P. 145 of Theorem List - Intuitionistic Logic Explorer

Type

Label

Description

Statement

Theorem

lgsdir2lem3 14401

Lemma for lgsdir2 14404. (Contributed by Mario Carneiro, 4-Feb-2015.)

⊢ ((𝐴 ∈ ℤ ∧ ¬ 2 ∥ 𝐴) → (𝐴 mod 8) ∈ ({1, 7} ∪ {3, 5}))

Theorem

lgsdir2lem4 14402

Lemma for lgsdir2 14404. (Contributed by Mario Carneiro, 4-Feb-2015.)

⊢ (((𝐴 ∈ ℤ ∧ 𝐵 ∈ ℤ) ∧ (𝐴 mod 8) ∈ {1, 7}) → (((𝐴 · 𝐵) mod 8) ∈ {1, 7} ↔ (𝐵 mod 8) ∈ {1, 7}))

Theorem

lgsdir2lem5 14403

Lemma for lgsdir2 14404. (Contributed by Mario Carneiro, 4-Feb-2015.)

⊢ (((𝐴 ∈ ℤ ∧ 𝐵 ∈ ℤ) ∧ ((𝐴 mod 8) ∈ {3, 5} ∧ (𝐵 mod 8) ∈ {3, 5})) → ((𝐴 · 𝐵) mod 8) ∈ {1, 7})

Theorem

lgsdir2 14404

The Legendre symbol is completely multiplicative at 2. (Contributed by Mario Carneiro, 4-Feb-2015.)

⊢ ((𝐴 ∈ ℤ ∧ 𝐵 ∈ ℤ) → ((𝐴 · 𝐵) /_L 2) = ((𝐴 /_L 2) · (𝐵 /_L 2)))

Theorem

lgsdirprm 14405

The Legendre symbol is completely multiplicative at the primes. See theorem 9.3 in [ApostolNT] p. 180. (Contributed by Mario Carneiro, 4-Feb-2015.) (Proof shortened by AV, 18-Mar-2022.)

⊢ ((𝐴 ∈ ℤ ∧ 𝐵 ∈ ℤ ∧ 𝑃 ∈ ℙ) → ((𝐴 · 𝐵) /_L 𝑃) = ((𝐴 /_L 𝑃) · (𝐵 /_L 𝑃)))

Theorem

lgsdir 14406

The Legendre symbol is completely multiplicative in its left argument. Generalization of theorem 9.9(a) in [ApostolNT] p. 188 (which assumes that 𝐴 and 𝐵 are odd positive integers). (Contributed by Mario Carneiro, 4-Feb-2015.)

⊢ (((𝐴 ∈ ℤ ∧ 𝐵 ∈ ℤ ∧ 𝑁 ∈ ℤ) ∧ (𝐴 ≠ 0 ∧ 𝐵 ≠ 0)) → ((𝐴 · 𝐵) /_L 𝑁) = ((𝐴 /_L 𝑁) · (𝐵 /_L 𝑁)))

Theorem

lgsdilem2 14407*

Lemma for lgsdi 14408. (Contributed by Mario Carneiro, 4-Feb-2015.)

⊢ (𝜑 → 𝐴 ∈ ℤ)    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝑀 ∈ ℤ)    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝑁 ∈ ℤ)    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝑀 ≠ 0)    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝑁 ≠ 0)    &   ⊢ 𝐹 = (𝑛 ∈ ℕ ↦ if(𝑛 ∈ ℙ, ((𝐴 /_L 𝑛)↑(𝑛 pCnt 𝑀)), 1))    ⇒   ⊢ (𝜑 → (seq1( · , 𝐹)‘(abs‘𝑀)) = (seq1( · , 𝐹)‘(abs‘(𝑀 · 𝑁))))

Theorem

lgsdi 14408

The Legendre symbol is completely multiplicative in its right argument. Generalization of theorem 9.9(b) in [ApostolNT] p. 188 (which assumes that 𝑀 and 𝑁 are odd positive integers). (Contributed by Mario Carneiro, 5-Feb-2015.)

⊢ (((𝐴 ∈ ℤ ∧ 𝑀 ∈ ℤ ∧ 𝑁 ∈ ℤ) ∧ (𝑀 ≠ 0 ∧ 𝑁 ≠ 0)) → (𝐴 /_L (𝑀 · 𝑁)) = ((𝐴 /_L 𝑀) · (𝐴 /_L 𝑁)))

Theorem

lgsne0 14409

The Legendre symbol is nonzero (and hence equal to 1 or -1) precisely when the arguments are coprime. (Contributed by Mario Carneiro, 5-Feb-2015.)

⊢ ((𝐴 ∈ ℤ ∧ 𝑁 ∈ ℤ) → ((𝐴 /_L 𝑁) ≠ 0 ↔ (𝐴 gcd 𝑁) = 1))

Theorem

lgsabs1 14410

The Legendre symbol is nonzero (and hence equal to 1 or -1) precisely when the arguments are coprime. (Contributed by Mario Carneiro, 5-Feb-2015.)

⊢ ((𝐴 ∈ ℤ ∧ 𝑁 ∈ ℤ) → ((abs‘(𝐴 /_L 𝑁)) = 1 ↔ (𝐴 gcd 𝑁) = 1))

Theorem

lgssq 14411

The Legendre symbol at a square is equal to 1. Together with lgsmod 14397 this implies that the Legendre symbol takes value 1 at every quadratic residue. (Contributed by Mario Carneiro, 5-Feb-2015.) (Revised by AV, 20-Jul-2021.)

⊢ (((𝐴 ∈ ℤ ∧ 𝐴 ≠ 0) ∧ 𝑁 ∈ ℤ ∧ (𝐴 gcd 𝑁) = 1) → ((𝐴↑2) /_L 𝑁) = 1)

Theorem

lgssq2 14412

The Legendre symbol at a square is equal to 1. (Contributed by Mario Carneiro, 5-Feb-2015.)

⊢ ((𝐴 ∈ ℤ ∧ 𝑁 ∈ ℕ ∧ (𝐴 gcd 𝑁) = 1) → (𝐴 /_L (𝑁↑2)) = 1)

Theorem

lgsprme0 14413

The Legendre symbol at any prime (even at 2) is 0 iff the prime does not divide the first argument. See definition in [ApostolNT] p. 179. (Contributed by AV, 20-Jul-2021.)

⊢ ((𝐴 ∈ ℤ ∧ 𝑃 ∈ ℙ) → ((𝐴 /_L 𝑃) = 0 ↔ (𝐴 mod 𝑃) = 0))

Theorem

1lgs 14414

The Legendre symbol at 1. See example 1 in [ApostolNT] p. 180. (Contributed by Mario Carneiro, 28-Apr-2016.)

⊢ (𝑁 ∈ ℤ → (1 /_L 𝑁) = 1)

Theorem

lgs1 14415

The Legendre symbol at 1. See definition in [ApostolNT] p. 188. (Contributed by Mario Carneiro, 28-Apr-2016.)

⊢ (𝐴 ∈ ℤ → (𝐴 /_L 1) = 1)

Theorem

lgsmodeq 14416

The Legendre (Jacobi) symbol is preserved under reduction mod 𝑛 when 𝑛 is odd. Theorem 9.9(c) in [ApostolNT] p. 188. (Contributed by AV, 20-Jul-2021.)

⊢ ((𝐴 ∈ ℤ ∧ 𝐵 ∈ ℤ ∧ (𝑁 ∈ ℕ ∧ ¬ 2 ∥ 𝑁)) → ((𝐴 mod 𝑁) = (𝐵 mod 𝑁) → (𝐴 /_L 𝑁) = (𝐵 /_L 𝑁)))

Theorem

lgsmulsqcoprm 14417

The Legendre (Jacobi) symbol is preserved under multiplication with a square of an integer coprime to the second argument. Theorem 9.9(d) in [ApostolNT] p. 188. (Contributed by AV, 20-Jul-2021.)

⊢ (((𝐴 ∈ ℤ ∧ 𝐴 ≠ 0) ∧ (𝐵 ∈ ℤ ∧ 𝐵 ≠ 0) ∧ (𝑁 ∈ ℤ ∧ (𝐴 gcd 𝑁) = 1)) → (((𝐴↑2) · 𝐵) /_L 𝑁) = (𝐵 /_L 𝑁))

Theorem

lgsdirnn0 14418

Variation on lgsdir 14406 valid for all 𝐴, 𝐵 but only for positive 𝑁. (The exact location of the failure of this law is for 𝐴 = 0, 𝐵 < 0, 𝑁 = -1 in which case (0 /_L -1) = 1 but (𝐵 /_L -1) = -1.) (Contributed by Mario Carneiro, 28-Apr-2016.)

⊢ ((𝐴 ∈ ℤ ∧ 𝐵 ∈ ℤ ∧ 𝑁 ∈ ℕ₀) → ((𝐴 · 𝐵) /_L 𝑁) = ((𝐴 /_L 𝑁) · (𝐵 /_L 𝑁)))

Theorem

lgsdinn0 14419

Variation on lgsdi 14408 valid for all 𝑀, 𝑁 but only for positive 𝐴. (The exact location of the failure of this law is for 𝐴 = -1, 𝑀 = 0, and some 𝑁 in which case (-1 /_L 0) = 1 but (-1 /_L 𝑁) = -1 when -1 is not a quadratic residue mod 𝑁.) (Contributed by Mario Carneiro, 28-Apr-2016.)

⊢ ((𝐴 ∈ ℕ₀ ∧ 𝑀 ∈ ℤ ∧ 𝑁 ∈ ℤ) → (𝐴 /_L (𝑀 · 𝑁)) = ((𝐴 /_L 𝑀) · (𝐴 /_L 𝑁)))

10.2.2  Quadratic reciprocity

Theorem

lgseisenlem1 14420*

Lemma for Eisenstein's lemma. If 𝑅(𝑢) = (𝑄 · 𝑢) mod 𝑃 and 𝑀(𝑢) = (-1↑𝑅(𝑢)) · 𝑅(𝑢), then for any even 1 ≤ 𝑢 ≤ 𝑃 − 1, 𝑀(𝑢) is also an even integer 1 ≤ 𝑀(𝑢) ≤ 𝑃 − 1. To simplify these statements, we divide all the even numbers by 2, so that it becomes the statement that 𝑀(𝑥 / 2) = (-1↑𝑅(𝑥 / 2)) · 𝑅(𝑥 / 2) / 2 is an integer between 1 and (𝑃 − 1) / 2. (Contributed by Mario Carneiro, 17-Jun-2015.)

⊢ (𝜑 → 𝑃 ∈ (ℙ ∖ {2}))    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝑄 ∈ (ℙ ∖ {2}))    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝑃 ≠ 𝑄)    &   ⊢ 𝑅 = ((𝑄 · (2 · 𝑥)) mod 𝑃)    &   ⊢ 𝑀 = (𝑥 ∈ (1...((𝑃 − 1) / 2)) ↦ ((((-1↑𝑅) · 𝑅) mod 𝑃) / 2))    ⇒   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝑀:(1...((𝑃 − 1) / 2))⟶(1...((𝑃 − 1) / 2)))

Theorem

lgseisenlem2 14421*

Lemma for Eisenstein's lemma. The function 𝑀 is an injection (and hence a bijection by the pigeonhole principle). (Contributed by Mario Carneiro, 17-Jun-2015.)

⊢ (𝜑 → 𝑃 ∈ (ℙ ∖ {2}))    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝑄 ∈ (ℙ ∖ {2}))    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝑃 ≠ 𝑄)    &   ⊢ 𝑅 = ((𝑄 · (2 · 𝑥)) mod 𝑃)    &   ⊢ 𝑀 = (𝑥 ∈ (1...((𝑃 − 1) / 2)) ↦ ((((-1↑𝑅) · 𝑅) mod 𝑃) / 2))    &   ⊢ 𝑆 = ((𝑄 · (2 · 𝑦)) mod 𝑃)    ⇒   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝑀:(1...((𝑃 − 1) / 2))–1-1-onto→(1...((𝑃 − 1) / 2)))

Theorem

m1lgs 14422

The first supplement to the law of quadratic reciprocity. Negative one is a square mod an odd prime 𝑃 iff 𝑃≡1 (mod 4). See first case of theorem 9.4 in [ApostolNT] p. 181. (Contributed by Mario Carneiro, 19-Jun-2015.)

⊢ (𝑃 ∈ (ℙ ∖ {2}) → ((-1 /_L 𝑃) = 1 ↔ (𝑃 mod 4) = 1))

Theorem

2lgsoddprmlem1 14423

Lemma 1 for 2lgsoddprm . (Contributed by AV, 19-Jul-2021.)

⊢ ((𝐴 ∈ ℤ ∧ 𝐵 ∈ ℤ ∧ 𝑁 = ((8 · 𝐴) + 𝐵)) → (((𝑁↑2) − 1) / 8) = (((8 · (𝐴↑2)) + (2 · (𝐴 · 𝐵))) + (((𝐵↑2) − 1) / 8)))

Theorem

2lgsoddprmlem2 14424

Lemma 2 for 2lgsoddprm . (Contributed by AV, 19-Jul-2021.)

⊢ ((𝑁 ∈ ℤ ∧ ¬ 2 ∥ 𝑁 ∧ 𝑅 = (𝑁 mod 8)) → (2 ∥ (((𝑁↑2) − 1) / 8) ↔ 2 ∥ (((𝑅↑2) − 1) / 8)))

Theorem

2lgsoddprmlem3a 14425

Lemma 1 for 2lgsoddprmlem3 14429. (Contributed by AV, 20-Jul-2021.)

⊢ (((1↑2) − 1) / 8) = 0

Theorem

2lgsoddprmlem3b 14426

Lemma 2 for 2lgsoddprmlem3 14429. (Contributed by AV, 20-Jul-2021.)

⊢ (((3↑2) − 1) / 8) = 1

Theorem

2lgsoddprmlem3c 14427

Lemma 3 for 2lgsoddprmlem3 14429. (Contributed by AV, 20-Jul-2021.)

⊢ (((5↑2) − 1) / 8) = 3

Theorem

2lgsoddprmlem3d 14428

Lemma 4 for 2lgsoddprmlem3 14429. (Contributed by AV, 20-Jul-2021.)

⊢ (((7↑2) − 1) / 8) = (2 · 3)

Theorem

2lgsoddprmlem3 14429

Lemma 3 for 2lgsoddprm . (Contributed by AV, 20-Jul-2021.)

⊢ ((𝑁 ∈ ℤ ∧ ¬ 2 ∥ 𝑁 ∧ 𝑅 = (𝑁 mod 8)) → (2 ∥ (((𝑅↑2) − 1) / 8) ↔ 𝑅 ∈ {1, 7}))

Theorem

2lgsoddprmlem4 14430

Lemma 4 for 2lgsoddprm . (Contributed by AV, 20-Jul-2021.)

⊢ ((𝑁 ∈ ℤ ∧ ¬ 2 ∥ 𝑁) → (2 ∥ (((𝑁↑2) − 1) / 8) ↔ (𝑁 mod 8) ∈ {1, 7}))

10.2.3  All primes 4n+1 are the sum of two squares

Theorem

2sqlem1 14431*

Lemma for 2sq . (Contributed by Mario Carneiro, 19-Jun-2015.)

⊢ 𝑆 = ran (𝑤 ∈ ℤ[i] ↦ ((abs‘𝑤)↑2))    ⇒   ⊢ (𝐴 ∈ 𝑆 ↔ ∃𝑥 ∈ ℤ[i] 𝐴 = ((abs‘𝑥)↑2))

Theorem

2sqlem2 14432*

Lemma for 2sq . (Contributed by Mario Carneiro, 19-Jun-2015.)

⊢ 𝑆 = ran (𝑤 ∈ ℤ[i] ↦ ((abs‘𝑤)↑2))    ⇒   ⊢ (𝐴 ∈ 𝑆 ↔ ∃𝑥 ∈ ℤ ∃𝑦 ∈ ℤ 𝐴 = ((𝑥↑2) + (𝑦↑2)))

Theorem

mul2sq 14433

Fibonacci's identity (actually due to Diophantus). The product of two sums of two squares is also a sum of two squares. We can take advantage of Gaussian integers here to trivialize the proof. (Contributed by Mario Carneiro, 19-Jun-2015.)

⊢ 𝑆 = ran (𝑤 ∈ ℤ[i] ↦ ((abs‘𝑤)↑2))    ⇒   ⊢ ((𝐴 ∈ 𝑆 ∧ 𝐵 ∈ 𝑆) → (𝐴 · 𝐵) ∈ 𝑆)

Theorem

2sqlem3 14434

Lemma for 2sqlem5 14436. (Contributed by Mario Carneiro, 20-Jun-2015.)

⊢ 𝑆 = ran (𝑤 ∈ ℤ[i] ↦ ((abs‘𝑤)↑2))    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝑁 ∈ ℕ)    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝑃 ∈ ℙ)    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝐴 ∈ ℤ)    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝐵 ∈ ℤ)    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝐶 ∈ ℤ)    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝐷 ∈ ℤ)    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → (𝑁 · 𝑃) = ((𝐴↑2) + (𝐵↑2)))    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝑃 = ((𝐶↑2) + (𝐷↑2)))    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝑃 ∥ ((𝐶 · 𝐵) + (𝐴 · 𝐷)))    ⇒   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝑁 ∈ 𝑆)

Theorem

2sqlem4 14435

Lemma for 2sqlem5 14436. (Contributed by Mario Carneiro, 20-Jun-2015.)

⊢ 𝑆 = ran (𝑤 ∈ ℤ[i] ↦ ((abs‘𝑤)↑2))    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝑁 ∈ ℕ)    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝑃 ∈ ℙ)    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝐴 ∈ ℤ)    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝐵 ∈ ℤ)    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝐶 ∈ ℤ)    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝐷 ∈ ℤ)    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → (𝑁 · 𝑃) = ((𝐴↑2) + (𝐵↑2)))    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝑃 = ((𝐶↑2) + (𝐷↑2)))    ⇒   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝑁 ∈ 𝑆)

Theorem

2sqlem5 14436

Lemma for 2sq . If a number that is a sum of two squares is divisible by a prime that is a sum of two squares, then the quotient is a sum of two squares. (Contributed by Mario Carneiro, 20-Jun-2015.)

⊢ 𝑆 = ran (𝑤 ∈ ℤ[i] ↦ ((abs‘𝑤)↑2))    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝑁 ∈ ℕ)    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝑃 ∈ ℙ)    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → (𝑁 · 𝑃) ∈ 𝑆)    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝑃 ∈ 𝑆)    ⇒   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝑁 ∈ 𝑆)

Theorem

2sqlem6 14437*

Lemma for 2sq . If a number that is a sum of two squares is divisible by a number whose prime divisors are all sums of two squares, then the quotient is a sum of two squares. (Contributed by Mario Carneiro, 20-Jun-2015.)

⊢ 𝑆 = ran (𝑤 ∈ ℤ[i] ↦ ((abs‘𝑤)↑2))    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝐴 ∈ ℕ)    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝐵 ∈ ℕ)    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → ∀𝑝 ∈ ℙ (𝑝 ∥ 𝐵 → 𝑝 ∈ 𝑆))    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → (𝐴 · 𝐵) ∈ 𝑆)    ⇒   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝐴 ∈ 𝑆)

Theorem

2sqlem7 14438*

Lemma for 2sq . (Contributed by Mario Carneiro, 19-Jun-2015.)

⊢ 𝑆 = ran (𝑤 ∈ ℤ[i] ↦ ((abs‘𝑤)↑2))    &   ⊢ 𝑌 = {𝑧 ∣ ∃𝑥 ∈ ℤ ∃𝑦 ∈ ℤ ((𝑥 gcd 𝑦) = 1 ∧ 𝑧 = ((𝑥↑2) + (𝑦↑2)))}    ⇒   ⊢ 𝑌 ⊆ (𝑆 ∩ ℕ)

Theorem

2sqlem8a 14439*

Lemma for 2sqlem8 14440. (Contributed by Mario Carneiro, 4-Jun-2016.)

⊢ 𝑆 = ran (𝑤 ∈ ℤ[i] ↦ ((abs‘𝑤)↑2))    &   ⊢ 𝑌 = {𝑧 ∣ ∃𝑥 ∈ ℤ ∃𝑦 ∈ ℤ ((𝑥 gcd 𝑦) = 1 ∧ 𝑧 = ((𝑥↑2) + (𝑦↑2)))}    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → ∀𝑏 ∈ (1...(𝑀 − 1))∀𝑎 ∈ 𝑌 (𝑏 ∥ 𝑎 → 𝑏 ∈ 𝑆))    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝑀 ∥ 𝑁)    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝑁 ∈ ℕ)    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝑀 ∈ (ℤ_≥‘2))    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝐴 ∈ ℤ)    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝐵 ∈ ℤ)    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → (𝐴 gcd 𝐵) = 1)    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝑁 = ((𝐴↑2) + (𝐵↑2)))    &   ⊢ 𝐶 = (((𝐴 + (𝑀 / 2)) mod 𝑀) − (𝑀 / 2))    &   ⊢ 𝐷 = (((𝐵 + (𝑀 / 2)) mod 𝑀) − (𝑀 / 2))    ⇒   ⊢ (𝜑 → (𝐶 gcd 𝐷) ∈ ℕ)

Theorem

2sqlem8 14440*

Lemma for 2sq . (Contributed by Mario Carneiro, 20-Jun-2015.)

⊢ 𝑆 = ran (𝑤 ∈ ℤ[i] ↦ ((abs‘𝑤)↑2))    &   ⊢ 𝑌 = {𝑧 ∣ ∃𝑥 ∈ ℤ ∃𝑦 ∈ ℤ ((𝑥 gcd 𝑦) = 1 ∧ 𝑧 = ((𝑥↑2) + (𝑦↑2)))}    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → ∀𝑏 ∈ (1...(𝑀 − 1))∀𝑎 ∈ 𝑌 (𝑏 ∥ 𝑎 → 𝑏 ∈ 𝑆))    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝑀 ∥ 𝑁)    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝑁 ∈ ℕ)    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝑀 ∈ (ℤ_≥‘2))    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝐴 ∈ ℤ)    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝐵 ∈ ℤ)    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → (𝐴 gcd 𝐵) = 1)    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝑁 = ((𝐴↑2) + (𝐵↑2)))    &   ⊢ 𝐶 = (((𝐴 + (𝑀 / 2)) mod 𝑀) − (𝑀 / 2))    &   ⊢ 𝐷 = (((𝐵 + (𝑀 / 2)) mod 𝑀) − (𝑀 / 2))    &   ⊢ 𝐸 = (𝐶 / (𝐶 gcd 𝐷))    &   ⊢ 𝐹 = (𝐷 / (𝐶 gcd 𝐷))    ⇒   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝑀 ∈ 𝑆)

Theorem

2sqlem9 14441*

Lemma for 2sq . (Contributed by Mario Carneiro, 19-Jun-2015.)

⊢ 𝑆 = ran (𝑤 ∈ ℤ[i] ↦ ((abs‘𝑤)↑2))    &   ⊢ 𝑌 = {𝑧 ∣ ∃𝑥 ∈ ℤ ∃𝑦 ∈ ℤ ((𝑥 gcd 𝑦) = 1 ∧ 𝑧 = ((𝑥↑2) + (𝑦↑2)))}    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → ∀𝑏 ∈ (1...(𝑀 − 1))∀𝑎 ∈ 𝑌 (𝑏 ∥ 𝑎 → 𝑏 ∈ 𝑆))    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝑀 ∥ 𝑁)    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝑀 ∈ ℕ)    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝑁 ∈ 𝑌)    ⇒   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝑀 ∈ 𝑆)

Theorem

2sqlem10 14442*

Lemma for 2sq . Every factor of a "proper" sum of two squares (where the summands are coprime) is a sum of two squares. (Contributed by Mario Carneiro, 19-Jun-2015.)

⊢ 𝑆 = ran (𝑤 ∈ ℤ[i] ↦ ((abs‘𝑤)↑2))    &   ⊢ 𝑌 = {𝑧 ∣ ∃𝑥 ∈ ℤ ∃𝑦 ∈ ℤ ((𝑥 gcd 𝑦) = 1 ∧ 𝑧 = ((𝑥↑2) + (𝑦↑2)))}    ⇒   ⊢ ((𝐴 ∈ 𝑌 ∧ 𝐵 ∈ ℕ ∧ 𝐵 ∥ 𝐴) → 𝐵 ∈ 𝑆)

PART 11  GUIDES AND MISCELLANEA

11.1  Guides (conventions, explanations, and examples)

11.1.1  Conventions

This section describes the conventions we use. These conventions often refer to existing mathematical practices, which are discussed in more detail in other references. The following sources lay out how mathematics is developed without the law of the excluded middle. Of course, there are a greater number of sources which assume excluded middle and most of what is in them applies here too (especially in a treatment such as ours which is built on first-order logic and set theory, rather than, say, type theory). Studying how a topic is treated in the Metamath Proof Explorer and the references therein is often a good place to start (and is easy to compare with the Intuitionistic Logic Explorer). The textbooks provide a motivation for what we are doing, whereas Metamath lets you see in detail all hidden and implicit steps. Most standard theorems are accompanied by citations. Some closely followed texts include the following:

• Axioms of propositional calculus - Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy or [Heyting].
• Axioms of predicate calculus - our axioms are adapted from the ones in the Metamath Proof Explorer.
• Theorems of propositional calculus - [Heyting].
• Theorems of pure predicate calculus - Metamath Proof Explorer.
• Theorems of equality and substitution - Metamath Proof Explorer.
• Axioms of set theory - [Crosilla].
• Development of set theory - Chapter 10 of [HoTT].
• Construction of real and complex numbers - Chapter 11 of [HoTT]; [BauerTaylor].
• Theorems about real numbers - [Geuvers].

Theorem

conventions 14443

Unless there is a reason to diverge, we follow the conventions of the Metamath Proof Explorer (MPE, set.mm). This list of conventions is intended to be read in conjunction with the corresponding conventions in the Metamath Proof Explorer, and only the differences are described below.

• Minimizing axioms and the axiom of choice. We prefer proofs that depend on fewer and/or weaker axioms, even if the proofs are longer. In particular, our choice of IZF (Intuitionistic Zermelo-Fraenkel) over CZF (Constructive Zermelo-Fraenkel, a weaker system) was just an expedient choice because IZF is easier to formalize in Metamath. You can find some development using CZF in BJ's mathbox starting at wbd 14534 (and the section header just above it). As for the axiom of choice, the full axiom of choice implies excluded middle as seen at acexmid 5873, although some authors will use countable choice or dependent choice. For example, countable choice or excluded middle is needed to show that the Cauchy reals coincide with the Dedekind reals - Corollary 11.4.3 of [HoTT], p. (varies).
• Junk/undefined results. Much of the discussion of this topic in the Metamath Proof Explorer applies except that certain techniques are not available to us. For example, the Metamath Proof Explorer will often say "if a function is evaluated within its domain, a certain result follows; if the function is evaluated outside its domain, the same result follows. Since the function must be evaluated within its domain or outside it, the result follows unconditionally" (the use of excluded middle in this argument is perhaps obvious when stated this way). Often, the easiest fix will be to prove we are evaluating functions within their domains, other times it will be possible to use a theorem like relelfvdm 5547 which says that if a function value produces an inhabited set, then the function is being evaluated within its domain.
• Bibliography references. The bibliography for the Intuitionistic Logic Explorer is separate from the one for the Metamath Proof Explorer but feel free to copy-paste a citation in either direction in order to cite it.

Label naming conventions

Here are a few of the label naming conventions:

• Suffixes. We follow the conventions of the Metamath Proof Explorer with a few additions. A biconditional in set.mm which is an implication in iset.mm should have a "r" (for the reverse direction), or "i"/"im" (for the forward direction) appended. A theorem in set.mm which has a decidability condition added should add "dc" to the theorem name. A theorem in set.mm where "nonempty class" is changed to "inhabited class" should add "m" (for member) to the theorem name.
• iset.mm versus set.mm names

  Theorems which are the same as in set.mm should be named the same (that is, where the statement of the theorem is the same; the proof can differ without a new name being called for). Theorems which are different should be named differently (we do have a small number of intentional exceptions to this rule but on the whole it serves us well).

  As for how to choose names so they are different between iset.mm and set.mm, when possible choose a name which reflect the difference in the theorems. For example, if a theorem in set.mm is an equality and the iset.mm analogue is a subset, add "ss" to the iset.mm name. If need be, add "i" to the iset.mm name (usually as a prefix to some portion of the name).

  As with set.mm, we welcome suggestions for better names (such as names which are more consistent with naming conventions).

  We do try to keep set.mm and iset.mm similar where we can. For example, if a theorem exists in both places but the name in set.mm isn't great, we tend to keep that name for iset.mm, or change it in both files together. This is mainly to make it easier to copy theorems, but also to generally help people browse proofs, find theorems, write proofs, etc.

The following table shows some commonly-used abbreviations in labels which are not found in the Metamath Proof Explorer, in alphabetical order. For each abbreviation we provide a mnenomic to help you remember it, the source theorem/assumption defining it, an expression showing what it looks like, whether or not it is a "syntax fragment" (an abbreviation that indicates a particular kind of syntax), and hyperlinks to label examples that use the abbreviation. The abbreviation is bolded if there is a df-NAME definition but the label fragment is not NAME.

For the "g" abbreviation, this is related to the set.mm usage, in which "is a set" conditions are converted from hypotheses to antecedents, but is also used where "is a set" conditions are added relative to similar set.mm theorems.

Abbreviation	Mnenomic/Meaning	Source	Expression	Syntax?	Example(s)
ap	apart	df-pap 7246, df-ap 8538		Yes	apadd1 8564, apne 8579
g	with "is a set" condition			No	1stvalg 6142, brtposg 6254, setsmsbasg 13949
seq3, sum3	recursive sequence	df-seqfrec 10445		Yes	seq3-1 10459, fsum3 11394
tap	tight apartness	df-tap 7248		Yes	df-tap 7248

• Community. The Metamath mailing list also covers the Intuitionistic Logic Explorer and is at: https://groups.google.com/g/metamath 7248.

(Contributed by Jim Kingdon, 24-Feb-2020.) (New usage is discouraged.)

⊢ 𝜑    ⇒   ⊢ 𝜑

11.1.2  Definitional examples

Theorem

ex-or 14444

Example for ax-io 709. Example by David A. Wheeler. (Contributed by Mario Carneiro, 9-May-2015.)

⊢ (2 = 3 ∨ 4 = 4)

Theorem

ex-an 14445

Example for ax-ia1 106. Example by David A. Wheeler. (Contributed by Mario Carneiro, 9-May-2015.)

⊢ (2 = 2 ∧ 3 = 3)

Theorem

1kp2ke3k 14446

Example for df-dec 9384, 1000 + 2000 = 3000.

This proof disproves (by counterexample) the assertion of Hao Wang, who stated, "There is a theorem in the primitive notation of set theory that corresponds to the arithmetic theorem 1000 + 2000 = 3000. The formula would be forbiddingly long... even if (one) knows the definitions and is asked to simplify the long formula according to them, chances are he will make errors and arrive at some incorrect result." (Hao Wang, "Theory and practice in mathematics" , In Thomas Tymoczko, editor, New Directions in the Philosophy of Mathematics, pp 129-152, Birkauser Boston, Inc., Boston, 1986. (QA8.6.N48). The quote itself is on page 140.)

This is noted in Metamath: A Computer Language for Pure Mathematics by Norman Megill (2007) section 1.1.3. Megill then states, "A number of writers have conveyed the impression that the kind of absolute rigor provided by Metamath is an impossible dream, suggesting that a complete, formal verification of a typical theorem would take millions of steps in untold volumes of books... These writers assume, however, that in order to achieve the kind of complete formal verification they desire one must break down a proof into individual primitive steps that make direct reference to the axioms. This is not necessary. There is no reason not to make use of previously proved theorems rather than proving them over and over... A hierarchy of theorems and definitions permits an exponential growth in the formula sizes and primitive proof steps to be described with only a linear growth in the number of symbols used. Of course, this is how ordinary informal mathematics is normally done anyway, but with Metamath it can be done with absolute rigor and precision."

The proof here starts with (2 + 1) = 3, commutes it, and repeatedly multiplies both sides by ten. This is certainly longer than traditional mathematical proofs, e.g., there are a number of steps explicitly shown here to show that we're allowed to do operations such as multiplication. However, while longer, the proof is clearly a manageable size - even though every step is rigorously derived all the way back to the primitive notions of set theory and logic. And while there's a risk of making errors, the many independent verifiers make it much less likely that an incorrect result will be accepted.

This proof heavily relies on the decimal constructor df-dec 9384 developed by Mario Carneiro in 2015. The underlying Metamath language has an intentionally very small set of primitives; it doesn't even have a built-in construct for numbers. Instead, the digits are defined using these primitives, and the decimal constructor is used to make it easy to express larger numbers as combinations of digits.

(Contributed by David A. Wheeler, 29-Jun-2016.) (Shortened by Mario Carneiro using the arithmetic algorithm in mmj2, 30-Jun-2016.)

⊢ (;;;1000 + ;;;2000) = ;;;3000

Theorem

ex-fl 14447

Example for df-fl 10269. Example by David A. Wheeler. (Contributed by Mario Carneiro, 18-Jun-2015.)

⊢ ((⌊‘(3 / 2)) = 1 ∧ (⌊‘-(3 / 2)) = -2)

Theorem

ex-ceil 14448

Example for df-ceil 10270. (Contributed by AV, 4-Sep-2021.)

⊢ ((⌈‘(3 / 2)) = 2 ∧ (⌈‘-(3 / 2)) = -1)

Theorem

ex-exp 14449

Example for df-exp 10519. (Contributed by AV, 4-Sep-2021.)

⊢ ((5↑2) = ;25 ∧ (-3↑-2) = (1 / 9))

Theorem

ex-fac 14450

Example for df-fac 10705. (Contributed by AV, 4-Sep-2021.)

⊢ (!‘5) = ;;120

Theorem

ex-bc 14451

Example for df-bc 10727. (Contributed by AV, 4-Sep-2021.)

⊢ (5C3) = ;10

Theorem

ex-dvds 14452

Example for df-dvds 11794: 3 divides into 6. (Contributed by David A. Wheeler, 19-May-2015.)

⊢ 3 ∥ 6

Theorem

ex-gcd 14453

Example for df-gcd 11943. (Contributed by AV, 5-Sep-2021.)

⊢ (-6 gcd 9) = 3

PART 12  SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL (USERS' MATHBOXES)

12.1  Mathboxes for user contributions

12.1.1  Mathbox guidelines

Theorem

mathbox 14454

(This theorem is a dummy placeholder for these guidelines. The label of this theorem, "mathbox", is hard-coded into the Metamath program to identify the start of the mathbox section for web page generation.)

A "mathbox" is a user-contributed section that is maintained by its contributor independently from the main part of iset.mm.

For contributors:

By making a contribution, you agree to release it into the public domain, according to the statement at the beginning of iset.mm.

Guidelines:

Mathboxes in iset.mm follow the same practices as in set.mm, so refer to the mathbox guidelines there for more details.

(Contributed by NM, 20-Feb-2007.) (Revised by the Metamath team, 9-Sep-2023.) (New usage is discouraged.)

⊢ 𝜑    ⇒   ⊢ 𝜑

12.2  Mathbox for BJ

12.2.1  Propositional calculus

Theorem

bj-nnsn 14455

As far as implying a negated formula is concerned, a formula is equivalent to its double negation. (Contributed by BJ, 24-Nov-2023.)

⊢ ((𝜑 → ¬ 𝜓) ↔ (¬ ¬ 𝜑 → ¬ 𝜓))

Theorem

bj-nnor 14456

Double negation of a disjunction in terms of implication. (Contributed by BJ, 9-Oct-2019.)

⊢ (¬ ¬ (𝜑 ∨ 𝜓) ↔ (¬ 𝜑 → ¬ ¬ 𝜓))

Theorem

bj-nnim 14457

The double negation of an implication implies the implication with the consequent doubly negated. (Contributed by BJ, 24-Nov-2023.)

⊢ (¬ ¬ (𝜑 → 𝜓) → (𝜑 → ¬ ¬ 𝜓))

Theorem

bj-nnan 14458

The double negation of a conjunction implies the conjunction of the double negations. (Contributed by BJ, 24-Nov-2023.)

⊢ (¬ ¬ (𝜑 ∧ 𝜓) → (¬ ¬ 𝜑 ∧ ¬ ¬ 𝜓))

Theorem

bj-nnclavius 14459

Clavius law with doubly negated consequent. (Contributed by BJ, 4-Dec-2023.)

⊢ ((¬ 𝜑 → 𝜑) → ¬ ¬ 𝜑)

Theorem

bj-imnimnn 14460

If a formula is implied by both a formula and its negation, then it is not refutable. There is another proof using the inference associated with bj-nnclavius 14459 as its last step. (Contributed by BJ, 27-Oct-2024.)

⊢ (𝜑 → 𝜓)    &   ⊢ (¬ 𝜑 → 𝜓)    ⇒   ⊢ ¬ ¬ 𝜓

12.2.1.1  Stable formulas

Some of the following theorems, like bj-sttru 14462 or bj-stfal 14464 could be deduced from their analogues for decidability, but stability is not provable from decidability in minimal calculus, so direct proofs have their interest.

Theorem

bj-trst 14461

A provable formula is stable. (Contributed by BJ, 24-Nov-2023.)

⊢ (𝜑 → STAB 𝜑)

Theorem

bj-sttru 14462

The true truth value is stable. (Contributed by BJ, 5-Aug-2024.)

⊢ STAB ⊤

Theorem

bj-fast 14463

A refutable formula is stable. (Contributed by BJ, 24-Nov-2023.)

⊢ (¬ 𝜑 → STAB 𝜑)

Theorem

bj-stfal 14464

The false truth value is stable. (Contributed by BJ, 5-Aug-2024.)

⊢ STAB ⊥

Theorem

bj-nnst 14465

Double negation of stability of a formula. Intuitionistic logic refutes unstability (but does not prove stability) of any formula. This theorem can also be proved in classical refutability calculus (see https://us.metamath.org/mpeuni/bj-peircestab.html) but not in minimal calculus (see https://us.metamath.org/mpeuni/bj-stabpeirce.html). See nnnotnotr 14712 for the version not using the definition of stability. (Contributed by BJ, 9-Oct-2019.) Prove it in ( → , ¬ ) -intuitionistic calculus with definitions (uses of ax-ia1 106, ax-ia2 107, ax-ia3 108 are via sylibr 134, necessary for definition unpackaging), and in ( → , ↔ , ¬ )-intuitionistic calculus, following a discussion with Jim Kingdon. (Revised by BJ, 27-Oct-2024.)

⊢ ¬ ¬ STAB 𝜑

Theorem

bj-nnbist 14466

If a formula is not refutable, then it is stable if and only if it is provable. By double-negation translation, if 𝜑 is a classical tautology, then ¬ ¬ 𝜑 is an intuitionistic tautology. Therefore, if 𝜑 is a classical tautology, then 𝜑 is intuitionistically equivalent to its stability (and to its decidability, see bj-nnbidc 14479). (Contributed by BJ, 24-Nov-2023.)

⊢ (¬ ¬ 𝜑 → (STAB 𝜑 ↔ 𝜑))

Theorem

bj-stst 14467

Stability of a proposition is stable if and only if that proposition is stable. STAB is idempotent. (Contributed by BJ, 9-Oct-2019.)

⊢ (STAB STAB 𝜑 ↔ STAB 𝜑)

Theorem

bj-stim 14468

A conjunction with a stable consequent is stable. See stabnot 833 for negation , bj-stan 14469 for conjunction , and bj-stal 14471 for universal quantification. (Contributed by BJ, 24-Nov-2023.)

⊢ (STAB 𝜓 → STAB (𝜑 → 𝜓))

Theorem

bj-stan 14469

The conjunction of two stable formulas is stable. See bj-stim 14468 for implication, stabnot 833 for negation, and bj-stal 14471 for universal quantification. (Contributed by BJ, 24-Nov-2023.)

⊢ ((STAB 𝜑 ∧ STAB 𝜓) → STAB (𝜑 ∧ 𝜓))

Theorem

bj-stand 14470

The conjunction of two stable formulas is stable. Deduction form of bj-stan 14469. Its proof is shorter (when counting all steps, including syntactic steps), so one could prove it first and then bj-stan 14469 from it, the usual way. (Contributed by BJ, 24-Nov-2023.) (Proof modification is discouraged.)

⊢ (𝜑 → STAB 𝜓)    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → STAB 𝜒)    ⇒   ⊢ (𝜑 → STAB (𝜓 ∧ 𝜒))

Theorem

bj-stal 14471

The universal quantification of a stable formula is stable. See bj-stim 14468 for implication, stabnot 833 for negation, and bj-stan 14469 for conjunction. (Contributed by BJ, 24-Nov-2023.)

⊢ (∀𝑥STAB 𝜑 → STAB ∀𝑥𝜑)

Theorem

bj-pm2.18st 14472

Clavius law for stable formulas. See pm2.18dc 855. (Contributed by BJ, 4-Dec-2023.)

⊢ (STAB 𝜑 → ((¬ 𝜑 → 𝜑) → 𝜑))

Theorem

bj-con1st 14473

Contraposition when the antecedent is a negated stable proposition. See con1dc 856. (Contributed by BJ, 11-Nov-2024.)

⊢ (STAB 𝜑 → ((¬ 𝜑 → 𝜓) → (¬ 𝜓 → 𝜑)))

12.2.1.2  Decidable formulas

Theorem

bj-trdc 14474

A provable formula is decidable. (Contributed by BJ, 24-Nov-2023.)

⊢ (𝜑 → DECID 𝜑)

Theorem

bj-dctru 14475

The true truth value is decidable. (Contributed by BJ, 5-Aug-2024.)

⊢ DECID ⊤

Theorem

bj-fadc 14476

A refutable formula is decidable. (Contributed by BJ, 24-Nov-2023.)

⊢ (¬ 𝜑 → DECID 𝜑)

Theorem

bj-dcfal 14477

The false truth value is decidable. (Contributed by BJ, 5-Aug-2024.)

⊢ DECID ⊥

Theorem

bj-dcstab 14478

A decidable formula is stable. (Contributed by BJ, 24-Nov-2023.) (Proof modification is discouraged.)

⊢ (DECID 𝜑 → STAB 𝜑)

Theorem

bj-nnbidc 14479

If a formula is not refutable, then it is decidable if and only if it is provable. See also comment of bj-nnbist 14466. (Contributed by BJ, 24-Nov-2023.)

⊢ (¬ ¬ 𝜑 → (DECID 𝜑 ↔ 𝜑))

Theorem

bj-nndcALT 14480

Alternate proof of nndc 851. (Proof modification is discouraged.) (New usage is discouraged.) (Contributed by BJ, 9-Oct-2019.)

⊢ ¬ ¬ DECID 𝜑

Theorem

bj-dcdc 14481

Decidability of a proposition is decidable if and only if that proposition is decidable. DECID is idempotent. (Contributed by BJ, 9-Oct-2019.)

⊢ (DECID DECID 𝜑 ↔ DECID 𝜑)

Theorem

bj-stdc 14482

Decidability of a proposition is stable if and only if that proposition is decidable. In particular, the assumption that every formula is stable implies that every formula is decidable, hence classical logic. (Contributed by BJ, 9-Oct-2019.)

⊢ (STAB DECID 𝜑 ↔ DECID 𝜑)

Theorem

bj-dcst 14483

Stability of a proposition is decidable if and only if that proposition is stable. (Contributed by BJ, 24-Nov-2023.)

⊢ (DECID STAB 𝜑 ↔ STAB 𝜑)

12.2.2  Predicate calculus

Theorem

bj-ex 14484*

Existential generalization. (Contributed by BJ, 8-Dec-2019.) Proof modification is discouraged because there are shorter proofs, but using less basic results (like exlimiv 1598 and 19.9ht 1641 or 19.23ht 1497). (Proof modification is discouraged.)

⊢ (∃𝑥𝜑 → 𝜑)

Theorem

bj-hbalt 14485

Closed form of hbal 1477 (copied from set.mm). (Contributed by BJ, 2-May-2019.)

⊢ (∀𝑦(𝜑 → ∀𝑥𝜑) → (∀𝑦𝜑 → ∀𝑥∀𝑦𝜑))

Theorem

bj-nfalt 14486

Closed form of nfal 1576 (copied from set.mm). (Contributed by BJ, 2-May-2019.) (Proof modification is discouraged.)

⊢ (∀𝑥Ⅎ𝑦𝜑 → Ⅎ𝑦∀𝑥𝜑)

Theorem

spimd 14487

Deduction form of spim 1738. (Contributed by BJ, 17-Oct-2019.)

⊢ (𝜑 → Ⅎ𝑥𝜒)    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → ∀𝑥(𝑥 = 𝑦 → (𝜓 → 𝜒)))    ⇒   ⊢ (𝜑 → (∀𝑥𝜓 → 𝜒))

Theorem

2spim 14488*

Double substitution, as in spim 1738. (Contributed by BJ, 17-Oct-2019.)

⊢ Ⅎ𝑥𝜒    &   ⊢ Ⅎ𝑧𝜒    &   ⊢ ((𝑥 = 𝑦 ∧ 𝑧 = 𝑡) → (𝜓 → 𝜒))    ⇒   ⊢ (∀𝑧∀𝑥𝜓 → 𝜒)

Theorem

ch2var 14489*

Implicit substitution of 𝑦 for 𝑥 and 𝑡 for 𝑧 into a theorem. (Contributed by BJ, 17-Oct-2019.)

⊢ Ⅎ𝑥𝜓    &   ⊢ Ⅎ𝑧𝜓    &   ⊢ ((𝑥 = 𝑦 ∧ 𝑧 = 𝑡) → (𝜑 ↔ 𝜓))    &   ⊢ 𝜑    ⇒   ⊢ 𝜓

Theorem

ch2varv 14490*

Version of ch2var 14489 with nonfreeness hypotheses replaced with disjoint variable conditions. (Contributed by BJ, 17-Oct-2019.)

⊢ ((𝑥 = 𝑦 ∧ 𝑧 = 𝑡) → (𝜑 ↔ 𝜓))    &   ⊢ 𝜑    ⇒   ⊢ 𝜓

Theorem

bj-exlimmp 14491

Lemma for bj-vtoclgf 14498. (Contributed by BJ, 21-Nov-2019.) (Proof modification is discouraged.)

⊢ Ⅎ𝑥𝜓    &   ⊢ (𝜒 → 𝜑)    ⇒   ⊢ (∀𝑥(𝜒 → (𝜑 → 𝜓)) → (∃𝑥𝜒 → 𝜓))

Theorem

bj-exlimmpi 14492

Lemma for bj-vtoclgf 14498. (Contributed by BJ, 21-Nov-2019.) (Proof modification is discouraged.)

⊢ Ⅎ𝑥𝜓    &   ⊢ (𝜒 → 𝜑)    &   ⊢ (𝜒 → (𝜑 → 𝜓))    ⇒   ⊢ (∃𝑥𝜒 → 𝜓)

Theorem

bj-sbimedh 14493

A strengthening of sbiedh 1787 (same proof). (Contributed by BJ, 16-Dec-2019.)

⊢ (𝜑 → ∀𝑥𝜑)    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → (𝜒 → ∀𝑥𝜒))    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → (𝑥 = 𝑦 → (𝜓 → 𝜒)))    ⇒   ⊢ (𝜑 → ([𝑦 / 𝑥]𝜓 → 𝜒))

Theorem

bj-sbimeh 14494

A strengthening of sbieh 1790 (same proof). (Contributed by BJ, 16-Dec-2019.)

⊢ (𝜓 → ∀𝑥𝜓)    &   ⊢ (𝑥 = 𝑦 → (𝜑 → 𝜓))    ⇒   ⊢ ([𝑦 / 𝑥]𝜑 → 𝜓)

Theorem

bj-sbime 14495

A strengthening of sbie 1791 (same proof). (Contributed by BJ, 16-Dec-2019.)

⊢ Ⅎ𝑥𝜓    &   ⊢ (𝑥 = 𝑦 → (𝜑 → 𝜓))    ⇒   ⊢ ([𝑦 / 𝑥]𝜑 → 𝜓)

12.2.3  Set theorey miscellaneous

Theorem

bj-el2oss1o 14496

Shorter proof of el2oss1o 6443 using more axioms. (Contributed by BJ, 21-Jan-2024.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) (New usage is discouraged.)

⊢ (𝐴 ∈ 2_o → 𝐴 ⊆ 1_o)

12.2.4  Extensionality

Various utility theorems using FOL and extensionality.

Theorem

bj-vtoclgft 14497

Weakening two hypotheses of vtoclgf 2795. (Contributed by BJ, 21-Nov-2019.)

⊢ Ⅎ𝑥𝐴    &   ⊢ Ⅎ𝑥𝜓    &   ⊢ (𝑥 = 𝐴 → 𝜑)    ⇒   ⊢ (∀𝑥(𝑥 = 𝐴 → (𝜑 → 𝜓)) → (𝐴 ∈ 𝑉 → 𝜓))

Theorem

bj-vtoclgf 14498

Weakening two hypotheses of vtoclgf 2795. (Contributed by BJ, 21-Nov-2019.)

⊢ Ⅎ𝑥𝐴    &   ⊢ Ⅎ𝑥𝜓    &   ⊢ (𝑥 = 𝐴 → 𝜑)    &   ⊢ (𝑥 = 𝐴 → (𝜑 → 𝜓))    ⇒   ⊢ (𝐴 ∈ 𝑉 → 𝜓)

Theorem

elabgf0 14499

Lemma for elabgf 2879. (Contributed by BJ, 21-Nov-2019.)

⊢ (𝑥 = 𝐴 → (𝐴 ∈ {𝑥 ∣ 𝜑} ↔ 𝜑))

Theorem

elabgft1 14500

One implication of elabgf 2879, in closed form. (Contributed by BJ, 21-Nov-2019.)

⊢ Ⅎ𝑥𝐴    &   ⊢ Ⅎ𝑥𝜓    ⇒   ⊢ (∀𝑥(𝑥 = 𝐴 → (𝜑 → 𝜓)) → (𝐴 ∈ {𝑥 ∣ 𝜑} → 𝜓))