P. 158 of Theorem List - Intuitionistic Logic Explorer

Type

Label

Description

Statement

Theorem

iedgedgg 15701

An indexed edge is an edge. (Contributed by AV, 19-Dec-2021.)

|- E = (iEdg ` G )   =>    |- ( ( G e. V /\ Fun E /\ I e. dom E ) -> ( E ` I ) e. (Edg ` G ) )

Theorem

edgopval 15702

The edges of a graph represented as ordered pair. (Contributed by AV, 1-Jan-2020.) (Revised by AV, 13-Oct-2020.)

|- ( ( V e. W /\ E e. X ) -> (Edg ` <. V , E >. ) = ran E )

Theorem

edgov 15703

The edges of a graph represented as ordered pair, shown as operation value. Although a little less intuitive, this representation is often used because it is shorter than the representation as function value of a graph given as ordered pair, see edgopval 15702. The representation ran E for the set of edges is even shorter, though. (Contributed by AV, 2-Jan-2020.) (Revised by AV, 13-Oct-2020.)

|- ( ( V e. W /\ E e. X ) -> ( VEdg E ) = ran E )

Theorem

edgstruct 15704

The edges of a graph represented as an extensible structure with vertices as base set and indexed edges. (Contributed by AV, 13-Oct-2020.)

|- G = { <. ( Base ` ndx ) , V >. , <. (.ef ` ndx ) , E >. }   =>    |- ( ( V e. W /\ E e. X ) -> (Edg ` G ) = ran E )

Theorem

edgiedgbg 15705*

A set is an edge iff it is an indexed edge. (Contributed by AV, 17-Oct-2020.) (Revised by AV, 8-Dec-2021.)

|- I = (iEdg ` G )   =>    |- ( ( G e. V /\ Fun I ) -> ( E e. (Edg ` G ) <-> E. x e. dom I E = ( I ` x ) ) )

Theorem

edg0iedg0g 15706

There is no edge in a graph iff its edge function is empty. (Contributed by AV, 15-Dec-2020.) (Revised by AV, 8-Dec-2021.)

|- I = (iEdg ` G )   &    |- E = (Edg ` G )   =>    |- ( ( G e. V /\ Fun I ) -> ( E = (/) <-> I = (/) ) )

12.2  Undirected graphs

12.2.1  Undirected hypergraphs

Syntax

cuhgr 15707

Extend class notation with undirected hypergraphs.

class UHGraph

Syntax

cushgr 15708

Extend class notation with undirected simple hypergraphs.

class USHGraph

Definition

df-uhgrm 15709*

Define the class of all undirected hypergraphs. An undirected hypergraph consists of a set v (of "vertices") and a function e (representing indexed "edges") into the set of inhabited subsets of this set. (Contributed by Alexander van der Vekens, 26-Dec-2017.) (Revised by Jim Kingdon, 29-Dec-2025.)

|- UHGraph = { g | [. (Vtx ` g ) / v ]. [. (iEdg ` g ) / e ]. e : dom e --> { s e. ~P v | E. j j e. s } }

Definition

df-ushgrm 15710*

Define the class of all undirected simple hypergraphs. An undirected simple hypergraph is a special (non-simple, multiple, multi-) hypergraph for which the edge function e is an injective (one-to-one) function into subsets of the set of vertices v, representing the (one or more) vertices incident to the edge. This definition corresponds to the definition of hypergraphs in section I.1 of [Bollobas] p. 7 (except that the empty set seems to be allowed to be an "edge") or section 1.10 of [Diestel] p. 27, where "E is a subset of [...] the power set of V, that is the set of all subsets of V" resp. "the elements of E are nonempty subsets (of any cardinality) of V". (Contributed by AV, 19-Jan-2020.) (Revised by Jim Kingdon, 31-Dec-2025.)

|- USHGraph = { g | [. (Vtx ` g ) / v ]. [. (iEdg ` g ) / e ]. e : dom e -1-1-> { s e. ~P v | E. j j e. s } }

Theorem

isuhgrm 15711*

The predicate "is an undirected hypergraph." (Contributed by Alexander van der Vekens, 26-Dec-2017.) (Revised by AV, 9-Oct-2020.)

|- V = (Vtx ` G )   &    |- E = (iEdg ` G )   =>    |- ( G e. U -> ( G e. UHGraph <-> E : dom E --> { s e. ~P V | E. j j e. s } ) )

Theorem

isushgrm 15712*

The predicate "is an undirected simple hypergraph." (Contributed by AV, 19-Jan-2020.) (Revised by AV, 9-Oct-2020.)

|- V = (Vtx ` G )   &    |- E = (iEdg ` G )   =>    |- ( G e. U -> ( G e. USHGraph <-> E : dom E -1-1-> { s e. ~P V | E. j j e. s } ) )

Theorem

uhgrfm 15713*

The edge function of an undirected hypergraph is a function into the power set of the set of vertices. (Contributed by Alexander van der Vekens, 26-Dec-2017.) (Revised by AV, 9-Oct-2020.)

|- V = (Vtx ` G )   &    |- E = (iEdg ` G )   =>    |- ( G e. UHGraph -> E : dom E --> { s e. ~P V | E. j j e. s } )

Theorem

ushgrfm 15714*

The edge function of an undirected simple hypergraph is a one-to-one function into the power set of the set of vertices. (Contributed by AV, 9-Oct-2020.)

|- V = (Vtx ` G )   &    |- E = (iEdg ` G )   =>    |- ( G e. USHGraph -> E : dom E -1-1-> { s e. ~P V | E. j j e. s } )

Theorem

uhgrss 15715

An edge is a subset of vertices. (Contributed by Alexander van der Vekens, 26-Dec-2017.) (Revised by AV, 18-Jan-2020.)

|- V = (Vtx ` G )   &    |- E = (iEdg ` G )   =>    |- ( ( G e. UHGraph /\ F e. dom E ) -> ( E ` F ) C_ V )

Theorem

uhgreq12g 15716

If two sets have the same vertices and the same edges, one set is a hypergraph iff the other set is a hypergraph. (Contributed by Alexander van der Vekens, 26-Dec-2017.) (Revised by AV, 18-Jan-2020.)

|- V = (Vtx ` G )   &    |- E = (iEdg ` G )   &    |- W = (Vtx ` H )   &    |- F = (iEdg ` H )   =>    |- ( ( ( G e. X /\ H e. Y ) /\ ( V = W /\ E = F ) ) -> ( G e. UHGraph <-> H e. UHGraph ) )

Theorem

uhgrfun 15717

The edge function of an undirected hypergraph is a function. (Contributed by Alexander van der Vekens, 26-Dec-2017.) (Revised by AV, 15-Dec-2020.)

|- E = (iEdg ` G )   =>    |- ( G e. UHGraph -> Fun E )

Theorem

uhgrm 15718*

An edge is an inhabited subset of vertices. (Contributed by Mario Carneiro, 11-Mar-2015.) (Revised by AV, 15-Dec-2020.)

|- E = (iEdg ` G )   =>    |- ( ( G e. UHGraph /\ E Fn A /\ F e. A ) -> E. j j e. ( E ` F ) )

Theorem

lpvtx 15719

The endpoints of a loop (which is an edge at index J) are two (identical) vertices A. (Contributed by AV, 1-Feb-2021.)

|- I = (iEdg ` G )   =>    |- ( ( G e. UHGraph /\ J e. dom I /\ ( I ` J ) = { A } ) -> A e. (Vtx ` G ) )

Theorem

ushgruhgr 15720

An undirected simple hypergraph is an undirected hypergraph. (Contributed by AV, 19-Jan-2020.) (Revised by AV, 9-Oct-2020.)

|- ( G e. USHGraph -> G e. UHGraph )

Theorem

isuhgropm 15721*

The property of being an undirected hypergraph represented as an ordered pair. The representation as an ordered pair is the usual representation of a graph, see section I.1 of [Bollobas] p. 1. (Contributed by AV, 1-Jan-2020.) (Revised by AV, 9-Oct-2020.)

|- ( ( V e. W /\ E e. X ) -> ( <. V , E >. e. UHGraph <-> E : dom E --> { s e. ~P V | E. j j e. s } ) )

Theorem

uhgr0e 15722

The empty graph, with vertices but no edges, is a hypergraph. (Contributed by Mario Carneiro, 12-Mar-2015.) (Revised by AV, 25-Nov-2020.)

|- ( ph -> G e. W )   &    |- ( ph -> (iEdg ` G ) = (/) )   =>    |- ( ph -> G e. UHGraph )

Theorem

pw0ss 15723*

There are no inhabited subsets of the empty set. (Contributed by Jim Kingdon, 31-Dec-2025.)

|- { s e. ~P (/) | E. j j e. s } = (/)

Theorem

uhgr0vb 15724

The null graph, with no vertices, is a hypergraph if and only if the edge function is empty. (Contributed by Alexander van der Vekens, 27-Dec-2017.) (Revised by AV, 9-Oct-2020.)

|- ( ( G e. W /\ (Vtx ` G ) = (/) ) -> ( G e. UHGraph <-> (iEdg ` G ) = (/) ) )

Theorem

uhgr0 15725

The null graph represented by an empty set is a hypergraph. (Contributed by AV, 9-Oct-2020.)

|- (/) e. UHGraph

Theorem

uhgrun 15726

The union U of two (undirected) hypergraphs G and H with the same vertex set V is a hypergraph with the vertex set V and the union ( E u. F ) of the (indexed) edges. (Contributed by AV, 11-Oct-2020.) (Revised by AV, 24-Oct-2021.)

|- ( ph -> G e. UHGraph )   &    |- ( ph -> H e. UHGraph )   &    |- E = (iEdg ` G )   &    |- F = (iEdg ` H )   &    |- V = (Vtx ` G )   &    |- ( ph -> (Vtx ` H ) = V )   &    |- ( ph -> ( dom E i^i dom F ) = (/) )   &    |- ( ph -> U e. W )   &    |- ( ph -> (Vtx ` U ) = V )   &    |- ( ph -> (iEdg ` U ) = ( E u. F ) )   =>    |- ( ph -> U e. UHGraph )

Theorem

uhgrunop 15727

The union of two (undirected) hypergraphs (with the same vertex set) represented as ordered pair: If <. V , E >. and <. V , F >. are hypergraphs, then <. V , E u. F >. is a hypergraph (the vertex set stays the same, but the edges from both graphs are kept, possibly resulting in two edges between two vertices). (Contributed by Alexander van der Vekens, 27-Dec-2017.) (Revised by AV, 11-Oct-2020.) (Revised by AV, 24-Oct-2021.)

|- ( ph -> G e. UHGraph )   &    |- ( ph -> H e. UHGraph )   &    |- E = (iEdg ` G )   &    |- F = (iEdg ` H )   &    |- V = (Vtx ` G )   &    |- ( ph -> (Vtx ` H ) = V )   &    |- ( ph -> ( dom E i^i dom F ) = (/) )   =>    |- ( ph -> <. V , ( E u. F ) >. e. UHGraph )

Theorem

ushgrun 15728

The union U of two (undirected) simple hypergraphs G and H with the same vertex set V is a (not necessarily simple) hypergraph with the vertex set V and the union ( E u. F ) of the (indexed) edges. (Contributed by AV, 29-Nov-2020.) (Revised by AV, 24-Oct-2021.)

|- ( ph -> G e. USHGraph )   &    |- ( ph -> H e. USHGraph )   &    |- E = (iEdg ` G )   &    |- F = (iEdg ` H )   &    |- V = (Vtx ` G )   &    |- ( ph -> (Vtx ` H ) = V )   &    |- ( ph -> ( dom E i^i dom F ) = (/) )   &    |- ( ph -> U e. W )   &    |- ( ph -> (Vtx ` U ) = V )   &    |- ( ph -> (iEdg ` U ) = ( E u. F ) )   =>    |- ( ph -> U e. UHGraph )

Theorem

ushgrunop 15729

The union of two (undirected) simple hypergraphs (with the same vertex set) represented as ordered pair: If <. V , E >. and <. V , F >. are simple hypergraphs, then <. V , E u. F >. is a (not necessarily simple) hypergraph - the vertex set stays the same, but the edges from both graphs are kept, possibly resulting in two edges between two vertices. (Contributed by AV, 29-Nov-2020.) (Revised by AV, 24-Oct-2021.)

|- ( ph -> G e. USHGraph )   &    |- ( ph -> H e. USHGraph )   &    |- E = (iEdg ` G )   &    |- F = (iEdg ` H )   &    |- V = (Vtx ` G )   &    |- ( ph -> (Vtx ` H ) = V )   &    |- ( ph -> ( dom E i^i dom F ) = (/) )   =>    |- ( ph -> <. V , ( E u. F ) >. e. UHGraph )

Theorem

incistruhgr 15730*

An incidence structure <. P , L , I >. "where P is a set whose elements are called points, L is a distinct set whose elements are called lines and I C_ ( P X. L ) is the incidence relation" (see Wikipedia "Incidence structure" (24-Oct-2020), https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incidence_structure) implies an undirected hypergraph, if the incidence relation is right-total (to exclude empty edges). The points become the vertices, and the edge function is derived from the incidence relation by mapping each line ("edge") to the set of vertices incident to the line/edge. With P = ( Base ` S ) and by defining two new slots for lines and incidence relations and enhancing the definition of iEdg accordingly, it would even be possible to express that a corresponding incidence structure is an undirected hypergraph. By choosing the incident relation appropriately, other kinds of undirected graphs (pseudographs, multigraphs, simple graphs, etc.) could be defined. (Contributed by AV, 24-Oct-2020.)

|- V = (Vtx ` G )   &    |- E = (iEdg ` G )   =>    |- ( ( G e. W /\ I C_ ( P X. L ) /\ ran I = L ) -> ( ( V = P /\ E = ( e e. L |-> { v e. P | v I e } ) ) -> G e. UHGraph ) )

PART 13  GUIDES AND MISCELLANEA

13.1  Guides (conventions, explanations, and examples)

13.1.1  Conventions

This section describes the conventions we use. These conventions often refer to existing mathematical practices, which are discussed in more detail in other references. The following sources lay out how mathematics is developed without the law of the excluded middle. Of course, there are a greater number of sources which assume excluded middle and most of what is in them applies here too (especially in a treatment such as ours which is built on first-order logic and set theory, rather than, say, type theory). Studying how a topic is treated in the Metamath Proof Explorer and the references therein is often a good place to start (and is easy to compare with the Intuitionistic Logic Explorer). The textbooks provide a motivation for what we are doing, whereas Metamath lets you see in detail all hidden and implicit steps. Most standard theorems are accompanied by citations. Some closely followed texts include the following:

• Axioms of propositional calculus - Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy or [Heyting].
• Axioms of predicate calculus - our axioms are adapted from the ones in the Metamath Proof Explorer.
• Theorems of propositional calculus - [Heyting].
• Theorems of pure predicate calculus - Metamath Proof Explorer.
• Theorems of equality and substitution - Metamath Proof Explorer.
• Axioms of set theory - [Crosilla].
• Development of set theory - Chapter 10 of [HoTT].
• Construction of real and complex numbers - Chapter 11 of [HoTT]; [BauerTaylor].
• Theorems about real numbers - [Geuvers].

Theorem

conventions 15731

Unless there is a reason to diverge, we follow the conventions of the Metamath Proof Explorer (MPE, set.mm). This list of conventions is intended to be read in conjunction with the corresponding conventions in the Metamath Proof Explorer, and only the differences are described below.

• Minimizing axioms and the axiom of choice. We prefer proofs that depend on fewer and/or weaker axioms, even if the proofs are longer. In particular, our choice of IZF (Intuitionistic Zermelo-Fraenkel) over CZF (Constructive Zermelo-Fraenkel, a weaker system) was just an expedient choice because IZF is easier to formalize in Metamath. You can find some development using CZF in BJ's mathbox starting at wbd 15822 (and the section header just above it). As for the axiom of choice, the full axiom of choice implies excluded middle as seen at acexmid 5950, although some authors will use countable choice or dependent choice. For example, countable choice or excluded middle is needed to show that the Cauchy reals coincide with the Dedekind reals - Corollary 11.4.3 of [HoTT], p. (varies).
• Junk/undefined results. Much of the discussion of this topic in the Metamath Proof Explorer applies except that certain techniques are not available to us. For example, the Metamath Proof Explorer will often say "if a function is evaluated within its domain, a certain result follows; if the function is evaluated outside its domain, the same result follows. Since the function must be evaluated within its domain or outside it, the result follows unconditionally" (the use of excluded middle in this argument is perhaps obvious when stated this way). Often, the easiest fix will be to prove we are evaluating functions within their domains, other times it will be possible to use a theorem like relelfvdm 5615 which says that if a function value produces an inhabited set, then the function is being evaluated within its domain.
• Bibliography references. The bibliography for the Intuitionistic Logic Explorer is separate from the one for the Metamath Proof Explorer but feel free to copy-paste a citation in either direction in order to cite it.

Label naming conventions

Here are a few of the label naming conventions:

• Suffixes. We follow the conventions of the Metamath Proof Explorer with a few additions. A biconditional in set.mm which is an implication in iset.mm should have a "r" (for the reverse direction), or "i"/"im" (for the forward direction) appended. A theorem in set.mm which has a decidability condition added should add "dc" to the theorem name. A theorem in set.mm where "nonempty class" is changed to "inhabited class" should add "m" (for member) to the theorem name.
• iset.mm versus set.mm names

  Theorems which are the same as in set.mm should be named the same (that is, where the statement of the theorem is the same; the proof can differ without a new name being called for). Theorems which are different should be named differently (we do have a small number of intentional exceptions to this rule but on the whole it serves us well).

  As for how to choose names so they are different between iset.mm and set.mm, when possible choose a name which reflect the difference in the theorems. For example, if a theorem in set.mm is an equality and the iset.mm analogue is a subset, add "ss" to the iset.mm name. If need be, add "i" to the iset.mm name (usually as a prefix to some portion of the name).

  As with set.mm, we welcome suggestions for better names (such as names which are more consistent with naming conventions).

  We do try to keep set.mm and iset.mm similar where we can. For example, if a theorem exists in both places but the name in set.mm isn't great, we tend to keep that name for iset.mm, or change it in both files together. This is mainly to make it easier to copy theorems, but also to generally help people browse proofs, find theorems, write proofs, etc.

The following table shows some commonly-used abbreviations in labels which are not found in the Metamath Proof Explorer, in alphabetical order. For each abbreviation we provide a mnenomic to help you remember it, the source theorem/assumption defining it, an expression showing what it looks like, whether or not it is a "syntax fragment" (an abbreviation that indicates a particular kind of syntax), and hyperlinks to label examples that use the abbreviation. The abbreviation is bolded if there is a df-NAME definition but the label fragment is not NAME.

For the "g" abbreviation, this is related to the set.mm usage, in which "is a set" conditions are converted from hypotheses to antecedents, but is also used where "is a set" conditions are added relative to similar set.mm theorems.

Abbreviation	Mnenomic/Meaning	Source	Expression	Syntax?	Example(s)
ap	apart	df-pap 7367, df-ap 8662		Yes	apadd1 8688, apne 8703
g	with "is a set" condition			No	1stvalg 6235, brtposg 6347, setsmsbasg 14995
m	inhabited (from "member")		E. x x e. A	No	r19.2m 3548, negm 9743, ctm 7218, basmex 12935
seq3, sum3	recursive sequence	df-seqfrec 10600		Yes	seq3-1 10614, fsum3 11742
tap	tight apartness	df-tap 7369		Yes	df-tap 7369

• Community. The Metamath mailing list also covers the Intuitionistic Logic Explorer and is at: https://groups.google.com/g/metamath 7369.

(Contributed by Jim Kingdon, 24-Feb-2020.) (New usage is discouraged.)

|- ph   =>    |- ph

13.1.2  Definitional examples

Theorem

ex-or 15732

Example for ax-io 711. Example by David A. Wheeler. (Contributed by Mario Carneiro, 9-May-2015.)

|- ( 2 = 3 \/ 4 = 4 )

Theorem

ex-an 15733

Example for ax-ia1 106. Example by David A. Wheeler. (Contributed by Mario Carneiro, 9-May-2015.)

|- ( 2 = 2 /\ 3 = 3 )

Theorem

1kp2ke3k 15734

Example for df-dec 9512, 1000 + 2000 = 3000.

This proof disproves (by counterexample) the assertion of Hao Wang, who stated, "There is a theorem in the primitive notation of set theory that corresponds to the arithmetic theorem 1000 + 2000 = 3000. The formula would be forbiddingly long... even if (one) knows the definitions and is asked to simplify the long formula according to them, chances are he will make errors and arrive at some incorrect result." (Hao Wang, "Theory and practice in mathematics" , In Thomas Tymoczko, editor, New Directions in the Philosophy of Mathematics, pp 129-152, Birkauser Boston, Inc., Boston, 1986. (QA8.6.N48). The quote itself is on page 140.)

This is noted in Metamath: A Computer Language for Pure Mathematics by Norman Megill (2007) section 1.1.3. Megill then states, "A number of writers have conveyed the impression that the kind of absolute rigor provided by Metamath is an impossible dream, suggesting that a complete, formal verification of a typical theorem would take millions of steps in untold volumes of books... These writers assume, however, that in order to achieve the kind of complete formal verification they desire one must break down a proof into individual primitive steps that make direct reference to the axioms. This is not necessary. There is no reason not to make use of previously proved theorems rather than proving them over and over... A hierarchy of theorems and definitions permits an exponential growth in the formula sizes and primitive proof steps to be described with only a linear growth in the number of symbols used. Of course, this is how ordinary informal mathematics is normally done anyway, but with Metamath it can be done with absolute rigor and precision."

The proof here starts with ( 2 + 1 ) = 3, commutes it, and repeatedly multiplies both sides by ten. This is certainly longer than traditional mathematical proofs, e.g., there are a number of steps explicitly shown here to show that we're allowed to do operations such as multiplication. However, while longer, the proof is clearly a manageable size - even though every step is rigorously derived all the way back to the primitive notions of set theory and logic. And while there's a risk of making errors, the many independent verifiers make it much less likely that an incorrect result will be accepted.

This proof heavily relies on the decimal constructor df-dec 9512 developed by Mario Carneiro in 2015. The underlying Metamath language has an intentionally very small set of primitives; it doesn't even have a built-in construct for numbers. Instead, the digits are defined using these primitives, and the decimal constructor is used to make it easy to express larger numbers as combinations of digits.

(Contributed by David A. Wheeler, 29-Jun-2016.) (Shortened by Mario Carneiro using the arithmetic algorithm in mmj2, 30-Jun-2016.)

|- (;;; 1 0 0 0 + ;;; 2 0 0 0 ) = ;;; 3 0 0 0

Theorem

ex-fl 15735

Example for df-fl 10420. Example by David A. Wheeler. (Contributed by Mario Carneiro, 18-Jun-2015.)

|- ( ( |_ ` ( 3 / 2 ) ) = 1 /\ ( |_ ` -u ( 3 / 2 ) ) = -u 2 )

Theorem

ex-ceil 15736

Example for df-ceil 10421. (Contributed by AV, 4-Sep-2021.)

|- ( (⌈ ` ( 3 / 2 ) ) = 2 /\ (⌈ ` -u ( 3 / 2 ) ) = -u 1 )

Theorem

ex-exp 15737

Example for df-exp 10691. (Contributed by AV, 4-Sep-2021.)

|- ( ( 5 ^ 2 ) = ; 2 5 /\ ( -u 3 ^ -u 2 ) = ( 1 / 9 ) )

Theorem

ex-fac 15738

Example for df-fac 10878. (Contributed by AV, 4-Sep-2021.)

|- ( ! ` 5 ) = ;; 1 2 0

Theorem

ex-bc 15739

Example for df-bc 10900. (Contributed by AV, 4-Sep-2021.)

|- ( 5 _C 3 ) = ; 1 0

Theorem

ex-dvds 15740

Example for df-dvds 12143: 3 divides into 6. (Contributed by David A. Wheeler, 19-May-2015.)

|- 3 || 6

Theorem

ex-gcd 15741

Example for df-gcd 12319. (Contributed by AV, 5-Sep-2021.)

|- ( -u 6 gcd 9 ) = 3

PART 14  SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL (USERS' MATHBOXES)

14.1  Mathboxes for user contributions

14.1.1  Mathbox guidelines

Theorem

mathbox 15742

(This theorem is a dummy placeholder for these guidelines. The label of this theorem, "mathbox", is hard-coded into the Metamath program to identify the start of the mathbox section for web page generation.)

A "mathbox" is a user-contributed section that is maintained by its contributor independently from the main part of iset.mm.

For contributors:

By making a contribution, you agree to release it into the public domain, according to the statement at the beginning of iset.mm.

Guidelines:

Mathboxes in iset.mm follow the same practices as in set.mm, so refer to the mathbox guidelines there for more details.

(Contributed by NM, 20-Feb-2007.) (Revised by the Metamath team, 9-Sep-2023.) (New usage is discouraged.)

|- ph   =>    |- ph

14.2  Mathbox for BJ

14.2.1  Propositional calculus

Theorem

bj-nnsn 15743

As far as implying a negated formula is concerned, a formula is equivalent to its double negation. (Contributed by BJ, 24-Nov-2023.)

|- ( ( ph -> -. ps ) <-> ( -. -. ph -> -. ps ) )

Theorem

bj-nnor 15744

Double negation of a disjunction in terms of implication. (Contributed by BJ, 9-Oct-2019.)

|- ( -. -. ( ph \/ ps ) <-> ( -. ph -> -. -. ps ) )

Theorem

bj-nnim 15745

The double negation of an implication implies the implication with the consequent doubly negated. (Contributed by BJ, 24-Nov-2023.)

|- ( -. -. ( ph -> ps ) -> ( ph -> -. -. ps ) )

Theorem

bj-nnan 15746

The double negation of a conjunction implies the conjunction of the double negations. (Contributed by BJ, 24-Nov-2023.)

|- ( -. -. ( ph /\ ps ) -> ( -. -. ph /\ -. -. ps ) )

Theorem

bj-nnclavius 15747

Clavius law with doubly negated consequent. (Contributed by BJ, 4-Dec-2023.)

|- ( ( -. ph -> ph ) -> -. -. ph )

Theorem

bj-imnimnn 15748

If a formula is implied by both a formula and its negation, then it is not refutable. There is another proof using the inference associated with bj-nnclavius 15747 as its last step. (Contributed by BJ, 27-Oct-2024.)

|- ( ph -> ps )   &    |- ( -. ph -> ps )   =>    |- -. -. ps

14.2.1.1  Stable formulas

Some of the following theorems, like bj-sttru 15750 or bj-stfal 15752 could be deduced from their analogues for decidability, but stability is not provable from decidability in minimal calculus, so direct proofs have their interest.

Theorem

bj-trst 15749

A provable formula is stable. (Contributed by BJ, 24-Nov-2023.)

|- ( ph -> STAB ph )

Theorem

bj-sttru 15750

The true truth value is stable. (Contributed by BJ, 5-Aug-2024.)

|- STAB T.

Theorem

bj-fast 15751

A refutable formula is stable. (Contributed by BJ, 24-Nov-2023.)

|- ( -. ph -> STAB ph )

Theorem

bj-stfal 15752

The false truth value is stable. (Contributed by BJ, 5-Aug-2024.)

|- STAB F.

Theorem

bj-nnst 15753

Double negation of stability of a formula. Intuitionistic logic refutes unstability (but does not prove stability) of any formula. This theorem can also be proved in classical refutability calculus (see https://us.metamath.org/mpeuni/bj-peircestab.html) but not in minimal calculus (see https://us.metamath.org/mpeuni/bj-stabpeirce.html). See nnnotnotr 16000 for the version not using the definition of stability. (Contributed by BJ, 9-Oct-2019.) Prove it in ( -> , -. ) -intuitionistic calculus with definitions (uses of ax-ia1 106, ax-ia2 107, ax-ia3 108 are via sylibr 134, necessary for definition unpackaging), and in ( -> , <-> , -. )-intuitionistic calculus, following a discussion with Jim Kingdon. (Revised by BJ, 27-Oct-2024.)

|- -. -. STAB ph

Theorem

bj-nnbist 15754

If a formula is not refutable, then it is stable if and only if it is provable. By double-negation translation, if ph is a classical tautology, then -. -. ph is an intuitionistic tautology. Therefore, if ph is a classical tautology, then ph is intuitionistically equivalent to its stability (and to its decidability, see bj-nnbidc 15767). (Contributed by BJ, 24-Nov-2023.)

|- ( -. -. ph -> (STAB ph <-> ph ) )

Theorem

bj-stst 15755

Stability of a proposition is stable if and only if that proposition is stable. STAB is idempotent. (Contributed by BJ, 9-Oct-2019.)

|- (STAB STAB ph <-> STAB ph )

Theorem

bj-stim 15756

A conjunction with a stable consequent is stable. See stabnot 835 for negation , bj-stan 15757 for conjunction , and bj-stal 15759 for universal quantification. (Contributed by BJ, 24-Nov-2023.)

|- (STAB ps -> STAB ( ph -> ps ) )

Theorem

bj-stan 15757

The conjunction of two stable formulas is stable. See bj-stim 15756 for implication, stabnot 835 for negation, and bj-stal 15759 for universal quantification. (Contributed by BJ, 24-Nov-2023.)

|- ( (STAB ph /\ STAB ps ) -> STAB ( ph /\ ps ) )

Theorem

bj-stand 15758

The conjunction of two stable formulas is stable. Deduction form of bj-stan 15757. Its proof is shorter (when counting all steps, including syntactic steps), so one could prove it first and then bj-stan 15757 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 15759

The universal quantification of a stable formula is stable. See bj-stim 15756 for implication, stabnot 835 for negation, and bj-stan 15757 for conjunction. (Contributed by BJ, 24-Nov-2023.)

|- ( A. xSTAB ph -> STAB A. x ph )

Theorem

bj-pm2.18st 15760

Clavius law for stable formulas. See pm2.18dc 857. (Contributed by BJ, 4-Dec-2023.)

|- (STAB ph -> ( ( -. ph -> ph ) -> ph ) )

Theorem

bj-con1st 15761

Contraposition when the antecedent is a negated stable proposition. See con1dc 858. (Contributed by BJ, 11-Nov-2024.)

|- (STAB ph -> ( ( -. ph -> ps ) -> ( -. ps -> ph ) ) )

14.2.1.2  Decidable formulas

Theorem

bj-trdc 15762

A provable formula is decidable. (Contributed by BJ, 24-Nov-2023.)

|- ( ph -> DECID ph )

Theorem

bj-dctru 15763

The true truth value is decidable. (Contributed by BJ, 5-Aug-2024.)

|- DECID T.

Theorem

bj-fadc 15764

A refutable formula is decidable. (Contributed by BJ, 24-Nov-2023.)

|- ( -. ph -> DECID ph )

Theorem

bj-dcfal 15765

The false truth value is decidable. (Contributed by BJ, 5-Aug-2024.)

|- DECID F.

Theorem

bj-dcstab 15766

A decidable formula is stable. (Contributed by BJ, 24-Nov-2023.) (Proof modification is discouraged.)

|- (DECID ph -> STAB ph )

Theorem

bj-nnbidc 15767

If a formula is not refutable, then it is decidable if and only if it is provable. See also comment of bj-nnbist 15754. (Contributed by BJ, 24-Nov-2023.)

|- ( -. -. ph -> (DECID ph <-> ph ) )

Theorem

bj-nndcALT 15768

Alternate proof of nndc 853. (Proof modification is discouraged.) (New usage is discouraged.) (Contributed by BJ, 9-Oct-2019.)

|- -. -. DECID ph

Theorem

bj-dcdc 15769

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 15770

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 15771

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 )

14.2.2  Predicate calculus

Theorem

bj-ex 15772*

Existential generalization. (Contributed by BJ, 8-Dec-2019.) Proof modification is discouraged because there are shorter proofs, but using less basic results (like exlimiv 1622 and 19.9ht 1665 or 19.23ht 1521). (Proof modification is discouraged.)

|- ( E. x ph -> ph )

Theorem

bj-hbalt 15773

Closed form of hbal 1501 (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 15774

Closed form of nfal 1600 (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 15775

Deduction form of spim 1762. (Contributed by BJ, 17-Oct-2019.)

|- ( ph -> F/ x ch )   &    |- ( ph -> A. x ( x = y -> ( ps -> ch ) ) )   =>    |- ( ph -> ( A. x ps -> ch ) )

Theorem

2spim 15776*

Double substitution, as in spim 1762. (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 15777*

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 15778*

Version of ch2var 15777 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 15779

Lemma for bj-vtoclgf 15786. (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 15780

Lemma for bj-vtoclgf 15786. (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 15781

A strengthening of sbiedh 1811 (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 15782

A strengthening of sbieh 1814 (same proof). (Contributed by BJ, 16-Dec-2019.)

|- ( ps -> A. x ps )   &    |- ( x = y -> ( ph -> ps ) )   =>    |- ( [ y / x ] ph -> ps )

Theorem

bj-sbime 15783

A strengthening of sbie 1815 (same proof). (Contributed by BJ, 16-Dec-2019.)

|- F/ x ps   &    |- ( x = y -> ( ph -> ps ) )   =>    |- ( [ y / x ] ph -> ps )

14.2.3  Set theorey miscellaneous

Theorem

bj-el2oss1o 15784

Shorter proof of el2oss1o 6536 using more axioms. (Contributed by BJ, 21-Jan-2024.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) (New usage is discouraged.)

|- ( A e. 2o -> A C_ 1o )

14.2.4  Extensionality

Various utility theorems using FOL and extensionality.

Theorem

bj-vtoclgft 15785

Weakening two hypotheses of vtoclgf 2832. (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 15786

Weakening two hypotheses of vtoclgf 2832. (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 15787

Lemma for elabgf 2916. (Contributed by BJ, 21-Nov-2019.)

|- ( x = A -> ( A e. { x | ph } <-> ph ) )

Theorem

elabgft1 15788

One implication of elabgf 2916, 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 15789

One implication of elabgf 2916. (Contributed by BJ, 21-Nov-2019.)

|- F/_ x A   &    |- F/ x ps   &    |- ( x = A -> ( ph -> ps ) )   =>    |- ( A e. { x | ph } -> ps )

Theorem

elabgf2 15790

One implication of elabgf 2916. (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 15791*

One implication of elabf 2917. (Contributed by BJ, 21-Nov-2019.)

|- F/ x ps   &    |- ( x = A -> ( ph -> ps ) )   =>    |- ( A e. { x | ph } -> ps )

Theorem

elabf2 15792*

One implication of elabf 2917. (Contributed by BJ, 21-Nov-2019.)

|- F/ x ps   &    |- A e. _V   &    |- ( x = A -> ( ps -> ph ) )   =>    |- ( ps -> A e. { x | ph } )

Theorem

elab1 15793*

One implication of elab 2918. (Contributed by BJ, 21-Nov-2019.)

|- ( x = A -> ( ph -> ps ) )   =>    |- ( A e. { x | ph } -> ps )

Theorem

elab2a 15794*

One implication of elab 2918. (Contributed by BJ, 21-Nov-2019.)

|- A e. _V   &    |- ( x = A -> ( ps -> ph ) )   =>    |- ( ps -> A e. { x | ph } )

Theorem

elabg2 15795*

One implication of elabg 2920. (Contributed by BJ, 21-Nov-2019.)

|- ( x = A -> ( ps -> ph ) )   =>    |- ( A e. V -> ( ps -> A e. { x | ph } ) )

Theorem

bj-rspgt 15796

Restricted specialization, generalized. Weakens a hypothesis of rspccv 2875 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 15797

Restricted specialization, generalized. Weakens a hypothesis of rspccv 2875 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 15798*

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 15799

Version of intss1 3902 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 15800

Version of intss1 3902 using a class abstraction and implicit substitution. Closed form of intmin3 3914. (Contributed by BJ, 29-Nov-2019.)

|- F/_ x A   &    |- F/ x ps   &    |- ( x = A -> ( ps -> ph ) )   =>    |- ( A e. V -> ( ps -> |^| { x | ph } C_ A ) )