Home Intuitionistic Logic ExplorerTheorem List (p. 14 of 106) < Previous  Next > Browser slow? Try the Unicode version. Mirrors  >  Metamath Home Page  >  ILE Home Page  >  Theorem List Contents  >  Recent Proofs       This page: Page List

Theorem List for Intuitionistic Logic Explorer - 1301-1400   *Has distinct variable group(s)
TypeLabelDescription
Statement

Theoremnbbndc 1301 Move negation outside of biconditional, for decidable propositions. Compare Theorem *5.18 of [WhiteheadRussell] p. 124. (Contributed by Jim Kingdon, 18-Apr-2018.)
DECID DECID

Theorembiassdc 1302 Associative law for the biconditional, for decidable propositions.

The classical version (without the decidability conditions) is an axiom of system DS in Vladimir Lifschitz, "On calculational proofs", Annals of Pure and Applied Logic, 113:207-224, 2002, http://www.cs.utexas.edu/users/ai-lab/pub-view.php?PubID=26805, and, interestingly, was not included in Principia Mathematica but was apparently first noted by Jan Lukasiewicz circa 1923. (Contributed by Jim Kingdon, 4-May-2018.)

DECID DECID DECID

Theorembilukdc 1303 Lukasiewicz's shortest axiom for equivalential calculus (but modified to require decidable propositions). Storrs McCall, ed., Polish Logic 1920-1939 (Oxford, 1967), p. 96. (Contributed by Jim Kingdon, 5-May-2018.)
DECID DECID DECID

Theoremdfbi3dc 1304 An alternate definition of the biconditional for decidable propositions. Theorem *5.23 of [WhiteheadRussell] p. 124, but with decidability conditions. (Contributed by Jim Kingdon, 5-May-2018.)
DECID DECID

Theorempm5.24dc 1305 Theorem *5.24 of [WhiteheadRussell] p. 124, but for decidable propositions. (Contributed by Jim Kingdon, 5-May-2018.)
DECID DECID

Theoremxordidc 1306 Conjunction distributes over exclusive-or, for decidable propositions. This is one way to interpret the distributive law of multiplication over addition in modulo 2 arithmetic. (Contributed by Jim Kingdon, 14-Jul-2018.)
DECID DECID DECID

Theoremanxordi 1307 Conjunction distributes over exclusive-or. (Contributed by Mario Carneiro and Jim Kingdon, 7-Oct-2018.)

1.2.15  Truth tables: Operations on true and false constants

For classical logic, truth tables can be used to define propositional logic operations, by showing the results of those operations for all possible combinations of true () and false ().

Although the intuitionistic logic connectives are not as simply defined, and do play similar roles as in classical logic and most theorems from classical logic continue to hold.

Here we show that our definitions and axioms produce equivalent results for and as we would get from truth tables for (conjunction aka logical 'and') wa 101, (disjunction aka logical inclusive 'or') wo 639, (implies) wi 4, (not) wn 3, (logical equivalence) df-bi 114, and (exclusive or) df-xor 1283.

Theoremtruantru 1308 A identity. (Contributed by Anthony Hart, 22-Oct-2010.)

Theoremtruanfal 1309 A identity. (Contributed by Anthony Hart, 22-Oct-2010.)

Theoremfalantru 1310 A identity. (Contributed by David A. Wheeler, 23-Feb-2018.)

Theoremfalanfal 1311 A identity. (Contributed by Anthony Hart, 22-Oct-2010.)

Theoremtruortru 1312 A identity. (Contributed by Anthony Hart, 22-Oct-2010.) (Proof shortened by Andrew Salmon, 13-May-2011.)

Theoremtruorfal 1313 A identity. (Contributed by Anthony Hart, 22-Oct-2010.)

Theoremfalortru 1314 A identity. (Contributed by Anthony Hart, 22-Oct-2010.)

Theoremfalorfal 1315 A identity. (Contributed by Anthony Hart, 22-Oct-2010.) (Proof shortened by Andrew Salmon, 13-May-2011.)

Theoremtruimtru 1316 A identity. (Contributed by Anthony Hart, 22-Oct-2010.)

Theoremtruimfal 1317 A identity. (Contributed by Anthony Hart, 22-Oct-2010.) (Proof shortened by Andrew Salmon, 13-May-2011.)

Theoremfalimtru 1318 A identity. (Contributed by Anthony Hart, 22-Oct-2010.)

Theoremfalimfal 1319 A identity. (Contributed by Anthony Hart, 22-Oct-2010.)

Theoremnottru 1320 A identity. (Contributed by Anthony Hart, 22-Oct-2010.)

Theoremnotfal 1321 A identity. (Contributed by Anthony Hart, 22-Oct-2010.) (Proof shortened by Andrew Salmon, 13-May-2011.)

Theoremtrubitru 1322 A identity. (Contributed by Anthony Hart, 22-Oct-2010.) (Proof shortened by Andrew Salmon, 13-May-2011.)

Theoremtrubifal 1323 A identity. (Contributed by David A. Wheeler, 23-Feb-2018.)

Theoremfalbitru 1324 A identity. (Contributed by Anthony Hart, 22-Oct-2010.) (Proof shortened by Andrew Salmon, 13-May-2011.)

Theoremfalbifal 1325 A identity. (Contributed by Anthony Hart, 22-Oct-2010.) (Proof shortened by Andrew Salmon, 13-May-2011.)

Theoremtruxortru 1326 A identity. (Contributed by David A. Wheeler, 2-Mar-2018.)

Theoremtruxorfal 1327 A identity. (Contributed by David A. Wheeler, 2-Mar-2018.)

Theoremfalxortru 1328 A identity. (Contributed by David A. Wheeler, 2-Mar-2018.)

Theoremfalxorfal 1329 A identity. (Contributed by David A. Wheeler, 2-Mar-2018.)

1.2.16  Stoic logic indemonstrables (Chrysippus of Soli)

The Greek Stoics developed a system of logic. The Stoic Chrysippus, in particular, was often considered one of the greatest logicians of antiquity. Stoic logic is different from Aristotle's system, since it focuses on propositional logic, though later thinkers did combine the systems of the Stoics with Aristotle. Jan Lukasiewicz reports, "For anybody familiar with mathematical logic it is self-evident that the Stoic dialectic is the ancient form of modern propositional logic" ( On the history of the logic of proposition by Jan Lukasiewicz (1934), translated in: Selected Works - Edited by Ludwik Borkowski - Amsterdam, North-Holland, 1970 pp. 197-217, referenced in "History of Logic" https://www.historyoflogic.com/logic-stoics.htm). For more about Aristotle's system, see barbara and related theorems.

A key part of the Stoic logic system is a set of five "indemonstrables" assigned to Chrysippus of Soli by Diogenes Laertius, though in general it is difficult to assign specific ideas to specific thinkers. The indemonstrables are described in, for example, [Lopez-Astorga] p. 11 , [Sanford] p. 39, and [Hitchcock] p. 5. These indemonstrables are modus ponendo ponens (modus ponens) ax-mp 7, modus tollendo tollens (modus tollens) mto 598, modus ponendo tollens I mptnan 1330, modus ponendo tollens II mptxor 1331, and modus tollendo ponens (exclusive-or version) mtpxor 1333. The first is an axiom, the second is already proved; in this section we prove the other three. Since we assume or prove all of indemonstrables, the system of logic we use here is as at least as strong as the set of Stoic indemonstrables. Note that modus tollendo ponens mtpxor 1333 originally used exclusive-or, but over time the name modus tollendo ponens has increasingly referred to an inclusive-or variation, which is proved in mtpor 1332. This set of indemonstrables is not the entire system of Stoic logic.

Theoremmptnan 1330 Modus ponendo tollens 1, one of the "indemonstrables" in Stoic logic. See rule 1 on [Lopez-Astorga] p. 12 , rule 1 on [Sanford] p. 40, and rule A3 in [Hitchcock] p. 5. Sanford describes this rule second (after mptxor 1331) as a "safer, and these days much more common" version of modus ponendo tollens because it avoids confusion between inclusive-or and exclusive-or. (Contributed by David A. Wheeler, 3-Jul-2016.)

Theoremmptxor 1331 Modus ponendo tollens 2, one of the "indemonstrables" in Stoic logic. Note that this uses exclusive-or . See rule 2 on [Lopez-Astorga] p. 12 , rule 4 on [Sanford] p. 39 and rule A4 in [Hitchcock] p. 5 . (Contributed by David A. Wheeler, 2-Mar-2018.)

Theoremmtpor 1332 Modus tollendo ponens (inclusive-or version), aka disjunctive syllogism. This is similar to mtpxor 1333, one of the five original "indemonstrables" in Stoic logic. However, in Stoic logic this rule used exclusive-or, while the name modus tollendo ponens often refers to a variant of the rule that uses inclusive-or instead. The rule says, "if is not true, and or (or both) are true, then must be true." An alternative phrasing is, "Once you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth." -- Sherlock Holmes (Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, 1890: The Sign of the Four, ch. 6). (Contributed by David A. Wheeler, 3-Jul-2016.) (Proof shortened by Wolf Lammen, 11-Nov-2017.)

Theoremmtpxor 1333 Modus tollendo ponens (original exclusive-or version), aka disjunctive syllogism, similar to mtpor 1332, one of the five "indemonstrables" in Stoic logic. The rule says, "if is not true, and either or (exclusively) are true, then must be true." Today the name "modus tollendo ponens" often refers to a variant, the inclusive-or version as defined in mtpor 1332. See rule 3 on [Lopez-Astorga] p. 12 (note that the "or" is the same as mptxor 1331, that is, it is exclusive-or df-xor 1283), rule 3 of [Sanford] p. 39 (where it is not as clearly stated which kind of "or" is used but it appears to be in the same sense as mptxor 1331), and rule A5 in [Hitchcock] p. 5 (exclusive-or is expressly used). (Contributed by David A. Wheeler, 4-Jul-2016.) (Proof shortened by Wolf Lammen, 11-Nov-2017.) (Proof shortened by BJ, 19-Apr-2019.)

Theoremstoic2a 1334 Stoic logic Thema 2 version a.

Statement T2 of [Bobzien] p. 117 shows a reconstructed version of Stoic logic thema 2 as follows: "When from two assertibles a third follows, and from the third and one (or both) of the two another follows, then this other follows from the first two."

Bobzien uses constructs such as , ; in Metamath we will represent that construct as .

This version a is without the phrase "or both"; see stoic2b 1335 for the version with the phrase "or both". We already have this rule as syldan 270, so here we show the equivalence and discourage its use. (New usage is discouraged.) (Contributed by David A. Wheeler, 17-Feb-2019.)

Theoremstoic2b 1335 Stoic logic Thema 2 version b. See stoic2a 1334.

Version b is with the phrase "or both". We already have this rule as mpd3an3 1244, so here we prove the equivalence and discourage its use. (New usage is discouraged.) (Contributed by David A. Wheeler, 17-Feb-2019.)

Theoremstoic3 1336 Stoic logic Thema 3.

Statement T3 of [Bobzien] p. 116-117 discusses Stoic logic thema 3.

"When from two (assemblies) a third follows, and from the one that follows (i.e., the third) together with another, external external assumption, another follows, then other follows from the first two and the externally co-assumed one. (Simp. Cael. 237.2-4)" (Contributed by David A. Wheeler, 17-Feb-2019.)

Theoremstoic4a 1337 Stoic logic Thema 4 version a.

Statement T4 of [Bobzien] p. 117 shows a reconstructed version of Stoic logic thema 4: "When from two assertibles a third follows, and from the third and one (or both) of the two and one (or more) external assertible(s) another follows, then this other follows from the first two and the external(s)."

We use to represent the "external" assertibles. This is version a, which is without the phrase "or both"; see stoic4b 1338 for the version with the phrase "or both". (Contributed by David A. Wheeler, 17-Feb-2019.)

Theoremstoic4b 1338 Stoic logic Thema 4 version b.

This is version b, which is with the phrase "or both". See stoic4a 1337 for more information. (Contributed by David A. Wheeler, 17-Feb-2019.)

1.2.17  Logical implication (continued)

Theoremsyl6an 1339 A syllogism deduction combined with conjoining antecedents. (Contributed by Alan Sare, 28-Oct-2011.)

Theoremsyl10 1340 A nested syllogism inference. (Contributed by Alan Sare, 17-Jul-2011.)

Theoremexbir 1341 Exportation implication also converting head from biconditional to conditional. (Contributed by Alan Sare, 31-Dec-2011.)

Theorem3impexp 1342 impexp 254 with a 3-conjunct antecedent. (Contributed by Alan Sare, 31-Dec-2011.)

Theorem3impexpbicom 1343 3impexp 1342 with biconditional consequent of antecedent that is commuted in consequent. (Contributed by Alan Sare, 31-Dec-2011.)

Theorem3impexpbicomi 1344 Deduction form of 3impexpbicom 1343. (Contributed by Alan Sare, 31-Dec-2011.)

Theoremancomsimp 1345 Closed form of ancoms 259. (Contributed by Alan Sare, 31-Dec-2011.)

Theoremexpcomd 1346 Deduction form of expcom 113. (Contributed by Alan Sare, 22-Jul-2012.)

Theoremexpdcom 1347 Commuted form of expd 249. (Contributed by Alan Sare, 18-Mar-2012.)

Theoremsimplbi2comg 1348 Implication form of simplbi2com 1349. (Contributed by Alan Sare, 22-Jul-2012.)

Theoremsimplbi2com 1349 A deduction eliminating a conjunct, similar to simplbi2 371. (Contributed by Alan Sare, 22-Jul-2012.) (Proof shortened by Wolf Lammen, 10-Nov-2012.)

Theoremsyl6ci 1350 A syllogism inference combined with contraction. (Contributed by Alan Sare, 18-Mar-2012.)

Theoremmpisyl 1351 A syllogism combined with a modus ponens inference. (Contributed by Alan Sare, 25-Jul-2011.)

1.3  Predicate calculus mostly without distinct variables

1.3.1  Universal quantifier (continued)

The universal quantifier was introduced above in wal 1257 for use by df-tru 1262. See the comments in that section. In this section, we continue with the first "real" use of it.

Axiomax-5 1352 Axiom of Quantified Implication. Axiom C4 of [Monk2] p. 105. (Contributed by NM, 5-Aug-1993.)

Axiomax-7 1353 Axiom of Quantifier Commutation. This axiom says universal quantifiers can be swapped. One of the predicate logic axioms which do not involve equality. Axiom scheme C6' in [Megill] p. 448 (p. 16 of the preprint). Also appears as Lemma 12 of [Monk2] p. 109 and Axiom C5-3 of [Monk2] p. 113. (Contributed by NM, 5-Aug-1993.)

Axiomax-gen 1354 Rule of Generalization. The postulated inference rule of predicate calculus. See e.g. Rule 2 of [Hamilton] p. 74. This rule says that if something is unconditionally true, then it is true for all values of a variable. For example, if we have proved , we can conclude or even . Theorem spi 1445 shows we can go the other way also: in other words we can add or remove universal quantifiers from the beginning of any theorem as required. (Contributed by NM, 5-Aug-1993.)

Theoremgen2 1355 Generalization applied twice. (Contributed by NM, 30-Apr-1998.)

Theoremmpg 1356 Modus ponens combined with generalization. (Contributed by NM, 24-May-1994.)

Theoremmpgbi 1357 Modus ponens on biconditional combined with generalization. (Contributed by NM, 24-May-1994.) (Proof shortened by Stefan Allan, 28-Oct-2008.)

Theoremmpgbir 1358 Modus ponens on biconditional combined with generalization. (Contributed by NM, 24-May-1994.) (Proof shortened by Stefan Allan, 28-Oct-2008.)

Theorema7s 1359 Swap quantifiers in an antecedent. (Contributed by NM, 5-Aug-1993.)

Theoremalimi 1360 Inference quantifying both antecedent and consequent. (Contributed by NM, 5-Aug-1993.)

Theorem2alimi 1361 Inference doubly quantifying both antecedent and consequent. (Contributed by NM, 3-Feb-2005.)

Theoremalim 1362 Theorem 19.20 of [Margaris] p. 90. (Contributed by NM, 5-Aug-1993.) (Proof shortened by O'Cat, 30-Mar-2008.)

Theoremal2imi 1363 Inference quantifying antecedent, nested antecedent, and consequent. (Contributed by NM, 5-Aug-1993.)

Theoremalanimi 1364 Variant of al2imi 1363 with conjunctive antecedent. (Contributed by Andrew Salmon, 8-Jun-2011.)

Syntaxwnf 1365 Extend wff definition to include the not-free predicate.

Definitiondf-nf 1366 Define the not-free predicate for wffs. This is read " is not free in ". Not-free means that the value of cannot affect the value of , e.g., any occurrence of in is effectively bound by a "for all" or something that expands to one (such as "there exists"). In particular, substitution for a variable not free in a wff does not affect its value (sbf 1676). An example of where this is used is stdpc5 1492. See nf2 1574 for an alternative definition which does not involve nested quantifiers on the same variable.

Not-free is a commonly used constraint, so it is useful to have a notation for it. Surprisingly, there is no common formal notation for it, so here we devise one. Our definition lets us work with the not-free notion within the logic itself rather than as a metalogical side condition.

To be precise, our definition really means "effectively not free," because it is slightly less restrictive than the usual textbook definition for not-free (which only considers syntactic freedom). For example, is effectively not free in the bare expression , even though would be considered free in the usual textbook definition, because the value of in the expression cannot affect the truth of the expression (and thus substitution will not change the result). (Contributed by Mario Carneiro, 11-Aug-2016.)

Theoremnfi 1367 Deduce that is not free in from the definition. (Contributed by Mario Carneiro, 11-Aug-2016.)

Theoremhbth 1368 No variable is (effectively) free in a theorem.

This and later "hypothesis-building" lemmas, with labels starting "hb...", allow us to construct proofs of formulas of the form from smaller formulas of this form. These are useful for constructing hypotheses that state " is (effectively) not free in ." (Contributed by NM, 5-Aug-1993.)

Theoremnfth 1369 No variable is (effectively) free in a theorem. (Contributed by Mario Carneiro, 11-Aug-2016.)

Theoremnfnth 1370 No variable is (effectively) free in a non-theorem. (Contributed by Mario Carneiro, 6-Dec-2016.)

Theoremnftru 1371 The true constant has no free variables. (This can also be proven in one step with nfv 1437, but this proof does not use ax-17 1435.) (Contributed by Mario Carneiro, 6-Oct-2016.)

Theoremalimdh 1372 Deduction from Theorem 19.20 of [Margaris] p. 90. (Contributed by NM, 4-Jan-2002.)

Theoremalbi 1373 Theorem 19.15 of [Margaris] p. 90. (Contributed by NM, 5-Aug-1993.)

Theoremalrimih 1374 Inference from Theorem 19.21 of [Margaris] p. 90. (Contributed by NM, 5-Aug-1993.) (New usage is discouraged.)

Theoremalbii 1375 Inference adding universal quantifier to both sides of an equivalence. (Contributed by NM, 7-Aug-1994.)

Theorem2albii 1376 Inference adding 2 universal quantifiers to both sides of an equivalence. (Contributed by NM, 9-Mar-1997.)

Theoremhbxfrbi 1377 A utility lemma to transfer a bound-variable hypothesis builder into a definition. (Contributed by Jonathan Ben-Naim, 3-Jun-2011.)

Theoremnfbii 1378 Equality theorem for not-free. (Contributed by Mario Carneiro, 11-Aug-2016.)

Theoremnfxfr 1379 A utility lemma to transfer a bound-variable hypothesis builder into a definition. (Contributed by Mario Carneiro, 11-Aug-2016.)

Theoremnfxfrd 1380 A utility lemma to transfer a bound-variable hypothesis builder into a definition. (Contributed by Mario Carneiro, 24-Sep-2016.)

Theoremalcoms 1381 Swap quantifiers in an antecedent. (Contributed by NM, 11-May-1993.)

Theoremhbal 1382 If is not free in , it is not free in . (Contributed by NM, 5-Aug-1993.)

Theoremalcom 1383 Theorem 19.5 of [Margaris] p. 89. (Contributed by NM, 5-Aug-1993.)

Theoremalrimdh 1384 Deduction from Theorem 19.21 of [Margaris] p. 90. (Contributed by NM, 10-Feb-1997.) (Proof shortened by Andrew Salmon, 13-May-2011.)

Theoremalbidh 1385 Formula-building rule for universal quantifier (deduction rule). (Contributed by NM, 5-Aug-1993.)

Theorem19.26 1386 Theorem 19.26 of [Margaris] p. 90. Also Theorem *10.22 of [WhiteheadRussell] p. 119. (Contributed by NM, 5-Aug-1993.) (Proof shortened by Wolf Lammen, 4-Jul-2014.)

Theorem19.26-2 1387 Theorem 19.26 of [Margaris] p. 90 with two quantifiers. (Contributed by NM, 3-Feb-2005.)

Theorem19.26-3an 1388 Theorem 19.26 of [Margaris] p. 90 with triple conjunction. (Contributed by NM, 13-Sep-2011.)

Theorem19.33 1389 Theorem 19.33 of [Margaris] p. 90. (Contributed by NM, 5-Aug-1993.)

Theoremalrot3 1390 Theorem *11.21 in [WhiteheadRussell] p. 160. (Contributed by Andrew Salmon, 24-May-2011.)

Theoremalrot4 1391 Rotate 4 universal quantifiers twice. (Contributed by NM, 2-Feb-2005.) (Proof shortened by Wolf Lammen, 28-Jun-2014.)

Theoremalbiim 1392 Split a biconditional and distribute quantifier. (Contributed by NM, 18-Aug-1993.)

Theorem2albiim 1393 Split a biconditional and distribute 2 quantifiers. (Contributed by NM, 3-Feb-2005.)

Theoremhband 1394 Deduction form of bound-variable hypothesis builder hban 1455. (Contributed by NM, 2-Jan-2002.)

Theoremhb3and 1395 Deduction form of bound-variable hypothesis builder hb3an 1458. (Contributed by NM, 17-Feb-2013.)

Theoremhbald 1396 Deduction form of bound-variable hypothesis builder hbal 1382. (Contributed by NM, 2-Jan-2002.)

Syntaxwex 1397 Extend wff definition to include the existential quantifier ("there exists").

Axiomax-ie1 1398 is bound in . One of the axioms of predicate logic. (Contributed by Mario Carneiro, 31-Jan-2015.)

Axiomax-ie2 1399 Define existential quantification. means "there exists at least one set such that is true." One of the axioms of predicate logic. (Contributed by Mario Carneiro, 31-Jan-2015.)

Theoremhbe1 1400 is not free in . (Contributed by NM, 5-Aug-1993.)

Page List
Jump to page: Contents  1 1-100 2 101-200 3 201-300 4 301-400 5 401-500 6 501-600 7 601-700 8 701-800 9 801-900 10 901-1000 11 1001-1100 12 1101-1200 13 1201-1300 14 1301-1400 15 1401-1500 16 1501-1600 17 1601-1700 18 1701-1800 19 1801-1900 20 1901-2000 21 2001-2100 22 2101-2200 23 2201-2300 24 2301-2400 25 2401-2500 26 2501-2600 27 2601-2700 28 2701-2800 29 2801-2900 30 2901-3000 31 3001-3100 32 3101-3200 33 3201-3300 34 3301-3400 35 3401-3500 36 3501-3600 37 3601-3700 38 3701-3800 39 3801-3900 40 3901-4000 41 4001-4100 42 4101-4200 43 4201-4300 44 4301-4400 45 4401-4500 46 4501-4600 47 4601-4700 48 4701-4800 49 4801-4900 50 4901-5000 51 5001-5100 52 5101-5200 53 5201-5300 54 5301-5400 55 5401-5500 56 5501-5600 57 5601-5700 58 5701-5800 59 5801-5900 60 5901-6000 61 6001-6100 62 6101-6200 63 6201-6300 64 6301-6400 65 6401-6500 66 6501-6600 67 6601-6700 68 6701-6800 69 6801-6900 70 6901-7000 71 7001-7100 72 7101-7200 73 7201-7300 74 7301-7400 75 7401-7500 76 7501-7600 77 7601-7700 78 7701-7800 79 7801-7900 80 7901-8000 81 8001-8100 82 8101-8200 83 8201-8300 84 8301-8400 85 8401-8500 86 8501-8600 87 8601-8700 88 8701-8800 89 8801-8900 90 8901-9000 91 9001-9100 92 9101-9200 93 9201-9300 94 9301-9400 95 9401-9500 96 9501-9600 97 9601-9700 98 9701-9800 99 9801-9900 100 9901-10000 101 10001-10100 102 10101-10200 103 10201-10300 104 10301-10400 105 10401-10500 106 10501-10511
 Copyright terms: Public domain < Previous  Next >