![]() |
Intuitionistic Logic Explorer Theorem List (p. 17 of 149) | < Previous Next > |
Bad symbols? Try the
GIF version. |
||
Mirrors > Metamath Home Page > ILE Home Page > Theorem List Contents > Recent Proofs This page: Page List |
Type | Label | Description |
---|---|---|
Statement | ||
Theorem | 2eximi 1601 | Inference adding 2 existential quantifiers to antecedent and consequent. (Contributed by NM, 3-Feb-2005.) |
⊢ (𝜑 → 𝜓) ⇒ ⊢ (∃𝑥∃𝑦𝜑 → ∃𝑥∃𝑦𝜓) | ||
Theorem | eximii 1602 | Inference associated with eximi 1600. (Contributed by BJ, 3-Feb-2018.) |
⊢ ∃𝑥𝜑 & ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝜓) ⇒ ⊢ ∃𝑥𝜓 | ||
Theorem | alinexa 1603 | A transformation of quantifiers and logical connectives. (Contributed by NM, 19-Aug-1993.) |
⊢ (∀𝑥(𝜑 → ¬ 𝜓) ↔ ¬ ∃𝑥(𝜑 ∧ 𝜓)) | ||
Theorem | exbi 1604 | Theorem 19.18 of [Margaris] p. 90. (Contributed by NM, 5-Aug-1993.) |
⊢ (∀𝑥(𝜑 ↔ 𝜓) → (∃𝑥𝜑 ↔ ∃𝑥𝜓)) | ||
Theorem | exbii 1605 | Inference adding existential quantifier to both sides of an equivalence. (Contributed by NM, 24-May-1994.) |
⊢ (𝜑 ↔ 𝜓) ⇒ ⊢ (∃𝑥𝜑 ↔ ∃𝑥𝜓) | ||
Theorem | 2exbii 1606 | 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 1607 | 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 1608 | Commutation of conjunction inside an existential quantifier. (Contributed by NM, 18-Aug-1993.) |
⊢ (∃𝑥(𝜑 ∧ 𝜓) ↔ ∃𝑥(𝜓 ∧ 𝜑)) | ||
Theorem | alrimdd 1609 | 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 1610 | 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 1611 | 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 1612 | 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 1613 | Deduction for generalization rule for negated wff. (Contributed by NM, 2-Jan-2002.) |
⊢ (𝜑 → ∀𝑥𝜑) & ⊢ (𝜑 → ¬ 𝜓) ⇒ ⊢ (𝜑 → ¬ ∃𝑥𝜓) | ||
Theorem | exbidh 1614 | Formula-building rule for existential quantifier (deduction form). (Contributed by NM, 5-Aug-1993.) |
⊢ (𝜑 → ∀𝑥𝜑) & ⊢ (𝜑 → (𝜓 ↔ 𝜒)) ⇒ ⊢ (𝜑 → (∃𝑥𝜓 ↔ ∃𝑥𝜒)) | ||
Theorem | albid 1615 | Formula-building rule for universal quantifier (deduction form). (Contributed by Mario Carneiro, 24-Sep-2016.) |
⊢ Ⅎ𝑥𝜑 & ⊢ (𝜑 → (𝜓 ↔ 𝜒)) ⇒ ⊢ (𝜑 → (∀𝑥𝜓 ↔ ∀𝑥𝜒)) | ||
Theorem | exbid 1616 | Formula-building rule for existential quantifier (deduction form). (Contributed by Mario Carneiro, 24-Sep-2016.) |
⊢ Ⅎ𝑥𝜑 & ⊢ (𝜑 → (𝜓 ↔ 𝜒)) ⇒ ⊢ (𝜑 → (∃𝑥𝜓 ↔ ∃𝑥𝜒)) | ||
Theorem | exsimpl 1617 | 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 1618 | 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 1619 | Theorem 19.6 of [Margaris] p. 89, given a decidability condition. The forward direction holds for all propositions, as seen at alexim 1645. (Contributed by Jim Kingdon, 2-Jun-2018.) |
⊢ (∀𝑥DECID 𝜑 → (∀𝑥𝜑 ↔ ¬ ∃𝑥 ¬ 𝜑)) | ||
Theorem | 19.29 1620 | 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 1621 | Variation of Theorem 19.29 of [Margaris] p. 90. (Contributed by NM, 18-Aug-1993.) |
⊢ ((∃𝑥𝜑 ∧ ∀𝑥𝜓) → ∃𝑥(𝜑 ∧ 𝜓)) | ||
Theorem | 19.29r2 1622 | 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 1623 | 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 1624 | 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 1625 | 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 1626 | 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 1627 | 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 1628 | 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 1629 | The antecedent provides a condition implying the converse of 19.33 1484. Compare Theorem 19.33 of [Margaris] p. 90. This variation of 19.33bdc 1630 is intuitionistically valid without a decidability condition. (Contributed by Mario Carneiro, 2-Feb-2015.) |
⊢ ((¬ ∃𝑥𝜑 ∨ ¬ ∃𝑥𝜓) → (∀𝑥(𝜑 ∨ 𝜓) ↔ (∀𝑥𝜑 ∨ ∀𝑥𝜓))) | ||
Theorem | 19.33bdc 1630 | Converse of 19.33 1484 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 1629 (Contributed by Jim Kingdon, 23-Apr-2018.) |
⊢ (DECID ∃𝑥𝜑 → (¬ (∃𝑥𝜑 ∧ ∃𝑥𝜓) → (∀𝑥(𝜑 ∨ 𝜓) ↔ (∀𝑥𝜑 ∨ ∀𝑥𝜓)))) | ||
Theorem | 19.40 1631 | Theorem 19.40 of [Margaris] p. 90. (Contributed by NM, 5-Aug-1993.) |
⊢ (∃𝑥(𝜑 ∧ 𝜓) → (∃𝑥𝜑 ∧ ∃𝑥𝜓)) | ||
Theorem | 19.40-2 1632 | 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 1633 | 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 1634 | 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 1635 | 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 1636 | 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 1637 | 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 1638 | 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 1639 | Theorem 19.24 of [Margaris] p. 90, with an additional hypothesis. The hypothesis is the converse of 19.35-1 1624, 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 1640 | Theorem 19.39 of [Margaris] p. 90, with an additional hypothesis. The hypothesis is the converse of 19.35-1 1624, 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 1641 | A closed version of one direction of 19.9 1644. (Contributed by NM, 5-Aug-1993.) |
⊢ (∀𝑥(𝜑 → ∀𝑥𝜑) → (∃𝑥𝜑 → 𝜑)) | ||
Theorem | 19.9t 1642 | A closed version of 19.9 1644. (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 1643 | 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 1644 | 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 1645 | One direction of theorem 19.6 of [Margaris] p. 89. The converse holds given a decidability condition, as seen at alexdc 1619. (Contributed by Jim Kingdon, 2-Jul-2018.) |
⊢ (∀𝑥𝜑 → ¬ ∃𝑥 ¬ 𝜑) | ||
Theorem | exnalim 1646 | 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 1647 | 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 1648 | A relationship between two quantifiers and negation. (Contributed by Jim Kingdon, 27-Aug-2018.) |
⊢ (∀𝑥∃𝑦 ¬ 𝜑 → ¬ ∃𝑥∀𝑦𝜑) | ||
Theorem | nnal 1649 | 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 1650 | If 𝑥 is not free in 𝜑, it is not free in ¬ 𝜑. This theorem doesn't use ax6b 1651 compared to hbnt 1653. (Contributed by GD, 27-Jan-2018.) |
⊢ (𝜑 → ∀𝑥𝜑) ⇒ ⊢ (¬ 𝜑 → ∀𝑥 ¬ 𝜑) | ||
Theorem | ax6b 1651 |
Quantified Negation. Axiom C5-2 of [Monk2] p.
113.
(Contributed by GD, 27-Jan-2018.) |
⊢ (¬ ∀𝑥𝜑 → ∀𝑥 ¬ ∀𝑥𝜑) | ||
Theorem | hbn1 1652 | 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 1653 | Closed theorem version of bound-variable hypothesis builder hbn 1654. (Contributed by NM, 5-Aug-1993.) (Revised by NM, 2-Feb-2015.) |
⊢ (∀𝑥(𝜑 → ∀𝑥𝜑) → (¬ 𝜑 → ∀𝑥 ¬ 𝜑)) | ||
Theorem | hbn 1654 | 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 1655 | Deduction form of bound-variable hypothesis builder hbn 1654. (Contributed by NM, 3-Jan-2002.) |
⊢ (𝜑 → ∀𝑥𝜑) & ⊢ (𝜑 → (𝜓 → ∀𝑥𝜓)) ⇒ ⊢ (𝜑 → (¬ 𝜓 → ∀𝑥 ¬ 𝜓)) | ||
Theorem | nfnt 1656 | 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 1657 | Deduction associated with nfnt 1656. (Contributed by Mario Carneiro, 24-Sep-2016.) |
⊢ (𝜑 → Ⅎ𝑥𝜓) ⇒ ⊢ (𝜑 → Ⅎ𝑥 ¬ 𝜓) | ||
Theorem | nfn 1658 | Inference associated with nfnt 1656. (Contributed by Mario Carneiro, 11-Aug-2016.) |
⊢ Ⅎ𝑥𝜑 ⇒ ⊢ Ⅎ𝑥 ¬ 𝜑 | ||
Theorem | nfdc 1659 | 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 1660 | 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 1661 | A deduction version of one direction of 19.9 1644. (Contributed by NM, 5-Aug-1993.) (Revised by Mario Carneiro, 24-Sep-2016.) |
⊢ (𝜓 → Ⅎ𝑥𝜑) ⇒ ⊢ (𝜓 → (∃𝑥𝜑 → 𝜑)) | ||
Theorem | 19.9hd 1662 | A deduction version of one direction of 19.9 1644. This is an older variation of this theorem; new proofs should use 19.9d 1661. (Contributed by NM, 5-Aug-1993.) (New usage is discouraged.) |
⊢ (𝜓 → ∀𝑥𝜓) & ⊢ (𝜓 → (𝜑 → ∀𝑥𝜑)) ⇒ ⊢ (𝜓 → (∃𝑥𝜑 → 𝜑)) | ||
Theorem | excomim 1663 | One direction of Theorem 19.11 of [Margaris] p. 89. (Contributed by NM, 5-Aug-1993.) |
⊢ (∃𝑥∃𝑦𝜑 → ∃𝑦∃𝑥𝜑) | ||
Theorem | excom 1664 | Theorem 19.11 of [Margaris] p. 89. (Contributed by NM, 5-Aug-1993.) |
⊢ (∃𝑥∃𝑦𝜑 ↔ ∃𝑦∃𝑥𝜑) | ||
Theorem | 19.12 1665 | 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 1666 | Theorem 19.19 of [Margaris] p. 90. (Contributed by NM, 12-Mar-1993.) |
⊢ Ⅎ𝑥𝜑 ⇒ ⊢ (∀𝑥(𝜑 ↔ 𝜓) → (𝜑 ↔ ∃𝑥𝜓)) | ||
Theorem | 19.21-2 1667 | 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 1668 | An alternate definition of df-nf 1461, which does not involve nested quantifiers on the same variable. (Contributed by Mario Carneiro, 24-Sep-2016.) |
⊢ (Ⅎ𝑥𝜑 ↔ (∃𝑥𝜑 → ∀𝑥𝜑)) | ||
Theorem | nf3 1669 | An alternate definition of df-nf 1461. (Contributed by Mario Carneiro, 24-Sep-2016.) |
⊢ (Ⅎ𝑥𝜑 ↔ ∀𝑥(∃𝑥𝜑 → 𝜑)) | ||
Theorem | nf4dc 1670 | Variable 𝑥 is effectively not free in 𝜑 iff 𝜑 is always true or always false, given a decidability condition. The reverse direction, nf4r 1671, holds for all propositions. (Contributed by Jim Kingdon, 21-Jul-2018.) |
⊢ (DECID ∃𝑥𝜑 → (Ⅎ𝑥𝜑 ↔ (∀𝑥𝜑 ∨ ∀𝑥 ¬ 𝜑))) | ||
Theorem | nf4r 1671 | 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 1670. (Contributed by Jim Kingdon, 21-Jul-2018.) |
⊢ ((∀𝑥𝜑 ∨ ∀𝑥 ¬ 𝜑) → Ⅎ𝑥𝜑) | ||
Theorem | 19.36i 1672 | 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 1673 | Closed form of 19.36i 1672. 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 1674 | 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 1675* | Inference from Theorem 19.37 of [Margaris] p. 90. (Contributed by NM, 5-Aug-1993.) |
⊢ ∃𝑥(𝜑 → 𝜓) ⇒ ⊢ (𝜑 → ∃𝑥𝜓) | ||
Theorem | 19.38 1676 | Theorem 19.38 of [Margaris] p. 90. (Contributed by NM, 5-Aug-1993.) |
⊢ ((∃𝑥𝜑 → ∀𝑥𝜓) → ∀𝑥(𝜑 → 𝜓)) | ||
Theorem | 19.23t 1677 | Closed form of Theorem 19.23 of [Margaris] p. 90. (Contributed by NM, 7-Nov-2005.) (Proof shortened by Wolf Lammen, 2-Jan-2018.) |
⊢ (Ⅎ𝑥𝜓 → (∀𝑥(𝜑 → 𝜓) ↔ (∃𝑥𝜑 → 𝜓))) | ||
Theorem | 19.23 1678 | Theorem 19.23 of [Margaris] p. 90. (Contributed by NM, 5-Aug-1993.) (Revised by Mario Carneiro, 24-Sep-2016.) |
⊢ Ⅎ𝑥𝜓 ⇒ ⊢ (∀𝑥(𝜑 → 𝜓) ↔ (∃𝑥𝜑 → 𝜓)) | ||
Theorem | 19.32dc 1679 | Theorem 19.32 of [Margaris] p. 90, where 𝜑 is decidable. (Contributed by Jim Kingdon, 4-Jun-2018.) |
⊢ Ⅎ𝑥𝜑 ⇒ ⊢ (DECID 𝜑 → (∀𝑥(𝜑 ∨ 𝜓) ↔ (𝜑 ∨ ∀𝑥𝜓))) | ||
Theorem | 19.32r 1680 | One direction of Theorem 19.32 of [Margaris] p. 90. The converse holds if 𝜑 is decidable, as seen at 19.32dc 1679. (Contributed by Jim Kingdon, 28-Jul-2018.) |
⊢ Ⅎ𝑥𝜑 ⇒ ⊢ ((𝜑 ∨ ∀𝑥𝜓) → ∀𝑥(𝜑 ∨ 𝜓)) | ||
Theorem | 19.31r 1681 | One direction of Theorem 19.31 of [Margaris] p. 90. The converse holds in classical logic, but not intuitionistic logic. (Contributed by Jim Kingdon, 28-Jul-2018.) |
⊢ Ⅎ𝑥𝜓 ⇒ ⊢ ((∀𝑥𝜑 ∨ 𝜓) → ∀𝑥(𝜑 ∨ 𝜓)) | ||
Theorem | 19.44 1682 | Theorem 19.44 of [Margaris] p. 90. (Contributed by NM, 12-Mar-1993.) |
⊢ Ⅎ𝑥𝜓 ⇒ ⊢ (∃𝑥(𝜑 ∨ 𝜓) ↔ (∃𝑥𝜑 ∨ 𝜓)) | ||
Theorem | 19.45 1683 | Theorem 19.45 of [Margaris] p. 90. (Contributed by NM, 12-Mar-1993.) |
⊢ Ⅎ𝑥𝜑 ⇒ ⊢ (∃𝑥(𝜑 ∨ 𝜓) ↔ (𝜑 ∨ ∃𝑥𝜓)) | ||
Theorem | 19.34 1684 | Theorem 19.34 of [Margaris] p. 90. (Contributed by NM, 5-Aug-1993.) |
⊢ ((∀𝑥𝜑 ∨ ∃𝑥𝜓) → ∃𝑥(𝜑 ∨ 𝜓)) | ||
Theorem | 19.41h 1685 | Theorem 19.41 of [Margaris] p. 90. New proofs should use 19.41 1686 instead. (Contributed by NM, 5-Aug-1993.) (Proof shortened by Andrew Salmon, 25-May-2011.) (New usage is discouraged.) |
⊢ (𝜓 → ∀𝑥𝜓) ⇒ ⊢ (∃𝑥(𝜑 ∧ 𝜓) ↔ (∃𝑥𝜑 ∧ 𝜓)) | ||
Theorem | 19.41 1686 | Theorem 19.41 of [Margaris] p. 90. (Contributed by NM, 5-Aug-1993.) (Proof shortened by Andrew Salmon, 25-May-2011.) (Proof shortened by Wolf Lammen, 12-Jan-2018.) |
⊢ Ⅎ𝑥𝜓 ⇒ ⊢ (∃𝑥(𝜑 ∧ 𝜓) ↔ (∃𝑥𝜑 ∧ 𝜓)) | ||
Theorem | 19.42h 1687 | Theorem 19.42 of [Margaris] p. 90. New proofs should use 19.42 1688 instead. (Contributed by NM, 18-Aug-1993.) (New usage is discouraged.) |
⊢ (𝜑 → ∀𝑥𝜑) ⇒ ⊢ (∃𝑥(𝜑 ∧ 𝜓) ↔ (𝜑 ∧ ∃𝑥𝜓)) | ||
Theorem | 19.42 1688 | Theorem 19.42 of [Margaris] p. 90. (Contributed by NM, 18-Aug-1993.) |
⊢ Ⅎ𝑥𝜑 ⇒ ⊢ (∃𝑥(𝜑 ∧ 𝜓) ↔ (𝜑 ∧ ∃𝑥𝜓)) | ||
Theorem | excom13 1689 | Swap 1st and 3rd existential quantifiers. (Contributed by NM, 9-Mar-1995.) |
⊢ (∃𝑥∃𝑦∃𝑧𝜑 ↔ ∃𝑧∃𝑦∃𝑥𝜑) | ||
Theorem | exrot3 1690 | Rotate existential quantifiers. (Contributed by NM, 17-Mar-1995.) |
⊢ (∃𝑥∃𝑦∃𝑧𝜑 ↔ ∃𝑦∃𝑧∃𝑥𝜑) | ||
Theorem | exrot4 1691 | Rotate existential quantifiers twice. (Contributed by NM, 9-Mar-1995.) |
⊢ (∃𝑥∃𝑦∃𝑧∃𝑤𝜑 ↔ ∃𝑧∃𝑤∃𝑥∃𝑦𝜑) | ||
Theorem | nexr 1692 | Inference from 19.8a 1590. (Contributed by Jeff Hankins, 26-Jul-2009.) |
⊢ ¬ ∃𝑥𝜑 ⇒ ⊢ ¬ 𝜑 | ||
Theorem | exan 1693 | Place a conjunct in the scope of an existential quantifier. (Contributed by NM, 18-Aug-1993.) (Proof shortened by Andrew Salmon, 25-May-2011.) |
⊢ (∃𝑥𝜑 ∧ 𝜓) ⇒ ⊢ ∃𝑥(𝜑 ∧ 𝜓) | ||
Theorem | hbexd 1694 | Deduction form of bound-variable hypothesis builder hbex 1636. (Contributed by NM, 2-Jan-2002.) |
⊢ (𝜑 → ∀𝑦𝜑) & ⊢ (𝜑 → (𝜓 → ∀𝑥𝜓)) ⇒ ⊢ (𝜑 → (∃𝑦𝜓 → ∀𝑥∃𝑦𝜓)) | ||
Theorem | eeor 1695 | Rearrange existential quantifiers. (Contributed by NM, 8-Aug-1994.) |
⊢ Ⅎ𝑦𝜑 & ⊢ Ⅎ𝑥𝜓 ⇒ ⊢ (∃𝑥∃𝑦(𝜑 ∨ 𝜓) ↔ (∃𝑥𝜑 ∨ ∃𝑦𝜓)) | ||
Theorem | a9e 1696 | At least one individual exists. This is not a theorem of free logic, which is sound in empty domains. For such a logic, we would add this theorem as an axiom of set theory (Axiom 0 of [Kunen] p. 10). In the system consisting of ax-5 1447 through ax-14 2151 and ax-17 1526, all axioms other than ax-9 1531 are believed to be theorems of free logic, although the system without ax-9 1531 is probably not complete in free logic. (Contributed by NM, 5-Aug-1993.) (Revised by NM, 3-Feb-2015.) |
⊢ ∃𝑥 𝑥 = 𝑦 | ||
Theorem | a9ev 1697* | At least one individual exists. Weaker version of a9e 1696. (Contributed by NM, 3-Aug-2017.) |
⊢ ∃𝑥 𝑥 = 𝑦 | ||
Theorem | ax9o 1698 | An implication related to substitution. (Contributed by NM, 5-Aug-1993.) (Revised by NM, 3-Feb-2015.) |
⊢ (∀𝑥(𝑥 = 𝑦 → ∀𝑥𝜑) → 𝜑) | ||
Theorem | spimfv 1699* | Specialization, using implicit substitution. Version of spim 1738 with a disjoint variable condition. See spimv 1811 for another variant. (Contributed by NM, 10-Jan-1993.) (Revised by BJ, 31-May-2019.) |
⊢ Ⅎ𝑥𝜓 & ⊢ (𝑥 = 𝑦 → (𝜑 → 𝜓)) ⇒ ⊢ (∀𝑥𝜑 → 𝜓) | ||
Theorem | chvarfv 1700* | Implicit substitution of 𝑦 for 𝑥 into a theorem. Version of chvar 1757 with a disjoint variable condition. (Contributed by Raph Levien, 9-Jul-2003.) (Revised by BJ, 31-May-2019.) |
⊢ Ⅎ𝑥𝜓 & ⊢ (𝑥 = 𝑦 → (𝜑 ↔ 𝜓)) & ⊢ 𝜑 ⇒ ⊢ 𝜓 |
< Previous Next > |
Copyright terms: Public domain | < Previous Next > |