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	19.3h 1601	A wff may be quantified with a variable not free in it. Theorem 19.3 of [Margaris] p. 89. (Contributed by NM, 5-Aug-1993.) (Revised by NM, 21-May-2007.)
⊢ (𝜑 → ∀𝑥𝜑)    ⇒   ⊢ (∀𝑥𝜑 ↔ 𝜑)
Theorem	19.3 1602	A wff may be quantified with a variable not free in it. Theorem 19.3 of [Margaris] p. 89. (Contributed by NM, 5-Aug-1993.) (Revised by Mario Carneiro, 24-Sep-2016.)
⊢ Ⅎ𝑥𝜑    ⇒   ⊢ (∀𝑥𝜑 ↔ 𝜑)
Theorem	19.16 1603	Theorem 19.16 of [Margaris] p. 90. (Contributed by NM, 12-Mar-1993.)
⊢ Ⅎ𝑥𝜑    ⇒   ⊢ (∀𝑥(𝜑 ↔ 𝜓) → (𝜑 ↔ ∀𝑥𝜓))
Theorem	19.17 1604	Theorem 19.17 of [Margaris] p. 90. (Contributed by NM, 12-Mar-1993.)
⊢ Ⅎ𝑥𝜓    ⇒   ⊢ (∀𝑥(𝜑 ↔ 𝜓) → (∀𝑥𝜑 ↔ 𝜓))
Theorem	19.21h 1605	Theorem 19.21 of [Margaris] p. 90. The hypothesis can be thought of as "𝑥 is not free in 𝜑". New proofs should use 19.21 1631 instead. (Contributed by NM, 5-Aug-1993.) (New usage is discouraged.)
⊢ (𝜑 → ∀𝑥𝜑)    ⇒   ⊢ (∀𝑥(𝜑 → 𝜓) ↔ (𝜑 → ∀𝑥𝜓))
Theorem	19.21bi 1606	Inference from Theorem 19.21 of [Margaris] p. 90. (Contributed by NM, 5-Aug-1993.)
⊢ (𝜑 → ∀𝑥𝜓)    ⇒   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝜓)
Theorem	19.21bbi 1607	Inference removing double quantifier. (Contributed by NM, 20-Apr-1994.)
⊢ (𝜑 → ∀𝑥∀𝑦𝜓)    ⇒   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝜓)
Theorem	19.27h 1608	Theorem 19.27 of [Margaris] p. 90. (Contributed by NM, 5-Aug-1993.)
⊢ (𝜓 → ∀𝑥𝜓)    ⇒   ⊢ (∀𝑥(𝜑 ∧ 𝜓) ↔ (∀𝑥𝜑 ∧ 𝜓))
Theorem	19.27 1609	Theorem 19.27 of [Margaris] p. 90. (Contributed by NM, 5-Aug-1993.)
⊢ Ⅎ𝑥𝜓    ⇒   ⊢ (∀𝑥(𝜑 ∧ 𝜓) ↔ (∀𝑥𝜑 ∧ 𝜓))
Theorem	19.28h 1610	Theorem 19.28 of [Margaris] p. 90. (Contributed by NM, 5-Aug-1993.)
⊢ (𝜑 → ∀𝑥𝜑)    ⇒   ⊢ (∀𝑥(𝜑 ∧ 𝜓) ↔ (𝜑 ∧ ∀𝑥𝜓))
Theorem	19.28 1611	Theorem 19.28 of [Margaris] p. 90. (Contributed by NM, 5-Aug-1993.)
⊢ Ⅎ𝑥𝜑    ⇒   ⊢ (∀𝑥(𝜑 ∧ 𝜓) ↔ (𝜑 ∧ ∀𝑥𝜓))
Theorem	nfan1 1612	A closed form of nfan 1613. (Contributed by Mario Carneiro, 3-Oct-2016.)
⊢ Ⅎ𝑥𝜑    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → Ⅎ𝑥𝜓)    ⇒   ⊢ Ⅎ𝑥(𝜑 ∧ 𝜓)
Theorem	nfan 1613	If 𝑥 is not free in 𝜑 and 𝜓, it is not free in (𝜑 ∧ 𝜓). (Contributed by Mario Carneiro, 11-Aug-2016.) (Proof shortened by Wolf Lammen, 13-Jan-2018.)
⊢ Ⅎ𝑥𝜑    &   ⊢ Ⅎ𝑥𝜓    ⇒   ⊢ Ⅎ𝑥(𝜑 ∧ 𝜓)
Theorem	nf3an 1614	If 𝑥 is not free in 𝜑, 𝜓, and 𝜒, it is not free in (𝜑 ∧ 𝜓 ∧ 𝜒). (Contributed by Mario Carneiro, 11-Aug-2016.)
⊢ Ⅎ𝑥𝜑    &   ⊢ Ⅎ𝑥𝜓    &   ⊢ Ⅎ𝑥𝜒    ⇒   ⊢ Ⅎ𝑥(𝜑 ∧ 𝜓 ∧ 𝜒)
Theorem	nford 1615	If in a context 𝑥 is not free in 𝜓 and 𝜒, it is not free in (𝜓 ∨ 𝜒). (Contributed by Jim Kingdon, 29-Oct-2019.)
⊢ (𝜑 → Ⅎ𝑥𝜓)    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → Ⅎ𝑥𝜒)    ⇒   ⊢ (𝜑 → Ⅎ𝑥(𝜓 ∨ 𝜒))
Theorem	nfand 1616	If in a context 𝑥 is not free in 𝜓 and 𝜒, it is not free in (𝜓 ∧ 𝜒). (Contributed by Mario Carneiro, 7-Oct-2016.)
⊢ (𝜑 → Ⅎ𝑥𝜓)    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → Ⅎ𝑥𝜒)    ⇒   ⊢ (𝜑 → Ⅎ𝑥(𝜓 ∧ 𝜒))
Theorem	nf3and 1617	Deduction form of bound-variable hypothesis builder nf3an 1614. (Contributed by NM, 17-Feb-2013.) (Revised by Mario Carneiro, 16-Oct-2016.)
⊢ (𝜑 → Ⅎ𝑥𝜓)    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → Ⅎ𝑥𝜒)    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → Ⅎ𝑥𝜃)    ⇒   ⊢ (𝜑 → Ⅎ𝑥(𝜓 ∧ 𝜒 ∧ 𝜃))
Theorem	hbim1 1618	A closed form of hbim 1593. (Contributed by NM, 5-Aug-1993.)
⊢ (𝜑 → ∀𝑥𝜑)    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → (𝜓 → ∀𝑥𝜓))    ⇒   ⊢ ((𝜑 → 𝜓) → ∀𝑥(𝜑 → 𝜓))
Theorem	nfim1 1619	A closed form of nfim 1620. (Contributed by NM, 5-Aug-1993.) (Revised by Mario Carneiro, 24-Sep-2016.) (Proof shortened by Wolf Lammen, 2-Jan-2018.)
⊢ Ⅎ𝑥𝜑    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → Ⅎ𝑥𝜓)    ⇒   ⊢ Ⅎ𝑥(𝜑 → 𝜓)
Theorem	nfim 1620	If 𝑥 is not free in 𝜑 and 𝜓, 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)
Theorem	hbimd 1621	Deduction form of bound-variable hypothesis builder hbim 1593. (Contributed by NM, 1-Jan-2002.) (Revised by NM, 2-Feb-2015.)
⊢ (𝜑 → ∀𝑥𝜑)    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → (𝜓 → ∀𝑥𝜓))    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → (𝜒 → ∀𝑥𝜒))    ⇒   ⊢ (𝜑 → ((𝜓 → 𝜒) → ∀𝑥(𝜓 → 𝜒)))
Theorem	nfor 1622	If 𝑥 is not free in 𝜑 and 𝜓, it is not free in (𝜑 ∨ 𝜓). (Contributed by Jim Kingdon, 11-Mar-2018.)
⊢ Ⅎ𝑥𝜑    &   ⊢ Ⅎ𝑥𝜓    ⇒   ⊢ Ⅎ𝑥(𝜑 ∨ 𝜓)
Theorem	hbbid 1623	Deduction form of bound-variable hypothesis builder hbbi 1596. (Contributed by NM, 1-Jan-2002.)
⊢ (𝜑 → ∀𝑥𝜑)    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → (𝜓 → ∀𝑥𝜓))    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → (𝜒 → ∀𝑥𝜒))    ⇒   ⊢ (𝜑 → ((𝜓 ↔ 𝜒) → ∀𝑥(𝜓 ↔ 𝜒)))
Theorem	nfal 1624	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 1558. (Revised by GG, 25-Aug-2024.)
⊢ Ⅎ𝑥𝜑    ⇒   ⊢ Ⅎ𝑥∀𝑦𝜑
Theorem	nfnf 1625	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 1626	Closed form of nfal 1624. (Contributed by Jim Kingdon, 11-May-2018.)
⊢ (∀𝑦Ⅎ𝑥𝜑 → Ⅎ𝑥∀𝑦𝜑)
Theorem	nfa2 1627	Lemma 24 of [Monk2] p. 114. (Contributed by Mario Carneiro, 24-Sep-2016.)
⊢ Ⅎ𝑥∀𝑦∀𝑥𝜑
Theorem	nfia1 1628	Lemma 23 of [Monk2] p. 114. (Contributed by Mario Carneiro, 24-Sep-2016.)
⊢ Ⅎ𝑥(∀𝑥𝜑 → ∀𝑥𝜓)
Theorem	19.21ht 1629	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 1630	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 1631	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 1632	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 1750. 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 1633	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 1634	Rearrange universal quantifiers. (Contributed by NM, 12-Aug-1993.)
⊢ (𝜑 → ∀𝑦𝜑)    &   ⊢ (𝜓 → ∀𝑥𝜓)    ⇒   ⊢ (∀𝑥∀𝑦(𝜑 ∧ 𝜓) ↔ (∀𝑥𝜑 ∧ ∀𝑦𝜓))
Theorem	aaan 1635	Rearrange universal quantifiers. (Contributed by NM, 12-Aug-1993.)
⊢ Ⅎ𝑦𝜑    &   ⊢ Ⅎ𝑥𝜓    ⇒   ⊢ (∀𝑥∀𝑦(𝜑 ∧ 𝜓) ↔ (∀𝑥𝜑 ∧ ∀𝑦𝜓))
Theorem	nfbid 1636	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 1637	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 1638	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 1639	If a wff is true, it is true for at least one instance. Deduction form of 19.8a 1638. (Contributed by DAW, 13-Feb-2017.)
⊢ (𝜑 → 𝜓)    ⇒   ⊢ (𝜑 → ∃𝑥𝜓)
Theorem	19.23bi 1640	Inference from Theorem 19.23 of [Margaris] p. 90. (Contributed by NM, 5-Aug-1993.)
⊢ (∃𝑥𝜑 → 𝜓)    ⇒   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝜓)
Theorem	exlimih 1641	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 1642	Inference from Theorem 19.23 of [Margaris] p. 90. (Contributed by Mario Carneiro, 24-Sep-2016.)
⊢ Ⅎ𝑥𝜓    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝜓)    ⇒   ⊢ (∃𝑥𝜑 → 𝜓)
Theorem	exlimd2 1643	Deduction from Theorem 19.23 of [Margaris] p. 90. Similar to exlimdh 1644 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 1644	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 1645	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 1646*	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 1646 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 1647	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 1648	Inference adding existential quantifier to antecedent and consequent. (Contributed by NM, 5-Aug-1993.)
⊢ (𝜑 → 𝜓)    ⇒   ⊢ (∃𝑥𝜑 → ∃𝑥𝜓)
Theorem	2eximi 1649	Inference adding 2 existential quantifiers to antecedent and consequent. (Contributed by NM, 3-Feb-2005.)
⊢ (𝜑 → 𝜓)    ⇒   ⊢ (∃𝑥∃𝑦𝜑 → ∃𝑥∃𝑦𝜓)
Theorem	eximii 1650	Inference associated with eximi 1648. (Contributed by BJ, 3-Feb-2018.)
⊢ ∃𝑥𝜑    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝜓)    ⇒   ⊢ ∃𝑥𝜓
Theorem	alinexa 1651	A transformation of quantifiers and logical connectives. (Contributed by NM, 19-Aug-1993.)
⊢ (∀𝑥(𝜑 → ¬ 𝜓) ↔ ¬ ∃𝑥(𝜑 ∧ 𝜓))
Theorem	exbi 1652	Theorem 19.18 of [Margaris] p. 90. (Contributed by NM, 5-Aug-1993.)
⊢ (∀𝑥(𝜑 ↔ 𝜓) → (∃𝑥𝜑 ↔ ∃𝑥𝜓))
Theorem	exbii 1653	Inference adding existential quantifier to both sides of an equivalence. (Contributed by NM, 24-May-1994.)
⊢ (𝜑 ↔ 𝜓)    ⇒   ⊢ (∃𝑥𝜑 ↔ ∃𝑥𝜓)
Theorem	2exbii 1654	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 1655	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 1656	Commutation of conjunction inside an existential quantifier. (Contributed by NM, 18-Aug-1993.)
⊢ (∃𝑥(𝜑 ∧ 𝜓) ↔ ∃𝑥(𝜓 ∧ 𝜑))
Theorem	alrimdd 1657	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 1658	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 1659	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 1660	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 1661	Deduction for generalization rule for negated wff. (Contributed by NM, 2-Jan-2002.)
⊢ (𝜑 → ∀𝑥𝜑)    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → ¬ 𝜓)    ⇒   ⊢ (𝜑 → ¬ ∃𝑥𝜓)
Theorem	exbidh 1662	Formula-building rule for existential quantifier (deduction form). (Contributed by NM, 5-Aug-1993.)
⊢ (𝜑 → ∀𝑥𝜑)    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → (𝜓 ↔ 𝜒))    ⇒   ⊢ (𝜑 → (∃𝑥𝜓 ↔ ∃𝑥𝜒))
Theorem	albid 1663	Formula-building rule for universal quantifier (deduction form). (Contributed by Mario Carneiro, 24-Sep-2016.)
⊢ Ⅎ𝑥𝜑    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → (𝜓 ↔ 𝜒))    ⇒   ⊢ (𝜑 → (∀𝑥𝜓 ↔ ∀𝑥𝜒))
Theorem	exbid 1664	Formula-building rule for existential quantifier (deduction form). (Contributed by Mario Carneiro, 24-Sep-2016.)
⊢ Ⅎ𝑥𝜑    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → (𝜓 ↔ 𝜒))    ⇒   ⊢ (𝜑 → (∃𝑥𝜓 ↔ ∃𝑥𝜒))
Theorem	exsimpl 1665	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 1666	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 1667	Theorem 19.6 of [Margaris] p. 89, given a decidability condition. The forward direction holds for all propositions, as seen at alexim 1693. (Contributed by Jim Kingdon, 2-Jun-2018.)
⊢ (∀𝑥DECID 𝜑 → (∀𝑥𝜑 ↔ ¬ ∃𝑥 ¬ 𝜑))
Theorem	19.29 1668	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 1669	Variation of Theorem 19.29 of [Margaris] p. 90. (Contributed by NM, 18-Aug-1993.)
⊢ ((∃𝑥𝜑 ∧ ∀𝑥𝜓) → ∃𝑥(𝜑 ∧ 𝜓))
Theorem	19.29r2 1670	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 1671	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 1672	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 1673	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 1674	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 1675	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 1676	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 1677	The antecedent provides a condition implying the converse of 19.33 1532. Compare Theorem 19.33 of [Margaris] p. 90. This variation of 19.33bdc 1678 is intuitionistically valid without a decidability condition. (Contributed by Mario Carneiro, 2-Feb-2015.)
⊢ ((¬ ∃𝑥𝜑 ∨ ¬ ∃𝑥𝜓) → (∀𝑥(𝜑 ∨ 𝜓) ↔ (∀𝑥𝜑 ∨ ∀𝑥𝜓)))
Theorem	19.33bdc 1678	Converse of 19.33 1532 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 1677 (Contributed by Jim Kingdon, 23-Apr-2018.)
⊢ (DECID ∃𝑥𝜑 → (¬ (∃𝑥𝜑 ∧ ∃𝑥𝜓) → (∀𝑥(𝜑 ∨ 𝜓) ↔ (∀𝑥𝜑 ∨ ∀𝑥𝜓))))
Theorem	19.40 1679	Theorem 19.40 of [Margaris] p. 90. (Contributed by NM, 5-Aug-1993.)
⊢ (∃𝑥(𝜑 ∧ 𝜓) → (∃𝑥𝜑 ∧ ∃𝑥𝜓))
Theorem	19.40-2 1680	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 1681	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 1682	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 1683	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 1684	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 1685	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 1686	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 1687	Theorem 19.24 of [Margaris] p. 90, with an additional hypothesis. The hypothesis is the converse of 19.35-1 1672, 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 1688	Theorem 19.39 of [Margaris] p. 90, with an additional hypothesis. The hypothesis is the converse of 19.35-1 1672, 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 1689	A closed version of one direction of 19.9 1692. (Contributed by NM, 5-Aug-1993.)
⊢ (∀𝑥(𝜑 → ∀𝑥𝜑) → (∃𝑥𝜑 → 𝜑))
Theorem	19.9t 1690	A closed version of 19.9 1692. (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 1691	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 1692	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 1693	One direction of theorem 19.6 of [Margaris] p. 89. The converse holds given a decidability condition, as seen at alexdc 1667. (Contributed by Jim Kingdon, 2-Jul-2018.)
⊢ (∀𝑥𝜑 → ¬ ∃𝑥 ¬ 𝜑)
Theorem	exnalim 1694	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 1695	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 1696	A relationship between two quantifiers and negation. (Contributed by Jim Kingdon, 27-Aug-2018.)
⊢ (∀𝑥∃𝑦 ¬ 𝜑 → ¬ ∃𝑥∀𝑦𝜑)
Theorem	nnal 1697	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 1698	If 𝑥 is not free in 𝜑, it is not free in ¬ 𝜑. This theorem doesn't use ax6b 1699 compared to hbnt 1701. (Contributed by GD, 27-Jan-2018.)
⊢ (𝜑 → ∀𝑥𝜑)    ⇒   ⊢ (¬ 𝜑 → ∀𝑥 ¬ 𝜑)
Theorem	ax6b 1699	Quantified Negation. Axiom C5-2 of [Monk2] p. 113. (Contributed by GD, 27-Jan-2018.)
⊢ (¬ ∀𝑥𝜑 → ∀𝑥 ¬ ∀𝑥𝜑)
Theorem	hbn1 1700	𝑥 is not free in ¬ ∀𝑥𝜑. (Contributed by NM, 5-Aug-1993.) (Proof shortened by Wolf Lammen, 18-Aug-2014.)
⊢ (¬ ∀𝑥𝜑 → ∀𝑥 ¬ ∀𝑥𝜑)