P. 379 of Theorem List - Metamath Proof Explorer

Theorem List for Metamath Proof Explorer - 37801-37900   *Has distinct variable group(s)

Type	Label	Description
Statement
Theorem	bj-bialal 37801	When 𝜑 is substituted for 𝜓, both sides express a form of nonfreeness. (Contributed by BJ, 20-Oct-2019.)
⊢ (∀𝑥(∀𝑥𝜑 → 𝜓) ↔ (∀𝑥𝜑 → ∀𝑥𝜓))
Theorem	bj-biexex 37802	When 𝜑 is substituted for 𝜓, both sides express a form of nonfreeness. (Contributed by BJ, 20-Oct-2019.)
⊢ (∀𝑥(𝜑 → ∃𝑥𝜓) ↔ (∃𝑥𝜑 → ∃𝑥𝜓))
Theorem	bj-hbexd 37803	A more general instance of the deduction form of hbex 2359. (Contributed by BJ, 4-Apr-2026.)
⊢ (𝜑 → ∀𝑦𝜓)    &   ⊢ (𝜓 → (𝜒 → ∀𝑥𝜃))    ⇒   ⊢ (𝜑 → (∃𝑦𝜒 → ∀𝑥∃𝑦𝜃))
Theorem	bj-hbext 37804	Closed form of bj-hbex 37805 and hbex 2359. (Contributed by BJ, 10-Oct-2019.)
⊢ (∀𝑦∀𝑥(𝜑 → ∀𝑥𝜓) → (∃𝑦𝜑 → ∀𝑥∃𝑦𝜓))
Theorem	bj-hbex 37805	A more general instance of hbex 2359. (Contributed by BJ, 4-Apr-2026.)
⊢ (𝜑 → ∀𝑥𝜓)    ⇒   ⊢ (∃𝑦𝜑 → ∀𝑥∃𝑦𝜓)
Theorem	bj-nfalt 37806	Closed form of nfal 2357. (Contributed by BJ, 2-May-2019.)
⊢ (∀𝑥Ⅎ𝑦𝜑 → Ⅎ𝑦∀𝑥𝜑)
Theorem	bj-nfext 37807	Closed form of nfex 2358. (Contributed by BJ, 10-Oct-2019.)
⊢ (∀𝑥Ⅎ𝑦𝜑 → Ⅎ𝑦∃𝑥𝜑)
Theorem	bj-eeanvw 37808*	Version of exdistrv 1990 with a disjoint variable condition on 𝑥, 𝑦 not requiring ax-11 2197. (The same can be done with eeeanv 2383 and ee4anv 2384.) (Contributed by BJ, 29-Sep-2019.) (Proof modification is discouraged.)
⊢ (∃𝑥∃𝑦(𝜑 ∧ 𝜓) ↔ (∃𝑥𝜑 ∧ ∃𝑦𝜓))
Theorem	bj-modal4 37809	First-order logic form of the modal axiom (4). See hba1 2330. This is the standard proof of the implication in modal logic (B5 ⇒ 4). Its dual statement is bj-modal4e 37810. (Contributed by BJ, 12-Aug-2023.) (Proof modification is discouraged.)
⊢ (∀𝑥𝜑 → ∀𝑥∀𝑥𝜑)
Theorem	bj-modal4e 37810	First-order logic form of the modal axiom (4) using existential quantifiers. Dual statement of bj-modal4 37809 (hba1 2330). (Contributed by BJ, 21-Dec-2020.) (Proof modification is discouraged.)
⊢ (∃𝑥∃𝑥𝜑 → ∃𝑥𝜑)
Theorem	bj-modalb 37811	A short form of the axiom B of modal logic using only primitive symbols (→ , ¬ , ∀). (Contributed by BJ, 4-Apr-2021.) (Proof modification is discouraged.)
⊢ (¬ 𝜑 → ∀𝑥 ¬ ∀𝑥𝜑)
Theorem	bj-wnf1 37812	When 𝜑 is substituted for 𝜓, this is the first half of nonfreness (. → ∀) of the weak form of nonfreeness (∃ → ∀). (Contributed by BJ, 9-Dec-2023.)
⊢ ((∃𝑥𝜑 → ∀𝑥𝜓) → ∀𝑥(∃𝑥𝜑 → ∀𝑥𝜓))
Theorem	bj-wnf2 37813	When 𝜑 is substituted for 𝜓, this is the first half of nonfreness (. → ∀) of the weak form of nonfreeness (∃ → ∀). (Contributed by BJ, 9-Dec-2023.)
⊢ (∃𝑥(∃𝑥𝜑 → ∀𝑥𝜓) → (∃𝑥𝜑 → ∀𝑥𝜓))
Theorem	bj-wnfanf 37814	When 𝜑 is substituted for 𝜓, this statement expresses that weak nonfreeness implies the universal form of nonfreeness. (Contributed by BJ, 9-Dec-2023.)
⊢ ((∃𝑥𝜑 → ∀𝑥𝜓) → ∀𝑥(𝜑 → ∀𝑥𝜓))
Theorem	bj-wnfenf 37815	When 𝜑 is substituted for 𝜓, this statement expresses that weak nonfreeness implies the existential form of nonfreeness. (Contributed by BJ, 9-Dec-2023.)
⊢ ((∃𝑥𝜑 → ∀𝑥𝜓) → ∀𝑥(∃𝑥𝜑 → 𝜓))
Theorem	bj-19.12 37816	See 19.12 2361. Could be labeled "exalimalex" for "'there exists for all' implies 'for all there exists'". This proof is from excom 2202 and modal (B) on top of modalK logic. (Contributed by BJ, 12-Aug-2023.) The proof should not rely on df-nf 1817 or df-bj-nnf 37820, directly or indirectly. (Proof modification is discouraged.)
⊢ (∃𝑥∀𝑦𝜑 → ∀𝑦∃𝑥𝜑)
21.20.4.11  Really adding ax-12 The results in the previous section, as actually many theorems of the main part using ax-12 2216, actually only require sp 2223 (which is proved using ax-12 2216).
Theorem	bj-substax12 37817	Equivalent form of the axiom of substitution bj-ax12 37747. Although both sides need a DV condition on 𝑥, 𝑡 (or as in bj-ax12v3 37778 on 𝑡, 𝜑) to hold, their equivalence holds without DV conditions. The forward implication is proved in modal (K4) while the reverse implication is proved in modal (T5). The LHS has the advantage of not involving nested quantifiers on the same variable. Its metaweakening is proved from the core axiom schemes in bj-substw 37818. In the LHS, the reverse implication holds by equs4 2448 (or equs4v 2035 if a DV condition is added on 𝑥, 𝑡 as in bj-ax12 37747), and the forward implication is sbalex 2282. The LHS can be read as saying that if there exists a variable equal to a given term witnessing a given formula, then all variables equal to that term also witness that formula. The equivalent form of the LHS using only primitive symbols is (∀𝑥(𝑥 = 𝑡 → 𝜑) ∨ ∀𝑥(𝑥 = 𝑡 → ¬ 𝜑)), which expresses that a given formula is true at all variables equal to a given term, or false at all these variables. An equivalent form of the LHS using only the existential quantifier is ¬ (∃𝑥(𝑥 = 𝑡 ∧ 𝜑) ∧ ∃𝑥(𝑥 = 𝑡 ∧ ¬ 𝜑)), which expresses that there can be no two variables both equal to a given term, one witnessing a formula and the other witnessing its negation. These equivalences do not hold in intuitionistic logic. The LHS should be the preferred form, and has the advantage of having no negation nor nested quantifiers. (Contributed by BJ, 21-May-2024.) (Proof modification is discouraged.)
⊢ ((∃𝑥(𝑥 = 𝑡 ∧ 𝜑) → ∀𝑥(𝑥 = 𝑡 → 𝜑)) ↔ ∀𝑥(𝑥 = 𝑡 → (𝜑 → ∀𝑥(𝑥 = 𝑡 → 𝜑))))
Theorem	bj-substw 37818*	Weak form of the LHS of bj-substax12 37817 proved from the core axiom schemes. Compare ax12w 2172. (Contributed by BJ, 26-May-2024.) (Proof modification is discouraged.)
⊢ (𝑥 = 𝑡 → (𝜑 ↔ 𝜓))    ⇒   ⊢ (∃𝑥(𝑥 = 𝑡 ∧ 𝜑) → ∀𝑥(𝑥 = 𝑡 → 𝜑))
21.20.4.12  Nonfreeness
Syntax	wnnf 37819	Syntax for the nonfreeness quantifier.
wff Ⅎ'𝑥𝜑
Definition	df-bj-nnf 37820	Definition of the nonfreeness quantifier. The formula Ⅎ'𝑥𝜑 has the intended meaning that the variable 𝑥 is semantically nonfree in the formula 𝜑. The motivation for this quantifier is to have a condition expressible in the logic which is as close as possible to the non-occurrence condition DV (𝑥, 𝜑) (in Metamath files, "$d x ph $."), which belongs to the metalogic. The standard syntactic nonfreeness condition, also expressed in the metalogic, is intermediate between these two notions: semantic nonfreeness implies syntactic nonfreeness, which implies non-occurrence. Both implications are strict; for the first, note that ⊢ Ⅎ'𝑥𝑥 = 𝑥, that is, 𝑥 is semantically (but not syntactically) nonfree in the formula 𝑥 = 𝑥; for the second, note that 𝑥 is syntactically nonfree in the formula ∀𝑥𝑥 = 𝑥 although it occurs in it. We now prove two metatheorems which make precise the above fact that, as far as proving power is concerned, the nonfreeness condition Ⅎ'𝑥𝜑 is very close to the non-occurrence condition DV (𝑥, 𝜑). Let S be a Metamath system with the FOL-syntax of (i)set.mm, containing intuitionistic positive propositional calculus and ax-5 1945 and ax5e 1947. Theorem 1. If the scheme (Ⅎ'𝑥𝜑 & PHI1 & ... & PHIn ⇒ PHI0, DV) is provable in S, then so is the scheme (PHI1 & ... & PHIn ⇒ PHI0, DV ∪ {{𝑥, 𝜑}}). Proof: By bj-nnfv 37861, we can prove (Ⅎ'𝑥𝜑, {{𝑥, 𝜑}}), from which the theorem follows. QED Theorem 2. Suppose that S also contains (the FOL version of) modal logic KB and commutation of quantifiers alcom 2199 and excom 2202 (possibly weakened by a DV condition on the quantifying variables), and that S can be axiomatized such that the only axioms with a DV condition involving a formula variable are among ax-5 1945, ax5e 1947, ax5ea 1948. If the scheme (PHI1 & ... & PHIn ⇒ PHI0, DV) is provable in S, then so is the scheme (Ⅎ'𝑥𝜑 & PHI1 & ... & PHIn ⇒ PHI0, DV ∖ {{𝑥, 𝜑}}). More precisely, if S contains modal 45 and if the variables quantified over in PHI0, ..., PHIn are among 𝑥1, ..., 𝑥m, then the scheme (PHI1 & ... & PHIn ⇒ (antecedent → PHI0), DV ∖ {{𝑥, 𝜑}}) is provable in S, where the antecedent is a finite conjunction of formulas of the form ∀𝑥i1 ...∀𝑥ip Ⅎ'𝑥𝜑 where the 𝑥ij's are among the 𝑥i's. Lemma: If 𝑥 ∉ OC(PHI), then S proves the scheme (Ⅎ'𝑥𝜑 ⇒ Ⅎ'𝑥 PHI, {{𝑥, 𝑎} ∣ 𝑎 ∈ OC(PHI) ∖ {𝜑}}). More precisely, if the variables quantified over in PHI are among 𝑥1, ..., 𝑥m, then ((antecedent → Ⅎ'𝑥 PHI), {{𝑥, 𝑎} ∣ 𝑎 ∈ OC(PHI) ∖ {𝜑}}) is provable in S, with the same form of antecedent as above. Proof: By induction on the height of PHI. We first note that by bj-nnfbi 37840 we can assume that PHI contains only primitive (as opposed to defined) symbols. For the base case, atomic formulas are either 𝜑, in which case the scheme to prove is an instance of id 23, or have variables all in OC(PHI) ∖ {𝜑}, so (Ⅎ'𝑥 PHI, {{𝑥, 𝑎} ∣ 𝑎 ∈ OC(PHI) ∖ {𝜑}}) by bj-nnfv 37861, hence ((Ⅎ'𝑥𝜑 → Ⅎ'𝑥 PHI), {{𝑥, 𝑎} ∣ 𝑎 ∈ OC(PHI) ∖ {𝜑}}) by a1i 11. For the induction step, PHI is either an implication, a negation, a conjunction, a disjunction, a biconditional, a universal or an existential quantification of formulas where 𝑥 does not occur. We use respectively bj-nnfim 37845, bj-nnfnt 37843, bj-nnfan 37847, bj-nnfor 37849, bj-nnfbit 37851, bj-nnfalt 37883, bj-nnfext 37884. For instance, in the implication case, if we have by induction hypothesis ((∀𝑥1 ...∀𝑥m Ⅎ'𝑥𝜑 → Ⅎ'𝑥 PHI), {{𝑥, 𝑎} ∣ 𝑎 ∈ OC(PHI) ∖ {𝜑}}) and ((∀𝑦1 ...∀𝑦n Ⅎ'𝑥𝜑 → Ⅎ'𝑥 PSI), {{𝑥, 𝑎} ∣ 𝑎 ∈ OC(PSI) ∖ {𝜑}}), then bj-nnfim 37845 yields (((∀𝑥1 ...∀𝑥m Ⅎ'𝑥𝜑 ∧ ∀𝑦1 ...∀𝑦n Ⅎ'𝑥𝜑) → Ⅎ'𝑥 (PHI → PSI)), {{𝑥, 𝑎} ∣ 𝑎 ∈ OC(PHI → PSI) ∖ {𝜑}}) and similarly for antecedents which are conjunctions as in the statement of the lemma. In the universal quantification case, say quantification over 𝑦, if we have by induction hypothesis ((∀𝑥1 ...∀𝑥m Ⅎ'𝑥𝜑 → Ⅎ'𝑥 PHI), {{𝑥, 𝑎} ∣ 𝑎 ∈ OC(PHI) ∖ {𝜑}}), then bj-nnfalt 37883 yields ((∀𝑦∀𝑥1 ...∀𝑥m Ⅎ'𝑥𝜑 → Ⅎ'𝑥∀𝑦 PHI), {{𝑥, 𝑎} ∣ 𝑎 ∈ OC(∀𝑦 PHI) ∖ {𝜑}}) and similarly for antecedents which are conjunctions as in the statement of the lemma. Note bj-nnfalt 37883 and bj-nnfext 37884 are proved from positive propositional calculus with alcom 2199 and excom 2202 (possibly weakened by a DV condition on the quantifying variables), and modalB (via bj-19.12 37816). QED Proof of the theorem: Consider a proof of that scheme directly from the axioms. Consider a step where a DV condition involving 𝜑 is used. By hypothesis, that step is an instance of ax-5 1945 or ax5e 1947 or ax5ea 1948. It has the form (PSI → ∀𝑥 PSI) where PSI has the form of the lemma and the DV conditions of the proof contain {{𝑥, 𝑎} ∣ 𝑎 ∈ OC(PSI) }. Therefore, one has ((∀𝑥1 ...∀𝑥m Ⅎ'𝑥𝜑 → Ⅎ'𝑥 PSI), {{𝑥, 𝑎} ∣ 𝑎 ∈ OC(PSI) ∖ {𝜑}}) for appropriate 𝑥i's, and by bj-nnfa 37821 we obtain ((∀𝑥1 ...∀𝑥m Ⅎ'𝑥𝜑 → (PSI → ∀𝑥 PSI)), {{𝑥, 𝑎} ∣ 𝑎 ∈ OC(PSI) ∖ {𝜑}}) and similarly for antecedents which are conjunctions as in the statement of the theorem. Similarly if the step is using ax5e 1947 or ax5ea 1948, we would use bj-nnfe 37824 or bj-nnfea 37827 respectively. Therefore, taking as antecedent of the theorem to prove the conjunction of all the antecedents at each of these steps, we obtain a proof by "carrying the context over", which is possible, as in the deduction theorem when the step uses ax-mp 5, and when the step uses ax-gen 1828, by bj-nnf-alrim 37838 and bj-nnfa1 37877 (which requires modal 45). The condition DV (𝑥, 𝜑) is not required by the resulting proof. Finally, there may be in the global antecedent thus constructed some dummy variables, which can be removed by spvw 2016. QED Compared with df-nf 1817, the present definition is stricter on positive propositional calculus (bj-nnfnfTEMP 37833) and equivalent on core FOL plus sp 2223 (bj-nfnnfTEMP 37875). While being stricter, it still holds for non-occurring variables (bj-nnfv 37861), which is the basic requirement for this quantifier. In particular, it translates more closely the associated variable disjointness condition. Since the nonfreeness quantifier is a means to translate a variable disjointness condition from the metalogic to the logic, it seems preferable. Also, since nonfreeness is mainly used as a hypothesis, this definition would allow more theorems, notably the 19.xx theorems, to be proved from the core axioms, without needing a 19.xxv variant. One can devise infinitely many definitions increasingly close to the non-occurring condition, like ((∃𝑥𝜑 → 𝜑) ∧ (𝜑 → ∀𝑥𝜑)) ∧ ∀𝑥((∃𝑥𝜑 → 𝜑) ∧ (𝜑 → ∀𝑥𝜑)) ∧ ∀𝑥∀𝑥... and each stronger definition would permit more theorems to be proved from the core axioms. A reasonable rule seems to be to stop before nested quantifiers appear (since they typically require ax-10 2180 to work with), and also not to have redundant conjuncts when full metacomplete FOL= is developed. (Contributed by BJ, 28-Jul-2023.)
⊢ (Ⅎ'𝑥𝜑 ↔ ((∃𝑥𝜑 → 𝜑) ∧ (𝜑 → ∀𝑥𝜑)))
Theorem	bj-nnfa 37821	Nonfreeness implies the equivalent of ax-5 1945. See nf5r 2234. (Contributed by BJ, 28-Jul-2023.)
⊢ (Ⅎ'𝑥𝜑 → (𝜑 → ∀𝑥𝜑))
Theorem	bj-nnfad 37822	Nonfreeness implies the equivalent of ax-5 1945, deduction form. See nf5rd 2236. (Contributed by BJ, 2-Dec-2023.)
⊢ (𝜑 → Ⅎ'𝑥𝜓)    ⇒   ⊢ (𝜑 → (𝜓 → ∀𝑥𝜓))
Theorem	bj-nnfai 37823	Nonfreeness implies the equivalent of ax-5 1945, inference form. See nf5ri 2235. (Contributed by BJ, 22-Sep-2024.)
⊢ Ⅎ'𝑥𝜑    ⇒   ⊢ (𝜑 → ∀𝑥𝜑)
Theorem	bj-nnfe 37824	Nonfreeness implies the equivalent of ax5e 1947. (Contributed by BJ, 28-Jul-2023.)
⊢ (Ⅎ'𝑥𝜑 → (∃𝑥𝜑 → 𝜑))
Theorem	bj-nnfed 37825	Nonfreeness implies the equivalent of ax5e 1947, deduction form. (Contributed by BJ, 2-Dec-2023.)
⊢ (𝜑 → Ⅎ'𝑥𝜓)    ⇒   ⊢ (𝜑 → (∃𝑥𝜓 → 𝜓))
Theorem	bj-nnfei 37826	Nonfreeness implies the equivalent of ax5e 1947, inference form. (Contributed by BJ, 22-Sep-2024.)
⊢ Ⅎ'𝑥𝜑    ⇒   ⊢ (∃𝑥𝜑 → 𝜑)
Theorem	bj-nnfea 37827	Nonfreeness implies the equivalent of ax5ea 1948. (Contributed by BJ, 28-Jul-2023.)
⊢ (Ⅎ'𝑥𝜑 → (∃𝑥𝜑 → ∀𝑥𝜑))
Theorem	bj-nnfead 37828	Nonfreeness implies the equivalent of ax5ea 1948, deduction form. (Contributed by BJ, 2-Dec-2023.)
⊢ (𝜑 → Ⅎ'𝑥𝜓)    ⇒   ⊢ (𝜑 → (∃𝑥𝜓 → ∀𝑥𝜓))
Theorem	bj-nnfeai 37829	Nonfreeness implies the equivalent of ax5ea 1948, inference form. (Contributed by BJ, 22-Sep-2024.)
⊢ Ⅎ'𝑥𝜑    ⇒   ⊢ (∃𝑥𝜑 → ∀𝑥𝜑)
Theorem	bj-alnnf 37830	In deduction-style proofs, it is equivalent to assert that the context holds for all values of a variable, or that is does not depend on that variable. (Contributed by BJ, 28-Mar-2026.)
⊢ ((𝜑 → ∀𝑥𝜑) ↔ (𝜑 → Ⅎ'𝑥𝜑))
Theorem	bj-alnnf2 37831	If a proposition holds, then it holds for all values of a given variable if and only if it does not depend on that variable. (Contributed by BJ, 28-Mar-2026.)
⊢ (𝜑 → (∀𝑥𝜑 ↔ Ⅎ'𝑥𝜑))
Theorem	bj-dfnnf2 37832	Alternate definition of df-bj-nnf 37820 using only primitive symbols (→, ¬, ∀) in each conjunct. (Contributed by BJ, 20-Aug-2023.)
⊢ (Ⅎ'𝑥𝜑 ↔ ((𝜑 → ∀𝑥𝜑) ∧ (¬ 𝜑 → ∀𝑥 ¬ 𝜑)))
Theorem	bj-nnfnfTEMP 37833	New nonfreeness implies old nonfreeness on minimal implicational calculus (the proof indicates it uses ax-3 8 because of set.mm's definition of the biconditional, but the proof actually holds in minimal implicational calculus). (Contributed by BJ, 28-Jul-2023.) The proof should not rely on df-nf 1817 except via df-nf 1817 directly. (Proof modification is discouraged.)
⊢ (Ⅎ'𝑥𝜑 → Ⅎ𝑥𝜑)
Theorem	bj-nnfim1 37834	A consequence of nonfreeness in the antecedent and the consequent of an implication. (Contributed by BJ, 27-Aug-2023.)
⊢ ((Ⅎ'𝑥𝜑 ∧ Ⅎ'𝑥𝜓) → ((𝜑 → 𝜓) → (∃𝑥𝜑 → ∀𝑥𝜓)))
Theorem	bj-nnfim2 37835	A consequence of nonfreeness in the antecedent and the consequent of an implication. (Contributed by BJ, 27-Aug-2023.)
⊢ ((Ⅎ'𝑥𝜑 ∧ Ⅎ'𝑥𝜓) → ((∀𝑥𝜑 → ∃𝑥𝜓) → (𝜑 → 𝜓)))
Theorem	bj-nnftht 37836	A variable is nonfree in a theorem. The antecedent is in the "strong necessity" modality of modal logic in order not to require sp 2223 (modal T), as in bj-nnfbi 37840. (Contributed by BJ, 28-Jul-2023.)
⊢ ((𝜑 ∧ ∀𝑥𝜑) → Ⅎ'𝑥𝜑)
Theorem	bj-nnfth 37837	A variable is nonfree in a theorem, inference form. (Contributed by BJ, 28-Jul-2023.)
⊢ 𝜑    ⇒   ⊢ Ⅎ'𝑥𝜑
Theorem	bj-nnf-alrim 37838	Proof of the closed form of alrimi 2253 from modalK (compare alrimiv 1962). See also bj-alrim 37786. Actually, most proofs between 19.3t 2241 and 2sbbid 2286 could be proved without ax-12 2216. (Contributed by BJ, 20-Aug-2023.)
⊢ (Ⅎ'𝑥𝜑 → (∀𝑥(𝜑 → 𝜓) → (𝜑 → ∀𝑥𝜓)))
Theorem	bj-stdpc5t 37839	Alias of bj-nnf-alrim 37838 for labeling consistency (a standard predicate calculus axiom). Closed form of stdpc5 2248 proved from modalK (obsoleting stdpc5v 1973). (Contributed by BJ, 2-Dec-2023.) Use bj-nnf-alrim 37838 instead. (New usaged is discouraged.)
⊢ (Ⅎ'𝑥𝜑 → (∀𝑥(𝜑 → 𝜓) → (𝜑 → ∀𝑥𝜓)))
Theorem	bj-nnfbi 37840	If two formulas are equivalent, then nonfreeness of a variable in one of them is equivalent to nonfreeness in the other. Compare nfbiit 1884. From this and bj-nnfim 37845 and bj-nnfnt 37843, one can prove analogous nonfreeness conservation results for other propositional operators. The antecedent is in the "strong necessity" modality of modal logic (see also bj-nnftht 37836) in order not to require sp 2223 (modal T). (Contributed by BJ, 27-Aug-2023.)
⊢ (((𝜑 ↔ 𝜓) ∧ ∀𝑥(𝜑 ↔ 𝜓)) → (Ⅎ'𝑥𝜑 ↔ Ⅎ'𝑥𝜓))
Theorem	bj-nnfbd0 37841	If two formulas are equivalent, then nonfreeness of a variable in one of them is equivalent to nonfreeness in the other, deduction form. The antecedent of the conclusion is in the "strong necessity" modality of modal logic (see also bj-nnftht 37836) in order not to require sp 2223 (modal T). See bj-nnfbi 37840. (Contributed by BJ, 21-Mar-2026.)
⊢ (𝜑 → (𝜓 ↔ 𝜒))    ⇒   ⊢ ((𝜑 ∧ ∀𝑥𝜑) → (Ⅎ'𝑥𝜓 ↔ Ⅎ'𝑥𝜒))
Theorem	bj-nnfbii 37842	If two formulas are equivalent, then nonfreeness of a variable in one of them is equivalent to nonfreeness in the other, inference form. See bj-nnfbi 37840. (Contributed by BJ, 18-Nov-2023.)
⊢ (𝜑 ↔ 𝜓)    ⇒   ⊢ (Ⅎ'𝑥𝜑 ↔ Ⅎ'𝑥𝜓)
Theorem	bj-nnfnt 37843	A variable is nonfree in a formula if and only if it is nonfree in its negation. The foward implication is intuitionistically valid (and that direction is sufficient for the purpose of recursively proving that some formulas have a given variable not free in them, like bj-nnfim 37845). Intuitionistically, ⊢ (Ⅎ'𝑥¬ 𝜑 ↔ Ⅎ'𝑥¬ ¬ 𝜑). See nfnt 1889. (Contributed by BJ, 28-Jul-2023.)
⊢ (Ⅎ'𝑥𝜑 ↔ Ⅎ'𝑥 ¬ 𝜑)
Theorem	bj-nnfnth 37844	A variable is nonfree in the negation of a theorem, inference form. (Contributed by BJ, 27-Aug-2023.)
⊢ ¬ 𝜑    ⇒   ⊢ Ⅎ'𝑥𝜑
Theorem	bj-nnfim 37845	Nonfreeness in the antecedent and the consequent of an implication implies nonfreeness in the implication. (Contributed by BJ, 27-Aug-2023.)
⊢ ((Ⅎ'𝑥𝜑 ∧ Ⅎ'𝑥𝜓) → Ⅎ'𝑥(𝜑 → 𝜓))
Theorem	bj-nnfimd 37846	Nonfreeness in the antecedent and the consequent of an implication implies nonfreeness in the implication, deduction form. (Contributed by BJ, 2-Dec-2023.)
⊢ (𝜑 → Ⅎ'𝑥𝜓)    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → Ⅎ'𝑥𝜒)    ⇒   ⊢ (𝜑 → Ⅎ'𝑥(𝜓 → 𝜒))
Theorem	bj-nnfan 37847	Nonfreeness in both conjuncts implies nonfreeness in the conjunction. (Contributed by BJ, 19-Nov-2023.) In classical logic, there is a proof using the definition of conjunction in terms of implication and negation, so using bj-nnfim 37845, bj-nnfnt 37843 and bj-nnfbi 37840, but we want a proof valid in intuitionistic logic. (Proof modification is discouraged.)
⊢ ((Ⅎ'𝑥𝜑 ∧ Ⅎ'𝑥𝜓) → Ⅎ'𝑥(𝜑 ∧ 𝜓))
Theorem	bj-nnfand 37848	Nonfreeness in both conjuncts implies nonfreeness in the conjunction, deduction form. Note: compared with the proof of bj-nnfan 37847, it has two more essential steps but fewer total steps (since there are fewer intermediate formulas to build) and is easier to follow and understand. This statement is of intermediate complexity: for simpler statements, closed-style proofs like that of bj-nnfan 37847 will generally be shorter than deduction-style proofs while still easy to follow, while for more complex statements, the opposite will be true (and deduction-style proofs like that of bj-nnfand 37848 will generally be easier to understand). (Contributed by BJ, 19-Nov-2023.) (Proof modification is discouraged.)
⊢ (𝜑 → Ⅎ'𝑥𝜓)    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → Ⅎ'𝑥𝜒)    ⇒   ⊢ (𝜑 → Ⅎ'𝑥(𝜓 ∧ 𝜒))
Theorem	bj-nnfor 37849	Nonfreeness in both disjuncts implies nonfreeness in the disjunction. (Contributed by BJ, 19-Nov-2023.) In classical logic, there is a proof using the definition of disjunction in terms of implication and negation, so using bj-nnfim 37845, bj-nnfnt 37843 and bj-nnfbi 37840, but we want a proof valid in intuitionistic logic. (Proof modification is discouraged.)
⊢ ((Ⅎ'𝑥𝜑 ∧ Ⅎ'𝑥𝜓) → Ⅎ'𝑥(𝜑 ∨ 𝜓))
Theorem	bj-nnford 37850	Nonfreeness in both disjuncts implies nonfreeness in the disjunction, deduction form. See comments for bj-nnfor 37849 and bj-nnfand 37848. (Contributed by BJ, 2-Dec-2023.) (Proof modification is discouraged.)
⊢ (𝜑 → Ⅎ'𝑥𝜓)    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → Ⅎ'𝑥𝜒)    ⇒   ⊢ (𝜑 → Ⅎ'𝑥(𝜓 ∨ 𝜒))
Theorem	bj-nnfbit 37851	Nonfreeness in both sides implies nonfreeness in the biconditional. (Contributed by BJ, 2-Dec-2023.) (Proof modification is discouraged.)
⊢ ((Ⅎ'𝑥𝜑 ∧ Ⅎ'𝑥𝜓) → Ⅎ'𝑥(𝜑 ↔ 𝜓))
Theorem	bj-nnfbid 37852	Nonfreeness in both sides implies nonfreeness in the biconditional, deduction form. (Contributed by BJ, 2-Dec-2023.) (Proof modification is discouraged.)
⊢ (𝜑 → Ⅎ'𝑥𝜓)    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → Ⅎ'𝑥𝜒)    ⇒   ⊢ (𝜑 → Ⅎ'𝑥(𝜓 ↔ 𝜒))
Theorem	bj-nnf-exlim 37853	Proof of the closed form of exlimi 2257 from modalK (compare exlimiv 1965). See also bj-sylget2 37695. (Contributed by BJ, 2-Dec-2023.)
⊢ (Ⅎ'𝑥𝜓 → (∀𝑥(𝜑 → 𝜓) → (∃𝑥𝜑 → 𝜓)))
Theorem	bj-19.21t 37854	Statement 19.21t 2246 proved from modalK (obsoleting 19.21v 1974). (Contributed by BJ, 2-Dec-2023.)
⊢ (Ⅎ'𝑥𝜑 → (∀𝑥(𝜑 → 𝜓) ↔ (𝜑 → ∀𝑥𝜓)))
Theorem	bj-19.23t 37855	Statement 19.23t 2250 proved from modalK (obsoleting 19.23v 1977). (Contributed by BJ, 2-Dec-2023.)
⊢ (Ⅎ'𝑥𝜓 → (∀𝑥(𝜑 → 𝜓) ↔ (∃𝑥𝜑 → 𝜓)))
Theorem	bj-19.36im 37856	One direction of 19.36 2270 from the same axioms as 19.36imv 1980. (Contributed by BJ, 2-Dec-2023.)
⊢ (Ⅎ'𝑥𝜓 → (∃𝑥(𝜑 → 𝜓) → (∀𝑥𝜑 → 𝜓)))
Theorem	bj-19.37im 37857	One direction of 19.37 2272 from the same axioms as 19.37imv 1982. (Contributed by BJ, 2-Dec-2023.)
⊢ (Ⅎ'𝑥𝜑 → (∃𝑥(𝜑 → 𝜓) → (𝜑 → ∃𝑥𝜓)))
Theorem	bj-19.42t 37858	Closed form of 19.42 2276 from the same axioms as 19.42v 1988. (Contributed by BJ, 2-Dec-2023.)
⊢ (Ⅎ'𝑥𝜑 → (∃𝑥(𝜑 ∧ 𝜓) ↔ (𝜑 ∧ ∃𝑥𝜓)))
Theorem	bj-19.41t 37859	Closed form of 19.41 2275 from the same axioms as 19.41v 1984. The same is doable with 19.27 2267, 19.28 2268, 19.31 2274, 19.32 2273, 19.44 2277, 19.45 2278. (Contributed by BJ, 2-Dec-2023.)
⊢ (Ⅎ'𝑥𝜓 → (∃𝑥(𝜑 ∧ 𝜓) ↔ (∃𝑥𝜑 ∧ 𝜓)))
Theorem	bj-pm11.53vw 37860	Version of pm11.53v 1979 with nonfreeness antecedents. One can also prove the theorem with antecedent (Ⅎ'𝑦∀𝑥𝜑 ∧ ∀𝑦Ⅎ'𝑥𝜓). (Contributed by BJ, 7-Oct-2024.)
⊢ ((∀𝑥Ⅎ'𝑦𝜑 ∧ Ⅎ'𝑥∀𝑦𝜓) → (∀𝑥∀𝑦(𝜑 → 𝜓) ↔ (∃𝑥𝜑 → ∀𝑦𝜓)))
Theorem	bj-nnfv 37861*	A non-occurring variable is nonfree in a formula. (Contributed by BJ, 28-Jul-2023.)
⊢ Ⅎ'𝑥𝜑
Theorem	bj-nnfbd 37862*	If two formulas are equivalent, then nonfreeness of a variable in one of them is equivalent to nonfreeness in the other, deduction form. See bj-nnfbi 37840. (Contributed by BJ, 27-Aug-2023.)
⊢ (𝜑 → (𝜓 ↔ 𝜒))    ⇒   ⊢ (𝜑 → (Ⅎ'𝑥𝜓 ↔ Ⅎ'𝑥𝜒))
Theorem	bj-pm11.53a 37863*	A variant of pm11.53v 1979. One can similarly prove a variant with DV (𝑦, 𝜑) and ∀𝑦Ⅎ'𝑥𝜓 instead of DV (𝑥, 𝜓) and ∀𝑥Ⅎ'𝑦𝜑. (Contributed by BJ, 7-Oct-2024.)
⊢ (∀𝑥Ⅎ'𝑦𝜑 → (∀𝑥∀𝑦(𝜑 → 𝜓) ↔ (∃𝑥𝜑 → ∀𝑦𝜓)))
Theorem	bj-equsvt 37864*	A variant of equsv 2038. (Contributed by BJ, 7-Oct-2024.)
⊢ (Ⅎ'𝑥𝜑 → (∀𝑥(𝑥 = 𝑦 → 𝜑) ↔ 𝜑))
Theorem	bj-equsalvwd 37865*	Variant of equsalvw 2039. (Contributed by BJ, 7-Oct-2024.)
⊢ (𝜑 → ∀𝑥𝜑)    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → Ⅎ'𝑥𝜒)    &   ⊢ ((𝜑 ∧ 𝑥 = 𝑦) → (𝜓 ↔ 𝜒))    ⇒   ⊢ (𝜑 → (∀𝑥(𝑥 = 𝑦 → 𝜓) ↔ 𝜒))
Theorem	bj-equsexvwd 37866*	Variant of equsexvw 2040. (Contributed by BJ, 7-Oct-2024.)
⊢ (𝜑 → ∀𝑥𝜑)    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → Ⅎ'𝑥𝜒)    &   ⊢ ((𝜑 ∧ 𝑥 = 𝑦) → (𝜓 ↔ 𝜒))    ⇒   ⊢ (𝜑 → (∃𝑥(𝑥 = 𝑦 ∧ 𝜓) ↔ 𝜒))
Theorem	bj-nnf-spim 37867*	A universal specialization result in deduction form, proved from ax-1 6 -- ax-6 2002, where the only DV condition is on 𝑥, 𝑦 and where 𝑥 should be nonfree in the new proposition 𝜒 (and in the context 𝜑). (Contributed by BJ, 4-Apr-2026.)
⊢ (𝜑 → ∀𝑥𝜑)    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → Ⅎ'𝑥𝜒)    &   ⊢ ((𝜑 ∧ 𝑥 = 𝑦) → (𝜓 → 𝜒))    ⇒   ⊢ (𝜑 → (∀𝑥𝜓 → 𝜒))
Theorem	bj-nnf-spime 37868*	An existential generalization result in deduction form, from ax-1 6-- ax-6 2002, where the only DV condition is on 𝑥, 𝑦, and where 𝑥 should be nonfree in the new proposition 𝜒 (and in the context 𝜑). (Contributed by BJ, 4-Apr-2026.)
⊢ (𝜑 → ∀𝑥𝜑)    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → Ⅎ'𝑥𝜓)    &   ⊢ ((𝜑 ∧ 𝑥 = 𝑦) → (𝜓 → 𝜒))    ⇒   ⊢ (𝜑 → (𝜓 → ∃𝑥𝜒))
Theorem	bj-nnf-cbvaliv 37869*	The only DV conditions are those saying that 𝑦 is a fresh variable used to construct 𝜒. (Contributed by BJ, 4-Apr-2026.)
⊢ (𝜑 → ∀𝑥𝜑)    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → Ⅎ'𝑥𝜒)    &   ⊢ ((𝜑 ∧ 𝑥 = 𝑦) → (𝜓 → 𝜒))    ⇒   ⊢ (𝜑 → (∀𝑥𝜓 → ∀𝑦𝜒))
Theorem	bj-sbievwd 37870*	Variant of sbievw 2133. (Contributed by BJ, 7-Oct-2024.)
⊢ (𝜑 → ∀𝑥𝜑)    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → Ⅎ'𝑥𝜒)    &   ⊢ ((𝜑 ∧ 𝑥 = 𝑦) → (𝜓 ↔ 𝜒))    ⇒   ⊢ (𝜑 → ([𝑦 / 𝑥]𝜓 ↔ 𝜒))
Theorem	bj-sbft 37871	Version of sbft 2307 using Ⅎ', proved from core axioms. (Contributed by BJ, 19-Nov-2023.)
⊢ (Ⅎ'𝑥𝜑 → ([𝑡 / 𝑥]𝜑 ↔ 𝜑))
Theorem	bj-nnf-cbvali 37872*	Compared with bj-nnf-cbvaliv 37869, replacing the DV condition on 𝑦, 𝜓 with the nonfreeness condition requires ax-11 2197. (Contributed by BJ, 4-Apr-2026.)
⊢ (𝜑 → ∀𝑥𝜑)    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → ∀𝑦𝜑)    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → Ⅎ'𝑦𝜓)    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → Ⅎ'𝑥𝜒)    &   ⊢ ((𝜑 ∧ 𝑥 = 𝑦) → (𝜓 → 𝜒))    ⇒   ⊢ (𝜑 → (∀𝑥𝜓 → ∀𝑦𝜒))
Theorem	bj-nnf-cbval 37873*	Compared with cbvalv1 2374, this saves ax-12 2216. (Contributed by BJ, 4-Apr-2026.)
⊢ (𝜑 → ∀𝑥𝜑)    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → ∀𝑦𝜑)    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → Ⅎ'𝑦𝜓)    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → Ⅎ'𝑥𝜒)    &   ⊢ ((𝜑 ∧ 𝑥 = 𝑦) → (𝜓 ↔ 𝜒))    ⇒   ⊢ (𝜑 → (∀𝑥𝜓 ↔ ∀𝑦𝜒))
Theorem	bj-dfnnf3 37874	Alternate definition of nonfreeness when sp 2223 is available. (Contributed by BJ, 28-Jul-2023.) The proof should not rely on df-nf 1817. (Proof modification is discouraged.)
⊢ (Ⅎ'𝑥𝜑 ↔ (∃𝑥𝜑 → ∀𝑥𝜑))
Theorem	bj-nfnnfTEMP 37875	New nonfreeness is equivalent to old nonfreeness on core FOL axioms plus sp 2223. (Contributed by BJ, 28-Jul-2023.) The proof should not rely on df-nf 1817 except via df-nf 1817 directly. (Proof modification is discouraged.)
⊢ (Ⅎ'𝑥𝜑 ↔ Ⅎ𝑥𝜑)
Theorem	bj-wnfnf 37876	When 𝜑 is substituted for 𝜓, this statement expresses nonfreeness in the weak form of nonfreeness (∃ → ∀). This could also be proved from bj-nnfim 37845, bj-nnfe1 37878 and bj-nnfa1 37877. (Contributed by BJ, 9-Dec-2023.)
⊢ Ⅎ'𝑥(∃𝑥𝜑 → ∀𝑥𝜓)
Theorem	bj-nnfa1 37877	See nfa1 2191. (Contributed by BJ, 12-Aug-2023.) (Proof modification is discouraged.)
⊢ Ⅎ'𝑥∀𝑥𝜑
Theorem	bj-nnfe1 37878	See nfe1 2190. (Contributed by BJ, 12-Aug-2023.) (Proof modification is discouraged.)
⊢ Ⅎ'𝑥∃𝑥𝜑
Theorem	bj-nnflemaa 37879	One of four lemmas for nonfreeness: antecedent and consequent both expressed using universal quantifier. Note: this is bj-hbalt 37773. (Contributed by BJ, 12-Aug-2023.) (Proof modification is discouraged.)
⊢ (∀𝑥(𝜑 → ∀𝑦𝜓) → (∀𝑥𝜑 → ∀𝑦∀𝑥𝜓))
Theorem	bj-nnflemee 37880	One of four lemmas for nonfreeness: antecedent and consequent both expressed using existential quantifier. (Contributed by BJ, 12-Aug-2023.) (Proof modification is discouraged.)
⊢ (∀𝑥(∃𝑦𝜑 → 𝜓) → (∃𝑦∃𝑥𝜑 → ∃𝑥𝜓))
Theorem	bj-nnflemae 37881	One of four lemmas for nonfreeness: antecedent expressed with universal quantifier and consequent expressed with existential quantifier. (Contributed by BJ, 12-Aug-2023.) (Proof modification is discouraged.)
⊢ (∀𝑥(𝜑 → ∀𝑦𝜓) → (∃𝑥𝜑 → ∀𝑦∃𝑥𝜓))
Theorem	bj-nnflemea 37882	One of four lemmas for nonfreeness: antecedent expressed with existential quantifier and consequent expressed with universal quantifier. (Contributed by BJ, 12-Aug-2023.) (Proof modification is discouraged.)
⊢ (∀𝑥(∃𝑦𝜑 → 𝜓) → (∃𝑦∀𝑥𝜑 → ∀𝑥𝜓))
Theorem	bj-nnfalt 37883	See nfal 2357 and bj-nfalt 37806. (Contributed by BJ, 12-Aug-2023.) (Proof modification is discouraged.)
⊢ (∀𝑥Ⅎ'𝑦𝜑 → Ⅎ'𝑦∀𝑥𝜑)
Theorem	bj-nnfext 37884	See nfex 2358 and bj-nfext 37807. (Contributed by BJ, 12-Aug-2023.) (Proof modification is discouraged.)
⊢ (∀𝑥Ⅎ'𝑦𝜑 → Ⅎ'𝑦∃𝑥𝜑)
Theorem	bj-pm11.53v 37885	Version of pm11.53v 1979 with nonfreeness antecedents. (Contributed by BJ, 7-Oct-2024.)
⊢ ((∀𝑥Ⅎ'𝑦𝜑 ∧ ∀𝑦Ⅎ'𝑥𝜓) → (∀𝑥∀𝑦(𝜑 → 𝜓) ↔ (∃𝑥𝜑 → ∀𝑦𝜓)))
21.20.4.13  Adding ax-13
Theorem	bj-axc10 37886	Alternate proof of axc10 2417. Shorter. One can prove a version with DV (𝑥, 𝑦) without ax-13 2404, by using ax6ev 2004 instead of ax6e 2415. (Contributed by BJ, 31-Mar-2021.) (Proof modification is discouraged.)
⊢ (∀𝑥(𝑥 = 𝑦 → ∀𝑥𝜑) → 𝜑)
Theorem	bj-alequex 37887	A fol lemma. See alequexv 2036 for a version with a disjoint variable condition requiring fewer axioms. Can be used to reduce the proof of spimt 2418 from 133 to 112 bytes. (Contributed by BJ, 6-Oct-2018.)
⊢ (∀𝑥(𝑥 = 𝑦 → 𝜑) → ∃𝑥𝜑)
Theorem	bj-spimt2 37888	A step in the proof of spimt 2418. (Contributed by BJ, 2-May-2019.)
⊢ (∀𝑥(𝑥 = 𝑦 → (𝜑 → 𝜓)) → ((∃𝑥𝜓 → 𝜓) → (∀𝑥𝜑 → 𝜓)))
Theorem	bj-cbv3ta 37889	Closed form of cbv3 2429. (Contributed by BJ, 2-May-2019.)
⊢ (∀𝑥∀𝑦(𝑥 = 𝑦 → (𝜑 → 𝜓)) → ((∀𝑦(∃𝑥𝜓 → 𝜓) ∧ ∀𝑥(𝜑 → ∀𝑦𝜑)) → (∀𝑥𝜑 → ∀𝑦𝜓)))
Theorem	bj-cbv3tb 37890	Closed form of cbv3 2429. (Contributed by BJ, 2-May-2019.)
⊢ (∀𝑥∀𝑦(𝑥 = 𝑦 → (𝜑 → 𝜓)) → ((∀𝑦Ⅎ𝑥𝜓 ∧ ∀𝑥Ⅎ𝑦𝜑) → (∀𝑥𝜑 → ∀𝑦𝜓)))
Theorem	bj-hbsb3t 37891	A theorem close to a closed form of hbsb3 2519. (Contributed by BJ, 2-May-2019.)
⊢ (∀𝑥(𝜑 → ∀𝑦𝜑) → ([𝑦 / 𝑥]𝜑 → ∀𝑥[𝑦 / 𝑥]𝜑))
Theorem	bj-hbsb3 37892	Shorter proof of hbsb3 2519. (Contributed by BJ, 2-May-2019.) (Proof modification is discouraged.)
⊢ (𝜑 → ∀𝑦𝜑)    ⇒   ⊢ ([𝑦 / 𝑥]𝜑 → ∀𝑥[𝑦 / 𝑥]𝜑)
Theorem	bj-nfs1t 37893	A theorem close to a closed form of nfs1 2520. (Contributed by BJ, 2-May-2019.)
⊢ (∀𝑥(𝜑 → ∀𝑦𝜑) → Ⅎ𝑥[𝑦 / 𝑥]𝜑)
Theorem	bj-nfs1t2 37894	A theorem close to a closed form of nfs1 2520. (Contributed by BJ, 2-May-2019.)
⊢ (∀𝑥Ⅎ𝑦𝜑 → Ⅎ𝑥[𝑦 / 𝑥]𝜑)
Theorem	bj-nfs1 37895	Shorter proof of nfs1 2520 (three essential steps instead of four). (Contributed by BJ, 2-May-2019.) (Proof modification is discouraged.)
⊢ Ⅎ𝑦𝜑    ⇒   ⊢ Ⅎ𝑥[𝑦 / 𝑥]𝜑
21.20.4.14  Removing dependencies on ax-13 (and ax-11) It is known that ax-13 2404 is logically redundant (see ax13w 2175 and the head comment of the section "Logical redundancy of ax-10--13"). More precisely, one can remove dependency on ax-13 2404 from every theorem in set.mm which is totally unbundled (i.e., has disjoint variable conditions on all setvar variables). Indeed, start with the existing proof, and replace any occurrence of ax-13 2404 with ax13w 2175. This section is an experiment to see in practice if (partially) unbundled versions of existing theorems can be proved more efficiently without ax-13 2404 (and using ax6v 2003 / ax6ev 2004 instead of ax-6 2002 / ax6e 2415, as is currently done). One reason to be optimistic is that the first few utility theorems using ax-13 2404 (roughly 200 of them) are then used mainly with dummy variables, which one can assume distinct from any other, so that the unbundled versions of the utility theorems suffice. In this section, we prove versions of theorems in the main part with dv conditions and not requiring ax-13 2404, labeled bj-xxxv (we follow the proof of xxx but use ax6v 2003 and ax6ev 2004 instead of ax-6 2002 and ax6e 2415, and ax-5 1945 instead of ax13v 2405; shorter proofs may be possible). When no additional dv condition is required, we label it bj-xxx. It is important to keep all the bundled theorems already in set.mm, but one may also add the (partially) unbundled versions which dispense with ax-13 2404, so as to remove dependencies on ax-13 2404 from many existing theorems. UPDATE: it turns out that several theorems of the form bj-xxxv, or minor variations, are already in set.mm with label xxxw. It is also possible to remove dependencies on ax-11 2197, typically by replacing a nonfree hypothesis with a disjoint variable condition (see cbv3v2 2281 and following theorems).
Theorem	bj-axc10v 37896*	Version of axc10 2417 with a disjoint variable condition, which does not require ax-13 2404. (Contributed by BJ, 14-Jun-2019.) (Proof modification is discouraged.)
⊢ (∀𝑥(𝑥 = 𝑦 → ∀𝑥𝜑) → 𝜑)
Theorem	bj-spimtv 37897*	Version of spimt 2418 with a disjoint variable condition, which does not require ax-13 2404. (Contributed by BJ, 14-Jun-2019.) (Proof modification is discouraged.)
⊢ ((Ⅎ𝑥𝜓 ∧ ∀𝑥(𝑥 = 𝑦 → (𝜑 → 𝜓))) → (∀𝑥𝜑 → 𝜓))
Theorem	bj-cbv3hv2 37898*	Version of cbv3h 2436 with two disjoint variable conditions, which does not require ax-11 2197 nor ax-13 2404. (Contributed by BJ, 24-Jun-2019.) (Proof modification is discouraged.)
⊢ (𝜓 → ∀𝑥𝜓)    &   ⊢ (𝑥 = 𝑦 → (𝜑 → 𝜓))    ⇒   ⊢ (∀𝑥𝜑 → ∀𝑦𝜓)
Theorem	bj-cbv1hv 37899*	Version of cbv1h 2437 with a disjoint variable condition, which does not require ax-13 2404. (Contributed by BJ, 16-Jun-2019.) (Proof modification is discouraged.)
⊢ (𝜑 → (𝜓 → ∀𝑦𝜓))    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → (𝜒 → ∀𝑥𝜒))    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → (𝑥 = 𝑦 → (𝜓 → 𝜒)))    ⇒   ⊢ (∀𝑥∀𝑦𝜑 → (∀𝑥𝜓 → ∀𝑦𝜒))
Theorem	bj-cbv2hv 37900*	Version of cbv2h 2438 with a disjoint variable condition, which does not require ax-13 2404. (Contributed by BJ, 16-Jun-2019.) (Proof modification is discouraged.)
⊢ (𝜑 → (𝜓 → ∀𝑦𝜓))    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → (𝜒 → ∀𝑥𝜒))    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → (𝑥 = 𝑦 → (𝜓 ↔ 𝜒)))    ⇒   ⊢ (∀𝑥∀𝑦𝜑 → (∀𝑥𝜓 ↔ ∀𝑦𝜒))