P. 376 of Theorem List - Metamath Proof Explorer

Theorem List for Metamath Proof Explorer - 37501-37600   *Has distinct variable group(s)

Type	Label	Description
Statement
Theorem	bj-currypeirce 37501	Curry's axiom curryax 907 (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 871; the introduction axioms olc 882 and orc 881 are not needed). This theorem shows that actually, the standard instance of curryax 907 implies the standard instance of peirce 205, which is not the case for the converse bj-peircecurry 37502. (Contributed by BJ, 15-Jun-2021.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) (New usage is discouraged.)
⊢ ((𝜑 ∨ (𝜑 → 𝜓)) → (((𝜑 → 𝜓) → 𝜑) → 𝜑))
Theorem	bj-peircecurry 37502	Peirce's axiom peirce 205 implies Curry's axiom curryax 907 over minimal implicational calculus and the axiomatic definition of disjunction (actually, only the introduction axioms olc 882 and orc 881; the elimination axiom jao 975 is not needed). See bj-currypeirce 37501 for the converse. (Contributed by BJ, 15-Jun-2021.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) (New usage is discouraged.)
⊢ (𝜑 ∨ (𝜑 → 𝜓))
Theorem	bj-animbi 37503	Conjunction in terms of implication and biconditional. 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 37504	Curry's paradox. 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)
21.20.1.5  Implication and negation Some theorems of propositional calculus in the language of implication and negation.
Theorem	bj-con2com 37505	A commuted form of the contrapositive, true in minimal calculus. (Contributed by BJ, 19-Mar-2020.)
⊢ (𝜑 → ((𝜓 → ¬ 𝜑) → ¬ 𝜓))
Theorem	bj-con2comi 37506	Inference associated with bj-con2com 37505. 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 37506. (Contributed by BJ, 19-Mar-2020.)
⊢ 𝜑    ⇒   ⊢ ((𝜓 → ¬ 𝜑) → ¬ 𝜓)
Theorem	bj-nimn 37507	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 37508	Inference associated with bj-nimn 37507. (Contributed by BJ, 19-Mar-2020.)
⊢ 𝜑    ⇒   ⊢ ¬ (𝜑 → ¬ 𝜑)
Theorem	bj-peircei 37509	Inference associated with peirce 205. (Contributed by BJ, 30-Mar-2020.)
⊢ ((𝜑 → 𝜓) → 𝜑)    ⇒   ⊢ 𝜑
Theorem	bj-looinvi 37510	Inference associated with looinv 206. Its associated inference is bj-looinvii 37511. (Contributed by BJ, 30-Mar-2020.)
⊢ ((𝜑 → 𝜓) → 𝜓)    ⇒   ⊢ ((𝜓 → 𝜑) → 𝜑)
Theorem	bj-looinvii 37511	Inference associated with bj-looinvi 37510. (Contributed by BJ, 30-Mar-2020.)
⊢ ((𝜑 → 𝜓) → 𝜓)    &   ⊢ (𝜓 → 𝜑)    ⇒   ⊢ 𝜑
Theorem	bj-mt2bi 37512	Version of mt2 203 where the major premise is a biconditional. Shortens fal 1583 (see bj-fal 37513) . 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 37513	Shortening of fal 1583 using bj-mt2bi 37512. (Contributed by Anthony Hart, 22-Oct-2010.) (Proof shortened by Mel L. O'Cat, 11-Mar-2012.) (Proof modification is discouraged.)
⊢ ¬ ⊥
Theorem	bj-ntrufal 37514	The negation of a theorem is equivalent to false. Shortens dfnul2 4281 (see bj-dfnul2 37515). (Contributed by BJ, 5-Oct-2024.)
⊢ 𝜑    ⇒   ⊢ (¬ 𝜑 ↔ ⊥)
Theorem	bj-dfnul2 37515	Alternate definition of the empty set. Definition 5.14 of [TakeutiZaring] p. 20. (Contributed by NM, 26-Dec-1996.) Remove dependency on ax-10 2177, ax-11 2193, and ax-12 2212. (Revised by Steven Nguyen, 3-May-2023.) (Proof shortened by BJ, 23-Sep-2024.) (Proof modification is discouraged.)
⊢ ∅ = {𝑥 ∣ ¬ 𝑥 = 𝑥}
21.20.1.6  Disjunction A few lemmas about disjunction. The fundamental theorems in this family are the dual statements pm4.71 567 and pm4.72 964. See also biort 949 and biorf 950.
Theorem	bj-jaoi1 37516	Shortens orfa2 39096 (58>53), pm1.2 917 (20>18), pm1.2 917 (20>18), pm2.4 920 (31>25), pm2.41 921 (31>25), pm2.42 957 (38>32), pm3.2ni 894 (43>39), pm4.44 1012 (55>51). (Contributed by BJ, 30-Sep-2019.)
⊢ (𝜑 → 𝜓)    ⇒   ⊢ ((𝜑 ∨ 𝜓) → 𝜓)
Theorem	bj-jaoi2 37517	Shortens consensus 1068 (110>106), elnn0z 12707 (336>329), pm1.2 917 (20>19), pm3.2ni 894 (43>39), pm4.44 1012 (55>51). (Contributed by BJ, 30-Sep-2019.)
⊢ (𝜑 → 𝜓)    ⇒   ⊢ ((𝜓 ∨ 𝜑) → 𝜓)
21.20.1.7  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 862, df-an 402, pm4.64 863, imor 867, pm4.62 870 through pm4.67 404, and, for the De Morgan laws, ianor 997 through pm4.57 1006.
Theorem	bj-dfbi4 37518	Alternate definition of the biconditional. (Contributed by BJ, 4-Oct-2019.)
⊢ ((𝜑 ↔ 𝜓) ↔ ((𝜑 ∧ 𝜓) ∨ ¬ (𝜑 ∨ 𝜓)))
Theorem	bj-dfbi5 37519	Alternate definition of the biconditional. (Contributed by BJ, 4-Oct-2019.)
⊢ ((𝜑 ↔ 𝜓) ↔ ((𝜑 ∨ 𝜓) → (𝜑 ∧ 𝜓)))
Theorem	bj-dfbi6 37520	Alternate definition of the biconditional. (Contributed by BJ, 4-Oct-2019.)
⊢ ((𝜑 ↔ 𝜓) ↔ ((𝜑 ∨ 𝜓) ↔ (𝜑 ∧ 𝜓)))
Theorem	bj-bijust0ALT 37521	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 37522	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 37521 are therefore also instances of it). (Contributed by BJ, 7-Sep-2022.)
⊢ ¬ ((𝜑 → 𝜑) → ¬ (𝜓 → 𝜓))
21.20.1.8  The conditional operator for propositions
Theorem	bj-consensus 37523	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 37524	Alternate proof of bj-consensus 37523. (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 37525*	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 2739. We reprove the current df-if 4482 from it in bj-dfif 37526. (Contributed by BJ, 20-Sep-2019.) (Proof modification is discouraged.)
⊢ if(𝜑, 𝐴, 𝐵) = {𝑥 ∣ if-(𝜑, 𝑥 ∈ 𝐴, 𝑥 ∈ 𝐵)}
Theorem	bj-dfif 37526*	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 37527	A biconditional connecting the conditional operator for propositions and the conditional operator for classes. 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))
21.20.1.9  Propositional calculus: miscellaneous Miscellaneous theorems of propositional calculus.
Theorem	bj-imbi12 37528	Uncurried (imported) form of imbi12 349. (Contributed by BJ, 6-May-2019.)
⊢ (((𝜑 ↔ 𝜓) ∧ (𝜒 ↔ 𝜃)) → ((𝜑 → 𝜒) ↔ (𝜓 → 𝜃)))
Theorem	bj-falor 37529	Dual of truan 1580 (which has biconditional reversed). (Contributed by BJ, 26-Oct-2019.) (Proof modification is discouraged.)
⊢ (𝜑 ↔ (⊥ ∨ 𝜑))
Theorem	bj-falor2 37530	Dual of truan 1580. (Contributed by BJ, 26-Oct-2019.) (Proof modification is discouraged.)
⊢ ((⊥ ∨ 𝜑) ↔ 𝜑)
Theorem	bj-bibibi 37531	A property of the biconditional. (Contributed by BJ, 26-Oct-2019.) (Proof modification is discouraged.)
⊢ (𝜑 ↔ (𝜓 ↔ (𝜑 ↔ 𝜓)))
Theorem	bj-imn3ani 37532	Duplication of bnj1224 35474. Three-fold version of imnani 406. (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 37533	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 37534	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 37535	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 37536	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)))
21.20.2  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 1827 corresponds to the necessitation rule of modal logic, and ax-4 1841 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/ 1841. A basic result in this logic is bj-gl4 37540.
Theorem	bj-axdd2 37537	This implication, proved using only ax-gen 1827 and ax-4 1841 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 37538. (Contributed by BJ, 16-May-2019.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) (New usage is discouraged.)
⊢ (∃𝑥𝜑 → (∀𝑥𝜓 → ∃𝑥𝜓))
Theorem	bj-axd2d 37538	This implication, proved using only ax-gen 1827 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 37537. (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 37539	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 37537 and bj-axd2d 37538. (Contributed by BJ, 16-May-2019.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) (New usage is discouraged.)
⊢ ((∀𝑥 ¬ 𝜑 → ¬ 𝜑) → ((∀𝑥𝜑 → 𝜑) → (∀𝑥𝜑 → ∃𝑥𝜑)))
Theorem	bj-gl4 37540	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). The antecedent of bj-gl4 37540 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 37541	Over minimal calculus, the modal axiom (4) (hba1 2326) and the modal axiom (K) (ax-4 1841) together imply axc4 2351. (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))))
21.20.3  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 37543 and ax-prv2 37544 and ax-prv3 37545. Note the similarity with ax-gen 1827, ax-4 1841 and hba1 2326 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/ 2326. 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 37548) and Löb's theorem (bj-babylob 37549). See the comments of these theorems for details.
Syntax	cprvb 37542	Syntax for the provability predicate.
wff Prv 𝜑
Axiom	ax-prv1 37543	First property of three of the provability predicate. (Contributed by BJ, 3-Apr-2019.)
⊢ 𝜑    ⇒   ⊢ Prv 𝜑
Axiom	ax-prv2 37544	Second property of three of the provability predicate. (Contributed by BJ, 3-Apr-2019.)
⊢ (Prv (𝜑 → 𝜓) → (Prv 𝜑 → Prv 𝜓))
Axiom	ax-prv3 37545	Third property of three of the provability predicate. (Contributed by BJ, 3-Apr-2019.)
⊢ (Prv 𝜑 → Prv Prv 𝜑)
Theorem	prvlem1 37546	An elementary property of the provability predicate. (Contributed by BJ, 3-Apr-2019.)
⊢ (𝜑 → 𝜓)    ⇒   ⊢ (Prv 𝜑 → Prv 𝜓)
Theorem	prvlem2 37547	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 37548	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 37549	See the section header comments for the context, as well as the comments for bj-babygodel 37548. 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/ 37548). (Contributed by BJ, 20-Apr-2019.)
⊢ (𝜓 ↔ (Prv 𝜓 → 𝜑))    &   ⊢ (Prv 𝜑 → 𝜑)    ⇒   ⊢ 𝜑
Theorem	bj-godellob 37550	Proof of Gödel's theorem from Löb's theorem (see comments at bj-babygodel 37548 and bj-babylob 37549 for details). (Contributed by BJ, 20-Apr-2019.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) (New usage is discouraged.)
⊢ (𝜑 ↔ ¬ Prv 𝜑)    &   ⊢ ¬ Prv ⊥    ⇒   ⊢ ⊥
21.20.4  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.
21.20.4.1  Universal and existential quantifiers, nonfreeness predicate
Theorem	bj-exexalal 37551	A lemma for changing bound variables. Only the forward implication is intuitionistic. (Contributed by BJ, 14-Mar-2026.)
⊢ ((∃𝑥𝜑 → ∃𝑦𝜓) ↔ (∀𝑦 ¬ 𝜓 → ∀𝑥 ¬ 𝜑))
21.20.4.2  Adding ax-gen
Theorem	bj-genr 37552	Generalization rule on the right conjunct. See 19.28 2264. (Contributed by BJ, 7-Jul-2021.)
⊢ (𝜑 ∧ 𝜓)    ⇒   ⊢ (𝜑 ∧ ∀𝑥𝜓)
Theorem	bj-genl 37553	Generalization rule on the left conjunct. See 19.27 2263. (Contributed by BJ, 7-Jul-2021.)
⊢ (𝜑 ∧ 𝜓)    ⇒   ⊢ (∀𝑥𝜑 ∧ 𝜓)
Theorem	bj-genan 37554	Generalization rule on a conjunction. Forward inference associated with 19.26 1902. (Contributed by BJ, 7-Jul-2021.)
⊢ (𝜑 ∧ 𝜓)    ⇒   ⊢ (∀𝑥𝜑 ∧ ∀𝑥𝜓)
Theorem	bj-mpgs 37555	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 1829, and strictly stronger when sp 2219 is not available. (Contributed by BJ, 1-Nov-2023.)
⊢ ((𝜑 ∧ ∀𝑥𝜑) → 𝜓)    &   ⊢ 𝜑    ⇒   ⊢ 𝜓
21.20.4.3  Adding ax-4
Theorem	bj-almp 37556	A quantified form of ax-mp 5. See also barbara 2687, bj-ala1i 37563, bj-almpi 37564. (Contributed by BJ, 19-Mar-2026.)
⊢ ∀𝑥(𝜓 → 𝜑)    &   ⊢ ∀𝑥𝜓    ⇒   ⊢ ∀𝑥𝜑
Theorem	bj-sylggt 37557	Stronger form of sylgt 1854, closer to ax-2 7. (Contributed by BJ, 30-Jul-2025.)
⊢ ((𝜑 → ∀𝑥(𝜓 → 𝜒)) → ((𝜑 → ∀𝑥𝜓) → (𝜑 → ∀𝑥𝜒)))
Theorem	bj-alrimg 37558	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 37580. (Contributed by BJ, 9-Dec-2023.)
⊢ ((𝜑 → ∀𝑥𝜓) → (∀𝑥(𝜓 → 𝜒) → (𝜑 → ∀𝑥𝜒)))
Theorem	bj-sylgt2 37559	Uncurried (imported) form of sylgt 1854. (Contributed by BJ, 2-May-2019.)
⊢ ((∀𝑥(𝜓 → 𝜒) ∧ (𝜑 → ∀𝑥𝜓)) → (𝜑 → ∀𝑥𝜒))
Theorem	bj-nexdh 37560	Closed form of nexdh 1897 (actually, its general instance). (Contributed by BJ, 6-May-2019.)
⊢ (∀𝑥(𝜑 → ¬ 𝜓) → ((𝜒 → ∀𝑥𝜑) → (𝜒 → ¬ ∃𝑥𝜓)))
Theorem	bj-nexdh2 37561	Uncurried (imported) form of bj-nexdh 37560. (Contributed by BJ, 6-May-2019.)
⊢ ((∀𝑥(𝜑 → ¬ 𝜓) ∧ (𝜒 → ∀𝑥𝜑)) → (𝜒 → ¬ ∃𝑥𝜓))
Theorem	bj-alimii 37562	Inference associated with alimi 1843. Double inference associated with alim 1842. The usual proof of an associated inference (here from alimi 1843 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 37563	Add an antecedent in a universally quantified formula. Inference associated with ala1 1845. (Contributed by BJ, 6-Oct-2018.)
⊢ ∀𝑥𝜑    ⇒   ⊢ ∀𝑥(𝜓 → 𝜑)
Theorem	bj-almpi 37564	A quantified form of mpi 21. See also barbara 2687, bj-ala1i 37563, bj-almp 37556. (Contributed by BJ, 19-Mar-2026.)
⊢ ∀𝑥(𝜑 → (𝜒 → 𝜓))    &   ⊢ ∀𝑥𝜒    ⇒   ⊢ ∀𝑥(𝜑 → 𝜓)
Theorem	bj-almpig 37565	A partially quantified form of mpi 21 similar to bj-almpi 37564. (Contributed by BJ, 19-Mar-2026.)
⊢ (𝜑 → (𝜒 → 𝜓))    &   ⊢ ∀𝑥𝜒    ⇒   ⊢ ∀𝑥(𝜑 → 𝜓)
Theorem	bj-alsyl 37566	Syllogism under the universal quantifier, in the curried form appearing as Theorem *10.3 of [WhiteheadRussell] p. 145. See alsyl 1925 for the uncurried form. (Contributed by BJ, 28-Mar-2026.)
⊢ (∀𝑥(𝜑 → 𝜓) → (∀𝑥(𝜓 → 𝜒) → ∀𝑥(𝜑 → 𝜒)))
Theorem	bj-2alim 37567	Closed form of 2alimi 1844. (Contributed by BJ, 6-May-2019.)
⊢ (∀𝑥∀𝑦(𝜑 → 𝜓) → (∀𝑥∀𝑦𝜑 → ∀𝑥∀𝑦𝜓))
Theorem	bj-alimdh 37568	General instance of alimdh 1849. (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 37569	Deduction form of Theorem 19.21 of [Margaris] p. 90, see 19.21 2243 and 19.21h 2320. (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 37570	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 37571	Add an antecedent in an existentially quantified formula. Inference associated with exa1 1870. (Contributed by BJ, 6-Oct-2018.)
⊢ ∃𝑥𝜑    ⇒   ⊢ ∃𝑥(𝜓 → 𝜑)
Theorem	bj-alanim 37572	Closed form of alanimi 1848. (Contributed by BJ, 6-May-2019.)
⊢ (∀𝑥((𝜑 ∧ 𝜓) → 𝜒) → ((∀𝑥𝜑 ∧ ∀𝑥𝜓) → ∀𝑥𝜒))
Theorem	bj-2albi 37573	Closed form of 2albii 1852. (Contributed by BJ, 6-May-2019.)
⊢ (∀𝑥∀𝑦(𝜑 ↔ 𝜓) → (∀𝑥∀𝑦𝜑 ↔ ∀𝑥∀𝑦𝜓))
Theorem	bj-notalbii 37574	Equivalence of universal quantification of negation of equivalent formulas. Shortens ab0 4328 (103>94), ballotlem2 35164 (2655>2648), bnj1143 35463 (522>519), hausdiag 23965 (2119>2104). (Contributed by BJ, 17-Jul-2021.)
⊢ (𝜑 ↔ 𝜓)    ⇒   ⊢ (∀𝑥 ¬ 𝜑 ↔ ∀𝑥 ¬ 𝜓)
Theorem	bj-2exim 37575	Closed form of 2eximi 1868. (Contributed by BJ, 6-May-2019.)
⊢ (∀𝑥∀𝑦(𝜑 → 𝜓) → (∃𝑥∃𝑦𝜑 → ∃𝑥∃𝑦𝜓))
Theorem	bj-2exbi 37576	Closed form of 2exbii 1881. (Contributed by BJ, 6-May-2019.)
⊢ (∀𝑥∀𝑦(𝜑 ↔ 𝜓) → (∃𝑥∃𝑦𝜑 ↔ ∃𝑥∃𝑦𝜓))
Theorem	bj-3exbi 37577	Closed form of 3exbii 1882. (Contributed by BJ, 6-May-2019.)
⊢ (∀𝑥∀𝑦∀𝑧(𝜑 ↔ 𝜓) → (∃𝑥∃𝑦∃𝑧𝜑 ↔ ∃𝑥∃𝑦∃𝑧𝜓))
Theorem	bj-sylget 37578	Dual statement of sylgt 1854. Closed form of bj-sylge 37581. (Contributed by BJ, 2-May-2019.)
⊢ (∀𝑥(𝜒 → 𝜑) → ((∃𝑥𝜑 → 𝜓) → (∃𝑥𝜒 → 𝜓)))
Theorem	bj-sylget2 37579	Uncurried (imported) form of bj-sylget 37578. (Contributed by BJ, 2-May-2019.)
⊢ ((∀𝑥(𝜑 → 𝜓) ∧ (∃𝑥𝜓 → 𝜒)) → (∃𝑥𝜑 → 𝜒))
Theorem	bj-exlimg 37580	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 37558. (Contributed by BJ, 9-Dec-2023.)
⊢ ((∃𝑥𝜑 → 𝜓) → (∀𝑥(𝜒 → 𝜑) → (∃𝑥𝜒 → 𝜓)))
Theorem	bj-sylge 37581	Dual statement of sylg 1855 (the final "e" in the label stands for "existential (version of sylg 1855)". Variant of exlimih 2322. (Contributed by BJ, 25-Dec-2023.)
⊢ (∃𝑥𝜑 → 𝜓)    &   ⊢ (𝜒 → 𝜑)    ⇒   ⊢ (∃𝑥𝜒 → 𝜓)
Theorem	bj-exlimd 37582	A slightly more general exlimd 2254. A common usage will have 𝜑 substituted for 𝜓 and 𝜃 substituted for 𝜏, giving a form closer to exlimd 2254. (Contributed by BJ, 25-Dec-2023.)
⊢ (𝜑 → ∀𝑥𝜓)    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → (∃𝑥𝜃 → 𝜏))    &   ⊢ (𝜓 → (𝜒 → 𝜃))    ⇒   ⊢ (𝜑 → (∃𝑥𝜒 → 𝜏))
Theorem	bj-nfimexal 37583	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 1871) and the converse implication is the join of instances of bj-alrimg 37558 and bj-exlimg 37580 (see 19.38a 1872 and 19.38b 1873). 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 37584	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 1842 to allow use in bj-alexim 37585. (Revised by BJ, 9-Dec-2023.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) (New usage is discouraged.)
⊢ (∀𝑥(𝜑 → 𝜓) → (∃𝑥𝜑 → ∃𝑥𝜓))
Theorem	bj-alexim 37585	Closed form of aleximi 1864. Note: this proof is shorter, so aleximi 1864 could be deduced from it (exim 1866 would have to be proved first, see bj-exim 37584). (Contributed by BJ, 8-Nov-2021.)
⊢ (∀𝑥(𝜑 → (𝜓 → 𝜒)) → (∀𝑥𝜑 → (∃𝑥𝜓 → ∃𝑥𝜒)))
Theorem	bj-aleximiALT 37586	Alternate proof of aleximi 1864 from exim 1866, 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 37587	Closed form of hbxfrbi 1857. Note: it is less important than nfbiit 1883. The antecedent is in the "strong necessity" modality of modal logic (see also bj-nnftht 37720) in order not to require sp 2219 (modal T). See bj-hbyfrbi 37588 for its version with existential quantifiers. (Contributed by BJ, 6-May-2019.)
⊢ (((𝜑 ↔ 𝜓) ∧ ∀𝑥(𝜑 ↔ 𝜓)) → ((𝜑 → ∀𝑥𝜑) ↔ (𝜓 → ∀𝑥𝜓)))
Theorem	bj-hbyfrbi 37588	Version of bj-hbxfrbi 37587 with existential quantifiers. (Contributed by BJ, 23-Aug-2023.)
⊢ (((𝜑 ↔ 𝜓) ∧ ∀𝑥(𝜑 ↔ 𝜓)) → ((∃𝑥𝜑 → 𝜑) ↔ (∃𝑥𝜓 → 𝜓)))
Theorem	bj-exalim 37589	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 1942. I propose to move to the main part: bj-exalim 37589, bj-exalimi 37590, bj-eximcom 37591 bj-exalims 37592, bj-exalimsi 37593, bj-ax12i 37596, bj-ax12wlem 37619, bj-ax12w 37652. A new label is needed for bj-ax12i 37596 and label suggestions are welcome for the others. I also propose to change ¬ ∀𝑥¬ to ∃𝑥 in speimfw 1995 and spimfw 1997 (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 37590	An inference for distributing quantifiers over a nested implication. The canonical derivation from its closed form bj-exalim 37589 (using mpg 1829) has fewer essential steps, but more steps in total (yielding a longer compressed proof). (Almost) the general statement that speimfw 1995 proves. (Contributed by BJ, 29-Sep-2019.)
⊢ (𝜑 → (𝜓 → 𝜒))    ⇒   ⊢ (∃𝑥𝜑 → (∀𝑥𝜓 → ∃𝑥𝜒))
Theorem	bj-eximcom 37591	A commuted form of exim 1866 which is sometimes posited as an axiom in instuitionistic modal logic. Forward implication of 19.35 1909. Its converse is not intuitionistic. (Contributed by BJ, 9-Dec-2023.)
⊢ (∃𝑥(𝜑 → 𝜓) → (∀𝑥𝜑 → ∃𝑥𝜓))
Theorem	bj-exalims 37592	Distributing quantifiers over a nested implication. (Almost) the general statement that spimfw 1997 proves. (Contributed by BJ, 29-Sep-2019.)
⊢ (∃𝑥𝜑 → (¬ 𝜒 → ∀𝑥 ¬ 𝜒))    ⇒   ⊢ (∀𝑥(𝜑 → (𝜓 → 𝜒)) → (∃𝑥𝜑 → (∀𝑥𝜓 → 𝜒)))
Theorem	bj-exalimsi 37593	An inference for distributing quantifiers over a nested implication. (Almost) the general statement that spimfw 1997 proves. (Contributed by BJ, 29-Sep-2019.)
⊢ (𝜑 → (𝜓 → 𝜒))    &   ⊢ (∃𝑥𝜑 → (¬ 𝜒 → ∀𝑥 ¬ 𝜒))    ⇒   ⊢ (∃𝑥𝜑 → (∀𝑥𝜓 → 𝜒))
Theorem	bj-axdd2ALT 37594	Alternate proof of bj-axdd2 37537 (this should replace bj-axdd2 37537 when bj-exalimi 37590 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 37595	A lemma used to prove a weak form of the axiom of substitution. A generalization of bj-ax12i 37596. (Contributed by BJ, 19-Dec-2020.)
⊢ (𝜑 → (𝜓 ↔ 𝜒))    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → (𝜒 → ∀𝑥𝜒))    ⇒   ⊢ (𝜑 → (𝜓 → ∀𝑥(𝜑 → 𝜓)))
Theorem	bj-ax12i 37596	A weakening of bj-ax12ig 37595 that is sufficient to prove a weak form of the axiom of substitution ax-12 2212. The general statement of which ax12i 1998 is an instance. (Contributed by BJ, 29-Sep-2019.)
⊢ (𝜑 → (𝜓 ↔ 𝜒))    &   ⊢ (𝜒 → ∀𝑥𝜒)    ⇒   ⊢ (𝜑 → (𝜓 → ∀𝑥(𝜑 → 𝜓)))
Theorem	bj-nfimt 37597	Closed form of nfim 1928 and curried (exported) form of nfimt 1927. (Contributed by BJ, 20-Oct-2021.) Proof should not use 19.35 1909. (Proof modification is discouraged.)
⊢ (Ⅎ𝑥𝜑 → (Ⅎ𝑥𝜓 → Ⅎ𝑥(𝜑 → 𝜓)))
Theorem	bj-spimnfe 37598	A universal specification result: if 𝜑 is true for all values of 𝑥 and implies 𝜓 for at least one value, and if furthermore 𝑥 is ∃-weakly nonfree in 𝜓, then 𝜓 follows. An intermediate result on the way to prove 19.36i 2267, bj-19.36im 37740, 19.36imv 1977, spimfw 1997... (Contributed by BJ, 3-Apr-2026.) Proof should not use 19.35 1909. (Proof modification is discouraged.)
⊢ ((∃𝑥𝜓 → 𝜓) → (∃𝑥(𝜑 → 𝜓) → (∀𝑥𝜑 → 𝜓)))
Theorem	bj-spimenfa 37599	An existential generalization result: if 𝜑 holds and implies 𝜓 for at least one value of 𝑥, and if furthermore 𝑥 is ∀ -weakly nonfree in 𝜑, then 𝜓 holds for at least one value of 𝑥. (Contributed by BJ, 3-Apr-2026.) Proof should not use 19.35 1909. (Proof modification is discouraged.)
⊢ ((𝜑 → ∀𝑥𝜑) → (∃𝑥(𝜑 → 𝜓) → (𝜑 → ∃𝑥𝜓)))
Theorem	bj-spim 37600	A lemma for universal specification. In applications, 𝑥 = 𝑦 will be substituted for 𝜓 and ax6ev 2001 will prove Hypothesis bj-spim.denote. (Contributed by BJ, 4-Apr-2026.)
⊢ (𝜑 → ∀𝑥𝜑)    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → (∃𝑥𝜃 → 𝜃))    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → ∃𝑥𝜓)    &   ⊢ ((𝜑 ∧ 𝜓) → (𝜒 → 𝜃))    ⇒   ⊢ (𝜑 → (∀𝑥𝜒 → 𝜃))