Home | Intuitionistic Logic Explorer Theorem List (p. 21 of 114) | < 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 | euan 2001 | Introduction of a conjunct into unique existential quantifier. (Contributed by NM, 19-Feb-2005.) (Proof shortened by Andrew Salmon, 9-Jul-2011.) |
⊢ (𝜑 → ∀𝑥𝜑) ⇒ ⊢ (∃!𝑥(𝜑 ∧ 𝜓) ↔ (𝜑 ∧ ∃!𝑥𝜓)) | ||
Theorem | euanv 2002* | Introduction of a conjunct into unique existential quantifier. (Contributed by NM, 23-Mar-1995.) |
⊢ (∃!𝑥(𝜑 ∧ 𝜓) ↔ (𝜑 ∧ ∃!𝑥𝜓)) | ||
Theorem | euor2 2003 | Introduce or eliminate a disjunct in a unique existential quantifier. (Contributed by NM, 21-Oct-2005.) (Proof shortened by Andrew Salmon, 9-Jul-2011.) |
⊢ (¬ ∃𝑥𝜑 → (∃!𝑥(𝜑 ∨ 𝜓) ↔ ∃!𝑥𝜓)) | ||
Theorem | sbmo 2004* | Substitution into "at most one". (Contributed by Jeff Madsen, 2-Sep-2009.) |
⊢ ([𝑦 / 𝑥]∃*𝑧𝜑 ↔ ∃*𝑧[𝑦 / 𝑥]𝜑) | ||
Theorem | mo4f 2005* | "At most one" expressed using implicit substitution. (Contributed by NM, 10-Apr-2004.) |
⊢ Ⅎ𝑥𝜓 & ⊢ (𝑥 = 𝑦 → (𝜑 ↔ 𝜓)) ⇒ ⊢ (∃*𝑥𝜑 ↔ ∀𝑥∀𝑦((𝜑 ∧ 𝜓) → 𝑥 = 𝑦)) | ||
Theorem | mo4 2006* | "At most one" expressed using implicit substitution. (Contributed by NM, 26-Jul-1995.) |
⊢ (𝑥 = 𝑦 → (𝜑 ↔ 𝜓)) ⇒ ⊢ (∃*𝑥𝜑 ↔ ∀𝑥∀𝑦((𝜑 ∧ 𝜓) → 𝑥 = 𝑦)) | ||
Theorem | eu4 2007* | Uniqueness using implicit substitution. (Contributed by NM, 26-Jul-1995.) |
⊢ (𝑥 = 𝑦 → (𝜑 ↔ 𝜓)) ⇒ ⊢ (∃!𝑥𝜑 ↔ (∃𝑥𝜑 ∧ ∀𝑥∀𝑦((𝜑 ∧ 𝜓) → 𝑥 = 𝑦))) | ||
Theorem | exmoeudc 2008 | Existence in terms of "at most one" and uniqueness. (Contributed by Jim Kingdon, 3-Jul-2018.) |
⊢ (DECID ∃𝑥𝜑 → (∃𝑥𝜑 ↔ (∃*𝑥𝜑 → ∃!𝑥𝜑))) | ||
Theorem | moim 2009 | "At most one" is preserved through implication (notice wff reversal). (Contributed by NM, 22-Apr-1995.) |
⊢ (∀𝑥(𝜑 → 𝜓) → (∃*𝑥𝜓 → ∃*𝑥𝜑)) | ||
Theorem | moimi 2010 | "At most one" is preserved through implication (notice wff reversal). (Contributed by NM, 15-Feb-2006.) |
⊢ (𝜑 → 𝜓) ⇒ ⊢ (∃*𝑥𝜓 → ∃*𝑥𝜑) | ||
Theorem | moimv 2011* | Move antecedent outside of "at most one." (Contributed by NM, 28-Jul-1995.) |
⊢ (∃*𝑥(𝜑 → 𝜓) → (𝜑 → ∃*𝑥𝜓)) | ||
Theorem | euimmo 2012 | Uniqueness implies "at most one" through implication. (Contributed by NM, 22-Apr-1995.) |
⊢ (∀𝑥(𝜑 → 𝜓) → (∃!𝑥𝜓 → ∃*𝑥𝜑)) | ||
Theorem | euim 2013 | Add existential unique existential quantifiers to an implication. Note the reversed implication in the antecedent. (Contributed by NM, 19-Oct-2005.) (Proof shortened by Andrew Salmon, 14-Jun-2011.) |
⊢ ((∃𝑥𝜑 ∧ ∀𝑥(𝜑 → 𝜓)) → (∃!𝑥𝜓 → ∃!𝑥𝜑)) | ||
Theorem | moan 2014 | "At most one" is still the case when a conjunct is added. (Contributed by NM, 22-Apr-1995.) |
⊢ (∃*𝑥𝜑 → ∃*𝑥(𝜓 ∧ 𝜑)) | ||
Theorem | moani 2015 | "At most one" is still true when a conjunct is added. (Contributed by NM, 9-Mar-1995.) |
⊢ ∃*𝑥𝜑 ⇒ ⊢ ∃*𝑥(𝜓 ∧ 𝜑) | ||
Theorem | moor 2016 | "At most one" is still the case when a disjunct is removed. (Contributed by NM, 5-Apr-2004.) |
⊢ (∃*𝑥(𝜑 ∨ 𝜓) → ∃*𝑥𝜑) | ||
Theorem | mooran1 2017 | "At most one" imports disjunction to conjunction. (Contributed by NM, 5-Apr-2004.) (Proof shortened by Andrew Salmon, 9-Jul-2011.) |
⊢ ((∃*𝑥𝜑 ∨ ∃*𝑥𝜓) → ∃*𝑥(𝜑 ∧ 𝜓)) | ||
Theorem | mooran2 2018 | "At most one" exports disjunction to conjunction. (Contributed by NM, 5-Apr-2004.) (Proof shortened by Andrew Salmon, 9-Jul-2011.) |
⊢ (∃*𝑥(𝜑 ∨ 𝜓) → (∃*𝑥𝜑 ∧ ∃*𝑥𝜓)) | ||
Theorem | moanim 2019 | Introduction of a conjunct into at-most-one quantifier. (Contributed by NM, 3-Dec-2001.) |
⊢ Ⅎ𝑥𝜑 ⇒ ⊢ (∃*𝑥(𝜑 ∧ 𝜓) ↔ (𝜑 → ∃*𝑥𝜓)) | ||
Theorem | moanimv 2020* | Introduction of a conjunct into at-most-one quantifier. (Contributed by NM, 23-Mar-1995.) |
⊢ (∃*𝑥(𝜑 ∧ 𝜓) ↔ (𝜑 → ∃*𝑥𝜓)) | ||
Theorem | moaneu 2021 | Nested at-most-one and unique existential quantifiers. (Contributed by NM, 25-Jan-2006.) |
⊢ ∃*𝑥(𝜑 ∧ ∃!𝑥𝜑) | ||
Theorem | moanmo 2022 | Nested at-most-one quantifiers. (Contributed by NM, 25-Jan-2006.) |
⊢ ∃*𝑥(𝜑 ∧ ∃*𝑥𝜑) | ||
Theorem | mopick 2023 | "At most one" picks a variable value, eliminating an existential quantifier. (Contributed by NM, 27-Jan-1997.) |
⊢ ((∃*𝑥𝜑 ∧ ∃𝑥(𝜑 ∧ 𝜓)) → (𝜑 → 𝜓)) | ||
Theorem | eupick 2024 | Existential uniqueness "picks" a variable value for which another wff is true. If there is only one thing 𝑥 such that 𝜑 is true, and there is also an 𝑥 (actually the same one) such that 𝜑 and 𝜓 are both true, then 𝜑 implies 𝜓 regardless of 𝑥. This theorem can be useful for eliminating existential quantifiers in a hypothesis. Compare Theorem *14.26 in [WhiteheadRussell] p. 192. (Contributed by NM, 10-Jul-1994.) |
⊢ ((∃!𝑥𝜑 ∧ ∃𝑥(𝜑 ∧ 𝜓)) → (𝜑 → 𝜓)) | ||
Theorem | eupicka 2025 | Version of eupick 2024 with closed formulas. (Contributed by NM, 6-Sep-2008.) |
⊢ ((∃!𝑥𝜑 ∧ ∃𝑥(𝜑 ∧ 𝜓)) → ∀𝑥(𝜑 → 𝜓)) | ||
Theorem | eupickb 2026 | Existential uniqueness "pick" showing wff equivalence. (Contributed by NM, 25-Nov-1994.) |
⊢ ((∃!𝑥𝜑 ∧ ∃!𝑥𝜓 ∧ ∃𝑥(𝜑 ∧ 𝜓)) → (𝜑 ↔ 𝜓)) | ||
Theorem | eupickbi 2027 | Theorem *14.26 in [WhiteheadRussell] p. 192. (Contributed by Andrew Salmon, 11-Jul-2011.) |
⊢ (∃!𝑥𝜑 → (∃𝑥(𝜑 ∧ 𝜓) ↔ ∀𝑥(𝜑 → 𝜓))) | ||
Theorem | mopick2 2028 | "At most one" can show the existence of a common value. In this case we can infer existence of conjunction from a conjunction of existence, and it is one way to achieve the converse of 19.40 1565. (Contributed by NM, 5-Apr-2004.) (Proof shortened by Andrew Salmon, 9-Jul-2011.) |
⊢ ((∃*𝑥𝜑 ∧ ∃𝑥(𝜑 ∧ 𝜓) ∧ ∃𝑥(𝜑 ∧ 𝜒)) → ∃𝑥(𝜑 ∧ 𝜓 ∧ 𝜒)) | ||
Theorem | moexexdc 2029 | "At most one" double quantification. (Contributed by Jim Kingdon, 5-Jul-2018.) |
⊢ Ⅎ𝑦𝜑 ⇒ ⊢ (DECID ∃𝑥𝜑 → ((∃*𝑥𝜑 ∧ ∀𝑥∃*𝑦𝜓) → ∃*𝑦∃𝑥(𝜑 ∧ 𝜓))) | ||
Theorem | euexex 2030 | Existential uniqueness and "at most one" double quantification. (Contributed by Jim Kingdon, 28-Dec-2018.) |
⊢ Ⅎ𝑦𝜑 ⇒ ⊢ ((∃!𝑥𝜑 ∧ ∀𝑥∃*𝑦𝜓) → ∃*𝑦∃𝑥(𝜑 ∧ 𝜓)) | ||
Theorem | 2moex 2031 | Double quantification with "at most one." (Contributed by NM, 3-Dec-2001.) |
⊢ (∃*𝑥∃𝑦𝜑 → ∀𝑦∃*𝑥𝜑) | ||
Theorem | 2euex 2032 | Double quantification with existential uniqueness. (Contributed by NM, 3-Dec-2001.) (Proof shortened by Andrew Salmon, 9-Jul-2011.) |
⊢ (∃!𝑥∃𝑦𝜑 → ∃𝑦∃!𝑥𝜑) | ||
Theorem | 2eumo 2033 | Double quantification with existential uniqueness and "at most one." (Contributed by NM, 3-Dec-2001.) |
⊢ (∃!𝑥∃*𝑦𝜑 → ∃*𝑥∃!𝑦𝜑) | ||
Theorem | 2eu2ex 2034 | Double existential uniqueness. (Contributed by NM, 3-Dec-2001.) |
⊢ (∃!𝑥∃!𝑦𝜑 → ∃𝑥∃𝑦𝜑) | ||
Theorem | 2moswapdc 2035 | A condition allowing swap of "at most one" and existential quantifiers. (Contributed by Jim Kingdon, 6-Jul-2018.) |
⊢ (DECID ∃𝑥∃𝑦𝜑 → (∀𝑥∃*𝑦𝜑 → (∃*𝑥∃𝑦𝜑 → ∃*𝑦∃𝑥𝜑))) | ||
Theorem | 2euswapdc 2036 | A condition allowing swap of uniqueness and existential quantifiers. (Contributed by Jim Kingdon, 7-Jul-2018.) |
⊢ (DECID ∃𝑥∃𝑦𝜑 → (∀𝑥∃*𝑦𝜑 → (∃!𝑥∃𝑦𝜑 → ∃!𝑦∃𝑥𝜑))) | ||
Theorem | 2exeu 2037 | Double existential uniqueness implies double unique existential quantification. (Contributed by NM, 3-Dec-2001.) |
⊢ ((∃!𝑥∃𝑦𝜑 ∧ ∃!𝑦∃𝑥𝜑) → ∃!𝑥∃!𝑦𝜑) | ||
Theorem | 2eu4 2038* | This theorem provides us with a definition of double existential uniqueness ("exactly one 𝑥 and exactly one 𝑦"). Naively one might think (incorrectly) that it could be defined by ∃!𝑥∃!𝑦𝜑. See 2exeu 2037 for a one-way implication. (Contributed by NM, 3-Dec-2001.) |
⊢ ((∃!𝑥∃𝑦𝜑 ∧ ∃!𝑦∃𝑥𝜑) ↔ (∃𝑥∃𝑦𝜑 ∧ ∃𝑧∃𝑤∀𝑥∀𝑦(𝜑 → (𝑥 = 𝑧 ∧ 𝑦 = 𝑤)))) | ||
Theorem | 2eu7 2039 | Two equivalent expressions for double existential uniqueness. (Contributed by NM, 19-Feb-2005.) |
⊢ ((∃!𝑥∃𝑦𝜑 ∧ ∃!𝑦∃𝑥𝜑) ↔ ∃!𝑥∃!𝑦(∃𝑥𝜑 ∧ ∃𝑦𝜑)) | ||
Theorem | euequ1 2040* | Equality has existential uniqueness. (Contributed by Stefan Allan, 4-Dec-2008.) |
⊢ ∃!𝑥 𝑥 = 𝑦 | ||
Theorem | exists1 2041* | Two ways to express "only one thing exists." The left-hand side requires only one variable to express this. Both sides are false in set theory. (Contributed by NM, 5-Apr-2004.) |
⊢ (∃!𝑥 𝑥 = 𝑥 ↔ ∀𝑥 𝑥 = 𝑦) | ||
Theorem | exists2 2042 | A condition implying that at least two things exist. (Contributed by NM, 10-Apr-2004.) (Proof shortened by Andrew Salmon, 9-Jul-2011.) |
⊢ ((∃𝑥𝜑 ∧ ∃𝑥 ¬ 𝜑) → ¬ ∃!𝑥 𝑥 = 𝑥) | ||
Model the Aristotelian assertic syllogisms using modern notation. This section shows that the Aristotelian assertic syllogisms can be proven with our axioms of logic, and also provides generally useful theorems. In antiquity Aristotelian logic and Stoic logic (see mptnan 1357) were the leading logical systems. Aristotelian logic became the leading system in medieval Europe; this section models this system (including later refinements to it). Aristotle defined syllogisms very generally ("a discourse in which certain (specific) things having been supposed, something different from the things supposed results of necessity because these things are so") Aristotle, Prior Analytics 24b18-20. However, in Prior Analytics he limits himself to categorical syllogisms that consist of three categorical propositions with specific structures. The syllogisms are the valid subset of the possible combinations of these structures. The medieval schools used vowels to identify the types of terms (a=all, e=none, i=some, and o=some are not), and named the different syllogisms with Latin words that had the vowels in the intended order. "There is a surprising amount of scholarly debate about how best to formalize Aristotle's syllogisms..." according to Aristotle's Modal Proofs: Prior Analytics A8-22 in Predicate Logic, Adriane Rini, Springer, 2011, ISBN 978-94-007-0049-9, page 28. For example, Lukasiewicz believes it is important to note that "Aristotle does not introduce singular terms or premisses into his system". Lukasiewicz also believes that Aristotelian syllogisms are predicates (having a true/false value), not inference rules: "The characteristic sign of an inference is the word 'therefore'... no syllogism is formulated by Aristotle primarily as an inference, but they are all implications." Jan Lukasiewicz, Aristotle's Syllogistic from the Standpoint of Modern Formal Logic, Second edition, Oxford, 1957, page 1-2. Lukasiewicz devised a specialized prefix notation for representing Aristotelian syllogisms instead of using standard predicate logic notation. We instead translate each Aristotelian syllogism into an inference rule, and each rule is defined using standard predicate logic notation and predicates. The predicates are represented by wff variables that may depend on the quantified variable 𝑥. Our translation is essentially identical to the one use in Rini page 18, Table 2 "Non-Modal Syllogisms in Lower Predicate Calculus (LPC)", which uses standard predicate logic with predicates. Rini states, "the crucial point is that we capture the meaning Aristotle intends, and the method by which we represent that meaning is less important." There are two differences: we make the existence criteria explicit, and we use 𝜑, 𝜓, and 𝜒 in the order they appear (a common Metamath convention). Patzig also uses standard predicate logic notation and predicates (though he interprets them as conditional propositions, not as inference rules); see Gunther Patzig, Aristotle's Theory of the Syllogism second edition, 1963, English translation by Jonathan Barnes, 1968, page 38. Terms such as "all" and "some" are translated into predicate logic using the aproach devised by Frege and Russell. "Frege (and Russell) devised an ingenious procedure for regimenting binary quantifiers like "every" and "some" in terms of unary quantifiers like "everything" and "something": they formalized sentences of the form "Some A is B" and "Every A is B" as exists x (Ax and Bx) and all x (Ax implies Bx), respectively." "Quantifiers and Quantification", Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/quantification/. See Principia Mathematica page 22 and *10 for more information (especially *10.3 and *10.26). Expressions of the form "no 𝜑 is 𝜓 " are consistently translated as ∀𝑥(𝜑 → ¬ 𝜓). These can also be expressed as ¬ ∃𝑥(𝜑 ∧ 𝜓), per alinexa 1537. We translate "all 𝜑 is 𝜓 " to ∀𝑥(𝜑 → 𝜓), "some 𝜑 is 𝜓 " to ∃𝑥(𝜑 ∧ 𝜓), and "some 𝜑 is not 𝜓 " to ∃𝑥(𝜑 ∧ ¬ 𝜓). It is traditional to use the singular verb "is", not the plural verb "are", in the generic expressions. By convention the major premise is listed first. In traditional Aristotelian syllogisms the predicates have a restricted form ("x is a ..."); those predicates could be modeled in modern notation by constructs such as 𝑥 = 𝐴, 𝑥 ∈ 𝐴, or 𝑥 ⊆ 𝐴. Here we use wff variables instead of specialized restricted forms. This generalization makes the syllogisms more useful in more circumstances. In addition, these expressions make it clearer that the syllogisms of Aristolean logic are the forerunners of predicate calculus. If we used restricted forms like 𝑥 ∈ 𝐴 instead, we would not only unnecessarily limit their use, but we would also need to use set and class axioms, making their relationship to predicate calculus less clear. There are some widespread misconceptions about the existential assumptions made by Aristotle (aka "existential import"). Aristotle was not trying to develop something exactly corresponding to modern logic. Aristotle devised "a companion-logic for science. He relegates fictions like fairy godmothers and mermaids and unicorns to the realms of poetry and literature. In his mind, they exist outside the ambit of science. This is why he leaves no room for such nonexistent entities in his logic. This is a thoughtful choice, not an inadvertent omission. Technically, Aristotelian science is a search for definitions, where a definition is "a phrase signifying a thing's essence." (Topics, I.5.102a37, Pickard-Cambridge.)... Because nonexistent entities cannot be anything, they do not, in Aristotle's mind, possess an essence... This is why he leaves no place for fictional entities like goat-stags (or unicorns)." Source: Louis F. Groarke, "Aristotle: Logic", section 7. (Existential Assumptions), Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy (A Peer-Reviewed Academic Resource), http://www.iep.utm.edu/aris-log/. Thus, some syllogisms have "extra" existence hypotheses that do not directly appear in Aristotle's original materials (since they were always assumed); they are added where they are needed. This affects barbari 2047, celaront 2048, cesaro 2053, camestros 2054, felapton 2059, darapti 2060, calemos 2064, fesapo 2065, and bamalip 2066. These are only the assertic syllogisms. Aristotle also defined modal syllogisms that deal with modal qualifiers such as "necessarily" and "possibly". Historically Aristotelian modal syllogisms were not as widely used. For more about modal syllogisms in a modern context, see Rini as well as Aristotle's Modal Syllogistic by Marko Malink, Harvard University Press, November 2013. We do not treat them further here. Aristotelean logic is essentially the forerunner of predicate calculus (as well as set theory since it discusses membership in groups), while Stoic logic is essentially the forerunner of propositional calculus. | ||
Theorem | barbara 2043 | "Barbara", one of the fundamental syllogisms of Aristotelian logic. All 𝜑 is 𝜓, and all 𝜒 is 𝜑, therefore all 𝜒 is 𝜓. (In Aristotelian notation, AAA-1: MaP and SaM therefore SaP.) For example, given "All men are mortal" and "Socrates is a man", we can prove "Socrates is mortal". If H is the set of men, M is the set of mortal beings, and S is Socrates, these word phrases can be represented as ∀𝑥(𝑥 ∈ 𝐻 → 𝑥 ∈ 𝑀) (all men are mortal) and ∀𝑥(𝑥 = 𝑆 → 𝑥 ∈ 𝐻) (Socrates is a man) therefore ∀𝑥(𝑥 = 𝑆 → 𝑥 ∈ 𝑀) (Socrates is mortal). Russell and Whitehead note that the "syllogism in Barbara is derived..." from syl 14. (quote after Theorem *2.06 of [WhiteheadRussell] p. 101). Most of the proof is in alsyl 1569. There are a legion of sources for Barbara, including http://www.friesian.com/aristotl.htm, http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/aristotle-logic/, and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syllogism. (Contributed by David A. Wheeler, 24-Aug-2016.) |
⊢ ∀𝑥(𝜑 → 𝜓) & ⊢ ∀𝑥(𝜒 → 𝜑) ⇒ ⊢ ∀𝑥(𝜒 → 𝜓) | ||
Theorem | celarent 2044 | "Celarent", one of the syllogisms of Aristotelian logic. No 𝜑 is 𝜓, and all 𝜒 is 𝜑, therefore no 𝜒 is 𝜓. (In Aristotelian notation, EAE-1: MeP and SaM therefore SeP.) For example, given the "No reptiles have fur" and "All snakes are reptiles", therefore "No snakes have fur". Example from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syllogism. (Contributed by David A. Wheeler, 24-Aug-2016.) (Revised by David A. Wheeler, 2-Sep-2016.) |
⊢ ∀𝑥(𝜑 → ¬ 𝜓) & ⊢ ∀𝑥(𝜒 → 𝜑) ⇒ ⊢ ∀𝑥(𝜒 → ¬ 𝜓) | ||
Theorem | darii 2045 | "Darii", one of the syllogisms of Aristotelian logic. All 𝜑 is 𝜓, and some 𝜒 is 𝜑, therefore some 𝜒 is 𝜓. (In Aristotelian notation, AII-1: MaP and SiM therefore SiP.) For example, given "All rabbits have fur" and "Some pets are rabbits", therefore "Some pets have fur". Example from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syllogism. (Contributed by David A. Wheeler, 24-Aug-2016.) |
⊢ ∀𝑥(𝜑 → 𝜓) & ⊢ ∃𝑥(𝜒 ∧ 𝜑) ⇒ ⊢ ∃𝑥(𝜒 ∧ 𝜓) | ||
Theorem | ferio 2046 | "Ferio" ("Ferioque"), one of the syllogisms of Aristotelian logic. No 𝜑 is 𝜓, and some 𝜒 is 𝜑, therefore some 𝜒 is not 𝜓. (In Aristotelian notation, EIO-1: MeP and SiM therefore SoP.) For example, given "No homework is fun" and "Some reading is homework", therefore "Some reading is not fun". This is essentially a logical axiom in Aristotelian logic. Example from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syllogism. (Contributed by David A. Wheeler, 24-Aug-2016.) (Revised by David A. Wheeler, 2-Sep-2016.) |
⊢ ∀𝑥(𝜑 → ¬ 𝜓) & ⊢ ∃𝑥(𝜒 ∧ 𝜑) ⇒ ⊢ ∃𝑥(𝜒 ∧ ¬ 𝜓) | ||
Theorem | barbari 2047 | "Barbari", one of the syllogisms of Aristotelian logic. All 𝜑 is 𝜓, all 𝜒 is 𝜑, and some 𝜒 exist, therefore some 𝜒 is 𝜓. (In Aristotelian notation, AAI-1: MaP and SaM therefore SiP.) For example, given "All men are mortal", "All Greeks are men", and "Greeks exist", therefore "Some Greeks are mortal". Note the existence hypothesis (to prove the "some" in the conclusion). Example from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syllogism. (Contributed by David A. Wheeler, 27-Aug-2016.) (Revised by David A. Wheeler, 30-Aug-2016.) |
⊢ ∀𝑥(𝜑 → 𝜓) & ⊢ ∀𝑥(𝜒 → 𝜑) & ⊢ ∃𝑥𝜒 ⇒ ⊢ ∃𝑥(𝜒 ∧ 𝜓) | ||
Theorem | celaront 2048 | "Celaront", one of the syllogisms of Aristotelian logic. No 𝜑 is 𝜓, all 𝜒 is 𝜑, and some 𝜒 exist, therefore some 𝜒 is not 𝜓. (In Aristotelian notation, EAO-1: MeP and SaM therefore SoP.) For example, given "No reptiles have fur", "All snakes are reptiles.", and "Snakes exist.", prove "Some snakes have no fur". Note the existence hypothesis. Example from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syllogism. (Contributed by David A. Wheeler, 27-Aug-2016.) (Revised by David A. Wheeler, 2-Sep-2016.) |
⊢ ∀𝑥(𝜑 → ¬ 𝜓) & ⊢ ∀𝑥(𝜒 → 𝜑) & ⊢ ∃𝑥𝜒 ⇒ ⊢ ∃𝑥(𝜒 ∧ ¬ 𝜓) | ||
Theorem | cesare 2049 | "Cesare", one of the syllogisms of Aristotelian logic. No 𝜑 is 𝜓, and all 𝜒 is 𝜓, therefore no 𝜒 is 𝜑. (In Aristotelian notation, EAE-2: PeM and SaM therefore SeP.) Related to celarent 2044. (Contributed by David A. Wheeler, 27-Aug-2016.) (Revised by David A. Wheeler, 13-Nov-2016.) |
⊢ ∀𝑥(𝜑 → ¬ 𝜓) & ⊢ ∀𝑥(𝜒 → 𝜓) ⇒ ⊢ ∀𝑥(𝜒 → ¬ 𝜑) | ||
Theorem | camestres 2050 | "Camestres", one of the syllogisms of Aristotelian logic. All 𝜑 is 𝜓, and no 𝜒 is 𝜓, therefore no 𝜒 is 𝜑. (In Aristotelian notation, AEE-2: PaM and SeM therefore SeP.) (Contributed by David A. Wheeler, 28-Aug-2016.) (Revised by David A. Wheeler, 2-Sep-2016.) |
⊢ ∀𝑥(𝜑 → 𝜓) & ⊢ ∀𝑥(𝜒 → ¬ 𝜓) ⇒ ⊢ ∀𝑥(𝜒 → ¬ 𝜑) | ||
Theorem | festino 2051 | "Festino", one of the syllogisms of Aristotelian logic. No 𝜑 is 𝜓, and some 𝜒 is 𝜓, therefore some 𝜒 is not 𝜑. (In Aristotelian notation, EIO-2: PeM and SiM therefore SoP.) (Contributed by David A. Wheeler, 25-Nov-2016.) |
⊢ ∀𝑥(𝜑 → ¬ 𝜓) & ⊢ ∃𝑥(𝜒 ∧ 𝜓) ⇒ ⊢ ∃𝑥(𝜒 ∧ ¬ 𝜑) | ||
Theorem | baroco 2052 | "Baroco", one of the syllogisms of Aristotelian logic. All 𝜑 is 𝜓, and some 𝜒 is not 𝜓, therefore some 𝜒 is not 𝜑. (In Aristotelian notation, AOO-2: PaM and SoM therefore SoP.) For example, "All informative things are useful", "Some websites are not useful", therefore "Some websites are not informative." (Contributed by David A. Wheeler, 28-Aug-2016.) |
⊢ ∀𝑥(𝜑 → 𝜓) & ⊢ ∃𝑥(𝜒 ∧ ¬ 𝜓) ⇒ ⊢ ∃𝑥(𝜒 ∧ ¬ 𝜑) | ||
Theorem | cesaro 2053 | "Cesaro", one of the syllogisms of Aristotelian logic. No 𝜑 is 𝜓, all 𝜒 is 𝜓, and 𝜒 exist, therefore some 𝜒 is not 𝜑. (In Aristotelian notation, EAO-2: PeM and SaM therefore SoP.) (Contributed by David A. Wheeler, 28-Aug-2016.) (Revised by David A. Wheeler, 2-Sep-2016.) |
⊢ ∀𝑥(𝜑 → ¬ 𝜓) & ⊢ ∀𝑥(𝜒 → 𝜓) & ⊢ ∃𝑥𝜒 ⇒ ⊢ ∃𝑥(𝜒 ∧ ¬ 𝜑) | ||
Theorem | camestros 2054 | "Camestros", one of the syllogisms of Aristotelian logic. All 𝜑 is 𝜓, no 𝜒 is 𝜓, and 𝜒 exist, therefore some 𝜒 is not 𝜑. (In Aristotelian notation, AEO-2: PaM and SeM therefore SoP.) For example, "All horses have hooves", "No humans have hooves", and humans exist, therefore "Some humans are not horses". (Contributed by David A. Wheeler, 28-Aug-2016.) (Revised by David A. Wheeler, 2-Sep-2016.) |
⊢ ∀𝑥(𝜑 → 𝜓) & ⊢ ∀𝑥(𝜒 → ¬ 𝜓) & ⊢ ∃𝑥𝜒 ⇒ ⊢ ∃𝑥(𝜒 ∧ ¬ 𝜑) | ||
Theorem | datisi 2055 | "Datisi", one of the syllogisms of Aristotelian logic. All 𝜑 is 𝜓, and some 𝜑 is 𝜒, therefore some 𝜒 is 𝜓. (In Aristotelian notation, AII-3: MaP and MiS therefore SiP.) (Contributed by David A. Wheeler, 28-Aug-2016.) |
⊢ ∀𝑥(𝜑 → 𝜓) & ⊢ ∃𝑥(𝜑 ∧ 𝜒) ⇒ ⊢ ∃𝑥(𝜒 ∧ 𝜓) | ||
Theorem | disamis 2056 | "Disamis", one of the syllogisms of Aristotelian logic. Some 𝜑 is 𝜓, and all 𝜑 is 𝜒, therefore some 𝜒 is 𝜓. (In Aristotelian notation, IAI-3: MiP and MaS therefore SiP.) (Contributed by David A. Wheeler, 28-Aug-2016.) |
⊢ ∃𝑥(𝜑 ∧ 𝜓) & ⊢ ∀𝑥(𝜑 → 𝜒) ⇒ ⊢ ∃𝑥(𝜒 ∧ 𝜓) | ||
Theorem | ferison 2057 | "Ferison", one of the syllogisms of Aristotelian logic. No 𝜑 is 𝜓, and some 𝜑 is 𝜒, therefore some 𝜒 is not 𝜓. (In Aristotelian notation, EIO-3: MeP and MiS therefore SoP.) (Contributed by David A. Wheeler, 28-Aug-2016.) (Revised by David A. Wheeler, 2-Sep-2016.) |
⊢ ∀𝑥(𝜑 → ¬ 𝜓) & ⊢ ∃𝑥(𝜑 ∧ 𝜒) ⇒ ⊢ ∃𝑥(𝜒 ∧ ¬ 𝜓) | ||
Theorem | bocardo 2058 | "Bocardo", one of the syllogisms of Aristotelian logic. Some 𝜑 is not 𝜓, and all 𝜑 is 𝜒, therefore some 𝜒 is not 𝜓. (In Aristotelian notation, OAO-3: MoP and MaS therefore SoP.) For example, "Some cats have no tails", "All cats are mammals", therefore "Some mammals have no tails". A reorder of disamis 2056; prefer using that instead. (Contributed by David A. Wheeler, 28-Aug-2016.) (New usage is discouraged.) |
⊢ ∃𝑥(𝜑 ∧ ¬ 𝜓) & ⊢ ∀𝑥(𝜑 → 𝜒) ⇒ ⊢ ∃𝑥(𝜒 ∧ ¬ 𝜓) | ||
Theorem | felapton 2059 | "Felapton", one of the syllogisms of Aristotelian logic. No 𝜑 is 𝜓, all 𝜑 is 𝜒, and some 𝜑 exist, therefore some 𝜒 is not 𝜓. (In Aristotelian notation, EAO-3: MeP and MaS therefore SoP.) For example, "No flowers are animals" and "All flowers are plants", therefore "Some plants are not animals". (Contributed by David A. Wheeler, 28-Aug-2016.) (Revised by David A. Wheeler, 2-Sep-2016.) |
⊢ ∀𝑥(𝜑 → ¬ 𝜓) & ⊢ ∀𝑥(𝜑 → 𝜒) & ⊢ ∃𝑥𝜑 ⇒ ⊢ ∃𝑥(𝜒 ∧ ¬ 𝜓) | ||
Theorem | darapti 2060 | "Darapti", one of the syllogisms of Aristotelian logic. All 𝜑 is 𝜓, all 𝜑 is 𝜒, and some 𝜑 exist, therefore some 𝜒 is 𝜓. (In Aristotelian notation, AAI-3: MaP and MaS therefore SiP.) For example, "All squares are rectangles" and "All squares are rhombuses", therefore "Some rhombuses are rectangles". (Contributed by David A. Wheeler, 28-Aug-2016.) |
⊢ ∀𝑥(𝜑 → 𝜓) & ⊢ ∀𝑥(𝜑 → 𝜒) & ⊢ ∃𝑥𝜑 ⇒ ⊢ ∃𝑥(𝜒 ∧ 𝜓) | ||
Theorem | calemes 2061 | "Calemes", one of the syllogisms of Aristotelian logic. All 𝜑 is 𝜓, and no 𝜓 is 𝜒, therefore no 𝜒 is 𝜑. (In Aristotelian notation, AEE-4: PaM and MeS therefore SeP.) (Contributed by David A. Wheeler, 28-Aug-2016.) (Revised by David A. Wheeler, 2-Sep-2016.) |
⊢ ∀𝑥(𝜑 → 𝜓) & ⊢ ∀𝑥(𝜓 → ¬ 𝜒) ⇒ ⊢ ∀𝑥(𝜒 → ¬ 𝜑) | ||
Theorem | dimatis 2062 | "Dimatis", one of the syllogisms of Aristotelian logic. Some 𝜑 is 𝜓, and all 𝜓 is 𝜒, therefore some 𝜒 is 𝜑. (In Aristotelian notation, IAI-4: PiM and MaS therefore SiP.) For example, "Some pets are rabbits.", "All rabbits have fur", therefore "Some fur bearing animals are pets". Like darii 2045 with positions interchanged. (Contributed by David A. Wheeler, 28-Aug-2016.) |
⊢ ∃𝑥(𝜑 ∧ 𝜓) & ⊢ ∀𝑥(𝜓 → 𝜒) ⇒ ⊢ ∃𝑥(𝜒 ∧ 𝜑) | ||
Theorem | fresison 2063 | "Fresison", one of the syllogisms of Aristotelian logic. No 𝜑 is 𝜓 (PeM), and some 𝜓 is 𝜒 (MiS), therefore some 𝜒 is not 𝜑 (SoP). (In Aristotelian notation, EIO-4: PeM and MiS therefore SoP.) (Contributed by David A. Wheeler, 28-Aug-2016.) (Revised by David A. Wheeler, 2-Sep-2016.) |
⊢ ∀𝑥(𝜑 → ¬ 𝜓) & ⊢ ∃𝑥(𝜓 ∧ 𝜒) ⇒ ⊢ ∃𝑥(𝜒 ∧ ¬ 𝜑) | ||
Theorem | calemos 2064 | "Calemos", one of the syllogisms of Aristotelian logic. All 𝜑 is 𝜓 (PaM), no 𝜓 is 𝜒 (MeS), and 𝜒 exist, therefore some 𝜒 is not 𝜑 (SoP). (In Aristotelian notation, AEO-4: PaM and MeS therefore SoP.) (Contributed by David A. Wheeler, 28-Aug-2016.) (Revised by David A. Wheeler, 2-Sep-2016.) |
⊢ ∀𝑥(𝜑 → 𝜓) & ⊢ ∀𝑥(𝜓 → ¬ 𝜒) & ⊢ ∃𝑥𝜒 ⇒ ⊢ ∃𝑥(𝜒 ∧ ¬ 𝜑) | ||
Theorem | fesapo 2065 | "Fesapo", one of the syllogisms of Aristotelian logic. No 𝜑 is 𝜓, all 𝜓 is 𝜒, and 𝜓 exist, therefore some 𝜒 is not 𝜑. (In Aristotelian notation, EAO-4: PeM and MaS therefore SoP.) (Contributed by David A. Wheeler, 28-Aug-2016.) (Revised by David A. Wheeler, 2-Sep-2016.) |
⊢ ∀𝑥(𝜑 → ¬ 𝜓) & ⊢ ∀𝑥(𝜓 → 𝜒) & ⊢ ∃𝑥𝜓 ⇒ ⊢ ∃𝑥(𝜒 ∧ ¬ 𝜑) | ||
Theorem | bamalip 2066 | "Bamalip", one of the syllogisms of Aristotelian logic. All 𝜑 is 𝜓, all 𝜓 is 𝜒, and 𝜑 exist, therefore some 𝜒 is 𝜑. (In Aristotelian notation, AAI-4: PaM and MaS therefore SiP.) Like barbari 2047. (Contributed by David A. Wheeler, 28-Aug-2016.) |
⊢ ∀𝑥(𝜑 → 𝜓) & ⊢ ∀𝑥(𝜓 → 𝜒) & ⊢ ∃𝑥𝜑 ⇒ ⊢ ∃𝑥(𝜒 ∧ 𝜑) | ||
Set theory uses the formalism of propositional and predicate calculus to assert properties of arbitrary mathematical objects called "sets." A set can be an element of another set, and this relationship is indicated by the ∈ symbol. Starting with the simplest mathematical object, called the empty set, set theory builds up more and more complex structures whose existence follows from the axioms, eventually resulting in extremely complicated sets that we identify with the real numbers and other familiar mathematical objects. Here we develop set theory based on the Intuitionistic Zermelo-Fraenkel (IZF) system, mostly following the IZF axioms as laid out in [Crosilla]. Constructive Zermelo-Fraenkel (CZF), also described in Crosilla, is not as easy to formalize in Metamath because the statement of some of its axioms uses the notion of "bounded formula". Since Metamath has, purposefully, a very weak metalogic, that notion must be developed in the logic itself. This is similar to our treatment of substitution (df-sb 1690) and our definition of the nonfreeness predicate (df-nf 1393), whereas substitution and bound and free variables are ordinarily defined in the metalogic. The development of CZF has begun in BJ's mathbox, see wbd 11148. | ||
Axiom | ax-ext 2067* |
Axiom of Extensionality. It states that two sets are identical if they
contain the same elements. Axiom 1 of [Crosilla] p. "Axioms of CZF and
IZF" (with unnecessary quantifiers removed).
Set theory can also be formulated with a single primitive predicate ∈ on top of traditional predicate calculus without equality. In that case the Axiom of Extensionality becomes (∀𝑤(𝑤 ∈ 𝑥 ↔ 𝑤 ∈ 𝑦) → (𝑥 ∈ 𝑧 → 𝑦 ∈ 𝑧)), and equality 𝑥 = 𝑦 is defined as ∀𝑤(𝑤 ∈ 𝑥 ↔ 𝑤 ∈ 𝑦). All of the usual axioms of equality then become theorems of set theory. See, for example, Axiom 1 of [TakeutiZaring] p. 8. To use the above "equality-free" version of Extensionality with Metamath's logical axioms, we would rewrite ax-8 1438 through ax-16 1739 with equality expanded according to the above definition. Some of those axioms could be proved from set theory and would be redundant. Not all of them are redundant, since our axioms of predicate calculus make essential use of equality for the proper substitution that is a primitive notion in traditional predicate calculus. A study of such an axiomatization would be an interesting project for someone exploring the foundations of logic. It is important to understand that strictly speaking, all of our set theory axioms are really schemes that represent an infinite number of actual axioms. This is inherent in the design of Metamath ("metavariable math"), which manipulates only metavariables. For example, the metavariable 𝑥 in ax-ext 2067 can represent any actual variable v1, v2, v3,... . Distinct variable restrictions ($d) prevent us from substituting say v1 for both 𝑥 and 𝑧. This is in contrast to typical textbook presentations that present actual axioms (except for axioms which involve wff metavariables). In practice, though, the theorems and proofs are essentially the same. The $d restrictions make each of the infinite axioms generated by the ax-ext 2067 scheme exactly logically equivalent to each other and in particular to the actual axiom of the textbook version. (Contributed by NM, 5-Aug-1993.) |
⊢ (∀𝑧(𝑧 ∈ 𝑥 ↔ 𝑧 ∈ 𝑦) → 𝑥 = 𝑦) | ||
Theorem | axext3 2068* | A generalization of the Axiom of Extensionality in which 𝑥 and 𝑦 need not be distinct. (Contributed by NM, 15-Sep-1993.) (Proof shortened by Andrew Salmon, 12-Aug-2011.) |
⊢ (∀𝑧(𝑧 ∈ 𝑥 ↔ 𝑧 ∈ 𝑦) → 𝑥 = 𝑦) | ||
Theorem | axext4 2069* | A bidirectional version of Extensionality. Although this theorem "looks" like it is just a definition of equality, it requires the Axiom of Extensionality for its proof under our axiomatization. See the comments for ax-ext 2067. (Contributed by NM, 14-Nov-2008.) |
⊢ (𝑥 = 𝑦 ↔ ∀𝑧(𝑧 ∈ 𝑥 ↔ 𝑧 ∈ 𝑦)) | ||
Theorem | bm1.1 2070* | Any set defined by a property is the only set defined by that property. Theorem 1.1 of [BellMachover] p. 462. (Contributed by NM, 30-Jun-1994.) |
⊢ Ⅎ𝑥𝜑 ⇒ ⊢ (∃𝑥∀𝑦(𝑦 ∈ 𝑥 ↔ 𝜑) → ∃!𝑥∀𝑦(𝑦 ∈ 𝑥 ↔ 𝜑)) | ||
Syntax | cab 2071 | Introduce the class builder or class abstraction notation ("the class of sets 𝑥 such that 𝜑 is true"). Our class variables 𝐴, 𝐵, etc. range over class builders (sometimes implicitly). Note that a setvar variable can be expressed as a class builder per theorem cvjust 2080, justifying the assignment of setvar variables to class variables via the use of cv 1286. |
class {𝑥 ∣ 𝜑} | ||
Definition | df-clab 2072 |
Define class abstraction notation (so-called by Quine), also called a
"class builder" in the literature. 𝑥 and 𝑦 need
not be distinct.
Definition 2.1 of [Quine] p. 16. Typically,
𝜑
will have 𝑦 as a
free variable, and "{𝑦 ∣ 𝜑} " is read "the class of
all sets 𝑦
such that 𝜑(𝑦) is true." We do not define
{𝑦 ∣
𝜑} in
isolation but only as part of an expression that extends or
"overloads"
the ∈ relationship.
This is our first use of the ∈ symbol to connect classes instead of sets. The syntax definition wcel 1436, which extends or "overloads" the wel 1437 definition connecting setvar variables, requires that both sides of ∈ be a class. In df-cleq 2078 and df-clel 2081, we introduce a new kind of variable (class variable) that can substituted with expressions such as {𝑦 ∣ 𝜑}. In the present definition, the 𝑥 on the left-hand side is a setvar variable. Syntax definition cv 1286 allows us to substitute a setvar variable 𝑥 for a class variable: all sets are classes by cvjust 2080 (but not necessarily vice-versa). For a full description of how classes are introduced and how to recover the primitive language, see the discussion in Quine (and under abeq2 2193 for a quick overview). Because class variables can be substituted with compound expressions and setvar variables cannot, it is often useful to convert a theorem containing a free setvar variable to a more general version with a class variable. This is called the "axiom of class comprehension" by [Levy] p. 338, who treats the theory of classes as an extralogical extension to our logic and set theory axioms. He calls the construction {𝑦 ∣ 𝜑} a "class term". For a general discussion of the theory of classes, see http://us.metamath.org/mpeuni/mmset.html#class. (Contributed by NM, 5-Aug-1993.) |
⊢ (𝑥 ∈ {𝑦 ∣ 𝜑} ↔ [𝑥 / 𝑦]𝜑) | ||
Theorem | abid 2073 | Simplification of class abstraction notation when the free and bound variables are identical. (Contributed by NM, 5-Aug-1993.) |
⊢ (𝑥 ∈ {𝑥 ∣ 𝜑} ↔ 𝜑) | ||
Theorem | hbab1 2074* | Bound-variable hypothesis builder for a class abstraction. (Contributed by NM, 5-Aug-1993.) |
⊢ (𝑦 ∈ {𝑥 ∣ 𝜑} → ∀𝑥 𝑦 ∈ {𝑥 ∣ 𝜑}) | ||
Theorem | nfsab1 2075* | Bound-variable hypothesis builder for a class abstraction. (Contributed by Mario Carneiro, 11-Aug-2016.) |
⊢ Ⅎ𝑥 𝑦 ∈ {𝑥 ∣ 𝜑} | ||
Theorem | hbab 2076* | Bound-variable hypothesis builder for a class abstraction. (Contributed by NM, 1-Mar-1995.) |
⊢ (𝜑 → ∀𝑥𝜑) ⇒ ⊢ (𝑧 ∈ {𝑦 ∣ 𝜑} → ∀𝑥 𝑧 ∈ {𝑦 ∣ 𝜑}) | ||
Theorem | nfsab 2077* | Bound-variable hypothesis builder for a class abstraction. (Contributed by Mario Carneiro, 11-Aug-2016.) |
⊢ Ⅎ𝑥𝜑 ⇒ ⊢ Ⅎ𝑥 𝑧 ∈ {𝑦 ∣ 𝜑} | ||
Definition | df-cleq 2078* |
Define the equality connective between classes. Definition 2.7 of
[Quine] p. 18. Also Definition 4.5 of [TakeutiZaring] p. 13; Chapter 4
provides its justification and methods for eliminating it. Note that
its elimination will not necessarily result in a single wff in the
original language but possibly a "scheme" of wffs.
This is an example of a somewhat "risky" definition, meaning that it has a more complex than usual soundness justification (outside of Metamath), because it "overloads" or reuses the existing equality symbol rather than introducing a new symbol. This allows us to make statements that may not hold for the original symbol. For example, it permits us to deduce 𝑦 = 𝑧 ↔ ∀𝑥(𝑥 ∈ 𝑦 ↔ 𝑥 ∈ 𝑧), which is not a theorem of logic but rather presupposes the Axiom of Extensionality (see theorem axext4 2069). We therefore include this axiom as a hypothesis, so that the use of Extensionality is properly indicated. We could avoid this complication by introducing a new symbol, say =_{2}, in place of =. This would also have the advantage of making elimination of the definition straightforward, so that we could eliminate Extensionality as a hypothesis. We would then also have the advantage of being able to identify in various proofs exactly where Extensionality truly comes into play rather than just being an artifact of a definition. One of our theorems would then be 𝑥 =_{2} 𝑦 ↔ 𝑥 = 𝑦 by invoking Extensionality. However, to conform to literature usage, we retain this overloaded definition. This also makes some proofs shorter and probably easier to read, without the constant switching between two kinds of equality. See also comments under df-clab 2072, df-clel 2081, and abeq2 2193. In the form of dfcleq 2079, this is called the "axiom of extensionality" by [Levy] p. 338, who treats the theory of classes as an extralogical extension to our logic and set theory axioms. For a general discussion of the theory of classes, see http://us.metamath.org/mpeuni/mmset.html#class. (Contributed by NM, 15-Sep-1993.) |
⊢ (∀𝑥(𝑥 ∈ 𝑦 ↔ 𝑥 ∈ 𝑧) → 𝑦 = 𝑧) ⇒ ⊢ (𝐴 = 𝐵 ↔ ∀𝑥(𝑥 ∈ 𝐴 ↔ 𝑥 ∈ 𝐵)) | ||
Theorem | dfcleq 2079* | The same as df-cleq 2078 with the hypothesis removed using the Axiom of Extensionality ax-ext 2067. (Contributed by NM, 15-Sep-1993.) |
⊢ (𝐴 = 𝐵 ↔ ∀𝑥(𝑥 ∈ 𝐴 ↔ 𝑥 ∈ 𝐵)) | ||
Theorem | cvjust 2080* | Every set is a class. Proposition 4.9 of [TakeutiZaring] p. 13. This theorem shows that a setvar variable can be expressed as a class abstraction. This provides a motivation for the class syntax construction cv 1286, which allows us to substitute a setvar variable for a class variable. See also cab 2071 and df-clab 2072. Note that this is not a rigorous justification, because cv 1286 is used as part of the proof of this theorem, but a careful argument can be made outside of the formalism of Metamath, for example as is done in Chapter 4 of Takeuti and Zaring. See also the discussion under the definition of class in [Jech] p. 4 showing that "Every set can be considered to be a class." (Contributed by NM, 7-Nov-2006.) |
⊢ 𝑥 = {𝑦 ∣ 𝑦 ∈ 𝑥} | ||
Definition | df-clel 2081* |
Define the membership connective between classes. Theorem 6.3 of
[Quine] p. 41, or Proposition 4.6 of [TakeutiZaring] p. 13, which we
adopt as a definition. See these references for its metalogical
justification. Note that like df-cleq 2078 it extends or "overloads" the
use of the existing membership symbol, but unlike df-cleq 2078 it does not
strengthen the set of valid wffs of logic when the class variables are
replaced with setvar variables (see cleljust 1858), so we don't include
any set theory axiom as a hypothesis. See also comments about the
syntax under df-clab 2072.
This is called the "axiom of membership" by [Levy] p. 338, who treats the theory of classes as an extralogical extension to our logic and set theory axioms. For a general discussion of the theory of classes, see http://us.metamath.org/mpeuni/mmset.html#class. (Contributed by NM, 5-Aug-1993.) |
⊢ (𝐴 ∈ 𝐵 ↔ ∃𝑥(𝑥 = 𝐴 ∧ 𝑥 ∈ 𝐵)) | ||
Theorem | eqriv 2082* | Infer equality of classes from equivalence of membership. (Contributed by NM, 5-Aug-1993.) |
⊢ (𝑥 ∈ 𝐴 ↔ 𝑥 ∈ 𝐵) ⇒ ⊢ 𝐴 = 𝐵 | ||
Theorem | eqrdv 2083* | Deduce equality of classes from equivalence of membership. (Contributed by NM, 17-Mar-1996.) |
⊢ (𝜑 → (𝑥 ∈ 𝐴 ↔ 𝑥 ∈ 𝐵)) ⇒ ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝐴 = 𝐵) | ||
Theorem | eqrdav 2084* | Deduce equality of classes from an equivalence of membership that depends on the membership variable. (Contributed by NM, 7-Nov-2008.) |
⊢ ((𝜑 ∧ 𝑥 ∈ 𝐴) → 𝑥 ∈ 𝐶) & ⊢ ((𝜑 ∧ 𝑥 ∈ 𝐵) → 𝑥 ∈ 𝐶) & ⊢ ((𝜑 ∧ 𝑥 ∈ 𝐶) → (𝑥 ∈ 𝐴 ↔ 𝑥 ∈ 𝐵)) ⇒ ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝐴 = 𝐵) | ||
Theorem | eqid 2085 |
Law of identity (reflexivity of class equality). Theorem 6.4 of [Quine]
p. 41.
This law is thought to have originated with Aristotle (Metaphysics, Zeta, 17, 1041 a, 10-20). (Thanks to Stefan Allan and BJ for this information.) (Contributed by NM, 5-Aug-1993.) (Revised by BJ, 14-Oct-2017.) |
⊢ 𝐴 = 𝐴 | ||
Theorem | eqidd 2086 | Class identity law with antecedent. (Contributed by NM, 21-Aug-2008.) |
⊢ (𝜑 → 𝐴 = 𝐴) | ||
Theorem | eqcom 2087 | Commutative law for class equality. Theorem 6.5 of [Quine] p. 41. (Contributed by NM, 5-Aug-1993.) |
⊢ (𝐴 = 𝐵 ↔ 𝐵 = 𝐴) | ||
Theorem | eqcoms 2088 | Inference applying commutative law for class equality to an antecedent. (Contributed by NM, 5-Aug-1993.) |
⊢ (𝐴 = 𝐵 → 𝜑) ⇒ ⊢ (𝐵 = 𝐴 → 𝜑) | ||
Theorem | eqcomi 2089 | Inference from commutative law for class equality. (Contributed by NM, 5-Aug-1993.) |
⊢ 𝐴 = 𝐵 ⇒ ⊢ 𝐵 = 𝐴 | ||
Theorem | eqcomd 2090 | Deduction from commutative law for class equality. (Contributed by NM, 15-Aug-1994.) |
⊢ (𝜑 → 𝐴 = 𝐵) ⇒ ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝐵 = 𝐴) | ||
Theorem | eqeq1 2091 | Equality implies equivalence of equalities. (Contributed by NM, 5-Aug-1993.) |
⊢ (𝐴 = 𝐵 → (𝐴 = 𝐶 ↔ 𝐵 = 𝐶)) | ||
Theorem | eqeq1i 2092 | Inference from equality to equivalence of equalities. (Contributed by NM, 5-Aug-1993.) |
⊢ 𝐴 = 𝐵 ⇒ ⊢ (𝐴 = 𝐶 ↔ 𝐵 = 𝐶) | ||
Theorem | eqeq1d 2093 | Deduction from equality to equivalence of equalities. (Contributed by NM, 27-Dec-1993.) |
⊢ (𝜑 → 𝐴 = 𝐵) ⇒ ⊢ (𝜑 → (𝐴 = 𝐶 ↔ 𝐵 = 𝐶)) | ||
Theorem | eqeq2 2094 | Equality implies equivalence of equalities. (Contributed by NM, 5-Aug-1993.) |
⊢ (𝐴 = 𝐵 → (𝐶 = 𝐴 ↔ 𝐶 = 𝐵)) | ||
Theorem | eqeq2i 2095 | Inference from equality to equivalence of equalities. (Contributed by NM, 5-Aug-1993.) |
⊢ 𝐴 = 𝐵 ⇒ ⊢ (𝐶 = 𝐴 ↔ 𝐶 = 𝐵) | ||
Theorem | eqeq2d 2096 | Deduction from equality to equivalence of equalities. (Contributed by NM, 27-Dec-1993.) |
⊢ (𝜑 → 𝐴 = 𝐵) ⇒ ⊢ (𝜑 → (𝐶 = 𝐴 ↔ 𝐶 = 𝐵)) | ||
Theorem | eqeq12 2097 | Equality relationship among 4 classes. (Contributed by NM, 3-Aug-1994.) |
⊢ ((𝐴 = 𝐵 ∧ 𝐶 = 𝐷) → (𝐴 = 𝐶 ↔ 𝐵 = 𝐷)) | ||
Theorem | eqeq12i 2098 | A useful inference for substituting definitions into an equality. (Contributed by NM, 5-Aug-1993.) (Proof shortened by Andrew Salmon, 25-May-2011.) |
⊢ 𝐴 = 𝐵 & ⊢ 𝐶 = 𝐷 ⇒ ⊢ (𝐴 = 𝐶 ↔ 𝐵 = 𝐷) | ||
Theorem | eqeq12d 2099 | A useful inference for substituting definitions into an equality. (Contributed by NM, 5-Aug-1993.) (Proof shortened by Andrew Salmon, 25-May-2011.) |
⊢ (𝜑 → 𝐴 = 𝐵) & ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝐶 = 𝐷) ⇒ ⊢ (𝜑 → (𝐴 = 𝐶 ↔ 𝐵 = 𝐷)) | ||
Theorem | eqeqan12d 2100 | A useful inference for substituting definitions into an equality. (Contributed by NM, 9-Aug-1994.) (Proof shortened by Andrew Salmon, 25-May-2011.) |
⊢ (𝜑 → 𝐴 = 𝐵) & ⊢ (𝜓 → 𝐶 = 𝐷) ⇒ ⊢ ((𝜑 ∧ 𝜓) → (𝐴 = 𝐶 ↔ 𝐵 = 𝐷)) |
< Previous Next > |
Copyright terms: Public domain | < Previous Next > |