P. 371 of Theorem List - Metamath Proof Explorer

Theorem List for Metamath Proof Explorer - 37001-37100   *Has distinct variable group(s)

Type	Label	Description
Statement
Theorem	bj-stabpeirce 37001	This minimal implicational calculus tautology is used in the following argument: When 𝜑, 𝜓, 𝜒, 𝜃, 𝜏 are replaced respectively by (𝜑 → ⊥), ⊥, 𝜑, ⊥, ⊥, the antecedent becomes ¬ ¬ (¬ ¬ 𝜑 → 𝜑), that is, the double negation of the stability of 𝜑. If that statement were provable in minimal calculus, then, since ⊥ plays no particular role in minimal calculus, also the statement with 𝜓 in place of ⊥ would be provable. The corresponding consequent is (((𝜓 → 𝜑) → 𝜓) → 𝜓), that is, the non-intuitionistic Peirce law. Therefore, the double negation of the stability of any formula is not provable in minimal calculus. However, it is provable both in intuitionistic calculus (see iset.mm/bj-nnst) and in classical refutability calculus (see bj-peircestab 37000). (Contributed by BJ, 30-Nov-2023.) (Revised by BJ, 30-Jul-2024.) (Proof modification is discouraged.)
⊢ (((((𝜑 → 𝜓) → 𝜒) → 𝜃) → 𝜏) → (((𝜓 → 𝜒) → 𝜃) → 𝜏))
21.19.1.4  Positive calculus Positive calculus is understood to be intuitionistic. Its primitive connectives are implication, equivalence, conjunction, and disjunction. Due to the current axiomatization of set.mm, axiom ax-3 8, which does not belong to positive calculus, may appear as a dependency of some theorems in this section.
Theorem	bj-bisimpl 37002	Implication from equivalence with a conjunct. Its associated inference is simplbi 501. (Contributed by BJ, 20-Mar-2026.)
⊢ ((𝜑 ↔ (𝜓 ∧ 𝜒)) → (𝜑 → 𝜓))
Theorem	bj-bisimpr 37003	Implication from equivalence with a conjunct. Its associated inference is simprbi 502. (Contributed by BJ, 20-Mar-2026.)
⊢ ((𝜑 ↔ (𝜓 ∧ 𝜒)) → (𝜑 → 𝜒))
Theorem	bj-syl66ib 37004	A mixed syllogism inference derived from imbitrdi 254. Shortens bj-dvelimdv1 37344, alexsubALTlem4 24164 (4821>4812), supsrlem 11084 (2868>2863). (Contributed by BJ, 20-Oct-2021.)
⊢ (𝜑 → (𝜓 → 𝜃))    &   ⊢ (𝜃 → 𝜏)    &   ⊢ (𝜏 ↔ 𝜒)    ⇒   ⊢ (𝜑 → (𝜓 → 𝜒))
Theorem	bj-orim2 37005	Proof of orim2 983 from the axiomatic definition of disjunction (olc 881, orc 880, jao 975) and minimal implicational calculus. (Contributed by BJ, 4-Apr-2021.) (Proof modification is discouraged.)
⊢ ((𝜑 → 𝜓) → ((𝜒 ∨ 𝜑) → (𝜒 ∨ 𝜓)))
Theorem	bj-currypeirce 37006	Curry's axiom curryax 906 (a non-intuitionistic positive statement sometimes called a paradox of material implication) implies Peirce's axiom peirce 205 over minimal implicational calculus and the axiomatic definition of disjunction (actually, only the elimination axiom jao 975 via its inference form jaoi 870; the introduction axioms olc 881 and orc 880 are not needed). Note that this theorem shows that actually, the standard instance of curryax 906 implies the standard instance of peirce 205, which is not the case for the converse bj-peircecurry 37007. (Contributed by BJ, 15-Jun-2021.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) (New usage is discouraged.)
⊢ ((𝜑 ∨ (𝜑 → 𝜓)) → (((𝜑 → 𝜓) → 𝜑) → 𝜑))
Theorem	bj-peircecurry 37007	Peirce's axiom peirce 205 implies Curry's axiom curryax 906 over minimal implicational calculus and the axiomatic definition of disjunction (actually, only the introduction axioms olc 881 and orc 880; the elimination axiom jao 975 is not needed). See bj-currypeirce 37006 for the converse. (Contributed by BJ, 15-Jun-2021.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) (New usage is discouraged.)
⊢ (𝜑 ∨ (𝜑 → 𝜓))
Theorem	bj-animbi 37008	Conjunction in terms of implication and biconditional. Note that the proof is intuitionistic (use of ax-3 8 comes from the unusual definition of the biconditional in set.mm). (Contributed by BJ, 23-Sep-2023.)
⊢ ((𝜑 ∧ 𝜓) ↔ (𝜑 ↔ (𝜑 → 𝜓)))
Theorem	bj-currypara 37009	Curry's paradox. Note that the proof is intuitionistic (use of ax-3 8 comes from the unusual definition of the biconditional in set.mm). The paradox comes from the case where 𝜑 is the self-referential sentence "If this sentence is true, then 𝜓", so that one can prove everything. Therefore, a consistent system cannot allow the formation of such self-referential sentences. This has lead to the study of logics rejecting contraction pm2.43 57, such as affine logic and linear logic. (Contributed by BJ, 23-Sep-2023.) (Proof modification is discouraged.)
⊢ ((𝜑 ↔ (𝜑 → 𝜓)) → 𝜓)
21.19.1.5  Implication and negation Some theorems of propositional calculus in the language of implication and negation.
Theorem	bj-con2com 37010	A commuted form of the contrapositive, true in minimal calculus. (Contributed by BJ, 19-Mar-2020.)
⊢ (𝜑 → ((𝜓 → ¬ 𝜑) → ¬ 𝜓))
Theorem	bj-con2comi 37011	Inference associated with bj-con2com 37010. Its associated inference is mt2 203. TODO: when in the main part, add to mt2 203 that it is the inference associated with bj-con2comi 37011. (Contributed by BJ, 19-Mar-2020.)
⊢ 𝜑    ⇒   ⊢ ((𝜓 → ¬ 𝜑) → ¬ 𝜓)
Theorem	bj-nimn 37012	If a formula is true, then it does not imply its negation. (Contributed by BJ, 19-Mar-2020.) A shorter proof is possible using id 23 and jc 162, however, the present proof uses theorems that are more basic than jc 162. (Proof modification is discouraged.)
⊢ (𝜑 → ¬ (𝜑 → ¬ 𝜑))
Theorem	bj-nimni 37013	Inference associated with bj-nimn 37012. (Contributed by BJ, 19-Mar-2020.)
⊢ 𝜑    ⇒   ⊢ ¬ (𝜑 → ¬ 𝜑)
Theorem	bj-peircei 37014	Inference associated with peirce 205. (Contributed by BJ, 30-Mar-2020.)
⊢ ((𝜑 → 𝜓) → 𝜑)    ⇒   ⊢ 𝜑
Theorem	bj-looinvi 37015	Inference associated with looinv 206. Its associated inference is bj-looinvii 37016. (Contributed by BJ, 30-Mar-2020.)
⊢ ((𝜑 → 𝜓) → 𝜓)    ⇒   ⊢ ((𝜓 → 𝜑) → 𝜑)
Theorem	bj-looinvii 37016	Inference associated with bj-looinvi 37015. (Contributed by BJ, 30-Mar-2020.)
⊢ ((𝜑 → 𝜓) → 𝜓)    &   ⊢ (𝜓 → 𝜑)    ⇒   ⊢ 𝜑
Theorem	bj-mt2bi 37017	Version of mt2 203 where the major premise is a biconditional. Shortens fal 1577 (see bj-fal 37018) . Another proof is also possible via con2bii 360 and mpbi 233. The current mt2bi 366 should be relabeled, maybe to imfal. (Contributed by BJ, 5-Oct-2024.)
⊢ (𝜓 ↔ ¬ 𝜑)    &   ⊢ 𝜑    ⇒   ⊢ ¬ 𝜓
Theorem	bj-fal 37018	Shortening of fal 1577 using bj-mt2bi 37017. (Contributed by Anthony Hart, 22-Oct-2010.) (Proof shortened by Mel L. O'Cat, 11-Mar-2012.) (Proof modification is discouraged.)
⊢ ¬ ⊥
Theorem	bj-ntrufal 37019	The negation of a theorem is equivalent to false. Shortens dfnul2 4291 (see bj-dfnul2 37020). (Contributed by BJ, 5-Oct-2024.)
⊢ 𝜑    ⇒   ⊢ (¬ 𝜑 ↔ ⊥)
Theorem	bj-dfnul2 37020	Alternate definition of the empty set. Definition 5.14 of [TakeutiZaring] p. 20. (Contributed by NM, 26-Dec-1996.) Remove dependency on ax-10 2178, ax-11 2194, and ax-12 2215. (Revised by Steven Nguyen, 3-May-2023.) (Proof shortened by BJ, 23-Sep-2024.) (Proof modification is discouraged.)
⊢ ∅ = {𝑥 ∣ ¬ 𝑥 = 𝑥}
21.19.1.6  Disjunction A few lemmas about disjunction. The fundamental theorems in this family are the dual statements pm4.71 566 and pm4.72 964. See also biort 948 and biorf 949.
Theorem	bj-jaoi1 37021	Shortens orfa2 38592 (58>53), pm1.2 916 (20>18), pm1.2 916 (20>18), pm2.4 919 (31>25), pm2.41 920 (31>25), pm2.42 957 (38>32), pm3.2ni 893 (43>39), pm4.44 1012 (55>51). (Contributed by BJ, 30-Sep-2019.)
⊢ (𝜑 → 𝜓)    ⇒   ⊢ ((𝜑 ∨ 𝜓) → 𝜓)
Theorem	bj-jaoi2 37022	Shortens consensus 1066 (110>106), elnn0z 12592 (336>329), pm1.2 916 (20>19), pm3.2ni 893 (43>39), pm4.44 1012 (55>51). (Contributed by BJ, 30-Sep-2019.)
⊢ (𝜑 → 𝜓)    ⇒   ⊢ ((𝜓 ∨ 𝜑) → 𝜓)
21.19.1.7  Logical equivalence A few other characterizations of the biconditional. The inter-definability of logical connectives offers many ways to express a given statement. Some useful theorems in this regard are df-or 861, df-an 401, pm4.64 862, imor 866, pm4.62 869 through pm4.67 403, and, for the De Morgan laws, ianor 997 through pm4.57 1006.
Theorem	bj-dfbi4 37023	Alternate definition of the biconditional. (Contributed by BJ, 4-Oct-2019.)
⊢ ((𝜑 ↔ 𝜓) ↔ ((𝜑 ∧ 𝜓) ∨ ¬ (𝜑 ∨ 𝜓)))
Theorem	bj-dfbi5 37024	Alternate definition of the biconditional. (Contributed by BJ, 4-Oct-2019.)
⊢ ((𝜑 ↔ 𝜓) ↔ ((𝜑 ∨ 𝜓) → (𝜑 ∧ 𝜓)))
Theorem	bj-dfbi6 37025	Alternate definition of the biconditional. (Contributed by BJ, 4-Oct-2019.)
⊢ ((𝜑 ↔ 𝜓) ↔ ((𝜑 ∨ 𝜓) ↔ (𝜑 ∧ 𝜓)))
Theorem	bj-bijust0ALT 37026	Alternate proof of bijust0 207; shorter but using additional intermediate results. (Contributed by NM, 11-May-1999.) (Proof shortened by Josh Purinton, 29-Dec-2000.) (Revised by BJ, 19-Mar-2020.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) (New usage is discouraged.)
⊢ ¬ ((𝜑 → 𝜑) → ¬ (𝜑 → 𝜑))
Theorem	bj-bijust00 37027	A self-implication does not imply the negation of a self-implication. Most general theorem of which bijust 208 is an instance (bijust0 207 and bj-bijust0ALT 37026 are therefore also instances of it). (Contributed by BJ, 7-Sep-2022.)
⊢ ¬ ((𝜑 → 𝜑) → ¬ (𝜓 → 𝜓))
21.19.1.8  The conditional operator for propositions
Theorem	bj-consensus 37028	Version of consensus 1066 expressed using the conditional operator. (Remark: it may be better to express it as consensus 1066, using only binary connectives, and hinting at the fact that it is a Boolean algebra identity, like the absorption identities.) (Contributed by BJ, 30-Sep-2019.)
⊢ ((if-(𝜑, 𝜓, 𝜒) ∨ (𝜓 ∧ 𝜒)) ↔ if-(𝜑, 𝜓, 𝜒))
Theorem	bj-consensusALT 37029	Alternate proof of bj-consensus 37028. (Contributed by BJ, 30-Sep-2019.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) (New usage is discouraged.)
⊢ ((if-(𝜑, 𝜓, 𝜒) ∨ (𝜓 ∧ 𝜒)) ↔ if-(𝜑, 𝜓, 𝜒))
Theorem	bj-df-ifc 37030*	Candidate definition for the conditional operator for classes. This is in line with the definition of a class as the extension of a predicate in df-clab 2744. We reprove the current df-if 4484 from it in bj-dfif 37031. (Contributed by BJ, 20-Sep-2019.) (Proof modification is discouraged.)
⊢ if(𝜑, 𝐴, 𝐵) = {𝑥 ∣ if-(𝜑, 𝑥 ∈ 𝐴, 𝑥 ∈ 𝐵)}
Theorem	bj-dfif 37031*	Alternate definition of the conditional operator for classes, which used to be the main definition. (Contributed by BJ, 26-Dec-2023.) (Proof modification is discouraged.)
⊢ if(𝜑, 𝐴, 𝐵) = {𝑥 ∣ ((𝜑 ∧ 𝑥 ∈ 𝐴) ∨ (¬ 𝜑 ∧ 𝑥 ∈ 𝐵))}
Theorem	bj-ififc 37032	A biconditional connecting the conditional operator for propositions and the conditional operator for classes. Note that there is no sethood hypothesis on 𝑋: it is implied by either side. (Contributed by BJ, 24-Sep-2019.) Generalize statement from setvar 𝑥 to class 𝑋. (Revised by BJ, 26-Dec-2023.)
⊢ (𝑋 ∈ if(𝜑, 𝐴, 𝐵) ↔ if-(𝜑, 𝑋 ∈ 𝐴, 𝑋 ∈ 𝐵))
21.19.1.9  Propositional calculus: miscellaneous Miscellaneous theorems of propositional calculus.
Theorem	bj-imbi12 37033	Uncurried (imported) form of imbi12 349. (Contributed by BJ, 6-May-2019.)
⊢ (((𝜑 ↔ 𝜓) ∧ (𝜒 ↔ 𝜃)) → ((𝜑 → 𝜒) ↔ (𝜓 → 𝜃)))
Theorem	bj-falor 37034	Dual of truan 1574 (which has biconditional reversed). (Contributed by BJ, 26-Oct-2019.) (Proof modification is discouraged.)
⊢ (𝜑 ↔ (⊥ ∨ 𝜑))
Theorem	bj-falor2 37035	Dual of truan 1574. (Contributed by BJ, 26-Oct-2019.) (Proof modification is discouraged.)
⊢ ((⊥ ∨ 𝜑) ↔ 𝜑)
Theorem	bj-bibibi 37036	A property of the biconditional. (Contributed by BJ, 26-Oct-2019.) (Proof modification is discouraged.)
⊢ (𝜑 ↔ (𝜓 ↔ (𝜑 ↔ 𝜓)))
Theorem	bj-imn3ani 37037	Duplication of bnj1224 35101. Three-fold version of imnani 405. (Contributed by Jonathan Ben-Naim, 3-Jun-2011.) (Revised by BJ, 22-Oct-2019.) (Proof modification is discouraged.)
⊢ ¬ (𝜑 ∧ 𝜓 ∧ 𝜒)    ⇒   ⊢ ((𝜑 ∧ 𝜓) → ¬ 𝜒)
Theorem	bj-andnotim 37038	Two ways of expressing a certain ternary connective. Note the respective positions of the three formulas on each side of the biconditional. (Contributed by BJ, 6-Oct-2018.)
⊢ (((𝜑 ∧ ¬ 𝜓) → 𝜒) ↔ ((𝜑 → 𝜓) ∨ 𝜒))
Theorem	bj-bi3ant 37039	This used to be in the main part. (Contributed by Wolf Lammen, 14-May-2013.) (Revised by BJ, 14-Jun-2019.)
⊢ (𝜑 → (𝜓 → 𝜒))    ⇒   ⊢ (((𝜃 → 𝜏) → 𝜑) → (((𝜏 → 𝜃) → 𝜓) → ((𝜃 ↔ 𝜏) → 𝜒)))
Theorem	bj-bisym 37040	This used to be in the main part. (Contributed by Wolf Lammen, 14-May-2013.) (Revised by BJ, 14-Jun-2019.)
⊢ (((𝜑 → 𝜓) → (𝜒 → 𝜃)) → (((𝜓 → 𝜑) → (𝜃 → 𝜒)) → ((𝜑 ↔ 𝜓) → (𝜒 ↔ 𝜃))))
Theorem	bj-bixor 37041	Equivalence of two ternary operations. Note the identical order and parenthesizing of the three arguments in both expressions. (Contributed by BJ, 31-Dec-2023.)
⊢ ((𝜑 ↔ (𝜓 ⊻ 𝜒)) ↔ (𝜑 ⊻ (𝜓 ↔ 𝜒)))
21.19.2  Modal logic In this section, we prove some theorems related to modal logic. For modal logic, we refer to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kripke_semantics, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modal_logic and https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/logic-modal/. Monadic first-order logic (i.e., with quantification over only one variable) is bi-interpretable with modal logic, by mapping ∀𝑥 to "necessity" (generally denoted by a box) and ∃𝑥 to "possibility" (generally denoted by a diamond). Therefore, we use these quantifiers so as not to introduce new symbols. (To be strictly within modal logic, we should add disjoint variable conditions between 𝑥 and any other metavariables appearing in the statements.) For instance, ax-gen 1818 corresponds to the necessitation rule of modal logic, and ax-4 1832 corresponds to the distributivity axiom (K) of modal logic, also called the Kripke scheme. Modal logics satisfying these rule and axiom are called "normal modal logics", of which the most important modal logics are. The minimal normal modal logic is also denoted by (K). Here are a few normal modal logics with their axiomatizations (on top of (K)): (K) axiomatized by no supplementary axioms; (T) axiomatized by the axiom T; (K4) axiomatized by the axiom 4; (S4) axiomatized by the axioms T,4; (S5) axiomatized by the axioms T,5 or D,B,4; (GL) axiomatized by the axiom GL. The last one, called Gödel–Löb logic or provability logic, is important because it describes exactly the properties of provability in Peano arithmetic, as proved by Robert Solovay. See for instance https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/logic-provability/ 1832. A basic result in this logic is bj-gl4 37045.
Theorem	bj-axdd2 37042	This implication, proved using only ax-gen 1818 and ax-4 1832 on top of propositional calculus (hence holding, up to the standard interpretation, in any normal modal logic), shows that the axiom scheme ⊢ ∃𝑥⊤ implies the axiom scheme ⊢ (∀𝑥𝜑 → ∃𝑥𝜑). These correspond to the modal axiom (D), and in predicate calculus, they assert that the universe of discourse is nonempty. For the converse, see bj-axd2d 37043. (Contributed by BJ, 16-May-2019.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) (New usage is discouraged.)
⊢ (∃𝑥𝜑 → (∀𝑥𝜓 → ∃𝑥𝜓))
Theorem	bj-axd2d 37043	This implication, proved using only ax-gen 1818 on top of propositional calculus (hence holding, up to the standard interpretation, in any modal logic), shows that the axiom scheme ⊢ (∀𝑥𝜑 → ∃𝑥𝜑) implies the axiom scheme ⊢ ∃𝑥⊤ (substitute ⊤ for 𝜑). These correspond to the modal axiom (D), and in predicate calculus, they assert that the universe of discourse is nonempty. For the converse, see bj-axdd2 37042. (Contributed by BJ, 16-May-2019.) Generalize from its instance with ⊤ substituted for 𝜑. (Revised by BJ, 20-Mar-2022.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) (New usage is discouraged.)
⊢ ((∀𝑥⊤ → ∃𝑥𝜑) → ∃𝑥𝜑)
Theorem	bj-axtd 37044	This implication, proved from propositional calculus only (hence holding, up to the standard interpretation, in any modal logic), shows that the axiom scheme ⊢ (∀𝑥𝜑 → 𝜑) (modal T) implies the axiom scheme ⊢ (∀𝑥𝜑 → ∃𝑥𝜑) (modal D). See also bj-axdd2 37042 and bj-axd2d 37043. (Contributed by BJ, 16-May-2019.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) (New usage is discouraged.)
⊢ ((∀𝑥 ¬ 𝜑 → ¬ 𝜑) → ((∀𝑥𝜑 → 𝜑) → (∀𝑥𝜑 → ∃𝑥𝜑)))
Theorem	bj-gl4 37045	In a normal modal logic, the modal axiom GL implies the modal axiom (4). Translated to first-order logic, Axiom GL reads ⊢ (∀𝑥(∀𝑥𝜑 → 𝜑) → ∀𝑥𝜑). Note that the antecedent of bj-gl4 37045 is an instance of the axiom GL, with 𝜑 replaced by (∀𝑥𝜑 ∧ 𝜑), which is a modality sometimes called the "strong necessity" of 𝜑. (Contributed by BJ, 12-Dec-2019.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) (New usage is discouraged.)
⊢ ((∀𝑥(∀𝑥(∀𝑥𝜑 ∧ 𝜑) → (∀𝑥𝜑 ∧ 𝜑)) → ∀𝑥(∀𝑥𝜑 ∧ 𝜑)) → (∀𝑥𝜑 → ∀𝑥∀𝑥𝜑))
Theorem	bj-axc4 37046	Over minimal calculus, the modal axiom (4) (hba1 2330) and the modal axiom (K) (ax-4 1832) together imply axc4 2356. (Contributed by BJ, 29-Nov-2020.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) (New usage is discouraged.)
⊢ ((∀𝑥𝜑 → ∀𝑥∀𝑥𝜑) → ((∀𝑥(∀𝑥𝜑 → 𝜓) → (∀𝑥∀𝑥𝜑 → ∀𝑥𝜓)) → (∀𝑥(∀𝑥𝜑 → 𝜓) → (∀𝑥𝜑 → ∀𝑥𝜓))))
21.19.3  Provability logic In this section, we assume that, on top of propositional calculus, there is given a provability predicate Prv satisfying the three axioms ax-prv1 37048 and ax-prv2 37049 and ax-prv3 37050. Note the similarity with ax-gen 1818, ax-4 1832 and hba1 2330 respectively. These three properties of Prv are often called the Hilbert–Bernays–Löb derivability conditions, or the Hilbert–Bernays provability conditions. This corresponds to the modal logic (K4) (see previous section for modal logic). The interpretation of provability logic is the following: we are given a background first-order theory T, the wff Prv 𝜑 means "𝜑 is provable in T", and the turnstile ⊢ indicates provability in T. Beware that "provability logic" often means (K) augmented with the Gödel–Löb axiom GL, which we do not assume here (at least for the moment). See for instance https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/logic-provability/ 2330. Provability logic is worth studying because whenever T is a first-order theory containing Robinson arithmetic (a fragment of Peano arithmetic), one can prove (using Gödel numbering, and in the much weaker primitive recursive arithmetic) that there exists in T a provability predicate Prv satisfying the above three axioms. (We do not construct this predicate in this section; this is still a project.) The main theorems of this section are the "easy parts" of the proofs of Gödel's second incompleteness theorem (bj-babygodel 37053) and Löb's theorem (bj-babylob 37054). See the comments of these theorems for details.
Syntax	cprvb 37047	Syntax for the provability predicate.
wff Prv 𝜑
Axiom	ax-prv1 37048	First property of three of the provability predicate. (Contributed by BJ, 3-Apr-2019.)
⊢ 𝜑    ⇒   ⊢ Prv 𝜑
Axiom	ax-prv2 37049	Second property of three of the provability predicate. (Contributed by BJ, 3-Apr-2019.)
⊢ (Prv (𝜑 → 𝜓) → (Prv 𝜑 → Prv 𝜓))
Axiom	ax-prv3 37050	Third property of three of the provability predicate. (Contributed by BJ, 3-Apr-2019.)
⊢ (Prv 𝜑 → Prv Prv 𝜑)
Theorem	prvlem1 37051	An elementary property of the provability predicate. (Contributed by BJ, 3-Apr-2019.)
⊢ (𝜑 → 𝜓)    ⇒   ⊢ (Prv 𝜑 → Prv 𝜓)
Theorem	prvlem2 37052	An elementary property of the provability predicate. (Contributed by BJ, 3-Apr-2019.)
⊢ (𝜑 → (𝜓 → 𝜒))    ⇒   ⊢ (Prv 𝜑 → (Prv 𝜓 → Prv 𝜒))
Theorem	bj-babygodel 37053	See the section header comments for the context. The first hypothesis reads "𝜑 is true if and only if it is not provable in T" (and having this first hypothesis means that we can prove this fact in T). The wff 𝜑 is a formal version of the sentence "This sentence is not provable". The hard part of the proof of Gödel's theorem is to construct such a 𝜑, called a "Gödel–Rosser sentence", for a first-order theory T which is effectively axiomatizable and contains Robinson arithmetic, through Gödel diagonalization (this can be done in primitive recursive arithmetic). The second hypothesis means that ⊥ is not provable in T, that is, that the theory T is consistent (and having this second hypothesis means that we can prove in T that the theory T is consistent). The conclusion is the falsity, so having the conclusion means that T can prove the falsity, that is, T is inconsistent. Therefore, taking the contrapositive, this theorem expresses that if a first-order theory is consistent (and one can prove in it that some formula is true if and only if it is not provable in it), then this theory does not prove its own consistency. This proof is due to George Boolos, Gödel's Second Incompleteness Theorem Explained in Words of One Syllable, Mind, New Series, Vol. 103, No. 409 (January 1994), pp. 1--3. (Contributed by BJ, 3-Apr-2019.)
⊢ (𝜑 ↔ ¬ Prv 𝜑)    &   ⊢ ¬ Prv ⊥    ⇒   ⊢ ⊥
Theorem	bj-babylob 37054	See the section header comments for the context, as well as the comments for bj-babygodel 37053. Löb's theorem when the Löb sentence is given as a hypothesis (the hard part of the proof of Löb's theorem is to construct this Löb sentence; this can be done, using Gödel diagonalization, for any first-order effectively axiomatizable theory containing Robinson arithmetic). More precisely, the present theorem states that if a first-order theory proves that the provability of a given sentence entails its truth (and if one can construct in this theory a provability predicate and a Löb sentence, given here as the first hypothesis), then the theory actually proves that sentence. See for instance, Eliezer Yudkowsky, The Cartoon Guide to Löb's Theorem (available at http://yudkowsky.net/rational/lobs-theorem/ 37053). (Contributed by BJ, 20-Apr-2019.)
⊢ (𝜓 ↔ (Prv 𝜓 → 𝜑))    &   ⊢ (Prv 𝜑 → 𝜑)    ⇒   ⊢ 𝜑
Theorem	bj-godellob 37055	Proof of Gödel's theorem from Löb's theorem (see comments at bj-babygodel 37053 and bj-babylob 37054 for details). (Contributed by BJ, 20-Apr-2019.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) (New usage is discouraged.)
⊢ (𝜑 ↔ ¬ Prv 𝜑)    &   ⊢ ¬ Prv ⊥    ⇒   ⊢ ⊥
21.19.4  First-order logic Utility lemmas or strengthenings of theorems in the main part (biconditional or closed forms, or fewer disjoint variable conditions, or disjoint variable conditions replaced with nonfreeness hypotheses...). Sorted in the same order as in the main part.
21.19.4.1  Universal and existential quantifiers, nonfreeness predicate
Theorem	bj-exexalal 37056	A lemma for changing bound variables. Only the forward implication is intuitionistic. (Contributed by BJ, 14-Mar-2026.)
⊢ ((∃𝑥𝜑 → ∃𝑦𝜓) ↔ (∀𝑦 ¬ 𝜓 → ∀𝑥 ¬ 𝜑))
21.19.4.2  Adding ax-gen
Theorem	bj-genr 37057	Generalization rule on the right conjunct. See 19.28 2266. (Contributed by BJ, 7-Jul-2021.)
⊢ (𝜑 ∧ 𝜓)    ⇒   ⊢ (𝜑 ∧ ∀𝑥𝜓)
Theorem	bj-genl 37058	Generalization rule on the left conjunct. See 19.27 2265. (Contributed by BJ, 7-Jul-2021.)
⊢ (𝜑 ∧ 𝜓)    ⇒   ⊢ (∀𝑥𝜑 ∧ 𝜓)
Theorem	bj-genan 37059	Generalization rule on a conjunction. Forward inference associated with 19.26 1893. (Contributed by BJ, 7-Jul-2021.)
⊢ (𝜑 ∧ 𝜓)    ⇒   ⊢ (∀𝑥𝜑 ∧ ∀𝑥𝜓)
Theorem	bj-mpgs 37060	From a closed form theorem (the major premise) with an antecedent in the "strong necessity" modality (in the language of modal logic), deduce the associated inference. Strong necessity is stronger than necessity, and equivalent to it when sp 2221 (modal T) is available. Therefore, this theorem is stronger than mpg 1820, and strictly stronger when sp 2221 is not available. (Contributed by BJ, 1-Nov-2023.)
⊢ ((𝜑 ∧ ∀𝑥𝜑) → 𝜓)    &   ⊢ 𝜑    ⇒   ⊢ 𝜓
21.19.4.3  Adding ax-4
Theorem	bj-almp 37061	A quantified form of ax-mp 5. See also barbara 2692, bj-ala1i 37068, bj-almpi 37069. (Contributed by BJ, 19-Mar-2026.)
⊢ ∀𝑥(𝜓 → 𝜑)    &   ⊢ ∀𝑥𝜓    ⇒   ⊢ ∀𝑥𝜑
Theorem	bj-sylggt 37062	Stronger form of sylgt 1845, closer to ax-2 7. (Contributed by BJ, 30-Jul-2025.)
⊢ ((𝜑 → ∀𝑥(𝜓 → 𝜒)) → ((𝜑 → ∀𝑥𝜓) → (𝜑 → ∀𝑥𝜒)))
Theorem	bj-alrimg 37063	The general form of the *alrim* family of theorems: if 𝜑 is substituted for 𝜓, then the antecedent expresses a form of nonfreeness of 𝑥 in 𝜑, so the theorem means that under a nonfreeness condition in an antecedent, one can deduce from the universally quantified implication an implication where the consequent is universally quantified. Dual of bj-exlimg 37085. (Contributed by BJ, 9-Dec-2023.)
⊢ ((𝜑 → ∀𝑥𝜓) → (∀𝑥(𝜓 → 𝜒) → (𝜑 → ∀𝑥𝜒)))
Theorem	bj-sylgt2 37064	Uncurried (imported) form of sylgt 1845. (Contributed by BJ, 2-May-2019.)
⊢ ((∀𝑥(𝜓 → 𝜒) ∧ (𝜑 → ∀𝑥𝜓)) → (𝜑 → ∀𝑥𝜒))
Theorem	bj-nexdh 37065	Closed form of nexdh 1888 (actually, its general instance). (Contributed by BJ, 6-May-2019.)
⊢ (∀𝑥(𝜑 → ¬ 𝜓) → ((𝜒 → ∀𝑥𝜑) → (𝜒 → ¬ ∃𝑥𝜓)))
Theorem	bj-nexdh2 37066	Uncurried (imported) form of bj-nexdh 37065. (Contributed by BJ, 6-May-2019.)
⊢ ((∀𝑥(𝜑 → ¬ 𝜓) ∧ (𝜒 → ∀𝑥𝜑)) → (𝜒 → ¬ ∃𝑥𝜓))
Theorem	bj-alimii 37067	Inference associated with alimi 1834. Double inference associated with alim 1833. The usual proof of an associated inference (here from alimi 1834 and ax-mp 5) has the same size and same number of steps. (Contributed by BJ, 19-Mar-2026.)
⊢ (𝜓 → 𝜑)    &   ⊢ ∀𝑥𝜓    ⇒   ⊢ ∀𝑥𝜑
Theorem	bj-ala1i 37068	Add an antecedent in a universally quantified formula. Inference associated with ala1 1836. (Contributed by BJ, 6-Oct-2018.)
⊢ ∀𝑥𝜑    ⇒   ⊢ ∀𝑥(𝜓 → 𝜑)
Theorem	bj-almpi 37069	A quantified form of mpi 21. See also barbara 2692, bj-ala1i 37068, bj-almp 37061. (Contributed by BJ, 19-Mar-2026.)
⊢ ∀𝑥(𝜑 → (𝜒 → 𝜓))    &   ⊢ ∀𝑥𝜒    ⇒   ⊢ ∀𝑥(𝜑 → 𝜓)
Theorem	bj-almpig 37070	A partially quantified form of mpi 21 similar to bj-almpi 37069. (Contributed by BJ, 19-Mar-2026.)
⊢ (𝜑 → (𝜒 → 𝜓))    &   ⊢ ∀𝑥𝜒    ⇒   ⊢ ∀𝑥(𝜑 → 𝜓)
Theorem	bj-alsyl 37071	Syllogism under the universal quantifier, in the curried form appearing as Theorem *10.3 of [WhiteheadRussell] p. 145. See alsyl 1916 for the uncurried form. (Contributed by BJ, 28-Mar-2026.)
⊢ (∀𝑥(𝜑 → 𝜓) → (∀𝑥(𝜓 → 𝜒) → ∀𝑥(𝜑 → 𝜒)))
Theorem	bj-2alim 37072	Closed form of 2alimi 1835. (Contributed by BJ, 6-May-2019.)
⊢ (∀𝑥∀𝑦(𝜑 → 𝜓) → (∀𝑥∀𝑦𝜑 → ∀𝑥∀𝑦𝜓))
Theorem	bj-alimdh 37073	General instance of alimdh 1840. (Contributed by NM, 4-Jan-2002.) State the most general derivable instance. (Revised by BJ, 5-Apr-2026.)
⊢ (𝜑 → ∀𝑥𝜓)    &   ⊢ (𝜓 → (𝜒 → 𝜃))    ⇒   ⊢ (𝜑 → (∀𝑥𝜒 → ∀𝑥𝜃))
Theorem	bj-alrimdh 37074	Deduction form of Theorem 19.21 of [Margaris] p. 90, see 19.21 2245 and 19.21h 2324. (Contributed by NM, 10-Feb-1997.) (Proof shortened by Andrew Salmon, 13-May-2011.) State the most general derivable instance. (Revised by BJ, 5-Apr-2026.)
⊢ (𝜑 → ∀𝑥𝜓)    &   ⊢ (𝜒 → ∀𝑥𝜃)    &   ⊢ (𝜓 → (𝜃 → 𝜏))    ⇒   ⊢ (𝜑 → (𝜒 → ∀𝑥𝜏))
Theorem	bj-alrimd 37075	A slightly more general alrimd 2253. A common usage will have 𝜑 substituted for 𝜓 and 𝜒 substituted for 𝜃, giving a form closer to alrimd 2253. (Contributed by BJ, 25-Dec-2023.)
⊢ (𝜑 → ∀𝑥𝜓)    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → (𝜒 → ∀𝑥𝜃))    &   ⊢ (𝜓 → (𝜃 → 𝜏))    ⇒   ⊢ (𝜑 → (𝜒 → ∀𝑥𝜏))
Theorem	bj-exa1i 37076	Add an antecedent in an existentially quantified formula. Inference associated with exa1 1861. (Contributed by BJ, 6-Oct-2018.)
⊢ ∃𝑥𝜑    ⇒   ⊢ ∃𝑥(𝜓 → 𝜑)
Theorem	bj-alanim 37077	Closed form of alanimi 1839. (Contributed by BJ, 6-May-2019.)
⊢ (∀𝑥((𝜑 ∧ 𝜓) → 𝜒) → ((∀𝑥𝜑 ∧ ∀𝑥𝜓) → ∀𝑥𝜒))
Theorem	bj-2albi 37078	Closed form of 2albii 1843. (Contributed by BJ, 6-May-2019.)
⊢ (∀𝑥∀𝑦(𝜑 ↔ 𝜓) → (∀𝑥∀𝑦𝜑 ↔ ∀𝑥∀𝑦𝜓))
Theorem	bj-notalbii 37079	Equivalence of universal quantification of negation of equivalent formulas. Shortens ab0 4336 (103>94), ballotlem2 34791 (2655>2648), bnj1143 35090 (522>519), hausdiag 23759 (2119>2104). (Contributed by BJ, 17-Jul-2021.)
⊢ (𝜑 ↔ 𝜓)    ⇒   ⊢ (∀𝑥 ¬ 𝜑 ↔ ∀𝑥 ¬ 𝜓)
Theorem	bj-2exim 37080	Closed form of 2eximi 1859. (Contributed by BJ, 6-May-2019.)
⊢ (∀𝑥∀𝑦(𝜑 → 𝜓) → (∃𝑥∃𝑦𝜑 → ∃𝑥∃𝑦𝜓))
Theorem	bj-2exbi 37081	Closed form of 2exbii 1872. (Contributed by BJ, 6-May-2019.)
⊢ (∀𝑥∀𝑦(𝜑 ↔ 𝜓) → (∃𝑥∃𝑦𝜑 ↔ ∃𝑥∃𝑦𝜓))
Theorem	bj-3exbi 37082	Closed form of 3exbii 1873. (Contributed by BJ, 6-May-2019.)
⊢ (∀𝑥∀𝑦∀𝑧(𝜑 ↔ 𝜓) → (∃𝑥∃𝑦∃𝑧𝜑 ↔ ∃𝑥∃𝑦∃𝑧𝜓))
Theorem	bj-sylget 37083	Dual statement of sylgt 1845. Closed form of bj-sylge 37086. (Contributed by BJ, 2-May-2019.)
⊢ (∀𝑥(𝜒 → 𝜑) → ((∃𝑥𝜑 → 𝜓) → (∃𝑥𝜒 → 𝜓)))
Theorem	bj-sylget2 37084	Uncurried (imported) form of bj-sylget 37083. (Contributed by BJ, 2-May-2019.)
⊢ ((∀𝑥(𝜑 → 𝜓) ∧ (∃𝑥𝜓 → 𝜒)) → (∃𝑥𝜑 → 𝜒))
Theorem	bj-exlimg 37085	The general form of the *exlim* family of theorems: if 𝜑 is substituted for 𝜓, then the antecedent expresses a form of nonfreeness of 𝑥 in 𝜑, so the theorem means that under a nonfreeness condition in a consequent, one can deduce from the universally quantified implication an implication where the antecedent is existentially quantified. Dual of bj-alrimg 37063. (Contributed by BJ, 9-Dec-2023.)
⊢ ((∃𝑥𝜑 → 𝜓) → (∀𝑥(𝜒 → 𝜑) → (∃𝑥𝜒 → 𝜓)))
Theorem	bj-sylge 37086	Dual statement of sylg 1846 (the final "e" in the label stands for "existential (version of sylg 1846)". Variant of exlimih 2326. (Contributed by BJ, 25-Dec-2023.)
⊢ (∃𝑥𝜑 → 𝜓)    &   ⊢ (𝜒 → 𝜑)    ⇒   ⊢ (∃𝑥𝜒 → 𝜓)
Theorem	bj-exlimd 37087	A slightly more general exlimd 2256. A common usage will have 𝜑 substituted for 𝜓 and 𝜃 substituted for 𝜏, giving a form closer to exlimd 2256. (Contributed by BJ, 25-Dec-2023.)
⊢ (𝜑 → ∀𝑥𝜓)    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → (∃𝑥𝜃 → 𝜏))    &   ⊢ (𝜓 → (𝜒 → 𝜃))    ⇒   ⊢ (𝜑 → (∃𝑥𝜒 → 𝜏))
Theorem	bj-nfimexal 37088	A weak from of nonfreeness in either an antecedent or a consequent implies that a universally quantified implication is equivalent to the associated implication where the antecedent is existentially quantified and the consequent is universally quantified. The forward implication always holds (this is 19.38 1862) and the converse implication is the join of instances of bj-alrimg 37063 and bj-exlimg 37085 (see 19.38a 1863 and 19.38b 1864). TODO: prove a version where the antecedents use the nonfreeness quantifier. (Contributed by BJ, 9-Dec-2023.)
⊢ (((∃𝑥𝜑 → ∀𝑥𝜑) ∨ (∃𝑥𝜓 → ∀𝑥𝜓)) → ((∃𝑥𝜑 → ∀𝑥𝜓) ↔ ∀𝑥(𝜑 → 𝜓)))
Theorem	bj-exim 37089	Theorem 19.22 of [Margaris] p. 90. (Contributed by NM, 10-Jan-1993.) (Proof shortened by Wolf Lammen, 4-Jul-2014.) Prove it directly from alim 1833 to allow use in bj-alexim 37090. (Revised by BJ, 9-Dec-2023.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) (New usage is discouraged.)
⊢ (∀𝑥(𝜑 → 𝜓) → (∃𝑥𝜑 → ∃𝑥𝜓))
Theorem	bj-alexim 37090	Closed form of aleximi 1855. Note: this proof is shorter, so aleximi 1855 could be deduced from it (exim 1857 would have to be proved first, see bj-exim 37089). (Contributed by BJ, 8-Nov-2021.)
⊢ (∀𝑥(𝜑 → (𝜓 → 𝜒)) → (∀𝑥𝜑 → (∃𝑥𝜓 → ∃𝑥𝜒)))
Theorem	bj-aleximiALT 37091	Alternate proof of aleximi 1855 from exim 1857, which is sometimes used as an axiom in instuitionistic modal logic. (Contributed by BJ, 9-Dec-2023.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) (New usage is discouraged.)
⊢ (𝜑 → (𝜓 → 𝜒))    ⇒   ⊢ (∀𝑥𝜑 → (∃𝑥𝜓 → ∃𝑥𝜒))
Theorem	bj-hbxfrbi 37092	Closed form of hbxfrbi 1848. Note: it is less important than nfbiit 1874. The antecedent is in the "strong necessity" modality of modal logic (see also bj-nnftht 37225) in order not to require sp 2221 (modal T). See bj-hbyfrbi 37093 for its version with existential quantifiers. (Contributed by BJ, 6-May-2019.)
⊢ (((𝜑 ↔ 𝜓) ∧ ∀𝑥(𝜑 ↔ 𝜓)) → ((𝜑 → ∀𝑥𝜑) ↔ (𝜓 → ∀𝑥𝜓)))
Theorem	bj-hbyfrbi 37093	Version of bj-hbxfrbi 37092 with existential quantifiers. (Contributed by BJ, 23-Aug-2023.)
⊢ (((𝜑 ↔ 𝜓) ∧ ∀𝑥(𝜑 ↔ 𝜓)) → ((∃𝑥𝜑 → 𝜑) ↔ (∃𝑥𝜓 → 𝜓)))
Theorem	bj-exalim 37094	Distribute quantifiers over a nested implication. This and the following theorems are the general instances of already proved theorems. They could be moved to the main part, before ax-5 1933. I propose to move to the main part: bj-exalim 37094, bj-exalimi 37095, bj-eximcom 37096 bj-exalims 37097, bj-exalimsi 37098, bj-ax12i 37101, bj-ax12wlem 37124, bj-ax12w 37157. A new label is needed for bj-ax12i 37101 and label suggestions are welcome for the others. I also propose to change ¬ ∀𝑥¬ to ∃𝑥 in speimfw 1986 and spimfw 1988 (other spim* theorems use ∃𝑥 and very few theorems in set.mm use ¬ ∀𝑥¬). (Contributed by BJ, 8-Nov-2021.)
⊢ (∀𝑥(𝜑 → (𝜓 → 𝜒)) → (∃𝑥𝜑 → (∀𝑥𝜓 → ∃𝑥𝜒)))
Theorem	bj-exalimi 37095	An inference for distributing quantifiers over a nested implication. The canonical derivation from its closed form bj-exalim 37094 (using mpg 1820) has fewer essential steps, but more steps in total (yielding a longer compressed proof). (Almost) the general statement that speimfw 1986 proves. (Contributed by BJ, 29-Sep-2019.)
⊢ (𝜑 → (𝜓 → 𝜒))    ⇒   ⊢ (∃𝑥𝜑 → (∀𝑥𝜓 → ∃𝑥𝜒))
Theorem	bj-eximcom 37096	A commuted form of exim 1857 which is sometimes posited as an axiom in instuitionistic modal logic. Forward implication of 19.35 1900. Its converse is not intuitionistic. (Contributed by BJ, 9-Dec-2023.)
⊢ (∃𝑥(𝜑 → 𝜓) → (∀𝑥𝜑 → ∃𝑥𝜓))
Theorem	bj-exalims 37097	Distributing quantifiers over a nested implication. (Almost) the general statement that spimfw 1988 proves. (Contributed by BJ, 29-Sep-2019.)
⊢ (∃𝑥𝜑 → (¬ 𝜒 → ∀𝑥 ¬ 𝜒))    ⇒   ⊢ (∀𝑥(𝜑 → (𝜓 → 𝜒)) → (∃𝑥𝜑 → (∀𝑥𝜓 → 𝜒)))
Theorem	bj-exalimsi 37098	An inference for distributing quantifiers over a nested implication. (Almost) the general statement that spimfw 1988 proves. (Contributed by BJ, 29-Sep-2019.)
⊢ (𝜑 → (𝜓 → 𝜒))    &   ⊢ (∃𝑥𝜑 → (¬ 𝜒 → ∀𝑥 ¬ 𝜒))    ⇒   ⊢ (∃𝑥𝜑 → (∀𝑥𝜓 → 𝜒))
Theorem	bj-axdd2ALT 37099	Alternate proof of bj-axdd2 37042 (this should replace bj-axdd2 37042 when bj-exalimi 37095 is moved to the main section). (Contributed by BJ, 8-Mar-2026.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) (New usage is discouraged.)
⊢ (∃𝑥𝜑 → (∀𝑥𝜓 → ∃𝑥𝜓))
Theorem	bj-ax12ig 37100	A lemma used to prove a weak form of the axiom of substitution. A generalization of bj-ax12i 37101. (Contributed by BJ, 19-Dec-2020.)
⊢ (𝜑 → (𝜓 ↔ 𝜒))    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → (𝜒 → ∀𝑥𝜒))    ⇒   ⊢ (𝜑 → (𝜓 → ∀𝑥(𝜑 → 𝜓)))