Home | Metamath
Proof Explorer Theorem List (p. 351 of 466) | < Previous Next > |
Bad symbols? Try the
GIF version. |
||
Mirrors > Metamath Home Page > MPE Home Page > Theorem List Contents > Recent Proofs This page: Page List |
Color key: | Metamath Proof Explorer
(1-29280) |
Hilbert Space Explorer
(29281-30803) |
Users' Mathboxes
(30804-46521) |
Type | Label | Description |
---|---|---|
Statement | ||
The closed formula ∀𝑥∀𝑦𝑥 = 𝑦 approximately means that the var metavariables 𝑥 and 𝑦 represent the same variable vi. In a domain with at most one object, however, this formula is always true, hence the "approximately" in the previous sentence. | ||
Theorem | bj-hbaeb2 35001 | Biconditional version of a form of hbae 2431 with commuted quantifiers, not requiring ax-11 2154. (Contributed by BJ, 12-Dec-2019.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) |
⊢ (∀𝑥 𝑥 = 𝑦 ↔ ∀𝑥∀𝑧 𝑥 = 𝑦) | ||
Theorem | bj-hbaeb 35002 | Biconditional version of hbae 2431. (Contributed by BJ, 6-Oct-2018.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) |
⊢ (∀𝑥 𝑥 = 𝑦 ↔ ∀𝑧∀𝑥 𝑥 = 𝑦) | ||
Theorem | bj-hbnaeb 35003 | Biconditional version of hbnae 2432 (to replace it?). (Contributed by BJ, 6-Oct-2018.) |
⊢ (¬ ∀𝑥 𝑥 = 𝑦 ↔ ∀𝑧 ¬ ∀𝑥 𝑥 = 𝑦) | ||
Theorem | bj-dvv 35004 | A special instance of bj-hbaeb2 35001. A lemma for distinct var metavariables. Note that the right-hand side is a closed formula (a sentence). (Contributed by BJ, 6-Oct-2018.) |
⊢ (∀𝑥 𝑥 = 𝑦 ↔ ∀𝑥∀𝑦 𝑥 = 𝑦) | ||
As a rule of thumb, if a theorem of the form ⊢ (𝜑 ↔ 𝜓) ⇒ ⊢ (𝜒 ↔ 𝜃) is in the database, and the "more precise" theorems ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝜓) ⇒ ⊢ (𝜒 → 𝜃) and ⊢ (𝜓 → 𝜑) ⇒ ⊢ (𝜃 → 𝜒) also hold (see bj-bisym 34772), then they should be added to the database. The present case is similar. Similar additions can be done regarding equsex 2418 (and equsalh 2420 and equsexh 2421). Even if only one of these two theorems holds, it should be added to the database. | ||
Theorem | bj-equsal1t 35005 | Duplication of wl-equsal1t 35700, with shorter proof. If one imposes a disjoint variable condition on x,y , then one can use alequexv 2004 and reduce axiom dependencies, and similarly for the following theorems. Note: wl-equsalcom 35701 is also interesting. (Contributed by BJ, 6-Oct-2018.) |
⊢ (Ⅎ𝑥𝜑 → (∀𝑥(𝑥 = 𝑦 → 𝜑) ↔ 𝜑)) | ||
Theorem | bj-equsal1ti 35006 | Inference associated with bj-equsal1t 35005. (Contributed by BJ, 30-Sep-2018.) |
⊢ Ⅎ𝑥𝜑 ⇒ ⊢ (∀𝑥(𝑥 = 𝑦 → 𝜑) ↔ 𝜑) | ||
Theorem | bj-equsal1 35007 | One direction of equsal 2417. (Contributed by BJ, 30-Sep-2018.) |
⊢ Ⅎ𝑥𝜓 & ⊢ (𝑥 = 𝑦 → (𝜑 → 𝜓)) ⇒ ⊢ (∀𝑥(𝑥 = 𝑦 → 𝜑) → 𝜓) | ||
Theorem | bj-equsal2 35008 | One direction of equsal 2417. (Contributed by BJ, 30-Sep-2018.) |
⊢ Ⅎ𝑥𝜑 & ⊢ (𝑥 = 𝑦 → (𝜑 → 𝜓)) ⇒ ⊢ (𝜑 → ∀𝑥(𝑥 = 𝑦 → 𝜓)) | ||
Theorem | bj-equsal 35009 | Shorter proof of equsal 2417. (Contributed by BJ, 30-Sep-2018.) Proof modification is discouraged to avoid using equsal 2417, but "min */exc equsal" is ok. (Proof modification is discouraged.) |
⊢ Ⅎ𝑥𝜓 & ⊢ (𝑥 = 𝑦 → (𝜑 ↔ 𝜓)) ⇒ ⊢ (∀𝑥(𝑥 = 𝑦 → 𝜑) ↔ 𝜓) | ||
References are made to the second edition (1927, reprinted 1963) of Principia Mathematica, Vol. 1. Theorems are referred to in the form "PM*xx.xx". | ||
Theorem | stdpc5t 35010 | Closed form of stdpc5 2201. (Possible to place it before 19.21t 2199 and use it to prove 19.21t 2199). (Contributed by BJ, 15-Sep-2018.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) |
⊢ (Ⅎ𝑥𝜑 → (∀𝑥(𝜑 → 𝜓) → (𝜑 → ∀𝑥𝜓))) | ||
Theorem | bj-stdpc5 35011 | More direct proof of stdpc5 2201. (Contributed by BJ, 15-Sep-2018.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) |
⊢ Ⅎ𝑥𝜑 ⇒ ⊢ (∀𝑥(𝜑 → 𝜓) → (𝜑 → ∀𝑥𝜓)) | ||
Theorem | 2stdpc5 35012 | A double stdpc5 2201 (one direction of PM*11.3). See also 2stdpc4 2073 and 19.21vv 41994. (Contributed by BJ, 15-Sep-2018.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) |
⊢ Ⅎ𝑥𝜑 & ⊢ Ⅎ𝑦𝜑 ⇒ ⊢ (∀𝑥∀𝑦(𝜑 → 𝜓) → (𝜑 → ∀𝑥∀𝑦𝜓)) | ||
Theorem | bj-19.21t0 35013 | Proof of 19.21t 2199 from stdpc5t 35010. (Contributed by BJ, 15-Sep-2018.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) |
⊢ (Ⅎ𝑥𝜑 → (∀𝑥(𝜑 → 𝜓) ↔ (𝜑 → ∀𝑥𝜓))) | ||
Theorem | exlimii 35014 | Inference associated with exlimi 2210. Inferring a theorem when it is implied by an antecedent which may be true. (Contributed by BJ, 15-Sep-2018.) |
⊢ Ⅎ𝑥𝜓 & ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝜓) & ⊢ ∃𝑥𝜑 ⇒ ⊢ 𝜓 | ||
Theorem | ax11-pm 35015 | Proof of ax-11 2154 similar to PM's proof of alcom 2156 (PM*11.2). For a proof closer to PM's proof, see ax11-pm2 35019. Axiom ax-11 2154 is used in the proof only through nfa2 2170. (Contributed by BJ, 15-Sep-2018.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) |
⊢ (∀𝑥∀𝑦𝜑 → ∀𝑦∀𝑥𝜑) | ||
Theorem | ax6er 35016 | Commuted form of ax6e 2383. (Could be placed right after ax6e 2383). (Contributed by BJ, 15-Sep-2018.) |
⊢ ∃𝑥 𝑦 = 𝑥 | ||
Theorem | exlimiieq1 35017 | Inferring a theorem when it is implied by an equality which may be true. (Contributed by BJ, 30-Sep-2018.) |
⊢ Ⅎ𝑥𝜑 & ⊢ (𝑥 = 𝑦 → 𝜑) ⇒ ⊢ 𝜑 | ||
Theorem | exlimiieq2 35018 | Inferring a theorem when it is implied by an equality which may be true. (Contributed by BJ, 15-Sep-2018.) (Revised by BJ, 30-Sep-2018.) |
⊢ Ⅎ𝑦𝜑 & ⊢ (𝑥 = 𝑦 → 𝜑) ⇒ ⊢ 𝜑 | ||
Theorem | ax11-pm2 35019* | Proof of ax-11 2154 from the standard axioms of predicate calculus, similar to PM's proof of alcom 2156 (PM*11.2). This proof requires that 𝑥 and 𝑦 be distinct. Axiom ax-11 2154 is used in the proof only through nfal 2317, nfsb 2527, sbal 2159, sb8 2521. See also ax11-pm 35015. (Contributed by BJ, 15-Sep-2018.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) |
⊢ (∀𝑥∀𝑦𝜑 → ∀𝑦∀𝑥𝜑) | ||
Theorem | bj-sbsb 35020 | Biconditional showing two possible (dual) definitions of substitution df-sb 2068 not using dummy variables. (Contributed by BJ, 19-Mar-2021.) |
⊢ (((𝑥 = 𝑦 → 𝜑) ∧ ∃𝑥(𝑥 = 𝑦 ∧ 𝜑)) ↔ (∀𝑥(𝑥 = 𝑦 → 𝜑) ∨ (𝑥 = 𝑦 ∧ 𝜑))) | ||
Theorem | bj-dfsb2 35021 | Alternate (dual) definition of substitution df-sb 2068 not using dummy variables. (Contributed by BJ, 19-Mar-2021.) |
⊢ ([𝑦 / 𝑥]𝜑 ↔ (∀𝑥(𝑥 = 𝑦 → 𝜑) ∨ (𝑥 = 𝑦 ∧ 𝜑))) | ||
Theorem | bj-sbf3 35022 | Substitution has no effect on a bound variable (existential quantifier case); see sbf2 2264. (Contributed by BJ, 2-May-2019.) |
⊢ ([𝑦 / 𝑥]∃𝑥𝜑 ↔ ∃𝑥𝜑) | ||
Theorem | bj-sbf4 35023 | Substitution has no effect on a bound variable (nonfreeness case); see sbf2 2264. (Contributed by BJ, 2-May-2019.) |
⊢ ([𝑦 / 𝑥]Ⅎ𝑥𝜑 ↔ Ⅎ𝑥𝜑) | ||
Theorem | bj-sbnf 35024* | Move nonfree predicate in and out of substitution; see sbal 2159 and sbex 2278. (Contributed by BJ, 2-May-2019.) |
⊢ ([𝑧 / 𝑦]Ⅎ𝑥𝜑 ↔ Ⅎ𝑥[𝑧 / 𝑦]𝜑) | ||
Theorem | bj-eu3f 35025* | Version of eu3v 2570 where the disjoint variable condition is replaced with a nonfreeness hypothesis. This is a "backup" of a theorem that used to be in the main part with label "eu3" and was deprecated in favor of eu3v 2570. (Contributed by NM, 8-Jul-1994.) (Proof shortened by BJ, 31-May-2019.) |
⊢ Ⅎ𝑦𝜑 ⇒ ⊢ (∃!𝑥𝜑 ↔ (∃𝑥𝜑 ∧ ∃𝑦∀𝑥(𝜑 → 𝑥 = 𝑦))) | ||
Miscellaneous theorems of first-order logic. | ||
Theorem | bj-sblem1 35026* | Lemma for substitution. (Contributed by BJ, 23-Jul-2023.) |
⊢ (∀𝑥(𝜑 → (𝜓 → 𝜒)) → (∀𝑥(𝜑 → 𝜓) → (∃𝑥𝜑 → 𝜒))) | ||
Theorem | bj-sblem2 35027* | Lemma for substitution. (Contributed by BJ, 23-Jul-2023.) |
⊢ (∀𝑥(𝜑 → (𝜒 → 𝜓)) → ((∃𝑥𝜑 → 𝜒) → ∀𝑥(𝜑 → 𝜓))) | ||
Theorem | bj-sblem 35028* | Lemma for substitution. (Contributed by BJ, 23-Jul-2023.) |
⊢ (∀𝑥(𝜑 → (𝜓 ↔ 𝜒)) → (∀𝑥(𝜑 → 𝜓) ↔ (∃𝑥𝜑 → 𝜒))) | ||
Theorem | bj-sbievw1 35029* | Lemma for substitution. (Contributed by BJ, 23-Jul-2023.) |
⊢ ([𝑦 / 𝑥](𝜑 → 𝜓) → ([𝑦 / 𝑥]𝜑 → 𝜓)) | ||
Theorem | bj-sbievw2 35030* | Lemma for substitution. (Contributed by BJ, 23-Jul-2023.) |
⊢ ([𝑦 / 𝑥](𝜓 → 𝜑) → (𝜓 → [𝑦 / 𝑥]𝜑)) | ||
Theorem | bj-sbievw 35031* | Lemma for substitution. Closed form of equsalvw 2007 and sbievw 2095. (Contributed by BJ, 23-Jul-2023.) |
⊢ ([𝑦 / 𝑥](𝜑 ↔ 𝜓) → ([𝑦 / 𝑥]𝜑 ↔ 𝜓)) | ||
Theorem | bj-sbievv 35032 | Version of sbie 2506 with a second nonfreeness hypothesis and shorter proof. (Contributed by BJ, 18-Jul-2023.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) |
⊢ Ⅎ𝑥𝜓 & ⊢ Ⅎ𝑦𝜑 & ⊢ (𝑥 = 𝑦 → (𝜑 ↔ 𝜓)) ⇒ ⊢ ([𝑦 / 𝑥]𝜑 ↔ 𝜓) | ||
Theorem | bj-moeub 35033 | Uniqueness is equivalent to existence being equivalent to unique existence. (Contributed by BJ, 14-Oct-2022.) |
⊢ (∃*𝑥𝜑 ↔ (∃𝑥𝜑 ↔ ∃!𝑥𝜑)) | ||
Theorem | bj-sbidmOLD 35034 | Obsolete proof of sbidm 2514 temporarily kept here to check it gives no additional insight. (Contributed by NM, 8-Mar-1995.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) (New usage is discouraged.) |
⊢ ([𝑦 / 𝑥][𝑦 / 𝑥]𝜑 ↔ [𝑦 / 𝑥]𝜑) | ||
Theorem | bj-dvelimdv 35035* |
Deduction form of dvelim 2451 with disjoint variable conditions. Uncurried
(imported) form of bj-dvelimdv1 35036. Typically, 𝑧 is a fresh
variable used for the implicit substitution hypothesis that results in
𝜒 (namely, 𝜓 can be thought as 𝜓(𝑥, 𝑦) and 𝜒 as
𝜓(𝑥, 𝑧)). So the theorem says that if x is
effectively free
in 𝜓(𝑥, 𝑧), then if x and y are not the same
variable, then
𝑥 is also effectively free in 𝜓(𝑥, 𝑦), in a context
𝜑.
One can weaken the implicit substitution hypothesis by adding the antecedent 𝜑 but this typically does not make the theorem much more useful. Similarly, one could use nonfreeness hypotheses instead of disjoint variable conditions but since this result is typically used when 𝑧 is a dummy variable, this would not be of much benefit. One could also remove DV (𝑥, 𝑧) since in the proof nfv 1917 can be replaced with nfal 2317 followed by nfn 1860. Remark: nfald 2322 uses ax-11 2154; it might be possible to inline and use ax11w 2126 instead, but there is still a use via 19.12 2321 anyway. (Contributed by BJ, 20-Oct-2021.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) |
⊢ (𝜑 → Ⅎ𝑥𝜒) & ⊢ (𝑧 = 𝑦 → (𝜒 ↔ 𝜓)) ⇒ ⊢ ((𝜑 ∧ ¬ ∀𝑥 𝑥 = 𝑦) → Ⅎ𝑥𝜓) | ||
Theorem | bj-dvelimdv1 35036* | Curried (exported) form of bj-dvelimdv 35035 (of course, one is directly provable from the other, but we keep this proof for illustration purposes). (Contributed by BJ, 20-Oct-2021.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) |
⊢ (𝜑 → Ⅎ𝑥𝜒) & ⊢ (𝑧 = 𝑦 → (𝜒 ↔ 𝜓)) ⇒ ⊢ (𝜑 → (¬ ∀𝑥 𝑥 = 𝑦 → Ⅎ𝑥𝜓)) | ||
Theorem | bj-dvelimv 35037* | A version of dvelim 2451 using the "nonfree" idiom. (Contributed by BJ, 20-Oct-2021.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) |
⊢ Ⅎ𝑥𝜓 & ⊢ (𝑧 = 𝑦 → (𝜓 ↔ 𝜑)) ⇒ ⊢ (¬ ∀𝑥 𝑥 = 𝑦 → Ⅎ𝑥𝜑) | ||
Theorem | bj-nfeel2 35038* | Nonfreeness in a membership statement. (Contributed by BJ, 20-Oct-2021.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) |
⊢ (¬ ∀𝑥 𝑥 = 𝑦 → Ⅎ𝑥 𝑦 ∈ 𝑧) | ||
Theorem | bj-axc14nf 35039 | Proof of a version of axc14 2463 using the "nonfree" idiom. (Contributed by BJ, 20-Oct-2021.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) |
⊢ (¬ ∀𝑧 𝑧 = 𝑥 → (¬ ∀𝑧 𝑧 = 𝑦 → Ⅎ𝑧 𝑥 ∈ 𝑦)) | ||
Theorem | bj-axc14 35040 | Alternate proof of axc14 2463 (even when inlining the above results, this gives a shorter proof). (Contributed by BJ, 20-Oct-2021.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) |
⊢ (¬ ∀𝑧 𝑧 = 𝑥 → (¬ ∀𝑧 𝑧 = 𝑦 → (𝑥 ∈ 𝑦 → ∀𝑧 𝑥 ∈ 𝑦))) | ||
Theorem | mobidvALT 35041* | Alternate proof of mobidv 2549 directly from its analogues albidv 1923 and exbidv 1924, using deduction style. Note the proof structure, similar to mobi 2547. (Contributed by Mario Carneiro, 7-Oct-2016.) Reduce axiom dependencies and shorten proof. Remove dependency on ax-6 1971, ax-7 2011, ax-12 2171 by adapting proof of mobid 2550. (Revised by BJ, 26-Sep-2022.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) (New usage is discouraged.) |
⊢ (𝜑 → (𝜓 ↔ 𝜒)) ⇒ ⊢ (𝜑 → (∃*𝑥𝜓 ↔ ∃*𝑥𝜒)) | ||
Theorem | sbn1ALT 35042 | Alternate proof of sbn1 2105, not using the false constant. (Contributed by BJ, 18-Sep-2024.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) (New usage is discouraged.) |
⊢ ([𝑡 / 𝑥] ¬ 𝜑 → ¬ [𝑡 / 𝑥]𝜑) | ||
In this section, we give a sketch of the proof of the Eliminability Theorem for class terms in an extensional set theory where quantification occurs only over set variables. Eliminability of class variables using the $a-statements ax-ext 2709, df-clab 2716, df-cleq 2730, df-clel 2816 is an easy result, proved for instance in Appendix X of Azriel Levy, Basic Set Theory, Dover Publications, 2002. Note that viewed from the set.mm axiomatization, it is a metatheorem not formalizable in set.mm. It states: every formula in the language of FOL + ∈ + class terms, but without class variables, is provably equivalent (over {FOL, ax-ext 2709, df-clab 2716, df-cleq 2730, df-clel 2816 }) to a formula in the language of FOL + ∈ (that is, without class terms). The proof goes by induction on the complexity of the formula (see op. cit. for details). The base case is that of atomic formulas. The atomic formulas containing class terms are of one of the six following forms: for equality, 𝑥 = {𝑦 ∣ 𝜑}, {𝑥 ∣ 𝜑} = 𝑦, {𝑥 ∣ 𝜑} = {𝑦 ∣ 𝜓}, and for membership, 𝑦 ∈ {𝑥 ∣ 𝜑}, {𝑥 ∣ 𝜑} ∈ 𝑦, {𝑥 ∣ 𝜑} ∈ {𝑦 ∣ 𝜓}. These cases are dealt with by eliminable-veqab 35050, eliminable-abeqv 35051, eliminable-abeqab 35052, eliminable-velab 35049, eliminable-abelv 35053, eliminable-abelab 35054 respectively, which are all proved from {FOL, ax-ext 2709, df-clab 2716, df-cleq 2730, df-clel 2816 }. (Details on the proof of the above six theorems. To understand how they were systematically proved, look at the theorems "eliminablei" below, which are special instances of df-clab 2716, dfcleq 2731 (proved from {FOL, ax-ext 2709, df-cleq 2730 }), and dfclel 2817 (proved from {FOL, df-clel 2816 }). Indeed, denote by (i) the formula proved by "eliminablei". One sees that the RHS of (1) has no class terms, the RHS's of (2x) have only class terms of the form dealt with by (1), and the RHS's of (3x) have only class terms of the forms dealt with by (1) and (2a). Note that in order to prove eliminable2a 35044, eliminable2b 35045 and eliminable3a 35047, we need to substitute a class variable for a setvar variable. This is possible because setvars are class terms: this is the content of the syntactic theorem cv 1538, which is used in these proofs (this does not appear in the html pages but it is in the set.mm file and you can check it using the Metamath program).) The induction step relies on the fact that any formula is a FOL-combination of atomic formulas, so if one found equivalents for all atomic formulas constituting the formula, then the same FOL-combination of these equivalents will be equivalent to the original formula. Note that one has a slightly more precise result: if the original formula has only class terms appearing in atomic formulas of the form 𝑦 ∈ {𝑥 ∣ 𝜑}, then df-clab 2716 is sufficient (over FOL) to eliminate class terms, and if the original formula has only class terms appearing in atomic formulas of the form 𝑦 ∈ {𝑥 ∣ 𝜑} and equalities, then df-clab 2716, ax-ext 2709 and df-cleq 2730 are sufficient (over FOL) to eliminate class terms. To prove that { df-clab 2716, df-cleq 2730, df-clel 2816 } provides a definitional extension of {FOL, ax-ext 2709 }, one needs to prove both the above Eliminability Theorem, which compares the expressive powers of the languages with and without class terms, and the Conservativity Theorem, which compares the deductive powers when one adds { df-clab 2716, df-cleq 2730, df-clel 2816 }. It states that a formula without class terms is provable in one axiom system if and only if it is provable in the other, and that this remains true when one adds further definitions to {FOL, ax-ext 2709 }. It is also proved in op. cit. The proof is more difficult, since one has to construct for each proof of a statement without class terms, an associated proof not using { df-clab 2716, df-cleq 2730, df-clel 2816 }. It involves a careful case study on the structure of the proof tree. | ||
Theorem | eliminable1 35043 | A theorem used to prove the base case of the Eliminability Theorem (see section comment). (Contributed by BJ, 19-Oct-2019.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) (New usage is discouraged.) |
⊢ (𝑦 ∈ {𝑥 ∣ 𝜑} ↔ [𝑦 / 𝑥]𝜑) | ||
Theorem | eliminable2a 35044* | A theorem used to prove the base case of the Eliminability Theorem (see section comment). (Contributed by BJ, 19-Oct-2019.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) (New usage is discouraged.) |
⊢ (𝑥 = {𝑦 ∣ 𝜑} ↔ ∀𝑧(𝑧 ∈ 𝑥 ↔ 𝑧 ∈ {𝑦 ∣ 𝜑})) | ||
Theorem | eliminable2b 35045* | A theorem used to prove the base case of the Eliminability Theorem (see section comment). (Contributed by BJ, 19-Oct-2019.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) (New usage is discouraged.) |
⊢ ({𝑥 ∣ 𝜑} = 𝑦 ↔ ∀𝑧(𝑧 ∈ {𝑥 ∣ 𝜑} ↔ 𝑧 ∈ 𝑦)) | ||
Theorem | eliminable2c 35046* | A theorem used to prove the base case of the Eliminability Theorem (see section comment). (Contributed by BJ, 19-Oct-2019.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) (New usage is discouraged.) |
⊢ ({𝑥 ∣ 𝜑} = {𝑦 ∣ 𝜓} ↔ ∀𝑧(𝑧 ∈ {𝑥 ∣ 𝜑} ↔ 𝑧 ∈ {𝑦 ∣ 𝜓})) | ||
Theorem | eliminable3a 35047* | A theorem used to prove the base case of the Eliminability Theorem (see section comment). (Contributed by BJ, 19-Oct-2019.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) (New usage is discouraged.) |
⊢ ({𝑥 ∣ 𝜑} ∈ 𝑦 ↔ ∃𝑧(𝑧 = {𝑥 ∣ 𝜑} ∧ 𝑧 ∈ 𝑦)) | ||
Theorem | eliminable3b 35048* | A theorem used to prove the base case of the Eliminability Theorem (see section comment). (Contributed by BJ, 19-Oct-2019.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) (New usage is discouraged.) |
⊢ ({𝑥 ∣ 𝜑} ∈ {𝑦 ∣ 𝜓} ↔ ∃𝑧(𝑧 = {𝑥 ∣ 𝜑} ∧ 𝑧 ∈ {𝑦 ∣ 𝜓})) | ||
Theorem | eliminable-velab 35049 | A theorem used to prove the base case of the Eliminability Theorem (see section comment): variable belongs to abstraction. (Contributed by BJ, 30-Apr-2024.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) (New usage is discouraged.) |
⊢ (𝑦 ∈ {𝑥 ∣ 𝜑} ↔ [𝑦 / 𝑥]𝜑) | ||
Theorem | eliminable-veqab 35050* | A theorem used to prove the base case of the Eliminability Theorem (see section comment): variable equals abstraction. (Contributed by BJ, 30-Apr-2024.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) (New usage is discouraged.) |
⊢ (𝑥 = {𝑦 ∣ 𝜑} ↔ ∀𝑧(𝑧 ∈ 𝑥 ↔ [𝑧 / 𝑦]𝜑)) | ||
Theorem | eliminable-abeqv 35051* | A theorem used to prove the base case of the Eliminability Theorem (see section comment): abstraction equals variable. (Contributed by BJ, 30-Apr-2024.) Beware not to use symmetry of class equality. (Proof modification is discouraged.) (New usage is discouraged.) |
⊢ ({𝑥 ∣ 𝜑} = 𝑦 ↔ ∀𝑧([𝑧 / 𝑥]𝜑 ↔ 𝑧 ∈ 𝑦)) | ||
Theorem | eliminable-abeqab 35052* | A theorem used to prove the base case of the Eliminability Theorem (see section comment): abstraction equals abstraction. (Contributed by BJ, 30-Apr-2024.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) (New usage is discouraged.) |
⊢ ({𝑥 ∣ 𝜑} = {𝑦 ∣ 𝜓} ↔ ∀𝑧([𝑧 / 𝑥]𝜑 ↔ [𝑧 / 𝑦]𝜓)) | ||
Theorem | eliminable-abelv 35053* | A theorem used to prove the base case of the Eliminability Theorem (see section comment): abstraction belongs to variable. (Contributed by BJ, 30-Apr-2024.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) (New usage is discouraged.) |
⊢ ({𝑥 ∣ 𝜑} ∈ 𝑦 ↔ ∃𝑧(∀𝑡(𝑡 ∈ 𝑧 ↔ [𝑡 / 𝑥]𝜑) ∧ 𝑧 ∈ 𝑦)) | ||
Theorem | eliminable-abelab 35054* | A theorem used to prove the base case of the Eliminability Theorem (see section comment): abstraction belongs to abstraction. (Contributed by BJ, 30-Apr-2024.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) (New usage is discouraged.) |
⊢ ({𝑥 ∣ 𝜑} ∈ {𝑦 ∣ 𝜓} ↔ ∃𝑧(∀𝑡(𝑡 ∈ 𝑧 ↔ [𝑡 / 𝑥]𝜑) ∧ [𝑧 / 𝑦]𝜓)) | ||
A few results about classes can be proved without using ax-ext 2709. One could move all theorems from cab 2715 to df-clel 2816 (except for dfcleq 2731 and cvjust 2732) in a subsection "Classes" before the subsection on the axiom of extensionality, together with the theorems below. In that subsection, the last statement should be df-cleq 2730. Note that without ax-ext 2709, the $a-statements df-clab 2716, df-cleq 2730, and df-clel 2816 are no longer eliminable (see previous section) (but PROBABLY df-clab 2716 is still conservative , while df-cleq 2730 and df-clel 2816 are not). This is not a reason not to study what is provable with them but without ax-ext 2709, in order to gauge their strengths more precisely. Before that subsection, a subsection "The membership predicate" could group the statements with ∈ that are currently in the FOL part (including wcel 2106, wel 2107, ax-8 2108, ax-9 2116). Remark: the weakening of eleq1 2826 / eleq2 2827 to eleq1w 2821 / eleq2w 2822 can also be done with eleq1i 2829, eqeltri 2835, eqeltrri 2836, eleq1a 2834, eleq1d 2823, eqeltrd 2839, eqeltrrd 2840, eqneltrd 2858, eqneltrrd 2859, nelneq 2863. Remark: possibility to remove dependency on ax-10 2137, ax-11 2154, ax-13 2372 from nfcri 2894 and theorems using it if one adds a disjoint variable condition (that theorem is typically used with dummy variables, so the disjoint variable condition addition is not very restrictive), and then shorten nfnfc 2919. | ||
Theorem | bj-denoteslem 35055* | Lemma for bj-denotes 35056. (Contributed by BJ, 24-Apr-2024.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) |
⊢ (∃𝑥 𝑥 = 𝐴 ↔ 𝐴 ∈ {𝑦 ∣ ⊤}) | ||
Theorem | bj-denotes 35056* |
This would be the justification theorem for the definition of the unary
predicate "E!" by ⊢ ( E! 𝐴 ↔ ∃𝑥𝑥 = 𝐴) which could be
interpreted as "𝐴 exists" (as a set) or
"𝐴 denotes" (in the
sense of free logic).
A shorter proof using bitri 274 (to add an intermediate proposition ∃𝑧𝑧 = 𝐴 with a fresh 𝑧), cbvexvw 2040, and eqeq1 2742, requires the core axioms and { ax-9 2116, ax-ext 2709, df-cleq 2730 } whereas this proof requires the core axioms and { ax-8 2108, df-clab 2716, df-clel 2816 }. Theorem bj-issetwt 35059 proves that "existing" is equivalent to being a member of a class abstraction. It also requires, with the present proof, { ax-8 2108, df-clab 2716, df-clel 2816 } (whereas with the shorter proof from cbvexvw 2040 and eqeq1 2742 it would require { ax-8 2108, ax-9 2116, ax-ext 2709, df-clab 2716, df-cleq 2730, df-clel 2816 }). That every class is equal to a class abstraction is proved by abid1 2881, which requires { ax-8 2108, ax-9 2116, ax-ext 2709, df-clab 2716, df-cleq 2730, df-clel 2816 }. Note that there is no disjoint variable condition on 𝑥, 𝑦 but the theorem does not depend on ax-13 2372. Actually, the proof depends only on the logical axioms ax-1 6 through ax-7 2011 and sp 2176. The symbol "E!" was chosen to be reminiscent of the analogous predicate in (inclusive or non-inclusive) free logic, which deals with the possibility of nonexistent objects. This analogy should not be taken too far, since here there are no equality axioms for classes: these are derived from ax-ext 2709 and df-cleq 2730 (e.g., eqid 2738 and eqeq1 2742). In particular, one cannot even prove ⊢ ∃𝑥𝑥 = 𝐴 ⇒ ⊢ 𝐴 = 𝐴 without ax-ext 2709 and df-cleq 2730. (Contributed by BJ, 29-Apr-2019.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) |
⊢ (∃𝑥 𝑥 = 𝐴 ↔ ∃𝑦 𝑦 = 𝐴) | ||
Theorem | bj-issettru 35057* | Weak version of isset 3445 without ax-ext 2709. (Contributed by BJ, 24-Apr-2024.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) |
⊢ (∃𝑥 𝑥 = 𝐴 ↔ 𝐴 ∈ {𝑦 ∣ ⊤}) | ||
Theorem | bj-elabtru 35058 | This is as close as we can get to proving extensionality for "the" "universal" class without ax-ext 2709. (Contributed by BJ, 24-Apr-2024.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) |
⊢ (𝐴 ∈ {𝑥 ∣ ⊤} ↔ 𝐴 ∈ {𝑦 ∣ ⊤}) | ||
Theorem | bj-issetwt 35059* | Closed form of bj-issetw 35060. (Contributed by BJ, 29-Apr-2019.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) |
⊢ (∀𝑥𝜑 → (𝐴 ∈ {𝑥 ∣ 𝜑} ↔ ∃𝑦 𝑦 = 𝐴)) | ||
Theorem | bj-issetw 35060* | The closest one can get to isset 3445 without using ax-ext 2709. See also vexw 2721. Note that the only disjoint variable condition is between 𝑦 and 𝐴. From there, one can prove isset 3445 using eleq2i 2830 (which requires ax-ext 2709 and df-cleq 2730). (Contributed by BJ, 29-Apr-2019.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) |
⊢ 𝜑 ⇒ ⊢ (𝐴 ∈ {𝑥 ∣ 𝜑} ↔ ∃𝑦 𝑦 = 𝐴) | ||
Theorem | bj-elissetALT 35061* | Alternate proof of elisset 2820. This is essentially the same proof as seen by inlining bj-denotes 35056 and bj-denoteslem 35055. Use elissetv 2819 instead when sufficient (in particular when 𝑉 is substituted for V). (Contributed by BJ, 29-Apr-2019.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) (New usage is discouraged.) |
⊢ (𝐴 ∈ 𝑉 → ∃𝑥 𝑥 = 𝐴) | ||
Theorem | bj-issetiv 35062* | Version of bj-isseti 35063 with a disjoint variable condition on 𝑥, 𝑉. The hypothesis uses 𝑉 instead of V for extra generality. This is indeed more general than isseti 3447 as long as elex 3450 is not available (and the non-dependence of bj-issetiv 35062 on special properties of the universal class V is obvious). Prefer its use over bj-isseti 35063 when sufficient (in particular when 𝑉 is substituted for V). (Contributed by BJ, 14-Sep-2019.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) |
⊢ 𝐴 ∈ 𝑉 ⇒ ⊢ ∃𝑥 𝑥 = 𝐴 | ||
Theorem | bj-isseti 35063* | Version of isseti 3447 with a class variable 𝑉 in the hypothesis instead of V for extra generality. This is indeed more general than isseti 3447 as long as elex 3450 is not available (and the non-dependence of bj-isseti 35063 on special properties of the universal class V is obvious). Use bj-issetiv 35062 instead when sufficient (in particular when 𝑉 is substituted for V). (Contributed by BJ, 13-Jun-2019.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) |
⊢ 𝐴 ∈ 𝑉 ⇒ ⊢ ∃𝑥 𝑥 = 𝐴 | ||
Theorem | bj-ralvw 35064 | A weak version of ralv 3456 not using ax-ext 2709 (nor df-cleq 2730, df-clel 2816, df-v 3434), and only core FOL axioms. See also bj-rexvw 35065. The analogues for reuv 3458 and rmov 3459 are not proved. (Contributed by BJ, 16-Jun-2019.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) |
⊢ 𝜓 ⇒ ⊢ (∀𝑥 ∈ {𝑦 ∣ 𝜓}𝜑 ↔ ∀𝑥𝜑) | ||
Theorem | bj-rexvw 35065 | A weak version of rexv 3457 not using ax-ext 2709 (nor df-cleq 2730, df-clel 2816, df-v 3434), and only core FOL axioms. See also bj-ralvw 35064. (Contributed by BJ, 16-Jun-2019.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) |
⊢ 𝜓 ⇒ ⊢ (∃𝑥 ∈ {𝑦 ∣ 𝜓}𝜑 ↔ ∃𝑥𝜑) | ||
Theorem | bj-rababw 35066 | A weak version of rabab 3460 not using df-clel 2816 nor df-v 3434 (but requiring ax-ext 2709) nor ax-12 2171. (Contributed by BJ, 16-Jun-2019.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) |
⊢ 𝜓 ⇒ ⊢ {𝑥 ∈ {𝑦 ∣ 𝜓} ∣ 𝜑} = {𝑥 ∣ 𝜑} | ||
Theorem | bj-rexcom4bv 35067* | Version of rexcom4b 3461 and bj-rexcom4b 35068 with a disjoint variable condition on 𝑥, 𝑉, hence removing dependency on df-sb 2068 and df-clab 2716 (so that it depends on df-clel 2816 and df-rex 3070 only on top of first-order logic). Prefer its use over bj-rexcom4b 35068 when sufficient (in particular when 𝑉 is substituted for V). Note the 𝑉 in the hypothesis instead of V. (Contributed by BJ, 14-Sep-2019.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) |
⊢ 𝐵 ∈ 𝑉 ⇒ ⊢ (∃𝑥∃𝑦 ∈ 𝐴 (𝜑 ∧ 𝑥 = 𝐵) ↔ ∃𝑦 ∈ 𝐴 𝜑) | ||
Theorem | bj-rexcom4b 35068* | Remove from rexcom4b 3461 dependency on ax-ext 2709 and ax-13 2372 (and on df-or 845, df-cleq 2730, df-nfc 2889, df-v 3434). The hypothesis uses 𝑉 instead of V (see bj-isseti 35063 for the motivation). Use bj-rexcom4bv 35067 instead when sufficient (in particular when 𝑉 is substituted for V). (Contributed by BJ, 16-Jun-2019.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) |
⊢ 𝐵 ∈ 𝑉 ⇒ ⊢ (∃𝑥∃𝑦 ∈ 𝐴 (𝜑 ∧ 𝑥 = 𝐵) ↔ ∃𝑦 ∈ 𝐴 𝜑) | ||
Theorem | bj-ceqsalt0 35069 | The FOL content of ceqsalt 3462. Lemma for bj-ceqsalt 35071 and bj-ceqsaltv 35072. (Contributed by BJ, 26-Sep-2019.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) |
⊢ ((Ⅎ𝑥𝜓 ∧ ∀𝑥(𝜃 → (𝜑 ↔ 𝜓)) ∧ ∃𝑥𝜃) → (∀𝑥(𝜃 → 𝜑) ↔ 𝜓)) | ||
Theorem | bj-ceqsalt1 35070 | The FOL content of ceqsalt 3462. Lemma for bj-ceqsalt 35071 and bj-ceqsaltv 35072. TODO: consider removing if it does not add anything to bj-ceqsalt0 35069. (Contributed by BJ, 26-Sep-2019.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) |
⊢ (𝜃 → ∃𝑥𝜒) ⇒ ⊢ ((Ⅎ𝑥𝜓 ∧ ∀𝑥(𝜒 → (𝜑 ↔ 𝜓)) ∧ 𝜃) → (∀𝑥(𝜒 → 𝜑) ↔ 𝜓)) | ||
Theorem | bj-ceqsalt 35071* | Remove from ceqsalt 3462 dependency on ax-ext 2709 (and on df-cleq 2730 and df-v 3434). Note: this is not doable with ceqsralt 3463 (or ceqsralv 3469), which uses eleq1 2826, but the same dependence removal is possible for ceqsalg 3464, ceqsal 3466, ceqsalv 3467, cgsexg 3474, cgsex2g 3475, cgsex4g 3476, ceqsex 3478, ceqsexv 3479, ceqsex2 3482, ceqsex2v 3483, ceqsex3v 3484, ceqsex4v 3485, ceqsex6v 3486, ceqsex8v 3487, gencbvex 3488 (after changing 𝐴 = 𝑦 to 𝑦 = 𝐴), gencbvex2 3489, gencbval 3490, vtoclgft 3492 (it uses Ⅎ, whose justification nfcjust 2888 does not use ax-ext 2709) and several other vtocl* theorems (see for instance bj-vtoclg1f 35103). See also bj-ceqsaltv 35072. (Contributed by BJ, 16-Jun-2019.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) |
⊢ ((Ⅎ𝑥𝜓 ∧ ∀𝑥(𝑥 = 𝐴 → (𝜑 ↔ 𝜓)) ∧ 𝐴 ∈ 𝑉) → (∀𝑥(𝑥 = 𝐴 → 𝜑) ↔ 𝜓)) | ||
Theorem | bj-ceqsaltv 35072* | Version of bj-ceqsalt 35071 with a disjoint variable condition on 𝑥, 𝑉, removing dependency on df-sb 2068 and df-clab 2716. Prefer its use over bj-ceqsalt 35071 when sufficient (in particular when 𝑉 is substituted for V). (Contributed by BJ, 16-Jun-2019.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) |
⊢ ((Ⅎ𝑥𝜓 ∧ ∀𝑥(𝑥 = 𝐴 → (𝜑 ↔ 𝜓)) ∧ 𝐴 ∈ 𝑉) → (∀𝑥(𝑥 = 𝐴 → 𝜑) ↔ 𝜓)) | ||
Theorem | bj-ceqsalg0 35073 | The FOL content of ceqsalg 3464. (Contributed by BJ, 12-Oct-2019.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) |
⊢ Ⅎ𝑥𝜓 & ⊢ (𝜒 → (𝜑 ↔ 𝜓)) ⇒ ⊢ (∃𝑥𝜒 → (∀𝑥(𝜒 → 𝜑) ↔ 𝜓)) | ||
Theorem | bj-ceqsalg 35074* | Remove from ceqsalg 3464 dependency on ax-ext 2709 (and on df-cleq 2730 and df-v 3434). See also bj-ceqsalgv 35076. (Contributed by BJ, 12-Oct-2019.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) |
⊢ Ⅎ𝑥𝜓 & ⊢ (𝑥 = 𝐴 → (𝜑 ↔ 𝜓)) ⇒ ⊢ (𝐴 ∈ 𝑉 → (∀𝑥(𝑥 = 𝐴 → 𝜑) ↔ 𝜓)) | ||
Theorem | bj-ceqsalgALT 35075* | Alternate proof of bj-ceqsalg 35074. (Contributed by BJ, 12-Oct-2019.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) (New usage is discouraged.) |
⊢ Ⅎ𝑥𝜓 & ⊢ (𝑥 = 𝐴 → (𝜑 ↔ 𝜓)) ⇒ ⊢ (𝐴 ∈ 𝑉 → (∀𝑥(𝑥 = 𝐴 → 𝜑) ↔ 𝜓)) | ||
Theorem | bj-ceqsalgv 35076* | Version of bj-ceqsalg 35074 with a disjoint variable condition on 𝑥, 𝑉, removing dependency on df-sb 2068 and df-clab 2716. Prefer its use over bj-ceqsalg 35074 when sufficient (in particular when 𝑉 is substituted for V). (Contributed by BJ, 12-Oct-2019.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) |
⊢ Ⅎ𝑥𝜓 & ⊢ (𝑥 = 𝐴 → (𝜑 ↔ 𝜓)) ⇒ ⊢ (𝐴 ∈ 𝑉 → (∀𝑥(𝑥 = 𝐴 → 𝜑) ↔ 𝜓)) | ||
Theorem | bj-ceqsalgvALT 35077* | Alternate proof of bj-ceqsalgv 35076. (Contributed by BJ, 12-Oct-2019.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) (New usage is discouraged.) |
⊢ Ⅎ𝑥𝜓 & ⊢ (𝑥 = 𝐴 → (𝜑 ↔ 𝜓)) ⇒ ⊢ (𝐴 ∈ 𝑉 → (∀𝑥(𝑥 = 𝐴 → 𝜑) ↔ 𝜓)) | ||
Theorem | bj-ceqsal 35078* | Remove from ceqsal 3466 dependency on ax-ext 2709 (and on df-cleq 2730, df-v 3434, df-clab 2716, df-sb 2068). (Contributed by BJ, 12-Oct-2019.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) |
⊢ Ⅎ𝑥𝜓 & ⊢ 𝐴 ∈ V & ⊢ (𝑥 = 𝐴 → (𝜑 ↔ 𝜓)) ⇒ ⊢ (∀𝑥(𝑥 = 𝐴 → 𝜑) ↔ 𝜓) | ||
Theorem | bj-ceqsalv 35079* | Remove from ceqsalv 3467 dependency on ax-ext 2709 (and on df-cleq 2730, df-v 3434, df-clab 2716, df-sb 2068). (Contributed by BJ, 12-Oct-2019.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) |
⊢ 𝐴 ∈ V & ⊢ (𝑥 = 𝐴 → (𝜑 ↔ 𝜓)) ⇒ ⊢ (∀𝑥(𝑥 = 𝐴 → 𝜑) ↔ 𝜓) | ||
Theorem | bj-spcimdv 35080* | Remove from spcimdv 3532 dependency on ax-9 2116, ax-10 2137, ax-11 2154, ax-13 2372, ax-ext 2709, df-cleq 2730 (and df-nfc 2889, df-v 3434, df-or 845, df-tru 1542, df-nf 1787). For an even more economical version, see bj-spcimdvv 35081. (Contributed by BJ, 30-Nov-2020.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) |
⊢ (𝜑 → 𝐴 ∈ 𝐵) & ⊢ ((𝜑 ∧ 𝑥 = 𝐴) → (𝜓 → 𝜒)) ⇒ ⊢ (𝜑 → (∀𝑥𝜓 → 𝜒)) | ||
Theorem | bj-spcimdvv 35081* | Remove from spcimdv 3532 dependency on ax-7 2011, ax-8 2108, ax-10 2137, ax-11 2154, ax-12 2171 ax-13 2372, ax-ext 2709, df-cleq 2730, df-clab 2716 (and df-nfc 2889, df-v 3434, df-or 845, df-tru 1542, df-nf 1787) at the price of adding a disjoint variable condition on 𝑥, 𝐵 (but in usages, 𝑥 is typically a dummy, hence fresh, variable). For the version without this disjoint variable condition, see bj-spcimdv 35080. (Contributed by BJ, 3-Nov-2021.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) |
⊢ (𝜑 → 𝐴 ∈ 𝐵) & ⊢ ((𝜑 ∧ 𝑥 = 𝐴) → (𝜓 → 𝜒)) ⇒ ⊢ (𝜑 → (∀𝑥𝜓 → 𝜒)) | ||
Theorem | elelb 35082 | Equivalence between two common ways to characterize elements of a class 𝐵: the LHS says that sets are elements of 𝐵 if and only if they satisfy 𝜑 while the RHS says that classes are elements of 𝐵 if and only if they are sets and satisfy 𝜑. Therefore, the LHS is a characterization among sets while the RHS is a characterization among classes. Note that the LHS is often formulated using a class variable instead of the universe V while this is not possible for the RHS (apart from using 𝐵 itself, which would not be very useful). (Contributed by BJ, 26-Feb-2023.) |
⊢ ((𝐴 ∈ V → (𝐴 ∈ 𝐵 ↔ 𝜑)) ↔ (𝐴 ∈ 𝐵 ↔ (𝐴 ∈ V ∧ 𝜑))) | ||
Theorem | bj-pwvrelb 35083 | Characterization of the elements of the powerclass of the cartesian square of the universal class: they are exactly the sets which are binary relations. (Contributed by BJ, 16-Dec-2023.) |
⊢ (𝐴 ∈ 𝒫 (V × V) ↔ (𝐴 ∈ V ∧ Rel 𝐴)) | ||
In this section, we prove the symmetry of the nonfreeness quantifier for classes. | ||
Theorem | bj-nfcsym 35084 | The nonfreeness quantifier for classes defines a symmetric binary relation on var metavariables (irreflexivity is proved by nfnid 5298 with additional axioms; see also nfcv 2907). This could be proved from aecom 2427 and nfcvb 5299 but the latter requires a domain with at least two objects (hence uses extra axioms). (Contributed by BJ, 30-Sep-2018.) Proof modification is discouraged to avoid use of eqcomd 2744 instead of equcomd 2022; removing dependency on ax-ext 2709 is possible: prove weak versions (i.e. replace classes with setvars) of drnfc1 2926, eleq2d 2824 (using elequ2 2121), nfcvf 2936, dvelimc 2935, dvelimdc 2934, nfcvf2 2937. (Proof modification is discouraged.) |
⊢ (Ⅎ𝑥𝑦 ↔ Ⅎ𝑦𝑥) | ||
Some useful theorems for dealing with substitutions: sbbi 2305, sbcbig 3770, sbcel1g 4347, sbcel2 4349, sbcel12 4342, sbceqg 4343, csbvarg 4365. | ||
Theorem | bj-sbeqALT 35085* | Substitution in an equality (use the more general version bj-sbeq 35086 instead, without disjoint variable condition). (Contributed by BJ, 6-Oct-2018.) (New usage is discouraged.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) |
⊢ ([𝑦 / 𝑥]𝐴 = 𝐵 ↔ ⦋𝑦 / 𝑥⦌𝐴 = ⦋𝑦 / 𝑥⦌𝐵) | ||
Theorem | bj-sbeq 35086 | Distribute proper substitution through an equality relation. (See sbceqg 4343). (Contributed by BJ, 6-Oct-2018.) |
⊢ ([𝑦 / 𝑥]𝐴 = 𝐵 ↔ ⦋𝑦 / 𝑥⦌𝐴 = ⦋𝑦 / 𝑥⦌𝐵) | ||
Theorem | bj-sbceqgALT 35087 | Distribute proper substitution through an equality relation. Alternate proof of sbceqg 4343. (Contributed by BJ, 6-Oct-2018.) Proof modification is discouraged to avoid using sbceqg 4343, but the Metamath program "MM-PA> MINIMIZE_WITH * / EXCEPT sbceqg" command is ok. (Proof modification is discouraged.) (New usage is discouraged.) |
⊢ (𝐴 ∈ 𝑉 → ([𝐴 / 𝑥]𝐵 = 𝐶 ↔ ⦋𝐴 / 𝑥⦌𝐵 = ⦋𝐴 / 𝑥⦌𝐶)) | ||
Theorem | bj-csbsnlem 35088* | Lemma for bj-csbsn 35089 (in this lemma, 𝑥 cannot occur in 𝐴). (Contributed by BJ, 6-Oct-2018.) (New usage is discouraged.) |
⊢ ⦋𝐴 / 𝑥⦌{𝑥} = {𝐴} | ||
Theorem | bj-csbsn 35089 | Substitution in a singleton. (Contributed by BJ, 6-Oct-2018.) |
⊢ ⦋𝐴 / 𝑥⦌{𝑥} = {𝐴} | ||
Theorem | bj-sbel1 35090* | Version of sbcel1g 4347 when substituting a set. (Note: one could have a corresponding version of sbcel12 4342 when substituting a set, but the point here is that the antecedent of sbcel1g 4347 is not needed when substituting a set.) (Contributed by BJ, 6-Oct-2018.) |
⊢ ([𝑦 / 𝑥]𝐴 ∈ 𝐵 ↔ ⦋𝑦 / 𝑥⦌𝐴 ∈ 𝐵) | ||
Theorem | bj-abv 35091 | The class of sets verifying a tautology is the universal class. (Contributed by BJ, 24-Jul-2019.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) |
⊢ (∀𝑥𝜑 → {𝑥 ∣ 𝜑} = V) | ||
Theorem | bj-abvALT 35092 | Alternate version of bj-abv 35091; shorter but uses ax-8 2108. (Contributed by BJ, 24-Jul-2019.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) (New usage is discouraged.) |
⊢ (∀𝑥𝜑 → {𝑥 ∣ 𝜑} = V) | ||
Theorem | bj-ab0 35093 | The class of sets verifying a falsity is the empty set (closed form of abf 4336). (Contributed by BJ, 24-Jul-2019.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) |
⊢ (∀𝑥 ¬ 𝜑 → {𝑥 ∣ 𝜑} = ∅) | ||
Theorem | bj-abf 35094 | Shorter proof of abf 4336 (which should be kept as abfALT). (Contributed by BJ, 24-Jul-2019.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) |
⊢ ¬ 𝜑 ⇒ ⊢ {𝑥 ∣ 𝜑} = ∅ | ||
Theorem | bj-csbprc 35095 | More direct proof of csbprc 4340 (fewer essential steps). (Contributed by BJ, 24-Jul-2019.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) |
⊢ (¬ 𝐴 ∈ V → ⦋𝐴 / 𝑥⦌𝐵 = ∅) | ||
Theorem | bj-exlimvmpi 35096* | A Fol lemma (exlimiv 1933 followed by mpi 20). (Contributed by BJ, 2-Jul-2022.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) |
⊢ (𝜒 → (𝜑 → 𝜓)) & ⊢ 𝜑 ⇒ ⊢ (∃𝑥𝜒 → 𝜓) | ||
Theorem | bj-exlimmpi 35097 | Lemma for bj-vtoclg1f1 35102 (an instance of this lemma is a version of bj-vtoclg1f1 35102 where 𝑥 and 𝑦 are identified). (Contributed by BJ, 30-Apr-2019.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) |
⊢ Ⅎ𝑥𝜓 & ⊢ (𝜒 → (𝜑 → 𝜓)) & ⊢ 𝜑 ⇒ ⊢ (∃𝑥𝜒 → 𝜓) | ||
Theorem | bj-exlimmpbi 35098 | Lemma for theorems of the vtoclg 3505 family. (Contributed by BJ, 3-Oct-2019.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) |
⊢ Ⅎ𝑥𝜓 & ⊢ (𝜒 → (𝜑 ↔ 𝜓)) & ⊢ 𝜑 ⇒ ⊢ (∃𝑥𝜒 → 𝜓) | ||
Theorem | bj-exlimmpbir 35099 | Lemma for theorems of the vtoclg 3505 family. (Contributed by BJ, 3-Oct-2019.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) |
⊢ Ⅎ𝑥𝜑 & ⊢ (𝜒 → (𝜑 ↔ 𝜓)) & ⊢ 𝜓 ⇒ ⊢ (∃𝑥𝜒 → 𝜑) | ||
Theorem | bj-vtoclf 35100* | Remove dependency on ax-ext 2709, df-clab 2716 and df-cleq 2730 (and df-sb 2068 and df-v 3434) from vtoclf 3497. (Contributed by BJ, 6-Oct-2019.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) |
⊢ Ⅎ𝑥𝜓 & ⊢ 𝐴 ∈ 𝑉 & ⊢ (𝑥 = 𝐴 → (𝜑 ↔ 𝜓)) & ⊢ 𝜑 ⇒ ⊢ 𝜓 |
< Previous Next > |
Copyright terms: Public domain | < Previous Next > |