P. 479 of Theorem List - Metamath Proof Explorer

Theorem List for Metamath Proof Explorer - 47801-47900   *Has distinct variable group(s)

Type	Label	Description
Statement
Theorem	axorbciffatcxorb 47801	Given a is equivalent to (not b), c is equivalent to a. there exists a proof for ( c xor b ). (Contributed by Jarvin Udandy, 7-Sep-2016.)
⊢ (𝜑 ⊻ 𝜓)    &   ⊢ (𝜒 ↔ 𝜑)    ⇒   ⊢ (𝜒 ⊻ 𝜓)
Theorem	aibnbna 47802	Given a implies b, (not b), there exists a proof for (not a). (Contributed by Jarvin Udandy, 1-Sep-2016.)
⊢ (𝜑 → 𝜓)    &   ⊢ ¬ 𝜓    ⇒   ⊢ ¬ 𝜑
Theorem	aibnbaif 47803	Given a implies b, not b, there exists a proof for a is F. (Contributed by Jarvin Udandy, 1-Sep-2016.)
⊢ (𝜑 → 𝜓)    &   ⊢ ¬ 𝜓    ⇒   ⊢ (𝜑 ↔ ⊥)
Theorem	aiffbtbat 47804	Given a is equivalent to b, T. is equivalent to b. there exists a proof for a is equivalent to T. (Contributed by Jarvin Udandy, 29-Aug-2016.)
⊢ (𝜑 ↔ 𝜓)    &   ⊢ (⊤ ↔ 𝜓)    ⇒   ⊢ (𝜑 ↔ ⊤)
Theorem	astbstanbst 47805	Given a is equivalent to T., also given that b is equivalent to T, there exists a proof for a and b is equivalent to T. (Contributed by Jarvin Udandy, 29-Aug-2016.)
⊢ (𝜑 ↔ ⊤)    &   ⊢ (𝜓 ↔ ⊤)    ⇒   ⊢ ((𝜑 ∧ 𝜓) ↔ ⊤)
Theorem	aistbistaandb 47806	Given a is equivalent to T., also given that b is equivalent to T, there exists a proof for (a and b). (Contributed by Jarvin Udandy, 9-Sep-2016.)
⊢ (𝜑 ↔ ⊤)    &   ⊢ (𝜓 ↔ ⊤)    ⇒   ⊢ (𝜑 ∧ 𝜓)
Theorem	aisbnaxb 47807	Given a is equivalent to b, there exists a proof for (not (a xor b)). (Contributed by Jarvin Udandy, 28-Aug-2016.)
⊢ (𝜑 ↔ 𝜓)    ⇒   ⊢ ¬ (𝜑 ⊻ 𝜓)
Theorem	atbiffatnnb 47808	If a implies b, then a implies not not b. (Contributed by Jarvin Udandy, 28-Aug-2016.)
⊢ ((𝜑 → 𝜓) → (𝜑 → ¬ ¬ 𝜓))
Theorem	bisaiaisb 47809	Application of bicom1 with a, b swapped. (Contributed by Jarvin Udandy, 31-Aug-2016.)
⊢ ((𝜓 ↔ 𝜑) → (𝜑 ↔ 𝜓))
Theorem	atbiffatnnbalt 47810	If a implies b, then a implies not not b. (Contributed by Jarvin Udandy, 29-Aug-2016.)
⊢ ((𝜑 → 𝜓) → (𝜑 → ¬ ¬ 𝜓))
Theorem	abnotbtaxb 47811	Assuming a, not b, there exists a proof a-xor-b.) (Contributed by Jarvin Udandy, 31-Aug-2016.)
⊢ 𝜑    &   ⊢ ¬ 𝜓    ⇒   ⊢ (𝜑 ⊻ 𝜓)
Theorem	abnotataxb 47812	Assuming not a, b, there exists a proof a-xor-b.) (Contributed by Jarvin Udandy, 31-Aug-2016.)
⊢ ¬ 𝜑    &   ⊢ 𝜓    ⇒   ⊢ (𝜑 ⊻ 𝜓)
Theorem	conimpf 47813	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 47814	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 47815	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 47816	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 47817	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 47818	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 47819	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 47820	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 47821	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 47822	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 47823	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 47824	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 47825	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 47826	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 47827	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 47828	For when pm3.4 lacks a pm3.4i. (Contributed by Jarvin Udandy, 9-Sep-2020.)
⊢ (𝜑 ∧ 𝜓)    ⇒   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝜓)
Theorem	onenotinotbothi 47829	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 47830	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 47831	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 47832	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 47833	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 47834	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 47835	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 47836	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 47837	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 47838	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 47839	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 47840	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 47841	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 47842	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 47843	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 47844	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 47845	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 47846	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 47847	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 47848	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 47849	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 47850	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 47851	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 47852	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 47853	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 47854	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 47855	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 47856	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 47857	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 47858	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 47859	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 47860	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 47861	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 47862	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 47863	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 47864	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 47865	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 47866	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 47867	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 47868	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 47869	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 47870	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 47871	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 47872	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 47873	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 47874	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 47875	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 47876	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 47877	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 47878	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 47879	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 47880	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 47881	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 47882	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 47883	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 47884	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 47885	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 47886	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 47887	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 47888	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 47889	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 47890	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 47891	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 47892	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 47893	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 47894	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 47895	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 ↔ ⊥)))
21.49  Mathbox for Adhemar
Theorem	adh-jarrsc 47896	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)))
21.49.1  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 84, ax-1 6, pm2.43 57 } (written B'KW), or with { imim2 59, pm2.04 91, ax-1 6, pm2.43 57 } (written BCKW), or with the single axiom adh-minim 47897, or with the single axiom adh-minimp 47909. This section proves first adh-minim 47897 from { ax-1 6, ax-2 7 }, followed by the converse, due to Ivo Thomas; and then it proves adh-minimp 47909 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 47897 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 47897 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 47897	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 47898	First lemma for the derivation of ax-1 6 and ax-2 7 from adh-minim 47897 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 47899	Second lemma for the derivation of ax-1 6 and ax-2 7 from adh-minim 47897 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 47900	Third lemma for the derivation of ax-1 6 and ax-2 7 from adh-minim 47897 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))))