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	hbbid 1601	Deduction form of bound-variable hypothesis builder hbbi 1574. (Contributed by NM, 1-Jan-2002.)
⊢ (𝜑 → ∀𝑥𝜑)    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → (𝜓 → ∀𝑥𝜓))    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → (𝜒 → ∀𝑥𝜒))    ⇒   ⊢ (𝜑 → ((𝜓 ↔ 𝜒) → ∀𝑥(𝜓 ↔ 𝜒)))
Theorem	nfal 1602	If 𝑥 is not free in 𝜑, it is not free in ∀𝑦𝜑. (Contributed by Mario Carneiro, 11-Aug-2016.) Remove dependency on ax-4 1536. (Revised by GG, 25-Aug-2024.)
⊢ Ⅎ𝑥𝜑    ⇒   ⊢ Ⅎ𝑥∀𝑦𝜑
Theorem	nfnf 1603	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 1604	Closed form of nfal 1602. (Contributed by Jim Kingdon, 11-May-2018.)
⊢ (∀𝑦Ⅎ𝑥𝜑 → Ⅎ𝑥∀𝑦𝜑)
Theorem	nfa2 1605	Lemma 24 of [Monk2] p. 114. (Contributed by Mario Carneiro, 24-Sep-2016.)
⊢ Ⅎ𝑥∀𝑦∀𝑥𝜑
Theorem	nfia1 1606	Lemma 23 of [Monk2] p. 114. (Contributed by Mario Carneiro, 24-Sep-2016.)
⊢ Ⅎ𝑥(∀𝑥𝜑 → ∀𝑥𝜓)
Theorem	19.21ht 1607	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 1608	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 1609	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 1610	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 1728. 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 1611	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 1612	Rearrange universal quantifiers. (Contributed by NM, 12-Aug-1993.)
⊢ (𝜑 → ∀𝑦𝜑)    &   ⊢ (𝜓 → ∀𝑥𝜓)    ⇒   ⊢ (∀𝑥∀𝑦(𝜑 ∧ 𝜓) ↔ (∀𝑥𝜑 ∧ ∀𝑦𝜓))
Theorem	aaan 1613	Rearrange universal quantifiers. (Contributed by NM, 12-Aug-1993.)
⊢ Ⅎ𝑦𝜑    &   ⊢ Ⅎ𝑥𝜓    ⇒   ⊢ (∀𝑥∀𝑦(𝜑 ∧ 𝜓) ↔ (∀𝑥𝜑 ∧ ∀𝑦𝜓))
Theorem	nfbid 1614	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 1615	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 1616	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 1617	If a wff is true, it is true for at least one instance. Deduction form of 19.8a 1616. (Contributed by DAW, 13-Feb-2017.)
⊢ (𝜑 → 𝜓)    ⇒   ⊢ (𝜑 → ∃𝑥𝜓)
Theorem	19.23bi 1618	Inference from Theorem 19.23 of [Margaris] p. 90. (Contributed by NM, 5-Aug-1993.)
⊢ (∃𝑥𝜑 → 𝜓)    ⇒   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝜓)
Theorem	exlimih 1619	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 1620	Inference from Theorem 19.23 of [Margaris] p. 90. (Contributed by Mario Carneiro, 24-Sep-2016.)
⊢ Ⅎ𝑥𝜓    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝜓)    ⇒   ⊢ (∃𝑥𝜑 → 𝜓)
Theorem	exlimd2 1621	Deduction from Theorem 19.23 of [Margaris] p. 90. Similar to exlimdh 1622 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 1622	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 1623	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 1624*	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 1624 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 1625	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 1626	Inference adding existential quantifier to antecedent and consequent. (Contributed by NM, 5-Aug-1993.)
⊢ (𝜑 → 𝜓)    ⇒   ⊢ (∃𝑥𝜑 → ∃𝑥𝜓)
Theorem	2eximi 1627	Inference adding 2 existential quantifiers to antecedent and consequent. (Contributed by NM, 3-Feb-2005.)
⊢ (𝜑 → 𝜓)    ⇒   ⊢ (∃𝑥∃𝑦𝜑 → ∃𝑥∃𝑦𝜓)
Theorem	eximii 1628	Inference associated with eximi 1626. (Contributed by BJ, 3-Feb-2018.)
⊢ ∃𝑥𝜑    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝜓)    ⇒   ⊢ ∃𝑥𝜓
Theorem	alinexa 1629	A transformation of quantifiers and logical connectives. (Contributed by NM, 19-Aug-1993.)
⊢ (∀𝑥(𝜑 → ¬ 𝜓) ↔ ¬ ∃𝑥(𝜑 ∧ 𝜓))
Theorem	exbi 1630	Theorem 19.18 of [Margaris] p. 90. (Contributed by NM, 5-Aug-1993.)
⊢ (∀𝑥(𝜑 ↔ 𝜓) → (∃𝑥𝜑 ↔ ∃𝑥𝜓))
Theorem	exbii 1631	Inference adding existential quantifier to both sides of an equivalence. (Contributed by NM, 24-May-1994.)
⊢ (𝜑 ↔ 𝜓)    ⇒   ⊢ (∃𝑥𝜑 ↔ ∃𝑥𝜓)
Theorem	2exbii 1632	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 1633	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 1634	Commutation of conjunction inside an existential quantifier. (Contributed by NM, 18-Aug-1993.)
⊢ (∃𝑥(𝜑 ∧ 𝜓) ↔ ∃𝑥(𝜓 ∧ 𝜑))
Theorem	alrimdd 1635	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 1636	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 1637	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 1638	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 1639	Deduction for generalization rule for negated wff. (Contributed by NM, 2-Jan-2002.)
⊢ (𝜑 → ∀𝑥𝜑)    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → ¬ 𝜓)    ⇒   ⊢ (𝜑 → ¬ ∃𝑥𝜓)
Theorem	exbidh 1640	Formula-building rule for existential quantifier (deduction form). (Contributed by NM, 5-Aug-1993.)
⊢ (𝜑 → ∀𝑥𝜑)    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → (𝜓 ↔ 𝜒))    ⇒   ⊢ (𝜑 → (∃𝑥𝜓 ↔ ∃𝑥𝜒))
Theorem	albid 1641	Formula-building rule for universal quantifier (deduction form). (Contributed by Mario Carneiro, 24-Sep-2016.)
⊢ Ⅎ𝑥𝜑    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → (𝜓 ↔ 𝜒))    ⇒   ⊢ (𝜑 → (∀𝑥𝜓 ↔ ∀𝑥𝜒))
Theorem	exbid 1642	Formula-building rule for existential quantifier (deduction form). (Contributed by Mario Carneiro, 24-Sep-2016.)
⊢ Ⅎ𝑥𝜑    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → (𝜓 ↔ 𝜒))    ⇒   ⊢ (𝜑 → (∃𝑥𝜓 ↔ ∃𝑥𝜒))
Theorem	exsimpl 1643	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 1644	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 1645	Theorem 19.6 of [Margaris] p. 89, given a decidability condition. The forward direction holds for all propositions, as seen at alexim 1671. (Contributed by Jim Kingdon, 2-Jun-2018.)
⊢ (∀𝑥DECID 𝜑 → (∀𝑥𝜑 ↔ ¬ ∃𝑥 ¬ 𝜑))
Theorem	19.29 1646	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 1647	Variation of Theorem 19.29 of [Margaris] p. 90. (Contributed by NM, 18-Aug-1993.)
⊢ ((∃𝑥𝜑 ∧ ∀𝑥𝜓) → ∃𝑥(𝜑 ∧ 𝜓))
Theorem	19.29r2 1648	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 1649	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 1650	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 1651	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 1652	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 1653	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 1654	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 1655	The antecedent provides a condition implying the converse of 19.33 1510. Compare Theorem 19.33 of [Margaris] p. 90. This variation of 19.33bdc 1656 is intuitionistically valid without a decidability condition. (Contributed by Mario Carneiro, 2-Feb-2015.)
⊢ ((¬ ∃𝑥𝜑 ∨ ¬ ∃𝑥𝜓) → (∀𝑥(𝜑 ∨ 𝜓) ↔ (∀𝑥𝜑 ∨ ∀𝑥𝜓)))
Theorem	19.33bdc 1656	Converse of 19.33 1510 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 1655 (Contributed by Jim Kingdon, 23-Apr-2018.)
⊢ (DECID ∃𝑥𝜑 → (¬ (∃𝑥𝜑 ∧ ∃𝑥𝜓) → (∀𝑥(𝜑 ∨ 𝜓) ↔ (∀𝑥𝜑 ∨ ∀𝑥𝜓))))
Theorem	19.40 1657	Theorem 19.40 of [Margaris] p. 90. (Contributed by NM, 5-Aug-1993.)
⊢ (∃𝑥(𝜑 ∧ 𝜓) → (∃𝑥𝜑 ∧ ∃𝑥𝜓))
Theorem	19.40-2 1658	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 1659	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 1660	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 1661	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 1662	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 1663	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 1664	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 1665	Theorem 19.24 of [Margaris] p. 90, with an additional hypothesis. The hypothesis is the converse of 19.35-1 1650, 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 1666	Theorem 19.39 of [Margaris] p. 90, with an additional hypothesis. The hypothesis is the converse of 19.35-1 1650, 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 1667	A closed version of one direction of 19.9 1670. (Contributed by NM, 5-Aug-1993.)
⊢ (∀𝑥(𝜑 → ∀𝑥𝜑) → (∃𝑥𝜑 → 𝜑))
Theorem	19.9t 1668	A closed version of 19.9 1670. (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 1669	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 1670	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 1671	One direction of theorem 19.6 of [Margaris] p. 89. The converse holds given a decidability condition, as seen at alexdc 1645. (Contributed by Jim Kingdon, 2-Jul-2018.)
⊢ (∀𝑥𝜑 → ¬ ∃𝑥 ¬ 𝜑)
Theorem	exnalim 1672	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 1673	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 1674	A relationship between two quantifiers and negation. (Contributed by Jim Kingdon, 27-Aug-2018.)
⊢ (∀𝑥∃𝑦 ¬ 𝜑 → ¬ ∃𝑥∀𝑦𝜑)
Theorem	nnal 1675	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 1676	If 𝑥 is not free in 𝜑, it is not free in ¬ 𝜑. This theorem doesn't use ax6b 1677 compared to hbnt 1679. (Contributed by GD, 27-Jan-2018.)
⊢ (𝜑 → ∀𝑥𝜑)    ⇒   ⊢ (¬ 𝜑 → ∀𝑥 ¬ 𝜑)
Theorem	ax6b 1677	Quantified Negation. Axiom C5-2 of [Monk2] p. 113. (Contributed by GD, 27-Jan-2018.)
⊢ (¬ ∀𝑥𝜑 → ∀𝑥 ¬ ∀𝑥𝜑)
Theorem	hbn1 1678	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 1679	Closed theorem version of bound-variable hypothesis builder hbn 1680. (Contributed by NM, 5-Aug-1993.) (Revised by NM, 2-Feb-2015.)
⊢ (∀𝑥(𝜑 → ∀𝑥𝜑) → (¬ 𝜑 → ∀𝑥 ¬ 𝜑))
Theorem	hbn 1680	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 1681	Deduction form of bound-variable hypothesis builder hbn 1680. (Contributed by NM, 3-Jan-2002.)
⊢ (𝜑 → ∀𝑥𝜑)    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → (𝜓 → ∀𝑥𝜓))    ⇒   ⊢ (𝜑 → (¬ 𝜓 → ∀𝑥 ¬ 𝜓))
Theorem	nfnt 1682	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 1683	Deduction associated with nfnt 1682. (Contributed by Mario Carneiro, 24-Sep-2016.)
⊢ (𝜑 → Ⅎ𝑥𝜓)    ⇒   ⊢ (𝜑 → Ⅎ𝑥 ¬ 𝜓)
Theorem	nfn 1684	Inference associated with nfnt 1682. (Contributed by Mario Carneiro, 11-Aug-2016.)
⊢ Ⅎ𝑥𝜑    ⇒   ⊢ Ⅎ𝑥 ¬ 𝜑
Theorem	nfdc 1685	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 1686	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 1687	A deduction version of one direction of 19.9 1670. (Contributed by NM, 5-Aug-1993.) (Revised by Mario Carneiro, 24-Sep-2016.)
⊢ (𝜓 → Ⅎ𝑥𝜑)    ⇒   ⊢ (𝜓 → (∃𝑥𝜑 → 𝜑))
Theorem	19.9hd 1688	A deduction version of one direction of 19.9 1670. This is an older variation of this theorem; new proofs should use 19.9d 1687. (Contributed by NM, 5-Aug-1993.) (New usage is discouraged.)
⊢ (𝜓 → ∀𝑥𝜓)    &   ⊢ (𝜓 → (𝜑 → ∀𝑥𝜑))    ⇒   ⊢ (𝜓 → (∃𝑥𝜑 → 𝜑))
Theorem	excomim 1689	One direction of Theorem 19.11 of [Margaris] p. 89. (Contributed by NM, 5-Aug-1993.)
⊢ (∃𝑥∃𝑦𝜑 → ∃𝑦∃𝑥𝜑)
Theorem	excom 1690	Theorem 19.11 of [Margaris] p. 89. (Contributed by NM, 5-Aug-1993.)
⊢ (∃𝑥∃𝑦𝜑 ↔ ∃𝑦∃𝑥𝜑)
Theorem	19.12 1691	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 1692	Theorem 19.19 of [Margaris] p. 90. (Contributed by NM, 12-Mar-1993.)
⊢ Ⅎ𝑥𝜑    ⇒   ⊢ (∀𝑥(𝜑 ↔ 𝜓) → (𝜑 ↔ ∃𝑥𝜓))
Theorem	19.21-2 1693	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 1694	An alternate definition of df-nf 1487, which does not involve nested quantifiers on the same variable. (Contributed by Mario Carneiro, 24-Sep-2016.)
⊢ (Ⅎ𝑥𝜑 ↔ (∃𝑥𝜑 → ∀𝑥𝜑))
Theorem	nf3 1695	An alternate definition of df-nf 1487. (Contributed by Mario Carneiro, 24-Sep-2016.)
⊢ (Ⅎ𝑥𝜑 ↔ ∀𝑥(∃𝑥𝜑 → 𝜑))
Theorem	nf4dc 1696	Variable 𝑥 is effectively not free in 𝜑 iff 𝜑 is always true or always false, given a decidability condition. The reverse direction, nf4r 1697, holds for all propositions. (Contributed by Jim Kingdon, 21-Jul-2018.)
⊢ (DECID ∃𝑥𝜑 → (Ⅎ𝑥𝜑 ↔ (∀𝑥𝜑 ∨ ∀𝑥 ¬ 𝜑)))
Theorem	nf4r 1697	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 1696. (Contributed by Jim Kingdon, 21-Jul-2018.)
⊢ ((∀𝑥𝜑 ∨ ∀𝑥 ¬ 𝜑) → Ⅎ𝑥𝜑)
Theorem	19.36i 1698	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 1699	Closed form of 19.36i 1698. 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 1700	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))