| 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: | (1-31067) |
(31068-32590) |
(32591-50390) |
| Type | Label | Description |
|---|---|---|
| Statement | ||
| Theorem | simp-8r 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) → 𝜓) | ||
| Theorem | simp-9l 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) → 𝜑) | ||
| Theorem | simp-9r 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) → 𝜓) | ||
| Theorem | simp-10l 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) ∧ 𝜆) → 𝜑) | ||
| Theorem | simp-10r 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) ∧ 𝜆) → 𝜓) | ||
| Theorem | simp-11l 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) ∧ 𝜅) → 𝜑) | ||
| Theorem | simp-11r 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) ∧ 𝜅) → 𝜓) | ||
| Theorem | pm2.01da 808 | 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 809 | Deduction based on reductio ad absurdum. See pm2.18 128. (Contributed by Mario Carneiro, 9-Feb-2017.) |
| ⊢ ((𝜑 ∧ ¬ 𝜓) → 𝜓) ⇒ ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝜓) | ||
| Theorem | impbida 810 | Deduce an equivalence from two implications. Variant of impbid 214. (Contributed by NM, 17-Feb-2007.) |
| ⊢ ((𝜑 ∧ 𝜓) → 𝜒) & ⊢ ((𝜑 ∧ 𝜒) → 𝜓) ⇒ ⊢ (𝜑 → (𝜓 ↔ 𝜒)) | ||
| Theorem | pm5.21nd 811 | Eliminate an antecedent implied by each side of a biconditional. Variant of pm5.21ndd 381. (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 | pm3.35 812 | 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 813 | Distribution of implication over biconditional (deduction form). Variant of pm5.74d 275. (Contributed by NM, 4-May-2007.) |
| ⊢ ((𝜑 ∧ 𝜓) → (𝜒 ↔ 𝜃)) ⇒ ⊢ (𝜑 → ((𝜓 → 𝜒) ↔ (𝜓 → 𝜃))) | ||
| Theorem | bitr 814 | Theorem *4.22 of [WhiteheadRussell] p. 117. bitri 277 in closed form. (Contributed by NM, 3-Jan-2005.) |
| ⊢ (((𝜑 ↔ 𝜓) ∧ (𝜓 ↔ 𝜒)) → (𝜑 ↔ 𝜒)) | ||
| Theorem | biantr 815 | 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 | pm4.14 816 | Theorem *4.14 of [WhiteheadRussell] p. 117. Related to con34b 318. (Contributed by NM, 3-Jan-2005.) (Proof shortened by Wolf Lammen, 23-Oct-2012.) |
| ⊢ (((𝜑 ∧ 𝜓) → 𝜒) ↔ ((𝜑 ∧ ¬ 𝜒) → ¬ 𝜓)) | ||
| Theorem | pm3.37 817 | 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 818 | Conjoin antecedents and consequents of two premises. This is the closed theorem form of anim12d 618. 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 | pm3.4 819 | Conjunction implies implication. Theorem *3.4 of [WhiteheadRussell] p. 113. (Contributed by NM, 31-Jul-1995.) |
| ⊢ ((𝜑 ∧ 𝜓) → (𝜑 → 𝜓)) | ||
| Theorem | exbiri 820 | Inference form of exbir 45019. This proof is exbiriVD 45393 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 821 | Elimination of an antecedent. (Contributed by NM, 1-Jan-2005.) |
| ⊢ ((𝜑 ∧ 𝜓) → 𝜒) & ⊢ ((¬ 𝜑 ∧ 𝜓) → 𝜒) ⇒ ⊢ (𝜓 → 𝜒) | ||
| Theorem | pm2.61dan 822 | Elimination of an antecedent. (Contributed by NM, 1-Jan-2005.) |
| ⊢ ((𝜑 ∧ 𝜓) → 𝜒) & ⊢ ((𝜑 ∧ ¬ 𝜓) → 𝜒) ⇒ ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝜒) | ||
| Theorem | pm2.61ddan 823 | 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 824 | Elimination of two antecedents. (Contributed by NM, 9-Jul-2013.) |
| ⊢ ((𝜑 ∧ ¬ 𝜓) → 𝜃) & ⊢ ((𝜑 ∧ ¬ 𝜒) → 𝜃) & ⊢ ((𝜑 ∧ (𝜓 ∧ 𝜒)) → 𝜃) ⇒ ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝜃) | ||
| Theorem | mtand 825 | A modus tollens deduction. (Contributed by Jeff Hankins, 19-Aug-2009.) |
| ⊢ (𝜑 → ¬ 𝜒) & ⊢ ((𝜑 ∧ 𝜓) → 𝜒) ⇒ ⊢ (𝜑 → ¬ 𝜓) | ||
| Theorem | pm2.65da 826 | Deduction for proof by contradiction. (Contributed by NM, 12-Jun-2014.) |
| ⊢ ((𝜑 ∧ 𝜓) → 𝜒) & ⊢ ((𝜑 ∧ 𝜓) → ¬ 𝜒) ⇒ ⊢ (𝜑 → ¬ 𝜓) | ||
| Theorem | condan 827 | 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 828 | 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 831 and elelb 37346. (Contributed by BJ, 4-Mar-2023.) (Proof shortened by Wolf Lammen, 8-Mar-2023.) |
| ⊢ ((𝜑 → 𝜓) ↔ ((𝜓 → (𝜑 ↔ 𝜒)) ↔ (𝜑 ↔ (𝜓 ∧ 𝜒)))) | ||
| Theorem | biadani 829 | Inference associated with biadan 828. (Contributed by BJ, 4-Mar-2023.) |
| ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝜓) ⇒ ⊢ ((𝜓 → (𝜑 ↔ 𝜒)) ↔ (𝜑 ↔ (𝜓 ∧ 𝜒))) | ||
| Theorem | biadaniALT 830 | Alternate proof of biadani 829 not using biadan 828. (Contributed by BJ, 4-Mar-2023.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) (New usage is discouraged.) |
| ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝜓) ⇒ ⊢ ((𝜓 → (𝜑 ↔ 𝜒)) ↔ (𝜑 ↔ (𝜓 ∧ 𝜒))) | ||
| Theorem | biadanii 831 | Inference associated with biadani 829. 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 832 | Deduction associated with biadani 829. 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 | pm5.1 833 | 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 | pm5.21 834 | 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 | pm5.35 835 | Theorem *5.35 of [WhiteheadRussell] p. 125. Closed form of 2thd 267. (Contributed by NM, 3-Jan-2005.) |
| ⊢ (((𝜑 → 𝜓) ∧ (𝜑 → 𝜒)) → (𝜑 → (𝜓 ↔ 𝜒))) | ||
| Theorem | abai 836 | 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 837 | 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 838 | Conjunction with implication. Compare Theorem *4.45 of [WhiteheadRussell] p. 119. (Contributed by NM, 17-May-1998.) |
| ⊢ (𝜑 ↔ (𝜑 ∧ (𝜓 → 𝜑))) | ||
| Theorem | impimprbi 839 | An implication and its reverse are equivalent exactly when both operands are equivalent. The right hand side resembles that of dfbi2 478, 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 840 | Theorem to move a conjunct in and out of a negation. (Contributed by NM, 9-Nov-2003.) |
| ⊢ ((𝜑 → ¬ (𝜓 ∧ 𝜒)) ↔ ((𝜑 ∧ 𝜓) → ¬ 𝜒)) | ||
| Theorem | pm5.31 841 | Theorem *5.31 of [WhiteheadRussell] p. 125. (Contributed by NM, 3-Jan-2005.) |
| ⊢ ((𝜒 ∧ (𝜑 → 𝜓)) → (𝜑 → (𝜓 ∧ 𝜒))) | ||
| Theorem | pm5.31r 842 | Variant of pm5.31 841. (Contributed by Rodolfo Medina, 15-Oct-2010.) |
| ⊢ ((𝜒 ∧ (𝜑 → 𝜓)) → (𝜑 → (𝜒 ∧ 𝜓))) | ||
| Theorem | pm4.15 843 | 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 | pm5.36 844 | Theorem *5.36 of [WhiteheadRussell] p. 125. (Contributed by NM, 3-Jan-2005.) |
| ⊢ ((𝜑 ∧ (𝜑 ↔ 𝜓)) ↔ (𝜓 ∧ (𝜑 ↔ 𝜓))) | ||
| Theorem | annotanannot 845 | 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 | pm5.33 846 | Theorem *5.33 of [WhiteheadRussell] p. 125. (Contributed by NM, 3-Jan-2005.) |
| ⊢ ((𝜑 ∧ (𝜓 → 𝜒)) ↔ (𝜑 ∧ ((𝜑 ∧ 𝜓) → 𝜒))) | ||
| Theorem | syl12anc 847 | 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 848 | 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 849 | 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 850 | 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 851 | Four-hypothesis elimination deduction for an assertion with a singleton virtual hypothesis collection. Similar to syl112anc 1392 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 852 | Stacked hypotheseis implies goal. (Contributed by Stanislas Polu, 9-Mar-2020.) |
| ⊢ ((𝜑 ∧ 𝜓) → (𝜓 → 𝜃)) ⇒ ⊢ ((𝜑 ∧ 𝜓) → 𝜃) | ||
| Theorem | mpsyl4anc 853 | An elimination deduction. (Contributed by Alan Sare, 17-Oct-2017.) |
| ⊢ 𝜑 & ⊢ 𝜓 & ⊢ 𝜒 & ⊢ (𝜃 → 𝜏) & ⊢ ((((𝜑 ∧ 𝜓) ∧ 𝜒) ∧ 𝜏) → 𝜂) ⇒ ⊢ (𝜃 → 𝜂) | ||
| Theorem | pm4.87 854 | 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 855 | Removal of conjunct from one side of an equivalence. (Contributed by NM, 21-Jun-1993.) |
| ⊢ (((𝜑 → 𝜓) ∧ (𝜒 ↔ (𝜓 ∧ 𝜑))) → (𝜒 ↔ 𝜑)) | ||
| Theorem | a2and 856 | 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 857 | 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 400 (theorems that are proved using df-an 400 are deferred to the next section). Basic theorems that help simplifying and applying disjunction are olc 879, orc 878, and orcom 881. 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 995: 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 410 and ex 416 as noted in the previous section. An illustration of the conservativity of df-an 400 is given by orim12dALT 922, which is an alternate proof of orim12d 977 not using df-an 400. | ||
| Syntax | wo 858 | Extend wff definition to include disjunction ("or"). |
| wff (𝜑 ∨ 𝜓) | ||
| Definition | df-or 859 |
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 30569). After we define the constant
true ⊤ (df-tru 1562) and the constant false ⊥ (df-fal 1572), we
will be able to prove these truth table values:
((⊤ ∨ ⊤) ↔ ⊤) (truortru 1596), ((⊤ ∨ ⊥)
↔ ⊤)
(truorfal 1597), ((⊥ ∨ ⊤)
↔ ⊤) (falortru 1598), and
((⊥ ∨ ⊥) ↔ ⊥) (falorfal 1599).
Contrast with ∧ (df-an 400), → (wi 4), ⊼ (df-nan 1511), and ⊻ (df-xor 1531). (Contributed by NM, 27-Dec-1992.) |
| ⊢ ((𝜑 ∨ 𝜓) ↔ (¬ 𝜑 → 𝜓)) | ||
| Theorem | pm4.64 860 | Theorem *4.64 of [WhiteheadRussell] p. 120. (Contributed by NM, 3-Jan-2005.) |
| ⊢ ((¬ 𝜑 → 𝜓) ↔ (𝜑 ∨ 𝜓)) | ||
| Theorem | pm4.66 861 | Theorem *4.66 of [WhiteheadRussell] p. 120. (Contributed by NM, 3-Jan-2005.) |
| ⊢ ((¬ 𝜑 → ¬ 𝜓) ↔ (𝜑 ∨ ¬ 𝜓)) | ||
| Theorem | pm2.53 862 | Theorem *2.53 of [WhiteheadRussell] p. 107. (Contributed by NM, 3-Jan-2005.) |
| ⊢ ((𝜑 ∨ 𝜓) → (¬ 𝜑 → 𝜓)) | ||
| Theorem | pm2.54 863 | Theorem *2.54 of [WhiteheadRussell] p. 107. (Contributed by NM, 3-Jan-2005.) |
| ⊢ ((¬ 𝜑 → 𝜓) → (𝜑 ∨ 𝜓)) | ||
| Theorem | imor 864 | Implication in terms of disjunction. Theorem *4.6 of [WhiteheadRussell] p. 120. (Contributed by NM, 3-Jan-1993.) |
| ⊢ ((𝜑 → 𝜓) ↔ (¬ 𝜑 ∨ 𝜓)) | ||
| Theorem | imori 865 | Infer disjunction from implication. (Contributed by NM, 12-Mar-2012.) |
| ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝜓) ⇒ ⊢ (¬ 𝜑 ∨ 𝜓) | ||
| Theorem | imorri 866 | Infer implication from disjunction. (Contributed by Jonathan Ben-Naim, 3-Jun-2011.) |
| ⊢ (¬ 𝜑 ∨ 𝜓) ⇒ ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝜓) | ||
| Theorem | pm4.62 867 | Theorem *4.62 of [WhiteheadRussell] p. 120. (Contributed by NM, 3-Jan-2005.) |
| ⊢ ((𝜑 → ¬ 𝜓) ↔ (¬ 𝜑 ∨ ¬ 𝜓)) | ||
| Theorem | jaoi 868 | Inference disjoining the antecedents of two implications. (Contributed by NM, 5-Apr-1994.) |
| ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝜓) & ⊢ (𝜒 → 𝜓) ⇒ ⊢ ((𝜑 ∨ 𝜒) → 𝜓) | ||
| Theorem | jao1i 869 | 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 870 | 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 871 | 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 872 | Infer implication from disjunction. (Contributed by NM, 11-Jun-1994.) |
| ⊢ (𝜑 ∨ 𝜓) ⇒ ⊢ (¬ 𝜑 → 𝜓) | ||
| Theorem | orri 873 | Infer disjunction from implication. (Contributed by NM, 11-Jun-1994.) |
| ⊢ (¬ 𝜑 → 𝜓) ⇒ ⊢ (𝜑 ∨ 𝜓) | ||
| Theorem | orrd 874 | Deduce disjunction from implication. (Contributed by NM, 27-Nov-1995.) |
| ⊢ (𝜑 → (¬ 𝜓 → 𝜒)) ⇒ ⊢ (𝜑 → (𝜓 ∨ 𝜒)) | ||
| Theorem | ord 875 | Deduce implication from disjunction. (Contributed by NM, 18-May-1994.) |
| ⊢ (𝜑 → (𝜓 ∨ 𝜒)) ⇒ ⊢ (𝜑 → (¬ 𝜓 → 𝜒)) | ||
| Theorem | orci 876 | Deduction introducing a disjunct. (Contributed by NM, 19-Jan-2008.) (Proof shortened by Wolf Lammen, 14-Nov-2012.) |
| ⊢ 𝜑 ⇒ ⊢ (𝜑 ∨ 𝜓) | ||
| Theorem | olci 877 | Deduction introducing a disjunct. (Contributed by NM, 19-Jan-2008.) (Proof shortened by Wolf Lammen, 14-Nov-2012.) |
| ⊢ 𝜑 ⇒ ⊢ (𝜓 ∨ 𝜑) | ||
| Theorem | orc 878 | Introduction of a disjunct. Theorem *2.2 of [WhiteheadRussell] p. 104. (Contributed by NM, 30-Aug-1993.) |
| ⊢ (𝜑 → (𝜑 ∨ 𝜓)) | ||
| Theorem | olc 879 | Introduction of a disjunct. Axiom *1.3 of [WhiteheadRussell] p. 96. (Contributed by NM, 30-Aug-1993.) |
| ⊢ (𝜑 → (𝜓 ∨ 𝜑)) | ||
| Theorem | pm1.4 880 | Axiom *1.4 of [WhiteheadRussell] p. 96. (Contributed by NM, 3-Jan-2005.) |
| ⊢ ((𝜑 ∨ 𝜓) → (𝜓 ∨ 𝜑)) | ||
| Theorem | orcom 881 | 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 882 | Commutation of disjuncts in consequent. (Contributed by NM, 2-Dec-2010.) |
| ⊢ (𝜑 → (𝜓 ∨ 𝜒)) ⇒ ⊢ (𝜑 → (𝜒 ∨ 𝜓)) | ||
| Theorem | orcoms 883 | Commutation of disjuncts in antecedent. (Contributed by NM, 2-Dec-2012.) |
| ⊢ ((𝜑 ∨ 𝜓) → 𝜒) ⇒ ⊢ ((𝜓 ∨ 𝜑) → 𝜒) | ||
| Theorem | orcd 884 | Deduction introducing a disjunct. A translation of natural deduction rule ∨ IR (∨ insertion right), see natded 30551. (Contributed by NM, 20-Sep-2007.) |
| ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝜓) ⇒ ⊢ (𝜑 → (𝜓 ∨ 𝜒)) | ||
| Theorem | olcd 885 | Deduction introducing a disjunct. A translation of natural deduction rule ∨ IL (∨ insertion left), see natded 30551. (Contributed by NM, 11-Apr-2008.) (Proof shortened by Wolf Lammen, 3-Oct-2013.) |
| ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝜓) ⇒ ⊢ (𝜑 → (𝜒 ∨ 𝜓)) | ||
| Theorem | orcs 886 | 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 887 | Deduction eliminating disjunct. (Contributed by NM, 21-Jun-1994.) (Proof shortened by Wolf Lammen, 3-Oct-2013.) |
| ⊢ ((𝜑 ∨ 𝜓) → 𝜒) ⇒ ⊢ (𝜓 → 𝜒) | ||
| Theorem | olcnd 888 | 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 889 | 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 890 | 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 891 | Infer negated disjunction of negated premises. (Contributed by NM, 4-Apr-1995.) |
| ⊢ ¬ 𝜑 & ⊢ ¬ 𝜓 ⇒ ⊢ ¬ (𝜑 ∨ 𝜓) | ||
| Theorem | pm2.45 892 | Theorem *2.45 of [WhiteheadRussell] p. 106. (Contributed by NM, 3-Jan-2005.) |
| ⊢ (¬ (𝜑 ∨ 𝜓) → ¬ 𝜑) | ||
| Theorem | pm2.46 893 | Theorem *2.46 of [WhiteheadRussell] p. 106. (Contributed by NM, 3-Jan-2005.) |
| ⊢ (¬ (𝜑 ∨ 𝜓) → ¬ 𝜓) | ||
| Theorem | pm2.47 894 | Theorem *2.47 of [WhiteheadRussell] p. 107. (Contributed by NM, 3-Jan-2005.) |
| ⊢ (¬ (𝜑 ∨ 𝜓) → (¬ 𝜑 ∨ 𝜓)) | ||
| Theorem | pm2.48 895 | Theorem *2.48 of [WhiteheadRussell] p. 107. (Contributed by NM, 3-Jan-2005.) |
| ⊢ (¬ (𝜑 ∨ 𝜓) → (𝜑 ∨ ¬ 𝜓)) | ||
| Theorem | pm2.49 896 | Theorem *2.49 of [WhiteheadRussell] p. 107. (Contributed by NM, 3-Jan-2005.) |
| ⊢ (¬ (𝜑 ∨ 𝜓) → (¬ 𝜑 ∨ ¬ 𝜓)) | ||
| Theorem | norbi 897 | If neither of two propositions is true, then these propositions are equivalent. (Contributed by BJ, 26-Apr-2019.) |
| ⊢ (¬ (𝜑 ∨ 𝜓) → (𝜑 ↔ 𝜓)) | ||
| Theorem | nbior 898 | 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 899 | 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 | pm2.25 900 | Theorem *2.25 of [WhiteheadRussell] p. 104. (Contributed by NM, 3-Jan-2005.) |
| ⊢ (𝜑 ∨ ((𝜑 ∨ 𝜓) → 𝜓)) | ||
| < Previous Next > |
| Copyright terms: Public domain | < Previous Next > |