P. 305 of Theorem List - Metamath Proof Explorer

Type

Label

Description

Statement

Theorem

numclwwlk3lem1 30401

Lemma 2 for numclwwlk3 30404. (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 30402*

Lemma for numclwwlk3lem2 30403: 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 30403*

Lemma 1 for numclwwlk3 30404: 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 30404

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 30380) and with v(n-2) =/= v(n) (see numclwwlk2 30400): 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)    ⇒   ⊢ (((𝐺 RegUSGraph 𝐾 ∧ 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 30405*

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 30406

Lemma for numclwwlk5 30407. (Contributed by Alexander van der Vekens, 7-Oct-2018.) (Revised by AV, 2-Jun-2021.) (Revised by AV, 7-Mar-2022.)

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

Theorem

numclwwlk5 30407

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

Theorem

numclwwlk7lem 30408

Lemma for numclwwlk7 30410, frgrreggt1 30412 and frgrreg 30413: If a finite, nonempty friendship graph is 𝐾-regular, the 𝐾 is a nonnegative integer. (Contributed by AV, 3-Jun-2021.)

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

Theorem

numclwwlk6 30409

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

Theorem

numclwwlk7 30410

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 30359 or frrusgrord 30360, 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 30284, as well as k-regular (for any k), see 0vtxrgr 29594, but has no closed walk, see 0clwlk0 30151, 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)    ⇒   ⊢ (((𝐺 RegUSGraph 𝐾 ∧ 𝐺 ∈ FriendGraph ) ∧ (𝑉 ≠ ∅ ∧ 𝑉 ∈ Fin) ∧ (𝑃 ∈ ℙ ∧ 𝑃 ∥ (𝐾 − 1))) → ((♯‘(𝑃 ClWWalksN 𝐺)) mod 𝑃) = 1)

Theorem

numclwwlk8 30411

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 30105. (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 30412

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 ≠ ∅) → ((𝐺 RegUSGraph 𝐾 ∧ 1 < 𝐾) → 𝐾 = 2))

Theorem

frgrreg 30413

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 ∧ 𝐺 RegUSGraph 𝐾) → (𝐾 = 0 ∨ 𝐾 = 2)))

Theorem

frgrregord013 30414

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 ∧ 𝐺 RegUSGraph 𝐾) → ((♯‘𝑉) = 0 ∨ (♯‘𝑉) = 1 ∨ (♯‘𝑉) = 3))

Theorem

frgrregord13 30415

If a nonempty finite friendship graph is 𝐾-regular, then it must have order 1 or 3. Special case of frgrregord013 30414. (Contributed by Alexander van der Vekens, 9-Oct-2018.) (Revised by AV, 4-Jun-2021.)

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

Theorem

frgrogt3nreg 30416*

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 ¬ 𝐺 RegUSGraph 𝑘)

Theorem

friendshipgt3 30417*

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 30418*

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 18  GUIDES AND MISCELLANEA

18.1  Guides (conventions, explanations, and examples)

18.1.1  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 30419: general conventions
• conventions-labels 30420: conventions related to labels
• conventions-comments 30421: 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 30419

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 30420: conventions related to labels
• conventions-comments 30421: 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 15723) 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 15918). 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 four of them (df-bi 207, df-clab 2715, df-cleq 2729, df-clel 2816) 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 2816. 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 the complex arithmetic axiom ax-1cn 11213, proven by the preceding theorem ax1cn 11189. The Metamath 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 displayed in summarized form such as in the "Theorem List" page (to get to it, click on "Nearby theorems" on the ax-mp 5 page), the hypotheses are connected with an ampersand and separated from the conclusion with a double right 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 11213 (not ax1cn 11189) and ax-1ne0 11224 (not ax1ne0 11200), as these are proven axioms for complex arithmetic. Thus, both ax1cn 11189 and ax1ne0 11200 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 axiom dependencies. We prefer proofs that depend on fewer and/or weaker axioms, even if the proofs are longer. In particular, because of the non-constructive nature of the axiom of choice df-ac 10156, we prefer proofs that do not use it, or use weaker versions like countable choice ax-cc 10475 or dependent choice ax-dc 10486. An example is our proof of the Schroeder-Bernstein Theorem sbth 9133, which does not use the axiom of choice. Similarly, any theorem in first-order logic (FOL) that contains only setvar variables that are all mutually distinct, and has no wff variables, can be proved without using ax-10 2141 through ax-13 2377, by using ax10w 2129 through ax13w 2136 instead.

  We do not try to similarly reduce dependencies on definitions, since definitions are conservative (they do not increase the proving power of a deductive system), and are introduced in order to be used to increase readability). An exception is made for Definitions df-clab 2715, df-cleq 2729, and df-clel 2816, since they can be considered as axioms under some definitions of what a definition is exactly (see their comments).

• Alternate proofs (ALT). 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.

• Alternate versions (ALTV). The suffix ALTV is reserved for theorems (or definitions) which are alternate versions, or variants, of an existing theorem. This is reserved to statements in mathboxes and is typically used temporarily, when it is not clear yet which variant to use. If it is decided that both variants should be kept and moved to the main part of set.mm, then a label for the variant should be found with a more explicit suffix indicating how it is a variant (e.g., commutation of some subformula, antecedent replaced with hypothesis, (un)curried variant, biconditional instead of implication, etc.). There is no requirement to add discouragement tags, but their comment should have a link to the main version of the statement and describe how it is a variant of it.

• 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. In addition, the surreal number section uses subscripted lowercase Latin letters such as 𝑥_𝑂, 𝑥_𝐿, and 𝑥_𝑅. These match the conventional literature on surreal numbers. These variables should not be used outside of that section. 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 9444) and connective symbols such as + for some group addition operation (e.g., grpinva 18687). 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 230 or mpbir 231. 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 216 are available, in most cases there is already a theorem that combines it with your theorem of choice, like mpbir2an 711, sylbir 235, or 3imtr4i 292.

• Quantifiers. The quantifiers are named as follows:

  • ∀: universal quantifier (wal 1538);
  • ∃: existential quantifier (df-ex 1780);
  • ∃*: at-most-one quantifier (df-mo 2540);
  • ∃!: unique existential quantifier (df-eu 2569).

  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 2065 and the related df-sbc 3789 and df-csb 3900.

• 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 3482 and isset 3494. 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 extra uses of elex 3501 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 5330). 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. The symbol " ^◡" denotes the converse of a relation, so " ^◡𝑅" denotes the converse of the class 𝑅, which is typically a relation in that context (see df-cnv 5693). The converse of a relation 𝑅 is sometimes denoted by R^-1 in textbooks, especially when 𝑅 is a function, but we avoid this notation since it is generally not a genuine inverse (see f1cocnv1 6878 and funcocnv2 6873 for cases where it is a left or right-inverse). This can be used to define a subset, e.g., df-tan 16107 notates "the set of values whose cosine is a nonzero complex number" as (^◡cos “ (ℂ ∖ {0})).

• Function application. The symbols "(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 16186). 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 6569. 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 7434). For example, the + in (2 + 2); see 2p2e4 12401. 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 849, df-an 396, and df-bi 207 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 2109), equality 𝐴 = 𝐵 (see df-cleq 2729), subset 𝐴 ⊆ 𝐵 (see df-ss 3968), and less-than 𝐴 < 𝐵 (see df-lt 11168). For the general definition of a binary relation in the form 𝐴𝑅𝐵, see df-br 5144. For example, 0 < 1 (see 0lt1 11785) 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 11493.

• 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 16100). The function is then defined labeled df-NAME; definitions are typically given using the maps-to notation (e.g., df-cos 16106). Typically, there are other proofs such as its closure labeled NAMEcl (e.g., coscl 16163), its function application form labeled NAMEval (e.g., cosval 16159), and at least one simple value (e.g., cos0 16186). Another way to define functions is to use recursion (for more details about recursion see below). For an example of how to define functions that aren't primitive recursive using recursion, see the Ackermann function definition df-ack 48581 (which is based on the sequence builder seq, see df-seq 14043).

• 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 14313 and fac4 14320).

• 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 11162), while "0_g" is the group identity element (df-0g 17486), "0." is the poset zero (df-p0 18470), "0_𝑝" is the zero polynomial (df-0p 25705), "0_vec" is the zero vector in a normed subcomplex vector space (df-0v 30617), and "0" is a class variable for use as a connective symbol (this is used, for example, in p0val 18472). 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 have 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 cannot 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 Definition df-ov 7434, 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 the Metamath program 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 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 7434 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 11385. Here are the reasons as discussed in https://groups.google.com/g/metamath/c/2AW7T3d2YiQ 11385:

  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 12267) for the set of positive integers starting from 1, and ℕ₀ (df-n0 12527) 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 12734, e.g., ;;;4001 (see 4001prm 17182 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 4190). 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 26055) 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 4192. 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 2738, 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 4191).

  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 154 is the inference associated with con3 153). 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 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) or, if the non-suffixed label is already used, then we add the suffix "t" (for "theorem" or "tautology", e.g., ancomst 464 or nfimt 1895). When an inference with an "is a set" hypothesis (e.g., 𝐴 ∈ V) is converted to a theorem (in closed form) by replacing the hypothesis with an antecedent of the form (𝐴 ∈ 𝑉 →, we sometimes suffix the closed form with "g" (for "more general") as in uniex 7761 versus uniexg 7760. 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 6004. Its inference form which was the original "brres", now is brresi 6006. The same holds for the suffix "t".

• 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 6006. 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 4584, which works in certain cases in set theory. We also sometimes use dedhb 3709. 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 3709; a list of translations for common natural deduction rules is given in natded 30422.

• Recursion. We define recursive functions using various "recursion constructors". These allow 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 8411, rec(𝐹, 𝐼) in df-rdg 8450, seq_ω(𝐹, 𝐼) in df-seqom 8488, and seq𝑀( + , 𝐹) in df-seq 14043. These have characteristic function 𝐹 and initial value 𝐼. (Σ_g in df-gsum 17487 isn't really designed for arbitrary recursion, but you could do it with the right magma.) The logically primary one is df-recs 8411, but for the "average user" the most useful one is probably df-seq 14043- 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 17184.

• 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 6545 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 6919 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 9123 is the first lemma for sbth 9133. 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 9123 is the first lemma for sbth 9133.

• Proof stubs. It's sometimes useful to record partial proof results, e.g., incomplete proofs or proofs that depend on something else not fully proven. Some systems (like Lean) support a "sorry" axiom, which lets you assert anything is true, but this can quickly run into trouble, because the Metamath tooling is smart and may end up using it to prove everything. If you want to create a proof based on some other claim, without proving that claim, you can choose to define the claim as an axiom. If you temporarily define a claim as an axiom, we encourage you to include "Temporarily provided as axiom" in its comment. Such incomplete work will generally only be accepted in a mathbox until the rest of the work is complete. When you're working on your personal copy of the database you can use "?" in proofs to indicate an unknown step. However, since proofs with "?" will (obviously) fail verification, we don't accept proofs with unknown steps in the public database.

• 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 16709"). When the Metamath program 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 16709 entries) have an anchor in mmtheorems.html 16709 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 29003. 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 29003. 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 29003.

• 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 program "MM> 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 smaller number of symbols in the proof display on an HTML page containing the theorem. If the difference in size is so insignificant that it is hardly detectable to a human reader, we prefer to keep the older proof, in honor of the first author coming up with a short proof. The community may decide to override these rules after a discussion, if non-technical reasons like aesthetics prefer a particular version.

  Some theorems have a longer proof than necessary in order to avoid the use of certain axioms. To indicate this, a $j usage comment should be used just after the proof, for example $( $j usage '19.21v' avoids 'ax-6' 'ax-7' 'ax-12'; $).

  Other theorems have a longer proof than necessary for pedagogical or 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 23. 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 1784 (whose description has some important technical details). Similarly, Ⅎ𝑥𝐴 is read 𝑥 is not free in (class) 𝐴, see df-nfc 2892.
• "$d 𝑥𝑦 $." should be read "Assume 𝑥 and 𝑦 are distinct variables."
• "$d 𝜑𝑥 $." should be read "Assume 𝑥 does not occur in ϕ." Sometimes a theorem is proved using Ⅎ𝑥𝜑 (df-nf 1784) in place of "$d 𝜑𝑥 $." when a more general result is desired; ax-5 1910 can be used to derive the $d version. For an example of how to get from the $d version back to the $e version, see the proof of euf 2576 from eu6 2574.
• "$d 𝐴𝑥 $." should be read "Assume 𝑥 is not a variable occurring in class 𝐴."
• "$d 𝐴𝑥 $. $d 𝜓𝑥 $. $e |- (𝑥 = 𝐴 → (𝜑 ↔ 𝜓)) $." is an idiom often used instead of explicit substitution, meaning "Assume ψ results from the proper substitution of 𝐴 for 𝑥 in ϕ." Therefore, we often use the term "implicit substitution" for such a hypothesis.
• Class and wff variables should appear at the beginning of distinct variable conditions, and setvars should be in alphabetical order. E.g., "$d 𝑍𝑥𝑦 $.", "$d 𝜓𝑎𝑥 $.". This convention should be applied for new theorems (formerly, the class and wff variables mostly appear at the end) and will be assured by a formatter in the future.
• " ⊢ (¬ ∀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 231 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 2403. The section mmtheorems32.html#mm3146s 2403 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 207, df-clab 2715, df-cleq 2729, and df-clel 2816); 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):

1. 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 1086 or wsb 2064).

2. 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 1089 for an example where the same symbol is used in different ways (this is allowed).

3. No two variables occurring in the LHS may share a disjoint variable (DV) condition.

4. All dummy variables are required to be disjoint from any other (dummy or not) variable occurring in this labeled expression.

5. 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.

6. 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 nonfreeness; 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 3481. Definition df-v 3482 ⊢ V = {𝑥 ∣ 𝑥 = 𝑥} is justified by the justification theorem vjust 3481 ⊢ {𝑥 ∣ 𝑥 = 𝑥} = {𝑦 ∣ 𝑦 = 𝑦}. Another example of a justification theorem is trujust 1542; Definition df-tru 1543 ⊢ (⊤ ↔ (∀𝑥𝑥 = 𝑥 → ∀𝑥𝑥 = 𝑥)) is justified by trujust 1542 ⊢ ((∀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 1542.

• Community. We encourage anyone interested in Metamath to join our mailing list: https://groups.google.com/g/metamath 1542.

(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 30420

The following gives conventions used in the Metamath Proof Explorer (MPE, set.mm) regarding labels. For other conventions, see conventions 30419 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 3063"rgen.1 $e |- ( x e. A -> ph ) $." or letters corresponding to the (main) class variable used in the hypothesis, e.g., for mdet0 22612: "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 2663 and stirling 46104.
• 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 1839, and the restricted quantifier version of Theorem 21 from Section 19 of [Margaris] p. 90 is labeled r19.21 3254.
• 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... 15917. 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 3954, 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 3968. 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 4136. There are many other syntax label fragments, e.g., singleton construct {𝐴} has syntax label fragment "sn" (because it is defined in df-sn 4627), and the pair construct {𝐴, 𝐵} has fragment "pr" ( from df-pr 4629). 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 4786. An "n" is often used for negation (¬), e.g., nan 830.
• 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 11161) and "re" represents real numbers ℝ (Definition df-r 11165). The empty set ∅ often uses fragment 0, even though it is defined in df-nul 4334. The syntax construct (𝐴 + 𝐵) usually uses the fragment "add" (which is consistent with df-add 11166), 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 12401.
• 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 16186 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 labeled "NAMEcl". E.g., for cosine (df-cos 16106) we have value cosval 16159 and closure coscl 16163.
• 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 30422 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 (inference, deduction, or closed form, see above). Additionally, we sometimes suffix with "v" the label of a theorem adding a disjoint variable condition, as in 19.21v 1939 versus 19.21 2207. This often permits to prove the result using fewer axioms, and/or to eliminate a nonfreeness hypothesis (such as Ⅎ𝑥𝜑 in 19.21 2207). If no constraint is put on axiom use, then the v-version can be proved from the original theorem using nfv 1914. If two (resp. three) such disjoint variable conditions are added, then the suffix "vv" (resp. "vvv") is used, e.g., exlimivv 1932. 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 2576 derived from eu6 2574. 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 5454. 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 2414 (cbval 2403 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 3560. 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 584), commutes (e.g., biimpac 478)
  • 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)
  • t : theorem in closed form (not having an "is a set" antecedent)
  • 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 (mathbox only)
  • OLD : old/obsolete version of a theorem (or proof) or definition
• 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 476, rexlimiva 3147
abl	Abelian group	df-abl 19801	Abel	Yes	ablgrp 19803, zringabl 21462
abs	absorption			No	ressabs 17294
abs	absolute value (of a complex number)	df-abs 15275	(abs‘𝐴)	Yes	absval 15277, absneg 15316, abs1 15336
ad	adding			No	adantr 480, ad2antlr 727
add	add (see "p")	df-add 11166	(𝐴 + 𝐵)	Yes	addcl 11237, addcom 11447, addass 11242
al	"for all"		∀𝑥𝜑	No	alim 1810, alex 1826
ALT	alternative/less preferred (suffix)			No	idALT 23
an	and	df-an 396	(𝜑 ∧ 𝜓)	Yes	anor 985, iman 401, imnan 399
ant	antecedent			No	adantr 480
ass	associative			No	biass 384, orass 922, mulass 11243
asym	asymmetric, antisymmetric			No	intasym 6135, asymref 6136, posasymb 18365
ax	axiom			No	ax6dgen 2128, ax1cn 11189
bas, base	base (set of an extensible structure)	df-base 17248	(Base‘𝑆)	Yes	baseval 17249, ressbas 17280, cnfldbas 21368
b, bi	biconditional ("iff", "if and only if")	df-bi 207	(𝜑 ↔ 𝜓)	Yes	impbid 212, sspwb 5454
br	binary relation	df-br 5144	𝐴𝑅𝐵	Yes	brab1 5191, brun 5194
c	commutes, commuted (suffix)			No	biimpac 478
c	contraction (suffix)			No	sylc 65, syl2anc 584
cbv	change bound variable			No	cbvalivw 2006, cbvrex 3363
cdm	codomain			No	ffvelcdm 7101, focdmex 7980
cl	closure			No	ifclda 4561, ovrcl 7472, zaddcl 12657
cn	complex numbers	df-c 11161	ℂ	Yes	nnsscn 12271, nncn 12274
cnfld	field of complex numbers	df-cnfld 21365	ℂfld	Yes	cnfldbas 21368, cnfldinv 21415
cntz	centralizer	df-cntz 19335	(Cntz‘𝑀)	Yes	cntzfval 19338, dprdfcntz 20035
cnv	converse	df-cnv 5693	◡𝐴	Yes	opelcnvg 5891, f1ocnv 6860
co	composition	df-co 5694	(𝐴 ∘ 𝐵)	Yes	cnvco 5896, fmptco 7149
com	commutative			No	orcom 871, bicomi 224, eqcomi 2746
con	contradiction, contraposition			No	condan 818, con2d 134
csb	class substitution	df-csb 3900	⦋𝐴 / 𝑥⦌𝐵	Yes	csbid 3912, csbie2g 3939
cyg	cyclic group	df-cyg 19896	CycGrp	Yes	iscyg 19897, zringcyg 21480
d	deduction form (suffix)			No	idd 24, impbid 212
df	(alternate) definition (prefix)			No	dfrel2 6209, dffn2 6738
di, distr	distributive			No	andi 1010, imdi 389, ordi 1008, difindi 4292, ndmovdistr 7622
dif	class difference	df-dif 3954	(𝐴 ∖ 𝐵)	Yes	difss 4136, difindi 4292
div	division	df-div 11921	(𝐴 / 𝐵)	Yes	divcl 11928, divval 11924, divmul 11925
dm	domain	df-dm 5695	dom 𝐴	Yes	dmmpt 6260, iswrddm0 14576
e, eq, equ	equals (equ for setvars, eq for classes)	df-cleq 2729	𝐴 = 𝐵	Yes	2p2e4 12401, uneqri 4156, equtr 2020
edg	edge	df-edg 29065	(Edg‘𝐺)	Yes	edgopval 29068, usgredgppr 29213
el	element of		𝐴 ∈ 𝐵	Yes	eldif 3961, eldifsn 4786, elssuni 4937
en	equinumerous	df-en	𝐴 ≈ 𝐵	Yes	domen 9002, enfi 9227
eu	"there exists exactly one"	eu6 2574	∃!𝑥𝜑	Yes	euex 2577, euabsn 4726
ex	exists (i.e. is a set)		∈ V	No	brrelex1 5738, 0ex 5307
ex, e	"there exists (at least one)"	df-ex 1780	∃𝑥𝜑	Yes	exim 1834, alex 1826
exp	export			No	expt 177, expcom 413
f	"not free in" (suffix)			No	equs45f 2464, sbf 2271
f	function	df-f 6565	𝐹:𝐴⟶𝐵	Yes	fssxp 6763, opelf 6769
fal	false	df-fal 1553	⊥	Yes	bifal 1556, falantru 1575
fi	finite intersection	df-fi 9451	(fi‘𝐵)	Yes	fival 9452, inelfi 9458
fi, fin	finite	df-fin 8989	Fin	Yes	isfi 9016, snfi 9083, onfin 9267
fld	field (Note: there is an alternative definition Fld of a field, see df-fld 37999)	df-field 20732	Field	Yes	isfld 20740, fldidom 20771
fn	function with domain	df-fn 6564	𝐴 Fn 𝐵	Yes	ffn 6736, fndm 6671
frgp	free group	df-frgp 19728	(freeGrp‘𝐼)	Yes	frgpval 19776, frgpadd 19781
fsupp	finitely supported function	df-fsupp 9402	𝑅 finSupp 𝑍	Yes	isfsupp 9405, fdmfisuppfi 9414, fsuppco 9442
fun	function	df-fun 6563	Fun 𝐹	Yes	funrel 6583, ffun 6739
fv	function value	df-fv 6569	(𝐹‘𝐴)	Yes	fvres 6925, swrdfv 14686
fz	finite set of sequential integers	df-fz 13548	(𝑀...𝑁)	Yes	fzval 13549, eluzfz 13559
fz0	finite set of sequential nonnegative integers		(0...𝑁)	Yes	nn0fz0 13665, fz0tp 13668
fzo	half-open integer range	df-fzo 13695	(𝑀..^𝑁)	Yes	elfzo 13701, elfzofz 13715
g	more general (suffix); eliminates "is a set" hypotheses			No	uniexg 7760
gr	graph			No	uhgrf 29079, isumgr 29112, usgrres1 29332
grp	group	df-grp 18954	Grp	Yes	isgrp 18957, tgpgrp 24086
gsum	group sum	df-gsum 17487	(𝐺 Σg 𝐹)	Yes	gsumval 18690, gsumwrev 19385
hash	size (of a set)	df-hash 14370	(♯‘𝐴)	Yes	hashgval 14372, hashfz1 14385, hashcl 14395
hb	hypothesis builder (prefix)			No	hbxfrbi 1825, hbald 2168, hbequid 38910
hm	(monoid, group, ring, ...) homomorphism			No	ismhm 18798, isghm 19233, isrhm 20478
i	inference (suffix)			No	eleq1i 2832, tcsni 9783
i	implication (suffix)			No	brwdomi 9608, infeq5i 9676
id	identity			No	biid 261
iedg	indexed edge	df-iedg 29016	(iEdg‘𝐺)	Yes	iedgval0 29057, edgiedgb 29071
idm	idempotent			No	anidm 564, tpidm13 4756
im, imp	implication (label often omitted)	df-im 15140	(𝐴 → 𝐵)	Yes	iman 401, imnan 399, impbidd 210
im	(group, ring, ...) isomorphism			No	isgim 19280, rimrcl 20482
ima	image	df-ima 5698	(𝐴 “ 𝐵)	Yes	resima 6033, imaundi 6169
imp	import			No	biimpa 476, impcom 407
in	intersection	df-in 3958	(𝐴 ∩ 𝐵)	Yes	elin 3967, incom 4209
inf	infimum	df-inf 9483	inf(ℝ+, ℝ*, < )	Yes	fiinfcl 9541, infiso 9548
is...	is (something a) ...?			No	isring 20234
j	joining, disjoining			No	jc 161, jaoi 858
l	left			No	olcd 875, simpl 482
map	mapping operation or set exponentiation	df-map 8868	(𝐴 ↑m 𝐵)	Yes	mapvalg 8876, elmapex 8888
mat	matrix	df-mat 22412	(𝑁 Mat 𝑅)	Yes	matval 22415, matring 22449
mdet	determinant (of a square matrix)	df-mdet 22591	(𝑁 maDet 𝑅)	Yes	mdetleib 22593, mdetrlin 22608
mgm	magma	df-mgm 18653	Magma	Yes	mgmidmo 18673, mgmlrid 18680, ismgm 18654
mgp	multiplicative group	df-mgp 20138	(mulGrp‘𝑅)	Yes	mgpress 20147, ringmgp 20236
mnd	monoid	df-mnd 18748	Mnd	Yes	mndass 18756, mndodcong 19560
mo	"there exists at most one"	df-mo 2540	∃*𝑥𝜑	Yes	eumo 2578, moim 2544
mp	modus ponens	ax-mp 5		No	mpd 15, mpi 20
mpo	maps-to notation for an operation	df-mpo 7436	(𝑥 ∈ 𝐴, 𝑦 ∈ 𝐵 ↦ 𝐶)	Yes	mpompt 7547, resmpo 7553
mpt	modus ponendo tollens			No	mptnan 1768, mptxor 1769
mpt	maps-to notation for a function	df-mpt 5226	(𝑥 ∈ 𝐴 ↦ 𝐵)	Yes	fconstmpt 5747, resmpt 6055
mul	multiplication (see "t")	df-mul 11167	(𝐴 · 𝐵)	Yes	mulcl 11239, divmul 11925, mulcom 11241, mulass 11243
n, not	not		¬ 𝜑	Yes	nan 830, notnotr 130
ne	not equal	df-ne	𝐴 ≠ 𝐵	Yes	exmidne 2950, neeqtrd 3010
nel	not element of	df-nel	𝐴 ∉ 𝐵	Yes	neli 3048, nnel 3056
ne0	not equal to zero (see n0)		≠ 0	No	negne0d 11618, ine0 11698, gt0ne0 11728
nf	"not free in" (prefix)	df-nf 1784	Ⅎ𝑥𝜑	Yes	nfnd 1858
ngp	normed group	df-ngp 24596	NrmGrp	Yes	isngp 24609, ngptps 24615
nm	norm (on a group or ring)	df-nm 24595	(norm‘𝑊)	Yes	nmval 24602, subgnm 24646
nn	positive integers	df-nn 12267	ℕ	Yes	nnsscn 12271, nncn 12274
nn0	nonnegative integers	df-n0 12527	ℕ0	Yes	nnnn0 12533, nn0cn 12536
n0	not the empty set (see ne0)		≠ ∅	No	n0i 4340, vn0 4345, ssn0 4404
OLD	old, obsolete (to be removed soon)			No	19.43OLD 1883
on	ordinal number	df-on 6388	𝐴 ∈ On	Yes	elon 6393, 1on 8518 onelon 6409
op	ordered pair	df-op 4633	⟨𝐴, 𝐵⟩	Yes	dfopif 4870, opth 5481
or	or	df-or 849	(𝜑 ∨ 𝜓)	Yes	orcom 871, anor 985
ot	ordered triple	df-ot 4635	⟨𝐴, 𝐵, 𝐶⟩	Yes	euotd 5518, fnotovb 7483
ov	operation value	df-ov 7434	(𝐴𝐹𝐵)	Yes	fnotovb 7483, fnovrn 7608
p	plus (see "add"), for all-constant theorems	df-add 11166	(3 + 2) = 5	Yes	3p2e5 12417
pfx	prefix	df-pfx 14709	(𝑊 prefix 𝐿)	Yes	pfxlen 14721, ccatpfx 14739
pm	Principia Mathematica			No	pm2.27 42
pm	partial mapping (operation)	df-pm 8869	(𝐴 ↑pm 𝐵)	Yes	elpmi 8886, pmsspw 8917
pr	pair	df-pr 4629	{𝐴, 𝐵}	Yes	elpr 4650, prcom 4732, prid1g 4760, prnz 4777
prm, prime	prime (number)	df-prm 16709	ℙ	Yes	1nprm 16716, dvdsprime 16724
pss	proper subset	df-pss 3971	𝐴 ⊊ 𝐵	Yes	pssss 4098, sspsstri 4105
q	rational numbers ("quotients")	df-q 12991	ℚ	Yes	elq 12992
r	reversed (suffix)			No	pm4.71r 558, caovdir 7667
r	right			No	orcd 874, simprl 771
rab	restricted class abstraction	df-rab 3437	{𝑥 ∈ 𝐴 ∣ 𝜑}	Yes	rabswap 3446, df-oprab 7435
ral	restricted universal quantification	df-ral 3062	∀𝑥 ∈ 𝐴𝜑	Yes	ralnex 3072, ralrnmpo 7572
rcl	reverse closure			No	ndmfvrcl 6942, nnarcl 8654
re	real numbers	df-r 11165	ℝ	Yes	recn 11245, 0re 11263
rel	relation	df-rel 5692	Rel 𝐴	Yes	brrelex1 5738, relmpoopab 8119
res	restriction	df-res 5697	(𝐴 ↾ 𝐵)	Yes	opelres 6003, f1ores 6862
reu	restricted existential uniqueness	df-reu 3381	∃!𝑥 ∈ 𝐴𝜑	Yes	nfreud 3433, reurex 3384
rex	restricted existential quantification	df-rex 3071	∃𝑥 ∈ 𝐴𝜑	Yes	rexnal 3100, rexrnmpo 7573
rmo	restricted "at most one"	df-rmo 3380	∃*𝑥 ∈ 𝐴𝜑	Yes	nfrmod 3432, nrexrmo 3401
rn	range	df-rn 5696	ran 𝐴	Yes	elrng 5902, rncnvcnv 5945
ring	(unital) ring	df-ring 20232	Ring	Yes	ringidval 20180, isring 20234, ringgrp 20235
rng	non-unital ring	df-rng 20150	Rng	Yes	isrng 20151, rngabl 20152, rnglz 20162
rot	rotation			No	3anrot 1100, 3orrot 1092
s	eliminates need for syllogism (suffix)			No	ancoms 458
sb	(proper) substitution (of a set)	df-sb 2065	[𝑦 / 𝑥]𝜑	Yes	spsbe 2082, sbimi 2074
sbc	(proper) substitution of a class	df-sbc 3789	[𝐴 / 𝑥]𝜑	Yes	sbc2or 3797, sbcth 3803
sca	scalar	df-sca 17313	(Scalar‘𝐻)	Yes	resssca 17387, mgpsca 20143
simp	simple, simplification			No	simpl 482, simp3r3 1284
sn	singleton	df-sn 4627	{𝐴}	Yes	eldifsn 4786
sp	specialization			No	spsbe 2082, spei 2399
ss	subset	df-ss 3968	𝐴 ⊆ 𝐵	Yes	difss 4136
struct	structure	df-struct 17184	Struct	Yes	brstruct 17185, structfn 17193
sub	subtract	df-sub 11494	(𝐴 − 𝐵)	Yes	subval 11499, subaddi 11596
sup	supremum	df-sup 9482	sup(𝐴, 𝐵, < )	Yes	fisupcl 9509, supmo 9492
supp	support (of a function)	df-supp 8186	(𝐹 supp 𝑍)	Yes	ressuppfi 9435, mptsuppd 8212
swap	swap (two parts within a theorem)			No	rabswap 3446, 2reuswap 3752
syl	syllogism	syl 17		No	3syl 18
sym	symmetric			No	df-symdif 4253, cnvsym 6132
symg	symmetric group	df-symg 19387	(SymGrp‘𝐴)	Yes	symghash 19395, pgrpsubgsymg 19427
t	times (see "mul"), for all-constant theorems	df-mul 11167	(3 · 2) = 6	Yes	3t2e6 12432
th, t	theorem			No	nfth 1801, sbcth 3803, weth 10535, ancomst 464
tp	triple	df-tp 4631	{𝐴, 𝐵, 𝐶}	Yes	eltpi 4688, tpeq1 4742
tr	transitive			No	bitrd 279, biantr 806
tru, t	true, truth	df-tru 1543	⊤	Yes	bitru 1549, truanfal 1574, biimt 360
un	union	df-un 3956	(𝐴 ∪ 𝐵)	Yes	uneqri 4156, uncom 4158
unit	unit (in a ring)	df-unit 20358	(Unit‘𝑅)	Yes	isunit 20373, nzrunit 20524
v	setvar (especially for specializations of theorems when a class is replaced by a setvar variable)		x	Yes	cv 1539, vex 3484, velpw 4605, vtoclf 3564
v	disjoint variable condition used in place of nonfreeness hypothesis (suffix)			No	spimv 2395
vtx	vertex	df-vtx 29015	(Vtx‘𝐺)	Yes	vtxval0 29056, opvtxov 29022
vv	two disjoint variable conditions used in place of nonfreeness hypotheses (suffix)			No	19.23vv 1943
w	weak (version of a theorem) (suffix)			No	ax11w 2130, spnfw 1979
wrd	word	df-word 14553	Word 𝑆	Yes	iswrdb 14558, wrdfn 14566, ffz0iswrd 14579
xp	cross product (Cartesian product)	df-xp 5691	(𝐴 × 𝐵)	Yes	elxp 5708, opelxpi 5722, xpundi 5754
xr	eXtended reals	df-xr 11299	ℝ*	Yes	ressxr 11305, rexr 11307, 0xr 11308
z	integers (from German "Zahlen")	df-z 12614	ℤ	Yes	elz 12615, zcn 12618
zn	ring of integers mod 𝑁	df-zn 21517	(ℤ/nℤ‘𝑁)	Yes	znval 21550, zncrng 21563, znhash 21577
zring	ring of integers	df-zring 21458	ℤring	Yes	zringbas 21464, zringcrng 21459
0, z	slashed zero (empty set)	df-nul 4334	∅	Yes	n0i 4340, vn0 4345; snnz 4776, prnz 4777

(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 30421

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 30419 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., "&eacute;" 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". We use the serial comma (Oxford comma) in enumerations. We use commas after "i.e." and "e.g.".

  We avoid beginning a sentence with a symbol (for instance, by writing "The function F is ..." instead of "F is...").

  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:

  • A math string in a comment should be surrounded by space-separated backquotes on the same line, and if it is too long it should be broken into multiple adjacent math strings on multiple lines.
  • 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 anteriority 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.

• 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). A revision tag is optionally 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.

• Explaining new labels.

  A comment should explain the first use of an abbreviation within a label. This is often in a definition (e.g., Definition df-an 396 introduces the abbreviation "an" for conjunction ("and")), but not always (e.g., Theorem alim 1810 introduces the abbreviation "al" for the universal quantifier ("for all")). See conventions-labels 30420 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

18.1.2  Natural deduction

Theorem

natded 30422

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 1	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 511	jca 511, pm3.2i 470	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)
∧EL	Γ⊢ 𝜓 ∧ 𝜒 => Γ⊢ 𝜓	simpld 494	simpld 494, adantr 480	Definition ∧EL 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)
∧ER	Γ⊢ 𝜓 ∧ 𝜒 => Γ⊢ 𝜒	simprd 495	simpr 484, adantl 481	Definition ∧ER 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 412	ex 412	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 687, imp 406	Definition →E in [Pfenning] p. 18, definition E=>m,n in [Clemente] p. 11, and definition →E in [Indrzejczak] p. 33.
∨IL	Γ⊢ 𝜓 => Γ⊢ 𝜓 ∨ 𝜒	olcd 875	olc 869, olci 867, olcd 875	Definition ∨I in [Pfenning] p. 18, definition I∨n(1) in [Clemente] p. 12
∨IR	Γ⊢ 𝜒 => Γ⊢ 𝜓 ∨ 𝜒	orcd 874	orc 868, orci 866, orcd 874	Definition ∨IR 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 961	mpjaodan 961, jaodan 960, jaod 860	Definition ∨E in [Pfenning] p. 18, definition E∨m,n,p in [Clemente] p. 12.
¬I	Γ, 𝜓⊢ ⊥ => Γ⊢ ¬ 𝜓	inegd 1560	pm2.01d 190
¬I	Γ, 𝜓⊢ 𝜃 & Γ⊢ ¬ 𝜃 => Γ⊢ ¬ 𝜓	mtand 816	mtand 816	definition I¬m,n,p in [Clemente] p. 13.
¬I	Γ, 𝜓⊢ 𝜒 & Γ, 𝜓⊢ ¬ 𝜒 => Γ⊢ ¬ 𝜓	pm2.65da 817	pm2.65da 817	Contradiction.
¬I	Γ, 𝜓⊢ ¬ 𝜓 => Γ⊢ ¬ 𝜓	pm2.01da 799	pm2.01d 190, pm2.65da 817, pm2.65d 196	For an alternative falsum-free natural deduction ruleset
¬E	Γ⊢ 𝜓 & Γ⊢ ¬ 𝜓 => Γ⊢ ⊥	pm2.21fal 1562	pm2.21dd 195
¬E	Γ, ¬ 𝜓⊢ ⊥ => Γ⊢ 𝜓		pm2.21dd 195	definition →E in [Indrzejczak] p. 33.
¬E	Γ⊢ 𝜓 & Γ⊢ ¬ 𝜓 => Γ⊢ 𝜃	pm2.21dd 195	pm2.21dd 195, pm2.21d 121, pm2.21 123	For an alternative falsum-free natural deduction ruleset. Definition ¬E in [Pfenning] p. 18.
⊤I	Γ⊢ ⊤	trud 1550	tru 1544, trud 1550, mptru 1547	Definition ⊤I in [Pfenning] p. 18.
⊥E	Γ, ⊥⊢ 𝜃	falimd 1558	falim 1557	Definition ⊥E in [Pfenning] p. 18.
∀I	Γ⊢ [𝑎 / 𝑥]𝜓 => Γ⊢ ∀𝑥𝜓	alrimiv 1927	alrimiv 1927, ralrimiva 3146	Definition ∀Ia in [Pfenning] p. 18, definition I∀n in [Clemente] p. 32.
∀E	Γ⊢ ∀𝑥𝜓 => Γ⊢ [𝑡 / 𝑥]𝜓	spsbcd 3802	spcv 3605, rspcv 3618	Definition ∀E in [Pfenning] p. 18, definition E∀n,t in [Clemente] p. 32.
∃I	Γ⊢ [𝑡 / 𝑥]𝜓 => Γ⊢ ∃𝑥𝜓	spesbcd 3883	spcev 3606, rspcev 3622	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 1935	exlimddv 1935, exlimdd 2220, exlimdv 1933, rexlimdva 3155	Definition ∃Ea,u in [Pfenning] p. 18, definition E∃m,n,p,a in [Clemente] p. 32.
⊥C	Γ, ¬ 𝜓⊢ ⊥ => Γ⊢ 𝜓	efald 1561	efald 1561	Proof by contradiction (classical logic), definition ⊥C in [Pfenning] p. 17.
⊥C	Γ, ¬ 𝜓⊢ 𝜓 => Γ⊢ 𝜓	pm2.18da 800	pm2.18da 800, pm2.18d 127, pm2.18 128	For an alternative falsum-free natural deduction ruleset
¬ ¬C	Γ⊢ ¬ ¬ 𝜓 => Γ⊢ 𝜓	notnotrd 133	notnotrd 133, notnotr 130	Double negation rule (classical logic), definition NNC in [Pfenning] p. 17, definition E¬n in [Clemente] p. 14.
EM	Γ⊢ 𝜓 ∨ ¬ 𝜓	exmidd 896	exmid 895	Excluded middle (classical logic), definition XM in [Pfenning] p. 17, proof 5.11 in [Clemente] p. 14.
=I	Γ⊢ 𝐴 = 𝐴	eqidd 2738	eqid 2737, eqidd 2738	Introduce equality, definition =I in [Pfenning] p. 127.
=E	Γ⊢ 𝐴 = 𝐵 & Γ[𝐴 / 𝑥]𝜓 => Γ⊢ [𝐵 / 𝑥]𝜓	sbceq1dd 3794	sbceq1d 3793, 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 antecedent 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 30423, ex-natded5.3 30426, ex-natded5.5 30429, ex-natded5.7 30430, ex-natded5.8 30432, ex-natded5.13 30434, ex-natded9.20 30436, and ex-natded9.26 30438.

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

⊢ 𝜑    ⇒   ⊢ 𝜑

18.1.3  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 30422 and mmnatded.html 30422. 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 30423

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 511, 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 30424. A proof without context is shown in ex-natded5.2i 30425. (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 30424

A more efficient proof of Theorem 5.2 of [Clemente] p. 15. Compare with ex-natded5.2 30423 and ex-natded5.2i 30425. (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 30425

The same as ex-natded5.2 30423 and ex-natded5.2-2 30424 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 30426

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 30427. A proof without context is shown in ex-natded5.3i 30428. 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 480 to move it into the ND hypothesis
2	5;6	(𝜒 → 𝜃)	(𝜑 → (𝜒 → 𝜃))	Given	$e; adantr 480 to move it into the ND hypothesis
3	1	...| 𝜓	((𝜑 ∧ 𝜓) → 𝜓)	ND hypothesis assumption	simpr 484, to access the new assumption
4	4	... 𝜒	((𝜑 ∧ 𝜓) → 𝜒)	→E 1,3	mpd 15, the MPE equivalent of →E, 1.3. adantr 480 was used to transform its dependency (we could also use imp 406 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 480 was used to transform its dependency
6	8	... (𝜒 ∧ 𝜃)	((𝜑 ∧ 𝜓) → (𝜒 ∧ 𝜃))	∧I 4,5	jca 511, the MPE equivalent of ∧I, 4,7
7	9	(𝜓 → (𝜒 ∧ 𝜃))	(𝜑 → (𝜓 → (𝜒 ∧ 𝜃)))	→I 3,6	ex 412, the MPE equivalent of →I, 8

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. (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-natded5.3-2 30427

A more efficient proof of Theorem 5.3 of [Clemente] p. 16. Compare with ex-natded5.3 30426 and ex-natded5.3i 30428. (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 30428

The same as ex-natded5.3 30426 and ex-natded5.3-2 30427 but with no context. Identical to jccir 521, 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 30429

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 480 to move it into the ND hypothesis
2	5	¬ 𝜒	(𝜑 → ¬ 𝜒)	Given	$e; we'll use adantr 480 to move it into the ND hypothesis
3	1	...| 𝜓	((𝜑 ∧ 𝜓) → 𝜓)	ND hypothesis assumption	simpr 484
4	4	... 𝜒	((𝜑 ∧ 𝜓) → 𝜒)	→E 1,3	mpd 15 1,3
5	6	... ¬ 𝜒	((𝜑 ∧ 𝜓) → ¬ 𝜒)	IT 2	adantr 480 5
6	7	¬ 𝜓	(𝜑 → ¬ 𝜓)	∧I 3,4,5	pm2.65da 817 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 480; simpr 484 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 198; a proof without context is shown in mto 197.

(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 30430

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 30431. 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 480 because we do not move this into an ND hypothesis
2	1	...| 𝜓	((𝜑 ∧ 𝜓) → 𝜓)	ND hypothesis assumption (new scope)	simpr 484
3	2	... (𝜓 ∨ 𝜒)	((𝜑 ∧ 𝜓) → (𝜓 ∨ 𝜒))	∨IL 2	orcd 874, the MPE equivalent of ∨IL, 1
4	3	...| (𝜒 ∧ 𝜃)	((𝜑 ∧ (𝜒 ∧ 𝜃)) → (𝜒 ∧ 𝜃))	ND hypothesis assumption (new scope)	simpr 484
5	4	... 𝜒	((𝜑 ∧ (𝜒 ∧ 𝜃)) → 𝜒)	∧EL 4	simpld 494, the MPE equivalent of ∧EL, 3
6	6	... (𝜓 ∨ 𝜒)	((𝜑 ∧ (𝜒 ∧ 𝜃)) → (𝜓 ∨ 𝜒))	∨IR 5	olcd 875, the MPE equivalent of ∨IR, 4
7	7	(𝜓 ∨ 𝜒)	(𝜑 → (𝜓 ∨ 𝜒))	∨E 1,3,6	mpjaodan 961, the MPE equivalent of ∨E, 2,5,6

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

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

Theorem

ex-natded5.7-2 30431

A more efficient proof of Theorem 5.7 of [Clemente] p. 19. Compare with ex-natded5.7 30430. (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 30432

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 480 to move it into the ND hypothesis
2	3;4	(𝜏 → 𝜃)	(𝜑 → (𝜏 → 𝜃))	Given	$e; adantr 480 to move it into the ND hypothesis
3	7;8	𝜒	(𝜑 → 𝜒)	Given	$e; adantr 480 to move it into the ND hypothesis
4	1;2	𝜏	(𝜑 → 𝜏)	Given	$e. adantr 480 to move it into the ND hypothesis
5	6	...| 𝜓	((𝜑 ∧ 𝜓) → 𝜓)	ND Hypothesis/Assumption	simpr 484. 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 511 (∧I), 6,8 (adantr 480 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 817 (¬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

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 480; simpr 484 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, using more of Metamath and MPE's capabilities, is shown in ex-natded5.8-2 30433.

(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 30433

A more efficient proof of Theorem 5.8 of [Clemente] p. 20. For a longer line-by-line translation, see ex-natded5.8 30432. (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 30434

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 30435. 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 480 to move it into the ND hypothesis
3	9	(¬ 𝜏 → ¬ 𝜒)	(𝜑 → (¬ 𝜏 → ¬ 𝜒))	Given	$e. ad2antrr 726 to move it into the ND sub-hypothesis
4	1	...| 𝜓	((𝜑 ∧ 𝜓) → 𝜓)	ND hypothesis assumption	simpr 484
5	4	... 𝜃	((𝜑 ∧ 𝜓) → 𝜃)	→E 2,4	mpd 15 1,3
6	5	... (𝜃 ∨ 𝜏)	((𝜑 ∧ 𝜓) → (𝜃 ∨ 𝜏))	∨I 5	orcd 874 4
7	6	...| 𝜒	((𝜑 ∧ 𝜒) → 𝜒)	ND hypothesis assumption	simpr 484
8	8	... ...| ¬ 𝜏	(((𝜑 ∧ 𝜒) ∧ ¬ 𝜏) → ¬ 𝜏)	(sub) ND hypothesis assumption	simpr 484
9	11	... ... ¬ 𝜒	(((𝜑 ∧ 𝜒) ∧ ¬ 𝜏) → ¬ 𝜒)	→E 3,8	mpd 15 8,10
10	7	... ... 𝜒	(((𝜑 ∧ 𝜒) ∧ ¬ 𝜏) → 𝜒)	IT 7	adantr 480 6
11	12	... ¬ ¬ 𝜏	((𝜑 ∧ 𝜒) → ¬ ¬ 𝜏)	¬I 8,9,10	pm2.65da 817 7,11
12	13	... 𝜏	((𝜑 ∧ 𝜒) → 𝜏)	¬E 11	notnotrd 133 12
13	14	... (𝜃 ∨ 𝜏)	((𝜑 ∧ 𝜒) → (𝜃 ∨ 𝜏))	∨I 12	olcd 875 13
14	16	(𝜃 ∨ 𝜏)	(𝜑 → (𝜃 ∨ 𝜏))	∨E 1,6,13	mpjaodan 961 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 480; simpr 484 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 30435

A more efficient proof of Theorem 5.13 of [Clemente] p. 20. Compare with ex-natded5.13 30434. (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 30436

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)	∧EL 1	simpld 494 1
3	11	(𝜒 ∨ 𝜃)	(𝜑 → (𝜒 ∨ 𝜃))	∧ER 1	simprd 495 1
4	4	...| 𝜒	((𝜑 ∧ 𝜒) → 𝜒)	ND hypothesis assumption	simpr 484
5	5	... (𝜓 ∧ 𝜒)	((𝜑 ∧ 𝜒) → (𝜓 ∧ 𝜒))	∧I 2,4	jca 511 3,4
6	6	... ((𝜓 ∧ 𝜒) ∨ (𝜓 ∧ 𝜃))	((𝜑 ∧ 𝜒) → ((𝜓 ∧ 𝜒) ∨ (𝜓 ∧ 𝜃)))	∨IR 5	orcd 874 5
7	8	...| 𝜃	((𝜑 ∧ 𝜃) → 𝜃)	ND hypothesis assumption	simpr 484
8	9	... (𝜓 ∧ 𝜃)	((𝜑 ∧ 𝜃) → (𝜓 ∧ 𝜃))	∧I 2,7	jca 511 7,8
9	10	... ((𝜓 ∧ 𝜒) ∨ (𝜓 ∧ 𝜃))	((𝜑 ∧ 𝜃) → ((𝜓 ∧ 𝜒) ∨ (𝜓 ∧ 𝜃)))	∨IL 8	olcd 875 9
10	12	((𝜓 ∧ 𝜒) ∨ (𝜓 ∧ 𝜃))	(𝜑 → ((𝜓 ∧ 𝜒) ∨ (𝜓 ∧ 𝜃)))	∨E 3,6,9	mpjaodan 961 6,10,11

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 480; simpr 484 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 ex-natded9.20-2 30437. (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 30437

A more efficient proof of Theorem 9.20 of [Clemente] p. 45. Compare with ex-natded9.20 30436. (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 30438*

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 484. Later statements will have this scope.
3	7;5,4	... 𝜓(𝑥, 𝑦)	((𝜑 ∧ ∀𝑦𝜓) → 𝜓)	∀E 2,y	spsbcd 3802 (∀E), 5,6. To use it we need a1i 11 and vex 3484. This could be immediately done with 19.21bi 2189, 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 3883 (∃I), 11. To use it we need sylibr 234, which in turn requires sylib 218 and two uses of sbcid 3805. This could be more immediately done using 19.8a 2181, 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 2220 (∃E), 1,2,3,12. We'll need supporting assertions that the variable is free (not bound), as provided in nfv 1914 and nfe1 2150 (MPE# 1,2)
6	14	∀𝑦∃𝑥𝜓(𝑥, 𝑦)	(𝜑 → ∀𝑦∃𝑥𝜓)	∀I 5	alrimiv 1927 (∀I), 13

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).

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 30439.

(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 30439*

A more efficient proof of Theorem 9.26 of [Clemente] p. 45. Compare with ex-natded9.26 30438. (Contributed by Mario Carneiro, 9-Feb-2017.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) (New usage is discouraged.)

⊢ (𝜑 → ∃𝑥∀𝑦𝜓)    ⇒   ⊢ (𝜑 → ∀𝑦∃𝑥𝜓)

18.1.4  Definitional examples

Theorem

ex-or 30440

Example for df-or 849. Example by David A. Wheeler. (Contributed by Mario Carneiro, 9-May-2015.)

⊢ (2 = 3 ∨ 4 = 4)

Theorem

ex-an 30441

Example for df-an 396. Example by David A. Wheeler. (Contributed by Mario Carneiro, 9-May-2015.)

⊢ (2 = 2 ∧ 3 = 3)

Theorem

ex-dif 30442

Example for df-dif 3954. Example by David A. Wheeler. (Contributed by Mario Carneiro, 6-May-2015.)

⊢ ({1, 3} ∖ {1, 8}) = {3}

Theorem

ex-un 30443

Example for df-un 3956. Example by David A. Wheeler. (Contributed by Mario Carneiro, 6-May-2015.)

⊢ ({1, 3} ∪ {1, 8}) = {1, 3, 8}

Theorem

ex-in 30444

Example for df-in 3958. Example by David A. Wheeler. (Contributed by Mario Carneiro, 6-May-2015.)

⊢ ({1, 3} ∩ {1, 8}) = {1}

Theorem

ex-uni 30445

Example for df-uni 4908. Example by David A. Wheeler. (Contributed by Mario Carneiro, 2-Jul-2016.)

⊢ ∪ {{1, 3}, {1, 8}} = {1, 3, 8}

Theorem

ex-ss 30446

Example for df-ss 3968. Example by David A. Wheeler. (Contributed by Mario Carneiro, 6-May-2015.)

⊢ {1, 2} ⊆ {1, 2, 3}

Theorem

ex-pss 30447

Example for df-pss 3971. Example by David A. Wheeler. (Contributed by Mario Carneiro, 6-May-2015.)

⊢ {1, 2} ⊊ {1, 2, 3}

Theorem

ex-pw 30448

Example for df-pw 4602. 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 30449

Example for df-pr 4629. (Contributed by Mario Carneiro, 7-May-2015.)

⊢ (𝐴 ∈ {1, -1} → (𝐴↑2) = 1)

Theorem

ex-br 30450

Example for df-br 5144. Example by David A. Wheeler. (Contributed by Mario Carneiro, 6-May-2015.)

⊢ (𝑅 = {⟨2, 6⟩, ⟨3, 9⟩} → 3𝑅9)

Theorem

ex-opab 30451*

Example for df-opab 5206. 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 30452

Example for df-eprel 5584. Example by David A. Wheeler. (Contributed by Mario Carneiro, 18-Jun-2015.)

⊢ 5 E {1, 5}

Theorem

ex-id 30453

Example for df-id 5578. Example by David A. Wheeler. (Contributed by Mario Carneiro, 18-Jun-2015.)

⊢ (5 I 5 ∧ ¬ 4 I 5)

Theorem

ex-po 30454

Example for df-po 5592. Example by David A. Wheeler. (Contributed by Mario Carneiro, 18-Jun-2015.)

⊢ ( < Po ℝ ∧ ¬ ≤ Po ℝ)

Theorem

ex-xp 30455

Example for df-xp 5691. 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 30456

Example for df-cnv 5693. Example by David A. Wheeler. (Contributed by Mario Carneiro, 6-May-2015.)

⊢ ^◡{⟨2, 6⟩, ⟨3, 9⟩} = {⟨6, 2⟩, ⟨9, 3⟩}

Theorem

ex-co 30457

Example for df-co 5694. Example by David A. Wheeler. (Contributed by Mario Carneiro, 7-May-2015.)

⊢ ((exp ∘ cos)‘0) = e

Theorem

ex-dm 30458

Example for df-dm 5695. Example by David A. Wheeler. (Contributed by Mario Carneiro, 7-May-2015.)

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

Theorem

ex-rn 30459

Example for df-rn 5696. Example by David A. Wheeler. (Contributed by Mario Carneiro, 7-May-2015.)

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

Theorem

ex-res 30460

Example for df-res 5697. 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 30461

Example for df-ima 5698. 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 30462

Example for df-fv 6569. Example by David A. Wheeler. (Contributed by Mario Carneiro, 7-May-2015.)

⊢ (𝐹 = {⟨2, 6⟩, ⟨3, 9⟩} → (𝐹‘3) = 9)

Theorem

ex-1st 30463

Example for df-1st 8014. Example by David A. Wheeler. (Contributed by Mario Carneiro, 18-Jun-2015.)

⊢ (1^st ‘⟨3, 4⟩) = 3

Theorem

ex-2nd 30464

Example for df-2nd 8015. Example by David A. Wheeler. (Contributed by Mario Carneiro, 18-Jun-2015.)

⊢ (2^nd ‘⟨3, 4⟩) = 4

Theorem

1kp2ke3k 30465

Example for df-dec 12734, 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 12734 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 30466

Example for df-fl 13832. Example by David A. Wheeler. (Contributed by Mario Carneiro, 18-Jun-2015.)

⊢ ((⌊‘(3 / 2)) = 1 ∧ (⌊‘-(3 / 2)) = -2)

Theorem

ex-ceil 30467

Example for df-ceil 13833. (Contributed by AV, 4-Sep-2021.)

⊢ ((⌈‘(3 / 2)) = 2 ∧ (⌈‘-(3 / 2)) = -1)

Theorem

ex-mod 30468

Example for df-mod 13910. (Contributed by AV, 3-Sep-2021.)

⊢ ((5 mod 3) = 2 ∧ (-7 mod 2) = 1)

Theorem

ex-exp 30469

Example for df-exp 14103. (Contributed by AV, 4-Sep-2021.)

⊢ ((5↑2) = ;25 ∧ (-3↑-2) = (1 / 9))

Theorem

ex-fac 30470

Example for df-fac 14313. (Contributed by AV, 4-Sep-2021.)

⊢ (!‘5) = ;;120

Theorem

ex-bc 30471

Example for df-bc 14342. (Contributed by AV, 4-Sep-2021.)

⊢ (5C3) = ;10

Theorem

ex-hash 30472

Example for df-hash 14370. (Contributed by AV, 4-Sep-2021.)

⊢ (♯‘{0, 1, 2}) = 3

Theorem

ex-sqrt 30473

Example for df-sqrt 15274. (Contributed by AV, 4-Sep-2021.)

⊢ (√‘;25) = 5

Theorem

ex-abs 30474

Example for df-abs 15275. (Contributed by AV, 4-Sep-2021.)

⊢ (abs‘-2) = 2

Theorem

ex-dvds 30475

Example for df-dvds 16291: 3 divides into 6. (Contributed by David A. Wheeler, 19-May-2015.)

⊢ 3 ∥ 6

Theorem

ex-gcd 30476

Example for df-gcd 16532. (Contributed by AV, 5-Sep-2021.)

⊢ (-6 gcd 9) = 3

Theorem

ex-lcm 30477

Example for df-lcm 16627. (Contributed by AV, 5-Sep-2021.)

⊢ (6 lcm 9) = ;18

Theorem

ex-prmo 30478

Example for df-prmo 17070: (#_p‘10) = 2 · 3 · 5 · 7. (Contributed by AV, 6-Sep-2021.)

⊢ (#_p‘;10) = ;;210

18.1.5  Other examples

Theorem

aevdemo 30479*

Proof illustrating the comment of aev2 2058. (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 30480

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))

Theorem

ex-fpar 30481

Formalized example provided in the comment for fpar 8141. (Contributed by AV, 3-Jan-2024.)

⊢ 𝐻 = ((^◡(1^st ↾ (V × V)) ∘ (𝐹 ∘ (1^st ↾ (V × V)))) ∩ (^◡(2^nd ↾ (V × V)) ∘ (𝐺 ∘ (2^nd ↾ (V × V)))))    &   ⊢ 𝐴 = (0[,)+∞)    &   ⊢ 𝐵 = ℝ    &   ⊢ 𝐹 = (√ ↾ 𝐴)    &   ⊢ 𝐺 = (sin ↾ 𝐵)    ⇒   ⊢ ((𝑋 ∈ 𝐴 ∧ 𝑌 ∈ 𝐵) → (𝑋( + ∘ 𝐻)𝑌) = ((√‘𝑋) + (sin‘𝑌)))

18.2  Humor

18.2.1  April Fool's theorem

Theorem

avril1 30482

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 30483

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 30484

The classic "Hello world" benchmark has been translated into 314 computer programming languages - see http://helloworldcollection.de. 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 to put it to rest with a remarkably short proof only four lines long. (Contributed by Prof. Loof Lirpa, 1-Apr-2007.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) (New usage is discouraged.)

⊢ ¬ (ℎ ∈ (𝐿𝐿0) ∧ 𝑊∅(R1𝑑))

Theorem

1p1e2apr1 30485

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 30486

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 30487

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 30488

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)

Theorem

9p10ne21 30489

9 + 10 is not equal to 21. This disproves a popular meme which asserts that 9 + 10 does equal 21. See https://www.quora.com/Can-someone-try-to-prove-to-me-that-9+10-21 for attempts to prove that 9 + 10 = 21, and see https://tinyurl.com/9p10e21 for the history of the 9 + 10 = 21 meme. (Contributed by BTernaryTau, 25-Aug-2023.)

⊢ (9 + ;10) ≠ ;21

Theorem

9p10ne21fool 30490

9 + 10 equals 21. This astonishing thesis lives as a meme on the internet, and may be believed by quite some people. At least repeated requests to falsify it are a permanent part of the story. Prof. Loof Lirpa did not rest until he finally came up with a computer verifiable mathematical proof, that only a fool can think so. (Contributed by Prof. Loof Lirpa, 26-Aug-2023.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) (New usage is discouraged.)

⊢ ((9 + ;10) = ;21 → 𝐹∅(0 · 1))

Axiom

ax-flt 30491

This factoid is e.g. useful for nrt2irr 30492. Andrew has a proof, I'll have a go at formalizing it after my coffee break. In the mean time let's add it as an axiom. (Contributed by Prof. Loof Lirpa, 1-Apr-2025.) (New usage is discouraged.)

⊢ ((𝑁 ∈ (ℤ_≥‘3) ∧ (𝑋 ∈ ℕ ∧ 𝑌 ∈ ℕ ∧ 𝑍 ∈ ℕ)) → ((𝑋↑𝑁) + (𝑌↑𝑁)) ≠ (𝑍↑𝑁))

Theorem

nrt2irr 30492

The 𝑁-th root of 2 is irrational for 𝑁 greater than 2. For 𝑁 = 2, see sqrt2irr 16285. This short and rather elegant proof has the minor disadvantage that it refers to ax-flt 30491, which is still to be formalized. For a proof not requiring ax-flt 30491, see rtprmirr 26803. (Contributed by Prof. Loof Lirpa, 1-Apr-2025.) (Proof modification is discouraged.)

⊢ (𝑁 ∈ (ℤ_≥‘3) → ¬ (2↑_𝑐(1 / 𝑁)) ∈ ℚ)

18.3  (Future - to be reviewed and classified)

18.3.1  Planar incidence geometry

Syntax

cplig 30493

Extend class notation with the class of all planar incidence geometries.

class Plig

Definition

df-plig 30494*

Define the class of planar incidence geometries. We use Hilbert's axioms and adapt them to planar geometry. We use ∈ for the incidence relation. We could have used a generic binary relation, but using ∈ allows to reuse previous results. Much of what follows is directly borrowed from Aitken, Incidence-Betweenness Geometry, 2008, http://public.csusm.edu/aitken_html/m410/betweenness.08.pdf.

The class Plig is the class of planar incidence geometries, where a planar incidence geometry is defined as a set of lines satisfying three axioms. In the definition below, 𝑥 denotes a planar incidence geometry, so ∪ 𝑥 denotes the union of its lines, that is, the set of points in the plane, 𝑙 denotes a line, and 𝑎, 𝑏, 𝑐 denote points. Therefore, the axioms are: 1) for all pairs of (distinct) points, there exists a unique line containing them; 2) all lines contain at least two points; 3) there exist three non-collinear points. (Contributed by FL, 2-Aug-2009.)

⊢ Plig = {𝑥 ∣ (∀𝑎 ∈ ∪ 𝑥∀𝑏 ∈ ∪ 𝑥(𝑎 ≠ 𝑏 → ∃!𝑙 ∈ 𝑥 (𝑎 ∈ 𝑙 ∧ 𝑏 ∈ 𝑙)) ∧ ∀𝑙 ∈ 𝑥 ∃𝑎 ∈ ∪ 𝑥∃𝑏 ∈ ∪ 𝑥(𝑎 ≠ 𝑏 ∧ 𝑎 ∈ 𝑙 ∧ 𝑏 ∈ 𝑙) ∧ ∃𝑎 ∈ ∪ 𝑥∃𝑏 ∈ ∪ 𝑥∃𝑐 ∈ ∪ 𝑥∀𝑙 ∈ 𝑥 ¬ (𝑎 ∈ 𝑙 ∧ 𝑏 ∈ 𝑙 ∧ 𝑐 ∈ 𝑙))}

Theorem

isplig 30495*

The predicate "is a planar incidence geometry" for sets. (Contributed by FL, 2-Aug-2009.)

⊢ 𝑃 = ∪ 𝐺    ⇒   ⊢ (𝐺 ∈ 𝐴 → (𝐺 ∈ Plig ↔ (∀𝑎 ∈ 𝑃 ∀𝑏 ∈ 𝑃 (𝑎 ≠ 𝑏 → ∃!𝑙 ∈ 𝐺 (𝑎 ∈ 𝑙 ∧ 𝑏 ∈ 𝑙)) ∧ ∀𝑙 ∈ 𝐺 ∃𝑎 ∈ 𝑃 ∃𝑏 ∈ 𝑃 (𝑎 ≠ 𝑏 ∧ 𝑎 ∈ 𝑙 ∧ 𝑏 ∈ 𝑙) ∧ ∃𝑎 ∈ 𝑃 ∃𝑏 ∈ 𝑃 ∃𝑐 ∈ 𝑃 ∀𝑙 ∈ 𝐺 ¬ (𝑎 ∈ 𝑙 ∧ 𝑏 ∈ 𝑙 ∧ 𝑐 ∈ 𝑙))))

Theorem

ispligb 30496*

The predicate "is a planar incidence geometry". (Contributed by BJ, 2-Dec-2021.)

⊢ 𝑃 = ∪ 𝐺    ⇒   ⊢ (𝐺 ∈ Plig ↔ (𝐺 ∈ V ∧ (∀𝑎 ∈ 𝑃 ∀𝑏 ∈ 𝑃 (𝑎 ≠ 𝑏 → ∃!𝑙 ∈ 𝐺 (𝑎 ∈ 𝑙 ∧ 𝑏 ∈ 𝑙)) ∧ ∀𝑙 ∈ 𝐺 ∃𝑎 ∈ 𝑃 ∃𝑏 ∈ 𝑃 (𝑎 ≠ 𝑏 ∧ 𝑎 ∈ 𝑙 ∧ 𝑏 ∈ 𝑙) ∧ ∃𝑎 ∈ 𝑃 ∃𝑏 ∈ 𝑃 ∃𝑐 ∈ 𝑃 ∀𝑙 ∈ 𝐺 ¬ (𝑎 ∈ 𝑙 ∧ 𝑏 ∈ 𝑙 ∧ 𝑐 ∈ 𝑙))))

Theorem

tncp 30497*

In any planar incidence geometry, there exist three non-collinear points. (Contributed by FL, 3-Aug-2009.)

⊢ 𝑃 = ∪ 𝐺    ⇒   ⊢ (𝐺 ∈ Plig → ∃𝑎 ∈ 𝑃 ∃𝑏 ∈ 𝑃 ∃𝑐 ∈ 𝑃 ∀𝑙 ∈ 𝐺 ¬ (𝑎 ∈ 𝑙 ∧ 𝑏 ∈ 𝑙 ∧ 𝑐 ∈ 𝑙))

Theorem

l2p 30498*

For any line in a planar incidence geometry, there exist two different points on the line. (Contributed by AV, 28-Nov-2021.)

⊢ 𝑃 = ∪ 𝐺    ⇒   ⊢ ((𝐺 ∈ Plig ∧ 𝐿 ∈ 𝐺) → ∃𝑎 ∈ 𝑃 ∃𝑏 ∈ 𝑃 (𝑎 ≠ 𝑏 ∧ 𝑎 ∈ 𝐿 ∧ 𝑏 ∈ 𝐿))

Theorem

lpni 30499*

For any line in a planar incidence geometry, there exists a point not on the line. (Contributed by Jeff Hankins, 15-Aug-2009.)

⊢ 𝑃 = ∪ 𝐺    ⇒   ⊢ ((𝐺 ∈ Plig ∧ 𝐿 ∈ 𝐺) → ∃𝑎 ∈ 𝑃 𝑎 ∉ 𝐿)

Theorem

nsnlplig 30500

There is no "one-point line" in a planar incidence geometry. (Contributed by BJ, 2-Dec-2021.) (Proof shortened by AV, 5-Dec-2021.)

⊢ (𝐺 ∈ Plig → ¬ {𝐴} ∈ 𝐺)