoning is broken
+  down to primitive rules of the logical framework. The proof term can be
+  inspected by a separate proof-checker, for example.
 
-  According to the well-known \<^emph>\<open>Curry-Howard isomorphism\<close>, a proof
-  can be viewed as a \<open>\<lambda>\<close>-term. Following this idea, proofs in
-  Isabelle are internally represented by a datatype similar to the one
-  for terms described in \secref{sec:terms}.  On top of these
-  syntactic terms, two more layers of \<open>\<lambda>\<close>-calculus are added,
-  which correspond to \<open>\<And>x :: \<alpha>. B x\<close> and \<open>A \<Longrightarrow> B\<close>
-  according to the propositions-as-types principle.  The resulting
-  3-level \<open>\<lambda>\<close>-calculus resembles ``\<open>\<lambda>HOL\<close>'' in the
-  more abstract setting of Pure Type Systems (PTS)
-  @{cite "Barendregt-Geuvers:2001"}, if some fine points like schematic
-  polymorphism and type classes are ignored.
+  According to the well-known \<^emph>\<open>Curry-Howard isomorphism\<close>, a proof can be
+  viewed as a \<open>\<lambda>\<close>-term. Following this idea, proofs in Isabelle are internally
+  represented by a datatype similar to the one for terms described in
+  \secref{sec:terms}. On top of these syntactic terms, two more layers of
+  \<open>\<lambda>\<close>-calculus are added, which correspond to \<open>\<And>x :: \<alpha>. B x\<close> and \<open>A \<Longrightarrow> B\<close>
+  according to the propositions-as-types principle. The resulting 3-level
+  \<open>\<lambda>\<close>-calculus resembles ``\<open>\<lambda>HOL\<close>'' in the more abstract setting of Pure Type
+  Systems (PTS) @{cite "Barendregt-Geuvers:2001"}, if some fine points like
+  schematic polymorphism and type classes are ignored.
 
   \<^medskip>
-  \<^emph>\<open>Proof abstractions\<close> of the form \<open>\<^bold>\<lambda>x :: \<alpha>. prf\<close>
-  or \<open>\<^bold>\<lambda>p : A. prf\<close> correspond to introduction of \<open>\<And>\<close>/\<open>\<Longrightarrow>\<close>, and \<^emph>\<open>proof applications\<close> of the form \<open>p \<cdot> t\<close> or \<open>p \<bullet> q\<close> correspond to elimination of \<open>\<And>\<close>/\<open>\<Longrightarrow>\<close>.  Actual types \<open>\<alpha>\<close>, propositions \<open>A\<close>, and terms \<open>t\<close> might be suppressed and reconstructed
-  from the overall proof term.
+  \<^emph>\<open>Proof abstractions\<close> of the form \<open>\<^bold>\<lambda>x :: \<alpha>. prf\<close> or \<open>\<^bold>\<lambda>p : A. prf\<close>
+  correspond to introduction of \<open>\<And>\<close>/\<open>\<Longrightarrow>\<close>, and \<^emph>\<open>proof applications\<close> of the form
+  \<open>p \<cdot> t\<close> or \<open>p \<bullet> q\<close> correspond to elimination of \<open>\<And>\<close>/\<open>\<Longrightarrow>\<close>. Actual types \<open>\<alpha>\<close>,
+  propositions \<open>A\<close>, and terms \<open>t\<close> might be suppressed and reconstructed from
+  the overall proof term.
 
   \<^medskip>
-  Various atomic proofs indicate special situations within
-  the proof construction as follows.
+  Various atomic proofs indicate special situations within the proof
+  construction as follows.
 
-  A \<^emph>\<open>bound proof variable\<close> is a natural number \<open>b\<close> that
-  acts as de-Bruijn index for proof term abstractions.
+  A \<^emph>\<open>bound proof variable\<close> is a natural number \<open>b\<close> that acts as de-Bruijn
+  index for proof term abstractions.
 
-  A \<^emph>\<open>minimal proof\<close> ``\<open>?\<close>'' is a dummy proof term.  This
-  indicates some unrecorded part of the proof.
+  A \<^emph>\<open>minimal proof\<close> ``\<open>?\<close>'' is a dummy proof term. This indicates some
+  unrecorded part of the proof.
 
-  \<open>Hyp A\<close> refers to some pending hypothesis by giving its
-  proposition.  This indicates an open context of implicit hypotheses,
-  similar to loose bound variables or free variables within a term
-  (\secref{sec:terms}).
+  \<open>Hyp A\<close> refers to some pending hypothesis by giving its proposition. This
+  indicates an open context of implicit hypotheses, similar to loose bound
+  variables or free variables within a term (\secref{sec:terms}).
 
-  An \<^emph>\<open>axiom\<close> or \<^emph>\<open>oracle\<close> \<open>a : A[\<^vec>\<tau>]\<close> refers
-  some postulated \<open>proof constant\<close>, which is subject to
-  schematic polymorphism of theory content, and the particular type
-  instantiation may be given explicitly.  The vector of types \<open>\<^vec>\<tau>\<close> refers to the schematic type variables in the generic
+  An \<^emph>\<open>axiom\<close> or \<^emph>\<open>oracle\<close> \<open>a : A[\<^vec>\<tau>]\<close> refers some postulated \<open>proof
+  constant\<close>, which is subject to schematic polymorphism of theory content, and
+  the particular type instantiation may be given explicitly. The vector of
+  types \<open>\<^vec>\<tau>\<close> refers to the schematic type variables in the generic
   proposition \<open>A\<close> in canonical order.
 
-  A \<^emph>\<open>proof promise\<close> \<open>a : A[\<^vec>\<tau>]\<close> is a placeholder
-  for some proof of polymorphic proposition \<open>A\<close>, with explicit
-  type instantiation as given by the vector \<open>\<^vec>\<tau>\<close>, as
-  above.  Unlike axioms or oracles, proof promises may be
-  \<^emph>\<open>fulfilled\<close> eventually, by substituting \<open>a\<close> by some
-  particular proof \<open>q\<close> at the corresponding type instance.
-  This acts like Hindley-Milner \<open>let\<close>-polymorphism: a generic
-  local proof definition may get used at different type instances, and
-  is replaced by the concrete instance eventually.
+  A \<^emph>\<open>proof promise\<close> \<open>a : A[\<^vec>\<tau>]\<close> is a placeholder for some proof of
+  polymorphic proposition \<open>A\<close>, with explicit type instantiation as given by
+  the vector \<open>\<^vec>\<tau>\<close>, as above. Unlike axioms or oracles, proof promises
+  may be \<^emph>\<open>fulfilled\<close> eventually, by substituting \<open>a\<close> by some particular proof
+  \<open>q\<close> at the corresponding type instance. This acts like Hindley-Milner
+  \<open>let\<close>-polymorphism: a generic local proof definition may get used at
+  different type instances, and is replaced by the concrete instance
+  eventually.
 
-  A \<^emph>\<open>named theorem\<close> wraps up some concrete proof as a closed
-  formal entity, in the manner of constant definitions for proof
-  terms.  The \<^emph>\<open>proof body\<close> of such boxed theorems involves some
-  digest about oracles and promises occurring in the original proof.
-  This allows the inference kernel to manage this critical information
-  without the full overhead of explicit proof terms.
+  A \<^emph>\<open>named theorem\<close> wraps up some concrete proof as a closed formal entity,
+  in the manner of constant definitions for proof terms. The \<^emph>\<open>proof body\<close> of
+  such boxed theorems involves some digest about oracles and promises
+  occurring in the original proof. This allows the inference kernel to manage
+  this critical information without the full overhead of explicit proof terms.
 \<close>
 
 
 subsection \<open>Reconstructing and checking proof terms\<close>
 
-text \<open>Fully explicit proof terms can be large, but most of this
-  information is redundant and can be reconstructed from the context.
-  Therefore, the Isabelle/Pure inference kernel records only
-  \<^emph>\<open>implicit\<close> proof terms, by omitting all typing information in
-  terms, all term and type labels of proof abstractions, and some
-  argument terms of applications \<open>p \<cdot> t\<close> (if possible).
+text \<open>
+  Fully explicit proof terms can be large, but most of this information is
+  redundant and can be reconstructed from the context. Therefore, the
+  Isabelle/Pure inference kernel records only \<^emph>\<open>implicit\<close> proof terms, by
+  omitting all typing information in terms, all term and type labels of proof
+  abstractions, and some argument terms of applications \<open>p \<cdot> t\<close> (if possible).
 
-  There are separate operations to reconstruct the full proof term
-  later on, using \<^emph>\<open>higher-order pattern unification\<close>
-  @{cite "nipkow-patterns" and "Berghofer-Nipkow:2000:TPHOL"}.
+  There are separate operations to reconstruct the full proof term later on,
+  using \<^emph>\<open>higher-order pattern unification\<close> @{cite "nipkow-patterns" and
+  "Berghofer-Nipkow:2000:TPHOL"}.
 
-  The \<^emph>\<open>proof checker\<close> expects a fully reconstructed proof term,
-  and can turn it into a theorem by replaying its primitive inferences
-  within the kernel.\<close>
+  The \<^emph>\<open>proof checker\<close> expects a fully reconstructed proof term, and can turn
+  it into a theorem by replaying its primitive inferences within the kernel.
+\<close>
 
 
 subsection \<open>Concrete syntax of proof terms\<close>
 
-text \<open>The concrete syntax of proof terms is a slight extension of
-  the regular inner syntax of Isabelle/Pure @{cite "isabelle-isar-ref"}.
-  Its main syntactic category @{syntax (inner) proof} is defined as
-  follows:
+text \<open>
+  The concrete syntax of proof terms is a slight extension of the regular
+  inner syntax of Isabelle/Pure @{cite "isabelle-isar-ref"}. Its main
+  syntactic category @{syntax (inner) proof} is defined as follows:
 
   \begin{center}
   \begin{supertabular}{rclr}
@@ -1240,13 +1172,14 @@
   \end{supertabular}
   \end{center}
 
-  Implicit term arguments in partial proofs are indicated by ``\<open>_\<close>''.  Type arguments for theorems and axioms may be specified
-  using \<open>p \<cdot> TYPE(type)\<close> (they must appear before any other
-  term argument of a theorem or axiom, but may be omitted altogether).
+  Implicit term arguments in partial proofs are indicated by ``\<open>_\<close>''. Type
+  arguments for theorems and axioms may be specified using \<open>p \<cdot> TYPE(type)\<close>
+  (they must appear before any other term argument of a theorem or axiom, but
+  may be omitted altogether).
 
   \<^medskip>
-  There are separate read and print operations for proof
-  terms, in order to avoid conflicts with the regular term language.
+  There are separate read and print operations for proof terms, in order to
+  avoid conflicts with the regular term language.
 \<close>
 
 text %mlref \<open>
@@ -1263,65 +1196,60 @@
   @{index_ML Proof_Syntax.pretty_proof: "Proof.context -> proof -> Pretty.T"} \\
   \end{mldecls}
 
-  \<^descr> Type @{ML_type proof} represents proof terms; this is a
-  datatype with constructors @{index_ML Abst}, @{index_ML AbsP},
-  @{index_ML_op "%"}, @{index_ML_op "%%"}, @{index_ML PBound},
-  @{index_ML MinProof}, @{index_ML Hyp}, @{index_ML PAxm}, @{index_ML
-  Oracle}, @{index_ML Promise}, @{index_ML PThm} as explained above.
-  %FIXME OfClass (!?)
+  \<^descr> Type @{ML_type proof} represents proof terms; this is a datatype with
+  constructors @{index_ML Abst}, @{index_ML AbsP}, @{index_ML_op "%"},
+  @{index_ML_op "%%"}, @{index_ML PBound}, @{index_ML MinProof}, @{index_ML
+  Hyp}, @{index_ML PAxm}, @{index_ML Oracle}, @{index_ML Promise}, @{index_ML
+  PThm} as explained above. %FIXME OfClass (!?)
+
+  \<^descr> Type @{ML_type proof_body} represents the nested proof information of a
+  named theorem, consisting of a digest of oracles and named theorem over some
+  proof term. The digest only covers the directly visible part of the proof:
+  in order to get the full information, the implicit graph of nested theorems
+  needs to be traversed (e.g.\ using @{ML Proofterm.fold_body_thms}).
 
-  \<^descr> Type @{ML_type proof_body} represents the nested proof
-  information of a named theorem, consisting of a digest of oracles
-  and named theorem over some proof term.  The digest only covers the
-  directly visible part of the proof: in order to get the full
-  information, the implicit graph of nested theorems needs to be
-  traversed (e.g.\ using @{ML Proofterm.fold_body_thms}).
+  \<^descr> @{ML Thm.proof_of}~\<open>thm\<close> and @{ML Thm.proof_body_of}~\<open>thm\<close> produce the
+  proof term or proof body (with digest of oracles and theorems) from a given
+  theorem. Note that this involves a full join of internal futures that
+  fulfill pending proof promises, and thus disrupts the natural bottom-up
+  construction of proofs by introducing dynamic ad-hoc dependencies. Parallel
+  performance may suffer by inspecting proof terms at run-time.
 
-  \<^descr> @{ML Thm.proof_of}~\<open>thm\<close> and @{ML
-  Thm.proof_body_of}~\<open>thm\<close> produce the proof term or proof
-  body (with digest of oracles and theorems) from a given theorem.
-  Note that this involves a full join of internal futures that fulfill
-  pending proof promises, and thus disrupts the natural bottom-up
-  construction of proofs by introducing dynamic ad-hoc dependencies.
-  Parallel performance may suffer by inspecting proof terms at
-  run-time.
+  \<^descr> @{ML proofs} specifies the detail of proof recording within @{ML_type thm}
+  values produced by the inference kernel: @{ML 0} records only the names of
+  oracles, @{ML 1} records oracle names and propositions, @{ML 2} additionally
+  records full proof terms. Officially named theorems that contribute to a
+  result are recorded in any case.
 
-  \<^descr> @{ML proofs} specifies the detail of proof recording within
-  @{ML_type thm} values produced by the inference kernel: @{ML 0}
-  records only the names of oracles, @{ML 1} records oracle names and
-  propositions, @{ML 2} additionally records full proof terms.
-  Officially named theorems that contribute to a result are recorded
-  in any case.
+  \<^descr> @{ML Reconstruct.reconstruct_proof}~\<open>thy prop prf\<close> turns the implicit
+  proof term \<open>prf\<close> into a full proof of the given proposition.
 
-  \<^descr> @{ML Reconstruct.reconstruct_proof}~\<open>thy prop prf\<close>
-  turns the implicit proof term \<open>prf\<close> into a full proof of the
-  given proposition.
-
-  Reconstruction may fail if \<open>prf\<close> is not a proof of \<open>prop\<close>, or if it does not contain sufficient information for
-  reconstruction.  Failure may only happen for proofs that are
-  constructed manually, but not for those produced automatically by
-  the inference kernel.
+  Reconstruction may fail if \<open>prf\<close> is not a proof of \<open>prop\<close>, or if it does not
+  contain sufficient information for reconstruction. Failure may only happen
+  for proofs that are constructed manually, but not for those produced
+  automatically by the inference kernel.
 
-  \<^descr> @{ML Reconstruct.expand_proof}~\<open>thy [thm\<^sub>1, \<dots>, thm\<^sub>n]
-  prf\<close> expands and reconstructs the proofs of all specified theorems,
-  with the given (full) proof.  Theorems that are not unique specified
-  via their name may be disambiguated by giving their proposition.
+  \<^descr> @{ML Reconstruct.expand_proof}~\<open>thy [thm\<^sub>1, \<dots>, thm\<^sub>n] prf\<close> expands and
+  reconstructs the proofs of all specified theorems, with the given (full)
+  proof. Theorems that are not unique specified via their name may be
+  disambiguated by giving their proposition.
 
-  \<^descr> @{ML Proof_Checker.thm_of_proof}~\<open>thy prf\<close> turns the
-  given (full) proof into a theorem, by replaying it using only
-  primitive rules of the inference kernel.
+  \<^descr> @{ML Proof_Checker.thm_of_proof}~\<open>thy prf\<close> turns the given (full) proof
+  into a theorem, by replaying it using only primitive rules of the inference
+  kernel.
 
-  \<^descr> @{ML Proof_Syntax.read_proof}~\<open>thy b\<^sub>1 b\<^sub>2 s\<close> reads in a
-  proof term. The Boolean flags indicate the use of sort and type
-  information.  Usually, typing information is left implicit and is
-  inferred during proof reconstruction.  %FIXME eliminate flags!?
+  \<^descr> @{ML Proof_Syntax.read_proof}~\<open>thy b\<^sub>1 b\<^sub>2 s\<close> reads in a proof term. The
+  Boolean flags indicate the use of sort and type information. Usually, typing
+  information is left implicit and is inferred during proof reconstruction.
+  %FIXME eliminate flags!?
 
-  \<^descr> @{ML Proof_Syntax.pretty_proof}~\<open>ctxt prf\<close>
-  pretty-prints the given proof term.
+  \<^descr> @{ML Proof_Syntax.pretty_proof}~\<open>ctxt prf\<close> pretty-prints the given proof
+  term.
 \<close>
 
-text %mlex \<open>Detailed proof information of a theorem may be retrieved
-  as follows:\<close>
+text %mlex \<open>
+  Detailed proof information of a theorem may be retrieved as follows:
+\<close>
 
 lemma ex: "A \<and> B \<longrightarrow> B \<and> A"
 proof
@@ -1344,15 +1272,16 @@
       (fn (name, _, _) => insert (op =) name) [body] [];
 \<close>
 
-text \<open>The result refers to various basic facts of Isabelle/HOL:
-  @{thm [source] HOL.impI}, @{thm [source] HOL.conjE}, @{thm [source]
-  HOL.conjI} etc.  The combinator @{ML Proofterm.fold_body_thms}
-  recursively explores the graph of the proofs of all theorems being
-  used here.
+text \<open>
+  The result refers to various basic facts of Isabelle/HOL: @{thm [source]
+  HOL.impI}, @{thm [source] HOL.conjE}, @{thm [source] HOL.conjI} etc. The
+  combinator @{ML Proofterm.fold_body_thms} recursively explores the graph of
+  the proofs of all theorems being used here.
 
   \<^medskip>
-  Alternatively, we may produce a proof term manually, and
-  turn it into a theorem as follows:\<close>
+  Alternatively, we may produce a proof term manually, and turn it into a
+  theorem as follows:
+\<close>
 
 ML_val \<open>
   val thy = @{theory};
@@ -1371,9 +1300,8 @@
 
 text \<open>
   \<^medskip>
-  See also @{file "~~/src/HOL/Proofs/ex/XML_Data.thy"}
-  for further examples, with export and import of proof terms via
-  XML/ML data representation.
+  See also @{file "~~/src/HOL/Proofs/ex/XML_Data.thy"} for further examples,
+  with export and import of proof terms via XML/ML data representation.
 \<close>
 
 end




