P. 155 of Theorem List - Intuitionistic Logic Explorer

Type

Label

Description

Statement

Theorem

lgseisen 15401*

Eisenstein's lemma, an expression for (𝑃 /_L 𝑄) when 𝑃, 𝑄 are distinct odd primes. (Contributed by Mario Carneiro, 18-Jun-2015.)

⊢ (𝜑 → 𝑃 ∈ (ℙ ∖ {2}))    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝑄 ∈ (ℙ ∖ {2}))    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝑃 ≠ 𝑄)    ⇒   ⊢ (𝜑 → (𝑄 /_L 𝑃) = (-1↑Σ𝑥 ∈ (1...((𝑃 − 1) / 2))(⌊‘((𝑄 / 𝑃) · (2 · 𝑥)))))

Theorem

lgsquadlemsfi 15402*

Lemma for lgsquad 15407. 𝑆 is finite. (Contributed by Jim Kingdon, 16-Sep-2025.)

⊢ (𝜑 → 𝑃 ∈ (ℙ ∖ {2}))    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝑄 ∈ (ℙ ∖ {2}))    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝑃 ≠ 𝑄)    &   ⊢ 𝑀 = ((𝑃 − 1) / 2)    &   ⊢ 𝑁 = ((𝑄 − 1) / 2)    &   ⊢ 𝑆 = {⟨𝑥, 𝑦⟩ ∣ ((𝑥 ∈ (1...𝑀) ∧ 𝑦 ∈ (1...𝑁)) ∧ (𝑦 · 𝑃) < (𝑥 · 𝑄))}    ⇒   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝑆 ∈ Fin)

Theorem

lgsquadlemofi 15403*

Lemma for lgsquad 15407. There are finitely many members of 𝑆 with odd first part. (Contributed by Jim Kingdon, 16-Sep-2025.)

⊢ (𝜑 → 𝑃 ∈ (ℙ ∖ {2}))    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝑄 ∈ (ℙ ∖ {2}))    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝑃 ≠ 𝑄)    &   ⊢ 𝑀 = ((𝑃 − 1) / 2)    &   ⊢ 𝑁 = ((𝑄 − 1) / 2)    &   ⊢ 𝑆 = {⟨𝑥, 𝑦⟩ ∣ ((𝑥 ∈ (1...𝑀) ∧ 𝑦 ∈ (1...𝑁)) ∧ (𝑦 · 𝑃) < (𝑥 · 𝑄))}    ⇒   ⊢ (𝜑 → {𝑧 ∈ 𝑆 ∣ ¬ 2 ∥ (1^st ‘𝑧)} ∈ Fin)

Theorem

lgsquadlem1 15404*

Lemma for lgsquad 15407. Count the members of 𝑆 with odd coordinates. (Contributed by Mario Carneiro, 19-Jun-2015.)

⊢ (𝜑 → 𝑃 ∈ (ℙ ∖ {2}))    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝑄 ∈ (ℙ ∖ {2}))    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝑃 ≠ 𝑄)    &   ⊢ 𝑀 = ((𝑃 − 1) / 2)    &   ⊢ 𝑁 = ((𝑄 − 1) / 2)    &   ⊢ 𝑆 = {⟨𝑥, 𝑦⟩ ∣ ((𝑥 ∈ (1...𝑀) ∧ 𝑦 ∈ (1...𝑁)) ∧ (𝑦 · 𝑃) < (𝑥 · 𝑄))}    ⇒   ⊢ (𝜑 → (-1↑Σ𝑢 ∈ (((⌊‘(𝑀 / 2)) + 1)...𝑀)(⌊‘((𝑄 / 𝑃) · (2 · 𝑢)))) = (-1↑(♯‘{𝑧 ∈ 𝑆 ∣ ¬ 2 ∥ (1^st ‘𝑧)})))

Theorem

lgsquadlem2 15405*

Lemma for lgsquad 15407. Count the members of 𝑆 with even coordinates, and combine with lgsquadlem1 15404 to get the total count of lattice points in 𝑆 (up to parity). (Contributed by Mario Carneiro, 18-Jun-2015.)

⊢ (𝜑 → 𝑃 ∈ (ℙ ∖ {2}))    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝑄 ∈ (ℙ ∖ {2}))    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝑃 ≠ 𝑄)    &   ⊢ 𝑀 = ((𝑃 − 1) / 2)    &   ⊢ 𝑁 = ((𝑄 − 1) / 2)    &   ⊢ 𝑆 = {⟨𝑥, 𝑦⟩ ∣ ((𝑥 ∈ (1...𝑀) ∧ 𝑦 ∈ (1...𝑁)) ∧ (𝑦 · 𝑃) < (𝑥 · 𝑄))}    ⇒   ⊢ (𝜑 → (𝑄 /_L 𝑃) = (-1↑(♯‘𝑆)))

Theorem

lgsquadlem3 15406*

Lemma for lgsquad 15407. (Contributed by Mario Carneiro, 18-Jun-2015.)

⊢ (𝜑 → 𝑃 ∈ (ℙ ∖ {2}))    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝑄 ∈ (ℙ ∖ {2}))    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝑃 ≠ 𝑄)    &   ⊢ 𝑀 = ((𝑃 − 1) / 2)    &   ⊢ 𝑁 = ((𝑄 − 1) / 2)    &   ⊢ 𝑆 = {⟨𝑥, 𝑦⟩ ∣ ((𝑥 ∈ (1...𝑀) ∧ 𝑦 ∈ (1...𝑁)) ∧ (𝑦 · 𝑃) < (𝑥 · 𝑄))}    ⇒   ⊢ (𝜑 → ((𝑃 /_L 𝑄) · (𝑄 /_L 𝑃)) = (-1↑(𝑀 · 𝑁)))

Theorem

lgsquad 15407

The Law of Quadratic Reciprocity, see also theorem 9.8 in [ApostolNT] p. 185. If 𝑃 and 𝑄 are distinct odd primes, then the product of the Legendre symbols (𝑃 /_L 𝑄) and (𝑄 /_L 𝑃) is the parity of ((𝑃 − 1) / 2) · ((𝑄 − 1) / 2). This uses Eisenstein's proof, which also has a nice geometric interpretation - see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proofs_of_quadratic_reciprocity. This is Metamath 100 proof #7. (Contributed by Mario Carneiro, 19-Jun-2015.)

⊢ ((𝑃 ∈ (ℙ ∖ {2}) ∧ 𝑄 ∈ (ℙ ∖ {2}) ∧ 𝑃 ≠ 𝑄) → ((𝑃 /_L 𝑄) · (𝑄 /_L 𝑃)) = (-1↑(((𝑃 − 1) / 2) · ((𝑄 − 1) / 2))))

Theorem

lgsquad2lem1 15408

Lemma for lgsquad2 15410. (Contributed by Mario Carneiro, 19-Jun-2015.)

⊢ (𝜑 → 𝑀 ∈ ℕ)    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → ¬ 2 ∥ 𝑀)    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝑁 ∈ ℕ)    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → ¬ 2 ∥ 𝑁)    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → (𝑀 gcd 𝑁) = 1)    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝐴 ∈ ℕ)    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝐵 ∈ ℕ)    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → (𝐴 · 𝐵) = 𝑀)    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → ((𝐴 /_L 𝑁) · (𝑁 /_L 𝐴)) = (-1↑(((𝐴 − 1) / 2) · ((𝑁 − 1) / 2))))    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → ((𝐵 /_L 𝑁) · (𝑁 /_L 𝐵)) = (-1↑(((𝐵 − 1) / 2) · ((𝑁 − 1) / 2))))    ⇒   ⊢ (𝜑 → ((𝑀 /_L 𝑁) · (𝑁 /_L 𝑀)) = (-1↑(((𝑀 − 1) / 2) · ((𝑁 − 1) / 2))))

Theorem

lgsquad2lem2 15409*

Lemma for lgsquad2 15410. (Contributed by Mario Carneiro, 19-Jun-2015.)

⊢ (𝜑 → 𝑀 ∈ ℕ)    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → ¬ 2 ∥ 𝑀)    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝑁 ∈ ℕ)    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → ¬ 2 ∥ 𝑁)    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → (𝑀 gcd 𝑁) = 1)    &   ⊢ ((𝜑 ∧ (𝑚 ∈ (ℙ ∖ {2}) ∧ (𝑚 gcd 𝑁) = 1)) → ((𝑚 /_L 𝑁) · (𝑁 /_L 𝑚)) = (-1↑(((𝑚 − 1) / 2) · ((𝑁 − 1) / 2))))    &   ⊢ (𝜓 ↔ ∀𝑥 ∈ (1...𝑘)((𝑥 gcd (2 · 𝑁)) = 1 → ((𝑥 /_L 𝑁) · (𝑁 /_L 𝑥)) = (-1↑(((𝑥 − 1) / 2) · ((𝑁 − 1) / 2)))))    ⇒   ⊢ (𝜑 → ((𝑀 /_L 𝑁) · (𝑁 /_L 𝑀)) = (-1↑(((𝑀 − 1) / 2) · ((𝑁 − 1) / 2))))

Theorem

lgsquad2 15410

Extend lgsquad 15407 to coprime odd integers (the domain of the Jacobi symbol). (Contributed by Mario Carneiro, 19-Jun-2015.)

⊢ (𝜑 → 𝑀 ∈ ℕ)    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → ¬ 2 ∥ 𝑀)    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝑁 ∈ ℕ)    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → ¬ 2 ∥ 𝑁)    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → (𝑀 gcd 𝑁) = 1)    ⇒   ⊢ (𝜑 → ((𝑀 /_L 𝑁) · (𝑁 /_L 𝑀)) = (-1↑(((𝑀 − 1) / 2) · ((𝑁 − 1) / 2))))

Theorem

lgsquad3 15411

Extend lgsquad2 15410 to integers which share a factor. (Contributed by Mario Carneiro, 19-Jun-2015.)

⊢ (((𝑀 ∈ ℕ ∧ ¬ 2 ∥ 𝑀) ∧ (𝑁 ∈ ℕ ∧ ¬ 2 ∥ 𝑁)) → (𝑀 /_L 𝑁) = ((-1↑(((𝑀 − 1) / 2) · ((𝑁 − 1) / 2))) · (𝑁 /_L 𝑀)))

Theorem

m1lgs 15412

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

2lgslem1a1 15413*

Lemma 1 for 2lgslem1a 15415. (Contributed by AV, 16-Jun-2021.)

⊢ ((𝑃 ∈ ℕ ∧ ¬ 2 ∥ 𝑃) → ∀𝑖 ∈ (1...((𝑃 − 1) / 2))(𝑖 · 2) = ((𝑖 · 2) mod 𝑃))

Theorem

2lgslem1a2 15414

Lemma 2 for 2lgslem1a 15415. (Contributed by AV, 18-Jun-2021.)

⊢ ((𝑁 ∈ ℤ ∧ 𝐼 ∈ ℤ) → ((⌊‘(𝑁 / 4)) < 𝐼 ↔ (𝑁 / 2) < (𝐼 · 2)))

Theorem

2lgslem1a 15415*

Lemma 1 for 2lgslem1 15418. (Contributed by AV, 18-Jun-2021.)

⊢ ((𝑃 ∈ ℙ ∧ ¬ 2 ∥ 𝑃) → {𝑥 ∈ ℤ ∣ ∃𝑖 ∈ (1...((𝑃 − 1) / 2))(𝑥 = (𝑖 · 2) ∧ (𝑃 / 2) < (𝑥 mod 𝑃))} = {𝑥 ∈ ℤ ∣ ∃𝑖 ∈ (((⌊‘(𝑃 / 4)) + 1)...((𝑃 − 1) / 2))𝑥 = (𝑖 · 2)})

Theorem

2lgslem1b 15416*

Lemma 2 for 2lgslem1 15418. (Contributed by AV, 18-Jun-2021.)

⊢ 𝐼 = (𝐴...𝐵)    &   ⊢ 𝐹 = (𝑗 ∈ 𝐼 ↦ (𝑗 · 2))    ⇒   ⊢ 𝐹:𝐼–1-1-onto→{𝑥 ∈ ℤ ∣ ∃𝑖 ∈ 𝐼 𝑥 = (𝑖 · 2)}

Theorem

2lgslem1c 15417

Lemma 3 for 2lgslem1 15418. (Contributed by AV, 19-Jun-2021.)

⊢ ((𝑃 ∈ ℙ ∧ ¬ 2 ∥ 𝑃) → (⌊‘(𝑃 / 4)) ≤ ((𝑃 − 1) / 2))

Theorem

2lgslem1 15418*

Lemma 1 for 2lgs 15431. (Contributed by AV, 19-Jun-2021.)

⊢ ((𝑃 ∈ ℙ ∧ ¬ 2 ∥ 𝑃) → (♯‘{𝑥 ∈ ℤ ∣ ∃𝑖 ∈ (1...((𝑃 − 1) / 2))(𝑥 = (𝑖 · 2) ∧ (𝑃 / 2) < (𝑥 mod 𝑃))}) = (((𝑃 − 1) / 2) − (⌊‘(𝑃 / 4))))

Theorem

2lgslem2 15419

Lemma 2 for 2lgs 15431. (Contributed by AV, 20-Jun-2021.)

⊢ 𝑁 = (((𝑃 − 1) / 2) − (⌊‘(𝑃 / 4)))    ⇒   ⊢ ((𝑃 ∈ ℙ ∧ ¬ 2 ∥ 𝑃) → 𝑁 ∈ ℤ)

Theorem

2lgslem3a 15420

Lemma for 2lgslem3a1 15424. (Contributed by AV, 14-Jul-2021.)

⊢ 𝑁 = (((𝑃 − 1) / 2) − (⌊‘(𝑃 / 4)))    ⇒   ⊢ ((𝐾 ∈ ℕ₀ ∧ 𝑃 = ((8 · 𝐾) + 1)) → 𝑁 = (2 · 𝐾))

Theorem

2lgslem3b 15421

Lemma for 2lgslem3b1 15425. (Contributed by AV, 16-Jul-2021.)

⊢ 𝑁 = (((𝑃 − 1) / 2) − (⌊‘(𝑃 / 4)))    ⇒   ⊢ ((𝐾 ∈ ℕ₀ ∧ 𝑃 = ((8 · 𝐾) + 3)) → 𝑁 = ((2 · 𝐾) + 1))

Theorem

2lgslem3c 15422

Lemma for 2lgslem3c1 15426. (Contributed by AV, 16-Jul-2021.)

⊢ 𝑁 = (((𝑃 − 1) / 2) − (⌊‘(𝑃 / 4)))    ⇒   ⊢ ((𝐾 ∈ ℕ₀ ∧ 𝑃 = ((8 · 𝐾) + 5)) → 𝑁 = ((2 · 𝐾) + 1))

Theorem

2lgslem3d 15423

Lemma for 2lgslem3d1 15427. (Contributed by AV, 16-Jul-2021.)

⊢ 𝑁 = (((𝑃 − 1) / 2) − (⌊‘(𝑃 / 4)))    ⇒   ⊢ ((𝐾 ∈ ℕ₀ ∧ 𝑃 = ((8 · 𝐾) + 7)) → 𝑁 = ((2 · 𝐾) + 2))

Theorem

2lgslem3a1 15424

Lemma 1 for 2lgslem3 15428. (Contributed by AV, 15-Jul-2021.)

⊢ 𝑁 = (((𝑃 − 1) / 2) − (⌊‘(𝑃 / 4)))    ⇒   ⊢ ((𝑃 ∈ ℕ ∧ (𝑃 mod 8) = 1) → (𝑁 mod 2) = 0)

Theorem

2lgslem3b1 15425

Lemma 2 for 2lgslem3 15428. (Contributed by AV, 16-Jul-2021.)

⊢ 𝑁 = (((𝑃 − 1) / 2) − (⌊‘(𝑃 / 4)))    ⇒   ⊢ ((𝑃 ∈ ℕ ∧ (𝑃 mod 8) = 3) → (𝑁 mod 2) = 1)

Theorem

2lgslem3c1 15426

Lemma 3 for 2lgslem3 15428. (Contributed by AV, 16-Jul-2021.)

⊢ 𝑁 = (((𝑃 − 1) / 2) − (⌊‘(𝑃 / 4)))    ⇒   ⊢ ((𝑃 ∈ ℕ ∧ (𝑃 mod 8) = 5) → (𝑁 mod 2) = 1)

Theorem

2lgslem3d1 15427

Lemma 4 for 2lgslem3 15428. (Contributed by AV, 15-Jul-2021.)

⊢ 𝑁 = (((𝑃 − 1) / 2) − (⌊‘(𝑃 / 4)))    ⇒   ⊢ ((𝑃 ∈ ℕ ∧ (𝑃 mod 8) = 7) → (𝑁 mod 2) = 0)

Theorem

2lgslem3 15428

Lemma 3 for 2lgs 15431. (Contributed by AV, 16-Jul-2021.)

⊢ 𝑁 = (((𝑃 − 1) / 2) − (⌊‘(𝑃 / 4)))    ⇒   ⊢ ((𝑃 ∈ ℕ ∧ ¬ 2 ∥ 𝑃) → (𝑁 mod 2) = if((𝑃 mod 8) ∈ {1, 7}, 0, 1))

Theorem

2lgs2 15429

The Legendre symbol for 2 at 2 is 0. (Contributed by AV, 20-Jun-2021.)

⊢ (2 /_L 2) = 0

Theorem

2lgslem4 15430

Lemma 4 for 2lgs 15431: special case of 2lgs 15431 for 𝑃 = 2. (Contributed by AV, 20-Jun-2021.)

⊢ ((2 /_L 2) = 1 ↔ (2 mod 8) ∈ {1, 7})

Theorem

2lgs 15431

The second supplement to the law of quadratic reciprocity (for the Legendre symbol extended to arbitrary primes as second argument). Two is a square modulo a prime 𝑃 iff 𝑃≡±1 (mod 8), see first case of theorem 9.5 in [ApostolNT] p. 181. This theorem justifies our definition of (𝑁 /_L 2) (lgs2 15344) to some degree, by demanding that reciprocity extend to the case 𝑄 = 2. (Proposed by Mario Carneiro, 19-Jun-2015.) (Contributed by AV, 16-Jul-2021.)

⊢ (𝑃 ∈ ℙ → ((2 /_L 𝑃) = 1 ↔ (𝑃 mod 8) ∈ {1, 7}))

Theorem

2lgsoddprmlem1 15432

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 15433

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 15434

Lemma 1 for 2lgsoddprmlem3 15438. (Contributed by AV, 20-Jul-2021.)

⊢ (((1↑2) − 1) / 8) = 0

Theorem

2lgsoddprmlem3b 15435

Lemma 2 for 2lgsoddprmlem3 15438. (Contributed by AV, 20-Jul-2021.)

⊢ (((3↑2) − 1) / 8) = 1

Theorem

2lgsoddprmlem3c 15436

Lemma 3 for 2lgsoddprmlem3 15438. (Contributed by AV, 20-Jul-2021.)

⊢ (((5↑2) − 1) / 8) = 3

Theorem

2lgsoddprmlem3d 15437

Lemma 4 for 2lgsoddprmlem3 15438. (Contributed by AV, 20-Jul-2021.)

⊢ (((7↑2) − 1) / 8) = (2 · 3)

Theorem

2lgsoddprmlem3 15438

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 15439

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

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

Theorem

2lgsoddprm 15440

The second supplement to the law of quadratic reciprocity for odd primes (common representation, see theorem 9.5 in [ApostolNT] p. 181): The Legendre symbol for 2 at an odd prime is minus one to the power of the square of the odd prime minus one divided by eight ((2 /_L 𝑃) = -1^(((P^2)-1)/8) ). (Contributed by AV, 20-Jul-2021.)

⊢ (𝑃 ∈ (ℙ ∖ {2}) → (2 /_L 𝑃) = (-1↑(((𝑃↑2) − 1) / 8)))

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

Theorem

2sqlem1 15441*

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 15442*

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 15443

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 15444

Lemma for 2sqlem5 15446. (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 15445

Lemma for 2sqlem5 15446. (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 15446

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 15447*

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 15448*

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 15449*

Lemma for 2sqlem8 15450. (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 15450*

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 15451*

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 15452*

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 12  GUIDES AND MISCELLANEA

12.1  Guides (conventions, explanations, and examples)

12.1.1  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 15453

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 15544 (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 5924, 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 5593 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 7333, df-ap 8628		Yes	apadd1 8654, apne 8669
g	with "is a set" condition			No	1stvalg 6209, brtposg 6321, setsmsbasg 14801
m	inhabited (from "member")		∃𝑥𝑥 ∈ 𝐴	No	r19.2m 3538, negm 9708, ctm 7184, basmex 12764
seq3, sum3	recursive sequence	df-seqfrec 10559		Yes	seq3-1 10573, fsum3 11571
tap	tight apartness	df-tap 7335		Yes	df-tap 7335

• Community. The Metamath mailing list also covers the Intuitionistic Logic Explorer and is at: https://groups.google.com/g/metamath 7335.

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

⊢ 𝜑    ⇒   ⊢ 𝜑

12.1.2  Definitional examples

Theorem

ex-or 15454

Example for ax-io 710. Example by David A. Wheeler. (Contributed by Mario Carneiro, 9-May-2015.)

⊢ (2 = 3 ∨ 4 = 4)

Theorem

ex-an 15455

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

⊢ (2 = 2 ∧ 3 = 3)

Theorem

1kp2ke3k 15456

Example for df-dec 9477, 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 9477 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 15457

Example for df-fl 10379. Example by David A. Wheeler. (Contributed by Mario Carneiro, 18-Jun-2015.)

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

Theorem

ex-ceil 15458

Example for df-ceil 10380. (Contributed by AV, 4-Sep-2021.)

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

Theorem

ex-exp 15459

Example for df-exp 10650. (Contributed by AV, 4-Sep-2021.)

⊢ ((5↑2) = ;25 ∧ (-3↑-2) = (1 / 9))

Theorem

ex-fac 15460

Example for df-fac 10837. (Contributed by AV, 4-Sep-2021.)

⊢ (!‘5) = ;;120

Theorem

ex-bc 15461

Example for df-bc 10859. (Contributed by AV, 4-Sep-2021.)

⊢ (5C3) = ;10

Theorem

ex-dvds 15462

Example for df-dvds 11972: 3 divides into 6. (Contributed by David A. Wheeler, 19-May-2015.)

⊢ 3 ∥ 6

Theorem

ex-gcd 15463

Example for df-gcd 12148. (Contributed by AV, 5-Sep-2021.)

⊢ (-6 gcd 9) = 3

PART 13  SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL (USERS' MATHBOXES)

13.1  Mathboxes for user contributions

13.1.1  Mathbox guidelines

Theorem

mathbox 15464

(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

13.2  Mathbox for BJ

13.2.1  Propositional calculus

Theorem

bj-nnsn 15465

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 15466

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

⊢ (¬ ¬ (𝜑 ∨ 𝜓) ↔ (¬ 𝜑 → ¬ ¬ 𝜓))

Theorem

bj-nnim 15467

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 15468

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 15469

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

⊢ ((¬ 𝜑 → 𝜑) → ¬ ¬ 𝜑)

Theorem

bj-imnimnn 15470

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 15469 as its last step. (Contributed by BJ, 27-Oct-2024.)

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

13.2.1.1  Stable formulas

Some of the following theorems, like bj-sttru 15472 or bj-stfal 15474 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 15471

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

⊢ (𝜑 → STAB 𝜑)

Theorem

bj-sttru 15472

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

⊢ STAB ⊤

Theorem

bj-fast 15473

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

⊢ (¬ 𝜑 → STAB 𝜑)

Theorem

bj-stfal 15474

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

⊢ STAB ⊥

Theorem

bj-nnst 15475

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 15722 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 15476

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 15489). (Contributed by BJ, 24-Nov-2023.)

⊢ (¬ ¬ 𝜑 → (STAB 𝜑 ↔ 𝜑))

Theorem

bj-stst 15477

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 15478

A conjunction with a stable consequent is stable. See stabnot 834 for negation , bj-stan 15479 for conjunction , and bj-stal 15481 for universal quantification. (Contributed by BJ, 24-Nov-2023.)

⊢ (STAB 𝜓 → STAB (𝜑 → 𝜓))

Theorem

bj-stan 15479

The conjunction of two stable formulas is stable. See bj-stim 15478 for implication, stabnot 834 for negation, and bj-stal 15481 for universal quantification. (Contributed by BJ, 24-Nov-2023.)

⊢ ((STAB 𝜑 ∧ STAB 𝜓) → STAB (𝜑 ∧ 𝜓))

Theorem

bj-stand 15480

The conjunction of two stable formulas is stable. Deduction form of bj-stan 15479. Its proof is shorter (when counting all steps, including syntactic steps), so one could prove it first and then bj-stan 15479 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 15481

The universal quantification of a stable formula is stable. See bj-stim 15478 for implication, stabnot 834 for negation, and bj-stan 15479 for conjunction. (Contributed by BJ, 24-Nov-2023.)

⊢ (∀𝑥STAB 𝜑 → STAB ∀𝑥𝜑)

Theorem

bj-pm2.18st 15482

Clavius law for stable formulas. See pm2.18dc 856. (Contributed by BJ, 4-Dec-2023.)

⊢ (STAB 𝜑 → ((¬ 𝜑 → 𝜑) → 𝜑))

Theorem

bj-con1st 15483

Contraposition when the antecedent is a negated stable proposition. See con1dc 857. (Contributed by BJ, 11-Nov-2024.)

⊢ (STAB 𝜑 → ((¬ 𝜑 → 𝜓) → (¬ 𝜓 → 𝜑)))

13.2.1.2  Decidable formulas

Theorem

bj-trdc 15484

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

⊢ (𝜑 → DECID 𝜑)

Theorem

bj-dctru 15485

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

⊢ DECID ⊤

Theorem

bj-fadc 15486

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

⊢ (¬ 𝜑 → DECID 𝜑)

Theorem

bj-dcfal 15487

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

⊢ DECID ⊥

Theorem

bj-dcstab 15488

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

⊢ (DECID 𝜑 → STAB 𝜑)

Theorem

bj-nnbidc 15489

If a formula is not refutable, then it is decidable if and only if it is provable. See also comment of bj-nnbist 15476. (Contributed by BJ, 24-Nov-2023.)

⊢ (¬ ¬ 𝜑 → (DECID 𝜑 ↔ 𝜑))

Theorem

bj-nndcALT 15490

Alternate proof of nndc 852. (Proof modification is discouraged.) (New usage is discouraged.) (Contributed by BJ, 9-Oct-2019.)

⊢ ¬ ¬ DECID 𝜑

Theorem

bj-dcdc 15491

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 15492

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 15493

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)

13.2.2  Predicate calculus

Theorem

bj-ex 15494*

Existential generalization. (Contributed by BJ, 8-Dec-2019.) Proof modification is discouraged because there are shorter proofs, but using less basic results (like exlimiv 1612 and 19.9ht 1655 or 19.23ht 1511). (Proof modification is discouraged.)

⊢ (∃𝑥𝜑 → 𝜑)

Theorem

bj-hbalt 15495

Closed form of hbal 1491 (copied from set.mm). (Contributed by BJ, 2-May-2019.)

⊢ (∀𝑦(𝜑 → ∀𝑥𝜑) → (∀𝑦𝜑 → ∀𝑥∀𝑦𝜑))

Theorem

bj-nfalt 15496

Closed form of nfal 1590 (copied from set.mm). (Contributed by BJ, 2-May-2019.) (Proof modification is discouraged.)

⊢ (∀𝑥Ⅎ𝑦𝜑 → Ⅎ𝑦∀𝑥𝜑)

Theorem

spimd 15497

Deduction form of spim 1752. (Contributed by BJ, 17-Oct-2019.)

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

Theorem

2spim 15498*

Double substitution, as in spim 1752. (Contributed by BJ, 17-Oct-2019.)

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

Theorem

ch2var 15499*

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 15500*

Version of ch2var 15499 with nonfreeness hypotheses replaced with disjoint variable conditions. (Contributed by BJ, 17-Oct-2019.)

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