P. 401 of Theorem List - Metamath Proof Explorer

Theorem List for Metamath Proof Explorer - 40001-40100   *Has distinct variable group(s)

Type	Label	Description
Statement
Theorem	petseq 40001	Generalized partition-equivalence identification. The partition-side scheme PetParts and the equivalence-side scheme PetErs define the same class of spans (pairs ⟨𝑟, 𝑛⟩). This plays the same organizational role for lifted spans that mpets 39981 plays for carriers: mpets 39981 identifies MembParts with CoMembErs at the membership-carrier level, while petseq 40001 identifies the corresponding span-level predicates built from Parts and Ers. Unlike the earlier broad pets 39991, the bridge used here is the type-safe span theorem typesafepets 40000, which restricts to membership block-carriers. Since typedness (𝑟 ∈ Rels and the appropriate carrier condition) is now built directly into PetParts and PetErs, this theorem can be used downstream without repeatedly re-establishing basic typing premises. (Contributed by Peter Mazsa, 19-Feb-2026.)
⊢ PetParts = PetErs
Theorem	pets2eq 40002	Grade-stable generalized partition-equivalence identification. After applying the same grade-stability operator (SucMap ShiftStable) to both sides, the grade-stable pet classes still coincide. Confirms that the grade/tower infrastructure is orthogonal to the partition-vs-equivalence viewpoint: stability is preserved under the PetParts = PetErs identification. This is the level at which we can freely work on whichever side is more convenient (Parts for block discipline, Ers for equivalence reasoning), without changing the stable notion of "pet". (Contributed by Peter Mazsa, 19-Feb-2026.)
⊢ Pet2Parts = Pet2Ers
21.29  Mathbox for Rodolfo Medina
21.29.1  Partitions
Theorem	prtlem60 40003	Lemma for prter3 40032. (Contributed by Rodolfo Medina, 9-Oct-2010.)
⊢ (𝜑 → (𝜓 → (𝜒 → 𝜃)))    &   ⊢ (𝜓 → (𝜃 → 𝜏))    ⇒   ⊢ (𝜑 → (𝜓 → (𝜒 → 𝜏)))
Theorem	bicomdd 40004	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 40005	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 40006	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 40007	Lemma for prter3 40032: 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 40008	Reverse of ibd 272. (Contributed by Rodolfo Medina, 30-Sep-2010.)
⊢ (𝜑 → (𝜒 → (𝜓 ↔ 𝜒)))    ⇒   ⊢ (𝜑 → (𝜒 → 𝜓))
Theorem	prtlem100 40009	Lemma for prter3 40032. (Contributed by Rodolfo Medina, 19-Oct-2010.)
⊢ (∃𝑥 ∈ 𝐴 (𝐵 ∈ 𝑥 ∧ 𝜑) ↔ ∃𝑥 ∈ (𝐴 ∖ {∅})(𝐵 ∈ 𝑥 ∧ 𝜑))
Theorem	prtlem5 40010*	Lemma for prter1 40029, prter2 40031, prter3 40032 and prtex 40030. (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 40011	Lemma for prter2 40031. (Contributed by Rodolfo Medina, 17-Oct-2010.)
⊢ (𝐴 ∈ 𝐵 → ¬ 𝐴 ∈ (𝐶 ∖ {𝐴}))
Theorem	brabsb2 40012*	A closed form of brabsb 5504. (Contributed by Rodolfo Medina, 13-Oct-2010.)
⊢ (𝑅 = {⟨𝑥, 𝑦⟩ ∣ 𝜑} → (𝑧𝑅𝑤 ↔ [𝑧 / 𝑥][𝑤 / 𝑦]𝜑))
Theorem	eqbrrdv2 40013*	Other version of eqbrrdiv 5769. (Contributed by Rodolfo Medina, 30-Sep-2010.)
⊢ (((Rel 𝐴 ∧ Rel 𝐵) ∧ 𝜑) → (𝑥𝐴𝑦 ↔ 𝑥𝐵𝑦))    ⇒   ⊢ (((Rel 𝐴 ∧ Rel 𝐵) ∧ 𝜑) → 𝐴 = 𝐵)
Theorem	prtlem9 40014*	Lemma for prter3 40032. (Contributed by Rodolfo Medina, 25-Sep-2010.)
⊢ (𝐴 ∈ 𝐵 → ∃𝑥 ∈ 𝐵 [𝑥] ∼ = [𝐴] ∼ )
Theorem	prtlem10 40015*	Lemma for prter3 40032. (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 40016	Lemma for prter2 40031. (Contributed by Rodolfo Medina, 12-Oct-2010.)
⊢ (𝐵 ∈ 𝐷 → (𝐶 ∈ 𝐴 → (𝐵 = [𝐶] ∼ → 𝐵 ∈ (𝐴 / ∼ ))))
Theorem	prtlem12 40017*	Lemma for prtex 40030 and prter3 40032. (Contributed by Rodolfo Medina, 13-Oct-2010.)
⊢ ( ∼ = {⟨𝑥, 𝑦⟩ ∣ ∃𝑢 ∈ 𝐴 (𝑥 ∈ 𝑢 ∧ 𝑦 ∈ 𝑢)} → Rel ∼ )
Theorem	prtlem13 40018*	Lemma for prter1 40029, prter2 40031, prter3 40032 and prtex 40030. (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 40019*	Lemma for prtex 40030, prter2 40031 and prter3 40032. (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 40020*	Lemma for prter2 40031 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 40021	Extend the definition of a wff to include the partition predicate.
wff Prt 𝐴
Definition	df-prt 40022*	Define the partition predicate. (Contributed by Rodolfo Medina, 13-Oct-2010.)
⊢ (Prt 𝐴 ↔ ∀𝑥 ∈ 𝐴 ∀𝑦 ∈ 𝐴 (𝑥 = 𝑦 ∨ (𝑥 ∩ 𝑦) = ∅))
Theorem	erprt 40023	The quotient set of an equivalence relation is a partition. (Contributed by Rodolfo Medina, 13-Oct-2010.)
⊢ ( ∼ Er 𝑋 → Prt (𝐴 / ∼ ))
Theorem	prtlem14 40024*	Lemma for prter1 40029, prter2 40031 and prtex 40030. (Contributed by Rodolfo Medina, 13-Oct-2010.)
⊢ (Prt 𝐴 → ((𝑥 ∈ 𝐴 ∧ 𝑦 ∈ 𝐴) → ((𝑤 ∈ 𝑥 ∧ 𝑤 ∈ 𝑦) → 𝑥 = 𝑦)))
Theorem	prtlem15 40025*	Lemma for prter1 40029 and prtex 40030. (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 40026*	Lemma for prter2 40031. (Contributed by Rodolfo Medina, 15-Oct-2010.)
⊢ (Prt 𝐴 → ((𝑥 ∈ 𝐴 ∧ 𝑧 ∈ 𝑥) → (∃𝑦 ∈ 𝐴 (𝑧 ∈ 𝑦 ∧ 𝑤 ∈ 𝑦) → 𝑤 ∈ 𝑥)))
Theorem	prtlem18 40027*	Lemma for prter2 40031. (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 40028*	Lemma for prter2 40031. (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 40029*	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 40030*	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 40031*	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 40032*	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)
21.30  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."
21.30.1  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 2219, axc7 2347, axc10 2414, axc11 2459, axc11n 2455, axc15 2451, axc9 2411, axc14 2492, and axc16 2295.
Axiom	ax-c5 40033	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 1827. Conditional forms of the converse are given by ax-13 2401, ax-c14 40041, ax-c16 40042, and ax-5 1942. 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 2104). An interesting alternate axiomatization uses axc5c711 40068 and ax-c4 40034 in place of ax-c5 40033, ax-4 1841, ax-10 2177, and ax-11 2193. This axiom is obsolete and should no longer be used. It is proved above as Theorem sp 2219. (Contributed by NM, 3-Jan-1993.) Use sp 2219 instead. (New usage is discouraged.)
⊢ (∀𝑥𝜑 → 𝜑)
Axiom	ax-c4 40034	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 2351. (Contributed by NM, 3-Jan-1993.) (New usage is discouraged.)
⊢ (∀𝑥(∀𝑥𝜑 → 𝜓) → (∀𝑥𝜑 → ∀𝑥𝜓))
Axiom	ax-c7 40035	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 40068 in place of ax-c5 40033, ax-c7 40035, and ax-11 2193. This axiom is obsolete and should no longer be used. It is proved above as Theorem axc7 2347. (Contributed by NM, 10-Jan-1993.) (New usage is discouraged.)
⊢ (¬ ∀𝑥 ¬ ∀𝑥𝜑 → 𝜑)
Axiom	ax-c10 40036	A variant of ax6 2413. 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 2414. (Contributed by NM, 10-Jan-1993.) (New usage is discouraged.)
⊢ (∀𝑥(𝑥 = 𝑦 → ∀𝑥𝜑) → 𝜑)
Axiom	ax-c11 40037	Axiom ax-c11 40037 was the original version of ax-c11n 40038 ("n" for "new"), before it was discovered (in May 2008) that the shorter ax-c11n 40038 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 2459. (Contributed by NM, 10-May-1993.) (New usage is discouraged.)
⊢ (∀𝑥 𝑥 = 𝑦 → (∀𝑥𝜑 → ∀𝑦𝜑))
Axiom	ax-c11n 40038	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 40037 and was replaced with this shorter ax-c11n 40038 ("n" for "new") in May 2008. The old axiom is proved from this one as Theorem axc11 2459. Conversely, this axiom is proved from ax-c11 40037 as Theorem axc11nfromc11 40076. This axiom was proved redundant in July 2015. See Theorem axc11n 2455. This axiom is obsolete and should no longer be used. It is proved above as Theorem axc11n 2455. (Contributed by NM, 16-May-2008.) (New usage is discouraged.)
⊢ (∀𝑥 𝑥 = 𝑦 → ∀𝑦 𝑦 = 𝑥)
Axiom	ax-c15 40039	Axiom ax-c15 40039 was the original version of ax-12 2212, before it was discovered (in Jan. 2007) that the shorter ax-12 2212 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 40039 (from which the ax-12 2212 instance follows by Theorem ax12 2452.) The proof is by induction on formula length, using ax12eq 40091 and ax12el 40092 for the basis steps and ax12indn 40093, ax12indi 40094, and ax12inda 40098 for the induction steps. (This paragraph is true provided we use ax-c11 40037 in place of ax-c11n 40038.) This axiom is obsolete and should no longer be used. It is proved above as Theorem axc15 2451, 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 40040	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 2411. (Contributed by NM, 10-Jan-1993.) (New usage is discouraged.)
⊢ (¬ ∀𝑧 𝑧 = 𝑥 → (¬ ∀𝑧 𝑧 = 𝑦 → (𝑥 = 𝑦 → ∀𝑧 𝑥 = 𝑦)))
Axiom	ax-c14 40041	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 1942; see Theorem axc14 2492. Alternately, ax-5 1942 becomes unnecessary in principle with this axiom, but we lose the more powerful metalogic afforded by ax-5 1942. We retain ax-c14 40041 here to provide completeness for systems with the simpler metalogic that results from omitting ax-5 1942, 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 2492. (Contributed by NM, 24-Jun-1993.) (New usage is discouraged.)
⊢ (¬ ∀𝑧 𝑧 = 𝑥 → (¬ ∀𝑧 𝑧 = 𝑦 → (𝑥 ∈ 𝑦 → ∀𝑧 𝑥 ∈ 𝑦)))
Axiom	ax-c16 40042*	Axiom of Distinct Variables. The only axiom of predicate calculus requiring that variables be distinct (if we consider ax-5 1942 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 5404), but nonetheless it is technically necessary as you can see from its uses. This axiom is redundant if we include ax-5 1942; see Theorem axc16 2295. Alternately, ax-5 1942 becomes logically redundant in the presence of this axiom, but without ax-5 1942 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 40042 here to provide logical completeness for systems with the simpler metalogic that results from omitting ax-5 1942, 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 2295. (Contributed by NM, 10-Jan-1993.) (New usage is discouraged.)
⊢ (∀𝑥 𝑥 = 𝑦 → (𝜑 → ∀𝑥𝜑))
21.30.2  Rederive new axioms ax-4, ax-10, ax-6, ax-12, ax-13 from old Theorems ax12fromc15 40055 and ax13fromc9 40056 require some intermediate theorems that are included in this section.
Theorem	axc5 40043	This theorem repeats sp 2219 under the name axc5 40043, so that the Metamath program "MM> VERIFY MARKUP" command will check that it matches axiom scheme ax-c5 40033. (Contributed by NM, 18-Aug-2017.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) Use sp 2219 instead. (New usage is discouraged.)
⊢ (∀𝑥𝜑 → 𝜑)
Theorem	ax4fromc4 40044	Rederivation of Axiom ax-4 1841 from ax-c4 40034, ax-c5 40033, ax-gen 1827 and minimal implicational calculus { ax-mp 5, ax-1 6, ax-2 7 }. See axc4 2351 for the derivation of ax-c4 40034 from ax-4 1841. (Contributed by NM, 23-May-2008.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) Use ax-4 1841 instead. (New usage is discouraged.)
⊢ (∀𝑥(𝜑 → 𝜓) → (∀𝑥𝜑 → ∀𝑥𝜓))
Theorem	ax10fromc7 40045	Rederivation of Axiom ax-10 2177 from ax-c7 40035, ax-c4 40034, ax-c5 40033, ax-gen 1827 and propositional calculus. See axc7 2347 for the derivation of ax-c7 40035 from ax-10 2177. (Contributed by NM, 23-May-2008.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) Use ax-10 2177 instead. (New usage is discouraged.)
⊢ (¬ ∀𝑥𝜑 → ∀𝑥 ¬ ∀𝑥𝜑)
Theorem	ax6fromc10 40046	Rederivation of Axiom ax-6 1999 from ax-c7 40035, ax-c10 40036, ax-gen 1827 and propositional calculus. See axc10 2414 for the derivation of ax-c10 40036 from ax-6 1999. Lemma L18 in [Megill] p. 446 (p. 14 of the preprint). (Contributed by NM, 14-May-1993.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) Use ax-6 1999 instead. (New usage is discouraged.)
⊢ ¬ ∀𝑥 ¬ 𝑥 = 𝑦
Theorem	hba1-o 40047	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 40048	Inference version of ax-c4 40034. (Contributed by NM, 3-Jan-1993.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) (New usage is discouraged.)
⊢ (∀𝑥𝜑 → 𝜓)    ⇒   ⊢ (∀𝑥𝜑 → ∀𝑥𝜓)
Theorem	equid1 40049	Proof of equid 2044 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 1942; see the proof of equid 2044. See equid1ALT 40075 for an alternate proof. (Contributed by NM, 10-Jan-1993.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) (New usage is discouraged.)
⊢ 𝑥 = 𝑥
Theorem	equcomi1 40050	Proof of equcomi 2049 from equid1 40049, avoiding use of ax-5 1942 (the only use of ax-5 1942 is via ax7 2048, so using ax-7 2040 instead would remove dependency on ax-5 1942). (Contributed by BJ, 8-Jul-2021.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) (New usage is discouraged.)
⊢ (𝑥 = 𝑦 → 𝑦 = 𝑥)
Theorem	aecom-o 40051	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 2456 using ax-c11 40037. Unlike axc11nfromc11 40076, this version does not require ax-5 1942 (see comment of equcomi1 40050). (Contributed by NM, 10-May-1993.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) (New usage is discouraged.)
⊢ (∀𝑥 𝑥 = 𝑦 → ∀𝑦 𝑦 = 𝑥)
Theorem	aecoms-o 40052	A commutation rule for identical variable specifiers. Version of aecoms 2457 using ax-c11 40037. (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 40053	All variables are effectively bound in an identical variable specifier. Version of hbae 2460 using ax-c11 40037. (Contributed by NM, 13-May-1993.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) (New usage is discouraged.)
⊢ (∀𝑥 𝑥 = 𝑦 → ∀𝑧∀𝑥 𝑥 = 𝑦)
Theorem	dral1-o 40054	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 2468 using ax-c11 40037. (Contributed by NM, 24-Nov-1994.) (New usage is discouraged.)
⊢ (∀𝑥 𝑥 = 𝑦 → (𝜑 ↔ 𝜓))    ⇒   ⊢ (∀𝑥 𝑥 = 𝑦 → (∀𝑥𝜑 ↔ ∀𝑦𝜓))
Theorem	ax12fromc15 40055	Rederivation of Axiom ax-12 2212 from ax-c15 40039, ax-c11 40037 (used through dral1-o 40054), and other older axioms. See Theorem axc15 2451 for the derivation of ax-c15 40039 from ax-12 2212. An open problem is whether we can prove this using ax-c11n 40038 instead of ax-c11 40037. This proof uses newer axioms ax-4 1841 and ax-6 1999, 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 40034 and ax-c10 40036. (Contributed by NM, 22-Jan-2007.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) (New usage is discouraged.)
⊢ (𝑥 = 𝑦 → (∀𝑦𝜑 → ∀𝑥(𝑥 = 𝑦 → 𝜑)))
Theorem	ax13fromc9 40056	Derive ax-13 2401 from ax-c9 40040 and other older axioms. This proof uses newer axioms ax-4 1841 and ax-6 1999, 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 40034 and ax-c10 40036. (Contributed by NM, 21-Dec-2015.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) (New usage is discouraged.)
⊢ (¬ 𝑥 = 𝑦 → (𝑦 = 𝑧 → ∀𝑥 𝑦 = 𝑧))
21.30.3  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 40057*	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 1942 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 1827, ax-c4 40034, ax-c5 40033, ax-11 2193, ax-c7 40035, ax-7 2040, ax-c9 40040, ax-c10 40036, ax-c11 40037, ax-8 2146, ax-9 2154, ax-c14 40041, ax-c15 40039, and ax-c16 40042: in that system, we can derive any instance of ax-5 1942 not containing wff variables by induction on formula length, using ax5eq 40082 and ax5el 40087 for the basis together with hbn 2328, hbal 2203, and hbim 2332. 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 40058	Generalization of antecedent. (Contributed by NM, 5-Jan-1993.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) (New usage is discouraged.)
⊢ (𝜑 → 𝜓)    ⇒   ⊢ (∀𝑥𝜑 → 𝜓)
Theorem	hbequid 40059	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 40036.) (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 40060	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 1841, ax-7 2040, ax-c9 40040, and ax-gen 1827. This shows that this can be proved without ax6 2413, even though Theorem equid 2044 cannot. A shorter proof using ax6 2413 is obtainable from equid 2044 and hbth 1835.) Remark added 2-Dec-2015 NM: This proof does implicitly use ax6v 2000, which is used for the derivation of axc9 2411, unless we consider ax-c9 40040 the starting axiom rather than ax-13 2401. (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 40061	Proof of a single axiom that can replace ax-c5 40033 and ax-c7 40035. See axc5c7toc5 40062 and axc5c7toc7 40063 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 40062	Rederivation of ax-c5 40033 from axc5c7 40061. 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 40063	Rederivation of ax-c7 40035 from axc5c7 40061. 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 40064	Proof of a single axiom that can replace both ax-c7 40035 and ax-11 2193. See axc711toc7 40066 and axc711to11 40067 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 40065	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 40066	Rederivation of ax-c7 40035 from axc711 40064. Note that ax-c7 40035 and ax-11 2193 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 40067	Rederivation of ax-11 2193 from axc711 40064. Note that ax-c7 40035 and ax-11 2193 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 40068	Proof of a single axiom that can replace ax-c5 40033, ax-c7 40035, and ax-11 2193 in a subsystem that includes these axioms plus ax-c4 40034 and ax-gen 1827 (and propositional calculus). See axc5c711toc5 40069, axc5c711toc7 40070, and axc5c711to11 40071 for the rederivation of those axioms. This theorem extends the idea in Scott Fenton's axc5c7 40061. (Contributed by NM, 18-Nov-2006.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) (New usage is discouraged.)
⊢ ((∀𝑥∀𝑦 ¬ ∀𝑥∀𝑦𝜑 → ∀𝑥𝜑) → 𝜑)
Theorem	axc5c711toc5 40069	Rederivation of ax-c5 40033 from axc5c711 40068. 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 40070	Rederivation of ax-c7 40035 from axc5c711 40068. Note that ax-c7 40035 and ax-11 2193 are not used by the rederivation. The use of alimi 1843 (which uses ax-c5 40033) is allowed since we have already proved axc5c711toc5 40069. (Contributed by NM, 19-Nov-2006.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) (New usage is discouraged.)
⊢ (¬ ∀𝑥 ¬ ∀𝑥𝜑 → 𝜑)
Theorem	axc5c711to11 40071	Rederivation of ax-11 2193 from axc5c711 40068. Note that ax-c7 40035 and ax-11 2193 are not used by the rederivation. The use of alimi 1843 (which uses ax-c5 40033) is allowed since we have already proved axc5c711toc5 40069. (Contributed by NM, 19-Nov-2006.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) (New usage is discouraged.)
⊢ (∀𝑥∀𝑦𝜑 → ∀𝑦∀𝑥𝜑)
Theorem	equidqe 40072	equid 2044 with existential quantifier without using ax-c5 40033 or ax-5 1942. (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 40073	A special case of ax-c5 40033 without using ax-c5 40033 or ax-5 1942. (Contributed by NM, 13-Jan-2011.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) (New usage is discouraged.)
⊢ (∀𝑦 ¬ 𝑥 = 𝑥 → ¬ 𝑥 = 𝑥)
Theorem	equidq 40074	equid 2044 with universal quantifier without using ax-c5 40033 or ax-5 1942. (Contributed by NM, 13-Jan-2011.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) (New usage is discouraged.)
⊢ ∀𝑦 𝑥 = 𝑥
Theorem	equid1ALT 40075	Alternate proof of equid 2044 and equid1 40049 from older axioms ax-c7 40035, ax-c10 40036 and ax-c9 40040. (Contributed by NM, 10-Jan-1993.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) (New usage is discouraged.)
⊢ 𝑥 = 𝑥
Theorem	axc11nfromc11 40076	Rederivation of ax-c11n 40038 from original version ax-c11 40037. See Theorem axc11 2459 for the derivation of ax-c11 40037 from ax-c11n 40038. This theorem should not be referenced in any proof. Instead, use ax-c11n 40038 above so that uses of ax-c11n 40038 can be more easily identified, or use aecom-o 40051 when this form is needed for studies involving ax-c11 40037 and omitting ax-5 1942. (Contributed by NM, 16-May-2008.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) (New usage is discouraged.)
⊢ (∀𝑥 𝑥 = 𝑦 → ∀𝑦 𝑦 = 𝑥)
Theorem	naecoms-o 40077	A commutation rule for distinct variable specifiers. Version of naecoms 2458 using ax-c11 40037. (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 40078	All variables are effectively bound in a distinct variable specifier. Lemma L19 in [Megill] p. 446 (p. 14 of the preprint). Version of hbnae 2461 using ax-c11 40037. (Contributed by NM, 13-May-1993.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) (New usage is discouraged.)
⊢ (¬ ∀𝑥 𝑥 = 𝑦 → ∀𝑧 ¬ ∀𝑥 𝑥 = 𝑦)
Theorem	dvelimf-o 40079	Proof of dvelimh 2479 that uses ax-c11 40037 but not ax-c15 40039, ax-c11n 40038, or ax-12 2212. Version of dvelimh 2479 using ax-c11 40037 instead of axc11 2459. (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 40080	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 2467 using ax-c11 40037. (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 40081*	A "distinctor elimination" lemma with no disjoint variable conditions on variables in the consequent, proved without using ax-c16 40042. Version of aev 2091 using ax-c11 40037. (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 40082*	Theorem to add distinct quantifier to atomic formula. (This theorem demonstrates the induction basis for ax-5 1942 considered as a metatheorem. Do not use it for later proofs - use ax-5 1942 instead, to avoid reference to the redundant axiom ax-c16 40042.) (Contributed by NM, 10-Jan-1993.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) (New usage is discouraged.)
⊢ (𝑥 = 𝑦 → ∀𝑧 𝑥 = 𝑦)
Theorem	dveeq2-o 40083*	Quantifier introduction when one pair of variables is distinct. Version of dveeq2 2407 using ax-c15 40039. (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 40084*	A generalization of Axiom ax-c16 40042. Version of axc16g 2294 using ax-c11 40037. (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 40085*	Quantifier introduction when one pair of variables is distinct. Version of dveeq1 2409 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 40086*	Version of dveeq1 2409 using ax-c16 40042 instead of ax-5 1942. (Contributed by NM, 29-Apr-2008.) TODO: Recover proof from older set.mm to remove use of ax-5 1942. (Proof modification is discouraged.) (New usage is discouraged.)
⊢ (¬ ∀𝑥 𝑥 = 𝑦 → (𝑦 = 𝑧 → ∀𝑥 𝑦 = 𝑧))
Theorem	ax5el 40087*	Theorem to add distinct quantifier to atomic formula. This theorem demonstrates the induction basis for ax-5 1942 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 40088*	This theorem shows that, given ax-c16 40042, we can derive a version of ax-c11n 40038. However, it is weaker than ax-c11n 40038 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 40089*	Alternate proof of dveel2 2491 using ax-c16 40042 instead of ax-5 1942. (Contributed by NM, 10-May-2008.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) (New usage is discouraged.)
⊢ (¬ ∀𝑥 𝑥 = 𝑦 → (𝑧 ∈ 𝑦 → ∀𝑥 𝑧 ∈ 𝑦))
Theorem	ax12f 40090	Basis step for constructing a substitution instance of ax-c15 40039 without using ax-c15 40039. 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 40091	Basis step for constructing a substitution instance of ax-c15 40039 without using ax-c15 40039. 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 40092	Basis step for constructing a substitution instance of ax-c15 40039 without using ax-c15 40039. 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 40093	Induction step for constructing a substitution instance of ax-c15 40039 without using ax-c15 40039. 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 40094	Induction step for constructing a substitution instance of ax-c15 40039 without using ax-c15 40039. 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 40095	Lemma for ax12inda2 40097 and ax12inda 40098. (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 40096*	Alternate proof of ax12inda2 40097, slightly more direct and not requiring ax-c16 40042. (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 40097*	Induction step for constructing a substitution instance of ax-c15 40039 without using ax-c15 40039. Quantification case. When 𝑧 and 𝑦 are distinct, this theorem avoids the dummy variables needed by the more general ax12inda 40098. (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 40098*	Induction step for constructing a substitution instance of ax-c15 40039 without using ax-c15 40039. Quantification case. (When 𝑧 and 𝑦 are distinct, ax12inda2 40097 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 40099*	Rederivation of ax-c15 40039 from ax12v 2213 (without using ax-c15 40039 or the full ax-12 2212). Thus, the hypothesis (ax12v 2213) provides an alternate axiom that can be used in place of ax-c15 40039. See also axc15 2451. (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 40100*	Derive ax-c15 40039 from a hypothesis in the form of ax-12 2212, without using ax-12 2212 or ax-c15 40039. The hypothesis is weaker than ax-12 2212, 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 2212, if we also have ax-c11 40037, which this proof uses. As Theorem ax12 2452 shows, the distinct variable conditions are optional. An open problem is whether we can derive this with ax-c11n 40038 instead of ax-c11 40037. (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))))