P. 38 of Theorem List - Metamath Proof Explorer

Theorem List for Metamath Proof Explorer - 3701-3800   *Has distinct variable group(s)

Type	Label	Description
Statement
Theorem	eqeu 3701*	A condition which implies existential uniqueness. (Contributed by Jeff Hankins, 8-Sep-2009.)
⊢ (𝑥 = 𝐴 → (𝜑 ↔ 𝜓))    ⇒   ⊢ ((𝐴 ∈ 𝐵 ∧ 𝜓 ∧ ∀𝑥(𝜑 → 𝑥 = 𝐴)) → ∃!𝑥𝜑)
Theorem	moeq 3702*	There exists at most one set equal to a given class. (Contributed by NM, 8-Mar-1995.) Shorten combined proofs of moeq 3702 and eueq 3703. (Proof shortened by BJ, 24-Sep-2022.)
⊢ ∃*𝑥 𝑥 = 𝐴
Theorem	eueq 3703*	A class is a set if and only if there exists a unique set equal to it. (Contributed by NM, 25-Nov-1994.) Shorten combined proofs of moeq 3702 and eueq 3703. (Proof shortened by BJ, 24-Sep-2022.)
⊢ (𝐴 ∈ V ↔ ∃!𝑥 𝑥 = 𝐴)
Theorem	eueqi 3704*	There exists a unique set equal to a given set. Inference associated with euequ 2587. See euequ 2587 in the case of a setvar. (Contributed by NM, 5-Apr-1995.)
⊢ 𝐴 ∈ V    ⇒   ⊢ ∃!𝑥 𝑥 = 𝐴
Theorem	eueq2 3705*	Equality has existential uniqueness (split into 2 cases). (Contributed by NM, 5-Apr-1995.)
⊢ 𝐴 ∈ V    &   ⊢ 𝐵 ∈ V    ⇒   ⊢ ∃!𝑥((𝜑 ∧ 𝑥 = 𝐴) ∨ (¬ 𝜑 ∧ 𝑥 = 𝐵))
Theorem	eueq3 3706*	Equality has existential uniqueness (split into 3 cases). (Contributed by NM, 5-Apr-1995.) (Proof shortened by Mario Carneiro, 28-Sep-2015.)
⊢ 𝐴 ∈ V    &   ⊢ 𝐵 ∈ V    &   ⊢ 𝐶 ∈ V    &   ⊢ ¬ (𝜑 ∧ 𝜓)    ⇒   ⊢ ∃!𝑥((𝜑 ∧ 𝑥 = 𝐴) ∨ (¬ (𝜑 ∨ 𝜓) ∧ 𝑥 = 𝐵) ∨ (𝜓 ∧ 𝑥 = 𝐶))
Theorem	moeq3 3707*	"At most one" property of equality (split into 3 cases). (The first two hypotheses could be eliminated with longer proof.) (Contributed by NM, 23-Apr-1995.)
⊢ 𝐵 ∈ V    &   ⊢ 𝐶 ∈ V    &   ⊢ ¬ (𝜑 ∧ 𝜓)    ⇒   ⊢ ∃*𝑥((𝜑 ∧ 𝑥 = 𝐴) ∨ (¬ (𝜑 ∨ 𝜓) ∧ 𝑥 = 𝐵) ∨ (𝜓 ∧ 𝑥 = 𝐶))
Theorem	mosub 3708*	"At most one" remains true after substitution. (Contributed by NM, 9-Mar-1995.)
⊢ ∃*𝑥𝜑    ⇒   ⊢ ∃*𝑥∃𝑦(𝑦 = 𝐴 ∧ 𝜑)
Theorem	mo2icl 3709*	Theorem for inferring "at most one". (Contributed by NM, 17-Oct-1996.)
⊢ (∀𝑥(𝜑 → 𝑥 = 𝐴) → ∃*𝑥𝜑)
Theorem	mob2 3710*	Consequence of "at most one". (Contributed by NM, 2-Jan-2015.)
⊢ (𝑥 = 𝐴 → (𝜑 ↔ 𝜓))    ⇒   ⊢ ((𝐴 ∈ 𝐵 ∧ ∃*𝑥𝜑 ∧ 𝜑) → (𝑥 = 𝐴 ↔ 𝜓))
Theorem	moi2 3711*	Consequence of "at most one". (Contributed by NM, 29-Jun-2008.)
⊢ (𝑥 = 𝐴 → (𝜑 ↔ 𝜓))    ⇒   ⊢ (((𝐴 ∈ 𝐵 ∧ ∃*𝑥𝜑) ∧ (𝜑 ∧ 𝜓)) → 𝑥 = 𝐴)
Theorem	mob 3712*	Equality implied by "at most one". (Contributed by NM, 18-Feb-2006.)
⊢ (𝑥 = 𝐴 → (𝜑 ↔ 𝜓))    &   ⊢ (𝑥 = 𝐵 → (𝜑 ↔ 𝜒))    ⇒   ⊢ (((𝐴 ∈ 𝐶 ∧ 𝐵 ∈ 𝐷) ∧ ∃*𝑥𝜑 ∧ 𝜓) → (𝐴 = 𝐵 ↔ 𝜒))
Theorem	moi 3713*	Equality implied by "at most one". (Contributed by NM, 18-Feb-2006.)
⊢ (𝑥 = 𝐴 → (𝜑 ↔ 𝜓))    &   ⊢ (𝑥 = 𝐵 → (𝜑 ↔ 𝜒))    ⇒   ⊢ (((𝐴 ∈ 𝐶 ∧ 𝐵 ∈ 𝐷) ∧ ∃*𝑥𝜑 ∧ (𝜓 ∧ 𝜒)) → 𝐴 = 𝐵)
Theorem	morex 3714*	Derive membership from uniqueness. (Contributed by Jeff Madsen, 2-Sep-2009.)
⊢ 𝐵 ∈ V    &   ⊢ (𝑥 = 𝐵 → (𝜑 ↔ 𝜓))    ⇒   ⊢ ((∃𝑥 ∈ 𝐴 𝜑 ∧ ∃*𝑥𝜑) → (𝜓 → 𝐵 ∈ 𝐴))
Theorem	euxfr2w 3715*	Transfer existential uniqueness from a variable 𝑥 to another variable 𝑦 contained in expression 𝐴. Version of euxfr2 3717 with a disjoint variable condition, which does not require ax-13 2367. (Contributed by NM, 14-Nov-2004.) Avoid ax-13 2367. (Revised by Gino Giotto, 10-Jan-2024.)
⊢ 𝐴 ∈ V    &   ⊢ ∃*𝑦 𝑥 = 𝐴    ⇒   ⊢ (∃!𝑥∃𝑦(𝑥 = 𝐴 ∧ 𝜑) ↔ ∃!𝑦𝜑)
Theorem	euxfrw 3716*	Transfer existential uniqueness from a variable 𝑥 to another variable 𝑦 contained in expression 𝐴. Version of euxfr 3718 with a disjoint variable condition, which does not require ax-13 2367. (Contributed by NM, 14-Nov-2004.) Avoid ax-13 2367. (Revised by Gino Giotto, 10-Jan-2024.)
⊢ 𝐴 ∈ V    &   ⊢ ∃!𝑦 𝑥 = 𝐴    &   ⊢ (𝑥 = 𝐴 → (𝜑 ↔ 𝜓))    ⇒   ⊢ (∃!𝑥𝜑 ↔ ∃!𝑦𝜓)
Theorem	euxfr2 3717*	Transfer existential uniqueness from a variable 𝑥 to another variable 𝑦 contained in expression 𝐴. Usage of this theorem is discouraged because it depends on ax-13 2367. Use the weaker euxfr2w 3715 when possible. (Contributed by NM, 14-Nov-2004.) (New usage is discouraged.)
⊢ 𝐴 ∈ V    &   ⊢ ∃*𝑦 𝑥 = 𝐴    ⇒   ⊢ (∃!𝑥∃𝑦(𝑥 = 𝐴 ∧ 𝜑) ↔ ∃!𝑦𝜑)
Theorem	euxfr 3718*	Transfer existential uniqueness from a variable 𝑥 to another variable 𝑦 contained in expression 𝐴. Usage of this theorem is discouraged because it depends on ax-13 2367. Use the weaker euxfrw 3716 when possible. (Contributed by NM, 14-Nov-2004.) (New usage is discouraged.)
⊢ 𝐴 ∈ V    &   ⊢ ∃!𝑦 𝑥 = 𝐴    &   ⊢ (𝑥 = 𝐴 → (𝜑 ↔ 𝜓))    ⇒   ⊢ (∃!𝑥𝜑 ↔ ∃!𝑦𝜓)
Theorem	euind 3719*	Existential uniqueness via an indirect equality. (Contributed by NM, 11-Oct-2010.)
⊢ 𝐵 ∈ V    &   ⊢ (𝑥 = 𝑦 → (𝜑 ↔ 𝜓))    ⇒   ⊢ ((∀𝑥∀𝑦((𝜑 ∧ 𝜓) → 𝐴 = 𝐵) ∧ ∃𝑥𝜑) → ∃!𝑧∀𝑥(𝜑 → 𝑧 = 𝐴))
Theorem	reu2 3720*	A way to express restricted uniqueness. (Contributed by NM, 22-Nov-1994.)
⊢ (∃!𝑥 ∈ 𝐴 𝜑 ↔ (∃𝑥 ∈ 𝐴 𝜑 ∧ ∀𝑥 ∈ 𝐴 ∀𝑦 ∈ 𝐴 ((𝜑 ∧ [𝑦 / 𝑥]𝜑) → 𝑥 = 𝑦)))
Theorem	reu6 3721*	A way to express restricted uniqueness. (Contributed by NM, 20-Oct-2006.)
⊢ (∃!𝑥 ∈ 𝐴 𝜑 ↔ ∃𝑦 ∈ 𝐴 ∀𝑥 ∈ 𝐴 (𝜑 ↔ 𝑥 = 𝑦))
Theorem	reu3 3722*	A way to express restricted uniqueness. (Contributed by NM, 24-Oct-2006.)
⊢ (∃!𝑥 ∈ 𝐴 𝜑 ↔ (∃𝑥 ∈ 𝐴 𝜑 ∧ ∃𝑦 ∈ 𝐴 ∀𝑥 ∈ 𝐴 (𝜑 → 𝑥 = 𝑦)))
Theorem	reu6i 3723*	A condition which implies existential uniqueness. (Contributed by Mario Carneiro, 2-Oct-2015.)
⊢ ((𝐵 ∈ 𝐴 ∧ ∀𝑥 ∈ 𝐴 (𝜑 ↔ 𝑥 = 𝐵)) → ∃!𝑥 ∈ 𝐴 𝜑)
Theorem	eqreu 3724*	A condition which implies existential uniqueness. (Contributed by Mario Carneiro, 2-Oct-2015.)
⊢ (𝑥 = 𝐵 → (𝜑 ↔ 𝜓))    ⇒   ⊢ ((𝐵 ∈ 𝐴 ∧ 𝜓 ∧ ∀𝑥 ∈ 𝐴 (𝜑 → 𝑥 = 𝐵)) → ∃!𝑥 ∈ 𝐴 𝜑)
Theorem	rmo4 3725*	Restricted "at most one" using implicit substitution. (Contributed by NM, 24-Oct-2006.) (Revised by NM, 16-Jun-2017.)
⊢ (𝑥 = 𝑦 → (𝜑 ↔ 𝜓))    ⇒   ⊢ (∃*𝑥 ∈ 𝐴 𝜑 ↔ ∀𝑥 ∈ 𝐴 ∀𝑦 ∈ 𝐴 ((𝜑 ∧ 𝜓) → 𝑥 = 𝑦))
Theorem	reu4 3726*	Restricted uniqueness using implicit substitution. (Contributed by NM, 23-Nov-1994.)
⊢ (𝑥 = 𝑦 → (𝜑 ↔ 𝜓))    ⇒   ⊢ (∃!𝑥 ∈ 𝐴 𝜑 ↔ (∃𝑥 ∈ 𝐴 𝜑 ∧ ∀𝑥 ∈ 𝐴 ∀𝑦 ∈ 𝐴 ((𝜑 ∧ 𝜓) → 𝑥 = 𝑦)))
Theorem	reu7 3727*	Restricted uniqueness using implicit substitution. (Contributed by NM, 24-Oct-2006.)
⊢ (𝑥 = 𝑦 → (𝜑 ↔ 𝜓))    ⇒   ⊢ (∃!𝑥 ∈ 𝐴 𝜑 ↔ (∃𝑥 ∈ 𝐴 𝜑 ∧ ∃𝑥 ∈ 𝐴 ∀𝑦 ∈ 𝐴 (𝜓 → 𝑥 = 𝑦)))
Theorem	reu8 3728*	Restricted uniqueness using implicit substitution. (Contributed by NM, 24-Oct-2006.)
⊢ (𝑥 = 𝑦 → (𝜑 ↔ 𝜓))    ⇒   ⊢ (∃!𝑥 ∈ 𝐴 𝜑 ↔ ∃𝑥 ∈ 𝐴 (𝜑 ∧ ∀𝑦 ∈ 𝐴 (𝜓 → 𝑥 = 𝑦)))
Theorem	rmo3f 3729*	Restricted "at most one" using explicit substitution. (Contributed by NM, 4-Nov-2012.) (Revised by NM, 16-Jun-2017.) (Revised by Thierry Arnoux, 8-Oct-2017.)
⊢ Ⅎ𝑥𝐴    &   ⊢ Ⅎ𝑦𝐴    &   ⊢ Ⅎ𝑦𝜑    ⇒   ⊢ (∃*𝑥 ∈ 𝐴 𝜑 ↔ ∀𝑥 ∈ 𝐴 ∀𝑦 ∈ 𝐴 ((𝜑 ∧ [𝑦 / 𝑥]𝜑) → 𝑥 = 𝑦))
Theorem	rmo4f 3730*	Restricted "at most one" using implicit substitution. (Contributed by NM, 24-Oct-2006.) (Revised by Thierry Arnoux, 11-Oct-2016.) (Revised by Thierry Arnoux, 8-Mar-2017.) (Revised by Thierry Arnoux, 8-Oct-2017.)
⊢ Ⅎ𝑥𝐴    &   ⊢ Ⅎ𝑦𝐴    &   ⊢ Ⅎ𝑥𝜓    &   ⊢ (𝑥 = 𝑦 → (𝜑 ↔ 𝜓))    ⇒   ⊢ (∃*𝑥 ∈ 𝐴 𝜑 ↔ ∀𝑥 ∈ 𝐴 ∀𝑦 ∈ 𝐴 ((𝜑 ∧ 𝜓) → 𝑥 = 𝑦))
Theorem	reu2eqd 3731*	Deduce equality from restricted uniqueness, deduction version. (Contributed by Thierry Arnoux, 27-Nov-2019.)
⊢ (𝑥 = 𝐵 → (𝜓 ↔ 𝜒))    &   ⊢ (𝑥 = 𝐶 → (𝜓 ↔ 𝜃))    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → ∃!𝑥 ∈ 𝐴 𝜓)    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝐵 ∈ 𝐴)    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝐶 ∈ 𝐴)    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝜒)    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝜃)    ⇒   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝐵 = 𝐶)
Theorem	reueq 3732*	Equality has existential uniqueness. (Contributed by Mario Carneiro, 1-Sep-2015.)
⊢ (𝐵 ∈ 𝐴 ↔ ∃!𝑥 ∈ 𝐴 𝑥 = 𝐵)
Theorem	rmoeq 3733*	Equality's restricted existential "at most one" property. (Contributed by Thierry Arnoux, 30-Mar-2018.) (Revised by AV, 27-Oct-2020.) (Proof shortened by NM, 29-Oct-2020.)
⊢ ∃*𝑥 ∈ 𝐵 𝑥 = 𝐴
Theorem	rmoan 3734	Restricted "at most one" still holds when a conjunct is added. (Contributed by NM, 16-Jun-2017.)
⊢ (∃*𝑥 ∈ 𝐴 𝜑 → ∃*𝑥 ∈ 𝐴 (𝜓 ∧ 𝜑))
Theorem	rmoim 3735	Restricted "at most one" is preserved through implication (note wff reversal). (Contributed by Alexander van der Vekens, 17-Jun-2017.)
⊢ (∀𝑥 ∈ 𝐴 (𝜑 → 𝜓) → (∃*𝑥 ∈ 𝐴 𝜓 → ∃*𝑥 ∈ 𝐴 𝜑))
Theorem	rmoimia 3736	Restricted "at most one" is preserved through implication (note wff reversal). (Contributed by Alexander van der Vekens, 17-Jun-2017.)
⊢ (𝑥 ∈ 𝐴 → (𝜑 → 𝜓))    ⇒   ⊢ (∃*𝑥 ∈ 𝐴 𝜓 → ∃*𝑥 ∈ 𝐴 𝜑)
Theorem	rmoimi 3737	Restricted "at most one" is preserved through implication (note wff reversal). (Contributed by Alexander van der Vekens, 17-Jun-2017.)
⊢ (𝜑 → 𝜓)    ⇒   ⊢ (∃*𝑥 ∈ 𝐴 𝜓 → ∃*𝑥 ∈ 𝐴 𝜑)
Theorem	rmoimi2 3738	Restricted "at most one" is preserved through implication (note wff reversal). (Contributed by Alexander van der Vekens, 17-Jun-2017.)
⊢ ∀𝑥((𝑥 ∈ 𝐴 ∧ 𝜑) → (𝑥 ∈ 𝐵 ∧ 𝜓))    ⇒   ⊢ (∃*𝑥 ∈ 𝐵 𝜓 → ∃*𝑥 ∈ 𝐴 𝜑)
Theorem	2reu5a 3739	Double restricted existential uniqueness in terms of restricted existence and restricted "at most one". (Contributed by Alexander van der Vekens, 17-Jun-2017.)
⊢ (∃!𝑥 ∈ 𝐴 ∃!𝑦 ∈ 𝐵 𝜑 ↔ (∃𝑥 ∈ 𝐴 (∃𝑦 ∈ 𝐵 𝜑 ∧ ∃*𝑦 ∈ 𝐵 𝜑) ∧ ∃*𝑥 ∈ 𝐴 (∃𝑦 ∈ 𝐵 𝜑 ∧ ∃*𝑦 ∈ 𝐵 𝜑)))
Theorem	reuimrmo 3740	Restricted uniqueness implies restricted "at most one" through implication, analogous to euimmo 2608. (Contributed by Alexander van der Vekens, 25-Jun-2017.)
⊢ (∀𝑥 ∈ 𝐴 (𝜑 → 𝜓) → (∃!𝑥 ∈ 𝐴 𝜓 → ∃*𝑥 ∈ 𝐴 𝜑))
Theorem	2reuswap 3741*	A condition allowing swap of uniqueness and existential quantifiers. (Contributed by Thierry Arnoux, 7-Apr-2017.) (Revised by NM, 16-Jun-2017.)
⊢ (∀𝑥 ∈ 𝐴 ∃*𝑦 ∈ 𝐵 𝜑 → (∃!𝑥 ∈ 𝐴 ∃𝑦 ∈ 𝐵 𝜑 → ∃!𝑦 ∈ 𝐵 ∃𝑥 ∈ 𝐴 𝜑))
Theorem	2reuswap2 3742*	A condition allowing swap of uniqueness and existential quantifiers. (Contributed by Thierry Arnoux, 7-Apr-2017.)
⊢ (∀𝑥 ∈ 𝐴 ∃*𝑦(𝑦 ∈ 𝐵 ∧ 𝜑) → (∃!𝑥 ∈ 𝐴 ∃𝑦 ∈ 𝐵 𝜑 → ∃!𝑦 ∈ 𝐵 ∃𝑥 ∈ 𝐴 𝜑))
Theorem	reuxfrd 3743*	Transfer existential uniqueness from a variable 𝑥 to another variable 𝑦 contained in expression 𝐴. (Contributed by NM, 16-Jan-2012.) Separate variables 𝐵 and 𝐶. (Revised by Thierry Arnoux, 8-Oct-2017.)
⊢ ((𝜑 ∧ 𝑦 ∈ 𝐶) → 𝐴 ∈ 𝐵)    &   ⊢ ((𝜑 ∧ 𝑥 ∈ 𝐵) → ∃*𝑦 ∈ 𝐶 𝑥 = 𝐴)    ⇒   ⊢ (𝜑 → (∃!𝑥 ∈ 𝐵 ∃𝑦 ∈ 𝐶 (𝑥 = 𝐴 ∧ 𝜓) ↔ ∃!𝑦 ∈ 𝐶 𝜓))
Theorem	reuxfr 3744*	Transfer existential uniqueness from a variable 𝑥 to another variable 𝑦 contained in expression 𝐴. (Contributed by NM, 14-Nov-2004.) (Revised by NM, 16-Jun-2017.)
⊢ (𝑦 ∈ 𝐶 → 𝐴 ∈ 𝐵)    &   ⊢ (𝑥 ∈ 𝐵 → ∃*𝑦 ∈ 𝐶 𝑥 = 𝐴)    ⇒   ⊢ (∃!𝑥 ∈ 𝐵 ∃𝑦 ∈ 𝐶 (𝑥 = 𝐴 ∧ 𝜑) ↔ ∃!𝑦 ∈ 𝐶 𝜑)
Theorem	reuxfr1d 3745*	Transfer existential uniqueness from a variable 𝑥 to another variable 𝑦 contained in expression 𝐴. Cf. reuxfr1ds 3746. (Contributed by Thierry Arnoux, 7-Apr-2017.)
⊢ ((𝜑 ∧ 𝑦 ∈ 𝐶) → 𝐴 ∈ 𝐵)    &   ⊢ ((𝜑 ∧ 𝑥 ∈ 𝐵) → ∃!𝑦 ∈ 𝐶 𝑥 = 𝐴)    &   ⊢ ((𝜑 ∧ 𝑥 = 𝐴) → (𝜓 ↔ 𝜒))    ⇒   ⊢ (𝜑 → (∃!𝑥 ∈ 𝐵 𝜓 ↔ ∃!𝑦 ∈ 𝐶 𝜒))
Theorem	reuxfr1ds 3746*	Transfer existential uniqueness from a variable 𝑥 to another variable 𝑦 contained in expression 𝐴. Use reuhypd 5419 to eliminate the second hypothesis. (Contributed by NM, 16-Jan-2012.)
⊢ ((𝜑 ∧ 𝑦 ∈ 𝐶) → 𝐴 ∈ 𝐵)    &   ⊢ ((𝜑 ∧ 𝑥 ∈ 𝐵) → ∃!𝑦 ∈ 𝐶 𝑥 = 𝐴)    &   ⊢ (𝑥 = 𝐴 → (𝜓 ↔ 𝜒))    ⇒   ⊢ (𝜑 → (∃!𝑥 ∈ 𝐵 𝜓 ↔ ∃!𝑦 ∈ 𝐶 𝜒))
Theorem	reuxfr1 3747*	Transfer existential uniqueness from a variable 𝑥 to another variable 𝑦 contained in expression 𝐴. Use reuhyp 5420 to eliminate the second hypothesis. (Contributed by NM, 14-Nov-2004.)
⊢ (𝑦 ∈ 𝐶 → 𝐴 ∈ 𝐵)    &   ⊢ (𝑥 ∈ 𝐵 → ∃!𝑦 ∈ 𝐶 𝑥 = 𝐴)    &   ⊢ (𝑥 = 𝐴 → (𝜑 ↔ 𝜓))    ⇒   ⊢ (∃!𝑥 ∈ 𝐵 𝜑 ↔ ∃!𝑦 ∈ 𝐶 𝜓)
Theorem	reuind 3748*	Existential uniqueness via an indirect equality. (Contributed by NM, 16-Oct-2010.)
⊢ (𝑥 = 𝑦 → (𝜑 ↔ 𝜓))    &   ⊢ (𝑥 = 𝑦 → 𝐴 = 𝐵)    ⇒   ⊢ ((∀𝑥∀𝑦(((𝐴 ∈ 𝐶 ∧ 𝜑) ∧ (𝐵 ∈ 𝐶 ∧ 𝜓)) → 𝐴 = 𝐵) ∧ ∃𝑥(𝐴 ∈ 𝐶 ∧ 𝜑)) → ∃!𝑧 ∈ 𝐶 ∀𝑥((𝐴 ∈ 𝐶 ∧ 𝜑) → 𝑧 = 𝐴))
Theorem	2rmorex 3749*	Double restricted quantification with "at most one", analogous to 2moex 2632. (Contributed by Alexander van der Vekens, 17-Jun-2017.)
⊢ (∃*𝑥 ∈ 𝐴 ∃𝑦 ∈ 𝐵 𝜑 → ∀𝑦 ∈ 𝐵 ∃*𝑥 ∈ 𝐴 𝜑)
Theorem	2reu5lem1 3750*	Lemma for 2reu5 3753. Note that ∃!𝑥 ∈ 𝐴∃!𝑦 ∈ 𝐵𝜑 does not mean "there is exactly one 𝑥 in 𝐴 and exactly one 𝑦 in 𝐵 such that 𝜑 holds"; see comment for 2eu5 2647. (Contributed by Alexander van der Vekens, 17-Jun-2017.)
⊢ (∃!𝑥 ∈ 𝐴 ∃!𝑦 ∈ 𝐵 𝜑 ↔ ∃!𝑥∃!𝑦(𝑥 ∈ 𝐴 ∧ 𝑦 ∈ 𝐵 ∧ 𝜑))
Theorem	2reu5lem2 3751*	Lemma for 2reu5 3753. (Contributed by Alexander van der Vekens, 17-Jun-2017.)
⊢ (∀𝑥 ∈ 𝐴 ∃*𝑦 ∈ 𝐵 𝜑 ↔ ∀𝑥∃*𝑦(𝑥 ∈ 𝐴 ∧ 𝑦 ∈ 𝐵 ∧ 𝜑))
Theorem	2reu5lem3 3752*	Lemma for 2reu5 3753. This lemma is interesting in its own right, showing that existential restriction in the last conjunct (the "at most one" part) is optional; compare rmo2 3880. (Contributed by Alexander van der Vekens, 17-Jun-2017.)
⊢ ((∃!𝑥 ∈ 𝐴 ∃!𝑦 ∈ 𝐵 𝜑 ∧ ∀𝑥 ∈ 𝐴 ∃*𝑦 ∈ 𝐵 𝜑) ↔ (∃𝑥 ∈ 𝐴 ∃𝑦 ∈ 𝐵 𝜑 ∧ ∃𝑧∃𝑤∀𝑥 ∈ 𝐴 ∀𝑦 ∈ 𝐵 (𝜑 → (𝑥 = 𝑧 ∧ 𝑦 = 𝑤))))
Theorem	2reu5 3753*	Double restricted existential uniqueness in terms of restricted existential quantification and restricted universal quantification, analogous to 2eu5 2647 and reu3 3722. (Contributed by Alexander van der Vekens, 17-Jun-2017.)
⊢ ((∃!𝑥 ∈ 𝐴 ∃!𝑦 ∈ 𝐵 𝜑 ∧ ∀𝑥 ∈ 𝐴 ∃*𝑦 ∈ 𝐵 𝜑) ↔ (∃𝑥 ∈ 𝐴 ∃𝑦 ∈ 𝐵 𝜑 ∧ ∃𝑧 ∈ 𝐴 ∃𝑤 ∈ 𝐵 ∀𝑥 ∈ 𝐴 ∀𝑦 ∈ 𝐵 (𝜑 → (𝑥 = 𝑧 ∧ 𝑦 = 𝑤))))
Theorem	2reurmo 3754	Double restricted quantification with restricted existential uniqueness and restricted "at most one", analogous to 2eumo 2634. (Contributed by Alexander van der Vekens, 24-Jun-2017.)
⊢ (∃!𝑥 ∈ 𝐴 ∃*𝑦 ∈ 𝐵 𝜑 → ∃*𝑥 ∈ 𝐴 ∃!𝑦 ∈ 𝐵 𝜑)
Theorem	2reurex 3755*	Double restricted quantification with existential uniqueness, analogous to 2euex 2633. (Contributed by Alexander van der Vekens, 24-Jun-2017.)
⊢ (∃!𝑥 ∈ 𝐴 ∃𝑦 ∈ 𝐵 𝜑 → ∃𝑦 ∈ 𝐵 ∃!𝑥 ∈ 𝐴 𝜑)
Theorem	2rmoswap 3756*	A condition allowing to swap restricted "at most one" and restricted existential quantifiers, analogous to 2moswap 2636. (Contributed by Alexander van der Vekens, 25-Jun-2017.)
⊢ (∀𝑥 ∈ 𝐴 ∃*𝑦 ∈ 𝐵 𝜑 → (∃*𝑥 ∈ 𝐴 ∃𝑦 ∈ 𝐵 𝜑 → ∃*𝑦 ∈ 𝐵 ∃𝑥 ∈ 𝐴 𝜑))
Theorem	2rexreu 3757*	Double restricted existential uniqueness implies double restricted unique existential quantification, analogous to 2exeu 2638. (Contributed by Alexander van der Vekens, 25-Jun-2017.)
⊢ ((∃!𝑥 ∈ 𝐴 ∃𝑦 ∈ 𝐵 𝜑 ∧ ∃!𝑦 ∈ 𝐵 ∃𝑥 ∈ 𝐴 𝜑) → ∃!𝑥 ∈ 𝐴 ∃!𝑦 ∈ 𝐵 𝜑)
2.1.7  Conditional equality (experimental) This is a very useless definition, which "abbreviates" (𝑥 = 𝑦 → 𝜑) as CondEq(𝑥 = 𝑦 → 𝜑). What this display hides, though, is that the first expression, even though it has a shorter constant string, is actually much more complicated in its parse tree: it is parsed as (wi (wceq (cv vx) (cv vy)) wph), while the CondEq version is parsed as (wcdeq vx vy wph). It also allows to give a name to the specific ternary operation (𝑥 = 𝑦 → 𝜑). This is all used as part of a metatheorem: we want to say that ⊢ (𝑥 = 𝑦 → (𝜑(𝑥) ↔ 𝜑(𝑦))) and ⊢ (𝑥 = 𝑦 → 𝐴(𝑥) = 𝐴(𝑦)) are provable, for any expressions 𝜑(𝑥) or 𝐴(𝑥) in the language. The proof is by induction, so the base case is each of the primitives, which is why you will see a theorem for each of the set.mm primitive operations. The metatheorem comes with a disjoint variables assumption: every variable in 𝜑(𝑥) is assumed disjoint from 𝑥 except 𝑥 itself. For such a proof by induction, we must consider each of the possible forms of 𝜑(𝑥). If it is a variable other than 𝑥, then we have CondEq(𝑥 = 𝑦 → 𝐴 = 𝐴) or CondEq(𝑥 = 𝑦 → (𝜑 ↔ 𝜑)), which is provable by cdeqth 3762 and reflexivity. Since we are only working with class and wff expressions, it can't be 𝑥 itself in set.mm, but if it was we'd have to also prove CondEq(𝑥 = 𝑦 → 𝑥 = 𝑦) (where set equality is being used on the right). Otherwise, it is a primitive operation applied to smaller expressions. In these cases, for each setvar variable parameter to the operation, we must consider if it is equal to 𝑥 or not, which yields 2^n proof obligations. Luckily, all primitive operations in set.mm have either zero or one setvar variable, so we only need to prove one statement for the non-set constructors (like implication) and two for the constructors taking a set (the universal quantifier and the class builder). In each of the primitive proofs, we are allowed to assume that 𝑦 is disjoint from 𝜑(𝑥) and vice versa, because this is maintained through the induction. This is how we satisfy the disjoint variable conditions of cdeqab1 3767 and cdeqab 3765.
Syntax	wcdeq 3758	Extend wff notation to include conditional equality. This is a technical device used in the proof that Ⅎ is the not-free predicate, and that definitions are conservative as a result.
wff CondEq(𝑥 = 𝑦 → 𝜑)
Definition	df-cdeq 3759	Define conditional equality. All the notation to the left of the ↔ is fake; the parentheses and arrows are all part of the notation, which could equally well be written CondEq𝑥𝑦𝜑. On the right side is the actual implication arrow. The reason for this definition is to "flatten" the structure on the right side (whose tree structure is something like (wi (wceq (cv vx) (cv vy)) wph) ) into just (wcdeq vx vy wph). (Contributed by Mario Carneiro, 11-Aug-2016.)
⊢ (CondEq(𝑥 = 𝑦 → 𝜑) ↔ (𝑥 = 𝑦 → 𝜑))
Theorem	cdeqi 3760	Deduce conditional equality. (Contributed by Mario Carneiro, 11-Aug-2016.)
⊢ (𝑥 = 𝑦 → 𝜑)    ⇒   ⊢ CondEq(𝑥 = 𝑦 → 𝜑)
Theorem	cdeqri 3761	Property of conditional equality. (Contributed by Mario Carneiro, 11-Aug-2016.)
⊢ CondEq(𝑥 = 𝑦 → 𝜑)    ⇒   ⊢ (𝑥 = 𝑦 → 𝜑)
Theorem	cdeqth 3762	Deduce conditional equality from a theorem. (Contributed by Mario Carneiro, 11-Aug-2016.)
⊢ 𝜑    ⇒   ⊢ CondEq(𝑥 = 𝑦 → 𝜑)
Theorem	cdeqnot 3763	Distribute conditional equality over negation. (Contributed by Mario Carneiro, 11-Aug-2016.)
⊢ CondEq(𝑥 = 𝑦 → (𝜑 ↔ 𝜓))    ⇒   ⊢ CondEq(𝑥 = 𝑦 → (¬ 𝜑 ↔ ¬ 𝜓))
Theorem	cdeqal 3764*	Distribute conditional equality over quantification. (Contributed by Mario Carneiro, 11-Aug-2016.)
⊢ CondEq(𝑥 = 𝑦 → (𝜑 ↔ 𝜓))    ⇒   ⊢ CondEq(𝑥 = 𝑦 → (∀𝑧𝜑 ↔ ∀𝑧𝜓))
Theorem	cdeqab 3765*	Distribute conditional equality over abstraction. (Contributed by Mario Carneiro, 11-Aug-2016.)
⊢ CondEq(𝑥 = 𝑦 → (𝜑 ↔ 𝜓))    ⇒   ⊢ CondEq(𝑥 = 𝑦 → {𝑧 ∣ 𝜑} = {𝑧 ∣ 𝜓})
Theorem	cdeqal1 3766*	Distribute conditional equality over quantification. Usage of this theorem is discouraged because it depends on ax-13 2367. (Contributed by Mario Carneiro, 11-Aug-2016.) (New usage is discouraged.)
⊢ CondEq(𝑥 = 𝑦 → (𝜑 ↔ 𝜓))    ⇒   ⊢ CondEq(𝑥 = 𝑦 → (∀𝑥𝜑 ↔ ∀𝑦𝜓))
Theorem	cdeqab1 3767*	Distribute conditional equality over abstraction. Usage of this theorem is discouraged because it depends on ax-13 2367. (Contributed by Mario Carneiro, 11-Aug-2016.) (New usage is discouraged.)
⊢ CondEq(𝑥 = 𝑦 → (𝜑 ↔ 𝜓))    ⇒   ⊢ CondEq(𝑥 = 𝑦 → {𝑥 ∣ 𝜑} = {𝑦 ∣ 𝜓})
Theorem	cdeqim 3768	Distribute conditional equality over implication. (Contributed by Mario Carneiro, 11-Aug-2016.)
⊢ CondEq(𝑥 = 𝑦 → (𝜑 ↔ 𝜓))    &   ⊢ CondEq(𝑥 = 𝑦 → (𝜒 ↔ 𝜃))    ⇒   ⊢ CondEq(𝑥 = 𝑦 → ((𝜑 → 𝜒) ↔ (𝜓 → 𝜃)))
Theorem	cdeqcv 3769	Conditional equality for set-to-class promotion. (Contributed by Mario Carneiro, 11-Aug-2016.)
⊢ CondEq(𝑥 = 𝑦 → 𝑥 = 𝑦)
Theorem	cdeqeq 3770	Distribute conditional equality over equality. (Contributed by Mario Carneiro, 11-Aug-2016.)
⊢ CondEq(𝑥 = 𝑦 → 𝐴 = 𝐵)    &   ⊢ CondEq(𝑥 = 𝑦 → 𝐶 = 𝐷)    ⇒   ⊢ CondEq(𝑥 = 𝑦 → (𝐴 = 𝐶 ↔ 𝐵 = 𝐷))
Theorem	cdeqel 3771	Distribute conditional equality over elementhood. (Contributed by Mario Carneiro, 11-Aug-2016.)
⊢ CondEq(𝑥 = 𝑦 → 𝐴 = 𝐵)    &   ⊢ CondEq(𝑥 = 𝑦 → 𝐶 = 𝐷)    ⇒   ⊢ CondEq(𝑥 = 𝑦 → (𝐴 ∈ 𝐶 ↔ 𝐵 ∈ 𝐷))
Theorem	nfcdeq 3772*	If we have a conditional equality proof, where 𝜑 is 𝜑(𝑥) and 𝜓 is 𝜑(𝑦), and 𝜑(𝑥) in fact does not have 𝑥 free in it according to Ⅎ, then 𝜑(𝑥) ↔ 𝜑(𝑦) unconditionally. This proves that Ⅎ𝑥𝜑 is actually a not-free predicate. Usage of this theorem is discouraged because it depends on ax-13 2367. (Contributed by Mario Carneiro, 11-Aug-2016.) (New usage is discouraged.)
⊢ Ⅎ𝑥𝜑    &   ⊢ CondEq(𝑥 = 𝑦 → (𝜑 ↔ 𝜓))    ⇒   ⊢ (𝜑 ↔ 𝜓)
Theorem	nfccdeq 3773*	Variation of nfcdeq 3772 for classes. Usage of this theorem is discouraged because it depends on ax-13 2367. (Contributed by Mario Carneiro, 11-Aug-2016.) Avoid ax-11 2147. (Revised by Gino Giotto, 19-May-2023.) (New usage is discouraged.)
⊢ Ⅎ𝑥𝐴    &   ⊢ CondEq(𝑥 = 𝑦 → 𝐴 = 𝐵)    ⇒   ⊢ 𝐴 = 𝐵
2.1.8  Russell's Paradox
Theorem	rru 3774*	Relative version of Russell's paradox ru 3775 (which corresponds to the case 𝐴 = V). Originally a subproof in pwnss 5351. (Contributed by Stefan O'Rear, 22-Feb-2015.) Avoid df-nel 3044. (Revised by Steven Nguyen, 23-Nov-2022.) Reduce axiom usage. (Revised by Gino Giotto, 30-Aug-2024.)
⊢ ¬ {𝑥 ∈ 𝐴 ∣ ¬ 𝑥 ∈ 𝑥} ∈ 𝐴
Theorem	ru 3775	Russell's Paradox. Proposition 4.14 of [TakeutiZaring] p. 14. In the late 1800s, Frege's Axiom of (unrestricted) Comprehension, expressed in our notation as 𝐴 ∈ V, asserted that any collection of sets 𝐴 is a set i.e. belongs to the universe V of all sets. In particular, by substituting {𝑥 ∣ 𝑥 ∉ 𝑥} (the "Russell class") for 𝐴, it asserted {𝑥 ∣ 𝑥 ∉ 𝑥} ∈ V, meaning that the "collection of all sets which are not members of themselves" is a set. However, here we prove {𝑥 ∣ 𝑥 ∉ 𝑥} ∉ V. This contradiction was discovered by Russell in 1901 (published in 1903), invalidating the Comprehension Axiom and leading to the collapse of Frege's system, which Frege acknowledged in the second edition of his Grundgesetze der Arithmetik. In 1908, Zermelo rectified this fatal flaw by replacing Comprehension with a weaker Subset (or Separation) Axiom ssex 5321 asserting that 𝐴 is a set only when it is smaller than some other set 𝐵. However, Zermelo was then faced with a "chicken and egg" problem of how to show 𝐵 is a set, leading him to introduce the set-building axioms of Null Set 0ex 5307, Pairing prex 5434, Union uniex 7746, Power Set pwex 5380, and Infinity omex 9667 to give him some starting sets to work with (all of which, before Russell's Paradox, were immediate consequences of Frege's Comprehension). In 1922 Fraenkel strengthened the Subset Axiom with our present Replacement Axiom funimaex 6641 (whose modern formalization is due to Skolem, also in 1922). Thus, in a very real sense Russell's Paradox spawned the invention of ZF set theory and completely revised the foundations of mathematics! Another mainstream formalization of set theory, devised by von Neumann, Bernays, and Goedel, uses class variables rather than setvar variables as its primitives. The axiom system NBG in [Mendelson] p. 225 is suitable for a Metamath encoding. NBG is a conservative extension of ZF in that it proves exactly the same theorems as ZF that are expressible in the language of ZF. An advantage of NBG is that it is finitely axiomatizable - the Axiom of Replacement can be broken down into a finite set of formulas that eliminate its wff metavariable. Finite axiomatizability is required by some proof languages (although not by Metamath). There is a stronger version of NBG called Morse-Kelley (axiom system MK in [Mendelson] p. 287). Russell himself continued in a different direction, avoiding the paradox with his "theory of types". Quine extended Russell's ideas to formulate his New Foundations set theory (axiom system NF of [Quine] p. 331). In NF, the collection of all sets is a set, contrarily to ZF and NBG set theories. Russell's paradox has other consequences: when classes are too large (beyond the size of those used in standard mathematics), the axiom of choice ac4 10499 and Cantor's theorem canth 7373 are provably false. (See ncanth 7374 for some intuition behind the latter.) Recent results (as of 2014) seem to show that NF is equiconsistent to Z (ZF in which ax-sep 5299 replaces ax-rep 5285) with ax-sep 5299 restricted to only bounded quantifiers. NF is finitely axiomatizable and can be encoded in Metamath using the axioms from T. Hailperin, "A set of axioms for logic", J. Symb. Logic 9:1-19 (1944). Under our ZF set theory, every set is a member of the Russell class by elirrv 9620 (derived from the Axiom of Regularity), so for us the Russell class equals the universe V (Theorem ruv 9626). See ruALT 9627 for an alternate proof of ru 3775 derived from that fact. (Contributed by NM, 7-Aug-1994.) Remove use of ax-13 2367. (Revised by BJ, 12-Oct-2019.) (Proof modification is discouraged.)
⊢ {𝑥 ∣ 𝑥 ∉ 𝑥} ∉ V
2.1.9  Proper substitution of classes for sets
Syntax	wsbc 3776	Extend wff notation to include the proper substitution of a class for a set. Read this notation as "the proper substitution of class 𝐴 for setvar variable 𝑥 in wff 𝜑".
wff [𝐴 / 𝑥]𝜑
Definition	df-sbc 3777	Define the proper substitution of a class for a set. When 𝐴 is a proper class, our definition evaluates to false (see sbcex 3786). This is somewhat arbitrary: we could have, instead, chosen the conclusion of sbc6 3808 for our definition, whose right-hand side always evaluates to true for proper classes. Our definition also does not produce the same results as discussed in the proof of Theorem 6.6 of [Quine] p. 42 (although Theorem 6.6 itself does hold, as shown by dfsbcq 3778 below). For example, if 𝐴 is a proper class, Quine's substitution of 𝐴 for 𝑦 in 0 ∈ 𝑦 evaluates to 0 ∈ 𝐴 rather than our falsehood. (This can be seen by substituting 𝐴, 𝑦, and 0 for alpha, beta, and gamma in Subcase 1 of Quine's discussion on p. 42.) Unfortunately, Quine's definition requires a recursive syntactic breakdown of 𝜑, and it does not seem possible to express it with a single closed formula. If we did not want to commit to any specific proper class behavior, we could use this definition only to prove Theorem dfsbcq 3778, which holds for both our definition and Quine's, and from which we can derive a weaker version of df-sbc 3777 in the form of sbc8g 3784. However, the behavior of Quine's definition at proper classes is similarly arbitrary, and for practical reasons (to avoid having to prove sethood of 𝐴 in every use of this definition) we allow direct reference to df-sbc 3777 and assert that [𝐴 / 𝑥]𝜑 is always false when 𝐴 is a proper class. Theorem sbc2or 3785 shows the apparently "strongest" statement we can make regarding behavior at proper classes if we start from dfsbcq 3778. The related definition df-csb 3893 defines proper substitution into a class variable (as opposed to a wff variable). (Contributed by NM, 14-Apr-1995.) (Revised by NM, 25-Dec-2016.)
⊢ ([𝐴 / 𝑥]𝜑 ↔ 𝐴 ∈ {𝑥 ∣ 𝜑})
Theorem	dfsbcq 3778	Proper substitution of a class for a set in a wff given equal classes. This is the essence of the sixth axiom of Frege, specifically Proposition 52 of [Frege1879] p. 50. This theorem, which is similar to Theorem 6.7 of [Quine] p. 42 and holds under both our definition and Quine's, provides us with a weak definition of the proper substitution of a class for a set. Since our df-sbc 3777 does not result in the same behavior as Quine's for proper classes, if we wished to avoid conflict with Quine's definition we could start with this theorem and dfsbcq2 3779 instead of df-sbc 3777. (dfsbcq2 3779 is needed because unlike Quine we do not overload the df-sb 2061 syntax.) As a consequence of these theorems, we can derive sbc8g 3784, which is a weaker version of df-sbc 3777 that leaves substitution undefined when 𝐴 is a proper class. However, it is often a nuisance to have to prove the sethood hypothesis of sbc8g 3784, so we will allow direct use of df-sbc 3777 after Theorem sbc2or 3785 below. Proper substitution with a proper class is rarely needed, and when it is, we can simply use the expansion of Quine's definition. (Contributed by NM, 14-Apr-1995.)
⊢ (𝐴 = 𝐵 → ([𝐴 / 𝑥]𝜑 ↔ [𝐵 / 𝑥]𝜑))
Theorem	dfsbcq2 3779	This theorem, which is similar to Theorem 6.7 of [Quine] p. 42 and holds under both our definition and Quine's, relates logic substitution df-sb 2061 and substitution for class variables df-sbc 3777. Unlike Quine, we use a different syntax for each in order to avoid overloading it. See remarks in dfsbcq 3778. (Contributed by NM, 31-Dec-2016.)
⊢ (𝑦 = 𝐴 → ([𝑦 / 𝑥]𝜑 ↔ [𝐴 / 𝑥]𝜑))
Theorem	sbsbc 3780	Show that df-sb 2061 and df-sbc 3777 are equivalent when the class term 𝐴 in df-sbc 3777 is a setvar variable. This theorem lets us reuse theorems based on df-sb 2061 for proofs involving df-sbc 3777. (Contributed by NM, 31-Dec-2016.) (Proof modification is discouraged.)
⊢ ([𝑦 / 𝑥]𝜑 ↔ [𝑦 / 𝑥]𝜑)
Theorem	sbceq1d 3781	Equality theorem for class substitution. (Contributed by Mario Carneiro, 9-Feb-2017.) (Revised by NM, 30-Jun-2018.)
⊢ (𝜑 → 𝐴 = 𝐵)    ⇒   ⊢ (𝜑 → ([𝐴 / 𝑥]𝜓 ↔ [𝐵 / 𝑥]𝜓))
Theorem	sbceq1dd 3782	Equality theorem for class substitution. (Contributed by Mario Carneiro, 9-Feb-2017.) (Revised by NM, 30-Jun-2018.)
⊢ (𝜑 → 𝐴 = 𝐵)    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → [𝐴 / 𝑥]𝜓)    ⇒   ⊢ (𝜑 → [𝐵 / 𝑥]𝜓)
Theorem	sbceqbid 3783*	Equality theorem for class substitution. (Contributed by Thierry Arnoux, 4-Sep-2018.)
⊢ (𝜑 → 𝐴 = 𝐵)    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → (𝜓 ↔ 𝜒))    ⇒   ⊢ (𝜑 → ([𝐴 / 𝑥]𝜓 ↔ [𝐵 / 𝑥]𝜒))
Theorem	sbc8g 3784	This is the closest we can get to df-sbc 3777 if we start from dfsbcq 3778 (see its comments) and dfsbcq2 3779. (Contributed by NM, 18-Nov-2008.) (Proof shortened by Andrew Salmon, 29-Jun-2011.) (Proof modification is discouraged.)
⊢ (𝐴 ∈ 𝑉 → ([𝐴 / 𝑥]𝜑 ↔ 𝐴 ∈ {𝑥 ∣ 𝜑}))
Theorem	sbc2or 3785*	The disjunction of two equivalences for class substitution does not require a class existence hypothesis. This theorem tells us that there are only 2 possibilities for [𝐴 / 𝑥]𝜑 behavior at proper classes, matching the sbc5 3804 (false) and sbc6 3808 (true) conclusions. This is interesting since dfsbcq 3778 and dfsbcq2 3779 (from which it is derived) do not appear to say anything obvious about proper class behavior. Note that this theorem does not tell us that it is always one or the other at proper classes; it could "flip" between false (the first disjunct) and true (the second disjunct) as a function of some other variable 𝑦 that 𝜑 or 𝐴 may contain. (Contributed by NM, 11-Oct-2004.) (Proof modification is discouraged.)
⊢ (([𝐴 / 𝑥]𝜑 ↔ ∃𝑥(𝑥 = 𝐴 ∧ 𝜑)) ∨ ([𝐴 / 𝑥]𝜑 ↔ ∀𝑥(𝑥 = 𝐴 → 𝜑)))
Theorem	sbcex 3786	By our definition of proper substitution, it can only be true if the substituted expression is a set. (Contributed by Mario Carneiro, 13-Oct-2016.)
⊢ ([𝐴 / 𝑥]𝜑 → 𝐴 ∈ V)
Theorem	sbceq1a 3787	Equality theorem for class substitution. Class version of sbequ12 2239. (Contributed by NM, 26-Sep-2003.)
⊢ (𝑥 = 𝐴 → (𝜑 ↔ [𝐴 / 𝑥]𝜑))
Theorem	sbceq2a 3788	Equality theorem for class substitution. Class version of sbequ12r 2240. (Contributed by NM, 4-Jan-2017.)
⊢ (𝐴 = 𝑥 → ([𝐴 / 𝑥]𝜑 ↔ 𝜑))
Theorem	spsbc 3789	Specialization: if a formula is true for all sets, it is true for any class which is a set. Similar to Theorem 6.11 of [Quine] p. 44. This is Frege's ninth axiom per Proposition 58 of [Frege1879] p. 51. See also stdpc4 2064 and rspsbc 3872. (Contributed by NM, 16-Jan-2004.)
⊢ (𝐴 ∈ 𝑉 → (∀𝑥𝜑 → [𝐴 / 𝑥]𝜑))
Theorem	spsbcd 3790	Specialization: if a formula is true for all sets, it is true for any class which is a set. Similar to Theorem 6.11 of [Quine] p. 44. See also stdpc4 2064 and rspsbc 3872. (Contributed by Mario Carneiro, 9-Feb-2017.)
⊢ (𝜑 → 𝐴 ∈ 𝑉)    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → ∀𝑥𝜓)    ⇒   ⊢ (𝜑 → [𝐴 / 𝑥]𝜓)
Theorem	sbcth 3791	A substitution into a theorem remains true (when 𝐴 is a set). (Contributed by NM, 5-Nov-2005.)
⊢ 𝜑    ⇒   ⊢ (𝐴 ∈ 𝑉 → [𝐴 / 𝑥]𝜑)
Theorem	sbcthdv 3792*	Deduction version of sbcth 3791. (Contributed by NM, 30-Nov-2005.) (Proof shortened by Andrew Salmon, 8-Jun-2011.)
⊢ (𝜑 → 𝜓)    ⇒   ⊢ ((𝜑 ∧ 𝐴 ∈ 𝑉) → [𝐴 / 𝑥]𝜓)
Theorem	sbcid 3793	An identity theorem for substitution. See sbid 2243. (Contributed by Mario Carneiro, 18-Feb-2017.)
⊢ ([𝑥 / 𝑥]𝜑 ↔ 𝜑)
Theorem	nfsbc1d 3794	Deduction version of nfsbc1 3795. (Contributed by NM, 23-May-2006.) (Revised by Mario Carneiro, 12-Oct-2016.)
⊢ (𝜑 → Ⅎ𝑥𝐴)    ⇒   ⊢ (𝜑 → Ⅎ𝑥[𝐴 / 𝑥]𝜓)
Theorem	nfsbc1 3795	Bound-variable hypothesis builder for class substitution. (Contributed by NM, 5-Aug-1993.) (Revised by Mario Carneiro, 12-Oct-2016.)
⊢ Ⅎ𝑥𝐴    ⇒   ⊢ Ⅎ𝑥[𝐴 / 𝑥]𝜑
Theorem	nfsbc1v 3796*	Bound-variable hypothesis builder for class substitution. (Contributed by Mario Carneiro, 12-Oct-2016.)
⊢ Ⅎ𝑥[𝐴 / 𝑥]𝜑
Theorem	nfsbcdw 3797*	Deduction version of nfsbcw 3798. Version of nfsbcd 3800 with a disjoint variable condition, which does not require ax-13 2367. (Contributed by NM, 23-Nov-2005.) Avoid ax-13 2367. (Revised by Gino Giotto, 10-Jan-2024.)
⊢ Ⅎ𝑦𝜑    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → Ⅎ𝑥𝐴)    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → Ⅎ𝑥𝜓)    ⇒   ⊢ (𝜑 → Ⅎ𝑥[𝐴 / 𝑦]𝜓)
Theorem	nfsbcw 3798*	Bound-variable hypothesis builder for class substitution. Version of nfsbc 3801 with a disjoint variable condition, which does not require ax-13 2367. (Contributed by NM, 7-Sep-2014.) Avoid ax-13 2367. (Revised by Gino Giotto, 10-Jan-2024.)
⊢ Ⅎ𝑥𝐴    &   ⊢ Ⅎ𝑥𝜑    ⇒   ⊢ Ⅎ𝑥[𝐴 / 𝑦]𝜑
Theorem	sbccow 3799*	A composition law for class substitution. Version of sbcco 3802 with a disjoint variable condition, which requires fewer axioms. (Contributed by NM, 26-Sep-2003.) Avoid ax-13 2367. (Revised by Gino Giotto, 10-Jan-2024.)
⊢ ([𝐴 / 𝑦][𝑦 / 𝑥]𝜑 ↔ [𝐴 / 𝑥]𝜑)
Theorem	nfsbcd 3800	Deduction version of nfsbc 3801. Usage of this theorem is discouraged because it depends on ax-13 2367. Use the weaker nfsbcdw 3797 when possible. (Contributed by NM, 23-Nov-2005.) (Revised by Mario Carneiro, 12-Oct-2016.) (New usage is discouraged.)
⊢ Ⅎ𝑦𝜑    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → Ⅎ𝑥𝐴)    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → Ⅎ𝑥𝜓)    ⇒   ⊢ (𝜑 → Ⅎ𝑥[𝐴 / 𝑦]𝜓)