P. 130 of Theorem List - Intuitionistic Logic Explorer

Type

Label

Description

Statement

Theorem

sinhalfpip 12901

The sine of π / 2 plus a number. (Contributed by Paul Chapman, 24-Jan-2008.)

⊢ (𝐴 ∈ ℂ → (sin‘((π / 2) + 𝐴)) = (cos‘𝐴))

Theorem

sinhalfpim 12902

The sine of π / 2 minus a number. (Contributed by Paul Chapman, 24-Jan-2008.)

⊢ (𝐴 ∈ ℂ → (sin‘((π / 2) − 𝐴)) = (cos‘𝐴))

Theorem

coshalfpip 12903

The cosine of π / 2 plus a number. (Contributed by Paul Chapman, 24-Jan-2008.)

⊢ (𝐴 ∈ ℂ → (cos‘((π / 2) + 𝐴)) = -(sin‘𝐴))

Theorem

coshalfpim 12904

The cosine of π / 2 minus a number. (Contributed by Paul Chapman, 24-Jan-2008.)

⊢ (𝐴 ∈ ℂ → (cos‘((π / 2) − 𝐴)) = (sin‘𝐴))

Theorem

ptolemy 12905

Ptolemy's Theorem. This theorem is named after the Greek astronomer and mathematician Ptolemy (Claudius Ptolemaeus). This particular version is expressed using the sine function. It is proved by expanding all the multiplication of sines to a product of cosines of differences using sinmul 11451, then using algebraic simplification to show that both sides are equal. This formalization is based on the proof in "Trigonometry" by Gelfand and Saul. This is Metamath 100 proof #95. (Contributed by David A. Wheeler, 31-May-2015.)

⊢ (((𝐴 ∈ ℂ ∧ 𝐵 ∈ ℂ) ∧ (𝐶 ∈ ℂ ∧ 𝐷 ∈ ℂ) ∧ ((𝐴 + 𝐵) + (𝐶 + 𝐷)) = π) → (((sin‘𝐴) · (sin‘𝐵)) + ((sin‘𝐶) · (sin‘𝐷))) = ((sin‘(𝐵 + 𝐶)) · (sin‘(𝐴 + 𝐶))))

Theorem

sincosq1lem 12906

Lemma for sincosq1sgn 12907. (Contributed by Paul Chapman, 24-Jan-2008.)

⊢ ((𝐴 ∈ ℝ ∧ 0 < 𝐴 ∧ 𝐴 < (π / 2)) → 0 < (sin‘𝐴))

Theorem

sincosq1sgn 12907

The signs of the sine and cosine functions in the first quadrant. (Contributed by Paul Chapman, 24-Jan-2008.)

⊢ (𝐴 ∈ (0(,)(π / 2)) → (0 < (sin‘𝐴) ∧ 0 < (cos‘𝐴)))

Theorem

sincosq2sgn 12908

The signs of the sine and cosine functions in the second quadrant. (Contributed by Paul Chapman, 24-Jan-2008.)

⊢ (𝐴 ∈ ((π / 2)(,)π) → (0 < (sin‘𝐴) ∧ (cos‘𝐴) < 0))

Theorem

sincosq3sgn 12909

The signs of the sine and cosine functions in the third quadrant. (Contributed by Paul Chapman, 24-Jan-2008.)

⊢ (𝐴 ∈ (π(,)(3 · (π / 2))) → ((sin‘𝐴) < 0 ∧ (cos‘𝐴) < 0))

Theorem

sincosq4sgn 12910

The signs of the sine and cosine functions in the fourth quadrant. (Contributed by Paul Chapman, 24-Jan-2008.)

⊢ (𝐴 ∈ ((3 · (π / 2))(,)(2 · π)) → ((sin‘𝐴) < 0 ∧ 0 < (cos‘𝐴)))

Theorem

sinq12gt0 12911

The sine of a number strictly between 0 and π is positive. (Contributed by Paul Chapman, 15-Mar-2008.)

⊢ (𝐴 ∈ (0(,)π) → 0 < (sin‘𝐴))

Theorem

sinq34lt0t 12912

The sine of a number strictly between π and 2 · π is negative. (Contributed by NM, 17-Aug-2008.)

⊢ (𝐴 ∈ (π(,)(2 · π)) → (sin‘𝐴) < 0)

Theorem

cosq14gt0 12913

The cosine of a number strictly between -π / 2 and π / 2 is positive. (Contributed by Mario Carneiro, 25-Feb-2015.)

⊢ (𝐴 ∈ (-(π / 2)(,)(π / 2)) → 0 < (cos‘𝐴))

Theorem

cosq23lt0 12914

The cosine of a number in the second and third quadrants is negative. (Contributed by Jim Kingdon, 14-Mar-2024.)

⊢ (𝐴 ∈ ((π / 2)(,)(3 · (π / 2))) → (cos‘𝐴) < 0)

Theorem

coseq0q4123 12915

Location of the zeroes of cosine in (-(π / 2)(,)(3 · (π / 2))). (Contributed by Jim Kingdon, 14-Mar-2024.)

⊢ (𝐴 ∈ (-(π / 2)(,)(3 · (π / 2))) → ((cos‘𝐴) = 0 ↔ 𝐴 = (π / 2)))

Theorem

coseq00topi 12916

Location of the zeroes of cosine in (0[,]π). (Contributed by David Moews, 28-Feb-2017.)

⊢ (𝐴 ∈ (0[,]π) → ((cos‘𝐴) = 0 ↔ 𝐴 = (π / 2)))

Theorem

coseq0negpitopi 12917

Location of the zeroes of cosine in (-π(,]π). (Contributed by David Moews, 28-Feb-2017.)

⊢ (𝐴 ∈ (-π(,]π) → ((cos‘𝐴) = 0 ↔ 𝐴 ∈ {(π / 2), -(π / 2)}))

Theorem

tanrpcl 12918

Positive real closure of the tangent function. (Contributed by Mario Carneiro, 29-Jul-2014.)

⊢ (𝐴 ∈ (0(,)(π / 2)) → (tan‘𝐴) ∈ ℝ⁺)

Theorem

tangtx 12919

The tangent function is greater than its argument on positive reals in its principal domain. (Contributed by Mario Carneiro, 29-Jul-2014.)

⊢ (𝐴 ∈ (0(,)(π / 2)) → 𝐴 < (tan‘𝐴))

Theorem

sincosq1eq 12920

Complementarity of the sine and cosine functions in the first quadrant. (Contributed by Paul Chapman, 25-Jan-2008.)

⊢ ((𝐴 ∈ ℂ ∧ 𝐵 ∈ ℂ ∧ (𝐴 + 𝐵) = 1) → (sin‘(𝐴 · (π / 2))) = (cos‘(𝐵 · (π / 2))))

Theorem

sincos4thpi 12921

The sine and cosine of π / 4. (Contributed by Paul Chapman, 25-Jan-2008.)

⊢ ((sin‘(π / 4)) = (1 / (√‘2)) ∧ (cos‘(π / 4)) = (1 / (√‘2)))

Theorem

tan4thpi 12922

The tangent of π / 4. (Contributed by Mario Carneiro, 5-Apr-2015.)

⊢ (tan‘(π / 4)) = 1

Theorem

sincos6thpi 12923

The sine and cosine of π / 6. (Contributed by Paul Chapman, 25-Jan-2008.) (Revised by Wolf Lammen, 24-Sep-2020.)

⊢ ((sin‘(π / 6)) = (1 / 2) ∧ (cos‘(π / 6)) = ((√‘3) / 2))

Theorem

sincos3rdpi 12924

The sine and cosine of π / 3. (Contributed by Mario Carneiro, 21-May-2016.)

⊢ ((sin‘(π / 3)) = ((√‘3) / 2) ∧ (cos‘(π / 3)) = (1 / 2))

Theorem

pigt3 12925

π is greater than 3. (Contributed by Brendan Leahy, 21-Aug-2020.)

⊢ 3 < π

Theorem

pige3 12926

π is greater than or equal to 3. (Contributed by Mario Carneiro, 21-May-2016.)

⊢ 3 ≤ π

Theorem

abssinper 12927

The absolute value of sine has period π. (Contributed by NM, 17-Aug-2008.)

⊢ ((𝐴 ∈ ℂ ∧ 𝐾 ∈ ℤ) → (abs‘(sin‘(𝐴 + (𝐾 · π)))) = (abs‘(sin‘𝐴)))

Theorem

sinkpi 12928

The sine of an integer multiple of π is 0. (Contributed by NM, 11-Aug-2008.)

⊢ (𝐾 ∈ ℤ → (sin‘(𝐾 · π)) = 0)

Theorem

coskpi 12929

The absolute value of the cosine of an integer multiple of π is 1. (Contributed by NM, 19-Aug-2008.)

⊢ (𝐾 ∈ ℤ → (abs‘(cos‘(𝐾 · π))) = 1)

Theorem

cosordlem 12930

Cosine is decreasing over the closed interval from 0 to π. (Contributed by Mario Carneiro, 10-May-2014.)

⊢ (𝜑 → 𝐴 ∈ (0[,]π))    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝐵 ∈ (0[,]π))    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝐴 < 𝐵)    ⇒   ⊢ (𝜑 → (cos‘𝐵) < (cos‘𝐴))

Theorem

cosq34lt1 12931

Cosine is less than one in the third and fourth quadrants. (Contributed by Jim Kingdon, 19-Mar-2024.)

⊢ (𝐴 ∈ (π[,)(2 · π)) → (cos‘𝐴) < 1)

Theorem

cos02pilt1 12932

Cosine is less than one between zero and 2 · π. (Contributed by Jim Kingdon, 19-Mar-2024.)

⊢ (𝐴 ∈ (0(,)(2 · π)) → (cos‘𝐴) < 1)

PART 10  GUIDES AND MISCELLANEA

10.1  Guides (conventions, explanations, and examples)

10.1.1  Conventions

This section describes the conventions we use. 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:

• Axioms of propositional calculus - Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy or [Heyting].
• Axioms of predicate calculus - our axioms are adapted from the ones in the Metamath Proof Explorer.
• Theorems of propositional calculus - [Heyting].
• Theorems of pure predicate calculus - Metamath Proof Explorer.
• Theorems of equality and substitution - Metamath Proof Explorer.
• Axioms of set theory - [Crosilla].
• Development of set theory - Chapter 10 of [HoTT].
• Construction of real and complex numbers - Chapter 11 of [HoTT]; [BauerTaylor].
• Theorems about real numbers - [Geuvers].

Theorem

conventions 12933

Unless there is a reason to diverge, we follow the conventions of the Metamath Proof Explorer (MPE, 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 below.

• Minimizing axioms and the axiom of choice. We prefer proofs that depend on fewer and/or weaker axioms, even if the proofs are longer. In particular, our choice of IZF (Intuitionistic Zermelo-Fraenkel) over CZF (Constructive Zermelo-Fraenkel, a weaker system) was just an expedient choice because IZF is easier to formalize in Metamath. You can find some development using CZF in BJ's mathbox starting at wbd 13010 (and the section header just above it). As for the axiom of choice, the full axiom of choice implies excluded middle as seen at acexmid 5773, although some authors will use countable choice or dependent choice. For example, countable choice or excluded middle is needed to show that the Cauchy reals coincide with the Dedekind reals - Corollary 11.4.3 of [HoTT], p. (varies).
• Junk/undefined results. Much of the discussion of this topic in the Metamath Proof Explorer applies except that certain techniques are not available to us. For example, the Metamath Proof Explorer will often say "if a function is evaluated within its domain, a certain result follows; if the function is evaluated outside its domain, the same result follows. Since the function must be evaluated within its domain or outside it, the result follows unconditionally" (the use of excluded middle in this argument is perhaps obvious when stated this way). Often, the easiest fix will be to prove we are evaluating functions within their domains, other times it will be possible to use a theorem like relelfvdm 5453 which says that if a function value produces an inhabited set, then the function is being evaluated within its domain.
• Bibliography references. The bibliography for the Intuitionistic Logic Explorer is separate from the one for the Metamath Proof Explorer but feel free to copy-paste a citation in either direction in order to cite it.

Label naming conventions

Here are a few of the label naming conventions:

• Suffixes. We follow the conventions of the Metamath Proof Explorer with a few additions. A biconditional in set.mm which is an implication in iset.mm should have a "r" (for the reverse direction), or "i"/"im" (for the forward direction) appended. A theorem in set.mm which has a decidability condition added should add "dc" to the theorem name. A theorem in set.mm where "nonempty class" is changed to "inhabited class" should add "m" (for member) to the theorem name.
• iset.mm versus set.mm names

  Theorems which are the same as in set.mm should be named the same (that is, where the statement of the theorem is the same; the proof can differ without a new name being called for). Theorems which are different should be named differently (we do have a small number of intentional exceptions to this rule but on the whole it serves us well).

  As for how to choose names so they are different between iset.mm and set.mm, when possible choose a name which reflect the difference in the theorems. For example, if a theorem in set.mm is an equality and the iset.mm analogue is a subset, add "ss" to the iset.mm name. If need be, add "i" to the iset.mm name (usually as a prefix to some portion of the name).

  As with set.mm, we welcome suggestions for better names (such as names which are more consistent with naming conventions).

  We do try to keep set.mm and iset.mm similar where we can. For example, if a theorem exists in both places but the name in set.mm isn't great, we tend to keep that name for iset.mm, or change it in both files together. This is mainly to make it easier to copy theorems, but also to generally help people browse proofs, find theorems, write proofs, etc.

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.

For the "g" abbreviation, this is related to the set.mm usage, in which "is a set" conditions are converted from hypotheses to antecedents, but is also used where "is a set" conditions are added relative to similar set.mm theorems.

Abbreviation	Mnenomic/Meaning	Source	Expression	Syntax?	Example(s)
ap	apart	df-ap 8344		Yes	apadd1 8370, apne 8385
g	with "is a set" condition			No	1stvalg 6040, brtposg 6151, setsmsbasg 12648
seq3, sum3	recursive sequence	df-seqfrec 10219		Yes	seq3-1 10233, fsum3 11156

Community. The Metamath mailing list also covers the Intuitionistic Logic Explorer and is at: https://groups.google.com/g/metamath 11156.

(Contributed by Jim Kingdon, 24-Feb-2020.) (New usage is discouraged.)

⊢ 𝜑    ⇒   ⊢ 𝜑

10.1.2  Definitional examples

Theorem

ex-or 12934

Example for ax-io 698. Example by David A. Wheeler. (Contributed by Mario Carneiro, 9-May-2015.)

⊢ (2 = 3 ∨ 4 = 4)

Theorem

ex-an 12935

Example for ax-ia1 105. Example by David A. Wheeler. (Contributed by Mario Carneiro, 9-May-2015.)

⊢ (2 = 2 ∧ 3 = 3)

Theorem

1kp2ke3k 12936

Example for df-dec 9183, 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 (2 + 1) = 3, 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 9183 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.)

⊢ (;;;1000 + ;;;2000) = ;;;3000

Theorem

ex-fl 12937

Example for df-fl 10043. Example by David A. Wheeler. (Contributed by Mario Carneiro, 18-Jun-2015.)

⊢ ((⌊‘(3 / 2)) = 1 ∧ (⌊‘-(3 / 2)) = -2)

Theorem

ex-ceil 12938

Example for df-ceil 10044. (Contributed by AV, 4-Sep-2021.)

⊢ ((⌈‘(3 / 2)) = 2 ∧ (⌈‘-(3 / 2)) = -1)

Theorem

ex-exp 12939

Example for df-exp 10293. (Contributed by AV, 4-Sep-2021.)

⊢ ((5↑2) = ;25 ∧ (-3↑-2) = (1 / 9))

Theorem

ex-fac 12940

Example for df-fac 10472. (Contributed by AV, 4-Sep-2021.)

⊢ (!‘5) = ;;120

Theorem

ex-bc 12941

Example for df-bc 10494. (Contributed by AV, 4-Sep-2021.)

⊢ (5C3) = ;10

Theorem

ex-dvds 12942

Example for df-dvds 11494: 3 divides into 6. (Contributed by David A. Wheeler, 19-May-2015.)

⊢ 3 ∥ 6

Theorem

ex-gcd 12943

Example for df-gcd 11636. (Contributed by AV, 5-Sep-2021.)

⊢ (-6 gcd 9) = 3

PART 11  SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL (USERS' MATHBOXES)

11.1  Mathboxes for user contributions

11.1.1  Mathbox guidelines

Theorem

mathbox 12944

(This theorem is a dummy placeholder for these guidelines. The label of this theorem, "mathbox", is hard-coded into the Metamath program to 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 iset.mm.

For contributors:

By making a contribution, you agree to release it into the public domain, according to the statement at the beginning of iset.mm.

Guidelines:

Mathboxes in iset.mm follow the same practices as in set.mm, so refer to the mathbox guidelines there for more details.

(Contributed by NM, 20-Feb-2007.) (Revised by the Metamath team, 9-Sep-2023.) (New usage is discouraged.)

⊢ 𝜑    ⇒   ⊢ 𝜑

11.2  Mathbox for BJ

11.2.1  Propositional calculus

Theorem

bj-nnsn 12945

As far as implying a negated formula is concerned, a formula is equivalent to its double negation. (Contributed by BJ, 24-Nov-2023.)

⊢ ((𝜑 → ¬ 𝜓) ↔ (¬ ¬ 𝜑 → ¬ 𝜓))

Theorem

bj-nnor 12946

Double negation of a disjunction in terms of implication. (Contributed by BJ, 9-Oct-2019.)

⊢ (¬ ¬ (𝜑 ∨ 𝜓) ↔ (¬ 𝜑 → ¬ ¬ 𝜓))

Theorem

bj-nnim 12947

The double negation of an implication implies the implication with the consequent doubly negated. (Contributed by BJ, 24-Nov-2023.)

⊢ (¬ ¬ (𝜑 → 𝜓) → (𝜑 → ¬ ¬ 𝜓))

Theorem

bj-nnan 12948

The double negation of a conjunction implies the conjunction of the double negations. (Contributed by BJ, 24-Nov-2023.)

⊢ (¬ ¬ (𝜑 ∧ 𝜓) → (¬ ¬ 𝜑 ∧ ¬ ¬ 𝜓))

Theorem

bj-nnal 12949

The double negation of a universal quantification implies the universal quantification of the double negation. (Contributed by BJ, 24-Nov-2023.)

⊢ (¬ ¬ ∀𝑥𝜑 → ∀𝑥 ¬ ¬ 𝜑)

Theorem

bj-nnclavius 12950

Clavius law with doubly negated consequent. (Contributed by BJ, 4-Dec-2023.)

⊢ ((¬ 𝜑 → 𝜑) → ¬ ¬ 𝜑)

11.2.1.1  Stable formulas

Theorem

bj-trst 12951

A provable formula is stable. (Contributed by BJ, 24-Nov-2023.)

⊢ (𝜑 → STAB 𝜑)

Theorem

bj-fast 12952

A refutable formula is stable. (Contributed by BJ, 24-Nov-2023.)

⊢ (¬ 𝜑 → STAB 𝜑)

Theorem

bj-nnbist 12953

If a formula is not refutable, then it is stable if and only if it is provable. By double-negation translation, if 𝜑 is a classical tautology, then ¬ ¬ 𝜑 is an intuitionistic tautology. Therefore, if 𝜑 is a classical tautology, then 𝜑 is intuitionistically equivalent to its stability (and to its decidability, see bj-nnbidc 12962). (Contributed by BJ, 24-Nov-2023.)

⊢ (¬ ¬ 𝜑 → (STAB 𝜑 ↔ 𝜑))

Theorem

bj-stim 12954

A conjunction with a stable consequent is stable. See stabnot 818 for negation and bj-stan 12955 for conjunction. (Contributed by BJ, 24-Nov-2023.)

⊢ (STAB 𝜓 → STAB (𝜑 → 𝜓))

Theorem

bj-stan 12955

The conjunction of two stable formulas is stable. See bj-stim 12954 for implication, stabnot 818 for negation, and bj-stal 12957 for universal quantification. (Contributed by BJ, 24-Nov-2023.)

⊢ ((STAB 𝜑 ∧ STAB 𝜓) → STAB (𝜑 ∧ 𝜓))

Theorem

bj-stand 12956

The conjunction of two stable formulas is stable. Deduction form of bj-stan 12955. Its proof is shorter, so one could prove it first and then bj-stan 12955 from it, the usual way. (Contributed by BJ, 24-Nov-2023.) (Proof modification is discouraged.)

⊢ (𝜑 → STAB 𝜓)    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → STAB 𝜒)    ⇒   ⊢ (𝜑 → STAB (𝜓 ∧ 𝜒))

Theorem

bj-stal 12957

The universal quantification of stable formula is stable. See bj-stim 12954 for implication, stabnot 818 for negation, and bj-stan 12955 for conjunction. (Contributed by BJ, 24-Nov-2023.)

⊢ (∀𝑥STAB 𝜑 → STAB ∀𝑥𝜑)

Theorem

bj-pm2.18st 12958

Clavius law for stable formulas. See pm2.18dc 840. (Contributed by BJ, 4-Dec-2023.)

⊢ (STAB 𝜑 → ((¬ 𝜑 → 𝜑) → 𝜑))

11.2.1.2  Decidable formulas

Theorem

bj-trdc 12959

A provable formula is decidable. (Contributed by BJ, 24-Nov-2023.)

⊢ (𝜑 → DECID 𝜑)

Theorem

bj-fadc 12960

A refutable formula is decidable. (Contributed by BJ, 24-Nov-2023.)

⊢ (¬ 𝜑 → DECID 𝜑)

Theorem

bj-dcstab 12961

A decidable formula is stable. (Contributed by BJ, 24-Nov-2023.) (Proof modification is discouraged.)

⊢ (DECID 𝜑 → STAB 𝜑)

Theorem

bj-nnbidc 12962

If a formula is not refutable, then it is decidable if and only if it is provable. See also comment of bj-nnbist 12953. (Contributed by BJ, 24-Nov-2023.)

⊢ (¬ ¬ 𝜑 → (DECID 𝜑 ↔ 𝜑))

Theorem

bj-nndcALT 12963

Alternate proof of nndc 836. (Proof modification is discouraged.) (New usage is discouraged.) (Contributed by BJ, 9-Oct-2019.)

⊢ ¬ ¬ DECID 𝜑

Theorem

bj-nnst 12964

Double negation of stability of a formula. Intuitionistic logic refutes unstability (but does not prove stability) of any formula. (Contributed by BJ, 9-Oct-2019.)

⊢ ¬ ¬ STAB 𝜑

Theorem

bj-dcdc 12965

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 𝜑 ↔ DECID 𝜑)

Theorem

bj-stdc 12966

Decidability of a proposition is stable if and only if that proposition is decidable. In particular, the assumption that every formula is stable implies that every formula is decidable, hence classical logic. (Contributed by BJ, 9-Oct-2019.)

⊢ (STAB DECID 𝜑 ↔ DECID 𝜑)

Theorem

bj-dcst 12967

Stability of a proposition is decidable if and only if that proposition is stable. (Contributed by BJ, 24-Nov-2023.)

⊢ (DECID STAB 𝜑 ↔ STAB 𝜑)

Theorem

bj-stst 12968

Stability of a proposition is stable if and only if that proposition is stable. STAB is idempotent. (Contributed by BJ, 9-Oct-2019.)

⊢ (STAB STAB 𝜑 ↔ STAB 𝜑)

11.2.2  Predicate calculus

Theorem

bj-ex 12969*

Existential generalization. (Contributed by BJ, 8-Dec-2019.) Proof modification is discouraged because there are shorter proofs, but using less basic results (like exlimiv 1577 and 19.9ht 1620 or 19.23ht 1473). (Proof modification is discouraged.)

⊢ (∃𝑥𝜑 → 𝜑)

Theorem

bj-hbalt 12970

Closed form of hbal 1453 (copied from set.mm). (Contributed by BJ, 2-May-2019.)

⊢ (∀𝑦(𝜑 → ∀𝑥𝜑) → (∀𝑦𝜑 → ∀𝑥∀𝑦𝜑))

Theorem

bj-nfalt 12971

Closed form of nfal 1555 (copied from set.mm). (Contributed by BJ, 2-May-2019.) (Proof modification is discouraged.)

⊢ (∀𝑥Ⅎ𝑦𝜑 → Ⅎ𝑦∀𝑥𝜑)

Theorem

spimd 12972

Deduction form of spim 1716. (Contributed by BJ, 17-Oct-2019.)

⊢ (𝜑 → Ⅎ𝑥𝜒)    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → ∀𝑥(𝑥 = 𝑦 → (𝜓 → 𝜒)))    ⇒   ⊢ (𝜑 → (∀𝑥𝜓 → 𝜒))

Theorem

2spim 12973*

Double substitution, as in spim 1716. (Contributed by BJ, 17-Oct-2019.)

⊢ Ⅎ𝑥𝜒    &   ⊢ Ⅎ𝑧𝜒    &   ⊢ ((𝑥 = 𝑦 ∧ 𝑧 = 𝑡) → (𝜓 → 𝜒))    ⇒   ⊢ (∀𝑧∀𝑥𝜓 → 𝜒)

Theorem

ch2var 12974*

Implicit substitution of 𝑦 for 𝑥 and 𝑡 for 𝑧 into a theorem. (Contributed by BJ, 17-Oct-2019.)

⊢ Ⅎ𝑥𝜓    &   ⊢ Ⅎ𝑧𝜓    &   ⊢ ((𝑥 = 𝑦 ∧ 𝑧 = 𝑡) → (𝜑 ↔ 𝜓))    &   ⊢ 𝜑    ⇒   ⊢ 𝜓

Theorem

ch2varv 12975*

Version of ch2var 12974 with non-freeness hypotheses replaced with disjoint variable conditions. (Contributed by BJ, 17-Oct-2019.)

⊢ ((𝑥 = 𝑦 ∧ 𝑧 = 𝑡) → (𝜑 ↔ 𝜓))    &   ⊢ 𝜑    ⇒   ⊢ 𝜓

Theorem

bj-exlimmp 12976

Lemma for bj-vtoclgf 12983. (Contributed by BJ, 21-Nov-2019.) (Proof modification is discouraged.)

⊢ Ⅎ𝑥𝜓    &   ⊢ (𝜒 → 𝜑)    ⇒   ⊢ (∀𝑥(𝜒 → (𝜑 → 𝜓)) → (∃𝑥𝜒 → 𝜓))

Theorem

bj-exlimmpi 12977

Lemma for bj-vtoclgf 12983. (Contributed by BJ, 21-Nov-2019.) (Proof modification is discouraged.)

⊢ Ⅎ𝑥𝜓    &   ⊢ (𝜒 → 𝜑)    &   ⊢ (𝜒 → (𝜑 → 𝜓))    ⇒   ⊢ (∃𝑥𝜒 → 𝜓)

Theorem

bj-sbimedh 12978

A strengthening of sbiedh 1760 (same proof). (Contributed by BJ, 16-Dec-2019.)

⊢ (𝜑 → ∀𝑥𝜑)    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → (𝜒 → ∀𝑥𝜒))    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → (𝑥 = 𝑦 → (𝜓 → 𝜒)))    ⇒   ⊢ (𝜑 → ([𝑦 / 𝑥]𝜓 → 𝜒))

Theorem

bj-sbimeh 12979

A strengthening of sbieh 1763 (same proof). (Contributed by BJ, 16-Dec-2019.)

⊢ (𝜓 → ∀𝑥𝜓)    &   ⊢ (𝑥 = 𝑦 → (𝜑 → 𝜓))    ⇒   ⊢ ([𝑦 / 𝑥]𝜑 → 𝜓)

Theorem

bj-sbime 12980

A strengthening of sbie 1764 (same proof). (Contributed by BJ, 16-Dec-2019.)

⊢ Ⅎ𝑥𝜓    &   ⊢ (𝑥 = 𝑦 → (𝜑 → 𝜓))    ⇒   ⊢ ([𝑦 / 𝑥]𝜑 → 𝜓)

11.2.3  Set theorey miscellaneous

Theorem

bj-el2oss1o 12981

Shorter proof of el2oss1o 13188 using more axioms. (Contributed by BJ, 21-Jan-2024.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) (New usage is discouraged.)

⊢ (𝐴 ∈ 2_o → 𝐴 ⊆ 1_o)

11.2.4  Extensionality

Various utility theorems using FOL and extensionality.

Theorem

bj-vtoclgft 12982

Weakening two hypotheses of vtoclgf 2744. (Contributed by BJ, 21-Nov-2019.)

⊢ Ⅎ𝑥𝐴    &   ⊢ Ⅎ𝑥𝜓    &   ⊢ (𝑥 = 𝐴 → 𝜑)    ⇒   ⊢ (∀𝑥(𝑥 = 𝐴 → (𝜑 → 𝜓)) → (𝐴 ∈ 𝑉 → 𝜓))

Theorem

bj-vtoclgf 12983

Weakening two hypotheses of vtoclgf 2744. (Contributed by BJ, 21-Nov-2019.)

⊢ Ⅎ𝑥𝐴    &   ⊢ Ⅎ𝑥𝜓    &   ⊢ (𝑥 = 𝐴 → 𝜑)    &   ⊢ (𝑥 = 𝐴 → (𝜑 → 𝜓))    ⇒   ⊢ (𝐴 ∈ 𝑉 → 𝜓)

Theorem

elabgf0 12984

Lemma for elabgf 2826. (Contributed by BJ, 21-Nov-2019.)

⊢ (𝑥 = 𝐴 → (𝐴 ∈ {𝑥 ∣ 𝜑} ↔ 𝜑))

Theorem

elabgft1 12985

One implication of elabgf 2826, in closed form. (Contributed by BJ, 21-Nov-2019.)

⊢ Ⅎ𝑥𝐴    &   ⊢ Ⅎ𝑥𝜓    ⇒   ⊢ (∀𝑥(𝑥 = 𝐴 → (𝜑 → 𝜓)) → (𝐴 ∈ {𝑥 ∣ 𝜑} → 𝜓))

Theorem

elabgf1 12986

One implication of elabgf 2826. (Contributed by BJ, 21-Nov-2019.)

⊢ Ⅎ𝑥𝐴    &   ⊢ Ⅎ𝑥𝜓    &   ⊢ (𝑥 = 𝐴 → (𝜑 → 𝜓))    ⇒   ⊢ (𝐴 ∈ {𝑥 ∣ 𝜑} → 𝜓)

Theorem

elabgf2 12987

One implication of elabgf 2826. (Contributed by BJ, 21-Nov-2019.)

⊢ Ⅎ𝑥𝐴    &   ⊢ Ⅎ𝑥𝜓    &   ⊢ (𝑥 = 𝐴 → (𝜓 → 𝜑))    ⇒   ⊢ (𝐴 ∈ 𝐵 → (𝜓 → 𝐴 ∈ {𝑥 ∣ 𝜑}))

Theorem

elabf1 12988*

One implication of elabf 2827. (Contributed by BJ, 21-Nov-2019.)

⊢ Ⅎ𝑥𝜓    &   ⊢ (𝑥 = 𝐴 → (𝜑 → 𝜓))    ⇒   ⊢ (𝐴 ∈ {𝑥 ∣ 𝜑} → 𝜓)

Theorem

elabf2 12989*

One implication of elabf 2827. (Contributed by BJ, 21-Nov-2019.)

⊢ Ⅎ𝑥𝜓    &   ⊢ 𝐴 ∈ V    &   ⊢ (𝑥 = 𝐴 → (𝜓 → 𝜑))    ⇒   ⊢ (𝜓 → 𝐴 ∈ {𝑥 ∣ 𝜑})

Theorem

elab1 12990*

One implication of elab 2828. (Contributed by BJ, 21-Nov-2019.)

⊢ (𝑥 = 𝐴 → (𝜑 → 𝜓))    ⇒   ⊢ (𝐴 ∈ {𝑥 ∣ 𝜑} → 𝜓)

Theorem

elab2a 12991*

One implication of elab 2828. (Contributed by BJ, 21-Nov-2019.)

⊢ 𝐴 ∈ V    &   ⊢ (𝑥 = 𝐴 → (𝜓 → 𝜑))    ⇒   ⊢ (𝜓 → 𝐴 ∈ {𝑥 ∣ 𝜑})

Theorem

elabg2 12992*

One implication of elabg 2830. (Contributed by BJ, 21-Nov-2019.)

⊢ (𝑥 = 𝐴 → (𝜓 → 𝜑))    ⇒   ⊢ (𝐴 ∈ 𝑉 → (𝜓 → 𝐴 ∈ {𝑥 ∣ 𝜑}))

Theorem

bj-rspgt 12993

Restricted specialization, generalized. Weakens a hypothesis of rspccv 2786 and seems to have a shorter proof. (Contributed by BJ, 21-Nov-2019.)

⊢ Ⅎ𝑥𝐴    &   ⊢ Ⅎ𝑥𝐵    &   ⊢ Ⅎ𝑥𝜓    ⇒   ⊢ (∀𝑥(𝑥 = 𝐴 → (𝜑 → 𝜓)) → (∀𝑥 ∈ 𝐵 𝜑 → (𝐴 ∈ 𝐵 → 𝜓)))

Theorem

bj-rspg 12994

Restricted specialization, generalized. Weakens a hypothesis of rspccv 2786 and seems to have a shorter proof. (Contributed by BJ, 21-Nov-2019.)

⊢ Ⅎ𝑥𝐴    &   ⊢ Ⅎ𝑥𝐵    &   ⊢ Ⅎ𝑥𝜓    &   ⊢ (𝑥 = 𝐴 → (𝜑 → 𝜓))    ⇒   ⊢ (∀𝑥 ∈ 𝐵 𝜑 → (𝐴 ∈ 𝐵 → 𝜓))

Theorem

cbvrald 12995*

Rule used to change bound variables, using implicit substitution. (Contributed by BJ, 22-Nov-2019.)

⊢ Ⅎ𝑥𝜑    &   ⊢ Ⅎ𝑦𝜑    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → Ⅎ𝑦𝜓)    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → Ⅎ𝑥𝜒)    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → (𝑥 = 𝑦 → (𝜓 ↔ 𝜒)))    ⇒   ⊢ (𝜑 → (∀𝑥 ∈ 𝐴 𝜓 ↔ ∀𝑦 ∈ 𝐴 𝜒))

Theorem

bj-intabssel 12996

Version of intss1 3786 using a class abstraction and explicit substitution. (Contributed by BJ, 29-Nov-2019.)

⊢ Ⅎ𝑥𝐴    ⇒   ⊢ (𝐴 ∈ 𝑉 → ([𝐴 / 𝑥]𝜑 → ∩ {𝑥 ∣ 𝜑} ⊆ 𝐴))

Theorem

bj-intabssel1 12997

Version of intss1 3786 using a class abstraction and implicit substitution. Closed form of intmin3 3798. (Contributed by BJ, 29-Nov-2019.)

⊢ Ⅎ𝑥𝐴    &   ⊢ Ⅎ𝑥𝜓    &   ⊢ (𝑥 = 𝐴 → (𝜓 → 𝜑))    ⇒   ⊢ (𝐴 ∈ 𝑉 → (𝜓 → ∩ {𝑥 ∣ 𝜑} ⊆ 𝐴))

Theorem

bj-elssuniab 12998

Version of elssuni 3764 using a class abstraction and explicit substitution. (Contributed by BJ, 29-Nov-2019.)

⊢ Ⅎ𝑥𝐴    ⇒   ⊢ (𝐴 ∈ 𝑉 → ([𝐴 / 𝑥]𝜑 → 𝐴 ⊆ ∪ {𝑥 ∣ 𝜑}))

Theorem

bj-sseq 12999

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.)

⊢ (𝜑 → (𝜓 ↔ 𝐴 ⊆ 𝐵))    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → (𝜒 ↔ 𝐵 ⊆ 𝐴))    ⇒   ⊢ (𝜑 → ((𝜓 ∧ 𝜒) ↔ 𝐴 = 𝐵))

11.2.5  Decidability of classes

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 "𝐴 is decidable in 𝐵 " if ∀𝑥 ∈ 𝐵DECID 𝑥 ∈ 𝐴 (see df-dcin 13001).

Note the similarity with the definition of a bounded class as a class for which membership in it is a bounded proposition (df-bdc 13039).

Syntax

wdcin 13000

Syntax for decidability of a class in another.

wff 𝐴 DECID_in 𝐵