P. 15 of Theorem List - Intuitionistic Logic Explorer

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

Type	Label	Description
Statement
1.2.13.2  Equality predicate for use by df-tru Even though it is not ordinarily part of propositional calculus, the equality predicate = is introduced here so that the soundness of definition df-tru 1405 can be checked by the same algorithm as is used for predicate calculus. Its first real use is in Axiom ax-8 1557 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 1410 may be adopted and this subsection moved down to just above weq 1556 below. However, the use of dftru2 1410 as a definition requires a more elaborate definition checking algorithm that we prefer to avoid.
Syntax	cv 1401	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 2224. Since (when 𝑦 is distinct from 𝑥) we have 𝑥 = {𝑦 ∣ 𝑦 ∈ 𝑥} by cvjust 2233, 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 1401 as a "type conversion" from a setvar variable to a class variable, keep in mind that cv 1401 is intrinsically no different from any other class-building syntax such as cab 2224, cun 3218, or c0 3520. For a general discussion of the theory of classes and the role of cv 1401, see https://us.metamath.org/mpeuni/mmset.html#class 1401. (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 1556 of predicate calculus from the wceq 1402 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 1402	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 1556 of predicate calculus in terms of the wceq 1402 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 1556 or wceq 1402, 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 2231 for more information on the set theory usage of wceq 1402.)
wff 𝐴 = 𝐵
1.2.13.3  Define the true and false constants
Syntax	wtru 1403	⊤ is a wff.
wff ⊤
Theorem	trujust 1404	Soundness justification theorem for df-tru 1405. (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 1405	Definition of the truth value "true", or "verum", denoted by ⊤. This is a tautology, as proved by tru 1406. 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 1406, and other proofs should depend on tru 1406 (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 1406	The truth value ⊤ is provable. (Contributed by Anthony Hart, 13-Oct-2010.)
⊢ ⊤
Syntax	wfal 1407	⊥ is a wff.
wff ⊥
Definition	df-fal 1408	Definition of the truth value "false", or "falsum", denoted by ⊥. See also df-tru 1405. (Contributed by Anthony Hart, 22-Oct-2010.)
⊢ (⊥ ↔ ¬ ⊤)
Theorem	fal 1409	The truth value ⊥ is refutable. (Contributed by Anthony Hart, 22-Oct-2010.) (Proof shortened by Mel L. O'Cat, 11-Mar-2012.)
⊢ ¬ ⊥
Theorem	dftru2 1410	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 1411	Eliminate ⊤ as an antecedent. A proposition implied by ⊤ is true. (Contributed by Mario Carneiro, 13-Mar-2014.)
⊢ (⊤ → 𝜑)    ⇒   ⊢ 𝜑
Theorem	tbtru 1412	A proposition is equivalent to itself being equivalent to ⊤. (Contributed by Anthony Hart, 14-Aug-2011.)
⊢ (𝜑 ↔ (𝜑 ↔ ⊤))
Theorem	nbfal 1413	The negation of a proposition is equivalent to itself being equivalent to ⊥. (Contributed by Anthony Hart, 14-Aug-2011.)
⊢ (¬ 𝜑 ↔ (𝜑 ↔ ⊥))
Theorem	bitru 1414	A theorem is equivalent to truth. (Contributed by Mario Carneiro, 9-May-2015.)
⊢ 𝜑    ⇒   ⊢ (𝜑 ↔ ⊤)
Theorem	bifal 1415	A contradiction is equivalent to falsehood. (Contributed by Mario Carneiro, 9-May-2015.)
⊢ ¬ 𝜑    ⇒   ⊢ (𝜑 ↔ ⊥)
Theorem	falim 1416	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 1417	The truth value ⊥ implies anything. (Contributed by Mario Carneiro, 9-Feb-2017.)
⊢ ((𝜑 ∧ ⊥) → 𝜓)
Theorem	trud 1418	Anything implies ⊤. (Contributed by FL, 20-Mar-2011.) (Proof shortened by Anthony Hart, 1-Aug-2011.)
⊢ (𝜑 → ⊤)
Theorem	truan 1419	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 1420	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 1421	Negation introduction rule from natural deduction. (Contributed by Mario Carneiro, 9-Feb-2017.)
⊢ ((𝜑 ∧ 𝜓) → ⊥)    ⇒   ⊢ (𝜑 → ¬ 𝜓)
Theorem	pm2.21fal 1422	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 1423	Negation inferred from embedded conjunct. (Contributed by NM, 20-Aug-1993.) (Proof rewritten by Jim Kingdon, 4-May-2018.)
⊢ ((𝜑 ↔ (𝜓 ∧ ¬ 𝜑)) → ¬ 𝜓)
1.2.14  Logical 'xor'
Syntax	wxo 1424	Extend wff definition to include exclusive disjunction ('xor').
wff (𝜑 ⊻ 𝜓)
Definition	df-xor 1425	Define exclusive disjunction (logical 'xor'). Return true if either the left or right, but not both, are true. Contrast with ∧ (wa 104), ∨ (wo 720), and → (wi 4) . (Contributed by FL, 22-Nov-2010.) (Modified by Jim Kingdon, 1-Mar-2018.)
⊢ ((𝜑 ⊻ 𝜓) ↔ ((𝜑 ∨ 𝜓) ∧ ¬ (𝜑 ∧ 𝜓)))
Theorem	xoranor 1426	One way of defining exclusive or. Equivalent to df-xor 1425. (Contributed by Jim Kingdon and Mario Carneiro, 1-Mar-2018.)
⊢ ((𝜑 ⊻ 𝜓) ↔ ((𝜑 ∨ 𝜓) ∧ (¬ 𝜑 ∨ ¬ 𝜓)))
Theorem	excxor 1427	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 1428	XOR implies OR. (Contributed by BJ, 19-Apr-2019.)
⊢ ((𝜑 ⊻ 𝜓) → (𝜑 ∨ 𝜓))
Theorem	xorbi2d 1429	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 1430	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 1431	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 1432	Equality property for XOR. (Contributed by Mario Carneiro, 4-Sep-2016.)
⊢ (𝜑 ↔ 𝜓)    &   ⊢ (𝜒 ↔ 𝜃)    ⇒   ⊢ ((𝜑 ⊻ 𝜒) ↔ (𝜓 ⊻ 𝜃))
Theorem	xorbin 1433	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 1434	One direction of pm5.18dc 895, which holds for all propositions, not just decidable propositions. (Contributed by Jim Kingdon, 10-Mar-2018.)
⊢ ((𝜑 ↔ 𝜓) → ¬ (𝜑 ↔ ¬ 𝜓))
Theorem	xornbi 1435	A consequence of exclusive or. For decidable propositions this is an equivalence, as seen at xornbidc 1440. (Contributed by Jim Kingdon, 10-Mar-2018.)
⊢ ((𝜑 ⊻ 𝜓) → ¬ (𝜑 ↔ 𝜓))
Theorem	xor3dc 1436	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 1437	⊻ is commutative. (Contributed by David A. Wheeler, 6-Oct-2018.)
⊢ ((𝜑 ⊻ 𝜓) ↔ (𝜓 ⊻ 𝜑))
Theorem	pm5.15dc 1438	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))))
Theorem	xor2dc 1439	Two ways to express "exclusive or" between decidable propositions. (Contributed by Jim Kingdon, 17-Apr-2018.)
⊢ (DECID 𝜑 → (DECID 𝜓 → (¬ (𝜑 ↔ 𝜓) ↔ ((𝜑 ∨ 𝜓) ∧ ¬ (𝜑 ∧ 𝜓)))))
Theorem	xornbidc 1440	Exclusive or is equivalent to negated biconditional for decidable propositions. (Contributed by Jim Kingdon, 27-Apr-2018.)
⊢ (DECID 𝜑 → (DECID 𝜓 → ((𝜑 ⊻ 𝜓) ↔ ¬ (𝜑 ↔ 𝜓))))
Theorem	xordc 1441	Two ways to express "exclusive or" between decidable propositions. Theorem *5.22 of [WhiteheadRussell] p. 124, but for decidable propositions. (Contributed by Jim Kingdon, 5-May-2018.)
⊢ (DECID 𝜑 → (DECID 𝜓 → (¬ (𝜑 ↔ 𝜓) ↔ ((𝜑 ∧ ¬ 𝜓) ∨ (𝜓 ∧ ¬ 𝜑)))))
Theorem	xordc1 1442	Exclusive or implies the left proposition is decidable. (Contributed by Jim Kingdon, 12-Mar-2018.)
⊢ ((𝜑 ⊻ 𝜓) → DECID 𝜑)
Theorem	nbbndc 1443	Move negation outside of biconditional, for decidable propositions. Compare Theorem *5.18 of [WhiteheadRussell] p. 124. (Contributed by Jim Kingdon, 18-Apr-2018.)
⊢ (DECID 𝜑 → (DECID 𝜓 → ((¬ 𝜑 ↔ 𝜓) ↔ ¬ (𝜑 ↔ 𝜓))))
Theorem	biassdc 1444	Associative law for the biconditional, for decidable propositions. The classical version (without the decidability conditions) is an axiom of system DS in Vladimir Lifschitz, "On calculational proofs", Annals of Pure and Applied Logic, 113:207-224, 2002, http://www.cs.utexas.edu/users/ai-lab/pub-view.php?PubID=26805, and, interestingly, was not included in Principia Mathematica but was apparently first noted by Jan Lukasiewicz circa 1923. (Contributed by Jim Kingdon, 4-May-2018.)
⊢ (DECID 𝜑 → (DECID 𝜓 → (DECID 𝜒 → (((𝜑 ↔ 𝜓) ↔ 𝜒) ↔ (𝜑 ↔ (𝜓 ↔ 𝜒))))))
Theorem	bilukdc 1445	Lukasiewicz's shortest axiom for equivalential calculus (but modified to require decidable propositions). Storrs McCall, ed., Polish Logic 1920-1939 (Oxford, 1967), p. 96. (Contributed by Jim Kingdon, 5-May-2018.)
⊢ (((DECID 𝜑 ∧ DECID 𝜓) ∧ DECID 𝜒) → ((𝜑 ↔ 𝜓) ↔ ((𝜒 ↔ 𝜓) ↔ (𝜑 ↔ 𝜒))))
Theorem	dfbi3dc 1446	An alternate definition of the biconditional for decidable propositions. Theorem *5.23 of [WhiteheadRussell] p. 124, but with decidability conditions. (Contributed by Jim Kingdon, 5-May-2018.)
⊢ (DECID 𝜑 → (DECID 𝜓 → ((𝜑 ↔ 𝜓) ↔ ((𝜑 ∧ 𝜓) ∨ (¬ 𝜑 ∧ ¬ 𝜓)))))
Theorem	pm5.24dc 1447	Theorem *5.24 of [WhiteheadRussell] p. 124, but for decidable propositions. (Contributed by Jim Kingdon, 5-May-2018.)
⊢ (DECID 𝜑 → (DECID 𝜓 → (¬ ((𝜑 ∧ 𝜓) ∨ (¬ 𝜑 ∧ ¬ 𝜓)) ↔ ((𝜑 ∧ ¬ 𝜓) ∨ (𝜓 ∧ ¬ 𝜑)))))
Theorem	xordidc 1448	Conjunction distributes over exclusive-or, for decidable propositions. This is one way to interpret the distributive law of multiplication over addition in modulo 2 arithmetic. (Contributed by Jim Kingdon, 14-Jul-2018.)
⊢ (DECID 𝜑 → (DECID 𝜓 → (DECID 𝜒 → ((𝜑 ∧ (𝜓 ⊻ 𝜒)) ↔ ((𝜑 ∧ 𝜓) ⊻ (𝜑 ∧ 𝜒))))))
Theorem	anxordi 1449	Conjunction distributes over exclusive-or. (Contributed by Mario Carneiro and Jim Kingdon, 7-Oct-2018.)
⊢ ((𝜑 ∧ (𝜓 ⊻ 𝜒)) ↔ ((𝜑 ∧ 𝜓) ⊻ (𝜑 ∧ 𝜒)))
1.2.15  Truth tables: Operations on true and false constants For classical logic, truth tables can be used to define propositional logic operations, by showing the results of those operations for all possible combinations of true (⊤) and false (⊥). Although the intuitionistic logic connectives are not as simply defined, ⊤ and ⊥ do play similar roles as in classical logic and most theorems from classical logic continue to hold. Here we show that our definitions and axioms produce equivalent results for ⊤ and ⊥ as we would get from truth tables for ∧ (conjunction aka logical 'and') wa 104, ∨ (disjunction aka logical inclusive 'or') wo 720, → (implies) wi 4, ¬ (not) wn 3, ↔ (logical equivalence) df-bi 117, and ⊻ (exclusive or) df-xor 1425.
Theorem	truantru 1450	A ∧ identity. (Contributed by Anthony Hart, 22-Oct-2010.)
⊢ ((⊤ ∧ ⊤) ↔ ⊤)
Theorem	truanfal 1451	A ∧ identity. (Contributed by Anthony Hart, 22-Oct-2010.)
⊢ ((⊤ ∧ ⊥) ↔ ⊥)
Theorem	falantru 1452	A ∧ identity. (Contributed by David A. Wheeler, 23-Feb-2018.)
⊢ ((⊥ ∧ ⊤) ↔ ⊥)
Theorem	falanfal 1453	A ∧ identity. (Contributed by Anthony Hart, 22-Oct-2010.)
⊢ ((⊥ ∧ ⊥) ↔ ⊥)
Theorem	truortru 1454	A ∨ identity. (Contributed by Anthony Hart, 22-Oct-2010.) (Proof shortened by Andrew Salmon, 13-May-2011.)
⊢ ((⊤ ∨ ⊤) ↔ ⊤)
Theorem	truorfal 1455	A ∨ identity. (Contributed by Anthony Hart, 22-Oct-2010.)
⊢ ((⊤ ∨ ⊥) ↔ ⊤)
Theorem	falortru 1456	A ∨ identity. (Contributed by Anthony Hart, 22-Oct-2010.)
⊢ ((⊥ ∨ ⊤) ↔ ⊤)
Theorem	falorfal 1457	A ∨ identity. (Contributed by Anthony Hart, 22-Oct-2010.) (Proof shortened by Andrew Salmon, 13-May-2011.)
⊢ ((⊥ ∨ ⊥) ↔ ⊥)
Theorem	truimtru 1458	A → identity. (Contributed by Anthony Hart, 22-Oct-2010.)
⊢ ((⊤ → ⊤) ↔ ⊤)
Theorem	truimfal 1459	A → identity. (Contributed by Anthony Hart, 22-Oct-2010.) (Proof shortened by Andrew Salmon, 13-May-2011.)
⊢ ((⊤ → ⊥) ↔ ⊥)
Theorem	falimtru 1460	A → identity. (Contributed by Anthony Hart, 22-Oct-2010.)
⊢ ((⊥ → ⊤) ↔ ⊤)
Theorem	falimfal 1461	A → identity. (Contributed by Anthony Hart, 22-Oct-2010.)
⊢ ((⊥ → ⊥) ↔ ⊤)
Theorem	nottru 1462	A ¬ identity. (Contributed by Anthony Hart, 22-Oct-2010.)
⊢ (¬ ⊤ ↔ ⊥)
Theorem	notfal 1463	A ¬ identity. (Contributed by Anthony Hart, 22-Oct-2010.) (Proof shortened by Andrew Salmon, 13-May-2011.)
⊢ (¬ ⊥ ↔ ⊤)
Theorem	trubitru 1464	A ↔ identity. (Contributed by Anthony Hart, 22-Oct-2010.) (Proof shortened by Andrew Salmon, 13-May-2011.)
⊢ ((⊤ ↔ ⊤) ↔ ⊤)
Theorem	trubifal 1465	A ↔ identity. (Contributed by David A. Wheeler, 23-Feb-2018.)
⊢ ((⊤ ↔ ⊥) ↔ ⊥)
Theorem	falbitru 1466	A ↔ identity. (Contributed by Anthony Hart, 22-Oct-2010.) (Proof shortened by Andrew Salmon, 13-May-2011.)
⊢ ((⊥ ↔ ⊤) ↔ ⊥)
Theorem	falbifal 1467	A ↔ identity. (Contributed by Anthony Hart, 22-Oct-2010.) (Proof shortened by Andrew Salmon, 13-May-2011.)
⊢ ((⊥ ↔ ⊥) ↔ ⊤)
Theorem	truxortru 1468	A ⊻ identity. (Contributed by David A. Wheeler, 2-Mar-2018.)
⊢ ((⊤ ⊻ ⊤) ↔ ⊥)
Theorem	truxorfal 1469	A ⊻ identity. (Contributed by David A. Wheeler, 2-Mar-2018.)
⊢ ((⊤ ⊻ ⊥) ↔ ⊤)
Theorem	falxortru 1470	A ⊻ identity. (Contributed by David A. Wheeler, 2-Mar-2018.)
⊢ ((⊥ ⊻ ⊤) ↔ ⊤)
Theorem	falxorfal 1471	A ⊻ identity. (Contributed by David A. Wheeler, 2-Mar-2018.)
⊢ ((⊥ ⊻ ⊥) ↔ ⊥)
1.2.16  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 672, modus ponendo tollens I mptnan 1472, modus ponendo tollens II mptxor 1473, and modus tollendo ponens (exclusive-or version) mtpxor 1475. 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 1475 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 1474. This set of indemonstrables is not the entire system of Stoic logic.
Theorem	mptnan 1472	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 1473) 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    &   ⊢ ¬ (𝜑 ∧ 𝜓)    ⇒   ⊢ ¬ 𝜓
Theorem	mptxor 1473	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    &   ⊢ (𝜑 ⊻ 𝜓)    ⇒   ⊢ ¬ 𝜓
Theorem	mtpor 1474	Modus tollendo ponens (inclusive-or version), aka disjunctive syllogism. This is similar to mtpxor 1475, 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    &   ⊢ (𝜑 ∨ 𝜓)    ⇒   ⊢ 𝜓
Theorem	mtpxor 1475	Modus tollendo ponens (original exclusive-or version), aka disjunctive syllogism, similar to mtpor 1474, 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 1474. See rule 3 on [Lopez-Astorga] p. 12 (note that the "or" is the same as mptxor 1473, that is, it is exclusive-or df-xor 1425), 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 1473), 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    &   ⊢ (𝜑 ⊻ 𝜓)    ⇒   ⊢ 𝜓
Theorem	stoic1a 1476	Stoic logic Thema 1 (part a). The first thema of the four Stoic logic themata, in its basic form, was: "When from two (assertibles) a third follows, then from either of them together with the contradictory of the conclusion the contradictory of the other follows." (Apuleius Int. 209.9-14), see [Bobzien] p. 117 and https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/logic-ancient/ We will represent thema 1 as two very similar rules stoic1a 1476 and stoic1b 1477 to represent each side. (Contributed by David A. Wheeler, 16-Feb-2019.) (Proof shortened by Wolf Lammen, 21-May-2020.)
⊢ ((𝜑 ∧ 𝜓) → 𝜃)    ⇒   ⊢ ((𝜑 ∧ ¬ 𝜃) → ¬ 𝜓)
Theorem	stoic1b 1477	Stoic logic Thema 1 (part b). The other part of thema 1 of Stoic logic; see stoic1a 1476. (Contributed by David A. Wheeler, 16-Feb-2019.)
⊢ ((𝜑 ∧ 𝜓) → 𝜃)    ⇒   ⊢ ((𝜓 ∧ ¬ 𝜃) → ¬ 𝜑)
Theorem	stoic2a 1478	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, 𝜓⊢ 𝜒; in Metamath we will represent that construct as 𝜑 ∧ 𝜓 → 𝜒. This version a is without the phrase "or both"; see stoic2b 1479 for the version with the phrase "or both". We already have this rule as syldan 282, so here we show the equivalence and discourage its use. (New usage is discouraged.) (Contributed by David A. Wheeler, 17-Feb-2019.)
⊢ ((𝜑 ∧ 𝜓) → 𝜒)    &   ⊢ ((𝜑 ∧ 𝜒) → 𝜃)    ⇒   ⊢ ((𝜑 ∧ 𝜓) → 𝜃)
Theorem	stoic2b 1479	Stoic logic Thema 2 version b. See stoic2a 1478. Version b is with the phrase "or both". We already have this rule as mpd3an3 1379, so here we prove the equivalence and discourage its use. (New usage is discouraged.) (Contributed by David A. Wheeler, 17-Feb-2019.)
⊢ ((𝜑 ∧ 𝜓) → 𝜒)    &   ⊢ ((𝜑 ∧ 𝜓 ∧ 𝜒) → 𝜃)    ⇒   ⊢ ((𝜑 ∧ 𝜓) → 𝜃)
Theorem	stoic3 1480	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.)
⊢ ((𝜑 ∧ 𝜓) → 𝜒)    &   ⊢ ((𝜒 ∧ 𝜃) → 𝜏)    ⇒   ⊢ ((𝜑 ∧ 𝜓 ∧ 𝜃) → 𝜏)
Theorem	stoic4a 1481	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 1482 for the version with the phrase "or both". (Contributed by David A. Wheeler, 17-Feb-2019.)
⊢ ((𝜑 ∧ 𝜓) → 𝜒)    &   ⊢ ((𝜒 ∧ 𝜑 ∧ 𝜃) → 𝜏)    ⇒   ⊢ ((𝜑 ∧ 𝜓 ∧ 𝜃) → 𝜏)
Theorem	stoic4b 1482	Stoic logic Thema 4 version b. This is version b, which is with the phrase "or both". See stoic4a 1481 for more information. (Contributed by David A. Wheeler, 17-Feb-2019.)
⊢ ((𝜑 ∧ 𝜓) → 𝜒)    &   ⊢ (((𝜒 ∧ 𝜑 ∧ 𝜓) ∧ 𝜃) → 𝜏)    ⇒   ⊢ ((𝜑 ∧ 𝜓 ∧ 𝜃) → 𝜏)
1.2.17  Logical implication (continued)
Theorem	syl6an 1483	A syllogism deduction combined with conjoining antecedents. (Contributed by Alan Sare, 28-Oct-2011.)
⊢ (𝜑 → 𝜓)    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → (𝜒 → 𝜃))    &   ⊢ ((𝜓 ∧ 𝜃) → 𝜏)    ⇒   ⊢ (𝜑 → (𝜒 → 𝜏))
Theorem	syl10 1484	A nested syllogism inference. (Contributed by Alan Sare, 17-Jul-2011.)
⊢ (𝜑 → (𝜓 → 𝜒))    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → (𝜓 → (𝜃 → 𝜏)))    &   ⊢ (𝜒 → (𝜏 → 𝜂))    ⇒   ⊢ (𝜑 → (𝜓 → (𝜃 → 𝜂)))
Theorem	a1ddd 1485	Triple deduction introducing an antecedent to a wff. Deduction associated with a1dd 48. Double deduction associated with a1d 22. Triple deduction associated with ax-1 6 and a1i 9. (Contributed by Jeff Hankins, 4-Aug-2009.)
⊢ (𝜑 → (𝜓 → (𝜒 → 𝜏)))    ⇒   ⊢ (𝜑 → (𝜓 → (𝜒 → (𝜃 → 𝜏))))
Theorem	exbir 1486	Exportation implication also converting head from biconditional to conditional. (Contributed by Alan Sare, 31-Dec-2011.)
⊢ (((𝜑 ∧ 𝜓) → (𝜒 ↔ 𝜃)) → (𝜑 → (𝜓 → (𝜃 → 𝜒))))
Theorem	3impexp 1487	impexp 263 with a 3-conjunct antecedent. (Contributed by Alan Sare, 31-Dec-2011.)
⊢ (((𝜑 ∧ 𝜓 ∧ 𝜒) → 𝜃) ↔ (𝜑 → (𝜓 → (𝜒 → 𝜃))))
Theorem	3impexpbicom 1488	3impexp 1487 with biconditional consequent of antecedent that is commuted in consequent. (Contributed by Alan Sare, 31-Dec-2011.)
⊢ (((𝜑 ∧ 𝜓 ∧ 𝜒) → (𝜃 ↔ 𝜏)) ↔ (𝜑 → (𝜓 → (𝜒 → (𝜏 ↔ 𝜃)))))
Theorem	3impexpbicomi 1489	Deduction form of 3impexpbicom 1488. (Contributed by Alan Sare, 31-Dec-2011.)
⊢ ((𝜑 ∧ 𝜓 ∧ 𝜒) → (𝜃 ↔ 𝜏))    ⇒   ⊢ (𝜑 → (𝜓 → (𝜒 → (𝜏 ↔ 𝜃))))
Theorem	ancomsimp 1490	Closed form of ancoms 268. (Contributed by Alan Sare, 31-Dec-2011.)
⊢ (((𝜑 ∧ 𝜓) → 𝜒) ↔ ((𝜓 ∧ 𝜑) → 𝜒))
Theorem	expcomd 1491	Deduction form of expcom 116. (Contributed by Alan Sare, 22-Jul-2012.)
⊢ (𝜑 → ((𝜓 ∧ 𝜒) → 𝜃))    ⇒   ⊢ (𝜑 → (𝜒 → (𝜓 → 𝜃)))
Theorem	expdcom 1492	Commuted form of expd 258. (Contributed by Alan Sare, 18-Mar-2012.)
⊢ (𝜑 → ((𝜓 ∧ 𝜒) → 𝜃))    ⇒   ⊢ (𝜓 → (𝜒 → (𝜑 → 𝜃)))
Theorem	simplbi2comg 1493	Implication form of simplbi2com 1494. (Contributed by Alan Sare, 22-Jul-2012.)
⊢ ((𝜑 ↔ (𝜓 ∧ 𝜒)) → (𝜒 → (𝜓 → 𝜑)))
Theorem	simplbi2com 1494	A deduction eliminating a conjunct, similar to simplbi2 385. (Contributed by Alan Sare, 22-Jul-2012.) (Proof shortened by Wolf Lammen, 10-Nov-2012.)
⊢ (𝜑 ↔ (𝜓 ∧ 𝜒))    ⇒   ⊢ (𝜒 → (𝜓 → 𝜑))
Theorem	syl6ci 1495	A syllogism inference combined with contraction. (Contributed by Alan Sare, 18-Mar-2012.)
⊢ (𝜑 → (𝜓 → 𝜒))    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝜃)    &   ⊢ (𝜒 → (𝜃 → 𝜏))    ⇒   ⊢ (𝜑 → (𝜓 → 𝜏))
Theorem	mpisyl 1496	A syllogism combined with a modus ponens inference. (Contributed by Alan Sare, 25-Jul-2011.)
⊢ (𝜑 → 𝜓)    &   ⊢ 𝜒    &   ⊢ (𝜓 → (𝜒 → 𝜃))    ⇒   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝜃)
Theorem	dcfromnotnotr 1497	The decidability of a proposition 𝜓 follows from a suitable instance of double negation elimination (DNE). Therefore, if we were to introduce DNE as a general principle (without the decidability condition in notnotrdc 855), then we could prove that every proposition is decidable, giving us the classical system of propositional calculus (since DNE itself is classically valid). (Contributed by Adrian Ducourtial, 6-Oct-2025.)
⊢ (𝜑 ↔ (𝜓 ∨ ¬ 𝜓))    &   ⊢ (¬ ¬ 𝜑 → 𝜑)    ⇒   ⊢ DECID 𝜓
Theorem	dcfromcon 1498	The decidability of a proposition 𝜒 follows from a suitable instance of the principle of contraposition. Therefore, if we were to introduce contraposition as a general principle (without the decidability condition in condc 865), then we could prove that every proposition is decidable, giving us the classical system of propositional calculus (since the principle of contraposition is itself classically valid). (Contributed by Adrian Ducourtial, 6-Oct-2025.)
⊢ (𝜑 ↔ (𝜒 ∨ ¬ 𝜒))    &   ⊢ (𝜓 ↔ ⊤)    &   ⊢ ((¬ 𝜑 → ¬ 𝜓) → (𝜓 → 𝜑))    ⇒   ⊢ DECID 𝜒
Theorem	dcfrompeirce 1499	The decidability of a proposition 𝜒 follows from a suitable instance of Peirce's law. Therefore, if we were to introduce Peirce's law as a general principle (without the decidability condition in peircedc 926), then we could prove that every proposition is decidable, giving us the classical system of propositional calculus (since Perice's law is itself classically valid). (Contributed by Adrian Ducourtial, 6-Oct-2025.)
⊢ (𝜑 ↔ (𝜒 ∨ ¬ 𝜒))    &   ⊢ (𝜓 ↔ ⊥)    &   ⊢ (((𝜑 → 𝜓) → 𝜑) → 𝜑)    ⇒   ⊢ DECID 𝜒
1.3  Predicate calculus mostly without distinct variables
1.3.1  Universal quantifier (continued) The universal quantifier was introduced above in wal 1400 for use by df-tru 1405. See the comments in that section. In this section, we continue with the first "real" use of it.
Axiom	ax-5 1500	Axiom of Quantified Implication. Axiom C4 of [Monk2] p. 105. (Contributed by NM, 5-Aug-1993.)
⊢ (∀𝑥(𝜑 → 𝜓) → (∀𝑥𝜑 → ∀𝑥𝜓))