# HG changeset patch
# User nipkow
# Date 1412021345 -7200
# Node ID f62a887c3ae73ae9054cf6817c61c8e0e25b591a
# Parent  d5f24630c10454810bd7dcfd81c00ece75b667cc
tuned

diff -r d5f24630c104 -r f62a887c3ae7 src/Doc/Prog_Prove/Isar.thy
--- a/src/Doc/Prog_Prove/Isar.thy	Mon Sep 29 21:34:48 2014 +0200
+++ b/src/Doc/Prog_Prove/Isar.thy	Mon Sep 29 22:09:05 2014 +0200
@@ -546,7 +546,7 @@
 
 Sometimes one would like to prove some lemma locally within a proof,
 a lemma that shares the current context of assumptions but that
-has its own assumptions and is generalized over its locally fixed
+has its own assumptions and is generalised over its locally fixed
 variables at the end. This is what a \concept{raw proof block} does:
 \begin{quote}\index{$IMP053@@{text"{ ... }"} (proof block)}
 @{text"{"} \isacom{fix} @{text"x\<^sub>1 \<dots> x\<^sub>n"}\\
@@ -1031,7 +1031,7 @@
 \isacom{lemma} @{text[source]"I x y z \<Longrightarrow> x = r \<Longrightarrow> y = s \<Longrightarrow> z = t \<Longrightarrow> \<dots>"}
 \end{isabelle}
 Standard rule induction will work fine now, provided the free variables in
-@{text r}, @{text s}, @{text t} are generalized via @{text"arbitrary"}.
+@{text r}, @{text s}, @{text t} are generalised via @{text"arbitrary"}.
 
 However, induction can do the above transformation for us, behind the curtains, so we never
 need to see the expanded version of the lemma. This is what we need to write:
diff -r d5f24630c104 -r f62a887c3ae7 src/Doc/Prog_Prove/Types_and_funs.thy
--- a/src/Doc/Prog_Prove/Types_and_funs.thy	Mon Sep 29 21:34:48 2014 +0200
+++ b/src/Doc/Prog_Prove/Types_and_funs.thy	Mon Sep 29 22:09:05 2014 +0200
@@ -249,7 +249,7 @@
  if the function is defined by recursion on argument number $i$.}
 \end{quote}
 The key heuristic, and the main point of this section, is to
-\emph{generalize the goal before induction}.
+\emph{generalise the goal before induction}.
 The reason is simple: if the goal is
 too specific, the induction hypothesis is too weak to allow the induction
 step to go through. Let us illustrate the idea with an example.
@@ -294,10 +294,10 @@
 argument,~@{term"[]"}, prevents it from rewriting the conclusion.  
 This example suggests a heuristic:
 \begin{quote}
-\emph{Generalize goals for induction by replacing constants by variables.}
+\emph{Generalise goals for induction by replacing constants by variables.}
 \end{quote}
 Of course one cannot do this na\"{\i}vely: @{prop"itrev xs ys = rev xs"} is
-just not true.  The correct generalization is
+just not true.  The correct generalisation is
 *};
 (*<*)oops;(*>*)
 lemma "itrev xs ys = rev xs @ ys"
@@ -305,7 +305,7 @@
 txt{*
 If @{text ys} is replaced by @{term"[]"}, the right-hand side simplifies to
 @{term"rev xs"}, as required.
-In this instance it was easy to guess the right generalization.
+In this instance it was easy to guess the right generalisation.
 Other situations can require a good deal of creativity.  
 
 Although we now have two variables, only @{text xs} is suitable for
@@ -313,12 +313,12 @@
 not there:
 @{subgoals[display,margin=65]}
 The induction hypothesis is still too weak, but this time it takes no
-intuition to generalize: the problem is that the @{text ys}
+intuition to generalise: the problem is that the @{text ys}
 in the induction hypothesis is fixed,
 but the induction hypothesis needs to be applied with
 @{term"a # ys"} instead of @{text ys}. Hence we prove the theorem
 for all @{text ys} instead of a fixed one. We can instruct induction
-to perform this generalization for us by adding @{text "arbitrary: ys"}\index{arbitrary@@{text"arbitrary:"}}.
+to perform this generalisation for us by adding @{text "arbitrary: ys"}\index{arbitrary@@{text"arbitrary:"}}.
 *}
 (*<*)oops
 lemma "itrev xs ys = rev xs @ ys"
@@ -334,12 +334,12 @@
 done
 
 text{*
-This leads to another heuristic for generalization:
+This leads to another heuristic for generalisation:
 \begin{quote}
-\emph{Generalize induction by generalizing all free
+\emph{Generalise induction by generalising all free
 variables\\ {\em(except the induction variable itself)}.}
 \end{quote}
-Generalization is best performed with @{text"arbitrary: y\<^sub>1 \<dots> y\<^sub>k"}. 
+Generalisation is best performed with @{text"arbitrary: y\<^sub>1 \<dots> y\<^sub>k"}. 
 This heuristic prevents trivial failures like the one above.
 However, it should not be applied blindly.
 It is not always required, and the additional quantifiers can complicate