P. 16 of Theorem List - Intuitionistic Logic Explorer

Theorem List for Intuitionistic Logic Explorer - 1501-1600   *Has distinct variable group(s)

Type	Label	Description
Statement
Theorem	dfexdc 1501	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 1502. (Contributed by Jim Kingdon, 15-Mar-2018.)
⊢ (DECID ∃𝑥𝜑 → (∃𝑥𝜑 ↔ ¬ ∀𝑥 ¬ 𝜑))
Theorem	exalim 1502	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 1501. (Contributed by Jim Kingdon, 29-Jul-2018.)
⊢ (∃𝑥𝜑 → ¬ ∀𝑥 ¬ 𝜑)
1.3.2  Equality predicate (continued) The equality predicate was introduced above in wceq 1353 for use by df-tru 1356. See the comments in that section. In this section, we continue with the first "real" use of it.
Theorem	weq 1503	Extend wff definition to include atomic formulas using the equality predicate. (Instead of introducing weq 1503 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 1353. This lets us avoid overloading the = connective, thus preventing ambiguity that would complicate certain Metamath parsers. However, logically weq 1503 is considered to be a primitive syntax, even though here it is artificially "derived" from wceq 1353. 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 1504	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 1709). Axiom scheme C8' in [Megill] p. 448 (p. 16 of the preprint). Also appears as Axiom C7 of [Monk2] p. 105. Axioms ax-8 1504 through ax-16 1814 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 1814 and ax-17 1526 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 1814 and ax-17 1526 only. (Contributed by NM, 5-Aug-1993.)
⊢ (𝑥 = 𝑦 → (𝑥 = 𝑧 → 𝑦 = 𝑧))
Axiom	ax-10 1505	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 1716 ("o" for "old") and was replaced with this shorter ax-10 1505 in May 2008. The old axiom is proved from this one as Theorem ax10o 1715. Conversely, this axiom is proved from ax-10o 1716 as Theorem ax10 1717. (Contributed by NM, 5-Aug-1993.)
⊢ (∀𝑥 𝑥 = 𝑦 → ∀𝑦 𝑦 = 𝑥)
Axiom	ax-11 1506	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 1886). 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 1827, ax11v2 1820 and ax-11o 1823. (Contributed by NM, 5-Aug-1993.)
⊢ (𝑥 = 𝑦 → (∀𝑦𝜑 → ∀𝑥(𝑥 = 𝑦 → 𝜑)))
Axiom	ax-i12 1507	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 1512 for compatibility with intuitionistic logic. (Contributed by Mario Carneiro, 31-Jan-2015.) Use its alias ax12or 1508 instead, for labeling consistency. (New usage is discouraged.)
⊢ (∀𝑧 𝑧 = 𝑥 ∨ (∀𝑧 𝑧 = 𝑦 ∨ ∀𝑧(𝑥 = 𝑦 → ∀𝑧 𝑥 = 𝑦)))
Theorem	ax12or 1508	Alias for ax-i12 1507, 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 1509	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 1507 as can be seen at axi12 1514. Whether ax-bndl 1509 can be proved from the remaining axioms including ax-i12 1507 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 1510	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 1449. Conditional forms of the converse are given by ax12 1512, ax-16 1814, and ax-17 1526. 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 1775. (Contributed by NM, 5-Aug-1993.)
⊢ (∀𝑥𝜑 → 𝜑)
Theorem	sp 1511	Specialization. Another name for ax-4 1510. (Contributed by NM, 21-May-2008.)
⊢ (∀𝑥𝜑 → 𝜑)
Theorem	ax12 1512	Rederive the original version of the axiom from ax-i12 1507. (Contributed by Mario Carneiro, 3-Feb-2015.)
⊢ (¬ ∀𝑧 𝑧 = 𝑥 → (¬ ∀𝑧 𝑧 = 𝑦 → (𝑥 = 𝑦 → ∀𝑧 𝑥 = 𝑦)))
Theorem	hbequid 1513	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-8 1504 and ax-i12 1507 on top of (the FOL analogue of) modal logic KT. This shows that this can be proved without ax-i9 1530, even though Theorem equid 1701 cannot. A shorter proof using ax-i9 1530 is obtainable from equid 1701 and hbth 1463. (Contributed by NM, 13-Jan-2011.) (Proof shortened by Wolf Lammen, 23-Mar-2014.)
⊢ (𝑥 = 𝑥 → ∀𝑦 𝑥 = 𝑥)
Theorem	axi12 1514	Proof that ax-i12 1507 follows from ax-bndl 1509. So that we can track which theorems rely on ax-bndl 1509, proofs should reference ax12or 1508 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)))
Theorem	alequcom 1515	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)
Theorem	alequcoms 1516	A commutation rule for identical variable specifiers. (Contributed by NM, 5-Aug-1993.)
⊢ (∀𝑥 𝑥 = 𝑦 → 𝜑)    ⇒   ⊢ (∀𝑦 𝑦 = 𝑥 → 𝜑)
Theorem	nalequcoms 1517	A commutation rule for distinct variable specifiers. (Contributed by NM, 2-Jan-2002.) (Revised by Mario Carneiro, 2-Feb-2015.)
⊢ (¬ ∀𝑥 𝑥 = 𝑦 → 𝜑)    ⇒   ⊢ (¬ ∀𝑦 𝑦 = 𝑥 → 𝜑)
Theorem	nfr 1518	Consequence of the definition of not-free. (Contributed by Mario Carneiro, 26-Sep-2016.)
⊢ (Ⅎ𝑥𝜑 → (𝜑 → ∀𝑥𝜑))
Theorem	nfri 1519	Consequence of the definition of not-free. (Contributed by Mario Carneiro, 11-Aug-2016.)
⊢ Ⅎ𝑥𝜑    ⇒   ⊢ (𝜑 → ∀𝑥𝜑)
Theorem	nfrd 1520	Consequence of the definition of not-free in a context. (Contributed by Mario Carneiro, 11-Aug-2016.)
⊢ (𝜑 → Ⅎ𝑥𝜓)    ⇒   ⊢ (𝜑 → (𝜓 → ∀𝑥𝜓))
Theorem	alimd 1521	Deduction from Theorem 19.20 of [Margaris] p. 90. (Contributed by Mario Carneiro, 24-Sep-2016.)
⊢ Ⅎ𝑥𝜑    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → (𝜓 → 𝜒))    ⇒   ⊢ (𝜑 → (∀𝑥𝜓 → ∀𝑥𝜒))
Theorem	alrimi 1522	Inference from Theorem 19.21 of [Margaris] p. 90. (Contributed by Mario Carneiro, 24-Sep-2016.)
⊢ Ⅎ𝑥𝜑    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝜓)    ⇒   ⊢ (𝜑 → ∀𝑥𝜓)
Theorem	nfd 1523	Deduce that 𝑥 is not free in 𝜓 in a context. (Contributed by Mario Carneiro, 24-Sep-2016.)
⊢ Ⅎ𝑥𝜑    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → (𝜓 → ∀𝑥𝜓))    ⇒   ⊢ (𝜑 → Ⅎ𝑥𝜓)
Theorem	nfdh 1524	Deduce that 𝑥 is not free in 𝜓 in a context. (Contributed by Mario Carneiro, 24-Sep-2016.)
⊢ (𝜑 → ∀𝑥𝜑)    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → (𝜓 → ∀𝑥𝜓))    ⇒   ⊢ (𝜑 → Ⅎ𝑥𝜓)
Theorem	nfrimi 1525	Moving an antecedent outside Ⅎ. (Contributed by Jim Kingdon, 23-Mar-2018.)
⊢ Ⅎ𝑥𝜑    &   ⊢ Ⅎ𝑥(𝜑 → 𝜓)    ⇒   ⊢ (𝜑 → Ⅎ𝑥𝜓)
1.3.3  Axiom ax-17 - first use of the $d distinct variable statement
Axiom	ax-17 1526*	Axiom to quantify a variable over a formula in which it does not occur. Axiom C5 in [Megill] p. 444 (p. 11 of the preprint). Also appears as Axiom B6 (p. 75) of system S2 of [Tarski] p. 77 and Axiom C5-1 of [Monk2] p. 113. (Contributed by NM, 5-Aug-1993.)
⊢ (𝜑 → ∀𝑥𝜑)
Theorem	a17d 1527*	ax-17 1526 with antecedent. (Contributed by NM, 1-Mar-2013.)
⊢ (𝜑 → (𝜓 → ∀𝑥𝜓))
Theorem	nfv 1528*	If 𝑥 is not present in 𝜑, then 𝑥 is not free in 𝜑. (Contributed by Mario Carneiro, 11-Aug-2016.)
⊢ Ⅎ𝑥𝜑
Theorem	nfvd 1529*	nfv 1528 with antecedent. Useful in proofs of deduction versions of bound-variable hypothesis builders such as nfimd 1585. (Contributed by Mario Carneiro, 6-Oct-2016.)
⊢ (𝜑 → Ⅎ𝑥𝜓)
1.3.4  Introduce Axiom of Existence
Axiom	ax-i9 1530	Axiom of Existence. One of the equality and substitution axioms of predicate calculus with equality. One thing this axiom tells us is that at least one thing exists (although ax-4 1510 and possibly others also tell us that, i.e. they are not valid in the empty domain of a "free logic"). In this form (not requiring that 𝑥 and 𝑦 be distinct) it was used in an axiom system of Tarski (see Axiom B7' in footnote 1 of [KalishMontague] p. 81.) Another name for this theorem is a9e 1696, which has additional remarks. (Contributed by Mario Carneiro, 31-Jan-2015.)
⊢ ∃𝑥 𝑥 = 𝑦
Theorem	ax-9 1531	Derive ax-9 1531 from ax-i9 1530, the modified version for intuitionistic logic. Although ax-9 1531 does hold intuistionistically, in intuitionistic logic it is weaker than ax-i9 1530. (Contributed by NM, 3-Feb-2015.)
⊢ ¬ ∀𝑥 ¬ 𝑥 = 𝑦
Theorem	equidqe 1532	equid 1701 with some quantification and negation without using ax-4 1510 or ax-17 1526. (Contributed by NM, 13-Jan-2011.) (Proof shortened by Wolf Lammen, 27-Feb-2014.)
⊢ ¬ ∀𝑦 ¬ 𝑥 = 𝑥
Theorem	ax4sp1 1533	A special case of ax-4 1510 without using ax-4 1510 or ax-17 1526. (Contributed by NM, 13-Jan-2011.)
⊢ (∀𝑦 ¬ 𝑥 = 𝑥 → ¬ 𝑥 = 𝑥)
1.3.5  Additional intuitionistic axioms
Axiom	ax-ial 1534	𝑥 is not free in ∀𝑥𝜑. One of the axioms of predicate logic. (Contributed by Mario Carneiro, 31-Jan-2015.)
⊢ (∀𝑥𝜑 → ∀𝑥∀𝑥𝜑)
Axiom	ax-i5r 1535	Axiom of quantifier collection. (Contributed by Mario Carneiro, 31-Jan-2015.)
⊢ ((∀𝑥𝜑 → ∀𝑥𝜓) → ∀𝑥(∀𝑥𝜑 → 𝜓))
1.3.6  Predicate calculus including ax-4, without distinct variables
Theorem	spi 1536	Inference reversing generalization (specialization). (Contributed by NM, 5-Aug-1993.)
⊢ ∀𝑥𝜑    ⇒   ⊢ 𝜑
Theorem	sps 1537	Generalization of antecedent. (Contributed by NM, 5-Aug-1993.)
⊢ (𝜑 → 𝜓)    ⇒   ⊢ (∀𝑥𝜑 → 𝜓)
Theorem	spsd 1538	Deduction generalizing antecedent. (Contributed by NM, 17-Aug-1994.)
⊢ (𝜑 → (𝜓 → 𝜒))    ⇒   ⊢ (𝜑 → (∀𝑥𝜓 → 𝜒))
Theorem	nfbidf 1539	An equality theorem for effectively not free. (Contributed by Mario Carneiro, 4-Oct-2016.)
⊢ Ⅎ𝑥𝜑    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → (𝜓 ↔ 𝜒))    ⇒   ⊢ (𝜑 → (Ⅎ𝑥𝜓 ↔ Ⅎ𝑥𝜒))
Theorem	hba1 1540	𝑥 is not free in ∀𝑥𝜑. Example in Appendix in [Megill] p. 450 (p. 19 of the preprint). Also Lemma 22 of [Monk2] p. 114. (Contributed by NM, 5-Aug-1993.)
⊢ (∀𝑥𝜑 → ∀𝑥∀𝑥𝜑)
Theorem	nfa1 1541	𝑥 is not free in ∀𝑥𝜑. (Contributed by Mario Carneiro, 11-Aug-2016.)
⊢ Ⅎ𝑥∀𝑥𝜑
Theorem	axc4i 1542	Inference version of 19.21 1583. (Contributed by NM, 3-Jan-1993.)
⊢ (∀𝑥𝜑 → 𝜓)    ⇒   ⊢ (∀𝑥𝜑 → ∀𝑥𝜓)
Theorem	a5i 1543	Inference generalizing a consequent. (Contributed by NM, 5-Aug-1993.)
⊢ (∀𝑥𝜑 → 𝜓)    ⇒   ⊢ (∀𝑥𝜑 → ∀𝑥𝜓)
Theorem	nfnf1 1544	𝑥 is not free in Ⅎ𝑥𝜑. (Contributed by Mario Carneiro, 11-Aug-2016.)
⊢ Ⅎ𝑥Ⅎ𝑥𝜑
Theorem	hbim 1545	If 𝑥 is not free in 𝜑 and 𝜓, it is not free in (𝜑 → 𝜓). (Contributed by NM, 5-Aug-1993.) (Proof shortened by O'Cat, 3-Mar-2008.) (Revised by Mario Carneiro, 2-Feb-2015.)
⊢ (𝜑 → ∀𝑥𝜑)    &   ⊢ (𝜓 → ∀𝑥𝜓)    ⇒   ⊢ ((𝜑 → 𝜓) → ∀𝑥(𝜑 → 𝜓))
Theorem	hbor 1546	If 𝑥 is not free in 𝜑 and 𝜓, it is not free in (𝜑 ∨ 𝜓). (Contributed by NM, 5-Aug-1993.) (Revised by NM, 2-Feb-2015.)
⊢ (𝜑 → ∀𝑥𝜑)    &   ⊢ (𝜓 → ∀𝑥𝜓)    ⇒   ⊢ ((𝜑 ∨ 𝜓) → ∀𝑥(𝜑 ∨ 𝜓))
Theorem	hban 1547	If 𝑥 is not free in 𝜑 and 𝜓, it is not free in (𝜑 ∧ 𝜓). (Contributed by NM, 5-Aug-1993.) (Proof shortened by Mario Carneiro, 2-Feb-2015.)
⊢ (𝜑 → ∀𝑥𝜑)    &   ⊢ (𝜓 → ∀𝑥𝜓)    ⇒   ⊢ ((𝜑 ∧ 𝜓) → ∀𝑥(𝜑 ∧ 𝜓))
Theorem	hbbi 1548	If 𝑥 is not free in 𝜑 and 𝜓, it is not free in (𝜑 ↔ 𝜓). (Contributed by NM, 5-Aug-1993.)
⊢ (𝜑 → ∀𝑥𝜑)    &   ⊢ (𝜓 → ∀𝑥𝜓)    ⇒   ⊢ ((𝜑 ↔ 𝜓) → ∀𝑥(𝜑 ↔ 𝜓))
Theorem	hb3or 1549	If 𝑥 is not free in 𝜑, 𝜓, and 𝜒, it is not free in (𝜑 ∨ 𝜓 ∨ 𝜒). (Contributed by NM, 14-Sep-2003.)
⊢ (𝜑 → ∀𝑥𝜑)    &   ⊢ (𝜓 → ∀𝑥𝜓)    &   ⊢ (𝜒 → ∀𝑥𝜒)    ⇒   ⊢ ((𝜑 ∨ 𝜓 ∨ 𝜒) → ∀𝑥(𝜑 ∨ 𝜓 ∨ 𝜒))
Theorem	hb3an 1550	If 𝑥 is not free in 𝜑, 𝜓, and 𝜒, it is not free in (𝜑 ∧ 𝜓 ∧ 𝜒). (Contributed by NM, 14-Sep-2003.)
⊢ (𝜑 → ∀𝑥𝜑)    &   ⊢ (𝜓 → ∀𝑥𝜓)    &   ⊢ (𝜒 → ∀𝑥𝜒)    ⇒   ⊢ ((𝜑 ∧ 𝜓 ∧ 𝜒) → ∀𝑥(𝜑 ∧ 𝜓 ∧ 𝜒))
Theorem	hba2 1551	Lemma 24 of [Monk2] p. 114. (Contributed by NM, 29-May-2008.)
⊢ (∀𝑦∀𝑥𝜑 → ∀𝑥∀𝑦∀𝑥𝜑)
Theorem	hbia1 1552	Lemma 23 of [Monk2] p. 114. (Contributed by NM, 29-May-2008.)
⊢ ((∀𝑥𝜑 → ∀𝑥𝜓) → ∀𝑥(∀𝑥𝜑 → ∀𝑥𝜓))
Theorem	19.3h 1553	A wff may be quantified with a variable not free in it. Theorem 19.3 of [Margaris] p. 89. (Contributed by NM, 5-Aug-1993.) (Revised by NM, 21-May-2007.)
⊢ (𝜑 → ∀𝑥𝜑)    ⇒   ⊢ (∀𝑥𝜑 ↔ 𝜑)
Theorem	19.3 1554	A wff may be quantified with a variable not free in it. Theorem 19.3 of [Margaris] p. 89. (Contributed by NM, 5-Aug-1993.) (Revised by Mario Carneiro, 24-Sep-2016.)
⊢ Ⅎ𝑥𝜑    ⇒   ⊢ (∀𝑥𝜑 ↔ 𝜑)
Theorem	19.16 1555	Theorem 19.16 of [Margaris] p. 90. (Contributed by NM, 12-Mar-1993.)
⊢ Ⅎ𝑥𝜑    ⇒   ⊢ (∀𝑥(𝜑 ↔ 𝜓) → (𝜑 ↔ ∀𝑥𝜓))
Theorem	19.17 1556	Theorem 19.17 of [Margaris] p. 90. (Contributed by NM, 12-Mar-1993.)
⊢ Ⅎ𝑥𝜓    ⇒   ⊢ (∀𝑥(𝜑 ↔ 𝜓) → (∀𝑥𝜑 ↔ 𝜓))
Theorem	19.21h 1557	Theorem 19.21 of [Margaris] p. 90. The hypothesis can be thought of as "𝑥 is not free in 𝜑". New proofs should use 19.21 1583 instead. (Contributed by NM, 5-Aug-1993.) (New usage is discouraged.)
⊢ (𝜑 → ∀𝑥𝜑)    ⇒   ⊢ (∀𝑥(𝜑 → 𝜓) ↔ (𝜑 → ∀𝑥𝜓))
Theorem	19.21bi 1558	Inference from Theorem 19.21 of [Margaris] p. 90. (Contributed by NM, 5-Aug-1993.)
⊢ (𝜑 → ∀𝑥𝜓)    ⇒   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝜓)
Theorem	19.21bbi 1559	Inference removing double quantifier. (Contributed by NM, 20-Apr-1994.)
⊢ (𝜑 → ∀𝑥∀𝑦𝜓)    ⇒   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝜓)
Theorem	19.27h 1560	Theorem 19.27 of [Margaris] p. 90. (Contributed by NM, 5-Aug-1993.)
⊢ (𝜓 → ∀𝑥𝜓)    ⇒   ⊢ (∀𝑥(𝜑 ∧ 𝜓) ↔ (∀𝑥𝜑 ∧ 𝜓))
Theorem	19.27 1561	Theorem 19.27 of [Margaris] p. 90. (Contributed by NM, 5-Aug-1993.)
⊢ Ⅎ𝑥𝜓    ⇒   ⊢ (∀𝑥(𝜑 ∧ 𝜓) ↔ (∀𝑥𝜑 ∧ 𝜓))
Theorem	19.28h 1562	Theorem 19.28 of [Margaris] p. 90. (Contributed by NM, 5-Aug-1993.)
⊢ (𝜑 → ∀𝑥𝜑)    ⇒   ⊢ (∀𝑥(𝜑 ∧ 𝜓) ↔ (𝜑 ∧ ∀𝑥𝜓))
Theorem	19.28 1563	Theorem 19.28 of [Margaris] p. 90. (Contributed by NM, 5-Aug-1993.)
⊢ Ⅎ𝑥𝜑    ⇒   ⊢ (∀𝑥(𝜑 ∧ 𝜓) ↔ (𝜑 ∧ ∀𝑥𝜓))
Theorem	nfan1 1564	A closed form of nfan 1565. (Contributed by Mario Carneiro, 3-Oct-2016.)
⊢ Ⅎ𝑥𝜑    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → Ⅎ𝑥𝜓)    ⇒   ⊢ Ⅎ𝑥(𝜑 ∧ 𝜓)
Theorem	nfan 1565	If 𝑥 is not free in 𝜑 and 𝜓, it is not free in (𝜑 ∧ 𝜓). (Contributed by Mario Carneiro, 11-Aug-2016.) (Proof shortened by Wolf Lammen, 13-Jan-2018.)
⊢ Ⅎ𝑥𝜑    &   ⊢ Ⅎ𝑥𝜓    ⇒   ⊢ Ⅎ𝑥(𝜑 ∧ 𝜓)
Theorem	nf3an 1566	If 𝑥 is not free in 𝜑, 𝜓, and 𝜒, it is not free in (𝜑 ∧ 𝜓 ∧ 𝜒). (Contributed by Mario Carneiro, 11-Aug-2016.)
⊢ Ⅎ𝑥𝜑    &   ⊢ Ⅎ𝑥𝜓    &   ⊢ Ⅎ𝑥𝜒    ⇒   ⊢ Ⅎ𝑥(𝜑 ∧ 𝜓 ∧ 𝜒)
Theorem	nford 1567	If in a context 𝑥 is not free in 𝜓 and 𝜒, it is not free in (𝜓 ∨ 𝜒). (Contributed by Jim Kingdon, 29-Oct-2019.)
⊢ (𝜑 → Ⅎ𝑥𝜓)    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → Ⅎ𝑥𝜒)    ⇒   ⊢ (𝜑 → Ⅎ𝑥(𝜓 ∨ 𝜒))
Theorem	nfand 1568	If in a context 𝑥 is not free in 𝜓 and 𝜒, it is not free in (𝜓 ∧ 𝜒). (Contributed by Mario Carneiro, 7-Oct-2016.)
⊢ (𝜑 → Ⅎ𝑥𝜓)    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → Ⅎ𝑥𝜒)    ⇒   ⊢ (𝜑 → Ⅎ𝑥(𝜓 ∧ 𝜒))
Theorem	nf3and 1569	Deduction form of bound-variable hypothesis builder nf3an 1566. (Contributed by NM, 17-Feb-2013.) (Revised by Mario Carneiro, 16-Oct-2016.)
⊢ (𝜑 → Ⅎ𝑥𝜓)    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → Ⅎ𝑥𝜒)    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → Ⅎ𝑥𝜃)    ⇒   ⊢ (𝜑 → Ⅎ𝑥(𝜓 ∧ 𝜒 ∧ 𝜃))
Theorem	hbim1 1570	A closed form of hbim 1545. (Contributed by NM, 5-Aug-1993.)
⊢ (𝜑 → ∀𝑥𝜑)    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → (𝜓 → ∀𝑥𝜓))    ⇒   ⊢ ((𝜑 → 𝜓) → ∀𝑥(𝜑 → 𝜓))
Theorem	nfim1 1571	A closed form of nfim 1572. (Contributed by NM, 5-Aug-1993.) (Revised by Mario Carneiro, 24-Sep-2016.) (Proof shortened by Wolf Lammen, 2-Jan-2018.)
⊢ Ⅎ𝑥𝜑    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → Ⅎ𝑥𝜓)    ⇒   ⊢ Ⅎ𝑥(𝜑 → 𝜓)
Theorem	nfim 1572	If 𝑥 is not free in 𝜑 and 𝜓, it is not free in (𝜑 → 𝜓). (Contributed by Mario Carneiro, 11-Aug-2016.) (Proof shortened by Wolf Lammen, 2-Jan-2018.)
⊢ Ⅎ𝑥𝜑    &   ⊢ Ⅎ𝑥𝜓    ⇒   ⊢ Ⅎ𝑥(𝜑 → 𝜓)
Theorem	hbimd 1573	Deduction form of bound-variable hypothesis builder hbim 1545. (Contributed by NM, 1-Jan-2002.) (Revised by NM, 2-Feb-2015.)
⊢ (𝜑 → ∀𝑥𝜑)    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → (𝜓 → ∀𝑥𝜓))    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → (𝜒 → ∀𝑥𝜒))    ⇒   ⊢ (𝜑 → ((𝜓 → 𝜒) → ∀𝑥(𝜓 → 𝜒)))
Theorem	nfor 1574	If 𝑥 is not free in 𝜑 and 𝜓, it is not free in (𝜑 ∨ 𝜓). (Contributed by Jim Kingdon, 11-Mar-2018.)
⊢ Ⅎ𝑥𝜑    &   ⊢ Ⅎ𝑥𝜓    ⇒   ⊢ Ⅎ𝑥(𝜑 ∨ 𝜓)
Theorem	hbbid 1575	Deduction form of bound-variable hypothesis builder hbbi 1548. (Contributed by NM, 1-Jan-2002.)
⊢ (𝜑 → ∀𝑥𝜑)    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → (𝜓 → ∀𝑥𝜓))    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → (𝜒 → ∀𝑥𝜒))    ⇒   ⊢ (𝜑 → ((𝜓 ↔ 𝜒) → ∀𝑥(𝜓 ↔ 𝜒)))
Theorem	nfal 1576	If 𝑥 is not free in 𝜑, it is not free in ∀𝑦𝜑. (Contributed by Mario Carneiro, 11-Aug-2016.) Remove dependency on ax-4 1510. (Revised by Gino Giotto, 25-Aug-2024.)
⊢ Ⅎ𝑥𝜑    ⇒   ⊢ Ⅎ𝑥∀𝑦𝜑
Theorem	nfnf 1577	If 𝑥 is not free in 𝜑, it is not free in Ⅎ𝑦𝜑. (Contributed by Mario Carneiro, 11-Aug-2016.) (Proof shortened by Wolf Lammen, 30-Dec-2017.)
⊢ Ⅎ𝑥𝜑    ⇒   ⊢ Ⅎ𝑥Ⅎ𝑦𝜑
Theorem	nfalt 1578	Closed form of nfal 1576. (Contributed by Jim Kingdon, 11-May-2018.)
⊢ (∀𝑦Ⅎ𝑥𝜑 → Ⅎ𝑥∀𝑦𝜑)
Theorem	nfa2 1579	Lemma 24 of [Monk2] p. 114. (Contributed by Mario Carneiro, 24-Sep-2016.)
⊢ Ⅎ𝑥∀𝑦∀𝑥𝜑
Theorem	nfia1 1580	Lemma 23 of [Monk2] p. 114. (Contributed by Mario Carneiro, 24-Sep-2016.)
⊢ Ⅎ𝑥(∀𝑥𝜑 → ∀𝑥𝜓)
Theorem	19.21ht 1581	Closed form of Theorem 19.21 of [Margaris] p. 90. (Contributed by NM, 27-May-1997.) (New usage is discouraged.)
⊢ (∀𝑥(𝜑 → ∀𝑥𝜑) → (∀𝑥(𝜑 → 𝜓) ↔ (𝜑 → ∀𝑥𝜓)))
Theorem	19.21t 1582	Closed form of Theorem 19.21 of [Margaris] p. 90. (Contributed by NM, 27-May-1997.)
⊢ (Ⅎ𝑥𝜑 → (∀𝑥(𝜑 → 𝜓) ↔ (𝜑 → ∀𝑥𝜓)))
Theorem	19.21 1583	Theorem 19.21 of [Margaris] p. 90. The hypothesis can be thought of as "𝑥 is not free in 𝜑". (Contributed by NM, 5-Aug-1993.) (Revised by Mario Carneiro, 24-Sep-2016.)
⊢ Ⅎ𝑥𝜑    ⇒   ⊢ (∀𝑥(𝜑 → 𝜓) ↔ (𝜑 → ∀𝑥𝜓))
Theorem	stdpc5 1584	An axiom scheme of standard predicate calculus that emulates Axiom 5 of [Mendelson] p. 69. The hypothesis Ⅎ𝑥𝜑 can be thought of as emulating "𝑥 is not free in 𝜑". With this definition, the meaning of "not free" is less restrictive than the usual textbook definition; for example 𝑥 would not (for us) be free in 𝑥 = 𝑥 by nfequid 1702. This theorem scheme can be proved as a metatheorem of Mendelson's axiom system, even though it is slightly stronger than his Axiom 5. (Contributed by NM, 22-Sep-1993.) (Revised by Mario Carneiro, 12-Oct-2016.) (Proof shortened by Wolf Lammen, 1-Jan-2018.)
⊢ Ⅎ𝑥𝜑    ⇒   ⊢ (∀𝑥(𝜑 → 𝜓) → (𝜑 → ∀𝑥𝜓))
Theorem	nfimd 1585	If in a context 𝑥 is not free in 𝜓 and 𝜒, then it is not free in (𝜓 → 𝜒). (Contributed by Mario Carneiro, 24-Sep-2016.) (Proof shortened by Wolf Lammen, 30-Dec-2017.)
⊢ (𝜑 → Ⅎ𝑥𝜓)    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → Ⅎ𝑥𝜒)    ⇒   ⊢ (𝜑 → Ⅎ𝑥(𝜓 → 𝜒))
Theorem	aaanh 1586	Rearrange universal quantifiers. (Contributed by NM, 12-Aug-1993.)
⊢ (𝜑 → ∀𝑦𝜑)    &   ⊢ (𝜓 → ∀𝑥𝜓)    ⇒   ⊢ (∀𝑥∀𝑦(𝜑 ∧ 𝜓) ↔ (∀𝑥𝜑 ∧ ∀𝑦𝜓))
Theorem	aaan 1587	Rearrange universal quantifiers. (Contributed by NM, 12-Aug-1993.)
⊢ Ⅎ𝑦𝜑    &   ⊢ Ⅎ𝑥𝜓    ⇒   ⊢ (∀𝑥∀𝑦(𝜑 ∧ 𝜓) ↔ (∀𝑥𝜑 ∧ ∀𝑦𝜓))
Theorem	nfbid 1588	If in a context 𝑥 is not free in 𝜓 and 𝜒, then it is not free in (𝜓 ↔ 𝜒). (Contributed by Mario Carneiro, 24-Sep-2016.) (Proof shortened by Wolf Lammen, 29-Dec-2017.)
⊢ (𝜑 → Ⅎ𝑥𝜓)    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → Ⅎ𝑥𝜒)    ⇒   ⊢ (𝜑 → Ⅎ𝑥(𝜓 ↔ 𝜒))
Theorem	nfbi 1589	If 𝑥 is not free in 𝜑 and 𝜓, then it is not free in (𝜑 ↔ 𝜓). (Contributed by Mario Carneiro, 11-Aug-2016.) (Proof shortened by Wolf Lammen, 2-Jan-2018.)
⊢ Ⅎ𝑥𝜑    &   ⊢ Ⅎ𝑥𝜓    ⇒   ⊢ Ⅎ𝑥(𝜑 ↔ 𝜓)
1.3.7  The existential quantifier
Theorem	19.8a 1590	If a wff is true, then it is true for at least one instance. Special case of Theorem 19.8 of [Margaris] p. 89. (Contributed by NM, 5-Aug-1993.)
⊢ (𝜑 → ∃𝑥𝜑)
Theorem	19.8ad 1591	If a wff is true, it is true for at least one instance. Deduction form of 19.8a 1590. (Contributed by DAW, 13-Feb-2017.)
⊢ (𝜑 → 𝜓)    ⇒   ⊢ (𝜑 → ∃𝑥𝜓)
Theorem	19.23bi 1592	Inference from Theorem 19.23 of [Margaris] p. 90. (Contributed by NM, 5-Aug-1993.)
⊢ (∃𝑥𝜑 → 𝜓)    ⇒   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝜓)
Theorem	exlimih 1593	Inference from Theorem 19.23 of [Margaris] p. 90. (Contributed by NM, 5-Aug-1993.) (Proof shortened by Andrew Salmon, 13-May-2011.)
⊢ (𝜓 → ∀𝑥𝜓)    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝜓)    ⇒   ⊢ (∃𝑥𝜑 → 𝜓)
Theorem	exlimi 1594	Inference from Theorem 19.23 of [Margaris] p. 90. (Contributed by Mario Carneiro, 24-Sep-2016.)
⊢ Ⅎ𝑥𝜓    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝜓)    ⇒   ⊢ (∃𝑥𝜑 → 𝜓)
Theorem	exlimd2 1595	Deduction from Theorem 19.23 of [Margaris] p. 90. Similar to exlimdh 1596 but with one slightly different hypothesis. (Contributed by Jim Kingdon, 30-Dec-2017.)
⊢ (𝜑 → ∀𝑥𝜑)    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → (𝜒 → ∀𝑥𝜒))    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → (𝜓 → 𝜒))    ⇒   ⊢ (𝜑 → (∃𝑥𝜓 → 𝜒))
Theorem	exlimdh 1596	Deduction from Theorem 19.23 of [Margaris] p. 90. (Contributed by NM, 28-Jan-1997.)
⊢ (𝜑 → ∀𝑥𝜑)    &   ⊢ (𝜒 → ∀𝑥𝜒)    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → (𝜓 → 𝜒))    ⇒   ⊢ (𝜑 → (∃𝑥𝜓 → 𝜒))
Theorem	exlimd 1597	Deduction from Theorem 19.9 of [Margaris] p. 89. (Contributed by Mario Carneiro, 24-Sep-2016.) (Proof rewritten by Jim Kingdon, 18-Jun-2018.)
⊢ Ⅎ𝑥𝜑    &   ⊢ Ⅎ𝑥𝜒    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → (𝜓 → 𝜒))    ⇒   ⊢ (𝜑 → (∃𝑥𝜓 → 𝜒))
Theorem	exlimiv 1598*	Inference from Theorem 19.23 of [Margaris] p. 90. This inference, along with our many variants is used to implement a metatheorem called "Rule C" that is given in many logic textbooks. See, for example, Rule C in [Mendelson] p. 81, Rule C in [Margaris] p. 40, or Rule C in Hirst and Hirst's A Primer for Logic and Proof p. 59 (PDF p. 65) at http://www.mathsci.appstate.edu/~jlh/primer/hirst.pdf. In informal proofs, the statement "Let C be an element such that..." almost always means an implicit application of Rule C. In essence, Rule C states that if we can prove that some element 𝑥 exists satisfying a wff, i.e. ∃𝑥𝜑(𝑥) where 𝜑(𝑥) has 𝑥 free, then we can use 𝜑( C ) as a hypothesis for the proof where C is a new (ficticious) constant not appearing previously in the proof, nor in any axioms used, nor in the theorem to be proved. The purpose of Rule C is to get rid of the existential quantifier. We cannot do this in Metamath directly. Instead, we use the original 𝜑 (containing 𝑥) as an antecedent for the main part of the proof. We eventually arrive at (𝜑 → 𝜓) where 𝜓 is the theorem to be proved and does not contain 𝑥. Then we apply exlimiv 1598 to arrive at (∃𝑥𝜑 → 𝜓). Finally, we separately prove ∃𝑥𝜑 and detach it with modus ponens ax-mp 5 to arrive at the final theorem 𝜓. (Contributed by NM, 5-Aug-1993.) (Revised by NM, 25-Jul-2012.)
⊢ (𝜑 → 𝜓)    ⇒   ⊢ (∃𝑥𝜑 → 𝜓)
Theorem	exim 1599	Theorem 19.22 of [Margaris] p. 90. (Contributed by NM, 5-Aug-1993.) (Proof shortened by Wolf Lammen, 4-Jul-2014.)
⊢ (∀𝑥(𝜑 → 𝜓) → (∃𝑥𝜑 → ∃𝑥𝜓))
Theorem	eximi 1600	Inference adding existential quantifier to antecedent and consequent. (Contributed by NM, 5-Aug-1993.)
⊢ (𝜑 → 𝜓)    ⇒   ⊢ (∃𝑥𝜑 → ∃𝑥𝜓)