P. 165 of Theorem List - Intuitionistic Logic Explorer

Theorem List for Intuitionistic Logic Explorer - 16401-16500   *Has distinct variable group(s)

Type	Label	Description
Statement
Theorem	elabgf1 16401	One implication of elabgf 2948. (Contributed by BJ, 21-Nov-2019.)
|- F/_ x A   &    |- F/ x ps   &    |- ( x = A -> ( ph -> ps ) )   =>    |- ( A e. { x | ph } -> ps )
Theorem	elabgf2 16402	One implication of elabgf 2948. (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 16403*	One implication of elabf 2949. (Contributed by BJ, 21-Nov-2019.)
|- F/ x ps   &    |- ( x = A -> ( ph -> ps ) )   =>    |- ( A e. { x | ph } -> ps )
Theorem	elabf2 16404*	One implication of elabf 2949. (Contributed by BJ, 21-Nov-2019.)
|- F/ x ps   &    |- A e. _V   &    |- ( x = A -> ( ps -> ph ) )   =>    |- ( ps -> A e. { x | ph } )
Theorem	elab1 16405*	One implication of elab 2950. (Contributed by BJ, 21-Nov-2019.)
|- ( x = A -> ( ph -> ps ) )   =>    |- ( A e. { x | ph } -> ps )
Theorem	elab2a 16406*	One implication of elab 2950. (Contributed by BJ, 21-Nov-2019.)
|- A e. _V   &    |- ( x = A -> ( ps -> ph ) )   =>    |- ( ps -> A e. { x | ph } )
Theorem	elabg2 16407*	One implication of elabg 2952. (Contributed by BJ, 21-Nov-2019.)
|- ( x = A -> ( ps -> ph ) )   =>    |- ( A e. V -> ( ps -> A e. { x | ph } ) )
Theorem	bj-rspgt 16408	Restricted specialization, generalized. Weakens a hypothesis of rspccv 2907 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 16409	Restricted specialization, generalized. Weakens a hypothesis of rspccv 2907 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 16410*	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 16411	Version of intss1 3943 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 16412	Version of intss1 3943 using a class abstraction and implicit substitution. Closed form of intmin3 3955. (Contributed by BJ, 29-Nov-2019.)
|- F/_ x A   &    |- F/ x ps   &    |- ( x = A -> ( ps -> ph ) )   =>    |- ( A e. V -> ( ps -> |^| { x | ph } C_ A ) )
Theorem	bj-elssuniab 16413	Version of elssuni 3921 using a class abstraction and explicit substitution. (Contributed by BJ, 29-Nov-2019.)
|- F/_ x A   =>    |- ( A e. V -> ( [. A / x ]. ph -> A C_ U. { x | ph } ) )
Theorem	bj-sseq 16414	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 ) )
14.3.5  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 16416). Note the similarity with the definition of a bounded class as a class for which membership in it is a bounded proposition (df-bdc 16462).
Syntax	wdcin 16415	Syntax for decidability of a class in another.
wff A DECIDin B
Definition	df-dcin 16416*	Define decidability of a class in another. (Contributed by BJ, 19-Feb-2022.)
|- ( A DECIDin B <-> A. x e. B DECID x e. A )
Theorem	decidi 16417	Property of being decidable in another class. (Contributed by BJ, 19-Feb-2022.)
|- ( A DECIDin B -> ( X e. B -> ( X e. A \/ -. X e. A ) ) )
Theorem	decidr 16418*	Sufficient condition for being decidable in another class. (Contributed by BJ, 19-Feb-2022.)
|- ( ph -> ( x e. B -> ( x e. A \/ -. x e. A ) ) )   =>    |- ( ph -> A DECIDin B )
Theorem	decidin 16419	If A is a decidable subclass of B (meaning: it is a subclass of B and it is decidable in B), and B is decidable in C, then A is decidable in C. (Contributed by BJ, 19-Feb-2022.)
|- ( ph -> A C_ B )   &    |- ( ph -> A DECIDin B )   &    |- ( ph -> B DECIDin C )   =>    |- ( ph -> A DECIDin C )
Theorem	uzdcinzz 16420	An upperset of integers is decidable in the integers. Reformulation of eluzdc 9844. (Contributed by Jim Kingdon, 18-Apr-2020.) (Revised by BJ, 19-Feb-2022.)
|- ( M e. ZZ -> ( ZZ>= ` M ) DECIDin ZZ )
Theorem	sumdc2 16421*	Alternate proof of sumdc 11923, without disjoint variable condition on N , x (longer because the statement is taylored to the proof sumdc 11923). (Contributed by BJ, 19-Feb-2022.)
|- ( ph -> M e. ZZ )   &    |- ( ph -> A C_ ( ZZ>= ` M ) )   &    |- ( ph -> A. x e. ( ZZ>= ` M )DECID x e. A )   &    |- ( ph -> N e. ZZ )   =>    |- ( ph -> DECID N e. A )
14.3.6  Disjoint union
Theorem	djucllem 16422*	Lemma for djulcl 7250 and djurcl 7251. (Contributed by BJ, 4-Jul-2022.)
|- X e. _V   &    |- F = ( x e. _V |-> <. X , x >. )   =>    |- ( A e. B -> ( ( F |` B ) ` A ) e. ( { X } X. B ) )
Theorem	djulclALT 16423	Shortening of djulcl 7250 using djucllem 16422. (Contributed by BJ, 4-Jul-2022.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) (New usage is discouraged.)
|- ( C e. A -> ( (inl |` A ) ` C ) e. ( A ⊔ B ) )
Theorem	djurclALT 16424	Shortening of djurcl 7251 using djucllem 16422. (Contributed by BJ, 4-Jul-2022.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) (New usage is discouraged.)
|- ( C e. B -> ( (inr |` B ) ` C ) e. ( A ⊔ B ) )
14.3.7  Miscellaneous
Theorem	funmptd 16425	The maps-to notation defines a function (deduction form). Note: one should similarly prove a deduction form of funopab4 5363, then prove funmptd 16425 from it, and then prove funmpt 5364 from that: this would reduce global proof length. (Contributed by BJ, 5-Aug-2024.)
|- ( ph -> F = ( x e. A |-> B ) )   =>    |- ( ph -> Fun F )
Theorem	fnmptd 16426*	The maps-to notation defines a function with domain (deduction form). (Contributed by BJ, 5-Aug-2024.)
|- ( ph -> F = ( x e. A |-> B ) )   &    |- ( ( ph /\ x e. A ) -> B e. V )   =>    |- ( ph -> F Fn A )
Theorem	if0ab 16427*	Expression of a conditional class as a class abstraction when the False alternative is the empty class: in that case, the conditional class is the extension, in the True alternative, of the condition. Remark: a consequence which could be formalized is the inclusion |- if ( ph , A , (/) ) C_ A and therefore, using elpwg 3660, |- ( A e. V -> if ( ph , A , (/) ) e. ~P A ), from which fmelpw1o 7465 could be derived, yielding an alternative proof. (Contributed by BJ, 16-Aug-2024.)
|- if ( ph , A , (/) ) = { x e. A | ph }
Theorem	bj-charfun 16428*	Properties of the characteristic function on the class X of the class A. (Contributed by BJ, 15-Aug-2024.)
|- ( ph -> F = ( x e. X |-> if ( x e. A , 1o , (/) ) ) )   =>    |- ( ph -> ( ( F : X --> ~P 1o /\ ( F |` ( ( X i^i A ) u. ( X \ A ) ) ) : ( ( X i^i A ) u. ( X \ A ) ) --> 2o ) /\ ( A. x e. ( X i^i A ) ( F ` x ) = 1o /\ A. x e. ( X \ A ) ( F ` x ) = (/) ) ) )
Theorem	bj-charfundc 16429*	Properties of the characteristic function on the class X of the class A, provided membership in A is decidable in X. (Contributed by BJ, 6-Aug-2024.)
|- ( ph -> F = ( x e. X |-> if ( x e. A , 1o , (/) ) ) )   &    |- ( ph -> A. x e. X DECID x e. A )   =>    |- ( ph -> ( F : X --> 2o /\ ( A. x e. ( X i^i A ) ( F ` x ) = 1o /\ A. x e. ( X \ A ) ( F ` x ) = (/) ) ) )
Theorem	bj-charfundcALT 16430*	Alternate proof of bj-charfundc 16429. It was expected to be much shorter since it uses bj-charfun 16428 for the main part of the proof and the rest is basic computations, but these turn out to be lengthy, maybe because of the limited library of available lemmas. (Contributed by BJ, 15-Aug-2024.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) (New usage is discouraged.)
|- ( ph -> F = ( x e. X |-> if ( x e. A , 1o , (/) ) ) )   &    |- ( ph -> A. x e. X DECID x e. A )   =>    |- ( ph -> ( F : X --> 2o /\ ( A. x e. ( X i^i A ) ( F ` x ) = 1o /\ A. x e. ( X \ A ) ( F ` x ) = (/) ) ) )
Theorem	bj-charfunr 16431*	If a class A has a "weak" characteristic function on a class X, then negated membership in A is decidable (in other words, membership in A is testable) in X. The hypothesis imposes that X be a set. As usual, it could be formulated as |- ( ph -> ( F : X --> om /\ ... ) ) to deal with general classes, but that extra generality would not make the theorem much more useful. The theorem would still hold if the codomain of f were any class with testable equality to the point where ( X \ A ) is sent. (Contributed by BJ, 6-Aug-2024.)
|- ( ph -> E. f e. ( om ^m X ) ( A. x e. ( X i^i A ) ( f ` x ) =/= (/) /\ A. x e. ( X \ A ) ( f ` x ) = (/) ) )   =>    |- ( ph -> A. x e. X DECID -. x e. A )
Theorem	bj-charfunbi 16432*	In an ambient set X, if membership in A is stable, then it is decidable if and only if A has a characteristic function. This characterization can be applied to singletons when the set X has stable equality, which is the case as soon as it has a tight apartness relation. (Contributed by BJ, 6-Aug-2024.)
|- ( ph -> X e. V )   &    |- ( ph -> A. x e. X STAB x e. A )   =>    |- ( ph -> ( A. x e. X DECID x e. A <-> E. f e. ( 2o ^m X ) ( A. x e. ( X i^i A ) ( f ` x ) = 1o /\ A. x e. ( X \ A ) ( f ` x ) = (/) ) ) )
14.3.8  Constructive Zermelo--Fraenkel set theory (CZF): Bounded formulas and classes This section develops constructive Zermelo--Fraenkel set theory (CZF) on top of intuitionistic logic. It is a constructive theory in the sense that its logic is intuitionistic and it is predicative. "Predicative" means that new sets can be constructed only from already constructed sets. In particular, the axiom of separation ax-sep 4207 is not predicative (because we cannot allow all formulas to define a subset) and is replaced in CZF by bounded separation ax-bdsep 16505. Because this axiom is weaker than full separation, the axiom of replacement or collection ax-coll 4204 of ZF and IZF has to be strengthened in CZF to the axiom of strong collection ax-strcoll 16603 (which is a theorem of IZF), and the axiom of infinity needs a more precise version, the von Neumann axiom of infinity ax-infvn 16562. Similarly, the axiom of powerset ax-pow 4264 is not predicative (checking whether a set is included in another requires to universally quantifier over that "not yet constructed" set) and is replaced in CZF by the axiom of fullness or the axiom of subset collection ax-sscoll 16608. In an intuitionistic context, the axiom of regularity is stated in IZF as well as in CZF as the axiom of set induction ax-setind 4635. It is sometimes interesting to study the weakening of CZF where that axiom is replaced by bounded set induction ax-bdsetind 16589. For more details on CZF, a useful set of notes is Peter Aczel and Michael Rathjen, CST Book draft. (available at http://www1.maths.leeds.ac.uk/~rathjen/book.pdf 16589) and an interesting article is Michael Shulman, Comparing material and structural set theories, Annals of Pure and Applied Logic, Volume 170, Issue 4 (Apr. 2019), 465--504. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.1808.05204 16589 I also thank Michael Rathjen and Michael Shulman for useful hints in the formulation of some results.
14.3.8.1  Bounded formulas The present definition of bounded formulas emerged from a discussion on GitHub between Jim Kingdon, Mario Carneiro and I, started 23-Sept-2019 (see https://github.com/metamath/set.mm/issues/1173 and links therein). In order to state certain axiom schemes of Constructive Zermelo–Fraenkel (CZF) set theory, like the axiom scheme of bounded (or restricted, or Δ0) separation, it is necessary to distinguish certain formulas, called bounded (or restricted, or Δ0) formulas. The necessity of considering bounded formulas also arises in several theories of bounded arithmetic, both classical or intuitionistic, for instance to state the axiom scheme of Δ0-induction. To formalize this in Metamath, there are several choices to make. A first choice is to either create a new type for bounded formulas, or to create a predicate on formulas that indicates whether they are bounded. In the first case, one creates a new type "wff0" with a new set of metavariables (ph0 ...) and an axiom "$a wff ph0 " ensuring that bounded formulas are formulas, so that one can reuse existing theorems, and then axioms take the form "$a wff0 ( ph0 -> ps0 )", etc. In the second case, one introduces a predicate "BOUNDED " with the intended meaning that "BOUNDED ph " is a formula meaning that ph is a bounded formula. We choose the second option, since the first would complicate the grammar, risking to make it ambiguous. (TODO: elaborate.) A second choice is to view "bounded" either as a syntactic or a semantic property. For instance, A. x T. is not syntactically bounded since it has an unbounded universal quantifier, but it is semantically bounded since it is equivalent to T. which is bounded. We choose the second option, so that formulas using defined symbols can be proved bounded. A third choice is in the form of the axioms, either in closed form or in inference form. One cannot state all the axioms in closed form, especially ax-bd0 16434. Indeed, if we posited it in closed form, then we could prove for instance |- ( ph -> BOUNDED ph ) and |- ( -. ph -> BOUNDED ph ) which is problematic (with the law of excluded middle, this would entail that all formulas are bounded, but even without it, too many formulas could be proved bounded...). (TODO: elaborate.) Having ax-bd0 16434 in inference form ensures that a formula can be proved bounded only if it is equivalent *for all values of the free variables* to a syntactically bounded one. The other axioms (ax-bdim 16435 through ax-bdsb 16443) can be written either in closed or inference form. The fact that ax-bd0 16434 is an inference is enough to ensure that the closed forms cannot be "exploited" to prove that some unbounded formulas are bounded. (TODO: check.) However, we state all the axioms in inference form to make it clear that we do not exploit any over-permissiveness. Finally, note that our logic has no terms, only variables. Therefore, we cannot prove for instance that x e. om is a bounded formula. However, since om can be defined as "the y such that PHI" a proof using the fact that x e. om is bounded can be converted to a proof in iset.mm by replacing om with y everywhere and prepending the antecedent PHI, since x e. y is bounded by ax-bdel 16442. For a similar method, see bj-omtrans 16577. Note that one cannot add an axiom |- BOUNDED x e. A since by bdph 16471 it would imply that every formula is bounded.
Syntax	wbd 16433	Syntax for the predicate BOUNDED.
wff BOUNDED ph
Axiom	ax-bd0 16434	If two formulas are equivalent, then boundedness of one implies boundedness of the other. (Contributed by BJ, 3-Oct-2019.)
|- ( ph <-> ps )   =>    |- (BOUNDED ph -> BOUNDED ps )
Axiom	ax-bdim 16435	An implication between two bounded formulas is bounded. (Contributed by BJ, 25-Sep-2019.)
|- BOUNDED ph   &    |- BOUNDED ps   =>    |- BOUNDED ( ph -> ps )
Axiom	ax-bdan 16436	The conjunction of two bounded formulas is bounded. (Contributed by BJ, 25-Sep-2019.)
|- BOUNDED ph   &    |- BOUNDED ps   =>    |- BOUNDED ( ph /\ ps )
Axiom	ax-bdor 16437	The disjunction of two bounded formulas is bounded. (Contributed by BJ, 25-Sep-2019.)
|- BOUNDED ph   &    |- BOUNDED ps   =>    |- BOUNDED ( ph \/ ps )
Axiom	ax-bdn 16438	The negation of a bounded formula is bounded. (Contributed by BJ, 25-Sep-2019.)
|- BOUNDED ph   =>    |- BOUNDED -. ph
Axiom	ax-bdal 16439*	A bounded universal quantification of a bounded formula is bounded. Note the disjoint variable condition on x , y. (Contributed by BJ, 25-Sep-2019.)
|- BOUNDED ph   =>    |- BOUNDED A. x e. y ph
Axiom	ax-bdex 16440*	A bounded existential quantification of a bounded formula is bounded. Note the disjoint variable condition on x , y. (Contributed by BJ, 25-Sep-2019.)
|- BOUNDED ph   =>    |- BOUNDED E. x e. y ph
Axiom	ax-bdeq 16441	An atomic formula is bounded (equality predicate). (Contributed by BJ, 3-Oct-2019.)
|- BOUNDED x = y
Axiom	ax-bdel 16442	An atomic formula is bounded (membership predicate). (Contributed by BJ, 3-Oct-2019.)
|- BOUNDED x e. y
Axiom	ax-bdsb 16443	A formula resulting from proper substitution in a bounded formula is bounded. This probably cannot be proved from the other axioms, since neither the definiens in df-sb 1811, nor probably any other equivalent formula, is syntactically bounded. (Contributed by BJ, 3-Oct-2019.)
|- BOUNDED ph   =>    |- BOUNDED [ y / x ] ph
Theorem	bdeq 16444	Equality property for the predicate BOUNDED. (Contributed by BJ, 3-Oct-2019.)
|- ( ph <-> ps )   =>    |- (BOUNDED ph <-> BOUNDED ps )
Theorem	bd0 16445	A formula equivalent to a bounded one is bounded. See also bd0r 16446. (Contributed by BJ, 3-Oct-2019.)
|- BOUNDED ph   &    |- ( ph <-> ps )   =>    |- BOUNDED ps
Theorem	bd0r 16446	A formula equivalent to a bounded one is bounded. Stated with a commuted (compared with bd0 16445) biconditional in the hypothesis, to work better with definitions ( ps is the definiendum that one wants to prove bounded). (Contributed by BJ, 3-Oct-2019.)
|- BOUNDED ph   &    |- ( ps <-> ph )   =>    |- BOUNDED ps
Theorem	bdbi 16447	A biconditional between two bounded formulas is bounded. (Contributed by BJ, 3-Oct-2019.)
|- BOUNDED ph   &    |- BOUNDED ps   =>    |- BOUNDED ( ph <-> ps )
Theorem	bdstab 16448	Stability of a bounded formula is bounded. (Contributed by BJ, 3-Oct-2019.)
|- BOUNDED ph   =>    |- BOUNDED STAB ph
Theorem	bddc 16449	Decidability of a bounded formula is bounded. (Contributed by BJ, 3-Oct-2019.)
|- BOUNDED ph   =>    |- BOUNDED DECID ph
Theorem	bd3or 16450	A disjunction of three bounded formulas is bounded. (Contributed by BJ, 3-Oct-2019.)
|- BOUNDED ph   &    |- BOUNDED ps   &    |- BOUNDED ch   =>    |- BOUNDED ( ph \/ ps \/ ch )
Theorem	bd3an 16451	A conjunction of three bounded formulas is bounded. (Contributed by BJ, 3-Oct-2019.)
|- BOUNDED ph   &    |- BOUNDED ps   &    |- BOUNDED ch   =>    |- BOUNDED ( ph /\ ps /\ ch )
Theorem	bdth 16452	A truth (a (closed) theorem) is a bounded formula. (Contributed by BJ, 6-Oct-2019.)
|- ph   =>    |- BOUNDED ph
Theorem	bdtru 16453	The truth value T. is bounded. (Contributed by BJ, 3-Oct-2019.)
|- BOUNDED T.
Theorem	bdfal 16454	The truth value F. is bounded. (Contributed by BJ, 3-Oct-2019.)
|- BOUNDED F.
Theorem	bdnth 16455	A falsity is a bounded formula. (Contributed by BJ, 6-Oct-2019.)
|- -. ph   =>    |- BOUNDED ph
Theorem	bdnthALT 16456	Alternate proof of bdnth 16455 not using bdfal 16454. Then, bdfal 16454 can be proved from this theorem, using fal 1404. The total number of proof steps would be 17 (for bdnthALT 16456) + 3 = 20, which is more than 8 (for bdfal 16454) + 9 (for bdnth 16455) = 17. (Contributed by BJ, 6-Oct-2019.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) (New usage is discouraged.)
|- -. ph   =>    |- BOUNDED ph
Theorem	bdxor 16457	The exclusive disjunction of two bounded formulas is bounded. (Contributed by BJ, 3-Oct-2019.)
|- BOUNDED ph   &    |- BOUNDED ps   =>    |- BOUNDED ( ph \/_ ps )
Theorem	bj-bdcel 16458*	Boundedness of a membership formula. (Contributed by BJ, 8-Dec-2019.)
|- BOUNDED y = A   =>    |- BOUNDED A e. x
Theorem	bdab 16459	Membership in a class defined by class abstraction using a bounded formula, is a bounded formula. (Contributed by BJ, 3-Oct-2019.)
|- BOUNDED ph   =>    |- BOUNDED x e. { y | ph }
Theorem	bdcdeq 16460	Conditional equality of a bounded formula is a bounded formula. (Contributed by BJ, 16-Oct-2019.)
|- BOUNDED ph   =>    |- BOUNDED CondEq ( x = y -> ph )
14.3.8.2  Bounded classes In line with our definitions of classes as extensions of predicates, it is useful to define a predicate for bounded classes, which is done in df-bdc 16462. Note that this notion is only a technical device which can be used to shorten proofs of (semantic) boundedness of formulas. As will be clear by the end of this subsection (see for instance bdop 16496), one can prove the boundedness of any concrete term using only setvars and bounded formulas, for instance, |- BOUNDED ph => |- BOUNDED <. { x | ph } , ( { y , suc z } X. <. t , (/) >. ) >.. The proofs are long since one has to prove boundedness at each step of the construction, without being able to prove general theorems like |- BOUNDED A => |- BOUNDED { A }.
Syntax	wbdc 16461	Syntax for the predicate BOUNDED.
wff BOUNDED A
Definition	df-bdc 16462*	Define a bounded class as one such that membership in this class is a bounded formula. (Contributed by BJ, 3-Oct-2019.)
|- (BOUNDED A <-> A. xBOUNDED x e. A )
Theorem	bdceq 16463	Equality property for the predicate BOUNDED. (Contributed by BJ, 3-Oct-2019.)
|- A = B   =>    |- (BOUNDED A <-> BOUNDED B )
Theorem	bdceqi 16464	A class equal to a bounded one is bounded. Note the use of ax-ext 2213. See also bdceqir 16465. (Contributed by BJ, 3-Oct-2019.)
|- BOUNDED A   &    |- A = B   =>    |- BOUNDED B
Theorem	bdceqir 16465	A class equal to a bounded one is bounded. Stated with a commuted (compared with bdceqi 16464) equality in the hypothesis, to work better with definitions ( B is the definiendum that one wants to prove bounded; see comment of bd0r 16446). (Contributed by BJ, 3-Oct-2019.)
|- BOUNDED A   &    |- B = A   =>    |- BOUNDED B
Theorem	bdel 16466*	The belonging of a setvar in a bounded class is a bounded formula. (Contributed by BJ, 3-Oct-2019.)
|- (BOUNDED A -> BOUNDED x e. A )
Theorem	bdeli 16467*	Inference associated with bdel 16466. Its converse is bdelir 16468. (Contributed by BJ, 3-Oct-2019.)
|- BOUNDED A   =>    |- BOUNDED x e. A
Theorem	bdelir 16468*	Inference associated with df-bdc 16462. Its converse is bdeli 16467. (Contributed by BJ, 3-Oct-2019.)
|- BOUNDED x e. A   =>    |- BOUNDED A
Theorem	bdcv 16469	A setvar is a bounded class. (Contributed by BJ, 3-Oct-2019.)
|- BOUNDED x
Theorem	bdcab 16470	A class defined by class abstraction using a bounded formula is bounded. (Contributed by BJ, 6-Oct-2019.)
|- BOUNDED ph   =>    |- BOUNDED { x | ph }
Theorem	bdph 16471	A formula which defines (by class abstraction) a bounded class is bounded. (Contributed by BJ, 6-Oct-2019.)
|- BOUNDED { x | ph }   =>    |- BOUNDED ph
Theorem	bds 16472*	Boundedness of a formula resulting from implicit substitution in a bounded formula. Note that the proof does not use ax-bdsb 16443; therefore, using implicit instead of explicit substitution when boundedness is important, one might avoid using ax-bdsb 16443. (Contributed by BJ, 19-Nov-2019.)
|- BOUNDED ph   &    |- ( x = y -> ( ph <-> ps ) )   =>    |- BOUNDED ps
Theorem	bdcrab 16473*	A class defined by restricted abstraction from a bounded class and a bounded formula is bounded. (Contributed by BJ, 3-Oct-2019.)
|- BOUNDED A   &    |- BOUNDED ph   =>    |- BOUNDED { x e. A | ph }
Theorem	bdne 16474	Inequality of two setvars is a bounded formula. (Contributed by BJ, 16-Oct-2019.)
|- BOUNDED x =/= y
Theorem	bdnel 16475*	Non-membership of a setvar in a bounded formula is a bounded formula. (Contributed by BJ, 16-Oct-2019.)
|- BOUNDED A   =>    |- BOUNDED x e/ A
Theorem	bdreu 16476*	Boundedness of existential uniqueness. Remark regarding restricted quantifiers: the formula A. x e. A ph need not be bounded even if A and ph are. Indeed, _V is bounded by bdcvv 16478, and |- ( A. x e. _V ph <-> A. x ph ) (in minimal propositional calculus), so by bd0 16445, if A. x e. _V ph were bounded when ph is bounded, then A. x ph would be bounded as well when ph is bounded, which is not the case. The same remark holds with E. , E! , E*. (Contributed by BJ, 16-Oct-2019.)
|- BOUNDED ph   =>    |- BOUNDED E! x e. y ph
Theorem	bdrmo 16477*	Boundedness of existential at-most-one. (Contributed by BJ, 16-Oct-2019.)
|- BOUNDED ph   =>    |- BOUNDED E* x e. y ph
Theorem	bdcvv 16478	The universal class is bounded. The formulation may sound strange, but recall that here, "bounded" means "Δ0". (Contributed by BJ, 3-Oct-2019.)
|- BOUNDED _V
Theorem	bdsbc 16479	A formula resulting from proper substitution of a setvar for a setvar in a bounded formula is bounded. See also bdsbcALT 16480. (Contributed by BJ, 16-Oct-2019.)
|- BOUNDED ph   =>    |- BOUNDED [. y / x ]. ph
Theorem	bdsbcALT 16480	Alternate proof of bdsbc 16479. (Contributed by BJ, 16-Oct-2019.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) (New usage is discouraged.)
|- BOUNDED ph   =>    |- BOUNDED [. y / x ]. ph
Theorem	bdccsb 16481	A class resulting from proper substitution of a setvar for a setvar in a bounded class is bounded. (Contributed by BJ, 16-Oct-2019.)
|- BOUNDED A   =>    |- BOUNDED [_ y / x ]_ A
Theorem	bdcdif 16482	The difference of two bounded classes is bounded. (Contributed by BJ, 3-Oct-2019.)
|- BOUNDED A   &    |- BOUNDED B   =>    |- BOUNDED ( A \ B )
Theorem	bdcun 16483	The union of two bounded classes is bounded. (Contributed by BJ, 3-Oct-2019.)
|- BOUNDED A   &    |- BOUNDED B   =>    |- BOUNDED ( A u. B )
Theorem	bdcin 16484	The intersection of two bounded classes is bounded. (Contributed by BJ, 3-Oct-2019.)
|- BOUNDED A   &    |- BOUNDED B   =>    |- BOUNDED ( A i^i B )
Theorem	bdss 16485	The inclusion of a setvar in a bounded class is a bounded formula. Note: apparently, we cannot prove from the present axioms that equality of two bounded classes is a bounded formula. (Contributed by BJ, 3-Oct-2019.)
|- BOUNDED A   =>    |- BOUNDED x C_ A
Theorem	bdcnul 16486	The empty class is bounded. See also bdcnulALT 16487. (Contributed by BJ, 3-Oct-2019.)
|- BOUNDED (/)
Theorem	bdcnulALT 16487	Alternate proof of bdcnul 16486. Similarly, for the next few theorems proving boundedness of a class, one can either use their definition followed by bdceqir 16465, or use the corresponding characterizations of its elements followed by bdelir 16468. (Contributed by BJ, 3-Oct-2019.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) (New usage is discouraged.)
|- BOUNDED (/)
Theorem	bdeq0 16488	Boundedness of the formula expressing that a setvar is equal to the empty class. (Contributed by BJ, 21-Nov-2019.)
|- BOUNDED x = (/)
Theorem	bj-bd0el 16489	Boundedness of the formula "the empty set belongs to the setvar x". (Contributed by BJ, 30-Nov-2019.)
|- BOUNDED (/) e. x
Theorem	bdcpw 16490	The power class of a bounded class is bounded. (Contributed by BJ, 3-Oct-2019.)
|- BOUNDED A   =>    |- BOUNDED ~P A
Theorem	bdcsn 16491	The singleton of a setvar is bounded. (Contributed by BJ, 16-Oct-2019.)
|- BOUNDED { x }
Theorem	bdcpr 16492	The pair of two setvars is bounded. (Contributed by BJ, 16-Oct-2019.)
|- BOUNDED { x , y }
Theorem	bdctp 16493	The unordered triple of three setvars is bounded. (Contributed by BJ, 16-Oct-2019.)
|- BOUNDED { x , y , z }
Theorem	bdsnss 16494*	Inclusion of a singleton of a setvar in a bounded class is a bounded formula. (Contributed by BJ, 16-Oct-2019.)
|- BOUNDED A   =>    |- BOUNDED { x } C_ A
Theorem	bdvsn 16495*	Equality of a setvar with a singleton of a setvar is a bounded formula. (Contributed by BJ, 16-Oct-2019.)
|- BOUNDED x = { y }
Theorem	bdop 16496	The ordered pair of two setvars is a bounded class. (Contributed by BJ, 21-Nov-2019.)
|- BOUNDED <. x , y >.
Theorem	bdcuni 16497	The union of a setvar is a bounded class. (Contributed by BJ, 15-Oct-2019.)
|- BOUNDED U. x
Theorem	bdcint 16498	The intersection of a setvar is a bounded class. (Contributed by BJ, 16-Oct-2019.)
|- BOUNDED |^| x
Theorem	bdciun 16499*	The indexed union of a bounded class with a setvar indexing set is a bounded class. (Contributed by BJ, 16-Oct-2019.)
|- BOUNDED A   =>    |- BOUNDED U_ x e. y A
Theorem	bdciin 16500*	The indexed intersection of a bounded class with a setvar indexing set is a bounded class. (Contributed by BJ, 16-Oct-2019.)
|- BOUNDED A   =>    |- BOUNDED |^|_ x e. y A