Home | Metamath
Proof ExplorerTheorem List
(p. 271 of 309)
| < Previous Next > |

Browser slow? Try the
Unicode version. |

Mirrors > Metamath Home Page > MPE Home Page > Theorem List Contents > Recent Proofs

Color key: | Metamath Proof Explorer
(1-21328) |
Hilbert Space Explorer
(21329-22851) |
Users' Mathboxes
(22852-30843) |

Type | Label | Description | ||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|

Statement | ||||||||||||||||

Theorem | onfrALTlem4 27001* | Lemma for onfrALT 27007. (Contributed by Alan Sare, 22-Jul-2012.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) (New usage is discouraged.) | ||||||||||||||

Theorem | onfrALTlem3 27002* | Lemma for onfrALT 27007. (Contributed by Alan Sare, 22-Jul-2012.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) (New usage is discouraged.) | ||||||||||||||

Theorem | ggen31 27003* | gen31 27083 without virtual deductions. (Contributed by Alan Sare, 22-Jul-2012.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) (New usage is discouraged.) | ||||||||||||||

Theorem | onfrALTlem2 27004* | Lemma for onfrALT 27007. (Contributed by Alan Sare, 22-Jul-2012.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) (New usage is discouraged.) | ||||||||||||||

Theorem | cbvexsv 27005* | A theorem pertaining to the substitution for an existentially quantified variable when the substituted variable does not occur in the quantified wff. (Contributed by Alan Sare, 22-Jul-2012.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) (New usage is discouraged.) | ||||||||||||||

Theorem | onfrALTlem1 27006* | |||||||||||||||

Theorem | onfrALT 27007 | The epsilon relation is foundational on the class of ordinal numbers. onfrALT 27007 is an alternate proof of onfr 4324. onfrALTVD 27357 is the Virtual Deduction proof from which onfrALT 27007 is derived. The Virtual Deduction proof mirrors the working proof of onfr 4324 which is the main part of the proof of Theorem 7.12 of the first edition of TakeutiZaring. The proof of the corresponding Proposition 7.12 of [TakeutiZaring] p. 38 (second edition) does not contain the working proof equivalent of onfrALTVD 27357. This theorem does not rely on the Axiom of Regularity. (Contributed by Alan Sare, 22-Jul-2012.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) (New usage is discouraged.) | ||||||||||||||

Theorem | csbeq2g 27008 | Formula-building implication rule for class substitution. Closed form of csbeq2i 3035. csbeq2g 27008 is derived from the virtual deduction proof csbeq2gVD 27358. (Contributed by Alan Sare, 10-Nov-2012.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) (New usage is discouraged.) | ||||||||||||||

Theorem | 19.41rg 27009 | Closed form of right-to-left implication of 19.41 1799, Theorem 19.41 of [Margaris] p. 90. Derived from 19.41rgVD 27368. (Contributed by Alan Sare, 8-Feb-2014.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) (New usage is discouraged.) | ||||||||||||||

Theorem | opelopab4 27010* | Ordered pair membership in a class abstraction of pairs. Compare to elopab 4165. (Contributed by Alan Sare, 8-Feb-2014.) (Revised by Mario Carneiro, 6-May-2015.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) (New usage is discouraged.) | ||||||||||||||

Theorem | 2pm13.193 27011 | pm13.193 26778 for two variables. pm13.193 26778 is Theorem *13.193 in [WhiteheadRussell] p. 179. Derived from 2pm13.193VD 27369. (Contributed by Alan Sare, 8-Feb-2014.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) (New usage is discouraged.) | ||||||||||||||

Theorem | hbntal 27012 | A closed form of hbn 1722. hbnt 1717 is another closed form of hbn 1722. (Contributed by Alan Sare, 8-Feb-2014.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) (New usage is discouraged.) | ||||||||||||||

Theorem | hbimpg 27013 | A closed form of hbim 1723. Derived from hbimpgVD 27370. (Contributed by Alan Sare, 8-Feb-2014.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) (New usage is discouraged.) | ||||||||||||||

Theorem | hbalg 27014 | Closed form of hbal 1567. Derived from hbalgVD 27371. (Contributed by Alan Sare, 8-Feb-2014.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) (New usage is discouraged.) | ||||||||||||||

Theorem | hbexg 27015 | Closed form of nfex 1733. Derived from hbexgVD 27372. (Contributed by Alan Sare, 8-Feb-2014.) (Revised by Mario Carneiro, 12-Dec-2016.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) (New usage is discouraged.) | ||||||||||||||

Theorem | a9e2eq 27016* | Alternate form of a9e 1817 for non-distinct , and . a9e2eq 27016 is derived from a9e2eqVD 27373. (Contributed by Alan Sare, 25-Mar-2014.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) (New usage is discouraged.) | ||||||||||||||

Theorem | a9e2nd 27017* | If at least two sets exist (dtru 4095) , then the same is true expressed in an alternate form similar to the form of a9e 1817. a9e2nd 27017 is derived from a9e2ndVD 27374. (Contributed by Alan Sare, 25-Mar-2014.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) (New usage is discouraged.) | ||||||||||||||

Theorem | a9e2ndeq 27018* | "At least two sets exist" expressed in the form of dtru 4095 is logically equivalent to the same expressed in a form similar to a9e 1817 if dtru 4095 is false implies . a9e2ndeq 27018 is derived from a9e2ndeqVD 27375. (Contributed by Alan Sare, 25-Mar-2014.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) (New usage is discouraged.) | ||||||||||||||

Theorem | 2sb5nd 27019* | Equivalence for double substitution 2sb5 2072 without distinct , requirement. 2sb5nd 27019 is derived from 2sb5ndVD 27376. (Contributed by Alan Sare, 30-Apr-2014.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) (New usage is discouraged.) | ||||||||||||||

Theorem | 2uasbanh 27020* | Distribute the unabbreviated form of proper substitution in and out of a conjunction. 2uasbanh 27020 is derived from 2uasbanhVD 27377. (Contributed by Alan Sare, 31-May-2014.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) (New usage is discouraged.) | ||||||||||||||

Theorem | 2uasban 27021* | Distribute the unabbreviated form of proper substitution in and out of a conjunction. (Contributed by Alan Sare, 31-May-2014.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) (New usage is discouraged.) | ||||||||||||||

Theorem | e2ebind 27022 | Absorption of an existential quantifier of a double existential quantifier of non-distinct variables. e2ebind 27022 is derived from e2ebindVD 27378. (Contributed by Alan Sare, 27-Nov-2014.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) (New usage is discouraged.) | ||||||||||||||

Theorem | elpwgded 27023 | elpwgdedVD 27383 in conventional notation. (Contributed by Alan Sare, 23-Apr-2015.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) (New usage is discouraged.) | ||||||||||||||

Theorem | trelded 27024 | Deduction form of trel 4017. In a transitive class, the membership relation is transitive. (Contributed by Alan Sare, 3-Dec-2015.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) (New usage is discouraged.) | ||||||||||||||

Theorem | jaoded 27025 | Deduction form of jao 500. Disjunction of antecedents. (Contributed by Alan Sare, 3-Dec-2015.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) (New usage is discouraged.) | ||||||||||||||

Theorem | 3imp31 27026 | The importation inference 3imp 1150 with commutation of the first and third conjuncts of the assertion relative to the hypothesis. (Contributed by Alan Sare, 11-Sep-2016.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) | ||||||||||||||

Theorem | 3imp21 27027 | The importation inference 3imp 1150 with commutation of the first and second conjuncts of the assertion relative to the hypothesis. (Contributed by Alan Sare, 11-Sep-2016.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) | ||||||||||||||

Theorem | biimpa21 27028 | biimpa 472 with commutation of the first and second conjuncts of the assertion. (Contributed by Alan Sare, 11-Sep-2016.) | ||||||||||||||

Theorem | sbtT 27029 | A substitution into a theorem remains true. sbt 1905 with the existence of no virtual hypotheses for the hypothesis expressed as the empty virtual hypothesis collection. (Contributed by Alan Sare, 4-Feb-2017.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) (New usage is discouraged.) | ||||||||||||||

16.20.2 What is Virtual Deduction? | ||||||||||||||||

Syntax | wvd1 27030 |
A Virtual Deduction proof in a Hilbert-style deductive system is the
analog of a sequent calculus proof. A theorem is proven in a Gentzen
system in order to prove more directly, which may be more intuitive
and easier for some people. The analog of this proof in Metamath's
Hilbert-style system is verified by the Metamath program.
Natural Deduction is a well known proof method orignally proposed by Gentzen in 1935 and comprehensively summarized by Prawitz in his 1965 monograph "Natural deduction: a proof-theoretic study". Gentzen wished to construct "a formalism that comes as close as possible to natural reasoning". Natural deduction is a response to dissatisfaction with axiomatic proofs such as Hilbert-style axiomatic proofs, which the proofs of Metamath are. In 1926, in Poland, Lukasiewicz advocated a more natural treatment of logic. Jaskowski made the earliest attempts at defining a more natural deduction. Natural deduction in its modern form was independently proposed by Gentzen. Sequent calculus, the chief alternative to Natural Deduction, was created by Gentzen. The following is an except from Stephen Cole Kleene's seminal 1952 book "Introduction to Metamathematics", which contains the first formulation of sequent calculus in the modern style. Kleene states on page 440: . . . the proof of (Gentzen's Hauptsatz) breaks down into a list of cases, each of which is simple to handle. . . . Gentzen's normal form for proofs in the predicate calculus requires a different classification of the deductive steps than is given by the postulates of the formal system of predicate calculus of Chapter IV (Section 19). The implication symbol (the Metamath symbol for implication has been substituted here for the symbol used by Kleene) has to be separated in its role of mediating inferences from its role as a component symbol of the formula being proved. In the former role it will be replaced by a new formal symbol (read "gives" or "entails"), to which properties will be assigned similar to those of the informal symbol in our former derived rules. Gentzen's classification of the deductive operations is made explicit by setting up a new formal system of the predicate calculus. The formal system of propositional and predicate calculus studied previously (Chapters IV ff.) we call now a "Hilbert-type system", and denote by H. Precisely, H denotes any one or a particular one of several systems, according to whether we are considering propositional calculus or predicate calculus, in the classical or the intuitionistic version (Section 23), and according to the sense in which we are using "term" and "formula" (Sections 117,25,31,37,72-76). The same respective choices will apply to the "Gentzen-type system G1" which we introduce now and the G2, G3 and G3a later. The transformation or deductive rules of G1 will apply to objects which are not formulas of the system H, but are built from them by an additional formation rule, so we use a new term "sequent" for these objects. (Gentzen says "Sequenz", which we translate as "sequent", because we have already used "sequence" for any succession of objects, where the German is "Folge".) A sequent is a formal expression of the form , . . . , , . . . , where , . . . , and , . . . , are seqences of a finite number of 0 or more formulas (substituting Metamath notation for Kleene's notation). The part , . . . , is the antecedent, and , . . . , the succedent of the sequent , . . . , , . . . , . When the antecedent and the succedent each have a finite number of 1 or more formulas, the sequent , . . . , , . . . has the same interpretation for G1 as the formula . . . . . . for H. The interpretation extends to the case of an antecedent of 0 formulas by regarding . . . for 0 formulas (the "empty conjunction") as true and . . . for 0 formulas (the "empty disjunction") as false. . . . As in Chapter V, we use Greek capitals . . . to stand for finite sequences of zero or more formulas, but now also as antecedent (succedent), or parts of antecedent (succedent), with separating formal commas included. . . . (End of Kleene excerpt) In chapter V entitled "Formal Deduction" Kleene states, on page 86: Section 20. Formal deduction. Formal proofs of even quite elementary theorems tend to be long. As a price for having analyzed logical deduction into simple steps, more of those steps have to be used. The purpose of formalizing a theory is to get an explicit definition of what constitutes proof in the theory. Having achieved this, there is no need always to appeal directly to the definition. The labor required to establish the formal provability of formulas can be greatly lessened by using metamathematical theorems concerning the existence of formal proofs. If the demonstrations of those theorems do have the finitary character which metamathematics is supposed to have, the demonstrations will indicate, at least implicitly, methods for obtaining the formal proofs. The use of the metamathematical theorems then amounts to abbreviation, often of very great extent, in the presentation of formal proofs. The simpler of such metamathematical theorems we shall call derived rules, since they express principles which can be said to be derived from the postulated rules by showing that the use of them as additional methods of inference does not increase the class of provable formulas. We shall seek by means of derived rules to bring the methods for establishing the facts of formal provability as close as possible to the informal methods of the theory which is being formalized. In setting up the formal system, proof was given the simplest possible structure, consisting of a single sequence of formulas. Some of our derived rules, called "direct rules", will serve to abbreviate for us whole segments of such a sequence; we can then, so to speak, use these segments as prefabricated units in building proofs. But also, in mathematical practice, proofs are common which have a more complicated structure, employing "subsidiary deduction", i.e. deduction under assumptions for the sake of the argument, which assumptions are subsequently discharged. For example, subsidiary deduction is used in a proof by reductio ad absurdum, and less obtrusively when we place the hypothesis of a theorem on a par with proved propositions to deduce the conclusion. Other derived rules, called "subsidiary deduction rules", will give us this kind of procedure. We now introduce, by a metamathematical definition, the notion of "formal deducibility under assumptions". Given a list , . . . of or more (occurences of) formulas, a finite sequence of one or more (occurences of) formulas is called a (formal) deduction from the assumption formulas , . . . , if each formula of the sequence is either one of the formulas , . . . , or an axiom, or an immediate consequence of preceding formulas of a sequence. A deduction is said to be deducible from the assumption formulas (in symbols, ,. . . . ,. ), and is called the conclusion (or endformula) of the deduction. (The symbol may be read "yields".) (End of Kleene excerpt) Gentzen's normal form is a certain direct fashion for proofs and deductions. His sequent calculus, formulated in the modern style by Kleene, is the classical system G1. In this system, the new formal symbol has properties similar to the informal symbol of Kleene's above language of formal deducibility under assumptions. Kleene states on page 440: . . . This leads us to inquire whether there may not be a theorem about the predicate calculus asserting that, if a formula is provable (or deducible from other formulas), it is provable (or deducible) in a certain direct fashion; in other words, a theorem giving a normal form for proofs and deductions, the proofs and deduction in normal form being in some sense direct. (End of Kleene excerpt) There is such a theorem, which was proven by Kleene. Formal proofs in H of even quite elementary theorems tend to be long. As a price for having analyzed logical deduction into simple steps, more of those steps have to be used. The proofs of Metamath are fully detailed formal proofs. We wish to have a means of proving Metamath theorems and deductions in a more direct fashion. Natural Deduction is a system for proving theorems and deductions in a more direct fashion. However, Natural Deduction is not compatible for use with Metamath, which uses a Hilbert-type system. Instead, Kleene's classical system G1 may be used for proving Metamath deductions and theorems in a more direct fashion. The system of Metamath is an H system, not a Gentzen system. Therefore, proofs in Kleene's classical system G1 ("G1") cannot be included in Metamath's system H, which we shall henceforth call "system H" or "H". However, we may translate proofs in G1 into proofs in H. By Kleene's THEOREM 47 (page 446)
By Kleene's COROLLARY of THEOREM 47 (page 448)
denotes the same connective denoted by . " , " , in the context of Virtual Deduction, denotes the same connective denoted by . This Virtual Deduction notation is specified by the following set.mm definitions:
replaces in the analog in H of a sequent in G1 having a non-empty antecedent. If occurs as the outermost connective denoted by or and occurs exactly once, we call the analog in H of a sequent in G1 a "virtual deduction" because the corresponding of the sequent is assigned properties similar to . While sequent calculus proofs (proofs in G1) may have as steps sequents with 0, 1, or more formulas in the succedent, we shall only prove in G1 using sequents with exactly 1 formula in the succedent. The User proves in G1 in order to obtain the benefits of more direct proving using sequent calculus, then translates the proof in G1 into a proof in H. The reference theorems and deductions to be used for proving in G1 are translations of theorems and deductions in set.mm. Each theorem in set.mm corresponds to the theorem in G1. Deductions in G1 corresponding to deductions in H are similarly determined. Theorems in H with one or more occurences of either or may also be translated into theorems in G1 for by replacing the outermost occurence of or of the theorem in H with . Deductions in H may be translated into deductions in G1 in a similar manner. The only theorems and deductions in H useful for proving in G1 for the purpose of obtaining proofs in H are those in which, for each hypothesis or assertion, there are 0 or 1 occurences of and it is the outermost occurence of or . Kleene's THEOREM 46 and its COROLLARY 2 are used for translating from H to G1. By Kleene's THEOREM 46 (page 445)
By Kleene's COROLLARY 2 of THEOREM 46 (page 446)
The procedure for more direct proving of theorems or deductions in H is as follows. The User proves in G1. He(she) uses translated set.mm theorems and deductions as reference theorems and deductions. His(her) proof is only a guess in the sense that he(she) can't verify his(her) proof in G1 because he(she) doesn't have an automated proof checker to use. The proof in G1 is translated into its analog in H for verification by the Metamath program. This proof is called the Virtual Deduction proof. This proof may then be translated into a conventional Metamath proof automatically, removing the unnecessary Virtual Deduction symbols. The translations from H to G1 and G1 to H are trivial. In practice, they may be done without much thought. In principle, they must be done, because the proving is done using sequents, which do not exist in H. The analogs in H of the postulates of G1 are the set.mm postulates. The postulates in G1 corresponding to the Metamath postulates are not the classical system G1 postulates of Kleene (pages 442 and 443). set.mm has the predicate calculus postulates and other posulates. The Kleene classical system G1 postulates correspond to predicate calculus postulates which differ from the Metamath system G1 postulates corresponding to the predicate calculus postulates of Metamath's system H. Metamath's predicate calculus G1 postulates are presumably deducible from the Kleene classical G1 postulates and the Kleene classical G1 postulates are deducible from Metamath's G1 postulates. It should be recognized that, because of the different postulates, the classical G1 system corresponding to Metamath's system H is not identical to Kleene's classical system G1.
Why not create a separate database (setg.mm) of proofs in G1, avoiding the need to translate from H to G1 and from G1 back to H? The translations are trivial. Sequents make the language more complex than is necessary. More direct proving using sequent calculus may be done as a means towards the end of constructing proofs in H. Then, the language may be kept as simple as possible. A system G1 database would be redundant because it would duplicate the information contained in the corresponding system H database. For earlier proofs, each "User's Proof" in the web page description of a Virtual Deduction proof in set.mm is the analog in H of the User's working proof in G1. The User's Proof is automatically completed by completeusersproof.cmd. The completed proof is the Virtual Deduction proof, which is the analog in H of the corresponding fully detailed proof in G1. The completed Virtual Deduction proof of these earlier proofs may be automatically translated into a conventional Metamath proof. In September of 2016 completeusersproof.c was released. The input for completeusersproof.c is a Virtual Deduction User's Proof. Unlike completeusersproof.cmd, the completed proof is in conventional notation. completeusersproof.c eliminates the virtual deduction notation of the User's Proof after utilizing the information it provides. Applying mmj2's unify command is essential to completeusersproof.c. The mmj2 program is invoked within the completeusersproof.c function mmj2Unify(). The original mmj2 program was written by Mel O'Cat. Mario Carneiro has enhanced it. mmj2Unify() is called multiple times during the execution of completeusersproof. A Virtual Deduction proof is the Metamath-specific version of a Natural Deduction Proof. A Virtual Deduction proof generally cannot be directly input on a mmj2 Proof Worksheet and completed by the mmj2 tool because it is usually missing some technical proof steps which are not part of the Virtual Deduction proof but are necessary for a complete Metamath Proof. These missing technical steps may be automatically added by an automated proof assistant. completeusersproof.c is such a proof assistant. completeusersproof.c adds the missing technical steps and finds the reference theorems and deductions in set.mm which unify with the subproofs of the proof. The User may write a Virtual Deduction proof and automatically transform it into a complete Metamath proof using the completeusersproof tool. The completed proof has been checked by the Metamath program. The task of writing a complete Metamath proof is reduced to writing what is essentially a Natural Deduction Proof. Generally, proving using Virtual Deduction and completeusersproof reduces the amount Metamath-specific knowledge required by the User. Often, no knowledge of the specific theorems and deductions in set.mm is required to write some of the subproofs of a Virtual Deduction proof. Often, no knowledge of the Metamath-specific names of reference theorems and deductions in set.mm is required for writing some of the subproofs of a User's Proof. Often, the User may write subproofs of a proof using theorems or deductions commonly used in mathematics and correctly assume that some form of each is contained in set.mm and that completeusersproof will automatically generate the technical steps necessary to utilize them to complete the subproofs. Often, the fraction of the work which may be considered tedious is reduced and the total amount of work is reduced. | ||||||||||||||

16.20.3 Virtual Deduction Theorems | ||||||||||||||||

Definition | df-vd1 27031 | Definition of virtual deduction. (Contributed by Alan Sare, 21-Apr-2011.) (New usage is discouraged.) | ||||||||||||||

Theorem | in1 27032 | Inference form of df-vd1 27031. Virtual deduction introduction rule of converting the virtual hypothesis of a 1-virtual hypothesis virtual deduction into an antecedent. (Contributed by Alan Sare, 14-Nov-2011.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) (New usage is discouraged.) | ||||||||||||||

Theorem | iin1 27033 | in1 27032 without virtual deductions. (Contributed by Alan Sare, 23-Jul-2011.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) (New usage is discouraged.) | ||||||||||||||

Theorem | dfvd1ir 27034 | Inference form of df-vd1 27031 with the virtual deduction as the assertion. (Contributed by Alan Sare, 14-Nov-2011.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) (New usage is discouraged.) | ||||||||||||||

Theorem | idn1 27035 | Virtual deduction identity rule which is id 21 with virtual deduction symbols. (Contributed by Alan Sare, 24-Jun-2011.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) (New usage is discouraged.) | ||||||||||||||

Theorem | ax172 27036* | Quantification of two variables over a formula in which they do not occur. (Contributed by Alan Sare, 12-Apr-2011.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) (New usage is discouraged.) | ||||||||||||||

Theorem | dfvd1imp 27037 | Left-to-right part of definition of virtual deduction. (Contributed by Alan Sare, 21-Apr-2011.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) (New usage is discouraged.) | ||||||||||||||

Theorem | dfvd1impr 27038 | Right-to-left part of definition of virtual deduction. (Contributed by Alan Sare, 21-Apr-2011.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) (New usage is discouraged.) | ||||||||||||||

Syntax | wvd2 27039 | Syntax for a 2-hypothesis virtual deduction. (New usage is discouraged.) | ||||||||||||||

Definition | df-vd2 27040 | Definition of a 2-hypothesis virtual deduction. (Contributed by Alan Sare, 14-Nov-2011.) (New usage is discouraged.) | ||||||||||||||

Theorem | dfvd2 27041 | Definition of a 2-hypothesis virtual deduction. (Contributed by Alan Sare, 14-Nov-2011.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) (New usage is discouraged.) | ||||||||||||||

Syntax | wvhc2 27042 | Syntax for a 2-virtual hypotheses collection. (Contributed by Alan Sare, 23-Apr-2015.) (New usage is discouraged.) | ||||||||||||||

Definition | df-vhc2 27043 | Definition of a 2-virtual hypotheses collection. (Contributed by Alan Sare, 23-Apr-2015.) (New usage is discouraged.) | ||||||||||||||

Theorem | dfvd2an 27044 | Definition of a 2-hypothesis virtual deduction in vd conjunction form. (Contributed by Alan Sare, 23-Apr-2015.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) (New usage is discouraged.) | ||||||||||||||

Theorem | dfvd2ani 27045 | Inference form of dfvd2an 27044. (Contributed by Alan Sare, 23-Apr-2015.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) (New usage is discouraged.) | ||||||||||||||

Theorem | dfvd2anir 27046 | Right-to-left inference form of dfvd2an 27044. (Contributed by Alan Sare, 23-Apr-2015.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) (New usage is discouraged.) | ||||||||||||||

Theorem | dfvd2i 27047 | Inference form of dfvd2 27041. (Contributed by Alan Sare, 14-Nov-2011.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) (New usage is discouraged.) | ||||||||||||||

Theorem | dfvd2ir 27048 | Right-to-left inference form of dfvd2 27041. (Contributed by Alan Sare, 14-Nov-2011.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) (New usage is discouraged.) | ||||||||||||||

Syntax | wvd3 27049 | Syntax for a 3-hypothesis virtual deduction. (New usage is discouraged.) | ||||||||||||||

Syntax | wvhc3 27050 | Syntax for a 3-virtual hypotheses collection. (Contributed by Alan Sare, 13-Jun-2015.) (New usage is discouraged.) | ||||||||||||||

Definition | df-vhc3 27051 | Definition of a 3-virtual hypotheses collection. (Contributed by Alan Sare, 13-Jun-2015.) (New usage is discouraged.) | ||||||||||||||

Definition | df-vd3 27052 | Definition of a 3-hypothesis virtual deduction. (Contributed by Alan Sare, 14-Nov-2011.) (New usage is discouraged.) | ||||||||||||||

Theorem | dfvd3 27053 | Definition of a 3-hypothesis virtual deduction. (Contributed by Alan Sare, 14-Nov-2011.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) (New usage is discouraged.) | ||||||||||||||

Theorem | dfvd3i 27054 | Inference form of dfvd3 27053. (Contributed by Alan Sare, 14-Nov-2011.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) (New usage is discouraged.) | ||||||||||||||

Theorem | dfvd3ir 27055 | Right-to-left inference form of dfvd3 27053. (Contributed by Alan Sare, 14-Nov-2011.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) (New usage is discouraged.) | ||||||||||||||

Theorem | dfvd3an 27056 | Definition of a 3-hypothesis virtual deduction in vd conjunction form. (Contributed by Alan Sare, 13-Jun-2015.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) (New usage is discouraged.) | ||||||||||||||

Theorem | dfvd3ani 27057 | Inference form of dfvd3an 27056. (Contributed by Alan Sare, 13-Jun-2015.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) (New usage is discouraged.) | ||||||||||||||

Theorem | dfvd3anir 27058 | Right-to-left inference form of dfvd3an 27056. (Contributed by Alan Sare, 13-Jun-2015.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) (New usage is discouraged.) | ||||||||||||||

Theorem | vd01 27059 | A virtual hypothesis virtually infers a theorem. (Contributed by Alan Sare, 14-Jun-2011.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) (New usage is discouraged.) | ||||||||||||||

Theorem | vd02 27060 | 2 virtual hypotheses virtually infer a theorem. (Contributed by Alan Sare, 14-Jun-2011.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) (New usage is discouraged.) | ||||||||||||||

Theorem | vd03 27061 | A theorem is virtually inferred by the 3 virtual hypotheses. (Contributed by Alan Sare, 12-Jun-2011.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) (New usage is discouraged.) | ||||||||||||||

Theorem | vd12 27062 | A virtual deduction with 1 virtual hypothesis virtually inferring a virtual conclusion infers that the same conclusion is virtually inferred by the same virtual hypothesis and an additional hypothesis. (Contributed by Alan Sare, 12-Jun-2011.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) (New usage is discouraged.) | ||||||||||||||

Theorem | vd13 27063 | A virtual deduction with 1 virtual hypothesis virtually inferring a virtual conclusion infers that the same conclusion is virtually inferred by the same virtual hypothesis and a two additional hypotheses. (Contributed by Alan Sare, 12-Jun-2011.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) (New usage is discouraged.) | ||||||||||||||

Theorem | vd23 27064 | A virtual deduction with 2 virtual hypotheses virtually inferring a virtual conclusion infers that the same conclusion is virtually inferred by the same 2 virtual hypotheses and a third hypothesis. (Contributed by Alan Sare, 12-Jun-2011.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) (New usage is discouraged.) | ||||||||||||||

Theorem | dfvd2imp 27065 | The virtual deduction form of a 2-antecedent nested implication implies the 2-antecedent nested implication. (Contributed by Alan Sare, 21-Apr-2011.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) (New usage is discouraged.) | ||||||||||||||

Theorem | dfvd2impr 27066 | A 2-antecedent nested implication implies its virtual deduction form. (Contributed by Alan Sare, 21-Apr-2011.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) (New usage is discouraged.) | ||||||||||||||

Theorem | in2 27067 | The virtual deduction introduction rule of converting the end virtual hypothesis of 2 virtual hypotheses into an antecedent. (Contributed by Alan Sare, 21-Apr-2011.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) (New usage is discouraged.) | ||||||||||||||

Theorem | int2 27068 | The virtual deduction introduction rule of converting the end virtual hypothesis of 2 virtual hypotheses into an antecedent. Conventional form of int2 27068 is ex 425. (Contributed by Alan Sare, 23-Apr-2015.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) (New usage is discouraged.) | ||||||||||||||

Theorem | iin2 27069 | in2 27067 without virtual deductions. (Contributed by Alan Sare, 20-Jun-2011.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) (New usage is discouraged.) | ||||||||||||||

Theorem | in2an 27070 | The virtual deduction introduction rule converting the second conjunct of the second virtual hypothesis into the antecedent of the conclusion. exp3a 427 is the non-virtual deduction form of in2an 27070. (Contributed by Alan Sare, 30-Jun-2012.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) (New usage is discouraged.) | ||||||||||||||

Theorem | in3 27071 | The virtual deduction introduction rule of converting the end virtual hypothesis of 3 virtual hypotheses into an antecedent. (Contributed by Alan Sare, 12-Jun-2011.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) (New usage is discouraged.) | ||||||||||||||

Theorem | iin3 27072 | in3 27071 without virtual deduction connectives. Special theorem needed for Alan Sare's virtual deduction translation tool. (Contributed by Alan Sare, 23-Jul-2011.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) (New usage is discouraged.) | ||||||||||||||

Theorem | in3an 27073 | The virtual deduction introduction rule converting the second conjunct of the third virtual hypothesis into the antecedent of the conclusion. exp4a 592 is the non-virtual deduction form of in3an 27073. (Contributed by Alan Sare, 25-Jun-2012.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) (New usage is discouraged.) | ||||||||||||||

Theorem | int3 27074 | The virtual deduction introduction rule of converting the end virtual hypothesis of 3 virtual hypotheses into an antecedent. Conventional form of int3 27074 is 3expia 1158. (Contributed by Alan Sare, 13-Jun-2015.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) (New usage is discouraged.) | ||||||||||||||

Theorem | idn2 27075 | Virtual deduction identity rule which is idd 23 with virtual deduction symbols. (Contributed by Alan Sare, 21-Apr-2011.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) (New usage is discouraged.) | ||||||||||||||

Theorem | iden2 27076 | Virtual deduction identity rule. simpr 449 in conjunction form Virtual Deduction notation. (Contributed by Alan Sare, 5-Sep-2016.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) (New usage is discouraged.) | ||||||||||||||

Theorem | idn3 27077 | Virtual deduction identity rule for 3 virtual hypotheses. (Contributed by Alan Sare, 11-Jun-2011.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) (New usage is discouraged.) | ||||||||||||||

Theorem | gen11 27078* | Virtual deduction generalizing rule for 1 quantifying variable and 1 virtual hypothesis. alrimiv 2012 is gen11 27078 without virtual deductions. (Contributed by Alan Sare, 21-Apr-2011.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) (New usage is discouraged.) | ||||||||||||||

Theorem | gen11nv 27079 | Virtual deduction generalizing rule for 1 quantifying variable and 1 virtual hypothesis without distinct variables. alrimih 1553 is gen11nv 27079 without virtual deductions. (Contributed by Alan Sare, 12-Dec-2011.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) (New usage is discouraged.) | ||||||||||||||

Theorem | gen12 27080* | Virtual deduction generalizing rule for 2 quantifying variables and 1 virtual hypothesis. gen12 27080 is alrimivv 2013 with virtual deductions. (Contributed by Alan Sare, 2-May-2011.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) (New usage is discouraged.) | ||||||||||||||

Theorem | gen21 27081* | Virtual deduction generalizing rule for 1 quantifying variables and 2 virtual hypothesis. gen21 27081 is alrimdv 2014 with virtual deductions. (Contributed by Alan Sare, 25-Jul-2011.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) (New usage is discouraged.) | ||||||||||||||

Theorem | gen21nv 27082 | Virtual deduction form of alrimdh 1585. (Contributed by Alan Sare, 31-Dec-2011.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) (New usage is discouraged.) | ||||||||||||||

Theorem | gen31 27083* | Virtual deduction generalizing rule for 1 quantifying variable and 3 virtual hypothesis. gen31 27083 is ggen31 27003 with virtual deductions. (Contributed by Alan Sare, 22-Jun-2012.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) (New usage is discouraged.) | ||||||||||||||

Theorem | gen22 27084* | Virtual deduction generalizing rule for 2 quantifying variables and 2 virtual hypothesis. (Contributed by Alan Sare, 25-Jul-2011.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) (New usage is discouraged.) | ||||||||||||||

Theorem | ggen22 27085* | gen22 27084 without virtual deductions. (Contributed by Alan Sare, 25-Jul-2011.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) (New usage is discouraged.) | ||||||||||||||

Theorem | exinst 27086 | Existential Instantiation. Virtual deduction form of exlimexi 26980. (Contributed by Alan Sare, 21-Apr-2013.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) (New usage is discouraged.) | ||||||||||||||

Theorem | exinst01 27087 | Existential Instantiation. Virtual Deduction rule corresponding to a special case of the Natural Deduction Sequent Calculus rule called Rule C in [Margaris] p. 79 and E in Table 1 on page 4 of the paper "Extracting information from intermediate T-systems" (2000) presented at IMLA99 by Mauro Ferrari, Camillo Fiorentini, and Pierangelo Miglioli. (Contributed by Alan Sare, 21-Apr-2013.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) (New usage is discouraged.) | ||||||||||||||

Theorem | exinst11 27088 | Existential Instantiation. Virtual Deduction rule corresponding to a special case of the Natural Deduction Sequent Calculus rule called Rule C in [Margaris] p. 79 and E in Table 1 on page 4 of the paper "Extracting information from intermediate T-systems" (2000) presented at IMLA99 by Mauro Ferrari, Camillo Fiorentini, and Pierangelo Miglioli. (Contributed by Alan Sare, 21-Apr-2013.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) (New usage is discouraged.) | ||||||||||||||

Theorem | e1_ 27089 | A Virtual deduction elimination rule. syl 17 is e1_ 27089 without virtual deductions. (Contributed by Alan Sare, 11-Jun-2011.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) (New usage is discouraged.) | ||||||||||||||

Theorem | el1 27090 | A Virtual deduction elimination rule. syl 17 is el1 27090 without virtual deductions. (Contributed by Alan Sare, 23-Apr-2015.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) (New usage is discouraged.) | ||||||||||||||

Theorem | e1bi 27091 | Biconditional form of e1_ 27089. sylib 190 is e1bi 27091 without virtual deductions. (Contributed by Alan Sare, 15-Jun-2011.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) (New usage is discouraged.) | ||||||||||||||

Theorem | e1bir 27092 | Right biconditional form of e1_ 27089. sylibr 205 is e1bir 27092 without virtual deductions. (Contributed by Alan Sare, 24-Jun-2011.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) (New usage is discouraged.) | ||||||||||||||

Theorem | e2 27093 | A virtual deduction elimination rule. syl6 31 is e2 27093 without virtual deductions. (Contributed by Alan Sare, 21-Apr-2011.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) (New usage is discouraged.) | ||||||||||||||

Theorem | e2bi 27094 | Bi-conditional form of e2 27093. syl6ib 219 is e2bi 27094 without virtual deductions. (Contributed by Alan Sare, 10-Jun-2011.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) (New usage is discouraged.) | ||||||||||||||

Theorem | e2bir 27095 | Right bi-conditional form of e2 27093. syl6ibr 220 is e2bir 27095 without virtual deductions. (Contributed by Alan Sare, 29-Apr-2011.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) (New usage is discouraged.) | ||||||||||||||

Theorem | ee223 27096 | e223 27097 without virtual deductions. (Contributed by Alan Sare, 12-Dec-2011.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) (New usage is discouraged.) | ||||||||||||||

Theorem | e223 27097 | A virtual deduction elimination rule. (Contributed by Alan Sare, 12-Dec-2011.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) (New usage is discouraged.) | ||||||||||||||

Theorem | e222 27098 | A virtual deduction elimination rule. (Contributed by Alan Sare, 12-Jun-2011.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) (New usage is discouraged.) | ||||||||||||||

Theorem | e220 27099 | A virtual deduction elimination rule. (Contributed by Alan Sare, 24-Jun-2011.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) (New usage is discouraged.) | ||||||||||||||

Theorem | ee220 27100 | e220 27099 without virtual deductions. (Contributed by Alan Sare, 12-Jul-2011.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) (New usage is discouraged.) | ||||||||||||||

< Previous Next > |

Copyright terms: Public domain | < Previous Next > |