P. 19 of Theorem List - Metamath Proof Explorer

Theorem List for Metamath Proof Explorer - 1801-1900   *Has distinct variable group(s)

Type	Label	Description
Statement
Theorem	stoic1b 1801	Stoic logic Thema 1 (part b). The other part of thema 1 of Stoic logic; see stoic1a 1800. (Contributed by David A. Wheeler, 16-Feb-2019.)
⊢ ((𝜑 ∧ 𝜓) → 𝜃)    ⇒   ⊢ ((𝜓 ∧ ¬ 𝜃) → ¬ 𝜑)
Theorem	stoic2a 1802	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 1803 for the version with the phrase "or both". We already have this rule as syldan 602, 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 1803	Stoic logic Thema 2 version b. See stoic2a 1802. Version b is with the phrase "or both". We already have this rule as mpd3an3 1489, 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 1804	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 1805	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 1806 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 1806	Stoic logic Thema 4 version b. This is version b, which is with the phrase "or both". See stoic4a 1805 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 1837) 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 1808) 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 1808. 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 2217) of system S2 since [KalishMontague] shows it to be logically redundant (Lemma 9, p. 87, which we prove as Theorem spw 2062 below). Theorem spw 2062 can be used to prove any instance of sp 2217 having mutually distinct setvar variables and no wff metavariables. However, it seems that sp 2217 in its general form cannot be derived from only Tarski's schemes. We do not include B5 i.e. sp 2217 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 2217 as Theorem axc5 39635 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 1823, ax-4 1837, ax-5 1938, ax-6 1995, ax-7 2036, ax-8 2143, and ax-9 2151. 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 2036, ax-8 2143, and ax-9 2151 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 2217, even though (using spw 2062) 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 2174, ax-11 2190, ax-12 2211, and ax-13 2402 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 1566 for use by df-tru 1571. 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 1807	Extend wff definition to include the existential quantifier ("there exists").
wff ∃𝑥𝜑
Definition	df-ex 1808	Define existential quantification. ∃𝑥𝜑 means "there exists at least one set 𝑥 such that 𝜑 is true". Dual of alex 1854. See also the dual pair alnex 1809 / exnal 1855. Definition of [Margaris] p. 49. (Contributed by NM, 10-Jan-1993.)
⊢ (∃𝑥𝜑 ↔ ¬ ∀𝑥 ¬ 𝜑)
Theorem	alnex 1809	Universal quantification of negation is equivalent to negation of existential quantification. Dual of exnal 1855 (but does not depend on ax-4 1837 contrary to it). See also the dual pair df-ex 1808 / alex 1854. Theorem 19.7 of [Margaris] p. 89. (Contributed by NM, 12-Mar-1993.)
⊢ (∀𝑥 ¬ 𝜑 ↔ ¬ ∃𝑥𝜑)
Theorem	eximal 1810	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 1859. (Contributed by BJ, 12-May-2019.)
⊢ ((∃𝑥𝜑 → 𝜓) ↔ (¬ 𝜓 → ∀𝑥 ¬ 𝜑))
1.4.1.2  Nonfreeness predicate
Syntax	wnf 1811	Extend wff definition to include the not-free predicate.
wff Ⅎ𝑥𝜑
Definition	df-nf 1812	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 2304). An example of where this is used is stdpc5 2242. See nf5 2315 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 2041. 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 2004. This predicate only applies to wffs. See df-nfc 2910 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 1813	Alternate definition of nonfreeness. (Contributed by BJ, 16-Sep-2021.)
⊢ (Ⅎ𝑥𝜑 ↔ (∀𝑥𝜑 ∨ ¬ ∃𝑥𝜑))
Theorem	nf3 1814	Alternate definition of nonfreeness. (Contributed by BJ, 16-Sep-2021.)
⊢ (Ⅎ𝑥𝜑 ↔ (∀𝑥𝜑 ∨ ∀𝑥 ¬ 𝜑))
Theorem	nf4 1815	Alternate definition of nonfreeness. This definition uses only primitive symbols (→ , ¬ , ∀). (Contributed by BJ, 16-Sep-2021.)
⊢ (Ⅎ𝑥𝜑 ↔ (¬ ∀𝑥𝜑 → ∀𝑥 ¬ 𝜑))
Theorem	nfi 1816	Deduce that 𝑥 is not free in 𝜑 from the definition. (Contributed by Wolf Lammen, 15-Sep-2021.)
⊢ (∃𝑥𝜑 → ∀𝑥𝜑)    ⇒   ⊢ Ⅎ𝑥𝜑
Theorem	nfri 1817	Consequence of the definition of not-free. (Contributed by Wolf Lammen, 16-Sep-2021.)
⊢ Ⅎ𝑥𝜑    ⇒   ⊢ (∃𝑥𝜑 → ∀𝑥𝜑)
Theorem	nfd 1818	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 1819	Consequence of the definition of not-free in a context. (Contributed by Wolf Lammen, 15-Oct-2021.)
⊢ (𝜑 → Ⅎ𝑥𝜓)    ⇒   ⊢ (𝜑 → (∃𝑥𝜓 → ∀𝑥𝜓))
Theorem	nftht 1820	Closed form of nfth 1829. (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 1821	Closed form of nfnth 1830. (Contributed by BJ, 16-Sep-2021.) (Proof shortened by Wolf Lammen, 4-Sep-2022.)
⊢ (¬ ∃𝑥𝜑 → Ⅎ𝑥𝜑)
Theorem	nfntht2 1822	Closed form of nfnth 1830. (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 1823	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 1835 shows the special case ∀𝑥⊤. The converse rule of inference spi 2218 (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 1938). (Contributed by NM, 3-Jan-1993.)
⊢ 𝜑    ⇒   ⊢ ∀𝑥𝜑
Theorem	gen2 1824	Generalization applied twice. (Contributed by NM, 30-Apr-1998.)
⊢ 𝜑    ⇒   ⊢ ∀𝑥∀𝑦𝜑
Theorem	mpg 1825	Modus ponens combined with generalization. (Contributed by NM, 24-May-1994.)
⊢ (∀𝑥𝜑 → 𝜓)    &   ⊢ 𝜑    ⇒   ⊢ 𝜓
Theorem	mpgbi 1826	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 1827	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 1828	Generalization rule for negated wff. (Contributed by NM, 18-May-1994.)
⊢ ¬ 𝜑    ⇒   ⊢ ¬ ∃𝑥𝜑
Theorem	nfth 1829	No variable is (effectively) free in a theorem. (Contributed by Mario Carneiro, 11-Aug-2016.) df-nf 1812 changed. (Revised by Wolf Lammen, 12-Sep-2021.)
⊢ 𝜑    ⇒   ⊢ Ⅎ𝑥𝜑
Theorem	nfnth 1830	No variable is (effectively) free in a non-theorem. (Contributed by Mario Carneiro, 6-Dec-2016.) df-nf 1812 changed. (Revised by Wolf Lammen, 12-Sep-2021.)
⊢ ¬ 𝜑    ⇒   ⊢ Ⅎ𝑥𝜑
Theorem	hbth 1831	No variable is (effectively) free in a theorem. This and later "hypothesis-building" lemmas, with labels starting "hb...", allow to construct proofs of formulas of the form ⊢ (𝜑 → ∀𝑥𝜑) from smaller formulas of this form. These are useful for constructing hypotheses that state "𝑥 is (effectively) not free in 𝜑". (Contributed by NM, 11-May-1993.) This hb* idiom is generally being replaced by the nf* idiom (see nfth 1829), but keeps its interest in some cases. (Revised by BJ, 23-Sep-2022.)
⊢ 𝜑    ⇒   ⊢ (𝜑 → ∀𝑥𝜑)
Theorem	nftru 1832	The true constant has no free variables. (This can also be proven in one step with nfv 1942, but this proof does not use ax-5 1938.) (Contributed by Mario Carneiro, 6-Oct-2016.)
⊢ Ⅎ𝑥⊤
Theorem	nffal 1833	The false constant has no free variables (see nftru 1832). (Contributed by BJ, 6-May-2019.)
⊢ Ⅎ𝑥⊥
Theorem	sptruw 1834	Version of sp 2217 when 𝜑 is true. Instance of a1i 11. Uses only Tarski's FOL axiom schemes. (Contributed by NM, 23-Apr-2017.)
⊢ 𝜑    ⇒   ⊢ (∀𝑥𝜑 → 𝜑)
Theorem	altru 1835	For all sets, ⊤ is true. (Contributed by Anthony Hart, 13-Sep-2011.)
⊢ ∀𝑥⊤
Theorem	alfal 1836	For all sets, ¬ ⊥ is true. (Contributed by Anthony Hart, 13-Sep-2011.)
⊢ ∀𝑥 ¬ ⊥
1.4.3  Axiom scheme ax-4 (Quantified Implication)
Axiom	ax-4 1837	Axiom of Quantified Implication. Axiom C4 of [Monk2] p. 105 and Theorem 19.20 of [Margaris] p. 90. It is restated as alim 1838 for labeling consistency. It should be used only by alim 1838. (Contributed by NM, 21-May-2008.) Use alim 1838 instead. (New usage is discouraged.)
⊢ (∀𝑥(𝜑 → 𝜓) → (∀𝑥𝜑 → ∀𝑥𝜓))
Theorem	alim 1838	Restatement of Axiom ax-4 1837, for labeling consistency. It should be the only theorem using ax-4 1837. (Contributed by NM, 10-Jan-1993.)
⊢ (∀𝑥(𝜑 → 𝜓) → (∀𝑥𝜑 → ∀𝑥𝜓))
Theorem	alimi 1839	Inference quantifying both antecedent and consequent. (Contributed by NM, 5-Jan-1993.)
⊢ (𝜑 → 𝜓)    ⇒   ⊢ (∀𝑥𝜑 → ∀𝑥𝜓)
Theorem	2alimi 1840	Inference doubly quantifying both antecedent and consequent. (Contributed by NM, 3-Feb-2005.)
⊢ (𝜑 → 𝜓)    ⇒   ⊢ (∀𝑥∀𝑦𝜑 → ∀𝑥∀𝑦𝜓)
Theorem	ala1 1841	Add an antecedent in a universally quantified formula. (Contributed by BJ, 6-Oct-2018.)
⊢ (∀𝑥𝜑 → ∀𝑥(𝜓 → 𝜑))
Theorem	al2im 1842	Closed form of al2imi 1843. Version of alim 1838 for a nested implication. (Contributed by Alan Sare, 31-Dec-2011.)
⊢ (∀𝑥(𝜑 → (𝜓 → 𝜒)) → (∀𝑥𝜑 → (∀𝑥𝜓 → ∀𝑥𝜒)))
Theorem	al2imi 1843	Inference quantifying antecedent, nested antecedent, and consequent. (Contributed by NM, 10-Jan-1993.)
⊢ (𝜑 → (𝜓 → 𝜒))    ⇒   ⊢ (∀𝑥𝜑 → (∀𝑥𝜓 → ∀𝑥𝜒))
Theorem	alanimi 1844	Variant of al2imi 1843 with conjunctive antecedent. (Contributed by Andrew Salmon, 8-Jun-2011.)
⊢ ((𝜑 ∧ 𝜓) → 𝜒)    ⇒   ⊢ ((∀𝑥𝜑 ∧ ∀𝑥𝜓) → ∀𝑥𝜒)
Theorem	alimdh 1845	Deduction form of Theorem 19.20 of [Margaris] p. 90, see alim 1838. (Contributed by NM, 4-Jan-2002.)
⊢ (𝜑 → ∀𝑥𝜑)    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → (𝜓 → 𝜒))    ⇒   ⊢ (𝜑 → (∀𝑥𝜓 → ∀𝑥𝜒))
Theorem	albi 1846	Theorem 19.15 of [Margaris] p. 90. (Contributed by NM, 24-Jan-1993.)
⊢ (∀𝑥(𝜑 ↔ 𝜓) → (∀𝑥𝜑 ↔ ∀𝑥𝜓))
Theorem	albii 1847	Inference adding universal quantifier to both sides of an equivalence. (Contributed by NM, 7-Aug-1994.)
⊢ (𝜑 ↔ 𝜓)    ⇒   ⊢ (∀𝑥𝜑 ↔ ∀𝑥𝜓)
Theorem	2albii 1848	Inference adding two universal quantifiers to both sides of an equivalence. (Contributed by NM, 9-Mar-1997.)
⊢ (𝜑 ↔ 𝜓)    ⇒   ⊢ (∀𝑥∀𝑦𝜑 ↔ ∀𝑥∀𝑦𝜓)
Theorem	3albii 1849	Inference adding three universal quantifiers to both sides of an equivalence. (Contributed by Peter Mazsa, 10-Aug-2018.)
⊢ (𝜑 ↔ 𝜓)    ⇒   ⊢ (∀𝑥∀𝑦∀𝑧𝜑 ↔ ∀𝑥∀𝑦∀𝑧𝜓)
Theorem	sylgt 1850	Closed form of sylg 1851. (Contributed by BJ, 2-May-2019.)
⊢ (∀𝑥(𝜓 → 𝜒) → ((𝜑 → ∀𝑥𝜓) → (𝜑 → ∀𝑥𝜒)))
Theorem	sylg 1851	A syllogism combined with generalization. Inference associated with sylgt 1850. General form of alrimih 1852. (Contributed by NM, 9-Jan-1993.) Extract from proof of alrimih 1852. (Revised by BJ, 4-Oct-2019.)
⊢ (𝜑 → ∀𝑥𝜓)    &   ⊢ (𝜓 → 𝜒)    ⇒   ⊢ (𝜑 → ∀𝑥𝜒)
Theorem	alrimih 1852	Inference form of Theorem 19.21 of [Margaris] p. 90. See 19.21 2241 and 19.21h 2320. Instance of sylg 1851. (Contributed by NM, 9-Jan-1993.)
⊢ (𝜑 → ∀𝑥𝜑)    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝜓)    ⇒   ⊢ (𝜑 → ∀𝑥𝜓)
Theorem	hbxfrbi 1853	A utility lemma to transfer a bound-variable hypothesis builder into a definition. See hbxfreq 2891 for equality version. (Contributed by Jonathan Ben-Naim, 3-Jun-2011.)
⊢ (𝜑 ↔ 𝜓)    &   ⊢ (𝜓 → ∀𝑥𝜓)    ⇒   ⊢ (𝜑 → ∀𝑥𝜑)
Theorem	alex 1854	Universal quantifier in terms of existential quantifier and negation. Dual of df-ex 1808. See also the dual pair alnex 1809 / exnal 1855. Theorem 19.6 of [Margaris] p. 89. (Contributed by NM, 12-Mar-1993.)
⊢ (∀𝑥𝜑 ↔ ¬ ∃𝑥 ¬ 𝜑)
Theorem	exnal 1855	Existential quantification of negation is equivalent to negation of universal quantification. Dual of alnex 1809. See also the dual pair df-ex 1808 / alex 1854. Theorem 19.14 of [Margaris] p. 90. (Contributed by NM, 12-Mar-1993.)
⊢ (∃𝑥 ¬ 𝜑 ↔ ¬ ∀𝑥𝜑)
Theorem	2nalexn 1856	Part of theorem *11.5 in [WhiteheadRussell] p. 164. (Contributed by Andrew Salmon, 24-May-2011.)
⊢ (¬ ∀𝑥∀𝑦𝜑 ↔ ∃𝑥∃𝑦 ¬ 𝜑)
Theorem	2exnaln 1857	Theorem *11.22 in [WhiteheadRussell] p. 160. (Contributed by Andrew Salmon, 24-May-2011.)
⊢ (∃𝑥∃𝑦𝜑 ↔ ¬ ∀𝑥∀𝑦 ¬ 𝜑)
Theorem	2nexaln 1858	Theorem *11.25 in [WhiteheadRussell] p. 160. (Contributed by Andrew Salmon, 24-May-2011.)
⊢ (¬ ∃𝑥∃𝑦𝜑 ↔ ∀𝑥∀𝑦 ¬ 𝜑)
Theorem	alimex 1859	An equivalence between an implication with a universally quantified consequent and an implication with an existentially quantified antecedent. 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 eximal 1810. (Contributed by BJ, 12-May-2019.)
⊢ ((𝜑 → ∀𝑥𝜓) ↔ (∃𝑥 ¬ 𝜓 → ¬ 𝜑))
Theorem	aleximi 1860	A variant of al2imi 1843: instead of applying ∀𝑥 quantifiers to the final implication, replace them with ∃𝑥. A shorter proof is possible using nfa1 2184, sps 2219 and eximd 2250, but it depends on more axioms. (Contributed by Wolf Lammen, 18-Aug-2019.)
⊢ (𝜑 → (𝜓 → 𝜒))    ⇒   ⊢ (∀𝑥𝜑 → (∃𝑥𝜓 → ∃𝑥𝜒))
Theorem	alexbii 1861	Biconditional form of aleximi 1860. (Contributed by BJ, 16-Nov-2020.)
⊢ (𝜑 → (𝜓 ↔ 𝜒))    ⇒   ⊢ (∀𝑥𝜑 → (∃𝑥𝜓 ↔ ∃𝑥𝜒))
Theorem	exim 1862	Theorem 19.22 of [Margaris] p. 90. (Contributed by NM, 10-Jan-1993.) (Proof shortened by Wolf Lammen, 4-Jul-2014.)
⊢ (∀𝑥(𝜑 → 𝜓) → (∃𝑥𝜑 → ∃𝑥𝜓))
Theorem	eximi 1863	Inference adding existential quantifier to antecedent and consequent. (Contributed by NM, 10-Jan-1993.)
⊢ (𝜑 → 𝜓)    ⇒   ⊢ (∃𝑥𝜑 → ∃𝑥𝜓)
Theorem	2eximi 1864	Inference adding two existential quantifiers to antecedent and consequent. (Contributed by NM, 3-Feb-2005.)
⊢ (𝜑 → 𝜓)    ⇒   ⊢ (∃𝑥∃𝑦𝜑 → ∃𝑥∃𝑦𝜓)
Theorem	eximii 1865	Inference associated with eximi 1863. (Contributed by BJ, 3-Feb-2018.)
⊢ ∃𝑥𝜑    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝜓)    ⇒   ⊢ ∃𝑥𝜓
Theorem	exa1 1866	Add an antecedent in an existentially quantified formula. (Contributed by BJ, 6-Oct-2018.)
⊢ (∃𝑥𝜑 → ∃𝑥(𝜓 → 𝜑))
Theorem	19.38 1867	Theorem 19.38 of [Margaris] p. 90. The converse holds under nonfreeness conditions, see 19.38a 1868 and 19.38b 1869. (Contributed by NM, 12-Mar-1993.) Allow a shortening of 19.21t 2240. (Revised by Wolf Lammen, 2-Jan-2018.)
⊢ ((∃𝑥𝜑 → ∀𝑥𝜓) → ∀𝑥(𝜑 → 𝜓))
Theorem	19.38a 1868	Under a nonfreeness hypothesis, the implication 19.38 1867 can be strengthened to an equivalence. See also 19.38b 1869. (Contributed by BJ, 3-Nov-2021.) (Proof shortened by Wolf Lammen, 9-Jul-2022.)
⊢ (Ⅎ𝑥𝜑 → ((∃𝑥𝜑 → ∀𝑥𝜓) ↔ ∀𝑥(𝜑 → 𝜓)))
Theorem	19.38b 1869	Under a nonfreeness hypothesis, the implication 19.38 1867 can be strengthened to an equivalence. See also 19.38a 1868. (Contributed by BJ, 3-Nov-2021.) (Proof shortened by Wolf Lammen, 9-Jul-2022.)
⊢ (Ⅎ𝑥𝜓 → ((∃𝑥𝜑 → ∀𝑥𝜓) ↔ ∀𝑥(𝜑 → 𝜓)))
Theorem	imnang 1870	Quantified implication in terms of quantified negation of conjunction. (Contributed by BJ, 16-Jul-2021.)
⊢ (∀𝑥(𝜑 → ¬ 𝜓) ↔ ∀𝑥 ¬ (𝜑 ∧ 𝜓))
Theorem	alinexa 1871	A transformation of quantifiers and logical connectives. (Contributed by NM, 19-Aug-1993.)
⊢ (∀𝑥(𝜑 → ¬ 𝜓) ↔ ¬ ∃𝑥(𝜑 ∧ 𝜓))
Theorem	exnalimn 1872	Existential quantification of a conjunction expressed with only primitive symbols (→, ¬, ∀). (Contributed by NM, 10-May-1993.) State the most general instance. (Revised by BJ, 29-Sep-2019.)
⊢ (∃𝑥(𝜑 ∧ 𝜓) ↔ ¬ ∀𝑥(𝜑 → ¬ 𝜓))
Theorem	alexn 1873	A relationship between two quantifiers and negation. (Contributed by NM, 18-Aug-1993.)
⊢ (∀𝑥∃𝑦 ¬ 𝜑 ↔ ¬ ∃𝑥∀𝑦𝜑)
Theorem	2exnexn 1874	Theorem *11.51 in [WhiteheadRussell] p. 164. (Contributed by Andrew Salmon, 24-May-2011.) (Proof shortened by Wolf Lammen, 25-Sep-2014.)
⊢ (∃𝑥∀𝑦𝜑 ↔ ¬ ∀𝑥∃𝑦 ¬ 𝜑)
Theorem	exbi 1875	Theorem 19.18 of [Margaris] p. 90. (Contributed by NM, 12-Mar-1993.)
⊢ (∀𝑥(𝜑 ↔ 𝜓) → (∃𝑥𝜑 ↔ ∃𝑥𝜓))
Theorem	exbii 1876	Inference adding existential quantifier to both sides of an equivalence. (Contributed by NM, 24-May-1994.)
⊢ (𝜑 ↔ 𝜓)    ⇒   ⊢ (∃𝑥𝜑 ↔ ∃𝑥𝜓)
Theorem	2exbii 1877	Inference adding two existential quantifiers to both sides of an equivalence. (Contributed by NM, 16-Mar-1995.)
⊢ (𝜑 ↔ 𝜓)    ⇒   ⊢ (∃𝑥∃𝑦𝜑 ↔ ∃𝑥∃𝑦𝜓)
Theorem	3exbii 1878	Inference adding three existential quantifiers to both sides of an equivalence. (Contributed by NM, 2-May-1995.)
⊢ (𝜑 ↔ 𝜓)    ⇒   ⊢ (∃𝑥∃𝑦∃𝑧𝜑 ↔ ∃𝑥∃𝑦∃𝑧𝜓)
Theorem	nfbiit 1879	Equivalence theorem for the nonfreeness predicate. Closed form of nfbii 1880. (Contributed by Giovanni Mascellani, 10-Apr-2018.) Reduce axiom usage. (Revised by BJ, 6-May-2019.)
⊢ (∀𝑥(𝜑 ↔ 𝜓) → (Ⅎ𝑥𝜑 ↔ Ⅎ𝑥𝜓))
Theorem	nfbii 1880	Equality theorem for the nonfreeness predicate. (Contributed by Mario Carneiro, 11-Aug-2016.) df-nf 1812 changed. (Revised by Wolf Lammen, 12-Sep-2021.)
⊢ (𝜑 ↔ 𝜓)    ⇒   ⊢ (Ⅎ𝑥𝜑 ↔ Ⅎ𝑥𝜓)
Theorem	nfxfr 1881	A utility lemma to transfer a bound-variable hypothesis builder into a definition. (Contributed by Mario Carneiro, 11-Aug-2016.)
⊢ (𝜑 ↔ 𝜓)    &   ⊢ Ⅎ𝑥𝜓    ⇒   ⊢ Ⅎ𝑥𝜑
Theorem	nfxfrd 1882	A utility lemma to transfer a bound-variable hypothesis builder into a definition. (Contributed by Mario Carneiro, 24-Sep-2016.)
⊢ (𝜑 ↔ 𝜓)    &   ⊢ (𝜒 → Ⅎ𝑥𝜓)    ⇒   ⊢ (𝜒 → Ⅎ𝑥𝜑)
Theorem	nfnbi 1883	A variable is nonfree in a proposition if and only if it is so in its negation. (Contributed by BJ, 6-May-2019.) (Proof shortened by Wolf Lammen, 6-Oct-2024.)
⊢ (Ⅎ𝑥𝜑 ↔ Ⅎ𝑥 ¬ 𝜑)
Theorem	nfnt 1884	If a variable is nonfree in a proposition, then it is nonfree in its negation. (Contributed by Mario Carneiro, 24-Sep-2016.) (Proof shortened by Wolf Lammen, 28-Dec-2017.) (Revised by BJ, 24-Jul-2019.) df-nf 1812 changed. (Revised by Wolf Lammen, 4-Oct-2021.)
⊢ (Ⅎ𝑥𝜑 → Ⅎ𝑥 ¬ 𝜑)
Theorem	nfn 1885	Inference associated with nfnt 1884. (Contributed by Mario Carneiro, 11-Aug-2016.) df-nf 1812 changed. (Revised by Wolf Lammen, 18-Sep-2021.)
⊢ Ⅎ𝑥𝜑    ⇒   ⊢ Ⅎ𝑥 ¬ 𝜑
Theorem	nfnd 1886	Deduction associated with nfnt 1884. (Contributed by Mario Carneiro, 24-Sep-2016.)
⊢ (𝜑 → Ⅎ𝑥𝜓)    ⇒   ⊢ (𝜑 → Ⅎ𝑥 ¬ 𝜓)
Theorem	exanali 1887	A transformation of quantifiers and logical connectives. (Contributed by NM, 25-Mar-1996.) (Proof shortened by Wolf Lammen, 4-Sep-2014.)
⊢ (∃𝑥(𝜑 ∧ ¬ 𝜓) ↔ ¬ ∀𝑥(𝜑 → 𝜓))
Theorem	2exanali 1888	Theorem *11.521 in [WhiteheadRussell] p. 164. (Contributed by Andrew Salmon, 24-May-2011.)
⊢ (¬ ∃𝑥∃𝑦(𝜑 ∧ ¬ 𝜓) ↔ ∀𝑥∀𝑦(𝜑 → 𝜓))
Theorem	exancom 1889	Commutation of conjunction inside an existential quantifier. (Contributed by NM, 18-Aug-1993.)
⊢ (∃𝑥(𝜑 ∧ 𝜓) ↔ ∃𝑥(𝜓 ∧ 𝜑))
Theorem	exan 1890	Place a conjunct in the scope of an existential quantifier. (Contributed by NM, 18-Aug-1993.) (Proof shortened by Andrew Salmon, 25-May-2011.) (Proof shortened by Wolf Lammen, 13-Jan-2018.) Reduce axiom dependencies. (Revised by BJ, 7-Jul-2021.) (Proof shortened by Wolf Lammen, 6-Nov-2022.) Expand hypothesis. (Revised by Steven Nguyen, 19-Jun-2023.)
⊢ ∃𝑥𝜑    &   ⊢ 𝜓    ⇒   ⊢ ∃𝑥(𝜑 ∧ 𝜓)
Theorem	alrimdh 1891	Deduction form of Theorem 19.21 of [Margaris] p. 90, see 19.21 2241 and 19.21h 2320. (Contributed by NM, 10-Feb-1997.) (Proof shortened by Andrew Salmon, 13-May-2011.)
⊢ (𝜑 → ∀𝑥𝜑)    &   ⊢ (𝜓 → ∀𝑥𝜓)    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → (𝜓 → 𝜒))    ⇒   ⊢ (𝜑 → (𝜓 → ∀𝑥𝜒))
Theorem	eximdh 1892	Deduction from Theorem 19.22 of [Margaris] p. 90. (Contributed by NM, 20-May-1996.)
⊢ (𝜑 → ∀𝑥𝜑)    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → (𝜓 → 𝜒))    ⇒   ⊢ (𝜑 → (∃𝑥𝜓 → ∃𝑥𝜒))
Theorem	nexdh 1893	Deduction for generalization rule for negated wff. (Contributed by NM, 2-Jan-2002.)
⊢ (𝜑 → ∀𝑥𝜑)    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → ¬ 𝜓)    ⇒   ⊢ (𝜑 → ¬ ∃𝑥𝜓)
Theorem	albidh 1894	Formula-building rule for universal quantifier (deduction form). (Contributed by NM, 26-May-1993.)
⊢ (𝜑 → ∀𝑥𝜑)    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → (𝜓 ↔ 𝜒))    ⇒   ⊢ (𝜑 → (∀𝑥𝜓 ↔ ∀𝑥𝜒))
Theorem	exbidh 1895	Formula-building rule for existential quantifier (deduction form). (Contributed by NM, 26-May-1993.)
⊢ (𝜑 → ∀𝑥𝜑)    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → (𝜓 ↔ 𝜒))    ⇒   ⊢ (𝜑 → (∃𝑥𝜓 ↔ ∃𝑥𝜒))
Theorem	exsimpl 1896	Simplification of an existentially quantified conjunction. (Contributed by Rodolfo Medina, 25-Sep-2010.) (Proof shortened by Andrew Salmon, 29-Jun-2011.)
⊢ (∃𝑥(𝜑 ∧ 𝜓) → ∃𝑥𝜑)
Theorem	exsimpr 1897	Simplification of an existentially quantified conjunction. (Contributed by Rodolfo Medina, 25-Sep-2010.) (Proof shortened by Andrew Salmon, 29-Jun-2011.)
⊢ (∃𝑥(𝜑 ∧ 𝜓) → ∃𝑥𝜓)
Theorem	19.26 1898	Theorem 19.26 of [Margaris] p. 90. Also Theorem *10.22 of [WhiteheadRussell] p. 147. (Contributed by NM, 12-Mar-1993.) (Proof shortened by Wolf Lammen, 4-Jul-2014.)
⊢ (∀𝑥(𝜑 ∧ 𝜓) ↔ (∀𝑥𝜑 ∧ ∀𝑥𝜓))
Theorem	19.26-2 1899	Theorem 19.26 1898 with two quantifiers. (Contributed by NM, 3-Feb-2005.)
⊢ (∀𝑥∀𝑦(𝜑 ∧ 𝜓) ↔ (∀𝑥∀𝑦𝜑 ∧ ∀𝑥∀𝑦𝜓))
Theorem	19.26-3an 1900	Theorem 19.26 1898 with triple conjunction. (Contributed by NM, 13-Sep-2011.)
⊢ (∀𝑥(𝜑 ∧ 𝜓 ∧ 𝜒) ↔ (∀𝑥𝜑 ∧ ∀𝑥𝜓 ∧ ∀𝑥𝜒))