P. 16 of Theorem List - Metamath Proof Explorer

Theorem List for Metamath Proof Explorer - 1501-1600   *Has distinct variable group(s)

Type	Label	Description
Statement
Theorem	intn3an3d 1501	Introduction of a triple conjunct inside a contradiction. (Contributed by FL, 27-Dec-2007.) (Proof shortened by Andrew Salmon, 26-Jun-2011.)
⊢ (𝜑 → ¬ 𝜓)    ⇒   ⊢ (𝜑 → ¬ (𝜒 ∧ 𝜃 ∧ 𝜓))
Theorem	an3andi 1502	Distribution of conjunction over threefold conjunction. (Contributed by Thierry Arnoux, 8-Apr-2019.)
⊢ ((𝜑 ∧ (𝜓 ∧ 𝜒 ∧ 𝜃)) ↔ ((𝜑 ∧ 𝜓) ∧ (𝜑 ∧ 𝜒) ∧ (𝜑 ∧ 𝜃)))
Theorem	an33rean 1503	Rearrange a 9-fold conjunction. (Contributed by Thierry Arnoux, 14-Apr-2019.) (Proof shortened by Wolf Lammen, 21-Apr-2024.)
⊢ (((𝜑 ∧ 𝜓 ∧ 𝜒) ∧ (𝜃 ∧ 𝜏 ∧ 𝜂) ∧ (𝜁 ∧ 𝜎 ∧ 𝜌)) ↔ ((𝜑 ∧ 𝜏 ∧ 𝜌) ∧ ((𝜓 ∧ 𝜃) ∧ (𝜂 ∧ 𝜎) ∧ (𝜒 ∧ 𝜁))))
Theorem	3orel2 1504	Partial elimination of a triple disjunction by denial of a disjunct. (Contributed by Scott Fenton, 26-Mar-2011.) (Proof shortened by Andrew Salmon, 25-May-2011.) (Proof shortened by Eric Schmidt, 8-Oct-2025.)
⊢ (¬ 𝜓 → ((𝜑 ∨ 𝜓 ∨ 𝜒) → (𝜑 ∨ 𝜒)))
Theorem	3orel2OLD 1505	Obsolete version of 3orel2 1504 as of 8-Oct-2025. (Contributed by Scott Fenton, 26-Mar-2011.) (Proof shortened by Andrew Salmon, 25-May-2011.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) (New usage is discouraged.)
⊢ (¬ 𝜓 → ((𝜑 ∨ 𝜓 ∨ 𝜒) → (𝜑 ∨ 𝜒)))
Theorem	3orel3 1506	Partial elimination of a triple disjunction by denial of a disjunct. (Contributed by Scott Fenton, 26-Mar-2011.)
⊢ (¬ 𝜒 → ((𝜑 ∨ 𝜓 ∨ 𝜒) → (𝜑 ∨ 𝜓)))
Theorem	3orel13 1507	Elimination of two disjuncts in a triple disjunction. (Contributed by Scott Fenton, 9-Jun-2011.)
⊢ ((¬ 𝜑 ∧ ¬ 𝜒) → ((𝜑 ∨ 𝜓 ∨ 𝜒) → 𝜓))
Theorem	3pm3.2ni 1508	Triple negated disjunction introduction. (Contributed by Scott Fenton, 20-Apr-2011.)
⊢ ¬ 𝜑    &   ⊢ ¬ 𝜓    &   ⊢ ¬ 𝜒    ⇒   ⊢ ¬ (𝜑 ∨ 𝜓 ∨ 𝜒)
Theorem	an42ds 1509	Inference exchanging the last antecedent with the second one. See also an32s 662. (Contributed by Thierry Arnoux, 3-Jun-2025.)
⊢ ((((𝜑 ∧ 𝜓) ∧ 𝜒) ∧ 𝜃) → 𝜏)    ⇒   ⊢ ((((𝜑 ∧ 𝜃) ∧ 𝜒) ∧ 𝜓) → 𝜏)
1.2.12  Logical "nand" (Sheffer stroke)
Syntax	wnan 1510	Extend wff definition to include alternative denial ("nand").
wff (𝜑 ⊼ 𝜓)
Definition	df-nan 1511	Define incompatibility, or alternative denial ("not-and" or "nand"). See dfnan2 1513 for an alternative. This is also called the Sheffer stroke, represented by a vertical bar, but we use a different symbol to avoid ambiguity with other uses of the vertical bar. In the second edition of Principia Mathematica (1927), Russell and Whitehead used the Sheffer stroke and suggested it as a replacement for the "or" and "not" operations of the first edition. However, in practice, "or" and "not" are more widely used. After we define the constant true ⊤ (df-tru 1562) and the constant false ⊥ (df-fal 1572), we will be able to prove these truth table values: ((⊤ ⊼ ⊤) ↔ ⊥) (trunantru 1600), ((⊤ ⊼ ⊥) ↔ ⊤) (trunanfal 1601), ((⊥ ⊼ ⊤) ↔ ⊤) (falnantru 1602), and ((⊥ ⊼ ⊥) ↔ ⊤) (falnanfal 1603). Contrast with ∧ (df-an 400), ∨ (df-or 859), → (wi 4), and ⊻ (df-xor 1531). (Contributed by Jeff Hoffman, 19-Nov-2007.)
⊢ ((𝜑 ⊼ 𝜓) ↔ ¬ (𝜑 ∧ 𝜓))
Theorem	nanan 1512	Conjunction in terms of alternative denial. (Contributed by Mario Carneiro, 9-May-2015.)
⊢ ((𝜑 ∧ 𝜓) ↔ ¬ (𝜑 ⊼ 𝜓))
Theorem	dfnan2 1513	Alternative denial in terms of our primitive connectives (implication and negation). (Contributed by WL, 26-Jun-2020.)
⊢ ((𝜑 ⊼ 𝜓) ↔ (𝜑 → ¬ 𝜓))
Theorem	nanor 1514	Alternative denial in terms of disjunction and negation. This explains the name "alternative denial". (Contributed by BJ, 19-Oct-2022.)
⊢ ((𝜑 ⊼ 𝜓) ↔ (¬ 𝜑 ∨ ¬ 𝜓))
Theorem	nancom 1515	Alternative denial is commutative. Remark: alternative denial is not associative, see nanass 1529. (Contributed by Mario Carneiro, 9-May-2015.) (Proof shortened by Wolf Lammen, 26-Jun-2020.)
⊢ ((𝜑 ⊼ 𝜓) ↔ (𝜓 ⊼ 𝜑))
Theorem	nannan 1516	Nested alternative denials. (Contributed by Jeff Hoffman, 19-Nov-2007.) (Proof shortened by Wolf Lammen, 26-Jun-2020.)
⊢ ((𝜑 ⊼ (𝜓 ⊼ 𝜒)) ↔ (𝜑 → (𝜓 ∧ 𝜒)))
Theorem	nanim 1517	Implication in terms of alternative denial. (Contributed by Jeff Hoffman, 19-Nov-2007.)
⊢ ((𝜑 → 𝜓) ↔ (𝜑 ⊼ (𝜓 ⊼ 𝜓)))
Theorem	nannot 1518	Negation in terms of alternative denial. (Contributed by Jeff Hoffman, 19-Nov-2007.) Use dfnan2 1513. (Revised by Wolf Lammen, 26-Jun-2020.)
⊢ (¬ 𝜑 ↔ (𝜑 ⊼ 𝜑))
Theorem	nanbi 1519	Biconditional in terms of alternative denial. (Contributed by Jeff Hoffman, 19-Nov-2007.) (Proof shortened by Wolf Lammen, 27-Jun-2020.)
⊢ ((𝜑 ↔ 𝜓) ↔ ((𝜑 ⊼ 𝜓) ⊼ ((𝜑 ⊼ 𝜑) ⊼ (𝜓 ⊼ 𝜓))))
Theorem	nanbi1 1520	Introduce a right anti-conjunct to both sides of a logical equivalence. (Contributed by Anthony Hart, 1-Sep-2011.) (Proof shortened by Wolf Lammen, 27-Jun-2020.)
⊢ ((𝜑 ↔ 𝜓) → ((𝜑 ⊼ 𝜒) ↔ (𝜓 ⊼ 𝜒)))
Theorem	nanbi2 1521	Introduce a left anti-conjunct to both sides of a logical equivalence. (Contributed by Anthony Hart, 1-Sep-2011.) (Proof shortened by SF, 2-Jan-2018.)
⊢ ((𝜑 ↔ 𝜓) → ((𝜒 ⊼ 𝜑) ↔ (𝜒 ⊼ 𝜓)))
Theorem	nanbi12 1522	Join two logical equivalences with anti-conjunction. (Contributed by SF, 2-Jan-2018.)
⊢ (((𝜑 ↔ 𝜓) ∧ (𝜒 ↔ 𝜃)) → ((𝜑 ⊼ 𝜒) ↔ (𝜓 ⊼ 𝜃)))
Theorem	nanbi1i 1523	Introduce a right anti-conjunct to both sides of a logical equivalence. (Contributed by SF, 2-Jan-2018.)
⊢ (𝜑 ↔ 𝜓)    ⇒   ⊢ ((𝜑 ⊼ 𝜒) ↔ (𝜓 ⊼ 𝜒))
Theorem	nanbi2i 1524	Introduce a left anti-conjunct to both sides of a logical equivalence. (Contributed by SF, 2-Jan-2018.)
⊢ (𝜑 ↔ 𝜓)    ⇒   ⊢ ((𝜒 ⊼ 𝜑) ↔ (𝜒 ⊼ 𝜓))
Theorem	nanbi12i 1525	Join two logical equivalences with anti-conjunction. (Contributed by SF, 2-Jan-2018.)
⊢ (𝜑 ↔ 𝜓)    &   ⊢ (𝜒 ↔ 𝜃)    ⇒   ⊢ ((𝜑 ⊼ 𝜒) ↔ (𝜓 ⊼ 𝜃))
Theorem	nanbi1d 1526	Introduce a right anti-conjunct to both sides of a logical equivalence. (Contributed by SF, 2-Jan-2018.)
⊢ (𝜑 → (𝜓 ↔ 𝜒))    ⇒   ⊢ (𝜑 → ((𝜓 ⊼ 𝜃) ↔ (𝜒 ⊼ 𝜃)))
Theorem	nanbi2d 1527	Introduce a left anti-conjunct to both sides of a logical equivalence. (Contributed by SF, 2-Jan-2018.)
⊢ (𝜑 → (𝜓 ↔ 𝜒))    ⇒   ⊢ (𝜑 → ((𝜃 ⊼ 𝜓) ↔ (𝜃 ⊼ 𝜒)))
Theorem	nanbi12d 1528	Join two logical equivalences with anti-conjunction. (Contributed by Scott Fenton, 2-Jan-2018.)
⊢ (𝜑 → (𝜓 ↔ 𝜒))    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → (𝜃 ↔ 𝜏))    ⇒   ⊢ (𝜑 → ((𝜓 ⊼ 𝜃) ↔ (𝜒 ⊼ 𝜏)))
Theorem	nanass 1529	A characterization of when an expression involving alternative denials associates. Remark: alternative denial is commutative, see nancom 1515. (Contributed by Richard Penner, 29-Feb-2020.) (Proof shortened by Wolf Lammen, 23-Oct-2022.)
⊢ ((𝜑 ↔ 𝜒) ↔ (((𝜑 ⊼ 𝜓) ⊼ 𝜒) ↔ (𝜑 ⊼ (𝜓 ⊼ 𝜒))))
1.2.13  Logical "xor"
Syntax	wxo 1530	Extend wff definition to include exclusive disjunction ("xor").
wff (𝜑 ⊻ 𝜓)
Definition	df-xor 1531	Define exclusive disjunction (logical "xor"). Return true if either the left or right, but not both, are true. After we define the constant true ⊤ (df-tru 1562) and the constant false ⊥ (df-fal 1572), we will be able to prove these truth table values: ((⊤ ⊻ ⊤) ↔ ⊥) (truxortru 1604), ((⊤ ⊻ ⊥) ↔ ⊤) (truxorfal 1605), ((⊥ ⊻ ⊤) ↔ ⊤) (falxortru 1606), and ((⊥ ⊻ ⊥) ↔ ⊥) (falxorfal 1607). Contrast with ∧ (df-an 400), ∨ (df-or 859), → (wi 4), and ⊼ (df-nan 1511). (Contributed by FL, 22-Nov-2010.)
⊢ ((𝜑 ⊻ 𝜓) ↔ ¬ (𝜑 ↔ 𝜓))
Theorem	xnor 1532	Two ways to write XNOR (exclusive not-or). (Contributed by Mario Carneiro, 4-Sep-2016.)
⊢ ((𝜑 ↔ 𝜓) ↔ ¬ (𝜑 ⊻ 𝜓))
Theorem	xorcom 1533	The connector ⊻ is commutative. (Contributed by Mario Carneiro, 4-Sep-2016.) (Proof shortened by Wolf Lammen, 21-Apr-2024.)
⊢ ((𝜑 ⊻ 𝜓) ↔ (𝜓 ⊻ 𝜑))
Theorem	xorass 1534	The connector ⊻ is associative. (Contributed by FL, 22-Nov-2010.) (Proof shortened by Andrew Salmon, 8-Jun-2011.) (Proof shortened by Wolf Lammen, 20-Jun-2020.)
⊢ (((𝜑 ⊻ 𝜓) ⊻ 𝜒) ↔ (𝜑 ⊻ (𝜓 ⊻ 𝜒)))
Theorem	excxor 1535	This tautology shows that xor is really exclusive. (Contributed by FL, 22-Nov-2010.)
⊢ ((𝜑 ⊻ 𝜓) ↔ ((𝜑 ∧ ¬ 𝜓) ∨ (¬ 𝜑 ∧ 𝜓)))
Theorem	xor2 1536	Two ways to express "exclusive or". (Contributed by Mario Carneiro, 4-Sep-2016.)
⊢ ((𝜑 ⊻ 𝜓) ↔ ((𝜑 ∨ 𝜓) ∧ ¬ (𝜑 ∧ 𝜓)))
Theorem	xoror 1537	Exclusive disjunction implies disjunction ("XOR implies OR"). (Contributed by BJ, 19-Apr-2019.)
⊢ ((𝜑 ⊻ 𝜓) → (𝜑 ∨ 𝜓))
Theorem	xornan 1538	Exclusive disjunction implies alternative denial ("XOR implies NAND"). (Contributed by BJ, 19-Apr-2019.)
⊢ ((𝜑 ⊻ 𝜓) → ¬ (𝜑 ∧ 𝜓))
Theorem	xornan2 1539	XOR implies NAND (written with the ⊼ connector). (Contributed by BJ, 19-Apr-2019.)
⊢ ((𝜑 ⊻ 𝜓) → (𝜑 ⊼ 𝜓))
Theorem	xorneg2 1540	The connector ⊻ is negated under negation of one argument. (Contributed by Mario Carneiro, 4-Sep-2016.) (Proof shortened by Wolf Lammen, 27-Jun-2020.)
⊢ ((𝜑 ⊻ ¬ 𝜓) ↔ ¬ (𝜑 ⊻ 𝜓))
Theorem	xorneg1 1541	The connector ⊻ is negated under negation of one argument. (Contributed by Mario Carneiro, 4-Sep-2016.) (Proof shortened by Wolf Lammen, 27-Jun-2020.)
⊢ ((¬ 𝜑 ⊻ 𝜓) ↔ ¬ (𝜑 ⊻ 𝜓))
Theorem	xorneg 1542	The connector ⊻ is unchanged under negation of both arguments. (Contributed by Mario Carneiro, 4-Sep-2016.)
⊢ ((¬ 𝜑 ⊻ ¬ 𝜓) ↔ (𝜑 ⊻ 𝜓))
Theorem	xorbi12i 1543	Equality property for exclusive disjunction. (Contributed by Mario Carneiro, 4-Sep-2016.) (Proof shortened by Wolf Lammen, 21-Apr-2024.)
⊢ (𝜑 ↔ 𝜓)    &   ⊢ (𝜒 ↔ 𝜃)    ⇒   ⊢ ((𝜑 ⊻ 𝜒) ↔ (𝜓 ⊻ 𝜃))
Theorem	xorbi12d 1544	Equality property for exclusive disjunction. (Contributed by Mario Carneiro, 4-Sep-2016.)
⊢ (𝜑 → (𝜓 ↔ 𝜒))    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → (𝜃 ↔ 𝜏))    ⇒   ⊢ (𝜑 → ((𝜓 ⊻ 𝜃) ↔ (𝜒 ⊻ 𝜏)))
Theorem	anxordi 1545	Conjunction distributes over exclusive-or. In intuitionistic logic this assertion is also true, even though xordi 1029 does not necessarily hold, in part because the usual definition of xor is subtly different in intuitionistic logic. (Contributed by David A. Wheeler, 7-Oct-2018.)
⊢ ((𝜑 ∧ (𝜓 ⊻ 𝜒)) ↔ ((𝜑 ∧ 𝜓) ⊻ (𝜑 ∧ 𝜒)))
Theorem	xorexmid 1546	Exclusive-or variant of the law of the excluded middle (exmid 905). This statement is ancient, going back to at least Stoic logic. This statement does not necessarily hold in intuitionistic logic. (Contributed by David A. Wheeler, 23-Feb-2019.)
⊢ (𝜑 ⊻ ¬ 𝜑)
1.2.14  Logical "nor"
Syntax	wnor 1547	Extend wff definition to include joint denial ("nor").
wff (𝜑 ⊽ 𝜓)
Definition	df-nor 1548	Define joint denial ("not-or" or "nor"). After we define the constant true ⊤ (df-tru 1562) and the constant false ⊥ (df-fal 1572), we will be able to prove these truth table values: ((⊤ ⊽ ⊤) ↔ ⊥) (trunortru 1608), ((⊤ ⊽ ⊥) ↔ ⊥) (trunorfal 1609), ((⊥ ⊽ ⊤) ↔ ⊥) (falnortru 1610), and ((⊥ ⊽ ⊥) ↔ ⊤) (falnorfal 1611). Contrast with ∧ (df-an 400), ∨ (df-or 859), → (wi 4), ⊼ (df-nan 1511), and ⊻ (df-xor 1531). (Contributed by Remi, 25-Oct-2023.)
⊢ ((𝜑 ⊽ 𝜓) ↔ ¬ (𝜑 ∨ 𝜓))
Theorem	norcom 1549	The connector ⊽ is commutative. (Contributed by Remi, 25-Oct-2023.) (Proof shortened by Wolf Lammen, 23-Apr-2024.)
⊢ ((𝜑 ⊽ 𝜓) ↔ (𝜓 ⊽ 𝜑))
Theorem	nornot 1550	¬ is expressible via ⊽. (Contributed by Remi, 25-Oct-2023.) (Proof shortened by Wolf Lammen, 8-Dec-2023.)
⊢ (¬ 𝜑 ↔ (𝜑 ⊽ 𝜑))
Theorem	noran 1551	∧ is expressible via ⊽. (Contributed by Remi, 26-Oct-2023.) (Proof shortened by Wolf Lammen, 8-Dec-2023.)
⊢ ((𝜑 ∧ 𝜓) ↔ ((𝜑 ⊽ 𝜑) ⊽ (𝜓 ⊽ 𝜓)))
Theorem	noror 1552	∨ is expressible via ⊽. (Contributed by Remi, 26-Oct-2023.) (Proof shortened by Wolf Lammen, 8-Dec-2023.)
⊢ ((𝜑 ∨ 𝜓) ↔ ((𝜑 ⊽ 𝜓) ⊽ (𝜑 ⊽ 𝜓)))
Theorem	norasslem1 1553	This lemma shows the equivalence of two expressions, used in norass 1556. (Contributed by Wolf Lammen, 18-Dec-2023.)
⊢ (((𝜑 ∨ 𝜓) → 𝜒) ↔ ((𝜑 ⊽ 𝜓) ∨ 𝜒))
Theorem	norasslem2 1554	This lemma specializes biimt 362 suitably for the proof of norass 1556. (Contributed by Wolf Lammen, 18-Dec-2023.)
⊢ (𝜑 → (𝜓 ↔ ((𝜑 ∨ 𝜒) → 𝜓)))
Theorem	norasslem3 1555	This lemma specializes biorf 947 suitably for the proof of norass 1556. (Contributed by Wolf Lammen, 18-Dec-2023.)
⊢ (¬ 𝜑 → ((𝜓 → 𝜒) ↔ ((𝜑 ∨ 𝜓) → 𝜒)))
Theorem	norass 1556	A characterization of when an expression involving joint denials associates. This is identical to the case when alternative denial is associative, see nanass 1529. Remark: Like alternative denial, joint denial is also commutative, see norcom 1549. (Contributed by RP, 29-Oct-2023.) (Proof shortened by Wolf Lammen, 17-Dec-2023.)
⊢ ((𝜑 ↔ 𝜒) ↔ (((𝜑 ⊽ 𝜓) ⊽ 𝜒) ↔ (𝜑 ⊽ (𝜓 ⊽ 𝜒))))
1.2.15  True and false constants
1.2.15.1  Universal quantifier for use by df-tru Even though it is not ordinarily part of propositional calculus, the universal quantifier ∀ is introduced here so that the soundness of Definition df-tru 1562 can be checked by the same algorithm that is used for predicate calculus. Its first real use is in Definition df-ex 1799 in the predicate calculus section below. For those who want propositional calculus to be self-contained, i.e., to use wff variables only, the alternate Definition dftru2 1564 may be adopted and this subsection moved down to the start of the subsection with wex 1798 below. However, the use of dftru2 1564 as a definition requires a more elaborate definition checking algorithm that we prefer to avoid.
Syntax	wal 1557	Extend wff definition to include the universal quantifier ("for all"). ∀𝑥𝜑 is read "𝜑 (phi) is true for all 𝑥". Typically, in its final application 𝜑 would be replaced with a wff containing a (free) occurrence of the variable 𝑥, for example 𝑥 = 𝑦. In a universe with a finite number of objects, "for all" is equivalent to a big conjunction (AND) with one wff for each possible case of 𝑥. When the universe is infinite (as with set theory), such a propositional-calculus equivalent is not possible because an infinitely long formula has no meaning, but conceptually the idea is the same.
wff ∀𝑥𝜑
1.2.15.2  Equality predicate for use by df-tru Even though it is not ordinarily part of propositional calculus, the equality predicate = is introduced here so that the soundness of definition df-tru 1562 can be checked by the same algorithm as is used for predicate calculus. Its first real use is in Theorem weq 1981 in the predicate calculus section below. For those who want propositional calculus to be self-contained, i.e., to use wff variables only, the alternate definition dftru2 1564 may be adopted and this subsection moved down to just above weq 1981 below. However, the use of dftru2 1564 as a definition requires a more elaborate definition checking algorithm that we prefer to avoid.
Syntax	cv 1558	This syntax construction states that a variable 𝑥, which has been declared to be a setvar variable by $f statement vx, is also a class expression. This can be justified informally as follows. We know that the class builder {𝑦 ∣ 𝑦 ∈ 𝑥} is a class by cab 2739. Since (when 𝑦 is distinct from 𝑥) we have 𝑥 = {𝑦 ∣ 𝑦 ∈ 𝑥} by cvjust 2755, we can argue that the syntax "class 𝑥 " can be viewed as an abbreviation for "class {𝑦 ∣ 𝑦 ∈ 𝑥}". See the discussion under the definition of class in [Jech] p. 4 showing that "Every set can be considered to be a class". While it is tempting and perhaps occasionally useful to view cv 1558 as a "type conversion" from a setvar variable to a class variable, keep in mind that cv 1558 is intrinsically no different from any other class-building syntax such as cab 2739, cun 3902, or c0 4285. For a general discussion of the theory of classes and the role of cv 1558, see mmset.html#class 1558. (The description above applies to set theory, not predicate calculus. The purpose of introducing class 𝑥 here, and not in set theory where it belongs, is to allow to express, i.e., "prove", the weq 1981 of predicate calculus from the wceq 1559 of set theory, so that we do not overload the = connective with two syntax definitions. This is done to prevent ambiguity that would complicate some Metamath parsers.)
class 𝑥
Syntax	wceq 1559	Extend wff definition to include class equality. For a general discussion of the theory of classes, see mmset.html#class. (The purpose of introducing wff 𝐴 = 𝐵 here, and not in set theory where it belongs, is to allow to express, i.e., "prove", the weq 1981 of predicate calculus in terms of the wceq 1559 of set theory, so that we do not "overload" the = connective with two syntax definitions. This is done to prevent ambiguity that would complicate some Metamath parsers. For example, some parsers - although not the Metamath program - stumble on the fact that the = in 𝑥 = 𝑦 could be the = of either weq 1981 or wceq 1559, although mathematically it makes no difference. The class variables 𝐴 and 𝐵 are introduced temporarily for the purpose of this definition but otherwise not used in predicate calculus. See df-cleq 2753 for more information on the set theory usage of wceq 1559.)
wff 𝐴 = 𝐵
1.2.15.3  The true constant
Syntax	wtru 1560	The constant ⊤ is a wff.
wff ⊤
Theorem	trujust 1561	Soundness justification theorem for df-tru 1562. Instance of monothetic 268. (Contributed by Mario Carneiro, 17-Nov-2013.) (Revised by NM, 11-Jul-2019.)
⊢ ((∀𝑥 𝑥 = 𝑥 → ∀𝑥 𝑥 = 𝑥) ↔ (∀𝑦 𝑦 = 𝑦 → ∀𝑦 𝑦 = 𝑦))
Definition	df-tru 1562	Definition of the truth value "true", or "verum", denoted by ⊤. In this definition, an instance of id 22 is used as the definiens, although any tautology, such as an axiom, can be used in its place. This particular instance of id 22 was chosen so this definition can be checked by the same algorithm that is used for predicate calculus. This definition should be referenced directly only by tru 1563, and other proofs should use tru 1563 instead of this definition, since there are many alternate ways to define ⊤. (Contributed by Anthony Hart, 13-Oct-2010.) (Revised by NM, 11-Jul-2019.) Use tru 1563 instead. (New usage is discouraged.)
⊢ (⊤ ↔ (∀𝑥 𝑥 = 𝑥 → ∀𝑥 𝑥 = 𝑥))
Theorem	tru 1563	The truth value ⊤ is provable. (Contributed by Anthony Hart, 13-Oct-2010.)
⊢ ⊤
Theorem	dftru2 1564	An alternate definition of "true" (see comment of df-tru 1562). The associated justification theorem is monothetic 268. (Contributed by Anthony Hart, 13-Oct-2010.) (Revised by BJ, 12-Jul-2019.) Use tru 1563 instead. (New usage is discouraged.)
⊢ (⊤ ↔ (𝜑 → 𝜑))
Theorem	trut 1565	A proposition is equivalent to it being implied by ⊤. Closed form of mptru 1566. Dual of dfnot 1578. It is to tbtru 1567 what a1bi 364 is to tbt 371. (Contributed by BJ, 26-Oct-2019.)
⊢ (𝜑 ↔ (⊤ → 𝜑))
Theorem	mptru 1566	Eliminate ⊤ as an antecedent. A proposition implied by ⊤ is true. This is modus ponens ax-mp 5 when the minor hypothesis is ⊤ (which holds by tru 1563). (Contributed by Mario Carneiro, 13-Mar-2014.)
⊢ (⊤ → 𝜑)    ⇒   ⊢ 𝜑
Theorem	tbtru 1567	A proposition is equivalent to itself being equivalent to ⊤. (Contributed by Anthony Hart, 14-Aug-2011.)
⊢ (𝜑 ↔ (𝜑 ↔ ⊤))
Theorem	bitru 1568	A theorem is equivalent to truth. (Contributed by Mario Carneiro, 9-May-2015.)
⊢ 𝜑    ⇒   ⊢ (𝜑 ↔ ⊤)
Theorem	trud 1569	Anything implies ⊤. Dual statement of falim 1576. Deduction form of tru 1563. Note on naming: in 2022, the theorem now known as mptru 1566 was renamed from trud so if you are reading documentation written before that time, references to trud refer to what is now mptru 1566. (Contributed by FL, 20-Mar-2011.) (Proof shortened by Anthony Hart, 1-Aug-2011.)
⊢ (𝜑 → ⊤)
Theorem	truan 1570	True can be removed from a conjunction. (Contributed by FL, 20-Mar-2011.) (Proof shortened by Wolf Lammen, 21-Jul-2019.)
⊢ ((⊤ ∧ 𝜑) ↔ 𝜑)
1.2.15.4  The false constant
Syntax	wfal 1571	The constant ⊥ is a wff.
wff ⊥
Definition	df-fal 1572	Definition of the truth value "false", or "falsum", denoted by ⊥. See also df-tru 1562. (Contributed by Anthony Hart, 22-Oct-2010.)
⊢ (⊥ ↔ ¬ ⊤)
Theorem	fal 1573	The truth value ⊥ is refutable. (Contributed by Anthony Hart, 22-Oct-2010.) (Proof shortened by Mel L. O'Cat, 11-Mar-2012.)
⊢ ¬ ⊥
Theorem	nbfal 1574	The negation of a proposition is equivalent to itself being equivalent to ⊥. (Contributed by Anthony Hart, 14-Aug-2011.)
⊢ (¬ 𝜑 ↔ (𝜑 ↔ ⊥))
Theorem	bifal 1575	A contradiction is equivalent to falsehood. (Contributed by Mario Carneiro, 9-May-2015.)
⊢ ¬ 𝜑    ⇒   ⊢ (𝜑 ↔ ⊥)
Theorem	falim 1576	The truth value ⊥ implies anything. Also called the "principle of explosion", or "ex falso [sequitur]] quodlibet" (Latin for "from falsehood, anything [follows]]"). Dual statement of trud 1569. (Contributed by FL, 20-Mar-2011.) (Proof shortened by Anthony Hart, 1-Aug-2011.)
⊢ (⊥ → 𝜑)
Theorem	falimd 1577	The truth value ⊥ implies anything. (Contributed by Mario Carneiro, 9-Feb-2017.)
⊢ ((𝜑 ∧ ⊥) → 𝜓)
Theorem	dfnot 1578	Given falsum ⊥, we can define the negation of a wff 𝜑 as the statement that ⊥ follows from assuming 𝜑. (Contributed by Mario Carneiro, 9-Feb-2017.) (Proof shortened by Wolf Lammen, 21-Jul-2019.)
⊢ (¬ 𝜑 ↔ (𝜑 → ⊥))
Theorem	inegd 1579	Negation introduction rule from natural deduction. (Contributed by Mario Carneiro, 9-Feb-2017.)
⊢ ((𝜑 ∧ 𝜓) → ⊥)    ⇒   ⊢ (𝜑 → ¬ 𝜓)
Theorem	efald 1580	Deduction based on reductio ad absurdum. (Contributed by Mario Carneiro, 9-Feb-2017.)
⊢ ((𝜑 ∧ ¬ 𝜓) → ⊥)    ⇒   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝜓)
Theorem	pm2.21fal 1581	If a wff and its negation are provable, then falsum is provable. (Contributed by Mario Carneiro, 9-Feb-2017.)
⊢ (𝜑 → 𝜓)    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → ¬ 𝜓)    ⇒   ⊢ (𝜑 → ⊥)
1.2.16  Truth tables Some sources define logical connectives by their truth tables. These are tables that give the truth value of the composed expression for all possible combinations of the truth values of their arguments. In this section, we show that our definitions and axioms produce equivalent results for all the logical connectives we have introduced (either axiomatically or by a definition): implication wi 4, negation wn 3, biconditional df-bi 209, conjunction df-an 400, disjunction df-or 859, alternative denial df-nan 1511, exclusive disjunction df-xor 1531.
1.2.16.1  Implication
Theorem	truimtru 1582	A → identity. (Contributed by Anthony Hart, 22-Oct-2010.) An alternate proof is possible using trud 1569 instead of id 22 but the principle of identity id 22 is more basic, and the present proof indicates that the result still holds in relevance logic. (Proof modification is discouraged.)
⊢ ((⊤ → ⊤) ↔ ⊤)
Theorem	truimfal 1583	A → identity. (Contributed by Anthony Hart, 22-Oct-2010.) (Proof shortened by Andrew Salmon, 13-May-2011.)
⊢ ((⊤ → ⊥) ↔ ⊥)
Theorem	falimtru 1584	A → identity. (Contributed by Anthony Hart, 22-Oct-2010.) An alternate proof is possible using falim 1576 instead of trud 1569 but the present proof using trud 1569 emphasizes that the result does not require the principle of explosion. (Proof modification is discouraged.)
⊢ ((⊥ → ⊤) ↔ ⊤)
Theorem	falimfal 1585	A → identity. (Contributed by Anthony Hart, 22-Oct-2010.) An alternate proof is possible using falim 1576 instead of id 22 but the present proof using id 22 emphasizes that the result does not require the principle of explosion. (Proof modification is discouraged.)
⊢ ((⊥ → ⊥) ↔ ⊤)
1.2.16.2  Negation
Theorem	nottru 1586	A ¬ identity. (Contributed by Anthony Hart, 22-Oct-2010.)
⊢ (¬ ⊤ ↔ ⊥)
Theorem	notfal 1587	A ¬ identity. (Contributed by Anthony Hart, 22-Oct-2010.) (Proof shortened by Andrew Salmon, 13-May-2011.)
⊢ (¬ ⊥ ↔ ⊤)
1.2.16.3  Equivalence
Theorem	trubitru 1588	A ↔ identity. (Contributed by Anthony Hart, 22-Oct-2010.) (Proof shortened by Andrew Salmon, 13-May-2011.)
⊢ ((⊤ ↔ ⊤) ↔ ⊤)
Theorem	falbitru 1589	A ↔ identity. (Contributed by Anthony Hart, 22-Oct-2010.) (Proof shortened by Andrew Salmon, 13-May-2011.) (Proof shortened by Wolf Lammen, 10-Jul-2020.)
⊢ ((⊥ ↔ ⊤) ↔ ⊥)
Theorem	trubifal 1590	A ↔ identity. (Contributed by Anthony Hart, 22-Oct-2010.) (Proof shortened by Andrew Salmon, 13-May-2011.) (Proof shortened by Wolf Lammen, 10-Jul-2020.)
⊢ ((⊤ ↔ ⊥) ↔ ⊥)
Theorem	falbifal 1591	A ↔ identity. (Contributed by Anthony Hart, 22-Oct-2010.) (Proof shortened by Andrew Salmon, 13-May-2011.)
⊢ ((⊥ ↔ ⊥) ↔ ⊤)
1.2.16.4  Conjunction
Theorem	truantru 1592	A ∧ identity. (Contributed by Anthony Hart, 22-Oct-2010.)
⊢ ((⊤ ∧ ⊤) ↔ ⊤)
Theorem	truanfal 1593	A ∧ identity. (Contributed by Anthony Hart, 22-Oct-2010.)
⊢ ((⊤ ∧ ⊥) ↔ ⊥)
Theorem	falantru 1594	A ∧ identity. (Contributed by Anthony Hart, 22-Oct-2010.)
⊢ ((⊥ ∧ ⊤) ↔ ⊥)
Theorem	falanfal 1595	A ∧ identity. (Contributed by Anthony Hart, 22-Oct-2010.)
⊢ ((⊥ ∧ ⊥) ↔ ⊥)
1.2.16.5  Disjunction
Theorem	truortru 1596	A ∨ identity. (Contributed by Anthony Hart, 22-Oct-2010.) (Proof shortened by Andrew Salmon, 13-May-2011.)
⊢ ((⊤ ∨ ⊤) ↔ ⊤)
Theorem	truorfal 1597	A ∨ identity. (Contributed by Anthony Hart, 22-Oct-2010.)
⊢ ((⊤ ∨ ⊥) ↔ ⊤)
Theorem	falortru 1598	A ∨ identity. (Contributed by Anthony Hart, 22-Oct-2010.)
⊢ ((⊥ ∨ ⊤) ↔ ⊤)
Theorem	falorfal 1599	A ∨ identity. (Contributed by Anthony Hart, 22-Oct-2010.) (Proof shortened by Andrew Salmon, 13-May-2011.)
⊢ ((⊥ ∨ ⊥) ↔ ⊥)
1.2.16.6  Alternative denial
Theorem	trunantru 1600	A ⊼ identity. (Contributed by Anthony Hart, 22-Oct-2010.) (Proof shortened by Andrew Salmon, 13-May-2011.)
⊢ ((⊤ ⊼ ⊤) ↔ ⊥)