P. 351 of Theorem List - Metamath Proof Explorer

Theorem List for Metamath Proof Explorer - 35001-35100   *Has distinct variable group(s)

Type	Label	Description
Statement
Theorem	cnndvlem2 35001*	Lemma for cnndv 35002. (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 35002	There exists a continuous nowhere differentiable function. The result follows directly from knoppcn 34967 and knoppndv 34997. (Contributed by Asger C. Ipsen, 26-Aug-2021.)
⊢ ∃𝑓(𝑓 ∈ (ℝ–cn→ℝ) ∧ dom (ℝ D 𝑓) = ∅)
21.15  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.
21.15.1  Propositional calculus Miscellaneous utility theorems of propositional calculus.
21.15.1.1  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 35003	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 35004	A double modus ponens inference. Inference associated with mpcom 38. (Contributed by BJ, 24-Sep-2019.)
⊢ 𝜑    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝜓)    &   ⊢ (𝜓 → (𝜑 → 𝜒))    ⇒   ⊢ 𝜒
21.15.1.2  A syntactic theorem In this section, we prove a syntactic theorem (bj-0 35005) asserting that some formula is well-formed. Then, we use this syntactic theorem to shorten the proof of a "usual" theorem (bj-1 35006) and explain in the comment of that theorem why this phenomenon is unusual.
Theorem	bj-0 35005	A syntactic theorem. See the section comment and the comment of bj-1 35006. 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 2107 and weq 1966. (Contributed by BJ, 24-Sep-2019.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) (New usage is discouraged.)
wff ((𝜑 → 𝜓) → 𝜒)
Theorem	bj-1 35006	In this proof, the use of the syntactic theorem bj-0 35005 allows to reduce the total length by one (non-essential) step. See also the section comment and the comment of bj-0 35005. Since bj-0 35005 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 35005 as a theorem referencing it). The full proof reads $= wph wps wch bj-0 id $. (while, without using bj-0 35005, 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 1966 or wel 2107). 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 35006 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))
21.15.1.3  Minimal implicational calculus
Theorem	bj-a1k 35007	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 35007 does not require ax-2 7). This shortens the proofs of dfwe2 7708 (937>925), ordunisuc2 7780 (789>777), r111 9711 (558>545), smo11 8310 (1176>1164). (Contributed by BJ, 11-Aug-2020.) (Proof modification is discouraged.)
⊢ (𝜑 → (𝜓 → (𝜒 → 𝜓)))
Theorem	bj-poni 35008	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 35009	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 35010	Inference associated with bj-nnclav 35009. Its associated inference is an instance of syl 17. Notice the non-intuitionistic proof from bj-peircei 35029 and bj-poni 35008. (Contributed by BJ, 30-Jul-2024.)
⊢ ((𝜑 → 𝜓) → 𝜑)    ⇒   ⊢ ((𝜑 → 𝜓) → 𝜓)
Theorem	bj-nnclavc 35011	Commuted form of bj-nnclav 35009. Notice the non-intuitionistic proof from bj-peircei 35029 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 35012	Inference associated with bj-nnclavc 35011. 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 35013	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 35014	The propositional function (𝜒 → (. → 𝜃)) is decreasing. (Contributed by BJ, 19-Jul-2019.)
⊢ ((𝜑 → 𝜓) → ((𝜒 → (𝜓 → 𝜃)) → (𝜒 → (𝜑 → 𝜃))))
Theorem	bj-imim21i 35015	Inference associated with bj-imim21 35014. Its associated inference is syl5 34. (Contributed by BJ, 19-Jul-2019.)
⊢ (𝜑 → 𝜓)    ⇒   ⊢ ((𝜒 → (𝜓 → 𝜃)) → (𝜒 → (𝜑 → 𝜃)))
Theorem	bj-peircestab 35016	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 35017). (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 35017	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 35016). (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))
21.15.1.4  Positive calculus Positive calculus is understood to be intuitionistic.
Theorem	bj-syl66ib 35018	A mixed syllogism inference derived from syl6ib 250. In addition to bj-dvelimdv1 35318, it can also shorten alexsubALTlem4 23401 (4821>4812), supsrlem 11047 (2868>2863). (Contributed by BJ, 20-Oct-2021.)
⊢ (𝜑 → (𝜓 → 𝜃))    &   ⊢ (𝜃 → 𝜏)    &   ⊢ (𝜏 ↔ 𝜒)    ⇒   ⊢ (𝜑 → (𝜓 → 𝜒))
Theorem	bj-orim2 35019	Proof of orim2 966 from the axiomatic definition of disjunction (olc 866, orc 865, jao 959) and minimal implicational calculus. (Contributed by BJ, 4-Apr-2021.) (Proof modification is discouraged.)
⊢ ((𝜑 → 𝜓) → ((𝜒 ∨ 𝜑) → (𝜒 ∨ 𝜓)))
Theorem	bj-currypeirce 35020	Curry's axiom curryax 892 (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 959 via its inference form jaoi 855; the introduction axioms olc 866 and orc 865 are not needed). Note that this theorem shows that actually, the standard instance of curryax 892 implies the standard instance of peirce 201, which is not the case for the converse bj-peircecurry 35021. (Contributed by BJ, 15-Jun-2021.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) (New usage is discouraged.)
⊢ ((𝜑 ∨ (𝜑 → 𝜓)) → (((𝜑 → 𝜓) → 𝜑) → 𝜑))
Theorem	bj-peircecurry 35021	Peirce's axiom peirce 201 implies Curry's axiom curryax 892 over minimal implicational calculus and the axiomatic definition of disjunction (actually, only the introduction axioms olc 866 and orc 865; the elimination axiom jao 959 is not needed). See bj-currypeirce 35020 for the converse. (Contributed by BJ, 15-Jun-2021.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) (New usage is discouraged.)
⊢ (𝜑 ∨ (𝜑 → 𝜓))
Theorem	bj-animbi 35022	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 35023	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)
21.15.1.5  Implication and negation
Theorem	bj-con2com 35024	A commuted form of the contrapositive, true in minimal calculus. (Contributed by BJ, 19-Mar-2020.)
⊢ (𝜑 → ((𝜓 → ¬ 𝜑) → ¬ 𝜓))
Theorem	bj-con2comi 35025	Inference associated with bj-con2com 35024. 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 35025. (Contributed by BJ, 19-Mar-2020.)
⊢ 𝜑    ⇒   ⊢ ((𝜓 → ¬ 𝜑) → ¬ 𝜓)
Theorem	bj-pm2.01i 35026	Inference associated with the weak Clavius law pm2.01 188. (Contributed by BJ, 30-Mar-2020.)
⊢ (𝜑 → ¬ 𝜑)    ⇒   ⊢ ¬ 𝜑
Theorem	bj-nimn 35027	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 35028	Inference associated with bj-nimn 35027. (Contributed by BJ, 19-Mar-2020.)
⊢ 𝜑    ⇒   ⊢ ¬ (𝜑 → ¬ 𝜑)
Theorem	bj-peircei 35029	Inference associated with peirce 201. (Contributed by BJ, 30-Mar-2020.)
⊢ ((𝜑 → 𝜓) → 𝜑)    ⇒   ⊢ 𝜑
Theorem	bj-looinvi 35030	Inference associated with looinv 202. Its associated inference is bj-looinvii 35031. (Contributed by BJ, 30-Mar-2020.)
⊢ ((𝜑 → 𝜓) → 𝜓)    ⇒   ⊢ ((𝜓 → 𝜑) → 𝜑)
Theorem	bj-looinvii 35031	Inference associated with bj-looinvi 35030. (Contributed by BJ, 30-Mar-2020.)
⊢ ((𝜑 → 𝜓) → 𝜓)    &   ⊢ (𝜓 → 𝜑)    ⇒   ⊢ 𝜑
Theorem	bj-mt2bi 35032	Version of mt2 199 where the major premise is a biconditional. Another proof is also possible via con2bii 357 and mpbi 229. The current mt2bi 363 should be relabeled, maybe to imfal. (Contributed by BJ, 5-Oct-2024.)
⊢ 𝜑    &   ⊢ (𝜓 ↔ ¬ 𝜑)    ⇒   ⊢ ¬ 𝜓
Theorem	bj-ntrufal 35033	The negation of a theorem is equivalent to false. This can shorten dfnul2 4285. (Contributed by BJ, 5-Oct-2024.)
⊢ 𝜑    ⇒   ⊢ (¬ 𝜑 ↔ ⊥)
Theorem	bj-fal 35034	Shortening of fal 1555 using bj-mt2bi 35032. (Contributed by Anthony Hart, 22-Oct-2010.) (Proof shortened by Mel L. O'Cat, 11-Mar-2012.) (Proof modification is discouraged.)
⊢ ¬ ⊥
21.15.1.6  Disjunction A few lemmas about disjunction. The fundamental theorems in this family are the dual statements pm4.71 558 and pm4.72 948. See also biort 934 and biorf 935.
Theorem	bj-jaoi1 35035	Shortens orfa2 36545 (58>53), pm1.2 902 (20>18), pm1.2 902 (20>18), pm2.4 905 (31>25), pm2.41 906 (31>25), pm2.42 941 (38>32), pm3.2ni 879 (43>39), pm4.44 995 (55>51). (Contributed by BJ, 30-Sep-2019.)
⊢ (𝜑 → 𝜓)    ⇒   ⊢ ((𝜑 ∨ 𝜓) → 𝜓)
Theorem	bj-jaoi2 35036	Shortens consensus 1051 (110>106), elnn0z 12512 (336>329), pm1.2 902 (20>19), pm3.2ni 879 (43>39), pm4.44 995 (55>51). (Contributed by BJ, 30-Sep-2019.)
⊢ (𝜑 → 𝜓)    ⇒   ⊢ ((𝜓 ∨ 𝜑) → 𝜓)
21.15.1.7  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 846, df-an 397, pm4.64 847, imor 851, pm4.62 854 through pm4.67 399, and, for the De Morgan laws, ianor 980 through pm4.57 989.
Theorem	bj-dfbi4 35037	Alternate definition of the biconditional. (Contributed by BJ, 4-Oct-2019.)
⊢ ((𝜑 ↔ 𝜓) ↔ ((𝜑 ∧ 𝜓) ∨ ¬ (𝜑 ∨ 𝜓)))
Theorem	bj-dfbi5 35038	Alternate definition of the biconditional. (Contributed by BJ, 4-Oct-2019.)
⊢ ((𝜑 ↔ 𝜓) ↔ ((𝜑 ∨ 𝜓) → (𝜑 ∧ 𝜓)))
Theorem	bj-dfbi6 35039	Alternate definition of the biconditional. (Contributed by BJ, 4-Oct-2019.)
⊢ ((𝜑 ↔ 𝜓) ↔ ((𝜑 ∨ 𝜓) ↔ (𝜑 ∧ 𝜓)))
Theorem	bj-bijust0ALT 35040	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 35041	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 35040 are therefore also instances of it). (Contributed by BJ, 7-Sep-2022.)
⊢ ¬ ((𝜑 → 𝜑) → ¬ (𝜓 → 𝜓))
21.15.1.8  The conditional operator for propositions
Theorem	bj-consensus 35042	Version of consensus 1051 expressed using the conditional operator. (Remark: it may be better to express it as consensus 1051, 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 35043	Alternate proof of bj-consensus 35042. (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 35044*	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 2714. We reprove the current df-if 4487 from it in bj-dfif 35045. (Contributed by BJ, 20-Sep-2019.) (Proof modification is discouraged.)
⊢ if(𝜑, 𝐴, 𝐵) = {𝑥 ∣ if-(𝜑, 𝑥 ∈ 𝐴, 𝑥 ∈ 𝐵)}
Theorem	bj-dfif 35045*	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 35046	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))
21.15.1.9  Propositional calculus: miscellaneous Miscellaneous theorems of propositional calculus.
Theorem	bj-imbi12 35047	Uncurried (imported) form of imbi12 346. (Contributed by BJ, 6-May-2019.)
⊢ (((𝜑 ↔ 𝜓) ∧ (𝜒 ↔ 𝜃)) → ((𝜑 → 𝜒) ↔ (𝜓 → 𝜃)))
Theorem	bj-biorfi 35048	This should be labeled "biorfi" while the current biorfi 937 should be labeled "biorfri". The dual of biorf 935 is not biantr 804 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 35049	Dual of truan 1552 (which has biconditional reversed). (Contributed by BJ, 26-Oct-2019.) (Proof modification is discouraged.)
⊢ (𝜑 ↔ (⊥ ∨ 𝜑))
Theorem	bj-falor2 35050	Dual of truan 1552. (Contributed by BJ, 26-Oct-2019.) (Proof modification is discouraged.)
⊢ ((⊥ ∨ 𝜑) ↔ 𝜑)
Theorem	bj-bibibi 35051	A property of the biconditional. (Contributed by BJ, 26-Oct-2019.) (Proof modification is discouraged.)
⊢ (𝜑 ↔ (𝜓 ↔ (𝜑 ↔ 𝜓)))
Theorem	bj-imn3ani 35052	Duplication of bnj1224 33413. 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 35053	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 35054	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 35055	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 35056	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)))
21.15.2  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 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 35060.
Theorem	bj-axdd2 35057	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 35058. (Contributed by BJ, 16-May-2019.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) (New usage is discouraged.)
⊢ (∃𝑥𝜑 → (∀𝑥𝜓 → ∃𝑥𝜓))
Theorem	bj-axd2d 35058	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 35057. (Contributed by BJ, 16-May-2019.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) (New usage is discouraged.)
⊢ ((∀𝑥⊤ → ∃𝑥⊤) → ∃𝑥⊤)
Theorem	bj-axtd 35059	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 35057 and bj-axd2d 35058. (Contributed by BJ, 16-May-2019.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) (New usage is discouraged.)
⊢ ((∀𝑥 ¬ 𝜑 → ¬ 𝜑) → ((∀𝑥𝜑 → 𝜑) → (∀𝑥𝜑 → ∃𝑥𝜑)))
Theorem	bj-gl4 35060	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 35060 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 35061	Over minimal calculus, the modal axiom (4) (hba1 2289) and the modal axiom (K) (ax-4 1811) together imply axc4 2314. (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))))
21.15.3  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 35063 and ax-prv2 35064 and ax-prv3 35065. Note the similarity with ax-gen 1797, ax-4 1811 and hba1 2289 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/ 2289. 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 35068) and Löb's theorem (bj-babylob 35069). See the comments of these theorems for details.
Syntax	cprvb 35062	Syntax for the provability predicate.
wff Prv 𝜑
Axiom	ax-prv1 35063	First property of three of the provability predicate. (Contributed by BJ, 3-Apr-2019.)
⊢ 𝜑    ⇒   ⊢ Prv 𝜑
Axiom	ax-prv2 35064	Second property of three of the provability predicate. (Contributed by BJ, 3-Apr-2019.)
⊢ (Prv (𝜑 → 𝜓) → (Prv 𝜑 → Prv 𝜓))
Axiom	ax-prv3 35065	Third property of three of the provability predicate. (Contributed by BJ, 3-Apr-2019.)
⊢ (Prv 𝜑 → Prv Prv 𝜑)
Theorem	prvlem1 35066	An elementary property of the provability predicate. (Contributed by BJ, 3-Apr-2019.)
⊢ (𝜑 → 𝜓)    ⇒   ⊢ (Prv 𝜑 → Prv 𝜓)
Theorem	prvlem2 35067	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 35068	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 35069	See the section header comments for the context, as well as the comments for bj-babygodel 35068. 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/ 35068). (Contributed by BJ, 20-Apr-2019.)
⊢ (𝜓 ↔ (Prv 𝜓 → 𝜑))    &   ⊢ (Prv 𝜑 → 𝜑)    ⇒   ⊢ 𝜑
Theorem	bj-godellob 35070	Proof of Gödel's theorem from Löb's theorem (see comments at bj-babygodel 35068 and bj-babylob 35069 for details). (Contributed by BJ, 20-Apr-2019.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) (New usage is discouraged.)
⊢ (𝜑 ↔ ¬ Prv 𝜑)    &   ⊢ ¬ Prv ⊥    ⇒   ⊢ ⊥
21.15.4  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.
21.15.4.1  Adding ax-gen
Theorem	bj-genr 35071	Generalization rule on the right conjunct. See 19.28 2221. (Contributed by BJ, 7-Jul-2021.)
⊢ (𝜑 ∧ 𝜓)    ⇒   ⊢ (𝜑 ∧ ∀𝑥𝜓)
Theorem	bj-genl 35072	Generalization rule on the left conjunct. See 19.27 2220. (Contributed by BJ, 7-Jul-2021.)
⊢ (𝜑 ∧ 𝜓)    ⇒   ⊢ (∀𝑥𝜑 ∧ 𝜓)
Theorem	bj-genan 35073	Generalization rule on a conjunction. Forward inference associated with 19.26 1873. (Contributed by BJ, 7-Jul-2021.)
⊢ (𝜑 ∧ 𝜓)    ⇒   ⊢ (∀𝑥𝜑 ∧ ∀𝑥𝜓)
Theorem	bj-mpgs 35074	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 2176 (modal T) is available. Therefore, this theorem is stronger than mpg 1799 when sp 2176 is not available. (Contributed by BJ, 1-Nov-2023.)
⊢ 𝜑    &   ⊢ ((𝜑 ∧ ∀𝑥𝜑) → 𝜓)    ⇒   ⊢ 𝜓
21.15.4.2  Adding ax-4
Theorem	bj-2alim 35075	Closed form of 2alimi 1814. (Contributed by BJ, 6-May-2019.)
⊢ (∀𝑥∀𝑦(𝜑 → 𝜓) → (∀𝑥∀𝑦𝜑 → ∀𝑥∀𝑦𝜓))
Theorem	bj-2exim 35076	Closed form of 2eximi 1838. (Contributed by BJ, 6-May-2019.)
⊢ (∀𝑥∀𝑦(𝜑 → 𝜓) → (∃𝑥∃𝑦𝜑 → ∃𝑥∃𝑦𝜓))
Theorem	bj-alanim 35077	Closed form of alanimi 1818. (Contributed by BJ, 6-May-2019.)
⊢ (∀𝑥((𝜑 ∧ 𝜓) → 𝜒) → ((∀𝑥𝜑 ∧ ∀𝑥𝜓) → ∀𝑥𝜒))
Theorem	bj-2albi 35078	Closed form of 2albii 1822. (Contributed by BJ, 6-May-2019.)
⊢ (∀𝑥∀𝑦(𝜑 ↔ 𝜓) → (∀𝑥∀𝑦𝜑 ↔ ∀𝑥∀𝑦𝜓))
Theorem	bj-notalbii 35079	Equivalence of universal quantification of negation of equivalent formulas. Shortens ab0 4334 (103>94), ballotlem2 33088 (2655>2648), bnj1143 33402 (522>519), hausdiag 22996 (2119>2104). (Contributed by BJ, 17-Jul-2021.)
⊢ (𝜑 ↔ 𝜓)    ⇒   ⊢ (∀𝑥 ¬ 𝜑 ↔ ∀𝑥 ¬ 𝜓)
Theorem	bj-2exbi 35080	Closed form of 2exbii 1851. (Contributed by BJ, 6-May-2019.)
⊢ (∀𝑥∀𝑦(𝜑 ↔ 𝜓) → (∃𝑥∃𝑦𝜑 ↔ ∃𝑥∃𝑦𝜓))
Theorem	bj-3exbi 35081	Closed form of 3exbii 1852. (Contributed by BJ, 6-May-2019.)
⊢ (∀𝑥∀𝑦∀𝑧(𝜑 ↔ 𝜓) → (∃𝑥∃𝑦∃𝑧𝜑 ↔ ∃𝑥∃𝑦∃𝑧𝜓))
Theorem	bj-sylgt2 35082	Uncurried (imported) form of sylgt 1824. (Contributed by BJ, 2-May-2019.)
⊢ ((∀𝑥(𝜓 → 𝜒) ∧ (𝜑 → ∀𝑥𝜓)) → (𝜑 → ∀𝑥𝜒))
Theorem	bj-alrimg 35083	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 35087. (Contributed by BJ, 9-Dec-2023.)
⊢ ((𝜑 → ∀𝑥𝜓) → (∀𝑥(𝜓 → 𝜒) → (𝜑 → ∀𝑥𝜒)))
Theorem	bj-alrimd 35084	A slightly more general alrimd 2208. A common usage will have 𝜑 substituted for 𝜓 and 𝜒 substituted for 𝜃, giving a form closer to alrimd 2208. (Contributed by BJ, 25-Dec-2023.)
⊢ (𝜑 → ∀𝑥𝜓)    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → (𝜒 → ∀𝑥𝜃))    &   ⊢ (𝜓 → (𝜃 → 𝜏))    ⇒   ⊢ (𝜑 → (𝜒 → ∀𝑥𝜏))
Theorem	bj-sylget 35085	Dual statement of sylgt 1824. Closed form of bj-sylge 35088. (Contributed by BJ, 2-May-2019.)
⊢ (∀𝑥(𝜒 → 𝜑) → ((∃𝑥𝜑 → 𝜓) → (∃𝑥𝜒 → 𝜓)))
Theorem	bj-sylget2 35086	Uncurried (imported) form of bj-sylget 35085. (Contributed by BJ, 2-May-2019.)
⊢ ((∀𝑥(𝜑 → 𝜓) ∧ (∃𝑥𝜓 → 𝜒)) → (∃𝑥𝜑 → 𝜒))
Theorem	bj-exlimg 35087	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 35083. (Contributed by BJ, 9-Dec-2023.)
⊢ ((∃𝑥𝜑 → 𝜓) → (∀𝑥(𝜒 → 𝜑) → (∃𝑥𝜒 → 𝜓)))
Theorem	bj-sylge 35088	Dual statement of sylg 1825 (the final "e" in the label stands for "existential (version of sylg 1825)". Variant of exlimih 2285. (Contributed by BJ, 25-Dec-2023.)
⊢ (∃𝑥𝜑 → 𝜓)    &   ⊢ (𝜒 → 𝜑)    ⇒   ⊢ (∃𝑥𝜒 → 𝜓)
Theorem	bj-exlimd 35089	A slightly more general exlimd 2211. A common usage will have 𝜑 substituted for 𝜓 and 𝜃 substituted for 𝜏, giving a form closer to exlimd 2211. (Contributed by BJ, 25-Dec-2023.)
⊢ (𝜑 → ∀𝑥𝜓)    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → (∃𝑥𝜃 → 𝜏))    &   ⊢ (𝜓 → (𝜒 → 𝜃))    ⇒   ⊢ (𝜑 → (∃𝑥𝜒 → 𝜏))
Theorem	bj-nfimexal 35090	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 1841) and the converse implication is the join of instances of bj-alrimg 35083 and bj-exlimg 35087 (see 19.38a 1842 and 19.38b 1843). 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 35091	Closed form of aleximi 1834. Note: this proof is shorter, so aleximi 1834 could be deduced from it (exim 1836 would have to be proved first, see bj-eximALT 35105 but its proof is shorter (currently almost a subproof of aleximi 1834)). (Contributed by BJ, 8-Nov-2021.)
⊢ (∀𝑥(𝜑 → (𝜓 → 𝜒)) → (∀𝑥𝜑 → (∃𝑥𝜓 → ∃𝑥𝜒)))
Theorem	bj-nexdh 35092	Closed form of nexdh 1868 (actually, its general instance). (Contributed by BJ, 6-May-2019.)
⊢ (∀𝑥(𝜑 → ¬ 𝜓) → ((𝜒 → ∀𝑥𝜑) → (𝜒 → ¬ ∃𝑥𝜓)))
Theorem	bj-nexdh2 35093	Uncurried (imported) form of bj-nexdh 35092. (Contributed by BJ, 6-May-2019.)
⊢ ((∀𝑥(𝜑 → ¬ 𝜓) ∧ (𝜒 → ∀𝑥𝜑)) → (𝜒 → ¬ ∃𝑥𝜓))
Theorem	bj-hbxfrbi 35094	Closed form of hbxfrbi 1827. Note: it is less important than nfbiit 1853. The antecedent is in the "strong necessity" modality of modal logic (see also bj-nnftht 35206) in order not to require sp 2176 (modal T). See bj-hbyfrbi 35095 for its version with existential quantifiers. (Contributed by BJ, 6-May-2019.)
⊢ (((𝜑 ↔ 𝜓) ∧ ∀𝑥(𝜑 ↔ 𝜓)) → ((𝜑 → ∀𝑥𝜑) ↔ (𝜓 → ∀𝑥𝜓)))
Theorem	bj-hbyfrbi 35095	Version of bj-hbxfrbi 35094 with existential quantifiers. (Contributed by BJ, 23-Aug-2023.)
⊢ (((𝜑 ↔ 𝜓) ∧ ∀𝑥(𝜑 ↔ 𝜓)) → ((∃𝑥𝜑 → 𝜑) ↔ (∃𝑥𝜓 → 𝜓)))
Theorem	bj-exalim 35096	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 1913. I propose to move to the main part: bj-exalim 35096, bj-exalimi 35097, bj-exalims 35098, bj-exalimsi 35099, bj-ax12i 35101, bj-ax12wlem 35108, bj-ax12w 35141. A new label is needed for bj-ax12i 35101 and label suggestions are welcome for the others. I also propose to change ¬ ∀𝑥¬ to ∃𝑥 in speimfw 1967 and spimfw 1969 (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 35097	An inference for distributing quantifiers over a nested implication. The canonical derivation from its closed form bj-exalim 35096 (using mpg 1799) has fewer essential steps, but more steps in total (yielding a longer compressed proof). (Almost) the general statement that speimfw 1967 proves. (Contributed by BJ, 29-Sep-2019.)
⊢ (𝜑 → (𝜓 → 𝜒))    ⇒   ⊢ (∃𝑥𝜑 → (∀𝑥𝜓 → ∃𝑥𝜒))
Theorem	bj-exalims 35098	Distributing quantifiers over a nested implication. (Almost) the general statement that spimfw 1969 proves. (Contributed by BJ, 29-Sep-2019.)
⊢ (∃𝑥𝜑 → (¬ 𝜒 → ∀𝑥 ¬ 𝜒))    ⇒   ⊢ (∀𝑥(𝜑 → (𝜓 → 𝜒)) → (∃𝑥𝜑 → (∀𝑥𝜓 → 𝜒)))
Theorem	bj-exalimsi 35099	An inference for distributing quantifiers over a nested implication. (Almost) the general statement that spimfw 1969 proves. (Contributed by BJ, 29-Sep-2019.)
⊢ (𝜑 → (𝜓 → 𝜒))    &   ⊢ (∃𝑥𝜑 → (¬ 𝜒 → ∀𝑥 ¬ 𝜒))    ⇒   ⊢ (∃𝑥𝜑 → (∀𝑥𝜓 → 𝜒))
Theorem	bj-ax12ig 35100	A lemma used to prove a weak form of the axiom of substitution. A generalization of bj-ax12i 35101. (Contributed by BJ, 19-Dec-2020.)
⊢ (𝜑 → (𝜓 ↔ 𝜒))    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → (𝜒 → ∀𝑥𝜒))    ⇒   ⊢ (𝜑 → (𝜓 → ∀𝑥(𝜑 → 𝜓)))