![]() |
Metamath
Proof Explorer Theorem List (p. 341 of 454) | < Previous Next > |
Bad symbols? Try the
GIF version. |
||
Mirrors > Metamath Home Page > MPE Home Page > Theorem List Contents > Recent Proofs This page: Page List |
Color key: | ![]() (1-28701) |
![]() (28702-30224) |
![]() (30225-45333) |
Type | Label | Description |
---|---|---|
Statement | ||
Theorem | bj-peircestab 34001 | Over minimal implicational calculus, Peirce's law implies the double negation of the stability of any proposition (that is the interpretation when ⊥ is substitued for 𝜓). (Contributed by BJ, 30-Nov-2023.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) |
⊢ (((((𝜑 → 𝜓) → 𝜓) → 𝜑) → 𝜓) → 𝜓) | ||
Theorem | bj-stabpeirce 34002 | Over minimal implicational calculus, Peirce's law is implied by the (classical refutation equivalent of) the double negation of the stability of any proposition. (Contributed by BJ, 30-Nov-2023.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) |
⊢ ((((((𝜑 → 𝜓) → 𝜓) → 𝜑) → 𝜓) → 𝜓) → (((𝜓 → 𝜑) → 𝜓) → 𝜓)) | ||
Positive calculus is understood to be intuitionistic. | ||
Theorem | bj-syl66ib 34003 | A mixed syllogism inference derived from syl6ib 254. In addition to bj-dvelimdv1 34291, it can also shorten alexsubALTlem4 22655 (4821>4812), supsrlem 10522 (2868>2863). (Contributed by BJ, 20-Oct-2021.) |
⊢ (𝜑 → (𝜓 → 𝜃)) & ⊢ (𝜃 → 𝜏) & ⊢ (𝜏 ↔ 𝜒) ⇒ ⊢ (𝜑 → (𝜓 → 𝜒)) | ||
Theorem | bj-orim2 34004 | Proof of orim2 965 from the axiomatic definition of disjunction (olc 865, orc 864, jao 958) and minimal implicational calculus. (Contributed by BJ, 4-Apr-2021.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) |
⊢ ((𝜑 → 𝜓) → ((𝜒 ∨ 𝜑) → (𝜒 ∨ 𝜓))) | ||
Theorem | bj-currypeirce 34005 | Curry's axiom curryax 891 (a non-intuitionistic positive statement sometimes called a paradox of material implication) implies Peirce's axiom peirce 205 over minimal implicational calculus and the axiomatic definition of disjunction (actually, only the elimination axiom jao 958 via its inference form jaoi 854; the introduction axioms olc 865 and orc 864 are not needed). Note that this theorem shows that actually, the standard instance of curryax 891 implies the standard instance of peirce 205, which is not the case for the converse bj-peircecurry 34006. (Contributed by BJ, 15-Jun-2021.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) (New usage is discouraged.) |
⊢ ((𝜑 ∨ (𝜑 → 𝜓)) → (((𝜑 → 𝜓) → 𝜑) → 𝜑)) | ||
Theorem | bj-peircecurry 34006 | Peirce's axiom peirce 205 implies Curry's axiom curryax 891 over minimal implicational calculus and the axiomatic definition of disjunction (actually, only the introduction axioms olc 865 and orc 864; the elimination axiom jao 958 is not needed). See bj-currypeirce 34005 for the converse. (Contributed by BJ, 15-Jun-2021.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) (New usage is discouraged.) |
⊢ (𝜑 ∨ (𝜑 → 𝜓)) | ||
Theorem | bj-animbi 34007 | Conjunction in terms of implication and biconditional. Note that the proof is intuitionistic (use of ax-3 8 comes from the unusual definition of the biconditional in set.mm). (Contributed by BJ, 23-Sep-2023.) |
⊢ ((𝜑 ∧ 𝜓) ↔ (𝜑 ↔ (𝜑 → 𝜓))) | ||
Theorem | bj-currypara 34008 | Curry's paradox. Note that the proof is intuitionistic (use ax-3 8 comes from the unusual definition of the biconditional in set.mm). The paradox comes from the case where 𝜑 is the self-referential sentence "If this sentence is true, then 𝜓", so that one can prove everything. Therefore, a consistent system cannot allow the formation of such self-referential sentences. This has lead to the study of logics rejecting contraction pm2.43 56, such as affine logic and linear logic. (Contributed by BJ, 23-Sep-2023.) |
⊢ ((𝜑 ↔ (𝜑 → 𝜓)) → 𝜓) | ||
Theorem | bj-con2com 34009 | A commuted form of the contrapositive, true in minimal calculus. (Contributed by BJ, 19-Mar-2020.) |
⊢ (𝜑 → ((𝜓 → ¬ 𝜑) → ¬ 𝜓)) | ||
Theorem | bj-con2comi 34010 | Inference associated with bj-con2com 34009. Its associated inference is mt2 203. TODO: when in the main part, add to mt2 203 that it is the inference associated with bj-con2comi 34010. (Contributed by BJ, 19-Mar-2020.) |
⊢ 𝜑 ⇒ ⊢ ((𝜓 → ¬ 𝜑) → ¬ 𝜓) | ||
Theorem | bj-pm2.01i 34011 | Inference associated with the weak Clavius law pm2.01 192. (Contributed by BJ, 30-Mar-2020.) |
⊢ (𝜑 → ¬ 𝜑) ⇒ ⊢ ¬ 𝜑 | ||
Theorem | bj-nimn 34012 | If a formula is true, then it does not imply its negation. (Contributed by BJ, 19-Mar-2020.) A shorter proof is possible using id 22 and jc 164, however, the present proof uses theorems that are more basic than jc 164. (Proof modification is discouraged.) |
⊢ (𝜑 → ¬ (𝜑 → ¬ 𝜑)) | ||
Theorem | bj-nimni 34013 | Inference associated with bj-nimn 34012. (Contributed by BJ, 19-Mar-2020.) |
⊢ 𝜑 ⇒ ⊢ ¬ (𝜑 → ¬ 𝜑) | ||
Theorem | bj-peircei 34014 | Inference associated with peirce 205. (Contributed by BJ, 30-Mar-2020.) |
⊢ ((𝜑 → 𝜓) → 𝜑) ⇒ ⊢ 𝜑 | ||
Theorem | bj-looinvi 34015 | Inference associated with looinv 206. Its associated inference is bj-looinvii 34016. (Contributed by BJ, 30-Mar-2020.) |
⊢ ((𝜑 → 𝜓) → 𝜓) ⇒ ⊢ ((𝜓 → 𝜑) → 𝜑) | ||
Theorem | bj-looinvii 34016 | Inference associated with bj-looinvi 34015. (Contributed by BJ, 30-Mar-2020.) |
⊢ ((𝜑 → 𝜓) → 𝜓) & ⊢ (𝜓 → 𝜑) ⇒ ⊢ 𝜑 | ||
A few lemmas about disjunction. The fundamental theorems in this family are the dual statements pm4.71 561 and pm4.72 947. See also biort 933 and biorf 934. | ||
Theorem | bj-jaoi1 34017 | Shortens orfa2 35524 (58>53), pm1.2 901 (20>18), pm1.2 901 (20>18), pm2.4 904 (31>25), pm2.41 905 (31>25), pm2.42 940 (38>32), pm3.2ni 878 (43>39), pm4.44 994 (55>51). (Contributed by BJ, 30-Sep-2019.) |
⊢ (𝜑 → 𝜓) ⇒ ⊢ ((𝜑 ∨ 𝜓) → 𝜓) | ||
Theorem | bj-jaoi2 34018 | Shortens consensus 1048 (110>106), elnn0z 11982 (336>329), pm1.2 901 (20>19), pm3.2ni 878 (43>39), pm4.44 994 (55>51). (Contributed by BJ, 30-Sep-2019.) |
⊢ (𝜑 → 𝜓) ⇒ ⊢ ((𝜓 ∨ 𝜑) → 𝜓) | ||
A few other characterizations of the bicondional. The inter-definability of logical connectives offers many ways to express a given statement. Some useful theorems in this regard are df-or 845, df-an 400, pm4.64 846, imor 850, pm4.62 853 through pm4.67 402, and, for the De Morgan laws, ianor 979 through pm4.57 988. | ||
Theorem | bj-dfbi4 34019 | Alternate definition of the biconditional. (Contributed by BJ, 4-Oct-2019.) |
⊢ ((𝜑 ↔ 𝜓) ↔ ((𝜑 ∧ 𝜓) ∨ ¬ (𝜑 ∨ 𝜓))) | ||
Theorem | bj-dfbi5 34020 | Alternate definition of the biconditional. (Contributed by BJ, 4-Oct-2019.) |
⊢ ((𝜑 ↔ 𝜓) ↔ ((𝜑 ∨ 𝜓) → (𝜑 ∧ 𝜓))) | ||
Theorem | bj-dfbi6 34021 | Alternate definition of the biconditional. (Contributed by BJ, 4-Oct-2019.) |
⊢ ((𝜑 ↔ 𝜓) ↔ ((𝜑 ∨ 𝜓) ↔ (𝜑 ∧ 𝜓))) | ||
Theorem | bj-bijust0ALT 34022 | Alternate proof of bijust0 207; shorter but using additional intermediate results. (Contributed by NM, 11-May-1999.) (Proof shortened by Josh Purinton, 29-Dec-2000.) (Revised by BJ, 19-Mar-2020.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) (New usage is discouraged.) |
⊢ ¬ ((𝜑 → 𝜑) → ¬ (𝜑 → 𝜑)) | ||
Theorem | bj-bijust00 34023 | A self-implication does not imply the negation of a self-implication. Most general theorem of which bijust 208 is an instance (bijust0 207 and bj-bijust0ALT 34022 are therefore also instances of it). (Contributed by BJ, 7-Sep-2022.) |
⊢ ¬ ((𝜑 → 𝜑) → ¬ (𝜓 → 𝜓)) | ||
Theorem | bj-consensus 34024 | Version of consensus 1048 expressed using the conditional operator. (Remark: it may be better to express it as consensus 1048, using only binary connectives, and hinting at the fact that it is a Boolean algebra identity, like the absorption identities.) (Contributed by BJ, 30-Sep-2019.) |
⊢ ((if-(𝜑, 𝜓, 𝜒) ∨ (𝜓 ∧ 𝜒)) ↔ if-(𝜑, 𝜓, 𝜒)) | ||
Theorem | bj-consensusALT 34025 | Alternate proof of bj-consensus 34024. (Contributed by BJ, 30-Sep-2019.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) (New usage is discouraged.) |
⊢ ((if-(𝜑, 𝜓, 𝜒) ∨ (𝜓 ∧ 𝜒)) ↔ if-(𝜑, 𝜓, 𝜒)) | ||
Theorem | bj-df-ifc 34026* | Candidate definition for the conditional operator for classes. This is in line with the definition of a class as the extension of a predicate in df-clab 2777. We reprove the current df-if 4426 from it in bj-dfif 34027. (Contributed by BJ, 20-Sep-2019.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) |
⊢ if(𝜑, 𝐴, 𝐵) = {𝑥 ∣ if-(𝜑, 𝑥 ∈ 𝐴, 𝑥 ∈ 𝐵)} | ||
Theorem | bj-dfif 34027* | Alternate definition of the conditional operator for classes, which used to be the main definition. (Contributed by BJ, 26-Dec-2023.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) |
⊢ if(𝜑, 𝐴, 𝐵) = {𝑥 ∣ ((𝜑 ∧ 𝑥 ∈ 𝐴) ∨ (¬ 𝜑 ∧ 𝑥 ∈ 𝐵))} | ||
Theorem | bj-ififc 34028 | A biconditional connecting the conditional operator for propositions and the conditional operator for classes. Note that there is no sethood hypothesis on 𝑋: it is implied by either side. (Contributed by BJ, 24-Sep-2019.) Generalize statement from setvar 𝑥 to class 𝑋. (Revised by BJ, 26-Dec-2023.) |
⊢ (𝑋 ∈ if(𝜑, 𝐴, 𝐵) ↔ if-(𝜑, 𝑋 ∈ 𝐴, 𝑋 ∈ 𝐵)) | ||
Miscellaneous theorems of propositional calculus. | ||
Theorem | bj-imbi12 34029 | Uncurried (imported) form of imbi12 350. (Contributed by BJ, 6-May-2019.) |
⊢ (((𝜑 ↔ 𝜓) ∧ (𝜒 ↔ 𝜃)) → ((𝜑 → 𝜒) ↔ (𝜓 → 𝜃))) | ||
Theorem | bj-biorfi 34030 | This should be labeled "biorfi" while the current biorfi 936 should be labeled "biorfri". The dual of biorf 934 is not biantr 805 but iba 531 (and ibar 532). So there should also be a "biorfr". (Note that these four statements can actually be strengthened to biconditionals.) (Contributed by BJ, 26-Oct-2019.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) |
⊢ ¬ 𝜑 ⇒ ⊢ (𝜓 ↔ (𝜑 ∨ 𝜓)) | ||
Theorem | bj-falor 34031 | Dual of truan 1549 (which has biconditional reversed). (Contributed by BJ, 26-Oct-2019.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) |
⊢ (𝜑 ↔ (⊥ ∨ 𝜑)) | ||
Theorem | bj-falor2 34032 | Dual of truan 1549. (Contributed by BJ, 26-Oct-2019.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) |
⊢ ((⊥ ∨ 𝜑) ↔ 𝜑) | ||
Theorem | bj-bibibi 34033 | A property of the biconditional. (Contributed by BJ, 26-Oct-2019.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) |
⊢ (𝜑 ↔ (𝜓 ↔ (𝜑 ↔ 𝜓))) | ||
Theorem | bj-imn3ani 34034 | Duplication of bnj1224 32183. Three-fold version of imnani 404. (Contributed by Jonathan Ben-Naim, 3-Jun-2011.) (Revised by BJ, 22-Oct-2019.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) |
⊢ ¬ (𝜑 ∧ 𝜓 ∧ 𝜒) ⇒ ⊢ ((𝜑 ∧ 𝜓) → ¬ 𝜒) | ||
Theorem | bj-andnotim 34035 | Two ways of expressing a certain ternary connective. Note the respective positions of the three formulas on each side of the biconditional. (Contributed by BJ, 6-Oct-2018.) |
⊢ (((𝜑 ∧ ¬ 𝜓) → 𝜒) ↔ ((𝜑 → 𝜓) ∨ 𝜒)) | ||
Theorem | bj-bi3ant 34036 | This used to be in the main part. (Contributed by Wolf Lammen, 14-May-2013.) (Revised by BJ, 14-Jun-2019.) |
⊢ (𝜑 → (𝜓 → 𝜒)) ⇒ ⊢ (((𝜃 → 𝜏) → 𝜑) → (((𝜏 → 𝜃) → 𝜓) → ((𝜃 ↔ 𝜏) → 𝜒))) | ||
Theorem | bj-bisym 34037 | This used to be in the main part. (Contributed by Wolf Lammen, 14-May-2013.) (Revised by BJ, 14-Jun-2019.) |
⊢ (((𝜑 → 𝜓) → (𝜒 → 𝜃)) → (((𝜓 → 𝜑) → (𝜃 → 𝜒)) → ((𝜑 ↔ 𝜓) → (𝜒 ↔ 𝜃)))) | ||
Theorem | bj-bixor 34038 | Equivalence of two ternary operations. Note the identical order and parenthesizing of the three arguments in both expressions. (Contributed by BJ, 31-Dec-2023.) |
⊢ ((𝜑 ↔ (𝜓 ⊻ 𝜒)) ↔ (𝜑 ⊻ (𝜓 ↔ 𝜒))) | ||
In this section, we prove some theorems related to modal logic. For modal logic, we refer to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kripke_semantics, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modal_logic and https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/logic-modal/. Monadic first-order logic (i.e., with quantification over only one variable) is bi-interpretable with modal logic, by mapping ∀𝑥 to "necessity" (generally denoted by a box) and ∃𝑥 to "possibility" (generally denoted by a diamond). Therefore, we use these quantifiers so as not to introduce new symbols. (To be strictly within modal logic, we should add disjoint variable conditions between 𝑥 and any other metavariables appearing in the statements.) For instance, ax-gen 1797 corresponds to the necessitation rule of modal logic, and ax-4 1811 corresponds to the distributivity axiom (K) of modal logic, also called the Kripke scheme. Modal logics satisfying these rule and axiom are called "normal modal logics", of which the most important modal logics are. The minimal normal modal logic is also denoted by (K). Here are a few normal modal logics with their axiomatizations (on top of (K)): (K) axiomatized by no supplementary axioms; (T) axiomatized by the axiom T; (K4) axiomatized by the axiom 4; (S4) axiomatized by the axioms T,4; (S5) axiomatized by the axioms T,5 or D,B,4; (GL) axiomatized by the axiom GL. The last one, called Gödel–Löb logic or provability logic, is important because it describes exactly the properties of provability in Peano arithmetic, as proved by Robert Solovay. See for instance https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/logic-provability/ 1811. A basic result in this logic is bj-gl4 34042. | ||
Theorem | bj-axdd2 34039 | This implication, proved using only ax-gen 1797 and ax-4 1811 on top of propositional calculus (hence holding, up to the standard interpretation, in any normal modal logic), shows that the axiom scheme ⊢ ∃𝑥⊤ implies the axiom scheme ⊢ (∀𝑥𝜑 → ∃𝑥𝜑). These correspond to the modal axiom (D), and in predicate calculus, they assert that the universe of discourse is nonempty. For the converse, see bj-axd2d 34040. (Contributed by BJ, 16-May-2019.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) (New usage is discouraged.) |
⊢ (∃𝑥𝜑 → (∀𝑥𝜓 → ∃𝑥𝜓)) | ||
Theorem | bj-axd2d 34040 | This implication, proved using only ax-gen 1797 on top of propositional calculus (hence holding, up to the standard interpretation, in any modal logic), shows that the axiom scheme ⊢ (∀𝑥𝜑 → ∃𝑥𝜑) implies the axiom scheme ⊢ ∃𝑥⊤. These correspond to the modal axiom (D), and in predicate calculus, they assert that the universe of discourse is nonempty. For the converse, see bj-axdd2 34039. (Contributed by BJ, 16-May-2019.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) (New usage is discouraged.) |
⊢ ((∀𝑥⊤ → ∃𝑥⊤) → ∃𝑥⊤) | ||
Theorem | bj-axtd 34041 | This implication, proved from propositional calculus only (hence holding, up to the standard interpretation, in any modal logic), shows that the axiom scheme ⊢ (∀𝑥𝜑 → 𝜑) (modal T) implies the axiom scheme ⊢ (∀𝑥𝜑 → ∃𝑥𝜑) (modal D). See also bj-axdd2 34039 and bj-axd2d 34040. (Contributed by BJ, 16-May-2019.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) (New usage is discouraged.) |
⊢ ((∀𝑥 ¬ 𝜑 → ¬ 𝜑) → ((∀𝑥𝜑 → 𝜑) → (∀𝑥𝜑 → ∃𝑥𝜑))) | ||
Theorem | bj-gl4 34042 | In a normal modal logic, the modal axiom GL implies the modal axiom (4). Translated to first-order logic, Axiom GL reads ⊢ (∀𝑥(∀𝑥𝜑 → 𝜑) → ∀𝑥𝜑). Note that the antecedent of bj-gl4 34042 is an instance of the axiom GL, with 𝜑 replaced by (∀𝑥𝜑 ∧ 𝜑), which is a modality sometimes called the "strong necessity" of 𝜑. (Contributed by BJ, 12-Dec-2019.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) (New usage is discouraged.) |
⊢ ((∀𝑥(∀𝑥(∀𝑥𝜑 ∧ 𝜑) → (∀𝑥𝜑 ∧ 𝜑)) → ∀𝑥(∀𝑥𝜑 ∧ 𝜑)) → (∀𝑥𝜑 → ∀𝑥∀𝑥𝜑)) | ||
Theorem | bj-axc4 34043 | Over minimal calculus, the modal axiom (4) (hba1 2297) and the modal axiom (K) (ax-4 1811) together imply axc4 2329. (Contributed by BJ, 29-Nov-2020.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) (New usage is discouraged.) |
⊢ ((∀𝑥𝜑 → ∀𝑥∀𝑥𝜑) → ((∀𝑥(∀𝑥𝜑 → 𝜓) → (∀𝑥∀𝑥𝜑 → ∀𝑥𝜓)) → (∀𝑥(∀𝑥𝜑 → 𝜓) → (∀𝑥𝜑 → ∀𝑥𝜓)))) | ||
In this section, we assume that, on top of propositional calculus, there is given a provability predicate Prv satisfying the three axioms ax-prv1 34045 and ax-prv2 34046 and ax-prv3 34047. Note the similarity with ax-gen 1797, ax-4 1811 and hba1 2297 respectively. These three properties of Prv are often called the Hilbert–Bernays–Löb derivability conditions, or the Hilbert–Bernays provability conditions. This corresponds to the modal logic (K4) (see previous section for modal logic). The interpretation of provability logic is the following: we are given a background first-order theory T, the wff Prv 𝜑 means "𝜑 is provable in T", and the turnstile ⊢ indicates provability in T. Beware that "provability logic" often means (K) augmented with the Gödel–Löb axiom GL, which we do not assume here (at least for the moment). See for instance https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/logic-provability/ 2297. Provability logic is worth studying because whenever T is a first-order theory containing Robinson arithmetic (a fragment of Peano arithmetic), one can prove (using Gödel numbering, and in the much weaker primitive recursive arithmetic) that there exists in T a provability predicate Prv satisfying the above three axioms. (We do not construct this predicate in this section; this is still a project.) The main theorems of this section are the "easy parts" of the proofs of Gödel's second incompleteness theorem (bj-babygodel 34050) and Löb's theorem (bj-babylob 34051). See the comments of these theorems for details. | ||
Syntax | cprvb 34044 | Syntax for the provability predicate. |
wff Prv 𝜑 | ||
Axiom | ax-prv1 34045 | First property of three of the provability predicate. (Contributed by BJ, 3-Apr-2019.) |
⊢ 𝜑 ⇒ ⊢ Prv 𝜑 | ||
Axiom | ax-prv2 34046 | Second property of three of the provability predicate. (Contributed by BJ, 3-Apr-2019.) |
⊢ (Prv (𝜑 → 𝜓) → (Prv 𝜑 → Prv 𝜓)) | ||
Axiom | ax-prv3 34047 | Third property of three of the provability predicate. (Contributed by BJ, 3-Apr-2019.) |
⊢ (Prv 𝜑 → Prv Prv 𝜑) | ||
Theorem | prvlem1 34048 | An elementary property of the provability predicate. (Contributed by BJ, 3-Apr-2019.) |
⊢ (𝜑 → 𝜓) ⇒ ⊢ (Prv 𝜑 → Prv 𝜓) | ||
Theorem | prvlem2 34049 | An elementary property of the provability predicate. (Contributed by BJ, 3-Apr-2019.) |
⊢ (𝜑 → (𝜓 → 𝜒)) ⇒ ⊢ (Prv 𝜑 → (Prv 𝜓 → Prv 𝜒)) | ||
Theorem | bj-babygodel 34050 |
See the section header comments for the context.
The first hypothesis reads "𝜑 is true if and only if it is not provable in T" (and having this first hypothesis means that we can prove this fact in T). The wff 𝜑 is a formal version of the sentence "This sentence is not provable". The hard part of the proof of Gödel's theorem is to construct such a 𝜑, called a "Gödel–Rosser sentence", for a first-order theory T which is effectively axiomatizable and contains Robinson arithmetic, through Gödel diagonalization (this can be done in primitive recursive arithmetic). The second hypothesis means that ⊥ is not provable in T, that is, that the theory T is consistent (and having this second hypothesis means that we can prove in T that the theory T is consistent). The conclusion is the falsity, so having the conclusion means that T can prove the falsity, that is, T is inconsistent. Therefore, taking the contrapositive, this theorem expresses that if a first-order theory is consistent (and one can prove in it that some formula is true if and only if it is not provable in it), then this theory does not prove its own consistency. This proof is due to George Boolos, Gödel's Second Incompleteness Theorem Explained in Words of One Syllable, Mind, New Series, Vol. 103, No. 409 (January 1994), pp. 1--3. (Contributed by BJ, 3-Apr-2019.) |
⊢ (𝜑 ↔ ¬ Prv 𝜑) & ⊢ ¬ Prv ⊥ ⇒ ⊢ ⊥ | ||
Theorem | bj-babylob 34051 |
See the section header comments for the context, as well as the comments
for bj-babygodel 34050.
Löb's theorem when the Löb sentence is given as a hypothesis (the hard part of the proof of Löb's theorem is to construct this Löb sentence; this can be done, using Gödel diagonalization, for any first-order effectively axiomatizable theory containing Robinson arithmetic). More precisely, the present theorem states that if a first-order theory proves that the provability of a given sentence entails its truth (and if one can construct in this theory a provability predicate and a Löb sentence, given here as the first hypothesis), then the theory actually proves that sentence. See for instance, Eliezer Yudkowsky, The Cartoon Guide to Löb's Theorem (available at http://yudkowsky.net/rational/lobs-theorem/ 34050). (Contributed by BJ, 20-Apr-2019.) |
⊢ (𝜓 ↔ (Prv 𝜓 → 𝜑)) & ⊢ (Prv 𝜑 → 𝜑) ⇒ ⊢ 𝜑 | ||
Theorem | bj-godellob 34052 | Proof of Gödel's theorem from Löb's theorem (see comments at bj-babygodel 34050 and bj-babylob 34051 for details). (Contributed by BJ, 20-Apr-2019.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) (New usage is discouraged.) |
⊢ (𝜑 ↔ ¬ Prv 𝜑) & ⊢ ¬ Prv ⊥ ⇒ ⊢ ⊥ | ||
Utility lemmas or strengthenings of theorems in the main part (biconditional or closed forms, or fewer disjoint variable conditions, or disjoint variable conditions replaced with nonfreeness hypotheses...). Sorted in the same order as in the main part. | ||
Theorem | bj-genr 34053 | Generalization rule on the right conjunct. See 19.28 2228. (Contributed by BJ, 7-Jul-2021.) |
⊢ (𝜑 ∧ 𝜓) ⇒ ⊢ (𝜑 ∧ ∀𝑥𝜓) | ||
Theorem | bj-genl 34054 | Generalization rule on the left conjunct. See 19.27 2227. (Contributed by BJ, 7-Jul-2021.) |
⊢ (𝜑 ∧ 𝜓) ⇒ ⊢ (∀𝑥𝜑 ∧ 𝜓) | ||
Theorem | bj-genan 34055 | Generalization rule on a conjunction. Forward inference associated with 19.26 1871. (Contributed by BJ, 7-Jul-2021.) |
⊢ (𝜑 ∧ 𝜓) ⇒ ⊢ (∀𝑥𝜑 ∧ ∀𝑥𝜓) | ||
Theorem | bj-mpgs 34056 | From a closed form theorem (the major premise) with an antecedent in the "strong necessity" modality (in the language of modal logic), deduce the inference ⊢ 𝜑 ⇒ ⊢ 𝜓. Strong necessity is stronger than necessity, and equivalent to it when sp 2180 (modal T) is available. Therefore, this theorem is stronger than mpg 1799 when sp 2180 is not available. (Contributed by BJ, 1-Nov-2023.) |
⊢ 𝜑 & ⊢ ((𝜑 ∧ ∀𝑥𝜑) → 𝜓) ⇒ ⊢ 𝜓 | ||
Theorem | bj-2alim 34057 | Closed form of 2alimi 1814. (Contributed by BJ, 6-May-2019.) |
⊢ (∀𝑥∀𝑦(𝜑 → 𝜓) → (∀𝑥∀𝑦𝜑 → ∀𝑥∀𝑦𝜓)) | ||
Theorem | bj-2exim 34058 | Closed form of 2eximi 1837. (Contributed by BJ, 6-May-2019.) |
⊢ (∀𝑥∀𝑦(𝜑 → 𝜓) → (∃𝑥∃𝑦𝜑 → ∃𝑥∃𝑦𝜓)) | ||
Theorem | bj-alanim 34059 | Closed form of alanimi 1818. (Contributed by BJ, 6-May-2019.) |
⊢ (∀𝑥((𝜑 ∧ 𝜓) → 𝜒) → ((∀𝑥𝜑 ∧ ∀𝑥𝜓) → ∀𝑥𝜒)) | ||
Theorem | bj-2albi 34060 | Closed form of 2albii 1822. (Contributed by BJ, 6-May-2019.) |
⊢ (∀𝑥∀𝑦(𝜑 ↔ 𝜓) → (∀𝑥∀𝑦𝜑 ↔ ∀𝑥∀𝑦𝜓)) | ||
Theorem | bj-notalbii 34061 | Equivalence of universal quantification of negation of equivalent formulas. Shortens ab0 4287 (103>94), ballotlem2 31856 (2655>2648), bnj1143 32172 (522>519), hausdiag 22250 (2119>2104). (Contributed by BJ, 17-Jul-2021.) |
⊢ (𝜑 ↔ 𝜓) ⇒ ⊢ (∀𝑥 ¬ 𝜑 ↔ ∀𝑥 ¬ 𝜓) | ||
Theorem | bj-2exbi 34062 | Closed form of 2exbii 1850. (Contributed by BJ, 6-May-2019.) |
⊢ (∀𝑥∀𝑦(𝜑 ↔ 𝜓) → (∃𝑥∃𝑦𝜑 ↔ ∃𝑥∃𝑦𝜓)) | ||
Theorem | bj-3exbi 34063 | Closed form of 3exbii 1851. (Contributed by BJ, 6-May-2019.) |
⊢ (∀𝑥∀𝑦∀𝑧(𝜑 ↔ 𝜓) → (∃𝑥∃𝑦∃𝑧𝜑 ↔ ∃𝑥∃𝑦∃𝑧𝜓)) | ||
Theorem | bj-sylgt2 34064 | Uncurried (imported) form of sylgt 1823. (Contributed by BJ, 2-May-2019.) |
⊢ ((∀𝑥(𝜓 → 𝜒) ∧ (𝜑 → ∀𝑥𝜓)) → (𝜑 → ∀𝑥𝜒)) | ||
Theorem | bj-alrimg 34065 | The general form of the *alrim* family of theorems: if 𝜑 is substituted for 𝜓, then the antecedent expresses a form of nonfreeness of 𝑥 in 𝜑, so the theorem means that under a nonfreeness condition in an antecedent, one can deduce from the universally quantified implication an implication where the consequent is universally quantified. Dual of bj-exlimg 34069. (Contributed by BJ, 9-Dec-2023.) |
⊢ ((𝜑 → ∀𝑥𝜓) → (∀𝑥(𝜓 → 𝜒) → (𝜑 → ∀𝑥𝜒))) | ||
Theorem | bj-alrimd 34066 | A slightly more general alrimd 2213. A common usage will have 𝜑 substituted for 𝜓 and 𝜒 substituted for 𝜃, giving a form closer to alrimd 2213. (Contributed by BJ, 25-Dec-2023.) |
⊢ (𝜑 → ∀𝑥𝜓) & ⊢ (𝜑 → (𝜒 → ∀𝑥𝜃)) & ⊢ (𝜓 → (𝜃 → 𝜏)) ⇒ ⊢ (𝜑 → (𝜒 → ∀𝑥𝜏)) | ||
Theorem | bj-sylget 34067 | Dual statement of sylgt 1823. Closed form of bj-sylge 34070. (Contributed by BJ, 2-May-2019.) |
⊢ (∀𝑥(𝜒 → 𝜑) → ((∃𝑥𝜑 → 𝜓) → (∃𝑥𝜒 → 𝜓))) | ||
Theorem | bj-sylget2 34068 | Uncurried (imported) form of bj-sylget 34067. (Contributed by BJ, 2-May-2019.) |
⊢ ((∀𝑥(𝜑 → 𝜓) ∧ (∃𝑥𝜓 → 𝜒)) → (∃𝑥𝜑 → 𝜒)) | ||
Theorem | bj-exlimg 34069 | The general form of the *exlim* family of theorems: if 𝜑 is substituted for 𝜓, then the antecedent expresses a form of nonfreeness of 𝑥 in 𝜑, so the theorem means that under a nonfreeness condition in a consequent, one can deduce from the universally quantified implication an implication where the antecedent is existentially quantified. Dual of bj-alrimg 34065. (Contributed by BJ, 9-Dec-2023.) |
⊢ ((∃𝑥𝜑 → 𝜓) → (∀𝑥(𝜒 → 𝜑) → (∃𝑥𝜒 → 𝜓))) | ||
Theorem | bj-sylge 34070 | Dual statement of sylg 1824 (the final "e" in the label stands for "existential (version of sylg 1824)". Variant of exlimih 2293. (Contributed by BJ, 25-Dec-2023.) |
⊢ (∃𝑥𝜑 → 𝜓) & ⊢ (𝜒 → 𝜑) ⇒ ⊢ (∃𝑥𝜒 → 𝜓) | ||
Theorem | bj-exlimd 34071 | A slightly more general exlimd 2216. A common usage will have 𝜑 substituted for 𝜓 and 𝜃 substituted for 𝜏, giving a form closer to exlimd 2216. (Contributed by BJ, 25-Dec-2023.) |
⊢ (𝜑 → ∀𝑥𝜓) & ⊢ (𝜑 → (∃𝑥𝜃 → 𝜏)) & ⊢ (𝜓 → (𝜒 → 𝜃)) ⇒ ⊢ (𝜑 → (∃𝑥𝜒 → 𝜏)) | ||
Theorem | bj-nfimexal 34072 | A weak from of nonfreeness in either an antecedent or a consequent implies that a universally quantified implication is equivalent to the associated implication where the antecedent is existentially quantified and the consequent is universally quantified. The forward implication always holds (this is 19.38 1840) and the converse implication is the join of instances of bj-alrimg 34065 and bj-exlimg 34069 (see 19.38a 1841 and 19.38b 1842). TODO: prove a version where the antecedents use the nonfreeness quantifier. (Contributed by BJ, 9-Dec-2023.) |
⊢ (((∃𝑥𝜑 → ∀𝑥𝜑) ∨ (∃𝑥𝜓 → ∀𝑥𝜓)) → ((∃𝑥𝜑 → ∀𝑥𝜓) ↔ ∀𝑥(𝜑 → 𝜓))) | ||
Theorem | bj-alexim 34073 | Closed form of aleximi 1833. Note: this proof is shorter, so aleximi 1833 could be deduced from it (exim 1835 would have to be proved first, see bj-eximALT 34087 but its proof is shorter (currently almost a subproof of aleximi 1833)). (Contributed by BJ, 8-Nov-2021.) |
⊢ (∀𝑥(𝜑 → (𝜓 → 𝜒)) → (∀𝑥𝜑 → (∃𝑥𝜓 → ∃𝑥𝜒))) | ||
Theorem | bj-nexdh 34074 | Closed form of nexdh 1866 (actually, its general instance). (Contributed by BJ, 6-May-2019.) |
⊢ (∀𝑥(𝜑 → ¬ 𝜓) → ((𝜒 → ∀𝑥𝜑) → (𝜒 → ¬ ∃𝑥𝜓))) | ||
Theorem | bj-nexdh2 34075 | Uncurried (imported) form of bj-nexdh 34074. (Contributed by BJ, 6-May-2019.) |
⊢ ((∀𝑥(𝜑 → ¬ 𝜓) ∧ (𝜒 → ∀𝑥𝜑)) → (𝜒 → ¬ ∃𝑥𝜓)) | ||
Theorem | bj-hbxfrbi 34076 | Closed form of hbxfrbi 1826. Note: it is less important than nfbiit 1852. The antecedent is in the "strong necessity" modality of modal logic (see also bj-nnftht 34185) in order not to require sp 2180 (modal T). See bj-hbyfrbi 34077 for its version with existential quantifiers. (Contributed by BJ, 6-May-2019.) |
⊢ (((𝜑 ↔ 𝜓) ∧ ∀𝑥(𝜑 ↔ 𝜓)) → ((𝜑 → ∀𝑥𝜑) ↔ (𝜓 → ∀𝑥𝜓))) | ||
Theorem | bj-hbyfrbi 34077 | Version of bj-hbxfrbi 34076 with existential quantifiers. (Contributed by BJ, 23-Aug-2023.) |
⊢ (((𝜑 ↔ 𝜓) ∧ ∀𝑥(𝜑 ↔ 𝜓)) → ((∃𝑥𝜑 → 𝜑) ↔ (∃𝑥𝜓 → 𝜓))) | ||
Theorem | bj-exalim 34078 |
Distribute quantifiers over a nested implication.
This and the following theorems are the general instances of already proved theorems. They could be moved to the main part, before ax-5 1911. I propose to move to the main part: bj-exalim 34078, bj-exalimi 34079, bj-exalims 34080, bj-exalimsi 34081, bj-ax12i 34083, bj-ax12wlem 34090, bj-ax12w 34123, and remove equs3OLD 1965. A new label is needed for bj-ax12i 34083 and label suggestions are welcome for the others. I also propose to change ¬ ∀𝑥¬ to ∃𝑥 in speimfw 1966 and spimfw 1968 (other spim* theorems use ∃𝑥 and very few theorems in set.mm use ¬ ∀𝑥¬). (Contributed by BJ, 8-Nov-2021.) |
⊢ (∀𝑥(𝜑 → (𝜓 → 𝜒)) → (∃𝑥𝜑 → (∀𝑥𝜓 → ∃𝑥𝜒))) | ||
Theorem | bj-exalimi 34079 | An inference for distributing quantifiers over a nested implication. The canonical derivation from its closed form bj-exalim 34078 (using mpg 1799) has fewer essential steps, but more steps in total (yielding a longer compressed proof). (Almost) the general statement that speimfw 1966 proves. (Contributed by BJ, 29-Sep-2019.) |
⊢ (𝜑 → (𝜓 → 𝜒)) ⇒ ⊢ (∃𝑥𝜑 → (∀𝑥𝜓 → ∃𝑥𝜒)) | ||
Theorem | bj-exalims 34080 | Distributing quantifiers over a nested implication. (Almost) the general statement that spimfw 1968 proves. (Contributed by BJ, 29-Sep-2019.) |
⊢ (∃𝑥𝜑 → (¬ 𝜒 → ∀𝑥 ¬ 𝜒)) ⇒ ⊢ (∀𝑥(𝜑 → (𝜓 → 𝜒)) → (∃𝑥𝜑 → (∀𝑥𝜓 → 𝜒))) | ||
Theorem | bj-exalimsi 34081 | An inference for distributing quantifiers over a nested implication. (Almost) the general statement that spimfw 1968 proves. (Contributed by BJ, 29-Sep-2019.) |
⊢ (𝜑 → (𝜓 → 𝜒)) & ⊢ (∃𝑥𝜑 → (¬ 𝜒 → ∀𝑥 ¬ 𝜒)) ⇒ ⊢ (∃𝑥𝜑 → (∀𝑥𝜓 → 𝜒)) | ||
Theorem | bj-ax12ig 34082 | A lemma used to prove a weak form of the axiom of substitution. A generalization of bj-ax12i 34083. (Contributed by BJ, 19-Dec-2020.) |
⊢ (𝜑 → (𝜓 ↔ 𝜒)) & ⊢ (𝜑 → (𝜒 → ∀𝑥𝜒)) ⇒ ⊢ (𝜑 → (𝜓 → ∀𝑥(𝜑 → 𝜓))) | ||
Theorem | bj-ax12i 34083 | A weakening of bj-ax12ig 34082 that is sufficient to prove a weak form of the axiom of substitution ax-12 2175. The general statement of which ax12i 1969 is an instance. (Contributed by BJ, 29-Sep-2019.) |
⊢ (𝜑 → (𝜓 ↔ 𝜒)) & ⊢ (𝜒 → ∀𝑥𝜒) ⇒ ⊢ (𝜑 → (𝜓 → ∀𝑥(𝜑 → 𝜓))) | ||
Theorem | bj-nfimt 34084 | Closed form of nfim 1897 and curried (exported) form of nfimt 1896. (Contributed by BJ, 20-Oct-2021.) |
⊢ (Ⅎ𝑥𝜑 → (Ⅎ𝑥𝜓 → Ⅎ𝑥(𝜑 → 𝜓))) | ||
Theorem | bj-cbvalimt 34085 | A lemma in closed form used to prove bj-cbval 34095 in a weak axiomatization. (Contributed by BJ, 12-Mar-2023.) Do not use 19.35 1878 since only the direction of the biconditional used here holds in intuitionistic logic. (Proof modification is discouraged.) |
⊢ (∀𝑦∃𝑥𝜒 → (∀𝑦∀𝑥(𝜒 → (𝜑 → 𝜓)) → ((∀𝑥𝜑 → ∀𝑦∀𝑥𝜑) → (∀𝑦(∃𝑥𝜓 → 𝜓) → (∀𝑥𝜑 → ∀𝑦𝜓))))) | ||
Theorem | bj-cbveximt 34086 | A lemma in closed form used to prove bj-cbvex 34096 in a weak axiomatization. (Contributed by BJ, 12-Mar-2023.) Do not use 19.35 1878 since only the direction of the biconditional used here holds in intuitionistic logic. (Proof modification is discouraged.) |
⊢ (∀𝑥∃𝑦𝜒 → (∀𝑥∀𝑦(𝜒 → (𝜑 → 𝜓)) → (∀𝑥(𝜑 → ∀𝑦𝜑) → ((∃𝑥∃𝑦𝜓 → ∃𝑦𝜓) → (∃𝑥𝜑 → ∃𝑦𝜓))))) | ||
Theorem | bj-eximALT 34087 | Alternate proof of exim 1835 directly from alim 1812 by using df-ex 1782 (using duality of ∀ and ∃. (Contributed by BJ, 9-Dec-2023.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) (New usage is discouraged.) |
⊢ (∀𝑥(𝜑 → 𝜓) → (∃𝑥𝜑 → ∃𝑥𝜓)) | ||
Theorem | bj-aleximiALT 34088 | Alternate proof of aleximi 1833 from exim 1835, which is sometimes used as an axiom in instuitionistic modal logic. (Contributed by BJ, 9-Dec-2023.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) (New usage is discouraged.) |
⊢ (𝜑 → (𝜓 → 𝜒)) ⇒ ⊢ (∀𝑥𝜑 → (∃𝑥𝜓 → ∃𝑥𝜒)) | ||
Theorem | bj-eximcom 34089 | A commuted form of exim 1835 which is sometimes posited as an axiom in instuitionistic modal logic. (Contributed by BJ, 9-Dec-2023.) |
⊢ (∃𝑥(𝜑 → 𝜓) → (∀𝑥𝜑 → ∃𝑥𝜓)) | ||
Theorem | bj-ax12wlem 34090* | A lemma used to prove a weak version of the axiom of substitution ax-12 2175. (Temporary comment: The general statement that ax12wlem 2133 proves.) (Contributed by BJ, 20-Mar-2020.) |
⊢ (𝜑 → (𝜓 ↔ 𝜒)) ⇒ ⊢ (𝜑 → (𝜓 → ∀𝑥(𝜑 → 𝜓))) | ||
Theorem | bj-cbvalim 34091* | A lemma used to prove bj-cbval 34095 in a weak axiomatization. (Contributed by BJ, 12-Mar-2023.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) |
⊢ (∀𝑦∃𝑥𝜒 → (∀𝑦∀𝑥(𝜒 → (𝜑 → 𝜓)) → (∀𝑥𝜑 → ∀𝑦𝜓))) | ||
Theorem | bj-cbvexim 34092* | A lemma used to prove bj-cbvex 34096 in a weak axiomatization. (Contributed by BJ, 12-Mar-2023.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) |
⊢ (∀𝑥∃𝑦𝜒 → (∀𝑥∀𝑦(𝜒 → (𝜑 → 𝜓)) → (∃𝑥𝜑 → ∃𝑦𝜓))) | ||
Theorem | bj-cbvalimi 34093* | An equality-free general instance of one half of a precise form of bj-cbval 34095. (Contributed by BJ, 12-Mar-2023.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) |
⊢ (𝜒 → (𝜑 → 𝜓)) & ⊢ ∀𝑦∃𝑥𝜒 ⇒ ⊢ (∀𝑥𝜑 → ∀𝑦𝜓) | ||
Theorem | bj-cbveximi 34094* | An equality-free general instance of one half of a precise form of bj-cbvex 34096. (Contributed by BJ, 12-Mar-2023.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) |
⊢ (𝜒 → (𝜑 → 𝜓)) & ⊢ ∀𝑥∃𝑦𝜒 ⇒ ⊢ (∃𝑥𝜑 → ∃𝑦𝜓) | ||
Theorem | bj-cbval 34095* | Changing a bound variable (universal quantification case) in a weak axiomatization, assuming that all variables denote (which is valid in inclusive free logic) and that equality is symmetric. (Contributed by BJ, 12-Mar-2023.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) |
⊢ ∀𝑦∃𝑥 𝑥 = 𝑦 & ⊢ ∀𝑥∃𝑦 𝑦 = 𝑥 & ⊢ (𝑥 = 𝑦 → (𝜑 ↔ 𝜓)) & ⊢ (𝑦 = 𝑥 → 𝑥 = 𝑦) ⇒ ⊢ (∀𝑥𝜑 ↔ ∀𝑦𝜓) | ||
Theorem | bj-cbvex 34096* | Changing a bound variable (existential quantification case) in a weak axiomatization, assuming that all variables denote (which is valid in inclusive free logic) and that equality is symmetric. (Contributed by BJ, 12-Mar-2023.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) |
⊢ ∀𝑦∃𝑥 𝑥 = 𝑦 & ⊢ ∀𝑥∃𝑦 𝑦 = 𝑥 & ⊢ (𝑥 = 𝑦 → (𝜑 ↔ 𝜓)) & ⊢ (𝑦 = 𝑥 → 𝑥 = 𝑦) ⇒ ⊢ (∃𝑥𝜑 ↔ ∃𝑦𝜓) | ||
Syntax | wmoo 34097 | Syntax for BJ's version of the uniqueness quantifier. |
wff ∃**𝑥𝜑 | ||
Definition | df-bj-mo 34098* | Definition of the uniqueness quantifier which is correct on the empty domain. Instead of the fresh variable 𝑧, one could save a dummy variable by using 𝑥 or 𝑦 at the cost of having nested quantifiers on the same variable. (Contributed by BJ, 12-Mar-2023.) |
⊢ (∃**𝑥𝜑 ↔ ∀𝑧∃𝑦∀𝑥(𝜑 → 𝑥 = 𝑦)) | ||
Theorem | bj-ssbeq 34099* | Substitution in an equality, disjoint variables case. Uses only ax-1 6 through ax-6 1970. It might be shorter to prove the result about composition of two substitutions and prove bj-ssbeq 34099 first with a DV condition on 𝑥, 𝑡, and then in the general case. (Contributed by BJ, 22-Dec-2020.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) |
⊢ ([𝑡 / 𝑥]𝑦 = 𝑧 ↔ 𝑦 = 𝑧) | ||
Theorem | bj-ssblem1 34100* | A lemma for the definiens of df-sb 2070. An instance of sp 2180 proved without it. Note: it has a common subproof with sbjust 2068. (Contributed by BJ, 22-Dec-2020.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) |
⊢ (∀𝑦(𝑦 = 𝑡 → ∀𝑥(𝑥 = 𝑦 → 𝜑)) → (𝑦 = 𝑡 → ∀𝑥(𝑥 = 𝑦 → 𝜑))) |
< Previous Next > |
Copyright terms: Public domain | < Previous Next > |