P. 470 of Theorem List - Metamath Proof Explorer

Theorem List for Metamath Proof Explorer - 46901-47000   *Has distinct variable group(s)

Type	Label	Description
Statement
Theorem	abnotataxb 46901	Assuming not a, b, there exists a proof a-xor-b.) (Contributed by Jarvin Udandy, 31-Aug-2016.)
⊢ ¬ 𝜑    &   ⊢ 𝜓    ⇒   ⊢ (𝜑 ⊻ 𝜓)
Theorem	conimpf 46902	Assuming a, not b, and a implies b, there exists a proof that a is false.) (Contributed by Jarvin Udandy, 28-Aug-2016.)
⊢ 𝜑    &   ⊢ ¬ 𝜓    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝜓)    ⇒   ⊢ (𝜑 ↔ ⊥)
Theorem	conimpfalt 46903	Assuming a, not b, and a implies b, there exists a proof that a is false.) (Contributed by Jarvin Udandy, 29-Aug-2016.)
⊢ 𝜑    &   ⊢ ¬ 𝜓    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝜓)    ⇒   ⊢ (𝜑 ↔ ⊥)
Theorem	aistbisfiaxb 46904	Given a is equivalent to T., Given b is equivalent to F. there exists a proof for a-xor-b. (Contributed by Jarvin Udandy, 31-Aug-2016.)
⊢ (𝜑 ↔ ⊤)    &   ⊢ (𝜓 ↔ ⊥)    ⇒   ⊢ (𝜑 ⊻ 𝜓)
Theorem	aisfbistiaxb 46905	Given a is equivalent to F., Given b is equivalent to T., there exists a proof for a-xor-b. (Contributed by Jarvin Udandy, 31-Aug-2016.)
⊢ (𝜑 ↔ ⊥)    &   ⊢ (𝜓 ↔ ⊤)    ⇒   ⊢ (𝜑 ⊻ 𝜓)
Theorem	aifftbifffaibif 46906	Given a is equivalent to T., Given b is equivalent to F., there exists a proof for that a implies b is false. (Contributed by Jarvin Udandy, 7-Sep-2020.)
⊢ (𝜑 ↔ ⊤)    &   ⊢ (𝜓 ↔ ⊥)    ⇒   ⊢ ((𝜑 → 𝜓) ↔ ⊥)
Theorem	aifftbifffaibifff 46907	Given a is equivalent to T., Given b is equivalent to F., there exists a proof for that a iff b is false. (Contributed by Jarvin Udandy, 7-Sep-2020.)
⊢ (𝜑 ↔ ⊤)    &   ⊢ (𝜓 ↔ ⊥)    ⇒   ⊢ ((𝜑 ↔ 𝜓) ↔ ⊥)
Theorem	atnaiana 46908	Given a, it is not the case a implies a self contradiction. (Contributed by Jarvin Udandy, 7-Sep-2020.)
⊢ 𝜑    ⇒   ⊢ ¬ (𝜑 → (𝜑 ∧ ¬ 𝜑))
Theorem	ainaiaandna 46909	Given a, a implies it is not the case a implies a self contradiction. (Contributed by Jarvin Udandy, 7-Sep-2020.)
⊢ 𝜑    ⇒   ⊢ (𝜑 → ¬ (𝜑 → (𝜑 ∧ ¬ 𝜑)))
Theorem	abcdta 46910	Given (((a and b) and c) and d), there exists a proof for a. (Contributed by Jarvin Udandy, 3-Sep-2016.)
⊢ (((𝜑 ∧ 𝜓) ∧ 𝜒) ∧ 𝜃)    ⇒   ⊢ 𝜑
Theorem	abcdtb 46911	Given (((a and b) and c) and d), there exists a proof for b. (Contributed by Jarvin Udandy, 3-Sep-2016.)
⊢ (((𝜑 ∧ 𝜓) ∧ 𝜒) ∧ 𝜃)    ⇒   ⊢ 𝜓
Theorem	abcdtc 46912	Given (((a and b) and c) and d), there exists a proof for c. (Contributed by Jarvin Udandy, 3-Sep-2016.)
⊢ (((𝜑 ∧ 𝜓) ∧ 𝜒) ∧ 𝜃)    ⇒   ⊢ 𝜒
Theorem	abcdtd 46913	Given (((a and b) and c) and d), there exists a proof for d. (Contributed by Jarvin Udandy, 3-Sep-2016.)
⊢ (((𝜑 ∧ 𝜓) ∧ 𝜒) ∧ 𝜃)    ⇒   ⊢ 𝜃
Theorem	abciffcbatnabciffncba 46914	Operands in a biconditional expression converted negated. Additionally biconditional converted to show antecedent implies sequent. Closed form. (Contributed by Jarvin Udandy, 7-Sep-2020.)
⊢ (¬ ((𝜑 ∧ 𝜓) ∧ 𝜒) → ¬ ((𝜒 ∧ 𝜓) ∧ 𝜑))
Theorem	abciffcbatnabciffncbai 46915	Operands in a biconditional expression converted negated. Additionally biconditional converted to show antecedent implies sequent. (Contributed by Jarvin Udandy, 7-Sep-2020.)
⊢ (((𝜑 ∧ 𝜓) ∧ 𝜒) ↔ ((𝜒 ∧ 𝜓) ∧ 𝜑))    ⇒   ⊢ (¬ ((𝜑 ∧ 𝜓) ∧ 𝜒) → ¬ ((𝜒 ∧ 𝜓) ∧ 𝜑))
Theorem	nabctnabc 46916	not ( a -> ( b /\ c ) ) we can show: not a implies ( b /\ c ). (Contributed by Jarvin Udandy, 7-Sep-2020.)
⊢ ¬ (𝜑 → (𝜓 ∧ 𝜒))    ⇒   ⊢ (¬ 𝜑 → (𝜓 ∧ 𝜒))
Theorem	jabtaib 46917	For when pm3.4 lacks a pm3.4i. (Contributed by Jarvin Udandy, 9-Sep-2020.)
⊢ (𝜑 ∧ 𝜓)    ⇒   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝜓)
Theorem	onenotinotbothi 46918	From one negated implication it is not the case its nonnegated form and a random others are both true. (Contributed by Jarvin Udandy, 11-Sep-2020.)
⊢ ¬ (𝜑 → 𝜓)    ⇒   ⊢ ¬ ((𝜑 → 𝜓) ∧ (𝜒 → 𝜃))
Theorem	twonotinotbothi 46919	From these two negated implications it is not the case their nonnegated forms are both true. (Contributed by Jarvin Udandy, 11-Sep-2020.)
⊢ ¬ (𝜑 → 𝜓)    &   ⊢ ¬ (𝜒 → 𝜃)    ⇒   ⊢ ¬ ((𝜑 → 𝜓) ∧ (𝜒 → 𝜃))
Theorem	clifte 46920	show d is the same as an if-else involving a,b. (Contributed by Jarvin Udandy, 20-Sep-2020.)
⊢ (𝜑 ∧ ¬ 𝜒)    &   ⊢ 𝜃    ⇒   ⊢ (𝜃 ↔ ((𝜑 ∧ ¬ 𝜒) ∨ (𝜓 ∧ 𝜒)))
Theorem	cliftet 46921	show d is the same as an if-else involving a,b. (Contributed by Jarvin Udandy, 20-Sep-2020.)
⊢ (𝜑 ∧ 𝜒)    &   ⊢ 𝜃    ⇒   ⊢ (𝜃 ↔ ((𝜑 ∧ 𝜒) ∨ (𝜓 ∧ ¬ 𝜒)))
Theorem	clifteta 46922	show d is the same as an if-else involving a,b. (Contributed by Jarvin Udandy, 20-Sep-2020.)
⊢ ((𝜑 ∧ ¬ 𝜒) ∨ (𝜓 ∧ 𝜒))    &   ⊢ 𝜃    ⇒   ⊢ (𝜃 ↔ ((𝜑 ∧ ¬ 𝜒) ∨ (𝜓 ∧ 𝜒)))
Theorem	cliftetb 46923	show d is the same as an if-else involving a,b. (Contributed by Jarvin Udandy, 20-Sep-2020.)
⊢ ((𝜑 ∧ 𝜒) ∨ (𝜓 ∧ ¬ 𝜒))    &   ⊢ 𝜃    ⇒   ⊢ (𝜃 ↔ ((𝜑 ∧ 𝜒) ∨ (𝜓 ∧ ¬ 𝜒)))
Theorem	confun 46924	Given the hypotheses there exists a proof for (c implies ( d iff a ) ). (Contributed by Jarvin Udandy, 6-Sep-2020.)
⊢ 𝜑    &   ⊢ (𝜒 → 𝜓)    &   ⊢ (𝜒 → 𝜃)    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → (𝜑 → 𝜓))    ⇒   ⊢ (𝜒 → (𝜃 ↔ 𝜑))
Theorem	confun2 46925	Confun simplified to two propositions. (Contributed by Jarvin Udandy, 6-Sep-2020.)
⊢ (𝜓 → 𝜑)    &   ⊢ (𝜓 → ¬ (𝜓 → (𝜓 ∧ ¬ 𝜓)))    &   ⊢ ((𝜓 → 𝜑) → ((𝜓 → 𝜑) → 𝜑))    ⇒   ⊢ (𝜓 → (¬ (𝜓 → (𝜓 ∧ ¬ 𝜓)) ↔ (𝜓 → 𝜑)))
Theorem	confun3 46926	Confun's more complex form where both a,d have been "defined". (Contributed by Jarvin Udandy, 6-Sep-2020.)
⊢ (𝜑 ↔ (𝜒 → 𝜓))    &   ⊢ (𝜃 ↔ ¬ (𝜒 → (𝜒 ∧ ¬ 𝜒)))    &   ⊢ (𝜒 → 𝜓)    &   ⊢ (𝜒 → ¬ (𝜒 → (𝜒 ∧ ¬ 𝜒)))    &   ⊢ ((𝜒 → 𝜓) → ((𝜒 → 𝜓) → 𝜓))    ⇒   ⊢ (𝜒 → (¬ (𝜒 → (𝜒 ∧ ¬ 𝜒)) ↔ (𝜒 → 𝜓)))
Theorem	confun4 46927	An attempt at derivative. Resisted simplest path to a proof. (Contributed by Jarvin Udandy, 6-Sep-2020.)
⊢ 𝜑    &   ⊢ ((𝜑 → 𝜓) → 𝜓)    &   ⊢ (𝜓 → (𝜑 → 𝜒))    &   ⊢ ((𝜒 → 𝜃) → ((𝜑 → 𝜃) ↔ 𝜓))    &   ⊢ (𝜏 ↔ (𝜒 → 𝜃))    &   ⊢ (𝜂 ↔ ¬ (𝜒 → (𝜒 ∧ ¬ 𝜒)))    &   ⊢ 𝜓    &   ⊢ (𝜒 → 𝜃)    ⇒   ⊢ (𝜒 → (𝜓 → 𝜏))
Theorem	confun5 46928	An attempt at derivative. Resisted simplest path to a proof. Interesting that ch, th, ta, et were all provable. (Contributed by Jarvin Udandy, 7-Sep-2020.)
⊢ 𝜑    &   ⊢ ((𝜑 → 𝜓) → 𝜓)    &   ⊢ (𝜓 → (𝜑 → 𝜒))    &   ⊢ ((𝜒 → 𝜃) → ((𝜑 → 𝜃) ↔ 𝜓))    &   ⊢ (𝜏 ↔ (𝜒 → 𝜃))    &   ⊢ (𝜂 ↔ ¬ (𝜒 → (𝜒 ∧ ¬ 𝜒)))    &   ⊢ 𝜓    &   ⊢ (𝜒 → 𝜃)    ⇒   ⊢ (𝜒 → (𝜂 ↔ 𝜏))
Theorem	plcofph 46929	Given, a,b and a "definition" for c, c is demonstrated. (Contributed by Jarvin Udandy, 8-Sep-2020.)
⊢ (𝜒 ↔ ((((𝜑 ∧ 𝜓) ↔ 𝜑) → (𝜑 ∧ ¬ (𝜑 ∧ ¬ 𝜑))) ∧ (𝜑 ∧ ¬ (𝜑 ∧ ¬ 𝜑))))    &   ⊢ 𝜑    &   ⊢ 𝜓    ⇒   ⊢ 𝜒
Theorem	pldofph 46930	Given, a,b c, d, "definition" for e, e is demonstrated. (Contributed by Jarvin Udandy, 8-Sep-2020.)
⊢ (𝜏 ↔ ((𝜒 → 𝜃) ∧ (𝜑 ↔ 𝜒) ∧ ((𝜑 → 𝜓) → (𝜓 ↔ 𝜃))))    &   ⊢ 𝜑    &   ⊢ 𝜓    &   ⊢ 𝜒    &   ⊢ 𝜃    ⇒   ⊢ 𝜏
Theorem	plvcofph 46931	Given, a,b,d, and "definitions" for c, e, f: f is demonstrated. (Contributed by Jarvin Udandy, 8-Sep-2020.)
⊢ (𝜒 ↔ ((((𝜑 ∧ 𝜓) ↔ 𝜑) → (𝜑 ∧ ¬ (𝜑 ∧ ¬ 𝜑))) ∧ (𝜑 ∧ ¬ (𝜑 ∧ ¬ 𝜑))))    &   ⊢ (𝜏 ↔ ((𝜒 → 𝜃) ∧ (𝜑 ↔ 𝜒) ∧ ((𝜑 → 𝜓) → (𝜓 ↔ 𝜃))))    &   ⊢ (𝜂 ↔ (𝜒 ∧ 𝜏))    &   ⊢ 𝜑    &   ⊢ 𝜓    &   ⊢ 𝜃    ⇒   ⊢ 𝜂
Theorem	plvcofphax 46932	Given, a,b,d, and "definitions" for c, e, f, g: g is demonstrated. (Contributed by Jarvin Udandy, 8-Sep-2020.)
⊢ (𝜒 ↔ ((((𝜑 ∧ 𝜓) ↔ 𝜑) → (𝜑 ∧ ¬ (𝜑 ∧ ¬ 𝜑))) ∧ (𝜑 ∧ ¬ (𝜑 ∧ ¬ 𝜑))))    &   ⊢ (𝜏 ↔ ((𝜒 → 𝜃) ∧ (𝜑 ↔ 𝜒) ∧ ((𝜑 → 𝜓) → (𝜓 ↔ 𝜃))))    &   ⊢ (𝜂 ↔ (𝜒 ∧ 𝜏))    &   ⊢ 𝜑    &   ⊢ 𝜓    &   ⊢ 𝜃    &   ⊢ (𝜁 ↔ ¬ (𝜓 ∧ ¬ 𝜏))    ⇒   ⊢ 𝜁
Theorem	plvofpos 46933	rh is derivable because ONLY one of ch, th, ta, et is implied by mu. (Contributed by Jarvin Udandy, 11-Sep-2020.)
⊢ (𝜒 ↔ (¬ 𝜑 ∧ ¬ 𝜓))    &   ⊢ (𝜃 ↔ (¬ 𝜑 ∧ 𝜓))    &   ⊢ (𝜏 ↔ (𝜑 ∧ ¬ 𝜓))    &   ⊢ (𝜂 ↔ (𝜑 ∧ 𝜓))    &   ⊢ (𝜁 ↔ (((((¬ ((𝜇 → 𝜒) ∧ (𝜇 → 𝜃)) ∧ ¬ ((𝜇 → 𝜒) ∧ (𝜇 → 𝜏))) ∧ ¬ ((𝜇 → 𝜒) ∧ (𝜒 → 𝜂))) ∧ ¬ ((𝜇 → 𝜃) ∧ (𝜇 → 𝜏))) ∧ ¬ ((𝜇 → 𝜃) ∧ (𝜇 → 𝜂))) ∧ ¬ ((𝜇 → 𝜏) ∧ (𝜇 → 𝜂))))    &   ⊢ (𝜎 ↔ (((𝜇 → 𝜒) ∨ (𝜇 → 𝜃)) ∨ ((𝜇 → 𝜏) ∨ (𝜇 → 𝜂))))    &   ⊢ (𝜌 ↔ (𝜁 ∧ 𝜎))    &   ⊢ 𝜁    &   ⊢ 𝜎    ⇒   ⊢ 𝜌
Theorem	mdandyv0 46934	Given the equivalences set in the hypotheses, there exist a proof where ch, th, ta, et match ph, ps accordingly. (Contributed by Jarvin Udandy, 6-Sep-2016.)
⊢ (𝜑 ↔ ⊥)    &   ⊢ (𝜓 ↔ ⊤)    &   ⊢ (𝜒 ↔ ⊥)    &   ⊢ (𝜃 ↔ ⊥)    &   ⊢ (𝜏 ↔ ⊥)    &   ⊢ (𝜂 ↔ ⊥)    ⇒   ⊢ ((((𝜒 ↔ 𝜑) ∧ (𝜃 ↔ 𝜑)) ∧ (𝜏 ↔ 𝜑)) ∧ (𝜂 ↔ 𝜑))
Theorem	mdandyv1 46935	Given the equivalences set in the hypotheses, there exist a proof where ch, th, ta, et match ph, ps accordingly. (Contributed by Jarvin Udandy, 6-Sep-2016.)
⊢ (𝜑 ↔ ⊥)    &   ⊢ (𝜓 ↔ ⊤)    &   ⊢ (𝜒 ↔ ⊤)    &   ⊢ (𝜃 ↔ ⊥)    &   ⊢ (𝜏 ↔ ⊥)    &   ⊢ (𝜂 ↔ ⊥)    ⇒   ⊢ ((((𝜒 ↔ 𝜓) ∧ (𝜃 ↔ 𝜑)) ∧ (𝜏 ↔ 𝜑)) ∧ (𝜂 ↔ 𝜑))
Theorem	mdandyv2 46936	Given the equivalences set in the hypotheses, there exist a proof where ch, th, ta, et match ph, ps accordingly. (Contributed by Jarvin Udandy, 6-Sep-2016.)
⊢ (𝜑 ↔ ⊥)    &   ⊢ (𝜓 ↔ ⊤)    &   ⊢ (𝜒 ↔ ⊥)    &   ⊢ (𝜃 ↔ ⊤)    &   ⊢ (𝜏 ↔ ⊥)    &   ⊢ (𝜂 ↔ ⊥)    ⇒   ⊢ ((((𝜒 ↔ 𝜑) ∧ (𝜃 ↔ 𝜓)) ∧ (𝜏 ↔ 𝜑)) ∧ (𝜂 ↔ 𝜑))
Theorem	mdandyv3 46937	Given the equivalences set in the hypotheses, there exist a proof where ch, th, ta, et match ph, ps accordingly. (Contributed by Jarvin Udandy, 6-Sep-2016.)
⊢ (𝜑 ↔ ⊥)    &   ⊢ (𝜓 ↔ ⊤)    &   ⊢ (𝜒 ↔ ⊤)    &   ⊢ (𝜃 ↔ ⊤)    &   ⊢ (𝜏 ↔ ⊥)    &   ⊢ (𝜂 ↔ ⊥)    ⇒   ⊢ ((((𝜒 ↔ 𝜓) ∧ (𝜃 ↔ 𝜓)) ∧ (𝜏 ↔ 𝜑)) ∧ (𝜂 ↔ 𝜑))
Theorem	mdandyv4 46938	Given the equivalences set in the hypotheses, there exist a proof where ch, th, ta, et match ph, ps accordingly. (Contributed by Jarvin Udandy, 6-Sep-2016.)
⊢ (𝜑 ↔ ⊥)    &   ⊢ (𝜓 ↔ ⊤)    &   ⊢ (𝜒 ↔ ⊥)    &   ⊢ (𝜃 ↔ ⊥)    &   ⊢ (𝜏 ↔ ⊤)    &   ⊢ (𝜂 ↔ ⊥)    ⇒   ⊢ ((((𝜒 ↔ 𝜑) ∧ (𝜃 ↔ 𝜑)) ∧ (𝜏 ↔ 𝜓)) ∧ (𝜂 ↔ 𝜑))
Theorem	mdandyv5 46939	Given the equivalences set in the hypotheses, there exist a proof where ch, th, ta, et match ph, ps accordingly. (Contributed by Jarvin Udandy, 6-Sep-2016.)
⊢ (𝜑 ↔ ⊥)    &   ⊢ (𝜓 ↔ ⊤)    &   ⊢ (𝜒 ↔ ⊤)    &   ⊢ (𝜃 ↔ ⊥)    &   ⊢ (𝜏 ↔ ⊤)    &   ⊢ (𝜂 ↔ ⊥)    ⇒   ⊢ ((((𝜒 ↔ 𝜓) ∧ (𝜃 ↔ 𝜑)) ∧ (𝜏 ↔ 𝜓)) ∧ (𝜂 ↔ 𝜑))
Theorem	mdandyv6 46940	Given the equivalences set in the hypotheses, there exist a proof where ch, th, ta, et match ph, ps accordingly. (Contributed by Jarvin Udandy, 6-Sep-2016.)
⊢ (𝜑 ↔ ⊥)    &   ⊢ (𝜓 ↔ ⊤)    &   ⊢ (𝜒 ↔ ⊥)    &   ⊢ (𝜃 ↔ ⊤)    &   ⊢ (𝜏 ↔ ⊤)    &   ⊢ (𝜂 ↔ ⊥)    ⇒   ⊢ ((((𝜒 ↔ 𝜑) ∧ (𝜃 ↔ 𝜓)) ∧ (𝜏 ↔ 𝜓)) ∧ (𝜂 ↔ 𝜑))
Theorem	mdandyv7 46941	Given the equivalences set in the hypotheses, there exist a proof where ch, th, ta, et match ph, ps accordingly. (Contributed by Jarvin Udandy, 6-Sep-2016.)
⊢ (𝜑 ↔ ⊥)    &   ⊢ (𝜓 ↔ ⊤)    &   ⊢ (𝜒 ↔ ⊤)    &   ⊢ (𝜃 ↔ ⊤)    &   ⊢ (𝜏 ↔ ⊤)    &   ⊢ (𝜂 ↔ ⊥)    ⇒   ⊢ ((((𝜒 ↔ 𝜓) ∧ (𝜃 ↔ 𝜓)) ∧ (𝜏 ↔ 𝜓)) ∧ (𝜂 ↔ 𝜑))
Theorem	mdandyv8 46942	Given the equivalences set in the hypotheses, there exist a proof where ch, th, ta, et match ph, ps accordingly. (Contributed by Jarvin Udandy, 6-Sep-2016.)
⊢ (𝜑 ↔ ⊥)    &   ⊢ (𝜓 ↔ ⊤)    &   ⊢ (𝜒 ↔ ⊥)    &   ⊢ (𝜃 ↔ ⊥)    &   ⊢ (𝜏 ↔ ⊥)    &   ⊢ (𝜂 ↔ ⊤)    ⇒   ⊢ ((((𝜒 ↔ 𝜑) ∧ (𝜃 ↔ 𝜑)) ∧ (𝜏 ↔ 𝜑)) ∧ (𝜂 ↔ 𝜓))
Theorem	mdandyv9 46943	Given the equivalences set in the hypotheses, there exist a proof where ch, th, ta, et match ph, ps accordingly. (Contributed by Jarvin Udandy, 6-Sep-2016.)
⊢ (𝜑 ↔ ⊥)    &   ⊢ (𝜓 ↔ ⊤)    &   ⊢ (𝜒 ↔ ⊤)    &   ⊢ (𝜃 ↔ ⊥)    &   ⊢ (𝜏 ↔ ⊥)    &   ⊢ (𝜂 ↔ ⊤)    ⇒   ⊢ ((((𝜒 ↔ 𝜓) ∧ (𝜃 ↔ 𝜑)) ∧ (𝜏 ↔ 𝜑)) ∧ (𝜂 ↔ 𝜓))
Theorem	mdandyv10 46944	Given the equivalences set in the hypotheses, there exist a proof where ch, th, ta, et match ph, ps accordingly. (Contributed by Jarvin Udandy, 6-Sep-2016.)
⊢ (𝜑 ↔ ⊥)    &   ⊢ (𝜓 ↔ ⊤)    &   ⊢ (𝜒 ↔ ⊥)    &   ⊢ (𝜃 ↔ ⊤)    &   ⊢ (𝜏 ↔ ⊥)    &   ⊢ (𝜂 ↔ ⊤)    ⇒   ⊢ ((((𝜒 ↔ 𝜑) ∧ (𝜃 ↔ 𝜓)) ∧ (𝜏 ↔ 𝜑)) ∧ (𝜂 ↔ 𝜓))
Theorem	mdandyv11 46945	Given the equivalences set in the hypotheses, there exist a proof where ch, th, ta, et match ph, ps accordingly. (Contributed by Jarvin Udandy, 6-Sep-2016.)
⊢ (𝜑 ↔ ⊥)    &   ⊢ (𝜓 ↔ ⊤)    &   ⊢ (𝜒 ↔ ⊤)    &   ⊢ (𝜃 ↔ ⊤)    &   ⊢ (𝜏 ↔ ⊥)    &   ⊢ (𝜂 ↔ ⊤)    ⇒   ⊢ ((((𝜒 ↔ 𝜓) ∧ (𝜃 ↔ 𝜓)) ∧ (𝜏 ↔ 𝜑)) ∧ (𝜂 ↔ 𝜓))
Theorem	mdandyv12 46946	Given the equivalences set in the hypotheses, there exist a proof where ch, th, ta, et match ph, ps accordingly. (Contributed by Jarvin Udandy, 6-Sep-2016.)
⊢ (𝜑 ↔ ⊥)    &   ⊢ (𝜓 ↔ ⊤)    &   ⊢ (𝜒 ↔ ⊥)    &   ⊢ (𝜃 ↔ ⊥)    &   ⊢ (𝜏 ↔ ⊤)    &   ⊢ (𝜂 ↔ ⊤)    ⇒   ⊢ ((((𝜒 ↔ 𝜑) ∧ (𝜃 ↔ 𝜑)) ∧ (𝜏 ↔ 𝜓)) ∧ (𝜂 ↔ 𝜓))
Theorem	mdandyv13 46947	Given the equivalences set in the hypotheses, there exist a proof where ch, th, ta, et match ph, ps accordingly. (Contributed by Jarvin Udandy, 6-Sep-2016.)
⊢ (𝜑 ↔ ⊥)    &   ⊢ (𝜓 ↔ ⊤)    &   ⊢ (𝜒 ↔ ⊤)    &   ⊢ (𝜃 ↔ ⊥)    &   ⊢ (𝜏 ↔ ⊤)    &   ⊢ (𝜂 ↔ ⊤)    ⇒   ⊢ ((((𝜒 ↔ 𝜓) ∧ (𝜃 ↔ 𝜑)) ∧ (𝜏 ↔ 𝜓)) ∧ (𝜂 ↔ 𝜓))
Theorem	mdandyv14 46948	Given the equivalences set in the hypotheses, there exist a proof where ch, th, ta, et match ph, ps accordingly. (Contributed by Jarvin Udandy, 6-Sep-2016.)
⊢ (𝜑 ↔ ⊥)    &   ⊢ (𝜓 ↔ ⊤)    &   ⊢ (𝜒 ↔ ⊥)    &   ⊢ (𝜃 ↔ ⊤)    &   ⊢ (𝜏 ↔ ⊤)    &   ⊢ (𝜂 ↔ ⊤)    ⇒   ⊢ ((((𝜒 ↔ 𝜑) ∧ (𝜃 ↔ 𝜓)) ∧ (𝜏 ↔ 𝜓)) ∧ (𝜂 ↔ 𝜓))
Theorem	mdandyv15 46949	Given the equivalences set in the hypotheses, there exist a proof where ch, th, ta, et match ph, ps accordingly. (Contributed by Jarvin Udandy, 6-Sep-2016.)
⊢ (𝜑 ↔ ⊥)    &   ⊢ (𝜓 ↔ ⊤)    &   ⊢ (𝜒 ↔ ⊤)    &   ⊢ (𝜃 ↔ ⊤)    &   ⊢ (𝜏 ↔ ⊤)    &   ⊢ (𝜂 ↔ ⊤)    ⇒   ⊢ ((((𝜒 ↔ 𝜓) ∧ (𝜃 ↔ 𝜓)) ∧ (𝜏 ↔ 𝜓)) ∧ (𝜂 ↔ 𝜓))
Theorem	mdandyvr0 46950	Given the equivalences set in the hypotheses, there exist a proof where ch, th, ta, et match ze, si accordingly. (Contributed by Jarvin Udandy, 7-Sep-2016.)
⊢ (𝜑 ↔ 𝜁)    &   ⊢ (𝜓 ↔ 𝜎)    &   ⊢ (𝜒 ↔ 𝜑)    &   ⊢ (𝜃 ↔ 𝜑)    &   ⊢ (𝜏 ↔ 𝜑)    &   ⊢ (𝜂 ↔ 𝜑)    ⇒   ⊢ ((((𝜒 ↔ 𝜁) ∧ (𝜃 ↔ 𝜁)) ∧ (𝜏 ↔ 𝜁)) ∧ (𝜂 ↔ 𝜁))
Theorem	mdandyvr1 46951	Given the equivalences set in the hypotheses, there exist a proof where ch, th, ta, et match ze, si accordingly. (Contributed by Jarvin Udandy, 7-Sep-2016.)
⊢ (𝜑 ↔ 𝜁)    &   ⊢ (𝜓 ↔ 𝜎)    &   ⊢ (𝜒 ↔ 𝜓)    &   ⊢ (𝜃 ↔ 𝜑)    &   ⊢ (𝜏 ↔ 𝜑)    &   ⊢ (𝜂 ↔ 𝜑)    ⇒   ⊢ ((((𝜒 ↔ 𝜎) ∧ (𝜃 ↔ 𝜁)) ∧ (𝜏 ↔ 𝜁)) ∧ (𝜂 ↔ 𝜁))
Theorem	mdandyvr2 46952	Given the equivalences set in the hypotheses, there exist a proof where ch, th, ta, et match ze, si accordingly. (Contributed by Jarvin Udandy, 7-Sep-2016.)
⊢ (𝜑 ↔ 𝜁)    &   ⊢ (𝜓 ↔ 𝜎)    &   ⊢ (𝜒 ↔ 𝜑)    &   ⊢ (𝜃 ↔ 𝜓)    &   ⊢ (𝜏 ↔ 𝜑)    &   ⊢ (𝜂 ↔ 𝜑)    ⇒   ⊢ ((((𝜒 ↔ 𝜁) ∧ (𝜃 ↔ 𝜎)) ∧ (𝜏 ↔ 𝜁)) ∧ (𝜂 ↔ 𝜁))
Theorem	mdandyvr3 46953	Given the equivalences set in the hypotheses, there exist a proof where ch, th, ta, et match ze, si accordingly. (Contributed by Jarvin Udandy, 7-Sep-2016.)
⊢ (𝜑 ↔ 𝜁)    &   ⊢ (𝜓 ↔ 𝜎)    &   ⊢ (𝜒 ↔ 𝜓)    &   ⊢ (𝜃 ↔ 𝜓)    &   ⊢ (𝜏 ↔ 𝜑)    &   ⊢ (𝜂 ↔ 𝜑)    ⇒   ⊢ ((((𝜒 ↔ 𝜎) ∧ (𝜃 ↔ 𝜎)) ∧ (𝜏 ↔ 𝜁)) ∧ (𝜂 ↔ 𝜁))
Theorem	mdandyvr4 46954	Given the equivalences set in the hypotheses, there exist a proof where ch, th, ta, et match ze, si accordingly. (Contributed by Jarvin Udandy, 7-Sep-2016.)
⊢ (𝜑 ↔ 𝜁)    &   ⊢ (𝜓 ↔ 𝜎)    &   ⊢ (𝜒 ↔ 𝜑)    &   ⊢ (𝜃 ↔ 𝜑)    &   ⊢ (𝜏 ↔ 𝜓)    &   ⊢ (𝜂 ↔ 𝜑)    ⇒   ⊢ ((((𝜒 ↔ 𝜁) ∧ (𝜃 ↔ 𝜁)) ∧ (𝜏 ↔ 𝜎)) ∧ (𝜂 ↔ 𝜁))
Theorem	mdandyvr5 46955	Given the equivalences set in the hypotheses, there exist a proof where ch, th, ta, et match ze, si accordingly. (Contributed by Jarvin Udandy, 7-Sep-2016.)
⊢ (𝜑 ↔ 𝜁)    &   ⊢ (𝜓 ↔ 𝜎)    &   ⊢ (𝜒 ↔ 𝜓)    &   ⊢ (𝜃 ↔ 𝜑)    &   ⊢ (𝜏 ↔ 𝜓)    &   ⊢ (𝜂 ↔ 𝜑)    ⇒   ⊢ ((((𝜒 ↔ 𝜎) ∧ (𝜃 ↔ 𝜁)) ∧ (𝜏 ↔ 𝜎)) ∧ (𝜂 ↔ 𝜁))
Theorem	mdandyvr6 46956	Given the equivalences set in the hypotheses, there exist a proof where ch, th, ta, et match ze, si accordingly. (Contributed by Jarvin Udandy, 7-Sep-2016.)
⊢ (𝜑 ↔ 𝜁)    &   ⊢ (𝜓 ↔ 𝜎)    &   ⊢ (𝜒 ↔ 𝜑)    &   ⊢ (𝜃 ↔ 𝜓)    &   ⊢ (𝜏 ↔ 𝜓)    &   ⊢ (𝜂 ↔ 𝜑)    ⇒   ⊢ ((((𝜒 ↔ 𝜁) ∧ (𝜃 ↔ 𝜎)) ∧ (𝜏 ↔ 𝜎)) ∧ (𝜂 ↔ 𝜁))
Theorem	mdandyvr7 46957	Given the equivalences set in the hypotheses, there exist a proof where ch, th, ta, et match ze, si accordingly. (Contributed by Jarvin Udandy, 7-Sep-2016.)
⊢ (𝜑 ↔ 𝜁)    &   ⊢ (𝜓 ↔ 𝜎)    &   ⊢ (𝜒 ↔ 𝜓)    &   ⊢ (𝜃 ↔ 𝜓)    &   ⊢ (𝜏 ↔ 𝜓)    &   ⊢ (𝜂 ↔ 𝜑)    ⇒   ⊢ ((((𝜒 ↔ 𝜎) ∧ (𝜃 ↔ 𝜎)) ∧ (𝜏 ↔ 𝜎)) ∧ (𝜂 ↔ 𝜁))
Theorem	mdandyvr8 46958	Given the equivalences set in the hypotheses, there exist a proof where ch, th, ta, et match ze, si accordingly. (Contributed by Jarvin Udandy, 7-Sep-2016.)
⊢ (𝜑 ↔ 𝜁)    &   ⊢ (𝜓 ↔ 𝜎)    &   ⊢ (𝜒 ↔ 𝜑)    &   ⊢ (𝜃 ↔ 𝜑)    &   ⊢ (𝜏 ↔ 𝜑)    &   ⊢ (𝜂 ↔ 𝜓)    ⇒   ⊢ ((((𝜒 ↔ 𝜁) ∧ (𝜃 ↔ 𝜁)) ∧ (𝜏 ↔ 𝜁)) ∧ (𝜂 ↔ 𝜎))
Theorem	mdandyvr9 46959	Given the equivalences set in the hypotheses, there exist a proof where ch, th, ta, et match ze, si accordingly. (Contributed by Jarvin Udandy, 7-Sep-2016.)
⊢ (𝜑 ↔ 𝜁)    &   ⊢ (𝜓 ↔ 𝜎)    &   ⊢ (𝜒 ↔ 𝜓)    &   ⊢ (𝜃 ↔ 𝜑)    &   ⊢ (𝜏 ↔ 𝜑)    &   ⊢ (𝜂 ↔ 𝜓)    ⇒   ⊢ ((((𝜒 ↔ 𝜎) ∧ (𝜃 ↔ 𝜁)) ∧ (𝜏 ↔ 𝜁)) ∧ (𝜂 ↔ 𝜎))
Theorem	mdandyvr10 46960	Given the equivalences set in the hypotheses, there exist a proof where ch, th, ta, et match ze, si accordingly. (Contributed by Jarvin Udandy, 7-Sep-2016.)
⊢ (𝜑 ↔ 𝜁)    &   ⊢ (𝜓 ↔ 𝜎)    &   ⊢ (𝜒 ↔ 𝜑)    &   ⊢ (𝜃 ↔ 𝜓)    &   ⊢ (𝜏 ↔ 𝜑)    &   ⊢ (𝜂 ↔ 𝜓)    ⇒   ⊢ ((((𝜒 ↔ 𝜁) ∧ (𝜃 ↔ 𝜎)) ∧ (𝜏 ↔ 𝜁)) ∧ (𝜂 ↔ 𝜎))
Theorem	mdandyvr11 46961	Given the equivalences set in the hypotheses, there exist a proof where ch, th, ta, et match ze, si accordingly. (Contributed by Jarvin Udandy, 7-Sep-2016.)
⊢ (𝜑 ↔ 𝜁)    &   ⊢ (𝜓 ↔ 𝜎)    &   ⊢ (𝜒 ↔ 𝜓)    &   ⊢ (𝜃 ↔ 𝜓)    &   ⊢ (𝜏 ↔ 𝜑)    &   ⊢ (𝜂 ↔ 𝜓)    ⇒   ⊢ ((((𝜒 ↔ 𝜎) ∧ (𝜃 ↔ 𝜎)) ∧ (𝜏 ↔ 𝜁)) ∧ (𝜂 ↔ 𝜎))
Theorem	mdandyvr12 46962	Given the equivalences set in the hypotheses, there exist a proof where ch, th, ta, et match ze, si accordingly. (Contributed by Jarvin Udandy, 7-Sep-2016.)
⊢ (𝜑 ↔ 𝜁)    &   ⊢ (𝜓 ↔ 𝜎)    &   ⊢ (𝜒 ↔ 𝜑)    &   ⊢ (𝜃 ↔ 𝜑)    &   ⊢ (𝜏 ↔ 𝜓)    &   ⊢ (𝜂 ↔ 𝜓)    ⇒   ⊢ ((((𝜒 ↔ 𝜁) ∧ (𝜃 ↔ 𝜁)) ∧ (𝜏 ↔ 𝜎)) ∧ (𝜂 ↔ 𝜎))
Theorem	mdandyvr13 46963	Given the equivalences set in the hypotheses, there exist a proof where ch, th, ta, et match ze, si accordingly. (Contributed by Jarvin Udandy, 7-Sep-2016.)
⊢ (𝜑 ↔ 𝜁)    &   ⊢ (𝜓 ↔ 𝜎)    &   ⊢ (𝜒 ↔ 𝜓)    &   ⊢ (𝜃 ↔ 𝜑)    &   ⊢ (𝜏 ↔ 𝜓)    &   ⊢ (𝜂 ↔ 𝜓)    ⇒   ⊢ ((((𝜒 ↔ 𝜎) ∧ (𝜃 ↔ 𝜁)) ∧ (𝜏 ↔ 𝜎)) ∧ (𝜂 ↔ 𝜎))
Theorem	mdandyvr14 46964	Given the equivalences set in the hypotheses, there exist a proof where ch, th, ta, et match ze, si accordingly. (Contributed by Jarvin Udandy, 7-Sep-2016.)
⊢ (𝜑 ↔ 𝜁)    &   ⊢ (𝜓 ↔ 𝜎)    &   ⊢ (𝜒 ↔ 𝜑)    &   ⊢ (𝜃 ↔ 𝜓)    &   ⊢ (𝜏 ↔ 𝜓)    &   ⊢ (𝜂 ↔ 𝜓)    ⇒   ⊢ ((((𝜒 ↔ 𝜁) ∧ (𝜃 ↔ 𝜎)) ∧ (𝜏 ↔ 𝜎)) ∧ (𝜂 ↔ 𝜎))
Theorem	mdandyvr15 46965	Given the equivalences set in the hypotheses, there exist a proof where ch, th, ta, et match ze, si accordingly. (Contributed by Jarvin Udandy, 7-Sep-2016.)
⊢ (𝜑 ↔ 𝜁)    &   ⊢ (𝜓 ↔ 𝜎)    &   ⊢ (𝜒 ↔ 𝜓)    &   ⊢ (𝜃 ↔ 𝜓)    &   ⊢ (𝜏 ↔ 𝜓)    &   ⊢ (𝜂 ↔ 𝜓)    ⇒   ⊢ ((((𝜒 ↔ 𝜎) ∧ (𝜃 ↔ 𝜎)) ∧ (𝜏 ↔ 𝜎)) ∧ (𝜂 ↔ 𝜎))
Theorem	mdandyvrx0 46966	Given the exclusivities set in the hypotheses, there exist a proof where ch, th, ta, et exclude ze, si accordingly. (Contributed by Jarvin Udandy, 7-Sep-2016.)
⊢ (𝜑 ⊻ 𝜁)    &   ⊢ (𝜓 ⊻ 𝜎)    &   ⊢ (𝜒 ↔ 𝜑)    &   ⊢ (𝜃 ↔ 𝜑)    &   ⊢ (𝜏 ↔ 𝜑)    &   ⊢ (𝜂 ↔ 𝜑)    ⇒   ⊢ ((((𝜒 ⊻ 𝜁) ∧ (𝜃 ⊻ 𝜁)) ∧ (𝜏 ⊻ 𝜁)) ∧ (𝜂 ⊻ 𝜁))
Theorem	mdandyvrx1 46967	Given the exclusivities set in the hypotheses, there exist a proof where ch, th, ta, et exclude ze, si accordingly. (Contributed by Jarvin Udandy, 7-Sep-2016.)
⊢ (𝜑 ⊻ 𝜁)    &   ⊢ (𝜓 ⊻ 𝜎)    &   ⊢ (𝜒 ↔ 𝜓)    &   ⊢ (𝜃 ↔ 𝜑)    &   ⊢ (𝜏 ↔ 𝜑)    &   ⊢ (𝜂 ↔ 𝜑)    ⇒   ⊢ ((((𝜒 ⊻ 𝜎) ∧ (𝜃 ⊻ 𝜁)) ∧ (𝜏 ⊻ 𝜁)) ∧ (𝜂 ⊻ 𝜁))
Theorem	mdandyvrx2 46968	Given the exclusivities set in the hypotheses, there exist a proof where ch, th, ta, et exclude ze, si accordingly. (Contributed by Jarvin Udandy, 7-Sep-2016.)
⊢ (𝜑 ⊻ 𝜁)    &   ⊢ (𝜓 ⊻ 𝜎)    &   ⊢ (𝜒 ↔ 𝜑)    &   ⊢ (𝜃 ↔ 𝜓)    &   ⊢ (𝜏 ↔ 𝜑)    &   ⊢ (𝜂 ↔ 𝜑)    ⇒   ⊢ ((((𝜒 ⊻ 𝜁) ∧ (𝜃 ⊻ 𝜎)) ∧ (𝜏 ⊻ 𝜁)) ∧ (𝜂 ⊻ 𝜁))
Theorem	mdandyvrx3 46969	Given the exclusivities set in the hypotheses, there exist a proof where ch, th, ta, et exclude ze, si accordingly. (Contributed by Jarvin Udandy, 7-Sep-2016.)
⊢ (𝜑 ⊻ 𝜁)    &   ⊢ (𝜓 ⊻ 𝜎)    &   ⊢ (𝜒 ↔ 𝜓)    &   ⊢ (𝜃 ↔ 𝜓)    &   ⊢ (𝜏 ↔ 𝜑)    &   ⊢ (𝜂 ↔ 𝜑)    ⇒   ⊢ ((((𝜒 ⊻ 𝜎) ∧ (𝜃 ⊻ 𝜎)) ∧ (𝜏 ⊻ 𝜁)) ∧ (𝜂 ⊻ 𝜁))
Theorem	mdandyvrx4 46970	Given the exclusivities set in the hypotheses, there exist a proof where ch, th, ta, et exclude ze, si accordingly. (Contributed by Jarvin Udandy, 7-Sep-2016.)
⊢ (𝜑 ⊻ 𝜁)    &   ⊢ (𝜓 ⊻ 𝜎)    &   ⊢ (𝜒 ↔ 𝜑)    &   ⊢ (𝜃 ↔ 𝜑)    &   ⊢ (𝜏 ↔ 𝜓)    &   ⊢ (𝜂 ↔ 𝜑)    ⇒   ⊢ ((((𝜒 ⊻ 𝜁) ∧ (𝜃 ⊻ 𝜁)) ∧ (𝜏 ⊻ 𝜎)) ∧ (𝜂 ⊻ 𝜁))
Theorem	mdandyvrx5 46971	Given the exclusivities set in the hypotheses, there exist a proof where ch, th, ta, et exclude ze, si accordingly. (Contributed by Jarvin Udandy, 7-Sep-2016.)
⊢ (𝜑 ⊻ 𝜁)    &   ⊢ (𝜓 ⊻ 𝜎)    &   ⊢ (𝜒 ↔ 𝜓)    &   ⊢ (𝜃 ↔ 𝜑)    &   ⊢ (𝜏 ↔ 𝜓)    &   ⊢ (𝜂 ↔ 𝜑)    ⇒   ⊢ ((((𝜒 ⊻ 𝜎) ∧ (𝜃 ⊻ 𝜁)) ∧ (𝜏 ⊻ 𝜎)) ∧ (𝜂 ⊻ 𝜁))
Theorem	mdandyvrx6 46972	Given the exclusivities set in the hypotheses, there exist a proof where ch, th, ta, et exclude ze, si accordingly. (Contributed by Jarvin Udandy, 7-Sep-2016.)
⊢ (𝜑 ⊻ 𝜁)    &   ⊢ (𝜓 ⊻ 𝜎)    &   ⊢ (𝜒 ↔ 𝜑)    &   ⊢ (𝜃 ↔ 𝜓)    &   ⊢ (𝜏 ↔ 𝜓)    &   ⊢ (𝜂 ↔ 𝜑)    ⇒   ⊢ ((((𝜒 ⊻ 𝜁) ∧ (𝜃 ⊻ 𝜎)) ∧ (𝜏 ⊻ 𝜎)) ∧ (𝜂 ⊻ 𝜁))
Theorem	mdandyvrx7 46973	Given the exclusivities set in the hypotheses, there exist a proof where ch, th, ta, et exclude ze, si accordingly. (Contributed by Jarvin Udandy, 7-Sep-2016.)
⊢ (𝜑 ⊻ 𝜁)    &   ⊢ (𝜓 ⊻ 𝜎)    &   ⊢ (𝜒 ↔ 𝜓)    &   ⊢ (𝜃 ↔ 𝜓)    &   ⊢ (𝜏 ↔ 𝜓)    &   ⊢ (𝜂 ↔ 𝜑)    ⇒   ⊢ ((((𝜒 ⊻ 𝜎) ∧ (𝜃 ⊻ 𝜎)) ∧ (𝜏 ⊻ 𝜎)) ∧ (𝜂 ⊻ 𝜁))
Theorem	mdandyvrx8 46974	Given the exclusivities set in the hypotheses, there exist a proof where ch, th, ta, et exclude ze, si accordingly. (Contributed by Jarvin Udandy, 7-Sep-2016.)
⊢ (𝜑 ⊻ 𝜁)    &   ⊢ (𝜓 ⊻ 𝜎)    &   ⊢ (𝜒 ↔ 𝜑)    &   ⊢ (𝜃 ↔ 𝜑)    &   ⊢ (𝜏 ↔ 𝜑)    &   ⊢ (𝜂 ↔ 𝜓)    ⇒   ⊢ ((((𝜒 ⊻ 𝜁) ∧ (𝜃 ⊻ 𝜁)) ∧ (𝜏 ⊻ 𝜁)) ∧ (𝜂 ⊻ 𝜎))
Theorem	mdandyvrx9 46975	Given the exclusivities set in the hypotheses, there exist a proof where ch, th, ta, et exclude ze, si accordingly. (Contributed by Jarvin Udandy, 7-Sep-2016.)
⊢ (𝜑 ⊻ 𝜁)    &   ⊢ (𝜓 ⊻ 𝜎)    &   ⊢ (𝜒 ↔ 𝜓)    &   ⊢ (𝜃 ↔ 𝜑)    &   ⊢ (𝜏 ↔ 𝜑)    &   ⊢ (𝜂 ↔ 𝜓)    ⇒   ⊢ ((((𝜒 ⊻ 𝜎) ∧ (𝜃 ⊻ 𝜁)) ∧ (𝜏 ⊻ 𝜁)) ∧ (𝜂 ⊻ 𝜎))
Theorem	mdandyvrx10 46976	Given the exclusivities set in the hypotheses, there exist a proof where ch, th, ta, et exclude ze, si accordingly. (Contributed by Jarvin Udandy, 7-Sep-2016.)
⊢ (𝜑 ⊻ 𝜁)    &   ⊢ (𝜓 ⊻ 𝜎)    &   ⊢ (𝜒 ↔ 𝜑)    &   ⊢ (𝜃 ↔ 𝜓)    &   ⊢ (𝜏 ↔ 𝜑)    &   ⊢ (𝜂 ↔ 𝜓)    ⇒   ⊢ ((((𝜒 ⊻ 𝜁) ∧ (𝜃 ⊻ 𝜎)) ∧ (𝜏 ⊻ 𝜁)) ∧ (𝜂 ⊻ 𝜎))
Theorem	mdandyvrx11 46977	Given the exclusivities set in the hypotheses, there exist a proof where ch, th, ta, et exclude ze, si accordingly. (Contributed by Jarvin Udandy, 7-Sep-2016.)
⊢ (𝜑 ⊻ 𝜁)    &   ⊢ (𝜓 ⊻ 𝜎)    &   ⊢ (𝜒 ↔ 𝜓)    &   ⊢ (𝜃 ↔ 𝜓)    &   ⊢ (𝜏 ↔ 𝜑)    &   ⊢ (𝜂 ↔ 𝜓)    ⇒   ⊢ ((((𝜒 ⊻ 𝜎) ∧ (𝜃 ⊻ 𝜎)) ∧ (𝜏 ⊻ 𝜁)) ∧ (𝜂 ⊻ 𝜎))
Theorem	mdandyvrx12 46978	Given the exclusivities set in the hypotheses, there exist a proof where ch, th, ta, et exclude ze, si accordingly. (Contributed by Jarvin Udandy, 7-Sep-2016.)
⊢ (𝜑 ⊻ 𝜁)    &   ⊢ (𝜓 ⊻ 𝜎)    &   ⊢ (𝜒 ↔ 𝜑)    &   ⊢ (𝜃 ↔ 𝜑)    &   ⊢ (𝜏 ↔ 𝜓)    &   ⊢ (𝜂 ↔ 𝜓)    ⇒   ⊢ ((((𝜒 ⊻ 𝜁) ∧ (𝜃 ⊻ 𝜁)) ∧ (𝜏 ⊻ 𝜎)) ∧ (𝜂 ⊻ 𝜎))
Theorem	mdandyvrx13 46979	Given the exclusivities set in the hypotheses, there exist a proof where ch, th, ta, et exclude ze, si accordingly. (Contributed by Jarvin Udandy, 7-Sep-2016.)
⊢ (𝜑 ⊻ 𝜁)    &   ⊢ (𝜓 ⊻ 𝜎)    &   ⊢ (𝜒 ↔ 𝜓)    &   ⊢ (𝜃 ↔ 𝜑)    &   ⊢ (𝜏 ↔ 𝜓)    &   ⊢ (𝜂 ↔ 𝜓)    ⇒   ⊢ ((((𝜒 ⊻ 𝜎) ∧ (𝜃 ⊻ 𝜁)) ∧ (𝜏 ⊻ 𝜎)) ∧ (𝜂 ⊻ 𝜎))
Theorem	mdandyvrx14 46980	Given the exclusivities set in the hypotheses, there exist a proof where ch, th, ta, et exclude ze, si accordingly. (Contributed by Jarvin Udandy, 7-Sep-2016.)
⊢ (𝜑 ⊻ 𝜁)    &   ⊢ (𝜓 ⊻ 𝜎)    &   ⊢ (𝜒 ↔ 𝜑)    &   ⊢ (𝜃 ↔ 𝜓)    &   ⊢ (𝜏 ↔ 𝜓)    &   ⊢ (𝜂 ↔ 𝜓)    ⇒   ⊢ ((((𝜒 ⊻ 𝜁) ∧ (𝜃 ⊻ 𝜎)) ∧ (𝜏 ⊻ 𝜎)) ∧ (𝜂 ⊻ 𝜎))
Theorem	mdandyvrx15 46981	Given the exclusivities set in the hypotheses, there exist a proof where ch, th, ta, et exclude ze, si accordingly. (Contributed by Jarvin Udandy, 7-Sep-2016.)
⊢ (𝜑 ⊻ 𝜁)    &   ⊢ (𝜓 ⊻ 𝜎)    &   ⊢ (𝜒 ↔ 𝜓)    &   ⊢ (𝜃 ↔ 𝜓)    &   ⊢ (𝜏 ↔ 𝜓)    &   ⊢ (𝜂 ↔ 𝜓)    ⇒   ⊢ ((((𝜒 ⊻ 𝜎) ∧ (𝜃 ⊻ 𝜎)) ∧ (𝜏 ⊻ 𝜎)) ∧ (𝜂 ⊻ 𝜎))
Theorem	H15NH16TH15IH16 46982	Given 15 hypotheses and a 16th hypothesis, there exists a proof the 15 imply the 16th. (Contributed by Jarvin Udandy, 8-Sep-2016.)
⊢ 𝜑    &   ⊢ 𝜓    &   ⊢ 𝜒    &   ⊢ 𝜃    &   ⊢ 𝜏    &   ⊢ 𝜂    &   ⊢ 𝜁    &   ⊢ 𝜎    &   ⊢ 𝜌    &   ⊢ 𝜇    &   ⊢ 𝜆    &   ⊢ 𝜅    &   ⊢ jph    &   ⊢ jps    &   ⊢ jch    &   ⊢ jth    ⇒   ⊢ (((((((((((((((𝜑 ∧ 𝜓) ∧ 𝜒) ∧ 𝜃) ∧ 𝜏) ∧ 𝜂) ∧ 𝜁) ∧ 𝜎) ∧ 𝜌) ∧ 𝜇) ∧ 𝜆) ∧ 𝜅) ∧ jph) ∧ jps) ∧ jch) → jth)
Theorem	dandysum2p2e4 46983	CONTRADICTION PROVED AT 1 + 1 = 2 . Given the right hypotheses we can prove a dandysum of 2+2=4. The qed step is the value '4' in Decimal BEING IMPLIED by the hypotheses. Note: Values that when added would exceed a 4bit value are not supported. Note: Digits begin from left (least) to right (greatest). E.g., 1000 would be '1', 0100 would be '2', 0010 would be '4'. How to perceive the hypotheses' bits in order: ( th <-> F. ), ( ta <-> F. ) Would be input value X's first bit, and input value Y's first bit. ( et <-> F ), ( ze <-> F. ) would be input value X's second bit, and input value Y's second bit. (Contributed by Jarvin Udandy, 6-Sep-2016.)
⊢ (𝜑 ↔ (𝜃 ∧ 𝜏))    &   ⊢ (𝜓 ↔ (𝜂 ∧ 𝜁))    &   ⊢ (𝜒 ↔ (𝜎 ∧ 𝜌))    &   ⊢ (𝜃 ↔ ⊥)    &   ⊢ (𝜏 ↔ ⊥)    &   ⊢ (𝜂 ↔ ⊤)    &   ⊢ (𝜁 ↔ ⊤)    &   ⊢ (𝜎 ↔ ⊥)    &   ⊢ (𝜌 ↔ ⊥)    &   ⊢ (𝜇 ↔ ⊥)    &   ⊢ (𝜆 ↔ ⊥)    &   ⊢ (𝜅 ↔ ((𝜃 ⊻ 𝜏) ⊻ (𝜃 ∧ 𝜏)))    &   ⊢ (jph ↔ ((𝜂 ⊻ 𝜁) ∨ 𝜑))    &   ⊢ (jps ↔ ((𝜎 ⊻ 𝜌) ∨ 𝜓))    &   ⊢ (jch ↔ ((𝜇 ⊻ 𝜆) ∨ 𝜒))    ⇒   ⊢ ((((((((((((((((𝜑 ↔ (𝜃 ∧ 𝜏)) ∧ (𝜓 ↔ (𝜂 ∧ 𝜁))) ∧ (𝜒 ↔ (𝜎 ∧ 𝜌))) ∧ (𝜃 ↔ ⊥)) ∧ (𝜏 ↔ ⊥)) ∧ (𝜂 ↔ ⊤)) ∧ (𝜁 ↔ ⊤)) ∧ (𝜎 ↔ ⊥)) ∧ (𝜌 ↔ ⊥)) ∧ (𝜇 ↔ ⊥)) ∧ (𝜆 ↔ ⊥)) ∧ (𝜅 ↔ ((𝜃 ⊻ 𝜏) ⊻ (𝜃 ∧ 𝜏)))) ∧ (jph ↔ ((𝜂 ⊻ 𝜁) ∨ 𝜑))) ∧ (jps ↔ ((𝜎 ⊻ 𝜌) ∨ 𝜓))) ∧ (jch ↔ ((𝜇 ⊻ 𝜆) ∨ 𝜒))) → ((((𝜅 ↔ ⊥) ∧ (jph ↔ ⊥)) ∧ (jps ↔ ⊤)) ∧ (jch ↔ ⊥)))
Theorem	mdandysum2p2e4 46984	CONTRADICTION PROVED AT 1 + 1 = 2 . Luckily Mario Carneiro did a successful version of his own. See Mario's Relevant Work: Half adder and full adder in propositional calculus. Given the right hypotheses we can prove a dandysum of 2+2=4. The qed step is the value '4' in Decimal BEING IMPLIED by the hypotheses. Note: Values that when added would exceed a 4bit value are not supported. Note: Digits begin from left (least) to right (greatest). E.g., 1000 would be '1', 0100 would be '2'. 0010 would be '4'. How to perceive the hypotheses' bits in order: ( th <-> F. ), ( ta <-> F. ) Would be input value X's first bit, and input value Y's first bit. ( et <-> F. ), ( ze <-> F. ) would be input value X's second bit, and input value Y's second bit. In mdandysum2p2e4, one might imagine what jth or jta could be then do the math with their truths. Also limited to the restriction jth, jta are having opposite truths equivalent to the stated truth constants. (Contributed by Jarvin Udandy, 6-Sep-2016.)
⊢ (jth ↔ ⊥)    &   ⊢ (jta ↔ ⊤)    &   ⊢ (𝜑 ↔ (𝜃 ∧ 𝜏))    &   ⊢ (𝜓 ↔ (𝜂 ∧ 𝜁))    &   ⊢ (𝜒 ↔ (𝜎 ∧ 𝜌))    &   ⊢ (𝜃 ↔ jth)    &   ⊢ (𝜏 ↔ jth)    &   ⊢ (𝜂 ↔ jta)    &   ⊢ (𝜁 ↔ jta)    &   ⊢ (𝜎 ↔ jth)    &   ⊢ (𝜌 ↔ jth)    &   ⊢ (𝜇 ↔ jth)    &   ⊢ (𝜆 ↔ jth)    &   ⊢ (𝜅 ↔ ((𝜃 ⊻ 𝜏) ⊻ (𝜃 ∧ 𝜏)))    &   ⊢ (jph ↔ ((𝜂 ⊻ 𝜁) ∨ 𝜑))    &   ⊢ (jps ↔ ((𝜎 ⊻ 𝜌) ∨ 𝜓))    &   ⊢ (jch ↔ ((𝜇 ⊻ 𝜆) ∨ 𝜒))    ⇒   ⊢ ((((((((((((((((𝜑 ↔ (𝜃 ∧ 𝜏)) ∧ (𝜓 ↔ (𝜂 ∧ 𝜁))) ∧ (𝜒 ↔ (𝜎 ∧ 𝜌))) ∧ (𝜃 ↔ ⊥)) ∧ (𝜏 ↔ ⊥)) ∧ (𝜂 ↔ ⊤)) ∧ (𝜁 ↔ ⊤)) ∧ (𝜎 ↔ ⊥)) ∧ (𝜌 ↔ ⊥)) ∧ (𝜇 ↔ ⊥)) ∧ (𝜆 ↔ ⊥)) ∧ (𝜅 ↔ ((𝜃 ⊻ 𝜏) ⊻ (𝜃 ∧ 𝜏)))) ∧ (jph ↔ ((𝜂 ⊻ 𝜁) ∨ 𝜑))) ∧ (jps ↔ ((𝜎 ⊻ 𝜌) ∨ 𝜓))) ∧ (jch ↔ ((𝜇 ⊻ 𝜆) ∨ 𝜒))) → ((((𝜅 ↔ ⊥) ∧ (jph ↔ ⊥)) ∧ (jps ↔ ⊤)) ∧ (jch ↔ ⊥)))
21.47  Mathbox for Adhemar
Theorem	adh-jarrsc 46985	Replacement of a nested antecedent with an outer antecedent. Commuted simplificated form of elimination of a nested antecedent. Also holds intuitionistically. Polish prefix notation: CCCpqrCsCqr . (Contributed by ADH, 10-Nov-2023.) (Proof modification is discouraged.)
⊢ (((𝜑 → 𝜓) → 𝜒) → (𝜃 → (𝜓 → 𝜒)))
21.47.1  Minimal implicational calculus Minimal implicational calculus, or intuitionistic implicational calculus, or positive implicational calculus, is the implicational fragment of minimal calculus (which is also the implicational fragment of intuitionistic calculus and of positive calculus). It is sometimes called "C-pure intuitionism" since the letter C is used to denote implication in Polish prefix notation. It can be axiomatized by the inference rule of modus ponens ax-mp 5 together with the axioms { ax-1 6, ax-2 7 } (sometimes written KS), or with { imim1 83, ax-1 6, pm2.43 56 } (written B'KW), or with { imim2 58, pm2.04 90, ax-1 6, pm2.43 56 } (written BCKW), or with the single axiom adh-minim 46986, or with the single axiom adh-minimp 46998. This section proves first adh-minim 46986 from { ax-1 6, ax-2 7 }, followed by the converse, due to Ivo Thomas; and then it proves adh-minimp 46998 from { ax-1 6, ax-2 7 }, also followed by the converse, also due to Ivo Thomas. Sources for this section are * Carew Arthur Meredith, A single axiom of positive logic, The Journal of Computing Systems, volume 1, issue 3, July 1953, pages 169--170; * Ivo Thomas, On Meredith's sole positive axiom, Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic, volume XV, number 3, July 1974, page 477, in which the derivations of { ax-1 6, ax-2 7 } from adh-minim 46986 are shortened (compared to Meredith's derivations in the aforementioned paper); * Carew Arthur Meredith and Arthur Norman Prior, Notes on the axiomatics of the propositional calculus, Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic, volume IV, number 3, July 1963, pages 171--187; and * the webpage https://web.ics.purdue.edu/~dulrich/C-pure-intuitionism-page.htm 46986 on Dolph Edward "Ted" Ulrich's website, where these and other single axioms for the minimal implicational calculus are listed. This entire section also holds intuitionistically. Users of the Polish prefix notation also often use a compact notation for proof derivations known as the D-notation where "D" stands for "condensed Detachment". For instance, "D21" means detaching ax-1 6 from ax-2 7, that is, using modus ponens ax-mp 5 with ax-1 6 as minor premise and ax-2 7 as major premise. When the numbered lemmas surpass 10, dots are added between the numbers. D-strings are accepted by the grammar Dundotted := digit | "D" Dundotted Dundotted ; Ddotted := digit + | "D" Ddotted "." Ddotted ; Dstr := Dundotted | Ddotted . (Contributed by BJ, 11-Apr-2021.) (Revised by ADH, 10-Nov-2023.)
Theorem	adh-minim 46986	A single axiom for minimal implicational calculus, due to Meredith. Other single axioms of the same length are known, but it is thought to be the minimal length. This is the axiom from Carew Arthur Meredith, A single axiom of positive logic, The Journal of Computing Systems, volume 1, issue 3, July 1953, pages 169--170. A two-line review by Alonzo Church of this article can be found in The Journal of Symbolic Logic, volume 19, issue 2, June 1954, page 144, https://doi.org/10.2307/2268914. Known as "HI-1" on Dolph Edward "Ted" Ulrich's web page. In the next 6 lemmas and 3 theorems, ax-1 6 and ax-2 7 are derived from this single axiom in 16 detachments (instances of ax-mp 5) in total. Polish prefix notation: CCCpqrCsCCqCrtCqt . (Contributed by ADH, 10-Nov-2023.)
⊢ (((𝜑 → 𝜓) → 𝜒) → (𝜃 → ((𝜓 → (𝜒 → 𝜏)) → (𝜓 → 𝜏))))
Theorem	adh-minim-ax1-ax2-lem1 46987	First lemma for the derivation of ax-1 6 and ax-2 7 from adh-minim 46986 and ax-mp 5. Polish prefix notation: CpCCqCCrCCsCqtCstuCqu . (Contributed by ADH, 10-Nov-2023.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) (New usage is discouraged.)
⊢ (𝜑 → ((𝜓 → ((𝜒 → ((𝜃 → (𝜓 → 𝜏)) → (𝜃 → 𝜏))) → 𝜂)) → (𝜓 → 𝜂)))
Theorem	adh-minim-ax1-ax2-lem2 46988	Second lemma for the derivation of ax-1 6 and ax-2 7 from adh-minim 46986 and ax-mp 5. Polish prefix notation: CCpCCqCCrCpsCrstCpt . (Contributed by ADH, 10-Nov-2023.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) (New usage is discouraged.)
⊢ ((𝜑 → ((𝜓 → ((𝜒 → (𝜑 → 𝜃)) → (𝜒 → 𝜃))) → 𝜏)) → (𝜑 → 𝜏))
Theorem	adh-minim-ax1-ax2-lem3 46989	Third lemma for the derivation of ax-1 6 and ax-2 7 from adh-minim 46986 and ax-mp 5. Polish prefix notation: CCpCqrCqCsCpr . (Contributed by ADH, 10-Nov-2023.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) (New usage is discouraged.)
⊢ ((𝜑 → (𝜓 → 𝜒)) → (𝜓 → (𝜃 → (𝜑 → 𝜒))))
Theorem	adh-minim-ax1-ax2-lem4 46990	Fourth lemma for the derivation of ax-1 6 and ax-2 7 from adh-minim 46986 and ax-mp 5. Polish prefix notation: CCCpqrCCqCrsCqs . (Contributed by ADH, 10-Nov-2023.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) (New usage is discouraged.)
⊢ (((𝜑 → 𝜓) → 𝜒) → ((𝜓 → (𝜒 → 𝜃)) → (𝜓 → 𝜃)))
Theorem	adh-minim-ax1 46991	Derivation of ax-1 6 from adh-minim 46986 and ax-mp 5. Carew Arthur Meredith derived ax-1 6 in A single axiom of positive logic, The Journal of Computing Systems, volume 1, issue 3, July 1953, pages 169--170. However, here we follow the shortened derivation by Ivo Thomas, On Meredith's sole positive axiom, Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic, volume XV, number 3, July 1974, page 477. Polish prefix notation: CpCqp . (Contributed by ADH, 10-Nov-2023.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) (New usage is discouraged.)
⊢ (𝜑 → (𝜓 → 𝜑))
Theorem	adh-minim-ax2-lem5 46992	Fifth lemma for the derivation of ax-2 7 from adh-minim 46986 and ax-mp 5. Polish prefix notation: CpCCCqrsCCrCstCrt . (Contributed by ADH, 10-Nov-2023.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) (New usage is discouraged.)
⊢ (𝜑 → (((𝜓 → 𝜒) → 𝜃) → ((𝜒 → (𝜃 → 𝜏)) → (𝜒 → 𝜏))))
Theorem	adh-minim-ax2-lem6 46993	Sixth lemma for the derivation of ax-2 7 from adh-minim 46986 and ax-mp 5. Polish prefix notation: CCpCCCCqrsCCrCstCrtuCpu . (Contributed by ADH, 10-Nov-2023.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) (New usage is discouraged.)
⊢ ((𝜑 → ((((𝜓 → 𝜒) → 𝜃) → ((𝜒 → (𝜃 → 𝜏)) → (𝜒 → 𝜏))) → 𝜂)) → (𝜑 → 𝜂))
Theorem	adh-minim-ax2c 46994	Derivation of a commuted form of ax-2 7 from adh-minim 46986 and ax-mp 5. Polish prefix notation: CCpqCCpCqrCpr . (Contributed by ADH, 10-Nov-2023.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) (New usage is discouraged.)
⊢ ((𝜑 → 𝜓) → ((𝜑 → (𝜓 → 𝜒)) → (𝜑 → 𝜒)))
Theorem	adh-minim-ax2 46995	Derivation of ax-2 7 from adh-minim 46986 and ax-mp 5. Carew Arthur Meredith derived ax-2 7 in A single axiom of positive logic, The Journal of Computing Systems, volume 1, issue 3, July 1953, pages 169--170. However, here we follow the shortened derivation by Ivo Thomas, On Meredith's sole positive axiom, Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic, volume XV, number 3, July 1974, page 477. Polish prefix notation: CCpCqrCCpqCpr . (Contributed by ADH, 10-Nov-2023.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) (New usage is discouraged.)
⊢ ((𝜑 → (𝜓 → 𝜒)) → ((𝜑 → 𝜓) → (𝜑 → 𝜒)))
Theorem	adh-minim-idALT 46996	Derivation of id 22 (reflexivity of implication, PM *2.08 WhiteheadRussell p. 101) from adh-minim-ax1 46991, adh-minim-ax2 46995, and ax-mp 5. It uses the derivation written DD211 in D-notation. (See head comment for an explanation.) Polish prefix notation: Cpp . (Contributed by ADH, 10-Nov-2023.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) (New usage is discouraged.)
⊢ (𝜑 → 𝜑)
Theorem	adh-minim-pm2.43 46997	Derivation of pm2.43 56 WhiteheadRussell p. 106 (also called "hilbert" or "W") from adh-minim-ax1 46991, adh-minim-ax2 46995, and ax-mp 5. It uses the derivation written DD22D21 in D-notation. (See head comment for an explanation.) (Contributed by ADH, 10-Nov-2023.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) (New usage is discouraged.)
⊢ ((𝜑 → (𝜑 → 𝜓)) → (𝜑 → 𝜓))
Theorem	adh-minimp 46998	Another single axiom for minimal implicational calculus, due to Meredith. Other single axioms of the same length are known, but it is thought to be the minimal length. Among single axioms of this length, it is the one with simplest antecedents (i.e., in the corresponding ordering of binary trees which first compares left subtrees, it is the first one). Known as "HI-2" on Dolph Edward "Ted" Ulrich's web page. In the next 4 lemmas and 5 theorems, ax-1 6 and ax-2 7 are derived from this other single axiom in 20 detachments (instances of ax-mp 5) in total. Polish prefix notation: CpCCqrCCCsqCrtCqt ; or CtCCpqCCCspCqrCpr in Carew Arthur Meredith and Arthur Norman Prior, Notes on the axiomatics of the propositional calculus, Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic, volume IV, number 3, July 1963, pages 171--187, on page 180. (Contributed by BJ, 4-Apr-2021.) (Revised by ADH, 10-Nov-2023.)
⊢ (𝜑 → ((𝜓 → 𝜒) → (((𝜃 → 𝜓) → (𝜒 → 𝜏)) → (𝜓 → 𝜏))))
Theorem	adh-minimp-jarr-imim1-ax2c-lem1 46999	First lemma for the derivation of jarr 106, imim1 83, and a commuted form of ax-2 7, and indirectly ax-1 6 and ax-2 7, from adh-minimp 46998 and ax-mp 5. Polish prefix notation: CCpqCCCrpCqsCps . (Contributed by ADH, 10-Nov-2023.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) (New usage is discouraged.)
⊢ ((𝜑 → 𝜓) → (((𝜒 → 𝜑) → (𝜓 → 𝜃)) → (𝜑 → 𝜃)))
Theorem	adh-minimp-jarr-lem2 47000	Second lemma for the derivation of jarr 106, and indirectly ax-1 6, a commuted form of ax-2 7, and ax-2 7 proper, from adh-minimp 46998 and ax-mp 5. Polish prefix notation: CCCpqCCCrsCCCtrCsuCruvCqv . (Contributed by ADH, 10-Nov-2023.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) (New usage is discouraged.)
⊢ (((𝜑 → 𝜓) → (((𝜒 → 𝜃) → (((𝜏 → 𝜒) → (𝜃 → 𝜂)) → (𝜒 → 𝜂))) → 𝜁)) → (𝜓 → 𝜁))