Intuitionistic Logic Explorer |
< Previous
Next >
Nearby theorems |
||
Mirrors > Home > ILE Home > Th. List > df-sb | GIF version |
Description: Define proper
substitution. Remark 9.1 in [Megill] p. 447 (p.
15 of the
preprint). For our notation, we use [𝑦 / 𝑥]𝜑 to mean "the wff
that results when 𝑦 is properly substituted for 𝑥 in the
wff
𝜑". We can also use [𝑦 / 𝑥]𝜑 in place of the "free for"
side condition used in traditional predicate calculus; see, for example,
stdpc4 1768.
Our notation was introduced in Haskell B. Curry's Foundations of Mathematical Logic (1977), p. 316 and is frequently used in textbooks of lambda calculus and combinatory logic. This notation improves the common but ambiguous notation, "𝜑(𝑦) is the wff that results when 𝑦 is properly substituted for 𝑥 in 𝜑(𝑥)". For example, if the original 𝜑(𝑥) is 𝑥 = 𝑦, then 𝜑(𝑦) is 𝑦 = 𝑦, from which we obtain that 𝜑(𝑥) is 𝑥 = 𝑥. So what exactly does 𝜑(𝑥) mean? Curry's notation solves this problem. In most books, proper substitution has a somewhat complicated recursive definition with multiple cases based on the occurrences of free and bound variables in the wff. Instead, we use a single formula that is exactly equivalent and gives us a direct definition. We later prove that our definition has the properties we expect of proper substitution (see Theorems sbequ 1833, sbcom2 1980 and sbid2v 1989). Note that our definition is valid even when 𝑥 and 𝑦 are replaced with the same variable, as sbid 1767 shows. We achieve this by having 𝑥 free in the first conjunct and bound in the second. We can also achieve this by using a dummy variable, as the alternate definition dfsb7 1984 shows (which some logicians may prefer because it doesn't mix free and bound variables). Another alternate definition which uses a dummy variable is dfsb7a 1987. When 𝑥 and 𝑦 are distinct, we can express proper substitution with the simpler expressions of sb5 1880 and sb6 1879. In classical logic, another possible definition is (𝑥 = 𝑦 ∧ 𝜑) ∨ ∀𝑥(𝑥 = 𝑦 → 𝜑) but we do not have an intuitionistic proof that this is equivalent. There are no restrictions on any of the variables, including what variables may occur in wff 𝜑. (Contributed by NM, 5-Aug-1993.) |
Ref | Expression |
---|---|
df-sb | ⊢ ([𝑦 / 𝑥]𝜑 ↔ ((𝑥 = 𝑦 → 𝜑) ∧ ∃𝑥(𝑥 = 𝑦 ∧ 𝜑))) |
Step | Hyp | Ref | Expression |
---|---|---|---|
1 | wph | . . 3 wff 𝜑 | |
2 | vx | . . 3 setvar 𝑥 | |
3 | vy | . . 3 setvar 𝑦 | |
4 | 1, 2, 3 | wsb 1755 | . 2 wff [𝑦 / 𝑥]𝜑 |
5 | 2, 3 | weq 1496 | . . . 4 wff 𝑥 = 𝑦 |
6 | 5, 1 | wi 4 | . . 3 wff (𝑥 = 𝑦 → 𝜑) |
7 | 5, 1 | wa 103 | . . . 4 wff (𝑥 = 𝑦 ∧ 𝜑) |
8 | 7, 2 | wex 1485 | . . 3 wff ∃𝑥(𝑥 = 𝑦 ∧ 𝜑) |
9 | 6, 8 | wa 103 | . 2 wff ((𝑥 = 𝑦 → 𝜑) ∧ ∃𝑥(𝑥 = 𝑦 ∧ 𝜑)) |
10 | 4, 9 | wb 104 | 1 wff ([𝑦 / 𝑥]𝜑 ↔ ((𝑥 = 𝑦 → 𝜑) ∧ ∃𝑥(𝑥 = 𝑦 ∧ 𝜑))) |
Colors of variables: wff set class |
This definition is referenced by: sbimi 1757 sb1 1759 sb2 1760 sbequ1 1761 sbequ2 1762 drsb1 1792 spsbim 1836 sbequ8 1840 sbidm 1844 sb6 1879 hbsbv 1934 nfsbv 1940 |
Copyright terms: Public domain | W3C validator |