HomeHome Intuitionistic Logic Explorer
Theorem List (p. 159 of 162)
< Previous  Next >
Browser slow? Try the
Unicode version.

Mirrors  >  Metamath Home Page  >  ILE Home Page  >  Theorem List Contents  >  Recent Proofs       This page: Page List

Theorem List for Intuitionistic Logic Explorer - 15801-15900   *Has distinct variable group(s)
TypeLabelDescription
Statement
 
Theoremupgr1eopdc 15801 A pseudograph with one edge. Such a graph is actually a simple pseudograph. (Contributed by Mario Carneiro, 12-Mar-2015.) (Revised by AV, 10-Oct-2020.)
 |-  ( ph  ->  V  e.  W )   &    |-  ( ph  ->  A  e.  X )   &    |-  ( ph  ->  B  e.  V )   &    |-  ( ph  ->  C  e.  V )   &    |-  ( ph  -> DECID  B  =  C )   =>    |-  ( ph  ->  <. V ,  { <. A ,  { B ,  C } >. } >.  e. UPGraph )
 
Theoremupgrun 15802 The union  U of two pseudographs  G and  H with the same vertex set  V is a pseudograph with the vertex  V and the union  ( E  u.  F ) of the (indexed) edges. (Contributed by AV, 12-Oct-2020.) (Revised by AV, 24-Oct-2021.)
 |-  ( ph  ->  G  e. UPGraph )   &    |-  ( ph  ->  H  e. UPGraph )   &    |-  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. UPGraph )
 
Theoremupgrunop 15803 The union of two pseudographs (with the same vertex set): If  <. V ,  E >. and  <. V ,  F >. are pseudographs, then  <. V ,  E  u.  F >. is a pseudograph (the vertex set stays the same, but the edges from both graphs are kept). (Contributed by Mario Carneiro, 12-Mar-2015.) (Revised by AV, 12-Oct-2020.) (Revised by AV, 24-Oct-2021.)
 |-  ( ph  ->  G  e. UPGraph )   &    |-  ( ph  ->  H  e. UPGraph )   &    |-  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. UPGraph )
 
Theoremumgrun 15804 The union  U of two multigraphs  G and  H with the same vertex set  V is a multigraph with the vertex  V and the union  ( E  u.  F ) of the (indexed) edges. (Contributed by AV, 25-Nov-2020.)
 |-  ( ph  ->  G  e. UMGraph )   &    |-  ( ph  ->  H  e. UMGraph )   &    |-  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. UMGraph )
 
Theoremumgrunop 15805 The union of two multigraphs (with the same vertex set): If  <. V ,  E >. and  <. V ,  F >. are multigraphs, then  <. V ,  E  u.  F >. is a multigraph (the vertex set stays the same, but the edges from both graphs are kept). (Contributed by Mario Carneiro, 12-Mar-2015.) (Revised by AV, 25-Nov-2020.)
 |-  ( ph  ->  G  e. UMGraph )   &    |-  ( ph  ->  H  e. UMGraph )   &    |-  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. UMGraph )
 
12.2.3  Loop-free graphs

For a hypergraph, the property to be "loop-free" is expressed by  I : dom  I --> E with  E  =  { x  e.  ~P V  |  2o  ~<_  x } and  I  =  (iEdg `  G ).  E is the set of edges which connect at least two vertices.

 
Theoremumgrislfupgrenlem 15806 Lemma for umgrislfupgrdom 15807. (Contributed by AV, 27-Jan-2021.)
 |-  ( { x  e. 
 ~P V  |  ( x  ~~  1o  \/  x  ~~  2o ) }  i^i  { x  e.  ~P V  |  2o  ~<_  x }
 )  =  { x  e.  ~P V  |  x  ~~ 
 2o }
 
Theoremumgrislfupgrdom 15807* A multigraph is a loop-free pseudograph. (Contributed by AV, 27-Jan-2021.)
 |-  V  =  (Vtx `  G )   &    |-  I  =  (iEdg `  G )   =>    |-  ( G  e. UMGraph  <->  ( G  e. UPGraph  /\  I : dom  I --> { x  e.  ~P V  |  2o  ~<_  x }
 ) )
 
Theoremlfgredg2dom 15808* An edge of a loop-free graph has at least two ends. (Contributed by AV, 23-Feb-2021.)
 |-  I  =  (iEdg `  G )   &    |-  A  =  dom  I   &    |-  E  =  { x  e.  ~P V  |  2o  ~<_  x }   =>    |-  ( ( I : A
 --> E  /\  X  e.  A )  ->  2o  ~<_  ( I `
  X ) )
 
Theoremlfgrnloopen 15809* A loop-free graph has no loops. (Contributed by AV, 23-Feb-2021.)
 |-  I  =  (iEdg `  G )   &    |-  A  =  dom  I   &    |-  E  =  { x  e.  ~P V  |  2o  ~<_  x }   =>    |-  ( I : A --> E  ->  { x  e.  A  |  ( I `
  x )  ~~  1o }  =  (/) )
 
12.2.4  Edges as subsets of vertices of graphs
 
Theoremuhgredgiedgb 15810* In a hypergraph, a set is an edge iff it is an indexed edge. (Contributed by AV, 17-Oct-2020.)
 |-  I  =  (iEdg `  G )   =>    |-  ( G  e. UHGraph  ->  ( E  e.  (Edg `  G ) 
 <-> 
 E. x  e.  dom  I  E  =  ( I `
  x ) ) )
 
Theoremuhgriedg0edg0 15811 A hypergraph has no edges iff its edge function is empty. (Contributed by AV, 21-Oct-2020.) (Proof shortened by AV, 8-Dec-2021.)
 |-  ( G  e. UHGraph  ->  (
 (Edg `  G )  =  (/)  <->  (iEdg `  G )  =  (/) ) )
 
Theoremuhgredgm 15812* An edge of a hypergraph is an inhabited subset of vertices. (Contributed by AV, 28-Nov-2020.)
 |-  ( ( G  e. UHGraph  /\  E  e.  (Edg `  G ) )  ->  ( E  e.  ~P (Vtx `  G )  /\  E. x  x  e.  E ) )
 
Theoremedguhgr 15813 An edge of a hypergraph is a subset of vertices. (Contributed by AV, 26-Oct-2020.) (Proof shortened by AV, 28-Nov-2020.)
 |-  ( ( G  e. UHGraph  /\  E  e.  (Edg `  G ) )  ->  E  e.  ~P (Vtx `  G ) )
 
Theoremuhgredgrnv 15814 An edge of a hypergraph contains only vertices. (Contributed by Alexander van der Vekens, 18-Feb-2018.) (Revised by AV, 4-Jun-2021.)
 |-  ( ( G  e. UHGraph  /\  E  e.  (Edg `  G )  /\  N  e.  E )  ->  N  e.  (Vtx `  G ) )
 
Theoremedgupgren 15815 Properties of an edge of a pseudograph. (Contributed by AV, 8-Nov-2020.)
 |-  ( ( G  e. UPGraph  /\  E  e.  (Edg `  G ) )  ->  ( E  e.  ~P (Vtx `  G )  /\  ( E  ~~  1o  \/  E  ~~  2o ) ) )
 
Theoremedgumgren 15816 Properties of an edge of a multigraph. (Contributed by AV, 25-Nov-2020.)
 |-  ( ( G  e. UMGraph  /\  E  e.  (Edg `  G ) )  ->  ( E  e.  ~P (Vtx `  G )  /\  E  ~~  2o ) )
 
Theoremuhgrvtxedgiedgb 15817* In a hypergraph, a vertex is incident with an edge iff it is contained in an element of the range of the edge function. (Contributed by AV, 24-Dec-2020.) (Revised by AV, 6-Jul-2022.)
 |-  I  =  (iEdg `  G )   &    |-  E  =  (Edg `  G )   =>    |-  ( ( G  e. UHGraph  /\  U  e.  V ) 
 ->  ( E. i  e. 
 dom  I  U  e.  ( I `  i )  <->  E. e  e.  E  U  e.  e )
 )
 
Theoremupgredg 15818* For each edge in a pseudograph, there are two vertices which are connected by this edge. (Contributed by AV, 4-Nov-2020.) (Proof shortened by AV, 26-Nov-2021.)
 |-  V  =  (Vtx `  G )   &    |-  E  =  (Edg `  G )   =>    |-  ( ( G  e. UPGraph  /\  C  e.  E ) 
 ->  E. a  e.  V  E. b  e.  V  C  =  { a ,  b } )
 
Theoremumgredg 15819* For each edge in a multigraph, there are two distinct vertices which are connected by this edge. (Contributed by Alexander van der Vekens, 9-Dec-2017.) (Revised by AV, 25-Nov-2020.)
 |-  V  =  (Vtx `  G )   &    |-  E  =  (Edg `  G )   =>    |-  ( ( G  e. UMGraph  /\  C  e.  E ) 
 ->  E. a  e.  V  E. b  e.  V  ( a  =/=  b  /\  C  =  { a ,  b } ) )
 
Theoremupgrpredgv 15820 An edge of a pseudograph always connects two vertices if the edge contains two sets. The two vertices/sets need not necessarily be different (loops are allowed). (Contributed by AV, 18-Nov-2021.)
 |-  V  =  (Vtx `  G )   &    |-  E  =  (Edg `  G )   =>    |-  ( ( G  e. UPGraph  /\  ( M  e.  U  /\  N  e.  W ) 
 /\  { M ,  N }  e.  E )  ->  ( M  e.  V  /\  N  e.  V ) )
 
Theoremumgrpredgv 15821 An edge of a multigraph always connects two vertices. This theorem does not hold for arbitrary pseudographs: if either  M or  N is a proper class, then  { M ,  N }  e.  E could still hold ( { M ,  N } would be either  { M } or  { N }, see prprc1 3746 or prprc2 3747, i.e. a loop), but  M  e.  V or  N  e.  V would not be true. (Contributed by AV, 27-Nov-2020.)
 |-  V  =  (Vtx `  G )   &    |-  E  =  (Edg `  G )   =>    |-  ( ( G  e. UMGraph  /\ 
 { M ,  N }  e.  E )  ->  ( M  e.  V  /\  N  e.  V ) )
 
Theoremupgredg2vtx 15822* For a vertex incident to an edge there is another vertex incident to the edge in a pseudograph. (Contributed by AV, 18-Oct-2020.) (Revised by AV, 5-Dec-2020.)
 |-  V  =  (Vtx `  G )   &    |-  E  =  (Edg `  G )   =>    |-  ( ( G  e. UPGraph  /\  C  e.  E  /\  A  e.  C )  ->  E. b  e.  V  C  =  { A ,  b } )
 
Theoremupgredgpr 15823 If a proper pair (of vertices) is a subset of an edge in a pseudograph, the pair is the edge. (Contributed by AV, 30-Dec-2020.)
 |-  V  =  (Vtx `  G )   &    |-  E  =  (Edg `  G )   =>    |-  ( ( ( G  e. UPGraph  /\  C  e.  E  /\  { A ,  B }  C_  C )  /\  ( A  e.  U  /\  B  e.  W  /\  A  =/=  B ) ) 
 ->  { A ,  B }  =  C )
 
Theoremumgredgne 15824 An edge of a multigraph always connects two different vertices. Analogue of umgrnloopvv 15795. (Contributed by AV, 27-Nov-2020.)
 |-  E  =  (Edg `  G )   =>    |-  ( ( G  e. UMGraph  /\ 
 { M ,  N }  e.  E )  ->  M  =/=  N )
 
Theoremumgrnloop2 15825 A multigraph has no loops. (Contributed by AV, 27-Oct-2020.) (Revised by AV, 30-Nov-2020.)
 |-  ( G  e. UMGraph  ->  { N ,  N }  e/  (Edg `  G ) )
 
Theoremumgredgnlp 15826* An edge of a multigraph is not a loop. (Contributed by AV, 9-Jan-2020.) (Revised by AV, 8-Jun-2021.)
 |-  E  =  (Edg `  G )   =>    |-  ( ( G  e. UMGraph  /\  C  e.  E ) 
 ->  -.  E. v  C  =  { v }
 )
 
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].
 
Theoremconventions 15827 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 15917 (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 5961, 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 5626 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.

AbbreviationMnenomic/MeaningSource ExpressionSyntax?Example(s)
apapart df-pap 7390, df-ap 8685 Yes apadd1 8711, apne 8726
gwith "is a set" condition No 1stvalg 6246, brtposg 6358, setsmsbasg 15036
minhabited (from "member")  E. x x  e.  A No r19.2m 3551, negm 9766, ctm 7232, basmex 12976
seq3, sum3recursive sequence df-seqfrec 10625 Yes seq3-1 10639, fsum3 11783
taptight apartness df-tap 7392 Yes df-tap 7392

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

 |-  ph   =>    |-  ph
 
13.1.2  Definitional examples
 
Theoremex-or 15828 Example for ax-io 711. Example by David A. Wheeler. (Contributed by Mario Carneiro, 9-May-2015.)
 |-  ( 2  =  3  \/  4  =  4 )
 
Theoremex-an 15829 Example for ax-ia1 106. Example by David A. Wheeler. (Contributed by Mario Carneiro, 9-May-2015.)
 |-  ( 2  =  2 
 /\  3  =  3 )
 
Theorem1kp2ke3k 15830 Example for df-dec 9535, 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 9535 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
 
Theoremex-fl 15831 Example for df-fl 10445. Example by David A. Wheeler. (Contributed by Mario Carneiro, 18-Jun-2015.)
 |-  ( ( |_ `  (
 3  /  2 )
 )  =  1  /\  ( |_ `  -u (
 3  /  2 )
 )  =  -u 2
 )
 
Theoremex-ceil 15832 Example for df-ceil 10446. (Contributed by AV, 4-Sep-2021.)
 |-  ( ( `  (
 3  /  2 )
 )  =  2  /\  ( `  -u ( 3  / 
 2 ) )  =  -u 1 )
 
Theoremex-exp 15833 Example for df-exp 10716. (Contributed by AV, 4-Sep-2021.)
 |-  ( ( 5 ^
 2 )  = ; 2 5  /\  ( -u 3 ^ -u 2
 )  =  ( 1 
 /  9 ) )
 
Theoremex-fac 15834 Example for df-fac 10903. (Contributed by AV, 4-Sep-2021.)
 |-  ( ! `  5
 )  = ;; 1 2 0
 
Theoremex-bc 15835 Example for df-bc 10925. (Contributed by AV, 4-Sep-2021.)
 |-  ( 5  _C  3
 )  = ; 1 0
 
Theoremex-dvds 15836 Example for df-dvds 12184: 3 divides into 6. (Contributed by David A. Wheeler, 19-May-2015.)
 |-  3  ||  6
 
Theoremex-gcd 15837 Example for df-gcd 12360. (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
 
Theoremmathbox 15838 (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
 
Theorembj-nnsn 15839 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 ) )
 
Theorembj-nnor 15840 Double negation of a disjunction in terms of implication. (Contributed by BJ, 9-Oct-2019.)
 |-  ( -.  -.  ( ph  \/  ps )  <->  ( -.  ph  ->  -.  -.  ps )
 )
 
Theorembj-nnim 15841 The double negation of an implication implies the implication with the consequent doubly negated. (Contributed by BJ, 24-Nov-2023.)
 |-  ( -.  -.  ( ph  ->  ps )  ->  ( ph  ->  -.  -.  ps )
 )
 
Theorembj-nnan 15842 The double negation of a conjunction implies the conjunction of the double negations. (Contributed by BJ, 24-Nov-2023.)
 |-  ( -.  -.  ( ph  /\  ps )  ->  ( -.  -.  ph 
 /\  -.  -.  ps )
 )
 
Theorembj-nnclavius 15843 Clavius law with doubly negated consequent. (Contributed by BJ, 4-Dec-2023.)
 |-  (
 ( -.  ph  ->  ph )  ->  -.  -.  ph )
 
Theorembj-imnimnn 15844 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 15843 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 15846 or bj-stfal 15848 could be deduced from their analogues for decidability, but stability is not provable from decidability in minimal calculus, so direct proofs have their interest.

 
Theorembj-trst 15845 A provable formula is stable. (Contributed by BJ, 24-Nov-2023.)
 |-  ( ph  -> STAB  ph )
 
Theorembj-sttru 15846 The true truth value is stable. (Contributed by BJ, 5-Aug-2024.)
 |- STAB T.
 
Theorembj-fast 15847 A refutable formula is stable. (Contributed by BJ, 24-Nov-2023.)
 |-  ( -.  ph  -> STAB  ph )
 
Theorembj-stfal 15848 The false truth value is stable. (Contributed by BJ, 5-Aug-2024.)
 |- STAB F.
 
Theorembj-nnst 15849 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 16095 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
 
Theorembj-nnbist 15850 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 15863). (Contributed by BJ, 24-Nov-2023.)
 |-  ( -.  -.  ph  ->  (STAB  ph  <->  ph ) )
 
Theorembj-stst 15851 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 )
 
Theorembj-stim 15852 A conjunction with a stable consequent is stable. See stabnot 835 for negation , bj-stan 15853 for conjunction , and bj-stal 15855 for universal quantification. (Contributed by BJ, 24-Nov-2023.)
 |-  (STAB  ps  -> STAB  (
 ph  ->  ps ) )
 
Theorembj-stan 15853 The conjunction of two stable formulas is stable. See bj-stim 15852 for implication, stabnot 835 for negation, and bj-stal 15855 for universal quantification. (Contributed by BJ, 24-Nov-2023.)
 |-  (
 (STAB  ph  /\ STAB 
 ps )  -> STAB  ( ph  /\  ps ) )
 
Theorembj-stand 15854 The conjunction of two stable formulas is stable. Deduction form of bj-stan 15853. Its proof is shorter (when counting all steps, including syntactic steps), so one could prove it first and then bj-stan 15853 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 ) )
 
Theorembj-stal 15855 The universal quantification of a stable formula is stable. See bj-stim 15852 for implication, stabnot 835 for negation, and bj-stan 15853 for conjunction. (Contributed by BJ, 24-Nov-2023.)
 |-  ( A. xSTAB 
 ph  -> STAB  A. x ph )
 
Theorembj-pm2.18st 15856 Clavius law for stable formulas. See pm2.18dc 857. (Contributed by BJ, 4-Dec-2023.)
 |-  (STAB  ph  ->  ( ( -.  ph  ->  ph )  ->  ph ) )
 
Theorembj-con1st 15857 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
 
Theorembj-trdc 15858 A provable formula is decidable. (Contributed by BJ, 24-Nov-2023.)
 |-  ( ph  -> DECID  ph )
 
Theorembj-dctru 15859 The true truth value is decidable. (Contributed by BJ, 5-Aug-2024.)
 |- DECID T.
 
Theorembj-fadc 15860 A refutable formula is decidable. (Contributed by BJ, 24-Nov-2023.)
 |-  ( -.  ph  -> DECID  ph )
 
Theorembj-dcfal 15861 The false truth value is decidable. (Contributed by BJ, 5-Aug-2024.)
 |- DECID F.
 
Theorembj-dcstab 15862 A decidable formula is stable. (Contributed by BJ, 24-Nov-2023.) (Proof modification is discouraged.)
 |-  (DECID  ph  -> STAB  ph )
 
Theorembj-nnbidc 15863 If a formula is not refutable, then it is decidable if and only if it is provable. See also comment of bj-nnbist 15850. (Contributed by BJ, 24-Nov-2023.)
 |-  ( -.  -.  ph  ->  (DECID  ph  <->  ph ) )
 
Theorembj-nndcALT 15864 Alternate proof of nndc 853. (Proof modification is discouraged.) (New usage is discouraged.) (Contributed by BJ, 9-Oct-2019.)
 |-  -.  -. DECID  ph
 
Theorembj-dcdc 15865 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 )
 
Theorembj-stdc 15866 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 )
 
Theorembj-dcst 15867 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
 
Theorembj-ex 15868* 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 )
 
Theorembj-hbalt 15869 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 ) )
 
Theorembj-nfalt 15870 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 )
 
Theoremspimd 15871 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 )
 )
 
Theorem2spim 15872* 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 )
 
Theoremch2var 15873* 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
 
Theoremch2varv 15874* Version of ch2var 15873 with nonfreeness hypotheses replaced with disjoint variable conditions. (Contributed by BJ, 17-Oct-2019.)
 |-  (
 ( x  =  y 
 /\  z  =  t )  ->  ( ph  <->  ps ) )   &    |-  ph   =>    |- 
 ps
 
Theorembj-exlimmp 15875 Lemma for bj-vtoclgf 15882. (Contributed by BJ, 21-Nov-2019.) (Proof modification is discouraged.)
 |-  F/ x ps   &    |-  ( ch  ->  ph )   =>    |-  ( A. x ( ch  ->  ( ph  ->  ps ) )  ->  ( E. x ch  ->  ps ) )
 
Theorembj-exlimmpi 15876 Lemma for bj-vtoclgf 15882. (Contributed by BJ, 21-Nov-2019.) (Proof modification is discouraged.)
 |-  F/ x ps   &    |-  ( ch  ->  ph )   &    |-  ( ch  ->  (
 ph  ->  ps ) )   =>    |-  ( E. x ch  ->  ps )
 
Theorembj-sbimedh 15877 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 ) )
 
Theorembj-sbimeh 15878 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 )
 
Theorembj-sbime 15879 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
 
Theorembj-el2oss1o 15880 Shorter proof of el2oss1o 6547 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.

 
Theorembj-vtoclgft 15881 Weakening two hypotheses of vtoclgf 2833. (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 ) )
 
Theorembj-vtoclgf 15882 Weakening two hypotheses of vtoclgf 2833. (Contributed by BJ, 21-Nov-2019.)
 |-  F/_ x A   &    |- 
 F/ x ps   &    |-  ( x  =  A  ->  ph )   &    |-  ( x  =  A  ->  ( ph  ->  ps ) )   =>    |-  ( A  e.  V  ->  ps )
 
Theoremelabgf0 15883 Lemma for elabgf 2919. (Contributed by BJ, 21-Nov-2019.)
 |-  ( x  =  A  ->  ( A  e.  { x  |  ph }  <->  ph ) )
 
Theoremelabgft1 15884 One implication of elabgf 2919, 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 ) )
 
Theoremelabgf1 15885 One implication of elabgf 2919. (Contributed by BJ, 21-Nov-2019.)
 |-  F/_ x A   &    |- 
 F/ x ps   &    |-  ( x  =  A  ->  (
 ph  ->  ps ) )   =>    |-  ( A  e.  { x  |  ph }  ->  ps )
 
Theoremelabgf2 15886 One implication of elabgf 2919. (Contributed by BJ, 21-Nov-2019.)
 |-  F/_ x A   &    |- 
 F/ x ps   &    |-  ( x  =  A  ->  ( ps  ->  ph ) )   =>    |-  ( A  e.  B  ->  ( ps  ->  A  e.  { x  |  ph } ) )
 
Theoremelabf1 15887* One implication of elabf 2920. (Contributed by BJ, 21-Nov-2019.)
 |-  F/ x ps   &    |-  ( x  =  A  ->  ( ph  ->  ps ) )   =>    |-  ( A  e.  { x  |  ph }  ->  ps )
 
Theoremelabf2 15888* One implication of elabf 2920. (Contributed by BJ, 21-Nov-2019.)
 |-  F/ x ps   &    |-  A  e.  _V   &    |-  ( x  =  A  ->  ( ps  ->  ph ) )   =>    |-  ( ps  ->  A  e.  { x  |  ph } )
 
Theoremelab1 15889* One implication of elab 2921. (Contributed by BJ, 21-Nov-2019.)
 |-  ( x  =  A  ->  (
 ph  ->  ps ) )   =>    |-  ( A  e.  { x  |  ph }  ->  ps )
 
Theoremelab2a 15890* One implication of elab 2921. (Contributed by BJ, 21-Nov-2019.)
 |-  A  e.  _V   &    |-  ( x  =  A  ->  ( ps  -> 
 ph ) )   =>    |-  ( ps  ->  A  e.  { x  |  ph
 } )
 
Theoremelabg2 15891* One implication of elabg 2923. (Contributed by BJ, 21-Nov-2019.)
 |-  ( x  =  A  ->  ( ps  ->  ph ) )   =>    |-  ( A  e.  V  ->  ( ps  ->  A  e.  { x  |  ph } ) )
 
Theorembj-rspgt 15892 Restricted specialization, generalized. Weakens a hypothesis of rspccv 2878 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 ) ) )
 
Theorembj-rspg 15893 Restricted specialization, generalized. Weakens a hypothesis of rspccv 2878 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 )
 )
 
Theoremcbvrald 15894* 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 ) )
 
Theorembj-intabssel 15895 Version of intss1 3909 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 ) )
 
Theorembj-intabssel1 15896 Version of intss1 3909 using a class abstraction and implicit substitution. Closed form of intmin3 3921. (Contributed by BJ, 29-Nov-2019.)
 |-  F/_ x A   &    |- 
 F/ x ps   &    |-  ( x  =  A  ->  ( ps  ->  ph ) )   =>    |-  ( A  e.  V  ->  ( ps  ->  |^| { x  |  ph }  C_  A ) )
 
Theorembj-elssuniab 15897 Version of elssuni 3887 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 } ) )
 
Theorembj-sseq 15898 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 ) )
 
14.2.5  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 15900).

Note the similarity with the definition of a bounded class as a class for which membership in it is a bounded proposition (df-bdc 15946).

 
Syntaxwdcin 15899 Syntax for decidability of a class in another.
 wff  A DECIDin  B
 
Definitiondf-dcin 15900* Define decidability of a class in another. (Contributed by BJ, 19-Feb-2022.)
 |-  ( A DECIDin  B  <->  A. x  e.  B DECID  x  e.  A )
    < Previous  Next >

Page List
Jump to page: Contents  1 1-100 2 101-200 3 201-300 4 301-400 5 401-500 6 501-600 7 601-700 8 701-800 9 801-900 10 901-1000 11 1001-1100 12 1101-1200 13 1201-1300 14 1301-1400 15 1401-1500 16 1501-1600 17 1601-1700 18 1701-1800 19 1801-1900 20 1901-2000 21 2001-2100 22 2101-2200 23 2201-2300 24 2301-2400 25 2401-2500 26 2501-2600 27 2601-2700 28 2701-2800 29 2801-2900 30 2901-3000 31 3001-3100 32 3101-3200 33 3201-3300 34 3301-3400 35 3401-3500 36 3501-3600 37 3601-3700 38 3701-3800 39 3801-3900 40 3901-4000 41 4001-4100 42 4101-4200 43 4201-4300 44 4301-4400 45 4401-4500 46 4501-4600 47 4601-4700 48 4701-4800 49 4801-4900 50 4901-5000 51 5001-5100 52 5101-5200 53 5201-5300 54 5301-5400 55 5401-5500 56 5501-5600 57 5601-5700 58 5701-5800 59 5801-5900 60 5901-6000 61 6001-6100 62 6101-6200 63 6201-6300 64 6301-6400 65 6401-6500 66 6501-6600 67 6601-6700 68 6701-6800 69 6801-6900 70 6901-7000 71 7001-7100 72 7101-7200 73 7201-7300 74 7301-7400 75 7401-7500 76 7501-7600 77 7601-7700 78 7701-7800 79 7801-7900 80 7901-8000 81 8001-8100 82 8101-8200 83 8201-8300 84 8301-8400 85 8401-8500 86 8501-8600 87 8601-8700 88 8701-8800 89 8801-8900 90 8901-9000 91 9001-9100 92 9101-9200 93 9201-9300 94 9301-9400 95 9401-9500 96 9501-9600 97 9601-9700 98 9701-9800 99 9801-9900 100 9901-10000 101 10001-10100 102 10101-10200 103 10201-10300 104 10301-10400 105 10401-10500 106 10501-10600 107 10601-10700 108 10701-10800 109 10801-10900 110 10901-11000 111 11001-11100 112 11101-11200 113 11201-11300 114 11301-11400 115 11401-11500 116 11501-11600 117 11601-11700 118 11701-11800 119 11801-11900 120 11901-12000 121 12001-12100 122 12101-12200 123 12201-12300 124 12301-12400 125 12401-12500 126 12501-12600 127 12601-12700 128 12701-12800 129 12801-12900 130 12901-13000 131 13001-13100 132 13101-13200 133 13201-13300 134 13301-13400 135 13401-13500 136 13501-13600 137 13601-13700 138 13701-13800 139 13801-13900 140 13901-14000 141 14001-14100 142 14101-14200 143 14201-14300 144 14301-14400 145 14401-14500 146 14501-14600 147 14601-14700 148 14701-14800 149 14801-14900 150 14901-15000 151 15001-15100 152 15101-15200 153 15201-15300 154 15301-15400 155 15401-15500 156 15501-15600 157 15601-15700 158 15701-15800 159 15801-15900 160 15901-16000 161 16001-16100 162 16101-16195
  Copyright terms: Public domain < Previous  Next >