| Intuitionistic Logic Explorer Theorem List (p. 169 of 169) | < 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 | peano4nninf 16801* | The successor function on ℕ∞ is one to one. Half of Lemma 3.4 of [PradicBrown2022], p. 5. (Contributed by Jim Kingdon, 31-Jul-2022.) |
| Theorem | peano3nninf 16802* | The successor function on ℕ∞ is never zero. Half of Lemma 3.4 of [PradicBrown2022], p. 5. (Contributed by Jim Kingdon, 1-Aug-2022.) |
| Theorem | nninfalllem1 16803* | Lemma for nninfall 16804. (Contributed by Jim Kingdon, 1-Aug-2022.) |
| Theorem | nninfall 16804* |
Given a decidable predicate on ℕ∞, showing it holds for
natural numbers and the point at infinity suffices to show it holds
everywhere. The sense in which |
| Theorem | nninfsellemdc 16805* | Lemma for nninfself 16808. Showing that the selection function is well defined. (Contributed by Jim Kingdon, 8-Aug-2022.) |
| Theorem | nninfsellemcl 16806* | Lemma for nninfself 16808. (Contributed by Jim Kingdon, 8-Aug-2022.) |
| Theorem | nninfsellemsuc 16807* | Lemma for nninfself 16808. (Contributed by Jim Kingdon, 6-Aug-2022.) |
| Theorem | nninfself 16808* | Domain and range of the selection function for ℕ∞. (Contributed by Jim Kingdon, 6-Aug-2022.) |
| Theorem | nninfsellemeq 16809* | Lemma for nninfsel 16812. (Contributed by Jim Kingdon, 9-Aug-2022.) |
| Theorem | nninfsellemqall 16810* | Lemma for nninfsel 16812. (Contributed by Jim Kingdon, 9-Aug-2022.) |
| Theorem | nninfsellemeqinf 16811* | Lemma for nninfsel 16812. (Contributed by Jim Kingdon, 9-Aug-2022.) |
| Theorem | nninfsel 16812* |
|
| Theorem | nninfomnilem 16813* | Lemma for nninfomni 16814. (Contributed by Jim Kingdon, 10-Aug-2022.) |
| Theorem | nninfomni 16814 | ℕ∞ is omniscient. Corollary 3.7 of [PradicBrown2022], p. 5. (Contributed by Jim Kingdon, 10-Aug-2022.) |
| Theorem | nninffeq 16815* |
Equality of two functions on ℕ∞ which agree at every
integer and
at the point at infinity. From an online post by Martin Escardo.
Remark: the last two hypotheses can be grouped into one,
|
| Theorem | nnnninfen 16816 | Equinumerosity of the natural numbers and ℕ∞ is equivalent to the Limited Principle of Omniscience (LPO). Remark in Section 1.1 of [Pradic2025], p. 2. (Contributed by Jim Kingdon, 8-Jul-2025.) |
| Theorem | nnnninfex 16817* | If an element of ℕ∞ has a value of zero somewhere, then it is the mapping of a natural number. (Contributed by Jim Kingdon, 4-Aug-2022.) |
| Theorem | nninfnfiinf 16818* | An element of ℕ∞ which is not finite is infinite. (Contributed by Jim Kingdon, 30-Nov-2025.) |
| Theorem | exmidsbthrlem 16819* | Lemma for exmidsbthr 16820. (Contributed by Jim Kingdon, 11-Aug-2022.) |
| Theorem | exmidsbthr 16820* | The Schroeder-Bernstein Theorem implies excluded middle. Theorem 1 of [PradicBrown2022], p. 1. (Contributed by Jim Kingdon, 11-Aug-2022.) |
| Theorem | exmidsbth 16821* |
The Schroeder-Bernstein Theorem is equivalent to excluded middle. This
is Metamath 100 proof #25. The forward direction (isbth 7239) is the
proof of the Schroeder-Bernstein Theorem from the Metamath Proof
Explorer database (in which excluded middle holds), but adapted to use
EXMID as an antecedent rather than being unconditionally
true, as in
the non-intuitionistic proof at
https://us.metamath.org/mpeuni/sbth.html 7239.
The reverse direction (exmidsbthr 16820) is the one which establishes that Schroeder-Bernstein implies excluded middle. This resolves the question of whether we will be able to prove Schroeder-Bernstein from our axioms in the negative. (Contributed by Jim Kingdon, 13-Aug-2022.) |
| Theorem | sbthomlem 16822 | Lemma for sbthom 16823. (Contributed by Mario Carneiro and Jim Kingdon, 13-Jul-2023.) |
| Theorem | sbthom 16823 |
Schroeder-Bernstein is not possible even for |
| Theorem | qdencn 16824* |
The set of complex numbers whose real and imaginary parts are rational
is dense in the complex plane. This is a two dimensional analogue to
qdenre 11891 (and also would hold for |
| Theorem | refeq 16825* | Equality of two real functions which agree at negative numbers, positive numbers, and zero. This holds even without real trichotomy. From an online post by Martin Escardo. (Contributed by Jim Kingdon, 9-Jul-2023.) |
| Theorem | repiecelem 16826* |
Lemma for repiecele0 16827, repiecege0 16828, and repiecef 16829. The function
|
| Theorem | repiecele0 16827* | Piecewise definition on the reals agrees with the nonpositive part of the definition. See repiecef 16829 for more on this construction. (Contributed by Jim Kingdon, 27-Apr-2026.) |
| Theorem | repiecege0 16828* | Piecewise definition on the reals agrees with the nonnegative part of the definition. See repiecef 16829 for more on this construction. (Contributed by Jim Kingdon, 27-Apr-2026.) |
| Theorem | repiecef 16829* |
Piecewise definition on the reals yields a function. The function
agrees with |
| Theorem | triap 16830 | Two ways of stating real number trichotomy. See also cndcap 16861 which is similar but for complex number apartness. (Contributed by Jim Kingdon, 23-Aug-2023.) |
| Theorem | isomninnlem 16831* | Lemma for isomninn 16832. The result, with a hypothesis to provide a convenient notation. (Contributed by Jim Kingdon, 30-Aug-2023.) |
| Theorem | isomninn 16832* |
Omniscience stated in terms of natural numbers. Similar to isomnimap 7430
but it will sometimes be more convenient to use |
| Theorem | cvgcmp2nlemabs 16833* |
Lemma for cvgcmp2n 16834. The partial sums get closer to each other
as
we go further out. The proof proceeds by rewriting
|
| Theorem | cvgcmp2n 16834* | A comparison test for convergence of a real infinite series. (Contributed by Jim Kingdon, 25-Aug-2023.) |
| Theorem | iooref1o 16835 | A one-to-one mapping from the real numbers onto the open unit interval. (Contributed by Jim Kingdon, 27-Jun-2024.) |
| Theorem | iooreen 16836 | An open interval is equinumerous to the real numbers. (Contributed by Jim Kingdon, 27-Jun-2024.) |
Omniscience principles refer to several propositions, most of them weaker than full excluded middle, which do not follow from the axioms of IZF set theory.
They are: (0) the Principle of Omniscience (PO), which is another name for
excluded middle (see exmidomni 7435), (1) the Limited Principle of Omniscience
(LPO) is
They also have analytic counterparts each of which follows from the
corresponding omniscience principle: (1) Analytic LPO is real number
trichotomy, | ||
| Theorem | trilpolemclim 16837* | Lemma for trilpo 16844. Convergence of the series. (Contributed by Jim Kingdon, 24-Aug-2023.) |
| Theorem | trilpolemcl 16838* | Lemma for trilpo 16844. The sum exists. (Contributed by Jim Kingdon, 23-Aug-2023.) |
| Theorem | trilpolemisumle 16839* | Lemma for trilpo 16844. An upper bound for the sum of the digits beyond a certain point. (Contributed by Jim Kingdon, 28-Aug-2023.) |
| Theorem | trilpolemgt1 16840* |
Lemma for trilpo 16844. The |
| Theorem | trilpolemeq1 16841* |
Lemma for trilpo 16844. The |
| Theorem | trilpolemlt1 16842* |
Lemma for trilpo 16844. The |
| Theorem | trilpolemres 16843* | Lemma for trilpo 16844. The result. (Contributed by Jim Kingdon, 23-Aug-2023.) |
| Theorem | trilpo 16844* |
Real number trichotomy implies the Limited Principle of Omniscience
(LPO). We expect that we'd need some form of countable choice to prove
the converse.
Here's the outline of the proof. Given an infinite sequence F of zeroes and ones, we need to show the sequence contains a zero or it is all ones. Construct a real number A whose representation in base two consists of a zero, a decimal point, and then the numbers of the sequence. Compare it with one using trichotomy. The three cases from trichotomy are trilpolemlt1 16842 (which means the sequence contains a zero), trilpolemeq1 16841 (which means the sequence is all ones), and trilpolemgt1 16840 (which is not possible). Equivalent ways to state real number trichotomy (sometimes called "analytic LPO") include decidability of real number apartness (see triap 16830) or that the real numbers are a discrete field (see trirec0 16845). LPO is known to not be provable in IZF (and most constructive foundations), so this theorem establishes that we will be unable to prove an analogue to qtri3or 10604 for real numbers. (Contributed by Jim Kingdon, 23-Aug-2023.) |
| Theorem | trirec0 16845* |
Every real number having a reciprocal or equaling zero is equivalent to
real number trichotomy.
This is the key part of the definition of what is known as a discrete field, so "the real numbers are a discrete field" can be taken as an equivalent way to state real trichotomy (see further discussion at trilpo 16844). (Contributed by Jim Kingdon, 10-Jun-2024.) |
| Theorem | trirec0xor 16846* |
Version of trirec0 16845 with exclusive-or.
The definition of a discrete field is sometimes stated in terms of exclusive-or but as proved here, this is equivalent to inclusive-or because the two disjuncts cannot be simultaneously true. (Contributed by Jim Kingdon, 10-Jun-2024.) |
| Theorem | apdifflemf 16847 |
Lemma for apdiff 16849. Being apart from the point halfway between
|
| Theorem | apdifflemr 16848 | Lemma for apdiff 16849. (Contributed by Jim Kingdon, 19-May-2024.) |
| Theorem | apdiff 16849* | The irrationals (reals apart from any rational) are exactly those reals that are a different distance from every rational. (Contributed by Jim Kingdon, 17-May-2024.) |
| Theorem | qdiff 16850* | The rationals are exactly those reals for which there exist two distinct rationals that are the same distance from the original number. Similar to apdiff 16849 but by stating the result positively we can completely sidestep the issue of not equal versus apart in the statement of the result. From an online post by Ingo Blechschmidt. (Contributed by Jim Kingdon, 24-Apr-2026.) |
| Theorem | iswomninnlem 16851* | Lemma for iswomnimap 7459. The result, with a hypothesis for convenience. (Contributed by Jim Kingdon, 20-Jun-2024.) |
| Theorem | iswomninn 16852* |
Weak omniscience stated in terms of natural numbers. Similar to
iswomnimap 7459 but it will sometimes be more convenient to
use |
| Theorem | iswomni0 16853* |
Weak omniscience stated in terms of equality with |
| Theorem | ismkvnnlem 16854* | Lemma for ismkvnn 16855. The result, with a hypothesis to give a name to an expression for convenience. (Contributed by Jim Kingdon, 25-Jun-2024.) |
| Theorem | ismkvnn 16855* | The predicate of being Markov stated in terms of set exponentiation. (Contributed by Jim Kingdon, 25-Jun-2024.) |
| Theorem | redcwlpolemeq1 16856* | Lemma for redcwlpo 16857. A biconditionalized version of trilpolemeq1 16841. (Contributed by Jim Kingdon, 21-Jun-2024.) |
| Theorem | redcwlpo 16857* |
Decidability of real number equality implies the Weak Limited Principle
of Omniscience (WLPO). We expect that we'd need some form of countable
choice to prove the converse.
Here's the outline of the proof. Given an infinite sequence F of zeroes and ones, we need to show the sequence is all ones or it is not. Construct a real number A whose representation in base two consists of a zero, a decimal point, and then the numbers of the sequence. This real number will equal one if and only if the sequence is all ones (redcwlpolemeq1 16856). Therefore decidability of real number equality would imply decidability of whether the sequence is all ones. Because of this theorem, decidability of real number equality is sometimes called "analytic WLPO". WLPO is known to not be provable in IZF (and most constructive foundations), so this theorem establishes that we will be unable to prove an analogue to qdceq 10608 for real numbers. (Contributed by Jim Kingdon, 20-Jun-2024.) |
| Theorem | tridceq 16858* | Real trichotomy implies decidability of real number equality. Or in other words, analytic LPO implies analytic WLPO (see trilpo 16844 and redcwlpo 16857). Thus, this is an analytic analogue to lpowlpo 7461. (Contributed by Jim Kingdon, 24-Jul-2024.) |
| Theorem | redc0 16859* | Two ways to express decidability of real number equality. (Contributed by Jim Kingdon, 23-Jul-2024.) |
| Theorem | reap0 16860* | Real number trichotomy is equivalent to decidability of apartness from zero. (Contributed by Jim Kingdon, 27-Jul-2024.) |
| Theorem | cndcap 16861* | Real number trichotomy is equivalent to decidability of complex number apartness. (Contributed by Jim Kingdon, 10-Apr-2025.) |
| Theorem | trimul0or 16862* | Real number trichotomy implies that if a product is zero, one of its factors must be zero. (Contributed by Jim Kingdon, 27-May-2026.) |
| Theorem | dceqnconst 16863* | Decidability of real number equality 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 redcwlpo 16857 for more discussion of decidability of real number equality. (Contributed by BJ and Jim Kingdon, 24-Jun-2024.) (Revised by Jim Kingdon, 23-Jul-2024.) |
| Theorem | dcapnconst 16864* |
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 16844 for more
discussion of decidability of real number apartness.
This is a weaker form of dceqnconst 16863 and in fact this theorem can be proved using dceqnconst 16863 as shown at dcapnconstALT 16865. (Contributed by BJ and Jim Kingdon, 24-Jun-2024.) |
| Theorem | dcapnconstALT 16865* | Decidability of real number apartness implies the existence of a certain non-constant function from real numbers to integers. A proof of dcapnconst 16864 by means of dceqnconst 16863. (Contributed by Jim Kingdon, 27-Jul-2024.) (New usage is discouraged.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) |
| Theorem | nconstwlpolem0 16866* | Lemma for nconstwlpo 16869. If all the terms of the series are zero, so is their sum. (Contributed by Jim Kingdon, 26-Jul-2024.) |
| Theorem | nconstwlpolemgt0 16867* | Lemma for nconstwlpo 16869. If one of the terms of series is positive, so is the sum. (Contributed by Jim Kingdon, 26-Jul-2024.) |
| Theorem | nconstwlpolem 16868* | Lemma for nconstwlpo 16869. (Contributed by Jim Kingdon, 23-Jul-2024.) |
| Theorem | nconstwlpo 16869* |
Existence of a certain non-constant function from reals to integers
implies |
| Theorem | neapmkvlem 16870* | Lemma for neapmkv 16871. The result, with a few hypotheses broken out for convenience. (Contributed by Jim Kingdon, 25-Jun-2024.) |
| Theorem | neapmkv 16871* | 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 16872* | 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 16873* |
If |
| Theorem | supfz 16874 | The supremum of a finite sequence of integers. (Contributed by Scott Fenton, 8-Aug-2013.) (Revised by Jim Kingdon, 15-Oct-2022.) |
| Theorem | inffz 16875 | The infimum of a finite sequence of integers. (Contributed by Scott Fenton, 8-Aug-2013.) (Revised by Jim Kingdon, 15-Oct-2022.) |
| Theorem | taupi 16876 |
Relationship between |
| Syntax | cgfsu 16877 | Extend class notation to include finite group sum over unordered finite set. |
| Definition | df-gfsum 16878* | Define the finite group sum (iterated sum) over an unordered finite set. As currently defined, df-igsum 13489 is indexed by consecutive integers, but in the case of a commutative monoid, the order of the sum doesn't matter and we can define a sum indexed by any finite set without needing to specify an order. (Contributed by Jim Kingdon, 23-Mar-2026.) |
| Theorem | gfsumval 16879 | Value of the finite group sum over an unordered finite set. (Contributed by Jim Kingdon, 24-Mar-2026.) |
| Theorem | gsumgfsum1 16880 |
On an integer range starting at one, |
| Theorem | gfsum0 16881 | An empty finite group sum is the identity. (Contributed by Jim Kingdon, 26-Mar-2026.) |
| Theorem | gsumgfsumlem 16882* | Shifting the indexes of a group sum indexed by consecutive integers. (Contributed by Jim Kingdon, 26-Mar-2026.) |
| Theorem | gsumgfsum 16883 |
On an integer range, |
| Theorem | gfsumsn 16884* | Group sum of a singleton. (Contributed by Jim Kingdon, 2-Apr-2026.) |
| Theorem | gfsump1 16885 | Splitting off one element from a finite group sum. This would typically used in a proof by induction. (Contributed by Jim Kingdon, 3-Apr-2026.) |
| Theorem | gfsumz 16886* | Value of a finite group sum over the zero element. (Contributed by Jim Kingdon, 24-May-2026.) |
| Theorem | gfsumcl 16887 | Closure of a finite group sum. (Contributed by Jim Kingdon, 8-Apr-2026.) |
| Theorem | ax1hfs 16888 | Heyting's formal system Axiom #1 from [Heyting] p. 127. (Contributed by MM, 11-Aug-2018.) |
| Theorem | dftest 16889 |
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 16890 |
Extend wff definition to include "all some" applied to a top-level
implication, which means |
| Syntax | walsc 16891 |
Extend wff definition to include "all some" applied to a class, which
means |
| Definition | df-alsi 16892 |
Define "all some" applied to a top-level implication, which means
|
| Definition | df-alsc 16893 |
Define "all some" applied to a class, which means |
| Theorem | alsconv 16894 | There is an equivalence between the two "all some" forms. (Contributed by David A. Wheeler, 22-Oct-2018.) |
| Theorem | alsi1d 16895 | 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 16896 | 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 16897 | 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 16898 | 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 > |