
diff -r 43482ab31341 -r 0c89419b4742 ExtGG.thy
--- a/ExtGG.thy	Wed Feb 03 21:51:57 2016 +0800
+++ b/ExtGG.thy	Wed Feb 03 22:17:29 2016 +0800
@@ -2,8 +2,8 @@
   This file contains lemmas used to guide the recalculation of current precedence 
   after every system call (or system operation)
 *}
-theory ExtGG
-imports CpsG
+theory Implementation
+imports PIPBasics
 begin
 
 text {* (* ddd *)
@@ -376,9 +376,6 @@
 context valid_trace_p_w
 begin
 
-interpretation vat_e: valid_trace "e#s"
-  by (unfold_locales, insert vt_e, simp)
-
 lemma cs_held: "(Cs cs, Th holder) \<in> RAG s"
   using holding_s_holder
   by (unfold s_RAG_def, fold holding_eq, auto)
@@ -428,13 +425,13 @@
   and "y \<in> ancestors (tRAG (e#s)) u"
   shows "cp_gen (e#s) y = cp_gen s y"
   using assms(3)
-proof(induct rule:wf_induct[OF vat_e.fsbttRAGs.wf])
+proof(induct rule:wf_induct[OF vat_es.fsbttRAGs.wf])
   case (1 x)
   show ?case (is "?L = ?R")
   proof -
     from tRAG_ancestorsE[OF 1(2)]
     obtain th2 where eq_x: "x = Th th2" by blast
-    from vat_e.cp_gen_rec[OF this]
+    from vat_es.cp_gen_rec[OF this]
     have "?L = 
           Max ({the_preced (e#s) th2} \<union> cp_gen (e#s) ` RTree.children (tRAG (e#s)) x)" .
     also have "... = 
@@ -454,15 +451,15 @@
             assume "x \<in> Range {(Th th, Th holder)}"
             hence eq_x: "x = Th holder" using RangeE by auto
             show False
-            proof(cases rule:vat_e.ancestors_headE[OF assms(1) start])
+            proof(cases rule:vat_es.ancestors_headE[OF assms(1) start])
               case 1
-              from x_u[folded this, unfolded eq_x] vat_e.acyclic_tRAG
+              from x_u[folded this, unfolded eq_x] vat_es.acyclic_tRAG
               show ?thesis by (auto simp:ancestors_def acyclic_def)
             next
               case 2
               with x_u[unfolded eq_x]
               have "(Th holder, Th holder) \<in> (tRAG (e#s))^+" by (auto simp:ancestors_def)
-              with vat_e.acyclic_tRAG show ?thesis by (auto simp:acyclic_def)
+              with vat_es.acyclic_tRAG show ?thesis by (auto simp:acyclic_def)
             qed
           qed
         qed
@@ -473,7 +470,7 @@
           assume a_in: "a \<in> ?A"
           from 1(2)
           show "?f a = ?g a"
-          proof(cases rule:vat_e.rtree_s.ancestors_childrenE[case_names in_ch out_ch])
+          proof(cases rule:vat_es.rtree_s.ancestors_childrenE[case_names in_ch out_ch])
              case in_ch
              show ?thesis
              proof(cases "a = u")
@@ -485,7 +482,7 @@
                 proof
                   assume a_in': "a \<in> ancestors (tRAG (e#s)) (Th th)"
                   have "a = u"
-                  proof(rule vat_e.rtree_s.ancestors_children_unique)
+                  proof(rule vat_es.rtree_s.ancestors_children_unique)
                     from a_in' a_in show "a \<in> ancestors (tRAG (e#s)) (Th th) \<inter> 
                                           RTree.children (tRAG (e#s)) x" by auto
                   next 
@@ -519,7 +516,7 @@
               proof
                 assume a_in': "a \<in> ancestors (tRAG (e#s)) (Th th)"
                 have "a = z"
-                proof(rule vat_e.rtree_s.ancestors_children_unique)
+                proof(rule vat_es.rtree_s.ancestors_children_unique)
                   from assms(1) h(1) have "z \<in> ancestors (tRAG (e#s)) (Th th)"
                       by (auto simp:ancestors_def)
                   with h(2) show " z \<in> ancestors (tRAG (e#s)) (Th th) \<inter> 
@@ -570,9 +567,6 @@
 context valid_trace_create
 begin 
 
-interpretation vat_e: valid_trace "e#s"
-  by (unfold_locales, insert vt_e, simp)
-
 lemma tRAG_kept: "tRAG (e#s) = tRAG s"
   by (unfold tRAG_alt_def RAG_unchanged, auto)
 
@@ -632,7 +626,7 @@
 qed
 
 lemma eq_cp_th: "cp (e#s) th = preced th (e#s)"
- by (unfold vat_e.cp_rec children_of_th, simp add:the_preced_def)
+ by (unfold vat_es.cp_rec children_of_th, simp add:the_preced_def)
 
 end
 
@@ -706,924 +700,3 @@
 
 end
 
-=======
-theory ExtGG
-imports PrioG CpsG
-begin
-
-text {* 
-  The following two auxiliary lemmas are used to reason about @{term Max}.
-*}
-lemma image_Max_eqI: 
-  assumes "finite B"
-  and "b \<in> B"
-  and "\<forall> x \<in> B. f x \<le> f b"
-  shows "Max (f ` B) = f b"
-  using assms
-  using Max_eqI by blast 
-
-lemma image_Max_subset:
-  assumes "finite A"
-  and "B \<subseteq> A"
-  and "a \<in> B"
-  and "Max (f ` A) = f a"
-  shows "Max (f ` B) = f a"
-proof(rule image_Max_eqI)
-  show "finite B"
-    using assms(1) assms(2) finite_subset by auto 
-next
-  show "a \<in> B" using assms by simp
-next
-  show "\<forall>x\<in>B. f x \<le> f a"
-    by (metis Max_ge assms(1) assms(2) assms(4) 
-            finite_imageI image_eqI subsetCE) 
-qed
-
-text {*
-  The following locale @{text "highest_gen"} sets the basic context for our
-  investigation: supposing thread @{text th} holds the highest @{term cp}-value
-  in state @{text s}, which means the task for @{text th} is the 
-  most urgent. We want to show that  
-  @{text th} is treated correctly by PIP, which means
-  @{text th} will not be blocked unreasonably by other less urgent
-  threads. 
-*}
-locale highest_gen =
-  fixes s th prio tm
-  assumes vt_s: "vt s"
-  and threads_s: "th \<in> threads s"
-  and highest: "preced th s = Max ((cp s)`threads s)"
-  -- {* The internal structure of @{term th}'s precedence is exposed:*}
-  and preced_th: "preced th s = Prc prio tm" 
-
--- {* @{term s} is a valid trace, so it will inherit all results derived for
-      a valid trace: *}
-sublocale highest_gen < vat_s: valid_trace "s"
-  by (unfold_locales, insert vt_s, simp)
-
-context highest_gen
-begin
-
-text {*
-  @{term tm} is the time when the precedence of @{term th} is set, so 
-  @{term tm} must be a valid moment index into @{term s}.
-*}
-lemma lt_tm: "tm < length s"
-  by (insert preced_tm_lt[OF threads_s preced_th], simp)
-
-text {*
-  Since @{term th} holds the highest precedence and @{text "cp"}
-  is the highest precedence of all threads in the sub-tree of 
-  @{text "th"} and @{text th} is among these threads, 
-  its @{term cp} must equal to its precedence:
-*}
-lemma eq_cp_s_th: "cp s th = preced th s" (is "?L = ?R")
-proof -
-  have "?L \<le> ?R"
-  by (unfold highest, rule Max_ge, 
-        auto simp:threads_s finite_threads)
-  moreover have "?R \<le> ?L"
-    by (unfold vat_s.cp_rec, rule Max_ge, 
-        auto simp:the_preced_def vat_s.fsbttRAGs.finite_children)
-  ultimately show ?thesis by auto
-qed
-
-(* ccc *)
-lemma highest_cp_preced: "cp s th = Max ((\<lambda> th'. preced th' s) ` threads s)"
-  by (fold max_cp_eq, unfold eq_cp_s_th, insert highest, simp)
-
-lemma highest_preced_thread: "preced th s = Max ((\<lambda> th'. preced th' s) ` threads s)"
-  by (fold eq_cp_s_th, unfold highest_cp_preced, simp)
-
-lemma highest': "cp s th = Max (cp s ` threads s)"
-proof -
-  from highest_cp_preced max_cp_eq[symmetric]
-  show ?thesis by simp
-qed
-
-end
-
-locale extend_highest_gen = highest_gen + 
-  fixes t 
-  assumes vt_t: "vt (t@s)"
-  and create_low: "Create th' prio' \<in> set t \<Longrightarrow> prio' \<le> prio"
-  and set_diff_low: "Set th' prio' \<in> set t \<Longrightarrow> th' \<noteq> th \<and> prio' \<le> prio"
-  and exit_diff: "Exit th' \<in> set t \<Longrightarrow> th' \<noteq> th"
-
-sublocale extend_highest_gen < vat_t: valid_trace "t@s"
-  by (unfold_locales, insert vt_t, simp)
-
-lemma step_back_vt_app: 
-  assumes vt_ts: "vt (t@s)" 
-  shows "vt s"
-proof -
-  from vt_ts show ?thesis
-  proof(induct t)
-    case Nil
-    from Nil show ?case by auto
-  next
-    case (Cons e t)
-    assume ih: " vt (t @ s) \<Longrightarrow> vt s"
-      and vt_et: "vt ((e # t) @ s)"
-    show ?case
-    proof(rule ih)
-      show "vt (t @ s)"
-      proof(rule step_back_vt)
-        from vt_et show "vt (e # t @ s)" by simp
-      qed
-    qed
-  qed
-qed
-
-
-locale red_extend_highest_gen = extend_highest_gen +
-   fixes i::nat
-
-sublocale red_extend_highest_gen <   red_moment: extend_highest_gen "s" "th" "prio" "tm" "(moment i t)"
-  apply (insert extend_highest_gen_axioms, subst (asm) (1) moment_restm_s [of i t, symmetric])
-  apply (unfold extend_highest_gen_def extend_highest_gen_axioms_def, clarsimp)
-  by (unfold highest_gen_def, auto dest:step_back_vt_app)
-
-
-context extend_highest_gen
-begin
-
- lemma ind [consumes 0, case_names Nil Cons, induct type]:
-  assumes 
-    h0: "R []"
-  and h2: "\<And> e t. \<lbrakk>vt (t@s); step (t@s) e; 
-                    extend_highest_gen s th prio tm t; 
-                    extend_highest_gen s th prio tm (e#t); R t\<rbrakk> \<Longrightarrow> R (e#t)"
-  shows "R t"
-proof -
-  from vt_t extend_highest_gen_axioms show ?thesis
-  proof(induct t)
-    from h0 show "R []" .
-  next
-    case (Cons e t')
-    assume ih: "\<lbrakk>vt (t' @ s); extend_highest_gen s th prio tm t'\<rbrakk> \<Longrightarrow> R t'"
-      and vt_e: "vt ((e # t') @ s)"
-      and et: "extend_highest_gen s th prio tm (e # t')"
-    from vt_e and step_back_step have stp: "step (t'@s) e" by auto
-    from vt_e and step_back_vt have vt_ts: "vt (t'@s)" by auto
-    show ?case
-    proof(rule h2 [OF vt_ts stp _ _ _ ])
-      show "R t'"
-      proof(rule ih)
-        from et show ext': "extend_highest_gen s th prio tm t'"
-          by (unfold extend_highest_gen_def extend_highest_gen_axioms_def, auto dest:step_back_vt)
-      next
-        from vt_ts show "vt (t' @ s)" .
-      qed
-    next
-      from et show "extend_highest_gen s th prio tm (e # t')" .
-    next
-      from et show ext': "extend_highest_gen s th prio tm t'"
-          by (unfold extend_highest_gen_def extend_highest_gen_axioms_def, auto dest:step_back_vt)
-    qed
-  qed
-qed
-
-
-lemma th_kept: "th \<in> threads (t @ s) \<and> 
-                 preced th (t@s) = preced th s" (is "?Q t") 
-proof -
-  show ?thesis
-  proof(induct rule:ind)
-    case Nil
-    from threads_s
-    show ?case
-      by auto
-  next
-    case (Cons e t)
-    interpret h_e: extend_highest_gen _ _ _ _ "(e # t)" using Cons by auto
-    interpret h_t: extend_highest_gen _ _ _ _ t using Cons by auto
-    show ?case
-    proof(cases e)
-      case (Create thread prio)
-      show ?thesis
-      proof -
-        from Cons and Create have "step (t@s) (Create thread prio)" by auto
-        hence "th \<noteq> thread"
-        proof(cases)
-          case thread_create
-          with Cons show ?thesis by auto
-        qed
-        hence "preced th ((e # t) @ s)  = preced th (t @ s)"
-          by (unfold Create, auto simp:preced_def)
-        moreover note Cons
-        ultimately show ?thesis
-          by (auto simp:Create)
-      qed
-    next
-      case (Exit thread)
-      from h_e.exit_diff and Exit
-      have neq_th: "thread \<noteq> th" by auto
-      with Cons
-      show ?thesis
-        by (unfold Exit, auto simp:preced_def)
-    next
-      case (P thread cs)
-      with Cons
-      show ?thesis 
-        by (auto simp:P preced_def)
-    next
-      case (V thread cs)
-      with Cons
-      show ?thesis 
-        by (auto simp:V preced_def)
-    next
-      case (Set thread prio')
-      show ?thesis
-      proof -
-        from h_e.set_diff_low and Set
-        have "th \<noteq> thread" by auto
-        hence "preced th ((e # t) @ s)  = preced th (t @ s)"
-          by (unfold Set, auto simp:preced_def)
-        moreover note Cons
-        ultimately show ?thesis
-          by (auto simp:Set)
-      qed
-    qed
-  qed
-qed
-
-text {*
-  According to @{thm th_kept}, thread @{text "th"} has its living status
-  and precedence kept along the way of @{text "t"}. The following lemma
-  shows that this preserved precedence of @{text "th"} remains as the highest
-  along the way of @{text "t"}.
-
-  The proof goes by induction over @{text "t"} using the specialized
-  induction rule @{thm ind}, followed by case analysis of each possible 
-  operations of PIP. All cases follow the same pattern rendered by the 
-  generalized introduction rule @{thm "image_Max_eqI"}. 
-
-  The very essence is to show that precedences, no matter whether they are newly introduced 
-  or modified, are always lower than the one held by @{term "th"},
-  which by @{thm th_kept} is preserved along the way.
-*}
-lemma max_kept: "Max (the_preced (t @ s) ` (threads (t@s))) = preced th s"
-proof(induct rule:ind)
-  case Nil
-  from highest_preced_thread
-  show ?case
-    by (unfold the_preced_def, simp)
-next
-  case (Cons e t)
-    interpret h_e: extend_highest_gen _ _ _ _ "(e # t)" using Cons by auto
-    interpret h_t: extend_highest_gen _ _ _ _ t using Cons by auto
-  show ?case
-  proof(cases e)
-    case (Create thread prio')
-    show ?thesis (is "Max (?f ` ?A) = ?t")
-    proof -
-      -- {* The following is the common pattern of each branch of the case analysis. *}
-      -- {* The major part is to show that @{text "th"} holds the highest precedence: *}
-      have "Max (?f ` ?A) = ?f th"
-      proof(rule image_Max_eqI)
-        show "finite ?A" using h_e.finite_threads by auto 
-      next
-        show "th \<in> ?A" using h_e.th_kept by auto 
-      next
-        show "\<forall>x\<in>?A. ?f x \<le> ?f th"
-        proof 
-          fix x
-          assume "x \<in> ?A"
-          hence "x = thread \<or> x \<in> threads (t@s)" by (auto simp:Create)
-          thus "?f x \<le> ?f th"
-          proof
-            assume "x = thread"
-            thus ?thesis 
-              apply (simp add:Create the_preced_def preced_def, fold preced_def)
-              using Create h_e.create_low h_t.th_kept lt_tm preced_leI2 preced_th by force
-          next
-            assume h: "x \<in> threads (t @ s)"
-            from Cons(2)[unfolded Create] 
-            have "x \<noteq> thread" using h by (cases, auto)
-            hence "?f x = the_preced (t@s) x" 
-              by (simp add:Create the_preced_def preced_def)
-            hence "?f x \<le> Max (the_preced (t@s) ` threads (t@s))"
-              by (simp add: h_t.finite_threads h)
-            also have "... = ?f th"
-              by (metis Cons.hyps(5) h_e.th_kept the_preced_def) 
-            finally show ?thesis .
-          qed
-        qed
-      qed
-     -- {* The minor part is to show that the precedence of @{text "th"} 
-           equals to preserved one, given by the foregoing lemma @{thm th_kept} *}
-      also have "... = ?t" using h_e.th_kept the_preced_def by auto
-      -- {* Then it follows trivially that the precedence preserved
-            for @{term "th"} remains the maximum of all living threads along the way. *}
-      finally show ?thesis .
-    qed 
-  next 
-    case (Exit thread)
-    show ?thesis (is "Max (?f ` ?A) = ?t")
-    proof -
-      have "Max (?f ` ?A) = ?f th"
-      proof(rule image_Max_eqI)
-        show "finite ?A" using h_e.finite_threads by auto 
-      next
-        show "th \<in> ?A" using h_e.th_kept by auto 
-      next
-        show "\<forall>x\<in>?A. ?f x \<le> ?f th"
-        proof 
-          fix x
-          assume "x \<in> ?A"
-          hence "x \<in> threads (t@s)" by (simp add: Exit) 
-          hence "?f x \<le> Max (?f ` threads (t@s))" 
-            by (simp add: h_t.finite_threads) 
-          also have "... \<le> ?f th" 
-            apply (simp add:Exit the_preced_def preced_def, fold preced_def)
-            using Cons.hyps(5) h_t.th_kept the_preced_def by auto
-          finally show "?f x \<le> ?f th" .
-        qed
-      qed
-      also have "... = ?t" using h_e.th_kept the_preced_def by auto
-      finally show ?thesis .
-    qed 
-  next
-    case (P thread cs)
-    with Cons
-    show ?thesis by (auto simp:preced_def the_preced_def)
-  next
-    case (V thread cs)
-    with Cons
-    show ?thesis by (auto simp:preced_def the_preced_def)
-  next 
-    case (Set thread prio')
-    show ?thesis (is "Max (?f ` ?A) = ?t")
-    proof -
-      have "Max (?f ` ?A) = ?f th"
-      proof(rule image_Max_eqI)
-        show "finite ?A" using h_e.finite_threads by auto 
-      next
-        show "th \<in> ?A" using h_e.th_kept by auto 
-      next
-        show "\<forall>x\<in>?A. ?f x \<le> ?f th"
-        proof 
-          fix x
-          assume h: "x \<in> ?A"
-          show "?f x \<le> ?f th"
-          proof(cases "x = thread")
-            case True
-            moreover have "the_preced (Set thread prio' # t @ s) thread \<le> the_preced (t @ s) th"
-            proof -
-              have "the_preced (t @ s) th = Prc prio tm"  
-                using h_t.th_kept preced_th by (simp add:the_preced_def)
-              moreover have "prio' \<le> prio" using Set h_e.set_diff_low by auto
-              ultimately show ?thesis by (insert lt_tm, auto simp:the_preced_def preced_def)
-            qed
-            ultimately show ?thesis
-              by (unfold Set, simp add:the_preced_def preced_def)
-          next
-            case False
-            then have "?f x  = the_preced (t@s) x"
-              by (simp add:the_preced_def preced_def Set)
-            also have "... \<le> Max (the_preced (t@s) ` threads (t@s))"
-              using Set h h_t.finite_threads by auto 
-            also have "... = ?f th" by (metis Cons.hyps(5) h_e.th_kept the_preced_def) 
-            finally show ?thesis .
-          qed
-        qed
-      qed
-      also have "... = ?t" using h_e.th_kept the_preced_def by auto
-      finally show ?thesis .
-    qed 
-  qed
-qed
-
-lemma max_preced: "preced th (t@s) = Max (the_preced (t@s) ` (threads (t@s)))"
-  by (insert th_kept max_kept, auto)
-
-text {*
-  The reason behind the following lemma is that:
-  Since @{term "cp"} is defined as the maximum precedence 
-  of those threads contained in the sub-tree of node @{term "Th th"} 
-  in @{term "RAG (t@s)"}, and all these threads are living threads, and 
-  @{term "th"} is also among them, the maximum precedence of 
-  them all must be the one for @{text "th"}.
-*}
-lemma th_cp_max_preced: 
-  "cp (t@s) th = Max (the_preced (t@s) ` (threads (t@s)))" (is "?L = ?R") 
-proof -
-  let ?f = "the_preced (t@s)"
-  have "?L = ?f th"
-  proof(unfold cp_alt_def, rule image_Max_eqI)
-    show "finite {th'. Th th' \<in> subtree (RAG (t @ s)) (Th th)}"
-    proof -
-      have "{th'. Th th' \<in> subtree (RAG (t @ s)) (Th th)} = 
-            the_thread ` {n . n \<in> subtree (RAG (t @ s)) (Th th) \<and>
-                            (\<exists> th'. n = Th th')}"
-      by (smt Collect_cong Setcompr_eq_image mem_Collect_eq the_thread.simps)
-      moreover have "finite ..." by (simp add: vat_t.fsbtRAGs.finite_subtree) 
-      ultimately show ?thesis by simp
-    qed
-  next
-    show "th \<in> {th'. Th th' \<in> subtree (RAG (t @ s)) (Th th)}"
-      by (auto simp:subtree_def)
-  next
-    show "\<forall>x\<in>{th'. Th th' \<in> subtree (RAG (t @ s)) (Th th)}.
-               the_preced (t @ s) x \<le> the_preced (t @ s) th"
-    proof
-      fix th'
-      assume "th' \<in> {th'. Th th' \<in> subtree (RAG (t @ s)) (Th th)}"
-      hence "Th th' \<in> subtree (RAG (t @ s)) (Th th)" by auto
-      moreover have "... \<subseteq> Field (RAG (t @ s)) \<union> {Th th}"
-        by (meson subtree_Field)
-      ultimately have "Th th' \<in> ..." by auto
-      hence "th' \<in> threads (t@s)" 
-      proof
-        assume "Th th' \<in> {Th th}"
-        thus ?thesis using th_kept by auto 
-      next
-        assume "Th th' \<in> Field (RAG (t @ s))"
-        thus ?thesis using vat_t.not_in_thread_isolated by blast 
-      qed
-      thus "the_preced (t @ s) th' \<le> the_preced (t @ s) th"
-        by (metis Max_ge finite_imageI finite_threads image_eqI 
-               max_kept th_kept the_preced_def)
-    qed
-  qed
-  also have "... = ?R" by (simp add: max_preced the_preced_def) 
-  finally show ?thesis .
-qed
-
-lemma th_cp_max: "cp (t@s) th = Max (cp (t@s) ` threads (t@s))"
-  using max_cp_eq th_cp_max_preced the_preced_def vt_t by presburger
-
-lemma th_cp_preced: "cp (t@s) th = preced th s"
-  by (fold max_kept, unfold th_cp_max_preced, simp)
-
-lemma preced_less:
-  assumes th'_in: "th' \<in> threads s"
-  and neq_th': "th' \<noteq> th"
-  shows "preced th' s < preced th s"
-  using assms
-by (metis Max.coboundedI finite_imageI highest not_le order.trans 
-    preced_linorder rev_image_eqI threads_s vat_s.finite_threads 
-    vat_s.le_cp)
-
-text {*
-  Counting of the number of @{term "P"} and @{term "V"} operations 
-  is the cornerstone of a large number of the following proofs. 
-  The reason is that this counting is quite easy to calculate and 
-  convenient to use in the reasoning. 
-
-  The following lemma shows that the counting controls whether 
-  a thread is running or not.
-*}
-
-lemma pv_blocked_pre:
-  assumes th'_in: "th' \<in> threads (t@s)"
-  and neq_th': "th' \<noteq> th"
-  and eq_pv: "cntP (t@s) th' = cntV (t@s) th'"
-  shows "th' \<notin> runing (t@s)"
-proof
-  assume otherwise: "th' \<in> runing (t@s)"
-  show False
-  proof -
-    have "th' = th"
-    proof(rule preced_unique)
-      show "preced th' (t @ s) = preced th (t @ s)" (is "?L = ?R")
-      proof -
-        have "?L = cp (t@s) th'"
-          by (unfold cp_eq_cpreced cpreced_def count_eq_dependants[OF eq_pv], simp)
-        also have "... = cp (t @ s) th" using otherwise 
-          by (metis (mono_tags, lifting) mem_Collect_eq 
-                    runing_def th_cp_max vat_t.max_cp_readys_threads)
-        also have "... = ?R" by (metis th_cp_preced th_kept) 
-        finally show ?thesis .
-      qed
-    qed (auto simp: th'_in th_kept)
-    moreover have "th' \<noteq> th" using neq_th' .
-    ultimately show ?thesis by simp
- qed
-qed
-
-lemmas pv_blocked = pv_blocked_pre[folded detached_eq]
-
-lemma runing_precond_pre:
-  fixes th'
-  assumes th'_in: "th' \<in> threads s"
-  and eq_pv: "cntP s th' = cntV s th'"
-  and neq_th': "th' \<noteq> th"
-  shows "th' \<in> threads (t@s) \<and>
-         cntP (t@s) th' = cntV (t@s) th'"
-proof(induct rule:ind)
-  case (Cons e t)
-    interpret vat_t: extend_highest_gen s th prio tm t using Cons by simp
-    interpret vat_e: extend_highest_gen s th prio tm "(e # t)" using Cons by simp
-    show ?case
-    proof(cases e)
-      case (P thread cs)
-      show ?thesis
-      proof -
-        have "cntP ((e # t) @ s) th' = cntV ((e # t) @ s) th'"
-        proof -
-          have "thread \<noteq> th'"
-          proof -
-            have "step (t@s) (P thread cs)" using Cons P by auto
-            thus ?thesis
-            proof(cases)
-              assume "thread \<in> runing (t@s)"
-              moreover have "th' \<notin> runing (t@s)" using Cons(5)
-                by (metis neq_th' vat_t.pv_blocked_pre) 
-              ultimately show ?thesis by auto
-            qed
-          qed with Cons show ?thesis
-            by (unfold P, simp add:cntP_def cntV_def count_def)
-        qed
-        moreover have "th' \<in> threads ((e # t) @ s)" using Cons by (unfold P, simp)
-        ultimately show ?thesis by auto
-      qed
-    next
-      case (V thread cs)
-      show ?thesis
-      proof -
-        have "cntP ((e # t) @ s) th' = cntV ((e # t) @ s) th'"
-        proof -
-          have "thread \<noteq> th'"
-          proof -
-            have "step (t@s) (V thread cs)" using Cons V by auto
-            thus ?thesis
-            proof(cases)
-              assume "thread \<in> runing (t@s)"
-              moreover have "th' \<notin> runing (t@s)" using Cons(5)
-                by (metis neq_th' vat_t.pv_blocked_pre) 
-              ultimately show ?thesis by auto
-            qed
-          qed with Cons show ?thesis
-            by (unfold V, simp add:cntP_def cntV_def count_def)
-        qed
-        moreover have "th' \<in> threads ((e # t) @ s)" using Cons by (unfold V, simp)
-        ultimately show ?thesis by auto
-      qed
-    next
-      case (Create thread prio')
-      show ?thesis
-      proof -
-        have "cntP ((e # t) @ s) th' = cntV ((e # t) @ s) th'"
-        proof -
-          have "thread \<noteq> th'"
-          proof -
-            have "step (t@s) (Create thread prio')" using Cons Create by auto
-            thus ?thesis using Cons(5) by (cases, auto)
-          qed with Cons show ?thesis
-            by (unfold Create, simp add:cntP_def cntV_def count_def)
-        qed
-        moreover have "th' \<in> threads ((e # t) @ s)" using Cons by (unfold Create, simp)
-        ultimately show ?thesis by auto
-      qed
-    next
-      case (Exit thread)
-      show ?thesis
-      proof -
-        have neq_thread: "thread \<noteq> th'"
-        proof -
-          have "step (t@s) (Exit thread)" using Cons Exit by auto
-          thus ?thesis apply (cases) using Cons(5)
-                by (metis neq_th' vat_t.pv_blocked_pre) 
-        qed 
-        hence "cntP ((e # t) @ s) th' = cntV ((e # t) @ s) th'" using Cons
-            by (unfold Exit, simp add:cntP_def cntV_def count_def)
-        moreover have "th' \<in> threads ((e # t) @ s)" using Cons neq_thread 
-          by (unfold Exit, simp) 
-        ultimately show ?thesis by auto
-      qed
-    next
-      case (Set thread prio')
-      with Cons
-      show ?thesis 
-        by (auto simp:cntP_def cntV_def count_def)
-    qed
-next
-  case Nil
-  with assms
-  show ?case by auto
-qed
-
-text {* Changing counting balance to detachedness *}
-lemmas runing_precond_pre_dtc = runing_precond_pre
-         [folded vat_t.detached_eq vat_s.detached_eq]
-
-lemma runing_precond:
-  fixes th'
-  assumes th'_in: "th' \<in> threads s"
-  and neq_th': "th' \<noteq> th"
-  and is_runing: "th' \<in> runing (t@s)"
-  shows "cntP s th' > cntV s th'"
-  using assms
-proof -
-  have "cntP s th' \<noteq> cntV s th'"
-    by (metis is_runing neq_th' pv_blocked_pre runing_precond_pre th'_in)
-  moreover have "cntV s th' \<le> cntP s th'" using vat_s.cnp_cnv_cncs by auto
-  ultimately show ?thesis by auto
-qed
-
-lemma moment_blocked_pre:
-  assumes neq_th': "th' \<noteq> th"
-  and th'_in: "th' \<in> threads ((moment i t)@s)"
-  and eq_pv: "cntP ((moment i t)@s) th' = cntV ((moment i t)@s) th'"
-  shows "cntP ((moment (i+j) t)@s) th' = cntV ((moment (i+j) t)@s) th' \<and>
-         th' \<in> threads ((moment (i+j) t)@s)"
-proof -
-  interpret h_i: red_extend_highest_gen _ _ _ _ _ i
-      by (unfold_locales)
-  interpret h_j: red_extend_highest_gen _ _ _ _ _ "i+j"
-      by (unfold_locales)
-  interpret h:  extend_highest_gen "((moment i t)@s)" th prio tm "moment j (restm i t)"
-  proof(unfold_locales)
-    show "vt (moment i t @ s)" by (metis h_i.vt_t) 
-  next
-    show "th \<in> threads (moment i t @ s)" by (metis h_i.th_kept)
-  next
-    show "preced th (moment i t @ s) = 
-            Max (cp (moment i t @ s) ` threads (moment i t @ s))"
-              by (metis h_i.th_cp_max h_i.th_cp_preced h_i.th_kept)
-  next
-    show "preced th (moment i t @ s) = Prc prio tm" by (metis h_i.th_kept preced_th) 
-  next
-    show "vt (moment j (restm i t) @ moment i t @ s)"
-      using moment_plus_split by (metis add.commute append_assoc h_j.vt_t)
-  next
-    fix th' prio'
-    assume "Create th' prio' \<in> set (moment j (restm i t))"
-    thus "prio' \<le> prio" using assms
-       by (metis Un_iff add.commute h_j.create_low moment_plus_split set_append)
-  next
-    fix th' prio'
-    assume "Set th' prio' \<in> set (moment j (restm i t))"
-    thus "th' \<noteq> th \<and> prio' \<le> prio"
-    by (metis Un_iff add.commute h_j.set_diff_low moment_plus_split set_append)
-  next
-    fix th'
-    assume "Exit th' \<in> set (moment j (restm i t))"
-    thus "th' \<noteq> th"
-      by (metis Un_iff add.commute h_j.exit_diff moment_plus_split set_append)
-  qed
-  show ?thesis 
-    by (metis add.commute append_assoc eq_pv h.runing_precond_pre
-          moment_plus_split neq_th' th'_in)
-qed
-
-lemma moment_blocked_eqpv:
-  assumes neq_th': "th' \<noteq> th"
-  and th'_in: "th' \<in> threads ((moment i t)@s)"
-  and eq_pv: "cntP ((moment i t)@s) th' = cntV ((moment i t)@s) th'"
-  and le_ij: "i \<le> j"
-  shows "cntP ((moment j t)@s) th' = cntV ((moment j t)@s) th' \<and>
-         th' \<in> threads ((moment j t)@s) \<and>
-         th' \<notin> runing ((moment j t)@s)"
-proof -
-  from moment_blocked_pre [OF neq_th' th'_in eq_pv, of "j-i"] and le_ij
-  have h1: "cntP ((moment j t)@s) th' = cntV ((moment j t)@s) th'"
-   and h2: "th' \<in> threads ((moment j t)@s)" by auto
-  moreover have "th' \<notin> runing ((moment j t)@s)"
-  proof -
-    interpret h: red_extend_highest_gen _ _ _ _ _ j by (unfold_locales)
-    show ?thesis
-      using h.pv_blocked_pre h1 h2 neq_th' by auto 
-  qed
-  ultimately show ?thesis by auto
-qed
-
-(* The foregoing two lemmas are preparation for this one, but
-   in long run can be combined. Maybe I am wrong.
-*)
-lemma moment_blocked:
-  assumes neq_th': "th' \<noteq> th"
-  and th'_in: "th' \<in> threads ((moment i t)@s)"
-  and dtc: "detached (moment i t @ s) th'"
-  and le_ij: "i \<le> j"
-  shows "detached (moment j t @ s) th' \<and>
-         th' \<in> threads ((moment j t)@s) \<and>
-         th' \<notin> runing ((moment j t)@s)"
-proof -
-  interpret h_i: red_extend_highest_gen _ _ _ _ _ i by (unfold_locales)
-  interpret h_j: red_extend_highest_gen _ _ _ _ _ j by (unfold_locales) 
-  have cnt_i: "cntP (moment i t @ s) th' = cntV (moment i t @ s) th'"
-                by (metis dtc h_i.detached_elim)
-  from moment_blocked_eqpv[OF neq_th' th'_in cnt_i le_ij]
-  show ?thesis by (metis h_j.detached_intro) 
-qed
-
-lemma runing_preced_inversion:
-  assumes runing': "th' \<in> runing (t@s)"
-  shows "cp (t@s) th' = preced th s" (is "?L = ?R")
-proof -
-  have "?L = Max (cp (t @ s) ` readys (t @ s))" using assms
-      by (unfold runing_def, auto)
-  also have "\<dots> = ?R"
-      by (metis th_cp_max th_cp_preced vat_t.max_cp_readys_threads) 
-  finally show ?thesis .
-qed
-
-text {*
-  The situation when @{term "th"} is blocked is analyzed by the following lemmas.
-*}
-
-text {*
-  The following lemmas shows the running thread @{text "th'"}, if it is different from
-  @{term th}, must be live at the very beginning. By the term {\em the very beginning},
-  we mean the moment where the formal investigation starts, i.e. the moment (or state)
-  @{term s}. 
-*}
-
-lemma runing_inversion_0:
-  assumes neq_th': "th' \<noteq> th"
-  and runing': "th' \<in> runing (t@s)"
-  shows "th' \<in> threads s"
-proof -
-    -- {* The proof is by contradiction: *}
-    { assume otherwise: "\<not> ?thesis"
-      have "th' \<notin> runing (t @ s)"
-      proof -
-        -- {* Since @{term "th'"} is running at time @{term "t@s"}, so it exists that time. *}
-        have th'_in: "th' \<in> threads (t@s)" using runing' by (simp add:runing_def readys_def)
-        -- {* However, @{text "th'"} does not exist at very beginning. *}
-        have th'_notin: "th' \<notin> threads (moment 0 t @ s)" using otherwise
-          by (metis append.simps(1) moment_zero)
-        -- {* Therefore, there must be a moment during @{text "t"}, when 
-              @{text "th'"} came into being. *}
-        -- {* Let us suppose the moment being @{text "i"}: *}
-        from p_split_gen[OF th'_in th'_notin]
-        obtain i where lt_its: "i < length t"
-                 and le_i: "0 \<le> i"
-                 and pre: " th' \<notin> threads (moment i t @ s)" (is "th' \<notin> threads ?pre")
-                 and post: "(\<forall>i'>i. th' \<in> threads (moment i' t @ s))" by (auto)
-        interpret h_i: red_extend_highest_gen _ _ _ _ _ i by (unfold_locales)
-        interpret h_i': red_extend_highest_gen _ _ _ _ _ "(Suc i)" by (unfold_locales)
-        from lt_its have "Suc i \<le> length t" by auto
-        -- {* Let us also suppose the event which makes this change is @{text e}: *}
-        from moment_head[OF this] obtain e where 
-          eq_me: "moment (Suc i) t = e # moment i t" by blast
-        hence "vt (e # (moment i t @ s))" by (metis append_Cons h_i'.vt_t) 
-        hence "PIP (moment i t @ s) e" by (cases, simp)
-        -- {* It can be derived that this event @{text "e"}, which 
-              gives birth to @{term "th'"} must be a @{term "Create"}: *}
-        from create_pre[OF this, of th']
-        obtain prio where eq_e: "e = Create th' prio"
-            by (metis append_Cons eq_me lessI post pre) 
-        have h1: "th' \<in> threads (moment (Suc i) t @ s)" using post by auto 
-        have h2: "cntP (moment (Suc i) t @ s) th' = cntV (moment (Suc i) t@ s) th'"
-        proof -
-          have "cntP (moment i t@s) th' = cntV (moment i t@s) th'"
-            by (metis h_i.cnp_cnv_eq pre)
-          thus ?thesis by (simp add:eq_me eq_e cntP_def cntV_def count_def)
-        qed
-        show ?thesis 
-          using moment_blocked_eqpv [OF neq_th' h1 h2, of "length t"] lt_its moment_ge
-            by auto
-      qed
-      with `th' \<in> runing (t@s)`
-      have False by simp
-    } thus ?thesis by auto
-qed
-
-text {* 
-  The second lemma says, if the running thread @{text th'} is different from 
-  @{term th}, then this @{text th'} must in the possession of some resources
-  at the very beginning. 
-
-  To ease the reasoning of resource possession of one particular thread, 
-  we used two auxiliary functions @{term cntV} and @{term cntP}, 
-  which are the counters of @{term P}-operations and 
-  @{term V}-operations respectively. 
-  If the number of @{term V}-operation is less than the number of 
-  @{term "P"}-operations, the thread must have some unreleased resource. 
-*}
-
-lemma runing_inversion_1: (* ddd *)
-  assumes neq_th': "th' \<noteq> th"
-  and runing': "th' \<in> runing (t@s)"
-  -- {* thread @{term "th'"} is a live on in state @{term "s"} and 
-        it has some unreleased resource. *}
-  shows "th' \<in> threads s \<and> cntV s th' < cntP s th'"
-proof -
-  -- {* The proof is a simple composition of @{thm runing_inversion_0} and 
-        @{thm runing_precond}: *}
-  -- {* By applying @{thm runing_inversion_0} to assumptions,
-        it can be shown that @{term th'} is live in state @{term s}: *}
-  have "th' \<in> threads s"  using runing_inversion_0[OF assms(1,2)] .
-  -- {* Then the thesis is derived easily by applying @{thm runing_precond}: *}
-  with runing_precond [OF this neq_th' runing'] show ?thesis by simp
-qed
-
-text {* 
-  The following lemma is just a rephrasing of @{thm runing_inversion_1}:
-*}
-lemma runing_inversion_2:
-  assumes runing': "th' \<in> runing (t@s)"
-  shows "th' = th \<or> (th' \<noteq> th \<and> th' \<in> threads s \<and> cntV s th' < cntP s th')"
-proof -
-  from runing_inversion_1[OF _ runing']
-  show ?thesis by auto
-qed
-
-lemma runing_inversion_3:
-  assumes runing': "th' \<in> runing (t@s)"
-  and neq_th: "th' \<noteq> th"
-  shows "th' \<in> threads s \<and> (cntV s th' < cntP s th' \<and> cp (t@s) th' = preced th s)"
-  by (metis neq_th runing' runing_inversion_2 runing_preced_inversion)
-
-lemma runing_inversion_4:
-  assumes runing': "th' \<in> runing (t@s)"
-  and neq_th: "th' \<noteq> th"
-  shows "th' \<in> threads s"
-  and    "\<not>detached s th'"
-  and    "cp (t@s) th' = preced th s"
-  apply (metis neq_th runing' runing_inversion_2)
-  apply (metis neq_th pv_blocked runing' runing_inversion_2 runing_precond_pre_dtc)
-  by (metis neq_th runing' runing_inversion_3)
-
-
-text {* 
-  Suppose @{term th} is not running, it is first shown that
-  there is a path in RAG leading from node @{term th} to another thread @{text "th'"} 
-  in the @{term readys}-set (So @{text "th'"} is an ancestor of @{term th}}).
-
-  Now, since @{term readys}-set is non-empty, there must be
-  one in it which holds the highest @{term cp}-value, which, by definition, 
-  is the @{term runing}-thread. However, we are going to show more: this running thread
-  is exactly @{term "th'"}.
-     *}
-lemma th_blockedE: (* ddd *)
-  assumes "th \<notin> runing (t@s)"
-  obtains th' where "Th th' \<in> ancestors (RAG (t @ s)) (Th th)"
-                    "th' \<in> runing (t@s)"
-proof -
-  -- {* According to @{thm vat_t.th_chain_to_ready}, either 
-        @{term "th"} is in @{term "readys"} or there is path leading from it to 
-        one thread in @{term "readys"}. *}
-  have "th \<in> readys (t @ s) \<or> (\<exists>th'. th' \<in> readys (t @ s) \<and> (Th th, Th th') \<in> (RAG (t @ s))\<^sup>+)" 
-    using th_kept vat_t.th_chain_to_ready by auto
-  -- {* However, @{term th} can not be in @{term readys}, because otherwise, since 
-       @{term th} holds the highest @{term cp}-value, it must be @{term "runing"}. *}
-  moreover have "th \<notin> readys (t@s)" 
-    using assms runing_def th_cp_max vat_t.max_cp_readys_threads by auto 
-  -- {* So, there must be a path from @{term th} to another thread @{text "th'"} in 
-        term @{term readys}: *}
-  ultimately obtain th' where th'_in: "th' \<in> readys (t@s)"
-                          and dp: "(Th th, Th th') \<in> (RAG (t @ s))\<^sup>+" by auto
-  -- {* We are going to show that this @{term th'} is running. *}
-  have "th' \<in> runing (t@s)"
-  proof -
-    -- {* We only need to show that this @{term th'} holds the highest @{term cp}-value: *}
-    have "cp (t@s) th' = Max (cp (t@s) ` readys (t@s))" (is "?L = ?R")
-    proof -
-      have "?L =  Max ((the_preced (t @ s) \<circ> the_thread) ` subtree (tRAG (t @ s)) (Th th'))"
-        by (unfold cp_alt_def1, simp)
-      also have "... = (the_preced (t @ s) \<circ> the_thread) (Th th)"
-      proof(rule image_Max_subset)
-        show "finite (Th ` (threads (t@s)))" by (simp add: vat_t.finite_threads)
-      next
-        show "subtree (tRAG (t @ s)) (Th th') \<subseteq> Th ` threads (t @ s)"
-          by (metis Range.intros dp trancl_range vat_t.range_in vat_t.subtree_tRAG_thread) 
-      next
-        show "Th th \<in> subtree (tRAG (t @ s)) (Th th')" using dp
-                    by (unfold tRAG_subtree_eq, auto simp:subtree_def)
-      next
-        show "Max ((the_preced (t @ s) \<circ> the_thread) ` Th ` threads (t @ s)) =
-                      (the_preced (t @ s) \<circ> the_thread) (Th th)" (is "Max ?L = _")
-        proof -
-          have "?L = the_preced (t @ s) `  threads (t @ s)" 
-                     by (unfold image_comp, rule image_cong, auto)
-          thus ?thesis using max_preced the_preced_def by auto
-        qed
-      qed
-      also have "... = ?R"
-        using th_cp_max th_cp_preced th_kept 
-              the_preced_def vat_t.max_cp_readys_threads by auto
-      finally show ?thesis .
-    qed 
-    -- {* Now, since @{term th'} holds the highest @{term cp} 
-          and we have already show it is in @{term readys},
-          it is @{term runing} by definition. *}
-    with `th' \<in> readys (t@s)` show ?thesis by (simp add: runing_def) 
-  qed
-  -- {* It is easy to show @{term th'} is an ancestor of @{term th}: *}
-  moreover have "Th th' \<in> ancestors (RAG (t @ s)) (Th th)" 
-    using `(Th th, Th th') \<in> (RAG (t @ s))\<^sup>+` by (auto simp:ancestors_def)
-  ultimately show ?thesis using that by metis
-qed
-
-text {*
-  Now it is easy to see there is always a thread to run by case analysis
-  on whether thread @{term th} is running: if the answer is Yes, the 
-  the running thread is obviously @{term th} itself; otherwise, the running
-  thread is the @{text th'} given by lemma @{thm th_blockedE}.
-*}
-lemma live: "runing (t@s) \<noteq> {}"
-proof(cases "th \<in> runing (t@s)") 
-  case True thus ?thesis by auto
-next
-  case False
-  thus ?thesis using th_blockedE by auto
-qed
-
-end
-end
-




