Home | Intuitionistic Logic Explorer Theorem List (p. 18 of 130) | < 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 | cbv3 1701 | 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 1702 | 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 1703 | 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 1704 | 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 1705 | 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 1706 | 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 1707 | 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 1708 | 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 1709 | 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 1710 | 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 1711 | 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 1712 | 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 1713 | A variable elimination law for equality with no distinct variable requirements. (Compare equvini 1712.) (Contributed by NM, 1-Mar-2013.) (Revised by NM, 3-Feb-2015.) |
⊢ (∀𝑧(𝑧 = 𝑥 ↔ 𝑧 = 𝑦) → 𝑥 = 𝑦) | ||
Theorem | nfald 1714 | 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 1715 | 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 1716 | 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 1717 |
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 1729.
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 1792, sbcom2 1936 and sbid2v 1945). Note that our definition is valid even when 𝑥 and 𝑦 are replaced with the same variable, as sbid 1728 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 1940 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 1943. When 𝑥 and 𝑦 are distinct, we can express proper substitution with the simpler expressions of sb5 1839 and sb6 1838. 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 1718 | 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 1719 | 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 1720 | One direction of a simplified definition of substitution. (Contributed by NM, 5-Aug-1993.) |
⊢ ([𝑦 / 𝑥]𝜑 → ∃𝑥(𝑥 = 𝑦 ∧ 𝜑)) | ||
Theorem | sb2 1721 | One direction of a simplified definition of substitution. (Contributed by NM, 5-Aug-1993.) |
⊢ (∀𝑥(𝑥 = 𝑦 → 𝜑) → [𝑦 / 𝑥]𝜑) | ||
Theorem | sbequ1 1722 | An equality theorem for substitution. (Contributed by NM, 5-Aug-1993.) |
⊢ (𝑥 = 𝑦 → (𝜑 → [𝑦 / 𝑥]𝜑)) | ||
Theorem | sbequ2 1723 | An equality theorem for substitution. (Contributed by NM, 5-Aug-1993.) |
⊢ (𝑥 = 𝑦 → ([𝑦 / 𝑥]𝜑 → 𝜑)) | ||
Theorem | stdpc7 1724 | One of the two equality axioms of standard predicate calculus, called substitutivity of equality. (The other one is stdpc6 1660.) 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 1725 | An equality theorem for substitution. (Contributed by NM, 5-Aug-1993.) |
⊢ (𝑥 = 𝑦 → (𝜑 ↔ [𝑦 / 𝑥]𝜑)) | ||
Theorem | sbequ12r 1726 | 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 1727 | An equality theorem for substitution. (Contributed by NM, 5-Aug-1993.) |
⊢ (𝑥 = 𝑦 → ([𝑦 / 𝑥]𝜑 ↔ [𝑥 / 𝑦]𝜑)) | ||
Theorem | sbid 1728 | 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 1729 | 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 1730 | 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 1731 | 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 1732 | Substitution has no effect on a bound variable. (Contributed by NM, 1-Jul-2005.) |
⊢ ([𝑦 / 𝑥]∀𝑥𝜑 ↔ ∀𝑥𝜑) | ||
Theorem | sb6x 1733 | 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 1734 | 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 1735 | 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 1736 | 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 1737 | 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 1738 | A substitution into a theorem remains true. (See chvar 1711 and chvarv 1885 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 1739 | Substitution applied to an atomic wff. (Contributed by NM, 5-Aug-1993.) |
⊢ [𝑦 / 𝑥]𝑥 = 𝑦 | ||
Theorem | equsb2 1740 | Substitution applied to an atomic wff. (Contributed by NM, 5-Aug-1993.) |
⊢ [𝑦 / 𝑥]𝑦 = 𝑥 | ||
Theorem | sbiedh 1741 | Conversion of implicit substitution to explicit substitution (deduction version of sbieh 1744). New proofs should use sbied 1742 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 1742 | Conversion of implicit substitution to explicit substitution (deduction version of sbie 1745). (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 1743* | Conversion of implicit substitution to explicit substitution (deduction version of sbie 1745). (Contributed by NM, 7-Jan-2017.) |
⊢ ((𝜑 ∧ 𝑥 = 𝑦) → (𝜓 ↔ 𝜒)) ⇒ ⊢ (𝜑 → ([𝑦 / 𝑥]𝜓 ↔ 𝜒)) | ||
Theorem | sbieh 1744 | Conversion of implicit substitution to explicit substitution. New proofs should use sbie 1745 instead. (Contributed by NM, 30-Jun-1994.) (New usage is discouraged.) |
⊢ (𝜓 → ∀𝑥𝜓) & ⊢ (𝑥 = 𝑦 → (𝜑 ↔ 𝜓)) ⇒ ⊢ ([𝑦 / 𝑥]𝜑 ↔ 𝜓) | ||
Theorem | sbie 1745 | 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 | equs5a 1746 | A property related to substitution that unlike equs5 1781 doesn't require a distinctor antecedent. (Contributed by NM, 2-Feb-2007.) |
⊢ (∃𝑥(𝑥 = 𝑦 ∧ ∀𝑦𝜑) → ∀𝑥(𝑥 = 𝑦 → 𝜑)) | ||
Theorem | equs5e 1747 | A property related to substitution that unlike equs5 1781 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 1748 | Analogue to ax-11 1465 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 1749 | Quantifier Substitution for existential quantifiers. Analogue to ax10o 1674 but for ∃ rather than ∀. (Contributed by Jim Kingdon, 21-Dec-2017.) |
⊢ (∀𝑥 𝑥 = 𝑦 → (∃𝑥𝜓 → ∃𝑦𝜓)) | ||
Theorem | drex1 1750 | 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 1751 | 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 1752 | 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 1753 | A version of sb4 1784 that doesn't require a distinctor antecedent. (Contributed by NM, 2-Feb-2007.) |
⊢ ([𝑦 / 𝑥]∀𝑦𝜑 → ∀𝑥(𝑥 = 𝑦 → 𝜑)) | ||
Theorem | equs45f 1754 | 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 1755 | 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 1756 | 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 1757 | One direction of a simplified definition of substitution that unlike sb4 1784 doesn't require a distinctor antecedent. (Contributed by NM, 2-Feb-2007.) |
⊢ ([𝑦 / 𝑥]𝜑 → ∀𝑥(𝑥 = 𝑦 → ∃𝑦𝜑)) | ||
Theorem | hbsb2a 1758 | 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 1759 | 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 1760 | 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 1761 | 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 1762 | Version of sbco 1915 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 1763* | A version of spim 1697 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 1764* | A "distinctor elimination" lemma with no restrictions on variables in the consequent, proved without using ax-16 1766. (Contributed by NM, 8-Nov-2006.) (Proof shortened by Andrew Salmon, 21-Jun-2011.) |
⊢ (∀𝑥 𝑥 = 𝑦 → ∀𝑧 𝑤 = 𝑣) | ||
Theorem | ax16 1765* |
Theorem showing that ax-16 1766 is redundant if ax-17 1487 is included in the
axiom system. The important part of the proof is provided by aev 1764.
See ax16ALT 1811 for an alternate proof that does not require ax-10 1464 or ax-12 1470. This theorem should not be referenced in any proof. Instead, use ax-16 1766 below so that theorems needing ax-16 1766 can be more easily identified. (Contributed by NM, 8-Nov-2006.) |
⊢ (∀𝑥 𝑥 = 𝑦 → (𝜑 → ∀𝑥𝜑)) | ||
Axiom | ax-16 1766* |
Axiom of Distinct Variables. The only axiom of predicate calculus
requiring that variables be distinct (if we consider ax-17 1487 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 1487; see theorem ax16 1765. This axiom is obsolete and should no longer be used. It is proved above as theorem ax16 1765. (Contributed by NM, 5-Aug-1993.) (New usage is discouraged.) |
⊢ (∀𝑥 𝑥 = 𝑦 → (𝜑 → ∀𝑥𝜑)) | ||
Theorem | dveeq2 1767* | 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 1768* | Quantifier introduction when one pair of variables is distinct. Like dveeq2 1767 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 1769* | Proof of dvelimf 1964 using dveeq2 1767 (shown as the last hypothesis) instead of ax-12 1470. This shows that ax-12 1470 could be replaced by dveeq2 1767 (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 1770* | A lemma for proving conditionless ZFC axioms. (Contributed by NM, 8-Jan-2002.) |
⊢ (¬ ∀𝑦 𝑦 = 𝑥 → (𝑧 = 𝑦 → ∀𝑥 𝑧 = 𝑦)) | ||
Theorem | exlimdv 1771* | Deduction from Theorem 19.23 of [Margaris] p. 90. (Contributed by NM, 27-Apr-1994.) |
⊢ (𝜑 → (𝜓 → 𝜒)) ⇒ ⊢ (𝜑 → (∃𝑥𝜓 → 𝜒)) | ||
Theorem | ax11v2 1772* | Recovery of ax11o 1774 from ax11v 1779 without using ax-11 1465. The hypothesis is even weaker than ax11v 1779, 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 1774. (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 1773* | Derive ax-11o 1775 from a hypothesis in the form of ax-11 1465. The hypothesis is even weaker than ax-11 1465, 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 1774. (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 1774 |
Derivation of set.mm's original ax-11o 1775 from the shorter ax-11 1465 that
has replaced it.
An open problem is whether this theorem can be proved without relying on ax-16 1766 or ax-17 1487. Normally, ax11o 1774 should be used rather than ax-11o 1775, 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 1775 |
Axiom ax-11o 1775 ("o" for "old") was the
original version of ax-11 1465,
before it was discovered (in Jan. 2007) that the shorter ax-11 1465 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 1774. This axiom is obsolete and should no longer be used. It is proved above as theorem ax11o 1774. (Contributed by NM, 5-Aug-1993.) (New usage is discouraged.) |
⊢ (¬ ∀𝑥 𝑥 = 𝑦 → (𝑥 = 𝑦 → (𝜑 → ∀𝑥(𝑥 = 𝑦 → 𝜑)))) | ||
Theorem | albidv 1776* | Formula-building rule for universal quantifier (deduction form). (Contributed by NM, 5-Aug-1993.) |
⊢ (𝜑 → (𝜓 ↔ 𝜒)) ⇒ ⊢ (𝜑 → (∀𝑥𝜓 ↔ ∀𝑥𝜒)) | ||
Theorem | exbidv 1777* | Formula-building rule for existential quantifier (deduction form). (Contributed by NM, 5-Aug-1993.) |
⊢ (𝜑 → (𝜓 ↔ 𝜒)) ⇒ ⊢ (𝜑 → (∃𝑥𝜓 ↔ ∃𝑥𝜒)) | ||
Theorem | ax11b 1778 | A bidirectional version of ax-11o 1775. (Contributed by NM, 30-Jun-2006.) |
⊢ ((¬ ∀𝑥 𝑥 = 𝑦 ∧ 𝑥 = 𝑦) → (𝜑 ↔ ∀𝑥(𝑥 = 𝑦 → 𝜑))) | ||
Theorem | ax11v 1779* | This is a version of ax-11o 1775 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 1780* | Analogue to ax11v 1779 for existential quantification. (Contributed by Jim Kingdon, 9-Jan-2018.) |
⊢ (𝑥 = 𝑦 → (∃𝑥(𝑥 = 𝑦 ∧ 𝜑) → 𝜑)) | ||
Theorem | equs5 1781 | Lemma used in proofs of substitution properties. (Contributed by NM, 5-Aug-1993.) |
⊢ (¬ ∀𝑥 𝑥 = 𝑦 → (∃𝑥(𝑥 = 𝑦 ∧ 𝜑) → ∀𝑥(𝑥 = 𝑦 → 𝜑))) | ||
Theorem | equs5or 1782 | Lemma used in proofs of substitution properties. Like equs5 1781 but, in intuitionistic logic, replacing negation and implication with disjunction makes this a stronger result. (Contributed by Jim Kingdon, 2-Feb-2018.) |
⊢ (∀𝑥 𝑥 = 𝑦 ∨ (∃𝑥(𝑥 = 𝑦 ∧ 𝜑) → ∀𝑥(𝑥 = 𝑦 → 𝜑))) | ||
Theorem | sb3 1783 | One direction of a simplified definition of substitution when variables are distinct. (Contributed by NM, 5-Aug-1993.) |
⊢ (¬ ∀𝑥 𝑥 = 𝑦 → (∃𝑥(𝑥 = 𝑦 ∧ 𝜑) → [𝑦 / 𝑥]𝜑)) | ||
Theorem | sb4 1784 | One direction of a simplified definition of substitution when variables are distinct. (Contributed by NM, 5-Aug-1993.) |
⊢ (¬ ∀𝑥 𝑥 = 𝑦 → ([𝑦 / 𝑥]𝜑 → ∀𝑥(𝑥 = 𝑦 → 𝜑))) | ||
Theorem | sb4or 1785 | One direction of a simplified definition of substitution when variables are distinct. Similar to sb4 1784 but stronger in intuitionistic logic. (Contributed by Jim Kingdon, 2-Feb-2018.) |
⊢ (∀𝑥 𝑥 = 𝑦 ∨ ∀𝑥([𝑦 / 𝑥]𝜑 → ∀𝑥(𝑥 = 𝑦 → 𝜑))) | ||
Theorem | sb4b 1786 | Simplified definition of substitution when variables are distinct. (Contributed by NM, 27-May-1997.) |
⊢ (¬ ∀𝑥 𝑥 = 𝑦 → ([𝑦 / 𝑥]𝜑 ↔ ∀𝑥(𝑥 = 𝑦 → 𝜑))) | ||
Theorem | sb4bor 1787 | Simplified definition of substitution when variables are distinct, expressed via disjunction. (Contributed by Jim Kingdon, 18-Mar-2018.) |
⊢ (∀𝑥 𝑥 = 𝑦 ∨ ∀𝑥([𝑦 / 𝑥]𝜑 ↔ ∀𝑥(𝑥 = 𝑦 → 𝜑))) | ||
Theorem | hbsb2 1788 | Bound-variable hypothesis builder for substitution. (Contributed by NM, 5-Aug-1993.) |
⊢ (¬ ∀𝑥 𝑥 = 𝑦 → ([𝑦 / 𝑥]𝜑 → ∀𝑥[𝑦 / 𝑥]𝜑)) | ||
Theorem | nfsb2or 1789 | Bound-variable hypothesis builder for substitution. Similar to hbsb2 1788 but in intuitionistic logic a disjunction is stronger than an implication. (Contributed by Jim Kingdon, 2-Feb-2018.) |
⊢ (∀𝑥 𝑥 = 𝑦 ∨ Ⅎ𝑥[𝑦 / 𝑥]𝜑) | ||
Theorem | sbequilem 1790 | Propositional logic lemma used in the sbequi 1791 proof. (Contributed by Jim Kingdon, 1-Feb-2018.) |
⊢ (𝜑 ∨ (𝜓 → (𝜒 → 𝜃))) & ⊢ (𝜏 ∨ (𝜓 → (𝜃 → 𝜂))) ⇒ ⊢ (𝜑 ∨ (𝜏 ∨ (𝜓 → (𝜒 → 𝜂)))) | ||
Theorem | sbequi 1791 | An equality theorem for substitution. (Contributed by NM, 5-Aug-1993.) (Proof modified by Jim Kingdon, 1-Feb-2018.) |
⊢ (𝑥 = 𝑦 → ([𝑥 / 𝑧]𝜑 → [𝑦 / 𝑧]𝜑)) | ||
Theorem | sbequ 1792 | An equality theorem for substitution. Used in proof of Theorem 9.7 in [Megill] p. 449 (p. 16 of the preprint). (Contributed by NM, 5-Aug-1993.) |
⊢ (𝑥 = 𝑦 → ([𝑥 / 𝑧]𝜑 ↔ [𝑦 / 𝑧]𝜑)) | ||
Theorem | drsb2 1793 | 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 → ([𝑥 / 𝑧]𝜑 ↔ [𝑦 / 𝑧]𝜑)) | ||
Theorem | spsbe 1794 | A specialization theorem, mostly the same as Theorem 19.8 of [Margaris] p. 89. (Contributed by NM, 5-Aug-1993.) (Proof rewritten by Jim Kingdon, 29-Dec-2017.) |
⊢ ([𝑦 / 𝑥]𝜑 → ∃𝑥𝜑) | ||
Theorem | spsbim 1795 | Specialization of implication. (Contributed by NM, 5-Aug-1993.) (Proof rewritten by Jim Kingdon, 21-Jan-2018.) |
⊢ (∀𝑥(𝜑 → 𝜓) → ([𝑦 / 𝑥]𝜑 → [𝑦 / 𝑥]𝜓)) | ||
Theorem | spsbbi 1796 | Specialization of biconditional. (Contributed by NM, 5-Aug-1993.) (Proof rewritten by Jim Kingdon, 21-Jan-2018.) |
⊢ (∀𝑥(𝜑 ↔ 𝜓) → ([𝑦 / 𝑥]𝜑 ↔ [𝑦 / 𝑥]𝜓)) | ||
Theorem | sbbidh 1797 | Deduction substituting both sides of a biconditional. New proofs should use sbbid 1798 instead. (Contributed by NM, 5-Aug-1993.) (New usage is discouraged.) |
⊢ (𝜑 → ∀𝑥𝜑) & ⊢ (𝜑 → (𝜓 ↔ 𝜒)) ⇒ ⊢ (𝜑 → ([𝑦 / 𝑥]𝜓 ↔ [𝑦 / 𝑥]𝜒)) | ||
Theorem | sbbid 1798 | Deduction substituting both sides of a biconditional. (Contributed by NM, 30-Jun-1993.) |
⊢ Ⅎ𝑥𝜑 & ⊢ (𝜑 → (𝜓 ↔ 𝜒)) ⇒ ⊢ (𝜑 → ([𝑦 / 𝑥]𝜓 ↔ [𝑦 / 𝑥]𝜒)) | ||
Theorem | sbequ8 1799 | Elimination of equality from antecedent after substitution. (Contributed by NM, 5-Aug-1993.) (Proof revised by Jim Kingdon, 20-Jan-2018.) |
⊢ ([𝑦 / 𝑥]𝜑 ↔ [𝑦 / 𝑥](𝑥 = 𝑦 → 𝜑)) | ||
Theorem | sbft 1800 | Substitution has no effect on a non-free variable. (Contributed by NM, 30-May-2009.) (Revised by Mario Carneiro, 12-Oct-2016.) (Proof shortened by Wolf Lammen, 3-May-2018.) |
⊢ (Ⅎ𝑥𝜑 → ([𝑦 / 𝑥]𝜑 ↔ 𝜑)) |
< Previous Next > |
Copyright terms: Public domain | < Previous Next > |