P. 18 of Theorem List - Metamath Proof Explorer

Theorem List for Metamath Proof Explorer - 1701-1800   *Has distinct variable group(s)

Type	Label	Description
Statement
Theorem	tbw-ax2 1701	The second of four axioms in the Tarski-Bernays-Wajsberg system. (Contributed by Anthony Hart, 13-Aug-2011.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) (New usage is discouraged.)
⊢ (𝜑 → (𝜓 → 𝜑))
Theorem	tbw-ax3 1702	The third of four axioms in the Tarski-Bernays-Wajsberg system. (Contributed by Anthony Hart, 13-Aug-2011.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) (New usage is discouraged.)
⊢ (((𝜑 → 𝜓) → 𝜑) → 𝜑)
Theorem	tbw-ax4 1703	The fourth of four axioms in the Tarski-Bernays-Wajsberg system. This axiom was added to the Tarski-Bernays axiom system (see tb-ax1 36384, tb-ax2 36385, and tb-ax3 36386) by Wajsberg for completeness. (Contributed by Anthony Hart, 13-Aug-2011.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) (New usage is discouraged.)
⊢ (⊥ → 𝜑)
Theorem	tbwsyl 1704	Used to rederive the Lukasiewicz axioms from Tarski-Bernays-Wajsberg'. (Contributed by Anthony Hart, 16-Aug-2011.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) (New usage is discouraged.)
⊢ (𝜑 → 𝜓)    &   ⊢ (𝜓 → 𝜒)    ⇒   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝜒)
Theorem	tbwlem1 1705	Used to rederive the Lukasiewicz axioms from Tarski-Bernays-Wajsberg'. (Contributed by Anthony Hart, 16-Aug-2011.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) (New usage is discouraged.)
⊢ ((𝜑 → (𝜓 → 𝜒)) → (𝜓 → (𝜑 → 𝜒)))
Theorem	tbwlem2 1706	Used to rederive the Lukasiewicz axioms from Tarski-Bernays-Wajsberg'. (Contributed by Anthony Hart, 16-Aug-2011.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) (New usage is discouraged.)
⊢ ((𝜑 → (𝜓 → ⊥)) → (((𝜑 → 𝜒) → 𝜃) → (𝜓 → 𝜃)))
Theorem	tbwlem3 1707	Used to rederive the Lukasiewicz axioms from Tarski-Bernays-Wajsberg'. (Contributed by Anthony Hart, 16-Aug-2011.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) (New usage is discouraged.)
⊢ (((((𝜑 → ⊥) → 𝜑) → 𝜑) → 𝜓) → 𝜓)
Theorem	tbwlem4 1708	Used to rederive the Lukasiewicz axioms from Tarski-Bernays-Wajsberg'. (Contributed by Anthony Hart, 16-Aug-2011.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) (New usage is discouraged.)
⊢ (((𝜑 → ⊥) → 𝜓) → ((𝜓 → ⊥) → 𝜑))
Theorem	tbwlem5 1709	Used to rederive the Lukasiewicz axioms from Tarski-Bernays-Wajsberg'. (Contributed by Anthony Hart, 16-Aug-2011.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) (New usage is discouraged.)
⊢ (((𝜑 → (𝜓 → ⊥)) → ⊥) → 𝜑)
Theorem	re1luk1 1710	luk-1 1655 derived from the Tarski-Bernays-Wajsberg axioms. (Contributed by Anthony Hart, 16-Aug-2011.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) (New usage is discouraged.)
⊢ ((𝜑 → 𝜓) → ((𝜓 → 𝜒) → (𝜑 → 𝜒)))
Theorem	re1luk2 1711	luk-2 1656 derived from the Tarski-Bernays-Wajsberg axioms. (Contributed by Anthony Hart, 16-Aug-2011.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) (New usage is discouraged.)
⊢ ((¬ 𝜑 → 𝜑) → 𝜑)
Theorem	re1luk3 1712	luk-3 1657 derived from the Tarski-Bernays-Wajsberg axioms. This theorem, along with re1luk1 1710 and re1luk2 1711 proves that tbw-ax1 1700, tbw-ax2 1701, tbw-ax3 1702, and tbw-ax4 1703, with ax-mp 5 can be used as a complete axiom system for all of propositional calculus. (Contributed by Anthony Hart, 16-Aug-2011.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) (New usage is discouraged.)
⊢ (𝜑 → (¬ 𝜑 → 𝜓))
1.3.9  Derive the Tarski-Bernays-Wajsberg axioms from Meredith's First CO Axiom
Theorem	merco1 1713	A single axiom for propositional calculus discovered by C. A. Meredith. This axiom is worthy of note, due to it having only 19 symbols, not counting parentheses. The more well-known meredith 1641 has 21 symbols, sans parentheses. See merco2 1736 for another axiom of equal length. (Contributed by Anthony Hart, 13-Aug-2011.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) (New usage is discouraged.)
⊢ (((((𝜑 → 𝜓) → (𝜒 → ⊥)) → 𝜃) → 𝜏) → ((𝜏 → 𝜑) → (𝜒 → 𝜑)))
Theorem	merco1lem1 1714	Used to rederive the Tarski-Bernays-Wajsberg axioms from merco1 1713. (Contributed by Anthony Hart, 17-Sep-2011.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) (New usage is discouraged.)
⊢ (𝜑 → (⊥ → 𝜒))
Theorem	retbwax4 1715	tbw-ax4 1703 rederived from merco1 1713. (Contributed by Anthony Hart, 17-Sep-2011.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) (New usage is discouraged.)
⊢ (⊥ → 𝜑)
Theorem	retbwax2 1716	tbw-ax2 1701 rederived from merco1 1713. (Contributed by Anthony Hart, 17-Sep-2011.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) (New usage is discouraged.)
⊢ (𝜑 → (𝜓 → 𝜑))
Theorem	merco1lem2 1717	Used to rederive the Tarski-Bernays-Wajsberg axioms from merco1 1713. (Contributed by Anthony Hart, 17-Sep-2011.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) (New usage is discouraged.)
⊢ (((𝜑 → 𝜓) → 𝜒) → (((𝜓 → 𝜏) → (𝜑 → ⊥)) → 𝜒))
Theorem	merco1lem3 1718	Used to rederive the Tarski-Bernays-Wajsberg axioms from merco1 1713. (Contributed by Anthony Hart, 17-Sep-2011.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) (New usage is discouraged.)
⊢ (((𝜑 → 𝜓) → (𝜒 → ⊥)) → (𝜒 → 𝜑))
Theorem	merco1lem4 1719	Used to rederive the Tarski-Bernays-Wajsberg axioms from merco1 1713. (Contributed by Anthony Hart, 17-Sep-2011.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) (New usage is discouraged.)
⊢ (((𝜑 → 𝜓) → 𝜒) → (𝜓 → 𝜒))
Theorem	merco1lem5 1720	Used to rederive the Tarski-Bernays-Wajsberg axioms from merco1 1713. (Contributed by Anthony Hart, 17-Sep-2011.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) (New usage is discouraged.)
⊢ ((((𝜑 → ⊥) → 𝜒) → 𝜏) → (𝜑 → 𝜏))
Theorem	merco1lem6 1721	Used to rederive the Tarski-Bernays-Wajsberg axioms from merco1 1713. (Contributed by Anthony Hart, 17-Sep-2011.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) (New usage is discouraged.)
⊢ ((𝜑 → (𝜑 → 𝜓)) → (𝜒 → (𝜑 → 𝜓)))
Theorem	merco1lem7 1722	Used to rederive the Tarski-Bernays-Wajsberg axioms from merco1 1713. (Contributed by Anthony Hart, 17-Sep-2011.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) (New usage is discouraged.)
⊢ (𝜑 → (((𝜓 → 𝜒) → 𝜓) → 𝜓))
Theorem	retbwax3 1723	tbw-ax3 1702 rederived from merco1 1713. (Contributed by Anthony Hart, 17-Sep-2011.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) (New usage is discouraged.)
⊢ (((𝜑 → 𝜓) → 𝜑) → 𝜑)
Theorem	merco1lem8 1724	Used to rederive the Tarski-Bernays-Wajsberg axioms from merco1 1713. (Contributed by Anthony Hart, 17-Sep-2011.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) (New usage is discouraged.)
⊢ (𝜑 → ((𝜓 → (𝜓 → 𝜒)) → (𝜓 → 𝜒)))
Theorem	merco1lem9 1725	Used to rederive the Tarski-Bernays-Wajsberg axioms from merco1 1713. (Contributed by Anthony Hart, 18-Sep-2011.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) (New usage is discouraged.)
⊢ ((𝜑 → (𝜑 → 𝜓)) → (𝜑 → 𝜓))
Theorem	merco1lem10 1726	Used to rederive the Tarski-Bernays-Wajsberg axioms from merco1 1713. (Contributed by Anthony Hart, 18-Sep-2011.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) (New usage is discouraged.)
⊢ (((((𝜑 → 𝜓) → 𝜒) → (𝜏 → 𝜒)) → 𝜑) → (𝜃 → 𝜑))
Theorem	merco1lem11 1727	Used to rederive the Tarski-Bernays-Wajsberg axioms from merco1 1713. (Contributed by Anthony Hart, 18-Sep-2011.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) (New usage is discouraged.)
⊢ ((𝜑 → 𝜓) → (((𝜒 → (𝜑 → 𝜏)) → ⊥) → 𝜓))
Theorem	merco1lem12 1728	Used to rederive the Tarski-Bernays-Wajsberg axioms from merco1 1713. (Contributed by Anthony Hart, 18-Sep-2011.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) (New usage is discouraged.)
⊢ ((𝜑 → 𝜓) → (((𝜒 → (𝜑 → 𝜏)) → 𝜑) → 𝜓))
Theorem	merco1lem13 1729	Used to rederive the Tarski-Bernays-Wajsberg axioms from merco1 1713. (Contributed by Anthony Hart, 18-Sep-2011.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) (New usage is discouraged.)
⊢ ((((𝜑 → 𝜓) → (𝜒 → 𝜓)) → 𝜏) → (𝜑 → 𝜏))
Theorem	merco1lem14 1730	Used to rederive the Tarski-Bernays-Wajsberg axioms from merco1 1713. (Contributed by Anthony Hart, 18-Sep-2011.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) (New usage is discouraged.)
⊢ ((((𝜑 → 𝜓) → 𝜓) → 𝜒) → (𝜑 → 𝜒))
Theorem	merco1lem15 1731	Used to rederive the Tarski-Bernays-Wajsberg axioms from merco1 1713. (Contributed by Anthony Hart, 18-Sep-2011.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) (New usage is discouraged.)
⊢ ((𝜑 → 𝜓) → (𝜑 → (𝜒 → 𝜓)))
Theorem	merco1lem16 1732	Used to rederive the Tarski-Bernays-Wajsberg axioms from merco1 1713. (Contributed by Anthony Hart, 18-Sep-2011.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) (New usage is discouraged.)
⊢ (((𝜑 → (𝜓 → 𝜒)) → 𝜏) → ((𝜑 → 𝜒) → 𝜏))
Theorem	merco1lem17 1733	Used to rederive the Tarski-Bernays-Wajsberg axioms from merco1 1713. (Contributed by Anthony Hart, 18-Sep-2011.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) (New usage is discouraged.)
⊢ (((((𝜑 → 𝜓) → 𝜑) → 𝜒) → 𝜏) → ((𝜑 → 𝜒) → 𝜏))
Theorem	merco1lem18 1734	Used to rederive the Tarski-Bernays-Wajsberg axioms from merco1 1713. (Contributed by Anthony Hart, 18-Sep-2011.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) (New usage is discouraged.)
⊢ ((𝜑 → (𝜓 → 𝜒)) → ((𝜓 → 𝜑) → (𝜓 → 𝜒)))
Theorem	retbwax1 1735	tbw-ax1 1700 rederived from merco1 1713. This theorem, along with retbwax2 1716, retbwax3 1723, and retbwax4 1715, shows that merco1 1713 with ax-mp 5 can be used as a complete axiomatization of propositional calculus. (Contributed by Anthony Hart, 18-Sep-2011.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) (New usage is discouraged.)
⊢ ((𝜑 → 𝜓) → ((𝜓 → 𝜒) → (𝜑 → 𝜒)))
1.3.10  Derive the Tarski-Bernays-Wajsberg axioms from Meredith's Second CO Axiom
Theorem	merco2 1736	A single axiom for propositional calculus discovered by C. A. Meredith. This axiom has 19 symbols, sans auxiliaries. See notes in merco1 1713. (Contributed by Anthony Hart, 7-Aug-2011.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) (New usage is discouraged.)
⊢ (((𝜑 → 𝜓) → ((⊥ → 𝜒) → 𝜃)) → ((𝜃 → 𝜑) → (𝜏 → (𝜂 → 𝜑))))
Theorem	mercolem1 1737	Used to rederive the Tarski-Bernays-Wajsberg axioms from merco2 1736. (Contributed by Anthony Hart, 16-Aug-2011.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) (New usage is discouraged.)
⊢ (((𝜑 → 𝜓) → 𝜒) → (𝜓 → (𝜃 → 𝜒)))
Theorem	mercolem2 1738	Used to rederive the Tarski-Bernays-Wajsberg axioms from merco2 1736. (Contributed by Anthony Hart, 16-Aug-2011.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) (New usage is discouraged.)
⊢ (((𝜑 → 𝜓) → 𝜑) → (𝜒 → (𝜃 → 𝜑)))
Theorem	mercolem3 1739	Used to rederive the Tarski-Bernays-Wajsberg axioms from merco2 1736. (Contributed by Anthony Hart, 16-Aug-2011.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) (New usage is discouraged.)
⊢ ((𝜓 → 𝜒) → (𝜓 → (𝜑 → 𝜒)))
Theorem	mercolem4 1740	Used to rederive the Tarski-Bernays-Wajsberg axioms from merco2 1736. (Contributed by Anthony Hart, 16-Aug-2011.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) (New usage is discouraged.)
⊢ ((𝜃 → (𝜂 → 𝜑)) → (((𝜃 → 𝜒) → 𝜑) → (𝜏 → (𝜂 → 𝜑))))
Theorem	mercolem5 1741	Used to rederive the Tarski-Bernays-Wajsberg axioms from merco2 1736. (Contributed by Anthony Hart, 16-Aug-2011.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) (New usage is discouraged.)
⊢ (𝜃 → ((𝜃 → 𝜑) → (𝜏 → (𝜒 → 𝜑))))
Theorem	mercolem6 1742	Used to rederive the Tarski-Bernays-Wajsberg axioms from merco2 1736. (Contributed by Anthony Hart, 16-Aug-2011.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) (New usage is discouraged.)
⊢ ((𝜑 → (𝜓 → (𝜑 → 𝜒))) → (𝜓 → (𝜑 → 𝜒)))
Theorem	mercolem7 1743	Used to rederive the Tarski-Bernays-Wajsberg axioms from merco2 1736. (Contributed by Anthony Hart, 16-Aug-2011.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) (New usage is discouraged.)
⊢ ((𝜑 → 𝜓) → (((𝜑 → 𝜒) → (𝜃 → 𝜓)) → (𝜃 → 𝜓)))
Theorem	mercolem8 1744	Used to rederive the Tarski-Bernays-Wajsberg axioms from merco2 1736. (Contributed by Anthony Hart, 16-Aug-2011.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) (New usage is discouraged.)
⊢ ((𝜑 → 𝜓) → ((𝜓 → (𝜑 → 𝜒)) → (𝜏 → (𝜃 → (𝜑 → 𝜒)))))
Theorem	re1tbw1 1745	tbw-ax1 1700 rederived from merco2 1736. (Contributed by Anthony Hart, 16-Aug-2011.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) (New usage is discouraged.)
⊢ ((𝜑 → 𝜓) → ((𝜓 → 𝜒) → (𝜑 → 𝜒)))
Theorem	re1tbw2 1746	tbw-ax2 1701 rederived from merco2 1736. (Contributed by Anthony Hart, 16-Aug-2011.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) (New usage is discouraged.)
⊢ (𝜑 → (𝜓 → 𝜑))
Theorem	re1tbw3 1747	tbw-ax3 1702 rederived from merco2 1736. (Contributed by Anthony Hart, 16-Aug-2011.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) (New usage is discouraged.)
⊢ (((𝜑 → 𝜓) → 𝜑) → 𝜑)
Theorem	re1tbw4 1748	tbw-ax4 1703 rederived from merco2 1736. This theorem, along with re1tbw1 1745, re1tbw2 1746, and re1tbw3 1747, shows that merco2 1736, along with ax-mp 5, can be used as a complete axiomatization of propositional calculus. (Contributed by Anthony Hart, 16-Aug-2011.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) (New usage is discouraged.)
⊢ (⊥ → 𝜑)
1.3.11  Derive the Lukasiewicz axioms from the Russell-Bernays Axioms
Theorem	rb-bijust 1749	Justification for rb-imdf 1750. (Contributed by Anthony Hart, 17-Aug-2011.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) (New usage is discouraged.)
⊢ ((𝜑 ↔ 𝜓) ↔ ¬ (¬ (¬ 𝜑 ∨ 𝜓) ∨ ¬ (¬ 𝜓 ∨ 𝜑)))
Theorem	rb-imdf 1750	The definition of implication, in terms of ∨ and ¬. (Contributed by Anthony Hart, 17-Aug-2011.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) (New usage is discouraged.)
⊢ ¬ (¬ (¬ (𝜑 → 𝜓) ∨ (¬ 𝜑 ∨ 𝜓)) ∨ ¬ (¬ (¬ 𝜑 ∨ 𝜓) ∨ (𝜑 → 𝜓)))
Theorem	anmp 1751	Modus ponens for { ∨ , ¬ } axiom systems. (Contributed by Anthony Hart, 12-Aug-2011.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) (New usage is discouraged.)
⊢ 𝜑    &   ⊢ (¬ 𝜑 ∨ 𝜓)    ⇒   ⊢ 𝜓
Theorem	rb-ax1 1752	The first of four axioms in the Russell-Bernays axiom system. (Contributed by Anthony Hart, 13-Aug-2011.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) (New usage is discouraged.)
⊢ (¬ (¬ 𝜓 ∨ 𝜒) ∨ (¬ (𝜑 ∨ 𝜓) ∨ (𝜑 ∨ 𝜒)))
Theorem	rb-ax2 1753	The second of four axioms in the Russell-Bernays axiom system. (Contributed by Anthony Hart, 13-Aug-2011.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) (New usage is discouraged.)
⊢ (¬ (𝜑 ∨ 𝜓) ∨ (𝜓 ∨ 𝜑))
Theorem	rb-ax3 1754	The third of four axioms in the Russell-Bernays axiom system. (Contributed by Anthony Hart, 13-Aug-2011.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) (New usage is discouraged.)
⊢ (¬ 𝜑 ∨ (𝜓 ∨ 𝜑))
Theorem	rb-ax4 1755	The fourth of four axioms in the Russell-Bernays axiom system. (Contributed by Anthony Hart, 13-Aug-2011.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) (New usage is discouraged.)
⊢ (¬ (𝜑 ∨ 𝜑) ∨ 𝜑)
Theorem	rbsyl 1756	Used to rederive the Lukasiewicz axioms from Russell-Bernays'. (Contributed by Anthony Hart, 18-Aug-2011.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) (New usage is discouraged.)
⊢ (¬ 𝜓 ∨ 𝜒)    &   ⊢ (𝜑 ∨ 𝜓)    ⇒   ⊢ (𝜑 ∨ 𝜒)
Theorem	rblem1 1757	Used to rederive the Lukasiewicz axioms from Russell-Bernays'. (Contributed by Anthony Hart, 18-Aug-2011.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) (New usage is discouraged.)
⊢ (¬ 𝜑 ∨ 𝜓)    &   ⊢ (¬ 𝜒 ∨ 𝜃)    ⇒   ⊢ (¬ (𝜑 ∨ 𝜒) ∨ (𝜓 ∨ 𝜃))
Theorem	rblem2 1758	Used to rederive the Lukasiewicz axioms from Russell-Bernays'. (Contributed by Anthony Hart, 18-Aug-2011.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) (New usage is discouraged.)
⊢ (¬ (𝜒 ∨ 𝜑) ∨ (𝜒 ∨ (𝜑 ∨ 𝜓)))
Theorem	rblem3 1759	Used to rederive the Lukasiewicz axioms from Russell-Bernays'. (Contributed by Anthony Hart, 18-Aug-2011.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) (New usage is discouraged.)
⊢ (¬ (𝜒 ∨ 𝜑) ∨ ((𝜒 ∨ 𝜓) ∨ 𝜑))
Theorem	rblem4 1760	Used to rederive the Lukasiewicz axioms from Russell-Bernays'. (Contributed by Anthony Hart, 18-Aug-2011.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) (New usage is discouraged.)
⊢ (¬ 𝜑 ∨ 𝜃)    &   ⊢ (¬ 𝜓 ∨ 𝜏)    &   ⊢ (¬ 𝜒 ∨ 𝜂)    ⇒   ⊢ (¬ ((𝜑 ∨ 𝜓) ∨ 𝜒) ∨ ((𝜂 ∨ 𝜏) ∨ 𝜃))
Theorem	rblem5 1761	Used to rederive the Lukasiewicz axioms from Russell-Bernays'. (Contributed by Anthony Hart, 19-Aug-2011.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) (New usage is discouraged.)
⊢ (¬ (¬ ¬ 𝜑 ∨ 𝜓) ∨ (¬ ¬ 𝜓 ∨ 𝜑))
Theorem	rblem6 1762	Used to rederive the Lukasiewicz axioms from Russell-Bernays'. (Contributed by Anthony Hart, 19-Aug-2011.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) (New usage is discouraged.)
⊢ ¬ (¬ (¬ 𝜑 ∨ 𝜓) ∨ ¬ (¬ 𝜓 ∨ 𝜑))    ⇒   ⊢ (¬ 𝜑 ∨ 𝜓)
Theorem	rblem7 1763	Used to rederive the Lukasiewicz axioms from Russell-Bernays'. (Contributed by Anthony Hart, 19-Aug-2011.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) (New usage is discouraged.)
⊢ ¬ (¬ (¬ 𝜑 ∨ 𝜓) ∨ ¬ (¬ 𝜓 ∨ 𝜑))    ⇒   ⊢ (¬ 𝜓 ∨ 𝜑)
Theorem	re1axmp 1764	ax-mp 5 derived from Russell-Bernays'. (Contributed by Anthony Hart, 19-Aug-2011.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) (New usage is discouraged.)
⊢ 𝜑    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝜓)    ⇒   ⊢ 𝜓
Theorem	re2luk1 1765	luk-1 1655 derived from Russell-Bernays'. (Contributed by Anthony Hart, 19-Aug-2011.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) (New usage is discouraged.)
⊢ ((𝜑 → 𝜓) → ((𝜓 → 𝜒) → (𝜑 → 𝜒)))
Theorem	re2luk2 1766	luk-2 1656 derived from Russell-Bernays'. (Contributed by Anthony Hart, 19-Aug-2011.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) (New usage is discouraged.)
⊢ ((¬ 𝜑 → 𝜑) → 𝜑)
Theorem	re2luk3 1767	luk-3 1657 derived from Russell-Bernays'. This theorem, along with re1axmp 1764, re2luk1 1765, and re2luk2 1766 shows that rb-ax1 1752, rb-ax2 1753, rb-ax3 1754, and rb-ax4 1755, along with anmp 1751, can be used as a complete axiomatization of propositional calculus. (Contributed by Anthony Hart, 19-Aug-2011.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) (New usage is discouraged.)
⊢ (𝜑 → (¬ 𝜑 → 𝜓))
1.3.12  Stoic logic non-modal portion (Chrysippus of Soli) The Greek Stoics developed a system of logic called Stoic logic. The Stoic Chrysippus, in particular, was often considered one of the greatest logicians of antiquity. Stoic logic is different from Aristotle's system, since it focuses on propositional logic, though later thinkers did combine the systems of the Stoics with Aristotle. Jan Lukasiewicz reports, "For anybody familiar with mathematical logic it is self-evident that the Stoic dialectic is the ancient form of modern propositional logic" ( On the history of the logic of proposition by Jan Lukasiewicz (1934), translated in: Selected Works - Edited by Ludwik Borkowski - Amsterdam, North-Holland, 1970 pp. 197-217, referenced in "History of Logic, https://www.historyoflogic.com/logic-stoics.htm). In this section we show that the propositional logic system we use (which is non-modal) is at least as strong as the non-modal portion of Stoic logic. We show this by showing that our system assumes or proves all of key features of Stoic logic's non-modal portion (specifically the Stoic logic indemonstrables, themata, and principles). "In terms of contemporary logic, Stoic syllogistic is best understood as a substructural backwards-working Gentzen-style natural-deduction system that consists of five kinds of axiomatic arguments (the indemonstrables) and four inference rules, called themata. An argument is a syllogism precisely if it either is an indemonstrable or can be reduced to one by means of the themata (Diogenes Laertius (D. L. 7.78))." (Ancient Logic, Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/logic-ancient/). There are also a few "principles" that support logical reasoning, discussed below. For more information, see "Stoic Logic" by Susanne Bobzien, especially [Bobzien] p. 110-120, especially for a discussion about the themata (including how they were reconstructed and how they were used). There are differences in the systems we can only partly represent, for example, in Stoic logic "truth and falsehood are temporal properties of assertibles... They can belong to an assertible at one time but not at another" ([Bobzien] p. 87). Stoic logic also included various kinds of modalities, which we do not include here since our basic propositional logic does not include modalities. A key part of the Stoic logic system is a set of five "indemonstrables" assigned to Chrysippus of Soli by Diogenes Laertius, though in general it is difficult to assign specific ideas to specific thinkers. The indemonstrables are described in, for example, [Lopez-Astorga] p. 11 , [Sanford] p. 39, and [Hitchcock] p. 5. These indemonstrables are modus ponendo ponens (modus ponens) ax-mp 5, modus tollendo tollens (modus tollens) mto 197, modus ponendo tollens I mptnan 1768, modus ponendo tollens II mptxor 1769, and modus tollendo ponens (exclusive-or version) mtpxor 1771. The first is an axiom, the second is already proved; in this section we prove the other three. Note that modus tollendo ponens mtpxor 1771 originally used exclusive-or, but over time the name modus tollendo ponens has increasingly referred to an inclusive-or variation, which is proved in mtpor 1770. After we prove the indemonstratables, we then prove all the Stoic logic themata (the inference rules of Stoic logic; "thema" is singular). This is straightforward for thema 1 (stoic1a 1772 and stoic1b 1773) and thema 3 (stoic3 1776). However, while Stoic logic was once a leading logic system, most direct information about Stoic logic has since been lost, including the exact texts of thema 2 and thema 4. There are, however, enough references and specific examples to support reconstruction. Themata 2 and 4 have been reconstructed; see statements T2 and T4 in [Bobzien] p. 110-120 and our proofs of them in stoic2a 1774, stoic2b 1775, stoic4a 1777, and stoic4b 1778. Stoic logic also had a set of principles involving assertibles. Statements in [Bobzien] p. 99 express the known principles. The following paragraphs discuss these principles and our proofs of them. "A principle of double negation, expressed by saying that a double-negation (Not: not: p) is equivalent to the assertible that is doubly negated (p) (DL VII 69)." In other words, (𝜑 ↔ ¬ ¬ 𝜑) as proven in notnotb 315. "The principle that all conditionals that are formed by using the same assertible twice (like 'If p, p') are true (Cic. Acad. II 98)." In other words, (𝜑 → 𝜑) as proven in id 22. "The principle that all disjunctions formed by a contradiction (like 'Either p or not: p') are true (S. E. M VIII 282)." Remember that in Stoic logic, 'or' means 'exclusive or'. In other words, (𝜑 ⊻ ¬ 𝜑) as proven in xorexmid 1527. [Bobzien] p. 99 also suggests that Stoic logic may have dealt with commutativity (see xorcom 1514 and ancom 460) and the principle of contraposition (con4 113) (pointing to DL VII 194). In short, the non-modal propositional logic system we use is at least as strong as the non-modal portion of Stoic logic. For more about Aristotle's system, see barbara 2663 and related theorems.
Theorem	mptnan 1768	Modus ponendo tollens 1, one of the "indemonstrables" in Stoic logic. See rule 1 on [Lopez-Astorga] p. 12 , rule 1 on [Sanford] p. 40, and rule A3 in [Hitchcock] p. 5. Sanford describes this rule second (after mptxor 1769) as a "safer, and these days much more common" version of modus ponendo tollens because it avoids confusion between inclusive-or and exclusive-or. (Contributed by David A. Wheeler, 3-Jul-2016.)
⊢ 𝜑    &   ⊢ ¬ (𝜑 ∧ 𝜓)    ⇒   ⊢ ¬ 𝜓
Theorem	mptxor 1769	Modus ponendo tollens 2, one of the "indemonstrables" in Stoic logic. Note that this uses exclusive-or ⊻. See rule 2 on [Lopez-Astorga] p. 12 , rule 4 on [Sanford] p. 39 and rule A4 in [Hitchcock] p. 5 . (Contributed by David A. Wheeler, 3-Jul-2016.) (Proof shortened by Wolf Lammen, 12-Nov-2017.) (Proof shortened by BJ, 19-Apr-2019.)
⊢ 𝜑    &   ⊢ (𝜑 ⊻ 𝜓)    ⇒   ⊢ ¬ 𝜓
Theorem	mtpor 1770	Modus tollendo ponens (inclusive-or version), aka disjunctive syllogism. This is similar to mtpxor 1771, one of the five original "indemonstrables" in Stoic logic. However, in Stoic logic this rule used exclusive-or, while the name modus tollendo ponens often refers to a variant of the rule that uses inclusive-or instead. The rule says, "if 𝜑 is not true, and 𝜑 or 𝜓 (or both) are true, then 𝜓 must be true". An alternate phrasing is: "once you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth". -- Sherlock Holmes (Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, 1890: The Sign of the Four, ch. 6). (Contributed by David A. Wheeler, 3-Jul-2016.) (Proof shortened by Wolf Lammen, 11-Nov-2017.)
⊢ ¬ 𝜑    &   ⊢ (𝜑 ∨ 𝜓)    ⇒   ⊢ 𝜓
Theorem	mtpxor 1771	Modus tollendo ponens (original exclusive-or version), aka disjunctive syllogism, similar to mtpor 1770, one of the five "indemonstrables" in Stoic logic. The rule says: "if 𝜑 is not true, and either 𝜑 or 𝜓 (exclusively) are true, then 𝜓 must be true". Today the name "modus tollendo ponens" often refers to a variant, the inclusive-or version as defined in mtpor 1770. See rule 3 on [Lopez-Astorga] p. 12 (note that the "or" is the same as mptxor 1769, that is, it is exclusive-or df-xor 1512), rule 3 of [Sanford] p. 39 (where it is not as clearly stated which kind of "or" is used but it appears to be in the same sense as mptxor 1769), and rule A5 in [Hitchcock] p. 5 (exclusive-or is expressly used). (Contributed by David A. Wheeler, 4-Jul-2016.) (Proof shortened by Wolf Lammen, 11-Nov-2017.) (Proof shortened by BJ, 19-Apr-2019.)
⊢ ¬ 𝜑    &   ⊢ (𝜑 ⊻ 𝜓)    ⇒   ⊢ 𝜓
Theorem	stoic1a 1772	Stoic logic Thema 1 (part a). The first thema of the four Stoic logic themata, in its basic form, was: "When from two (assertibles) a third follows, then from either of them together with the contradictory of the conclusion the contradictory of the other follows." (Apuleius Int. 209.9-14), see [Bobzien] p. 117 and https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/logic-ancient/ We will represent thema 1 as two very similar rules stoic1a 1772 and stoic1b 1773 to represent each side. (Contributed by David A. Wheeler, 16-Feb-2019.) (Proof shortened by Wolf Lammen, 21-May-2020.)
⊢ ((𝜑 ∧ 𝜓) → 𝜃)    ⇒   ⊢ ((𝜑 ∧ ¬ 𝜃) → ¬ 𝜓)
Theorem	stoic1b 1773	Stoic logic Thema 1 (part b). The other part of thema 1 of Stoic logic; see stoic1a 1772. (Contributed by David A. Wheeler, 16-Feb-2019.)
⊢ ((𝜑 ∧ 𝜓) → 𝜃)    ⇒   ⊢ ((𝜓 ∧ ¬ 𝜃) → ¬ 𝜑)
Theorem	stoic2a 1774	Stoic logic Thema 2 version a. Statement T2 of [Bobzien] p. 117 shows a reconstructed version of Stoic logic thema 2 as follows: "When from two assertibles a third follows, and from the third and one (or both) of the two another follows, then this other follows from the first two." Bobzien uses constructs such as 𝜑, 𝜓⊢ 𝜒; in Metamath we will represent that construct as 𝜑 ∧ 𝜓 → 𝜒. This version a is without the phrase "or both"; see stoic2b 1775 for the version with the phrase "or both". We already have this rule as syldan 591, so here we show the equivalence and discourage its use. (New usage is discouraged.) (Contributed by David A. Wheeler, 17-Feb-2019.)
⊢ ((𝜑 ∧ 𝜓) → 𝜒)    &   ⊢ ((𝜑 ∧ 𝜒) → 𝜃)    ⇒   ⊢ ((𝜑 ∧ 𝜓) → 𝜃)
Theorem	stoic2b 1775	Stoic logic Thema 2 version b. See stoic2a 1774. Version b is with the phrase "or both". We already have this rule as mpd3an3 1464, so here we prove the equivalence and discourage its use. (New usage is discouraged.) (Contributed by David A. Wheeler, 17-Feb-2019.)
⊢ ((𝜑 ∧ 𝜓) → 𝜒)    &   ⊢ ((𝜑 ∧ 𝜓 ∧ 𝜒) → 𝜃)    ⇒   ⊢ ((𝜑 ∧ 𝜓) → 𝜃)
Theorem	stoic3 1776	Stoic logic Thema 3. Statement T3 of [Bobzien] p. 116-117 discusses Stoic logic Thema 3. "When from two (assemblies) a third follows, and from the one that follows (i.e., the third) together with another, external assumption, another follows, then that other follows from the first two and the externally co-assumed one. (Simp. Cael. 237.2-4)" (Contributed by David A. Wheeler, 17-Feb-2019.)
⊢ ((𝜑 ∧ 𝜓) → 𝜒)    &   ⊢ ((𝜒 ∧ 𝜃) → 𝜏)    ⇒   ⊢ ((𝜑 ∧ 𝜓 ∧ 𝜃) → 𝜏)
Theorem	stoic4a 1777	Stoic logic Thema 4 version a. Statement T4 of [Bobzien] p. 117 shows a reconstructed version of Stoic logic Thema 4: "When from two assertibles a third follows, and from the third and one (or both) of the two and one (or more) external assertible(s) another follows, then this other follows from the first two and the external(s)." We use 𝜃 to represent the "external" assertibles. This is version a, which is without the phrase "or both"; see stoic4b 1778 for the version with the phrase "or both". (Contributed by David A. Wheeler, 17-Feb-2019.)
⊢ ((𝜑 ∧ 𝜓) → 𝜒)    &   ⊢ ((𝜒 ∧ 𝜑 ∧ 𝜃) → 𝜏)    ⇒   ⊢ ((𝜑 ∧ 𝜓 ∧ 𝜃) → 𝜏)
Theorem	stoic4b 1778	Stoic logic Thema 4 version b. This is version b, which is with the phrase "or both". See stoic4a 1777 for more information. (Contributed by David A. Wheeler, 17-Feb-2019.)
⊢ ((𝜑 ∧ 𝜓) → 𝜒)    &   ⊢ (((𝜒 ∧ 𝜑 ∧ 𝜓) ∧ 𝜃) → 𝜏)    ⇒   ⊢ ((𝜑 ∧ 𝜓 ∧ 𝜃) → 𝜏)
1.4  Predicate calculus with equality: Tarski's system S2 (1 rule, 6 schemes) Here we extend the language of wffs with predicate calculus, which allows to talk about individual objects in a domain of discourse (which for us will be the universe of all sets, so we call them "setvar variables") and make true/false statements about predicates, which are relationships between objects, such as whether or not two objects are equal. In addition, we introduce universal quantification ("for all", e.g., ax-4 1809) in order to make statements about whether a wff holds for every object in the domain of discourse. Later we introduce existential quantification ("there exists", df-ex 1780) which is defined in terms of universal quantification. Our axioms are really axiom schemes, and our wff and setvar variables are metavariables ranging over expressions in an underlying "object language". This is explained here: mmset.html#axiomnote 1780. Our axiom system starts with the predicate calculus axiom schemes system S2 of Tarski defined in his 1965 paper, "A Simplified Formalization of Predicate Logic with Identity" [Tarski]. System S2 is defined in the last paragraph on p. 77, and repeated on p. 81 of [KalishMontague]. We do not include scheme B5 (our sp 2183) of system S2 since [KalishMontague] shows it to be logically redundant (Lemma 9, p. 87, which we prove as Theorem spw 2033 below). Theorem spw 2033 can be used to prove any instance of sp 2183 having mutually distinct setvar variables and no wff metavariables. However, it seems that sp 2183 in its general form cannot be derived from only Tarski's schemes. We do not include B5 i.e. sp 2183 as part of what we call "Tarski's system" because we want it to be the smallest set of axioms that is logically complete with no redundancies. We later prove sp 2183 as Theorem axc5 38894 using the auxiliary axiom schemes that make our system metalogically complete. Our version of Tarski's system S2 consists of propositional calculus (ax-mp 5, ax-1 6, ax-2 7, ax-3 8) plus ax-gen 1795, ax-4 1809, ax-5 1910, ax-6 1967, ax-7 2007, ax-8 2110, and ax-9 2118. The last three are equality axioms that represent three sub-schemes of Tarski's scheme B8. Due to its side-condition ("where 𝜑 is an atomic formula and 𝜓 is obtained by replacing an occurrence of the variable 𝑥 by the variable 𝑦"), we cannot represent his B8 directly without greatly complicating our scheme language, but the simpler schemes ax-7 2007, ax-8 2110, and ax-9 2118 are sufficient for set theory and much easier to work with. Tarski's system is exactly equivalent to the traditional axiom system in most logic textbooks but has the advantage of being easy to manipulate with a computer program, and its simpler metalogic (with no built-in notions of "free variable" and "proper substitution") is arguably easier for a non-logician human to follow step by step in a proof (where "follow" means being able to identify the substitutions that were made, without necessarily a higher-level understanding). In particular, it is logically complete in that it can derive all possible object-language theorems of predicate calculus with equality, i.e., the same theorems as the traditional system can derive. However, for efficiency (and indeed a key feature that makes Metamath successful), our system is designed to derive reusable theorem schemes (rather than object-language theorems) from other schemes. From this "metalogical" point of view, Tarski's S2 is not complete. For example, we cannot derive scheme sp 2183, even though (using spw 2033) we can derive all instances of it that do not involve wff metavariables or bundled setvar variables. (Two setvar variables are "bundled" if they can be substituted with the same setvar variable, i.e., do not have a "$d" disjoint variable condition.) Later we will introduce auxiliary axiom schemes ax-10 2141, ax-11 2157, ax-12 2177, and ax-13 2377 that are metatheorems of Tarski's system (i.e. are logically redundant) but which give our system the property of "scheme completeness", allowing us to prove directly (instead of, say, by induction on formula length) all possible schemes that can be expressed in our language.
1.4.1  Universal quantifier (continued); define "exists" and "not free" The universal quantifier was introduced above in wal 1538 for use by df-tru 1543. See the comments in that section. In this section, we continue with the first "real" use of it.
1.4.1.1  Existential quantifier
Syntax	wex 1779	Extend wff definition to include the existential quantifier ("there exists").
wff ∃𝑥𝜑
Definition	df-ex 1780	Define existential quantification. ∃𝑥𝜑 means "there exists at least one set 𝑥 such that 𝜑 is true". Dual of alex 1826. See also the dual pair alnex 1781 / exnal 1827. Definition of [Margaris] p. 49. (Contributed by NM, 10-Jan-1993.)
⊢ (∃𝑥𝜑 ↔ ¬ ∀𝑥 ¬ 𝜑)
Theorem	alnex 1781	Universal quantification of negation is equivalent to negation of existential quantification. Dual of exnal 1827 (but does not depend on ax-4 1809 contrary to it). See also the dual pair df-ex 1780 / alex 1826. Theorem 19.7 of [Margaris] p. 89. (Contributed by NM, 12-Mar-1993.)
⊢ (∀𝑥 ¬ 𝜑 ↔ ¬ ∃𝑥𝜑)
Theorem	eximal 1782	An equivalence between an implication with an existentially quantified antecedent and an implication with a universally quantified consequent. An interesting case is when the same formula is substituted for both 𝜑 and 𝜓, since then both implications express a type of nonfreeness. See also alimex 1831. (Contributed by BJ, 12-May-2019.)
⊢ ((∃𝑥𝜑 → 𝜓) ↔ (¬ 𝜓 → ∀𝑥 ¬ 𝜑))
1.4.1.2  Nonfreeness predicate
Syntax	wnf 1783	Extend wff definition to include the not-free predicate.
wff Ⅎ𝑥𝜑
Definition	df-nf 1784	Define the not-free predicate for wffs. This is read "𝑥 is not free in 𝜑". Not-free means that the value of 𝑥 cannot affect the value of 𝜑, e.g., any occurrence of 𝑥 in 𝜑 is effectively bound by a "for all" or something that expands to one (such as "there exists"). In particular, substitution for a variable not free in a wff does not affect its value (sbf 2271). An example of where this is used is stdpc5 2208. See nf5 2282 for an alternate definition which involves nested quantifiers on the same variable. Not-free is a commonly used constraint, so it is useful to have a notation for it. Surprisingly, there is no common formal notation for it, so here we devise one. Our definition lets us work with the not-free notion within the logic itself rather than as a metalogical side condition. To be precise, our definition really means "effectively not free", because it is slightly less restrictive than the usual textbook definition for "not free" (which considers syntactic freedom). For example, 𝑥 is effectively not free in the formula 𝑥 = 𝑥 (even though 𝑥 is syntactically free in it, so would be considered free in the usual textbook definition) because the value of 𝑥 in the formula 𝑥 = 𝑥 does not affect the truth of that formula (and thus substitutions will not change the result), see nfequid 2012. This definition of "not free" tightly ties to the quantifier ∀𝑥. At this state (no axioms restricting quantifiers yet) "nonfree" appears quite arbitrary. Its intended semantics expresses single-valuedness (constness) across a parameter, but is only evolved as much as later axioms assign properties to quantifiers. It seems the definition here is best suited in situations, where axioms are only partially in effect. In particular, this definition more easily carries over to other logic models with weaker axiomization. The reverse implication of the definiens (the right hand side of the biconditional) always holds, see 19.2 1976. This predicate only applies to wffs. See df-nfc 2892 for a not-free predicate for class variables. (Contributed by Mario Carneiro, 24-Sep-2016.) Convert to definition. (Revised by BJ, 6-May-2019.)
⊢ (Ⅎ𝑥𝜑 ↔ (∃𝑥𝜑 → ∀𝑥𝜑))
Theorem	nf2 1785	Alternate definition of nonfreeness. (Contributed by BJ, 16-Sep-2021.)
⊢ (Ⅎ𝑥𝜑 ↔ (∀𝑥𝜑 ∨ ¬ ∃𝑥𝜑))
Theorem	nf3 1786	Alternate definition of nonfreeness. (Contributed by BJ, 16-Sep-2021.)
⊢ (Ⅎ𝑥𝜑 ↔ (∀𝑥𝜑 ∨ ∀𝑥 ¬ 𝜑))
Theorem	nf4 1787	Alternate definition of nonfreeness. This definition uses only primitive symbols (→ , ¬ , ∀). (Contributed by BJ, 16-Sep-2021.)
⊢ (Ⅎ𝑥𝜑 ↔ (¬ ∀𝑥𝜑 → ∀𝑥 ¬ 𝜑))
Theorem	nfi 1788	Deduce that 𝑥 is not free in 𝜑 from the definition. (Contributed by Wolf Lammen, 15-Sep-2021.)
⊢ (∃𝑥𝜑 → ∀𝑥𝜑)    ⇒   ⊢ Ⅎ𝑥𝜑
Theorem	nfri 1789	Consequence of the definition of not-free. (Contributed by Wolf Lammen, 16-Sep-2021.)
⊢ Ⅎ𝑥𝜑    ⇒   ⊢ (∃𝑥𝜑 → ∀𝑥𝜑)
Theorem	nfd 1790	Deduce that 𝑥 is not free in 𝜓 in a context. (Contributed by Wolf Lammen, 16-Sep-2021.)
⊢ (𝜑 → (∃𝑥𝜓 → ∀𝑥𝜓))    ⇒   ⊢ (𝜑 → Ⅎ𝑥𝜓)
Theorem	nfrd 1791	Consequence of the definition of not-free in a context. (Contributed by Wolf Lammen, 15-Oct-2021.)
⊢ (𝜑 → Ⅎ𝑥𝜓)    ⇒   ⊢ (𝜑 → (∃𝑥𝜓 → ∀𝑥𝜓))
Theorem	nftht 1792	Closed form of nfth 1801. (Contributed by Wolf Lammen, 19-Aug-2018.) (Proof shortened by BJ, 16-Sep-2021.) (Proof shortened by Wolf Lammen, 3-Sep-2022.)
⊢ (∀𝑥𝜑 → Ⅎ𝑥𝜑)
Theorem	nfntht 1793	Closed form of nfnth 1802. (Contributed by BJ, 16-Sep-2021.) (Proof shortened by Wolf Lammen, 4-Sep-2022.)
⊢ (¬ ∃𝑥𝜑 → Ⅎ𝑥𝜑)
Theorem	nfntht2 1794	Closed form of nfnth 1802. (Contributed by BJ, 16-Sep-2021.) (Proof shortened by Wolf Lammen, 4-Sep-2022.)
⊢ (∀𝑥 ¬ 𝜑 → Ⅎ𝑥𝜑)
1.4.2  Rule scheme ax-gen (Generalization)
Axiom	ax-gen 1795	Rule of (universal) generalization. In our axiomatization, this is the only postulated (that is, axiomatic) rule of inference of predicate calculus (together with the rule of modus ponens ax-mp 5 of propositional calculus). See, e.g., Rule 2 of [Hamilton] p. 74. This rule says that if something is unconditionally true, then it is true for all values of a variable. For example, if we have proved 𝑥 = 𝑥, then we can conclude ∀𝑥𝑥 = 𝑥 or even ∀𝑦𝑥 = 𝑥. Theorem altru 1807 shows the special case ∀𝑥⊤. The converse rule of inference spi 2184 (universal instantiation, or universal specialization) shows that we can also go the other way: in other words, we can add or remove universal quantifiers from the beginning of any theorem as required. Note that the closed form (𝜑 → ∀𝑥𝜑) need not hold (but may hold in special cases, see ax-5 1910). (Contributed by NM, 3-Jan-1993.)
⊢ 𝜑    ⇒   ⊢ ∀𝑥𝜑
Theorem	gen2 1796	Generalization applied twice. (Contributed by NM, 30-Apr-1998.)
⊢ 𝜑    ⇒   ⊢ ∀𝑥∀𝑦𝜑
Theorem	mpg 1797	Modus ponens combined with generalization. (Contributed by NM, 24-May-1994.)
⊢ (∀𝑥𝜑 → 𝜓)    &   ⊢ 𝜑    ⇒   ⊢ 𝜓
Theorem	mpgbi 1798	Modus ponens on biconditional combined with generalization. (Contributed by NM, 24-May-1994.) (Proof shortened by Stefan Allan, 28-Oct-2008.)
⊢ (∀𝑥𝜑 ↔ 𝜓)    &   ⊢ 𝜑    ⇒   ⊢ 𝜓
Theorem	mpgbir 1799	Modus ponens on biconditional combined with generalization. (Contributed by NM, 24-May-1994.) (Proof shortened by Stefan Allan, 28-Oct-2008.)
⊢ (𝜑 ↔ ∀𝑥𝜓)    &   ⊢ 𝜓    ⇒   ⊢ 𝜑
Theorem	nex 1800	Generalization rule for negated wff. (Contributed by NM, 18-May-1994.)
⊢ ¬ 𝜑    ⇒   ⊢ ¬ ∃𝑥𝜑