| Metamath
Proof Explorer Theorem List (p. 506 of 506) | < 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: | (1-31211) |
(31212-32734) |
(32735-50514) |
| Type | Label | Description |
|---|---|---|
| Statement | ||
| Theorem | nfals 50501 | Bound-variable hypothesis builder for "all some". (Contributed by David A. Wheeler, 12-Jul-2026.) |
| ⊢ Ⅎ𝑥𝜑 & ⊢ Ⅎ𝑥𝜓 ⇒ ⊢ Ⅎ𝑥∀∃𝑦(𝜑 → 𝜓) | ||
| Theorem | nfrals 50502* | Bound-variable hypothesis builder for "all some" restricted to a class. (Contributed by David A. Wheeler, 12-Jul-2026.) |
| ⊢ Ⅎ𝑥𝐴 & ⊢ Ⅎ𝑥𝜑 & ⊢ Ⅎ𝑥𝜓 ⇒ ⊢ Ⅎ𝑥∀∃𝑦 ∈ 𝐴(𝜑 → 𝜓) | ||
| Theorem | cbvals 50503* | Rule used to change bound variables, using implicit substitution. (Contributed by David A. Wheeler, 12-Jul-2026.) |
| ⊢ (𝑥 = 𝑦 → (𝜑 ↔ 𝜒)) & ⊢ (𝑥 = 𝑦 → (𝜓 ↔ 𝜃)) ⇒ ⊢ (∀∃𝑥(𝜑 → 𝜓) ↔ ∀∃𝑦(𝜒 → 𝜃)) | ||
| Theorem | als-no-surprise 50504 | 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-als 50486; the proof itself builds on alimp-no-surprise 50479. For a contrast, see alimp-surprise 50478. (Contributed by David A. Wheeler, 27-Oct-2018.) |
| ⊢ ¬ (∀∃𝑥(𝜑 → 𝜓) ∧ ∀∃𝑥(𝜑 → ¬ 𝜓)) | ||
| Theorem | rals-no-surprise 50505 | Demonstrate that there is never a "surprise" when using the allsome quantifier restricted to a class, that is, it is never possible for the consequent to be both always true and always false of the members of 𝐴 that satisfy the antecedent. This is the restricted counterpart of als-no-surprise 50504, and follows from it by dfrals2 50488. Note that this needs no assumption that 𝐴 is nonempty, because allsome requires a member of 𝐴 satisfying 𝜑, and that member would have to satisfy both 𝜓 and ¬ 𝜓. The ordinary restricted "for all" requires no such member and can be vacuously true, as shown in empty-surprise2 50481; that is the point of allsome. (Contributed by David A. Wheeler, 12-Jul-2026.) |
| ⊢ ¬ (∀∃𝑥 ∈ 𝐴(𝜑 → 𝜓) ∧ ∀∃𝑥 ∈ 𝐴(𝜑 → ¬ 𝜓)) | ||
Miscellaneous proofs. | ||
| Theorem | 5m4e1 50506 | Prove that 5 - 4 = 1. (Contributed by David A. Wheeler, 31-Jan-2017.) |
| ⊢ (5 − 4) = 1 | ||
| Theorem | 2p2ne5 50507 | 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 50508 | 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 50509 | 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 50510* | 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 50511 | Weighted version of amgmlem 27120. (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 50512 | Alternate proof of amgmlem 27120 using amgmwlem 50511. (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 50513 | Weighted arithmetic-geometric mean inequality for 𝑛 = 2 (compare amgm2d 44851). (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 50514 | Young's inequality for 𝑛 = 2, a direct application of amgmw2d 50513. (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 > |