P. 362 of Theorem List - Metamath Proof Explorer

Theorem List for Metamath Proof Explorer - 36101-36200   *Has distinct variable group(s)

Type	Label	Description
Statement
Theorem	dfdisjs 36101	Alternate definition of the class of disjoints. (Contributed by Peter Mazsa, 18-Jul-2021.)
⊢ Disjs = {𝑟 ∈ Rels ∣ ≀ ◡𝑟 ∈ CnvRefRels }
Theorem	dfdisjs2 36102	Alternate definition of the class of disjoints. (Contributed by Peter Mazsa, 5-Sep-2021.)
⊢ Disjs = {𝑟 ∈ Rels ∣ ≀ ◡𝑟 ⊆ I }
Theorem	dfdisjs3 36103*	Alternate definition of the class of disjoints. (Contributed by Peter Mazsa, 5-Sep-2021.)
⊢ Disjs = {𝑟 ∈ Rels ∣ ∀𝑢∀𝑣∀𝑥((𝑢𝑟𝑥 ∧ 𝑣𝑟𝑥) → 𝑢 = 𝑣)}
Theorem	dfdisjs4 36104*	Alternate definition of the class of disjoints. (Contributed by Peter Mazsa, 5-Sep-2021.)
⊢ Disjs = {𝑟 ∈ Rels ∣ ∀𝑥∃*𝑢 𝑢𝑟𝑥}
Theorem	dfdisjs5 36105*	Alternate definition of the class of disjoints. (Contributed by Peter Mazsa, 5-Sep-2021.)
⊢ Disjs = {𝑟 ∈ Rels ∣ ∀𝑢 ∈ dom 𝑟∀𝑣 ∈ dom 𝑟(𝑢 = 𝑣 ∨ ([𝑢]𝑟 ∩ [𝑣]𝑟) = ∅)}
Theorem	dfdisjALTV 36106	Alternate definition of the disjoint relation predicate. A disjoint relation is a converse function of the relation, see the comment of df-disjs 36097 why we need disjoint relations instead of converse functions anyway. (Contributed by Peter Mazsa, 27-Jul-2021.)
⊢ ( Disj 𝑅 ↔ ( FunALTV ◡𝑅 ∧ Rel 𝑅))
Theorem	dfdisjALTV2 36107	Alternate definition of the disjoint relation predicate, cf. dffunALTV2 36081. (Contributed by Peter Mazsa, 27-Jul-2021.)
⊢ ( Disj 𝑅 ↔ ( ≀ ◡𝑅 ⊆ I ∧ Rel 𝑅))
Theorem	dfdisjALTV3 36108*	Alternate definition of the disjoint relation predicate, cf. dffunALTV3 36082. (Contributed by Peter Mazsa, 28-Jul-2021.)
⊢ ( Disj 𝑅 ↔ (∀𝑢∀𝑣∀𝑥((𝑢𝑅𝑥 ∧ 𝑣𝑅𝑥) → 𝑢 = 𝑣) ∧ Rel 𝑅))
Theorem	dfdisjALTV4 36109*	Alternate definition of the disjoint relation predicate, cf. dffunALTV4 36083. (Contributed by Peter Mazsa, 5-Sep-2021.)
⊢ ( Disj 𝑅 ↔ (∀𝑥∃*𝑢 𝑢𝑅𝑥 ∧ Rel 𝑅))
Theorem	dfdisjALTV5 36110*	Alternate definition of the disjoint relation predicate, cf. dffunALTV5 36084. (Contributed by Peter Mazsa, 5-Sep-2021.)
⊢ ( Disj 𝑅 ↔ (∀𝑢 ∈ dom 𝑅∀𝑣 ∈ dom 𝑅(𝑢 = 𝑣 ∨ ([𝑢]𝑅 ∩ [𝑣]𝑅) = ∅) ∧ Rel 𝑅))
Theorem	dfeldisj2 36111	Alternate definition of the disjoint elementhood predicate. (Contributed by Peter Mazsa, 19-Sep-2021.)
⊢ ( ElDisj 𝐴 ↔ ≀ ◡(◡ E ↾ 𝐴) ⊆ I )
Theorem	dfeldisj3 36112*	Alternate definition of the disjoint elementhood predicate. (Contributed by Peter Mazsa, 19-Sep-2021.)
⊢ ( ElDisj 𝐴 ↔ ∀𝑢 ∈ 𝐴 ∀𝑣 ∈ 𝐴 ∀𝑥 ∈ (𝑢 ∩ 𝑣)𝑢 = 𝑣)
Theorem	dfeldisj4 36113*	Alternate definition of the disjoint elementhood predicate. (Contributed by Peter Mazsa, 19-Sep-2021.)
⊢ ( ElDisj 𝐴 ↔ ∀𝑥∃*𝑢 ∈ 𝐴 𝑥 ∈ 𝑢)
Theorem	dfeldisj5 36114*	Alternate definition of the disjoint elementhood predicate. (Contributed by Peter Mazsa, 19-Sep-2021.)
⊢ ( ElDisj 𝐴 ↔ ∀𝑢 ∈ 𝐴 ∀𝑣 ∈ 𝐴 (𝑢 = 𝑣 ∨ (𝑢 ∩ 𝑣) = ∅))
Theorem	eldisjs 36115	Elementhood in the class of disjoints. (Contributed by Peter Mazsa, 24-Jul-2021.)
⊢ (𝑅 ∈ Disjs ↔ ( ≀ ◡𝑅 ∈ CnvRefRels ∧ 𝑅 ∈ Rels ))
Theorem	eldisjs2 36116	Elementhood in the class of disjoints. (Contributed by Peter Mazsa, 5-Sep-2021.)
⊢ (𝑅 ∈ Disjs ↔ ( ≀ ◡𝑅 ⊆ I ∧ 𝑅 ∈ Rels ))
Theorem	eldisjs3 36117*	Elementhood in the class of disjoints. (Contributed by Peter Mazsa, 5-Sep-2021.)
⊢ (𝑅 ∈ Disjs ↔ (∀𝑢∀𝑣∀𝑥((𝑢𝑅𝑥 ∧ 𝑣𝑅𝑥) → 𝑢 = 𝑣) ∧ 𝑅 ∈ Rels ))
Theorem	eldisjs4 36118*	Elementhood in the class of disjoints. (Contributed by Peter Mazsa, 5-Sep-2021.)
⊢ (𝑅 ∈ Disjs ↔ (∀𝑥∃*𝑢 𝑢𝑅𝑥 ∧ 𝑅 ∈ Rels ))
Theorem	eldisjs5 36119*	Elementhood in the class of disjoints. (Contributed by Peter Mazsa, 5-Sep-2021.)
⊢ (𝑅 ∈ 𝑉 → (𝑅 ∈ Disjs ↔ (∀𝑢 ∈ dom 𝑅∀𝑣 ∈ dom 𝑅(𝑢 = 𝑣 ∨ ([𝑢]𝑅 ∩ [𝑣]𝑅) = ∅) ∧ 𝑅 ∈ Rels )))
Theorem	eldisjsdisj 36120	The element of the class of disjoint relations and the disjoint relation predicate are the same, that is (𝑅 ∈ Disjs ↔ Disj 𝑅) when 𝑅 is a set. (Contributed by Peter Mazsa, 25-Jul-2021.)
⊢ (𝑅 ∈ 𝑉 → (𝑅 ∈ Disjs ↔ Disj 𝑅))
Theorem	eleldisjs 36121	Elementhood in the disjoint elements class. (Contributed by Peter Mazsa, 23-Jul-2023.)
⊢ (𝐴 ∈ 𝑉 → (𝐴 ∈ ElDisjs ↔ (◡ E ↾ 𝐴) ∈ Disjs ))
Theorem	eleldisjseldisj 36122	The element of the disjoint elements class and the disjoint elementhood predicate are the same, that is (𝐴 ∈ ElDisjs ↔ ElDisj 𝐴) when 𝐴 is a set. (Contributed by Peter Mazsa, 23-Jul-2023.)
⊢ (𝐴 ∈ 𝑉 → (𝐴 ∈ ElDisjs ↔ ElDisj 𝐴))
Theorem	disjrel 36123	Disjoint relation is a relation. (Contributed by Peter Mazsa, 15-Sep-2021.)
⊢ ( Disj 𝑅 → Rel 𝑅)
Theorem	disjss 36124	Subclass theorem for disjoints. (Contributed by Peter Mazsa, 28-Oct-2020.) (Revised by Peter Mazsa, 22-Sep-2021.)
⊢ (𝐴 ⊆ 𝐵 → ( Disj 𝐵 → Disj 𝐴))
Theorem	disjssi 36125	Subclass theorem for disjoints, inference version. (Contributed by Peter Mazsa, 28-Sep-2021.)
⊢ 𝐴 ⊆ 𝐵    ⇒   ⊢ ( Disj 𝐵 → Disj 𝐴)
Theorem	disjssd 36126	Subclass theorem for disjoints, deduction version. (Contributed by Peter Mazsa, 28-Sep-2021.)
⊢ (𝜑 → 𝐴 ⊆ 𝐵)    ⇒   ⊢ (𝜑 → ( Disj 𝐵 → Disj 𝐴))
Theorem	disjeq 36127	Equality theorem for disjoints. (Contributed by Peter Mazsa, 22-Sep-2021.)
⊢ (𝐴 = 𝐵 → ( Disj 𝐴 ↔ Disj 𝐵))
Theorem	disjeqi 36128	Equality theorem for disjoints, inference version. (Contributed by Peter Mazsa, 22-Sep-2021.)
⊢ 𝐴 = 𝐵    ⇒   ⊢ ( Disj 𝐴 ↔ Disj 𝐵)
Theorem	disjeqd 36129	Equality theorem for disjoints, deduction version. (Contributed by Peter Mazsa, 22-Sep-2021.)
⊢ (𝜑 → 𝐴 = 𝐵)    ⇒   ⊢ (𝜑 → ( Disj 𝐴 ↔ Disj 𝐵))
Theorem	disjdmqseqeq1 36130	Lemma for the equality theorem for partition ~? parteq1 . (Contributed by Peter Mazsa, 5-Oct-2021.)
⊢ (𝑅 = 𝑆 → (( Disj 𝑅 ∧ (dom 𝑅 / 𝑅) = 𝐴) ↔ ( Disj 𝑆 ∧ (dom 𝑆 / 𝑆) = 𝐴)))
Theorem	eldisjss 36131	Subclass theorem for disjoint elementhood. (Contributed by Peter Mazsa, 23-Sep-2021.)
⊢ (𝐴 ⊆ 𝐵 → ( ElDisj 𝐵 → ElDisj 𝐴))
Theorem	eldisjssi 36132	Subclass theorem for disjoint elementhood, inference version. (Contributed by Peter Mazsa, 28-Sep-2021.)
⊢ 𝐴 ⊆ 𝐵    ⇒   ⊢ ( ElDisj 𝐵 → ElDisj 𝐴)
Theorem	eldisjssd 36133	Subclass theorem for disjoint elementhood, deduction version. (Contributed by Peter Mazsa, 28-Sep-2021.)
⊢ (𝜑 → 𝐴 ⊆ 𝐵)    ⇒   ⊢ (𝜑 → ( ElDisj 𝐵 → ElDisj 𝐴))
Theorem	eldisjeq 36134	Equality theorem for disjoint elementhood. (Contributed by Peter Mazsa, 23-Sep-2021.)
⊢ (𝐴 = 𝐵 → ( ElDisj 𝐴 ↔ ElDisj 𝐵))
Theorem	eldisjeqi 36135	Equality theorem for disjoint elementhood, inference version. (Contributed by Peter Mazsa, 23-Sep-2021.)
⊢ 𝐴 = 𝐵    ⇒   ⊢ ( ElDisj 𝐴 ↔ ElDisj 𝐵)
Theorem	eldisjeqd 36136	Equality theorem for disjoint elementhood, deduction version. (Contributed by Peter Mazsa, 23-Sep-2021.)
⊢ (𝜑 → 𝐴 = 𝐵)    ⇒   ⊢ (𝜑 → ( ElDisj 𝐴 ↔ ElDisj 𝐵))
Theorem	disjxrn 36137	Two ways of saying that a range Cartesian product is disjoint. (Contributed by Peter Mazsa, 17-Jun-2020.) (Revised by Peter Mazsa, 21-Sep-2021.)
⊢ ( Disj (𝑅 ⋉ 𝑆) ↔ ( ≀ ◡𝑅 ∩ ≀ ◡𝑆) ⊆ I )
Theorem	disjorimxrn 36138	Disjointness condition for range Cartesian product. (Contributed by Peter Mazsa, 12-Jul-2020.) (Revised by Peter Mazsa, 22-Sep-2021.)
⊢ (( Disj 𝑅 ∨ Disj 𝑆) → Disj (𝑅 ⋉ 𝑆))
Theorem	disjimxrn 36139	Disjointness condition for range Cartesian product. (Contributed by Peter Mazsa, 15-Dec-2020.) (Revised by Peter Mazsa, 22-Sep-2021.)
⊢ ( Disj 𝑆 → Disj (𝑅 ⋉ 𝑆))
Theorem	disjimres 36140	Disjointness condition for restriction. (Contributed by Peter Mazsa, 27-Sep-2021.)
⊢ ( Disj 𝑅 → Disj (𝑅 ↾ 𝐴))
Theorem	disjimin 36141	Disjointness condition for intersection. (Contributed by Peter Mazsa, 11-Jun-2021.) (Revised by Peter Mazsa, 28-Sep-2021.)
⊢ ( Disj 𝑆 → Disj (𝑅 ∩ 𝑆))
Theorem	disjiminres 36142	Disjointness condition for intersection with restriction. (Contributed by Peter Mazsa, 27-Sep-2021.)
⊢ ( Disj 𝑆 → Disj (𝑅 ∩ (𝑆 ↾ 𝐴)))
Theorem	disjimxrnres 36143	Disjointness condition for range Cartesian product with restriction. (Contributed by Peter Mazsa, 27-Sep-2021.)
⊢ ( Disj 𝑆 → Disj (𝑅 ⋉ (𝑆 ↾ 𝐴)))
Theorem	disjALTV0 36144	The null class is disjoint. (Contributed by Peter Mazsa, 27-Sep-2021.)
⊢ Disj ∅
Theorem	disjALTVid 36145	The class of identity relations is disjoint. (Contributed by Peter Mazsa, 20-Jun-2021.)
⊢ Disj I
Theorem	disjALTVidres 36146	The class of identity relations restricted is disjoint. (Contributed by Peter Mazsa, 28-Jun-2020.) (Revised by Peter Mazsa, 27-Sep-2021.)
⊢ Disj ( I ↾ 𝐴)
Theorem	disjALTVinidres 36147	The intersection with restricted identity relation is disjoint. (Contributed by Peter Mazsa, 31-Dec-2021.)
⊢ Disj (𝑅 ∩ ( I ↾ 𝐴))
Theorem	disjALTVxrnidres 36148	The class of range Cartesian product with restricted identity relation is disjoint. (Contributed by Peter Mazsa, 25-Jun-2020.) (Revised by Peter Mazsa, 27-Sep-2021.)
⊢ Disj (𝑅 ⋉ ( I ↾ 𝐴))
20.23  Mathbox for Rodolfo Medina
20.23.1  Partitions
Theorem	prtlem60 36149	Lemma for prter3 36178. (Contributed by Rodolfo Medina, 9-Oct-2010.)
⊢ (𝜑 → (𝜓 → (𝜒 → 𝜃)))    &   ⊢ (𝜓 → (𝜃 → 𝜏))    ⇒   ⊢ (𝜑 → (𝜓 → (𝜒 → 𝜏)))
Theorem	bicomdd 36150	Commute two sides of a biconditional in a deduction. (Contributed by Rodolfo Medina, 19-Oct-2010.) (Proof shortened by Andrew Salmon, 29-Jun-2011.)
⊢ (𝜑 → (𝜓 → (𝜒 ↔ 𝜃)))    ⇒   ⊢ (𝜑 → (𝜓 → (𝜃 ↔ 𝜒)))
Theorem	jca2r 36151	Inference conjoining the consequents of two implications. (Contributed by Rodolfo Medina, 17-Oct-2010.)
⊢ (𝜑 → (𝜓 → 𝜒))    &   ⊢ (𝜓 → 𝜃)    ⇒   ⊢ (𝜑 → (𝜓 → (𝜃 ∧ 𝜒)))
Theorem	jca3 36152	Inference conjoining the consequents of two implications. (Contributed by Rodolfo Medina, 14-Oct-2010.)
⊢ (𝜑 → (𝜓 → 𝜒))    &   ⊢ (𝜃 → 𝜏)    ⇒   ⊢ (𝜑 → (𝜓 → (𝜃 → (𝜒 ∧ 𝜏))))
Theorem	prtlem70 36153	Lemma for prter3 36178: a rearrangement of conjuncts. (Contributed by Rodolfo Medina, 20-Oct-2010.)
⊢ ((((𝜓 ∧ 𝜂) ∧ ((𝜑 ∧ 𝜃) ∧ (𝜒 ∧ 𝜏))) ∧ 𝜑) ↔ ((𝜑 ∧ (𝜓 ∧ (𝜒 ∧ (𝜃 ∧ 𝜏)))) ∧ 𝜂))
Theorem	ibdr 36154	Reverse of ibd 272. (Contributed by Rodolfo Medina, 30-Sep-2010.)
⊢ (𝜑 → (𝜒 → (𝜓 ↔ 𝜒)))    ⇒   ⊢ (𝜑 → (𝜒 → 𝜓))
Theorem	prtlem100 36155	Lemma for prter3 36178. (Contributed by Rodolfo Medina, 19-Oct-2010.)
⊢ (∃𝑥 ∈ 𝐴 (𝐵 ∈ 𝑥 ∧ 𝜑) ↔ ∃𝑥 ∈ (𝐴 ∖ {∅})(𝐵 ∈ 𝑥 ∧ 𝜑))
Theorem	prtlem5 36156*	Lemma for prter1 36175, prter2 36177, prter3 36178 and prtex 36176. (Contributed by Rodolfo Medina, 25-Sep-2010.) (Proof shortened by Mario Carneiro, 11-Dec-2016.)
⊢ ([𝑠 / 𝑣][𝑟 / 𝑢]∃𝑥 ∈ 𝐴 (𝑢 ∈ 𝑥 ∧ 𝑣 ∈ 𝑥) ↔ ∃𝑥 ∈ 𝐴 (𝑟 ∈ 𝑥 ∧ 𝑠 ∈ 𝑥))
Theorem	prtlem80 36157	Lemma for prter2 36177. (Contributed by Rodolfo Medina, 17-Oct-2010.)
⊢ (𝐴 ∈ 𝐵 → ¬ 𝐴 ∈ (𝐶 ∖ {𝐴}))
Theorem	brabsb2 36158*	A closed form of brabsb 5383. (Contributed by Rodolfo Medina, 13-Oct-2010.)
⊢ (𝑅 = {⟨𝑥, 𝑦⟩ ∣ 𝜑} → (𝑧𝑅𝑤 ↔ [𝑤 / 𝑦][𝑧 / 𝑥]𝜑))
Theorem	eqbrrdv2 36159*	Other version of eqbrrdiv 5631. (Contributed by Rodolfo Medina, 30-Sep-2010.)
⊢ (((Rel 𝐴 ∧ Rel 𝐵) ∧ 𝜑) → (𝑥𝐴𝑦 ↔ 𝑥𝐵𝑦))    ⇒   ⊢ (((Rel 𝐴 ∧ Rel 𝐵) ∧ 𝜑) → 𝐴 = 𝐵)
Theorem	prtlem9 36160*	Lemma for prter3 36178. (Contributed by Rodolfo Medina, 25-Sep-2010.)
⊢ (𝐴 ∈ 𝐵 → ∃𝑥 ∈ 𝐵 [𝑥] ∼ = [𝐴] ∼ )
Theorem	prtlem10 36161*	Lemma for prter3 36178. (Contributed by Rodolfo Medina, 14-Oct-2010.) (Revised by Mario Carneiro, 12-Aug-2015.)
⊢ ( ∼ Er 𝐴 → (𝑧 ∈ 𝐴 → (𝑧 ∼ 𝑤 ↔ ∃𝑣 ∈ 𝐴 (𝑧 ∈ [𝑣] ∼ ∧ 𝑤 ∈ [𝑣] ∼ ))))
Theorem	prtlem11 36162	Lemma for prter2 36177. (Contributed by Rodolfo Medina, 12-Oct-2010.)
⊢ (𝐵 ∈ 𝐷 → (𝐶 ∈ 𝐴 → (𝐵 = [𝐶] ∼ → 𝐵 ∈ (𝐴 / ∼ ))))
Theorem	prtlem12 36163*	Lemma for prtex 36176 and prter3 36178. (Contributed by Rodolfo Medina, 13-Oct-2010.)
⊢ ( ∼ = {⟨𝑥, 𝑦⟩ ∣ ∃𝑢 ∈ 𝐴 (𝑥 ∈ 𝑢 ∧ 𝑦 ∈ 𝑢)} → Rel ∼ )
Theorem	prtlem13 36164*	Lemma for prter1 36175, prter2 36177, prter3 36178 and prtex 36176. (Contributed by Rodolfo Medina, 13-Oct-2010.) (Revised by Mario Carneiro, 12-Aug-2015.)
⊢ ∼ = {⟨𝑥, 𝑦⟩ ∣ ∃𝑢 ∈ 𝐴 (𝑥 ∈ 𝑢 ∧ 𝑦 ∈ 𝑢)}    ⇒   ⊢ (𝑧 ∼ 𝑤 ↔ ∃𝑣 ∈ 𝐴 (𝑧 ∈ 𝑣 ∧ 𝑤 ∈ 𝑣))
Theorem	prtlem16 36165*	Lemma for prtex 36176, prter2 36177 and prter3 36178. (Contributed by Rodolfo Medina, 14-Oct-2010.) (Revised by Mario Carneiro, 12-Aug-2015.)
⊢ ∼ = {⟨𝑥, 𝑦⟩ ∣ ∃𝑢 ∈ 𝐴 (𝑥 ∈ 𝑢 ∧ 𝑦 ∈ 𝑢)}    ⇒   ⊢ dom ∼ = ∪ 𝐴
Theorem	prtlem400 36166*	Lemma for prter2 36177 and also a property of partitions . (Contributed by Rodolfo Medina, 15-Oct-2010.) (Revised by Mario Carneiro, 12-Aug-2015.)
⊢ ∼ = {⟨𝑥, 𝑦⟩ ∣ ∃𝑢 ∈ 𝐴 (𝑥 ∈ 𝑢 ∧ 𝑦 ∈ 𝑢)}    ⇒   ⊢ ¬ ∅ ∈ (∪ 𝐴 / ∼ )
Syntax	wprt 36167	Extend the definition of a wff to include the partition predicate.
wff Prt 𝐴
Definition	df-prt 36168*	Define the partition predicate. (Contributed by Rodolfo Medina, 13-Oct-2010.)
⊢ (Prt 𝐴 ↔ ∀𝑥 ∈ 𝐴 ∀𝑦 ∈ 𝐴 (𝑥 = 𝑦 ∨ (𝑥 ∩ 𝑦) = ∅))
Theorem	erprt 36169	The quotient set of an equivalence relation is a partition. (Contributed by Rodolfo Medina, 13-Oct-2010.)
⊢ ( ∼ Er 𝑋 → Prt (𝐴 / ∼ ))
Theorem	prtlem14 36170*	Lemma for prter1 36175, prter2 36177 and prtex 36176. (Contributed by Rodolfo Medina, 13-Oct-2010.)
⊢ (Prt 𝐴 → ((𝑥 ∈ 𝐴 ∧ 𝑦 ∈ 𝐴) → ((𝑤 ∈ 𝑥 ∧ 𝑤 ∈ 𝑦) → 𝑥 = 𝑦)))
Theorem	prtlem15 36171*	Lemma for prter1 36175 and prtex 36176. (Contributed by Rodolfo Medina, 13-Oct-2010.)
⊢ (Prt 𝐴 → (∃𝑥 ∈ 𝐴 ∃𝑦 ∈ 𝐴 ((𝑢 ∈ 𝑥 ∧ 𝑤 ∈ 𝑥) ∧ (𝑤 ∈ 𝑦 ∧ 𝑣 ∈ 𝑦)) → ∃𝑧 ∈ 𝐴 (𝑢 ∈ 𝑧 ∧ 𝑣 ∈ 𝑧)))
Theorem	prtlem17 36172*	Lemma for prter2 36177. (Contributed by Rodolfo Medina, 15-Oct-2010.)
⊢ (Prt 𝐴 → ((𝑥 ∈ 𝐴 ∧ 𝑧 ∈ 𝑥) → (∃𝑦 ∈ 𝐴 (𝑧 ∈ 𝑦 ∧ 𝑤 ∈ 𝑦) → 𝑤 ∈ 𝑥)))
Theorem	prtlem18 36173*	Lemma for prter2 36177. (Contributed by Rodolfo Medina, 15-Oct-2010.) (Revised by Mario Carneiro, 12-Aug-2015.)
⊢ ∼ = {⟨𝑥, 𝑦⟩ ∣ ∃𝑢 ∈ 𝐴 (𝑥 ∈ 𝑢 ∧ 𝑦 ∈ 𝑢)}    ⇒   ⊢ (Prt 𝐴 → ((𝑣 ∈ 𝐴 ∧ 𝑧 ∈ 𝑣) → (𝑤 ∈ 𝑣 ↔ 𝑧 ∼ 𝑤)))
Theorem	prtlem19 36174*	Lemma for prter2 36177. (Contributed by Rodolfo Medina, 15-Oct-2010.) (Revised by Mario Carneiro, 12-Aug-2015.)
⊢ ∼ = {⟨𝑥, 𝑦⟩ ∣ ∃𝑢 ∈ 𝐴 (𝑥 ∈ 𝑢 ∧ 𝑦 ∈ 𝑢)}    ⇒   ⊢ (Prt 𝐴 → ((𝑣 ∈ 𝐴 ∧ 𝑧 ∈ 𝑣) → 𝑣 = [𝑧] ∼ ))
Theorem	prter1 36175*	Every partition generates an equivalence relation. (Contributed by Rodolfo Medina, 13-Oct-2010.) (Revised by Mario Carneiro, 12-Aug-2015.)
⊢ ∼ = {⟨𝑥, 𝑦⟩ ∣ ∃𝑢 ∈ 𝐴 (𝑥 ∈ 𝑢 ∧ 𝑦 ∈ 𝑢)}    ⇒   ⊢ (Prt 𝐴 → ∼ Er ∪ 𝐴)
Theorem	prtex 36176*	The equivalence relation generated by a partition is a set if and only if the partition itself is a set. (Contributed by Rodolfo Medina, 15-Oct-2010.) (Revised by Mario Carneiro, 12-Aug-2015.)
⊢ ∼ = {⟨𝑥, 𝑦⟩ ∣ ∃𝑢 ∈ 𝐴 (𝑥 ∈ 𝑢 ∧ 𝑦 ∈ 𝑢)}    ⇒   ⊢ (Prt 𝐴 → ( ∼ ∈ V ↔ 𝐴 ∈ V))
Theorem	prter2 36177*	The quotient set of the equivalence relation generated by a partition equals the partition itself. (Contributed by Rodolfo Medina, 17-Oct-2010.)
⊢ ∼ = {⟨𝑥, 𝑦⟩ ∣ ∃𝑢 ∈ 𝐴 (𝑥 ∈ 𝑢 ∧ 𝑦 ∈ 𝑢)}    ⇒   ⊢ (Prt 𝐴 → (∪ 𝐴 / ∼ ) = (𝐴 ∖ {∅}))
Theorem	prter3 36178*	For every partition there exists a unique equivalence relation whose quotient set equals the partition. (Contributed by Rodolfo Medina, 19-Oct-2010.) (Proof shortened by Mario Carneiro, 12-Aug-2015.)
⊢ ∼ = {⟨𝑥, 𝑦⟩ ∣ ∃𝑢 ∈ 𝐴 (𝑥 ∈ 𝑢 ∧ 𝑦 ∈ 𝑢)}    ⇒   ⊢ ((𝑆 Er ∪ 𝐴 ∧ (∪ 𝐴 / 𝑆) = (𝐴 ∖ {∅})) → ∼ = 𝑆)
20.24  Mathbox for Norm Megill We are sad to report the passing of Metamath creator and long-time contributor Norm Megill (1950 - 2021). Norm of course was the author of the Metamath proof language, the specification, all of the early tools (and some of the later ones), and the foundational work in logic and set theory for set.mm. His tools, now at https://github.com/metamath/metamath-exe , include a proof verifier, a proof assistant, a proof minimizer, style checking and reformatting, and tools for searching and displaying proofs. One of his key insights was that formal proofs can exist not only to be verified by computers, but also to be read by humans. Both the specification of the proof format (which stores full proofs, as opposed to the proof templates used by most proof assistants) and the generated web display of Metamath proofs, one of its distinctive features, contribute to this double objective. Metamath innovated both by using a very simple substitution rule (and then using that to build more complicated notions like free and bound variables) and also by taking the axiom schemas found in many theories and taking them to the next level - by making all axioms, theorems and proofs operate in terms of schemas. Not content to create Metamath for his own amusement, he also published it for the world and encouraged the development of a community of people who contributed to it and created their own tools. He was an active participant in the Metamath mailing list and other forums until days before his passing. It is often our custom to supply a quote from someone memorialized in a mathbox entry. And it is difficult to select a quote for someone who has written so much about Metamath over the years. But here is one quote from the Metamath web page which illustrates not just his clear thinking about what Metamath can and cannot do but also his desire to encourage students at all levels: Q: Will Metamath help me learn abstract mathematics? A: Yes, but probably not by itself. In order to follow a proof in an advanced math textbook, you may need to know prerequisites that could take years to learn. Some people find this frustrating. In contrast, Metamath uses a single, simple substitution rule that allows you to follow any proof mechanically. You can actually jump in anywhere and be convinced that the symbol string you see in a proof step is a consequence of the symbol strings in the earlier steps that it references, even if you don't understand what the symbols mean. But this is quite different from understanding the meaning of the math that results. Metamath alone probably will not give you an intuitive feel for abstract math, in the same way it can be hard to grasp a large computer program just by reading its source code, even though you may understand each individual instruction. However, the Bibliographic Cross-Reference lets you compare informal proofs in math textbooks and see all the implicit missing details "left to the reader."
20.24.1  Obsolete schemes ax-c4,c5,c7,c10,c11,c11n,c15,c9,c14,c16 These older axiom schemes are obsolete and should not be used outside of this section. They are proved above as theorems axc4 , sp 2180, axc7 2325, axc10 2392, axc11 2441, axc11n 2437, axc15 2433, axc9 2389, axc14 2475, and axc16 2259.
Axiom	ax-c5 36179	Axiom of Specialization. A universally quantified wff implies the wff without the universal quantifier (i.e., an instance, or special case, of the generalized wff). In other words, if something is true for all 𝑥, then it is true for any specific 𝑥 (that would typically occur as a free variable in the wff substituted for 𝜑). (A free variable is one that does not occur in the scope of a quantifier: 𝑥 and 𝑦 are both free in 𝑥 = 𝑦, but only 𝑥 is free in ∀𝑦𝑥 = 𝑦.) Axiom scheme C5' in [Megill] p. 448 (p. 16 of the preprint). Also appears as Axiom B5 of [Tarski] p. 67 (under his system S2, defined in the last paragraph on p. 77). Note that the converse of this axiom does not hold in general, but a weaker inference form of the converse holds and is expressed as rule ax-gen 1797. Conditional forms of the converse are given by ax-13 2379, ax-c14 36187, ax-c16 36188, and ax-5 1911. Unlike the more general textbook Axiom of Specialization, we cannot choose a variable different from 𝑥 for the special case. In our axiomatization, that requires the assistance of equality axioms, and we deal with it later after we introduce the definition of proper substitution (see stdpc4 2073). An interesting alternate axiomatization uses axc5c711 36214 and ax-c4 36180 in place of ax-c5 36179, ax-4 1811, ax-10 2142, and ax-11 2158. This axiom is obsolete and should no longer be used. It is proved above as theorem sp 2180. (Contributed by NM, 3-Jan-1993.) Use sp 2180 instead. (New usage is discouraged.)
⊢ (∀𝑥𝜑 → 𝜑)
Axiom	ax-c4 36180	Axiom of Quantified Implication. This axiom moves a universal quantifier from outside to inside an implication, quantifying 𝜓. Notice that 𝑥 must not be a free variable in the antecedent of the quantified implication, and we express this by binding 𝜑 to "protect" the axiom from a 𝜑 containing a free 𝑥. Axiom scheme C4' in [Megill] p. 448 (p. 16 of the preprint). It is a special case of Lemma 5 of [Monk2] p. 108 and Axiom 5 of [Mendelson] p. 69. This axiom is obsolete and should no longer be used. It is proved above as theorem axc4 2329. (Contributed by NM, 3-Jan-1993.) (New usage is discouraged.)
⊢ (∀𝑥(∀𝑥𝜑 → 𝜓) → (∀𝑥𝜑 → ∀𝑥𝜓))
Axiom	ax-c7 36181	Axiom of Quantified Negation. This axiom is used to manipulate negated quantifiers. Equivalent to axiom scheme C7' in [Megill] p. 448 (p. 16 of the preprint). An alternate axiomatization could use axc5c711 36214 in place of ax-c5 36179, ax-c7 36181, and ax-11 2158. This axiom is obsolete and should no longer be used. It is proved above as theorem axc7 2325. (Contributed by NM, 10-Jan-1993.) (New usage is discouraged.)
⊢ (¬ ∀𝑥 ¬ ∀𝑥𝜑 → 𝜑)
Axiom	ax-c10 36182	A variant of ax6 2391. Axiom scheme C10' in [Megill] p. 448 (p. 16 of the preprint). This axiom is obsolete and should no longer be used. It is proved above as theorem axc10 2392. (Contributed by NM, 10-Jan-1993.) (New usage is discouraged.)
⊢ (∀𝑥(𝑥 = 𝑦 → ∀𝑥𝜑) → 𝜑)
Axiom	ax-c11 36183	Axiom ax-c11 36183 was the original version of ax-c11n 36184 ("n" for "new"), before it was discovered (in May 2008) that the shorter ax-c11n 36184 could replace it. It appears as Axiom scheme C11' in [Megill] p. 448 (p. 16 of the preprint). This axiom is obsolete and should no longer be used. It is proved above as theorem axc11 2441. (Contributed by NM, 10-May-1993.) (New usage is discouraged.)
⊢ (∀𝑥 𝑥 = 𝑦 → (∀𝑥𝜑 → ∀𝑦𝜑))
Axiom	ax-c11n 36184	Axiom of Quantifier Substitution. One of the equality and substitution axioms of predicate calculus with equality. Appears as Lemma L12 in [Megill] p. 445 (p. 12 of the preprint). The original version of this axiom was ax-c11 36183 and was replaced with this shorter ax-c11n 36184 ("n" for "new") in May 2008. The old axiom is proved from this one as theorem axc11 2441. Conversely, this axiom is proved from ax-c11 36183 as theorem axc11nfromc11 36222. This axiom was proved redundant in July 2015. See theorem axc11n 2437. This axiom is obsolete and should no longer be used. It is proved above as theorem axc11n 2437. (Contributed by NM, 16-May-2008.) (New usage is discouraged.)
⊢ (∀𝑥 𝑥 = 𝑦 → ∀𝑦 𝑦 = 𝑥)
Axiom	ax-c15 36185	Axiom ax-c15 36185 was the original version of ax-12 2175, before it was discovered (in Jan. 2007) that the shorter ax-12 2175 could replace it. It appears as Axiom scheme C15' in [Megill] p. 448 (p. 16 of the preprint). It is based on Lemma 16 of [Tarski] p. 70 and Axiom C8 of [Monk2] p. 105, from which it can be proved by cases. To understand this theorem more easily, think of "¬ ∀𝑥𝑥 = 𝑦 →..." as informally meaning "if 𝑥 and 𝑦 are distinct variables then..." The antecedent becomes false if the same variable is substituted for 𝑥 and 𝑦, ensuring the theorem is sound whenever this is the case. In some later theorems, we call an antecedent of the form ¬ ∀𝑥𝑥 = 𝑦 a "distinctor." Interestingly, if the wff expression substituted for 𝜑 contains no wff variables, the resulting statement can be proved without invoking this axiom. This means that even though this axiom is metalogically independent from the others, it is not logically independent. Specifically, we can prove any wff-variable-free instance of axiom ax-c15 36185 (from which the ax-12 2175 instance follows by theorem ax12 2434.) The proof is by induction on formula length, using ax12eq 36237 and ax12el 36238 for the basis steps and ax12indn 36239, ax12indi 36240, and ax12inda 36244 for the induction steps. (This paragraph is true provided we use ax-c11 36183 in place of ax-c11n 36184.) This axiom is obsolete and should no longer be used. It is proved above as theorem axc15 2433, which should be used instead. (Contributed by NM, 14-May-1993.) (New usage is discouraged.)
⊢ (¬ ∀𝑥 𝑥 = 𝑦 → (𝑥 = 𝑦 → (𝜑 → ∀𝑥(𝑥 = 𝑦 → 𝜑))))
Axiom	ax-c9 36186	Axiom of Quantifier Introduction. One of the equality and substitution axioms of predicate calculus with equality. Informally, it says that whenever 𝑧 is distinct from 𝑥 and 𝑦, and 𝑥 = 𝑦 is true, then 𝑥 = 𝑦 quantified with 𝑧 is also true. In other words, 𝑧 is irrelevant to the truth of 𝑥 = 𝑦. Axiom scheme C9' in [Megill] p. 448 (p. 16 of the preprint). It apparently does not otherwise appear in the literature but is easily proved from textbook predicate calculus by cases. This axiom is obsolete and should no longer be used. It is proved above as theorem axc9 2389. (Contributed by NM, 10-Jan-1993.) (New usage is discouraged.)
⊢ (¬ ∀𝑧 𝑧 = 𝑥 → (¬ ∀𝑧 𝑧 = 𝑦 → (𝑥 = 𝑦 → ∀𝑧 𝑥 = 𝑦)))
Axiom	ax-c14 36187	Axiom of Quantifier Introduction. One of the equality and substitution axioms for a non-logical predicate in our predicate calculus with equality. Axiom scheme C14' in [Megill] p. 448 (p. 16 of the preprint). It is redundant if we include ax-5 1911; see theorem axc14 2475. Alternately, ax-5 1911 becomes unnecessary in principle with this axiom, but we lose the more powerful metalogic afforded by ax-5 1911. We retain ax-c14 36187 here to provide completeness for systems with the simpler metalogic that results from omitting ax-5 1911, which might be easier to study for some theoretical purposes. This axiom is obsolete and should no longer be used. It is proved above as theorem axc14 2475. (Contributed by NM, 24-Jun-1993.) (New usage is discouraged.)
⊢ (¬ ∀𝑧 𝑧 = 𝑥 → (¬ ∀𝑧 𝑧 = 𝑦 → (𝑥 ∈ 𝑦 → ∀𝑧 𝑥 ∈ 𝑦)))
Axiom	ax-c16 36188*	Axiom of Distinct Variables. The only axiom of predicate calculus requiring that variables be distinct (if we consider ax-5 1911 to be a metatheorem and not an axiom). Axiom scheme C16' in [Megill] p. 448 (p. 16 of the preprint). It apparently does not otherwise appear in the literature but is easily proved from textbook predicate calculus by cases. It is a somewhat bizarre axiom since the antecedent is always false in set theory (see dtru 5236), but nonetheless it is technically necessary as you can see from its uses. This axiom is redundant if we include ax-5 1911; see theorem axc16 2259. Alternately, ax-5 1911 becomes logically redundant in the presence of this axiom, but without ax-5 1911 we lose the more powerful metalogic that results from being able to express the concept of a setvar variable not occurring in a wff (as opposed to just two setvar variables being distinct). We retain ax-c16 36188 here to provide logical completeness for systems with the simpler metalogic that results from omitting ax-5 1911, which might be easier to study for some theoretical purposes. This axiom is obsolete and should no longer be used. It is proved above as theorem axc16 2259. (Contributed by NM, 10-Jan-1993.) (New usage is discouraged.)
⊢ (∀𝑥 𝑥 = 𝑦 → (𝜑 → ∀𝑥𝜑))
20.24.2  Rederive new axioms ax-4, ax-10, ax-6, ax-12, ax-13 from old Theorems ax12fromc15 36201 and ax13fromc9 36202 require some intermediate theorems that are included in this section.
Theorem	axc5 36189	This theorem repeats sp 2180 under the name axc5 36189, so that the Metamath program "MM> VERIFY MARKUP" command will check that it matches axiom scheme ax-c5 36179. (Contributed by NM, 18-Aug-2017.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) Use sp 2180 instead. (New usage is discouraged.)
⊢ (∀𝑥𝜑 → 𝜑)
Theorem	ax4fromc4 36190	Rederivation of axiom ax-4 1811 from ax-c4 36180, ax-c5 36179, ax-gen 1797 and minimal implicational calculus { ax-mp 5, ax-1 6, ax-2 7 }. See axc4 2329 for the derivation of ax-c4 36180 from ax-4 1811. (Contributed by NM, 23-May-2008.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) Use ax-4 1811 instead. (New usage is discouraged.)
⊢ (∀𝑥(𝜑 → 𝜓) → (∀𝑥𝜑 → ∀𝑥𝜓))
Theorem	ax10fromc7 36191	Rederivation of axiom ax-10 2142 from ax-c7 36181, ax-c4 36180, ax-c5 36179, ax-gen 1797 and propositional calculus. See axc7 2325 for the derivation of ax-c7 36181 from ax-10 2142. (Contributed by NM, 23-May-2008.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) Use ax-10 2142 instead. (New usage is discouraged.)
⊢ (¬ ∀𝑥𝜑 → ∀𝑥 ¬ ∀𝑥𝜑)
Theorem	ax6fromc10 36192	Rederivation of axiom ax-6 1970 from ax-c7 36181, ax-c10 36182, ax-gen 1797 and propositional calculus. See axc10 2392 for the derivation of ax-c10 36182 from ax-6 1970. Lemma L18 in [Megill] p. 446 (p. 14 of the preprint). (Contributed by NM, 14-May-1993.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) Use ax-6 1970 instead. (New usage is discouraged.)
⊢ ¬ ∀𝑥 ¬ 𝑥 = 𝑦
Theorem	hba1-o 36193	The setvar 𝑥 is not free in ∀𝑥𝜑. Example in Appendix in [Megill] p. 450 (p. 19 of the preprint). Also Lemma 22 of [Monk2] p. 114. (Contributed by NM, 24-Jan-1993.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) (New usage is discouraged.)
⊢ (∀𝑥𝜑 → ∀𝑥∀𝑥𝜑)
Theorem	axc4i-o 36194	Inference version of ax-c4 36180. (Contributed by NM, 3-Jan-1993.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) (New usage is discouraged.)
⊢ (∀𝑥𝜑 → 𝜓)    ⇒   ⊢ (∀𝑥𝜑 → ∀𝑥𝜓)
Theorem	equid1 36195	Proof of equid 2019 from our older axioms. This is often an axiom of equality in textbook systems, but we don't need it as an axiom since it can be proved from our other axioms (although the proof, as you can see below, is not as obvious as you might think). This proof uses only axioms without distinct variable conditions and requires no dummy variables. A simpler proof, similar to Tarski's, is possible if we make use of ax-5 1911; see the proof of equid 2019. See equid1ALT 36221 for an alternate proof. (Contributed by NM, 10-Jan-1993.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) (New usage is discouraged.)
⊢ 𝑥 = 𝑥
Theorem	equcomi1 36196	Proof of equcomi 2024 from equid1 36195, avoiding use of ax-5 1911 (the only use of ax-5 1911 is via ax7 2023, so using ax-7 2015 instead would remove dependency on ax-5 1911). (Contributed by BJ, 8-Jul-2021.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) (New usage is discouraged.)
⊢ (𝑥 = 𝑦 → 𝑦 = 𝑥)
Theorem	aecom-o 36197	Commutation law for identical variable specifiers. The antecedent and consequent are true when 𝑥 and 𝑦 are substituted with the same variable. Lemma L12 in [Megill] p. 445 (p. 12 of the preprint). Version of aecom 2438 using ax-c11 36183. Unlike axc11nfromc11 36222, this version does not require ax-5 1911 (see comment of equcomi1 36196). (Contributed by NM, 10-May-1993.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) (New usage is discouraged.)
⊢ (∀𝑥 𝑥 = 𝑦 → ∀𝑦 𝑦 = 𝑥)
Theorem	aecoms-o 36198	A commutation rule for identical variable specifiers. Version of aecoms 2439 using ax-c11 36183. (Contributed by NM, 10-May-1993.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) (New usage is discouraged.)
⊢ (∀𝑥 𝑥 = 𝑦 → 𝜑)    ⇒   ⊢ (∀𝑦 𝑦 = 𝑥 → 𝜑)
Theorem	hbae-o 36199	All variables are effectively bound in an identical variable specifier. Version of hbae 2442 using ax-c11 36183. (Contributed by NM, 13-May-1993.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) (New usage is discouraged.)
⊢ (∀𝑥 𝑥 = 𝑦 → ∀𝑧∀𝑥 𝑥 = 𝑦)
Theorem	dral1-o 36200	Formula-building lemma for use with the Distinctor Reduction Theorem. Part of Theorem 9.4 of [Megill] p. 448 (p. 16 of preprint). Version of dral1 2450 using ax-c11 36183. (Contributed by NM, 24-Nov-1994.) (New usage is discouraged.)
⊢ (∀𝑥 𝑥 = 𝑦 → (𝜑 ↔ 𝜓))    ⇒   ⊢ (∀𝑥 𝑥 = 𝑦 → (∀𝑥𝜑 ↔ ∀𝑦𝜓))