![]() |
Intuitionistic Logic Explorer Theorem List (p. 14 of 154) | < Previous Next > |
Bad symbols? Try the
GIF version. |
||
Mirrors > Metamath Home Page > ILE Home Page > Theorem List Contents > Recent Proofs This page: Page List |
Type | Label | Description |
---|---|---|
Statement | ||
Theorem | syl3anr1 1301 | A syllogism inference. (Contributed by NM, 31-Jul-2007.) |
⊢ (𝜑 → 𝜓) & ⊢ ((𝜒 ∧ (𝜓 ∧ 𝜃 ∧ 𝜏)) → 𝜂) ⇒ ⊢ ((𝜒 ∧ (𝜑 ∧ 𝜃 ∧ 𝜏)) → 𝜂) | ||
Theorem | syl3anr2 1302 | A syllogism inference. (Contributed by NM, 1-Aug-2007.) |
⊢ (𝜑 → 𝜃) & ⊢ ((𝜒 ∧ (𝜓 ∧ 𝜃 ∧ 𝜏)) → 𝜂) ⇒ ⊢ ((𝜒 ∧ (𝜓 ∧ 𝜑 ∧ 𝜏)) → 𝜂) | ||
Theorem | syl3anr3 1303 | A syllogism inference. (Contributed by NM, 23-Aug-2007.) |
⊢ (𝜑 → 𝜏) & ⊢ ((𝜒 ∧ (𝜓 ∧ 𝜃 ∧ 𝜏)) → 𝜂) ⇒ ⊢ ((𝜒 ∧ (𝜓 ∧ 𝜃 ∧ 𝜑)) → 𝜂) | ||
Theorem | 3impdi 1304 | Importation inference (undistribute conjunction). (Contributed by NM, 14-Aug-1995.) |
⊢ (((𝜑 ∧ 𝜓) ∧ (𝜑 ∧ 𝜒)) → 𝜃) ⇒ ⊢ ((𝜑 ∧ 𝜓 ∧ 𝜒) → 𝜃) | ||
Theorem | 3impdir 1305 | Importation inference (undistribute conjunction). (Contributed by NM, 20-Aug-1995.) |
⊢ (((𝜑 ∧ 𝜓) ∧ (𝜒 ∧ 𝜓)) → 𝜃) ⇒ ⊢ ((𝜑 ∧ 𝜒 ∧ 𝜓) → 𝜃) | ||
Theorem | 3anidm12 1306 | Inference from idempotent law for conjunction. (Contributed by NM, 7-Mar-2008.) |
⊢ ((𝜑 ∧ 𝜑 ∧ 𝜓) → 𝜒) ⇒ ⊢ ((𝜑 ∧ 𝜓) → 𝜒) | ||
Theorem | 3anidm13 1307 | Inference from idempotent law for conjunction. (Contributed by NM, 7-Mar-2008.) |
⊢ ((𝜑 ∧ 𝜓 ∧ 𝜑) → 𝜒) ⇒ ⊢ ((𝜑 ∧ 𝜓) → 𝜒) | ||
Theorem | 3anidm23 1308 | Inference from idempotent law for conjunction. (Contributed by NM, 1-Feb-2007.) |
⊢ ((𝜑 ∧ 𝜓 ∧ 𝜓) → 𝜒) ⇒ ⊢ ((𝜑 ∧ 𝜓) → 𝜒) | ||
Theorem | syl2an3an 1309 | syl3an 1291 with antecedents in standard conjunction form. (Contributed by Alan Sare, 31-Aug-2016.) |
⊢ (𝜑 → 𝜓) & ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝜒) & ⊢ (𝜃 → 𝜏) & ⊢ ((𝜓 ∧ 𝜒 ∧ 𝜏) → 𝜂) ⇒ ⊢ ((𝜑 ∧ 𝜃) → 𝜂) | ||
Theorem | syl2an23an 1310 | Deduction related to syl3an 1291 with antecedents in standard conjunction form. (Contributed by Alan Sare, 31-Aug-2016.) |
⊢ (𝜑 → 𝜓) & ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝜒) & ⊢ ((𝜃 ∧ 𝜑) → 𝜏) & ⊢ ((𝜓 ∧ 𝜒 ∧ 𝜏) → 𝜂) ⇒ ⊢ ((𝜃 ∧ 𝜑) → 𝜂) | ||
Theorem | 3ori 1311 | Infer implication from triple disjunction. (Contributed by NM, 26-Sep-2006.) |
⊢ (𝜑 ∨ 𝜓 ∨ 𝜒) ⇒ ⊢ ((¬ 𝜑 ∧ ¬ 𝜓) → 𝜒) | ||
Theorem | 3jao 1312 | Disjunction of 3 antecedents. (Contributed by NM, 8-Apr-1994.) |
⊢ (((𝜑 → 𝜓) ∧ (𝜒 → 𝜓) ∧ (𝜃 → 𝜓)) → ((𝜑 ∨ 𝜒 ∨ 𝜃) → 𝜓)) | ||
Theorem | 3jaob 1313 | Disjunction of 3 antecedents. (Contributed by NM, 13-Sep-2011.) |
⊢ (((𝜑 ∨ 𝜒 ∨ 𝜃) → 𝜓) ↔ ((𝜑 → 𝜓) ∧ (𝜒 → 𝜓) ∧ (𝜃 → 𝜓))) | ||
Theorem | 3jaoi 1314 | Disjunction of 3 antecedents (inference). (Contributed by NM, 12-Sep-1995.) |
⊢ (𝜑 → 𝜓) & ⊢ (𝜒 → 𝜓) & ⊢ (𝜃 → 𝜓) ⇒ ⊢ ((𝜑 ∨ 𝜒 ∨ 𝜃) → 𝜓) | ||
Theorem | 3jaod 1315 | Disjunction of 3 antecedents (deduction). (Contributed by NM, 14-Oct-2005.) |
⊢ (𝜑 → (𝜓 → 𝜒)) & ⊢ (𝜑 → (𝜃 → 𝜒)) & ⊢ (𝜑 → (𝜏 → 𝜒)) ⇒ ⊢ (𝜑 → ((𝜓 ∨ 𝜃 ∨ 𝜏) → 𝜒)) | ||
Theorem | 3jaoian 1316 | Disjunction of 3 antecedents (inference). (Contributed by NM, 14-Oct-2005.) |
⊢ ((𝜑 ∧ 𝜓) → 𝜒) & ⊢ ((𝜃 ∧ 𝜓) → 𝜒) & ⊢ ((𝜏 ∧ 𝜓) → 𝜒) ⇒ ⊢ (((𝜑 ∨ 𝜃 ∨ 𝜏) ∧ 𝜓) → 𝜒) | ||
Theorem | 3jaodan 1317 | Disjunction of 3 antecedents (deduction). (Contributed by NM, 14-Oct-2005.) |
⊢ ((𝜑 ∧ 𝜓) → 𝜒) & ⊢ ((𝜑 ∧ 𝜃) → 𝜒) & ⊢ ((𝜑 ∧ 𝜏) → 𝜒) ⇒ ⊢ ((𝜑 ∧ (𝜓 ∨ 𝜃 ∨ 𝜏)) → 𝜒) | ||
Theorem | mpjao3dan 1318 | Eliminate a 3-way disjunction in a deduction. (Contributed by Thierry Arnoux, 13-Apr-2018.) |
⊢ ((𝜑 ∧ 𝜓) → 𝜒) & ⊢ ((𝜑 ∧ 𝜃) → 𝜒) & ⊢ ((𝜑 ∧ 𝜏) → 𝜒) & ⊢ (𝜑 → (𝜓 ∨ 𝜃 ∨ 𝜏)) ⇒ ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝜒) | ||
Theorem | 3jaao 1319 | Inference conjoining and disjoining the antecedents of three implications. (Contributed by Jeff Hankins, 15-Aug-2009.) (Proof shortened by Andrew Salmon, 13-May-2011.) |
⊢ (𝜑 → (𝜓 → 𝜒)) & ⊢ (𝜃 → (𝜏 → 𝜒)) & ⊢ (𝜂 → (𝜁 → 𝜒)) ⇒ ⊢ ((𝜑 ∧ 𝜃 ∧ 𝜂) → ((𝜓 ∨ 𝜏 ∨ 𝜁) → 𝜒)) | ||
Theorem | 3ianorr 1320 | Triple disjunction implies negated triple conjunction. (Contributed by Jim Kingdon, 23-Dec-2018.) |
⊢ ((¬ 𝜑 ∨ ¬ 𝜓 ∨ ¬ 𝜒) → ¬ (𝜑 ∧ 𝜓 ∧ 𝜒)) | ||
Theorem | syl3an9b 1321 | Nested syllogism inference conjoining 3 dissimilar antecedents. (Contributed by NM, 1-May-1995.) |
⊢ (𝜑 → (𝜓 ↔ 𝜒)) & ⊢ (𝜃 → (𝜒 ↔ 𝜏)) & ⊢ (𝜂 → (𝜏 ↔ 𝜁)) ⇒ ⊢ ((𝜑 ∧ 𝜃 ∧ 𝜂) → (𝜓 ↔ 𝜁)) | ||
Theorem | 3orbi123d 1322 | Deduction joining 3 equivalences to form equivalence of disjunctions. (Contributed by NM, 20-Apr-1994.) |
⊢ (𝜑 → (𝜓 ↔ 𝜒)) & ⊢ (𝜑 → (𝜃 ↔ 𝜏)) & ⊢ (𝜑 → (𝜂 ↔ 𝜁)) ⇒ ⊢ (𝜑 → ((𝜓 ∨ 𝜃 ∨ 𝜂) ↔ (𝜒 ∨ 𝜏 ∨ 𝜁))) | ||
Theorem | 3anbi123d 1323 | Deduction joining 3 equivalences to form equivalence of conjunctions. (Contributed by NM, 22-Apr-1994.) |
⊢ (𝜑 → (𝜓 ↔ 𝜒)) & ⊢ (𝜑 → (𝜃 ↔ 𝜏)) & ⊢ (𝜑 → (𝜂 ↔ 𝜁)) ⇒ ⊢ (𝜑 → ((𝜓 ∧ 𝜃 ∧ 𝜂) ↔ (𝜒 ∧ 𝜏 ∧ 𝜁))) | ||
Theorem | 3anbi12d 1324 | Deduction conjoining and adding a conjunct to equivalences. (Contributed by NM, 8-Sep-2006.) |
⊢ (𝜑 → (𝜓 ↔ 𝜒)) & ⊢ (𝜑 → (𝜃 ↔ 𝜏)) ⇒ ⊢ (𝜑 → ((𝜓 ∧ 𝜃 ∧ 𝜂) ↔ (𝜒 ∧ 𝜏 ∧ 𝜂))) | ||
Theorem | 3anbi13d 1325 | Deduction conjoining and adding a conjunct to equivalences. (Contributed by NM, 8-Sep-2006.) |
⊢ (𝜑 → (𝜓 ↔ 𝜒)) & ⊢ (𝜑 → (𝜃 ↔ 𝜏)) ⇒ ⊢ (𝜑 → ((𝜓 ∧ 𝜂 ∧ 𝜃) ↔ (𝜒 ∧ 𝜂 ∧ 𝜏))) | ||
Theorem | 3anbi23d 1326 | Deduction conjoining and adding a conjunct to equivalences. (Contributed by NM, 8-Sep-2006.) |
⊢ (𝜑 → (𝜓 ↔ 𝜒)) & ⊢ (𝜑 → (𝜃 ↔ 𝜏)) ⇒ ⊢ (𝜑 → ((𝜂 ∧ 𝜓 ∧ 𝜃) ↔ (𝜂 ∧ 𝜒 ∧ 𝜏))) | ||
Theorem | 3anbi1d 1327 | Deduction adding conjuncts to an equivalence. (Contributed by NM, 8-Sep-2006.) |
⊢ (𝜑 → (𝜓 ↔ 𝜒)) ⇒ ⊢ (𝜑 → ((𝜓 ∧ 𝜃 ∧ 𝜏) ↔ (𝜒 ∧ 𝜃 ∧ 𝜏))) | ||
Theorem | 3anbi2d 1328 | Deduction adding conjuncts to an equivalence. (Contributed by NM, 8-Sep-2006.) |
⊢ (𝜑 → (𝜓 ↔ 𝜒)) ⇒ ⊢ (𝜑 → ((𝜃 ∧ 𝜓 ∧ 𝜏) ↔ (𝜃 ∧ 𝜒 ∧ 𝜏))) | ||
Theorem | 3anbi3d 1329 | Deduction adding conjuncts to an equivalence. (Contributed by NM, 8-Sep-2006.) |
⊢ (𝜑 → (𝜓 ↔ 𝜒)) ⇒ ⊢ (𝜑 → ((𝜃 ∧ 𝜏 ∧ 𝜓) ↔ (𝜃 ∧ 𝜏 ∧ 𝜒))) | ||
Theorem | 3anim123d 1330 | Deduction joining 3 implications to form implication of conjunctions. (Contributed by NM, 24-Feb-2005.) |
⊢ (𝜑 → (𝜓 → 𝜒)) & ⊢ (𝜑 → (𝜃 → 𝜏)) & ⊢ (𝜑 → (𝜂 → 𝜁)) ⇒ ⊢ (𝜑 → ((𝜓 ∧ 𝜃 ∧ 𝜂) → (𝜒 ∧ 𝜏 ∧ 𝜁))) | ||
Theorem | 3orim123d 1331 | Deduction joining 3 implications to form implication of disjunctions. (Contributed by NM, 4-Apr-1997.) |
⊢ (𝜑 → (𝜓 → 𝜒)) & ⊢ (𝜑 → (𝜃 → 𝜏)) & ⊢ (𝜑 → (𝜂 → 𝜁)) ⇒ ⊢ (𝜑 → ((𝜓 ∨ 𝜃 ∨ 𝜂) → (𝜒 ∨ 𝜏 ∨ 𝜁))) | ||
Theorem | an6 1332 | Rearrangement of 6 conjuncts. (Contributed by NM, 13-Mar-1995.) |
⊢ (((𝜑 ∧ 𝜓 ∧ 𝜒) ∧ (𝜃 ∧ 𝜏 ∧ 𝜂)) ↔ ((𝜑 ∧ 𝜃) ∧ (𝜓 ∧ 𝜏) ∧ (𝜒 ∧ 𝜂))) | ||
Theorem | 3an6 1333 | Analog of an4 586 for triple conjunction. (Contributed by Scott Fenton, 16-Mar-2011.) (Proof shortened by Andrew Salmon, 25-May-2011.) |
⊢ (((𝜑 ∧ 𝜓) ∧ (𝜒 ∧ 𝜃) ∧ (𝜏 ∧ 𝜂)) ↔ ((𝜑 ∧ 𝜒 ∧ 𝜏) ∧ (𝜓 ∧ 𝜃 ∧ 𝜂))) | ||
Theorem | 3or6 1334 | Analog of or4 772 for triple conjunction. (Contributed by Scott Fenton, 16-Mar-2011.) |
⊢ (((𝜑 ∨ 𝜓) ∨ (𝜒 ∨ 𝜃) ∨ (𝜏 ∨ 𝜂)) ↔ ((𝜑 ∨ 𝜒 ∨ 𝜏) ∨ (𝜓 ∨ 𝜃 ∨ 𝜂))) | ||
Theorem | mp3an1 1335 | An inference based on modus ponens. (Contributed by NM, 21-Nov-1994.) |
⊢ 𝜑 & ⊢ ((𝜑 ∧ 𝜓 ∧ 𝜒) → 𝜃) ⇒ ⊢ ((𝜓 ∧ 𝜒) → 𝜃) | ||
Theorem | mp3an2 1336 | An inference based on modus ponens. (Contributed by NM, 21-Nov-1994.) |
⊢ 𝜓 & ⊢ ((𝜑 ∧ 𝜓 ∧ 𝜒) → 𝜃) ⇒ ⊢ ((𝜑 ∧ 𝜒) → 𝜃) | ||
Theorem | mp3an3 1337 | An inference based on modus ponens. (Contributed by NM, 21-Nov-1994.) |
⊢ 𝜒 & ⊢ ((𝜑 ∧ 𝜓 ∧ 𝜒) → 𝜃) ⇒ ⊢ ((𝜑 ∧ 𝜓) → 𝜃) | ||
Theorem | mp3an12 1338 | An inference based on modus ponens. (Contributed by NM, 13-Jul-2005.) |
⊢ 𝜑 & ⊢ 𝜓 & ⊢ ((𝜑 ∧ 𝜓 ∧ 𝜒) → 𝜃) ⇒ ⊢ (𝜒 → 𝜃) | ||
Theorem | mp3an13 1339 | An inference based on modus ponens. (Contributed by NM, 14-Jul-2005.) |
⊢ 𝜑 & ⊢ 𝜒 & ⊢ ((𝜑 ∧ 𝜓 ∧ 𝜒) → 𝜃) ⇒ ⊢ (𝜓 → 𝜃) | ||
Theorem | mp3an23 1340 | An inference based on modus ponens. (Contributed by NM, 14-Jul-2005.) |
⊢ 𝜓 & ⊢ 𝜒 & ⊢ ((𝜑 ∧ 𝜓 ∧ 𝜒) → 𝜃) ⇒ ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝜃) | ||
Theorem | mp3an1i 1341 | An inference based on modus ponens. (Contributed by NM, 5-Jul-2005.) |
⊢ 𝜓 & ⊢ (𝜑 → ((𝜓 ∧ 𝜒 ∧ 𝜃) → 𝜏)) ⇒ ⊢ (𝜑 → ((𝜒 ∧ 𝜃) → 𝜏)) | ||
Theorem | mp3anl1 1342 | An inference based on modus ponens. (Contributed by NM, 24-Feb-2005.) |
⊢ 𝜑 & ⊢ (((𝜑 ∧ 𝜓 ∧ 𝜒) ∧ 𝜃) → 𝜏) ⇒ ⊢ (((𝜓 ∧ 𝜒) ∧ 𝜃) → 𝜏) | ||
Theorem | mp3anl2 1343 | An inference based on modus ponens. (Contributed by NM, 24-Feb-2005.) |
⊢ 𝜓 & ⊢ (((𝜑 ∧ 𝜓 ∧ 𝜒) ∧ 𝜃) → 𝜏) ⇒ ⊢ (((𝜑 ∧ 𝜒) ∧ 𝜃) → 𝜏) | ||
Theorem | mp3anl3 1344 | An inference based on modus ponens. (Contributed by NM, 24-Feb-2005.) |
⊢ 𝜒 & ⊢ (((𝜑 ∧ 𝜓 ∧ 𝜒) ∧ 𝜃) → 𝜏) ⇒ ⊢ (((𝜑 ∧ 𝜓) ∧ 𝜃) → 𝜏) | ||
Theorem | mp3anr1 1345 | An inference based on modus ponens. (Contributed by NM, 4-Nov-2006.) |
⊢ 𝜓 & ⊢ ((𝜑 ∧ (𝜓 ∧ 𝜒 ∧ 𝜃)) → 𝜏) ⇒ ⊢ ((𝜑 ∧ (𝜒 ∧ 𝜃)) → 𝜏) | ||
Theorem | mp3anr2 1346 | An inference based on modus ponens. (Contributed by NM, 24-Nov-2006.) |
⊢ 𝜒 & ⊢ ((𝜑 ∧ (𝜓 ∧ 𝜒 ∧ 𝜃)) → 𝜏) ⇒ ⊢ ((𝜑 ∧ (𝜓 ∧ 𝜃)) → 𝜏) | ||
Theorem | mp3anr3 1347 | An inference based on modus ponens. (Contributed by NM, 19-Oct-2007.) |
⊢ 𝜃 & ⊢ ((𝜑 ∧ (𝜓 ∧ 𝜒 ∧ 𝜃)) → 𝜏) ⇒ ⊢ ((𝜑 ∧ (𝜓 ∧ 𝜒)) → 𝜏) | ||
Theorem | mp3an 1348 | An inference based on modus ponens. (Contributed by NM, 14-May-1999.) |
⊢ 𝜑 & ⊢ 𝜓 & ⊢ 𝜒 & ⊢ ((𝜑 ∧ 𝜓 ∧ 𝜒) → 𝜃) ⇒ ⊢ 𝜃 | ||
Theorem | mpd3an3 1349 | An inference based on modus ponens. (Contributed by NM, 8-Nov-2007.) |
⊢ ((𝜑 ∧ 𝜓) → 𝜒) & ⊢ ((𝜑 ∧ 𝜓 ∧ 𝜒) → 𝜃) ⇒ ⊢ ((𝜑 ∧ 𝜓) → 𝜃) | ||
Theorem | mpd3an23 1350 | An inference based on modus ponens. (Contributed by NM, 4-Dec-2006.) |
⊢ (𝜑 → 𝜓) & ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝜒) & ⊢ ((𝜑 ∧ 𝜓 ∧ 𝜒) → 𝜃) ⇒ ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝜃) | ||
Theorem | mp3and 1351 | A deduction based on modus ponens. (Contributed by Mario Carneiro, 24-Dec-2016.) |
⊢ (𝜑 → 𝜓) & ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝜒) & ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝜃) & ⊢ (𝜑 → ((𝜓 ∧ 𝜒 ∧ 𝜃) → 𝜏)) ⇒ ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝜏) | ||
Theorem | mp3an12i 1352 | mp3an 1348 with antecedents in standard conjunction form and with one hypothesis an implication. (Contributed by Alan Sare, 28-Aug-2016.) |
⊢ 𝜑 & ⊢ 𝜓 & ⊢ (𝜒 → 𝜃) & ⊢ ((𝜑 ∧ 𝜓 ∧ 𝜃) → 𝜏) ⇒ ⊢ (𝜒 → 𝜏) | ||
Theorem | mp3an2i 1353 | mp3an 1348 with antecedents in standard conjunction form and with two hypotheses which are implications. (Contributed by Alan Sare, 28-Aug-2016.) |
⊢ 𝜑 & ⊢ (𝜓 → 𝜒) & ⊢ (𝜓 → 𝜃) & ⊢ ((𝜑 ∧ 𝜒 ∧ 𝜃) → 𝜏) ⇒ ⊢ (𝜓 → 𝜏) | ||
Theorem | mp3an3an 1354 | mp3an 1348 with antecedents in standard conjunction form and with two hypotheses which are implications. (Contributed by Alan Sare, 28-Aug-2016.) |
⊢ 𝜑 & ⊢ (𝜓 → 𝜒) & ⊢ (𝜃 → 𝜏) & ⊢ ((𝜑 ∧ 𝜒 ∧ 𝜏) → 𝜂) ⇒ ⊢ ((𝜓 ∧ 𝜃) → 𝜂) | ||
Theorem | mp3an2ani 1355 | An elimination deduction. (Contributed by Alan Sare, 17-Oct-2017.) |
⊢ 𝜑 & ⊢ (𝜓 → 𝜒) & ⊢ ((𝜓 ∧ 𝜃) → 𝜏) & ⊢ ((𝜑 ∧ 𝜒 ∧ 𝜏) → 𝜂) ⇒ ⊢ ((𝜓 ∧ 𝜃) → 𝜂) | ||
Theorem | biimp3a 1356 | Infer implication from a logical equivalence. Similar to biimpa 296. (Contributed by NM, 4-Sep-2005.) |
⊢ ((𝜑 ∧ 𝜓) → (𝜒 ↔ 𝜃)) ⇒ ⊢ ((𝜑 ∧ 𝜓 ∧ 𝜒) → 𝜃) | ||
Theorem | biimp3ar 1357 | Infer implication from a logical equivalence. Similar to biimpar 297. (Contributed by NM, 2-Jan-2009.) |
⊢ ((𝜑 ∧ 𝜓) → (𝜒 ↔ 𝜃)) ⇒ ⊢ ((𝜑 ∧ 𝜓 ∧ 𝜃) → 𝜒) | ||
Theorem | 3anandis 1358 | Inference that undistributes a triple conjunction in the antecedent. (Contributed by NM, 18-Apr-2007.) |
⊢ (((𝜑 ∧ 𝜓) ∧ (𝜑 ∧ 𝜒) ∧ (𝜑 ∧ 𝜃)) → 𝜏) ⇒ ⊢ ((𝜑 ∧ (𝜓 ∧ 𝜒 ∧ 𝜃)) → 𝜏) | ||
Theorem | 3anandirs 1359 | Inference that undistributes a triple conjunction in the antecedent. (Contributed by NM, 25-Jul-2006.) (Revised by NM, 18-Apr-2007.) |
⊢ (((𝜑 ∧ 𝜃) ∧ (𝜓 ∧ 𝜃) ∧ (𝜒 ∧ 𝜃)) → 𝜏) ⇒ ⊢ (((𝜑 ∧ 𝜓 ∧ 𝜒) ∧ 𝜃) → 𝜏) | ||
Theorem | ecased 1360 | Deduction form of disjunctive syllogism. (Contributed by Jim Kingdon, 9-Dec-2017.) |
⊢ (𝜑 → ¬ 𝜒) & ⊢ (𝜑 → (𝜓 ∨ 𝜒)) ⇒ ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝜓) | ||
Theorem | ecase23d 1361 | Variation of ecased 1360 with three disjuncts instead of two. (Contributed by NM, 22-Apr-1994.) (Revised by Jim Kingdon, 9-Dec-2017.) |
⊢ (𝜑 → ¬ 𝜒) & ⊢ (𝜑 → ¬ 𝜃) & ⊢ (𝜑 → (𝜓 ∨ 𝜒 ∨ 𝜃)) ⇒ ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝜓) | ||
Even though it is not ordinarily part of propositional calculus, the universal quantifier ∀ is introduced here so that the soundness of Definition df-tru 1367 can be checked by the same algorithm that is used for predicate calculus. Its first real use is in Axiom ax-5 1458 in the predicate calculus section below. For those who want propositional calculus to be self-contained, i.e., to use wff variables only, the alternate Definition dftru2 1372 may be adopted and this subsection moved down to the start of the subsection with wex 1503 below. However, the use of dftru2 1372 as a definition requires a more elaborate definition checking algorithm that we prefer to avoid. | ||
Syntax | wal 1362 | Extend wff definition to include the universal quantifier ("for all"). ∀𝑥𝜑 is read "𝜑 (phi) is true for all 𝑥". Typically, in its final application 𝜑 would be replaced with a wff containing a (free) occurrence of the variable 𝑥, for example 𝑥 = 𝑦. In a universe with a finite number of objects, "for all" is equivalent to a big conjunction (AND) with one wff for each possible case of 𝑥. When the universe is infinite (as with set theory), such a propositional-calculus equivalent is not possible because an infinitely long formula has no meaning, but conceptually the idea is the same. |
wff ∀𝑥𝜑 | ||
Even though it is not ordinarily part of propositional calculus, the equality predicate = is introduced here so that the soundness of definition df-tru 1367 can be checked by the same algorithm as is used for predicate calculus. Its first real use is in Axiom ax-8 1515 in the predicate calculus section below. For those who want propositional calculus to be self-contained, i.e., to use wff variables only, the alternate definition dftru2 1372 may be adopted and this subsection moved down to just above weq 1514 below. However, the use of dftru2 1372 as a definition requires a more elaborate definition checking algorithm that we prefer to avoid. | ||
Syntax | cv 1363 |
This syntax construction states that a variable 𝑥, which has been
declared to be a setvar variable by $f statement vx, is also a class
expression. This can be justified informally as follows. We know that
the class builder {𝑦 ∣ 𝑦 ∈ 𝑥} is a class by cab 2175.
Since (when
𝑦 is distinct from 𝑥) we
have 𝑥 =
{𝑦 ∣ 𝑦 ∈ 𝑥} by
cvjust 2184, we can argue that the syntax "class 𝑥 " can be viewed as
an abbreviation for "class {𝑦 ∣ 𝑦 ∈ 𝑥}". See the discussion
under the definition of class in [Jech] p.
4 showing that "Every set can
be considered to be a class."
While it is tempting and perhaps occasionally useful to view cv 1363 as a "type conversion" from a setvar variable to a class variable, keep in mind that cv 1363 is intrinsically no different from any other class-building syntax such as cab 2175, cun 3142, or c0 3437. For a general discussion of the theory of classes and the role of cv 1363, see https://us.metamath.org/mpeuni/mmset.html#class 1363. (The description above applies to set theory, not predicate calculus. The purpose of introducing class 𝑥 here, and not in set theory where it belongs, is to allow us to express i.e. "prove" the weq 1514 of predicate calculus from the wceq 1364 of set theory, so that we don't overload the = connective with two syntax definitions. This is done to prevent ambiguity that would complicate some Metamath parsers.) |
class 𝑥 | ||
Syntax | wceq 1364 |
Extend wff definition to include class equality.
For a general discussion of the theory of classes, see https://us.metamath.org/mpeuni/mmset.html#class. (The purpose of introducing wff 𝐴 = 𝐵 here, and not in set theory where it belongs, is to allow us to express i.e. "prove" the weq 1514 of predicate calculus in terms of the wceq 1364 of set theory, so that we don't "overload" the = connective with two syntax definitions. This is done to prevent ambiguity that would complicate some Metamath parsers. For example, some parsers - although not the Metamath program - stumble on the fact that the = in 𝑥 = 𝑦 could be the = of either weq 1514 or wceq 1364, although mathematically it makes no difference. The class variables 𝐴 and 𝐵 are introduced temporarily for the purpose of this definition but otherwise not used in predicate calculus. See df-cleq 2182 for more information on the set theory usage of wceq 1364.) |
wff 𝐴 = 𝐵 | ||
Syntax | wtru 1365 | ⊤ is a wff. |
wff ⊤ | ||
Theorem | trujust 1366 | Soundness justification theorem for df-tru 1367. (Contributed by Mario Carneiro, 17-Nov-2013.) (Revised by NM, 11-Jul-2019.) |
⊢ ((∀𝑥 𝑥 = 𝑥 → ∀𝑥 𝑥 = 𝑥) ↔ (∀𝑦 𝑦 = 𝑦 → ∀𝑦 𝑦 = 𝑦)) | ||
Definition | df-tru 1367 | Definition of the truth value "true", or "verum", denoted by ⊤. This is a tautology, as proved by tru 1368. In this definition, an instance of id 19 is used as the definiens, although any tautology, such as an axiom, can be used in its place. This particular id 19 instance was chosen so this definition can be checked by the same algorithm that is used for predicate calculus. This definition should be referenced directly only by tru 1368, and other proofs should depend on tru 1368 (directly or indirectly) instead of this definition, since there are many alternate ways to define ⊤. (Contributed by Anthony Hart, 13-Oct-2010.) (Revised by NM, 11-Jul-2019.) (New usage is discouraged.) |
⊢ (⊤ ↔ (∀𝑥 𝑥 = 𝑥 → ∀𝑥 𝑥 = 𝑥)) | ||
Theorem | tru 1368 | The truth value ⊤ is provable. (Contributed by Anthony Hart, 13-Oct-2010.) |
⊢ ⊤ | ||
Syntax | wfal 1369 | ⊥ is a wff. |
wff ⊥ | ||
Definition | df-fal 1370 | Definition of the truth value "false", or "falsum", denoted by ⊥. See also df-tru 1367. (Contributed by Anthony Hart, 22-Oct-2010.) |
⊢ (⊥ ↔ ¬ ⊤) | ||
Theorem | fal 1371 | The truth value ⊥ is refutable. (Contributed by Anthony Hart, 22-Oct-2010.) (Proof shortened by Mel L. O'Cat, 11-Mar-2012.) |
⊢ ¬ ⊥ | ||
Theorem | dftru2 1372 | An alternate definition of "true". (Contributed by Anthony Hart, 13-Oct-2010.) (Revised by BJ, 12-Jul-2019.) (New usage is discouraged.) |
⊢ (⊤ ↔ (𝜑 → 𝜑)) | ||
Theorem | mptru 1373 | Eliminate ⊤ as an antecedent. A proposition implied by ⊤ is true. (Contributed by Mario Carneiro, 13-Mar-2014.) |
⊢ (⊤ → 𝜑) ⇒ ⊢ 𝜑 | ||
Theorem | tbtru 1374 | A proposition is equivalent to itself being equivalent to ⊤. (Contributed by Anthony Hart, 14-Aug-2011.) |
⊢ (𝜑 ↔ (𝜑 ↔ ⊤)) | ||
Theorem | nbfal 1375 | The negation of a proposition is equivalent to itself being equivalent to ⊥. (Contributed by Anthony Hart, 14-Aug-2011.) |
⊢ (¬ 𝜑 ↔ (𝜑 ↔ ⊥)) | ||
Theorem | bitru 1376 | A theorem is equivalent to truth. (Contributed by Mario Carneiro, 9-May-2015.) |
⊢ 𝜑 ⇒ ⊢ (𝜑 ↔ ⊤) | ||
Theorem | bifal 1377 | A contradiction is equivalent to falsehood. (Contributed by Mario Carneiro, 9-May-2015.) |
⊢ ¬ 𝜑 ⇒ ⊢ (𝜑 ↔ ⊥) | ||
Theorem | falim 1378 | The truth value ⊥ implies anything. Also called the principle of explosion, or "ex falso quodlibet". (Contributed by FL, 20-Mar-2011.) (Proof shortened by Anthony Hart, 1-Aug-2011.) |
⊢ (⊥ → 𝜑) | ||
Theorem | falimd 1379 | The truth value ⊥ implies anything. (Contributed by Mario Carneiro, 9-Feb-2017.) |
⊢ ((𝜑 ∧ ⊥) → 𝜓) | ||
Theorem | trud 1380 | Anything implies ⊤. (Contributed by FL, 20-Mar-2011.) (Proof shortened by Anthony Hart, 1-Aug-2011.) |
⊢ (𝜑 → ⊤) | ||
Theorem | truan 1381 | True can be removed from a conjunction. (Contributed by FL, 20-Mar-2011.) (Proof shortened by Wolf Lammen, 21-Jul-2019.) |
⊢ ((⊤ ∧ 𝜑) ↔ 𝜑) | ||
Theorem | dfnot 1382 | Given falsum, we can define the negation of a wff 𝜑 as the statement that a contradiction follows from assuming 𝜑. (Contributed by Mario Carneiro, 9-Feb-2017.) (Proof shortened by Wolf Lammen, 21-Jul-2019.) |
⊢ (¬ 𝜑 ↔ (𝜑 → ⊥)) | ||
Theorem | inegd 1383 | Negation introduction rule from natural deduction. (Contributed by Mario Carneiro, 9-Feb-2017.) |
⊢ ((𝜑 ∧ 𝜓) → ⊥) ⇒ ⊢ (𝜑 → ¬ 𝜓) | ||
Theorem | pm2.21fal 1384 | If a wff and its negation are provable, then falsum is provable. (Contributed by Mario Carneiro, 9-Feb-2017.) |
⊢ (𝜑 → 𝜓) & ⊢ (𝜑 → ¬ 𝜓) ⇒ ⊢ (𝜑 → ⊥) | ||
Theorem | pclem6 1385 | Negation inferred from embedded conjunct. (Contributed by NM, 20-Aug-1993.) (Proof rewritten by Jim Kingdon, 4-May-2018.) |
⊢ ((𝜑 ↔ (𝜓 ∧ ¬ 𝜑)) → ¬ 𝜓) | ||
Syntax | wxo 1386 | Extend wff definition to include exclusive disjunction ('xor'). |
wff (𝜑 ⊻ 𝜓) | ||
Definition | df-xor 1387 | Define exclusive disjunction (logical 'xor'). Return true if either the left or right, but not both, are true. Contrast with ∧ (wa 104), ∨ (wo 709), and → (wi 4) . (Contributed by FL, 22-Nov-2010.) (Modified by Jim Kingdon, 1-Mar-2018.) |
⊢ ((𝜑 ⊻ 𝜓) ↔ ((𝜑 ∨ 𝜓) ∧ ¬ (𝜑 ∧ 𝜓))) | ||
Theorem | xoranor 1388 | One way of defining exclusive or. Equivalent to df-xor 1387. (Contributed by Jim Kingdon and Mario Carneiro, 1-Mar-2018.) |
⊢ ((𝜑 ⊻ 𝜓) ↔ ((𝜑 ∨ 𝜓) ∧ (¬ 𝜑 ∨ ¬ 𝜓))) | ||
Theorem | excxor 1389 | This tautology shows that xor is really exclusive. (Contributed by FL, 22-Nov-2010.) (Proof rewritten by Jim Kingdon, 5-May-2018.) |
⊢ ((𝜑 ⊻ 𝜓) ↔ ((𝜑 ∧ ¬ 𝜓) ∨ (¬ 𝜑 ∧ 𝜓))) | ||
Theorem | xoror 1390 | XOR implies OR. (Contributed by BJ, 19-Apr-2019.) |
⊢ ((𝜑 ⊻ 𝜓) → (𝜑 ∨ 𝜓)) | ||
Theorem | xorbi2d 1391 | Deduction joining an equivalence and a left operand to form equivalence of exclusive-or. (Contributed by Jim Kingdon, 7-Oct-2018.) |
⊢ (𝜑 → (𝜓 ↔ 𝜒)) ⇒ ⊢ (𝜑 → ((𝜃 ⊻ 𝜓) ↔ (𝜃 ⊻ 𝜒))) | ||
Theorem | xorbi1d 1392 | Deduction joining an equivalence and a right operand to form equivalence of exclusive-or. (Contributed by Jim Kingdon, 7-Oct-2018.) |
⊢ (𝜑 → (𝜓 ↔ 𝜒)) ⇒ ⊢ (𝜑 → ((𝜓 ⊻ 𝜃) ↔ (𝜒 ⊻ 𝜃))) | ||
Theorem | xorbi12d 1393 | Deduction joining two equivalences to form equivalence of exclusive-or. (Contributed by Jim Kingdon, 7-Oct-2018.) |
⊢ (𝜑 → (𝜓 ↔ 𝜒)) & ⊢ (𝜑 → (𝜃 ↔ 𝜏)) ⇒ ⊢ (𝜑 → ((𝜓 ⊻ 𝜃) ↔ (𝜒 ⊻ 𝜏))) | ||
Theorem | xorbi12i 1394 | Equality property for XOR. (Contributed by Mario Carneiro, 4-Sep-2016.) |
⊢ (𝜑 ↔ 𝜓) & ⊢ (𝜒 ↔ 𝜃) ⇒ ⊢ ((𝜑 ⊻ 𝜒) ↔ (𝜓 ⊻ 𝜃)) | ||
Theorem | xorbin 1395 | A consequence of exclusive or. In classical logic the converse also holds. (Contributed by Jim Kingdon, 8-Mar-2018.) |
⊢ ((𝜑 ⊻ 𝜓) → (𝜑 ↔ ¬ 𝜓)) | ||
Theorem | pm5.18im 1396 | One direction of pm5.18dc 884, which holds for all propositions, not just decidable propositions. (Contributed by Jim Kingdon, 10-Mar-2018.) |
⊢ ((𝜑 ↔ 𝜓) → ¬ (𝜑 ↔ ¬ 𝜓)) | ||
Theorem | xornbi 1397 | A consequence of exclusive or. For decidable propositions this is an equivalence, as seen at xornbidc 1402. (Contributed by Jim Kingdon, 10-Mar-2018.) |
⊢ ((𝜑 ⊻ 𝜓) → ¬ (𝜑 ↔ 𝜓)) | ||
Theorem | xor3dc 1398 | Two ways to express "exclusive or" between decidable propositions. (Contributed by Jim Kingdon, 12-Apr-2018.) |
⊢ (DECID 𝜑 → (DECID 𝜓 → (¬ (𝜑 ↔ 𝜓) ↔ (𝜑 ↔ ¬ 𝜓)))) | ||
Theorem | xorcom 1399 | ⊻ is commutative. (Contributed by David A. Wheeler, 6-Oct-2018.) |
⊢ ((𝜑 ⊻ 𝜓) ↔ (𝜓 ⊻ 𝜑)) | ||
Theorem | pm5.15dc 1400 | A decidable proposition is equivalent to a decidable proposition or its negation. Based on theorem *5.15 of [WhiteheadRussell] p. 124. (Contributed by Jim Kingdon, 18-Apr-2018.) |
⊢ (DECID 𝜑 → (DECID 𝜓 → ((𝜑 ↔ 𝜓) ∨ (𝜑 ↔ ¬ 𝜓)))) |
< Previous Next > |
Copyright terms: Public domain | < Previous Next > |