P. 380 of Theorem List - Metamath Proof Explorer

Theorem List for Metamath Proof Explorer - 37901-38000   *Has distinct variable group(s)

Type	Label	Description
Statement
Theorem	bj-cbv2v 37901*	Version of cbv2 2435 with a disjoint variable condition, which does not require ax-13 2404. (Contributed by BJ, 16-Jun-2019.) (Proof modification is discouraged.)
⊢ Ⅎ𝑥𝜑    &   ⊢ Ⅎ𝑦𝜑    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → Ⅎ𝑦𝜓)    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → Ⅎ𝑥𝜒)    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → (𝑥 = 𝑦 → (𝜓 ↔ 𝜒)))    ⇒   ⊢ (𝜑 → (∀𝑥𝜓 ↔ ∀𝑦𝜒))
Theorem	bj-cbvaldv 37902*	Version of cbvald 2439 with a disjoint variable condition, which does not require ax-13 2404. (Contributed by BJ, 16-Jun-2019.) (Proof modification is discouraged.)
⊢ Ⅎ𝑦𝜑    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → Ⅎ𝑦𝜓)    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → (𝑥 = 𝑦 → (𝜓 ↔ 𝜒)))    ⇒   ⊢ (𝜑 → (∀𝑥𝜓 ↔ ∀𝑦𝜒))
Theorem	bj-cbvexdv 37903*	Version of cbvexd 2440 with a disjoint variable condition, which does not require ax-13 2404. (Contributed by BJ, 16-Jun-2019.) (Proof modification is discouraged.)
⊢ Ⅎ𝑦𝜑    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → Ⅎ𝑦𝜓)    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → (𝑥 = 𝑦 → (𝜓 ↔ 𝜒)))    ⇒   ⊢ (𝜑 → (∃𝑥𝜓 ↔ ∃𝑦𝜒))
Theorem	bj-cbval2vv 37904*	Version of cbval2vv 2445 with a disjoint variable condition, which does not require ax-13 2404. (Contributed by BJ, 16-Jun-2019.) (Proof modification is discouraged.)
⊢ ((𝑥 = 𝑧 ∧ 𝑦 = 𝑤) → (𝜑 ↔ 𝜓))    ⇒   ⊢ (∀𝑥∀𝑦𝜑 ↔ ∀𝑧∀𝑤𝜓)
Theorem	bj-cbvex2vv 37905*	Version of cbvex2vv 2446 with a disjoint variable condition, which does not require ax-13 2404. (Contributed by BJ, 16-Jun-2019.) (Proof modification is discouraged.)
⊢ ((𝑥 = 𝑧 ∧ 𝑦 = 𝑤) → (𝜑 ↔ 𝜓))    ⇒   ⊢ (∃𝑥∃𝑦𝜑 ↔ ∃𝑧∃𝑤𝜓)
Theorem	bj-cbvaldvav 37906*	Version of cbvaldva 2441 with a disjoint variable condition, which does not require ax-13 2404. (Contributed by BJ, 16-Jun-2019.) (Proof modification is discouraged.)
⊢ ((𝜑 ∧ 𝑥 = 𝑦) → (𝜓 ↔ 𝜒))    ⇒   ⊢ (𝜑 → (∀𝑥𝜓 ↔ ∀𝑦𝜒))
Theorem	bj-cbvexdvav 37907*	Version of cbvexdva 2442 with a disjoint variable condition, which does not require ax-13 2404. (Contributed by BJ, 16-Jun-2019.) (Proof modification is discouraged.)
⊢ ((𝜑 ∧ 𝑥 = 𝑦) → (𝜓 ↔ 𝜒))    ⇒   ⊢ (𝜑 → (∃𝑥𝜓 ↔ ∃𝑦𝜒))
Theorem	bj-cbvex4vv 37908*	Version of cbvex4v 2447 with a disjoint variable condition, which does not require ax-13 2404. (Contributed by BJ, 16-Jun-2019.) (Proof modification is discouraged.)
⊢ ((𝑥 = 𝑣 ∧ 𝑦 = 𝑢) → (𝜑 ↔ 𝜓))    &   ⊢ ((𝑧 = 𝑓 ∧ 𝑤 = 𝑔) → (𝜓 ↔ 𝜒))    ⇒   ⊢ (∃𝑥∃𝑦∃𝑧∃𝑤𝜑 ↔ ∃𝑣∃𝑢∃𝑓∃𝑔𝜒)
Theorem	bj-equsalhv 37909*	Version of equsalh 2452 with a disjoint variable condition, which does not require ax-13 2404. Remark: this is the same as equsalhw 2328. TODO: delete after moving the following paragraph somewhere. Remarks: equsexvw 2040 has been moved to Main; Theorem ax13lem2 2408 has a DV version which is a simple consequence of ax5e 1947; Theorems nfeqf2 2409, dveeq2 2410, nfeqf1 2411, dveeq1 2412, nfeqf 2413, axc9 2414, ax13 2407, have dv versions which are simple consequences of ax-5 1945. (Contributed by BJ, 14-Jun-2019.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) (New usage is discouraged.)
⊢ (𝜓 → ∀𝑥𝜓)    &   ⊢ (𝑥 = 𝑦 → (𝜑 ↔ 𝜓))    ⇒   ⊢ (∀𝑥(𝑥 = 𝑦 → 𝜑) ↔ 𝜓)
Theorem	bj-axc11nv 37910*	Version of axc11n 2458 with a disjoint variable condition; instance of aevlem 2092. TODO: delete after checking surrounding theorems. (Contributed by BJ, 31-May-2019.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) (New usage is discouraged.)
⊢ (∀𝑥 𝑥 = 𝑦 → ∀𝑦 𝑦 = 𝑥)
Theorem	bj-aecomsv 37911*	Version of aecoms 2460 with a disjoint variable condition, provable from Tarski's FOL. The corresponding version of naecoms 2461 should not be very useful since ¬ ∀𝑥𝑥 = 𝑦, DV (𝑥, 𝑦) is true when the universe has at least two objects (see dtru 5410). (Contributed by BJ, 31-May-2019.) (Proof modification is discouraged.)
⊢ (∀𝑥 𝑥 = 𝑦 → 𝜑)    ⇒   ⊢ (∀𝑦 𝑦 = 𝑥 → 𝜑)
Theorem	bj-axc11v 37912*	Version of axc11 2462 with a disjoint variable condition, which does not require ax-13 2404 nor ax-10 2180. Remark: the following theorems (hbae 2463, nfae 2465, hbnae 2464, nfnae 2466, hbnaes 2467) would need to be totally unbundled to be proved without ax-13 2404, hence would be simple consequences of ax-5 1945 or nfv 1949. (Contributed by BJ, 31-May-2019.) (Proof modification is discouraged.)
⊢ (∀𝑥 𝑥 = 𝑦 → (∀𝑥𝜑 → ∀𝑦𝜑))
Theorem	bj-drnf2v 37913*	Version of drnf2 2476 with a disjoint variable condition, which does not require ax-10 2180, ax-11 2197, ax-12 2216, ax-13 2404. Instance of nfbidv 1957. The version of axc15 2454 with a disjoint variable condition is actually ax12v2 2218 (up to adding a superfluous antecedent). (Contributed by BJ, 17-Jun-2019.) (Proof modification is discouraged.)
⊢ (∀𝑥 𝑥 = 𝑦 → (𝜑 ↔ 𝜓))    ⇒   ⊢ (∀𝑥 𝑥 = 𝑦 → (Ⅎ𝑧𝜑 ↔ Ⅎ𝑧𝜓))
Theorem	bj-equs45fv 37914*	Version of equs45f 2491 with a disjoint variable condition, which does not require ax-13 2404. The version of equs5 2492 with a disjoint variable condition is actually sbalex 2282 (up to adding a superfluous antecedent). (Contributed by BJ, 11-Sep-2019.) (Proof modification is discouraged.)
⊢ Ⅎ𝑦𝜑    ⇒   ⊢ (∃𝑥(𝑥 = 𝑦 ∧ 𝜑) ↔ ∀𝑥(𝑥 = 𝑦 → 𝜑))
Theorem	bj-hbs1 37915*	Version of hbsb2 2514 with a disjoint variable condition, which does not require ax-13 2404, and removal of ax-13 2404 from hbs1 2311. (Contributed by BJ, 23-Jun-2019.) (Proof modification is discouraged.)
⊢ ([𝑦 / 𝑥]𝜑 → ∀𝑥[𝑦 / 𝑥]𝜑)
Theorem	bj-nfs1v 37916*	Version of nfsb2 2515 with a disjoint variable condition, which does not require ax-13 2404, and removal of ax-13 2404 from nfs1v 2196. (Contributed by BJ, 24-Jun-2019.) (Proof modification is discouraged.)
⊢ Ⅎ𝑥[𝑦 / 𝑥]𝜑
Theorem	bj-hbsb2av 37917*	Version of hbsb2a 2516 with a disjoint variable condition, which does not require ax-13 2404. (Contributed by BJ, 11-Sep-2019.) (Proof modification is discouraged.)
⊢ ([𝑦 / 𝑥]∀𝑦𝜑 → ∀𝑥[𝑦 / 𝑥]𝜑)
Theorem	bj-hbsb3v 37918*	Version of hbsb3 2519 with a disjoint variable condition, which does not require ax-13 2404. (Remark: the unbundled version of nfs1 2520 is given by bj-nfs1v 37916.) (Contributed by BJ, 11-Sep-2019.) (Proof modification is discouraged.)
⊢ (𝜑 → ∀𝑦𝜑)    ⇒   ⊢ ([𝑦 / 𝑥]𝜑 → ∀𝑥[𝑦 / 𝑥]𝜑)
Theorem	bj-nfsab1 37919*	Remove dependency on ax-13 2404 from nfsab1 2749. UPDATE / TODO: nfsab1 2749 does not use ax-13 2404 either anymore; bj-nfsab1 37919 is shorter than nfsab1 2749 but uses ax-12 2216. (Contributed by BJ, 23-Jun-2019.) (Proof modification is discouraged.)
⊢ Ⅎ𝑥 𝑦 ∈ {𝑥 ∣ 𝜑}
Theorem	bj-dtrucor2v 37920*	Version of dtrucor2 5339 with a disjoint variable condition, which does not require ax-13 2404 (nor ax-4 1842, ax-5 1945, ax-7 2043, ax-12 2216). (Contributed by BJ, 16-Jul-2019.) (Proof modification is discouraged.)
⊢ (𝑥 = 𝑦 → 𝑥 ≠ 𝑦)    ⇒   ⊢ (𝜑 ∧ ¬ 𝜑)
21.20.4.15  Distinct var metavariables The closed formula ∀𝑥∀𝑦𝑥 = 𝑦 approximately means that the var metavariables 𝑥 and 𝑦 represent the same variable vi. In a domain with at most one object, however, this formula is always true, hence the "approximately" in the previous sentence.
Theorem	bj-hbaeb2 37921	Biconditional version of a form of hbae 2463 with commuted quantifiers, not requiring ax-11 2197. (Contributed by BJ, 12-Dec-2019.) (Proof modification is discouraged.)
⊢ (∀𝑥 𝑥 = 𝑦 ↔ ∀𝑥∀𝑧 𝑥 = 𝑦)
Theorem	bj-hbaeb 37922	Biconditional version of hbae 2463. (Contributed by BJ, 6-Oct-2018.) (Proof modification is discouraged.)
⊢ (∀𝑥 𝑥 = 𝑦 ↔ ∀𝑧∀𝑥 𝑥 = 𝑦)
Theorem	bj-hbnaeb 37923	Biconditional version of hbnae 2464 (to replace it?). (Contributed by BJ, 6-Oct-2018.)
⊢ (¬ ∀𝑥 𝑥 = 𝑦 ↔ ∀𝑧 ¬ ∀𝑥 𝑥 = 𝑦)
Theorem	bj-dvv 37924	A special instance of bj-hbaeb2 37921. A lemma for distinct var metavariables. The right-hand side is a closed formula (a sentence). (Contributed by BJ, 6-Oct-2018.)
⊢ (∀𝑥 𝑥 = 𝑦 ↔ ∀𝑥∀𝑦 𝑥 = 𝑦)
21.20.4.16  Around ~ equsal As a rule of thumb, if a theorem of the form ⊢ (𝜑 ↔ 𝜓) ⇒ ⊢ (𝜒 ↔ 𝜃) is in the database, and the "more precise" theorems ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝜓) ⇒ ⊢ (𝜒 → 𝜃) and ⊢ (𝜓 → 𝜑) ⇒ ⊢ (𝜃 → 𝜒) also hold (see bj-bisym 37651), then they should be added to the database. The present case is similar. Similar additions can be done regarding equsex 2450 (and equsalh 2452 and equsexh 2453). Even if only one of these two theorems holds, it should be added to the database.
Theorem	bj-equsal1t 37925	Duplication of wl-equsal1t 38679, with shorter proof. If one imposes a disjoint variable condition on 𝑥, 𝑦, then one can use alequexv 2036 and reduce axiom dependencies, and similarly for the following theorems. Note: wl-equsalcom 38680 is also interesting. (Contributed by BJ, 6-Oct-2018.)
⊢ (Ⅎ𝑥𝜑 → (∀𝑥(𝑥 = 𝑦 → 𝜑) ↔ 𝜑))
Theorem	bj-equsal1ti 37926	Inference associated with bj-equsal1t 37925. (Contributed by BJ, 30-Sep-2018.)
⊢ Ⅎ𝑥𝜑    ⇒   ⊢ (∀𝑥(𝑥 = 𝑦 → 𝜑) ↔ 𝜑)
Theorem	bj-equsal1 37927	One direction of equsal 2449. (Contributed by BJ, 30-Sep-2018.)
⊢ Ⅎ𝑥𝜓    &   ⊢ (𝑥 = 𝑦 → (𝜑 → 𝜓))    ⇒   ⊢ (∀𝑥(𝑥 = 𝑦 → 𝜑) → 𝜓)
Theorem	bj-equsal2 37928	One direction of equsal 2449. (Contributed by BJ, 30-Sep-2018.)
⊢ Ⅎ𝑥𝜑    &   ⊢ (𝑥 = 𝑦 → (𝜑 → 𝜓))    ⇒   ⊢ (𝜑 → ∀𝑥(𝑥 = 𝑦 → 𝜓))
Theorem	bj-equsal 37929	Shorter proof of equsal 2449. (Contributed by BJ, 30-Sep-2018.) Proof modification is discouraged to avoid using equsal 2449, but "min */exc equsal" is ok. (Proof modification is discouraged.)
⊢ Ⅎ𝑥𝜓    &   ⊢ (𝑥 = 𝑦 → (𝜑 ↔ 𝜓))    ⇒   ⊢ (∀𝑥(𝑥 = 𝑦 → 𝜑) ↔ 𝜓)
21.20.4.17  Some Principia Mathematica proofs References are made to the second edition (1927, reprinted 1963) of Principia Mathematica, Vol. 1. Theorems are referred to in the form "PM*xx.xx".
Theorem	stdpc5t 37930	Closed form of stdpc5 2248. (Possible to place it before 19.21t 2246 and use it to prove 19.21t 2246). (Contributed by BJ, 15-Sep-2018.) (Proof modification is discouraged.)
⊢ (Ⅎ𝑥𝜑 → (∀𝑥(𝜑 → 𝜓) → (𝜑 → ∀𝑥𝜓)))
Theorem	bj-stdpc5 37931	More direct proof of stdpc5 2248. (Contributed by BJ, 15-Sep-2018.) (Proof modification is discouraged.)
⊢ Ⅎ𝑥𝜑    ⇒   ⊢ (∀𝑥(𝜑 → 𝜓) → (𝜑 → ∀𝑥𝜓))
Theorem	2stdpc5 37932	A double stdpc5 2248 (one direction of PM*11.3). See also 2stdpc4 2109 and 19.21vv 45563. (Contributed by BJ, 15-Sep-2018.) (Proof modification is discouraged.)
⊢ Ⅎ𝑥𝜑    &   ⊢ Ⅎ𝑦𝜑    ⇒   ⊢ (∀𝑥∀𝑦(𝜑 → 𝜓) → (𝜑 → ∀𝑥∀𝑦𝜓))
Theorem	bj-19.21t0 37933	Proof of 19.21t 2246 from stdpc5t 37930. (Contributed by BJ, 15-Sep-2018.) (Proof modification is discouraged.)
⊢ (Ⅎ𝑥𝜑 → (∀𝑥(𝜑 → 𝜓) ↔ (𝜑 → ∀𝑥𝜓)))
Theorem	exlimii 37934	Inference associated with exlimi 2257. Inferring a theorem when it is implied by an antecedent which may be true. (Contributed by BJ, 15-Sep-2018.)
⊢ Ⅎ𝑥𝜓    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝜓)    &   ⊢ ∃𝑥𝜑    ⇒   ⊢ 𝜓
Theorem	ax11-pm 37935	Proof of ax-11 2197 similar to PM's proof of alcom 2199 (PM*11.2). For a proof closer to PM's proof, see ax11-pm2 37939. Axiom ax-11 2197 is used in the proof only through nfa2 2213. (Contributed by BJ, 15-Sep-2018.) (Proof modification is discouraged.)
⊢ (∀𝑥∀𝑦𝜑 → ∀𝑦∀𝑥𝜑)
Theorem	ax6er 37936	Commuted form of ax6e 2415. (Could be placed right after ax6e 2415). (Contributed by BJ, 15-Sep-2018.)
⊢ ∃𝑥 𝑦 = 𝑥
Theorem	exlimiieq1 37937	Inferring a theorem when it is implied by an equality which may be true. (Contributed by BJ, 30-Sep-2018.)
⊢ Ⅎ𝑥𝜑    &   ⊢ (𝑥 = 𝑦 → 𝜑)    ⇒   ⊢ 𝜑
Theorem	exlimiieq2 37938	Inferring a theorem when it is implied by an equality which may be true. (Contributed by BJ, 15-Sep-2018.) (Revised by BJ, 30-Sep-2018.)
⊢ Ⅎ𝑦𝜑    &   ⊢ (𝑥 = 𝑦 → 𝜑)    ⇒   ⊢ 𝜑
Theorem	ax11-pm2 37939*	Proof of ax-11 2197 from the standard axioms of predicate calculus, similar to PM's proof of alcom 2199 (PM*11.2). This proof requires that 𝑥 and 𝑦 be distinct. Axiom ax-11 2197 is used in the proof only through nfal 2357, nfsb 2555, sbal 2209, sb8 2549. See also ax11-pm 37935. (Contributed by BJ, 15-Sep-2018.) (Proof modification is discouraged.)
⊢ (∀𝑥∀𝑦𝜑 → ∀𝑦∀𝑥𝜑)
21.20.4.18  Alternate definition of substitution
Theorem	bj-sbsb 37940	Biconditional showing two possible (dual) definitions of substitution df-sb 2102 not using dummy variables. (Contributed by BJ, 19-Mar-2021.)
⊢ (((𝑥 = 𝑦 → 𝜑) ∧ ∃𝑥(𝑥 = 𝑦 ∧ 𝜑)) ↔ (∀𝑥(𝑥 = 𝑦 → 𝜑) ∨ (𝑥 = 𝑦 ∧ 𝜑)))
Theorem	bj-dfsb2 37941	Alternate (dual) definition of substitution df-sb 2102 not using dummy variables. (Contributed by BJ, 19-Mar-2021.)
⊢ ([𝑦 / 𝑥]𝜑 ↔ (∀𝑥(𝑥 = 𝑦 → 𝜑) ∨ (𝑥 = 𝑦 ∧ 𝜑)))
21.20.4.19  Lemmas for substitution
Theorem	bj-sbf3 37942	Substitution has no effect on a bound variable (existential quantifier case); see sbf2 2309. (Contributed by BJ, 2-May-2019.)
⊢ ([𝑦 / 𝑥]∃𝑥𝜑 ↔ ∃𝑥𝜑)
Theorem	bj-sbf4 37943	Substitution has no effect on a bound variable (nonfreeness case); see sbf2 2309. (Contributed by BJ, 2-May-2019.)
⊢ ([𝑦 / 𝑥]Ⅎ𝑥𝜑 ↔ Ⅎ𝑥𝜑)
21.20.4.20  Existential uniqueness
Theorem	bj-eu3f 37944*	Version of eu3v 2598 where the disjoint variable condition is replaced with a nonfreeness hypothesis. This is a "backup" of a theorem that used to be in the main part with label "eu3" and was deprecated in favor of eu3v 2598. (Contributed by NM, 8-Jul-1994.) (Proof shortened by BJ, 31-May-2019.)
⊢ Ⅎ𝑦𝜑    ⇒   ⊢ (∃!𝑥𝜑 ↔ (∃𝑥𝜑 ∧ ∃𝑦∀𝑥(𝜑 → 𝑥 = 𝑦)))
21.20.4.21  First-order logic: miscellaneous Miscellaneous theorems of first-order logic.
Theorem	bj-sblem1 37945*	Lemma for substitution. (Contributed by BJ, 23-Jul-2023.)
⊢ (∀𝑥(𝜑 → (𝜓 → 𝜒)) → (∀𝑥(𝜑 → 𝜓) → (∃𝑥𝜑 → 𝜒)))
Theorem	bj-sblem2 37946*	Lemma for substitution. (Contributed by BJ, 23-Jul-2023.)
⊢ (∀𝑥(𝜑 → (𝜒 → 𝜓)) → ((∃𝑥𝜑 → 𝜒) → ∀𝑥(𝜑 → 𝜓)))
Theorem	bj-sblem 37947*	Lemma for substitution. (Contributed by BJ, 23-Jul-2023.)
⊢ (∀𝑥(𝜑 → (𝜓 ↔ 𝜒)) → (∀𝑥(𝜑 → 𝜓) ↔ (∃𝑥𝜑 → 𝜒)))
Theorem	bj-sbievw1 37948*	Lemma for substitution. (Contributed by BJ, 23-Jul-2023.)
⊢ ([𝑦 / 𝑥](𝜑 → 𝜓) → ([𝑦 / 𝑥]𝜑 → 𝜓))
Theorem	bj-sbievw2 37949*	Lemma for substitution. (Contributed by BJ, 23-Jul-2023.)
⊢ ([𝑦 / 𝑥](𝜓 → 𝜑) → (𝜓 → [𝑦 / 𝑥]𝜑))
Theorem	bj-sbievw 37950*	Lemma for substitution. Closed form of equsalvw 2039 and sbievw 2133. (Contributed by BJ, 23-Jul-2023.)
⊢ ([𝑦 / 𝑥](𝜑 ↔ 𝜓) → ([𝑦 / 𝑥]𝜑 ↔ 𝜓))
Theorem	bj-sbievv 37951	Version of sbie 2534 with a second nonfreeness hypothesis and shorter proof. (Contributed by BJ, 18-Jul-2023.) (Proof modification is discouraged.)
⊢ Ⅎ𝑥𝜓    &   ⊢ Ⅎ𝑦𝜑    &   ⊢ (𝑥 = 𝑦 → (𝜑 ↔ 𝜓))    ⇒   ⊢ ([𝑦 / 𝑥]𝜑 ↔ 𝜓)
Theorem	bj-moeub 37952	Uniqueness is equivalent to existence being equivalent to unique existence. (Contributed by BJ, 14-Oct-2022.)
⊢ (∃*𝑥𝜑 ↔ (∃𝑥𝜑 ↔ ∃!𝑥𝜑))
Theorem	bj-sbidmOLD 37953	Obsolete proof of sbidm 2542 temporarily kept here to check it gives no additional insight. (Contributed by NM, 8-Mar-1995.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) (New usage is discouraged.)
⊢ ([𝑦 / 𝑥][𝑦 / 𝑥]𝜑 ↔ [𝑦 / 𝑥]𝜑)
Theorem	bj-dvelimdv 37954*	Deduction form of dvelim 2483 with disjoint variable conditions. Uncurried (imported) form of bj-dvelimdv1 37955. Typically, 𝑧 is a fresh variable used for the implicit substitution hypothesis that results in 𝜒 (namely, 𝜓 can be thought as 𝜓(𝑥, 𝑦) and 𝜒 as 𝜓(𝑥, 𝑧)). So the theorem says that if x is effectively free in 𝜓(𝑥, 𝑧), then if x and y are not the same variable, then 𝑥 is also effectively free in 𝜓(𝑥, 𝑦), in a context 𝜑. One can weaken the implicit substitution hypothesis by adding the antecedent 𝜑 but this typically does not make the theorem much more useful. Similarly, one could use nonfreeness hypotheses instead of disjoint variable conditions but since this result is typically used when 𝑧 is a dummy variable, this would not be of much benefit. One could also remove DV (𝑥, 𝑧) since in the proof nfv 1949 can be replaced with nfal 2357 followed by nfn 1890. Remark: nfald 2362 uses ax-11 2197; it might be possible to inline and use ax11w 2169 instead, but there is still a use via 19.12 2361 anyway. (Contributed by BJ, 20-Oct-2021.) (Proof modification is discouraged.)
⊢ (𝜑 → Ⅎ𝑥𝜒)    &   ⊢ (𝑧 = 𝑦 → (𝜒 ↔ 𝜓))    ⇒   ⊢ ((𝜑 ∧ ¬ ∀𝑥 𝑥 = 𝑦) → Ⅎ𝑥𝜓)
Theorem	bj-dvelimdv1 37955*	Curried (exported) form of bj-dvelimdv 37954 (of course, one is directly provable from the other, but we keep this proof for illustration purposes). (Contributed by BJ, 20-Oct-2021.) (Proof modification is discouraged.)
⊢ (𝜑 → Ⅎ𝑥𝜒)    &   ⊢ (𝑧 = 𝑦 → (𝜒 ↔ 𝜓))    ⇒   ⊢ (𝜑 → (¬ ∀𝑥 𝑥 = 𝑦 → Ⅎ𝑥𝜓))
Theorem	bj-dvelimv 37956*	A version of dvelim 2483 using the "nonfree" idiom. (Contributed by BJ, 20-Oct-2021.) (Proof modification is discouraged.)
⊢ Ⅎ𝑥𝜓    &   ⊢ (𝑧 = 𝑦 → (𝜓 ↔ 𝜑))    ⇒   ⊢ (¬ ∀𝑥 𝑥 = 𝑦 → Ⅎ𝑥𝜑)
Theorem	bj-nfeel2 37957*	Nonfreeness in a membership statement. (Contributed by BJ, 20-Oct-2021.) (Proof modification is discouraged.)
⊢ (¬ ∀𝑥 𝑥 = 𝑦 → Ⅎ𝑥 𝑦 ∈ 𝑧)
Theorem	bj-axc14nf 37958	Proof of a version of axc14 2495 using the "nonfree" idiom. (Contributed by BJ, 20-Oct-2021.) (Proof modification is discouraged.)
⊢ (¬ ∀𝑧 𝑧 = 𝑥 → (¬ ∀𝑧 𝑧 = 𝑦 → Ⅎ𝑧 𝑥 ∈ 𝑦))
Theorem	bj-axc14 37959	Alternate proof of axc14 2495 (even when inlining the above results, this gives a shorter proof). (Contributed by BJ, 20-Oct-2021.) (Proof modification is discouraged.)
⊢ (¬ ∀𝑧 𝑧 = 𝑥 → (¬ ∀𝑧 𝑧 = 𝑦 → (𝑥 ∈ 𝑦 → ∀𝑧 𝑥 ∈ 𝑦)))
Theorem	mobidvALT 37960*	Alternate proof of mobidv 2577 directly from its analogues albidv 1955 and exbidv 1956, using deduction style. Note the proof structure, similar to mobi 2575. (Contributed by Mario Carneiro, 7-Oct-2016.) Reduce axiom dependencies and shorten proof. Remove dependency on ax-12 2216 by adapting proof of mobid 2578. (Revised by BJ, 26-Sep-2022.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) (New usage is discouraged.)
⊢ (𝜑 → (𝜓 ↔ 𝜒))    ⇒   ⊢ (𝜑 → (∃*𝑥𝜓 ↔ ∃*𝑥𝜒))
Theorem	sbn1ALT 37961	Alternate proof of sbn1 2146, not using the false constant. (Contributed by BJ, 18-Sep-2024.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) (New usage is discouraged.)
⊢ ([𝑡 / 𝑥] ¬ 𝜑 → ¬ [𝑡 / 𝑥]𝜑)
21.20.5  Set theory
21.20.5.1  Eliminability of class terms In this section, we give a sketch of the proof of the Eliminability Theorem for class terms in an extensional set theory where quantification occurs only over set variables. Eliminability of class variables using the $a-statements ax-ext 2735, df-clab 2742, df-cleq 2755, df-clel 2839 is an easy result, proved for instance in Appendix X of Azriel Levy, Basic Set Theory, Dover Publications, 2002. Viewed from the set.mm axiomatization, it is a metatheorem not formalizable in set.mm. It states: every formula in the language of FOL + ∈ + class terms, but without class variables, is provably equivalent (over {FOL, ax-ext 2735, df-clab 2742, df-cleq 2755, df-clel 2839 }) to a formula in the language of FOL + ∈ (that is, without class terms). The proof goes by induction on the complexity of the formula (see op. cit. for details). The base case is that of atomic formulas. The atomic formulas containing class terms are of one of the six following forms: for equality, 𝑥 = {𝑦 ∣ 𝜑}, {𝑥 ∣ 𝜑} = 𝑦, {𝑥 ∣ 𝜑} = {𝑦 ∣ 𝜓}, and for membership, 𝑦 ∈ {𝑥 ∣ 𝜑}, {𝑥 ∣ 𝜑} ∈ 𝑦, {𝑥 ∣ 𝜑} ∈ {𝑦 ∣ 𝜓}. These cases are dealt with by eliminable-veqab 37969, eliminable-abeqv 37970, eliminable-abeqab 37971, eliminable-velab 37968, eliminable-abelv 37972, eliminable-abelab 37973 respectively, which are all proved from {FOL, ax-ext 2735, df-clab 2742, df-cleq 2755, df-clel 2839 }. (Details on the proof of the above six theorems. To understand how they were systematically proved, look at the theorems "eliminablei" below, which are special instances of df-clab 2742, dfcleq 2756 (proved from {FOL, ax-ext 2735, df-cleq 2755 }), and dfclel 2840 (proved from {FOL, df-clel 2839 }). Indeed, denote by (i) the formula proved by "eliminablei". One sees that the RHS of (1) has no class terms, the RHS's of (2x) have only class terms of the form dealt with by (1), and the RHS's of (3x) have only class terms of the forms dealt with by (1) and (2a). In order to prove eliminable2a 37963, eliminable2b 37964 and eliminable3a 37966, we need to substitute a class variable for a setvar variable. This is possible because setvars are class terms: this is the content of the syntactic theorem cv 1569, which is used in these proofs (this does not appear in the html pages but it is in the set.mm file and you can check it using the Metamath program).) The induction step relies on the fact that any formula is a FOL-combination of atomic formulas, so if one found equivalents for all atomic formulas constituting the formula, then the same FOL-combination of these equivalents will be equivalent to the original formula. One has a slightly more precise result: if the original formula has only class terms appearing in atomic formulas of the form 𝑦 ∈ {𝑥 ∣ 𝜑}, then df-clab 2742 is sufficient (over FOL) to eliminate class terms, and if the original formula has only class terms appearing in atomic formulas of the form 𝑦 ∈ {𝑥 ∣ 𝜑} and equalities, then df-clab 2742, ax-ext 2735 and df-cleq 2755 are sufficient (over FOL) to eliminate class terms. To prove that { df-clab 2742, df-cleq 2755, df-clel 2839 } provides a definitional extension of {FOL, ax-ext 2735 }, one needs to prove both the above Eliminability Theorem, which compares the expressive powers of the languages with and without class terms, and the Conservativity Theorem, which compares the deductive powers when one adds { df-clab 2742, df-cleq 2755, df-clel 2839 }. It states that a formula without class terms is provable in one axiom system if and only if it is provable in the other, and that this remains true when one adds further definitions to {FOL, ax-ext 2735 }. It is also proved in op. cit. The proof is more difficult, since one has to construct for each proof of a statement without class terms, an associated proof not using { df-clab 2742, df-cleq 2755, df-clel 2839 }. It involves a careful case study on the structure of the proof tree.
Theorem	eliminable1 37962	A theorem used to prove the base case of the Eliminability Theorem (see section comment). (Contributed by BJ, 19-Oct-2019.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) (New usage is discouraged.)
⊢ (𝑦 ∈ {𝑥 ∣ 𝜑} ↔ [𝑦 / 𝑥]𝜑)
Theorem	eliminable2a 37963*	A theorem used to prove the base case of the Eliminability Theorem (see section comment). (Contributed by BJ, 19-Oct-2019.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) (New usage is discouraged.)
⊢ (𝑥 = {𝑦 ∣ 𝜑} ↔ ∀𝑧(𝑧 ∈ 𝑥 ↔ 𝑧 ∈ {𝑦 ∣ 𝜑}))
Theorem	eliminable2b 37964*	A theorem used to prove the base case of the Eliminability Theorem (see section comment). (Contributed by BJ, 19-Oct-2019.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) (New usage is discouraged.)
⊢ ({𝑥 ∣ 𝜑} = 𝑦 ↔ ∀𝑧(𝑧 ∈ {𝑥 ∣ 𝜑} ↔ 𝑧 ∈ 𝑦))
Theorem	eliminable2c 37965*	A theorem used to prove the base case of the Eliminability Theorem (see section comment). (Contributed by BJ, 19-Oct-2019.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) (New usage is discouraged.)
⊢ ({𝑥 ∣ 𝜑} = {𝑦 ∣ 𝜓} ↔ ∀𝑧(𝑧 ∈ {𝑥 ∣ 𝜑} ↔ 𝑧 ∈ {𝑦 ∣ 𝜓}))
Theorem	eliminable3a 37966*	A theorem used to prove the base case of the Eliminability Theorem (see section comment). (Contributed by BJ, 19-Oct-2019.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) (New usage is discouraged.)
⊢ ({𝑥 ∣ 𝜑} ∈ 𝑦 ↔ ∃𝑧(𝑧 = {𝑥 ∣ 𝜑} ∧ 𝑧 ∈ 𝑦))
Theorem	eliminable3b 37967*	A theorem used to prove the base case of the Eliminability Theorem (see section comment). (Contributed by BJ, 19-Oct-2019.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) (New usage is discouraged.)
⊢ ({𝑥 ∣ 𝜑} ∈ {𝑦 ∣ 𝜓} ↔ ∃𝑧(𝑧 = {𝑥 ∣ 𝜑} ∧ 𝑧 ∈ {𝑦 ∣ 𝜓}))
Theorem	eliminable-velab 37968	A theorem used to prove the base case of the Eliminability Theorem (see section comment): variable belongs to abstraction. (Contributed by BJ, 30-Apr-2024.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) (New usage is discouraged.)
⊢ (𝑦 ∈ {𝑥 ∣ 𝜑} ↔ [𝑦 / 𝑥]𝜑)
Theorem	eliminable-veqab 37969*	A theorem used to prove the base case of the Eliminability Theorem (see section comment): variable equals abstraction. (Contributed by BJ, 30-Apr-2024.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) (New usage is discouraged.)
⊢ (𝑥 = {𝑦 ∣ 𝜑} ↔ ∀𝑧(𝑧 ∈ 𝑥 ↔ [𝑧 / 𝑦]𝜑))
Theorem	eliminable-abeqv 37970*	A theorem used to prove the base case of the Eliminability Theorem (see section comment): abstraction equals variable. (Contributed by BJ, 30-Apr-2024.) Beware not to use symmetry of class equality. (Proof modification is discouraged.) (New usage is discouraged.)
⊢ ({𝑥 ∣ 𝜑} = 𝑦 ↔ ∀𝑧([𝑧 / 𝑥]𝜑 ↔ 𝑧 ∈ 𝑦))
Theorem	eliminable-abeqab 37971*	A theorem used to prove the base case of the Eliminability Theorem (see section comment): abstraction equals abstraction. (Contributed by BJ, 30-Apr-2024.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) (New usage is discouraged.)
⊢ ({𝑥 ∣ 𝜑} = {𝑦 ∣ 𝜓} ↔ ∀𝑧([𝑧 / 𝑥]𝜑 ↔ [𝑧 / 𝑦]𝜓))
Theorem	eliminable-abelv 37972*	A theorem used to prove the base case of the Eliminability Theorem (see section comment): abstraction belongs to variable. (Contributed by BJ, 30-Apr-2024.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) (New usage is discouraged.)
⊢ ({𝑥 ∣ 𝜑} ∈ 𝑦 ↔ ∃𝑧(∀𝑡(𝑡 ∈ 𝑧 ↔ [𝑡 / 𝑥]𝜑) ∧ 𝑧 ∈ 𝑦))
Theorem	eliminable-abelab 37973*	A theorem used to prove the base case of the Eliminability Theorem (see section comment): abstraction belongs to abstraction. (Contributed by BJ, 30-Apr-2024.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) (New usage is discouraged.)
⊢ ({𝑥 ∣ 𝜑} ∈ {𝑦 ∣ 𝜓} ↔ ∃𝑧(∀𝑡(𝑡 ∈ 𝑧 ↔ [𝑡 / 𝑥]𝜑) ∧ [𝑧 / 𝑦]𝜓))
21.20.5.2  Classes without the axiom of extensionality A few results about classes can be proved without using ax-ext 2735. One could move all theorems from cab 2741 to df-clel 2839 (except for dfcleq 2756 and cvjust 2757) in a subsection "Classes" before the subsection on the axiom of extensionality, together with the theorems below. In that subsection, the last statement should be df-cleq 2755. Without ax-ext 2735, the $a-statements df-clab 2742, df-cleq 2755, and df-clel 2839 are no longer eliminable (see previous section) (but PROBABLY df-clab 2742 is still conservative , while df-cleq 2755 and df-clel 2839 are not). This is not a reason not to study what is provable with them but without ax-ext 2735, in order to gauge their strengths more precisely. Before that subsection, a subsection "The membership predicate" could group the statements with ∈ that are currently in the FOL part (including wcel 2147, wel 2148, ax-8 2149, ax-9 2157). Remark: the weakening of eleq1 2852 / eleq2 2853 to eleq1w 2847 / eleq2w 2848 can also be done with eleq1i 2855, eqeltri 2860, eqeltrri 2861, eleq1a 2859, eleq1d 2849, eqeltrd 2864, eqeltrrd 2865, eqneltrd 2884, eqneltrrd 2885, nelneq 2888. Remark: possibility to remove dependency on ax-10 2180, ax-11 2197, ax-13 2404 from nfcri 2918 and theorems using it if one adds a disjoint variable condition (that theorem is typically used with dummy variables, so the disjoint variable condition addition is not very restrictive), and then shorten nfnfc 2938.
Theorem	bj-denoteslem 37974*	Duplicate of issettru 2842 and bj-issettruALTV 37976. Lemma for bj-denotesALTV 37975. (Contributed by BJ, 24-Apr-2024.) (Proof modification is discouraged.)
⊢ (∃𝑥 𝑥 = 𝐴 ↔ 𝐴 ∈ {𝑦 ∣ ⊤})
Theorem	bj-denotesALTV 37975*	Moved to main as iseqsetv-clel 2843 and kept for the comments. This would be the justification theorem for the definition of the unary predicate "E!" by ⊢ ( E! 𝐴 ↔ ∃𝑥𝑥 = 𝐴) which could be interpreted as "𝐴 exists" (as a set) or "𝐴 denotes" (in the sense of free logic). A shorter proof using bitri 278 (to add an intermediate proposition ∃𝑧𝑧 = 𝐴 with a fresh 𝑧), cbvexvw 2072, and eqeq1 2767, requires the core axioms and { ax-9 2157, ax-ext 2735, df-cleq 2755 } whereas this proof requires the core axioms and { ax-8 2149, df-clab 2742, df-clel 2839 }. Theorem bj-issetwt 37978 proves that "existing" is equivalent to being a member of a class abstraction. It also requires, with the present proof, { ax-8 2149, df-clab 2742, df-clel 2839 } (whereas with the shorter proof from cbvexvw 2072 and eqeq1 2767 it would require { ax-8 2149, ax-9 2157, ax-ext 2735, df-clab 2742, df-cleq 2755, df-clel 2839 }). That every class is equal to a class abstraction is proved by abid1 2900, which requires { ax-8 2149, ax-9 2157, ax-ext 2735, df-clab 2742, df-cleq 2755, df-clel 2839 }. There is no disjoint variable condition on 𝑥, 𝑦 but the theorem does not depend on ax-13 2404. Actually, the proof depends only on the logical axioms ax-1 6 through ax-7 2043 and sp 2223. The symbol "E!" was chosen to be reminiscent of the analogous predicate in (inclusive or non-inclusive) free logic, which deals with the possibility of nonexistent objects. This analogy should not be taken too far, since here there are no equality axioms for classes: these are derived from ax-ext 2735 and df-cleq 2755 (e.g., eqid 2763 and eqeq1 2767). In particular, one cannot even prove ⊢ ∃𝑥𝑥 = 𝐴 ⇒ ⊢ 𝐴 = 𝐴 without ax-ext 2735 and df-cleq 2755. (Contributed by BJ, 29-Apr-2019.) (Proof modification is discouraged.)
⊢ (∃𝑥 𝑥 = 𝐴 ↔ ∃𝑦 𝑦 = 𝐴)
Theorem	bj-issettruALTV 37976*	Moved to main as issettru 2842 and kept for the comments. Weak version of isset 3468 without ax-ext 2735. (Contributed by BJ, 24-Apr-2024.) (Proof modification is discouraged.)
⊢ (∃𝑥 𝑥 = 𝐴 ↔ 𝐴 ∈ {𝑦 ∣ ⊤})
Theorem	bj-elabtru 37977	This is as close as we can get to proving extensionality for "the" "universal" class without ax-ext 2735. (Contributed by BJ, 24-Apr-2024.) (Proof modification is discouraged.)
⊢ (𝐴 ∈ {𝑥 ∣ ⊤} ↔ 𝐴 ∈ {𝑦 ∣ ⊤})
Theorem	bj-issetwt 37978*	Closed form of bj-issetw 37979. (Contributed by BJ, 29-Apr-2019.) (Proof modification is discouraged.)
⊢ (∀𝑥𝜑 → (𝐴 ∈ {𝑥 ∣ 𝜑} ↔ ∃𝑦 𝑦 = 𝐴))
Theorem	bj-issetw 37979*	The closest one can get to isset 3468 without using ax-ext 2735. See also vexw 2747. The only disjoint variable condition is between 𝑦 and 𝐴. From there, one can prove isset 3468 using eleq2i 2856 (which requires ax-ext 2735 and df-cleq 2755). (Contributed by BJ, 29-Apr-2019.) (Proof modification is discouraged.)
⊢ 𝜑    ⇒   ⊢ (𝐴 ∈ {𝑥 ∣ 𝜑} ↔ ∃𝑦 𝑦 = 𝐴)
Theorem	bj-issetiv 37980*	Version of bj-isseti 37981 with a disjoint variable condition on 𝑥, 𝑉. The hypothesis uses 𝑉 instead of V for extra generality. This is indeed more general than isseti 3472 as long as elex 3475 is not available (and the non-dependence of bj-issetiv 37980 on special properties of the universal class V is obvious). Prefer its use over bj-isseti 37981 when sufficient (in particular when 𝑉 is substituted for V). (Contributed by BJ, 14-Sep-2019.) (Proof modification is discouraged.)
⊢ 𝐴 ∈ 𝑉    ⇒   ⊢ ∃𝑥 𝑥 = 𝐴
Theorem	bj-isseti 37981*	Version of isseti 3472 with a class variable 𝑉 in the hypothesis instead of V for extra generality. This is indeed more general than isseti 3472 as long as elex 3475 is not available (and the non-dependence of bj-isseti 37981 on special properties of the universal class V is obvious). Use bj-issetiv 37980 instead when sufficient (in particular when 𝑉 is substituted for V). (Contributed by BJ, 13-Jun-2019.) (Proof modification is discouraged.)
⊢ 𝐴 ∈ 𝑉    ⇒   ⊢ ∃𝑥 𝑥 = 𝐴
Theorem	bj-ralvw 37982	A weak version of ralv 3480 not using ax-ext 2735 (nor df-cleq 2755, df-clel 2839, df-v 3456), and only core FOL axioms. See also bj-rexvw 37983. The analogues for reuv 3482 and rmov 3483 are not proved. (Contributed by BJ, 16-Jun-2019.) (Proof modification is discouraged.)
⊢ 𝜓    ⇒   ⊢ (∀𝑥 ∈ {𝑦 ∣ 𝜓}𝜑 ↔ ∀𝑥𝜑)
Theorem	bj-rexvw 37983	A weak version of rexv 3481 not using ax-ext 2735 (nor df-cleq 2755, df-clel 2839, df-v 3456), and only core FOL axioms. See also bj-ralvw 37982. (Contributed by BJ, 16-Jun-2019.) (Proof modification is discouraged.)
⊢ 𝜓    ⇒   ⊢ (∃𝑥 ∈ {𝑦 ∣ 𝜓}𝜑 ↔ ∃𝑥𝜑)
Theorem	bj-rababw 37984	A weak version of rabab 3484 not using df-clel 2839 nor df-v 3456 (but requiring ax-ext 2735) nor ax-12 2216. (Contributed by BJ, 16-Jun-2019.) (Proof modification is discouraged.)
⊢ 𝜓    ⇒   ⊢ {𝑥 ∈ {𝑦 ∣ 𝜓} ∣ 𝜑} = {𝑥 ∣ 𝜑}
Theorem	bj-rexcom4bv 37985*	Version of rexcom4b 3485 and bj-rexcom4b 37986 with a disjoint variable condition on 𝑥, 𝑉, hence removing dependency on df-sb 2102 and df-clab 2742 (so that it depends on df-clel 2839 and df-rex 3091 only on top of first-order logic). Prefer its use over bj-rexcom4b 37986 when sufficient (in particular when 𝑉 is substituted for V). Note the 𝑉 in the hypothesis instead of V. (Contributed by BJ, 14-Sep-2019.) (Proof modification is discouraged.)
⊢ 𝐵 ∈ 𝑉    ⇒   ⊢ (∃𝑥∃𝑦 ∈ 𝐴 (𝜑 ∧ 𝑥 = 𝐵) ↔ ∃𝑦 ∈ 𝐴 𝜑)
Theorem	bj-rexcom4b 37986*	Remove from rexcom4b 3485 dependency on ax-ext 2735 and ax-13 2404 (and on df-or 862, df-cleq 2755, df-nfc 2913, df-v 3456). The hypothesis uses 𝑉 instead of V (see bj-isseti 37981 for the motivation). Use bj-rexcom4bv 37985 instead when sufficient (in particular when 𝑉 is substituted for V). (Contributed by BJ, 16-Jun-2019.) (Proof modification is discouraged.)
⊢ 𝐵 ∈ 𝑉    ⇒   ⊢ (∃𝑥∃𝑦 ∈ 𝐴 (𝜑 ∧ 𝑥 = 𝐵) ↔ ∃𝑦 ∈ 𝐴 𝜑)
Theorem	bj-ceqsalt0 37987	The FOL content of ceqsalt 3487. Lemma for bj-ceqsalt 37989 and bj-ceqsaltv 37990. (Contributed by BJ, 26-Sep-2019.) (Proof modification is discouraged.)
⊢ ((Ⅎ𝑥𝜓 ∧ ∀𝑥(𝜃 → (𝜑 ↔ 𝜓)) ∧ ∃𝑥𝜃) → (∀𝑥(𝜃 → 𝜑) ↔ 𝜓))
Theorem	bj-ceqsalt1 37988	The FOL content of ceqsalt 3487. Lemma for bj-ceqsalt 37989 and bj-ceqsaltv 37990. TODO: consider removing if it does not add anything to bj-ceqsalt0 37987. (Contributed by BJ, 26-Sep-2019.) (Proof modification is discouraged.)
⊢ (𝜃 → ∃𝑥𝜒)    ⇒   ⊢ ((Ⅎ𝑥𝜓 ∧ ∀𝑥(𝜒 → (𝜑 ↔ 𝜓)) ∧ 𝜃) → (∀𝑥(𝜒 → 𝜑) ↔ 𝜓))
Theorem	bj-ceqsalt 37989*	Remove from ceqsalt 3487 dependency on ax-ext 2735 (and on df-cleq 2755 and df-v 3456). Note: this is not doable with ceqsralt 3488 (or ceqsralv 3494), which uses eleq1 2852, but the same dependence removal is possible for ceqsalg 3489, ceqsal 3491, ceqsalv 3493, cgsexg 3498, cgsex2g 3499, cgsex4g 3500, ceqsex 3501, ceqsexv 3502, ceqsex2 3504, ceqsex2v 3505, ceqsex3v 3506, ceqsex4v 3507, ceqsex6v 3508, ceqsex8v 3509, gencbvex 3510 (after changing 𝐴 = 𝑦 to 𝑦 = 𝐴), gencbvex2 3511, gencbval 3512, vtoclgft 3519 (it uses Ⅎ, whose justification nfcjust 2912 does not use ax-ext 2735) and several other vtocl* theorems (see for instance bj-vtoclg1f 38021). See also bj-ceqsaltv 37990. (Contributed by BJ, 16-Jun-2019.) (Proof modification is discouraged.)
⊢ ((Ⅎ𝑥𝜓 ∧ ∀𝑥(𝑥 = 𝐴 → (𝜑 ↔ 𝜓)) ∧ 𝐴 ∈ 𝑉) → (∀𝑥(𝑥 = 𝐴 → 𝜑) ↔ 𝜓))
Theorem	bj-ceqsaltv 37990*	Version of bj-ceqsalt 37989 with a disjoint variable condition on 𝑥, 𝑉, removing dependency on df-sb 2102 and df-clab 2742. Prefer its use over bj-ceqsalt 37989 when sufficient (in particular when 𝑉 is substituted for V). (Contributed by BJ, 16-Jun-2019.) (Proof modification is discouraged.)
⊢ ((Ⅎ𝑥𝜓 ∧ ∀𝑥(𝑥 = 𝐴 → (𝜑 ↔ 𝜓)) ∧ 𝐴 ∈ 𝑉) → (∀𝑥(𝑥 = 𝐴 → 𝜑) ↔ 𝜓))
Theorem	bj-ceqsalg0 37991	The FOL content of ceqsalg 3489. (Contributed by BJ, 12-Oct-2019.) (Proof modification is discouraged.)
⊢ Ⅎ𝑥𝜓    &   ⊢ (𝜒 → (𝜑 ↔ 𝜓))    ⇒   ⊢ (∃𝑥𝜒 → (∀𝑥(𝜒 → 𝜑) ↔ 𝜓))
Theorem	bj-ceqsalg 37992*	Remove from ceqsalg 3489 dependency on ax-ext 2735 (and on df-cleq 2755 and df-v 3456). See also bj-ceqsalgv 37994. (Contributed by BJ, 12-Oct-2019.) (Proof modification is discouraged.)
⊢ Ⅎ𝑥𝜓    &   ⊢ (𝑥 = 𝐴 → (𝜑 ↔ 𝜓))    ⇒   ⊢ (𝐴 ∈ 𝑉 → (∀𝑥(𝑥 = 𝐴 → 𝜑) ↔ 𝜓))
Theorem	bj-ceqsalgALT 37993*	Alternate proof of bj-ceqsalg 37992. (Contributed by BJ, 12-Oct-2019.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) (New usage is discouraged.)
⊢ Ⅎ𝑥𝜓    &   ⊢ (𝑥 = 𝐴 → (𝜑 ↔ 𝜓))    ⇒   ⊢ (𝐴 ∈ 𝑉 → (∀𝑥(𝑥 = 𝐴 → 𝜑) ↔ 𝜓))
Theorem	bj-ceqsalgv 37994*	Version of bj-ceqsalg 37992 with a disjoint variable condition on 𝑥, 𝑉, removing dependency on df-sb 2102 and df-clab 2742. Prefer its use over bj-ceqsalg 37992 when sufficient (in particular when 𝑉 is substituted for V). (Contributed by BJ, 12-Oct-2019.) (Proof modification is discouraged.)
⊢ Ⅎ𝑥𝜓    &   ⊢ (𝑥 = 𝐴 → (𝜑 ↔ 𝜓))    ⇒   ⊢ (𝐴 ∈ 𝑉 → (∀𝑥(𝑥 = 𝐴 → 𝜑) ↔ 𝜓))
Theorem	bj-ceqsalgvALT 37995*	Alternate proof of bj-ceqsalgv 37994. (Contributed by BJ, 12-Oct-2019.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) (New usage is discouraged.)
⊢ Ⅎ𝑥𝜓    &   ⊢ (𝑥 = 𝐴 → (𝜑 ↔ 𝜓))    ⇒   ⊢ (𝐴 ∈ 𝑉 → (∀𝑥(𝑥 = 𝐴 → 𝜑) ↔ 𝜓))
Theorem	bj-ceqsal 37996*	Remove from ceqsal 3491 dependency on ax-ext 2735 (and on df-cleq 2755, df-v 3456, df-clab 2742, df-sb 2102). (Contributed by BJ, 12-Oct-2019.) (Proof modification is discouraged.)
⊢ Ⅎ𝑥𝜓    &   ⊢ 𝐴 ∈ V    &   ⊢ (𝑥 = 𝐴 → (𝜑 ↔ 𝜓))    ⇒   ⊢ (∀𝑥(𝑥 = 𝐴 → 𝜑) ↔ 𝜓)
Theorem	bj-ceqsalv 37997*	Remove from ceqsalv 3493 dependency on ax-ext 2735 (and on df-cleq 2755, df-v 3456, df-clab 2742, df-sb 2102). (Contributed by BJ, 12-Oct-2019.) (Proof modification is discouraged.)
⊢ 𝐴 ∈ V    &   ⊢ (𝑥 = 𝐴 → (𝜑 ↔ 𝜓))    ⇒   ⊢ (∀𝑥(𝑥 = 𝐴 → 𝜑) ↔ 𝜓)
Theorem	bj-spcimdv 37998*	Remove from spcimdv 3551 dependency on ax-9 2157, ax-10 2180, ax-11 2197, ax-13 2404, ax-ext 2735, df-cleq 2755 (and df-nfc 2913, df-v 3456, df-or 862, df-tru 1573, df-nf 1817). For an even more economical version, see bj-spcimdvv 37999. (Contributed by BJ, 30-Nov-2020.) (Proof modification is discouraged.)
⊢ (𝜑 → 𝐴 ∈ 𝐵)    &   ⊢ ((𝜑 ∧ 𝑥 = 𝐴) → (𝜓 → 𝜒))    ⇒   ⊢ (𝜑 → (∀𝑥𝜓 → 𝜒))
Theorem	bj-spcimdvv 37999*	Remove from spcimdv 3551 dependency on ax-7 2043, ax-8 2149, ax-10 2180, ax-11 2197, ax-12 2216 ax-13 2404, ax-ext 2735, df-cleq 2755, df-clab 2742 (and df-nfc 2913, df-v 3456, df-or 862, df-tru 1573, df-nf 1817) at the price of adding a disjoint variable condition on 𝑥, 𝐵 (but in usages, 𝑥 is typically a dummy, hence fresh, variable). For the version without this disjoint variable condition, see bj-spcimdv 37998. (Contributed by BJ, 3-Nov-2021.) (Proof modification is discouraged.)
⊢ (𝜑 → 𝐴 ∈ 𝐵)    &   ⊢ ((𝜑 ∧ 𝑥 = 𝐴) → (𝜓 → 𝜒))    ⇒   ⊢ (𝜑 → (∀𝑥𝜓 → 𝜒))
21.20.5.3  Characterization among sets versus among classes
Theorem	elelb 38000	Equivalence between two common ways to characterize elements of a class 𝐵: the LHS says that sets are elements of 𝐵 if and only if they satisfy 𝜑 while the RHS says that classes are elements of 𝐵 if and only if they are sets and satisfy 𝜑. Therefore, the LHS is a characterization among sets while the RHS is a characterization among classes. The LHS is often formulated using a class variable instead of the universe V while this is not possible for the RHS (apart from using 𝐵 itself, which would not be very useful). (Contributed by BJ, 26-Feb-2023.)
⊢ ((𝐴 ∈ V → (𝐴 ∈ 𝐵 ↔ 𝜑)) ↔ (𝐴 ∈ 𝐵 ↔ (𝐴 ∈ V ∧ 𝜑)))