| Metamath
Proof Explorer Theorem List (p. 374 of 505) | < 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: | (1-31179) |
(31180-32702) |
(32703-50434) |
| Type | Label | Description |
|---|---|---|
| Statement | ||
| Theorem | bj-cbvexdvav 37301* | Version of cbvexdva 2444 with a disjoint variable condition, which does not require ax-13 2406. (Contributed by BJ, 16-Jun-2019.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) |
| ⊢ ((𝜑 ∧ 𝑥 = 𝑦) → (𝜓 ↔ 𝜒)) ⇒ ⊢ (𝜑 → (∃𝑥𝜓 ↔ ∃𝑦𝜒)) | ||
| Theorem | bj-cbvex4vv 37302* | Version of cbvex4v 2449 with a disjoint variable condition, which does not require ax-13 2406. (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 37303* |
Version of equsalh 2454 with a disjoint variable condition, which
does not
require ax-13 2406. Remark: this is the same as equsalhw 2328. TODO:
delete after moving the following paragraph somewhere.
Remarks: equsexvw 2028 has been moved to Main; Theorem ax13lem2 2410 has a DV version which is a simple consequence of ax5e 1935; Theorems nfeqf2 2411, dveeq2 2412, nfeqf1 2413, dveeq1 2414, nfeqf 2415, axc9 2416, ax13 2409, have dv versions which are simple consequences of ax-5 1933. (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 37304* | Version of axc11n 2460 with a disjoint variable condition; instance of aevlem 2080. 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 37305* | Version of aecoms 2462 with a disjoint variable condition, provable from Tarski's FOL. The corresponding version of naecoms 2463 should not be very useful since ¬ ∀𝑥𝑥 = 𝑦, DV (𝑥, 𝑦) is true when the universe has at least two objects (see dtru 5409). (Contributed by BJ, 31-May-2019.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) |
| ⊢ (∀𝑥 𝑥 = 𝑦 → 𝜑) ⇒ ⊢ (∀𝑦 𝑦 = 𝑥 → 𝜑) | ||
| Theorem | bj-axc11v 37306* | Version of axc11 2464 with a disjoint variable condition, which does not require ax-13 2406 nor ax-10 2178. Remark: the following theorems (hbae 2465, nfae 2467, hbnae 2466, nfnae 2468, hbnaes 2469) would need to be totally unbundled to be proved without ax-13 2406, hence would be simple consequences of ax-5 1933 or nfv 1937. (Contributed by BJ, 31-May-2019.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) |
| ⊢ (∀𝑥 𝑥 = 𝑦 → (∀𝑥𝜑 → ∀𝑦𝜑)) | ||
| Theorem | bj-drnf2v 37307* | Version of drnf2 2478 with a disjoint variable condition, which does not require ax-10 2178, ax-11 2194, ax-12 2215, ax-13 2406. Instance of nfbidv 1945. Note that the version of axc15 2456 with a disjoint variable condition is actually ax12v2 2217 (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 37308* | Version of equs45f 2493 with a disjoint variable condition, which does not require ax-13 2406. Note that the version of equs5 2494 with a disjoint variable condition is actually sbalex 2280 (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 37309* | Version of hbsb2 2516 with a disjoint variable condition, which does not require ax-13 2406, and removal of ax-13 2406 from hbs1 2311. (Contributed by BJ, 23-Jun-2019.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) |
| ⊢ ([𝑦 / 𝑥]𝜑 → ∀𝑥[𝑦 / 𝑥]𝜑) | ||
| Theorem | bj-nfs1v 37310* | Version of nfsb2 2517 with a disjoint variable condition, which does not require ax-13 2406, and removal of ax-13 2406 from nfs1v 2193. (Contributed by BJ, 24-Jun-2019.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) |
| ⊢ Ⅎ𝑥[𝑦 / 𝑥]𝜑 | ||
| Theorem | bj-hbsb2av 37311* | Version of hbsb2a 2518 with a disjoint variable condition, which does not require ax-13 2406. (Contributed by BJ, 11-Sep-2019.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) |
| ⊢ ([𝑦 / 𝑥]∀𝑦𝜑 → ∀𝑥[𝑦 / 𝑥]𝜑) | ||
| Theorem | bj-hbsb3v 37312* | Version of hbsb3 2521 with a disjoint variable condition, which does not require ax-13 2406. (Remark: the unbundled version of nfs1 2522 is given by bj-nfs1v 37310.) (Contributed by BJ, 11-Sep-2019.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) |
| ⊢ (𝜑 → ∀𝑦𝜑) ⇒ ⊢ ([𝑦 / 𝑥]𝜑 → ∀𝑥[𝑦 / 𝑥]𝜑) | ||
| Theorem | bj-nfsab1 37313* | Remove dependency on ax-13 2406 from nfsab1 2751. UPDATE / TODO: nfsab1 2751 does not use ax-13 2406 either anymore; bj-nfsab1 37313 is shorter than nfsab1 2751 but uses ax-12 2215. (Contributed by BJ, 23-Jun-2019.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) |
| ⊢ Ⅎ𝑥 𝑦 ∈ {𝑥 ∣ 𝜑} | ||
| Theorem | bj-dtrucor2v 37314* | Version of dtrucor2 5334 with a disjoint variable condition, which does not require ax-13 2406 (nor ax-4 1832, ax-5 1933, ax-7 2031, ax-12 2215). (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 37315 | Biconditional version of a form of hbae 2465 with commuted quantifiers, not requiring ax-11 2194. (Contributed by BJ, 12-Dec-2019.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) |
| ⊢ (∀𝑥 𝑥 = 𝑦 ↔ ∀𝑥∀𝑧 𝑥 = 𝑦) | ||
| Theorem | bj-hbaeb 37316 | Biconditional version of hbae 2465. (Contributed by BJ, 6-Oct-2018.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) |
| ⊢ (∀𝑥 𝑥 = 𝑦 ↔ ∀𝑧∀𝑥 𝑥 = 𝑦) | ||
| Theorem | bj-hbnaeb 37317 | Biconditional version of hbnae 2466 (to replace it?). (Contributed by BJ, 6-Oct-2018.) |
| ⊢ (¬ ∀𝑥 𝑥 = 𝑦 ↔ ∀𝑧 ¬ ∀𝑥 𝑥 = 𝑦) | ||
| Theorem | bj-dvv 37318 | A special instance of bj-hbaeb2 37315. 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 37045), then they should be added to the database. The present case is similar. Similar additions can be done regarding equsex 2452 (and equsalh 2454 and equsexh 2455). Even if only one of these two theorems holds, it should be added to the database. | ||
| Theorem | bj-equsal1t 37319 | Duplication of wl-equsal1t 38057, with shorter proof. If one imposes a disjoint variable condition on 𝑥, 𝑦, then one can use alequexv 2024 and reduce axiom dependencies, and similarly for the following theorems. Note: wl-equsalcom 38058 is also interesting. (Contributed by BJ, 6-Oct-2018.) |
| ⊢ (Ⅎ𝑥𝜑 → (∀𝑥(𝑥 = 𝑦 → 𝜑) ↔ 𝜑)) | ||
| Theorem | bj-equsal1ti 37320 | Inference associated with bj-equsal1t 37319. (Contributed by BJ, 30-Sep-2018.) |
| ⊢ Ⅎ𝑥𝜑 ⇒ ⊢ (∀𝑥(𝑥 = 𝑦 → 𝜑) ↔ 𝜑) | ||
| Theorem | bj-equsal1 37321 | One direction of equsal 2451. (Contributed by BJ, 30-Sep-2018.) |
| ⊢ Ⅎ𝑥𝜓 & ⊢ (𝑥 = 𝑦 → (𝜑 → 𝜓)) ⇒ ⊢ (∀𝑥(𝑥 = 𝑦 → 𝜑) → 𝜓) | ||
| Theorem | bj-equsal2 37322 | One direction of equsal 2451. (Contributed by BJ, 30-Sep-2018.) |
| ⊢ Ⅎ𝑥𝜑 & ⊢ (𝑥 = 𝑦 → (𝜑 → 𝜓)) ⇒ ⊢ (𝜑 → ∀𝑥(𝑥 = 𝑦 → 𝜓)) | ||
| Theorem | bj-equsal 37323 | Shorter proof of equsal 2451. (Contributed by BJ, 30-Sep-2018.) Proof modification is discouraged to avoid using equsal 2451, 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 37324 | Closed form of stdpc5 2246. (Possible to place it before 19.21t 2244 and use it to prove 19.21t 2244). (Contributed by BJ, 15-Sep-2018.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) |
| ⊢ (Ⅎ𝑥𝜑 → (∀𝑥(𝜑 → 𝜓) → (𝜑 → ∀𝑥𝜓))) | ||
| Theorem | bj-stdpc5 37325 | More direct proof of stdpc5 2246. (Contributed by BJ, 15-Sep-2018.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) |
| ⊢ Ⅎ𝑥𝜑 ⇒ ⊢ (∀𝑥(𝜑 → 𝜓) → (𝜑 → ∀𝑥𝜓)) | ||
| Theorem | 2stdpc5 37326 | A double stdpc5 2246 (one direction of PM*11.3). See also 2stdpc4 2104 and 19.21vv 44950. (Contributed by BJ, 15-Sep-2018.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) |
| ⊢ Ⅎ𝑥𝜑 & ⊢ Ⅎ𝑦𝜑 ⇒ ⊢ (∀𝑥∀𝑦(𝜑 → 𝜓) → (𝜑 → ∀𝑥∀𝑦𝜓)) | ||
| Theorem | bj-19.21t0 37327 | Proof of 19.21t 2244 from stdpc5t 37324. (Contributed by BJ, 15-Sep-2018.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) |
| ⊢ (Ⅎ𝑥𝜑 → (∀𝑥(𝜑 → 𝜓) ↔ (𝜑 → ∀𝑥𝜓))) | ||
| Theorem | exlimii 37328 | Inference associated with exlimi 2255. 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 37329 | Proof of ax-11 2194 similar to PM's proof of alcom 2196 (PM*11.2). For a proof closer to PM's proof, see ax11-pm2 37333. Axiom ax-11 2194 is used in the proof only through nfa2 2212. (Contributed by BJ, 15-Sep-2018.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) |
| ⊢ (∀𝑥∀𝑦𝜑 → ∀𝑦∀𝑥𝜑) | ||
| Theorem | ax6er 37330 | Commuted form of ax6e 2417. (Could be placed right after ax6e 2417). (Contributed by BJ, 15-Sep-2018.) |
| ⊢ ∃𝑥 𝑦 = 𝑥 | ||
| Theorem | exlimiieq1 37331 | 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 37332 | 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 37333* | Proof of ax-11 2194 from the standard axioms of predicate calculus, similar to PM's proof of alcom 2196 (PM*11.2). This proof requires that 𝑥 and 𝑦 be distinct. Axiom ax-11 2194 is used in the proof only through nfal 2358, nfsb 2557, sbal 2206, sb8 2551. See also ax11-pm 37329. (Contributed by BJ, 15-Sep-2018.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) |
| ⊢ (∀𝑥∀𝑦𝜑 → ∀𝑦∀𝑥𝜑) | ||
| Theorem | bj-sbsb 37334 | Biconditional showing two possible (dual) definitions of substitution df-sb 2094 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 37335 | Alternate (dual) definition of substitution df-sb 2094 not using dummy variables. (Contributed by BJ, 19-Mar-2021.) |
| ⊢ ([𝑦 / 𝑥]𝜑 ↔ (∀𝑥(𝑥 = 𝑦 → 𝜑) ∨ (𝑥 = 𝑦 ∧ 𝜑))) | ||
| Theorem | bj-sbf3 37336 | Substitution has no effect on a bound variable (existential quantifier case); see sbf2 2309. (Contributed by BJ, 2-May-2019.) |
| ⊢ ([𝑦 / 𝑥]∃𝑥𝜑 ↔ ∃𝑥𝜑) | ||
| Theorem | bj-sbf4 37337 | Substitution has no effect on a bound variable (nonfreeness case); see sbf2 2309. (Contributed by BJ, 2-May-2019.) |
| ⊢ ([𝑦 / 𝑥]Ⅎ𝑥𝜑 ↔ Ⅎ𝑥𝜑) | ||
| Theorem | bj-eu3f 37338* | Version of eu3v 2600 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 2600. (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 37339* | Lemma for substitution. (Contributed by BJ, 23-Jul-2023.) |
| ⊢ (∀𝑥(𝜑 → (𝜓 → 𝜒)) → (∀𝑥(𝜑 → 𝜓) → (∃𝑥𝜑 → 𝜒))) | ||
| Theorem | bj-sblem2 37340* | Lemma for substitution. (Contributed by BJ, 23-Jul-2023.) |
| ⊢ (∀𝑥(𝜑 → (𝜒 → 𝜓)) → ((∃𝑥𝜑 → 𝜒) → ∀𝑥(𝜑 → 𝜓))) | ||
| Theorem | bj-sblem 37341* | Lemma for substitution. (Contributed by BJ, 23-Jul-2023.) |
| ⊢ (∀𝑥(𝜑 → (𝜓 ↔ 𝜒)) → (∀𝑥(𝜑 → 𝜓) ↔ (∃𝑥𝜑 → 𝜒))) | ||
| Theorem | bj-sbievw1 37342* | Lemma for substitution. (Contributed by BJ, 23-Jul-2023.) |
| ⊢ ([𝑦 / 𝑥](𝜑 → 𝜓) → ([𝑦 / 𝑥]𝜑 → 𝜓)) | ||
| Theorem | bj-sbievw2 37343* | Lemma for substitution. (Contributed by BJ, 23-Jul-2023.) |
| ⊢ ([𝑦 / 𝑥](𝜓 → 𝜑) → (𝜓 → [𝑦 / 𝑥]𝜑)) | ||
| Theorem | bj-sbievw 37344* | Lemma for substitution. Closed form of equsalvw 2027 and sbievw 2130. (Contributed by BJ, 23-Jul-2023.) |
| ⊢ ([𝑦 / 𝑥](𝜑 ↔ 𝜓) → ([𝑦 / 𝑥]𝜑 ↔ 𝜓)) | ||
| Theorem | bj-sbievv 37345 | Version of sbie 2536 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 37346 | Uniqueness is equivalent to existence being equivalent to unique existence. (Contributed by BJ, 14-Oct-2022.) |
| ⊢ (∃*𝑥𝜑 ↔ (∃𝑥𝜑 ↔ ∃!𝑥𝜑)) | ||
| Theorem | bj-sbidmOLD 37347 | Obsolete proof of sbidm 2544 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 37348* |
Deduction form of dvelim 2485 with disjoint variable conditions. Uncurried
(imported) form of bj-dvelimdv1 37349. 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 1937 can be replaced with nfal 2358 followed by nfn 1880. Remark: nfald 2363 uses ax-11 2194; it might be possible to inline and use ax11w 2167 instead, but there is still a use via 19.12 2362 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 37349* | Curried (exported) form of bj-dvelimdv 37348 (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 37350* | A version of dvelim 2485 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 37351* | Nonfreeness in a membership statement. (Contributed by BJ, 20-Oct-2021.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) |
| ⊢ (¬ ∀𝑥 𝑥 = 𝑦 → Ⅎ𝑥 𝑦 ∈ 𝑧) | ||
| Theorem | bj-axc14nf 37352 | Proof of a version of axc14 2497 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 37353 | Alternate proof of axc14 2497 (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 37354* | Alternate proof of mobidv 2579 directly from its analogues albidv 1943 and exbidv 1944, using deduction style. Note the proof structure, similar to mobi 2577. (Contributed by Mario Carneiro, 7-Oct-2016.) Reduce axiom dependencies and shorten proof. Remove dependency on ax-12 2215 by adapting proof of mobid 2580. (Revised by BJ, 26-Sep-2022.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) (New usage is discouraged.) |
| ⊢ (𝜑 → (𝜓 ↔ 𝜒)) ⇒ ⊢ (𝜑 → (∃*𝑥𝜓 ↔ ∃*𝑥𝜒)) | ||
| Theorem | sbn1ALT 37355 | Alternate proof of sbn1 2144, 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 2737, df-clab 2744, df-cleq 2757, df-clel 2840 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 2737, df-clab 2744, df-cleq 2757, df-clel 2840 }) 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 37363, eliminable-abeqv 37364, eliminable-abeqab 37365, eliminable-velab 37362, eliminable-abelv 37366, eliminable-abelab 37367 respectively, which are all proved from {FOL, ax-ext 2737, df-clab 2744, df-cleq 2757, df-clel 2840 }. (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 2744, dfcleq 2758 (proved from {FOL, ax-ext 2737, df-cleq 2757 }), and dfclel 2841 (proved from {FOL, df-clel 2840 }). 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 37357, eliminable2b 37358 and eliminable3a 37360, 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 1562, 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 2744 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 2744, ax-ext 2737 and df-cleq 2757 are sufficient (over FOL) to eliminate class terms. To prove that { df-clab 2744, df-cleq 2757, df-clel 2840 } provides a definitional extension of {FOL, ax-ext 2737 }, 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 2744, df-cleq 2757, df-clel 2840 }. 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 2737 }. 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 2744, df-cleq 2757, df-clel 2840 }. It involves a careful case study on the structure of the proof tree. | ||
| Theorem | eliminable1 37356 | 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 37357* | 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 37358* | 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 37359* | 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 37360* | 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 37361* | 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 37362 | 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 37363* | 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 37364* | 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 37365* | 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 37366* | 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 37367* | 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 2737. One could move all theorems from cab 2743 to df-clel 2840 (except for dfcleq 2758 and cvjust 2759) 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 2757. Note that without ax-ext 2737, the $a-statements df-clab 2744, df-cleq 2757, and df-clel 2840 are no longer eliminable (see previous section) (but PROBABLY df-clab 2744 is still conservative , while df-cleq 2757 and df-clel 2840 are not). This is not a reason not to study what is provable with them but without ax-ext 2737, 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 2145, wel 2146, ax-8 2147, ax-9 2155). Remark: the weakening of eleq1 2853 / eleq2 2854 to eleq1w 2848 / eleq2w 2849 can also be done with eleq1i 2856, eqeltri 2861, eqeltrri 2862, eleq1a 2860, eleq1d 2850, eqeltrd 2865, eqeltrrd 2866, eqneltrd 2885, eqneltrrd 2886, nelneq 2889. Remark: possibility to remove dependency on ax-10 2178, ax-11 2194, ax-13 2406 from nfcri 2919 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 2939. | ||
| Theorem | bj-denoteslem 37368* |
Duplicate of issettru 2843 and bj-issettruALTV 37370.
Lemma for bj-denotesALTV 37369. (Contributed by BJ, 24-Apr-2024.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) |
| ⊢ (∃𝑥 𝑥 = 𝐴 ↔ 𝐴 ∈ {𝑦 ∣ ⊤}) | ||
| Theorem | bj-denotesALTV 37369* |
Moved to main as iseqsetv-clel 2844 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 278 (to add an intermediate proposition ∃𝑧𝑧 = 𝐴 with a fresh 𝑧), cbvexvw 2060, and eqeq1 2769, requires the core axioms and { ax-9 2155, ax-ext 2737, df-cleq 2757 } whereas this proof requires the core axioms and { ax-8 2147, df-clab 2744, df-clel 2840 }. Theorem bj-issetwt 37372 proves that "existing" is equivalent to being a member of a class abstraction. It also requires, with the present proof, { ax-8 2147, df-clab 2744, df-clel 2840 } (whereas with the shorter proof from cbvexvw 2060 and eqeq1 2769 it would require { ax-8 2147, ax-9 2155, ax-ext 2737, df-clab 2744, df-cleq 2757, df-clel 2840 }). That every class is equal to a class abstraction is proved by abid1 2901, which requires { ax-8 2147, ax-9 2155, ax-ext 2737, df-clab 2744, df-cleq 2757, df-clel 2840 }. Note that there is no disjoint variable condition on 𝑥, 𝑦 but the theorem does not depend on ax-13 2406. Actually, the proof depends only on the logical axioms ax-1 6 through ax-7 2031 and sp 2221. 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 2737 and df-cleq 2757 (e.g., eqid 2765 and eqeq1 2769). In particular, one cannot even prove ⊢ ∃𝑥𝑥 = 𝐴 ⇒ ⊢ 𝐴 = 𝐴 without ax-ext 2737 and df-cleq 2757. (Contributed by BJ, 29-Apr-2019.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) |
| ⊢ (∃𝑥 𝑥 = 𝐴 ↔ ∃𝑦 𝑦 = 𝐴) | ||
| Theorem | bj-issettruALTV 37370* |
Moved to main as issettru 2843 and kept for the comments.
Weak version of isset 3471 without ax-ext 2737. (Contributed by BJ, 24-Apr-2024.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) |
| ⊢ (∃𝑥 𝑥 = 𝐴 ↔ 𝐴 ∈ {𝑦 ∣ ⊤}) | ||
| Theorem | bj-elabtru 37371 | This is as close as we can get to proving extensionality for "the" "universal" class without ax-ext 2737. (Contributed by BJ, 24-Apr-2024.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) |
| ⊢ (𝐴 ∈ {𝑥 ∣ ⊤} ↔ 𝐴 ∈ {𝑦 ∣ ⊤}) | ||
| Theorem | bj-issetwt 37372* | Closed form of bj-issetw 37373. (Contributed by BJ, 29-Apr-2019.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) |
| ⊢ (∀𝑥𝜑 → (𝐴 ∈ {𝑥 ∣ 𝜑} ↔ ∃𝑦 𝑦 = 𝐴)) | ||
| Theorem | bj-issetw 37373* | The closest one can get to isset 3471 without using ax-ext 2737. See also vexw 2749. Note that the only disjoint variable condition is between 𝑦 and 𝐴. From there, one can prove isset 3471 using eleq2i 2857 (which requires ax-ext 2737 and df-cleq 2757). (Contributed by BJ, 29-Apr-2019.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) |
| ⊢ 𝜑 ⇒ ⊢ (𝐴 ∈ {𝑥 ∣ 𝜑} ↔ ∃𝑦 𝑦 = 𝐴) | ||
| Theorem | bj-issetiv 37374* | Version of bj-isseti 37375 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 3475 as long as elex 3478 is not available (and the non-dependence of bj-issetiv 37374 on special properties of the universal class V is obvious). Prefer its use over bj-isseti 37375 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 37375* | Version of isseti 3475 with a class variable 𝑉 in the hypothesis instead of V for extra generality. This is indeed more general than isseti 3475 as long as elex 3478 is not available (and the non-dependence of bj-isseti 37375 on special properties of the universal class V is obvious). Use bj-issetiv 37374 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 37376 | A weak version of ralv 3483 not using ax-ext 2737 (nor df-cleq 2757, df-clel 2840, df-v 3459), and only core FOL axioms. See also bj-rexvw 37377. The analogues for reuv 3485 and rmov 3486 are not proved. (Contributed by BJ, 16-Jun-2019.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) |
| ⊢ 𝜓 ⇒ ⊢ (∀𝑥 ∈ {𝑦 ∣ 𝜓}𝜑 ↔ ∀𝑥𝜑) | ||
| Theorem | bj-rexvw 37377 | A weak version of rexv 3484 not using ax-ext 2737 (nor df-cleq 2757, df-clel 2840, df-v 3459), and only core FOL axioms. See also bj-ralvw 37376. (Contributed by BJ, 16-Jun-2019.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) |
| ⊢ 𝜓 ⇒ ⊢ (∃𝑥 ∈ {𝑦 ∣ 𝜓}𝜑 ↔ ∃𝑥𝜑) | ||
| Theorem | bj-rababw 37378 | A weak version of rabab 3487 not using df-clel 2840 nor df-v 3459 (but requiring ax-ext 2737) nor ax-12 2215. (Contributed by BJ, 16-Jun-2019.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) |
| ⊢ 𝜓 ⇒ ⊢ {𝑥 ∈ {𝑦 ∣ 𝜓} ∣ 𝜑} = {𝑥 ∣ 𝜑} | ||
| Theorem | bj-rexcom4bv 37379* | Version of rexcom4b 3488 and bj-rexcom4b 37380 with a disjoint variable condition on 𝑥, 𝑉, hence removing dependency on df-sb 2094 and df-clab 2744 (so that it depends on df-clel 2840 and df-rex 3090 only on top of first-order logic). Prefer its use over bj-rexcom4b 37380 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 37380* | Remove from rexcom4b 3488 dependency on ax-ext 2737 and ax-13 2406 (and on df-or 861, df-cleq 2757, df-nfc 2914, df-v 3459). The hypothesis uses 𝑉 instead of V (see bj-isseti 37375 for the motivation). Use bj-rexcom4bv 37379 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 37381 | The FOL content of ceqsalt 3490. Lemma for bj-ceqsalt 37383 and bj-ceqsaltv 37384. (Contributed by BJ, 26-Sep-2019.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) |
| ⊢ ((Ⅎ𝑥𝜓 ∧ ∀𝑥(𝜃 → (𝜑 ↔ 𝜓)) ∧ ∃𝑥𝜃) → (∀𝑥(𝜃 → 𝜑) ↔ 𝜓)) | ||
| Theorem | bj-ceqsalt1 37382 | The FOL content of ceqsalt 3490. Lemma for bj-ceqsalt 37383 and bj-ceqsaltv 37384. TODO: consider removing if it does not add anything to bj-ceqsalt0 37381. (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 37383* | Remove from ceqsalt 3490 dependency on ax-ext 2737 (and on df-cleq 2757 and df-v 3459). Note: this is not doable with ceqsralt 3491 (or ceqsralv 3497), which uses eleq1 2853, but the same dependence removal is possible for ceqsalg 3492, ceqsal 3494, ceqsalv 3496, cgsexg 3501, cgsex2g 3502, cgsex4g 3503, ceqsex 3504, ceqsexv 3505, ceqsex2 3507, ceqsex2v 3508, ceqsex3v 3509, ceqsex4v 3510, ceqsex6v 3511, ceqsex8v 3512, gencbvex 3513 (after changing 𝐴 = 𝑦 to 𝑦 = 𝐴), gencbvex2 3514, gencbval 3515, vtoclgft 3523 (it uses Ⅎ, whose justification nfcjust 2913 does not use ax-ext 2737) and several other vtocl* theorems (see for instance bj-vtoclg1f 37415). See also bj-ceqsaltv 37384. (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 37384* | Version of bj-ceqsalt 37383 with a disjoint variable condition on 𝑥, 𝑉, removing dependency on df-sb 2094 and df-clab 2744. Prefer its use over bj-ceqsalt 37383 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 37385 | The FOL content of ceqsalg 3492. (Contributed by BJ, 12-Oct-2019.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) |
| ⊢ Ⅎ𝑥𝜓 & ⊢ (𝜒 → (𝜑 ↔ 𝜓)) ⇒ ⊢ (∃𝑥𝜒 → (∀𝑥(𝜒 → 𝜑) ↔ 𝜓)) | ||
| Theorem | bj-ceqsalg 37386* | Remove from ceqsalg 3492 dependency on ax-ext 2737 (and on df-cleq 2757 and df-v 3459). See also bj-ceqsalgv 37388. (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 37387* | Alternate proof of bj-ceqsalg 37386. (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 37388* | Version of bj-ceqsalg 37386 with a disjoint variable condition on 𝑥, 𝑉, removing dependency on df-sb 2094 and df-clab 2744. Prefer its use over bj-ceqsalg 37386 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 37389* | Alternate proof of bj-ceqsalgv 37388. (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 37390* | Remove from ceqsal 3494 dependency on ax-ext 2737 (and on df-cleq 2757, df-v 3459, df-clab 2744, df-sb 2094). (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 37391* | Remove from ceqsalv 3496 dependency on ax-ext 2737 (and on df-cleq 2757, df-v 3459, df-clab 2744, df-sb 2094). (Contributed by BJ, 12-Oct-2019.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) |
| ⊢ 𝐴 ∈ V & ⊢ (𝑥 = 𝐴 → (𝜑 ↔ 𝜓)) ⇒ ⊢ (∀𝑥(𝑥 = 𝐴 → 𝜑) ↔ 𝜓) | ||
| Theorem | bj-spcimdv 37392* | Remove from spcimdv 3555 dependency on ax-9 2155, ax-10 2178, ax-11 2194, ax-13 2406, ax-ext 2737, df-cleq 2757 (and df-nfc 2914, df-v 3459, df-or 861, df-tru 1566, df-nf 1807). For an even more economical version, see bj-spcimdvv 37393. (Contributed by BJ, 30-Nov-2020.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) |
| ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝐴 ∈ 𝐵) & ⊢ ((𝜑 ∧ 𝑥 = 𝐴) → (𝜓 → 𝜒)) ⇒ ⊢ (𝜑 → (∀𝑥𝜓 → 𝜒)) | ||
| Theorem | bj-spcimdvv 37393* | Remove from spcimdv 3555 dependency on ax-7 2031, ax-8 2147, ax-10 2178, ax-11 2194, ax-12 2215 ax-13 2406, ax-ext 2737, df-cleq 2757, df-clab 2744 (and df-nfc 2914, df-v 3459, df-or 861, df-tru 1566, df-nf 1807) 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 37392. (Contributed by BJ, 3-Nov-2021.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) |
| ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝐴 ∈ 𝐵) & ⊢ ((𝜑 ∧ 𝑥 = 𝐴) → (𝜓 → 𝜒)) ⇒ ⊢ (𝜑 → (∀𝑥𝜓 → 𝜒)) | ||
| Theorem | elelb 37394 | 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 37395 | 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 37396 | The nonfreeness quantifier for classes defines a symmetric binary relation on var metavariables (irreflexivity is proved by nfnid 5337 with additional axioms; see also nfcv 2927). This could be proved from aecom 2461 and nfcvb 5338 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 2771 instead of equcomd 2042; removing dependency on ax-ext 2737 is possible: prove weak versions (i.e. replace classes with setvars) of drnfc1 2946, eleq2d 2851 (using elequ2 2160), nfcvf 2953, dvelimc 2952, dvelimdc 2951, nfcvf2 2954. (Proof modification is discouraged.) |
| ⊢ (Ⅎ𝑥𝑦 ↔ Ⅎ𝑦𝑥) | ||
Some useful theorems for dealing with substitutions: sbbi 2344, sbcbig 3798, sbcel1g 4373, sbcel2 4375, sbcel12 4368, sbceqg 4369, csbvarg 4391. | ||
| Theorem | bj-sbeqALT 37397* | Substitution in an equality (use the more general version bj-sbeq 37398 instead, without disjoint variable condition). (Contributed by BJ, 6-Oct-2018.) (New usage is discouraged.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) |
| ⊢ ([𝑦 / 𝑥]𝐴 = 𝐵 ↔ ⦋𝑦 / 𝑥⦌𝐴 = ⦋𝑦 / 𝑥⦌𝐵) | ||
| Theorem | bj-sbeq 37398 | Distribute proper substitution through an equality relation. (See sbceqg 4369). (Contributed by BJ, 6-Oct-2018.) |
| ⊢ ([𝑦 / 𝑥]𝐴 = 𝐵 ↔ ⦋𝑦 / 𝑥⦌𝐴 = ⦋𝑦 / 𝑥⦌𝐵) | ||
| Theorem | bj-sbceqgALT 37399 | Distribute proper substitution through an equality relation. Alternate proof of sbceqg 4369. (Contributed by BJ, 6-Oct-2018.) Proof modification is discouraged to avoid using sbceqg 4369, but the Metamath program "MM-PA> MINIMIZE_WITH * / EXCEPT sbceqg" command is ok. (Proof modification is discouraged.) (New usage is discouraged.) |
| ⊢ (𝐴 ∈ 𝑉 → ([𝐴 / 𝑥]𝐵 = 𝐶 ↔ ⦋𝐴 / 𝑥⦌𝐵 = ⦋𝐴 / 𝑥⦌𝐶)) | ||
| Theorem | bj-csbsnlem 37400* | Lemma for bj-csbsn 37401 (in this lemma, 𝑥 cannot occur in 𝐴). (Contributed by BJ, 6-Oct-2018.) (New usage is discouraged.) |
| ⊢ ⦋𝐴 / 𝑥⦌{𝑥} = {𝐴} | ||
| < Previous Next > |
| Copyright terms: Public domain | < Previous Next > |