| Metamath
Proof Explorer Theorem List (p. 371 of 501) | < Previous Next > | |
| Bad symbols? Try the
GIF version. |
||
|
Mirrors > Metamath Home Page > MPE Home Page > Theorem List Contents > Recent Proofs This page: Page List |
||
| Color key: | (1-30993) |
(30994-32516) |
(32517-50046) |
| Type | Label | Description |
|---|---|---|
| Statement | ||
| Theorem | bj-cbvexdv 37001* | Version of cbvexd 2412 with a disjoint variable condition, which does not require ax-13 2376. (Contributed by BJ, 16-Jun-2019.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) |
| ⊢ Ⅎ𝑦𝜑 & ⊢ (𝜑 → Ⅎ𝑦𝜓) & ⊢ (𝜑 → (𝑥 = 𝑦 → (𝜓 ↔ 𝜒))) ⇒ ⊢ (𝜑 → (∃𝑥𝜓 ↔ ∃𝑦𝜒)) | ||
| Theorem | bj-cbval2vv 37002* | Version of cbval2vv 2417 with a disjoint variable condition, which does not require ax-13 2376. (Contributed by BJ, 16-Jun-2019.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) |
| ⊢ ((𝑥 = 𝑧 ∧ 𝑦 = 𝑤) → (𝜑 ↔ 𝜓)) ⇒ ⊢ (∀𝑥∀𝑦𝜑 ↔ ∀𝑧∀𝑤𝜓) | ||
| Theorem | bj-cbvex2vv 37003* | Version of cbvex2vv 2418 with a disjoint variable condition, which does not require ax-13 2376. (Contributed by BJ, 16-Jun-2019.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) |
| ⊢ ((𝑥 = 𝑧 ∧ 𝑦 = 𝑤) → (𝜑 ↔ 𝜓)) ⇒ ⊢ (∃𝑥∃𝑦𝜑 ↔ ∃𝑧∃𝑤𝜓) | ||
| Theorem | bj-cbvaldvav 37004* | Version of cbvaldva 2413 with a disjoint variable condition, which does not require ax-13 2376. (Contributed by BJ, 16-Jun-2019.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) |
| ⊢ ((𝜑 ∧ 𝑥 = 𝑦) → (𝜓 ↔ 𝜒)) ⇒ ⊢ (𝜑 → (∀𝑥𝜓 ↔ ∀𝑦𝜒)) | ||
| Theorem | bj-cbvexdvav 37005* | Version of cbvexdva 2414 with a disjoint variable condition, which does not require ax-13 2376. (Contributed by BJ, 16-Jun-2019.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) |
| ⊢ ((𝜑 ∧ 𝑥 = 𝑦) → (𝜓 ↔ 𝜒)) ⇒ ⊢ (𝜑 → (∃𝑥𝜓 ↔ ∃𝑦𝜒)) | ||
| Theorem | bj-cbvex4vv 37006* | Version of cbvex4v 2419 with a disjoint variable condition, which does not require ax-13 2376. (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) | ||
| Theorem | bj-equsalhv 37007* |
Version of equsalh 2424 with a disjoint variable condition, which
does not
require ax-13 2376. Remark: this is the same as equsalhw 2297. TODO:
delete after moving the following paragraph somewhere.
Remarks: equsexvw 2006 has been moved to Main; Theorem ax13lem2 2380 has a DV version which is a simple consequence of ax5e 1913; Theorems nfeqf2 2381, dveeq2 2382, nfeqf1 2383, dveeq1 2384, nfeqf 2385, axc9 2386, ax13 2379, have dv versions which are simple consequences of ax-5 1911. (Contributed by BJ, 14-Jun-2019.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) (New usage is discouraged.) |
| ⊢ (𝜓 → ∀𝑥𝜓) & ⊢ (𝑥 = 𝑦 → (𝜑 ↔ 𝜓)) ⇒ ⊢ (∀𝑥(𝑥 = 𝑦 → 𝜑) ↔ 𝜓) | ||
| Theorem | bj-axc11nv 37008* | Version of axc11n 2430 with a disjoint variable condition; instance of aevlem 2058. TODO: delete after checking surrounding theorems. (Contributed by BJ, 31-May-2019.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) (New usage is discouraged.) |
| ⊢ (∀𝑥 𝑥 = 𝑦 → ∀𝑦 𝑦 = 𝑥) | ||
| Theorem | bj-aecomsv 37009* | Version of aecoms 2432 with a disjoint variable condition, provable from Tarski's FOL. The corresponding version of naecoms 2433 should not be very useful since ¬ ∀𝑥𝑥 = 𝑦, DV (𝑥, 𝑦) is true when the universe has at least two objects (see dtru 5386). (Contributed by BJ, 31-May-2019.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) |
| ⊢ (∀𝑥 𝑥 = 𝑦 → 𝜑) ⇒ ⊢ (∀𝑦 𝑦 = 𝑥 → 𝜑) | ||
| Theorem | bj-axc11v 37010* | Version of axc11 2434 with a disjoint variable condition, which does not require ax-13 2376 nor ax-10 2146. Remark: the following theorems (hbae 2435, nfae 2437, hbnae 2436, nfnae 2438, hbnaes 2439) would need to be totally unbundled to be proved without ax-13 2376, hence would be simple consequences of ax-5 1911 or nfv 1915. (Contributed by BJ, 31-May-2019.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) |
| ⊢ (∀𝑥 𝑥 = 𝑦 → (∀𝑥𝜑 → ∀𝑦𝜑)) | ||
| Theorem | bj-drnf2v 37011* | Version of drnf2 2448 with a disjoint variable condition, which does not require ax-10 2146, ax-11 2162, ax-12 2184, ax-13 2376. Instance of nfbidv 1923. Note that the version of axc15 2426 with a disjoint variable condition is actually ax12v2 2186 (up to adding a superfluous antecedent). (Contributed by BJ, 17-Jun-2019.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) |
| ⊢ (∀𝑥 𝑥 = 𝑦 → (𝜑 ↔ 𝜓)) ⇒ ⊢ (∀𝑥 𝑥 = 𝑦 → (Ⅎ𝑧𝜑 ↔ Ⅎ𝑧𝜓)) | ||
| Theorem | bj-equs45fv 37012* | Version of equs45f 2463 with a disjoint variable condition, which does not require ax-13 2376. Note that the version of equs5 2464 with a disjoint variable condition is actually sbalex 2249 (up to adding a superfluous antecedent). (Contributed by BJ, 11-Sep-2019.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) |
| ⊢ Ⅎ𝑦𝜑 ⇒ ⊢ (∃𝑥(𝑥 = 𝑦 ∧ 𝜑) ↔ ∀𝑥(𝑥 = 𝑦 → 𝜑)) | ||
| Theorem | bj-hbs1 37013* | Version of hbsb2 2486 with a disjoint variable condition, which does not require ax-13 2376, and removal of ax-13 2376 from hbs1 2280. (Contributed by BJ, 23-Jun-2019.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) |
| ⊢ ([𝑦 / 𝑥]𝜑 → ∀𝑥[𝑦 / 𝑥]𝜑) | ||
| Theorem | bj-nfs1v 37014* | Version of nfsb2 2487 with a disjoint variable condition, which does not require ax-13 2376, and removal of ax-13 2376 from nfs1v 2161. (Contributed by BJ, 24-Jun-2019.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) |
| ⊢ Ⅎ𝑥[𝑦 / 𝑥]𝜑 | ||
| Theorem | bj-hbsb2av 37015* | Version of hbsb2a 2488 with a disjoint variable condition, which does not require ax-13 2376. (Contributed by BJ, 11-Sep-2019.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) |
| ⊢ ([𝑦 / 𝑥]∀𝑦𝜑 → ∀𝑥[𝑦 / 𝑥]𝜑) | ||
| Theorem | bj-hbsb3v 37016* | Version of hbsb3 2491 with a disjoint variable condition, which does not require ax-13 2376. (Remark: the unbundled version of nfs1 2492 is given by bj-nfs1v 37014.) (Contributed by BJ, 11-Sep-2019.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) |
| ⊢ (𝜑 → ∀𝑦𝜑) ⇒ ⊢ ([𝑦 / 𝑥]𝜑 → ∀𝑥[𝑦 / 𝑥]𝜑) | ||
| Theorem | bj-nfsab1 37017* | Remove dependency on ax-13 2376 from nfsab1 2722. UPDATE / TODO: nfsab1 2722 does not use ax-13 2376 either anymore; bj-nfsab1 37017 is shorter than nfsab1 2722 but uses ax-12 2184. (Contributed by BJ, 23-Jun-2019.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) |
| ⊢ Ⅎ𝑥 𝑦 ∈ {𝑥 ∣ 𝜑} | ||
| Theorem | bj-dtrucor2v 37018* | Version of dtrucor2 5317 with a disjoint variable condition, which does not require ax-13 2376 (nor ax-4 1810, ax-5 1911, ax-7 2009, ax-12 2184). (Contributed by BJ, 16-Jul-2019.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) |
| ⊢ (𝑥 = 𝑦 → 𝑥 ≠ 𝑦) ⇒ ⊢ (𝜑 ∧ ¬ 𝜑) | ||
The closed formula ∀𝑥∀𝑦𝑥 = 𝑦 approximately means that the var metavariables 𝑥 and 𝑦 represent the same variable vi. In a domain with at most one object, however, this formula is always true, hence the "approximately" in the previous sentence. | ||
| Theorem | bj-hbaeb2 37019 | Biconditional version of a form of hbae 2435 with commuted quantifiers, not requiring ax-11 2162. (Contributed by BJ, 12-Dec-2019.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) |
| ⊢ (∀𝑥 𝑥 = 𝑦 ↔ ∀𝑥∀𝑧 𝑥 = 𝑦) | ||
| Theorem | bj-hbaeb 37020 | Biconditional version of hbae 2435. (Contributed by BJ, 6-Oct-2018.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) |
| ⊢ (∀𝑥 𝑥 = 𝑦 ↔ ∀𝑧∀𝑥 𝑥 = 𝑦) | ||
| Theorem | bj-hbnaeb 37021 | Biconditional version of hbnae 2436 (to replace it?). (Contributed by BJ, 6-Oct-2018.) |
| ⊢ (¬ ∀𝑥 𝑥 = 𝑦 ↔ ∀𝑧 ¬ ∀𝑥 𝑥 = 𝑦) | ||
| Theorem | bj-dvv 37022 | A special instance of bj-hbaeb2 37019. A lemma for distinct var metavariables. Note that the right-hand side is a closed formula (a sentence). (Contributed by BJ, 6-Oct-2018.) |
| ⊢ (∀𝑥 𝑥 = 𝑦 ↔ ∀𝑥∀𝑦 𝑥 = 𝑦) | ||
As a rule of thumb, if a theorem of the form ⊢ (𝜑 ↔ 𝜓) ⇒ ⊢ (𝜒 ↔ 𝜃) is in the database, and the "more precise" theorems ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝜓) ⇒ ⊢ (𝜒 → 𝜃) and ⊢ (𝜓 → 𝜑) ⇒ ⊢ (𝜃 → 𝜒) also hold (see bj-bisym 36790), then they should be added to the database. The present case is similar. Similar additions can be done regarding equsex 2422 (and equsalh 2424 and equsexh 2425). Even if only one of these two theorems holds, it should be added to the database. | ||
| Theorem | bj-equsal1t 37023 | Duplication of wl-equsal1t 37743, with shorter proof. If one imposes a disjoint variable condition on x,y , then one can use alequexv 2002 and reduce axiom dependencies, and similarly for the following theorems. Note: wl-equsalcom 37744 is also interesting. (Contributed by BJ, 6-Oct-2018.) |
| ⊢ (Ⅎ𝑥𝜑 → (∀𝑥(𝑥 = 𝑦 → 𝜑) ↔ 𝜑)) | ||
| Theorem | bj-equsal1ti 37024 | Inference associated with bj-equsal1t 37023. (Contributed by BJ, 30-Sep-2018.) |
| ⊢ Ⅎ𝑥𝜑 ⇒ ⊢ (∀𝑥(𝑥 = 𝑦 → 𝜑) ↔ 𝜑) | ||
| Theorem | bj-equsal1 37025 | One direction of equsal 2421. (Contributed by BJ, 30-Sep-2018.) |
| ⊢ Ⅎ𝑥𝜓 & ⊢ (𝑥 = 𝑦 → (𝜑 → 𝜓)) ⇒ ⊢ (∀𝑥(𝑥 = 𝑦 → 𝜑) → 𝜓) | ||
| Theorem | bj-equsal2 37026 | One direction of equsal 2421. (Contributed by BJ, 30-Sep-2018.) |
| ⊢ Ⅎ𝑥𝜑 & ⊢ (𝑥 = 𝑦 → (𝜑 → 𝜓)) ⇒ ⊢ (𝜑 → ∀𝑥(𝑥 = 𝑦 → 𝜓)) | ||
| Theorem | bj-equsal 37027 | Shorter proof of equsal 2421. (Contributed by BJ, 30-Sep-2018.) Proof modification is discouraged to avoid using equsal 2421, but "min */exc equsal" is ok. (Proof modification is discouraged.) |
| ⊢ Ⅎ𝑥𝜓 & ⊢ (𝑥 = 𝑦 → (𝜑 ↔ 𝜓)) ⇒ ⊢ (∀𝑥(𝑥 = 𝑦 → 𝜑) ↔ 𝜓) | ||
References are made to the second edition (1927, reprinted 1963) of Principia Mathematica, Vol. 1. Theorems are referred to in the form "PM*xx.xx". | ||
| Theorem | stdpc5t 37028 | Closed form of stdpc5 2215. (Possible to place it before 19.21t 2213 and use it to prove 19.21t 2213). (Contributed by BJ, 15-Sep-2018.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) |
| ⊢ (Ⅎ𝑥𝜑 → (∀𝑥(𝜑 → 𝜓) → (𝜑 → ∀𝑥𝜓))) | ||
| Theorem | bj-stdpc5 37029 | More direct proof of stdpc5 2215. (Contributed by BJ, 15-Sep-2018.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) |
| ⊢ Ⅎ𝑥𝜑 ⇒ ⊢ (∀𝑥(𝜑 → 𝜓) → (𝜑 → ∀𝑥𝜓)) | ||
| Theorem | 2stdpc5 37030 | A double stdpc5 2215 (one direction of PM*11.3). See also 2stdpc4 2075 and 19.21vv 44613. (Contributed by BJ, 15-Sep-2018.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) |
| ⊢ Ⅎ𝑥𝜑 & ⊢ Ⅎ𝑦𝜑 ⇒ ⊢ (∀𝑥∀𝑦(𝜑 → 𝜓) → (𝜑 → ∀𝑥∀𝑦𝜓)) | ||
| Theorem | bj-19.21t0 37031 | Proof of 19.21t 2213 from stdpc5t 37028. (Contributed by BJ, 15-Sep-2018.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) |
| ⊢ (Ⅎ𝑥𝜑 → (∀𝑥(𝜑 → 𝜓) ↔ (𝜑 → ∀𝑥𝜓))) | ||
| Theorem | exlimii 37032 | Inference associated with exlimi 2224. Inferring a theorem when it is implied by an antecedent which may be true. (Contributed by BJ, 15-Sep-2018.) |
| ⊢ Ⅎ𝑥𝜓 & ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝜓) & ⊢ ∃𝑥𝜑 ⇒ ⊢ 𝜓 | ||
| Theorem | ax11-pm 37033 | Proof of ax-11 2162 similar to PM's proof of alcom 2164 (PM*11.2). For a proof closer to PM's proof, see ax11-pm2 37037. Axiom ax-11 2162 is used in the proof only through nfa2 2181. (Contributed by BJ, 15-Sep-2018.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) |
| ⊢ (∀𝑥∀𝑦𝜑 → ∀𝑦∀𝑥𝜑) | ||
| Theorem | ax6er 37034 | Commuted form of ax6e 2387. (Could be placed right after ax6e 2387). (Contributed by BJ, 15-Sep-2018.) |
| ⊢ ∃𝑥 𝑦 = 𝑥 | ||
| Theorem | exlimiieq1 37035 | Inferring a theorem when it is implied by an equality which may be true. (Contributed by BJ, 30-Sep-2018.) |
| ⊢ Ⅎ𝑥𝜑 & ⊢ (𝑥 = 𝑦 → 𝜑) ⇒ ⊢ 𝜑 | ||
| Theorem | exlimiieq2 37036 | Inferring a theorem when it is implied by an equality which may be true. (Contributed by BJ, 15-Sep-2018.) (Revised by BJ, 30-Sep-2018.) |
| ⊢ Ⅎ𝑦𝜑 & ⊢ (𝑥 = 𝑦 → 𝜑) ⇒ ⊢ 𝜑 | ||
| Theorem | ax11-pm2 37037* | Proof of ax-11 2162 from the standard axioms of predicate calculus, similar to PM's proof of alcom 2164 (PM*11.2). This proof requires that 𝑥 and 𝑦 be distinct. Axiom ax-11 2162 is used in the proof only through nfal 2328, nfsb 2527, sbal 2174, sb8 2521. See also ax11-pm 37033. (Contributed by BJ, 15-Sep-2018.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) |
| ⊢ (∀𝑥∀𝑦𝜑 → ∀𝑦∀𝑥𝜑) | ||
| Theorem | bj-sbsb 37038 | Biconditional showing two possible (dual) definitions of substitution df-sb 2068 not using dummy variables. (Contributed by BJ, 19-Mar-2021.) |
| ⊢ (((𝑥 = 𝑦 → 𝜑) ∧ ∃𝑥(𝑥 = 𝑦 ∧ 𝜑)) ↔ (∀𝑥(𝑥 = 𝑦 → 𝜑) ∨ (𝑥 = 𝑦 ∧ 𝜑))) | ||
| Theorem | bj-dfsb2 37039 | Alternate (dual) definition of substitution df-sb 2068 not using dummy variables. (Contributed by BJ, 19-Mar-2021.) |
| ⊢ ([𝑦 / 𝑥]𝜑 ↔ (∀𝑥(𝑥 = 𝑦 → 𝜑) ∨ (𝑥 = 𝑦 ∧ 𝜑))) | ||
| Theorem | bj-sbf3 37040 | Substitution has no effect on a bound variable (existential quantifier case); see sbf2 2278. (Contributed by BJ, 2-May-2019.) |
| ⊢ ([𝑦 / 𝑥]∃𝑥𝜑 ↔ ∃𝑥𝜑) | ||
| Theorem | bj-sbf4 37041 | Substitution has no effect on a bound variable (nonfreeness case); see sbf2 2278. (Contributed by BJ, 2-May-2019.) |
| ⊢ ([𝑦 / 𝑥]Ⅎ𝑥𝜑 ↔ Ⅎ𝑥𝜑) | ||
| Theorem | bj-eu3f 37042* | Version of eu3v 2570 where the disjoint variable condition is replaced with a nonfreeness hypothesis. This is a "backup" of a theorem that used to be in the main part with label "eu3" and was deprecated in favor of eu3v 2570. (Contributed by NM, 8-Jul-1994.) (Proof shortened by BJ, 31-May-2019.) |
| ⊢ Ⅎ𝑦𝜑 ⇒ ⊢ (∃!𝑥𝜑 ↔ (∃𝑥𝜑 ∧ ∃𝑦∀𝑥(𝜑 → 𝑥 = 𝑦))) | ||
Miscellaneous theorems of first-order logic. | ||
| Theorem | bj-sblem1 37043* | Lemma for substitution. (Contributed by BJ, 23-Jul-2023.) |
| ⊢ (∀𝑥(𝜑 → (𝜓 → 𝜒)) → (∀𝑥(𝜑 → 𝜓) → (∃𝑥𝜑 → 𝜒))) | ||
| Theorem | bj-sblem2 37044* | Lemma for substitution. (Contributed by BJ, 23-Jul-2023.) |
| ⊢ (∀𝑥(𝜑 → (𝜒 → 𝜓)) → ((∃𝑥𝜑 → 𝜒) → ∀𝑥(𝜑 → 𝜓))) | ||
| Theorem | bj-sblem 37045* | Lemma for substitution. (Contributed by BJ, 23-Jul-2023.) |
| ⊢ (∀𝑥(𝜑 → (𝜓 ↔ 𝜒)) → (∀𝑥(𝜑 → 𝜓) ↔ (∃𝑥𝜑 → 𝜒))) | ||
| Theorem | bj-sbievw1 37046* | Lemma for substitution. (Contributed by BJ, 23-Jul-2023.) |
| ⊢ ([𝑦 / 𝑥](𝜑 → 𝜓) → ([𝑦 / 𝑥]𝜑 → 𝜓)) | ||
| Theorem | bj-sbievw2 37047* | Lemma for substitution. (Contributed by BJ, 23-Jul-2023.) |
| ⊢ ([𝑦 / 𝑥](𝜓 → 𝜑) → (𝜓 → [𝑦 / 𝑥]𝜑)) | ||
| Theorem | bj-sbievw 37048* | Lemma for substitution. Closed form of equsalvw 2005 and sbievw 2098. (Contributed by BJ, 23-Jul-2023.) |
| ⊢ ([𝑦 / 𝑥](𝜑 ↔ 𝜓) → ([𝑦 / 𝑥]𝜑 ↔ 𝜓)) | ||
| Theorem | bj-sbievv 37049 | Version of sbie 2506 with a second nonfreeness hypothesis and shorter proof. (Contributed by BJ, 18-Jul-2023.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) |
| ⊢ Ⅎ𝑥𝜓 & ⊢ Ⅎ𝑦𝜑 & ⊢ (𝑥 = 𝑦 → (𝜑 ↔ 𝜓)) ⇒ ⊢ ([𝑦 / 𝑥]𝜑 ↔ 𝜓) | ||
| Theorem | bj-moeub 37050 | Uniqueness is equivalent to existence being equivalent to unique existence. (Contributed by BJ, 14-Oct-2022.) |
| ⊢ (∃*𝑥𝜑 ↔ (∃𝑥𝜑 ↔ ∃!𝑥𝜑)) | ||
| Theorem | bj-sbidmOLD 37051 | Obsolete proof of sbidm 2514 temporarily kept here to check it gives no additional insight. (Contributed by NM, 8-Mar-1995.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) (New usage is discouraged.) |
| ⊢ ([𝑦 / 𝑥][𝑦 / 𝑥]𝜑 ↔ [𝑦 / 𝑥]𝜑) | ||
| Theorem | bj-dvelimdv 37052* |
Deduction form of dvelim 2455 with disjoint variable conditions. Uncurried
(imported) form of bj-dvelimdv1 37053. Typically, 𝑧 is a fresh
variable used for the implicit substitution hypothesis that results in
𝜒 (namely, 𝜓 can be thought as 𝜓(𝑥, 𝑦) and 𝜒 as
𝜓(𝑥, 𝑧)). So the theorem says that if x is
effectively free
in 𝜓(𝑥, 𝑧), then if x and y are not the same
variable, then
𝑥 is also effectively free in 𝜓(𝑥, 𝑦), in a context
𝜑.
One can weaken the implicit substitution hypothesis by adding the antecedent 𝜑 but this typically does not make the theorem much more useful. Similarly, one could use nonfreeness hypotheses instead of disjoint variable conditions but since this result is typically used when 𝑧 is a dummy variable, this would not be of much benefit. One could also remove DV (𝑥, 𝑧) since in the proof nfv 1915 can be replaced with nfal 2328 followed by nfn 1858. Remark: nfald 2333 uses ax-11 2162; it might be possible to inline and use ax11w 2135 instead, but there is still a use via 19.12 2332 anyway. (Contributed by BJ, 20-Oct-2021.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) |
| ⊢ (𝜑 → Ⅎ𝑥𝜒) & ⊢ (𝑧 = 𝑦 → (𝜒 ↔ 𝜓)) ⇒ ⊢ ((𝜑 ∧ ¬ ∀𝑥 𝑥 = 𝑦) → Ⅎ𝑥𝜓) | ||
| Theorem | bj-dvelimdv1 37053* | Curried (exported) form of bj-dvelimdv 37052 (of course, one is directly provable from the other, but we keep this proof for illustration purposes). (Contributed by BJ, 20-Oct-2021.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) |
| ⊢ (𝜑 → Ⅎ𝑥𝜒) & ⊢ (𝑧 = 𝑦 → (𝜒 ↔ 𝜓)) ⇒ ⊢ (𝜑 → (¬ ∀𝑥 𝑥 = 𝑦 → Ⅎ𝑥𝜓)) | ||
| Theorem | bj-dvelimv 37054* | A version of dvelim 2455 using the "nonfree" idiom. (Contributed by BJ, 20-Oct-2021.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) |
| ⊢ Ⅎ𝑥𝜓 & ⊢ (𝑧 = 𝑦 → (𝜓 ↔ 𝜑)) ⇒ ⊢ (¬ ∀𝑥 𝑥 = 𝑦 → Ⅎ𝑥𝜑) | ||
| Theorem | bj-nfeel2 37055* | Nonfreeness in a membership statement. (Contributed by BJ, 20-Oct-2021.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) |
| ⊢ (¬ ∀𝑥 𝑥 = 𝑦 → Ⅎ𝑥 𝑦 ∈ 𝑧) | ||
| Theorem | bj-axc14nf 37056 | Proof of a version of axc14 2467 using the "nonfree" idiom. (Contributed by BJ, 20-Oct-2021.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) |
| ⊢ (¬ ∀𝑧 𝑧 = 𝑥 → (¬ ∀𝑧 𝑧 = 𝑦 → Ⅎ𝑧 𝑥 ∈ 𝑦)) | ||
| Theorem | bj-axc14 37057 | Alternate proof of axc14 2467 (even when inlining the above results, this gives a shorter proof). (Contributed by BJ, 20-Oct-2021.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) |
| ⊢ (¬ ∀𝑧 𝑧 = 𝑥 → (¬ ∀𝑧 𝑧 = 𝑦 → (𝑥 ∈ 𝑦 → ∀𝑧 𝑥 ∈ 𝑦))) | ||
| Theorem | mobidvALT 37058* | Alternate proof of mobidv 2549 directly from its analogues albidv 1921 and exbidv 1922, using deduction style. Note the proof structure, similar to mobi 2547. (Contributed by Mario Carneiro, 7-Oct-2016.) Reduce axiom dependencies and shorten proof. Remove dependency on ax-12 2184 by adapting proof of mobid 2550. (Revised by BJ, 26-Sep-2022.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) (New usage is discouraged.) |
| ⊢ (𝜑 → (𝜓 ↔ 𝜒)) ⇒ ⊢ (𝜑 → (∃*𝑥𝜓 ↔ ∃*𝑥𝜒)) | ||
| Theorem | sbn1ALT 37059 | Alternate proof of sbn1 2112, not using the false constant. (Contributed by BJ, 18-Sep-2024.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) (New usage is discouraged.) |
| ⊢ ([𝑡 / 𝑥] ¬ 𝜑 → ¬ [𝑡 / 𝑥]𝜑) | ||
In this section, we give a sketch of the proof of the Eliminability Theorem for class terms in an extensional set theory where quantification occurs only over set variables. Eliminability of class variables using the $a-statements ax-ext 2708, df-clab 2715, df-cleq 2728, df-clel 2811 is an easy result, proved for instance in Appendix X of Azriel Levy, Basic Set Theory, Dover Publications, 2002. Note that viewed from the set.mm axiomatization, it is a metatheorem not formalizable in set.mm. It states: every formula in the language of FOL + ∈ + class terms, but without class variables, is provably equivalent (over {FOL, ax-ext 2708, df-clab 2715, df-cleq 2728, df-clel 2811 }) to a formula in the language of FOL + ∈ (that is, without class terms). The proof goes by induction on the complexity of the formula (see op. cit. for details). The base case is that of atomic formulas. The atomic formulas containing class terms are of one of the six following forms: for equality, 𝑥 = {𝑦 ∣ 𝜑}, {𝑥 ∣ 𝜑} = 𝑦, {𝑥 ∣ 𝜑} = {𝑦 ∣ 𝜓}, and for membership, 𝑦 ∈ {𝑥 ∣ 𝜑}, {𝑥 ∣ 𝜑} ∈ 𝑦, {𝑥 ∣ 𝜑} ∈ {𝑦 ∣ 𝜓}. These cases are dealt with by eliminable-veqab 37067, eliminable-abeqv 37068, eliminable-abeqab 37069, eliminable-velab 37066, eliminable-abelv 37070, eliminable-abelab 37071 respectively, which are all proved from {FOL, ax-ext 2708, df-clab 2715, df-cleq 2728, df-clel 2811 }. (Details on the proof of the above six theorems. To understand how they were systematically proved, look at the theorems "eliminablei" below, which are special instances of df-clab 2715, dfcleq 2729 (proved from {FOL, ax-ext 2708, df-cleq 2728 }), and dfclel 2812 (proved from {FOL, df-clel 2811 }). Indeed, denote by (i) the formula proved by "eliminablei". One sees that the RHS of (1) has no class terms, the RHS's of (2x) have only class terms of the form dealt with by (1), and the RHS's of (3x) have only class terms of the forms dealt with by (1) and (2a). Note that in order to prove eliminable2a 37061, eliminable2b 37062 and eliminable3a 37064, we need to substitute a class variable for a setvar variable. This is possible because setvars are class terms: this is the content of the syntactic theorem cv 1540, which is used in these proofs (this does not appear in the html pages but it is in the set.mm file and you can check it using the Metamath program).) The induction step relies on the fact that any formula is a FOL-combination of atomic formulas, so if one found equivalents for all atomic formulas constituting the formula, then the same FOL-combination of these equivalents will be equivalent to the original formula. Note that one has a slightly more precise result: if the original formula has only class terms appearing in atomic formulas of the form 𝑦 ∈ {𝑥 ∣ 𝜑}, then df-clab 2715 is sufficient (over FOL) to eliminate class terms, and if the original formula has only class terms appearing in atomic formulas of the form 𝑦 ∈ {𝑥 ∣ 𝜑} and equalities, then df-clab 2715, ax-ext 2708 and df-cleq 2728 are sufficient (over FOL) to eliminate class terms. To prove that { df-clab 2715, df-cleq 2728, df-clel 2811 } provides a definitional extension of {FOL, ax-ext 2708 }, one needs to prove both the above Eliminability Theorem, which compares the expressive powers of the languages with and without class terms, and the Conservativity Theorem, which compares the deductive powers when one adds { df-clab 2715, df-cleq 2728, df-clel 2811 }. It states that a formula without class terms is provable in one axiom system if and only if it is provable in the other, and that this remains true when one adds further definitions to {FOL, ax-ext 2708 }. It is also proved in op. cit. The proof is more difficult, since one has to construct for each proof of a statement without class terms, an associated proof not using { df-clab 2715, df-cleq 2728, df-clel 2811 }. It involves a careful case study on the structure of the proof tree. | ||
| Theorem | eliminable1 37060 | A theorem used to prove the base case of the Eliminability Theorem (see section comment). (Contributed by BJ, 19-Oct-2019.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) (New usage is discouraged.) |
| ⊢ (𝑦 ∈ {𝑥 ∣ 𝜑} ↔ [𝑦 / 𝑥]𝜑) | ||
| Theorem | eliminable2a 37061* | A theorem used to prove the base case of the Eliminability Theorem (see section comment). (Contributed by BJ, 19-Oct-2019.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) (New usage is discouraged.) |
| ⊢ (𝑥 = {𝑦 ∣ 𝜑} ↔ ∀𝑧(𝑧 ∈ 𝑥 ↔ 𝑧 ∈ {𝑦 ∣ 𝜑})) | ||
| Theorem | eliminable2b 37062* | A theorem used to prove the base case of the Eliminability Theorem (see section comment). (Contributed by BJ, 19-Oct-2019.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) (New usage is discouraged.) |
| ⊢ ({𝑥 ∣ 𝜑} = 𝑦 ↔ ∀𝑧(𝑧 ∈ {𝑥 ∣ 𝜑} ↔ 𝑧 ∈ 𝑦)) | ||
| Theorem | eliminable2c 37063* | A theorem used to prove the base case of the Eliminability Theorem (see section comment). (Contributed by BJ, 19-Oct-2019.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) (New usage is discouraged.) |
| ⊢ ({𝑥 ∣ 𝜑} = {𝑦 ∣ 𝜓} ↔ ∀𝑧(𝑧 ∈ {𝑥 ∣ 𝜑} ↔ 𝑧 ∈ {𝑦 ∣ 𝜓})) | ||
| Theorem | eliminable3a 37064* | A theorem used to prove the base case of the Eliminability Theorem (see section comment). (Contributed by BJ, 19-Oct-2019.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) (New usage is discouraged.) |
| ⊢ ({𝑥 ∣ 𝜑} ∈ 𝑦 ↔ ∃𝑧(𝑧 = {𝑥 ∣ 𝜑} ∧ 𝑧 ∈ 𝑦)) | ||
| Theorem | eliminable3b 37065* | A theorem used to prove the base case of the Eliminability Theorem (see section comment). (Contributed by BJ, 19-Oct-2019.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) (New usage is discouraged.) |
| ⊢ ({𝑥 ∣ 𝜑} ∈ {𝑦 ∣ 𝜓} ↔ ∃𝑧(𝑧 = {𝑥 ∣ 𝜑} ∧ 𝑧 ∈ {𝑦 ∣ 𝜓})) | ||
| Theorem | eliminable-velab 37066 | A theorem used to prove the base case of the Eliminability Theorem (see section comment): variable belongs to abstraction. (Contributed by BJ, 30-Apr-2024.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) (New usage is discouraged.) |
| ⊢ (𝑦 ∈ {𝑥 ∣ 𝜑} ↔ [𝑦 / 𝑥]𝜑) | ||
| Theorem | eliminable-veqab 37067* | A theorem used to prove the base case of the Eliminability Theorem (see section comment): variable equals abstraction. (Contributed by BJ, 30-Apr-2024.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) (New usage is discouraged.) |
| ⊢ (𝑥 = {𝑦 ∣ 𝜑} ↔ ∀𝑧(𝑧 ∈ 𝑥 ↔ [𝑧 / 𝑦]𝜑)) | ||
| Theorem | eliminable-abeqv 37068* | A theorem used to prove the base case of the Eliminability Theorem (see section comment): abstraction equals variable. (Contributed by BJ, 30-Apr-2024.) Beware not to use symmetry of class equality. (Proof modification is discouraged.) (New usage is discouraged.) |
| ⊢ ({𝑥 ∣ 𝜑} = 𝑦 ↔ ∀𝑧([𝑧 / 𝑥]𝜑 ↔ 𝑧 ∈ 𝑦)) | ||
| Theorem | eliminable-abeqab 37069* | A theorem used to prove the base case of the Eliminability Theorem (see section comment): abstraction equals abstraction. (Contributed by BJ, 30-Apr-2024.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) (New usage is discouraged.) |
| ⊢ ({𝑥 ∣ 𝜑} = {𝑦 ∣ 𝜓} ↔ ∀𝑧([𝑧 / 𝑥]𝜑 ↔ [𝑧 / 𝑦]𝜓)) | ||
| Theorem | eliminable-abelv 37070* | A theorem used to prove the base case of the Eliminability Theorem (see section comment): abstraction belongs to variable. (Contributed by BJ, 30-Apr-2024.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) (New usage is discouraged.) |
| ⊢ ({𝑥 ∣ 𝜑} ∈ 𝑦 ↔ ∃𝑧(∀𝑡(𝑡 ∈ 𝑧 ↔ [𝑡 / 𝑥]𝜑) ∧ 𝑧 ∈ 𝑦)) | ||
| Theorem | eliminable-abelab 37071* | A theorem used to prove the base case of the Eliminability Theorem (see section comment): abstraction belongs to abstraction. (Contributed by BJ, 30-Apr-2024.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) (New usage is discouraged.) |
| ⊢ ({𝑥 ∣ 𝜑} ∈ {𝑦 ∣ 𝜓} ↔ ∃𝑧(∀𝑡(𝑡 ∈ 𝑧 ↔ [𝑡 / 𝑥]𝜑) ∧ [𝑧 / 𝑦]𝜓)) | ||
A few results about classes can be proved without using ax-ext 2708. One could move all theorems from cab 2714 to df-clel 2811 (except for dfcleq 2729 and cvjust 2730) in a subsection "Classes" before the subsection on the axiom of extensionality, together with the theorems below. In that subsection, the last statement should be df-cleq 2728. Note that without ax-ext 2708, the $a-statements df-clab 2715, df-cleq 2728, and df-clel 2811 are no longer eliminable (see previous section) (but PROBABLY df-clab 2715 is still conservative , while df-cleq 2728 and df-clel 2811 are not). This is not a reason not to study what is provable with them but without ax-ext 2708, in order to gauge their strengths more precisely. Before that subsection, a subsection "The membership predicate" could group the statements with ∈ that are currently in the FOL part (including wcel 2113, wel 2114, ax-8 2115, ax-9 2123). Remark: the weakening of eleq1 2824 / eleq2 2825 to eleq1w 2819 / eleq2w 2820 can also be done with eleq1i 2827, eqeltri 2832, eqeltrri 2833, eleq1a 2831, eleq1d 2821, eqeltrd 2836, eqeltrrd 2837, eqneltrd 2856, eqneltrrd 2857, nelneq 2860. Remark: possibility to remove dependency on ax-10 2146, ax-11 2162, ax-13 2376 from nfcri 2890 and theorems using it if one adds a disjoint variable condition (that theorem is typically used with dummy variables, so the disjoint variable condition addition is not very restrictive), and then shorten nfnfc 2911. | ||
| Theorem | bj-denoteslem 37072* |
Duplicate of issettru 2814 and bj-issettruALTV 37074.
Lemma for bj-denotesALTV 37073. (Contributed by BJ, 24-Apr-2024.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) |
| ⊢ (∃𝑥 𝑥 = 𝐴 ↔ 𝐴 ∈ {𝑦 ∣ ⊤}) | ||
| Theorem | bj-denotesALTV 37073* |
Moved to main as iseqsetv-clel 2815 and kept for the comments.
This would be the justification theorem for the definition of the unary predicate "E!" by ⊢ ( E! 𝐴 ↔ ∃𝑥𝑥 = 𝐴) which could be interpreted as "𝐴 exists" (as a set) or "𝐴 denotes" (in the sense of free logic). A shorter proof using bitri 275 (to add an intermediate proposition ∃𝑧𝑧 = 𝐴 with a fresh 𝑧), cbvexvw 2038, and eqeq1 2740, requires the core axioms and { ax-9 2123, ax-ext 2708, df-cleq 2728 } whereas this proof requires the core axioms and { ax-8 2115, df-clab 2715, df-clel 2811 }. Theorem bj-issetwt 37076 proves that "existing" is equivalent to being a member of a class abstraction. It also requires, with the present proof, { ax-8 2115, df-clab 2715, df-clel 2811 } (whereas with the shorter proof from cbvexvw 2038 and eqeq1 2740 it would require { ax-8 2115, ax-9 2123, ax-ext 2708, df-clab 2715, df-cleq 2728, df-clel 2811 }). That every class is equal to a class abstraction is proved by abid1 2872, which requires { ax-8 2115, ax-9 2123, ax-ext 2708, df-clab 2715, df-cleq 2728, df-clel 2811 }. Note that there is no disjoint variable condition on 𝑥, 𝑦 but the theorem does not depend on ax-13 2376. Actually, the proof depends only on the logical axioms ax-1 6 through ax-7 2009 and sp 2190. The symbol "E!" was chosen to be reminiscent of the analogous predicate in (inclusive or non-inclusive) free logic, which deals with the possibility of nonexistent objects. This analogy should not be taken too far, since here there are no equality axioms for classes: these are derived from ax-ext 2708 and df-cleq 2728 (e.g., eqid 2736 and eqeq1 2740). In particular, one cannot even prove ⊢ ∃𝑥𝑥 = 𝐴 ⇒ ⊢ 𝐴 = 𝐴 without ax-ext 2708 and df-cleq 2728. (Contributed by BJ, 29-Apr-2019.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) |
| ⊢ (∃𝑥 𝑥 = 𝐴 ↔ ∃𝑦 𝑦 = 𝐴) | ||
| Theorem | bj-issettruALTV 37074* |
Moved to main as issettru 2814 and kept for the comments.
Weak version of isset 3454 without ax-ext 2708. (Contributed by BJ, 24-Apr-2024.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) |
| ⊢ (∃𝑥 𝑥 = 𝐴 ↔ 𝐴 ∈ {𝑦 ∣ ⊤}) | ||
| Theorem | bj-elabtru 37075 | This is as close as we can get to proving extensionality for "the" "universal" class without ax-ext 2708. (Contributed by BJ, 24-Apr-2024.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) |
| ⊢ (𝐴 ∈ {𝑥 ∣ ⊤} ↔ 𝐴 ∈ {𝑦 ∣ ⊤}) | ||
| Theorem | bj-issetwt 37076* | Closed form of bj-issetw 37077. (Contributed by BJ, 29-Apr-2019.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) |
| ⊢ (∀𝑥𝜑 → (𝐴 ∈ {𝑥 ∣ 𝜑} ↔ ∃𝑦 𝑦 = 𝐴)) | ||
| Theorem | bj-issetw 37077* | The closest one can get to isset 3454 without using ax-ext 2708. See also vexw 2720. Note that the only disjoint variable condition is between 𝑦 and 𝐴. From there, one can prove isset 3454 using eleq2i 2828 (which requires ax-ext 2708 and df-cleq 2728). (Contributed by BJ, 29-Apr-2019.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) |
| ⊢ 𝜑 ⇒ ⊢ (𝐴 ∈ {𝑥 ∣ 𝜑} ↔ ∃𝑦 𝑦 = 𝐴) | ||
| Theorem | bj-issetiv 37078* | Version of bj-isseti 37079 with a disjoint variable condition on 𝑥, 𝑉. The hypothesis uses 𝑉 instead of V for extra generality. This is indeed more general than isseti 3458 as long as elex 3461 is not available (and the non-dependence of bj-issetiv 37078 on special properties of the universal class V is obvious). Prefer its use over bj-isseti 37079 when sufficient (in particular when 𝑉 is substituted for V). (Contributed by BJ, 14-Sep-2019.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) |
| ⊢ 𝐴 ∈ 𝑉 ⇒ ⊢ ∃𝑥 𝑥 = 𝐴 | ||
| Theorem | bj-isseti 37079* | Version of isseti 3458 with a class variable 𝑉 in the hypothesis instead of V for extra generality. This is indeed more general than isseti 3458 as long as elex 3461 is not available (and the non-dependence of bj-isseti 37079 on special properties of the universal class V is obvious). Use bj-issetiv 37078 instead when sufficient (in particular when 𝑉 is substituted for V). (Contributed by BJ, 13-Jun-2019.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) |
| ⊢ 𝐴 ∈ 𝑉 ⇒ ⊢ ∃𝑥 𝑥 = 𝐴 | ||
| Theorem | bj-ralvw 37080 | A weak version of ralv 3467 not using ax-ext 2708 (nor df-cleq 2728, df-clel 2811, df-v 3442), and only core FOL axioms. See also bj-rexvw 37081. The analogues for reuv 3469 and rmov 3470 are not proved. (Contributed by BJ, 16-Jun-2019.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) |
| ⊢ 𝜓 ⇒ ⊢ (∀𝑥 ∈ {𝑦 ∣ 𝜓}𝜑 ↔ ∀𝑥𝜑) | ||
| Theorem | bj-rexvw 37081 | A weak version of rexv 3468 not using ax-ext 2708 (nor df-cleq 2728, df-clel 2811, df-v 3442), and only core FOL axioms. See also bj-ralvw 37080. (Contributed by BJ, 16-Jun-2019.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) |
| ⊢ 𝜓 ⇒ ⊢ (∃𝑥 ∈ {𝑦 ∣ 𝜓}𝜑 ↔ ∃𝑥𝜑) | ||
| Theorem | bj-rababw 37082 | A weak version of rabab 3471 not using df-clel 2811 nor df-v 3442 (but requiring ax-ext 2708) nor ax-12 2184. (Contributed by BJ, 16-Jun-2019.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) |
| ⊢ 𝜓 ⇒ ⊢ {𝑥 ∈ {𝑦 ∣ 𝜓} ∣ 𝜑} = {𝑥 ∣ 𝜑} | ||
| Theorem | bj-rexcom4bv 37083* | Version of rexcom4b 3472 and bj-rexcom4b 37084 with a disjoint variable condition on 𝑥, 𝑉, hence removing dependency on df-sb 2068 and df-clab 2715 (so that it depends on df-clel 2811 and df-rex 3061 only on top of first-order logic). Prefer its use over bj-rexcom4b 37084 when sufficient (in particular when 𝑉 is substituted for V). Note the 𝑉 in the hypothesis instead of V. (Contributed by BJ, 14-Sep-2019.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) |
| ⊢ 𝐵 ∈ 𝑉 ⇒ ⊢ (∃𝑥∃𝑦 ∈ 𝐴 (𝜑 ∧ 𝑥 = 𝐵) ↔ ∃𝑦 ∈ 𝐴 𝜑) | ||
| Theorem | bj-rexcom4b 37084* | Remove from rexcom4b 3472 dependency on ax-ext 2708 and ax-13 2376 (and on df-or 848, df-cleq 2728, df-nfc 2885, df-v 3442). The hypothesis uses 𝑉 instead of V (see bj-isseti 37079 for the motivation). Use bj-rexcom4bv 37083 instead when sufficient (in particular when 𝑉 is substituted for V). (Contributed by BJ, 16-Jun-2019.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) |
| ⊢ 𝐵 ∈ 𝑉 ⇒ ⊢ (∃𝑥∃𝑦 ∈ 𝐴 (𝜑 ∧ 𝑥 = 𝐵) ↔ ∃𝑦 ∈ 𝐴 𝜑) | ||
| Theorem | bj-ceqsalt0 37085 | The FOL content of ceqsalt 3474. Lemma for bj-ceqsalt 37087 and bj-ceqsaltv 37088. (Contributed by BJ, 26-Sep-2019.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) |
| ⊢ ((Ⅎ𝑥𝜓 ∧ ∀𝑥(𝜃 → (𝜑 ↔ 𝜓)) ∧ ∃𝑥𝜃) → (∀𝑥(𝜃 → 𝜑) ↔ 𝜓)) | ||
| Theorem | bj-ceqsalt1 37086 | The FOL content of ceqsalt 3474. Lemma for bj-ceqsalt 37087 and bj-ceqsaltv 37088. TODO: consider removing if it does not add anything to bj-ceqsalt0 37085. (Contributed by BJ, 26-Sep-2019.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) |
| ⊢ (𝜃 → ∃𝑥𝜒) ⇒ ⊢ ((Ⅎ𝑥𝜓 ∧ ∀𝑥(𝜒 → (𝜑 ↔ 𝜓)) ∧ 𝜃) → (∀𝑥(𝜒 → 𝜑) ↔ 𝜓)) | ||
| Theorem | bj-ceqsalt 37087* | Remove from ceqsalt 3474 dependency on ax-ext 2708 (and on df-cleq 2728 and df-v 3442). Note: this is not doable with ceqsralt 3475 (or ceqsralv 3481), which uses eleq1 2824, but the same dependence removal is possible for ceqsalg 3476, ceqsal 3478, ceqsalv 3480, cgsexg 3485, cgsex2g 3486, cgsex4g 3487, ceqsex 3489, ceqsexv 3490, ceqsex2 3493, ceqsex2v 3494, ceqsex3v 3495, ceqsex4v 3496, ceqsex6v 3497, ceqsex8v 3498, gencbvex 3499 (after changing 𝐴 = 𝑦 to 𝑦 = 𝐴), gencbvex2 3500, gencbval 3501, vtoclgft 3509 (it uses Ⅎ, whose justification nfcjust 2884 does not use ax-ext 2708) and several other vtocl* theorems (see for instance bj-vtoclg1f 37119). See also bj-ceqsaltv 37088. (Contributed by BJ, 16-Jun-2019.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) |
| ⊢ ((Ⅎ𝑥𝜓 ∧ ∀𝑥(𝑥 = 𝐴 → (𝜑 ↔ 𝜓)) ∧ 𝐴 ∈ 𝑉) → (∀𝑥(𝑥 = 𝐴 → 𝜑) ↔ 𝜓)) | ||
| Theorem | bj-ceqsaltv 37088* | Version of bj-ceqsalt 37087 with a disjoint variable condition on 𝑥, 𝑉, removing dependency on df-sb 2068 and df-clab 2715. Prefer its use over bj-ceqsalt 37087 when sufficient (in particular when 𝑉 is substituted for V). (Contributed by BJ, 16-Jun-2019.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) |
| ⊢ ((Ⅎ𝑥𝜓 ∧ ∀𝑥(𝑥 = 𝐴 → (𝜑 ↔ 𝜓)) ∧ 𝐴 ∈ 𝑉) → (∀𝑥(𝑥 = 𝐴 → 𝜑) ↔ 𝜓)) | ||
| Theorem | bj-ceqsalg0 37089 | The FOL content of ceqsalg 3476. (Contributed by BJ, 12-Oct-2019.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) |
| ⊢ Ⅎ𝑥𝜓 & ⊢ (𝜒 → (𝜑 ↔ 𝜓)) ⇒ ⊢ (∃𝑥𝜒 → (∀𝑥(𝜒 → 𝜑) ↔ 𝜓)) | ||
| Theorem | bj-ceqsalg 37090* | Remove from ceqsalg 3476 dependency on ax-ext 2708 (and on df-cleq 2728 and df-v 3442). See also bj-ceqsalgv 37092. (Contributed by BJ, 12-Oct-2019.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) |
| ⊢ Ⅎ𝑥𝜓 & ⊢ (𝑥 = 𝐴 → (𝜑 ↔ 𝜓)) ⇒ ⊢ (𝐴 ∈ 𝑉 → (∀𝑥(𝑥 = 𝐴 → 𝜑) ↔ 𝜓)) | ||
| Theorem | bj-ceqsalgALT 37091* | Alternate proof of bj-ceqsalg 37090. (Contributed by BJ, 12-Oct-2019.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) (New usage is discouraged.) |
| ⊢ Ⅎ𝑥𝜓 & ⊢ (𝑥 = 𝐴 → (𝜑 ↔ 𝜓)) ⇒ ⊢ (𝐴 ∈ 𝑉 → (∀𝑥(𝑥 = 𝐴 → 𝜑) ↔ 𝜓)) | ||
| Theorem | bj-ceqsalgv 37092* | Version of bj-ceqsalg 37090 with a disjoint variable condition on 𝑥, 𝑉, removing dependency on df-sb 2068 and df-clab 2715. Prefer its use over bj-ceqsalg 37090 when sufficient (in particular when 𝑉 is substituted for V). (Contributed by BJ, 12-Oct-2019.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) |
| ⊢ Ⅎ𝑥𝜓 & ⊢ (𝑥 = 𝐴 → (𝜑 ↔ 𝜓)) ⇒ ⊢ (𝐴 ∈ 𝑉 → (∀𝑥(𝑥 = 𝐴 → 𝜑) ↔ 𝜓)) | ||
| Theorem | bj-ceqsalgvALT 37093* | Alternate proof of bj-ceqsalgv 37092. (Contributed by BJ, 12-Oct-2019.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) (New usage is discouraged.) |
| ⊢ Ⅎ𝑥𝜓 & ⊢ (𝑥 = 𝐴 → (𝜑 ↔ 𝜓)) ⇒ ⊢ (𝐴 ∈ 𝑉 → (∀𝑥(𝑥 = 𝐴 → 𝜑) ↔ 𝜓)) | ||
| Theorem | bj-ceqsal 37094* | Remove from ceqsal 3478 dependency on ax-ext 2708 (and on df-cleq 2728, df-v 3442, df-clab 2715, df-sb 2068). (Contributed by BJ, 12-Oct-2019.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) |
| ⊢ Ⅎ𝑥𝜓 & ⊢ 𝐴 ∈ V & ⊢ (𝑥 = 𝐴 → (𝜑 ↔ 𝜓)) ⇒ ⊢ (∀𝑥(𝑥 = 𝐴 → 𝜑) ↔ 𝜓) | ||
| Theorem | bj-ceqsalv 37095* | Remove from ceqsalv 3480 dependency on ax-ext 2708 (and on df-cleq 2728, df-v 3442, df-clab 2715, df-sb 2068). (Contributed by BJ, 12-Oct-2019.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) |
| ⊢ 𝐴 ∈ V & ⊢ (𝑥 = 𝐴 → (𝜑 ↔ 𝜓)) ⇒ ⊢ (∀𝑥(𝑥 = 𝐴 → 𝜑) ↔ 𝜓) | ||
| Theorem | bj-spcimdv 37096* | Remove from spcimdv 3547 dependency on ax-9 2123, ax-10 2146, ax-11 2162, ax-13 2376, ax-ext 2708, df-cleq 2728 (and df-nfc 2885, df-v 3442, df-or 848, df-tru 1544, df-nf 1785). For an even more economical version, see bj-spcimdvv 37097. (Contributed by BJ, 30-Nov-2020.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) |
| ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝐴 ∈ 𝐵) & ⊢ ((𝜑 ∧ 𝑥 = 𝐴) → (𝜓 → 𝜒)) ⇒ ⊢ (𝜑 → (∀𝑥𝜓 → 𝜒)) | ||
| Theorem | bj-spcimdvv 37097* | Remove from spcimdv 3547 dependency on ax-7 2009, ax-8 2115, ax-10 2146, ax-11 2162, ax-12 2184 ax-13 2376, ax-ext 2708, df-cleq 2728, df-clab 2715 (and df-nfc 2885, df-v 3442, df-or 848, df-tru 1544, df-nf 1785) at the price of adding a disjoint variable condition on 𝑥, 𝐵 (but in usages, 𝑥 is typically a dummy, hence fresh, variable). For the version without this disjoint variable condition, see bj-spcimdv 37096. (Contributed by BJ, 3-Nov-2021.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) |
| ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝐴 ∈ 𝐵) & ⊢ ((𝜑 ∧ 𝑥 = 𝐴) → (𝜓 → 𝜒)) ⇒ ⊢ (𝜑 → (∀𝑥𝜓 → 𝜒)) | ||
| Theorem | elelb 37098 | Equivalence between two common ways to characterize elements of a class 𝐵: the LHS says that sets are elements of 𝐵 if and only if they satisfy 𝜑 while the RHS says that classes are elements of 𝐵 if and only if they are sets and satisfy 𝜑. Therefore, the LHS is a characterization among sets while the RHS is a characterization among classes. Note that the LHS is often formulated using a class variable instead of the universe V while this is not possible for the RHS (apart from using 𝐵 itself, which would not be very useful). (Contributed by BJ, 26-Feb-2023.) |
| ⊢ ((𝐴 ∈ V → (𝐴 ∈ 𝐵 ↔ 𝜑)) ↔ (𝐴 ∈ 𝐵 ↔ (𝐴 ∈ V ∧ 𝜑))) | ||
| Theorem | bj-pwvrelb 37099 | Characterization of the elements of the powerclass of the cartesian square of the universal class: they are exactly the sets which are binary relations. (Contributed by BJ, 16-Dec-2023.) |
| ⊢ (𝐴 ∈ 𝒫 (V × V) ↔ (𝐴 ∈ V ∧ Rel 𝐴)) | ||
In this section, we prove the symmetry of the nonfreeness quantifier for classes. | ||
| Theorem | bj-nfcsym 37100 | The nonfreeness quantifier for classes defines a symmetric binary relation on var metavariables (irreflexivity is proved by nfnid 5320 with additional axioms; see also nfcv 2898). This could be proved from aecom 2431 and nfcvb 5321 but the latter requires a domain with at least two objects (hence uses extra axioms). (Contributed by BJ, 30-Sep-2018.) Proof modification is discouraged to avoid use of eqcomd 2742 instead of equcomd 2020; removing dependency on ax-ext 2708 is possible: prove weak versions (i.e. replace classes with setvars) of drnfc1 2918, eleq2d 2822 (using elequ2 2128), nfcvf 2925, dvelimc 2924, dvelimdc 2923, nfcvf2 2926. (Proof modification is discouraged.) |
| ⊢ (Ⅎ𝑥𝑦 ↔ Ⅎ𝑦𝑥) | ||
| < Previous Next > |
| Copyright terms: Public domain | < Previous Next > |