mmtheorems15 - Metamath Proof Explorer

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 10501-10600 107 10601-10688

Statement List for Metamath Proof Explorer - 1401-1500 - Page 15 of 107

Type	Label	Description
Statement
Theorem	mo4 1401	"At most one" expressed using implicit substitution.
⊢ (x = y → (φ ↔ ψ))    ⇒   ⊢ (∃*xφ ↔ ∀x∀y((φ ⋀ ψ) → x = y))
Theorem	mobid 1402	Formula-building rule for "at most one" quantifier (deduction rule).
⊢ (φ → ∀xφ)    &   ⊢ (φ → (ψ ↔ χ))    ⇒   ⊢ (φ → (∃*xψ ↔ ∃*xχ))
Theorem	mobii 1403	Formula-building rule for "at most one" quantifier (inference rule).
⊢ (ψ ↔ χ)    ⇒   ⊢ (∃*xψ ↔ ∃*xχ)
Theorem	hbmo1 1404	Bound-variable hypothesis builder for "at most one."
⊢ (∃*xφ → ∀x∃*xφ)
Theorem	hbmo 1405	Bound-variable hypothesis builder for "at most one."
⊢ (φ → ∀xφ)    ⇒   ⊢ (∃*yφ → ∀x∃*yφ)
Theorem	cbvmo 1406	Rule used to change bound variables with implicit substitution.
⊢ (φ → ∀yφ)    &   ⊢ (ψ → ∀xψ)    &   ⊢ (x = y → (φ ↔ ψ))    ⇒   ⊢ (∃*xφ ↔ ∃*yψ)
Theorem	eu5 1407	Uniqueness in terms of "at most one."
⊢ (∃!xφ ↔ (∃xφ ⋀ ∃*xφ))
Theorem	eu4 1408	Uniqueness using implicit substitution.
⊢ (x = y → (φ ↔ ψ))    ⇒   ⊢ (∃!xφ ↔ (∃xφ ⋀ ∀x∀y((φ ⋀ ψ) → x = y)))
Theorem	eumo 1409	Existential uniqueness implies "at most one."
⊢ (∃!xφ → ∃*xφ)
Theorem	eumoi 1410	"At most one" inferred from existential uniqueness.
⊢ ∃!xφ    ⇒   ⊢ ∃*xφ
Theorem	exmoeu 1411	Existence in terms of "at most one" and uniqueness.
⊢ (∃xφ ↔ (∃*xφ → ∃!xφ))
Theorem	exmoeu2 1412	Existence implies "at most one" is equivalent to uniqueness.
⊢ (∃xφ → (∃*xφ ↔ ∃!xφ))
Theorem	moabs 1413	Absorption of existence condition by "at most one."
⊢ (∃*xφ ↔ (∃xφ → ∃*xφ))
Theorem	exmo 1414	Something exists or at most one exists.
⊢ (∃xφ ⋁ ∃*xφ)
Theorem	immo 1415	"At most one" is preserved through implication (notice wff reversal).
⊢ (∀x(φ → ψ) → (∃*xψ → ∃*xφ))
Theorem	immoi 1416	"At most one" is preserved through implication (notice wff reversal).
⊢ (φ → ψ)    ⇒   ⊢ (∃*xψ → ∃*xφ)
Theorem	moimv 1417	Move antecedent outside of "at most one."
⊢ (∃*x(φ → ψ) → (φ → ∃*xψ))
Theorem	euimmo 1418	Uniqueness implies "at most one" through implication.
⊢ (∀x(φ → ψ) → (∃!xψ → ∃*xφ))
Theorem	euim 1419	Add existential uniqueness quantifiers to an implication. Note the reversed implication in the antecedent.
⊢ ((∃xφ ⋀ ∀x(φ → ψ)) → (∃!xψ → ∃!xφ))
Theorem	moan 1420	"At most one" is still the case when a conjunct is added.
⊢ (∃*xφ → ∃*x(ψ ⋀ φ))
Theorem	moani 1421	"At most one" is still true when a conjunct is added.
⊢ ∃*xφ    ⇒   ⊢ ∃*x(ψ ⋀ φ)
Theorem	moor 1422	"At most one" is still the case when a disjunct is removed.
⊢ (∃*x(φ ⋁ ψ) → ∃*xφ)
Theorem	mooran1 1423	"At most one" imports disjunction to conjunction.
⊢ ((∃*xφ ⋁ ∃*xψ) → ∃*x(φ ⋀ ψ))
Theorem	mooran2 1424	"At most one" exports disjunction to conjunction.
⊢ (∃*x(φ ⋁ ψ) → (∃*xφ ⋀ ∃*xψ))
Theorem	moanim 1425	Introduction of a conjunct into "at most one" quantifier.
⊢ (φ → ∀xφ)    ⇒   ⊢ (∃*x(φ ⋀ ψ) ↔ (φ → ∃*xψ))
Theorem	euan 1426	Introduction of a conjunct into uniqueness quantifier.
⊢ (φ → ∀xφ)    ⇒   ⊢ (∃!x(φ ⋀ ψ) ↔ (φ ⋀ ∃!xψ))
Theorem	moanimv 1427	Introduction of a conjunct into "at most one" quantifier.
⊢ (∃*x(φ ⋀ ψ) ↔ (φ → ∃*xψ))
Theorem	moaneu 1428	Nested "at most one" and uniqueness quantifiers.
⊢ ∃*x(φ ⋀ ∃!xφ)
Theorem	moanmo 1429	Nested "at most one" quantifiers.
⊢ ∃*x(φ ⋀ ∃*xφ)
Theorem	euanv 1430	Introduction of a conjunct into uniqueness quantifier.
⊢ (∃!x(φ ⋀ ψ) ↔ (φ ⋀ ∃!xψ))
Theorem	mopick 1431	"At most one" picks a variable value, eliminating an existential quantifier.
⊢ ((∃*xφ ⋀ ∃x(φ ⋀ ψ)) → (φ → ψ))
Theorem	eupick 1432	Existential uniqueness "picks" a variable value for which another wff is true. If there is only one thing x such that φ is true, and there is also an x (actually the same one) such that φ and ψ are both true, then φ implies ψ regardless of x. This theorem, which apparently does not appear explicitly in the literature, can be quite useful because it lets us eliminate existential quantifiers in a hypothesis.
⊢ ((∃!xφ ⋀ ∃x(φ ⋀ ψ)) → (φ → ψ))
Theorem	eupickb 1433	Existential uniqueness "pick" showing wff equivalence.
⊢ ((∃!xφ ⋀ ∃!xψ ⋀ ∃x(φ ⋀ ψ)) → (φ ↔ ψ))
Theorem	mopick2 1434	"At most one" can show the existence of a common value. In this case we can infer existence of conjunction from a conjunction of existence, and it is one way to achieve the converse of 19.40 1092.
⊢ ((∃*xφ ⋀ ∃x(φ ⋀ ψ) ⋀ ∃x(φ ⋀ χ)) → ∃x(φ ⋀ ψ ⋀ χ))
Theorem	euor2 1435	Introduce or eliminate a disjunct in a uniqueness quantifier.
⊢ (¬ ∃xφ → (∃!x(φ ⋁ ψ) ↔ ∃!xψ))
Theorem	moexex 1436	"At most one" double quantification.
⊢ (φ → ∀yφ)    ⇒   ⊢ ((∃*xφ ⋀ ∀x∃*yψ) → ∃*y∃x(φ ⋀ ψ))
Theorem	moexexv 1437	"At most one" double quantification.
⊢ ((∃*xφ ⋀ ∀x∃*yψ) → ∃*y∃x(φ ⋀ ψ))
Theorem	2moex 1438	Double quantification with "at most one."
⊢ (∃*x∃yφ → ∀y∃*xφ)
Theorem	2euex 1439	Double quantification with existential uniqueness.
⊢ (∃!x∃yφ → ∃y∃!xφ)
Theorem	2eumo 1440	Double quantification with existential uniqueness and "at most one."
⊢ (∃!x∃*yφ → ∃*x∃!yφ)
Theorem	2eu2ex 1441	Double existential uniqueness.
⊢ (∃!x∃!yφ → ∃x∃yφ)
Theorem	2moswap 1442	A condition allowing swap of "at most one" and existential quantifiers.
⊢ (∀x∃*yφ → (∃*x∃yφ → ∃*y∃xφ))
Theorem	2euswap 1443	A condition allowing swap of uniqueness and existential quantifiers.
⊢ (∀x∃*yφ → (∃!x∃yφ → ∃!y∃xφ))
Theorem	2exeu 1444	Double existential uniqueness implies double uniqueness quantification.
⊢ ((∃!x∃yφ ⋀ ∃!y∃xφ) → ∃!x∃!yφ)
Theorem	2mo 1445	Two equivalent expressions for double "at most one."
⊢ (∃z∃w∀x∀y(φ → (x = z ⋀ y = w)) ↔ ∀x∀y∀z∀w((φ ⋀ [z / x][w / y]φ) → (x = z ⋀ y = w)))
Theorem	2mos 1446	Double "exists at most one" with implicit substitution.
⊢ ((x = z ⋀ y = w) → (φ ↔ ψ))    ⇒   ⊢ (∃z∃w∀x∀y(φ → (x = z ⋀ y = w)) ↔ ∀x∀y∀z∀w((φ ⋀ ψ) → (x = z ⋀ y = w)))
Theorem	2eu1 1447	Double existential uniqueness. This theorem shows a condition under which a "naive" definition matches the correct one.
⊢ (∀x∃*yφ → (∃!x∃!yφ ↔ (∃!x∃yφ ⋀ ∃!y∃xφ)))
Theorem	2eu2 1448	Double existential uniqueness.
⊢ (∃!y∃xφ → (∃!x∃!yφ ↔ ∃!x∃yφ))
Theorem	2eu3 1449	Double existential uniqueness.
⊢ (∀x∀y(∃*xφ ⋁ ∃*yφ) → ((∃!x∃!yφ ⋀ ∃!y∃!xφ) ↔ (∃!x∃yφ ⋀ ∃!y∃xφ)))
Theorem	2eu4 1450	This theorem provides us with a definition of double existential uniqueness ("exactly one x and exactly one y"). Naively one might think (incorrectly) that it could be defined by ∃!x∃!yφ. See 2eu1 1447 for a condition under which the naive definition holds and 2exeu 1444 for a one-way implication. See 2eu5 1451 and 2eu8 1454 for alternate definitions.
⊢ ((∃!x∃yφ ⋀ ∃!y∃xφ) ↔ (∃x∃yφ ⋀ ∃z∃w∀x∀y(φ → (x = z ⋀ y = w))))
Theorem	2eu5 1451	An alternate definition of double existential uniqueness (see 2eu4 1450). A mistake sometimes made in the literature is to use ∃!x∃!y to mean "exactly one x and exactly one y." (For example, see Proposition 7.53 of [TakeutiZaring] p. 53.) It turns out that this is actually a weaker assertion, as can be seen by expanding out the formal definitions. This theorem shows that the erroneous definition can be repaired by conjoining ∀x∃*yφ as an additional condition. The correct definition apparently has never been published. (∃* means "exists at most one.")
⊢ ((∃!x∃!yφ ⋀ ∀x∃*yφ) ↔ (∃x∃yφ ⋀ ∃z∃w∀x∀y(φ → (x = z ⋀ y = w))))
Theorem	2eu6 1452	Two equivalent expressions for double existential uniqueness.
⊢ ((∃!x∃yφ ⋀ ∃!y∃xφ) ↔ ∃z∃w∀x∀y(φ ↔ (x = z ⋀ y = w)))
Theorem	2eu7 1453	Two equivalent expressions for double existential uniqueness.
⊢ ((∃!x∃yφ ⋀ ∃!y∃xφ) ↔ ∃!x∃!y(∃xφ ⋀ ∃yφ))
Theorem	2eu8 1454	Two equivalent expressions for double existential uniqueness. Curiously, we can put ∃! on either of the internal conjuncts but not both. We can also commute ∃!x∃!y using 2eu7 1453.
⊢ (∃!x∃!y(∃xφ ⋀ ∃yφ) ↔ ∃!x∃!y(∃!xφ ⋀ ∃yφ))
Theorem	exists1 1455	Two ways to express "only one thing exists." The left-hand side requires only one variable to express this. Both sides are false in set theory; see theorem dtru 2768.
⊢ (∃!x x = x ↔ ∀x x = y)
Theorem	exists2 1456	A condition implying that at least two things exist.
⊢ ((∃xφ ⋀ ∃x ¬ φ) → ¬ ∃!x x = x)
ZF Set Theory - start with the Axiom of Extensionality
Introduce the Axiom of Extensionality
Axiom	ax-ext 1457	Axiom of Extensionality. An axiom of Zermelo-Fraenkel set theory. It states that two sets are identical if they contain the same elements. Axiom Ext of [BellMachover] p. 461. Set theory can also be formulated with a single primitive predicate ∈ on top of traditional predicate calculus without equality. In that case the Axiom of Extensionality becomes (∀w(w ∈ x ↔ w ∈ y) → (x ∈ z → y ∈ z)), and equality x = y is defined as ∀w(w ∈ x ↔ w ∈ y). All of the usual axioms of equality then become theorems of set theory. See, for example, Axiom 1 of [TakeutiZaring] p. 8. To use the above "equality-free" version of Extensionality with Metamath's logical axioms, we would rewrite ax-8 962 through ax-16 1208 with equality expanded according to the above definition. Some of those axioms could be proved from set theory and would be redundant. Not all of them are redundant, since our axioms of predicate calculus make essential use of equality for the proper substitution that is a primitive notion in traditional predicate calculus. A study of such an axiomatization would be an interesting project for someone exploring the foundations of logic. General remarks: Our set theory axioms are presented using defined connectives (↔, ∃, etc.) for convenience. However, it is implicitly understood that the actual axioms use only the primitive connectives →, ¬, ∀, =, and ∈. It is straightforward to establish the equivalence between the actual axioms and the ones we display, and we will not do so. It is important to understand that strictly speaking, all of our set theory axioms are really schemes that represent an infinite number of actual axioms. This is inherent in the design of Metamath ("metavariable math"), which manipulates only metavariables. For example, the metavariable x in ax-ext 1457 can represent any actual variable v1, v2, v3,... . Distinct variable restrictions ($d) prevent us from substituting say v1 for both x and z. This is in contrast to typical textbook presentations that present actual axioms (except for Replacement ax-rep 2689, which involves a wff metavariable). In practice, though, the theorems and proofs are essentially the same. The $d restrictions make each of the the infinite axioms generated by the ax-ext 1457 scheme exactly logically equivalent to each other and in particular to the actual axiom of the textbook version.
⊢ (∀z(z ∈ x ↔ z ∈ y) → x = y)
Theorem	axext 1458	The Axiom of Extensionality (ax-ext 1457) restated so that it postulates the existence of a set z given two arbitrary sets x and y. This way to express it follows the general idea of the other ZFC axioms, which is to postulate the existence of sets given other sets.
⊢ ∃z((z ∈ x ↔ z ∈ y) → x = y)
Theorem	zfext2 1459	A generalization of the Axiom of Extensionality in which x and y need not be distinct.
⊢ (∀z(z ∈ x ↔ z ∈ y) → x = y)
Theorem	bm1.1 1460	Any set defined by a property is the only set defined by that property. Theorem 1.1 of [BellMachover] p. 462.
⊢ (φ → ∀xφ)    ⇒   ⊢ (∃x∀y(y ∈ x ↔ φ) → ∃!x∀y(y ∈ x ↔ φ))
Class abstractions (a.k.a. class builders)
Syntax	cab 1461	Introduce the class builder or class abstraction notation ("the class of sets x such that φ is true"). Our class variables A, B, etc. range over class builders (implicitly in the case of defined class terms such as df-nul 2277). Note that a set variable can be expressed as a class builder per theorem cvjust 1469, justifying the assignment of set variables to class variables via the use of cv 953.
class {x∣φ}
Definition	df-clab 1462	Define class abstraction notation (so-called by Quine), also called a "class builder" in the literature. x and y need not be distinct. Definition 2.1 of [Quine] p. 16. Typically, φ will have y as a free variable, and "{y∣φ}" is read "the class of all sets y such that φ(y) is true." We do not define {y∣φ} in isolation but only as part of an expression that extends or "overloads" the ∈ relationship. This is our first use of the ∈ symbol to connect classes instead of sets. The syntax definition wcel 956, which extends or "overloads" the wel 957 definition connecting set variables, requires that both sides of ∈ be a class. In df-cleq 1467 and df-clel 1470, we introduce a new kind of variable (class variable) that can substituted with expressions such as {y∣φ}. In the present definition, the x on the left-hand side is a set variable. Syntax definition cv 953 allows us to substitute a set variable x for a class variable: all sets are classes by cvjust 1469 (but not necessarily vice-versa). For a full description of how classes are introduced and how to recover the primitive language, see the discussion in Quine (and under abeq2 1565 for a quick overview). Because class variables can be substituted with compound expressions and set variables cannot, it is often useful to convert a theorem containing a free set variable to a more general version with a class variable. This is done with theorems such as vtoclg 1843 which is used, for example, to convert elirrv 4589 to elirr 4590.
⊢ (x ∈ {y∣φ} ↔ [x / y]φ)
Theorem	abid 1463	Simplification of class abstraction notation when the free and bound variables are identical.
⊢ (x ∈ {x∣φ} ↔ φ)
Theorem	hbab1 1464	Bound-variable hypothesis builder for a class abstraction.
⊢ (y ∈ {x∣φ} → ∀x y ∈ {x∣φ})
Theorem	hbab 1465	Bound-variable hypothesis builder for a class abstraction.
⊢ (φ → ∀xφ)    ⇒   ⊢ (z ∈ {y∣φ} → ∀x z ∈ {y∣φ})
Theorem	hbabd 1466	Deduction form of bound-variable hypothesis builder hbab 1465.
⊢ (φ → ∀x∀yφ)    &   ⊢ (φ → (ψ → ∀xψ))    ⇒   ⊢ (φ → (z ∈ {y∣ψ} → ∀x z ∈ {y∣ψ}))
Definition	df-cleq 1467	Define the equality connective between classes. Definition 2.7 of [Quine] p. 18. Also Definition 4.5 of [TakeutiZaring] p. 13; Chapter 4 provides its justification and methods for eliminating it. Note that its elimination will not necessarily result in a single wff in the original language but possibly a "scheme" of wffs. This is an example of a somewhat "risky" definition, meaning that it has a more complex than usual soundness justification (outside of Metamath), because it "overloads" or reuses the existing equality symbol rather than introducing a new symbol. This allows us to make statements that may not hold for the original symbol. For example, it permits us to deduce y = z ↔ ∀x(x ∈ y ↔ x ∈ z), which is not a theorem of logic but rather presupposes the Axiom of Extensionality. We therefore include this axiom as a hypothesis, so that the use of Extensionality is properly indicated. We could avoid this complication by introducing a new symbol, say =2, in place of =. This would also have the advantage of making elimination of the definition straightforward, so that we could eliminate Extensionality as a hypothesis. We would then also have the advantage of being able to identify in various proofs exactly where Extensionality truly comes into play rather than just being an artifact of a definition.. One of our theorems would then be x =2 y ↔ x = y by invoking Extensionality. However, to conform to literature usage, we retain this overloaded definition. This also makes some proofs shorter and probably easier to read, without the constant switching between two kinds of equality. See also comments under df-clab 1462, df-clel 1470, and abeq2 1565.
⊢ (∀x(x ∈ y ↔ x ∈ z) → y = z)    ⇒   ⊢ (A = B ↔ ∀x(x ∈ A ↔ x ∈ B))
Theorem	dfcleq 1468	The same as df-cleq 1467 with the hypothesis removed using the Axiom of Extensionality ax-ext 1457.
⊢ (A = B ↔ ∀x(x ∈ A ↔ x ∈ B))
Theorem	cvjust 1469	Every set is a class. Proposition 4.9 of [TakeutiZaring] p. 13. This theorem shows that a set variable can be expressed as a class abstraction. This provides a motivation for the class syntax construction cv 953, which allows us to substitute a set variable for a class variable. See also cab 1461 and df-clab 1462. Note that this is not a rigorous justification, because cv 953 is used as part of the proof of this theorem, but a careful argument can be made outside of the formalism of Metamath, for example as is done in Chapter 4 of Takeuti and Zaring. See also the discussion under the definition of class in [Jech] p. 4 showing that "Every set can be considered to be a class."
⊢ x = {y∣y ∈ x}
Definition	df-clel 1470	Define the membership connective between classes. Theorem 6.3 of [Quine] p. 41, or Proposition 4.6 of [TakeutiZaring] p. 13, which we adopt as a definition. See these references for its metalogical justification. Note that like df-cleq 1467 it extends or "overloads" the use of the existing membership symbol, but unlike df-cleq 1467 it does not strengthen the set of valid wffs of logic when the class variables are replaced with set variables (see cleljust 1326), so we don't include any set theory axiom as a hypothesis. See also comments about the syntax under df-clab 1462.
⊢ (A ∈ B ↔ ∃x(x = A ⋀ x ∈ B))
Theorem	eqrdv 1471	Deduce equality of classes from equivalence of membership.
⊢ (φ → (x ∈ A ↔ x ∈ B))    ⇒   ⊢ (φ → A = B)
Theorem	eqriv 1472	Infer equality of classes from equivalence of membership.
⊢ (x ∈ A ↔ x ∈ B)    ⇒   ⊢ A = B
Theorem	eqid 1473	Class identity law (reflexivity of class equality). Theorem 6.4 of [Quine] p. 41.
⊢ A = A
Theorem	eqcom 1474	Commutative law for class equality. Theorem 6.5 of [Quine] p. 41.
⊢ (A = B ↔ B = A)
Theorem	eqcoms 1475	Inference applying commutative law for class equality to an antecedent.
⊢ (A = B → φ)    ⇒   ⊢ (B = A → φ)
Theorem	eqcomi 1476	Inference from commutative law for class equality.
⊢ A = B    ⇒   ⊢ B = A
Theorem	eqcomd 1477	Deduction from commutative law for class equality.
⊢ (φ → A = B)    ⇒   ⊢ (φ → B = A)
Theorem	eqeq1 1478	Equality implies equivalence of equalities.
⊢ (A = B → (A = C ↔ B = C))
Theorem	eqeq1i 1479	Inference from equality to equivalence of equalities.
⊢ A = B    ⇒   ⊢ (A = C ↔ B = C)
Theorem	eqeq1d 1480	Deduction from equality to equivalence of equalities.
⊢ (φ → A = B)    ⇒   ⊢ (φ → (A = C ↔ B = C))
Theorem	eqeq2 1481	Equality implies equivalence of equalities.
⊢ (A = B → (C = A ↔ C = B))
Theorem	eqeq2i 1482	Inference from equality to equivalence of equalities.
⊢ A = B    ⇒   ⊢ (C = A ↔ C = B)
Theorem	eqeq2d 1483	Deduction from equality to equivalence of equalities.
⊢ (φ → A = B)    ⇒   ⊢ (φ → (C = A ↔ C = B))
Theorem	eqeq12 1484	Equality relationship among 4 classes.
⊢ ((A = B ⋀ C = D) → (A = C ↔ B = D))
Theorem	eqeq12i 1485	A useful inference for substituting definitions into an equality.
⊢ A = B    &   ⊢ C = D    ⇒   ⊢ (A = C ↔ B = D)
Theorem	eqeq12d 1486	A useful inference for substituting definitions into an equality.
⊢ (φ → A = B)    &   ⊢ (φ → C = D)    ⇒   ⊢ (φ → (A = C ↔ B = D))
Theorem	eqeqan12d 1487	A useful inference for substituting definitions into an equality.
⊢ (φ → A = B)    &   ⊢ (ψ → C = D)    ⇒   ⊢ ((φ ⋀ ψ) → (A = C ↔ B = D))
Theorem	eqeqan12rd 1488	A useful inference for substituting definitions into an equality.
⊢ (φ → A = B)    &   ⊢ (ψ → C = D)    ⇒   ⊢ ((ψ ⋀ φ) → (A = C ↔ B = D))
Theorem	eqtrt 1489	Transitive law for class equality. Proposition 4.7(3) of [TakeutiZaring] p. 13.
⊢ ((A = B ⋀ B = C) → A = C)
Theorem	eqtr2t 1490	A transitive law for class equality.
⊢ ((A = B ⋀ A = C) → B = C)
Theorem	eqtr3t 1491	A transitive law for class equality.
⊢ ((A = C ⋀ B = C) → A = B)
Theorem	eqtr 1492	An equality transitivity inference.
⊢ A = B    &   ⊢ B = C    ⇒   ⊢ A = C
Theorem	eqtr2 1493	An equality transitivity inference.
⊢ A = B    &   ⊢ B = C    ⇒   ⊢ C = A
Theorem	eqtr3 1494	An equality transitivity inference.
⊢ A = B    &   ⊢ A = C    ⇒   ⊢ B = C
Theorem	eqtr4 1495	An equality transitivity inference.
⊢ A = B    &   ⊢ C = B    ⇒   ⊢ A = C
Theorem	3eqtr 1496	An inference from three chained equalities.
⊢ A = B    &   ⊢ B = C    &   ⊢ C = D    ⇒   ⊢ A = D
Theorem	3eqtrr 1497	An inference from three chained equalities.
⊢ A = B    &   ⊢ B = C    &   ⊢ C = D    ⇒   ⊢ D = A
Theorem	3eqtr2 1498	An inference from three chained equalities.
⊢ A = B    &   ⊢ C = B    &   ⊢ C = D    ⇒   ⊢ A = D
Theorem	3eqtr2r 1499	An inference from three chained equalities.
⊢ A = B    &   ⊢ C = B    &   ⊢ C = D    ⇒   ⊢ D = A
Theorem	3eqtr3 1500	An inference from three chained equalities.
⊢ A = B    &   ⊢ A = C    &   ⊢ B = D    ⇒   ⊢ C = D