Home | Metamath
Proof Explorer Theorem List (p. 26 of 424) | < Previous Next > |
Bad symbols? Try the
GIF version. |
||
Mirrors > Metamath Home Page > MPE Home Page > Theorem List Contents > Recent Proofs This page: Page List |
Color key: | Metamath Proof Explorer
(1-27745) |
Hilbert Space Explorer
(27746-29270) |
Users' Mathboxes
(29271-42316) |
Type | Label | Description |
---|---|---|
Statement | ||
Theorem | sb8eu 2501 | Variable substitution in uniqueness quantifier. (Contributed by NM, 7-Aug-1994.) (Revised by Mario Carneiro, 7-Oct-2016.) (Proof shortened by Wolf Lammen, 24-Aug-2019.) |
⊢ Ⅎ𝑦𝜑 ⇒ ⊢ (∃!𝑥𝜑 ↔ ∃!𝑦[𝑦 / 𝑥]𝜑) | ||
Theorem | sb8mo 2502 | Variable substitution for "at most one." (Contributed by Alexander van der Vekens, 17-Jun-2017.) |
⊢ Ⅎ𝑦𝜑 ⇒ ⊢ (∃*𝑥𝜑 ↔ ∃*𝑦[𝑦 / 𝑥]𝜑) | ||
Theorem | cbveu 2503 | Rule used to change bound variables, using implicit substitution. (Contributed by NM, 25-Nov-1994.) (Revised by Mario Carneiro, 7-Oct-2016.) |
⊢ Ⅎ𝑦𝜑 & ⊢ Ⅎ𝑥𝜓 & ⊢ (𝑥 = 𝑦 → (𝜑 ↔ 𝜓)) ⇒ ⊢ (∃!𝑥𝜑 ↔ ∃!𝑦𝜓) | ||
Theorem | cbvmo 2504 | Rule used to change bound variables, using implicit substitution. (Contributed by NM, 9-Mar-1995.) (Revised by Andrew Salmon, 8-Jun-2011.) |
⊢ Ⅎ𝑦𝜑 & ⊢ Ⅎ𝑥𝜓 & ⊢ (𝑥 = 𝑦 → (𝜑 ↔ 𝜓)) ⇒ ⊢ (∃*𝑥𝜑 ↔ ∃*𝑦𝜓) | ||
Theorem | mo3 2505* | Alternate definition of "at most one." Definition of [BellMachover] p. 460, except that definition has the side condition that 𝑦 not occur in 𝜑 in place of our hypothesis. (Contributed by NM, 8-Mar-1995.) (Proof shortened by Wolf Lammen, 18-Aug-2019.) |
⊢ Ⅎ𝑦𝜑 ⇒ ⊢ (∃*𝑥𝜑 ↔ ∀𝑥∀𝑦((𝜑 ∧ [𝑦 / 𝑥]𝜑) → 𝑥 = 𝑦)) | ||
Theorem | mo 2506* | Equivalent definitions of "there exists at most one." (Contributed by NM, 7-Aug-1994.) (Revised by Mario Carneiro, 7-Oct-2016.) (Proof shortened by Wolf Lammen, 2-Dec-2018.) |
⊢ Ⅎ𝑦𝜑 ⇒ ⊢ (∃𝑦∀𝑥(𝜑 → 𝑥 = 𝑦) ↔ ∀𝑥∀𝑦((𝜑 ∧ [𝑦 / 𝑥]𝜑) → 𝑥 = 𝑦)) | ||
Theorem | eu2 2507* | An alternate way of defining existential uniqueness. Definition 6.10 of [TakeutiZaring] p. 26. (Contributed by NM, 8-Jul-1994.) (Proof shortened by Wolf Lammen, 2-Dec-2018.) |
⊢ Ⅎ𝑦𝜑 ⇒ ⊢ (∃!𝑥𝜑 ↔ (∃𝑥𝜑 ∧ ∀𝑥∀𝑦((𝜑 ∧ [𝑦 / 𝑥]𝜑) → 𝑥 = 𝑦))) | ||
Theorem | eu1 2508* | An alternate way to express uniqueness used by some authors. Exercise 2(b) of [Margaris] p. 110. (Contributed by NM, 20-Aug-1993.) (Revised by Mario Carneiro, 7-Oct-2016.) (Proof shortened by Wolf Lammen, 29-Oct-2018.) |
⊢ Ⅎ𝑦𝜑 ⇒ ⊢ (∃!𝑥𝜑 ↔ ∃𝑥(𝜑 ∧ ∀𝑦([𝑦 / 𝑥]𝜑 → 𝑥 = 𝑦))) | ||
Theorem | euexALT 2509 | Alternate proof of euex 2492. Shorter but uses more axioms. (Contributed by NM, 15-Sep-1993.) (Proof shortened by Andrew Salmon, 9-Jul-2011.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) (New usage is discouraged.) |
⊢ (∃!𝑥𝜑 → ∃𝑥𝜑) | ||
Theorem | euor 2510 | Introduce a disjunct into a uniqueness quantifier. (Contributed by NM, 21-Oct-2005.) |
⊢ Ⅎ𝑥𝜑 ⇒ ⊢ ((¬ 𝜑 ∧ ∃!𝑥𝜓) → ∃!𝑥(𝜑 ∨ 𝜓)) | ||
Theorem | euorv 2511* | Introduce a disjunct into a uniqueness quantifier. (Contributed by NM, 23-Mar-1995.) |
⊢ ((¬ 𝜑 ∧ ∃!𝑥𝜓) → ∃!𝑥(𝜑 ∨ 𝜓)) | ||
Theorem | euor2 2512 | Introduce or eliminate a disjunct in a uniqueness quantifier. (Contributed by NM, 21-Oct-2005.) (Proof shortened by Andrew Salmon, 9-Jul-2011.) (Proof shortened by Wolf Lammen, 27-Dec-2018.) |
⊢ (¬ ∃𝑥𝜑 → (∃!𝑥(𝜑 ∨ 𝜓) ↔ ∃!𝑥𝜓)) | ||
Theorem | sbmo 2513* | Substitution into "at most one". (Contributed by Jeff Madsen, 2-Sep-2009.) |
⊢ ([𝑦 / 𝑥]∃*𝑧𝜑 ↔ ∃*𝑧[𝑦 / 𝑥]𝜑) | ||
Theorem | mo4f 2514* | "At most one" expressed using implicit substitution. (Contributed by NM, 10-Apr-2004.) |
⊢ Ⅎ𝑥𝜓 & ⊢ (𝑥 = 𝑦 → (𝜑 ↔ 𝜓)) ⇒ ⊢ (∃*𝑥𝜑 ↔ ∀𝑥∀𝑦((𝜑 ∧ 𝜓) → 𝑥 = 𝑦)) | ||
Theorem | mo4 2515* | "At most one" expressed using implicit substitution. (Contributed by NM, 26-Jul-1995.) |
⊢ (𝑥 = 𝑦 → (𝜑 ↔ 𝜓)) ⇒ ⊢ (∃*𝑥𝜑 ↔ ∀𝑥∀𝑦((𝜑 ∧ 𝜓) → 𝑥 = 𝑦)) | ||
Theorem | eu4 2516* | Uniqueness using implicit substitution. (Contributed by NM, 26-Jul-1995.) |
⊢ (𝑥 = 𝑦 → (𝜑 ↔ 𝜓)) ⇒ ⊢ (∃!𝑥𝜑 ↔ (∃𝑥𝜑 ∧ ∀𝑥∀𝑦((𝜑 ∧ 𝜓) → 𝑥 = 𝑦))) | ||
Theorem | moim 2517 | "At most one" reverses implication. (Contributed by NM, 22-Apr-1995.) |
⊢ (∀𝑥(𝜑 → 𝜓) → (∃*𝑥𝜓 → ∃*𝑥𝜑)) | ||
Theorem | moimi 2518 | "At most one" reverses implication. (Contributed by NM, 15-Feb-2006.) |
⊢ (𝜑 → 𝜓) ⇒ ⊢ (∃*𝑥𝜓 → ∃*𝑥𝜑) | ||
Theorem | moa1 2519 | If an implication holds for at most one value, then its consequent holds for at most one value. See also ala1 1739 and exa1 1763. (Contributed by NM, 28-Jul-1995.) (Proof shortened by Wolf Lammen, 22-Dec-2018.) (Revised by BJ, 29-Mar-2021.) |
⊢ (∃*𝑥(𝜑 → 𝜓) → ∃*𝑥𝜓) | ||
Theorem | euimmo 2520 | Uniqueness implies "at most one" through reverse implication. (Contributed by NM, 22-Apr-1995.) |
⊢ (∀𝑥(𝜑 → 𝜓) → (∃!𝑥𝜓 → ∃*𝑥𝜑)) | ||
Theorem | euim 2521 | Add existential uniqueness quantifiers to an implication. Note the reversed implication in the antecedent. (Contributed by NM, 19-Oct-2005.) (Proof shortened by Andrew Salmon, 14-Jun-2011.) |
⊢ ((∃𝑥𝜑 ∧ ∀𝑥(𝜑 → 𝜓)) → (∃!𝑥𝜓 → ∃!𝑥𝜑)) | ||
Theorem | moan 2522 | "At most one" is still the case when a conjunct is added. (Contributed by NM, 22-Apr-1995.) |
⊢ (∃*𝑥𝜑 → ∃*𝑥(𝜓 ∧ 𝜑)) | ||
Theorem | moani 2523 | "At most one" is still true when a conjunct is added. (Contributed by NM, 9-Mar-1995.) |
⊢ ∃*𝑥𝜑 ⇒ ⊢ ∃*𝑥(𝜓 ∧ 𝜑) | ||
Theorem | moor 2524 | "At most one" is still the case when a disjunct is removed. (Contributed by NM, 5-Apr-2004.) |
⊢ (∃*𝑥(𝜑 ∨ 𝜓) → ∃*𝑥𝜑) | ||
Theorem | mooran1 2525 | "At most one" imports disjunction to conjunction. (Contributed by NM, 5-Apr-2004.) (Proof shortened by Andrew Salmon, 9-Jul-2011.) |
⊢ ((∃*𝑥𝜑 ∨ ∃*𝑥𝜓) → ∃*𝑥(𝜑 ∧ 𝜓)) | ||
Theorem | mooran2 2526 | "At most one" exports disjunction to conjunction. (Contributed by NM, 5-Apr-2004.) (Proof shortened by Andrew Salmon, 9-Jul-2011.) |
⊢ (∃*𝑥(𝜑 ∨ 𝜓) → (∃*𝑥𝜑 ∧ ∃*𝑥𝜓)) | ||
Theorem | moanim 2527 | Introduction of a conjunct into "at most one" quantifier. (Contributed by NM, 3-Dec-2001.) (Proof shortened by Wolf Lammen, 24-Dec-2018.) |
⊢ Ⅎ𝑥𝜑 ⇒ ⊢ (∃*𝑥(𝜑 ∧ 𝜓) ↔ (𝜑 → ∃*𝑥𝜓)) | ||
Theorem | euan 2528 | Introduction of a conjunct into uniqueness quantifier. (Contributed by NM, 19-Feb-2005.) (Proof shortened by Andrew Salmon, 9-Jul-2011.) (Proof shortened by Wolf Lammen, 24-Dec-2018.) |
⊢ Ⅎ𝑥𝜑 ⇒ ⊢ (∃!𝑥(𝜑 ∧ 𝜓) ↔ (𝜑 ∧ ∃!𝑥𝜓)) | ||
Theorem | moanimv 2529* | Introduction of a conjunct into "at most one" quantifier. (Contributed by NM, 23-Mar-1995.) |
⊢ (∃*𝑥(𝜑 ∧ 𝜓) ↔ (𝜑 → ∃*𝑥𝜓)) | ||
Theorem | moanmo 2530 | Nested "at most one" quantifiers. (Contributed by NM, 25-Jan-2006.) |
⊢ ∃*𝑥(𝜑 ∧ ∃*𝑥𝜑) | ||
Theorem | moaneu 2531 | Nested "at most one" and uniqueness quantifiers. (Contributed by NM, 25-Jan-2006.) (Proof shortened by Wolf Lammen, 27-Dec-2018.) |
⊢ ∃*𝑥(𝜑 ∧ ∃!𝑥𝜑) | ||
Theorem | euanv 2532* | Introduction of a conjunct into uniqueness quantifier. (Contributed by NM, 23-Mar-1995.) |
⊢ (∃!𝑥(𝜑 ∧ 𝜓) ↔ (𝜑 ∧ ∃!𝑥𝜓)) | ||
Theorem | mopick 2533 | "At most one" picks a variable value, eliminating an existential quantifier. (Contributed by NM, 27-Jan-1997.) (Proof shortened by Wolf Lammen, 17-Sep-2019.) |
⊢ ((∃*𝑥𝜑 ∧ ∃𝑥(𝜑 ∧ 𝜓)) → (𝜑 → 𝜓)) | ||
Theorem | eupick 2534 | 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 can be useful for eliminating existential quantifiers in a hypothesis. Compare Theorem *14.26 in [WhiteheadRussell] p. 192. (Contributed by NM, 10-Jul-1994.) |
⊢ ((∃!𝑥𝜑 ∧ ∃𝑥(𝜑 ∧ 𝜓)) → (𝜑 → 𝜓)) | ||
Theorem | eupicka 2535 | Version of eupick 2534 with closed formulas. (Contributed by NM, 6-Sep-2008.) |
⊢ ((∃!𝑥𝜑 ∧ ∃𝑥(𝜑 ∧ 𝜓)) → ∀𝑥(𝜑 → 𝜓)) | ||
Theorem | eupickb 2536 | Existential uniqueness "pick" showing wff equivalence. (Contributed by NM, 25-Nov-1994.) (Proof shortened by Wolf Lammen, 27-Dec-2018.) |
⊢ ((∃!𝑥𝜑 ∧ ∃!𝑥𝜓 ∧ ∃𝑥(𝜑 ∧ 𝜓)) → (𝜑 ↔ 𝜓)) | ||
Theorem | eupickbi 2537 | Theorem *14.26 in [WhiteheadRussell] p. 192. (Contributed by Andrew Salmon, 11-Jul-2011.) (Proof shortened by Wolf Lammen, 27-Dec-2018.) |
⊢ (∃!𝑥𝜑 → (∃𝑥(𝜑 ∧ 𝜓) ↔ ∀𝑥(𝜑 → 𝜓))) | ||
Theorem | mopick2 2538 | "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 1795. (Contributed by NM, 5-Apr-2004.) (Proof shortened by Andrew Salmon, 9-Jul-2011.) |
⊢ ((∃*𝑥𝜑 ∧ ∃𝑥(𝜑 ∧ 𝜓) ∧ ∃𝑥(𝜑 ∧ 𝜒)) → ∃𝑥(𝜑 ∧ 𝜓 ∧ 𝜒)) | ||
Theorem | moexex 2539 | "At most one" double quantification. (Contributed by NM, 3-Dec-2001.) (Proof shortened by Wolf Lammen, 28-Dec-2018.) |
⊢ Ⅎ𝑦𝜑 ⇒ ⊢ ((∃*𝑥𝜑 ∧ ∀𝑥∃*𝑦𝜓) → ∃*𝑦∃𝑥(𝜑 ∧ 𝜓)) | ||
Theorem | moexexv 2540* | "At most one" double quantification. (Contributed by NM, 26-Jan-1997.) |
⊢ ((∃*𝑥𝜑 ∧ ∀𝑥∃*𝑦𝜓) → ∃*𝑦∃𝑥(𝜑 ∧ 𝜓)) | ||
Theorem | 2moex 2541 | Double quantification with "at most one." (Contributed by NM, 3-Dec-2001.) |
⊢ (∃*𝑥∃𝑦𝜑 → ∀𝑦∃*𝑥𝜑) | ||
Theorem | 2euex 2542 | Double quantification with existential uniqueness. (Contributed by NM, 3-Dec-2001.) (Proof shortened by Andrew Salmon, 9-Jul-2011.) |
⊢ (∃!𝑥∃𝑦𝜑 → ∃𝑦∃!𝑥𝜑) | ||
Theorem | 2eumo 2543 | Double quantification with existential uniqueness and "at most one." (Contributed by NM, 3-Dec-2001.) |
⊢ (∃!𝑥∃*𝑦𝜑 → ∃*𝑥∃!𝑦𝜑) | ||
Theorem | 2eu2ex 2544 | Double existential uniqueness. (Contributed by NM, 3-Dec-2001.) |
⊢ (∃!𝑥∃!𝑦𝜑 → ∃𝑥∃𝑦𝜑) | ||
Theorem | 2moswap 2545 | A condition allowing swap of "at most one" and existential quantifiers. (Contributed by NM, 10-Apr-2004.) |
⊢ (∀𝑥∃*𝑦𝜑 → (∃*𝑥∃𝑦𝜑 → ∃*𝑦∃𝑥𝜑)) | ||
Theorem | 2euswap 2546 | A condition allowing swap of uniqueness and existential quantifiers. (Contributed by NM, 10-Apr-2004.) |
⊢ (∀𝑥∃*𝑦𝜑 → (∃!𝑥∃𝑦𝜑 → ∃!𝑦∃𝑥𝜑)) | ||
Theorem | 2exeu 2547 | Double existential uniqueness implies double uniqueness quantification. (Contributed by NM, 3-Dec-2001.) (Proof shortened by Mario Carneiro, 22-Dec-2016.) |
⊢ ((∃!𝑥∃𝑦𝜑 ∧ ∃!𝑦∃𝑥𝜑) → ∃!𝑥∃!𝑦𝜑) | ||
Theorem | 2mo2 2548* | This theorem extends the idea of "at most one" to expressions in two set variables ("at most one pair 𝑥 and 𝑦". Note: this is not expressed by ∃*𝑥∃*𝑦𝜑). 2eu4 2554 relates this extension to double existential uniqueness, if at least one pair exists. (Contributed by Wolf Lammen, 26-Oct-2019.) |
⊢ ((∃*𝑥∃𝑦𝜑 ∧ ∃*𝑦∃𝑥𝜑) ↔ ∃𝑧∃𝑤∀𝑥∀𝑦(𝜑 → (𝑥 = 𝑧 ∧ 𝑦 = 𝑤))) | ||
Theorem | 2mo 2549* | Two equivalent expressions for double "at most one." (Contributed by NM, 2-Feb-2005.) (Revised by Mario Carneiro, 17-Oct-2016.) (Proof shortened by Wolf Lammen, 2-Nov-2019.) |
⊢ (∃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 2550* | Double "exists at most one", using implicit substitution. (Contributed by NM, 10-Feb-2005.) |
⊢ ((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 2551 | Double existential uniqueness. This theorem shows a condition under which a "naive" definition matches the correct one. (Contributed by NM, 3-Dec-2001.) (Proof shortened by Wolf Lammen, 11-Nov-2019.) |
⊢ (∀𝑥∃*𝑦𝜑 → (∃!𝑥∃!𝑦𝜑 ↔ (∃!𝑥∃𝑦𝜑 ∧ ∃!𝑦∃𝑥𝜑))) | ||
Theorem | 2eu2 2552 | Double existential uniqueness. (Contributed by NM, 3-Dec-2001.) |
⊢ (∃!𝑦∃𝑥𝜑 → (∃!𝑥∃!𝑦𝜑 ↔ ∃!𝑥∃𝑦𝜑)) | ||
Theorem | 2eu3 2553 | Double existential uniqueness. (Contributed by NM, 3-Dec-2001.) |
⊢ (∀𝑥∀𝑦(∃*𝑥𝜑 ∨ ∃*𝑦𝜑) → ((∃!𝑥∃!𝑦𝜑 ∧ ∃!𝑦∃!𝑥𝜑) ↔ (∃!𝑥∃𝑦𝜑 ∧ ∃!𝑦∃𝑥𝜑))) | ||
Theorem | 2eu4 2554* | 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 2551 for a condition under which the naive definition holds and 2exeu 2547 for a one-way implication. See 2eu5 2555 and 2eu8 2558 for alternate definitions. (Contributed by NM, 3-Dec-2001.) (Proof shortened by Wolf Lammen, 14-Sep-2019.) |
⊢ ((∃!𝑥∃𝑦𝜑 ∧ ∃!𝑦∃𝑥𝜑) ↔ (∃𝑥∃𝑦𝜑 ∧ ∃𝑧∃𝑤∀𝑥∀𝑦(𝜑 → (𝑥 = 𝑧 ∧ 𝑦 = 𝑤)))) | ||
Theorem | 2eu5 2555* | An alternate definition of double existential uniqueness (see 2eu4 2554). 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."). (Contributed by NM, 26-Oct-2003.) |
⊢ ((∃!𝑥∃!𝑦𝜑 ∧ ∀𝑥∃*𝑦𝜑) ↔ (∃𝑥∃𝑦𝜑 ∧ ∃𝑧∃𝑤∀𝑥∀𝑦(𝜑 → (𝑥 = 𝑧 ∧ 𝑦 = 𝑤)))) | ||
Theorem | 2eu6 2556* | Two equivalent expressions for double existential uniqueness. (Contributed by NM, 2-Feb-2005.) (Revised by Mario Carneiro, 17-Oct-2016.) (Proof shortened by Wolf Lammen, 2-Oct-2019.) |
⊢ ((∃!𝑥∃𝑦𝜑 ∧ ∃!𝑦∃𝑥𝜑) ↔ ∃𝑧∃𝑤∀𝑥∀𝑦(𝜑 ↔ (𝑥 = 𝑧 ∧ 𝑦 = 𝑤))) | ||
Theorem | 2eu7 2557 | Two equivalent expressions for double existential uniqueness. (Contributed by NM, 19-Feb-2005.) |
⊢ ((∃!𝑥∃𝑦𝜑 ∧ ∃!𝑦∃𝑥𝜑) ↔ ∃!𝑥∃!𝑦(∃𝑥𝜑 ∧ ∃𝑦𝜑)) | ||
Theorem | 2eu8 2558 | 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 2557. (Contributed by NM, 20-Feb-2005.) |
⊢ (∃!𝑥∃!𝑦(∃𝑥𝜑 ∧ ∃𝑦𝜑) ↔ ∃!𝑥∃!𝑦(∃!𝑥𝜑 ∧ ∃𝑦𝜑)) | ||
Theorem | exists1 2559* | 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 4848. (Contributed by NM, 5-Apr-2004.) |
⊢ (∃!𝑥 𝑥 = 𝑥 ↔ ∀𝑥 𝑥 = 𝑦) | ||
Theorem | exists2 2560 | A condition implying that at least two things exist. (Contributed by NM, 10-Apr-2004.) (Proof shortened by Andrew Salmon, 9-Jul-2011.) |
⊢ ((∃𝑥𝜑 ∧ ∃𝑥 ¬ 𝜑) → ¬ ∃!𝑥 𝑥 = 𝑥) | ||
Model the Aristotelian assertic syllogisms using modern notation. This section shows that the Aristotelian assertic syllogisms can be proven with our axioms of logic, and also provides generally useful theorems. In antiquity Aristotelian logic and Stoic logic (see mptnan 1691) were the leading logical systems. Aristotelian logic became the leading system in medieval Europe; this section models this system (including later refinements to it). Aristotle defined syllogisms very generally ("a discourse in which certain (specific) things having been supposed, something different from the things supposed results of necessity because these things are so") Aristotle, Prior Analytics 24b18-20. However, in Prior Analytics he limits himself to categorical syllogisms that consist of three categorical propositions with specific structures. The syllogisms are the valid subset of the possible combinations of these structures. The medieval schools used vowels to identify the types of terms (a=all, e=none, i=some, and o=some are not), and named the different syllogisms with Latin words that had the vowels in the intended order. "There is a surprising amount of scholarly debate about how best to formalize Aristotle's syllogisms..." according to Aristotle's Modal Proofs: Prior Analytics A8-22 in Predicate Logic, Adriane Rini, Springer, 2011, ISBN 978-94-007-0049-9, page 28. For example, Lukasiewicz believes it is important to note that "Aristotle does not introduce singular terms or premisses into his system". Lukasiewicz also believes that Aristotelian syllogisms are predicates (having a true/false value), not inference rules: "The characteristic sign of an inference is the word 'therefore'... no syllogism is formulated by Aristotle primarily as an inference, but they are all implications." Jan Lukasiewicz, Aristotle's Syllogistic from the Standpoint of Modern Formal Logic, Second edition, Oxford, 1957, page 1-2. Lukasiewicz devised a specialized prefix notation for representing Aristotelian syllogisms instead of using standard predicate logic notation. We instead translate each Aristotelian syllogism into an inference rule, and each rule is defined using standard predicate logic notation and predicates. The predicates are represented by wff variables that may depend on the quantified variable 𝑥. Our translation is essentially identical to the one use in Rini page 18, Table 2 "Non-Modal Syllogisms in Lower Predicate Calculus (LPC)", which uses standard predicate logic with predicates. Rini states, "the crucial point is that we capture the meaning Aristotle intends, and the method by which we represent that meaning is less important." There are two differences: we make the existence criteria explicit, and we use 𝜑, 𝜓, and 𝜒 in the order they appear (a common Metamath convention). Patzig also uses standard predicate logic notation and predicates (though he interprets them as conditional propositions, not as inference rules); see Gunther Patzig, Aristotle's Theory of the Syllogism second edition, 1963, English translation by Jonathan Barnes, 1968, page 38. Terms such as "all" and "some" are translated into predicate logic using the approach devised by Frege and Russell. "Frege (and Russell) devised an ingenious procedure for regimenting binary quantifiers like "every" and "some" in terms of unary quantifiers like "everything" and "something": they formalized sentences of the form "Some A is B" and "Every A is B" as exists x (Ax and Bx) and all x (Ax implies Bx), respectively." "Quantifiers and Quantification", Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/quantification/. See Principia Mathematica page 22 and *10 for more information (especially *10.3 and *10.26). Expressions of the form "no 𝜑 is 𝜓 " are consistently translated as ∀𝑥(𝜑 → ¬ 𝜓). These can also be expressed as ¬ ∃𝑥(𝜑 ∧ 𝜓), per alinexa 1768. We translate "all 𝜑 is 𝜓 " to ∀𝑥(𝜑 → 𝜓), "some 𝜑 is 𝜓 " to ∃𝑥(𝜑 ∧ 𝜓), and "some 𝜑 is not 𝜓 " to ∃𝑥(𝜑 ∧ ¬ 𝜓). It is traditional to use the singular verb "is", not the plural verb "are", in the generic expressions. By convention the major premise is listed first. In traditional Aristotelian syllogisms the predicates have a restricted form ("x is a ..."); those predicates could be modeled in modern notation by more specific constructs such as 𝑥 = 𝐴, 𝑥 ∈ 𝐴, or 𝑥 ⊆ 𝐴. Here we use wff variables instead of specialized restricted forms. This generalization makes the syllogisms more useful in more circumstances. In addition, these expressions make it clearer that the syllogisms of Aristotelian logic are the forerunners of predicate calculus. If we used restricted forms like 𝑥 ∈ 𝐴 instead, we would not only unnecessarily limit their use, but we would also need to use set and class axioms, making their relationship to predicate calculus less clear. Using such specific constructs would also be anti-historical; Aristotle and others who directly followed his work focused on relating wholes to their parts, an approach now called part-whole theory. The work of Cantor and Peano (over 2,000 years later) led to a sharper distinction between inclusion (⊆) and membership (∈); this distinction was not directly made in Aristotle's work. There are some widespread misconceptions about the existential assumptions made by Aristotle (aka "existential import"). Aristotle was not trying to develop something exactly corresponding to modern logic. Aristotle devised "a companion-logic for science. He relegates fictions like fairy godmothers and mermaids and unicorns to the realms of poetry and literature. In his mind, they exist outside the ambit of science. This is why he leaves no room for such non-existent entities in his logic. This is a thoughtful choice, not an inadvertent omission. Technically, Aristotelian science is a search for definitions, where a definition is "a phrase signifying a thing's essence." (Topics, I.5.102a37, Pickard-Cambridge.)... Because non-existent entities cannot be anything, they do not, in Aristotle's mind, possess an essence... This is why he leaves no place for fictional entities like goat-stags (or unicorns)." Source: Louis F. Groarke, "Aristotle: Logic", section 7. (Existential Assumptions), Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy (A Peer-Reviewed Academic Resource), http://www.iep.utm.edu/aris-log/. Thus, some syllogisms have "extra" existence hypotheses that do not directly appear in Aristotle's original materials (since they were always assumed); they are added where they are needed. This affects barbari 2565, celaront 2566, cesaro 2571, camestros 2572, felapton 2577, darapti 2578, calemos 2582, fesapo 2583, and bamalip 2584. These are only the assertic syllogisms. Aristotle also defined modal syllogisms that deal with modal qualifiers such as "necessarily" and "possibly". Historically Aristotelian modal syllogisms were not as widely used. For more about modal syllogisms in a modern context, see Rini as well as Aristotle's Modal Syllogistic by Marko Malink, Harvard University Press, November 2013. We do not treat them further here. Aristotelian logic is essentially the forerunner of predicate calculus (as well as set theory since it discusses membership in groups), while Stoic logic is essentially the forerunner of propositional calculus. | ||
Theorem | barbara 2561 | "Barbara", one of the fundamental syllogisms of Aristotelian logic. All 𝜑 is 𝜓, and all 𝜒 is 𝜑, therefore all 𝜒 is 𝜓. (In Aristotelian notation, AAA-1: MaP and SaM therefore SaP.) For example, given "All men are mortal" and "Socrates is a man", we can prove "Socrates is mortal". If H is the set of men, M is the set of mortal beings, and S is Socrates, these word phrases can be represented as ∀𝑥(𝑥 ∈ 𝐻 → 𝑥 ∈ 𝑀) (all men are mortal) and ∀𝑥(𝑥 = 𝑆 → 𝑥 ∈ 𝐻) (Socrates is a man) therefore ∀𝑥(𝑥 = 𝑆 → 𝑥 ∈ 𝑀) (Socrates is mortal). Russell and Whitehead note that the "syllogism in Barbara is derived..." from syl 17. (quote after Theorem *2.06 of [WhiteheadRussell] p. 101). Most of the proof is in alsyl 1818. There are a legion of sources for Barbara, including http://www.friesian.com/aristotl.htm, http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/aristotle-logic/, and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syllogism. (Contributed by David A. Wheeler, 24-Aug-2016.) |
⊢ ∀𝑥(𝜑 → 𝜓) & ⊢ ∀𝑥(𝜒 → 𝜑) ⇒ ⊢ ∀𝑥(𝜒 → 𝜓) | ||
Theorem | celarent 2562 | "Celarent", one of the syllogisms of Aristotelian logic. No 𝜑 is 𝜓, and all 𝜒 is 𝜑, therefore no 𝜒 is 𝜓. (In Aristotelian notation, EAE-1: MeP and SaM therefore SeP.) For example, given the "No reptiles have fur" and "All snakes are reptiles", therefore "No snakes have fur". Example from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syllogism. (Contributed by David A. Wheeler, 24-Aug-2016.) (Revised by David A. Wheeler, 2-Sep-2016.) |
⊢ ∀𝑥(𝜑 → ¬ 𝜓) & ⊢ ∀𝑥(𝜒 → 𝜑) ⇒ ⊢ ∀𝑥(𝜒 → ¬ 𝜓) | ||
Theorem | darii 2563 | "Darii", one of the syllogisms of Aristotelian logic. All 𝜑 is 𝜓, and some 𝜒 is 𝜑, therefore some 𝜒 is 𝜓. (In Aristotelian notation, AII-1: MaP and SiM therefore SiP.) For example, given "All rabbits have fur" and "Some pets are rabbits", therefore "Some pets have fur". Example from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syllogism. (Contributed by David A. Wheeler, 24-Aug-2016.) |
⊢ ∀𝑥(𝜑 → 𝜓) & ⊢ ∃𝑥(𝜒 ∧ 𝜑) ⇒ ⊢ ∃𝑥(𝜒 ∧ 𝜓) | ||
Theorem | ferio 2564 | "Ferio" ("Ferioque"), one of the syllogisms of Aristotelian logic. No 𝜑 is 𝜓, and some 𝜒 is 𝜑, therefore some 𝜒 is not 𝜓. (In Aristotelian notation, EIO-1: MeP and SiM therefore SoP.) For example, given "No homework is fun" and "Some reading is homework", therefore "Some reading is not fun". This is essentially a logical axiom in Aristotelian logic. Example from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syllogism. (Contributed by David A. Wheeler, 24-Aug-2016.) (Revised by David A. Wheeler, 2-Sep-2016.) |
⊢ ∀𝑥(𝜑 → ¬ 𝜓) & ⊢ ∃𝑥(𝜒 ∧ 𝜑) ⇒ ⊢ ∃𝑥(𝜒 ∧ ¬ 𝜓) | ||
Theorem | barbari 2565 | "Barbari", one of the syllogisms of Aristotelian logic. All 𝜑 is 𝜓, all 𝜒 is 𝜑, and some 𝜒 exist, therefore some 𝜒 is 𝜓. (In Aristotelian notation, AAI-1: MaP and SaM therefore SiP.) For example, given "All men are mortal", "All Greeks are men", and "Greeks exist", therefore "Some Greeks are mortal". Note the existence hypothesis (to prove the "some" in the conclusion). Example from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syllogism. (Contributed by David A. Wheeler, 27-Aug-2016.) (Revised by David A. Wheeler, 30-Aug-2016.) |
⊢ ∀𝑥(𝜑 → 𝜓) & ⊢ ∀𝑥(𝜒 → 𝜑) & ⊢ ∃𝑥𝜒 ⇒ ⊢ ∃𝑥(𝜒 ∧ 𝜓) | ||
Theorem | celaront 2566 | "Celaront", one of the syllogisms of Aristotelian logic. No 𝜑 is 𝜓, all 𝜒 is 𝜑, and some 𝜒 exist, therefore some 𝜒 is not 𝜓. (In Aristotelian notation, EAO-1: MeP and SaM therefore SoP.) For example, given "No reptiles have fur", "All snakes are reptiles.", and "Snakes exist.", prove "Some snakes have no fur". Note the existence hypothesis. Example from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syllogism. (Contributed by David A. Wheeler, 27-Aug-2016.) (Revised by David A. Wheeler, 2-Sep-2016.) |
⊢ ∀𝑥(𝜑 → ¬ 𝜓) & ⊢ ∀𝑥(𝜒 → 𝜑) & ⊢ ∃𝑥𝜒 ⇒ ⊢ ∃𝑥(𝜒 ∧ ¬ 𝜓) | ||
Theorem | cesare 2567 | "Cesare", one of the syllogisms of Aristotelian logic. No 𝜑 is 𝜓, and all 𝜒 is 𝜓, therefore no 𝜒 is 𝜑. (In Aristotelian notation, EAE-2: PeM and SaM therefore SeP.) Related to celarent 2562. (Contributed by David A. Wheeler, 27-Aug-2016.) (Revised by David A. Wheeler, 13-Nov-2016.) |
⊢ ∀𝑥(𝜑 → ¬ 𝜓) & ⊢ ∀𝑥(𝜒 → 𝜓) ⇒ ⊢ ∀𝑥(𝜒 → ¬ 𝜑) | ||
Theorem | camestres 2568 | "Camestres", one of the syllogisms of Aristotelian logic. All 𝜑 is 𝜓, and no 𝜒 is 𝜓, therefore no 𝜒 is 𝜑. (In Aristotelian notation, AEE-2: PaM and SeM therefore SeP.) (Contributed by David A. Wheeler, 28-Aug-2016.) (Revised by David A. Wheeler, 2-Sep-2016.) |
⊢ ∀𝑥(𝜑 → 𝜓) & ⊢ ∀𝑥(𝜒 → ¬ 𝜓) ⇒ ⊢ ∀𝑥(𝜒 → ¬ 𝜑) | ||
Theorem | festino 2569 | "Festino", one of the syllogisms of Aristotelian logic. No 𝜑 is 𝜓, and some 𝜒 is 𝜓, therefore some 𝜒 is not 𝜑. (In Aristotelian notation, EIO-2: PeM and SiM therefore SoP.) (Contributed by David A. Wheeler, 25-Nov-2016.) |
⊢ ∀𝑥(𝜑 → ¬ 𝜓) & ⊢ ∃𝑥(𝜒 ∧ 𝜓) ⇒ ⊢ ∃𝑥(𝜒 ∧ ¬ 𝜑) | ||
Theorem | baroco 2570 | "Baroco", one of the syllogisms of Aristotelian logic. All 𝜑 is 𝜓, and some 𝜒 is not 𝜓, therefore some 𝜒 is not 𝜑. (In Aristotelian notation, AOO-2: PaM and SoM therefore SoP.) For example, "All informative things are useful", "Some websites are not useful", therefore "Some websites are not informative." (Contributed by David A. Wheeler, 28-Aug-2016.) |
⊢ ∀𝑥(𝜑 → 𝜓) & ⊢ ∃𝑥(𝜒 ∧ ¬ 𝜓) ⇒ ⊢ ∃𝑥(𝜒 ∧ ¬ 𝜑) | ||
Theorem | cesaro 2571 | "Cesaro", one of the syllogisms of Aristotelian logic. No 𝜑 is 𝜓, all 𝜒 is 𝜓, and 𝜒 exist, therefore some 𝜒 is not 𝜑. (In Aristotelian notation, EAO-2: PeM and SaM therefore SoP.) (Contributed by David A. Wheeler, 28-Aug-2016.) (Revised by David A. Wheeler, 2-Sep-2016.) |
⊢ ∀𝑥(𝜑 → ¬ 𝜓) & ⊢ ∀𝑥(𝜒 → 𝜓) & ⊢ ∃𝑥𝜒 ⇒ ⊢ ∃𝑥(𝜒 ∧ ¬ 𝜑) | ||
Theorem | camestros 2572 | "Camestros", one of the syllogisms of Aristotelian logic. All 𝜑 is 𝜓, no 𝜒 is 𝜓, and 𝜒 exist, therefore some 𝜒 is not 𝜑. (In Aristotelian notation, AEO-2: PaM and SeM therefore SoP.) For example, "All horses have hooves", "No humans have hooves", and humans exist, therefore "Some humans are not horses". (Contributed by David A. Wheeler, 28-Aug-2016.) (Revised by David A. Wheeler, 2-Sep-2016.) |
⊢ ∀𝑥(𝜑 → 𝜓) & ⊢ ∀𝑥(𝜒 → ¬ 𝜓) & ⊢ ∃𝑥𝜒 ⇒ ⊢ ∃𝑥(𝜒 ∧ ¬ 𝜑) | ||
Theorem | datisi 2573 | "Datisi", one of the syllogisms of Aristotelian logic. All 𝜑 is 𝜓, and some 𝜑 is 𝜒, therefore some 𝜒 is 𝜓. (In Aristotelian notation, AII-3: MaP and MiS therefore SiP.) (Contributed by David A. Wheeler, 28-Aug-2016.) |
⊢ ∀𝑥(𝜑 → 𝜓) & ⊢ ∃𝑥(𝜑 ∧ 𝜒) ⇒ ⊢ ∃𝑥(𝜒 ∧ 𝜓) | ||
Theorem | disamis 2574 | "Disamis", one of the syllogisms of Aristotelian logic. Some 𝜑 is 𝜓, and all 𝜑 is 𝜒, therefore some 𝜒 is 𝜓. (In Aristotelian notation, IAI-3: MiP and MaS therefore SiP.) (Contributed by David A. Wheeler, 28-Aug-2016.) |
⊢ ∃𝑥(𝜑 ∧ 𝜓) & ⊢ ∀𝑥(𝜑 → 𝜒) ⇒ ⊢ ∃𝑥(𝜒 ∧ 𝜓) | ||
Theorem | ferison 2575 | "Ferison", one of the syllogisms of Aristotelian logic. No 𝜑 is 𝜓, and some 𝜑 is 𝜒, therefore some 𝜒 is not 𝜓. (In Aristotelian notation, EIO-3: MeP and MiS therefore SoP.) (Contributed by David A. Wheeler, 28-Aug-2016.) (Revised by David A. Wheeler, 2-Sep-2016.) |
⊢ ∀𝑥(𝜑 → ¬ 𝜓) & ⊢ ∃𝑥(𝜑 ∧ 𝜒) ⇒ ⊢ ∃𝑥(𝜒 ∧ ¬ 𝜓) | ||
Theorem | bocardo 2576 | "Bocardo", one of the syllogisms of Aristotelian logic. Some 𝜑 is not 𝜓, and all 𝜑 is 𝜒, therefore some 𝜒 is not 𝜓. (In Aristotelian notation, OAO-3: MoP and MaS therefore SoP.) For example, "Some cats have no tails", "All cats are mammals", therefore "Some mammals have no tails". A reorder of disamis 2574; prefer using that instead. (Contributed by David A. Wheeler, 28-Aug-2016.) (New usage is discouraged.) |
⊢ ∃𝑥(𝜑 ∧ ¬ 𝜓) & ⊢ ∀𝑥(𝜑 → 𝜒) ⇒ ⊢ ∃𝑥(𝜒 ∧ ¬ 𝜓) | ||
Theorem | felapton 2577 | "Felapton", one of the syllogisms of Aristotelian logic. No 𝜑 is 𝜓, all 𝜑 is 𝜒, and some 𝜑 exist, therefore some 𝜒 is not 𝜓. (In Aristotelian notation, EAO-3: MeP and MaS therefore SoP.) For example, "No flowers are animals" and "All flowers are plants", therefore "Some plants are not animals". (Contributed by David A. Wheeler, 28-Aug-2016.) (Revised by David A. Wheeler, 2-Sep-2016.) |
⊢ ∀𝑥(𝜑 → ¬ 𝜓) & ⊢ ∀𝑥(𝜑 → 𝜒) & ⊢ ∃𝑥𝜑 ⇒ ⊢ ∃𝑥(𝜒 ∧ ¬ 𝜓) | ||
Theorem | darapti 2578 | "Darapti", one of the syllogisms of Aristotelian logic. All 𝜑 is 𝜓, all 𝜑 is 𝜒, and some 𝜑 exist, therefore some 𝜒 is 𝜓. (In Aristotelian notation, AAI-3: MaP and MaS therefore SiP.) For example, "All squares are rectangles" and "All squares are rhombuses", therefore "Some rhombuses are rectangles". (Contributed by David A. Wheeler, 28-Aug-2016.) |
⊢ ∀𝑥(𝜑 → 𝜓) & ⊢ ∀𝑥(𝜑 → 𝜒) & ⊢ ∃𝑥𝜑 ⇒ ⊢ ∃𝑥(𝜒 ∧ 𝜓) | ||
Theorem | calemes 2579 | "Calemes", one of the syllogisms of Aristotelian logic. All 𝜑 is 𝜓, and no 𝜓 is 𝜒, therefore no 𝜒 is 𝜑. (In Aristotelian notation, AEE-4: PaM and MeS therefore SeP.) (Contributed by David A. Wheeler, 28-Aug-2016.) (Revised by David A. Wheeler, 2-Sep-2016.) |
⊢ ∀𝑥(𝜑 → 𝜓) & ⊢ ∀𝑥(𝜓 → ¬ 𝜒) ⇒ ⊢ ∀𝑥(𝜒 → ¬ 𝜑) | ||
Theorem | dimatis 2580 | "Dimatis", one of the syllogisms of Aristotelian logic. Some 𝜑 is 𝜓, and all 𝜓 is 𝜒, therefore some 𝜒 is 𝜑. (In Aristotelian notation, IAI-4: PiM and MaS therefore SiP.) For example, "Some pets are rabbits.", "All rabbits have fur", therefore "Some fur bearing animals are pets". Like darii 2563 with positions interchanged. (Contributed by David A. Wheeler, 28-Aug-2016.) |
⊢ ∃𝑥(𝜑 ∧ 𝜓) & ⊢ ∀𝑥(𝜓 → 𝜒) ⇒ ⊢ ∃𝑥(𝜒 ∧ 𝜑) | ||
Theorem | fresison 2581 | "Fresison", one of the syllogisms of Aristotelian logic. No 𝜑 is 𝜓 (PeM), and some 𝜓 is 𝜒 (MiS), therefore some 𝜒 is not 𝜑 (SoP). (In Aristotelian notation, EIO-4: PeM and MiS therefore SoP.) (Contributed by David A. Wheeler, 28-Aug-2016.) (Revised by David A. Wheeler, 2-Sep-2016.) |
⊢ ∀𝑥(𝜑 → ¬ 𝜓) & ⊢ ∃𝑥(𝜓 ∧ 𝜒) ⇒ ⊢ ∃𝑥(𝜒 ∧ ¬ 𝜑) | ||
Theorem | calemos 2582 | "Calemos", one of the syllogisms of Aristotelian logic. All 𝜑 is 𝜓 (PaM), no 𝜓 is 𝜒 (MeS), and 𝜒 exist, therefore some 𝜒 is not 𝜑 (SoP). (In Aristotelian notation, AEO-4: PaM and MeS therefore SoP.) (Contributed by David A. Wheeler, 28-Aug-2016.) (Revised by David A. Wheeler, 2-Sep-2016.) |
⊢ ∀𝑥(𝜑 → 𝜓) & ⊢ ∀𝑥(𝜓 → ¬ 𝜒) & ⊢ ∃𝑥𝜒 ⇒ ⊢ ∃𝑥(𝜒 ∧ ¬ 𝜑) | ||
Theorem | fesapo 2583 | "Fesapo", one of the syllogisms of Aristotelian logic. No 𝜑 is 𝜓, all 𝜓 is 𝜒, and 𝜓 exist, therefore some 𝜒 is not 𝜑. (In Aristotelian notation, EAO-4: PeM and MaS therefore SoP.) (Contributed by David A. Wheeler, 28-Aug-2016.) (Revised by David A. Wheeler, 2-Sep-2016.) |
⊢ ∀𝑥(𝜑 → ¬ 𝜓) & ⊢ ∀𝑥(𝜓 → 𝜒) & ⊢ ∃𝑥𝜓 ⇒ ⊢ ∃𝑥(𝜒 ∧ ¬ 𝜑) | ||
Theorem | bamalip 2584 | "Bamalip", one of the syllogisms of Aristotelian logic. All 𝜑 is 𝜓, all 𝜓 is 𝜒, and 𝜑 exist, therefore some 𝜒 is 𝜑. (In Aristotelian notation, AAI-4: PaM and MaS therefore SiP.) Like barbari 2565. (Contributed by David A. Wheeler, 28-Aug-2016.) |
⊢ ∀𝑥(𝜑 → 𝜓) & ⊢ ∀𝑥(𝜓 → 𝜒) & ⊢ ∃𝑥𝜑 ⇒ ⊢ ∃𝑥(𝜒 ∧ 𝜑) | ||
Intuitionistic (constructive) logic is similar to classical logic with the notable omission of ax-3 8 and theorems such as exmid 431 or peirce 193. We mostly treat intuitionistic logic in a separate file, iset.mm, which is known as the Intuitionistic Logic Explorer on the web site. However, iset.mm has a number of additional axioms (mainly to replace definitions like df-or 385 and df-ex 1703 which are not valid in intuitionistic logic) and we want to prove those axioms here to demonstrate that adding those axioms in iset.mm does not make iset.mm any less consistent than set.mm. The following axioms are unchanged between set.mm and iset.mm: ax-1 6, ax-2 7, ax-mp 5, ax-4 1735, ax-11 2032, ax-gen 1720, ax-7 1933, ax-12 2045, ax-8 1990, ax-9 1997, and ax-5 1837. In this list of axioms, the ones that repeat earlier theorems are marked "(New usage is discouraged.)" so that the earlier theorems will be used consistently in other proofs. | ||
Theorem | axia1 2585 | Left 'and' elimination (intuitionistic logic axiom ax-ia1). (Contributed by Jim Kingdon, 21-May-2018.) (New usage is discouraged.) |
⊢ ((𝜑 ∧ 𝜓) → 𝜑) | ||
Theorem | axia2 2586 | Right 'and' elimination (intuitionistic logic axiom ax-ia2). (Contributed by Jim Kingdon, 21-May-2018.) (New usage is discouraged.) |
⊢ ((𝜑 ∧ 𝜓) → 𝜓) | ||
Theorem | axia3 2587 | 'And' introduction (intuitionistic logic axiom ax-ia3). (Contributed by Jim Kingdon, 21-May-2018.) (New usage is discouraged.) |
⊢ (𝜑 → (𝜓 → (𝜑 ∧ 𝜓))) | ||
Theorem | axin1 2588 | 'Not' introduction (intuitionistic logic axiom ax-in1). (Contributed by Jim Kingdon, 21-May-2018.) (New usage is discouraged.) |
⊢ ((𝜑 → ¬ 𝜑) → ¬ 𝜑) | ||
Theorem | axin2 2589 | 'Not' elimination (intuitionistic logic axiom ax-in2). (Contributed by Jim Kingdon, 21-May-2018.) (New usage is discouraged.) |
⊢ (¬ 𝜑 → (𝜑 → 𝜓)) | ||
Theorem | axio 2590 | Definition of 'or' (intuitionistic logic axiom ax-io). (Contributed by Jim Kingdon, 21-May-2018.) (New usage is discouraged.) |
⊢ (((𝜑 ∨ 𝜒) → 𝜓) ↔ ((𝜑 → 𝜓) ∧ (𝜒 → 𝜓))) | ||
Theorem | axi4 2591 | Specialization (intuitionistic logic axiom ax-4). This is just sp 2051 by another name. (Contributed by Jim Kingdon, 31-Dec-2017.) (New usage is discouraged.) |
⊢ (∀𝑥𝜑 → 𝜑) | ||
Theorem | axi5r 2592 | Converse of ax-c4 (intuitionistic logic axiom ax-i5r). (Contributed by Jim Kingdon, 31-Dec-2017.) |
⊢ ((∀𝑥𝜑 → ∀𝑥𝜓) → ∀𝑥(∀𝑥𝜑 → 𝜓)) | ||
Theorem | axial 2593 | The setvar 𝑥 is not free in ∀𝑥𝜑 (intuitionistic logic axiom ax-ial). (Contributed by Jim Kingdon, 31-Dec-2017.) (New usage is discouraged.) |
⊢ (∀𝑥𝜑 → ∀𝑥∀𝑥𝜑) | ||
Theorem | axie1 2594 | The setvar 𝑥 is not free in ∃𝑥𝜑 (intuitionistic logic axiom ax-ie1). (Contributed by Jim Kingdon, 31-Dec-2017.) (New usage is discouraged.) |
⊢ (∃𝑥𝜑 → ∀𝑥∃𝑥𝜑) | ||
Theorem | axie2 2595 | A key property of existential quantification (intuitionistic logic axiom ax-ie2). (Contributed by Jim Kingdon, 31-Dec-2017.) |
⊢ (∀𝑥(𝜓 → ∀𝑥𝜓) → (∀𝑥(𝜑 → 𝜓) ↔ (∃𝑥𝜑 → 𝜓))) | ||
Theorem | axi9 2596 | Axiom of existence (intuitionistic logic axiom ax-i9). In classical logic, this is equivalent to ax-6 1886 but in intuitionistic logic it needs to be stated using the existential quantifier. (Contributed by Jim Kingdon, 31-Dec-2017.) (New usage is discouraged.) |
⊢ ∃𝑥 𝑥 = 𝑦 | ||
Theorem | axi10 2597 | Axiom of Quantifier Substitution (intuitionistic logic axiom ax-10). This is just axc11n 2305 by another name. (Contributed by Jim Kingdon, 31-Dec-2017.) (New usage is discouraged.) |
⊢ (∀𝑥 𝑥 = 𝑦 → ∀𝑦 𝑦 = 𝑥) | ||
Theorem | axi12 2598 | Axiom of Quantifier Introduction (intuitionistic logic axiom ax-i12). In classical logic, this is mostly a restatement of axc9 2300 (with one additional quantifier). But in intuitionistic logic, changing the negations and implications to disjunctions makes it stronger. (Contributed by Jim Kingdon, 31-Dec-2017.) |
⊢ (∀𝑧 𝑧 = 𝑥 ∨ (∀𝑧 𝑧 = 𝑦 ∨ ∀𝑧(𝑥 = 𝑦 → ∀𝑧 𝑥 = 𝑦))) | ||
Theorem | axbnd 2599 | Axiom of Bundling (intuitionistic logic axiom ax-bnd). In classical logic, this and axi12 2598 are fairly straightforward consequences of axc9 2300. But in intuitionistic logic, it is not easy to add the extra ∀𝑥 to axi12 2598 and so we treat the two as separate axioms. (Contributed by Jim Kingdon, 22-Mar-2018.) |
⊢ (∀𝑧 𝑧 = 𝑥 ∨ (∀𝑧 𝑧 = 𝑦 ∨ ∀𝑥∀𝑧(𝑥 = 𝑦 → ∀𝑧 𝑥 = 𝑦))) | ||
Set theory uses the formalism of propositional and predicate calculus to assert properties of arbitrary mathematical objects called "sets." A set can be an element of another set, and this relationship is indicated by the ∈ symbol. Starting with the simplest mathematical object, called the empty set, set theory builds up more and more complex structures whose existence follows from the axioms, eventually resulting in extremely complicated sets that we identify with the real numbers and other familiar mathematical objects. A simplistic concept of sets, sometimes called "naive set theory", is vulnerable to a paradox called "Russell's Paradox" (ru 3428), a discovery that revolutionized the foundations of mathematics and logic. Russell's Paradox spawned the development of set theories that countered the paradox, including the ZF set theory that is most widely used and is defined here. Except for Extensionality, the axioms basically say, "given an arbitrary set x (and, in the cases of Replacement and Regularity, provided that an antecedent is satisfied), there exists another set y based on or constructed from it, with the stated properties." (The axiom of Extensionality can also be restated this way as shown by axext2 2601.) The individual axiom links provide more detailed descriptions. We derive the redundant ZF axioms of Separation, Null Set, and Pairing from the others as theorems. | ||
Axiom | ax-ext 2600* |
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 predicate calculus axioms, we would rewrite all axioms involving equality with equality expanded according to the above definition. Some of those axioms may be provable from ax-ext and would become redundant, but this hasn't been studied carefully. 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 2600 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 4762, which involves a wff metavariable). In practice, though, the theorems and proofs are essentially the same. The $d restrictions make each of the infinite axioms generated by the ax-ext 2600 scheme exactly logically equivalent to each other and in particular to the actual axiom of the textbook version. (Contributed by NM, 21-May-1993.) |
⊢ (∀𝑧(𝑧 ∈ 𝑥 ↔ 𝑧 ∈ 𝑦) → 𝑥 = 𝑦) |
< Previous Next > |
Copyright terms: Public domain | < Previous Next > |