| Metamath
Proof Explorer Theorem List (p. 9 of 505) | < Previous Next > | |
| Bad symbols? Try the
GIF version. |
||
|
Mirrors > Metamath Home Page > MPE Home Page > Theorem List Contents > Recent Proofs This page: Page List |
||
| Color key: | (1-31179) |
(31180-32702) |
(32703-50434) |
| Type | Label | Description |
|---|---|---|
| Statement | ||
| Theorem | simp-7r 801 | Simplification of a conjunction. (Contributed by Mario Carneiro, 4-Jan-2017.) (Proof shortened by Wolf Lammen, 24-May-2022.) |
| ⊢ ((((((((𝜑 ∧ 𝜓) ∧ 𝜒) ∧ 𝜃) ∧ 𝜏) ∧ 𝜂) ∧ 𝜁) ∧ 𝜎) → 𝜓) | ||
| Theorem | simp-8l 802 | Simplification of a conjunction. (Contributed by Mario Carneiro, 4-Jan-2017.) (Proof shortened by Wolf Lammen, 24-May-2022.) |
| ⊢ (((((((((𝜑 ∧ 𝜓) ∧ 𝜒) ∧ 𝜃) ∧ 𝜏) ∧ 𝜂) ∧ 𝜁) ∧ 𝜎) ∧ 𝜌) → 𝜑) | ||
| Theorem | simp-8r 803 | Simplification of a conjunction. (Contributed by Mario Carneiro, 4-Jan-2017.) (Proof shortened by Wolf Lammen, 24-May-2022.) |
| ⊢ (((((((((𝜑 ∧ 𝜓) ∧ 𝜒) ∧ 𝜃) ∧ 𝜏) ∧ 𝜂) ∧ 𝜁) ∧ 𝜎) ∧ 𝜌) → 𝜓) | ||
| Theorem | simp-9l 804 | Simplification of a conjunction. (Contributed by Mario Carneiro, 4-Jan-2017.) (Proof shortened by Wolf Lammen, 24-May-2022.) |
| ⊢ ((((((((((𝜑 ∧ 𝜓) ∧ 𝜒) ∧ 𝜃) ∧ 𝜏) ∧ 𝜂) ∧ 𝜁) ∧ 𝜎) ∧ 𝜌) ∧ 𝜇) → 𝜑) | ||
| Theorem | simp-9r 805 | Simplification of a conjunction. (Contributed by Mario Carneiro, 4-Jan-2017.) (Proof shortened by Wolf Lammen, 24-May-2022.) |
| ⊢ ((((((((((𝜑 ∧ 𝜓) ∧ 𝜒) ∧ 𝜃) ∧ 𝜏) ∧ 𝜂) ∧ 𝜁) ∧ 𝜎) ∧ 𝜌) ∧ 𝜇) → 𝜓) | ||
| Theorem | simp-10l 806 | Simplification of a conjunction. (Contributed by Mario Carneiro, 4-Jan-2017.) (Proof shortened by Wolf Lammen, 24-May-2022.) |
| ⊢ (((((((((((𝜑 ∧ 𝜓) ∧ 𝜒) ∧ 𝜃) ∧ 𝜏) ∧ 𝜂) ∧ 𝜁) ∧ 𝜎) ∧ 𝜌) ∧ 𝜇) ∧ 𝜆) → 𝜑) | ||
| Theorem | simp-10r 807 | Simplification of a conjunction. (Contributed by Mario Carneiro, 4-Jan-2017.) (Proof shortened by Wolf Lammen, 24-May-2022.) |
| ⊢ (((((((((((𝜑 ∧ 𝜓) ∧ 𝜒) ∧ 𝜃) ∧ 𝜏) ∧ 𝜂) ∧ 𝜁) ∧ 𝜎) ∧ 𝜌) ∧ 𝜇) ∧ 𝜆) → 𝜓) | ||
| Theorem | simp-11l 808 | Simplification of a conjunction. (Contributed by Mario Carneiro, 4-Jan-2017.) (Proof shortened by Wolf Lammen, 24-May-2022.) |
| ⊢ ((((((((((((𝜑 ∧ 𝜓) ∧ 𝜒) ∧ 𝜃) ∧ 𝜏) ∧ 𝜂) ∧ 𝜁) ∧ 𝜎) ∧ 𝜌) ∧ 𝜇) ∧ 𝜆) ∧ 𝜅) → 𝜑) | ||
| Theorem | simp-11r 809 | Simplification of a conjunction. (Contributed by Mario Carneiro, 4-Jan-2017.) (Proof shortened by Wolf Lammen, 24-May-2022.) |
| ⊢ ((((((((((((𝜑 ∧ 𝜓) ∧ 𝜒) ∧ 𝜃) ∧ 𝜏) ∧ 𝜂) ∧ 𝜁) ∧ 𝜎) ∧ 𝜌) ∧ 𝜇) ∧ 𝜆) ∧ 𝜅) → 𝜓) | ||
| Theorem | pm2.01da 810 | Deduction based on reductio ad absurdum. See pm2.01 190. (Contributed by Mario Carneiro, 9-Feb-2017.) |
| ⊢ ((𝜑 ∧ 𝜓) → ¬ 𝜓) ⇒ ⊢ (𝜑 → ¬ 𝜓) | ||
| Theorem | pm2.18da 811 | Deduction based on reductio ad absurdum. See pm2.18 129. (Contributed by Mario Carneiro, 9-Feb-2017.) |
| ⊢ ((𝜑 ∧ ¬ 𝜓) → 𝜓) ⇒ ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝜓) | ||
| Theorem | impbida 812 | Deduce an equivalence from two implications. Variant of impbid 215. (Contributed by NM, 17-Feb-2007.) |
| ⊢ ((𝜑 ∧ 𝜓) → 𝜒) & ⊢ ((𝜑 ∧ 𝜒) → 𝜓) ⇒ ⊢ (𝜑 → (𝜓 ↔ 𝜒)) | ||
| Theorem | pm5.21nd 813 | Eliminate an antecedent implied by each side of a biconditional. Variant of pm5.21ndd 382. (Contributed by NM, 20-Nov-2005.) (Proof shortened by Wolf Lammen, 4-Nov-2013.) |
| ⊢ ((𝜑 ∧ 𝜓) → 𝜃) & ⊢ ((𝜑 ∧ 𝜒) → 𝜃) & ⊢ (𝜃 → (𝜓 ↔ 𝜒)) ⇒ ⊢ (𝜑 → (𝜓 ↔ 𝜒)) | ||
| Theorem | pm3.35 814 | Conjunctive detachment. Theorem *3.35 of [WhiteheadRussell] p. 112. Variant of pm2.27 43. (Contributed by NM, 14-Dec-2002.) |
| ⊢ ((𝜑 ∧ (𝜑 → 𝜓)) → 𝜓) | ||
| Theorem | pm5.74da 815 | Distribution of implication over biconditional (deduction form). Variant of pm5.74d 276. (Contributed by NM, 4-May-2007.) |
| ⊢ ((𝜑 ∧ 𝜓) → (𝜒 ↔ 𝜃)) ⇒ ⊢ (𝜑 → ((𝜓 → 𝜒) ↔ (𝜓 → 𝜃))) | ||
| Theorem | bitr 816 | Theorem *4.22 of [WhiteheadRussell] p. 117. bitri 278 in closed form. (Contributed by NM, 3-Jan-2005.) |
| ⊢ (((𝜑 ↔ 𝜓) ∧ (𝜓 ↔ 𝜒)) → (𝜑 ↔ 𝜒)) | ||
| Theorem | biantr 817 | A transitive law of equivalence. Compare Theorem *4.22 of [WhiteheadRussell] p. 117. (Contributed by NM, 18-Aug-1993.) |
| ⊢ (((𝜑 ↔ 𝜓) ∧ (𝜒 ↔ 𝜓)) → (𝜑 ↔ 𝜒)) | ||
| Theorem | pm4.14 818 | Theorem *4.14 of [WhiteheadRussell] p. 117. Related to con34b 319. (Contributed by NM, 3-Jan-2005.) (Proof shortened by Wolf Lammen, 23-Oct-2012.) |
| ⊢ (((𝜑 ∧ 𝜓) → 𝜒) ↔ ((𝜑 ∧ ¬ 𝜒) → ¬ 𝜓)) | ||
| Theorem | pm3.37 819 | Theorem *3.37 (Transp) of [WhiteheadRussell] p. 112. (Contributed by NM, 3-Jan-2005.) (Proof shortened by Wolf Lammen, 23-Oct-2012.) |
| ⊢ (((𝜑 ∧ 𝜓) → 𝜒) → ((𝜑 ∧ ¬ 𝜒) → ¬ 𝜓)) | ||
| Theorem | anim12 820 | Conjoin antecedents and consequents of two premises. This is the closed theorem form of anim12d 620. Theorem *3.47 of [WhiteheadRussell] p. 113. It was proved by Leibniz, and it evidently pleased him enough to call it praeclarum theorema (splendid theorem). (Contributed by NM, 12-Aug-1993.) (Proof shortened by Wolf Lammen, 7-Apr-2013.) |
| ⊢ (((𝜑 → 𝜓) ∧ (𝜒 → 𝜃)) → ((𝜑 ∧ 𝜒) → (𝜓 ∧ 𝜃))) | ||
| Theorem | pm3.4 821 | Conjunction implies implication. Theorem *3.4 of [WhiteheadRussell] p. 113. (Contributed by NM, 31-Jul-1995.) |
| ⊢ ((𝜑 ∧ 𝜓) → (𝜑 → 𝜓)) | ||
| Theorem | exbiri 822 | Inference form of exbir 45053. This proof is exbiriVD 45427 automatically translated and minimized. (Contributed by Alan Sare, 31-Dec-2011.) (Proof shortened by Wolf Lammen, 27-Jan-2013.) |
| ⊢ ((𝜑 ∧ 𝜓) → (𝜒 ↔ 𝜃)) ⇒ ⊢ (𝜑 → (𝜓 → (𝜃 → 𝜒))) | ||
| Theorem | pm2.61ian 823 | Elimination of an antecedent. (Contributed by NM, 1-Jan-2005.) |
| ⊢ ((𝜑 ∧ 𝜓) → 𝜒) & ⊢ ((¬ 𝜑 ∧ 𝜓) → 𝜒) ⇒ ⊢ (𝜓 → 𝜒) | ||
| Theorem | pm2.61dan 824 | Elimination of an antecedent. (Contributed by NM, 1-Jan-2005.) |
| ⊢ ((𝜑 ∧ 𝜓) → 𝜒) & ⊢ ((𝜑 ∧ ¬ 𝜓) → 𝜒) ⇒ ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝜒) | ||
| Theorem | pm2.61ddan 825 | Elimination of two antecedents. (Contributed by NM, 9-Jul-2013.) |
| ⊢ ((𝜑 ∧ 𝜓) → 𝜃) & ⊢ ((𝜑 ∧ 𝜒) → 𝜃) & ⊢ ((𝜑 ∧ (¬ 𝜓 ∧ ¬ 𝜒)) → 𝜃) ⇒ ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝜃) | ||
| Theorem | pm2.61dda 826 | Elimination of two antecedents. (Contributed by NM, 9-Jul-2013.) |
| ⊢ ((𝜑 ∧ ¬ 𝜓) → 𝜃) & ⊢ ((𝜑 ∧ ¬ 𝜒) → 𝜃) & ⊢ ((𝜑 ∧ (𝜓 ∧ 𝜒)) → 𝜃) ⇒ ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝜃) | ||
| Theorem | mtand 827 | A modus tollens deduction. (Contributed by Jeff Hankins, 19-Aug-2009.) |
| ⊢ (𝜑 → ¬ 𝜒) & ⊢ ((𝜑 ∧ 𝜓) → 𝜒) ⇒ ⊢ (𝜑 → ¬ 𝜓) | ||
| Theorem | pm2.65da 828 | Deduction for proof by contradiction. (Contributed by NM, 12-Jun-2014.) |
| ⊢ ((𝜑 ∧ 𝜓) → 𝜒) & ⊢ ((𝜑 ∧ 𝜓) → ¬ 𝜒) ⇒ ⊢ (𝜑 → ¬ 𝜓) | ||
| Theorem | condan 829 | Proof by contradiction. (Contributed by NM, 9-Feb-2006.) (Proof shortened by Wolf Lammen, 19-Jun-2014.) |
| ⊢ ((𝜑 ∧ ¬ 𝜓) → 𝜒) & ⊢ ((𝜑 ∧ ¬ 𝜓) → ¬ 𝜒) ⇒ ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝜓) | ||
| Theorem | biadan 830 | An implication is equivalent to the equivalence of some implied equivalence and some other equivalence involving a conjunction. A utility lemma as illustrated in biadanii 833 and elelb 37394. (Contributed by BJ, 4-Mar-2023.) (Proof shortened by Wolf Lammen, 8-Mar-2023.) |
| ⊢ ((𝜑 → 𝜓) ↔ ((𝜓 → (𝜑 ↔ 𝜒)) ↔ (𝜑 ↔ (𝜓 ∧ 𝜒)))) | ||
| Theorem | biadani 831 | Inference associated with biadan 830. (Contributed by BJ, 4-Mar-2023.) |
| ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝜓) ⇒ ⊢ ((𝜓 → (𝜑 ↔ 𝜒)) ↔ (𝜑 ↔ (𝜓 ∧ 𝜒))) | ||
| Theorem | biadaniALT 832 | Alternate proof of biadani 831 not using biadan 830. (Contributed by BJ, 4-Mar-2023.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) (New usage is discouraged.) |
| ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝜓) ⇒ ⊢ ((𝜓 → (𝜑 ↔ 𝜒)) ↔ (𝜑 ↔ (𝜓 ∧ 𝜒))) | ||
| Theorem | biadanii 833 | Inference associated with biadani 831. Add a conjunction to an equivalence. (Contributed by Jeff Madsen, 20-Jun-2011.) (Proof shortened by BJ, 4-Mar-2023.) |
| ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝜓) & ⊢ (𝜓 → (𝜑 ↔ 𝜒)) ⇒ ⊢ (𝜑 ↔ (𝜓 ∧ 𝜒)) | ||
| Theorem | biadanid 834 | Deduction associated with biadani 831. Add a conjunction to an equivalence. (Contributed by Thierry Arnoux, 16-Jun-2024.) |
| ⊢ ((𝜑 ∧ 𝜓) → 𝜒) & ⊢ ((𝜑 ∧ 𝜒) → (𝜓 ↔ 𝜃)) ⇒ ⊢ (𝜑 → (𝜓 ↔ (𝜒 ∧ 𝜃))) | ||
| Theorem | pm5.1 835 | Two propositions are equivalent if they are both true. Theorem *5.1 of [WhiteheadRussell] p. 123. (Contributed by NM, 21-May-1994.) |
| ⊢ ((𝜑 ∧ 𝜓) → (𝜑 ↔ 𝜓)) | ||
| Theorem | pm5.21 836 | Two propositions are equivalent if they are both false. Theorem *5.21 of [WhiteheadRussell] p. 124. (Contributed by NM, 21-May-1994.) |
| ⊢ ((¬ 𝜑 ∧ ¬ 𝜓) → (𝜑 ↔ 𝜓)) | ||
| Theorem | pm5.35 837 | Theorem *5.35 of [WhiteheadRussell] p. 125. Closed form of 2thd 268. (Contributed by NM, 3-Jan-2005.) |
| ⊢ (((𝜑 → 𝜓) ∧ (𝜑 → 𝜒)) → (𝜑 → (𝜓 ↔ 𝜒))) | ||
| Theorem | abai 838 | Introduce one conjunct as an antecedent to the other. "abai" stands for "and, biconditional, and, implication". (Contributed by NM, 12-Aug-1993.) (Proof shortened by Wolf Lammen, 7-Dec-2012.) |
| ⊢ ((𝜑 ∧ 𝜓) ↔ (𝜑 ∧ (𝜑 → 𝜓))) | ||
| Theorem | abab 839 | Introduce one conjunct as equivalent to the other. "abab" stands for "and, biconditional, and, biconditional". (Contributed by Wolf Lammen, 4-Jun-2026.) |
| ⊢ ((𝜑 ∧ 𝜓) ↔ (𝜑 ∧ (𝜑 ↔ 𝜓))) | ||
| Theorem | pm4.45im 840 | Conjunction with implication. Compare Theorem *4.45 of [WhiteheadRussell] p. 119. (Contributed by NM, 17-May-1998.) |
| ⊢ (𝜑 ↔ (𝜑 ∧ (𝜓 → 𝜑))) | ||
| Theorem | impimprbi 841 | An implication and its reverse are equivalent exactly when both operands are equivalent. The right hand side resembles that of dfbi2 479, but ↔ is a weaker operator than ∧. Note that an implication and its reverse can never be simultaneously false, because of pm2.521 177. (Contributed by Wolf Lammen, 18-Dec-2023.) |
| ⊢ ((𝜑 ↔ 𝜓) ↔ ((𝜑 → 𝜓) ↔ (𝜓 → 𝜑))) | ||
| Theorem | nan 842 | Theorem to move a conjunct in and out of a negation. (Contributed by NM, 9-Nov-2003.) |
| ⊢ ((𝜑 → ¬ (𝜓 ∧ 𝜒)) ↔ ((𝜑 ∧ 𝜓) → ¬ 𝜒)) | ||
| Theorem | pm5.31 843 | Theorem *5.31 of [WhiteheadRussell] p. 125. (Contributed by NM, 3-Jan-2005.) |
| ⊢ ((𝜒 ∧ (𝜑 → 𝜓)) → (𝜑 → (𝜓 ∧ 𝜒))) | ||
| Theorem | pm5.31r 844 | Variant of pm5.31 843. (Contributed by Rodolfo Medina, 15-Oct-2010.) |
| ⊢ ((𝜒 ∧ (𝜑 → 𝜓)) → (𝜑 → (𝜒 ∧ 𝜓))) | ||
| Theorem | pm4.15 845 | Theorem *4.15 of [WhiteheadRussell] p. 117. (Contributed by NM, 3-Jan-2005.) (Proof shortened by Wolf Lammen, 18-Nov-2012.) |
| ⊢ (((𝜑 ∧ 𝜓) → ¬ 𝜒) ↔ ((𝜓 ∧ 𝜒) → ¬ 𝜑)) | ||
| Theorem | pm5.36 846 | Theorem *5.36 of [WhiteheadRussell] p. 125. (Contributed by NM, 3-Jan-2005.) |
| ⊢ ((𝜑 ∧ (𝜑 ↔ 𝜓)) ↔ (𝜓 ∧ (𝜑 ↔ 𝜓))) | ||
| Theorem | annotanannot 847 | A conjunction with a negated conjunction. (Contributed by AV, 8-Mar-2022.) (Proof shortened by Wolf Lammen, 1-Apr-2022.) |
| ⊢ ((𝜑 ∧ ¬ (𝜑 ∧ 𝜓)) ↔ (𝜑 ∧ ¬ 𝜓)) | ||
| Theorem | pm5.33 848 | Theorem *5.33 of [WhiteheadRussell] p. 125. (Contributed by NM, 3-Jan-2005.) |
| ⊢ ((𝜑 ∧ (𝜓 → 𝜒)) ↔ (𝜑 ∧ ((𝜑 ∧ 𝜓) → 𝜒))) | ||
| Theorem | syl12anc 849 | Syllogism combined with contraction. (Contributed by Jeff Hankins, 1-Aug-2009.) |
| ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝜓) & ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝜒) & ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝜃) & ⊢ ((𝜓 ∧ (𝜒 ∧ 𝜃)) → 𝜏) ⇒ ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝜏) | ||
| Theorem | syl21anc 850 | Syllogism combined with contraction. (Contributed by Jeff Hankins, 1-Aug-2009.) |
| ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝜓) & ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝜒) & ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝜃) & ⊢ (((𝜓 ∧ 𝜒) ∧ 𝜃) → 𝜏) ⇒ ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝜏) | ||
| Theorem | syl22anc 851 | Syllogism combined with contraction. (Contributed by NM, 11-Mar-2012.) |
| ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝜓) & ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝜒) & ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝜃) & ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝜏) & ⊢ (((𝜓 ∧ 𝜒) ∧ (𝜃 ∧ 𝜏)) → 𝜂) ⇒ ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝜂) | ||
| Theorem | bibiad 852 | Eliminate an hypothesis 𝜃 in a biconditional. (Contributed by Thierry Arnoux, 4-May-2025.) |
| ⊢ ((𝜑 ∧ 𝜓) → 𝜃) & ⊢ ((𝜑 ∧ 𝜒) → 𝜃) & ⊢ ((𝜑 ∧ 𝜃) → (𝜓 ↔ 𝜒)) ⇒ ⊢ (𝜑 → (𝜓 ↔ 𝜒)) | ||
| Theorem | syl1111anc 853 | Four-hypothesis elimination deduction for an assertion with a singleton virtual hypothesis collection. Similar to syl112anc 1397 except the unification theorem uses left-nested conjunction. (Contributed by Alan Sare, 17-Oct-2017.) |
| ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝜓) & ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝜒) & ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝜃) & ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝜏) & ⊢ ((((𝜓 ∧ 𝜒) ∧ 𝜃) ∧ 𝜏) → 𝜂) ⇒ ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝜂) | ||
| Theorem | syldbl2 854 | Stacked hypotheseis implies goal. (Contributed by Stanislas Polu, 9-Mar-2020.) |
| ⊢ ((𝜑 ∧ 𝜓) → (𝜓 → 𝜃)) ⇒ ⊢ ((𝜑 ∧ 𝜓) → 𝜃) | ||
| Theorem | mpsyl4anc 855 | An elimination deduction. (Contributed by Alan Sare, 17-Oct-2017.) |
| ⊢ 𝜑 & ⊢ 𝜓 & ⊢ 𝜒 & ⊢ (𝜃 → 𝜏) & ⊢ ((((𝜑 ∧ 𝜓) ∧ 𝜒) ∧ 𝜏) → 𝜂) ⇒ ⊢ (𝜃 → 𝜂) | ||
| Theorem | pm4.87 856 | Theorem *4.87 of [WhiteheadRussell] p. 122. (Contributed by NM, 3-Jan-2005.) (Proof shortened by Eric Schmidt, 26-Oct-2006.) |
| ⊢ (((((𝜑 ∧ 𝜓) → 𝜒) ↔ (𝜑 → (𝜓 → 𝜒))) ∧ ((𝜑 → (𝜓 → 𝜒)) ↔ (𝜓 → (𝜑 → 𝜒)))) ∧ ((𝜓 → (𝜑 → 𝜒)) ↔ ((𝜓 ∧ 𝜑) → 𝜒))) | ||
| Theorem | bimsc1 857 | Removal of conjunct from one side of an equivalence. (Contributed by NM, 21-Jun-1993.) |
| ⊢ (((𝜑 → 𝜓) ∧ (𝜒 ↔ (𝜓 ∧ 𝜑))) → (𝜒 ↔ 𝜑)) | ||
| Theorem | a2and 858 | Deduction distributing a conjunction as embedded antecedent. (Contributed by AV, 25-Oct-2019.) (Proof shortened by Wolf Lammen, 19-Jan-2020.) |
| ⊢ (𝜑 → ((𝜓 ∧ 𝜌) → (𝜏 → 𝜃))) & ⊢ (𝜑 → ((𝜓 ∧ 𝜌) → 𝜒)) ⇒ ⊢ (𝜑 → (((𝜓 ∧ 𝜒) → 𝜏) → ((𝜓 ∧ 𝜌) → 𝜃))) | ||
| Theorem | animpimp2impd 859 | Deduction deriving nested implications from conjunctions. (Contributed by AV, 21-Aug-2022.) |
| ⊢ ((𝜓 ∧ 𝜑) → (𝜒 → (𝜃 → 𝜂))) & ⊢ ((𝜓 ∧ (𝜑 ∧ 𝜃)) → (𝜂 → 𝜏)) ⇒ ⊢ (𝜑 → ((𝜓 → 𝜒) → (𝜓 → (𝜃 → 𝜏)))) | ||
This section defines disjunction of two formulas, denoted by infix "∨ " and read "or". It is defined in terms of implication and negation, which is possible in classical logic (but not in intuitionistic logic: see iset.mm). This section contains only theorems proved without df-an 401 (theorems that are proved using df-an 401 are deferred to the next section). Basic theorems that help simplifying and applying disjunction are olc 881, orc 880, and orcom 883. As mentioned in the "note on definitions" in the section comment for logical equivalence, all theorems in this and the previous section can be stated in terms of implication and negation only. Additionally, in classical logic (but not in intuitionistic logic: see iset.mm), it is also possible to translate conjunction into disjunction and conversely via the De Morgan law anor 998: conjunction and disjunction are dual connectives. Either is sufficient to develop all propositional calculus of the logic (together with implication and negation). In practice, conjunction is more efficient, its big advantage being the possibility to use it to group antecedents in a convenient way, using imp 411 and ex 417 as noted in the previous section. An illustration of the conservativity of df-an 401 is given by orim12dALT 924, which is an alternate proof of orim12d 979 not using df-an 401. | ||
| Syntax | wo 860 | Extend wff definition to include disjunction ("or"). |
| wff (𝜑 ∨ 𝜓) | ||
| Definition | df-or 861 |
Define disjunction (logical "or"). Definition of [Margaris] p. 49. When
the left operand, right operand, or both are true, the result is true;
when both sides are false, the result is false. For example, it is true
that (2 = 3 ∨ 4 = 4) (ex-or 30681). After we define the constant
true ⊤ (df-tru 1566) and the constant false ⊥ (df-fal 1576), we
will be able to prove these truth table values:
((⊤ ∨ ⊤) ↔ ⊤) (truortru 1600), ((⊤ ∨ ⊥)
↔ ⊤)
(truorfal 1601), ((⊥ ∨ ⊤)
↔ ⊤) (falortru 1602), and
((⊥ ∨ ⊥) ↔ ⊥) (falorfal 1603).
Contrast with ∧ (df-an 401), → (wi 4), ⊼ (df-nan 1515), and ⊻ (df-xor 1535). (Contributed by NM, 27-Dec-1992.) |
| ⊢ ((𝜑 ∨ 𝜓) ↔ (¬ 𝜑 → 𝜓)) | ||
| Theorem | pm4.64 862 | Theorem *4.64 of [WhiteheadRussell] p. 120. (Contributed by NM, 3-Jan-2005.) |
| ⊢ ((¬ 𝜑 → 𝜓) ↔ (𝜑 ∨ 𝜓)) | ||
| Theorem | pm4.66 863 | Theorem *4.66 of [WhiteheadRussell] p. 120. (Contributed by NM, 3-Jan-2005.) |
| ⊢ ((¬ 𝜑 → ¬ 𝜓) ↔ (𝜑 ∨ ¬ 𝜓)) | ||
| Theorem | pm2.53 864 | Theorem *2.53 of [WhiteheadRussell] p. 107. (Contributed by NM, 3-Jan-2005.) |
| ⊢ ((𝜑 ∨ 𝜓) → (¬ 𝜑 → 𝜓)) | ||
| Theorem | pm2.54 865 | Theorem *2.54 of [WhiteheadRussell] p. 107. (Contributed by NM, 3-Jan-2005.) |
| ⊢ ((¬ 𝜑 → 𝜓) → (𝜑 ∨ 𝜓)) | ||
| Theorem | imor 866 | Implication in terms of disjunction. Theorem *4.6 of [WhiteheadRussell] p. 120. (Contributed by NM, 3-Jan-1993.) |
| ⊢ ((𝜑 → 𝜓) ↔ (¬ 𝜑 ∨ 𝜓)) | ||
| Theorem | imori 867 | Infer disjunction from implication. (Contributed by NM, 12-Mar-2012.) |
| ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝜓) ⇒ ⊢ (¬ 𝜑 ∨ 𝜓) | ||
| Theorem | imorri 868 | Infer implication from disjunction. (Contributed by Jonathan Ben-Naim, 3-Jun-2011.) |
| ⊢ (¬ 𝜑 ∨ 𝜓) ⇒ ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝜓) | ||
| Theorem | pm4.62 869 | Theorem *4.62 of [WhiteheadRussell] p. 120. (Contributed by NM, 3-Jan-2005.) |
| ⊢ ((𝜑 → ¬ 𝜓) ↔ (¬ 𝜑 ∨ ¬ 𝜓)) | ||
| Theorem | jaoi 870 | Inference disjoining the antecedents of two implications. (Contributed by NM, 5-Apr-1994.) |
| ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝜓) & ⊢ (𝜒 → 𝜓) ⇒ ⊢ ((𝜑 ∨ 𝜒) → 𝜓) | ||
| Theorem | jao1i 871 | Add a disjunct in the antecedent of an implication. (Contributed by Rodolfo Medina, 24-Sep-2010.) |
| ⊢ (𝜓 → (𝜒 → 𝜑)) ⇒ ⊢ ((𝜑 ∨ 𝜓) → (𝜒 → 𝜑)) | ||
| Theorem | jaod 872 | Deduction disjoining the antecedents of two implications. (Contributed by NM, 18-Aug-1994.) |
| ⊢ (𝜑 → (𝜓 → 𝜒)) & ⊢ (𝜑 → (𝜃 → 𝜒)) ⇒ ⊢ (𝜑 → ((𝜓 ∨ 𝜃) → 𝜒)) | ||
| Theorem | mpjaod 873 | Eliminate a disjunction in a deduction. (Contributed by Mario Carneiro, 29-May-2016.) |
| ⊢ (𝜑 → (𝜓 → 𝜒)) & ⊢ (𝜑 → (𝜃 → 𝜒)) & ⊢ (𝜑 → (𝜓 ∨ 𝜃)) ⇒ ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝜒) | ||
| Theorem | ori 874 | Infer implication from disjunction. (Contributed by NM, 11-Jun-1994.) |
| ⊢ (𝜑 ∨ 𝜓) ⇒ ⊢ (¬ 𝜑 → 𝜓) | ||
| Theorem | orri 875 | Infer disjunction from implication. (Contributed by NM, 11-Jun-1994.) |
| ⊢ (¬ 𝜑 → 𝜓) ⇒ ⊢ (𝜑 ∨ 𝜓) | ||
| Theorem | orrd 876 | Deduce disjunction from implication. (Contributed by NM, 27-Nov-1995.) |
| ⊢ (𝜑 → (¬ 𝜓 → 𝜒)) ⇒ ⊢ (𝜑 → (𝜓 ∨ 𝜒)) | ||
| Theorem | ord 877 | Deduce implication from disjunction. (Contributed by NM, 18-May-1994.) |
| ⊢ (𝜑 → (𝜓 ∨ 𝜒)) ⇒ ⊢ (𝜑 → (¬ 𝜓 → 𝜒)) | ||
| Theorem | orci 878 | Deduction introducing a disjunct. (Contributed by NM, 19-Jan-2008.) (Proof shortened by Wolf Lammen, 14-Nov-2012.) |
| ⊢ 𝜑 ⇒ ⊢ (𝜑 ∨ 𝜓) | ||
| Theorem | olci 879 | Deduction introducing a disjunct. (Contributed by NM, 19-Jan-2008.) (Proof shortened by Wolf Lammen, 14-Nov-2012.) |
| ⊢ 𝜑 ⇒ ⊢ (𝜓 ∨ 𝜑) | ||
| Theorem | orc 880 | Introduction of a disjunct. Theorem *2.2 of [WhiteheadRussell] p. 104. (Contributed by NM, 30-Aug-1993.) |
| ⊢ (𝜑 → (𝜑 ∨ 𝜓)) | ||
| Theorem | olc 881 | Introduction of a disjunct. Axiom *1.3 of [WhiteheadRussell] p. 96. (Contributed by NM, 30-Aug-1993.) |
| ⊢ (𝜑 → (𝜓 ∨ 𝜑)) | ||
| Theorem | pm1.4 882 | Axiom *1.4 of [WhiteheadRussell] p. 96. (Contributed by NM, 3-Jan-2005.) |
| ⊢ ((𝜑 ∨ 𝜓) → (𝜓 ∨ 𝜑)) | ||
| Theorem | orcom 883 | Commutative law for disjunction. Theorem *4.31 of [WhiteheadRussell] p. 118. (Contributed by NM, 3-Jan-1993.) (Proof shortened by Wolf Lammen, 15-Nov-2012.) |
| ⊢ ((𝜑 ∨ 𝜓) ↔ (𝜓 ∨ 𝜑)) | ||
| Theorem | orcomd 884 | Commutation of disjuncts in consequent. (Contributed by NM, 2-Dec-2010.) |
| ⊢ (𝜑 → (𝜓 ∨ 𝜒)) ⇒ ⊢ (𝜑 → (𝜒 ∨ 𝜓)) | ||
| Theorem | orcoms 885 | Commutation of disjuncts in antecedent. (Contributed by NM, 2-Dec-2012.) |
| ⊢ ((𝜑 ∨ 𝜓) → 𝜒) ⇒ ⊢ ((𝜓 ∨ 𝜑) → 𝜒) | ||
| Theorem | orcd 886 | Deduction introducing a disjunct. A translation of natural deduction rule ∨ IR (∨ insertion right), see natded 30663. (Contributed by NM, 20-Sep-2007.) |
| ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝜓) ⇒ ⊢ (𝜑 → (𝜓 ∨ 𝜒)) | ||
| Theorem | olcd 887 | Deduction introducing a disjunct. A translation of natural deduction rule ∨ IL (∨ insertion left), see natded 30663. (Contributed by NM, 11-Apr-2008.) (Proof shortened by Wolf Lammen, 3-Oct-2013.) |
| ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝜓) ⇒ ⊢ (𝜑 → (𝜒 ∨ 𝜓)) | ||
| Theorem | orcs 888 | Deduction eliminating disjunct. Notational convention: We sometimes suffix with "s" the label of an inference that manipulates an antecedent, leaving the consequent unchanged. The "s" means that the inference eliminates the need for a syllogism (syl 18) -type inference in a proof. (Contributed by NM, 21-Jun-1994.) |
| ⊢ ((𝜑 ∨ 𝜓) → 𝜒) ⇒ ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝜒) | ||
| Theorem | olcs 889 | Deduction eliminating disjunct. (Contributed by NM, 21-Jun-1994.) (Proof shortened by Wolf Lammen, 3-Oct-2013.) |
| ⊢ ((𝜑 ∨ 𝜓) → 𝜒) ⇒ ⊢ (𝜓 → 𝜒) | ||
| Theorem | olcnd 890 | A lemma for Conjunctive Normal Form unit propagation, in deduction form. (Contributed by Giovanni Mascellani, 15-Sep-2017.) (Proof shortened by Wolf Lammen, 13-Apr-2024.) |
| ⊢ (𝜑 → (𝜓 ∨ 𝜒)) & ⊢ (𝜑 → ¬ 𝜒) ⇒ ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝜓) | ||
| Theorem | orcnd 891 | A lemma for Conjunctive Normal Form unit propagation, in deduction form. (Contributed by Giovanni Mascellani, 15-Sep-2017.) |
| ⊢ (𝜑 → (𝜓 ∨ 𝜒)) & ⊢ (𝜑 → ¬ 𝜓) ⇒ ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝜒) | ||
| Theorem | mtord 892 | A modus tollens deduction involving disjunction. (Contributed by Jeff Hankins, 15-Jul-2009.) |
| ⊢ (𝜑 → ¬ 𝜒) & ⊢ (𝜑 → ¬ 𝜃) & ⊢ (𝜑 → (𝜓 → (𝜒 ∨ 𝜃))) ⇒ ⊢ (𝜑 → ¬ 𝜓) | ||
| Theorem | pm3.2ni 893 | Infer negated disjunction of negated premises. (Contributed by NM, 4-Apr-1995.) |
| ⊢ ¬ 𝜑 & ⊢ ¬ 𝜓 ⇒ ⊢ ¬ (𝜑 ∨ 𝜓) | ||
| Theorem | pm2.45 894 | Theorem *2.45 of [WhiteheadRussell] p. 106. (Contributed by NM, 3-Jan-2005.) |
| ⊢ (¬ (𝜑 ∨ 𝜓) → ¬ 𝜑) | ||
| Theorem | pm2.46 895 | Theorem *2.46 of [WhiteheadRussell] p. 106. (Contributed by NM, 3-Jan-2005.) |
| ⊢ (¬ (𝜑 ∨ 𝜓) → ¬ 𝜓) | ||
| Theorem | pm2.47 896 | Theorem *2.47 of [WhiteheadRussell] p. 107. (Contributed by NM, 3-Jan-2005.) |
| ⊢ (¬ (𝜑 ∨ 𝜓) → (¬ 𝜑 ∨ 𝜓)) | ||
| Theorem | pm2.48 897 | Theorem *2.48 of [WhiteheadRussell] p. 107. (Contributed by NM, 3-Jan-2005.) |
| ⊢ (¬ (𝜑 ∨ 𝜓) → (𝜑 ∨ ¬ 𝜓)) | ||
| Theorem | pm2.49 898 | Theorem *2.49 of [WhiteheadRussell] p. 107. (Contributed by NM, 3-Jan-2005.) |
| ⊢ (¬ (𝜑 ∨ 𝜓) → (¬ 𝜑 ∨ ¬ 𝜓)) | ||
| Theorem | norbi 899 | If neither of two propositions is true, then these propositions are equivalent. (Contributed by BJ, 26-Apr-2019.) |
| ⊢ (¬ (𝜑 ∨ 𝜓) → (𝜑 ↔ 𝜓)) | ||
| Theorem | nbior 900 | If two propositions are not equivalent, then at least one is true. (Contributed by BJ, 19-Apr-2019.) (Proof shortened by Wolf Lammen, 19-Jan-2020.) |
| ⊢ (¬ (𝜑 ↔ 𝜓) → (𝜑 ∨ 𝜓)) | ||
| < Previous Next > |
| Copyright terms: Public domain | < Previous Next > |