P. 17 of Theorem List - Intuitionistic Logic Explorer

Theorem List for Intuitionistic Logic Explorer - 1601-1700   *Has distinct variable group(s)

Type	Label	Description
Statement
Theorem	nfnf 1601	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 1602	Closed form of nfal 1600. (Contributed by Jim Kingdon, 11-May-2018.)
⊢ (∀𝑦Ⅎ𝑥𝜑 → Ⅎ𝑥∀𝑦𝜑)
Theorem	nfa2 1603	Lemma 24 of [Monk2] p. 114. (Contributed by Mario Carneiro, 24-Sep-2016.)
⊢ Ⅎ𝑥∀𝑦∀𝑥𝜑
Theorem	nfia1 1604	Lemma 23 of [Monk2] p. 114. (Contributed by Mario Carneiro, 24-Sep-2016.)
⊢ Ⅎ𝑥(∀𝑥𝜑 → ∀𝑥𝜓)
Theorem	19.21ht 1605	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 1606	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 1607	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 1608	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 1726. 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 1609	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 1610	Rearrange universal quantifiers. (Contributed by NM, 12-Aug-1993.)
⊢ (𝜑 → ∀𝑦𝜑)    &   ⊢ (𝜓 → ∀𝑥𝜓)    ⇒   ⊢ (∀𝑥∀𝑦(𝜑 ∧ 𝜓) ↔ (∀𝑥𝜑 ∧ ∀𝑦𝜓))
Theorem	aaan 1611	Rearrange universal quantifiers. (Contributed by NM, 12-Aug-1993.)
⊢ Ⅎ𝑦𝜑    &   ⊢ Ⅎ𝑥𝜓    ⇒   ⊢ (∀𝑥∀𝑦(𝜑 ∧ 𝜓) ↔ (∀𝑥𝜑 ∧ ∀𝑦𝜓))
Theorem	nfbid 1612	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 1613	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 1614	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 1615	If a wff is true, it is true for at least one instance. Deduction form of 19.8a 1614. (Contributed by DAW, 13-Feb-2017.)
⊢ (𝜑 → 𝜓)    ⇒   ⊢ (𝜑 → ∃𝑥𝜓)
Theorem	19.23bi 1616	Inference from Theorem 19.23 of [Margaris] p. 90. (Contributed by NM, 5-Aug-1993.)
⊢ (∃𝑥𝜑 → 𝜓)    ⇒   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝜓)
Theorem	exlimih 1617	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 1618	Inference from Theorem 19.23 of [Margaris] p. 90. (Contributed by Mario Carneiro, 24-Sep-2016.)
⊢ Ⅎ𝑥𝜓    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝜓)    ⇒   ⊢ (∃𝑥𝜑 → 𝜓)
Theorem	exlimd2 1619	Deduction from Theorem 19.23 of [Margaris] p. 90. Similar to exlimdh 1620 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 1620	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 1621	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 1622*	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 1622 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 1623	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 1624	Inference adding existential quantifier to antecedent and consequent. (Contributed by NM, 5-Aug-1993.)
⊢ (𝜑 → 𝜓)    ⇒   ⊢ (∃𝑥𝜑 → ∃𝑥𝜓)
Theorem	2eximi 1625	Inference adding 2 existential quantifiers to antecedent and consequent. (Contributed by NM, 3-Feb-2005.)
⊢ (𝜑 → 𝜓)    ⇒   ⊢ (∃𝑥∃𝑦𝜑 → ∃𝑥∃𝑦𝜓)
Theorem	eximii 1626	Inference associated with eximi 1624. (Contributed by BJ, 3-Feb-2018.)
⊢ ∃𝑥𝜑    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝜓)    ⇒   ⊢ ∃𝑥𝜓
Theorem	alinexa 1627	A transformation of quantifiers and logical connectives. (Contributed by NM, 19-Aug-1993.)
⊢ (∀𝑥(𝜑 → ¬ 𝜓) ↔ ¬ ∃𝑥(𝜑 ∧ 𝜓))
Theorem	exbi 1628	Theorem 19.18 of [Margaris] p. 90. (Contributed by NM, 5-Aug-1993.)
⊢ (∀𝑥(𝜑 ↔ 𝜓) → (∃𝑥𝜑 ↔ ∃𝑥𝜓))
Theorem	exbii 1629	Inference adding existential quantifier to both sides of an equivalence. (Contributed by NM, 24-May-1994.)
⊢ (𝜑 ↔ 𝜓)    ⇒   ⊢ (∃𝑥𝜑 ↔ ∃𝑥𝜓)
Theorem	2exbii 1630	Inference adding 2 existential quantifiers to both sides of an equivalence. (Contributed by NM, 16-Mar-1995.)
⊢ (𝜑 ↔ 𝜓)    ⇒   ⊢ (∃𝑥∃𝑦𝜑 ↔ ∃𝑥∃𝑦𝜓)
Theorem	3exbii 1631	Inference adding 3 existential quantifiers to both sides of an equivalence. (Contributed by NM, 2-May-1995.)
⊢ (𝜑 ↔ 𝜓)    ⇒   ⊢ (∃𝑥∃𝑦∃𝑧𝜑 ↔ ∃𝑥∃𝑦∃𝑧𝜓)
Theorem	exancom 1632	Commutation of conjunction inside an existential quantifier. (Contributed by NM, 18-Aug-1993.)
⊢ (∃𝑥(𝜑 ∧ 𝜓) ↔ ∃𝑥(𝜓 ∧ 𝜑))
Theorem	alrimdd 1633	Deduction from Theorem 19.21 of [Margaris] p. 90. (Contributed by Mario Carneiro, 24-Sep-2016.)
⊢ Ⅎ𝑥𝜑    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → Ⅎ𝑥𝜓)    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → (𝜓 → 𝜒))    ⇒   ⊢ (𝜑 → (𝜓 → ∀𝑥𝜒))
Theorem	alrimd 1634	Deduction from Theorem 19.21 of [Margaris] p. 90. (Contributed by Mario Carneiro, 24-Sep-2016.)
⊢ Ⅎ𝑥𝜑    &   ⊢ Ⅎ𝑥𝜓    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → (𝜓 → 𝜒))    ⇒   ⊢ (𝜑 → (𝜓 → ∀𝑥𝜒))
Theorem	eximdh 1635	Deduction from Theorem 19.22 of [Margaris] p. 90. (Contributed by NM, 20-May-1996.)
⊢ (𝜑 → ∀𝑥𝜑)    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → (𝜓 → 𝜒))    ⇒   ⊢ (𝜑 → (∃𝑥𝜓 → ∃𝑥𝜒))
Theorem	eximd 1636	Deduction from Theorem 19.22 of [Margaris] p. 90. (Contributed by Mario Carneiro, 24-Sep-2016.)
⊢ Ⅎ𝑥𝜑    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → (𝜓 → 𝜒))    ⇒   ⊢ (𝜑 → (∃𝑥𝜓 → ∃𝑥𝜒))
Theorem	nexd 1637	Deduction for generalization rule for negated wff. (Contributed by NM, 2-Jan-2002.)
⊢ (𝜑 → ∀𝑥𝜑)    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → ¬ 𝜓)    ⇒   ⊢ (𝜑 → ¬ ∃𝑥𝜓)
Theorem	exbidh 1638	Formula-building rule for existential quantifier (deduction form). (Contributed by NM, 5-Aug-1993.)
⊢ (𝜑 → ∀𝑥𝜑)    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → (𝜓 ↔ 𝜒))    ⇒   ⊢ (𝜑 → (∃𝑥𝜓 ↔ ∃𝑥𝜒))
Theorem	albid 1639	Formula-building rule for universal quantifier (deduction form). (Contributed by Mario Carneiro, 24-Sep-2016.)
⊢ Ⅎ𝑥𝜑    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → (𝜓 ↔ 𝜒))    ⇒   ⊢ (𝜑 → (∀𝑥𝜓 ↔ ∀𝑥𝜒))
Theorem	exbid 1640	Formula-building rule for existential quantifier (deduction form). (Contributed by Mario Carneiro, 24-Sep-2016.)
⊢ Ⅎ𝑥𝜑    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → (𝜓 ↔ 𝜒))    ⇒   ⊢ (𝜑 → (∃𝑥𝜓 ↔ ∃𝑥𝜒))
Theorem	exsimpl 1641	Simplification of an existentially quantified conjunction. (Contributed by Rodolfo Medina, 25-Sep-2010.) (Proof shortened by Andrew Salmon, 29-Jun-2011.)
⊢ (∃𝑥(𝜑 ∧ 𝜓) → ∃𝑥𝜑)
Theorem	exsimpr 1642	Simplification of an existentially quantified conjunction. (Contributed by Rodolfo Medina, 25-Sep-2010.) (Proof shortened by Andrew Salmon, 29-Jun-2011.)
⊢ (∃𝑥(𝜑 ∧ 𝜓) → ∃𝑥𝜓)
Theorem	alexdc 1643	Theorem 19.6 of [Margaris] p. 89, given a decidability condition. The forward direction holds for all propositions, as seen at alexim 1669. (Contributed by Jim Kingdon, 2-Jun-2018.)
⊢ (∀𝑥DECID 𝜑 → (∀𝑥𝜑 ↔ ¬ ∃𝑥 ¬ 𝜑))
Theorem	19.29 1644	Theorem 19.29 of [Margaris] p. 90. (Contributed by NM, 5-Aug-1993.) (Proof shortened by Andrew Salmon, 13-May-2011.)
⊢ ((∀𝑥𝜑 ∧ ∃𝑥𝜓) → ∃𝑥(𝜑 ∧ 𝜓))
Theorem	19.29r 1645	Variation of Theorem 19.29 of [Margaris] p. 90. (Contributed by NM, 18-Aug-1993.)
⊢ ((∃𝑥𝜑 ∧ ∀𝑥𝜓) → ∃𝑥(𝜑 ∧ 𝜓))
Theorem	19.29r2 1646	Variation of Theorem 19.29 of [Margaris] p. 90 with double quantification. (Contributed by NM, 3-Feb-2005.)
⊢ ((∃𝑥∃𝑦𝜑 ∧ ∀𝑥∀𝑦𝜓) → ∃𝑥∃𝑦(𝜑 ∧ 𝜓))
Theorem	19.29x 1647	Variation of Theorem 19.29 of [Margaris] p. 90 with mixed quantification. (Contributed by NM, 11-Feb-2005.)
⊢ ((∃𝑥∀𝑦𝜑 ∧ ∀𝑥∃𝑦𝜓) → ∃𝑥∃𝑦(𝜑 ∧ 𝜓))
Theorem	19.35-1 1648	Forward direction of Theorem 19.35 of [Margaris] p. 90. The converse holds for classical logic but not (for all propositions) in intuitionistic logic. (Contributed by Mario Carneiro, 2-Feb-2015.)
⊢ (∃𝑥(𝜑 → 𝜓) → (∀𝑥𝜑 → ∃𝑥𝜓))
Theorem	19.35i 1649	Inference from Theorem 19.35 of [Margaris] p. 90. (Contributed by NM, 5-Aug-1993.) (Revised by NM, 2-Feb-2015.)
⊢ ∃𝑥(𝜑 → 𝜓)    ⇒   ⊢ (∀𝑥𝜑 → ∃𝑥𝜓)
Theorem	19.25 1650	Theorem 19.25 of [Margaris] p. 90. (Contributed by NM, 5-Aug-1993.) (Revised by NM, 2-Feb-2015.)
⊢ (∀𝑦∃𝑥(𝜑 → 𝜓) → (∃𝑦∀𝑥𝜑 → ∃𝑦∃𝑥𝜓))
Theorem	19.30dc 1651	Theorem 19.30 of [Margaris] p. 90, with an additional decidability condition. (Contributed by Jim Kingdon, 21-Jul-2018.)
⊢ (DECID ∃𝑥𝜓 → (∀𝑥(𝜑 ∨ 𝜓) → (∀𝑥𝜑 ∨ ∃𝑥𝜓)))
Theorem	19.43 1652	Theorem 19.43 of [Margaris] p. 90. (Contributed by NM, 5-Aug-1993.) (Proof shortened by Mario Carneiro, 2-Feb-2015.)
⊢ (∃𝑥(𝜑 ∨ 𝜓) ↔ (∃𝑥𝜑 ∨ ∃𝑥𝜓))
Theorem	19.33b2 1653	The antecedent provides a condition implying the converse of 19.33 1508. Compare Theorem 19.33 of [Margaris] p. 90. This variation of 19.33bdc 1654 is intuitionistically valid without a decidability condition. (Contributed by Mario Carneiro, 2-Feb-2015.)
⊢ ((¬ ∃𝑥𝜑 ∨ ¬ ∃𝑥𝜓) → (∀𝑥(𝜑 ∨ 𝜓) ↔ (∀𝑥𝜑 ∨ ∀𝑥𝜓)))
Theorem	19.33bdc 1654	Converse of 19.33 1508 given ¬ (∃𝑥𝜑 ∧ ∃𝑥𝜓) and a decidability condition. Compare Theorem 19.33 of [Margaris] p. 90. For a version which does not require a decidability condition, see 19.33b2 1653 (Contributed by Jim Kingdon, 23-Apr-2018.)
⊢ (DECID ∃𝑥𝜑 → (¬ (∃𝑥𝜑 ∧ ∃𝑥𝜓) → (∀𝑥(𝜑 ∨ 𝜓) ↔ (∀𝑥𝜑 ∨ ∀𝑥𝜓))))
Theorem	19.40 1655	Theorem 19.40 of [Margaris] p. 90. (Contributed by NM, 5-Aug-1993.)
⊢ (∃𝑥(𝜑 ∧ 𝜓) → (∃𝑥𝜑 ∧ ∃𝑥𝜓))
Theorem	19.40-2 1656	Theorem *11.42 in [WhiteheadRussell] p. 163. Theorem 19.40 of [Margaris] p. 90 with 2 quantifiers. (Contributed by Andrew Salmon, 24-May-2011.)
⊢ (∃𝑥∃𝑦(𝜑 ∧ 𝜓) → (∃𝑥∃𝑦𝜑 ∧ ∃𝑥∃𝑦𝜓))
Theorem	exintrbi 1657	Add/remove a conjunct in the scope of an existential quantifier. (Contributed by Raph Levien, 3-Jul-2006.)
⊢ (∀𝑥(𝜑 → 𝜓) → (∃𝑥𝜑 ↔ ∃𝑥(𝜑 ∧ 𝜓)))
Theorem	exintr 1658	Introduce a conjunct in the scope of an existential quantifier. (Contributed by NM, 11-Aug-1993.)
⊢ (∀𝑥(𝜑 → 𝜓) → (∃𝑥𝜑 → ∃𝑥(𝜑 ∧ 𝜓)))
Theorem	alsyl 1659	Theorem *10.3 in [WhiteheadRussell] p. 150. (Contributed by Andrew Salmon, 8-Jun-2011.)
⊢ ((∀𝑥(𝜑 → 𝜓) ∧ ∀𝑥(𝜓 → 𝜒)) → ∀𝑥(𝜑 → 𝜒))
Theorem	hbex 1660	If 𝑥 is not free in 𝜑, it is not free in ∃𝑦𝜑. (Contributed by NM, 5-Aug-1993.) (Revised by NM, 2-Feb-2015.)
⊢ (𝜑 → ∀𝑥𝜑)    ⇒   ⊢ (∃𝑦𝜑 → ∀𝑥∃𝑦𝜑)
Theorem	nfex 1661	If 𝑥 is not free in 𝜑, it is not free in ∃𝑦𝜑. (Contributed by Mario Carneiro, 11-Aug-2016.) (Proof shortened by Wolf Lammen, 30-Dec-2017.)
⊢ Ⅎ𝑥𝜑    ⇒   ⊢ Ⅎ𝑥∃𝑦𝜑
Theorem	19.2 1662	Theorem 19.2 of [Margaris] p. 89, generalized to use two setvar variables. (Contributed by O'Cat, 31-Mar-2008.)
⊢ (∀𝑥𝜑 → ∃𝑦𝜑)
Theorem	i19.24 1663	Theorem 19.24 of [Margaris] p. 90, with an additional hypothesis. The hypothesis is the converse of 19.35-1 1648, and is a theorem of classical logic, but in intuitionistic logic it will only be provable for some propositions. (Contributed by Jim Kingdon, 22-Jul-2018.)
⊢ ((∀𝑥𝜑 → ∃𝑥𝜓) → ∃𝑥(𝜑 → 𝜓))    ⇒   ⊢ ((∀𝑥𝜑 → ∀𝑥𝜓) → ∃𝑥(𝜑 → 𝜓))
Theorem	i19.39 1664	Theorem 19.39 of [Margaris] p. 90, with an additional hypothesis. The hypothesis is the converse of 19.35-1 1648, and is a theorem of classical logic, but in intuitionistic logic it will only be provable for some propositions. (Contributed by Jim Kingdon, 22-Jul-2018.)
⊢ ((∀𝑥𝜑 → ∃𝑥𝜓) → ∃𝑥(𝜑 → 𝜓))    ⇒   ⊢ ((∃𝑥𝜑 → ∃𝑥𝜓) → ∃𝑥(𝜑 → 𝜓))
Theorem	19.9ht 1665	A closed version of one direction of 19.9 1668. (Contributed by NM, 5-Aug-1993.)
⊢ (∀𝑥(𝜑 → ∀𝑥𝜑) → (∃𝑥𝜑 → 𝜑))
Theorem	19.9t 1666	A closed version of 19.9 1668. (Contributed by NM, 5-Aug-1993.) (Revised by Mario Carneiro, 24-Sep-2016.) (Proof shortended by Wolf Lammen, 30-Dec-2017.)
⊢ (Ⅎ𝑥𝜑 → (∃𝑥𝜑 ↔ 𝜑))
Theorem	19.9h 1667	A wff may be existentially quantified with a variable not free in it. Theorem 19.9 of [Margaris] p. 89. (Contributed by FL, 24-Mar-2007.)
⊢ (𝜑 → ∀𝑥𝜑)    ⇒   ⊢ (∃𝑥𝜑 ↔ 𝜑)
Theorem	19.9 1668	A wff may be existentially quantified with a variable not free in it. Theorem 19.9 of [Margaris] p. 89. (Contributed by FL, 24-Mar-2007.) (Revised by Mario Carneiro, 24-Sep-2016.) (Proof shortened by Wolf Lammen, 30-Dec-2017.)
⊢ Ⅎ𝑥𝜑    ⇒   ⊢ (∃𝑥𝜑 ↔ 𝜑)
Theorem	alexim 1669	One direction of theorem 19.6 of [Margaris] p. 89. The converse holds given a decidability condition, as seen at alexdc 1643. (Contributed by Jim Kingdon, 2-Jul-2018.)
⊢ (∀𝑥𝜑 → ¬ ∃𝑥 ¬ 𝜑)
Theorem	exnalim 1670	One direction of Theorem 19.14 of [Margaris] p. 90. In classical logic the converse also holds. (Contributed by Jim Kingdon, 15-Jul-2018.)
⊢ (∃𝑥 ¬ 𝜑 → ¬ ∀𝑥𝜑)
Theorem	exanaliim 1671	A transformation of quantifiers and logical connectives. In classical logic the converse also holds. (Contributed by Jim Kingdon, 15-Jul-2018.)
⊢ (∃𝑥(𝜑 ∧ ¬ 𝜓) → ¬ ∀𝑥(𝜑 → 𝜓))
Theorem	alexnim 1672	A relationship between two quantifiers and negation. (Contributed by Jim Kingdon, 27-Aug-2018.)
⊢ (∀𝑥∃𝑦 ¬ 𝜑 → ¬ ∃𝑥∀𝑦𝜑)
Theorem	nnal 1673	The double negation of a universal quantification implies the universal quantification of the double negation. (Contributed by BJ, 24-Nov-2023.)
⊢ (¬ ¬ ∀𝑥𝜑 → ∀𝑥 ¬ ¬ 𝜑)
Theorem	ax6blem 1674	If 𝑥 is not free in 𝜑, it is not free in ¬ 𝜑. This theorem doesn't use ax6b 1675 compared to hbnt 1677. (Contributed by GD, 27-Jan-2018.)
⊢ (𝜑 → ∀𝑥𝜑)    ⇒   ⊢ (¬ 𝜑 → ∀𝑥 ¬ 𝜑)
Theorem	ax6b 1675	Quantified Negation. Axiom C5-2 of [Monk2] p. 113. (Contributed by GD, 27-Jan-2018.)
⊢ (¬ ∀𝑥𝜑 → ∀𝑥 ¬ ∀𝑥𝜑)
Theorem	hbn1 1676	𝑥 is not free in ¬ ∀𝑥𝜑. (Contributed by NM, 5-Aug-1993.) (Proof shortened by Wolf Lammen, 18-Aug-2014.)
⊢ (¬ ∀𝑥𝜑 → ∀𝑥 ¬ ∀𝑥𝜑)
Theorem	hbnt 1677	Closed theorem version of bound-variable hypothesis builder hbn 1678. (Contributed by NM, 5-Aug-1993.) (Revised by NM, 2-Feb-2015.)
⊢ (∀𝑥(𝜑 → ∀𝑥𝜑) → (¬ 𝜑 → ∀𝑥 ¬ 𝜑))
Theorem	hbn 1678	If 𝑥 is not free in 𝜑, it is not free in ¬ 𝜑. (Contributed by NM, 5-Aug-1993.)
⊢ (𝜑 → ∀𝑥𝜑)    ⇒   ⊢ (¬ 𝜑 → ∀𝑥 ¬ 𝜑)
Theorem	hbnd 1679	Deduction form of bound-variable hypothesis builder hbn 1678. (Contributed by NM, 3-Jan-2002.)
⊢ (𝜑 → ∀𝑥𝜑)    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → (𝜓 → ∀𝑥𝜓))    ⇒   ⊢ (𝜑 → (¬ 𝜓 → ∀𝑥 ¬ 𝜓))
Theorem	nfnt 1680	If 𝑥 is not free in 𝜑, then it is not free in ¬ 𝜑. (Contributed by Mario Carneiro, 24-Sep-2016.) (Proof shortened by Wolf Lammen, 28-Dec-2017.) (Revised by BJ, 24-Jul-2019.)
⊢ (Ⅎ𝑥𝜑 → Ⅎ𝑥 ¬ 𝜑)
Theorem	nfnd 1681	Deduction associated with nfnt 1680. (Contributed by Mario Carneiro, 24-Sep-2016.)
⊢ (𝜑 → Ⅎ𝑥𝜓)    ⇒   ⊢ (𝜑 → Ⅎ𝑥 ¬ 𝜓)
Theorem	nfn 1682	Inference associated with nfnt 1680. (Contributed by Mario Carneiro, 11-Aug-2016.)
⊢ Ⅎ𝑥𝜑    ⇒   ⊢ Ⅎ𝑥 ¬ 𝜑
Theorem	nfdc 1683	If 𝑥 is not free in 𝜑, it is not free in DECID 𝜑. (Contributed by Jim Kingdon, 11-Mar-2018.)
⊢ Ⅎ𝑥𝜑    ⇒   ⊢ Ⅎ𝑥DECID 𝜑
Theorem	modal-5 1684	The analog in our predicate calculus of axiom 5 of modal logic S5. (Contributed by NM, 5-Oct-2005.)
⊢ (¬ ∀𝑥 ¬ 𝜑 → ∀𝑥 ¬ ∀𝑥 ¬ 𝜑)
Theorem	19.9d 1685	A deduction version of one direction of 19.9 1668. (Contributed by NM, 5-Aug-1993.) (Revised by Mario Carneiro, 24-Sep-2016.)
⊢ (𝜓 → Ⅎ𝑥𝜑)    ⇒   ⊢ (𝜓 → (∃𝑥𝜑 → 𝜑))
Theorem	19.9hd 1686	A deduction version of one direction of 19.9 1668. This is an older variation of this theorem; new proofs should use 19.9d 1685. (Contributed by NM, 5-Aug-1993.) (New usage is discouraged.)
⊢ (𝜓 → ∀𝑥𝜓)    &   ⊢ (𝜓 → (𝜑 → ∀𝑥𝜑))    ⇒   ⊢ (𝜓 → (∃𝑥𝜑 → 𝜑))
Theorem	excomim 1687	One direction of Theorem 19.11 of [Margaris] p. 89. (Contributed by NM, 5-Aug-1993.)
⊢ (∃𝑥∃𝑦𝜑 → ∃𝑦∃𝑥𝜑)
Theorem	excom 1688	Theorem 19.11 of [Margaris] p. 89. (Contributed by NM, 5-Aug-1993.)
⊢ (∃𝑥∃𝑦𝜑 ↔ ∃𝑦∃𝑥𝜑)
Theorem	19.12 1689	Theorem 19.12 of [Margaris] p. 89. Assuming the converse is a mistake sometimes made by beginners! (Contributed by NM, 5-Aug-1993.)
⊢ (∃𝑥∀𝑦𝜑 → ∀𝑦∃𝑥𝜑)
Theorem	19.19 1690	Theorem 19.19 of [Margaris] p. 90. (Contributed by NM, 12-Mar-1993.)
⊢ Ⅎ𝑥𝜑    ⇒   ⊢ (∀𝑥(𝜑 ↔ 𝜓) → (𝜑 ↔ ∃𝑥𝜓))
Theorem	19.21-2 1691	Theorem 19.21 of [Margaris] p. 90 but with 2 quantifiers. (Contributed by NM, 4-Feb-2005.)
⊢ Ⅎ𝑥𝜑    &   ⊢ Ⅎ𝑦𝜑    ⇒   ⊢ (∀𝑥∀𝑦(𝜑 → 𝜓) ↔ (𝜑 → ∀𝑥∀𝑦𝜓))
Theorem	nf2 1692	An alternate definition of df-nf 1485, which does not involve nested quantifiers on the same variable. (Contributed by Mario Carneiro, 24-Sep-2016.)
⊢ (Ⅎ𝑥𝜑 ↔ (∃𝑥𝜑 → ∀𝑥𝜑))
Theorem	nf3 1693	An alternate definition of df-nf 1485. (Contributed by Mario Carneiro, 24-Sep-2016.)
⊢ (Ⅎ𝑥𝜑 ↔ ∀𝑥(∃𝑥𝜑 → 𝜑))
Theorem	nf4dc 1694	Variable 𝑥 is effectively not free in 𝜑 iff 𝜑 is always true or always false, given a decidability condition. The reverse direction, nf4r 1695, holds for all propositions. (Contributed by Jim Kingdon, 21-Jul-2018.)
⊢ (DECID ∃𝑥𝜑 → (Ⅎ𝑥𝜑 ↔ (∀𝑥𝜑 ∨ ∀𝑥 ¬ 𝜑)))
Theorem	nf4r 1695	If 𝜑 is always true or always false, then variable 𝑥 is effectively not free in 𝜑. The converse holds given a decidability condition, as seen at nf4dc 1694. (Contributed by Jim Kingdon, 21-Jul-2018.)
⊢ ((∀𝑥𝜑 ∨ ∀𝑥 ¬ 𝜑) → Ⅎ𝑥𝜑)
Theorem	19.36i 1696	Inference from Theorem 19.36 of [Margaris] p. 90. (Contributed by NM, 5-Aug-1993.) (Revised by NM, 2-Feb-2015.)
⊢ Ⅎ𝑥𝜓    &   ⊢ ∃𝑥(𝜑 → 𝜓)    ⇒   ⊢ (∀𝑥𝜑 → 𝜓)
Theorem	19.36-1 1697	Closed form of 19.36i 1696. One direction of Theorem 19.36 of [Margaris] p. 90. The converse holds in classical logic, but does not hold (for all propositions) in intuitionistic logic. (Contributed by Jim Kingdon, 20-Jun-2018.)
⊢ Ⅎ𝑥𝜓    ⇒   ⊢ (∃𝑥(𝜑 → 𝜓) → (∀𝑥𝜑 → 𝜓))
Theorem	19.37-1 1698	One direction of Theorem 19.37 of [Margaris] p. 90. The converse holds in classical logic but not, in general, here. (Contributed by Jim Kingdon, 21-Jun-2018.)
⊢ Ⅎ𝑥𝜑    ⇒   ⊢ (∃𝑥(𝜑 → 𝜓) → (𝜑 → ∃𝑥𝜓))
Theorem	19.37aiv 1699*	Inference from Theorem 19.37 of [Margaris] p. 90. (Contributed by NM, 5-Aug-1993.)
⊢ ∃𝑥(𝜑 → 𝜓)    ⇒   ⊢ (𝜑 → ∃𝑥𝜓)
Theorem	19.38 1700	Theorem 19.38 of [Margaris] p. 90. (Contributed by NM, 5-Aug-1993.)
⊢ ((∃𝑥𝜑 → ∀𝑥𝜓) → ∀𝑥(𝜑 → 𝜓))