| Intuitionistic Logic Explorer Theorem List (p. 167 of 167) | < Previous Wrap > | |
| Browser slow? Try the
Unicode version. |
||
|
Mirrors > Metamath Home Page > ILE Home Page > Theorem List Contents > Recent Proofs This page: Page List |
||
| Type | Label | Description |
|---|---|---|
| Statement | ||
| Theorem | dcapnconst 16601* |
Decidability of real number apartness implies the existence of a certain
non-constant function from real numbers to integers. Variation of
Exercise 11.6(i) of [HoTT], p. (varies).
See trilpo 16583 for more
discussion of decidability of real number apartness.
This is a weaker form of dceqnconst 16600 and in fact this theorem can be proved using dceqnconst 16600 as shown at dcapnconstALT 16602. (Contributed by BJ and Jim Kingdon, 24-Jun-2024.) |
| Theorem | dcapnconstALT 16602* | Decidability of real number apartness implies the existence of a certain non-constant function from real numbers to integers. A proof of dcapnconst 16601 by means of dceqnconst 16600. (Contributed by Jim Kingdon, 27-Jul-2024.) (New usage is discouraged.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) |
| Theorem | nconstwlpolem0 16603* | Lemma for nconstwlpo 16606. If all the terms of the series are zero, so is their sum. (Contributed by Jim Kingdon, 26-Jul-2024.) |
| Theorem | nconstwlpolemgt0 16604* | Lemma for nconstwlpo 16606. If one of the terms of series is positive, so is the sum. (Contributed by Jim Kingdon, 26-Jul-2024.) |
| Theorem | nconstwlpolem 16605* | Lemma for nconstwlpo 16606. (Contributed by Jim Kingdon, 23-Jul-2024.) |
| Theorem | nconstwlpo 16606* |
Existence of a certain non-constant function from reals to integers
implies |
| Theorem | neapmkvlem 16607* | Lemma for neapmkv 16608. The result, with a few hypotheses broken out for convenience. (Contributed by Jim Kingdon, 25-Jun-2024.) |
| Theorem | neapmkv 16608* | If negated equality for real numbers implies apartness, Markov's Principle follows. Exercise 11.10 of [HoTT], p. (varies). (Contributed by Jim Kingdon, 24-Jun-2024.) |
| Theorem | neap0mkv 16609* | The analytic Markov principle can be expressed either with two arbitrary real numbers, or one arbitrary number and zero. (Contributed by Jim Kingdon, 23-Feb-2025.) |
| Theorem | ltlenmkv 16610* |
If |
| Theorem | supfz 16611 | The supremum of a finite sequence of integers. (Contributed by Scott Fenton, 8-Aug-2013.) (Revised by Jim Kingdon, 15-Oct-2022.) |
| Theorem | inffz 16612 | The infimum of a finite sequence of integers. (Contributed by Scott Fenton, 8-Aug-2013.) (Revised by Jim Kingdon, 15-Oct-2022.) |
| Theorem | taupi 16613 |
Relationship between |
| Theorem | ax1hfs 16614 | Heyting's formal system Axiom #1 from [Heyting] p. 127. (Contributed by MM, 11-Aug-2018.) |
| Theorem | dftest 16615 |
A proposition is testable iff its negative or double-negative is true.
See Chapter 2 [Moschovakis] p. 2.
We do not formally define testability with a new token, but instead use
DECID |
These are definitions and proofs involving an experimental "allsome" quantifier (aka "all some").
In informal language, statements like
"All Martians are green" imply that there is at least one Martian.
But it's easy to mistranslate informal language into formal notations
because similar statements like The "allsome" quantifier expressly includes the notion of both "all" and "there exists at least one" (aka some), and is defined to make it easier to more directly express both notions. The hope is that if a quantifier more directly expresses this concept, it will be used instead and reduce the risk of creating formal expressions that look okay but in fact are mistranslations. The term "allsome" was chosen because it's short, easy to say, and clearly hints at the two concepts it combines. I do not expect this to be used much in metamath, because in metamath there's a general policy of avoiding the use of new definitions unless there are very strong reasons to do so. Instead, my goal is to rigorously define this quantifier and demonstrate a few basic properties of it.
The syntax allows two forms that look like they would be problematic,
but they are fine. When applied to a top-level implication we allow
For more, see "The Allsome Quantifier" by David A. Wheeler at https://dwheeler.com/essays/allsome.html I hope that others will eventually agree that allsome is awesome. | ||
| Syntax | walsi 16616 |
Extend wff definition to include "all some" applied to a top-level
implication, which means |
| Syntax | walsc 16617 |
Extend wff definition to include "all some" applied to a class, which
means |
| Definition | df-alsi 16618 |
Define "all some" applied to a top-level implication, which means
|
| Definition | df-alsc 16619 |
Define "all some" applied to a class, which means |
| Theorem | alsconv 16620 | There is an equivalence between the two "all some" forms. (Contributed by David A. Wheeler, 22-Oct-2018.) |
| Theorem | alsi1d 16621 | Deduction rule: Given "all some" applied to a top-level inference, you can extract the "for all" part. (Contributed by David A. Wheeler, 20-Oct-2018.) |
| Theorem | alsi2d 16622 | Deduction rule: Given "all some" applied to a top-level inference, you can extract the "exists" part. (Contributed by David A. Wheeler, 20-Oct-2018.) |
| Theorem | alsc1d 16623 | Deduction rule: Given "all some" applied to a class, you can extract the "for all" part. (Contributed by David A. Wheeler, 20-Oct-2018.) |
| Theorem | alsc2d 16624 | Deduction rule: Given "all some" applied to a class, you can extract the "there exists" part. (Contributed by David A. Wheeler, 20-Oct-2018.) |
| < Previous Wrap > |
| Copyright terms: Public domain | < Previous Wrap > |