Theorem dtru 5288

Description: At least two sets exist (or in terms of first-order logic, the universe of discourse has two or more objects). Note that we may not substitute the same variable for both 𝑥 and 𝑦 (as indicated by the distinct variable requirement), for otherwise we would contradict stdpc6 2032.

This theorem is proved directly from set theory axioms (no set theory definitions) and does not use ax-ext 2709 or ax-sep 5218. See dtruALT 5306 for a shorter proof using these axioms.

The proof makes use of dummy variables 𝑧 and 𝑤 which do not appear in the final theorem. They must be distinct from each other and from 𝑥 and 𝑦. In other words, if we were to substitute 𝑥 for 𝑧 throughout the proof, the proof would fail. (Contributed by NM, 7-Nov-2006.) Avoid ax-13 2372. (Revised by Gino Giotto, 5-Sep-2023.) Avoid ax-12 2173. (Revised by Rohan Ridenour, 9-Oct-2024.)

Assertion

Ref	Expression
dtru	⊢ ¬ ∀𝑥 𝑥 = 𝑦

Distinct variable group:   𝑥,𝑦

Proof of Theorem dtru

Dummy variables 𝑤 𝑧 are mutually distinct and distinct from all other variables.

Step	Hyp	Ref	Expression
1		el 5287	. . . 4 ⊢ ∃𝑤 𝑥 ∈ 𝑤
2		ax-nul 5225	. . . . 5 ⊢ ∃𝑧∀𝑥 ¬ 𝑥 ∈ 𝑧
3		elequ1 2115	. . . . . . 7 ⊢ (𝑥 = 𝑤 → (𝑥 ∈ 𝑧 ↔ 𝑤 ∈ 𝑧))
4	3	notbid 317	. . . . . 6 ⊢ (𝑥 = 𝑤 → (¬ 𝑥 ∈ 𝑧 ↔ ¬ 𝑤 ∈ 𝑧))
5	4	spw 2038	. . . . 5 ⊢ (∀𝑥 ¬ 𝑥 ∈ 𝑧 → ¬ 𝑥 ∈ 𝑧)
6	2, 5	eximii 1840	. . . 4 ⊢ ∃𝑧 ¬ 𝑥 ∈ 𝑧
7		exdistrv 1960	. . . 4 ⊢ (∃𝑤∃𝑧(𝑥 ∈ 𝑤 ∧ ¬ 𝑥 ∈ 𝑧) ↔ (∃𝑤 𝑥 ∈ 𝑤 ∧ ∃𝑧 ¬ 𝑥 ∈ 𝑧))
8	1, 6, 7	mpbir2an 707	. . 3 ⊢ ∃𝑤∃𝑧(𝑥 ∈ 𝑤 ∧ ¬ 𝑥 ∈ 𝑧)
9		ax9v2 2121	. . . . . 6 ⊢ (𝑤 = 𝑧 → (𝑥 ∈ 𝑤 → 𝑥 ∈ 𝑧))
10	9	com12 32	. . . . 5 ⊢ (𝑥 ∈ 𝑤 → (𝑤 = 𝑧 → 𝑥 ∈ 𝑧))
11	10	con3dimp 408	. . . 4 ⊢ ((𝑥 ∈ 𝑤 ∧ ¬ 𝑥 ∈ 𝑧) → ¬ 𝑤 = 𝑧)
12	11	2eximi 1839	. . 3 ⊢ (∃𝑤∃𝑧(𝑥 ∈ 𝑤 ∧ ¬ 𝑥 ∈ 𝑧) → ∃𝑤∃𝑧 ¬ 𝑤 = 𝑧)
13		equequ2 2030	. . . . . . 7 ⊢ (𝑧 = 𝑦 → (𝑤 = 𝑧 ↔ 𝑤 = 𝑦))
14	13	notbid 317	. . . . . 6 ⊢ (𝑧 = 𝑦 → (¬ 𝑤 = 𝑧 ↔ ¬ 𝑤 = 𝑦))
15		ax7v1 2014	. . . . . . . 8 ⊢ (𝑥 = 𝑤 → (𝑥 = 𝑦 → 𝑤 = 𝑦))
16	15	con3d 152	. . . . . . 7 ⊢ (𝑥 = 𝑤 → (¬ 𝑤 = 𝑦 → ¬ 𝑥 = 𝑦))
17	16	spimevw 1999	. . . . . 6 ⊢ (¬ 𝑤 = 𝑦 → ∃𝑥 ¬ 𝑥 = 𝑦)
18	14, 17	syl6bi 252	. . . . 5 ⊢ (𝑧 = 𝑦 → (¬ 𝑤 = 𝑧 → ∃𝑥 ¬ 𝑥 = 𝑦))
19		ax7v1 2014	. . . . . . . 8 ⊢ (𝑥 = 𝑧 → (𝑥 = 𝑦 → 𝑧 = 𝑦))
20	19	con3d 152	. . . . . . 7 ⊢ (𝑥 = 𝑧 → (¬ 𝑧 = 𝑦 → ¬ 𝑥 = 𝑦))
21	20	spimevw 1999	. . . . . 6 ⊢ (¬ 𝑧 = 𝑦 → ∃𝑥 ¬ 𝑥 = 𝑦)
22	21	a1d 25	. . . . 5 ⊢ (¬ 𝑧 = 𝑦 → (¬ 𝑤 = 𝑧 → ∃𝑥 ¬ 𝑥 = 𝑦))
23	18, 22	pm2.61i 182	. . . 4 ⊢ (¬ 𝑤 = 𝑧 → ∃𝑥 ¬ 𝑥 = 𝑦)
24	23	exlimivv 1936	. . 3 ⊢ (∃𝑤∃𝑧 ¬ 𝑤 = 𝑧 → ∃𝑥 ¬ 𝑥 = 𝑦)
25	8, 12, 24	mp2b 10	. 2 ⊢ ∃𝑥 ¬ 𝑥 = 𝑦
26		exnal 1830	. 2 ⊢ (∃𝑥 ¬ 𝑥 = 𝑦 ↔ ¬ ∀𝑥 𝑥 = 𝑦)
27	25, 26	mpbi 229	1 ⊢ ¬ ∀𝑥 𝑥 = 𝑦

Syntax hints:  ¬ wn 3   → wi 4   ∧ wa 395  ∀wal 1537   = wceq 1539  ∃wex 1783   ∈ wcel 2108

This theorem was proved from axioms:  ax-mp 5  ax-1 6  ax-2 7  ax-3 8  ax-gen 1799  ax-4 1813  ax-5 1914  ax-6 1972  ax-7 2012  ax-8 2110  ax-9 2118  ax-nul 5225  ax-pow 5283

This theorem depends on definitions:  df-bi 206  df-an 396  df-ex 1784

This theorem is referenced by:  dtrucor  5289  dvdemo1  5291  nfnid  5293  axc16b  5307  eunex  5308  brprcneu  6747  zfcndpow  10303