Home | Intuitionistic Logic Explorer Theorem List (p. 18 of 133) | < 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 | hbnaes 1701 | Rule that applies hbnae 1699 to antecedent. (Contributed by NM, 5-Aug-1993.) |
⊢ (∀𝑧 ¬ ∀𝑥 𝑥 = 𝑦 → 𝜑) ⇒ ⊢ (¬ ∀𝑥 𝑥 = 𝑦 → 𝜑) | ||
Theorem | naecoms 1702 | A commutation rule for distinct variable specifiers. (Contributed by NM, 2-Jan-2002.) |
⊢ (¬ ∀𝑥 𝑥 = 𝑦 → 𝜑) ⇒ ⊢ (¬ ∀𝑦 𝑦 = 𝑥 → 𝜑) | ||
Theorem | equs4 1703 | Lemma used in proofs of substitution properties. (Contributed by NM, 5-Aug-1993.) (Proof shortened by Mario Carneiro, 20-May-2014.) |
⊢ (∀𝑥(𝑥 = 𝑦 → 𝜑) → ∃𝑥(𝑥 = 𝑦 ∧ 𝜑)) | ||
Theorem | equsalh 1704 | A useful equivalence related to substitution. New proofs should use equsal 1705 instead. (Contributed by NM, 5-Aug-1993.) (Proof shortened by Andrew Salmon, 12-Aug-2011.) (New usage is discouraged.) |
⊢ (𝜓 → ∀𝑥𝜓) & ⊢ (𝑥 = 𝑦 → (𝜑 ↔ 𝜓)) ⇒ ⊢ (∀𝑥(𝑥 = 𝑦 → 𝜑) ↔ 𝜓) | ||
Theorem | equsal 1705 | A useful equivalence related to substitution. (Contributed by NM, 5-Aug-1993.) (Proof shortened by Andrew Salmon, 12-Aug-2011.) (Revised by Mario Carneiro, 3-Oct-2016.) (Proof shortened by Wolf Lammen, 5-Feb-2018.) |
⊢ Ⅎ𝑥𝜓 & ⊢ (𝑥 = 𝑦 → (𝜑 ↔ 𝜓)) ⇒ ⊢ (∀𝑥(𝑥 = 𝑦 → 𝜑) ↔ 𝜓) | ||
Theorem | equsex 1706 | A useful equivalence related to substitution. (Contributed by NM, 5-Aug-1993.) (Revised by NM, 3-Feb-2015.) |
⊢ (𝜓 → ∀𝑥𝜓) & ⊢ (𝑥 = 𝑦 → (𝜑 ↔ 𝜓)) ⇒ ⊢ (∃𝑥(𝑥 = 𝑦 ∧ 𝜑) ↔ 𝜓) | ||
Theorem | equsexd 1707 | Deduction form of equsex 1706. (Contributed by Jim Kingdon, 29-Dec-2017.) |
⊢ (𝜑 → ∀𝑥𝜑) & ⊢ (𝜑 → (𝜒 → ∀𝑥𝜒)) & ⊢ (𝜑 → (𝑥 = 𝑦 → (𝜓 ↔ 𝜒))) ⇒ ⊢ (𝜑 → (∃𝑥(𝑥 = 𝑦 ∧ 𝜓) ↔ 𝜒)) | ||
Theorem | dral1 1708 | Formula-building lemma for use with the Distinctor Reduction Theorem. Part of Theorem 9.4 of [Megill] p. 448 (p. 16 of preprint). (Contributed by NM, 24-Nov-1994.) |
⊢ (∀𝑥 𝑥 = 𝑦 → (𝜑 ↔ 𝜓)) ⇒ ⊢ (∀𝑥 𝑥 = 𝑦 → (∀𝑥𝜑 ↔ ∀𝑦𝜓)) | ||
Theorem | dral2 1709 | Formula-building lemma for use with the Distinctor Reduction Theorem. Part of Theorem 9.4 of [Megill] p. 448 (p. 16 of preprint). (Contributed by NM, 27-Feb-2005.) |
⊢ (∀𝑥 𝑥 = 𝑦 → (𝜑 ↔ 𝜓)) ⇒ ⊢ (∀𝑥 𝑥 = 𝑦 → (∀𝑧𝜑 ↔ ∀𝑧𝜓)) | ||
Theorem | drex2 1710 | Formula-building lemma for use with the Distinctor Reduction Theorem. Part of Theorem 9.4 of [Megill] p. 448 (p. 16 of preprint). (Contributed by NM, 27-Feb-2005.) |
⊢ (∀𝑥 𝑥 = 𝑦 → (𝜑 ↔ 𝜓)) ⇒ ⊢ (∀𝑥 𝑥 = 𝑦 → (∃𝑧𝜑 ↔ ∃𝑧𝜓)) | ||
Theorem | drnf1 1711 | Formula-building lemma for use with the Distinctor Reduction Theorem. (Contributed by Mario Carneiro, 4-Oct-2016.) |
⊢ (∀𝑥 𝑥 = 𝑦 → (𝜑 ↔ 𝜓)) ⇒ ⊢ (∀𝑥 𝑥 = 𝑦 → (Ⅎ𝑥𝜑 ↔ Ⅎ𝑦𝜓)) | ||
Theorem | drnf2 1712 | Formula-building lemma for use with the Distinctor Reduction Theorem. (Contributed by Mario Carneiro, 4-Oct-2016.) |
⊢ (∀𝑥 𝑥 = 𝑦 → (𝜑 ↔ 𝜓)) ⇒ ⊢ (∀𝑥 𝑥 = 𝑦 → (Ⅎ𝑧𝜑 ↔ Ⅎ𝑧𝜓)) | ||
Theorem | spimth 1713 | Closed theorem form of spim 1716. (Contributed by NM, 15-Jan-2008.) (New usage is discouraged.) |
⊢ (∀𝑥((𝜓 → ∀𝑥𝜓) ∧ (𝑥 = 𝑦 → (𝜑 → 𝜓))) → (∀𝑥𝜑 → 𝜓)) | ||
Theorem | spimt 1714 | Closed theorem form of spim 1716. (Contributed by NM, 15-Jan-2008.) (Revised by Mario Carneiro, 17-Oct-2016.) (Proof shortened by Wolf Lammen, 24-Feb-2018.) |
⊢ ((Ⅎ𝑥𝜓 ∧ ∀𝑥(𝑥 = 𝑦 → (𝜑 → 𝜓))) → (∀𝑥𝜑 → 𝜓)) | ||
Theorem | spimh 1715 | Specialization, using implicit substitition. Compare Lemma 14 of [Tarski] p. 70. The spim 1716 series of theorems requires that only one direction of the substitution hypothesis hold. (Contributed by NM, 5-Aug-1993.) (Revised by NM, 8-May-2008.) (New usage is discouraged.) |
⊢ (𝜓 → ∀𝑥𝜓) & ⊢ (𝑥 = 𝑦 → (𝜑 → 𝜓)) ⇒ ⊢ (∀𝑥𝜑 → 𝜓) | ||
Theorem | spim 1716 | Specialization, using implicit substitution. Compare Lemma 14 of [Tarski] p. 70. The spim 1716 series of theorems requires that only one direction of the substitution hypothesis hold. (Contributed by NM, 5-Aug-1993.) (Revised by Mario Carneiro, 3-Oct-2016.) (Proof rewritten by Jim Kingdon, 10-Jun-2018.) |
⊢ Ⅎ𝑥𝜓 & ⊢ (𝑥 = 𝑦 → (𝜑 → 𝜓)) ⇒ ⊢ (∀𝑥𝜑 → 𝜓) | ||
Theorem | spimeh 1717 | Existential introduction, using implicit substitition. Compare Lemma 14 of [Tarski] p. 70. (Contributed by NM, 7-Aug-1994.) (Revised by NM, 3-Feb-2015.) (New usage is discouraged.) |
⊢ (𝜑 → ∀𝑥𝜑) & ⊢ (𝑥 = 𝑦 → (𝜑 → 𝜓)) ⇒ ⊢ (𝜑 → ∃𝑥𝜓) | ||
Theorem | spimed 1718 | Deduction version of spime 1719. (Contributed by NM, 5-Aug-1993.) (Revised by Mario Carneiro, 3-Oct-2016.) (Proof shortened by Wolf Lammen, 19-Feb-2018.) |
⊢ (𝜒 → Ⅎ𝑥𝜑) & ⊢ (𝑥 = 𝑦 → (𝜑 → 𝜓)) ⇒ ⊢ (𝜒 → (𝜑 → ∃𝑥𝜓)) | ||
Theorem | spime 1719 | Existential introduction, using implicit substitution. Compare Lemma 14 of [Tarski] p. 70. (Contributed by NM, 7-Aug-1994.) (Revised by Mario Carneiro, 3-Oct-2016.) (Proof shortened by Wolf Lammen, 6-Mar-2018.) |
⊢ Ⅎ𝑥𝜑 & ⊢ (𝑥 = 𝑦 → (𝜑 → 𝜓)) ⇒ ⊢ (𝜑 → ∃𝑥𝜓) | ||
Theorem | cbv3 1720 | Rule used to change bound variables, using implicit substitution. (Contributed by NM, 5-Aug-1993.) (Proof shortened by Wolf Lammen, 12-May-2018.) |
⊢ Ⅎ𝑦𝜑 & ⊢ Ⅎ𝑥𝜓 & ⊢ (𝑥 = 𝑦 → (𝜑 → 𝜓)) ⇒ ⊢ (∀𝑥𝜑 → ∀𝑦𝜓) | ||
Theorem | cbv3h 1721 | Rule used to change bound variables, using implicit substitution. (Contributed by NM, 5-Aug-1993.) (Proof shortened by Andrew Salmon, 25-May-2011.) (Proof shortened by Wolf Lammen, 12-May-2018.) |
⊢ (𝜑 → ∀𝑦𝜑) & ⊢ (𝜓 → ∀𝑥𝜓) & ⊢ (𝑥 = 𝑦 → (𝜑 → 𝜓)) ⇒ ⊢ (∀𝑥𝜑 → ∀𝑦𝜓) | ||
Theorem | cbv1 1722 | Rule used to change bound variables, using implicit substitution. Revised to format hypotheses to common style. (Contributed by NM, 5-Aug-1993.) (Revised by Mario Carneiro, 3-Oct-2016.) (Revised by Wolf Lammen, 13-May-2018.) |
⊢ Ⅎ𝑥𝜑 & ⊢ Ⅎ𝑦𝜑 & ⊢ (𝜑 → Ⅎ𝑦𝜓) & ⊢ (𝜑 → Ⅎ𝑥𝜒) & ⊢ (𝜑 → (𝑥 = 𝑦 → (𝜓 → 𝜒))) ⇒ ⊢ (𝜑 → (∀𝑥𝜓 → ∀𝑦𝜒)) | ||
Theorem | cbv1h 1723 | Rule used to change bound variables, using implicit substitution. (Contributed by NM, 5-Aug-1993.) (Proof shortened by Wolf Lammen, 13-May-2018.) |
⊢ (𝜑 → (𝜓 → ∀𝑦𝜓)) & ⊢ (𝜑 → (𝜒 → ∀𝑥𝜒)) & ⊢ (𝜑 → (𝑥 = 𝑦 → (𝜓 → 𝜒))) ⇒ ⊢ (∀𝑥∀𝑦𝜑 → (∀𝑥𝜓 → ∀𝑦𝜒)) | ||
Theorem | cbv2h 1724 | Rule used to change bound variables, using implicit substitution. (Contributed by NM, 5-Aug-1993.) |
⊢ (𝜑 → (𝜓 → ∀𝑦𝜓)) & ⊢ (𝜑 → (𝜒 → ∀𝑥𝜒)) & ⊢ (𝜑 → (𝑥 = 𝑦 → (𝜓 ↔ 𝜒))) ⇒ ⊢ (∀𝑥∀𝑦𝜑 → (∀𝑥𝜓 ↔ ∀𝑦𝜒)) | ||
Theorem | cbv2 1725 | Rule used to change bound variables, using implicit substitution. Revised to align format of hypotheses to common style. (Contributed by NM, 5-Aug-1993.) (Revised by Mario Carneiro, 3-Oct-2016.) (Revised by Wolf Lammen, 13-May-2018.) |
⊢ Ⅎ𝑥𝜑 & ⊢ Ⅎ𝑦𝜑 & ⊢ (𝜑 → Ⅎ𝑦𝜓) & ⊢ (𝜑 → Ⅎ𝑥𝜒) & ⊢ (𝜑 → (𝑥 = 𝑦 → (𝜓 ↔ 𝜒))) ⇒ ⊢ (𝜑 → (∀𝑥𝜓 ↔ ∀𝑦𝜒)) | ||
Theorem | cbvalh 1726 | Rule used to change bound variables, using implicit substitition. (Contributed by NM, 5-Aug-1993.) (Proof shortened by Andrew Salmon, 25-May-2011.) |
⊢ (𝜑 → ∀𝑦𝜑) & ⊢ (𝜓 → ∀𝑥𝜓) & ⊢ (𝑥 = 𝑦 → (𝜑 ↔ 𝜓)) ⇒ ⊢ (∀𝑥𝜑 ↔ ∀𝑦𝜓) | ||
Theorem | cbval 1727 | Rule used to change bound variables, using implicit substitution. (Contributed by NM, 5-Aug-1993.) (Revised by Mario Carneiro, 3-Oct-2016.) |
⊢ Ⅎ𝑦𝜑 & ⊢ Ⅎ𝑥𝜓 & ⊢ (𝑥 = 𝑦 → (𝜑 ↔ 𝜓)) ⇒ ⊢ (∀𝑥𝜑 ↔ ∀𝑦𝜓) | ||
Theorem | cbvexh 1728 | Rule used to change bound variables, using implicit substitition. (Contributed by NM, 5-Aug-1993.) (Revised by Mario Carneiro, 3-Feb-2015.) |
⊢ (𝜑 → ∀𝑦𝜑) & ⊢ (𝜓 → ∀𝑥𝜓) & ⊢ (𝑥 = 𝑦 → (𝜑 ↔ 𝜓)) ⇒ ⊢ (∃𝑥𝜑 ↔ ∃𝑦𝜓) | ||
Theorem | cbvex 1729 | Rule used to change bound variables, using implicit substitution. (Contributed by NM, 5-Aug-1993.) |
⊢ Ⅎ𝑦𝜑 & ⊢ Ⅎ𝑥𝜓 & ⊢ (𝑥 = 𝑦 → (𝜑 ↔ 𝜓)) ⇒ ⊢ (∃𝑥𝜑 ↔ ∃𝑦𝜓) | ||
Theorem | chvar 1730 | Implicit substitution of 𝑦 for 𝑥 into a theorem. (Contributed by Raph Levien, 9-Jul-2003.) (Revised by Mario Carneiro, 3-Oct-2016.) |
⊢ Ⅎ𝑥𝜓 & ⊢ (𝑥 = 𝑦 → (𝜑 ↔ 𝜓)) & ⊢ 𝜑 ⇒ ⊢ 𝜓 | ||
Theorem | equvini 1731 | A variable introduction law for equality. Lemma 15 of [Monk2] p. 109, however we do not require 𝑧 to be distinct from 𝑥 and 𝑦 (making the proof longer). (Contributed by NM, 5-Aug-1993.) (Proof shortened by Andrew Salmon, 25-May-2011.) |
⊢ (𝑥 = 𝑦 → ∃𝑧(𝑥 = 𝑧 ∧ 𝑧 = 𝑦)) | ||
Theorem | equveli 1732 | A variable elimination law for equality with no distinct variable requirements. (Compare equvini 1731.) (Contributed by NM, 1-Mar-2013.) (Revised by NM, 3-Feb-2015.) |
⊢ (∀𝑧(𝑧 = 𝑥 ↔ 𝑧 = 𝑦) → 𝑥 = 𝑦) | ||
Theorem | nfald 1733 | If 𝑥 is not free in 𝜑, it is not free in ∀𝑦𝜑. (Contributed by Mario Carneiro, 24-Sep-2016.) (Proof shortened by Wolf Lammen, 6-Jan-2018.) |
⊢ Ⅎ𝑦𝜑 & ⊢ (𝜑 → Ⅎ𝑥𝜓) ⇒ ⊢ (𝜑 → Ⅎ𝑥∀𝑦𝜓) | ||
Theorem | nfexd 1734 | If 𝑥 is not free in 𝜑, it is not free in ∃𝑦𝜑. (Contributed by Mario Carneiro, 24-Sep-2016.) (Proof rewritten by Jim Kingdon, 7-Feb-2018.) |
⊢ Ⅎ𝑦𝜑 & ⊢ (𝜑 → Ⅎ𝑥𝜓) ⇒ ⊢ (𝜑 → Ⅎ𝑥∃𝑦𝜓) | ||
Syntax | wsb 1735 | Extend wff definition to include proper substitution (read "the wff that results when 𝑦 is properly substituted for 𝑥 in wff 𝜑"). (Contributed by NM, 24-Jan-2006.) |
wff [𝑦 / 𝑥]𝜑 | ||
Definition | df-sb 1736 |
Define proper substitution. Remark 9.1 in [Megill] p. 447 (p. 15 of the
preprint). For our notation, we use [𝑦 / 𝑥]𝜑 to mean "the wff
that results when 𝑦 is properly substituted for 𝑥 in the
wff
𝜑." We can also use [𝑦 / 𝑥]𝜑 in place of the "free for"
side condition used in traditional predicate calculus; see, for example,
stdpc4 1748.
Our notation was introduced in Haskell B. Curry's Foundations of Mathematical Logic (1977), p. 316 and is frequently used in textbooks of lambda calculus and combinatory logic. This notation improves the common but ambiguous notation, "𝜑(𝑦) is the wff that results when 𝑦 is properly substituted for 𝑥 in 𝜑(𝑥)." For example, if the original 𝜑(𝑥) is 𝑥 = 𝑦, then 𝜑(𝑦) is 𝑦 = 𝑦, from which we obtain that 𝜑(𝑥) is 𝑥 = 𝑥. So what exactly does 𝜑(𝑥) mean? Curry's notation solves this problem. In most books, proper substitution has a somewhat complicated recursive definition with multiple cases based on the occurrences of free and bound variables in the wff. Instead, we use a single formula that is exactly equivalent and gives us a direct definition. We later prove that our definition has the properties we expect of proper substitution (see theorems sbequ 1812, sbcom2 1960 and sbid2v 1969). Note that our definition is valid even when 𝑥 and 𝑦 are replaced with the same variable, as sbid 1747 shows. We achieve this by having 𝑥 free in the first conjunct and bound in the second. We can also achieve this by using a dummy variable, as the alternate definition dfsb7 1964 shows (which some logicians may prefer because it doesn't mix free and bound variables). Another alternate definition which uses a dummy variable is dfsb7a 1967. When 𝑥 and 𝑦 are distinct, we can express proper substitution with the simpler expressions of sb5 1859 and sb6 1858. In classical logic, another possible definition is (𝑥 = 𝑦 ∧ 𝜑) ∨ ∀𝑥(𝑥 = 𝑦 → 𝜑) but we do not have an intuitionistic proof that this is equivalent. There are no restrictions on any of the variables, including what variables may occur in wff 𝜑. (Contributed by NM, 5-Aug-1993.) |
⊢ ([𝑦 / 𝑥]𝜑 ↔ ((𝑥 = 𝑦 → 𝜑) ∧ ∃𝑥(𝑥 = 𝑦 ∧ 𝜑))) | ||
Theorem | sbimi 1737 | Infer substitution into antecedent and consequent of an implication. (Contributed by NM, 25-Jun-1998.) |
⊢ (𝜑 → 𝜓) ⇒ ⊢ ([𝑦 / 𝑥]𝜑 → [𝑦 / 𝑥]𝜓) | ||
Theorem | sbbii 1738 | Infer substitution into both sides of a logical equivalence. (Contributed by NM, 5-Aug-1993.) |
⊢ (𝜑 ↔ 𝜓) ⇒ ⊢ ([𝑦 / 𝑥]𝜑 ↔ [𝑦 / 𝑥]𝜓) | ||
Theorem | sb1 1739 | One direction of a simplified definition of substitution. (Contributed by NM, 5-Aug-1993.) |
⊢ ([𝑦 / 𝑥]𝜑 → ∃𝑥(𝑥 = 𝑦 ∧ 𝜑)) | ||
Theorem | sb2 1740 | One direction of a simplified definition of substitution. (Contributed by NM, 5-Aug-1993.) |
⊢ (∀𝑥(𝑥 = 𝑦 → 𝜑) → [𝑦 / 𝑥]𝜑) | ||
Theorem | sbequ1 1741 | An equality theorem for substitution. (Contributed by NM, 5-Aug-1993.) |
⊢ (𝑥 = 𝑦 → (𝜑 → [𝑦 / 𝑥]𝜑)) | ||
Theorem | sbequ2 1742 | An equality theorem for substitution. (Contributed by NM, 5-Aug-1993.) |
⊢ (𝑥 = 𝑦 → ([𝑦 / 𝑥]𝜑 → 𝜑)) | ||
Theorem | stdpc7 1743 | One of the two equality axioms of standard predicate calculus, called substitutivity of equality. (The other one is stdpc6 1679.) Translated to traditional notation, it can be read: "𝑥 = 𝑦 → (𝜑(𝑥, 𝑥) → 𝜑(𝑥, 𝑦)), provided that 𝑦 is free for 𝑥 in 𝜑(𝑥, 𝑦)." Axiom 7 of [Mendelson] p. 95. (Contributed by NM, 15-Feb-2005.) |
⊢ (𝑥 = 𝑦 → ([𝑥 / 𝑦]𝜑 → 𝜑)) | ||
Theorem | sbequ12 1744 | An equality theorem for substitution. (Contributed by NM, 5-Aug-1993.) |
⊢ (𝑥 = 𝑦 → (𝜑 ↔ [𝑦 / 𝑥]𝜑)) | ||
Theorem | sbequ12r 1745 | An equality theorem for substitution. (Contributed by NM, 6-Oct-2004.) (Proof shortened by Andrew Salmon, 21-Jun-2011.) |
⊢ (𝑥 = 𝑦 → ([𝑥 / 𝑦]𝜑 ↔ 𝜑)) | ||
Theorem | sbequ12a 1746 | An equality theorem for substitution. (Contributed by NM, 5-Aug-1993.) |
⊢ (𝑥 = 𝑦 → ([𝑦 / 𝑥]𝜑 ↔ [𝑥 / 𝑦]𝜑)) | ||
Theorem | sbid 1747 | An identity theorem for substitution. Remark 9.1 in [Megill] p. 447 (p. 15 of the preprint). (Contributed by NM, 5-Aug-1993.) |
⊢ ([𝑥 / 𝑥]𝜑 ↔ 𝜑) | ||
Theorem | stdpc4 1748 | The specialization axiom of standard predicate calculus. It states that if a statement 𝜑 holds for all 𝑥, then it also holds for the specific case of 𝑦 (properly) substituted for 𝑥. Translated to traditional notation, it can be read: "∀𝑥𝜑(𝑥) → 𝜑(𝑦), provided that 𝑦 is free for 𝑥 in 𝜑(𝑥)." Axiom 4 of [Mendelson] p. 69. (Contributed by NM, 5-Aug-1993.) |
⊢ (∀𝑥𝜑 → [𝑦 / 𝑥]𝜑) | ||
Theorem | sbh 1749 | Substitution for a variable not free in a wff does not affect it. (Contributed by NM, 5-Aug-1993.) (Revised by NM, 17-Oct-2004.) |
⊢ (𝜑 → ∀𝑥𝜑) ⇒ ⊢ ([𝑦 / 𝑥]𝜑 ↔ 𝜑) | ||
Theorem | sbf 1750 | Substitution for a variable not free in a wff does not affect it. (Contributed by NM, 5-Aug-1993.) (Revised by Mario Carneiro, 4-Oct-2016.) |
⊢ Ⅎ𝑥𝜑 ⇒ ⊢ ([𝑦 / 𝑥]𝜑 ↔ 𝜑) | ||
Theorem | sbf2 1751 | Substitution has no effect on a bound variable. (Contributed by NM, 1-Jul-2005.) |
⊢ ([𝑦 / 𝑥]∀𝑥𝜑 ↔ ∀𝑥𝜑) | ||
Theorem | sb6x 1752 | Equivalence involving substitution for a variable not free. (Contributed by NM, 5-Aug-1993.) (Proof shortened by Andrew Salmon, 12-Aug-2011.) |
⊢ (𝜑 → ∀𝑥𝜑) ⇒ ⊢ ([𝑦 / 𝑥]𝜑 ↔ ∀𝑥(𝑥 = 𝑦 → 𝜑)) | ||
Theorem | nfs1f 1753 | If 𝑥 is not free in 𝜑, it is not free in [𝑦 / 𝑥]𝜑. (Contributed by Mario Carneiro, 11-Aug-2016.) |
⊢ Ⅎ𝑥𝜑 ⇒ ⊢ Ⅎ𝑥[𝑦 / 𝑥]𝜑 | ||
Theorem | hbs1f 1754 | If 𝑥 is not free in 𝜑, it is not free in [𝑦 / 𝑥]𝜑. (Contributed by NM, 5-Aug-1993.) (Proof shortened by Andrew Salmon, 25-May-2011.) |
⊢ (𝜑 → ∀𝑥𝜑) ⇒ ⊢ ([𝑦 / 𝑥]𝜑 → ∀𝑥[𝑦 / 𝑥]𝜑) | ||
Theorem | sbequ5 1755 | Substitution does not change an identical variable specifier. (Contributed by NM, 5-Aug-1993.) (Revised by NM, 21-Dec-2004.) |
⊢ ([𝑤 / 𝑧]∀𝑥 𝑥 = 𝑦 ↔ ∀𝑥 𝑥 = 𝑦) | ||
Theorem | sbequ6 1756 | Substitution does not change a distinctor. (Contributed by NM, 5-Aug-1993.) (Revised by NM, 14-May-2005.) |
⊢ ([𝑤 / 𝑧] ¬ ∀𝑥 𝑥 = 𝑦 ↔ ¬ ∀𝑥 𝑥 = 𝑦) | ||
Theorem | sbt 1757 | A substitution into a theorem remains true. (See chvar 1730 and chvarv 1907 for versions using implicit substitition.) (Contributed by NM, 21-Jan-2004.) (Proof shortened by Andrew Salmon, 25-May-2011.) |
⊢ 𝜑 ⇒ ⊢ [𝑦 / 𝑥]𝜑 | ||
Theorem | equsb1 1758 | Substitution applied to an atomic wff. (Contributed by NM, 5-Aug-1993.) |
⊢ [𝑦 / 𝑥]𝑥 = 𝑦 | ||
Theorem | equsb2 1759 | Substitution applied to an atomic wff. (Contributed by NM, 5-Aug-1993.) |
⊢ [𝑦 / 𝑥]𝑦 = 𝑥 | ||
Theorem | sbiedh 1760 | Conversion of implicit substitution to explicit substitution (deduction version of sbieh 1763). New proofs should use sbied 1761 instead. (Contributed by NM, 30-Jun-1994.) (Proof shortened by Andrew Salmon, 25-May-2011.) (New usage is discouraged.) |
⊢ (𝜑 → ∀𝑥𝜑) & ⊢ (𝜑 → (𝜒 → ∀𝑥𝜒)) & ⊢ (𝜑 → (𝑥 = 𝑦 → (𝜓 ↔ 𝜒))) ⇒ ⊢ (𝜑 → ([𝑦 / 𝑥]𝜓 ↔ 𝜒)) | ||
Theorem | sbied 1761 | Conversion of implicit substitution to explicit substitution (deduction version of sbie 1764). (Contributed by NM, 30-Jun-1994.) (Revised by Mario Carneiro, 4-Oct-2016.) |
⊢ Ⅎ𝑥𝜑 & ⊢ (𝜑 → Ⅎ𝑥𝜒) & ⊢ (𝜑 → (𝑥 = 𝑦 → (𝜓 ↔ 𝜒))) ⇒ ⊢ (𝜑 → ([𝑦 / 𝑥]𝜓 ↔ 𝜒)) | ||
Theorem | sbiedv 1762* | Conversion of implicit substitution to explicit substitution (deduction version of sbie 1764). (Contributed by NM, 7-Jan-2017.) |
⊢ ((𝜑 ∧ 𝑥 = 𝑦) → (𝜓 ↔ 𝜒)) ⇒ ⊢ (𝜑 → ([𝑦 / 𝑥]𝜓 ↔ 𝜒)) | ||
Theorem | sbieh 1763 | Conversion of implicit substitution to explicit substitution. New proofs should use sbie 1764 instead. (Contributed by NM, 30-Jun-1994.) (New usage is discouraged.) |
⊢ (𝜓 → ∀𝑥𝜓) & ⊢ (𝑥 = 𝑦 → (𝜑 ↔ 𝜓)) ⇒ ⊢ ([𝑦 / 𝑥]𝜑 ↔ 𝜓) | ||
Theorem | sbie 1764 | Conversion of implicit substitution to explicit substitution. (Contributed by NM, 30-Jun-1994.) (Revised by Mario Carneiro, 4-Oct-2016.) (Revised by Wolf Lammen, 30-Apr-2018.) |
⊢ Ⅎ𝑥𝜓 & ⊢ (𝑥 = 𝑦 → (𝜑 ↔ 𝜓)) ⇒ ⊢ ([𝑦 / 𝑥]𝜑 ↔ 𝜓) | ||
Theorem | sbiev 1765* | Conversion of implicit substitution to explicit substitution. Version of sbie 1764 with a disjoint variable condition. (Contributed by Wolf Lammen, 18-Jan-2023.) |
⊢ Ⅎ𝑥𝜓 & ⊢ (𝑥 = 𝑦 → (𝜑 ↔ 𝜓)) ⇒ ⊢ ([𝑦 / 𝑥]𝜑 ↔ 𝜓) | ||
Theorem | equs5a 1766 | A property related to substitution that unlike equs5 1801 doesn't require a distinctor antecedent. (Contributed by NM, 2-Feb-2007.) |
⊢ (∃𝑥(𝑥 = 𝑦 ∧ ∀𝑦𝜑) → ∀𝑥(𝑥 = 𝑦 → 𝜑)) | ||
Theorem | equs5e 1767 | A property related to substitution that unlike equs5 1801 doesn't require a distinctor antecedent. (Contributed by NM, 2-Feb-2007.) (Revised by NM, 3-Feb-2015.) |
⊢ (∃𝑥(𝑥 = 𝑦 ∧ 𝜑) → ∀𝑥(𝑥 = 𝑦 → ∃𝑦𝜑)) | ||
Theorem | ax11e 1768 | Analogue to ax-11 1484 but for existential quantification. (Contributed by Mario Carneiro and Jim Kingdon, 31-Dec-2017.) (Proved by Mario Carneiro, 9-Feb-2018.) |
⊢ (𝑥 = 𝑦 → (∃𝑥(𝑥 = 𝑦 ∧ 𝜑) → ∃𝑦𝜑)) | ||
Theorem | ax10oe 1769 | Quantifier Substitution for existential quantifiers. Analogue to ax10o 1693 but for ∃ rather than ∀. (Contributed by Jim Kingdon, 21-Dec-2017.) |
⊢ (∀𝑥 𝑥 = 𝑦 → (∃𝑥𝜓 → ∃𝑦𝜓)) | ||
Theorem | drex1 1770 | Formula-building lemma for use with the Distinctor Reduction Theorem. Part of Theorem 9.4 of [Megill] p. 448 (p. 16 of preprint). (Contributed by NM, 27-Feb-2005.) (Revised by NM, 3-Feb-2015.) |
⊢ (∀𝑥 𝑥 = 𝑦 → (𝜑 ↔ 𝜓)) ⇒ ⊢ (∀𝑥 𝑥 = 𝑦 → (∃𝑥𝜑 ↔ ∃𝑦𝜓)) | ||
Theorem | drsb1 1771 | Formula-building lemma for use with the Distinctor Reduction Theorem. Part of Theorem 9.4 of [Megill] p. 448 (p. 16 of preprint). (Contributed by NM, 5-Aug-1993.) |
⊢ (∀𝑥 𝑥 = 𝑦 → ([𝑧 / 𝑥]𝜑 ↔ [𝑧 / 𝑦]𝜑)) | ||
Theorem | exdistrfor 1772 | Distribution of existential quantifiers, with a bound-variable hypothesis saying that 𝑦 is not free in 𝜑, but 𝑥 can be free in 𝜑 (and there is no distinct variable condition on 𝑥 and 𝑦). (Contributed by Jim Kingdon, 25-Feb-2018.) |
⊢ (∀𝑥 𝑥 = 𝑦 ∨ ∀𝑥Ⅎ𝑦𝜑) ⇒ ⊢ (∃𝑥∃𝑦(𝜑 ∧ 𝜓) → ∃𝑥(𝜑 ∧ ∃𝑦𝜓)) | ||
Theorem | sb4a 1773 | A version of sb4 1804 that doesn't require a distinctor antecedent. (Contributed by NM, 2-Feb-2007.) |
⊢ ([𝑦 / 𝑥]∀𝑦𝜑 → ∀𝑥(𝑥 = 𝑦 → 𝜑)) | ||
Theorem | equs45f 1774 | Two ways of expressing substitution when 𝑦 is not free in 𝜑. (Contributed by NM, 25-Apr-2008.) |
⊢ (𝜑 → ∀𝑦𝜑) ⇒ ⊢ (∃𝑥(𝑥 = 𝑦 ∧ 𝜑) ↔ ∀𝑥(𝑥 = 𝑦 → 𝜑)) | ||
Theorem | sb6f 1775 | Equivalence for substitution when 𝑦 is not free in 𝜑. (Contributed by NM, 5-Aug-1993.) (Revised by NM, 30-Apr-2008.) |
⊢ (𝜑 → ∀𝑦𝜑) ⇒ ⊢ ([𝑦 / 𝑥]𝜑 ↔ ∀𝑥(𝑥 = 𝑦 → 𝜑)) | ||
Theorem | sb5f 1776 | Equivalence for substitution when 𝑦 is not free in 𝜑. (Contributed by NM, 5-Aug-1993.) (Revised by NM, 18-May-2008.) |
⊢ (𝜑 → ∀𝑦𝜑) ⇒ ⊢ ([𝑦 / 𝑥]𝜑 ↔ ∃𝑥(𝑥 = 𝑦 ∧ 𝜑)) | ||
Theorem | sb4e 1777 | One direction of a simplified definition of substitution that unlike sb4 1804 doesn't require a distinctor antecedent. (Contributed by NM, 2-Feb-2007.) |
⊢ ([𝑦 / 𝑥]𝜑 → ∀𝑥(𝑥 = 𝑦 → ∃𝑦𝜑)) | ||
Theorem | hbsb2a 1778 | Special case of a bound-variable hypothesis builder for substitution. (Contributed by NM, 2-Feb-2007.) |
⊢ ([𝑦 / 𝑥]∀𝑦𝜑 → ∀𝑥[𝑦 / 𝑥]𝜑) | ||
Theorem | hbsb2e 1779 | Special case of a bound-variable hypothesis builder for substitution. (Contributed by NM, 2-Feb-2007.) |
⊢ ([𝑦 / 𝑥]𝜑 → ∀𝑥[𝑦 / 𝑥]∃𝑦𝜑) | ||
Theorem | hbsb3 1780 | If 𝑦 is not free in 𝜑, 𝑥 is not free in [𝑦 / 𝑥]𝜑. (Contributed by NM, 5-Aug-1993.) |
⊢ (𝜑 → ∀𝑦𝜑) ⇒ ⊢ ([𝑦 / 𝑥]𝜑 → ∀𝑥[𝑦 / 𝑥]𝜑) | ||
Theorem | nfs1 1781 | If 𝑦 is not free in 𝜑, 𝑥 is not free in [𝑦 / 𝑥]𝜑. (Contributed by Mario Carneiro, 11-Aug-2016.) |
⊢ Ⅎ𝑦𝜑 ⇒ ⊢ Ⅎ𝑥[𝑦 / 𝑥]𝜑 | ||
Theorem | sbcof2 1782 | Version of sbco 1939 where 𝑥 is not free in 𝜑. (Contributed by Jim Kingdon, 28-Dec-2017.) |
⊢ (𝜑 → ∀𝑥𝜑) ⇒ ⊢ ([𝑦 / 𝑥][𝑥 / 𝑦]𝜑 ↔ [𝑦 / 𝑥]𝜑) | ||
Theorem | spimv 1783* | A version of spim 1716 with a distinct variable requirement instead of a bound-variable hypothesis. (Contributed by NM, 5-Aug-1993.) |
⊢ (𝑥 = 𝑦 → (𝜑 → 𝜓)) ⇒ ⊢ (∀𝑥𝜑 → 𝜓) | ||
Theorem | aev 1784* | A "distinctor elimination" lemma with no restrictions on variables in the consequent, proved without using ax-16 1786. (Contributed by NM, 8-Nov-2006.) (Proof shortened by Andrew Salmon, 21-Jun-2011.) |
⊢ (∀𝑥 𝑥 = 𝑦 → ∀𝑧 𝑤 = 𝑣) | ||
Theorem | ax16 1785* |
Theorem showing that ax-16 1786 is redundant if ax-17 1506 is included in the
axiom system. The important part of the proof is provided by aev 1784.
See ax16ALT 1831 for an alternate proof that does not require ax-10 1483 or ax-12 1489. This theorem should not be referenced in any proof. Instead, use ax-16 1786 below so that theorems needing ax-16 1786 can be more easily identified. (Contributed by NM, 8-Nov-2006.) |
⊢ (∀𝑥 𝑥 = 𝑦 → (𝜑 → ∀𝑥𝜑)) | ||
Axiom | ax-16 1786* |
Axiom of Distinct Variables. The only axiom of predicate calculus
requiring that variables be distinct (if we consider ax-17 1506 to be a
metatheorem and not an axiom). Axiom scheme C16' in [Megill] p. 448 (p.
16 of the preprint). It apparently does not otherwise appear in the
literature but is easily proved from textbook predicate calculus by
cases. It is a somewhat bizarre axiom since the antecedent is always
false in set theory, but nonetheless it is technically necessary as you
can see from its uses.
This axiom is redundant if we include ax-17 1506; see theorem ax16 1785. This axiom is obsolete and should no longer be used. It is proved above as theorem ax16 1785. (Contributed by NM, 5-Aug-1993.) (New usage is discouraged.) |
⊢ (∀𝑥 𝑥 = 𝑦 → (𝜑 → ∀𝑥𝜑)) | ||
Theorem | dveeq2 1787* | Quantifier introduction when one pair of variables is distinct. (Contributed by NM, 2-Jan-2002.) |
⊢ (¬ ∀𝑥 𝑥 = 𝑦 → (𝑧 = 𝑦 → ∀𝑥 𝑧 = 𝑦)) | ||
Theorem | dveeq2or 1788* | Quantifier introduction when one pair of variables is distinct. Like dveeq2 1787 but connecting ∀𝑥𝑥 = 𝑦 by a disjunction rather than negation and implication makes the theorem stronger in intuitionistic logic. (Contributed by Jim Kingdon, 1-Feb-2018.) |
⊢ (∀𝑥 𝑥 = 𝑦 ∨ Ⅎ𝑥 𝑧 = 𝑦) | ||
Theorem | dvelimfALT2 1789* | Proof of dvelimf 1988 using dveeq2 1787 (shown as the last hypothesis) instead of ax-12 1489. This shows that ax-12 1489 could be replaced by dveeq2 1787 (the last hypothesis). (Contributed by Andrew Salmon, 21-Jul-2011.) |
⊢ (𝜑 → ∀𝑥𝜑) & ⊢ (𝜓 → ∀𝑧𝜓) & ⊢ (𝑧 = 𝑦 → (𝜑 ↔ 𝜓)) & ⊢ (¬ ∀𝑥 𝑥 = 𝑦 → (𝑧 = 𝑦 → ∀𝑥 𝑧 = 𝑦)) ⇒ ⊢ (¬ ∀𝑥 𝑥 = 𝑦 → (𝜓 → ∀𝑥𝜓)) | ||
Theorem | nd5 1790* | A lemma for proving conditionless ZFC axioms. (Contributed by NM, 8-Jan-2002.) |
⊢ (¬ ∀𝑦 𝑦 = 𝑥 → (𝑧 = 𝑦 → ∀𝑥 𝑧 = 𝑦)) | ||
Theorem | exlimdv 1791* | Deduction from Theorem 19.23 of [Margaris] p. 90. (Contributed by NM, 27-Apr-1994.) |
⊢ (𝜑 → (𝜓 → 𝜒)) ⇒ ⊢ (𝜑 → (∃𝑥𝜓 → 𝜒)) | ||
Theorem | ax11v2 1792* | Recovery of ax11o 1794 from ax11v 1799 without using ax-11 1484. The hypothesis is even weaker than ax11v 1799, with 𝑧 both distinct from 𝑥 and not occurring in 𝜑. Thus the hypothesis provides an alternate axiom that can be used in place of ax11o 1794. (Contributed by NM, 2-Feb-2007.) |
⊢ (𝑥 = 𝑧 → (𝜑 → ∀𝑥(𝑥 = 𝑧 → 𝜑))) ⇒ ⊢ (¬ ∀𝑥 𝑥 = 𝑦 → (𝑥 = 𝑦 → (𝜑 → ∀𝑥(𝑥 = 𝑦 → 𝜑)))) | ||
Theorem | ax11a2 1793* | Derive ax-11o 1795 from a hypothesis in the form of ax-11 1484. The hypothesis is even weaker than ax-11 1484, with 𝑧 both distinct from 𝑥 and not occurring in 𝜑. Thus the hypothesis provides an alternate axiom that can be used in place of ax11o 1794. (Contributed by NM, 2-Feb-2007.) |
⊢ (𝑥 = 𝑧 → (∀𝑧𝜑 → ∀𝑥(𝑥 = 𝑧 → 𝜑))) ⇒ ⊢ (¬ ∀𝑥 𝑥 = 𝑦 → (𝑥 = 𝑦 → (𝜑 → ∀𝑥(𝑥 = 𝑦 → 𝜑)))) | ||
Theorem | ax11o 1794 |
Derivation of set.mm's original ax-11o 1795 from the shorter ax-11 1484 that
has replaced it.
An open problem is whether this theorem can be proved without relying on ax-16 1786 or ax-17 1506. Normally, ax11o 1794 should be used rather than ax-11o 1795, except by theorems specifically studying the latter's properties. (Contributed by NM, 3-Feb-2007.) |
⊢ (¬ ∀𝑥 𝑥 = 𝑦 → (𝑥 = 𝑦 → (𝜑 → ∀𝑥(𝑥 = 𝑦 → 𝜑)))) | ||
Axiom | ax-11o 1795 |
Axiom ax-11o 1795 ("o" for "old") was the
original version of ax-11 1484,
before it was discovered (in Jan. 2007) that the shorter ax-11 1484 could
replace it. It appears as Axiom scheme C15' in [Megill] p. 448 (p. 16 of
the preprint). It is based on Lemma 16 of [Tarski] p. 70 and Axiom C8 of
[Monk2] p. 105, from which it can be proved
by cases. To understand this
theorem more easily, think of "¬ ∀𝑥𝑥 = 𝑦 →..." as informally
meaning "if 𝑥 and 𝑦 are distinct variables,
then..." The
antecedent becomes false if the same variable is substituted for 𝑥 and
𝑦, ensuring the theorem is sound
whenever this is the case. In some
later theorems, we call an antecedent of the form ¬
∀𝑥𝑥 = 𝑦 a
"distinctor."
This axiom is redundant, as shown by theorem ax11o 1794. This axiom is obsolete and should no longer be used. It is proved above as theorem ax11o 1794. (Contributed by NM, 5-Aug-1993.) (New usage is discouraged.) |
⊢ (¬ ∀𝑥 𝑥 = 𝑦 → (𝑥 = 𝑦 → (𝜑 → ∀𝑥(𝑥 = 𝑦 → 𝜑)))) | ||
Theorem | albidv 1796* | Formula-building rule for universal quantifier (deduction form). (Contributed by NM, 5-Aug-1993.) |
⊢ (𝜑 → (𝜓 ↔ 𝜒)) ⇒ ⊢ (𝜑 → (∀𝑥𝜓 ↔ ∀𝑥𝜒)) | ||
Theorem | exbidv 1797* | Formula-building rule for existential quantifier (deduction form). (Contributed by NM, 5-Aug-1993.) |
⊢ (𝜑 → (𝜓 ↔ 𝜒)) ⇒ ⊢ (𝜑 → (∃𝑥𝜓 ↔ ∃𝑥𝜒)) | ||
Theorem | ax11b 1798 | A bidirectional version of ax-11o 1795. (Contributed by NM, 30-Jun-2006.) |
⊢ ((¬ ∀𝑥 𝑥 = 𝑦 ∧ 𝑥 = 𝑦) → (𝜑 ↔ ∀𝑥(𝑥 = 𝑦 → 𝜑))) | ||
Theorem | ax11v 1799* | This is a version of ax-11o 1795 when the variables are distinct. Axiom (C8) of [Monk2] p. 105. (Contributed by NM, 5-Aug-1993.) (Revised by Jim Kingdon, 15-Dec-2017.) |
⊢ (𝑥 = 𝑦 → (𝜑 → ∀𝑥(𝑥 = 𝑦 → 𝜑))) | ||
Theorem | ax11ev 1800* | Analogue to ax11v 1799 for existential quantification. (Contributed by Jim Kingdon, 9-Jan-2018.) |
⊢ (𝑥 = 𝑦 → (∃𝑥(𝑥 = 𝑦 ∧ 𝜑) → 𝜑)) |
< Previous Next > |
Copyright terms: Public domain | < Previous Next > |