P. 27 of Theorem List - Metamath Proof Explorer

Theorem List for Metamath Proof Explorer - 2601-2700   *Has distinct variable group(s)

Type	Label	Description
Statement
Theorem	eu6im 2601*	One direction of eu6 2600 needs fewer axioms. (Contributed by Wolf Lammen, 2-Mar-2023.)
⊢ (∃𝑦∀𝑥(𝜑 ↔ 𝑥 = 𝑦) → ∃!𝑥𝜑)
Theorem	euf 2602*	Version of eu6 2600 with disjoint variable condition replaced by nonfreeness hypothesis. (Contributed by NM, 12-Aug-1993.) (Proof shortened by Wolf Lammen, 30-Oct-2018.) Avoid ax-13 2402. (Revised by Wolf Lammen, 16-Oct-2022.)
⊢ Ⅎ𝑦𝜑    ⇒   ⊢ (∃!𝑥𝜑 ↔ ∃𝑦∀𝑥(𝜑 ↔ 𝑥 = 𝑦))
Theorem	euex 2603	Existential uniqueness implies existence. (Contributed by NM, 15-Sep-1993.) (Proof shortened by Andrew Salmon, 9-Jul-2011.) (Proof shortened by Wolf Lammen, 4-Dec-2018.) (Proof shortened by BJ, 7-Oct-2022.)
⊢ (∃!𝑥𝜑 → ∃𝑥𝜑)
Theorem	eumo 2604	Existential uniqueness implies uniqueness. (Contributed by NM, 23-Mar-1995.)
⊢ (∃!𝑥𝜑 → ∃*𝑥𝜑)
Theorem	eumoi 2605	Uniqueness inferred from existential uniqueness. (Contributed by NM, 5-Apr-1995.)
⊢ ∃!𝑥𝜑    ⇒   ⊢ ∃*𝑥𝜑
Theorem	exmoeub 2606	Existence implies that uniqueness is equivalent to unique existence. (Contributed by NM, 5-Apr-2004.)
⊢ (∃𝑥𝜑 → (∃*𝑥𝜑 ↔ ∃!𝑥𝜑))
Theorem	exmoeu 2607	Existence is equivalent to uniqueness implying existential uniqueness. (Contributed by NM, 5-Apr-2004.) (Proof shortened by Wolf Lammen, 5-Dec-2018.) (Proof shortened by BJ, 7-Oct-2022.)
⊢ (∃𝑥𝜑 ↔ (∃*𝑥𝜑 → ∃!𝑥𝜑))
Theorem	moeuex 2608	Uniqueness implies that existence is equivalent to unique existence. (Contributed by BJ, 7-Oct-2022.)
⊢ (∃*𝑥𝜑 → (∃𝑥𝜑 ↔ ∃!𝑥𝜑))
Theorem	moeu 2609	Uniqueness is equivalent to existence implying unique existence. Alternate definition of the at-most-one quantifier, in terms of the existential quantifier and the unique existential quantifier. (Contributed by NM, 8-Mar-1995.) This used to be the definition of the at-most-one quantifier, while df-mo 2565 was then proved as dfmo2 2622. (Revised by BJ, 30-Sep-2022.)
⊢ (∃*𝑥𝜑 ↔ (∃𝑥𝜑 → ∃!𝑥𝜑))
Theorem	eubi 2610	Equivalence theorem for the unique existential quantifier. Theorem *14.271 in [WhiteheadRussell] p. 192. (Contributed by Andrew Salmon, 11-Jul-2011.) Reduce dependencies on axioms. (Revised by BJ, 7-Oct-2022.)
⊢ (∀𝑥(𝜑 ↔ 𝜓) → (∃!𝑥𝜑 ↔ ∃!𝑥𝜓))
Theorem	eubii 2611	Introduce unique existential quantifier to both sides of an equivalence. (Contributed by NM, 9-Jul-1994.) (Revised by Mario Carneiro, 6-Oct-2016.)
⊢ (𝜑 ↔ 𝜓)    ⇒   ⊢ (∃!𝑥𝜑 ↔ ∃!𝑥𝜓)
Theorem	eubidv 2612*	Formula-building rule for unique existential quantifier (deduction form). (Contributed by NM, 9-Jul-1994.) Reduce axiom dependencies and shorten proof. (Revised by BJ, 7-Oct-2022.)
⊢ (𝜑 → (𝜓 ↔ 𝜒))    ⇒   ⊢ (𝜑 → (∃!𝑥𝜓 ↔ ∃!𝑥𝜒))
Theorem	eubid 2613	Formula-building rule for the unique existential quantifier (deduction form). (Contributed by NM, 9-Jul-1994.) (Proof shortened by Wolf Lammen, 19-Feb-2023.)
⊢ Ⅎ𝑥𝜑    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → (𝜓 ↔ 𝜒))    ⇒   ⊢ (𝜑 → (∃!𝑥𝜓 ↔ ∃!𝑥𝜒))
Theorem	nfeu1ALT 2614	Alternate version of nfeu1 2615 with a shorter proof but using ax-12 2211. Bound-variable hypothesis builder for uniqueness. See also nfeu1 2615. (Contributed by NM, 9-Jul-1994.) (Revised by Mario Carneiro, 7-Oct-2016.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) (New usage is discouraged.)
⊢ Ⅎ𝑥∃!𝑥𝜑
Theorem	nfeu1 2615	Bound-variable hypothesis builder for uniqueness. See nfeu1ALT 2614 for a shorter proof using ax-12 2211. This proof illustrates the systematic way of proving nonfreeness in a defined expression: consider the definiens as a tree whose nodes are its subformulas, and prove by tree-induction the nonfreeness of each node, starting from the leaves (generally using nfv 1933 or nf* theorems for previously defined expressions) and up to the root. Here, the definiens is a conjunction of two previously defined expressions, which automatically yields the present proof. (Contributed by NM, 9-Jul-1994.) (Revised by Mario Carneiro, 7-Oct-2016.) (Revised by BJ, 2-Oct-2022.) (Proof modification is discouraged.)
⊢ Ⅎ𝑥∃!𝑥𝜑
Theorem	nfeud2 2616	Bound-variable hypothesis builder for uniqueness. (Contributed by Mario Carneiro, 14-Nov-2016.) (Proof shortened by Wolf Lammen, 4-Oct-2018.) (Proof shortened by BJ, 14-Oct-2022.) Usage of this theorem is discouraged because it depends on ax-13 2402. Use nfeudw 2617 instead. (New usage is discouraged.)
⊢ Ⅎ𝑦𝜑    &   ⊢ ((𝜑 ∧ ¬ ∀𝑥 𝑥 = 𝑦) → Ⅎ𝑥𝜓)    ⇒   ⊢ (𝜑 → Ⅎ𝑥∃!𝑦𝜓)
Theorem	nfeudw 2617*	Bound-variable hypothesis builder for the unique existential quantifier. Deduction version of nfeu 2620. Version of nfeud 2618 with a disjoint variable condition, which does not require ax-13 2402. (Contributed by NM, 15-Feb-2013.) Avoid ax-13 2402. (Revised by GG, 10-Jan-2024.)
⊢ Ⅎ𝑦𝜑    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → Ⅎ𝑥𝜓)    ⇒   ⊢ (𝜑 → Ⅎ𝑥∃!𝑦𝜓)
Theorem	nfeud 2618	Bound-variable hypothesis builder for the unique existential quantifier. Deduction version of nfeu 2620. Usage of this theorem is discouraged because it depends on ax-13 2402. Use the weaker nfeudw 2617 when possible. (Contributed by NM, 15-Feb-2013.) (Revised by Mario Carneiro, 7-Oct-2016.) (New usage is discouraged.)
⊢ Ⅎ𝑦𝜑    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → Ⅎ𝑥𝜓)    ⇒   ⊢ (𝜑 → Ⅎ𝑥∃!𝑦𝜓)
Theorem	nfeuw 2619*	Bound-variable hypothesis builder for the unique existential quantifier. Version of nfeu 2620 with a disjoint variable condition, which does not require ax-13 2402. (Contributed by NM, 8-Mar-1995.) Avoid ax-13 2402. (Revised by GG, 10-Jan-2024.)
⊢ Ⅎ𝑥𝜑    ⇒   ⊢ Ⅎ𝑥∃!𝑦𝜑
Theorem	nfeu 2620	Bound-variable hypothesis builder for the unique existential quantifier. Note that 𝑥 and 𝑦 need not be disjoint. Usage of this theorem is discouraged because it depends on ax-13 2402. Use the weaker nfeuw 2619 when possible. (Contributed by NM, 8-Mar-1995.) (Revised by Mario Carneiro, 7-Oct-2016.) (New usage is discouraged.)
⊢ Ⅎ𝑥𝜑    ⇒   ⊢ Ⅎ𝑥∃!𝑦𝜑
Theorem	dfeu 2621	Rederive df-eu 2595 from the old definition eu6 2600. (Contributed by NM, 23-Mar-1995.) (Proof shortened by Wolf Lammen, 25-May-2019.) (Proof shortened by BJ, 7-Oct-2022.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) Use df-eu 2595 instead. (New usage is discouraged.)
⊢ (∃!𝑥𝜑 ↔ (∃𝑥𝜑 ∧ ∃*𝑥𝜑))
Theorem	dfmo2 2622*	Rederive df-mo 2565 from the old definition moeu 2609. (Contributed by Wolf Lammen, 27-May-2019.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) Use dfmo 2566 instead. (New usage is discouraged.)
⊢ (∃*𝑥𝜑 ↔ ∃𝑦∀𝑥(𝜑 → 𝑥 = 𝑦))
Theorem	euequ 2623*	There exists a unique set equal to a given set. Special case of eueqi 3671 proved using only predicate calculus. The proof needs 𝑦 = 𝑧 be free of 𝑥. This is ensured by having 𝑥 and 𝑦 be distinct. Alternately, a distinctor ¬ ∀𝑥𝑥 = 𝑦 could have been used instead. See eueq 3670 and eueqi 3671 for classes. (Contributed by Stefan Allan, 4-Dec-2008.) (Proof shortened by Wolf Lammen, 8-Sep-2019.) Reduce axiom usage. (Revised by Wolf Lammen, 1-Mar-2023.)
⊢ ∃!𝑥 𝑥 = 𝑦
Theorem	sb8eulem 2624*	Lemma. Factor out the common proof skeleton of sb8euv 2625 and sb8eu 2626. Variable substitution in unique existential quantifier. (Contributed by NM, 7-Aug-1994.) (Revised by Mario Carneiro, 7-Oct-2016.) (Proof shortened by Wolf Lammen, 24-Aug-2019.) Factor out common proof lines. (Revised by Wolf Lammen, 9-Feb-2023.)
⊢ Ⅎ𝑦[𝑤 / 𝑥]𝜑    ⇒   ⊢ (∃!𝑥𝜑 ↔ ∃!𝑦[𝑦 / 𝑥]𝜑)
Theorem	sb8euv 2625*	Variable substitution in unique existential quantifier. Version of sb8eu 2626 requiring more disjoint variables, but fewer axioms. (Contributed by NM, 7-Aug-1994.) (Revised by Wolf Lammen, 7-Feb-2023.)
⊢ Ⅎ𝑦𝜑    ⇒   ⊢ (∃!𝑥𝜑 ↔ ∃!𝑦[𝑦 / 𝑥]𝜑)
Theorem	sb8eu 2626	Variable substitution in unique existential quantifier. Usage of this theorem is discouraged because it depends on ax-13 2402. For a version requiring more disjoint variables, but fewer axioms, see sb8euv 2625. (Contributed by NM, 7-Aug-1994.) (Revised by Mario Carneiro, 7-Oct-2016.) (Proof shortened by Wolf Lammen, 24-Aug-2019.) (New usage is discouraged.)
⊢ Ⅎ𝑦𝜑    ⇒   ⊢ (∃!𝑥𝜑 ↔ ∃!𝑦[𝑦 / 𝑥]𝜑)
Theorem	sb8mo 2627	Variable substitution for the at-most-one quantifier. Usage of this theorem is discouraged because it depends on ax-13 2402. (Contributed by Alexander van der Vekens, 17-Jun-2017.) (New usage is discouraged.)
⊢ Ⅎ𝑦𝜑    ⇒   ⊢ (∃*𝑥𝜑 ↔ ∃*𝑦[𝑦 / 𝑥]𝜑)
Theorem	cbvmovw 2628*	Change bound variable. Uses only Tarski's FOL axiom schemes. See cbvmo 2630 and cbvmow 2629 for versions with fewer disjoint variable conditions but requiring more axioms. (Contributed by NM, 9-Mar-1995.) (Revised by GG, 30-Sep-2024.)
⊢ (𝑥 = 𝑦 → (𝜑 ↔ 𝜓))    ⇒   ⊢ (∃*𝑥𝜑 ↔ ∃*𝑦𝜓)
Theorem	cbvmow 2629*	Rule used to change bound variables, using implicit substitution. Version of cbvmo 2630 with a disjoint variable condition, which does not require ax-10 2174, ax-13 2402. (Contributed by NM, 9-Mar-1995.) (Revised by GG, 23-May-2024.)
⊢ Ⅎ𝑦𝜑    &   ⊢ Ⅎ𝑥𝜓    &   ⊢ (𝑥 = 𝑦 → (𝜑 ↔ 𝜓))    ⇒   ⊢ (∃*𝑥𝜑 ↔ ∃*𝑦𝜓)
Theorem	cbvmo 2630	Rule used to change bound variables, using implicit substitution. Usage of this theorem is discouraged because it depends on ax-13 2402. Use the weaker cbvmow 2629, cbvmovw 2628 when possible. (Contributed by NM, 9-Mar-1995.) (Revised by Andrew Salmon, 8-Jun-2011.) (Proof shortened by Wolf Lammen, 4-Jan-2023.) (New usage is discouraged.)
⊢ Ⅎ𝑦𝜑    &   ⊢ Ⅎ𝑥𝜓    &   ⊢ (𝑥 = 𝑦 → (𝜑 ↔ 𝜓))    ⇒   ⊢ (∃*𝑥𝜑 ↔ ∃*𝑦𝜓)
Theorem	cbveuvw 2631*	Change bound variable. Uses only Tarski's FOL axiom schemes. See cbveu 2633 for a version with fewer disjoint variable conditions but requiring more axioms. (Contributed by NM, 25-Nov-1994.) (Revised by GG, 30-Sep-2024.)
⊢ (𝑥 = 𝑦 → (𝜑 ↔ 𝜓))    ⇒   ⊢ (∃!𝑥𝜑 ↔ ∃!𝑦𝜓)
Theorem	cbveuw 2632*	Version of cbveu 2633 with a disjoint variable condition, which does not require ax-10 2174, ax-13 2402. (Contributed by NM, 25-Nov-1994.) (Revised by GG, 23-May-2024.)
⊢ Ⅎ𝑦𝜑    &   ⊢ Ⅎ𝑥𝜓    &   ⊢ (𝑥 = 𝑦 → (𝜑 ↔ 𝜓))    ⇒   ⊢ (∃!𝑥𝜑 ↔ ∃!𝑦𝜓)
Theorem	cbveu 2633	Rule used to change bound variables, using implicit substitution. Usage of this theorem is discouraged because it depends on ax-13 2402. Use the weaker cbveuw 2632, cbveuvw 2631 when possible. (Contributed by NM, 25-Nov-1994.) (Revised by Mario Carneiro, 7-Oct-2016.) (New usage is discouraged.)
⊢ Ⅎ𝑦𝜑    &   ⊢ Ⅎ𝑥𝜓    &   ⊢ (𝑥 = 𝑦 → (𝜑 ↔ 𝜓))    ⇒   ⊢ (∃!𝑥𝜑 ↔ ∃!𝑦𝜓)
Theorem	cbveuALT 2634	Alternative proof of cbveu 2633. Since df-eu 2595 combines two other quantifiers, one can base this theorem on their associated 'change bounded variable' kind of theorems as well. (Contributed by Wolf Lammen, 5-Jan-2023.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) (New usage is discouraged.)
⊢ Ⅎ𝑦𝜑    &   ⊢ Ⅎ𝑥𝜓    &   ⊢ (𝑥 = 𝑦 → (𝜑 ↔ 𝜓))    ⇒   ⊢ (∃!𝑥𝜑 ↔ ∃!𝑦𝜓)
Theorem	eu2 2635*	An alternate way of defining existential uniqueness. Definition 6.10 of [TakeutiZaring] p. 26. (Contributed by NM, 8-Jul-1994.) (Proof shortened by Wolf Lammen, 2-Dec-2018.)
⊢ Ⅎ𝑦𝜑    ⇒   ⊢ (∃!𝑥𝜑 ↔ (∃𝑥𝜑 ∧ ∀𝑥∀𝑦((𝜑 ∧ [𝑦 / 𝑥]𝜑) → 𝑥 = 𝑦)))
Theorem	eu1 2636*	An alternate way to express uniqueness used by some authors. Exercise 2(b) of [Margaris] p. 110. (Contributed by NM, 20-Aug-1993.) (Revised by Mario Carneiro, 7-Oct-2016.) (Proof shortened by Wolf Lammen, 29-Oct-2018.) Avoid ax-13 2402. (Revised by Wolf Lammen, 7-Feb-2023.)
⊢ Ⅎ𝑦𝜑    ⇒   ⊢ (∃!𝑥𝜑 ↔ ∃𝑥(𝜑 ∧ ∀𝑦([𝑦 / 𝑥]𝜑 → 𝑥 = 𝑦)))
Theorem	euor 2637	Introduce a disjunct into a unique existential quantifier. For a version requiring disjoint variables, but fewer axioms, see euorv 2638. (Contributed by NM, 21-Oct-2005.)
⊢ Ⅎ𝑥𝜑    ⇒   ⊢ ((¬ 𝜑 ∧ ∃!𝑥𝜓) → ∃!𝑥(𝜑 ∨ 𝜓))
Theorem	euorv 2638*	Introduce a disjunct into a unique existential quantifier. Version of euor 2637 requiring disjoint variables, but fewer axioms. (Contributed by NM, 23-Mar-1995.) Reduce dependencies on axioms. (Revised by Wolf Lammen, 14-Jan-2023.)
⊢ ((¬ 𝜑 ∧ ∃!𝑥𝜓) → ∃!𝑥(𝜑 ∨ 𝜓))
Theorem	euor2 2639	Introduce or eliminate a disjunct in a unique existential quantifier. (Contributed by NM, 21-Oct-2005.) (Proof shortened by Andrew Salmon, 9-Jul-2011.) (Proof shortened by Wolf Lammen, 27-Dec-2018.)
⊢ (¬ ∃𝑥𝜑 → (∃!𝑥(𝜑 ∨ 𝜓) ↔ ∃!𝑥𝜓))
Theorem	sbmo 2640*	Substitution into an at-most-one quantifier. (Contributed by Jeff Madsen, 2-Sep-2009.)
⊢ ([𝑦 / 𝑥]∃*𝑧𝜑 ↔ ∃*𝑧[𝑦 / 𝑥]𝜑)
Theorem	eu4 2641*	Uniqueness using implicit substitution. (Contributed by NM, 26-Jul-1995.)
⊢ (𝑥 = 𝑦 → (𝜑 ↔ 𝜓))    ⇒   ⊢ (∃!𝑥𝜑 ↔ (∃𝑥𝜑 ∧ ∀𝑥∀𝑦((𝜑 ∧ 𝜓) → 𝑥 = 𝑦)))
Theorem	euimmo 2642	Existential uniqueness implies uniqueness through reverse implication. (Contributed by NM, 22-Apr-1995.)
⊢ (∀𝑥(𝜑 → 𝜓) → (∃!𝑥𝜓 → ∃*𝑥𝜑))
Theorem	euim 2643	Add unique existential quantifiers to an implication. Note the reversed implication in the antecedent. (Contributed by NM, 19-Oct-2005.) (Proof shortened by Andrew Salmon, 14-Jun-2011.) (Proof shortened by Wolf Lammen, 1-Oct-2023.)
⊢ ((∃𝑥𝜑 ∧ ∀𝑥(𝜑 → 𝜓)) → (∃!𝑥𝜓 → ∃!𝑥𝜑))
Theorem	moanimlem 2644	Factor out the common proof skeleton of moanimv 2645 and moanim 2646. (Contributed by NM, 3-Dec-2001.) (Proof shortened by Wolf Lammen, 24-Dec-2018.) Factor out common proof lines. (Revised by Wolf Lammen, 8-Feb-2023.)
⊢ (𝜑 → (∃*𝑥𝜓 ↔ ∃*𝑥(𝜑 ∧ 𝜓)))    &   ⊢ (∃𝑥(𝜑 ∧ 𝜓) → 𝜑)    ⇒   ⊢ (∃*𝑥(𝜑 ∧ 𝜓) ↔ (𝜑 → ∃*𝑥𝜓))
Theorem	moanimv 2645*	Introduction of a conjunct into an at-most-one quantifier. Version of moanim 2646 requiring disjoint variables, but fewer axioms. (Contributed by NM, 23-Mar-1995.) Reduce axiom usage . (Revised by Wolf Lammen, 8-Feb-2023.)
⊢ (∃*𝑥(𝜑 ∧ 𝜓) ↔ (𝜑 → ∃*𝑥𝜓))
Theorem	moanim 2646	Introduction of a conjunct into "at most one" quantifier. For a version requiring disjoint variables, but fewer axioms, see moanimv 2645. (Contributed by NM, 3-Dec-2001.) (Proof shortened by Wolf Lammen, 24-Dec-2018.)
⊢ Ⅎ𝑥𝜑    ⇒   ⊢ (∃*𝑥(𝜑 ∧ 𝜓) ↔ (𝜑 → ∃*𝑥𝜓))
Theorem	euan 2647	Introduction of a conjunct into unique existential quantifier. (Contributed by NM, 19-Feb-2005.) (Proof shortened by Andrew Salmon, 9-Jul-2011.) (Proof shortened by Wolf Lammen, 24-Dec-2018.)
⊢ Ⅎ𝑥𝜑    ⇒   ⊢ (∃!𝑥(𝜑 ∧ 𝜓) ↔ (𝜑 ∧ ∃!𝑥𝜓))
Theorem	moanmo 2648	Nested at-most-one quantifiers. (Contributed by NM, 25-Jan-2006.)
⊢ ∃*𝑥(𝜑 ∧ ∃*𝑥𝜑)
Theorem	moaneu 2649	Nested at-most-one and unique existential quantifiers. (Contributed by NM, 25-Jan-2006.) (Proof shortened by Wolf Lammen, 27-Dec-2018.)
⊢ ∃*𝑥(𝜑 ∧ ∃!𝑥𝜑)
Theorem	euanv 2650*	Introduction of a conjunct into unique existential quantifier. (Contributed by NM, 23-Mar-1995.) Reduce dependencies on axioms. (Revised by Wolf Lammen, 14-Jan-2023.)
⊢ (∃!𝑥(𝜑 ∧ 𝜓) ↔ (𝜑 ∧ ∃!𝑥𝜓))
Theorem	mopick 2651	"At most one" picks a variable value, eliminating an existential quantifier. (Contributed by NM, 27-Jan-1997.) (Proof shortened by Wolf Lammen, 17-Sep-2019.)
⊢ ((∃*𝑥𝜑 ∧ ∃𝑥(𝜑 ∧ 𝜓)) → (𝜑 → 𝜓))
Theorem	moexexlem 2652	Factor out the proof skeleton of moexex 2664 and moexexvw 2654. (Contributed by Wolf Lammen, 2-Oct-2023.)
⊢ Ⅎ𝑦𝜑    &   ⊢ Ⅎ𝑦∃*𝑥𝜑    &   ⊢ Ⅎ𝑥∃*𝑦∃𝑥(𝜑 ∧ 𝜓)    ⇒   ⊢ ((∃*𝑥𝜑 ∧ ∀𝑥∃*𝑦𝜓) → ∃*𝑦∃𝑥(𝜑 ∧ 𝜓))
Theorem	2moexv 2653*	Double quantification with "at most one". (Contributed by NM, 3-Dec-2001.)
⊢ (∃*𝑥∃𝑦𝜑 → ∀𝑦∃*𝑥𝜑)
Theorem	moexexvw 2654*	"At most one" double quantification. Version of moexexv 2665 with an additional disjoint variable condition, which does not require ax-13 2402. (Contributed by NM, 26-Jan-1997.) (Revised by GG, 22-Aug-2023.) Factor out common proof lines with moexex 2664. (Revised by Wolf Lammen, 2-Oct-2023.)
⊢ ((∃*𝑥𝜑 ∧ ∀𝑥∃*𝑦𝜓) → ∃*𝑦∃𝑥(𝜑 ∧ 𝜓))
Theorem	2moswapv 2655*	A condition allowing to swap an existential quantifier and at at-most-one quantifier. Version of 2moswap 2670 with a disjoint variable condition, which does not require ax-13 2402. (Contributed by NM, 10-Apr-2004.) (Revised by GG, 22-Aug-2023.) Factor out common proof lines with moexexvw 2654. (Revised by Wolf Lammen, 2-Oct-2023.)
⊢ (∀𝑥∃*𝑦𝜑 → (∃*𝑥∃𝑦𝜑 → ∃*𝑦∃𝑥𝜑))
Theorem	2euswapv 2656*	A condition allowing to swap an existential quantifier and a unique existential quantifier. Version of 2euswap 2671 with a disjoint variable condition, which does not require ax-13 2402. (Contributed by NM, 10-Apr-2004.) (Revised by GG, 22-Aug-2023.)
⊢ (∀𝑥∃*𝑦𝜑 → (∃!𝑥∃𝑦𝜑 → ∃!𝑦∃𝑥𝜑))
Theorem	2euexv 2657*	Double quantification with existential uniqueness. Version of 2euex 2667 with 𝑥 and 𝑦 distinct, but not requiring ax-13 2402. (Contributed by NM, 3-Dec-2001.) (Revised by Wolf Lammen, 2-Oct-2023.)
⊢ (∃!𝑥∃𝑦𝜑 → ∃𝑦∃!𝑥𝜑)
Theorem	2exeuv 2658*	Double existential uniqueness implies double unique existential quantification. Version of 2exeu 2672 with 𝑥 and 𝑦 distinct, but not requiring ax-13 2402. (Contributed by NM, 3-Dec-2001.) (Revised by Wolf Lammen, 2-Oct-2023.)
⊢ ((∃!𝑥∃𝑦𝜑 ∧ ∃!𝑦∃𝑥𝜑) → ∃!𝑥∃!𝑦𝜑)
Theorem	eupick 2659	Existential uniqueness "picks" a variable value for which another wff is true. If there is only one thing 𝑥 such that 𝜑 is true, and there is also an 𝑥 (actually the same one) such that 𝜑 and 𝜓 are both true, then 𝜑 implies 𝜓 regardless of 𝑥. This theorem can be useful for eliminating existential quantifiers in a hypothesis. Compare Theorem *14.26 in [WhiteheadRussell] p. 192. (Contributed by NM, 10-Jul-1994.)
⊢ ((∃!𝑥𝜑 ∧ ∃𝑥(𝜑 ∧ 𝜓)) → (𝜑 → 𝜓))
Theorem	eupicka 2660	Version of eupick 2659 with closed formulas. (Contributed by NM, 6-Sep-2008.)
⊢ ((∃!𝑥𝜑 ∧ ∃𝑥(𝜑 ∧ 𝜓)) → ∀𝑥(𝜑 → 𝜓))
Theorem	eupickb 2661	Existential uniqueness "pick" showing wff equivalence. (Contributed by NM, 25-Nov-1994.) (Proof shortened by Wolf Lammen, 27-Dec-2018.)
⊢ ((∃!𝑥𝜑 ∧ ∃!𝑥𝜓 ∧ ∃𝑥(𝜑 ∧ 𝜓)) → (𝜑 ↔ 𝜓))
Theorem	eupickbi 2662	Theorem *14.26 in [WhiteheadRussell] p. 192. (Contributed by Andrew Salmon, 11-Jul-2011.) (Proof shortened by Wolf Lammen, 27-Dec-2018.)
⊢ (∃!𝑥𝜑 → (∃𝑥(𝜑 ∧ 𝜓) ↔ ∀𝑥(𝜑 → 𝜓)))
Theorem	mopick2 2663	"At most one" can show the existence of a common value. In this case we can infer existence of conjunction from a conjunction of existence, and it is one way to achieve the converse of 19.40 1905. (Contributed by NM, 5-Apr-2004.) (Proof shortened by Andrew Salmon, 9-Jul-2011.)
⊢ ((∃*𝑥𝜑 ∧ ∃𝑥(𝜑 ∧ 𝜓) ∧ ∃𝑥(𝜑 ∧ 𝜒)) → ∃𝑥(𝜑 ∧ 𝜓 ∧ 𝜒))
Theorem	moexex 2664	"At most one" double quantification. Usage of this theorem is discouraged because it depends on ax-13 2402. Use the version moexexvw 2654 when possible. (Contributed by NM, 3-Dec-2001.) (Proof shortened by Wolf Lammen, 28-Dec-2018.) Factor out common proof lines with moexexvw 2654. (Revised by Wolf Lammen, 2-Oct-2023.) (New usage is discouraged.)
⊢ Ⅎ𝑦𝜑    ⇒   ⊢ ((∃*𝑥𝜑 ∧ ∀𝑥∃*𝑦𝜓) → ∃*𝑦∃𝑥(𝜑 ∧ 𝜓))
Theorem	moexexv 2665*	"At most one" double quantification. Usage of this theorem is discouraged because it depends on ax-13 2402. Use the weaker moexexvw 2654 when possible. (Contributed by NM, 26-Jan-1997.) (New usage is discouraged.)
⊢ ((∃*𝑥𝜑 ∧ ∀𝑥∃*𝑦𝜓) → ∃*𝑦∃𝑥(𝜑 ∧ 𝜓))
Theorem	2moex 2666	Double quantification with "at most one". Usage of this theorem is discouraged because it depends on ax-13 2402. Use the weaker 2moexv 2653 when possible. (Contributed by NM, 3-Dec-2001.) (New usage is discouraged.)
⊢ (∃*𝑥∃𝑦𝜑 → ∀𝑦∃*𝑥𝜑)
Theorem	2euex 2667	Double quantification with existential uniqueness. Usage of this theorem is discouraged because it depends on ax-13 2402. Use the weaker 2euexv 2657 when possible. (Contributed by NM, 3-Dec-2001.) (Proof shortened by Andrew Salmon, 9-Jul-2011.) (New usage is discouraged.)
⊢ (∃!𝑥∃𝑦𝜑 → ∃𝑦∃!𝑥𝜑)
Theorem	2eumo 2668	Nested unique existential quantifier and at-most-one quantifier. (Contributed by NM, 3-Dec-2001.)
⊢ (∃!𝑥∃*𝑦𝜑 → ∃*𝑥∃!𝑦𝜑)
Theorem	2eu2ex 2669	Double existential uniqueness. (Contributed by NM, 3-Dec-2001.)
⊢ (∃!𝑥∃!𝑦𝜑 → ∃𝑥∃𝑦𝜑)
Theorem	2moswap 2670	A condition allowing to swap an existential quantifier and at at-most-one quantifier. Usage of this theorem is discouraged because it depends on ax-13 2402. Use the weaker 2moswapv 2655 when possible. (Contributed by NM, 10-Apr-2004.) (New usage is discouraged.)
⊢ (∀𝑥∃*𝑦𝜑 → (∃*𝑥∃𝑦𝜑 → ∃*𝑦∃𝑥𝜑))
Theorem	2euswap 2671	A condition allowing to swap an existential quantifier and a unique existential quantifier. Usage of this theorem is discouraged because it depends on ax-13 2402. Use the weaker 2euswapv 2656 when possible. (Contributed by NM, 10-Apr-2004.) (New usage is discouraged.)
⊢ (∀𝑥∃*𝑦𝜑 → (∃!𝑥∃𝑦𝜑 → ∃!𝑦∃𝑥𝜑))
Theorem	2exeu 2672	Double existential uniqueness implies double unique existential quantification. The converse does not hold. Usage of this theorem is discouraged because it depends on ax-13 2402. Use the weaker 2exeuv 2658 when possible. (Contributed by NM, 3-Dec-2001.) (Proof shortened by Mario Carneiro, 22-Dec-2016.) (New usage is discouraged.)
⊢ ((∃!𝑥∃𝑦𝜑 ∧ ∃!𝑦∃𝑥𝜑) → ∃!𝑥∃!𝑦𝜑)
Theorem	2mo2 2673*	Two ways of expressing "there exists at most one ordered pair ⟨𝑥, 𝑦⟩ such that 𝜑(𝑥, 𝑦) holds. Note that this is not equivalent to ∃*𝑥∃*𝑦𝜑. See also 2mo 2674. This is the analogue of 2eu4 2680 for existential uniqueness. (Contributed by Wolf Lammen, 26-Oct-2019.) Reduce dependencies on axioms. (Revised by Wolf Lammen, 3-Jan-2023.)
⊢ ((∃*𝑥∃𝑦𝜑 ∧ ∃*𝑦∃𝑥𝜑) ↔ ∃𝑧∃𝑤∀𝑥∀𝑦(𝜑 → (𝑥 = 𝑧 ∧ 𝑦 = 𝑤)))
Theorem	2mo 2674*	Two ways of expressing "there exists at most one ordered pair ⟨𝑥, 𝑦⟩ such that 𝜑(𝑥, 𝑦) holds. See also 2mo2 2673. (Contributed by NM, 2-Feb-2005.) (Revised by Mario Carneiro, 17-Oct-2016.) (Proof shortened by Wolf Lammen, 2-Nov-2019.)
⊢ (∃𝑧∃𝑤∀𝑥∀𝑦(𝜑 → (𝑥 = 𝑧 ∧ 𝑦 = 𝑤)) ↔ ∀𝑥∀𝑦∀𝑧∀𝑤((𝜑 ∧ [𝑧 / 𝑥][𝑤 / 𝑦]𝜑) → (𝑥 = 𝑧 ∧ 𝑦 = 𝑤)))
Theorem	2mos 2675*	Double "there exists at most one", using implicit substitution. (Contributed by NM, 10-Feb-2005.) (Proof shortened by Wolf Lammen, 21-May-2025.)
⊢ ((𝑥 = 𝑧 ∧ 𝑦 = 𝑤) → (𝜑 ↔ 𝜓))    ⇒   ⊢ (∃𝑧∃𝑤∀𝑥∀𝑦(𝜑 → (𝑥 = 𝑧 ∧ 𝑦 = 𝑤)) ↔ ∀𝑥∀𝑦∀𝑧∀𝑤((𝜑 ∧ 𝜓) → (𝑥 = 𝑧 ∧ 𝑦 = 𝑤)))
Theorem	2eu1 2676	Double existential uniqueness. This theorem shows a condition under which a "naive" definition matches the correct one. Usage of this theorem is discouraged because it depends on ax-13 2402. Use the weaker 2eu1v 2677 when possible. (Contributed by NM, 3-Dec-2001.) (Proof shortened by Wolf Lammen, 23-Apr-2023.) (New usage is discouraged.)
⊢ (∀𝑥∃*𝑦𝜑 → (∃!𝑥∃!𝑦𝜑 ↔ (∃!𝑥∃𝑦𝜑 ∧ ∃!𝑦∃𝑥𝜑)))
Theorem	2eu1v 2677*	Double existential uniqueness. This theorem shows a condition under which a "naive" definition matches the correct one. Version of 2eu1 2676 with 𝑥 and 𝑦 distinct, but not requiring ax-13 2402. (Contributed by NM, 3-Dec-2001.) (Revised by Wolf Lammen, 2-Oct-2023.)
⊢ (∀𝑥∃*𝑦𝜑 → (∃!𝑥∃!𝑦𝜑 ↔ (∃!𝑥∃𝑦𝜑 ∧ ∃!𝑦∃𝑥𝜑)))
Theorem	2eu2 2678	Double existential uniqueness. Usage of this theorem is discouraged because it depends on ax-13 2402. (Contributed by NM, 3-Dec-2001.) (New usage is discouraged.)
⊢ (∃!𝑦∃𝑥𝜑 → (∃!𝑥∃!𝑦𝜑 ↔ ∃!𝑥∃𝑦𝜑))
Theorem	2eu3 2679	Double existential uniqueness. Usage of this theorem is discouraged because it depends on ax-13 2402. (Contributed by NM, 3-Dec-2001.) (Proof shortened by Wolf Lammen, 23-Apr-2023.) (New usage is discouraged.)
⊢ (∀𝑥∀𝑦(∃*𝑥𝜑 ∨ ∃*𝑦𝜑) → ((∃!𝑥∃!𝑦𝜑 ∧ ∃!𝑦∃!𝑥𝜑) ↔ (∃!𝑥∃𝑦𝜑 ∧ ∃!𝑦∃𝑥𝜑)))
Theorem	2eu4 2680*	This theorem provides us with a definition of double existential uniqueness ("exactly one 𝑥 and exactly one 𝑦"). Naively one might think (incorrectly) that it could be defined by ∃!𝑥∃!𝑦𝜑. See 2eu1 2676 for a condition under which the naive definition holds and 2exeu 2672 for a one-way implication. See 2eu5 2681 and 2eu8 2684 for alternate definitions. (Contributed by NM, 3-Dec-2001.) (Proof shortened by Wolf Lammen, 14-Sep-2019.)
⊢ ((∃!𝑥∃𝑦𝜑 ∧ ∃!𝑦∃𝑥𝜑) ↔ (∃𝑥∃𝑦𝜑 ∧ ∃𝑧∃𝑤∀𝑥∀𝑦(𝜑 → (𝑥 = 𝑧 ∧ 𝑦 = 𝑤))))
Theorem	2eu5 2681*	An alternate definition of double existential uniqueness (see 2eu4 2680). A mistake sometimes made in the literature is to use ∃!𝑥∃!𝑦 to mean "exactly one 𝑥 and exactly one 𝑦". (For example, see Proposition 7.53 of [TakeutiZaring] p. 53.) It turns out that this is actually a weaker assertion, as can be seen by expanding out the formal definitions. This theorem shows that the erroneous definition can be repaired by conjoining ∀𝑥∃*𝑦𝜑 as an additional condition. The correct definition apparently has never been published. (∃* means "there exists at most one".) (Contributed by NM, 26-Oct-2003.) Avoid ax-13 2402. (Revised by Wolf Lammen, 2-Oct-2023.)
⊢ ((∃!𝑥∃!𝑦𝜑 ∧ ∀𝑥∃*𝑦𝜑) ↔ (∃𝑥∃𝑦𝜑 ∧ ∃𝑧∃𝑤∀𝑥∀𝑦(𝜑 → (𝑥 = 𝑧 ∧ 𝑦 = 𝑤))))
Theorem	2eu6 2682*	Two equivalent expressions for double existential uniqueness. (Contributed by NM, 2-Feb-2005.) (Revised by Mario Carneiro, 17-Oct-2016.) (Proof shortened by Wolf Lammen, 2-Oct-2019.)
⊢ ((∃!𝑥∃𝑦𝜑 ∧ ∃!𝑦∃𝑥𝜑) ↔ ∃𝑧∃𝑤∀𝑥∀𝑦(𝜑 ↔ (𝑥 = 𝑧 ∧ 𝑦 = 𝑤)))
Theorem	2eu7 2683	Two equivalent expressions for double existential uniqueness. Usage of this theorem is discouraged because it depends on ax-13 2402. (Contributed by NM, 19-Feb-2005.) (New usage is discouraged.)
⊢ ((∃!𝑥∃𝑦𝜑 ∧ ∃!𝑦∃𝑥𝜑) ↔ ∃!𝑥∃!𝑦(∃𝑥𝜑 ∧ ∃𝑦𝜑))
Theorem	2eu8 2684	Two equivalent expressions for double existential uniqueness. Curiously, we can put ∃! on either of the internal conjuncts but not both. We can also commute ∃!𝑥∃!𝑦 using 2eu7 2683. Usage of this theorem is discouraged because it depends on ax-13 2402. (Contributed by NM, 20-Feb-2005.) (New usage is discouraged.)
⊢ (∃!𝑥∃!𝑦(∃𝑥𝜑 ∧ ∃𝑦𝜑) ↔ ∃!𝑥∃!𝑦(∃!𝑥𝜑 ∧ ∃𝑦𝜑))
Theorem	euae 2685*	Two ways to express "exactly one thing exists". To paraphrase the statement and explain the label: there Exists a Unique thing if and only if for All 𝑥, 𝑥 Equals some given (and disjoint) 𝑦. Both sides are false in set theory, see Theorems neutru 36731 and dtru 5403. (Contributed by NM, 5-Apr-2004.) State the theorem using truth constant ⊤. (Revised by BJ, 7-Oct-2022.) Reduce axiom dependencies. (Revised by Wolf Lammen, 2-Mar-2023.)
⊢ (∃!𝑥⊤ ↔ ∀𝑥 𝑥 = 𝑦)
Theorem	exists1 2686*	Two ways to express "exactly one thing exists". The left-hand side requires only one variable to express this. Both sides are false in set theory, see Theorem dtru 5403. (Contributed by NM, 5-Apr-2004.) (Proof shortened by BJ, 7-Oct-2022.)
⊢ (∃!𝑥 𝑥 = 𝑥 ↔ ∀𝑥 𝑥 = 𝑦)
Theorem	exists2 2687	A condition implying that at least two things exist. (Contributed by NM, 10-Apr-2004.) (Proof shortened by Andrew Salmon, 9-Jul-2011.) Reduce axiom usage. (Revised by Wolf Lammen, 4-Mar-2023.)
⊢ ((∃𝑥𝜑 ∧ ∃𝑥 ¬ 𝜑) → ¬ ∃!𝑥 𝑥 = 𝑥)
1.7  Other axiomatizations related to classical predicate calculus
1.7.1  Aristotelian logic: Assertic syllogisms Model the Aristotelian assertic syllogisms using modern notation. This section shows that the Aristotelian assertic syllogisms can be proven with our axioms of logic, and also provides generally useful theorems. In antiquity Aristotelian logic and Stoic logic (see mptnan 1787) were the leading logical systems. Aristotelian logic became the leading system in medieval Europe. This section models this system (including later refinements). Aristotle defined syllogisms very generally ("a discourse in which certain (specific) things having been supposed, something different from the things supposed results of necessity because these things are so") Aristotle, Prior Analytics 24b18-20. However, in Prior Analytics he limits himself to categorical syllogisms that consist of three categorical propositions with specific structures. The syllogisms are the valid subset of the possible combinations of these structures. The medieval schools used vowels to identify the types of terms (a=all, e=none, i=some, and o=some are not), and named the different syllogisms with Latin words that had the vowels in the intended order. "There is a surprising amount of scholarly debate about how best to formalize Aristotle's syllogisms..." according to Aristotle's Modal Proofs: Prior Analytics A8-22 in Predicate Logic, Adriane Rini, Springer, 2011, ISBN 978-94-007-0049-9, page 28. For example, Lukasiewicz believes it is important to note that "Aristotle does not introduce singular terms or premisses into his system". Lukasiewicz also believes that Aristotelian syllogisms are predicates (having a true/false value), not inference rules: "The characteristic sign of an inference is the word 'therefore'... no syllogism is formulated by Aristotle primarily as an inference, but they are all implications." Jan Lukasiewicz, Aristotle's Syllogistic from the Standpoint of Modern Formal Logic, Second edition, Oxford, 1957, page 1-2. Lukasiewicz devised a specialized prefix notation for representing Aristotelian syllogisms instead of using standard predicate logic notation. We instead translate each Aristotelian syllogism into an inference rule, and each rule is defined using standard predicate logic notation and predicates. The predicates are represented by wff variables that may depend on the quantified variable 𝑥. Our translation is essentially identical to the one used in Rini page 18, Table 2 "Non-Modal Syllogisms in Lower Predicate Calculus (LPC)", which uses standard predicate logic with predicates. Rini states, "the crucial point is that we capture the meaning Aristotle intends, and the method by which we represent that meaning is less important". There are two differences: we make the existence criteria explicit, and we use 𝜑, 𝜓, and 𝜒 in the order they appear (a common Metamath convention). Patzig also uses standard predicate logic notation and predicates (though he interprets them as conditional propositions, not as inference rules); see Gunther Patzig, Aristotle's Theory of the Syllogism second edition, 1963, English translation by Jonathan Barnes, 1968, page 38. Terms such as "all" and "some" are translated into predicate logic using the approach devised by Frege and Russell. "Frege (and Russell) devised an ingenious procedure for regimenting binary quantifiers like "every" and "some" in terms of unary quantifiers like "everything" and "something": they formalized sentences of the form "Some A is B" and "Every A is B" as exists x (Ax and Bx) and all x (Ax implies Bx), respectively." "Quantifiers and Quantification", Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/quantification/ 1787. See Principia Mathematica page 22 and *10 for more information (especially *10.3 and *10.26). Expressions of the form "no 𝜑 is 𝜓 " are consistently translated as ∀𝑥(𝜑 → ¬ 𝜓). These can also be expressed as ¬ ∃𝑥(𝜑 ∧ 𝜓), per alinexa 1862. We translate "all 𝜑 is 𝜓 " to ∀𝑥(𝜑 → 𝜓), "some 𝜑 is 𝜓 " to ∃𝑥(𝜑 ∧ 𝜓), and "some 𝜑 is not 𝜓 " to ∃𝑥(𝜑 ∧ ¬ 𝜓). It is traditional to use the singular form "is", not the plural form "are", in the generic expressions. By convention the major premise is listed first. In traditional Aristotelian syllogisms the predicates have a restricted form ("x is a ..."); those predicates could be modeled in modern notation by more specific constructs such as 𝑥 = 𝐴, 𝑥 ∈ 𝐴, or 𝑥 ⊆ 𝐴. Here we use wff variables instead of specialized restricted forms. This generalization makes the syllogisms more useful in more circumstances. In addition, these expressions make it clearer that the syllogisms of Aristotelian logic are the forerunners of predicate calculus. If we used restricted forms like 𝑥 ∈ 𝐴 instead, we would not only unnecessarily limit their use, but we would also need to use set and class axioms, making their relationship to predicate calculus less clear. Using such specific constructs would also be anti-historical; Aristotle and others who directly followed his work focused on relating wholes to their parts, an approach now called part-whole theory. The work of Cantor and Peano (over 2,000 years later) led to a sharper distinction between inclusion (⊆) and membership (∈); this distinction was not directly made in Aristotle's work. There are some widespread misconceptions about the existential assumptions made by Aristotle (aka "existential import"). Aristotle was not trying to develop something exactly corresponding to modern logic. Aristotle devised "a companion-logic for science. He relegates fictions like fairy godmothers and mermaids and unicorns to the realms of poetry and literature. In his mind, they exist outside the ambit of science. This is why he leaves no room for such nonexistent entities in his logic. This is a thoughtful choice, not an inadvertent omission. Technically, Aristotelian science is a search for definitions, where a definition is "a phrase signifying a thing's essence." (Topics, I.5.102a37, Pickard-Cambridge.)... Because non-existent entities cannot be anything, they do not, in Aristotle's mind, possess an essence... This is why he leaves no place for fictional entities like goat-stags (or unicorns)." Source: Louis F. Groarke, "Aristotle: Logic", section 7. (Existential Assumptions), Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy (A Peer-Reviewed Academic Resource), http://www.iep.utm.edu/aris-log/ 1862. Thus, some syllogisms have "extra" existence hypotheses that do not directly appear in Aristotle's original materials (since they were always assumed); they are added where they are needed. This affects barbari 2694, celaront 2696, cesaro 2703, camestros 2704, felapton 2711, darapti 2709, calemos 2715, fesapo 2716, and bamalip 2717. These are only the assertic syllogisms. Aristotle also defined modal syllogisms that deal with modal qualifiers such as "necessarily" and "possibly". Historically, Aristotelian modal syllogisms were not as widely used. For more about modal syllogisms in a modern context, see Rini as well as Aristotle's Modal Syllogistic by Marko Malink, Harvard University Press, November 2013. We do not treat them further here. Aristotelian logic is essentially the forerunner of predicate calculus (as well as set theory since it discusses membership in groups), while Stoic logic is essentially the forerunner of propositional calculus. The following twenty-four syllogisms (from barbara 2688 to bamalip 2717) are all proven from { ax-mp 5, ax-1 6, ax-2 7, ax-3 8, ax-gen 1814, ax-4 1828 }, which corresponds in the usual translation to modal logic (a universal (resp. existential) quantifier maps to necessity (resp. possibility)) to the weakest normal modal logic (K). Some proofs could be shortened by using additionally spi 2218 (inference form of sp 2217, which corresponds to the axiom (T) of modal logic), as demonstrated by dariiALT 2691, barbariALT 2695, festinoALT 2700, barocoALT 2702, daraptiALT 2710.
Theorem	barbara 2688	"Barbara", one of the fundamental syllogisms of Aristotelian logic. All 𝜑 is 𝜓, and all 𝜒 is 𝜑, therefore all 𝜒 is 𝜓. In Aristotelian notation, AAA-1: MaP and SaM therefore SaP. For example, given "All men are mortal" and "Socrates is a man", we can prove "Socrates is mortal". If H is the set of men, M is the set of mortal beings, and S is Socrates, these word phrases can be represented as ∀𝑥(𝑥 ∈ 𝐻 → 𝑥 ∈ 𝑀) (all men are mortal) and ∀𝑥(𝑥 = 𝑆 → 𝑥 ∈ 𝐻) (Socrates is a man) therefore ∀𝑥(𝑥 = 𝑆 → 𝑥 ∈ 𝑀) (Socrates is mortal). Russell and Whitehead note that "the syllogism in Barbara [barbara 2688] is derived from [syl 17]" (quote after Theorem *2.06 of [WhiteheadRussell] p. 101). Most of the proof is in alsyl 1912. There are a legion of sources for Barbara, including http://www.friesian.com/aristotl.htm 1912, http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/aristotle-logic/ 1912, and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syllogism 1912. (Contributed by David A. Wheeler, 24-Aug-2016.)
⊢ ∀𝑥(𝜑 → 𝜓)    &   ⊢ ∀𝑥(𝜒 → 𝜑)    ⇒   ⊢ ∀𝑥(𝜒 → 𝜓)
Theorem	celarent 2689	"Celarent", one of the syllogisms of Aristotelian logic. No 𝜑 is 𝜓, and all 𝜒 is 𝜑, therefore no 𝜒 is 𝜓. Instance of barbara 2688. In Aristotelian notation, EAE-1: MeP and SaM therefore SeP. For example, given the "No reptiles have fur" and "All snakes are reptiles", therefore "No snakes have fur". Example from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syllogism 2688. (Contributed by David A. Wheeler, 24-Aug-2016.)
⊢ ∀𝑥(𝜑 → ¬ 𝜓)    &   ⊢ ∀𝑥(𝜒 → 𝜑)    ⇒   ⊢ ∀𝑥(𝜒 → ¬ 𝜓)
Theorem	darii 2690	"Darii", one of the syllogisms of Aristotelian logic. All 𝜑 is 𝜓, and some 𝜒 is 𝜑, therefore some 𝜒 is 𝜓. In Aristotelian notation, AII-1: MaP and SiM therefore SiP. For example, given "All rabbits have fur" and "Some pets are rabbits", therefore "Some pets have fur". Example from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syllogism. See dariiALT 2691 for a shorter proof requiring more axioms. (Contributed by David A. Wheeler, 24-Aug-2016.) Reduce dependencies on axioms. (Revised by BJ, 16-Sep-2022.)
⊢ ∀𝑥(𝜑 → 𝜓)    &   ⊢ ∃𝑥(𝜒 ∧ 𝜑)    ⇒   ⊢ ∃𝑥(𝜒 ∧ 𝜓)
Theorem	dariiALT 2691	Alternate proof of darii 2690, shorter but using more axioms. This shows how the use of spi 2218 may shorten some proofs of the Aristotelian syllogisms, even though this adds axiom dependencies. Note that spi 2218 is the inference associated with sp 2217, which corresponds to the axiom (T) of modal logic. (Contributed by David A. Wheeler, 27-Aug-2016.) Added precisions on axiom usage. (Revised by BJ, 27-Sep-2022.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) (New usage is discouraged.)
⊢ ∀𝑥(𝜑 → 𝜓)    &   ⊢ ∃𝑥(𝜒 ∧ 𝜑)    ⇒   ⊢ ∃𝑥(𝜒 ∧ 𝜓)
Theorem	ferio 2692	"Ferio" ("Ferioque"), one of the syllogisms of Aristotelian logic. No 𝜑 is 𝜓, and some 𝜒 is 𝜑, therefore some 𝜒 is not 𝜓. Instance of darii 2690. In Aristotelian notation, EIO-1: MeP and SiM therefore SoP. For example, given "No homework is fun" and "Some reading is homework", therefore "Some reading is not fun". This is essentially a logical axiom in Aristotelian logic. Example from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syllogism 2690. (Contributed by David A. Wheeler, 24-Aug-2016.)
⊢ ∀𝑥(𝜑 → ¬ 𝜓)    &   ⊢ ∃𝑥(𝜒 ∧ 𝜑)    ⇒   ⊢ ∃𝑥(𝜒 ∧ ¬ 𝜓)
Theorem	barbarilem 2693	Lemma for barbari 2694 and the other Aristotelian syllogisms with existential assumption. (Contributed by BJ, 16-Sep-2022.)
⊢ ∃𝑥𝜑    &   ⊢ ∀𝑥(𝜑 → 𝜓)    ⇒   ⊢ ∃𝑥(𝜑 ∧ 𝜓)
Theorem	barbari 2694	"Barbari", one of the syllogisms of Aristotelian logic. All 𝜑 is 𝜓, all 𝜒 is 𝜑, and some 𝜒 exist, therefore some 𝜒 is 𝜓. In Aristotelian notation, AAI-1: MaP and SaM therefore SiP. For example, given "All men are mortal", "All Greeks are men", and "Greeks exist", therefore "Some Greeks are mortal". Note the existence hypothesis (to prove the "some" in the conclusion). Example from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syllogism. (Contributed by David A. Wheeler, 27-Aug-2016.) Reduce dependencies on axioms. (Revised by BJ, 16-Sep-2022.)
⊢ ∀𝑥(𝜑 → 𝜓)    &   ⊢ ∀𝑥(𝜒 → 𝜑)    &   ⊢ ∃𝑥𝜒    ⇒   ⊢ ∃𝑥(𝜒 ∧ 𝜓)
Theorem	barbariALT 2695	Alternate proof of barbari 2694, shorter but using more axioms. See comment of dariiALT 2691. (Contributed by David A. Wheeler, 27-Aug-2016.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) (New usage is discouraged.)
⊢ ∀𝑥(𝜑 → 𝜓)    &   ⊢ ∀𝑥(𝜒 → 𝜑)    &   ⊢ ∃𝑥𝜒    ⇒   ⊢ ∃𝑥(𝜒 ∧ 𝜓)
Theorem	celaront 2696	"Celaront", one of the syllogisms of Aristotelian logic. No 𝜑 is 𝜓, all 𝜒 is 𝜑, and some 𝜒 exist, therefore some 𝜒 is not 𝜓. Instance of barbari 2694. In Aristotelian notation, EAO-1: MeP and SaM therefore SoP. For example, given "No reptiles have fur", "All snakes are reptiles", and "Snakes exist", prove "Some snakes have no fur". Note the existence hypothesis. Example from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syllogism 2694. (Contributed by David A. Wheeler, 27-Aug-2016.)
⊢ ∀𝑥(𝜑 → ¬ 𝜓)    &   ⊢ ∀𝑥(𝜒 → 𝜑)    &   ⊢ ∃𝑥𝜒    ⇒   ⊢ ∃𝑥(𝜒 ∧ ¬ 𝜓)
Theorem	cesare 2697	"Cesare", one of the syllogisms of Aristotelian logic. No 𝜑 is 𝜓, and all 𝜒 is 𝜓, therefore no 𝜒 is 𝜑. In Aristotelian notation, EAE-2: PeM and SaM therefore SeP. Related to celarent 2689. (Contributed by David A. Wheeler, 27-Aug-2016.) Reduce dependencies on axioms. (Revised by BJ, 16-Sep-2022.)
⊢ ∀𝑥(𝜑 → ¬ 𝜓)    &   ⊢ ∀𝑥(𝜒 → 𝜓)    ⇒   ⊢ ∀𝑥(𝜒 → ¬ 𝜑)
Theorem	camestres 2698	"Camestres", one of the syllogisms of Aristotelian logic. All 𝜑 is 𝜓, and no 𝜒 is 𝜓, therefore no 𝜒 is 𝜑. In Aristotelian notation, AEE-2: PaM and SeM therefore SeP. (Contributed by David A. Wheeler, 28-Aug-2016.) Reduce dependencies on axioms. (Revised by BJ, 16-Sep-2022.)
⊢ ∀𝑥(𝜑 → 𝜓)    &   ⊢ ∀𝑥(𝜒 → ¬ 𝜓)    ⇒   ⊢ ∀𝑥(𝜒 → ¬ 𝜑)
Theorem	festino 2699	"Festino", one of the syllogisms of Aristotelian logic. No 𝜑 is 𝜓, and some 𝜒 is 𝜓, therefore some 𝜒 is not 𝜑. In Aristotelian notation, EIO-2: PeM and SiM therefore SoP. (Contributed by David A. Wheeler, 25-Nov-2016.) Reduce dependencies on axioms. (Revised by BJ, 16-Sep-2022.)
⊢ ∀𝑥(𝜑 → ¬ 𝜓)    &   ⊢ ∃𝑥(𝜒 ∧ 𝜓)    ⇒   ⊢ ∃𝑥(𝜒 ∧ ¬ 𝜑)
Theorem	festinoALT 2700	Alternate proof of festino 2699, shorter but using more axioms. See comment of dariiALT 2691. (Contributed by David A. Wheeler, 27-Aug-2016.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) (New usage is discouraged.)
⊢ ∀𝑥(𝜑 → ¬ 𝜓)    &   ⊢ ∃𝑥(𝜒 ∧ 𝜓)    ⇒   ⊢ ∃𝑥(𝜒 ∧ ¬ 𝜑)