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
Theorem	falimtru 1401	A → identity. (Contributed by Anthony Hart, 22-Oct-2010.)
⊢ ((⊥ → ⊤) ↔ ⊤)
Theorem	falimfal 1402	A → identity. (Contributed by Anthony Hart, 22-Oct-2010.)
⊢ ((⊥ → ⊥) ↔ ⊤)
Theorem	nottru 1403	A ¬ identity. (Contributed by Anthony Hart, 22-Oct-2010.)
⊢ (¬ ⊤ ↔ ⊥)
Theorem	notfal 1404	A ¬ identity. (Contributed by Anthony Hart, 22-Oct-2010.) (Proof shortened by Andrew Salmon, 13-May-2011.)
⊢ (¬ ⊥ ↔ ⊤)
Theorem	trubitru 1405	A ↔ identity. (Contributed by Anthony Hart, 22-Oct-2010.) (Proof shortened by Andrew Salmon, 13-May-2011.)
⊢ ((⊤ ↔ ⊤) ↔ ⊤)
Theorem	trubifal 1406	A ↔ identity. (Contributed by David A. Wheeler, 23-Feb-2018.)
⊢ ((⊤ ↔ ⊥) ↔ ⊥)
Theorem	falbitru 1407	A ↔ identity. (Contributed by Anthony Hart, 22-Oct-2010.) (Proof shortened by Andrew Salmon, 13-May-2011.)
⊢ ((⊥ ↔ ⊤) ↔ ⊥)
Theorem	falbifal 1408	A ↔ identity. (Contributed by Anthony Hart, 22-Oct-2010.) (Proof shortened by Andrew Salmon, 13-May-2011.)
⊢ ((⊥ ↔ ⊥) ↔ ⊤)
Theorem	truxortru 1409	A ⊻ identity. (Contributed by David A. Wheeler, 2-Mar-2018.)
⊢ ((⊤ ⊻ ⊤) ↔ ⊥)
Theorem	truxorfal 1410	A ⊻ identity. (Contributed by David A. Wheeler, 2-Mar-2018.)
⊢ ((⊤ ⊻ ⊥) ↔ ⊤)
Theorem	falxortru 1411	A ⊻ identity. (Contributed by David A. Wheeler, 2-Mar-2018.)
⊢ ((⊥ ⊻ ⊤) ↔ ⊤)
Theorem	falxorfal 1412	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 1413, modus ponendo tollens II mptxor 1414, and modus tollendo ponens (exclusive-or version) mtpxor 1416. 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 1416 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 1415. This set of indemonstrables is not the entire system of Stoic logic.
Theorem	mptnan 1413	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 1414) 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 1414	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 1415	Modus tollendo ponens (inclusive-or version), aka disjunctive syllogism. This is similar to mtpxor 1416, 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 1416	Modus tollendo ponens (original exclusive-or version), aka disjunctive syllogism, similar to mtpor 1415, 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 1415. See rule 3 on [Lopez-Astorga] p. 12 (note that the "or" is the same as mptxor 1414, that is, it is exclusive-or df-xor 1366), 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 1414), 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	stoic2a 1417	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 1418 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.)
⊢ ((𝜑 ∧ 𝜓) → 𝜒)    &   ⊢ ((𝜑 ∧ 𝜒) → 𝜃)    ⇒   ⊢ ((𝜑 ∧ 𝜓) → 𝜃)
Theorem	stoic2b 1418	Stoic logic Thema 2 version b. See stoic2a 1417. Version b is with the phrase "or both". We already have this rule as mpd3an3 1328, 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 1419	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 1420	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 1421 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 1421	Stoic logic Thema 4 version b. This is version b, which is with the phrase "or both". See stoic4a 1420 for more information. (Contributed by David A. Wheeler, 17-Feb-2019.)
⊢ ((𝜑 ∧ 𝜓) → 𝜒)    &   ⊢ (((𝜒 ∧ 𝜑 ∧ 𝜓) ∧ 𝜃) → 𝜏)    ⇒   ⊢ ((𝜑 ∧ 𝜓 ∧ 𝜃) → 𝜏)
1.2.16  Logical implication (continued)
Theorem	syl6an 1422	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 1423	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	exbir 1424	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 1425	impexp 261 with a 3-conjunct antecedent. (Contributed by Alan Sare, 31-Dec-2011.)
⊢ (((𝜑 ∧ 𝜓 ∧ 𝜒) → 𝜃) ↔ (𝜑 → (𝜓 → (𝜒 → 𝜃))))
Theorem	3impexpbicom 1426	3impexp 1425 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 1427	Deduction form of 3impexpbicom 1426. (Contributed by Alan Sare, 31-Dec-2011.)
⊢ ((𝜑 ∧ 𝜓 ∧ 𝜒) → (𝜃 ↔ 𝜏))    ⇒   ⊢ (𝜑 → (𝜓 → (𝜒 → (𝜏 ↔ 𝜃))))
Theorem	ancomsimp 1428	Closed form of ancoms 266. (Contributed by Alan Sare, 31-Dec-2011.)
⊢ (((𝜑 ∧ 𝜓) → 𝜒) ↔ ((𝜓 ∧ 𝜑) → 𝜒))
Theorem	expcomd 1429	Deduction form of expcom 115. (Contributed by Alan Sare, 22-Jul-2012.)
⊢ (𝜑 → ((𝜓 ∧ 𝜒) → 𝜃))    ⇒   ⊢ (𝜑 → (𝜒 → (𝜓 → 𝜃)))
Theorem	expdcom 1430	Commuted form of expd 256. (Contributed by Alan Sare, 18-Mar-2012.)
⊢ (𝜑 → ((𝜓 ∧ 𝜒) → 𝜃))    ⇒   ⊢ (𝜓 → (𝜒 → (𝜑 → 𝜃)))
Theorem	simplbi2comg 1431	Implication form of simplbi2com 1432. (Contributed by Alan Sare, 22-Jul-2012.)
⊢ ((𝜑 ↔ (𝜓 ∧ 𝜒)) → (𝜒 → (𝜓 → 𝜑)))
Theorem	simplbi2com 1432	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 ↔ (𝜓 ∧ 𝜒))    ⇒   ⊢ (𝜒 → (𝜓 → 𝜑))
Theorem	syl6ci 1433	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 1434	A syllogism combined with a modus ponens inference. (Contributed by Alan Sare, 25-Jul-2011.)
⊢ (𝜑 → 𝜓)    &   ⊢ 𝜒    &   ⊢ (𝜓 → (𝜒 → 𝜃))    ⇒   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝜃)
1.3  Predicate calculus mostly without distinct variables
1.3.1  Universal quantifier (continued) The universal quantifier was introduced above in wal 1341 for use by df-tru 1346. See the comments in that section. In this section, we continue with the first "real" use of it.
Axiom	ax-5 1435	Axiom of Quantified Implication. Axiom C4 of [Monk2] p. 105. (Contributed by NM, 5-Aug-1993.)
⊢ (∀𝑥(𝜑 → 𝜓) → (∀𝑥𝜑 → ∀𝑥𝜓))
Axiom	ax-7 1436	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.)
⊢ (∀𝑥∀𝑦𝜑 → ∀𝑦∀𝑥𝜑)
Axiom	ax-gen 1437	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 1524 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
Theorem	gen2 1438	Generalization applied twice. (Contributed by NM, 30-Apr-1998.)
⊢ 𝜑    ⇒   ⊢ ∀𝑥∀𝑦𝜑
Theorem	mpg 1439	Modus ponens combined with generalization. (Contributed by NM, 24-May-1994.)
⊢ (∀𝑥𝜑 → 𝜓)    &   ⊢ 𝜑    ⇒   ⊢ 𝜓
Theorem	mpgbi 1440	Modus ponens on biconditional combined with generalization. (Contributed by NM, 24-May-1994.) (Proof shortened by Stefan Allan, 28-Oct-2008.)
⊢ (∀𝑥𝜑 ↔ 𝜓)    &   ⊢ 𝜑    ⇒   ⊢ 𝜓
Theorem	mpgbir 1441	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
Theorem	a7s 1442	Swap quantifiers in an antecedent. (Contributed by NM, 5-Aug-1993.)
⊢ (∀𝑥∀𝑦𝜑 → 𝜓)    ⇒   ⊢ (∀𝑦∀𝑥𝜑 → 𝜓)
Theorem	alimi 1443	Inference quantifying both antecedent and consequent. (Contributed by NM, 5-Aug-1993.)
⊢ (𝜑 → 𝜓)    ⇒   ⊢ (∀𝑥𝜑 → ∀𝑥𝜓)
Theorem	2alimi 1444	Inference doubly quantifying both antecedent and consequent. (Contributed by NM, 3-Feb-2005.)
⊢ (𝜑 → 𝜓)    ⇒   ⊢ (∀𝑥∀𝑦𝜑 → ∀𝑥∀𝑦𝜓)
Theorem	alim 1445	Theorem 19.20 of [Margaris] p. 90. (Contributed by NM, 5-Aug-1993.) (Proof shortened by O'Cat, 30-Mar-2008.)
⊢ (∀𝑥(𝜑 → 𝜓) → (∀𝑥𝜑 → ∀𝑥𝜓))
Theorem	al2imi 1446	Inference quantifying antecedent, nested antecedent, and consequent. (Contributed by NM, 5-Aug-1993.)
⊢ (𝜑 → (𝜓 → 𝜒))    ⇒   ⊢ (∀𝑥𝜑 → (∀𝑥𝜓 → ∀𝑥𝜒))
Theorem	alanimi 1447	Variant of al2imi 1446 with conjunctive antecedent. (Contributed by Andrew Salmon, 8-Jun-2011.)
⊢ ((𝜑 ∧ 𝜓) → 𝜒)    ⇒   ⊢ ((∀𝑥𝜑 ∧ ∀𝑥𝜓) → ∀𝑥𝜒)
Syntax	wnf 1448	Extend wff definition to include the not-free predicate.
wff Ⅎ𝑥𝜑
Definition	df-nf 1449	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 1765). An example of where this is used is stdpc5 1572. See nf2 1656 for an alternate definition which does not involve nested quantifiers on the same variable. Nonfreeness is a commonly used condition, 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 notion of nonfreeness 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 considers syntactic freedom). For example, 𝑥 is effectively not free in the expression 𝑥 = 𝑥 (even though 𝑥 is syntactically free in it, so would be considered "free" in the usual textbook definition) because the value of 𝑥 in the formula 𝑥 = 𝑥 does not affect the truth of that formula (and thus substitutions will not change the result), see nfequid 1690. (Contributed by Mario Carneiro, 11-Aug-2016.)
⊢ (Ⅎ𝑥𝜑 ↔ ∀𝑥(𝜑 → ∀𝑥𝜑))
Theorem	nfi 1450	Deduce that 𝑥 is not free in 𝜑 from the definition. (Contributed by Mario Carneiro, 11-Aug-2016.)
⊢ (𝜑 → ∀𝑥𝜑)    ⇒   ⊢ Ⅎ𝑥𝜑
Theorem	hbth 1451	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)
Theorem	nfth 1452	No variable is (effectively) free in a theorem. (Contributed by Mario Carneiro, 11-Aug-2016.)
⊢ 𝜑    ⇒   ⊢ Ⅎ𝑥𝜑
Theorem	nfnth 1453	No variable is (effectively) free in a non-theorem. (Contributed by Mario Carneiro, 6-Dec-2016.)
⊢ ¬ 𝜑    ⇒   ⊢ Ⅎ𝑥𝜑
Theorem	nftru 1454	The true constant has no free variables. (This can also be proven in one step with nfv 1516, but this proof does not use ax-17 1514.) (Contributed by Mario Carneiro, 6-Oct-2016.)
⊢ Ⅎ𝑥⊤
Theorem	alimdh 1455	Deduction from Theorem 19.20 of [Margaris] p. 90. (Contributed by NM, 4-Jan-2002.)
⊢ (𝜑 → ∀𝑥𝜑)    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → (𝜓 → 𝜒))    ⇒   ⊢ (𝜑 → (∀𝑥𝜓 → ∀𝑥𝜒))
Theorem	albi 1456	Theorem 19.15 of [Margaris] p. 90. (Contributed by NM, 5-Aug-1993.)
⊢ (∀𝑥(𝜑 ↔ 𝜓) → (∀𝑥𝜑 ↔ ∀𝑥𝜓))
Theorem	alrimih 1457	Inference from Theorem 19.21 of [Margaris] p. 90. (Contributed by NM, 5-Aug-1993.) (New usage is discouraged.)
⊢ (𝜑 → ∀𝑥𝜑)    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝜓)    ⇒   ⊢ (𝜑 → ∀𝑥𝜓)
Theorem	albii 1458	Inference adding universal quantifier to both sides of an equivalence. (Contributed by NM, 7-Aug-1994.)
⊢ (𝜑 ↔ 𝜓)    ⇒   ⊢ (∀𝑥𝜑 ↔ ∀𝑥𝜓)
Theorem	2albii 1459	Inference adding 2 universal quantifiers to both sides of an equivalence. (Contributed by NM, 9-Mar-1997.)
⊢ (𝜑 ↔ 𝜓)    ⇒   ⊢ (∀𝑥∀𝑦𝜑 ↔ ∀𝑥∀𝑦𝜓)
Theorem	hbxfrbi 1460	A utility lemma to transfer a bound-variable hypothesis builder into a definition. (Contributed by Jonathan Ben-Naim, 3-Jun-2011.)
⊢ (𝜑 ↔ 𝜓)    &   ⊢ (𝜓 → ∀𝑥𝜓)    ⇒   ⊢ (𝜑 → ∀𝑥𝜑)
Theorem	nfbii 1461	Equality theorem for not-free. (Contributed by Mario Carneiro, 11-Aug-2016.)
⊢ (𝜑 ↔ 𝜓)    ⇒   ⊢ (Ⅎ𝑥𝜑 ↔ Ⅎ𝑥𝜓)
Theorem	nfxfr 1462	A utility lemma to transfer a bound-variable hypothesis builder into a definition. (Contributed by Mario Carneiro, 11-Aug-2016.)
⊢ (𝜑 ↔ 𝜓)    &   ⊢ Ⅎ𝑥𝜓    ⇒   ⊢ Ⅎ𝑥𝜑
Theorem	nfxfrd 1463	A utility lemma to transfer a bound-variable hypothesis builder into a definition. (Contributed by Mario Carneiro, 24-Sep-2016.)
⊢ (𝜑 ↔ 𝜓)    &   ⊢ (𝜒 → Ⅎ𝑥𝜓)    ⇒   ⊢ (𝜒 → Ⅎ𝑥𝜑)
Theorem	alcoms 1464	Swap quantifiers in an antecedent. (Contributed by NM, 11-May-1993.)
⊢ (∀𝑥∀𝑦𝜑 → 𝜓)    ⇒   ⊢ (∀𝑦∀𝑥𝜑 → 𝜓)
Theorem	hbal 1465	If 𝑥 is not free in 𝜑, it is not free in ∀𝑦𝜑. (Contributed by NM, 5-Aug-1993.)
⊢ (𝜑 → ∀𝑥𝜑)    ⇒   ⊢ (∀𝑦𝜑 → ∀𝑥∀𝑦𝜑)
Theorem	alcom 1466	Theorem 19.5 of [Margaris] p. 89. (Contributed by NM, 5-Aug-1993.)
⊢ (∀𝑥∀𝑦𝜑 ↔ ∀𝑦∀𝑥𝜑)
Theorem	alrimdh 1467	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 → (𝜓 → 𝜒))    ⇒   ⊢ (𝜑 → (𝜓 → ∀𝑥𝜒))
Theorem	albidh 1468	Formula-building rule for universal quantifier (deduction form). (Contributed by NM, 5-Aug-1993.)
⊢ (𝜑 → ∀𝑥𝜑)    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → (𝜓 ↔ 𝜒))    ⇒   ⊢ (𝜑 → (∀𝑥𝜓 ↔ ∀𝑥𝜒))
Theorem	19.26 1469	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(𝜑 ∧ 𝜓) ↔ (∀𝑥𝜑 ∧ ∀𝑥𝜓))
Theorem	19.26-2 1470	Theorem 19.26 of [Margaris] p. 90 with two quantifiers. (Contributed by NM, 3-Feb-2005.)
⊢ (∀𝑥∀𝑦(𝜑 ∧ 𝜓) ↔ (∀𝑥∀𝑦𝜑 ∧ ∀𝑥∀𝑦𝜓))
Theorem	19.26-3an 1471	Theorem 19.26 of [Margaris] p. 90 with triple conjunction. (Contributed by NM, 13-Sep-2011.)
⊢ (∀𝑥(𝜑 ∧ 𝜓 ∧ 𝜒) ↔ (∀𝑥𝜑 ∧ ∀𝑥𝜓 ∧ ∀𝑥𝜒))
Theorem	19.33 1472	Theorem 19.33 of [Margaris] p. 90. (Contributed by NM, 5-Aug-1993.)
⊢ ((∀𝑥𝜑 ∨ ∀𝑥𝜓) → ∀𝑥(𝜑 ∨ 𝜓))
Theorem	alrot3 1473	Theorem *11.21 in [WhiteheadRussell] p. 160. (Contributed by Andrew Salmon, 24-May-2011.)
⊢ (∀𝑥∀𝑦∀𝑧𝜑 ↔ ∀𝑦∀𝑧∀𝑥𝜑)
Theorem	alrot4 1474	Rotate 4 universal quantifiers twice. (Contributed by NM, 2-Feb-2005.) (Proof shortened by Wolf Lammen, 28-Jun-2014.)
⊢ (∀𝑥∀𝑦∀𝑧∀𝑤𝜑 ↔ ∀𝑧∀𝑤∀𝑥∀𝑦𝜑)
Theorem	albiim 1475	Split a biconditional and distribute quantifier. (Contributed by NM, 18-Aug-1993.)
⊢ (∀𝑥(𝜑 ↔ 𝜓) ↔ (∀𝑥(𝜑 → 𝜓) ∧ ∀𝑥(𝜓 → 𝜑)))
Theorem	2albiim 1476	Split a biconditional and distribute 2 quantifiers. (Contributed by NM, 3-Feb-2005.)
⊢ (∀𝑥∀𝑦(𝜑 ↔ 𝜓) ↔ (∀𝑥∀𝑦(𝜑 → 𝜓) ∧ ∀𝑥∀𝑦(𝜓 → 𝜑)))
Theorem	hband 1477	Deduction form of bound-variable hypothesis builder hban 1535. (Contributed by NM, 2-Jan-2002.)
⊢ (𝜑 → (𝜓 → ∀𝑥𝜓))    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → (𝜒 → ∀𝑥𝜒))    ⇒   ⊢ (𝜑 → ((𝜓 ∧ 𝜒) → ∀𝑥(𝜓 ∧ 𝜒)))
Theorem	hb3and 1478	Deduction form of bound-variable hypothesis builder hb3an 1538. (Contributed by NM, 17-Feb-2013.)
⊢ (𝜑 → (𝜓 → ∀𝑥𝜓))    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → (𝜒 → ∀𝑥𝜒))    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → (𝜃 → ∀𝑥𝜃))    ⇒   ⊢ (𝜑 → ((𝜓 ∧ 𝜒 ∧ 𝜃) → ∀𝑥(𝜓 ∧ 𝜒 ∧ 𝜃)))
Theorem	hbald 1479	Deduction form of bound-variable hypothesis builder hbal 1465. (Contributed by NM, 2-Jan-2002.)
⊢ (𝜑 → ∀𝑦𝜑)    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → (𝜓 → ∀𝑥𝜓))    ⇒   ⊢ (𝜑 → (∀𝑦𝜓 → ∀𝑥∀𝑦𝜓))
Syntax	wex 1480	Extend wff definition to include the existential quantifier ("there exists").
wff ∃𝑥𝜑
Axiom	ax-ie1 1481	𝑥 is bound in ∃𝑥𝜑. One of the axioms of predicate logic. (Contributed by Mario Carneiro, 31-Jan-2015.)
⊢ (∃𝑥𝜑 → ∀𝑥∃𝑥𝜑)
Axiom	ax-ie2 1482	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(𝜑 → 𝜓) ↔ (∃𝑥𝜑 → 𝜓)))
Theorem	hbe1 1483	𝑥 is not free in ∃𝑥𝜑. (Contributed by NM, 5-Aug-1993.)
⊢ (∃𝑥𝜑 → ∀𝑥∃𝑥𝜑)
Theorem	nfe1 1484	𝑥 is not free in ∃𝑥𝜑. (Contributed by Mario Carneiro, 11-Aug-2016.)
⊢ Ⅎ𝑥∃𝑥𝜑
Theorem	19.23ht 1485	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(𝜑 → 𝜓) ↔ (∃𝑥𝜑 → 𝜓)))
Theorem	19.23h 1486	Theorem 19.23 of [Margaris] p. 90. (Contributed by NM, 5-Aug-1993.) (Revised by Mario Carneiro, 1-Feb-2015.)
⊢ (𝜓 → ∀𝑥𝜓)    ⇒   ⊢ (∀𝑥(𝜑 → 𝜓) ↔ (∃𝑥𝜑 → 𝜓))
Theorem	alnex 1487	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 1489 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)
Theorem	nex 1488	Generalization rule for negated wff. (Contributed by NM, 18-May-1994.)
⊢ ¬ 𝜑    ⇒   ⊢ ¬ ∃𝑥𝜑
Theorem	dfexdc 1489	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 1490. (Contributed by Jim Kingdon, 15-Mar-2018.)
⊢ (DECID ∃𝑥𝜑 → (∃𝑥𝜑 ↔ ¬ ∀𝑥 ¬ 𝜑))
Theorem	exalim 1490	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 1489. (Contributed by Jim Kingdon, 29-Jul-2018.)
⊢ (∃𝑥𝜑 → ¬ ∀𝑥 ¬ 𝜑)
1.3.2  Equality predicate (continued) The equality predicate was introduced above in wceq 1343 for use by df-tru 1346. See the comments in that section. In this section, we continue with the first "real" use of it.
Theorem	weq 1491	Extend wff definition to include atomic formulas using the equality predicate. (Instead of introducing weq 1491 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 1343. This lets us avoid overloading the = connective, thus preventing ambiguity that would complicate certain Metamath parsers. However, logically weq 1491 is considered to be a primitive syntax, even though here it is artificially "derived" from wceq 1343. 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
Axiom	ax-8 1492	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 1697). Axiom scheme C8' in [Megill] p. 448 (p. 16 of the preprint). Also appears as Axiom C7 of [Monk2] p. 105. Axioms ax-8 1492 through ax-16 1802 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 1802 and ax-17 1514 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 1802 and ax-17 1514 only. (Contributed by NM, 5-Aug-1993.)
⊢ (𝑥 = 𝑦 → (𝑥 = 𝑧 → 𝑦 = 𝑧))
Axiom	ax-10 1493	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 1704 ("o" for "old") and was replaced with this shorter ax-10 1493 in May 2008. The old axiom is proved from this one as Theorem ax10o 1703. Conversely, this axiom is proved from ax-10o 1704 as Theorem ax10 1705. (Contributed by NM, 5-Aug-1993.)
⊢ (∀𝑥 𝑥 = 𝑦 → ∀𝑦 𝑦 = 𝑥)
Axiom	ax-11 1494	Axiom of Variable Substitution. One of the 5 equality axioms of predicate calculus. The final consequent ∀𝑥(𝑥 = 𝑦 → 𝜑) is a way of expressing "𝑦 substituted for 𝑥 in wff 𝜑 " (cf. sb6 1874). 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 1815, ax11v2 1808 and ax-11o 1811. (Contributed by NM, 5-Aug-1993.)
⊢ (𝑥 = 𝑦 → (∀𝑦𝜑 → ∀𝑥(𝑥 = 𝑦 → 𝜑)))
Axiom	ax-i12 1495	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 ax12 1500 for compatibility with intuitionistic logic. (Contributed by Mario Carneiro, 31-Jan-2015.) Use its alias ax12or 1496 instead, for labeling consistency. (New usage is discouraged.)
⊢ (∀𝑧 𝑧 = 𝑥 ∨ (∀𝑧 𝑧 = 𝑦 ∨ ∀𝑧(𝑥 = 𝑦 → ∀𝑧 𝑥 = 𝑦)))
Theorem	ax12or 1496	Alias for ax-i12 1495, to be used in place of it for labeling consistency. (Contributed by NM, 3-Feb-2015.)
⊢ (∀𝑧 𝑧 = 𝑥 ∨ (∀𝑧 𝑧 = 𝑦 ∨ ∀𝑧(𝑥 = 𝑦 → ∀𝑧 𝑥 = 𝑦)))
Axiom	ax-bndl 1497	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 ∀𝑥∀𝑧(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 1495 as can be seen at axi12 1502. Whether ax-bndl 1497 can be proved from the remaining axioms including ax-i12 1495 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 ∨ ∀𝑥∀𝑧(𝑥 = 𝑦 → ∀𝑧 𝑥 = 𝑦)))
Axiom	ax-4 1498	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 1437. Conditional forms of the converse are given by ax12 1500, ax-16 1802, and ax-17 1514. 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 1763. (Contributed by NM, 5-Aug-1993.)
⊢ (∀𝑥𝜑 → 𝜑)
Theorem	sp 1499	Specialization. Another name for ax-4 1498. (Contributed by NM, 21-May-2008.)
⊢ (∀𝑥𝜑 → 𝜑)
Theorem	ax12 1500	Rederive the original version of the axiom from ax-i12 1495. (Contributed by Mario Carneiro, 3-Feb-2015.)
⊢ (¬ ∀𝑧 𝑧 = 𝑥 → (¬ ∀𝑧 𝑧 = 𝑦 → (𝑥 = 𝑦 → ∀𝑧 𝑥 = 𝑦)))