Home | Metamath
Proof Explorer Theorem List (p. 409 of 449) | < Previous Next > |
Bad symbols? Try the
GIF version. |
||
Mirrors > Metamath Home Page > MPE Home Page > Theorem List Contents > Recent Proofs This page: Page List |
Color key: | Metamath Proof Explorer
(1-28689) |
Hilbert Space Explorer
(28690-30212) |
Users' Mathboxes
(30213-44899) |
Type | Label | Description | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Statement | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Definition | df-ptdf 40801* | Define the predicate PtDf, which is a utility definition used to shorten definitions and simplify proofs. (Contributed by Andrew Salmon, 15-Jul-2012.) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
⊢ PtDf(𝐴, 𝐵) = (𝑥 ∈ ℝ ↦ (((𝑥._{𝑣}(𝐵-_{𝑟}𝐴)) +_{𝑣} 𝐴) “ {1, 2, 3})) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Definition | df-rr3 40802 | Define the set of all points RR3. We define each point 𝐴 as a function to allow the use of vector addition and subtraction as well as scalar multiplication in our proofs. (Contributed by Andrew Salmon, 15-Jul-2012.) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
⊢ RR3 = (ℝ ↑_{m} {1, 2, 3}) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Definition | df-line3 40803* | Define the set of all lines. A line is an infinite subset of RR3 that satisfies a PtDf property. (Contributed by Andrew Salmon, 15-Jul-2012.) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
⊢ line3 = {𝑥 ∈ 𝒫 RR3 ∣ (2_{o} ≼ 𝑥 ∧ ∀𝑦 ∈ 𝑥 ∀𝑧 ∈ 𝑥 (𝑧 ≠ 𝑦 → ran PtDf(𝑦, 𝑧) = 𝑥))} | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
We are sad to report the passing of long-time contributor Alan Sare (Nov. 9, 1954 - Mar. 23, 2019). Alan's first contribution to Metamath was a shorter proof for tfrlem8 8014 in 2008. He developed a tool called "completeusersproof" that assists developing proofs using his "virtual deduction" method: https://us.metamath.org/other.html#completeusersproof 8014. His virtual deduction method is explained in the comment for wvd1 40896. Below are some excerpts from his first emails to NM in 2007: ...I have been interested in proving set theory theorems for many years for mental exercise. I enjoy it. I have used a book by Martin Zuckerman. It is informal. I am interested in completely and perfectly proving theorems. Mr. Zuckerman leaves out most of the steps of a proof, of course, like most authors do, as you have noted. A complete proof for higher theorems would require a volume of writing similar to the Metamath documents. So I am frustrated when I am not capable of constructing a proof and Zuckerman leaves out steps I do not understand. I could search for the steps in other texts, but I don't do that too much. Metamath may be the answer for me.... ...If we go beyond mathematics, I believe that it is possible to write down all human knowledge in a way similar to the way you have explicated large areas of mathematics. Of course, that would be a much, much more difficult job. For example, it is possible to take a hard science like physics, construct axioms based on experimental results, and to cast all of physics into a collection of axioms and theorems. Maybe this has already been attempted, although I am not familiar with it. When one then moves on to the soft sciences such as social science, this job gets much more difficult. The key is: All human thought consists of logical operations on abstract objects. Usually, these logical operations are done informally. There is no reason why one cannot take any subject and explicate it and take it down to the indivisible postulates in a formal rigorous way.... ...When I read a math book or an engineering book I come across something I don't understand and I am compelled to understand it. But, often it is hopeless. I don't have the time. Or, I would have to read the same thing by multiple authors in the hope that different authors would give parts of the working proof that others have omitted. It is very inefficient. Because I have always been inclined to "get to the bottom" for a 100% fully understood proof.... | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Theorem | idiALT 40804 | Placeholder for idi 1. Though unnecessary, this theorem is sometimes used in proofs in this mathbox for pedagogical purposes. (Contributed by Alan Sare, 31-Dec-2011.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) (New usage is discouraged.) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
⊢ 𝜑 ⇒ ⊢ 𝜑 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Theorem | exbir 40805 | Exportation implication also converting the consequent from a biconditional to an implication. Derived automatically from exbirVD 41180. (Contributed by Alan Sare, 31-Dec-2011.) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
⊢ (((𝜑 ∧ 𝜓) → (𝜒 ↔ 𝜃)) → (𝜑 → (𝜓 → (𝜃 → 𝜒)))) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Theorem | 3impexpbicom 40806 | Version of 3impexp 1354 where in addition the consequent is commuted. (Contributed by Alan Sare, 31-Dec-2011.) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
⊢ (((𝜑 ∧ 𝜓 ∧ 𝜒) → (𝜃 ↔ 𝜏)) ↔ (𝜑 → (𝜓 → (𝜒 → (𝜏 ↔ 𝜃))))) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Theorem | 3impexpbicomi 40807 | Inference associated with 3impexpbicom 40806. Derived automatically from 3impexpbicomiVD 41185. (Contributed by Alan Sare, 31-Dec-2011.) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
⊢ ((𝜑 ∧ 𝜓 ∧ 𝜒) → (𝜃 ↔ 𝜏)) ⇒ ⊢ (𝜑 → (𝜓 → (𝜒 → (𝜏 ↔ 𝜃)))) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Theorem | bi1imp 40808 | Importation inference similar to imp 409, except the outermost implication of the hypothesis is a biconditional. (Contributed by Alan Sare, 6-Nov-2017.) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
⊢ (𝜑 ↔ (𝜓 → 𝜒)) ⇒ ⊢ ((𝜑 ∧ 𝜓) → 𝜒) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Theorem | bi2imp 40809 | Importation inference similar to imp 409, except both implications of the hypothesis are biconditionals. (Contributed by Alan Sare, 6-Nov-2017.) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
⊢ (𝜑 ↔ (𝜓 ↔ 𝜒)) ⇒ ⊢ ((𝜑 ∧ 𝜓) → 𝜒) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Theorem | bi3impb 40810 | Similar to 3impb 1111 with implication in hypothesis replaced by biconditional. (Contributed by Alan Sare, 6-Nov-2017.) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
⊢ ((𝜑 ∧ (𝜓 ∧ 𝜒)) ↔ 𝜃) ⇒ ⊢ ((𝜑 ∧ 𝜓 ∧ 𝜒) → 𝜃) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Theorem | bi3impa 40811 | Similar to 3impa 1106 with implication in hypothesis replaced by biconditional. (Contributed by Alan Sare, 6-Nov-2017.) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
⊢ (((𝜑 ∧ 𝜓) ∧ 𝜒) ↔ 𝜃) ⇒ ⊢ ((𝜑 ∧ 𝜓 ∧ 𝜒) → 𝜃) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Theorem | bi23impib 40812 | 3impib 1112 with the inner implication of the hypothesis a biconditional. (Contributed by Alan Sare, 6-Nov-2017.) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
⊢ (𝜑 → ((𝜓 ∧ 𝜒) ↔ 𝜃)) ⇒ ⊢ ((𝜑 ∧ 𝜓 ∧ 𝜒) → 𝜃) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Theorem | bi13impib 40813 | 3impib 1112 with the outer implication of the hypothesis a biconditional. (Contributed by Alan Sare, 6-Nov-2017.) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
⊢ (𝜑 ↔ ((𝜓 ∧ 𝜒) → 𝜃)) ⇒ ⊢ ((𝜑 ∧ 𝜓 ∧ 𝜒) → 𝜃) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Theorem | bi123impib 40814 | 3impib 1112 with the implications of the hypothesis biconditionals. (Contributed by Alan Sare, 6-Nov-2017.) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
⊢ (𝜑 ↔ ((𝜓 ∧ 𝜒) ↔ 𝜃)) ⇒ ⊢ ((𝜑 ∧ 𝜓 ∧ 𝜒) → 𝜃) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Theorem | bi13impia 40815 | 3impia 1113 with the outer implication of the hypothesis a biconditional. (Contributed by Alan Sare, 6-Nov-2017.) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
⊢ ((𝜑 ∧ 𝜓) ↔ (𝜒 → 𝜃)) ⇒ ⊢ ((𝜑 ∧ 𝜓 ∧ 𝜒) → 𝜃) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Theorem | bi123impia 40816 | 3impia 1113 with the implications of the hypothesis biconditionals. (Contributed by Alan Sare, 6-Nov-2017.) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
⊢ ((𝜑 ∧ 𝜓) ↔ (𝜒 ↔ 𝜃)) ⇒ ⊢ ((𝜑 ∧ 𝜓 ∧ 𝜒) → 𝜃) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Theorem | bi33imp12 40817 | 3imp 1107 with innermost implication of the hypothesis a biconditional. (Contributed by Alan Sare, 6-Nov-2017.) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
⊢ (𝜑 → (𝜓 → (𝜒 ↔ 𝜃))) ⇒ ⊢ ((𝜑 ∧ 𝜓 ∧ 𝜒) → 𝜃) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Theorem | bi23imp13 40818 | 3imp 1107 with middle implication of the hypothesis a biconditional. (Contributed by Alan Sare, 6-Nov-2017.) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
⊢ (𝜑 → (𝜓 ↔ (𝜒 → 𝜃))) ⇒ ⊢ ((𝜑 ∧ 𝜓 ∧ 𝜒) → 𝜃) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Theorem | bi13imp23 40819 | 3imp 1107 with outermost implication of the hypothesis a biconditional. (Contributed by Alan Sare, 6-Nov-2017.) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
⊢ (𝜑 ↔ (𝜓 → (𝜒 → 𝜃))) ⇒ ⊢ ((𝜑 ∧ 𝜓 ∧ 𝜒) → 𝜃) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Theorem | bi13imp2 40820 | Similar to 3imp 1107 except the outermost and innermost implications are biconditionals. (Contributed by Alan Sare, 6-Nov-2017.) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
⊢ (𝜑 ↔ (𝜓 → (𝜒 ↔ 𝜃))) ⇒ ⊢ ((𝜑 ∧ 𝜓 ∧ 𝜒) → 𝜃) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Theorem | bi12imp3 40821 | Similar to 3imp 1107 except all but innermost implication are biconditionals. (Contributed by Alan Sare, 6-Nov-2017.) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
⊢ (𝜑 ↔ (𝜓 ↔ (𝜒 → 𝜃))) ⇒ ⊢ ((𝜑 ∧ 𝜓 ∧ 𝜒) → 𝜃) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Theorem | bi23imp1 40822 | Similar to 3imp 1107 except all but outermost implication are biconditionals. (Contributed by Alan Sare, 6-Nov-2017.) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
⊢ (𝜑 → (𝜓 ↔ (𝜒 ↔ 𝜃))) ⇒ ⊢ ((𝜑 ∧ 𝜓 ∧ 𝜒) → 𝜃) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Theorem | bi123imp0 40823 | Similar to 3imp 1107 except all implications are biconditionals. (Contributed by Alan Sare, 6-Nov-2017.) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
⊢ (𝜑 ↔ (𝜓 ↔ (𝜒 ↔ 𝜃))) ⇒ ⊢ ((𝜑 ∧ 𝜓 ∧ 𝜒) → 𝜃) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Theorem | 4animp1 40824 | A single hypothesis unification deduction with an assertion which is an implication with a 4-right-nested conjunction antecedent. (Contributed by Alan Sare, 30-May-2018.) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
⊢ ((𝜑 ∧ 𝜓 ∧ 𝜒) → (𝜏 ↔ 𝜃)) ⇒ ⊢ ((((𝜑 ∧ 𝜓) ∧ 𝜒) ∧ 𝜃) → 𝜏) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Theorem | 4an31 40825 | A rearrangement of conjuncts for a 4-right-nested conjunction. (Contributed by Alan Sare, 30-May-2018.) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
⊢ ((((𝜒 ∧ 𝜓) ∧ 𝜑) ∧ 𝜃) → 𝜏) ⇒ ⊢ ((((𝜑 ∧ 𝜓) ∧ 𝜒) ∧ 𝜃) → 𝜏) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Theorem | 4an4132 40826 | A rearrangement of conjuncts for a 4-right-nested conjunction. (Contributed by Alan Sare, 30-May-2018.) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
⊢ ((((𝜃 ∧ 𝜒) ∧ 𝜓) ∧ 𝜑) → 𝜏) ⇒ ⊢ ((((𝜑 ∧ 𝜓) ∧ 𝜒) ∧ 𝜃) → 𝜏) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Theorem | expcomdg 40827 | Biconditional form of expcomd 419. (Contributed by Alan Sare, 22-Jul-2012.) (New usage is discouraged.) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
⊢ ((𝜑 → ((𝜓 ∧ 𝜒) → 𝜃)) ↔ (𝜑 → (𝜒 → (𝜓 → 𝜃)))) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Theorem | iidn3 40828 | idn3 40942 without virtual deduction connectives. Special theorem needed for the Virtual Deduction translation tool. (Contributed by Alan Sare, 23-Jul-2011.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) (New usage is discouraged.) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
⊢ (𝜑 → (𝜓 → (𝜒 → 𝜒))) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Theorem | ee222 40829 | e222 40963 without virtual deduction connectives. Special theorem needed for the Virtual Deduction translation tool. (Contributed by Alan Sare, 7-Jul-2011.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) (New usage is discouraged.) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
⊢ (𝜑 → (𝜓 → 𝜒)) & ⊢ (𝜑 → (𝜓 → 𝜃)) & ⊢ (𝜑 → (𝜓 → 𝜏)) & ⊢ (𝜒 → (𝜃 → (𝜏 → 𝜂))) ⇒ ⊢ (𝜑 → (𝜓 → 𝜂)) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Theorem | ee3bir 40830 | Right-biconditional form of e3 41064 without virtual deduction connectives. Special theorem needed for the Virtual Deduction translation tool. (Contributed by Alan Sare, 22-Jul-2011.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) (New usage is discouraged.) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
⊢ (𝜑 → (𝜓 → (𝜒 → 𝜃))) & ⊢ (𝜏 ↔ 𝜃) ⇒ ⊢ (𝜑 → (𝜓 → (𝜒 → 𝜏))) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Theorem | ee13 40831 | e13 41075 without virtual deduction connectives. Special theorem needed for the Virtual Deduction translation tool. (Contributed by Alan Sare, 28-Oct-2011.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) (New usage is discouraged.) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
⊢ (𝜑 → 𝜓) & ⊢ (𝜑 → (𝜒 → (𝜃 → 𝜏))) & ⊢ (𝜓 → (𝜏 → 𝜂)) ⇒ ⊢ (𝜑 → (𝜒 → (𝜃 → 𝜂))) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Theorem | ee121 40832 | e121 40983 without virtual deductions. (Contributed by Alan Sare, 13-Jul-2011.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) (New usage is discouraged.) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
⊢ (𝜑 → 𝜓) & ⊢ (𝜑 → (𝜒 → 𝜃)) & ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝜏) & ⊢ (𝜓 → (𝜃 → (𝜏 → 𝜂))) ⇒ ⊢ (𝜑 → (𝜒 → 𝜂)) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Theorem | ee122 40833 | e122 40980 without virtual deductions. (Contributed by Alan Sare, 13-Jul-2011.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) (New usage is discouraged.) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
⊢ (𝜑 → 𝜓) & ⊢ (𝜑 → (𝜒 → 𝜃)) & ⊢ (𝜑 → (𝜒 → 𝜏)) & ⊢ (𝜓 → (𝜃 → (𝜏 → 𝜂))) ⇒ ⊢ (𝜑 → (𝜒 → 𝜂)) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Theorem | ee333 40834 | e333 41060 without virtual deductions. (Contributed by Alan Sare, 17-Jul-2011.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) (New usage is discouraged.) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
⊢ (𝜑 → (𝜓 → (𝜒 → 𝜃))) & ⊢ (𝜑 → (𝜓 → (𝜒 → 𝜏))) & ⊢ (𝜑 → (𝜓 → (𝜒 → 𝜂))) & ⊢ (𝜃 → (𝜏 → (𝜂 → 𝜁))) ⇒ ⊢ (𝜑 → (𝜓 → (𝜒 → 𝜁))) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Theorem | ee323 40835 | e323 41093 without virtual deductions. (Contributed by Alan Sare, 17-Apr-2012.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) (New usage is discouraged.) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
⊢ (𝜑 → (𝜓 → (𝜒 → 𝜃))) & ⊢ (𝜑 → (𝜓 → 𝜏)) & ⊢ (𝜑 → (𝜓 → (𝜒 → 𝜂))) & ⊢ (𝜃 → (𝜏 → (𝜂 → 𝜁))) ⇒ ⊢ (𝜑 → (𝜓 → (𝜒 → 𝜁))) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Theorem | 3ornot23 40836 | If the second and third disjuncts of a true triple disjunction are false, then the first disjunct is true. Automatically derived from 3ornot23VD 41174. (Contributed by Alan Sare, 31-Dec-2011.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) (New usage is discouraged.) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
⊢ ((¬ 𝜑 ∧ ¬ 𝜓) → ((𝜒 ∨ 𝜑 ∨ 𝜓) → 𝜒)) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Theorem | orbi1r 40837 | orbi1 914 with order of disjuncts reversed. Derived from orbi1rVD 41175. (Contributed by Alan Sare, 31-Dec-2011.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) (New usage is discouraged.) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
⊢ ((𝜑 ↔ 𝜓) → ((𝜒 ∨ 𝜑) ↔ (𝜒 ∨ 𝜓))) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Theorem | 3orbi123 40838 | pm4.39 973 with a 3-conjunct antecedent. This proof is 3orbi123VD 41177 automatically translated and minimized. (Contributed by Alan Sare, 31-Dec-2011.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) (New usage is discouraged.) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
⊢ (((𝜑 ↔ 𝜓) ∧ (𝜒 ↔ 𝜃) ∧ (𝜏 ↔ 𝜂)) → ((𝜑 ∨ 𝜒 ∨ 𝜏) ↔ (𝜓 ∨ 𝜃 ∨ 𝜂))) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Theorem | syl5imp 40839 | Closed form of syl5 34. Derived automatically from syl5impVD 41190. (Contributed by Alan Sare, 31-Dec-2011.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) (New usage is discouraged.) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
⊢ ((𝜑 → (𝜓 → 𝜒)) → ((𝜃 → 𝜓) → (𝜑 → (𝜃 → 𝜒)))) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Theorem | impexpd 40840 |
The following User's Proof is a Virtual Deduction proof completed
automatically by the tools program completeusersproof.cmd, which invokes
Mel L. O'Cat's mmj2 and Norm Megill's Metamath Proof Assistant. After the
User's Proof was completed, it was minimized. The completed User's Proof
before minimization is not shown. (Contributed by Alan Sare,
18-Mar-2012.) (Proof modification is discouraged.)
(New usage is discouraged.)
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
⊢ ((𝜑 → ((𝜓 ∧ 𝜒) → 𝜃)) ↔ (𝜑 → (𝜓 → (𝜒 → 𝜃)))) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Theorem | com3rgbi 40841 |
The following User's Proof is a Virtual Deduction proof completed
automatically by the tools program completeusersproof.cmd, which invokes
Mel L. O'Cat's mmj2 and Norm Megill's Metamath Proof Assistant. The
completed Virtual Deduction Proof (not shown) was minimized. The
minimized proof is shown.
(Contributed by Alan Sare, 18-Mar-2012.)
(Proof modification is discouraged.) (New usage is discouraged.)
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
⊢ ((𝜑 → (𝜓 → (𝜒 → 𝜃))) ↔ (𝜒 → (𝜑 → (𝜓 → 𝜃)))) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Theorem | impexpdcom 40842 |
The following User's Proof is a Virtual Deduction proof completed
automatically by the tools program completeusersproof.cmd, which invokes
Mel L. O'Cat's mmj2 and Norm Megill's Metamath Proof Assistant. The
completed Virtual Deduction Proof (not shown) was minimized. The
minimized proof is shown. (Contributed by Alan Sare, 18-Mar-2012.)
(Proof modification is discouraged.) (New usage is discouraged.)
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
⊢ ((𝜑 → ((𝜓 ∧ 𝜒) → 𝜃)) ↔ (𝜓 → (𝜒 → (𝜑 → 𝜃)))) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Theorem | ee1111 40843 |
Non-virtual deduction form of e1111 41002. (Contributed by Alan Sare,
18-Mar-2012.)
(Proof modification is discouraged.) (New usage is discouraged.)
The following User's Proof is a Virtual Deduction proof
completed automatically by the tools program completeusersproof.cmd,
which invokes Mel L. O'Cat's mmj2 and Norm Megill's Metamath Proof
Assistant. The completed Virtual Deduction Proof (not shown) was
minimized. The minimized proof is shown.
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
⊢ (𝜑 → 𝜓) & ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝜒) & ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝜃) & ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝜏) & ⊢ (𝜓 → (𝜒 → (𝜃 → (𝜏 → 𝜂)))) ⇒ ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝜂) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Theorem | pm2.43bgbi 40844 |
Logical equivalence of a 2-left-nested implication and a 1-left-nested
implicated
when two antecedents of the former implication are identical.
(Contributed by Alan Sare, 18-Mar-2012.)
(Proof modification is discouraged.) (New usage is discouraged.)
The following User's Proof is a Virtual Deduction proof completed
automatically by the tools program completeusersproof.cmd, which invokes
Mel L. O'Cat's mmj2 and Norm Megill's Metamath Proof Assistant. The
completed Virtual
Deduction Proof (not shown) was minimized. The minimized proof is
shown.
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
⊢ ((𝜑 → (𝜓 → (𝜑 → 𝜒))) ↔ (𝜓 → (𝜑 → 𝜒))) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Theorem | pm2.43cbi 40845 |
Logical equivalence of a 3-left-nested implication and a 2-left-nested
implicated when two antecedents of the former implication are identical.
(Contributed by Alan Sare, 18-Mar-2012.)
(Proof modification is discouraged.) (New usage is discouraged.)
The following User's Proof is
a Virtual Deduction proof completed automatically by the tools program
completeusersproof.cmd, which invokes Mel L. O'Cat's mmj2 and Norm
Megill's Metamath Proof Assistant. The completed Virtual Deduction Proof
(not shown) was minimized. The minimized proof is shown.
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
⊢ ((𝜑 → (𝜓 → (𝜒 → (𝜑 → 𝜃)))) ↔ (𝜓 → (𝜒 → (𝜑 → 𝜃)))) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Theorem | ee233 40846 |
Non-virtual deduction form of e233 41092. (Contributed by Alan Sare,
18-Mar-2012.)
(Proof modification is discouraged.) (New usage is discouraged.)
The following User's Proof is a Virtual Deduction proof completed
automatically by the tools program completeusersproof.cmd, which invokes
Mel L. O'Cat's mmj2 and Norm Megill's Metamath Proof Assistant. The
completed Virtual
Deduction Proof (not shown) was minimized. The minimized proof is
shown.
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
⊢ (𝜑 → (𝜓 → 𝜒)) & ⊢ (𝜑 → (𝜓 → (𝜃 → 𝜏))) & ⊢ (𝜑 → (𝜓 → (𝜃 → 𝜂))) & ⊢ (𝜒 → (𝜏 → (𝜂 → 𝜁))) ⇒ ⊢ (𝜑 → (𝜓 → (𝜃 → 𝜁))) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Theorem | imbi13 40847 | Join three logical equivalences to form equivalence of implications. imbi13 40847 is imbi13VD 41201 without virtual deductions and was automatically derived from imbi13VD 41201 using the tools program translate..without..overwriting.cmd and Metamath's minimize command. (Contributed by Alan Sare, 18-Mar-2012.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) (New usage is discouraged.) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
⊢ ((𝜑 ↔ 𝜓) → ((𝜒 ↔ 𝜃) → ((𝜏 ↔ 𝜂) → ((𝜑 → (𝜒 → 𝜏)) ↔ (𝜓 → (𝜃 → 𝜂)))))) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Theorem | ee33 40848 |
Non-virtual deduction form of e33 41061. (Contributed by Alan Sare,
18-Mar-2012.) (Proof modification is discouraged.)
(New usage is discouraged.)
The following User's Proof is a Virtual Deduction proof
completed automatically by the tools program completeusersproof.cmd,
which invokes Mel L. O'Cat's mmj2 and Norm Megill's Metamath Proof
Assistant. The completed Virtual Deduction Proof (not shown) was
minimized. The minimized proof is shown.
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
⊢ (𝜑 → (𝜓 → (𝜒 → 𝜃))) & ⊢ (𝜑 → (𝜓 → (𝜒 → 𝜏))) & ⊢ (𝜃 → (𝜏 → 𝜂)) ⇒ ⊢ (𝜑 → (𝜓 → (𝜒 → 𝜂))) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Theorem | con5 40849 | Biconditional contraposition variation. This proof is con5VD 41227 automatically translated and minimized. (Contributed by Alan Sare, 21-Apr-2013.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) (New usage is discouraged.) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
⊢ ((𝜑 ↔ ¬ 𝜓) → (¬ 𝜑 → 𝜓)) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Theorem | con5i 40850 | Inference form of con5 40849. (Contributed by Alan Sare, 21-Apr-2013.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) (New usage is discouraged.) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
⊢ (𝜑 ↔ ¬ 𝜓) ⇒ ⊢ (¬ 𝜑 → 𝜓) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Theorem | exlimexi 40851 | Inference similar to Theorem 19.23 of [Margaris] p. 90. (Contributed by Alan Sare, 21-Apr-2013.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) (New usage is discouraged.) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
⊢ (𝜓 → ∀𝑥𝜓) & ⊢ (∃𝑥𝜑 → (𝜑 → 𝜓)) ⇒ ⊢ (∃𝑥𝜑 → 𝜓) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Theorem | sb5ALT 40852* | Equivalence for substitution. Alternate proof of sb5 2272. This proof is sb5ALTVD 41240 automatically translated and minimized. (Contributed by Alan Sare, 21-Apr-2013.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) (New usage is discouraged.) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
⊢ ([𝑦 / 𝑥]𝜑 ↔ ∃𝑥(𝑥 = 𝑦 ∧ 𝜑)) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Theorem | eexinst01 40853 | exinst01 40952 without virtual deductions. (Contributed by Alan Sare, 21-Apr-2013.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) (New usage is discouraged.) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
⊢ ∃𝑥𝜓 & ⊢ (𝜑 → (𝜓 → 𝜒)) & ⊢ (𝜑 → ∀𝑥𝜑) & ⊢ (𝜒 → ∀𝑥𝜒) ⇒ ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝜒) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Theorem | eexinst11 40854 | exinst11 40953 without virtual deductions. (Contributed by Alan Sare, 21-Apr-2013.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) (New usage is discouraged.) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
⊢ (𝜑 → ∃𝑥𝜓) & ⊢ (𝜑 → (𝜓 → 𝜒)) & ⊢ (𝜑 → ∀𝑥𝜑) & ⊢ (𝜒 → ∀𝑥𝜒) ⇒ ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝜒) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Theorem | vk15.4j 40855 | Excercise 4j of Unit 15 of "Understanding Symbolic Logic", Fifth Edition (2008), by Virginia Klenk. This proof is the minimized Hilbert-style axiomatic version of the Fitch-style Natural Deduction proof found on page 442 of Klenk and was automatically derived from that proof. vk15.4j 40855 is vk15.4jVD 41241 automatically translated and minimized. (Contributed by Alan Sare, 21-Apr-2013.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) (New usage is discouraged.) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
⊢ ¬ (∃𝑥 ¬ 𝜑 ∧ ∃𝑥(𝜓 ∧ ¬ 𝜒)) & ⊢ (∀𝑥𝜒 → ¬ ∃𝑥(𝜃 ∧ 𝜏)) & ⊢ ¬ ∀𝑥(𝜏 → 𝜑) ⇒ ⊢ (¬ ∃𝑥 ¬ 𝜃 → ¬ ∀𝑥𝜓) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Theorem | notnotrALT 40856 | Converse of double negation. Alternate proof of notnotr 132. This proof is notnotrALTVD 41242 automatically translated and minimized. (Contributed by Alan Sare, 21-Apr-2013.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) (New usage is discouraged.) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
⊢ (¬ ¬ 𝜑 → 𝜑) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Theorem | con3ALT2 40857 | Contraposition. Alternate proof of con3 156. This proof is con3ALTVD 41243 automatically translated and minimized. (Contributed by Alan Sare, 21-Apr-2013.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) (New usage is discouraged.) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
⊢ ((𝜑 → 𝜓) → (¬ 𝜓 → ¬ 𝜑)) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Theorem | ssralv2 40858* | Quantification restricted to a subclass for two quantifiers. ssralv 4033 for two quantifiers. The proof of ssralv2 40858 was automatically generated by minimizing the automatically translated proof of ssralv2VD 41193. The automatic translation is by the tools program translate_without_overwriting.cmd. (Contributed by Alan Sare, 18-Feb-2012.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) (New usage is discouraged.) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
⊢ ((𝐴 ⊆ 𝐵 ∧ 𝐶 ⊆ 𝐷) → (∀𝑥 ∈ 𝐵 ∀𝑦 ∈ 𝐷 𝜑 → ∀𝑥 ∈ 𝐴 ∀𝑦 ∈ 𝐶 𝜑)) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Theorem | sbc3or 40859 | sbcor 3822 with a 3-disjuncts. This proof is sbc3orgVD 41178 automatically translated and minimized. (Contributed by Alan Sare, 31-Dec-2011.) (Revised by NM, 24-Aug-2018.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) (New usage is discouraged.) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
⊢ ([𝐴 / 𝑥](𝜑 ∨ 𝜓 ∨ 𝜒) ↔ ([𝐴 / 𝑥]𝜑 ∨ [𝐴 / 𝑥]𝜓 ∨ [𝐴 / 𝑥]𝜒)) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Theorem | alrim3con13v 40860* | Closed form of alrimi 2208 with 2 additional conjuncts having no occurrences of the quantifying variable. This proof is 19.21a3con13vVD 41179 automatically translated and minimized. (Contributed by Alan Sare, 31-Dec-2011.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) (New usage is discouraged.) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
⊢ ((𝜑 → ∀𝑥𝜑) → ((𝜓 ∧ 𝜑 ∧ 𝜒) → ∀𝑥(𝜓 ∧ 𝜑 ∧ 𝜒))) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Theorem | rspsbc2 40861* | rspsbc 3862 with two quantifying variables. This proof is rspsbc2VD 41182 automatically translated and minimized. (Contributed by Alan Sare, 31-Dec-2011.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) (New usage is discouraged.) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
⊢ (𝐴 ∈ 𝐵 → (𝐶 ∈ 𝐷 → (∀𝑥 ∈ 𝐵 ∀𝑦 ∈ 𝐷 𝜑 → [𝐶 / 𝑦][𝐴 / 𝑥]𝜑))) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Theorem | sbcoreleleq 40862* | Substitution of a setvar variable for another setvar variable in a 3-conjunct formula. Derived automatically from sbcoreleleqVD 41186. (Contributed by Alan Sare, 31-Dec-2011.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) (New usage is discouraged.) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
⊢ (𝐴 ∈ 𝑉 → ([𝐴 / 𝑦](𝑥 ∈ 𝑦 ∨ 𝑦 ∈ 𝑥 ∨ 𝑥 = 𝑦) ↔ (𝑥 ∈ 𝐴 ∨ 𝐴 ∈ 𝑥 ∨ 𝑥 = 𝐴))) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Theorem | tratrb 40863* | If a class is transitive and any two distinct elements of the class are E-comparable, then every element of that class is transitive. Derived automatically from tratrbVD 41188. (Contributed by Alan Sare, 31-Dec-2011.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) (New usage is discouraged.) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
⊢ ((Tr 𝐴 ∧ ∀𝑥 ∈ 𝐴 ∀𝑦 ∈ 𝐴 (𝑥 ∈ 𝑦 ∨ 𝑦 ∈ 𝑥 ∨ 𝑥 = 𝑦) ∧ 𝐵 ∈ 𝐴) → Tr 𝐵) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Theorem | ordelordALT 40864 | An element of an ordinal class is ordinal. Proposition 7.6 of [TakeutiZaring] p. 36. This is an alternate proof of ordelord 6208 using the Axiom of Regularity indirectly through dford2 9077. dford2 is a weaker definition of ordinal number. Given the Axiom of Regularity, it need not be assumed that E Fr 𝐴 because this is inferred by the Axiom of Regularity. ordelordALT 40864 is ordelordALTVD 41194 without virtual deductions and was automatically derived from ordelordALTVD 41194 using the tools program translate..without..overwriting.cmd and Metamath's minimize command. (Contributed by Alan Sare, 18-Feb-2012.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) (New usage is discouraged.) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
⊢ ((Ord 𝐴 ∧ 𝐵 ∈ 𝐴) → Ord 𝐵) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Theorem | sbcim2g 40865 | Distribution of class substitution over a left-nested implication. Similar to sbcimg 3820. sbcim2g 40865 is sbcim2gVD 41202 without virtual deductions and was automatically derived from sbcim2gVD 41202 using the tools program translate..without..overwriting.cmd and Metamath's minimize command. (Contributed by Alan Sare, 18-Mar-2012.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) (New usage is discouraged.) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
⊢ (𝐴 ∈ 𝑉 → ([𝐴 / 𝑥](𝜑 → (𝜓 → 𝜒)) ↔ ([𝐴 / 𝑥]𝜑 → ([𝐴 / 𝑥]𝜓 → [𝐴 / 𝑥]𝜒)))) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Theorem | sbcbi 40866 | Implication form of sbcbii 3829. sbcbi 40866 is sbcbiVD 41203 without virtual deductions and was automatically derived from sbcbiVD 41203 using the tools program translate..without..overwriting.cmd and Metamath's minimize command. (Contributed by Alan Sare, 18-Mar-2012.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) (New usage is discouraged.) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
⊢ (𝐴 ∈ 𝑉 → (∀𝑥(𝜑 ↔ 𝜓) → ([𝐴 / 𝑥]𝜑 ↔ [𝐴 / 𝑥]𝜓))) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Theorem | trsbc 40867* | Formula-building inference rule for class substitution, substituting a class variable for the setvar variable of the transitivity predicate. trsbc 40867 is trsbcVD 41204 without virtual deductions and was automatically derived from trsbcVD 41204 using the tools program translate..without..overwriting.cmd and Metamath's minimize command. (Contributed by Alan Sare, 18-Mar-2012.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) (New usage is discouraged.) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
⊢ (𝐴 ∈ 𝑉 → ([𝐴 / 𝑥]Tr 𝑥 ↔ Tr 𝐴)) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Theorem | truniALT 40868* | The union of a class of transitive sets is transitive. Alternate proof of truni 5179. truniALT 40868 is truniALTVD 41205 without virtual deductions and was automatically derived from truniALTVD 41205 using the tools program translate..without..overwriting.cmd and Metamath's minimize command. (Contributed by Alan Sare, 18-Mar-2012.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) (New usage is discouraged.) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
⊢ (∀𝑥 ∈ 𝐴 Tr 𝑥 → Tr ∪ 𝐴) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Theorem | onfrALTlem5 40869* | Lemma for onfrALT 40876. (Contributed by Alan Sare, 22-Jul-2012.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) (New usage is discouraged.) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
⊢ ([(𝑎 ∩ 𝑥) / 𝑏]((𝑏 ⊆ (𝑎 ∩ 𝑥) ∧ 𝑏 ≠ ∅) → ∃𝑦 ∈ 𝑏 (𝑏 ∩ 𝑦) = ∅) ↔ (((𝑎 ∩ 𝑥) ⊆ (𝑎 ∩ 𝑥) ∧ (𝑎 ∩ 𝑥) ≠ ∅) → ∃𝑦 ∈ (𝑎 ∩ 𝑥)((𝑎 ∩ 𝑥) ∩ 𝑦) = ∅)) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Theorem | onfrALTlem4 40870* | Lemma for onfrALT 40876. (Contributed by Alan Sare, 22-Jul-2012.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) (New usage is discouraged.) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
⊢ ([𝑦 / 𝑥](𝑥 ∈ 𝑎 ∧ (𝑎 ∩ 𝑥) = ∅) ↔ (𝑦 ∈ 𝑎 ∧ (𝑎 ∩ 𝑦) = ∅)) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Theorem | onfrALTlem3 40871* | Lemma for onfrALT 40876. (Contributed by Alan Sare, 22-Jul-2012.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) (New usage is discouraged.) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
⊢ ((𝑎 ⊆ On ∧ 𝑎 ≠ ∅) → ((𝑥 ∈ 𝑎 ∧ ¬ (𝑎 ∩ 𝑥) = ∅) → ∃𝑦 ∈ (𝑎 ∩ 𝑥)((𝑎 ∩ 𝑥) ∩ 𝑦) = ∅)) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Theorem | ggen31 40872* | gen31 40948 without virtual deductions. (Contributed by Alan Sare, 22-Jul-2012.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) (New usage is discouraged.) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
⊢ (𝜑 → (𝜓 → (𝜒 → 𝜃))) ⇒ ⊢ (𝜑 → (𝜓 → (𝜒 → ∀𝑥𝜃))) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Theorem | onfrALTlem2 40873* | Lemma for onfrALT 40876. (Contributed by Alan Sare, 22-Jul-2012.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) (New usage is discouraged.) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
⊢ ((𝑎 ⊆ On ∧ 𝑎 ≠ ∅) → ((𝑥 ∈ 𝑎 ∧ ¬ (𝑎 ∩ 𝑥) = ∅) → ∃𝑦 ∈ 𝑎 (𝑎 ∩ 𝑦) = ∅)) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Theorem | cbvexsv 40874* | A theorem pertaining to the substitution for an existentially quantified variable when the substituted variable does not occur in the quantified wff. (Contributed by Alan Sare, 22-Jul-2012.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) (New usage is discouraged.) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
⊢ (∃𝑥𝜑 ↔ ∃𝑦[𝑦 / 𝑥]𝜑) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Theorem | onfrALTlem1 40875* | Lemma for onfrALT 40876. (Contributed by Alan Sare, 22-Jul-2012.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) (New usage is discouraged.) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
⊢ ((𝑎 ⊆ On ∧ 𝑎 ≠ ∅) → ((𝑥 ∈ 𝑎 ∧ (𝑎 ∩ 𝑥) = ∅) → ∃𝑦 ∈ 𝑎 (𝑎 ∩ 𝑦) = ∅)) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Theorem | onfrALT 40876 | The membership relation is foundational on the class of ordinal numbers. onfrALT 40876 is an alternate proof of onfr 6225. onfrALTVD 41218 is the Virtual Deduction proof from which onfrALT 40876 is derived. The Virtual Deduction proof mirrors the working proof of onfr 6225 which is the main part of the proof of Theorem 7.12 of the first edition of TakeutiZaring. The proof of the corresponding Proposition 7.12 of [TakeutiZaring] p. 38 (second edition) does not contain the working proof equivalent of onfrALTVD 41218. This theorem does not rely on the Axiom of Regularity. (Contributed by Alan Sare, 22-Jul-2012.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) (New usage is discouraged.) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
⊢ E Fr On | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Theorem | 19.41rg 40877 | Closed form of right-to-left implication of 19.41 2232, Theorem 19.41 of [Margaris] p. 90. Derived from 19.41rgVD 41229. (Contributed by Alan Sare, 8-Feb-2014.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) (New usage is discouraged.) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
⊢ (∀𝑥(𝜓 → ∀𝑥𝜓) → ((∃𝑥𝜑 ∧ 𝜓) → ∃𝑥(𝜑 ∧ 𝜓))) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Theorem | opelopab4 40878* | Ordered pair membership in a class abstraction of pairs. Compare to elopab 5407. (Contributed by Alan Sare, 8-Feb-2014.) (Revised by Mario Carneiro, 6-May-2015.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) (New usage is discouraged.) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
⊢ (⟨𝑢, 𝑣⟩ ∈ {⟨𝑥, 𝑦⟩ ∣ 𝜑} ↔ ∃𝑥∃𝑦((𝑥 = 𝑢 ∧ 𝑦 = 𝑣) ∧ 𝜑)) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Theorem | 2pm13.193 40879 | pm13.193 40736 for two variables. pm13.193 40736 is Theorem *13.193 in [WhiteheadRussell] p. 179. Derived from 2pm13.193VD 41230. (Contributed by Alan Sare, 8-Feb-2014.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) (New usage is discouraged.) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
⊢ (((𝑥 = 𝑢 ∧ 𝑦 = 𝑣) ∧ [𝑢 / 𝑥][𝑣 / 𝑦]𝜑) ↔ ((𝑥 = 𝑢 ∧ 𝑦 = 𝑣) ∧ 𝜑)) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Theorem | hbntal 40880 | A closed form of hbn 2299. hbnt 2298 is another closed form of hbn 2299. (Contributed by Alan Sare, 8-Feb-2014.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) (New usage is discouraged.) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
⊢ (∀𝑥(𝜑 → ∀𝑥𝜑) → ∀𝑥(¬ 𝜑 → ∀𝑥 ¬ 𝜑)) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Theorem | hbimpg 40881 | A closed form of hbim 2303. Derived from hbimpgVD 41231. (Contributed by Alan Sare, 8-Feb-2014.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) (New usage is discouraged.) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
⊢ ((∀𝑥(𝜑 → ∀𝑥𝜑) ∧ ∀𝑥(𝜓 → ∀𝑥𝜓)) → ∀𝑥((𝜑 → 𝜓) → ∀𝑥(𝜑 → 𝜓))) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Theorem | hbalg 40882 | Closed form of hbal 2169. Derived from hbalgVD 41232. (Contributed by Alan Sare, 8-Feb-2014.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) (New usage is discouraged.) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
⊢ (∀𝑦(𝜑 → ∀𝑥𝜑) → ∀𝑦(∀𝑦𝜑 → ∀𝑥∀𝑦𝜑)) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Theorem | hbexg 40883 | Closed form of nfex 2339. Derived from hbexgVD 41233. (Contributed by Alan Sare, 8-Feb-2014.) (Revised by Mario Carneiro, 12-Dec-2016.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) (New usage is discouraged.) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
⊢ (∀𝑥∀𝑦(𝜑 → ∀𝑥𝜑) → ∀𝑥∀𝑦(∃𝑦𝜑 → ∀𝑥∃𝑦𝜑)) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Theorem | ax6e2eq 40884* | Alternate form of ax6e 2397 for non-distinct 𝑥, 𝑦 and 𝑢 = 𝑣. ax6e2eq 40884 is derived from ax6e2eqVD 41234. (Contributed by Alan Sare, 25-Mar-2014.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) (New usage is discouraged.) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
⊢ (∀𝑥 𝑥 = 𝑦 → (𝑢 = 𝑣 → ∃𝑥∃𝑦(𝑥 = 𝑢 ∧ 𝑦 = 𝑣))) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Theorem | ax6e2nd 40885* | If at least two sets exist (dtru 5264) , then the same is true expressed in an alternate form similar to the form of ax6e 2397. ax6e2nd 40885 is derived from ax6e2ndVD 41235. (Contributed by Alan Sare, 25-Mar-2014.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) (New usage is discouraged.) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
⊢ (¬ ∀𝑥 𝑥 = 𝑦 → ∃𝑥∃𝑦(𝑥 = 𝑢 ∧ 𝑦 = 𝑣)) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Theorem | ax6e2ndeq 40886* | "At least two sets exist" expressed in the form of dtru 5264 is logically equivalent to the same expressed in a form similar to ax6e 2397 if dtru 5264 is false implies 𝑢 = 𝑣. ax6e2ndeq 40886 is derived from ax6e2ndeqVD 41236. (Contributed by Alan Sare, 25-Mar-2014.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) (New usage is discouraged.) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
⊢ ((¬ ∀𝑥 𝑥 = 𝑦 ∨ 𝑢 = 𝑣) ↔ ∃𝑥∃𝑦(𝑥 = 𝑢 ∧ 𝑦 = 𝑣)) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Theorem | 2sb5nd 40887* | Equivalence for double substitution 2sb5 2278 without distinct 𝑥, 𝑦 requirement. 2sb5nd 40887 is derived from 2sb5ndVD 41237. (Contributed by Alan Sare, 30-Apr-2014.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) (New usage is discouraged.) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
⊢ ((¬ ∀𝑥 𝑥 = 𝑦 ∨ 𝑢 = 𝑣) → ([𝑢 / 𝑥][𝑣 / 𝑦]𝜑 ↔ ∃𝑥∃𝑦((𝑥 = 𝑢 ∧ 𝑦 = 𝑣) ∧ 𝜑))) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Theorem | 2uasbanh 40888* | Distribute the unabbreviated form of proper substitution in and out of a conjunction. 2uasbanh 40888 is derived from 2uasbanhVD 41238. (Contributed by Alan Sare, 31-May-2014.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) (New usage is discouraged.) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
⊢ (𝜒 ↔ (∃𝑥∃𝑦((𝑥 = 𝑢 ∧ 𝑦 = 𝑣) ∧ 𝜑) ∧ ∃𝑥∃𝑦((𝑥 = 𝑢 ∧ 𝑦 = 𝑣) ∧ 𝜓))) ⇒ ⊢ (∃𝑥∃𝑦((𝑥 = 𝑢 ∧ 𝑦 = 𝑣) ∧ (𝜑 ∧ 𝜓)) ↔ (∃𝑥∃𝑦((𝑥 = 𝑢 ∧ 𝑦 = 𝑣) ∧ 𝜑) ∧ ∃𝑥∃𝑦((𝑥 = 𝑢 ∧ 𝑦 = 𝑣) ∧ 𝜓))) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Theorem | 2uasban 40889* | Distribute the unabbreviated form of proper substitution in and out of a conjunction. (Contributed by Alan Sare, 31-May-2014.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) (New usage is discouraged.) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
⊢ (∃𝑥∃𝑦((𝑥 = 𝑢 ∧ 𝑦 = 𝑣) ∧ (𝜑 ∧ 𝜓)) ↔ (∃𝑥∃𝑦((𝑥 = 𝑢 ∧ 𝑦 = 𝑣) ∧ 𝜑) ∧ ∃𝑥∃𝑦((𝑥 = 𝑢 ∧ 𝑦 = 𝑣) ∧ 𝜓))) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Theorem | e2ebind 40890 | Absorption of an existential quantifier of a double existential quantifier of non-distinct variables. e2ebind 40890 is derived from e2ebindVD 41239. (Contributed by Alan Sare, 27-Nov-2014.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) (New usage is discouraged.) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
⊢ (∀𝑥 𝑥 = 𝑦 → (∃𝑥∃𝑦𝜑 ↔ ∃𝑦𝜑)) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Theorem | elpwgded 40891 | elpwgdedVD 41244 in conventional notation. (Contributed by Alan Sare, 23-Apr-2015.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) (New usage is discouraged.) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
⊢ (𝜑 → 𝐴 ∈ V) & ⊢ (𝜓 → 𝐴 ⊆ 𝐵) ⇒ ⊢ ((𝜑 ∧ 𝜓) → 𝐴 ∈ 𝒫 𝐵) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Theorem | trelded 40892 | Deduction form of trel 5172. In a transitive class, the membership relation is transitive. (Contributed by Alan Sare, 3-Dec-2015.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) (New usage is discouraged.) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
⊢ (𝜑 → Tr 𝐴) & ⊢ (𝜓 → 𝐵 ∈ 𝐶) & ⊢ (𝜒 → 𝐶 ∈ 𝐴) ⇒ ⊢ ((𝜑 ∧ 𝜓 ∧ 𝜒) → 𝐵 ∈ 𝐴) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Theorem | jaoded 40893 | Deduction form of jao 957. Disjunction of antecedents. (Contributed by Alan Sare, 3-Dec-2015.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) (New usage is discouraged.) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
⊢ (𝜑 → (𝜓 → 𝜒)) & ⊢ (𝜃 → (𝜏 → 𝜒)) & ⊢ (𝜂 → (𝜓 ∨ 𝜏)) ⇒ ⊢ ((𝜑 ∧ 𝜃 ∧ 𝜂) → 𝜒) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Theorem | sbtT 40894 | A substitution into a theorem remains true. sbt 2067 with the existence of no virtual hypotheses for the hypothesis expressed as the empty virtual hypothesis collection. (Contributed by Alan Sare, 4-Feb-2017.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) (New usage is discouraged.) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
⊢ (⊤ → 𝜑) ⇒ ⊢ [𝑦 / 𝑥]𝜑 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Theorem | not12an2impnot1 40895 | If a double conjunction is false and the second conjunct is true, then the first conjunct is false. https://us.metamath.org/other/completeusersproof/not12an2impnot1vd.html is the Virtual Deduction proof verified by automatically transforming it into the Metamath proof of not12an2impnot1 40895 using completeusersproof, which is verified by the Metamath program. https://us.metamath.org/other/completeusersproof/not12an2impnot1ro.html 40895 is a form of the completed proof which preserves the Virtual Deduction proof's step numbers and their ordering. (Contributed by Alan Sare, 13-Jun-2018.) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
⊢ ((¬ (𝜑 ∧ 𝜓) ∧ 𝜓) → ¬ 𝜑) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Syntax | wvd1 40896 |
A Virtual Deduction proof in a Hilbert-style deductive system is the
analogue of a sequent calculus proof. A theorem is proven in a Gentzen
system in order to prove more directly, which may be more intuitive
and easier for some people. The analogue of this proof in Metamath's
Hilbert-style system is verified by the Metamath program.
Natural Deduction is a well-known proof method orignally proposed by Gentzen in 1935 and comprehensively summarized by Prawitz in his 1965 monograph "Natural deduction: a proof-theoretical study". Gentzen wished to construct "a formalism that comes as close as possible to natural reasoning". Natural deduction is a response to dissatisfaction with axiomatic proofs such as Hilbert-style axiomatic proofs, which the proofs of Metamath are. In 1926, in Poland, Lukasiewicz advocated a more natural treatment of logic. Jaskowski made the earliest attempts at defining a more natural deduction. Natural deduction in its modern form was independently proposed by Gentzen. Sequent calculus, the chief alternative to Natural Deduction, was created by Gentzen. The following is an excerpt from Stephen Cole Kleene's seminal 1952 book "Introduction to Metamathematics", which contains the first formulation of sequent calculus in the modern style. Kleene states on page 440: . . . the proof (of Gentzen's Hauptsatz) breaks down into a list of cases, each of which is simple to handle. . . . Gentzen's normal form for proofs in the predicate calculus requires a different classification of the deductive steps than is given by the postulates of the formal system of predicate calculus of Chapter IV (Section 19). The implication symbol → (the Metamath symbol for implication has been substituted here for the symbol used by Kleene) has to be separated in its role of mediating inferences from its role as a component symbol of the formula being proved. In the former role it will be replaced by a new formal symbol → (read "gives" or "entails"), to which properties will be assigned similar to those of the informal symbol ⊢ in our former derived rules. Gentzen's classification of the deductive operations is made explicit by setting up a new formal system of the predicate calculus. The formal system of propositional and predicate calculus studied previously (Chapters IV ff.) we call now a "Hilbert-type system", and denote by H. Precisely, H denotes any one or a particular one of several systems, according to whether we are considering propositional calculus or predicate calculus, in the classical or the intuitionistic version (Section 23), and according to the sense in which we are using "term" and "formula" (Sections 117,25,31,37,72-76). The same respective choices will apply to the "Gentzen-type system G1" which we introduce now and the G2, G3 and G3a later. The transformation or deductive rules of G1 will apply to objects which are not formulas of the system H, but are built from them by an additional formation rule, so we use a new term "sequent" for these objects. (Gentzen says "Sequenz", which we translate as "sequent", because we have already used "sequence" for any succession of objects, where the German is "Folge".) A sequent is a formal expression of the form 𝜑, . . . , 𝜓 → 𝜒, . . . , 𝜃 where 𝜑 , . . . , 𝜓 and 𝜒, . . . , 𝜃 are seqences of a finite number of 0 or more formulas (substituting Metamath notation for Kleene's notation). The part 𝜑, . . . , 𝜓 is the antecedent, and 𝜒, . . . , 𝜃 the succedent of the sequent 𝜑, . . . , 𝜓 → 𝜒, . . . , 𝜃. When the antecedent and the succedent each have a finite number of 1 or more formulas, the sequent 𝜑, . . . , 𝜓 → 𝜒, . . . 𝜃 has the same interpretation for G1 as the formula ((𝜑 ∧. . . ∧ 𝜓) → (𝜒 ∨. . . ∨ 𝜃)) for H. The interpretation extends to the case of an antecedent of 0 formulas by regarding (𝜑 ∧. . . ∧ 𝜓) for 0 formulas (the "empty conjunction") as true and (𝜒 ∨. . . ∨ 𝜃) for 0 formulas (the "empty disjunction") as false. . . . As in Chapter V, we use Greek capitals . . . to stand for finite sequences of zero or more formulas, but now also as antecedent (succedent), or parts of antecedent (succedent), with separating formal commas included. . . . (End of Kleene excerpt) In chapter V entitled "Formal Deduction" Kleene states, on page 86: Section 20. Formal deduction. Formal proofs of even quite elementary theorems tend to be long. As a price for having analyzed logical deduction into simple steps, more of those steps have to be used. The purpose of formalizing a theory is to get an explicit definition of what constitutes proof in the theory. Having achieved this, there is no need always to appeal directly to the definition. The labor required to establish the formal provability of formulas can be greatly lessened by using metamathematical theorems concerning the existence of formal proofs. If the demonstrations of those theorems do have the finitary character which metamathematics is supposed to have, the demonstrations will indicate, at least implicitly, methods for obtaining the formal proofs. The use of the metamathematical theorems then amounts to abbreviation, often of very great extent, in the presentation of formal proofs. The simpler of such metamathematical theorems we shall call derived rules, since they express principles which can be said to be derived from the postulated rules by showing that the use of them as additional methods of inference does not increase the class of provable formulas. We shall seek by means of derived rules to bring the methods for establishing the facts of formal provability as close as possible to the informal methods of the theory which is being formalized. In setting up the formal system, proof was given the simplest possible structure, consisting of a single sequence of formulas. Some of our derived rules, called "direct rules", will serve to abbreviate for us whole segments of such a sequence; we can then, so to speak, use these segments as prefabricated units in building proofs. But also, in mathematical practice, proofs are common which have a more complicated structure, employing "subsidiary deduction", i.e., deduction under assumptions for the sake of the argument, which assumptions are subsequently discharged. For example, subsidiary deduction is used in a proof by reductio ad absurdum, and less obtrusively when we place the hypothesis of a theorem on a par with proved propositions to deduce the conclusion. Other derived rules, called "subsidiary deduction rules", will give us this kind of procedure. We now introduce, by a metamathematical definition, the notion of "formal deducibility under assumptions". Given a list 𝜑, . . . 𝜓 of 0 or more (occurrences of) formulas, a finite sequence of one or more (occurrences of) formulas is called a (formal) deduction from the assumption formulas 𝜑, . . . 𝜓, if each formula of the sequence is either one of the formulas 𝜑, . . . 𝜓, or an axiom, or an immediate consequence of preceding formulas of a sequence. A deduction is said to be deducible from the assumption formulas (in symbols, 𝜑,. . . . ,. 𝜓⊢ 𝜒), and is called the conclusion (or endformula) of the deduction. (The symbol ⊢ may be read "yields".) (End of Kleene excerpt) Gentzen's normal form is a certain direct fashion for proofs and deductions. His sequent calculus, formulated in the modern style by Kleene, is the classical system G1. In this system, the new formal symbol → has properties similar to the informal symbol ⊢ of Kleene's above language of formal deducibility under assumptions. Kleene states on page 440: . . . This leads us to inquire whether there may not be a theorem about the predicate calculus asserting that, if a formula is provable (or deducible from other formulas), it is provable (or deducible) in a certain direct fashion; in other words, a theorem giving a normal form for proofs and deductions, the proofs and deduction in normal form being in some sense direct. (End of Kleene excerpt) There is such a theorem, which was proven by Kleene. Formal proofs in H of even quite elementary theorems tend to be long. As a price for having analyzed logical deduction into simple steps, more of those steps have to be used. The proofs of Metamath are fully detailed formal proofs. We wish to have a means of writing rigorously verifiable mathematical proofs in a more direct fashion. Natural Deduction is a system for proving theorems and deductions in a more direct fashion. However, Natural Deduction is not compatible for use with Metamath, which uses a Hilbert-type system. Instead, Kleene's classical system G1 may be used for proving Metamath deductions and theorems in a more direct fashion. The system of Metamath is an H system, not a Gentzen system. Therefore, proofs in Kleene's classical system G1 ("G1") cannot be included in Metamath's system H, which we shall henceforth call "system H" or "H". However, we may translate proofs in G1 into proofs in H. By Kleene's THEOREM 47 (page 446)
By Kleene's COROLLARY of THEOREM 47 (page 448)
▶ denotes the same connective denoted by →. " , " , in the context of Virtual Deduction, denotes the same connective denoted by ∧. This Virtual Deduction notation is specified by the following set.mm definitions:
▶ replaces → in the analogue in H of a sequent in G1 having a nonempty antecedent. If ▶ occurs as the outermost connective denoted by ▶ or → and occurs exactly once, we call the analogue in H of a sequent in G1 a "virtual deduction" because the corresponding → of the sequent is assigned properties similar to ⊢ . While sequent calculus proofs (proofs in G1) may have as steps sequents with 0, 1, or more formulas in the succedent, we shall only prove in G1 using sequents with exactly 1 formula in the succedent. The User proves in G1 in order to obtain the benefits of more direct proving using sequent calculus, then translates the proof in G1 into a proof in H. The reference theorems and deductions to be used for proving in G1 are translations of theorems and deductions in set.mm. Each theorem ⊢ 𝜑 in set.mm corresponds to the theorem ⊢ → 𝜑 in G1. Deductions in G1 corresponding to deductions in H are similarly determined. Theorems in H with one or more occurrences of either ▶ or → may also be translated into theorems in G1 for by replacing the outermost occurrence of ▶ or → of the theorem in H with →. Deductions in H may be translated into deductions in G1 in a similar manner. The only theorems and deductions in H useful for proving in G1 for the purpose of obtaining proofs in H are those in which, for each hypothesis or assertion, there are 0 or 1 occurrences of ▶ and it is the outermost occurrence of ▶ or →. Kleene's THEOREM 46 and its COROLLARY 2 are used for translating from H to G1. By Kleene's THEOREM 46 (page 445)
By Kleene's COROLLARY 2 of THEOREM 46 (page 446)
To prove in H, the User simply proves in G1 and translates each G1-proof step into a H-proof step. The translation is trivial and immediate. The proof in H is in Virtual Deduction notation. It is a working proof in the sense that, if it has no errors, each theorem and deduction of the proof is true, but may or may not, after being translated into conventional notation, unify with any theorem or deduction scheme in set.mm. Each theorem or deduction scheme in set.mm has a particular form. The working proof written by the User (the "User's Proof" or "Virtual Deduction Proof") may contain theorems and deductions which would unify with a variant of a theorem or deduction scheme in set.mm, but not with any particular form of that theorem or deduction scheme in set.mm. The computer program completeusersproof.c may be applied to a Virtual Deduction proof to automatically add steps to the proof ("technical steps") which, if possible, transforms the form of a theorem or deduction of the Virtual Deduction proof not unifiable with a theorem or deduction scheme in set.mm into a variant form which is. For theorems and deductions of the Virtual Deduction proof which are completable in this way, completeusersproof saves the User the extra work involved in satisfying the constraint that the theorem or deduction is in a form which unifies with a theorem or deduction scheme in set.mm. mmj2, which is invoked by completeusersproof, automatically finds one of the reference theorems or deductions in set.mm which unifies with each theorem and deduction in the proof satisfying this constraint and labels the theorem or the assertion step of the deduction. The analogs in H of the postulates of G1 are the set.mm postulates. The postulates in G1 corresponding to the Metamath postulates are not the classical system G1 postulates of Kleene (pages 442 and 443). set.mm has the predicate calculus postulates and other posulates. The Kleene classical system G1 postulates correspond to predicate calculus postulates which differ from the Metamath system G1 postulates corresponding to the predicate calculus postulates of Metamath's system H. Metamath's predicate calculus G1 postulates are presumably deducible from the Kleene classical G1 postulates and the Kleene classical G1 postulates are deducible from Metamath's G1 postulates. It should be recognized that, because of the different postulates, the classical G1 system corresponding to Metamath's system H is not identical to Kleene's classical system G1. Why not create a separate database (setg.mm) of proofs in G1, avoiding the need to translate from H to G1 and from G1 back to H? The translations are trivial. Sequents make the language more complex than is necessary. More direct proving using sequent calculus may be done as a means towards the end of constructing proofs in H. Then, the language may be kept as simple as possible. A system G1 database would be redundant because it would duplicate the information contained in the corresponding system H database. For earlier proofs, each "User's Proof" in the web page description of a Virtual Deduction proof in set.mm is the analogue in H of the User's working proof in G1. The User's Proof is automatically completed by completeusersproof.cmd (superseded by completeusersproof.c in September of 2016). The completed proof is the Virtual Deduction proof, which is the analogue in H of the corresponding fully detailed proof in G1. The completed Virtual Deduction proof of these earlier proofs may be automatically translated into a conventional Metamath proof. The input for completeusersproof.c is a Virtual Deduction proof. Unlike completeusersproof.cmd, the completed proof is in conventional notation. completeusersproof.c eliminates the virtual deduction notation of the Virtual Deduction proof after utilizing the information it provides. Applying mmj2's unify command is essential to completeusersproof. The mmj2 program is invoked within the completeusersproof.c function mmj2Unify(). The original mmj2 program was written by Mel L. O'Cat. Mario Carneiro has enhanced it. mmj2Unify() is called multiple times during the execution of completeusersproof. A Virtual Deduction proof is a Metamath-specific version of a Natural Deduction Proof. In order for mmj2 to complete a Virtual Deduction proof it is necessary that each theorem or deduction of the proof is in a form which unifies with a theorem or deduction scheme in set.mm. completeusersproof weakens this constraint. The User may write a Virtual Deduction proof and automatically transform it into a complete Metamath proof using the completeusersproof tool. The completed proof has been checked by the Metamath program. The task of writing a complete Metamath proof is reduced to writing what is essentially a Natural Deduction Proof. The completeusersproof program and all associated files necessary to use it may be downloaded from the Metamath web site. All syntax definitions, theorems, and deductions necessary to create Virtual Deduction proofs are contained in set.mm. Examples of Virtual Deduction proofs in mmj2 Proof Worksheet .txt format are included in the completeusersproof download. https://us.metamath.org/other/completeusersproof/suctrvd.html 40921, https://us.metamath.org/other/completeusersproof/sineq0altvd.html 40921, https://us.metamath.org/other/completeusersproof/iunconlem2vd.html 40921, https://us.metamath.org/other/completeusersproof/isosctrlem1altvd.html 40921, and https://us.metamath.org/other/completeusersproof/chordthmaltvd.html 40921 are examples of Virtual Deduction proofs. Generally, proving using Virtual Deduction and completeusersproof reduces the amount of Metamath-specific knowledge required by the User. Often, no knowledge of the specific theorems and deductions in set.mm is required to write some of the subproofs of a Virtual Deduction proof. Often, no knowledge of the Metamath-specific names of reference theorems and deductions in set.mm is required for writing some of the subproofs of a User's Proof. Often, the User may write subproofs of a proof using theorems or deductions commonly used in mathematics and correctly assume that some form of each is contained in set.mm and that completeusersproof will automatically generate the technical steps necessary to utilize them to complete the subproofs. Often, the fraction of the work which may be considered tedious is reduced and the total amount of work is reduced. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
wff ( 𝜑 ▶ 𝜓 ) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Definition | df-vd1 40897 | Definition of virtual deduction. (Contributed by Alan Sare, 21-Apr-2011.) (New usage is discouraged.) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
⊢ (( 𝜑 ▶ 𝜓 ) ↔ (𝜑 → 𝜓)) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Theorem | in1 40898 | Inference form of df-vd1 40897. Virtual deduction introduction rule of converting the virtual hypothesis of a 1-virtual hypothesis virtual deduction into an antecedent. (Contributed by Alan Sare, 14-Nov-2011.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) (New usage is discouraged.) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
⊢ ( 𝜑 ▶ 𝜓 ) ⇒ ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝜓) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Theorem | iin1 40899 | in1 40898 without virtual deductions. (Contributed by Alan Sare, 23-Jul-2011.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) (New usage is discouraged.) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
⊢ (𝜑 → 𝜓) ⇒ ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝜓) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Theorem | dfvd1ir 40900 | Inference form of df-vd1 40897 with the virtual deduction as the assertion. (Contributed by Alan Sare, 14-Nov-2011.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) (New usage is discouraged.) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
⊢ (𝜑 → 𝜓) ⇒ ⊢ ( 𝜑 ▶ 𝜓 ) |
< Previous Next > |
Copyright terms: Public domain | < Previous Next > |