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-exalimsi 36601	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 36602	A lemma used to prove a weak form of the axiom of substitution. A generalization of bj-ax12i 36603. (Contributed by BJ, 19-Dec-2020.)
⊢ (𝜑 → (𝜓 ↔ 𝜒))    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → (𝜒 → ∀𝑥𝜒))    ⇒   ⊢ (𝜑 → (𝜓 → ∀𝑥(𝜑 → 𝜓)))
Theorem	bj-ax12i 36603	A weakening of bj-ax12ig 36602 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 36604	Closed form of nfim 1895 and curried (exported) form of nfimt 1894. (Contributed by BJ, 20-Oct-2021.)
⊢ (Ⅎ𝑥𝜑 → (Ⅎ𝑥𝜓 → Ⅎ𝑥(𝜑 → 𝜓)))
Theorem	bj-cbvalimt 36605	A lemma in closed form used to prove bj-cbval 36615 in a weak axiomatization. (Contributed by BJ, 12-Mar-2023.) Do not use 19.35 1876 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 36606	A lemma in closed form used to prove bj-cbvex 36616 in a weak axiomatization. (Contributed by BJ, 12-Mar-2023.) Do not use 19.35 1876 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 36607	Alternate proof of exim 1832 directly from alim 1808 by using df-ex 1778 (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 36608	Alternate proof of aleximi 1830 from exim 1832, 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 36609	A commuted form of exim 1832 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 36610*	A lemma used to prove a weak version of the axiom of substitution ax-12 2178. (Temporary comment: The general statement that ax12wlem 2132 proves.) (Contributed by BJ, 20-Mar-2020.)
⊢ (𝜑 → (𝜓 ↔ 𝜒))    ⇒   ⊢ (𝜑 → (𝜓 → ∀𝑥(𝜑 → 𝜓)))
Theorem	bj-cbvalim 36611*	A lemma used to prove bj-cbval 36615 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 36612*	A lemma used to prove bj-cbvex 36616 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 36613*	An equality-free general instance of one half of a precise form of bj-cbval 36615. (Contributed by BJ, 12-Mar-2023.) (Proof modification is discouraged.)
⊢ (𝜒 → (𝜑 → 𝜓))    &   ⊢ ∀𝑦∃𝑥𝜒    ⇒   ⊢ (∀𝑥𝜑 → ∀𝑦𝜓)
Theorem	bj-cbveximi 36614*	An equality-free general instance of one half of a precise form of bj-cbvex 36616. (Contributed by BJ, 12-Mar-2023.) (Proof modification is discouraged.)
⊢ (𝜒 → (𝜑 → 𝜓))    &   ⊢ ∀𝑥∃𝑦𝜒    ⇒   ⊢ (∃𝑥𝜑 → ∃𝑦𝜓)
Theorem	bj-cbval 36615*	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 36616*	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 36617	Syntax for BJ's version of the uniqueness quantifier.
wff ∃**𝑥𝜑
Definition	df-bj-mo 36618*	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 36619*	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 36619 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 36620*	A lemma for the definiens of df-sb 2065. An instance of sp 2184 proved without it. Note: it has a common subproof with sbjust 2063. (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 36621*	An instance of ax-11 2158 proved without it. The converse may not be provable without ax-11 2158 (since using alcomimw 2042 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 36622*	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 36623*	Remove a DV condition from bj-ax12v 36622 (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 36624*	Axiom bj-ax12 36623 expressed using substitution. (Contributed by BJ, 26-Dec-2020.) (Proof modification is discouraged.)
⊢ [𝑡 / 𝑥](𝜑 → [𝑡 / 𝑥]𝜑)
Theorem	bj-19.41al 36625	Special case of 19.41 2236 proved from core axioms, ax-10 2141 (modal5), and hba1 2297 (modal4). (Contributed by BJ, 29-Dec-2020.) (Proof modification is discouraged.)
⊢ (∃𝑥(𝜑 ∧ ∀𝑥𝜓) ↔ (∃𝑥𝜑 ∧ ∀𝑥𝜓))
Theorem	bj-equsexval 36626*	Special case of equsexv 2269 proved from core axioms, ax-10 2141 (modal5), and hba1 2297 (modal4). (Contributed by BJ, 29-Dec-2020.) (Proof modification is discouraged.)
⊢ (𝑥 = 𝑦 → (𝜑 ↔ ∀𝑥𝜓))    ⇒   ⊢ (∃𝑥(𝑥 = 𝑦 ∧ 𝜑) ↔ ∀𝑥𝜓)
Theorem	bj-subst 36627*	Proof of sbalex 2243 from core axioms, ax-10 2141 (modal5), and bj-ax12 36623. (Contributed by BJ, 29-Dec-2020.) (Proof modification is discouraged.)
⊢ (∃𝑥(𝑥 = 𝑦 ∧ 𝜑) ↔ ∀𝑥(𝑥 = 𝑦 → 𝜑))
Theorem	bj-ssbid2 36628	A special case of sbequ2 2250. (Contributed by BJ, 22-Dec-2020.)
⊢ ([𝑥 / 𝑥]𝜑 → 𝜑)
Theorem	bj-ssbid2ALT 36629	Alternate proof of bj-ssbid2 36628, 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 36630	A special case of sbequ1 2249. (Contributed by BJ, 22-Dec-2020.)
⊢ (𝜑 → [𝑥 / 𝑥]𝜑)
Theorem	bj-ssbid1ALT 36631	Alternate proof of bj-ssbid1 36630, 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 36632*	Lemma for bj-ax6e 36634. (Contributed by BJ, 22-Dec-2020.) (Proof modification is discouraged.)
⊢ (¬ ∀𝑥 𝑥 = 𝑦 → (𝑦 = 𝑧 → ∀𝑥 𝑦 = 𝑧))
Theorem	bj-ax6elem2 36633*	Lemma for bj-ax6e 36634. (Contributed by BJ, 22-Dec-2020.) (Proof modification is discouraged.)
⊢ (∀𝑥 𝑦 = 𝑧 → ∃𝑥 𝑥 = 𝑦)
Theorem	bj-ax6e 36634	Proof of ax6e 2391 (hence ax6 2392) from Tarski's system, ax-c9 38846, ax-c16 38848. 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 36635*	Closed form of spimvw 1995. See also spimt 2394. (Contributed by BJ, 8-Nov-2021.)
⊢ (∀𝑥(𝑥 = 𝑦 → (𝜑 → 𝜓)) → (∀𝑥𝜑 → 𝜓))
Theorem	bj-spnfw 36636	Theorem close to a closed form of spnfw 1979. (Contributed by BJ, 12-May-2019.)
⊢ ((∃𝑥𝜑 → 𝜓) → (∀𝑥𝜑 → 𝜓))
Theorem	bj-cbvexiw 36637*	Change bound variable. This is to cbvexvw 2036 what cbvaliw 2005 is to cbvalvw 2035. TODO: move after cbvalivw 2006. (Contributed by BJ, 17-Mar-2020.)
⊢ (∃𝑥∃𝑦𝜓 → ∃𝑦𝜓)    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → ∀𝑦𝜑)    &   ⊢ (𝑦 = 𝑥 → (𝜑 → 𝜓))    ⇒   ⊢ (∃𝑥𝜑 → ∃𝑦𝜓)
Theorem	bj-cbvexivw 36638*	Change bound variable. This is to cbvexvw 2036 what cbvalivw 2006 is to cbvalvw 2035. TODO: move after cbvalivw 2006. (Contributed by BJ, 17-Mar-2020.)
⊢ (𝑦 = 𝑥 → (𝜑 → 𝜓))    ⇒   ⊢ (∃𝑥𝜑 → ∃𝑦𝜓)
Theorem	bj-modald 36639	A short form of the axiom D of modal logic. (Contributed by BJ, 4-Apr-2021.)
⊢ (∀𝑥 ¬ 𝜑 → ¬ ∀𝑥𝜑)
Theorem	bj-denot 36640*	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 36641*	A lemma for substitutions, proved from Tarski's FOL. The version without DV (𝑥, 𝑦) is true but requires ax-13 2380. 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 36642*	Change bound variable. This is to cbvexvw 2036 what cbvalw 2034 is to cbvalvw 2035. (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 36643*	The general statement that ax12w 2133 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 36644	A theorem which could be used as sole axiom for the non-logical predicate instead of ax-8 2110 and ax-9 2118. Indeed, it is implied over propositional calculus by the conjunction of ax-8 2110 and ax-9 2118, as proved here. In the other direction, one can prove ax-8 2110 (respectively ax-9 2118) from bj-ax89 36644 by using mpan2 690 (respectively mpan 689) and equid 2011. TODO: move to main part. (Contributed by BJ, 3-Oct-2019.)
⊢ ((𝑥 = 𝑦 ∧ 𝑧 = 𝑡) → (𝑥 ∈ 𝑧 → 𝑦 ∈ 𝑡))
Theorem	bj-cleljusti 36645*	One direction of cleljust 2117, requiring only ax-1 6-- ax-5 1909 and ax8v1 2112. (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 36646	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 1807 section, soon after 2nexaln 1828, 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 36647	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 36648	Proof of axc11n 2434 from { ax-1 6-- ax-7 2007, axc11 2438 } . Almost identical to axc11nfromc11 38882. (Contributed by NM, 6-Jul-2021.) (Proof modification is discouraged.)
⊢ (∀𝑥 𝑥 = 𝑦 → ∀𝑦 𝑦 = 𝑥)
Theorem	axc11n11r 36649	Proof of axc11n 2434 from { ax-1 6-- ax-7 2007, axc9 2390, axc11r 2374 } (note that axc16 2262 is provable from { ax-1 6-- ax-7 2007, axc11r 2374 }). Note that axc11n 2434 proves (over minimal calculus) that axc11 2438 and axc11r 2374 are equivalent. Therefore, axc11n11 36648 and axc11n11r 36649 prove that one can use one or the other as an axiom, provided one assumes the axioms listed above (axc11 2438 appears slightly stronger since axc11n11r 36649 requires axc9 2390 while axc11n11 36648 does not). (Contributed by BJ, 6-Jul-2021.) (Proof modification is discouraged.)
⊢ (∀𝑥 𝑥 = 𝑦 → ∀𝑦 𝑦 = 𝑥)
Theorem	bj-axc16g16 36650*	Proof of axc16g 2261 from { ax-1 6-- ax-7 2007, axc16 2262 }. (Contributed by BJ, 6-Jul-2021.) (Proof modification is discouraged.)
⊢ (∀𝑥 𝑥 = 𝑦 → (𝜑 → ∀𝑧𝜑))
Theorem	bj-ax12v3 36651*	A weak version of ax-12 2178 which is stronger than ax12v 2179. Note that if one assumes reflexivity of equality ⊢ 𝑥 = 𝑥 (equid 2011), then bj-ax12v3 36651 implies ax-5 1909 over modal logic K (substitute 𝑥 for 𝑦). See also bj-ax12v3ALT 36652. (Contributed by BJ, 6-Jul-2021.) (Proof modification is discouraged.)
⊢ (𝑥 = 𝑦 → (𝜑 → ∀𝑥(𝑥 = 𝑦 → 𝜑)))
Theorem	bj-ax12v3ALT 36652*	Alternate proof of bj-ax12v3 36651. Uses axc11r 2374 and axc15 2430 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 36653*	A weak variant of sbid2 2516 not requiring ax-13 2380 nor ax-10 2141. 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 36654	The predicate-calculus version of the axiom (B) of modal logic. See also modal-b 2323. (Contributed by BJ, 20-Oct-2019.)
⊢ (𝜑 → ∀𝑥∃𝑥𝜑)
Theorem	bj-spst 36655	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 36656	Closed form of 19.21bi 2190. (Contributed by BJ, 20-Oct-2019.)
⊢ ((𝜑 → ∀𝑥𝜓) → (𝜑 → 𝜓))
Theorem	bj-19.23bit 36657	Closed form of 19.23bi 2192. (Contributed by BJ, 20-Oct-2019.)
⊢ ((∃𝑥𝜑 → 𝜓) → (𝜑 → 𝜓))
Theorem	bj-nexrt 36658	Closed form of nexr 2193. Contrapositive of 19.8a 2182. (Contributed by BJ, 20-Oct-2019.)
⊢ (¬ ∃𝑥𝜑 → ¬ 𝜑)
Theorem	bj-alrim 36659	Closed form of alrimi 2214. (Contributed by BJ, 2-May-2019.)
⊢ (Ⅎ𝑥𝜑 → (∀𝑥(𝜑 → 𝜓) → (𝜑 → ∀𝑥𝜓)))
Theorem	bj-alrim2 36660	Uncurried (imported) form of bj-alrim 36659. (Contributed by BJ, 2-May-2019.)
⊢ ((Ⅎ𝑥𝜑 ∧ ∀𝑥(𝜑 → 𝜓)) → (𝜑 → ∀𝑥𝜓))
Theorem	bj-nfdt0 36661	A theorem close to a closed form of nf5d 2288 and nf5dh 2147. (Contributed by BJ, 2-May-2019.)
⊢ (∀𝑥(𝜑 → (𝜓 → ∀𝑥𝜓)) → (∀𝑥𝜑 → Ⅎ𝑥𝜓))
Theorem	bj-nfdt 36662	Closed form of nf5d 2288 and nf5dh 2147. (Contributed by BJ, 2-May-2019.)
⊢ (∀𝑥(𝜑 → (𝜓 → ∀𝑥𝜓)) → ((𝜑 → ∀𝑥𝜑) → (𝜑 → Ⅎ𝑥𝜓)))
Theorem	bj-nexdt 36663	Closed form of nexd 2222. (Contributed by BJ, 20-Oct-2019.)
⊢ (Ⅎ𝑥𝜑 → (∀𝑥(𝜑 → ¬ 𝜓) → (𝜑 → ¬ ∃𝑥𝜓)))
Theorem	bj-nexdvt 36664*	Closed form of nexdv 1935. (Contributed by BJ, 20-Oct-2019.)
⊢ (∀𝑥(𝜑 → ¬ 𝜓) → (𝜑 → ¬ ∃𝑥𝜓))
Theorem	bj-alexbiex 36665	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 36666	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 36667	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 36668	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 36669	Strengthening 19.9ht 2324 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 36670	Strengthening hbnt 2298 by replacing its consequent with a biconditional. See also hbntg 35769 and hbntal 44524. (Contributed by BJ, 20-Oct-2019.) Proved from bj-19.9htbi 36669. (Proof modification is discouraged.)
⊢ (∀𝑥(𝜑 → ∀𝑥𝜑) → (¬ 𝜑 ↔ ∀𝑥 ¬ 𝜑))
Theorem	bj-biexal1 36671	A general FOL biconditional that generalizes 19.9ht 2324 among others. For this and the following theorems, see also 19.35 1876, 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 36672	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 36673	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 36674	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 36675	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 36676	Closed form of hbex 2329. (Contributed by BJ, 10-Oct-2019.)
⊢ (∀𝑦∀𝑥(𝜑 → ∀𝑥𝜑) → (∃𝑦𝜑 → ∀𝑥∃𝑦𝜑))
Theorem	bj-nfalt 36677	Closed form of nfal 2327. (Contributed by BJ, 2-May-2019.)
⊢ (∀𝑥Ⅎ𝑦𝜑 → Ⅎ𝑦∀𝑥𝜑)
Theorem	bj-nfext 36678	Closed form of nfex 2328. (Contributed by BJ, 10-Oct-2019.)
⊢ (∀𝑥Ⅎ𝑦𝜑 → Ⅎ𝑦∃𝑥𝜑)
Theorem	bj-eeanvw 36679*	Version of exdistrv 1955 with a disjoint variable condition on 𝑥, 𝑦 not requiring ax-11 2158. (The same can be done with eeeanv 2356 and ee4anv 2357.) (Contributed by BJ, 29-Sep-2019.) (Proof modification is discouraged.)
⊢ (∃𝑥∃𝑦(𝜑 ∧ 𝜓) ↔ (∃𝑥𝜑 ∧ ∃𝑦𝜓))
Theorem	bj-modal4 36680	First-order logic form of the modal axiom (4). See hba1 2297. This is the standard proof of the implication in modal logic (B5 ⇒ 4). Its dual statement is bj-modal4e 36681. (Contributed by BJ, 12-Aug-2023.) (Proof modification is discouraged.)
⊢ (∀𝑥𝜑 → ∀𝑥∀𝑥𝜑)
Theorem	bj-modal4e 36681	First-order logic form of the modal axiom (4) using existential quantifiers. Dual statement of bj-modal4 36680 (hba1 2297). (Contributed by BJ, 21-Dec-2020.) (Proof modification is discouraged.)
⊢ (∃𝑥∃𝑥𝜑 → ∃𝑥𝜑)
Theorem	bj-modalb 36682	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 36683	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 36684	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 36685	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 36686	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 36687	Equivalent form of the axiom of substitution bj-ax12 36623. Although both sides need a DV condition on 𝑥, 𝑡 (or as in bj-ax12v3 36651 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 36688. Note that in the LHS, the reverse implication holds by equs4 2424 (or equs4v 1999 if a DV condition is added on 𝑥, 𝑡 as in bj-ax12 36623), 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 36688*	Weak form of the LHS of bj-substax12 36687 proved from the core axiom schemes. Compare ax12w 2133. (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 36689	Syntax for the nonfreeness quantifier.
wff Ⅎ'𝑥𝜑
Definition	df-bj-nnf 36690	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 1909 and ax5e 1911. 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 36720, 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 1909, ax5e 1911, ax5ea 1912. 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 36691 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 36720, 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 36712, bj-nnfnt 36706, bj-nnfan 36714, bj-nnfor 36716, bj-nnfbit 36718, bj-nnfalt 36732, bj-nnfext 36733. 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 36712 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 36732 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 36732 and bj-nnfext 36733 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 36727). 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 1909 or ax5e 1911 or ax5ea 1912. 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 36694 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 1911 or ax5ea 1912, we would use bj-nnfe 36697 or bj-nnfea 36700 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 1793, by bj-nnf-alrim 36721 and bj-nnfa1 36725 (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 1980. QED Compared with df-nf 1782, the present definition is stricter on positive propositional calculus (bj-nnfnfTEMP 36704) and equivalent on core FOL plus sp 2184 (bj-nfnnfTEMP 36724). While being stricter, it still holds for non-occurring variables (bj-nnfv 36720), 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 2141 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 36691	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 1849. From this and bj-nnfim 36712 and bj-nnfnt 36706, 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 36707) 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 36692*	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 36691. (Contributed by BJ, 27-Aug-2023.)
⊢ (𝜑 → (𝜓 ↔ 𝜒))    ⇒   ⊢ (𝜑 → (Ⅎ'𝑥𝜓 ↔ Ⅎ'𝑥𝜒))
Theorem	bj-nnfbii 36693	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 36691. (Contributed by BJ, 18-Nov-2023.)
⊢ (𝜑 ↔ 𝜓)    ⇒   ⊢ (Ⅎ'𝑥𝜑 ↔ Ⅎ'𝑥𝜓)
Theorem	bj-nnfa 36694	Nonfreeness implies the equivalent of ax-5 1909. See nf5r 2195. (Contributed by BJ, 28-Jul-2023.)
⊢ (Ⅎ'𝑥𝜑 → (𝜑 → ∀𝑥𝜑))
Theorem	bj-nnfad 36695	Nonfreeness implies the equivalent of ax-5 1909, deduction form. See nf5rd 2197. (Contributed by BJ, 2-Dec-2023.)
⊢ (𝜑 → Ⅎ'𝑥𝜓)    ⇒   ⊢ (𝜑 → (𝜓 → ∀𝑥𝜓))
Theorem	bj-nnfai 36696	Nonfreeness implies the equivalent of ax-5 1909, inference form. See nf5ri 2196. (Contributed by BJ, 22-Sep-2024.)
⊢ Ⅎ'𝑥𝜑    ⇒   ⊢ (𝜑 → ∀𝑥𝜑)
Theorem	bj-nnfe 36697	Nonfreeness implies the equivalent of ax5e 1911. (Contributed by BJ, 28-Jul-2023.)
⊢ (Ⅎ'𝑥𝜑 → (∃𝑥𝜑 → 𝜑))
Theorem	bj-nnfed 36698	Nonfreeness implies the equivalent of ax5e 1911, deduction form. (Contributed by BJ, 2-Dec-2023.)
⊢ (𝜑 → Ⅎ'𝑥𝜓)    ⇒   ⊢ (𝜑 → (∃𝑥𝜓 → 𝜓))
Theorem	bj-nnfei 36699	Nonfreeness implies the equivalent of ax5e 1911, inference form. (Contributed by BJ, 22-Sep-2024.)
⊢ Ⅎ'𝑥𝜑    ⇒   ⊢ (∃𝑥𝜑 → 𝜑)
Theorem	bj-nnfea 36700	Nonfreeness implies the equivalent of ax5ea 1912. (Contributed by BJ, 28-Jul-2023.)
⊢ (Ⅎ'𝑥𝜑 → (∃𝑥𝜑 → ∀𝑥𝜑))