P. 61 of Theorem List - Intuitionistic Logic Explorer

Theorem List for Intuitionistic Logic Explorer - 6001-6100   *Has distinct variable group(s)

Type	Label	Description
Statement
Theorem	riotass 6001*	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 6002*	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 6003	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 6004*	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 6005*	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 6006*	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 6007*	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 6008*	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 6009*	Lemma for acexmid 6017. (Contributed by Jim Kingdon, 6-Aug-2019.)
⊢ 𝐴 = {𝑥 ∈ {∅, {∅}} ∣ (𝑥 = ∅ ∨ 𝜑)}    &   ⊢ 𝐵 = {𝑥 ∈ {∅, {∅}} ∣ (𝑥 = {∅} ∨ 𝜑)}    &   ⊢ 𝐶 = {𝐴, 𝐵}    ⇒   ⊢ ({∅} ∈ 𝐴 → 𝜑)
Theorem	acexmidlemb 6010*	Lemma for acexmid 6017. (Contributed by Jim Kingdon, 6-Aug-2019.)
⊢ 𝐴 = {𝑥 ∈ {∅, {∅}} ∣ (𝑥 = ∅ ∨ 𝜑)}    &   ⊢ 𝐵 = {𝑥 ∈ {∅, {∅}} ∣ (𝑥 = {∅} ∨ 𝜑)}    &   ⊢ 𝐶 = {𝐴, 𝐵}    ⇒   ⊢ (∅ ∈ 𝐵 → 𝜑)
Theorem	acexmidlemph 6011*	Lemma for acexmid 6017. (Contributed by Jim Kingdon, 6-Aug-2019.)
⊢ 𝐴 = {𝑥 ∈ {∅, {∅}} ∣ (𝑥 = ∅ ∨ 𝜑)}    &   ⊢ 𝐵 = {𝑥 ∈ {∅, {∅}} ∣ (𝑥 = {∅} ∨ 𝜑)}    &   ⊢ 𝐶 = {𝐴, 𝐵}    ⇒   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝐴 = 𝐵)
Theorem	acexmidlemab 6012*	Lemma for acexmid 6017. (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 6013*	Lemma for acexmid 6017. 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 5328. 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 6014*	Lemma for acexmid 6017. List the cases identified in acexmidlemcase 6013 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 6015*	Lemma for acexmid 6017. This builds on acexmidlem1 6014 by noting that every element of 𝐶 is inhabited. (Note that 𝑦 is not quite a function in the df-fun 5328 sense because it uses ordered pairs as described in opthreg 4654 rather than df-op 3678). The set 𝐴 is also found in onsucelsucexmidlem 4627. (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 6016*	Lemma for acexmid 6017. This is acexmid 6017 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 6017*	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 7421 and df-exmid 4285 syntaxes, see exmidac 7424. (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 6018	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 6019	Extend class notation to include class abstraction (class builder) of nested ordered pairs.
class {⟨⟨𝑥, 𝑦⟩, 𝑧⟩ ∣ 𝜑}
Syntax	cmpo 6020	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 6021	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 6055 and ovprc2 6056. 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 6022. (Contributed by NM, 28-Feb-1995.)
⊢ (𝐴𝐹𝐵) = (𝐹‘⟨𝐴, 𝐵⟩)
Definition	df-oprab 6022*	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 6021 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 6157. (Contributed by NM, 12-Mar-1995.)
⊢ {⟨⟨𝑥, 𝑦⟩, 𝑧⟩ ∣ 𝜑} = {𝑤 ∣ ∃𝑥∃𝑦∃𝑧(𝑤 = ⟨⟨𝑥, 𝑦⟩, 𝑧⟩ ∧ 𝜑)}
Definition	df-mpo 6023*	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 4152 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 6024	Equality theorem for operation value. (Contributed by NM, 28-Feb-1995.)
⊢ (𝐹 = 𝐺 → (𝐴𝐹𝐵) = (𝐴𝐺𝐵))
Theorem	oveq1 6025	Equality theorem for operation value. (Contributed by NM, 28-Feb-1995.)
⊢ (𝐴 = 𝐵 → (𝐴𝐹𝐶) = (𝐵𝐹𝐶))
Theorem	oveq2 6026	Equality theorem for operation value. (Contributed by NM, 28-Feb-1995.)
⊢ (𝐴 = 𝐵 → (𝐶𝐹𝐴) = (𝐶𝐹𝐵))
Theorem	oveq12 6027	Equality theorem for operation value. (Contributed by NM, 16-Jul-1995.)
⊢ ((𝐴 = 𝐵 ∧ 𝐶 = 𝐷) → (𝐴𝐹𝐶) = (𝐵𝐹𝐷))
Theorem	oveq1i 6028	Equality inference for operation value. (Contributed by NM, 28-Feb-1995.)
⊢ 𝐴 = 𝐵    ⇒   ⊢ (𝐴𝐹𝐶) = (𝐵𝐹𝐶)
Theorem	oveq2i 6029	Equality inference for operation value. (Contributed by NM, 28-Feb-1995.)
⊢ 𝐴 = 𝐵    ⇒   ⊢ (𝐶𝐹𝐴) = (𝐶𝐹𝐵)
Theorem	oveq12i 6030	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 6031	Equality inference for operation value. (Contributed by NM, 24-Nov-2007.)
⊢ 𝐴 = 𝐵    ⇒   ⊢ (𝐶𝐴𝐷) = (𝐶𝐵𝐷)
Theorem	oveq123i 6032	Equality inference for operation value. (Contributed by FL, 11-Jul-2010.)
⊢ 𝐴 = 𝐶    &   ⊢ 𝐵 = 𝐷    &   ⊢ 𝐹 = 𝐺    ⇒   ⊢ (𝐴𝐹𝐵) = (𝐶𝐺𝐷)
Theorem	oveq1d 6033	Equality deduction for operation value. (Contributed by NM, 13-Mar-1995.)
⊢ (𝜑 → 𝐴 = 𝐵)    ⇒   ⊢ (𝜑 → (𝐴𝐹𝐶) = (𝐵𝐹𝐶))
Theorem	oveq2d 6034	Equality deduction for operation value. (Contributed by NM, 13-Mar-1995.)
⊢ (𝜑 → 𝐴 = 𝐵)    ⇒   ⊢ (𝜑 → (𝐶𝐹𝐴) = (𝐶𝐹𝐵))
Theorem	oveqd 6035	Equality deduction for operation value. (Contributed by NM, 9-Sep-2006.)
⊢ (𝜑 → 𝐴 = 𝐵)    ⇒   ⊢ (𝜑 → (𝐶𝐴𝐷) = (𝐶𝐵𝐷))
Theorem	oveq12d 6036	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 6037	Equality deduction for operation value. (Contributed by NM, 10-Aug-1995.)
⊢ (𝜑 → 𝐴 = 𝐵)    &   ⊢ (𝜓 → 𝐶 = 𝐷)    ⇒   ⊢ ((𝜑 ∧ 𝜓) → (𝐴𝐹𝐶) = (𝐵𝐹𝐷))
Theorem	oveqan12rd 6038	Equality deduction for operation value. (Contributed by NM, 10-Aug-1995.)
⊢ (𝜑 → 𝐴 = 𝐵)    &   ⊢ (𝜓 → 𝐶 = 𝐷)    ⇒   ⊢ ((𝜓 ∧ 𝜑) → (𝐴𝐹𝐶) = (𝐵𝐹𝐷))
Theorem	oveq123d 6039	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 6040	Equality deduction for nested function and operation value. (Contributed by AV, 23-Jul-2022.)
⊢ (𝜑 → 𝐴 = 𝐵)    ⇒   ⊢ (𝜑 → (𝐹‘(𝐴𝑂𝐶)) = (𝐹‘(𝐵𝑂𝐶)))
Theorem	fvoveq1 6041	Equality theorem for nested function and operation value. Closed form of fvoveq1d 6040. (Contributed by AV, 23-Jul-2022.)
⊢ (𝐴 = 𝐵 → (𝐹‘(𝐴𝑂𝐶)) = (𝐹‘(𝐵𝑂𝐶)))
Theorem	ovanraleqv 6042*	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 6043	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 6044*	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 6045*	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 6046	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 6047	Deduction version of bound-variable hypothesis builder nfov 6048. (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 6048	Bound-variable hypothesis builder for operation value. (Contributed by NM, 4-May-2004.)
⊢ Ⅎ𝑥𝐴    &   ⊢ Ⅎ𝑥𝐹    &   ⊢ Ⅎ𝑥𝐵    ⇒   ⊢ Ⅎ𝑥(𝐴𝐹𝐵)
Theorem	oprabidlem 6049*	Slight elaboration of exdistrfor 1848. A lemma for oprabid 6050. (Contributed by Jim Kingdon, 15-Jan-2019.)
⊢ (∃𝑥∃𝑦(𝑥 = 𝑧 ∧ 𝜓) → ∃𝑥(𝑥 = 𝑧 ∧ ∃𝑦𝜓))
Theorem	oprabid 6050	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 6051	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 6052	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 6053	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 6054	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 6055	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 6056	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 6057	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 6058*	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 6059*	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 6060*	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 6061*	A frequently used special case of rspc2ev 2925 for operation values. (Contributed by NM, 21-Mar-2007.)
⊢ ((𝐶 ∈ 𝐴 ∧ 𝐷 ∈ 𝐵 ∧ 𝑆 = (𝐶𝐹𝐷)) → ∃𝑥 ∈ 𝐴 ∃𝑦 ∈ 𝐵 𝑆 = (𝑥𝐹𝑦))
Theorem	elovimad 6062	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 6063	Value of a binary operation expressed as a binary relation. See also fnbrfvb 5684 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 6064	Equivalence of operation value and ordered triple membership, analogous to fnopfvb 5685. (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 6065*	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 6066	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 6067*	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 6068*	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 6069*	An operation class abstraction is a relation. (Contributed by NM, 16-Jun-2004.)
⊢ Rel {⟨⟨𝑥, 𝑦⟩, 𝑧⟩ ∣ 𝜑}
Theorem	nfoprab1 6070	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 6071	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 6072	The abstraction variables in an operation class abstraction are not free. (Contributed by NM, 22-Aug-2013.)
⊢ Ⅎ𝑧{⟨⟨𝑥, 𝑦⟩, 𝑧⟩ ∣ 𝜑}
Theorem	nfoprab 6073*	Bound-variable hypothesis builder for an operation class abstraction. (Contributed by NM, 22-Aug-2013.)
⊢ Ⅎ𝑤𝜑    ⇒   ⊢ Ⅎ𝑤{⟨⟨𝑥, 𝑦⟩, 𝑧⟩ ∣ 𝜑}
Theorem	oprabbid 6074*	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 6075*	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 6076*	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 6077	Equivalence of ordered pair abstraction subclass and implication. Compare ssopab2 4370. (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 6078	Equivalence of ordered pair abstraction subclass and implication. Compare ssopab2b 4371. (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 6079	Equivalence of ordered pair abstraction subclass and biconditional. Compare eqopab2b 4374. (Contributed by Mario Carneiro, 4-Jan-2017.)
⊢ ({⟨⟨𝑥, 𝑦⟩, 𝑧⟩ ∣ 𝜑} = {⟨⟨𝑥, 𝑦⟩, 𝑧⟩ ∣ 𝜓} ↔ ∀𝑥∀𝑦∀𝑧(𝜑 ↔ 𝜓))
Theorem	mpoeq123 6080*	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 6081*	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 6082*	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 6083*	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 6084	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 6085*	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 6086	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 6087*	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 6088	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 6089	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 6090*	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 6091	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 6092*	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 6093*	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 6094*	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 6095*	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 6096*	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 6097*	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 6098*	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 6099*	Rule to change the bound variable in a maps-to function, using implicit substitution. This version of cbvmpo 6100 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 6100*	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)