*** empty log message ***

--- a/doc-src/TutorialI/CTL/CTL.thy	Tue Oct 31 08:53:12 2000 +0100
+++ b/doc-src/TutorialI/CTL/CTL.thy	Tue Oct 31 13:59:41 2000 +0100
@@ -116,17 +116,9 @@
 *};
 apply(rule lfp_lowerbound);
 apply(clarsimp simp add: af_def Paths_def);
-(*ML"Pretty.setmargin 70";
-pr(latex xsymbols symbols);*)
+
 txt{*
-\begin{isabelle}
-\ {\isadigit{1}}{\isachardot}\ {\isasymAnd}p{\isachardot}\ {\isasymlbrakk}p\ {\isadigit{0}}\ {\isasymin}\ A\ {\isasymor}\isanewline
-\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ {\isacharparenleft}{\isasymforall}t{\isachardot}\ {\isacharparenleft}p\ {\isadigit{0}}{\isacharcomma}\ t{\isacharparenright}\ {\isasymin}\ M\ {\isasymlongrightarrow}\isanewline
-\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ {\isacharparenleft}{\isasymforall}p{\isachardot}\ t\ {\isacharequal}\ p\ {\isadigit{0}}\ {\isasymand}\ {\isacharparenleft}{\isasymforall}i{\isachardot}\ {\isacharparenleft}p\ i{\isacharcomma}\ p\ {\isacharparenleft}Suc\ i{\isacharparenright}{\isacharparenright}\ {\isasymin}\ M{\isacharparenright}\ {\isasymlongrightarrow}\isanewline
-\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ {\isacharparenleft}{\isasymexists}i{\isachardot}\ p\ i\ {\isasymin}\ A{\isacharparenright}{\isacharparenright}{\isacharparenright}{\isacharsemicolon}\isanewline
-\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ {\isasymforall}i{\isachardot}\ {\isacharparenleft}p\ i{\isacharcomma}\ p\ {\isacharparenleft}Suc\ i{\isacharparenright}{\isacharparenright}\ {\isasymin}\ M{\isasymrbrakk}\isanewline
-\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ {\isasymLongrightarrow}\ {\isasymexists}i{\isachardot}\ p\ i\ {\isasymin}\ A
-\end{isabelle}
+@{subgoals[display,indent=0,margin=70,goals_limit=1]}
 Now we eliminate the disjunction. The case @{prop"p 0 \<in> A"} is trivial:
 *};
 
@@ -139,16 +131,9 @@
 
 apply(erule_tac x = "p 1" in allE);
 apply(clarsimp);
-(*ML"Pretty.setmargin 70";
-pr(latex xsymbols symbols);*)
 
 txt{*
-\begin{isabelle}
-\ {\isadigit{1}}{\isachardot}\ {\isasymAnd}p{\isachardot}\ {\isasymlbrakk}{\isasymforall}i{\isachardot}\ {\isacharparenleft}p\ i{\isacharcomma}\ p\ {\isacharparenleft}Suc\ i{\isacharparenright}{\isacharparenright}\ {\isasymin}\ M{\isacharsemicolon}\isanewline
-\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ {\isasymforall}pa{\isachardot}\ p\ {\isadigit{1}}\ {\isacharequal}\ pa\ {\isadigit{0}}\ {\isasymand}\ {\isacharparenleft}{\isasymforall}i{\isachardot}\ {\isacharparenleft}pa\ i{\isacharcomma}\ pa\ {\isacharparenleft}Suc\ i{\isacharparenright}{\isacharparenright}\ {\isasymin}\ M{\isacharparenright}\ {\isasymlongrightarrow}\isanewline
-\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ {\isacharparenleft}{\isasymexists}i{\isachardot}\ pa\ i\ {\isasymin}\ A{\isacharparenright}{\isasymrbrakk}\isanewline
-\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ {\isasymLongrightarrow}\ {\isasymexists}i{\isachardot}\ p\ i\ {\isasymin}\ A
-\end{isabelle}
+@{subgoals[display,indent=0,margin=70,goals_limit=1]}
 It merely remains to set @{term pa} to @{term"\<lambda>i. p(i+1)"}, i.e.\ @{term p} without its
 first element. The rest is practically automatic:
 *};
@@ -229,30 +214,19 @@
 
 apply(rule_tac x = "path s P" in exI);
 apply(clarsimp);
-(*ML"Pretty.setmargin 70";
-pr(latex xsymbols symbols);*)
 
 txt{*\noindent
 After simplification and clarification the subgoal has the following compact form
-\begin{isabelle}
-\ \isadigit{1}{\isachardot}\ {\isasymAnd}i{\isachardot}\ {\isasymlbrakk}P\ s{\isacharsemicolon}\ {\isasymforall}s{\isachardot}\ P\ s\ {\isasymlongrightarrow}\ {\isacharparenleft}{\isasymexists}t{\isachardot}\ {\isacharparenleft}s{\isacharcomma}\ t{\isacharparenright}\ {\isasymin}\ M\ {\isasymand}\ P\ t{\isacharparenright}{\isasymrbrakk}\isanewline
-\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ {\isasymLongrightarrow}\ {\isacharparenleft}path\ s\ P\ i{\isacharcomma}\ SOME\ t{\isachardot}\ {\isacharparenleft}path\ s\ P\ i{\isacharcomma}\ t{\isacharparenright}\ {\isasymin}\ M\ {\isasymand}\ P\ t{\isacharparenright}\ {\isasymin}\ M\ {\isasymand}\isanewline
-\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ P\ {\isacharparenleft}path\ s\ P\ i{\isacharparenright}
-\end{isabelle}
+@{subgoals[display,indent=0,margin=70,goals_limit=1]}
 and invites a proof by induction on @{term i}:
 *};
 
 apply(induct_tac i);
  apply(simp);
-(*ML"Pretty.setmargin 70";
-pr(latex xsymbols symbols);*)
 
 txt{*\noindent
 After simplification the base case boils down to
-\begin{isabelle}
-\ \isadigit{1}{\isachardot}\ {\isasymlbrakk}P\ s{\isacharsemicolon}\ {\isasymforall}s{\isachardot}\ P\ s\ {\isasymlongrightarrow}\ {\isacharparenleft}{\isasymexists}t{\isachardot}\ {\isacharparenleft}s{\isacharcomma}\ t{\isacharparenright}\ {\isasymin}\ M\ {\isasymand}\ P\ t{\isacharparenright}{\isasymrbrakk}\isanewline
-\ \ \ \ {\isasymLongrightarrow}\ {\isacharparenleft}s{\isacharcomma}\ SOME\ t{\isachardot}\ {\isacharparenleft}s{\isacharcomma}\ t{\isacharparenright}\ {\isasymin}\ M\ {\isasymand}\ P\ t{\isacharparenright}\ {\isasymin}\ M
-\end{isabelle}
+@{subgoals[display,indent=0,margin=70,goals_limit=1]}
 The conclusion looks exceedingly trivial: after all, @{term t} is chosen such that @{prop"(s,t):M"}
 holds. However, we first have to show that such a @{term t} actually exists! This reasoning
 is embodied in the theorem @{thm[source]someI2_ex}:
@@ -338,25 +312,17 @@
 apply(rule subsetI);
 apply(erule contrapos_pp);
 apply simp;
-(*pr(latex xsymbols symbols);*)
 
 txt{*
-\begin{isabelle}
-\ \isadigit{1}{\isachardot}\ {\isasymAnd}s{\isachardot}\ s\ {\isasymnotin}\ lfp\ {\isacharparenleft}af\ A{\isacharparenright}\ {\isasymLongrightarrow}\ {\isasymexists}p{\isasymin}Paths\ s{\isachardot}\ {\isasymforall}i{\isachardot}\ p\ i\ {\isasymnotin}\ A
-\end{isabelle}
+@{subgoals[display,indent=0,goals_limit=1]}
 Applying the @{thm[source]infinity_lemma} as a destruction rule leaves two subgoals, the second
 premise of @{thm[source]infinity_lemma} and the original subgoal:
 *};
 
 apply(drule infinity_lemma);
-(*pr(latex xsymbols symbols);*)
 
 txt{*
-\begin{isabelle}
-\ \isadigit{1}{\isachardot}\ {\isasymAnd}s{\isachardot}\ {\isasymforall}s{\isachardot}\ s\ {\isasymnotin}\ lfp\ {\isacharparenleft}af\ A{\isacharparenright}\ {\isasymlongrightarrow}\ {\isacharparenleft}{\isasymexists}t{\isachardot}\ {\isacharparenleft}s{\isacharcomma}\ t{\isacharparenright}\ {\isasymin}\ M\ {\isasymand}\ t\ {\isasymnotin}\ lfp\ {\isacharparenleft}af\ A{\isacharparenright}{\isacharparenright}\isanewline
-\ \isadigit{2}{\isachardot}\ {\isasymAnd}s{\isachardot}\ {\isasymexists}p{\isasymin}Paths\ s{\isachardot}\ {\isasymforall}i{\isachardot}\ p\ i\ {\isasymnotin}\ lfp\ {\isacharparenleft}af\ A{\isacharparenright}\isanewline
-\ \ \ \ \ \ {\isasymLongrightarrow}\ {\isasymexists}p{\isasymin}Paths\ s{\isachardot}\ {\isasymforall}i{\isachardot}\ p\ i\ {\isasymnotin}\ A
-\end{isabelle}
+@{subgoals[display,indent=0,margin=65]}
 Both are solved automatically:
 *};
 

--- a/doc-src/TutorialI/CTL/PDL.thy	Tue Oct 31 08:53:12 2000 +0100
+++ b/doc-src/TutorialI/CTL/PDL.thy	Tue Oct 31 13:59:41 2000 +0100
@@ -97,12 +97,10 @@
 apply(rule equalityI);
  apply(rule subsetI);
  apply(simp)
-(*pr(latex xsymbols symbols);*)
+
 txt{*\noindent
 Simplification leaves us with the following first subgoal
-\begin{isabelle}
-\ \isadigit{1}{\isachardot}\ {\isasymAnd}s{\isachardot}\ s\ {\isasymin}\ lfp\ {\isacharparenleft}{\isasymlambda}T{\isachardot}\ A\ {\isasymunion}\ M{\isacharcircum}{\isacharminus}\isadigit{1}\ {\isacharcircum}{\isacharcircum}\ T{\isacharparenright}\ {\isasymLongrightarrow}\ {\isasymexists}t{\isachardot}\ {\isacharparenleft}s{\isacharcomma}\ t{\isacharparenright}\ {\isasymin}\ M{\isacharcircum}{\isacharasterisk}\ {\isasymand}\ t\ {\isasymin}\ A
-\end{isabelle}
+@{subgoals[display,indent=0,goals_limit=1]}
 which is proved by @{term lfp}-induction:
 *}
 
@@ -130,12 +128,10 @@
 
 apply(rule subsetI)
 apply(simp, clarify)
-(*pr(latex xsymbols symbols);*)
+
 txt{*\noindent
 After simplification and clarification we are left with
-\begin{isabelle}
-\ \isadigit{1}{\isachardot}\ {\isasymAnd}s\ t{\isachardot}\ {\isasymlbrakk}{\isacharparenleft}s{\isacharcomma}\ t{\isacharparenright}\ {\isasymin}\ M{\isacharcircum}{\isacharasterisk}{\isacharsemicolon}\ t\ {\isasymin}\ A{\isasymrbrakk}\ {\isasymLongrightarrow}\ s\ {\isasymin}\ lfp\ {\isacharparenleft}{\isasymlambda}T{\isachardot}\ A\ {\isasymunion}\ M{\isacharcircum}{\isacharminus}\isadigit{1}\ {\isacharcircum}{\isacharcircum}\ T{\isacharparenright}
-\end{isabelle}
+@{subgoals[display,indent=0,goals_limit=1]}
 This goal is proved by induction on @{term"(s,t)\<in>M^*"}. But since the model
 checker works backwards (from @{term t} to @{term s}), we cannot use the
 induction theorem @{thm[source]rtrancl_induct} because it works in the
@@ -148,21 +144,17 @@
 *}
 
 apply(erule converse_rtrancl_induct)
-(*pr(latex xsymbols symbols);*)
+
 txt{*\noindent
 The base case
-\begin{isabelle}
-\ \isadigit{1}{\isachardot}\ {\isasymAnd}t{\isachardot}\ t\ {\isasymin}\ A\ {\isasymLongrightarrow}\ t\ {\isasymin}\ lfp\ {\isacharparenleft}{\isasymlambda}T{\isachardot}\ A\ {\isasymunion}\ M{\isacharcircum}{\isacharminus}\isadigit{1}\ {\isacharcircum}{\isacharcircum}\ T{\isacharparenright}
-\end{isabelle}
+@{subgoals[display,indent=0,goals_limit=1]}
 is solved by unrolling @{term lfp} once
 *}
 
  apply(rule ssubst[OF lfp_unfold[OF mono_ef]])
-(*pr(latex xsymbols symbols);*)
+
 txt{*
-\begin{isabelle}
-\ \isadigit{1}{\isachardot}\ {\isasymAnd}t{\isachardot}\ t\ {\isasymin}\ A\ {\isasymLongrightarrow}\ t\ {\isasymin}\ A\ {\isasymunion}\ M{\isacharcircum}{\isacharminus}\isadigit{1}\ {\isacharcircum}{\isacharcircum}\ lfp\ {\isacharparenleft}{\isasymlambda}T{\isachardot}\ A\ {\isasymunion}\ M{\isacharcircum}{\isacharminus}\isadigit{1}\ {\isacharcircum}{\isacharcircum}\ T{\isacharparenright}
-\end{isabelle}
+@{subgoals[display,indent=0,goals_limit=1]}
 and disposing of the resulting trivial subgoal automatically:
 *}
 

--- a/doc-src/TutorialI/CTL/document/CTL.tex	Tue Oct 31 08:53:12 2000 +0100
+++ b/doc-src/TutorialI/CTL/document/CTL.tex	Tue Oct 31 13:59:41 2000 +0100
@@ -71,13 +71,13 @@
 \isacommand{apply}{\isacharparenleft}rule\ lfp{\isacharunderscore}lowerbound{\isacharparenright}\isanewline
 \isacommand{apply}{\isacharparenleft}clarsimp\ simp\ add{\isacharcolon}\ af{\isacharunderscore}def\ Paths{\isacharunderscore}def{\isacharparenright}%
 \begin{isamarkuptxt}%
-\begin{isabelle}
+\begin{isabelle}%
 \ {\isadigit{1}}{\isachardot}\ {\isasymAnd}p{\isachardot}\ {\isasymlbrakk}p\ {\isadigit{0}}\ {\isasymin}\ A\ {\isasymor}\isanewline
 \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ {\isacharparenleft}{\isasymforall}t{\isachardot}\ {\isacharparenleft}p\ {\isadigit{0}}{\isacharcomma}\ t{\isacharparenright}\ {\isasymin}\ M\ {\isasymlongrightarrow}\isanewline
 \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ {\isacharparenleft}{\isasymforall}p{\isachardot}\ t\ {\isacharequal}\ p\ {\isadigit{0}}\ {\isasymand}\ {\isacharparenleft}{\isasymforall}i{\isachardot}\ {\isacharparenleft}p\ i{\isacharcomma}\ p\ {\isacharparenleft}Suc\ i{\isacharparenright}{\isacharparenright}\ {\isasymin}\ M{\isacharparenright}\ {\isasymlongrightarrow}\isanewline
 \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ {\isacharparenleft}{\isasymexists}i{\isachardot}\ p\ i\ {\isasymin}\ A{\isacharparenright}{\isacharparenright}{\isacharparenright}{\isacharsemicolon}\isanewline
 \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ {\isasymforall}i{\isachardot}\ {\isacharparenleft}p\ i{\isacharcomma}\ p\ {\isacharparenleft}Suc\ i{\isacharparenright}{\isacharparenright}\ {\isasymin}\ M{\isasymrbrakk}\isanewline
-\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ {\isasymLongrightarrow}\ {\isasymexists}i{\isachardot}\ p\ i\ {\isasymin}\ A
+\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ {\isasymLongrightarrow}\ {\isasymexists}i{\isachardot}\ p\ i\ {\isasymin}\ A%
 \end{isabelle}
 Now we eliminate the disjunction. The case \isa{p\ {\isadigit{0}}\ {\isasymin}\ A} is trivial:%
 \end{isamarkuptxt}%
@@ -90,11 +90,11 @@
 \isacommand{apply}{\isacharparenleft}erule{\isacharunderscore}tac\ x\ {\isacharequal}\ {\isachardoublequote}p\ {\isadigit{1}}{\isachardoublequote}\ \isakeyword{in}\ allE{\isacharparenright}\isanewline
 \isacommand{apply}{\isacharparenleft}clarsimp{\isacharparenright}%
 \begin{isamarkuptxt}%
-\begin{isabelle}
+\begin{isabelle}%
 \ {\isadigit{1}}{\isachardot}\ {\isasymAnd}p{\isachardot}\ {\isasymlbrakk}{\isasymforall}i{\isachardot}\ {\isacharparenleft}p\ i{\isacharcomma}\ p\ {\isacharparenleft}Suc\ i{\isacharparenright}{\isacharparenright}\ {\isasymin}\ M{\isacharsemicolon}\isanewline
 \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ {\isasymforall}pa{\isachardot}\ p\ {\isadigit{1}}\ {\isacharequal}\ pa\ {\isadigit{0}}\ {\isasymand}\ {\isacharparenleft}{\isasymforall}i{\isachardot}\ {\isacharparenleft}pa\ i{\isacharcomma}\ pa\ {\isacharparenleft}Suc\ i{\isacharparenright}{\isacharparenright}\ {\isasymin}\ M{\isacharparenright}\ {\isasymlongrightarrow}\isanewline
 \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ {\isacharparenleft}{\isasymexists}i{\isachardot}\ pa\ i\ {\isasymin}\ A{\isacharparenright}{\isasymrbrakk}\isanewline
-\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ {\isasymLongrightarrow}\ {\isasymexists}i{\isachardot}\ p\ i\ {\isasymin}\ A
+\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ {\isasymLongrightarrow}\ {\isasymexists}i{\isachardot}\ p\ i\ {\isasymin}\ A%
 \end{isabelle}
 It merely remains to set \isa{pa} to \isa{{\isasymlambda}i{\isachardot}\ p\ {\isacharparenleft}i\ {\isacharplus}\ {\isadigit{1}}{\isacharparenright}}, i.e.\ \isa{p} without its
 first element. The rest is practically automatic:%
@@ -169,10 +169,10 @@
 \begin{isamarkuptxt}%
 \noindent
 After simplification and clarification the subgoal has the following compact form
-\begin{isabelle}
-\ \isadigit{1}{\isachardot}\ {\isasymAnd}i{\isachardot}\ {\isasymlbrakk}P\ s{\isacharsemicolon}\ {\isasymforall}s{\isachardot}\ P\ s\ {\isasymlongrightarrow}\ {\isacharparenleft}{\isasymexists}t{\isachardot}\ {\isacharparenleft}s{\isacharcomma}\ t{\isacharparenright}\ {\isasymin}\ M\ {\isasymand}\ P\ t{\isacharparenright}{\isasymrbrakk}\isanewline
+\begin{isabelle}%
+\ {\isadigit{1}}{\isachardot}\ {\isasymAnd}i{\isachardot}\ {\isasymlbrakk}P\ s{\isacharsemicolon}\ {\isasymforall}s{\isachardot}\ P\ s\ {\isasymlongrightarrow}\ {\isacharparenleft}{\isasymexists}t{\isachardot}\ {\isacharparenleft}s{\isacharcomma}\ t{\isacharparenright}\ {\isasymin}\ M\ {\isasymand}\ P\ t{\isacharparenright}{\isasymrbrakk}\isanewline
 \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ {\isasymLongrightarrow}\ {\isacharparenleft}path\ s\ P\ i{\isacharcomma}\ SOME\ t{\isachardot}\ {\isacharparenleft}path\ s\ P\ i{\isacharcomma}\ t{\isacharparenright}\ {\isasymin}\ M\ {\isasymand}\ P\ t{\isacharparenright}\ {\isasymin}\ M\ {\isasymand}\isanewline
-\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ P\ {\isacharparenleft}path\ s\ P\ i{\isacharparenright}
+\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ P\ {\isacharparenleft}path\ s\ P\ i{\isacharparenright}%
 \end{isabelle}
 and invites a proof by induction on \isa{i}:%
 \end{isamarkuptxt}%
@@ -181,9 +181,9 @@
 \begin{isamarkuptxt}%
 \noindent
 After simplification the base case boils down to
-\begin{isabelle}
-\ \isadigit{1}{\isachardot}\ {\isasymlbrakk}P\ s{\isacharsemicolon}\ {\isasymforall}s{\isachardot}\ P\ s\ {\isasymlongrightarrow}\ {\isacharparenleft}{\isasymexists}t{\isachardot}\ {\isacharparenleft}s{\isacharcomma}\ t{\isacharparenright}\ {\isasymin}\ M\ {\isasymand}\ P\ t{\isacharparenright}{\isasymrbrakk}\isanewline
-\ \ \ \ {\isasymLongrightarrow}\ {\isacharparenleft}s{\isacharcomma}\ SOME\ t{\isachardot}\ {\isacharparenleft}s{\isacharcomma}\ t{\isacharparenright}\ {\isasymin}\ M\ {\isasymand}\ P\ t{\isacharparenright}\ {\isasymin}\ M
+\begin{isabelle}%
+\ {\isadigit{1}}{\isachardot}\ {\isasymlbrakk}P\ s{\isacharsemicolon}\ {\isasymforall}s{\isachardot}\ P\ s\ {\isasymlongrightarrow}\ {\isacharparenleft}{\isasymexists}t{\isachardot}\ {\isacharparenleft}s{\isacharcomma}\ t{\isacharparenright}\ {\isasymin}\ M\ {\isasymand}\ P\ t{\isacharparenright}{\isasymrbrakk}\isanewline
+\ \ \ \ {\isasymLongrightarrow}\ {\isacharparenleft}s{\isacharcomma}\ SOME\ t{\isachardot}\ {\isacharparenleft}s{\isacharcomma}\ t{\isacharparenright}\ {\isasymin}\ M\ {\isasymand}\ P\ t{\isacharparenright}\ {\isasymin}\ M%
 \end{isabelle}
 The conclusion looks exceedingly trivial: after all, \isa{t} is chosen such that \isa{{\isacharparenleft}s{\isacharcomma}\ t{\isacharparenright}\ {\isasymin}\ M}
 holds. However, we first have to show that such a \isa{t} actually exists! This reasoning
@@ -249,18 +249,18 @@
 \isacommand{apply}{\isacharparenleft}erule\ contrapos{\isacharunderscore}pp{\isacharparenright}\isanewline
 \isacommand{apply}\ simp%
 \begin{isamarkuptxt}%
-\begin{isabelle}
-\ \isadigit{1}{\isachardot}\ {\isasymAnd}s{\isachardot}\ s\ {\isasymnotin}\ lfp\ {\isacharparenleft}af\ A{\isacharparenright}\ {\isasymLongrightarrow}\ {\isasymexists}p{\isasymin}Paths\ s{\isachardot}\ {\isasymforall}i{\isachardot}\ p\ i\ {\isasymnotin}\ A
+\begin{isabelle}%
+\ {\isadigit{1}}{\isachardot}\ {\isasymAnd}x{\isachardot}\ x\ {\isasymnotin}\ lfp\ {\isacharparenleft}af\ A{\isacharparenright}\ {\isasymLongrightarrow}\ {\isasymexists}p{\isasymin}Paths\ x{\isachardot}\ {\isasymforall}i{\isachardot}\ p\ i\ {\isasymnotin}\ A%
 \end{isabelle}
 Applying the \isa{infinity{\isacharunderscore}lemma} as a destruction rule leaves two subgoals, the second
 premise of \isa{infinity{\isacharunderscore}lemma} and the original subgoal:%
 \end{isamarkuptxt}%
 \isacommand{apply}{\isacharparenleft}drule\ infinity{\isacharunderscore}lemma{\isacharparenright}%
 \begin{isamarkuptxt}%
-\begin{isabelle}
-\ \isadigit{1}{\isachardot}\ {\isasymAnd}s{\isachardot}\ {\isasymforall}s{\isachardot}\ s\ {\isasymnotin}\ lfp\ {\isacharparenleft}af\ A{\isacharparenright}\ {\isasymlongrightarrow}\ {\isacharparenleft}{\isasymexists}t{\isachardot}\ {\isacharparenleft}s{\isacharcomma}\ t{\isacharparenright}\ {\isasymin}\ M\ {\isasymand}\ t\ {\isasymnotin}\ lfp\ {\isacharparenleft}af\ A{\isacharparenright}{\isacharparenright}\isanewline
-\ \isadigit{2}{\isachardot}\ {\isasymAnd}s{\isachardot}\ {\isasymexists}p{\isasymin}Paths\ s{\isachardot}\ {\isasymforall}i{\isachardot}\ p\ i\ {\isasymnotin}\ lfp\ {\isacharparenleft}af\ A{\isacharparenright}\isanewline
-\ \ \ \ \ \ {\isasymLongrightarrow}\ {\isasymexists}p{\isasymin}Paths\ s{\isachardot}\ {\isasymforall}i{\isachardot}\ p\ i\ {\isasymnotin}\ A
+\begin{isabelle}%
+\ {\isadigit{1}}{\isachardot}\ {\isasymAnd}x{\isachardot}\ {\isasymforall}s{\isachardot}\ s\ {\isasymnotin}\ lfp\ {\isacharparenleft}af\ A{\isacharparenright}\ {\isasymlongrightarrow}\ {\isacharparenleft}{\isasymexists}t{\isachardot}\ {\isacharparenleft}s{\isacharcomma}\ t{\isacharparenright}\ {\isasymin}\ M\ {\isasymand}\ t\ {\isasymnotin}\ lfp\ {\isacharparenleft}af\ A{\isacharparenright}{\isacharparenright}\isanewline
+\ {\isadigit{2}}{\isachardot}\ {\isasymAnd}x{\isachardot}\ {\isasymexists}p{\isasymin}Paths\ x{\isachardot}\ {\isasymforall}i{\isachardot}\ p\ i\ {\isasymnotin}\ lfp\ {\isacharparenleft}af\ A{\isacharparenright}\ {\isasymLongrightarrow}\isanewline
+\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ {\isasymexists}p{\isasymin}Paths\ x{\isachardot}\ {\isasymforall}i{\isachardot}\ p\ i\ {\isasymnotin}\ A%
 \end{isabelle}
 Both are solved automatically:%
 \end{isamarkuptxt}%

--- a/doc-src/TutorialI/CTL/document/PDL.tex	Tue Oct 31 08:53:12 2000 +0100
+++ b/doc-src/TutorialI/CTL/document/PDL.tex	Tue Oct 31 13:59:41 2000 +0100
@@ -63,8 +63,8 @@
 Only the equation for \isa{EF} deserves some comments. Remember that the
 postfix \isa{{\isacharcircum}{\isacharminus}{\isadigit{1}}} and the infix \isa{{\isacharcircum}{\isacharcircum}} are predefined and denote the
 converse of a relation and the application of a relation to a set. Thus
-\isa{M{\isasyminverse}\ {\isacharcircum}{\isacharcircum}\ T} is the set of all predecessors of \isa{T} and the least
-fixed point (\isa{lfp}) of \isa{{\isasymlambda}T{\isachardot}\ mc\ f\ {\isasymunion}\ M{\isasyminverse}\ {\isacharcircum}{\isacharcircum}\ T} is the least set
+\isa{M{\isacharcircum}{\isacharminus}{\isadigit{1}}\ {\isacharcircum}{\isacharcircum}\ T} is the set of all predecessors of \isa{T} and the least
+fixed point (\isa{lfp}) of \isa{{\isasymlambda}T{\isachardot}\ mc\ f\ {\isasymunion}\ M{\isacharcircum}{\isacharminus}{\isadigit{1}}\ {\isacharcircum}{\isacharcircum}\ T} is the least set
 \isa{T} containing \isa{mc\ f} and all predecessors of \isa{T}. If you
 find it hard to see that \isa{mc\ {\isacharparenleft}EF\ f{\isacharparenright}} contains exactly those states from
 which there is a path to a state where \isa{f} is true, do not worry---that
@@ -96,8 +96,8 @@
 \begin{isamarkuptxt}%
 \noindent
 Simplification leaves us with the following first subgoal
-\begin{isabelle}
-\ \isadigit{1}{\isachardot}\ {\isasymAnd}s{\isachardot}\ s\ {\isasymin}\ lfp\ {\isacharparenleft}{\isasymlambda}T{\isachardot}\ A\ {\isasymunion}\ M{\isacharcircum}{\isacharminus}\isadigit{1}\ {\isacharcircum}{\isacharcircum}\ T{\isacharparenright}\ {\isasymLongrightarrow}\ {\isasymexists}t{\isachardot}\ {\isacharparenleft}s{\isacharcomma}\ t{\isacharparenright}\ {\isasymin}\ M{\isacharcircum}{\isacharasterisk}\ {\isasymand}\ t\ {\isasymin}\ A
+\begin{isabelle}%
+\ {\isadigit{1}}{\isachardot}\ {\isasymAnd}x{\isachardot}\ x\ {\isasymin}\ lfp\ {\isacharparenleft}{\isasymlambda}T{\isachardot}\ A\ {\isasymunion}\ M{\isacharcircum}{\isacharminus}{\isadigit{1}}\ {\isacharcircum}{\isacharcircum}\ T{\isacharparenright}\ {\isasymLongrightarrow}\ {\isasymexists}t{\isachardot}\ {\isacharparenleft}x{\isacharcomma}\ t{\isacharparenright}\ {\isasymin}\ M\isactrlsup {\isacharasterisk}\ {\isasymand}\ t\ {\isasymin}\ A%
 \end{isabelle}
 which is proved by \isa{lfp}-induction:%
 \end{isamarkuptxt}%
@@ -125,8 +125,8 @@
 \begin{isamarkuptxt}%
 \noindent
 After simplification and clarification we are left with
-\begin{isabelle}
-\ \isadigit{1}{\isachardot}\ {\isasymAnd}s\ t{\isachardot}\ {\isasymlbrakk}{\isacharparenleft}s{\isacharcomma}\ t{\isacharparenright}\ {\isasymin}\ M{\isacharcircum}{\isacharasterisk}{\isacharsemicolon}\ t\ {\isasymin}\ A{\isasymrbrakk}\ {\isasymLongrightarrow}\ s\ {\isasymin}\ lfp\ {\isacharparenleft}{\isasymlambda}T{\isachardot}\ A\ {\isasymunion}\ M{\isacharcircum}{\isacharminus}\isadigit{1}\ {\isacharcircum}{\isacharcircum}\ T{\isacharparenright}
+\begin{isabelle}%
+\ {\isadigit{1}}{\isachardot}\ {\isasymAnd}x\ t{\isachardot}\ {\isasymlbrakk}{\isacharparenleft}x{\isacharcomma}\ t{\isacharparenright}\ {\isasymin}\ M\isactrlsup {\isacharasterisk}{\isacharsemicolon}\ t\ {\isasymin}\ A{\isasymrbrakk}\ {\isasymLongrightarrow}\ x\ {\isasymin}\ lfp\ {\isacharparenleft}{\isasymlambda}T{\isachardot}\ A\ {\isasymunion}\ M{\isacharcircum}{\isacharminus}{\isadigit{1}}\ {\isacharcircum}{\isacharcircum}\ T{\isacharparenright}%
 \end{isabelle}
 This goal is proved by induction on \isa{{\isacharparenleft}s{\isacharcomma}\ t{\isacharparenright}\ {\isasymin}\ M\isactrlsup {\isacharasterisk}}. But since the model
 checker works backwards (from \isa{t} to \isa{s}), we cannot use the
@@ -146,15 +146,15 @@
 \begin{isamarkuptxt}%
 \noindent
 The base case
-\begin{isabelle}
-\ \isadigit{1}{\isachardot}\ {\isasymAnd}t{\isachardot}\ t\ {\isasymin}\ A\ {\isasymLongrightarrow}\ t\ {\isasymin}\ lfp\ {\isacharparenleft}{\isasymlambda}T{\isachardot}\ A\ {\isasymunion}\ M{\isacharcircum}{\isacharminus}\isadigit{1}\ {\isacharcircum}{\isacharcircum}\ T{\isacharparenright}
+\begin{isabelle}%
+\ {\isadigit{1}}{\isachardot}\ {\isasymAnd}x\ t{\isachardot}\ t\ {\isasymin}\ A\ {\isasymLongrightarrow}\ t\ {\isasymin}\ lfp\ {\isacharparenleft}{\isasymlambda}T{\isachardot}\ A\ {\isasymunion}\ M{\isacharcircum}{\isacharminus}{\isadigit{1}}\ {\isacharcircum}{\isacharcircum}\ T{\isacharparenright}%
 \end{isabelle}
 is solved by unrolling \isa{lfp} once%
 \end{isamarkuptxt}%
 \ \isacommand{apply}{\isacharparenleft}rule\ ssubst{\isacharbrackleft}OF\ lfp{\isacharunderscore}unfold{\isacharbrackleft}OF\ mono{\isacharunderscore}ef{\isacharbrackright}{\isacharbrackright}{\isacharparenright}%
 \begin{isamarkuptxt}%
-\begin{isabelle}
-\ \isadigit{1}{\isachardot}\ {\isasymAnd}t{\isachardot}\ t\ {\isasymin}\ A\ {\isasymLongrightarrow}\ t\ {\isasymin}\ A\ {\isasymunion}\ M{\isacharcircum}{\isacharminus}\isadigit{1}\ {\isacharcircum}{\isacharcircum}\ lfp\ {\isacharparenleft}{\isasymlambda}T{\isachardot}\ A\ {\isasymunion}\ M{\isacharcircum}{\isacharminus}\isadigit{1}\ {\isacharcircum}{\isacharcircum}\ T{\isacharparenright}
+\begin{isabelle}%
+\ {\isadigit{1}}{\isachardot}\ {\isasymAnd}x\ t{\isachardot}\ t\ {\isasymin}\ A\ {\isasymLongrightarrow}\ t\ {\isasymin}\ A\ {\isasymunion}\ M{\isacharcircum}{\isacharminus}{\isadigit{1}}\ {\isacharcircum}{\isacharcircum}\ lfp\ {\isacharparenleft}{\isasymlambda}T{\isachardot}\ A\ {\isasymunion}\ M{\isacharcircum}{\isacharminus}{\isadigit{1}}\ {\isacharcircum}{\isacharcircum}\ T{\isacharparenright}%
 \end{isabelle}
 and disposing of the resulting trivial subgoal automatically:%
 \end{isamarkuptxt}%

--- a/doc-src/TutorialI/Inductive/Star.thy	Tue Oct 31 08:53:12 2000 +0100
+++ b/doc-src/TutorialI/Inductive/Star.thy	Tue Oct 31 13:59:41 2000 +0100
@@ -3,7 +3,6 @@
 section{*The reflexive transitive closure*}
 
 text{*\label{sec:rtc}
-
 {\bf Say something about inductive relations as opposed to sets? Or has that
 been said already? If not, explain induction!}
 
@@ -25,9 +24,9 @@
 The function @{term rtc} is annotated with concrete syntax: instead of
 @{text"rtc r"} we can read and write {term"r*"}. The actual definition
 consists of two rules. Reflexivity is obvious and is immediately declared an
-equivalence.  Thus the automatic tools will apply it automatically. The second
-rule, @{thm[source]rtc_step}, says that we can always add one more @{term
-r}-step to the left. Although we could make @{thm[source]rtc_step} an
+equivalence rule.  Thus the automatic tools will apply it automatically. The
+second rule, @{thm[source]rtc_step}, says that we can always add one more
+@{term r}-step to the left. Although we could make @{thm[source]rtc_step} an
 introduction rule, this is dangerous: the recursion slows down and may
 even kill the automatic tactics.
 
@@ -61,12 +60,11 @@
 The proof starts canonically by rule induction:
 *}
 
-apply(erule rtc.induct)(*pr(latex xsymbols symbols);*)(*<*)oops(*>*)
-text{*\noindent
+apply(erule rtc.induct)
+
+txt{*\noindent
 However, even the resulting base case is a problem
-\begin{isabelle}
-\ {\isadigit{1}}{\isachardot}\ {\isasymAnd}x{\isachardot}\ {\isacharparenleft}y{\isacharcomma}\ z{\isacharparenright}\ {\isasymin}\ r{\isacharasterisk}\ {\isasymLongrightarrow}\ {\isacharparenleft}x{\isacharcomma}\ z{\isacharparenright}\ {\isasymin}\ r{\isacharasterisk}
-\end{isabelle}
+@{subgoals[display,indent=0,goals_limit=1]}
 and maybe not what you had expected. We have to abandon this proof attempt.
 To understand what is going on,
 let us look at the induction rule @{thm[source]rtc.induct}:
@@ -80,9 +78,8 @@
 all. The reason is that in our original goal, of the pair @{term"(x,y)"} only
 @{term x} appears also in the conclusion, but not @{term y}. Thus our
 induction statement is too weak. Fortunately, it can easily be strengthened:
-transfer the additional premise @{prop"(y,z):r*"} into the conclusion:
-*}
-
+transfer the additional premise @{prop"(y,z):r*"} into the conclusion:*}
+(*<*)oops(*>*)
 lemma rtc_trans[rule_format]:
   "(x,y) \<in> r* \<Longrightarrow> (y,z) \<in> r* \<longrightarrow> (x,z) \<in> r*"
 
@@ -97,17 +94,15 @@
 \S\ref{sec:ind-var-in-prems}. The @{text rule_format} directive turns
 @{text"\<longrightarrow>"} back into @{text"\<Longrightarrow>"}. Thus in the end we obtain the original
 statement of our lemma.
-
-Now induction produces two subgoals which are both proved automatically:
-\begin{isabelle}
-\ {\isadigit{1}}{\isachardot}\ {\isasymAnd}x{\isachardot}\ {\isacharparenleft}x{\isacharcomma}\ z{\isacharparenright}\ {\isasymin}\ r{\isacharasterisk}\ {\isasymlongrightarrow}\ {\isacharparenleft}x{\isacharcomma}\ z{\isacharparenright}\ {\isasymin}\ r{\isacharasterisk}\isanewline
-\ {\isadigit{2}}{\isachardot}\ {\isasymAnd}x\ y\ za{\isachardot}\isanewline
-\ \ \ \ \ \ \ {\isasymlbrakk}{\isacharparenleft}x{\isacharcomma}\ y{\isacharparenright}\ {\isasymin}\ r{\isacharsemicolon}\ {\isacharparenleft}y{\isacharcomma}\ za{\isacharparenright}\ {\isasymin}\ r{\isacharasterisk}{\isacharsemicolon}\ {\isacharparenleft}za{\isacharcomma}\ z{\isacharparenright}\ {\isasymin}\ r{\isacharasterisk}\ {\isasymlongrightarrow}\ {\isacharparenleft}y{\isacharcomma}\ z{\isacharparenright}\ {\isasymin}\ r{\isacharasterisk}{\isasymrbrakk}\isanewline
-\ \ \ \ \ \ \ {\isasymLongrightarrow}\ {\isacharparenleft}za{\isacharcomma}\ z{\isacharparenright}\ {\isasymin}\ r{\isacharasterisk}\ {\isasymlongrightarrow}\ {\isacharparenleft}x{\isacharcomma}\ z{\isacharparenright}\ {\isasymin}\ r{\isacharasterisk}
-\end{isabelle}
 *}
 
-apply(erule rtc.induct)(*pr(latex xsymbols symbols);*)
+apply(erule rtc.induct)
+
+txt{*\noindent
+Now induction produces two subgoals which are both proved automatically:
+@{subgoals[display,indent=0]}
+*}
+
  apply(blast);
 apply(blast intro: rtc_step);
 done

--- a/doc-src/TutorialI/Inductive/document/Star.tex	Tue Oct 31 08:53:12 2000 +0100
+++ b/doc-src/TutorialI/Inductive/document/Star.tex	Tue Oct 31 13:59:41 2000 +0100
@@ -6,7 +6,6 @@
 %
 \begin{isamarkuptext}%
 \label{sec:rtc}
-
 {\bf Say something about inductive relations as opposed to sets? Or has that
 been said already? If not, explain induction!}
 
@@ -14,7 +13,7 @@
 closure of a relation. This concept was already introduced in
 \S\ref{sec:rtrancl}, but it was not shown how it is defined. In fact,
 the operator \isa{{\isacharcircum}{\isacharasterisk}} is not defined inductively but via a least
-fixpoint because at that point in the theory hierarchy
+fixed point because at that point in the theory hierarchy
 inductive definitions are not yet available. But now they are:%
 \end{isamarkuptext}%
 \isacommand{consts}\ rtc\ {\isacharcolon}{\isacharcolon}\ {\isachardoublequote}{\isacharparenleft}{\isacharprime}a\ {\isasymtimes}\ {\isacharprime}a{\isacharparenright}set\ {\isasymRightarrow}\ {\isacharparenleft}{\isacharprime}a\ {\isasymtimes}\ {\isacharprime}a{\isacharparenright}set{\isachardoublequote}\ \ \ {\isacharparenleft}{\isachardoublequote}{\isacharunderscore}{\isacharasterisk}{\isachardoublequote}\ {\isacharbrackleft}{\isadigit{1}}{\isadigit{0}}{\isadigit{0}}{\isadigit{0}}{\isacharbrackright}\ {\isadigit{9}}{\isadigit{9}}{\isadigit{9}}{\isacharparenright}\isanewline
@@ -27,8 +26,9 @@
 The function \isa{rtc} is annotated with concrete syntax: instead of
 \isa{rtc\ r} we can read and write {term"r*"}. The actual definition
 consists of two rules. Reflexivity is obvious and is immediately declared an
-equivalence.  Thus the automatic tools will apply it automatically. The second
-rule, \isa{rtc{\isacharunderscore}step}, says that we can always add one more \isa{r}-step to the left. Although we could make \isa{rtc{\isacharunderscore}step} an
+equivalence rule.  Thus the automatic tools will apply it automatically. The
+second rule, \isa{rtc{\isacharunderscore}step}, says that we can always add one more
+\isa{r}-step to the left. Although we could make \isa{rtc{\isacharunderscore}step} an
 introduction rule, this is dangerous: the recursion slows down and may
 even kill the automatic tactics.
 
@@ -59,11 +59,11 @@
 The proof starts canonically by rule induction:%
 \end{isamarkuptxt}%
 \isacommand{apply}{\isacharparenleft}erule\ rtc{\isachardot}induct{\isacharparenright}%
-\begin{isamarkuptext}%
+\begin{isamarkuptxt}%
 \noindent
 However, even the resulting base case is a problem
-\begin{isabelle}
-\ {\isadigit{1}}{\isachardot}\ {\isasymAnd}x{\isachardot}\ {\isacharparenleft}y{\isacharcomma}\ z{\isacharparenright}\ {\isasymin}\ r{\isacharasterisk}\ {\isasymLongrightarrow}\ {\isacharparenleft}x{\isacharcomma}\ z{\isacharparenright}\ {\isasymin}\ r{\isacharasterisk}
+\begin{isabelle}%
+\ {\isadigit{1}}{\isachardot}\ {\isasymAnd}x{\isachardot}\ {\isacharparenleft}y{\isacharcomma}\ z{\isacharparenright}\ {\isasymin}\ r{\isacharasterisk}\ {\isasymLongrightarrow}\ {\isacharparenleft}x{\isacharcomma}\ z{\isacharparenright}\ {\isasymin}\ r{\isacharasterisk}%
 \end{isabelle}
 and maybe not what you had expected. We have to abandon this proof attempt.
 To understand what is going on,
@@ -79,7 +79,7 @@
 \isa{x} appears also in the conclusion, but not \isa{y}. Thus our
 induction statement is too weak. Fortunately, it can easily be strengthened:
 transfer the additional premise \isa{{\isacharparenleft}y{\isacharcomma}\ z{\isacharparenright}\ {\isasymin}\ r{\isacharasterisk}} into the conclusion:%
-\end{isamarkuptext}%
+\end{isamarkuptxt}%
 \isacommand{lemma}\ rtc{\isacharunderscore}trans{\isacharbrackleft}rule{\isacharunderscore}format{\isacharbrackright}{\isacharcolon}\isanewline
 \ \ {\isachardoublequote}{\isacharparenleft}x{\isacharcomma}y{\isacharparenright}\ {\isasymin}\ r{\isacharasterisk}\ {\isasymLongrightarrow}\ {\isacharparenleft}y{\isacharcomma}z{\isacharparenright}\ {\isasymin}\ r{\isacharasterisk}\ {\isasymlongrightarrow}\ {\isacharparenleft}x{\isacharcomma}z{\isacharparenright}\ {\isasymin}\ r{\isacharasterisk}{\isachardoublequote}%
 \begin{isamarkuptxt}%
@@ -93,17 +93,19 @@
 A similar heuristic for other kinds of inductions is formulated in
 \S\ref{sec:ind-var-in-prems}. The \isa{rule{\isacharunderscore}format} directive turns
 \isa{{\isasymlongrightarrow}} back into \isa{{\isasymLongrightarrow}}. Thus in the end we obtain the original
-statement of our lemma.
-
+statement of our lemma.%
+\end{isamarkuptxt}%
+\isacommand{apply}{\isacharparenleft}erule\ rtc{\isachardot}induct{\isacharparenright}%
+\begin{isamarkuptxt}%
+\noindent
 Now induction produces two subgoals which are both proved automatically:
-\begin{isabelle}
+\begin{isabelle}%
 \ {\isadigit{1}}{\isachardot}\ {\isasymAnd}x{\isachardot}\ {\isacharparenleft}x{\isacharcomma}\ z{\isacharparenright}\ {\isasymin}\ r{\isacharasterisk}\ {\isasymlongrightarrow}\ {\isacharparenleft}x{\isacharcomma}\ z{\isacharparenright}\ {\isasymin}\ r{\isacharasterisk}\isanewline
 \ {\isadigit{2}}{\isachardot}\ {\isasymAnd}x\ y\ za{\isachardot}\isanewline
 \ \ \ \ \ \ \ {\isasymlbrakk}{\isacharparenleft}x{\isacharcomma}\ y{\isacharparenright}\ {\isasymin}\ r{\isacharsemicolon}\ {\isacharparenleft}y{\isacharcomma}\ za{\isacharparenright}\ {\isasymin}\ r{\isacharasterisk}{\isacharsemicolon}\ {\isacharparenleft}za{\isacharcomma}\ z{\isacharparenright}\ {\isasymin}\ r{\isacharasterisk}\ {\isasymlongrightarrow}\ {\isacharparenleft}y{\isacharcomma}\ z{\isacharparenright}\ {\isasymin}\ r{\isacharasterisk}{\isasymrbrakk}\isanewline
-\ \ \ \ \ \ \ {\isasymLongrightarrow}\ {\isacharparenleft}za{\isacharcomma}\ z{\isacharparenright}\ {\isasymin}\ r{\isacharasterisk}\ {\isasymlongrightarrow}\ {\isacharparenleft}x{\isacharcomma}\ z{\isacharparenright}\ {\isasymin}\ r{\isacharasterisk}
+\ \ \ \ \ \ \ {\isasymLongrightarrow}\ {\isacharparenleft}za{\isacharcomma}\ z{\isacharparenright}\ {\isasymin}\ r{\isacharasterisk}\ {\isasymlongrightarrow}\ {\isacharparenleft}x{\isacharcomma}\ z{\isacharparenright}\ {\isasymin}\ r{\isacharasterisk}%
 \end{isabelle}%
 \end{isamarkuptxt}%
-\isacommand{apply}{\isacharparenleft}erule\ rtc{\isachardot}induct{\isacharparenright}\isanewline
 \ \isacommand{apply}{\isacharparenleft}blast{\isacharparenright}\isanewline
 \isacommand{apply}{\isacharparenleft}blast\ intro{\isacharcolon}\ rtc{\isacharunderscore}step{\isacharparenright}\isanewline
 \isacommand{done}%

--- a/doc-src/TutorialI/Misc/AdvancedInd.thy	Tue Oct 31 08:53:12 2000 +0100
+++ b/doc-src/TutorialI/Misc/AdvancedInd.thy	Tue Oct 31 13:59:41 2000 +0100
@@ -28,9 +28,7 @@
 Induction variable occurs also among premises!
 \end{quote}
 and leads to the base case
-\begin{isabelle}
-\ 1.\ xs\ {\isasymnoteq}\ []\ {\isasymLongrightarrow}\ hd\ (rev\ [])\ =\ last\ []
-\end{isabelle}
+@{subgoals[display,indent=0,goals_limit=1]}
 which, after simplification, becomes
 \begin{isabelle}
 \ 1.\ xs\ {\isasymnoteq}\ []\ {\isasymLongrightarrow}\ hd\ []\ =\ last\ []
@@ -57,7 +55,6 @@
 
 text{*\noindent
 This time, induction leaves us with the following base case
-%{goals[goals_limit=1,display]}
 \begin{isabelle}
 \ 1.\ []\ {\isasymnoteq}\ []\ {\isasymlongrightarrow}\ hd\ (rev\ [])\ =\ last\ []
 \end{isabelle}
@@ -170,31 +167,27 @@
 lemma f_incr_lem: "\<forall>i. k = f i \<longrightarrow> i \<le> f i";
 
 txt{*\noindent
-To perform induction on @{term"k"} using @{thm[source]nat_less_induct}, we use the same
-general induction method as for recursion induction (see
+To perform induction on @{term k} using @{thm[source]nat_less_induct}, we use
+the same general induction method as for recursion induction (see
 \S\ref{sec:recdef-induction}):
 *};
 
 apply(induct_tac k rule: nat_less_induct);
-(*<*)
+
+txt{*\noindent
+which leaves us with the following proof state:
+@{subgoals[display,indent=0,margin=65]}
+After stripping the @{text"\<forall>i"}, the proof continues with a case
+distinction on @{term"i"}. The case @{prop"i = 0"} is trivial and we focus on
+the other case:
+*}
+
 apply(rule allI);
 apply(case_tac i);
  apply(simp);
-(*>*)
-txt{*\noindent
-which leaves us with the following proof state:
-\begin{isabelle}
-\ 1.\ {\isasymAnd}\mbox{n}.\ {\isasymforall}\mbox{m}.\ \mbox{m}\ <\ \mbox{n}\ {\isasymlongrightarrow}\ ({\isasymforall}\mbox{i}.\ \mbox{m}\ =\ f\ \mbox{i}\ {\isasymlongrightarrow}\ \mbox{i}\ {\isasymle}\ f\ \mbox{i})\isanewline
-\ \ \ \ \ \ \ {\isasymLongrightarrow}\ {\isasymforall}\mbox{i}.\ \mbox{n}\ =\ f\ \mbox{i}\ {\isasymlongrightarrow}\ \mbox{i}\ {\isasymle}\ f\ \mbox{i}
-\end{isabelle}
-After stripping the @{text"\<forall>i"}, the proof continues with a case
-distinction on @{term"i"}. The case @{prop"i = 0"} is trivial and we focus on
-the other case:
-\begin{isabelle}
-\ 1.\ {\isasymAnd}\mbox{n}\ \mbox{i}\ \mbox{nat}.\isanewline
-\ \ \ \ \ \ \ {\isasymlbrakk}{\isasymforall}\mbox{m}.\ \mbox{m}\ <\ \mbox{n}\ {\isasymlongrightarrow}\ ({\isasymforall}\mbox{i}.\ \mbox{m}\ =\ f\ \mbox{i}\ {\isasymlongrightarrow}\ \mbox{i}\ {\isasymle}\ f\ \mbox{i});\ \mbox{i}\ =\ Suc\ \mbox{nat}{\isasymrbrakk}\isanewline
-\ \ \ \ \ \ \ {\isasymLongrightarrow}\ \mbox{n}\ =\ f\ \mbox{i}\ {\isasymlongrightarrow}\ \mbox{i}\ {\isasymle}\ f\ \mbox{i}
-\end{isabelle}
+
+txt{*
+@{subgoals[display,indent=0]}
 *};
 
 by(blast intro!: f_ax Suc_leI intro: le_less_trans);

--- a/doc-src/TutorialI/Misc/document/AdvancedInd.tex	Tue Oct 31 08:53:12 2000 +0100
+++ b/doc-src/TutorialI/Misc/document/AdvancedInd.tex	Tue Oct 31 13:59:41 2000 +0100
@@ -29,8 +29,8 @@
 Induction variable occurs also among premises!
 \end{quote}
 and leads to the base case
-\begin{isabelle}
-\ 1.\ xs\ {\isasymnoteq}\ []\ {\isasymLongrightarrow}\ hd\ (rev\ [])\ =\ last\ []
+\begin{isabelle}%
+\ {\isadigit{1}}{\isachardot}\ xs\ {\isasymnoteq}\ {\isacharbrackleft}{\isacharbrackright}\ {\isasymLongrightarrow}\ hd\ {\isacharparenleft}rev\ {\isacharbrackleft}{\isacharbrackright}{\isacharparenright}\ {\isacharequal}\ last\ {\isacharbrackleft}{\isacharbrackright}%
 \end{isabelle}
 which, after simplification, becomes
 \begin{isabelle}
@@ -54,7 +54,6 @@
 \begin{isamarkuptext}%
 \noindent
 This time, induction leaves us with the following base case
-%{goals[goals_limit=1,display]}
 \begin{isabelle}
 \ 1.\ []\ {\isasymnoteq}\ []\ {\isasymlongrightarrow}\ hd\ (rev\ [])\ =\ last\ []
 \end{isabelle}
@@ -158,25 +157,30 @@
 \isacommand{lemma}\ f{\isacharunderscore}incr{\isacharunderscore}lem{\isacharcolon}\ {\isachardoublequote}{\isasymforall}i{\isachardot}\ k\ {\isacharequal}\ f\ i\ {\isasymlongrightarrow}\ i\ {\isasymle}\ f\ i{\isachardoublequote}%
 \begin{isamarkuptxt}%
 \noindent
-To perform induction on \isa{k} using \isa{nat{\isacharunderscore}less{\isacharunderscore}induct}, we use the same
-general induction method as for recursion induction (see
+To perform induction on \isa{k} using \isa{nat{\isacharunderscore}less{\isacharunderscore}induct}, we use
+the same general induction method as for recursion induction (see
 \S\ref{sec:recdef-induction}):%
 \end{isamarkuptxt}%
 \isacommand{apply}{\isacharparenleft}induct{\isacharunderscore}tac\ k\ rule{\isacharcolon}\ nat{\isacharunderscore}less{\isacharunderscore}induct{\isacharparenright}%
 \begin{isamarkuptxt}%
 \noindent
 which leaves us with the following proof state:
-\begin{isabelle}
-\ 1.\ {\isasymAnd}\mbox{n}.\ {\isasymforall}\mbox{m}.\ \mbox{m}\ <\ \mbox{n}\ {\isasymlongrightarrow}\ ({\isasymforall}\mbox{i}.\ \mbox{m}\ =\ f\ \mbox{i}\ {\isasymlongrightarrow}\ \mbox{i}\ {\isasymle}\ f\ \mbox{i})\isanewline
-\ \ \ \ \ \ \ {\isasymLongrightarrow}\ {\isasymforall}\mbox{i}.\ \mbox{n}\ =\ f\ \mbox{i}\ {\isasymlongrightarrow}\ \mbox{i}\ {\isasymle}\ f\ \mbox{i}
+\begin{isabelle}%
+\ {\isadigit{1}}{\isachardot}\ {\isasymAnd}n{\isachardot}\ {\isasymforall}m{\isachardot}\ m\ {\isacharless}\ n\ {\isasymlongrightarrow}\ {\isacharparenleft}{\isasymforall}i{\isachardot}\ m\ {\isacharequal}\ f\ i\ {\isasymlongrightarrow}\ i\ {\isasymle}\ f\ i{\isacharparenright}\ {\isasymLongrightarrow}\isanewline
+\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ {\isasymforall}i{\isachardot}\ n\ {\isacharequal}\ f\ i\ {\isasymlongrightarrow}\ i\ {\isasymle}\ f\ i%
 \end{isabelle}
 After stripping the \isa{{\isasymforall}i}, the proof continues with a case
 distinction on \isa{i}. The case \isa{i\ {\isacharequal}\ {\isadigit{0}}} is trivial and we focus on
-the other case:
-\begin{isabelle}
-\ 1.\ {\isasymAnd}\mbox{n}\ \mbox{i}\ \mbox{nat}.\isanewline
-\ \ \ \ \ \ \ {\isasymlbrakk}{\isasymforall}\mbox{m}.\ \mbox{m}\ <\ \mbox{n}\ {\isasymlongrightarrow}\ ({\isasymforall}\mbox{i}.\ \mbox{m}\ =\ f\ \mbox{i}\ {\isasymlongrightarrow}\ \mbox{i}\ {\isasymle}\ f\ \mbox{i});\ \mbox{i}\ =\ Suc\ \mbox{nat}{\isasymrbrakk}\isanewline
-\ \ \ \ \ \ \ {\isasymLongrightarrow}\ \mbox{n}\ =\ f\ \mbox{i}\ {\isasymlongrightarrow}\ \mbox{i}\ {\isasymle}\ f\ \mbox{i}
+the other case:%
+\end{isamarkuptxt}%
+\isacommand{apply}{\isacharparenleft}rule\ allI{\isacharparenright}\isanewline
+\isacommand{apply}{\isacharparenleft}case{\isacharunderscore}tac\ i{\isacharparenright}\isanewline
+\ \isacommand{apply}{\isacharparenleft}simp{\isacharparenright}%
+\begin{isamarkuptxt}%
+\begin{isabelle}%
+\ {\isadigit{1}}{\isachardot}\ {\isasymAnd}n\ i\ nat{\isachardot}\isanewline
+\ \ \ \ \ \ \ {\isasymlbrakk}{\isasymforall}m{\isachardot}\ m\ {\isacharless}\ n\ {\isasymlongrightarrow}\ {\isacharparenleft}{\isasymforall}i{\isachardot}\ m\ {\isacharequal}\ f\ i\ {\isasymlongrightarrow}\ i\ {\isasymle}\ f\ i{\isacharparenright}{\isacharsemicolon}\ i\ {\isacharequal}\ Suc\ nat{\isasymrbrakk}\isanewline
+\ \ \ \ \ \ \ {\isasymLongrightarrow}\ n\ {\isacharequal}\ f\ i\ {\isasymlongrightarrow}\ i\ {\isasymle}\ f\ i%
 \end{isabelle}%
 \end{isamarkuptxt}%
 \isacommand{by}{\isacharparenleft}blast\ intro{\isacharbang}{\isacharcolon}\ f{\isacharunderscore}ax\ Suc{\isacharunderscore}leI\ intro{\isacharcolon}\ le{\isacharunderscore}less{\isacharunderscore}trans{\isacharparenright}%