P. 390 of Theorem List - Metamath Proof Explorer

Theorem List for Metamath Proof Explorer - 38901-39000   *Has distinct variable group(s)

Type	Label	Description
Statement
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 2185, axc7 2317, axc10 2384, axc11 2429, axc11n 2425, axc15 2421, axc9 2381, axc14 2462, and axc16 2263.
Axiom	ax-c5 38901	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 1796. Conditional forms of the converse are given by ax-13 2371, ax-c14 38909, ax-c16 38910, and ax-5 1911. 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 2070). An interesting alternate axiomatization uses axc5c711 38936 and ax-c4 38902 in place of ax-c5 38901, ax-4 1810, ax-10 2143, and ax-11 2159. This axiom is obsolete and should no longer be used. It is proved above as Theorem sp 2185. (Contributed by NM, 3-Jan-1993.) Use sp 2185 instead. (New usage is discouraged.)
⊢ (∀𝑥𝜑 → 𝜑)
Axiom	ax-c4 38902	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 38903	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 38936 in place of ax-c5 38901, ax-c7 38903, and ax-11 2159. 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 38904	A variant of ax6 2383. 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 2384. (Contributed by NM, 10-Jan-1993.) (New usage is discouraged.)
⊢ (∀𝑥(𝑥 = 𝑦 → ∀𝑥𝜑) → 𝜑)
Axiom	ax-c11 38905	Axiom ax-c11 38905 was the original version of ax-c11n 38906 ("n" for "new"), before it was discovered (in May 2008) that the shorter ax-c11n 38906 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 2429. (Contributed by NM, 10-May-1993.) (New usage is discouraged.)
⊢ (∀𝑥 𝑥 = 𝑦 → (∀𝑥𝜑 → ∀𝑦𝜑))
Axiom	ax-c11n 38906	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 38905 and was replaced with this shorter ax-c11n 38906 ("n" for "new") in May 2008. The old axiom is proved from this one as Theorem axc11 2429. Conversely, this axiom is proved from ax-c11 38905 as Theorem axc11nfromc11 38944. This axiom was proved redundant in July 2015. See Theorem axc11n 2425. This axiom is obsolete and should no longer be used. It is proved above as Theorem axc11n 2425. (Contributed by NM, 16-May-2008.) (New usage is discouraged.)
⊢ (∀𝑥 𝑥 = 𝑦 → ∀𝑦 𝑦 = 𝑥)
Axiom	ax-c15 38907	Axiom ax-c15 38907 was the original version of ax-12 2179, before it was discovered (in Jan. 2007) that the shorter ax-12 2179 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 38907 (from which the ax-12 2179 instance follows by Theorem ax12 2422.) The proof is by induction on formula length, using ax12eq 38959 and ax12el 38960 for the basis steps and ax12indn 38961, ax12indi 38962, and ax12inda 38966 for the induction steps. (This paragraph is true provided we use ax-c11 38905 in place of ax-c11n 38906.) This axiom is obsolete and should no longer be used. It is proved above as Theorem axc15 2421, 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 38908	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 2381. (Contributed by NM, 10-Jan-1993.) (New usage is discouraged.)
⊢ (¬ ∀𝑧 𝑧 = 𝑥 → (¬ ∀𝑧 𝑧 = 𝑦 → (𝑥 = 𝑦 → ∀𝑧 𝑥 = 𝑦)))
Axiom	ax-c14 38909	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 1911; see Theorem axc14 2462. Alternately, ax-5 1911 becomes unnecessary in principle with this axiom, but we lose the more powerful metalogic afforded by ax-5 1911. We retain ax-c14 38909 here to provide completeness for systems with the simpler metalogic that results from omitting ax-5 1911, 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 2462. (Contributed by NM, 24-Jun-1993.) (New usage is discouraged.)
⊢ (¬ ∀𝑧 𝑧 = 𝑥 → (¬ ∀𝑧 𝑧 = 𝑦 → (𝑥 ∈ 𝑦 → ∀𝑧 𝑥 ∈ 𝑦)))
Axiom	ax-c16 38910*	Axiom of Distinct Variables. The only axiom of predicate calculus requiring that variables be distinct (if we consider ax-5 1911 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 5377), but nonetheless it is technically necessary as you can see from its uses. This axiom is redundant if we include ax-5 1911; see Theorem axc16 2263. Alternately, ax-5 1911 becomes logically redundant in the presence of this axiom, but without ax-5 1911 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 38910 here to provide logical completeness for systems with the simpler metalogic that results from omitting ax-5 1911, 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 2263. (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 38923 and ax13fromc9 38924 require some intermediate theorems that are included in this section.
Theorem	axc5 38911	This theorem repeats sp 2185 under the name axc5 38911, so that the Metamath program "MM> VERIFY MARKUP" command will check that it matches axiom scheme ax-c5 38901. (Contributed by NM, 18-Aug-2017.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) Use sp 2185 instead. (New usage is discouraged.)
⊢ (∀𝑥𝜑 → 𝜑)
Theorem	ax4fromc4 38912	Rederivation of Axiom ax-4 1810 from ax-c4 38902, ax-c5 38901, ax-gen 1796 and minimal implicational calculus { ax-mp 5, ax-1 6, ax-2 7 }. See axc4 2321 for the derivation of ax-c4 38902 from ax-4 1810. (Contributed by NM, 23-May-2008.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) Use ax-4 1810 instead. (New usage is discouraged.)
⊢ (∀𝑥(𝜑 → 𝜓) → (∀𝑥𝜑 → ∀𝑥𝜓))
Theorem	ax10fromc7 38913	Rederivation of Axiom ax-10 2143 from ax-c7 38903, ax-c4 38902, ax-c5 38901, ax-gen 1796 and propositional calculus. See axc7 2317 for the derivation of ax-c7 38903 from ax-10 2143. (Contributed by NM, 23-May-2008.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) Use ax-10 2143 instead. (New usage is discouraged.)
⊢ (¬ ∀𝑥𝜑 → ∀𝑥 ¬ ∀𝑥𝜑)
Theorem	ax6fromc10 38914	Rederivation of Axiom ax-6 1968 from ax-c7 38903, ax-c10 38904, ax-gen 1796 and propositional calculus. See axc10 2384 for the derivation of ax-c10 38904 from ax-6 1968. Lemma L18 in [Megill] p. 446 (p. 14 of the preprint). (Contributed by NM, 14-May-1993.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) Use ax-6 1968 instead. (New usage is discouraged.)
⊢ ¬ ∀𝑥 ¬ 𝑥 = 𝑦
Theorem	hba1-o 38915	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 38916	Inference version of ax-c4 38902. (Contributed by NM, 3-Jan-1993.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) (New usage is discouraged.)
⊢ (∀𝑥𝜑 → 𝜓)    ⇒   ⊢ (∀𝑥𝜑 → ∀𝑥𝜓)
Theorem	equid1 38917	Proof of equid 2013 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 1911; see the proof of equid 2013. See equid1ALT 38943 for an alternate proof. (Contributed by NM, 10-Jan-1993.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) (New usage is discouraged.)
⊢ 𝑥 = 𝑥
Theorem	equcomi1 38918	Proof of equcomi 2018 from equid1 38917, avoiding use of ax-5 1911 (the only use of ax-5 1911 is via ax7 2017, so using ax-7 2009 instead would remove dependency on ax-5 1911). (Contributed by BJ, 8-Jul-2021.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) (New usage is discouraged.)
⊢ (𝑥 = 𝑦 → 𝑦 = 𝑥)
Theorem	aecom-o 38919	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 2426 using ax-c11 38905. Unlike axc11nfromc11 38944, this version does not require ax-5 1911 (see comment of equcomi1 38918). (Contributed by NM, 10-May-1993.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) (New usage is discouraged.)
⊢ (∀𝑥 𝑥 = 𝑦 → ∀𝑦 𝑦 = 𝑥)
Theorem	aecoms-o 38920	A commutation rule for identical variable specifiers. Version of aecoms 2427 using ax-c11 38905. (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 38921	All variables are effectively bound in an identical variable specifier. Version of hbae 2430 using ax-c11 38905. (Contributed by NM, 13-May-1993.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) (New usage is discouraged.)
⊢ (∀𝑥 𝑥 = 𝑦 → ∀𝑧∀𝑥 𝑥 = 𝑦)
Theorem	dral1-o 38922	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 2438 using ax-c11 38905. (Contributed by NM, 24-Nov-1994.) (New usage is discouraged.)
⊢ (∀𝑥 𝑥 = 𝑦 → (𝜑 ↔ 𝜓))    ⇒   ⊢ (∀𝑥 𝑥 = 𝑦 → (∀𝑥𝜑 ↔ ∀𝑦𝜓))
Theorem	ax12fromc15 38923	Rederivation of Axiom ax-12 2179 from ax-c15 38907, ax-c11 38905 (used through dral1-o 38922), and other older axioms. See Theorem axc15 2421 for the derivation of ax-c15 38907 from ax-12 2179. An open problem is whether we can prove this using ax-c11n 38906 instead of ax-c11 38905. This proof uses newer axioms ax-4 1810 and ax-6 1968, 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 38902 and ax-c10 38904. (Contributed by NM, 22-Jan-2007.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) (New usage is discouraged.)
⊢ (𝑥 = 𝑦 → (∀𝑦𝜑 → ∀𝑥(𝑥 = 𝑦 → 𝜑)))
Theorem	ax13fromc9 38924	Derive ax-13 2371 from ax-c9 38908 and other older axioms. This proof uses newer axioms ax-4 1810 and ax-6 1968, 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 38902 and ax-c10 38904. (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 38925*	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 1911 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 1796, ax-c4 38902, ax-c5 38901, ax-11 2159, ax-c7 38903, ax-7 2009, ax-c9 38908, ax-c10 38904, ax-c11 38905, ax-8 2112, ax-9 2120, ax-c14 38909, ax-c15 38907, and ax-c16 38910: in that system, we can derive any instance of ax-5 1911 not containing wff variables by induction on formula length, using ax5eq 38950 and ax5el 38955 for the basis together with hbn 2296, hbal 2169, and hbim 2300. 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 38926	Generalization of antecedent. (Contributed by NM, 5-Jan-1993.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) (New usage is discouraged.)
⊢ (𝜑 → 𝜓)    ⇒   ⊢ (∀𝑥𝜑 → 𝜓)
Theorem	hbequid 38927	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 38904.) (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 38928	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 1810, ax-7 2009, ax-c9 38908, and ax-gen 1796. This shows that this can be proved without ax6 2383, even though Theorem equid 2013 cannot. A shorter proof using ax6 2383 is obtainable from equid 2013 and hbth 1804.) Remark added 2-Dec-2015 NM: This proof does implicitly use ax6v 1969, which is used for the derivation of axc9 2381, unless we consider ax-c9 38908 the starting axiom rather than ax-13 2371. (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 38929	Proof of a single axiom that can replace ax-c5 38901 and ax-c7 38903. See axc5c7toc5 38930 and axc5c7toc7 38931 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 38930	Rederivation of ax-c5 38901 from axc5c7 38929. 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 38931	Rederivation of ax-c7 38903 from axc5c7 38929. 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 38932	Proof of a single axiom that can replace both ax-c7 38903 and ax-11 2159. See axc711toc7 38934 and axc711to11 38935 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 38933	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 38934	Rederivation of ax-c7 38903 from axc711 38932. Note that ax-c7 38903 and ax-11 2159 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 38935	Rederivation of ax-11 2159 from axc711 38932. Note that ax-c7 38903 and ax-11 2159 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 38936	Proof of a single axiom that can replace ax-c5 38901, ax-c7 38903, and ax-11 2159 in a subsystem that includes these axioms plus ax-c4 38902 and ax-gen 1796 (and propositional calculus). See axc5c711toc5 38937, axc5c711toc7 38938, and axc5c711to11 38939 for the rederivation of those axioms. This theorem extends the idea in Scott Fenton's axc5c7 38929. (Contributed by NM, 18-Nov-2006.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) (New usage is discouraged.)
⊢ ((∀𝑥∀𝑦 ¬ ∀𝑥∀𝑦𝜑 → ∀𝑥𝜑) → 𝜑)
Theorem	axc5c711toc5 38937	Rederivation of ax-c5 38901 from axc5c711 38936. 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 38938	Rederivation of ax-c7 38903 from axc5c711 38936. Note that ax-c7 38903 and ax-11 2159 are not used by the rederivation. The use of alimi 1812 (which uses ax-c5 38901) is allowed since we have already proved axc5c711toc5 38937. (Contributed by NM, 19-Nov-2006.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) (New usage is discouraged.)
⊢ (¬ ∀𝑥 ¬ ∀𝑥𝜑 → 𝜑)
Theorem	axc5c711to11 38939	Rederivation of ax-11 2159 from axc5c711 38936. Note that ax-c7 38903 and ax-11 2159 are not used by the rederivation. The use of alimi 1812 (which uses ax-c5 38901) is allowed since we have already proved axc5c711toc5 38937. (Contributed by NM, 19-Nov-2006.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) (New usage is discouraged.)
⊢ (∀𝑥∀𝑦𝜑 → ∀𝑦∀𝑥𝜑)
Theorem	equidqe 38940	equid 2013 with existential quantifier without using ax-c5 38901 or ax-5 1911. (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 38941	A special case of ax-c5 38901 without using ax-c5 38901 or ax-5 1911. (Contributed by NM, 13-Jan-2011.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) (New usage is discouraged.)
⊢ (∀𝑦 ¬ 𝑥 = 𝑥 → ¬ 𝑥 = 𝑥)
Theorem	equidq 38942	equid 2013 with universal quantifier without using ax-c5 38901 or ax-5 1911. (Contributed by NM, 13-Jan-2011.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) (New usage is discouraged.)
⊢ ∀𝑦 𝑥 = 𝑥
Theorem	equid1ALT 38943	Alternate proof of equid 2013 and equid1 38917 from older axioms ax-c7 38903, ax-c10 38904 and ax-c9 38908. (Contributed by NM, 10-Jan-1993.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) (New usage is discouraged.)
⊢ 𝑥 = 𝑥
Theorem	axc11nfromc11 38944	Rederivation of ax-c11n 38906 from original version ax-c11 38905. See Theorem axc11 2429 for the derivation of ax-c11 38905 from ax-c11n 38906. This theorem should not be referenced in any proof. Instead, use ax-c11n 38906 above so that uses of ax-c11n 38906 can be more easily identified, or use aecom-o 38919 when this form is needed for studies involving ax-c11 38905 and omitting ax-5 1911. (Contributed by NM, 16-May-2008.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) (New usage is discouraged.)
⊢ (∀𝑥 𝑥 = 𝑦 → ∀𝑦 𝑦 = 𝑥)
Theorem	naecoms-o 38945	A commutation rule for distinct variable specifiers. Version of naecoms 2428 using ax-c11 38905. (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 38946	All variables are effectively bound in a distinct variable specifier. Lemma L19 in [Megill] p. 446 (p. 14 of the preprint). Version of hbnae 2431 using ax-c11 38905. (Contributed by NM, 13-May-1993.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) (New usage is discouraged.)
⊢ (¬ ∀𝑥 𝑥 = 𝑦 → ∀𝑧 ¬ ∀𝑥 𝑥 = 𝑦)
Theorem	dvelimf-o 38947	Proof of dvelimh 2449 that uses ax-c11 38905 but not ax-c15 38907, ax-c11n 38906, or ax-12 2179. Version of dvelimh 2449 using ax-c11 38905 instead of axc11 2429. (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 38948	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 2437 using ax-c11 38905. (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 38949*	A "distinctor elimination" lemma with no disjoint variable conditions on variables in the consequent, proved without using ax-c16 38910. Version of aev 2059 using ax-c11 38905. (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 38950*	Theorem to add distinct quantifier to atomic formula. (This theorem demonstrates the induction basis for ax-5 1911 considered as a metatheorem. Do not use it for later proofs - use ax-5 1911 instead, to avoid reference to the redundant axiom ax-c16 38910.) (Contributed by NM, 10-Jan-1993.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) (New usage is discouraged.)
⊢ (𝑥 = 𝑦 → ∀𝑧 𝑥 = 𝑦)
Theorem	dveeq2-o 38951*	Quantifier introduction when one pair of variables is distinct. Version of dveeq2 2377 using ax-c15 38907. (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 38952*	A generalization of Axiom ax-c16 38910. Version of axc16g 2262 using ax-c11 38905. (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 38953*	Quantifier introduction when one pair of variables is distinct. Version of dveeq1 2379 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 38954*	Version of dveeq1 2379 using ax-c16 38910 instead of ax-5 1911. (Contributed by NM, 29-Apr-2008.) TODO: Recover proof from older set.mm to remove use of ax-5 1911. (Proof modification is discouraged.) (New usage is discouraged.)
⊢ (¬ ∀𝑥 𝑥 = 𝑦 → (𝑦 = 𝑧 → ∀𝑥 𝑦 = 𝑧))
Theorem	ax5el 38955*	Theorem to add distinct quantifier to atomic formula. This theorem demonstrates the induction basis for ax-5 1911 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 38956*	This theorem shows that, given ax-c16 38910, we can derive a version of ax-c11n 38906. However, it is weaker than ax-c11n 38906 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 38957*	Alternate proof of dveel2 2461 using ax-c16 38910 instead of ax-5 1911. (Contributed by NM, 10-May-2008.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) (New usage is discouraged.)
⊢ (¬ ∀𝑥 𝑥 = 𝑦 → (𝑧 ∈ 𝑦 → ∀𝑥 𝑧 ∈ 𝑦))
Theorem	ax12f 38958	Basis step for constructing a substitution instance of ax-c15 38907 without using ax-c15 38907. 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 38959	Basis step for constructing a substitution instance of ax-c15 38907 without using ax-c15 38907. 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 38960	Basis step for constructing a substitution instance of ax-c15 38907 without using ax-c15 38907. 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 38961	Induction step for constructing a substitution instance of ax-c15 38907 without using ax-c15 38907. 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 38962	Induction step for constructing a substitution instance of ax-c15 38907 without using ax-c15 38907. 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 38963	Lemma for ax12inda2 38965 and ax12inda 38966. (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 38964*	Alternate proof of ax12inda2 38965, slightly more direct and not requiring ax-c16 38910. (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 38965*	Induction step for constructing a substitution instance of ax-c15 38907 without using ax-c15 38907. Quantification case. When 𝑧 and 𝑦 are distinct, this theorem avoids the dummy variables needed by the more general ax12inda 38966. (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 38966*	Induction step for constructing a substitution instance of ax-c15 38907 without using ax-c15 38907. Quantification case. (When 𝑧 and 𝑦 are distinct, ax12inda2 38965 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 38967*	Rederivation of ax-c15 38907 from ax12v 2180 (without using ax-c15 38907 or the full ax-12 2179). Thus, the hypothesis (ax12v 2180) provides an alternate axiom that can be used in place of ax-c15 38907. See also axc15 2421. (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 38968*	Derive ax-c15 38907 from a hypothesis in the form of ax-12 2179, without using ax-12 2179 or ax-c15 38907. The hypothesis is weaker than ax-12 2179, 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 2179, if we also have ax-c11 38905, which this proof uses. As Theorem ax12 2422 shows, the distinct variable conditions are optional. An open problem is whether we can derive this with ax-c11n 38906 instead of ax-c11 38905. (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 38969	Show that ax-c11 38905 can be derived from ax-c11n 38906 and ax-12 2179. An open problem is whether this theorem can be derived from ax-c11n 38906 and the others when ax-12 2179 is replaced with ax-c15 38907 or ax12v 2180. See Theorems axc11nfromc11 38944 for the rederivation of ax-c11n 38906 from axc11 2429. Normally, axc11 2429 should be used rather than ax-c11 38905 or axc11-o 38969, 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 38970*	Index shift of a finite sum with a weaker "implicit substitution" hypothesis than fsumshft 15679. The proof demonstrates how this can be derived starting from from fsumshft 15679. (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 38971	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 6433. (Contributed by NM, 15-Sep-2011.) (Revised by Mario Carneiro, 15-Oct-2016.) WARNING: THIS "AXIOM", WHICH IS THE OLD df-riota 7298, CONFLICTS WITH (THE NEW) df-riota 7298 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 38972*	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 38973*	Closure of restricted iota. (Contributed by NM, 15-Sep-2011.)
⊢ 𝐴 ∈ V    ⇒   ⊢ (∃!𝑥 ∈ 𝐴 𝜑 ↔ (℩𝑥 ∈ 𝐴 𝜑) ∈ 𝐴)
Theorem	riotasvd 38974*	Deduction version of riotasv 38977. (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 38975*	Value of description binder 𝐷 for a single-valued class expression 𝐶(𝑦) (as in e.g. reusv2 5339). Special case of riota2f 7322. (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 38976*	The value of description binder 𝐷 for a single-valued class expression 𝐶(𝑦) (as in e.g. reusv2 5339) in the form of a substitution instance. Special case of riota2f 7322. (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 38977*	Value of description binder 𝐷 for a single-valued class expression 𝐶(𝑦) (as in e.g. reusv2 5339). Special case of riota2f 7322. (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 38978*	A property 𝜒 holding for a representative of a single-valued class expression 𝐶(𝑦) (see e.g. reusv2 5339) 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)
21.28.4  Experiments with weak deduction theorem
Theorem	elimhyps 38979	A version of elimhyp 4539 using explicit substitution. (Contributed by NM, 15-Jun-2019.)
⊢ [𝐵 / 𝑥]𝜑    ⇒   ⊢ [if(𝜑, 𝑥, 𝐵) / 𝑥]𝜑
Theorem	dedths 38980	A version of weak deduction theorem dedth 4532 using explicit substitution. (Contributed by NM, 15-Jun-2019.)
⊢ [if(𝜑, 𝑥, 𝐵) / 𝑥]𝜓    ⇒   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝜓)
Theorem	renegclALT 38981	Closure law for negative of reals. Demonstrates use of weak deduction theorem with explicit substitution. The proof is much longer than that of renegcl 11416. (Contributed by NM, 15-Jun-2019.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) (New usage is discouraged.)
⊢ (𝐴 ∈ ℝ → -𝐴 ∈ ℝ)
Theorem	elimhyps2 38982	Generalization of elimhyps 38979 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 38983	Generalization of dedths 38980 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 38984	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 38985	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 3659. 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 38986	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 4840) that starts from abidnf 3659. The last is assigned to the inference form (e.g., Ⅎ𝑥⟨{𝑦 ∣ ∀𝑥𝑦 ∈ 𝐴}, {𝑦 ∣ ∀𝑥𝑦 ∈ 𝐵}⟩ for nfop 4839) 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 38987	Deduction version of nfuni 4864. (Contributed by NM, 19-Nov-2020.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) (New usage is discouraged.)
⊢ (𝜑 → Ⅎ𝑥𝐴)    ⇒   ⊢ (𝜑 → Ⅎ𝑥∪ 𝐴)
Theorem	nfunidALT 38988	Deduction version of nfuni 4864. (Contributed by NM, 19-Nov-2020.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) (New usage is discouraged.)
⊢ (𝜑 → Ⅎ𝑥𝐴)    ⇒   ⊢ (𝜑 → Ⅎ𝑥∪ 𝐴)
Theorem	nfopdALT 38989	Deduction version of bound-variable hypothesis builder nfop 4839. This shows how the deduction version of a not-free theorem such as nfop 4839 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⟩)
21.28.5  Miscellanea
Theorem	cnaddcom 38990	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 38991*	Show the commutative law for an operation 𝑂 on a toy structure class 𝐶 of commutative 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))
21.28.6  Atoms, hyperplanes, and covering in a left vector space (or module)
Syntax	clsa 38992	Extend class notation with all 1-dim subspaces (atoms) of a left module or left vector space.
class LSAtoms
Syntax	clsh 38993	Extend class notation with all subspaces of a left module or left vector space that are hyperplanes.
class LSHyp
Definition	df-lsatoms 38994*	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})))
Definition	df-lshyp 38995*	Define the set of all hyperplanes of a left module or left vector space. Also called co-atoms, these are subspaces that are one dimension less than the full space. (Contributed by NM, 29-Jun-2014.)
⊢ LSHyp = (𝑤 ∈ V ↦ {𝑠 ∈ (LSubSp‘𝑤) ∣ (𝑠 ≠ (Base‘𝑤) ∧ ∃𝑣 ∈ (Base‘𝑤)((LSpan‘𝑤)‘(𝑠 ∪ {𝑣})) = (Base‘𝑤))})
Theorem	lshpset 38996*	The set of all hyperplanes of a left module or left vector space. The vector 𝑣 is called a generating vector for the hyperplane. (Contributed by NM, 29-Jun-2014.)
⊢ 𝑉 = (Base‘𝑊)    &   ⊢ 𝑁 = (LSpan‘𝑊)    &   ⊢ 𝑆 = (LSubSp‘𝑊)    &   ⊢ 𝐻 = (LSHyp‘𝑊)    ⇒   ⊢ (𝑊 ∈ 𝑋 → 𝐻 = {𝑠 ∈ 𝑆 ∣ (𝑠 ≠ 𝑉 ∧ ∃𝑣 ∈ 𝑉 (𝑁‘(𝑠 ∪ {𝑣})) = 𝑉)})
Theorem	islshp 38997*	The predicate "is a hyperplane" (of a left module or left vector space). (Contributed by NM, 29-Jun-2014.)
⊢ 𝑉 = (Base‘𝑊)    &   ⊢ 𝑁 = (LSpan‘𝑊)    &   ⊢ 𝑆 = (LSubSp‘𝑊)    &   ⊢ 𝐻 = (LSHyp‘𝑊)    ⇒   ⊢ (𝑊 ∈ 𝑋 → (𝑈 ∈ 𝐻 ↔ (𝑈 ∈ 𝑆 ∧ 𝑈 ≠ 𝑉 ∧ ∃𝑣 ∈ 𝑉 (𝑁‘(𝑈 ∪ {𝑣})) = 𝑉)))
Theorem	islshpsm 38998*	Hyperplane properties expressed with subspace sum. (Contributed by NM, 3-Jul-2014.)
⊢ 𝑉 = (Base‘𝑊)    &   ⊢ 𝑁 = (LSpan‘𝑊)    &   ⊢ 𝑆 = (LSubSp‘𝑊)    &   ⊢ ⊕ = (LSSum‘𝑊)    &   ⊢ 𝐻 = (LSHyp‘𝑊)    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝑊 ∈ LMod)    ⇒   ⊢ (𝜑 → (𝑈 ∈ 𝐻 ↔ (𝑈 ∈ 𝑆 ∧ 𝑈 ≠ 𝑉 ∧ ∃𝑣 ∈ 𝑉 (𝑈 ⊕ (𝑁‘{𝑣})) = 𝑉)))
Theorem	lshplss 38999	A hyperplane is a subspace. (Contributed by NM, 3-Jul-2014.)
⊢ 𝑆 = (LSubSp‘𝑊)    &   ⊢ 𝐻 = (LSHyp‘𝑊)    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝑊 ∈ LMod)    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝑈 ∈ 𝐻)    ⇒   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝑈 ∈ 𝑆)
Theorem	lshpne 39000	A hyperplane is not equal to the vector space. (Contributed by NM, 4-Jul-2014.)
⊢ 𝑉 = (Base‘𝑊)    &   ⊢ 𝐻 = (LSHyp‘𝑊)    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝑊 ∈ LMod)    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝑈 ∈ 𝐻)    ⇒   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝑈 ≠ 𝑉)