P. 166 of Theorem List - Intuitionistic Logic Explorer

Theorem List for Intuitionistic Logic Explorer - 16501-16600   *Has distinct variable group(s)

Type	Label	Description
Statement
14.2  Mathbox for Matthew House
Theorem	depindlem1 16501*	Lemma for depind 16504. (Contributed by Matthew House, 14-Apr-2026.)
⊢ (𝜑 → 𝑃:ℕ0⟶V)    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝐴 ∈ (𝑃‘0))    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → ∀𝑛 ∈ ℕ0 (𝐻‘𝑛):(𝑃‘𝑛)⟶(𝑃‘(𝑛 + 1)))    &   ⊢ 𝐹 = seq0((𝑥 ∈ V, ℎ ∈ V ↦ (ℎ‘𝑥)), (𝑚 ∈ ℕ0 ↦ if(𝑚 = 0, 𝐴, (𝐻‘(𝑚 − 1)))))    ⇒   ⊢ (𝜑 → (𝐹:ℕ0⟶V ∧ (𝐹‘0) = 𝐴 ∧ ∀𝑛 ∈ ℕ0 (𝐹‘(𝑛 + 1)) = ((𝐻‘𝑛)‘(𝐹‘𝑛))))
Theorem	depindlem2 16502*	Lemma for depind 16504. (Contributed by Matthew House, 14-Apr-2026.)
⊢ (𝜑 → 𝑃:ℕ0⟶V)    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝐴 ∈ (𝑃‘0))    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → ∀𝑛 ∈ ℕ0 (𝐻‘𝑛):(𝑃‘𝑛)⟶(𝑃‘(𝑛 + 1)))    &   ⊢ 𝐹 = seq0((𝑥 ∈ V, ℎ ∈ V ↦ (ℎ‘𝑥)), (𝑚 ∈ ℕ0 ↦ if(𝑚 = 0, 𝐴, (𝐻‘(𝑚 − 1)))))    ⇒   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝐹 ∈ X𝑛 ∈ ℕ0 (𝑃‘𝑛))
Theorem	depindlem3 16503*	Lemma for depind 16504. (Contributed by Matthew House, 14-Apr-2026.)
⊢ (𝜑 → 𝑃:ℕ0⟶V)    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝐴 ∈ (𝑃‘0))    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → ∀𝑛 ∈ ℕ0 (𝐻‘𝑛):(𝑃‘𝑛)⟶(𝑃‘(𝑛 + 1)))    &   ⊢ 𝐹 = seq0((𝑥 ∈ V, ℎ ∈ V ↦ (ℎ‘𝑥)), (𝑚 ∈ ℕ0 ↦ if(𝑚 = 0, 𝐴, (𝐻‘(𝑚 − 1)))))    ⇒   ⊢ (𝜑 → ∀𝑓 ∈ X 𝑛 ∈ ℕ0 (𝑃‘𝑛)(((𝑓‘0) = 𝐴 ∧ ∀𝑛 ∈ ℕ0 (𝑓‘(𝑛 + 1)) = ((𝐻‘𝑛)‘(𝑓‘𝑛))) → 𝑓 = 𝐹))
Theorem	depind 16504*	Theorem related to a dependently typed induction principle in type theory. (Contributed by Matthew House, 14-Apr-2026.)
⊢ (𝜑 → 𝑃:ℕ0⟶V)    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝐴 ∈ (𝑃‘0))    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → ∀𝑛 ∈ ℕ0 (𝐻‘𝑛):(𝑃‘𝑛)⟶(𝑃‘(𝑛 + 1)))    ⇒   ⊢ (𝜑 → ∃!𝑓 ∈ X 𝑛 ∈ ℕ0 (𝑃‘𝑛)((𝑓‘0) = 𝐴 ∧ ∀𝑛 ∈ ℕ0 (𝑓‘(𝑛 + 1)) = ((𝐻‘𝑛)‘(𝑓‘𝑛))))
14.3  Mathbox for BJ
14.3.1  Propositional calculus
Theorem	bj-nnsn 16505	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 16506	Double negation of a disjunction in terms of implication. (Contributed by BJ, 9-Oct-2019.)
⊢ (¬ ¬ (𝜑 ∨ 𝜓) ↔ (¬ 𝜑 → ¬ ¬ 𝜓))
Theorem	bj-nnim 16507	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 16508	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 16509	Clavius law with doubly negated consequent. (Contributed by BJ, 4-Dec-2023.)
⊢ ((¬ 𝜑 → 𝜑) → ¬ ¬ 𝜑)
Theorem	bj-imnimnn 16510	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 16509 as its last step. (Contributed by BJ, 27-Oct-2024.)
⊢ (𝜑 → 𝜓)    &   ⊢ (¬ 𝜑 → 𝜓)    ⇒   ⊢ ¬ ¬ 𝜓
14.3.1.1  Stable formulas Some of the following theorems, like bj-sttru 16512 or bj-stfal 16514 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 16511	A provable formula is stable. (Contributed by BJ, 24-Nov-2023.)
⊢ (𝜑 → STAB 𝜑)
Theorem	bj-sttru 16512	The true truth value is stable. (Contributed by BJ, 5-Aug-2024.)
⊢ STAB ⊤
Theorem	bj-fast 16513	A refutable formula is stable. (Contributed by BJ, 24-Nov-2023.)
⊢ (¬ 𝜑 → STAB 𝜑)
Theorem	bj-stfal 16514	The false truth value is stable. (Contributed by BJ, 5-Aug-2024.)
⊢ STAB ⊥
Theorem	bj-nnst 16515	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 16760 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 16516	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 16529). (Contributed by BJ, 24-Nov-2023.)
⊢ (¬ ¬ 𝜑 → (STAB 𝜑 ↔ 𝜑))
Theorem	bj-stst 16517	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 16518	A conjunction with a stable consequent is stable. See stabnot 841 for negation , bj-stan 16519 for conjunction , and bj-stal 16521 for universal quantification. (Contributed by BJ, 24-Nov-2023.)
⊢ (STAB 𝜓 → STAB (𝜑 → 𝜓))
Theorem	bj-stan 16519	The conjunction of two stable formulas is stable. See bj-stim 16518 for implication, stabnot 841 for negation, and bj-stal 16521 for universal quantification. (Contributed by BJ, 24-Nov-2023.)
⊢ ((STAB 𝜑 ∧ STAB 𝜓) → STAB (𝜑 ∧ 𝜓))
Theorem	bj-stand 16520	The conjunction of two stable formulas is stable. Deduction form of bj-stan 16519. Its proof is shorter (when counting all steps, including syntactic steps), so one could prove it first and then bj-stan 16519 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 16521	The universal quantification of a stable formula is stable. See bj-stim 16518 for implication, stabnot 841 for negation, and bj-stan 16519 for conjunction. (Contributed by BJ, 24-Nov-2023.)
⊢ (∀𝑥STAB 𝜑 → STAB ∀𝑥𝜑)
Theorem	bj-pm2.18st 16522	Clavius law for stable formulas. See pm2.18dc 863. (Contributed by BJ, 4-Dec-2023.)
⊢ (STAB 𝜑 → ((¬ 𝜑 → 𝜑) → 𝜑))
Theorem	bj-con1st 16523	Contraposition when the antecedent is a negated stable proposition. See con1dc 864. (Contributed by BJ, 11-Nov-2024.)
⊢ (STAB 𝜑 → ((¬ 𝜑 → 𝜓) → (¬ 𝜓 → 𝜑)))
14.3.1.2  Decidable formulas
Theorem	bj-trdc 16524	A provable formula is decidable. (Contributed by BJ, 24-Nov-2023.)
⊢ (𝜑 → DECID 𝜑)
Theorem	bj-dctru 16525	The true truth value is decidable. (Contributed by BJ, 5-Aug-2024.)
⊢ DECID ⊤
Theorem	bj-fadc 16526	A refutable formula is decidable. (Contributed by BJ, 24-Nov-2023.)
⊢ (¬ 𝜑 → DECID 𝜑)
Theorem	bj-dcfal 16527	The false truth value is decidable. (Contributed by BJ, 5-Aug-2024.)
⊢ DECID ⊥
Theorem	bj-dcstab 16528	A decidable formula is stable. (Contributed by BJ, 24-Nov-2023.) (Proof modification is discouraged.)
⊢ (DECID 𝜑 → STAB 𝜑)
Theorem	bj-nnbidc 16529	If a formula is not refutable, then it is decidable if and only if it is provable. See also comment of bj-nnbist 16516. (Contributed by BJ, 24-Nov-2023.)
⊢ (¬ ¬ 𝜑 → (DECID 𝜑 ↔ 𝜑))
Theorem	bj-nndcALT 16530	Alternate proof of nndc 859. (Proof modification is discouraged.) (New usage is discouraged.) (Contributed by BJ, 9-Oct-2019.)
⊢ ¬ ¬ DECID 𝜑
Theorem	bj-dcdc 16531	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 16532	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 16533	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)
14.3.2  Predicate calculus
Theorem	bj-ex 16534*	Existential generalization. (Contributed by BJ, 8-Dec-2019.) Proof modification is discouraged because there are shorter proofs, but using less basic results (like exlimiv 1647 and 19.9ht 1690 or 19.23ht 1546). (Proof modification is discouraged.)
⊢ (∃𝑥𝜑 → 𝜑)
Theorem	bj-hbalt 16535	Closed form of hbal 1526 (copied from set.mm). (Contributed by BJ, 2-May-2019.)
⊢ (∀𝑦(𝜑 → ∀𝑥𝜑) → (∀𝑦𝜑 → ∀𝑥∀𝑦𝜑))
Theorem	bj-nfalt 16536	Closed form of nfal 1625 (copied from set.mm). (Contributed by BJ, 2-May-2019.) (Proof modification is discouraged.)
⊢ (∀𝑥Ⅎ𝑦𝜑 → Ⅎ𝑦∀𝑥𝜑)
Theorem	spimd 16537	Deduction form of spim 1787. (Contributed by BJ, 17-Oct-2019.)
⊢ (𝜑 → Ⅎ𝑥𝜒)    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → ∀𝑥(𝑥 = 𝑦 → (𝜓 → 𝜒)))    ⇒   ⊢ (𝜑 → (∀𝑥𝜓 → 𝜒))
Theorem	2spim 16538*	Double substitution, as in spim 1787. (Contributed by BJ, 17-Oct-2019.)
⊢ Ⅎ𝑥𝜒    &   ⊢ Ⅎ𝑧𝜒    &   ⊢ ((𝑥 = 𝑦 ∧ 𝑧 = 𝑡) → (𝜓 → 𝜒))    ⇒   ⊢ (∀𝑧∀𝑥𝜓 → 𝜒)
Theorem	ch2var 16539*	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 16540*	Version of ch2var 16539 with nonfreeness hypotheses replaced with disjoint variable conditions. (Contributed by BJ, 17-Oct-2019.)
⊢ ((𝑥 = 𝑦 ∧ 𝑧 = 𝑡) → (𝜑 ↔ 𝜓))    &   ⊢ 𝜑    ⇒   ⊢ 𝜓
Theorem	bj-exlimmp 16541	Lemma for bj-vtoclgf 16548. (Contributed by BJ, 21-Nov-2019.) (Proof modification is discouraged.)
⊢ Ⅎ𝑥𝜓    &   ⊢ (𝜒 → 𝜑)    ⇒   ⊢ (∀𝑥(𝜒 → (𝜑 → 𝜓)) → (∃𝑥𝜒 → 𝜓))
Theorem	bj-exlimmpi 16542	Lemma for bj-vtoclgf 16548. (Contributed by BJ, 21-Nov-2019.) (Proof modification is discouraged.)
⊢ Ⅎ𝑥𝜓    &   ⊢ (𝜒 → 𝜑)    &   ⊢ (𝜒 → (𝜑 → 𝜓))    ⇒   ⊢ (∃𝑥𝜒 → 𝜓)
Theorem	bj-sbimedh 16543	A strengthening of sbiedh 1836 (same proof). (Contributed by BJ, 16-Dec-2019.)
⊢ (𝜑 → ∀𝑥𝜑)    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → (𝜒 → ∀𝑥𝜒))    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → (𝑥 = 𝑦 → (𝜓 → 𝜒)))    ⇒   ⊢ (𝜑 → ([𝑦 / 𝑥]𝜓 → 𝜒))
Theorem	bj-sbimeh 16544	A strengthening of sbieh 1839 (same proof). (Contributed by BJ, 16-Dec-2019.)
⊢ (𝜓 → ∀𝑥𝜓)    &   ⊢ (𝑥 = 𝑦 → (𝜑 → 𝜓))    ⇒   ⊢ ([𝑦 / 𝑥]𝜑 → 𝜓)
Theorem	bj-sbime 16545	A strengthening of sbie 1840 (same proof). (Contributed by BJ, 16-Dec-2019.)
⊢ Ⅎ𝑥𝜓    &   ⊢ (𝑥 = 𝑦 → (𝜑 → 𝜓))    ⇒   ⊢ ([𝑦 / 𝑥]𝜑 → 𝜓)
14.3.3  Set theorey miscellaneous
Theorem	bj-el2oss1o 16546	Shorter proof of el2oss1o 6676 using more axioms. (Contributed by BJ, 21-Jan-2024.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) (New usage is discouraged.)
⊢ (𝐴 ∈ 2o → 𝐴 ⊆ 1o)
14.3.4  Extensionality Various utility theorems using FOL and extensionality.
Theorem	bj-vtoclgft 16547	Weakening two hypotheses of vtoclgf 2873. (Contributed by BJ, 21-Nov-2019.)
⊢ Ⅎ𝑥𝐴    &   ⊢ Ⅎ𝑥𝜓    &   ⊢ (𝑥 = 𝐴 → 𝜑)    ⇒   ⊢ (∀𝑥(𝑥 = 𝐴 → (𝜑 → 𝜓)) → (𝐴 ∈ 𝑉 → 𝜓))
Theorem	bj-vtoclgf 16548	Weakening two hypotheses of vtoclgf 2873. (Contributed by BJ, 21-Nov-2019.)
⊢ Ⅎ𝑥𝐴    &   ⊢ Ⅎ𝑥𝜓    &   ⊢ (𝑥 = 𝐴 → 𝜑)    &   ⊢ (𝑥 = 𝐴 → (𝜑 → 𝜓))    ⇒   ⊢ (𝐴 ∈ 𝑉 → 𝜓)
Theorem	elabgf0 16549	Lemma for elabgf 2959. (Contributed by BJ, 21-Nov-2019.)
⊢ (𝑥 = 𝐴 → (𝐴 ∈ {𝑥 ∣ 𝜑} ↔ 𝜑))
Theorem	elabgft1 16550	One implication of elabgf 2959, in closed form. (Contributed by BJ, 21-Nov-2019.)
⊢ Ⅎ𝑥𝐴    &   ⊢ Ⅎ𝑥𝜓    ⇒   ⊢ (∀𝑥(𝑥 = 𝐴 → (𝜑 → 𝜓)) → (𝐴 ∈ {𝑥 ∣ 𝜑} → 𝜓))
Theorem	elabgf1 16551	One implication of elabgf 2959. (Contributed by BJ, 21-Nov-2019.)
⊢ Ⅎ𝑥𝐴    &   ⊢ Ⅎ𝑥𝜓    &   ⊢ (𝑥 = 𝐴 → (𝜑 → 𝜓))    ⇒   ⊢ (𝐴 ∈ {𝑥 ∣ 𝜑} → 𝜓)
Theorem	elabgf2 16552	One implication of elabgf 2959. (Contributed by BJ, 21-Nov-2019.)
⊢ Ⅎ𝑥𝐴    &   ⊢ Ⅎ𝑥𝜓    &   ⊢ (𝑥 = 𝐴 → (𝜓 → 𝜑))    ⇒   ⊢ (𝐴 ∈ 𝐵 → (𝜓 → 𝐴 ∈ {𝑥 ∣ 𝜑}))
Theorem	elabf1 16553*	One implication of elabf 2960. (Contributed by BJ, 21-Nov-2019.)
⊢ Ⅎ𝑥𝜓    &   ⊢ (𝑥 = 𝐴 → (𝜑 → 𝜓))    ⇒   ⊢ (𝐴 ∈ {𝑥 ∣ 𝜑} → 𝜓)
Theorem	elabf2 16554*	One implication of elabf 2960. (Contributed by BJ, 21-Nov-2019.)
⊢ Ⅎ𝑥𝜓    &   ⊢ 𝐴 ∈ V    &   ⊢ (𝑥 = 𝐴 → (𝜓 → 𝜑))    ⇒   ⊢ (𝜓 → 𝐴 ∈ {𝑥 ∣ 𝜑})
Theorem	elab1 16555*	One implication of elab 2961. (Contributed by BJ, 21-Nov-2019.)
⊢ (𝑥 = 𝐴 → (𝜑 → 𝜓))    ⇒   ⊢ (𝐴 ∈ {𝑥 ∣ 𝜑} → 𝜓)
Theorem	elab2a 16556*	One implication of elab 2961. (Contributed by BJ, 21-Nov-2019.)
⊢ 𝐴 ∈ V    &   ⊢ (𝑥 = 𝐴 → (𝜓 → 𝜑))    ⇒   ⊢ (𝜓 → 𝐴 ∈ {𝑥 ∣ 𝜑})
Theorem	elabg2 16557*	One implication of elabg 2963. (Contributed by BJ, 21-Nov-2019.)
⊢ (𝑥 = 𝐴 → (𝜓 → 𝜑))    ⇒   ⊢ (𝐴 ∈ 𝑉 → (𝜓 → 𝐴 ∈ {𝑥 ∣ 𝜑}))
Theorem	bj-rspgt 16558	Restricted specialization, generalized. Weakens a hypothesis of rspccv 2918 and seems to have a shorter proof. (Contributed by BJ, 21-Nov-2019.)
⊢ Ⅎ𝑥𝐴    &   ⊢ Ⅎ𝑥𝐵    &   ⊢ Ⅎ𝑥𝜓    ⇒   ⊢ (∀𝑥(𝑥 = 𝐴 → (𝜑 → 𝜓)) → (∀𝑥 ∈ 𝐵 𝜑 → (𝐴 ∈ 𝐵 → 𝜓)))
Theorem	bj-rspg 16559	Restricted specialization, generalized. Weakens a hypothesis of rspccv 2918 and seems to have a shorter proof. (Contributed by BJ, 21-Nov-2019.)
⊢ Ⅎ𝑥𝐴    &   ⊢ Ⅎ𝑥𝐵    &   ⊢ Ⅎ𝑥𝜓    &   ⊢ (𝑥 = 𝐴 → (𝜑 → 𝜓))    ⇒   ⊢ (∀𝑥 ∈ 𝐵 𝜑 → (𝐴 ∈ 𝐵 → 𝜓))
Theorem	cbvrald 16560*	Rule used to change bound variables, using implicit substitution. (Contributed by BJ, 22-Nov-2019.)
⊢ Ⅎ𝑥𝜑    &   ⊢ Ⅎ𝑦𝜑    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → Ⅎ𝑦𝜓)    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → Ⅎ𝑥𝜒)    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → (𝑥 = 𝑦 → (𝜓 ↔ 𝜒)))    ⇒   ⊢ (𝜑 → (∀𝑥 ∈ 𝐴 𝜓 ↔ ∀𝑦 ∈ 𝐴 𝜒))
Theorem	bj-intabssel 16561	Version of intss1 3964 using a class abstraction and explicit substitution. (Contributed by BJ, 29-Nov-2019.)
⊢ Ⅎ𝑥𝐴    ⇒   ⊢ (𝐴 ∈ 𝑉 → ([𝐴 / 𝑥]𝜑 → ∩ {𝑥 ∣ 𝜑} ⊆ 𝐴))
Theorem	bj-intabssel1 16562	Version of intss1 3964 using a class abstraction and implicit substitution. Closed form of intmin3 3976. (Contributed by BJ, 29-Nov-2019.)
⊢ Ⅎ𝑥𝐴    &   ⊢ Ⅎ𝑥𝜓    &   ⊢ (𝑥 = 𝐴 → (𝜓 → 𝜑))    ⇒   ⊢ (𝐴 ∈ 𝑉 → (𝜓 → ∩ {𝑥 ∣ 𝜑} ⊆ 𝐴))
Theorem	bj-elssuniab 16563	Version of elssuni 3942 using a class abstraction and explicit substitution. (Contributed by BJ, 29-Nov-2019.)
⊢ Ⅎ𝑥𝐴    ⇒   ⊢ (𝐴 ∈ 𝑉 → ([𝐴 / 𝑥]𝜑 → 𝐴 ⊆ ∪ {𝑥 ∣ 𝜑}))
Theorem	bj-sseq 16564	If two converse inclusions are characterized each by a formula, then equality is characterized by the conjunction of these formulas. (Contributed by BJ, 30-Nov-2019.)
⊢ (𝜑 → (𝜓 ↔ 𝐴 ⊆ 𝐵))    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → (𝜒 ↔ 𝐵 ⊆ 𝐴))    ⇒   ⊢ (𝜑 → ((𝜓 ∧ 𝜒) ↔ 𝐴 = 𝐵))
14.3.5  Decidability of classes The question of decidability is essential in intuitionistic logic. In intuitionistic set theories, it is natural to define decidability of a set (or class) as decidability of membership in it. One can parameterize this notion with another set (or class) since it is often important to assess decidability of membership in one class among elements of another class. Namely, one will say that "𝐴 is decidable in 𝐵 " if ∀𝑥 ∈ 𝐵DECID 𝑥 ∈ 𝐴 (see df-dcin 16566). Note the similarity with the definition of a bounded class as a class for which membership in it is a bounded proposition (df-bdc 16611).
Syntax	wdcin 16565	Syntax for decidability of a class in another.
wff 𝐴 DECIDin 𝐵
Definition	df-dcin 16566*	Define decidability of a class in another. (Contributed by BJ, 19-Feb-2022.)
⊢ (𝐴 DECIDin 𝐵 ↔ ∀𝑥 ∈ 𝐵 DECID 𝑥 ∈ 𝐴)
Theorem	decidi 16567	Property of being decidable in another class. (Contributed by BJ, 19-Feb-2022.)
⊢ (𝐴 DECIDin 𝐵 → (𝑋 ∈ 𝐵 → (𝑋 ∈ 𝐴 ∨ ¬ 𝑋 ∈ 𝐴)))
Theorem	decidr 16568*	Sufficient condition for being decidable in another class. (Contributed by BJ, 19-Feb-2022.)
⊢ (𝜑 → (𝑥 ∈ 𝐵 → (𝑥 ∈ 𝐴 ∨ ¬ 𝑥 ∈ 𝐴)))    ⇒   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝐴 DECIDin 𝐵)
Theorem	decidin 16569	If A is a decidable subclass of B (meaning: it is a subclass of B and it is decidable in B), and B is decidable in C, then A is decidable in C. (Contributed by BJ, 19-Feb-2022.)
⊢ (𝜑 → 𝐴 ⊆ 𝐵)    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝐴 DECIDin 𝐵)    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝐵 DECIDin 𝐶)    ⇒   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝐴 DECIDin 𝐶)
Theorem	uzdcinzz 16570	An upperset of integers is decidable in the integers. Reformulation of eluzdc 9942. (Contributed by Jim Kingdon, 18-Apr-2020.) (Revised by BJ, 19-Feb-2022.)
⊢ (𝑀 ∈ ℤ → (ℤ≥‘𝑀) DECIDin ℤ)
Theorem	sumdc2 16571*	Alternate proof of sumdc 12043, without disjoint variable condition on 𝑁, 𝑥 (longer because the statement is taylored to the proof sumdc 12043). (Contributed by BJ, 19-Feb-2022.)
⊢ (𝜑 → 𝑀 ∈ ℤ)    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝐴 ⊆ (ℤ≥‘𝑀))    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → ∀𝑥 ∈ (ℤ≥‘𝑀)DECID 𝑥 ∈ 𝐴)    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝑁 ∈ ℤ)    ⇒   ⊢ (𝜑 → DECID 𝑁 ∈ 𝐴)
14.3.6  Disjoint union
Theorem	djucllem 16572*	Lemma for djulcl 7342 and djurcl 7343. (Contributed by BJ, 4-Jul-2022.)
⊢ 𝑋 ∈ V    &   ⊢ 𝐹 = (𝑥 ∈ V ↦ ⟨𝑋, 𝑥⟩)    ⇒   ⊢ (𝐴 ∈ 𝐵 → ((𝐹 ↾ 𝐵)‘𝐴) ∈ ({𝑋} × 𝐵))
Theorem	djulclALT 16573	Shortening of djulcl 7342 using djucllem 16572. (Contributed by BJ, 4-Jul-2022.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) (New usage is discouraged.)
⊢ (𝐶 ∈ 𝐴 → ((inl ↾ 𝐴)‘𝐶) ∈ (𝐴 ⊔ 𝐵))
Theorem	djurclALT 16574	Shortening of djurcl 7343 using djucllem 16572. (Contributed by BJ, 4-Jul-2022.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) (New usage is discouraged.)
⊢ (𝐶 ∈ 𝐵 → ((inr ↾ 𝐵)‘𝐶) ∈ (𝐴 ⊔ 𝐵))
14.3.7  Miscellaneous
Theorem	funmptd 16575	The maps-to notation defines a function (deduction form). Note: one should similarly prove a deduction form of funopab4 5389, then prove funmptd 16575 from it, and then prove funmpt 5390 from that: this would reduce global proof length. (Contributed by BJ, 5-Aug-2024.)
⊢ (𝜑 → 𝐹 = (𝑥 ∈ 𝐴 ↦ 𝐵))    ⇒   ⊢ (𝜑 → Fun 𝐹)
Theorem	fnmptd 16576*	The maps-to notation defines a function with domain (deduction form). (Contributed by BJ, 5-Aug-2024.)
⊢ (𝜑 → 𝐹 = (𝑥 ∈ 𝐴 ↦ 𝐵))    &   ⊢ ((𝜑 ∧ 𝑥 ∈ 𝐴) → 𝐵 ∈ 𝑉)    ⇒   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝐹 Fn 𝐴)
Theorem	bj-charfun 16577*	Properties of the characteristic function on the class 𝑋 of the class 𝐴. (Contributed by BJ, 15-Aug-2024.)
⊢ (𝜑 → 𝐹 = (𝑥 ∈ 𝑋 ↦ if(𝑥 ∈ 𝐴, 1o, ∅)))    ⇒   ⊢ (𝜑 → ((𝐹:𝑋⟶𝒫 1o ∧ (𝐹 ↾ ((𝑋 ∩ 𝐴) ∪ (𝑋 ∖ 𝐴))):((𝑋 ∩ 𝐴) ∪ (𝑋 ∖ 𝐴))⟶2o) ∧ (∀𝑥 ∈ (𝑋 ∩ 𝐴)(𝐹‘𝑥) = 1o ∧ ∀𝑥 ∈ (𝑋 ∖ 𝐴)(𝐹‘𝑥) = ∅)))
Theorem	bj-charfundc 16578*	Properties of the characteristic function on the class 𝑋 of the class 𝐴, provided membership in 𝐴 is decidable in 𝑋. (Contributed by BJ, 6-Aug-2024.)
⊢ (𝜑 → 𝐹 = (𝑥 ∈ 𝑋 ↦ if(𝑥 ∈ 𝐴, 1o, ∅)))    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → ∀𝑥 ∈ 𝑋 DECID 𝑥 ∈ 𝐴)    ⇒   ⊢ (𝜑 → (𝐹:𝑋⟶2o ∧ (∀𝑥 ∈ (𝑋 ∩ 𝐴)(𝐹‘𝑥) = 1o ∧ ∀𝑥 ∈ (𝑋 ∖ 𝐴)(𝐹‘𝑥) = ∅)))
Theorem	bj-charfundcALT 16579*	Alternate proof of bj-charfundc 16578. It was expected to be much shorter since it uses bj-charfun 16577 for the main part of the proof and the rest is basic computations, but these turn out to be lengthy, maybe because of the limited library of available lemmas. (Contributed by BJ, 15-Aug-2024.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) (New usage is discouraged.)
⊢ (𝜑 → 𝐹 = (𝑥 ∈ 𝑋 ↦ if(𝑥 ∈ 𝐴, 1o, ∅)))    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → ∀𝑥 ∈ 𝑋 DECID 𝑥 ∈ 𝐴)    ⇒   ⊢ (𝜑 → (𝐹:𝑋⟶2o ∧ (∀𝑥 ∈ (𝑋 ∩ 𝐴)(𝐹‘𝑥) = 1o ∧ ∀𝑥 ∈ (𝑋 ∖ 𝐴)(𝐹‘𝑥) = ∅)))
Theorem	bj-charfunr 16580*	If a class 𝐴 has a "weak" characteristic function on a class 𝑋, then negated membership in 𝐴 is decidable (in other words, membership in 𝐴 is testable) in 𝑋. The hypothesis imposes that 𝑋 be a set. As usual, it could be formulated as ⊢ (𝜑 → (𝐹:𝑋⟶ω ∧ ...)) to deal with general classes, but that extra generality would not make the theorem much more useful. The theorem would still hold if the codomain of 𝑓 were any class with testable equality to the point where (𝑋 ∖ 𝐴) is sent. (Contributed by BJ, 6-Aug-2024.)
⊢ (𝜑 → ∃𝑓 ∈ (ω ↑𝑚 𝑋)(∀𝑥 ∈ (𝑋 ∩ 𝐴)(𝑓‘𝑥) ≠ ∅ ∧ ∀𝑥 ∈ (𝑋 ∖ 𝐴)(𝑓‘𝑥) = ∅))    ⇒   ⊢ (𝜑 → ∀𝑥 ∈ 𝑋 DECID ¬ 𝑥 ∈ 𝐴)
Theorem	bj-charfunbi 16581*	In an ambient set 𝑋, if membership in 𝐴 is stable, then it is decidable if and only if 𝐴 has a characteristic function. This characterization can be applied to singletons when the set 𝑋 has stable equality, which is the case as soon as it has a tight apartness relation. (Contributed by BJ, 6-Aug-2024.)
⊢ (𝜑 → 𝑋 ∈ 𝑉)    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → ∀𝑥 ∈ 𝑋 STAB 𝑥 ∈ 𝐴)    ⇒   ⊢ (𝜑 → (∀𝑥 ∈ 𝑋 DECID 𝑥 ∈ 𝐴 ↔ ∃𝑓 ∈ (2o ↑𝑚 𝑋)(∀𝑥 ∈ (𝑋 ∩ 𝐴)(𝑓‘𝑥) = 1o ∧ ∀𝑥 ∈ (𝑋 ∖ 𝐴)(𝑓‘𝑥) = ∅)))
14.3.8  Constructive Zermelo--Fraenkel set theory (CZF): Bounded formulas and classes This section develops constructive Zermelo--Fraenkel set theory (CZF) on top of intuitionistic logic. It is a constructive theory in the sense that its logic is intuitionistic and it is predicative. "Predicative" means that new sets can be constructed only from already constructed sets. In particular, the axiom of separation ax-sep 4228 is not predicative (because we cannot allow all formulas to define a subset) and is replaced in CZF by bounded separation ax-bdsep 16654. Because this axiom is weaker than full separation, the axiom of replacement or collection ax-coll 4225 of ZF and IZF has to be strengthened in CZF to the axiom of strong collection ax-strcoll 16752 (which is a theorem of IZF), and the axiom of infinity needs a more precise version, the von Neumann axiom of infinity ax-infvn 16711. Similarly, the axiom of powerset ax-pow 4287 is not predicative (checking whether a set is included in another requires to universally quantifier over that "not yet constructed" set) and is replaced in CZF by the axiom of fullness or the axiom of subset collection ax-sscoll 16757. In an intuitionistic context, the axiom of regularity is stated in IZF as well as in CZF as the axiom of set induction ax-setind 4659. It is sometimes interesting to study the weakening of CZF where that axiom is replaced by bounded set induction ax-bdsetind 16738. For more details on CZF, a useful set of notes is Peter Aczel and Michael Rathjen, CST Book draft. (available at http://www1.maths.leeds.ac.uk/~rathjen/book.pdf 16738) and an interesting article is Michael Shulman, Comparing material and structural set theories, Annals of Pure and Applied Logic, Volume 170, Issue 4 (Apr. 2019), 465--504. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.1808.05204 16738 I also thank Michael Rathjen and Michael Shulman for useful hints in the formulation of some results.
14.3.8.1  Bounded formulas The present definition of bounded formulas emerged from a discussion on GitHub between Jim Kingdon, Mario Carneiro and I, started 23-Sept-2019 (see https://github.com/metamath/set.mm/issues/1173 and links therein). In order to state certain axiom schemes of Constructive Zermelo–Fraenkel (CZF) set theory, like the axiom scheme of bounded (or restricted, or Δ0) separation, it is necessary to distinguish certain formulas, called bounded (or restricted, or Δ0) formulas. The necessity of considering bounded formulas also arises in several theories of bounded arithmetic, both classical or intuitionistic, for instance to state the axiom scheme of Δ0-induction. To formalize this in Metamath, there are several choices to make. A first choice is to either create a new type for bounded formulas, or to create a predicate on formulas that indicates whether they are bounded. In the first case, one creates a new type "wff0" with a new set of metavariables (ph0 ...) and an axiom "$a wff ph0 " ensuring that bounded formulas are formulas, so that one can reuse existing theorems, and then axioms take the form "$a wff0 ( ph0 -> ps0 )", etc. In the second case, one introduces a predicate "BOUNDED " with the intended meaning that "BOUNDED 𝜑 " is a formula meaning that 𝜑 is a bounded formula. We choose the second option, since the first would complicate the grammar, risking to make it ambiguous. (TODO: elaborate.) A second choice is to view "bounded" either as a syntactic or a semantic property. For instance, ∀𝑥⊤ is not syntactically bounded since it has an unbounded universal quantifier, but it is semantically bounded since it is equivalent to ⊤ which is bounded. We choose the second option, so that formulas using defined symbols can be proved bounded. A third choice is in the form of the axioms, either in closed form or in inference form. One cannot state all the axioms in closed form, especially ax-bd0 16583. Indeed, if we posited it in closed form, then we could prove for instance ⊢ (𝜑 → BOUNDED 𝜑) and ⊢ (¬ 𝜑 → BOUNDED 𝜑) which is problematic (with the law of excluded middle, this would entail that all formulas are bounded, but even without it, too many formulas could be proved bounded...). (TODO: elaborate.) Having ax-bd0 16583 in inference form ensures that a formula can be proved bounded only if it is equivalent *for all values of the free variables* to a syntactically bounded one. The other axioms (ax-bdim 16584 through ax-bdsb 16592) can be written either in closed or inference form. The fact that ax-bd0 16583 is an inference is enough to ensure that the closed forms cannot be "exploited" to prove that some unbounded formulas are bounded. (TODO: check.) However, we state all the axioms in inference form to make it clear that we do not exploit any over-permissiveness. Finally, note that our logic has no terms, only variables. Therefore, we cannot prove for instance that 𝑥 ∈ ω is a bounded formula. However, since ω can be defined as "the 𝑦 such that PHI" a proof using the fact that 𝑥 ∈ ω is bounded can be converted to a proof in iset.mm by replacing ω with 𝑦 everywhere and prepending the antecedent PHI, since 𝑥 ∈ 𝑦 is bounded by ax-bdel 16591. For a similar method, see bj-omtrans 16726. Note that one cannot add an axiom ⊢ BOUNDED 𝑥 ∈ 𝐴 since by bdph 16620 it would imply that every formula is bounded.
Syntax	wbd 16582	Syntax for the predicate BOUNDED.
wff BOUNDED 𝜑
Axiom	ax-bd0 16583	If two formulas are equivalent, then boundedness of one implies boundedness of the other. (Contributed by BJ, 3-Oct-2019.)
⊢ (𝜑 ↔ 𝜓)    ⇒   ⊢ (BOUNDED 𝜑 → BOUNDED 𝜓)
Axiom	ax-bdim 16584	An implication between two bounded formulas is bounded. (Contributed by BJ, 25-Sep-2019.)
⊢ BOUNDED 𝜑    &   ⊢ BOUNDED 𝜓    ⇒   ⊢ BOUNDED (𝜑 → 𝜓)
Axiom	ax-bdan 16585	The conjunction of two bounded formulas is bounded. (Contributed by BJ, 25-Sep-2019.)
⊢ BOUNDED 𝜑    &   ⊢ BOUNDED 𝜓    ⇒   ⊢ BOUNDED (𝜑 ∧ 𝜓)
Axiom	ax-bdor 16586	The disjunction of two bounded formulas is bounded. (Contributed by BJ, 25-Sep-2019.)
⊢ BOUNDED 𝜑    &   ⊢ BOUNDED 𝜓    ⇒   ⊢ BOUNDED (𝜑 ∨ 𝜓)
Axiom	ax-bdn 16587	The negation of a bounded formula is bounded. (Contributed by BJ, 25-Sep-2019.)
⊢ BOUNDED 𝜑    ⇒   ⊢ BOUNDED ¬ 𝜑
Axiom	ax-bdal 16588*	A bounded universal quantification of a bounded formula is bounded. Note the disjoint variable condition on 𝑥, 𝑦. (Contributed by BJ, 25-Sep-2019.)
⊢ BOUNDED 𝜑    ⇒   ⊢ BOUNDED ∀𝑥 ∈ 𝑦 𝜑
Axiom	ax-bdex 16589*	A bounded existential quantification of a bounded formula is bounded. Note the disjoint variable condition on 𝑥, 𝑦. (Contributed by BJ, 25-Sep-2019.)
⊢ BOUNDED 𝜑    ⇒   ⊢ BOUNDED ∃𝑥 ∈ 𝑦 𝜑
Axiom	ax-bdeq 16590	An atomic formula is bounded (equality predicate). (Contributed by BJ, 3-Oct-2019.)
⊢ BOUNDED 𝑥 = 𝑦
Axiom	ax-bdel 16591	An atomic formula is bounded (membership predicate). (Contributed by BJ, 3-Oct-2019.)
⊢ BOUNDED 𝑥 ∈ 𝑦
Axiom	ax-bdsb 16592	A formula resulting from proper substitution in a bounded formula is bounded. This probably cannot be proved from the other axioms, since neither the definiens in df-sb 1812, nor probably any other equivalent formula, is syntactically bounded. (Contributed by BJ, 3-Oct-2019.)
⊢ BOUNDED 𝜑    ⇒   ⊢ BOUNDED [𝑦 / 𝑥]𝜑
Theorem	bdeq 16593	Equality property for the predicate BOUNDED. (Contributed by BJ, 3-Oct-2019.)
⊢ (𝜑 ↔ 𝜓)    ⇒   ⊢ (BOUNDED 𝜑 ↔ BOUNDED 𝜓)
Theorem	bd0 16594	A formula equivalent to a bounded one is bounded. See also bd0r 16595. (Contributed by BJ, 3-Oct-2019.)
⊢ BOUNDED 𝜑    &   ⊢ (𝜑 ↔ 𝜓)    ⇒   ⊢ BOUNDED 𝜓
Theorem	bd0r 16595	A formula equivalent to a bounded one is bounded. Stated with a commuted (compared with bd0 16594) biconditional in the hypothesis, to work better with definitions (𝜓 is the definiendum that one wants to prove bounded). (Contributed by BJ, 3-Oct-2019.)
⊢ BOUNDED 𝜑    &   ⊢ (𝜓 ↔ 𝜑)    ⇒   ⊢ BOUNDED 𝜓
Theorem	bdbi 16596	A biconditional between two bounded formulas is bounded. (Contributed by BJ, 3-Oct-2019.)
⊢ BOUNDED 𝜑    &   ⊢ BOUNDED 𝜓    ⇒   ⊢ BOUNDED (𝜑 ↔ 𝜓)
Theorem	bdstab 16597	Stability of a bounded formula is bounded. (Contributed by BJ, 3-Oct-2019.)
⊢ BOUNDED 𝜑    ⇒   ⊢ BOUNDED STAB 𝜑
Theorem	bddc 16598	Decidability of a bounded formula is bounded. (Contributed by BJ, 3-Oct-2019.)
⊢ BOUNDED 𝜑    ⇒   ⊢ BOUNDED DECID 𝜑
Theorem	bd3or 16599	A disjunction of three bounded formulas is bounded. (Contributed by BJ, 3-Oct-2019.)
⊢ BOUNDED 𝜑    &   ⊢ BOUNDED 𝜓    &   ⊢ BOUNDED 𝜒    ⇒   ⊢ BOUNDED (𝜑 ∨ 𝜓 ∨ 𝜒)
Theorem	bd3an 16600	A conjunction of three bounded formulas is bounded. (Contributed by BJ, 3-Oct-2019.)
⊢ BOUNDED 𝜑    &   ⊢ BOUNDED 𝜓    &   ⊢ BOUNDED 𝜒    ⇒   ⊢ BOUNDED (𝜑 ∧ 𝜓 ∧ 𝜒)