| Metamath
Proof Explorer Theorem List (p. 499 of 499) | < Previous Wrap > | |
| Bad symbols? Try the
GIF version. |
||
|
Mirrors > Metamath Home Page > MPE Home Page > Theorem List Contents > Recent Proofs This page: Page List |
||
| Color key: | (1-30881) |
(30882-32404) |
(32405-49810) |
| Type | Label | Description |
|---|---|---|
| Statement | ||
| Theorem | alsi-no-surprise 49801 | Demonstrate that there is never a "surprise" when using the allsome quantifier, that is, it is never possible for the consequent to be both always true and always false. This uses the definition of df-alsi 49793; the proof itself builds on alimp-no-surprise 49786. For a contrast, see alimp-surprise 49785. (Contributed by David A. Wheeler, 27-Oct-2018.) |
| ⊢ ¬ (∀!𝑥(𝜑 → 𝜓) ∧ ∀!𝑥(𝜑 → ¬ 𝜓)) | ||
Miscellaneous proofs. | ||
| Theorem | 5m4e1 49802 | Prove that 5 - 4 = 1. (Contributed by David A. Wheeler, 31-Jan-2017.) |
| ⊢ (5 − 4) = 1 | ||
| Theorem | 2p2ne5 49803 | Prove that 2 + 2 ≠ 5. In George Orwell's "1984", Part One, Chapter Seven, the protagonist Winston notes that, "In the end the Party would announce that two and two made five, and you would have to believe it." http://www.sparknotes.com/lit/1984/section4.rhtml. More generally, the phrase 2 + 2 = 5 has come to represent an obviously false dogma one may be required to believe. See the Wikipedia article for more about this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2_%2B_2_%3D_5. Unsurprisingly, we can easily prove that this claim is false. (Contributed by David A. Wheeler, 31-Jan-2017.) |
| ⊢ (2 + 2) ≠ 5 | ||
| Theorem | resolution 49804 | Resolution rule. This is the primary inference rule in some automated theorem provers such as prover9. The resolution rule can be traced back to Davis and Putnam (1960). (Contributed by David A. Wheeler, 9-Feb-2017.) |
| ⊢ (((𝜑 ∧ 𝜓) ∨ (¬ 𝜑 ∧ 𝜒)) → (𝜓 ∨ 𝜒)) | ||
| Theorem | testable 49805 | In classical logic all wffs are testable, that is, it is always true that (¬ 𝜑 ∨ ¬ ¬ 𝜑). This is not necessarily true in intuitionistic logic. In intuitionistic logic, if this statement is true for some 𝜑, then 𝜑 is testable. The proof is trivial because it's simply a special case of the law of the excluded middle, which is true in classical logic but not necessarily true in intuitionisic logic. (Contributed by David A. Wheeler, 5-Dec-2018.) |
| ⊢ (¬ 𝜑 ∨ ¬ ¬ 𝜑) | ||
| Theorem | aacllem 49806* | Lemma for other theorems about 𝔸. (Contributed by Brendan Leahy, 3-Jan-2020.) (Revised by Alexander van der Vekens and David A. Wheeler, 25-Apr-2020.) |
| ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝐴 ∈ ℂ) & ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝑁 ∈ ℕ0) & ⊢ ((𝜑 ∧ 𝑛 ∈ (1...𝑁)) → 𝑋 ∈ ℂ) & ⊢ ((𝜑 ∧ 𝑘 ∈ (0...𝑁) ∧ 𝑛 ∈ (1...𝑁)) → 𝐶 ∈ ℚ) & ⊢ ((𝜑 ∧ 𝑘 ∈ (0...𝑁)) → (𝐴↑𝑘) = Σ𝑛 ∈ (1...𝑁)(𝐶 · 𝑋)) ⇒ ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝐴 ∈ 𝔸) | ||
| Theorem | amgmwlem 49807 | Weighted version of amgmlem 26917. (Contributed by Kunhao Zheng, 19-Jun-2021.) |
| ⊢ 𝑀 = (mulGrp‘ℂfld) & ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝐴 ∈ Fin) & ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝐴 ≠ ∅) & ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝐹:𝐴⟶ℝ+) & ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝑊:𝐴⟶ℝ+) & ⊢ (𝜑 → (ℂfld Σg 𝑊) = 1) ⇒ ⊢ (𝜑 → (𝑀 Σg (𝐹 ∘f ↑𝑐𝑊)) ≤ (ℂfld Σg (𝐹 ∘f · 𝑊))) | ||
| Theorem | amgmlemALT 49808 | Alternate proof of amgmlem 26917 using amgmwlem 49807. (Contributed by Kunhao Zheng, 20-Jun-2021.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) (New usage is discouraged.) |
| ⊢ 𝑀 = (mulGrp‘ℂfld) & ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝐴 ∈ Fin) & ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝐴 ≠ ∅) & ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝐹:𝐴⟶ℝ+) ⇒ ⊢ (𝜑 → ((𝑀 Σg 𝐹)↑𝑐(1 / (♯‘𝐴))) ≤ ((ℂfld Σg 𝐹) / (♯‘𝐴))) | ||
| Theorem | amgmw2d 49809 | Weighted arithmetic-geometric mean inequality for 𝑛 = 2 (compare amgm2d 44191). (Contributed by Kunhao Zheng, 20-Jun-2021.) |
| ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝐴 ∈ ℝ+) & ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝑃 ∈ ℝ+) & ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝐵 ∈ ℝ+) & ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝑄 ∈ ℝ+) & ⊢ (𝜑 → (𝑃 + 𝑄) = 1) ⇒ ⊢ (𝜑 → ((𝐴↑𝑐𝑃) · (𝐵↑𝑐𝑄)) ≤ ((𝐴 · 𝑃) + (𝐵 · 𝑄))) | ||
| Theorem | young2d 49810 | Young's inequality for 𝑛 = 2, a direct application of amgmw2d 49809. (Contributed by Kunhao Zheng, 6-Jul-2021.) |
| ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝐴 ∈ ℝ+) & ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝑃 ∈ ℝ+) & ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝐵 ∈ ℝ+) & ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝑄 ∈ ℝ+) & ⊢ (𝜑 → ((1 / 𝑃) + (1 / 𝑄)) = 1) ⇒ ⊢ (𝜑 → (𝐴 · 𝐵) ≤ (((𝐴↑𝑐𝑃) / 𝑃) + ((𝐵↑𝑐𝑄) / 𝑄))) | ||
| < Previous Wrap > |
| Copyright terms: Public domain | < Previous Wrap > |