Renamed structure Int (intuitionistic prover) to IntPr to prevent clash
with Basis Library structure Int

--- a/src/FOLP/ex/ROOT.ML	Mon Feb 10 12:34:54 1997 +0100
+++ b/src/FOLP/ex/ROOT.ML	Mon Feb 10 12:52:11 1997 +0100
@@ -19,7 +19,7 @@
 writeln"\n** Intuitionistic examples **\n";
 time_use     "int.ML";
 
-val thy = IFOLP.thy  and  tac = Int.fast_tac 1;
+val thy = IFOLP.thy  and  tac = IntPr.fast_tac 1;
 time_use     "prop.ML";
 time_use     "quant.ML";
 

--- a/src/FOLP/ex/int.ML	Mon Feb 10 12:34:54 1997 +0100
+++ b/src/FOLP/ex/int.ML	Mon Feb 10 12:52:11 1997 +0100
@@ -6,13 +6,13 @@
 Intuitionistic First-Order Logic
 
 Single-step commands:
-by (Int.step_tac 1);
+by (IntPr.step_tac 1);
 by (biresolve_tac safe_brls 1);
 by (biresolve_tac haz_brls 1);
 by (assume_tac 1);
-by (Int.safe_tac 1);
-by (Int.mp_tac 1);
-by (Int.fast_tac 1);
+by (IntPr.safe_tac 1);
+by (IntPr.mp_tac 1);
+by (IntPr.fast_tac 1);
 *)
 
 writeln"File FOLP/ex/int.ML";
@@ -30,34 +30,34 @@
 *)
 
 goal IFOLP.thy "?p : ~~(P&Q) <-> ~~P & ~~Q";
-by (Int.fast_tac 1);
+by (IntPr.fast_tac 1);
 result();
 
 goal IFOLP.thy "?p : ~~~P <-> ~P";
-by (Int.fast_tac 1);
+by (IntPr.fast_tac 1);
 result();
 
 goal IFOLP.thy "?p : ~~((P --> Q | R)  -->  (P-->Q) | (P-->R))";
-by (Int.fast_tac 1);
+by (IntPr.fast_tac 1);
 result();
 
 goal IFOLP.thy "?p : (P<->Q) <-> (Q<->P)";
-by (Int.fast_tac 1);
+by (IntPr.fast_tac 1);
 result();
 
 
 writeln"Lemmas for the propositional double-negation translation";
 
 goal IFOLP.thy "?p : P --> ~~P";
-by (Int.fast_tac 1);
+by (IntPr.fast_tac 1);
 result();
 
 goal IFOLP.thy "?p : ~~(~~P --> P)";
-by (Int.fast_tac 1);
+by (IntPr.fast_tac 1);
 result();
 
 goal IFOLP.thy "?p : ~~P & ~~(P --> Q) --> ~~Q";
-by (Int.fast_tac 1);
+by (IntPr.fast_tac 1);
 result();
 
 
@@ -65,12 +65,12 @@
 
 (*The attempt to prove them terminates quickly!*)
 goal IFOLP.thy "?p : ((P-->Q) --> P)  -->  P";
-by (Int.fast_tac 1) handle ERROR => writeln"Failed, as expected";  
+by (IntPr.fast_tac 1) handle ERROR => writeln"Failed, as expected";  
 (*Check that subgoals remain: proof failed.*)
 getgoal 1;  
 
 goal IFOLP.thy "?p : (P&Q-->R)  -->  (P-->R) | (Q-->R)";
-by (Int.fast_tac 1) handle ERROR => writeln"Failed, as expected";  
+by (IntPr.fast_tac 1) handle ERROR => writeln"Failed, as expected";  
 getgoal 1;  
 
 
@@ -78,100 +78,100 @@
 
 writeln"Problem ~~1";
 goal IFOLP.thy "?p : ~~((P-->Q)  <->  (~Q --> ~P))";
-by (Int.fast_tac 1);
+by (IntPr.fast_tac 1);
 result();
 (*5 secs*)
 
 
 writeln"Problem ~~2";
 goal IFOLP.thy "?p : ~~(~~P  <->  P)";
-by (Int.fast_tac 1);
+by (IntPr.fast_tac 1);
 result();
 (*1 secs*)
 
 
 writeln"Problem 3";
 goal IFOLP.thy "?p : ~(P-->Q) --> (Q-->P)";
-by (Int.fast_tac 1);
+by (IntPr.fast_tac 1);
 result();
 
 writeln"Problem ~~4";
 goal IFOLP.thy "?p : ~~((~P-->Q)  <->  (~Q --> P))";
-by (Int.fast_tac 1);
+by (IntPr.fast_tac 1);
 result();
 (*9 secs*)
 
 writeln"Problem ~~5";
 goal IFOLP.thy "?p : ~~((P|Q-->P|R) --> P|(Q-->R))";
-by (Int.fast_tac 1);
+by (IntPr.fast_tac 1);
 result();
 (*10 secs*)
 
 
 writeln"Problem ~~6";
 goal IFOLP.thy "?p : ~~(P | ~P)";
-by (Int.fast_tac 1);
+by (IntPr.fast_tac 1);
 result();
 
 writeln"Problem ~~7";
 goal IFOLP.thy "?p : ~~(P | ~~~P)";
-by (Int.fast_tac 1);
+by (IntPr.fast_tac 1);
 result();
 
 writeln"Problem ~~8.  Peirce's law";
 goal IFOLP.thy "?p : ~~(((P-->Q) --> P)  -->  P)";
-by (Int.fast_tac 1);
+by (IntPr.fast_tac 1);
 result();
 
 writeln"Problem 9";
 goal IFOLP.thy "?p : ((P|Q) & (~P|Q) & (P| ~Q)) --> ~ (~P | ~Q)";
-by (Int.fast_tac 1);
+by (IntPr.fast_tac 1);
 result();
 (*9 secs*)
 
 
 writeln"Problem 10";
 goal IFOLP.thy "?p : (Q-->R) --> (R-->P&Q) --> (P-->(Q|R)) --> (P<->Q)";
-by (Int.fast_tac 1);
+by (IntPr.fast_tac 1);
 result();
 
 writeln"11.  Proved in each direction (incorrectly, says Pelletier!!) ";
 goal IFOLP.thy "?p : P<->P";
-by (Int.fast_tac 1);
+by (IntPr.fast_tac 1);
 
 writeln"Problem ~~12.  Dijkstra's law  ";
 goal IFOLP.thy "?p : ~~(((P <-> Q) <-> R)  <->  (P <-> (Q <-> R)))";
-by (Int.fast_tac 1);
+by (IntPr.fast_tac 1);
 result();
 
 goal IFOLP.thy "?p : ((P <-> Q) <-> R)  -->  ~~(P <-> (Q <-> R))";
-by (Int.fast_tac 1);
+by (IntPr.fast_tac 1);
 result();
 
 writeln"Problem 13.  Distributive law";
 goal IFOLP.thy "?p : P | (Q & R)  <-> (P | Q) & (P | R)";
-by (Int.fast_tac 1);
+by (IntPr.fast_tac 1);
 result();
 
 writeln"Problem ~~14";
 goal IFOLP.thy "?p : ~~((P <-> Q) <-> ((Q | ~P) & (~Q|P)))";
-by (Int.fast_tac 1);
+by (IntPr.fast_tac 1);
 result();
 
 writeln"Problem ~~15";
 goal IFOLP.thy "?p : ~~((P --> Q) <-> (~P | Q))";
-by (Int.fast_tac 1);
+by (IntPr.fast_tac 1);
 result();
 
 writeln"Problem ~~16";
 goal IFOLP.thy "?p : ~~((P-->Q) | (Q-->P))";
-by (Int.fast_tac 1);
+by (IntPr.fast_tac 1);
 result();
 
 writeln"Problem ~~17";
 goal IFOLP.thy
   "?p : ~~(((P & (Q-->R))-->S) <-> ((~P | Q | S) & (~P | ~R | S)))";
-by (Int.fast_tac 1);
+by (IntPr.fast_tac 1);
 (*over 5 minutes?? -- printing the proof term takes 40 secs!!*)
 result();
 
@@ -181,23 +181,23 @@
 writeln"The converse is classical in the following implications...";
 
 goal IFOLP.thy "?p : (EX x.P(x)-->Q)  -->  (ALL x.P(x)) --> Q";
-by (Int.fast_tac 1); 
+by (IntPr.fast_tac 1); 
 result();  
 
 goal IFOLP.thy "?p : ((ALL x.P(x))-->Q) --> ~ (ALL x. P(x) & ~Q)";
-by (Int.fast_tac 1); 
+by (IntPr.fast_tac 1); 
 result();  
 
 goal IFOLP.thy "?p : ((ALL x. ~P(x))-->Q)  -->  ~ (ALL x. ~ (P(x)|Q))";
-by (Int.fast_tac 1); 
+by (IntPr.fast_tac 1); 
 result();  
 
 goal IFOLP.thy "?p : (ALL x.P(x)) | Q  -->  (ALL x. P(x) | Q)";
-by (Int.fast_tac 1); 
+by (IntPr.fast_tac 1); 
 result();  
 
 goal IFOLP.thy "?p : (EX x. P --> Q(x)) --> (P --> (EX x. Q(x)))";
-by (Int.fast_tac 1);
+by (IntPr.fast_tac 1);
 result();  
 
 
@@ -207,24 +207,24 @@
 (*The attempt to prove them terminates quickly!*)
 
 goal IFOLP.thy "?p : ((ALL x.P(x))-->Q) --> (EX x.P(x)-->Q)";
-by (Int.fast_tac 1) handle ERROR => writeln"Failed, as expected";  
+by (IntPr.fast_tac 1) handle ERROR => writeln"Failed, as expected";  
 getgoal 1; 
 
 goal IFOLP.thy "?p : (P --> (EX x.Q(x))) --> (EX x. P-->Q(x))";
-by (Int.fast_tac 1) handle ERROR => writeln"Failed, as expected";  
+by (IntPr.fast_tac 1) handle ERROR => writeln"Failed, as expected";  
 getgoal 1; 
 
 goal IFOLP.thy "?p : (ALL x. P(x) | Q) --> ((ALL x.P(x)) | Q)";
-by (Int.fast_tac 1) handle ERROR => writeln"Failed, as expected";  
+by (IntPr.fast_tac 1) handle ERROR => writeln"Failed, as expected";  
 getgoal 1; 
 
 goal IFOLP.thy "?p : (ALL x. ~~P(x)) --> ~~(ALL x. P(x))";
-by (Int.fast_tac 1) handle ERROR => writeln"Failed, as expected";  
+by (IntPr.fast_tac 1) handle ERROR => writeln"Failed, as expected";  
 getgoal 1; 
 
 (*Classically but not intuitionistically valid.  Proved by a bug in 1986!*)
 goal IFOLP.thy "?p : EX x. Q(x) --> (ALL x. Q(x))";
-by (Int.fast_tac 1) handle ERROR => writeln"Failed, as expected";  
+by (IntPr.fast_tac 1) handle ERROR => writeln"Failed, as expected";  
 getgoal 1; 
 
 
@@ -244,7 +244,7 @@
 writeln"Problem 20";
 goal IFOLP.thy "?p : (ALL x y. EX z. ALL w. (P(x)&Q(y)-->R(z)&S(w)))     \
 \   --> (EX x y. P(x) & Q(y)) --> (EX z. R(z))";
-by (Int.fast_tac 1); 
+by (IntPr.fast_tac 1); 
 result();
 
 writeln"Problem 21";
@@ -254,12 +254,12 @@
 
 writeln"Problem 22";
 goal IFOLP.thy "?p : (ALL x. P <-> Q(x))  -->  (P <-> (ALL x. Q(x)))";
-by (Int.fast_tac 1); 
+by (IntPr.fast_tac 1); 
 result();
 
 writeln"Problem ~~23";
 goal IFOLP.thy "?p : ~~ ((ALL x. P | Q(x))  <->  (P | (ALL x. Q(x))))";
-by (Int.best_tac 1);  
+by (IntPr.best_tac 1);  
 result();
 
 writeln"Problem 24";
@@ -267,10 +267,10 @@
 \    (~(EX x.P(x)) --> (EX x.Q(x))) & (ALL x. Q(x)|R(x) --> S(x))  \
 \   --> ~~(EX x. P(x)&R(x))";
 (*Not clear why fast_tac, best_tac, ASTAR and ITER_DEEPEN all take forever*)
-by Int.safe_tac; 
+by IntPr.safe_tac; 
 by (etac impE 1);
-by (Int.fast_tac 1); 
-by (Int.fast_tac 1); 
+by (IntPr.fast_tac 1); 
+by (IntPr.fast_tac 1); 
 result();
 
 writeln"Problem 25";
@@ -279,21 +279,21 @@
 \       (ALL x. P(x) --> (M(x) & L(x))) &   \
 \       ((ALL x. P(x)-->Q(x)) | (EX x. P(x)&R(x)))  \
 \   --> (EX x. Q(x)&P(x))";
-by (Int.best_tac 1);
+by (IntPr.best_tac 1);
 result();
 
 writeln"Problem 29.  Essentially the same as Principia Mathematica *11.71";
 goal IFOLP.thy "?p : (EX x. P(x)) & (EX y. Q(y))  \
 \   --> ((ALL x. P(x)-->R(x)) & (ALL y. Q(y)-->S(y))   <->     \
 \        (ALL x y. P(x) & Q(y) --> R(x) & S(y)))";
-by (Int.fast_tac 1); 
+by (IntPr.fast_tac 1); 
 result();
 
 writeln"Problem ~~30";
 goal IFOLP.thy "?p : (ALL x. (P(x) | Q(x)) --> ~ R(x)) & \
 \       (ALL x. (Q(x) --> ~ S(x)) --> P(x) & R(x))  \
 \   --> (ALL x. ~~S(x))";
-by (Int.fast_tac 1);  
+by (IntPr.fast_tac 1);  
 result();
 
 writeln"Problem 31";
@@ -301,7 +301,7 @@
 \       (EX x. L(x) & P(x)) & \
 \       (ALL x. ~ R(x) --> M(x))  \
 \   --> (EX x. L(x) & M(x))";
-by (Int.fast_tac 1);
+by (IntPr.fast_tac 1);
 result();
 
 writeln"Problem 32";
@@ -309,18 +309,18 @@
 \       (ALL x. S(x) & R(x) --> L(x)) & \
 \       (ALL x. M(x) --> R(x))  \
 \   --> (ALL x. P(x) & M(x) --> L(x))";
-by (Int.best_tac 1);  (*SLOW*)
+by (IntPr.best_tac 1);  (*SLOW*)
 result();
 
 writeln"Problem 39";
 goal IFOLP.thy "?p : ~ (EX x. ALL y. F(y,x) <-> ~F(y,y))";
-by (Int.fast_tac 1);
+by (IntPr.fast_tac 1);
 result();
 
 writeln"Problem 40.  AMENDED";
 goal IFOLP.thy "?p : (EX y. ALL x. F(x,y) <-> F(x,x)) -->  \
 \             ~(ALL x. EX y. ALL z. F(z,y) <-> ~ F(z,x))";
-by (Int.fast_tac 1);
+by (IntPr.fast_tac 1);
 result();
 
 writeln"Problem 44";
@@ -328,38 +328,38 @@
 \             (EX y. g(y) & h(x,y) & (EX y. g(y) & ~ h(x,y))))  &       \
 \             (EX x. j(x) & (ALL y. g(y) --> h(x,y)))                   \
 \             --> (EX x. j(x) & ~f(x))";
-by (Int.fast_tac 1);
+by (IntPr.fast_tac 1);
 result();
 
 writeln"Problem 48";
 goal IFOLP.thy "?p : (a=b | c=d) & (a=c | b=d) --> a=d | b=c";
-by (Int.fast_tac 1);
+by (IntPr.fast_tac 1);
 result();
 
 writeln"Problem 51";
 goal IFOLP.thy
     "?p : (EX z w. ALL x y. P(x,y) <->  (x=z & y=w)) -->  \
 \    (EX z. ALL x. EX w. (ALL y. P(x,y) <-> y=w) <-> x=z)";
-by (Int.best_tac 1);  (*60 seconds*)
+by (IntPr.best_tac 1);  (*60 seconds*)
 result();
 
 writeln"Problem 56";
 goal IFOLP.thy
     "?p : (ALL x. (EX y. P(y) & x=f(y)) --> P(x)) <-> (ALL x. P(x) --> P(f(x)))";
-by (Int.fast_tac 1);
+by (IntPr.fast_tac 1);
 result();
 
 writeln"Problem 57";
 goal IFOLP.thy
     "?p : P(f(a,b), f(b,c)) & P(f(b,c), f(a,c)) & \
 \    (ALL x y z. P(x,y) & P(y,z) --> P(x,z))    -->   P(f(a,b), f(a,c))";
-by (Int.fast_tac 1);
+by (IntPr.fast_tac 1);
 result();
 
 writeln"Problem 60";
 goal IFOLP.thy
     "?p : ALL x. P(x,f(x)) <-> (EX y. (ALL z. P(z,y) --> P(z,f(x))) & P(x,y))";
-by (Int.fast_tac 1);
+by (IntPr.fast_tac 1);
 result();
 
 writeln"Reached end of file.";

--- a/src/FOLP/intprover.ML	Mon Feb 10 12:34:54 1997 +0100
+++ b/src/FOLP/intprover.ML	Mon Feb 10 12:52:11 1997 +0100
@@ -5,12 +5,12 @@
 
 A naive prover for intuitionistic logic
 
-BEWARE OF NAME CLASHES WITH CLASSICAL TACTICS -- use Int.fast_tac ...
+BEWARE OF NAME CLASHES WITH CLASSICAL TACTICS -- use IntPr.fast_tac ...
 
 Completeness (for propositional logic) is proved in 
 
 Roy Dyckhoff.
-Contraction-Free Sequent Calculi for Intuitionistic Logic.
+Contraction-Free Sequent Calculi for IntPruitionistic Logic.
 J. Symbolic Logic (in press)
 *)
 
@@ -27,7 +27,7 @@
   end;
 
 
-structure Int : INT_PROVER   = 
+structure IntPr : INT_PROVER   = 
 struct
 
 (*Negation is treated as a primitive symbol, with rules notI (introduction),

--- a/src/FOLP/simpdata.ML	Mon Feb 10 12:34:54 1997 +0100
+++ b/src/FOLP/simpdata.ML	Mon Feb 10 12:52:11 1997 +0100
@@ -10,7 +10,7 @@
 
 fun int_prove_fun_raw s = 
     (writeln s;  prove_goal IFOLP.thy s
-       (fn prems => [ (cut_facts_tac prems 1), (Int.fast_tac 1) ]));
+       (fn prems => [ (cut_facts_tac prems 1), (IntPr.fast_tac 1) ]));
 
 fun int_prove_fun s = int_prove_fun_raw ("?p : "^s);