P. 370 of Theorem List - Metamath Proof Explorer

Theorem List for Metamath Proof Explorer - 36901-37000   *Has distinct variable group(s)

Type	Label	Description
Statement
Theorem	bj-ssbid2 36901	A special case of sbequ2 2257. (Contributed by BJ, 22-Dec-2020.)
⊢ ([𝑥 / 𝑥]𝜑 → 𝜑)
Theorem	bj-ssbid2ALT 36902	Alternate proof of bj-ssbid2 36901, not using sbequ2 2257. (Contributed by BJ, 22-Dec-2020.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) (New usage is discouraged.)
⊢ ([𝑥 / 𝑥]𝜑 → 𝜑)
Theorem	bj-ssbid1 36903	A special case of sbequ1 2256. (Contributed by BJ, 22-Dec-2020.)
⊢ (𝜑 → [𝑥 / 𝑥]𝜑)
Theorem	bj-ssbid1ALT 36904	Alternate proof of bj-ssbid1 36903, not using sbequ1 2256. (Contributed by BJ, 22-Dec-2020.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) (New usage is discouraged.)
⊢ (𝜑 → [𝑥 / 𝑥]𝜑)
Theorem	bj-ax6elem1 36905*	Lemma for bj-ax6e 36907. (Contributed by BJ, 22-Dec-2020.) (Proof modification is discouraged.)
⊢ (¬ ∀𝑥 𝑥 = 𝑦 → (𝑦 = 𝑧 → ∀𝑥 𝑦 = 𝑧))
Theorem	bj-ax6elem2 36906*	Lemma for bj-ax6e 36907. (Contributed by BJ, 22-Dec-2020.) (Proof modification is discouraged.)
⊢ (∀𝑥 𝑦 = 𝑧 → ∃𝑥 𝑥 = 𝑦)
Theorem	bj-ax6e 36907	Proof of ax6e 2388 (hence ax6 2389) from Tarski's system, ax-c9 39260, ax-c16 39262. Remark: ax-6 1969 is used only via its principal (unbundled) instance ax6v 1970. (Contributed by BJ, 22-Dec-2020.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) (New usage is discouraged.)
⊢ ∃𝑥 𝑥 = 𝑦
21.19.4.6  Adding ax-6
Theorem	bj-spimvwt 36908*	Closed form of spimvw 1988. See also spimt 2391. (Contributed by BJ, 8-Nov-2021.)
⊢ (∀𝑥(𝑥 = 𝑦 → (𝜑 → 𝜓)) → (∀𝑥𝜑 → 𝜓))
Theorem	bj-spnfw 36909	Theorem close to a closed form of spnfw 1981. (Contributed by BJ, 12-May-2019.)
⊢ ((∃𝑥𝜑 → 𝜓) → (∀𝑥𝜑 → 𝜓))
Theorem	bj-cbvexiw 36910*	Change bound variable. This is to cbvexvw 2039 what cbvaliw 2008 is to cbvalvw 2038. TODO: move after cbvalivw 2009. (Contributed by BJ, 17-Mar-2020.)
⊢ (∃𝑥∃𝑦𝜓 → ∃𝑦𝜓)    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → ∀𝑦𝜑)    &   ⊢ (𝑦 = 𝑥 → (𝜑 → 𝜓))    ⇒   ⊢ (∃𝑥𝜑 → ∃𝑦𝜓)
Theorem	bj-cbvexivw 36911*	Change bound variable. This is to cbvexvw 2039 what cbvalivw 2009 is to cbvalvw 2038. TODO: move after cbvalivw 2009. (Contributed by BJ, 17-Mar-2020.)
⊢ (𝑦 = 𝑥 → (𝜑 → 𝜓))    ⇒   ⊢ (∃𝑥𝜑 → ∃𝑦𝜓)
Theorem	bj-modald 36912	A short form of the axiom D of modal logic. (Contributed by BJ, 4-Apr-2021.)
⊢ (∀𝑥 ¬ 𝜑 → ¬ ∀𝑥𝜑)
Theorem	bj-denot 36913*	A weakening of ax-6 1969 and ax6v 1970. (Contributed by BJ, 4-Apr-2021.) (New usage is discouraged.)
⊢ (𝑥 = 𝑥 → ¬ ∀𝑦 ¬ 𝑦 = 𝑥)
Theorem	bj-eqs 36914*	A lemma for substitutions, proved from Tarski's FOL. The version without DV (𝑥, 𝑦) is true but requires ax-13 2377. 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))
21.19.4.7  Adding ax-7
Theorem	bj-cbvexw 36915*	Change bound variable. This is to cbvexvw 2039 what cbvalw 2037 is to cbvalvw 2038. (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 36916*	The general statement that ax12w 2139 proves. (Contributed by BJ, 20-Mar-2020.)
⊢ (𝜑 → (𝜓 ↔ 𝜒))    &   ⊢ (𝑦 = 𝑧 → (𝜓 ↔ 𝜃))    ⇒   ⊢ (𝜑 → (∀𝑦𝜓 → ∀𝑥(𝜑 → 𝜓)))
21.19.4.8  Membership predicate, ax-8 and ax-9
Theorem	bj-ax89 36917	A theorem which could be used as sole axiom for the non-logical predicate instead of ax-8 2116 and ax-9 2124. Indeed, it is implied over propositional calculus by the conjunction of ax-8 2116 and ax-9 2124, as proved here. In the other direction, one can prove ax-8 2116 (respectively ax-9 2124) from bj-ax89 36917 by using mpan2 692 (respectively mpan 691) and equid 2014. TODO: move to main part. (Contributed by BJ, 3-Oct-2019.)
⊢ ((𝑥 = 𝑦 ∧ 𝑧 = 𝑡) → (𝑥 ∈ 𝑧 → 𝑦 ∈ 𝑡))
Theorem	bj-cleljusti 36918*	One direction of cleljust 2123, requiring only ax-1 6-- ax-5 1912 and ax8v1 2118. (Contributed by BJ, 31-Dec-2020.) (Proof modification is discouraged.)
⊢ (∃𝑧(𝑧 = 𝑥 ∧ 𝑧 ∈ 𝑦) → 𝑥 ∈ 𝑦)
21.19.4.9  Adding ax-11
Theorem	bj-alcomexcom 36919	Commutation of two existential quantifiers on a formula is equivalent to commutation of two universal quantifiers over the same variables on the negation of that formula. Can be placed in the ax-4 1811 section, soon after 2nexaln 1832, and used to prove excom 2168. (Contributed by BJ, 29-Nov-2020.) (Proof modification is discouraged.)
⊢ ((∀𝑥∀𝑦 ¬ 𝜑 → ∀𝑦∀𝑥 ¬ 𝜑) ↔ (∃𝑦∃𝑥𝜑 → ∃𝑥∃𝑦𝜑))
Theorem	bj-hbalt 36920	Closed form of hbal 2173. When in main part, prove hbal 2173 and hbald 2174 from it. (Contributed by BJ, 2-May-2019.)
⊢ (∀𝑦(𝜑 → ∀𝑥𝜑) → (∀𝑦𝜑 → ∀𝑥∀𝑦𝜑))
21.19.4.10  Adding ax-12
Theorem	axc11n11 36921	Proof of axc11n 2431 from { ax-1 6-- ax-7 2010, axc11 2435 } . Almost identical to axc11nfromc11 39296. (Contributed by NM, 6-Jul-2021.) (Proof modification is discouraged.)
⊢ (∀𝑥 𝑥 = 𝑦 → ∀𝑦 𝑦 = 𝑥)
Theorem	axc11n11r 36922	Proof of axc11n 2431 from { ax-1 6-- ax-7 2010, axc9 2387, axc11r 2373 } (note that axc16 2269 is provable from { ax-1 6-- ax-7 2010, axc11r 2373 }). Note that axc11n 2431 proves (over minimal calculus) that axc11 2435 and axc11r 2373 are equivalent. Therefore, axc11n11 36921 and axc11n11r 36922 prove that one can use one or the other as an axiom, provided one assumes the axioms listed above (axc11 2435 appears slightly stronger since axc11n11r 36922 requires axc9 2387 while axc11n11 36921 does not). (Contributed by BJ, 6-Jul-2021.) (Proof modification is discouraged.)
⊢ (∀𝑥 𝑥 = 𝑦 → ∀𝑦 𝑦 = 𝑥)
Theorem	bj-axc16g16 36923*	Proof of axc16g 2268 from { ax-1 6-- ax-7 2010, axc16 2269 }. (Contributed by BJ, 6-Jul-2021.) (Proof modification is discouraged.)
⊢ (∀𝑥 𝑥 = 𝑦 → (𝜑 → ∀𝑧𝜑))
Theorem	bj-ax12v3 36924*	A weak version of ax-12 2185 which is stronger than ax12v 2186. Note that if one assumes reflexivity of equality ⊢ 𝑥 = 𝑥 (equid 2014), then bj-ax12v3 36924 implies ax-5 1912 over modal logic K (substitute 𝑥 for 𝑦). See also bj-ax12v3ALT 36925. (Contributed by BJ, 6-Jul-2021.) (Proof modification is discouraged.)
⊢ (𝑥 = 𝑦 → (𝜑 → ∀𝑥(𝑥 = 𝑦 → 𝜑)))
Theorem	bj-ax12v3ALT 36925*	Alternate proof of bj-ax12v3 36924. Uses axc11r 2373 and axc15 2427 instead of ax-12 2185. (Contributed by BJ, 6-Jul-2021.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) (New usage is discouraged.)
⊢ (𝑥 = 𝑦 → (𝜑 → ∀𝑥(𝑥 = 𝑦 → 𝜑)))
Theorem	bj-sb 36926*	A weak variant of sbid2 2513 not requiring ax-13 2377 nor ax-10 2147. On top of Tarski's FOL, one implication requires only ax12v 2186, and the other requires only sp 2191. (Contributed by BJ, 25-May-2021.)
⊢ (𝜑 ↔ ∀𝑦(𝑦 = 𝑥 → ∀𝑥(𝑥 = 𝑦 → 𝜑)))
Theorem	bj-modalbe 36927	The predicate-calculus version of the axiom (B) of modal logic. See also modal-b 2325. (Contributed by BJ, 20-Oct-2019.)
⊢ (𝜑 → ∀𝑥∃𝑥𝜑)
Theorem	bj-spst 36928	Closed form of sps 2193. Once in main part, prove sps 2193 and spsd 2195 from it. (Contributed by BJ, 20-Oct-2019.)
⊢ ((𝜑 → 𝜓) → (∀𝑥𝜑 → 𝜓))
Theorem	bj-19.21bit 36929	Closed form of 19.21bi 2197. (Contributed by BJ, 20-Oct-2019.)
⊢ ((𝜑 → ∀𝑥𝜓) → (𝜑 → 𝜓))
Theorem	bj-19.23bit 36930	Closed form of 19.23bi 2199. (Contributed by BJ, 20-Oct-2019.)
⊢ ((∃𝑥𝜑 → 𝜓) → (𝜑 → 𝜓))
Theorem	bj-nexrt 36931	Closed form of nexr 2200. Contrapositive of 19.8a 2189. (Contributed by BJ, 20-Oct-2019.)
⊢ (¬ ∃𝑥𝜑 → ¬ 𝜑)
Theorem	bj-alrim 36932	Closed form of alrimi 2221. (Contributed by BJ, 2-May-2019.)
⊢ (Ⅎ𝑥𝜑 → (∀𝑥(𝜑 → 𝜓) → (𝜑 → ∀𝑥𝜓)))
Theorem	bj-alrim2 36933	Uncurried (imported) form of bj-alrim 36932. (Contributed by BJ, 2-May-2019.)
⊢ ((Ⅎ𝑥𝜑 ∧ ∀𝑥(𝜑 → 𝜓)) → (𝜑 → ∀𝑥𝜓))
Theorem	bj-nfdt0 36934	A theorem close to a closed form of nf5d 2291 and nf5dh 2153. (Contributed by BJ, 2-May-2019.)
⊢ (∀𝑥(𝜑 → (𝜓 → ∀𝑥𝜓)) → (∀𝑥𝜑 → Ⅎ𝑥𝜓))
Theorem	bj-nfdt 36935	Closed form of nf5d 2291 and nf5dh 2153. (Contributed by BJ, 2-May-2019.)
⊢ (∀𝑥(𝜑 → (𝜓 → ∀𝑥𝜓)) → ((𝜑 → ∀𝑥𝜑) → (𝜑 → Ⅎ𝑥𝜓)))
Theorem	bj-nexdt 36936	Closed form of nexd 2229. (Contributed by BJ, 20-Oct-2019.)
⊢ (Ⅎ𝑥𝜑 → (∀𝑥(𝜑 → ¬ 𝜓) → (𝜑 → ¬ ∃𝑥𝜓)))
Theorem	bj-nexdvt 36937*	Closed form of nexdv 1938. (Contributed by BJ, 20-Oct-2019.)
⊢ (∀𝑥(𝜑 → ¬ 𝜓) → (𝜑 → ¬ ∃𝑥𝜓))
Theorem	bj-alexbiex 36938	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 36939	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 36940	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 36941	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 36942	Strengthening 19.9ht 2326 by replacing its consequent with a biconditional (19.9t 2212 does have a biconditional consequent). This propagates. (Contributed by BJ, 20-Oct-2019.)
⊢ (∀𝑥(𝜑 → ∀𝑥𝜑) → (∃𝑥𝜑 ↔ 𝜑))
Theorem	bj-hbntbi 36943	Strengthening hbnt 2301 by replacing its consequent with a biconditional. See also hbntg 36016 and hbntal 44903. (Contributed by BJ, 20-Oct-2019.) Proved from bj-19.9htbi 36942. (Proof modification is discouraged.)
⊢ (∀𝑥(𝜑 → ∀𝑥𝜑) → (¬ 𝜑 ↔ ∀𝑥 ¬ 𝜑))
Theorem	bj-biexal1 36944	A general FOL biconditional that generalizes 19.9ht 2326 among others. For this and the following theorems, see also 19.35 1879, 19.21 2215, 19.23 2219. 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 36945	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 36946	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 36947	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 36948	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 36949	Closed form of hbex 2331. (Contributed by BJ, 10-Oct-2019.)
⊢ (∀𝑦∀𝑥(𝜑 → ∀𝑥𝜑) → (∃𝑦𝜑 → ∀𝑥∃𝑦𝜑))
Theorem	bj-nfalt 36950	Closed form of nfal 2329. (Contributed by BJ, 2-May-2019.)
⊢ (∀𝑥Ⅎ𝑦𝜑 → Ⅎ𝑦∀𝑥𝜑)
Theorem	bj-nfext 36951	Closed form of nfex 2330. (Contributed by BJ, 10-Oct-2019.)
⊢ (∀𝑥Ⅎ𝑦𝜑 → Ⅎ𝑦∃𝑥𝜑)
Theorem	bj-eeanvw 36952*	Version of exdistrv 1957 with a disjoint variable condition on 𝑥, 𝑦 not requiring ax-11 2163. (The same can be done with eeeanv 2355 and ee4anv 2356.) (Contributed by BJ, 29-Sep-2019.) (Proof modification is discouraged.)
⊢ (∃𝑥∃𝑦(𝜑 ∧ 𝜓) ↔ (∃𝑥𝜑 ∧ ∃𝑦𝜓))
Theorem	bj-modal4 36953	First-order logic form of the modal axiom (4). See hba1 2300. This is the standard proof of the implication in modal logic (B5 ⇒ 4). Its dual statement is bj-modal4e 36954. (Contributed by BJ, 12-Aug-2023.) (Proof modification is discouraged.)
⊢ (∀𝑥𝜑 → ∀𝑥∀𝑥𝜑)
Theorem	bj-modal4e 36954	First-order logic form of the modal axiom (4) using existential quantifiers. Dual statement of bj-modal4 36953 (hba1 2300). (Contributed by BJ, 21-Dec-2020.) (Proof modification is discouraged.)
⊢ (∃𝑥∃𝑥𝜑 → ∃𝑥𝜑)
Theorem	bj-modalb 36955	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 36956	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 36957	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 36958	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 36959	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-19.12 36960	See 19.12 2333. Could be labeled "exalimalex" for "'there exists for all' implies 'for all there exists'". This proof is from excom 2168 and modal (B) on top of modalK logic. (Contributed by BJ, 12-Aug-2023.) The proof should not rely on df-nf 1786 or df-bj-nnf 36964, directly or indirectly. (Proof modification is discouraged.)
⊢ (∃𝑥∀𝑦𝜑 → ∀𝑦∃𝑥𝜑)
21.19.4.11  Really adding ax-12 The results in the previous section, as actually many theorems of the main part using ax-12 2185, actually only require sp 2191 (which is proved using ax-12 2185).
Theorem	bj-substax12 36961	Equivalent form of the axiom of substitution bj-ax12 36896. Although both sides need a DV condition on 𝑥, 𝑡 (or as in bj-ax12v3 36924 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 36962. Note that in the LHS, the reverse implication holds by equs4 2421 (or equs4v 2002 if a DV condition is added on 𝑥, 𝑡 as in bj-ax12 36896), and the forward implication is sbalex 2250. 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 36962*	Weak form of the LHS of bj-substax12 36961 proved from the core axiom schemes. Compare ax12w 2139. (Contributed by BJ, 26-May-2024.) (Proof modification is discouraged.)
⊢ (𝑥 = 𝑡 → (𝜑 ↔ 𝜓))    ⇒   ⊢ (∃𝑥(𝑥 = 𝑡 ∧ 𝜑) → ∀𝑥(𝑥 = 𝑡 → 𝜑))
21.19.4.12  Nonfreeness
Syntax	wnnf 36963	Syntax for the nonfreeness quantifier.
wff Ⅎ'𝑥𝜑
Definition	df-bj-nnf 36964	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 1912 and ax5e 1914. 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 37005, 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 2165 and excom 2168 (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 1912, ax5e 1914, ax5ea 1915. 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 36982 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 37005, 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 36987, bj-nnfnt 36985, bj-nnfan 36989, bj-nnfor 36991, bj-nnfbit 36993, bj-nnfalt 37022, bj-nnfext 37023. 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 36987 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 37022 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 37022 and bj-nnfext 37023 are proved from positive propositional calculus with alcom 2165 and excom 2168 (possibly weakened by a DV condition on the quantifying variables), and modalB (via bj-19.12 36960). 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 1912 or ax5e 1914 or ax5ea 1915. 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 36965 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 1914 or ax5ea 1915, we would use bj-nnfe 36968 or bj-nnfea 36971 respectively. Therefore, taking as antecedent of the theorem to prove the conjunction of all the antecedents at each of these steps, we obtain a proof by "carrying the context over", which is possible, as in the deduction theorem when the step uses ax-mp 5, and when the step uses ax-gen 1797, by bj-nnf-alrim 36995 and bj-nnfa1 37016 (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 1983. QED Compared with df-nf 1786, the present definition is stricter on positive propositional calculus (bj-nnfnfTEMP 36977) and equivalent on core FOL plus sp 2191 (bj-nfnnfTEMP 37014). While being stricter, it still holds for non-occurring variables (bj-nnfv 37005), 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 2147 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-nnfa 36965	Nonfreeness implies the equivalent of ax-5 1912. See nf5r 2202. (Contributed by BJ, 28-Jul-2023.)
⊢ (Ⅎ'𝑥𝜑 → (𝜑 → ∀𝑥𝜑))
Theorem	bj-nnfad 36966	Nonfreeness implies the equivalent of ax-5 1912, deduction form. See nf5rd 2204. (Contributed by BJ, 2-Dec-2023.)
⊢ (𝜑 → Ⅎ'𝑥𝜓)    ⇒   ⊢ (𝜑 → (𝜓 → ∀𝑥𝜓))
Theorem	bj-nnfai 36967	Nonfreeness implies the equivalent of ax-5 1912, inference form. See nf5ri 2203. (Contributed by BJ, 22-Sep-2024.)
⊢ Ⅎ'𝑥𝜑    ⇒   ⊢ (𝜑 → ∀𝑥𝜑)
Theorem	bj-nnfe 36968	Nonfreeness implies the equivalent of ax5e 1914. (Contributed by BJ, 28-Jul-2023.)
⊢ (Ⅎ'𝑥𝜑 → (∃𝑥𝜑 → 𝜑))
Theorem	bj-nnfed 36969	Nonfreeness implies the equivalent of ax5e 1914, deduction form. (Contributed by BJ, 2-Dec-2023.)
⊢ (𝜑 → Ⅎ'𝑥𝜓)    ⇒   ⊢ (𝜑 → (∃𝑥𝜓 → 𝜓))
Theorem	bj-nnfei 36970	Nonfreeness implies the equivalent of ax5e 1914, inference form. (Contributed by BJ, 22-Sep-2024.)
⊢ Ⅎ'𝑥𝜑    ⇒   ⊢ (∃𝑥𝜑 → 𝜑)
Theorem	bj-nnfea 36971	Nonfreeness implies the equivalent of ax5ea 1915. (Contributed by BJ, 28-Jul-2023.)
⊢ (Ⅎ'𝑥𝜑 → (∃𝑥𝜑 → ∀𝑥𝜑))
Theorem	bj-nnfead 36972	Nonfreeness implies the equivalent of ax5ea 1915, deduction form. (Contributed by BJ, 2-Dec-2023.)
⊢ (𝜑 → Ⅎ'𝑥𝜓)    ⇒   ⊢ (𝜑 → (∃𝑥𝜓 → ∀𝑥𝜓))
Theorem	bj-nnfeai 36973	Nonfreeness implies the equivalent of ax5ea 1915, inference form. (Contributed by BJ, 22-Sep-2024.)
⊢ Ⅎ'𝑥𝜑    ⇒   ⊢ (∃𝑥𝜑 → ∀𝑥𝜑)
Theorem	bj-alnnf 36974	In deduction-style proofs, it is equivalent to assert that the context holds for all values of a variable, or that is does not depend on that variable. (Contributed by BJ, 28-Mar-2026.)
⊢ ((𝜑 → ∀𝑥𝜑) ↔ (𝜑 → Ⅎ'𝑥𝜑))
Theorem	bj-alnnf2 36975	If a proposition holds, then it holds for all values of a given variable if and only if it does not depend on that variable. (Contributed by BJ, 28-Mar-2026.)
⊢ (𝜑 → (∀𝑥𝜑 ↔ Ⅎ'𝑥𝜑))
Theorem	bj-dfnnf2 36976	Alternate definition of df-bj-nnf 36964 using only primitive symbols (→, ¬, ∀) in each conjunct. (Contributed by BJ, 20-Aug-2023.)
⊢ (Ⅎ'𝑥𝜑 ↔ ((𝜑 → ∀𝑥𝜑) ∧ (¬ 𝜑 → ∀𝑥 ¬ 𝜑)))
Theorem	bj-nnfnfTEMP 36977	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 1786 except via df-nf 1786 directly. (Proof modification is discouraged.)
⊢ (Ⅎ'𝑥𝜑 → Ⅎ𝑥𝜑)
Theorem	bj-nnfim1 36978	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 36979	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-nnftht 36980	A variable is nonfree in a theorem. The antecedent is in the "strong necessity" modality of modal logic in order not to require sp 2191 (modal T), as in bj-nnfbi 36982. (Contributed by BJ, 28-Jul-2023.)
⊢ ((𝜑 ∧ ∀𝑥𝜑) → Ⅎ'𝑥𝜑)
Theorem	bj-nnfth 36981	A variable is nonfree in a theorem, inference form. (Contributed by BJ, 28-Jul-2023.)
⊢ 𝜑    ⇒   ⊢ Ⅎ'𝑥𝜑
Theorem	bj-nnfbi 36982	If two formulas are equivalent, then nonfreeness of a variable in one of them is equivalent to nonfreeness in the other. Compare nfbiit 1853. From this and bj-nnfim 36987 and bj-nnfnt 36985, 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 36980) in order not to require sp 2191 (modal T). (Contributed by BJ, 27-Aug-2023.)
⊢ (((𝜑 ↔ 𝜓) ∧ ∀𝑥(𝜑 ↔ 𝜓)) → (Ⅎ'𝑥𝜑 ↔ Ⅎ'𝑥𝜓))
Theorem	bj-nnfbd0 36983	If two formulas are equivalent, then nonfreeness of a variable in one of them is equivalent to nonfreeness in the other, deduction form. The antecedent of the conclusion is in the "strong necessity" modality of modal logic (see also bj-nnftht 36980) in order not to require sp 2191 (modal T). See bj-nnfbi 36982. (Contributed by BJ, 21-Mar-2026.)
⊢ (𝜑 → (𝜓 ↔ 𝜒))    ⇒   ⊢ ((𝜑 ∧ ∀𝑥𝜑) → (Ⅎ'𝑥𝜓 ↔ Ⅎ'𝑥𝜒))
Theorem	bj-nnfbii 36984	If two formulas are equivalent, then nonfreeness of a variable in one of them is equivalent to nonfreeness in the other, inference form. See bj-nnfbi 36982. (Contributed by BJ, 18-Nov-2023.)
⊢ (𝜑 ↔ 𝜓)    ⇒   ⊢ (Ⅎ'𝑥𝜑 ↔ Ⅎ'𝑥𝜓)
Theorem	bj-nnfnt 36985	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 36987). Intuitionistically, ⊢ (Ⅎ'𝑥¬ 𝜑 ↔ Ⅎ'𝑥¬ ¬ 𝜑). See nfnt 1858. (Contributed by BJ, 28-Jul-2023.)
⊢ (Ⅎ'𝑥𝜑 ↔ Ⅎ'𝑥 ¬ 𝜑)
Theorem	bj-nnfnth 36986	A variable is nonfree in the negation of a theorem, inference form. (Contributed by BJ, 27-Aug-2023.)
⊢ ¬ 𝜑    ⇒   ⊢ Ⅎ'𝑥𝜑
Theorem	bj-nnfim 36987	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 36988	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 36989	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 36987, bj-nnfnt 36985 and bj-nnfbi 36982, but we want a proof valid in intuitionistic logic. (Proof modification is discouraged.)
⊢ ((Ⅎ'𝑥𝜑 ∧ Ⅎ'𝑥𝜓) → Ⅎ'𝑥(𝜑 ∧ 𝜓))
Theorem	bj-nnfand 36990	Nonfreeness in both conjuncts implies nonfreeness in the conjunction, deduction form. Note: compared with the proof of bj-nnfan 36989, 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 36989 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 36990 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 36991	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 36987, bj-nnfnt 36985 and bj-nnfbi 36982, but we want a proof valid in intuitionistic logic. (Proof modification is discouraged.)
⊢ ((Ⅎ'𝑥𝜑 ∧ Ⅎ'𝑥𝜓) → Ⅎ'𝑥(𝜑 ∨ 𝜓))
Theorem	bj-nnford 36992	Nonfreeness in both disjuncts implies nonfreeness in the disjunction, deduction form. See comments for bj-nnfor 36991 and bj-nnfand 36990. (Contributed by BJ, 2-Dec-2023.) (Proof modification is discouraged.)
⊢ (𝜑 → Ⅎ'𝑥𝜓)    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → Ⅎ'𝑥𝜒)    ⇒   ⊢ (𝜑 → Ⅎ'𝑥(𝜓 ∨ 𝜒))
Theorem	bj-nnfbit 36993	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 36994	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-nnf-alrim 36995	Proof of the closed form of alrimi 2221 from modalK (compare alrimiv 1929). See also bj-alrim 36932. Actually, most proofs between 19.3t 2209 and 2sbbid 2255 could be proved without ax-12 2185. (Contributed by BJ, 20-Aug-2023.)
⊢ (Ⅎ'𝑥𝜑 → (∀𝑥(𝜑 → 𝜓) → (𝜑 → ∀𝑥𝜓)))
Theorem	bj-stdpc5t 36996	Alias of bj-nnf-alrim 36995 for labeling consistency (a standard predicate calculus axiom). Closed form of stdpc5 2216 proved from modalK (obsoleting stdpc5v 1940). (Contributed by BJ, 2-Dec-2023.) Use bj-nnf-alrim 36995 instead. (New usaged is discouraged.)
⊢ (Ⅎ'𝑥𝜑 → (∀𝑥(𝜑 → 𝜓) → (𝜑 → ∀𝑥𝜓)))
Theorem	bj-nnf-exlim 36997	Proof of the closed form of exlimi 2225 from modalK (compare exlimiv 1932). See also bj-sylget2 36849. (Contributed by BJ, 2-Dec-2023.)
⊢ (Ⅎ'𝑥𝜓 → (∀𝑥(𝜑 → 𝜓) → (∃𝑥𝜑 → 𝜓)))
Theorem	bj-19.21t 36998	Statement 19.21t 2214 proved from modalK (obsoleting 19.21v 1941). (Contributed by BJ, 2-Dec-2023.)
⊢ (Ⅎ'𝑥𝜑 → (∀𝑥(𝜑 → 𝜓) ↔ (𝜑 → ∀𝑥𝜓)))
Theorem	bj-19.23t 36999	Statement 19.23t 2218 proved from modalK (obsoleting 19.23v 1944). (Contributed by BJ, 2-Dec-2023.)
⊢ (Ⅎ'𝑥𝜓 → (∀𝑥(𝜑 → 𝜓) ↔ (∃𝑥𝜑 → 𝜓)))
Theorem	bj-19.36im 37000	One direction of 19.36 2238 from the same axioms as 19.36imv 1947. (Contributed by BJ, 2-Dec-2023.)
⊢ (Ⅎ'𝑥𝜓 → (∃𝑥(𝜑 → 𝜓) → (∀𝑥𝜑 → 𝜓)))