# HG changeset patch # User Christian Urban # Date 1454087334 0 # Node ID 382293d415f3a584064103a557cbfbfc42401ae0 # Parent c7ba70dc49bd2b0e120166db3598d3552fdb8add deleted superflous files diff -r c7ba70dc49bd -r 382293d415f3 CpsG.thy_1_1 --- a/CpsG.thy_1_1 Fri Jan 29 17:06:02 2016 +0000 +++ /dev/null Thu Jan 01 00:00:00 1970 +0000 @@ -1,1751 +0,0 @@ -theory CpsG -imports PIPDefs -begin - -lemma Max_f_mono: - assumes seq: "A \ B" - and np: "A \ {}" - and fnt: "finite B" - shows "Max (f ` A) \ Max (f ` B)" -proof(rule Max_mono) - from seq show "f ` A \ f ` B" by auto -next - from np show "f ` A \ {}" by auto -next - from fnt and seq show "finite (f ` B)" by auto -qed - - -locale valid_trace = - fixes s - assumes vt : "vt s" - -locale valid_trace_e = valid_trace + - fixes e - assumes vt_e: "vt (e#s)" -begin - -lemma pip_e: "PIP s e" - using vt_e by (cases, simp) - -end - -locale valid_trace_create = valid_trace_e + - fixes th prio - assumes is_create: "e = Create th prio" - -locale valid_trace_exit = valid_trace_e + - fixes th - assumes is_exit: "e = Exit th" - -locale valid_trace_p = valid_trace_e + - fixes th cs - assumes is_p: "e = P th cs" - -locale valid_trace_v = valid_trace_e + - fixes th cs - assumes is_v: "e = V th cs" -begin - definition "rest = tl (wq s cs)" - definition "wq' = (SOME q. distinct q \ set q = set rest)" -end - -locale valid_trace_v_n = valid_trace_v + - assumes rest_nnl: "rest \ []" - -locale valid_trace_v_e = valid_trace_v + - assumes rest_nil: "rest = []" - -locale valid_trace_set= valid_trace_e + - fixes th prio - assumes is_set: "e = Set th prio" - -context valid_trace -begin - -lemma ind [consumes 0, case_names Nil Cons, induct type]: - assumes "PP []" - and "(\s e. valid_trace_e s e \ - PP s \ PIP s e \ PP (e # s))" - shows "PP s" -proof(induct rule:vt.induct[OF vt, case_names Init Step]) - case Init - from assms(1) show ?case . -next - case (Step s e) - show ?case - proof(rule assms(2)) - show "valid_trace_e s e" using Step by (unfold_locales, auto) - next - show "PP s" using Step by simp - next - show "PIP s e" using Step by simp - qed -qed - -lemma vt_moment: "\ t. vt (moment t s)" -proof(induct rule:ind) - case Nil - thus ?case by (simp add:vt_nil) -next - case (Cons s e t) - show ?case - proof(cases "t \ length (e#s)") - case True - from True have "moment t (e#s) = e#s" by simp - thus ?thesis using Cons - by (simp add:valid_trace_def valid_trace_e_def, auto) - next - case False - from Cons have "vt (moment t s)" by simp - moreover have "moment t (e#s) = moment t s" - proof - - from False have "t \ length s" by simp - from moment_app [OF this, of "[e]"] - show ?thesis by simp - qed - ultimately show ?thesis by simp - qed -qed - -lemma finite_threads: - shows "finite (threads s)" -using vt by (induct) (auto elim: step.cases) - -end - -lemma cp_eq_cpreced: "cp s th = cpreced (wq s) s th" -unfolding cp_def wq_def -apply(induct s rule: schs.induct) -apply(simp add: Let_def cpreced_initial) -apply(simp add: Let_def) -apply(simp add: Let_def) -apply(simp add: Let_def) -apply(subst (2) schs.simps) -apply(simp add: Let_def) -apply(subst (2) schs.simps) -apply(simp add: Let_def) -done - -lemma RAG_target_th: "(Th th, x) \ RAG (s::state) \ \ cs. x = Cs cs" - by (unfold s_RAG_def, auto) - -locale valid_moment = valid_trace + - fixes i :: nat - -sublocale valid_moment < vat_moment: valid_trace "(moment i s)" - by (unfold_locales, insert vt_moment, auto) - -lemma waiting_eq: "waiting s th cs = waiting (wq s) th cs" - by (unfold s_waiting_def cs_waiting_def wq_def, auto) - -lemma holding_eq: "holding (s::state) th cs = holding (wq s) th cs" - by (unfold s_holding_def wq_def cs_holding_def, simp) - -lemma runing_ready: - shows "runing s \ readys s" - unfolding runing_def readys_def - by auto - -lemma readys_threads: - shows "readys s \ threads s" - unfolding readys_def - by auto - -lemma wq_v_neq [simp]: - "cs \ cs' \ wq (V thread cs#s) cs' = wq s cs'" - by (auto simp:wq_def Let_def cp_def split:list.splits) - -lemma runing_head: - assumes "th \ runing s" - and "th \ set (wq_fun (schs s) cs)" - shows "th = hd (wq_fun (schs s) cs)" - using assms - by (simp add:runing_def readys_def s_waiting_def wq_def) - -context valid_trace -begin - -lemma runing_wqE: - assumes "th \ runing s" - and "th \ set (wq s cs)" - obtains rest where "wq s cs = th#rest" -proof - - from assms(2) obtain th' rest where eq_wq: "wq s cs = th'#rest" - by (meson list.set_cases) - have "th' = th" - proof(rule ccontr) - assume "th' \ th" - hence "th \ hd (wq s cs)" using eq_wq by auto - with assms(2) - have "waiting s th cs" - by (unfold s_waiting_def, fold wq_def, auto) - with assms show False - by (unfold runing_def readys_def, auto) - qed - with eq_wq that show ?thesis by metis -qed - -end - -context valid_trace_create -begin - -lemma wq_neq_simp [simp]: - shows "wq (e#s) cs' = wq s cs'" - using assms unfolding is_create wq_def - by (auto simp:Let_def) - -lemma wq_distinct_kept: - assumes "distinct (wq s cs')" - shows "distinct (wq (e#s) cs')" - using assms by simp -end - -context valid_trace_exit -begin - -lemma wq_neq_simp [simp]: - shows "wq (e#s) cs' = wq s cs'" - using assms unfolding is_exit wq_def - by (auto simp:Let_def) - -lemma wq_distinct_kept: - assumes "distinct (wq s cs')" - shows "distinct (wq (e#s) cs')" - using assms by simp -end - -context valid_trace_p -begin - -lemma wq_neq_simp [simp]: - assumes "cs' \ cs" - shows "wq (e#s) cs' = wq s cs'" - using assms unfolding is_p wq_def - by (auto simp:Let_def) - -lemma runing_th_s: - shows "th \ runing s" -proof - - from pip_e[unfolded is_p] - show ?thesis by (cases, simp) -qed - -lemma th_not_waiting: - "\ waiting s th c" -proof - - have "th \ readys s" - using runing_ready runing_th_s by blast - thus ?thesis - by (unfold readys_def, auto) -qed - -lemma waiting_neq_th: - assumes "waiting s t c" - shows "t \ th" - using assms using th_not_waiting by blast - -lemma th_not_in_wq: - shows "th \ set (wq s cs)" -proof - assume otherwise: "th \ set (wq s cs)" - from runing_wqE[OF runing_th_s this] - obtain rest where eq_wq: "wq s cs = th#rest" by blast - with otherwise - have "holding s th cs" - by (unfold s_holding_def, fold wq_def, simp) - hence cs_th_RAG: "(Cs cs, Th th) \ RAG s" - by (unfold s_RAG_def, fold holding_eq, auto) - from pip_e[unfolded is_p] - show False - proof(cases) - case (thread_P) - with cs_th_RAG show ?thesis by auto - qed -qed - -lemma wq_es_cs: - "wq (e#s) cs = wq s cs @ [th]" - by (unfold is_p wq_def, auto simp:Let_def) - -lemma wq_distinct_kept: - assumes "distinct (wq s cs')" - shows "distinct (wq (e#s) cs')" -proof(cases "cs' = cs") - case True - show ?thesis using True assms th_not_in_wq - by (unfold True wq_es_cs, auto) -qed (insert assms, simp) - -end - -context valid_trace_v -begin - -lemma wq_neq_simp [simp]: - assumes "cs' \ cs" - shows "wq (e#s) cs' = wq s cs'" - using assms unfolding is_v wq_def - by (auto simp:Let_def) - -lemma runing_th_s: - shows "th \ runing s" -proof - - from pip_e[unfolded is_v] - show ?thesis by (cases, simp) -qed - -lemma th_not_waiting: - "\ waiting s th c" -proof - - have "th \ readys s" - using runing_ready runing_th_s by blast - thus ?thesis - by (unfold readys_def, auto) -qed - -lemma waiting_neq_th: - assumes "waiting s t c" - shows "t \ th" - using assms using th_not_waiting by blast - -lemma wq_s_cs: - "wq s cs = th#rest" -proof - - from pip_e[unfolded is_v] - show ?thesis - proof(cases) - case (thread_V) - from this(2) show ?thesis - by (unfold rest_def s_holding_def, fold wq_def, - metis empty_iff list.collapse list.set(1)) - qed -qed - -lemma wq_es_cs: - "wq (e#s) cs = wq'" - using wq_s_cs[unfolded wq_def] - by (auto simp:Let_def wq_def rest_def wq'_def is_v, simp) - -lemma wq_distinct_kept: - assumes "distinct (wq s cs')" - shows "distinct (wq (e#s) cs')" -proof(cases "cs' = cs") - case True - show ?thesis - proof(unfold True wq_es_cs wq'_def, rule someI2) - show "distinct rest \ set rest = set rest" - using assms[unfolded True wq_s_cs] by auto - qed simp -qed (insert assms, simp) - -end - -context valid_trace_set -begin - -lemma wq_neq_simp [simp]: - shows "wq (e#s) cs' = wq s cs'" - using assms unfolding is_set wq_def - by (auto simp:Let_def) - -lemma wq_distinct_kept: - assumes "distinct (wq s cs')" - shows "distinct (wq (e#s) cs')" - using assms by simp -end - -context valid_trace -begin - -lemma actor_inv: - assumes "PIP s e" - and "\ isCreate e" - shows "actor e \ runing s" - using assms - by (induct, auto) - -lemma isP_E: - assumes "isP e" - obtains cs where "e = P (actor e) cs" - using assms by (cases e, auto) - -lemma isV_E: - assumes "isV e" - obtains cs where "e = V (actor e) cs" - using assms by (cases e, auto) - -lemma wq_distinct: "distinct (wq s cs)" -proof(induct rule:ind) - case (Cons s e) - interpret vt_e: valid_trace_e s e using Cons by simp - show ?case - proof(cases e) - case (Create th prio) - interpret vt_create: valid_trace_create s e th prio - using Create by (unfold_locales, simp) - show ?thesis using Cons by (simp add: vt_create.wq_distinct_kept) - next - case (Exit th) - interpret vt_exit: valid_trace_exit s e th - using Exit by (unfold_locales, simp) - show ?thesis using Cons by (simp add: vt_exit.wq_distinct_kept) - next - case (P th cs) - interpret vt_p: valid_trace_p s e th cs using P by (unfold_locales, simp) - show ?thesis using Cons by (simp add: vt_p.wq_distinct_kept) - next - case (V th cs) - interpret vt_v: valid_trace_v s e th cs using V by (unfold_locales, simp) - show ?thesis using Cons by (simp add: vt_v.wq_distinct_kept) - next - case (Set th prio) - interpret vt_set: valid_trace_set s e th prio - using Set by (unfold_locales, simp) - show ?thesis using Cons by (simp add: vt_set.wq_distinct_kept) - qed -qed (unfold wq_def Let_def, simp) - -end - -context valid_trace_e -begin - -text {* - The following lemma shows that only the @{text "P"} - operation can add new thread into waiting queues. - Such kind of lemmas are very obvious, but need to be checked formally. - This is a kind of confirmation that our modelling is correct. -*} - -lemma wq_in_inv: - assumes s_ni: "thread \ set (wq s cs)" - and s_i: "thread \ set (wq (e#s) cs)" - shows "e = P thread cs" -proof(cases e) - -- {* This is the only non-trivial case: *} - case (V th cs1) - have False - proof(cases "cs1 = cs") - case True - show ?thesis - proof(cases "(wq s cs1)") - case (Cons w_hd w_tl) - have "set (wq (e#s) cs) \ set (wq s cs)" - proof - - have "(wq (e#s) cs) = (SOME q. distinct q \ set q = set w_tl)" - using Cons V by (auto simp:wq_def Let_def True split:if_splits) - moreover have "set ... \ set (wq s cs)" - proof(rule someI2) - show "distinct w_tl \ set w_tl = set w_tl" - by (metis distinct.simps(2) local.Cons wq_distinct) - qed (insert Cons True, auto) - ultimately show ?thesis by simp - qed - with assms show ?thesis by auto - qed (insert assms V True, auto simp:wq_def Let_def split:if_splits) - qed (insert assms V, auto simp:wq_def Let_def split:if_splits) - thus ?thesis by auto -qed (insert assms, auto simp:wq_def Let_def split:if_splits) - -lemma wq_out_inv: - assumes s_in: "thread \ set (wq s cs)" - and s_hd: "thread = hd (wq s cs)" - and s_i: "thread \ hd (wq (e#s) cs)" - shows "e = V thread cs" -proof(cases e) --- {* There are only two non-trivial cases: *} - case (V th cs1) - show ?thesis - proof(cases "cs1 = cs") - case True - have "PIP s (V th cs)" using pip_e[unfolded V[unfolded True]] . - thus ?thesis - proof(cases) - case (thread_V) - moreover have "th = thread" using thread_V(2) s_hd - by (unfold s_holding_def wq_def, simp) - ultimately show ?thesis using V True by simp - qed - qed (insert assms V, auto simp:wq_def Let_def split:if_splits) -next - case (P th cs1) - show ?thesis - proof(cases "cs1 = cs") - case True - with P have "wq (e#s) cs = wq_fun (schs s) cs @ [th]" - by (auto simp:wq_def Let_def split:if_splits) - with s_i s_hd s_in have False - by (metis empty_iff hd_append2 list.set(1) wq_def) - thus ?thesis by simp - qed (insert assms P, auto simp:wq_def Let_def split:if_splits) -qed (insert assms, auto simp:wq_def Let_def split:if_splits) - -end - - -context valid_trace -begin - - -text {* (* ddd *) - The nature of the work is like this: since it starts from a very simple and basic - model, even intuitively very `basic` and `obvious` properties need to derived from scratch. - For instance, the fact - that one thread can not be blocked by two critical resources at the same time - is obvious, because only running threads can make new requests, if one is waiting for - a critical resource and get blocked, it can not make another resource request and get - blocked the second time (because it is not running). - - To derive this fact, one needs to prove by contraction and - reason about time (or @{text "moement"}). The reasoning is based on a generic theorem - named @{text "p_split"}, which is about status changing along the time axis. It says if - a condition @{text "Q"} is @{text "True"} at a state @{text "s"}, - but it was @{text "False"} at the very beginning, then there must exits a moment @{text "t"} - in the history of @{text "s"} (notice that @{text "s"} itself is essentially the history - of events leading to it), such that @{text "Q"} switched - from being @{text "False"} to @{text "True"} and kept being @{text "True"} - till the last moment of @{text "s"}. - - Suppose a thread @{text "th"} is blocked - on @{text "cs1"} and @{text "cs2"} in some state @{text "s"}, - since no thread is blocked at the very beginning, by applying - @{text "p_split"} to these two blocking facts, there exist - two moments @{text "t1"} and @{text "t2"} in @{text "s"}, such that - @{text "th"} got blocked on @{text "cs1"} and @{text "cs2"} - and kept on blocked on them respectively ever since. - - Without lost of generality, we assume @{text "t1"} is earlier than @{text "t2"}. - However, since @{text "th"} was blocked ever since memonent @{text "t1"}, so it was still - in blocked state at moment @{text "t2"} and could not - make any request and get blocked the second time: Contradiction. -*} - -lemma waiting_unique_pre: (* ddd *) - assumes h11: "thread \ set (wq s cs1)" - and h12: "thread \ hd (wq s cs1)" - assumes h21: "thread \ set (wq s cs2)" - and h22: "thread \ hd (wq s cs2)" - and neq12: "cs1 \ cs2" - shows "False" -proof - - let "?Q" = "\ cs s. thread \ set (wq s cs) \ thread \ hd (wq s cs)" - from h11 and h12 have q1: "?Q cs1 s" by simp - from h21 and h22 have q2: "?Q cs2 s" by simp - have nq1: "\ ?Q cs1 []" by (simp add:wq_def) - have nq2: "\ ?Q cs2 []" by (simp add:wq_def) - from p_split [of "?Q cs1", OF q1 nq1] - obtain t1 where lt1: "t1 < length s" - and np1: "\ ?Q cs1 (moment t1 s)" - and nn1: "(\i'>t1. ?Q cs1 (moment i' s))" by auto - from p_split [of "?Q cs2", OF q2 nq2] - obtain t2 where lt2: "t2 < length s" - and np2: "\ ?Q cs2 (moment t2 s)" - and nn2: "(\i'>t2. ?Q cs2 (moment i' s))" by auto - { fix s cs - assume q: "?Q cs s" - have "thread \ runing s" - proof - assume "thread \ runing s" - hence " \cs. \ (thread \ set (wq_fun (schs s) cs) \ - thread \ hd (wq_fun (schs s) cs))" - by (unfold runing_def s_waiting_def readys_def, auto) - from this[rule_format, of cs] q - show False by (simp add: wq_def) - qed - } note q_not_runing = this - { fix t1 t2 cs1 cs2 - assume lt1: "t1 < length s" - and np1: "\ ?Q cs1 (moment t1 s)" - and nn1: "(\i'>t1. ?Q cs1 (moment i' s))" - and lt2: "t2 < length s" - and np2: "\ ?Q cs2 (moment t2 s)" - and nn2: "(\i'>t2. ?Q cs2 (moment i' s))" - and lt12: "t1 < t2" - let ?t3 = "Suc t2" - from lt2 have le_t3: "?t3 \ length s" by auto - from moment_plus [OF this] - obtain e where eq_m: "moment ?t3 s = e#moment t2 s" by auto - have "t2 < ?t3" by simp - from nn2 [rule_format, OF this] and eq_m - have h1: "thread \ set (wq (e#moment t2 s) cs2)" and - h2: "thread \ hd (wq (e#moment t2 s) cs2)" by auto - have "vt (e#moment t2 s)" - proof - - from vt_moment - have "vt (moment ?t3 s)" . - with eq_m show ?thesis by simp - qed - then interpret vt_e: valid_trace_e "moment t2 s" "e" - by (unfold_locales, auto, cases, simp) - have ?thesis - proof - - have "thread \ runing (moment t2 s)" - proof(cases "thread \ set (wq (moment t2 s) cs2)") - case True - have "e = V thread cs2" - proof - - have eq_th: "thread = hd (wq (moment t2 s) cs2)" - using True and np2 by auto - from vt_e.wq_out_inv[OF True this h2] - show ?thesis . - qed - thus ?thesis using vt_e.actor_inv[OF vt_e.pip_e] by auto - next - case False - have "e = P thread cs2" using vt_e.wq_in_inv[OF False h1] . - with vt_e.actor_inv[OF vt_e.pip_e] - show ?thesis by auto - qed - moreover have "thread \ runing (moment t2 s)" - by (rule q_not_runing[OF nn1[rule_format, OF lt12]]) - ultimately show ?thesis by simp - qed - } note lt_case = this - show ?thesis - proof - - { assume "t1 < t2" - from lt_case[OF lt1 np1 nn1 lt2 np2 nn2 this] - have ?thesis . - } moreover { - assume "t2 < t1" - from lt_case[OF lt2 np2 nn2 lt1 np1 nn1 this] - have ?thesis . - } moreover { - assume eq_12: "t1 = t2" - let ?t3 = "Suc t2" - from lt2 have le_t3: "?t3 \ length s" by auto - from moment_plus [OF this] - obtain e where eq_m: "moment ?t3 s = e#moment t2 s" by auto - have lt_2: "t2 < ?t3" by simp - from nn2 [rule_format, OF this] and eq_m - have h1: "thread \ set (wq (e#moment t2 s) cs2)" and - h2: "thread \ hd (wq (e#moment t2 s) cs2)" by auto - from nn1[rule_format, OF lt_2[folded eq_12]] eq_m[folded eq_12] - have g1: "thread \ set (wq (e#moment t1 s) cs1)" and - g2: "thread \ hd (wq (e#moment t1 s) cs1)" by auto - have "vt (e#moment t2 s)" - proof - - from vt_moment - have "vt (moment ?t3 s)" . - with eq_m show ?thesis by simp - qed - then interpret vt_e: valid_trace_e "moment t2 s" "e" - by (unfold_locales, auto, cases, simp) - have "e = V thread cs2 \ e = P thread cs2" - proof(cases "thread \ set (wq (moment t2 s) cs2)") - case True - have "e = V thread cs2" - proof - - have eq_th: "thread = hd (wq (moment t2 s) cs2)" - using True and np2 by auto - from vt_e.wq_out_inv[OF True this h2] - show ?thesis . - qed - thus ?thesis by auto - next - case False - have "e = P thread cs2" using vt_e.wq_in_inv[OF False h1] . - thus ?thesis by auto - qed - moreover have "e = V thread cs1 \ e = P thread cs1" - proof(cases "thread \ set (wq (moment t1 s) cs1)") - case True - have eq_th: "thread = hd (wq (moment t1 s) cs1)" - using True and np1 by auto - from vt_e.wq_out_inv[folded eq_12, OF True this g2] - have "e = V thread cs1" . - thus ?thesis by auto - next - case False - have "e = P thread cs1" using vt_e.wq_in_inv[folded eq_12, OF False g1] . - thus ?thesis by auto - qed - ultimately have ?thesis using neq12 by auto - } ultimately show ?thesis using nat_neq_iff by blast - qed -qed - -text {* - This lemma is a simple corrolary of @{text "waiting_unique_pre"}. -*} - -lemma waiting_unique: - assumes "waiting s th cs1" - and "waiting s th cs2" - shows "cs1 = cs2" - using waiting_unique_pre assms - unfolding wq_def s_waiting_def - by auto - -end - -(* not used *) -text {* - Every thread can only be blocked on one critical resource, - symmetrically, every critical resource can only be held by one thread. - This fact is much more easier according to our definition. -*} -lemma held_unique: - assumes "holding (s::event list) th1 cs" - and "holding s th2 cs" - shows "th1 = th2" - by (insert assms, unfold s_holding_def, auto) - -lemma last_set_lt: "th \ threads s \ last_set th s < length s" - apply (induct s, auto) - by (case_tac a, auto split:if_splits) - -lemma last_set_unique: - "\last_set th1 s = last_set th2 s; th1 \ threads s; th2 \ threads s\ - \ th1 = th2" - apply (induct s, auto) - by (case_tac a, auto split:if_splits dest:last_set_lt) - -lemma preced_unique : - assumes pcd_eq: "preced th1 s = preced th2 s" - and th_in1: "th1 \ threads s" - and th_in2: " th2 \ threads s" - shows "th1 = th2" -proof - - from pcd_eq have "last_set th1 s = last_set th2 s" by (simp add:preced_def) - from last_set_unique [OF this th_in1 th_in2] - show ?thesis . -qed - -lemma preced_linorder: - assumes neq_12: "th1 \ th2" - and th_in1: "th1 \ threads s" - and th_in2: " th2 \ threads s" - shows "preced th1 s < preced th2 s \ preced th1 s > preced th2 s" -proof - - from preced_unique [OF _ th_in1 th_in2] and neq_12 - have "preced th1 s \ preced th2 s" by auto - thus ?thesis by auto -qed - -text {* - The following three lemmas show that @{text "RAG"} does not change - by the happening of @{text "Set"}, @{text "Create"} and @{text "Exit"} - events, respectively. -*} - -lemma RAG_set_unchanged: "(RAG (Set th prio # s)) = RAG s" -apply (unfold s_RAG_def s_waiting_def wq_def) -by (simp add:Let_def) - -lemma RAG_create_unchanged: "(RAG (Create th prio # s)) = RAG s" -apply (unfold s_RAG_def s_waiting_def wq_def) -by (simp add:Let_def) - -lemma RAG_exit_unchanged: "(RAG (Exit th # s)) = RAG s" -apply (unfold s_RAG_def s_waiting_def wq_def) -by (simp add:Let_def) - - -context valid_trace_v -begin - -lemma distinct_rest: "distinct rest" - by (simp add: distinct_tl rest_def wq_distinct) - -lemma holding_cs_eq_th: - assumes "holding s t cs" - shows "t = th" -proof - - from pip_e[unfolded is_v] - show ?thesis - proof(cases) - case (thread_V) - from held_unique[OF this(2) assms] - show ?thesis by simp - qed -qed - -lemma distinct_wq': "distinct wq'" - by (metis (mono_tags, lifting) distinct_rest some_eq_ex wq'_def) - -lemma th'_in_inv: - assumes "th' \ set wq'" - shows "th' \ set rest" - using assms - by (metis (mono_tags, lifting) distinct.simps(2) - rest_def some_eq_ex wq'_def wq_distinct wq_s_cs) - -lemma neq_t_th: - assumes "waiting (e#s) t c" - shows "t \ th" -proof - assume otherwise: "t = th" - show False - proof(cases "c = cs") - case True - have "t \ set wq'" - using assms[unfolded True s_waiting_def, folded wq_def, unfolded wq_es_cs] - by simp - from th'_in_inv[OF this] have "t \ set rest" . - with wq_s_cs[folded otherwise] wq_distinct[of cs] - show ?thesis by simp - next - case False - have "wq (e#s) c = wq s c" using False - by (unfold is_v, simp) - hence "waiting s t c" using assms - by (simp add: cs_waiting_def waiting_eq) - hence "t \ readys s" by (unfold readys_def, auto) - hence "t \ runing s" using runing_ready by auto - with runing_th_s[folded otherwise] show ?thesis by auto - qed -qed - -lemma waiting_esI1: - assumes "waiting s t c" - and "c \ cs" - shows "waiting (e#s) t c" -proof - - have "wq (e#s) c = wq s c" - using assms(2) is_v by auto - with assms(1) show ?thesis - using cs_waiting_def waiting_eq by auto -qed - -lemma holding_esI2: - assumes "c \ cs" - and "holding s t c" - shows "holding (e#s) t c" -proof - - from assms(1) have "wq (e#s) c = wq s c" using is_v by auto - from assms(2)[unfolded s_holding_def, folded wq_def, - folded this, unfolded wq_def, folded s_holding_def] - show ?thesis . -qed - -lemma holding_esI1: - assumes "holding s t c" - and "t \ th" - shows "holding (e#s) t c" -proof - - have "c \ cs" using assms using holding_cs_eq_th by blast - from holding_esI2[OF this assms(1)] - show ?thesis . -qed - -end - -context valid_trace_v_n -begin - -lemma neq_wq': "wq' \ []" -proof (unfold wq'_def, rule someI2) - show "distinct rest \ set rest = set rest" - by (simp add: distinct_rest) -next - fix x - assume " distinct x \ set x = set rest" - thus "x \ []" using rest_nnl by auto -qed - -definition "taker = hd wq'" - -definition "rest' = tl wq'" - -lemma eq_wq': "wq' = taker # rest'" - by (simp add: neq_wq' rest'_def taker_def) - -lemma next_th_taker: - shows "next_th s th cs taker" - using rest_nnl taker_def wq'_def wq_s_cs - by (auto simp:next_th_def) - -lemma taker_unique: - assumes "next_th s th cs taker'" - shows "taker' = taker" -proof - - from assms - obtain rest' where - h: "wq s cs = th # rest'" - "taker' = hd (SOME q. distinct q \ set q = set rest')" - by (unfold next_th_def, auto) - with wq_s_cs have "rest' = rest" by auto - thus ?thesis using h(2) taker_def wq'_def by auto -qed - -lemma waiting_set_eq: - "{(Th th', Cs cs) |th'. next_th s th cs th'} = {(Th taker, Cs cs)}" - by (smt all_not_in_conv bot.extremum insertI1 insert_subset - mem_Collect_eq next_th_taker subsetI subset_antisym taker_def taker_unique) - -lemma holding_set_eq: - "{(Cs cs, Th th') |th'. next_th s th cs th'} = {(Cs cs, Th taker)}" - using next_th_taker taker_def waiting_set_eq - by fastforce - -lemma holding_taker: - shows "holding (e#s) taker cs" - by (unfold s_holding_def, fold wq_def, unfold wq_es_cs, - auto simp:neq_wq' taker_def) - -lemma waiting_esI2: - assumes "waiting s t cs" - and "t \ taker" - shows "waiting (e#s) t cs" -proof - - have "t \ set wq'" - proof(unfold wq'_def, rule someI2) - show "distinct rest \ set rest = set rest" - by (simp add: distinct_rest) - next - fix x - assume "distinct x \ set x = set rest" - moreover have "t \ set rest" - using assms(1) cs_waiting_def waiting_eq wq_s_cs by auto - ultimately show "t \ set x" by simp - qed - moreover have "t \ hd wq'" - using assms(2) taker_def by auto - ultimately show ?thesis - by (unfold s_waiting_def, fold wq_def, unfold wq_es_cs, simp) -qed - -lemma waiting_esE: - assumes "waiting (e#s) t c" - obtains "c \ cs" "waiting s t c" - | "c = cs" "t \ taker" "waiting s t cs" "t \ set rest'" -proof(cases "c = cs") - case False - hence "wq (e#s) c = wq s c" using is_v by auto - with assms have "waiting s t c" using cs_waiting_def waiting_eq by auto - from that(1)[OF False this] show ?thesis . -next - case True - from assms[unfolded s_waiting_def True, folded wq_def, unfolded wq_es_cs] - have "t \ hd wq'" "t \ set wq'" by auto - hence "t \ taker" by (simp add: taker_def) - moreover hence "t \ th" using assms neq_t_th by blast - moreover have "t \ set rest" by (simp add: `t \ set wq'` th'_in_inv) - ultimately have "waiting s t cs" - by (metis cs_waiting_def list.distinct(2) list.sel(1) - list.set_sel(2) rest_def waiting_eq wq_s_cs) - show ?thesis using that(2) - using True `t \ set wq'` `t \ taker` `waiting s t cs` eq_wq' by auto -qed - -lemma holding_esI1: - assumes "c = cs" - and "t = taker" - shows "holding (e#s) t c" - by (unfold assms, simp add: holding_taker) - -lemma holding_esE: - assumes "holding (e#s) t c" - obtains "c = cs" "t = taker" - | "c \ cs" "holding s t c" -proof(cases "c = cs") - case True - from assms[unfolded True, unfolded s_holding_def, - folded wq_def, unfolded wq_es_cs] - have "t = taker" by (simp add: taker_def) - from that(1)[OF True this] show ?thesis . -next - case False - hence "wq (e#s) c = wq s c" using is_v by auto - from assms[unfolded s_holding_def, folded wq_def, - unfolded this, unfolded wq_def, folded s_holding_def] - have "holding s t c" . - from that(2)[OF False this] show ?thesis . -qed - -end - - -context valid_trace_v_e -begin - -lemma nil_wq': "wq' = []" -proof (unfold wq'_def, rule someI2) - show "distinct rest \ set rest = set rest" - by (simp add: distinct_rest) -next - fix x - assume " distinct x \ set x = set rest" - thus "x = []" using rest_nil by auto -qed - -lemma no_taker: - assumes "next_th s th cs taker" - shows "False" -proof - - from assms[unfolded next_th_def] - obtain rest' where "wq s cs = th # rest'" "rest' \ []" - by auto - thus ?thesis using rest_def rest_nil by auto -qed - -lemma waiting_set_eq: - "{(Th th', Cs cs) |th'. next_th s th cs th'} = {}" - using no_taker by auto - -lemma holding_set_eq: - "{(Cs cs, Th th') |th'. next_th s th cs th'} = {}" - using no_taker by auto - -lemma no_holding: - assumes "holding (e#s) taker cs" - shows False -proof - - from wq_es_cs[unfolded nil_wq'] - have " wq (e # s) cs = []" . - from assms[unfolded s_holding_def, folded wq_def, unfolded this] - show ?thesis by auto -qed - -lemma no_waiting: - assumes "waiting (e#s) t cs" - shows False -proof - - from wq_es_cs[unfolded nil_wq'] - have " wq (e # s) cs = []" . - from assms[unfolded s_waiting_def, folded wq_def, unfolded this] - show ?thesis by auto -qed - -lemma waiting_esI2: - assumes "waiting s t c" - shows "waiting (e#s) t c" -proof - - have "c \ cs" using assms - using cs_waiting_def rest_nil waiting_eq wq_s_cs by auto - from waiting_esI1[OF assms this] - show ?thesis . -qed - -lemma waiting_esE: - assumes "waiting (e#s) t c" - obtains "c \ cs" "waiting s t c" -proof(cases "c = cs") - case False - hence "wq (e#s) c = wq s c" using is_v by auto - with assms have "waiting s t c" using cs_waiting_def waiting_eq by auto - from that(1)[OF False this] show ?thesis . -next - case True - from no_waiting[OF assms[unfolded True]] - show ?thesis by auto -qed - -lemma holding_esE: - assumes "holding (e#s) t c" - obtains "c \ cs" "holding s t c" -proof(cases "c = cs") - case True - from no_holding[OF assms[unfolded True]] - show ?thesis by auto -next - case False - hence "wq (e#s) c = wq s c" using is_v by auto - from assms[unfolded s_holding_def, folded wq_def, - unfolded this, unfolded wq_def, folded s_holding_def] - have "holding s t c" . - from that[OF False this] show ?thesis . -qed - -end - -lemma rel_eqI: - assumes "\ x y. (x,y) \ A \ (x,y) \ B" - and "\ x y. (x,y) \ B \ (x, y) \ A" - shows "A = B" - using assms by auto - -lemma in_RAG_E: - assumes "(n1, n2) \ RAG (s::state)" - obtains (waiting) th cs where "n1 = Th th" "n2 = Cs cs" "waiting s th cs" - | (holding) th cs where "n1 = Cs cs" "n2 = Th th" "holding s th cs" - using assms[unfolded s_RAG_def, folded waiting_eq holding_eq] - by auto - -context valid_trace_v -begin - -lemma RAG_es: - "RAG (e # s) = - RAG s - {(Cs cs, Th th)} - - {(Th th', Cs cs) |th'. next_th s th cs th'} \ - {(Cs cs, Th th') |th'. next_th s th cs th'}" (is "?L = ?R") -proof(rule rel_eqI) - fix n1 n2 - assume "(n1, n2) \ ?L" - thus "(n1, n2) \ ?R" - proof(cases rule:in_RAG_E) - case (waiting th' cs') - show ?thesis - proof(cases "rest = []") - case False - interpret h_n: valid_trace_v_n s e th cs - by (unfold_locales, insert False, simp) - from waiting(3) - show ?thesis - proof(cases rule:h_n.waiting_esE) - case 1 - with waiting(1,2) - show ?thesis - by (unfold h_n.waiting_set_eq h_n.holding_set_eq s_RAG_def, - fold waiting_eq, auto) - next - case 2 - with waiting(1,2) - show ?thesis - by (unfold h_n.waiting_set_eq h_n.holding_set_eq s_RAG_def, - fold waiting_eq, auto) - qed - next - case True - interpret h_e: valid_trace_v_e s e th cs - by (unfold_locales, insert True, simp) - from waiting(3) - show ?thesis - proof(cases rule:h_e.waiting_esE) - case 1 - with waiting(1,2) - show ?thesis - by (unfold h_e.waiting_set_eq h_e.holding_set_eq s_RAG_def, - fold waiting_eq, auto) - qed - qed - next - case (holding th' cs') - show ?thesis - proof(cases "rest = []") - case False - interpret h_n: valid_trace_v_n s e th cs - by (unfold_locales, insert False, simp) - from holding(3) - show ?thesis - proof(cases rule:h_n.holding_esE) - case 1 - with holding(1,2) - show ?thesis - by (unfold h_n.waiting_set_eq h_n.holding_set_eq s_RAG_def, - fold waiting_eq, auto) - next - case 2 - with holding(1,2) - show ?thesis - by (unfold h_n.waiting_set_eq h_n.holding_set_eq s_RAG_def, - fold holding_eq, auto) - qed - next - case True - interpret h_e: valid_trace_v_e s e th cs - by (unfold_locales, insert True, simp) - from holding(3) - show ?thesis - proof(cases rule:h_e.holding_esE) - case 1 - with holding(1,2) - show ?thesis - by (unfold h_e.waiting_set_eq h_e.holding_set_eq s_RAG_def, - fold holding_eq, auto) - qed - qed - qed -next - fix n1 n2 - assume h: "(n1, n2) \ ?R" - show "(n1, n2) \ ?L" - proof(cases "rest = []") - case False - interpret h_n: valid_trace_v_n s e th cs - by (unfold_locales, insert False, simp) - from h[unfolded h_n.waiting_set_eq h_n.holding_set_eq] - have "((n1, n2) \ RAG s \ (n1 \ Cs cs \ n2 \ Th th) - \ (n1 \ Th h_n.taker \ n2 \ Cs cs)) \ - (n2 = Th h_n.taker \ n1 = Cs cs)" - by auto - thus ?thesis - proof - assume "n2 = Th h_n.taker \ n1 = Cs cs" - with h_n.holding_taker - show ?thesis - by (unfold s_RAG_def, fold holding_eq, auto) - next - assume h: "(n1, n2) \ RAG s \ - (n1 \ Cs cs \ n2 \ Th th) \ (n1 \ Th h_n.taker \ n2 \ Cs cs)" - hence "(n1, n2) \ RAG s" by simp - thus ?thesis - proof(cases rule:in_RAG_E) - case (waiting th' cs') - from h and this(1,2) - have "th' \ h_n.taker \ cs' \ cs" by auto - hence "waiting (e#s) th' cs'" - proof - assume "cs' \ cs" - from waiting_esI1[OF waiting(3) this] - show ?thesis . - next - assume neq_th': "th' \ h_n.taker" - show ?thesis - proof(cases "cs' = cs") - case False - from waiting_esI1[OF waiting(3) this] - show ?thesis . - next - case True - from h_n.waiting_esI2[OF waiting(3)[unfolded True] neq_th', folded True] - show ?thesis . - qed - qed - thus ?thesis using waiting(1,2) - by (unfold s_RAG_def, fold waiting_eq, auto) - next - case (holding th' cs') - from h this(1,2) - have "cs' \ cs \ th' \ th" by auto - hence "holding (e#s) th' cs'" - proof - assume "cs' \ cs" - from holding_esI2[OF this holding(3)] - show ?thesis . - next - assume "th' \ th" - from holding_esI1[OF holding(3) this] - show ?thesis . - qed - thus ?thesis using holding(1,2) - by (unfold s_RAG_def, fold holding_eq, auto) - qed - qed - next - case True - interpret h_e: valid_trace_v_e s e th cs - by (unfold_locales, insert True, simp) - from h[unfolded h_e.waiting_set_eq h_e.holding_set_eq] - have h_s: "(n1, n2) \ RAG s" "(n1, n2) \ (Cs cs, Th th)" - by auto - from h_s(1) - show ?thesis - proof(cases rule:in_RAG_E) - case (waiting th' cs') - from h_e.waiting_esI2[OF this(3)] - show ?thesis using waiting(1,2) - by (unfold s_RAG_def, fold waiting_eq, auto) - next - case (holding th' cs') - with h_s(2) - have "cs' \ cs \ th' \ th" by auto - thus ?thesis - proof - assume neq_cs: "cs' \ cs" - from holding_esI2[OF this holding(3)] - show ?thesis using holding(1,2) - by (unfold s_RAG_def, fold holding_eq, auto) - next - assume "th' \ th" - from holding_esI1[OF holding(3) this] - show ?thesis using holding(1,2) - by (unfold s_RAG_def, fold holding_eq, auto) - qed - qed - qed -qed - -end - -lemma step_RAG_v: -assumes vt: - "vt (V th cs#s)" -shows " - RAG (V th cs # s) = - RAG s - {(Cs cs, Th th)} - - {(Th th', Cs cs) |th'. next_th s th cs th'} \ - {(Cs cs, Th th') |th'. next_th s th cs th'}" (is "?L = ?R") -proof - - interpret vt_v: valid_trace_v s "V th cs" - using assms step_back_vt by (unfold_locales, auto) - show ?thesis using vt_v.RAG_es . -qed - -lemma (in valid_trace_create) - th_not_in_threads: "th \ threads s" -proof - - from pip_e[unfolded is_create] - show ?thesis by (cases, simp) -qed - -lemma (in valid_trace_create) - threads_es [simp]: "threads (e#s) = threads s \ {th}" - by (unfold is_create, simp) - -lemma (in valid_trace_exit) - threads_es [simp]: "threads (e#s) = threads s - {th}" - by (unfold is_exit, simp) - -lemma (in valid_trace_p) - threads_es [simp]: "threads (e#s) = threads s" - by (unfold is_p, simp) - -lemma (in valid_trace_v) - threads_es [simp]: "threads (e#s) = threads s" - by (unfold is_v, simp) - -lemma (in valid_trace_v) - th_not_in_rest[simp]: "th \ set rest" -proof - assume otherwise: "th \ set rest" - have "distinct (wq s cs)" by (simp add: wq_distinct) - from this[unfolded wq_s_cs] and otherwise - show False by auto -qed - -lemma (in valid_trace_v) - set_wq_es_cs [simp]: "set (wq (e#s) cs) = set (wq s cs) - {th}" -proof(unfold wq_es_cs wq'_def, rule someI2) - show "distinct rest \ set rest = set rest" - by (simp add: distinct_rest) -next - fix x - assume "distinct x \ set x = set rest" - thus "set x = set (wq s cs) - {th}" - by (unfold wq_s_cs, simp) -qed - -lemma (in valid_trace_exit) - th_not_in_wq: "th \ set (wq s cs)" -proof - - from pip_e[unfolded is_exit] - show ?thesis - by (cases, unfold holdents_def s_holding_def, fold wq_def, - auto elim!:runing_wqE) -qed - -lemma (in valid_trace) wq_threads: - assumes "th \ set (wq s cs)" - shows "th \ threads s" - using assms -proof(induct rule:ind) - case (Nil) - thus ?case by (auto simp:wq_def) -next - case (Cons s e) - interpret vt_e: valid_trace_e s e using Cons by simp - show ?case - proof(cases e) - case (Create th' prio') - interpret vt: valid_trace_create s e th' prio' - using Create by (unfold_locales, simp) - show ?thesis - using Cons.hyps(2) Cons.prems by auto - next - case (Exit th') - interpret vt: valid_trace_exit s e th' - using Exit by (unfold_locales, simp) - show ?thesis - using Cons.hyps(2) Cons.prems vt.th_not_in_wq by auto - next - case (P th' cs') - interpret vt: valid_trace_p s e th' cs' - using P by (unfold_locales, simp) - show ?thesis - using Cons.hyps(2) Cons.prems readys_threads - runing_ready vt.is_p vt.runing_th_s vt_e.wq_in_inv - by fastforce - next - case (V th' cs') - interpret vt: valid_trace_v s e th' cs' - using V by (unfold_locales, simp) - show ?thesis using Cons - using vt.is_v vt.threads_es vt_e.wq_in_inv by blast - next - case (Set th' prio) - interpret vt: valid_trace_set s e th' prio - using Set by (unfold_locales, simp) - show ?thesis using Cons.hyps(2) Cons.prems vt.is_set - by (auto simp:wq_def Let_def) - qed -qed - -context valid_trace -begin - -lemma dm_RAG_threads: - assumes in_dom: "(Th th) \ Domain (RAG s)" - shows "th \ threads s" -proof - - from in_dom obtain n where "(Th th, n) \ RAG s" by auto - moreover from RAG_target_th[OF this] obtain cs where "n = Cs cs" by auto - ultimately have "(Th th, Cs cs) \ RAG s" by simp - hence "th \ set (wq s cs)" - by (unfold s_RAG_def, auto simp:cs_waiting_def) - from wq_threads [OF this] show ?thesis . -qed - -lemma cp_le: - assumes th_in: "th \ threads s" - shows "cp s th \ Max ((\ th. (preced th s)) ` threads s)" -proof(unfold cp_eq_cpreced cpreced_def cs_dependants_def) - show "Max ((\th. preced th s) ` ({th} \ {th'. (Th th', Th th) \ (RAG (wq s))\<^sup>+})) - \ Max ((\th. preced th s) ` threads s)" - (is "Max (?f ` ?A) \ Max (?f ` ?B)") - proof(rule Max_f_mono) - show "{th} \ {th'. (Th th', Th th) \ (RAG (wq s))\<^sup>+} \ {}" by simp - next - from finite_threads - show "finite (threads s)" . - next - from th_in - show "{th} \ {th'. (Th th', Th th) \ (RAG (wq s))\<^sup>+} \ threads s" - apply (auto simp:Domain_def) - apply (rule_tac dm_RAG_threads) - apply (unfold trancl_domain [of "RAG s", symmetric]) - by (unfold cs_RAG_def s_RAG_def, auto simp:Domain_def) - qed -qed - -lemma max_cp_eq: - shows "Max ((cp s) ` threads s) = Max ((\ th. (preced th s)) ` threads s)" - (is "?l = ?r") -proof(cases "threads s = {}") - case True - thus ?thesis by auto -next - case False - have "?l \ ((cp s) ` threads s)" - proof(rule Max_in) - from finite_threads - show "finite (cp s ` threads s)" by auto - next - from False show "cp s ` threads s \ {}" by auto - qed - then obtain th - where th_in: "th \ threads s" and eq_l: "?l = cp s th" by auto - have "\ \ ?r" by (rule cp_le[OF th_in]) - moreover have "?r \ cp s th" (is "Max (?f ` ?A) \ cp s th") - proof - - have "?r \ (?f ` ?A)" - proof(rule Max_in) - from finite_threads - show " finite ((\th. preced th s) ` threads s)" by auto - next - from False show " (\th. preced th s) ` threads s \ {}" by auto - qed - then obtain th' where - th_in': "th' \ ?A " and eq_r: "?r = ?f th'" by auto - from le_cp [of th'] eq_r - have "?r \ cp s th'" - moreover have "\ \ cp s th" - proof(fold eq_l) - show " cp s th' \ Max (cp s ` threads s)" - proof(rule Max_ge) - from th_in' show "cp s th' \ cp s ` threads s" - by auto - next - from finite_threads - show "finite (cp s ` threads s)" by auto - qed - qed - ultimately show ?thesis by auto - qed - ultimately show ?thesis using eq_l by auto -qed - -lemma max_cp_eq_the_preced: - shows "Max ((cp s) ` threads s) = Max (the_preced s ` threads s)" - using max_cp_eq using the_preced_def by presburger - -end - -lemma preced_v [simp]: "preced th' (V th cs#s) = preced th' s" - by (unfold preced_def, simp) - -lemma (in valid_trace_v) - preced_es: "preced th (e#s) = preced th s" - by (unfold is_v preced_def, simp) - -lemma the_preced_v[simp]: "the_preced (V th cs#s) = the_preced s" -proof - fix th' - show "the_preced (V th cs # s) th' = the_preced s th'" - by (unfold the_preced_def preced_def, simp) -qed - -lemma (in valid_trace_v) - the_preced_es: "the_preced (e#s) = the_preced s" - by (unfold is_v preced_def, simp) - -context valid_trace_p -begin - -lemma not_holding_es_th_cs: "\ holding s th cs" -proof - assume otherwise: "holding s th cs" - from pip_e[unfolded is_p] - show False - proof(cases) - case (thread_P) - moreover have "(Cs cs, Th th) \ RAG s" - using otherwise cs_holding_def - holding_eq th_not_in_wq by auto - ultimately show ?thesis by auto - qed -qed - -lemma waiting_kept: - assumes "waiting s th' cs'" - shows "waiting (e#s) th' cs'" - using assms - by (metis cs_waiting_def hd_append2 list.sel(1) list.set_intros(2) - rotate1.simps(2) self_append_conv2 set_rotate1 - th_not_in_wq waiting_eq wq_es_cs wq_neq_simp) - -lemma holding_kept: - assumes "holding s th' cs'" - shows "holding (e#s) th' cs'" -proof(cases "cs' = cs") - case False - hence "wq (e#s) cs' = wq s cs'" by simp - with assms show ?thesis using cs_holding_def holding_eq by auto -next - case True - from assms[unfolded s_holding_def, folded wq_def] - obtain rest where eq_wq: "wq s cs' = th'#rest" - by (metis empty_iff list.collapse list.set(1)) - hence "wq (e#s) cs' = th'#(rest@[th])" - by (simp add: True wq_es_cs) - thus ?thesis - by (simp add: cs_holding_def holding_eq) -qed - -end - -locale valid_trace_p_h = valid_trace_p + - assumes we: "wq s cs = []" - -locale valid_trace_p_w = valid_trace_p + - assumes wne: "wq s cs \ []" -begin - -definition "holder = hd (wq s cs)" -definition "waiters = tl (wq s cs)" -definition "waiters' = waiters @ [th]" - -lemma wq_s_cs: "wq s cs = holder#waiters" - by (simp add: holder_def waiters_def wne) - -lemma wq_es_cs': "wq (e#s) cs = holder#waiters@[th]" - by (simp add: wq_es_cs wq_s_cs) - -lemma waiting_es_th_cs: "waiting (e#s) th cs" - using cs_waiting_def th_not_in_wq waiting_eq wq_es_cs' wq_s_cs by auto - -lemma RAG_edge: "(Th th, Cs cs) \ RAG (e#s)" - by (unfold s_RAG_def, fold waiting_eq, insert waiting_es_th_cs, auto) - -lemma holding_esE: - assumes "holding (e#s) th' cs'" - obtains "holding s th' cs'" - using assms -proof(cases "cs' = cs") - case False - hence "wq (e#s) cs' = wq s cs'" by simp - with assms show ?thesis - using cs_holding_def holding_eq that by auto -next - case True - with assms show ?thesis - by (metis cs_holding_def holding_eq list.sel(1) list.set_intros(1) that - wq_es_cs' wq_s_cs) -qed - -lemma waiting_esE: - assumes "waiting (e#s) th' cs'" - obtains "th' \ th" "waiting s th' cs'" - | "th' = th" "cs' = cs" -proof(cases "waiting s th' cs'") - case True - have "th' \ th" - proof - assume otherwise: "th' = th" - from True[unfolded this] - show False by (simp add: th_not_waiting) - qed - from that(1)[OF this True] show ?thesis . -next - case False - hence "th' = th \ cs' = cs" - by (metis assms cs_waiting_def holder_def list.sel(1) rotate1.simps(2) - set_ConsD set_rotate1 waiting_eq wq_es_cs wq_es_cs' wq_neq_simp) - with that(2) show ?thesis by metis -qed - -lemma RAG_es: "RAG (e # s) = RAG s \ {(Th th, Cs cs)}" (is "?L = ?R") -proof(rule rel_eqI) - fix n1 n2 - assume "(n1, n2) \ ?L" - thus "(n1, n2) \ ?R" - proof(cases rule:in_RAG_E) - case (waiting th' cs') - from this(3) - show ?thesis - proof(cases rule:waiting_esE) - case 1 - thus ?thesis using waiting(1,2) - by (unfold s_RAG_def, fold waiting_eq, auto) - next - case 2 - thus ?thesis using waiting(1,2) by auto - qed - next - case (holding th' cs') - from this(3) - show ?thesis - proof(cases rule:holding_esE) - case 1 - with holding(1,2) - show ?thesis by (unfold s_RAG_def, fold holding_eq, auto) - qed - qed -next - fix n1 n2 - assume "(n1, n2) \ ?R" - hence "(n1, n2) \ RAG s \ (n1 = Th th \ n2 = Cs cs)" by auto - thus "(n1, n2) \ ?L" - proof - assume "(n1, n2) \ RAG s" - thus ?thesis - proof(cases rule:in_RAG_E) - case (waiting th' cs') - from waiting_kept[OF this(3)] - show ?thesis using waiting(1,2) - by (unfold s_RAG_def, fold waiting_eq, auto) - next - case (holding th' cs') - from holding_kept[OF this(3)] - show ?thesis using holding(1,2) - by (unfold s_RAG_def, fold holding_eq, auto) - qed - next - assume "n1 = Th th \ n2 = Cs cs" - thus ?thesis using RAG_edge by auto - qed -qed - -end - -context valid_trace_p_h -begin - -lemma wq_es_cs': "wq (e#s) cs = [th]" - using wq_es_cs[unfolded we] by simp - -lemma holding_es_th_cs: - shows "holding (e#s) th cs" -proof - - from wq_es_cs' - have "th \ set (wq (e#s) cs)" "th = hd (wq (e#s) cs)" by auto - thus ?thesis using cs_holding_def holding_eq by blast -qed - -lemma RAG_edge: "(Cs cs, Th th) \ RAG (e#s)" - by (unfold s_RAG_def, fold holding_eq, insert holding_es_th_cs, auto) - -lemma waiting_esE: - assumes "waiting (e#s) th' cs'" - obtains "waiting s th' cs'" - using assms - by (metis cs_waiting_def event.distinct(15) is_p list.sel(1) - set_ConsD waiting_eq we wq_es_cs' wq_neq_simp wq_out_inv) - -lemma holding_esE: - assumes "holding (e#s) th' cs'" - obtains "cs' \ cs" "holding s th' cs'" - | "cs' = cs" "th' = th" -proof(cases "cs' = cs") - case True - from held_unique[OF holding_es_th_cs assms[unfolded True]] - have "th' = th" by simp - from that(2)[OF True this] show ?thesis . -next - case False - have "holding s th' cs'" using assms - using False cs_holding_def holding_eq by auto - from that(1)[OF False this] show ?thesis . -qed - -lemma RAG_es: "RAG (e # s) = RAG s \ {(Cs cs, Th th)}" (is "?L = ?R") -proof(rule rel_eqI) - fix n1 n2 - assume "(n1, n2) \ ?L" - thus "(n1, n2) \ ?R" - proof(cases rule:in_RAG_E) - case (waiting th' cs') - from this(3) - show ?thesis - proof(cases rule:waiting_esE) - case 1 - thus ?thesis using waiting(1,2) - by (unfold s_RAG_def, fold waiting_eq, auto) - qed - next - case (holding th' cs') - from this(3) - show ?thesis - proof(cases rule:holding_esE) - case 1 - with holding(1,2) - show ?thesis by (unfold s_RAG_def, fold holding_eq, auto) - next - case 2 - with holding(1,2) show ?thesis by auto - qed - qed -next - fix n1 n2 - assume "(n1, n2) \ ?R" - hence "(n1, n2) \ RAG s \ (n1 = Cs cs \ n2 = Th th)" by auto - thus "(n1, n2) \ ?L" - proof - assume "(n1, n2) \ RAG s" - thus ?thesis - proof(cases rule:in_RAG_E) - case (waiting th' cs') - from waiting_kept[OF this(3)] - show ?thesis using waiting(1,2) - by (unfold s_RAG_def, fold waiting_eq, auto) - next - case (holding th' cs') - from holding_kept[OF this(3)] - show ?thesis using holding(1,2) - by (unfold s_RAG_def, fold holding_eq, auto) - qed - next - assume "n1 = Cs cs \ n2 = Th th" - with holding_es_th_cs - show ?thesis - by (unfold s_RAG_def, fold holding_eq, auto) - qed -qed - -end - -context valid_trace_p -begin - -lemma RAG_es': "RAG (e # s) = (if (wq s cs = []) then RAG s \ {(Cs cs, Th th)} - else RAG s \ {(Th th, Cs cs)})" -proof(cases "wq s cs = []") - case True - interpret vt_p: valid_trace_p_h using True - by (unfold_locales, simp) - show ?thesis by (simp add: vt_p.RAG_es vt_p.we) -next - case False - interpret vt_p: valid_trace_p_w using False - by (unfold_locales, simp) - show ?thesis by (simp add: vt_p.RAG_es vt_p.wne) -qed - -end - - -end diff -r c7ba70dc49bd -r 382293d415f3 Moment.thy.orig --- a/Moment.thy.orig Fri Jan 29 17:06:02 2016 +0000 +++ /dev/null Thu Jan 01 00:00:00 1970 +0000 @@ -1,204 +0,0 @@ -theory Moment -imports Main -begin - -definition moment :: "nat \ 'a list \ 'a list" -where "moment n s = rev (take n (rev s))" - -definition restm :: "nat \ 'a list \ 'a list" -where "restm n s = rev (drop n (rev s))" - -value "moment 3 [0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9::int]" -value "moment 2 [5, 4, 3, 2, 1, 0::int]" - -value "restm 3 [0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9::int]" - -lemma moment_restm_s: "(restm n s) @ (moment n s) = s" - unfolding restm_def moment_def -by (metis append_take_drop_id rev_append rev_rev_ident) - -lemma length_moment_le: - assumes le_k: "k \ length s" - shows "length (moment k s) = k" -using le_k unfolding moment_def by auto - -lemma length_moment_ge: - assumes le_k: "length s \ k" - shows "length (moment k s) = (length s)" -using assms unfolding moment_def by simp - -lemma moment_app [simp]: - assumes ile: "i \ length s" - shows "moment i (s' @ s) = moment i s" -using assms unfolding moment_def by simp - -lemma moment_eq [simp]: "moment (length s) (s' @ s) = s" - unfolding moment_def by simp - -lemma moment_ge [simp]: "length s \ n \ moment n s = s" - by (unfold moment_def, simp) - -lemma moment_zero [simp]: "moment 0 s = []" - by (simp add:moment_def) - -lemma p_split_gen: - "\Q s; \ Q (moment k s)\ \ - (\ i. i < length s \ k \ i \ \ Q (moment i s) \ (\ i' > i. Q (moment i' s)))" -proof (induct s, simp) - fix a s - assume ih: "\Q s; \ Q (moment k s)\ - \ \i i \ \ Q (moment i s) \ (\i'>i. Q (moment i' s))" - and nq: "\ Q (moment k (a # s))" and qa: "Q (a # s)" - have le_k: "k \ length s" - proof - - { assume "length s < k" - hence "length (a#s) \ k" by simp - from moment_ge [OF this] and nq and qa - have "False" by auto - } thus ?thesis by arith - qed - have nq_k: "\ Q (moment k s)" - proof - - have "moment k (a#s) = moment k s" - proof - - from moment_app [OF le_k, of "[a]"] show ?thesis by simp - qed - with nq show ?thesis by simp - qed - show "\i i \ \ Q (moment i (a # s)) \ (\i'>i. Q (moment i' (a # s)))" - proof - - { assume "Q s" - from ih [OF this nq_k] - obtain i where lti: "i < length s" - and nq: "\ Q (moment i s)" - and rst: "\i'>i. Q (moment i' s)" - and lki: "k \ i" by auto - have ?thesis - proof - - from lti have "i < length (a # s)" by auto - moreover have " \ Q (moment i (a # s))" - proof - - from lti have "i \ (length s)" by simp - from moment_app [OF this, of "[a]"] - have "moment i (a # s) = moment i s" by simp - with nq show ?thesis by auto - qed - moreover have " (\i'>i. Q (moment i' (a # s)))" - proof - - { - fix i' - assume lti': "i < i'" - have "Q (moment i' (a # s))" - proof(cases "length (a#s) \ i'") - case True - from True have "moment i' (a#s) = a#s" by simp - with qa show ?thesis by simp - next - case False - from False have "i' \ length s" by simp - from moment_app [OF this, of "[a]"] - have "moment i' (a#s) = moment i' s" by simp - with rst lti' show ?thesis by auto - qed - } thus ?thesis by auto - qed - moreover note lki - ultimately show ?thesis by auto - qed - } moreover { - assume ns: "\ Q s" - have ?thesis - proof - - let ?i = "length s" - have "\ Q (moment ?i (a#s))" - proof - - have "?i \ length s" by simp - from moment_app [OF this, of "[a]"] - have "moment ?i (a#s) = moment ?i s" by simp - moreover have "\ = s" by simp - ultimately show ?thesis using ns by auto - qed - moreover have "\ i' > ?i. Q (moment i' (a#s))" - proof - - { fix i' - assume "i' > ?i" - hence "length (a#s) \ i'" by simp - from moment_ge [OF this] - have " moment i' (a # s) = a # s" . - with qa have "Q (moment i' (a#s))" by simp - } thus ?thesis by auto - qed - moreover have "?i < length (a#s)" by simp - moreover note le_k - ultimately show ?thesis by auto - qed - } ultimately show ?thesis by auto - qed -qed - -lemma p_split: - "\Q s; \ Q []\ \ - (\ i. i < length s \ \ Q (moment i s) \ (\ i' > i. Q (moment i' s)))" -proof - - fix s Q - assume qs: "Q s" and nq: "\ Q []" - from nq have "\ Q (moment 0 s)" by simp - from p_split_gen [of Q s 0, OF qs this] - show "(\ i. i < length s \ \ Q (moment i s) \ (\ i' > i. Q (moment i' s)))" - by auto -qed - -lemma moment_plus_split: - shows "moment (m + i) s = moment m (restm i s) @ moment i s" -unfolding moment_def restm_def -by (metis add.commute rev_append rev_rev_ident take_add) - -lemma moment_prefix: - "(moment i t @ s) = moment (i + length s) (t @ s)" -proof - - from moment_plus_split [of i "length s" "t@s"] - have " moment (i + length s) (t @ s) = moment i (restm (length s) (t @ s)) @ moment (length s) (t @ s)" - by auto - have "moment (i + length s) (t @ s) = moment i t @ moment (length s) (t @ s)" - by (simp add: moment_def) - with moment_app show ?thesis by auto -qed - -lemma moment_plus: - "Suc i \ length s \ moment (Suc i) s = (hd (moment (Suc i) s)) # (moment i s)" -proof(induct s, simp+) - fix a s - assume ih: "Suc i \ length s \ moment (Suc i) s = hd (moment (Suc i) s) # moment i s" - and le_i: "i \ length s" - show "moment (Suc i) (a # s) = hd (moment (Suc i) (a # s)) # moment i (a # s)" - proof(cases "i= length s") - case True - hence "Suc i = length (a#s)" by simp - with moment_eq have "moment (Suc i) (a#s) = a#s" by auto - moreover have "moment i (a#s) = s" - proof - - from moment_app [OF le_i, of "[a]"] - and True show ?thesis by simp - qed - ultimately show ?thesis by auto - next - case False - from False and le_i have lti: "i < length s" by arith - hence les_i: "Suc i \ length s" by arith - show ?thesis - proof - - from moment_app [OF les_i, of "[a]"] - have "moment (Suc i) (a # s) = moment (Suc i) s" by simp - moreover have "moment i (a#s) = moment i s" - proof - - from lti have "i \ length s" by simp - from moment_app [OF this, of "[a]"] show ?thesis by simp - qed - moreover note ih [OF les_i] - ultimately show ?thesis by auto - qed - qed -qed - -end -