P. 356 of Theorem List - Metamath Proof Explorer

Theorem List for Metamath Proof Explorer - 35501-35600   *Has distinct variable group(s)

Type	Label	Description
Statement
Theorem	bj-nexdh2 35501	Uncurried (imported) form of bj-nexdh 35500. (Contributed by BJ, 6-May-2019.)
⊢ ((∀𝑥(𝜑 → ¬ 𝜓) ∧ (𝜒 → ∀𝑥𝜑)) → (𝜒 → ¬ ∃𝑥𝜓))
Theorem	bj-hbxfrbi 35502	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 35614) in order not to require sp 2176 (modal T). See bj-hbyfrbi 35503 for its version with existential quantifiers. (Contributed by BJ, 6-May-2019.)
⊢ (((𝜑 ↔ 𝜓) ∧ ∀𝑥(𝜑 ↔ 𝜓)) → ((𝜑 → ∀𝑥𝜑) ↔ (𝜓 → ∀𝑥𝜓)))
Theorem	bj-hbyfrbi 35503	Version of bj-hbxfrbi 35502 with existential quantifiers. (Contributed by BJ, 23-Aug-2023.)
⊢ (((𝜑 ↔ 𝜓) ∧ ∀𝑥(𝜑 ↔ 𝜓)) → ((∃𝑥𝜑 → 𝜑) ↔ (∃𝑥𝜓 → 𝜓)))
Theorem	bj-exalim 35504	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 35504, bj-exalimi 35505, bj-exalims 35506, bj-exalimsi 35507, bj-ax12i 35509, bj-ax12wlem 35516, bj-ax12w 35549. A new label is needed for bj-ax12i 35509 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 35505	An inference for distributing quantifiers over a nested implication. The canonical derivation from its closed form bj-exalim 35504 (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 35506	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 35507	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 35508	A lemma used to prove a weak form of the axiom of substitution. A generalization of bj-ax12i 35509. (Contributed by BJ, 19-Dec-2020.)
⊢ (𝜑 → (𝜓 ↔ 𝜒))    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → (𝜒 → ∀𝑥𝜒))    ⇒   ⊢ (𝜑 → (𝜓 → ∀𝑥(𝜑 → 𝜓)))
Theorem	bj-ax12i 35509	A weakening of bj-ax12ig 35508 that is sufficient to prove a weak form of the axiom of substitution ax-12 2171. The general statement of which ax12i 1970 is an instance. (Contributed by BJ, 29-Sep-2019.)
⊢ (𝜑 → (𝜓 ↔ 𝜒))    &   ⊢ (𝜒 → ∀𝑥𝜒)    ⇒   ⊢ (𝜑 → (𝜓 → ∀𝑥(𝜑 → 𝜓)))
Theorem	bj-nfimt 35510	Closed form of nfim 1899 and curried (exported) form of nfimt 1898. (Contributed by BJ, 20-Oct-2021.)
⊢ (Ⅎ𝑥𝜑 → (Ⅎ𝑥𝜓 → Ⅎ𝑥(𝜑 → 𝜓)))
Theorem	bj-cbvalimt 35511	A lemma in closed form used to prove bj-cbval 35521 in a weak axiomatization. (Contributed by BJ, 12-Mar-2023.) Do not use 19.35 1880 since only the direction of the biconditional used here holds in intuitionistic logic. (Proof modification is discouraged.)
⊢ (∀𝑦∃𝑥𝜒 → (∀𝑦∀𝑥(𝜒 → (𝜑 → 𝜓)) → ((∀𝑥𝜑 → ∀𝑦∀𝑥𝜑) → (∀𝑦(∃𝑥𝜓 → 𝜓) → (∀𝑥𝜑 → ∀𝑦𝜓)))))
Theorem	bj-cbveximt 35512	A lemma in closed form used to prove bj-cbvex 35522 in a weak axiomatization. (Contributed by BJ, 12-Mar-2023.) Do not use 19.35 1880 since only the direction of the biconditional used here holds in intuitionistic logic. (Proof modification is discouraged.)
⊢ (∀𝑥∃𝑦𝜒 → (∀𝑥∀𝑦(𝜒 → (𝜑 → 𝜓)) → (∀𝑥(𝜑 → ∀𝑦𝜑) → ((∃𝑥∃𝑦𝜓 → ∃𝑦𝜓) → (∃𝑥𝜑 → ∃𝑦𝜓)))))
Theorem	bj-eximALT 35513	Alternate proof of exim 1836 directly from alim 1812 by using df-ex 1782 (using duality of ∀ and ∃. (Contributed by BJ, 9-Dec-2023.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) (New usage is discouraged.)
⊢ (∀𝑥(𝜑 → 𝜓) → (∃𝑥𝜑 → ∃𝑥𝜓))
Theorem	bj-aleximiALT 35514	Alternate proof of aleximi 1834 from exim 1836, which is sometimes used as an axiom in instuitionistic modal logic. (Contributed by BJ, 9-Dec-2023.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) (New usage is discouraged.)
⊢ (𝜑 → (𝜓 → 𝜒))    ⇒   ⊢ (∀𝑥𝜑 → (∃𝑥𝜓 → ∃𝑥𝜒))
Theorem	bj-eximcom 35515	A commuted form of exim 1836 which is sometimes posited as an axiom in instuitionistic modal logic. (Contributed by BJ, 9-Dec-2023.)
⊢ (∃𝑥(𝜑 → 𝜓) → (∀𝑥𝜑 → ∃𝑥𝜓))
21.17.4.3  Adding ax-5
Theorem	bj-ax12wlem 35516*	A lemma used to prove a weak version of the axiom of substitution ax-12 2171. (Temporary comment: The general statement that ax12wlem 2128 proves.) (Contributed by BJ, 20-Mar-2020.)
⊢ (𝜑 → (𝜓 ↔ 𝜒))    ⇒   ⊢ (𝜑 → (𝜓 → ∀𝑥(𝜑 → 𝜓)))
Theorem	bj-cbvalim 35517*	A lemma used to prove bj-cbval 35521 in a weak axiomatization. (Contributed by BJ, 12-Mar-2023.) (Proof modification is discouraged.)
⊢ (∀𝑦∃𝑥𝜒 → (∀𝑦∀𝑥(𝜒 → (𝜑 → 𝜓)) → (∀𝑥𝜑 → ∀𝑦𝜓)))
Theorem	bj-cbvexim 35518*	A lemma used to prove bj-cbvex 35522 in a weak axiomatization. (Contributed by BJ, 12-Mar-2023.) (Proof modification is discouraged.)
⊢ (∀𝑥∃𝑦𝜒 → (∀𝑥∀𝑦(𝜒 → (𝜑 → 𝜓)) → (∃𝑥𝜑 → ∃𝑦𝜓)))
Theorem	bj-cbvalimi 35519*	An equality-free general instance of one half of a precise form of bj-cbval 35521. (Contributed by BJ, 12-Mar-2023.) (Proof modification is discouraged.)
⊢ (𝜒 → (𝜑 → 𝜓))    &   ⊢ ∀𝑦∃𝑥𝜒    ⇒   ⊢ (∀𝑥𝜑 → ∀𝑦𝜓)
Theorem	bj-cbveximi 35520*	An equality-free general instance of one half of a precise form of bj-cbvex 35522. (Contributed by BJ, 12-Mar-2023.) (Proof modification is discouraged.)
⊢ (𝜒 → (𝜑 → 𝜓))    &   ⊢ ∀𝑥∃𝑦𝜒    ⇒   ⊢ (∃𝑥𝜑 → ∃𝑦𝜓)
Theorem	bj-cbval 35521*	Changing a bound variable (universal quantification case) in a weak axiomatization, assuming that all variables denote (which is valid in inclusive free logic) and that equality is symmetric. (Contributed by BJ, 12-Mar-2023.) (Proof modification is discouraged.)
⊢ ∀𝑦∃𝑥 𝑥 = 𝑦    &   ⊢ ∀𝑥∃𝑦 𝑦 = 𝑥    &   ⊢ (𝑥 = 𝑦 → (𝜑 ↔ 𝜓))    &   ⊢ (𝑦 = 𝑥 → 𝑥 = 𝑦)    ⇒   ⊢ (∀𝑥𝜑 ↔ ∀𝑦𝜓)
Theorem	bj-cbvex 35522*	Changing a bound variable (existential quantification case) in a weak axiomatization, assuming that all variables denote (which is valid in inclusive free logic) and that equality is symmetric. (Contributed by BJ, 12-Mar-2023.) (Proof modification is discouraged.)
⊢ ∀𝑦∃𝑥 𝑥 = 𝑦    &   ⊢ ∀𝑥∃𝑦 𝑦 = 𝑥    &   ⊢ (𝑥 = 𝑦 → (𝜑 ↔ 𝜓))    &   ⊢ (𝑦 = 𝑥 → 𝑥 = 𝑦)    ⇒   ⊢ (∃𝑥𝜑 ↔ ∃𝑦𝜓)
Syntax	wmoo 35523	Syntax for BJ's version of the uniqueness quantifier.
wff ∃**𝑥𝜑
Definition	df-bj-mo 35524*	Definition of the uniqueness quantifier which is correct on the empty domain. Instead of the fresh variable 𝑧, one could save a dummy variable by using 𝑥 or 𝑦 at the cost of having nested quantifiers on the same variable. (Contributed by BJ, 12-Mar-2023.)
⊢ (∃**𝑥𝜑 ↔ ∀𝑧∃𝑦∀𝑥(𝜑 → 𝑥 = 𝑦))
21.17.4.4  Equality and substitution
Theorem	bj-ssbeq 35525*	Substitution in an equality, disjoint variables case. Uses only ax-1 6 through ax-6 1971. It might be shorter to prove the result about composition of two substitutions and prove bj-ssbeq 35525 first with a DV condition on 𝑥, 𝑡, and then in the general case. (Contributed by BJ, 22-Dec-2020.) (Proof modification is discouraged.)
⊢ ([𝑡 / 𝑥]𝑦 = 𝑧 ↔ 𝑦 = 𝑧)
Theorem	bj-ssblem1 35526*	A lemma for the definiens of df-sb 2068. An instance of sp 2176 proved without it. Note: it has a common subproof with sbjust 2066. (Contributed by BJ, 22-Dec-2020.) (Proof modification is discouraged.)
⊢ (∀𝑦(𝑦 = 𝑡 → ∀𝑥(𝑥 = 𝑦 → 𝜑)) → (𝑦 = 𝑡 → ∀𝑥(𝑥 = 𝑦 → 𝜑)))
Theorem	bj-ssblem2 35527*	An instance of ax-11 2154 proved without it. The converse may not be provable without ax-11 2154 (since using alcomiw 2046 would require a DV on 𝜑, 𝑥, which defeats the purpose). (Contributed by BJ, 22-Dec-2020.) (Proof modification is discouraged.)
⊢ (∀𝑥∀𝑦(𝑦 = 𝑡 → (𝑥 = 𝑦 → 𝜑)) → ∀𝑦∀𝑥(𝑦 = 𝑡 → (𝑥 = 𝑦 → 𝜑)))
Theorem	bj-ax12v 35528*	A weaker form of ax-12 2171 and ax12v 2172, namely the generalization over 𝑥 of the latter. In this statement, all occurrences of 𝑥 are bound. (Contributed by BJ, 26-Dec-2020.) (Proof modification is discouraged.)
⊢ ∀𝑥(𝑥 = 𝑡 → (𝜑 → ∀𝑥(𝑥 = 𝑡 → 𝜑)))
Theorem	bj-ax12 35529*	Remove a DV condition from bj-ax12v 35528 (using core axioms only). (Contributed by BJ, 26-Dec-2020.) (Proof modification is discouraged.)
⊢ ∀𝑥(𝑥 = 𝑡 → (𝜑 → ∀𝑥(𝑥 = 𝑡 → 𝜑)))
Theorem	bj-ax12ssb 35530*	Axiom bj-ax12 35529 expressed using substitution. (Contributed by BJ, 26-Dec-2020.) (Proof modification is discouraged.)
⊢ [𝑡 / 𝑥](𝜑 → [𝑡 / 𝑥]𝜑)
Theorem	bj-19.41al 35531	Special case of 19.41 2228 proved from core axioms, ax-10 2137 (modal5), and hba1 2289 (modal4). (Contributed by BJ, 29-Dec-2020.) (Proof modification is discouraged.)
⊢ (∃𝑥(𝜑 ∧ ∀𝑥𝜓) ↔ (∃𝑥𝜑 ∧ ∀𝑥𝜓))
Theorem	bj-equsexval 35532*	Special case of equsexv 2259 proved from core axioms, ax-10 2137 (modal5), and hba1 2289 (modal4). (Contributed by BJ, 29-Dec-2020.) (Proof modification is discouraged.)
⊢ (𝑥 = 𝑦 → (𝜑 ↔ ∀𝑥𝜓))    ⇒   ⊢ (∃𝑥(𝑥 = 𝑦 ∧ 𝜑) ↔ ∀𝑥𝜓)
Theorem	bj-subst 35533*	Proof of sbalex 2235 from core axioms, ax-10 2137 (modal5), and bj-ax12 35529. (Contributed by BJ, 29-Dec-2020.) (Proof modification is discouraged.)
⊢ (∃𝑥(𝑥 = 𝑦 ∧ 𝜑) ↔ ∀𝑥(𝑥 = 𝑦 → 𝜑))
Theorem	bj-ssbid2 35534	A special case of sbequ2 2241. (Contributed by BJ, 22-Dec-2020.)
⊢ ([𝑥 / 𝑥]𝜑 → 𝜑)
Theorem	bj-ssbid2ALT 35535	Alternate proof of bj-ssbid2 35534, not using sbequ2 2241. (Contributed by BJ, 22-Dec-2020.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) (New usage is discouraged.)
⊢ ([𝑥 / 𝑥]𝜑 → 𝜑)
Theorem	bj-ssbid1 35536	A special case of sbequ1 2240. (Contributed by BJ, 22-Dec-2020.)
⊢ (𝜑 → [𝑥 / 𝑥]𝜑)
Theorem	bj-ssbid1ALT 35537	Alternate proof of bj-ssbid1 35536, not using sbequ1 2240. (Contributed by BJ, 22-Dec-2020.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) (New usage is discouraged.)
⊢ (𝜑 → [𝑥 / 𝑥]𝜑)
Theorem	bj-ax6elem1 35538*	Lemma for bj-ax6e 35540. (Contributed by BJ, 22-Dec-2020.) (Proof modification is discouraged.)
⊢ (¬ ∀𝑥 𝑥 = 𝑦 → (𝑦 = 𝑧 → ∀𝑥 𝑦 = 𝑧))
Theorem	bj-ax6elem2 35539*	Lemma for bj-ax6e 35540. (Contributed by BJ, 22-Dec-2020.) (Proof modification is discouraged.)
⊢ (∀𝑥 𝑦 = 𝑧 → ∃𝑥 𝑥 = 𝑦)
Theorem	bj-ax6e 35540	Proof of ax6e 2382 (hence ax6 2383) from Tarski's system, ax-c9 37755, ax-c16 37757. Remark: ax-6 1971 is used only via its principal (unbundled) instance ax6v 1972. (Contributed by BJ, 22-Dec-2020.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) (New usage is discouraged.)
⊢ ∃𝑥 𝑥 = 𝑦
21.17.4.5  Adding ax-6
Theorem	bj-spimvwt 35541*	Closed form of spimvw 1999. See also spimt 2385. (Contributed by BJ, 8-Nov-2021.)
⊢ (∀𝑥(𝑥 = 𝑦 → (𝜑 → 𝜓)) → (∀𝑥𝜑 → 𝜓))
Theorem	bj-spnfw 35542	Theorem close to a closed form of spnfw 1983. (Contributed by BJ, 12-May-2019.)
⊢ ((∃𝑥𝜑 → 𝜓) → (∀𝑥𝜑 → 𝜓))
Theorem	bj-cbvexiw 35543*	Change bound variable. This is to cbvexvw 2040 what cbvaliw 2009 is to cbvalvw 2039. TODO: move after cbvalivw 2010. (Contributed by BJ, 17-Mar-2020.)
⊢ (∃𝑥∃𝑦𝜓 → ∃𝑦𝜓)    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → ∀𝑦𝜑)    &   ⊢ (𝑦 = 𝑥 → (𝜑 → 𝜓))    ⇒   ⊢ (∃𝑥𝜑 → ∃𝑦𝜓)
Theorem	bj-cbvexivw 35544*	Change bound variable. This is to cbvexvw 2040 what cbvalivw 2010 is to cbvalvw 2039. TODO: move after cbvalivw 2010. (Contributed by BJ, 17-Mar-2020.)
⊢ (𝑦 = 𝑥 → (𝜑 → 𝜓))    ⇒   ⊢ (∃𝑥𝜑 → ∃𝑦𝜓)
Theorem	bj-modald 35545	A short form of the axiom D of modal logic. (Contributed by BJ, 4-Apr-2021.)
⊢ (∀𝑥 ¬ 𝜑 → ¬ ∀𝑥𝜑)
Theorem	bj-denot 35546*	A weakening of ax-6 1971 and ax6v 1972. (Contributed by BJ, 4-Apr-2021.) (New usage is discouraged.)
⊢ (𝑥 = 𝑥 → ¬ ∀𝑦 ¬ 𝑦 = 𝑥)
Theorem	bj-eqs 35547*	A lemma for substitutions, proved from Tarski's FOL. The version without DV (𝑥, 𝑦) is true but requires ax-13 2371. The disjoint variable condition DV (𝑥, 𝜑) is necessary for both directions: consider substituting 𝑥 = 𝑧 for 𝜑. (Contributed by BJ, 25-May-2021.)
⊢ (𝜑 ↔ ∀𝑥(𝑥 = 𝑦 → 𝜑))
21.17.4.6  Adding ax-7
Theorem	bj-cbvexw 35548*	Change bound variable. This is to cbvexvw 2040 what cbvalw 2038 is to cbvalvw 2039. (Contributed by BJ, 17-Mar-2020.)
⊢ (∃𝑥∃𝑦𝜓 → ∃𝑦𝜓)    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → ∀𝑦𝜑)    &   ⊢ (∃𝑦∃𝑥𝜑 → ∃𝑥𝜑)    &   ⊢ (𝜓 → ∀𝑥𝜓)    &   ⊢ (𝑥 = 𝑦 → (𝜑 ↔ 𝜓))    ⇒   ⊢ (∃𝑥𝜑 ↔ ∃𝑦𝜓)
Theorem	bj-ax12w 35549*	The general statement that ax12w 2129 proves. (Contributed by BJ, 20-Mar-2020.)
⊢ (𝜑 → (𝜓 ↔ 𝜒))    &   ⊢ (𝑦 = 𝑧 → (𝜓 ↔ 𝜃))    ⇒   ⊢ (𝜑 → (∀𝑦𝜓 → ∀𝑥(𝜑 → 𝜓)))
21.17.4.7  Membership predicate, ax-8 and ax-9
Theorem	bj-ax89 35550	A theorem which could be used as sole axiom for the non-logical predicate instead of ax-8 2108 and ax-9 2116. Indeed, it is implied over propositional calculus by the conjunction of ax-8 2108 and ax-9 2116, as proved here. In the other direction, one can prove ax-8 2108 (respectively ax-9 2116) from bj-ax89 35550 by using mpan2 689 (respectively mpan 688) and equid 2015. TODO: move to main part. (Contributed by BJ, 3-Oct-2019.)
⊢ ((𝑥 = 𝑦 ∧ 𝑧 = 𝑡) → (𝑥 ∈ 𝑧 → 𝑦 ∈ 𝑡))
Theorem	bj-elequ12 35551	An identity law for the non-logical predicate, which combines elequ1 2113 and elequ2 2121. For the analogous theorems for class terms, see eleq1 2821, eleq2 2822 and eleq12 2823. TODO: move to main part. (Contributed by BJ, 29-Sep-2019.)
⊢ ((𝑥 = 𝑦 ∧ 𝑧 = 𝑡) → (𝑥 ∈ 𝑧 ↔ 𝑦 ∈ 𝑡))
Theorem	bj-cleljusti 35552*	One direction of cleljust 2115, requiring only ax-1 6-- ax-5 1913 and ax8v1 2110. (Contributed by BJ, 31-Dec-2020.) (Proof modification is discouraged.)
⊢ (∃𝑧(𝑧 = 𝑥 ∧ 𝑧 ∈ 𝑦) → 𝑥 ∈ 𝑦)
21.17.4.8  Adding ax-11
Theorem	bj-alcomexcom 35553	Commutation of two existential quantifiers on a formula is equivalent to commutation of two universal quantifiers over the same variables on the negation of that formula. Can be placed in the ax-4 1811 section, soon after 2nexaln 1832, and used to prove excom 2162. (Contributed by BJ, 29-Nov-2020.) (Proof modification is discouraged.)
⊢ ((∀𝑥∀𝑦 ¬ 𝜑 → ∀𝑦∀𝑥 ¬ 𝜑) ↔ (∃𝑦∃𝑥𝜑 → ∃𝑥∃𝑦𝜑))
Theorem	bj-hbalt 35554	Closed form of hbal 2167. When in main part, prove hbal 2167 and hbald 2168 from it. (Contributed by BJ, 2-May-2019.)
⊢ (∀𝑦(𝜑 → ∀𝑥𝜑) → (∀𝑦𝜑 → ∀𝑥∀𝑦𝜑))
21.17.4.9  Adding ax-12
Theorem	axc11n11 35555	Proof of axc11n 2425 from { ax-1 6-- ax-7 2011, axc11 2429 } . Almost identical to axc11nfromc11 37791. (Contributed by NM, 6-Jul-2021.) (Proof modification is discouraged.)
⊢ (∀𝑥 𝑥 = 𝑦 → ∀𝑦 𝑦 = 𝑥)
Theorem	axc11n11r 35556	Proof of axc11n 2425 from { ax-1 6-- ax-7 2011, axc9 2381, axc11r 2365 } (note that axc16 2252 is provable from { ax-1 6-- ax-7 2011, axc11r 2365 }). Note that axc11n 2425 proves (over minimal calculus) that axc11 2429 and axc11r 2365 are equivalent. Therefore, axc11n11 35555 and axc11n11r 35556 prove that one can use one or the other as an axiom, provided one assumes the axioms listed above (axc11 2429 appears slightly stronger since axc11n11r 35556 requires axc9 2381 while axc11n11 35555 does not). (Contributed by BJ, 6-Jul-2021.) (Proof modification is discouraged.)
⊢ (∀𝑥 𝑥 = 𝑦 → ∀𝑦 𝑦 = 𝑥)
Theorem	bj-axc16g16 35557*	Proof of axc16g 2251 from { ax-1 6-- ax-7 2011, axc16 2252 }. (Contributed by BJ, 6-Jul-2021.) (Proof modification is discouraged.)
⊢ (∀𝑥 𝑥 = 𝑦 → (𝜑 → ∀𝑧𝜑))
Theorem	bj-ax12v3 35558*	A weak version of ax-12 2171 which is stronger than ax12v 2172. Note that if one assumes reflexivity of equality ⊢ 𝑥 = 𝑥 (equid 2015), then bj-ax12v3 35558 implies ax-5 1913 over modal logic K (substitute 𝑥 for 𝑦). See also bj-ax12v3ALT 35559. (Contributed by BJ, 6-Jul-2021.) (Proof modification is discouraged.)
⊢ (𝑥 = 𝑦 → (𝜑 → ∀𝑥(𝑥 = 𝑦 → 𝜑)))
Theorem	bj-ax12v3ALT 35559*	Alternate proof of bj-ax12v3 35558. Uses axc11r 2365 and axc15 2421 instead of ax-12 2171. (Contributed by BJ, 6-Jul-2021.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) (New usage is discouraged.)
⊢ (𝑥 = 𝑦 → (𝜑 → ∀𝑥(𝑥 = 𝑦 → 𝜑)))
Theorem	bj-sb 35560*	A weak variant of sbid2 2507 not requiring ax-13 2371 nor ax-10 2137. On top of Tarski's FOL, one implication requires only ax12v 2172, and the other requires only sp 2176. (Contributed by BJ, 25-May-2021.)
⊢ (𝜑 ↔ ∀𝑦(𝑦 = 𝑥 → ∀𝑥(𝑥 = 𝑦 → 𝜑)))
Theorem	bj-modalbe 35561	The predicate-calculus version of the axiom (B) of modal logic. See also modal-b 2312. (Contributed by BJ, 20-Oct-2019.)
⊢ (𝜑 → ∀𝑥∃𝑥𝜑)
Theorem	bj-spst 35562	Closed form of sps 2178. Once in main part, prove sps 2178 and spsd 2180 from it. (Contributed by BJ, 20-Oct-2019.)
⊢ ((𝜑 → 𝜓) → (∀𝑥𝜑 → 𝜓))
Theorem	bj-19.21bit 35563	Closed form of 19.21bi 2182. (Contributed by BJ, 20-Oct-2019.)
⊢ ((𝜑 → ∀𝑥𝜓) → (𝜑 → 𝜓))
Theorem	bj-19.23bit 35564	Closed form of 19.23bi 2184. (Contributed by BJ, 20-Oct-2019.)
⊢ ((∃𝑥𝜑 → 𝜓) → (𝜑 → 𝜓))
Theorem	bj-nexrt 35565	Closed form of nexr 2185. Contrapositive of 19.8a 2174. (Contributed by BJ, 20-Oct-2019.)
⊢ (¬ ∃𝑥𝜑 → ¬ 𝜑)
Theorem	bj-alrim 35566	Closed form of alrimi 2206. (Contributed by BJ, 2-May-2019.)
⊢ (Ⅎ𝑥𝜑 → (∀𝑥(𝜑 → 𝜓) → (𝜑 → ∀𝑥𝜓)))
Theorem	bj-alrim2 35567	Uncurried (imported) form of bj-alrim 35566. (Contributed by BJ, 2-May-2019.)
⊢ ((Ⅎ𝑥𝜑 ∧ ∀𝑥(𝜑 → 𝜓)) → (𝜑 → ∀𝑥𝜓))
Theorem	bj-nfdt0 35568	A theorem close to a closed form of nf5d 2280 and nf5dh 2143. (Contributed by BJ, 2-May-2019.)
⊢ (∀𝑥(𝜑 → (𝜓 → ∀𝑥𝜓)) → (∀𝑥𝜑 → Ⅎ𝑥𝜓))
Theorem	bj-nfdt 35569	Closed form of nf5d 2280 and nf5dh 2143. (Contributed by BJ, 2-May-2019.)
⊢ (∀𝑥(𝜑 → (𝜓 → ∀𝑥𝜓)) → ((𝜑 → ∀𝑥𝜑) → (𝜑 → Ⅎ𝑥𝜓)))
Theorem	bj-nexdt 35570	Closed form of nexd 2214. (Contributed by BJ, 20-Oct-2019.)
⊢ (Ⅎ𝑥𝜑 → (∀𝑥(𝜑 → ¬ 𝜓) → (𝜑 → ¬ ∃𝑥𝜓)))
Theorem	bj-nexdvt 35571*	Closed form of nexdv 1939. (Contributed by BJ, 20-Oct-2019.)
⊢ (∀𝑥(𝜑 → ¬ 𝜓) → (𝜑 → ¬ ∃𝑥𝜓))
Theorem	bj-alexbiex 35572	Adding a second quantifier over the same variable is a transparent operation, (∀∃ case). (Contributed by BJ, 20-Oct-2019.)
⊢ (∀𝑥∃𝑥𝜑 ↔ ∃𝑥𝜑)
Theorem	bj-exexbiex 35573	Adding a second quantifier over the same variable is a transparent operation, (∃∃ case). (Contributed by BJ, 20-Oct-2019.)
⊢ (∃𝑥∃𝑥𝜑 ↔ ∃𝑥𝜑)
Theorem	bj-alalbial 35574	Adding a second quantifier over the same variable is a transparent operation, (∀∀ case). (Contributed by BJ, 20-Oct-2019.)
⊢ (∀𝑥∀𝑥𝜑 ↔ ∀𝑥𝜑)
Theorem	bj-exalbial 35575	Adding a second quantifier over the same variable is a transparent operation, (∃∀ case). (Contributed by BJ, 20-Oct-2019.)
⊢ (∃𝑥∀𝑥𝜑 ↔ ∀𝑥𝜑)
Theorem	bj-19.9htbi 35576	Strengthening 19.9ht 2313 by replacing its consequent with a biconditional (19.9t 2197 does have a biconditional consequent). This propagates. (Contributed by BJ, 20-Oct-2019.)
⊢ (∀𝑥(𝜑 → ∀𝑥𝜑) → (∃𝑥𝜑 ↔ 𝜑))
Theorem	bj-hbntbi 35577	Strengthening hbnt 2290 by replacing its consequent with a biconditional. See also hbntg 34772 and hbntal 43304. (Contributed by BJ, 20-Oct-2019.) Proved from bj-19.9htbi 35576. (Proof modification is discouraged.)
⊢ (∀𝑥(𝜑 → ∀𝑥𝜑) → (¬ 𝜑 ↔ ∀𝑥 ¬ 𝜑))
Theorem	bj-biexal1 35578	A general FOL biconditional that generalizes 19.9ht 2313 among others. For this and the following theorems, see also 19.35 1880, 19.21 2200, 19.23 2204. When 𝜑 is substituted for 𝜓, both sides express a form of nonfreeness. (Contributed by BJ, 20-Oct-2019.)
⊢ (∀𝑥(𝜑 → ∀𝑥𝜓) ↔ (∃𝑥𝜑 → ∀𝑥𝜓))
Theorem	bj-biexal2 35579	When 𝜑 is substituted for 𝜓, both sides express a form of nonfreeness. (Contributed by BJ, 20-Oct-2019.)
⊢ (∀𝑥(∃𝑥𝜑 → 𝜓) ↔ (∃𝑥𝜑 → ∀𝑥𝜓))
Theorem	bj-biexal3 35580	When 𝜑 is substituted for 𝜓, both sides express a form of nonfreeness. (Contributed by BJ, 20-Oct-2019.)
⊢ (∀𝑥(𝜑 → ∀𝑥𝜓) ↔ ∀𝑥(∃𝑥𝜑 → 𝜓))
Theorem	bj-bialal 35581	When 𝜑 is substituted for 𝜓, both sides express a form of nonfreeness. (Contributed by BJ, 20-Oct-2019.)
⊢ (∀𝑥(∀𝑥𝜑 → 𝜓) ↔ (∀𝑥𝜑 → ∀𝑥𝜓))
Theorem	bj-biexex 35582	When 𝜑 is substituted for 𝜓, both sides express a form of nonfreeness. (Contributed by BJ, 20-Oct-2019.)
⊢ (∀𝑥(𝜑 → ∃𝑥𝜓) ↔ (∃𝑥𝜑 → ∃𝑥𝜓))
Theorem	bj-hbext 35583	Closed form of hbex 2318. (Contributed by BJ, 10-Oct-2019.)
⊢ (∀𝑦∀𝑥(𝜑 → ∀𝑥𝜑) → (∃𝑦𝜑 → ∀𝑥∃𝑦𝜑))
Theorem	bj-nfalt 35584	Closed form of nfal 2316. (Contributed by BJ, 2-May-2019.)
⊢ (∀𝑥Ⅎ𝑦𝜑 → Ⅎ𝑦∀𝑥𝜑)
Theorem	bj-nfext 35585	Closed form of nfex 2317. (Contributed by BJ, 10-Oct-2019.)
⊢ (∀𝑥Ⅎ𝑦𝜑 → Ⅎ𝑦∃𝑥𝜑)
Theorem	bj-eeanvw 35586*	Version of exdistrv 1959 with a disjoint variable condition on 𝑥, 𝑦 not requiring ax-11 2154. (The same can be done with eeeanv 2346 and ee4anv 2347.) (Contributed by BJ, 29-Sep-2019.) (Proof modification is discouraged.)
⊢ (∃𝑥∃𝑦(𝜑 ∧ 𝜓) ↔ (∃𝑥𝜑 ∧ ∃𝑦𝜓))
Theorem	bj-modal4 35587	First-order logic form of the modal axiom (4). See hba1 2289. This is the standard proof of the implication in modal logic (B5 ⇒ 4). Its dual statement is bj-modal4e 35588. (Contributed by BJ, 12-Aug-2023.) (Proof modification is discouraged.)
⊢ (∀𝑥𝜑 → ∀𝑥∀𝑥𝜑)
Theorem	bj-modal4e 35588	First-order logic form of the modal axiom (4) using existential quantifiers. Dual statement of bj-modal4 35587 (hba1 2289). (Contributed by BJ, 21-Dec-2020.) (Proof modification is discouraged.)
⊢ (∃𝑥∃𝑥𝜑 → ∃𝑥𝜑)
Theorem	bj-modalb 35589	A short form of the axiom B of modal logic using only primitive symbols (→ , ¬ , ∀). (Contributed by BJ, 4-Apr-2021.) (Proof modification is discouraged.)
⊢ (¬ 𝜑 → ∀𝑥 ¬ ∀𝑥𝜑)
Theorem	bj-wnf1 35590	When 𝜑 is substituted for 𝜓, this is the first half of nonfreness (. → ∀) of the weak form of nonfreeness (∃ → ∀). (Contributed by BJ, 9-Dec-2023.)
⊢ ((∃𝑥𝜑 → ∀𝑥𝜓) → ∀𝑥(∃𝑥𝜑 → ∀𝑥𝜓))
Theorem	bj-wnf2 35591	When 𝜑 is substituted for 𝜓, this is the first half of nonfreness (. → ∀) of the weak form of nonfreeness (∃ → ∀). (Contributed by BJ, 9-Dec-2023.)
⊢ (∃𝑥(∃𝑥𝜑 → ∀𝑥𝜓) → (∃𝑥𝜑 → ∀𝑥𝜓))
Theorem	bj-wnfanf 35592	When 𝜑 is substituted for 𝜓, this statement expresses that weak nonfreeness implies the universal form of nonfreeness. (Contributed by BJ, 9-Dec-2023.)
⊢ ((∃𝑥𝜑 → ∀𝑥𝜓) → ∀𝑥(𝜑 → ∀𝑥𝜓))
Theorem	bj-wnfenf 35593	When 𝜑 is substituted for 𝜓, this statement expresses that weak nonfreeness implies the existential form of nonfreeness. (Contributed by BJ, 9-Dec-2023.)
⊢ ((∃𝑥𝜑 → ∀𝑥𝜓) → ∀𝑥(∃𝑥𝜑 → 𝜓))
Theorem	bj-substax12 35594	Equivalent form of the axiom of substitution bj-ax12 35529. Although both sides need a DV condition on 𝑥, 𝑡 (or as in bj-ax12v3 35558 on 𝑡, 𝜑) to hold, their equivalence holds without DV conditions. The forward implication is proved in modal (K4) while the reverse implication is proved in modal (T5). The LHS has the advantage of not involving nested quantifiers on the same variable. Its metaweakening is proved from the core axiom schemes in bj-substw 35595. Note that in the LHS, the reverse implication holds by equs4 2415 (or equs4v 2003 if a DV condition is added on 𝑥, 𝑡 as in bj-ax12 35529), and the forward implication is sbalex 2235. The LHS can be read as saying that if there exists a setvar equal to a given term witnessing 𝜑, then all setvars equal to that term also witness 𝜑. An equivalent suggestive form for the LHS is ¬ (∃𝑥(𝑥 = 𝑡 ∧ 𝜑) ∧ ∃𝑥(𝑥 = 𝑡 ∧ ¬ 𝜑)), which expresses that there can be no two variables both equal to a given term, one witnessing 𝜑 and the other witnessing ¬ 𝜑. (Contributed by BJ, 21-May-2024.) (Proof modification is discouraged.)
⊢ ((∃𝑥(𝑥 = 𝑡 ∧ 𝜑) → ∀𝑥(𝑥 = 𝑡 → 𝜑)) ↔ ∀𝑥(𝑥 = 𝑡 → (𝜑 → ∀𝑥(𝑥 = 𝑡 → 𝜑))))
Theorem	bj-substw 35595*	Weak form of the LHS of bj-substax12 35594 proved from the core axiom schemes. Compare ax12w 2129. (Contributed by BJ, 26-May-2024.) (Proof modification is discouraged.)
⊢ (𝑥 = 𝑡 → (𝜑 ↔ 𝜓))    ⇒   ⊢ (∃𝑥(𝑥 = 𝑡 ∧ 𝜑) → ∀𝑥(𝑥 = 𝑡 → 𝜑))
21.17.4.10  Nonfreeness
Syntax	wnnf 35596	Syntax for the nonfreeness quantifier.
wff Ⅎ'𝑥𝜑
Definition	df-bj-nnf 35597	Definition of the nonfreeness quantifier. The formula Ⅎ'𝑥𝜑 has the intended meaning that the variable 𝑥 is semantically nonfree in the formula 𝜑. The motivation for this quantifier is to have a condition expressible in the logic which is as close as possible to the non-occurrence condition DV (𝑥, 𝜑) (in Metamath files, "$d x ph $."), which belongs to the metalogic. The standard syntactic nonfreeness condition, also expressed in the metalogic, is intermediate between these two notions: semantic nonfreeness implies syntactic nonfreeness, which implies non-occurrence. Both implications are strict; for the first, note that ⊢ Ⅎ'𝑥𝑥 = 𝑥, that is, 𝑥 is semantically (but not syntactically) nonfree in the formula 𝑥 = 𝑥; for the second, note that 𝑥 is syntactically nonfree in the formula ∀𝑥𝑥 = 𝑥 although it occurs in it. We now prove two metatheorems which make precise the above fact that, as far as proving power is concerned, the nonfreeness condition Ⅎ'𝑥𝜑 is very close to the non-occurrence condition DV (𝑥, 𝜑). Let S be a Metamath system with the FOL-syntax of (i)set.mm, containing intuitionistic positive propositional calculus and ax-5 1913 and ax5e 1915. Theorem 1. If the scheme (Ⅎ'𝑥𝜑 & PHI1 & ... & PHIn ⇒ PHI0, DV) is provable in S, then so is the scheme (PHI1 & ... & PHIn ⇒ PHI0, DV ∪ {{𝑥, 𝜑}}). Proof: By bj-nnfv 35627, we can prove (Ⅎ'𝑥𝜑, {{𝑥, 𝜑}}), from which the theorem follows. QED Theorem 2. Suppose that S also contains (the FOL version of) modal logic KB and commutation of quantifiers alcom 2156 and excom 2162 (possibly weakened by a DV condition on the quantifying variables), and that S can be axiomatized such that the only axioms with a DV condition involving a formula variable are among ax-5 1913, ax5e 1915, ax5ea 1916. If the scheme (PHI1 & ... & PHIn ⇒ PHI0, DV) is provable in S, then so is the scheme (Ⅎ'𝑥𝜑 & PHI1 & ... & PHIn ⇒ PHI0, DV ∖ {{𝑥, 𝜑}}). More precisely, if S contains modal 45 and if the variables quantified over in PHI0, ..., PHIn are among 𝑥1, ..., 𝑥m, then the scheme (PHI1 & ... & PHIn ⇒ (antecedent → PHI0), DV ∖ {{𝑥, 𝜑}}) is provable in S, where the antecedent is a finite conjunction of formulas of the form ∀𝑥i1 ...∀𝑥ip Ⅎ'𝑥𝜑 where the 𝑥ij's are among the 𝑥i's. Lemma: If 𝑥 ∉ OC(PHI), then S proves the scheme (Ⅎ'𝑥𝜑 ⇒ Ⅎ'𝑥 PHI, {{𝑥, 𝑎} ∣ 𝑎 ∈ OC(PHI) ∖ {𝜑}}). More precisely, if the variables quantified over in PHI are among 𝑥1, ..., 𝑥m, then ((antecedent → Ⅎ'𝑥 PHI), {{𝑥, 𝑎} ∣ 𝑎 ∈ OC(PHI) ∖ {𝜑}}) is provable in S, with the same form of antecedent as above. Proof: By induction on the height of PHI. We first note that by bj-nnfbi 35598 we can assume that PHI contains only primitive (as opposed to defined) symbols. For the base case, atomic formulas are either 𝜑, in which case the scheme to prove is an instance of id 22, or have variables all in OC(PHI) ∖ {𝜑}, so (Ⅎ'𝑥 PHI, {{𝑥, 𝑎} ∣ 𝑎 ∈ OC(PHI) ∖ {𝜑}}) by bj-nnfv 35627, hence ((Ⅎ'𝑥𝜑 → Ⅎ'𝑥 PHI), {{𝑥, 𝑎} ∣ 𝑎 ∈ OC(PHI) ∖ {𝜑}}) by a1i 11. For the induction step, PHI is either an implication, a negation, a conjunction, a disjunction, a biconditional, a universal or an existential quantification of formulas where 𝑥 does not occur. We use respectively bj-nnfim 35619, bj-nnfnt 35613, bj-nnfan 35621, bj-nnfor 35623, bj-nnfbit 35625, bj-nnfalt 35639, bj-nnfext 35640. For instance, in the implication case, if we have by induction hypothesis ((∀𝑥1 ...∀𝑥m Ⅎ'𝑥𝜑 → Ⅎ'𝑥 PHI), {{𝑥, 𝑎} ∣ 𝑎 ∈ OC(PHI) ∖ {𝜑}}) and ((∀𝑦1 ...∀𝑦n Ⅎ'𝑥𝜑 → Ⅎ'𝑥 PSI), {{𝑥, 𝑎} ∣ 𝑎 ∈ OC(PSI) ∖ {𝜑}}), then bj-nnfim 35619 yields (((∀𝑥1 ...∀𝑥m Ⅎ'𝑥𝜑 ∧ ∀𝑦1 ...∀𝑦n Ⅎ'𝑥𝜑) → Ⅎ'𝑥 (PHI → PSI)), {{𝑥, 𝑎} ∣ 𝑎 ∈ OC(PHI → PSI) ∖ {𝜑}}) and similarly for antecedents which are conjunctions as in the statement of the lemma. In the universal quantification case, say quantification over 𝑦, if we have by induction hypothesis ((∀𝑥1 ...∀𝑥m Ⅎ'𝑥𝜑 → Ⅎ'𝑥 PHI), {{𝑥, 𝑎} ∣ 𝑎 ∈ OC(PHI) ∖ {𝜑}}), then bj-nnfalt 35639 yields ((∀𝑦∀𝑥1 ...∀𝑥m Ⅎ'𝑥𝜑 → Ⅎ'𝑥∀𝑦 PHI), {{𝑥, 𝑎} ∣ 𝑎 ∈ OC(∀𝑦 PHI) ∖ {𝜑}}) and similarly for antecedents which are conjunctions as in the statement of the lemma. Note bj-nnfalt 35639 and bj-nnfext 35640 are proved from positive propositional calculus with alcom 2156 and excom 2162 (possibly weakened by a DV condition on the quantifying variables), and modalB (via bj-19.12 35634). QED Proof of the theorem: Consider a proof of that scheme directly from the axioms. Consider a step where a DV condition involving 𝜑 is used. By hypothesis, that step is an instance of ax-5 1913 or ax5e 1915 or ax5ea 1916. It has the form (PSI → ∀𝑥 PSI) where PSI has the form of the lemma and the DV conditions of the proof contain {{𝑥, 𝑎} ∣ 𝑎 ∈ OC(PSI) }. Therefore, one has ((∀𝑥1 ...∀𝑥m Ⅎ'𝑥𝜑 → Ⅎ'𝑥 PSI), {{𝑥, 𝑎} ∣ 𝑎 ∈ OC(PSI) ∖ {𝜑}}) for appropriate 𝑥i's, and by bj-nnfa 35601 we obtain ((∀𝑥1 ...∀𝑥m Ⅎ'𝑥𝜑 → (PSI → ∀𝑥 PSI)), {{𝑥, 𝑎} ∣ 𝑎 ∈ OC(PSI) ∖ {𝜑}}) and similarly for antecedents which are conjunctions as in the statement of the theorem. Similarly if the step is using ax5e 1915 or ax5ea 1916, we would use bj-nnfe 35604 or bj-nnfea 35607 respectively. Therefore, taking as antecedent of the theorem to prove the conjunction of all the antecedents at each of these steps, we obtain a proof by "carrying the context over", which is possible, as in the deduction theorem when the step uses ax-mp 5, and when the step uses ax-gen 1797, by bj-nnf-alrim 35628 and bj-nnfa1 35632 (which requires modal 45). The condition DV (𝑥, 𝜑) is not required by the resulting proof. Finally, there may be in the global antecedent thus constructed some dummy variables, which can be removed by spvw 1984. QED Compared with df-nf 1786, the present definition is stricter on positive propositional calculus (bj-nnfnfTEMP 35611) and equivalent on core FOL plus sp 2176 (bj-nfnnfTEMP 35631). While being stricter, it still holds for non-occurring variables (bj-nnfv 35627), which is the basic requirement for this quantifier. In particular, it translates more closely the associated variable disjointness condition. Since the nonfreeness quantifier is a means to translate a variable disjointness condition from the metalogic to the logic, it seems preferable. Also, since nonfreeness is mainly used as a hypothesis, this definition would allow more theorems, notably the 19.xx theorems, to be proved from the core axioms, without needing a 19.xxv variant. One can devise infinitely many definitions increasingly close to the non-occurring condition, like ((∃𝑥𝜑 → 𝜑) ∧ (𝜑 → ∀𝑥𝜑)) ∧ ∀𝑥((∃𝑥𝜑 → 𝜑) ∧ (𝜑 → ∀𝑥𝜑)) ∧ ∀𝑥∀𝑥... and each stronger definition would permit more theorems to be proved from the core axioms. A reasonable rule seems to be to stop before nested quantifiers appear (since they typically require ax-10 2137 to work with), and also not to have redundant conjuncts when full metacomplete FOL= is developed. (Contributed by BJ, 28-Jul-2023.)
⊢ (Ⅎ'𝑥𝜑 ↔ ((∃𝑥𝜑 → 𝜑) ∧ (𝜑 → ∀𝑥𝜑)))
Theorem	bj-nnfbi 35598	If two formulas are equivalent for all 𝑥, then nonfreeness of 𝑥 in one of them is equivalent to nonfreeness in the other. Compare nfbiit 1853. From this and bj-nnfim 35619 and bj-nnfnt 35613, one can prove analogous nonfreeness conservation results for other propositional operators. The antecedent is in the "strong necessity" modality of modal logic (see also bj-nnftht 35614) in order not to require sp 2176 (modal T). (Contributed by BJ, 27-Aug-2023.)
⊢ (((𝜑 ↔ 𝜓) ∧ ∀𝑥(𝜑 ↔ 𝜓)) → (Ⅎ'𝑥𝜑 ↔ Ⅎ'𝑥𝜓))
Theorem	bj-nnfbd 35599*	If two formulas are equivalent for all 𝑥, then nonfreeness of 𝑥 in one of them is equivalent to nonfreeness in the other, deduction form. See bj-nnfbi 35598. (Contributed by BJ, 27-Aug-2023.)
⊢ (𝜑 → (𝜓 ↔ 𝜒))    ⇒   ⊢ (𝜑 → (Ⅎ'𝑥𝜓 ↔ Ⅎ'𝑥𝜒))
Theorem	bj-nnfbii 35600	If two formulas are equivalent for all 𝑥, then nonfreeness of 𝑥 in one of them is equivalent to nonfreeness in the other, inference form. See bj-nnfbi 35598. (Contributed by BJ, 18-Nov-2023.)
⊢ (𝜑 ↔ 𝜓)    ⇒   ⊢ (Ⅎ'𝑥𝜑 ↔ Ⅎ'𝑥𝜓)