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	exancom 1601	Commutation of conjunction inside an existential quantifier. (Contributed by NM, 18-Aug-1993.)
⊢ (∃𝑥(𝜑 ∧ 𝜓) ↔ ∃𝑥(𝜓 ∧ 𝜑))
Theorem	alrimdd 1602	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 1603	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 1604	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 1605	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 1606	Deduction for generalization rule for negated wff. (Contributed by NM, 2-Jan-2002.)
⊢ (𝜑 → ∀𝑥𝜑)    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → ¬ 𝜓)    ⇒   ⊢ (𝜑 → ¬ ∃𝑥𝜓)
Theorem	exbidh 1607	Formula-building rule for existential quantifier (deduction form). (Contributed by NM, 5-Aug-1993.)
⊢ (𝜑 → ∀𝑥𝜑)    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → (𝜓 ↔ 𝜒))    ⇒   ⊢ (𝜑 → (∃𝑥𝜓 ↔ ∃𝑥𝜒))
Theorem	albid 1608	Formula-building rule for universal quantifier (deduction form). (Contributed by Mario Carneiro, 24-Sep-2016.)
⊢ Ⅎ𝑥𝜑    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → (𝜓 ↔ 𝜒))    ⇒   ⊢ (𝜑 → (∀𝑥𝜓 ↔ ∀𝑥𝜒))
Theorem	exbid 1609	Formula-building rule for existential quantifier (deduction form). (Contributed by Mario Carneiro, 24-Sep-2016.)
⊢ Ⅎ𝑥𝜑    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → (𝜓 ↔ 𝜒))    ⇒   ⊢ (𝜑 → (∃𝑥𝜓 ↔ ∃𝑥𝜒))
Theorem	exsimpl 1610	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 1611	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 1612	Theorem 19.6 of [Margaris] p. 89, given a decidability condition. The forward direction holds for all propositions, as seen at alexim 1638. (Contributed by Jim Kingdon, 2-Jun-2018.)
⊢ (∀𝑥DECID 𝜑 → (∀𝑥𝜑 ↔ ¬ ∃𝑥 ¬ 𝜑))
Theorem	19.29 1613	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 1614	Variation of Theorem 19.29 of [Margaris] p. 90. (Contributed by NM, 18-Aug-1993.)
⊢ ((∃𝑥𝜑 ∧ ∀𝑥𝜓) → ∃𝑥(𝜑 ∧ 𝜓))
Theorem	19.29r2 1615	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 1616	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 1617	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 1618	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 1619	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 1620	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 1621	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 1622	The antecedent provides a condition implying the converse of 19.33 1477. Compare Theorem 19.33 of [Margaris] p. 90. This variation of 19.33bdc 1623 is intuitionistically valid without a decidability condition. (Contributed by Mario Carneiro, 2-Feb-2015.)
⊢ ((¬ ∃𝑥𝜑 ∨ ¬ ∃𝑥𝜓) → (∀𝑥(𝜑 ∨ 𝜓) ↔ (∀𝑥𝜑 ∨ ∀𝑥𝜓)))
Theorem	19.33bdc 1623	Converse of 19.33 1477 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 1622 (Contributed by Jim Kingdon, 23-Apr-2018.)
⊢ (DECID ∃𝑥𝜑 → (¬ (∃𝑥𝜑 ∧ ∃𝑥𝜓) → (∀𝑥(𝜑 ∨ 𝜓) ↔ (∀𝑥𝜑 ∨ ∀𝑥𝜓))))
Theorem	19.40 1624	Theorem 19.40 of [Margaris] p. 90. (Contributed by NM, 5-Aug-1993.)
⊢ (∃𝑥(𝜑 ∧ 𝜓) → (∃𝑥𝜑 ∧ ∃𝑥𝜓))
Theorem	19.40-2 1625	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 1626	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 1627	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 1628	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 1629	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 1630	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 1631	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 1632	Theorem 19.24 of [Margaris] p. 90, with an additional hypothesis. The hypothesis is the converse of 19.35-1 1617, 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 1633	Theorem 19.39 of [Margaris] p. 90, with an additional hypothesis. The hypothesis is the converse of 19.35-1 1617, 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 1634	A closed version of one direction of 19.9 1637. (Contributed by NM, 5-Aug-1993.)
⊢ (∀𝑥(𝜑 → ∀𝑥𝜑) → (∃𝑥𝜑 → 𝜑))
Theorem	19.9t 1635	A closed version of 19.9 1637. (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 1636	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 1637	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 1638	One direction of theorem 19.6 of [Margaris] p. 89. The converse holds given a decidability condition, as seen at alexdc 1612. (Contributed by Jim Kingdon, 2-Jul-2018.)
⊢ (∀𝑥𝜑 → ¬ ∃𝑥 ¬ 𝜑)
Theorem	exnalim 1639	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 1640	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 1641	A relationship between two quantifiers and negation. (Contributed by Jim Kingdon, 27-Aug-2018.)
⊢ (∀𝑥∃𝑦 ¬ 𝜑 → ¬ ∃𝑥∀𝑦𝜑)
Theorem	nnal 1642	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 1643	If 𝑥 is not free in 𝜑, it is not free in ¬ 𝜑. This theorem doesn't use ax6b 1644 compared to hbnt 1646. (Contributed by GD, 27-Jan-2018.)
⊢ (𝜑 → ∀𝑥𝜑)    ⇒   ⊢ (¬ 𝜑 → ∀𝑥 ¬ 𝜑)
Theorem	ax6b 1644	Quantified Negation. Axiom C5-2 of [Monk2] p. 113. (Contributed by GD, 27-Jan-2018.)
⊢ (¬ ∀𝑥𝜑 → ∀𝑥 ¬ ∀𝑥𝜑)
Theorem	hbn1 1645	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 1646	Closed theorem version of bound-variable hypothesis builder hbn 1647. (Contributed by NM, 5-Aug-1993.) (Revised by NM, 2-Feb-2015.)
⊢ (∀𝑥(𝜑 → ∀𝑥𝜑) → (¬ 𝜑 → ∀𝑥 ¬ 𝜑))
Theorem	hbn 1647	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 1648	Deduction form of bound-variable hypothesis builder hbn 1647. (Contributed by NM, 3-Jan-2002.)
⊢ (𝜑 → ∀𝑥𝜑)    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → (𝜓 → ∀𝑥𝜓))    ⇒   ⊢ (𝜑 → (¬ 𝜓 → ∀𝑥 ¬ 𝜓))
Theorem	nfnt 1649	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 1650	Deduction associated with nfnt 1649. (Contributed by Mario Carneiro, 24-Sep-2016.)
⊢ (𝜑 → Ⅎ𝑥𝜓)    ⇒   ⊢ (𝜑 → Ⅎ𝑥 ¬ 𝜓)
Theorem	nfn 1651	Inference associated with nfnt 1649. (Contributed by Mario Carneiro, 11-Aug-2016.)
⊢ Ⅎ𝑥𝜑    ⇒   ⊢ Ⅎ𝑥 ¬ 𝜑
Theorem	nfdc 1652	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 1653	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 1654	A deduction version of one direction of 19.9 1637. (Contributed by NM, 5-Aug-1993.) (Revised by Mario Carneiro, 24-Sep-2016.)
⊢ (𝜓 → Ⅎ𝑥𝜑)    ⇒   ⊢ (𝜓 → (∃𝑥𝜑 → 𝜑))
Theorem	19.9hd 1655	A deduction version of one direction of 19.9 1637. This is an older variation of this theorem; new proofs should use 19.9d 1654. (Contributed by NM, 5-Aug-1993.) (New usage is discouraged.)
⊢ (𝜓 → ∀𝑥𝜓)    &   ⊢ (𝜓 → (𝜑 → ∀𝑥𝜑))    ⇒   ⊢ (𝜓 → (∃𝑥𝜑 → 𝜑))
Theorem	excomim 1656	One direction of Theorem 19.11 of [Margaris] p. 89. (Contributed by NM, 5-Aug-1993.)
⊢ (∃𝑥∃𝑦𝜑 → ∃𝑦∃𝑥𝜑)
Theorem	excom 1657	Theorem 19.11 of [Margaris] p. 89. (Contributed by NM, 5-Aug-1993.)
⊢ (∃𝑥∃𝑦𝜑 ↔ ∃𝑦∃𝑥𝜑)
Theorem	19.12 1658	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 1659	Theorem 19.19 of [Margaris] p. 90. (Contributed by NM, 12-Mar-1993.)
⊢ Ⅎ𝑥𝜑    ⇒   ⊢ (∀𝑥(𝜑 ↔ 𝜓) → (𝜑 ↔ ∃𝑥𝜓))
Theorem	19.21-2 1660	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 1661	An alternate definition of df-nf 1454, which does not involve nested quantifiers on the same variable. (Contributed by Mario Carneiro, 24-Sep-2016.)
⊢ (Ⅎ𝑥𝜑 ↔ (∃𝑥𝜑 → ∀𝑥𝜑))
Theorem	nf3 1662	An alternate definition of df-nf 1454. (Contributed by Mario Carneiro, 24-Sep-2016.)
⊢ (Ⅎ𝑥𝜑 ↔ ∀𝑥(∃𝑥𝜑 → 𝜑))
Theorem	nf4dc 1663	Variable 𝑥 is effectively not free in 𝜑 iff 𝜑 is always true or always false, given a decidability condition. The reverse direction, nf4r 1664, holds for all propositions. (Contributed by Jim Kingdon, 21-Jul-2018.)
⊢ (DECID ∃𝑥𝜑 → (Ⅎ𝑥𝜑 ↔ (∀𝑥𝜑 ∨ ∀𝑥 ¬ 𝜑)))
Theorem	nf4r 1664	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 1663. (Contributed by Jim Kingdon, 21-Jul-2018.)
⊢ ((∀𝑥𝜑 ∨ ∀𝑥 ¬ 𝜑) → Ⅎ𝑥𝜑)
Theorem	19.36i 1665	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 1666	Closed form of 19.36i 1665. 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 1667	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 1668*	Inference from Theorem 19.37 of [Margaris] p. 90. (Contributed by NM, 5-Aug-1993.)
⊢ ∃𝑥(𝜑 → 𝜓)    ⇒   ⊢ (𝜑 → ∃𝑥𝜓)
Theorem	19.38 1669	Theorem 19.38 of [Margaris] p. 90. (Contributed by NM, 5-Aug-1993.)
⊢ ((∃𝑥𝜑 → ∀𝑥𝜓) → ∀𝑥(𝜑 → 𝜓))
Theorem	19.23t 1670	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 1671	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 1672	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 1673	One direction of Theorem 19.32 of [Margaris] p. 90. The converse holds if 𝜑 is decidable, as seen at 19.32dc 1672. (Contributed by Jim Kingdon, 28-Jul-2018.)
⊢ Ⅎ𝑥𝜑    ⇒   ⊢ ((𝜑 ∨ ∀𝑥𝜓) → ∀𝑥(𝜑 ∨ 𝜓))
Theorem	19.31r 1674	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 1675	Theorem 19.44 of [Margaris] p. 90. (Contributed by NM, 12-Mar-1993.)
⊢ Ⅎ𝑥𝜓    ⇒   ⊢ (∃𝑥(𝜑 ∨ 𝜓) ↔ (∃𝑥𝜑 ∨ 𝜓))
Theorem	19.45 1676	Theorem 19.45 of [Margaris] p. 90. (Contributed by NM, 12-Mar-1993.)
⊢ Ⅎ𝑥𝜑    ⇒   ⊢ (∃𝑥(𝜑 ∨ 𝜓) ↔ (𝜑 ∨ ∃𝑥𝜓))
Theorem	19.34 1677	Theorem 19.34 of [Margaris] p. 90. (Contributed by NM, 5-Aug-1993.)
⊢ ((∀𝑥𝜑 ∨ ∃𝑥𝜓) → ∃𝑥(𝜑 ∨ 𝜓))
Theorem	19.41h 1678	Theorem 19.41 of [Margaris] p. 90. New proofs should use 19.41 1679 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 1679	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 1680	Theorem 19.42 of [Margaris] p. 90. New proofs should use 19.42 1681 instead. (Contributed by NM, 18-Aug-1993.) (New usage is discouraged.)
⊢ (𝜑 → ∀𝑥𝜑)    ⇒   ⊢ (∃𝑥(𝜑 ∧ 𝜓) ↔ (𝜑 ∧ ∃𝑥𝜓))
Theorem	19.42 1681	Theorem 19.42 of [Margaris] p. 90. (Contributed by NM, 18-Aug-1993.)
⊢ Ⅎ𝑥𝜑    ⇒   ⊢ (∃𝑥(𝜑 ∧ 𝜓) ↔ (𝜑 ∧ ∃𝑥𝜓))
Theorem	excom13 1682	Swap 1st and 3rd existential quantifiers. (Contributed by NM, 9-Mar-1995.)
⊢ (∃𝑥∃𝑦∃𝑧𝜑 ↔ ∃𝑧∃𝑦∃𝑥𝜑)
Theorem	exrot3 1683	Rotate existential quantifiers. (Contributed by NM, 17-Mar-1995.)
⊢ (∃𝑥∃𝑦∃𝑧𝜑 ↔ ∃𝑦∃𝑧∃𝑥𝜑)
Theorem	exrot4 1684	Rotate existential quantifiers twice. (Contributed by NM, 9-Mar-1995.)
⊢ (∃𝑥∃𝑦∃𝑧∃𝑤𝜑 ↔ ∃𝑧∃𝑤∃𝑥∃𝑦𝜑)
Theorem	nexr 1685	Inference from 19.8a 1583. (Contributed by Jeff Hankins, 26-Jul-2009.)
⊢ ¬ ∃𝑥𝜑    ⇒   ⊢ ¬ 𝜑
Theorem	exan 1686	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 1687	Deduction form of bound-variable hypothesis builder hbex 1629. (Contributed by NM, 2-Jan-2002.)
⊢ (𝜑 → ∀𝑦𝜑)    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → (𝜓 → ∀𝑥𝜓))    ⇒   ⊢ (𝜑 → (∃𝑦𝜓 → ∀𝑥∃𝑦𝜓))
Theorem	eeor 1688	Rearrange existential quantifiers. (Contributed by NM, 8-Aug-1994.)
⊢ Ⅎ𝑦𝜑    &   ⊢ Ⅎ𝑥𝜓    ⇒   ⊢ (∃𝑥∃𝑦(𝜑 ∨ 𝜓) ↔ (∃𝑥𝜑 ∨ ∃𝑦𝜓))
1.3.8  Equality theorems without distinct variables
Theorem	a9e 1689	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 1440 through ax-14 2144 and ax-17 1519, all axioms other than ax-9 1524 are believed to be theorems of free logic, although the system without ax-9 1524 is probably not complete in free logic. (Contributed by NM, 5-Aug-1993.) (Revised by NM, 3-Feb-2015.)
⊢ ∃𝑥 𝑥 = 𝑦
Theorem	a9ev 1690*	At least one individual exists. Weaker version of a9e 1689. (Contributed by NM, 3-Aug-2017.)
⊢ ∃𝑥 𝑥 = 𝑦
Theorem	ax9o 1691	An implication related to substitution. (Contributed by NM, 5-Aug-1993.) (Revised by NM, 3-Feb-2015.)
⊢ (∀𝑥(𝑥 = 𝑦 → ∀𝑥𝜑) → 𝜑)
Theorem	spimfv 1692*	Specialization, using implicit substitution. Version of spim 1731 with a disjoint variable condition. See spimv 1804 for another variant. (Contributed by NM, 10-Jan-1993.) (Revised by BJ, 31-May-2019.)
⊢ Ⅎ𝑥𝜓    &   ⊢ (𝑥 = 𝑦 → (𝜑 → 𝜓))    ⇒   ⊢ (∀𝑥𝜑 → 𝜓)
Theorem	chvarfv 1693*	Implicit substitution of 𝑦 for 𝑥 into a theorem. Version of chvar 1750 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
Theorem	equid 1694	Identity law for equality (reflexivity). Lemma 6 of [Tarski] p. 68. This is often an axiom of equality in textbook systems, but we don't need it as an axiom since it can be proved from our other axioms. This proof is similar to Tarski's and makes use of a dummy variable 𝑦. It also works in intuitionistic logic, unlike some other possible ways of proving this theorem. (Contributed by NM, 1-Apr-2005.)
⊢ 𝑥 = 𝑥
Theorem	nfequid 1695	Bound-variable hypothesis builder for 𝑥 = 𝑥. This theorem tells us that any variable, including 𝑥, is effectively not free in 𝑥 = 𝑥, even though 𝑥 is technically free according to the traditional definition of free variable. (Contributed by NM, 13-Jan-2011.) (Revised by NM, 21-Aug-2017.)
⊢ Ⅎ𝑦 𝑥 = 𝑥
Theorem	stdpc6 1696	One of the two equality axioms of standard predicate calculus, called reflexivity of equality. (The other one is stdpc7 1763.) Axiom 6 of [Mendelson] p. 95. Mendelson doesn't say why he prepended the redundant quantifier, but it was probably to be compatible with free logic (which is valid in the empty domain). (Contributed by NM, 16-Feb-2005.)
⊢ ∀𝑥 𝑥 = 𝑥
Theorem	equcomi 1697	Commutative law for equality. Lemma 7 of [Tarski] p. 69. (Contributed by NM, 5-Aug-1993.)
⊢ (𝑥 = 𝑦 → 𝑦 = 𝑥)
Theorem	ax6evr 1698*	A commuted form of a9ev 1690. The naming reflects how axioms were numbered in the Metamath Proof Explorer as of 2020 (a numbering which we eventually plan to adopt here too, but until this happens everywhere only some theorems will have it). (Contributed by BJ, 7-Dec-2020.)
⊢ ∃𝑥 𝑦 = 𝑥
Theorem	equcom 1699	Commutative law for equality. (Contributed by NM, 20-Aug-1993.)
⊢ (𝑥 = 𝑦 ↔ 𝑦 = 𝑥)
Theorem	equcomd 1700	Deduction form of equcom 1699, symmetry of equality. For the versions for classes, see eqcom 2172 and eqcomd 2176. (Contributed by BJ, 6-Oct-2019.)
⊢ (𝜑 → 𝑥 = 𝑦)    ⇒   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝑦 = 𝑥)