Home Intuitionistic Logic ExplorerTheorem List (p. 15 of 135) < Previous  Next > Bad symbols? Try the GIF version. Mirrors  >  Metamath Home Page  >  ILE Home Page  >  Theorem List Contents  >  Recent Proofs       This page: Page List

Theorem List for Intuitionistic Logic Explorer - 1401-1500   *Has distinct variable group(s)
TypeLabelDescription
Statement

Theoremfalxorfal 1401 A identity. (Contributed by David A. Wheeler, 2-Mar-2018.)
((⊥ ⊻ ⊥) ↔ ⊥)

1.2.15  Stoic logic indemonstrables (Chrysippus of Soli)

The Greek Stoics developed a system of logic. The Stoic Chrysippus, in particular, was often considered one of the greatest logicians of antiquity. Stoic logic is different from Aristotle's system, since it focuses on propositional logic, though later thinkers did combine the systems of the Stoics with Aristotle. Jan Lukasiewicz reports, "For anybody familiar with mathematical logic it is self-evident that the Stoic dialectic is the ancient form of modern propositional logic" ( On the history of the logic of proposition by Jan Lukasiewicz (1934), translated in: Selected Works - Edited by Ludwik Borkowski - Amsterdam, North-Holland, 1970 pp. 197-217, referenced in "History of Logic" https://www.historyoflogic.com/logic-stoics.htm). For more about Aristotle's system, see barbara and related theorems.

A key part of the Stoic logic system is a set of five "indemonstrables" assigned to Chrysippus of Soli by Diogenes Laertius, though in general it is difficult to assign specific ideas to specific thinkers. The indemonstrables are described in, for example, [Lopez-Astorga] p. 11 , [Sanford] p. 39, and [Hitchcock] p. 5. These indemonstrables are modus ponendo ponens (modus ponens) ax-mp 5, modus tollendo tollens (modus tollens) mto 652, modus ponendo tollens I mptnan 1402, modus ponendo tollens II mptxor 1403, and modus tollendo ponens (exclusive-or version) mtpxor 1405. The first is an axiom, the second is already proved; in this section we prove the other three. Since we assume or prove all of indemonstrables, the system of logic we use here is as at least as strong as the set of Stoic indemonstrables. Note that modus tollendo ponens mtpxor 1405 originally used exclusive-or, but over time the name modus tollendo ponens has increasingly referred to an inclusive-or variation, which is proved in mtpor 1404. This set of indemonstrables is not the entire system of Stoic logic.

Theoremmptnan 1402 Modus ponendo tollens 1, one of the "indemonstrables" in Stoic logic. See rule 1 on [Lopez-Astorga] p. 12 , rule 1 on [Sanford] p. 40, and rule A3 in [Hitchcock] p. 5. Sanford describes this rule second (after mptxor 1403) as a "safer, and these days much more common" version of modus ponendo tollens because it avoids confusion between inclusive-or and exclusive-or. (Contributed by David A. Wheeler, 3-Jul-2016.)
𝜑    &    ¬ (𝜑𝜓)        ¬ 𝜓

Theoremmptxor 1403 Modus ponendo tollens 2, one of the "indemonstrables" in Stoic logic. Note that this uses exclusive-or . See rule 2 on [Lopez-Astorga] p. 12 , rule 4 on [Sanford] p. 39 and rule A4 in [Hitchcock] p. 5 . (Contributed by David A. Wheeler, 2-Mar-2018.)
𝜑    &   (𝜑𝜓)        ¬ 𝜓

Theoremmtpor 1404 Modus tollendo ponens (inclusive-or version), aka disjunctive syllogism. This is similar to mtpxor 1405, one of the five original "indemonstrables" in Stoic logic. However, in Stoic logic this rule used exclusive-or, while the name modus tollendo ponens often refers to a variant of the rule that uses inclusive-or instead. The rule says, "if 𝜑 is not true, and 𝜑 or 𝜓 (or both) are true, then 𝜓 must be true." An alternate phrasing is, "Once you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth." -- Sherlock Holmes (Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, 1890: The Sign of the Four, ch. 6). (Contributed by David A. Wheeler, 3-Jul-2016.) (Proof shortened by Wolf Lammen, 11-Nov-2017.)
¬ 𝜑    &   (𝜑𝜓)       𝜓

Theoremmtpxor 1405 Modus tollendo ponens (original exclusive-or version), aka disjunctive syllogism, similar to mtpor 1404, one of the five "indemonstrables" in Stoic logic. The rule says, "if 𝜑 is not true, and either 𝜑 or 𝜓 (exclusively) are true, then 𝜓 must be true." Today the name "modus tollendo ponens" often refers to a variant, the inclusive-or version as defined in mtpor 1404. See rule 3 on [Lopez-Astorga] p. 12 (note that the "or" is the same as mptxor 1403, that is, it is exclusive-or df-xor 1355), rule 3 of [Sanford] p. 39 (where it is not as clearly stated which kind of "or" is used but it appears to be in the same sense as mptxor 1403), and rule A5 in [Hitchcock] p. 5 (exclusive-or is expressly used). (Contributed by David A. Wheeler, 4-Jul-2016.) (Proof shortened by Wolf Lammen, 11-Nov-2017.) (Proof shortened by BJ, 19-Apr-2019.)
¬ 𝜑    &   (𝜑𝜓)       𝜓

Theoremstoic2a 1406 Stoic logic Thema 2 version a.

Statement T2 of [Bobzien] p. 117 shows a reconstructed version of Stoic logic thema 2 as follows: "When from two assertibles a third follows, and from the third and one (or both) of the two another follows, then this other follows from the first two."

Bobzien uses constructs such as 𝜑, 𝜓𝜒; in Metamath we will represent that construct as 𝜑𝜓𝜒.

This version a is without the phrase "or both"; see stoic2b 1407 for the version with the phrase "or both". We already have this rule as syldan 280, so here we show the equivalence and discourage its use. (New usage is discouraged.) (Contributed by David A. Wheeler, 17-Feb-2019.)

((𝜑𝜓) → 𝜒)    &   ((𝜑𝜒) → 𝜃)       ((𝜑𝜓) → 𝜃)

Theoremstoic2b 1407 Stoic logic Thema 2 version b. See stoic2a 1406.

Version b is with the phrase "or both". We already have this rule as mpd3an3 1317, so here we prove the equivalence and discourage its use. (New usage is discouraged.) (Contributed by David A. Wheeler, 17-Feb-2019.)

((𝜑𝜓) → 𝜒)    &   ((𝜑𝜓𝜒) → 𝜃)       ((𝜑𝜓) → 𝜃)

Theoremstoic3 1408 Stoic logic Thema 3.

Statement T3 of [Bobzien] p. 116-117 discusses Stoic logic thema 3.

"When from two (assemblies) a third follows, and from the one that follows (i.e., the third) together with another, external external assumption, another follows, then other follows from the first two and the externally co-assumed one. (Simp. Cael. 237.2-4)" (Contributed by David A. Wheeler, 17-Feb-2019.)

((𝜑𝜓) → 𝜒)    &   ((𝜒𝜃) → 𝜏)       ((𝜑𝜓𝜃) → 𝜏)

Theoremstoic4a 1409 Stoic logic Thema 4 version a.

Statement T4 of [Bobzien] p. 117 shows a reconstructed version of Stoic logic thema 4: "When from two assertibles a third follows, and from the third and one (or both) of the two and one (or more) external assertible(s) another follows, then this other follows from the first two and the external(s)."

We use 𝜃 to represent the "external" assertibles. This is version a, which is without the phrase "or both"; see stoic4b 1410 for the version with the phrase "or both". (Contributed by David A. Wheeler, 17-Feb-2019.)

((𝜑𝜓) → 𝜒)    &   ((𝜒𝜑𝜃) → 𝜏)       ((𝜑𝜓𝜃) → 𝜏)

Theoremstoic4b 1410 Stoic logic Thema 4 version b.

This is version b, which is with the phrase "or both". See stoic4a 1409 for more information. (Contributed by David A. Wheeler, 17-Feb-2019.)

((𝜑𝜓) → 𝜒)    &   (((𝜒𝜑𝜓) ∧ 𝜃) → 𝜏)       ((𝜑𝜓𝜃) → 𝜏)

1.2.16  Logical implication (continued)

Theoremsyl6an 1411 A syllogism deduction combined with conjoining antecedents. (Contributed by Alan Sare, 28-Oct-2011.)
(𝜑𝜓)    &   (𝜑 → (𝜒𝜃))    &   ((𝜓𝜃) → 𝜏)       (𝜑 → (𝜒𝜏))

Theoremsyl10 1412 A nested syllogism inference. (Contributed by Alan Sare, 17-Jul-2011.)
(𝜑 → (𝜓𝜒))    &   (𝜑 → (𝜓 → (𝜃𝜏)))    &   (𝜒 → (𝜏𝜂))       (𝜑 → (𝜓 → (𝜃𝜂)))

Theoremexbir 1413 Exportation implication also converting head from biconditional to conditional. (Contributed by Alan Sare, 31-Dec-2011.)
(((𝜑𝜓) → (𝜒𝜃)) → (𝜑 → (𝜓 → (𝜃𝜒))))

Theorem3impexp 1414 impexp 261 with a 3-conjunct antecedent. (Contributed by Alan Sare, 31-Dec-2011.)
(((𝜑𝜓𝜒) → 𝜃) ↔ (𝜑 → (𝜓 → (𝜒𝜃))))

Theorem3impexpbicom 1415 3impexp 1414 with biconditional consequent of antecedent that is commuted in consequent. (Contributed by Alan Sare, 31-Dec-2011.)
(((𝜑𝜓𝜒) → (𝜃𝜏)) ↔ (𝜑 → (𝜓 → (𝜒 → (𝜏𝜃)))))

Theorem3impexpbicomi 1416 Deduction form of 3impexpbicom 1415. (Contributed by Alan Sare, 31-Dec-2011.)
((𝜑𝜓𝜒) → (𝜃𝜏))       (𝜑 → (𝜓 → (𝜒 → (𝜏𝜃))))

Theoremancomsimp 1417 Closed form of ancoms 266. (Contributed by Alan Sare, 31-Dec-2011.)
(((𝜑𝜓) → 𝜒) ↔ ((𝜓𝜑) → 𝜒))

Theoremexpcomd 1418 Deduction form of expcom 115. (Contributed by Alan Sare, 22-Jul-2012.)
(𝜑 → ((𝜓𝜒) → 𝜃))       (𝜑 → (𝜒 → (𝜓𝜃)))

Theoremexpdcom 1419 Commuted form of expd 256. (Contributed by Alan Sare, 18-Mar-2012.)
(𝜑 → ((𝜓𝜒) → 𝜃))       (𝜓 → (𝜒 → (𝜑𝜃)))

Theoremsimplbi2comg 1420 Implication form of simplbi2com 1421. (Contributed by Alan Sare, 22-Jul-2012.)
((𝜑 ↔ (𝜓𝜒)) → (𝜒 → (𝜓𝜑)))

Theoremsimplbi2com 1421 A deduction eliminating a conjunct, similar to simplbi2 383. (Contributed by Alan Sare, 22-Jul-2012.) (Proof shortened by Wolf Lammen, 10-Nov-2012.)
(𝜑 ↔ (𝜓𝜒))       (𝜒 → (𝜓𝜑))

Theoremsyl6ci 1422 A syllogism inference combined with contraction. (Contributed by Alan Sare, 18-Mar-2012.)
(𝜑 → (𝜓𝜒))    &   (𝜑𝜃)    &   (𝜒 → (𝜃𝜏))       (𝜑 → (𝜓𝜏))

Theoremmpisyl 1423 A syllogism combined with a modus ponens inference. (Contributed by Alan Sare, 25-Jul-2011.)
(𝜑𝜓)    &   𝜒    &   (𝜓 → (𝜒𝜃))       (𝜑𝜃)

1.3  Predicate calculus mostly without distinct variables

1.3.1  Universal quantifier (continued)

The universal quantifier was introduced above in wal 1330 for use by df-tru 1335. See the comments in that section. In this section, we continue with the first "real" use of it.

Axiomax-5 1424 Axiom of Quantified Implication. Axiom C4 of [Monk2] p. 105. (Contributed by NM, 5-Aug-1993.)
(∀𝑥(𝜑𝜓) → (∀𝑥𝜑 → ∀𝑥𝜓))

Axiomax-7 1425 Axiom of Quantifier Commutation. This axiom says universal quantifiers can be swapped. One of the predicate logic axioms which do not involve equality. Axiom scheme C6' in [Megill] p. 448 (p. 16 of the preprint). Also appears as Lemma 12 of [Monk2] p. 109 and Axiom C5-3 of [Monk2] p. 113. (Contributed by NM, 5-Aug-1993.)
(∀𝑥𝑦𝜑 → ∀𝑦𝑥𝜑)

Axiomax-gen 1426 Rule of Generalization. The postulated inference rule of predicate calculus. See e.g. Rule 2 of [Hamilton] p. 74. This rule says that if something is unconditionally true, then it is true for all values of a variable. For example, if we have proved 𝑥 = 𝑥, we can conclude 𝑥𝑥 = 𝑥 or even 𝑦𝑥 = 𝑥. Theorem spi 1517 shows we can go the other way also: in other words we can add or remove universal quantifiers from the beginning of any theorem as required. (Contributed by NM, 5-Aug-1993.)
𝜑       𝑥𝜑

Theoremgen2 1427 Generalization applied twice. (Contributed by NM, 30-Apr-1998.)
𝜑       𝑥𝑦𝜑

Theoremmpg 1428 Modus ponens combined with generalization. (Contributed by NM, 24-May-1994.)
(∀𝑥𝜑𝜓)    &   𝜑       𝜓

Theoremmpgbi 1429 Modus ponens on biconditional combined with generalization. (Contributed by NM, 24-May-1994.) (Proof shortened by Stefan Allan, 28-Oct-2008.)
(∀𝑥𝜑𝜓)    &   𝜑       𝜓

Theoremmpgbir 1430 Modus ponens on biconditional combined with generalization. (Contributed by NM, 24-May-1994.) (Proof shortened by Stefan Allan, 28-Oct-2008.)
(𝜑 ↔ ∀𝑥𝜓)    &   𝜓       𝜑

Theorema7s 1431 Swap quantifiers in an antecedent. (Contributed by NM, 5-Aug-1993.)
(∀𝑥𝑦𝜑𝜓)       (∀𝑦𝑥𝜑𝜓)

Theoremalimi 1432 Inference quantifying both antecedent and consequent. (Contributed by NM, 5-Aug-1993.)
(𝜑𝜓)       (∀𝑥𝜑 → ∀𝑥𝜓)

Theorem2alimi 1433 Inference doubly quantifying both antecedent and consequent. (Contributed by NM, 3-Feb-2005.)
(𝜑𝜓)       (∀𝑥𝑦𝜑 → ∀𝑥𝑦𝜓)

Theoremalim 1434 Theorem 19.20 of [Margaris] p. 90. (Contributed by NM, 5-Aug-1993.) (Proof shortened by O'Cat, 30-Mar-2008.)
(∀𝑥(𝜑𝜓) → (∀𝑥𝜑 → ∀𝑥𝜓))

Theoremal2imi 1435 Inference quantifying antecedent, nested antecedent, and consequent. (Contributed by NM, 5-Aug-1993.)
(𝜑 → (𝜓𝜒))       (∀𝑥𝜑 → (∀𝑥𝜓 → ∀𝑥𝜒))

Theoremalanimi 1436 Variant of al2imi 1435 with conjunctive antecedent. (Contributed by Andrew Salmon, 8-Jun-2011.)
((𝜑𝜓) → 𝜒)       ((∀𝑥𝜑 ∧ ∀𝑥𝜓) → ∀𝑥𝜒)

Syntaxwnf 1437 Extend wff definition to include the not-free predicate.
wff 𝑥𝜑

Definitiondf-nf 1438 Define the not-free predicate for wffs. This is read "𝑥 is not free in 𝜑". Not-free means that the value of 𝑥 cannot affect the value of 𝜑, e.g., any occurrence of 𝑥 in 𝜑 is effectively bound by a "for all" or something that expands to one (such as "there exists"). In particular, substitution for a variable not free in a wff does not affect its value (sbf 1751). An example of where this is used is stdpc5 1564. See nf2 1647 for an alternate definition which does not involve nested quantifiers on the same variable.

Not-free is a commonly used constraint, so it is useful to have a notation for it. Surprisingly, there is no common formal notation for it, so here we devise one. Our definition lets us work with the not-free notion within the logic itself rather than as a metalogical side condition.

To be precise, our definition really means "effectively not free," because it is slightly less restrictive than the usual textbook definition for not-free (which only considers syntactic freedom). For example, 𝑥 is effectively not free in the bare expression 𝑥 = 𝑥, even though 𝑥 would be considered free in the usual textbook definition, because the value of 𝑥 in the expression 𝑥 = 𝑥 cannot affect the truth of the expression (and thus substitution will not change the result). (Contributed by Mario Carneiro, 11-Aug-2016.)

(Ⅎ𝑥𝜑 ↔ ∀𝑥(𝜑 → ∀𝑥𝜑))

Theoremnfi 1439 Deduce that 𝑥 is not free in 𝜑 from the definition. (Contributed by Mario Carneiro, 11-Aug-2016.)
(𝜑 → ∀𝑥𝜑)       𝑥𝜑

Theoremhbth 1440 No variable is (effectively) free in a theorem.

This and later "hypothesis-building" lemmas, with labels starting "hb...", allow us to construct proofs of formulas of the form (𝜑 → ∀𝑥𝜑) from smaller formulas of this form. These are useful for constructing hypotheses that state "𝑥 is (effectively) not free in 𝜑." (Contributed by NM, 5-Aug-1993.)

𝜑       (𝜑 → ∀𝑥𝜑)

Theoremnfth 1441 No variable is (effectively) free in a theorem. (Contributed by Mario Carneiro, 11-Aug-2016.)
𝜑       𝑥𝜑

Theoremnfnth 1442 No variable is (effectively) free in a non-theorem. (Contributed by Mario Carneiro, 6-Dec-2016.)
¬ 𝜑       𝑥𝜑

Theoremnftru 1443 The true constant has no free variables. (This can also be proven in one step with nfv 1509, but this proof does not use ax-17 1507.) (Contributed by Mario Carneiro, 6-Oct-2016.)
𝑥

Theoremalimdh 1444 Deduction from Theorem 19.20 of [Margaris] p. 90. (Contributed by NM, 4-Jan-2002.)
(𝜑 → ∀𝑥𝜑)    &   (𝜑 → (𝜓𝜒))       (𝜑 → (∀𝑥𝜓 → ∀𝑥𝜒))

Theoremalbi 1445 Theorem 19.15 of [Margaris] p. 90. (Contributed by NM, 5-Aug-1993.)
(∀𝑥(𝜑𝜓) → (∀𝑥𝜑 ↔ ∀𝑥𝜓))

Theoremalrimih 1446 Inference from Theorem 19.21 of [Margaris] p. 90. (Contributed by NM, 5-Aug-1993.) (New usage is discouraged.)
(𝜑 → ∀𝑥𝜑)    &   (𝜑𝜓)       (𝜑 → ∀𝑥𝜓)

Theoremalbii 1447 Inference adding universal quantifier to both sides of an equivalence. (Contributed by NM, 7-Aug-1994.)
(𝜑𝜓)       (∀𝑥𝜑 ↔ ∀𝑥𝜓)

Theorem2albii 1448 Inference adding 2 universal quantifiers to both sides of an equivalence. (Contributed by NM, 9-Mar-1997.)
(𝜑𝜓)       (∀𝑥𝑦𝜑 ↔ ∀𝑥𝑦𝜓)

Theoremhbxfrbi 1449 A utility lemma to transfer a bound-variable hypothesis builder into a definition. (Contributed by Jonathan Ben-Naim, 3-Jun-2011.)
(𝜑𝜓)    &   (𝜓 → ∀𝑥𝜓)       (𝜑 → ∀𝑥𝜑)

Theoremnfbii 1450 Equality theorem for not-free. (Contributed by Mario Carneiro, 11-Aug-2016.)
(𝜑𝜓)       (Ⅎ𝑥𝜑 ↔ Ⅎ𝑥𝜓)

Theoremnfxfr 1451 A utility lemma to transfer a bound-variable hypothesis builder into a definition. (Contributed by Mario Carneiro, 11-Aug-2016.)
(𝜑𝜓)    &   𝑥𝜓       𝑥𝜑

Theoremnfxfrd 1452 A utility lemma to transfer a bound-variable hypothesis builder into a definition. (Contributed by Mario Carneiro, 24-Sep-2016.)
(𝜑𝜓)    &   (𝜒 → Ⅎ𝑥𝜓)       (𝜒 → Ⅎ𝑥𝜑)

Theoremalcoms 1453 Swap quantifiers in an antecedent. (Contributed by NM, 11-May-1993.)
(∀𝑥𝑦𝜑𝜓)       (∀𝑦𝑥𝜑𝜓)

Theoremhbal 1454 If 𝑥 is not free in 𝜑, it is not free in 𝑦𝜑. (Contributed by NM, 5-Aug-1993.)
(𝜑 → ∀𝑥𝜑)       (∀𝑦𝜑 → ∀𝑥𝑦𝜑)

Theoremalcom 1455 Theorem 19.5 of [Margaris] p. 89. (Contributed by NM, 5-Aug-1993.)
(∀𝑥𝑦𝜑 ↔ ∀𝑦𝑥𝜑)

Theoremalrimdh 1456 Deduction from Theorem 19.21 of [Margaris] p. 90. (Contributed by NM, 10-Feb-1997.) (Proof shortened by Andrew Salmon, 13-May-2011.)
(𝜑 → ∀𝑥𝜑)    &   (𝜓 → ∀𝑥𝜓)    &   (𝜑 → (𝜓𝜒))       (𝜑 → (𝜓 → ∀𝑥𝜒))

Theoremalbidh 1457 Formula-building rule for universal quantifier (deduction form). (Contributed by NM, 5-Aug-1993.)
(𝜑 → ∀𝑥𝜑)    &   (𝜑 → (𝜓𝜒))       (𝜑 → (∀𝑥𝜓 ↔ ∀𝑥𝜒))

Theorem19.26 1458 Theorem 19.26 of [Margaris] p. 90. Also Theorem *10.22 of [WhiteheadRussell] p. 119. (Contributed by NM, 5-Aug-1993.) (Proof shortened by Wolf Lammen, 4-Jul-2014.)
(∀𝑥(𝜑𝜓) ↔ (∀𝑥𝜑 ∧ ∀𝑥𝜓))

Theorem19.26-2 1459 Theorem 19.26 of [Margaris] p. 90 with two quantifiers. (Contributed by NM, 3-Feb-2005.)
(∀𝑥𝑦(𝜑𝜓) ↔ (∀𝑥𝑦𝜑 ∧ ∀𝑥𝑦𝜓))

Theorem19.26-3an 1460 Theorem 19.26 of [Margaris] p. 90 with triple conjunction. (Contributed by NM, 13-Sep-2011.)
(∀𝑥(𝜑𝜓𝜒) ↔ (∀𝑥𝜑 ∧ ∀𝑥𝜓 ∧ ∀𝑥𝜒))

Theorem19.33 1461 Theorem 19.33 of [Margaris] p. 90. (Contributed by NM, 5-Aug-1993.)
((∀𝑥𝜑 ∨ ∀𝑥𝜓) → ∀𝑥(𝜑𝜓))

Theoremalrot3 1462 Theorem *11.21 in [WhiteheadRussell] p. 160. (Contributed by Andrew Salmon, 24-May-2011.)
(∀𝑥𝑦𝑧𝜑 ↔ ∀𝑦𝑧𝑥𝜑)

Theoremalrot4 1463 Rotate 4 universal quantifiers twice. (Contributed by NM, 2-Feb-2005.) (Proof shortened by Wolf Lammen, 28-Jun-2014.)
(∀𝑥𝑦𝑧𝑤𝜑 ↔ ∀𝑧𝑤𝑥𝑦𝜑)

Theoremalbiim 1464 Split a biconditional and distribute quantifier. (Contributed by NM, 18-Aug-1993.)
(∀𝑥(𝜑𝜓) ↔ (∀𝑥(𝜑𝜓) ∧ ∀𝑥(𝜓𝜑)))

Theorem2albiim 1465 Split a biconditional and distribute 2 quantifiers. (Contributed by NM, 3-Feb-2005.)
(∀𝑥𝑦(𝜑𝜓) ↔ (∀𝑥𝑦(𝜑𝜓) ∧ ∀𝑥𝑦(𝜓𝜑)))

Theoremhband 1466 Deduction form of bound-variable hypothesis builder hban 1527. (Contributed by NM, 2-Jan-2002.)
(𝜑 → (𝜓 → ∀𝑥𝜓))    &   (𝜑 → (𝜒 → ∀𝑥𝜒))       (𝜑 → ((𝜓𝜒) → ∀𝑥(𝜓𝜒)))

Theoremhb3and 1467 Deduction form of bound-variable hypothesis builder hb3an 1530. (Contributed by NM, 17-Feb-2013.)
(𝜑 → (𝜓 → ∀𝑥𝜓))    &   (𝜑 → (𝜒 → ∀𝑥𝜒))    &   (𝜑 → (𝜃 → ∀𝑥𝜃))       (𝜑 → ((𝜓𝜒𝜃) → ∀𝑥(𝜓𝜒𝜃)))

Theoremhbald 1468 Deduction form of bound-variable hypothesis builder hbal 1454. (Contributed by NM, 2-Jan-2002.)
(𝜑 → ∀𝑦𝜑)    &   (𝜑 → (𝜓 → ∀𝑥𝜓))       (𝜑 → (∀𝑦𝜓 → ∀𝑥𝑦𝜓))

Syntaxwex 1469 Extend wff definition to include the existential quantifier ("there exists").
wff 𝑥𝜑

Axiomax-ie1 1470 𝑥 is bound in 𝑥𝜑. One of the axioms of predicate logic. (Contributed by Mario Carneiro, 31-Jan-2015.)
(∃𝑥𝜑 → ∀𝑥𝑥𝜑)

Axiomax-ie2 1471 Define existential quantification. 𝑥𝜑 means "there exists at least one set 𝑥 such that 𝜑 is true." One of the axioms of predicate logic. (Contributed by Mario Carneiro, 31-Jan-2015.)
(∀𝑥(𝜓 → ∀𝑥𝜓) → (∀𝑥(𝜑𝜓) ↔ (∃𝑥𝜑𝜓)))

Theoremhbe1 1472 𝑥 is not free in 𝑥𝜑. (Contributed by NM, 5-Aug-1993.)
(∃𝑥𝜑 → ∀𝑥𝑥𝜑)

Theoremnfe1 1473 𝑥 is not free in 𝑥𝜑. (Contributed by Mario Carneiro, 11-Aug-2016.)
𝑥𝑥𝜑

Theorem19.23ht 1474 Closed form of Theorem 19.23 of [Margaris] p. 90. (Contributed by NM, 7-Nov-2005.) (Revised by Mario Carneiro, 1-Feb-2015.)
(∀𝑥(𝜓 → ∀𝑥𝜓) → (∀𝑥(𝜑𝜓) ↔ (∃𝑥𝜑𝜓)))

Theorem19.23h 1475 Theorem 19.23 of [Margaris] p. 90. (Contributed by NM, 5-Aug-1993.) (Revised by Mario Carneiro, 1-Feb-2015.)
(𝜓 → ∀𝑥𝜓)       (∀𝑥(𝜑𝜓) ↔ (∃𝑥𝜑𝜓))

Theoremalnex 1476 Theorem 19.7 of [Margaris] p. 89. To read this intuitionistically, think of it as "if 𝜑 can be refuted for all 𝑥, then it is not possible to find an 𝑥 for which 𝜑 holds" (and likewise for the converse). Comparing this with dfexdc 1478 illustrates that statements which look similar (to someone used to classical logic) can be different intuitionistically due to different placement of negations. (Contributed by NM, 5-Aug-1993.) (Revised by NM, 1-Feb-2015.) (Revised by Mario Carneiro, 12-May-2015.)
(∀𝑥 ¬ 𝜑 ↔ ¬ ∃𝑥𝜑)

Theoremnex 1477 Generalization rule for negated wff. (Contributed by NM, 18-May-1994.)
¬ 𝜑        ¬ ∃𝑥𝜑

Theoremdfexdc 1478 Defining 𝑥𝜑 given decidability. It is common in classical logic to define 𝑥𝜑 as ¬ ∀𝑥¬ 𝜑 but in intuitionistic logic without a decidability condition, that is only an implication not an equivalence, as seen at exalim 1479. (Contributed by Jim Kingdon, 15-Mar-2018.)
(DECID𝑥𝜑 → (∃𝑥𝜑 ↔ ¬ ∀𝑥 ¬ 𝜑))

Theoremexalim 1479 One direction of a classical definition of existential quantification. One direction of Definition of [Margaris] p. 49. For a decidable proposition, this is an equivalence, as seen as dfexdc 1478. (Contributed by Jim Kingdon, 29-Jul-2018.)
(∃𝑥𝜑 → ¬ ∀𝑥 ¬ 𝜑)

1.3.2  Equality predicate (continued)

The equality predicate was introduced above in wceq 1332 for use by df-tru 1335. See the comments in that section. In this section, we continue with the first "real" use of it.

Theoremweq 1480 Extend wff definition to include atomic formulas using the equality predicate.

(Instead of introducing weq 1480 as an axiomatic statement, as was done in an older version of this database, we introduce it by "proving" a special case of set theory's more general wceq 1332. This lets us avoid overloading the = connective, thus preventing ambiguity that would complicate certain Metamath parsers. However, logically weq 1480 is considered to be a primitive syntax, even though here it is artificially "derived" from wceq 1332. Note: To see the proof steps of this syntax proof, type "show proof weq /all" in the Metamath program.) (Contributed by NM, 24-Jan-2006.)

wff 𝑥 = 𝑦

Syntaxwcel 1481 Extend wff definition to include the membership connective between classes.

(The purpose of introducing wff 𝐴𝐵 here is to allow us to express i.e. "prove" the wel 1482 of predicate calculus in terms of the wceq 1332 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. The class variables 𝐴 and 𝐵 are introduced temporarily for the purpose of this definition but otherwise not used in predicate calculus.)

wff 𝐴𝐵

Theoremwel 1482 Extend wff definition to include atomic formulas with the epsilon (membership) predicate. This is read "𝑥 is an element of 𝑦," "𝑥 is a member of 𝑦," "𝑥 belongs to 𝑦," or "𝑦 contains 𝑥." Note: The phrase "𝑦 includes 𝑥 " means "𝑥 is a subset of 𝑦;" to use it also for 𝑥𝑦, as some authors occasionally do, is poor form and causes confusion, according to George Boolos (1992 lecture at MIT).

This syntactical construction introduces a binary non-logical predicate symbol (epsilon) into our predicate calculus. We will eventually use it for the membership predicate of set theory, but that is irrelevant at this point: the predicate calculus axioms for apply to any arbitrary binary predicate symbol. "Non-logical" means that the predicate is presumed to have additional properties beyond the realm of predicate calculus, although these additional properties are not specified by predicate calculus itself but rather by the axioms of a theory (in our case set theory) added to predicate calculus. "Binary" means that the predicate has two arguments.

(Instead of introducing wel 1482 as an axiomatic statement, as was done in an older version of this database, we introduce it by "proving" a special case of set theory's more general wcel 1481. This lets us avoid overloading the connective, thus preventing ambiguity that would complicate certain Metamath parsers. However, logically wel 1482 is considered to be a primitive syntax, even though here it is artificially "derived" from wcel 1481. Note: To see the proof steps of this syntax proof, type "show proof wel /all" in the Metamath program.) (Contributed by NM, 24-Jan-2006.)

wff 𝑥𝑦

Axiomax-8 1483 Axiom of Equality. One of the equality and substitution axioms of predicate calculus with equality. This is similar to, but not quite, a transitive law for equality (proved later as equtr 1686). Axiom scheme C8' in [Megill] p. 448 (p. 16 of the preprint). Also appears as Axiom C7 of [Monk2] p. 105.

Axioms ax-8 1483 through ax-16 1787 are the axioms having to do with equality, substitution, and logical properties of our binary predicate (which later in set theory will mean "is a member of"). Note that all axioms except ax-16 1787 and ax-17 1507 are still valid even when 𝑥, 𝑦, and 𝑧 are replaced with the same variable because they do not have any distinct variable (Metamath's \$d) restrictions. Distinct variable restrictions are required for ax-16 1787 and ax-17 1507 only. (Contributed by NM, 5-Aug-1993.)

(𝑥 = 𝑦 → (𝑥 = 𝑧𝑦 = 𝑧))

Axiomax-10 1484 Axiom of Quantifier Substitution. One of the equality and substitution axioms of predicate calculus with equality. Appears as Lemma L12 in [Megill] p. 445 (p. 12 of the preprint).

The original version of this axiom was ax-10o 1695 ("o" for "old") and was replaced with this shorter ax-10 1484 in May 2008. The old axiom is proved from this one as theorem ax10o 1694. Conversely, this axiom is proved from ax-10o 1695 as theorem ax10 1696. (Contributed by NM, 5-Aug-1993.)

(∀𝑥 𝑥 = 𝑦 → ∀𝑦 𝑦 = 𝑥)

Axiomax-11 1485 Axiom of Variable Substitution. One of the 5 equality axioms of predicate calculus. The final consequent 𝑥(𝑥 = 𝑦𝜑) is a way of expressing "𝑦 substituted for 𝑥 in wff 𝜑 " (cf. sb6 1859). It is based on Lemma 16 of [Tarski] p. 70 and Axiom C8 of [Monk2] p. 105, from which it can be proved by cases.

Variants of this axiom which are equivalent in classical logic but which have not been shown to be equivalent for intuitionistic logic are ax11v 1800, ax11v2 1793 and ax-11o 1796. (Contributed by NM, 5-Aug-1993.)

(𝑥 = 𝑦 → (∀𝑦𝜑 → ∀𝑥(𝑥 = 𝑦𝜑)))

Axiomax-i12 1486 Axiom of Quantifier Introduction. One of the equality and substitution axioms of predicate calculus with equality. Informally, it says that whenever 𝑧 is distinct from 𝑥 and 𝑦, and 𝑥 = 𝑦 is true, then 𝑥 = 𝑦 quantified with 𝑧 is also true. In other words, 𝑧 is irrelevant to the truth of 𝑥 = 𝑦. Axiom scheme C9' in [Megill] p. 448 (p. 16 of the preprint). It apparently does not otherwise appear in the literature but is easily proved from textbook predicate calculus by cases.

This axiom has been modified from the original ax-12 1490 for compatibility with intuitionistic logic. (Contributed by Mario Carneiro, 31-Jan-2015.)

(∀𝑧 𝑧 = 𝑥 ∨ (∀𝑧 𝑧 = 𝑦 ∨ ∀𝑧(𝑥 = 𝑦 → ∀𝑧 𝑥 = 𝑦)))

Axiomax-bndl 1487 Axiom of bundling. The general idea of this axiom is that two variables are either distinct or non-distinct. That idea could be expressed as 𝑧𝑧 = 𝑥 ∨ ¬ ∀𝑧𝑧 = 𝑥. However, we instead choose an axiom which has many of the same consequences, but which is different with respect to a universe which contains only one object. 𝑧𝑧 = 𝑥 holds if 𝑧 and 𝑥 are the same variable, likewise for 𝑧 and 𝑦, and 𝑥𝑧(𝑥 = 𝑦 → ∀𝑧𝑥 = 𝑦) holds if 𝑧 is distinct from the others (and the universe has at least two objects).

As with other statements of the form "x is decidable (either true or false)", this does not entail the full Law of the Excluded Middle (which is the proposition that all statements are decidable), but instead merely the assertion that particular kinds of statements are decidable (or in this case, an assertion similar to decidability).

This axiom implies ax-i12 1486 as can be seen at axi12 1495. Whether ax-bndl 1487 can be proved from the remaining axioms including ax-i12 1486 is not known.

The reason we call this "bundling" is that a statement without a distinct variable constraint "bundles" together two statements, one in which the two variables are the same and one in which they are different. (Contributed by Mario Carneiro and Jim Kingdon, 14-Mar-2018.)

(∀𝑧 𝑧 = 𝑥 ∨ (∀𝑧 𝑧 = 𝑦 ∨ ∀𝑥𝑧(𝑥 = 𝑦 → ∀𝑧 𝑥 = 𝑦)))

Axiomax-4 1488 Axiom of Specialization. A quantified wff implies the wff without a quantifier (i.e. an instance, or special case, of the generalized wff). In other words if something is true for all 𝑥, it is true for any specific 𝑥 (that would typically occur as a free variable in the wff substituted for 𝜑). (A free variable is one that does not occur in the scope of a quantifier: 𝑥 and 𝑦 are both free in 𝑥 = 𝑦, but only 𝑥 is free in 𝑦𝑥 = 𝑦.) Axiom scheme C5' in [Megill] p. 448 (p. 16 of the preprint). Also appears as Axiom B5 of [Tarski] p. 67 (under his system S2, defined in the last paragraph on p. 77).

Note that the converse of this axiom does not hold in general, but a weaker inference form of the converse holds and is expressed as rule ax-gen 1426. Conditional forms of the converse are given by ax-12 1490, ax-16 1787, and ax-17 1507.

Unlike the more general textbook Axiom of Specialization, we cannot choose a variable different from 𝑥 for the special case. For use, that requires the assistance of equality axioms, and we deal with it later after we introduce the definition of proper substitution - see stdpc4 1749.

(Contributed by NM, 5-Aug-1993.)

(∀𝑥𝜑𝜑)

Theoremsp 1489 Specialization. Another name for ax-4 1488. (Contributed by NM, 21-May-2008.)
(∀𝑥𝜑𝜑)

Theoremax-12 1490 Rederive the original version of the axiom from ax-i12 1486. (Contributed by Mario Carneiro, 3-Feb-2015.)
(¬ ∀𝑧 𝑧 = 𝑥 → (¬ ∀𝑧 𝑧 = 𝑦 → (𝑥 = 𝑦 → ∀𝑧 𝑥 = 𝑦)))

Theoremax12or 1491 Another name for ax-i12 1486. (Contributed by NM, 3-Feb-2015.)
(∀𝑧 𝑧 = 𝑥 ∨ (∀𝑧 𝑧 = 𝑦 ∨ ∀𝑧(𝑥 = 𝑦 → ∀𝑧 𝑥 = 𝑦)))

Axiomax-13 1492 Axiom of Equality. One of the equality and substitution axioms for a non-logical predicate in our predicate calculus with equality. It substitutes equal variables into the left-hand side of the binary predicate. Axiom scheme C12' in [Megill] p. 448 (p. 16 of the preprint). It is a special case of Axiom B8 (p. 75) of system S2 of [Tarski] p. 77. "Non-logical" means that the predicate is not a primitive of predicate calculus proper but instead is an extension to it. "Binary" means that the predicate has two arguments. In a system of predicate calculus with equality, like ours, equality is not usually considered to be a non-logical predicate. In systems of predicate calculus without equality, it typically would be. (Contributed by NM, 5-Aug-1993.)
(𝑥 = 𝑦 → (𝑥𝑧𝑦𝑧))

Axiomax-14 1493 Axiom of Equality. One of the equality and substitution axioms for a non-logical predicate in our predicate calculus with equality. It substitutes equal variables into the right-hand side of the binary predicate. Axiom scheme C13' in [Megill] p. 448 (p. 16 of the preprint). It is a special case of Axiom B8 (p. 75) of system S2 of [Tarski] p. 77. (Contributed by NM, 5-Aug-1993.)
(𝑥 = 𝑦 → (𝑧𝑥𝑧𝑦))

Theoremhbequid 1494 Bound-variable hypothesis builder for 𝑥 = 𝑥. This theorem tells us that any variable, including 𝑥, is effectively not free in 𝑥 = 𝑥, even though 𝑥 is technically free according to the traditional definition of free variable. (The proof uses only ax-5 1424, ax-8 1483, ax-12 1490, and ax-gen 1426. This shows that this can be proved without ax-9 1512, even though the theorem equid 1678 cannot be. A shorter proof using ax-9 1512 is obtainable from equid 1678 and hbth 1440.) (Contributed by NM, 13-Jan-2011.) (Proof shortened by Wolf Lammen, 23-Mar-2014.)
(𝑥 = 𝑥 → ∀𝑦 𝑥 = 𝑥)

Theoremaxi12 1495 Proof that ax-i12 1486 follows from ax-bndl 1487. So that we can track which theorems rely on ax-bndl 1487, proofs should reference ax-i12 1486 rather than this theorem. (Contributed by Jim Kingdon, 17-Aug-2018.) (New usage is discouraged). (Proof modification is discouraged.)
(∀𝑧 𝑧 = 𝑥 ∨ (∀𝑧 𝑧 = 𝑦 ∨ ∀𝑧(𝑥 = 𝑦 → ∀𝑧 𝑥 = 𝑦)))

Theoremalequcom 1496 Commutation law for identical variable specifiers. The antecedent and consequent are true when 𝑥 and 𝑦 are substituted with the same variable. Lemma L12 in [Megill] p. 445 (p. 12 of the preprint). (Contributed by NM, 5-Aug-1993.)
(∀𝑥 𝑥 = 𝑦 → ∀𝑦 𝑦 = 𝑥)

Theoremalequcoms 1497 A commutation rule for identical variable specifiers. (Contributed by NM, 5-Aug-1993.)
(∀𝑥 𝑥 = 𝑦𝜑)       (∀𝑦 𝑦 = 𝑥𝜑)

Theoremnalequcoms 1498 A commutation rule for distinct variable specifiers. (Contributed by NM, 2-Jan-2002.) (Revised by Mario Carneiro, 2-Feb-2015.)
(¬ ∀𝑥 𝑥 = 𝑦𝜑)       (¬ ∀𝑦 𝑦 = 𝑥𝜑)

Theoremnfr 1499 Consequence of the definition of not-free. (Contributed by Mario Carneiro, 26-Sep-2016.)
(Ⅎ𝑥𝜑 → (𝜑 → ∀𝑥𝜑))

Theoremnfri 1500 Consequence of the definition of not-free. (Contributed by Mario Carneiro, 11-Aug-2016.)
𝑥𝜑       (𝜑 → ∀𝑥𝜑)

Page List
Jump to page: Contents  1 1-100 2 101-200 3 201-300 4 301-400 5 401-500 6 501-600 7 601-700 8 701-800 9 801-900 10 901-1000 11 1001-1100 12 1101-1200 13 1201-1300 14 1301-1400 15 1401-1500 16 1501-1600 17 1601-1700 18 1701-1800 19 1801-1900 20 1901-2000 21 2001-2100 22 2101-2200 23 2201-2300 24 2301-2400 25 2401-2500 26 2501-2600 27 2601-2700 28 2701-2800 29 2801-2900 30 2901-3000 31 3001-3100 32 3101-3200 33 3201-3300 34 3301-3400 35 3401-3500 36 3501-3600 37 3601-3700 38 3701-3800 39 3801-3900 40 3901-4000 41 4001-4100 42 4101-4200 43 4201-4300 44 4301-4400 45 4401-4500 46 4501-4600 47 4601-4700 48 4701-4800 49 4801-4900 50 4901-5000 51 5001-5100 52 5101-5200 53 5201-5300 54 5301-5400 55 5401-5500 56 5501-5600 57 5601-5700 58 5701-5800 59 5801-5900 60 5901-6000 61 6001-6100 62 6101-6200 63 6201-6300 64 6301-6400 65 6401-6500 66 6501-6600 67 6601-6700 68 6701-6800 69 6801-6900 70 6901-7000 71 7001-7100 72 7101-7200 73 7201-7300 74 7301-7400 75 7401-7500 76 7501-7600 77 7601-7700 78 7701-7800 79 7801-7900 80 7901-8000 81 8001-8100 82 8101-8200 83 8201-8300 84 8301-8400 85 8401-8500 86 8501-8600 87 8601-8700 88 8701-8800 89 8801-8900 90 8901-9000 91 9001-9100 92 9101-9200 93 9201-9300 94 9301-9400 95 9401-9500 96 9501-9600 97 9601-9700 98 9701-9800 99 9801-9900 100 9901-10000 101 10001-10100 102 10101-10200 103 10201-10300 104 10301-10400 105 10401-10500 106 10501-10600 107 10601-10700 108 10701-10800 109 10801-10900 110 10901-11000 111 11001-11100 112 11101-11200 113 11201-11300 114 11301-11400 115 11401-11500 116 11501-11600 117 11601-11700 118 11701-11800 119 11801-11900 120 11901-12000 121 12001-12100 122 12101-12200 123 12201-12300 124 12301-12400 125 12401-12500 126 12501-12600 127 12601-12700 128 12701-12800 129 12801-12900 130 12901-13000 131 13001-13100 132 13101-13200 133 13201-13300 134 13301-13400 135 13401-13470
 Copyright terms: Public domain < Previous  Next >