P. 163 of Theorem List - Intuitionistic Logic Explorer

Type

Label

Description

Statement

Theorem

isclwwlkng 16201

A word over the set of vertices representing a closed walk of a fixed length. (Contributed by Alexander van der Vekens, 15-Mar-2018.) (Revised by AV, 24-Apr-2021.) (Revised by AV, 22-Mar-2022.)

⊢ (𝑁 ∈ ℕ₀ → (𝑊 ∈ (𝑁 ClWWalksN 𝐺) ↔ (𝑊 ∈ (ClWWalks‘𝐺) ∧ (♯‘𝑊) = 𝑁)))

Theorem

isclwwlkni 16202

A word over the set of vertices representing a closed walk of a fixed length. (Contributed by Jim Kingdon, 22-Feb-2026.)

⊢ (𝑊 ∈ (𝑁 ClWWalksN 𝐺) → (𝑊 ∈ (ClWWalks‘𝐺) ∧ (♯‘𝑊) = 𝑁))

Theorem

clwwlkn0 16203

There is no closed walk of length 0 (i.e. a closed walk without any edge) represented by a word of vertices. (Contributed by Alexander van der Vekens, 15-Sep-2018.) (Revised by AV, 24-Apr-2021.)

⊢ (0 ClWWalksN 𝐺) = ∅

Theorem

clwwlkclwwlkn 16204

A closed walk of a fixed length as word is a closed walk (in an undirected graph) as word. (Contributed by Alexander van der Vekens, 15-Mar-2018.) (Revised by AV, 24-Apr-2021.) (Proof shortened by AV, 22-Mar-2022.)

⊢ (𝑊 ∈ (𝑁 ClWWalksN 𝐺) → 𝑊 ∈ (ClWWalks‘𝐺))

Theorem

clwwlksclwwlkn 16205

The closed walks of a fixed length as words are closed walks (in an undirected graph) as words. (Contributed by Alexander van der Vekens, 15-Mar-2018.) (Revised by AV, 12-Apr-2021.)

⊢ (𝑁 ClWWalksN 𝐺) ⊆ (ClWWalks‘𝐺)

Theorem

clwwlknlen 16206

The length of a word representing a closed walk of a fixed length is this fixed length. (Contributed by AV, 22-Mar-2022.)

⊢ (𝑊 ∈ (𝑁 ClWWalksN 𝐺) → (♯‘𝑊) = 𝑁)

Theorem

clwwlknnn 16207

The length of a closed walk of a fixed length as word is a positive integer. (Contributed by AV, 22-Mar-2022.)

⊢ (𝑊 ∈ (𝑁 ClWWalksN 𝐺) → 𝑁 ∈ ℕ)

Theorem

isclwwlkn 16208

A word over the set of vertices representing a closed walk of a fixed length. (Contributed by Alexander van der Vekens, 15-Mar-2018.) (Revised by AV, 24-Apr-2021.) (Revised by AV, 22-Mar-2022.)

⊢ (𝑊 ∈ (𝑁 ClWWalksN 𝐺) ↔ (𝑊 ∈ (ClWWalks‘𝐺) ∧ (♯‘𝑊) = 𝑁))

Theorem

clwwlknwrd 16209

A closed walk of a fixed length as word is a word over the vertices. (Contributed by AV, 30-Apr-2021.)

⊢ 𝑉 = (Vtx‘𝐺)    ⇒   ⊢ (𝑊 ∈ (𝑁 ClWWalksN 𝐺) → 𝑊 ∈ Word 𝑉)

Theorem

clwwlknbp 16210

Basic properties of a closed walk of a fixed length as word. (Contributed by AV, 30-Apr-2021.) (Proof shortened by AV, 22-Mar-2022.)

⊢ 𝑉 = (Vtx‘𝐺)    ⇒   ⊢ (𝑊 ∈ (𝑁 ClWWalksN 𝐺) → (𝑊 ∈ Word 𝑉 ∧ (♯‘𝑊) = 𝑁))

Theorem

isclwwlknx 16211*

Characterization of a word representing a closed walk of a fixed length, definition of ClWWalks expanded. (Contributed by AV, 25-Apr-2021.) (Proof shortened by AV, 22-Mar-2022.)

⊢ 𝑉 = (Vtx‘𝐺)    &   ⊢ 𝐸 = (Edg‘𝐺)    ⇒   ⊢ (𝑁 ∈ ℕ → (𝑊 ∈ (𝑁 ClWWalksN 𝐺) ↔ ((𝑊 ∈ Word 𝑉 ∧ ∀𝑖 ∈ (0..^((♯‘𝑊) − 1)){(𝑊‘𝑖), (𝑊‘(𝑖 + 1))} ∈ 𝐸 ∧ {(lastS‘𝑊), (𝑊‘0)} ∈ 𝐸) ∧ (♯‘𝑊) = 𝑁)))

Theorem

clwwlknp 16212*

Properties of a set being a closed walk (represented by a word). (Contributed by Alexander van der Vekens, 17-Jun-2018.) (Revised by AV, 24-Apr-2021.) (Proof shortened by AV, 23-Mar-2022.)

⊢ 𝑉 = (Vtx‘𝐺)    &   ⊢ 𝐸 = (Edg‘𝐺)    ⇒   ⊢ (𝑊 ∈ (𝑁 ClWWalksN 𝐺) → ((𝑊 ∈ Word 𝑉 ∧ (♯‘𝑊) = 𝑁) ∧ ∀𝑖 ∈ (0..^(𝑁 − 1)){(𝑊‘𝑖), (𝑊‘(𝑖 + 1))} ∈ 𝐸 ∧ {(lastS‘𝑊), (𝑊‘0)} ∈ 𝐸))

Theorem

clwwlkn1 16213

A closed walk of length 1 represented as word is a word consisting of 1 symbol representing a vertex connected to itself by (at least) one edge, that is, a loop. (Contributed by AV, 24-Apr-2021.) (Revised by AV, 11-Feb-2022.)

⊢ (𝑊 ∈ (1 ClWWalksN 𝐺) ↔ ((♯‘𝑊) = 1 ∧ 𝑊 ∈ Word (Vtx‘𝐺) ∧ {(𝑊‘0)} ∈ (Edg‘𝐺)))

Theorem

loopclwwlkn1b 16214

The singleton word consisting of a vertex 𝑉 represents a closed walk of length 1 iff there is a loop at vertex 𝑉. (Contributed by AV, 11-Feb-2022.)

⊢ (𝑉 ∈ (Vtx‘𝐺) → ({𝑉} ∈ (Edg‘𝐺) ↔ ⟨“𝑉”⟩ ∈ (1 ClWWalksN 𝐺)))

Theorem

clwwlkn1loopb 16215*

A word represents a closed walk of length 1 iff this word is a singleton word consisting of a vertex with an attached loop. (Contributed by AV, 11-Feb-2022.)

⊢ (𝑊 ∈ (1 ClWWalksN 𝐺) ↔ ∃𝑣 ∈ (Vtx‘𝐺)(𝑊 = ⟨“𝑣”⟩ ∧ {𝑣} ∈ (Edg‘𝐺)))

Theorem

clwwlkn2 16216

A closed walk of length 2 represented as word is a word consisting of 2 symbols representing (not necessarily different) vertices connected by (at least) one edge. (Contributed by Alexander van der Vekens, 19-Sep-2018.) (Revised by AV, 25-Apr-2021.)

⊢ (𝑊 ∈ (2 ClWWalksN 𝐺) ↔ ((♯‘𝑊) = 2 ∧ 𝑊 ∈ Word (Vtx‘𝐺) ∧ {(𝑊‘0), (𝑊‘1)} ∈ (Edg‘𝐺)))

Theorem

clwwlkext2edg 16217

If a word concatenated with a vertex represents a closed walk (in a graph), there is an edge between this vertex and the last vertex of the word, and between this vertex and the first vertex of the word. (Contributed by Alexander van der Vekens, 3-Oct-2018.) (Revised by AV, 27-Apr-2021.) (Proof shortened by AV, 22-Mar-2022.)

⊢ 𝑉 = (Vtx‘𝐺)    &   ⊢ 𝐸 = (Edg‘𝐺)    ⇒   ⊢ (((𝑊 ∈ Word 𝑉 ∧ 𝑍 ∈ 𝑉 ∧ 𝑁 ∈ (ℤ_≥‘2)) ∧ (𝑊 ++ ⟨“𝑍”⟩) ∈ (𝑁 ClWWalksN 𝐺)) → ({(lastS‘𝑊), 𝑍} ∈ 𝐸 ∧ {𝑍, (𝑊‘0)} ∈ 𝐸))

Theorem

clwwlknccat 16218

The concatenation of two words representing closed walks anchored at the same vertex represents a closed walk with a length which is the sum of the lengths of the two walks. The resulting walk is a "double loop", starting at the common vertex, coming back to the common vertex by the first walk, following the second walk and finally coming back to the common vertex again. (Contributed by AV, 24-Apr-2022.)

⊢ ((𝐴 ∈ (𝑀 ClWWalksN 𝐺) ∧ 𝐵 ∈ (𝑁 ClWWalksN 𝐺) ∧ (𝐴‘0) = (𝐵‘0)) → (𝐴 ++ 𝐵) ∈ ((𝑀 + 𝑁) ClWWalksN 𝐺))

Theorem

umgr2cwwk2dif 16219

If a word represents a closed walk of length at least 2 in a multigraph, the first two symbols of the word must be different. (Contributed by Alexander van der Vekens, 17-Jun-2018.) (Revised by AV, 30-Apr-2021.)

⊢ ((𝐺 ∈ UMGraph ∧ 𝑁 ∈ (ℤ_≥‘2) ∧ 𝑊 ∈ (𝑁 ClWWalksN 𝐺)) → (𝑊‘1) ≠ (𝑊‘0))

Theorem

umgr2cwwkdifex 16220*

If a word represents a closed walk of length at least 2 in a undirected simple graph, there must be a symbol different from the first symbol of the word. (Contributed by Alexander van der Vekens, 17-Jun-2018.) (Revised by AV, 30-Apr-2021.)

⊢ ((𝐺 ∈ UMGraph ∧ 𝑁 ∈ (ℤ_≥‘2) ∧ 𝑊 ∈ (𝑁 ClWWalksN 𝐺)) → ∃𝑖 ∈ (0..^𝑁)(𝑊‘𝑖) ≠ (𝑊‘0))

12.3.3.3  Closed walks on a vertex of a fixed length as words

Syntax

cclwwlknon 16221

Extend class notation with closed walks (in an undirected graph) anchored at a fixed vertex and of a fixed length as word over the set of vertices.

class ClWWalksNOn

Definition

df-clwwlknon 16222*

Define the set of all closed walks a graph 𝑔, anchored at a fixed vertex 𝑣 (i.e., a walk starting and ending at the fixed vertex 𝑣, also called "a closed walk on vertex 𝑣") and having a fixed length 𝑛 as words over the set of vertices. Such a word corresponds to the sequence v=p(0) p(1) ... p(n-1) of the vertices in a closed walk p(0) e(f(1)) p(1) e(f(2)) ... p(n-1) e(f(n)) p(n)=p(0)=v . The set ((𝑣(ClWWalksNOn‘𝑔)𝑛) corresponds to the set of "walks from v to v of length n" in a statement of [Huneke] p. 2. (Contributed by AV, 24-Feb-2022.)

⊢ ClWWalksNOn = (𝑔 ∈ V ↦ (𝑣 ∈ (Vtx‘𝑔), 𝑛 ∈ ℕ₀ ↦ {𝑤 ∈ (𝑛 ClWWalksN 𝑔) ∣ (𝑤‘0) = 𝑣}))

Theorem

clwwlknonmpo 16223*

(ClWWalksNOn‘𝐺) is an operator mapping a vertex 𝑣 and a nonnegative integer 𝑛 to the set of closed walks on 𝑣 of length 𝑛 as words over the set of vertices in a graph 𝐺. (Contributed by AV, 25-Feb-2022.) (Proof shortened by AV, 2-Mar-2024.)

⊢ (ClWWalksNOn‘𝐺) = (𝑣 ∈ (Vtx‘𝐺), 𝑛 ∈ ℕ₀ ↦ {𝑤 ∈ (𝑛 ClWWalksN 𝐺) ∣ (𝑤‘0) = 𝑣})

Theorem

clwwlknon 16224*

The set of closed walks on vertex 𝑋 of length 𝑁 in a graph 𝐺 as words over the set of vertices. (Contributed by Alexander van der Vekens, 14-Sep-2018.) (Revised by AV, 28-May-2021.) (Revised by AV, 24-Mar-2022.)

⊢ (𝑋(ClWWalksNOn‘𝐺)𝑁) = {𝑤 ∈ (𝑁 ClWWalksN 𝐺) ∣ (𝑤‘0) = 𝑋}

Theorem

isclwwlknon 16225

A word over the set of vertices representing a closed walk on vertex 𝑋 of length 𝑁 in a graph 𝐺. (Contributed by AV, 25-Feb-2022.) (Revised by AV, 24-Mar-2022.)

⊢ (𝑊 ∈ (𝑋(ClWWalksNOn‘𝐺)𝑁) ↔ (𝑊 ∈ (𝑁 ClWWalksN 𝐺) ∧ (𝑊‘0) = 𝑋))

Theorem

clwwlk0on0 16226

There is no word over the set of vertices representing a closed walk on vertex 𝑋 of length 0 in a graph 𝐺. (Contributed by AV, 17-Feb-2022.) (Revised by AV, 25-Feb-2022.)

⊢ (𝑋(ClWWalksNOn‘𝐺)0) = ∅

Theorem

clwwlknonel 16227*

Characterization of a word over the set of vertices representing a closed walk on vertex 𝑋 of (nonzero) length 𝑁 in a graph 𝐺. This theorem would not hold for 𝑁 = 0 if 𝑊 = 𝑋 = ∅. (Contributed by Alexander van der Vekens, 20-Sep-2018.) (Revised by AV, 28-May-2021.) (Revised by AV, 24-Mar-2022.)

⊢ 𝑉 = (Vtx‘𝐺)    &   ⊢ 𝐸 = (Edg‘𝐺)    ⇒   ⊢ (𝑁 ≠ 0 → (𝑊 ∈ (𝑋(ClWWalksNOn‘𝐺)𝑁) ↔ ((𝑊 ∈ Word 𝑉 ∧ ∀𝑖 ∈ (0..^((♯‘𝑊) − 1)){(𝑊‘𝑖), (𝑊‘(𝑖 + 1))} ∈ 𝐸 ∧ {(lastS‘𝑊), (𝑊‘0)} ∈ 𝐸) ∧ (♯‘𝑊) = 𝑁 ∧ (𝑊‘0) = 𝑋)))

Theorem

clwwlknonccat 16228

The concatenation of two words representing closed walks on a vertex 𝑋 represents a closed walk on vertex 𝑋. The resulting walk is a "double loop", starting at vertex 𝑋, coming back to 𝑋 by the first walk, following the second walk and finally coming back to 𝑋 again. (Contributed by AV, 24-Apr-2022.)

⊢ ((𝐴 ∈ (𝑋(ClWWalksNOn‘𝐺)𝑀) ∧ 𝐵 ∈ (𝑋(ClWWalksNOn‘𝐺)𝑁)) → (𝐴 ++ 𝐵) ∈ (𝑋(ClWWalksNOn‘𝐺)(𝑀 + 𝑁)))

Theorem

clwwlknon2 16229*

The set of closed walks on vertex 𝑋 of length 2 in a graph 𝐺 as words over the set of vertices. (Contributed by AV, 5-Mar-2022.) (Revised by AV, 25-Mar-2022.)

⊢ 𝐶 = (ClWWalksNOn‘𝐺)    ⇒   ⊢ (𝑋𝐶2) = {𝑤 ∈ (2 ClWWalksN 𝐺) ∣ (𝑤‘0) = 𝑋}

Theorem

clwwlknon2x 16230*

The set of closed walks on vertex 𝑋 of length 2 in a graph 𝐺 as words over the set of vertices, definition of ClWWalksN expanded. (Contributed by Alexander van der Vekens, 19-Sep-2018.) (Revised by AV, 25-Mar-2022.)

⊢ 𝐶 = (ClWWalksNOn‘𝐺)    &   ⊢ 𝑉 = (Vtx‘𝐺)    &   ⊢ 𝐸 = (Edg‘𝐺)    ⇒   ⊢ (𝑋𝐶2) = {𝑤 ∈ Word 𝑉 ∣ ((♯‘𝑤) = 2 ∧ {(𝑤‘0), (𝑤‘1)} ∈ 𝐸 ∧ (𝑤‘0) = 𝑋)}

Theorem

s2elclwwlknon2 16231

Sufficient conditions of a doubleton word to represent a closed walk on vertex 𝑋 of length 2. (Contributed by AV, 11-May-2022.)

⊢ 𝐶 = (ClWWalksNOn‘𝐺)    &   ⊢ 𝑉 = (Vtx‘𝐺)    &   ⊢ 𝐸 = (Edg‘𝐺)    ⇒   ⊢ ((𝑋 ∈ 𝑉 ∧ 𝑌 ∈ 𝑉 ∧ {𝑋, 𝑌} ∈ 𝐸) → ⟨“𝑋𝑌”⟩ ∈ (𝑋𝐶2))

Theorem

clwwlknonex2lem1 16232

Lemma 1 for clwwlknonex2 16234: Transformation of a special half-open integer range into a union of a smaller half-open integer range and an unordered pair. This Lemma would not hold for 𝑁 = 2, i.e., (♯‘𝑊) = 0, because (0..^(((♯‘𝑊) + 2) − 1)) = (0..^((0 + 2) − 1)) = (0..^1) = {0} ≠ {-1, 0} = (∅ ∪ {-1, 0}) = ((0..^(0 − 1)) ∪ {(0 − 1), 0}) = ((0..^((♯‘𝑊) − 1)) ∪ {((♯‘𝑊) − 1), (♯‘𝑊)}). (Contributed by AV, 22-Sep-2018.) (Revised by AV, 26-Jan-2022.)

⊢ ((𝑁 ∈ (ℤ_≥‘3) ∧ (♯‘𝑊) = (𝑁 − 2)) → (0..^(((♯‘𝑊) + 2) − 1)) = ((0..^((♯‘𝑊) − 1)) ∪ {((♯‘𝑊) − 1), (♯‘𝑊)}))

Theorem

clwwlknonex2lem2 16233*

Lemma 2 for clwwlknonex2 16234: Transformation of a walk and two edges into a walk extended by two vertices/edges. (Contributed by AV, 22-Sep-2018.) (Revised by AV, 27-Jan-2022.)

⊢ 𝑉 = (Vtx‘𝐺)    &   ⊢ 𝐸 = (Edg‘𝐺)    ⇒   ⊢ ((((𝑋 ∈ 𝑉 ∧ 𝑌 ∈ 𝑉 ∧ 𝑁 ∈ (ℤ_≥‘3)) ∧ ((𝑊 ∈ Word 𝑉 ∧ ∀𝑖 ∈ (0..^((♯‘𝑊) − 1)){(𝑊‘𝑖), (𝑊‘(𝑖 + 1))} ∈ 𝐸 ∧ {(lastS‘𝑊), (𝑊‘0)} ∈ 𝐸) ∧ (♯‘𝑊) = (𝑁 − 2) ∧ (𝑊‘0) = 𝑋)) ∧ {𝑋, 𝑌} ∈ 𝐸) → ∀𝑖 ∈ ((0..^((♯‘𝑊) − 1)) ∪ {((♯‘𝑊) − 1), (♯‘𝑊)}){(((𝑊 ++ ⟨“𝑋”⟩) ++ ⟨“𝑌”⟩)‘𝑖), (((𝑊 ++ ⟨“𝑋”⟩) ++ ⟨“𝑌”⟩)‘(𝑖 + 1))} ∈ 𝐸)

Theorem

clwwlknonex2 16234

Extending a closed walk 𝑊 on vertex 𝑋 by an additional edge (forth and back) results in a closed walk. (Contributed by AV, 22-Sep-2018.) (Revised by AV, 25-Feb-2022.) (Proof shortened by AV, 28-Mar-2022.)

⊢ 𝑉 = (Vtx‘𝐺)    &   ⊢ 𝐸 = (Edg‘𝐺)    ⇒   ⊢ (((𝑋 ∈ 𝑉 ∧ 𝑌 ∈ 𝑉 ∧ 𝑁 ∈ (ℤ_≥‘3)) ∧ {𝑋, 𝑌} ∈ 𝐸 ∧ 𝑊 ∈ (𝑋(ClWWalksNOn‘𝐺)(𝑁 − 2))) → ((𝑊 ++ ⟨“𝑋”⟩) ++ ⟨“𝑌”⟩) ∈ (𝑁 ClWWalksN 𝐺))

Theorem

clwwlknonex2e 16235

Extending a closed walk 𝑊 on vertex 𝑋 by an additional edge (forth and back) results in a closed walk on vertex 𝑋. (Contributed by AV, 17-Apr-2022.)

⊢ 𝑉 = (Vtx‘𝐺)    &   ⊢ 𝐸 = (Edg‘𝐺)    ⇒   ⊢ (((𝑋 ∈ 𝑉 ∧ 𝑌 ∈ 𝑉 ∧ 𝑁 ∈ (ℤ_≥‘3)) ∧ {𝑋, 𝑌} ∈ 𝐸 ∧ 𝑊 ∈ (𝑋(ClWWalksNOn‘𝐺)(𝑁 − 2))) → ((𝑊 ++ ⟨“𝑋”⟩) ++ ⟨“𝑌”⟩) ∈ (𝑋(ClWWalksNOn‘𝐺)𝑁))

Theorem

clwwlknun 16236*

The set of closed walks of fixed length 𝑁 in a simple graph 𝐺 is the union of the closed walks of the fixed length 𝑁 on each of the vertices of graph 𝐺. (Contributed by Alexander van der Vekens, 7-Oct-2018.) (Revised by AV, 28-May-2021.) (Revised by AV, 3-Mar-2022.) (Proof shortened by AV, 28-Mar-2022.)

⊢ 𝑉 = (Vtx‘𝐺)    ⇒   ⊢ (𝐺 ∈ USGraph → (𝑁 ClWWalksN 𝐺) = ∪ 𝑥 ∈ 𝑉 (𝑥(ClWWalksNOn‘𝐺)𝑁))

12.4  Eulerian paths and the Konigsberg Bridge problem

12.4.1  Eulerian paths

According to Wikipedia ("Eulerian path", 9-Mar-2021, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eulerian_path): "In graph theory, an Eulerian trail (or Eulerian path) is a trail in a finite graph that visits every edge exactly once (allowing for revisiting vertices). Similarly, an Eulerian circuit or Eulerian cycle is an Eulerian trail that starts and ends on the same vertex. ... The term Eulerian graph has two common meanings in graph theory. One meaning is a graph with an Eulerian circuit, and the other is a graph with every vertex of even degree. These definitions coincide for connected graphs. ... A graph that has an Eulerian trail but not an Eulerian circuit is called semi-Eulerian."

Syntax

ceupth 16237

Extend class notation with Eulerian paths.

class EulerPaths

Definition

df-eupth 16238*

Define the set of all Eulerian paths on an arbitrary graph. (Contributed by Mario Carneiro, 12-Mar-2015.) (Revised by AV, 18-Feb-2021.)

⊢ EulerPaths = (𝑔 ∈ V ↦ {⟨𝑓, 𝑝⟩ ∣ (𝑓(Trails‘𝑔)𝑝 ∧ 𝑓:(0..^(♯‘𝑓))–onto→dom (iEdg‘𝑔))})

Theorem

releupth 16239

The set (EulerPaths‘𝐺) of all Eulerian paths on 𝐺 is a set of pairs by our definition of an Eulerian path, and so is a relation. (Contributed by Mario Carneiro, 12-Mar-2015.) (Revised by AV, 18-Feb-2021.)

⊢ Rel (EulerPaths‘𝐺)

Theorem

eupthsg 16240*

The Eulerian paths on the graph 𝐺. (Contributed by AV, 18-Feb-2021.) (Revised by AV, 29-Oct-2021.)

⊢ 𝐼 = (iEdg‘𝐺)    ⇒   ⊢ (𝐺 ∈ 𝑉 → (EulerPaths‘𝐺) = {⟨𝑓, 𝑝⟩ ∣ (𝑓(Trails‘𝐺)𝑝 ∧ 𝑓:(0..^(♯‘𝑓))–onto→dom 𝐼)})

Theorem

eupthv 16241

The classes involved in a Eulerian path are sets. (Contributed by Jim Kingdon, 13-Mar-2026.)

⊢ (𝐹(EulerPaths‘𝐺)𝑃 → (𝐺 ∈ V ∧ 𝐹 ∈ V ∧ 𝑃 ∈ V))

Theorem

iseupth 16242

The property "⟨𝐹, 𝑃⟩ is an Eulerian path on the graph 𝐺". An Eulerian path is defined as bijection 𝐹 from the edges to a set 0...(𝑁 − 1) and a function 𝑃:(0...𝑁)⟶𝑉 into the vertices such that for each 0 ≤ 𝑘 < 𝑁, 𝐹(𝑘) is an edge from 𝑃(𝑘) to 𝑃(𝑘 + 1). (Since the edges are undirected and there are possibly many edges between any two given vertices, we need to list both the edges and the vertices of the path separately.) (Contributed by Mario Carneiro, 12-Mar-2015.) (Revised by Mario Carneiro, 3-May-2015.) (Revised by AV, 18-Feb-2021.) (Revised by AV, 30-Oct-2021.)

⊢ 𝐼 = (iEdg‘𝐺)    ⇒   ⊢ (𝐹(EulerPaths‘𝐺)𝑃 ↔ (𝐹(Trails‘𝐺)𝑃 ∧ 𝐹:(0..^(♯‘𝐹))–onto→dom 𝐼))

Theorem

iseupthf1o 16243

The property "⟨𝐹, 𝑃⟩ is an Eulerian path on the graph 𝐺". An Eulerian path is defined as bijection 𝐹 from the edges to a set 0...(𝑁 − 1) and a function 𝑃:(0...𝑁)⟶𝑉 into the vertices such that for each 0 ≤ 𝑘 < 𝑁, 𝐹(𝑘) is an edge from 𝑃(𝑘) to 𝑃(𝑘 + 1). (Since the edges are undirected and there are possibly many edges between any two given vertices, we need to list both the edges and the vertices of the path separately.) (Contributed by Mario Carneiro, 12-Mar-2015.) (Revised by Mario Carneiro, 3-May-2015.) (Revised by AV, 18-Feb-2021.) (Revised by AV, 30-Oct-2021.)

⊢ 𝐼 = (iEdg‘𝐺)    ⇒   ⊢ (𝐹(EulerPaths‘𝐺)𝑃 ↔ (𝐹(Walks‘𝐺)𝑃 ∧ 𝐹:(0..^(♯‘𝐹))–1-1-onto→dom 𝐼))

Theorem

eupthi 16244

Properties of an Eulerian path. (Contributed by Mario Carneiro, 12-Mar-2015.) (Revised by AV, 18-Feb-2021.) (Proof shortened by AV, 30-Oct-2021.)

⊢ 𝐼 = (iEdg‘𝐺)    ⇒   ⊢ (𝐹(EulerPaths‘𝐺)𝑃 → (𝐹(Walks‘𝐺)𝑃 ∧ 𝐹:(0..^(♯‘𝐹))–1-1-onto→dom 𝐼))

Theorem

eupthf1o 16245

The 𝐹 function in an Eulerian path is a bijection from a half-open range of nonnegative integers to the set of edges. (Contributed by Mario Carneiro, 12-Mar-2015.) (Revised by AV, 18-Feb-2021.)

⊢ 𝐼 = (iEdg‘𝐺)    ⇒   ⊢ (𝐹(EulerPaths‘𝐺)𝑃 → 𝐹:(0..^(♯‘𝐹))–1-1-onto→dom 𝐼)

Theorem

eupthfi 16246

Any graph with an Eulerian path is of finite size, i.e. with a finite number of edges. (Contributed by Mario Carneiro, 7-Apr-2015.) (Revised by AV, 18-Feb-2021.)

⊢ 𝐼 = (iEdg‘𝐺)    ⇒   ⊢ (𝐹(EulerPaths‘𝐺)𝑃 → dom 𝐼 ∈ Fin)

Theorem

eupthseg 16247

The 𝑁-th edge in an eulerian path is the edge having 𝑃(𝑁) and 𝑃(𝑁 + 1) as endpoints . (Contributed by Mario Carneiro, 12-Mar-2015.) (Revised by AV, 18-Feb-2021.)

⊢ 𝐼 = (iEdg‘𝐺)    ⇒   ⊢ ((𝐹(EulerPaths‘𝐺)𝑃 ∧ 𝑁 ∈ (0..^(♯‘𝐹))) → {(𝑃‘𝑁), (𝑃‘(𝑁 + 1))} ⊆ (𝐼‘(𝐹‘𝑁)))

Theorem

eupthcl 16248

An Eulerian path has length ♯(𝐹), which is an integer. (Contributed by Mario Carneiro, 12-Mar-2015.) (Revised by AV, 18-Feb-2021.)

⊢ (𝐹(EulerPaths‘𝐺)𝑃 → (♯‘𝐹) ∈ ℕ₀)

Theorem

eupthistrl 16249

An Eulerian path is a trail. (Contributed by Alexander van der Vekens, 24-Nov-2017.) (Revised by AV, 18-Feb-2021.)

⊢ (𝐹(EulerPaths‘𝐺)𝑃 → 𝐹(Trails‘𝐺)𝑃)

Theorem

eupthiswlk 16250

An Eulerian path is a walk. (Contributed by AV, 6-Apr-2021.)

⊢ (𝐹(EulerPaths‘𝐺)𝑃 → 𝐹(Walks‘𝐺)𝑃)

Theorem

eupthpf 16251

The 𝑃 function in an Eulerian path is a function from a finite sequence of nonnegative integers to the vertices. (Contributed by Mario Carneiro, 12-Mar-2015.) (Revised by AV, 18-Feb-2021.)

⊢ (𝐹(EulerPaths‘𝐺)𝑃 → 𝑃:(0...(♯‘𝐹))⟶(Vtx‘𝐺))

Theorem

eupthres 16252

The restriction ⟨𝐻, 𝑄⟩ of an Eulerian path ⟨𝐹, 𝑃⟩ to an initial segment of the path (of length 𝑁) forms an Eulerian path on the subgraph 𝑆 consisting of the edges in the initial segment. (Contributed by Mario Carneiro, 12-Mar-2015.) (Revised by Mario Carneiro, 3-May-2015.) (Revised by AV, 6-Mar-2021.) Hypothesis revised using the prefix operation. (Revised by AV, 30-Nov-2022.)

⊢ 𝑉 = (Vtx‘𝐺)    &   ⊢ 𝐼 = (iEdg‘𝐺)    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝐹(EulerPaths‘𝐺)𝑃)    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝑁 ∈ (0..^(♯‘𝐹)))    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → (iEdg‘𝑆) = (𝐼 ↾ (𝐹 “ (0..^𝑁))))    &   ⊢ 𝐻 = (𝐹 prefix 𝑁)    &   ⊢ 𝑄 = (𝑃 ↾ (0...𝑁))    &   ⊢ (Vtx‘𝑆) = 𝑉    ⇒   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝐻(EulerPaths‘𝑆)𝑄)

PART 13  GUIDES AND MISCELLANEA

13.1  Guides (conventions, explanations, and examples)

13.1.1  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 16253

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 16343 (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 6012, 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 5667 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 7457, df-ap 8752		Yes	apadd1 8778, apne 8793
g	with "is a set" condition			No	1stvalg 6300, brtposg 6415, setsmsbasg 15193
m	inhabited (from "member")		∃𝑥𝑥 ∈ 𝐴	No	r19.2m 3579, negm 9839, ctm 7299, basmex 13132
seq3, sum3	recursive sequence	df-seqfrec 10700		Yes	seq3-1 10714, fsum3 11938
tap	tight apartness	df-tap 7459		Yes	df-tap 7459

• Community. The Metamath mailing list also covers the Intuitionistic Logic Explorer and is at: https://groups.google.com/g/metamath 7459.

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

⊢ 𝜑    ⇒   ⊢ 𝜑

13.1.2  Definitional examples

Theorem

ex-or 16254

Example for ax-io 714. Example by David A. Wheeler. (Contributed by Mario Carneiro, 9-May-2015.)

⊢ (2 = 3 ∨ 4 = 4)

Theorem

ex-an 16255

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

⊢ (2 = 2 ∧ 3 = 3)

Theorem

1kp2ke3k 16256

Example for df-dec 9602, 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 9602 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 16257

Example for df-fl 10520. Example by David A. Wheeler. (Contributed by Mario Carneiro, 18-Jun-2015.)

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

Theorem

ex-ceil 16258

Example for df-ceil 10521. (Contributed by AV, 4-Sep-2021.)

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

Theorem

ex-exp 16259

Example for df-exp 10791. (Contributed by AV, 4-Sep-2021.)

⊢ ((5↑2) = ;25 ∧ (-3↑-2) = (1 / 9))

Theorem

ex-fac 16260

Example for df-fac 10978. (Contributed by AV, 4-Sep-2021.)

⊢ (!‘5) = ;;120

Theorem

ex-bc 16261

Example for df-bc 11000. (Contributed by AV, 4-Sep-2021.)

⊢ (5C3) = ;10

Theorem

ex-dvds 16262

Example for df-dvds 12339: 3 divides into 6. (Contributed by David A. Wheeler, 19-May-2015.)

⊢ 3 ∥ 6

Theorem

ex-gcd 16263

Example for df-gcd 12515. (Contributed by AV, 5-Sep-2021.)

⊢ (-6 gcd 9) = 3

PART 14  SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL (USERS' MATHBOXES)

14.1  Mathboxes for user contributions

14.1.1  Mathbox guidelines

Theorem

mathbox 16264

(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

14.2  Mathbox for BJ

14.2.1  Propositional calculus

Theorem

bj-nnsn 16265

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 16266

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

⊢ (¬ ¬ (𝜑 ∨ 𝜓) ↔ (¬ 𝜑 → ¬ ¬ 𝜓))

Theorem

bj-nnim 16267

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 16268

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 16269

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

⊢ ((¬ 𝜑 → 𝜑) → ¬ ¬ 𝜑)

Theorem

bj-imnimnn 16270

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 16269 as its last step. (Contributed by BJ, 27-Oct-2024.)

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

14.2.1.1  Stable formulas

Some of the following theorems, like bj-sttru 16272 or bj-stfal 16274 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 16271

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

⊢ (𝜑 → STAB 𝜑)

Theorem

bj-sttru 16272

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

⊢ STAB ⊤

Theorem

bj-fast 16273

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

⊢ (¬ 𝜑 → STAB 𝜑)

Theorem

bj-stfal 16274

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

⊢ STAB ⊥

Theorem

bj-nnst 16275

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 16521 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 16276

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 16289). (Contributed by BJ, 24-Nov-2023.)

⊢ (¬ ¬ 𝜑 → (STAB 𝜑 ↔ 𝜑))

Theorem

bj-stst 16277

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 16278

A conjunction with a stable consequent is stable. See stabnot 838 for negation , bj-stan 16279 for conjunction , and bj-stal 16281 for universal quantification. (Contributed by BJ, 24-Nov-2023.)

⊢ (STAB 𝜓 → STAB (𝜑 → 𝜓))

Theorem

bj-stan 16279

The conjunction of two stable formulas is stable. See bj-stim 16278 for implication, stabnot 838 for negation, and bj-stal 16281 for universal quantification. (Contributed by BJ, 24-Nov-2023.)

⊢ ((STAB 𝜑 ∧ STAB 𝜓) → STAB (𝜑 ∧ 𝜓))

Theorem

bj-stand 16280

The conjunction of two stable formulas is stable. Deduction form of bj-stan 16279. Its proof is shorter (when counting all steps, including syntactic steps), so one could prove it first and then bj-stan 16279 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 16281

The universal quantification of a stable formula is stable. See bj-stim 16278 for implication, stabnot 838 for negation, and bj-stan 16279 for conjunction. (Contributed by BJ, 24-Nov-2023.)

⊢ (∀𝑥STAB 𝜑 → STAB ∀𝑥𝜑)

Theorem

bj-pm2.18st 16282

Clavius law for stable formulas. See pm2.18dc 860. (Contributed by BJ, 4-Dec-2023.)

⊢ (STAB 𝜑 → ((¬ 𝜑 → 𝜑) → 𝜑))

Theorem

bj-con1st 16283

Contraposition when the antecedent is a negated stable proposition. See con1dc 861. (Contributed by BJ, 11-Nov-2024.)

⊢ (STAB 𝜑 → ((¬ 𝜑 → 𝜓) → (¬ 𝜓 → 𝜑)))

14.2.1.2  Decidable formulas

Theorem

bj-trdc 16284

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

⊢ (𝜑 → DECID 𝜑)

Theorem

bj-dctru 16285

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

⊢ DECID ⊤

Theorem

bj-fadc 16286

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

⊢ (¬ 𝜑 → DECID 𝜑)

Theorem

bj-dcfal 16287

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

⊢ DECID ⊥

Theorem

bj-dcstab 16288

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

⊢ (DECID 𝜑 → STAB 𝜑)

Theorem

bj-nnbidc 16289

If a formula is not refutable, then it is decidable if and only if it is provable. See also comment of bj-nnbist 16276. (Contributed by BJ, 24-Nov-2023.)

⊢ (¬ ¬ 𝜑 → (DECID 𝜑 ↔ 𝜑))

Theorem

bj-nndcALT 16290

Alternate proof of nndc 856. (Proof modification is discouraged.) (New usage is discouraged.) (Contributed by BJ, 9-Oct-2019.)

⊢ ¬ ¬ DECID 𝜑

Theorem

bj-dcdc 16291

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 16292

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 16293

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)

14.2.2  Predicate calculus

Theorem

bj-ex 16294*

Existential generalization. (Contributed by BJ, 8-Dec-2019.) Proof modification is discouraged because there are shorter proofs, but using less basic results (like exlimiv 1644 and 19.9ht 1687 or 19.23ht 1543). (Proof modification is discouraged.)

⊢ (∃𝑥𝜑 → 𝜑)

Theorem

bj-hbalt 16295

Closed form of hbal 1523 (copied from set.mm). (Contributed by BJ, 2-May-2019.)

⊢ (∀𝑦(𝜑 → ∀𝑥𝜑) → (∀𝑦𝜑 → ∀𝑥∀𝑦𝜑))

Theorem

bj-nfalt 16296

Closed form of nfal 1622 (copied from set.mm). (Contributed by BJ, 2-May-2019.) (Proof modification is discouraged.)

⊢ (∀𝑥Ⅎ𝑦𝜑 → Ⅎ𝑦∀𝑥𝜑)

Theorem

spimd 16297

Deduction form of spim 1784. (Contributed by BJ, 17-Oct-2019.)

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

Theorem

2spim 16298*

Double substitution, as in spim 1784. (Contributed by BJ, 17-Oct-2019.)

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

Theorem

ch2var 16299*

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 16300*

Version of ch2var 16299 with nonfreeness hypotheses replaced with disjoint variable conditions. (Contributed by BJ, 17-Oct-2019.)

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