P. 146 of Theorem List - Intuitionistic Logic Explorer

Theorem List for Intuitionistic Logic Explorer - 14501-14600   *Has distinct variable group(s)

Type	Label	Description
Statement
Theorem	bj-stim 14501	A conjunction with a stable consequent is stable. See stabnot 833 for negation , bj-stan 14502 for conjunction , and bj-stal 14504 for universal quantification. (Contributed by BJ, 24-Nov-2023.)
|- (STAB ps -> STAB ( ph -> ps ) )
Theorem	bj-stan 14502	The conjunction of two stable formulas is stable. See bj-stim 14501 for implication, stabnot 833 for negation, and bj-stal 14504 for universal quantification. (Contributed by BJ, 24-Nov-2023.)
|- ( (STAB ph /\ STAB ps ) -> STAB ( ph /\ ps ) )
Theorem	bj-stand 14503	The conjunction of two stable formulas is stable. Deduction form of bj-stan 14502. Its proof is shorter (when counting all steps, including syntactic steps), so one could prove it first and then bj-stan 14502 from it, the usual way. (Contributed by BJ, 24-Nov-2023.) (Proof modification is discouraged.)
|- ( ph -> STAB ps )   &    |- ( ph -> STAB ch )   =>    |- ( ph -> STAB ( ps /\ ch ) )
Theorem	bj-stal 14504	The universal quantification of a stable formula is stable. See bj-stim 14501 for implication, stabnot 833 for negation, and bj-stan 14502 for conjunction. (Contributed by BJ, 24-Nov-2023.)
|- ( A. xSTAB ph -> STAB A. x ph )
Theorem	bj-pm2.18st 14505	Clavius law for stable formulas. See pm2.18dc 855. (Contributed by BJ, 4-Dec-2023.)
|- (STAB ph -> ( ( -. ph -> ph ) -> ph ) )
Theorem	bj-con1st 14506	Contraposition when the antecedent is a negated stable proposition. See con1dc 856. (Contributed by BJ, 11-Nov-2024.)
|- (STAB ph -> ( ( -. ph -> ps ) -> ( -. ps -> ph ) ) )
12.2.1.2  Decidable formulas
Theorem	bj-trdc 14507	A provable formula is decidable. (Contributed by BJ, 24-Nov-2023.)
|- ( ph -> DECID ph )
Theorem	bj-dctru 14508	The true truth value is decidable. (Contributed by BJ, 5-Aug-2024.)
|- DECID T.
Theorem	bj-fadc 14509	A refutable formula is decidable. (Contributed by BJ, 24-Nov-2023.)
|- ( -. ph -> DECID ph )
Theorem	bj-dcfal 14510	The false truth value is decidable. (Contributed by BJ, 5-Aug-2024.)
|- DECID F.
Theorem	bj-dcstab 14511	A decidable formula is stable. (Contributed by BJ, 24-Nov-2023.) (Proof modification is discouraged.)
|- (DECID ph -> STAB ph )
Theorem	bj-nnbidc 14512	If a formula is not refutable, then it is decidable if and only if it is provable. See also comment of bj-nnbist 14499. (Contributed by BJ, 24-Nov-2023.)
|- ( -. -. ph -> (DECID ph <-> ph ) )
Theorem	bj-nndcALT 14513	Alternate proof of nndc 851. (Proof modification is discouraged.) (New usage is discouraged.) (Contributed by BJ, 9-Oct-2019.)
|- -. -. DECID ph
Theorem	bj-dcdc 14514	Decidability of a proposition is decidable if and only if that proposition is decidable. DECID is idempotent. (Contributed by BJ, 9-Oct-2019.)
|- (DECID DECID ph <-> DECID ph )
Theorem	bj-stdc 14515	Decidability of a proposition is stable if and only if that proposition is decidable. In particular, the assumption that every formula is stable implies that every formula is decidable, hence classical logic. (Contributed by BJ, 9-Oct-2019.)
|- (STAB DECID ph <-> DECID ph )
Theorem	bj-dcst 14516	Stability of a proposition is decidable if and only if that proposition is stable. (Contributed by BJ, 24-Nov-2023.)
|- (DECID STAB ph <-> STAB ph )
12.2.2  Predicate calculus
Theorem	bj-ex 14517*	Existential generalization. (Contributed by BJ, 8-Dec-2019.) Proof modification is discouraged because there are shorter proofs, but using less basic results (like exlimiv 1598 and 19.9ht 1641 or 19.23ht 1497). (Proof modification is discouraged.)
|- ( E. x ph -> ph )
Theorem	bj-hbalt 14518	Closed form of hbal 1477 (copied from set.mm). (Contributed by BJ, 2-May-2019.)
|- ( A. y ( ph -> A. x ph ) -> ( A. y ph -> A. x A. y ph ) )
Theorem	bj-nfalt 14519	Closed form of nfal 1576 (copied from set.mm). (Contributed by BJ, 2-May-2019.) (Proof modification is discouraged.)
|- ( A. x F/ y ph -> F/ y A. x ph )
Theorem	spimd 14520	Deduction form of spim 1738. (Contributed by BJ, 17-Oct-2019.)
|- ( ph -> F/ x ch )   &    |- ( ph -> A. x ( x = y -> ( ps -> ch ) ) )   =>    |- ( ph -> ( A. x ps -> ch ) )
Theorem	2spim 14521*	Double substitution, as in spim 1738. (Contributed by BJ, 17-Oct-2019.)
|- F/ x ch   &    |- F/ z ch   &    |- ( ( x = y /\ z = t ) -> ( ps -> ch ) )   =>    |- ( A. z A. x ps -> ch )
Theorem	ch2var 14522*	Implicit substitution of y for x and t for z into a theorem. (Contributed by BJ, 17-Oct-2019.)
|- F/ x ps   &    |- F/ z ps   &    |- ( ( x = y /\ z = t ) -> ( ph <-> ps ) )   &    |- ph   =>    |- ps
Theorem	ch2varv 14523*	Version of ch2var 14522 with nonfreeness hypotheses replaced with disjoint variable conditions. (Contributed by BJ, 17-Oct-2019.)
|- ( ( x = y /\ z = t ) -> ( ph <-> ps ) )   &    |- ph   =>    |- ps
Theorem	bj-exlimmp 14524	Lemma for bj-vtoclgf 14531. (Contributed by BJ, 21-Nov-2019.) (Proof modification is discouraged.)
|- F/ x ps   &    |- ( ch -> ph )   =>    |- ( A. x ( ch -> ( ph -> ps ) ) -> ( E. x ch -> ps ) )
Theorem	bj-exlimmpi 14525	Lemma for bj-vtoclgf 14531. (Contributed by BJ, 21-Nov-2019.) (Proof modification is discouraged.)
|- F/ x ps   &    |- ( ch -> ph )   &    |- ( ch -> ( ph -> ps ) )   =>    |- ( E. x ch -> ps )
Theorem	bj-sbimedh 14526	A strengthening of sbiedh 1787 (same proof). (Contributed by BJ, 16-Dec-2019.)
|- ( ph -> A. x ph )   &    |- ( ph -> ( ch -> A. x ch ) )   &    |- ( ph -> ( x = y -> ( ps -> ch ) ) )   =>    |- ( ph -> ( [ y / x ] ps -> ch ) )
Theorem	bj-sbimeh 14527	A strengthening of sbieh 1790 (same proof). (Contributed by BJ, 16-Dec-2019.)
|- ( ps -> A. x ps )   &    |- ( x = y -> ( ph -> ps ) )   =>    |- ( [ y / x ] ph -> ps )
Theorem	bj-sbime 14528	A strengthening of sbie 1791 (same proof). (Contributed by BJ, 16-Dec-2019.)
|- F/ x ps   &    |- ( x = y -> ( ph -> ps ) )   =>    |- ( [ y / x ] ph -> ps )
12.2.3  Set theorey miscellaneous
Theorem	bj-el2oss1o 14529	Shorter proof of el2oss1o 6444 using more axioms. (Contributed by BJ, 21-Jan-2024.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) (New usage is discouraged.)
|- ( A e. 2o -> A C_ 1o )
12.2.4  Extensionality Various utility theorems using FOL and extensionality.
Theorem	bj-vtoclgft 14530	Weakening two hypotheses of vtoclgf 2796. (Contributed by BJ, 21-Nov-2019.)
|- F/_ x A   &    |- F/ x ps   &    |- ( x = A -> ph )   =>    |- ( A. x ( x = A -> ( ph -> ps ) ) -> ( A e. V -> ps ) )
Theorem	bj-vtoclgf 14531	Weakening two hypotheses of vtoclgf 2796. (Contributed by BJ, 21-Nov-2019.)
|- F/_ x A   &    |- F/ x ps   &    |- ( x = A -> ph )   &    |- ( x = A -> ( ph -> ps ) )   =>    |- ( A e. V -> ps )
Theorem	elabgf0 14532	Lemma for elabgf 2880. (Contributed by BJ, 21-Nov-2019.)
|- ( x = A -> ( A e. { x | ph } <-> ph ) )
Theorem	elabgft1 14533	One implication of elabgf 2880, in closed form. (Contributed by BJ, 21-Nov-2019.)
|- F/_ x A   &    |- F/ x ps   =>    |- ( A. x ( x = A -> ( ph -> ps ) ) -> ( A e. { x | ph } -> ps ) )
Theorem	elabgf1 14534	One implication of elabgf 2880. (Contributed by BJ, 21-Nov-2019.)
|- F/_ x A   &    |- F/ x ps   &    |- ( x = A -> ( ph -> ps ) )   =>    |- ( A e. { x | ph } -> ps )
Theorem	elabgf2 14535	One implication of elabgf 2880. (Contributed by BJ, 21-Nov-2019.)
|- F/_ x A   &    |- F/ x ps   &    |- ( x = A -> ( ps -> ph ) )   =>    |- ( A e. B -> ( ps -> A e. { x | ph } ) )
Theorem	elabf1 14536*	One implication of elabf 2881. (Contributed by BJ, 21-Nov-2019.)
|- F/ x ps   &    |- ( x = A -> ( ph -> ps ) )   =>    |- ( A e. { x | ph } -> ps )
Theorem	elabf2 14537*	One implication of elabf 2881. (Contributed by BJ, 21-Nov-2019.)
|- F/ x ps   &    |- A e. _V   &    |- ( x = A -> ( ps -> ph ) )   =>    |- ( ps -> A e. { x | ph } )
Theorem	elab1 14538*	One implication of elab 2882. (Contributed by BJ, 21-Nov-2019.)
|- ( x = A -> ( ph -> ps ) )   =>    |- ( A e. { x | ph } -> ps )
Theorem	elab2a 14539*	One implication of elab 2882. (Contributed by BJ, 21-Nov-2019.)
|- A e. _V   &    |- ( x = A -> ( ps -> ph ) )   =>    |- ( ps -> A e. { x | ph } )
Theorem	elabg2 14540*	One implication of elabg 2884. (Contributed by BJ, 21-Nov-2019.)
|- ( x = A -> ( ps -> ph ) )   =>    |- ( A e. V -> ( ps -> A e. { x | ph } ) )
Theorem	bj-rspgt 14541	Restricted specialization, generalized. Weakens a hypothesis of rspccv 2839 and seems to have a shorter proof. (Contributed by BJ, 21-Nov-2019.)
|- F/_ x A   &    |- F/_ x B   &    |- F/ x ps   =>    |- ( A. x ( x = A -> ( ph -> ps ) ) -> ( A. x e. B ph -> ( A e. B -> ps ) ) )
Theorem	bj-rspg 14542	Restricted specialization, generalized. Weakens a hypothesis of rspccv 2839 and seems to have a shorter proof. (Contributed by BJ, 21-Nov-2019.)
|- F/_ x A   &    |- F/_ x B   &    |- F/ x ps   &    |- ( x = A -> ( ph -> ps ) )   =>    |- ( A. x e. B ph -> ( A e. B -> ps ) )
Theorem	cbvrald 14543*	Rule used to change bound variables, using implicit substitution. (Contributed by BJ, 22-Nov-2019.)
|- F/ x ph   &    |- F/ y ph   &    |- ( ph -> F/ y ps )   &    |- ( ph -> F/ x ch )   &    |- ( ph -> ( x = y -> ( ps <-> ch ) ) )   =>    |- ( ph -> ( A. x e. A ps <-> A. y e. A ch ) )
Theorem	bj-intabssel 14544	Version of intss1 3860 using a class abstraction and explicit substitution. (Contributed by BJ, 29-Nov-2019.)
|- F/_ x A   =>    |- ( A e. V -> ( [. A / x ]. ph -> |^| { x | ph } C_ A ) )
Theorem	bj-intabssel1 14545	Version of intss1 3860 using a class abstraction and implicit substitution. Closed form of intmin3 3872. (Contributed by BJ, 29-Nov-2019.)
|- F/_ x A   &    |- F/ x ps   &    |- ( x = A -> ( ps -> ph ) )   =>    |- ( A e. V -> ( ps -> |^| { x | ph } C_ A ) )
Theorem	bj-elssuniab 14546	Version of elssuni 3838 using a class abstraction and explicit substitution. (Contributed by BJ, 29-Nov-2019.)
|- F/_ x A   =>    |- ( A e. V -> ( [. A / x ]. ph -> A C_ U. { x | ph } ) )
Theorem	bj-sseq 14547	If two converse inclusions are characterized each by a formula, then equality is characterized by the conjunction of these formulas. (Contributed by BJ, 30-Nov-2019.)
|- ( ph -> ( ps <-> A C_ B ) )   &    |- ( ph -> ( ch <-> B C_ A ) )   =>    |- ( ph -> ( ( ps /\ ch ) <-> A = B ) )
12.2.5  Decidability of classes The question of decidability is essential in intuitionistic logic. In intuitionistic set theories, it is natural to define decidability of a set (or class) as decidability of membership in it. One can parameterize this notion with another set (or class) since it is often important to assess decidability of membership in one class among elements of another class. Namely, one will say that " A is decidable in B " if A. x e. BDECID x e. A (see df-dcin 14549). Note the similarity with the definition of a bounded class as a class for which membership in it is a bounded proposition (df-bdc 14596).
Syntax	wdcin 14548	Syntax for decidability of a class in another.
wff A DECIDin B
Definition	df-dcin 14549*	Define decidability of a class in another. (Contributed by BJ, 19-Feb-2022.)
|- ( A DECIDin B <-> A. x e. B DECID x e. A )
Theorem	decidi 14550	Property of being decidable in another class. (Contributed by BJ, 19-Feb-2022.)
|- ( A DECIDin B -> ( X e. B -> ( X e. A \/ -. X e. A ) ) )
Theorem	decidr 14551*	Sufficient condition for being decidable in another class. (Contributed by BJ, 19-Feb-2022.)
|- ( ph -> ( x e. B -> ( x e. A \/ -. x e. A ) ) )   =>    |- ( ph -> A DECIDin B )
Theorem	decidin 14552	If A is a decidable subclass of B (meaning: it is a subclass of B and it is decidable in B), and B is decidable in C, then A is decidable in C. (Contributed by BJ, 19-Feb-2022.)
|- ( ph -> A C_ B )   &    |- ( ph -> A DECIDin B )   &    |- ( ph -> B DECIDin C )   =>    |- ( ph -> A DECIDin C )
Theorem	uzdcinzz 14553	An upperset of integers is decidable in the integers. Reformulation of eluzdc 9610. (Contributed by Jim Kingdon, 18-Apr-2020.) (Revised by BJ, 19-Feb-2022.)
|- ( M e. ZZ -> ( ZZ>= ` M ) DECIDin ZZ )
Theorem	sumdc2 14554*	Alternate proof of sumdc 11366, without disjoint variable condition on N , x (longer because the statement is taylored to the proof sumdc 11366). (Contributed by BJ, 19-Feb-2022.)
|- ( ph -> M e. ZZ )   &    |- ( ph -> A C_ ( ZZ>= ` M ) )   &    |- ( ph -> A. x e. ( ZZ>= ` M )DECID x e. A )   &    |- ( ph -> N e. ZZ )   =>    |- ( ph -> DECID N e. A )
12.2.6  Disjoint union
Theorem	djucllem 14555*	Lemma for djulcl 7050 and djurcl 7051. (Contributed by BJ, 4-Jul-2022.)
|- X e. _V   &    |- F = ( x e. _V |-> <. X , x >. )   =>    |- ( A e. B -> ( ( F |` B ) ` A ) e. ( { X } X. B ) )
Theorem	djulclALT 14556	Shortening of djulcl 7050 using djucllem 14555. (Contributed by BJ, 4-Jul-2022.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) (New usage is discouraged.)
|- ( C e. A -> ( (inl |` A ) ` C ) e. ( A ⊔ B ) )
Theorem	djurclALT 14557	Shortening of djurcl 7051 using djucllem 14555. (Contributed by BJ, 4-Jul-2022.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) (New usage is discouraged.)
|- ( C e. B -> ( (inr |` B ) ` C ) e. ( A ⊔ B ) )
12.2.7  Miscellaneous
Theorem	funmptd 14558	The maps-to notation defines a function (deduction form). Note: one should similarly prove a deduction form of funopab4 5254, then prove funmptd 14558 from it, and then prove funmpt 5255 from that: this would reduce global proof length. (Contributed by BJ, 5-Aug-2024.)
|- ( ph -> F = ( x e. A |-> B ) )   =>    |- ( ph -> Fun F )
Theorem	fnmptd 14559*	The maps-to notation defines a function with domain (deduction form). (Contributed by BJ, 5-Aug-2024.)
|- ( ph -> F = ( x e. A |-> B ) )   &    |- ( ( ph /\ x e. A ) -> B e. V )   =>    |- ( ph -> F Fn A )
Theorem	if0ab 14560*	Expression of a conditional class as a class abstraction when the False alternative is the empty class: in that case, the conditional class is the extension, in the True alternative, of the condition. Remark: a consequence which could be formalized is the inclusion |- if ( ph , A , (/) ) C_ A and therefore, using elpwg 3584, |- ( A e. V -> if ( ph , A , (/) ) e. ~P A ), from which fmelpw1o 14561 could be derived, yielding an alternative proof. (Contributed by BJ, 16-Aug-2024.)
|- if ( ph , A , (/) ) = { x e. A | ph }
Theorem	fmelpw1o 14561	With a formula ph one can associate an element of ~P 1o, which can therefore be thought of as the set of "truth values" (but recall that there are no other genuine truth values than T. and F., by nndc 851, which translate to 1o and (/) respectively by iftrue 3540 and iffalse 3543, giving pwtrufal 14750). As proved in if0ab 14560, the associated element of ~P 1o is the extension, in ~P 1o, of the formula ph. (Contributed by BJ, 15-Aug-2024.)
|- if ( ph , 1o , (/) ) e. ~P 1o
Theorem	bj-charfun 14562*	Properties of the characteristic function on the class X of the class A. (Contributed by BJ, 15-Aug-2024.)
|- ( ph -> F = ( x e. X |-> if ( x e. A , 1o , (/) ) ) )   =>    |- ( ph -> ( ( F : X --> ~P 1o /\ ( F |` ( ( X i^i A ) u. ( X \ A ) ) ) : ( ( X i^i A ) u. ( X \ A ) ) --> 2o ) /\ ( A. x e. ( X i^i A ) ( F ` x ) = 1o /\ A. x e. ( X \ A ) ( F ` x ) = (/) ) ) )
Theorem	bj-charfundc 14563*	Properties of the characteristic function on the class X of the class A, provided membership in A is decidable in X. (Contributed by BJ, 6-Aug-2024.)
|- ( ph -> F = ( x e. X |-> if ( x e. A , 1o , (/) ) ) )   &    |- ( ph -> A. x e. X DECID x e. A )   =>    |- ( ph -> ( F : X --> 2o /\ ( A. x e. ( X i^i A ) ( F ` x ) = 1o /\ A. x e. ( X \ A ) ( F ` x ) = (/) ) ) )
Theorem	bj-charfundcALT 14564*	Alternate proof of bj-charfundc 14563. It was expected to be much shorter since it uses bj-charfun 14562 for the main part of the proof and the rest is basic computations, but these turn out to be lengthy, maybe because of the limited library of available lemmas. (Contributed by BJ, 15-Aug-2024.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) (New usage is discouraged.)
|- ( ph -> F = ( x e. X |-> if ( x e. A , 1o , (/) ) ) )   &    |- ( ph -> A. x e. X DECID x e. A )   =>    |- ( ph -> ( F : X --> 2o /\ ( A. x e. ( X i^i A ) ( F ` x ) = 1o /\ A. x e. ( X \ A ) ( F ` x ) = (/) ) ) )
Theorem	bj-charfunr 14565*	If a class A has a "weak" characteristic function on a class X, then negated membership in A is decidable (in other words, membership in A is testable) in X. The hypothesis imposes that X be a set. As usual, it could be formulated as |- ( ph -> ( F : X --> om /\ ... ) ) to deal with general classes, but that extra generality would not make the theorem much more useful. The theorem would still hold if the codomain of f were any class with testable equality to the point where ( X \ A ) is sent. (Contributed by BJ, 6-Aug-2024.)
|- ( ph -> E. f e. ( om ^m X ) ( A. x e. ( X i^i A ) ( f ` x ) =/= (/) /\ A. x e. ( X \ A ) ( f ` x ) = (/) ) )   =>    |- ( ph -> A. x e. X DECID -. x e. A )
Theorem	bj-charfunbi 14566*	In an ambient set X, if membership in A is stable, then it is decidable if and only if A has a characteristic function. This characterization can be applied to singletons when the set X has stable equality, which is the case as soon as it has a tight apartness relation. (Contributed by BJ, 6-Aug-2024.)
|- ( ph -> X e. V )   &    |- ( ph -> A. x e. X STAB x e. A )   =>    |- ( ph -> ( A. x e. X DECID x e. A <-> E. f e. ( 2o ^m X ) ( A. x e. ( X i^i A ) ( f ` x ) = 1o /\ A. x e. ( X \ A ) ( f ` x ) = (/) ) ) )
12.2.8  Constructive Zermelo--Fraenkel set theory (CZF): Bounded formulas and classes This section develops constructive Zermelo--Fraenkel set theory (CZF) on top of intuitionistic logic. It is a constructive theory in the sense that its logic is intuitionistic and it is predicative. "Predicative" means that new sets can be constructed only from already constructed sets. In particular, the axiom of separation ax-sep 4122 is not predicative (because we cannot allow all formulas to define a subset) and is replaced in CZF by bounded separation ax-bdsep 14639. Because this axiom is weaker than full separation, the axiom of replacement or collection ax-coll 4119 of ZF and IZF has to be strengthened in CZF to the axiom of strong collection ax-strcoll 14737 (which is a theorem of IZF), and the axiom of infinity needs a more precise version, the von Neumann axiom of infinity ax-infvn 14696. Similarly, the axiom of powerset ax-pow 4175 is not predicative (checking whether a set is included in another requires to universally quantifier over that "not yet constructed" set) and is replaced in CZF by the axiom of fullness or the axiom of subset collection ax-sscoll 14742. In an intuitionistic context, the axiom of regularity is stated in IZF as well as in CZF as the axiom of set induction ax-setind 4537. It is sometimes interesting to study the weakening of CZF where that axiom is replaced by bounded set induction ax-bdsetind 14723. For more details on CZF, a useful set of notes is Peter Aczel and Michael Rathjen, CST Book draft. (available at http://www1.maths.leeds.ac.uk/~rathjen/book.pdf 14723) and an interesting article is Michael Shulman, Comparing material and structural set theories, Annals of Pure and Applied Logic, Volume 170, Issue 4 (Apr. 2019), 465--504. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.1808.05204 14723 I also thank Michael Rathjen and Michael Shulman for useful hints in the formulation of some results.
12.2.8.1  Bounded formulas The present definition of bounded formulas emerged from a discussion on GitHub between Jim Kingdon, Mario Carneiro and I, started 23-Sept-2019 (see https://github.com/metamath/set.mm/issues/1173 and links therein). In order to state certain axiom schemes of Constructive Zermelo–Fraenkel (CZF) set theory, like the axiom scheme of bounded (or restricted, or Δ0) separation, it is necessary to distinguish certain formulas, called bounded (or restricted, or Δ0) formulas. The necessity of considering bounded formulas also arises in several theories of bounded arithmetic, both classical or intuitionistic, for instance to state the axiom scheme of Δ0-induction. To formalize this in Metamath, there are several choices to make. A first choice is to either create a new type for bounded formulas, or to create a predicate on formulas that indicates whether they are bounded. In the first case, one creates a new type "wff0" with a new set of metavariables (ph0 ...) and an axiom "$a wff ph0 " ensuring that bounded formulas are formulas, so that one can reuse existing theorems, and then axioms take the form "$a wff0 ( ph0 -> ps0 )", etc. In the second case, one introduces a predicate "BOUNDED " with the intended meaning that "BOUNDED ph " is a formula meaning that ph is a bounded formula. We choose the second option, since the first would complicate the grammar, risking to make it ambiguous. (TODO: elaborate.) A second choice is to view "bounded" either as a syntactic or a semantic property. For instance, A. x T. is not syntactically bounded since it has an unbounded universal quantifier, but it is semantically bounded since it is equivalent to T. which is bounded. We choose the second option, so that formulas using defined symbols can be proved bounded. A third choice is in the form of the axioms, either in closed form or in inference form. One cannot state all the axioms in closed form, especially ax-bd0 14568. Indeed, if we posited it in closed form, then we could prove for instance |- ( ph -> BOUNDED ph ) and |- ( -. ph -> BOUNDED ph ) which is problematic (with the law of excluded middle, this would entail that all formulas are bounded, but even without it, too many formulas could be proved bounded...). (TODO: elaborate.) Having ax-bd0 14568 in inference form ensures that a formula can be proved bounded only if it is equivalent *for all values of the free variables* to a syntactically bounded one. The other axioms (ax-bdim 14569 through ax-bdsb 14577) can be written either in closed or inference form. The fact that ax-bd0 14568 is an inference is enough to ensure that the closed forms cannot be "exploited" to prove that some unbounded formulas are bounded. (TODO: check.) However, we state all the axioms in inference form to make it clear that we do not exploit any over-permissiveness. Finally, note that our logic has no terms, only variables. Therefore, we cannot prove for instance that x e. om is a bounded formula. However, since om can be defined as "the y such that PHI" a proof using the fact that x e. om is bounded can be converted to a proof in iset.mm by replacing om with y everywhere and prepending the antecedent PHI, since x e. y is bounded by ax-bdel 14576. For a similar method, see bj-omtrans 14711. Note that one cannot add an axiom |- BOUNDED x e. A since by bdph 14605 it would imply that every formula is bounded.
Syntax	wbd 14567	Syntax for the predicate BOUNDED.
wff BOUNDED ph
Axiom	ax-bd0 14568	If two formulas are equivalent, then boundedness of one implies boundedness of the other. (Contributed by BJ, 3-Oct-2019.)
|- ( ph <-> ps )   =>    |- (BOUNDED ph -> BOUNDED ps )
Axiom	ax-bdim 14569	An implication between two bounded formulas is bounded. (Contributed by BJ, 25-Sep-2019.)
|- BOUNDED ph   &    |- BOUNDED ps   =>    |- BOUNDED ( ph -> ps )
Axiom	ax-bdan 14570	The conjunction of two bounded formulas is bounded. (Contributed by BJ, 25-Sep-2019.)
|- BOUNDED ph   &    |- BOUNDED ps   =>    |- BOUNDED ( ph /\ ps )
Axiom	ax-bdor 14571	The disjunction of two bounded formulas is bounded. (Contributed by BJ, 25-Sep-2019.)
|- BOUNDED ph   &    |- BOUNDED ps   =>    |- BOUNDED ( ph \/ ps )
Axiom	ax-bdn 14572	The negation of a bounded formula is bounded. (Contributed by BJ, 25-Sep-2019.)
|- BOUNDED ph   =>    |- BOUNDED -. ph
Axiom	ax-bdal 14573*	A bounded universal quantification of a bounded formula is bounded. Note the disjoint variable condition on x , y. (Contributed by BJ, 25-Sep-2019.)
|- BOUNDED ph   =>    |- BOUNDED A. x e. y ph
Axiom	ax-bdex 14574*	A bounded existential quantification of a bounded formula is bounded. Note the disjoint variable condition on x , y. (Contributed by BJ, 25-Sep-2019.)
|- BOUNDED ph   =>    |- BOUNDED E. x e. y ph
Axiom	ax-bdeq 14575	An atomic formula is bounded (equality predicate). (Contributed by BJ, 3-Oct-2019.)
|- BOUNDED x = y
Axiom	ax-bdel 14576	An atomic formula is bounded (membership predicate). (Contributed by BJ, 3-Oct-2019.)
|- BOUNDED x e. y
Axiom	ax-bdsb 14577	A formula resulting from proper substitution in a bounded formula is bounded. This probably cannot be proved from the other axioms, since neither the definiens in df-sb 1763, nor probably any other equivalent formula, is syntactically bounded. (Contributed by BJ, 3-Oct-2019.)
|- BOUNDED ph   =>    |- BOUNDED [ y / x ] ph
Theorem	bdeq 14578	Equality property for the predicate BOUNDED. (Contributed by BJ, 3-Oct-2019.)
|- ( ph <-> ps )   =>    |- (BOUNDED ph <-> BOUNDED ps )
Theorem	bd0 14579	A formula equivalent to a bounded one is bounded. See also bd0r 14580. (Contributed by BJ, 3-Oct-2019.)
|- BOUNDED ph   &    |- ( ph <-> ps )   =>    |- BOUNDED ps
Theorem	bd0r 14580	A formula equivalent to a bounded one is bounded. Stated with a commuted (compared with bd0 14579) biconditional in the hypothesis, to work better with definitions ( ps is the definiendum that one wants to prove bounded). (Contributed by BJ, 3-Oct-2019.)
|- BOUNDED ph   &    |- ( ps <-> ph )   =>    |- BOUNDED ps
Theorem	bdbi 14581	A biconditional between two bounded formulas is bounded. (Contributed by BJ, 3-Oct-2019.)
|- BOUNDED ph   &    |- BOUNDED ps   =>    |- BOUNDED ( ph <-> ps )
Theorem	bdstab 14582	Stability of a bounded formula is bounded. (Contributed by BJ, 3-Oct-2019.)
|- BOUNDED ph   =>    |- BOUNDED STAB ph
Theorem	bddc 14583	Decidability of a bounded formula is bounded. (Contributed by BJ, 3-Oct-2019.)
|- BOUNDED ph   =>    |- BOUNDED DECID ph
Theorem	bd3or 14584	A disjunction of three bounded formulas is bounded. (Contributed by BJ, 3-Oct-2019.)
|- BOUNDED ph   &    |- BOUNDED ps   &    |- BOUNDED ch   =>    |- BOUNDED ( ph \/ ps \/ ch )
Theorem	bd3an 14585	A conjunction of three bounded formulas is bounded. (Contributed by BJ, 3-Oct-2019.)
|- BOUNDED ph   &    |- BOUNDED ps   &    |- BOUNDED ch   =>    |- BOUNDED ( ph /\ ps /\ ch )
Theorem	bdth 14586	A truth (a (closed) theorem) is a bounded formula. (Contributed by BJ, 6-Oct-2019.)
|- ph   =>    |- BOUNDED ph
Theorem	bdtru 14587	The truth value T. is bounded. (Contributed by BJ, 3-Oct-2019.)
|- BOUNDED T.
Theorem	bdfal 14588	The truth value F. is bounded. (Contributed by BJ, 3-Oct-2019.)
|- BOUNDED F.
Theorem	bdnth 14589	A falsity is a bounded formula. (Contributed by BJ, 6-Oct-2019.)
|- -. ph   =>    |- BOUNDED ph
Theorem	bdnthALT 14590	Alternate proof of bdnth 14589 not using bdfal 14588. Then, bdfal 14588 can be proved from this theorem, using fal 1360. The total number of proof steps would be 17 (for bdnthALT 14590) + 3 = 20, which is more than 8 (for bdfal 14588) + 9 (for bdnth 14589) = 17. (Contributed by BJ, 6-Oct-2019.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) (New usage is discouraged.)
|- -. ph   =>    |- BOUNDED ph
Theorem	bdxor 14591	The exclusive disjunction of two bounded formulas is bounded. (Contributed by BJ, 3-Oct-2019.)
|- BOUNDED ph   &    |- BOUNDED ps   =>    |- BOUNDED ( ph \/_ ps )
Theorem	bj-bdcel 14592*	Boundedness of a membership formula. (Contributed by BJ, 8-Dec-2019.)
|- BOUNDED y = A   =>    |- BOUNDED A e. x
Theorem	bdab 14593	Membership in a class defined by class abstraction using a bounded formula, is a bounded formula. (Contributed by BJ, 3-Oct-2019.)
|- BOUNDED ph   =>    |- BOUNDED x e. { y | ph }
Theorem	bdcdeq 14594	Conditional equality of a bounded formula is a bounded formula. (Contributed by BJ, 16-Oct-2019.)
|- BOUNDED ph   =>    |- BOUNDED CondEq ( x = y -> ph )
12.2.8.2  Bounded classes In line with our definitions of classes as extensions of predicates, it is useful to define a predicate for bounded classes, which is done in df-bdc 14596. Note that this notion is only a technical device which can be used to shorten proofs of (semantic) boundedness of formulas. As will be clear by the end of this subsection (see for instance bdop 14630), one can prove the boundedness of any concrete term using only setvars and bounded formulas, for instance, |- BOUNDED ph => |- BOUNDED <. { x | ph } , ( { y , suc z } X. <. t , (/) >. ) >.. The proofs are long since one has to prove boundedness at each step of the construction, without being able to prove general theorems like |- BOUNDED A => |- BOUNDED { A }.
Syntax	wbdc 14595	Syntax for the predicate BOUNDED.
wff BOUNDED A
Definition	df-bdc 14596*	Define a bounded class as one such that membership in this class is a bounded formula. (Contributed by BJ, 3-Oct-2019.)
|- (BOUNDED A <-> A. xBOUNDED x e. A )
Theorem	bdceq 14597	Equality property for the predicate BOUNDED. (Contributed by BJ, 3-Oct-2019.)
|- A = B   =>    |- (BOUNDED A <-> BOUNDED B )
Theorem	bdceqi 14598	A class equal to a bounded one is bounded. Note the use of ax-ext 2159. See also bdceqir 14599. (Contributed by BJ, 3-Oct-2019.)
|- BOUNDED A   &    |- A = B   =>    |- BOUNDED B
Theorem	bdceqir 14599	A class equal to a bounded one is bounded. Stated with a commuted (compared with bdceqi 14598) equality in the hypothesis, to work better with definitions ( B is the definiendum that one wants to prove bounded; see comment of bd0r 14580). (Contributed by BJ, 3-Oct-2019.)
|- BOUNDED A   &    |- B = A   =>    |- BOUNDED B
Theorem	bdel 14600*	The belonging of a setvar in a bounded class is a bounded formula. (Contributed by BJ, 3-Oct-2019.)
|- (BOUNDED A -> BOUNDED x e. A )