P. 355 of Theorem List - Metamath Proof Explorer

Theorem List for Metamath Proof Explorer - 35401-35500   *Has distinct variable group(s)

Type	Label	Description
Statement
Theorem	knoppndvlem14 35401*	Lemma for knoppndv 35410. (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 35402*	Lemma for knoppndv 35410. (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 35403	Lemma for knoppndv 35410. (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 35404*	Lemma for knoppndv 35410. (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 35405*	Lemma for knoppndv 35410. (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 35406*	Lemma for knoppndv 35410. (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 35407	Lemma for knoppndv 35410. (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 35408*	Lemma for knoppndv 35410. (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 35409*	Lemma for knoppndv 35410. (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 35410*	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 35411*	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 35412*	Variant of knoppcn 35380 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 35413*	Lemma for cnndv 35415. (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 35414*	Lemma for cnndv 35415. (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 35415	There exists a continuous nowhere differentiable function. The result follows directly from knoppcn 35380 and knoppndv 35410. (Contributed by Asger C. Ipsen, 26-Aug-2021.)
⊢ ∃𝑓(𝑓 ∈ (ℝ–cn→ℝ) ∧ dom (ℝ D 𝑓) = ∅)
21.17  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.
21.17.1  Propositional calculus Miscellaneous utility theorems of propositional calculus.
21.17.1.1  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 35416	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 35417	A double modus ponens inference. Inference associated with mpcom 38. (Contributed by BJ, 24-Sep-2019.)
⊢ 𝜑    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝜓)    &   ⊢ (𝜓 → (𝜑 → 𝜒))    ⇒   ⊢ 𝜒
21.17.1.2  A syntactic theorem In this section, we prove a syntactic theorem (bj-0 35418) asserting that some formula is well-formed. Then, we use this syntactic theorem to shorten the proof of a "usual" theorem (bj-1 35419) and explain in the comment of that theorem why this phenomenon is unusual.
Theorem	bj-0 35418	A syntactic theorem. See the section comment and the comment of bj-1 35419. 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 35419	In this proof, the use of the syntactic theorem bj-0 35418 allows to reduce the total length by one (non-essential) step. See also the section comment and the comment of bj-0 35418. Since bj-0 35418 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 35418 as a theorem referencing it). The full proof reads $= wph wps wch bj-0 id $. (while, without using bj-0 35418, 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 35419 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))
21.17.1.3  Minimal implicational calculus
Theorem	bj-a1k 35420	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 35420 does not require ax-2 7). This shortens the proofs of dfwe2 7761 (937>925), ordunisuc2 7833 (789>777), r111 9770 (558>545), smo11 8364 (1176>1164). (Contributed by BJ, 11-Aug-2020.) (Proof modification is discouraged.)
⊢ (𝜑 → (𝜓 → (𝜒 → 𝜓)))
Theorem	bj-poni 35421	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 35422	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 35423	Inference associated with bj-nnclav 35422. Its associated inference is an instance of syl 17. Notice the non-intuitionistic proof from bj-peircei 35442 and bj-poni 35421. (Contributed by BJ, 30-Jul-2024.)
⊢ ((𝜑 → 𝜓) → 𝜑)    ⇒   ⊢ ((𝜑 → 𝜓) → 𝜓)
Theorem	bj-nnclavc 35424	Commuted form of bj-nnclav 35422. Notice the non-intuitionistic proof from bj-peircei 35442 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 35425	Inference associated with bj-nnclavc 35424. 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 35426	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 35427	The propositional function (𝜒 → (. → 𝜃)) is decreasing. (Contributed by BJ, 19-Jul-2019.)
⊢ ((𝜑 → 𝜓) → ((𝜒 → (𝜓 → 𝜃)) → (𝜒 → (𝜑 → 𝜃))))
Theorem	bj-imim21i 35428	Inference associated with bj-imim21 35427. Its associated inference is syl5 34. (Contributed by BJ, 19-Jul-2019.)
⊢ (𝜑 → 𝜓)    ⇒   ⊢ ((𝜒 → (𝜓 → 𝜃)) → (𝜒 → (𝜑 → 𝜃)))
Theorem	bj-peircestab 35429	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 35430). (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 35430	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 35429). (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))
21.17.1.4  Positive calculus Positive calculus is understood to be intuitionistic.
Theorem	bj-syl66ib 35431	A mixed syllogism inference derived from imbitrdi 250. In addition to bj-dvelimdv1 35731, it can also shorten alexsubALTlem4 23554 (4821>4812), supsrlem 11106 (2868>2863). (Contributed by BJ, 20-Oct-2021.)
⊢ (𝜑 → (𝜓 → 𝜃))    &   ⊢ (𝜃 → 𝜏)    &   ⊢ (𝜏 ↔ 𝜒)    ⇒   ⊢ (𝜑 → (𝜓 → 𝜒))
Theorem	bj-orim2 35432	Proof of orim2 967 from the axiomatic definition of disjunction (olc 867, orc 866, jao 960) and minimal implicational calculus. (Contributed by BJ, 4-Apr-2021.) (Proof modification is discouraged.)
⊢ ((𝜑 → 𝜓) → ((𝜒 ∨ 𝜑) → (𝜒 ∨ 𝜓)))
Theorem	bj-currypeirce 35433	Curry's axiom curryax 893 (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 960 via its inference form jaoi 856; the introduction axioms olc 867 and orc 866 are not needed). Note that this theorem shows that actually, the standard instance of curryax 893 implies the standard instance of peirce 201, which is not the case for the converse bj-peircecurry 35434. (Contributed by BJ, 15-Jun-2021.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) (New usage is discouraged.)
⊢ ((𝜑 ∨ (𝜑 → 𝜓)) → (((𝜑 → 𝜓) → 𝜑) → 𝜑))
Theorem	bj-peircecurry 35434	Peirce's axiom peirce 201 implies Curry's axiom curryax 893 over minimal implicational calculus and the axiomatic definition of disjunction (actually, only the introduction axioms olc 867 and orc 866; the elimination axiom jao 960 is not needed). See bj-currypeirce 35433 for the converse. (Contributed by BJ, 15-Jun-2021.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) (New usage is discouraged.)
⊢ (𝜑 ∨ (𝜑 → 𝜓))
Theorem	bj-animbi 35435	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 35436	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)
21.17.1.5  Implication and negation
Theorem	bj-con2com 35437	A commuted form of the contrapositive, true in minimal calculus. (Contributed by BJ, 19-Mar-2020.)
⊢ (𝜑 → ((𝜓 → ¬ 𝜑) → ¬ 𝜓))
Theorem	bj-con2comi 35438	Inference associated with bj-con2com 35437. 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 35438. (Contributed by BJ, 19-Mar-2020.)
⊢ 𝜑    ⇒   ⊢ ((𝜓 → ¬ 𝜑) → ¬ 𝜓)
Theorem	bj-pm2.01i 35439	Inference associated with the weak Clavius law pm2.01 188. (Contributed by BJ, 30-Mar-2020.)
⊢ (𝜑 → ¬ 𝜑)    ⇒   ⊢ ¬ 𝜑
Theorem	bj-nimn 35440	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 35441	Inference associated with bj-nimn 35440. (Contributed by BJ, 19-Mar-2020.)
⊢ 𝜑    ⇒   ⊢ ¬ (𝜑 → ¬ 𝜑)
Theorem	bj-peircei 35442	Inference associated with peirce 201. (Contributed by BJ, 30-Mar-2020.)
⊢ ((𝜑 → 𝜓) → 𝜑)    ⇒   ⊢ 𝜑
Theorem	bj-looinvi 35443	Inference associated with looinv 202. Its associated inference is bj-looinvii 35444. (Contributed by BJ, 30-Mar-2020.)
⊢ ((𝜑 → 𝜓) → 𝜓)    ⇒   ⊢ ((𝜓 → 𝜑) → 𝜑)
Theorem	bj-looinvii 35444	Inference associated with bj-looinvi 35443. (Contributed by BJ, 30-Mar-2020.)
⊢ ((𝜑 → 𝜓) → 𝜓)    &   ⊢ (𝜓 → 𝜑)    ⇒   ⊢ 𝜑
Theorem	bj-mt2bi 35445	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 35446	The negation of a theorem is equivalent to false. This can shorten dfnul2 4326. (Contributed by BJ, 5-Oct-2024.)
⊢ 𝜑    ⇒   ⊢ (¬ 𝜑 ↔ ⊥)
Theorem	bj-fal 35447	Shortening of fal 1556 using bj-mt2bi 35445. (Contributed by Anthony Hart, 22-Oct-2010.) (Proof shortened by Mel L. O'Cat, 11-Mar-2012.) (Proof modification is discouraged.)
⊢ ¬ ⊥
21.17.1.6  Disjunction A few lemmas about disjunction. The fundamental theorems in this family are the dual statements pm4.71 559 and pm4.72 949. See also biort 935 and biorf 936.
Theorem	bj-jaoi1 35448	Shortens orfa2 36954 (58>53), pm1.2 903 (20>18), pm1.2 903 (20>18), pm2.4 906 (31>25), pm2.41 907 (31>25), pm2.42 942 (38>32), pm3.2ni 880 (43>39), pm4.44 996 (55>51). (Contributed by BJ, 30-Sep-2019.)
⊢ (𝜑 → 𝜓)    ⇒   ⊢ ((𝜑 ∨ 𝜓) → 𝜓)
Theorem	bj-jaoi2 35449	Shortens consensus 1052 (110>106), elnn0z 12571 (336>329), pm1.2 903 (20>19), pm3.2ni 880 (43>39), pm4.44 996 (55>51). (Contributed by BJ, 30-Sep-2019.)
⊢ (𝜑 → 𝜓)    ⇒   ⊢ ((𝜓 ∨ 𝜑) → 𝜓)
21.17.1.7  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 847, df-an 398, pm4.64 848, imor 852, pm4.62 855 through pm4.67 400, and, for the De Morgan laws, ianor 981 through pm4.57 990.
Theorem	bj-dfbi4 35450	Alternate definition of the biconditional. (Contributed by BJ, 4-Oct-2019.)
⊢ ((𝜑 ↔ 𝜓) ↔ ((𝜑 ∧ 𝜓) ∨ ¬ (𝜑 ∨ 𝜓)))
Theorem	bj-dfbi5 35451	Alternate definition of the biconditional. (Contributed by BJ, 4-Oct-2019.)
⊢ ((𝜑 ↔ 𝜓) ↔ ((𝜑 ∨ 𝜓) → (𝜑 ∧ 𝜓)))
Theorem	bj-dfbi6 35452	Alternate definition of the biconditional. (Contributed by BJ, 4-Oct-2019.)
⊢ ((𝜑 ↔ 𝜓) ↔ ((𝜑 ∨ 𝜓) ↔ (𝜑 ∧ 𝜓)))
Theorem	bj-bijust0ALT 35453	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 35454	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 35453 are therefore also instances of it). (Contributed by BJ, 7-Sep-2022.)
⊢ ¬ ((𝜑 → 𝜑) → ¬ (𝜓 → 𝜓))
21.17.1.8  The conditional operator for propositions
Theorem	bj-consensus 35455	Version of consensus 1052 expressed using the conditional operator. (Remark: it may be better to express it as consensus 1052, 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 35456	Alternate proof of bj-consensus 35455. (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 35457*	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 2711. We reprove the current df-if 4530 from it in bj-dfif 35458. (Contributed by BJ, 20-Sep-2019.) (Proof modification is discouraged.)
⊢ if(𝜑, 𝐴, 𝐵) = {𝑥 ∣ if-(𝜑, 𝑥 ∈ 𝐴, 𝑥 ∈ 𝐵)}
Theorem	bj-dfif 35458*	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 35459	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))
21.17.1.9  Propositional calculus: miscellaneous Miscellaneous theorems of propositional calculus.
Theorem	bj-imbi12 35460	Uncurried (imported) form of imbi12 347. (Contributed by BJ, 6-May-2019.)
⊢ (((𝜑 ↔ 𝜓) ∧ (𝜒 ↔ 𝜃)) → ((𝜑 → 𝜒) ↔ (𝜓 → 𝜃)))
Theorem	bj-biorfi 35461	This should be labeled "biorfi" while the current biorfi 938 should be labeled "biorfri". The dual of biorf 936 is not biantr 805 but iba 529 (and ibar 530). 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 35462	Dual of truan 1553 (which has biconditional reversed). (Contributed by BJ, 26-Oct-2019.) (Proof modification is discouraged.)
⊢ (𝜑 ↔ (⊥ ∨ 𝜑))
Theorem	bj-falor2 35463	Dual of truan 1553. (Contributed by BJ, 26-Oct-2019.) (Proof modification is discouraged.)
⊢ ((⊥ ∨ 𝜑) ↔ 𝜑)
Theorem	bj-bibibi 35464	A property of the biconditional. (Contributed by BJ, 26-Oct-2019.) (Proof modification is discouraged.)
⊢ (𝜑 ↔ (𝜓 ↔ (𝜑 ↔ 𝜓)))
Theorem	bj-imn3ani 35465	Duplication of bnj1224 33812. Three-fold version of imnani 402. (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 35466	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 35467	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 35468	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 35469	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)))
21.17.2  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 35473.
Theorem	bj-axdd2 35470	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 35471. (Contributed by BJ, 16-May-2019.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) (New usage is discouraged.)
⊢ (∃𝑥𝜑 → (∀𝑥𝜓 → ∃𝑥𝜓))
Theorem	bj-axd2d 35471	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 35470. (Contributed by BJ, 16-May-2019.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) (New usage is discouraged.)
⊢ ((∀𝑥⊤ → ∃𝑥⊤) → ∃𝑥⊤)
Theorem	bj-axtd 35472	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 35470 and bj-axd2d 35471. (Contributed by BJ, 16-May-2019.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) (New usage is discouraged.)
⊢ ((∀𝑥 ¬ 𝜑 → ¬ 𝜑) → ((∀𝑥𝜑 → 𝜑) → (∀𝑥𝜑 → ∃𝑥𝜑)))
Theorem	bj-gl4 35473	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 35473 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 35474	Over minimal calculus, the modal axiom (4) (hba1 2290) and the modal axiom (K) (ax-4 1812) together imply axc4 2315. (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))))
21.17.3  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 35476 and ax-prv2 35477 and ax-prv3 35478. Note the similarity with ax-gen 1798, ax-4 1812 and hba1 2290 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/ 2290. 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 35481) and Löb's theorem (bj-babylob 35482). See the comments of these theorems for details.
Syntax	cprvb 35475	Syntax for the provability predicate.
wff Prv 𝜑
Axiom	ax-prv1 35476	First property of three of the provability predicate. (Contributed by BJ, 3-Apr-2019.)
⊢ 𝜑    ⇒   ⊢ Prv 𝜑
Axiom	ax-prv2 35477	Second property of three of the provability predicate. (Contributed by BJ, 3-Apr-2019.)
⊢ (Prv (𝜑 → 𝜓) → (Prv 𝜑 → Prv 𝜓))
Axiom	ax-prv3 35478	Third property of three of the provability predicate. (Contributed by BJ, 3-Apr-2019.)
⊢ (Prv 𝜑 → Prv Prv 𝜑)
Theorem	prvlem1 35479	An elementary property of the provability predicate. (Contributed by BJ, 3-Apr-2019.)
⊢ (𝜑 → 𝜓)    ⇒   ⊢ (Prv 𝜑 → Prv 𝜓)
Theorem	prvlem2 35480	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 35481	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 35482	See the section header comments for the context, as well as the comments for bj-babygodel 35481. 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/ 35481). (Contributed by BJ, 20-Apr-2019.)
⊢ (𝜓 ↔ (Prv 𝜓 → 𝜑))    &   ⊢ (Prv 𝜑 → 𝜑)    ⇒   ⊢ 𝜑
Theorem	bj-godellob 35483	Proof of Gödel's theorem from Löb's theorem (see comments at bj-babygodel 35481 and bj-babylob 35482 for details). (Contributed by BJ, 20-Apr-2019.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) (New usage is discouraged.)
⊢ (𝜑 ↔ ¬ Prv 𝜑)    &   ⊢ ¬ Prv ⊥    ⇒   ⊢ ⊥
21.17.4  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.
21.17.4.1  Adding ax-gen
Theorem	bj-genr 35484	Generalization rule on the right conjunct. See 19.28 2222. (Contributed by BJ, 7-Jul-2021.)
⊢ (𝜑 ∧ 𝜓)    ⇒   ⊢ (𝜑 ∧ ∀𝑥𝜓)
Theorem	bj-genl 35485	Generalization rule on the left conjunct. See 19.27 2221. (Contributed by BJ, 7-Jul-2021.)
⊢ (𝜑 ∧ 𝜓)    ⇒   ⊢ (∀𝑥𝜑 ∧ 𝜓)
Theorem	bj-genan 35486	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 35487	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
21.17.4.2  Adding ax-4
Theorem	bj-2alim 35488	Closed form of 2alimi 1815. (Contributed by BJ, 6-May-2019.)
⊢ (∀𝑥∀𝑦(𝜑 → 𝜓) → (∀𝑥∀𝑦𝜑 → ∀𝑥∀𝑦𝜓))
Theorem	bj-2exim 35489	Closed form of 2eximi 1839. (Contributed by BJ, 6-May-2019.)
⊢ (∀𝑥∀𝑦(𝜑 → 𝜓) → (∃𝑥∃𝑦𝜑 → ∃𝑥∃𝑦𝜓))
Theorem	bj-alanim 35490	Closed form of alanimi 1819. (Contributed by BJ, 6-May-2019.)
⊢ (∀𝑥((𝜑 ∧ 𝜓) → 𝜒) → ((∀𝑥𝜑 ∧ ∀𝑥𝜓) → ∀𝑥𝜒))
Theorem	bj-2albi 35491	Closed form of 2albii 1823. (Contributed by BJ, 6-May-2019.)
⊢ (∀𝑥∀𝑦(𝜑 ↔ 𝜓) → (∀𝑥∀𝑦𝜑 ↔ ∀𝑥∀𝑦𝜓))
Theorem	bj-notalbii 35492	Equivalence of universal quantification of negation of equivalent formulas. Shortens ab0 4375 (103>94), ballotlem2 33487 (2655>2648), bnj1143 33801 (522>519), hausdiag 23149 (2119>2104). (Contributed by BJ, 17-Jul-2021.)
⊢ (𝜑 ↔ 𝜓)    ⇒   ⊢ (∀𝑥 ¬ 𝜑 ↔ ∀𝑥 ¬ 𝜓)
Theorem	bj-2exbi 35493	Closed form of 2exbii 1852. (Contributed by BJ, 6-May-2019.)
⊢ (∀𝑥∀𝑦(𝜑 ↔ 𝜓) → (∃𝑥∃𝑦𝜑 ↔ ∃𝑥∃𝑦𝜓))
Theorem	bj-3exbi 35494	Closed form of 3exbii 1853. (Contributed by BJ, 6-May-2019.)
⊢ (∀𝑥∀𝑦∀𝑧(𝜑 ↔ 𝜓) → (∃𝑥∃𝑦∃𝑧𝜑 ↔ ∃𝑥∃𝑦∃𝑧𝜓))
Theorem	bj-sylgt2 35495	Uncurried (imported) form of sylgt 1825. (Contributed by BJ, 2-May-2019.)
⊢ ((∀𝑥(𝜓 → 𝜒) ∧ (𝜑 → ∀𝑥𝜓)) → (𝜑 → ∀𝑥𝜒))
Theorem	bj-alrimg 35496	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 35500. (Contributed by BJ, 9-Dec-2023.)
⊢ ((𝜑 → ∀𝑥𝜓) → (∀𝑥(𝜓 → 𝜒) → (𝜑 → ∀𝑥𝜒)))
Theorem	bj-alrimd 35497	A slightly more general alrimd 2209. A common usage will have 𝜑 substituted for 𝜓 and 𝜒 substituted for 𝜃, giving a form closer to alrimd 2209. (Contributed by BJ, 25-Dec-2023.)
⊢ (𝜑 → ∀𝑥𝜓)    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → (𝜒 → ∀𝑥𝜃))    &   ⊢ (𝜓 → (𝜃 → 𝜏))    ⇒   ⊢ (𝜑 → (𝜒 → ∀𝑥𝜏))
Theorem	bj-sylget 35498	Dual statement of sylgt 1825. Closed form of bj-sylge 35501. (Contributed by BJ, 2-May-2019.)
⊢ (∀𝑥(𝜒 → 𝜑) → ((∃𝑥𝜑 → 𝜓) → (∃𝑥𝜒 → 𝜓)))
Theorem	bj-sylget2 35499	Uncurried (imported) form of bj-sylget 35498. (Contributed by BJ, 2-May-2019.)
⊢ ((∀𝑥(𝜑 → 𝜓) ∧ (∃𝑥𝜓 → 𝜒)) → (∃𝑥𝜑 → 𝜒))
Theorem	bj-exlimg 35500	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 35496. (Contributed by BJ, 9-Dec-2023.)
⊢ ((∃𝑥𝜑 → 𝜓) → (∀𝑥(𝜒 → 𝜑) → (∃𝑥𝜒 → 𝜓)))