P. 15 of Theorem List - Intuitionistic Logic Explorer

Theorem List for Intuitionistic Logic Explorer - 1401-1500   *Has distinct variable group(s)

Type	Label	Description
Statement
Theorem	tru 1401	The truth value T. is provable. (Contributed by Anthony Hart, 13-Oct-2010.)
|- T.
Syntax	wfal 1402	F. is a wff.
wff F.
Definition	df-fal 1403	Definition of the truth value "false", or "falsum", denoted by F.. See also df-tru 1400. (Contributed by Anthony Hart, 22-Oct-2010.)
|- ( F. <-> -. T. )
Theorem	fal 1404	The truth value F. is refutable. (Contributed by Anthony Hart, 22-Oct-2010.) (Proof shortened by Mel L. O'Cat, 11-Mar-2012.)
|- -. F.
Theorem	dftru2 1405	An alternate definition of "true". (Contributed by Anthony Hart, 13-Oct-2010.) (Revised by BJ, 12-Jul-2019.) (New usage is discouraged.)
|- ( T. <-> ( ph -> ph ) )
Theorem	mptru 1406	Eliminate T. as an antecedent. A proposition implied by T. is true. (Contributed by Mario Carneiro, 13-Mar-2014.)
|- ( T. -> ph )   =>    |- ph
Theorem	tbtru 1407	A proposition is equivalent to itself being equivalent to T.. (Contributed by Anthony Hart, 14-Aug-2011.)
|- ( ph <-> ( ph <-> T. ) )
Theorem	nbfal 1408	The negation of a proposition is equivalent to itself being equivalent to F.. (Contributed by Anthony Hart, 14-Aug-2011.)
|- ( -. ph <-> ( ph <-> F. ) )
Theorem	bitru 1409	A theorem is equivalent to truth. (Contributed by Mario Carneiro, 9-May-2015.)
|- ph   =>    |- ( ph <-> T. )
Theorem	bifal 1410	A contradiction is equivalent to falsehood. (Contributed by Mario Carneiro, 9-May-2015.)
|- -. ph   =>    |- ( ph <-> F. )
Theorem	falim 1411	The truth value F. implies anything. Also called the principle of explosion, or "ex falso quodlibet". (Contributed by FL, 20-Mar-2011.) (Proof shortened by Anthony Hart, 1-Aug-2011.)
|- ( F. -> ph )
Theorem	falimd 1412	The truth value F. implies anything. (Contributed by Mario Carneiro, 9-Feb-2017.)
|- ( ( ph /\ F. ) -> ps )
Theorem	trud 1413	Anything implies T.. (Contributed by FL, 20-Mar-2011.) (Proof shortened by Anthony Hart, 1-Aug-2011.)
|- ( ph -> T. )
Theorem	truan 1414	True can be removed from a conjunction. (Contributed by FL, 20-Mar-2011.) (Proof shortened by Wolf Lammen, 21-Jul-2019.)
|- ( ( T. /\ ph ) <-> ph )
Theorem	dfnot 1415	Given falsum, we can define the negation of a wff ph as the statement that a contradiction follows from assuming ph. (Contributed by Mario Carneiro, 9-Feb-2017.) (Proof shortened by Wolf Lammen, 21-Jul-2019.)
|- ( -. ph <-> ( ph -> F. ) )
Theorem	inegd 1416	Negation introduction rule from natural deduction. (Contributed by Mario Carneiro, 9-Feb-2017.)
|- ( ( ph /\ ps ) -> F. )   =>    |- ( ph -> -. ps )
Theorem	pm2.21fal 1417	If a wff and its negation are provable, then falsum is provable. (Contributed by Mario Carneiro, 9-Feb-2017.)
|- ( ph -> ps )   &    |- ( ph -> -. ps )   =>    |- ( ph -> F. )
Theorem	pclem6 1418	Negation inferred from embedded conjunct. (Contributed by NM, 20-Aug-1993.) (Proof rewritten by Jim Kingdon, 4-May-2018.)
|- ( ( ph <-> ( ps /\ -. ph ) ) -> -. ps )
1.2.14  Logical 'xor'
Syntax	wxo 1419	Extend wff definition to include exclusive disjunction ('xor').
wff ( ph \/_ ps )
Definition	df-xor 1420	Define exclusive disjunction (logical 'xor'). Return true if either the left or right, but not both, are true. Contrast with /\ (wa 104), \/ (wo 715), and -> (wi 4) . (Contributed by FL, 22-Nov-2010.) (Modified by Jim Kingdon, 1-Mar-2018.)
|- ( ( ph \/_ ps ) <-> ( ( ph \/ ps ) /\ -. ( ph /\ ps ) ) )
Theorem	xoranor 1421	One way of defining exclusive or. Equivalent to df-xor 1420. (Contributed by Jim Kingdon and Mario Carneiro, 1-Mar-2018.)
|- ( ( ph \/_ ps ) <-> ( ( ph \/ ps ) /\ ( -. ph \/ -. ps ) ) )
Theorem	excxor 1422	This tautology shows that xor is really exclusive. (Contributed by FL, 22-Nov-2010.) (Proof rewritten by Jim Kingdon, 5-May-2018.)
|- ( ( ph \/_ ps ) <-> ( ( ph /\ -. ps ) \/ ( -. ph /\ ps ) ) )
Theorem	xoror 1423	XOR implies OR. (Contributed by BJ, 19-Apr-2019.)
|- ( ( ph \/_ ps ) -> ( ph \/ ps ) )
Theorem	xorbi2d 1424	Deduction joining an equivalence and a left operand to form equivalence of exclusive-or. (Contributed by Jim Kingdon, 7-Oct-2018.)
|- ( ph -> ( ps <-> ch ) )   =>    |- ( ph -> ( ( th \/_ ps ) <-> ( th \/_ ch ) ) )
Theorem	xorbi1d 1425	Deduction joining an equivalence and a right operand to form equivalence of exclusive-or. (Contributed by Jim Kingdon, 7-Oct-2018.)
|- ( ph -> ( ps <-> ch ) )   =>    |- ( ph -> ( ( ps \/_ th ) <-> ( ch \/_ th ) ) )
Theorem	xorbi12d 1426	Deduction joining two equivalences to form equivalence of exclusive-or. (Contributed by Jim Kingdon, 7-Oct-2018.)
|- ( ph -> ( ps <-> ch ) )   &    |- ( ph -> ( th <-> ta ) )   =>    |- ( ph -> ( ( ps \/_ th ) <-> ( ch \/_ ta ) ) )
Theorem	xorbi12i 1427	Equality property for XOR. (Contributed by Mario Carneiro, 4-Sep-2016.)
|- ( ph <-> ps )   &    |- ( ch <-> th )   =>    |- ( ( ph \/_ ch ) <-> ( ps \/_ th ) )
Theorem	xorbin 1428	A consequence of exclusive or. In classical logic the converse also holds. (Contributed by Jim Kingdon, 8-Mar-2018.)
|- ( ( ph \/_ ps ) -> ( ph <-> -. ps ) )
Theorem	pm5.18im 1429	One direction of pm5.18dc 890, which holds for all propositions, not just decidable propositions. (Contributed by Jim Kingdon, 10-Mar-2018.)
|- ( ( ph <-> ps ) -> -. ( ph <-> -. ps ) )
Theorem	xornbi 1430	A consequence of exclusive or. For decidable propositions this is an equivalence, as seen at xornbidc 1435. (Contributed by Jim Kingdon, 10-Mar-2018.)
|- ( ( ph \/_ ps ) -> -. ( ph <-> ps ) )
Theorem	xor3dc 1431	Two ways to express "exclusive or" between decidable propositions. (Contributed by Jim Kingdon, 12-Apr-2018.)
|- (DECID ph -> (DECID ps -> ( -. ( ph <-> ps ) <-> ( ph <-> -. ps ) ) ) )
Theorem	xorcom 1432	\/_ is commutative. (Contributed by David A. Wheeler, 6-Oct-2018.)
|- ( ( ph \/_ ps ) <-> ( ps \/_ ph ) )
Theorem	pm5.15dc 1433	A decidable proposition is equivalent to a decidable proposition or its negation. Based on theorem *5.15 of [WhiteheadRussell] p. 124. (Contributed by Jim Kingdon, 18-Apr-2018.)
|- (DECID ph -> (DECID ps -> ( ( ph <-> ps ) \/ ( ph <-> -. ps ) ) ) )
Theorem	xor2dc 1434	Two ways to express "exclusive or" between decidable propositions. (Contributed by Jim Kingdon, 17-Apr-2018.)
|- (DECID ph -> (DECID ps -> ( -. ( ph <-> ps ) <-> ( ( ph \/ ps ) /\ -. ( ph /\ ps ) ) ) ) )
Theorem	xornbidc 1435	Exclusive or is equivalent to negated biconditional for decidable propositions. (Contributed by Jim Kingdon, 27-Apr-2018.)
|- (DECID ph -> (DECID ps -> ( ( ph \/_ ps ) <-> -. ( ph <-> ps ) ) ) )
Theorem	xordc 1436	Two ways to express "exclusive or" between decidable propositions. Theorem *5.22 of [WhiteheadRussell] p. 124, but for decidable propositions. (Contributed by Jim Kingdon, 5-May-2018.)
|- (DECID ph -> (DECID ps -> ( -. ( ph <-> ps ) <-> ( ( ph /\ -. ps ) \/ ( ps /\ -. ph ) ) ) ) )
Theorem	xordc1 1437	Exclusive or implies the left proposition is decidable. (Contributed by Jim Kingdon, 12-Mar-2018.)
|- ( ( ph \/_ ps ) -> DECID ph )
Theorem	nbbndc 1438	Move negation outside of biconditional, for decidable propositions. Compare Theorem *5.18 of [WhiteheadRussell] p. 124. (Contributed by Jim Kingdon, 18-Apr-2018.)
|- (DECID ph -> (DECID ps -> ( ( -. ph <-> ps ) <-> -. ( ph <-> ps ) ) ) )
Theorem	biassdc 1439	Associative law for the biconditional, for decidable propositions. The classical version (without the decidability conditions) is an axiom of system DS in Vladimir Lifschitz, "On calculational proofs", Annals of Pure and Applied Logic, 113:207-224, 2002, http://www.cs.utexas.edu/users/ai-lab/pub-view.php?PubID=26805, and, interestingly, was not included in Principia Mathematica but was apparently first noted by Jan Lukasiewicz circa 1923. (Contributed by Jim Kingdon, 4-May-2018.)
|- (DECID ph -> (DECID ps -> (DECID ch -> ( ( ( ph <-> ps ) <-> ch ) <-> ( ph <-> ( ps <-> ch ) ) ) ) ) )
Theorem	bilukdc 1440	Lukasiewicz's shortest axiom for equivalential calculus (but modified to require decidable propositions). Storrs McCall, ed., Polish Logic 1920-1939 (Oxford, 1967), p. 96. (Contributed by Jim Kingdon, 5-May-2018.)
|- ( ( (DECID ph /\ DECID ps ) /\ DECID ch ) -> ( ( ph <-> ps ) <-> ( ( ch <-> ps ) <-> ( ph <-> ch ) ) ) )
Theorem	dfbi3dc 1441	An alternate definition of the biconditional for decidable propositions. Theorem *5.23 of [WhiteheadRussell] p. 124, but with decidability conditions. (Contributed by Jim Kingdon, 5-May-2018.)
|- (DECID ph -> (DECID ps -> ( ( ph <-> ps ) <-> ( ( ph /\ ps ) \/ ( -. ph /\ -. ps ) ) ) ) )
Theorem	pm5.24dc 1442	Theorem *5.24 of [WhiteheadRussell] p. 124, but for decidable propositions. (Contributed by Jim Kingdon, 5-May-2018.)
|- (DECID ph -> (DECID ps -> ( -. ( ( ph /\ ps ) \/ ( -. ph /\ -. ps ) ) <-> ( ( ph /\ -. ps ) \/ ( ps /\ -. ph ) ) ) ) )
Theorem	xordidc 1443	Conjunction distributes over exclusive-or, for decidable propositions. This is one way to interpret the distributive law of multiplication over addition in modulo 2 arithmetic. (Contributed by Jim Kingdon, 14-Jul-2018.)
|- (DECID ph -> (DECID ps -> (DECID ch -> ( ( ph /\ ( ps \/_ ch ) ) <-> ( ( ph /\ ps ) \/_ ( ph /\ ch ) ) ) ) ) )
Theorem	anxordi 1444	Conjunction distributes over exclusive-or. (Contributed by Mario Carneiro and Jim Kingdon, 7-Oct-2018.)
|- ( ( ph /\ ( ps \/_ ch ) ) <-> ( ( ph /\ ps ) \/_ ( ph /\ ch ) ) )
1.2.15  Truth tables: Operations on true and false constants For classical logic, truth tables can be used to define propositional logic operations, by showing the results of those operations for all possible combinations of true (T.) and false (F.). Although the intuitionistic logic connectives are not as simply defined, T. and F. do play similar roles as in classical logic and most theorems from classical logic continue to hold. Here we show that our definitions and axioms produce equivalent results for T. and F. as we would get from truth tables for /\ (conjunction aka logical 'and') wa 104, \/ (disjunction aka logical inclusive 'or') wo 715, -> (implies) wi 4, -. (not) wn 3, <-> (logical equivalence) df-bi 117, and \/_ (exclusive or) df-xor 1420.
Theorem	truantru 1445	A /\ identity. (Contributed by Anthony Hart, 22-Oct-2010.)
|- ( ( T. /\ T. ) <-> T. )
Theorem	truanfal 1446	A /\ identity. (Contributed by Anthony Hart, 22-Oct-2010.)
|- ( ( T. /\ F. ) <-> F. )
Theorem	falantru 1447	A /\ identity. (Contributed by David A. Wheeler, 23-Feb-2018.)
|- ( ( F. /\ T. ) <-> F. )
Theorem	falanfal 1448	A /\ identity. (Contributed by Anthony Hart, 22-Oct-2010.)
|- ( ( F. /\ F. ) <-> F. )
Theorem	truortru 1449	A \/ identity. (Contributed by Anthony Hart, 22-Oct-2010.) (Proof shortened by Andrew Salmon, 13-May-2011.)
|- ( ( T. \/ T. ) <-> T. )
Theorem	truorfal 1450	A \/ identity. (Contributed by Anthony Hart, 22-Oct-2010.)
|- ( ( T. \/ F. ) <-> T. )
Theorem	falortru 1451	A \/ identity. (Contributed by Anthony Hart, 22-Oct-2010.)
|- ( ( F. \/ T. ) <-> T. )
Theorem	falorfal 1452	A \/ identity. (Contributed by Anthony Hart, 22-Oct-2010.) (Proof shortened by Andrew Salmon, 13-May-2011.)
|- ( ( F. \/ F. ) <-> F. )
Theorem	truimtru 1453	A -> identity. (Contributed by Anthony Hart, 22-Oct-2010.)
|- ( ( T. -> T. ) <-> T. )
Theorem	truimfal 1454	A -> identity. (Contributed by Anthony Hart, 22-Oct-2010.) (Proof shortened by Andrew Salmon, 13-May-2011.)
|- ( ( T. -> F. ) <-> F. )
Theorem	falimtru 1455	A -> identity. (Contributed by Anthony Hart, 22-Oct-2010.)
|- ( ( F. -> T. ) <-> T. )
Theorem	falimfal 1456	A -> identity. (Contributed by Anthony Hart, 22-Oct-2010.)
|- ( ( F. -> F. ) <-> T. )
Theorem	nottru 1457	A -. identity. (Contributed by Anthony Hart, 22-Oct-2010.)
|- ( -. T. <-> F. )
Theorem	notfal 1458	A -. identity. (Contributed by Anthony Hart, 22-Oct-2010.) (Proof shortened by Andrew Salmon, 13-May-2011.)
|- ( -. F. <-> T. )
Theorem	trubitru 1459	A <-> identity. (Contributed by Anthony Hart, 22-Oct-2010.) (Proof shortened by Andrew Salmon, 13-May-2011.)
|- ( ( T. <-> T. ) <-> T. )
Theorem	trubifal 1460	A <-> identity. (Contributed by David A. Wheeler, 23-Feb-2018.)
|- ( ( T. <-> F. ) <-> F. )
Theorem	falbitru 1461	A <-> identity. (Contributed by Anthony Hart, 22-Oct-2010.) (Proof shortened by Andrew Salmon, 13-May-2011.)
|- ( ( F. <-> T. ) <-> F. )
Theorem	falbifal 1462	A <-> identity. (Contributed by Anthony Hart, 22-Oct-2010.) (Proof shortened by Andrew Salmon, 13-May-2011.)
|- ( ( F. <-> F. ) <-> T. )
Theorem	truxortru 1463	A \/_ identity. (Contributed by David A. Wheeler, 2-Mar-2018.)
|- ( ( T. \/_ T. ) <-> F. )
Theorem	truxorfal 1464	A \/_ identity. (Contributed by David A. Wheeler, 2-Mar-2018.)
|- ( ( T. \/_ F. ) <-> T. )
Theorem	falxortru 1465	A \/_ identity. (Contributed by David A. Wheeler, 2-Mar-2018.)
|- ( ( F. \/_ T. ) <-> T. )
Theorem	falxorfal 1466	A \/_ identity. (Contributed by David A. Wheeler, 2-Mar-2018.)
|- ( ( F. \/_ F. ) <-> F. )
1.2.16  Stoic logic indemonstrables (Chrysippus of Soli) The Greek Stoics developed a system of logic. The Stoic Chrysippus, in particular, was often considered one of the greatest logicians of antiquity. Stoic logic is different from Aristotle's system, since it focuses on propositional logic, though later thinkers did combine the systems of the Stoics with Aristotle. Jan Lukasiewicz reports, "For anybody familiar with mathematical logic it is self-evident that the Stoic dialectic is the ancient form of modern propositional logic" ( On the history of the logic of proposition by Jan Lukasiewicz (1934), translated in: Selected Works - Edited by Ludwik Borkowski - Amsterdam, North-Holland, 1970 pp. 197-217, referenced in "History of Logic" https://www.historyoflogic.com/logic-stoics.htm). For more about Aristotle's system, see barbara and related theorems. A key part of the Stoic logic system is a set of five "indemonstrables" assigned to Chrysippus of Soli by Diogenes Laertius, though in general it is difficult to assign specific ideas to specific thinkers. The indemonstrables are described in, for example, [Lopez-Astorga] p. 11 , [Sanford] p. 39, and [Hitchcock] p. 5. These indemonstrables are modus ponendo ponens (modus ponens) ax-mp 5, modus tollendo tollens (modus tollens) mto 668, modus ponendo tollens I mptnan 1467, modus ponendo tollens II mptxor 1468, and modus tollendo ponens (exclusive-or version) mtpxor 1470. The first is an axiom, the second is already proved; in this section we prove the other three. Since we assume or prove all of indemonstrables, the system of logic we use here is as at least as strong as the set of Stoic indemonstrables. Note that modus tollendo ponens mtpxor 1470 originally used exclusive-or, but over time the name modus tollendo ponens has increasingly referred to an inclusive-or variation, which is proved in mtpor 1469. This set of indemonstrables is not the entire system of Stoic logic.
Theorem	mptnan 1467	Modus ponendo tollens 1, one of the "indemonstrables" in Stoic logic. See rule 1 on [Lopez-Astorga] p. 12 , rule 1 on [Sanford] p. 40, and rule A3 in [Hitchcock] p. 5. Sanford describes this rule second (after mptxor 1468) as a "safer, and these days much more common" version of modus ponendo tollens because it avoids confusion between inclusive-or and exclusive-or. (Contributed by David A. Wheeler, 3-Jul-2016.)
|- ph   &    |- -. ( ph /\ ps )   =>    |- -. ps
Theorem	mptxor 1468	Modus ponendo tollens 2, one of the "indemonstrables" in Stoic logic. Note that this uses exclusive-or \/_. See rule 2 on [Lopez-Astorga] p. 12 , rule 4 on [Sanford] p. 39 and rule A4 in [Hitchcock] p. 5 . (Contributed by David A. Wheeler, 2-Mar-2018.)
|- ph   &    |- ( ph \/_ ps )   =>    |- -. ps
Theorem	mtpor 1469	Modus tollendo ponens (inclusive-or version), aka disjunctive syllogism. This is similar to mtpxor 1470, one of the five original "indemonstrables" in Stoic logic. However, in Stoic logic this rule used exclusive-or, while the name modus tollendo ponens often refers to a variant of the rule that uses inclusive-or instead. The rule says, "if ph is not true, and ph or ps (or both) are true, then ps must be true". An alternate phrasing is, "Once you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth". -- Sherlock Holmes (Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, 1890: The Sign of the Four, ch. 6). (Contributed by David A. Wheeler, 3-Jul-2016.) (Proof shortened by Wolf Lammen, 11-Nov-2017.)
|- -. ph   &    |- ( ph \/ ps )   =>    |- ps
Theorem	mtpxor 1470	Modus tollendo ponens (original exclusive-or version), aka disjunctive syllogism, similar to mtpor 1469, one of the five "indemonstrables" in Stoic logic. The rule says, "if ph is not true, and either ph or ps (exclusively) are true, then ps must be true". Today the name "modus tollendo ponens" often refers to a variant, the inclusive-or version as defined in mtpor 1469. See rule 3 on [Lopez-Astorga] p. 12 (note that the "or" is the same as mptxor 1468, that is, it is exclusive-or df-xor 1420), rule 3 of [Sanford] p. 39 (where it is not as clearly stated which kind of "or" is used but it appears to be in the same sense as mptxor 1468), and rule A5 in [Hitchcock] p. 5 (exclusive-or is expressly used). (Contributed by David A. Wheeler, 4-Jul-2016.) (Proof shortened by Wolf Lammen, 11-Nov-2017.) (Proof shortened by BJ, 19-Apr-2019.)
|- -. ph   &    |- ( ph \/_ ps )   =>    |- ps
Theorem	stoic1a 1471	Stoic logic Thema 1 (part a). The first thema of the four Stoic logic themata, in its basic form, was: "When from two (assertibles) a third follows, then from either of them together with the contradictory of the conclusion the contradictory of the other follows." (Apuleius Int. 209.9-14), see [Bobzien] p. 117 and https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/logic-ancient/ We will represent thema 1 as two very similar rules stoic1a 1471 and stoic1b 1472 to represent each side. (Contributed by David A. Wheeler, 16-Feb-2019.) (Proof shortened by Wolf Lammen, 21-May-2020.)
|- ( ( ph /\ ps ) -> th )   =>    |- ( ( ph /\ -. th ) -> -. ps )
Theorem	stoic1b 1472	Stoic logic Thema 1 (part b). The other part of thema 1 of Stoic logic; see stoic1a 1471. (Contributed by David A. Wheeler, 16-Feb-2019.)
|- ( ( ph /\ ps ) -> th )   =>    |- ( ( ps /\ -. th ) -> -. ph )
Theorem	stoic2a 1473	Stoic logic Thema 2 version a. Statement T2 of [Bobzien] p. 117 shows a reconstructed version of Stoic logic thema 2 as follows: "When from two assertibles a third follows, and from the third and one (or both) of the two another follows, then this other follows from the first two." Bobzien uses constructs such as ph, ps |- ch; in Metamath we will represent that construct as ph /\ ps -> ch. This version a is without the phrase "or both"; see stoic2b 1474 for the version with the phrase "or both". We already have this rule as syldan 282, so here we show the equivalence and discourage its use. (New usage is discouraged.) (Contributed by David A. Wheeler, 17-Feb-2019.)
|- ( ( ph /\ ps ) -> ch )   &    |- ( ( ph /\ ch ) -> th )   =>    |- ( ( ph /\ ps ) -> th )
Theorem	stoic2b 1474	Stoic logic Thema 2 version b. See stoic2a 1473. Version b is with the phrase "or both". We already have this rule as mpd3an3 1374, so here we prove the equivalence and discourage its use. (New usage is discouraged.) (Contributed by David A. Wheeler, 17-Feb-2019.)
|- ( ( ph /\ ps ) -> ch )   &    |- ( ( ph /\ ps /\ ch ) -> th )   =>    |- ( ( ph /\ ps ) -> th )
Theorem	stoic3 1475	Stoic logic Thema 3. Statement T3 of [Bobzien] p. 116-117 discusses Stoic logic thema 3. "When from two (assemblies) a third follows, and from the one that follows (i.e., the third) together with another, external external assumption, another follows, then other follows from the first two and the externally co-assumed one. (Simp. Cael. 237.2-4)" (Contributed by David A. Wheeler, 17-Feb-2019.)
|- ( ( ph /\ ps ) -> ch )   &    |- ( ( ch /\ th ) -> ta )   =>    |- ( ( ph /\ ps /\ th ) -> ta )
Theorem	stoic4a 1476	Stoic logic Thema 4 version a. Statement T4 of [Bobzien] p. 117 shows a reconstructed version of Stoic logic thema 4: "When from two assertibles a third follows, and from the third and one (or both) of the two and one (or more) external assertible(s) another follows, then this other follows from the first two and the external(s)." We use th to represent the "external" assertibles. This is version a, which is without the phrase "or both"; see stoic4b 1477 for the version with the phrase "or both". (Contributed by David A. Wheeler, 17-Feb-2019.)
|- ( ( ph /\ ps ) -> ch )   &    |- ( ( ch /\ ph /\ th ) -> ta )   =>    |- ( ( ph /\ ps /\ th ) -> ta )
Theorem	stoic4b 1477	Stoic logic Thema 4 version b. This is version b, which is with the phrase "or both". See stoic4a 1476 for more information. (Contributed by David A. Wheeler, 17-Feb-2019.)
|- ( ( ph /\ ps ) -> ch )   &    |- ( ( ( ch /\ ph /\ ps ) /\ th ) -> ta )   =>    |- ( ( ph /\ ps /\ th ) -> ta )
1.2.17  Logical implication (continued)
Theorem	syl6an 1478	A syllogism deduction combined with conjoining antecedents. (Contributed by Alan Sare, 28-Oct-2011.)
|- ( ph -> ps )   &    |- ( ph -> ( ch -> th ) )   &    |- ( ( ps /\ th ) -> ta )   =>    |- ( ph -> ( ch -> ta ) )
Theorem	syl10 1479	A nested syllogism inference. (Contributed by Alan Sare, 17-Jul-2011.)
|- ( ph -> ( ps -> ch ) )   &    |- ( ph -> ( ps -> ( th -> ta ) ) )   &    |- ( ch -> ( ta -> et ) )   =>    |- ( ph -> ( ps -> ( th -> et ) ) )
Theorem	a1ddd 1480	Triple deduction introducing an antecedent to a wff. Deduction associated with a1dd 48. Double deduction associated with a1d 22. Triple deduction associated with ax-1 6 and a1i 9. (Contributed by Jeff Hankins, 4-Aug-2009.)
|- ( ph -> ( ps -> ( ch -> ta ) ) )   =>    |- ( ph -> ( ps -> ( ch -> ( th -> ta ) ) ) )
Theorem	exbir 1481	Exportation implication also converting head from biconditional to conditional. (Contributed by Alan Sare, 31-Dec-2011.)
|- ( ( ( ph /\ ps ) -> ( ch <-> th ) ) -> ( ph -> ( ps -> ( th -> ch ) ) ) )
Theorem	3impexp 1482	impexp 263 with a 3-conjunct antecedent. (Contributed by Alan Sare, 31-Dec-2011.)
|- ( ( ( ph /\ ps /\ ch ) -> th ) <-> ( ph -> ( ps -> ( ch -> th ) ) ) )
Theorem	3impexpbicom 1483	3impexp 1482 with biconditional consequent of antecedent that is commuted in consequent. (Contributed by Alan Sare, 31-Dec-2011.)
|- ( ( ( ph /\ ps /\ ch ) -> ( th <-> ta ) ) <-> ( ph -> ( ps -> ( ch -> ( ta <-> th ) ) ) ) )
Theorem	3impexpbicomi 1484	Deduction form of 3impexpbicom 1483. (Contributed by Alan Sare, 31-Dec-2011.)
|- ( ( ph /\ ps /\ ch ) -> ( th <-> ta ) )   =>    |- ( ph -> ( ps -> ( ch -> ( ta <-> th ) ) ) )
Theorem	ancomsimp 1485	Closed form of ancoms 268. (Contributed by Alan Sare, 31-Dec-2011.)
|- ( ( ( ph /\ ps ) -> ch ) <-> ( ( ps /\ ph ) -> ch ) )
Theorem	expcomd 1486	Deduction form of expcom 116. (Contributed by Alan Sare, 22-Jul-2012.)
|- ( ph -> ( ( ps /\ ch ) -> th ) )   =>    |- ( ph -> ( ch -> ( ps -> th ) ) )
Theorem	expdcom 1487	Commuted form of expd 258. (Contributed by Alan Sare, 18-Mar-2012.)
|- ( ph -> ( ( ps /\ ch ) -> th ) )   =>    |- ( ps -> ( ch -> ( ph -> th ) ) )
Theorem	simplbi2comg 1488	Implication form of simplbi2com 1489. (Contributed by Alan Sare, 22-Jul-2012.)
|- ( ( ph <-> ( ps /\ ch ) ) -> ( ch -> ( ps -> ph ) ) )
Theorem	simplbi2com 1489	A deduction eliminating a conjunct, similar to simplbi2 385. (Contributed by Alan Sare, 22-Jul-2012.) (Proof shortened by Wolf Lammen, 10-Nov-2012.)
|- ( ph <-> ( ps /\ ch ) )   =>    |- ( ch -> ( ps -> ph ) )
Theorem	syl6ci 1490	A syllogism inference combined with contraction. (Contributed by Alan Sare, 18-Mar-2012.)
|- ( ph -> ( ps -> ch ) )   &    |- ( ph -> th )   &    |- ( ch -> ( th -> ta ) )   =>    |- ( ph -> ( ps -> ta ) )
Theorem	mpisyl 1491	A syllogism combined with a modus ponens inference. (Contributed by Alan Sare, 25-Jul-2011.)
|- ( ph -> ps )   &    |- ch   &    |- ( ps -> ( ch -> th ) )   =>    |- ( ph -> th )
Theorem	dcfromnotnotr 1492	The decidability of a proposition ps follows from a suitable instance of double negation elimination (DNE). Therefore, if we were to introduce DNE as a general principle (without the decidability condition in notnotrdc 850), then we could prove that every proposition is decidable, giving us the classical system of propositional calculus (since DNE itself is classically valid). (Contributed by Adrian Ducourtial, 6-Oct-2025.)
|- ( ph <-> ( ps \/ -. ps ) )   &    |- ( -. -. ph -> ph )   =>    |- DECID ps
Theorem	dcfromcon 1493	The decidability of a proposition ch follows from a suitable instance of the principle of contraposition. Therefore, if we were to introduce contraposition as a general principle (without the decidability condition in condc 860), then we could prove that every proposition is decidable, giving us the classical system of propositional calculus (since the principle of contraposition is itself classically valid). (Contributed by Adrian Ducourtial, 6-Oct-2025.)
|- ( ph <-> ( ch \/ -. ch ) )   &    |- ( ps <-> T. )   &    |- ( ( -. ph -> -. ps ) -> ( ps -> ph ) )   =>    |- DECID ch
Theorem	dcfrompeirce 1494	The decidability of a proposition ch follows from a suitable instance of Peirce's law. Therefore, if we were to introduce Peirce's law as a general principle (without the decidability condition in peircedc 921), then we could prove that every proposition is decidable, giving us the classical system of propositional calculus (since Perice's law is itself classically valid). (Contributed by Adrian Ducourtial, 6-Oct-2025.)
|- ( ph <-> ( ch \/ -. ch ) )   &    |- ( ps <-> F. )   &    |- ( ( ( ph -> ps ) -> ph ) -> ph )   =>    |- DECID ch
1.3  Predicate calculus mostly without distinct variables
1.3.1  Universal quantifier (continued) The universal quantifier was introduced above in wal 1395 for use by df-tru 1400. See the comments in that section. In this section, we continue with the first "real" use of it.
Axiom	ax-5 1495	Axiom of Quantified Implication. Axiom C4 of [Monk2] p. 105. (Contributed by NM, 5-Aug-1993.)
|- ( A. x ( ph -> ps ) -> ( A. x ph -> A. x ps ) )
Axiom	ax-7 1496	Axiom of Quantifier Commutation. This axiom says universal quantifiers can be swapped. One of the predicate logic axioms which do not involve equality. Axiom scheme C6' in [Megill] p. 448 (p. 16 of the preprint). Also appears as Lemma 12 of [Monk2] p. 109 and Axiom C5-3 of [Monk2] p. 113. (Contributed by NM, 5-Aug-1993.)
|- ( A. x A. y ph -> A. y A. x ph )
Axiom	ax-gen 1497	Rule of Generalization. The postulated inference rule of predicate calculus. See, e.g., Rule 2 of [Hamilton] p. 74. This rule says that if something is unconditionally true, then it is true for all values of a variable. For example, if we have proved x = x, we can conclude A. x x = x or even A. y x = x. Theorem spi 1584 shows we can go the other way also: in other words we can add or remove universal quantifiers from the beginning of any theorem as required. (Contributed by NM, 5-Aug-1993.)
|- ph   =>    |- A. x ph
Theorem	gen2 1498	Generalization applied twice. (Contributed by NM, 30-Apr-1998.)
|- ph   =>    |- A. x A. y ph
Theorem	mpg 1499	Modus ponens combined with generalization. (Contributed by NM, 24-May-1994.)
|- ( A. x ph -> ps )   &    |- ph   =>    |- ps
Theorem	mpgbi 1500	Modus ponens on biconditional combined with generalization. (Contributed by NM, 24-May-1994.) (Proof shortened by Stefan Allan, 28-Oct-2008.)
|- ( A. x ph <-> ps )   &    |- ph   =>    |- ps