| Metamath
Proof Explorer Theorem List (p. 9 of 507) | < 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: | (1-31307) |
(31308-32830) |
(32831-50694) |
| Type | Label | Description |
|---|---|---|
| Statement | ||
| Theorem | simp-7l 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) → 𝜑) | ||
| Theorem | simp-7r 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) → 𝜓) | ||
| Theorem | simp-8l 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) → 𝜑) | ||
| Theorem | simp-8r 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) → 𝜓) | ||
| Theorem | simp-9l 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) → 𝜑) | ||
| Theorem | simp-9r 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) → 𝜓) | ||
| Theorem | simp-10l 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) → 𝜑) | ||
| Theorem | simp-10r 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) → 𝜓) | ||
| Theorem | simp-11l 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) → 𝜑) | ||
| Theorem | simp-11r 810 | 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 811 | 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 812 | Deduction based on reductio ad absurdum. See pm2.18 129. (Contributed by Mario Carneiro, 9-Feb-2017.) |
| ⊢ ((𝜑 ∧ ¬ 𝜓) → 𝜓) ⇒ ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝜓) | ||
| Theorem | impbida 813 | 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 814 | 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 | pm3.35 815 | 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 816 | 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 817 | 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 818 | 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 | pm4.14 819 | 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 | pm3.37 820 | 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 821 | Conjoin antecedents and consequents of two premises. This is the closed theorem form of anim12d 621. 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 | pm3.4 822 | Conjunction implies implication. Theorem *3.4 of [WhiteheadRussell] p. 113. (Contributed by NM, 31-Jul-1995.) |
| ⊢ ((𝜑 ∧ 𝜓) → (𝜑 → 𝜓)) | ||
| Theorem | exbiri 823 | Inference form of exbir 45229. This proof is exbiriVD 45603 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 824 | Elimination of an antecedent. (Contributed by NM, 1-Jan-2005.) |
| ⊢ ((𝜑 ∧ 𝜓) → 𝜒) & ⊢ ((¬ 𝜑 ∧ 𝜓) → 𝜒) ⇒ ⊢ (𝜓 → 𝜒) | ||
| Theorem | pm2.61dan 825 | Elimination of an antecedent. (Contributed by NM, 1-Jan-2005.) |
| ⊢ ((𝜑 ∧ 𝜓) → 𝜒) & ⊢ ((𝜑 ∧ ¬ 𝜓) → 𝜒) ⇒ ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝜒) | ||
| Theorem | pm2.61ddan 826 | 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 827 | Elimination of two antecedents. (Contributed by NM, 9-Jul-2013.) |
| ⊢ ((𝜑 ∧ ¬ 𝜓) → 𝜃) & ⊢ ((𝜑 ∧ ¬ 𝜒) → 𝜃) & ⊢ ((𝜑 ∧ (𝜓 ∧ 𝜒)) → 𝜃) ⇒ ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝜃) | ||
| Theorem | mtand 828 | A modus tollens deduction. (Contributed by Jeff Hankins, 19-Aug-2009.) |
| ⊢ (𝜑 → ¬ 𝜒) & ⊢ ((𝜑 ∧ 𝜓) → 𝜒) ⇒ ⊢ (𝜑 → ¬ 𝜓) | ||
| Theorem | pm2.65da 829 | Deduction for proof by contradiction. (Contributed by NM, 12-Jun-2014.) |
| ⊢ ((𝜑 ∧ 𝜓) → 𝜒) & ⊢ ((𝜑 ∧ 𝜓) → ¬ 𝜒) ⇒ ⊢ (𝜑 → ¬ 𝜓) | ||
| Theorem | condan 830 | 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 831 | 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 834 and elelb 37573. (Contributed by BJ, 4-Mar-2023.) (Proof shortened by Wolf Lammen, 8-Mar-2023.) |
| ⊢ ((𝜑 → 𝜓) ↔ ((𝜓 → (𝜑 ↔ 𝜒)) ↔ (𝜑 ↔ (𝜓 ∧ 𝜒)))) | ||
| Theorem | biadani 832 | Inference associated with biadan 831. (Contributed by BJ, 4-Mar-2023.) |
| ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝜓) ⇒ ⊢ ((𝜓 → (𝜑 ↔ 𝜒)) ↔ (𝜑 ↔ (𝜓 ∧ 𝜒))) | ||
| Theorem | biadaniALT 833 | Alternate proof of biadani 832 not using biadan 831. (Contributed by BJ, 4-Mar-2023.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) (New usage is discouraged.) |
| ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝜓) ⇒ ⊢ ((𝜓 → (𝜑 ↔ 𝜒)) ↔ (𝜑 ↔ (𝜓 ∧ 𝜒))) | ||
| Theorem | biadanii 834 | Inference associated with biadani 832. 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 835 | Deduction associated with biadani 832. 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 | pm5.1 836 | 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 | pm5.21 837 | 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 | pm5.35 838 | 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 839 | 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 840 | 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 841 | Conjunction with implication. Compare Theorem *4.45 of [WhiteheadRussell] p. 119. (Contributed by NM, 17-May-1998.) |
| ⊢ (𝜑 ↔ (𝜑 ∧ (𝜓 → 𝜑))) | ||
| Theorem | impimprbi 842 | An implication and its reverse are equivalent exactly when both operands are equivalent. The right hand side resembles that of dfbi2 480, 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 843 | Theorem to move a conjunct in and out of a negation. (Contributed by NM, 9-Nov-2003.) |
| ⊢ ((𝜑 → ¬ (𝜓 ∧ 𝜒)) ↔ ((𝜑 ∧ 𝜓) → ¬ 𝜒)) | ||
| Theorem | pm5.31 844 | Theorem *5.31 of [WhiteheadRussell] p. 125. (Contributed by NM, 3-Jan-2005.) |
| ⊢ ((𝜒 ∧ (𝜑 → 𝜓)) → (𝜑 → (𝜓 ∧ 𝜒))) | ||
| Theorem | pm5.31r 845 | Variant of pm5.31 844. (Contributed by Rodolfo Medina, 15-Oct-2010.) |
| ⊢ ((𝜒 ∧ (𝜑 → 𝜓)) → (𝜑 → (𝜒 ∧ 𝜓))) | ||
| Theorem | pm4.15 846 | 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 | pm5.36 847 | Theorem *5.36 of [WhiteheadRussell] p. 125. (Contributed by NM, 3-Jan-2005.) |
| ⊢ ((𝜑 ∧ (𝜑 ↔ 𝜓)) ↔ (𝜓 ∧ (𝜑 ↔ 𝜓))) | ||
| Theorem | annotanannot 848 | 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 | pm5.33 849 | Theorem *5.33 of [WhiteheadRussell] p. 125. (Contributed by NM, 3-Jan-2005.) |
| ⊢ ((𝜑 ∧ (𝜓 → 𝜒)) ↔ (𝜑 ∧ ((𝜑 ∧ 𝜓) → 𝜒))) | ||
| Theorem | syl12anc 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 | syl21anc 851 | 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 852 | 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 853 | 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 854 | Four-hypothesis elimination deduction for an assertion with a singleton virtual hypothesis collection. Similar to syl112anc 1401 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 855 | Stacked hypotheseis implies goal. (Contributed by Stanislas Polu, 9-Mar-2020.) |
| ⊢ ((𝜑 ∧ 𝜓) → (𝜓 → 𝜃)) ⇒ ⊢ ((𝜑 ∧ 𝜓) → 𝜃) | ||
| Theorem | mpsyl4anc 856 | An elimination deduction. (Contributed by Alan Sare, 17-Oct-2017.) |
| ⊢ 𝜑 & ⊢ 𝜓 & ⊢ 𝜒 & ⊢ (𝜃 → 𝜏) & ⊢ ((((𝜑 ∧ 𝜓) ∧ 𝜒) ∧ 𝜏) → 𝜂) ⇒ ⊢ (𝜃 → 𝜂) | ||
| Theorem | pm4.87 857 | 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 858 | Removal of conjunct from one side of an equivalence. (Contributed by NM, 21-Jun-1993.) |
| ⊢ (((𝜑 → 𝜓) ∧ (𝜒 ↔ (𝜓 ∧ 𝜑))) → (𝜒 ↔ 𝜑)) | ||
| Theorem | a2and 859 | 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 860 | 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 402 (theorems that are proved using df-an 402 are deferred to the next section). Basic theorems that help simplifying and applying disjunction are olc 882, orc 881, and orcom 884. 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 412 and ex 418 as noted in the previous section. An illustration of the conservativity of df-an 402 is given by orim12dALT 925, which is an alternate proof of orim12d 979 not using df-an 402. | ||
| Syntax | wo 861 | Extend wff definition to include disjunction ("or"). |
| wff (𝜑 ∨ 𝜓) | ||
| Definition | df-or 862 |
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 30809). After we define the constant
true ⊤ (df-tru 1573) and the constant false ⊥ (df-fal 1583), we
will be able to prove these truth table values:
((⊤ ∨ ⊤) ↔ ⊤) (truortru 1607), ((⊤ ∨ ⊥)
↔ ⊤)
(truorfal 1608), ((⊥ ∨ ⊤)
↔ ⊤) (falortru 1609), and
((⊥ ∨ ⊥) ↔ ⊥) (falorfal 1610).
Contrast with ∧ (df-an 402), → (wi 4), ⊼ (df-nan 1522), and ⊻ (df-xor 1542). (Contributed by NM, 27-Dec-1992.) |
| ⊢ ((𝜑 ∨ 𝜓) ↔ (¬ 𝜑 → 𝜓)) | ||
| Theorem | pm4.64 863 | Theorem *4.64 of [WhiteheadRussell] p. 120. (Contributed by NM, 3-Jan-2005.) |
| ⊢ ((¬ 𝜑 → 𝜓) ↔ (𝜑 ∨ 𝜓)) | ||
| Theorem | pm4.66 864 | Theorem *4.66 of [WhiteheadRussell] p. 120. (Contributed by NM, 3-Jan-2005.) |
| ⊢ ((¬ 𝜑 → ¬ 𝜓) ↔ (𝜑 ∨ ¬ 𝜓)) | ||
| Theorem | pm2.53 865 | Theorem *2.53 of [WhiteheadRussell] p. 107. (Contributed by NM, 3-Jan-2005.) |
| ⊢ ((𝜑 ∨ 𝜓) → (¬ 𝜑 → 𝜓)) | ||
| Theorem | pm2.54 866 | Theorem *2.54 of [WhiteheadRussell] p. 107. (Contributed by NM, 3-Jan-2005.) |
| ⊢ ((¬ 𝜑 → 𝜓) → (𝜑 ∨ 𝜓)) | ||
| Theorem | imor 867 | Implication in terms of disjunction. Theorem *4.6 of [WhiteheadRussell] p. 120. (Contributed by NM, 3-Jan-1993.) |
| ⊢ ((𝜑 → 𝜓) ↔ (¬ 𝜑 ∨ 𝜓)) | ||
| Theorem | imori 868 | Infer disjunction from implication. (Contributed by NM, 12-Mar-2012.) |
| ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝜓) ⇒ ⊢ (¬ 𝜑 ∨ 𝜓) | ||
| Theorem | imorri 869 | Infer implication from disjunction. (Contributed by Jonathan Ben-Naim, 3-Jun-2011.) |
| ⊢ (¬ 𝜑 ∨ 𝜓) ⇒ ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝜓) | ||
| Theorem | pm4.62 870 | Theorem *4.62 of [WhiteheadRussell] p. 120. (Contributed by NM, 3-Jan-2005.) |
| ⊢ ((𝜑 → ¬ 𝜓) ↔ (¬ 𝜑 ∨ ¬ 𝜓)) | ||
| Theorem | jaoi 871 | Inference disjoining the antecedents of two implications. (Contributed by NM, 5-Apr-1994.) |
| ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝜓) & ⊢ (𝜒 → 𝜓) ⇒ ⊢ ((𝜑 ∨ 𝜒) → 𝜓) | ||
| Theorem | jao1i 872 | 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 873 | 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 874 | 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 875 | Infer implication from disjunction. (Contributed by NM, 11-Jun-1994.) |
| ⊢ (𝜑 ∨ 𝜓) ⇒ ⊢ (¬ 𝜑 → 𝜓) | ||
| Theorem | orri 876 | Infer disjunction from implication. (Contributed by NM, 11-Jun-1994.) |
| ⊢ (¬ 𝜑 → 𝜓) ⇒ ⊢ (𝜑 ∨ 𝜓) | ||
| Theorem | orrd 877 | Deduce disjunction from implication. (Contributed by NM, 27-Nov-1995.) |
| ⊢ (𝜑 → (¬ 𝜓 → 𝜒)) ⇒ ⊢ (𝜑 → (𝜓 ∨ 𝜒)) | ||
| Theorem | ord 878 | Deduce implication from disjunction. (Contributed by NM, 18-May-1994.) |
| ⊢ (𝜑 → (𝜓 ∨ 𝜒)) ⇒ ⊢ (𝜑 → (¬ 𝜓 → 𝜒)) | ||
| Theorem | orci 879 | Deduction introducing a disjunct. (Contributed by NM, 19-Jan-2008.) (Proof shortened by Wolf Lammen, 14-Nov-2012.) |
| ⊢ 𝜑 ⇒ ⊢ (𝜑 ∨ 𝜓) | ||
| Theorem | olci 880 | Deduction introducing a disjunct. (Contributed by NM, 19-Jan-2008.) (Proof shortened by Wolf Lammen, 14-Nov-2012.) |
| ⊢ 𝜑 ⇒ ⊢ (𝜓 ∨ 𝜑) | ||
| Theorem | orc 881 | Introduction of a disjunct. Theorem *2.2 of [WhiteheadRussell] p. 104. (Contributed by NM, 30-Aug-1993.) |
| ⊢ (𝜑 → (𝜑 ∨ 𝜓)) | ||
| Theorem | olc 882 | Introduction of a disjunct. Axiom *1.3 of [WhiteheadRussell] p. 96. (Contributed by NM, 30-Aug-1993.) |
| ⊢ (𝜑 → (𝜓 ∨ 𝜑)) | ||
| Theorem | pm1.4 883 | Axiom *1.4 of [WhiteheadRussell] p. 96. (Contributed by NM, 3-Jan-2005.) |
| ⊢ ((𝜑 ∨ 𝜓) → (𝜓 ∨ 𝜑)) | ||
| Theorem | orcom 884 | 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 885 | Commutation of disjuncts in consequent. (Contributed by NM, 2-Dec-2010.) |
| ⊢ (𝜑 → (𝜓 ∨ 𝜒)) ⇒ ⊢ (𝜑 → (𝜒 ∨ 𝜓)) | ||
| Theorem | orcoms 886 | Commutation of disjuncts in antecedent. (Contributed by NM, 2-Dec-2012.) |
| ⊢ ((𝜑 ∨ 𝜓) → 𝜒) ⇒ ⊢ ((𝜓 ∨ 𝜑) → 𝜒) | ||
| Theorem | orcd 887 | Deduction introducing a disjunct. A translation of natural deduction rule ∨ IR (∨ insertion right), see natded 30791. (Contributed by NM, 20-Sep-2007.) |
| ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝜓) ⇒ ⊢ (𝜑 → (𝜓 ∨ 𝜒)) | ||
| Theorem | olcd 888 | Deduction introducing a disjunct. A translation of natural deduction rule ∨ IL (∨ insertion left), see natded 30791. (Contributed by NM, 11-Apr-2008.) (Proof shortened by Wolf Lammen, 3-Oct-2013.) |
| ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝜓) ⇒ ⊢ (𝜑 → (𝜒 ∨ 𝜓)) | ||
| Theorem | orcs 889 | 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 890 | Deduction eliminating disjunct. (Contributed by NM, 21-Jun-1994.) (Proof shortened by Wolf Lammen, 3-Oct-2013.) |
| ⊢ ((𝜑 ∨ 𝜓) → 𝜒) ⇒ ⊢ (𝜓 → 𝜒) | ||
| Theorem | olcnd 891 | 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 892 | 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 893 | 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 894 | Infer negated disjunction of negated premises. (Contributed by NM, 4-Apr-1995.) |
| ⊢ ¬ 𝜑 & ⊢ ¬ 𝜓 ⇒ ⊢ ¬ (𝜑 ∨ 𝜓) | ||
| Theorem | pm2.45 895 | Theorem *2.45 of [WhiteheadRussell] p. 106. (Contributed by NM, 3-Jan-2005.) |
| ⊢ (¬ (𝜑 ∨ 𝜓) → ¬ 𝜑) | ||
| Theorem | pm2.46 896 | Theorem *2.46 of [WhiteheadRussell] p. 106. (Contributed by NM, 3-Jan-2005.) |
| ⊢ (¬ (𝜑 ∨ 𝜓) → ¬ 𝜓) | ||
| Theorem | pm2.47 897 | Theorem *2.47 of [WhiteheadRussell] p. 107. (Contributed by NM, 3-Jan-2005.) |
| ⊢ (¬ (𝜑 ∨ 𝜓) → (¬ 𝜑 ∨ 𝜓)) | ||
| Theorem | pm2.48 898 | Theorem *2.48 of [WhiteheadRussell] p. 107. (Contributed by NM, 3-Jan-2005.) |
| ⊢ (¬ (𝜑 ∨ 𝜓) → (𝜑 ∨ ¬ 𝜓)) | ||
| Theorem | pm2.49 899 | Theorem *2.49 of [WhiteheadRussell] p. 107. (Contributed by NM, 3-Jan-2005.) |
| ⊢ (¬ (𝜑 ∨ 𝜓) → (¬ 𝜑 ∨ ¬ 𝜓)) | ||
| Theorem | norbi 900 | If neither of two propositions is true, then these propositions are equivalent. (Contributed by BJ, 26-Apr-2019.) |
| ⊢ (¬ (𝜑 ∨ 𝜓) → (𝜑 ↔ 𝜓)) | ||
| < Previous Next > |
| Copyright terms: Public domain | < Previous Next > |