| Metamath
Proof Explorer Theorem List (p. 9 of 504) | < 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: | (1-31014) |
(31015-32537) |
(32538-50302) |
| Type | Label | Description |
|---|---|---|
| Statement | ||
| Theorem | simp-10r 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) ∧ 𝜌) ∧ 𝜇) ∧ 𝜆) → 𝜓) | ||
| Theorem | simp-11l 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) ∧ 𝜇) ∧ 𝜆) ∧ 𝜅) → 𝜑) | ||
| Theorem | simp-11r 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) ∧ 𝜇) ∧ 𝜆) ∧ 𝜅) → 𝜓) | ||
| Theorem | pm2.01da 804 | Deduction based on reductio ad absurdum. See pm2.01 189. (Contributed by Mario Carneiro, 9-Feb-2017.) |
| ⊢ ((𝜑 ∧ 𝜓) → ¬ 𝜓) ⇒ ⊢ (𝜑 → ¬ 𝜓) | ||
| Theorem | pm2.18da 805 | Deduction based on reductio ad absurdum. See pm2.18 128. (Contributed by Mario Carneiro, 9-Feb-2017.) |
| ⊢ ((𝜑 ∧ ¬ 𝜓) → 𝜓) ⇒ ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝜓) | ||
| Theorem | impbida 806 | Deduce an equivalence from two implications. Variant of impbid 213. (Contributed by NM, 17-Feb-2007.) |
| ⊢ ((𝜑 ∧ 𝜓) → 𝜒) & ⊢ ((𝜑 ∧ 𝜒) → 𝜓) ⇒ ⊢ (𝜑 → (𝜓 ↔ 𝜒)) | ||
| Theorem | pm5.21nd 807 | Eliminate an antecedent implied by each side of a biconditional. Variant of pm5.21ndd 380. (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 | pm3.35 808 | Conjunctive detachment. Theorem *3.35 of [WhiteheadRussell] p. 112. Variant of pm2.27 42. (Contributed by NM, 14-Dec-2002.) |
| ⊢ ((𝜑 ∧ (𝜑 → 𝜓)) → 𝜓) | ||
| Theorem | pm5.74da 809 | Distribution of implication over biconditional (deduction form). Variant of pm5.74d 274. (Contributed by NM, 4-May-2007.) |
| ⊢ ((𝜑 ∧ 𝜓) → (𝜒 ↔ 𝜃)) ⇒ ⊢ (𝜑 → ((𝜓 → 𝜒) ↔ (𝜓 → 𝜃))) | ||
| Theorem | bitr 810 | Theorem *4.22 of [WhiteheadRussell] p. 117. bitri 276 in closed form. (Contributed by NM, 3-Jan-2005.) |
| ⊢ (((𝜑 ↔ 𝜓) ∧ (𝜓 ↔ 𝜒)) → (𝜑 ↔ 𝜒)) | ||
| Theorem | biantr 811 | 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 | pm4.14 812 | Theorem *4.14 of [WhiteheadRussell] p. 117. Related to con34b 317. (Contributed by NM, 3-Jan-2005.) (Proof shortened by Wolf Lammen, 23-Oct-2012.) |
| ⊢ (((𝜑 ∧ 𝜓) → 𝜒) ↔ ((𝜑 ∧ ¬ 𝜒) → ¬ 𝜓)) | ||
| Theorem | pm3.37 813 | 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 814 | Conjoin antecedents and consequents of two premises. This is the closed theorem form of anim12d 615. 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 | pm3.4 815 | Conjunction implies implication. Theorem *3.4 of [WhiteheadRussell] p. 113. (Contributed by NM, 31-Jul-1995.) |
| ⊢ ((𝜑 ∧ 𝜓) → (𝜑 → 𝜓)) | ||
| Theorem | exbiri 816 | Inference form of exbir 44930. This proof is exbiriVD 45304 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 817 | Elimination of an antecedent. (Contributed by NM, 1-Jan-2005.) |
| ⊢ ((𝜑 ∧ 𝜓) → 𝜒) & ⊢ ((¬ 𝜑 ∧ 𝜓) → 𝜒) ⇒ ⊢ (𝜓 → 𝜒) | ||
| Theorem | pm2.61dan 818 | Elimination of an antecedent. (Contributed by NM, 1-Jan-2005.) |
| ⊢ ((𝜑 ∧ 𝜓) → 𝜒) & ⊢ ((𝜑 ∧ ¬ 𝜓) → 𝜒) ⇒ ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝜒) | ||
| Theorem | pm2.61ddan 819 | 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 820 | Elimination of two antecedents. (Contributed by NM, 9-Jul-2013.) |
| ⊢ ((𝜑 ∧ ¬ 𝜓) → 𝜃) & ⊢ ((𝜑 ∧ ¬ 𝜒) → 𝜃) & ⊢ ((𝜑 ∧ (𝜓 ∧ 𝜒)) → 𝜃) ⇒ ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝜃) | ||
| Theorem | mtand 821 | A modus tollens deduction. (Contributed by Jeff Hankins, 19-Aug-2009.) |
| ⊢ (𝜑 → ¬ 𝜒) & ⊢ ((𝜑 ∧ 𝜓) → 𝜒) ⇒ ⊢ (𝜑 → ¬ 𝜓) | ||
| Theorem | pm2.65da 822 | Deduction for proof by contradiction. (Contributed by NM, 12-Jun-2014.) |
| ⊢ ((𝜑 ∧ 𝜓) → 𝜒) & ⊢ ((𝜑 ∧ 𝜓) → ¬ 𝜒) ⇒ ⊢ (𝜑 → ¬ 𝜓) | ||
| Theorem | condan 823 | 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 824 | 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 827 and elelb 37257. (Contributed by BJ, 4-Mar-2023.) (Proof shortened by Wolf Lammen, 8-Mar-2023.) |
| ⊢ ((𝜑 → 𝜓) ↔ ((𝜓 → (𝜑 ↔ 𝜒)) ↔ (𝜑 ↔ (𝜓 ∧ 𝜒)))) | ||
| Theorem | biadani 825 | Inference associated with biadan 824. (Contributed by BJ, 4-Mar-2023.) |
| ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝜓) ⇒ ⊢ ((𝜓 → (𝜑 ↔ 𝜒)) ↔ (𝜑 ↔ (𝜓 ∧ 𝜒))) | ||
| Theorem | biadaniALT 826 | Alternate proof of biadani 825 not using biadan 824. (Contributed by BJ, 4-Mar-2023.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) (New usage is discouraged.) |
| ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝜓) ⇒ ⊢ ((𝜓 → (𝜑 ↔ 𝜒)) ↔ (𝜑 ↔ (𝜓 ∧ 𝜒))) | ||
| Theorem | biadanii 827 | Inference associated with biadani 825. 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 828 | Deduction associated with biadani 825. 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 | pm5.1 829 | 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 | pm5.21 830 | 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 | pm5.35 831 | Theorem *5.35 of [WhiteheadRussell] p. 125. Closed form of 2thd 266. (Contributed by NM, 3-Jan-2005.) |
| ⊢ (((𝜑 → 𝜓) ∧ (𝜑 → 𝜒)) → (𝜑 → (𝜓 ↔ 𝜒))) | ||
| Theorem | abai 832 | 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 | pm4.45im 833 | Conjunction with implication. Compare Theorem *4.45 of [WhiteheadRussell] p. 119. (Contributed by NM, 17-May-1998.) |
| ⊢ (𝜑 ↔ (𝜑 ∧ (𝜓 → 𝜑))) | ||
| Theorem | impimprbi 834 | An implication and its reverse are equivalent exactly when both operands are equivalent. The right hand side resembles that of dfbi2 475, but ↔ is a weaker operator than ∧. Note that an implication and its reverse can never be simultaneously false, because of pm2.521 176. (Contributed by Wolf Lammen, 18-Dec-2023.) |
| ⊢ ((𝜑 ↔ 𝜓) ↔ ((𝜑 → 𝜓) ↔ (𝜓 → 𝜑))) | ||
| Theorem | nan 835 | Theorem to move a conjunct in and out of a negation. (Contributed by NM, 9-Nov-2003.) |
| ⊢ ((𝜑 → ¬ (𝜓 ∧ 𝜒)) ↔ ((𝜑 ∧ 𝜓) → ¬ 𝜒)) | ||
| Theorem | pm5.31 836 | Theorem *5.31 of [WhiteheadRussell] p. 125. (Contributed by NM, 3-Jan-2005.) |
| ⊢ ((𝜒 ∧ (𝜑 → 𝜓)) → (𝜑 → (𝜓 ∧ 𝜒))) | ||
| Theorem | pm5.31r 837 | Variant of pm5.31 836. (Contributed by Rodolfo Medina, 15-Oct-2010.) |
| ⊢ ((𝜒 ∧ (𝜑 → 𝜓)) → (𝜑 → (𝜒 ∧ 𝜓))) | ||
| Theorem | pm4.15 838 | 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 | pm5.36 839 | Theorem *5.36 of [WhiteheadRussell] p. 125. (Contributed by NM, 3-Jan-2005.) |
| ⊢ ((𝜑 ∧ (𝜑 ↔ 𝜓)) ↔ (𝜓 ∧ (𝜑 ↔ 𝜓))) | ||
| Theorem | annotanannot 840 | 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 | pm5.33 841 | Theorem *5.33 of [WhiteheadRussell] p. 125. (Contributed by NM, 3-Jan-2005.) |
| ⊢ ((𝜑 ∧ (𝜓 → 𝜒)) ↔ (𝜑 ∧ ((𝜑 ∧ 𝜓) → 𝜒))) | ||
| Theorem | syl12anc 842 | 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 843 | 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 844 | 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 845 | 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 846 | Four-hypothesis elimination deduction for an assertion with a singleton virtual hypothesis collection. Similar to syl112anc 1382 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 847 | Stacked hypotheseis implies goal. (Contributed by Stanislas Polu, 9-Mar-2020.) |
| ⊢ ((𝜑 ∧ 𝜓) → (𝜓 → 𝜃)) ⇒ ⊢ ((𝜑 ∧ 𝜓) → 𝜃) | ||
| Theorem | mpsyl4anc 848 | An elimination deduction. (Contributed by Alan Sare, 17-Oct-2017.) |
| ⊢ 𝜑 & ⊢ 𝜓 & ⊢ 𝜒 & ⊢ (𝜃 → 𝜏) & ⊢ ((((𝜑 ∧ 𝜓) ∧ 𝜒) ∧ 𝜏) → 𝜂) ⇒ ⊢ (𝜃 → 𝜂) | ||
| Theorem | pm4.87 849 | 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 850 | Removal of conjunct from one side of an equivalence. (Contributed by NM, 21-Jun-1993.) |
| ⊢ (((𝜑 → 𝜓) ∧ (𝜒 ↔ (𝜓 ∧ 𝜑))) → (𝜒 ↔ 𝜑)) | ||
| Theorem | a2and 851 | 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 852 | 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 397 (theorems that are proved using df-an 397 are deferred to the next section). Basic theorems that help simplifying and applying disjunction are olc 874, orc 873, and orcom 876. 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 990: 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 407 and ex 413 as noted in the previous section. An illustration of the conservativity of df-an 397 is given by orim12dALT 917, which is an alternate proof of orim12d 972 not using df-an 397. | ||
| Syntax | wo 853 | Extend wff definition to include disjunction ("or"). |
| wff (𝜑 ∨ 𝜓) | ||
| Definition | df-or 854 |
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 30516). After we define the constant
true ⊤ (df-tru 1550) and the constant false ⊥ (df-fal 1560), we
will be able to prove these truth table values:
((⊤ ∨ ⊤) ↔ ⊤) (truortru 1584), ((⊤ ∨ ⊥)
↔ ⊤)
(truorfal 1585), ((⊥ ∨ ⊤)
↔ ⊤) (falortru 1586), and
((⊥ ∨ ⊥) ↔ ⊥) (falorfal 1587).
Contrast with ∧ (df-an 397), → (wi 4), ⊼ (df-nan 1499), and ⊻ (df-xor 1519). (Contributed by NM, 27-Dec-1992.) |
| ⊢ ((𝜑 ∨ 𝜓) ↔ (¬ 𝜑 → 𝜓)) | ||
| Theorem | pm4.64 855 | Theorem *4.64 of [WhiteheadRussell] p. 120. (Contributed by NM, 3-Jan-2005.) |
| ⊢ ((¬ 𝜑 → 𝜓) ↔ (𝜑 ∨ 𝜓)) | ||
| Theorem | pm4.66 856 | Theorem *4.66 of [WhiteheadRussell] p. 120. (Contributed by NM, 3-Jan-2005.) |
| ⊢ ((¬ 𝜑 → ¬ 𝜓) ↔ (𝜑 ∨ ¬ 𝜓)) | ||
| Theorem | pm2.53 857 | Theorem *2.53 of [WhiteheadRussell] p. 107. (Contributed by NM, 3-Jan-2005.) |
| ⊢ ((𝜑 ∨ 𝜓) → (¬ 𝜑 → 𝜓)) | ||
| Theorem | pm2.54 858 | Theorem *2.54 of [WhiteheadRussell] p. 107. (Contributed by NM, 3-Jan-2005.) |
| ⊢ ((¬ 𝜑 → 𝜓) → (𝜑 ∨ 𝜓)) | ||
| Theorem | imor 859 | Implication in terms of disjunction. Theorem *4.6 of [WhiteheadRussell] p. 120. (Contributed by NM, 3-Jan-1993.) |
| ⊢ ((𝜑 → 𝜓) ↔ (¬ 𝜑 ∨ 𝜓)) | ||
| Theorem | imori 860 | Infer disjunction from implication. (Contributed by NM, 12-Mar-2012.) |
| ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝜓) ⇒ ⊢ (¬ 𝜑 ∨ 𝜓) | ||
| Theorem | imorri 861 | Infer implication from disjunction. (Contributed by Jonathan Ben-Naim, 3-Jun-2011.) |
| ⊢ (¬ 𝜑 ∨ 𝜓) ⇒ ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝜓) | ||
| Theorem | pm4.62 862 | Theorem *4.62 of [WhiteheadRussell] p. 120. (Contributed by NM, 3-Jan-2005.) |
| ⊢ ((𝜑 → ¬ 𝜓) ↔ (¬ 𝜑 ∨ ¬ 𝜓)) | ||
| Theorem | jaoi 863 | Inference disjoining the antecedents of two implications. (Contributed by NM, 5-Apr-1994.) |
| ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝜓) & ⊢ (𝜒 → 𝜓) ⇒ ⊢ ((𝜑 ∨ 𝜒) → 𝜓) | ||
| Theorem | jao1i 864 | 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 865 | 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 866 | 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 867 | Infer implication from disjunction. (Contributed by NM, 11-Jun-1994.) |
| ⊢ (𝜑 ∨ 𝜓) ⇒ ⊢ (¬ 𝜑 → 𝜓) | ||
| Theorem | orri 868 | Infer disjunction from implication. (Contributed by NM, 11-Jun-1994.) |
| ⊢ (¬ 𝜑 → 𝜓) ⇒ ⊢ (𝜑 ∨ 𝜓) | ||
| Theorem | orrd 869 | Deduce disjunction from implication. (Contributed by NM, 27-Nov-1995.) |
| ⊢ (𝜑 → (¬ 𝜓 → 𝜒)) ⇒ ⊢ (𝜑 → (𝜓 ∨ 𝜒)) | ||
| Theorem | ord 870 | Deduce implication from disjunction. (Contributed by NM, 18-May-1994.) |
| ⊢ (𝜑 → (𝜓 ∨ 𝜒)) ⇒ ⊢ (𝜑 → (¬ 𝜓 → 𝜒)) | ||
| Theorem | orci 871 | Deduction introducing a disjunct. (Contributed by NM, 19-Jan-2008.) (Proof shortened by Wolf Lammen, 14-Nov-2012.) |
| ⊢ 𝜑 ⇒ ⊢ (𝜑 ∨ 𝜓) | ||
| Theorem | olci 872 | Deduction introducing a disjunct. (Contributed by NM, 19-Jan-2008.) (Proof shortened by Wolf Lammen, 14-Nov-2012.) |
| ⊢ 𝜑 ⇒ ⊢ (𝜓 ∨ 𝜑) | ||
| Theorem | orc 873 | Introduction of a disjunct. Theorem *2.2 of [WhiteheadRussell] p. 104. (Contributed by NM, 30-Aug-1993.) |
| ⊢ (𝜑 → (𝜑 ∨ 𝜓)) | ||
| Theorem | olc 874 | Introduction of a disjunct. Axiom *1.3 of [WhiteheadRussell] p. 96. (Contributed by NM, 30-Aug-1993.) |
| ⊢ (𝜑 → (𝜓 ∨ 𝜑)) | ||
| Theorem | pm1.4 875 | Axiom *1.4 of [WhiteheadRussell] p. 96. (Contributed by NM, 3-Jan-2005.) |
| ⊢ ((𝜑 ∨ 𝜓) → (𝜓 ∨ 𝜑)) | ||
| Theorem | orcom 876 | 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 877 | Commutation of disjuncts in consequent. (Contributed by NM, 2-Dec-2010.) |
| ⊢ (𝜑 → (𝜓 ∨ 𝜒)) ⇒ ⊢ (𝜑 → (𝜒 ∨ 𝜓)) | ||
| Theorem | orcoms 878 | Commutation of disjuncts in antecedent. (Contributed by NM, 2-Dec-2012.) |
| ⊢ ((𝜑 ∨ 𝜓) → 𝜒) ⇒ ⊢ ((𝜓 ∨ 𝜑) → 𝜒) | ||
| Theorem | orcd 879 | Deduction introducing a disjunct. A translation of natural deduction rule ∨ IR (∨ insertion right), see natded 30498. (Contributed by NM, 20-Sep-2007.) |
| ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝜓) ⇒ ⊢ (𝜑 → (𝜓 ∨ 𝜒)) | ||
| Theorem | olcd 880 | Deduction introducing a disjunct. A translation of natural deduction rule ∨ IL (∨ insertion left), see natded 30498. (Contributed by NM, 11-Apr-2008.) (Proof shortened by Wolf Lammen, 3-Oct-2013.) |
| ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝜓) ⇒ ⊢ (𝜑 → (𝜒 ∨ 𝜓)) | ||
| Theorem | orcs 881 | 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 17) -type inference in a proof. (Contributed by NM, 21-Jun-1994.) |
| ⊢ ((𝜑 ∨ 𝜓) → 𝜒) ⇒ ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝜒) | ||
| Theorem | olcs 882 | Deduction eliminating disjunct. (Contributed by NM, 21-Jun-1994.) (Proof shortened by Wolf Lammen, 3-Oct-2013.) |
| ⊢ ((𝜑 ∨ 𝜓) → 𝜒) ⇒ ⊢ (𝜓 → 𝜒) | ||
| Theorem | olcnd 883 | 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 884 | 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 885 | 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 886 | Infer negated disjunction of negated premises. (Contributed by NM, 4-Apr-1995.) |
| ⊢ ¬ 𝜑 & ⊢ ¬ 𝜓 ⇒ ⊢ ¬ (𝜑 ∨ 𝜓) | ||
| Theorem | pm2.45 887 | Theorem *2.45 of [WhiteheadRussell] p. 106. (Contributed by NM, 3-Jan-2005.) |
| ⊢ (¬ (𝜑 ∨ 𝜓) → ¬ 𝜑) | ||
| Theorem | pm2.46 888 | Theorem *2.46 of [WhiteheadRussell] p. 106. (Contributed by NM, 3-Jan-2005.) |
| ⊢ (¬ (𝜑 ∨ 𝜓) → ¬ 𝜓) | ||
| Theorem | pm2.47 889 | Theorem *2.47 of [WhiteheadRussell] p. 107. (Contributed by NM, 3-Jan-2005.) |
| ⊢ (¬ (𝜑 ∨ 𝜓) → (¬ 𝜑 ∨ 𝜓)) | ||
| Theorem | pm2.48 890 | Theorem *2.48 of [WhiteheadRussell] p. 107. (Contributed by NM, 3-Jan-2005.) |
| ⊢ (¬ (𝜑 ∨ 𝜓) → (𝜑 ∨ ¬ 𝜓)) | ||
| Theorem | pm2.49 891 | Theorem *2.49 of [WhiteheadRussell] p. 107. (Contributed by NM, 3-Jan-2005.) |
| ⊢ (¬ (𝜑 ∨ 𝜓) → (¬ 𝜑 ∨ ¬ 𝜓)) | ||
| Theorem | norbi 892 | If neither of two propositions is true, then these propositions are equivalent. (Contributed by BJ, 26-Apr-2019.) |
| ⊢ (¬ (𝜑 ∨ 𝜓) → (𝜑 ↔ 𝜓)) | ||
| Theorem | nbior 893 | 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)) | ||
| Theorem | orel1 894 | Elimination of disjunction by denial of a disjunct. Theorem *2.55 of [WhiteheadRussell] p. 107. (Contributed by NM, 12-Aug-1994.) (Proof shortened by Wolf Lammen, 21-Jul-2012.) |
| ⊢ (¬ 𝜑 → ((𝜑 ∨ 𝜓) → 𝜓)) | ||
| Theorem | pm2.25 895 | Theorem *2.25 of [WhiteheadRussell] p. 104. (Contributed by NM, 3-Jan-2005.) |
| ⊢ (𝜑 ∨ ((𝜑 ∨ 𝜓) → 𝜓)) | ||
| Theorem | orel2 896 | Elimination of disjunction by denial of a disjunct. Theorem *2.56 of [WhiteheadRussell] p. 107. (Contributed by NM, 12-Aug-1994.) (Proof shortened by Wolf Lammen, 5-Apr-2013.) |
| ⊢ (¬ 𝜑 → ((𝜓 ∨ 𝜑) → 𝜓)) | ||
| Theorem | pm2.67-2 897 | Slight generalization of Theorem *2.67 of [WhiteheadRussell] p. 107. (Contributed by NM, 3-Jan-2005.) |
| ⊢ (((𝜑 ∨ 𝜒) → 𝜓) → (𝜑 → 𝜓)) | ||
| Theorem | pm2.67 898 | Theorem *2.67 of [WhiteheadRussell] p. 107. (Contributed by NM, 3-Jan-2005.) |
| ⊢ (((𝜑 ∨ 𝜓) → 𝜓) → (𝜑 → 𝜓)) | ||
| Theorem | curryax 899 | A non-intuitionistic positive statement, sometimes called a paradox of material implication. Sometimes called Curry's axiom. Similar to exmid 900 (obtained by substituting ⊥ for 𝜓) but positive. For another non-intuitionistic positive statement, see peirce 203. (Contributed by BJ, 4-Apr-2021.) |
| ⊢ (𝜑 ∨ (𝜑 → 𝜓)) | ||
| Theorem | exmid 900 | Law of excluded middle, also called the principle of tertium non datur. Theorem *2.11 of [WhiteheadRussell] p. 101. It says that something is either true or not true; there are no in-between values of truth. This is an essential distinction of our classical logic and is not a theorem of intuitionistic logic. In intuitionistic logic, if this statement is true for some 𝜑, then 𝜑 is decidable. (Contributed by NM, 29-Dec-1992.) |
| ⊢ (𝜑 ∨ ¬ 𝜑) | ||
| < Previous Next > |
| Copyright terms: Public domain | < Previous Next > |