(UNSET-WATERFALL-PARALLELISM)
(ASSIGN SCRIPT-MODE T)
 T
(SET-LD-PROMPT T STATE)
 T
ACL2 !>>(SET-INHIBITED-SUMMARY-TYPES '(TIME STEPS))
 (TIME STEPS)
ACL2 !>>(SET-INHIBIT-OUTPUT-LST '(PROOF-TREE))
 (PROOF-TREE)
ACL2 !>>(DEFTTAG :BRR-FREE-VARIABLES)
 :BRR-FREE-VARIABLES
ACL2 !>>(SET-RAW-MODE T)
ACL2 P>>(DEFVAR *SAVED-STANDARD-CO* *STANDARD-CO*)
*SAVED-STANDARD-CO*
ACL2 P>>(PROGN (SETQ *STANDARD-CO* (STANDARD-CO STATE))
               T)
T
ACL2 P>>(SET-RAW-MODE NIL)
ACL2 !>>(U)
   d       1:x(INCLUDE-BOOK "tools/run-script"
                            :DIR ...)
ACL2 !>>(DEFLABEL START)

Summary
Form:  ( DEFLABEL START ...)
Rules: NIL
 START
ACL2 !>>(DEFSTUB P2 (X Y) T)

Summary
Form:  (DEFSTUB P2 ...)
Rules: NIL
 P2
ACL2 !>>(DEFAXIOM P2-TRANS
          (IMPLIES (AND (P2 X Y) (P2 Y Z))
                   (P2 X Z)))

ACL2 Warning [Free] in ( DEFAXIOM P2-TRANS ...):  A :REWRITE rule generated
from P2-TRANS contains the free variable Y.  This variable will be
chosen by searching for an instance of (P2 X Y) in the context of the
term being rewritten.  This is generally a severe restriction on the
applicability of a :REWRITE rule.  See :DOC free-variables.


Summary
Form:  ( DEFAXIOM P2-TRANS ...)
Rules: NIL
Warnings:  Free
 P2-TRANS
ACL2 !>>(THM (IMPLIES (AND (P2 A C) (P2 A B) (P2 C D))
                      (P2 A D)))

Q.E.D.

Summary
Form:  ( THM ...)
Rules: ((:REWRITE P2-TRANS))

Proof succeeded.
ACL2 !>>(ADD-MATCH-FREE-OVERRIDE :ONCE P2-TRANS)


ACL2 Error in ADD-MATCH-FREE-OVERRIDE:  Unless add-match-free-override
is given a single argument of T, its arguments must be :rewrite, :linear,
or :forward-chaining runes in the current ACL2 world with free variables
in their hypotheses.  The following argument is thus illegal:  P2-TRANS.

ACL2 !>>(ADD-MATCH-FREE-OVERRIDE :ONCE (:REWRITE P2-TRANS))
 ((:REWRITE P2-TRANS))
ACL2 !>>(THM (IMPLIES (AND (P2 A C) (P2 A B) (P2 C D))
                      (P2 A D)))

*1 (the initial Goal, a key checkpoint) is pushed for proof by induction.

No induction schemes are suggested by *1.  Consequently, the proof
attempt has failed.

Summary
Form:  ( THM ...)
Rules: NIL

---
The key checkpoint goal, below, may help you to debug this failure.
See :DOC failure and see :DOC set-checkpoint-summary-limit.
---

*** Key checkpoint at the top level: ***

Goal
(IMPLIES (AND (P2 A C) (P2 A B) (P2 C D))
         (P2 A D))

ACL2 Error [Failure] in ( THM ...):  See :DOC failure.

******** FAILED ********
ACL2 !>>(ADD-MATCH-FREE-OVERRIDE :ALL T)
 NIL
ACL2 !>>(THM (IMPLIES (AND (P2 A C) (P2 A B) (P2 C D))
                      (P2 A D)))

Q.E.D.

Summary
Form:  ( THM ...)
Rules: ((:REWRITE P2-TRANS))

Proof succeeded.
ACL2 !>>(U)
           5:x(ADD-MATCH-FREE-OVERRIDE :ONCE (:REWRITE P2-TRANS))
ACL2 !>>(ADD-MATCH-FREE-OVERRIDE :CLEAR T)


ACL2 Error in ADD-MATCH-FREE-OVERRIDE:  When the first argument of
add-match-free-override is :clear, it must be the only argument.

ACL2 !>>(ADD-MATCH-FREE-OVERRIDE :CLEAR)
 :CLEAR
ACL2 !>>(THM (IMPLIES (AND (P2 A C) (P2 A B) (P2 C D))
                      (P2 A D)))

Q.E.D.

Summary
Form:  ( THM ...)
Rules: ((:REWRITE P2-TRANS))

Proof succeeded.
ACL2 !>>(UBT! 'P2-TRANS)
 v         3:x(DEFSTUB P2 (X Y) ...)
ACL2 !>>(SET-MATCH-FREE-ERROR T)
<state>
ACL2 !>>(DEFAXIOM P2-TRANS
          (IMPLIES (AND (P2 X Y) (P2 Y Z))
                   (P2 X Z)))

ACL2 Warning [Free] in ( DEFAXIOM P2-TRANS ...):  A :REWRITE rule generated
from P2-TRANS contains the free variable Y.  This variable will be
chosen by searching for an instance of (P2 X Y) in the context of the
term being rewritten.  This is generally a severe restriction on the
applicability of a :REWRITE rule.  See :DOC free-variables.



ACL2 Error in ( DEFAXIOM P2-TRANS ...):  The warning above has caused
this error in order to make it clear that there are free variables
in the hypotheses of a :REWRITE rule generated from P2-TRANS.  This
error can be suppressed for the rest of this ACL2 session by submitting
the following form:

(SET-MATCH-FREE-ERROR NIL)

However, you are advised not to do so until you have read the documentation
on ``free variables'' (see :DOC free-variables) in order to understand
the issues.  In particular, you can supply a :match-free value for
the :rewrite rule class (see :DOC rule-classes) or a default for the
book under development (see :DOC set-match-free-default).


Summary
Form:  ( DEFAXIOM P2-TRANS ...)
Rules: NIL
Warnings:  Free

ACL2 Error [Failure] in ( DEFAXIOM P2-TRANS ...):  See :DOC failure.

******** FAILED ********
ACL2 !>>(DEFAXIOM P2-TRANS
          (IMPLIES (AND (P2 X Y) (P2 Y Z))
                   (P2 X Z))
          :RULE-CLASSES ((:REWRITE :MATCH-FREE NIL)))


ACL2 Error in ( DEFAXIOM P2-TRANS ...):  The legal values of :MATCH-
FREE are :ALL and :ONCE. Thus, (:REWRITE :MATCH-FREE NIL) is illegal.
See :DOC free-variables.


Summary
Form:  ( DEFAXIOM P2-TRANS ...)
Rules: NIL

ACL2 Error [Failure] in ( DEFAXIOM P2-TRANS ...):  See :DOC failure.

******** FAILED ********
ACL2 !>>(DEFAXIOM P2-TRANS
          (IMPLIES (AND (P2 X Y) (P2 Y Z))
                   (P2 X Z))
          :RULE-CLASSES ((:REWRITE :MATCH-FREE :ONCE)))

Summary
Form:  ( DEFAXIOM P2-TRANS ...)
Rules: NIL
 P2-TRANS
ACL2 !>>(THM (IMPLIES (AND (P2 A C) (P2 A B) (P2 C D))
                      (P2 A D)))

*1 (the initial Goal, a key checkpoint) is pushed for proof by induction.

No induction schemes are suggested by *1.  Consequently, the proof
attempt has failed.

Summary
Form:  ( THM ...)
Rules: NIL

---
The key checkpoint goal, below, may help you to debug this failure.
See :DOC failure and see :DOC set-checkpoint-summary-limit.
---

*** Key checkpoint at the top level: ***

Goal
(IMPLIES (AND (P2 A C) (P2 A B) (P2 C D))
         (P2 A D))

ACL2 Error [Failure] in ( THM ...):  See :DOC failure.

******** FAILED ********
ACL2 !>>(ADD-MATCH-FREE-OVERRIDE :ALL (:REWRITE P2-TRANS))
 NIL
ACL2 !>>(THM (IMPLIES (AND (P2 A C) (P2 A B) (P2 C D))
                      (P2 A D)))

Q.E.D.

Summary
Form:  ( THM ...)
Rules: ((:REWRITE P2-TRANS))

Proof succeeded.
ACL2 !>>(U)
           4:x(DEFAXIOM P2-TRANS (IMPLIES # #) ...)
ACL2 !>>(U)
 v         3:x(DEFSTUB P2 (X Y) ...)
ACL2 !>>(SET-MATCH-FREE-DEFAULT :ONCE)
 :ONCE
ACL2 !>>(DEFAXIOM P2-TRANS
          (IMPLIES (AND (P2 X Y) (P2 Y Z))
                   (P2 X Z)))

ACL2 Warning [Free] in ( DEFAXIOM P2-TRANS ...):  A :REWRITE rule generated
from P2-TRANS contains the free variable Y.  This variable will be
chosen by searching for an instance of (P2 X Y) in the context of the
term being rewritten.  This is generally a severe restriction on the
applicability of a :REWRITE rule.  See :DOC free-variables.


Summary
Form:  ( DEFAXIOM P2-TRANS ...)
Rules: NIL
Warnings:  Free
 P2-TRANS
ACL2 !>>(THM (IMPLIES (AND (P2 A C) (P2 A B) (P2 C D))
                      (P2 A D)))

*1 (the initial Goal, a key checkpoint) is pushed for proof by induction.

No induction schemes are suggested by *1.  Consequently, the proof
attempt has failed.

Summary
Form:  ( THM ...)
Rules: NIL

---
The key checkpoint goal, below, may help you to debug this failure.
See :DOC failure and see :DOC set-checkpoint-summary-limit.
---

*** Key checkpoint at the top level: ***

Goal
(IMPLIES (AND (P2 A C) (P2 A B) (P2 C D))
         (P2 A D))

ACL2 Error [Failure] in ( THM ...):  See :DOC failure.

******** FAILED ********
ACL2 !>>(ADD-MATCH-FREE-OVERRIDE :ALL T)
 NIL
ACL2 !>>(THM (IMPLIES (AND (P2 A C) (P2 A B) (P2 C D))
                      (P2 A D)))

Q.E.D.

Summary
Form:  ( THM ...)
Rules: ((:REWRITE P2-TRANS))

Proof succeeded.
ACL2 !>>(UBU! 'START)
           2:x(DEFLABEL START)
ACL2 !>>(ENCAPSULATE (((P1 *) => *)
                      ((P2 * *) => *)
                      ((P3 *) => *)
                      ((A) => *)
                      ((B) => *))
          (LOCAL (DEFUN P1 (X) X))
          (LOCAL (DEFUN P2 (X Y) (LIST X Y)))
          (LOCAL (DEFUN P3 (X) X))
          (LOCAL (DEFUN A NIL 0))
          (LOCAL (DEFUN B NIL 0)))

To verify that the five encapsulated events correctly extend the current
theory we will evaluate them.  The theory thus constructed is only
ephemeral.

Encapsulated Events:


ACL2 !>>>(LOCAL (DEFUN P1 (X) X))

Since P1 is non-recursive, its admission is trivial.  We observe that
the type of P1 is described by the theorem (EQUAL (P1 X) X).  

Summary
Form:  ( DEFUN P1 ...)
Rules: NIL
P1


ACL2 !>>>(LOCAL (DEFUN P2 (X Y) (LIST X Y)))

Since P2 is non-recursive, its admission is trivial.  We observe that
the type of P2 is described by the theorem 
(AND (CONSP (P2 X Y)) (TRUE-LISTP (P2 X Y))).  We used primitive type
reasoning.

Summary
Form:  ( DEFUN P2 ...)
Rules: ((:FAKE-RUNE-FOR-TYPE-SET NIL))
P2


ACL2 !>>>(LOCAL (DEFUN P3 (X) X))

Since P3 is non-recursive, its admission is trivial.  We observe that
the type of P3 is described by the theorem (EQUAL (P3 X) X).  

Summary
Form:  ( DEFUN P3 ...)
Rules: NIL
P3


ACL2 !>>>(LOCAL (DEFUN A NIL 0))

Since A is non-recursive, its admission is trivial.  We observe that
the type of A is described by the theorem (EQUAL (A) 0).  

Summary
Form:  ( DEFUN A ...)
Rules: NIL
A


ACL2 !>>>(LOCAL (DEFUN B NIL 0))

Since B is non-recursive, its admission is trivial.  We observe that
the type of B is described by the theorem (EQUAL (B) 0).  

Summary
Form:  ( DEFUN B ...)
Rules: NIL
B

End of Encapsulated Events.

Having verified that the encapsulated events validate the signatures
of the ENCAPSULATE event, we discard the ephemeral theory and extend
the original theory as directed by the signatures and the non-LOCAL
events.


Summary
Form:  ( ENCAPSULATE (((P1 * ...) ...) ...) ...)
Rules: NIL
 (P1 P2 P3 A B)
ACL2 !>>(SET-MATCH-FREE-ERROR NIL)
<state>
ACL2 !>>(DEFAXIOM AX1
          (IMPLIES (AND (P2 X Y) (P1 Y)) (P3 X)))

ACL2 Warning [Free] in ( DEFAXIOM AX1 ...):  A :REWRITE rule generated
from AX1 contains the free variable Y.  This variable will be chosen
by searching for an instance of (P2 X Y) in the context of the term
being rewritten.  This is generally a severe restriction on the applicability
of a :REWRITE rule.  See :DOC free-variables.


Summary
Form:  ( DEFAXIOM AX1 ...)
Rules: NIL
Warnings:  Free
 AX1
ACL2 !>>(DEFAXIOM P2-A-B (P2 (A) (B)))

Summary
Form:  ( DEFAXIOM P2-A-B ...)
Rules: NIL
 P2-A-B
ACL2 !>>(DEFAXIOM P2-A-A (P2 (A) (A)))

Summary
Form:  ( DEFAXIOM P2-A-A ...)
Rules: NIL
 P2-A-A
ACL2 !>>(DEFAXIOM P1-B (P1 (B)))

Summary
Form:  ( DEFAXIOM P1-B ...)
Rules: NIL
 P1-B
ACL2 !>>(THM (IMPLIES (P2 (A) Y) (P3 (A))))

Q.E.D.

Summary
Form:  ( THM ...)
Rules: ((:REWRITE AX1)
        (:REWRITE P1-B)
        (:REWRITE P2-A-B))

Proof succeeded.
ACL2 !>>(ADD-MATCH-FREE-OVERRIDE :ONCE T)
 ((:REWRITE AX1)
  (:REWRITE APPLY$-WARRANT-DO$-NECC)
  (:REWRITE APPLY$-WARRANT-LOOP$-DEFAULT-VALUES-NECC)
  (:REWRITE APPLY$-WARRANT-LOOP$-DEFAULT-VALUES1-NECC)
  (:REWRITE APPLY$-WARRANT-EVISCERATE-DO$-ALIST-NECC)
  (:REWRITE APPLY$-WARRANT-STOBJ-PRINT-NAME-NECC)
  (:REWRITE APPLY$-WARRANT-LEXP-NECC)
  (:REWRITE APPLY$-WARRANT-LEX-FIX-NECC)
  (:REWRITE APPLY$-WARRANT-NFIX-LIST-NECC)
  (:REWRITE APPLY$-WARRANT-L<-NECC)
  (:REWRITE APPLY$-WARRANT-D<-NECC)
  (:REWRITE APPLY$-WARRANT-MEMPOS-NECC)
  (:REWRITE APPLY$-WARRANT-APPEND$+-NECC)
  (:REWRITE APPLY$-WARRANT-APPEND$+-AC-NECC)
  (:REWRITE APPLY$-WARRANT-APPEND$-NECC)
  (:REWRITE APPLY$-WARRANT-APPEND$-AC-NECC)
  (:REWRITE APPLY$-WARRANT-COLLECT$+-NECC)
  (:REWRITE APPLY$-WARRANT-COLLECT$+-AC-NECC)
  (:REWRITE APPLY$-WARRANT-COLLECT$-NECC)
  (:REWRITE APPLY$-WARRANT-COLLECT$-AC-NECC)
  (:REWRITE APPLY$-WARRANT-THEREIS$+-NECC)
  (:REWRITE APPLY$-WARRANT-THEREIS$-NECC)
  (:REWRITE APPLY$-WARRANT-ALWAYS$+-NECC)
  (:REWRITE APPLY$-WARRANT-ALWAYS$-NECC)
  (:REWRITE APPLY$-WARRANT-SUM$+-NECC)
  (:REWRITE APPLY$-WARRANT-SUM$+-AC-NECC)
  (:REWRITE APPLY$-WARRANT-SUM$-NECC)
  (:REWRITE APPLY$-WARRANT-SUM$-AC-NECC)
  (:REWRITE APPLY$-WARRANT-WHEN$+-NECC)
  (:REWRITE APPLY$-WARRANT-WHEN$+-AC-NECC)
  (:REWRITE APPLY$-WARRANT-WHEN$-NECC)
  (:REWRITE APPLY$-WARRANT-WHEN$-AC-NECC)
  (:REWRITE APPLY$-WARRANT-UNTIL$+-NECC)
  (:REWRITE APPLY$-WARRANT-UNTIL$+-AC-NECC)
  (:REWRITE APPLY$-WARRANT-UNTIL$-NECC)
  (:REWRITE APPLY$-WARRANT-UNTIL$-AC-NECC)
  (:REWRITE APPLY$-EQUIVALENCE-NECC)
  (:REWRITE ARITIES-OKP-IMPLIES-LOGICP)
  (:REWRITE ARITIES-OKP-IMPLIES-ARITY)
  (:REWRITE TERM-LISTP-IMPLIES-PSEUDO-TERM-LISTP)
  (:REWRITE TERMP-IMPLIES-PSEUDO-TERMP)
  (:LINEAR TO-DF-MONOTONICITY)
  (:REWRITE ANCESTORS-CHECK-CONSTRAINT)
  (:REWRITE ANCESTORS-CHECK-BUILTIN-PROPERTY)
  (:REWRITE LEXORDER-TRANSITIVE)
  (:REWRITE ALPHORDER-TRANSITIVE)
  (:REWRITE STRING<-L-TRICHOTOMY)
  (:REWRITE SYMBOL<-TRANSITIVE)
  (:REWRITE STRING<-L-TRANSITIVE)
  (:LINEAR ARRAY2P-LINEAR)
  (:LINEAR ARRAY2P-LINEAR)
  (:LINEAR ARRAY2P-LINEAR)
  (:LINEAR ARRAY2P-LINEAR)
  (:LINEAR ARRAY1P-LINEAR)
  (:LINEAR ARRAY1P-LINEAR)
  (:LINEAR ARRAY1P-LINEAR)
  (:LINEAR DF-ROUND-MONOTONICITY)
  (:LINEAR CONSTRAINED-TO-DF-MONOTONICITY)
  (:REWRITE BAD-ATOM<=-TRANSITIVE))
ACL2 !>>(THM (IMPLIES (P2 (A) Y) (P3 (A))))

*1 (the initial Goal, a key checkpoint) is pushed for proof by induction.

No induction schemes are suggested by *1.  Consequently, the proof
attempt has failed.

Summary
Form:  ( THM ...)
Rules: NIL

---
The key checkpoint goal, below, may help you to debug this failure.
See :DOC failure and see :DOC set-checkpoint-summary-limit.
---

*** Key checkpoint at the top level: ***

Goal
(IMPLIES (P2 (A) Y) (P3 (A)))

ACL2 Error [Failure] in ( THM ...):  See :DOC failure.

******** FAILED ********
ACL2 !>>(ADD-MATCH-FREE-OVERRIDE :CLEAR)
 :CLEAR
ACL2 !>>(THM (IMPLIES (P2 (A) Y) (P3 (A))))

Q.E.D.

Summary
Form:  ( THM ...)
Rules: ((:REWRITE AX1)
        (:REWRITE P1-B)
        (:REWRITE P2-A-B))

Proof succeeded.
ACL2 !>>(ADD-MATCH-FREE-OVERRIDE :ONCE (:REWRITE STRING<-L-TRICHOTOMY))
 ((:REWRITE STRING<-L-TRICHOTOMY))
ACL2 !>>(THM (IMPLIES (P2 (A) Y) (P3 (A))))

Q.E.D.

Summary
Form:  ( THM ...)
Rules: ((:REWRITE AX1)
        (:REWRITE P1-B)
        (:REWRITE P2-A-B))

Proof succeeded.
ACL2 !>>(UBU! 'START)
           2:x(DEFLABEL START)
ACL2 !>>(ENCAPSULATE ((P1 (U X) T)
                      (BAD (X) T)
                      (P2 (X Y Z) T)
                      (BAR (X Y) T)
                      (FOO (X Y) T)
                      (POO (X Y) T)
                      (PROP (U) T))
          (LOCAL (DEFUN P1 (U X)
                   (DECLARE (IGNORE U X))
                   NIL))
          (LOCAL (DEFUN BAD (X)
                   (DECLARE (IGNORE X))
                   NIL))
          (LOCAL (DEFUN P2 (X Y Z)
                   (DECLARE (IGNORE X Y Z))
                   NIL))
          (LOCAL (DEFUN BAR (X Y)
                   (DECLARE (IGNORE X Y))
                   NIL))
          (LOCAL (DEFUN FOO (X Y)
                   (DECLARE (IGNORE X Y))
                   NIL))
          (LOCAL (DEFUN POO (X Y)
                   (DECLARE (IGNORE X Y))
                   NIL))
          (LOCAL (DEFUN PROP (U) (DECLARE (IGNORE U)) T))
          (DEFTHM FOO-POO
            (IMPLIES (SYNTAXP (EQUAL Y 'Y3))
                     (EQUAL (FOO X Y) (POO X Y))))
          (DEFTHM LEMMA-1
            (IMPLIES (AND (P1 U X)
                          (BAD X)
                          (P2 X Y Z)
                          (BAR X Y)
                          (EQUAL X X)
                          (FOO X Y))
                     (PROP U))
            :RULE-CLASSES ((:REWRITE :MATCH-FREE :ALL))))

To verify that the nine encapsulated events correctly extend the current
theory we will evaluate them.  The theory thus constructed is only
ephemeral.

Encapsulated Events:


ACL2 !>>>(LOCAL (DEFUN P1 (U X)
                  (DECLARE (IGNORE U X))
                  NIL))

Since P1 is non-recursive, its admission is trivial.  We observe that
the type of P1 is described by the theorem (EQUAL (P1 U X) NIL).  

Summary
Form:  ( DEFUN P1 ...)
Rules: NIL
P1


ACL2 !>>>(LOCAL (DEFUN BAD (X)
                  (DECLARE (IGNORE X))
                  NIL))

Since BAD is non-recursive, its admission is trivial.  We observe that
the type of BAD is described by the theorem (EQUAL (BAD X) NIL).  

Summary
Form:  ( DEFUN BAD ...)
Rules: NIL
BAD


ACL2 !>>>(LOCAL (DEFUN P2 (X Y Z)
                  (DECLARE (IGNORE X Y Z))
                  NIL))

Since P2 is non-recursive, its admission is trivial.  We observe that
the type of P2 is described by the theorem (EQUAL (P2 X Y Z) NIL).

Summary
Form:  ( DEFUN P2 ...)
Rules: NIL
P2


ACL2 !>>>(LOCAL (DEFUN BAR (X Y)
                  (DECLARE (IGNORE X Y))
                  NIL))

Since BAR is non-recursive, its admission is trivial.  We observe that
the type of BAR is described by the theorem (EQUAL (BAR X Y) NIL).

Summary
Form:  ( DEFUN BAR ...)
Rules: NIL
BAR


ACL2 !>>>(LOCAL (DEFUN FOO (X Y)
                  (DECLARE (IGNORE X Y))
                  NIL))

Since FOO is non-recursive, its admission is trivial.  We observe that
the type of FOO is described by the theorem (EQUAL (FOO X Y) NIL).

Summary
Form:  ( DEFUN FOO ...)
Rules: NIL
FOO


ACL2 !>>>(LOCAL (DEFUN POO (X Y)
                  (DECLARE (IGNORE X Y))
                  NIL))

Since POO is non-recursive, its admission is trivial.  We observe that
the type of POO is described by the theorem (EQUAL (POO X Y) NIL).

Summary
Form:  ( DEFUN POO ...)
Rules: NIL
POO


ACL2 !>>>(LOCAL (DEFUN PROP (U) (DECLARE (IGNORE U)) T))

Since PROP is non-recursive, its admission is trivial.  We observe
that the type of PROP is described by the theorem (EQUAL (PROP U) T).

Summary
Form:  ( DEFUN PROP ...)
Rules: NIL
PROP


ACL2 !>>>(DEFTHM FOO-POO
           (IMPLIES (SYNTAXP (EQUAL Y 'Y3))
                    (EQUAL (FOO X Y) (POO X Y))))

ACL2 Warning [Non-rec] in ( DEFTHM FOO-POO ...):  A :REWRITE rule generated
from FOO-POO will be triggered only by terms containing the function
symbol FOO, which has a non-recursive definition.  Unless this definition
is disabled, this rule is unlikely ever to be used.


ACL2 Warning [Subsume] in ( DEFTHM FOO-POO ...):  The previously added
rule FOO subsumes a newly proposed :REWRITE rule generated from FOO-POO,
in the sense that the old rule rewrites a more general target.  Because
the new rule will be tried first, it may nonetheless find application.


Q.E.D.

Summary
Form:  ( DEFTHM FOO-POO ...)
Rules: ((:FAKE-RUNE-FOR-TYPE-SET NIL)
        (:TYPE-PRESCRIPTION FOO)
        (:TYPE-PRESCRIPTION POO))
Warnings:  Subsume and Non-rec
FOO-POO


ACL2 !>>>(DEFTHM LEMMA-1
           (IMPLIES (AND (P1 U X)
                         (BAD X)
                         (P2 X Y Z)
                         (BAR X Y)
                         (EQUAL X X)
                         (FOO X Y))
                    (PROP U))
           :RULE-CLASSES ((:REWRITE :MATCH-FREE :ALL)))

ACL2 Warning [Non-rec] in ( DEFTHM LEMMA-1 ...):  A :REWRITE rule generated
from LEMMA-1 will be triggered only by terms containing the function
symbol PROP, which has a non-recursive definition.  Unless this definition
is disabled, this rule is unlikely ever to be used.


ACL2 Warning [Non-rec] in ( DEFTHM LEMMA-1 ...):  As noted, we will
instantiate the free variables, X, Z and Y, of a :REWRITE rule generated
from LEMMA-1, by searching for the set of hypotheses shown above. 
However, these hypotheses mention the function symbols P1 and P2, which
have non-recursive definitions.  Unless these definitions are disabled,
those function symbols are unlikely to occur in the conjecture being
proved and hence the search for the required hypotheses will likely
fail.


ACL2 Warning [Subsume] in ( DEFTHM LEMMA-1 ...):  The previously added
rule PROP subsumes a newly proposed :REWRITE rule generated from LEMMA-1,
in the sense that the old rule rewrites a more general target.  Because
the new rule will be tried first, it may nonetheless find application.


Q.E.D.

The storage of LEMMA-1 depends upon the :type-prescription rule PROP.

Summary
Form:  ( DEFTHM LEMMA-1 ...)
Rules: ((:TYPE-PRESCRIPTION P1)
        (:TYPE-PRESCRIPTION PROP))
Warnings:  Subsume and Non-rec
LEMMA-1

End of Encapsulated Events.

Having verified that the encapsulated events validate the signatures
of the ENCAPSULATE event, we discard the ephemeral theory and extend
the original theory as directed by the signatures and the non-LOCAL
events.

The following constraint is associated with every one of the functions
P1, BAD, P2, BAR, FOO, POO and PROP:

(AND (IMPLIES (SYNTAXP (EQUAL Y 'Y3))
              (EQUAL (FOO X Y) (POO X Y)))
     (IMPLIES (AND (P1 U X)
                   (BAD X)
                   (P2 X Y Z)
                   (BAR X Y)
                   (EQUAL X X)
                   (FOO X Y))
              (PROP U)))

Summary
Form:  ( ENCAPSULATE ((P1 ...) ...) ...)
Rules: NIL
Warnings:  Subsume and Non-rec
 (P1 BAD P2 BAR FOO POO PROP)
ACL2 !>>:BRR T
Use :a! to exit break-rewrite.
See :DOC set-brr-evisc-tuple and :DOC iprint to control suppression
of details when printing.

The monitored runes are:
NIL
 T
ACL2 !>>:MONITOR (:REWRITE LEMMA-1) '(:TARGET :UNIFY-SUBST :GO)
(((:REWRITE LEMMA-1)
  (:CONDITION QUOTE (:TARGET :UNIFY-SUBST :GO))))
ACL2 !>>(THM (IMPLIES (AND (P1 U0 X1)
                           (BAD X1)
                           (BAD X3)
                           (BAR X3 Y1)
                           (BAR X3 Y3)
                           (P1 U0 X2)
                           (P1 U0 X3)
                           (P2 X3 Y1 Z1)
                           (P2 X3 Y3 Z1))
                      (PROP U0)))

(1 Breaking (:REWRITE LEMMA-1) on (PROP U0):
1 ACL2 >:TARGET
(PROP U0)
1 ACL2 >:UNIFY-SUBST
     U : U0
1 ACL2 >:GO

1x (:REWRITE LEMMA-1) failed because :HYP 1 contains free variables.
The following display summarizes the attempts to relieve hypotheses
by binding free variables; see :DOC free-variables.

    [1] X : X1
Failed because :HYP 3 contains free variables Y and Z, for which no
suitable bindings were found.
    [1] X : X2
Failed because :HYP 2 rewrote to (BAD X2).
    [1] X : X3
        [3] Z : Z1
            Y : Y1
Failed because :HYP 6 rewrote to (FOO X3 Y1).
        [3] Z : Z1
            Y : Y3
Failed because :HYP 6 rewrote to (POO X3 Y3).
1)

(1 Breaking (:REWRITE LEMMA-1) on (PROP U0):
1 ACL2 >:TARGET
(PROP U0)
1 ACL2 >:UNIFY-SUBST
     U : U0
1 ACL2 >:GO

1x (:REWRITE LEMMA-1) failed because :HYP 1 contains free variables.
The following display summarizes the attempts to relieve hypotheses
by binding free variables; see :DOC free-variables.

    [1] X : X1
Failed because :HYP 3 contains free variables Y and Z, for which no
suitable bindings were found.
    [1] X : X2
Failed because :HYP 2 rewrote to (BAD X2).
    [1] X : X3
        [3] Z : Z1
            Y : Y1
Failed because :HYP 6 rewrote to (FOO X3 Y1).
        [3] Z : Z1
            Y : Y3
Failed because :HYP 6 rewrote to (POO X3 Y3).
1)

*1 (the initial Goal, a key checkpoint) is pushed for proof by induction.

No induction schemes are suggested by *1.  Consequently, the proof
attempt has failed.

Summary
Form:  ( THM ...)
Rules: NIL

---
The key checkpoint goal, below, may help you to debug this failure.
See :DOC failure and see :DOC set-checkpoint-summary-limit.
---

*** Key checkpoint at the top level: ***

Goal
(IMPLIES (AND (P1 U0 X1)
              (BAD X1)
              (BAD X3)
              (BAR X3 Y1)
              (BAR X3 Y3)
              (P1 U0 X2)
              (P1 U0 X3)
              (P2 X3 Y1 Z1)
              (P2 X3 Y3 Z1))
         (PROP U0))

ACL2 Error [Failure] in ( THM ...):  See :DOC failure.

******** FAILED ********
ACL2 !>>(UBU! 'START)
           2:x(DEFLABEL START)
ACL2 !>>(DEFUN F (X) (DECLARE (IGNORE X)) T)

Since F is non-recursive, its admission is trivial.  We observe that
the type of F is described by the theorem (EQUAL (F X) T).  

Summary
Form:  ( DEFUN F ...)
Rules: NIL
 F
ACL2 !>>(DEFUN G (X) X)

Since G is non-recursive, its admission is trivial.  We observe that
the type of G is described by the theorem (EQUAL (G X) X).  

Summary
Form:  ( DEFUN G ...)
Rules: NIL
 G
ACL2 !>>(DEFUN H (X) X)

Since H is non-recursive, its admission is trivial.  We observe that
the type of H is described by the theorem (EQUAL (H X) X).  

Summary
Form:  ( DEFUN H ...)
Rules: NIL
 H
ACL2 !>>(DEFUN K (X) X)

Since K is non-recursive, its admission is trivial.  We observe that
the type of K is described by the theorem (EQUAL (K X) X).  

Summary
Form:  ( DEFUN K ...)
Rules: NIL
 K
ACL2 !>>(DEFTHM F-K-H (F (K (H X))))

ACL2 Warning [Non-rec] in ( DEFTHM F-K-H ...):  A :REWRITE rule generated
from F-K-H will be triggered only by terms containing the function
symbols F, K and H, which have non-recursive definitions.  Unless these
definitions are disabled, this rule is unlikely ever to be used.


ACL2 Warning [Subsume] in ( DEFTHM F-K-H ...):  The previously added
rule F subsumes a newly proposed :REWRITE rule generated from F-K-H,
in the sense that the old rule rewrites a more general target.  Because
the new rule will be tried first, it may nonetheless find application.


Q.E.D.

The storage of F-K-H depends upon the :type-prescription rule F.

Summary
Form:  ( DEFTHM F-K-H ...)
Rules: ((:TYPE-PRESCRIPTION F))
Warnings:  Subsume and Non-rec
 F-K-H
ACL2 !>>(DEFTHM G-REWRITE
          (IMPLIES (AND (EQUAL Y (K X)) (F Y))
                   (EQUAL (G X) Y)))

ACL2 Warning [Non-rec] in ( DEFTHM G-REWRITE ...):  A :REWRITE rule
generated from G-REWRITE will be triggered only by terms containing
the function symbol G, which has a non-recursive definition.  Unless
this definition is disabled, this rule is unlikely ever to be used.


ACL2 Warning [Subsume] in ( DEFTHM G-REWRITE ...):  The previously
added rule G subsumes a newly proposed :REWRITE rule generated from
G-REWRITE, in the sense that the old rule rewrites a more general target.
Because the new rule will be tried first, it may nonetheless find application.


Q.E.D.

Summary
Form:  ( DEFTHM G-REWRITE ...)
Rules: ((:DEFINITION F)
        (:DEFINITION G)
        (:DEFINITION K))
Warnings:  Subsume and Non-rec
 G-REWRITE
ACL2 !>>(IN-THEORY (UNION-THEORIES (THEORY 'MINIMAL-THEORY)
                                   '(F-K-H G-REWRITE)))

Summary
Form:  ( IN-THEORY (UNION-THEORIES ...))
Rules: NIL
 :CURRENT-THEORY-UPDATED
ACL2 !>>(THM (EQUAL (G (H A)) (K (H A))))

Q.E.D.

Summary
Form:  ( THM ...)
Rules: ((:FAKE-RUNE-FOR-TYPE-SET NIL)
        (:REWRITE F-K-H)
        (:REWRITE G-REWRITE))

Proof succeeded.
ACL2 !>>(UBU! 'START)
           2:x(DEFLABEL START)
ACL2 !>>(DEFUN MY-EQUIV (X Y) (EQUAL X Y))

Since MY-EQUIV is non-recursive, its admission is trivial.  We observe
that the type of MY-EQUIV is described by the theorem 
(OR (EQUAL (MY-EQUIV X Y) T) (EQUAL (MY-EQUIV X Y) NIL)).  We used
primitive type reasoning.

Summary
Form:  ( DEFUN MY-EQUIV ...)
Rules: ((:FAKE-RUNE-FOR-TYPE-SET NIL))
 MY-EQUIV
ACL2 !>>(DEFEQUIV MY-EQUIV)

Q.E.D.

Summary
Form:  ( DEFTHM MY-EQUIV-IS-AN-EQUIVALENCE ...)
Rules: ((:DEFINITION MY-EQUIV)
        (:EXECUTABLE-COUNTERPART TAU-SYSTEM))

Summary
Form:  ( MAKE-EVENT (DEFEQUIV-FORM ...))
Rules: NIL
 MY-EQUIV-IS-AN-EQUIVALENCE
ACL2 !>>(DEFUN F (X) (DECLARE (IGNORE X)) T)

Since F is non-recursive, its admission is trivial.  We observe that
the type of F is described by the theorem (EQUAL (F X) T).  

Summary
Form:  ( DEFUN F ...)
Rules: NIL
 F
ACL2 !>>(DEFUN G (X) X)

Since G is non-recursive, its admission is trivial.  We observe that
the type of G is described by the theorem (EQUAL (G X) X).  

Summary
Form:  ( DEFUN G ...)
Rules: NIL
 G
ACL2 !>>(DEFUN H1 (X) X)

Since H1 is non-recursive, its admission is trivial.  We observe that
the type of H1 is described by the theorem (EQUAL (H1 X) X).  

Summary
Form:  ( DEFUN H1 ...)
Rules: NIL
 H1
ACL2 !>>(DEFUN H2 (X) X)

Since H2 is non-recursive, its admission is trivial.  We observe that
the type of H2 is described by the theorem (EQUAL (H2 X) X).  

Summary
Form:  ( DEFUN H2 ...)
Rules: NIL
 H2
ACL2 !>>(DEFTHM LEMMA-1
          (MY-EQUIV (H1 X) (H2 X)))

ACL2 Warning [Non-rec] in ( DEFTHM LEMMA-1 ...):  A :REWRITE rule generated
from LEMMA-1 will be triggered only by terms containing the function
symbol H1, which has a non-recursive definition.  Unless this definition
is disabled, this rule is unlikely ever to be used.


ACL2 Warning [Subsume] in ( DEFTHM LEMMA-1 ...):  The previously added
rule H1 subsumes a newly proposed :REWRITE rule generated from LEMMA-1,
in the sense that the old rule rewrites a more general target.  Because
the new rule will be tried first, it may nonetheless find application.


Q.E.D.

Summary
Form:  ( DEFTHM LEMMA-1 ...)
Rules: ((:DEFINITION H1)
        (:DEFINITION H2)
        (:DEFINITION MY-EQUIV))
Warnings:  Subsume and Non-rec
 LEMMA-1
ACL2 !>>(DEFTHM LEMMA-2 (F (H2 X)))

ACL2 Warning [Non-rec] in ( DEFTHM LEMMA-2 ...):  A :REWRITE rule generated
from LEMMA-2 will be triggered only by terms containing the function
symbols F and H2, which have non-recursive definitions.  Unless these
definitions are disabled, this rule is unlikely ever to be used.


ACL2 Warning [Subsume] in ( DEFTHM LEMMA-2 ...):  The previously added
rule F subsumes a newly proposed :REWRITE rule generated from LEMMA-2,
in the sense that the old rule rewrites a more general target.  Because
the new rule will be tried first, it may nonetheless find application.


Q.E.D.

The storage of LEMMA-2 depends upon the :type-prescription rule F.

Summary
Form:  ( DEFTHM LEMMA-2 ...)
Rules: ((:TYPE-PRESCRIPTION F))
Warnings:  Subsume and Non-rec
 LEMMA-2
ACL2 !>>(DEFTHM LEMMA-3
          (IMPLIES (AND (MY-EQUIV Y (DOUBLE-REWRITE X))
                        (F Y))
                   (EQUAL (G X) Y)))

ACL2 Warning [Non-rec] in ( DEFTHM LEMMA-3 ...):  A :REWRITE rule generated
from LEMMA-3 will be triggered only by terms containing the function
symbol G, which has a non-recursive definition.  Unless this definition
is disabled, this rule is unlikely ever to be used.


ACL2 Warning [Subsume] in ( DEFTHM LEMMA-3 ...):  The previously added
rule G subsumes a newly proposed :REWRITE rule generated from LEMMA-3,
in the sense that the old rule rewrites a more general target.  Because
the new rule will be tried first, it may nonetheless find application.


Q.E.D.

Summary
Form:  ( DEFTHM LEMMA-3 ...)
Rules: ((:DEFINITION DOUBLE-REWRITE)
        (:DEFINITION F)
        (:DEFINITION G)
        (:DEFINITION MY-EQUIV))
Warnings:  Subsume and Non-rec
 LEMMA-3
ACL2 !>>(IN-THEORY
             (UNION-THEORIES (THEORY 'MINIMAL-THEORY)
                             '(LEMMA-1 LEMMA-2
                                       LEMMA-3 MY-EQUIV-IS-AN-EQUIVALENCE)))

Summary
Form:  ( IN-THEORY (UNION-THEORIES ...))
Rules: NIL
 :CURRENT-THEORY-UPDATED
ACL2 !>>(THM (EQUAL (G (H1 A)) (H2 A)))

(1 Breaking (:REWRITE LEMMA-1) on (H1 A):
1 ACL2 >:TARGET
(H1 A)
1 ACL2 >:UNIFY-SUBST
     X : A
1 ACL2 >:GO

1 (:REWRITE LEMMA-1) produced (H2 A).
1)

Q.E.D.

Summary
Form:  ( THM ...)
Rules: ((:DEFINITION DOUBLE-REWRITE)
        (:EQUIVALENCE MY-EQUIV-IS-AN-EQUIVALENCE)
        (:FAKE-RUNE-FOR-TYPE-SET NIL)
        (:REWRITE LEMMA-1)
        (:REWRITE LEMMA-2)
        (:REWRITE LEMMA-3))

Proof succeeded.
ACL2 !>>(IN-THEORY (UNION-THEORIES (THEORY 'MINIMAL-THEORY)
                                   '(LEMMA-1 LEMMA-2 LEMMA-3)))

Summary
Form:  ( IN-THEORY (UNION-THEORIES ...))
Rules: NIL
 :CURRENT-THEORY-UPDATED
ACL2 !>>(THM (EQUAL (G (H1 A)) (H2 A)))

*1 (the initial Goal, a key checkpoint) is pushed for proof by induction.

No induction schemes are suggested by *1.  Consequently, the proof
attempt has failed.

Summary
Form:  ( THM ...)
Rules: NIL

---
The key checkpoint goal, below, may help you to debug this failure.
See :DOC failure and see :DOC set-checkpoint-summary-limit.
---

*** Key checkpoint at the top level: ***

Goal
(EQUAL (G (H1 A)) (H2 A))

ACL2 Error [Failure] in ( THM ...):  See :DOC failure.

******** FAILED ********
ACL2 !>>(UBU! 'START)
           2:x(DEFLABEL START)
ACL2 !>>(DEFSTUB F (X) NIL)

Summary
Form:  (DEFSTUB F ...)
Rules: NIL
 F
ACL2 !>>(DEFSTUB G (X) NIL)

Summary
Form:  (DEFSTUB G ...)
Rules: NIL
 G
ACL2 !>>(DEFAXIOM G-REWRITE
          (IMPLIES (AND (F Y)
                        (SYNTAXP (NOT (CW "rewrite trying ~x0~%" Y)))
                        (EQUAL X Y))
                   (EQUAL (G X) Y)))

ACL2 Warning [Free] in ( DEFAXIOM G-REWRITE ...):  A :REWRITE rule
generated from G-REWRITE contains the free variable Y.  This variable
will be chosen by searching for an instance of (F Y) in the context
of the term being rewritten.  This is generally a severe restriction
on the applicability of a :REWRITE rule.  See :DOC free-variables.


Summary
Form:  ( DEFAXIOM G-REWRITE ...)
Rules: NIL
Warnings:  Free
 G-REWRITE
ACL2 !>>(DEFAXIOM G-BIND-FREE
          (IMPLIES (AND (BIND-FREE '(((Y . A)) ((Y . B))) (Y))
                        (SYNTAXP (NOT (CW "bind trying ~x0~%" Y)))
                        (F Y)
                        (EQUAL X Y))
                   (EQUAL (G X) Y)))

Summary
Form:  ( DEFAXIOM G-BIND-FREE ...)
Rules: NIL
 G-BIND-FREE
ACL2 !>>:MONITOR (:REWRITE G-BIND-FREE) '(:TARGET :GO)
(((:REWRITE G-BIND-FREE)
  (:CONDITION QUOTE (:TARGET :GO)))
 ((:REWRITE LEMMA-1)
  (:CONDITION QUOTE (:TARGET :UNIFY-SUBST :GO))))
ACL2 !>>:MONITOR (:REWRITE G-REWRITE) '(:TARGET :GO)
(((:REWRITE G-REWRITE)
  (:CONDITION QUOTE (:TARGET :GO)))
 ((:REWRITE G-BIND-FREE)
  (:CONDITION QUOTE (:TARGET :GO)))
 ((:REWRITE LEMMA-1)
  (:CONDITION QUOTE (:TARGET :UNIFY-SUBST :GO))))
ACL2 !>>:BRR T
Use :a! to exit break-rewrite.
See :DOC set-brr-evisc-tuple and :DOC iprint to control suppression
of details when printing.

The monitored runes are:
(((:REWRITE G-REWRITE)
  (:CONDITION QUOTE (:TARGET :GO)))
 ((:REWRITE G-BIND-FREE)
  (:CONDITION QUOTE (:TARGET :GO)))
 ((:REWRITE LEMMA-1)
  (:CONDITION QUOTE (:TARGET :UNIFY-SUBST :GO))))
 T
ACL2 !>>(THM (IMPLIES (AND (F A) (F B))
                      (EQUAL (G X) X)))

(1 Breaking (:REWRITE G-BIND-FREE) on (G X):
1 ACL2 >:TARGET
(G X)
1 ACL2 >:GO
bind trying A
bind trying B

1x (:REWRITE G-BIND-FREE) failed because :HYP 1 uses BIND-FREE to produce
unsuccessful free variable bindings.  The following display summarizes
the attempts to relieve hypotheses by binding free variables; see :DOC
free-variables.

    [1] Y : A
Failed because :HYP 4 rewrote to (EQUAL X A).
    [1] Y : B
Failed because :HYP 4 rewrote to (EQUAL X B).
1)

(1 Breaking (:REWRITE G-REWRITE) on (G X):
1 ACL2 >:TARGET
(G X)
1 ACL2 >:GO
rewrite trying B
rewrite trying A

1x (:REWRITE G-REWRITE) failed because :HYP 1 contains free variables.
The following display summarizes the attempts to relieve hypotheses
by binding free variables; see :DOC free-variables.

    [1] Y : A
Failed because :HYP 3 rewrote to (EQUAL X A).
    [1] Y : B
Failed because :HYP 3 rewrote to (EQUAL X B).
1)

(1 Breaking (:REWRITE G-BIND-FREE) on (G X):
1 ACL2 >:TARGET
(G X)
1 ACL2 >:GO
bind trying A
bind trying B

1x (:REWRITE G-BIND-FREE) failed because :HYP 1 uses BIND-FREE to produce
unsuccessful free variable bindings.  The following display summarizes
the attempts to relieve hypotheses by binding free variables; see :DOC
free-variables.

    [1] Y : A
Failed because :HYP 4 rewrote to (EQUAL X A).
    [1] Y : B
Failed because :HYP 4 rewrote to (EQUAL X B).
1)

(1 Breaking (:REWRITE G-REWRITE) on (G X):
1 ACL2 >:TARGET
(G X)
1 ACL2 >:GO
rewrite trying B
rewrite trying A

1x (:REWRITE G-REWRITE) failed because :HYP 1 contains free variables.
The following display summarizes the attempts to relieve hypotheses
by binding free variables; see :DOC free-variables.

    [1] Y : A
Failed because :HYP 3 rewrote to (EQUAL X A).
    [1] Y : B
Failed because :HYP 3 rewrote to (EQUAL X B).
1)

*1 (the initial Goal, a key checkpoint) is pushed for proof by induction.

No induction schemes are suggested by *1.  Consequently, the proof
attempt has failed.

Summary
Form:  ( THM ...)
Rules: NIL

---
The key checkpoint goal, below, may help you to debug this failure.
See :DOC failure and see :DOC set-checkpoint-summary-limit.
---

*** Key checkpoint at the top level: ***

Goal
(IMPLIES (AND (F A) (F B))
         (EQUAL (G X) X))

ACL2 Error [Failure] in ( THM ...):  See :DOC failure.

******** FAILED ********
ACL2 !>>(DEFTTAG :BRR-FREE-VARIABLES)

TTAG NOTE: Adding ttag :BRR-FREE-VARIABLES from the top level loop.
 :BRR-FREE-VARIABLES
ACL2 !>>(SET-RAW-MODE T)
ACL2 P>>(SETQ *STANDARD-CO* *SAVED-STANDARD-CO*)
ACL2-OUTPUT-CHANNEL::STANDARD-CHARACTER-OUTPUT-0
ACL2 P>>(SET-RAW-MODE NIL)
ACL2 !>>(U)
           6:x(DEFAXIOM G-BIND-FREE (IMPLIES # #))
ACL2 !>>Bye.
