P. 380 of Theorem List - Metamath Proof Explorer

Type

Label

Description

Statement

Theorem

finxpreclem5 37901*

Lemma for ↑↑ recursion theorems. (Contributed by ML, 24-Oct-2020.)

⊢ 𝐹 = (𝑛 ∈ ω, 𝑥 ∈ V ↦ if((𝑛 = 1_o ∧ 𝑥 ∈ 𝑈), ∅, if(𝑥 ∈ (V × 𝑈), ⟨∪ 𝑛, (1^st ‘𝑥)⟩, ⟨𝑛, 𝑥⟩)))    ⇒   ⊢ ((𝑛 ∈ ω ∧ 1_o ∈ 𝑛) → (¬ 𝑥 ∈ (V × 𝑈) → (𝐹‘⟨𝑛, 𝑥⟩) = ⟨𝑛, 𝑥⟩))

Theorem

finxpreclem6 37902*

Lemma for ↑↑ recursion theorems. (Contributed by ML, 24-Oct-2020.)

⊢ 𝐹 = (𝑛 ∈ ω, 𝑥 ∈ V ↦ if((𝑛 = 1_o ∧ 𝑥 ∈ 𝑈), ∅, if(𝑥 ∈ (V × 𝑈), ⟨∪ 𝑛, (1^st ‘𝑥)⟩, ⟨𝑛, 𝑥⟩)))    ⇒   ⊢ ((𝑁 ∈ ω ∧ 1_o ∈ 𝑁) → (𝑈↑↑𝑁) ⊆ (V × 𝑈))

Theorem

finxpsuclem 37903*

Lemma for finxpsuc 37904. (Contributed by ML, 24-Oct-2020.)

⊢ 𝐹 = (𝑛 ∈ ω, 𝑥 ∈ V ↦ if((𝑛 = 1_o ∧ 𝑥 ∈ 𝑈), ∅, if(𝑥 ∈ (V × 𝑈), ⟨∪ 𝑛, (1^st ‘𝑥)⟩, ⟨𝑛, 𝑥⟩)))    ⇒   ⊢ ((𝑁 ∈ ω ∧ 1_o ⊆ 𝑁) → (𝑈↑↑suc 𝑁) = ((𝑈↑↑𝑁) × 𝑈))

Theorem

finxpsuc 37904

The value of Cartesian exponentiation at a successor. (Contributed by ML, 24-Oct-2020.)

⊢ ((𝑁 ∈ ω ∧ 𝑁 ≠ ∅) → (𝑈↑↑suc 𝑁) = ((𝑈↑↑𝑁) × 𝑈))

Theorem

finxp2o 37905

The value of Cartesian exponentiation at two. (Contributed by ML, 19-Oct-2020.)

⊢ (𝑈↑↑2_o) = (𝑈 × 𝑈)

Theorem

finxp3o 37906

The value of Cartesian exponentiation at three. (Contributed by ML, 24-Oct-2020.)

⊢ (𝑈↑↑3_o) = ((𝑈 × 𝑈) × 𝑈)

Theorem

finxpnom 37907

Cartesian exponentiation when the exponent is not a natural number defaults to the empty set. (Contributed by ML, 24-Oct-2020.)

⊢ (¬ 𝑁 ∈ ω → (𝑈↑↑𝑁) = ∅)

Theorem

finxp00 37908

Cartesian exponentiation of the empty set to any power is the empty set. (Contributed by ML, 24-Oct-2020.)

⊢ (∅↑↑𝑁) = ∅

21.21.3  Topology

Theorem

iunctb2 37909

Using the axiom of countable choice ax-cc 10407, the countable union of countable sets is countable. See iunctb 10547 for a somewhat more general theorem. (Contributed by ML, 10-Dec-2020.)

⊢ (∀𝑥 ∈ ω 𝐵 ≼ ω → ∪ 𝑥 ∈ ω 𝐵 ≼ ω)

Theorem

domalom 37910*

A class which dominates every natural number is not finite. (Contributed by ML, 14-Dec-2020.)

⊢ (∀𝑛 ∈ ω 𝑛 ≼ 𝐴 → ¬ 𝐴 ∈ Fin)

Theorem

isinf2 37911*

The converse of isinf 9213. Any set that is not finite is literally infinite, in the sense that it contains subsets of arbitrarily large finite cardinality. (It cannot be proven that the set has countably infinite subsets unless AC is invoked.) The proof does not require the Axiom of Infinity. (Contributed by ML, 14-Dec-2020.)

⊢ (∀𝑛 ∈ ω ∃𝑥(𝑥 ⊆ 𝐴 ∧ 𝑥 ≈ 𝑛) → ¬ 𝐴 ∈ Fin)

Theorem

ctbssinf 37912*

Using the axiom of choice, any infinite class has a countable subset. (Contributed by ML, 14-Dec-2020.)

⊢ (¬ 𝐴 ∈ Fin → ∃𝑥(𝑥 ⊆ 𝐴 ∧ 𝑥 ≈ ω))

Theorem

ralssiun 37913*

The index set of an indexed union is a subset of the union when each 𝐵 contains its index. (Contributed by ML, 16-Dec-2020.)

⊢ (∀𝑥 ∈ 𝐴 𝑥 ∈ 𝐵 → 𝐴 ⊆ ∪ 𝑥 ∈ 𝐴 𝐵)

Theorem

nlpineqsn 37914*

For every point 𝑝 of a subset 𝐴 of 𝑋 with no limit points, there exists an open set 𝑛 that intersects 𝐴 only at 𝑝. (Contributed by ML, 23-Mar-2021.)

⊢ 𝑋 = ∪ 𝐽    ⇒   ⊢ ((𝐽 ∈ Top ∧ 𝐴 ⊆ 𝑋 ∧ ((limPt‘𝐽)‘𝐴) = ∅) → ∀𝑝 ∈ 𝐴 ∃𝑛 ∈ 𝐽 (𝑝 ∈ 𝑛 ∧ (𝑛 ∩ 𝐴) = {𝑝}))

Theorem

nlpfvineqsn 37915*

Given a subset 𝐴 of 𝑋 with no limit points, there exists a function from each point 𝑝 of 𝐴 to an open set intersecting 𝐴 only at 𝑝. This proof uses the axiom of choice. (Contributed by ML, 23-Mar-2021.)

⊢ 𝑋 = ∪ 𝐽    ⇒   ⊢ (𝐴 ∈ 𝑉 → ((𝐽 ∈ Top ∧ 𝐴 ⊆ 𝑋 ∧ ((limPt‘𝐽)‘𝐴) = ∅) → ∃𝑓(𝑓:𝐴⟶𝐽 ∧ ∀𝑝 ∈ 𝐴 ((𝑓‘𝑝) ∩ 𝐴) = {𝑝})))

Theorem

fvineqsnf1 37916*

A theorem about functions where the image of every point intersects the domain only at that point. If 𝐽 is a topology and 𝐴 is a set with no limit points, then there exists an 𝐹 such that this antecedent is true. See nlpfvineqsn 37915 for a proof of this fact. (Contributed by ML, 23-Mar-2021.)

⊢ ((𝐹:𝐴⟶𝐽 ∧ ∀𝑝 ∈ 𝐴 ((𝐹‘𝑝) ∩ 𝐴) = {𝑝}) → 𝐹:𝐴–1-1→𝐽)

Theorem

fvineqsneu 37917*

A theorem about functions where the image of every point intersects the domain only at that point. (Contributed by ML, 27-Mar-2021.)

⊢ ((𝐹 Fn 𝐴 ∧ ∀𝑝 ∈ 𝐴 ((𝐹‘𝑝) ∩ 𝐴) = {𝑝}) → ∀𝑞 ∈ 𝐴 ∃!𝑥 ∈ ran 𝐹 𝑞 ∈ 𝑥)

Theorem

fvineqsneq 37918*

A theorem about functions where the image of every point intersects the domain only at that point. (Contributed by ML, 28-Mar-2021.)

⊢ (((𝐹 Fn 𝐴 ∧ ∀𝑝 ∈ 𝐴 ((𝐹‘𝑝) ∩ 𝐴) = {𝑝}) ∧ (𝑍 ⊆ ran 𝐹 ∧ 𝐴 ⊆ ∪ 𝑍)) → 𝑍 = ran 𝐹)

21.21.3.1  Pi-base theorems

This section contains a few proofs of theorems found in the pi-base database. The pi-base site can be found at https://topology.pi-base.org.

Definitions of topological properties are theorems labeled pibpN, where N is the property number in pi-base. For example, pibp19 37920 defines countably compact topologies. Proofs of theorems are similarly labeled pibtN, for example pibt2 37923.

Theorem

pibp16 37919*

Property P000016 of pi-base. The class of compact topologies. A space 𝑋 is compact if every open cover of 𝑋 has a finite subcover. This theorem is just a relabeled copy of iscmp 23506. (Contributed by ML, 8-Dec-2020.)

⊢ 𝑋 = ∪ 𝐽    ⇒   ⊢ (𝐽 ∈ Comp ↔ (𝐽 ∈ Top ∧ ∀𝑦 ∈ 𝒫 𝐽(𝑋 = ∪ 𝑦 → ∃𝑧 ∈ (𝒫 𝑦 ∩ Fin)𝑋 = ∪ 𝑧)))

Theorem

pibp19 37920*

Property P000019 of pi-base. The class of countably compact topologies. A space 𝑋 is countably compact if every countable open cover of 𝑋 has a finite subcover. (Contributed by ML, 8-Dec-2020.)

⊢ 𝑋 = ∪ 𝐽    &   ⊢ 𝐶 = {𝑥 ∈ Top ∣ ∀𝑦 ∈ 𝒫 𝑥((∪ 𝑥 = ∪ 𝑦 ∧ 𝑦 ≼ ω) → ∃𝑧 ∈ (𝒫 𝑦 ∩ Fin)∪ 𝑥 = ∪ 𝑧)}    ⇒   ⊢ (𝐽 ∈ 𝐶 ↔ (𝐽 ∈ Top ∧ ∀𝑦 ∈ 𝒫 𝐽((𝑋 = ∪ 𝑦 ∧ 𝑦 ≼ ω) → ∃𝑧 ∈ (𝒫 𝑦 ∩ Fin)𝑋 = ∪ 𝑧)))

Theorem

pibp21 37921*

Property P000021 of pi-base. The class of weakly countably compact topologies, or limit point compact topologies. A space 𝑋 is weakly countably compact if every infinite subset of 𝑋 has a limit point. (Contributed by ML, 9-Dec-2020.)

⊢ 𝑋 = ∪ 𝐽    &   ⊢ 𝑊 = {𝑥 ∈ Top ∣ ∀𝑦 ∈ (𝒫 ∪ 𝑥 ∖ Fin)∃𝑧 ∈ ∪ 𝑥𝑧 ∈ ((limPt‘𝑥)‘𝑦)}    ⇒   ⊢ (𝐽 ∈ 𝑊 ↔ (𝐽 ∈ Top ∧ ∀𝑦 ∈ (𝒫 𝑋 ∖ Fin)∃𝑧 ∈ 𝑋 𝑧 ∈ ((limPt‘𝐽)‘𝑦)))

Theorem

pibt1 37922*

Theorem T000001 of pi-base. A compact topology is also countably compact. See pibp16 37919 and pibp19 37920 for the definitions of the relevant properties. (Contributed by ML, 8-Dec-2020.)

⊢ 𝐶 = {𝑥 ∈ Top ∣ ∀𝑦 ∈ 𝒫 𝑥((∪ 𝑥 = ∪ 𝑦 ∧ 𝑦 ≼ ω) → ∃𝑧 ∈ (𝒫 𝑦 ∩ Fin)∪ 𝑥 = ∪ 𝑧)}    ⇒   ⊢ (𝐽 ∈ Comp → 𝐽 ∈ 𝐶)

Theorem

pibt2 37923*

Theorem T000002 of pi-base, a countably compact topology is also weakly countably compact. See pibp19 37920 and pibp21 37921 for the definitions of the relevant properties. This proof uses the axiom of choice. (Contributed by ML, 30-Mar-2021.)

⊢ 𝑋 = ∪ 𝐽    &   ⊢ 𝐶 = {𝑥 ∈ Top ∣ ∀𝑦 ∈ 𝒫 𝑥((∪ 𝑥 = ∪ 𝑦 ∧ 𝑦 ≼ ω) → ∃𝑧 ∈ (𝒫 𝑦 ∩ Fin)∪ 𝑥 = ∪ 𝑧)}    &   ⊢ 𝑊 = {𝑥 ∈ Top ∣ ∀𝑦 ∈ (𝒫 ∪ 𝑥 ∖ Fin)∃𝑧 ∈ ∪ 𝑥𝑧 ∈ ((limPt‘𝑥)‘𝑦)}    ⇒   ⊢ (𝐽 ∈ 𝐶 → 𝐽 ∈ 𝑊)

21.22  Mathbox for Wolf Lammen

Theorem

wl-section-prop 37924

Intuitionistic logic is now developed separately, so we need not first focus on intuitionally valid axioms ax-1 6 and ax-2 7 any longer.

Alternatively, I start from Jan Lukasiewicz's axiom system here, i.e., ax-mp 5, ax-luk1 37925, ax-luk2 37926 and ax-luk3 37927. I rather copy this system than use luk-1 1678 to luk-3 1680, since the latter are theorems, while we need axioms here.

(Contributed by Wolf Lammen, 23-Feb-2018.) (New usage is discouraged.) (Proof modification is discouraged.)

⊢ 𝜑    ⇒   ⊢ 𝜑

Axiom

ax-luk1 37925

1 of 3 axioms for propositional calculus due to Lukasiewicz. Copy of luk-1 1678 and imim1 84, but introduced as an axiom. It focuses on a basic property of a valid implication, namely that the consequent has to be true whenever the antecedent is. So if 𝜑 and 𝜓 are somehow parametrized expressions, then 𝜑 → 𝜓 states that 𝜑 strengthen 𝜓, in that 𝜑 holds only for a (often proper) subset of those parameters making 𝜓 true. We easily accept, that when 𝜓 is stronger than 𝜒 and, at the same time 𝜑 is stronger than 𝜓, then 𝜑 must be stronger than 𝜒. This transitivity is expressed in this axiom.

A particular result of this strengthening property comes into play if the antecedent holds unconditionally. Then the consequent must hold unconditionally as well. This specialization is the foundational idea behind logical conclusion. Such conclusion is best expressed in so-called immediate versions of this axiom like imim1i 64 or syl 18. Note that these forms are weaker replacements (i.e. just frequent specialization) of the closed form presented here, hence a mere convenience.

We can identify in this axiom up to three antecedents, followed by a consequent. The number of antecedents is not really fixed; the fewer we are willing to "see", the more complex the consequent grows. On the other side, since 𝜒 is a variable capable of assuming an implication itself, we might find even more antecedents after some substitution of 𝜒. This shows that the ideas of antecedent and consequent in expressions like this depends on, and can adapt to, our current interpretation of the whole expression.

In this axiom, up to two antecedents happen to be of complex nature themselves, i.e. are an embedded implication. Logically, this axiom is a compact notion of simpler expressions, which I will later coin implication chains. Herein all antecedents and the consequent appear as simple variables, or their negation. Any propositional expression is equivalent to a set of such chains. This axiom, for example, is dissected into following chains, from which it can be recovered losslessly:

(𝜓 → (𝜒 → (𝜑 → 𝜒))); (¬ 𝜑 → (𝜒 → (𝜑 → 𝜒))); (𝜓 → (¬ 𝜓 → (𝜑 → 𝜒))); (¬ 𝜑 → (¬ 𝜓 → (𝜑 → 𝜒))). (Contributed by Wolf Lammen, 17-Dec-2018.) (New usage is discouraged.)

⊢ ((𝜑 → 𝜓) → ((𝜓 → 𝜒) → (𝜑 → 𝜒)))

Axiom

ax-luk2 37926

2 of 3 axioms for propositional calculus due to Lukasiewicz. Copy of luk-2 1679 or pm2.18 129, but introduced as an axiom. The core idea behind this axiom is, that if something can be implied from both an antecedent, and separately from its negation, then the antecedent is irrelevant to the consequent, and can safely be dropped. This is perhaps better seen from the following slightly extended version (related to pm2.65 195):

((𝜑 → 𝜑) → ((¬ 𝜑 → 𝜑) → 𝜑)). (Contributed by Wolf Lammen, 17-Dec-2018.) (New usage is discouraged.)

⊢ ((¬ 𝜑 → 𝜑) → 𝜑)

Axiom

ax-luk3 37927

3 of 3 axioms for propositional calculus due to Lukasiewicz. Copy of luk-3 1680 and pm2.24 125, but introduced as an axiom. One might think that the similar pm2.21 124 (¬ 𝜑 → (𝜑 → 𝜓)) is a valid replacement for this axiom. But this is not true, ax-3 8 is not derivable from this modification. This can be shown by designing carefully operators ¬ and → on a finite set of primitive statements. In propositional logic such statements are ⊤ and ⊥, but we can assume more and other primitives in our universe of statements. So we denote our primitive statements as phi0 , phi1 and phi2. The actual meaning of the statements are not important in this context, it rather counts how they behave under our operations ¬ and →, and which of them we assume to hold unconditionally (phi1, phi2). For our disproving model, I give that information in tabular form below. The interested reader may check by hand, that all possible interpretations of ax-mp 5, ax-luk1 37925, ax-luk2 37926 and pm2.21 124 result in phi1 or phi2, meaning they always hold. But for wl-luk-ax3 37939 we can find a counter example resulting in phi0, not a statement always true. The verification of a particular set of axioms in a given model is tedious and error prone, so I wrote a computer program, first checking this for me, and second, hunting for a counter example. Here is the result, after 9165 fruitlessly computer generated models:

ax-3 fails for phi2, phi2
number of statements: 3
always true phi1 phi2

Negation is defined as
----------------------------------------------------------------------

-. phi0	-. phi1	-. phi2
phi1	phi0	phi1

Implication is defined as
----------------------------------------------------------------------

p->q	q: phi0	q: phi1	q: phi2
p: phi0	phi1	phi1	phi1
p: phi1	phi0	phi1	phi1
p: phi2	phi0	phi0	phi0

(Contributed by Wolf Lammen, 17-Dec-2018.) (New usage is discouraged.)

⊢ (𝜑 → (¬ 𝜑 → 𝜓))

21.22.1  1. Bootstrapping

Theorem

wl-section-boot 37928

In this section, I provide the first steps needed for convenient proving. The presented theorems follow no common concept other than being useful in themselves, and apt to rederive ax-1 6, ax-2 7 and ax-3 8. (Contributed by Wolf Lammen, 17-Dec-2018.) (New usage is discouraged.) (Proof modification is discouraged.)

⊢ 𝜑    ⇒   ⊢ 𝜑

Theorem

wl-luk-imim1i 37929

Inference adding common consequents in an implication, thereby interchanging the original antecedent and consequent. Copy of imim1i 64 with a different proof. (Contributed by Wolf Lammen, 17-Dec-2018.)

⊢ (𝜑 → 𝜓)    ⇒   ⊢ ((𝜓 → 𝜒) → (𝜑 → 𝜒))

Theorem

wl-luk-syl 37930

An inference version of the transitive laws for implication luk-1 1678. Copy of syl 18 with a different proof. (Contributed by Wolf Lammen, 17-Dec-2018.) (New usage is discouraged.) (Proof modification is discouraged.)

⊢ (𝜑 → 𝜓)    &   ⊢ (𝜓 → 𝜒)    ⇒   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝜒)

Theorem

wl-luk-imtrid 37931

A syllogism rule of inference. The first premise is used to replace the second antecedent of the second premise. Copy of syl5 35 with a different proof. (Contributed by Wolf Lammen, 17-Dec-2018.) (New usage is discouraged.) (Proof modification is discouraged.)

⊢ (𝜑 → 𝜓)    &   ⊢ (𝜒 → (𝜓 → 𝜃))    ⇒   ⊢ (𝜒 → (𝜑 → 𝜃))

Theorem

wl-luk-pm2.18d 37932

Deduction based on reductio ad absurdum. Copy of pm2.18d 128 with a different proof. (Contributed by Wolf Lammen, 17-Dec-2018.) (New usage is discouraged.) (Proof modification is discouraged.)

⊢ (𝜑 → (¬ 𝜓 → 𝜓))    ⇒   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝜓)

Theorem

wl-luk-con4i 37933

Inference rule. Copy of con4i 115 with a different proof. (Contributed by Wolf Lammen, 17-Dec-2018.) (New usage is discouraged.) (Proof modification is discouraged.)

⊢ (¬ 𝜑 → ¬ 𝜓)    ⇒   ⊢ (𝜓 → 𝜑)

Theorem

wl-luk-pm2.24i 37934

Inference rule. Copy of pm2.24i 151 with a different proof. (Contributed by Wolf Lammen, 17-Dec-2018.) (New usage is discouraged.) (Proof modification is discouraged.)

⊢ 𝜑    ⇒   ⊢ (¬ 𝜑 → 𝜓)

Theorem

wl-luk-a1i 37935

Inference rule. Copy of a1i 11 with a different proof. (Contributed by Wolf Lammen, 17-Dec-2018.) (New usage is discouraged.) (Proof modification is discouraged.)

⊢ 𝜑    ⇒   ⊢ (𝜓 → 𝜑)

Theorem

wl-luk-mpi 37936

A nested modus ponens inference. Copy of mpi 21 with a different proof. (Contributed by Wolf Lammen, 17-Dec-2018.) (New usage is discouraged.) (Proof modification is discouraged.)

⊢ 𝜓    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → (𝜓 → 𝜒))    ⇒   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝜒)

Theorem

wl-luk-imim2i 37937

Inference adding common antecedents in an implication. Copy of imim2i 17 with a different proof. (Contributed by Wolf Lammen, 17-Dec-2018.) (New usage is discouraged.) (Proof modification is discouraged.)

⊢ (𝜑 → 𝜓)    ⇒   ⊢ ((𝜒 → 𝜑) → (𝜒 → 𝜓))

Theorem

wl-luk-imtrdi 37938

A syllogism rule of inference. The second premise is used to replace the consequent of the first premise. Copy of syl6 36 with a different proof. (Contributed by Wolf Lammen, 17-Dec-2018.) (New usage is discouraged.) (Proof modification is discouraged.)

⊢ (𝜑 → (𝜓 → 𝜒))    &   ⊢ (𝜒 → 𝜃)    ⇒   ⊢ (𝜑 → (𝜓 → 𝜃))

Theorem

wl-luk-ax3 37939

ax-3 8 proved from Lukasiewicz's axioms. (Contributed by Wolf Lammen, 17-Dec-2018.) (New usage is discouraged.) (Proof modification is discouraged.)

⊢ ((¬ 𝜑 → ¬ 𝜓) → (𝜓 → 𝜑))

Theorem

wl-luk-ax1 37940

ax-1 6 proved from Lukasiewicz's axioms. (Contributed by Wolf Lammen, 17-Dec-2018.) (New usage is discouraged.) (Proof modification is discouraged.)

⊢ (𝜑 → (𝜓 → 𝜑))

Theorem

wl-luk-pm2.27 37941

This theorem, called "Assertion", can be thought of as closed form of modus ponens ax-mp 5. Theorem *2.27 of [WhiteheadRussell] p. 104. Copy of pm2.27 43 with a different proof. (Contributed by Wolf Lammen, 17-Dec-2018.) (New usage is discouraged.) (Proof modification is discouraged.)

⊢ (𝜑 → ((𝜑 → 𝜓) → 𝜓))

Theorem

wl-luk-com12 37942

Inference that swaps (commutes) antecedents in an implication. Copy of com12 33 with a different proof. (Contributed by Wolf Lammen, 17-Dec-2018.) (New usage is discouraged.) (Proof modification is discouraged.)

⊢ (𝜑 → (𝜓 → 𝜒))    ⇒   ⊢ (𝜓 → (𝜑 → 𝜒))

Theorem

wl-luk-pm2.21 37943

From a wff and its negation, anything follows. Theorem *2.21 of [WhiteheadRussell] p. 104. Also called the Duns Scotus law. Copy of pm2.21 124 with a different proof. (Contributed by Wolf Lammen, 17-Dec-2018.) (New usage is discouraged.) (Proof modification is discouraged.)

⊢ (¬ 𝜑 → (𝜑 → 𝜓))

Theorem

wl-luk-con1i 37944

A contraposition inference. Copy of con1i 148 with a different proof. (Contributed by Wolf Lammen, 17-Dec-2018.) (New usage is discouraged.) (Proof modification is discouraged.)

⊢ (¬ 𝜑 → 𝜓)    ⇒   ⊢ (¬ 𝜓 → 𝜑)

Theorem

wl-luk-ja 37945

Inference joining the antecedents of two premises. Copy of ja 188 with a different proof. (Contributed by Wolf Lammen, 17-Dec-2018.) (New usage is discouraged.) (Proof modification is discouraged.)

⊢ (¬ 𝜑 → 𝜒)    &   ⊢ (𝜓 → 𝜒)    ⇒   ⊢ ((𝜑 → 𝜓) → 𝜒)

Theorem

wl-luk-imim2 37946

A closed form of syllogism (see syl 18). Theorem *2.05 of [WhiteheadRussell] p. 100. Copy of imim2 59 with a different proof. (Contributed by Wolf Lammen, 17-Dec-2018.) (New usage is discouraged.) (Proof modification is discouraged.)

⊢ ((𝜑 → 𝜓) → ((𝜒 → 𝜑) → (𝜒 → 𝜓)))

Theorem

wl-luk-a1d 37947

Deduction introducing an embedded antecedent. Copy of imim2 59 with a different proof. (Contributed by Wolf Lammen, 17-Dec-2018.) (New usage is discouraged.) (Proof modification is discouraged.)

⊢ (𝜑 → 𝜓)    ⇒   ⊢ (𝜑 → (𝜒 → 𝜓))

Theorem

wl-luk-ax2 37948

ax-2 7 proved from Lukasiewicz's axioms. (Contributed by Wolf Lammen, 17-Dec-2018.) (New usage is discouraged.) (Proof modification is discouraged.)

⊢ ((𝜑 → (𝜓 → 𝜒)) → ((𝜑 → 𝜓) → (𝜑 → 𝜒)))

Theorem

wl-luk-id 37949

Principle of identity. Theorem *2.08 of [WhiteheadRussell] p. 101. Copy of id 23 with a different proof. (Contributed by Wolf Lammen, 17-Dec-2018.) (New usage is discouraged.) (Proof modification is discouraged.)

⊢ (𝜑 → 𝜑)

Theorem

wl-luk-notnotr 37950

Converse of double negation. Theorem *2.14 of [WhiteheadRussell] p. 102. In classical logic (our logic) this is always true. In intuitionistic logic this is not always true; in intuitionistic logic, when this is true for some 𝜑, then 𝜑 is stable. Copy of notnotr 131 with a different proof. (Contributed by Wolf Lammen, 17-Dec-2018.) (New usage is discouraged.) (Proof modification is discouraged.)

⊢ (¬ ¬ 𝜑 → 𝜑)

Theorem

wl-luk-pm2.04 37951

Swap antecedents. Theorem *2.04 of [WhiteheadRussell] p. 100. This was the third axiom in Frege's logic system, specifically Proposition 8 of [Frege1879] p. 35. Copy of pm2.04 91 with a different proof. (Contributed by Wolf Lammen, 7-Jul-2019.) (New usage is discouraged.) (Proof modification is discouraged.)

⊢ ((𝜑 → (𝜓 → 𝜒)) → (𝜓 → (𝜑 → 𝜒)))

21.22.2  Implication chains

Theorem

wl-section-impchain 37952

An implication like (𝜓 → 𝜑) with one antecedent can easily be extended by prepending more and more antecedents, as in (𝜒 → (𝜓 → 𝜑)) or (𝜃 → (𝜒 → (𝜓 → 𝜑))). I call these expressions implication chains, and the number of antecedents (number of nodes minus one) denotes their length. A given length often marks just a required minimum value, since the consequent 𝜑 itself may represent an implication, or even an implication chain, such hiding part of the whole chain. As an extension, it is useful to consider a single variable 𝜑 as a degenerate implication chain of length zero.

Implication chains play a particular role in logic, as all propositional expressions turn out to be convertible to one or more implication chains, their nodes as simple as a variable, or its negation.

So there is good reason to focus on implication chains as a sort of normalized expressions, and build some general theorems around them, with proofs using recursive patterns. This allows for theorems referring to longer and longer implication chains in an automated way.

The theorem names in this section contain the text fragment 'impchain' to point out their relevance to implication chains, followed by a number indicating the (minimal) length of the longest chain involved. (Contributed by Wolf Lammen, 6-Jul-2019.) (New usage is discouraged.) (Proof modification is discouraged.)

⊢ 𝜑    ⇒   ⊢ 𝜑

Theorem

wl-impchain-mp-x 37953

This series of theorems provide a means of exchanging the consequent of an implication chain via a simple implication. In the main part, Theorems ax-mp 5, syl 18, syl6 36, syl8 77 form the beginning of this series. These theorems are replicated here, but with proofs that aim at a recursive scheme, allowing to base a proof on that of the previous one in the series. (Contributed by Wolf Lammen, 17-Nov-2019.)

⊢ ⊤

Theorem

wl-impchain-mp-0 37954

This theorem is the start of a proof recursion scheme where we replace the consequent of an implication chain. The number '0' in the theorem name indicates that the modified chain has no antecedents.

This theorem is in fact a copy of ax-mp 5, and is repeated here to emphasize the recursion using similar theorem names. (Contributed by Wolf Lammen, 6-Jul-2019.) (New usage is discouraged.) (Proof modification is discouraged.)

⊢ 𝜓    &   ⊢ (𝜓 → 𝜑)    ⇒   ⊢ 𝜑

Theorem

wl-impchain-mp-1 37955

This theorem is in fact a copy of wl-luk-syl 37930, and repeated here to demonstrate a recursive proof scheme. The number '1' in the theorem name indicates that a chain of length 1 is modified. (Contributed by Wolf Lammen, 6-Jul-2019.) (New usage is discouraged.) (Proof modification is discouraged.)

⊢ (𝜒 → 𝜓)    &   ⊢ (𝜓 → 𝜑)    ⇒   ⊢ (𝜒 → 𝜑)

Theorem

wl-impchain-mp-2 37956

This theorem is in fact a copy of wl-luk-imtrdi 37938, and repeated here to demonstrate a recursive proof scheme. The number '2' in the theorem name indicates that a chain of length 2 is modified. (Contributed by Wolf Lammen, 6-Jul-2019.) (New usage is discouraged.) (Proof modification is discouraged.)

⊢ (𝜃 → (𝜒 → 𝜓))    &   ⊢ (𝜓 → 𝜑)    ⇒   ⊢ (𝜃 → (𝜒 → 𝜑))

Theorem

wl-impchain-com-1.x 37957

It is often convenient to have the antecedent under focus in first position, so we can apply immediate theorem forms (as opposed to deduction, tautology form). This series of theorems swaps the first with the last antecedent in an implication chain. This kind of swapping is self-inverse, whence we prefer it over, say, rotating theorems. A consequent can hide a tail of a longer chain, so theorems of this series appear as swapping a pair of antecedents with fixed offsets. This form of swapping antecedents is flexible enough to allow for any permutation of antecedents in an implication chain.

The first elements of this series correspond to com12 33, com13 89, com14 97 and com15 102 in the main part.

The proofs of this series aim at automated proving using a simple recursive scheme. It employs the previous theorem in the series along with a sample from the wl-impchain-mp-x 37953 series developed before. (Contributed by Wolf Lammen, 17-Nov-2019.)

⊢ ⊤

Theorem

wl-impchain-com-1.1 37958

A degenerate form of antecedent swapping. The number '1' in the theorem name indicates that it handles a chain of length 1.

Since there is just one antecedent in the chain, there is nothing to swap. Nondegenerated forms begin with wl-impchain-com-1.2 37959, for more see there. (Contributed by Wolf Lammen, 7-Jul-2019.) (New usage is discouraged.) (Proof modification is discouraged.)

⊢ (𝜓 → 𝜑)    ⇒   ⊢ (𝜓 → 𝜑)

Theorem

wl-impchain-com-1.2 37959

This theorem is in fact a copy of wl-luk-com12 37942, and repeated here to demonstrate a simple proof scheme. The number '2' in the theorem name indicates that a chain of length 2 is modified.

See wl-impchain-com-1.x 37957 for more information how this proof is generated. (Contributed by Wolf Lammen, 7-Jul-2019.) (New usage is discouraged.) (Proof modification is discouraged.)

⊢ (𝜒 → (𝜓 → 𝜑))    ⇒   ⊢ (𝜓 → (𝜒 → 𝜑))

Theorem

wl-impchain-com-1.3 37960

This theorem is in fact a copy of com13 89, and repeated here to demonstrate a simple proof scheme. The number '3' in the theorem name indicates that a chain of length 3 is modified.

See wl-impchain-com-1.x 37957 for more information how this proof is generated. (Contributed by Wolf Lammen, 7-Jul-2019.) (New usage is discouraged.) (Proof modification is discouraged.)

⊢ (𝜃 → (𝜒 → (𝜓 → 𝜑)))    ⇒   ⊢ (𝜓 → (𝜒 → (𝜃 → 𝜑)))

Theorem

wl-impchain-com-1.4 37961

This theorem is in fact a copy of com14 97, and repeated here to demonstrate a simple proof scheme. The number '4' in the theorem name indicates that a chain of length 4 is modified.

See wl-impchain-com-1.x 37957 for more information how this proof is generated. (Contributed by Wolf Lammen, 7-Jul-2019.) (New usage is discouraged.) (Proof modification is discouraged.)

⊢ (𝜂 → (𝜃 → (𝜒 → (𝜓 → 𝜑))))    ⇒   ⊢ (𝜓 → (𝜃 → (𝜒 → (𝜂 → 𝜑))))

Theorem

wl-impchain-com-n.m 37962

This series of theorems allow swapping any two antecedents in an implication chain. The theorem names follow a pattern wl-impchain-com-n.m with integral numbers n < m, that swaps the m-th antecedent with n-th one in an implication chain. It is sufficient to restrict the length of the chain to m, too, since the consequent can be assumed to be the tail right of the m-th antecedent of any arbitrary sized implication chain. We further assume n > 1, since the wl-impchain-com-1.x 37957 series already covers the special case n = 1.

Being able to swap any two antecedents in an implication chain lays the foundation of permuting its antecedents arbitrarily.

The proofs of this series aim at automated proofing using a simple scheme. Any instance of this series is a triple step of swapping the first and n-th antecedent, then the first and the m-th, then the first and the n-th antecedent again. Each of these steps is an instance of the wl-impchain-com-1.x 37957 series. (Contributed by Wolf Lammen, 17-Nov-2019.)

⊢ ⊤

Theorem

wl-impchain-com-2.3 37963

This theorem is in fact a copy of com23 87. It starts a series of theorems named after wl-impchain-com-n.m 37962. For more information see there. (Contributed by Wolf Lammen, 12-Nov-2019.) (New usage is discouraged.) (Proof modification is discouraged.)

⊢ (𝜃 → (𝜒 → (𝜓 → 𝜑)))    ⇒   ⊢ (𝜃 → (𝜓 → (𝜒 → 𝜑)))

Theorem

wl-impchain-com-2.4 37964

This theorem is in fact a copy of com24 96. It is another instantiation of theorems named after wl-impchain-com-n.m 37962. For more information see there. (Contributed by Wolf Lammen, 17-Nov-2019.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) (New usage is discouraged.)

⊢ (𝜂 → (𝜃 → (𝜒 → (𝜓 → 𝜑))))    ⇒   ⊢ (𝜂 → (𝜓 → (𝜒 → (𝜃 → 𝜑))))

Theorem

wl-impchain-com-3.2.1 37965

This theorem is in fact a copy of com3r 88. The proof is an example of how to arrive at arbitrary permutations of antecedents, using only swapping theorems. The recursion principle is to first swap the correct antecedent to the position just before the consequent, and then employ a theorem handling an implication chain of length one less to reorder the others. (Contributed by Wolf Lammen, 17-Nov-2019.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) (New usage is discouraged.)

⊢ (𝜃 → (𝜒 → (𝜓 → 𝜑)))    ⇒   ⊢ (𝜓 → (𝜃 → (𝜒 → 𝜑)))

Theorem

wl-impchain-a1-x 37966

If an implication chain is assumed (hypothesis) or proven (theorem) to hold, then we may add any extra antecedent to it, without changing its truth. This is expressed in its simplest form in wl-luk-a1i 37935, that allows prepending an arbitrary antecedent to an implication chain. Using our antecedent swapping theorems described in wl-impchain-com-n.m 37962, we may then move such a prepended antecedent to any desired location within all antecedents. The first series of theorems of this kind adds a single antecedent somewhere to an implication chain. The appended number in the theorem name indicates its position within all antecedents, 1 denoting the head position. A second theorem series extends this idea to multiple additions (TODO).

Adding antecedents to an implication chain usually weakens their universality. The consequent afterwards depends on more conditions than before, which renders the implication chain less versatile. So you find this proof technique mostly when you adjust a chain to a hypothesis of a rule. A common case are syllogisms merging two implication chains into one.

The first elements of the first series correspond to a1i 11, a1d 26 and a1dd 51 in the main part.

The proofs of this series aim at automated proving using a simple recursive scheme. It employs the previous theorem in the series along with a sample from the wl-impchain-com-1.x 37957 series developed before. (Contributed by Wolf Lammen, 20-Jun-2020.)

⊢ ⊤

Theorem

wl-impchain-a1-1 37967

Inference rule, a copy of a1i 11. Head start of a recursive proof pattern. (Contributed by Wolf Lammen, 20-Jun-2020.) (New usage is discouraged.) (Proof modification is discouraged.)

⊢ 𝜑    ⇒   ⊢ (𝜓 → 𝜑)

Theorem

wl-impchain-a1-2 37968

Inference rule, a copy of a1d 26. First recursive proof based on the previous instance. (Contributed by Wolf Lammen, 20-Jun-2020.) (New usage is discouraged.) (Proof modification is discouraged.)

⊢ (𝜑 → 𝜓)    ⇒   ⊢ (𝜑 → (𝜒 → 𝜓))

Theorem

wl-impchain-a1-3 37969

Inference rule, a copy of a1dd 51. A recursive proof depending on previous instances, and demonstrating the proof pattern. (Contributed by Wolf Lammen, 20-Jun-2020.) (New usage is discouraged.) (Proof modification is discouraged.)

⊢ (𝜑 → (𝜓 → 𝜒))    ⇒   ⊢ (𝜑 → (𝜓 → (𝜃 → 𝜒)))

21.22.3  Theorems around the conditional operator

Theorem

wl-ifp-ncond1 37970

If one case of an if- condition is false, the other automatically follows. (Contributed by Wolf Lammen, 21-Jul-2024.)

⊢ (¬ 𝜓 → (if-(𝜑, 𝜓, 𝜒) ↔ (¬ 𝜑 ∧ 𝜒)))

Theorem

wl-ifp-ncond2 37971

If one case of an if- condition is false, the other automatically follows. (Contributed by Wolf Lammen, 21-Jul-2024.)

⊢ (¬ 𝜒 → (if-(𝜑, 𝜓, 𝜒) ↔ (𝜑 ∧ 𝜓)))

Theorem

wl-ifpimpr 37972

If one case of an if- condition is a consequence of the other, the expression in df-ifp 1077 can be shortened. (Contributed by Wolf Lammen, 12-Jun-2024.)

⊢ ((𝜒 → 𝜓) → (if-(𝜑, 𝜓, 𝜒) ↔ ((𝜑 ∧ 𝜓) ∨ 𝜒)))

Theorem

wl-ifp4impr 37973

If one case of an if- condition is a consequence of the other, the expression in dfifp4 1080 can be shortened. (Contributed by Wolf Lammen, 18-Jun-2024.)

⊢ ((𝜒 → 𝜓) → (if-(𝜑, 𝜓, 𝜒) ↔ ((𝜑 ∨ 𝜒) ∧ 𝜓)))

21.22.4  Alternative development of hadd, cadd

Theorem

wl-df-3xor 37974

Alternative definition of whad 1616 based on hadifp 1628. See df-had 1617 to learn how it is currently introduced. The only use case so far is being a binary addition primitive for df-sad 16499. If inputs are viewed as binary digits (true is 1, false is 0), the result is what a binary single-bit addition with carry-in yields in the low bit of their sum.

The core meaning is to check whether an odd number of three inputs are true. The ⊻ operation tests this for two inputs. So, if the first input is true, the two remaining inputs need to amount to an even (or: not an odd) number, else to an odd number.

The idea of an odd number of inputs being true carries over to other than 3 inputs by recursion: In an informal notation we depend the case with n+1 inputs, 𝜑 being the additional one, recursively on that of n inputs: "(n+1)-xor" ↔ if-(𝜑, ¬ "n-xor" , "n-xor" ). The base case is "0-xor" being ⊥, because zero inputs never contain an odd number among them. Then we find, after simplifying, in our informal notation:

"2-xor" (𝜑, 𝜓) ↔ (𝜑 ⊻ 𝜓) (see wl-2xor 37989).

Our definition here follows exactly the above pattern.

In microprocessor technology an addition limited to a range (a one-bit range in our case) is called a "wrap-around operation". The name "had", as in df-had 1617, by contrast, is somehow suggestive of a "half adder" instead. Such a circuit, for one, takes two inputs only, no carry-in, and then yields two outputs - both sum and carry. That's why we use "3xor" instead of "had" here. (Contributed by Wolf Lammen, 24-Apr-2024.)

⊢ (hadd(𝜑, 𝜓, 𝜒) ↔ if-(𝜑, ¬ (𝜓 ⊻ 𝜒), (𝜓 ⊻ 𝜒)))

Theorem

wl-df3xor2 37975

Alternative definition of wl-df-3xor 37974, using triple exclusive disjunction, or XOR3. You can add more input by appending each one with a ⊻. Copy of hadass 1620. (Contributed by Mario Carneiro, 4-Sep-2016.) df-had redefined. (Revised by Wolf Lammen, 1-May-2024.)

⊢ (hadd(𝜑, 𝜓, 𝜒) ↔ (𝜑 ⊻ (𝜓 ⊻ 𝜒)))

Theorem

wl-df3xor3 37976

Alternative form of wl-df3xor2 37975. Copy of df-had 1617. (Contributed by Mario Carneiro, 4-Sep-2016.) df-had redefined. (Revised by Wolf Lammen, 1-May-2024.)

⊢ (hadd(𝜑, 𝜓, 𝜒) ↔ ((𝜑 ⊻ 𝜓) ⊻ 𝜒))

Theorem

wl-3xortru 37977

If the first input is true, then triple xor is equivalent to the biconditionality of the other two inputs. (Contributed by Mario Carneiro, 4-Sep-2016.) df-had redefined. (Revised by Wolf Lammen, 24-Apr-2024.)

⊢ (𝜑 → (hadd(𝜑, 𝜓, 𝜒) ↔ ¬ (𝜓 ⊻ 𝜒)))

Theorem

wl-3xorfal 37978

If the first input is false, then triple xor is equivalent to the exclusive disjunction of the other two inputs. (Contributed by Mario Carneiro, 4-Sep-2016.) df-had redefined. (Revised by Wolf Lammen, 29-Apr-2024.)

⊢ (¬ 𝜑 → (hadd(𝜑, 𝜓, 𝜒) ↔ (𝜓 ⊻ 𝜒)))

Theorem

wl-3xorbi 37979

Triple xor can be replaced with a triple biconditional. Unlike ⊻, you cannot add more inputs by simply stacking up more biconditionals, and still express an "odd number of inputs". (Contributed by Wolf Lammen, 24-Apr-2024.)

⊢ (hadd(𝜑, 𝜓, 𝜒) ↔ (𝜑 ↔ (𝜓 ↔ 𝜒)))

Theorem

wl-3xorbi2 37980

Alternative form of wl-3xorbi 37979. (Contributed by Mario Carneiro, 4-Sep-2016.) df-had redefined. (Revised by Wolf Lammen, 24-Apr-2024.)

⊢ (hadd(𝜑, 𝜓, 𝜒) ↔ ((𝜑 ↔ 𝜓) ↔ 𝜒))

Theorem

wl-3xorbi123d 37981

Equivalence theorem for triple xor. (Contributed by Mario Carneiro, 4-Sep-2016.) df-had redefined. (Revised by Wolf Lammen, 24-Apr-2024.)

⊢ (𝜑 → (𝜓 ↔ 𝜒))    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → (𝜃 ↔ 𝜏))    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → (𝜂 ↔ 𝜁))    ⇒   ⊢ (𝜑 → (hadd(𝜓, 𝜃, 𝜂) ↔ hadd(𝜒, 𝜏, 𝜁)))

Theorem

wl-3xorbi123i 37982

Equivalence theorem for triple xor. Copy of hadbi123i 1619. (Contributed by Mario Carneiro, 4-Sep-2016.)

⊢ (𝜓 ↔ 𝜒)    &   ⊢ (𝜃 ↔ 𝜏)    &   ⊢ (𝜂 ↔ 𝜁)    ⇒   ⊢ (hadd(𝜓, 𝜃, 𝜂) ↔ hadd(𝜒, 𝜏, 𝜁))

Theorem

wl-3xorrot 37983

Rotation law for triple xor. (Contributed by Mario Carneiro, 4-Sep-2016.) df-had redefined. (Revised by Wolf Lammen, 24-Apr-2024.)

⊢ (hadd(𝜑, 𝜓, 𝜒) ↔ hadd(𝜓, 𝜒, 𝜑))

Theorem

wl-3xorcoma 37984

Commutative law for triple xor. Copy of hadcoma 1622. (Contributed by Mario Carneiro, 4-Sep-2016.) (Proof shortened by Wolf Lammen, 17-Dec-2023.)

⊢ (hadd(𝜑, 𝜓, 𝜒) ↔ hadd(𝜓, 𝜑, 𝜒))

Theorem

wl-3xorcomb 37985

Commutative law for triple xor. (Contributed by Mario Carneiro, 4-Sep-2016.) df-had redefined. (Revised by Wolf Lammen, 24-Apr-2024.)

⊢ (hadd(𝜑, 𝜓, 𝜒) ↔ hadd(𝜑, 𝜒, 𝜓))

Theorem

wl-3xornot1 37986

Flipping the first input flips the triple xor. wl-3xorrot 37983 can rotate any input to the front, so flipping any one of them does the same. (Contributed by Wolf Lammen, 1-May-2024.)

⊢ (¬ hadd(𝜑, 𝜓, 𝜒) ↔ hadd(¬ 𝜑, 𝜓, 𝜒))

Theorem

wl-3xornot 37987

Triple xor distributes over negation. Copy of hadnot 1625. (Contributed by Mario Carneiro, 4-Sep-2016.) (Proof shortened by Wolf Lammen, 11-Jul-2020.)

⊢ (¬ hadd(𝜑, 𝜓, 𝜒) ↔ hadd(¬ 𝜑, ¬ 𝜓, ¬ 𝜒))

Theorem

wl-1xor 37988

In the recursive scheme

"(n+1)-xor" ↔ if-(𝜑, ¬ "n-xor" , "n-xor" )

we set n = 0 to formally arrive at an expression for "1-xor". The base case "0-xor" is replaced with ⊥, as a sequence of 0 inputs never has an odd number being part of it. (Contributed by Wolf Lammen, 11-May-2024.)

⊢ (if-(𝜓, ¬ ⊥, ⊥) ↔ 𝜓)

Theorem

wl-2xor 37989

In the recursive scheme

"(n+1)-xor" ↔ if-(𝜑, ¬ "n-xor" , "n-xor" )

we set n = 1 to formally arrive at an expression for "2-xor". It is based on "1-xor", that is known to be equivalent to its only input (see wl-1xor 37988). (Contributed by Wolf Lammen, 11-May-2024.)

⊢ (if-(𝜑, ¬ 𝜓, 𝜓) ↔ (𝜑 ⊻ 𝜓))

Theorem

wl-df-3mintru2 37990

Alternative definition of wcad 1629. See df-cad 1630 to learn how it is currently introduced. The only use case so far is being a binary addition primitive for df-sad 16499. If inputs are viewed as binary digits (true is 1, false is 0), the result is whether ordinary binary full addition yields a carry bit. That is what the name df-cad 1630 is derived from: "carry of an addition". Here we stick with this abbreviated form of our notation above, but still use "adder carry" as a shorthand for "at least 2 out of 3" in text.

The core meaning is to check whether at least two of three inputs are true. So, if the first input is true, at least one of the two remaining must be true, else even both. This theorem is the in-between of "at least 1 out of 3", given by triple disjunction df-3or 1102, and "(at least) 3 out of 3", expressed by triple conjunction df-3an 1103.

The notion above can be generalized to other input numbers with other minimum values as follows. Let us introduce informally a logical operation "n-mintru-m" taking n inputs, and requiring at least m of them be true to let the operation itself be true. There now exists a recursive scheme to define it for increasing n, m. We start with the base case n = 0. Here "n-mintru-0" is equivalent to ⊤ (any sequence of inputs contains at least zero true inputs), the other "0-mintru-m" is for any m > 0 equivalent to ⊥, because a sequence of zero inputs never has a positive number of them true. The general case adds a new input 𝜑 to a given sequence of n inputs, and reduces that case for all integers m to that of the smaller sequence by recursion, informally written as:

"(n+1)-mintru-(m+1)" ↔ if-(𝜑, "n-mintru-m" , "n-mintru-(m+1)" )

Our definition here matches "3-mintru-2" with inputs 𝜑, 𝜓 and 𝜒. Starting from the base cases we find after simplifications: "2-mintru-2" (𝜓, 𝜒) ↔ (𝜓 ∧ 𝜒) (wl-2mintru2 37997), and "2-mintru-1" (𝜓, 𝜒) ↔ (𝜓 ∨ 𝜒) (wl-2mintru1 37996). Plugging these expressions into the formula above for n = 3, m = 2 yields exactly our definition here. (Contributed by Wolf Lammen, 2-May-2024.)

⊢ (cadd(𝜑, 𝜓, 𝜒) ↔ if-(𝜑, (𝜓 ∨ 𝜒), (𝜓 ∧ 𝜒)))

Theorem

wl-df2-3mintru2 37991

The adder carry in disjunctive normal form. An alternative highly symmetric definition emphasizing the independence of order of the inputs 𝜑, 𝜓 and 𝜒. Copy of cador 1631. (Contributed by Mario Carneiro, 4-Sep-2016.) df-cad redefined. (Revised by Wolf Lammen, 12-Jun-2024.)

⊢ (cadd(𝜑, 𝜓, 𝜒) ↔ ((𝜑 ∧ 𝜓) ∨ (𝜑 ∧ 𝜒) ∨ (𝜓 ∧ 𝜒)))

Theorem

wl-df3-3mintru2 37992

The adder carry in conjunctive normal form. An alternative highly symmetric definition emphasizing the independence of order of the inputs 𝜑, 𝜓 and 𝜒. Copy of cadan 1632. (Contributed by Mario Carneiro, 4-Sep-2016.) df-cad redefined. (Revised by Wolf Lammen, 18-Jun-2024.)

⊢ (cadd(𝜑, 𝜓, 𝜒) ↔ ((𝜑 ∨ 𝜓) ∧ (𝜑 ∨ 𝜒) ∧ (𝜓 ∨ 𝜒)))

Theorem

wl-df4-3mintru2 37993

An alternative definition of the adder carry. Copy of df-cad 1630. (Contributed by Mario Carneiro, 4-Sep-2016.) df-cad redefined. (Revised by Wolf Lammen, 19-Jun-2024.)

⊢ (cadd(𝜑, 𝜓, 𝜒) ↔ ((𝜑 ∧ 𝜓) ∨ (𝜒 ∧ (𝜑 ⊻ 𝜓))))

Theorem

wl-1mintru1 37994

Using the recursion formula:

"(n+1)-mintru-(m+1)" ↔ if-(𝜑, "n-mintru-m" , "n-mintru-(m+1)" )

for "1-mintru-1" (meaning "at least 1 out of 1 input is true") by plugging in n = 0, m = 0, and simplifying. The expressions "0-mintru-0" and "0-mintru-1" are base cases of the recursion, meaning "in a sequence of zero inputs, at least 0 / 1 input is true", respectively equivalent to ⊤ / ⊥.

Negating an "n-mintru1" operation means: All n inputs 𝜑.. 𝜃 are false. This is also conveniently expressed as ¬ (𝜑 ∨.. ∨ 𝜃). Applying this idea here (n = 1) yields the obvious result that in an input sequence of size 1 only then all will be false, if its single input is. (Contributed by Wolf Lammen, 10-May-2024.)

⊢ (if-(𝜒, ⊤, ⊥) ↔ 𝜒)

Theorem

wl-1mintru2 37995

Using the recursion formula:

"(n+1)-mintru-(m+1)" ↔ if-(𝜑, "n-mintru-m" , "n-mintru-(m+1)" )

for "1-mintru-2" (meaning "at least 2 out of a single input are true") by plugging in n = 0, m = 1, and simplifying. The expressions "0-mintru-1" and "0-mintru-2" are base cases of the recursion, meaning "in a sequence of zero inputs at least 1 / 2 input is true", evaluate both to ⊥.

Since no sequence of inputs has a longer subsequence of whatever property, the resulting ⊥ is to be expected.

Negating a "n-mintru2" operation has an interesting interpretation: at most one input is true, so all inputs exclude each other mutually. Such an exclusion is expressed by a NAND operation (𝜑 ⊼ 𝜓), not by a XOR. Applying this idea here (n = 1) leads to the obvious "In a single input sequence 'at most one is true' always holds". (Contributed by Wolf Lammen, 10-May-2024.)

⊢ (if-(𝜒, ⊥, ⊥) ↔ ⊥)

Theorem

wl-2mintru1 37996

Using the recursion formula

"(n+1)-mintru-(m+1)" ↔ if-(𝜑, "n-mintru-m" , "n-mintru-(m+1)" )

for "2-mintru-1" (meaning "at least 1 out of 2 inputs is true") by plugging in n = 1, m = 0, and simplifying. The expression "1-mintru-0" is a base case (meaning at least zero inputs out of 1 are true), evaluating to ⊤, and wl-1mintru1 37994 shows "1-mintru-1" is equivalent to the only input.

Negating an "n-mintru1" operation means: All n inputs 𝜑.. 𝜃 are false. This is also conveniently expressed as ¬ (𝜑 ∨.. ∨ 𝜃), in accordance with the result here. (Contributed by Wolf Lammen, 10-May-2024.)

⊢ (if-(𝜓, ⊤, 𝜒) ↔ (𝜓 ∨ 𝜒))

Theorem

wl-2mintru2 37997

Using the recursion formula

"(n+1)-mintru-(m+1)" ↔ if-(𝜑, "n-mintru-m" , "n-mintru-(m+1)" )

for "2-mintru-2" (meaning "2 out of 2 inputs are true") by plugging in n = 1, m = 1, and simplifying. See wl-1mintru1 37994 and wl-1mintru2 37995 to see that "1-mintru-1" / "1-mintru-2" evaluate to 𝜒 / ⊥ respectively.

Negating a "n-mintru2" operation means 'at most one input is true', so all inputs exclude each other mutually. Such an exclusion is expressed by a NAND operation (𝜑 ⊼ 𝜓), not by a XOR. Applying this idea here (n = 2) yields the expected NAND in case of a pair of inputs. (Contributed by Wolf Lammen, 10-May-2024.)

⊢ (if-(𝜓, 𝜒, ⊥) ↔ (𝜓 ∧ 𝜒))

Theorem

wl-df3maxtru1 37998

Assuming "(n+1)-maxtru1" ↔ ¬ "(n+1)-mintru-2", we can deduce from the recursion formula given in wl-df-3mintru2 37990, that a similiar one

"(n+1)-maxtru1" ↔ if-(𝜑,-. "n-mintru-1" , "n-maxtru1" )

is valid for expressing 'at most one input is true'. This can also be rephrased as a mutual exclusivity of propositional expressions (no two of a sequence of inputs can simultaneously be true). Of course, this suggests that all inputs depend on variables 𝜂, 𝜁... Whatever wellformed expression we plugin for these variables, it will render at most one of the inputs true.

The here introduced mutual exclusivity is possibly useful for case studies, where we want the cases be sort of 'disjoint'. One can further imagine that a complete case scenario demands that the 'at most' is sharpened to 'exactly one'. This does not impose any difficulty here, as one of the inputs will then be the negation of all others be or'ed. As one input is determined, 'at most one' is sufficient to describe the general form here.

Since cadd is an alias for 'at least 2 out of three are true', its negation is under focus here. (Contributed by Wolf Lammen, 23-Jun-2024.)

⊢ (¬ cadd(𝜑, 𝜓, 𝜒) ↔ if-(𝜑, (𝜓 ⊽ 𝜒), (𝜓 ⊼ 𝜒)))

21.22.5  An alternative axiom ~ ax-13

Axiom

ax-wl-13v 37999*

A version of ax13v 2407 with a distinctor instead of a distinct variable condition.

Had we additionally required 𝑥 and 𝑦 be distinct, too, this theorem would have been a direct consequence of ax-5 1933. So essentially this theorem states, that a distinct variable condition between set variables can be replaced with a distinctor expression. (Contributed by Wolf Lammen, 23-Jul-2021.)

⊢ (¬ ∀𝑥 𝑥 = 𝑦 → (𝑦 = 𝑧 → ∀𝑥 𝑦 = 𝑧))

Theorem

wl-ax13lem1 38000*

A version of ax-wl-13v 37999 with one distinct variable restriction dropped. For convenience, 𝑦 is kept on the right side of equations. This proof bases on ideas from NM, 24-Dec-2015. (Contributed by Wolf Lammen, 23-Jul-2021.)

⊢ (¬ ∀𝑥 𝑥 = 𝑦 → (𝑧 = 𝑦 → ∀𝑥 𝑧 = 𝑦))