| Intuitionistic Logic Explorer Theorem List (p. 61 of 168) | < 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 | riotaeqimp 6001* | If two restricted iota descriptors for an equality are equal, then the terms of the equality are equal. (Contributed by AV, 6-Dec-2020.) |
| ⊢ 𝐼 = (℩𝑎 ∈ 𝑉 𝑋 = 𝐴) & ⊢ 𝐽 = (℩𝑎 ∈ 𝑉 𝑌 = 𝐴) & ⊢ (𝜑 → ∃!𝑎 ∈ 𝑉 𝑋 = 𝐴) & ⊢ (𝜑 → ∃!𝑎 ∈ 𝑉 𝑌 = 𝐴) ⇒ ⊢ ((𝜑 ∧ 𝐼 = 𝐽) → 𝑋 = 𝑌) | ||
| Theorem | riotaprop 6002* | Properties of a restricted definite description operator. Todo (df-riota 5976 update): can some uses of riota2f 5999 be shortened with this? (Contributed by NM, 23-Nov-2013.) |
| ⊢ Ⅎ𝑥𝜓 & ⊢ 𝐵 = (℩𝑥 ∈ 𝐴 𝜑) & ⊢ (𝑥 = 𝐵 → (𝜑 ↔ 𝜓)) ⇒ ⊢ (∃!𝑥 ∈ 𝐴 𝜑 → (𝐵 ∈ 𝐴 ∧ 𝜓)) | ||
| Theorem | riota5f 6003* | A method for computing restricted iota. (Contributed by NM, 16-Apr-2013.) (Revised by Mario Carneiro, 15-Oct-2016.) |
| ⊢ (𝜑 → Ⅎ𝑥𝐵) & ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝐵 ∈ 𝐴) & ⊢ ((𝜑 ∧ 𝑥 ∈ 𝐴) → (𝜓 ↔ 𝑥 = 𝐵)) ⇒ ⊢ (𝜑 → (℩𝑥 ∈ 𝐴 𝜓) = 𝐵) | ||
| Theorem | riota5 6004* | A method for computing restricted iota. (Contributed by NM, 20-Oct-2011.) (Revised by Mario Carneiro, 6-Dec-2016.) |
| ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝐵 ∈ 𝐴) & ⊢ ((𝜑 ∧ 𝑥 ∈ 𝐴) → (𝜓 ↔ 𝑥 = 𝐵)) ⇒ ⊢ (𝜑 → (℩𝑥 ∈ 𝐴 𝜓) = 𝐵) | ||
| Theorem | riotass2 6005* | Restriction of a unique element to a smaller class. (Contributed by NM, 21-Aug-2011.) (Revised by NM, 22-Mar-2013.) |
| ⊢ (((𝐴 ⊆ 𝐵 ∧ ∀𝑥 ∈ 𝐴 (𝜑 → 𝜓)) ∧ (∃𝑥 ∈ 𝐴 𝜑 ∧ ∃!𝑥 ∈ 𝐵 𝜓)) → (℩𝑥 ∈ 𝐴 𝜑) = (℩𝑥 ∈ 𝐵 𝜓)) | ||
| Theorem | riotass 6006* | 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 6007* | 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 6008 | 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 6009* | 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 6010* | 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 6011* | 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 6012* | 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 6013* | 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 6014* | Lemma for acexmid 6022. (Contributed by Jim Kingdon, 6-Aug-2019.) |
| ⊢ 𝐴 = {𝑥 ∈ {∅, {∅}} ∣ (𝑥 = ∅ ∨ 𝜑)} & ⊢ 𝐵 = {𝑥 ∈ {∅, {∅}} ∣ (𝑥 = {∅} ∨ 𝜑)} & ⊢ 𝐶 = {𝐴, 𝐵} ⇒ ⊢ ({∅} ∈ 𝐴 → 𝜑) | ||
| Theorem | acexmidlemb 6015* | Lemma for acexmid 6022. (Contributed by Jim Kingdon, 6-Aug-2019.) |
| ⊢ 𝐴 = {𝑥 ∈ {∅, {∅}} ∣ (𝑥 = ∅ ∨ 𝜑)} & ⊢ 𝐵 = {𝑥 ∈ {∅, {∅}} ∣ (𝑥 = {∅} ∨ 𝜑)} & ⊢ 𝐶 = {𝐴, 𝐵} ⇒ ⊢ (∅ ∈ 𝐵 → 𝜑) | ||
| Theorem | acexmidlemph 6016* | Lemma for acexmid 6022. (Contributed by Jim Kingdon, 6-Aug-2019.) |
| ⊢ 𝐴 = {𝑥 ∈ {∅, {∅}} ∣ (𝑥 = ∅ ∨ 𝜑)} & ⊢ 𝐵 = {𝑥 ∈ {∅, {∅}} ∣ (𝑥 = {∅} ∨ 𝜑)} & ⊢ 𝐶 = {𝐴, 𝐵} ⇒ ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝐴 = 𝐵) | ||
| Theorem | acexmidlemab 6017* | Lemma for acexmid 6022. (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 6018* |
Lemma for acexmid 6022. 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 5330. 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 6019* | Lemma for acexmid 6022. List the cases identified in acexmidlemcase 6018 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 6020* |
Lemma for acexmid 6022. This builds on acexmidlem1 6019 by noting that every
element of 𝐶 is inhabited.
(Note that 𝑦 is not quite a function in the df-fun 5330 sense because it uses ordered pairs as described in opthreg 4656 rather than df-op 3679). The set 𝐴 is also found in onsucelsucexmidlem 4629. (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 6021* |
Lemma for acexmid 6022.
This is acexmid 6022 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 6022* |
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 7426 and df-exmid 4287 syntaxes, see exmidac 7429. (Contributed by Jim Kingdon, 4-Aug-2019.) |
| ⊢ ∃𝑦∀𝑧 ∈ 𝑥 ∀𝑤 ∈ 𝑧 ∃!𝑣 ∈ 𝑧 ∃𝑢 ∈ 𝑦 (𝑧 ∈ 𝑢 ∧ 𝑣 ∈ 𝑢) ⇒ ⊢ (𝜑 ∨ ¬ 𝜑) | ||
| Syntax | co 6023 | 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 6024 | Extend class notation to include class abstraction (class builder) of nested ordered pairs. |
| class {〈〈𝑥, 𝑦〉, 𝑧〉 ∣ 𝜑} | ||
| Syntax | cmpo 6025 | 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 6026 | 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 6060 and ovprc2 6061. 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 6027. (Contributed by NM, 28-Feb-1995.) |
| ⊢ (𝐴𝐹𝐵) = (𝐹‘〈𝐴, 𝐵〉) | ||
| Definition | df-oprab 6027* | 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 6026 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 6162. (Contributed by NM, 12-Mar-1995.) |
| ⊢ {〈〈𝑥, 𝑦〉, 𝑧〉 ∣ 𝜑} = {𝑤 ∣ ∃𝑥∃𝑦∃𝑧(𝑤 = 〈〈𝑥, 𝑦〉, 𝑧〉 ∧ 𝜑)} | ||
| Definition | df-mpo 6028* | 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 4153 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 6029 | Equality theorem for operation value. (Contributed by NM, 28-Feb-1995.) |
| ⊢ (𝐹 = 𝐺 → (𝐴𝐹𝐵) = (𝐴𝐺𝐵)) | ||
| Theorem | oveq1 6030 | Equality theorem for operation value. (Contributed by NM, 28-Feb-1995.) |
| ⊢ (𝐴 = 𝐵 → (𝐴𝐹𝐶) = (𝐵𝐹𝐶)) | ||
| Theorem | oveq2 6031 | Equality theorem for operation value. (Contributed by NM, 28-Feb-1995.) |
| ⊢ (𝐴 = 𝐵 → (𝐶𝐹𝐴) = (𝐶𝐹𝐵)) | ||
| Theorem | oveq12 6032 | Equality theorem for operation value. (Contributed by NM, 16-Jul-1995.) |
| ⊢ ((𝐴 = 𝐵 ∧ 𝐶 = 𝐷) → (𝐴𝐹𝐶) = (𝐵𝐹𝐷)) | ||
| Theorem | oveq1i 6033 | Equality inference for operation value. (Contributed by NM, 28-Feb-1995.) |
| ⊢ 𝐴 = 𝐵 ⇒ ⊢ (𝐴𝐹𝐶) = (𝐵𝐹𝐶) | ||
| Theorem | oveq2i 6034 | Equality inference for operation value. (Contributed by NM, 28-Feb-1995.) |
| ⊢ 𝐴 = 𝐵 ⇒ ⊢ (𝐶𝐹𝐴) = (𝐶𝐹𝐵) | ||
| Theorem | oveq12i 6035 | 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 6036 | Equality inference for operation value. (Contributed by NM, 24-Nov-2007.) |
| ⊢ 𝐴 = 𝐵 ⇒ ⊢ (𝐶𝐴𝐷) = (𝐶𝐵𝐷) | ||
| Theorem | oveq123i 6037 | Equality inference for operation value. (Contributed by FL, 11-Jul-2010.) |
| ⊢ 𝐴 = 𝐶 & ⊢ 𝐵 = 𝐷 & ⊢ 𝐹 = 𝐺 ⇒ ⊢ (𝐴𝐹𝐵) = (𝐶𝐺𝐷) | ||
| Theorem | oveq1d 6038 | Equality deduction for operation value. (Contributed by NM, 13-Mar-1995.) |
| ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝐴 = 𝐵) ⇒ ⊢ (𝜑 → (𝐴𝐹𝐶) = (𝐵𝐹𝐶)) | ||
| Theorem | oveq2d 6039 | Equality deduction for operation value. (Contributed by NM, 13-Mar-1995.) |
| ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝐴 = 𝐵) ⇒ ⊢ (𝜑 → (𝐶𝐹𝐴) = (𝐶𝐹𝐵)) | ||
| Theorem | oveqd 6040 | Equality deduction for operation value. (Contributed by NM, 9-Sep-2006.) |
| ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝐴 = 𝐵) ⇒ ⊢ (𝜑 → (𝐶𝐴𝐷) = (𝐶𝐵𝐷)) | ||
| Theorem | oveq12d 6041 | 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 6042 | Equality deduction for operation value. (Contributed by NM, 10-Aug-1995.) |
| ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝐴 = 𝐵) & ⊢ (𝜓 → 𝐶 = 𝐷) ⇒ ⊢ ((𝜑 ∧ 𝜓) → (𝐴𝐹𝐶) = (𝐵𝐹𝐷)) | ||
| Theorem | oveqan12rd 6043 | Equality deduction for operation value. (Contributed by NM, 10-Aug-1995.) |
| ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝐴 = 𝐵) & ⊢ (𝜓 → 𝐶 = 𝐷) ⇒ ⊢ ((𝜓 ∧ 𝜑) → (𝐴𝐹𝐶) = (𝐵𝐹𝐷)) | ||
| Theorem | oveq123d 6044 | 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 6045 | Equality deduction for nested function and operation value. (Contributed by AV, 23-Jul-2022.) |
| ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝐴 = 𝐵) ⇒ ⊢ (𝜑 → (𝐹‘(𝐴𝑂𝐶)) = (𝐹‘(𝐵𝑂𝐶))) | ||
| Theorem | fvoveq1 6046 | Equality theorem for nested function and operation value. Closed form of fvoveq1d 6045. (Contributed by AV, 23-Jul-2022.) |
| ⊢ (𝐴 = 𝐵 → (𝐹‘(𝐴𝑂𝐶)) = (𝐹‘(𝐵𝑂𝐶))) | ||
| Theorem | ovanraleqv 6047* | 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 6048 | 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 6049* | 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 6050* | 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 6051 | 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 6052 | Deduction version of bound-variable hypothesis builder nfov 6053. (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 6053 | Bound-variable hypothesis builder for operation value. (Contributed by NM, 4-May-2004.) |
| ⊢ Ⅎ𝑥𝐴 & ⊢ Ⅎ𝑥𝐹 & ⊢ Ⅎ𝑥𝐵 ⇒ ⊢ Ⅎ𝑥(𝐴𝐹𝐵) | ||
| Theorem | oprabidlem 6054* | Slight elaboration of exdistrfor 1847. A lemma for oprabid 6055. (Contributed by Jim Kingdon, 15-Jan-2019.) |
| ⊢ (∃𝑥∃𝑦(𝑥 = 𝑧 ∧ 𝜓) → ∃𝑥(𝑥 = 𝑧 ∧ ∃𝑦𝜓)) | ||
| Theorem | oprabid 6055 | 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 1557 to eliminate that constraint. (Contributed by Mario Carneiro, 20-Mar-2013.) |
| ⊢ (〈〈𝑥, 𝑦〉, 𝑧〉 ∈ {〈〈𝑥, 𝑦〉, 𝑧〉 ∣ 𝜑} ↔ 𝜑) | ||
| Theorem | fnovex 6056 | 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 6057 | 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 | ovssunirng 6058 | The result of an operation value is always a subset of the union of the range. (Contributed by Mario Carneiro, 12-Jan-2017.) |
| ⊢ ((𝑋 ∈ 𝑉 ∧ 𝑌 ∈ 𝑊) → (𝑋𝐹𝑌) ⊆ ∪ ran 𝐹) | ||
| Theorem | ovprc 6059 | 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 6060 | 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 6061 | 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 6062 | 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 6063* | 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 6064* | 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 6065* | 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 6066* | A frequently used special case of rspc2ev 2924 for operation values. (Contributed by NM, 21-Mar-2007.) |
| ⊢ ((𝐶 ∈ 𝐴 ∧ 𝐷 ∈ 𝐵 ∧ 𝑆 = (𝐶𝐹𝐷)) → ∃𝑥 ∈ 𝐴 ∃𝑦 ∈ 𝐵 𝑆 = (𝑥𝐹𝑦)) | ||
| Theorem | elovimad 6067 | Elementhood of the image set of an operation value. (Contributed by Thierry Arnoux, 13-Mar-2017.) |
| ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝐴 ∈ 𝐶) & ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝐵 ∈ 𝐷) & ⊢ (𝜑 → Fun 𝐹) & ⊢ (𝜑 → (𝐶 × 𝐷) ⊆ dom 𝐹) ⇒ ⊢ (𝜑 → (𝐴𝐹𝐵) ∈ (𝐹 “ (𝐶 × 𝐷))) | ||
| Theorem | fnbrovb 6068 | Value of a binary operation expressed as a binary relation. See also fnbrfvb 5687 for functions on Cartesian products. (Contributed by BJ, 15-Feb-2022.) |
| ⊢ ((𝐹 Fn (𝑉 × 𝑊) ∧ (𝐴 ∈ 𝑉 ∧ 𝐵 ∈ 𝑊)) → ((𝐴𝐹𝐵) = 𝐶 ↔ 〈𝐴, 𝐵〉𝐹𝐶)) | ||
| Theorem | fnotovb 6069 | Equivalence of operation value and ordered triple membership, analogous to fnopfvb 5688. (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 6070* | 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 6071 | 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 6072* | 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 6073* | 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 6074* | An operation class abstraction is a relation. (Contributed by NM, 16-Jun-2004.) |
| ⊢ Rel {〈〈𝑥, 𝑦〉, 𝑧〉 ∣ 𝜑} | ||
| Theorem | nfoprab1 6075 | 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 6076 | 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 6077 | The abstraction variables in an operation class abstraction are not free. (Contributed by NM, 22-Aug-2013.) |
| ⊢ Ⅎ𝑧{〈〈𝑥, 𝑦〉, 𝑧〉 ∣ 𝜑} | ||
| Theorem | nfoprab 6078* | Bound-variable hypothesis builder for an operation class abstraction. (Contributed by NM, 22-Aug-2013.) |
| ⊢ Ⅎ𝑤𝜑 ⇒ ⊢ Ⅎ𝑤{〈〈𝑥, 𝑦〉, 𝑧〉 ∣ 𝜑} | ||
| Theorem | oprabbid 6079* | 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 6080* | 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 6081* | 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 6082 | Equivalence of ordered pair abstraction subclass and implication. Compare ssopab2 4372. (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 6083 | Equivalence of ordered pair abstraction subclass and implication. Compare ssopab2b 4373. (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 6084 | Equivalence of ordered pair abstraction subclass and biconditional. Compare eqopab2b 4376. (Contributed by Mario Carneiro, 4-Jan-2017.) |
| ⊢ ({〈〈𝑥, 𝑦〉, 𝑧〉 ∣ 𝜑} = {〈〈𝑥, 𝑦〉, 𝑧〉 ∣ 𝜓} ↔ ∀𝑥∀𝑦∀𝑧(𝜑 ↔ 𝜓)) | ||
| Theorem | mpoeq123 6085* | 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 6086* | 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 6087* | 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 6088* | 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 6089 | 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 6090* | 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 6091 | 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 6092* | 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 6093 | 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 6094 | 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 6095* | 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 6096 | 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 6097* | 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 6098* | 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 6099* | 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 6100* | 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} | ||
| < Previous Next > |
| Copyright terms: Public domain | < Previous Next > |