P. 279 of Theorem List - Metamath Proof Explorer

Home	Metamath Proof Explorer Theorem List (p. 279 of 437)	< Previous Next >
		Bad symbols? Try the GIF version.
Mirrors > Metamath Home Page > MPE Home Page > Theorem List Contents > Recent Proofs This page: Page List

Color key:

Metamath Proof Explorer
(1-28347)

Hilbert Space Explorer
(28348-29872)

Users' Mathboxes
(29873-43657)

Type Label Description

Statement

Theorem numclwwlkovh 27801* Value of operation 𝐻, mapping a vertex 𝑣 and an integer 𝑛 greater than 1 to the "closed n-walks v(0) ... v(n-2) v(n-1) v(n) from v = v(0) = v(n) ... with v(n-2) =/= v" according to definition 7 in [Huneke] p. 2. Definition of ClWWalksNOn resolved. (Contributed by Alexander van der Vekens, 26-Aug-2018.) (Revised by AV, 30-May-2021.) (Revised by AV, 1-May-2022.)

𝐻 = (𝑣 ∈ 𝑉, 𝑛 ∈ (ℤ_≥‘2) ↦ {𝑤 ∈ (𝑣(ClWWalksNOn‘𝐺)𝑛) ∣ (𝑤‘(𝑛 − 2)) ≠ 𝑣}) ⇒ ((𝑋 ∈ 𝑉 ∧ 𝑁 ∈ (ℤ_≥‘2)) → (𝑋𝐻𝑁) = {𝑤 ∈ (𝑁 ClWWalksN 𝐺) ∣ ((𝑤‘0) = 𝑋 ∧ (𝑤‘(𝑁 − 2)) ≠ (𝑤‘0))})

Theorem numclwwlkovq 27802* Value of operation 𝑄, mapping a vertex 𝑣 and a positive integer 𝑛 to the not closed walks v(0) ... v(n) of length 𝑛 from a fixed vertex 𝑣 = v(0). "Not closed" means v(n) =/= v(0). Remark: 𝑛 ∈ ℕ₀ would not be useful: numclwwlkqhash 27803 would not hold, because (𝐾↑0) = 1! (Contributed by Alexander van der Vekens, 27-Sep-2018.) (Revised by AV, 30-May-2021.)

𝑉 = (Vtx‘𝐺) & 𝑄 = (𝑣 ∈ 𝑉, 𝑛 ∈ ℕ ↦ {𝑤 ∈ (𝑛 WWalksN 𝐺) ∣ ((𝑤‘0) = 𝑣 ∧ (lastS‘𝑤) ≠ 𝑣)}) ⇒ ((𝑋 ∈ 𝑉 ∧ 𝑁 ∈ ℕ) → (𝑋𝑄𝑁) = {𝑤 ∈ (𝑁 WWalksN 𝐺) ∣ ((𝑤‘0) = 𝑋 ∧ (lastS‘𝑤) ≠ 𝑋)})

Theorem numclwwlkqhash 27803* In a 𝐾-regular graph, the size of the set of walks of length 𝑁 starting with a fixed vertex 𝑋 and ending not at this vertex is the difference between 𝐾 to the power of 𝑁 and the size of the set of closed walks of length 𝑁 on vertex 𝑋. (Contributed by Alexander van der Vekens, 30-Sep-2018.) (Revised by AV, 30-May-2021.) (Revised by AV, 5-Mar-2022.) (Proof shortened by AV, 7-Jul-2022.)

𝑉 = (Vtx‘𝐺) & 𝑄 = (𝑣 ∈ 𝑉, 𝑛 ∈ ℕ ↦ {𝑤 ∈ (𝑛 WWalksN 𝐺) ∣ ((𝑤‘0) = 𝑣 ∧ (lastS‘𝑤) ≠ 𝑣)}) ⇒ (((𝐺RegUSGraph𝐾 ∧ 𝑉 ∈ Fin) ∧ (𝑋 ∈ 𝑉 ∧ 𝑁 ∈ ℕ)) → (♯‘(𝑋𝑄𝑁)) = ((𝐾↑𝑁) − (♯‘(𝑋(ClWWalksNOn‘𝐺)𝑁))))

Theorem numclwwlk2lem1 27804* In a friendship graph, for each walk of length 𝑛 starting at a fixed vertex 𝑣 and ending not at this vertex, there is a unique vertex so that the walk extended by an edge to this vertex and an edge from this vertex to the first vertex of the walk is a value of operation 𝐻. If the walk is represented as a word, it is sufficient to add one vertex to the word to obtain the closed walk contained in the value of operation 𝐻, since in a word representing a closed walk the starting vertex is not repeated at the end. This theorem generally holds only for friendship graphs, because these guarantee that for the first and last vertex there is a (unique) third vertex "in between". (Contributed by Alexander van der Vekens, 3-Oct-2018.) (Revised by AV, 30-May-2021.) (Revised by AV, 1-May-2022.)

𝑉 = (Vtx‘𝐺) & 𝑄 = (𝑣 ∈ 𝑉, 𝑛 ∈ ℕ ↦ {𝑤 ∈ (𝑛 WWalksN 𝐺) ∣ ((𝑤‘0) = 𝑣 ∧ (lastS‘𝑤) ≠ 𝑣)}) & 𝐻 = (𝑣 ∈ 𝑉, 𝑛 ∈ (ℤ_≥‘2) ↦ {𝑤 ∈ (𝑣(ClWWalksNOn‘𝐺)𝑛) ∣ (𝑤‘(𝑛 − 2)) ≠ 𝑣}) ⇒ ((𝐺 ∈ FriendGraph ∧ 𝑋 ∈ 𝑉 ∧ 𝑁 ∈ ℕ) → (𝑊 ∈ (𝑋𝑄𝑁) → ∃!𝑣 ∈ 𝑉 (𝑊 ++ ⟨“𝑣”⟩) ∈ (𝑋𝐻(𝑁 + 2))))

Theorem numclwlk2lem2f 27805* 𝑅 is a function mapping the "closed (n+2)-walks v(0) ... v(n-2) v(n-1) v(n) v(n+1) v(n+2) starting at 𝑋 = v(0) = v(n+2) with v(n) =/= X" to the words representing the prefix v(0) ... v(n-2) v(n-1) v(n) of the walk. (Contributed by Alexander van der Vekens, 5-Oct-2018.) (Revised by AV, 31-May-2021.) (Proof shortened by AV, 23-Mar-2022.) (Revised by AV, 1-Nov-2022.)

𝑉 = (Vtx‘𝐺) & 𝑄 = (𝑣 ∈ 𝑉, 𝑛 ∈ ℕ ↦ {𝑤 ∈ (𝑛 WWalksN 𝐺) ∣ ((𝑤‘0) = 𝑣 ∧ (lastS‘𝑤) ≠ 𝑣)}) & 𝐻 = (𝑣 ∈ 𝑉, 𝑛 ∈ (ℤ_≥‘2) ↦ {𝑤 ∈ (𝑣(ClWWalksNOn‘𝐺)𝑛) ∣ (𝑤‘(𝑛 − 2)) ≠ 𝑣}) & 𝑅 = (𝑥 ∈ (𝑋𝐻(𝑁 + 2)) ↦ (𝑥 prefix (𝑁 + 1))) ⇒ ((𝐺 ∈ FriendGraph ∧ 𝑋 ∈ 𝑉 ∧ 𝑁 ∈ ℕ) → 𝑅:(𝑋𝐻(𝑁 + 2))⟶(𝑋𝑄𝑁))

Theorem numclwlk2lem2fv 27806* Value of the function 𝑅. (Contributed by Alexander van der Vekens, 6-Oct-2018.) (Revised by AV, 31-May-2021.) (Revised by AV, 1-Nov-2022.)

𝑉 = (Vtx‘𝐺) & 𝑄 = (𝑣 ∈ 𝑉, 𝑛 ∈ ℕ ↦ {𝑤 ∈ (𝑛 WWalksN 𝐺) ∣ ((𝑤‘0) = 𝑣 ∧ (lastS‘𝑤) ≠ 𝑣)}) & 𝐻 = (𝑣 ∈ 𝑉, 𝑛 ∈ (ℤ_≥‘2) ↦ {𝑤 ∈ (𝑣(ClWWalksNOn‘𝐺)𝑛) ∣ (𝑤‘(𝑛 − 2)) ≠ 𝑣}) & 𝑅 = (𝑥 ∈ (𝑋𝐻(𝑁 + 2)) ↦ (𝑥 prefix (𝑁 + 1))) ⇒ ((𝑋 ∈ 𝑉 ∧ 𝑁 ∈ ℕ) → (𝑊 ∈ (𝑋𝐻(𝑁 + 2)) → (𝑅‘𝑊) = (𝑊 prefix (𝑁 + 1))))

Theorem numclwlk2lem2f1o 27807* 𝑅 is a 1-1 onto function. (Contributed by Alexander van der Vekens, 6-Oct-2018.) (Revised by AV, 21-Jan-2022.) (Proof shortened by AV, 17-Mar-2022.) (Revised by AV, 1-Nov-2022.)

Theorem numclwlk2lem2fOLD 27808* Obsolete version of numclwlk2lem2f 27805 as of 12-Oct-2022. (Contributed by Alexander van der Vekens, 5-Oct-2018.) (Revised by AV, 31-May-2021.) (Proof shortened by AV, 23-Mar-2022.) (Revised by AV, 1-May-2022.) (New usage is discouraged.) (Proof modification is discouraged.)

𝑉 = (Vtx‘𝐺) & 𝑄 = (𝑣 ∈ 𝑉, 𝑛 ∈ ℕ ↦ {𝑤 ∈ (𝑛 WWalksN 𝐺) ∣ ((𝑤‘0) = 𝑣 ∧ (lastS‘𝑤) ≠ 𝑣)}) & 𝐻 = (𝑣 ∈ 𝑉, 𝑛 ∈ (ℤ_≥‘2) ↦ {𝑤 ∈ (𝑣(ClWWalksNOn‘𝐺)𝑛) ∣ (𝑤‘(𝑛 − 2)) ≠ 𝑣}) & 𝑅 = (𝑥 ∈ (𝑋𝐻(𝑁 + 2)) ↦ (𝑥 substr ⟨0, (𝑁 + 1)⟩)) ⇒ ((𝐺 ∈ FriendGraph ∧ 𝑋 ∈ 𝑉 ∧ 𝑁 ∈ ℕ) → 𝑅:(𝑋𝐻(𝑁 + 2))⟶(𝑋𝑄𝑁))

Theorem numclwlk2lem2fvOLD 27809* Obsolete version of numclwlk2lem2fv 27806 as of 12-Oct-2022. (Contributed by Alexander van der Vekens, 6-Oct-2018.) (Revised by AV, 31-May-2021.) (Revised by AV, 1-May-2022.) (New usage is discouraged.) (Proof modification is discouraged.)

𝑉 = (Vtx‘𝐺) & 𝑄 = (𝑣 ∈ 𝑉, 𝑛 ∈ ℕ ↦ {𝑤 ∈ (𝑛 WWalksN 𝐺) ∣ ((𝑤‘0) = 𝑣 ∧ (lastS‘𝑤) ≠ 𝑣)}) & 𝐻 = (𝑣 ∈ 𝑉, 𝑛 ∈ (ℤ_≥‘2) ↦ {𝑤 ∈ (𝑣(ClWWalksNOn‘𝐺)𝑛) ∣ (𝑤‘(𝑛 − 2)) ≠ 𝑣}) & 𝑅 = (𝑥 ∈ (𝑋𝐻(𝑁 + 2)) ↦ (𝑥 substr ⟨0, (𝑁 + 1)⟩)) ⇒ ((𝑋 ∈ 𝑉 ∧ 𝑁 ∈ ℕ) → (𝑊 ∈ (𝑋𝐻(𝑁 + 2)) → (𝑅‘𝑊) = (𝑊 substr ⟨0, (𝑁 + 1)⟩)))

Theorem numclwlk2lem2f1oOLD 27810* Obsolete version of numclwlk2lem2f1o 27807 as of 12-Oct-2022. (Contributed by Alexander van der Vekens, 6-Oct-2018.) (Revised by AV, 21-Jan-2022.) (Proof shortened by AV, 17-Mar-2022.) (Revised by AV, 1-May-2022.) (New usage is discouraged.) (Proof modification is discouraged.)

Theorem numclwwlk2lem3 27811* In a friendship graph, the size of the set of walks of length 𝑁 starting with a fixed vertex 𝑋 and ending not at this vertex equals the size of the set of all closed walks of length (𝑁 + 2) starting at this vertex 𝑋 and not having this vertex as last but 2 vertex. (Contributed by Alexander van der Vekens, 6-Oct-2018.) (Revised by AV, 31-May-2021.) (Proof shortened by AV, 3-Nov-2022.)

𝑉 = (Vtx‘𝐺) & 𝑄 = (𝑣 ∈ 𝑉, 𝑛 ∈ ℕ ↦ {𝑤 ∈ (𝑛 WWalksN 𝐺) ∣ ((𝑤‘0) = 𝑣 ∧ (lastS‘𝑤) ≠ 𝑣)}) & 𝐻 = (𝑣 ∈ 𝑉, 𝑛 ∈ (ℤ_≥‘2) ↦ {𝑤 ∈ (𝑣(ClWWalksNOn‘𝐺)𝑛) ∣ (𝑤‘(𝑛 − 2)) ≠ 𝑣}) ⇒ ((𝐺 ∈ FriendGraph ∧ 𝑋 ∈ 𝑉 ∧ 𝑁 ∈ ℕ) → (♯‘(𝑋𝑄𝑁)) = (♯‘(𝑋𝐻(𝑁 + 2))))

Theorem numclwwlk2lem3OLD 27812* Obsolete proof of numclwwlk2lem3 27811 as of 12-Oct-2022. (Contributed by Alexander van der Vekens, 6-Oct-2018.) (Revised by AV, 31-May-2021.) (Proof shortened by AV, 21-Jan-2022.) (Revised by AV, 1-May-2022.) (New usage is discouraged.) (Proof modification is discouraged.)

Theorem numclwwlk2 27813* Statement 10 in [Huneke] p. 2: "If n > 1, then the number of closed n-walks v(0) ... v(n-2) v(n-1) v(n) from v = v(0) = v(n) ... with v(n-2) =/= v is k^(n-2) - f(n-2)." According to rusgrnumwlkg 27358, we have k^(n-2) different walks of length (n-2): v(0) ... v(n-2). From this number, the number of closed walks of length (n-2), which is f(n-2) per definition, must be subtracted, because for these walks v(n-2) =/= v(0) = v would hold. Because of the friendship condition, there is exactly one vertex v(n-1) which is a neighbor of v(n-2) as well as of v(n)=v=v(0), because v(n-2) and v(n)=v are different, so the number of walks v(0) ... v(n-2) is identical with the number of walks v(0) ... v(n), that means each (not closed) walk v(0) ... v(n-2) can be extended by two edges to a closed walk v(0) ... v(n)=v=v(0) in exactly one way. (Contributed by Alexander van der Vekens, 6-Oct-2018.) (Revised by AV, 31-May-2021.) (Revised by AV, 1-May-2022.)

𝑉 = (Vtx‘𝐺) & 𝑄 = (𝑣 ∈ 𝑉, 𝑛 ∈ ℕ ↦ {𝑤 ∈ (𝑛 WWalksN 𝐺) ∣ ((𝑤‘0) = 𝑣 ∧ (lastS‘𝑤) ≠ 𝑣)}) & 𝐻 = (𝑣 ∈ 𝑉, 𝑛 ∈ (ℤ_≥‘2) ↦ {𝑤 ∈ (𝑣(ClWWalksNOn‘𝐺)𝑛) ∣ (𝑤‘(𝑛 − 2)) ≠ 𝑣}) ⇒ (((𝐺RegUSGraph𝐾 ∧ 𝐺 ∈ FriendGraph ) ∧ (𝑉 ∈ Fin ∧ 𝑋 ∈ 𝑉 ∧ 𝑁 ∈ (ℤ_≥‘3))) → (♯‘(𝑋𝐻𝑁)) = ((𝐾↑(𝑁 − 2)) − (♯‘(𝑋(ClWWalksNOn‘𝐺)(𝑁 − 2)))))

Theorem numclwwlk3lem1 27814 Lemma 2 for numclwwlk3 27817. (Contributed by Alexander van der Vekens, 26-Aug-2018.) (Proof shortened by AV, 23-Jan-2022.)

((𝐾 ∈ ℂ ∧ 𝑌 ∈ ℂ ∧ 𝑁 ∈ (ℤ_≥‘2)) → (((𝐾↑(𝑁 − 2)) − 𝑌) + (𝐾 · 𝑌)) = (((𝐾 − 1) · 𝑌) + (𝐾↑(𝑁 − 2))))

Theorem numclwwlk3lem2lem 27815* Lemma for numclwwlk3lem2 27816: The set of closed vertices of a fixed length 𝑁 on a fixed vertex 𝑉 is the union of the set of closed walks of length 𝑁 at 𝑉 with the last but one vertex being 𝑉 and the set of closed walks of length 𝑁 at 𝑉 with the last but one vertex not being 𝑉. (Contributed by AV, 1-May-2022.)

𝐶 = (𝑣 ∈ 𝑉, 𝑛 ∈ (ℤ_≥‘2) ↦ {𝑤 ∈ (𝑣(ClWWalksNOn‘𝐺)𝑛) ∣ (𝑤‘(𝑛 − 2)) = 𝑣}) & 𝐻 = (𝑣 ∈ 𝑉, 𝑛 ∈ (ℤ_≥‘2) ↦ {𝑤 ∈ (𝑣(ClWWalksNOn‘𝐺)𝑛) ∣ (𝑤‘(𝑛 − 2)) ≠ 𝑣}) ⇒ ((𝑋 ∈ 𝑉 ∧ 𝑁 ∈ (ℤ_≥‘2)) → (𝑋(ClWWalksNOn‘𝐺)𝑁) = ((𝑋𝐻𝑁) ∪ (𝑋𝐶𝑁)))

Theorem numclwwlk3lem2 27816* Lemma 1 for numclwwlk3 27817: The number of closed vertices of a fixed length 𝑁 on a fixed vertex 𝑉 is the sum of the number of closed walks of length 𝑁 at 𝑉 with the last but one vertex being 𝑉 and the set of closed walks of length 𝑁 at 𝑉 with the last but one vertex not being 𝑉. (Contributed by Alexander van der Vekens, 6-Oct-2018.) (Revised by AV, 1-Jun-2021.) (Revised by AV, 1-May-2022.)

𝐶 = (𝑣 ∈ 𝑉, 𝑛 ∈ (ℤ_≥‘2) ↦ {𝑤 ∈ (𝑣(ClWWalksNOn‘𝐺)𝑛) ∣ (𝑤‘(𝑛 − 2)) = 𝑣}) & 𝐻 = (𝑣 ∈ 𝑉, 𝑛 ∈ (ℤ_≥‘2) ↦ {𝑤 ∈ (𝑣(ClWWalksNOn‘𝐺)𝑛) ∣ (𝑤‘(𝑛 − 2)) ≠ 𝑣}) ⇒ (((𝐺 ∈ FinUSGraph ∧ 𝑋 ∈ 𝑉) ∧ 𝑁 ∈ (ℤ_≥‘2)) → (♯‘(𝑋(ClWWalksNOn‘𝐺)𝑁)) = ((♯‘(𝑋𝐻𝑁)) + (♯‘(𝑋𝐶𝑁))))

Theorem numclwwlk3 27817 Statement 12 in [Huneke] p. 2: "Thus f(n) = (k - 1)f(n - 2) + k^(n-2)." - the number of the closed walks v(0) ... v(n-2) v(n-1) v(n) is the sum of the number of the closed walks v(0) ... v(n-2) v(n-1) v(n) with v(n-2) = v(n) (see numclwwlk1 27784) and with v(n-2) =/= v(n) (see numclwwlk2 27813): f(n) = kf(n-2) + k^(n-2) - f(n-2) = (k-1)f(n-2) + k^(n-2). (Contributed by Alexander van der Vekens, 26-Aug-2018.) (Revised by AV, 6-Mar-2022.)

𝑉 = (Vtx‘𝐺) ⇒ (((𝐺RegUSGraph𝐾 ∧ 𝐺 ∈ FriendGraph ) ∧ (𝑉 ∈ Fin ∧ 𝑋 ∈ 𝑉 ∧ 𝑁 ∈ (ℤ_≥‘3))) → (♯‘(𝑋(ClWWalksNOn‘𝐺)𝑁)) = (((𝐾 − 1) · (♯‘(𝑋(ClWWalksNOn‘𝐺)(𝑁 − 2)))) + (𝐾↑(𝑁 − 2))))

Theorem numclwwlk4 27818* The total number of closed walks in a finite simple graph is the sum of the numbers of closed walks starting at each of its vertices. (Contributed by Alexander van der Vekens, 7-Oct-2018.) (Revised by AV, 2-Jun-2021.) (Revised by AV, 7-Mar-2022.) (Proof shortened by AV, 28-Mar-2022.)

𝑉 = (Vtx‘𝐺) ⇒ ((𝐺 ∈ FinUSGraph ∧ 𝑁 ∈ ℕ) → (♯‘(𝑁 ClWWalksN 𝐺)) = Σ𝑥 ∈ 𝑉 (♯‘(𝑥(ClWWalksNOn‘𝐺)𝑁)))

Theorem numclwwlk5lem 27819 Lemma for numclwwlk5 27820. (Contributed by Alexander van der Vekens, 7-Oct-2018.) (Revised by AV, 2-Jun-2021.) (Revised by AV, 7-Mar-2022.)

𝑉 = (Vtx‘𝐺) ⇒ ((𝐺RegUSGraph𝐾 ∧ 𝑋 ∈ 𝑉 ∧ 𝐾 ∈ ℕ₀) → (2 ∥ (𝐾 − 1) → ((♯‘(𝑋(ClWWalksNOn‘𝐺)2)) mod 2) = 1))

Theorem numclwwlk5 27820 Statement 13 in [Huneke] p. 2: "Let p be a prime divisor of k-1; then f(p) = 1 (mod p) [for each vertex v]". (Contributed by Alexander van der Vekens, 7-Oct-2018.) (Revised by AV, 2-Jun-2021.) (Revised by AV, 7-Mar-2022.)

𝑉 = (Vtx‘𝐺) ⇒ (((𝐺RegUSGraph𝐾 ∧ 𝐺 ∈ FriendGraph ∧ 𝑉 ∈ Fin) ∧ (𝑋 ∈ 𝑉 ∧ 𝑃 ∈ ℙ ∧ 𝑃 ∥ (𝐾 − 1))) → ((♯‘(𝑋(ClWWalksNOn‘𝐺)𝑃)) mod 𝑃) = 1)

Theorem numclwwlk7lem 27821 Lemma for numclwwlk7 27823, frgrreggt1 27825 and frgrreg 27826: If a finite, nonempty friendship graph is 𝐾-regular, the 𝐾 is a nonnegative integer. (Contributed by AV, 3-Jun-2021.)

𝑉 = (Vtx‘𝐺) ⇒ (((𝐺RegUSGraph𝐾 ∧ 𝐺 ∈ FriendGraph ) ∧ (𝑉 ≠ ∅ ∧ 𝑉 ∈ Fin)) → 𝐾 ∈ ℕ₀)

Theorem numclwwlk6 27822 For a prime divisor 𝑃 of 𝐾 − 1, the total number of closed walks of length 𝑃 in a 𝐾-regular friendship graph is equal modulo 𝑃 to the number of vertices. (Contributed by Alexander van der Vekens, 7-Oct-2018.) (Revised by AV, 3-Jun-2021.) (Proof shortened by AV, 7-Mar-2022.)

𝑉 = (Vtx‘𝐺) ⇒ (((𝐺RegUSGraph𝐾 ∧ 𝐺 ∈ FriendGraph ∧ 𝑉 ∈ Fin) ∧ (𝑃 ∈ ℙ ∧ 𝑃 ∥ (𝐾 − 1))) → ((♯‘(𝑃 ClWWalksN 𝐺)) mod 𝑃) = ((♯‘𝑉) mod 𝑃))

Theorem numclwwlk7 27823 Statement 14 in [Huneke] p. 2: "The total number of closed walks of length p [in a friendship graph] is (k(k-1)+1)f(p)=1 (mod p)", since the number of vertices in a friendship graph is (k(k-1)+1), see frrusgrord0 27748 or frrusgrord 27749, and p divides (k-1), i.e. (k-1) mod p = 0 => k(k-1) mod p = 0 => k(k-1)+1 mod p = 1. Since the null graph is a friendship graph, see frgr0 27672, as well as k-regular (for any k), see 0vtxrgr 26924, but has no closed walk, see 0clwlk0 27535, this theorem would be false for a null graph: ((♯‘(𝑃 ClWWalksN 𝐺)) mod 𝑃) = 0 ≠ 1, so this case must be excluded (by assuming 𝑉 ≠ ∅). (Contributed by Alexander van der Vekens, 1-Sep-2018.) (Revised by AV, 3-Jun-2021.)

𝑉 = (Vtx‘𝐺) ⇒ (((𝐺RegUSGraph𝐾 ∧ 𝐺 ∈ FriendGraph ) ∧ (𝑉 ≠ ∅ ∧ 𝑉 ∈ Fin) ∧ (𝑃 ∈ ℙ ∧ 𝑃 ∥ (𝐾 − 1))) → ((♯‘(𝑃 ClWWalksN 𝐺)) mod 𝑃) = 1)

Theorem numclwwlk8 27824 The size of the set of closed walks of length 𝑃, 𝑃 prime, is divisible by 𝑃. This corresponds to statement 9 in [Huneke] p. 2: "It follows that, if p is a prime number, then the number of closed walks of length p is divisible by p", see also clwlksndivn 27488. (Contributed by Alexander van der Vekens, 7-Oct-2018.) (Revised by AV, 3-Jun-2021.) (Proof shortened by AV, 2-Mar-2022.)

((𝐺 ∈ FinUSGraph ∧ 𝑃 ∈ ℙ) → ((♯‘(𝑃 ClWWalksN 𝐺)) mod 𝑃) = 0)

Theorem frgrreggt1 27825 If a finite nonempty friendship graph is 𝐾-regular with 𝐾 > 1, then 𝐾 must be 2. (Contributed by Alexander van der Vekens, 7-Oct-2018.) (Revised by AV, 3-Jun-2021.)

𝑉 = (Vtx‘𝐺) ⇒ ((𝐺 ∈ FriendGraph ∧ 𝑉 ∈ Fin ∧ 𝑉 ≠ ∅) → ((𝐺RegUSGraph𝐾 ∧ 1 < 𝐾) → 𝐾 = 2))

Theorem frgrreg 27826 If a finite nonempty friendship graph is 𝐾-regular, then 𝐾 must be 2 (or 0). (Contributed by Alexander van der Vekens, 9-Oct-2018.) (Revised by AV, 3-Jun-2021.)

𝑉 = (Vtx‘𝐺) ⇒ ((𝑉 ∈ Fin ∧ 𝑉 ≠ ∅) → ((𝐺 ∈ FriendGraph ∧ 𝐺RegUSGraph𝐾) → (𝐾 = 0 ∨ 𝐾 = 2)))

Theorem frgrregord013 27827 If a finite friendship graph is 𝐾-regular, then it must have order 0, 1 or 3. (Contributed by Alexander van der Vekens, 9-Oct-2018.) (Revised by AV, 4-Jun-2021.)

𝑉 = (Vtx‘𝐺) ⇒ ((𝐺 ∈ FriendGraph ∧ 𝑉 ∈ Fin ∧ 𝐺RegUSGraph𝐾) → ((♯‘𝑉) = 0 ∨ (♯‘𝑉) = 1 ∨ (♯‘𝑉) = 3))

Theorem frgrregord13 27828 If a nonempty finite friendship graph is 𝐾-regular, then it must have order 1 or 3. Special case of frgrregord013 27827. (Contributed by Alexander van der Vekens, 9-Oct-2018.) (Revised by AV, 4-Jun-2021.)

𝑉 = (Vtx‘𝐺) ⇒ (((𝐺 ∈ FriendGraph ∧ 𝑉 ∈ Fin ∧ 𝑉 ≠ ∅) ∧ 𝐺RegUSGraph𝐾) → ((♯‘𝑉) = 1 ∨ (♯‘𝑉) = 3))

Theorem frgrogt3nreg 27829* If a finite friendship graph has an order greater than 3, it cannot be 𝑘-regular for any 𝑘. (Contributed by Alexander van der Vekens, 9-Oct-2018.) (Revised by AV, 4-Jun-2021.)

𝑉 = (Vtx‘𝐺) ⇒ ((𝐺 ∈ FriendGraph ∧ 𝑉 ∈ Fin ∧ 3 < (♯‘𝑉)) → ∀𝑘 ∈ ℕ₀ ¬ 𝐺RegUSGraph𝑘)

Theorem friendshipgt3 27830* The friendship theorem for big graphs: In every finite friendship graph with order greater than 3 there is a vertex which is adjacent to all other vertices. (Contributed by Alexander van der Vekens, 9-Oct-2018.) (Revised by AV, 4-Jun-2021.)

𝑉 = (Vtx‘𝐺) ⇒ ((𝐺 ∈ FriendGraph ∧ 𝑉 ∈ Fin ∧ 3 < (♯‘𝑉)) → ∃𝑣 ∈ 𝑉 ∀𝑤 ∈ (𝑉 ∖ {𝑣}){𝑣, 𝑤} ∈ (Edg‘𝐺))

Theorem friendship 27831* The friendship theorem: In every finite (nonempty) friendship graph there is a vertex which is adjacent to all other vertices. This is Metamath 100 proof #83. (Contributed by Alexander van der Vekens, 9-Oct-2018.)

𝑉 = (Vtx‘𝐺) ⇒ ((𝐺 ∈ FriendGraph ∧ 𝑉 ≠ ∅ ∧ 𝑉 ∈ Fin) → ∃𝑣 ∈ 𝑉 ∀𝑤 ∈ (𝑉 ∖ {𝑣}){𝑣, 𝑤} ∈ (Edg‘𝐺))

PART 17 GUIDES AND MISCELLANEA

17.1 Guides (conventions, explanations, and examples)

17.1.1 Conventions

This section describes the conventions we use. These conventions often refer to existing mathematical practices, which are discussed in more detail in other references. They are organized as follows:

conventions 27832: general conventions
conventions-labels 27833: conventions related to labels
conventions-comments 27834: conventions related to comments

Logic and set theory provide a foundation for all of mathematics. To learn about them, you should study one or more of the references listed below. We indicate references using square brackets. The textbooks provide a motivation for what we are doing, whereas Metamath lets you see in detail all hidden and implicit steps. Most standard theorems are accompanied by citations. Some closely followed texts include the following:

Axioms of propositional calculus - [Margaris].
Axioms of predicate calculus - [Megill] (System S3' in the article referenced).
Theorems of propositional calculus - [WhiteheadRussell].
Theorems of pure predicate calculus - [Margaris].
Theorems of equality and substitution - [Monk2], [Tarski], [Megill].
Axioms of set theory - [BellMachover].
Development of set theory - [TakeutiZaring]. (The first part of [Quine] has a good explanation of the powerful device of "virtual" or class abstractions, which is essential to our development.)
Construction of real and complex numbers - [Gleason].
Theorems about real numbers - [Apostol].

Theorem

conventions 27832

Here are some of the conventions we use in the Metamath Proof Explorer (MPE, set.mm), and how they correspond to typical textbook language (skipping the many cases where they are identical). For more specific conventions, see:

conventions-labels 27833: conventions related to labels
conventions-comments 27834: conventions related to comments

Notation. Where possible, the notation attempts to conform to modern conventions, with variations due to our choice of the axiom system or to make proofs shorter. However, our notation is strictly sequential (left-to-right). For example, summation is written in the form Σ𝑘 ∈ 𝐴𝐵 (df-sum 14825) which denotes that index variable 𝑘 ranges over 𝐴 when evaluating 𝐵. Thus, Σ𝑘 ∈ ℕ (1 / (2↑𝑘)) = 1 means 1/2 + 1/4 + 1/8 + ... = 1 (geoihalfsum 15017). The notation is usually explained in more detail when first introduced.
Axiomatic assertions ($a). All axiomatic assertions ($a statements) starting with " ⊢ " have labels starting with "ax-" (axioms) or "df-" (definitions). A statement with a label starting with "ax-" corresponds to what is traditionally called an axiom. A statement with a label starting with "df-" introduces new symbols or a new relationship among symbols that can be eliminated; they always extend the definition of a wff or class. Metamath blindly treats $a statements as new given facts but does not try to justify them. The mmj2 program will justify the definitions as sound as discussed below, except for 4 definitions (df-bi 199, df-cleq 2770, df-clel 2774, df-clab 2764) that require a more complex metalogical justification by hand.
Proven axioms. In some cases we wish to treat an expression as an axiom in later theorems, even though it can be proved. For example, we derive the postulates or axioms of complex arithmetic as theorems of ZFC set theory. For convenience, after deriving the postulates, we reintroduce them as new axioms on top of set theory. This lets us easily identify which axioms are needed for a particular complex number proof, without the obfuscation of the set theory used to derive them. For more, see mmcomplex.html. When we wish to use a previously-proven assertion as an axiom, our convention is that we use the regular "ax-NAME" label naming convention to define the axiom, but we precede it with a proof of the same statement with the label "axNAME" . An example is complex arithmetic axiom ax-1cn 10330, proven by the preceding theorem ax1cn 10306. The metamath.exe program will warn if an axiom does not match the preceding theorem that justifies it if the names match in this way.
Definitions (df-...). We encourage definitions to include hypertext links to proven examples.
Statements with hypotheses. Many theorems and some axioms, such as ax-mp 5, have hypotheses that must be satisfied in order for the conclusion to hold, in this case min and maj. When presented in summarized form such as in the Theorem List (click on "Nearby theorems" on the ax-mp 5 page), the hypotheses are connected with an ampersand and separated from the conclusion with a big arrow, such as in " ⊢ 𝜑 & ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝜓) => ⊢ 𝜓". These symbols are _not_ part of the Metamath language but are just informal notation meaning "and" and "implies".
Discouraged use and modification. If something should only be used in limited ways, it is marked with "(New usage is discouraged.)". This is used, for example, when something can be constructed in more than one way, and we do not want later theorems to depend on that specific construction. This marking is also used if we want later proofs to use proven axioms. For example, we want later proofs to use ax-1cn 10330 (not ax1cn 10306) and ax-1ne0 10341 (not ax1ne0 10317), as these are proven axioms for complex arithmetic. Thus, both ax1cn 10306 and ax1ne0 10317 are marked as "(New usage is discouraged.)". In some cases a proof should not normally be changed, e.g., when it demonstrates some specific technique. These are marked with "(Proof modification is discouraged.)".
New definitions infrequent. Typically, we are minimalist when introducing new definitions; they are introduced only when a clear advantage becomes apparent for reducing the number of symbols, shortening proofs, etc. We generally avoid the introduction of gratuitous definitions because each one requires associated theorems and additional elimination steps in proofs. For example, we use < and ≤ for inequality expressions, and use ((sin‘(i · 𝐴)) / i) instead of (sinh‘𝐴) for the hyperbolic sine.
Minimizing axioms and the axiom of choice. We prefer proofs that depend on fewer and/or weaker axioms, even if the proofs are longer. In particular, we prefer proofs that do not use the axiom of choice (df-ac 9272) where such proofs can be found. The axiom of choice is widely accepted, and ZFC is the most commonly-accepted fundamental set of axioms for mathematics. However, there have been and still are some lingering controversies about the Axiom of Choice. Therefore, where a proof does not require the axiom of choice, we prefer that proof instead. E.g., our proof of the Schroeder-Bernstein Theorem (sbth 8368) does not use the axiom of choice. In some cases, the weaker axiom of countable choice (ax-cc 9592) or axiom of dependent choice (ax-dc 9603) can be used instead. Similarly, 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 2135 through ax-13 2334, by invoking ax10w 2123 through ax13w 2130. We encourage proving theorems *without* ax-10 2135 through ax-13 2334 and moving them up to the ax-4 1853 through ax-9 2116 section.
Alternate (ALT) proofs. If a different proof is shorter or clearer but uses more or stronger axioms, we make that proof an "alternate" proof (marked with an ALT label suffix), even if this alternate proof was formalized first. We then make the proof that requires fewer axioms the main proof. Alternate proofs can also occur in other cases when an alternate proof gives some particular insight. Their comment should begin with "Alternate proof of ~ xxx " followed by a description of the specificity of that alternate proof. There can be multiple alternates. Alternate (*ALT) theorems should have "(Proof modification is discouraged.) (New usage is discouraged.)" in their comment and should follow the main statement, so that people reading the text in order will see the main statement first. The alternate and main statement comments should use hyperlinks to refer to each other.
Alternative (ALTV) versions. If a theorem or definition is an alternate/variant of an existing theorem or definition, its label should have the same name with suffix ALTV. Such alternates are often temporary only, until it is decided which alternative should be used in the future. Alternate (*ALTV) theorems or definitions are usually contained in mathboxes. Their comments need not to contain "(Proof modification is discouraged.) (New usage is discouraged.)". Their comment should begin with "Alternate version of ~ xxx " followed by a description of the specificity of the difference from the main variant. Alternate statements should generally follow the main statement.
Old (OLD) versions or proofs. If a proof, definition, axiom, or theorem is going to be removed, we often stage that change by first renaming its label with an OLD suffix (to make it clear that it is going to be removed). Old (*OLD) statements should have "(Proof modification is discouraged.) (New usage is discouraged.)" and "Obsolete version of ~ xxx as of dd-Mmm-yyyy." (not enclosed in parentheses) in the comment. An old statement should follow the main statement, so that people reading the text in order will see the main statement first. This typically happens when a shorter proof to an existing theorem is found: the existing theorem is kept as an *OLD statement for one year. When a proof is shortened automatically (using the Metamath program "MM-PA> MINIMIZE_WITH *" command), then it is not necessary to keep the old proof, nor to add credit for the shortening.
Variables. Propositional variables (variables for well-formed formulas or wffs) are represented with lowercase Greek letters and are generally used in this order: 𝜑 = phi, 𝜓 = psi, 𝜒 = chi, 𝜃 = theta, 𝜏 = tau, 𝜂 = eta, 𝜁 = zeta, and 𝜎 = sigma. Individual setvar variables are represented with lowercase Latin letters and are generally used in this order: 𝑥, 𝑦, 𝑧, 𝑤, 𝑣, 𝑢, and 𝑡. Variables that represent classes are often represented by uppercase Latin letters: 𝐴, 𝐵, 𝐶, 𝐷, 𝐸, and so on. There are other symbols that also represent class variables and suggest specific purposes, e.g., 0 for a zero element (e.g., fsuppcor 8597) and connective symbols such as + for some group addition operation (e.g., grprinvd ). Class variables are selected in alphabetical order starting from 𝐴 if there is no reason to do otherwise, but many assertions select different class variables or a different order to make their intended meaning clearer.
Turnstile. "⊢ ", meaning "It is provable that", is the first token of all assertions and hypotheses that aren't syntax constructions. This is a standard convention in logic. For us, it also prevents any ambiguity with statements that are syntax constructions, such as "wff ¬ 𝜑".
Biconditional (↔). There are basically two ways to maximize the effectiveness of biconditionals (↔): you can either have one-directional simplifications of all theorems that produce biconditionals, or you can have one-directional simplifications of theorems that consume biconditionals. Some tools (like Lean) follow the first approach, but set.mm follows the second approach. Practically, this means that in set.mm, for every theorem that uses an implication in the hypothesis, like ax-mp 5, there is a corresponding version with a biconditional or a reversed biconditional, like mpbi 222 or mpbir 223. We prefer this second approach because the number of duplications in the second approach is bounded by the size of the propositional calculus section, which is much smaller than the number of possible theorems in all later sections that produce biconditionals. So although theorems like biimpi 208 are available, in most cases there is already a theorem that combines it with your theorem of choice, like mpbir2an 701, sylbir 227, or 3imtr4i 284.
Quantifiers. The quantifiers are named as follows:
- ∀: universal quantifier (wal 1599);
- ∃: existential quantifier (df-ex 1824);
- ∃*: at-most-one quantifier (df-mo 2551);
- ∃!: unique existential quantifier (df-eu 2587);
the phrase "uniqueness quantifier" is avoided since it is ambiguous: it can be understood as claiming either uniqueness (∃*) or unique existence (∃!).
Substitution. The expression "[𝑦 / 𝑥]𝜑" should be read "the formula that results from the proper substitution of 𝑦 for 𝑥 in the formula 𝜑". See df-sb 2012 and the related df-sbc 3653 and df-csb 3752.
Is-a-set. "𝐴 ∈ V" should be read "Class 𝐴 is a set (i.e. exists)." This is a convention based on Definition 2.9 of [Quine] p. 19. See df-v 3400 and isset 3409. However, instead of using 𝐼 ∈ V in the antecedent of a theorem for some variable 𝐼, we now prefer to use 𝐼 ∈ 𝑉 (or another variable if 𝑉 is not available) to make it more general. That way we can often avoid needing extra uses of elex 3414 and syl 17 in the common case where 𝐼 is already a member of something. For hypotheses ($e statement) of theorems (mostly in inference form), however, ⊢ 𝐴 ∈ V is used rather than ⊢ 𝐴 ∈ 𝑉 (e.g., difexi 5046). This is because 𝐴 ∈ V is almost always satisfied using an existence theorem stating "... ∈ V", and a hard-coded V in the $e statement saves a couple of syntax building steps that substitute V into 𝑉. Notice that this does not hold for hypotheses of theorems in deduction form: Here still ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝐴 ∈ 𝑉) should be used rather than ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝐴 ∈ V).
Converse. "^◡𝑅" should be read "converse of (relation) 𝑅" and is the same as the more standard notation R^{-1} (the standard notation is ambiguous). See df-cnv 5363. This can be used to define a subset, e.g., df-tan 15204 notates "the set of values whose cosine is a nonzero complex number" as (^◡cos “ (ℂ ∖ {0})).
Function application. "(𝐹‘𝑥)" should be read "the value of function 𝐹 at 𝑥" and has the same meaning as the more familiar but ambiguous notation F(x). For example, (cos‘0) = 1 (see cos0 15282). The left apostrophe notation originated with Peano and was adopted in Definition *30.01 of [WhiteheadRussell] p. 235, Definition 10.11 of [Quine] p. 68, and Definition 6.11 of [TakeutiZaring] p. 26. See df-fv 6143. In the ASCII (input) representation there are spaces around the grave accent; there is a single accent when it is used directly, and it is doubled within comments.
Infix and parentheses. When a function that takes two classes and produces a class is applied as part of an infix expression, the expression is always surrounded by parentheses (see df-ov 6925). For example, the + in (2 + 2); see 2p2e4 11517. Function application is itself an example of this. Similarly, predicate expressions in infix form that take two or three wffs and produce a wff are also always surrounded by parentheses, such as (𝜑 → 𝜓), (𝜑 ∨ 𝜓), (𝜑 ∧ 𝜓), and (𝜑 ↔ 𝜓) (see wi 4, df-or 837, df-an 387, and df-bi 199 respectively). In contrast, a binary relation (which compares two _classes_ and produces a _wff_) applied in an infix expression is _not_ surrounded by parentheses. This includes set membership 𝐴 ∈ 𝐵 (see wel 2108), equality 𝐴 = 𝐵 (see df-cleq 2770), subset 𝐴 ⊆ 𝐵 (see df-ss 3806), and less-than 𝐴 < 𝐵 (see df-lt 10285). For the general definition of a binary relation in the form 𝐴𝑅𝐵, see df-br 4887. For example, 0 < 1 (see 0lt1 10897) does not use parentheses.
Unary minus. The symbol - is used to indicate a unary minus, e.g., -1. It is specially defined because it is so commonly used. See cneg 10607.
Function definition. Functions are typically defined by first defining the constant symbol (using $c) and declaring that its symbol is a class with the label cNAME (e.g., ccos 15197). The function is then defined labeled df-NAME; definitions are typically given using the maps-to notation (e.g., df-cos 15203). Typically, there are other proofs such as its closure labeled NAMEcl (e.g., coscl 15259), its function application form labeled NAMEval (e.g., cosval 15255), and at least one simple value (e.g., cos0 15282).
Factorial. The factorial function is traditionally a postfix operation, but we treat it as a normal function applied in prefix form, e.g., (!‘4) = ;24 (df-fac 13379 and fac4 13386).
Unambiguous symbols. A given symbol has a single unambiguous meaning in general. Thus, where the literature might use the same symbol with different meanings, here we use different (variant) symbols for different meanings. These variant symbols often have suffixes, subscripts, or underlines to distinguish them. For example, here "0" always means the value zero (df-0 10279), while "0_g" is the group identity element (df-0g 16488), "0." is the poset zero (df-p0 17425), "0_𝑝" is the zero polynomial (df-0p 23874), "0_vec" is the zero vector in a normed subcomplex vector space (df-0v 28025), and "0" is a class variable for use as a connective symbol (this is used, for example, in p0val 17427). There are other class variables used as connective symbols where traditional notation would use ambiguous symbols, including "1", "+", "∗", and "∥". These symbols are very similar to traditional notation, but because they are different symbols they eliminate ambiguity.
ASCII representation of symbols. We must have an ASCII representation for each symbol. We generally choose short sequences, ideally digraphs, and generally choose sequences that vaguely resemble the mathematical symbol. Here are some of the conventions we use when selecting an ASCII representation.
We generally do not include parentheses inside a symbol because that confuses text editors (such as emacs). Greek letters for wff variables always use the first two letters of their English names, making them easy to type and easy to remember. Symbols that almost look like letters, such as ∀, are often represented by that letter followed by a period. For example, "A." is used to represent ∀, "e." is used to represent ∈, and "E." is used to represent ∃. Single letters are now always variable names, so constants that are often shown as single letters are now typically preceded with "_" in their ASCII representation, for example, "_i" is the ASCII representation for the imaginary unit i. A script font constant is often the letter preceded by "~" meaning "curly", such as "~P" to represent the power class 𝒫.
Originally, all setvar and class variables used only single letters a-z and A-Z, respectively. A big change in recent years was to allow the use of certain symbols as variable names to make formulas more readable, such as a variable representing an additive group operation. The convention is to take the original constant token (in this case "+" which means complex number addition) and put a period in front of it to result in the ASCII representation of the variable ".+", shown as +, that can be used instead of say the letter "P" that had to be used before.
Choosing tokens for more advanced concepts that have no standard symbols but are represented by words in books, is hard. A few are reasonably obvious, like "Grp" for group and "Top" for topology, but often they seem to end up being either too long or too cryptic. It would be nice if the math community came up with standardized short abbreviations for English math terminology, like they have more or less done with symbols, but that probably won't happen any time soon.
Another informal convention that we've somewhat followed, that is also not uncommon in the literature, is to start tokens with a capital letter for collection-like objects and lower case for function-like objects. For example, we have the collections On (ordinal numbers), Fin, Prime, Grp, and we have the functions sin, tan, log, sup. Predicates like Ord and Lim also tend to start with upper case, but in a sense they are really collection-like, e.g. Lim indirectly represents the collection of limit ordinals, but it can't be an actual class since not all limit ordinals are sets. This initial upper versus lower case letter convention is sometimes ambiguous. In the past there's been a debate about whether domain and range are collection-like or function-like, thus whether we should use Dom, Ran or dom, ran. Both are used in the literature. In the end dom, ran won out for aesthetic reasons (Norm Megill simply just felt they looked nicer).
Typography conventions. Class symbols for functions (e.g., abs, sin) should usually not have leading or trailing blanks in their HTML representation. This is in contrast to class symbols for operations (e.g., gcd, sadd, eval), which usually do include leading and trailing blanks in their representation. If a class symbol is used for a function as well as an operation (according to the definition df-ov 6925, each operation value can be written as function value of an ordered pair), the convention for its primary usage should be used, e.g. (iEdg‘𝐺) versus (𝑉iEdg𝐸) for the edges of a graph 𝐺 = ⟨𝑉, 𝐸⟩.
LaTeX definitions. Each token has a "LaTeX definition" which is used by metamath.exe to output tex files. When writing LaTeX definitions, contributors should favor simplicity over perfection of the display, and should only use core LaTeX symbols or symbols from standard packages; if packages other than amssymb, amsmath, mathtools, mathrsfs, phonetic, graphicx are needed, this should be discussed. A useful resource is The Comprehensive LaTeX Symbol List.
Number construction independence. There are many ways to model complex numbers. After deriving the complex number postulates we reintroduce them as new axioms on top of set theory. This lets us easily identify which axioms are needed for a particular complex number proof, without the obfuscation of the set theory used to derive them. This also lets us be independent of the specific construction, which we believe is valuable. See mmcomplex.html for details. Thus, for example, we don't allow the use of ∅ ∉ ℂ, as handy as that would be, because that would be construction-specific. We want proofs about ℂ to be independent of whether or not ∅ ∈ ℂ.
Minimize hypotheses. In most cases we try to minimize hypotheses, so that the statement be more general and easier to use. There are exceptions. For example, we intentionally add hypotheses if they help make proofs independent of a particular construction (e.g., the contruction of the complex numbers ℂ). We also intentionally add hypotheses for many real and complex number theorems to expressly state their domains even when they are not needed. For example, we could show that ⊢ (𝐴 < 𝐵 → 𝐵 ≠ 𝐴) without any hypotheses, but we require that theorems using this result prove that 𝐴 and 𝐵 are real numbers, so that the statement we use is ltnei 10500. Here are the reasons as discussed in https://groups.google.com/g/metamath/c/2AW7T3d2YiQ:
1. Having the hypotheses immediately shows the intended domain of applicability (is it ℝ, ℝ^*, ω, or something else?), without having to trace back to definitions.
2. Having the hypotheses forces the intended use of the statement, which generally is desirable.
3. Many out-of-domain values are dependent on contingent details of definitions, so hypothesis-free theorems would be non-portable and "brittle".
4. Only a few theorems can have their hypotheses removed in this fashion, due to coincidences for our particular set-theoretical definitions. The poor user (especially a novice learning, e.g., real number arithmetic) is going to be confused not knowing when hypotheses are needed and when they are not. For someone who has not traced back the set-theoretical foundations of the definitions, it is seemingly random and is not intuitive at all.
5. Ultimately, this is a matter of consensus, and the consensus in the group was in favor of keeping sometimes redundant hypotheses.
Natural numbers. There are different definitions of "natural" numbers in the literature. We use ℕ (df-nn 11375) for the set of positive integers starting from 1, and ℕ₀ (df-n0 11643) for the set of nonnegative integers starting at zero.
Decimal numbers. Numbers larger than nine are often expressed in base 10 using the decimal constructor df-dec 11846, e.g., ;;;4001 (see 4001prm 16250 for a proof that 4001 is prime).
Theorem forms. We will use the following descriptive terms to categorize theorems:
- A theorem is in "closed form" if it has no $e hypotheses (e.g., unss 4010). The term "tautology" is also used, especially in propositional calculus. This form was formerly called "theorem form" or "closed theorem form".
- A theorem is in "deduction form" (or is a "deduction") if it has zero or more $e hypotheses, and the hypotheses and the conclusion are implications that share the same antecedent. More precisely, the conclusion is an implication with a wff variable as the antecedent (usually 𝜑), and every hypothesis ($e statement) is either:
  1. an implication with the same antecedent as the conclusion, or
  2. a definition. A definition can be for a class variable (this is a class variable followed by =, e.g. the definition of 𝐷 in lhop 24216) or a wff variable (this is a wff variable followed by ↔); class variable definitions are more common.
  In practice, a proof of a theorem in deduction form will also contain many steps that are implications where the antecedent is either that wff variable (usually 𝜑) or is a conjunction (𝜑 ∩ ...) including that wff variable (𝜑). E.g. a1d 25, unssd 4012. Although they are no real deductions, theorems without $e hypotheses, but in the form (𝜑 → ...), are also said to be in "deduction form". Such theorems usually have a two step proof, applying a1i 11 to a given theorem, and are used as convenience theorems to shorten many proofs. E.g. eqidd 2779, which is used more than 1500 times.
- A theorem is in "inference form" (or is an "inference") if it has one or more $e hypotheses, but is not in deduction form, i.e. there is no common antecedent (e.g., unssi 4011).
Any theorem whose conclusion is an implication has an associated inference, whose hypotheses are the hypotheses of that theorem together with the antecedent of its conclusion, and whose conclusion is the consequent of that conclusion. When both theorems are in set.mm, then the associated inference is often labeled by adding the suffix "i" to the label of the original theorem (for instance, con3i 152 is the inference associated with con3 151). The inference associated with a theorem is easily derivable from that theorem by a simple use of ax-mp 5. The other direction is the subject of the Deduction Theorem discussed below. We may also use the term "associated inference" when the above process is iterated. For instance, syl 17 is an inference associated with imim1 83 because it is the inference associated with imim1i 63 which is itself the inference associated with imim1 83.
"Deduction form" is the preferred form for theorems because this form allows us to easily use the theorem in places where (in traditional textbook formalizations) the standard Deduction Theorem (see below) would be used. We call this approach "deduction style". In contrast, we usually avoid theorems in "inference form" when that would end up requiring us to use the deduction theorem.
Deductions have a label suffix of "d", especially if there are other forms of the same theorem (e.g., pm2.43d 53). The labels for inferences usually have the suffix "i" (e.g., pm2.43i 52). The labels of theorems in "closed form" would have no special suffix (e.g., pm2.43 56). When an inference is converted to a theorem by eliminating an "is a set" hypothesis, we sometimes suffix the closed form with "g" (for "more general") as in uniex 7230 versus uniexg 7232. In this case, the inference often has no suffix "i". When submitting a new theorem, a revision of a theorem, or an upgrade of a theorem from a Mathbox to the Main database, please use the general form to be the default form of the theorem, without the suffix g . For example, "brresg" lost its suffix g when it was revised for some other reason, and now it is brres 5649. Its inference form which was the original "brres", now is brresi 5651.
Deduction theorem. The Deduction Theorem is a metalogical theorem that provides an algorithm for constructing a proof of a theorem from the proof of its corresponding deduction (its associated inference). See for instance Theorem 3 in [Margaris] p. 56. In ordinary mathematics, no one actually carries out the algorithm, because (in its most basic form) it involves an exponential explosion of the number of proof steps as more hypotheses are eliminated. Instead, in ordinary mathematics the Deduction Theorem is invoked simply to claim that something can be done in principle, without actually doing it. For more details, see mmdeduction.html. The Deduction Theorem is a metalogical theorem that cannot be applied directly in Metamath, and the explosion of steps would be a problem anyway, so alternatives are used. One alternative we use sometimes is the "weak deduction theorem" dedth 4363, which works in certain cases in set theory. We also sometimes use dedhb 3586. However, the primary mechanism we use today for emulating the deduction theorem is to write proofs in deduction form (aka "deduction style") as described earlier; the prefixed 𝜑 → mimics the context in a deduction proof system. In practice this mechanism works very well. This approach is described in the deduction form and natural deduction page mmnatded.html; a list of translations for common natural deduction rules is given in natded 27835.
Recursion. We define recursive functions using various "recursion constructors". These allow us to define, with compact direct definitions, functions that are usually defined in textbooks with indirect self-referencing recursive definitions. This produces compact definition and much simpler proofs, and greatly reduces the risk of creating unsound definitions. Examples of recursion constructors include recs(𝐹) in df-recs 7751, rec(𝐹, 𝐼) in df-rdg 7789, seq_𝜔(𝐹, 𝐼) in df-seqom 7826, and seq𝑀( + , 𝐹) in df-seq 13120. These have characteristic function 𝐹 and initial value 𝐼. (Σ_g in df-gsum 16489 isn't really designed for arbitrary recursion, but you could do it with the right magma.) The logically primary one is df-recs 7751, but for the "average user" the most useful one is probably df-seq 13120- provided that a countable sequence is sufficient for the recursion.
Extensible structures. Mathematics includes many structures such as ring, group, poset, etc. We define an "extensible structure" which is then used to define group, ring, poset, etc. This allows theorems from more general structures (groups) to be reused for more specialized structures (rings) without having to reprove them. See df-struct 16257.
Undefined results and "junk theorems". Some expressions are only expected to be meaningful in certain contexts. For example, consider Russell's definition description binder iota, where (℩𝑥𝜑) is meant to be "the 𝑥 such that 𝜑" (where 𝜑 typically depends on x). What should that expression produce when there is no such 𝑥? In set.mm we primarily use one of two approaches. One approach is to make the expression evaluate to the empty set whenever the expression is being used outside of its expected context. While not perfect, it makes it a bit more clear when something is undefined, and it has the advantage that it makes more things equal outside their domain which can remove hypotheses when you feel like exploiting these so-called junk theorems. Note that Quine does this with iota (his definition of iota evaluates to the empty set when there is no unique value of 𝑥). Quine has no problem with that and we don't see why we should, so we define iota exactly the same way that Quine does. The main place where you see this being systematically exploited is in "reverse closure" theorems like 𝐴 ∈ (𝐹‘𝐵) → 𝐵 ∈ dom 𝐹, which is useful when 𝐹 is a family of sets. (by this we mean it's a set set even in a type theoretic interpretation.) The second approach uses "(New usage is discouraged.)" to prevent unintentional uses of certain properties. For example, you could define some construct df-NAME whose usage is discouraged, and prove only the specific properties you wish to use (and add those proofs to the list of permitted uses of "discouraged" information). From then on, you can only use those specific properties without a warning. Other approaches often have hidden problems. For example, you could try to "not define undefined terms" by creating definitions like ${ $d 𝑦𝑥 $. $d 𝑦𝜑 $. df-iota $a ⊢ (∃!𝑥𝜑 → (℩𝑥𝜑) = ∪ {𝑥 ∣ 𝜑}) $. $}. This will be rejected by the definition checker, but the bigger theoretical reason to reject this axiom is that it breaks equality - the metatheorem (𝑥 = 𝑦 → P(x) = P(y) ) fails to hold if definitions don't unfold without some assumptions. (That is, iotabidv 6120 is no longer provable and must be added as an axiom.) It is important for every syntax constructor to satisfy equality theorems *unconditionally*, e.g., expressions like (1 / 0) = (1 / 0) should not be rejected. This is forced on us by the context free term language, and anything else requires a lot more infrastructure (e.g., a type checker) to support without making everything else more painful to use. Another approach would be to try to make nonsensical statements syntactically invalid, but that can create its own complexities; in some cases that would make parsing itself undecidable. In practice this does not seem to be a serious issue. No one does these things deliberately in "real" situations, and some knowledgeable people (such as Mario Carneiro) have never seen this happen accidentally. Norman Megill doesn't agree that these "junk" consequences are necessarily bad anyway, and they can significantly shorten proofs in some cases. This database would be much larger if, for example, we had to condition fvex 6459 on the argument being in the domain of the function. It is impossible to derive a contradiction from sound definitions (i.e. that pass the definition check), assuming ZFC is consistent, and he doesn't see the point of all the extra busy work and huge increase in set.mm size that would result from restricting *all* definitions. So instead of implementing a complex system to counter a problem that does not appear to occur in practice, we use a significantly simpler set of approaches.
Organizing proofs. Humans have trouble understanding long proofs. It is often preferable to break longer proofs into smaller parts (just as with traditional proofs). In Metamath this is done by creating separate proofs of the separate parts. A proof with the sole purpose of supporting a final proof is a lemma; the naming convention for a lemma is the final proof label followed by "lem", and a number if there is more than one. E.g., sbthlem1 8358 is the first lemma for sbth 8368. The comment should begin with "Lemma for", followed by the final proof label, so that it can be suppressed in theorem lists (see the Metamath program "MM> WRITE THEOREM_LIST" command). Also, consider proving reusable results separately, so that others will be able to easily reuse that part of your work.
Limit proof size. It is often preferable to break longer proofs into smaller parts, just as you would do with traditional proofs. One reason is that humans have trouble understanding long proofs. Another reason is that it's generally best to prove reusable results separately, so that others will be able to easily reuse them. Finally, the Metamath program "MM-PA> MINIMIZE_WITH *" command can take much longer with very long proofs. We encourage proofs to be no more than 200 essential steps, and generally no more than 500 essential steps, though these are simply guidelines and not hard-and-fast rules. Much smaller proofs are fine! We also acknowledge that some proofs, especially autogenerated ones, should sometimes not be broken up (e.g., because breaking them up might be useless and inefficient due to many interconnections and reused terms within the proof). In Metamath, breaking up longer proofs is done by creating multiple separate proofs of separate parts. A proof with the sole purpose of supporting a final proof is a lemma; the naming convention for a lemma is the final proof's name followed by "lem", and a number if there is more than one. E.g., sbthlem1 8358 is the first lemma for sbth 8368.
Hypertext links. We strongly encourage comments to have many links to related material, with accompanying text that explains the relationship. These can help readers understand the context. Links to other statements, or to HTTP/HTTPS URLs, can be inserted in ASCII source text by prepending a space-separated tilde (e.g., " ~ df-prm " results in " df-prm 15791"). When metamath.exe is used to generate HTML, it automatically inserts hypertext links for syntax used (e.g., every symbol used), every axiom and definition depended on, the justification for each step in a proof, and to both the next and previous assertions.
Hypertext links to section headers. Some section headers have text under them that describes or explains the section. However, they are not part of the description of axioms or theorems, and there is no way to link to them directly. To provide for this, section headers with accompanying text (indicated with "*" prefixed to mmtheorems.html#mmdtoc entries) have an anchor in mmtheorems.html whose name is the first $a or $p statement that follows the header. For example there is a glossary under the section heading called GRAPH THEORY. The first $a or $p statement that follows is cedgf 26337. To reference it we link to the anchor using a space-separated tilde followed by the space-separated link mmtheorems.html#cedgf, which will become the hyperlink mmtheorems.html#cedgf. Note that no theorem in set.mm is allowed to begin with "mm" (this is enforced by the Metamath program "MM> VERIFY MARKUP" command). Whenever the program sees a tilde reference beginning with "http:", "https:", or "mm", the reference is assumed to be a link to something other than a statement label, and the tilde reference is used as is. This can also be useful for relative links to other pages such as mmcomplex.html.
Bibliography references. Please include a bibliographic reference to any external material used. A name in square brackets in a comment indicates a bibliographic reference. The full reference must be of the form KEYWORD IDENTIFIER? NOISEWORD(S)* [AUTHOR(S)] p. NUMBER - note that this is a very specific form that requires a page number. There should be no comma between the author reference and the "p." (a constant indicator). Whitespace, comma, period, or semicolon should follow NUMBER. An example is Theorem 3.1 of [Monk1] p. 22, The KEYWORD, which is not case-sensitive, must be one of the following: Axiom, Chapter, Compare, Condition, Corollary, Definition, Equation, Example, Exercise, Figure, Item, Lemma, Lemmas, Line, Lines, Notation, Part, Postulate, Problem, Property, Proposition, Remark, Rule, Scheme, Section, or Theorem. The IDENTIFIER is optional, as in for example "Remark in [Monk1] p. 22". The NOISEWORDS(S) are zero or more from the list: from, in, of, on. The AUTHOR(S) must be present in the file identified with the htmlbibliography assignment (e.g., mmset.html) as a named anchor (NAME=). If there is more than one document by the same author(s), add a numeric suffix (as shown here). The NUMBER is a page number, and may be any alphanumeric string such as an integer or Roman numeral. Note that we _require_ page numbers in comments for individual $a or $p statements. We allow names in square brackets without page numbers (a reference to an entire document) in heading comments. If this is a new reference, please also add it to the "Bibliography" section of mmset.html. (The file mmbiblio.html is automatically rebuilt, e.g., using the metamath.exe "write bibliography" command.)
Acceptable shorter proofs. Shorter proofs are welcome, and any shorter proof we accept will be acknowledged in the theorem description. However, in some cases a proof may be "shorter" or not depending on how it is formatted. This section provides general guidelines.
Usually we automatically accept shorter proofs that (1) shorten the set.mm file (with compressed proofs), (2) reduce the size of the HTML file generated with SHOW STATEMENT xx / HTML, (3) use only existing, unmodified theorems in the database (the order of theorems may be changed, though), and (4) use no additional axioms. Usually we will also automatically accept a _new_ theorem that is used to shorten multiple proofs, if the total size of set.mm (including the comment of the new theorem, not including the acknowledgment) decreases as a result.

In borderline cases, we typically place more importance on the number of compressed proof steps and less on the length of the label section (since the names are in principle arbitrary). If two proofs have the same number of compressed proof steps, we will typically give preference to the one with the smaller number of different labels, or if these numbers are the same, the proof with the fewest number of characters that the proofs happen to have by chance when label lengths are included.

A few theorems have a longer proof than necessary in order to avoid the use of certain axioms, for pedagogical purposes, and for other reasons. These theorems will (or should) have a "(Proof modification is discouraged.)" tag in their description. For example, idALT 23 shows a proof directly from axioms. Shorter proofs for such cases won't be accepted, of course, unless the criteria described continues to be satisfied.
Information on syntax, axioms, and definitions. For a hyperlinked list of syntax, axioms, and definitions, see mmdefinitions.html. If you have questions about a specific symbol or axiom, it is best to go directly to its definition to learn more about it. The generated HTML for each theorem and axiom includes hypertext links to each symbol's definition.
Reserved symbols: 'LETTER. Some symbols are reserved for potential future use. Symbols with the pattern 'LETTER are reserved for possibly representing characters (this is somewhat similar to Lisp). We would expect '\n to represent newline, 'sp for space, and perhaps '\x24 for the dollar character.

The challenge of varying mathematical conventions

We try to follow mathematical conventions, but in many cases different texts use different conventions. In those cases we pick some reasonably common convention and stick to it. We have already mentioned that the term "natural number" has varying definitions (some start from 0, others start from 1), but that is not the only such case. A useful example is the set of metavariables used to represent arbitrary well-formed formulas (wffs). We use an open phi, φ, to represent the first arbitrary wff in an assertion with one or more wffs; this is a common convention and this symbol is easily distinguished from the empty set symbol. That said, it is impossible to please everyone or simply "follow the literature" because there are many different conventions for a variable that represents any arbitrary wff. To demonstrate the point, here are some conventions for variables that represent an arbitrary wff and some texts that use each convention:

open phi φ (and so on): Tarski's papers, Rasiowa & Sikorski's The Mathematics of Metamathematics (1963), Monk's Introduction to Set Theory (1969), Enderton's Elements of Set Theory (1977), Bell & Machover's A Course in Mathematical Logic (1977), Jech's Set Theory (1978), Takeuti & Zaring's Introduction to Axiomatic Set Theory (1982).
closed phi ϕ (and so on): Levy's Basic Set Theory (1979), Kunen's Set Theory (1980), Paulson's Isabelle: A Generic Theorem Prover (1994), Huth and Ryan's Logic in Computer Science (2004/2006).
Greek α, β, γ: Duffy's Principles of Automated Theorem Proving (1991).
Roman A, B, C: Kleene's Introduction to Metamathematics (1974), Smullyan's First-Order Logic (1968/1995).
script A, B, C: Hamilton's Logic for Mathematicians (1988).
italic A, B, C: Mendelson's Introduction to Mathematical Logic (1997).
italic P, Q, R: Suppes's Axiomatic Set Theory (1972), Gries and Schneider's A Logical Approach to Discrete Math (1993/1994), Rosser's Logic for Mathematicians (2008).
italic p, q, r: Quine's Set Theory and Its Logic (1969), Kuratowski & Mostowski's Set Theory (1976).
italic X, Y, Z: Dijkstra and Scholten's Predicate Calculus and Program Semantics (1990).
Fraktur letters: Fraenkel et. al's Foundations of Set Theory (1973).

Distinctness or freeness

Here are some conventions that address distinctness or freeness of a variable:

Ⅎ𝑥𝜑 is read " 𝑥 is not free in (wff) 𝜑"; see df-nf 1828 (whose description has some important technical details). Similarly, Ⅎ𝑥𝐴 is read 𝑥 is not free in (class) 𝐴, see df-nfc 2921.
"$d x y $." should be read "Assume x and y are distinct variables."
"$d x 𝜑 $." should be read "Assume x does not occur in phi $." Sometimes a theorem is proved using Ⅎ𝑥𝜑 (df-nf 1828) in place of "$d 𝑥𝜑 $." when a more general result is desired; ax-5 1953 can be used to derive the $d version. For an example of how to get from the $d version back to the $e version, see the proof of euf 2595 from eu6 2592.
"$d x A $." should be read "Assume x is not a variable occurring in class A."
"$d x A $. $d x ps $. $e |- (𝑥 = 𝐴 → (𝜑 ↔ 𝜓)) $." is an idiom often used instead of explicit substitution, meaning "Assume psi results from the proper substitution of A for x in phi."
" ⊢ (¬ ∀𝑥𝑥 = 𝑦 → ..." occurs early in some cases, and should be read "If x and y are distinct variables, then..." This antecedent provides us with a technical device (called a "distinctor" in Section 7 of [Megill] p. 444) to avoid the need for the $d statement early in our development of predicate calculus, permitting unrestricted substitutions as conceptually simple as those in propositional calculus. However, the $d eventually becomes a requirement, and after that this device is rarely used.

There is a general technique to replace a $d x A or $d x ph condition in a theorem with the corresponding Ⅎ𝑥𝐴 or Ⅎ𝑥𝜑; here it is. ⊢ T[x, A] where $d 𝑥𝐴, and you wish to prove ⊢ Ⅎ𝑥𝐴 ⇒ ⊢ T[x, A]. You apply the theorem substituting 𝑦 for 𝑥 and 𝐴 for 𝐴, where 𝑦 is a new dummy variable, so that $d y A is satisfied. You obtain ⊢ T[y, A], and apply chvar to obtain ⊢ T[x, A] (or just use mpbir 223 if T[x, A] binds 𝑥). The side goal is ⊢ (𝑥 = 𝑦 → ( T[y, A] ↔ T[x, A] )), where you can use equality theorems, except that when you get to a bound variable you use a non-dv bound variable renamer theorem like cbval 2368. The section mmtheorems32.html#mm3146s also describes the metatheorem that underlies this.

Additional rules for definitions

Standard Metamath verifiers do not distinguish between axioms and definitions (both are $a statements). In practice, we require that definitions (1) be conservative (a definition should not allow an expression that previously qualified as a wff but was not provable to become provable) and be eliminable (there should exist an algorithmic method for converting any expression using the definition into a logically equivalent expression that previously qualified as a wff). To ensure this, we have additional rules on almost all definitions ($a statements with a label that does not begin with ax-). These additional rules are not applied in a few cases where they are too strict (df-bi 199, df-clab 2764, df-cleq 2770, and df-clel 2774); see those definitions for more information. These additional rules for definitions are checked by at least mmj2's definition check (see mmj2 master file mmj2jar/macros/definitionCheck.js). This definition check relies on the database being very much like set.mm, down to the names of certain constants and types, so it cannot apply to all Metamath databases... but it is useful in set.mm. In this definition check, a $a-statement with a given label and typecode ⊢ passes the test if and only if it respects the following rules (these rules require that we have an unambiguous tree parse, which is checked separately):

The expression must be a biconditional or an equality (i.e. its root-symbol must be ↔ or =). If the proposed definition passes this first rule, we then define its definiendum as its left hand side (LHS) and its definiens as its right hand side (RHS). We define the *defined symbol* as the root-symbol of the LHS. We define a *dummy variable* as a variable occurring in the RHS but not in the LHS. Note that the "root-symbol" is the root of the considered tree; it need not correspond to a single token in the database (e.g., see w3o 1070 or wsb 2011).
The defined expression must not appear in any statement between its syntax axiom ($a wff ) and its definition, and the defined expression must not be used in its definiens. See df-3an 1073 for an example where the same symbol is used in different ways (this is allowed).
No two variables occurring in the LHS may share a disjoint variable (DV) condition.
All dummy variables are required to be disjoint from any other (dummy or not) variable occurring in this labeled expression.
Either (a) there must be no non-setvar dummy variables, or (b) there must be a justification theorem. The justification theorem must be of form ⊢ ( definiens root-symbol definiens' ) where definiens' is definiens but the dummy variables are all replaced with other unused dummy variables of the same type. Note that root-symbol is ↔ or =, and that setvar variables are simply variables with the setvar typecode.
One of the following must be true: (a) there must be no setvar dummy variables, (b) there must be a justification theorem as described in rule 5, or (c) if there are setvar dummy variables, every one must not be free. That is, it must be true that (𝜑 → ∀𝑥𝜑) for each setvar dummy variable 𝑥 where 𝜑 is the definiens. We use two different tests for non-freeness; one must succeed for each setvar dummy variable 𝑥. The first test requires that the setvar dummy variable 𝑥 be syntactically bound (this is sometimes called the "fast" test, and this implies that we must track binding operators). The second test requires a successful search for the directly-stated proof of (𝜑 → ∀𝑥𝜑) Part c of this rule is how most setvar dummy variables are handled.

Rule 3 may seem unnecessary, but it is needed. Without this rule, you can define something like cbar $a wff Foo x y $. ${ $d x y $. df-foo $a |- ( Foo x y <-> x = y ) $. $} and now "Foo x x" is not eliminable; there is no way to prove that it means anything in particular, because the definitional theorem that is supposed to be responsible for connecting it to the original language wants nothing to do with this expression, even though it is well formed.

A justification theorem for a definition (if used this way) must be proven before the definition that depends on it. One example of a justification theorem is vjust 3399. The definition df-v 3400 ⊢ V = {𝑥 ∣ 𝑥 = 𝑥} is justified by the justification theorem vjust 3399 ⊢ {𝑥 ∣ 𝑥 = 𝑥} = {𝑦 ∣ 𝑦 = 𝑦}. Another example of a justification theorem is trujust 1603; the definition df-tru 1605 ⊢ (⊤ ↔ (∀𝑥𝑥 = 𝑥 → ∀𝑥𝑥 = 𝑥)) is justified by trujust 1603 ⊢ ((∀𝑥𝑥 = 𝑥 → ∀𝑥𝑥 = 𝑥) ↔ (∀𝑦𝑦 = 𝑦 → ∀𝑦𝑦 = 𝑦)).

Here is more information about our processes for checking and contributing to this work:

Multiple verifiers. This entire file is verified by multiple independently-implemented verifiers when it is checked in, giving us extremely high confidence that all proofs follow from the assumptions. The checkers also check for various other problems such as overly long lines.
Discouraged information. A separate file named "discouraged" lists all discouraged statements and uses of them, and this file is checked. If you change the use of discouraged things, you will need to change this file. This makes it obvious when there is a change to anything discouraged (triggering further review).
LRParser check. Metamath verifiers ensure that $p statements follow from previous $a and $p statements. However, by itself the Metamath language permits certain kinds of syntactic ambiguity that we choose to avoid in this database. Thus, we require that this database unambiguously parse using the "LRParser" check (implemented by at least mmj2). (For details, see mmj2 master file src/mmj/verify/LRParser.java). This check counters, for example, a devious ambiguous construct developed by saueran at oregonstate dot edu posted on Mon, 11 Feb 2019 17:32:32 -0800 (PST) based on creating definitions with mismatched parentheses.
Proposing specific changes. Please propose specific changes as pull requests (PRs) against the "develop" branch of set.mm, at: https://github.com/metamath/set.mm/tree/develop.
Community. We encourage anyone interested in Metamath to join our mailing list: https://groups.google.com/forum/#!forum/metamath.

(Contributed by the Metamath team, 27-Dec-2016.) Date of last revision. (Revised by the Metamath team, 22-Sep-2022.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) (New usage is discouraged.)

𝜑 ⇒ 𝜑

Theorem

conventions-labels 27833

The following gives conventions used in the Metamath Proof Explorer (MPE, set.mm) regarding labels. For other conventions, see conventions 27832 and links therein.

Every statement has a unique identifying label, which serves the same purpose as an equation number in a book. We use various label naming conventions to provide easy-to-remember hints about their contents. Labels are not a 1-to-1 mapping, because that would create long names that would be difficult to remember and tedious to type. Instead, label names are relatively short while suggesting their purpose. Names are occasionally changed to make them more consistent or as we find better ways to name them. Here are a few of the label naming conventions:

Axioms, definitions, and wff syntax. As noted earlier, axioms are named "ax-NAME", proofs of proven axioms are named "axNAME", and definitions are named "df-NAME". Wff syntax declarations have labels beginning with "w" followed by short fragment suggesting its purpose.
Hypotheses. Hypotheses have the name of the final axiom or theorem, followed by ".", followed by a unique id (these ids are usually consecutive integers starting with 1, e.g. for rgen 3104"rgen.1 $e |- ( x e. A -> ph ) $." or letters corresponding to the (main) class variable used in the hypothesis, e.g. for mdet0 20817: "mdet0.d $e |- D = ( N maDet R ) $.").
Common names. If a theorem has a well-known name, that name (or a short version of it) is sometimes used directly. Examples include barbara 2695 and stirling 41233.
Principia Mathematica. Proofs of theorems from Principia Mathematica often use a special naming convention: "pm" followed by its identifier. For example, Theorem *2.27 of [WhiteheadRussell] p. 104 is named pm2.27 42.
19.x series of theorems. Similar to the conventions for the theorems from Principia Mathematica, theorems from Section 19 of [Margaris] p. 90 often use a special naming convention: "19." resp. "r19." (for corresponding restricted quantifier versions) followed by its identifier. For example, Theorem 38 from Section 19 of [Margaris] p. 90 is labeled 19.38 1882, and the restricted quantifier version of Theorem 21 from Section 19 of [Margaris] p. 90 is labeled r19.21 3138.
Characters to be used for labels. Although the specification of Metamath allows for dots/periods "." in any label, it is usually used only in labels for hypotheses (see above). Exceptions are the labels of theorems from Principia Mathematica and the 19.x series of theorems from Section 19 of [Margaris] p. 90 (see above) and 0.999... 15016. Furthermore, the underscore "_" should not be used. Finally, only lower case characters should be used (except the special suffixes OLD, ALT and ALTV mentioned in bullet point "Suffixes"), at least in main set.mm (exceptions are tolerated in mathboxes).
Syntax label fragments. Most theorems are named using a concatenation of syntax label fragments (omitting variables) that represent the important part of the theorem's main conclusion. Almost every syntactic construct has a definition labeled "df-NAME", and normally NAME is the syntax label fragment. For example, the class difference construct (𝐴 ∖ 𝐵) is defined in df-dif 3795, and thus its syntax label fragment is "dif". Similarly, the subclass relation 𝐴 ⊆ 𝐵 has syntax label fragment "ss" because it is defined in df-ss 3806. Most theorem names follow from these fragments, for example, the theorem proving (𝐴 ∖ 𝐵) ⊆ 𝐴 involves a class difference ("dif") of a subset ("ss"), and thus is labeled difss 3960. There are many other syntax label fragments, e.g., singleton construct {𝐴} has syntax label fragment "sn" (because it is defined in df-sn 4399), and the pair construct {𝐴, 𝐵} has fragment "pr" ( from df-pr 4401). Digits are used to represent themselves. Suffixes (e.g., with numbers) are sometimes used to distinguish multiple theorems that would otherwise produce the same label.
Phantom definitions. In some cases there are common label fragments for something that could be in a definition, but for technical reasons is not. The is-element-of (is member of) construct 𝐴 ∈ 𝐵 does not have a df-NAME definition; in this case its syntax label fragment is "el". Thus, because the theorem beginning with (𝐴 ∈ (𝐵 ∖ {𝐶}) uses is-element-of ("el") of a class difference ("dif") of a singleton ("sn"), it is labeled eldifsn 4550. An "n" is often used for negation (¬), e.g., nan 820.
Exceptions. Sometimes there is a definition df-NAME but the label fragment is not the NAME part. The definition should note this exception as part of its definition. In addition, the table below attempts to list all such cases and marks them in bold. For example, the label fragment "cn" represents complex numbers ℂ (even though its definition is in df-c 10278) and "re" represents real numbers ℝ ( definition df-r 10282). The empty set ∅ often uses fragment 0, even though it is defined in df-nul 4142. The syntax construct (𝐴 + 𝐵) usually uses the fragment "add" (which is consistent with df-add 10283), but "p" is used as the fragment for constant theorems. Equality (𝐴 = 𝐵) often uses "e" as the fragment. As a result, "two plus two equals four" is labeled 2p2e4 11517.
Other markings. In labels we sometimes use "com" for "commutative", "ass" for "associative", "rot" for "rotation", and "di" for "distributive".
Focus on the important part of the conclusion. Typically the conclusion is the part the user is most interested in. So, a rough guideline is that a label typically provides a hint about only the conclusion; a label rarely says anything about the hypotheses or antecedents. If there are multiple theorems with the same conclusion but different hypotheses/antecedents, then the labels will need to differ; those label differences should emphasize what is different. There is no need to always fully describe the conclusion; just identify the important part. For example, cos0 15282 is the theorem that provides the value for the cosine of 0; we would need to look at the theorem itself to see what that value is. The label "cos0" is concise and we use it instead of "cos0eq1". There is no need to add the "eq1", because there will never be a case where we have to disambiguate between different values produced by the cosine of zero, and we generally prefer shorter labels if they are unambiguous.
Closures and values. As noted above, if a function df-NAME is defined, there is typically a proof of its value labeled "NAMEval" and of its closure labeld "NAMEcl". E.g., for cosine (df-cos 15203) we have value cosval 15255 and closure coscl 15259.
Special cases. Sometimes, syntax and related markings are insufficient to distinguish different theorems. For example, there are over a hundred different implication-only theorems. They are grouped in a more ad-hoc way that attempts to make their distinctions clearer. These often use abbreviations such as "mp" for "modus ponens", "syl" for syllogism, and "id" for "identity". It is especially hard to give good names in the propositional calculus section because there are so few primitives. However, in most cases this is not a serious problem. There are a few very common theorems like ax-mp 5 and syl 17 that you will have no trouble remembering, a few theorem series like syl*anc and simp* that you can use parametrically, and a few other useful glue things for destructuring 'and's and 'or's (see natded 27835 for a list), and that is about all you need for most things. As for the rest, you can just assume that if it involves at most three connectives, then it is probably already proved in set.mm, and searching for it will give you the label.
Suffixes. Suffixes are used to indicate the form of a theorem (see above). Additionally, we sometimes suffix with "v" the label of a theorem eliminating a hypothesis such as Ⅎ𝑥𝜑 in 19.21 2192 via the use of disjoint variable conditions combined with nfv 1957. If two (or three) such hypotheses are eliminated, the suffix "vv" resp. "vvv" is used, e.g. exlimivv 1975. Conversely, we sometimes suffix with "f" the label of a theorem introducing such a hypothesis to eliminate the need for the disjoint variable condition; e.g. euf 2595 derived from eu6 2592. The "f" stands for "not free in" which is less restrictive than "does not occur in." The suffix "b" often means "biconditional" (↔, "iff" , "if and only if"), e.g. sspwb 5149. We sometimes suffix with "s" the label of an inference that manipulates an antecedent, leaving the consequent unchanged. The "s" means that the inference eliminates the need for a syllogism (syl 17) -type inference in a proof. A theorem label is suffixed with "ALT" if it provides an alternate less-preferred proof of a theorem (e.g., the proof is clearer but uses more axioms than the preferred version). The "ALT" may be further suffixed with a number if there is more than one alternate theorem. Furthermore, a theorem label is suffixed with "OLD" if there is a new version of it and the OLD version is obsolete (and will be removed within one year). Finally, it should be mentioned that suffixes can be combined, for example in cbvaldva 2376 (cbval 2368 in deduction form "d" with a not free variable replaced by a disjoint variable condition "v" with a conjunction as antecedent "a"). As a general rule, the suffixes for the theorem forms ("i", "d" or "g") should be the first of multiple suffixes, as for example in vtocldf 3457 or rabeqif 3388. Here is a non-exhaustive list of common suffixes:
- a : theorem having a conjunction as antecedent
- b : theorem expressing a logical equivalence
- c : contraction (e.g., sylc 65, syl2anc 579), commutes (e.g., biimpac 472)
- d : theorem in deduction form
- f : theorem with a hypothesis such as Ⅎ𝑥𝜑
- g : theorem in closed form having an "is a set" antecedent
- i : theorem in inference form
- l : theorem concerning something at the left
- r : theorem concerning something at the right
- r : theorem with something reversed (e.g., a biconditional)
- s : inference that manipulates an antecedent ("s" refers to an application of syl 17 that is eliminated)
- v : theorem with one (main) disjoint variable condition
- vv : theorem with two (main) disjoint variable conditions
- w : weak(er) form of a theorem
- ALT : alternate proof of a theorem
- ALTV : alternate version of a theorem or definition
- OLD : old/obsolete version of a theorem/definition/proof
Reuse. When creating a new theorem or axiom, try to reuse abbreviations used elsewhere. A comment should explain the first use of an abbreviation.

The following table shows some commonly used abbreviations in labels, in alphabetical order. For each abbreviation we provide a mnenomic, the source theorem or the assumption defining it, an expression showing what it looks like, whether or not it is a "syntax fragment" (an abbreviation that indicates a particular kind of syntax), and hyperlinks to label examples that use the abbreviation. The abbreviation is bolded if there is a df-NAME definition but the label fragment is not NAME. This is not a complete list of abbreviations, though we do want this to eventually be a complete list of exceptions.

Abbreviation	Mnenomic	Source	Expression	Syntax?	Example(s)
a	and (suffix)			No	biimpa 470, rexlimiva 3210
abl	Abelian group	df-abl 18582	Abel	Yes	ablgrp 18584, zringabl 20218
abs	absorption			No	ressabs 16336
abs	absolute value (of a complex number)	df-abs 14383	(abs‘𝐴)	Yes	absval 14385, absneg 14424, abs1 14444
ad	adding			No	adantr 474, ad2antlr 717
add	add (see "p")	df-add 10283	(𝐴 + 𝐵)	Yes	addcl 10354, addcom 10562, addass 10359
al	"for all"		∀𝑥𝜑	No	alim 1854, alex 1869
ALT	alternative/less preferred (suffix)			No	idALT 23
an	and	df-an 387	(𝜑 ∧ 𝜓)	Yes	anor 968, iman 392, imnan 390
ant	antecedent			No	adantr 474
ass	associative			No	biass 376, orass 908, mulass 10360
asym	asymmetric, antisymmetric			No	intasym 5766, asymref 5767, posasymb 17338
ax	axiom			No	ax6dgen 2122, ax1cn 10306
bas, base	base (set of an extensible structure)	df-base 16261	(Base‘𝑆)	Yes	baseval 16314, ressbas 16326, cnfldbas 20146
b, bi	biconditional ("iff", "if and only if")	df-bi 199	(𝜑 ↔ 𝜓)	Yes	impbid 204, sspwb 5149
br	binary relation	df-br 4887	𝐴𝑅𝐵	Yes	brab1 4934, brun 4937
cbv	change bound variable			No	cbvalivw 2054, cbvrex 3364
cl	closure			No	ifclda 4341, ovrcl 6962, zaddcl 11769
cn	complex numbers	df-c 10278	ℂ	Yes	nnsscn 11379, nncn 11383
cnfld	field of complex numbers	df-cnfld 20143	ℂ_fld	Yes	cnfldbas 20146, cnfldinv 20173
cntz	centralizer	df-cntz 18133	(Cntz‘𝑀)	Yes	cntzfval 18136, dprdfcntz 18801
cnv	converse	df-cnv 5363	^◡𝐴	Yes	opelcnvg 5548, f1ocnv 6403
co	composition	df-co 5364	(𝐴 ∘ 𝐵)	Yes	cnvco 5553, fmptco 6661
com	commutative			No	orcom 859, bicomi 216, eqcomi 2787
con	contradiction, contraposition			No	condan 808, con2d 132
csb	class substitution	df-csb 3752	⦋𝐴 / 𝑥⦌𝐵	Yes	csbid 3759, csbie2g 3782
cyg	cyclic group	df-cyg 18666	CycGrp	Yes	iscyg 18667, zringcyg 20235
d	deduction form (suffix)			No	idd 24, impbid 204
df	(alternate) definition (prefix)			No	dfrel2 5837, dffn2 6293
di, distr	distributive			No	andi 993, imdi 381, ordi 991, difindi 4108, ndmovdistr 7100
dif	class difference	df-dif 3795	(𝐴 ∖ 𝐵)	Yes	difss 3960, difindi 4108
div	division	df-div 11033	(𝐴 / 𝐵)	Yes	divcl 11039, divval 11035, divmul 11036
dm	domain	df-dm 5365	dom 𝐴	Yes	dmmpt 5884, iswrddm0 13626
e, eq, equ	equals	df-cleq 2770	𝐴 = 𝐵	Yes	2p2e4 11517, uneqri 3978, equtr 2068
edg	edge	df-edg 26396	(Edg‘𝐺)	Yes	edgopval 26399, usgredgppr 26542
el	element of		𝐴 ∈ 𝐵	Yes	eldif 3802, eldifsn 4550, elssuni 4702
en	equinumerous	df-en	𝐴 ≈ 𝐵	Yes	domen 8254, enfi 8464
eu	"there exists exactly one"	eu6 2592	∃!𝑥𝜑	Yes	euex 2597, euabsn 4493
ex	exists (i.e. is a set)		∈ V	No	brrelex1 5403, 0ex 5026
ex	"there exists (at least one)"	df-ex 1824	∃𝑥𝜑	Yes	exim 1877, alex 1869
exp	export			No	expt 170, expcom 404
f	"not free in" (suffix)			No	equs45f 2425, sbf 2456
f	function	df-f 6139	𝐹:𝐴⟶𝐵	Yes	fssxp 6310, opelf 6315
fal	false	df-fal 1615	⊥	Yes	bifal 1618, falantru 1637
fi	finite intersection	df-fi 8605	(fi‘𝐵)	Yes	fival 8606, inelfi 8612
fi, fin	finite	df-fin 8245	Fin	Yes	isfi 8265, snfi 8326, onfin 8439
fld	field (Note: there is an alternative definition Fld of a field, see df-fld 34415)	df-field 19142	Field	Yes	isfld 19148, fldidom 19702
fn	function with domain	df-fn 6138	𝐴 Fn 𝐵	Yes	ffn 6291, fndm 6235
frgp	free group	df-frgp 18507	(freeGrp‘𝐼)	Yes	frgpval 18557, frgpadd 18562
fsupp	finitely supported function	df-fsupp 8564	𝑅 finSupp 𝑍	Yes	isfsupp 8567, fdmfisuppfi 8572, fsuppco 8595
fun	function	df-fun 6137	Fun 𝐹	Yes	funrel 6152, ffun 6294
fv	function value	df-fv 6143	(𝐹‘𝐴)	Yes	fvres 6465, swrdfv 13740
fz	finite set of sequential integers	df-fz 12644	(𝑀...𝑁)	Yes	fzval 12645, eluzfz 12654
fz0	finite set of sequential nonnegative integers		(0...𝑁)	Yes	nn0fz0 12756, fz0tp 12759
fzo	half-open integer range	df-fzo 12785	(𝑀..^𝑁)	Yes	elfzo 12791, elfzofz 12804
g	more general (suffix); eliminates "is a set" hypotheses			No	uniexg 7232
gr	graph			No	uhgrf 26410, isumgr 26443, usgrres1 26662
grp	group	df-grp 17812	Grp	Yes	isgrp 17815, tgpgrp 22290
gsum	group sum	df-gsum 16489	(𝐺 Σ_g 𝐹)	Yes	gsumval 17657, gsumwrev 18179
hash	size (of a set)	df-hash 13436	(♯‘𝐴)	Yes	hashgval 13438, hashfz1 13451, hashcl 13462
hb	hypothesis builder (prefix)			No	hbxfrbi 1868, hbald 2161, hbequid 35063
hm	(monoid, group, ring) homomorphism			No	ismhm 17723, isghm 18044, isrhm 19110
i	inference (suffix)			No	eleq1i 2850, tcsni 8916
i	implication (suffix)			No	brwdomi 8762, infeq5i 8830
id	identity			No	biid 253
iedg	indexed edge	df-iedg 26347	(iEdg‘𝐺)	Yes	iedgval0 26388, edgiedgb 26402
idm	idempotent			No	anidm 560, tpidm13 4523
im, imp	implication (label often omitted)	df-im 14248	(𝐴 → 𝐵)	Yes	iman 392, imnan 390, impbidd 202
ima	image	df-ima 5368	(𝐴 “ 𝐵)	Yes	resima 5680, imaundi 5799
imp	import			No	biimpa 470, impcom 398
in	intersection	df-in 3799	(𝐴 ∩ 𝐵)	Yes	elin 4019, incom 4028
inf	infimum	df-inf 8637	inf(ℝ⁺, ℝ^*, < )	Yes	fiinfcl 8695, infiso 8702
is...	is (something a) ...?			No	isring 18938
j	joining, disjoining			No	jc 161, jaoi 846
l	left			No	olcd 863, simpl 476
map	mapping operation or set exponentiation	df-map 8142	(𝐴 ↑_𝑚 𝐵)	Yes	mapvalg 8150, elmapex 8161
mat	matrix	df-mat 20618	(𝑁 Mat 𝑅)	Yes	matval 20621, matring 20653
mdet	determinant (of a square matrix)	df-mdet 20796	(𝑁 maDet 𝑅)	Yes	mdetleib 20798, mdetrlin 20813
mgm	magma	df-mgm 17628	Magma	Yes	mgmidmo 17645, mgmlrid 17652, ismgm 17629
mgp	multiplicative group	df-mgp 18877	(mulGrp‘𝑅)	Yes	mgpress 18887, ringmgp 18940
mnd	monoid	df-mnd 17681	Mnd	Yes	mndass 17688, mndodcong 18345
mo	"there exists at most one"	df-mo 2551	∃*𝑥𝜑	Yes	eumo 2598, moim 2556
mp	modus ponens	ax-mp 5		No	mpd 15, mpi 20
mpt	modus ponendo tollens			No	mptnan 1812, mptxor 1813
mpt	maps-to notation for a function	df-mpt 4966	(𝑥 ∈ 𝐴 ↦ 𝐵)	Yes	fconstmpt 5411, resmpt 5699
mpt2	maps-to notation for an operation	df-mpt2 6927	(𝑥 ∈ 𝐴, 𝑦 ∈ 𝐵 ↦ 𝐶)	Yes	mpt2mpt 7029, resmpt2 7035
mul	multiplication (see "t")	df-mul 10284	(𝐴 · 𝐵)	Yes	mulcl 10356, divmul 11036, mulcom 10358, mulass 10360
n, not	not		¬ 𝜑	Yes	nan 820, notnotr 128
ne	not equal	df-ne	𝐴 ≠ 𝐵	Yes	exmidne 2979, neeqtrd 3038
nel	not element of	df-nel	𝐴 ∉ 𝐵	Yes	neli 3077, nnel 3084
ne0	not equal to zero (see n0)		≠ 0	No	negne0d 10732, ine0 10810, gt0ne0 10840
nf	"not free in" (prefix)			No	nfnd 1903
ngp	normed group	df-ngp 22796	NrmGrp	Yes	isngp 22808, ngptps 22814
nm	norm (on a group or ring)	df-nm 22795	(norm‘𝑊)	Yes	nmval 22802, subgnm 22845
nn	positive integers	df-nn 11375	ℕ	Yes	nnsscn 11379, nncn 11383
nn0	nonnegative integers	df-n0 11643	ℕ₀	Yes	nnnn0 11650, nn0cn 11653
n0	not the empty set (see ne0)		≠ ∅	No	n0i 4148, vn0 4153, ssn0 4202
OLD	old, obsolete (to be removed soon)			No	19.43OLD 1930
on	ordinal number	df-on 5980	𝐴 ∈ On	Yes	elon 5985, 1on 7850 onelon 6001
op	ordered pair	df-op 4405	⟨𝐴, 𝐵⟩	Yes	dfopif 4633, opth 5176
or	or	df-or 837	(𝜑 ∨ 𝜓)	Yes	orcom 859, anor 968
ot	ordered triple	df-ot 4407	⟨𝐴, 𝐵, 𝐶⟩	Yes	euotd 5210, fnotovb 6971
ov	operation value	df-ov 6925	(𝐴𝐹𝐵)	Yes	fnotovb 6971, fnovrn 7086
p	plus (see "add"), for all-constant theorems	df-add 10283	(3 + 2) = 5	Yes	3p2e5 11533
pfx	prefix	df-pfx 13780	(𝑊 prefix 𝐿)	Yes	pfxlen 13792, ccatpfx 13810
pm	Principia Mathematica			No	pm2.27 42
pm	partial mapping (operation)	df-pm 8143	(𝐴 ↑_pm 𝐵)	Yes	elpmi 8159, pmsspw 8175
pr	pair	df-pr 4401	{𝐴, 𝐵}	Yes	elpr 4421, prcom 4499, prid1g 4527, prnz 4543
prm, prime	prime (number)	df-prm 15791	ℙ	Yes	1nprm 15797, dvdsprime 15805
pss	proper subset	df-pss 3808	𝐴 ⊊ 𝐵	Yes	pssss 3924, sspsstri 3931
q	rational numbers ("quotients")	df-q 12096	ℚ	Yes	elq 12097
r	right			No	orcd 862, simprl 761
rab	restricted class abstraction	df-rab 3099	{𝑥 ∈ 𝐴 ∣ 𝜑}	Yes	rabswap 3308, df-oprab 6926
ral	restricted universal quantification	df-ral 3095	∀𝑥 ∈ 𝐴𝜑	Yes	ralnex 3174, ralrnmpt2 7052
rcl	reverse closure			No	ndmfvrcl 6477, nnarcl 7980
re	real numbers	df-r 10282	ℝ	Yes	recn 10362, 0re 10378
rel	relation	df-rel 5362	Rel 𝐴	Yes	brrelex1 5403, relmpt2opab 7540
res	restriction	df-res 5367	(𝐴 ↾ 𝐵)	Yes	opelres 5648, f1ores 6405
reu	restricted existential uniqueness	df-reu 3097	∃!𝑥 ∈ 𝐴𝜑	Yes	nfreud 3298, reurex 3356
rex	restricted existential quantification	df-rex 3096	∃𝑥 ∈ 𝐴𝜑	Yes	rexnal 3176, rexrnmpt2 7053
rmo	restricted "at most one"	df-rmo 3098	∃*𝑥 ∈ 𝐴𝜑	Yes	nfrmod 3299, nrexrmo 3359
rn	range	df-rn 5366	ran 𝐴	Yes	elrng 5559, rncnvcnv 5594
rng	(unital) ring	df-ring 18936	Ring	Yes	ringidval 18890, isring 18938, ringgrp 18939
rot	rotation			No	3anrot 1085, 3orrot 1076
s	eliminates need for syllogism (suffix)			No	ancoms 452
sb	(proper) substitution (of a set)	df-sb 2012	[𝑦 / 𝑥]𝜑	Yes	spsbe 2015, sbimi 2017
sbc	(proper) substitution of a class	df-sbc 3653	[𝐴 / 𝑥]𝜑	Yes	sbc2or 3661, sbcth 3667
sca	scalar	df-sca 16354	(Scalar‘𝐻)	Yes	resssca 16423, mgpsca 18883
simp	simple, simplification			No	simpl 476, simp3r3 1339
sn	singleton	df-sn 4399	{𝐴}	Yes	eldifsn 4550
sp	specialization			No	spsbe 2015, spei 2359
ss	subset	df-ss 3806	𝐴 ⊆ 𝐵	Yes	difss 3960
struct	structure	df-struct 16257	Struct	Yes	brstruct 16264, structfn 16272
sub	subtract	df-sub 10608	(𝐴 − 𝐵)	Yes	subval 10613, subaddi 10710
sup	supremum	df-sup 8636	sup(𝐴, 𝐵, < )	Yes	fisupcl 8663, supmo 8646
supp	support (of a function)	df-supp 7577	(𝐹 supp 𝑍)	Yes	ressuppfi 8589, mptsuppd 7599
swap	swap (two parts within a theorem)			No	rabswap 3308, 2reuswap 3624
syl	syllogism	syl 17		No	3syl 18
sym	symmetric			No	df-symdif 4067, cnvsym 5765
symg	symmetric group	df-symg 18181	(SymGrp‘𝐴)	Yes	symghash 18188, pgrpsubgsymg 18211
t	times (see "mul"), for all-constant theorems	df-mul 10284	(3 · 2) = 6	Yes	3t2e6 11548
th	theorem			No	nfth 1845, sbcth 3667, weth 9652
tp	triple	df-tp 4403	{𝐴, 𝐵, 𝐶}	Yes	eltpi 4456, tpeq1 4509
tr	transitive			No	bitrd 271, biantr 796
tru	true	df-tru 1605	⊤	Yes	bitru 1611, truanfal 1636
un	union	df-un 3797	(𝐴 ∪ 𝐵)	Yes	uneqri 3978, uncom 3980
unit	unit (in a ring)	df-unit 19029	(Unit‘𝑅)	Yes	isunit 19044, nzrunit 19664
v	disjoint variable conditions used when a not-free hypothesis (suffix)			No	spimv 2355
vtx	vertex	df-vtx 26346	(Vtx‘𝐺)	Yes	vtxval0 26387, opvtxov 26353
vv	2 disjoint variables (in a not-free hypothesis) (suffix)			No	19.23vv 1986
w	weak (version of a theorem) (suffix)			No	ax11w 2124, spnfw 2046
wrd	word	df-word 13600	Word 𝑆	Yes	iswrdb 13605, wrdfn 13614, ffz0iswrd 13629
xp	cross product (Cartesian product)	df-xp 5361	(𝐴 × 𝐵)	Yes	elxp 5378, opelxpi 5392, xpundi 5417
xr	eXtended reals	df-xr 10415	ℝ^*	Yes	ressxr 10420, rexr 10422, 0xr 10423
z	integers (from German "Zahlen")	df-z 11729	ℤ	Yes	elz 11730, zcn 11733
zn	ring of integers mod 𝑁	df-zn 20251	(ℤ/nℤ‘𝑁)	Yes	znval 20279, zncrng 20288, znhash 20302
zring	ring of integers	df-zring 20215	ℤ_ring	Yes	zringbas 20220, zringcrng 20216
0, z	slashed zero (empty set)	df-nul 4142	∅	Yes	n0i 4148, vn0 4153; snnz 4542, prnz 4543

(Contributed by the Metamath team, 27-Dec-2016.) Date of last revision. (Revised by the Metamath team, 22-Sep-2022.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) (New usage is discouraged.)

𝜑 ⇒ 𝜑

Theorem

conventions-comments 27834

The following gives conventions used in the Metamath Proof Explorer (MPE, set.mm) regarding comments, and more generally nonmathematical conventions. For other conventions, see conventions 27832 and links therein.

Input format.
The input format is ASCII. Tab characters are not allowed. If non-ASCII characters have to be displayed in comments, use embedded mathematical symbols when they have been defined (e.g., "` -> `" for " →") or HTML entities (e.g., "é" for "é"). Default indentation is by two spaces. Lines are hard-wrapped to be at most 79-character long, excluding the newline character (this can be achieved, except currently for section comments, by the Metamath program "MM> WRITE SOURCE set.mm / REWRAP" command or by running the script scripts/rewrap). The file ends with an empty line. There are no trailing spaces. As for line wrapping in statements, we try to break lines before the most important token.
Language and spelling.
The MPE uses American English, e.g., we write "neighborhood" instead of the British English "neighbourhood". An exception is the word "analog", which can be either a noun or an adjective (furthermore, "analog" has the confounding meaning "not digital"); therefore, "analogue" is used for the noun and "analogous" for the adjective. We favor regular plurals, e.g., "formulas" instead of "formulae", "lemmas" instead of "lemmata".

Since comments may contain many space-separated symbols, we use the older convention of two spaces after a period ending a sentence, to better separate sentences (this is also achieved by the Metamath program "MM> WRITE SOURCE set.mm / REWRAP" command).

When compound words have several variants, we prefer the concatenated variant (e.g., nonempty, nontrivial, nonpositive, nonzero, nonincreasing, nondegenerate...).
Quotation style.
We use the "logical quotation style", which means that when a quoted text is followed by punctuation not pertaining to the quote, then the quotation mark precedes the punctuation (like at the beginning of this sentence). We use the double quote as default quotation mark (since the single quote also serves as apostrophe), and the single quote in the case of a nested quotation.
Sectioning and section headers.
The database set.mm has a sectioning system with four levels of titles, signaled by "decoration lines" which are 79-character long repetitions of ####, #*#*, =-=-, and -.-. (in descending order of sectioning level). Sections of any level are separated by two blank lines (if there is a "@( Begin $[ ... $] @)" comment (where "@" is actually "$") before a section header, then the double blank line should go before that comment, which is considered as belonging to that section). The format of section headers is best seen in the source file (set.mm); it is as follows:
- a line with "@(" (with the "@" replaced by "$");
- a decoration line;
- section title indented with two spaces;
- a (matching) decoration line;
- [blank line; header comment indented with two spaces; blank line;]
- a line with "@)" (with the "@" replaced by "$");
- one blank line.
As everywhere else, lines are hard-wrapped to be 79-character long. It is expected that in a future version, the Metamath program "MM> WRITE SOURCE set.mm / REWRAP" command will reformat section headers to automatically conform with this format.
Comments.
As for formatting of the file set.mm, and in particular formatting and layout of the comments, the foremost rule is consistency. The first sections of set.mm, in particular Part 1 "Classical first-order logic with equality" can serve as a model for contributors. Some formatting rules are enforced when using the Metamath program "MM> WRITE SOURCE set.mm / REWRAP" command. Here are a few other rules, which are not enforced, but that we try to follow:
- The file set.mm should have a double blank line between sections, and at no other places. In particular, there are no triple blank lines.
- The header comments should be spaced as those of Part 1, namely, with a blank line before and after the comment, and an indentation of two spaces.
- As of 20-Sep-2022, section comments are not rewrapped by the Metamath program "MM> WRITE SOURCE set.mm / REWRAP" command, though this is expected in a future version. Similar spacing and wrapping should be used as for other comments: double spaces after a period ending a sentence, line wrapping with line width of 79, and no trailing spaces at the end of lines.
Contributors.
Each assertion (theorem, definition or axiom) has a contribution tag of the form "(Contributed by xxx, dd-Mmm-yyyy)" (see Metamath Book, p. 142). The date cannot serve as a proof of anteriority since there is currently no formal guarantee that the date is correct (a claim of anterioty can be backed, for instance, by the uploading of a result to a public repository with verifiable date). The contributor is the first person who proved (or stated, in the case of a definition or axiom) the statement. The list of contributors appears at the beginning of set.mm.

An exception should be made if a theorem is essentially an extract or a variant of an already existing theorem, in which case the contributor should be that of the statement from which it is derived, with the modification signaled by a "(Revised by xxx, dd-Mmm-yyyy)" tag. As with all revision tags, it should be preceded by a short description of the revision. Since this is somewhat subjective, judgment and intellectual honesty should be applied, with collegial settlement in case of dispute.
Usage of parentheticals.
Usually, the comment of a theorem should contain at most one of the "Revised by" and "Proof shortened by" parentheticals, see Metamath Book, pp. 142-143 (there must always be a "Contributed by" parenthetical for every theorem). Exceptions for "Proof shortened by" parentheticals are essential additional shortenings by a different person. If a proof is shortened by the same person, the date within the "Proof shortened by" parenthetical should be updated only. This also holds for "Revised by" parentheticals, except that also more than one of such parentheticals for the same person are acceptable (if there are good reasons for this).
Explaining new labels.
A comment should explain the first use of an abbreviation within a label. This is often in a definition (e.g., the definition df-an 387 introduces the abbreviation "an" for conjunction ("and")), but not always (e.g., the theorem alim 1854 introduces the abbreviation "al" for the universal quantifier ("for all")). See conventions-labels 27833 for a table of abbreviations.

(Contributed by the Metamath team, 27-Dec-2016.) Date of last revision. (Revised by the Metamath team, 22-Sep-2022.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) (New usage is discouraged.)

𝜑 ⇒ 𝜑

17.1.2 Natural deduction

Theorem

natded 27835

Here are typical natural deduction (ND) rules in the style of Gentzen and Jaśkowski, along with MPE translations of them. This also shows the recommended theorems when you find yourself needing these rules (the recommendations encourage a slightly different proof style that works more naturally with set.mm). A decent list of the standard rules of natural deduction can be found beginning with definition /\I in [Pfenning] p. 18. For information about ND and Metamath, see the page on Deduction Form and Natural Deduction in Metamath Proof Explorer. Many more citations could be added.

Name	Natural Deduction Rule	Translation	Recommendation	Comments
IT	Γ⊢ 𝜓 => Γ⊢ 𝜓	idi 2	nothing	Reiteration is always redundant in Metamath. Definition "new rule" in [Pfenning] p. 18, definition IT in [Clemente] p. 10.
∧I	Γ⊢ 𝜓 & Γ⊢ 𝜒 => Γ⊢ 𝜓 ∧ 𝜒	jca 507	jca 507, pm3.2i 464	Definition ∧I in [Pfenning] p. 18, definition I∧m,n in [Clemente] p. 10, and definition ∧I in [Indrzejczak] p. 34 (representing both Gentzen's system NK and Jaśkowski)
∧E_L	Γ⊢ 𝜓 ∧ 𝜒 => Γ⊢ 𝜓	simpld 490	simpld 490, adantr 474	Definition ∧E_L in [Pfenning] p. 18, definition E∧(1) in [Clemente] p. 11, and definition ∧E in [Indrzejczak] p. 34 (representing both Gentzen's system NK and Jaśkowski)
∧E_R	Γ⊢ 𝜓 ∧ 𝜒 => Γ⊢ 𝜒	simprd 491	simpr 479, adantl 475	Definition ∧E_R in [Pfenning] p. 18, definition E∧(2) in [Clemente] p. 11, and definition ∧E in [Indrzejczak] p. 34 (representing both Gentzen's system NK and Jaśkowski)
→I	Γ, 𝜓⊢ 𝜒 => Γ⊢ 𝜓 → 𝜒	ex 403	ex 403	Definition →I in [Pfenning] p. 18, definition I=>m,n in [Clemente] p. 11, and definition →I in [Indrzejczak] p. 33.
→E	Γ⊢ 𝜓 → 𝜒 & Γ⊢ 𝜓 => Γ⊢ 𝜒	mpd 15	ax-mp 5, mpd 15, mpdan 677, imp 397	Definition →E in [Pfenning] p. 18, definition E=>m,n in [Clemente] p. 11, and definition →E in [Indrzejczak] p. 33.
∨I_L	Γ⊢ 𝜓 => Γ⊢ 𝜓 ∨ 𝜒	olcd 863	olc 857, olci 855, olcd 863	Definition ∨I in [Pfenning] p. 18, definition I∨n(1) in [Clemente] p. 12
∨I_R	Γ⊢ 𝜒 => Γ⊢ 𝜓 ∨ 𝜒	orcd 862	orc 856, orci 854, orcd 862	Definition ∨I_R in [Pfenning] p. 18, definition I∨n(2) in [Clemente] p. 12.
∨E	Γ⊢ 𝜓 ∨ 𝜒 & Γ, 𝜓⊢ 𝜃 & Γ, 𝜒⊢ 𝜃 => Γ⊢ 𝜃	mpjaodan 944	mpjaodan 944, jaodan 943, jaod 848	Definition ∨E in [Pfenning] p. 18, definition E∨m,n,p in [Clemente] p. 12.
¬I	Γ, 𝜓⊢ ⊥ => Γ⊢ ¬ 𝜓	inegd 1622	pm2.01d 182
¬I	Γ, 𝜓⊢ 𝜃 & Γ⊢ ¬ 𝜃 => Γ⊢ ¬ 𝜓	mtand 806	mtand 806	definition I¬m,n,p in [Clemente] p. 13.
¬I	Γ, 𝜓⊢ 𝜒 & Γ, 𝜓⊢ ¬ 𝜒 => Γ⊢ ¬ 𝜓	pm2.65da 807	pm2.65da 807	Contradiction.
¬I	Γ, 𝜓⊢ ¬ 𝜓 => Γ⊢ ¬ 𝜓	pm2.01da 789	pm2.01d 182, pm2.65da 807, pm2.65d 188	For an alternative falsum-free natural deduction ruleset
¬E	Γ⊢ 𝜓 & Γ⊢ ¬ 𝜓 => Γ⊢ ⊥	pm2.21fal 1624	pm2.21dd 187
¬E	Γ, ¬ 𝜓⊢ ⊥ => Γ⊢ 𝜓		pm2.21dd 187	definition →E in [Indrzejczak] p. 33.
¬E	Γ⊢ 𝜓 & Γ⊢ ¬ 𝜓 => Γ⊢ 𝜃	pm2.21dd 187	pm2.21dd 187, pm2.21d 119, pm2.21 121	For an alternative falsum-free natural deduction ruleset. Definition ¬E in [Pfenning] p. 18.
⊤I	Γ⊢ ⊤	trud 1612	tru 1606, trud 1612, mptru 1609	Definition ⊤I in [Pfenning] p. 18.
⊥E	Γ, ⊥⊢ 𝜃	falimd 1620	falim 1619	Definition ⊥E in [Pfenning] p. 18.
∀I	Γ⊢ [𝑎 / 𝑥]𝜓 => Γ⊢ ∀𝑥𝜓	alrimiv 1970	alrimiv 1970, ralrimiva 3148	Definition ∀I^a in [Pfenning] p. 18, definition I∀n in [Clemente] p. 32.
∀E	Γ⊢ ∀𝑥𝜓 => Γ⊢ [𝑡 / 𝑥]𝜓	spsbcd 3666	spcv 3501, rspcv 3507	Definition ∀E in [Pfenning] p. 18, definition E∀n,t in [Clemente] p. 32.
∃I	Γ⊢ [𝑡 / 𝑥]𝜓 => Γ⊢ ∃𝑥𝜓	spesbcd 3739	spcev 3502, rspcev 3511	Definition ∃I in [Pfenning] p. 18, definition I∃n,t in [Clemente] p. 32.
∃E	Γ⊢ ∃𝑥𝜓 & Γ, [𝑎 / 𝑥]𝜓⊢ 𝜃 => Γ⊢ 𝜃	exlimddv 1978	exlimddv 1978, exlimdd 2205, exlimdv 1976, rexlimdva 3213	Definition ∃E^a,u in [Pfenning] p. 18, definition E∃m,n,p,a in [Clemente] p. 32.
⊥C	Γ, ¬ 𝜓⊢ ⊥ => Γ⊢ 𝜓	efald 1623	efald 1623	Proof by contradiction (classical logic), definition ⊥C in [Pfenning] p. 17.
⊥C	Γ, ¬ 𝜓⊢ 𝜓 => Γ⊢ 𝜓	pm2.18da 790	pm2.18da 790, pm2.18d 127, pm2.18 125	For an alternative falsum-free natural deduction ruleset
¬ ¬C	Γ⊢ ¬ ¬ 𝜓 => Γ⊢ 𝜓	notnotrd 131	notnotrd 131, notnotr 128	Double negation rule (classical logic), definition NNC in [Pfenning] p. 17, definition E¬n in [Clemente] p. 14.
EM	Γ⊢ 𝜓 ∨ ¬ 𝜓	exmidd 882	exmid 881	Excluded middle (classical logic), definition XM in [Pfenning] p. 17, proof 5.11 in [Clemente] p. 14.
=I	Γ⊢ 𝐴 = 𝐴	eqidd 2779	eqid 2778, eqidd 2779	Introduce equality, definition =I in [Pfenning] p. 127.
=E	Γ⊢ 𝐴 = 𝐵 & Γ[𝐴 / 𝑥]𝜓 => Γ⊢ [𝐵 / 𝑥]𝜓	sbceq1dd 3658	sbceq1d 3657, equality theorems	Eliminate equality, definition =E in [Pfenning] p. 127. (Both E1 and E2.)

Note that MPE uses classical logic, not intuitionist logic. As is conventional, the "I" rules are introduction rules, "E" rules are elimination rules, the "C" rules are conversion rules, and Γ represents the set of (current) hypotheses. We use wff variable names beginning with 𝜓 to provide a closer representation of the Metamath equivalents (which typically use the antedent 𝜑 to represent the context Γ).

Most of this information was developed by Mario Carneiro and posted on 3-Feb-2017. For more information, see the page on Deduction Form and Natural Deduction in Metamath Proof Explorer.

For annotated examples where some traditional ND rules are directly applied in MPE, see ex-natded5.2 27836, ex-natded5.3 27839, ex-natded5.5 27842, ex-natded5.7 27843, ex-natded5.8 27845, ex-natded5.13 27847, ex-natded9.20 27849, and ex-natded9.26 27851.

(Contributed by DAW, 4-Feb-2017.) (New usage is discouraged.)

𝜑 ⇒ 𝜑

17.1.3 Natural deduction examples

These are examples of how natural deduction rules can be applied in Metamath (both as line-for-line translations of ND rules, and as a way to apply deduction forms without being limited to applying ND rules). For more information, see natded 27835 and mmnatded.html 27835. Since these examples should not be used within proofs of other theorems, especially in mathboxes, they are marked with "(New usage is discouraged.)".

Theorem

ex-natded5.2 27836

Theorem 5.2 of [Clemente] p. 15, translated line by line using the interpretation of natural deduction in Metamath. For information about ND and Metamath, see the page on Deduction Form and Natural Deduction in Metamath Proof Explorer. The original proof, which uses Fitch style, was written as follows:

#	MPE#	ND Expression	MPE Translation	ND Rationale	MPE Rationale
1	5	((𝜓 ∧ 𝜒) → 𝜃)	(𝜑 → ((𝜓 ∧ 𝜒) → 𝜃))	Given	$e.
2	2	(𝜒 → 𝜓)	(𝜑 → (𝜒 → 𝜓))	Given	$e.
3	1	𝜒	(𝜑 → 𝜒)	Given	$e.
4	3	𝜓	(𝜑 → 𝜓)	→E 2,3	mpd 15, the MPE equivalent of →E, 1,2
5	4	(𝜓 ∧ 𝜒)	(𝜑 → (𝜓 ∧ 𝜒))	∧I 4,3	jca 507, the MPE equivalent of ∧I, 3,1
6	6	𝜃	(𝜑 → 𝜃)	→E 1,5	mpd 15, the MPE equivalent of →E, 4,5

The original used Latin letters for predicates; we have replaced them with Greek letters to follow Metamath naming conventions and so that it is easier to follow the Metamath translation. The Metamath line-for-line translation of this natural deduction approach precedes every line with an antecedent including 𝜑 and uses the Metamath equivalents of the natural deduction rules. Below is the final Metamath proof (which reorders some steps). A much more efficient proof, using more of Metamath and MPE's capabilities, is shown in ex-natded5.2-2 27837. A proof without context is shown in ex-natded5.2i 27838. (Contributed by Mario Carneiro, 9-Feb-2017.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) (New usage is discouraged.)

(𝜑 → ((𝜓 ∧ 𝜒) → 𝜃)) & (𝜑 → (𝜒 → 𝜓)) & (𝜑 → 𝜒) ⇒ (𝜑 → 𝜃)

Theorem ex-natded5.2-2 27837 A more efficient proof of Theorem 5.2 of [Clemente] p. 15. Compare with ex-natded5.2 27836 and ex-natded5.2i 27838. (Contributed by Mario Carneiro, 9-Feb-2017.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) (New usage is discouraged.)

(𝜑 → ((𝜓 ∧ 𝜒) → 𝜃)) & (𝜑 → (𝜒 → 𝜓)) & (𝜑 → 𝜒) ⇒ (𝜑 → 𝜃)

Theorem ex-natded5.2i 27838 The same as ex-natded5.2 27836 and ex-natded5.2-2 27837 but with no context. (Contributed by Mario Carneiro, 9-Feb-2017.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) (New usage is discouraged.)

((𝜓 ∧ 𝜒) → 𝜃) & (𝜒 → 𝜓) & 𝜒 ⇒ 𝜃

Theorem

ex-natded5.3 27839

Theorem 5.3 of [Clemente] p. 16, translated line by line using an interpretation of natural deduction in Metamath. A much more efficient proof, using more of Metamath and MPE's capabilities, is shown in ex-natded5.3-2 27840. A proof without context is shown in ex-natded5.3i 27841. For information about ND and Metamath, see the page on Deduction Form and Natural Deduction in Metamath Proof Explorer . The original proof, which uses Fitch style, was written as follows:

#	MPE#	ND Expression	MPE Translation	ND Rationale	MPE Rationale
1	2;3	(𝜓 → 𝜒)	(𝜑 → (𝜓 → 𝜒))	Given	$e; adantr 474 to move it into the ND hypothesis
2	5;6	(𝜒 → 𝜃)	(𝜑 → (𝜒 → 𝜃))	Given	$e; adantr 474 to move it into the ND hypothesis
3	1	...\| 𝜓	((𝜑 ∧ 𝜓) → 𝜓)	ND hypothesis assumption	simpr 479, to access the new assumption
4	4	... 𝜒	((𝜑 ∧ 𝜓) → 𝜒)	→E 1,3	mpd 15, the MPE equivalent of →E, 1.3. adantr 474 was used to transform its dependency (we could also use imp 397 to get this directly from 1)
5	7	... 𝜃	((𝜑 ∧ 𝜓) → 𝜃)	→E 2,4	mpd 15, the MPE equivalent of →E, 4,6. adantr 474 was used to transform its dependency
6	8	... (𝜒 ∧ 𝜃)	((𝜑 ∧ 𝜓) → (𝜒 ∧ 𝜃))	∧I 4,5	jca 507, the MPE equivalent of ∧I, 4,7
7	9	(𝜓 → (𝜒 ∧ 𝜃))	(𝜑 → (𝜓 → (𝜒 ∧ 𝜃)))	→I 3,6	ex 403, the MPE equivalent of →I, 8

(𝜑 → (𝜓 → 𝜒)) & (𝜑 → (𝜒 → 𝜃)) ⇒ (𝜑 → (𝜓 → (𝜒 ∧ 𝜃)))

Theorem ex-natded5.3-2 27840 A more efficient proof of Theorem 5.3 of [Clemente] p. 16. Compare with ex-natded5.3 27839 and ex-natded5.3i 27841. (Contributed by Mario Carneiro, 9-Feb-2017.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) (New usage is discouraged.)

(𝜑 → (𝜓 → 𝜒)) & (𝜑 → (𝜒 → 𝜃)) ⇒ (𝜑 → (𝜓 → (𝜒 ∧ 𝜃)))

Theorem ex-natded5.3i 27841 The same as ex-natded5.3 27839 and ex-natded5.3-2 27840 but with no context. Identical to jccir 517, which should be used instead. (Contributed by Mario Carneiro, 9-Feb-2017.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) (New usage is discouraged.)

(𝜓 → 𝜒) & (𝜒 → 𝜃) ⇒ (𝜓 → (𝜒 ∧ 𝜃))

Theorem

ex-natded5.5 27842

Theorem 5.5 of [Clemente] p. 18, translated line by line using the usual translation of natural deduction (ND) in the Metamath Proof Explorer (MPE) notation. For information about ND and Metamath, see the page on Deduction Form and Natural Deduction in Metamath Proof Explorer. The original proof, which uses Fitch style, was written as follows (the leading "..." shows an embedded ND hypothesis, beginning with the initial assumption of the ND hypothesis):

#	MPE#	ND Expression	MPE Translation	ND Rationale	MPE Rationale
1	2;3	(𝜓 → 𝜒)	(𝜑 → (𝜓 → 𝜒))	Given	$e; adantr 474 to move it into the ND hypothesis
2	5	¬ 𝜒	(𝜑 → ¬ 𝜒)	Given	$e; we'll use adantr 474 to move it into the ND hypothesis
3	1	...\| 𝜓	((𝜑 ∧ 𝜓) → 𝜓)	ND hypothesis assumption	simpr 479
4	4	... 𝜒	((𝜑 ∧ 𝜓) → 𝜒)	→E 1,3	mpd 15 1,3
5	6	... ¬ 𝜒	((𝜑 ∧ 𝜓) → ¬ 𝜒)	IT 2	adantr 474 5
6	7	¬ 𝜓	(𝜑 → ¬ 𝜓)	∧I 3,4,5	pm2.65da 807 4,6

The original used Latin letters; we have replaced them with Greek letters to follow Metamath naming conventions and so that it is easier to follow the Metamath translation. The Metamath line-for-line translation of this natural deduction approach precedes every line with an antecedent including 𝜑 and uses the Metamath equivalents of the natural deduction rules. To add an assumption, the antecedent is modified to include it (typically by using adantr 474; simpr 479 is useful when you want to depend directly on the new assumption). Below is the final Metamath proof (which reorders some steps).

A much more efficient proof is mtod 190; a proof without context is shown in mto 189.

(Contributed by David A. Wheeler, 19-Feb-2017.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) (New usage is discouraged.)

(𝜑 → (𝜓 → 𝜒)) & (𝜑 → ¬ 𝜒) ⇒ (𝜑 → ¬ 𝜓)

Theorem

ex-natded5.7 27843

Theorem 5.7 of [Clemente] p. 19, translated line by line using the interpretation of natural deduction in Metamath. A much more efficient proof, using more of Metamath and MPE's capabilities, is shown in ex-natded5.7-2 27844. For information about ND and Metamath, see the page on Deduction Form and Natural Deduction in Metamath Proof Explorer . The original proof, which uses Fitch style, was written as follows:

#	MPE#	ND Expression	MPE Translation	ND Rationale	MPE Rationale
1	6	(𝜓 ∨ (𝜒 ∧ 𝜃))	(𝜑 → (𝜓 ∨ (𝜒 ∧ 𝜃)))	Given	$e. No need for adantr 474 because we do not move this into an ND hypothesis
2	1	...\| 𝜓	((𝜑 ∧ 𝜓) → 𝜓)	ND hypothesis assumption (new scope)	simpr 479
3	2	... (𝜓 ∨ 𝜒)	((𝜑 ∧ 𝜓) → (𝜓 ∨ 𝜒))	∨I_L 2	orcd 862, the MPE equivalent of ∨I_L, 1
4	3	...\| (𝜒 ∧ 𝜃)	((𝜑 ∧ (𝜒 ∧ 𝜃)) → (𝜒 ∧ 𝜃))	ND hypothesis assumption (new scope)	simpr 479
5	4	... 𝜒	((𝜑 ∧ (𝜒 ∧ 𝜃)) → 𝜒)	∧E_L 4	simpld 490, the MPE equivalent of ∧E_L, 3
6	6	... (𝜓 ∨ 𝜒)	((𝜑 ∧ (𝜒 ∧ 𝜃)) → (𝜓 ∨ 𝜒))	∨I_R 5	olcd 863, the MPE equivalent of ∨I_R, 4
7	7	(𝜓 ∨ 𝜒)	(𝜑 → (𝜓 ∨ 𝜒))	∨E 1,3,6	mpjaodan 944, the MPE equivalent of ∨E, 2,5,6

(𝜑 → (𝜓 ∨ (𝜒 ∧ 𝜃))) ⇒ (𝜑 → (𝜓 ∨ 𝜒))

Theorem ex-natded5.7-2 27844 A more efficient proof of Theorem 5.7 of [Clemente] p. 19. Compare with ex-natded5.7 27843. (Contributed by Mario Carneiro, 9-Feb-2017.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) (New usage is discouraged.)

(𝜑 → (𝜓 ∨ (𝜒 ∧ 𝜃))) ⇒ (𝜑 → (𝜓 ∨ 𝜒))

Theorem

ex-natded5.8 27845

Theorem 5.8 of [Clemente] p. 20, translated line by line using the usual translation of natural deduction (ND) in the Metamath Proof Explorer (MPE) notation. For information about ND and Metamath, see the page on Deduction Form and Natural Deduction in Metamath Proof Explorer. The original proof, which uses Fitch style, was written as follows (the leading "..." shows an embedded ND hypothesis, beginning with the initial assumption of the ND hypothesis):

#	MPE#	ND Expression	MPE Translation	ND Rationale	MPE Rationale
1	10;11	((𝜓 ∧ 𝜒) → ¬ 𝜃)	(𝜑 → ((𝜓 ∧ 𝜒) → ¬ 𝜃))	Given	$e; adantr 474 to move it into the ND hypothesis
2	3;4	(𝜏 → 𝜃)	(𝜑 → (𝜏 → 𝜃))	Given	$e; adantr 474 to move it into the ND hypothesis
3	7;8	𝜒	(𝜑 → 𝜒)	Given	$e; adantr 474 to move it into the ND hypothesis
4	1;2	𝜏	(𝜑 → 𝜏)	Given	$e. adantr 474 to move it into the ND hypothesis
5	6	...\| 𝜓	((𝜑 ∧ 𝜓) → 𝜓)	ND Hypothesis/Assumption	simpr 479. New ND hypothesis scope, each reference outside the scope must change antecedent 𝜑 to (𝜑 ∧ 𝜓).
6	9	... (𝜓 ∧ 𝜒)	((𝜑 ∧ 𝜓) → (𝜓 ∧ 𝜒))	∧I 5,3	jca 507 (∧I), 6,8 (adantr 474 to bring in scope)
7	5	... ¬ 𝜃	((𝜑 ∧ 𝜓) → ¬ 𝜃)	→E 1,6	mpd 15 (→E), 2,4
8	12	... 𝜃	((𝜑 ∧ 𝜓) → 𝜃)	→E 2,4	mpd 15 (→E), 9,11; note the contradiction with ND line 7 (MPE line 5)
9	13	¬ 𝜓	(𝜑 → ¬ 𝜓)	¬I 5,7,8	pm2.65da 807 (¬I), 5,12; proof by contradiction. MPE step 6 (ND#5) does not need a reference here, because the assumption is embedded in the antecedents

A much more efficient proof, using more of Metamath and MPE's capabilities, is shown in ex-natded5.8-2 27846.

(Contributed by Mario Carneiro, 9-Feb-2017.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) (New usage is discouraged.)

(𝜑 → ((𝜓 ∧ 𝜒) → ¬ 𝜃)) & (𝜑 → (𝜏 → 𝜃)) & (𝜑 → 𝜒) & (𝜑 → 𝜏) ⇒ (𝜑 → ¬ 𝜓)

Theorem ex-natded5.8-2 27846 A more efficient proof of Theorem 5.8 of [Clemente] p. 20. For a longer line-by-line translation, see ex-natded5.8 27845. (Contributed by Mario Carneiro, 9-Feb-2017.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) (New usage is discouraged.)

(𝜑 → ((𝜓 ∧ 𝜒) → ¬ 𝜃)) & (𝜑 → (𝜏 → 𝜃)) & (𝜑 → 𝜒) & (𝜑 → 𝜏) ⇒ (𝜑 → ¬ 𝜓)

Theorem

ex-natded5.13 27847

Theorem 5.13 of [Clemente] p. 20, translated line by line using the interpretation of natural deduction in Metamath. For information about ND and Metamath, see the page on Deduction Form and Natural Deduction in Metamath Proof Explorer. A much more efficient proof, using more of Metamath and MPE's capabilities, is shown in ex-natded5.13-2 27848. The original proof, which uses Fitch style, was written as follows (the leading "..." shows an embedded ND hypothesis, beginning with the initial assumption of the ND hypothesis):

#	MPE#	ND Expression	MPE Translation	ND Rationale	MPE Rationale
1	15	(𝜓 ∨ 𝜒)	(𝜑 → (𝜓 ∨ 𝜒))	Given	$e.
2;3	2	(𝜓 → 𝜃)	(𝜑 → (𝜓 → 𝜃))	Given	$e. adantr 474 to move it into the ND hypothesis
3	9	(¬ 𝜏 → ¬ 𝜒)	(𝜑 → (¬ 𝜏 → ¬ 𝜒))	Given	$e. ad2antrr 716 to move it into the ND sub-hypothesis
4	1	...\| 𝜓	((𝜑 ∧ 𝜓) → 𝜓)	ND hypothesis assumption	simpr 479
5	4	... 𝜃	((𝜑 ∧ 𝜓) → 𝜃)	→E 2,4	mpd 15 1,3
6	5	... (𝜃 ∨ 𝜏)	((𝜑 ∧ 𝜓) → (𝜃 ∨ 𝜏))	∨I 5	orcd 862 4
7	6	...\| 𝜒	((𝜑 ∧ 𝜒) → 𝜒)	ND hypothesis assumption	simpr 479
8	8	... ...\| ¬ 𝜏	(((𝜑 ∧ 𝜒) ∧ ¬ 𝜏) → ¬ 𝜏)	(sub) ND hypothesis assumption	simpr 479
9	11	... ... ¬ 𝜒	(((𝜑 ∧ 𝜒) ∧ ¬ 𝜏) → ¬ 𝜒)	→E 3,8	mpd 15 8,10
10	7	... ... 𝜒	(((𝜑 ∧ 𝜒) ∧ ¬ 𝜏) → 𝜒)	IT 7	adantr 474 6
11	12	... ¬ ¬ 𝜏	((𝜑 ∧ 𝜒) → ¬ ¬ 𝜏)	¬I 8,9,10	pm2.65da 807 7,11
12	13	... 𝜏	((𝜑 ∧ 𝜒) → 𝜏)	¬E 11	notnotrd 131 12
13	14	... (𝜃 ∨ 𝜏)	((𝜑 ∧ 𝜒) → (𝜃 ∨ 𝜏))	∨I 12	olcd 863 13
14	16	(𝜃 ∨ 𝜏)	(𝜑 → (𝜃 ∨ 𝜏))	∨E 1,6,13	mpjaodan 944 5,14,15

The original used Latin letters; we have replaced them with Greek letters to follow Metamath naming conventions and so that it is easier to follow the Metamath translation. The Metamath line-for-line translation of this natural deduction approach precedes every line with an antecedent including 𝜑 and uses the Metamath equivalents of the natural deduction rules. To add an assumption, the antecedent is modified to include it (typically by using adantr 474; simpr 479 is useful when you want to depend directly on the new assumption). (Contributed by Mario Carneiro, 9-Feb-2017.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) (New usage is discouraged.)

(𝜑 → (𝜓 ∨ 𝜒)) & (𝜑 → (𝜓 → 𝜃)) & (𝜑 → (¬ 𝜏 → ¬ 𝜒)) ⇒ (𝜑 → (𝜃 ∨ 𝜏))

Theorem ex-natded5.13-2 27848 A more efficient proof of Theorem 5.13 of [Clemente] p. 20. Compare with ex-natded5.13 27847. (Contributed by Mario Carneiro, 9-Feb-2017.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) (New usage is discouraged.)

(𝜑 → (𝜓 ∨ 𝜒)) & (𝜑 → (𝜓 → 𝜃)) & (𝜑 → (¬ 𝜏 → ¬ 𝜒)) ⇒ (𝜑 → (𝜃 ∨ 𝜏))

Theorem

ex-natded9.20 27849

Theorem 9.20 of [Clemente] p. 43, translated line by line using the usual translation of natural deduction (ND) in the Metamath Proof Explorer (MPE) notation. For information about ND and Metamath, see the page on Deduction Form and Natural Deduction in Metamath Proof Explorer. The original proof, which uses Fitch style, was written as follows (the leading "..." shows an embedded ND hypothesis, beginning with the initial assumption of the ND hypothesis):

#	MPE#	ND Expression	MPE Translation	ND Rationale	MPE Rationale
1	1	(𝜓 ∧ (𝜒 ∨ 𝜃))	(𝜑 → (𝜓 ∧ (𝜒 ∨ 𝜃)))	Given	$e
2	2	𝜓	(𝜑 → 𝜓)	∧E_L 1	simpld 490 1
3	11	(𝜒 ∨ 𝜃)	(𝜑 → (𝜒 ∨ 𝜃))	∧E_R 1	simprd 491 1
4	4	...\| 𝜒	((𝜑 ∧ 𝜒) → 𝜒)	ND hypothesis assumption	simpr 479
5	5	... (𝜓 ∧ 𝜒)	((𝜑 ∧ 𝜒) → (𝜓 ∧ 𝜒))	∧I 2,4	jca 507 3,4
6	6	... ((𝜓 ∧ 𝜒) ∨ (𝜓 ∧ 𝜃))	((𝜑 ∧ 𝜒) → ((𝜓 ∧ 𝜒) ∨ (𝜓 ∧ 𝜃)))	∨I_R 5	orcd 862 5
7	8	...\| 𝜃	((𝜑 ∧ 𝜃) → 𝜃)	ND hypothesis assumption	simpr 479
8	9	... (𝜓 ∧ 𝜃)	((𝜑 ∧ 𝜃) → (𝜓 ∧ 𝜃))	∧I 2,7	jca 507 7,8
9	10	... ((𝜓 ∧ 𝜒) ∨ (𝜓 ∧ 𝜃))	((𝜑 ∧ 𝜃) → ((𝜓 ∧ 𝜒) ∨ (𝜓 ∧ 𝜃)))	∨I_L 8	olcd 863 9
10	12	((𝜓 ∧ 𝜒) ∨ (𝜓 ∧ 𝜃))	(𝜑 → ((𝜓 ∧ 𝜒) ∨ (𝜓 ∧ 𝜃)))	∨E 3,6,9	mpjaodan 944 6,10,11

A much more efficient proof is ex-natded9.20-2 27850. (Contributed by David A. Wheeler, 19-Feb-2017.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) (New usage is discouraged.)

(𝜑 → (𝜓 ∧ (𝜒 ∨ 𝜃))) ⇒ (𝜑 → ((𝜓 ∧ 𝜒) ∨ (𝜓 ∧ 𝜃)))

Theorem ex-natded9.20-2 27850 A more efficient proof of Theorem 9.20 of [Clemente] p. 45. Compare with ex-natded9.20 27849. (Contributed by David A. Wheeler, 19-Feb-2017.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) (New usage is discouraged.)

(𝜑 → (𝜓 ∧ (𝜒 ∨ 𝜃))) ⇒ (𝜑 → ((𝜓 ∧ 𝜒) ∨ (𝜓 ∧ 𝜃)))

Theorem

ex-natded9.26 27851*

Theorem 9.26 of [Clemente] p. 45, translated line by line using an interpretation of natural deduction in Metamath. This proof has some additional complications due to the fact that Metamath's existential elimination rule does not change bound variables, so we need to verify that 𝑥 is bound in the conclusion. For information about ND and Metamath, see the page on Deduction Form and Natural Deduction in Metamath Proof Explorer. The original proof, which uses Fitch style, was written as follows (the leading "..." shows an embedded ND hypothesis, beginning with the initial assumption of the ND hypothesis):

#	MPE#	ND Expression	MPE Translation	ND Rationale	MPE Rationale
1	3	∃𝑥∀𝑦𝜓(𝑥, 𝑦)	(𝜑 → ∃𝑥∀𝑦𝜓)	Given	$e.
2	6	...\| ∀𝑦𝜓(𝑥, 𝑦)	((𝜑 ∧ ∀𝑦𝜓) → ∀𝑦𝜓)	ND hypothesis assumption	simpr 479. Later statements will have this scope.
3	7;5,4	... 𝜓(𝑥, 𝑦)	((𝜑 ∧ ∀𝑦𝜓) → 𝜓)	∀E 2,y	spsbcd 3666 (∀E), 5,6. To use it we need a1i 11 and vex 3401. This could be immediately done with 19.21bi 2173, but we want to show the general approach for substitution.
4	12;8,9,10,11	... ∃𝑥𝜓(𝑥, 𝑦)	((𝜑 ∧ ∀𝑦𝜓) → ∃𝑥𝜓)	∃I 3,a	spesbcd 3739 (∃I), 11. To use it we need sylibr 226, which in turn requires sylib 210 and two uses of sbcid 3669. This could be more immediately done using 19.8a 2166, but we want to show the general approach for substitution.
5	13;1,2	∃𝑥𝜓(𝑥, 𝑦)	(𝜑 → ∃𝑥𝜓)	∃E 1,2,4,a	exlimdd 2205 (∃E), 1,2,3,12. We'll need supporting assertions that the variable is free (not bound), as provided in nfv 1957 and nfe1 2144 (MPE# 1,2)
6	14	∀𝑦∃𝑥𝜓(𝑥, 𝑦)	(𝜑 → ∀𝑦∃𝑥𝜓)	∀I 5	alrimiv 1970 (∀I), 13

Note that in the original proof, 𝜓(𝑥, 𝑦) has explicit parameters. In Metamath, these parameters are always implicit, and the parameters upon which a wff variable can depend are recorded in the "allowed substitution hints" below.

A much more efficient proof, using more of Metamath and MPE's capabilities, is shown in ex-natded9.26-2 27852.

(Contributed by Mario Carneiro, 9-Feb-2017.) (Revised by David A. Wheeler, 18-Feb-2017.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) (New usage is discouraged.)

(𝜑 → ∃𝑥∀𝑦𝜓) ⇒ (𝜑 → ∀𝑦∃𝑥𝜓)

Theorem ex-natded9.26-2 27852* A more efficient proof of Theorem 9.26 of [Clemente] p. 45. Compare with ex-natded9.26 27851. (Contributed by Mario Carneiro, 9-Feb-2017.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) (New usage is discouraged.)

(𝜑 → ∃𝑥∀𝑦𝜓) ⇒ (𝜑 → ∀𝑦∃𝑥𝜓)

17.1.4 Definitional examples

Theorem ex-or 27853 Example for df-or 837. Example by David A. Wheeler. (Contributed by Mario Carneiro, 9-May-2015.)

(2 = 3 ∨ 4 = 4)

Theorem ex-an 27854 Example for df-an 387. Example by David A. Wheeler. (Contributed by Mario Carneiro, 9-May-2015.)

(2 = 2 ∧ 3 = 3)

Theorem ex-dif 27855 Example for df-dif 3795. Example by David A. Wheeler. (Contributed by Mario Carneiro, 6-May-2015.)

({1, 3} ∖ {1, 8}) = {3}

Theorem ex-un 27856 Example for df-un 3797. Example by David A. Wheeler. (Contributed by Mario Carneiro, 6-May-2015.)

({1, 3} ∪ {1, 8}) = {1, 3, 8}

Theorem ex-in 27857 Example for df-in 3799. Example by David A. Wheeler. (Contributed by Mario Carneiro, 6-May-2015.)

({1, 3} ∩ {1, 8}) = {1}

Theorem ex-uni 27858 Example for df-uni 4672. Example by David A. Wheeler. (Contributed by Mario Carneiro, 2-Jul-2016.)

∪ {{1, 3}, {1, 8}} = {1, 3, 8}

Theorem ex-ss 27859 Example for df-ss 3806. Example by David A. Wheeler. (Contributed by Mario Carneiro, 6-May-2015.)

{1, 2} ⊆ {1, 2, 3}

Theorem ex-pss 27860 Example for df-pss 3808. Example by David A. Wheeler. (Contributed by Mario Carneiro, 6-May-2015.)

{1, 2} ⊊ {1, 2, 3}

Theorem ex-pw 27861 Example for df-pw 4381. Example by David A. Wheeler. (Contributed by Mario Carneiro, 2-Jul-2016.)

(𝐴 = {3, 5, 7} → 𝒫 𝐴 = (({∅} ∪ {{3}, {5}, {7}}) ∪ ({{3, 5}, {3, 7}, {5, 7}} ∪ {{3, 5, 7}})))

Theorem ex-pr 27862 Example for df-pr 4401. (Contributed by Mario Carneiro, 7-May-2015.)

(𝐴 ∈ {1, -1} → (𝐴↑2) = 1)

Theorem ex-br 27863 Example for df-br 4887. Example by David A. Wheeler. (Contributed by Mario Carneiro, 6-May-2015.)

(𝑅 = {⟨2, 6⟩, ⟨3, 9⟩} → 3𝑅9)

Theorem ex-opab 27864* Example for df-opab 4949. Example by David A. Wheeler. (Contributed by Mario Carneiro, 18-Jun-2015.)

(𝑅 = {⟨𝑥, 𝑦⟩ ∣ (𝑥 ∈ ℂ ∧ 𝑦 ∈ ℂ ∧ (𝑥 + 1) = 𝑦)} → 3𝑅4)

Theorem ex-eprel 27865 Example for df-eprel 5266. Example by David A. Wheeler. (Contributed by Mario Carneiro, 18-Jun-2015.)

5 E {1, 5}

Theorem ex-id 27866 Example for df-id 5261. Example by David A. Wheeler. (Contributed by Mario Carneiro, 18-Jun-2015.)

(5 I 5 ∧ ¬ 4 I 5)

Theorem ex-po 27867 Example for df-po 5274. Example by David A. Wheeler. (Contributed by Mario Carneiro, 18-Jun-2015.)

( < Po ℝ ∧ ¬ ≤ Po ℝ)

Theorem ex-xp 27868 Example for df-xp 5361. Example by David A. Wheeler. (Contributed by Mario Carneiro, 7-May-2015.)

({1, 5} × {2, 7}) = ({⟨1, 2⟩, ⟨1, 7⟩} ∪ {⟨5, 2⟩, ⟨5, 7⟩})

Theorem ex-cnv 27869 Example for df-cnv 5363. Example by David A. Wheeler. (Contributed by Mario Carneiro, 6-May-2015.)

^◡{⟨2, 6⟩, ⟨3, 9⟩} = {⟨6, 2⟩, ⟨9, 3⟩}

Theorem ex-co 27870 Example for df-co 5364. Example by David A. Wheeler. (Contributed by Mario Carneiro, 7-May-2015.)

((exp ∘ cos)‘0) = e

Theorem ex-dm 27871 Example for df-dm 5365. Example by David A. Wheeler. (Contributed by Mario Carneiro, 7-May-2015.)

(𝐹 = {⟨2, 6⟩, ⟨3, 9⟩} → dom 𝐹 = {2, 3})

Theorem ex-rn 27872 Example for df-rn 5366. Example by David A. Wheeler. (Contributed by Mario Carneiro, 7-May-2015.)

(𝐹 = {⟨2, 6⟩, ⟨3, 9⟩} → ran 𝐹 = {6, 9})

Theorem ex-res 27873 Example for df-res 5367. Example by David A. Wheeler. (Contributed by Mario Carneiro, 7-May-2015.)

((𝐹 = {⟨2, 6⟩, ⟨3, 9⟩} ∧ 𝐵 = {1, 2}) → (𝐹 ↾ 𝐵) = {⟨2, 6⟩})

Theorem ex-ima 27874 Example for df-ima 5368. Example by David A. Wheeler. (Contributed by Mario Carneiro, 7-May-2015.)

((𝐹 = {⟨2, 6⟩, ⟨3, 9⟩} ∧ 𝐵 = {1, 2}) → (𝐹 “ 𝐵) = {6})

Theorem ex-fv 27875 Example for df-fv 6143. Example by David A. Wheeler. (Contributed by Mario Carneiro, 7-May-2015.)

(𝐹 = {⟨2, 6⟩, ⟨3, 9⟩} → (𝐹‘3) = 9)

Theorem ex-1st 27876 Example for df-1st 7445. Example by David A. Wheeler. (Contributed by Mario Carneiro, 18-Jun-2015.)

(1^st ‘⟨3, 4⟩) = 3

Theorem ex-2nd 27877 Example for df-2nd 7446. Example by David A. Wheeler. (Contributed by Mario Carneiro, 18-Jun-2015.)

(2^nd ‘⟨3, 4⟩) = 4

Theorem

1kp2ke3k 27878

Example for df-dec 11846, 1000 + 2000 = 3000.

This proof disproves (by counterexample) the assertion of Hao Wang, who stated, "There is a theorem in the primitive notation of set theory that corresponds to the arithmetic theorem 1000 + 2000 = 3000. The formula would be forbiddingly long... even if (one) knows the definitions and is asked to simplify the long formula according to them, chances are he will make errors and arrive at some incorrect result." (Hao Wang, "Theory and practice in mathematics" , In Thomas Tymoczko, editor, New Directions in the Philosophy of Mathematics, pp 129-152, Birkauser Boston, Inc., Boston, 1986. (QA8.6.N48). The quote itself is on page 140.)

This is noted in Metamath: A Computer Language for Pure Mathematics by Norman Megill (2007) section 1.1.3. Megill then states, "A number of writers have conveyed the impression that the kind of absolute rigor provided by Metamath is an impossible dream, suggesting that a complete, formal verification of a typical theorem would take millions of steps in untold volumes of books... These writers assume, however, that in order to achieve the kind of complete formal verification they desire one must break down a proof into individual primitive steps that make direct reference to the axioms. This is not necessary. There is no reason not to make use of previously proved theorems rather than proving them over and over... A hierarchy of theorems and definitions permits an exponential growth in the formula sizes and primitive proof steps to be described with only a linear growth in the number of symbols used. Of course, this is how ordinary informal mathematics is normally done anyway, but with Metamath it can be done with absolute rigor and precision."

The proof here starts with (2 + 1) = 3, commutes it, and repeatedly multiplies both sides by ten. This is certainly longer than traditional mathematical proofs, e.g., there are a number of steps explicitly shown here to show that we're allowed to do operations such as multiplication. However, while longer, the proof is clearly a manageable size - even though every step is rigorously derived all the way back to the primitive notions of set theory and logic. And while there's a risk of making errors, the many independent verifiers make it much less likely that an incorrect result will be accepted.

This proof heavily relies on the decimal constructor df-dec 11846 developed by Mario Carneiro in 2015. The underlying Metamath language has an intentionally very small set of primitives; it doesn't even have a built-in construct for numbers. Instead, the digits are defined using these primitives, and the decimal constructor is used to make it easy to express larger numbers as combinations of digits.

(Contributed by David A. Wheeler, 29-Jun-2016.) (Shortened by Mario Carneiro using the arithmetic algorithm in mmj2, 30-Jun-2016.)

(1000 + 2000) = 3000

Theorem ex-fl 27879 Example for df-fl 12912. Example by David A. Wheeler. (Contributed by Mario Carneiro, 18-Jun-2015.)

((⌊‘(3 / 2)) = 1 ∧ (⌊‘-(3 / 2)) = -2)

Theorem ex-ceil 27880 Example for df-ceil 12913. (Contributed by AV, 4-Sep-2021.)

((⌈‘(3 / 2)) = 2 ∧ (⌈‘-(3 / 2)) = -1)

Theorem ex-mod 27881 Example for df-mod 12988. (Contributed by AV, 3-Sep-2021.)

((5 mod 3) = 2 ∧ (-7 mod 2) = 1)

Theorem ex-exp 27882 Example for df-exp 13179. (Contributed by AV, 4-Sep-2021.)

((5↑2) = 25 ∧ (-3↑-2) = (1 / 9))

Theorem ex-fac 27883 Example for df-fac 13379. (Contributed by AV, 4-Sep-2021.)

(!‘5) = 120

Theorem ex-bc 27884 Example for df-bc 13408. (Contributed by AV, 4-Sep-2021.)

(5C3) = 10

Theorem ex-hash 27885 Example for df-hash 13436. (Contributed by AV, 4-Sep-2021.)

(♯‘{0, 1, 2}) = 3

Theorem ex-sqrt 27886 Example for df-sqrt 14382. (Contributed by AV, 4-Sep-2021.)

(√‘25) = 5

Theorem ex-abs 27887 Example for df-abs 14383. (Contributed by AV, 4-Sep-2021.)

(abs‘-2) = 2

Theorem ex-dvds 27888 Example for df-dvds 15388: 3 divides into 6. (Contributed by David A. Wheeler, 19-May-2015.)

3 ∥ 6

Theorem ex-gcd 27889 Example for df-gcd 15623. (Contributed by AV, 5-Sep-2021.)

(-6 gcd 9) = 3

Theorem ex-lcm 27890 Example for df-lcm 15709. (Contributed by AV, 5-Sep-2021.)

(6 lcm 9) = 18

Theorem ex-prmo 27891 Example for df-prmo 16140: (#_p‘10) = 2 · 3 · 5 · 7. (Contributed by AV, 6-Sep-2021.)

(#_p‘10) = 210

17.1.5 Other examples

Theorem aevdemo 27892* Proof illustrating the comment of aev2 2105. (Contributed by BJ, 30-Mar-2021.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) (New usage is discouraged.)

(∀𝑥 𝑥 = 𝑦 → ((∃𝑎∀𝑏 𝑐 = 𝑑 ∨ ∃𝑒 𝑓 = 𝑔) ∧ ∀ℎ(𝑖 = 𝑗 → 𝑘 = 𝑙)))

Theorem ex-ind-dvds 27893 Example of a proof by induction (divisibility result). (Contributed by Stanislas Polu, 9-Mar-2020.) (Revised by BJ, 24-Mar-2020.)

(𝑁 ∈ ℕ₀ → 3 ∥ ((4↑𝑁) + 2))

17.2 Humor

17.2.1 April Fool's theorem

Theorem

avril1 27894

Poisson d'Avril's Theorem. This theorem is noted for its Selbstdokumentieren property, which means, literally, "self-documenting" and recalls the principle of quidquid german dictum sit, altum viditur, often used in set theory. Starting with the seemingly simple yet profound fact that any object 𝑥 equals itself (proved by Tarski in 1965; see Lemma 6 of [Tarski] p. 68), we demonstrate that the power set of the real numbers, as a relation on the value of the imaginary unit, does not conjoin with an empty relation on the product of the additive and multiplicative identity elements, leading to this startling conclusion that has left even seasoned professional mathematicians scratching their heads. (Contributed by Prof. Loof Lirpa, 1-Apr-2005.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) (New usage is discouraged.)

A reply to skeptics can be found at mmnotes.txt, under the 1-Apr-2006 entry.

¬ (𝐴𝒫 ℝ(i‘1) ∧ 𝐹∅(0 · 1))

Theorem 2bornot2b 27895 The law of excluded middle. Act III, Theorem 1 of Shakespeare, Hamlet, Prince of Denmark (1602). Its author leaves its proof as an exercise for the reader - "To be, or not to be: that is the question" - starting a trend that has become standard in modern-day textbooks, serving to make the frustrated reader feel inferior, or in some cases to mask the fact that the author does not know its solution. (Contributed by Prof. Loof Lirpa, 1-Apr-2006.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) (New usage is discouraged.)

(2 · 𝐵 ∨ ¬ 2 · 𝐵)

Theorem helloworld 27896 The classic "Hello world" benchmark has been translated into 314 computer programming languages - see http://www.roesler-ac.de/wolfram/hello.htm. However, for many years it eluded a proof that it is more than just a conjecture, even though a wily mathematician once claimed, "I have discovered a truly marvelous proof of this, which this margin is too narrow to contain." Using an IBM 709 mainframe, a team of mathematicians led by Prof. Loof Lirpa, at the New College of Tahiti, were finally able put it rest with a remarkably short proof only 4 lines long. (Contributed by Prof. Loof Lirpa, 1-Apr-2007.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) (New usage is discouraged.)

¬ (ℎ ∈ (𝐿𝐿0) ∧ 𝑊∅(R1𝑑))

Theorem 1p1e2apr1 27897 One plus one equals two. Using proof-shortening techniques pioneered by Mr. Mel L. O'Cat, along with the latest supercomputer technology, Prof. Loof Lirpa and colleagues were able to shorten Whitehead and Russell's 360-page proof that 1+1=2 in Principia Mathematica to this remarkable proof only two steps long, thus establishing a new world's record for this famous theorem. (Contributed by Prof. Loof Lirpa, 1-Apr-2008.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) (New usage is discouraged.)

(1 + 1) = 2

Theorem

eqid1 27898

Law of identity (reflexivity of class equality). Theorem 6.4 of [Quine] p. 41.

This law is thought to have originated with Aristotle (Metaphysics, Book VII, Part 17). It is one of the three axioms of Ayn Rand's philosophy (Atlas Shrugged, Part Three, Chapter VII). While some have proposed extending Rand's axiomatization to include Compassion and Kindness, others fear that such an extension may flirt with logical inconsistency. (Contributed by Stefan Allan, 1-Apr-2009.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) (New usage is discouraged.)

𝐴 = 𝐴

Theorem 1div0apr 27899 Division by zero is forbidden! If we try, we encounter the DO NOT ENTER sign, which in mathematics means it is foolhardy to venture any further, possibly putting the underlying fabric of reality at risk. Based on a dare by David A. Wheeler. (Contributed by Mario Carneiro, 1-Apr-2014.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) (New usage is discouraged.)

(1 / 0) = ∅

Theorem topnfbey 27900 Nothing seems to be impossible to Prof. Lirpa. After years of intensive research, he managed to find a proof that when given a chance to reach infinity, one could indeed go beyond, thus giving formal soundness to Buzz Lightyear's motto "To infinity... and beyond!" (Contributed by Prof. Loof Lirpa, 1-Apr-2020.) (Revised by Thierry Arnoux, 2-Aug-2020.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) (New usage is discouraged.)

(𝐵 ∈ (0...+∞) → +∞ < 𝐵)

< Previous Next >

Page List Jump to page: Contents 1 1-100 2 101-200 3 201-300 4 301-400 5 401-500 6 501-600 7 601-700 8 701-800 9 801-900 10 901-1000 11 1001-1100 12 1101-1200 13 1201-1300 14 1301-1400 15 1401-1500 16 1501-1600 17 1601-1700 18 1701-1800 19 1801-1900 20 1901-2000 21 2001-2100 22 2101-2200 23 2201-2300 24 2301-2400 25 2401-2500 26 2501-2600 27 2601-2700 28 2701-2800 29 2801-2900 30 2901-3000 31 3001-3100 32 3101-3200 33 3201-3300 34 3301-3400 35 3401-3500 36 3501-3600 37 3601-3700 38 3701-3800 39 3801-3900 40 3901-4000 41 4001-4100 42 4101-4200 43 4201-4300 44 4301-4400 45 4401-4500 46 4501-4600 47 4601-4700 48 4701-4800 49 4801-4900 50 4901-5000 51 5001-5100 52 5101-5200 53 5201-5300 54 5301-5400 55 5401-5500 56 5501-5600 57 5601-5700 58 5701-5800 59 5801-5900 60 5901-6000 61 6001-6100 62 6101-6200 63 6201-6300 64 6301-6400 65 6401-6500 66 6501-6600 67 6601-6700 68 6701-6800 69 6801-6900 70 6901-7000 71 7001-7100 72 7101-7200 73 7201-7300 74 7301-7400 75 7401-7500 76 7501-7600 77 7601-7700 78 7701-7800 79 7801-7900 80 7901-8000 81 8001-8100 82 8101-8200 83 8201-8300 84 8301-8400 85 8401-8500 86 8501-8600 87 8601-8700 88 8701-8800 89 8801-8900 90 8901-9000 91 9001-9100 92 9101-9200 93 9201-9300 94 9301-9400 95 9401-9500 96 9501-9600 97 9601-9700 98 9701-9800 99 9801-9900 100 9901-10000 101 10001-10100 102 10101-10200 103 10201-10300 104 10301-10400 105 10401-10500 106 10501-10600 107 10601-10700 108 10701-10800 109 10801-10900 110 10901-11000 111 11001-11100 112 11101-11200 113 11201-11300 114 11301-11400 115 11401-11500 116 11501-11600 117 11601-11700 118 11701-11800 119 11801-11900 120 11901-12000 121 12001-12100 122 12101-12200 123 12201-12300 124 12301-12400 125 12401-12500 126 12501-12600 127 12601-12700 128 12701-12800 129 12801-12900 130 12901-13000 131 13001-13100 132 13101-13200 133 13201-13300 134 13301-13400 135 13401-13500 136 13501-13600 137 13601-13700 138 13701-13800 139 13801-13900 140 13901-14000 141 14001-14100 142 14101-14200 143 14201-14300 144 14301-14400 145 14401-14500 146 14501-14600 147 14601-14700 148 14701-14800 149 14801-14900 150 14901-15000 151 15001-15100 152 15101-15200 153 15201-15300 154 15301-15400 155 15401-15500 156 15501-15600 157 15601-15700 158 15701-15800 159 15801-15900 160 15901-16000 161 16001-16100 162 16101-16200 163 16201-16300 164 16301-16400 165 16401-16500 166 16501-16600 167 16601-16700 168 16701-16800 169 16801-16900 170 16901-17000 171 17001-17100 172 17101-17200 173 17201-17300 174 17301-17400 175 17401-17500 176 17501-17600 177 17601-17700 178 17701-17800 179 17801-17900 180 17901-18000 181 18001-18100 182 18101-18200 183 18201-18300 184 18301-18400 185 18401-18500 186 18501-18600 187 18601-18700 188 18701-18800 189 18801-18900 190 18901-19000 191 19001-19100 192 19101-19200 193 19201-19300 194 19301-19400 195 19401-19500 196 19501-19600 197 19601-19700 198 19701-19800 199 19801-19900 200 19901-20000 201 20001-20100 202 20101-20200 203 20201-20300 204 20301-20400 205 20401-20500 206 20501-20600 207 20601-20700 208 20701-20800 209 20801-20900 210 20901-21000 211 21001-21100 212 21101-21200 213 21201-21300 214 21301-21400 215 21401-21500 216 21501-21600 217 21601-21700 218 21701-21800 219 21801-21900 220 21901-22000 221 22001-22100 222 22101-22200 223 22201-22300 224 22301-22400 225 22401-22500 226 22501-22600 227 22601-22700 228 22701-22800 229 22801-22900 230 22901-23000 231 23001-23100 232 23101-23200 233 23201-23300 234 23301-23400 235 23401-23500 236 23501-23600 237 23601-23700 238 23701-23800 239 23801-23900 240 23901-24000 241 24001-24100 242 24101-24200 243 24201-24300 244 24301-24400 245 24401-24500 246 24501-24600 247 24601-24700 248 24701-24800 249 24801-24900 250 24901-25000 251 25001-25100 252 25101-25200 253 25201-25300 254 25301-25400 255 25401-25500 256 25501-25600 257 25601-25700 258 25701-25800 259 25801-25900 260 25901-26000 261 26001-26100 262 26101-26200 263 26201-26300 264 26301-26400 265 26401-26500 266 26501-26600 267 26601-26700 268 26701-26800 269 26801-26900 270 26901-27000 271 27001-27100 272 27101-27200 273 27201-27300 274 27301-27400 275 27401-27500 276 27501-27600 277 27601-27700 278 27701-27800 279 27801-27900 280 27901-28000 281 28001-28100 282 28101-28200 283 28201-28300 284 28301-28400 285 28401-28500 286 28501-28600 287 28601-28700 288 28701-28800 289 28801-28900 290 28901-29000 291 29001-29100 292 29101-29200 293 29201-29300 294 29301-29400 295 29401-29500 296 29501-29600 297 29601-29700 298 29701-29800 299 29801-29900 300 29901-30000 301 30001-30100 302 30101-30200 303 30201-30300 304 30301-30400 305 30401-30500 306 30501-30600 307 30601-30700 308 30701-30800 309 30801-30900 310 30901-31000 311 31001-31100 312 31101-31200 313 31201-31300 314 31301-31400 315 31401-31500 316 31501-31600 317 31601-31700 318 31701-31800 319 31801-31900 320 31901-32000 321 32001-32100 322 32101-32200 323 32201-32300 324 32301-32400 325 32401-32500 326 32501-32600 327 32601-32700 328 32701-32800 329 32801-32900 330 32901-33000 331 33001-33100 332 33101-33200 333 33201-33300 334 33301-33400 335 33401-33500 336 33501-33600 337 33601-33700 338 33701-33800 339 33801-33900 340 33901-34000 341 34001-34100 342 34101-34200 343 34201-34300 344 34301-34400 345 34401-34500 346 34501-34600 347 34601-34700 348 34701-34800 349 34801-34900 350 34901-35000 351 35001-35100 352 35101-35200 353 35201-35300 354 35301-35400 355 35401-35500 356 35501-35600 357 35601-35700 358 35701-35800 359 35801-35900 360 35901-36000 361 36001-36100 362 36101-36200 363 36201-36300 364 36301-36400 365 36401-36500 366 36501-36600 367 36601-36700 368 36701-36800 369 36801-36900 370 36901-37000 371 37001-37100 372 37101-37200 373 37201-37300 374 37301-37400 375 37401-37500 376 37501-37600 377 37601-37700 378 37701-37800 379 37801-37900 380 37901-38000 381 38001-38100 382 38101-38200 383 38201-38300 384 38301-38400 385 38401-38500 386 38501-38600 387 38601-38700 388 38701-38800 389 38801-38900 390 38901-39000 391 39001-39100 392 39101-39200 393 39201-39300 394 39301-39400 395 39401-39500 396 39501-39600 397 39601-39700 398 39701-39800 399 39801-39900 400 39901-40000 401 40001-40100 402 40101-40200 403 40201-40300 404 40301-40400 405 40401-40500 406 40501-40600 407 40601-40700 408 40701-40800 409 40801-40900 410 40901-41000 411 41001-41100 412 41101-41200 413 41201-41300 414 41301-41400 415 41401-41500 416 41501-41600 417 41601-41700 418 41701-41800 419 41801-41900 420 41901-42000 421 42001-42100 422 42101-42200 423 42201-42300 424 42301-42400 425 42401-42500 426 42501-42600 427 42601-42700 428 42701-42800 429 42801-42900 430 42901-43000 431 43001-43100 432 43101-43200 433 43201-43300 434 43301-43400 435 43401-43500 436 43501-43600 437 43601-43657

< Previous Next >