|Home||Intuitionistic Logic Explorer|
Theorem List (p. 109 of 111)
|< Previous Next >|
|Browser slow? Try the
Mirrors > Metamath Home Page > ILE Home Page > Theorem List Contents > Recent Proofs This page: Page List
|Theorem||qnumgt0 10801||A rational is positive iff its canonical numerator is. (Contributed by Stefan O'Rear, 15-Sep-2014.)|
|Theorem||qgt0numnn 10802||A rational is positive iff its canonical numerator is a positive integer. (Contributed by Stefan O'Rear, 15-Sep-2014.)|
|Theorem||nn0gcdsq 10803||Squaring commutes with GCD, in particular two coprime numbers have coprime squares. (Contributed by Stefan O'Rear, 15-Sep-2014.)|
|Theorem||zgcdsq 10804||nn0gcdsq 10803 extended to integers by symmetry. (Contributed by Stefan O'Rear, 15-Sep-2014.)|
|Theorem||numdensq 10805||Squaring a rational squares its canonical components. (Contributed by Stefan O'Rear, 15-Sep-2014.)|
|numer numer denom denom|
|Theorem||numsq 10806||Square commutes with canonical numerator. (Contributed by Stefan O'Rear, 15-Sep-2014.)|
|Theorem||densq 10807||Square commutes with canonical denominator. (Contributed by Stefan O'Rear, 15-Sep-2014.)|
|Theorem||qden1elz 10808||A rational is an integer iff it has denominator 1. (Contributed by Stefan O'Rear, 15-Sep-2014.)|
|Theorem||nn0sqrtelqelz 10809||If a nonnegative integer has a rational square root, that root must be an integer. (Contributed by Jim Kingdon, 24-May-2022.)|
|Theorem||nonsq 10810||Any integer strictly between two adjacent squares has a non-rational square root. (Contributed by Stefan O'Rear, 15-Sep-2014.)|
|Syntax||cphi 10811||Extend class notation with the Euler phi function.|
|Definition||df-phi 10812*||Define the Euler phi function (also called _ Euler totient function_), which counts the number of integers less than and coprime to it, see definition in [ApostolNT] p. 25. (Contributed by Mario Carneiro, 23-Feb-2014.)|
|Theorem||phivalfi 10813*||Finiteness of an expression used to define the Euler function. (Contributed by Jim Kingon, 28-May-2022.)|
|Theorem||phival 10814*||Value of the Euler function. (Contributed by Mario Carneiro, 23-Feb-2014.)|
|Theorem||phicl2 10815||Bounds and closure for the value of the Euler function. (Contributed by Mario Carneiro, 23-Feb-2014.)|
|Theorem||phicl 10816||Closure for the value of the Euler function. (Contributed by Mario Carneiro, 28-Feb-2014.)|
|Theorem||phibndlem 10817*||Lemma for phibnd 10818. (Contributed by Mario Carneiro, 23-Feb-2014.)|
|Theorem||phibnd 10818||A slightly tighter bound on the value of the Euler function. (Contributed by Mario Carneiro, 23-Feb-2014.)|
|Theorem||phicld 10819||Closure for the value of the Euler function. (Contributed by Mario Carneiro, 29-May-2016.)|
|Theorem||phi1 10820||Value of the Euler function at 1. (Contributed by Mario Carneiro, 23-Feb-2014.)|
|Theorem||dfphi2 10821*||Alternate definition of the Euler function. (Contributed by Mario Carneiro, 23-Feb-2014.) (Revised by Mario Carneiro, 2-May-2016.)|
|Theorem||hashdvds 10822*||The number of numbers in a given residue class in a finite set of integers. (Contributed by Mario Carneiro, 12-Mar-2014.) (Proof shortened by Mario Carneiro, 7-Jun-2016.)|
|Theorem||phiprmpw 10823||Value of the Euler function at a prime power. Theorem 2.5(a) in [ApostolNT] p. 28. (Contributed by Mario Carneiro, 24-Feb-2014.)|
|Theorem||phiprm 10824||Value of the Euler function at a prime. (Contributed by Mario Carneiro, 28-Feb-2014.)|
|Theorem||crth 10825*||The Chinese Remainder Theorem: the function that maps to its remainder classes and is 1-1 and onto when and are coprime. (Contributed by Mario Carneiro, 24-Feb-2014.) (Proof shortened by Mario Carneiro, 2-May-2016.)|
|..^ ..^ ..^|
|Theorem||phimullem 10826*||Lemma for phimul 10827. (Contributed by Mario Carneiro, 24-Feb-2014.)|
|..^ ..^ ..^ ..^ ..^|
|Theorem||phimul 10827||The Euler function is a multiplicative function, meaning that it distributes over multiplication at relatively prime arguments. Theorem 2.5(c) in [ApostolNT] p. 28. (Contributed by Mario Carneiro, 24-Feb-2014.)|
|Theorem||hashgcdlem 10828*||A correspondence between elements of specific GCD and relative primes in a smaller ring. (Contributed by Stefan O'Rear, 12-Sep-2015.)|
|Theorem||hashgcdeq 10829*||Number of initial positive integers with specified divisors. (Contributed by Stefan O'Rear, 12-Sep-2015.)|
|Theorem||oddennn 10830||There are as many odd positive integers as there are positive integers. (Contributed by Jim Kingdon, 11-May-2022.)|
|Theorem||evenennn 10831||There are as many even positive integers as there are positive integers. (Contributed by Jim Kingdon, 12-May-2022.)|
|Theorem||xpnnen 10832||The Cartesian product of the set of positive integers with itself is equinumerous to the set of positive integers. (Contributed by NM, 1-Aug-2004.)|
|Theorem||xpomen 10833||The Cartesian product of omega (the set of ordinal natural numbers) with itself is equinumerous to omega. Exercise 1 of [Enderton] p. 133. (Contributed by NM, 23-Jul-2004.)|
|Theorem||xpct 10834||The cartesian product of two countable sets is countable. (Contributed by Thierry Arnoux, 24-Sep-2017.)|
|Theorem||unennn 10835||The union of two disjoint countably infinite sets is countably infinite. (Contributed by Jim Kingdon, 13-May-2022.)|
|Theorem||znnen 10836||The set of integers and the set of positive integers are equinumerous. Exercise 1 of [Gleason] p. 140. (Contributed by NM, 31-Jul-2004.)|
This section describes the conventions we use. However, these conventions often refer to existing mathematical practices, which are discussed in more detail in other references. The following sources lay out how mathematics is developed without the law of the excluded middle. Of course, there are a greater number of sources which assume excluded middle and most of what is in them applies here too (especially in a treatment such as ours which is built on first order logic and set theory, rather than, say, type theory). Studying how a topic is treated in the Metamath Proof Explorer and the references therein is often a good place to start (and is easy to compare with the Intuitionistic Logic Explorer). The textbooks provide a motivation for what we are doing, whereas Metamath lets you see in detail all hidden and implicit steps. Most standard theorems are accompanied by citations. Some closely followed texts include the following:
Unless there is a reason to diverge, we follow the conventions of the
Metamath Proof Explorer (aka "set.mm"). This list of conventions is
intended to be read in conjunction with the corresponding conventions in
the Metamath Proof Explorer, and only the differences are described
Label naming conventions
Here are a few of the label naming conventions:
The following table shows some commonly-used abbreviations in labels which are not found in the Metamath Proof Explorer, in alphabetical order. For each abbreviation we provide a mnenomic to help you remember it, the source theorem/assumption defining it, an expression showing what it looks like, whether or not it is a "syntax fragment" (an abbreviation that indicates a particular kind of syntax), and hyperlinks to label examples that use the abbreviation. The abbreviation is bolded if there is a df-NAME definition but the label fragment is not NAME.
(Contributed by Jim Kingdon, 24-Feb-2020.)
|Theorem||ex-or 10838||Example for ax-io 663. Example by David A. Wheeler. (Contributed by Mario Carneiro, 9-May-2015.)|
|Theorem||ex-an 10839||Example for ax-ia1 104. Example by David A. Wheeler. (Contributed by Mario Carneiro, 9-May-2015.)|
Example for df-dec 8629, 1000 + 2000 = 3000.
This proof disproves (by counterexample) the assertion of Hao Wang, who stated, "There is a theorem in the primitive notation of set theory that corresponds to the arithmetic theorem 1000 + 2000 = 3000. The formula would be forbiddingly long... even if (one) knows the definitions and is asked to simplify the long formula according to them, chances are he will make errors and arrive at some incorrect result." (Hao Wang, "Theory and practice in mathematics" , In Thomas Tymoczko, editor, New Directions in the Philosophy of Mathematics, pp 129-152, Birkauser Boston, Inc., Boston, 1986. (QA8.6.N48). The quote itself is on page 140.)
This is noted in Metamath: A Computer Language for Pure Mathematics by Norman Megill (2007) section 1.1.3. Megill then states, "A number of writers have conveyed the impression that the kind of absolute rigor provided by Metamath is an impossible dream, suggesting that a complete, formal verification of a typical theorem would take millions of steps in untold volumes of books... These writers assume, however, that in order to achieve the kind of complete formal verification they desire one must break down a proof into individual primitive steps that make direct reference to the axioms. This is not necessary. There is no reason not to make use of previously proved theorems rather than proving them over and over... A hierarchy of theorems and definitions permits an exponential growth in the formula sizes and primitive proof steps to be described with only a linear growth in the number of symbols used. Of course, this is how ordinary informal mathematics is normally done anyway, but with Metamath it can be done with absolute rigor and precision."
The proof here starts with , commutes it, and repeatedly multiplies both sides by ten. This is certainly longer than traditional mathematical proofs, e.g., there are a number of steps explicitly shown here to show that we're allowed to do operations such as multiplication. However, while longer, the proof is clearly a manageable size - even though every step is rigorously derived all the way back to the primitive notions of set theory and logic. And while there's a risk of making errors, the many independent verifiers make it much less likely that an incorrect result will be accepted.
This proof heavily relies on the decimal constructor df-dec 8629 developed by Mario Carneiro in 2015. The underlying Metamath language has an intentionally very small set of primitives; it doesn't even have a built-in construct for numbers. Instead, the digits are defined using these primitives, and the decimal constructor is used to make it easy to express larger numbers as combinations of digits.
(Contributed by David A. Wheeler, 29-Jun-2016.) (Shortened by Mario Carneiro using the arithmetic algorithm in mmj2, 30-Jun-2016.)
|;;; ;;; ;;;|
|Theorem||ex-fl 10841||Example for df-fl 9422. Example by David A. Wheeler. (Contributed by Mario Carneiro, 18-Jun-2015.)|
|Theorem||ex-ceil 10842||Example for df-ceil 9423. (Contributed by AV, 4-Sep-2021.)|
|Theorem||ex-fac 10843||Example for df-fac 9820. (Contributed by AV, 4-Sep-2021.)|
|Theorem||ex-bc 10844||Example for df-bc 9842. (Contributed by AV, 4-Sep-2021.)|
|Theorem||ex-dvds 10845||Example for df-dvds 10422: 3 divides into 6. (Contributed by David A. Wheeler, 19-May-2015.)|
|Theorem||ex-gcd 10846||Example for df-gcd 10564. (Contributed by AV, 5-Sep-2021.)|
(This theorem is a dummy placeholder for these guidelines. The name of
this theorem, "mathbox", is hard-coded into the Metamath
identify the start of the mathbox section for web page generation.)
A "mathbox" is a user-contributed section that is maintained by its contributor independently from the main part of set.mm.
By making a contribution, you agree to release it into the public domain, according to the statement at the beginning of set.mm.
Mathboxes are provided to help keep your work synchronized with changes in set.mm, but they shouldn't be depended on as a permanent archive. If you want to preserve your original contribution, it is your responsibility to keep your own copy of it along with the version of set.mm that works with it.
1. If at all possible, please use only nullary class constants for new definitions.
2. Try to follow the style of the rest of set.mm. Each $p and $a statement must be immediately preceded with the comment that will be shown on its web page description. The metamath program command "write source set.mm /rewrap" will take care of wrapping comment lines and indentation conventions. All mathbox content will be on public display and should hopefully reflect the overall quality of the website.
3. Before submitting a revised mathbox, please make sure it verifies against the current set.mm.
4. Mathboxes should be independent i.e. the proofs should verify with all other mathboxes removed. If you need a theorem from another mathbox, that is fine (and encouraged), but let me know, so I can move the theorem to the main section. One way avoid undesired accidental use of other mathbox theorems is to develop your mathbox using a modified set.mm that has mathboxes removed.
1. We may decide to move some theorems to the main part of set.mm for general use.
2. We may make changes to mathboxes to maintain the overall quality of set.mm. Normally we will let you know if a change might impact what you are working on.
3. If you use theorems from another user's mathbox, we don't provide assurance that they are based on correct or consistent $a statements. (If you find such a problem, please let us know so it can be corrected.) (Contributed by NM, 20-Feb-2007.) (New usage is discouraged.)
|Theorem||nnexmid 10848||Double negation of excluded middle. Intuitionistic logic refutes the negation of excluded middle (but, of course, does not prove excluded middle) for any formula. (Contributed by BJ, 9-Oct-2019.)|
|Theorem||nndc 10849||Double negation of decidability of a formula. Intuitionistic logic refutes undecidability (but, of course, does not prove decidability) of any formula. (Contributed by BJ, 9-Oct-2019.)|
|Theorem||dcdc 10850||Decidability of a proposition is decidable if and only if that proposition is decidable. DECID is idempotent. (Contributed by BJ, 9-Oct-2019.)|
|DECID DECID DECID|
|Theorem||bj-ex 10851*||Existential generalization. (Contributed by BJ, 8-Dec-2019.) Proof modification is discouraged because there are shorter proofs, but using less basic results (like exlimiv 1530 and 19.9ht 1573 or 19.23ht 1427). (Proof modification is discouraged.)|
|Theorem||bj-hbalt 10852||Closed form of hbal 1407 (copied from set.mm). (Contributed by BJ, 2-May-2019.)|
|Theorem||bj-nfalt 10853||Closed form of nfal 1509 (copied from set.mm). (Contributed by BJ, 2-May-2019.)|
|Theorem||spimd 10854||Deduction form of spim 1668. (Contributed by BJ, 17-Oct-2019.)|
|Theorem||2spim 10855*||Double substitution, as in spim 1668. (Contributed by BJ, 17-Oct-2019.)|
|Theorem||ch2var 10856*||Implicit substitution of for and for into a theorem. (Contributed by BJ, 17-Oct-2019.)|
|Theorem||ch2varv 10857*||Version of ch2var 10856 with non-freeness hypotheses replaced by DV conditions. (Contributed by BJ, 17-Oct-2019.)|
|Theorem||bj-exlimmp 10858||Lemma for bj-vtoclgf 10864. (Contributed by BJ, 21-Nov-2019.) (Proof modification is discouraged.)|
|Theorem||bj-exlimmpi 10859||Lemma for bj-vtoclgf 10864. (Contributed by BJ, 21-Nov-2019.) (Proof modification is discouraged.)|
|Theorem||bj-sbimedh 10860||A strengthening of sbiedh 1712 (same proof). (Contributed by BJ, 16-Dec-2019.)|
|Theorem||bj-sbimeh 10861||A strengthening of sbieh 1715 (same proof). (Contributed by BJ, 16-Dec-2019.)|
|Theorem||bj-sbime 10862||A strengthening of sbie 1716 (same proof). (Contributed by BJ, 16-Dec-2019.)|
Various utility theorems using FOL and extensionality.
|Theorem||bj-vtoclgft 10863||Weakening two hypotheses of vtoclgf 2666. (Contributed by BJ, 21-Nov-2019.)|
|Theorem||bj-vtoclgf 10864||Weakening two hypotheses of vtoclgf 2666. (Contributed by BJ, 21-Nov-2019.)|
|Theorem||elabgf0 10865||Lemma for elabgf 2744. (Contributed by BJ, 21-Nov-2019.)|
|Theorem||elabgft1 10866||One implication of elabgf 2744, in closed form. (Contributed by BJ, 21-Nov-2019.)|
|Theorem||elabgf1 10867||One implication of elabgf 2744. (Contributed by BJ, 21-Nov-2019.)|
|Theorem||elabgf2 10868||One implication of elabgf 2744. (Contributed by BJ, 21-Nov-2019.)|
|Theorem||elabf1 10869*||One implication of elabf 2745. (Contributed by BJ, 21-Nov-2019.)|
|Theorem||elabf2 10870*||One implication of elabf 2745. (Contributed by BJ, 21-Nov-2019.)|
|Theorem||elab1 10871*||One implication of elab 2746. (Contributed by BJ, 21-Nov-2019.)|
|Theorem||elab2a 10872*||One implication of elab 2746. (Contributed by BJ, 21-Nov-2019.)|
|Theorem||elabg2 10873*||One implication of elabg 2747. (Contributed by BJ, 21-Nov-2019.)|
|Theorem||bj-rspgt 10874||Restricted specialization, generalized. Weakens a hypothesis of rspccv 2707 and seems to have a shorter proof. (Contributed by BJ, 21-Nov-2019.)|
|Theorem||bj-rspg 10875||Restricted specialization, generalized. Weakens a hypothesis of rspccv 2707 and seems to have a shorter proof. (Contributed by BJ, 21-Nov-2019.)|
|Theorem||cbvrald 10876*||Rule used to change bound variables, using implicit substitution. (Contributed by BJ, 22-Nov-2019.)|
|Theorem||bj-intabssel 10877||Version of intss1 3671 using a class abstraction and explicit substitution. (Contributed by BJ, 29-Nov-2019.)|
|Theorem||bj-intabssel1 10878||Version of intss1 3671 using a class abstraction and implicit substitution. Closed form of intmin3 3683. (Contributed by BJ, 29-Nov-2019.)|
|Theorem||bj-elssuniab 10879||Version of elssuni 3649 using a class abstraction and explicit substitution. (Contributed by BJ, 29-Nov-2019.)|
|Theorem||bj-sseq 10880||If two converse inclusions are characterized each by a formula, then equality is characterized by the conjunction of these formulas. (Contributed by BJ, 30-Nov-2019.)|
The question of decidability is essential in intuitionistic logic. In intuitionistic set theories, it is natural to define decidability of a set (or class) as decidability of membership in it. One can parameterize this notion with another set (or class) since it is often important to assess decidability of membership in one class among elements of another class. Namely, one will say that " is decidable in " if DECID (see df-dcin 10882).
Note the similarity with the definition of a bounded class as a class for which membership in it is a bounded proposition (df-bdc 10917).
|Syntax||wdcin 10881||Syntax for decidability of a class in another.|
|Definition||df-dcin 10882*||Define decidability of a class in another. (Contributed by BJ, 19-Feb-2022.)|
|Theorem||decidi 10883||Property of being decidable in another class. (Contributed by BJ, 19-Feb-2022.)|
|Theorem||decidr 10884*||Sufficient condition for being decidable in another class. (Contributed by BJ, 19-Feb-2022.)|
|Theorem||decidin 10885||If A is a decidable subclass of B (meaning: it is a subclass of B and it is decidable in B), and B is decidable in C, then A is decidable in C. (Contributed by BJ, 19-Feb-2022.)|
|DECIDin DECIDin DECIDin|
|Theorem||uzdcinzz 10886||An upperset of integers is decidable in the integers. Reformulation of eluzdc 8848. (Contributed by Jim Kingdon, 18-Apr-2020.) (Revised by BJ, 19-Feb-2022.)|
|Theorem||sumdc2 10887*||Alternate proof of sumdc 10414, without DV condition on (longer because the statement is taylored to the proof sumdc 10414). (Contributed by BJ, 19-Feb-2022.)|
This section develops constructive Zermelo--Fraenkel set theory (CZF) on top of intuitionistic logic. It is a constructive theory in the sense that its logic is intuitionistic and it is predicative. "Predicative" means that new sets can be constructed only from already constructed sets. In particular, the axiom of separation ax-sep 3916 is not predicative (because we cannot allow all formulas to define a subset) and is replaced in CZF by bounded separation ax-bdsep 10960. Because this axiom is weaker than full separation, the axiom of replacement or collection ax-coll 3913 of ZF and IZF has to be strengthened in CZF to the axiom of strong collection ax-strcoll 11062 (which is a theorem of IZF), and the axiom of infinity needs a more precise version, the von Neumann axiom of infinity ax-infvn 11021. Similarly, the axiom of powerset ax-pow 3968 is not predicative (checking whether a set is included in another requires to universally quantifier over that "not yet constructed" set) and is replaced in CZF by the axiom of fullness or the axiom of subset collection ax-sscoll 11067.
In an intuitionistic context, the axiom of regularity is stated in IZF as well as in CZF as the axiom of set induction ax-setind 4308. It is sometimes interesting to study the weakening of CZF where that axiom is replaced by bounded set induction ax-bdsetind 11048.
For more details on CZF, a useful set of notes is
Peter Aczel and Michael Rathjen, CST Book draft. (available at http://www1.maths.leeds.ac.uk/~rathjen/book.pdf)
and an interesting article is
Michael Shulman, Comparing material and structural set theories, Annals of Pure and Applied Logic, Volume 170, Issue 4 (Apr. 2019), 465--504. (available at https://arxiv.org/abs/1808.05204)
I also thank Michael Rathjen and Michael Shulman for useful hints in the formulation of some results.
The present definition of bounded formulas emerged from a discussion on GitHub between Jim Kingdon, Mario Carneiro and I, started 23-Sept-2019 (see https://github.com/metamath/set.mm/issues/1173 and links therein).
In order to state certain axiom schemes of Constructive Zermelo–Fraenkel (CZF) set theory, like the axiom scheme of bounded (or restricted, or Δ0) separation, it is necessary to distinguish certain formulas, called bounded (or restricted, or Δ0) formulas. The necessity of considering bounded formulas also arises in several theories of bounded arithmetic, both classical or intuitonistic, for instance to state the axiom scheme of Δ0-induction.
To formalize this in Metamath, there are several choices to make.
A first choice is to either create a new type for bounded formulas, or to create a predicate on formulas that indicates whether they are bounded. In the first case, one creates a new type "wff0" with a new set of metavariables (ph0 ...) and an axiom "$a wff ph0 " ensuring that bounded formulas are formulas, so that one can reuse existing theorems, and then axioms take the form "$a wff0 ( ph0 -> ps0 )", etc. In the second case, one introduces a predicate "BOUNDED " with the intended meaning that "BOUNDED " is a formula meaning that is a bounded formula. We choose the second option, since the first would complicate the grammar, risking to make it ambiguous. (TODO: elaborate.)
A second choice is to view "bounded" either as a syntactic or a semantic property. For instance, is not syntactically bounded since it has an unbounded universal quantifier, but it is semantically bounded since it is equivalent to which is bounded. We choose the second option, so that formulas using defined symbols can be proved bounded.
A third choice is in the form of the axioms, either in closed form or in inference form. One cannot state all the axioms in closed form, especially ax-bd0 10889. Indeed, if we posited it in closed form, then we could prove for instance BOUNDED and BOUNDED which is problematic (with the law of excluded middle, this would entail that all formulas are bounded, but even without it, too many formulas could be proved bounded...). (TODO: elaborate.)
Having ax-bd0 10889 in inference form ensures that a formula can be proved bounded only if it is equivalent *for all values of the free variables* to a syntactically bounded one. The other axioms (ax-bdim 10890 through ax-bdsb 10898) can be written either in closed or inference form. The fact that ax-bd0 10889 is an inference is enough to ensure that the closed forms cannot be "exploited" to prove that some unbounded formulas are bounded. (TODO: check.) However, we state all the axioms in inference form to make it clear that we do not exploit any over-permissiveness.
Finally, note that our logic has no terms, only variables. Therefore, we cannot prove for instance that is a bounded formula. However, since can be defined as "the such that PHI" a proof using the fact that is bounded can be converted to a proof in iset.mm by replacing with everywhere and prepending the antecedent PHI, since is bounded by ax-bdel 10897. For a similar method, see bj-omtrans 11036.
Note that one cannot add an axiom BOUNDED since by bdph 10926 it would imply that every formula is bounded.
|Syntax||wbd 10888||Syntax for the predicate BOUNDED.|
|Axiom||ax-bd0 10889||If two formulas are equivalent, then boundedness of one implies boundedness of the other. (Contributed by BJ, 3-Oct-2019.)|
|Axiom||ax-bdim 10890||An implication between two bounded formulas is bounded. (Contributed by BJ, 25-Sep-2019.)|
|BOUNDED BOUNDED BOUNDED|
|Axiom||ax-bdan 10891||The conjunction of two bounded formulas is bounded. (Contributed by BJ, 25-Sep-2019.)|
|BOUNDED BOUNDED BOUNDED|
|Axiom||ax-bdor 10892||The disjunction of two bounded formulas is bounded. (Contributed by BJ, 25-Sep-2019.)|
|BOUNDED BOUNDED BOUNDED|
|Axiom||ax-bdn 10893||The negation of a bounded formula is bounded. (Contributed by BJ, 25-Sep-2019.)|
|Axiom||ax-bdal 10894*||A bounded universal quantification of a bounded formula is bounded. Note the DV condition on . (Contributed by BJ, 25-Sep-2019.)|
|Axiom||ax-bdex 10895*||A bounded existential quantification of a bounded formula is bounded. Note the DV condition on . (Contributed by BJ, 25-Sep-2019.)|
|Axiom||ax-bdeq 10896||An atomic formula is bounded (equality predicate). (Contributed by BJ, 3-Oct-2019.)|
|Axiom||ax-bdel 10897||An atomic formula is bounded (membership predicate). (Contributed by BJ, 3-Oct-2019.)|
|Axiom||ax-bdsb 10898||A formula resulting from proper substitution in a bounded formula is bounded. This probably cannot be proved from the other axioms, since neither the definiens in df-sb 1688, nor probably any other equivalent formula, is syntactically bounded. (Contributed by BJ, 3-Oct-2019.)|
|Theorem||bdeq 10899||Equality property for the predicate BOUNDED. (Contributed by BJ, 3-Oct-2019.)|
|Theorem||bd0 10900||A formula equivalent to a bounded one is bounded. See also bd0r 10901. (Contributed by BJ, 3-Oct-2019.)|
|< Previous Next >|
|Copyright terms: Public domain||< Previous Next >|