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	rblem1 1801	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 1802	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 1803	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 1804	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 1805	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 1806	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 1807	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 1808	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 1809	luk-1 1699 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 1810	luk-2 1700 derived from Russell-Bernays'. (Contributed by Anthony Hart, 19-Aug-2011.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) (New usage is discouraged.)
⊢ ((¬ 𝜑 → 𝜑) → 𝜑)
Theorem	re2luk3 1811	luk-3 1701 derived from Russell-Bernays'. This theorem, along with re1axmp 1808, re2luk1 1809, and re2luk2 1810 shows that rb-ax1 1796, rb-ax2 1797, rb-ax3 1798, and rb-ax4 1799, along with anmp 1795, 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))
1.3.11  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 189, modus ponendo tollens I mptnan 1812, modus ponendo tollens II mptxor 1813, and modus tollendo ponens (exclusive-or version) mtpxor 1815. The first is an axiom, the second is already proved; in this section we prove the other three. Note that modus tollendo ponens mtpxor 1815 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 1814. 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 1816 and stoic1b 1817) and thema 3 (stoic3 1820). 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 1818, stoic2b 1819, stoic4a 1821, and stoic4b 1822. 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 307. "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 1598. [Bobzien] p. 99 also suggests that Stoic logic may have dealt with commutativity (see xorcom 1585 and ancom 454) 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 2695 and related theorems.
Theorem	mptnan 1812	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 1813) 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 1813	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 1814	Modus tollendo ponens (inclusive-or version), aka disjunctive syllogism. This is similar to mtpxor 1815, 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 1815	Modus tollendo ponens (original exclusive-or version), aka disjunctive syllogism, similar to mtpor 1814, 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 1814. See rule 3 on [Lopez-Astorga] p. 12 (note that the "or" is the same as mptxor 1813, that is, it is exclusive-or df-xor 1583), 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 1813), 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 1816	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 1816 and stoic1b 1817 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 1817	Stoic logic Thema 1 (part b). The other part of thema 1 of Stoic logic; see stoic1a 1816. (Contributed by David A. Wheeler, 16-Feb-2019.)
⊢ ((𝜑 ∧ 𝜓) → 𝜃)    ⇒   ⊢ ((𝜓 ∧ ¬ 𝜃) → ¬ 𝜑)
Theorem	stoic2a 1818	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 1819 for the version with the phrase "or both". We already have this rule as syldan 585, 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 1819	Stoic logic Thema 2 version b. See stoic2a 1818. Version b is with the phrase "or both". We already have this rule as mpd3an3 1535, 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 1820	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 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 1821	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 1822 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 1822	Stoic logic Thema 4 version b. This is version b, which is with the phrase "or both". See stoic4a 1821 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 us 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 1853) 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 1824) 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. 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 2167) of system S2 since [KalishMontague] shows it to be logically redundant (Lemma 9, p. 87, which we prove as theorem spw 2084 below). Theorem spw 2084 can be used to prove any instance of sp 2167 having mutually distinct setvar variables and no wff metavariables. However, it seems that sp 2167 in its general form cannot be derived from only Tarski's schemes. We do not include B5 i.e. sp 2167 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 2167 as theorem axc5 35049 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 1839, ax-4 1853, ax-5 1953, ax-6 2021, ax-7 2055, ax-8 2109, and ax-9 2116. 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 2055, ax-8 2109, and ax-9 2116 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 2167, even though (using spw 2084) 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 2135, ax-11 2150, ax-12 2163, and ax-13 2334 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 1599 for use by df-tru 1605. 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 1823	Extend wff definition to include the existential quantifier ("there exists").
wff ∃𝑥𝜑
Definition	df-ex 1824	Define existential quantification. ∃𝑥𝜑 means "there exists at least one set 𝑥 such that 𝜑 is true". Dual of alex 1869. See also the dual pair alnex 1825 / exnal 1870. Definition of [Margaris] p. 49. (Contributed by NM, 10-Jan-1993.)
⊢ (∃𝑥𝜑 ↔ ¬ ∀𝑥 ¬ 𝜑)
Theorem	alnex 1825	Universal quantification of negation is equivalent to negation of existential quantification. Dual of exnal 1870 (but does not depend on ax-4 1853 contrary to it). See also the dual pair df-ex 1824 / alex 1869. Theorem 19.7 of [Margaris] p. 89. (Contributed by NM, 12-Mar-1993.)
⊢ (∀𝑥 ¬ 𝜑 ↔ ¬ ∃𝑥𝜑)
Theorem	eximal 1826	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 non-freeness. See also alimex 1874. (Contributed by BJ, 12-May-2019.)
⊢ ((∃𝑥𝜑 → 𝜓) ↔ (¬ 𝜓 → ∀𝑥 ¬ 𝜑))
1.4.1.2  Non-freeness predicate
Syntax	wnf 1827	Extend wff definition to include the not-free predicate.
wff Ⅎ𝑥𝜑
Definition	df-nf 1828	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 2456). An example of where this is used is stdpc5 2193. See nf5 2256 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 only considers syntactic freedom). For example, 𝑥 is effectively not free in the formula 𝑥 = 𝑥 (see nfequid 2060), even though 𝑥 would be considered free in the usual textbook definition, because the value of 𝑥 in the formula 𝑥 = 𝑥 cannot affect the truth of that formula (and thus substitutions will not change the result). This definition of not-free tightly ties to the quantifier ∀𝑥. At this state (no axioms restricting quantifiers yet) 'non-free' 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 2026. This predicate only applies to wffs. See df-nfc 2921 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 1829	Alternate definition of non-freeness. (Contributed by BJ, 16-Sep-2021.)
⊢ (Ⅎ𝑥𝜑 ↔ (∀𝑥𝜑 ∨ ¬ ∃𝑥𝜑))
Theorem	nf3 1830	Alternate definition of non-freeness. (Contributed by BJ, 16-Sep-2021.)
⊢ (Ⅎ𝑥𝜑 ↔ (∀𝑥𝜑 ∨ ∀𝑥 ¬ 𝜑))
Theorem	nf4 1831	Alternate definition of non-freeness. This definition uses only primitive symbols. (Contributed by BJ, 16-Sep-2021.)
⊢ (Ⅎ𝑥𝜑 ↔ (¬ ∀𝑥𝜑 → ∀𝑥 ¬ 𝜑))
Theorem	nfi 1832	Deduce that 𝑥 is not free in 𝜑 from the definition. (Contributed by Wolf Lammen, 15-Sep-2021.)
⊢ (∃𝑥𝜑 → ∀𝑥𝜑)    ⇒   ⊢ Ⅎ𝑥𝜑
Theorem	nfri 1833	Consequence of the definition of not-free. (Contributed by Wolf Lammen, 16-Sep-2021.)
⊢ Ⅎ𝑥𝜑    ⇒   ⊢ (∃𝑥𝜑 → ∀𝑥𝜑)
Theorem	nfd 1834	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 1835	Consequence of the definition of not-free in a context. (Contributed by Wolf Lammen, 15-Oct-2021.)
⊢ (𝜑 → Ⅎ𝑥𝜓)    ⇒   ⊢ (𝜑 → (∃𝑥𝜓 → ∀𝑥𝜓))
Theorem	nftht 1836	Closed form of nfth 1845. (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 1837	Closed form of nfnth 1846. (Contributed by BJ, 16-Sep-2021.) (Proof shortened by Wolf Lammen, 4-Sep-2022.)
⊢ (¬ ∃𝑥𝜑 → Ⅎ𝑥𝜑)
Theorem	nfntht2 1838	Closed form of nfnth 1846. (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 1839	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 1851 shows the special case ∀𝑥⊤. The converse rule of inference spi 2168 (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 1953). (Contributed by NM, 3-Jan-1993.)
⊢ 𝜑    ⇒   ⊢ ∀𝑥𝜑
Theorem	gen2 1840	Generalization applied twice. (Contributed by NM, 30-Apr-1998.)
⊢ 𝜑    ⇒   ⊢ ∀𝑥∀𝑦𝜑
Theorem	mpg 1841	Modus ponens combined with generalization. (Contributed by NM, 24-May-1994.)
⊢ (∀𝑥𝜑 → 𝜓)    &   ⊢ 𝜑    ⇒   ⊢ 𝜓
Theorem	mpgbi 1842	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 1843	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 1844	Generalization rule for negated wff. (Contributed by NM, 18-May-1994.)
⊢ ¬ 𝜑    ⇒   ⊢ ¬ ∃𝑥𝜑
Theorem	nfth 1845	No variable is (effectively) free in a theorem. (Contributed by Mario Carneiro, 11-Aug-2016.) df-nf 1828 changed. (Revised by Wolf Lammen, 12-Sep-2021.)
⊢ 𝜑    ⇒   ⊢ Ⅎ𝑥𝜑
Theorem	nfnth 1846	No variable is (effectively) free in a non-theorem. (Contributed by Mario Carneiro, 6-Dec-2016.) df-nf 1828 changed. (Revised by Wolf Lammen, 12-Sep-2021.)
⊢ ¬ 𝜑    ⇒   ⊢ Ⅎ𝑥𝜑
Theorem	hbth 1847	No variable is (effectively) free in a theorem. This and later "hypothesis-building" lemmas, with labels starting "hb...", allow us 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 1845), but keeps its interest in some cases. (Revised by BJ, 23-Sep-2022.)
⊢ 𝜑    ⇒   ⊢ (𝜑 → ∀𝑥𝜑)
Theorem	nftru 1848	The true constant has no free variables. (This can also be proven in one step with nfv 1957, but this proof does not use ax-5 1953.) (Contributed by Mario Carneiro, 6-Oct-2016.)
⊢ Ⅎ𝑥⊤
Theorem	nffal 1849	The false constant has no free variables (see nftru 1848). (Contributed by BJ, 6-May-2019.)
⊢ Ⅎ𝑥⊥
Theorem	sptruw 1850	Version of sp 2167 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 1851	For all sets, ⊤ is true. (Contributed by Anthony Hart, 13-Sep-2011.)
⊢ ∀𝑥⊤
Theorem	alfal 1852	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 1853	Axiom of Quantified Implication. Axiom C4 of [Monk2] p. 105 and Theorem 19.20 of [Margaris] p. 90. It is restated as alim 1854 for labeling consistency. It should be used only by alim 1854. (Contributed by NM, 21-May-2008.) Use alim 1854 instead. (New usage is discouraged.)
⊢ (∀𝑥(𝜑 → 𝜓) → (∀𝑥𝜑 → ∀𝑥𝜓))
Theorem	alim 1854	Restatement of Axiom ax-4 1853, for labeling consistency. It should be the only theorem using ax-4 1853. (Contributed by NM, 10-Jan-1993.)
⊢ (∀𝑥(𝜑 → 𝜓) → (∀𝑥𝜑 → ∀𝑥𝜓))
Theorem	alimi 1855	Inference quantifying both antecedent and consequent. (Contributed by NM, 5-Jan-1993.)
⊢ (𝜑 → 𝜓)    ⇒   ⊢ (∀𝑥𝜑 → ∀𝑥𝜓)
Theorem	2alimi 1856	Inference doubly quantifying both antecedent and consequent. (Contributed by NM, 3-Feb-2005.)
⊢ (𝜑 → 𝜓)    ⇒   ⊢ (∀𝑥∀𝑦𝜑 → ∀𝑥∀𝑦𝜓)
Theorem	ala1 1857	Add an antecedent in a universally quantified formula. (Contributed by BJ, 6-Oct-2018.)
⊢ (∀𝑥𝜑 → ∀𝑥(𝜓 → 𝜑))
Theorem	al2im 1858	Closed form of al2imi 1859. Version of alim 1854 for a nested implication. (Contributed by Alan Sare, 31-Dec-2011.)
⊢ (∀𝑥(𝜑 → (𝜓 → 𝜒)) → (∀𝑥𝜑 → (∀𝑥𝜓 → ∀𝑥𝜒)))
Theorem	al2imi 1859	Inference quantifying antecedent, nested antecedent, and consequent. (Contributed by NM, 10-Jan-1993.)
⊢ (𝜑 → (𝜓 → 𝜒))    ⇒   ⊢ (∀𝑥𝜑 → (∀𝑥𝜓 → ∀𝑥𝜒))
Theorem	alanimi 1860	Variant of al2imi 1859 with conjunctive antecedent. (Contributed by Andrew Salmon, 8-Jun-2011.)
⊢ ((𝜑 ∧ 𝜓) → 𝜒)    ⇒   ⊢ ((∀𝑥𝜑 ∧ ∀𝑥𝜓) → ∀𝑥𝜒)
Theorem	alimdh 1861	Deduction form of Theorem 19.20 of [Margaris] p. 90, see alim 1854. (Contributed by NM, 4-Jan-2002.)
⊢ (𝜑 → ∀𝑥𝜑)    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → (𝜓 → 𝜒))    ⇒   ⊢ (𝜑 → (∀𝑥𝜓 → ∀𝑥𝜒))
Theorem	albi 1862	Theorem 19.15 of [Margaris] p. 90. (Contributed by NM, 24-Jan-1993.)
⊢ (∀𝑥(𝜑 ↔ 𝜓) → (∀𝑥𝜑 ↔ ∀𝑥𝜓))
Theorem	albii 1863	Inference adding universal quantifier to both sides of an equivalence. (Contributed by NM, 7-Aug-1994.)
⊢ (𝜑 ↔ 𝜓)    ⇒   ⊢ (∀𝑥𝜑 ↔ ∀𝑥𝜓)
Theorem	2albii 1864	Inference adding two universal quantifiers to both sides of an equivalence. (Contributed by NM, 9-Mar-1997.)
⊢ (𝜑 ↔ 𝜓)    ⇒   ⊢ (∀𝑥∀𝑦𝜑 ↔ ∀𝑥∀𝑦𝜓)
Theorem	sylgt 1865	Closed form of sylg 1866. (Contributed by BJ, 2-May-2019.)
⊢ (∀𝑥(𝜓 → 𝜒) → ((𝜑 → ∀𝑥𝜓) → (𝜑 → ∀𝑥𝜒)))
Theorem	sylg 1866	A syllogism combined with generalization. Inference associated with sylgt 1865. General form of alrimih 1867. (Contributed by BJ, 4-Oct-2019.)
⊢ (𝜑 → ∀𝑥𝜓)    &   ⊢ (𝜓 → 𝜒)    ⇒   ⊢ (𝜑 → ∀𝑥𝜒)
Theorem	alrimih 1867	Inference form of Theorem 19.21 of [Margaris] p. 90. See 19.21 2192 and 19.21h 2261. Instance of sylg 1866. (Contributed by NM, 9-Jan-1993.) (Revised by BJ, 31-Mar-2021.)
⊢ (𝜑 → ∀𝑥𝜑)    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝜓)    ⇒   ⊢ (𝜑 → ∀𝑥𝜓)
Theorem	hbxfrbi 1868	A utility lemma to transfer a bound-variable hypothesis builder into a definition. See hbxfreq 2890 for equality version. (Contributed by Jonathan Ben-Naim, 3-Jun-2011.)
⊢ (𝜑 ↔ 𝜓)    &   ⊢ (𝜓 → ∀𝑥𝜓)    ⇒   ⊢ (𝜑 → ∀𝑥𝜑)
Theorem	alex 1869	Universal quantifier in terms of existential quantifier and negation. Dual of df-ex 1824. See also the dual pair alnex 1825 / exnal 1870. Theorem 19.6 of [Margaris] p. 89. (Contributed by NM, 12-Mar-1993.)
⊢ (∀𝑥𝜑 ↔ ¬ ∃𝑥 ¬ 𝜑)
Theorem	exnal 1870	Existential quantification of negation is equivalent to negation of universal quantification. Dual of alnex 1825. See also the dual pair df-ex 1824 / alex 1869. Theorem 19.14 of [Margaris] p. 90. (Contributed by NM, 12-Mar-1993.)
⊢ (∃𝑥 ¬ 𝜑 ↔ ¬ ∀𝑥𝜑)
Theorem	2nalexn 1871	Part of theorem *11.5 in [WhiteheadRussell] p. 164. (Contributed by Andrew Salmon, 24-May-2011.)
⊢ (¬ ∀𝑥∀𝑦𝜑 ↔ ∃𝑥∃𝑦 ¬ 𝜑)
Theorem	2exnaln 1872	Theorem *11.22 in [WhiteheadRussell] p. 160. (Contributed by Andrew Salmon, 24-May-2011.)
⊢ (∃𝑥∃𝑦𝜑 ↔ ¬ ∀𝑥∀𝑦 ¬ 𝜑)
Theorem	2nexaln 1873	Theorem *11.25 in [WhiteheadRussell] p. 160. (Contributed by Andrew Salmon, 24-May-2011.)
⊢ (¬ ∃𝑥∃𝑦𝜑 ↔ ∀𝑥∀𝑦 ¬ 𝜑)
Theorem	alimex 1874	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 non-freeness. See also eximal 1826. (Contributed by BJ, 12-May-2019.)
⊢ ((𝜑 → ∀𝑥𝜓) ↔ (∃𝑥 ¬ 𝜓 → ¬ 𝜑))
Theorem	aleximi 1875	A variant of al2imi 1859: instead of applying ∀𝑥 quantifiers to the final implication, replace them with ∃𝑥. A shorter proof is possible using nfa1 2145, sps 2169 and eximd 2202, but it depends on more axioms. (Contributed by Wolf Lammen, 18-Aug-2019.)
⊢ (𝜑 → (𝜓 → 𝜒))    ⇒   ⊢ (∀𝑥𝜑 → (∃𝑥𝜓 → ∃𝑥𝜒))
Theorem	alexbii 1876	Biconditional form of aleximi 1875. (Contributed by BJ, 16-Nov-2020.)
⊢ (𝜑 → (𝜓 ↔ 𝜒))    ⇒   ⊢ (∀𝑥𝜑 → (∃𝑥𝜓 ↔ ∃𝑥𝜒))
Theorem	exim 1877	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 1878	Inference adding existential quantifier to antecedent and consequent. (Contributed by NM, 10-Jan-1993.)
⊢ (𝜑 → 𝜓)    ⇒   ⊢ (∃𝑥𝜑 → ∃𝑥𝜓)
Theorem	2eximi 1879	Inference adding two existential quantifiers to antecedent and consequent. (Contributed by NM, 3-Feb-2005.)
⊢ (𝜑 → 𝜓)    ⇒   ⊢ (∃𝑥∃𝑦𝜑 → ∃𝑥∃𝑦𝜓)
Theorem	eximii 1880	Inference associated with eximi 1878. (Contributed by BJ, 3-Feb-2018.)
⊢ ∃𝑥𝜑    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝜓)    ⇒   ⊢ ∃𝑥𝜓
Theorem	exa1 1881	Add an antecedent in an existentially quantified formula. (Contributed by BJ, 6-Oct-2018.)
⊢ (∃𝑥𝜑 → ∃𝑥(𝜓 → 𝜑))
Theorem	19.38 1882	Theorem 19.38 of [Margaris] p. 90. The converse holds under non-freeness conditions, see 19.38a 1883 and 19.38b 1885. (Contributed by NM, 12-Mar-1993.) Allow a shortening of 19.21t 2191. (Revised by Wolf Lammen, 2-Jan-2018.)
⊢ ((∃𝑥𝜑 → ∀𝑥𝜓) → ∀𝑥(𝜑 → 𝜓))
Theorem	19.38a 1883	Under a non-freeness hypothesis, the implication 19.38 1882 can be strengthened to an equivalence. See also 19.38b 1885. (Contributed by BJ, 3-Nov-2021.) (Proof shortened by Wolf Lammen, 9-Jul-2022.)
⊢ (Ⅎ𝑥𝜑 → ((∃𝑥𝜑 → ∀𝑥𝜓) ↔ ∀𝑥(𝜑 → 𝜓)))
Theorem	19.38aOLD 1884	Obsolete version of 19.38a 1883 as of 9-Jul-2022. (Contributed by BJ, 3-Nov-2021.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) (New usage is discouraged.)
⊢ (Ⅎ𝑥𝜑 → ((∃𝑥𝜑 → ∀𝑥𝜓) ↔ ∀𝑥(𝜑 → 𝜓)))
Theorem	19.38b 1885	Under a non-freeness hypothesis, the implication 19.38 1882 can be strengthened to an equivalence. See also 19.38a 1883. (Contributed by BJ, 3-Nov-2021.) (Proof shortened by Wolf Lammen, 9-Jul-2022.)
⊢ (Ⅎ𝑥𝜓 → ((∃𝑥𝜑 → ∀𝑥𝜓) ↔ ∀𝑥(𝜑 → 𝜓)))
Theorem	19.38bOLD 1886	Obsolete version of 19.38b 1885 as of 9-Jul-2022. (Contributed by BJ, 3-Nov-2021.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) (New usage is discouraged.)
⊢ (Ⅎ𝑥𝜓 → ((∃𝑥𝜑 → ∀𝑥𝜓) ↔ ∀𝑥(𝜑 → 𝜓)))
Theorem	imnang 1887	Quantified implication in terms of quantified negation of conjunction. (Contributed by BJ, 16-Jul-2021.)
⊢ (∀𝑥(𝜑 → ¬ 𝜓) ↔ ∀𝑥 ¬ (𝜑 ∧ 𝜓))
Theorem	alinexa 1888	A transformation of quantifiers and logical connectives. (Contributed by NM, 19-Aug-1993.)
⊢ (∀𝑥(𝜑 → ¬ 𝜓) ↔ ¬ ∃𝑥(𝜑 ∧ 𝜓))
Theorem	alexn 1889	A relationship between two quantifiers and negation. (Contributed by NM, 18-Aug-1993.)
⊢ (∀𝑥∃𝑦 ¬ 𝜑 ↔ ¬ ∃𝑥∀𝑦𝜑)
Theorem	2exnexn 1890	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 1891	Theorem 19.18 of [Margaris] p. 90. (Contributed by NM, 12-Mar-1993.)
⊢ (∀𝑥(𝜑 ↔ 𝜓) → (∃𝑥𝜑 ↔ ∃𝑥𝜓))
Theorem	exbii 1892	Inference adding existential quantifier to both sides of an equivalence. (Contributed by NM, 24-May-1994.)
⊢ (𝜑 ↔ 𝜓)    ⇒   ⊢ (∃𝑥𝜑 ↔ ∃𝑥𝜓)
Theorem	2exbii 1893	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 1894	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 1895	Equivalence theorem for the non-freeness predicate. Closed form of nfbii 1896. (Contributed by Giovanni Mascellani, 10-Apr-2018.) Reduce axiom usage. (Revised by BJ, 6-May-2019.)
⊢ (∀𝑥(𝜑 ↔ 𝜓) → (Ⅎ𝑥𝜑 ↔ Ⅎ𝑥𝜓))
Theorem	nfbii 1896	Equality theorem for the non-freeness predicate. (Contributed by Mario Carneiro, 11-Aug-2016.) df-nf 1828 changed. (Revised by Wolf Lammen, 12-Sep-2021.)
⊢ (𝜑 ↔ 𝜓)    ⇒   ⊢ (Ⅎ𝑥𝜑 ↔ Ⅎ𝑥𝜓)
Theorem	nfxfr 1897	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 1898	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 1899	A variable is non-free in a proposition if and only if it is so in its negation. (Contributed by BJ, 6-May-2019.)
⊢ (Ⅎ𝑥𝜑 ↔ Ⅎ𝑥 ¬ 𝜑)
Theorem	nfnbiOLD 1900	Obsolete version of nfnbi 1899 as of 1-Jul-2022. (Contributed by BJ, 6-May-2019.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) (New usage is discouraged.)
⊢ (Ⅎ𝑥𝜑 ↔ Ⅎ𝑥 ¬ 𝜑)