P. 60 of Theorem List - Intuitionistic Logic Explorer

Theorem List for Intuitionistic Logic Explorer - 5901-6000   *Has distinct variable group(s)

Type	Label	Description
Statement
Theorem	riotass 5901*	Restriction of a unique element to a smaller class. (Contributed by NM, 19-Oct-2005.) (Revised by Mario Carneiro, 24-Dec-2016.)
⊢ ((𝐴 ⊆ 𝐵 ∧ ∃𝑥 ∈ 𝐴 𝜑 ∧ ∃!𝑥 ∈ 𝐵 𝜑) → (℩𝑥 ∈ 𝐴 𝜑) = (℩𝑥 ∈ 𝐵 𝜑))
Theorem	moriotass 5902*	Restriction of a unique element to a smaller class. (Contributed by NM, 19-Feb-2006.) (Revised by NM, 16-Jun-2017.)
⊢ ((𝐴 ⊆ 𝐵 ∧ ∃𝑥 ∈ 𝐴 𝜑 ∧ ∃*𝑥 ∈ 𝐵 𝜑) → (℩𝑥 ∈ 𝐴 𝜑) = (℩𝑥 ∈ 𝐵 𝜑))
Theorem	snriota 5903	A restricted class abstraction with a unique member can be expressed as a singleton. (Contributed by NM, 30-May-2006.)
⊢ (∃!𝑥 ∈ 𝐴 𝜑 → {𝑥 ∈ 𝐴 ∣ 𝜑} = {(℩𝑥 ∈ 𝐴 𝜑)})
Theorem	eusvobj2 5904*	Specify the same property in two ways when class 𝐵(𝑦) is single-valued. (Contributed by NM, 1-Nov-2010.) (Proof shortened by Mario Carneiro, 24-Dec-2016.)
⊢ 𝐵 ∈ V    ⇒   ⊢ (∃!𝑥∃𝑦 ∈ 𝐴 𝑥 = 𝐵 → (∃𝑦 ∈ 𝐴 𝑥 = 𝐵 ↔ ∀𝑦 ∈ 𝐴 𝑥 = 𝐵))
Theorem	eusvobj1 5905*	Specify the same object in two ways when class 𝐵(𝑦) is single-valued. (Contributed by NM, 1-Nov-2010.) (Proof shortened by Mario Carneiro, 19-Nov-2016.)
⊢ 𝐵 ∈ V    ⇒   ⊢ (∃!𝑥∃𝑦 ∈ 𝐴 𝑥 = 𝐵 → (℩𝑥∃𝑦 ∈ 𝐴 𝑥 = 𝐵) = (℩𝑥∀𝑦 ∈ 𝐴 𝑥 = 𝐵))
Theorem	f1ofveu 5906*	There is one domain element for each value of a one-to-one onto function. (Contributed by NM, 26-May-2006.)
⊢ ((𝐹:𝐴–1-1-onto→𝐵 ∧ 𝐶 ∈ 𝐵) → ∃!𝑥 ∈ 𝐴 (𝐹‘𝑥) = 𝐶)
Theorem	f1ocnvfv3 5907*	Value of the converse of a one-to-one onto function. (Contributed by NM, 26-May-2006.) (Proof shortened by Mario Carneiro, 24-Dec-2016.)
⊢ ((𝐹:𝐴–1-1-onto→𝐵 ∧ 𝐶 ∈ 𝐵) → (◡𝐹‘𝐶) = (℩𝑥 ∈ 𝐴 (𝐹‘𝑥) = 𝐶))
Theorem	riotaund 5908*	Restricted iota equals the empty set when not meaningful. (Contributed by NM, 16-Jan-2012.) (Revised by Mario Carneiro, 15-Oct-2016.) (Revised by NM, 13-Sep-2018.)
⊢ (¬ ∃!𝑥 ∈ 𝐴 𝜑 → (℩𝑥 ∈ 𝐴 𝜑) = ∅)
Theorem	acexmidlema 5909*	Lemma for acexmid 5917. (Contributed by Jim Kingdon, 6-Aug-2019.)
⊢ 𝐴 = {𝑥 ∈ {∅, {∅}} ∣ (𝑥 = ∅ ∨ 𝜑)}    &   ⊢ 𝐵 = {𝑥 ∈ {∅, {∅}} ∣ (𝑥 = {∅} ∨ 𝜑)}    &   ⊢ 𝐶 = {𝐴, 𝐵}    ⇒   ⊢ ({∅} ∈ 𝐴 → 𝜑)
Theorem	acexmidlemb 5910*	Lemma for acexmid 5917. (Contributed by Jim Kingdon, 6-Aug-2019.)
⊢ 𝐴 = {𝑥 ∈ {∅, {∅}} ∣ (𝑥 = ∅ ∨ 𝜑)}    &   ⊢ 𝐵 = {𝑥 ∈ {∅, {∅}} ∣ (𝑥 = {∅} ∨ 𝜑)}    &   ⊢ 𝐶 = {𝐴, 𝐵}    ⇒   ⊢ (∅ ∈ 𝐵 → 𝜑)
Theorem	acexmidlemph 5911*	Lemma for acexmid 5917. (Contributed by Jim Kingdon, 6-Aug-2019.)
⊢ 𝐴 = {𝑥 ∈ {∅, {∅}} ∣ (𝑥 = ∅ ∨ 𝜑)}    &   ⊢ 𝐵 = {𝑥 ∈ {∅, {∅}} ∣ (𝑥 = {∅} ∨ 𝜑)}    &   ⊢ 𝐶 = {𝐴, 𝐵}    ⇒   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝐴 = 𝐵)
Theorem	acexmidlemab 5912*	Lemma for acexmid 5917. (Contributed by Jim Kingdon, 6-Aug-2019.)
⊢ 𝐴 = {𝑥 ∈ {∅, {∅}} ∣ (𝑥 = ∅ ∨ 𝜑)}    &   ⊢ 𝐵 = {𝑥 ∈ {∅, {∅}} ∣ (𝑥 = {∅} ∨ 𝜑)}    &   ⊢ 𝐶 = {𝐴, 𝐵}    ⇒   ⊢ (((℩𝑣 ∈ 𝐴 ∃𝑢 ∈ 𝑦 (𝐴 ∈ 𝑢 ∧ 𝑣 ∈ 𝑢)) = ∅ ∧ (℩𝑣 ∈ 𝐵 ∃𝑢 ∈ 𝑦 (𝐵 ∈ 𝑢 ∧ 𝑣 ∈ 𝑢)) = {∅}) → ¬ 𝜑)
Theorem	acexmidlemcase 5913*	Lemma for acexmid 5917. Here we divide the proof into cases (based on the disjunction implicit in an unordered pair, not the sort of case elimination which relies on excluded middle). The cases are (1) the choice function evaluated at 𝐴 equals {∅}, (2) the choice function evaluated at 𝐵 equals ∅, and (3) the choice function evaluated at 𝐴 equals ∅ and the choice function evaluated at 𝐵 equals {∅}. Because of the way we represent the choice function 𝑦, the choice function evaluated at 𝐴 is (℩𝑣 ∈ 𝐴∃𝑢 ∈ 𝑦(𝐴 ∈ 𝑢 ∧ 𝑣 ∈ 𝑢)) and the choice function evaluated at 𝐵 is (℩𝑣 ∈ 𝐵∃𝑢 ∈ 𝑦(𝐵 ∈ 𝑢 ∧ 𝑣 ∈ 𝑢)). Other than the difference in notation these work just as (𝑦‘𝐴) and (𝑦‘𝐵) would if 𝑦 were a function as defined by df-fun 5256. Although it isn't exactly about the division into cases, it is also convenient for this lemma to also include the step that if the choice function evaluated at 𝐴 equals {∅}, then {∅} ∈ 𝐴 and likewise for 𝐵. (Contributed by Jim Kingdon, 7-Aug-2019.)
⊢ 𝐴 = {𝑥 ∈ {∅, {∅}} ∣ (𝑥 = ∅ ∨ 𝜑)}    &   ⊢ 𝐵 = {𝑥 ∈ {∅, {∅}} ∣ (𝑥 = {∅} ∨ 𝜑)}    &   ⊢ 𝐶 = {𝐴, 𝐵}    ⇒   ⊢ (∀𝑧 ∈ 𝐶 ∃!𝑣 ∈ 𝑧 ∃𝑢 ∈ 𝑦 (𝑧 ∈ 𝑢 ∧ 𝑣 ∈ 𝑢) → ({∅} ∈ 𝐴 ∨ ∅ ∈ 𝐵 ∨ ((℩𝑣 ∈ 𝐴 ∃𝑢 ∈ 𝑦 (𝐴 ∈ 𝑢 ∧ 𝑣 ∈ 𝑢)) = ∅ ∧ (℩𝑣 ∈ 𝐵 ∃𝑢 ∈ 𝑦 (𝐵 ∈ 𝑢 ∧ 𝑣 ∈ 𝑢)) = {∅})))
Theorem	acexmidlem1 5914*	Lemma for acexmid 5917. List the cases identified in acexmidlemcase 5913 and hook them up to the lemmas which handle each case. (Contributed by Jim Kingdon, 7-Aug-2019.)
⊢ 𝐴 = {𝑥 ∈ {∅, {∅}} ∣ (𝑥 = ∅ ∨ 𝜑)}    &   ⊢ 𝐵 = {𝑥 ∈ {∅, {∅}} ∣ (𝑥 = {∅} ∨ 𝜑)}    &   ⊢ 𝐶 = {𝐴, 𝐵}    ⇒   ⊢ (∀𝑧 ∈ 𝐶 ∃!𝑣 ∈ 𝑧 ∃𝑢 ∈ 𝑦 (𝑧 ∈ 𝑢 ∧ 𝑣 ∈ 𝑢) → (𝜑 ∨ ¬ 𝜑))
Theorem	acexmidlem2 5915*	Lemma for acexmid 5917. This builds on acexmidlem1 5914 by noting that every element of 𝐶 is inhabited. (Note that 𝑦 is not quite a function in the df-fun 5256 sense because it uses ordered pairs as described in opthreg 4588 rather than df-op 3627). The set 𝐴 is also found in onsucelsucexmidlem 4561. (Contributed by Jim Kingdon, 5-Aug-2019.)
⊢ 𝐴 = {𝑥 ∈ {∅, {∅}} ∣ (𝑥 = ∅ ∨ 𝜑)}    &   ⊢ 𝐵 = {𝑥 ∈ {∅, {∅}} ∣ (𝑥 = {∅} ∨ 𝜑)}    &   ⊢ 𝐶 = {𝐴, 𝐵}    ⇒   ⊢ (∀𝑧 ∈ 𝐶 ∀𝑤 ∈ 𝑧 ∃!𝑣 ∈ 𝑧 ∃𝑢 ∈ 𝑦 (𝑧 ∈ 𝑢 ∧ 𝑣 ∈ 𝑢) → (𝜑 ∨ ¬ 𝜑))
Theorem	acexmidlemv 5916*	Lemma for acexmid 5917. This is acexmid 5917 with additional disjoint variable conditions, most notably between 𝜑 and 𝑥. (Contributed by Jim Kingdon, 6-Aug-2019.)
⊢ ∃𝑦∀𝑧 ∈ 𝑥 ∀𝑤 ∈ 𝑧 ∃!𝑣 ∈ 𝑧 ∃𝑢 ∈ 𝑦 (𝑧 ∈ 𝑢 ∧ 𝑣 ∈ 𝑢)    ⇒   ⊢ (𝜑 ∨ ¬ 𝜑)
Theorem	acexmid 5917*	The axiom of choice implies excluded middle. Theorem 1.3 in [Bauer] p. 483. The statement of the axiom of choice given here is ac2 in the Metamath Proof Explorer (version of 3-Aug-2019). In particular, note that the choice function 𝑦 provides a value when 𝑧 is inhabited (as opposed to nonempty as in some statements of the axiom of choice). Essentially the same proof can also be found at "The axiom of choice implies instances of EM", [Crosilla], p. "Set-theoretic principles incompatible with intuitionistic logic". Often referred to as Diaconescu's theorem, or Diaconescu-Goodman-Myhill theorem, after Radu Diaconescu who discovered it in 1975 in the framework of topos theory and N. D. Goodman and John Myhill in 1978 in the framework of set theory (although it already appeared as an exercise in Errett Bishop's book Foundations of Constructive Analysis from 1967). For this theorem stated using the df-ac 7266 and df-exmid 4224 syntaxes, see exmidac 7269. (Contributed by Jim Kingdon, 4-Aug-2019.)
⊢ ∃𝑦∀𝑧 ∈ 𝑥 ∀𝑤 ∈ 𝑧 ∃!𝑣 ∈ 𝑧 ∃𝑢 ∈ 𝑦 (𝑧 ∈ 𝑢 ∧ 𝑣 ∈ 𝑢)    ⇒   ⊢ (𝜑 ∨ ¬ 𝜑)
2.6.11  Operations
Syntax	co 5918	Extend class notation to include the value of an operation 𝐹 (such as + ) for two arguments 𝐴 and 𝐵. Note that the syntax is simply three class symbols in a row surrounded by parentheses. Since operation values are the only possible class expressions consisting of three class expressions in a row surrounded by parentheses, the syntax is unambiguous.
class (𝐴𝐹𝐵)
Syntax	coprab 5919	Extend class notation to include class abstraction (class builder) of nested ordered pairs.
class {⟨⟨𝑥, 𝑦⟩, 𝑧⟩ ∣ 𝜑}
Syntax	cmpo 5920	Extend the definition of a class to include maps-to notation for defining an operation via a rule.
class (𝑥 ∈ 𝐴, 𝑦 ∈ 𝐵 ↦ 𝐶)
Definition	df-ov 5921	Define the value of an operation. Definition of operation value in [Enderton] p. 79. Note that the syntax is simply three class expressions in a row bracketed by parentheses. There are no restrictions of any kind on what those class expressions may be, although only certain kinds of class expressions - a binary operation 𝐹 and its arguments 𝐴 and 𝐵- will be useful for proving meaningful theorems. For example, if class 𝐹 is the operation + and arguments 𝐴 and 𝐵 are 3 and 2 , the expression ( 3 + 2 ) can be proved to equal 5 . This definition is well-defined, although not very meaningful, when classes 𝐴 and/or 𝐵 are proper classes (i.e. are not sets); see ovprc1 5954 and ovprc2 5955. On the other hand, we often find uses for this definition when 𝐹 is a proper class. 𝐹 is normally equal to a class of nested ordered pairs of the form defined by df-oprab 5922. (Contributed by NM, 28-Feb-1995.)
⊢ (𝐴𝐹𝐵) = (𝐹‘⟨𝐴, 𝐵⟩)
Definition	df-oprab 5922*	Define the class abstraction (class builder) of a collection of nested ordered pairs (for use in defining operations). This is a special case of Definition 4.16 of [TakeutiZaring] p. 14. Normally 𝑥, 𝑦, and 𝑧 are distinct, although the definition doesn't strictly require it. See df-ov 5921 for the value of an operation. The brace notation is called "class abstraction" by Quine; it is also called a "class builder" in the literature. The value of the most common operation class builder is given by ovmpo 6054. (Contributed by NM, 12-Mar-1995.)
⊢ {⟨⟨𝑥, 𝑦⟩, 𝑧⟩ ∣ 𝜑} = {𝑤 ∣ ∃𝑥∃𝑦∃𝑧(𝑤 = ⟨⟨𝑥, 𝑦⟩, 𝑧⟩ ∧ 𝜑)}
Definition	df-mpo 5923*	Define maps-to notation for defining an operation via a rule. Read as "the operation defined by the map from 𝑥, 𝑦 (in 𝐴 × 𝐵) to 𝐵(𝑥, 𝑦)". An extension of df-mpt 4092 for two arguments. (Contributed by NM, 17-Feb-2008.)
⊢ (𝑥 ∈ 𝐴, 𝑦 ∈ 𝐵 ↦ 𝐶) = {⟨⟨𝑥, 𝑦⟩, 𝑧⟩ ∣ ((𝑥 ∈ 𝐴 ∧ 𝑦 ∈ 𝐵) ∧ 𝑧 = 𝐶)}
Theorem	oveq 5924	Equality theorem for operation value. (Contributed by NM, 28-Feb-1995.)
⊢ (𝐹 = 𝐺 → (𝐴𝐹𝐵) = (𝐴𝐺𝐵))
Theorem	oveq1 5925	Equality theorem for operation value. (Contributed by NM, 28-Feb-1995.)
⊢ (𝐴 = 𝐵 → (𝐴𝐹𝐶) = (𝐵𝐹𝐶))
Theorem	oveq2 5926	Equality theorem for operation value. (Contributed by NM, 28-Feb-1995.)
⊢ (𝐴 = 𝐵 → (𝐶𝐹𝐴) = (𝐶𝐹𝐵))
Theorem	oveq12 5927	Equality theorem for operation value. (Contributed by NM, 16-Jul-1995.)
⊢ ((𝐴 = 𝐵 ∧ 𝐶 = 𝐷) → (𝐴𝐹𝐶) = (𝐵𝐹𝐷))
Theorem	oveq1i 5928	Equality inference for operation value. (Contributed by NM, 28-Feb-1995.)
⊢ 𝐴 = 𝐵    ⇒   ⊢ (𝐴𝐹𝐶) = (𝐵𝐹𝐶)
Theorem	oveq2i 5929	Equality inference for operation value. (Contributed by NM, 28-Feb-1995.)
⊢ 𝐴 = 𝐵    ⇒   ⊢ (𝐶𝐹𝐴) = (𝐶𝐹𝐵)
Theorem	oveq12i 5930	Equality inference for operation value. (Contributed by NM, 28-Feb-1995.) (Proof shortened by Andrew Salmon, 22-Oct-2011.)
⊢ 𝐴 = 𝐵    &   ⊢ 𝐶 = 𝐷    ⇒   ⊢ (𝐴𝐹𝐶) = (𝐵𝐹𝐷)
Theorem	oveqi 5931	Equality inference for operation value. (Contributed by NM, 24-Nov-2007.)
⊢ 𝐴 = 𝐵    ⇒   ⊢ (𝐶𝐴𝐷) = (𝐶𝐵𝐷)
Theorem	oveq123i 5932	Equality inference for operation value. (Contributed by FL, 11-Jul-2010.)
⊢ 𝐴 = 𝐶    &   ⊢ 𝐵 = 𝐷    &   ⊢ 𝐹 = 𝐺    ⇒   ⊢ (𝐴𝐹𝐵) = (𝐶𝐺𝐷)
Theorem	oveq1d 5933	Equality deduction for operation value. (Contributed by NM, 13-Mar-1995.)
⊢ (𝜑 → 𝐴 = 𝐵)    ⇒   ⊢ (𝜑 → (𝐴𝐹𝐶) = (𝐵𝐹𝐶))
Theorem	oveq2d 5934	Equality deduction for operation value. (Contributed by NM, 13-Mar-1995.)
⊢ (𝜑 → 𝐴 = 𝐵)    ⇒   ⊢ (𝜑 → (𝐶𝐹𝐴) = (𝐶𝐹𝐵))
Theorem	oveqd 5935	Equality deduction for operation value. (Contributed by NM, 9-Sep-2006.)
⊢ (𝜑 → 𝐴 = 𝐵)    ⇒   ⊢ (𝜑 → (𝐶𝐴𝐷) = (𝐶𝐵𝐷))
Theorem	oveq12d 5936	Equality deduction for operation value. (Contributed by NM, 13-Mar-1995.) (Proof shortened by Andrew Salmon, 22-Oct-2011.)
⊢ (𝜑 → 𝐴 = 𝐵)    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝐶 = 𝐷)    ⇒   ⊢ (𝜑 → (𝐴𝐹𝐶) = (𝐵𝐹𝐷))
Theorem	oveqan12d 5937	Equality deduction for operation value. (Contributed by NM, 10-Aug-1995.)
⊢ (𝜑 → 𝐴 = 𝐵)    &   ⊢ (𝜓 → 𝐶 = 𝐷)    ⇒   ⊢ ((𝜑 ∧ 𝜓) → (𝐴𝐹𝐶) = (𝐵𝐹𝐷))
Theorem	oveqan12rd 5938	Equality deduction for operation value. (Contributed by NM, 10-Aug-1995.)
⊢ (𝜑 → 𝐴 = 𝐵)    &   ⊢ (𝜓 → 𝐶 = 𝐷)    ⇒   ⊢ ((𝜓 ∧ 𝜑) → (𝐴𝐹𝐶) = (𝐵𝐹𝐷))
Theorem	oveq123d 5939	Equality deduction for operation value. (Contributed by FL, 22-Dec-2008.)
⊢ (𝜑 → 𝐹 = 𝐺)    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝐴 = 𝐵)    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝐶 = 𝐷)    ⇒   ⊢ (𝜑 → (𝐴𝐹𝐶) = (𝐵𝐺𝐷))
Theorem	fvoveq1d 5940	Equality deduction for nested function and operation value. (Contributed by AV, 23-Jul-2022.)
⊢ (𝜑 → 𝐴 = 𝐵)    ⇒   ⊢ (𝜑 → (𝐹‘(𝐴𝑂𝐶)) = (𝐹‘(𝐵𝑂𝐶)))
Theorem	fvoveq1 5941	Equality theorem for nested function and operation value. Closed form of fvoveq1d 5940. (Contributed by AV, 23-Jul-2022.)
⊢ (𝐴 = 𝐵 → (𝐹‘(𝐴𝑂𝐶)) = (𝐹‘(𝐵𝑂𝐶)))
Theorem	ovanraleqv 5942*	Equality theorem for a conjunction with an operation values within a restricted universal quantification. Technical theorem to be used to reduce the size of a significant number of proofs. (Contributed by AV, 13-Aug-2022.)
⊢ (𝐵 = 𝑋 → (𝜑 ↔ 𝜓))    ⇒   ⊢ (𝐵 = 𝑋 → (∀𝑥 ∈ 𝑉 (𝜑 ∧ (𝐴 · 𝐵) = 𝐶) ↔ ∀𝑥 ∈ 𝑉 (𝜓 ∧ (𝐴 · 𝑋) = 𝐶)))
Theorem	imbrov2fvoveq 5943	Equality theorem for nested function and operation value in an implication for a binary relation. Technical theorem to be used to reduce the size of a significant number of proofs. (Contributed by AV, 17-Aug-2022.)
⊢ (𝑋 = 𝑌 → (𝜑 ↔ 𝜓))    ⇒   ⊢ (𝑋 = 𝑌 → ((𝜑 → (𝐹‘((𝐺‘𝑋) · 𝑂))𝑅𝐴) ↔ (𝜓 → (𝐹‘((𝐺‘𝑌) · 𝑂))𝑅𝐴)))
Theorem	ovrspc2v 5944*	If an operation value is element of a class for all operands of two classes, then the operation value is an element of the class for specific operands of the two classes. (Contributed by Mario Carneiro, 6-Dec-2014.)
⊢ (((𝑋 ∈ 𝐴 ∧ 𝑌 ∈ 𝐵) ∧ ∀𝑥 ∈ 𝐴 ∀𝑦 ∈ 𝐵 (𝑥𝐹𝑦) ∈ 𝐶) → (𝑋𝐹𝑌) ∈ 𝐶)
Theorem	oveqrspc2v 5945*	Restricted specialization of operands, using implicit substitution. (Contributed by Mario Carneiro, 6-Dec-2014.)
⊢ ((𝜑 ∧ (𝑥 ∈ 𝐴 ∧ 𝑦 ∈ 𝐵)) → (𝑥𝐹𝑦) = (𝑥𝐺𝑦))    ⇒   ⊢ ((𝜑 ∧ (𝑋 ∈ 𝐴 ∧ 𝑌 ∈ 𝐵)) → (𝑋𝐹𝑌) = (𝑋𝐺𝑌))
Theorem	oveqdr 5946	Equality of two operations for any two operands. Useful in proofs using *propd theorems. (Contributed by Mario Carneiro, 29-Jun-2015.)
⊢ (𝜑 → 𝐹 = 𝐺)    ⇒   ⊢ ((𝜑 ∧ 𝜓) → (𝑥𝐹𝑦) = (𝑥𝐺𝑦))
Theorem	nfovd 5947	Deduction version of bound-variable hypothesis builder nfov 5948. (Contributed by NM, 13-Dec-2005.) (Proof shortened by Andrew Salmon, 22-Oct-2011.)
⊢ (𝜑 → Ⅎ𝑥𝐴)    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → Ⅎ𝑥𝐹)    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → Ⅎ𝑥𝐵)    ⇒   ⊢ (𝜑 → Ⅎ𝑥(𝐴𝐹𝐵))
Theorem	nfov 5948	Bound-variable hypothesis builder for operation value. (Contributed by NM, 4-May-2004.)
⊢ Ⅎ𝑥𝐴    &   ⊢ Ⅎ𝑥𝐹    &   ⊢ Ⅎ𝑥𝐵    ⇒   ⊢ Ⅎ𝑥(𝐴𝐹𝐵)
Theorem	oprabidlem 5949*	Slight elaboration of exdistrfor 1811. A lemma for oprabid 5950. (Contributed by Jim Kingdon, 15-Jan-2019.)
⊢ (∃𝑥∃𝑦(𝑥 = 𝑧 ∧ 𝜓) → ∃𝑥(𝑥 = 𝑧 ∧ ∃𝑦𝜓))
Theorem	oprabid 5950	The law of concretion. Special case of Theorem 9.5 of [Quine] p. 61. Although this theorem would be useful with a distinct variable condition between 𝑥, 𝑦, and 𝑧, we use ax-bndl 1520 to eliminate that constraint. (Contributed by Mario Carneiro, 20-Mar-2013.)
⊢ (⟨⟨𝑥, 𝑦⟩, 𝑧⟩ ∈ {⟨⟨𝑥, 𝑦⟩, 𝑧⟩ ∣ 𝜑} ↔ 𝜑)
Theorem	fnovex 5951	The result of an operation is a set. (Contributed by Jim Kingdon, 15-Jan-2019.)
⊢ ((𝐹 Fn (𝐶 × 𝐷) ∧ 𝐴 ∈ 𝐶 ∧ 𝐵 ∈ 𝐷) → (𝐴𝐹𝐵) ∈ V)
Theorem	ovexg 5952	Evaluating a set operation at two sets gives a set. (Contributed by Jim Kingdon, 19-Aug-2021.)
⊢ ((𝐴 ∈ 𝑉 ∧ 𝐹 ∈ 𝑊 ∧ 𝐵 ∈ 𝑋) → (𝐴𝐹𝐵) ∈ V)
Theorem	ovprc 5953	The value of an operation when the one of the arguments is a proper class. Note: this theorem is dependent on our particular definitions of operation value, function value, and ordered pair. (Contributed by Mario Carneiro, 26-Apr-2015.)
⊢ Rel dom 𝐹    ⇒   ⊢ (¬ (𝐴 ∈ V ∧ 𝐵 ∈ V) → (𝐴𝐹𝐵) = ∅)
Theorem	ovprc1 5954	The value of an operation when the first argument is a proper class. (Contributed by NM, 16-Jun-2004.)
⊢ Rel dom 𝐹    ⇒   ⊢ (¬ 𝐴 ∈ V → (𝐴𝐹𝐵) = ∅)
Theorem	ovprc2 5955	The value of an operation when the second argument is a proper class. (Contributed by Mario Carneiro, 26-Apr-2015.)
⊢ Rel dom 𝐹    ⇒   ⊢ (¬ 𝐵 ∈ V → (𝐴𝐹𝐵) = ∅)
Theorem	csbov123g 5956	Move class substitution in and out of an operation. (Contributed by NM, 12-Nov-2005.) (Proof shortened by Mario Carneiro, 5-Dec-2016.)
⊢ (𝐴 ∈ 𝐷 → ⦋𝐴 / 𝑥⦌(𝐵𝐹𝐶) = (⦋𝐴 / 𝑥⦌𝐵⦋𝐴 / 𝑥⦌𝐹⦋𝐴 / 𝑥⦌𝐶))
Theorem	csbov12g 5957*	Move class substitution in and out of an operation. (Contributed by NM, 12-Nov-2005.)
⊢ (𝐴 ∈ 𝑉 → ⦋𝐴 / 𝑥⦌(𝐵𝐹𝐶) = (⦋𝐴 / 𝑥⦌𝐵𝐹⦋𝐴 / 𝑥⦌𝐶))
Theorem	csbov1g 5958*	Move class substitution in and out of an operation. (Contributed by NM, 12-Nov-2005.)
⊢ (𝐴 ∈ 𝑉 → ⦋𝐴 / 𝑥⦌(𝐵𝐹𝐶) = (⦋𝐴 / 𝑥⦌𝐵𝐹𝐶))
Theorem	csbov2g 5959*	Move class substitution in and out of an operation. (Contributed by NM, 12-Nov-2005.)
⊢ (𝐴 ∈ 𝑉 → ⦋𝐴 / 𝑥⦌(𝐵𝐹𝐶) = (𝐵𝐹⦋𝐴 / 𝑥⦌𝐶))
Theorem	rspceov 5960*	A frequently used special case of rspc2ev 2879 for operation values. (Contributed by NM, 21-Mar-2007.)
⊢ ((𝐶 ∈ 𝐴 ∧ 𝐷 ∈ 𝐵 ∧ 𝑆 = (𝐶𝐹𝐷)) → ∃𝑥 ∈ 𝐴 ∃𝑦 ∈ 𝐵 𝑆 = (𝑥𝐹𝑦))
Theorem	fnotovb 5961	Equivalence of operation value and ordered triple membership, analogous to fnopfvb 5598. (Contributed by NM, 17-Dec-2008.) (Revised by Mario Carneiro, 28-Apr-2015.)
⊢ ((𝐹 Fn (𝐴 × 𝐵) ∧ 𝐶 ∈ 𝐴 ∧ 𝐷 ∈ 𝐵) → ((𝐶𝐹𝐷) = 𝑅 ↔ ⟨𝐶, 𝐷, 𝑅⟩ ∈ 𝐹))
Theorem	opabbrex 5962*	A collection of ordered pairs with an extension of a binary relation is a set. (Contributed by Alexander van der Vekens, 1-Nov-2017.)
⊢ ((𝑉 ∈ V ∧ 𝐸 ∈ V) → (𝑓(𝑉𝑊𝐸)𝑝 → 𝜃))    &   ⊢ ((𝑉 ∈ V ∧ 𝐸 ∈ V) → {⟨𝑓, 𝑝⟩ ∣ 𝜃} ∈ V)    ⇒   ⊢ ((𝑉 ∈ V ∧ 𝐸 ∈ V) → {⟨𝑓, 𝑝⟩ ∣ (𝑓(𝑉𝑊𝐸)𝑝 ∧ 𝜓)} ∈ V)
Theorem	0neqopab 5963	The empty set is never an element in an ordered-pair class abstraction. (Contributed by Alexander van der Vekens, 5-Nov-2017.)
⊢ ¬ ∅ ∈ {⟨𝑥, 𝑦⟩ ∣ 𝜑}
Theorem	brabvv 5964*	If two classes are in a relationship given by an ordered-pair class abstraction, the classes are sets. (Contributed by Jim Kingdon, 16-Jan-2019.)
⊢ (𝑋{⟨𝑥, 𝑦⟩ ∣ 𝜑}𝑌 → (𝑋 ∈ V ∧ 𝑌 ∈ V))
Theorem	dfoprab2 5965*	Class abstraction for operations in terms of class abstraction of ordered pairs. (Contributed by NM, 12-Mar-1995.)
⊢ {⟨⟨𝑥, 𝑦⟩, 𝑧⟩ ∣ 𝜑} = {⟨𝑤, 𝑧⟩ ∣ ∃𝑥∃𝑦(𝑤 = ⟨𝑥, 𝑦⟩ ∧ 𝜑)}
Theorem	reloprab 5966*	An operation class abstraction is a relation. (Contributed by NM, 16-Jun-2004.)
⊢ Rel {⟨⟨𝑥, 𝑦⟩, 𝑧⟩ ∣ 𝜑}
Theorem	nfoprab1 5967	The abstraction variables in an operation class abstraction are not free. (Contributed by NM, 25-Apr-1995.) (Revised by David Abernethy, 19-Jun-2012.)
⊢ Ⅎ𝑥{⟨⟨𝑥, 𝑦⟩, 𝑧⟩ ∣ 𝜑}
Theorem	nfoprab2 5968	The abstraction variables in an operation class abstraction are not free. (Contributed by NM, 25-Apr-1995.) (Revised by David Abernethy, 30-Jul-2012.)
⊢ Ⅎ𝑦{⟨⟨𝑥, 𝑦⟩, 𝑧⟩ ∣ 𝜑}
Theorem	nfoprab3 5969	The abstraction variables in an operation class abstraction are not free. (Contributed by NM, 22-Aug-2013.)
⊢ Ⅎ𝑧{⟨⟨𝑥, 𝑦⟩, 𝑧⟩ ∣ 𝜑}
Theorem	nfoprab 5970*	Bound-variable hypothesis builder for an operation class abstraction. (Contributed by NM, 22-Aug-2013.)
⊢ Ⅎ𝑤𝜑    ⇒   ⊢ Ⅎ𝑤{⟨⟨𝑥, 𝑦⟩, 𝑧⟩ ∣ 𝜑}
Theorem	oprabbid 5971*	Equivalent wff's yield equal operation class abstractions (deduction form). (Contributed by NM, 21-Feb-2004.) (Revised by Mario Carneiro, 24-Jun-2014.)
⊢ Ⅎ𝑥𝜑    &   ⊢ Ⅎ𝑦𝜑    &   ⊢ Ⅎ𝑧𝜑    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → (𝜓 ↔ 𝜒))    ⇒   ⊢ (𝜑 → {⟨⟨𝑥, 𝑦⟩, 𝑧⟩ ∣ 𝜓} = {⟨⟨𝑥, 𝑦⟩, 𝑧⟩ ∣ 𝜒})
Theorem	oprabbidv 5972*	Equivalent wff's yield equal operation class abstractions (deduction form). (Contributed by NM, 21-Feb-2004.)
⊢ (𝜑 → (𝜓 ↔ 𝜒))    ⇒   ⊢ (𝜑 → {⟨⟨𝑥, 𝑦⟩, 𝑧⟩ ∣ 𝜓} = {⟨⟨𝑥, 𝑦⟩, 𝑧⟩ ∣ 𝜒})
Theorem	oprabbii 5973*	Equivalent wff's yield equal operation class abstractions. (Contributed by NM, 28-May-1995.) (Revised by David Abernethy, 19-Jun-2012.)
⊢ (𝜑 ↔ 𝜓)    ⇒   ⊢ {⟨⟨𝑥, 𝑦⟩, 𝑧⟩ ∣ 𝜑} = {⟨⟨𝑥, 𝑦⟩, 𝑧⟩ ∣ 𝜓}
Theorem	ssoprab2 5974	Equivalence of ordered pair abstraction subclass and implication. Compare ssopab2 4306. (Contributed by FL, 6-Nov-2013.) (Proof shortened by Mario Carneiro, 11-Dec-2016.)
⊢ (∀𝑥∀𝑦∀𝑧(𝜑 → 𝜓) → {⟨⟨𝑥, 𝑦⟩, 𝑧⟩ ∣ 𝜑} ⊆ {⟨⟨𝑥, 𝑦⟩, 𝑧⟩ ∣ 𝜓})
Theorem	ssoprab2b 5975	Equivalence of ordered pair abstraction subclass and implication. Compare ssopab2b 4307. (Contributed by FL, 6-Nov-2013.) (Proof shortened by Mario Carneiro, 11-Dec-2016.)
⊢ ({⟨⟨𝑥, 𝑦⟩, 𝑧⟩ ∣ 𝜑} ⊆ {⟨⟨𝑥, 𝑦⟩, 𝑧⟩ ∣ 𝜓} ↔ ∀𝑥∀𝑦∀𝑧(𝜑 → 𝜓))
Theorem	eqoprab2b 5976	Equivalence of ordered pair abstraction subclass and biconditional. Compare eqopab2b 4310. (Contributed by Mario Carneiro, 4-Jan-2017.)
⊢ ({⟨⟨𝑥, 𝑦⟩, 𝑧⟩ ∣ 𝜑} = {⟨⟨𝑥, 𝑦⟩, 𝑧⟩ ∣ 𝜓} ↔ ∀𝑥∀𝑦∀𝑧(𝜑 ↔ 𝜓))
Theorem	mpoeq123 5977*	An equality theorem for the maps-to notation. (Contributed by Mario Carneiro, 16-Dec-2013.) (Revised by Mario Carneiro, 19-Mar-2015.)
⊢ ((𝐴 = 𝐷 ∧ ∀𝑥 ∈ 𝐴 (𝐵 = 𝐸 ∧ ∀𝑦 ∈ 𝐵 𝐶 = 𝐹)) → (𝑥 ∈ 𝐴, 𝑦 ∈ 𝐵 ↦ 𝐶) = (𝑥 ∈ 𝐷, 𝑦 ∈ 𝐸 ↦ 𝐹))
Theorem	mpoeq12 5978*	An equality theorem for the maps-to notation. (Contributed by Mario Carneiro, 16-Dec-2013.)
⊢ ((𝐴 = 𝐶 ∧ 𝐵 = 𝐷) → (𝑥 ∈ 𝐴, 𝑦 ∈ 𝐵 ↦ 𝐸) = (𝑥 ∈ 𝐶, 𝑦 ∈ 𝐷 ↦ 𝐸))
Theorem	mpoeq123dva 5979*	An equality deduction for the maps-to notation. (Contributed by Mario Carneiro, 26-Jan-2017.)
⊢ (𝜑 → 𝐴 = 𝐷)    &   ⊢ ((𝜑 ∧ 𝑥 ∈ 𝐴) → 𝐵 = 𝐸)    &   ⊢ ((𝜑 ∧ (𝑥 ∈ 𝐴 ∧ 𝑦 ∈ 𝐵)) → 𝐶 = 𝐹)    ⇒   ⊢ (𝜑 → (𝑥 ∈ 𝐴, 𝑦 ∈ 𝐵 ↦ 𝐶) = (𝑥 ∈ 𝐷, 𝑦 ∈ 𝐸 ↦ 𝐹))
Theorem	mpoeq123dv 5980*	An equality deduction for the maps-to notation. (Contributed by NM, 12-Sep-2011.)
⊢ (𝜑 → 𝐴 = 𝐷)    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝐵 = 𝐸)    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝐶 = 𝐹)    ⇒   ⊢ (𝜑 → (𝑥 ∈ 𝐴, 𝑦 ∈ 𝐵 ↦ 𝐶) = (𝑥 ∈ 𝐷, 𝑦 ∈ 𝐸 ↦ 𝐹))
Theorem	mpoeq123i 5981	An equality inference for the maps-to notation. (Contributed by NM, 15-Jul-2013.)
⊢ 𝐴 = 𝐷    &   ⊢ 𝐵 = 𝐸    &   ⊢ 𝐶 = 𝐹    ⇒   ⊢ (𝑥 ∈ 𝐴, 𝑦 ∈ 𝐵 ↦ 𝐶) = (𝑥 ∈ 𝐷, 𝑦 ∈ 𝐸 ↦ 𝐹)
Theorem	mpoeq3dva 5982*	Slightly more general equality inference for the maps-to notation. (Contributed by NM, 17-Oct-2013.)
⊢ ((𝜑 ∧ 𝑥 ∈ 𝐴 ∧ 𝑦 ∈ 𝐵) → 𝐶 = 𝐷)    ⇒   ⊢ (𝜑 → (𝑥 ∈ 𝐴, 𝑦 ∈ 𝐵 ↦ 𝐶) = (𝑥 ∈ 𝐴, 𝑦 ∈ 𝐵 ↦ 𝐷))
Theorem	mpoeq3ia 5983	An equality inference for the maps-to notation. (Contributed by Mario Carneiro, 16-Dec-2013.)
⊢ ((𝑥 ∈ 𝐴 ∧ 𝑦 ∈ 𝐵) → 𝐶 = 𝐷)    ⇒   ⊢ (𝑥 ∈ 𝐴, 𝑦 ∈ 𝐵 ↦ 𝐶) = (𝑥 ∈ 𝐴, 𝑦 ∈ 𝐵 ↦ 𝐷)
Theorem	mpoeq3dv 5984*	An equality deduction for the maps-to notation restricted to the value of the operation. (Contributed by SO, 16-Jul-2018.)
⊢ (𝜑 → 𝐶 = 𝐷)    ⇒   ⊢ (𝜑 → (𝑥 ∈ 𝐴, 𝑦 ∈ 𝐵 ↦ 𝐶) = (𝑥 ∈ 𝐴, 𝑦 ∈ 𝐵 ↦ 𝐷))
Theorem	nfmpo1 5985	Bound-variable hypothesis builder for an operation in maps-to notation. (Contributed by NM, 27-Aug-2013.)
⊢ Ⅎ𝑥(𝑥 ∈ 𝐴, 𝑦 ∈ 𝐵 ↦ 𝐶)
Theorem	nfmpo2 5986	Bound-variable hypothesis builder for an operation in maps-to notation. (Contributed by NM, 27-Aug-2013.)
⊢ Ⅎ𝑦(𝑥 ∈ 𝐴, 𝑦 ∈ 𝐵 ↦ 𝐶)
Theorem	nfmpo 5987*	Bound-variable hypothesis builder for the maps-to notation. (Contributed by NM, 20-Feb-2013.)
⊢ Ⅎ𝑧𝐴    &   ⊢ Ⅎ𝑧𝐵    &   ⊢ Ⅎ𝑧𝐶    ⇒   ⊢ Ⅎ𝑧(𝑥 ∈ 𝐴, 𝑦 ∈ 𝐵 ↦ 𝐶)
Theorem	mpo0 5988	A mapping operation with empty domain. (Contributed by Stefan O'Rear, 29-Jan-2015.) (Revised by Mario Carneiro, 15-May-2015.)
⊢ (𝑥 ∈ ∅, 𝑦 ∈ 𝐵 ↦ 𝐶) = ∅
Theorem	oprab4 5989*	Two ways to state the domain of an operation. (Contributed by FL, 24-Jan-2010.)
⊢ {⟨⟨𝑥, 𝑦⟩, 𝑧⟩ ∣ (⟨𝑥, 𝑦⟩ ∈ (𝐴 × 𝐵) ∧ 𝜑)} = {⟨⟨𝑥, 𝑦⟩, 𝑧⟩ ∣ ((𝑥 ∈ 𝐴 ∧ 𝑦 ∈ 𝐵) ∧ 𝜑)}
Theorem	cbvoprab1 5990*	Rule used to change first bound variable in an operation abstraction, using implicit substitution. (Contributed by NM, 20-Dec-2008.) (Revised by Mario Carneiro, 5-Dec-2016.)
⊢ Ⅎ𝑤𝜑    &   ⊢ Ⅎ𝑥𝜓    &   ⊢ (𝑥 = 𝑤 → (𝜑 ↔ 𝜓))    ⇒   ⊢ {⟨⟨𝑥, 𝑦⟩, 𝑧⟩ ∣ 𝜑} = {⟨⟨𝑤, 𝑦⟩, 𝑧⟩ ∣ 𝜓}
Theorem	cbvoprab2 5991*	Change the second bound variable in an operation abstraction. (Contributed by Jeff Madsen, 11-Jun-2010.) (Revised by Mario Carneiro, 11-Dec-2016.)
⊢ Ⅎ𝑤𝜑    &   ⊢ Ⅎ𝑦𝜓    &   ⊢ (𝑦 = 𝑤 → (𝜑 ↔ 𝜓))    ⇒   ⊢ {⟨⟨𝑥, 𝑦⟩, 𝑧⟩ ∣ 𝜑} = {⟨⟨𝑥, 𝑤⟩, 𝑧⟩ ∣ 𝜓}
Theorem	cbvoprab12 5992*	Rule used to change first two bound variables in an operation abstraction, using implicit substitution. (Contributed by NM, 21-Feb-2004.) (Proof shortened by Andrew Salmon, 22-Oct-2011.)
⊢ Ⅎ𝑤𝜑    &   ⊢ Ⅎ𝑣𝜑    &   ⊢ Ⅎ𝑥𝜓    &   ⊢ Ⅎ𝑦𝜓    &   ⊢ ((𝑥 = 𝑤 ∧ 𝑦 = 𝑣) → (𝜑 ↔ 𝜓))    ⇒   ⊢ {⟨⟨𝑥, 𝑦⟩, 𝑧⟩ ∣ 𝜑} = {⟨⟨𝑤, 𝑣⟩, 𝑧⟩ ∣ 𝜓}
Theorem	cbvoprab12v 5993*	Rule used to change first two bound variables in an operation abstraction, using implicit substitution. (Contributed by NM, 8-Oct-2004.)
⊢ ((𝑥 = 𝑤 ∧ 𝑦 = 𝑣) → (𝜑 ↔ 𝜓))    ⇒   ⊢ {⟨⟨𝑥, 𝑦⟩, 𝑧⟩ ∣ 𝜑} = {⟨⟨𝑤, 𝑣⟩, 𝑧⟩ ∣ 𝜓}
Theorem	cbvoprab3 5994*	Rule used to change the third bound variable in an operation abstraction, using implicit substitution. (Contributed by NM, 22-Aug-2013.)
⊢ Ⅎ𝑤𝜑    &   ⊢ Ⅎ𝑧𝜓    &   ⊢ (𝑧 = 𝑤 → (𝜑 ↔ 𝜓))    ⇒   ⊢ {⟨⟨𝑥, 𝑦⟩, 𝑧⟩ ∣ 𝜑} = {⟨⟨𝑥, 𝑦⟩, 𝑤⟩ ∣ 𝜓}
Theorem	cbvoprab3v 5995*	Rule used to change the third bound variable in an operation abstraction, using implicit substitution. (Contributed by NM, 8-Oct-2004.) (Revised by David Abernethy, 19-Jun-2012.)
⊢ (𝑧 = 𝑤 → (𝜑 ↔ 𝜓))    ⇒   ⊢ {⟨⟨𝑥, 𝑦⟩, 𝑧⟩ ∣ 𝜑} = {⟨⟨𝑥, 𝑦⟩, 𝑤⟩ ∣ 𝜓}
Theorem	cbvmpox 5996*	Rule to change the bound variable in a maps-to function, using implicit substitution. This version of cbvmpo 5997 allows 𝐵 to be a function of 𝑥. (Contributed by NM, 29-Dec-2014.)
⊢ Ⅎ𝑧𝐵    &   ⊢ Ⅎ𝑥𝐷    &   ⊢ Ⅎ𝑧𝐶    &   ⊢ Ⅎ𝑤𝐶    &   ⊢ Ⅎ𝑥𝐸    &   ⊢ Ⅎ𝑦𝐸    &   ⊢ (𝑥 = 𝑧 → 𝐵 = 𝐷)    &   ⊢ ((𝑥 = 𝑧 ∧ 𝑦 = 𝑤) → 𝐶 = 𝐸)    ⇒   ⊢ (𝑥 ∈ 𝐴, 𝑦 ∈ 𝐵 ↦ 𝐶) = (𝑧 ∈ 𝐴, 𝑤 ∈ 𝐷 ↦ 𝐸)
Theorem	cbvmpo 5997*	Rule to change the bound variable in a maps-to function, using implicit substitution. (Contributed by NM, 17-Dec-2013.)
⊢ Ⅎ𝑧𝐶    &   ⊢ Ⅎ𝑤𝐶    &   ⊢ Ⅎ𝑥𝐷    &   ⊢ Ⅎ𝑦𝐷    &   ⊢ ((𝑥 = 𝑧 ∧ 𝑦 = 𝑤) → 𝐶 = 𝐷)    ⇒   ⊢ (𝑥 ∈ 𝐴, 𝑦 ∈ 𝐵 ↦ 𝐶) = (𝑧 ∈ 𝐴, 𝑤 ∈ 𝐵 ↦ 𝐷)
Theorem	cbvmpov 5998*	Rule to change the bound variable in a maps-to function, using implicit substitution. With a longer proof analogous to cbvmpt 4124, some distinct variable requirements could be eliminated. (Contributed by NM, 11-Jun-2013.)
⊢ (𝑥 = 𝑧 → 𝐶 = 𝐸)    &   ⊢ (𝑦 = 𝑤 → 𝐸 = 𝐷)    ⇒   ⊢ (𝑥 ∈ 𝐴, 𝑦 ∈ 𝐵 ↦ 𝐶) = (𝑧 ∈ 𝐴, 𝑤 ∈ 𝐵 ↦ 𝐷)
Theorem	dmoprab 5999*	The domain of an operation class abstraction. (Contributed by NM, 17-Mar-1995.) (Revised by David Abernethy, 19-Jun-2012.)
⊢ dom {⟨⟨𝑥, 𝑦⟩, 𝑧⟩ ∣ 𝜑} = {⟨𝑥, 𝑦⟩ ∣ ∃𝑧𝜑}
Theorem	dmoprabss 6000*	The domain of an operation class abstraction. (Contributed by NM, 24-Aug-1995.)
⊢ dom {⟨⟨𝑥, 𝑦⟩, 𝑧⟩ ∣ ((𝑥 ∈ 𝐴 ∧ 𝑦 ∈ 𝐵) ∧ 𝜑)} ⊆ (𝐴 × 𝐵)