P. 385 of Theorem List - Metamath Proof Explorer

Theorem List for Metamath Proof Explorer - 38401-38500   *Has distinct variable group(s)

Type	Label	Description
Statement
Theorem	prtlem18 38401*	Lemma for prter2 38405. (Contributed by Rodolfo Medina, 15-Oct-2010.) (Revised by Mario Carneiro, 12-Aug-2015.)
⊢ ∼ = {⟨𝑥, 𝑦⟩ ∣ ∃𝑢 ∈ 𝐴 (𝑥 ∈ 𝑢 ∧ 𝑦 ∈ 𝑢)}    ⇒   ⊢ (Prt 𝐴 → ((𝑣 ∈ 𝐴 ∧ 𝑧 ∈ 𝑣) → (𝑤 ∈ 𝑣 ↔ 𝑧 ∼ 𝑤)))
Theorem	prtlem19 38402*	Lemma for prter2 38405. (Contributed by Rodolfo Medina, 15-Oct-2010.) (Revised by Mario Carneiro, 12-Aug-2015.)
⊢ ∼ = {⟨𝑥, 𝑦⟩ ∣ ∃𝑢 ∈ 𝐴 (𝑥 ∈ 𝑢 ∧ 𝑦 ∈ 𝑢)}    ⇒   ⊢ (Prt 𝐴 → ((𝑣 ∈ 𝐴 ∧ 𝑧 ∈ 𝑣) → 𝑣 = [𝑧] ∼ ))
Theorem	prter1 38403*	Every partition generates an equivalence relation. (Contributed by Rodolfo Medina, 13-Oct-2010.) (Revised by Mario Carneiro, 12-Aug-2015.)
⊢ ∼ = {⟨𝑥, 𝑦⟩ ∣ ∃𝑢 ∈ 𝐴 (𝑥 ∈ 𝑢 ∧ 𝑦 ∈ 𝑢)}    ⇒   ⊢ (Prt 𝐴 → ∼ Er ∪ 𝐴)
Theorem	prtex 38404*	The equivalence relation generated by a partition is a set if and only if the partition itself is a set. (Contributed by Rodolfo Medina, 15-Oct-2010.) (Revised by Mario Carneiro, 12-Aug-2015.)
⊢ ∼ = {⟨𝑥, 𝑦⟩ ∣ ∃𝑢 ∈ 𝐴 (𝑥 ∈ 𝑢 ∧ 𝑦 ∈ 𝑢)}    ⇒   ⊢ (Prt 𝐴 → ( ∼ ∈ V ↔ 𝐴 ∈ V))
Theorem	prter2 38405*	The quotient set of the equivalence relation generated by a partition equals the partition itself. (Contributed by Rodolfo Medina, 17-Oct-2010.)
⊢ ∼ = {⟨𝑥, 𝑦⟩ ∣ ∃𝑢 ∈ 𝐴 (𝑥 ∈ 𝑢 ∧ 𝑦 ∈ 𝑢)}    ⇒   ⊢ (Prt 𝐴 → (∪ 𝐴 / ∼ ) = (𝐴 ∖ {∅}))
Theorem	prter3 38406*	For every partition there exists a unique equivalence relation whose quotient set equals the partition. (Contributed by Rodolfo Medina, 19-Oct-2010.) (Proof shortened by Mario Carneiro, 12-Aug-2015.)
⊢ ∼ = {⟨𝑥, 𝑦⟩ ∣ ∃𝑢 ∈ 𝐴 (𝑥 ∈ 𝑢 ∧ 𝑦 ∈ 𝑢)}    ⇒   ⊢ ((𝑆 Er ∪ 𝐴 ∧ (∪ 𝐴 / 𝑆) = (𝐴 ∖ {∅})) → ∼ = 𝑆)
21.26  Mathbox for Norm Megill We are sad to report the passing of Metamath creator and long-time contributor Norm Megill (1950 - 2021). Norm of course was the author of the Metamath proof language, the specification, all of the early tools (and some of the later ones), and the foundational work in logic and set theory for set.mm. His tools, now at https://github.com/metamath/metamath-exe , include a proof verifier, a proof assistant, a proof minimizer, style checking and reformatting, and tools for searching and displaying proofs. One of his key insights was that formal proofs can exist not only to be verified by computers, but also to be read by humans. Both the specification of the proof format (which stores full proofs, as opposed to the proof templates used by most proof assistants) and the generated web display of Metamath proofs, one of its distinctive features, contribute to this double objective. Metamath innovated both by using a very simple substitution rule (and then using that to build more complicated notions like free and bound variables) and also by taking the axiom schemas found in many theories and taking them to the next level - by making all axioms, theorems and proofs operate in terms of schemas. Not content to create Metamath for his own amusement, he also published it for the world and encouraged the development of a community of people who contributed to it and created their own tools. He was an active participant in the Metamath mailing list and other forums until days before his passing. It is often our custom to supply a quote from someone memorialized in a mathbox entry. And it is difficult to select a quote for someone who has written so much about Metamath over the years. But here is one quote from the Metamath web page which illustrates not just his clear thinking about what Metamath can and cannot do but also his desire to encourage students at all levels: Q: Will Metamath help me learn abstract mathematics? A: Yes, but probably not by itself. In order to follow a proof in an advanced math textbook, you may need to know prerequisites that could take years to learn. Some people find this frustrating. In contrast, Metamath uses a single, simple substitution rule that allows you to follow any proof mechanically. You can actually jump in anywhere and be convinced that the symbol string you see in a proof step is a consequence of the symbol strings in the earlier steps that it references, even if you don't understand what the symbols mean. But this is quite different from understanding the meaning of the math that results. Metamath alone probably will not give you an intuitive feel for abstract math, in the same way it can be hard to grasp a large computer program just by reading its source code, even though you may understand each individual instruction. However, the Bibliographic Cross-Reference lets you compare informal proofs in math textbooks and see all the implicit missing details "left to the reader."
21.26.1  Obsolete schemes ax-c4,c5,c7,c10,c11,c11n,c15,c9,c14,c16 These older axiom schemes are obsolete and should not be used outside of this section. They are proved above as theorems axc4 , sp 2171, axc7 2305, axc10 2378, axc11 2423, axc11n 2419, axc15 2415, axc9 2375, axc14 2456, and axc16 2247.
Axiom	ax-c5 38407	Axiom of Specialization. A universally quantified wff implies the wff without the universal quantifier (i.e., an instance, or special case, of the generalized wff). In other words, if something is true for all 𝑥, then it is true for any specific 𝑥 (that would typically occur as a free variable in the wff substituted for 𝜑). (A free variable is one that does not occur in the scope of a quantifier: 𝑥 and 𝑦 are both free in 𝑥 = 𝑦, but only 𝑥 is free in ∀𝑦𝑥 = 𝑦.) Axiom scheme C5' in [Megill] p. 448 (p. 16 of the preprint). Also appears as Axiom B5 of [Tarski] p. 67 (under his system S2, defined in the last paragraph on p. 77). Note that the converse of this axiom does not hold in general, but a weaker inference form of the converse holds and is expressed as rule ax-gen 1789. Conditional forms of the converse are given by ax-13 2365, ax-c14 38415, ax-c16 38416, and ax-5 1905. Unlike the more general textbook Axiom of Specialization, we cannot choose a variable different from 𝑥 for the special case. In our axiomatization, that requires the assistance of equality axioms, and we deal with it later after we introduce the definition of proper substitution (see stdpc4 2063). An interesting alternate axiomatization uses axc5c711 38442 and ax-c4 38408 in place of ax-c5 38407, ax-4 1803, ax-10 2129, and ax-11 2146. This axiom is obsolete and should no longer be used. It is proved above as Theorem sp 2171. (Contributed by NM, 3-Jan-1993.) Use sp 2171 instead. (New usage is discouraged.)
⊢ (∀𝑥𝜑 → 𝜑)
Axiom	ax-c4 38408	Axiom of Quantified Implication. This axiom moves a universal quantifier from outside to inside an implication, quantifying 𝜓. Notice that 𝑥 must not be a free variable in the antecedent of the quantified implication, and we express this by binding 𝜑 to "protect" the axiom from a 𝜑 containing a free 𝑥. Axiom scheme C4' in [Megill] p. 448 (p. 16 of the preprint). It is a special case of Lemma 5 of [Monk2] p. 108 and Axiom 5 of [Mendelson] p. 69. This axiom is obsolete and should no longer be used. It is proved above as Theorem axc4 2309. (Contributed by NM, 3-Jan-1993.) (New usage is discouraged.)
⊢ (∀𝑥(∀𝑥𝜑 → 𝜓) → (∀𝑥𝜑 → ∀𝑥𝜓))
Axiom	ax-c7 38409	Axiom of Quantified Negation. This axiom is used to manipulate negated quantifiers. Equivalent to axiom scheme C7' in [Megill] p. 448 (p. 16 of the preprint). An alternate axiomatization could use axc5c711 38442 in place of ax-c5 38407, ax-c7 38409, and ax-11 2146. This axiom is obsolete and should no longer be used. It is proved above as Theorem axc7 2305. (Contributed by NM, 10-Jan-1993.) (New usage is discouraged.)
⊢ (¬ ∀𝑥 ¬ ∀𝑥𝜑 → 𝜑)
Axiom	ax-c10 38410	A variant of ax6 2377. Axiom scheme C10' in [Megill] p. 448 (p. 16 of the preprint). This axiom is obsolete and should no longer be used. It is proved above as Theorem axc10 2378. (Contributed by NM, 10-Jan-1993.) (New usage is discouraged.)
⊢ (∀𝑥(𝑥 = 𝑦 → ∀𝑥𝜑) → 𝜑)
Axiom	ax-c11 38411	Axiom ax-c11 38411 was the original version of ax-c11n 38412 ("n" for "new"), before it was discovered (in May 2008) that the shorter ax-c11n 38412 could replace it. It appears as Axiom scheme C11' in [Megill] p. 448 (p. 16 of the preprint). This axiom is obsolete and should no longer be used. It is proved above as Theorem axc11 2423. (Contributed by NM, 10-May-1993.) (New usage is discouraged.)
⊢ (∀𝑥 𝑥 = 𝑦 → (∀𝑥𝜑 → ∀𝑦𝜑))
Axiom	ax-c11n 38412	Axiom of Quantifier Substitution. One of the equality and substitution axioms of predicate calculus with equality. Appears as Lemma L12 in [Megill] p. 445 (p. 12 of the preprint). The original version of this axiom was ax-c11 38411 and was replaced with this shorter ax-c11n 38412 ("n" for "new") in May 2008. The old axiom is proved from this one as Theorem axc11 2423. Conversely, this axiom is proved from ax-c11 38411 as Theorem axc11nfromc11 38450. This axiom was proved redundant in July 2015. See Theorem axc11n 2419. This axiom is obsolete and should no longer be used. It is proved above as Theorem axc11n 2419. (Contributed by NM, 16-May-2008.) (New usage is discouraged.)
⊢ (∀𝑥 𝑥 = 𝑦 → ∀𝑦 𝑦 = 𝑥)
Axiom	ax-c15 38413	Axiom ax-c15 38413 was the original version of ax-12 2166, before it was discovered (in Jan. 2007) that the shorter ax-12 2166 could replace it. It appears as Axiom scheme C15' in [Megill] p. 448 (p. 16 of the preprint). It is based on Lemma 16 of [Tarski] p. 70 and Axiom C8 of [Monk2] p. 105, from which it can be proved by cases. To understand this theorem more easily, think of "¬ ∀𝑥𝑥 = 𝑦 →..." as informally meaning "if 𝑥 and 𝑦 are distinct variables then..." The antecedent becomes false if the same variable is substituted for 𝑥 and 𝑦, ensuring the theorem is sound whenever this is the case. In some later theorems, we call an antecedent of the form ¬ ∀𝑥𝑥 = 𝑦 a "distinctor". Interestingly, if the wff expression substituted for 𝜑 contains no wff variables, the resulting statement can be proved without invoking this axiom. This means that even though this axiom is metalogically independent from the others, it is not logically independent. Specifically, we can prove any wff-variable-free instance of Axiom ax-c15 38413 (from which the ax-12 2166 instance follows by Theorem ax12 2416.) The proof is by induction on formula length, using ax12eq 38465 and ax12el 38466 for the basis steps and ax12indn 38467, ax12indi 38468, and ax12inda 38472 for the induction steps. (This paragraph is true provided we use ax-c11 38411 in place of ax-c11n 38412.) This axiom is obsolete and should no longer be used. It is proved above as Theorem axc15 2415, which should be used instead. (Contributed by NM, 14-May-1993.) (New usage is discouraged.)
⊢ (¬ ∀𝑥 𝑥 = 𝑦 → (𝑥 = 𝑦 → (𝜑 → ∀𝑥(𝑥 = 𝑦 → 𝜑))))
Axiom	ax-c9 38414	Axiom of Quantifier Introduction. One of the equality and substitution axioms of predicate calculus with equality. Informally, it says that whenever 𝑧 is distinct from 𝑥 and 𝑦, and 𝑥 = 𝑦 is true, then 𝑥 = 𝑦 quantified with 𝑧 is also true. In other words, 𝑧 is irrelevant to the truth of 𝑥 = 𝑦. Axiom scheme C9' in [Megill] p. 448 (p. 16 of the preprint). It apparently does not otherwise appear in the literature but is easily proved from textbook predicate calculus by cases. This axiom is obsolete and should no longer be used. It is proved above as Theorem axc9 2375. (Contributed by NM, 10-Jan-1993.) (New usage is discouraged.)
⊢ (¬ ∀𝑧 𝑧 = 𝑥 → (¬ ∀𝑧 𝑧 = 𝑦 → (𝑥 = 𝑦 → ∀𝑧 𝑥 = 𝑦)))
Axiom	ax-c14 38415	Axiom of Quantifier Introduction. One of the equality and substitution axioms for a non-logical predicate in our predicate calculus with equality. Axiom scheme C14' in [Megill] p. 448 (p. 16 of the preprint). It is redundant if we include ax-5 1905; see Theorem axc14 2456. Alternately, ax-5 1905 becomes unnecessary in principle with this axiom, but we lose the more powerful metalogic afforded by ax-5 1905. We retain ax-c14 38415 here to provide completeness for systems with the simpler metalogic that results from omitting ax-5 1905, which might be easier to study for some theoretical purposes. This axiom is obsolete and should no longer be used. It is proved above as Theorem axc14 2456. (Contributed by NM, 24-Jun-1993.) (New usage is discouraged.)
⊢ (¬ ∀𝑧 𝑧 = 𝑥 → (¬ ∀𝑧 𝑧 = 𝑦 → (𝑥 ∈ 𝑦 → ∀𝑧 𝑥 ∈ 𝑦)))
Axiom	ax-c16 38416*	Axiom of Distinct Variables. The only axiom of predicate calculus requiring that variables be distinct (if we consider ax-5 1905 to be a metatheorem and not an axiom). Axiom scheme C16' in [Megill] p. 448 (p. 16 of the preprint). It apparently does not otherwise appear in the literature but is easily proved from textbook predicate calculus by cases. It is a somewhat bizarre axiom since the antecedent is always false in set theory (see dtru 5433), but nonetheless it is technically necessary as you can see from its uses. This axiom is redundant if we include ax-5 1905; see Theorem axc16 2247. Alternately, ax-5 1905 becomes logically redundant in the presence of this axiom, but without ax-5 1905 we lose the more powerful metalogic that results from being able to express the concept of a setvar variable not occurring in a wff (as opposed to just two setvar variables being distinct). We retain ax-c16 38416 here to provide logical completeness for systems with the simpler metalogic that results from omitting ax-5 1905, which might be easier to study for some theoretical purposes. This axiom is obsolete and should no longer be used. It is proved above as Theorem axc16 2247. (Contributed by NM, 10-Jan-1993.) (New usage is discouraged.)
⊢ (∀𝑥 𝑥 = 𝑦 → (𝜑 → ∀𝑥𝜑))
21.26.2  Rederive new axioms ax-4, ax-10, ax-6, ax-12, ax-13 from old Theorems ax12fromc15 38429 and ax13fromc9 38430 require some intermediate theorems that are included in this section.
Theorem	axc5 38417	This theorem repeats sp 2171 under the name axc5 38417, so that the Metamath program "MM> VERIFY MARKUP" command will check that it matches axiom scheme ax-c5 38407. (Contributed by NM, 18-Aug-2017.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) Use sp 2171 instead. (New usage is discouraged.)
⊢ (∀𝑥𝜑 → 𝜑)
Theorem	ax4fromc4 38418	Rederivation of Axiom ax-4 1803 from ax-c4 38408, ax-c5 38407, ax-gen 1789 and minimal implicational calculus { ax-mp 5, ax-1 6, ax-2 7 }. See axc4 2309 for the derivation of ax-c4 38408 from ax-4 1803. (Contributed by NM, 23-May-2008.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) Use ax-4 1803 instead. (New usage is discouraged.)
⊢ (∀𝑥(𝜑 → 𝜓) → (∀𝑥𝜑 → ∀𝑥𝜓))
Theorem	ax10fromc7 38419	Rederivation of Axiom ax-10 2129 from ax-c7 38409, ax-c4 38408, ax-c5 38407, ax-gen 1789 and propositional calculus. See axc7 2305 for the derivation of ax-c7 38409 from ax-10 2129. (Contributed by NM, 23-May-2008.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) Use ax-10 2129 instead. (New usage is discouraged.)
⊢ (¬ ∀𝑥𝜑 → ∀𝑥 ¬ ∀𝑥𝜑)
Theorem	ax6fromc10 38420	Rederivation of Axiom ax-6 1963 from ax-c7 38409, ax-c10 38410, ax-gen 1789 and propositional calculus. See axc10 2378 for the derivation of ax-c10 38410 from ax-6 1963. Lemma L18 in [Megill] p. 446 (p. 14 of the preprint). (Contributed by NM, 14-May-1993.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) Use ax-6 1963 instead. (New usage is discouraged.)
⊢ ¬ ∀𝑥 ¬ 𝑥 = 𝑦
Theorem	hba1-o 38421	The setvar 𝑥 is not free in ∀𝑥𝜑. Example in Appendix in [Megill] p. 450 (p. 19 of the preprint). Also Lemma 22 of [Monk2] p. 114. (Contributed by NM, 24-Jan-1993.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) (New usage is discouraged.)
⊢ (∀𝑥𝜑 → ∀𝑥∀𝑥𝜑)
Theorem	axc4i-o 38422	Inference version of ax-c4 38408. (Contributed by NM, 3-Jan-1993.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) (New usage is discouraged.)
⊢ (∀𝑥𝜑 → 𝜓)    ⇒   ⊢ (∀𝑥𝜑 → ∀𝑥𝜓)
Theorem	equid1 38423	Proof of equid 2007 from our older axioms. This is often an axiom of equality in textbook systems, but we don't need it as an axiom since it can be proved from our other axioms (although the proof, as you can see below, is not as obvious as you might think). This proof uses only axioms without distinct variable conditions and requires no dummy variables. A simpler proof, similar to Tarski's, is possible if we make use of ax-5 1905; see the proof of equid 2007. See equid1ALT 38449 for an alternate proof. (Contributed by NM, 10-Jan-1993.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) (New usage is discouraged.)
⊢ 𝑥 = 𝑥
Theorem	equcomi1 38424	Proof of equcomi 2012 from equid1 38423, avoiding use of ax-5 1905 (the only use of ax-5 1905 is via ax7 2011, so using ax-7 2003 instead would remove dependency on ax-5 1905). (Contributed by BJ, 8-Jul-2021.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) (New usage is discouraged.)
⊢ (𝑥 = 𝑦 → 𝑦 = 𝑥)
Theorem	aecom-o 38425	Commutation law for identical variable specifiers. The antecedent and consequent are true when 𝑥 and 𝑦 are substituted with the same variable. Lemma L12 in [Megill] p. 445 (p. 12 of the preprint). Version of aecom 2420 using ax-c11 38411. Unlike axc11nfromc11 38450, this version does not require ax-5 1905 (see comment of equcomi1 38424). (Contributed by NM, 10-May-1993.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) (New usage is discouraged.)
⊢ (∀𝑥 𝑥 = 𝑦 → ∀𝑦 𝑦 = 𝑥)
Theorem	aecoms-o 38426	A commutation rule for identical variable specifiers. Version of aecoms 2421 using ax-c11 38411. (Contributed by NM, 10-May-1993.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) (New usage is discouraged.)
⊢ (∀𝑥 𝑥 = 𝑦 → 𝜑)    ⇒   ⊢ (∀𝑦 𝑦 = 𝑥 → 𝜑)
Theorem	hbae-o 38427	All variables are effectively bound in an identical variable specifier. Version of hbae 2424 using ax-c11 38411. (Contributed by NM, 13-May-1993.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) (New usage is discouraged.)
⊢ (∀𝑥 𝑥 = 𝑦 → ∀𝑧∀𝑥 𝑥 = 𝑦)
Theorem	dral1-o 38428	Formula-building lemma for use with the Distinctor Reduction Theorem. Part of Theorem 9.4 of [Megill] p. 448 (p. 16 of preprint). Version of dral1 2432 using ax-c11 38411. (Contributed by NM, 24-Nov-1994.) (New usage is discouraged.)
⊢ (∀𝑥 𝑥 = 𝑦 → (𝜑 ↔ 𝜓))    ⇒   ⊢ (∀𝑥 𝑥 = 𝑦 → (∀𝑥𝜑 ↔ ∀𝑦𝜓))
Theorem	ax12fromc15 38429	Rederivation of Axiom ax-12 2166 from ax-c15 38413, ax-c11 38411 (used through dral1-o 38428), and other older axioms. See Theorem axc15 2415 for the derivation of ax-c15 38413 from ax-12 2166. An open problem is whether we can prove this using ax-c11n 38412 instead of ax-c11 38411. This proof uses newer axioms ax-4 1803 and ax-6 1963, but since these are proved from the older axioms above, this is acceptable and lets us avoid having to reprove several earlier theorems to use ax-c4 38408 and ax-c10 38410. (Contributed by NM, 22-Jan-2007.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) (New usage is discouraged.)
⊢ (𝑥 = 𝑦 → (∀𝑦𝜑 → ∀𝑥(𝑥 = 𝑦 → 𝜑)))
Theorem	ax13fromc9 38430	Derive ax-13 2365 from ax-c9 38414 and other older axioms. This proof uses newer axioms ax-4 1803 and ax-6 1963, but since these are proved from the older axioms above, this is acceptable and lets us avoid having to reprove several earlier theorems to use ax-c4 38408 and ax-c10 38410. (Contributed by NM, 21-Dec-2015.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) (New usage is discouraged.)
⊢ (¬ 𝑥 = 𝑦 → (𝑦 = 𝑧 → ∀𝑥 𝑦 = 𝑧))
21.26.3  Legacy theorems using obsolete axioms These theorems were mostly intended to study properties of the older axiom schemes and are not useful outside of this section. They should not be used outside of this section. They may be deleted when they are deemed to no longer be of interest.
Theorem	ax5ALT 38431*	Axiom to quantify a variable over a formula in which it does not occur. Axiom C5 in [Megill] p. 444 (p. 11 of the preprint). Also appears as Axiom B6 (p. 75) of system S2 of [Tarski] p. 77 and Axiom C5-1 of [Monk2] p. 113. (This theorem simply repeats ax-5 1905 so that we can include the following note, which applies only to the obsolete axiomatization.) This axiom is logically redundant in the (logically complete) predicate calculus axiom system consisting of ax-gen 1789, ax-c4 38408, ax-c5 38407, ax-11 2146, ax-c7 38409, ax-7 2003, ax-c9 38414, ax-c10 38410, ax-c11 38411, ax-8 2100, ax-9 2108, ax-c14 38415, ax-c15 38413, and ax-c16 38416: in that system, we can derive any instance of ax-5 1905 not containing wff variables by induction on formula length, using ax5eq 38456 and ax5el 38461 for the basis together with hbn 2284, hbal 2156, and hbim 2288. However, if we omit this axiom, our development would be quite inconvenient since we could work only with specific instances of wffs containing no wff variables - this axiom introduces the concept of a setvar variable not occurring in a wff (as opposed to just two setvar variables being distinct). (Contributed by NM, 19-Aug-2017.) (New usage is discouraged.) (Proof modification is discouraged.)
⊢ (𝜑 → ∀𝑥𝜑)
Theorem	sps-o 38432	Generalization of antecedent. (Contributed by NM, 5-Jan-1993.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) (New usage is discouraged.)
⊢ (𝜑 → 𝜓)    ⇒   ⊢ (∀𝑥𝜑 → 𝜓)
Theorem	hbequid 38433	Bound-variable hypothesis builder for 𝑥 = 𝑥. This theorem tells us that any variable, including 𝑥, is effectively not free in 𝑥 = 𝑥, even though 𝑥 is technically free according to the traditional definition of free variable. (The proof does not use ax-c10 38410.) (Contributed by NM, 13-Jan-2011.) (Proof shortened by Wolf Lammen, 23-Mar-2014.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) (New usage is discouraged.)
⊢ (𝑥 = 𝑥 → ∀𝑦 𝑥 = 𝑥)
Theorem	nfequid-o 38434	Bound-variable hypothesis builder for 𝑥 = 𝑥. This theorem tells us that any variable, including 𝑥, is effectively not free in 𝑥 = 𝑥, even though 𝑥 is technically free according to the traditional definition of free variable. (The proof uses only ax-4 1803, ax-7 2003, ax-c9 38414, and ax-gen 1789. This shows that this can be proved without ax6 2377, even though Theorem equid 2007 cannot. A shorter proof using ax6 2377 is obtainable from equid 2007 and hbth 1797.) Remark added 2-Dec-2015 NM: This proof does implicitly use ax6v 1964, which is used for the derivation of axc9 2375, unless we consider ax-c9 38414 the starting axiom rather than ax-13 2365. (Contributed by NM, 13-Jan-2011.) (Revised by Mario Carneiro, 12-Oct-2016.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) (New usage is discouraged.)
⊢ Ⅎ𝑦 𝑥 = 𝑥
Theorem	axc5c7 38435	Proof of a single axiom that can replace ax-c5 38407 and ax-c7 38409. See axc5c7toc5 38436 and axc5c7toc7 38437 for the rederivation of those axioms. (Contributed by Scott Fenton, 12-Sep-2005.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) (New usage is discouraged.)
⊢ ((∀𝑥 ¬ ∀𝑥𝜑 → ∀𝑥𝜑) → 𝜑)
Theorem	axc5c7toc5 38436	Rederivation of ax-c5 38407 from axc5c7 38435. Only propositional calculus is used for the rederivation. (Contributed by Scott Fenton, 12-Sep-2005.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) (New usage is discouraged.)
⊢ (∀𝑥𝜑 → 𝜑)
Theorem	axc5c7toc7 38437	Rederivation of ax-c7 38409 from axc5c7 38435. Only propositional calculus is used for the rederivation. (Contributed by Scott Fenton, 12-Sep-2005.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) (New usage is discouraged.)
⊢ (¬ ∀𝑥 ¬ ∀𝑥𝜑 → 𝜑)
Theorem	axc711 38438	Proof of a single axiom that can replace both ax-c7 38409 and ax-11 2146. See axc711toc7 38440 and axc711to11 38441 for the rederivation of those axioms. (Contributed by NM, 18-Nov-2006.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) (New usage is discouraged.)
⊢ (¬ ∀𝑥 ¬ ∀𝑦∀𝑥𝜑 → ∀𝑦𝜑)
Theorem	nfa1-o 38439	𝑥 is not free in ∀𝑥𝜑. (Contributed by Mario Carneiro, 11-Aug-2016.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) (New usage is discouraged.)
⊢ Ⅎ𝑥∀𝑥𝜑
Theorem	axc711toc7 38440	Rederivation of ax-c7 38409 from axc711 38438. Note that ax-c7 38409 and ax-11 2146 are not used by the rederivation. (Contributed by NM, 18-Nov-2006.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) (New usage is discouraged.)
⊢ (¬ ∀𝑥 ¬ ∀𝑥𝜑 → 𝜑)
Theorem	axc711to11 38441	Rederivation of ax-11 2146 from axc711 38438. Note that ax-c7 38409 and ax-11 2146 are not used by the rederivation. (Contributed by NM, 18-Nov-2006.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) (New usage is discouraged.)
⊢ (∀𝑥∀𝑦𝜑 → ∀𝑦∀𝑥𝜑)
Theorem	axc5c711 38442	Proof of a single axiom that can replace ax-c5 38407, ax-c7 38409, and ax-11 2146 in a subsystem that includes these axioms plus ax-c4 38408 and ax-gen 1789 (and propositional calculus). See axc5c711toc5 38443, axc5c711toc7 38444, and axc5c711to11 38445 for the rederivation of those axioms. This theorem extends the idea in Scott Fenton's axc5c7 38435. (Contributed by NM, 18-Nov-2006.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) (New usage is discouraged.)
⊢ ((∀𝑥∀𝑦 ¬ ∀𝑥∀𝑦𝜑 → ∀𝑥𝜑) → 𝜑)
Theorem	axc5c711toc5 38443	Rederivation of ax-c5 38407 from axc5c711 38442. Only propositional calculus is used by the rederivation. (Contributed by NM, 19-Nov-2006.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) (New usage is discouraged.)
⊢ (∀𝑥𝜑 → 𝜑)
Theorem	axc5c711toc7 38444	Rederivation of ax-c7 38409 from axc5c711 38442. Note that ax-c7 38409 and ax-11 2146 are not used by the rederivation. The use of alimi 1805 (which uses ax-c5 38407) is allowed since we have already proved axc5c711toc5 38443. (Contributed by NM, 19-Nov-2006.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) (New usage is discouraged.)
⊢ (¬ ∀𝑥 ¬ ∀𝑥𝜑 → 𝜑)
Theorem	axc5c711to11 38445	Rederivation of ax-11 2146 from axc5c711 38442. Note that ax-c7 38409 and ax-11 2146 are not used by the rederivation. The use of alimi 1805 (which uses ax-c5 38407) is allowed since we have already proved axc5c711toc5 38443. (Contributed by NM, 19-Nov-2006.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) (New usage is discouraged.)
⊢ (∀𝑥∀𝑦𝜑 → ∀𝑦∀𝑥𝜑)
Theorem	equidqe 38446	equid 2007 with existential quantifier without using ax-c5 38407 or ax-5 1905. (Contributed by NM, 13-Jan-2011.) (Proof shortened by Wolf Lammen, 27-Feb-2014.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) (New usage is discouraged.)
⊢ ¬ ∀𝑦 ¬ 𝑥 = 𝑥
Theorem	axc5sp1 38447	A special case of ax-c5 38407 without using ax-c5 38407 or ax-5 1905. (Contributed by NM, 13-Jan-2011.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) (New usage is discouraged.)
⊢ (∀𝑦 ¬ 𝑥 = 𝑥 → ¬ 𝑥 = 𝑥)
Theorem	equidq 38448	equid 2007 with universal quantifier without using ax-c5 38407 or ax-5 1905. (Contributed by NM, 13-Jan-2011.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) (New usage is discouraged.)
⊢ ∀𝑦 𝑥 = 𝑥
Theorem	equid1ALT 38449	Alternate proof of equid 2007 and equid1 38423 from older axioms ax-c7 38409, ax-c10 38410 and ax-c9 38414. (Contributed by NM, 10-Jan-1993.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) (New usage is discouraged.)
⊢ 𝑥 = 𝑥
Theorem	axc11nfromc11 38450	Rederivation of ax-c11n 38412 from original version ax-c11 38411. See Theorem axc11 2423 for the derivation of ax-c11 38411 from ax-c11n 38412. This theorem should not be referenced in any proof. Instead, use ax-c11n 38412 above so that uses of ax-c11n 38412 can be more easily identified, or use aecom-o 38425 when this form is needed for studies involving ax-c11 38411 and omitting ax-5 1905. (Contributed by NM, 16-May-2008.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) (New usage is discouraged.)
⊢ (∀𝑥 𝑥 = 𝑦 → ∀𝑦 𝑦 = 𝑥)
Theorem	naecoms-o 38451	A commutation rule for distinct variable specifiers. Version of naecoms 2422 using ax-c11 38411. (Contributed by NM, 2-Jan-2002.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) (New usage is discouraged.)
⊢ (¬ ∀𝑥 𝑥 = 𝑦 → 𝜑)    ⇒   ⊢ (¬ ∀𝑦 𝑦 = 𝑥 → 𝜑)
Theorem	hbnae-o 38452	All variables are effectively bound in a distinct variable specifier. Lemma L19 in [Megill] p. 446 (p. 14 of the preprint). Version of hbnae 2425 using ax-c11 38411. (Contributed by NM, 13-May-1993.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) (New usage is discouraged.)
⊢ (¬ ∀𝑥 𝑥 = 𝑦 → ∀𝑧 ¬ ∀𝑥 𝑥 = 𝑦)
Theorem	dvelimf-o 38453	Proof of dvelimh 2443 that uses ax-c11 38411 but not ax-c15 38413, ax-c11n 38412, or ax-12 2166. Version of dvelimh 2443 using ax-c11 38411 instead of axc11 2423. (Contributed by NM, 12-Nov-2002.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) (New usage is discouraged.)
⊢ (𝜑 → ∀𝑥𝜑)    &   ⊢ (𝜓 → ∀𝑧𝜓)    &   ⊢ (𝑧 = 𝑦 → (𝜑 ↔ 𝜓))    ⇒   ⊢ (¬ ∀𝑥 𝑥 = 𝑦 → (𝜓 → ∀𝑥𝜓))
Theorem	dral2-o 38454	Formula-building lemma for use with the Distinctor Reduction Theorem. Part of Theorem 9.4 of [Megill] p. 448 (p. 16 of preprint). Version of dral2 2431 using ax-c11 38411. (Contributed by NM, 27-Feb-2005.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) (New usage is discouraged.)
⊢ (∀𝑥 𝑥 = 𝑦 → (𝜑 ↔ 𝜓))    ⇒   ⊢ (∀𝑥 𝑥 = 𝑦 → (∀𝑧𝜑 ↔ ∀𝑧𝜓))
Theorem	aev-o 38455*	A "distinctor elimination" lemma with no disjoint variable conditions on variables in the consequent, proved without using ax-c16 38416. Version of aev 2052 using ax-c11 38411. (Contributed by NM, 8-Nov-2006.) (Proof shortened by Andrew Salmon, 21-Jun-2011.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) (New usage is discouraged.)
⊢ (∀𝑥 𝑥 = 𝑦 → ∀𝑧 𝑤 = 𝑣)
Theorem	ax5eq 38456*	Theorem to add distinct quantifier to atomic formula. (This theorem demonstrates the induction basis for ax-5 1905 considered as a metatheorem. Do not use it for later proofs - use ax-5 1905 instead, to avoid reference to the redundant axiom ax-c16 38416.) (Contributed by NM, 10-Jan-1993.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) (New usage is discouraged.)
⊢ (𝑥 = 𝑦 → ∀𝑧 𝑥 = 𝑦)
Theorem	dveeq2-o 38457*	Quantifier introduction when one pair of variables is distinct. Version of dveeq2 2371 using ax-c15 38413. (Contributed by NM, 2-Jan-2002.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) (New usage is discouraged.)
⊢ (¬ ∀𝑥 𝑥 = 𝑦 → (𝑧 = 𝑦 → ∀𝑥 𝑧 = 𝑦))
Theorem	axc16g-o 38458*	A generalization of Axiom ax-c16 38416. Version of axc16g 2246 using ax-c11 38411. (Contributed by NM, 15-May-1993.) (Proof shortened by Andrew Salmon, 25-May-2011.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) (New usage is discouraged.)
⊢ (∀𝑥 𝑥 = 𝑦 → (𝜑 → ∀𝑧𝜑))
Theorem	dveeq1-o 38459*	Quantifier introduction when one pair of variables is distinct. Version of dveeq1 2373 using ax-c11 . (Contributed by NM, 2-Jan-2002.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) (New usage is discouraged.)
⊢ (¬ ∀𝑥 𝑥 = 𝑦 → (𝑦 = 𝑧 → ∀𝑥 𝑦 = 𝑧))
Theorem	dveeq1-o16 38460*	Version of dveeq1 2373 using ax-c16 38416 instead of ax-5 1905. (Contributed by NM, 29-Apr-2008.) TODO: Recover proof from older set.mm to remove use of ax-5 1905. (Proof modification is discouraged.) (New usage is discouraged.)
⊢ (¬ ∀𝑥 𝑥 = 𝑦 → (𝑦 = 𝑧 → ∀𝑥 𝑦 = 𝑧))
Theorem	ax5el 38461*	Theorem to add distinct quantifier to atomic formula. This theorem demonstrates the induction basis for ax-5 1905 considered as a metatheorem.) (Contributed by NM, 22-Jun-1993.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) (New usage is discouraged.)
⊢ (𝑥 ∈ 𝑦 → ∀𝑧 𝑥 ∈ 𝑦)
Theorem	axc11n-16 38462*	This theorem shows that, given ax-c16 38416, we can derive a version of ax-c11n 38412. However, it is weaker than ax-c11n 38412 because it has a distinct variable requirement. (Contributed by Andrew Salmon, 27-Jul-2011.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) (New usage is discouraged.)
⊢ (∀𝑥 𝑥 = 𝑧 → ∀𝑧 𝑧 = 𝑥)
Theorem	dveel2ALT 38463*	Alternate proof of dveel2 2455 using ax-c16 38416 instead of ax-5 1905. (Contributed by NM, 10-May-2008.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) (New usage is discouraged.)
⊢ (¬ ∀𝑥 𝑥 = 𝑦 → (𝑧 ∈ 𝑦 → ∀𝑥 𝑧 ∈ 𝑦))
Theorem	ax12f 38464	Basis step for constructing a substitution instance of ax-c15 38413 without using ax-c15 38413. We can start with any formula 𝜑 in which 𝑥 is not free. (Contributed by NM, 21-Jan-2007.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) (New usage is discouraged.)
⊢ (𝜑 → ∀𝑥𝜑)    ⇒   ⊢ (¬ ∀𝑥 𝑥 = 𝑦 → (𝑥 = 𝑦 → (𝜑 → ∀𝑥(𝑥 = 𝑦 → 𝜑))))
Theorem	ax12eq 38465	Basis step for constructing a substitution instance of ax-c15 38413 without using ax-c15 38413. Atomic formula for equality predicate. (Contributed by NM, 22-Jan-2007.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) (New usage is discouraged.)
⊢ (¬ ∀𝑥 𝑥 = 𝑦 → (𝑥 = 𝑦 → (𝑧 = 𝑤 → ∀𝑥(𝑥 = 𝑦 → 𝑧 = 𝑤))))
Theorem	ax12el 38466	Basis step for constructing a substitution instance of ax-c15 38413 without using ax-c15 38413. Atomic formula for membership predicate. (Contributed by NM, 22-Jan-2007.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) (New usage is discouraged.)
⊢ (¬ ∀𝑥 𝑥 = 𝑦 → (𝑥 = 𝑦 → (𝑧 ∈ 𝑤 → ∀𝑥(𝑥 = 𝑦 → 𝑧 ∈ 𝑤))))
Theorem	ax12indn 38467	Induction step for constructing a substitution instance of ax-c15 38413 without using ax-c15 38413. Negation case. (Contributed by NM, 21-Jan-2007.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) (New usage is discouraged.)
⊢ (¬ ∀𝑥 𝑥 = 𝑦 → (𝑥 = 𝑦 → (𝜑 → ∀𝑥(𝑥 = 𝑦 → 𝜑))))    ⇒   ⊢ (¬ ∀𝑥 𝑥 = 𝑦 → (𝑥 = 𝑦 → (¬ 𝜑 → ∀𝑥(𝑥 = 𝑦 → ¬ 𝜑))))
Theorem	ax12indi 38468	Induction step for constructing a substitution instance of ax-c15 38413 without using ax-c15 38413. Implication case. (Contributed by NM, 21-Jan-2007.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) (New usage is discouraged.)
⊢ (¬ ∀𝑥 𝑥 = 𝑦 → (𝑥 = 𝑦 → (𝜑 → ∀𝑥(𝑥 = 𝑦 → 𝜑))))    &   ⊢ (¬ ∀𝑥 𝑥 = 𝑦 → (𝑥 = 𝑦 → (𝜓 → ∀𝑥(𝑥 = 𝑦 → 𝜓))))    ⇒   ⊢ (¬ ∀𝑥 𝑥 = 𝑦 → (𝑥 = 𝑦 → ((𝜑 → 𝜓) → ∀𝑥(𝑥 = 𝑦 → (𝜑 → 𝜓)))))
Theorem	ax12indalem 38469	Lemma for ax12inda2 38471 and ax12inda 38472. (Contributed by NM, 24-Jan-2007.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) (New usage is discouraged.)
⊢ (¬ ∀𝑥 𝑥 = 𝑦 → (𝑥 = 𝑦 → (𝜑 → ∀𝑥(𝑥 = 𝑦 → 𝜑))))    ⇒   ⊢ (¬ ∀𝑦 𝑦 = 𝑧 → (¬ ∀𝑥 𝑥 = 𝑦 → (𝑥 = 𝑦 → (∀𝑧𝜑 → ∀𝑥(𝑥 = 𝑦 → ∀𝑧𝜑)))))
Theorem	ax12inda2ALT 38470*	Alternate proof of ax12inda2 38471, slightly more direct and not requiring ax-c16 38416. (Contributed by NM, 4-May-2007.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) (New usage is discouraged.)
⊢ (¬ ∀𝑥 𝑥 = 𝑦 → (𝑥 = 𝑦 → (𝜑 → ∀𝑥(𝑥 = 𝑦 → 𝜑))))    ⇒   ⊢ (¬ ∀𝑥 𝑥 = 𝑦 → (𝑥 = 𝑦 → (∀𝑧𝜑 → ∀𝑥(𝑥 = 𝑦 → ∀𝑧𝜑))))
Theorem	ax12inda2 38471*	Induction step for constructing a substitution instance of ax-c15 38413 without using ax-c15 38413. Quantification case. When 𝑧 and 𝑦 are distinct, this theorem avoids the dummy variables needed by the more general ax12inda 38472. (Contributed by NM, 24-Jan-2007.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) (New usage is discouraged.)
⊢ (¬ ∀𝑥 𝑥 = 𝑦 → (𝑥 = 𝑦 → (𝜑 → ∀𝑥(𝑥 = 𝑦 → 𝜑))))    ⇒   ⊢ (¬ ∀𝑥 𝑥 = 𝑦 → (𝑥 = 𝑦 → (∀𝑧𝜑 → ∀𝑥(𝑥 = 𝑦 → ∀𝑧𝜑))))
Theorem	ax12inda 38472*	Induction step for constructing a substitution instance of ax-c15 38413 without using ax-c15 38413. Quantification case. (When 𝑧 and 𝑦 are distinct, ax12inda2 38471 may be used instead to avoid the dummy variable 𝑤 in the proof.) (Contributed by NM, 24-Jan-2007.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) (New usage is discouraged.)
⊢ (¬ ∀𝑥 𝑥 = 𝑤 → (𝑥 = 𝑤 → (𝜑 → ∀𝑥(𝑥 = 𝑤 → 𝜑))))    ⇒   ⊢ (¬ ∀𝑥 𝑥 = 𝑦 → (𝑥 = 𝑦 → (∀𝑧𝜑 → ∀𝑥(𝑥 = 𝑦 → ∀𝑧𝜑))))
Theorem	ax12v2-o 38473*	Rederivation of ax-c15 38413 from ax12v 2167 (without using ax-c15 38413 or the full ax-12 2166). Thus, the hypothesis (ax12v 2167) provides an alternate axiom that can be used in place of ax-c15 38413. See also axc15 2415. (Contributed by NM, 2-Feb-2007.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) (New usage is discouraged.)
⊢ (𝑥 = 𝑧 → (𝜑 → ∀𝑥(𝑥 = 𝑧 → 𝜑)))    ⇒   ⊢ (¬ ∀𝑥 𝑥 = 𝑦 → (𝑥 = 𝑦 → (𝜑 → ∀𝑥(𝑥 = 𝑦 → 𝜑))))
Theorem	ax12a2-o 38474*	Derive ax-c15 38413 from a hypothesis in the form of ax-12 2166, without using ax-12 2166 or ax-c15 38413. The hypothesis is weaker than ax-12 2166, with 𝑧 both distinct from 𝑥 and not occurring in 𝜑. Thus, the hypothesis provides an alternate axiom that can be used in place of ax-12 2166, if we also have ax-c11 38411, which this proof uses. As Theorem ax12 2416 shows, the distinct variable conditions are optional. An open problem is whether we can derive this with ax-c11n 38412 instead of ax-c11 38411. (Contributed by NM, 2-Feb-2007.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) (New usage is discouraged.)
⊢ (𝑥 = 𝑧 → (∀𝑧𝜑 → ∀𝑥(𝑥 = 𝑧 → 𝜑)))    ⇒   ⊢ (¬ ∀𝑥 𝑥 = 𝑦 → (𝑥 = 𝑦 → (𝜑 → ∀𝑥(𝑥 = 𝑦 → 𝜑))))
Theorem	axc11-o 38475	Show that ax-c11 38411 can be derived from ax-c11n 38412 and ax-12 2166. An open problem is whether this theorem can be derived from ax-c11n 38412 and the others when ax-12 2166 is replaced with ax-c15 38413 or ax12v 2167. See Theorems axc11nfromc11 38450 for the rederivation of ax-c11n 38412 from axc11 2423. Normally, axc11 2423 should be used rather than ax-c11 38411 or axc11-o 38475, except by theorems specifically studying the latter's properties. (Contributed by NM, 16-May-2008.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) (New usage is discouraged.)
⊢ (∀𝑥 𝑥 = 𝑦 → (∀𝑥𝜑 → ∀𝑦𝜑))
Theorem	fsumshftd 38476*	Index shift of a finite sum with a weaker "implicit substitution" hypothesis than fsumshft 15753. The proof demonstrates how this can be derived starting from from fsumshft 15753. (Contributed by NM, 1-Nov-2019.)
⊢ (𝜑 → 𝐾 ∈ ℤ)    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝑀 ∈ ℤ)    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝑁 ∈ ℤ)    &   ⊢ ((𝜑 ∧ 𝑗 ∈ (𝑀...𝑁)) → 𝐴 ∈ ℂ)    &   ⊢ ((𝜑 ∧ 𝑗 = (𝑘 − 𝐾)) → 𝐴 = 𝐵)    ⇒   ⊢ (𝜑 → Σ𝑗 ∈ (𝑀...𝑁)𝐴 = Σ𝑘 ∈ ((𝑀 + 𝐾)...(𝑁 + 𝐾))𝐵)
Axiom	ax-riotaBAD 38477	Define restricted description binder. In case it doesn't exist, we return a set which is not a member of the domain of discourse 𝐴. See also comments for df-iota 6495. (Contributed by NM, 15-Sep-2011.) (Revised by Mario Carneiro, 15-Oct-2016.) WARNING: THIS "AXIOM", WHICH IS THE OLD df-riota 7369, CONFLICTS WITH (THE NEW) df-riota 7369 AND MAKES THE SYSTEM IN set.mm INCONSISTENT. IT IS TEMPORARY AND WILL BE DELETED AFTER ALL USES ARE ELIMINATED.
⊢ (℩𝑥 ∈ 𝐴 𝜑) = if(∃!𝑥 ∈ 𝐴 𝜑, (℩𝑥(𝑥 ∈ 𝐴 ∧ 𝜑)), (Undef‘{𝑥 ∣ 𝑥 ∈ 𝐴}))
Theorem	riotaclbgBAD 38478*	Closure of restricted iota. (Contributed by NM, 28-Feb-2013.) (Revised by Mario Carneiro, 24-Dec-2016.)
⊢ (𝐴 ∈ 𝑉 → (∃!𝑥 ∈ 𝐴 𝜑 ↔ (℩𝑥 ∈ 𝐴 𝜑) ∈ 𝐴))
Theorem	riotaclbBAD 38479*	Closure of restricted iota. (Contributed by NM, 15-Sep-2011.)
⊢ 𝐴 ∈ V    ⇒   ⊢ (∃!𝑥 ∈ 𝐴 𝜑 ↔ (℩𝑥 ∈ 𝐴 𝜑) ∈ 𝐴)
Theorem	riotasvd 38480*	Deduction version of riotasv 38483. (Contributed by NM, 4-Mar-2013.) (Revised by Mario Carneiro, 15-Oct-2016.)
⊢ (𝜑 → 𝐷 = (℩𝑥 ∈ 𝐴 ∀𝑦 ∈ 𝐵 (𝜓 → 𝑥 = 𝐶)))    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝐷 ∈ 𝐴)    ⇒   ⊢ ((𝜑 ∧ 𝐴 ∈ 𝑉) → ((𝑦 ∈ 𝐵 ∧ 𝜓) → 𝐷 = 𝐶))
Theorem	riotasv2d 38481*	Value of description binder 𝐷 for a single-valued class expression 𝐶(𝑦) (as in e.g. reusv2 5398). Special case of riota2f 7394. (Contributed by NM, 2-Mar-2013.)
⊢ Ⅎ𝑦𝜑    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → Ⅎ𝑦𝐹)    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → Ⅎ𝑦𝜒)    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝐷 = (℩𝑥 ∈ 𝐴 ∀𝑦 ∈ 𝐵 (𝜓 → 𝑥 = 𝐶)))    &   ⊢ ((𝜑 ∧ 𝑦 = 𝐸) → (𝜓 ↔ 𝜒))    &   ⊢ ((𝜑 ∧ 𝑦 = 𝐸) → 𝐶 = 𝐹)    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝐷 ∈ 𝐴)    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝐸 ∈ 𝐵)    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝜒)    ⇒   ⊢ ((𝜑 ∧ 𝐴 ∈ 𝑉) → 𝐷 = 𝐹)
Theorem	riotasv2s 38482*	The value of description binder 𝐷 for a single-valued class expression 𝐶(𝑦) (as in e.g. reusv2 5398) in the form of a substitution instance. Special case of riota2f 7394. (Contributed by NM, 3-Mar-2013.) (Proof shortened by Mario Carneiro, 6-Dec-2016.)
⊢ 𝐷 = (℩𝑥 ∈ 𝐴 ∀𝑦 ∈ 𝐵 (𝜑 → 𝑥 = 𝐶))    ⇒   ⊢ ((𝐴 ∈ 𝑉 ∧ 𝐷 ∈ 𝐴 ∧ (𝐸 ∈ 𝐵 ∧ [𝐸 / 𝑦]𝜑)) → 𝐷 = ⦋𝐸 / 𝑦⦌𝐶)
Theorem	riotasv 38483*	Value of description binder 𝐷 for a single-valued class expression 𝐶(𝑦) (as in e.g. reusv2 5398). Special case of riota2f 7394. (Contributed by NM, 26-Jan-2013.) (Proof shortened by Mario Carneiro, 6-Dec-2016.)
⊢ 𝐴 ∈ V    &   ⊢ 𝐷 = (℩𝑥 ∈ 𝐴 ∀𝑦 ∈ 𝐵 (𝜑 → 𝑥 = 𝐶))    ⇒   ⊢ ((𝐷 ∈ 𝐴 ∧ 𝑦 ∈ 𝐵 ∧ 𝜑) → 𝐷 = 𝐶)
Theorem	riotasv3d 38484*	A property 𝜒 holding for a representative of a single-valued class expression 𝐶(𝑦) (see e.g. reusv2 5398) also holds for its description binder 𝐷 (in the form of property 𝜃). (Contributed by NM, 5-Mar-2013.) (Revised by Mario Carneiro, 15-Oct-2016.)
⊢ Ⅎ𝑦𝜑    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → Ⅎ𝑦𝜃)    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝐷 = (℩𝑥 ∈ 𝐴 ∀𝑦 ∈ 𝐵 (𝜓 → 𝑥 = 𝐶)))    &   ⊢ ((𝜑 ∧ 𝐶 = 𝐷) → (𝜒 ↔ 𝜃))    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → ((𝑦 ∈ 𝐵 ∧ 𝜓) → 𝜒))    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝐷 ∈ 𝐴)    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → ∃𝑦 ∈ 𝐵 𝜓)    ⇒   ⊢ ((𝜑 ∧ 𝐴 ∈ 𝑉) → 𝜃)
21.26.4  Experiments with weak deduction theorem
Theorem	elimhyps 38485	A version of elimhyp 4590 using explicit substitution. (Contributed by NM, 15-Jun-2019.)
⊢ [𝐵 / 𝑥]𝜑    ⇒   ⊢ [if(𝜑, 𝑥, 𝐵) / 𝑥]𝜑
Theorem	dedths 38486	A version of weak deduction theorem dedth 4583 using explicit substitution. (Contributed by NM, 15-Jun-2019.)
⊢ [if(𝜑, 𝑥, 𝐵) / 𝑥]𝜓    ⇒   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝜓)
Theorem	renegclALT 38487	Closure law for negative of reals. Demonstrates use of weak deduction theorem with explicit substitution. The proof is much longer than that of renegcl 11548. (Contributed by NM, 15-Jun-2019.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) (New usage is discouraged.)
⊢ (𝐴 ∈ ℝ → -𝐴 ∈ ℝ)
Theorem	elimhyps2 38488	Generalization of elimhyps 38485 that is not useful unless we can separately prove ⊢ 𝐴 ∈ V. (Contributed by NM, 13-Jun-2019.)
⊢ [𝐵 / 𝑥]𝜑    ⇒   ⊢ [if([𝐴 / 𝑥]𝜑, 𝐴, 𝐵) / 𝑥]𝜑
Theorem	dedths2 38489	Generalization of dedths 38486 that is not useful unless we can separately prove ⊢ 𝐴 ∈ V. (Contributed by NM, 13-Jun-2019.)
⊢ [if([𝐴 / 𝑥]𝜑, 𝐴, 𝐵) / 𝑥]𝜓    ⇒   ⊢ ([𝐴 / 𝑥]𝜑 → [𝐴 / 𝑥]𝜓)
Theorem	nfcxfrdf 38490	A utility lemma to transfer a bound-variable hypothesis builder into a definition. (Contributed by NM, 19-Nov-2020.)
⊢ Ⅎ𝑥𝜑    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝐴 = 𝐵)    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → Ⅎ𝑥𝐵)    ⇒   ⊢ (𝜑 → Ⅎ𝑥𝐴)
Theorem	nfded 38491	A deduction theorem that converts a not-free inference directly to deduction form. The first hypothesis is the hypothesis of the deduction form. The second is an equality deduction (e.g., (Ⅎ𝑥𝐴 → ∪ {𝑦 ∣ ∀𝑥𝑦 ∈ 𝐴} = ∪ 𝐴)) that starts from abidnf 3691. The last is assigned to the inference form (e.g., Ⅎ𝑥∪ {𝑦 ∣ ∀𝑥𝑦 ∈ 𝐴}) whose hypothesis is satisfied using nfaba1 2900. (Contributed by NM, 19-Nov-2020.)
⊢ (𝜑 → Ⅎ𝑥𝐴)    &   ⊢ (Ⅎ𝑥𝐴 → 𝐵 = 𝐶)    &   ⊢ Ⅎ𝑥𝐵    ⇒   ⊢ (𝜑 → Ⅎ𝑥𝐶)
Theorem	nfded2 38492	A deduction theorem that converts a not-free inference directly to deduction form. The first 2 hypotheses are the hypotheses of the deduction form. The third is an equality deduction (e.g., ((Ⅎ𝑥𝐴 ∧ Ⅎ𝑥𝐵) → ⟨{𝑦 ∣ ∀𝑥𝑦 ∈ 𝐴}, {𝑦 ∣ ∀𝑥𝑦 ∈ 𝐵}⟩ = ⟨𝐴, 𝐵⟩) for nfopd 4887) that starts from abidnf 3691. The last is assigned to the inference form (e.g., Ⅎ𝑥⟨{𝑦 ∣ ∀𝑥𝑦 ∈ 𝐴}, {𝑦 ∣ ∀𝑥𝑦 ∈ 𝐵}⟩ for nfop 4886) whose hypotheses are satisfied using nfaba1 2900. (Contributed by NM, 19-Nov-2020.)
⊢ (𝜑 → Ⅎ𝑥𝐴)    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → Ⅎ𝑥𝐵)    &   ⊢ ((Ⅎ𝑥𝐴 ∧ Ⅎ𝑥𝐵) → 𝐶 = 𝐷)    &   ⊢ Ⅎ𝑥𝐶    ⇒   ⊢ (𝜑 → Ⅎ𝑥𝐷)
Theorem	nfunidALT2 38493	Deduction version of nfuni 4911. (Contributed by NM, 19-Nov-2020.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) (New usage is discouraged.)
⊢ (𝜑 → Ⅎ𝑥𝐴)    ⇒   ⊢ (𝜑 → Ⅎ𝑥∪ 𝐴)
Theorem	nfunidALT 38494	Deduction version of nfuni 4911. (Contributed by NM, 19-Nov-2020.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) (New usage is discouraged.)
⊢ (𝜑 → Ⅎ𝑥𝐴)    ⇒   ⊢ (𝜑 → Ⅎ𝑥∪ 𝐴)
Theorem	nfopdALT 38495	Deduction version of bound-variable hypothesis builder nfop 4886. This shows how the deduction version of a not-free theorem such as nfop 4886 can be created from the corresponding not-free inference theorem. (Contributed by NM, 19-Nov-2020.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) (New usage is discouraged.)
⊢ (𝜑 → Ⅎ𝑥𝐴)    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → Ⅎ𝑥𝐵)    ⇒   ⊢ (𝜑 → Ⅎ𝑥⟨𝐴, 𝐵⟩)
21.26.5  Miscellanea
Theorem	cnaddcom 38496	Recover the commutative law of addition for complex numbers from the Abelian group structure. (Contributed by NM, 17-Mar-2013.) (Proof modification is discouraged.)
⊢ ((𝐴 ∈ ℂ ∧ 𝐵 ∈ ℂ) → (𝐴 + 𝐵) = (𝐵 + 𝐴))
Theorem	toycom 38497*	Show the commutative law for an operation 𝑂 on a toy structure class 𝐶 of commuatitive operations on ℂ. This illustrates how a structure class can be partially specialized. In practice, we would ordinarily define a new constant such as "CAbel" in place of 𝐶. (Contributed by NM, 17-Mar-2013.) (Proof modification is discouraged.)
⊢ 𝐶 = {𝑔 ∈ Abel ∣ (Base‘𝑔) = ℂ}    &   ⊢ + = (+g‘𝐾)    ⇒   ⊢ ((𝐾 ∈ 𝐶 ∧ 𝐴 ∈ ℂ ∧ 𝐵 ∈ ℂ) → (𝐴 + 𝐵) = (𝐵 + 𝐴))
21.26.6  Atoms, hyperplanes, and covering in a left vector space (or module)
Syntax	clsa 38498	Extend class notation with all 1-dim subspaces (atoms) of a left module or left vector space.
class LSAtoms
Syntax	clsh 38499	Extend class notation with all subspaces of a left module or left vector space that are hyperplanes.
class LSHyp
Definition	df-lsatoms 38500*	Define the set of all 1-dim subspaces (atoms) of a left module or left vector space. (Contributed by NM, 9-Apr-2014.)
⊢ LSAtoms = (𝑤 ∈ V ↦ ran (𝑣 ∈ ((Base‘𝑤) ∖ {(0g‘𝑤)}) ↦ ((LSpan‘𝑤)‘{𝑣})))