P. 372 of Theorem List - Metamath Proof Explorer

Theorem List for Metamath Proof Explorer - 37101-37200   *Has distinct variable group(s)

Type	Label	Description
Statement
Theorem	knoppndv 37101*	The continuous nowhere differentiable function 𝑊 ( Knopp, K. (1918). Math. Z. 2, 1-26 ) is, in fact, nowhere differentiable. (Contributed by Asger C. Ipsen, 19-Aug-2021.)
⊢ 𝑇 = (𝑥 ∈ ℝ ↦ (abs‘((⌊‘(𝑥 + (1 / 2))) − 𝑥)))    &   ⊢ 𝐹 = (𝑦 ∈ ℝ ↦ (𝑛 ∈ ℕ0 ↦ ((𝐶↑𝑛) · (𝑇‘(((2 · 𝑁)↑𝑛) · 𝑦)))))    &   ⊢ 𝑊 = (𝑤 ∈ ℝ ↦ Σ𝑖 ∈ ℕ0 ((𝐹‘𝑤)‘𝑖))    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝐶 ∈ (-1(,)1))    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝑁 ∈ ℕ)    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → 1 < (𝑁 · (abs‘𝐶)))    ⇒   ⊢ (𝜑 → dom (ℝ D 𝑊) = ∅)
Theorem	knoppf 37102*	Knopp's function is a function. (Contributed by Asger C. Ipsen, 25-Aug-2021.)
⊢ 𝑇 = (𝑥 ∈ ℝ ↦ (abs‘((⌊‘(𝑥 + (1 / 2))) − 𝑥)))    &   ⊢ 𝐹 = (𝑦 ∈ ℝ ↦ (𝑛 ∈ ℕ0 ↦ ((𝐶↑𝑛) · (𝑇‘(((2 · 𝑁)↑𝑛) · 𝑦)))))    &   ⊢ 𝑊 = (𝑤 ∈ ℝ ↦ Σ𝑖 ∈ ℕ0 ((𝐹‘𝑤)‘𝑖))    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝐶 ∈ (-1(,)1))    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝑁 ∈ ℕ)    ⇒   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝑊:ℝ⟶ℝ)
Theorem	knoppcn2 37103*	Variant of knoppcn 37071 with different codomain. (Contributed by Asger C. Ipsen, 25-Aug-2021.)
⊢ 𝑇 = (𝑥 ∈ ℝ ↦ (abs‘((⌊‘(𝑥 + (1 / 2))) − 𝑥)))    &   ⊢ 𝐹 = (𝑦 ∈ ℝ ↦ (𝑛 ∈ ℕ0 ↦ ((𝐶↑𝑛) · (𝑇‘(((2 · 𝑁)↑𝑛) · 𝑦)))))    &   ⊢ 𝑊 = (𝑤 ∈ ℝ ↦ Σ𝑖 ∈ ℕ0 ((𝐹‘𝑤)‘𝑖))    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝑁 ∈ ℕ)    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝐶 ∈ (-1(,)1))    ⇒   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝑊 ∈ (ℝ–cn→ℝ))
Theorem	cnndvlem1 37104*	Lemma for cnndv 37106. (Contributed by Asger C. Ipsen, 25-Aug-2021.)
⊢ 𝑇 = (𝑥 ∈ ℝ ↦ (abs‘((⌊‘(𝑥 + (1 / 2))) − 𝑥)))    &   ⊢ 𝐹 = (𝑦 ∈ ℝ ↦ (𝑛 ∈ ℕ0 ↦ (((1 / 2)↑𝑛) · (𝑇‘(((2 · 3)↑𝑛) · 𝑦)))))    &   ⊢ 𝑊 = (𝑤 ∈ ℝ ↦ Σ𝑖 ∈ ℕ0 ((𝐹‘𝑤)‘𝑖))    ⇒   ⊢ (𝑊 ∈ (ℝ–cn→ℝ) ∧ dom (ℝ D 𝑊) = ∅)
Theorem	cnndvlem2 37105*	Lemma for cnndv 37106. (Contributed by Asger C. Ipsen, 26-Aug-2021.)
⊢ 𝑇 = (𝑥 ∈ ℝ ↦ (abs‘((⌊‘(𝑥 + (1 / 2))) − 𝑥)))    &   ⊢ 𝐹 = (𝑦 ∈ ℝ ↦ (𝑛 ∈ ℕ0 ↦ (((1 / 2)↑𝑛) · (𝑇‘(((2 · 3)↑𝑛) · 𝑦)))))    &   ⊢ 𝑊 = (𝑤 ∈ ℝ ↦ Σ𝑖 ∈ ℕ0 ((𝐹‘𝑤)‘𝑖))    ⇒   ⊢ ∃𝑓(𝑓 ∈ (ℝ–cn→ℝ) ∧ dom (ℝ D 𝑓) = ∅)
Theorem	cnndv 37106	There exists a continuous nowhere differentiable function. The result follows directly from knoppcn 37071 and knoppndv 37101. (Contributed by Asger C. Ipsen, 26-Aug-2021.)
⊢ ∃𝑓(𝑓 ∈ (ℝ–cn→ℝ) ∧ dom (ℝ D 𝑓) = ∅)
21.19  Mathbox for BJ In this mathbox, we try to respect the ordering of the sections of the main part. There are strengthenings of theorems of the main part, as well as work on reducing axiom dependencies.
21.19.1  Propositional calculus Miscellaneous utility theorems of propositional calculus.
21.19.1.1  Derived rules of inference In this section, we prove a few rules of inference derived from modus ponens ax-mp 5, and which do not depend on any other axioms.
Theorem	bj-mp2c 37107	A double modus ponens inference. Inference associated with mpd 16. (Contributed by BJ, 24-Sep-2019.)
⊢ (𝜑 → (𝜓 → 𝜒))    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝜓)    &   ⊢ 𝜑    ⇒   ⊢ 𝜒
Theorem	bj-mp2d 37108	A double modus ponens inference. Inference associated with mpcom 39. (Contributed by BJ, 24-Sep-2019.)
⊢ (𝜓 → (𝜑 → 𝜒))    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝜓)    &   ⊢ 𝜑    ⇒   ⊢ 𝜒
21.19.1.2  A syntactic theorem In this section, we prove a syntactic theorem (bj-0 37109) asserting that some formula is well-formed. Then, we use this syntactic theorem to shorten the proof of a "usual" theorem (bj-1 37110) and explain in the comment of that theorem why this phenomenon is unusual.
Theorem	bj-0 37109	A syntactic theorem. See the section comment and the comment of bj-1 37110. The full proof (that is, with the syntactic, non-essential steps) does not appear on this webpage. It has five steps and reads $= wph wps wi wch wi $. The only other syntactic theorems in the main part of set.mm are wel 2144 and weq 1992. (Contributed by BJ, 24-Sep-2019.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) (New usage is discouraged.)
wff ((𝜑 → 𝜓) → 𝜒)
Theorem	bj-1 37110	In this proof, the use of the syntactic theorem bj-0 37109 allows to reduce the total length by one (non-essential) step. See also the section comment and the comment of bj-0 37109. Since bj-0 37109 is used in a non-essential step, this use does not appear on this webpage (but the present theorem appears on the webpage for bj-0 37109 as a theorem referencing it). The full proof reads $= wph wps wch bj-0 id $. (while, without using bj-0 37109, it would read $= wph wps wi wch wi id $.). Now we explain why syntactic theorems are not useful in set.mm. Suppose that the syntactic theorem thm-0 proves that PHI is a well-formed formula, and that thm-0 is used to shorten the proof of thm-1. Assume that PHI does have proper non-atomic subformulas (which is not the case of the formula proved by weq 1992 or wel 2144). Then, the proof of thm-1 does not construct all the proper non-atomic subformulas of PHI (if it did, then using thm-0 would not shorten it). Therefore, thm-1 is a special instance of a more general theorem with essentially the same proof. In the present case, bj-1 37110 is a special instance of id 23. (Contributed by BJ, 24-Sep-2019.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) (New usage is discouraged.)
⊢ (((𝜑 → 𝜓) → 𝜒) → ((𝜑 → 𝜓) → 𝜒))
21.19.1.3  Minimal implicational calculus Minimal implicational calculus, or intuitionistic implicational calculus, is the logical calculus with axioms ax-mp 5, ax-1 6, ax-2 7.
Theorem	bj-poni 37111	Inference associated with "pon", pm2.27 43. Its associated inference is ax-mp 5. (Contributed by BJ, 30-Jul-2024.)
⊢ 𝜑    ⇒   ⊢ ((𝜑 → 𝜓) → 𝜓)
Theorem	bj-nnclav 37112	When ⊥ is substituted for 𝜓, this formula is the Clavius law with a doubly negated consequent, which is therefore a minimalistic tautology. Notice the non-intuitionistic proof from peirce 205 and pm2.27 43 chained using syl 18. (Contributed by BJ, 4-Dec-2023.)
⊢ (((𝜑 → 𝜓) → 𝜑) → ((𝜑 → 𝜓) → 𝜓))
Theorem	bj-nnclavi 37113	Inference associated with bj-nnclav 37112. Its associated inference is an instance of syl 18. Notice the non-intuitionistic proof from bj-peircei 37135 and bj-poni 37111. (Contributed by BJ, 30-Jul-2024.)
⊢ ((𝜑 → 𝜓) → 𝜑)    ⇒   ⊢ ((𝜑 → 𝜓) → 𝜓)
Theorem	bj-nnclavc 37114	Commuted form of bj-nnclav 37112. Notice the non-intuitionistic proof from bj-peircei 37135 and imim1i 64. (Contributed by BJ, 30-Jul-2024.) A proof which is shorter when compressed uses embantd 60. (Proof modification is discouraged.)
⊢ ((𝜑 → 𝜓) → (((𝜑 → 𝜓) → 𝜑) → 𝜓))
Theorem	bj-nnclavci 37115	Inference associated with bj-nnclavc 37114. Its associated inference is an instance of syl 18. Notice the non-intuitionistic proof from peirce 205 and syl 18. (Contributed by BJ, 30-Jul-2024.)
⊢ (𝜑 → 𝜓)    ⇒   ⊢ (((𝜑 → 𝜓) → 𝜑) → 𝜓)
Theorem	bj-jarrii 37116	Inference associated with jarri 108. Contrary to it, it does not require ax-2 7, but only ax-mp 5 and ax-1 6. (Contributed by BJ, 29-Mar-2020.) (Proof modification is discouraged.)
⊢ ((𝜑 → 𝜓) → 𝜒)    &   ⊢ 𝜓    ⇒   ⊢ 𝜒
Theorem	bj-imim21 37117	The propositional function (𝜑 → (. → 𝜓)) is decreasing. (Contributed by BJ, 19-Jul-2019.)
⊢ ((𝜑 → 𝜓) → ((𝜒 → (𝜓 → 𝜃)) → (𝜒 → (𝜑 → 𝜃))))
Theorem	bj-imim21i 37118	The propositional function (𝜑 → (. → 𝜓)) is decreasing. Its associated inference is syl5 35. (Contributed by BJ, 19-Jul-2019.)
⊢ (𝜑 → 𝜓)    ⇒   ⊢ ((𝜒 → (𝜓 → 𝜃)) → (𝜒 → (𝜑 → 𝜃)))
Theorem	bj-imim11 37119	The propositional function ((. → 𝜑) → 𝜓) is increasing. (Contributed by BJ, 3-Apr-2026.)
⊢ ((𝜑 → 𝜓) → (((𝜑 → 𝜒) → 𝜃) → ((𝜓 → 𝜒) → 𝜃)))
Theorem	bj-imim11i 37120	The propositional function ((. → 𝜑) → 𝜓) is increasing. Its associated inference is wl-syls2 38142. (Contributed by BJ, 3-Apr-2026.)
⊢ (𝜑 → 𝜓)    ⇒   ⊢ (((𝜑 → 𝜒) → 𝜃) → ((𝜓 → 𝜒) → 𝜃))
Theorem	bj-peircestab 37121	Over minimal implicational calculus, Peirce's law implies the double negation of the stability of any formula (that is the interpretation when ⊥ is substituted for 𝜓 and for 𝜒). Therefore, the double negation of the stability of any formula is provable in classical refutability calculus. It is also provable in intuitionistic calculus (see iset.mm/bj-nnst) but it is not provable in minimal calculus (see bj-stabpeirce 37122). (Contributed by BJ, 30-Nov-2023.) Axiom ax-3 8 is only used through Peirce's law peirce 205. (Proof modification is discouraged.)
⊢ (((((𝜑 → 𝜓) → 𝜒) → 𝜑) → 𝜒) → 𝜒)
Theorem	bj-stabpeirce 37122	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 37121). (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 37123	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 37124	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 37125	A mixed syllogism inference derived from imbitrdi 254. Shortens bj-dvelimdv1 37465, alexsubALTlem4 24188 (4821>4812), supsrlem 11097 (2868>2863). (Contributed by BJ, 20-Oct-2021.)
⊢ (𝜑 → (𝜓 → 𝜃))    &   ⊢ (𝜃 → 𝜏)    &   ⊢ (𝜏 ↔ 𝜒)    ⇒   ⊢ (𝜑 → (𝜓 → 𝜒))
Theorem	bj-orim2 37126	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 37127	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 37128. (Contributed by BJ, 15-Jun-2021.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) (New usage is discouraged.)
⊢ ((𝜑 ∨ (𝜑 → 𝜓)) → (((𝜑 → 𝜓) → 𝜑) → 𝜑))
Theorem	bj-peircecurry 37128	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 37127 for the converse. (Contributed by BJ, 15-Jun-2021.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) (New usage is discouraged.)
⊢ (𝜑 ∨ (𝜑 → 𝜓))
Theorem	bj-animbi 37129	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 37130	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 37131	A commuted form of the contrapositive, true in minimal calculus. (Contributed by BJ, 19-Mar-2020.)
⊢ (𝜑 → ((𝜓 → ¬ 𝜑) → ¬ 𝜓))
Theorem	bj-con2comi 37132	Inference associated with bj-con2com 37131. 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 37132. (Contributed by BJ, 19-Mar-2020.)
⊢ 𝜑    ⇒   ⊢ ((𝜓 → ¬ 𝜑) → ¬ 𝜓)
Theorem	bj-nimn 37133	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 37134	Inference associated with bj-nimn 37133. (Contributed by BJ, 19-Mar-2020.)
⊢ 𝜑    ⇒   ⊢ ¬ (𝜑 → ¬ 𝜑)
Theorem	bj-peircei 37135	Inference associated with peirce 205. (Contributed by BJ, 30-Mar-2020.)
⊢ ((𝜑 → 𝜓) → 𝜑)    ⇒   ⊢ 𝜑
Theorem	bj-looinvi 37136	Inference associated with looinv 206. Its associated inference is bj-looinvii 37137. (Contributed by BJ, 30-Mar-2020.)
⊢ ((𝜑 → 𝜓) → 𝜓)    ⇒   ⊢ ((𝜓 → 𝜑) → 𝜑)
Theorem	bj-looinvii 37137	Inference associated with bj-looinvi 37136. (Contributed by BJ, 30-Mar-2020.)
⊢ ((𝜑 → 𝜓) → 𝜓)    &   ⊢ (𝜓 → 𝜑)    ⇒   ⊢ 𝜑
Theorem	bj-mt2bi 37138	Version of mt2 203 where the major premise is a biconditional. Shortens fal 1584 (see bj-fal 37139) . 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 37139	Shortening of fal 1584 using bj-mt2bi 37138. (Contributed by Anthony Hart, 22-Oct-2010.) (Proof shortened by Mel L. O'Cat, 11-Mar-2012.) (Proof modification is discouraged.)
⊢ ¬ ⊥
Theorem	bj-ntrufal 37140	The negation of a theorem is equivalent to false. Shortens dfnul2 4290 (see bj-dfnul2 37141). (Contributed by BJ, 5-Oct-2024.)
⊢ 𝜑    ⇒   ⊢ (¬ 𝜑 ↔ ⊥)
Theorem	bj-dfnul2 37141	Alternate definition of the empty set. Definition 5.14 of [TakeutiZaring] p. 20. (Contributed by NM, 26-Dec-1996.) Remove dependency on ax-10 2176, ax-11 2192, and ax-12 2213. (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 37142	Shortens orfa2 38715 (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 37143	Shortens consensus 1068 (110>106), elnn0z 12605 (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 37144	Alternate definition of the biconditional. (Contributed by BJ, 4-Oct-2019.)
⊢ ((𝜑 ↔ 𝜓) ↔ ((𝜑 ∧ 𝜓) ∨ ¬ (𝜑 ∨ 𝜓)))
Theorem	bj-dfbi5 37145	Alternate definition of the biconditional. (Contributed by BJ, 4-Oct-2019.)
⊢ ((𝜑 ↔ 𝜓) ↔ ((𝜑 ∨ 𝜓) → (𝜑 ∧ 𝜓)))
Theorem	bj-dfbi6 37146	Alternate definition of the biconditional. (Contributed by BJ, 4-Oct-2019.)
⊢ ((𝜑 ↔ 𝜓) ↔ ((𝜑 ∨ 𝜓) ↔ (𝜑 ∧ 𝜓)))
Theorem	bj-bijust0ALT 37147	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 37148	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 37147 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 37149	Version of consensus 1068 expressed using the conditional operator. (Remark: it may be better to express it as consensus 1068, 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 37150	Alternate proof of bj-consensus 37149. (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 37151*	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 2742. We reprove the current df-if 4489 from it in bj-dfif 37152. (Contributed by BJ, 20-Sep-2019.) (Proof modification is discouraged.)
⊢ if(𝜑, 𝐴, 𝐵) = {𝑥 ∣ if-(𝜑, 𝑥 ∈ 𝐴, 𝑥 ∈ 𝐵)}
Theorem	bj-dfif 37152*	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 37153	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 37154	Uncurried (imported) form of imbi12 349. (Contributed by BJ, 6-May-2019.)
⊢ (((𝜑 ↔ 𝜓) ∧ (𝜒 ↔ 𝜃)) → ((𝜑 → 𝜒) ↔ (𝜓 → 𝜃)))
Theorem	bj-falor 37155	Dual of truan 1581 (which has biconditional reversed). (Contributed by BJ, 26-Oct-2019.) (Proof modification is discouraged.)
⊢ (𝜑 ↔ (⊥ ∨ 𝜑))
Theorem	bj-falor2 37156	Dual of truan 1581. (Contributed by BJ, 26-Oct-2019.) (Proof modification is discouraged.)
⊢ ((⊥ ∨ 𝜑) ↔ 𝜑)
Theorem	bj-bibibi 37157	A property of the biconditional. (Contributed by BJ, 26-Oct-2019.) (Proof modification is discouraged.)
⊢ (𝜑 ↔ (𝜓 ↔ (𝜑 ↔ 𝜓)))
Theorem	bj-imn3ani 37158	Duplication of bnj1224 35167. 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 37159	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 37160	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 37161	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 37162	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 1825 corresponds to the necessitation rule of modal logic, and ax-4 1839 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/ 1839. A basic result in this logic is bj-gl4 37166.
Theorem	bj-axdd2 37163	This implication, proved using only ax-gen 1825 and ax-4 1839 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 37164. (Contributed by BJ, 16-May-2019.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) (New usage is discouraged.)
⊢ (∃𝑥𝜑 → (∀𝑥𝜓 → ∃𝑥𝜓))
Theorem	bj-axd2d 37164	This implication, proved using only ax-gen 1825 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 37163. (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 37165	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 37163 and bj-axd2d 37164. (Contributed by BJ, 16-May-2019.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) (New usage is discouraged.)
⊢ ((∀𝑥 ¬ 𝜑 → ¬ 𝜑) → ((∀𝑥𝜑 → 𝜑) → (∀𝑥𝜑 → ∃𝑥𝜑)))
Theorem	bj-gl4 37166	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 37166 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 37167	Over minimal calculus, the modal axiom (4) (hba1 2328) and the modal axiom (K) (ax-4 1839) together imply axc4 2354. (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 37169 and ax-prv2 37170 and ax-prv3 37171. Note the similarity with ax-gen 1825, ax-4 1839 and hba1 2328 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/ 2328. 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 37174) and Löb's theorem (bj-babylob 37175). See the comments of these theorems for details.
Syntax	cprvb 37168	Syntax for the provability predicate.
wff Prv 𝜑
Axiom	ax-prv1 37169	First property of three of the provability predicate. (Contributed by BJ, 3-Apr-2019.)
⊢ 𝜑    ⇒   ⊢ Prv 𝜑
Axiom	ax-prv2 37170	Second property of three of the provability predicate. (Contributed by BJ, 3-Apr-2019.)
⊢ (Prv (𝜑 → 𝜓) → (Prv 𝜑 → Prv 𝜓))
Axiom	ax-prv3 37171	Third property of three of the provability predicate. (Contributed by BJ, 3-Apr-2019.)
⊢ (Prv 𝜑 → Prv Prv 𝜑)
Theorem	prvlem1 37172	An elementary property of the provability predicate. (Contributed by BJ, 3-Apr-2019.)
⊢ (𝜑 → 𝜓)    ⇒   ⊢ (Prv 𝜑 → Prv 𝜓)
Theorem	prvlem2 37173	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 37174	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 37175	See the section header comments for the context, as well as the comments for bj-babygodel 37174. 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/ 37174). (Contributed by BJ, 20-Apr-2019.)
⊢ (𝜓 ↔ (Prv 𝜓 → 𝜑))    &   ⊢ (Prv 𝜑 → 𝜑)    ⇒   ⊢ 𝜑
Theorem	bj-godellob 37176	Proof of Gödel's theorem from Löb's theorem (see comments at bj-babygodel 37174 and bj-babylob 37175 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 37177	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 37178	Generalization rule on the right conjunct. See 19.28 2264. (Contributed by BJ, 7-Jul-2021.)
⊢ (𝜑 ∧ 𝜓)    ⇒   ⊢ (𝜑 ∧ ∀𝑥𝜓)
Theorem	bj-genl 37179	Generalization rule on the left conjunct. See 19.27 2263. (Contributed by BJ, 7-Jul-2021.)
⊢ (𝜑 ∧ 𝜓)    ⇒   ⊢ (∀𝑥𝜑 ∧ 𝜓)
Theorem	bj-genan 37180	Generalization rule on a conjunction. Forward inference associated with 19.26 1900. (Contributed by BJ, 7-Jul-2021.)
⊢ (𝜑 ∧ 𝜓)    ⇒   ⊢ (∀𝑥𝜑 ∧ ∀𝑥𝜓)
Theorem	bj-mpgs 37181	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 2219 (modal T) is available. Therefore, this theorem is stronger than mpg 1827, and strictly stronger when sp 2219 is not available. (Contributed by BJ, 1-Nov-2023.)
⊢ ((𝜑 ∧ ∀𝑥𝜑) → 𝜓)    &   ⊢ 𝜑    ⇒   ⊢ 𝜓
21.19.4.3  Adding ax-4
Theorem	bj-almp 37182	A quantified form of ax-mp 5. See also barbara 2690, bj-ala1i 37189, bj-almpi 37190. (Contributed by BJ, 19-Mar-2026.)
⊢ ∀𝑥(𝜓 → 𝜑)    &   ⊢ ∀𝑥𝜓    ⇒   ⊢ ∀𝑥𝜑
Theorem	bj-sylggt 37183	Stronger form of sylgt 1852, closer to ax-2 7. (Contributed by BJ, 30-Jul-2025.)
⊢ ((𝜑 → ∀𝑥(𝜓 → 𝜒)) → ((𝜑 → ∀𝑥𝜓) → (𝜑 → ∀𝑥𝜒)))
Theorem	bj-alrimg 37184	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 37206. (Contributed by BJ, 9-Dec-2023.)
⊢ ((𝜑 → ∀𝑥𝜓) → (∀𝑥(𝜓 → 𝜒) → (𝜑 → ∀𝑥𝜒)))
Theorem	bj-sylgt2 37185	Uncurried (imported) form of sylgt 1852. (Contributed by BJ, 2-May-2019.)
⊢ ((∀𝑥(𝜓 → 𝜒) ∧ (𝜑 → ∀𝑥𝜓)) → (𝜑 → ∀𝑥𝜒))
Theorem	bj-nexdh 37186	Closed form of nexdh 1895 (actually, its general instance). (Contributed by BJ, 6-May-2019.)
⊢ (∀𝑥(𝜑 → ¬ 𝜓) → ((𝜒 → ∀𝑥𝜑) → (𝜒 → ¬ ∃𝑥𝜓)))
Theorem	bj-nexdh2 37187	Uncurried (imported) form of bj-nexdh 37186. (Contributed by BJ, 6-May-2019.)
⊢ ((∀𝑥(𝜑 → ¬ 𝜓) ∧ (𝜒 → ∀𝑥𝜑)) → (𝜒 → ¬ ∃𝑥𝜓))
Theorem	bj-alimii 37188	Inference associated with alimi 1841. Double inference associated with alim 1840. The usual proof of an associated inference (here from alimi 1841 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 37189	Add an antecedent in a universally quantified formula. Inference associated with ala1 1843. (Contributed by BJ, 6-Oct-2018.)
⊢ ∀𝑥𝜑    ⇒   ⊢ ∀𝑥(𝜓 → 𝜑)
Theorem	bj-almpi 37190	A quantified form of mpi 21. See also barbara 2690, bj-ala1i 37189, bj-almp 37182. (Contributed by BJ, 19-Mar-2026.)
⊢ ∀𝑥(𝜑 → (𝜒 → 𝜓))    &   ⊢ ∀𝑥𝜒    ⇒   ⊢ ∀𝑥(𝜑 → 𝜓)
Theorem	bj-almpig 37191	A partially quantified form of mpi 21 similar to bj-almpi 37190. (Contributed by BJ, 19-Mar-2026.)
⊢ (𝜑 → (𝜒 → 𝜓))    &   ⊢ ∀𝑥𝜒    ⇒   ⊢ ∀𝑥(𝜑 → 𝜓)
Theorem	bj-alsyl 37192	Syllogism under the universal quantifier, in the curried form appearing as Theorem *10.3 of [WhiteheadRussell] p. 145. See alsyl 1923 for the uncurried form. (Contributed by BJ, 28-Mar-2026.)
⊢ (∀𝑥(𝜑 → 𝜓) → (∀𝑥(𝜓 → 𝜒) → ∀𝑥(𝜑 → 𝜒)))
Theorem	bj-2alim 37193	Closed form of 2alimi 1842. (Contributed by BJ, 6-May-2019.)
⊢ (∀𝑥∀𝑦(𝜑 → 𝜓) → (∀𝑥∀𝑦𝜑 → ∀𝑥∀𝑦𝜓))
Theorem	bj-alimdh 37194	General instance of alimdh 1847. (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 37195	Deduction form of Theorem 19.21 of [Margaris] p. 90, see 19.21 2243 and 19.21h 2322. (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 37196	A slightly more general alrimd 2251. A common usage will have 𝜑 substituted for 𝜓 and 𝜒 substituted for 𝜃, giving a form closer to alrimd 2251. (Contributed by BJ, 25-Dec-2023.)
⊢ (𝜑 → ∀𝑥𝜓)    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → (𝜒 → ∀𝑥𝜃))    &   ⊢ (𝜓 → (𝜃 → 𝜏))    ⇒   ⊢ (𝜑 → (𝜒 → ∀𝑥𝜏))
Theorem	bj-exa1i 37197	Add an antecedent in an existentially quantified formula. Inference associated with exa1 1868. (Contributed by BJ, 6-Oct-2018.)
⊢ ∃𝑥𝜑    ⇒   ⊢ ∃𝑥(𝜓 → 𝜑)
Theorem	bj-alanim 37198	Closed form of alanimi 1846. (Contributed by BJ, 6-May-2019.)
⊢ (∀𝑥((𝜑 ∧ 𝜓) → 𝜒) → ((∀𝑥𝜑 ∧ ∀𝑥𝜓) → ∀𝑥𝜒))
Theorem	bj-2albi 37199	Closed form of 2albii 1850. (Contributed by BJ, 6-May-2019.)
⊢ (∀𝑥∀𝑦(𝜑 ↔ 𝜓) → (∀𝑥∀𝑦𝜑 ↔ ∀𝑥∀𝑦𝜓))
Theorem	bj-notalbii 37200	Equivalence of universal quantification of negation of equivalent formulas. Shortens ab0 4337 (103>94), ballotlem2 34857 (2655>2648), bnj1143 35156 (522>519), hausdiag 23783 (2119>2104). (Contributed by BJ, 17-Jul-2021.)
⊢ (𝜑 ↔ 𝜓)    ⇒   ⊢ (∀𝑥 ¬ 𝜑 ↔ ∀𝑥 ¬ 𝜓)