P. 483 of Theorem List - Metamath Proof Explorer

Theorem List for Metamath Proof Explorer - 48201-48300   *Has distinct variable group(s)

Type	Label	Description
Statement
Theorem	abnotataxb 48201	Assuming not a, b, there exists a proof a-xor-b.) (Contributed by Jarvin Udandy, 31-Aug-2016.)
⊢ ¬ 𝜑    &   ⊢ 𝜓    ⇒   ⊢ (𝜑 ⊻ 𝜓)
Theorem	conimpf 48202	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 48203	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 48204	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 48205	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 48206	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 48207	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 48208	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 48209	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 48210	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 48211	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 48212	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 48213	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 48214	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 48215	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 48216	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 48217	For when pm3.4 lacks a pm3.4i. (Contributed by Jarvin Udandy, 9-Sep-2020.)
⊢ (𝜑 ∧ 𝜓)    ⇒   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝜓)
Theorem	onenotinotbothi 48218	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 48219	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 48220	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 48221	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 48222	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 48223	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 48224	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 48225	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 48226	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 48227	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 48228	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 48229	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 48230	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 48231	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 48232	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 48233	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 48234	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 48235	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 48236	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 48237	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 48238	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 48239	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 48240	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 48241	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 48242	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 48243	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 48244	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 48245	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 48246	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 48247	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 48248	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 48249	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 48250	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 48251	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 48252	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 48253	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 48254	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 48255	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 48256	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 48257	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 48258	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 48259	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 48260	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 48261	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 48262	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 48263	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 48264	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 48265	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 48266	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 48267	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 48268	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 48269	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 48270	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 48271	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 48272	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 48273	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 48274	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 48275	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 48276	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 48277	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 48278	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 48279	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 48280	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 48281	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 48282	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 48283	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 48284	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 ↔ ⊥)))
21.51  Mathbox for Adhemar
Theorem	adh-jarrsc 48285	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)))
21.51.1  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 48286, or with the single axiom adh-minimp 48298. This section proves first adh-minim 48286 from { ax-1 6, ax-2 7 }, followed by the converse, due to Ivo Thomas; and then it proves adh-minimp 48298 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 48286 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 48286 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 48286	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 48287	First lemma for the derivation of ax-1 6 and ax-2 7 from adh-minim 48286 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 48288	Second lemma for the derivation of ax-1 6 and ax-2 7 from adh-minim 48286 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 48289	Third lemma for the derivation of ax-1 6 and ax-2 7 from adh-minim 48286 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 48290	Fourth lemma for the derivation of ax-1 6 and ax-2 7 from adh-minim 48286 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 48291	Derivation of ax-1 6 from adh-minim 48286 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 48292	Fifth lemma for the derivation of ax-2 7 from adh-minim 48286 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 48293	Sixth lemma for the derivation of ax-2 7 from adh-minim 48286 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 48294	Derivation of a commuted form of ax-2 7 from adh-minim 48286 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 48295	Derivation of ax-2 7 from adh-minim 48286 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 48296	Derivation of id 23 (reflexivity of implication, PM *2.08 WhiteheadRussell p. 101) from adh-minim-ax1 48291, adh-minim-ax2 48295, 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 48297	Derivation of pm2.43 57 WhiteheadRussell p. 106 (also called "hilbert" or "W") from adh-minim-ax1 48291, adh-minim-ax2 48295, 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 48298	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 48299	First lemma for the derivation of jarr 107, imim1 84, and a commuted form of ax-2 7, and indirectly ax-1 6 and ax-2 7, from adh-minimp 48298 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 48300	Second lemma for the derivation of jarr 107, and indirectly ax-1 6, a commuted form of ax-2 7, and ax-2 7 proper, from adh-minimp 48298 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))