P. 21 of Theorem List - Metamath Proof Explorer

Theorem List for Metamath Proof Explorer - 2001-2100   *Has distinct variable group(s)

Type	Label	Description
Statement
Theorem	ax6ev 2001*	At least one individual exists. Weaker version of ax6e 2412. When possible, use of this theorem rather than ax6e 2412 is preferred since its derivation is much shorter and requires fewer axioms. (Contributed by NM, 3-Aug-2017.)
⊢ ∃𝑥 𝑥 = 𝑦
Theorem	spimw 2002*	Specialization. Lemma 8 of [KalishMontague] p. 87. Uses only Tarski's FOL axiom schemes. (Contributed by NM, 19-Apr-2017.) (Proof shortened by Wolf Lammen, 7-Aug-2017.)
⊢ (¬ 𝜓 → ∀𝑥 ¬ 𝜓)    &   ⊢ (𝑥 = 𝑦 → (𝜑 → 𝜓))    ⇒   ⊢ (∀𝑥𝜑 → 𝜓)
Theorem	spimew 2003*	Existential introduction, using implicit substitution. Compare Lemma 14 of [Tarski] p. 70. (Contributed by NM, 7-Aug-1994.) (Proof shortened by Wolf Lammen, 22-Oct-2023.)
⊢ (𝜑 → ∀𝑥𝜑)    &   ⊢ (𝑥 = 𝑦 → (𝜑 → 𝜓))    ⇒   ⊢ (𝜑 → ∃𝑥𝜓)
Theorem	speiv 2004*	Inference from existential specialization. (Contributed by NM, 19-Aug-1993.) Use spimew 2003. (Revised by Wolf Lammen, 22-Oct-2023.)
⊢ (𝑥 = 𝑦 → (𝜓 → 𝜑))    &   ⊢ 𝜓    ⇒   ⊢ ∃𝑥𝜑
Theorem	speivw 2005*	Version of spei 2423 with a disjoint variable condition, which does not require ax-13 2401 (neither ax-7 2040 nor ax-12 2212). (Contributed by BJ, 31-May-2019.)
⊢ (𝑥 = 𝑦 → (𝜑 ↔ 𝜓))    &   ⊢ 𝜓    ⇒   ⊢ ∃𝑥𝜑
Theorem	exgen 2006	Rule of existential generalization, similar to universal generalization ax-gen 1827, but valid only if an individual exists. Its proof requires ax-6 1999 in our axiomatization but the equality predicate does not occur in its statement. Some fundamental theorems of predicate calculus can be proven from ax-gen 1827, ax-4 1841 and this theorem alone, not requiring ax-7 2040 or excessive distinct variable conditions. (Contributed by Wolf Lammen, 12-Nov-2017.) (Proof shortened by Wolf Lammen, 20-Oct-2023.)
⊢ 𝜑    ⇒   ⊢ ∃𝑥𝜑
Theorem	extru 2007	There exists a variable such that ⊤ holds; that is, there exists a variable. This corresponds under the standard translation to one of the formulations of the modal axiom (D), the other being 19.2 2008. (Contributed by Anthony Hart, 13-Sep-2011.) (Proof shortened by BJ, 12-May-2019.)
⊢ ∃𝑥⊤
Theorem	19.2 2008	Theorem 19.2 of [Margaris] p. 89. This corresponds to the axiom (D) of modal logic (the other standard formulation being extru 2007). Note: This proof is very different from Margaris' because we only have Tarski's FOL axiom schemes available at this point. See the later 19.2g 2224 for a more conventional proof of a more general result, which uses additional axioms. The reverse implication is the defining property of effective nonfreeness (see df-nf 1816). (Contributed by NM, 2-Aug-2017.) Remove dependency on ax-7 2040. (Revised by Wolf Lammen, 4-Dec-2017.)
⊢ (∀𝑥𝜑 → ∃𝑥𝜑)
Theorem	19.2d 2009	Deduction associated with 19.2 2008. (Contributed by BJ, 12-May-2019.)
⊢ (𝜑 → ∀𝑥𝜓)    ⇒   ⊢ (𝜑 → ∃𝑥𝜓)
Theorem	19.8w 2010	Weak version of 19.8a 2217 and instance of 19.2d 2009. (Contributed by NM, 1-Aug-2017.) (Proof shortened by Wolf Lammen, 4-Dec-2017.)
⊢ (𝜑 → ∀𝑥𝜑)    ⇒   ⊢ (𝜑 → ∃𝑥𝜑)
Theorem	spnfw 2011	Weak version of sp 2219. Uses only Tarski's FOL axiom schemes. (Contributed by NM, 1-Aug-2017.) (Proof shortened by Wolf Lammen, 13-Aug-2017.)
⊢ (¬ 𝜑 → ∀𝑥 ¬ 𝜑)    ⇒   ⊢ (∀𝑥𝜑 → 𝜑)
Theorem	spfalw 2012	Version of sp 2219 when 𝜑 is false. Uses only Tarski's FOL axiom schemes. (Contributed by NM, 23-Apr-2017.) (Proof shortened by Wolf Lammen, 25-Dec-2017.)
⊢ ¬ 𝜑    ⇒   ⊢ (∀𝑥𝜑 → 𝜑)
Theorem	spvw 2013*	Version of sp 2219 when 𝑥 does not occur in 𝜑. Converse of ax-5 1942. Uses only Tarski's FOL axiom schemes. (Contributed by NM, 10-Apr-2017.) (Proof shortened by Wolf Lammen, 4-Dec-2017.) Shorten 19.3v 2014. (Revised by Wolf Lammen, 20-Oct-2023.)
⊢ (∀𝑥𝜑 → 𝜑)
Theorem	19.3v 2014*	Version of 19.3 2238 with a disjoint variable condition, requiring fewer axioms. Any formula can be universally quantified using a variable which it does not contain. See also 19.9v 2016. (Contributed by Anthony Hart, 13-Sep-2011.) Remove dependency on ax-7 2040. (Revised by Wolf Lammen, 4-Dec-2017.) (Proof shortened by Wolf Lammen, 20-Oct-2023.)
⊢ (∀𝑥𝜑 ↔ 𝜑)
Theorem	19.8v 2015*	Version of 19.8a 2217 with a disjoint variable condition, requiring fewer axioms. Converse of ax5e 1944. (Contributed by BJ, 12-Mar-2020.)
⊢ (𝜑 → ∃𝑥𝜑)
Theorem	19.9v 2016*	Version of 19.9 2241 with a disjoint variable condition, requiring fewer axioms. Any formula can be existentially quantified using a variable which it does not contain. See also 19.3v 2014. (Contributed by NM, 28-May-1995.) Remove dependency on ax-7 2040. (Revised by Wolf Lammen, 4-Dec-2017.)
⊢ (∃𝑥𝜑 ↔ 𝜑)
Theorem	spimevw 2017*	Existential introduction, using implicit substitution. This is to spimew 2003 what spimvw 2018 is to spimw 2002. Version of spimev 2421 and spimefv 2234 with an additional disjoint variable condition, using only Tarski's FOL axiom schemes. (Contributed by NM, 10-Jan-1993.) (Revised by BJ, 17-Mar-2020.)
⊢ (𝑥 = 𝑦 → (𝜑 → 𝜓))    ⇒   ⊢ (𝜑 → ∃𝑥𝜓)
Theorem	spimvw 2018*	A weak form of specialization. Lemma 8 of [KalishMontague] p. 87. Uses only Tarski's FOL axiom schemes. For stronger forms using more axioms, see spimv 2419 and spimfv 2275. (Contributed by NM, 9-Apr-2017.)
⊢ (𝑥 = 𝑦 → (𝜑 → 𝜓))    ⇒   ⊢ (∀𝑥𝜑 → 𝜓)
Theorem	spsv 2019*	Generalization of antecedent. A trivial weak version of sps 2221 avoiding ax-12 2212. (Contributed by SN, 13-Nov-2025.) (Proof shortened by WL, 19-Nov-2025.)
⊢ (𝜑 → 𝜓)    ⇒   ⊢ (∀𝑥𝜑 → 𝜓)
Theorem	spvv 2020*	Specialization, using implicit substitution. Version of spv 2422 with a disjoint variable condition, which does not require ax-7 2040, ax-12 2212, ax-13 2401. (Contributed by NM, 30-Aug-1993.) (Revised by BJ, 31-May-2019.)
⊢ (𝑥 = 𝑦 → (𝜑 ↔ 𝜓))    ⇒   ⊢ (∀𝑥𝜑 → 𝜓)
Theorem	chvarvv 2021*	Implicit substitution of 𝑦 for 𝑥 into a theorem. Version of chvarv 2425 with a disjoint variable condition, which does not require ax-13 2401. (Contributed by NM, 20-Apr-1994.) (Revised by BJ, 31-May-2019.)
⊢ (𝑥 = 𝑦 → (𝜑 ↔ 𝜓))    &   ⊢ 𝜑    ⇒   ⊢ 𝜓
Theorem	19.39 2022	Theorem 19.39 of [Margaris] p. 90. (Contributed by NM, 12-Mar-1993.)
⊢ ((∃𝑥𝜑 → ∃𝑥𝜓) → ∃𝑥(𝜑 → 𝜓))
Theorem	19.24 2023	Theorem 19.24 of [Margaris] p. 90. (Contributed by NM, 12-Mar-1993.)
⊢ ((∀𝑥𝜑 → ∀𝑥𝜓) → ∃𝑥(𝜑 → 𝜓))
Theorem	19.34 2024	Theorem 19.34 of [Margaris] p. 90. (Contributed by NM, 12-Mar-1993.)
⊢ ((∀𝑥𝜑 ∨ ∃𝑥𝜓) → ∃𝑥(𝜑 ∨ 𝜓))
Theorem	19.36v 2025*	Version of 19.36 2266 with a disjoint variable condition instead of a nonfreeness hypothesis. (Contributed by NM, 18-Aug-1993.) Reduce dependencies on axioms. (Revised by Wolf Lammen, 17-Jan-2020.)
⊢ (∃𝑥(𝜑 → 𝜓) ↔ (∀𝑥𝜑 → 𝜓))
Theorem	19.12vvv 2026*	Version of 19.12vv 2376 with a disjoint variable condition, requiring fewer axioms. See also 19.12 2357. (Contributed by BJ, 18-Mar-2020.)
⊢ (∃𝑥∀𝑦(𝜑 → 𝜓) ↔ ∀𝑦∃𝑥(𝜑 → 𝜓))
Theorem	19.27v 2027*	Version of 19.27 2263 with a disjoint variable condition, requiring fewer axioms. (Contributed by NM, 3-Jun-2004.)
⊢ (∀𝑥(𝜑 ∧ 𝜓) ↔ (∀𝑥𝜑 ∧ 𝜓))
Theorem	19.28v 2028*	Version of 19.28 2264 with a disjoint variable condition, requiring fewer axioms. (Contributed by NM, 25-Mar-2004.)
⊢ (∀𝑥(𝜑 ∧ 𝜓) ↔ (𝜑 ∧ ∀𝑥𝜓))
Theorem	19.37v 2029*	Version of 19.37 2268 with a disjoint variable condition, requiring fewer axioms. (Contributed by NM, 21-Jun-1993.)
⊢ (∃𝑥(𝜑 → 𝜓) ↔ (𝜑 → ∃𝑥𝜓))
Theorem	19.44v 2030*	Version of 19.44 2273 with a disjoint variable condition, requiring fewer axioms. (Contributed by NM, 12-Mar-1993.)
⊢ (∃𝑥(𝜑 ∨ 𝜓) ↔ (∃𝑥𝜑 ∨ 𝜓))
Theorem	19.45v 2031*	Version of 19.45 2274 with a disjoint variable condition, requiring fewer axioms. (Contributed by NM, 12-Mar-1993.)
⊢ (∃𝑥(𝜑 ∨ 𝜓) ↔ (𝜑 ∨ ∃𝑥𝜓))
Theorem	equs4v 2032*	Version of equs4 2445 with a disjoint variable condition, which requires fewer axioms. (Contributed by NM, 10-May-1993.) (Revised by BJ, 31-May-2019.)
⊢ (∀𝑥(𝑥 = 𝑦 → 𝜑) → ∃𝑥(𝑥 = 𝑦 ∧ 𝜑))
Theorem	alequexv 2033*	Version of equs4v 2032 with its consequence simplified by exsimpr 1901. (Contributed by BJ, 9-Nov-2021.)
⊢ (∀𝑥(𝑥 = 𝑦 → 𝜑) → ∃𝑥𝜑)
Theorem	exsbim 2034*	One direction of the equivalence in exsb 2388 is based on fewer axioms. (Contributed by Wolf Lammen, 2-Mar-2023.)
⊢ (∃𝑦∀𝑥(𝑥 = 𝑦 → 𝜑) → ∃𝑥𝜑)
Theorem	equsv 2035*	If a formula does not contain a variable 𝑥, then it is equivalent to the corresponding prototype of substitution with a fresh variable (see sb6 2121). (Contributed by BJ, 23-Jul-2023.)
⊢ (∀𝑥(𝑥 = 𝑦 → 𝜑) ↔ 𝜑)
Theorem	equsalvw 2036*	Version of equsalv 2301 with a disjoint variable condition, and of equsal 2446 with two disjoint variable conditions, which requires fewer axioms. See also the dual form equsexvw 2037. (Contributed by BJ, 31-May-2019.)
⊢ (𝑥 = 𝑦 → (𝜑 ↔ 𝜓))    ⇒   ⊢ (∀𝑥(𝑥 = 𝑦 → 𝜑) ↔ 𝜓)
Theorem	equsexvw 2037*	Version of equsexv 2302 with a disjoint variable condition, and of equsex 2447 with two disjoint variable conditions, which requires fewer axioms. See also the dual form equsalvw 2036. (Contributed by BJ, 31-May-2019.) (Proof shortened by Wolf Lammen, 23-Oct-2023.)
⊢ (𝑥 = 𝑦 → (𝜑 ↔ 𝜓))    ⇒   ⊢ (∃𝑥(𝑥 = 𝑦 ∧ 𝜑) ↔ 𝜓)
Theorem	cbvaliw 2038*	Change bound variable. Uses only Tarski's FOL axiom schemes. Part of Lemma 7 of [KalishMontague] p. 86. (Contributed by NM, 19-Apr-2017.)
⊢ (∀𝑥𝜑 → ∀𝑦∀𝑥𝜑)    &   ⊢ (¬ 𝜓 → ∀𝑥 ¬ 𝜓)    &   ⊢ (𝑥 = 𝑦 → (𝜑 → 𝜓))    ⇒   ⊢ (∀𝑥𝜑 → ∀𝑦𝜓)
Theorem	cbvalivw 2039*	Change bound variable. Uses only Tarski's FOL axiom schemes. Part of Lemma 7 of [KalishMontague] p. 86. (Contributed by NM, 9-Apr-2017.)
⊢ (𝑥 = 𝑦 → (𝜑 → 𝜓))    ⇒   ⊢ (∀𝑥𝜑 → ∀𝑦𝜓)
1.4.7  Axiom scheme ax-7 (Equality)
Axiom	ax-7 2040	Axiom of Equality. One of the equality and substitution axioms of predicate calculus with equality. It states that equality is a right-Euclidean binary relation (this is similar, but not identical, to being transitive, which is proved as equtr 2053). This axiom scheme is a sub-scheme of Axiom Scheme B8 of system S2 of [Tarski], p. 75, whose general form cannot be represented with our notation. Also appears as Axiom C7 of [Monk2] p. 105 and Axiom Scheme C8' in [Megill] p. 448 (p. 16 of the preprint). The equality symbol was invented in 1557 by Robert Recorde. He chose a pair of parallel lines of the same length because "noe .2. thynges, can be moare equalle". We prove in ax7 2048 that this axiom can be recovered from its weakened version ax7v 2041 where 𝑥 and 𝑦 are assumed to be disjoint variables. In particular, the only theorem referencing ax-7 2040 should be ax7v 2041. See the comment of ax7v 2041 for more details on these matters. (Contributed by NM, 10-Jan-1993.) (Revised by BJ, 7-Dec-2020.) Use ax7 2048 instead. (New usage is discouraged.)
⊢ (𝑥 = 𝑦 → (𝑥 = 𝑧 → 𝑦 = 𝑧))
Theorem	ax7v 2041*	Weakened version of ax-7 2040, with a disjoint variable condition on 𝑥, 𝑦. This should be the only proof referencing ax-7 2040, and it should be referenced only by its two weakened versions ax7v1 2042 and ax7v2 2043, from which ax-7 2040 is then rederived as ax7 2048, which shows that either ax7v 2041 or the conjunction of ax7v1 2042 and ax7v2 2043 is sufficient. In ax7v 2041, it is still allowed to substitute the same variable for 𝑥 and 𝑧, or the same variable for 𝑦 and 𝑧. Therefore, ax7v 2041 "bundles" (a term coined by Raph Levien) its "principal instance" (𝑥 = 𝑦 → (𝑥 = 𝑧 → 𝑦 = 𝑧)) with 𝑥, 𝑦, 𝑧 distinct, and its "degenerate instances" (𝑥 = 𝑦 → (𝑥 = 𝑥 → 𝑦 = 𝑥)) and (𝑥 = 𝑦 → (𝑥 = 𝑦 → 𝑦 = 𝑦)) with 𝑥, 𝑦 distinct. These degenerate instances are for instance used in the proofs of equcomiv 2046 and equid 2044 respectively. (Contributed by BJ, 7-Dec-2020.) Use ax7 2048 instead. (New usage is discouraged.)
⊢ (𝑥 = 𝑦 → (𝑥 = 𝑧 → 𝑦 = 𝑧))
Theorem	ax7v1 2042*	First of two weakened versions of ax7v 2041, with an extra disjoint variable condition on 𝑥, 𝑧, see comments there. (Contributed by BJ, 7-Dec-2020.)
⊢ (𝑥 = 𝑦 → (𝑥 = 𝑧 → 𝑦 = 𝑧))
Theorem	ax7v2 2043*	Second of two weakened versions of ax7v 2041, with an extra disjoint variable condition on 𝑦, 𝑧, see comments there. (Contributed by BJ, 7-Dec-2020.)
⊢ (𝑥 = 𝑦 → (𝑥 = 𝑧 → 𝑦 = 𝑧))
Theorem	equid 2044	Identity law for equality. Lemma 2 of [KalishMontague] p. 85. See also Lemma 6 of [Tarski] p. 68. (Contributed by NM, 1-Apr-2005.) (Revised by NM, 9-Apr-2017.) (Proof shortened by Wolf Lammen, 22-Aug-2020.)
⊢ 𝑥 = 𝑥
Theorem	nfequid 2045	Bound-variable hypothesis builder for 𝑥 = 𝑥. This theorem tells us that any variable, including 𝑥, is effectively not free in 𝑥 = 𝑥, even though 𝑥 is technically free according to the traditional definition of free variable. (Contributed by NM, 13-Jan-2011.) (Revised by NM, 21-Aug-2017.)
⊢ Ⅎ𝑦 𝑥 = 𝑥
Theorem	equcomiv 2046*	Weaker form of equcomi 2049 with a disjoint variable condition on 𝑥, 𝑦. This is an intermediate step and equcomi 2049 is fully recovered later. (Contributed by BJ, 7-Dec-2020.)
⊢ (𝑥 = 𝑦 → 𝑦 = 𝑥)
Theorem	ax6evr 2047*	A commuted form of ax6ev 2001. (Contributed by BJ, 7-Dec-2020.)
⊢ ∃𝑥 𝑦 = 𝑥
Theorem	ax7 2048	Proof of ax-7 2040 from ax7v1 2042 and ax7v2 2043 (and earlier axioms), proving sufficiency of the conjunction of the latter two weakened versions of ax7v 2041, which is itself a weakened version of ax-7 2040. Note that the weakened version of ax-7 2040 obtained by adding a disjoint variable condition on 𝑥, 𝑧 (resp. on 𝑦, 𝑧) does not permit, together with the other axioms, to prove reflexivity (resp. symmetry). (Contributed by BJ, 7-Dec-2020.)
⊢ (𝑥 = 𝑦 → (𝑥 = 𝑧 → 𝑦 = 𝑧))
Theorem	equcomi 2049	Commutative law for equality. Equality is a symmetric relation. Lemma 3 of [KalishMontague] p. 85. See also Lemma 7 of [Tarski] p. 69. (Contributed by NM, 10-Jan-1993.) (Revised by NM, 9-Apr-2017.)
⊢ (𝑥 = 𝑦 → 𝑦 = 𝑥)
Theorem	equcom 2050	Commutative law for equality. Equality is a symmetric relation. (Contributed by NM, 20-Aug-1993.)
⊢ (𝑥 = 𝑦 ↔ 𝑦 = 𝑥)
Theorem	equcomd 2051	Deduction form of equcom 2050, symmetry of equality. For the versions for classes, see eqcom 2767 and eqcomd 2766. (Contributed by BJ, 6-Oct-2019.)
⊢ (𝜑 → 𝑥 = 𝑦)    ⇒   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝑦 = 𝑥)
Theorem	equcoms 2052	An inference commuting equality in antecedent. Used to eliminate the need for a syllogism. (Contributed by NM, 10-Jan-1993.)
⊢ (𝑥 = 𝑦 → 𝜑)    ⇒   ⊢ (𝑦 = 𝑥 → 𝜑)
Theorem	equtr 2053	A transitive law for equality. (Contributed by NM, 23-Aug-1993.)
⊢ (𝑥 = 𝑦 → (𝑦 = 𝑧 → 𝑥 = 𝑧))
Theorem	equtrr 2054	A transitive law for equality. Lemma L17 in [Megill] p. 446 (p. 14 of the preprint). (Contributed by NM, 23-Aug-1993.)
⊢ (𝑥 = 𝑦 → (𝑧 = 𝑥 → 𝑧 = 𝑦))
Theorem	equeuclr 2055	Commuted version of equeucl 2056 (equality is left-Euclidean). (Contributed by BJ, 12-Apr-2021.)
⊢ (𝑥 = 𝑧 → (𝑦 = 𝑧 → 𝑦 = 𝑥))
Theorem	equeucl 2056	Equality is a left-Euclidean binary relation. (Right-Euclideanness is stated in ax-7 2040.) Curried (exported) form of equtr2 2059. (Contributed by BJ, 11-Apr-2021.)
⊢ (𝑥 = 𝑧 → (𝑦 = 𝑧 → 𝑥 = 𝑦))
Theorem	equequ1 2057	An equivalence law for equality. (Contributed by NM, 1-Aug-1993.) (Proof shortened by Wolf Lammen, 10-Dec-2017.)
⊢ (𝑥 = 𝑦 → (𝑥 = 𝑧 ↔ 𝑦 = 𝑧))
Theorem	equequ2 2058	An equivalence law for equality. (Contributed by NM, 21-Jun-1993.) (Proof shortened by Wolf Lammen, 4-Aug-2017.) (Proof shortened by BJ, 12-Apr-2021.)
⊢ (𝑥 = 𝑦 → (𝑧 = 𝑥 ↔ 𝑧 = 𝑦))
Theorem	equtr2 2059	Equality is a left-Euclidean binary relation. Uncurried (imported) form of equeucl 2056. (Contributed by NM, 12-Aug-1993.) (Proof shortened by Andrew Salmon, 25-May-2011.) (Proof shortened by BJ, 11-Apr-2021.)
⊢ ((𝑥 = 𝑧 ∧ 𝑦 = 𝑧) → 𝑥 = 𝑦)
Theorem	stdpc6 2060	One of the two equality axioms of standard predicate calculus, called reflexivity of equality. (The other one is stdpc7 2285.) Axiom 6 of [Mendelson] p. 95. Mendelson doesn't say why he prepended the redundant quantifier, but it was probably to be compatible with free logic (which is valid in the empty domain). (Contributed by NM, 16-Feb-2005.)
⊢ ∀𝑥 𝑥 = 𝑥
Theorem	equvinv 2061*	A variable introduction law for equality. Lemma 15 of [Monk2] p. 109. (Contributed by NM, 9-Jan-1993.) Remove dependencies on ax-10 2177, ax-13 2401. (Revised by Wolf Lammen, 10-Jun-2019.) Move the quantified variable (𝑧) to the left of the equality signs. (Revised by Wolf Lammen, 11-Apr-2021.) (Proof shortened by Wolf Lammen, 12-Jul-2022.)
⊢ (𝑥 = 𝑦 ↔ ∃𝑧(𝑧 = 𝑥 ∧ 𝑧 = 𝑦))
Theorem	equvinva 2062*	A modified version of the forward implication of equvinv 2061 adapted to common usage. (Contributed by Wolf Lammen, 8-Sep-2018.)
⊢ (𝑥 = 𝑦 → ∃𝑧(𝑥 = 𝑧 ∧ 𝑦 = 𝑧))
Theorem	equvelv 2063*	A biconditional form of equvel 2485 with disjoint variable conditions and proved from Tarski's FOL axiom schemes. (Contributed by Andrew Salmon, 2-Jun-2011.) Reduce axiom usage. (Revised by Wolf Lammen, 10-Apr-2021.) (Proof shortened by Wolf Lammen, 12-Jul-2022.)
⊢ (∀𝑧(𝑧 = 𝑥 → 𝑧 = 𝑦) ↔ 𝑥 = 𝑦)
Theorem	ax13b 2064	An equivalence between two ways of expressing ax-13 2401. See the comment for ax-13 2401. (Contributed by NM, 2-May-2017.) (Proof shortened by Wolf Lammen, 26-Feb-2018.) (Revised by BJ, 15-Sep-2020.)
⊢ ((¬ 𝑥 = 𝑦 → (𝑦 = 𝑧 → 𝜑)) ↔ (¬ 𝑥 = 𝑦 → (¬ 𝑥 = 𝑧 → (𝑦 = 𝑧 → 𝜑))))
Theorem	spfw 2065*	Weak version of sp 2219. Uses only Tarski's FOL axiom schemes. Lemma 9 of [KalishMontague] p. 87. This may be the best we can do with minimal distinct variable conditions. (Contributed by NM, 19-Apr-2017.) (Proof shortened by Wolf Lammen, 10-Oct-2021.)
⊢ (¬ 𝜓 → ∀𝑥 ¬ 𝜓)    &   ⊢ (∀𝑥𝜑 → ∀𝑦∀𝑥𝜑)    &   ⊢ (¬ 𝜑 → ∀𝑦 ¬ 𝜑)    &   ⊢ (𝑥 = 𝑦 → (𝜑 ↔ 𝜓))    ⇒   ⊢ (∀𝑥𝜑 → 𝜑)
Theorem	spw 2066*	Weak version of the specialization scheme sp 2219. Lemma 9 of [KalishMontague] p. 87. While it appears that sp 2219 in its general form does not follow from Tarski's FOL axiom schemes, from this theorem we can prove any instance of sp 2219 having mutually distinct setvar variables and no wff metavariables (see ax12wdemo 2171 for an example of the procedure to eliminate the hypothesis). Other approximations of sp 2219 are spfw 2065 (minimal distinct variable requirements), spnfw 2011 (when 𝑥 is not free in ¬ 𝜑), spvw 2013 (when 𝑥 does not appear in 𝜑), sptruw 1838 (when 𝜑 is true), spfalw 2012 (when 𝜑 is false), and spvv 2020 (where 𝜑 is changed into 𝜓). (Contributed by NM, 9-Apr-2017.) (Proof shortened by Wolf Lammen, 27-Feb-2018.)
⊢ (𝑥 = 𝑦 → (𝜑 ↔ 𝜓))    ⇒   ⊢ (∀𝑥𝜑 → 𝜑)
Theorem	cbvalw 2067*	Change bound variable. Uses only Tarski's FOL axiom schemes. (Contributed by NM, 9-Apr-2017.)
⊢ (∀𝑥𝜑 → ∀𝑦∀𝑥𝜑)    &   ⊢ (¬ 𝜓 → ∀𝑥 ¬ 𝜓)    &   ⊢ (∀𝑦𝜓 → ∀𝑥∀𝑦𝜓)    &   ⊢ (¬ 𝜑 → ∀𝑦 ¬ 𝜑)    &   ⊢ (𝑥 = 𝑦 → (𝜑 ↔ 𝜓))    ⇒   ⊢ (∀𝑥𝜑 ↔ ∀𝑦𝜓)
Theorem	cbvalvw 2068*	Change bound variable. Uses only Tarski's FOL axiom schemes. See cbvalv 2429 for a version with fewer disjoint variable conditions but requiring more axioms. (Contributed by NM, 9-Apr-2017.) (Proof shortened by Wolf Lammen, 28-Feb-2018.)
⊢ (𝑥 = 𝑦 → (𝜑 ↔ 𝜓))    ⇒   ⊢ (∀𝑥𝜑 ↔ ∀𝑦𝜓)
Theorem	cbvexvw 2069*	Change bound variable. Uses only Tarski's FOL axiom schemes. See cbvexv 2430 for a version with fewer disjoint variable conditions but requiring more axioms. (Contributed by NM, 19-Apr-2017.)
⊢ (𝑥 = 𝑦 → (𝜑 ↔ 𝜓))    ⇒   ⊢ (∃𝑥𝜑 ↔ ∃𝑦𝜓)
Theorem	cbvaldvaw 2070*	Rule used to change the bound variable in a universal quantifier with implicit substitution. Deduction form. Version of cbvaldva 2438 with a disjoint variable condition, requiring fewer axioms. (Contributed by David Moews, 1-May-2017.) Avoid ax-13 2401. (Revised by GG, 10-Jan-2024.) Reduce axiom usage, along an idea of GG. (Revised by Wolf Lammen, 10-Feb-2024.)
⊢ ((𝜑 ∧ 𝑥 = 𝑦) → (𝜓 ↔ 𝜒))    ⇒   ⊢ (𝜑 → (∀𝑥𝜓 ↔ ∀𝑦𝜒))
Theorem	cbvexdvaw 2071*	Rule used to change the bound variable in an existential quantifier with implicit substitution. Deduction form. Version of cbvexdva 2439 with a disjoint variable condition, requiring fewer axioms. (Contributed by David Moews, 1-May-2017.) Avoid ax-13 2401. (Revised by GG, 10-Jan-2024.) Reduce axiom usage. (Revised by Wolf Lammen, 10-Feb-2024.)
⊢ ((𝜑 ∧ 𝑥 = 𝑦) → (𝜓 ↔ 𝜒))    ⇒   ⊢ (𝜑 → (∃𝑥𝜓 ↔ ∃𝑦𝜒))
Theorem	cbval2vw 2072*	Rule used to change bound variables, using implicit substitution. Version of cbval2vv 2442 with more disjoint variable conditions, which requires fewer axioms . (Contributed by NM, 4-Feb-2005.) Avoid ax-13 2401. (Revised by GG, 10-Jan-2024.)
⊢ ((𝑥 = 𝑧 ∧ 𝑦 = 𝑤) → (𝜑 ↔ 𝜓))    ⇒   ⊢ (∀𝑥∀𝑦𝜑 ↔ ∀𝑧∀𝑤𝜓)
Theorem	cbvex2vw 2073*	Rule used to change bound variables, using implicit substitution. Version of cbvex2vv 2443 with more disjoint variable conditions, which requires fewer axioms . (Contributed by NM, 26-Jul-1995.) Avoid ax-13 2401. (Revised by GG, 10-Jan-2024.)
⊢ ((𝑥 = 𝑧 ∧ 𝑦 = 𝑤) → (𝜑 ↔ 𝜓))    ⇒   ⊢ (∃𝑥∃𝑦𝜑 ↔ ∃𝑧∃𝑤𝜓)
Theorem	cbvex4vw 2074*	Rule used to change bound variables, using implicit substitution. Version of cbvex4v 2444 with more disjoint variable conditions, which requires fewer axioms. (Contributed by NM, 26-Jul-1995.) Avoid ax-13 2401. (Revised by GG, 10-Jan-2024.)
⊢ ((𝑥 = 𝑣 ∧ 𝑦 = 𝑢) → (𝜑 ↔ 𝜓))    &   ⊢ ((𝑧 = 𝑓 ∧ 𝑤 = 𝑔) → (𝜓 ↔ 𝜒))    ⇒   ⊢ (∃𝑥∃𝑦∃𝑧∃𝑤𝜑 ↔ ∃𝑣∃𝑢∃𝑓∃𝑔𝜒)
Theorem	alcomimw 2075*	Weak version of ax-11 2193. See alcomw 2077 for the biconditional form. Uses only Tarski's FOL axiom schemes. (Contributed by NM, 10-Apr-2017.) (Proof shortened by Wolf Lammen, 28-Dec-2023.)
⊢ (𝑦 = 𝑧 → (𝜑 ↔ 𝜓))    ⇒   ⊢ (∀𝑥∀𝑦𝜑 → ∀𝑦∀𝑥𝜑)
Theorem	excomimw 2076*	Weak version of excomim 2199. Uses only Tarski's FOL axiom schemes. (Contributed by BTernaryTau, 23-Jun-2025.)
⊢ (𝑥 = 𝑧 → (𝜑 ↔ 𝜓))    ⇒   ⊢ (∃𝑥∃𝑦𝜑 → ∃𝑦∃𝑥𝜑)
Theorem	alcomw 2077*	Weak version of alcom 2195 and biconditional form of alcomimw 2075. Uses only Tarski's FOL axiom schemes. (Contributed by BTernaryTau, 28-Dec-2024.)
⊢ (𝑥 = 𝑤 → (𝜑 ↔ 𝜓))    &   ⊢ (𝑦 = 𝑧 → (𝜑 ↔ 𝜒))    ⇒   ⊢ (∀𝑥∀𝑦𝜑 ↔ ∀𝑦∀𝑥𝜑)
Theorem	excomw 2078*	Weak version of excom 2198 and biconditional form of excomimw 2076. Uses only Tarski's FOL axiom schemes. (Contributed by TM, 24-Jan-2026.)
⊢ (𝑥 = 𝑤 → (𝜑 ↔ 𝜓))    &   ⊢ (𝑦 = 𝑧 → (𝜑 ↔ 𝜒))    ⇒   ⊢ (∃𝑥∃𝑦𝜑 ↔ ∃𝑦∃𝑥𝜑)
Theorem	hbn1fw 2079*	Weak version of ax-10 2177 from which we can prove any ax-10 2177 instance not involving wff variables or bundling. Uses only Tarski's FOL axiom schemes. (Contributed by NM, 19-Apr-2017.) (Proof shortened by Wolf Lammen, 28-Feb-2018.)
⊢ (∀𝑥𝜑 → ∀𝑦∀𝑥𝜑)    &   ⊢ (¬ 𝜓 → ∀𝑥 ¬ 𝜓)    &   ⊢ (∀𝑦𝜓 → ∀𝑥∀𝑦𝜓)    &   ⊢ (¬ 𝜑 → ∀𝑦 ¬ 𝜑)    &   ⊢ (¬ ∀𝑦𝜓 → ∀𝑥 ¬ ∀𝑦𝜓)    &   ⊢ (𝑥 = 𝑦 → (𝜑 ↔ 𝜓))    ⇒   ⊢ (¬ ∀𝑥𝜑 → ∀𝑥 ¬ ∀𝑥𝜑)
Theorem	hbn1w 2080*	Weak version of hbn1 2178. Uses only Tarski's FOL axiom schemes. (Contributed by NM, 9-Apr-2017.)
⊢ (𝑥 = 𝑦 → (𝜑 ↔ 𝜓))    ⇒   ⊢ (¬ ∀𝑥𝜑 → ∀𝑥 ¬ ∀𝑥𝜑)
Theorem	hba1w 2081*	Weak version of hba1 2326. See comments for ax10w 2165. Uses only Tarski's FOL axiom schemes. (Contributed by NM, 9-Apr-2017.) (Proof shortened by Wolf Lammen, 10-Oct-2021.)
⊢ (𝑥 = 𝑦 → (𝜑 ↔ 𝜓))    ⇒   ⊢ (∀𝑥𝜑 → ∀𝑥∀𝑥𝜑)
Theorem	hbe1w 2082*	Weak version of hbe1 2179. See comments for ax10w 2165. Uses only Tarski's FOL axiom schemes. (Contributed by NM, 19-Apr-2017.)
⊢ (𝑥 = 𝑦 → (𝜑 ↔ 𝜓))    ⇒   ⊢ (∃𝑥𝜑 → ∀𝑥∃𝑥𝜑)
Theorem	hbalw 2083*	Weak version of hbal 2203. Uses only Tarski's FOL axiom schemes. Unlike hbal 2203, this theorem requires that 𝑥 and 𝑦 be distinct, i.e., not be bundled. (Contributed by NM, 19-Apr-2017.)
⊢ (𝑥 = 𝑧 → (𝜑 ↔ 𝜓))    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → ∀𝑥𝜑)    ⇒   ⊢ (∀𝑦𝜑 → ∀𝑥∀𝑦𝜑)
Theorem	19.8aw 2084*	If a formula is true, then it is true for at least one instance. This is to 19.8a 2217 what spw 2066 is to sp 2219. (Contributed by SN, 26-Sep-2024.)
⊢ (𝑥 = 𝑦 → (𝜑 ↔ 𝜓))    ⇒   ⊢ (𝜑 → ∃𝑥𝜑)
Theorem	exexw 2085*	Existential quantification over a given variable is idempotent. Weak version of bj-exexbiex 37677, requiring fewer axioms. (Contributed by GG, 4-Nov-2024.)
⊢ (𝑥 = 𝑦 → (𝜑 ↔ 𝜓))    ⇒   ⊢ (∃𝑥𝜑 ↔ ∃𝑥∃𝑥𝜑)
Theorem	spaev 2086*	A special instance of sp 2219 applied to an equality with a disjoint variable condition. Unlike the more general sp 2219, we can prove this without ax-12 2212. Instance of aeveq 2090. The antecedent ∀𝑥𝑥 = 𝑦 with distinct 𝑥 and 𝑦 is a characteristic of a degenerate universe, in which just one object exists. Actually more than one object may still exist, but if so, we give up on equality as a discriminating term. Separating this degenerate case from a richer universe, where inequality is possible, is a common proof idea. The name of this theorem follows a convention, where the condition ∀𝑥𝑥 = 𝑦 is denoted by 'aev', a shorthand for 'all equal, with a distinct variable condition'. (Contributed by Wolf Lammen, 14-Mar-2021.)
⊢ (∀𝑥 𝑥 = 𝑦 → 𝑥 = 𝑦)
Theorem	cbvaev 2087*	Change bound variable in an equality with a disjoint variable condition. Instance of aev 2091. (Contributed by NM, 22-Jul-2015.) (Revised by BJ, 18-Jun-2019.)
⊢ (∀𝑥 𝑥 = 𝑦 → ∀𝑧 𝑧 = 𝑦)
Theorem	aevlem0 2088*	Lemma for aevlem 2089. Instance of aev 2091. (Contributed by NM, 8-Jul-2016.) (Proof shortened by Wolf Lammen, 17-Feb-2018.) Remove dependency on ax-12 2212. (Revised by Wolf Lammen, 14-Mar-2021.) Extract from proof of a former lemma for axc11n 2455 and add DV condition to reduce axiom usage. (Revised by BJ, 29-Mar-2021.) (Proof shortened by Wolf Lammen, 30-Mar-2021.)
⊢ (∀𝑥 𝑥 = 𝑦 → ∀𝑧 𝑧 = 𝑥)
Theorem	aevlem 2089*	Lemma for aev 2091 and axc16g 2294. Change free and bound variables. Instance of aev 2091. (Contributed by NM, 22-Jul-2015.) (Proof shortened by Wolf Lammen, 17-Feb-2018.) Remove dependency on ax-13 2401, along an idea of BJ. (Revised by Wolf Lammen, 30-Nov-2019.) Reduce axiom usage. (Revised by BJ, 29-Mar-2021.)
⊢ (∀𝑥 𝑥 = 𝑦 → ∀𝑧 𝑧 = 𝑡)
Theorem	aeveq 2090*	The antecedent ∀𝑥𝑥 = 𝑦 with a disjoint variable condition (typical of a one-object universe) forces equality of everything. (Contributed by Wolf Lammen, 19-Mar-2021.)
⊢ (∀𝑥 𝑥 = 𝑦 → 𝑧 = 𝑡)
Theorem	aev 2091*	A "distinctor elimination" lemma with no disjoint variable conditions on variables in the consequent. (Contributed by NM, 8-Nov-2006.) Remove dependency on ax-11 2193. (Revised by Wolf Lammen, 7-Sep-2018.) Remove dependency on ax-13 2401, inspired by an idea of BJ. (Revised by Wolf Lammen, 30-Nov-2019.) Remove dependency on ax-12 2212. (Revised by Wolf Lammen, 19-Mar-2021.)
⊢ (∀𝑥 𝑥 = 𝑦 → ∀𝑧 𝑡 = 𝑢)
Theorem	aev2 2092*	A version of aev 2091 with two universal quantifiers in the consequent. One can prove similar statements with arbitrary numbers of universal quantifiers in the consequent (the series begins with aeveq 2090, aev 2091, aev2 2092). Using aev 2091 and alrimiv 1959, one can actually prove (with no more axioms) any scheme of the form (∀𝑥𝑥 = 𝑦 → PHI) , DV (𝑥, 𝑦) where PHI involves only setvar variables and the connectors →, ↔, ∧, ∨, ⊤, =, ∀, ∃, ∃*, ∃!, Ⅎ. An example is given by aevdemo 31062. This list cannot be extended to ¬ or ⊥ since the scheme ∀𝑥𝑥 = 𝑦 is consistent with ax-mp 5, ax-gen 1827, ax-1 6-- ax-13 2401 (as the one-element universe shows), so for instance (∀𝑥𝑥 = 𝑦 → ⊥), DV (𝑥, 𝑦) is not provable from these axioms alone (indeed, dtru 5404 uses non-logical axioms as well). (Contributed by BJ, 23-Mar-2021.)
⊢ (∀𝑥 𝑥 = 𝑦 → ∀𝑧∀𝑡 𝑢 = 𝑣)
Theorem	hbaev 2093*	All variables are effectively bound in an identical variable specifier. Version of hbae 2460 with a disjoint variable condition, requiring fewer axioms. Instance of aev2 2092. (Contributed by NM, 13-May-1993.) Reduce axiom usage. (Revised by Wolf Lammen, 22-Mar-2021.)
⊢ (∀𝑥 𝑥 = 𝑦 → ∀𝑧∀𝑥 𝑥 = 𝑦)
Theorem	naev 2094*	If some set variables can assume different values, then any two distinct set variables cannot always be the same. (Contributed by Wolf Lammen, 10-Aug-2019.)
⊢ (¬ ∀𝑥 𝑥 = 𝑦 → ¬ ∀𝑢 𝑢 = 𝑣)
Theorem	naev2 2095*	Generalization of hbnaev 2096. (Contributed by Wolf Lammen, 9-Apr-2021.)
⊢ (¬ ∀𝑥 𝑥 = 𝑦 → ∀𝑧 ¬ ∀𝑡 𝑡 = 𝑢)
Theorem	hbnaev 2096*	Any variable is free in ¬ ∀𝑥𝑥 = 𝑦, if 𝑥 and 𝑦 are distinct. This condition is dropped in hbnae 2461, at the expense of more axiom dependencies. Instance of naev2 2095. (Contributed by NM, 13-May-1993.) (Revised by Wolf Lammen, 9-Apr-2021.)
⊢ (¬ ∀𝑥 𝑥 = 𝑦 → ∀𝑧 ¬ ∀𝑥 𝑥 = 𝑦)
1.4.8  Define proper substitution
Theorem	sbjust 2097*	Justification theorem for df-sb 2099 proved from Tarski's FOL axiom schemes. (Contributed by BJ, 22-Jan-2023.)
⊢ (∀𝑦(𝑦 = 𝑡 → ∀𝑥(𝑥 = 𝑦 → 𝜑)) ↔ ∀𝑧(𝑧 = 𝑡 → ∀𝑥(𝑥 = 𝑧 → 𝜑)))
Syntax	wsb 2098	Extend wff definition to include proper substitution. Read: "the wff that results when 𝑦 is properly substituted for 𝑥 in wff 𝜑". (Contributed by NM, 24-Jan-2006.)
wff [𝑦 / 𝑥]𝜑
Definition	df-sb 2099*	Define proper substitution. For our notation, we use [𝑡 / 𝑥]𝜑 to mean "the wff that results from the proper substitution of 𝑡 for 𝑥 in the wff 𝜑". That is, 𝑡 properly replaces 𝑥. For example, [𝑡 / 𝑥]𝑧 ∈ 𝑥 is the same as 𝑧 ∈ 𝑡 (when 𝑥 and 𝑧 are distinct), as shown in elsb2 2161. Our notation was introduced in Haskell B. Curry's Foundations of Mathematical Logic (1977), p. 316 and is frequently used in textbooks of lambda calculus and combinatory logic. This notation improves the common but ambiguous notation, "𝜑(𝑡) is the wff that results when 𝑡 is properly substituted for 𝑥 in 𝜑(𝑥)". For example, if the original 𝜑(𝑥) is 𝑥 = 𝑡, then 𝜑(𝑡) is 𝑡 = 𝑡, from which we obtain that 𝜑(𝑥) is 𝑥 = 𝑥. So what exactly does 𝜑(𝑥) mean? Curry's notation solves this problem. A very similar notation, namely (𝑦 ∣ 𝑥)𝜑, was introduced in Bourbaki's Set Theory (Chapter 1, Description of Formal Mathematic, 1953). In most books, proper substitution has a somewhat complicated recursive definition with multiple cases based on the occurrences of free and bound variables in the wff. Instead, we use a single formula that is exactly equivalent and gives us a direct definition. We later prove that our definition has the properties we expect of proper substitution (see Theorems sbequ 2119, sbcom2 2208 and sbid2v 2538). Note that our definition is valid even when 𝑥 and 𝑡 are replaced with the same variable, as sbid 2290 shows. We achieve this by applying twice Tarski's definition sb6 2121 which is valid for disjoint variables, and introducing a dummy variable 𝑦 which isolates 𝑥 from 𝑡, as in dfsb7 2312 with respect to sb5 2309. We can also achieve this by having 𝑥 free in the first conjunct and bound in the second, as the alternate definition dfsb1 2510 shows. Another version that mixes free and bound variables is dfsb3 2523. When 𝑥 and 𝑡 are distinct, we can express proper substitution with the simpler expressions of sb5 2309 and sb6 2121. Note that the occurrences of a given variable in the definiens are either all bound (𝑥, 𝑦) or all free (𝑡). Also note that the definiens uses only primitive symbols. This double level definition will make several proofs using it appear as doubled. Alternately, one could often first prove as a lemma the same theorem with a disjoint variable condition on the substitute and the substituted variables, and then prove the original theorem by applying this lemma twice in a row. The hypothesis asserts that the definition is independent of the particular choice of the dummy variable 𝑦. Without this hypothesis, sbjust 2097 would be derivable from propositional axioms alone: one could apply the definiens for [𝑡 / 𝑥]𝜑 twice, using different dummy variables 𝑦 and 𝑧, and then invoke bitr3i 280 to establish their equivalence. This would jeopardize the independence of axioms, as demonstrated in an analoguous situation involving df-ss 3896 to prove ax-8 2146 (see in-ax8 37088). Prefer dfsb 2100 unless you can prove the hypothesis from fewer axioms in special cases, see sbt 2102. (Contributed by NM, 10-May-1993.) Revised from the original definition dfsb1 2510. (Revised by BJ, 22-Dec-2020.) Add the justification hypothesis. (Revised by Wolf Lammen, 4-Feb-2026.)
⊢ (∀𝑦(𝑦 = 𝑡 → ∀𝑥(𝑥 = 𝑦 → 𝜑)) ↔ ∀𝑧(𝑧 = 𝑡 → ∀𝑥(𝑥 = 𝑧 → 𝜑)))    ⇒   ⊢ ([𝑡 / 𝑥]𝜑 ↔ ∀𝑦(𝑦 = 𝑡 → ∀𝑥(𝑥 = 𝑦 → 𝜑)))
Theorem	dfsb 2100*	Simplify definition df-sb 2099 by removing its provable hypothesis. (Contributed by Wolf Lammen, 5-Feb-2026.)
⊢ ([𝑡 / 𝑥]𝜑 ↔ ∀𝑦(𝑦 = 𝑡 → ∀𝑥(𝑥 = 𝑦 → 𝜑)))