P. 389 of Theorem List - Metamath Proof Explorer

Theorem List for Metamath Proof Explorer - 38801-38900   *Has distinct variable group(s)

Type	Label	Description
Statement
Theorem	cpet2 38801	The conventional form of the Member Partition-Equivalence Theorem. In the conventional case there is no (general) disjoint and no (general) partition concept: mathematicians have called disjoint or partition what we call element disjoint or member partition, see also cpet 38802. Together with cpet 38802, mpet 38803 mpet2 38804, this is what we used to think of as the partition equivalence theorem (but cf. pet2 38814 with general 𝑅). (Contributed by Peter Mazsa, 30-Dec-2024.)
⊢ (( ElDisj 𝐴 ∧ ¬ ∅ ∈ 𝐴) ↔ ( EqvRel ∼ 𝐴 ∧ (∪ 𝐴 / ∼ 𝐴) = 𝐴))
Theorem	cpet 38802	The conventional form of Member Partition-Equivalence Theorem. In the conventional case there is no (general) disjoint and no (general) partition concept: mathematicians have been calling disjoint or partition what we call element disjoint or member partition, see also cpet2 38801. Cf. mpet 38803, mpet2 38804 and mpet3 38800 for unconventional forms of Member Partition-Equivalence Theorem. Cf. pet 38815 and pet2 38814 for Partition-Equivalence Theorem with general 𝑅. (Contributed by Peter Mazsa, 31-Dec-2024.)
⊢ ( MembPart 𝐴 ↔ ( EqvRel ∼ 𝐴 ∧ (∪ 𝐴 / ∼ 𝐴) = 𝐴))
Theorem	mpet 38803	Member Partition-Equivalence Theorem in almost its shortest possible form, cf. the 0-ary version mpets 38806. Member partition and comember equivalence relation are the same (or: each element of 𝐴 have equivalent comembers if and only if 𝐴 is a member partition). Together with mpet2 38804, mpet3 38800, and with the conventional cpet 38802 and cpet2 38801, this is what we used to think of as the partition equivalence theorem (but cf. pet2 38814 with general 𝑅). (Contributed by Peter Mazsa, 24-Sep-2021.)
⊢ ( MembPart 𝐴 ↔ CoMembEr 𝐴)
Theorem	mpet2 38804	Member Partition-Equivalence Theorem in a shorter form. Together with mpet 38803 mpet3 38800, mostly in its conventional cpet 38802 and cpet2 38801 form, this is what we used to think of as the partition equivalence theorem (but cf. pet2 38814 with general 𝑅). (Contributed by Peter Mazsa, 24-Sep-2021.)
⊢ ((◡ E ↾ 𝐴) Part 𝐴 ↔ ≀ (◡ E ↾ 𝐴) ErALTV 𝐴)
Theorem	mpets2 38805	Member Partition-Equivalence Theorem with binary relations, cf. mpet2 38804. (Contributed by Peter Mazsa, 24-Sep-2021.)
⊢ (𝐴 ∈ 𝑉 → ((◡ E ↾ 𝐴) Parts 𝐴 ↔ ≀ (◡ E ↾ 𝐴) Ers 𝐴))
Theorem	mpets 38806	Member Partition-Equivalence Theorem in its shortest possible form: it shows that member partitions and comember equivalence relations are literally the same. Cf. pet 38815, the Partition-Equivalence Theorem, with general 𝑅. (Contributed by Peter Mazsa, 31-Dec-2024.)
⊢ MembParts = CoMembErs
Theorem	mainpart 38807	Partition with general 𝑅 also imply member partition. (Contributed by Peter Mazsa, 23-Sep-2021.) (Revised by Peter Mazsa, 22-Dec-2024.)
⊢ (𝑅 Part 𝐴 → MembPart 𝐴)
Theorem	fences 38808	The Theorem of Fences by Equivalences: all conceivable equivalence relations (besides the comember equivalence relation cf. mpet 38803) generate a partition of the members. (Contributed by Peter Mazsa, 26-Sep-2021.)
⊢ (𝑅 ErALTV 𝐴 → MembPart 𝐴)
Theorem	fences2 38809	The Theorem of Fences by Equivalences: all conceivable equivalence relations (besides the comember equivalence relation cf. mpet3 38800) generate a partition of the members, it alo means that (𝑅 ErALTV 𝐴 → ElDisj 𝐴) and that (𝑅 ErALTV 𝐴 → ¬ ∅ ∈ 𝐴). (Contributed by Peter Mazsa, 15-Oct-2021.)
⊢ (𝑅 ErALTV 𝐴 → ( ElDisj 𝐴 ∧ ¬ ∅ ∈ 𝐴))
Theorem	mainer2 38810	The Main Theorem of Equivalences: every equivalence relation implies equivalent comembers. (Contributed by Peter Mazsa, 15-Oct-2021.)
⊢ (𝑅 ErALTV 𝐴 → ( CoElEqvRel 𝐴 ∧ ¬ ∅ ∈ 𝐴))
Theorem	mainerim 38811	Every equivalence relation implies equivalent coelements. (Contributed by Peter Mazsa, 20-Oct-2021.)
⊢ (𝑅 ErALTV 𝐴 → CoElEqvRel 𝐴)
Theorem	petincnvepres2 38812	A partition-equivalence theorem with intersection and general 𝑅. (Contributed by Peter Mazsa, 31-Dec-2021.)
⊢ (( Disj (𝑅 ∩ (◡ E ↾ 𝐴)) ∧ (dom (𝑅 ∩ (◡ E ↾ 𝐴)) / (𝑅 ∩ (◡ E ↾ 𝐴))) = 𝐴) ↔ ( EqvRel ≀ (𝑅 ∩ (◡ E ↾ 𝐴)) ∧ (dom ≀ (𝑅 ∩ (◡ E ↾ 𝐴)) / ≀ (𝑅 ∩ (◡ E ↾ 𝐴))) = 𝐴))
Theorem	petincnvepres 38813	The shortest form of a partition-equivalence theorem with intersection and general 𝑅. Cf. br1cossincnvepres 38414. Cf. pet 38815. (Contributed by Peter Mazsa, 23-Sep-2021.)
⊢ ((𝑅 ∩ (◡ E ↾ 𝐴)) Part 𝐴 ↔ ≀ (𝑅 ∩ (◡ E ↾ 𝐴)) ErALTV 𝐴)
Theorem	pet2 38814	Partition-Equivalence Theorem, with general 𝑅. This theorem (together with pet 38815 and pets 38816) is the main result of my investigation into set theory, see the comment of pet 38815. (Contributed by Peter Mazsa, 24-May-2021.) (Revised by Peter Mazsa, 23-Sep-2021.)
⊢ (( Disj (𝑅 ⋉ (◡ E ↾ 𝐴)) ∧ (dom (𝑅 ⋉ (◡ E ↾ 𝐴)) / (𝑅 ⋉ (◡ E ↾ 𝐴))) = 𝐴) ↔ ( EqvRel ≀ (𝑅 ⋉ (◡ E ↾ 𝐴)) ∧ (dom ≀ (𝑅 ⋉ (◡ E ↾ 𝐴)) / ≀ (𝑅 ⋉ (◡ E ↾ 𝐴))) = 𝐴))
Theorem	pet 38815	Partition-Equivalence Theorem with general 𝑅 while preserving the restricted converse epsilon relation of mpet2 38804 (as opposed to petincnvepres 38813). A class is a partition by a range Cartesian product with general 𝑅 and the restricted converse element class if and only if the cosets by the range Cartesian product are in an equivalence relation on it. Cf. br1cossxrncnvepres 38416. This theorem (together with pets 38816 and pet2 38814) is the main result of my investigation into set theory. It is no more general than the conventional Member Partition-Equivalence Theorem mpet 38803, mpet2 38804 and mpet3 38800 (because you cannot set 𝑅 in this theorem in such a way that you get mpet2 38804), i.e., it is not the hypothetical General Partition-Equivalence Theorem gpet ⊢ (𝑅 Part 𝐴 ↔ ≀ 𝑅 ErALTV 𝐴), but this one has a general part that mpet2 38804 lacks: 𝑅, which is sufficient for my future application of set theory, for my purpose outside of set theory. (Contributed by Peter Mazsa, 23-Sep-2021.)
⊢ ((𝑅 ⋉ (◡ E ↾ 𝐴)) Part 𝐴 ↔ ≀ (𝑅 ⋉ (◡ E ↾ 𝐴)) ErALTV 𝐴)
Theorem	pets 38816	Partition-Equivalence Theorem with general 𝑅, with binary relations. This theorem (together with pet 38815 and pet2 38814) is the main result of my investigation into set theory, cf. the comment of pet 38815. (Contributed by Peter Mazsa, 23-Sep-2021.)
⊢ ((𝐴 ∈ 𝑉 ∧ 𝑅 ∈ 𝑊) → ((𝑅 ⋉ (◡ E ↾ 𝐴)) Parts 𝐴 ↔ ≀ (𝑅 ⋉ (◡ E ↾ 𝐴)) Ers 𝐴))
21.27  Mathbox for Rodolfo Medina
21.27.1  Partitions
Theorem	prtlem60 38817	Lemma for prter3 38846. (Contributed by Rodolfo Medina, 9-Oct-2010.)
⊢ (𝜑 → (𝜓 → (𝜒 → 𝜃)))    &   ⊢ (𝜓 → (𝜃 → 𝜏))    ⇒   ⊢ (𝜑 → (𝜓 → (𝜒 → 𝜏)))
Theorem	bicomdd 38818	Commute two sides of a biconditional in a deduction. (Contributed by Rodolfo Medina, 19-Oct-2010.) (Proof shortened by Andrew Salmon, 29-Jun-2011.)
⊢ (𝜑 → (𝜓 → (𝜒 ↔ 𝜃)))    ⇒   ⊢ (𝜑 → (𝜓 → (𝜃 ↔ 𝜒)))
Theorem	jca2r 38819	Inference conjoining the consequents of two implications. (Contributed by Rodolfo Medina, 17-Oct-2010.)
⊢ (𝜑 → (𝜓 → 𝜒))    &   ⊢ (𝜓 → 𝜃)    ⇒   ⊢ (𝜑 → (𝜓 → (𝜃 ∧ 𝜒)))
Theorem	jca3 38820	Inference conjoining the consequents of two implications. (Contributed by Rodolfo Medina, 14-Oct-2010.)
⊢ (𝜑 → (𝜓 → 𝜒))    &   ⊢ (𝜃 → 𝜏)    ⇒   ⊢ (𝜑 → (𝜓 → (𝜃 → (𝜒 ∧ 𝜏))))
Theorem	prtlem70 38821	Lemma for prter3 38846: a rearrangement of conjuncts. (Contributed by Rodolfo Medina, 20-Oct-2010.)
⊢ ((((𝜓 ∧ 𝜂) ∧ ((𝜑 ∧ 𝜃) ∧ (𝜒 ∧ 𝜏))) ∧ 𝜑) ↔ ((𝜑 ∧ (𝜓 ∧ (𝜒 ∧ (𝜃 ∧ 𝜏)))) ∧ 𝜂))
Theorem	ibdr 38822	Reverse of ibd 269. (Contributed by Rodolfo Medina, 30-Sep-2010.)
⊢ (𝜑 → (𝜒 → (𝜓 ↔ 𝜒)))    ⇒   ⊢ (𝜑 → (𝜒 → 𝜓))
Theorem	prtlem100 38823	Lemma for prter3 38846. (Contributed by Rodolfo Medina, 19-Oct-2010.)
⊢ (∃𝑥 ∈ 𝐴 (𝐵 ∈ 𝑥 ∧ 𝜑) ↔ ∃𝑥 ∈ (𝐴 ∖ {∅})(𝐵 ∈ 𝑥 ∧ 𝜑))
Theorem	prtlem5 38824*	Lemma for prter1 38843, prter2 38845, prter3 38846 and prtex 38844. (Contributed by Rodolfo Medina, 25-Sep-2010.) (Proof shortened by Mario Carneiro, 11-Dec-2016.)
⊢ ([𝑠 / 𝑣][𝑟 / 𝑢]∃𝑥 ∈ 𝐴 (𝑢 ∈ 𝑥 ∧ 𝑣 ∈ 𝑥) ↔ ∃𝑥 ∈ 𝐴 (𝑟 ∈ 𝑥 ∧ 𝑠 ∈ 𝑥))
Theorem	prtlem80 38825	Lemma for prter2 38845. (Contributed by Rodolfo Medina, 17-Oct-2010.)
⊢ (𝐴 ∈ 𝐵 → ¬ 𝐴 ∈ (𝐶 ∖ {𝐴}))
Theorem	brabsb2 38826*	A closed form of brabsb 5506. (Contributed by Rodolfo Medina, 13-Oct-2010.)
⊢ (𝑅 = {⟨𝑥, 𝑦⟩ ∣ 𝜑} → (𝑧𝑅𝑤 ↔ [𝑧 / 𝑥][𝑤 / 𝑦]𝜑))
Theorem	eqbrrdv2 38827*	Other version of eqbrrdiv 5773. (Contributed by Rodolfo Medina, 30-Sep-2010.)
⊢ (((Rel 𝐴 ∧ Rel 𝐵) ∧ 𝜑) → (𝑥𝐴𝑦 ↔ 𝑥𝐵𝑦))    ⇒   ⊢ (((Rel 𝐴 ∧ Rel 𝐵) ∧ 𝜑) → 𝐴 = 𝐵)
Theorem	prtlem9 38828*	Lemma for prter3 38846. (Contributed by Rodolfo Medina, 25-Sep-2010.)
⊢ (𝐴 ∈ 𝐵 → ∃𝑥 ∈ 𝐵 [𝑥] ∼ = [𝐴] ∼ )
Theorem	prtlem10 38829*	Lemma for prter3 38846. (Contributed by Rodolfo Medina, 14-Oct-2010.) (Revised by Mario Carneiro, 12-Aug-2015.)
⊢ ( ∼ Er 𝐴 → (𝑧 ∈ 𝐴 → (𝑧 ∼ 𝑤 ↔ ∃𝑣 ∈ 𝐴 (𝑧 ∈ [𝑣] ∼ ∧ 𝑤 ∈ [𝑣] ∼ ))))
Theorem	prtlem11 38830	Lemma for prter2 38845. (Contributed by Rodolfo Medina, 12-Oct-2010.)
⊢ (𝐵 ∈ 𝐷 → (𝐶 ∈ 𝐴 → (𝐵 = [𝐶] ∼ → 𝐵 ∈ (𝐴 / ∼ ))))
Theorem	prtlem12 38831*	Lemma for prtex 38844 and prter3 38846. (Contributed by Rodolfo Medina, 13-Oct-2010.)
⊢ ( ∼ = {⟨𝑥, 𝑦⟩ ∣ ∃𝑢 ∈ 𝐴 (𝑥 ∈ 𝑢 ∧ 𝑦 ∈ 𝑢)} → Rel ∼ )
Theorem	prtlem13 38832*	Lemma for prter1 38843, prter2 38845, prter3 38846 and prtex 38844. (Contributed by Rodolfo Medina, 13-Oct-2010.) (Revised by Mario Carneiro, 12-Aug-2015.)
⊢ ∼ = {⟨𝑥, 𝑦⟩ ∣ ∃𝑢 ∈ 𝐴 (𝑥 ∈ 𝑢 ∧ 𝑦 ∈ 𝑢)}    ⇒   ⊢ (𝑧 ∼ 𝑤 ↔ ∃𝑣 ∈ 𝐴 (𝑧 ∈ 𝑣 ∧ 𝑤 ∈ 𝑣))
Theorem	prtlem16 38833*	Lemma for prtex 38844, prter2 38845 and prter3 38846. (Contributed by Rodolfo Medina, 14-Oct-2010.) (Revised by Mario Carneiro, 12-Aug-2015.)
⊢ ∼ = {⟨𝑥, 𝑦⟩ ∣ ∃𝑢 ∈ 𝐴 (𝑥 ∈ 𝑢 ∧ 𝑦 ∈ 𝑢)}    ⇒   ⊢ dom ∼ = ∪ 𝐴
Theorem	prtlem400 38834*	Lemma for prter2 38845 and also a property of partitions . (Contributed by Rodolfo Medina, 15-Oct-2010.) (Revised by Mario Carneiro, 12-Aug-2015.)
⊢ ∼ = {⟨𝑥, 𝑦⟩ ∣ ∃𝑢 ∈ 𝐴 (𝑥 ∈ 𝑢 ∧ 𝑦 ∈ 𝑢)}    ⇒   ⊢ ¬ ∅ ∈ (∪ 𝐴 / ∼ )
Syntax	wprt 38835	Extend the definition of a wff to include the partition predicate.
wff Prt 𝐴
Definition	df-prt 38836*	Define the partition predicate. (Contributed by Rodolfo Medina, 13-Oct-2010.)
⊢ (Prt 𝐴 ↔ ∀𝑥 ∈ 𝐴 ∀𝑦 ∈ 𝐴 (𝑥 = 𝑦 ∨ (𝑥 ∩ 𝑦) = ∅))
Theorem	erprt 38837	The quotient set of an equivalence relation is a partition. (Contributed by Rodolfo Medina, 13-Oct-2010.)
⊢ ( ∼ Er 𝑋 → Prt (𝐴 / ∼ ))
Theorem	prtlem14 38838*	Lemma for prter1 38843, prter2 38845 and prtex 38844. (Contributed by Rodolfo Medina, 13-Oct-2010.)
⊢ (Prt 𝐴 → ((𝑥 ∈ 𝐴 ∧ 𝑦 ∈ 𝐴) → ((𝑤 ∈ 𝑥 ∧ 𝑤 ∈ 𝑦) → 𝑥 = 𝑦)))
Theorem	prtlem15 38839*	Lemma for prter1 38843 and prtex 38844. (Contributed by Rodolfo Medina, 13-Oct-2010.)
⊢ (Prt 𝐴 → (∃𝑥 ∈ 𝐴 ∃𝑦 ∈ 𝐴 ((𝑢 ∈ 𝑥 ∧ 𝑤 ∈ 𝑥) ∧ (𝑤 ∈ 𝑦 ∧ 𝑣 ∈ 𝑦)) → ∃𝑧 ∈ 𝐴 (𝑢 ∈ 𝑧 ∧ 𝑣 ∈ 𝑧)))
Theorem	prtlem17 38840*	Lemma for prter2 38845. (Contributed by Rodolfo Medina, 15-Oct-2010.)
⊢ (Prt 𝐴 → ((𝑥 ∈ 𝐴 ∧ 𝑧 ∈ 𝑥) → (∃𝑦 ∈ 𝐴 (𝑧 ∈ 𝑦 ∧ 𝑤 ∈ 𝑦) → 𝑤 ∈ 𝑥)))
Theorem	prtlem18 38841*	Lemma for prter2 38845. (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 38842*	Lemma for prter2 38845. (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 38843*	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 38844*	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 38845*	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 38846*	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)
21.28  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."
21.28.1  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 2183, axc7 2317, axc10 2389, axc11 2434, axc11n 2430, axc15 2426, axc9 2386, axc14 2467, and axc16 2261.
Axiom	ax-c5 38847	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 1795. Conditional forms of the converse are given by ax-13 2376, ax-c14 38855, ax-c16 38856, and ax-5 1910. 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 2068). An interesting alternate axiomatization uses axc5c711 38882 and ax-c4 38848 in place of ax-c5 38847, ax-4 1809, ax-10 2141, and ax-11 2157. This axiom is obsolete and should no longer be used. It is proved above as Theorem sp 2183. (Contributed by NM, 3-Jan-1993.) Use sp 2183 instead. (New usage is discouraged.)
⊢ (∀𝑥𝜑 → 𝜑)
Axiom	ax-c4 38848	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 2321. (Contributed by NM, 3-Jan-1993.) (New usage is discouraged.)
⊢ (∀𝑥(∀𝑥𝜑 → 𝜓) → (∀𝑥𝜑 → ∀𝑥𝜓))
Axiom	ax-c7 38849	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 38882 in place of ax-c5 38847, ax-c7 38849, and ax-11 2157. This axiom is obsolete and should no longer be used. It is proved above as Theorem axc7 2317. (Contributed by NM, 10-Jan-1993.) (New usage is discouraged.)
⊢ (¬ ∀𝑥 ¬ ∀𝑥𝜑 → 𝜑)
Axiom	ax-c10 38850	A variant of ax6 2388. 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 2389. (Contributed by NM, 10-Jan-1993.) (New usage is discouraged.)
⊢ (∀𝑥(𝑥 = 𝑦 → ∀𝑥𝜑) → 𝜑)
Axiom	ax-c11 38851	Axiom ax-c11 38851 was the original version of ax-c11n 38852 ("n" for "new"), before it was discovered (in May 2008) that the shorter ax-c11n 38852 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 2434. (Contributed by NM, 10-May-1993.) (New usage is discouraged.)
⊢ (∀𝑥 𝑥 = 𝑦 → (∀𝑥𝜑 → ∀𝑦𝜑))
Axiom	ax-c11n 38852	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 38851 and was replaced with this shorter ax-c11n 38852 ("n" for "new") in May 2008. The old axiom is proved from this one as Theorem axc11 2434. Conversely, this axiom is proved from ax-c11 38851 as Theorem axc11nfromc11 38890. This axiom was proved redundant in July 2015. See Theorem axc11n 2430. This axiom is obsolete and should no longer be used. It is proved above as Theorem axc11n 2430. (Contributed by NM, 16-May-2008.) (New usage is discouraged.)
⊢ (∀𝑥 𝑥 = 𝑦 → ∀𝑦 𝑦 = 𝑥)
Axiom	ax-c15 38853	Axiom ax-c15 38853 was the original version of ax-12 2177, before it was discovered (in Jan. 2007) that the shorter ax-12 2177 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 38853 (from which the ax-12 2177 instance follows by Theorem ax12 2427.) The proof is by induction on formula length, using ax12eq 38905 and ax12el 38906 for the basis steps and ax12indn 38907, ax12indi 38908, and ax12inda 38912 for the induction steps. (This paragraph is true provided we use ax-c11 38851 in place of ax-c11n 38852.) This axiom is obsolete and should no longer be used. It is proved above as Theorem axc15 2426, 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 38854	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 2386. (Contributed by NM, 10-Jan-1993.) (New usage is discouraged.)
⊢ (¬ ∀𝑧 𝑧 = 𝑥 → (¬ ∀𝑧 𝑧 = 𝑦 → (𝑥 = 𝑦 → ∀𝑧 𝑥 = 𝑦)))
Axiom	ax-c14 38855	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 1910; see Theorem axc14 2467. Alternately, ax-5 1910 becomes unnecessary in principle with this axiom, but we lose the more powerful metalogic afforded by ax-5 1910. We retain ax-c14 38855 here to provide completeness for systems with the simpler metalogic that results from omitting ax-5 1910, 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 2467. (Contributed by NM, 24-Jun-1993.) (New usage is discouraged.)
⊢ (¬ ∀𝑧 𝑧 = 𝑥 → (¬ ∀𝑧 𝑧 = 𝑦 → (𝑥 ∈ 𝑦 → ∀𝑧 𝑥 ∈ 𝑦)))
Axiom	ax-c16 38856*	Axiom of Distinct Variables. The only axiom of predicate calculus requiring that variables be distinct (if we consider ax-5 1910 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 5411), but nonetheless it is technically necessary as you can see from its uses. This axiom is redundant if we include ax-5 1910; see Theorem axc16 2261. Alternately, ax-5 1910 becomes logically redundant in the presence of this axiom, but without ax-5 1910 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 38856 here to provide logical completeness for systems with the simpler metalogic that results from omitting ax-5 1910, 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 2261. (Contributed by NM, 10-Jan-1993.) (New usage is discouraged.)
⊢ (∀𝑥 𝑥 = 𝑦 → (𝜑 → ∀𝑥𝜑))
21.28.2  Rederive new axioms ax-4, ax-10, ax-6, ax-12, ax-13 from old Theorems ax12fromc15 38869 and ax13fromc9 38870 require some intermediate theorems that are included in this section.
Theorem	axc5 38857	This theorem repeats sp 2183 under the name axc5 38857, so that the Metamath program "MM> VERIFY MARKUP" command will check that it matches axiom scheme ax-c5 38847. (Contributed by NM, 18-Aug-2017.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) Use sp 2183 instead. (New usage is discouraged.)
⊢ (∀𝑥𝜑 → 𝜑)
Theorem	ax4fromc4 38858	Rederivation of Axiom ax-4 1809 from ax-c4 38848, ax-c5 38847, ax-gen 1795 and minimal implicational calculus { ax-mp 5, ax-1 6, ax-2 7 }. See axc4 2321 for the derivation of ax-c4 38848 from ax-4 1809. (Contributed by NM, 23-May-2008.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) Use ax-4 1809 instead. (New usage is discouraged.)
⊢ (∀𝑥(𝜑 → 𝜓) → (∀𝑥𝜑 → ∀𝑥𝜓))
Theorem	ax10fromc7 38859	Rederivation of Axiom ax-10 2141 from ax-c7 38849, ax-c4 38848, ax-c5 38847, ax-gen 1795 and propositional calculus. See axc7 2317 for the derivation of ax-c7 38849 from ax-10 2141. (Contributed by NM, 23-May-2008.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) Use ax-10 2141 instead. (New usage is discouraged.)
⊢ (¬ ∀𝑥𝜑 → ∀𝑥 ¬ ∀𝑥𝜑)
Theorem	ax6fromc10 38860	Rederivation of Axiom ax-6 1967 from ax-c7 38849, ax-c10 38850, ax-gen 1795 and propositional calculus. See axc10 2389 for the derivation of ax-c10 38850 from ax-6 1967. Lemma L18 in [Megill] p. 446 (p. 14 of the preprint). (Contributed by NM, 14-May-1993.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) Use ax-6 1967 instead. (New usage is discouraged.)
⊢ ¬ ∀𝑥 ¬ 𝑥 = 𝑦
Theorem	hba1-o 38861	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 38862	Inference version of ax-c4 38848. (Contributed by NM, 3-Jan-1993.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) (New usage is discouraged.)
⊢ (∀𝑥𝜑 → 𝜓)    ⇒   ⊢ (∀𝑥𝜑 → ∀𝑥𝜓)
Theorem	equid1 38863	Proof of equid 2011 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 1910; see the proof of equid 2011. See equid1ALT 38889 for an alternate proof. (Contributed by NM, 10-Jan-1993.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) (New usage is discouraged.)
⊢ 𝑥 = 𝑥
Theorem	equcomi1 38864	Proof of equcomi 2016 from equid1 38863, avoiding use of ax-5 1910 (the only use of ax-5 1910 is via ax7 2015, so using ax-7 2007 instead would remove dependency on ax-5 1910). (Contributed by BJ, 8-Jul-2021.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) (New usage is discouraged.)
⊢ (𝑥 = 𝑦 → 𝑦 = 𝑥)
Theorem	aecom-o 38865	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 2431 using ax-c11 38851. Unlike axc11nfromc11 38890, this version does not require ax-5 1910 (see comment of equcomi1 38864). (Contributed by NM, 10-May-1993.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) (New usage is discouraged.)
⊢ (∀𝑥 𝑥 = 𝑦 → ∀𝑦 𝑦 = 𝑥)
Theorem	aecoms-o 38866	A commutation rule for identical variable specifiers. Version of aecoms 2432 using ax-c11 38851. (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 38867	All variables are effectively bound in an identical variable specifier. Version of hbae 2435 using ax-c11 38851. (Contributed by NM, 13-May-1993.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) (New usage is discouraged.)
⊢ (∀𝑥 𝑥 = 𝑦 → ∀𝑧∀𝑥 𝑥 = 𝑦)
Theorem	dral1-o 38868	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 2443 using ax-c11 38851. (Contributed by NM, 24-Nov-1994.) (New usage is discouraged.)
⊢ (∀𝑥 𝑥 = 𝑦 → (𝜑 ↔ 𝜓))    ⇒   ⊢ (∀𝑥 𝑥 = 𝑦 → (∀𝑥𝜑 ↔ ∀𝑦𝜓))
Theorem	ax12fromc15 38869	Rederivation of Axiom ax-12 2177 from ax-c15 38853, ax-c11 38851 (used through dral1-o 38868), and other older axioms. See Theorem axc15 2426 for the derivation of ax-c15 38853 from ax-12 2177. An open problem is whether we can prove this using ax-c11n 38852 instead of ax-c11 38851. This proof uses newer axioms ax-4 1809 and ax-6 1967, 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 38848 and ax-c10 38850. (Contributed by NM, 22-Jan-2007.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) (New usage is discouraged.)
⊢ (𝑥 = 𝑦 → (∀𝑦𝜑 → ∀𝑥(𝑥 = 𝑦 → 𝜑)))
Theorem	ax13fromc9 38870	Derive ax-13 2376 from ax-c9 38854 and other older axioms. This proof uses newer axioms ax-4 1809 and ax-6 1967, 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 38848 and ax-c10 38850. (Contributed by NM, 21-Dec-2015.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) (New usage is discouraged.)
⊢ (¬ 𝑥 = 𝑦 → (𝑦 = 𝑧 → ∀𝑥 𝑦 = 𝑧))
21.28.3  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 38871*	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 1910 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 1795, ax-c4 38848, ax-c5 38847, ax-11 2157, ax-c7 38849, ax-7 2007, ax-c9 38854, ax-c10 38850, ax-c11 38851, ax-8 2110, ax-9 2118, ax-c14 38855, ax-c15 38853, and ax-c16 38856: in that system, we can derive any instance of ax-5 1910 not containing wff variables by induction on formula length, using ax5eq 38896 and ax5el 38901 for the basis together with hbn 2295, hbal 2167, and hbim 2299. 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 38872	Generalization of antecedent. (Contributed by NM, 5-Jan-1993.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) (New usage is discouraged.)
⊢ (𝜑 → 𝜓)    ⇒   ⊢ (∀𝑥𝜑 → 𝜓)
Theorem	hbequid 38873	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 38850.) (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 38874	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 1809, ax-7 2007, ax-c9 38854, and ax-gen 1795. This shows that this can be proved without ax6 2388, even though Theorem equid 2011 cannot. A shorter proof using ax6 2388 is obtainable from equid 2011 and hbth 1803.) Remark added 2-Dec-2015 NM: This proof does implicitly use ax6v 1968, which is used for the derivation of axc9 2386, unless we consider ax-c9 38854 the starting axiom rather than ax-13 2376. (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 38875	Proof of a single axiom that can replace ax-c5 38847 and ax-c7 38849. See axc5c7toc5 38876 and axc5c7toc7 38877 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 38876	Rederivation of ax-c5 38847 from axc5c7 38875. 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 38877	Rederivation of ax-c7 38849 from axc5c7 38875. 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 38878	Proof of a single axiom that can replace both ax-c7 38849 and ax-11 2157. See axc711toc7 38880 and axc711to11 38881 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 38879	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 38880	Rederivation of ax-c7 38849 from axc711 38878. Note that ax-c7 38849 and ax-11 2157 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 38881	Rederivation of ax-11 2157 from axc711 38878. Note that ax-c7 38849 and ax-11 2157 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 38882	Proof of a single axiom that can replace ax-c5 38847, ax-c7 38849, and ax-11 2157 in a subsystem that includes these axioms plus ax-c4 38848 and ax-gen 1795 (and propositional calculus). See axc5c711toc5 38883, axc5c711toc7 38884, and axc5c711to11 38885 for the rederivation of those axioms. This theorem extends the idea in Scott Fenton's axc5c7 38875. (Contributed by NM, 18-Nov-2006.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) (New usage is discouraged.)
⊢ ((∀𝑥∀𝑦 ¬ ∀𝑥∀𝑦𝜑 → ∀𝑥𝜑) → 𝜑)
Theorem	axc5c711toc5 38883	Rederivation of ax-c5 38847 from axc5c711 38882. 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 38884	Rederivation of ax-c7 38849 from axc5c711 38882. Note that ax-c7 38849 and ax-11 2157 are not used by the rederivation. The use of alimi 1811 (which uses ax-c5 38847) is allowed since we have already proved axc5c711toc5 38883. (Contributed by NM, 19-Nov-2006.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) (New usage is discouraged.)
⊢ (¬ ∀𝑥 ¬ ∀𝑥𝜑 → 𝜑)
Theorem	axc5c711to11 38885	Rederivation of ax-11 2157 from axc5c711 38882. Note that ax-c7 38849 and ax-11 2157 are not used by the rederivation. The use of alimi 1811 (which uses ax-c5 38847) is allowed since we have already proved axc5c711toc5 38883. (Contributed by NM, 19-Nov-2006.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) (New usage is discouraged.)
⊢ (∀𝑥∀𝑦𝜑 → ∀𝑦∀𝑥𝜑)
Theorem	equidqe 38886	equid 2011 with existential quantifier without using ax-c5 38847 or ax-5 1910. (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 38887	A special case of ax-c5 38847 without using ax-c5 38847 or ax-5 1910. (Contributed by NM, 13-Jan-2011.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) (New usage is discouraged.)
⊢ (∀𝑦 ¬ 𝑥 = 𝑥 → ¬ 𝑥 = 𝑥)
Theorem	equidq 38888	equid 2011 with universal quantifier without using ax-c5 38847 or ax-5 1910. (Contributed by NM, 13-Jan-2011.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) (New usage is discouraged.)
⊢ ∀𝑦 𝑥 = 𝑥
Theorem	equid1ALT 38889	Alternate proof of equid 2011 and equid1 38863 from older axioms ax-c7 38849, ax-c10 38850 and ax-c9 38854. (Contributed by NM, 10-Jan-1993.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) (New usage is discouraged.)
⊢ 𝑥 = 𝑥
Theorem	axc11nfromc11 38890	Rederivation of ax-c11n 38852 from original version ax-c11 38851. See Theorem axc11 2434 for the derivation of ax-c11 38851 from ax-c11n 38852. This theorem should not be referenced in any proof. Instead, use ax-c11n 38852 above so that uses of ax-c11n 38852 can be more easily identified, or use aecom-o 38865 when this form is needed for studies involving ax-c11 38851 and omitting ax-5 1910. (Contributed by NM, 16-May-2008.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) (New usage is discouraged.)
⊢ (∀𝑥 𝑥 = 𝑦 → ∀𝑦 𝑦 = 𝑥)
Theorem	naecoms-o 38891	A commutation rule for distinct variable specifiers. Version of naecoms 2433 using ax-c11 38851. (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 38892	All variables are effectively bound in a distinct variable specifier. Lemma L19 in [Megill] p. 446 (p. 14 of the preprint). Version of hbnae 2436 using ax-c11 38851. (Contributed by NM, 13-May-1993.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) (New usage is discouraged.)
⊢ (¬ ∀𝑥 𝑥 = 𝑦 → ∀𝑧 ¬ ∀𝑥 𝑥 = 𝑦)
Theorem	dvelimf-o 38893	Proof of dvelimh 2454 that uses ax-c11 38851 but not ax-c15 38853, ax-c11n 38852, or ax-12 2177. Version of dvelimh 2454 using ax-c11 38851 instead of axc11 2434. (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 38894	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 2442 using ax-c11 38851. (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 38895*	A "distinctor elimination" lemma with no disjoint variable conditions on variables in the consequent, proved without using ax-c16 38856. Version of aev 2057 using ax-c11 38851. (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 38896*	Theorem to add distinct quantifier to atomic formula. (This theorem demonstrates the induction basis for ax-5 1910 considered as a metatheorem. Do not use it for later proofs - use ax-5 1910 instead, to avoid reference to the redundant axiom ax-c16 38856.) (Contributed by NM, 10-Jan-1993.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) (New usage is discouraged.)
⊢ (𝑥 = 𝑦 → ∀𝑧 𝑥 = 𝑦)
Theorem	dveeq2-o 38897*	Quantifier introduction when one pair of variables is distinct. Version of dveeq2 2382 using ax-c15 38853. (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 38898*	A generalization of Axiom ax-c16 38856. Version of axc16g 2260 using ax-c11 38851. (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 38899*	Quantifier introduction when one pair of variables is distinct. Version of dveeq1 2384 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 38900*	Version of dveeq1 2384 using ax-c16 38856 instead of ax-5 1910. (Contributed by NM, 29-Apr-2008.) TODO: Recover proof from older set.mm to remove use of ax-5 1910. (Proof modification is discouraged.) (New usage is discouraged.)
⊢ (¬ ∀𝑥 𝑥 = 𝑦 → (𝑦 = 𝑧 → ∀𝑥 𝑦 = 𝑧))