P. 368 of Theorem List - Metamath Proof Explorer

Theorem List for Metamath Proof Explorer - 36701-36800   *Has distinct variable group(s)

Type	Label	Description
Statement
Theorem	bj-biexal2 36701	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 36702	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 36703	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 36704	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 36705	Closed form of hbex 2324. (Contributed by BJ, 10-Oct-2019.)
⊢ (∀𝑦∀𝑥(𝜑 → ∀𝑥𝜑) → (∃𝑦𝜑 → ∀𝑥∃𝑦𝜑))
Theorem	bj-nfalt 36706	Closed form of nfal 2322. (Contributed by BJ, 2-May-2019.)
⊢ (∀𝑥Ⅎ𝑦𝜑 → Ⅎ𝑦∀𝑥𝜑)
Theorem	bj-nfext 36707	Closed form of nfex 2323. (Contributed by BJ, 10-Oct-2019.)
⊢ (∀𝑥Ⅎ𝑦𝜑 → Ⅎ𝑦∃𝑥𝜑)
Theorem	bj-eeanvw 36708*	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 36709	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 36710. (Contributed by BJ, 12-Aug-2023.) (Proof modification is discouraged.)
⊢ (∀𝑥𝜑 → ∀𝑥∀𝑥𝜑)
Theorem	bj-modal4e 36710	First-order logic form of the modal axiom (4) using existential quantifiers. Dual statement of bj-modal4 36709 (hba1 2293). (Contributed by BJ, 21-Dec-2020.) (Proof modification is discouraged.)
⊢ (∃𝑥∃𝑥𝜑 → ∃𝑥𝜑)
Theorem	bj-modalb 36711	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 36712	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 36713	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 36714	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 36715	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 36716	Equivalent form of the axiom of substitution bj-ax12 36652. Although both sides need a DV condition on 𝑥, 𝑡 (or as in bj-ax12v3 36680 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 36717. Note that in the LHS, the reverse implication holds by equs4 2415 (or equs4v 2000 if a DV condition is added on 𝑥, 𝑡 as in bj-ax12 36652), 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 36717*	Weak form of the LHS of bj-substax12 36716 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 36718	Syntax for the nonfreeness quantifier.
wff Ⅎ'𝑥𝜑
Definition	df-bj-nnf 36719	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 36749, 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 36720 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 36749, 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 36741, bj-nnfnt 36735, bj-nnfan 36743, bj-nnfor 36745, bj-nnfbit 36747, bj-nnfalt 36761, bj-nnfext 36762. 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 36741 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 36761 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 36761 and bj-nnfext 36762 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 36756). 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 36723 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 36726 or bj-nnfea 36729 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 36750 and bj-nnfa1 36754 (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 36733) and equivalent on core FOL plus sp 2184 (bj-nfnnfTEMP 36753). While being stricter, it still holds for non-occurring variables (bj-nnfv 36749), 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 36720	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 36741 and bj-nnfnt 36735, 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 36736) 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 36721*	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 36720. (Contributed by BJ, 27-Aug-2023.)
⊢ (𝜑 → (𝜓 ↔ 𝜒))    ⇒   ⊢ (𝜑 → (Ⅎ'𝑥𝜓 ↔ Ⅎ'𝑥𝜒))
Theorem	bj-nnfbii 36722	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 36720. (Contributed by BJ, 18-Nov-2023.)
⊢ (𝜑 ↔ 𝜓)    ⇒   ⊢ (Ⅎ'𝑥𝜑 ↔ Ⅎ'𝑥𝜓)
Theorem	bj-nnfa 36723	Nonfreeness implies the equivalent of ax-5 1910. See nf5r 2195. (Contributed by BJ, 28-Jul-2023.)
⊢ (Ⅎ'𝑥𝜑 → (𝜑 → ∀𝑥𝜑))
Theorem	bj-nnfad 36724	Nonfreeness implies the equivalent of ax-5 1910, deduction form. See nf5rd 2197. (Contributed by BJ, 2-Dec-2023.)
⊢ (𝜑 → Ⅎ'𝑥𝜓)    ⇒   ⊢ (𝜑 → (𝜓 → ∀𝑥𝜓))
Theorem	bj-nnfai 36725	Nonfreeness implies the equivalent of ax-5 1910, inference form. See nf5ri 2196. (Contributed by BJ, 22-Sep-2024.)
⊢ Ⅎ'𝑥𝜑    ⇒   ⊢ (𝜑 → ∀𝑥𝜑)
Theorem	bj-nnfe 36726	Nonfreeness implies the equivalent of ax5e 1912. (Contributed by BJ, 28-Jul-2023.)
⊢ (Ⅎ'𝑥𝜑 → (∃𝑥𝜑 → 𝜑))
Theorem	bj-nnfed 36727	Nonfreeness implies the equivalent of ax5e 1912, deduction form. (Contributed by BJ, 2-Dec-2023.)
⊢ (𝜑 → Ⅎ'𝑥𝜓)    ⇒   ⊢ (𝜑 → (∃𝑥𝜓 → 𝜓))
Theorem	bj-nnfei 36728	Nonfreeness implies the equivalent of ax5e 1912, inference form. (Contributed by BJ, 22-Sep-2024.)
⊢ Ⅎ'𝑥𝜑    ⇒   ⊢ (∃𝑥𝜑 → 𝜑)
Theorem	bj-nnfea 36729	Nonfreeness implies the equivalent of ax5ea 1913. (Contributed by BJ, 28-Jul-2023.)
⊢ (Ⅎ'𝑥𝜑 → (∃𝑥𝜑 → ∀𝑥𝜑))
Theorem	bj-nnfead 36730	Nonfreeness implies the equivalent of ax5ea 1913, deduction form. (Contributed by BJ, 2-Dec-2023.)
⊢ (𝜑 → Ⅎ'𝑥𝜓)    ⇒   ⊢ (𝜑 → (∃𝑥𝜓 → ∀𝑥𝜓))
Theorem	bj-nnfeai 36731	Nonfreeness implies the equivalent of ax5ea 1913, inference form. (Contributed by BJ, 22-Sep-2024.)
⊢ Ⅎ'𝑥𝜑    ⇒   ⊢ (∃𝑥𝜑 → ∀𝑥𝜑)
Theorem	bj-dfnnf2 36732	Alternate definition of df-bj-nnf 36719 using only primitive symbols (→, ¬, ∀) in each conjunct. (Contributed by BJ, 20-Aug-2023.)
⊢ (Ⅎ'𝑥𝜑 ↔ ((𝜑 → ∀𝑥𝜑) ∧ (¬ 𝜑 → ∀𝑥 ¬ 𝜑)))
Theorem	bj-nnfnfTEMP 36733	New nonfreeness implies old nonfreeness on minimal implicational calculus (the proof indicates it uses ax-3 8 because of set.mm's definition of the biconditional, but the proof actually holds in minimal implicational calculus). (Contributed by BJ, 28-Jul-2023.) The proof should not rely on df-nf 1784 except via df-nf 1784 directly. (Proof modification is discouraged.)
⊢ (Ⅎ'𝑥𝜑 → Ⅎ𝑥𝜑)
Theorem	bj-wnfnf 36734	When 𝜑 is substituted for 𝜓, this statement expresses nonfreeness in the weak form of nonfreeness (∃ → ∀). Note that this could also be proved from bj-nnfim 36741, bj-nnfe1 36755 and bj-nnfa1 36754. (Contributed by BJ, 9-Dec-2023.)
⊢ Ⅎ'𝑥(∃𝑥𝜑 → ∀𝑥𝜓)
Theorem	bj-nnfnt 36735	A variable is nonfree in a formula if and only if it is nonfree in its negation. The foward implication is intuitionistically valid (and that direction is sufficient for the purpose of recursively proving that some formulas have a given variable not free in them, like bj-nnfim 36741). Intuitionistically, ⊢ (Ⅎ'𝑥¬ 𝜑 ↔ Ⅎ'𝑥¬ ¬ 𝜑). See nfnt 1856. (Contributed by BJ, 28-Jul-2023.)
⊢ (Ⅎ'𝑥𝜑 ↔ Ⅎ'𝑥 ¬ 𝜑)
Theorem	bj-nnftht 36736	A variable is nonfree in a theorem. The antecedent is in the "strong necessity" modality of modal logic in order not to require sp 2184 (modal T), as in bj-nnfbi 36720. (Contributed by BJ, 28-Jul-2023.)
⊢ ((𝜑 ∧ ∀𝑥𝜑) → Ⅎ'𝑥𝜑)
Theorem	bj-nnfth 36737	A variable is nonfree in a theorem, inference form. (Contributed by BJ, 28-Jul-2023.)
⊢ 𝜑    ⇒   ⊢ Ⅎ'𝑥𝜑
Theorem	bj-nnfnth 36738	A variable is nonfree in the negation of a theorem, inference form. (Contributed by BJ, 27-Aug-2023.)
⊢ ¬ 𝜑    ⇒   ⊢ Ⅎ'𝑥𝜑
Theorem	bj-nnfim1 36739	A consequence of nonfreeness in the antecedent and the consequent of an implication. (Contributed by BJ, 27-Aug-2023.)
⊢ ((Ⅎ'𝑥𝜑 ∧ Ⅎ'𝑥𝜓) → ((𝜑 → 𝜓) → (∃𝑥𝜑 → ∀𝑥𝜓)))
Theorem	bj-nnfim2 36740	A consequence of nonfreeness in the antecedent and the consequent of an implication. (Contributed by BJ, 27-Aug-2023.)
⊢ ((Ⅎ'𝑥𝜑 ∧ Ⅎ'𝑥𝜓) → ((∀𝑥𝜑 → ∃𝑥𝜓) → (𝜑 → 𝜓)))
Theorem	bj-nnfim 36741	Nonfreeness in the antecedent and the consequent of an implication implies nonfreeness in the implication. (Contributed by BJ, 27-Aug-2023.)
⊢ ((Ⅎ'𝑥𝜑 ∧ Ⅎ'𝑥𝜓) → Ⅎ'𝑥(𝜑 → 𝜓))
Theorem	bj-nnfimd 36742	Nonfreeness in the antecedent and the consequent of an implication implies nonfreeness in the implication, deduction form. (Contributed by BJ, 2-Dec-2023.)
⊢ (𝜑 → Ⅎ'𝑥𝜓)    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → Ⅎ'𝑥𝜒)    ⇒   ⊢ (𝜑 → Ⅎ'𝑥(𝜓 → 𝜒))
Theorem	bj-nnfan 36743	Nonfreeness in both conjuncts implies nonfreeness in the conjunction. (Contributed by BJ, 19-Nov-2023.) In classical logic, there is a proof using the definition of conjunction in terms of implication and negation, so using bj-nnfim 36741, bj-nnfnt 36735 and bj-nnfbi 36720, but we want a proof valid in intuitionistic logic. (Proof modification is discouraged.)
⊢ ((Ⅎ'𝑥𝜑 ∧ Ⅎ'𝑥𝜓) → Ⅎ'𝑥(𝜑 ∧ 𝜓))
Theorem	bj-nnfand 36744	Nonfreeness in both conjuncts implies nonfreeness in the conjunction, deduction form. Note: compared with the proof of bj-nnfan 36743, it has two more essential steps but fewer total steps (since there are fewer intermediate formulas to build) and is easier to follow and understand. This statement is of intermediate complexity: for simpler statements, closed-style proofs like that of bj-nnfan 36743 will generally be shorter than deduction-style proofs while still easy to follow, while for more complex statements, the opposite will be true (and deduction-style proofs like that of bj-nnfand 36744 will generally be easier to understand). (Contributed by BJ, 19-Nov-2023.) (Proof modification is discouraged.)
⊢ (𝜑 → Ⅎ'𝑥𝜓)    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → Ⅎ'𝑥𝜒)    ⇒   ⊢ (𝜑 → Ⅎ'𝑥(𝜓 ∧ 𝜒))
Theorem	bj-nnfor 36745	Nonfreeness in both disjuncts implies nonfreeness in the disjunction. (Contributed by BJ, 19-Nov-2023.) In classical logic, there is a proof using the definition of disjunction in terms of implication and negation, so using bj-nnfim 36741, bj-nnfnt 36735 and bj-nnfbi 36720, but we want a proof valid in intuitionistic logic. (Proof modification is discouraged.)
⊢ ((Ⅎ'𝑥𝜑 ∧ Ⅎ'𝑥𝜓) → Ⅎ'𝑥(𝜑 ∨ 𝜓))
Theorem	bj-nnford 36746	Nonfreeness in both disjuncts implies nonfreeness in the disjunction, deduction form. See comments for bj-nnfor 36745 and bj-nnfand 36744. (Contributed by BJ, 2-Dec-2023.) (Proof modification is discouraged.)
⊢ (𝜑 → Ⅎ'𝑥𝜓)    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → Ⅎ'𝑥𝜒)    ⇒   ⊢ (𝜑 → Ⅎ'𝑥(𝜓 ∨ 𝜒))
Theorem	bj-nnfbit 36747	Nonfreeness in both sides implies nonfreeness in the biconditional. (Contributed by BJ, 2-Dec-2023.) (Proof modification is discouraged.)
⊢ ((Ⅎ'𝑥𝜑 ∧ Ⅎ'𝑥𝜓) → Ⅎ'𝑥(𝜑 ↔ 𝜓))
Theorem	bj-nnfbid 36748	Nonfreeness in both sides implies nonfreeness in the biconditional, deduction form. (Contributed by BJ, 2-Dec-2023.) (Proof modification is discouraged.)
⊢ (𝜑 → Ⅎ'𝑥𝜓)    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → Ⅎ'𝑥𝜒)    ⇒   ⊢ (𝜑 → Ⅎ'𝑥(𝜓 ↔ 𝜒))
Theorem	bj-nnfv 36749*	A non-occurring variable is nonfree in a formula. (Contributed by BJ, 28-Jul-2023.)
⊢ Ⅎ'𝑥𝜑
Theorem	bj-nnf-alrim 36750	Proof of the closed form of alrimi 2214 from modalK (compare alrimiv 1927). See also bj-alrim 36688. Actually, most proofs between 19.3t 2202 and 2sbbid 2248 could be proved without ax-12 2178. (Contributed by BJ, 20-Aug-2023.)
⊢ (Ⅎ'𝑥𝜑 → (∀𝑥(𝜑 → 𝜓) → (𝜑 → ∀𝑥𝜓)))
Theorem	bj-nnf-exlim 36751	Proof of the closed form of exlimi 2218 from modalK (compare exlimiv 1930). See also bj-sylget2 36617. (Contributed by BJ, 2-Dec-2023.)
⊢ (Ⅎ'𝑥𝜓 → (∀𝑥(𝜑 → 𝜓) → (∃𝑥𝜑 → 𝜓)))
Theorem	bj-dfnnf3 36752	Alternate definition of nonfreeness when sp 2184 is available. (Contributed by BJ, 28-Jul-2023.) The proof should not rely on df-nf 1784. (Proof modification is discouraged.)
⊢ (Ⅎ'𝑥𝜑 ↔ (∃𝑥𝜑 → ∀𝑥𝜑))
Theorem	bj-nfnnfTEMP 36753	New nonfreeness is equivalent to old nonfreeness on core FOL axioms plus sp 2184. (Contributed by BJ, 28-Jul-2023.) The proof should not rely on df-nf 1784 except via df-nf 1784 directly. (Proof modification is discouraged.)
⊢ (Ⅎ'𝑥𝜑 ↔ Ⅎ𝑥𝜑)
Theorem	bj-nnfa1 36754	See nfa1 2152. (Contributed by BJ, 12-Aug-2023.) (Proof modification is discouraged.)
⊢ Ⅎ'𝑥∀𝑥𝜑
Theorem	bj-nnfe1 36755	See nfe1 2151. (Contributed by BJ, 12-Aug-2023.) (Proof modification is discouraged.)
⊢ Ⅎ'𝑥∃𝑥𝜑
Theorem	bj-19.12 36756	See 19.12 2326. Could be labeled "exalimalex" for "'there exists for all' implies 'for all there exists'". This proof is from excom 2163 and modal (B) on top of modalK logic. (Contributed by BJ, 12-Aug-2023.) The proof should not rely on df-nf 1784 or df-bj-nnf 36719, directly or indirectly. (Proof modification is discouraged.)
⊢ (∃𝑥∀𝑦𝜑 → ∀𝑦∃𝑥𝜑)
Theorem	bj-nnflemaa 36757	One of four lemmas for nonfreeness: antecedent and consequent both expressed using universal quantifier. Note: this is bj-hbalt 36676. (Contributed by BJ, 12-Aug-2023.) (Proof modification is discouraged.)
⊢ (∀𝑥(𝜑 → ∀𝑦𝜑) → (∀𝑥𝜑 → ∀𝑦∀𝑥𝜑))
Theorem	bj-nnflemee 36758	One of four lemmas for nonfreeness: antecedent and consequent both expressed using existential quantifier. (Contributed by BJ, 12-Aug-2023.) (Proof modification is discouraged.)
⊢ (∀𝑥(∃𝑦𝜑 → 𝜑) → (∃𝑦∃𝑥𝜑 → ∃𝑥𝜑))
Theorem	bj-nnflemae 36759	One of four lemmas for nonfreeness: antecedent expressed with universal quantifier and consequent expressed with existential quantifier. (Contributed by BJ, 12-Aug-2023.) (Proof modification is discouraged.)
⊢ (∀𝑥(𝜑 → ∀𝑦𝜑) → (∃𝑥𝜑 → ∀𝑦∃𝑥𝜑))
Theorem	bj-nnflemea 36760	One of four lemmas for nonfreeness: antecedent expressed with existential quantifier and consequent expressed with universal quantifier. (Contributed by BJ, 12-Aug-2023.) (Proof modification is discouraged.)
⊢ (∀𝑥(∃𝑦𝜑 → 𝜑) → (∃𝑦∀𝑥𝜑 → ∀𝑥𝜑))
Theorem	bj-nnfalt 36761	See nfal 2322 and bj-nfalt 36706. (Contributed by BJ, 12-Aug-2023.) (Proof modification is discouraged.)
⊢ (∀𝑥Ⅎ'𝑦𝜑 → Ⅎ'𝑦∀𝑥𝜑)
Theorem	bj-nnfext 36762	See nfex 2323 and bj-nfext 36707. (Contributed by BJ, 12-Aug-2023.) (Proof modification is discouraged.)
⊢ (∀𝑥Ⅎ'𝑦𝜑 → Ⅎ'𝑦∃𝑥𝜑)
Theorem	bj-stdpc5t 36763	Alias of bj-nnf-alrim 36750 for labeling consistency (a standard predicate calculus axiom). Closed form of stdpc5 2209 proved from modalK (obsoleting stdpc5v 1938). (Contributed by BJ, 2-Dec-2023.) Use bj-nnf-alrim 36750 instead. (New usaged is discouraged.)
⊢ (Ⅎ'𝑥𝜑 → (∀𝑥(𝜑 → 𝜓) → (𝜑 → ∀𝑥𝜓)))
Theorem	bj-19.21t 36764	Statement 19.21t 2207 proved from modalK (obsoleting 19.21v 1939). (Contributed by BJ, 2-Dec-2023.)
⊢ (Ⅎ'𝑥𝜑 → (∀𝑥(𝜑 → 𝜓) ↔ (𝜑 → ∀𝑥𝜓)))
Theorem	bj-19.23t 36765	Statement 19.23t 2211 proved from modalK (obsoleting 19.23v 1942). (Contributed by BJ, 2-Dec-2023.)
⊢ (Ⅎ'𝑥𝜓 → (∀𝑥(𝜑 → 𝜓) ↔ (∃𝑥𝜑 → 𝜓)))
Theorem	bj-19.36im 36766	One direction of 19.36 2231 from the same axioms as 19.36imv 1945. (Contributed by BJ, 2-Dec-2023.)
⊢ (Ⅎ'𝑥𝜓 → (∃𝑥(𝜑 → 𝜓) → (∀𝑥𝜑 → 𝜓)))
Theorem	bj-19.37im 36767	One direction of 19.37 2233 from the same axioms as 19.37imv 1947. (Contributed by BJ, 2-Dec-2023.)
⊢ (Ⅎ'𝑥𝜑 → (∃𝑥(𝜑 → 𝜓) → (𝜑 → ∃𝑥𝜓)))
Theorem	bj-19.42t 36768	Closed form of 19.42 2237 from the same axioms as 19.42v 1953. (Contributed by BJ, 2-Dec-2023.)
⊢ (Ⅎ'𝑥𝜑 → (∃𝑥(𝜑 ∧ 𝜓) ↔ (𝜑 ∧ ∃𝑥𝜓)))
Theorem	bj-19.41t 36769	Closed form of 19.41 2236 from the same axioms as 19.41v 1949. The same is doable with 19.27 2228, 19.28 2229, 19.31 2235, 19.32 2234, 19.44 2238, 19.45 2239. (Contributed by BJ, 2-Dec-2023.)
⊢ (Ⅎ'𝑥𝜓 → (∃𝑥(𝜑 ∧ 𝜓) ↔ (∃𝑥𝜑 ∧ 𝜓)))
Theorem	bj-sbft 36770	Version of sbft 2270 using Ⅎ', proved from core axioms. (Contributed by BJ, 19-Nov-2023.)
⊢ (Ⅎ'𝑥𝜑 → ([𝑡 / 𝑥]𝜑 ↔ 𝜑))
Theorem	bj-pm11.53vw 36771	Version of pm11.53v 1944 with nonfreeness antecedents. One can also prove the theorem with antecedent (Ⅎ'𝑦∀𝑥𝜑 ∧ ∀𝑦Ⅎ'𝑥𝜓). (Contributed by BJ, 7-Oct-2024.)
⊢ ((∀𝑥Ⅎ'𝑦𝜑 ∧ Ⅎ'𝑥∀𝑦𝜓) → (∀𝑥∀𝑦(𝜑 → 𝜓) ↔ (∃𝑥𝜑 → ∀𝑦𝜓)))
Theorem	bj-pm11.53v 36772	Version of pm11.53v 1944 with nonfreeness antecedents. (Contributed by BJ, 7-Oct-2024.)
⊢ ((∀𝑥Ⅎ'𝑦𝜑 ∧ ∀𝑦Ⅎ'𝑥𝜓) → (∀𝑥∀𝑦(𝜑 → 𝜓) ↔ (∃𝑥𝜑 → ∀𝑦𝜓)))
Theorem	bj-pm11.53a 36773*	A variant of pm11.53v 1944. One can similarly prove a variant with DV (𝑦, 𝜑) and ∀𝑦Ⅎ'𝑥𝜓 instead of DV (𝑥, 𝜓) and ∀𝑥Ⅎ'𝑦𝜑. (Contributed by BJ, 7-Oct-2024.)
⊢ (∀𝑥Ⅎ'𝑦𝜑 → (∀𝑥∀𝑦(𝜑 → 𝜓) ↔ (∃𝑥𝜑 → ∀𝑦𝜓)))
Theorem	bj-equsvt 36774*	A variant of equsv 2003. (Contributed by BJ, 7-Oct-2024.)
⊢ (Ⅎ'𝑥𝜑 → (∀𝑥(𝑥 = 𝑦 → 𝜑) ↔ 𝜑))
Theorem	bj-equsalvwd 36775*	Variant of equsalvw 2004. (Contributed by BJ, 7-Oct-2024.)
⊢ (𝜑 → ∀𝑥𝜑)    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → Ⅎ'𝑥𝜒)    &   ⊢ ((𝜑 ∧ 𝑥 = 𝑦) → (𝜓 ↔ 𝜒))    ⇒   ⊢ (𝜑 → (∀𝑥(𝑥 = 𝑦 → 𝜓) ↔ 𝜒))
Theorem	bj-equsexvwd 36776*	Variant of equsexvw 2005. (Contributed by BJ, 7-Oct-2024.)
⊢ (𝜑 → ∀𝑥𝜑)    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → Ⅎ'𝑥𝜒)    &   ⊢ ((𝜑 ∧ 𝑥 = 𝑦) → (𝜓 ↔ 𝜒))    ⇒   ⊢ (𝜑 → (∃𝑥(𝑥 = 𝑦 ∧ 𝜓) ↔ 𝜒))
Theorem	bj-sbievwd 36777*	Variant of sbievw 2094. (Contributed by BJ, 7-Oct-2024.)
⊢ (𝜑 → ∀𝑥𝜑)    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → Ⅎ'𝑥𝜒)    &   ⊢ ((𝜑 ∧ 𝑥 = 𝑦) → (𝜓 ↔ 𝜒))    ⇒   ⊢ (𝜑 → ([𝑦 / 𝑥]𝜓 ↔ 𝜒))
21.19.4.11  Adding ax-13
Theorem	bj-axc10 36778	Alternate proof of axc10 2384. Shorter. One can prove a version with DV (𝑥, 𝑦) without ax-13 2371, by using ax6ev 1969 instead of ax6e 2382. (Contributed by BJ, 31-Mar-2021.) (Proof modification is discouraged.)
⊢ (∀𝑥(𝑥 = 𝑦 → ∀𝑥𝜑) → 𝜑)
Theorem	bj-alequex 36779	A fol lemma. See alequexv 2001 for a version with a disjoint variable condition requiring fewer axioms. Can be used to reduce the proof of spimt 2385 from 133 to 112 bytes. (Contributed by BJ, 6-Oct-2018.)
⊢ (∀𝑥(𝑥 = 𝑦 → 𝜑) → ∃𝑥𝜑)
Theorem	bj-spimt2 36780	A step in the proof of spimt 2385. (Contributed by BJ, 2-May-2019.)
⊢ (∀𝑥(𝑥 = 𝑦 → (𝜑 → 𝜓)) → ((∃𝑥𝜓 → 𝜓) → (∀𝑥𝜑 → 𝜓)))
Theorem	bj-cbv3ta 36781	Closed form of cbv3 2396. (Contributed by BJ, 2-May-2019.)
⊢ (∀𝑥∀𝑦(𝑥 = 𝑦 → (𝜑 → 𝜓)) → ((∀𝑦(∃𝑥𝜓 → 𝜓) ∧ ∀𝑥(𝜑 → ∀𝑦𝜑)) → (∀𝑥𝜑 → ∀𝑦𝜓)))
Theorem	bj-cbv3tb 36782	Closed form of cbv3 2396. (Contributed by BJ, 2-May-2019.)
⊢ (∀𝑥∀𝑦(𝑥 = 𝑦 → (𝜑 → 𝜓)) → ((∀𝑦Ⅎ𝑥𝜓 ∧ ∀𝑥Ⅎ𝑦𝜑) → (∀𝑥𝜑 → ∀𝑦𝜓)))
Theorem	bj-hbsb3t 36783	A theorem close to a closed form of hbsb3 2486. (Contributed by BJ, 2-May-2019.)
⊢ (∀𝑥(𝜑 → ∀𝑦𝜑) → ([𝑦 / 𝑥]𝜑 → ∀𝑥[𝑦 / 𝑥]𝜑))
Theorem	bj-hbsb3 36784	Shorter proof of hbsb3 2486. (Contributed by BJ, 2-May-2019.) (Proof modification is discouraged.)
⊢ (𝜑 → ∀𝑦𝜑)    ⇒   ⊢ ([𝑦 / 𝑥]𝜑 → ∀𝑥[𝑦 / 𝑥]𝜑)
Theorem	bj-nfs1t 36785	A theorem close to a closed form of nfs1 2487. (Contributed by BJ, 2-May-2019.)
⊢ (∀𝑥(𝜑 → ∀𝑦𝜑) → Ⅎ𝑥[𝑦 / 𝑥]𝜑)
Theorem	bj-nfs1t2 36786	A theorem close to a closed form of nfs1 2487. (Contributed by BJ, 2-May-2019.)
⊢ (∀𝑥Ⅎ𝑦𝜑 → Ⅎ𝑥[𝑦 / 𝑥]𝜑)
Theorem	bj-nfs1 36787	Shorter proof of nfs1 2487 (three essential steps instead of four). (Contributed by BJ, 2-May-2019.) (Proof modification is discouraged.)
⊢ Ⅎ𝑦𝜑    ⇒   ⊢ Ⅎ𝑥[𝑦 / 𝑥]𝜑
21.19.4.12  Removing dependencies on ax-13 (and ax-11) It is known that ax-13 2371 is logically redundant (see ax13w 2137 and the head comment of the section "Logical redundancy of ax-10--13"). More precisely, one can remove dependency on ax-13 2371 from every theorem in set.mm which is totally unbundled (i.e., has disjoint variable conditions on all setvar variables). Indeed, start with the existing proof, and replace any occurrence of ax-13 2371 with ax13w 2137. This section is an experiment to see in practice if (partially) unbundled versions of existing theorems can be proved more efficiently without ax-13 2371 (and using ax6v 1968 / ax6ev 1969 instead of ax-6 1967 / ax6e 2382, as is currently done). One reason to be optimistic is that the first few utility theorems using ax-13 2371 (roughly 200 of them) are then used mainly with dummy variables, which one can assume distinct from any other, so that the unbundled versions of the utility theorems suffice. In this section, we prove versions of theorems in the main part with dv conditions and not requiring ax-13 2371, labeled bj-xxxv (we follow the proof of xxx but use ax6v 1968 and ax6ev 1969 instead of ax-6 1967 and ax6e 2382, and ax-5 1910 instead of ax13v 2372; shorter proofs may be possible). When no additional dv condition is required, we label it bj-xxx. It is important to keep all the bundled theorems already in set.mm, but one may also add the (partially) unbundled versions which dispense with ax-13 2371, so as to remove dependencies on ax-13 2371 from many existing theorems. UPDATE: it turns out that several theorems of the form bj-xxxv, or minor variations, are already in set.mm with label xxxw. It is also possible to remove dependencies on ax-11 2158, typically by replacing a nonfree hypothesis with a disjoint variable condition (see cbv3v2 2242 and following theorems).
Theorem	bj-axc10v 36788*	Version of axc10 2384 with a disjoint variable condition, which does not require ax-13 2371. (Contributed by BJ, 14-Jun-2019.) (Proof modification is discouraged.)
⊢ (∀𝑥(𝑥 = 𝑦 → ∀𝑥𝜑) → 𝜑)
Theorem	bj-spimtv 36789*	Version of spimt 2385 with a disjoint variable condition, which does not require ax-13 2371. (Contributed by BJ, 14-Jun-2019.) (Proof modification is discouraged.)
⊢ ((Ⅎ𝑥𝜓 ∧ ∀𝑥(𝑥 = 𝑦 → (𝜑 → 𝜓))) → (∀𝑥𝜑 → 𝜓))
Theorem	bj-cbv3hv2 36790*	Version of cbv3h 2403 with two disjoint variable conditions, which does not require ax-11 2158 nor ax-13 2371. (Contributed by BJ, 24-Jun-2019.) (Proof modification is discouraged.)
⊢ (𝜓 → ∀𝑥𝜓)    &   ⊢ (𝑥 = 𝑦 → (𝜑 → 𝜓))    ⇒   ⊢ (∀𝑥𝜑 → ∀𝑦𝜓)
Theorem	bj-cbv1hv 36791*	Version of cbv1h 2404 with a disjoint variable condition, which does not require ax-13 2371. (Contributed by BJ, 16-Jun-2019.) (Proof modification is discouraged.)
⊢ (𝜑 → (𝜓 → ∀𝑦𝜓))    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → (𝜒 → ∀𝑥𝜒))    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → (𝑥 = 𝑦 → (𝜓 → 𝜒)))    ⇒   ⊢ (∀𝑥∀𝑦𝜑 → (∀𝑥𝜓 → ∀𝑦𝜒))
Theorem	bj-cbv2hv 36792*	Version of cbv2h 2405 with a disjoint variable condition, which does not require ax-13 2371. (Contributed by BJ, 16-Jun-2019.) (Proof modification is discouraged.)
⊢ (𝜑 → (𝜓 → ∀𝑦𝜓))    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → (𝜒 → ∀𝑥𝜒))    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → (𝑥 = 𝑦 → (𝜓 ↔ 𝜒)))    ⇒   ⊢ (∀𝑥∀𝑦𝜑 → (∀𝑥𝜓 ↔ ∀𝑦𝜒))
Theorem	bj-cbv2v 36793*	Version of cbv2 2402 with a disjoint variable condition, which does not require ax-13 2371. (Contributed by BJ, 16-Jun-2019.) (Proof modification is discouraged.)
⊢ Ⅎ𝑥𝜑    &   ⊢ Ⅎ𝑦𝜑    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → Ⅎ𝑦𝜓)    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → Ⅎ𝑥𝜒)    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → (𝑥 = 𝑦 → (𝜓 ↔ 𝜒)))    ⇒   ⊢ (𝜑 → (∀𝑥𝜓 ↔ ∀𝑦𝜒))
Theorem	bj-cbvaldv 36794*	Version of cbvald 2406 with a disjoint variable condition, which does not require ax-13 2371. (Contributed by BJ, 16-Jun-2019.) (Proof modification is discouraged.)
⊢ Ⅎ𝑦𝜑    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → Ⅎ𝑦𝜓)    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → (𝑥 = 𝑦 → (𝜓 ↔ 𝜒)))    ⇒   ⊢ (𝜑 → (∀𝑥𝜓 ↔ ∀𝑦𝜒))
Theorem	bj-cbvexdv 36795*	Version of cbvexd 2407 with a disjoint variable condition, which does not require ax-13 2371. (Contributed by BJ, 16-Jun-2019.) (Proof modification is discouraged.)
⊢ Ⅎ𝑦𝜑    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → Ⅎ𝑦𝜓)    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → (𝑥 = 𝑦 → (𝜓 ↔ 𝜒)))    ⇒   ⊢ (𝜑 → (∃𝑥𝜓 ↔ ∃𝑦𝜒))
Theorem	bj-cbval2vv 36796*	Version of cbval2vv 2412 with a disjoint variable condition, which does not require ax-13 2371. (Contributed by BJ, 16-Jun-2019.) (Proof modification is discouraged.)
⊢ ((𝑥 = 𝑧 ∧ 𝑦 = 𝑤) → (𝜑 ↔ 𝜓))    ⇒   ⊢ (∀𝑥∀𝑦𝜑 ↔ ∀𝑧∀𝑤𝜓)
Theorem	bj-cbvex2vv 36797*	Version of cbvex2vv 2413 with a disjoint variable condition, which does not require ax-13 2371. (Contributed by BJ, 16-Jun-2019.) (Proof modification is discouraged.)
⊢ ((𝑥 = 𝑧 ∧ 𝑦 = 𝑤) → (𝜑 ↔ 𝜓))    ⇒   ⊢ (∃𝑥∃𝑦𝜑 ↔ ∃𝑧∃𝑤𝜓)
Theorem	bj-cbvaldvav 36798*	Version of cbvaldva 2408 with a disjoint variable condition, which does not require ax-13 2371. (Contributed by BJ, 16-Jun-2019.) (Proof modification is discouraged.)
⊢ ((𝜑 ∧ 𝑥 = 𝑦) → (𝜓 ↔ 𝜒))    ⇒   ⊢ (𝜑 → (∀𝑥𝜓 ↔ ∀𝑦𝜒))
Theorem	bj-cbvexdvav 36799*	Version of cbvexdva 2409 with a disjoint variable condition, which does not require ax-13 2371. (Contributed by BJ, 16-Jun-2019.) (Proof modification is discouraged.)
⊢ ((𝜑 ∧ 𝑥 = 𝑦) → (𝜓 ↔ 𝜒))    ⇒   ⊢ (𝜑 → (∃𝑥𝜓 ↔ ∃𝑦𝜒))
Theorem	bj-cbvex4vv 36800*	Version of cbvex4v 2414 with a disjoint variable condition, which does not require ax-13 2371. (Contributed by BJ, 16-Jun-2019.) (Proof modification is discouraged.)
⊢ ((𝑥 = 𝑣 ∧ 𝑦 = 𝑢) → (𝜑 ↔ 𝜓))    &   ⊢ ((𝑧 = 𝑓 ∧ 𝑤 = 𝑔) → (𝜓 ↔ 𝜒))    ⇒   ⊢ (∃𝑥∃𝑦∃𝑧∃𝑤𝜑 ↔ ∃𝑣∃𝑢∃𝑓∃𝑔𝜒)