P. 348 of Theorem List - Metamath Proof Explorer

Theorem List for Metamath Proof Explorer - 34701-34800   *Has distinct variable group(s)

Type	Label	Description
Statement
Theorem	knoppndvlem1 34701	Lemma for knoppndv 34723. (Contributed by Asger C. Ipsen, 15-Jun-2021.) (Revised by Asger C. Ipsen, 5-Jul-2021.)
⊢ (𝜑 → 𝑁 ∈ ℕ)    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝐽 ∈ ℤ)    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝑀 ∈ ℤ)    ⇒   ⊢ (𝜑 → ((((2 · 𝑁)↑-𝐽) / 2) · 𝑀) ∈ ℝ)
Theorem	knoppndvlem2 34702	Lemma for knoppndv 34723. (Contributed by Asger C. Ipsen, 15-Jun-2021.) (Revised by Asger C. Ipsen, 5-Jul-2021.)
⊢ (𝜑 → 𝑁 ∈ ℕ)    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝐼 ∈ ℤ)    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝐽 ∈ ℤ)    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝑀 ∈ ℤ)    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝐽 < 𝐼)    ⇒   ⊢ (𝜑 → (((2 · 𝑁)↑𝐼) · ((((2 · 𝑁)↑-𝐽) / 2) · 𝑀)) ∈ ℤ)
Theorem	knoppndvlem3 34703	Lemma for knoppndv 34723. (Contributed by Asger C. Ipsen, 15-Jun-2021.)
⊢ (𝜑 → 𝐶 ∈ (-1(,)1))    ⇒   ⊢ (𝜑 → (𝐶 ∈ ℝ ∧ (abs‘𝐶) < 1))
Theorem	knoppndvlem4 34704*	Lemma for knoppndv 34723. (Contributed by Asger C. Ipsen, 15-Jun-2021.) (Revised by Asger C. Ipsen, 5-Jul-2021.)
⊢ 𝑇 = (𝑥 ∈ ℝ ↦ (abs‘((⌊‘(𝑥 + (1 / 2))) − 𝑥)))    &   ⊢ 𝐹 = (𝑦 ∈ ℝ ↦ (𝑛 ∈ ℕ0 ↦ ((𝐶↑𝑛) · (𝑇‘(((2 · 𝑁)↑𝑛) · 𝑦)))))    &   ⊢ 𝑊 = (𝑤 ∈ ℝ ↦ Σ𝑖 ∈ ℕ0 ((𝐹‘𝑤)‘𝑖))    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝐴 ∈ ℝ)    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝐶 ∈ (-1(,)1))    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝑁 ∈ ℕ)    ⇒   ⊢ (𝜑 → seq0( + , (𝐹‘𝐴)) ⇝ (𝑊‘𝐴))
Theorem	knoppndvlem5 34705*	Lemma for knoppndv 34723. (Contributed by Asger C. Ipsen, 15-Jun-2021.) (Revised by Asger C. Ipsen, 5-Jul-2021.)
⊢ 𝑇 = (𝑥 ∈ ℝ ↦ (abs‘((⌊‘(𝑥 + (1 / 2))) − 𝑥)))    &   ⊢ 𝐹 = (𝑦 ∈ ℝ ↦ (𝑛 ∈ ℕ0 ↦ ((𝐶↑𝑛) · (𝑇‘(((2 · 𝑁)↑𝑛) · 𝑦)))))    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝐴 ∈ ℝ)    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝐶 ∈ ℝ)    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝑁 ∈ ℕ)    ⇒   ⊢ (𝜑 → Σ𝑖 ∈ (0...𝐽)((𝐹‘𝐴)‘𝑖) ∈ ℝ)
Theorem	knoppndvlem6 34706*	Lemma for knoppndv 34723. (Contributed by Asger C. Ipsen, 15-Jun-2021.) (Revised by Asger C. Ipsen, 5-Jul-2021.)
⊢ 𝑇 = (𝑥 ∈ ℝ ↦ (abs‘((⌊‘(𝑥 + (1 / 2))) − 𝑥)))    &   ⊢ 𝐹 = (𝑦 ∈ ℝ ↦ (𝑛 ∈ ℕ0 ↦ ((𝐶↑𝑛) · (𝑇‘(((2 · 𝑁)↑𝑛) · 𝑦)))))    &   ⊢ 𝑊 = (𝑤 ∈ ℝ ↦ Σ𝑖 ∈ ℕ0 ((𝐹‘𝑤)‘𝑖))    &   ⊢ 𝐴 = ((((2 · 𝑁)↑-𝐽) / 2) · 𝑀)    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝐶 ∈ (-1(,)1))    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝐽 ∈ ℕ0)    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝑀 ∈ ℤ)    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝑁 ∈ ℕ)    ⇒   ⊢ (𝜑 → (𝑊‘𝐴) = Σ𝑖 ∈ (0...𝐽)((𝐹‘𝐴)‘𝑖))
Theorem	knoppndvlem7 34707*	Lemma for knoppndv 34723. (Contributed by Asger C. Ipsen, 15-Jun-2021.) (Revised by Asger C. Ipsen, 5-Jul-2021.)
⊢ 𝑇 = (𝑥 ∈ ℝ ↦ (abs‘((⌊‘(𝑥 + (1 / 2))) − 𝑥)))    &   ⊢ 𝐹 = (𝑦 ∈ ℝ ↦ (𝑛 ∈ ℕ0 ↦ ((𝐶↑𝑛) · (𝑇‘(((2 · 𝑁)↑𝑛) · 𝑦)))))    &   ⊢ 𝐴 = ((((2 · 𝑁)↑-𝐽) / 2) · 𝑀)    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝐽 ∈ ℕ0)    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝑀 ∈ ℤ)    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝑁 ∈ ℕ)    ⇒   ⊢ (𝜑 → ((𝐹‘𝐴)‘𝐽) = ((𝐶↑𝐽) · (𝑇‘(𝑀 / 2))))
Theorem	knoppndvlem8 34708*	Lemma for knoppndv 34723. (Contributed by Asger C. Ipsen, 15-Jun-2021.) (Revised by Asger C. Ipsen, 5-Jul-2021.)
⊢ 𝑇 = (𝑥 ∈ ℝ ↦ (abs‘((⌊‘(𝑥 + (1 / 2))) − 𝑥)))    &   ⊢ 𝐹 = (𝑦 ∈ ℝ ↦ (𝑛 ∈ ℕ0 ↦ ((𝐶↑𝑛) · (𝑇‘(((2 · 𝑁)↑𝑛) · 𝑦)))))    &   ⊢ 𝐴 = ((((2 · 𝑁)↑-𝐽) / 2) · 𝑀)    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝐶 ∈ (-1(,)1))    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝐽 ∈ ℕ0)    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝑀 ∈ ℤ)    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝑁 ∈ ℕ)    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → 2 ∥ 𝑀)    ⇒   ⊢ (𝜑 → ((𝐹‘𝐴)‘𝐽) = 0)
Theorem	knoppndvlem9 34709*	Lemma for knoppndv 34723. (Contributed by Asger C. Ipsen, 15-Jun-2021.) (Revised by Asger C. Ipsen, 5-Jul-2021.)
⊢ 𝑇 = (𝑥 ∈ ℝ ↦ (abs‘((⌊‘(𝑥 + (1 / 2))) − 𝑥)))    &   ⊢ 𝐹 = (𝑦 ∈ ℝ ↦ (𝑛 ∈ ℕ0 ↦ ((𝐶↑𝑛) · (𝑇‘(((2 · 𝑁)↑𝑛) · 𝑦)))))    &   ⊢ 𝐴 = ((((2 · 𝑁)↑-𝐽) / 2) · 𝑀)    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝐶 ∈ (-1(,)1))    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝐽 ∈ ℕ0)    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝑀 ∈ ℤ)    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝑁 ∈ ℕ)    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → ¬ 2 ∥ 𝑀)    ⇒   ⊢ (𝜑 → ((𝐹‘𝐴)‘𝐽) = ((𝐶↑𝐽) / 2))
Theorem	knoppndvlem10 34710*	Lemma for knoppndv 34723. (Contributed by Asger C. Ipsen, 15-Jun-2021.) (Revised by Asger C. Ipsen, 5-Jul-2021.)
⊢ 𝑇 = (𝑥 ∈ ℝ ↦ (abs‘((⌊‘(𝑥 + (1 / 2))) − 𝑥)))    &   ⊢ 𝐹 = (𝑦 ∈ ℝ ↦ (𝑛 ∈ ℕ0 ↦ ((𝐶↑𝑛) · (𝑇‘(((2 · 𝑁)↑𝑛) · 𝑦)))))    &   ⊢ 𝐴 = ((((2 · 𝑁)↑-𝐽) / 2) · 𝑀)    &   ⊢ 𝐵 = ((((2 · 𝑁)↑-𝐽) / 2) · (𝑀 + 1))    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝐶 ∈ (-1(,)1))    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝐽 ∈ ℕ0)    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝑀 ∈ ℤ)    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝑁 ∈ ℕ)    ⇒   ⊢ (𝜑 → (abs‘(((𝐹‘𝐵)‘𝐽) − ((𝐹‘𝐴)‘𝐽))) = (((abs‘𝐶)↑𝐽) / 2))
Theorem	knoppndvlem11 34711*	Lemma for knoppndv 34723. (Contributed by Asger C. Ipsen, 28-Jun-2021.) (Revised by Asger C. Ipsen, 5-Jul-2021.)
⊢ 𝑇 = (𝑥 ∈ ℝ ↦ (abs‘((⌊‘(𝑥 + (1 / 2))) − 𝑥)))    &   ⊢ 𝐹 = (𝑦 ∈ ℝ ↦ (𝑛 ∈ ℕ0 ↦ ((𝐶↑𝑛) · (𝑇‘(((2 · 𝑁)↑𝑛) · 𝑦)))))    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝐴 ∈ ℝ)    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝐵 ∈ ℝ)    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝐶 ∈ (-1(,)1))    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝐽 ∈ ℕ0)    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝑁 ∈ ℕ)    ⇒   ⊢ (𝜑 → (abs‘(Σ𝑖 ∈ (0...(𝐽 − 1))((𝐹‘𝐵)‘𝑖) − Σ𝑖 ∈ (0...(𝐽 − 1))((𝐹‘𝐴)‘𝑖))) ≤ ((abs‘(𝐵 − 𝐴)) · Σ𝑖 ∈ (0...(𝐽 − 1))(((2 · 𝑁) · (abs‘𝐶))↑𝑖)))
Theorem	knoppndvlem12 34712	Lemma for knoppndv 34723. (Contributed by Asger C. Ipsen, 29-Jun-2021.) (Revised by Asger C. Ipsen, 5-Jul-2021.)
⊢ (𝜑 → 𝐶 ∈ (-1(,)1))    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝑁 ∈ ℕ)    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → 1 < (𝑁 · (abs‘𝐶)))    ⇒   ⊢ (𝜑 → (((2 · 𝑁) · (abs‘𝐶)) ≠ 1 ∧ 1 < (((2 · 𝑁) · (abs‘𝐶)) − 1)))
Theorem	knoppndvlem13 34713	Lemma for knoppndv 34723. (Contributed by Asger C. Ipsen, 1-Jul-2021.) (Revised by Asger C. Ipsen, 5-Jul-2021.)
⊢ (𝜑 → 𝐶 ∈ (-1(,)1))    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝑁 ∈ ℕ)    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → 1 < (𝑁 · (abs‘𝐶)))    ⇒   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝐶 ≠ 0)
Theorem	knoppndvlem14 34714*	Lemma for knoppndv 34723. (Contributed by Asger C. Ipsen, 1-Jul-2021.) (Revised by Asger C. Ipsen, 7-Jul-2021.)
⊢ 𝑇 = (𝑥 ∈ ℝ ↦ (abs‘((⌊‘(𝑥 + (1 / 2))) − 𝑥)))    &   ⊢ 𝐹 = (𝑦 ∈ ℝ ↦ (𝑛 ∈ ℕ0 ↦ ((𝐶↑𝑛) · (𝑇‘(((2 · 𝑁)↑𝑛) · 𝑦)))))    &   ⊢ 𝐴 = ((((2 · 𝑁)↑-𝐽) / 2) · 𝑀)    &   ⊢ 𝐵 = ((((2 · 𝑁)↑-𝐽) / 2) · (𝑀 + 1))    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝐶 ∈ (-1(,)1))    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝐽 ∈ ℕ0)    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝑀 ∈ ℤ)    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝑁 ∈ ℕ)    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → 1 < (𝑁 · (abs‘𝐶)))    ⇒   ⊢ (𝜑 → (abs‘(Σ𝑖 ∈ (0...(𝐽 − 1))((𝐹‘𝐵)‘𝑖) − Σ𝑖 ∈ (0...(𝐽 − 1))((𝐹‘𝐴)‘𝑖))) ≤ ((((abs‘𝐶)↑𝐽) / 2) · (1 / (((2 · 𝑁) · (abs‘𝐶)) − 1))))
Theorem	knoppndvlem15 34715*	Lemma for knoppndv 34723. (Contributed by Asger C. Ipsen, 6-Jul-2021.)
⊢ 𝑇 = (𝑥 ∈ ℝ ↦ (abs‘((⌊‘(𝑥 + (1 / 2))) − 𝑥)))    &   ⊢ 𝐹 = (𝑦 ∈ ℝ ↦ (𝑛 ∈ ℕ0 ↦ ((𝐶↑𝑛) · (𝑇‘(((2 · 𝑁)↑𝑛) · 𝑦)))))    &   ⊢ 𝑊 = (𝑤 ∈ ℝ ↦ Σ𝑖 ∈ ℕ0 ((𝐹‘𝑤)‘𝑖))    &   ⊢ 𝐴 = ((((2 · 𝑁)↑-𝐽) / 2) · 𝑀)    &   ⊢ 𝐵 = ((((2 · 𝑁)↑-𝐽) / 2) · (𝑀 + 1))    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝐶 ∈ (-1(,)1))    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝐽 ∈ ℕ0)    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝑀 ∈ ℤ)    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝑁 ∈ ℕ)    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → 1 < (𝑁 · (abs‘𝐶)))    ⇒   ⊢ (𝜑 → ((((abs‘𝐶)↑𝐽) / 2) · (1 − (1 / (((2 · 𝑁) · (abs‘𝐶)) − 1)))) ≤ (abs‘((𝑊‘𝐵) − (𝑊‘𝐴))))
Theorem	knoppndvlem16 34716	Lemma for knoppndv 34723. (Contributed by Asger C. Ipsen, 19-Jul-2021.)
⊢ 𝐴 = ((((2 · 𝑁)↑-𝐽) / 2) · 𝑀)    &   ⊢ 𝐵 = ((((2 · 𝑁)↑-𝐽) / 2) · (𝑀 + 1))    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝐽 ∈ ℕ0)    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝑀 ∈ ℤ)    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝑁 ∈ ℕ)    ⇒   ⊢ (𝜑 → (𝐵 − 𝐴) = (((2 · 𝑁)↑-𝐽) / 2))
Theorem	knoppndvlem17 34717*	Lemma for knoppndv 34723. (Contributed by Asger C. Ipsen, 12-Aug-2021.)
⊢ 𝑇 = (𝑥 ∈ ℝ ↦ (abs‘((⌊‘(𝑥 + (1 / 2))) − 𝑥)))    &   ⊢ 𝐹 = (𝑦 ∈ ℝ ↦ (𝑛 ∈ ℕ0 ↦ ((𝐶↑𝑛) · (𝑇‘(((2 · 𝑁)↑𝑛) · 𝑦)))))    &   ⊢ 𝑊 = (𝑤 ∈ ℝ ↦ Σ𝑖 ∈ ℕ0 ((𝐹‘𝑤)‘𝑖))    &   ⊢ 𝐴 = ((((2 · 𝑁)↑-𝐽) / 2) · 𝑀)    &   ⊢ 𝐵 = ((((2 · 𝑁)↑-𝐽) / 2) · (𝑀 + 1))    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝐶 ∈ (-1(,)1))    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝐽 ∈ ℕ0)    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝑀 ∈ ℤ)    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝑁 ∈ ℕ)    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → 1 < (𝑁 · (abs‘𝐶)))    ⇒   ⊢ (𝜑 → ((((2 · 𝑁) · (abs‘𝐶))↑𝐽) · (1 − (1 / (((2 · 𝑁) · (abs‘𝐶)) − 1)))) ≤ ((abs‘((𝑊‘𝐵) − (𝑊‘𝐴))) / (𝐵 − 𝐴)))
Theorem	knoppndvlem18 34718*	Lemma for knoppndv 34723. (Contributed by Asger C. Ipsen, 14-Aug-2021.)
⊢ (𝜑 → 𝐶 ∈ (-1(,)1))    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝑁 ∈ ℕ)    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝐷 ∈ ℝ+)    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝐸 ∈ ℝ+)    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝐺 ∈ ℝ+)    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → 1 < (𝑁 · (abs‘𝐶)))    ⇒   ⊢ (𝜑 → ∃𝑗 ∈ ℕ0 ((((2 · 𝑁)↑-𝑗) / 2) < 𝐷 ∧ 𝐸 ≤ ((((2 · 𝑁) · (abs‘𝐶))↑𝑗) · 𝐺)))
Theorem	knoppndvlem19 34719*	Lemma for knoppndv 34723. (Contributed by Asger C. Ipsen, 17-Aug-2021.)
⊢ 𝐴 = ((((2 · 𝑁)↑-𝐽) / 2) · 𝑚)    &   ⊢ 𝐵 = ((((2 · 𝑁)↑-𝐽) / 2) · (𝑚 + 1))    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝐽 ∈ ℕ0)    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝐻 ∈ ℝ)    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝑁 ∈ ℕ)    ⇒   ⊢ (𝜑 → ∃𝑚 ∈ ℤ (𝐴 ≤ 𝐻 ∧ 𝐻 ≤ 𝐵))
Theorem	knoppndvlem20 34720	Lemma for knoppndv 34723. (Contributed by Asger C. Ipsen, 18-Aug-2021.)
⊢ (𝜑 → 𝐶 ∈ (-1(,)1))    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝑁 ∈ ℕ)    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → 1 < (𝑁 · (abs‘𝐶)))    ⇒   ⊢ (𝜑 → (1 − (1 / (((2 · 𝑁) · (abs‘𝐶)) − 1))) ∈ ℝ+)
Theorem	knoppndvlem21 34721*	Lemma for knoppndv 34723. (Contributed by Asger C. Ipsen, 18-Aug-2021.)
⊢ 𝑇 = (𝑥 ∈ ℝ ↦ (abs‘((⌊‘(𝑥 + (1 / 2))) − 𝑥)))    &   ⊢ 𝐹 = (𝑦 ∈ ℝ ↦ (𝑛 ∈ ℕ0 ↦ ((𝐶↑𝑛) · (𝑇‘(((2 · 𝑁)↑𝑛) · 𝑦)))))    &   ⊢ 𝑊 = (𝑤 ∈ ℝ ↦ Σ𝑖 ∈ ℕ0 ((𝐹‘𝑤)‘𝑖))    &   ⊢ 𝐺 = (1 − (1 / (((2 · 𝑁) · (abs‘𝐶)) − 1)))    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝐶 ∈ (-1(,)1))    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝐷 ∈ ℝ+)    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝐸 ∈ ℝ+)    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝐻 ∈ ℝ)    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝐽 ∈ ℕ0)    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝑁 ∈ ℕ)    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → 1 < (𝑁 · (abs‘𝐶)))    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → (((2 · 𝑁)↑-𝐽) / 2) < 𝐷)    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝐸 ≤ ((((2 · 𝑁) · (abs‘𝐶))↑𝐽) · 𝐺))    ⇒   ⊢ (𝜑 → ∃𝑎 ∈ ℝ ∃𝑏 ∈ ℝ ((𝑎 ≤ 𝐻 ∧ 𝐻 ≤ 𝑏) ∧ ((𝑏 − 𝑎) < 𝐷 ∧ 𝑎 ≠ 𝑏) ∧ 𝐸 ≤ ((abs‘((𝑊‘𝑏) − (𝑊‘𝑎))) / (𝑏 − 𝑎))))
Theorem	knoppndvlem22 34722*	Lemma for knoppndv 34723. (Contributed by Asger C. Ipsen, 19-Aug-2021.)
⊢ 𝑇 = (𝑥 ∈ ℝ ↦ (abs‘((⌊‘(𝑥 + (1 / 2))) − 𝑥)))    &   ⊢ 𝐹 = (𝑦 ∈ ℝ ↦ (𝑛 ∈ ℕ0 ↦ ((𝐶↑𝑛) · (𝑇‘(((2 · 𝑁)↑𝑛) · 𝑦)))))    &   ⊢ 𝑊 = (𝑤 ∈ ℝ ↦ Σ𝑖 ∈ ℕ0 ((𝐹‘𝑤)‘𝑖))    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝐶 ∈ (-1(,)1))    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝐷 ∈ ℝ+)    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝐸 ∈ ℝ+)    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝐻 ∈ ℝ)    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝑁 ∈ ℕ)    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → 1 < (𝑁 · (abs‘𝐶)))    ⇒   ⊢ (𝜑 → ∃𝑎 ∈ ℝ ∃𝑏 ∈ ℝ ((𝑎 ≤ 𝐻 ∧ 𝐻 ≤ 𝑏) ∧ ((𝑏 − 𝑎) < 𝐷 ∧ 𝑎 ≠ 𝑏) ∧ 𝐸 ≤ ((abs‘((𝑊‘𝑏) − (𝑊‘𝑎))) / (𝑏 − 𝑎))))
Theorem	knoppndv 34723*	The continuous nowhere differentiable function 𝑊 ( Knopp, K. (1918). Math. Z. 2, 1-26 ) is, in fact, nowhere differentiable. (Contributed by Asger C. Ipsen, 19-Aug-2021.)
⊢ 𝑇 = (𝑥 ∈ ℝ ↦ (abs‘((⌊‘(𝑥 + (1 / 2))) − 𝑥)))    &   ⊢ 𝐹 = (𝑦 ∈ ℝ ↦ (𝑛 ∈ ℕ0 ↦ ((𝐶↑𝑛) · (𝑇‘(((2 · 𝑁)↑𝑛) · 𝑦)))))    &   ⊢ 𝑊 = (𝑤 ∈ ℝ ↦ Σ𝑖 ∈ ℕ0 ((𝐹‘𝑤)‘𝑖))    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝐶 ∈ (-1(,)1))    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝑁 ∈ ℕ)    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → 1 < (𝑁 · (abs‘𝐶)))    ⇒   ⊢ (𝜑 → dom (ℝ D 𝑊) = ∅)
Theorem	knoppf 34724*	Knopp's function is a function. (Contributed by Asger C. Ipsen, 25-Aug-2021.)
⊢ 𝑇 = (𝑥 ∈ ℝ ↦ (abs‘((⌊‘(𝑥 + (1 / 2))) − 𝑥)))    &   ⊢ 𝐹 = (𝑦 ∈ ℝ ↦ (𝑛 ∈ ℕ0 ↦ ((𝐶↑𝑛) · (𝑇‘(((2 · 𝑁)↑𝑛) · 𝑦)))))    &   ⊢ 𝑊 = (𝑤 ∈ ℝ ↦ Σ𝑖 ∈ ℕ0 ((𝐹‘𝑤)‘𝑖))    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝐶 ∈ (-1(,)1))    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝑁 ∈ ℕ)    ⇒   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝑊:ℝ⟶ℝ)
Theorem	knoppcn2 34725*	Variant of knoppcn 34693 with different codomain. (Contributed by Asger C. Ipsen, 25-Aug-2021.)
⊢ 𝑇 = (𝑥 ∈ ℝ ↦ (abs‘((⌊‘(𝑥 + (1 / 2))) − 𝑥)))    &   ⊢ 𝐹 = (𝑦 ∈ ℝ ↦ (𝑛 ∈ ℕ0 ↦ ((𝐶↑𝑛) · (𝑇‘(((2 · 𝑁)↑𝑛) · 𝑦)))))    &   ⊢ 𝑊 = (𝑤 ∈ ℝ ↦ Σ𝑖 ∈ ℕ0 ((𝐹‘𝑤)‘𝑖))    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝑁 ∈ ℕ)    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝐶 ∈ (-1(,)1))    ⇒   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝑊 ∈ (ℝ–cn→ℝ))
Theorem	cnndvlem1 34726*	Lemma for cnndv 34728. (Contributed by Asger C. Ipsen, 25-Aug-2021.)
⊢ 𝑇 = (𝑥 ∈ ℝ ↦ (abs‘((⌊‘(𝑥 + (1 / 2))) − 𝑥)))    &   ⊢ 𝐹 = (𝑦 ∈ ℝ ↦ (𝑛 ∈ ℕ0 ↦ (((1 / 2)↑𝑛) · (𝑇‘(((2 · 3)↑𝑛) · 𝑦)))))    &   ⊢ 𝑊 = (𝑤 ∈ ℝ ↦ Σ𝑖 ∈ ℕ0 ((𝐹‘𝑤)‘𝑖))    ⇒   ⊢ (𝑊 ∈ (ℝ–cn→ℝ) ∧ dom (ℝ D 𝑊) = ∅)
Theorem	cnndvlem2 34727*	Lemma for cnndv 34728. (Contributed by Asger C. Ipsen, 26-Aug-2021.)
⊢ 𝑇 = (𝑥 ∈ ℝ ↦ (abs‘((⌊‘(𝑥 + (1 / 2))) − 𝑥)))    &   ⊢ 𝐹 = (𝑦 ∈ ℝ ↦ (𝑛 ∈ ℕ0 ↦ (((1 / 2)↑𝑛) · (𝑇‘(((2 · 3)↑𝑛) · 𝑦)))))    &   ⊢ 𝑊 = (𝑤 ∈ ℝ ↦ Σ𝑖 ∈ ℕ0 ((𝐹‘𝑤)‘𝑖))    ⇒   ⊢ ∃𝑓(𝑓 ∈ (ℝ–cn→ℝ) ∧ dom (ℝ D 𝑓) = ∅)
Theorem	cnndv 34728	There exists a continuous nowhere differentiable function. The result follows directly from knoppcn 34693 and knoppndv 34723. (Contributed by Asger C. Ipsen, 26-Aug-2021.)
⊢ ∃𝑓(𝑓 ∈ (ℝ–cn→ℝ) ∧ dom (ℝ D 𝑓) = ∅)
20.15  Mathbox for BJ In this mathbox, we try to respect the ordering of the sections of the main part. There are strengthenings of theorems of the main part, as well as work on reducing axiom dependencies.
20.15.1  Propositional calculus Miscellaneous utility theorems of propositional calculus.
20.15.1.1  Derived rules of inference In this section, we prove a few rules of inference derived from modus ponens ax-mp 5, and which do not depend on any other axioms.
Theorem	bj-mp2c 34729	A double modus ponens inference. Inference associated with mpd 15. (Contributed by BJ, 24-Sep-2019.)
⊢ 𝜑    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝜓)    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → (𝜓 → 𝜒))    ⇒   ⊢ 𝜒
Theorem	bj-mp2d 34730	A double modus ponens inference. Inference associated with mpcom 38. (Contributed by BJ, 24-Sep-2019.)
⊢ 𝜑    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝜓)    &   ⊢ (𝜓 → (𝜑 → 𝜒))    ⇒   ⊢ 𝜒
20.15.1.2  A syntactic theorem In this section, we prove a syntactic theorem (bj-0 34731) asserting that some formula is well-formed. Then, we use this syntactic theorem to shorten the proof of a "usual" theorem (bj-1 34732) and explain in the comment of that theorem why this phenomenon is unusual.
Theorem	bj-0 34731	A syntactic theorem. See the section comment and the comment of bj-1 34732. The full proof (that is, with the syntactic, non-essential steps) does not appear on this webpage. It has five steps and reads $= wph wps wi wch wi $. The only other syntactic theorems in the main part of set.mm are wel 2108 and weq 1967. (Contributed by BJ, 24-Sep-2019.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) (New usage is discouraged.)
wff ((𝜑 → 𝜓) → 𝜒)
Theorem	bj-1 34732	In this proof, the use of the syntactic theorem bj-0 34731 allows to reduce the total length by one (non-essential) step. See also the section comment and the comment of bj-0 34731. Since bj-0 34731 is used in a non-essential step, this use does not appear on this webpage (but the present theorem appears on the webpage for bj-0 34731 as a theorem referencing it). The full proof reads $= wph wps wch bj-0 id $. (while, without using bj-0 34731, it would read $= wph wps wi wch wi id $.). Now we explain why syntactic theorems are not useful in set.mm. Suppose that the syntactic theorem thm-0 proves that PHI is a well-formed formula, and that thm-0 is used to shorten the proof of thm-1. Assume that PHI does have proper non-atomic subformulas (which is not the case of the formula proved by weq 1967 or wel 2108). Then, the proof of thm-1 does not construct all the proper non-atomic subformulas of PHI (if it did, then using thm-0 would not shorten it). Therefore, thm-1 is a special instance of a more general theorem with essentially the same proof. In the present case, bj-1 34732 is a special instance of id 22. (Contributed by BJ, 24-Sep-2019.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) (New usage is discouraged.)
⊢ (((𝜑 → 𝜓) → 𝜒) → ((𝜑 → 𝜓) → 𝜒))
20.15.1.3  Minimal implicational calculus
Theorem	bj-a1k 34733	Weakening of ax-1 6. As a consequence, its associated inference is an instance (where we allow extra hypotheses) of ax-1 6. Its commuted form is 2a1 28 (but bj-a1k 34733 does not require ax-2 7). This shortens the proofs of dfwe2 7633 (937>925), ordunisuc2 7700 (789>777), r111 9542 (558>545), smo11 8204 (1176>1164). (Contributed by BJ, 11-Aug-2020.) (Proof modification is discouraged.)
⊢ (𝜑 → (𝜓 → (𝜒 → 𝜓)))
Theorem	bj-poni 34734	Inference associated with "pon", pm2.27 42. Its associated inference is ax-mp 5. (Contributed by BJ, 30-Jul-2024.)
⊢ 𝜑    ⇒   ⊢ ((𝜑 → 𝜓) → 𝜓)
Theorem	bj-nnclav 34735	When ⊥ is substituted for 𝜓, this formula is the Clavius law with a doubly negated consequent, which is therefore a minimalistic tautology. Notice the non-intuitionistic proof from peirce 201 and pm2.27 42 chained using syl 17. (Contributed by BJ, 4-Dec-2023.)
⊢ (((𝜑 → 𝜓) → 𝜑) → ((𝜑 → 𝜓) → 𝜓))
Theorem	bj-nnclavi 34736	Inference associated with bj-nnclav 34735. Its associated inference is an instance of syl 17. Notice the non-intuitionistic proof from bj-peircei 34755 and bj-poni 34734. (Contributed by BJ, 30-Jul-2024.)
⊢ ((𝜑 → 𝜓) → 𝜑)    ⇒   ⊢ ((𝜑 → 𝜓) → 𝜓)
Theorem	bj-nnclavc 34737	Commuted form of bj-nnclav 34735. Notice the non-intuitionistic proof from bj-peircei 34755 and imim1i 63. (Contributed by BJ, 30-Jul-2024.) A proof which is shorter when compressed uses embantd 59. (Proof modification is discouraged.)
⊢ ((𝜑 → 𝜓) → (((𝜑 → 𝜓) → 𝜑) → 𝜓))
Theorem	bj-nnclavci 34738	Inference associated with bj-nnclavc 34737. Its associated inference is an instance of syl 17. Notice the non-intuitionistic proof from peirce 201 and syl 17. (Contributed by BJ, 30-Jul-2024.)
⊢ (𝜑 → 𝜓)    ⇒   ⊢ (((𝜑 → 𝜓) → 𝜑) → 𝜓)
Theorem	bj-jarrii 34739	Inference associated with jarri 107. Contrary to it , it does not require ax-2 7, but only ax-mp 5 and ax-1 6. (Contributed by BJ, 29-Mar-2020.) (Proof modification is discouraged.)
⊢ ((𝜑 → 𝜓) → 𝜒)    &   ⊢ 𝜓    ⇒   ⊢ 𝜒
Theorem	bj-imim21 34740	The propositional function (𝜒 → (. → 𝜃)) is decreasing. (Contributed by BJ, 19-Jul-2019.)
⊢ ((𝜑 → 𝜓) → ((𝜒 → (𝜓 → 𝜃)) → (𝜒 → (𝜑 → 𝜃))))
Theorem	bj-imim21i 34741	Inference associated with bj-imim21 34740. Its associated inference is syl5 34. (Contributed by BJ, 19-Jul-2019.)
⊢ (𝜑 → 𝜓)    ⇒   ⊢ ((𝜒 → (𝜓 → 𝜃)) → (𝜒 → (𝜑 → 𝜃)))
Theorem	bj-peircestab 34742	Over minimal implicational calculus, Peirce's law implies the double negation of the stability of any formula (that is the interpretation when ⊥ is substituted for 𝜓 and for 𝜒). Therefore, the double negation of the stability of any formula is provable in classical refutability calculus. It is also provable in intuitionistic calculus (see iset.mm/bj-nnst) but it is not provable in minimal calculus (see bj-stabpeirce 34743). (Contributed by BJ, 30-Nov-2023.) Axiom ax-3 8 is only used through Peirce's law peirce 201. (Proof modification is discouraged.)
⊢ (((((𝜑 → 𝜓) → 𝜒) → 𝜑) → 𝜒) → 𝜒)
Theorem	bj-stabpeirce 34743	This minimal implicational calculus tautology is used in the following argument: When 𝜑, 𝜓, 𝜒, 𝜃, 𝜏 are replaced respectively by (𝜑 → ⊥), ⊥, 𝜑, ⊥, ⊥, the antecedent becomes ¬ ¬ (¬ ¬ 𝜑 → 𝜑), that is, the double negation of the stability of 𝜑. If that statement were provable in minimal calculus, then, since ⊥ plays no particular role in minimal calculus, also the statement with 𝜓 in place of ⊥ would be provable. The corresponding consequent is (((𝜓 → 𝜑) → 𝜓) → 𝜓), that is, the non-intuitionistic Peirce law. Therefore, the double negation of the stability of any formula is not provable in minimal calculus. However, it is provable both in intuitionistic calculus (see iset.mm/bj-nnst) and in classical refutability calculus (see bj-peircestab 34742). (Contributed by BJ, 30-Nov-2023.) (Revised by BJ, 30-Jul-2024.) (Proof modification is discouraged.)
⊢ (((((𝜑 → 𝜓) → 𝜒) → 𝜃) → 𝜏) → (((𝜓 → 𝜒) → 𝜃) → 𝜏))
20.15.1.4  Positive calculus Positive calculus is understood to be intuitionistic.
Theorem	bj-syl66ib 34744	A mixed syllogism inference derived from syl6ib 250. In addition to bj-dvelimdv1 35045, it can also shorten alexsubALTlem4 23210 (4821>4812), supsrlem 10876 (2868>2863). (Contributed by BJ, 20-Oct-2021.)
⊢ (𝜑 → (𝜓 → 𝜃))    &   ⊢ (𝜃 → 𝜏)    &   ⊢ (𝜏 ↔ 𝜒)    ⇒   ⊢ (𝜑 → (𝜓 → 𝜒))
Theorem	bj-orim2 34745	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 34746	Curry's axiom curryax 891 (a non-intuitionistic positive statement sometimes called a paradox of material implication) implies Peirce's axiom peirce 201 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 201, which is not the case for the converse bj-peircecurry 34747. (Contributed by BJ, 15-Jun-2021.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) (New usage is discouraged.)
⊢ ((𝜑 ∨ (𝜑 → 𝜓)) → (((𝜑 → 𝜓) → 𝜑) → 𝜑))
Theorem	bj-peircecurry 34747	Peirce's axiom peirce 201 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 34746 for the converse. (Contributed by BJ, 15-Jun-2021.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) (New usage is discouraged.)
⊢ (𝜑 ∨ (𝜑 → 𝜓))
Theorem	bj-animbi 34748	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 34749	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)
20.15.1.5  Implication and negation
Theorem	bj-con2com 34750	A commuted form of the contrapositive, true in minimal calculus. (Contributed by BJ, 19-Mar-2020.)
⊢ (𝜑 → ((𝜓 → ¬ 𝜑) → ¬ 𝜓))
Theorem	bj-con2comi 34751	Inference associated with bj-con2com 34750. Its associated inference is mt2 199. TODO: when in the main part, add to mt2 199 that it is the inference associated with bj-con2comi 34751. (Contributed by BJ, 19-Mar-2020.)
⊢ 𝜑    ⇒   ⊢ ((𝜓 → ¬ 𝜑) → ¬ 𝜓)
Theorem	bj-pm2.01i 34752	Inference associated with the weak Clavius law pm2.01 188. (Contributed by BJ, 30-Mar-2020.)
⊢ (𝜑 → ¬ 𝜑)    ⇒   ⊢ ¬ 𝜑
Theorem	bj-nimn 34753	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 161, however, the present proof uses theorems that are more basic than jc 161. (Proof modification is discouraged.)
⊢ (𝜑 → ¬ (𝜑 → ¬ 𝜑))
Theorem	bj-nimni 34754	Inference associated with bj-nimn 34753. (Contributed by BJ, 19-Mar-2020.)
⊢ 𝜑    ⇒   ⊢ ¬ (𝜑 → ¬ 𝜑)
Theorem	bj-peircei 34755	Inference associated with peirce 201. (Contributed by BJ, 30-Mar-2020.)
⊢ ((𝜑 → 𝜓) → 𝜑)    ⇒   ⊢ 𝜑
Theorem	bj-looinvi 34756	Inference associated with looinv 202. Its associated inference is bj-looinvii 34757. (Contributed by BJ, 30-Mar-2020.)
⊢ ((𝜑 → 𝜓) → 𝜓)    ⇒   ⊢ ((𝜓 → 𝜑) → 𝜑)
Theorem	bj-looinvii 34757	Inference associated with bj-looinvi 34756. (Contributed by BJ, 30-Mar-2020.)
⊢ ((𝜑 → 𝜓) → 𝜓)    &   ⊢ (𝜓 → 𝜑)    ⇒   ⊢ 𝜑
Theorem	bj-mt2bi 34758	Version of mt2 199 where the major premise is a biconditional. Another proof is also possible via con2bii 358 and mpbi 229. The current mt2bi 364 should be relabeled, maybe to imfal. (Contributed by BJ, 5-Oct-2024.)
⊢ 𝜑    &   ⊢ (𝜓 ↔ ¬ 𝜑)    ⇒   ⊢ ¬ 𝜓
Theorem	bj-ntrufal 34759	The negation of a theorem is equivalent to false. This can shorten dfnul2 4260. (Contributed by BJ, 5-Oct-2024.)
⊢ 𝜑    ⇒   ⊢ (¬ 𝜑 ↔ ⊥)
Theorem	bj-fal 34760	Shortening of fal 1553 using bj-mt2bi 34758. (Contributed by Anthony Hart, 22-Oct-2010.) (Proof shortened by Mel L. O'Cat, 11-Mar-2012.) (Proof modification is discouraged.)
⊢ ¬ ⊥
20.15.1.6  Disjunction A few lemmas about disjunction. The fundamental theorems in this family are the dual statements pm4.71 558 and pm4.72 947. See also biort 933 and biorf 934.
Theorem	bj-jaoi1 34761	Shortens orfa2 36253 (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 34762	Shortens consensus 1050 (110>106), elnn0z 12341 (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)
20.15.1.7  Logical equivalence 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 397, pm4.64 846, imor 850, pm4.62 853 through pm4.67 399, and, for the De Morgan laws, ianor 979 through pm4.57 988.
Theorem	bj-dfbi4 34763	Alternate definition of the biconditional. (Contributed by BJ, 4-Oct-2019.)
⊢ ((𝜑 ↔ 𝜓) ↔ ((𝜑 ∧ 𝜓) ∨ ¬ (𝜑 ∨ 𝜓)))
Theorem	bj-dfbi5 34764	Alternate definition of the biconditional. (Contributed by BJ, 4-Oct-2019.)
⊢ ((𝜑 ↔ 𝜓) ↔ ((𝜑 ∨ 𝜓) → (𝜑 ∧ 𝜓)))
Theorem	bj-dfbi6 34765	Alternate definition of the biconditional. (Contributed by BJ, 4-Oct-2019.)
⊢ ((𝜑 ↔ 𝜓) ↔ ((𝜑 ∨ 𝜓) ↔ (𝜑 ∧ 𝜓)))
Theorem	bj-bijust0ALT 34766	Alternate proof of bijust0 203; 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 34767	A self-implication does not imply the negation of a self-implication. Most general theorem of which bijust 204 is an instance (bijust0 203 and bj-bijust0ALT 34766 are therefore also instances of it). (Contributed by BJ, 7-Sep-2022.)
⊢ ¬ ((𝜑 → 𝜑) → ¬ (𝜓 → 𝜓))
20.15.1.8  The conditional operator for propositions
Theorem	bj-consensus 34768	Version of consensus 1050 expressed using the conditional operator. (Remark: it may be better to express it as consensus 1050, 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 34769	Alternate proof of bj-consensus 34768. (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 34770*	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 2717. We reprove the current df-if 4461 from it in bj-dfif 34771. (Contributed by BJ, 20-Sep-2019.) (Proof modification is discouraged.)
⊢ if(𝜑, 𝐴, 𝐵) = {𝑥 ∣ if-(𝜑, 𝑥 ∈ 𝐴, 𝑥 ∈ 𝐵)}
Theorem	bj-dfif 34771*	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 34772	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))
20.15.1.9  Propositional calculus: miscellaneous Miscellaneous theorems of propositional calculus.
Theorem	bj-imbi12 34773	Uncurried (imported) form of imbi12 347. (Contributed by BJ, 6-May-2019.)
⊢ (((𝜑 ↔ 𝜓) ∧ (𝜒 ↔ 𝜃)) → ((𝜑 → 𝜒) ↔ (𝜓 → 𝜃)))
Theorem	bj-biorfi 34774	This should be labeled "biorfi" while the current biorfi 936 should be labeled "biorfri". The dual of biorf 934 is not biantr 803 but iba 528 (and ibar 529). 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 34775	Dual of truan 1550 (which has biconditional reversed). (Contributed by BJ, 26-Oct-2019.) (Proof modification is discouraged.)
⊢ (𝜑 ↔ (⊥ ∨ 𝜑))
Theorem	bj-falor2 34776	Dual of truan 1550. (Contributed by BJ, 26-Oct-2019.) (Proof modification is discouraged.)
⊢ ((⊥ ∨ 𝜑) ↔ 𝜑)
Theorem	bj-bibibi 34777	A property of the biconditional. (Contributed by BJ, 26-Oct-2019.) (Proof modification is discouraged.)
⊢ (𝜑 ↔ (𝜓 ↔ (𝜑 ↔ 𝜓)))
Theorem	bj-imn3ani 34778	Duplication of bnj1224 32790. Three-fold version of imnani 401. (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 34779	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 34780	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 34781	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 34782	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)))
20.15.2  Modal logic 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 1798 corresponds to the necessitation rule of modal logic, and ax-4 1812 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/ 1812. A basic result in this logic is bj-gl4 34786.
Theorem	bj-axdd2 34783	This implication, proved using only ax-gen 1798 and ax-4 1812 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 34784. (Contributed by BJ, 16-May-2019.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) (New usage is discouraged.)
⊢ (∃𝑥𝜑 → (∀𝑥𝜓 → ∃𝑥𝜓))
Theorem	bj-axd2d 34784	This implication, proved using only ax-gen 1798 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 34783. (Contributed by BJ, 16-May-2019.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) (New usage is discouraged.)
⊢ ((∀𝑥⊤ → ∃𝑥⊤) → ∃𝑥⊤)
Theorem	bj-axtd 34785	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 34783 and bj-axd2d 34784. (Contributed by BJ, 16-May-2019.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) (New usage is discouraged.)
⊢ ((∀𝑥 ¬ 𝜑 → ¬ 𝜑) → ((∀𝑥𝜑 → 𝜑) → (∀𝑥𝜑 → ∃𝑥𝜑)))
Theorem	bj-gl4 34786	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 34786 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 34787	Over minimal calculus, the modal axiom (4) (hba1 2291) and the modal axiom (K) (ax-4 1812) together imply axc4 2316. (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))))
20.15.3  Provability logic In this section, we assume that, on top of propositional calculus, there is given a provability predicate Prv satisfying the three axioms ax-prv1 34789 and ax-prv2 34790 and ax-prv3 34791. Note the similarity with ax-gen 1798, ax-4 1812 and hba1 2291 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/ 2291. 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 34794) and Löb's theorem (bj-babylob 34795). See the comments of these theorems for details.
Syntax	cprvb 34788	Syntax for the provability predicate.
wff Prv 𝜑
Axiom	ax-prv1 34789	First property of three of the provability predicate. (Contributed by BJ, 3-Apr-2019.)
⊢ 𝜑    ⇒   ⊢ Prv 𝜑
Axiom	ax-prv2 34790	Second property of three of the provability predicate. (Contributed by BJ, 3-Apr-2019.)
⊢ (Prv (𝜑 → 𝜓) → (Prv 𝜑 → Prv 𝜓))
Axiom	ax-prv3 34791	Third property of three of the provability predicate. (Contributed by BJ, 3-Apr-2019.)
⊢ (Prv 𝜑 → Prv Prv 𝜑)
Theorem	prvlem1 34792	An elementary property of the provability predicate. (Contributed by BJ, 3-Apr-2019.)
⊢ (𝜑 → 𝜓)    ⇒   ⊢ (Prv 𝜑 → Prv 𝜓)
Theorem	prvlem2 34793	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 34794	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 34795	See the section header comments for the context, as well as the comments for bj-babygodel 34794. 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/ 34794). (Contributed by BJ, 20-Apr-2019.)
⊢ (𝜓 ↔ (Prv 𝜓 → 𝜑))    &   ⊢ (Prv 𝜑 → 𝜑)    ⇒   ⊢ 𝜑
Theorem	bj-godellob 34796	Proof of Gödel's theorem from Löb's theorem (see comments at bj-babygodel 34794 and bj-babylob 34795 for details). (Contributed by BJ, 20-Apr-2019.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) (New usage is discouraged.)
⊢ (𝜑 ↔ ¬ Prv 𝜑)    &   ⊢ ¬ Prv ⊥    ⇒   ⊢ ⊥
20.15.4  First-order logic 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.
20.15.4.1  Adding ax-gen
Theorem	bj-genr 34797	Generalization rule on the right conjunct. See 19.28 2222. (Contributed by BJ, 7-Jul-2021.)
⊢ (𝜑 ∧ 𝜓)    ⇒   ⊢ (𝜑 ∧ ∀𝑥𝜓)
Theorem	bj-genl 34798	Generalization rule on the left conjunct. See 19.27 2221. (Contributed by BJ, 7-Jul-2021.)
⊢ (𝜑 ∧ 𝜓)    ⇒   ⊢ (∀𝑥𝜑 ∧ 𝜓)
Theorem	bj-genan 34799	Generalization rule on a conjunction. Forward inference associated with 19.26 1874. (Contributed by BJ, 7-Jul-2021.)
⊢ (𝜑 ∧ 𝜓)    ⇒   ⊢ (∀𝑥𝜑 ∧ ∀𝑥𝜓)
Theorem	bj-mpgs 34800	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 2177 (modal T) is available. Therefore, this theorem is stronger than mpg 1800 when sp 2177 is not available. (Contributed by BJ, 1-Nov-2023.)
⊢ 𝜑    &   ⊢ ((𝜑 ∧ ∀𝑥𝜑) → 𝜓)    ⇒   ⊢ 𝜓