P. 367 of Theorem List - Metamath Proof Explorer

Theorem List for Metamath Proof Explorer - 36601-36700   *Has distinct variable group(s)

Type	Label	Description
Statement
Theorem	bj-nexdh 36601	Closed form of nexdh 1865 (actually, its general instance). (Contributed by BJ, 6-May-2019.)
⊢ (∀𝑥(𝜑 → ¬ 𝜓) → ((𝜒 → ∀𝑥𝜑) → (𝜒 → ¬ ∃𝑥𝜓)))
Theorem	bj-nexdh2 36602	Uncurried (imported) form of bj-nexdh 36601. (Contributed by BJ, 6-May-2019.)
⊢ ((∀𝑥(𝜑 → ¬ 𝜓) ∧ (𝜒 → ∀𝑥𝜑)) → (𝜒 → ¬ ∃𝑥𝜓))
Theorem	bj-hbxfrbi 36603	Closed form of hbxfrbi 1825. Note: it is less important than nfbiit 1851. The antecedent is in the "strong necessity" modality of modal logic (see also bj-nnftht 36714) in order not to require sp 2184 (modal T). See bj-hbyfrbi 36604 for its version with existential quantifiers. (Contributed by BJ, 6-May-2019.)
⊢ (((𝜑 ↔ 𝜓) ∧ ∀𝑥(𝜑 ↔ 𝜓)) → ((𝜑 → ∀𝑥𝜑) ↔ (𝜓 → ∀𝑥𝜓)))
Theorem	bj-hbyfrbi 36604	Version of bj-hbxfrbi 36603 with existential quantifiers. (Contributed by BJ, 23-Aug-2023.)
⊢ (((𝜑 ↔ 𝜓) ∧ ∀𝑥(𝜑 ↔ 𝜓)) → ((∃𝑥𝜑 → 𝜑) ↔ (∃𝑥𝜓 → 𝜓)))
Theorem	bj-exalim 36605	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 1910. I propose to move to the main part: bj-exalim 36605, bj-exalimi 36606, bj-exalims 36607, bj-exalimsi 36608, bj-ax12i 36610, bj-ax12wlem 36617, bj-ax12w 36650. A new label is needed for bj-ax12i 36610 and label suggestions are welcome for the others. I also propose to change ¬ ∀𝑥¬ to ∃𝑥 in speimfw 1963 and spimfw 1965 (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 36606	An inference for distributing quantifiers over a nested implication. The canonical derivation from its closed form bj-exalim 36605 (using mpg 1797) has fewer essential steps, but more steps in total (yielding a longer compressed proof). (Almost) the general statement that speimfw 1963 proves. (Contributed by BJ, 29-Sep-2019.)
⊢ (𝜑 → (𝜓 → 𝜒))    ⇒   ⊢ (∃𝑥𝜑 → (∀𝑥𝜓 → ∃𝑥𝜒))
Theorem	bj-exalims 36607	Distributing quantifiers over a nested implication. (Almost) the general statement that spimfw 1965 proves. (Contributed by BJ, 29-Sep-2019.)
⊢ (∃𝑥𝜑 → (¬ 𝜒 → ∀𝑥 ¬ 𝜒))    ⇒   ⊢ (∀𝑥(𝜑 → (𝜓 → 𝜒)) → (∃𝑥𝜑 → (∀𝑥𝜓 → 𝜒)))
Theorem	bj-exalimsi 36608	An inference for distributing quantifiers over a nested implication. (Almost) the general statement that spimfw 1965 proves. (Contributed by BJ, 29-Sep-2019.)
⊢ (𝜑 → (𝜓 → 𝜒))    &   ⊢ (∃𝑥𝜑 → (¬ 𝜒 → ∀𝑥 ¬ 𝜒))    ⇒   ⊢ (∃𝑥𝜑 → (∀𝑥𝜓 → 𝜒))
Theorem	bj-ax12ig 36609	A lemma used to prove a weak form of the axiom of substitution. A generalization of bj-ax12i 36610. (Contributed by BJ, 19-Dec-2020.)
⊢ (𝜑 → (𝜓 ↔ 𝜒))    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → (𝜒 → ∀𝑥𝜒))    ⇒   ⊢ (𝜑 → (𝜓 → ∀𝑥(𝜑 → 𝜓)))
Theorem	bj-ax12i 36610	A weakening of bj-ax12ig 36609 that is sufficient to prove a weak form of the axiom of substitution ax-12 2178. The general statement of which ax12i 1966 is an instance. (Contributed by BJ, 29-Sep-2019.)
⊢ (𝜑 → (𝜓 ↔ 𝜒))    &   ⊢ (𝜒 → ∀𝑥𝜒)    ⇒   ⊢ (𝜑 → (𝜓 → ∀𝑥(𝜑 → 𝜓)))
Theorem	bj-nfimt 36611	Closed form of nfim 1896 and curried (exported) form of nfimt 1895. (Contributed by BJ, 20-Oct-2021.)
⊢ (Ⅎ𝑥𝜑 → (Ⅎ𝑥𝜓 → Ⅎ𝑥(𝜑 → 𝜓)))
Theorem	bj-cbvalimt 36612	A lemma in closed form used to prove bj-cbval 36622 in a weak axiomatization. (Contributed by BJ, 12-Mar-2023.) Do not use 19.35 1877 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 36613	A lemma in closed form used to prove bj-cbvex 36623 in a weak axiomatization. (Contributed by BJ, 12-Mar-2023.) Do not use 19.35 1877 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 36614	Alternate proof of exim 1834 directly from alim 1810 by using df-ex 1780 (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 36615	Alternate proof of aleximi 1832 from exim 1834, 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 36616	A commuted form of exim 1834 which is sometimes posited as an axiom in instuitionistic modal logic. (Contributed by BJ, 9-Dec-2023.)
⊢ (∃𝑥(𝜑 → 𝜓) → (∀𝑥𝜑 → ∃𝑥𝜓))
21.19.4.3  Adding ax-5
Theorem	bj-ax12wlem 36617*	A lemma used to prove a weak version of the axiom of substitution ax-12 2178. (Temporary comment: The general statement that ax12wlem 2133 proves.) (Contributed by BJ, 20-Mar-2020.)
⊢ (𝜑 → (𝜓 ↔ 𝜒))    ⇒   ⊢ (𝜑 → (𝜓 → ∀𝑥(𝜑 → 𝜓)))
Theorem	bj-cbvalim 36618*	A lemma used to prove bj-cbval 36622 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 36619*	A lemma used to prove bj-cbvex 36623 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 36620*	An equality-free general instance of one half of a precise form of bj-cbval 36622. (Contributed by BJ, 12-Mar-2023.) (Proof modification is discouraged.)
⊢ (𝜒 → (𝜑 → 𝜓))    &   ⊢ ∀𝑦∃𝑥𝜒    ⇒   ⊢ (∀𝑥𝜑 → ∀𝑦𝜓)
Theorem	bj-cbveximi 36621*	An equality-free general instance of one half of a precise form of bj-cbvex 36623. (Contributed by BJ, 12-Mar-2023.) (Proof modification is discouraged.)
⊢ (𝜒 → (𝜑 → 𝜓))    &   ⊢ ∀𝑥∃𝑦𝜒    ⇒   ⊢ (∃𝑥𝜑 → ∃𝑦𝜓)
Theorem	bj-cbval 36622*	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 36623*	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 36624	Syntax for BJ's version of the uniqueness quantifier.
wff ∃**𝑥𝜑
Definition	df-bj-mo 36625*	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))
21.19.4.4  Equality and substitution
Theorem	bj-ssbeq 36626*	Substitution in an equality, disjoint variables case. Uses only ax-1 6 through ax-6 1967. It might be shorter to prove the result about composition of two substitutions and prove bj-ssbeq 36626 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 36627*	A lemma for the definiens of df-sb 2066. An instance of sp 2184 proved without it. Note: it has a common subproof with sbjust 2064. (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 36628*	An instance of ax-11 2158 proved without it. The converse may not be provable without ax-11 2158 (since using alcomimw 2043 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 36629*	A weaker form of ax-12 2178 and ax12v 2179, 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 36630*	Remove a DV condition from bj-ax12v 36629 (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 36631*	Axiom bj-ax12 36630 expressed using substitution. (Contributed by BJ, 26-Dec-2020.) (Proof modification is discouraged.)
⊢ [𝑡 / 𝑥](𝜑 → [𝑡 / 𝑥]𝜑)
Theorem	bj-19.41al 36632	Special case of 19.41 2236 proved from core axioms, ax-10 2142 (modal5), and hba1 2293 (modal4). (Contributed by BJ, 29-Dec-2020.) (Proof modification is discouraged.)
⊢ (∃𝑥(𝜑 ∧ ∀𝑥𝜓) ↔ (∃𝑥𝜑 ∧ ∀𝑥𝜓))
Theorem	bj-equsexval 36633*	Special case of equsexv 2269 proved from core axioms, ax-10 2142 (modal5), and hba1 2293 (modal4). (Contributed by BJ, 29-Dec-2020.) (Proof modification is discouraged.)
⊢ (𝑥 = 𝑦 → (𝜑 ↔ ∀𝑥𝜓))    ⇒   ⊢ (∃𝑥(𝑥 = 𝑦 ∧ 𝜑) ↔ ∀𝑥𝜓)
Theorem	bj-subst 36634*	Proof of sbalex 2243 from core axioms, ax-10 2142 (modal5), and bj-ax12 36630. (Contributed by BJ, 29-Dec-2020.) (Proof modification is discouraged.)
⊢ (∃𝑥(𝑥 = 𝑦 ∧ 𝜑) ↔ ∀𝑥(𝑥 = 𝑦 → 𝜑))
Theorem	bj-ssbid2 36635	A special case of sbequ2 2250. (Contributed by BJ, 22-Dec-2020.)
⊢ ([𝑥 / 𝑥]𝜑 → 𝜑)
Theorem	bj-ssbid2ALT 36636	Alternate proof of bj-ssbid2 36635, not using sbequ2 2250. (Contributed by BJ, 22-Dec-2020.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) (New usage is discouraged.)
⊢ ([𝑥 / 𝑥]𝜑 → 𝜑)
Theorem	bj-ssbid1 36637	A special case of sbequ1 2249. (Contributed by BJ, 22-Dec-2020.)
⊢ (𝜑 → [𝑥 / 𝑥]𝜑)
Theorem	bj-ssbid1ALT 36638	Alternate proof of bj-ssbid1 36637, not using sbequ1 2249. (Contributed by BJ, 22-Dec-2020.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) (New usage is discouraged.)
⊢ (𝜑 → [𝑥 / 𝑥]𝜑)
Theorem	bj-ax6elem1 36639*	Lemma for bj-ax6e 36641. (Contributed by BJ, 22-Dec-2020.) (Proof modification is discouraged.)
⊢ (¬ ∀𝑥 𝑥 = 𝑦 → (𝑦 = 𝑧 → ∀𝑥 𝑦 = 𝑧))
Theorem	bj-ax6elem2 36640*	Lemma for bj-ax6e 36641. (Contributed by BJ, 22-Dec-2020.) (Proof modification is discouraged.)
⊢ (∀𝑥 𝑦 = 𝑧 → ∃𝑥 𝑥 = 𝑦)
Theorem	bj-ax6e 36641	Proof of ax6e 2381 (hence ax6 2382) from Tarski's system, ax-c9 38868, ax-c16 38870. Remark: ax-6 1967 is used only via its principal (unbundled) instance ax6v 1968. (Contributed by BJ, 22-Dec-2020.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) (New usage is discouraged.)
⊢ ∃𝑥 𝑥 = 𝑦
21.19.4.5  Adding ax-6
Theorem	bj-spimvwt 36642*	Closed form of spimvw 1986. See also spimt 2384. (Contributed by BJ, 8-Nov-2021.)
⊢ (∀𝑥(𝑥 = 𝑦 → (𝜑 → 𝜓)) → (∀𝑥𝜑 → 𝜓))
Theorem	bj-spnfw 36643	Theorem close to a closed form of spnfw 1979. (Contributed by BJ, 12-May-2019.)
⊢ ((∃𝑥𝜑 → 𝜓) → (∀𝑥𝜑 → 𝜓))
Theorem	bj-cbvexiw 36644*	Change bound variable. This is to cbvexvw 2037 what cbvaliw 2006 is to cbvalvw 2036. TODO: move after cbvalivw 2007. (Contributed by BJ, 17-Mar-2020.)
⊢ (∃𝑥∃𝑦𝜓 → ∃𝑦𝜓)    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → ∀𝑦𝜑)    &   ⊢ (𝑦 = 𝑥 → (𝜑 → 𝜓))    ⇒   ⊢ (∃𝑥𝜑 → ∃𝑦𝜓)
Theorem	bj-cbvexivw 36645*	Change bound variable. This is to cbvexvw 2037 what cbvalivw 2007 is to cbvalvw 2036. TODO: move after cbvalivw 2007. (Contributed by BJ, 17-Mar-2020.)
⊢ (𝑦 = 𝑥 → (𝜑 → 𝜓))    ⇒   ⊢ (∃𝑥𝜑 → ∃𝑦𝜓)
Theorem	bj-modald 36646	A short form of the axiom D of modal logic. (Contributed by BJ, 4-Apr-2021.)
⊢ (∀𝑥 ¬ 𝜑 → ¬ ∀𝑥𝜑)
Theorem	bj-denot 36647*	A weakening of ax-6 1967 and ax6v 1968. (Contributed by BJ, 4-Apr-2021.) (New usage is discouraged.)
⊢ (𝑥 = 𝑥 → ¬ ∀𝑦 ¬ 𝑦 = 𝑥)
Theorem	bj-eqs 36648*	A lemma for substitutions, proved from Tarski's FOL. The version without DV (𝑥, 𝑦) is true but requires ax-13 2370. 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))
21.19.4.6  Adding ax-7
Theorem	bj-cbvexw 36649*	Change bound variable. This is to cbvexvw 2037 what cbvalw 2035 is to cbvalvw 2036. (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 36650*	The general statement that ax12w 2134 proves. (Contributed by BJ, 20-Mar-2020.)
⊢ (𝜑 → (𝜓 ↔ 𝜒))    &   ⊢ (𝑦 = 𝑧 → (𝜓 ↔ 𝜃))    ⇒   ⊢ (𝜑 → (∀𝑦𝜓 → ∀𝑥(𝜑 → 𝜓)))
21.19.4.7  Membership predicate, ax-8 and ax-9
Theorem	bj-ax89 36651	A theorem which could be used as sole axiom for the non-logical predicate instead of ax-8 2111 and ax-9 2119. Indeed, it is implied over propositional calculus by the conjunction of ax-8 2111 and ax-9 2119, as proved here. In the other direction, one can prove ax-8 2111 (respectively ax-9 2119) from bj-ax89 36651 by using mpan2 691 (respectively mpan 690) and equid 2012. TODO: move to main part. (Contributed by BJ, 3-Oct-2019.)
⊢ ((𝑥 = 𝑦 ∧ 𝑧 = 𝑡) → (𝑥 ∈ 𝑧 → 𝑦 ∈ 𝑡))
Theorem	bj-cleljusti 36652*	One direction of cleljust 2118, requiring only ax-1 6-- ax-5 1910 and ax8v1 2113. (Contributed by BJ, 31-Dec-2020.) (Proof modification is discouraged.)
⊢ (∃𝑧(𝑧 = 𝑥 ∧ 𝑧 ∈ 𝑦) → 𝑥 ∈ 𝑦)
21.19.4.8  Adding ax-11
Theorem	bj-alcomexcom 36653	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 1809 section, soon after 2nexaln 1830, and used to prove excom 2163. (Contributed by BJ, 29-Nov-2020.) (Proof modification is discouraged.)
⊢ ((∀𝑥∀𝑦 ¬ 𝜑 → ∀𝑦∀𝑥 ¬ 𝜑) ↔ (∃𝑦∃𝑥𝜑 → ∃𝑥∃𝑦𝜑))
Theorem	bj-hbalt 36654	Closed form of hbal 2168. When in main part, prove hbal 2168 and hbald 2169 from it. (Contributed by BJ, 2-May-2019.)
⊢ (∀𝑦(𝜑 → ∀𝑥𝜑) → (∀𝑦𝜑 → ∀𝑥∀𝑦𝜑))
21.19.4.9  Adding ax-12
Theorem	axc11n11 36655	Proof of axc11n 2424 from { ax-1 6-- ax-7 2008, axc11 2428 } . Almost identical to axc11nfromc11 38904. (Contributed by NM, 6-Jul-2021.) (Proof modification is discouraged.)
⊢ (∀𝑥 𝑥 = 𝑦 → ∀𝑦 𝑦 = 𝑥)
Theorem	axc11n11r 36656	Proof of axc11n 2424 from { ax-1 6-- ax-7 2008, axc9 2380, axc11r 2366 } (note that axc16 2262 is provable from { ax-1 6-- ax-7 2008, axc11r 2366 }). Note that axc11n 2424 proves (over minimal calculus) that axc11 2428 and axc11r 2366 are equivalent. Therefore, axc11n11 36655 and axc11n11r 36656 prove that one can use one or the other as an axiom, provided one assumes the axioms listed above (axc11 2428 appears slightly stronger since axc11n11r 36656 requires axc9 2380 while axc11n11 36655 does not). (Contributed by BJ, 6-Jul-2021.) (Proof modification is discouraged.)
⊢ (∀𝑥 𝑥 = 𝑦 → ∀𝑦 𝑦 = 𝑥)
Theorem	bj-axc16g16 36657*	Proof of axc16g 2261 from { ax-1 6-- ax-7 2008, axc16 2262 }. (Contributed by BJ, 6-Jul-2021.) (Proof modification is discouraged.)
⊢ (∀𝑥 𝑥 = 𝑦 → (𝜑 → ∀𝑧𝜑))
Theorem	bj-ax12v3 36658*	A weak version of ax-12 2178 which is stronger than ax12v 2179. Note that if one assumes reflexivity of equality ⊢ 𝑥 = 𝑥 (equid 2012), then bj-ax12v3 36658 implies ax-5 1910 over modal logic K (substitute 𝑥 for 𝑦). See also bj-ax12v3ALT 36659. (Contributed by BJ, 6-Jul-2021.) (Proof modification is discouraged.)
⊢ (𝑥 = 𝑦 → (𝜑 → ∀𝑥(𝑥 = 𝑦 → 𝜑)))
Theorem	bj-ax12v3ALT 36659*	Alternate proof of bj-ax12v3 36658. Uses axc11r 2366 and axc15 2420 instead of ax-12 2178. (Contributed by BJ, 6-Jul-2021.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) (New usage is discouraged.)
⊢ (𝑥 = 𝑦 → (𝜑 → ∀𝑥(𝑥 = 𝑦 → 𝜑)))
Theorem	bj-sb 36660*	A weak variant of sbid2 2506 not requiring ax-13 2370 nor ax-10 2142. On top of Tarski's FOL, one implication requires only ax12v 2179, and the other requires only sp 2184. (Contributed by BJ, 25-May-2021.)
⊢ (𝜑 ↔ ∀𝑦(𝑦 = 𝑥 → ∀𝑥(𝑥 = 𝑦 → 𝜑)))
Theorem	bj-modalbe 36661	The predicate-calculus version of the axiom (B) of modal logic. See also modal-b 2318. (Contributed by BJ, 20-Oct-2019.)
⊢ (𝜑 → ∀𝑥∃𝑥𝜑)
Theorem	bj-spst 36662	Closed form of sps 2186. Once in main part, prove sps 2186 and spsd 2188 from it. (Contributed by BJ, 20-Oct-2019.)
⊢ ((𝜑 → 𝜓) → (∀𝑥𝜑 → 𝜓))
Theorem	bj-19.21bit 36663	Closed form of 19.21bi 2190. (Contributed by BJ, 20-Oct-2019.)
⊢ ((𝜑 → ∀𝑥𝜓) → (𝜑 → 𝜓))
Theorem	bj-19.23bit 36664	Closed form of 19.23bi 2192. (Contributed by BJ, 20-Oct-2019.)
⊢ ((∃𝑥𝜑 → 𝜓) → (𝜑 → 𝜓))
Theorem	bj-nexrt 36665	Closed form of nexr 2193. Contrapositive of 19.8a 2182. (Contributed by BJ, 20-Oct-2019.)
⊢ (¬ ∃𝑥𝜑 → ¬ 𝜑)
Theorem	bj-alrim 36666	Closed form of alrimi 2214. (Contributed by BJ, 2-May-2019.)
⊢ (Ⅎ𝑥𝜑 → (∀𝑥(𝜑 → 𝜓) → (𝜑 → ∀𝑥𝜓)))
Theorem	bj-alrim2 36667	Uncurried (imported) form of bj-alrim 36666. (Contributed by BJ, 2-May-2019.)
⊢ ((Ⅎ𝑥𝜑 ∧ ∀𝑥(𝜑 → 𝜓)) → (𝜑 → ∀𝑥𝜓))
Theorem	bj-nfdt0 36668	A theorem close to a closed form of nf5d 2284 and nf5dh 2148. (Contributed by BJ, 2-May-2019.)
⊢ (∀𝑥(𝜑 → (𝜓 → ∀𝑥𝜓)) → (∀𝑥𝜑 → Ⅎ𝑥𝜓))
Theorem	bj-nfdt 36669	Closed form of nf5d 2284 and nf5dh 2148. (Contributed by BJ, 2-May-2019.)
⊢ (∀𝑥(𝜑 → (𝜓 → ∀𝑥𝜓)) → ((𝜑 → ∀𝑥𝜑) → (𝜑 → Ⅎ𝑥𝜓)))
Theorem	bj-nexdt 36670	Closed form of nexd 2222. (Contributed by BJ, 20-Oct-2019.)
⊢ (Ⅎ𝑥𝜑 → (∀𝑥(𝜑 → ¬ 𝜓) → (𝜑 → ¬ ∃𝑥𝜓)))
Theorem	bj-nexdvt 36671*	Closed form of nexdv 1936. (Contributed by BJ, 20-Oct-2019.)
⊢ (∀𝑥(𝜑 → ¬ 𝜓) → (𝜑 → ¬ ∃𝑥𝜓))
Theorem	bj-alexbiex 36672	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 36673	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 36674	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 36675	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 36676	Strengthening 19.9ht 2319 by replacing its consequent with a biconditional (19.9t 2205 does have a biconditional consequent). This propagates. (Contributed by BJ, 20-Oct-2019.)
⊢ (∀𝑥(𝜑 → ∀𝑥𝜑) → (∃𝑥𝜑 ↔ 𝜑))
Theorem	bj-hbntbi 36677	Strengthening hbnt 2294 by replacing its consequent with a biconditional. See also hbntg 35778 and hbntal 44527. (Contributed by BJ, 20-Oct-2019.) Proved from bj-19.9htbi 36676. (Proof modification is discouraged.)
⊢ (∀𝑥(𝜑 → ∀𝑥𝜑) → (¬ 𝜑 ↔ ∀𝑥 ¬ 𝜑))
Theorem	bj-biexal1 36678	A general FOL biconditional that generalizes 19.9ht 2319 among others. For this and the following theorems, see also 19.35 1877, 19.21 2208, 19.23 2212. 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 36679	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 36680	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 36681	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 36682	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 36683	Closed form of hbex 2324. (Contributed by BJ, 10-Oct-2019.)
⊢ (∀𝑦∀𝑥(𝜑 → ∀𝑥𝜑) → (∃𝑦𝜑 → ∀𝑥∃𝑦𝜑))
Theorem	bj-nfalt 36684	Closed form of nfal 2322. (Contributed by BJ, 2-May-2019.)
⊢ (∀𝑥Ⅎ𝑦𝜑 → Ⅎ𝑦∀𝑥𝜑)
Theorem	bj-nfext 36685	Closed form of nfex 2323. (Contributed by BJ, 10-Oct-2019.)
⊢ (∀𝑥Ⅎ𝑦𝜑 → Ⅎ𝑦∃𝑥𝜑)
Theorem	bj-eeanvw 36686*	Version of exdistrv 1955 with a disjoint variable condition on 𝑥, 𝑦 not requiring ax-11 2158. (The same can be done with eeeanv 2348 and ee4anv 2349.) (Contributed by BJ, 29-Sep-2019.) (Proof modification is discouraged.)
⊢ (∃𝑥∃𝑦(𝜑 ∧ 𝜓) ↔ (∃𝑥𝜑 ∧ ∃𝑦𝜓))
Theorem	bj-modal4 36687	First-order logic form of the modal axiom (4). See hba1 2293. This is the standard proof of the implication in modal logic (B5 ⇒ 4). Its dual statement is bj-modal4e 36688. (Contributed by BJ, 12-Aug-2023.) (Proof modification is discouraged.)
⊢ (∀𝑥𝜑 → ∀𝑥∀𝑥𝜑)
Theorem	bj-modal4e 36688	First-order logic form of the modal axiom (4) using existential quantifiers. Dual statement of bj-modal4 36687 (hba1 2293). (Contributed by BJ, 21-Dec-2020.) (Proof modification is discouraged.)
⊢ (∃𝑥∃𝑥𝜑 → ∃𝑥𝜑)
Theorem	bj-modalb 36689	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 36690	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 36691	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 36692	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 36693	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 36694	Equivalent form of the axiom of substitution bj-ax12 36630. Although both sides need a DV condition on 𝑥, 𝑡 (or as in bj-ax12v3 36658 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 36695. Note that in the LHS, the reverse implication holds by equs4 2414 (or equs4v 2000 if a DV condition is added on 𝑥, 𝑡 as in bj-ax12 36630), and the forward implication is sbalex 2243. The LHS can be read as saying that if there exists a variable equal to a given term witnessing a given formula, then all variables equal to that term also witness that formula. The equivalent form of the LHS using only primitive symbols is (∀𝑥(𝑥 = 𝑡 → 𝜑) ∨ ∀𝑥(𝑥 = 𝑡 → ¬ 𝜑)), which expresses that a given formula is true at all variables equal to a given term, or false at all these variables. An equivalent form of the LHS using only the existential quantifier 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 a formula and the other witnessing its negation. These equivalences do not hold in intuitionistic logic. The LHS should be the preferred form, and has the advantage of having no negation nor nested quantifiers. (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 36695*	Weak form of the LHS of bj-substax12 36694 proved from the core axiom schemes. Compare ax12w 2134. (Contributed by BJ, 26-May-2024.) (Proof modification is discouraged.)
⊢ (𝑥 = 𝑡 → (𝜑 ↔ 𝜓))    ⇒   ⊢ (∃𝑥(𝑥 = 𝑡 ∧ 𝜑) → ∀𝑥(𝑥 = 𝑡 → 𝜑))
21.19.4.10  Nonfreeness
Syntax	wnnf 36696	Syntax for the nonfreeness quantifier.
wff Ⅎ'𝑥𝜑
Definition	df-bj-nnf 36697	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 1910 and ax5e 1912. 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 36727, 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 2160 and excom 2163 (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 1910, ax5e 1912, ax5ea 1913. 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 36698 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 36727, 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 36719, bj-nnfnt 36713, bj-nnfan 36721, bj-nnfor 36723, bj-nnfbit 36725, bj-nnfalt 36739, bj-nnfext 36740. 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 36719 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 36739 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 36739 and bj-nnfext 36740 are proved from positive propositional calculus with alcom 2160 and excom 2163 (possibly weakened by a DV condition on the quantifying variables), and modalB (via bj-19.12 36734). 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 1910 or ax5e 1912 or ax5ea 1913. 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 36701 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 1912 or ax5ea 1913, we would use bj-nnfe 36704 or bj-nnfea 36707 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 1795, by bj-nnf-alrim 36728 and bj-nnfa1 36732 (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 1981. QED Compared with df-nf 1784, the present definition is stricter on positive propositional calculus (bj-nnfnfTEMP 36711) and equivalent on core FOL plus sp 2184 (bj-nfnnfTEMP 36731). While being stricter, it still holds for non-occurring variables (bj-nnfv 36727), 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 2142 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 36698	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 1851. From this and bj-nnfim 36719 and bj-nnfnt 36713, 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 36714) in order not to require sp 2184 (modal T). (Contributed by BJ, 27-Aug-2023.)
⊢ (((𝜑 ↔ 𝜓) ∧ ∀𝑥(𝜑 ↔ 𝜓)) → (Ⅎ'𝑥𝜑 ↔ Ⅎ'𝑥𝜓))
Theorem	bj-nnfbd 36699*	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 36698. (Contributed by BJ, 27-Aug-2023.)
⊢ (𝜑 → (𝜓 ↔ 𝜒))    ⇒   ⊢ (𝜑 → (Ⅎ'𝑥𝜓 ↔ Ⅎ'𝑥𝜒))
Theorem	bj-nnfbii 36700	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 36698. (Contributed by BJ, 18-Nov-2023.)
⊢ (𝜑 ↔ 𝜓)    ⇒   ⊢ (Ⅎ'𝑥𝜑 ↔ Ⅎ'𝑥𝜓)