P. 171 of Theorem List - Intuitionistic Logic Explorer

Theorem List for Intuitionistic Logic Explorer - 17001-17100   *Has distinct variable group(s)

Type	Label	Description
Statement
Theorem	bj-con1st 17001	Contraposition when the antecedent is a negated stable proposition. See con1dc 868. (Contributed by BJ, 11-Nov-2024.)
⊢ (STAB 𝜑 → ((¬ 𝜑 → 𝜓) → (¬ 𝜓 → 𝜑)))
14.3.1.2  Decidable formulas
Theorem	bj-trdc 17002	A provable formula is decidable. (Contributed by BJ, 24-Nov-2023.)
⊢ (𝜑 → DECID 𝜑)
Theorem	bj-dctru 17003	The true truth value is decidable. (Contributed by BJ, 5-Aug-2024.)
⊢ DECID ⊤
Theorem	bj-fadc 17004	A refutable formula is decidable. (Contributed by BJ, 24-Nov-2023.)
⊢ (¬ 𝜑 → DECID 𝜑)
Theorem	bj-dcfal 17005	The false truth value is decidable. (Contributed by BJ, 5-Aug-2024.)
⊢ DECID ⊥
Theorem	bj-dcstab 17006	A decidable formula is stable. (Contributed by BJ, 24-Nov-2023.) (Proof modification is discouraged.)
⊢ (DECID 𝜑 → STAB 𝜑)
Theorem	bj-nnbidc 17007	If a formula is not refutable, then it is decidable if and only if it is provable. See also comment of bj-nnbist 16994. (Contributed by BJ, 24-Nov-2023.)
⊢ (¬ ¬ 𝜑 → (DECID 𝜑 ↔ 𝜑))
Theorem	bj-nndcALT 17008	Alternate proof of nndc 863. (Proof modification is discouraged.) (New usage is discouraged.) (Contributed by BJ, 9-Oct-2019.)
⊢ ¬ ¬ DECID 𝜑
Theorem	bj-dcdc 17009	Decidability of a proposition is decidable if and only if that proposition is decidable. DECID is idempotent. (Contributed by BJ, 9-Oct-2019.)
⊢ (DECID DECID 𝜑 ↔ DECID 𝜑)
Theorem	bj-stdc 17010	Decidability of a proposition is stable if and only if that proposition is decidable. In particular, the assumption that every formula is stable implies that every formula is decidable, hence classical logic. (Contributed by BJ, 9-Oct-2019.)
⊢ (STAB DECID 𝜑 ↔ DECID 𝜑)
Theorem	bj-dcst 17011	Stability of a proposition is decidable if and only if that proposition is stable. (Contributed by BJ, 24-Nov-2023.)
⊢ (DECID STAB 𝜑 ↔ STAB 𝜑)
14.3.2  Predicate calculus
Theorem	bj-ex 17012*	Existential generalization. (Contributed by BJ, 8-Dec-2019.) Proof modification is discouraged because there are shorter proofs, but using less basic results (like exlimiv 1651 and 19.9ht 1694 or 19.23ht 1550). (Proof modification is discouraged.)
⊢ (∃𝑥𝜑 → 𝜑)
Theorem	bj-hbalt 17013	Closed form of hbal 1530 (copied from set.mm). (Contributed by BJ, 2-May-2019.)
⊢ (∀𝑦(𝜑 → ∀𝑥𝜑) → (∀𝑦𝜑 → ∀𝑥∀𝑦𝜑))
Theorem	bj-nfalt 17014	Closed form of nfal 1629 (copied from set.mm). (Contributed by BJ, 2-May-2019.) (Proof modification is discouraged.)
⊢ (∀𝑥Ⅎ𝑦𝜑 → Ⅎ𝑦∀𝑥𝜑)
Theorem	spimd 17015	Deduction form of spim 1791. (Contributed by BJ, 17-Oct-2019.)
⊢ (𝜑 → Ⅎ𝑥𝜒)    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → ∀𝑥(𝑥 = 𝑦 → (𝜓 → 𝜒)))    ⇒   ⊢ (𝜑 → (∀𝑥𝜓 → 𝜒))
Theorem	2spim 17016*	Double substitution, as in spim 1791. (Contributed by BJ, 17-Oct-2019.)
⊢ Ⅎ𝑥𝜒    &   ⊢ Ⅎ𝑧𝜒    &   ⊢ ((𝑥 = 𝑦 ∧ 𝑧 = 𝑡) → (𝜓 → 𝜒))    ⇒   ⊢ (∀𝑧∀𝑥𝜓 → 𝜒)
Theorem	ch2var 17017*	Implicit substitution of 𝑦 for 𝑥 and 𝑡 for 𝑧 into a theorem. (Contributed by BJ, 17-Oct-2019.)
⊢ Ⅎ𝑥𝜓    &   ⊢ Ⅎ𝑧𝜓    &   ⊢ ((𝑥 = 𝑦 ∧ 𝑧 = 𝑡) → (𝜑 ↔ 𝜓))    &   ⊢ 𝜑    ⇒   ⊢ 𝜓
Theorem	ch2varv 17018*	Version of ch2var 17017 with nonfreeness hypotheses replaced with disjoint variable conditions. (Contributed by BJ, 17-Oct-2019.)
⊢ ((𝑥 = 𝑦 ∧ 𝑧 = 𝑡) → (𝜑 ↔ 𝜓))    &   ⊢ 𝜑    ⇒   ⊢ 𝜓
Theorem	bj-exlimmp 17019	Lemma for bj-vtoclgf 17026. (Contributed by BJ, 21-Nov-2019.) (Proof modification is discouraged.)
⊢ Ⅎ𝑥𝜓    &   ⊢ (𝜒 → 𝜑)    ⇒   ⊢ (∀𝑥(𝜒 → (𝜑 → 𝜓)) → (∃𝑥𝜒 → 𝜓))
Theorem	bj-exlimmpi 17020	Lemma for bj-vtoclgf 17026. (Contributed by BJ, 21-Nov-2019.) (Proof modification is discouraged.)
⊢ Ⅎ𝑥𝜓    &   ⊢ (𝜒 → 𝜑)    &   ⊢ (𝜒 → (𝜑 → 𝜓))    ⇒   ⊢ (∃𝑥𝜒 → 𝜓)
Theorem	bj-sbimedh 17021	A strengthening of sbiedh 1840 (same proof). (Contributed by BJ, 16-Dec-2019.)
⊢ (𝜑 → ∀𝑥𝜑)    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → (𝜒 → ∀𝑥𝜒))    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → (𝑥 = 𝑦 → (𝜓 → 𝜒)))    ⇒   ⊢ (𝜑 → ([𝑦 / 𝑥]𝜓 → 𝜒))
Theorem	bj-sbimeh 17022	A strengthening of sbieh 1843 (same proof). (Contributed by BJ, 16-Dec-2019.)
⊢ (𝜓 → ∀𝑥𝜓)    &   ⊢ (𝑥 = 𝑦 → (𝜑 → 𝜓))    ⇒   ⊢ ([𝑦 / 𝑥]𝜑 → 𝜓)
Theorem	bj-sbime 17023	A strengthening of sbie 1844 (same proof). (Contributed by BJ, 16-Dec-2019.)
⊢ Ⅎ𝑥𝜓    &   ⊢ (𝑥 = 𝑦 → (𝜑 → 𝜓))    ⇒   ⊢ ([𝑦 / 𝑥]𝜑 → 𝜓)
14.3.3  Set theorey miscellaneous
Theorem	bj-el2oss1o 17024	Shorter proof of el2oss1o 6721 using more axioms. (Contributed by BJ, 21-Jan-2024.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) (New usage is discouraged.)
⊢ (𝐴 ∈ 2o → 𝐴 ⊆ 1o)
14.3.4  Extensionality Various utility theorems using FOL and extensionality.
Theorem	bj-vtoclgft 17025	Weakening two hypotheses of vtoclgf 2881. (Contributed by BJ, 21-Nov-2019.)
⊢ Ⅎ𝑥𝐴    &   ⊢ Ⅎ𝑥𝜓    &   ⊢ (𝑥 = 𝐴 → 𝜑)    ⇒   ⊢ (∀𝑥(𝑥 = 𝐴 → (𝜑 → 𝜓)) → (𝐴 ∈ 𝑉 → 𝜓))
Theorem	bj-vtoclgf 17026	Weakening two hypotheses of vtoclgf 2881. (Contributed by BJ, 21-Nov-2019.)
⊢ Ⅎ𝑥𝐴    &   ⊢ Ⅎ𝑥𝜓    &   ⊢ (𝑥 = 𝐴 → 𝜑)    &   ⊢ (𝑥 = 𝐴 → (𝜑 → 𝜓))    ⇒   ⊢ (𝐴 ∈ 𝑉 → 𝜓)
Theorem	elabgf0 17027	Lemma for elabgf 2968. (Contributed by BJ, 21-Nov-2019.)
⊢ (𝑥 = 𝐴 → (𝐴 ∈ {𝑥 ∣ 𝜑} ↔ 𝜑))
Theorem	elabgft1 17028	One implication of elabgf 2968, in closed form. (Contributed by BJ, 21-Nov-2019.)
⊢ Ⅎ𝑥𝐴    &   ⊢ Ⅎ𝑥𝜓    ⇒   ⊢ (∀𝑥(𝑥 = 𝐴 → (𝜑 → 𝜓)) → (𝐴 ∈ {𝑥 ∣ 𝜑} → 𝜓))
Theorem	elabgf1 17029	One implication of elabgf 2968. (Contributed by BJ, 21-Nov-2019.)
⊢ Ⅎ𝑥𝐴    &   ⊢ Ⅎ𝑥𝜓    &   ⊢ (𝑥 = 𝐴 → (𝜑 → 𝜓))    ⇒   ⊢ (𝐴 ∈ {𝑥 ∣ 𝜑} → 𝜓)
Theorem	elabgf2 17030	One implication of elabgf 2968. (Contributed by BJ, 21-Nov-2019.)
⊢ Ⅎ𝑥𝐴    &   ⊢ Ⅎ𝑥𝜓    &   ⊢ (𝑥 = 𝐴 → (𝜓 → 𝜑))    ⇒   ⊢ (𝐴 ∈ 𝐵 → (𝜓 → 𝐴 ∈ {𝑥 ∣ 𝜑}))
Theorem	elabf1 17031*	One implication of elabf 2969. (Contributed by BJ, 21-Nov-2019.)
⊢ Ⅎ𝑥𝜓    &   ⊢ (𝑥 = 𝐴 → (𝜑 → 𝜓))    ⇒   ⊢ (𝐴 ∈ {𝑥 ∣ 𝜑} → 𝜓)
Theorem	elabf2 17032*	One implication of elabf 2969. (Contributed by BJ, 21-Nov-2019.)
⊢ Ⅎ𝑥𝜓    &   ⊢ 𝐴 ∈ V    &   ⊢ (𝑥 = 𝐴 → (𝜓 → 𝜑))    ⇒   ⊢ (𝜓 → 𝐴 ∈ {𝑥 ∣ 𝜑})
Theorem	elab1 17033*	One implication of elab 2970. (Contributed by BJ, 21-Nov-2019.)
⊢ (𝑥 = 𝐴 → (𝜑 → 𝜓))    ⇒   ⊢ (𝐴 ∈ {𝑥 ∣ 𝜑} → 𝜓)
Theorem	elab2a 17034*	One implication of elab 2970. (Contributed by BJ, 21-Nov-2019.)
⊢ 𝐴 ∈ V    &   ⊢ (𝑥 = 𝐴 → (𝜓 → 𝜑))    ⇒   ⊢ (𝜓 → 𝐴 ∈ {𝑥 ∣ 𝜑})
Theorem	elabg2 17035*	One implication of elabg 2972. (Contributed by BJ, 21-Nov-2019.)
⊢ (𝑥 = 𝐴 → (𝜓 → 𝜑))    ⇒   ⊢ (𝐴 ∈ 𝑉 → (𝜓 → 𝐴 ∈ {𝑥 ∣ 𝜑}))
Theorem	bj-rspgt 17036	Restricted specialization, generalized. Weakens a hypothesis of rspccv 2926 and seems to have a shorter proof. (Contributed by BJ, 21-Nov-2019.)
⊢ Ⅎ𝑥𝐴    &   ⊢ Ⅎ𝑥𝐵    &   ⊢ Ⅎ𝑥𝜓    ⇒   ⊢ (∀𝑥(𝑥 = 𝐴 → (𝜑 → 𝜓)) → (∀𝑥 ∈ 𝐵 𝜑 → (𝐴 ∈ 𝐵 → 𝜓)))
Theorem	bj-rspg 17037	Restricted specialization, generalized. Weakens a hypothesis of rspccv 2926 and seems to have a shorter proof. (Contributed by BJ, 21-Nov-2019.)
⊢ Ⅎ𝑥𝐴    &   ⊢ Ⅎ𝑥𝐵    &   ⊢ Ⅎ𝑥𝜓    &   ⊢ (𝑥 = 𝐴 → (𝜑 → 𝜓))    ⇒   ⊢ (∀𝑥 ∈ 𝐵 𝜑 → (𝐴 ∈ 𝐵 → 𝜓))
Theorem	cbvrald 17038*	Rule used to change bound variables, using implicit substitution. (Contributed by BJ, 22-Nov-2019.)
⊢ Ⅎ𝑥𝜑    &   ⊢ Ⅎ𝑦𝜑    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → Ⅎ𝑦𝜓)    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → Ⅎ𝑥𝜒)    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → (𝑥 = 𝑦 → (𝜓 ↔ 𝜒)))    ⇒   ⊢ (𝜑 → (∀𝑥 ∈ 𝐴 𝜓 ↔ ∀𝑦 ∈ 𝐴 𝜒))
Theorem	bj-intabssel 17039	Version of intss1 3985 using a class abstraction and explicit substitution. (Contributed by BJ, 29-Nov-2019.)
⊢ Ⅎ𝑥𝐴    ⇒   ⊢ (𝐴 ∈ 𝑉 → ([𝐴 / 𝑥]𝜑 → ∩ {𝑥 ∣ 𝜑} ⊆ 𝐴))
Theorem	bj-intabssel1 17040	Version of intss1 3985 using a class abstraction and implicit substitution. Closed form of intmin3 3997. (Contributed by BJ, 29-Nov-2019.)
⊢ Ⅎ𝑥𝐴    &   ⊢ Ⅎ𝑥𝜓    &   ⊢ (𝑥 = 𝐴 → (𝜓 → 𝜑))    ⇒   ⊢ (𝐴 ∈ 𝑉 → (𝜓 → ∩ {𝑥 ∣ 𝜑} ⊆ 𝐴))
Theorem	bj-elssuniab 17041	Version of elssuni 3963 using a class abstraction and explicit substitution. (Contributed by BJ, 29-Nov-2019.)
⊢ Ⅎ𝑥𝐴    ⇒   ⊢ (𝐴 ∈ 𝑉 → ([𝐴 / 𝑥]𝜑 → 𝐴 ⊆ ∪ {𝑥 ∣ 𝜑}))
Theorem	bj-sseq 17042	If two converse inclusions are characterized each by a formula, then equality is characterized by the conjunction of these formulas. (Contributed by BJ, 30-Nov-2019.)
⊢ (𝜑 → (𝜓 ↔ 𝐴 ⊆ 𝐵))    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → (𝜒 ↔ 𝐵 ⊆ 𝐴))    ⇒   ⊢ (𝜑 → ((𝜓 ∧ 𝜒) ↔ 𝐴 = 𝐵))
14.3.5  Decidability of classes The question of decidability is essential in intuitionistic logic. In intuitionistic set theories, it is natural to define decidability of a set (or class) as decidability of membership in it. One can parameterize this notion with another set (or class) since it is often important to assess decidability of membership in one class among elements of another class. Namely, one will say that "𝐴 is decidable in 𝐵 " if ∀𝑥 ∈ 𝐵DECID 𝑥 ∈ 𝐴 (see df-dcin 17044). Note the similarity with the definition of a bounded class as a class for which membership in it is a bounded proposition (df-bdc 17089).
Syntax	wdcin 17043	Syntax for decidability of a class in another.
wff 𝐴 DECIDin 𝐵
Definition	df-dcin 17044*	Define decidability of a class in another. (Contributed by BJ, 19-Feb-2022.)
⊢ (𝐴 DECIDin 𝐵 ↔ ∀𝑥 ∈ 𝐵 DECID 𝑥 ∈ 𝐴)
Theorem	decidi 17045	Property of being decidable in another class. (Contributed by BJ, 19-Feb-2022.)
⊢ (𝐴 DECIDin 𝐵 → (𝑋 ∈ 𝐵 → (𝑋 ∈ 𝐴 ∨ ¬ 𝑋 ∈ 𝐴)))
Theorem	decidr 17046*	Sufficient condition for being decidable in another class. (Contributed by BJ, 19-Feb-2022.)
⊢ (𝜑 → (𝑥 ∈ 𝐵 → (𝑥 ∈ 𝐴 ∨ ¬ 𝑥 ∈ 𝐴)))    ⇒   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝐴 DECIDin 𝐵)
Theorem	decidin 17047	If A is a decidable subclass of B (meaning: it is a subclass of B and it is decidable in B), and B is decidable in C, then A is decidable in C. (Contributed by BJ, 19-Feb-2022.)
⊢ (𝜑 → 𝐴 ⊆ 𝐵)    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝐴 DECIDin 𝐵)    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝐵 DECIDin 𝐶)    ⇒   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝐴 DECIDin 𝐶)
Theorem	uzdcinzz 17048	An upperset of integers is decidable in the integers. Reformulation of eluzdc 10025. (Contributed by Jim Kingdon, 18-Apr-2020.) (Revised by BJ, 19-Feb-2022.)
⊢ (𝑀 ∈ ℤ → (ℤ≥‘𝑀) DECIDin ℤ)
Theorem	sumdc2 17049*	Alternate proof of sumdc 12148, without disjoint variable condition on 𝑁, 𝑥 (longer because the statement is taylored to the proof sumdc 12148). (Contributed by BJ, 19-Feb-2022.)
⊢ (𝜑 → 𝑀 ∈ ℤ)    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝐴 ⊆ (ℤ≥‘𝑀))    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → ∀𝑥 ∈ (ℤ≥‘𝑀)DECID 𝑥 ∈ 𝐴)    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝑁 ∈ ℤ)    ⇒   ⊢ (𝜑 → DECID 𝑁 ∈ 𝐴)
14.3.6  Disjoint union
Theorem	djucllem 17050*	Lemma for djulcl 7397 and djurcl 7398. (Contributed by BJ, 4-Jul-2022.)
⊢ 𝑋 ∈ V    &   ⊢ 𝐹 = (𝑥 ∈ V ↦ ⟨𝑋, 𝑥⟩)    ⇒   ⊢ (𝐴 ∈ 𝐵 → ((𝐹 ↾ 𝐵)‘𝐴) ∈ ({𝑋} × 𝐵))
Theorem	djulclALT 17051	Shortening of djulcl 7397 using djucllem 17050. (Contributed by BJ, 4-Jul-2022.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) (New usage is discouraged.)
⊢ (𝐶 ∈ 𝐴 → ((inl ↾ 𝐴)‘𝐶) ∈ (𝐴 ⊔ 𝐵))
Theorem	djurclALT 17052	Shortening of djurcl 7398 using djucllem 17050. (Contributed by BJ, 4-Jul-2022.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) (New usage is discouraged.)
⊢ (𝐶 ∈ 𝐵 → ((inr ↾ 𝐵)‘𝐶) ∈ (𝐴 ⊔ 𝐵))
14.3.7  Miscellaneous
Theorem	funmptd 17053	The maps-to notation defines a function (deduction form). Note: one should similarly prove a deduction form of funopab4 5417, then prove funmptd 17053 from it, and then prove funmpt 5418 from that: this would reduce global proof length. (Contributed by BJ, 5-Aug-2024.)
⊢ (𝜑 → 𝐹 = (𝑥 ∈ 𝐴 ↦ 𝐵))    ⇒   ⊢ (𝜑 → Fun 𝐹)
Theorem	fnmptd 17054*	The maps-to notation defines a function with domain (deduction form). (Contributed by BJ, 5-Aug-2024.)
⊢ (𝜑 → 𝐹 = (𝑥 ∈ 𝐴 ↦ 𝐵))    &   ⊢ ((𝜑 ∧ 𝑥 ∈ 𝐴) → 𝐵 ∈ 𝑉)    ⇒   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝐹 Fn 𝐴)
Theorem	bj-charfun 17055*	Properties of the characteristic function on the class 𝑋 of the class 𝐴. (Contributed by BJ, 15-Aug-2024.)
⊢ (𝜑 → 𝐹 = (𝑥 ∈ 𝑋 ↦ if(𝑥 ∈ 𝐴, 1o, ∅)))    ⇒   ⊢ (𝜑 → ((𝐹:𝑋⟶𝒫 1o ∧ (𝐹 ↾ ((𝑋 ∩ 𝐴) ∪ (𝑋 ∖ 𝐴))):((𝑋 ∩ 𝐴) ∪ (𝑋 ∖ 𝐴))⟶2o) ∧ (∀𝑥 ∈ (𝑋 ∩ 𝐴)(𝐹‘𝑥) = 1o ∧ ∀𝑥 ∈ (𝑋 ∖ 𝐴)(𝐹‘𝑥) = ∅)))
Theorem	bj-charfundc 17056*	Properties of the characteristic function on the class 𝑋 of the class 𝐴, provided membership in 𝐴 is decidable in 𝑋. (Contributed by BJ, 6-Aug-2024.)
⊢ (𝜑 → 𝐹 = (𝑥 ∈ 𝑋 ↦ if(𝑥 ∈ 𝐴, 1o, ∅)))    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → ∀𝑥 ∈ 𝑋 DECID 𝑥 ∈ 𝐴)    ⇒   ⊢ (𝜑 → (𝐹:𝑋⟶2o ∧ (∀𝑥 ∈ (𝑋 ∩ 𝐴)(𝐹‘𝑥) = 1o ∧ ∀𝑥 ∈ (𝑋 ∖ 𝐴)(𝐹‘𝑥) = ∅)))
Theorem	bj-charfundcALT 17057*	Alternate proof of bj-charfundc 17056. It was expected to be much shorter since it uses bj-charfun 17055 for the main part of the proof and the rest is basic computations, but these turn out to be lengthy, maybe because of the limited library of available lemmas. (Contributed by BJ, 15-Aug-2024.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) (New usage is discouraged.)
⊢ (𝜑 → 𝐹 = (𝑥 ∈ 𝑋 ↦ if(𝑥 ∈ 𝐴, 1o, ∅)))    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → ∀𝑥 ∈ 𝑋 DECID 𝑥 ∈ 𝐴)    ⇒   ⊢ (𝜑 → (𝐹:𝑋⟶2o ∧ (∀𝑥 ∈ (𝑋 ∩ 𝐴)(𝐹‘𝑥) = 1o ∧ ∀𝑥 ∈ (𝑋 ∖ 𝐴)(𝐹‘𝑥) = ∅)))
Theorem	bj-charfunr 17058*	If a class 𝐴 has a "weak" characteristic function on a class 𝑋, then negated membership in 𝐴 is decidable (in other words, membership in 𝐴 is testable) in 𝑋. The hypothesis imposes that 𝑋 be a set. As usual, it could be formulated as ⊢ (𝜑 → (𝐹:𝑋⟶ω ∧ ...)) to deal with general classes, but that extra generality would not make the theorem much more useful. The theorem would still hold if the codomain of 𝑓 were any class with testable equality to the point where (𝑋 ∖ 𝐴) is sent. (Contributed by BJ, 6-Aug-2024.)
⊢ (𝜑 → ∃𝑓 ∈ (ω ↑𝑚 𝑋)(∀𝑥 ∈ (𝑋 ∩ 𝐴)(𝑓‘𝑥) ≠ ∅ ∧ ∀𝑥 ∈ (𝑋 ∖ 𝐴)(𝑓‘𝑥) = ∅))    ⇒   ⊢ (𝜑 → ∀𝑥 ∈ 𝑋 DECID ¬ 𝑥 ∈ 𝐴)
Theorem	bj-charfunbi 17059*	In an ambient set 𝑋, if membership in 𝐴 is stable, then it is decidable if and only if 𝐴 has a characteristic function. This characterization can be applied to singletons when the set 𝑋 has stable equality, which is the case as soon as it has a tight apartness relation. (Contributed by BJ, 6-Aug-2024.)
⊢ (𝜑 → 𝑋 ∈ 𝑉)    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → ∀𝑥 ∈ 𝑋 STAB 𝑥 ∈ 𝐴)    ⇒   ⊢ (𝜑 → (∀𝑥 ∈ 𝑋 DECID 𝑥 ∈ 𝐴 ↔ ∃𝑓 ∈ (2o ↑𝑚 𝑋)(∀𝑥 ∈ (𝑋 ∩ 𝐴)(𝑓‘𝑥) = 1o ∧ ∀𝑥 ∈ (𝑋 ∖ 𝐴)(𝑓‘𝑥) = ∅)))
14.3.8  Constructive Zermelo--Fraenkel set theory (CZF): Bounded formulas and classes This section develops constructive Zermelo--Fraenkel set theory (CZF) on top of intuitionistic logic. It is a constructive theory in the sense that its logic is intuitionistic and it is predicative. "Predicative" means that new sets can be constructed only from already constructed sets. In particular, the axiom of separation ax-sep 4251 is not predicative (because we cannot allow all formulas to define a subset) and is replaced in CZF by bounded separation ax-bdsep 17132. Because this axiom is weaker than full separation, the axiom of replacement or collection ax-coll 4248 of ZF and IZF has to be strengthened in CZF to the axiom of strong collection ax-strcoll 17230 (which is a theorem of IZF), and the axiom of infinity needs a more precise version, the von Neumann axiom of infinity ax-infvn 17189. Similarly, the axiom of powerset ax-pow 4313 is not predicative (checking whether a set is included in another requires to universally quantifier over that "not yet constructed" set) and is replaced in CZF by the axiom of fullness or the axiom of subset collection ax-sscoll 17235. In an intuitionistic context, the axiom of regularity is stated in IZF as well as in CZF as the axiom of set induction ax-setind 4686. It is sometimes interesting to study the weakening of CZF where that axiom is replaced by bounded set induction ax-bdsetind 17216. For more details on CZF, a useful set of notes is Peter Aczel and Michael Rathjen, CST Book draft. (available at http://www1.maths.leeds.ac.uk/~rathjen/book.pdf 17216) and an interesting article is Michael Shulman, Comparing material and structural set theories, Annals of Pure and Applied Logic, Volume 170, Issue 4 (Apr. 2019), 465--504. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.1808.05204 17216 I also thank Michael Rathjen and Michael Shulman for useful hints in the formulation of some results.
14.3.8.1  Bounded formulas The present definition of bounded formulas emerged from a discussion on GitHub between Jim Kingdon, Mario Carneiro and I, started 23-Sept-2019 (see https://github.com/metamath/set.mm/issues/1173 and links therein). In order to state certain axiom schemes of Constructive Zermelo–Fraenkel (CZF) set theory, like the axiom scheme of bounded (or restricted, or Δ0) separation, it is necessary to distinguish certain formulas, called bounded (or restricted, or Δ0) formulas. The necessity of considering bounded formulas also arises in several theories of bounded arithmetic, both classical or intuitionistic, for instance to state the axiom scheme of Δ0-induction. To formalize this in Metamath, there are several choices to make. A first choice is to either create a new type for bounded formulas, or to create a predicate on formulas that indicates whether they are bounded. In the first case, one creates a new type "wff0" with a new set of metavariables (ph0 ...) and an axiom "$a wff ph0 " ensuring that bounded formulas are formulas, so that one can reuse existing theorems, and then axioms take the form "$a wff0 ( ph0 -> ps0 )", etc. In the second case, one introduces a predicate "BOUNDED " with the intended meaning that "BOUNDED 𝜑 " is a formula meaning that 𝜑 is a bounded formula. We choose the second option, since the first would complicate the grammar, risking to make it ambiguous. (TODO: elaborate.) A second choice is to view "bounded" either as a syntactic or a semantic property. For instance, ∀𝑥⊤ is not syntactically bounded since it has an unbounded universal quantifier, but it is semantically bounded since it is equivalent to ⊤ which is bounded. We choose the second option, so that formulas using defined symbols can be proved bounded. A third choice is in the form of the axioms, either in closed form or in inference form. One cannot state all the axioms in closed form, especially ax-bd0 17061. Indeed, if we posited it in closed form, then we could prove for instance ⊢ (𝜑 → BOUNDED 𝜑) and ⊢ (¬ 𝜑 → BOUNDED 𝜑) which is problematic (with the law of excluded middle, this would entail that all formulas are bounded, but even without it, too many formulas could be proved bounded...). (TODO: elaborate.) Having ax-bd0 17061 in inference form ensures that a formula can be proved bounded only if it is equivalent *for all values of the free variables* to a syntactically bounded one. The other axioms (ax-bdim 17062 through ax-bdsb 17070) can be written either in closed or inference form. The fact that ax-bd0 17061 is an inference is enough to ensure that the closed forms cannot be "exploited" to prove that some unbounded formulas are bounded. (TODO: check.) However, we state all the axioms in inference form to make it clear that we do not exploit any over-permissiveness. Finally, note that our logic has no terms, only variables. Therefore, we cannot prove for instance that 𝑥 ∈ ω is a bounded formula. However, since ω can be defined as "the 𝑦 such that PHI" a proof using the fact that 𝑥 ∈ ω is bounded can be converted to a proof in iset.mm by replacing ω with 𝑦 everywhere and prepending the antecedent PHI, since 𝑥 ∈ 𝑦 is bounded by ax-bdel 17069. For a similar method, see bj-omtrans 17204. Note that one cannot add an axiom ⊢ BOUNDED 𝑥 ∈ 𝐴 since by bdph 17098 it would imply that every formula is bounded.
Syntax	wbd 17060	Syntax for the predicate BOUNDED.
wff BOUNDED 𝜑
Axiom	ax-bd0 17061	If two formulas are equivalent, then boundedness of one implies boundedness of the other. (Contributed by BJ, 3-Oct-2019.)
⊢ (𝜑 ↔ 𝜓)    ⇒   ⊢ (BOUNDED 𝜑 → BOUNDED 𝜓)
Axiom	ax-bdim 17062	An implication between two bounded formulas is bounded. (Contributed by BJ, 25-Sep-2019.)
⊢ BOUNDED 𝜑    &   ⊢ BOUNDED 𝜓    ⇒   ⊢ BOUNDED (𝜑 → 𝜓)
Axiom	ax-bdan 17063	The conjunction of two bounded formulas is bounded. (Contributed by BJ, 25-Sep-2019.)
⊢ BOUNDED 𝜑    &   ⊢ BOUNDED 𝜓    ⇒   ⊢ BOUNDED (𝜑 ∧ 𝜓)
Axiom	ax-bdor 17064	The disjunction of two bounded formulas is bounded. (Contributed by BJ, 25-Sep-2019.)
⊢ BOUNDED 𝜑    &   ⊢ BOUNDED 𝜓    ⇒   ⊢ BOUNDED (𝜑 ∨ 𝜓)
Axiom	ax-bdn 17065	The negation of a bounded formula is bounded. (Contributed by BJ, 25-Sep-2019.)
⊢ BOUNDED 𝜑    ⇒   ⊢ BOUNDED ¬ 𝜑
Axiom	ax-bdal 17066*	A bounded universal quantification of a bounded formula is bounded. Note the disjoint variable condition on 𝑥, 𝑦. (Contributed by BJ, 25-Sep-2019.)
⊢ BOUNDED 𝜑    ⇒   ⊢ BOUNDED ∀𝑥 ∈ 𝑦 𝜑
Axiom	ax-bdex 17067*	A bounded existential quantification of a bounded formula is bounded. Note the disjoint variable condition on 𝑥, 𝑦. (Contributed by BJ, 25-Sep-2019.)
⊢ BOUNDED 𝜑    ⇒   ⊢ BOUNDED ∃𝑥 ∈ 𝑦 𝜑
Axiom	ax-bdeq 17068	An atomic formula is bounded (equality predicate). (Contributed by BJ, 3-Oct-2019.)
⊢ BOUNDED 𝑥 = 𝑦
Axiom	ax-bdel 17069	An atomic formula is bounded (membership predicate). (Contributed by BJ, 3-Oct-2019.)
⊢ BOUNDED 𝑥 ∈ 𝑦
Axiom	ax-bdsb 17070	A formula resulting from proper substitution in a bounded formula is bounded. This probably cannot be proved from the other axioms, since neither the definiens in df-sb 1816, nor probably any other equivalent formula, is syntactically bounded. (Contributed by BJ, 3-Oct-2019.)
⊢ BOUNDED 𝜑    ⇒   ⊢ BOUNDED [𝑦 / 𝑥]𝜑
Theorem	bdeq 17071	Equality property for the predicate BOUNDED. (Contributed by BJ, 3-Oct-2019.)
⊢ (𝜑 ↔ 𝜓)    ⇒   ⊢ (BOUNDED 𝜑 ↔ BOUNDED 𝜓)
Theorem	bd0 17072	A formula equivalent to a bounded one is bounded. See also bd0r 17073. (Contributed by BJ, 3-Oct-2019.)
⊢ BOUNDED 𝜑    &   ⊢ (𝜑 ↔ 𝜓)    ⇒   ⊢ BOUNDED 𝜓
Theorem	bd0r 17073	A formula equivalent to a bounded one is bounded. Stated with a commuted (compared with bd0 17072) biconditional in the hypothesis, to work better with definitions (𝜓 is the definiendum that one wants to prove bounded). (Contributed by BJ, 3-Oct-2019.)
⊢ BOUNDED 𝜑    &   ⊢ (𝜓 ↔ 𝜑)    ⇒   ⊢ BOUNDED 𝜓
Theorem	bdbi 17074	A biconditional between two bounded formulas is bounded. (Contributed by BJ, 3-Oct-2019.)
⊢ BOUNDED 𝜑    &   ⊢ BOUNDED 𝜓    ⇒   ⊢ BOUNDED (𝜑 ↔ 𝜓)
Theorem	bdstab 17075	Stability of a bounded formula is bounded. (Contributed by BJ, 3-Oct-2019.)
⊢ BOUNDED 𝜑    ⇒   ⊢ BOUNDED STAB 𝜑
Theorem	bddc 17076	Decidability of a bounded formula is bounded. (Contributed by BJ, 3-Oct-2019.)
⊢ BOUNDED 𝜑    ⇒   ⊢ BOUNDED DECID 𝜑
Theorem	bd3or 17077	A disjunction of three bounded formulas is bounded. (Contributed by BJ, 3-Oct-2019.)
⊢ BOUNDED 𝜑    &   ⊢ BOUNDED 𝜓    &   ⊢ BOUNDED 𝜒    ⇒   ⊢ BOUNDED (𝜑 ∨ 𝜓 ∨ 𝜒)
Theorem	bd3an 17078	A conjunction of three bounded formulas is bounded. (Contributed by BJ, 3-Oct-2019.)
⊢ BOUNDED 𝜑    &   ⊢ BOUNDED 𝜓    &   ⊢ BOUNDED 𝜒    ⇒   ⊢ BOUNDED (𝜑 ∧ 𝜓 ∧ 𝜒)
Theorem	bdth 17079	A truth (a (closed) theorem) is a bounded formula. (Contributed by BJ, 6-Oct-2019.)
⊢ 𝜑    ⇒   ⊢ BOUNDED 𝜑
Theorem	bdtru 17080	The truth value ⊤ is bounded. (Contributed by BJ, 3-Oct-2019.)
⊢ BOUNDED ⊤
Theorem	bdfal 17081	The truth value ⊥ is bounded. (Contributed by BJ, 3-Oct-2019.)
⊢ BOUNDED ⊥
Theorem	bdnth 17082	A falsity is a bounded formula. (Contributed by BJ, 6-Oct-2019.)
⊢ ¬ 𝜑    ⇒   ⊢ BOUNDED 𝜑
Theorem	bdnthALT 17083	Alternate proof of bdnth 17082 not using bdfal 17081. Then, bdfal 17081 can be proved from this theorem, using fal 1409. The total number of proof steps would be 17 (for bdnthALT 17083) + 3 = 20, which is more than 8 (for bdfal 17081) + 9 (for bdnth 17082) = 17. (Contributed by BJ, 6-Oct-2019.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) (New usage is discouraged.)
⊢ ¬ 𝜑    ⇒   ⊢ BOUNDED 𝜑
Theorem	bdxor 17084	The exclusive disjunction of two bounded formulas is bounded. (Contributed by BJ, 3-Oct-2019.)
⊢ BOUNDED 𝜑    &   ⊢ BOUNDED 𝜓    ⇒   ⊢ BOUNDED (𝜑 ⊻ 𝜓)
Theorem	bj-bdcel 17085*	Boundedness of a membership formula. (Contributed by BJ, 8-Dec-2019.)
⊢ BOUNDED 𝑦 = 𝐴    ⇒   ⊢ BOUNDED 𝐴 ∈ 𝑥
Theorem	bdab 17086	Membership in a class defined by class abstraction using a bounded formula, is a bounded formula. (Contributed by BJ, 3-Oct-2019.)
⊢ BOUNDED 𝜑    ⇒   ⊢ BOUNDED 𝑥 ∈ {𝑦 ∣ 𝜑}
Theorem	bdcdeq 17087	Conditional equality of a bounded formula is a bounded formula. (Contributed by BJ, 16-Oct-2019.)
⊢ BOUNDED 𝜑    ⇒   ⊢ BOUNDED CondEq(𝑥 = 𝑦 → 𝜑)
14.3.8.2  Bounded classes In line with our definitions of classes as extensions of predicates, it is useful to define a predicate for bounded classes, which is done in df-bdc 17089. Note that this notion is only a technical device which can be used to shorten proofs of (semantic) boundedness of formulas. As will be clear by the end of this subsection (see for instance bdop 17123), one can prove the boundedness of any concrete term using only setvars and bounded formulas, for instance, ⊢ BOUNDED 𝜑 ⇒ ⊢ BOUNDED ⟨{𝑥 ∣ 𝜑}, ({𝑦, suc 𝑧} × ⟨𝑡, ∅⟩)⟩. The proofs are long since one has to prove boundedness at each step of the construction, without being able to prove general theorems like ⊢ BOUNDED 𝐴 ⇒ ⊢ BOUNDED {𝐴}.
Syntax	wbdc 17088	Syntax for the predicate BOUNDED.
wff BOUNDED 𝐴
Definition	df-bdc 17089*	Define a bounded class as one such that membership in this class is a bounded formula. (Contributed by BJ, 3-Oct-2019.)
⊢ (BOUNDED 𝐴 ↔ ∀𝑥BOUNDED 𝑥 ∈ 𝐴)
Theorem	bdceq 17090	Equality property for the predicate BOUNDED. (Contributed by BJ, 3-Oct-2019.)
⊢ 𝐴 = 𝐵    ⇒   ⊢ (BOUNDED 𝐴 ↔ BOUNDED 𝐵)
Theorem	bdceqi 17091	A class equal to a bounded one is bounded. Note the use of ax-ext 2220. See also bdceqir 17092. (Contributed by BJ, 3-Oct-2019.)
⊢ BOUNDED 𝐴    &   ⊢ 𝐴 = 𝐵    ⇒   ⊢ BOUNDED 𝐵
Theorem	bdceqir 17092	A class equal to a bounded one is bounded. Stated with a commuted (compared with bdceqi 17091) equality in the hypothesis, to work better with definitions (𝐵 is the definiendum that one wants to prove bounded; see comment of bd0r 17073). (Contributed by BJ, 3-Oct-2019.)
⊢ BOUNDED 𝐴    &   ⊢ 𝐵 = 𝐴    ⇒   ⊢ BOUNDED 𝐵
Theorem	bdel 17093*	The belonging of a setvar in a bounded class is a bounded formula. (Contributed by BJ, 3-Oct-2019.)
⊢ (BOUNDED 𝐴 → BOUNDED 𝑥 ∈ 𝐴)
Theorem	bdeli 17094*	Inference associated with bdel 17093. Its converse is bdelir 17095. (Contributed by BJ, 3-Oct-2019.)
⊢ BOUNDED 𝐴    ⇒   ⊢ BOUNDED 𝑥 ∈ 𝐴
Theorem	bdelir 17095*	Inference associated with df-bdc 17089. Its converse is bdeli 17094. (Contributed by BJ, 3-Oct-2019.)
⊢ BOUNDED 𝑥 ∈ 𝐴    ⇒   ⊢ BOUNDED 𝐴
Theorem	bdcv 17096	A setvar is a bounded class. (Contributed by BJ, 3-Oct-2019.)
⊢ BOUNDED 𝑥
Theorem	bdcab 17097	A class defined by class abstraction using a bounded formula is bounded. (Contributed by BJ, 6-Oct-2019.)
⊢ BOUNDED 𝜑    ⇒   ⊢ BOUNDED {𝑥 ∣ 𝜑}
Theorem	bdph 17098	A formula which defines (by class abstraction) a bounded class is bounded. (Contributed by BJ, 6-Oct-2019.)
⊢ BOUNDED {𝑥 ∣ 𝜑}    ⇒   ⊢ BOUNDED 𝜑
Theorem	bds 17099*	Boundedness of a formula resulting from implicit substitution in a bounded formula. Note that the proof does not use ax-bdsb 17070; therefore, using implicit instead of explicit substitution when boundedness is important, one might avoid using ax-bdsb 17070. (Contributed by BJ, 19-Nov-2019.)
⊢ BOUNDED 𝜑    &   ⊢ (𝑥 = 𝑦 → (𝜑 ↔ 𝜓))    ⇒   ⊢ BOUNDED 𝜓
Theorem	bdcrab 17100*	A class defined by restricted abstraction from a bounded class and a bounded formula is bounded. (Contributed by BJ, 3-Oct-2019.)
⊢ BOUNDED 𝐴    &   ⊢ BOUNDED 𝜑    ⇒   ⊢ BOUNDED {𝑥 ∈ 𝐴 ∣ 𝜑}