P. 22 of Theorem List - Metamath Proof Explorer

Theorem List for Metamath Proof Explorer - 2101-2200   *Has distinct variable group(s)

Type	Label	Description
Statement
Theorem	equsb3r 2101*	Substitution applied to the atomic wff with equality. Variant of equsb3 2100. (Contributed by AV, 29-Jul-2023.) (Proof shortened by Wolf Lammen, 2-Sep-2023.)
⊢ ([𝑦 / 𝑥]𝑧 = 𝑥 ↔ 𝑧 = 𝑦)
Theorem	equsb1v 2102*	Substitution applied to an atomic wff. Version of equsb1 2493 with a disjoint variable condition, which neither requires ax-12 2174 nor ax-13 2374. (Contributed by NM, 10-May-1993.) (Revised by BJ, 11-Sep-2019.) Remove dependencies on axioms. (Revised by Wolf Lammen, 30-May-2023.) (Proof shortened by Steven Nguyen, 19-Jun-2023.) Revise df-sb 2062. (Revised by Steven Nguyen, 11-Jul-2023.) (Proof shortened by Steven Nguyen, 22-Jul-2023.)
⊢ [𝑦 / 𝑥]𝑥 = 𝑦
Theorem	nsb 2103	Any substitution in an always false formula is false. (Contributed by Steven Nguyen, 3-May-2023.)
⊢ (∀𝑥 ¬ 𝜑 → ¬ [𝑡 / 𝑥]𝜑)
Theorem	sbn1 2104	One direction of sbn 2278, using fewer axioms. Compare 19.2 1973. (Contributed by Steven Nguyen, 18-Aug-2023.)
⊢ ([𝑡 / 𝑥] ¬ 𝜑 → ¬ [𝑡 / 𝑥]𝜑)
1.4.9  Membership predicate
Syntax	wcel 2105	Extend wff definition to include the membership connective between classes. For a general discussion of the theory of classes, see mmset.html#class. The purpose of introducing wff 𝐴 ∈ 𝐵 here is to allow to prove the wel 2106 of predicate calculus in terms of the wcel 2105 of set theory, so that we do not overload the ∈ connective with two syntax definitions. This is done to prevent ambiguity that would complicate some Metamath parsers. The class variables 𝐴 and 𝐵 are introduced temporarily for the purpose of this definition but otherwise not used in predicate calculus. See df-clab 2712 for more information on the set theory usage of wcel 2105.
wff 𝐴 ∈ 𝐵
Theorem	wel 2106	Extend wff definition to include atomic formulas with the membership predicate. This is read either "𝑥 is an element of 𝑦", or "𝑥 is a member of 𝑦", or "𝑥 belongs to 𝑦", or "𝑦 contains 𝑥". Note: The phrase "𝑦 includes 𝑥 " means "𝑥 is a subset of 𝑦"; to use it also for 𝑥 ∈ 𝑦, as some authors occasionally do, is poor form and causes confusion, according to George Boolos (1992 lecture at MIT). This syntactic construction introduces a binary non-logical predicate symbol ∈ (stylized lowercase epsilon) into our predicate calculus. We will eventually use it for the membership predicate of set theory, but that is irrelevant at this point: the predicate calculus axioms for ∈ apply to any arbitrary binary predicate symbol. "Non-logical" means that the predicate is presumed to have additional properties beyond the realm of predicate calculus, although these additional properties are not specified by predicate calculus itself but rather by the axioms of a theory (in our case set theory) added to predicate calculus. "Binary" means that the predicate has two arguments. Instead of introducing wel 2106 as an axiomatic statement, as was done in an older version of this database, we introduce it by "proving" a special case of set theory's more general wcel 2105. This lets us avoid overloading the ∈ connective, thus preventing ambiguity that would complicate certain Metamath parsers. However, logically wel 2106 is considered to be a primitive syntax, even though here it is artificially "derived" from wcel 2105. Note: To see the proof steps of this syntax proof, type "MM> SHOW PROOF wel / ALL" in the Metamath program. (Contributed by NM, 24-Jan-2006.)
wff 𝑥 ∈ 𝑦
1.4.10  Axiom scheme ax-8 (Left Equality for Binary Predicate)
Axiom	ax-8 2107	Axiom of Left Equality for Binary Predicate. One of the equality and substitution axioms for a non-logical predicate in our predicate calculus with equality. It substitutes equal variables into the left-hand side of an arbitrary binary predicate ∈, which we will use for the set membership relation when set theory is introduced. 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 scheme C12' in [Megill] p. 448 (p. 16 of the preprint). "Non-logical" means that the predicate is not a primitive of predicate calculus proper but instead is an extension to it. "Binary" means that the predicate has two arguments. In a system of predicate calculus with equality, like ours, equality is not usually considered to be a non-logical predicate. In systems of predicate calculus without equality, it typically would be. We prove in ax8 2111 that this axiom can be recovered from its weakened version ax8v 2108 where 𝑥 and 𝑦 are assumed to be disjoint variables. In particular, the only theorem referencing ax-8 2107 should be ax8v 2108. See the comment of ax8v 2108 for more details on these matters. (Contributed by NM, 30-Jun-1993.) (Revised by BJ, 7-Dec-2020.) Use ax8 2111 instead. (New usage is discouraged.)
⊢ (𝑥 = 𝑦 → (𝑥 ∈ 𝑧 → 𝑦 ∈ 𝑧))
Theorem	ax8v 2108*	Weakened version of ax-8 2107, with a disjoint variable condition on 𝑥, 𝑦. This should be the only proof referencing ax-8 2107, and it should be referenced only by its two weakened versions ax8v1 2109 and ax8v2 2110, from which ax-8 2107 is then rederived as ax8 2111, which shows that either ax8v 2108 or the conjunction of ax8v1 2109 and ax8v2 2110 is sufficient. (Contributed by BJ, 7-Dec-2020.) Use ax8 2111 instead. (New usage is discouraged.)
⊢ (𝑥 = 𝑦 → (𝑥 ∈ 𝑧 → 𝑦 ∈ 𝑧))
Theorem	ax8v1 2109*	First of two weakened versions of ax8v 2108, 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	ax8v2 2110*	Second of two weakened versions of ax8v 2108, 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	ax8 2111	Proof of ax-8 2107 from ax8v1 2109 and ax8v2 2110, proving sufficiency of the conjunction of the latter two weakened versions of ax8v 2108, which is itself a weakened version of ax-8 2107. (Contributed by BJ, 7-Dec-2020.) (Proof shortened by Wolf Lammen, 11-Apr-2021.)
⊢ (𝑥 = 𝑦 → (𝑥 ∈ 𝑧 → 𝑦 ∈ 𝑧))
Theorem	elequ1 2112	An identity law for the non-logical predicate. (Contributed by NM, 30-Jun-1993.)
⊢ (𝑥 = 𝑦 → (𝑥 ∈ 𝑧 ↔ 𝑦 ∈ 𝑧))
Theorem	elsb1 2113*	Substitution for the first argument of the non-logical predicate in an atomic formula. See elsb2 2122 for substitution for the second argument. (Contributed by NM, 7-Nov-2006.) (Proof shortened by Andrew Salmon, 14-Jun-2011.) Reduce axiom usage. (Revised by Wolf Lammen, 24-Jul-2023.)
⊢ ([𝑦 / 𝑥]𝑥 ∈ 𝑧 ↔ 𝑦 ∈ 𝑧)
Theorem	cleljust 2114*	When the class variables in Definition df-clel 2813 are replaced with setvar variables, this theorem of predicate calculus is the result. This theorem provides part of the justification for the consistency of that definition, which "overloads" the setvar variables in wel 2106 with the class variables in wcel 2105. (Contributed by NM, 28-Jan-2004.) Revised to use equsexvw 2001 in order to remove dependencies on ax-10 2138, ax-12 2174, ax-13 2374. Note that there is no disjoint variable condition on 𝑥, 𝑦, that is, on the variables of the left-hand side, as should be the case for definitions. (Revised by BJ, 29-Dec-2020.)
⊢ (𝑥 ∈ 𝑦 ↔ ∃𝑧(𝑧 = 𝑥 ∧ 𝑧 ∈ 𝑦))
1.4.11  Axiom scheme ax-9 (Right Equality for Binary Predicate)
Axiom	ax-9 2115	Axiom of Right Equality for Binary Predicate. One of the equality and substitution axioms for a non-logical predicate in our predicate calculus with equality. It substitutes equal variables into the right-hand side of an arbitrary binary predicate ∈, which we will use for the set membership relation when set theory is introduced. 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 scheme C13' in [Megill] p. 448 (p. 16 of the preprint). We prove in ax9 2119 that this axiom can be recovered from its weakened version ax9v 2116 where 𝑥 and 𝑦 are assumed to be disjoint variables. In particular, the only theorem referencing ax-9 2115 should be ax9v 2116. See the comment of ax9v 2116 for more details on these matters. (Contributed by NM, 21-Jun-1993.) (Revised by BJ, 7-Dec-2020.) Use ax9 2119 instead. (New usage is discouraged.)
⊢ (𝑥 = 𝑦 → (𝑧 ∈ 𝑥 → 𝑧 ∈ 𝑦))
Theorem	ax9v 2116*	Weakened version of ax-9 2115, with a disjoint variable condition on 𝑥, 𝑦. This should be the only proof referencing ax-9 2115, and it should be referenced only by its two weakened versions ax9v1 2117 and ax9v2 2118, from which ax-9 2115 is then rederived as ax9 2119, which shows that either ax9v 2116 or the conjunction of ax9v1 2117 and ax9v2 2118 is sufficient. (Contributed by BJ, 7-Dec-2020.) Use ax9 2119 instead. (New usage is discouraged.)
⊢ (𝑥 = 𝑦 → (𝑧 ∈ 𝑥 → 𝑧 ∈ 𝑦))
Theorem	ax9v1 2117*	First of two weakened versions of ax9v 2116, with an extra disjoint variable condition on 𝑥, 𝑧, see comments there. (Contributed by BJ, 7-Dec-2020.)
⊢ (𝑥 = 𝑦 → (𝑧 ∈ 𝑥 → 𝑧 ∈ 𝑦))
Theorem	ax9v2 2118*	Second of two weakened versions of ax9v 2116, with an extra disjoint variable condition on 𝑦, 𝑧 see comments there. (Contributed by BJ, 7-Dec-2020.)
⊢ (𝑥 = 𝑦 → (𝑧 ∈ 𝑥 → 𝑧 ∈ 𝑦))
Theorem	ax9 2119	Proof of ax-9 2115 from ax9v1 2117 and ax9v2 2118, proving sufficiency of the conjunction of the latter two weakened versions of ax9v 2116, which is itself a weakened version of ax-9 2115. (Contributed by BJ, 7-Dec-2020.) (Proof shortened by Wolf Lammen, 11-Apr-2021.)
⊢ (𝑥 = 𝑦 → (𝑧 ∈ 𝑥 → 𝑧 ∈ 𝑦))
Theorem	elequ2 2120	An identity law for the non-logical predicate. (Contributed by NM, 21-Jun-1993.)
⊢ (𝑥 = 𝑦 → (𝑧 ∈ 𝑥 ↔ 𝑧 ∈ 𝑦))
Theorem	elequ2g 2121*	A form of elequ2 2120 with a universal quantifier. Its converse is the axiom of extensionality ax-ext 2705. (Contributed by BJ, 3-Oct-2019.)
⊢ (𝑥 = 𝑦 → ∀𝑧(𝑧 ∈ 𝑥 ↔ 𝑧 ∈ 𝑦))
Theorem	elsb2 2122*	Substitution for the second argument of the non-logical predicate in an atomic formula. See elsb1 2113 for substitution for the first argument. (Contributed by Rodolfo Medina, 3-Apr-2010.) (Proof shortened by Andrew Salmon, 14-Jun-2011.) Reduce axiom usage. (Revised by Wolf Lammen, 24-Jul-2023.)
⊢ ([𝑦 / 𝑥]𝑧 ∈ 𝑥 ↔ 𝑧 ∈ 𝑦)
Theorem	elequ12 2123	An identity law for the non-logical predicate, which combines elequ1 2112 and elequ2 2120. The analogous theorems for class terms are eleq1 2826, eleq2 2827, and eleq12 2828 respectively. (Contributed by BJ, 29-Sep-2019.)
⊢ ((𝑥 = 𝑦 ∧ 𝑧 = 𝑡) → (𝑥 ∈ 𝑧 ↔ 𝑦 ∈ 𝑡))
Theorem	ru0 2124*	The FOL statement used in the standard proof of Russell's paradox ru 3788. (Contributed by NM, 7-Aug-1994.) Extract from proof of ru 3788 and reduce axiom usage. (Revised by BJ, 12-Oct-2019.)
⊢ ¬ ∀𝑥(𝑥 ∈ 𝑦 ↔ ¬ 𝑥 ∈ 𝑥)
1.4.12  Logical redundancy of ax-10 , ax-11 , ax-12 , ax-13 The original axiom schemes of Tarski's predicate calculus are ax-4 1805, ax-5 1907, ax6v 1965, ax-7 2004, ax-8 2107, and ax-9 2115, together with rule ax-gen 1791. See mmset.html#compare 1791. They are given as axiom schemes B4 through B8 in [KalishMontague] p. 81. These are shown to be logically complete by Theorem 1 of [KalishMontague] p. 85. The axiom system of set.mm includes the auxiliary axiom schemes ax-10 2138, ax-11 2154, ax-12 2174, and ax-13 2374, which are not part of Tarski's axiom schemes. Each object-language instance of them is provable from Tarski's axioms, so they are logically redundant. However, they are conjectured not to be provable directly as schemes from Tarski's axiom schemes using only Metamath's direct substitution rule. They are used to make our system "scheme complete", i.e., able to prove directly all possible schemes with wff and setvar variables, bundled or not, whose object-language instances are valid. (ax-12 2174 has been proved to be required; see https://us.metamath.org/award2003.html#9a 2174. Metalogical independence of the other three are open problems.) (There are additional predicate calculus axiom schemes included in set.mm such as ax-c5 38864, but they can all be proved as theorems from the above.) Terminology: Two setvar (individual) metavariables are "bundled" in an axiom or theorem scheme when there is no distinct variable constraint ($d) imposed on them. (The term "bundled" is due to Raph Levien.) For example, the 𝑥 and 𝑦 in ax-6 1964 are bundled, but they are not in ax6v 1965. We also say that a scheme is bundled when it has at least one pair of bundled setvar variables. If distinct variable conditions are added to all setvar variable pairs in a bundled scheme, we call that the "principal" instance of the bundled scheme. For example, ax6v 1965 is the principal instance of ax-6 1964. Whenever a common variable is substituted for two or more bundled variables in an axiom or theorem scheme, we call the substitution instance "degenerate". For example, the instance ¬ ∀𝑥¬ 𝑥 = 𝑥 of ax-6 1964 is degenerate. An advantage of bundling is ease of use since there are fewer distinct variable restrictions ($d) to be concerned with, and theorems are more general. There may be some economy in being able to prove facts about principal and degenerate instances simultaneously. A disadvantage is that bundling may present difficulties in translations to other proof languages, which typically lack the concept (in part because their variables often represent the variables of the object language rather than metavariables ranging over them). Because Tarski's axiom schemes are logically complete, they can be used to prove any object-language instance of ax-10 2138, ax-11 2154, ax-12 2174, and ax-13 2374. "Translating" this to Metamath, it means that Tarski's axioms can prove any substitution instance of ax-10 2138, ax-11 2154, ax-12 2174, or ax-13 2374 in which (1) there are no wff metavariables and (2) all setvar variables are mutually distinct i.e. are not bundled. In effect this is mimicking the object language by pretending that each setvar variable is an object-language variable. (There may also be specific instances with wff metavariables and/or bundling that are directly provable from Tarski's axiom schemes, but it isn't guaranteed. Whether all of them are possible is part of the still open metalogical independence problem for our additional axiom schemes.) It can be useful to see how this can be done, both to show that our additional schemes are valid metatheorems of Tarski's system and to be able to translate object-language instances of our proofs into proofs that would work with a system using only Tarski's original schemes. In addition, it may (or may not) provide insight into the conjectured metalogical independence of our additional schemes. The theorem schemes ax10w 2126, ax11w 2127, ax12w 2130, and ax13w 2133 are derived using only Tarski's axiom schemes, showing that Tarski's schemes can be used to derive all substitution instances of ax-10 2138, ax-11 2154, ax-12 2174, and ax-13 2374 meeting Conditions (1) and (2). (The "w" suffix stands for "weak version".) Each hypothesis of ax10w 2126, ax11w 2127, and ax12w 2130 is of the form (𝑥 = 𝑦 → (𝜑 ↔ 𝜓)) where 𝜓 is an auxiliary or "dummy" wff metavariable in which 𝑥 doesn't occur. We can show by induction on formula length that the hypotheses can be eliminated in all cases meeting Conditions (1) and (2). The example ax12wdemo 2132 illustrates the techniques (equality theorems and bound variable renaming) used to achieve this. We also show the degenerate instances for axioms with bundled variables in ax11dgen 2128, ax12dgen 2131, ax13dgen1 2134, ax13dgen2 2135, ax13dgen3 2136, and ax13dgen4 2137. (Their proofs are trivial, but we include them to be thorough.) Combining the principal and degenerate cases outside of Metamath, we show that the bundled schemes ax-10 2138, ax-11 2154, ax-12 2174, and ax-13 2374 are schemes of Tarski's system, meaning that all object-language instances they generate are theorems of Tarski's system. It is interesting that Tarski used the bundled scheme ax-6 1964 in an older system, so it seems the main purpose of his later ax6v 1965 was just to show that the weaker unbundled form is sufficient rather than an aesthetic objection to bundled free and bound variables. Since we adopt the bundled ax-6 1964 as our official axiom, we show that the degenerate instance holds in ax6dgen 2125. (Recall that in set.mm, the only statement referencing ax-6 1964 is ax6v 1965.) The case of sp 2180 is curious: originally an axiom scheme of Tarski's system, it was proved logically redundant by Lemma 9 of [KalishMontague] p. 86. However, the proof is by induction on formula length, and the scheme form ∀𝑥𝜑 → 𝜑 apparently cannot be proved directly from Tarski's other axiom schemes. The best we can do seems to be spw 2030, again requiring substitution instances of 𝜑 that meet Conditions (1) and (2) above. Note that our direct proof sp 2180 requires ax-12 2174, which is not part of Tarski's system.
Theorem	ax6dgen 2125	Tarski's system uses the weaker ax6v 1965 instead of the bundled ax-6 1964, so here we show that the degenerate case of ax-6 1964 can be derived. Even though ax-6 1964 is in the list of axioms used, recall that in set.mm, the only statement referencing ax-6 1964 is ax6v 1965. We later rederive from ax6v 1965 the bundled form as ax6 2386 with the help of the auxiliary axiom schemes. (Contributed by NM, 23-Apr-2017.)
⊢ ¬ ∀𝑥 ¬ 𝑥 = 𝑥
Theorem	ax10w 2126*	Weak version of ax-10 2138 from which we can prove any ax-10 2138 instance not involving wff variables or bundling. Uses only Tarski's FOL axiom schemes. It is an alias of hbn1w 2043 introduced for labeling consistency. (Contributed by NM, 9-Apr-2017.) Use hbn1w 2043 instead. (New usage is discouraged.)
⊢ (𝑥 = 𝑦 → (𝜑 ↔ 𝜓))    ⇒   ⊢ (¬ ∀𝑥𝜑 → ∀𝑥 ¬ ∀𝑥𝜑)
Theorem	ax11w 2127*	Weak version of ax-11 2154 from which we can prove any ax-11 2154 instance not involving wff variables or bundling. Uses only Tarski's FOL axiom schemes. Unlike ax-11 2154, this theorem requires that 𝑥 and 𝑦 be distinct i.e. are not bundled. It is an alias of alcomimw 2039 introduced for labeling consistency. (Contributed by NM, 10-Apr-2017.) Use alcomimw 2039 instead. (New usage is discouraged.)
⊢ (𝑦 = 𝑧 → (𝜑 ↔ 𝜓))    ⇒   ⊢ (∀𝑥∀𝑦𝜑 → ∀𝑦∀𝑥𝜑)
Theorem	ax11dgen 2128	Degenerate instance of ax-11 2154 where bundled variables 𝑥 and 𝑦 have a common substitution. Uses only Tarski's FOL axiom schemes. (Contributed by NM, 13-Apr-2017.)
⊢ (∀𝑥∀𝑥𝜑 → ∀𝑥∀𝑥𝜑)
Theorem	ax12wlem 2129*	Lemma for weak version of ax-12 2174. Uses only Tarski's FOL axiom schemes. In some cases, this lemma may lead to shorter proofs than ax12w 2130. (Contributed by NM, 10-Apr-2017.)
⊢ (𝑥 = 𝑦 → (𝜑 ↔ 𝜓))    ⇒   ⊢ (𝑥 = 𝑦 → (𝜑 → ∀𝑥(𝑥 = 𝑦 → 𝜑)))
Theorem	ax12w 2130*	Weak version of ax-12 2174 from which we can prove any ax-12 2174 instance not involving wff variables or bundling. Uses only Tarski's FOL axiom schemes. An instance of the first hypothesis will normally require that 𝑥 and 𝑦 be distinct (unless 𝑥 does not occur in 𝜑). For an example of how the hypotheses can be eliminated when we substitute an expression without wff variables for 𝜑, see ax12wdemo 2132. (Contributed by NM, 10-Apr-2017.)
⊢ (𝑥 = 𝑦 → (𝜑 ↔ 𝜓))    &   ⊢ (𝑦 = 𝑧 → (𝜑 ↔ 𝜒))    ⇒   ⊢ (𝑥 = 𝑦 → (∀𝑦𝜑 → ∀𝑥(𝑥 = 𝑦 → 𝜑)))
Theorem	ax12dgen 2131	Degenerate instance of ax-12 2174 where bundled variables 𝑥 and 𝑦 have a common substitution. Uses only Tarski's FOL axiom schemes. (Contributed by NM, 13-Apr-2017.)
⊢ (𝑥 = 𝑥 → (∀𝑥𝜑 → ∀𝑥(𝑥 = 𝑥 → 𝜑)))
Theorem	ax12wdemo 2132*	Example of an application of ax12w 2130 that results in an instance of ax-12 2174 for a contrived formula with mixed free and bound variables, (𝑥 ∈ 𝑦 ∧ ∀𝑥𝑧 ∈ 𝑥 ∧ ∀𝑦∀𝑧𝑦 ∈ 𝑥), in place of 𝜑. The proof illustrates bound variable renaming with cbvalvw 2032 to obtain fresh variables to avoid distinct variable clashes. Uses only Tarski's FOL axiom schemes. (Contributed by NM, 14-Apr-2017.)
⊢ (𝑥 = 𝑦 → (∀𝑦(𝑥 ∈ 𝑦 ∧ ∀𝑥 𝑧 ∈ 𝑥 ∧ ∀𝑦∀𝑧 𝑦 ∈ 𝑥) → ∀𝑥(𝑥 = 𝑦 → (𝑥 ∈ 𝑦 ∧ ∀𝑥 𝑧 ∈ 𝑥 ∧ ∀𝑦∀𝑧 𝑦 ∈ 𝑥))))
Theorem	ax13w 2133*	Weak version (principal instance) of ax-13 2374. (Because 𝑦 and 𝑧 don't need to be distinct, this actually bundles the principal instance and the degenerate instance (¬ 𝑥 = 𝑦 → (𝑦 = 𝑦 → ∀𝑥𝑦 = 𝑦)).) Uses only Tarski's FOL axiom schemes. The proof is trivial but is included to complete the set ax10w 2126, ax11w 2127, and ax12w 2130. (Contributed by NM, 10-Apr-2017.)
⊢ (¬ 𝑥 = 𝑦 → (𝑦 = 𝑧 → ∀𝑥 𝑦 = 𝑧))
Theorem	ax13dgen1 2134	Degenerate instance of ax-13 2374 where bundled variables 𝑥 and 𝑦 have a common substitution. Uses only Tarski's FOL axiom schemes. (Contributed by NM, 13-Apr-2017.)
⊢ (¬ 𝑥 = 𝑥 → (𝑥 = 𝑧 → ∀𝑥 𝑥 = 𝑧))
Theorem	ax13dgen2 2135	Degenerate instance of ax-13 2374 where bundled variables 𝑥 and 𝑧 have a common substitution. Uses only Tarski's FOL axiom schemes. (Contributed by NM, 13-Apr-2017.)
⊢ (¬ 𝑥 = 𝑦 → (𝑦 = 𝑥 → ∀𝑥 𝑦 = 𝑥))
Theorem	ax13dgen3 2136	Degenerate instance of ax-13 2374 where bundled variables 𝑦 and 𝑧 have a common substitution. Uses only Tarski's FOL axiom schemes. (Contributed by NM, 13-Apr-2017.)
⊢ (¬ 𝑥 = 𝑦 → (𝑦 = 𝑦 → ∀𝑥 𝑦 = 𝑦))
Theorem	ax13dgen4 2137	Degenerate instance of ax-13 2374 where bundled variables 𝑥, 𝑦, and 𝑧 have a common substitution. Therefore, also a degenerate instance of ax13dgen1 2134, ax13dgen2 2135, and ax13dgen3 2136. Also an instance of the intuitionistic tautology pm2.21 123. Uses only Tarski's FOL axiom schemes. (Contributed by NM, 13-Apr-2017.) Reduce axiom usage. (Revised by Wolf Lammen, 10-Oct-2021.)
⊢ (¬ 𝑥 = 𝑥 → (𝑥 = 𝑥 → ∀𝑥 𝑥 = 𝑥))
1.5  Predicate calculus with equality: Auxiliary axiom schemes (4 schemes) In this section we introduce four additional schemes ax-10 2138, ax-11 2154, ax-12 2174, and ax-13 2374 that are not part of Tarski's system but can be proved (outside of Metamath) as theorem schemes of Tarski's system. These are needed to give our system the property of "scheme completeness", which means that we can prove (with Metamath) all possible theorem schemes expressible in our language of wff metavariables ranging over object-language wffs, and setvar variables ranging over object-language individual variables. To show that these schemes are valid metatheorems of Tarski's system S2, above we proved from Tarski's system theorems ax10w 2126, ax11w 2127, ax12w 2130, and ax13w 2133, which show that any object-language instance of these schemes (emulated by having no wff metavariables and requiring all setvar variables to be mutually distinct) can be proved using only the schemes in Tarski's system S2. An open problem is to show that these four additional schemes are mutually metalogically independent and metalogically independent from Tarski's. So far, independence of ax-12 2174 from all others has been shown, and independence of Tarski's ax-6 1964 from all others has been shown; see items 9a and 11 on https://us.metamath.org/award2003.html 1964.
1.5.1  Axiom scheme ax-10 (Quantified Negation)
Axiom	ax-10 2138	Axiom of Quantified Negation. Axiom C5-2 of [Monk2] p. 113. This axiom scheme is logically redundant (see ax10w 2126) but is used as an auxiliary axiom scheme to achieve scheme completeness. It means that 𝑥 is not free in ¬ ∀𝑥𝜑. (Contributed by NM, 21-May-2008.) Use its alias hbn1 2139 instead if you must use it. Any theorem in first-order logic (FOL) that contains only set variables that are all mutually distinct, and has no wff variables, can be proved *without* using ax-10 2138 through ax-13 2374, by invoking ax10w 2126 through ax13w 2133. We encourage proving theorems *without* ax-10 2138 through ax-13 2374 and moving them up to the ax-4 1805 through ax-9 2115 section. (New usage is discouraged.)
⊢ (¬ ∀𝑥𝜑 → ∀𝑥 ¬ ∀𝑥𝜑)
Theorem	hbn1 2139	Alias for ax-10 2138 to be used instead of it. (Contributed by NM, 24-Jan-1993.) (Proof shortened by Wolf Lammen, 18-Aug-2014.)
⊢ (¬ ∀𝑥𝜑 → ∀𝑥 ¬ ∀𝑥𝜑)
Theorem	hbe1 2140	The setvar 𝑥 is not free in ∃𝑥𝜑. Corresponds to the axiom (5) of modal logic (see also modal5 2152). (Contributed by NM, 24-Jan-1993.)
⊢ (∃𝑥𝜑 → ∀𝑥∃𝑥𝜑)
Theorem	hbe1a 2141	Dual statement of hbe1 2140. Modified version of axc7e 2316 with a universally quantified consequent. (Contributed by Wolf Lammen, 15-Sep-2021.)
⊢ (∃𝑥∀𝑥𝜑 → ∀𝑥𝜑)
Theorem	nf5-1 2142	One direction of nf5 2280 can be proved with a smaller footprint on axiom usage. (Contributed by Wolf Lammen, 16-Sep-2021.)
⊢ (∀𝑥(𝜑 → ∀𝑥𝜑) → Ⅎ𝑥𝜑)
Theorem	nf5i 2143	Deduce that 𝑥 is not free in 𝜑 from the definition. (Contributed by Mario Carneiro, 11-Aug-2016.)
⊢ (𝜑 → ∀𝑥𝜑)    ⇒   ⊢ Ⅎ𝑥𝜑
Theorem	nf5dh 2144	Deduce that 𝑥 is not free in 𝜓 in a context. (Contributed by Mario Carneiro, 24-Sep-2016.) df-nf 1780 changed. (Revised by Wolf Lammen, 11-Oct-2021.)
⊢ (𝜑 → ∀𝑥𝜑)    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → (𝜓 → ∀𝑥𝜓))    ⇒   ⊢ (𝜑 → Ⅎ𝑥𝜓)
Theorem	nf5dv 2145*	Apply the definition of not-free in a context. (Contributed by Mario Carneiro, 11-Aug-2016.) df-nf 1780 changed. (Revised by Wolf Lammen, 18-Sep-2021.) (Proof shortened by Wolf Lammen, 13-Jul-2022.)
⊢ (𝜑 → (𝜓 → ∀𝑥𝜓))    ⇒   ⊢ (𝜑 → Ⅎ𝑥𝜓)
Theorem	nfnaew 2146*	All variables are effectively bound in a distinct variable specifier. Version of nfnae 2436 with a disjoint variable condition, which does not require ax-13 2374. (Contributed by Mario Carneiro, 11-Aug-2016.) Avoid ax-13 2374. (Revised by GG, 10-Jan-2024.) (Proof shortened by Wolf Lammen, 25-Sep-2024.)
⊢ Ⅎ𝑧 ¬ ∀𝑥 𝑥 = 𝑦
Theorem	nfe1 2147	The setvar 𝑥 is not free in ∃𝑥𝜑. (Contributed by Mario Carneiro, 11-Aug-2016.)
⊢ Ⅎ𝑥∃𝑥𝜑
Theorem	nfa1 2148	The setvar 𝑥 is not free in ∀𝑥𝜑. (Contributed by Mario Carneiro, 11-Aug-2016.) df-nf 1780 changed. (Revised by Wolf Lammen, 11-Sep-2021.) Remove dependency on ax-12 2174. (Revised by Wolf Lammen, 12-Oct-2021.)
⊢ Ⅎ𝑥∀𝑥𝜑
Theorem	nfna1 2149	A convenience theorem particularly designed to remove dependencies on ax-11 2154 in conjunction with distinctors. (Contributed by Wolf Lammen, 2-Sep-2018.)
⊢ Ⅎ𝑥 ¬ ∀𝑥𝜑
Theorem	nfia1 2150	Lemma 23 of [Monk2] p. 114. (Contributed by Mario Carneiro, 24-Sep-2016.)
⊢ Ⅎ𝑥(∀𝑥𝜑 → ∀𝑥𝜓)
Theorem	nfnf1 2151	The setvar 𝑥 is not free in Ⅎ𝑥𝜑. (Contributed by Mario Carneiro, 11-Aug-2016.) Remove dependency on ax-12 2174. (Revised by Wolf Lammen, 12-Oct-2021.)
⊢ Ⅎ𝑥Ⅎ𝑥𝜑
Theorem	modal5 2152	The analogue in our predicate calculus of axiom (5) of modal logic S5. See also hbe1 2140. (Contributed by NM, 5-Oct-2005.)
⊢ (¬ ∀𝑥 ¬ 𝜑 → ∀𝑥 ¬ ∀𝑥 ¬ 𝜑)
Theorem	nfs1v 2153*	The setvar 𝑥 is not free in [𝑦 / 𝑥]𝜑 when 𝑥 and 𝑦 are distinct. (Contributed by Mario Carneiro, 11-Aug-2016.) Shorten nfs1v 2153 and hbs1 2271 combined. (Revised by Wolf Lammen, 28-Jul-2022.)
⊢ Ⅎ𝑥[𝑦 / 𝑥]𝜑
1.5.2  Axiom scheme ax-11 (Quantifier Commutation)
Axiom	ax-11 2154	Axiom of Quantifier Commutation. This axiom says universal quantifiers can be swapped. Axiom scheme C6' in [Megill] p. 448 (p. 16 of the preprint). Also appears as Lemma 12 of [Monk2] p. 109 and Axiom C5-3 of [Monk2] p. 113. This axiom scheme is logically redundant (see ax11w 2127) but is used as an auxiliary axiom scheme to achieve metalogical completeness. Use its weak version alcomimw 2039 when it allows to avoid dependence on ax-11 2154. (Contributed by NM, 12-Mar-1993.)
⊢ (∀𝑥∀𝑦𝜑 → ∀𝑦∀𝑥𝜑)
Theorem	alcoms 2155	Swap quantifiers in an antecedent. (Contributed by NM, 11-May-1993.)
⊢ (∀𝑥∀𝑦𝜑 → 𝜓)    ⇒   ⊢ (∀𝑦∀𝑥𝜑 → 𝜓)
Theorem	alcom 2156	Theorem 19.5 of [Margaris] p. 89. Use its weak version alcomw 2041 when it allows to avoid dependence on ax-11 2154. (Contributed by NM, 30-Jun-1993.)
⊢ (∀𝑥∀𝑦𝜑 ↔ ∀𝑦∀𝑥𝜑)
Theorem	alrot3 2157	Theorem *11.21 in [WhiteheadRussell] p. 160. (Contributed by Andrew Salmon, 24-May-2011.)
⊢ (∀𝑥∀𝑦∀𝑧𝜑 ↔ ∀𝑦∀𝑧∀𝑥𝜑)
Theorem	alrot4 2158	Rotate four universal quantifiers twice. (Contributed by NM, 2-Feb-2005.) (Proof shortened by Fan Zheng, 6-Jun-2016.)
⊢ (∀𝑥∀𝑦∀𝑧∀𝑤𝜑 ↔ ∀𝑧∀𝑤∀𝑥∀𝑦𝜑)
Theorem	excom 2159	Theorem 19.11 of [Margaris] p. 89. (Contributed by NM, 5-Aug-1993.) Remove dependencies on ax-5 1907, ax-6 1964, ax-7 2004, ax-10 2138, ax-12 2174. (Revised by Wolf Lammen, 8-Jan-2018.) (Proof shortened by Wolf Lammen, 22-Aug-2020.)
⊢ (∃𝑥∃𝑦𝜑 ↔ ∃𝑦∃𝑥𝜑)
Theorem	excomim 2160	One direction of Theorem 19.11 of [Margaris] p. 89. (Contributed by NM, 5-Aug-1993.) (Revised by Mario Carneiro, 24-Sep-2016.) Remove dependencies on ax-5 1907, ax-6 1964, ax-7 2004, ax-10 2138, ax-12 2174. (Revised by Wolf Lammen, 8-Jan-2018.)
⊢ (∃𝑥∃𝑦𝜑 → ∃𝑦∃𝑥𝜑)
Theorem	excom13 2161	Swap 1st and 3rd existential quantifiers. (Contributed by NM, 9-Mar-1995.)
⊢ (∃𝑥∃𝑦∃𝑧𝜑 ↔ ∃𝑧∃𝑦∃𝑥𝜑)
Theorem	exrot3 2162	Rotate existential quantifiers. (Contributed by NM, 17-Mar-1995.)
⊢ (∃𝑥∃𝑦∃𝑧𝜑 ↔ ∃𝑦∃𝑧∃𝑥𝜑)
Theorem	exrot4 2163	Rotate existential quantifiers twice. (Contributed by NM, 9-Mar-1995.)
⊢ (∃𝑥∃𝑦∃𝑧∃𝑤𝜑 ↔ ∃𝑧∃𝑤∃𝑥∃𝑦𝜑)
Theorem	hbal 2164	If 𝑥 is not free in 𝜑, it is not free in ∀𝑦𝜑. (Contributed by NM, 12-Mar-1993.)
⊢ (𝜑 → ∀𝑥𝜑)    ⇒   ⊢ (∀𝑦𝜑 → ∀𝑥∀𝑦𝜑)
Theorem	hbald 2165	Deduction form of bound-variable hypothesis builder hbal 2164. (Contributed by NM, 2-Jan-2002.)
⊢ (𝜑 → ∀𝑦𝜑)    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → (𝜓 → ∀𝑥𝜓))    ⇒   ⊢ (𝜑 → (∀𝑦𝜓 → ∀𝑥∀𝑦𝜓))
Theorem	sbal 2166*	Move universal quantifier in and out of substitution. (Contributed by NM, 16-May-1993.) (Proof shortened by Wolf Lammen, 29-Sep-2018.) Reduce dependencies on axioms. (Revised by Steven Nguyen, 13-Aug-2023.)
⊢ ([𝑧 / 𝑦]∀𝑥𝜑 ↔ ∀𝑥[𝑧 / 𝑦]𝜑)
Theorem	sbalv 2167*	Quantify with new variable inside substitution. (Contributed by NM, 18-Aug-1993.)
⊢ ([𝑦 / 𝑥]𝜑 ↔ 𝜓)    ⇒   ⊢ ([𝑦 / 𝑥]∀𝑧𝜑 ↔ ∀𝑧𝜓)
Theorem	hbsbw 2168*	If 𝑧 is not free in 𝜑, it is not free in [𝑦 / 𝑥]𝜑 when 𝑦 and 𝑧 are distinct. Version of hbsb 2526 with a disjoint variable condition, which requires fewer axioms. (Contributed by NM, 12-Aug-1993.) (Revised by GG, 23-May-2024.) (Proof shortened by Wolf Lammen, 14-May-2025.)
⊢ (𝜑 → ∀𝑧𝜑)    ⇒   ⊢ ([𝑦 / 𝑥]𝜑 → ∀𝑧[𝑦 / 𝑥]𝜑)
Theorem	hbsbwOLD 2169*	Obsolete version of hbsbw 2168 as of 14-May-2025. (Contributed by NM, 12-Aug-1993.) (Revised by GG, 23-May-2024.) (New usage is discouraged.) (Proof modification is discouraged.)
⊢ (𝜑 → ∀𝑧𝜑)    ⇒   ⊢ ([𝑦 / 𝑥]𝜑 → ∀𝑧[𝑦 / 𝑥]𝜑)
Theorem	sbcom2 2170*	Commutativity law for substitution. Used in proof of Theorem 9.7 of [Megill] p. 449 (p. 16 of the preprint). (Contributed by NM, 27-May-1997.) (Proof shortened by Wolf Lammen, 23-Dec-2022.)
⊢ ([𝑤 / 𝑧][𝑦 / 𝑥]𝜑 ↔ [𝑦 / 𝑥][𝑤 / 𝑧]𝜑)
Theorem	sbco4lemOLD 2171*	Obsolete version of sbco4lem 2098 as of 3-Sep-2025. (Contributed by Jim Kingdon, 26-Sep-2018.) (Proof shortened by Wolf Lammen, 12-Oct-2024.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) (New usage is discouraged.)
⊢ ([𝑥 / 𝑣][𝑦 / 𝑥][𝑣 / 𝑦]𝜑 ↔ [𝑥 / 𝑤][𝑦 / 𝑥][𝑤 / 𝑦]𝜑)
Theorem	sbco4OLD 2172*	Obsolete version of sbco4 2099 as of 3-Sep-2025. (Contributed by Jim Kingdon, 25-Sep-2018.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) (New usage is discouraged.)
⊢ ([𝑦 / 𝑢][𝑥 / 𝑣][𝑢 / 𝑥][𝑣 / 𝑦]𝜑 ↔ [𝑥 / 𝑤][𝑦 / 𝑥][𝑤 / 𝑦]𝜑)
Theorem	nfa2 2173	Lemma 24 of [Monk2] p. 114. (Contributed by Mario Carneiro, 24-Sep-2016.) Remove dependency on ax-12 2174. (Revised by Wolf Lammen, 18-Oct-2021.)
⊢ Ⅎ𝑥∀𝑦∀𝑥𝜑
1.5.3  Axiom scheme ax-12 (Substitution)
Axiom	ax-12 2174	Axiom of Substitution. One of the 5 equality axioms of predicate calculus. The final consequent ∀𝑥(𝑥 = 𝑦 → 𝜑) is a way of expressing "𝑦 substituted for 𝑥 in wff 𝜑 " (cf. sb6 2082). It is based on Lemma 16 of [Tarski] p. 70 and Axiom C8 of [Monk2] p. 105, from which it can be proved by cases. The original version of this axiom was ax-c15 38870 and was replaced with this shorter ax-12 2174 in Jan. 2007. The old axiom is proved from this one as Theorem axc15 2424. Conversely, this axiom is proved from ax-c15 38870 as Theorem ax12 2425. Juha Arpiainen proved the metalogical independence of this axiom (in the form of the older axiom ax-c15 38870) from the others on 19-Jan-2006. See item 9a at https://us.metamath.org/award2003.html 38870. See ax12v 2175 and ax12v2 2176 for other equivalents of this axiom that (unlike this axiom) have distinct variable restrictions. This axiom scheme is logically redundant (see ax12w 2130) but is used as an auxiliary axiom scheme to achieve scheme completeness. (Contributed by NM, 22-Jan-2007.) (New usage is discouraged.)
⊢ (𝑥 = 𝑦 → (∀𝑦𝜑 → ∀𝑥(𝑥 = 𝑦 → 𝜑)))
Theorem	ax12v 2175*	This is essentially Axiom ax-12 2174 weakened by additional restrictions on variables. Besides axc11r 2368, this theorem should be the only one referencing ax-12 2174 directly. Both restrictions on variables have their own value. If for a moment we assume 𝑥 could be set to 𝑦, then, after elimination of the tautology 𝑦 = 𝑦, immediately we have 𝜑 → ∀𝑦𝜑 for all 𝜑 and 𝑦, that is ax-5 1907, a degenerate result. The second restriction is not necessary, but a simplification that makes the following interpretation easier to see. Since 𝜑 textually at most depends on 𝑥, we can look at it at some given 'fixed' 𝑦. This theorem now states that the truth value of 𝜑 will stay constant, as long as we 'vary 𝑥 around 𝑦' only such that 𝑥 = 𝑦 still holds. Or in other words, equality is the finest grained logical expression. If you cannot differ two sets by =, you won't find a whatever sophisticated expression that does. One might wonder how the described variation of 𝑥 is possible at all. Note that Metamath is a text processor that easily sees a difference between text chunks {𝑥 ∣ ¬ 𝑥 = 𝑥} and {𝑦 ∣ ¬ 𝑦 = 𝑦}. Our usual interpretation is to abstract from textual variations of the same set, but we are free to interpret Metamath's formalism differently, and in fact let 𝑥 run through all textual representations of sets. Had we allowed 𝜑 to depend also on 𝑦, this idea is both harder to see, and it is less clear that this extra freedom introduces effects not covered by other axioms. (Contributed by Wolf Lammen, 8-Aug-2020.)
⊢ (𝑥 = 𝑦 → (𝜑 → ∀𝑥(𝑥 = 𝑦 → 𝜑)))
Theorem	ax12v2 2176*	It is possible to remove any restriction on 𝜑 in ax12v 2175. Same as Axiom C8 of [Monk2] p. 105. Use ax12v 2175 instead when sufficient. (Contributed by NM, 5-Aug-1993.) Remove dependencies on ax-10 2138 and ax-13 2374. (Revised by Jim Kingdon, 15-Dec-2017.) (Proof shortened by Wolf Lammen, 8-Dec-2019.)
⊢ (𝑥 = 𝑦 → (𝜑 → ∀𝑥(𝑥 = 𝑦 → 𝜑)))
Theorem	ax12ev2 2177*	Version of ax12v2 2176 rewritten to use an existential quantifier. One direction of sbalex 2239 without the universal quantifier, avoiding ax-10 2138. (Contributed by SN, 14-Aug-2025.)
⊢ (∃𝑥(𝑥 = 𝑦 ∧ 𝜑) → (𝑥 = 𝑦 → 𝜑))
Theorem	19.8a 2178	If a wff is true, it is true for at least one instance. Special case of Theorem 19.8 of [Margaris] p. 89. See 19.8v 1979 for a version with a disjoint variable condition requiring fewer axioms. (Contributed by NM, 9-Jan-1993.) Allow a shortening of sp 2180. (Revised by Wolf Lammen, 13-Jan-2018.) (Proof shortened by Wolf Lammen, 8-Dec-2019.)
⊢ (𝜑 → ∃𝑥𝜑)
Theorem	19.8ad 2179	If a wff is true, it is true for at least one instance. Deduction form of 19.8a 2178. (Contributed by DAW, 13-Feb-2017.)
⊢ (𝜑 → 𝜓)    ⇒   ⊢ (𝜑 → ∃𝑥𝜓)
Theorem	sp 2180	Specialization. A universally quantified wff implies the wff without a quantifier. Axiom scheme B5 of [Tarski] p. 67 (under his system S2, defined in the last paragraph on p. 77). Also appears as Axiom scheme C5' in [Megill] p. 448 (p. 16 of the preprint). This corresponds to the axiom (T) of modal logic. For the axiom of specialization presented in many logic textbooks, see Theorem stdpc4 2065. This theorem shows that our obsolete axiom ax-c5 38864 can be derived from the others. The proof uses ideas from the proof of Lemma 21 of [Monk2] p. 114. It appears that this scheme cannot be derived directly from Tarski's axioms without auxiliary axiom scheme ax-12 2174. It is thought the best we can do using only Tarski's axioms is spw 2030. Also see spvw 1977 where 𝑥 and 𝜑 are disjoint, using fewer axioms. (Contributed by NM, 21-May-2008.) (Proof shortened by Scott Fenton, 24-Jan-2011.) (Proof shortened by Wolf Lammen, 13-Jan-2018.)
⊢ (∀𝑥𝜑 → 𝜑)
Theorem	spi 2181	Inference rule of universal instantiation, or universal specialization. Converse of the inference rule of (universal) generalization ax-gen 1791. Contrary to the rule of generalization, its closed form is valid, see sp 2180. (Contributed by NM, 5-Aug-1993.)
⊢ ∀𝑥𝜑    ⇒   ⊢ 𝜑
Theorem	sps 2182	Generalization of antecedent. (Contributed by NM, 5-Jan-1993.)
⊢ (𝜑 → 𝜓)    ⇒   ⊢ (∀𝑥𝜑 → 𝜓)
Theorem	2sp 2183	A double specialization (see sp 2180). Another double specialization, closer to PM*11.1, is 2stdpc4 2067. (Contributed by BJ, 15-Sep-2018.)
⊢ (∀𝑥∀𝑦𝜑 → 𝜑)
Theorem	spsd 2184	Deduction generalizing antecedent. (Contributed by NM, 17-Aug-1994.)
⊢ (𝜑 → (𝜓 → 𝜒))    ⇒   ⊢ (𝜑 → (∀𝑥𝜓 → 𝜒))
Theorem	19.2g 2185	Theorem 19.2 of [Margaris] p. 89, generalized to use two setvar variables. Use 19.2 1973 when sufficient. (Contributed by Mel L. O'Cat, 31-Mar-2008.)
⊢ (∀𝑥𝜑 → ∃𝑦𝜑)
Theorem	19.21bi 2186	Inference form of 19.21 2204 and also deduction form of sp 2180. (Contributed by NM, 26-May-1993.)
⊢ (𝜑 → ∀𝑥𝜓)    ⇒   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝜓)
Theorem	19.21bbi 2187	Inference removing two universal quantifiers. Version of 19.21bi 2186 with two quantifiers. (Contributed by NM, 20-Apr-1994.)
⊢ (𝜑 → ∀𝑥∀𝑦𝜓)    ⇒   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝜓)
Theorem	19.23bi 2188	Inference form of Theorem 19.23 of [Margaris] p. 90, see 19.23 2208. (Contributed by NM, 12-Mar-1993.)
⊢ (∃𝑥𝜑 → 𝜓)    ⇒   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝜓)
Theorem	nexr 2189	Inference associated with the contrapositive of 19.8a 2178. (Contributed by Jeff Hankins, 26-Jul-2009.)
⊢ ¬ ∃𝑥𝜑    ⇒   ⊢ ¬ 𝜑
Theorem	qexmid 2190	Quantified excluded middle (see exmid 894). Also known as the drinker paradox (if 𝜑(𝑥) is interpreted as "𝑥 drinks", then this theorem tells that there exists a person such that, if this person drinks, then everyone drinks). Exercise 9.2a of Boolos, p. 111, Computability and Logic. (Contributed by NM, 10-Dec-2000.)
⊢ ∃𝑥(𝜑 → ∀𝑥𝜑)
Theorem	nf5r 2191	Consequence of the definition of not-free. (Contributed by Mario Carneiro, 26-Sep-2016.) df-nf 1780 changed. (Revised by Wolf Lammen, 11-Sep-2021.) (Proof shortened by Wolf Lammen, 23-Nov-2023.)
⊢ (Ⅎ𝑥𝜑 → (𝜑 → ∀𝑥𝜑))
Theorem	nf5ri 2192	Consequence of the definition of not-free. (Contributed by Mario Carneiro, 11-Aug-2016.) (Proof shortened by Wolf Lammen, 15-Mar-2023.)
⊢ Ⅎ𝑥𝜑    ⇒   ⊢ (𝜑 → ∀𝑥𝜑)
Theorem	nf5rd 2193	Consequence of the definition of not-free in a context. (Contributed by Mario Carneiro, 11-Aug-2016.)
⊢ (𝜑 → Ⅎ𝑥𝜓)    ⇒   ⊢ (𝜑 → (𝜓 → ∀𝑥𝜓))
Theorem	spimedv 2194*	Deduction version of spimev 2394. Version of spimed 2390 with a disjoint variable condition, which does not require ax-13 2374. See spime 2391 for a non-deduction version. (Contributed by NM, 14-May-1993.) (Revised by BJ, 31-May-2019.)
⊢ (𝜒 → Ⅎ𝑥𝜑)    &   ⊢ (𝑥 = 𝑦 → (𝜑 → 𝜓))    ⇒   ⊢ (𝜒 → (𝜑 → ∃𝑥𝜓))
Theorem	spimefv 2195*	Version of spime 2391 with a disjoint variable condition, which does not require ax-13 2374. (Contributed by BJ, 31-May-2019.)
⊢ Ⅎ𝑥𝜑    &   ⊢ (𝑥 = 𝑦 → (𝜑 → 𝜓))    ⇒   ⊢ (𝜑 → ∃𝑥𝜓)
Theorem	nfim1 2196	A closed form of nfim 1893. (Contributed by NM, 2-Jun-1993.) (Revised by Mario Carneiro, 24-Sep-2016.) (Proof shortened by Wolf Lammen, 2-Jan-2018.) df-nf 1780 changed. (Revised by Wolf Lammen, 18-Sep-2021.)
⊢ Ⅎ𝑥𝜑    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → Ⅎ𝑥𝜓)    ⇒   ⊢ Ⅎ𝑥(𝜑 → 𝜓)
Theorem	nfan1 2197	A closed form of nfan 1896. (Contributed by Mario Carneiro, 3-Oct-2016.) df-nf 1780 changed. (Revised by Wolf Lammen, 18-Sep-2021.) (Proof shortened by Wolf Lammen, 7-Jul-2022.)
⊢ Ⅎ𝑥𝜑    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → Ⅎ𝑥𝜓)    ⇒   ⊢ Ⅎ𝑥(𝜑 ∧ 𝜓)
Theorem	19.3t 2198	Closed form of 19.3 2199 and version of 19.9t 2201 with a universal quantifier. (Contributed by NM, 9-Nov-2020.) (Proof shortened by BJ, 9-Oct-2022.)
⊢ (Ⅎ𝑥𝜑 → (∀𝑥𝜑 ↔ 𝜑))
Theorem	19.3 2199	A wff may be quantified with a variable not free in it. Version of 19.9 2202 with a universal quantifier. Theorem 19.3 of [Margaris] p. 89. See 19.3v 1978 for a version requiring fewer axioms. (Contributed by NM, 12-Mar-1993.) (Revised by Mario Carneiro, 24-Sep-2016.)
⊢ Ⅎ𝑥𝜑    ⇒   ⊢ (∀𝑥𝜑 ↔ 𝜑)
Theorem	19.9d 2200	A deduction version of one direction of 19.9 2202. (Contributed by NM, 14-May-1993.) (Revised by Mario Carneiro, 24-Sep-2016.) Revised to shorten other proofs. (Revised by Wolf Lammen, 14-Jul-2020.) df-nf 1780 changed. (Revised by Wolf Lammen, 11-Sep-2021.) (Proof shortened by Wolf Lammen, 8-Jul-2022.)
⊢ (𝜓 → Ⅎ𝑥𝜑)    ⇒   ⊢ (𝜓 → (∃𝑥𝜑 → 𝜑))