P. 1 of Theorem List - New Foundations Explorer

Theorem List for New Foundations Explorer - 1-100   *Has distinct variable group(s)

Type	Label	Description
Statement
PART 1  CLASSICAL FIRST-ORDER LOGIC WITH EQUALITY Logic can be defined as the "study of the principles of correct reasoning" (Merrilee H. Salmon's 1991 "Informal Reasoning and Informal Logic" in Informal Reasoning and Education ) or as "a formal system using symbolic techniques and mathematical methods to establish truth-values" (the Oxford English Dictionary). This section formally defines the logic system we will use. In particular, it defines symbols for declaring truthful statements, along with rules for deriving truthful statements from other truthful statements. The system defined here is classical first-order logic with equality (the most common logic system used by mathematicians). We begin with a few housekeeping items in pre-logic, and then introduce propositional calculus (both its axioms and important theorems that can be derived from them). Propositional calculus deals with general truths about well-formed formulas (wffs) regardless of how they are constructed. This is followed by proofs that other axiomatizations of classical propositional calculus can be derived from the axioms we have chosen to use. We then define predicate calculus, which adds additional symbols and rules useful for discussing objects (beyond simply true or false). In particular, it introduces the symbols = ("equals"), e. ("is a member of"), and A. ("for all"). The first two are called "predicates." A predicate specifies a true or false relationship between its two arguments.
1.1  Pre-logic This section includes a few "housekeeping" mechanisms before we begin defining the basics of logic.
1.1.1  Inferences for assisting proof development The inference rules in this section will normally never appear in a completed proof. They can be ignored if you are using this database to assist learning logic - please start with the statement wn 3 instead.
Theorem	idi 1	(Note: This inference rule and the next one, a1ii 2, will normally never appear in a completed proof. They can be ignored if you are using this database to assist learning logic; please start with the statement wn 3 instead.) This inference says "if ph is true then ph is true". This inference requires no axioms for its proof, and is useful as a copy-paste mechanism during proof development in mmj2. It is normally not referenced in the final version of a proof, since it is always redundant. You can remove this using the metamath-exe (Metamath program) Proof Assistant using the "MM-PA> MINIMIZEWITH *" command. This is the inference associated with id 19, hence its name. (Contributed by Alan Sare, 31-Dec-2011.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) (New usage is discouraged.)
|- ph   =>   |- ph
Theorem	a1ii 2	(Note: This inference rule and the previous one, idi 1, will normally never appear in a completed proof.) This is a technical inference to assist proof development. It provides a temporary way to add an independent subproof to a proof under development, for later assignment to a normal proof step. The Metamath (Metamath-exe) program Proof Assistant requires proofs to be developed backwards from the conclusion with no gaps, and it has no mechanism that lets the user work on isolated subproofs. This inference provides a workaround for this limitation. It can be inserted at any point in a proof to allow an independent subproof to be developed on the side, for later use as part of the final proof. Instructions: (1) Assign this inference to any unknown step in the proof. Typically, the last unknown step is the most convenient, since "MM-PA> ASSIGN LAST" can be used. This step will be replicated in hypothesis a1ii.1, from where the development of the main proof can continue. (2) Develop the independent subproof backwards from hypothesis a1ii.2. If desired, use a "MM-PA> LET STEP" command to pre-assign the conclusion of the independent subproof to a1ii.2. (3) After the independent subproof is complete, use "MM-PA> IMPROVE ALL" to assign it automatically to an unknown step in the main proof that matches it. (4) After the entire proof is complete, use "MM-PA> MINIMIZEWITH *" to clean up (discard) all a1ii 2 references automatically. This inference was originally designed to assist importing partially completed Proof Worksheets from the mmj2 Proof Assistant GUI, but it can also be useful on its own. Interestingly, no axioms are required for its proof. It is the inference associated with a1i 10. (Contributed by NM, 7-Feb-2006.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) (New usage is discouraged.)
|- ph   &   |- ps   =>   |- ph
1.2  Propositional calculus Propositional calculus deals with general truths about well-formed formulas (wffs) regardless of how they are constructed. The simplest propositional truth is (ph -> ph), which can be read "if something is true, then it is true" - rather trivial and obvious, but nonetheless it must be proved from the axioms (see Theorem id 19). Our system of propositional calculus consists of three basic axioms and another axiom that defines the modus-ponens inference rule. It is attributed to Jan Lukasiewicz (pronounced woo-kah-SHAY-vitch) and was popularized by Alonzo Church, who called it system P2. (Thanks to Ted Ulrich for this information.) These axioms are ax-1 6, ax-2 7, ax-3 8, and (for modus ponens) ax-mp 5. Some closely followed texts include [Margaris] for the axioms and [WhiteheadRussell] for the theorems. The propositional calculus used here is the classical system widely used by mathematicians. In particular, this logic system accepts the "law of the excluded middle" as proven in exmid 404, which says that a logical statement is either true or not true. This is an essential distinction of classical logic and is not a theorem of intuitionistic logic. All 194 axioms, definitions, and theorems for propositional calculus in Principia Mathematica (specifically *1.2 through *5.75) are axioms or formally proven. See the Bibliographic Cross-References at https://us.metamath.org/nfeuni/mmbiblio.html 404 for a complete cross-reference from sources used to its formalization in the New Foundations Explorer.
1.2.1  Recursively define primitive wffs for propositional calculus
Syntax	wn 3	If ph is a wff, so is -. ph or "not ph." Part of the recursive definition of a wff (well-formed formula). In classical logic (which is our logic), a wff is interpreted as either true or false. So if ph is true, then -. ph is false; if ph is false, then -. ph is true. Traditionally, Greek letters are used to represent wffs, and we follow this convention. In propositional calculus, we define only wffs built up from other wffs, i.e. there is no starting or "atomic" wff. Later, in predicate calculus, we will extend the basic wff definition by including atomic wffs (weq 1643 and wel 1711).
wff -. ph
Syntax	wi 4	If ph and ps are wff's, so is (ph -> ps) or "ph implies ps." Part of the recursive definition of a wff. The resulting wff is (interpreted as) false when ph is true and ps is false; it is true otherwise. Think of the truth table for an OR gate with input ph connected through an inverter. After we define the axioms of propositional calculus (ax-1 6, ax-2 7, ax-3 8, and ax-mp 5), the biconditional (df-bi 177), the constant true T. (df-tru 1319), and the constant false F. (df-fal 1320), we will be able to prove these truth table values: (( T. -> T. ) <-> T. ) (truimtru 1344), (( T. -> F. ) <-> F. ) (truimfal 1345), (( F. -> T. ) <-> T. ) (falimtru 1346), and (( F. -> F. ) <-> T. ) (falimfal 1347). These have straightforward meanings, for example, (( T. -> T. ) <-> T. ) just means "the value of T. -> T. is T.". The left-hand wff is called the antecedent, and the right-hand wff is called the consequent. In the case of (ph -> (ps -> ch)), the middle ps may be informally called either an antecedent or part of the consequent depending on context. Contrast with <-> (df-bi 177), /\ (df-an 360), and \/ (df-or 359). This is called "material implication" and the arrow is usually read as "implies." However, material implication is not identical to the meaning of "implies" in natural language. For example, the word "implies" may suggest a causal relationship in natural language. Material implication does not require any causal relationship. Also, note that in material implication, if the consequent is true then the wff is always true (even if the antecedent is false). Thus, if "implies" means material implication, it is true that "if the moon is made of green cheese that implies that 5=5" (because 5=5). Similarly, if the antecedent is false, the wff is always true. Thus, it is true that, "if the moon made of green cheese that implies that 5=7" (because the moon is not actually made of green cheese). A contradiction implies anything (pm2.21i 123). In short, material implication has a very specific technical definition, and misunderstandings of it are sometimes called "paradoxes of logical implication."
wff (ph -> ps)
1.2.2  The axioms of propositional calculus Postulate the three axioms of classical propositional calculus. Propositional calculus (Axioms ax-1 6 through ax-3 8 and rule ax-mp 5) can be thought of as asserting formulas that are universally "true" when their variables are replaced by any combination of "true" and "false." Propositional calculus was first formalized by Frege in 1879, using as his axioms (in addition to rule ax-mp 5) the wffs ax-1 6, ax-2 7, pm2.04 76, con3 126, notnot2 104, and notnot1 114. Around 1930, Lukasiewicz simplified the system by eliminating the third (which follows from the first two, as you can see by looking at the proof of pm2.04 76) and replacing the last three with our ax-3 8. (Thanks to Ted Ulrich for this information.) The theorems of propositional calculus are also called tautologies. Tautologies can be proved very simply using truth tables, based on the true/false interpretation of propositional calculus. To do this, we assign all possible combinations of true and false to the wff variables and verify that the result (using the rules described in wi 4 and wn 3) always evaluates to true. This is called the semantic approach. Our approach is called the syntactic approach, in which everything is derived from axioms. A metatheorem called the Completeness Theorem for Propositional Calculus shows that the two approaches are equivalent and even provides an algorithm for automatically generating syntactic proofs from a truth table. Those proofs, however, tend to be long, since truth tables grow exponentially with the number of variables, and the much shorter proofs that we show here were found manually.
Axiom	ax-mp 5	Rule of Modus Ponens. The postulated inference rule of propositional calculus. See e.g. Rule 1 of [Hamilton] p. 73. The rule says, "if ph is true, and ph implies ps, then ps must also be true". This rule is sometimes called "detachment", since it detaches the minor premise from the major premise. "Modus ponens" is short for "modus ponendo ponens", a Latin phrase that means "the mode that by affirming affirms" - remark in [Sanford] p. 39. This rule is similar to the rule of modus tollens mto 167. Note: In some web page displays such as the Statement List, the symbols "& " and "=> " informally indicate the relationship between the hypotheses and the assertion (conclusion), abbreviating the English words "and" and "implies". They are not part of the formal language. (Contributed by NM, 30-Sep-1992.)
|- ph   &   |- (ph -> ps)   =>   |- ps
Axiom	ax-1 6	Axiom Simp. Axiom A1 of [Margaris] p. 49. One of the 3 axioms of propositional calculus. The 3 axioms are also given as Definition 2.1 of [Hamilton] p. 28. This axiom is called Simp or "the principle of simplification" in Principia Mathematica (Theorem *2.02 of [WhiteheadRussell] p. 100) because "it enables us to pass from the joint assertion of ph and ps to the assertion of ph simply." (Contributed by NM, 5-Aug-1993.)
|- (ph -> (ps -> ph))
Axiom	ax-2 7	Axiom Frege. Axiom A2 of [Margaris] p. 49. One of the 3 axioms of propositional calculus. It "distributes" an antecedent over two consequents. This axiom was part of Frege's original system and is known as Frege in the literature. It is also proved as Theorem *2.77 of [WhiteheadRussell] p. 108. The other direction of this axiom also turns out to be true, as demonstrated by pm5.41 353. (Contributed by NM, 5-Aug-1993.)
|- ((ph -> (ps -> ch)) -> ((ph -> ps) -> (ph -> ch)))
Axiom	ax-3 8	Axiom Transp. Axiom A3 of [Margaris] p. 49. One of the 3 axioms of propositional calculus. It swaps or "transposes" the order of the consequents when negation is removed. An informal example is that the statement "if there are no clouds in the sky, it is not raining" implies the statement "if it is raining, there are clouds in the sky." This axiom is called Transp or "the principle of transposition" in Principia Mathematica (Theorem *2.17 of [WhiteheadRussell] p. 103). We will also use the term "contraposition" for this principle, although the reader is advised that in the field of philosophical logic, "contraposition" has a different technical meaning. (Contributed by NM, 5-Aug-1993.)
|- ((-. ph -> -. ps) -> (ps -> ph))
1.2.3  Logical implication The results in this section are based on implication only, and avoid ax-3. In an implication, the wff before the arrow is called the "antecedent" and the wff after the arrow is called the "consequent". We will use the following descriptive terms very loosely: A "closed form" or "tautology" has no $e hypotheses. An "inference" has one or more $e hypotheses. A "deduction" is an inference in which the hypotheses and the conclusion share the same antecedent.
Theorem	mp2b 9	A double modus ponens inference. (Contributed by Mario Carneiro, 24-Jan-2013.)
|- ph   &   |- (ph -> ps)   &   |- (ps -> ch)   =>   |- ch
Theorem	a1i 10	Inference derived from Axiom ax-1 6. See a1d 22 for an explanation of our informal use of the terms "inference" and "deduction." See also the comment in syld 40. (Contributed by NM, 5-Aug-1993.)
|- ph   =>   |- (ps -> ph)
Theorem	mp1i 11	Drop and replace an antecedent. (Contributed by Stefan O'Rear, 29-Jan-2015.)
|- ph   &   |- (ph -> ps)   =>   |- (ch -> ps)
Theorem	a2i 12	Inference derived from Axiom ax-2 7. (Contributed by NM, 5-Aug-1993.)
|- (ph -> (ps -> ch))   =>   |- ((ph -> ps) -> (ph -> ch))
Theorem	imim2i 13	Inference adding common antecedents in an implication. (Contributed by NM, 5-Aug-1993.)
|- (ph -> ps)   =>   |- ((ch -> ph) -> (ch -> ps))
Theorem	mpd 14	A modus ponens deduction. A translation of natural deduction rule -> E (-> elimination). (Contributed by NM, 5-Aug-1993.)
|- (ph -> ps)   &   |- (ph -> (ps -> ch))   =>   |- (ph -> ch)
Theorem	syl 15	An inference version of the transitive laws for implication imim2 49 and imim1 70, which Russell and Whitehead call "the principle of the syllogism...because...the syllogism in Barbara is derived from them" (quote after Theorem *2.06 of [WhiteheadRussell] p. 101). Some authors call this law a "hypothetical syllogism." (A bit of trivia: this is the most commonly referenced assertion in our database. In second place is eqid 2353, followed by syl2anc 642, adantr 451, syl3anc 1182, and ax-mp 5. The Metamath program command 'show usage' shows the number of references.) (Contributed by NM, 5-Aug-1993.) (Proof shortened by O'Cat, 20-Oct-2011.) (Proof shortened by Wolf Lammen, 26-Jul-2012.)
|- (ph -> ps)   &   |- (ps -> ch)   =>   |- (ph -> ch)
Theorem	mpi 16	A nested modus ponens inference. (Contributed by NM, 5-Aug-1993.) (Proof shortened by Stefan Allan, 20-Mar-2006.)
|- ps   &   |- (ph -> (ps -> ch))   =>   |- (ph -> ch)
Theorem	mp2 17	A double modus ponens inference. (Contributed by NM, 5-Apr-1994.) (Proof shortened by Wolf Lammen, 23-Jul-2013.)
|- ph   &   |- ps   &   |- (ph -> (ps -> ch))   =>   |- ch
Theorem	3syl 18	Inference chaining two syllogisms. (Contributed by NM, 5-Aug-1993.)
|- (ph -> ps)   &   |- (ps -> ch)   &   |- (ch -> th)   =>   |- (ph -> th)
Theorem	id 19	Principle of identity. Theorem *2.08 of [WhiteheadRussell] p. 101. For another version of the proof directly from axioms, see idALT 20. (Contributed by NM, 5-Aug-1993.) (Proof shortened by Stefan Allan, 20-Mar-2006.)
|- (ph -> ph)
Theorem	idALT 20	Principle of identity. Theorem *2.08 of [WhiteheadRussell] p. 101. This version is proved directly from the axioms for demonstration purposes. This proof is a popular example in the literature and is identical, step for step, to the proofs of Theorem 1 of [Margaris] p. 51, Example 2.7(a) of [Hamilton] p. 31, Lemma 10.3 of [BellMachover] p. 36, and Lemma 1.8 of [Mendelson] p. 36. It is also "Our first proof" in Hirst and Hirst's A Primer for Logic and Proof p. 17 (PDF p. 23) at http://www.mathsci.appstate.edu/~hirstjl/primer/hirst.pdf. For a shorter version of the proof that takes advantage of previously proved theorems, see id 19. (Contributed by NM, 5-Aug-1993.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) Use id 19 instead. (New usage is discouraged.)
|- (ph -> ph)
Theorem	idd 21	Principle of identity with antecedent. (Contributed by NM, 26-Nov-1995.)
|- (ph -> (ps -> ps))
Theorem	a1d 22	Deduction introducing an embedded antecedent. Naming convention: We often call a theorem a "deduction" and suffix its label with "d" whenever the hypotheses and conclusion are each prefixed with the same antecedent. This allows us to use the theorem in places where (in traditional textbook formalizations) the standard Deduction Theorem would be used; here ph would be replaced with a conjunction (df-an 360) of the hypotheses of the would-be deduction. By contrast, we tend to call the simpler version with no common antecedent an "inference" and suffix its label with "i"; compare Theorem a1i 10. Finally, a "theorem" would be the form with no hypotheses; in this case the "theorem" form would be the original axiom ax-1 6. We usually show the theorem form without a suffix on its label (e.g. pm2.43 47 vs. pm2.43i 43 vs. pm2.43d 44). When an inference is converted to a theorem by eliminating an "is a set" hypothesis, we sometimes suffix the theorem form with "g" (for "more general") as in uniex 4318 vs. uniexg 4317. (Contributed by NM, 5-Aug-1993.) (Proof shortened by Stefan Allan, 20-Mar-2006.)
|- (ph -> ps)   =>   |- (ph -> (ch -> ps))
Theorem	a2d 23	Deduction distributing an embedded antecedent. (Contributed by NM, 23-Jun-1994.)
|- (ph -> (ps -> (ch -> th)))   =>   |- (ph -> ((ps -> ch) -> (ps -> th)))
Theorem	2a1i 24	Add two antecedents to a wff. (Contributed by Jeff Hankins, 4-Aug-2009.) (Proof shortened by Wolf Lammen, 23-Jul-2013.)
|- ch   =>   |- (ph -> (ps -> ch))
Theorem	sylcom 25	Syllogism inference with commutation of antecedents. (Contributed by NM, 29-Aug-2004.) (Proof shortened by O'Cat, 2-Feb-2006.) (Proof shortened by Stefan Allan, 23-Feb-2006.)
|- (ph -> (ps -> ch))   &   |- (ps -> (ch -> th))   =>   |- (ph -> (ps -> th))
Theorem	syl5com 26	Syllogism inference with commuted antecedents. (Contributed by NM, 24-May-2005.)
|- (ph -> ps)   &   |- (ch -> (ps -> th))   =>   |- (ph -> (ch -> th))
Theorem	com12 27	Inference that swaps (commutes) antecedents in an implication. (Contributed by NM, 5-Aug-1993.) (Proof shortened by Wolf Lammen, 4-Aug-2012.)
|- (ph -> (ps -> ch))   =>   |- (ps -> (ph -> ch))
Theorem	syl5 28	A syllogism rule of inference. The first premise is used to replace the second antecedent of the second premise. (Contributed by NM, 5-Aug-1993.) (Proof shortened by Wolf Lammen, 25-May-2013.)
|- (ph -> ps)   &   |- (ch -> (ps -> th))   =>   |- (ch -> (ph -> th))
Theorem	syl6 29	A syllogism rule of inference. The second premise is used to replace the consequent of the first premise. (Contributed by NM, 5-Aug-1993.) (Proof shortened by Wolf Lammen, 30-Jul-2012.)
|- (ph -> (ps -> ch))   &   |- (ch -> th)   =>   |- (ph -> (ps -> th))
Theorem	syl56 30	Combine syl5 28 and syl6 29. (Contributed by NM, 14-Nov-2013.)
|- (ph -> ps)   &   |- (ch -> (ps -> th))   &   |- (th -> ta)   =>   |- (ch -> (ph -> ta))
Theorem	syl6com 31	Syllogism inference with commuted antecedents. (Contributed by NM, 25-May-2005.)
|- (ph -> (ps -> ch))   &   |- (ch -> th)   =>   |- (ps -> (ph -> th))
Theorem	mpcom 32	Modus ponens inference with commutation of antecedents. (Contributed by NM, 17-Mar-1996.)
|- (ps -> ph)   &   |- (ph -> (ps -> ch))   =>   |- (ps -> ch)
Theorem	syli 33	Syllogism inference with common nested antecedent. (Contributed by NM, 4-Nov-2004.)
|- (ps -> (ph -> ch))   &   |- (ch -> (ph -> th))   =>   |- (ps -> (ph -> th))
Theorem	syl2im 34	Replace two antecedents. Implication-only version of syl2an 463. (Contributed by Wolf Lammen, 14-May-2013.)
|- (ph -> ps)   &   |- (ch -> th)   &   |- (ps -> (th -> ta))   =>   |- (ph -> (ch -> ta))
Theorem	pm2.27 35	This theorem, called "Assertion," can be thought of as closed form of modus ponens ax-mp 5. Theorem *2.27 of [WhiteheadRussell] p. 104. (Contributed by NM, 5-Aug-1993.)
|- (ph -> ((ph -> ps) -> ps))
Theorem	mpdd 36	A nested modus ponens deduction. (Contributed by NM, 12-Dec-2004.)
|- (ph -> (ps -> ch))   &   |- (ph -> (ps -> (ch -> th)))   =>   |- (ph -> (ps -> th))
Theorem	mpid 37	A nested modus ponens deduction. (Contributed by NM, 14-Dec-2004.)
|- (ph -> ch)   &   |- (ph -> (ps -> (ch -> th)))   =>   |- (ph -> (ps -> th))
Theorem	mpdi 38	A nested modus ponens deduction. (Contributed by NM, 16-Apr-2005.) (Proof shortened by O'Cat, 15-Jan-2008.)
|- (ps -> ch)   &   |- (ph -> (ps -> (ch -> th)))   =>   |- (ph -> (ps -> th))
Theorem	mpii 39	A doubly nested modus ponens inference. (Contributed by NM, 31-Dec-1993.) (Proof shortened by Wolf Lammen, 31-Jul-2012.)
|- ch   &   |- (ph -> (ps -> (ch -> th)))   =>   |- (ph -> (ps -> th))
Theorem	syld 40	Syllogism deduction. (Contributed by NM, 5-Aug-1993.) (Proof shortened by O'Cat, 19-Feb-2008.) (Proof shortened by Wolf Lammen, 3-Aug-2012.) Notice that syld 40 has the same form as syl 15 with ph added in front of each hypothesis and conclusion. When all theorems referenced in a proof are converted in this way, we can replace ph with a hypothesis of the proof, allowing the hypothesis to be eliminated with id 19 and become an antecedent. The Deduction Theorem for propositional calculus, e.g. Theorem 3 in [Margaris] p. 56, tells us that this procedure is always possible.
|- (ph -> (ps -> ch))   &   |- (ph -> (ch -> th))   =>   |- (ph -> (ps -> th))
Theorem	mp2d 41	A double modus ponens deduction. (Contributed by NM, 23-May-2013.) (Proof shortened by Wolf Lammen, 23-Jul-2013.)
|- (ph -> ps)   &   |- (ph -> ch)   &   |- (ph -> (ps -> (ch -> th)))   =>   |- (ph -> th)
Theorem	a1dd 42	Deduction introducing a nested embedded antecedent. (Contributed by NM, 17-Dec-2004.) (Proof shortened by O'Cat, 15-Jan-2008.)
|- (ph -> (ps -> ch))   =>   |- (ph -> (ps -> (th -> ch)))
Theorem	pm2.43i 43	Inference absorbing redundant antecedent. (Contributed by NM, 5-Aug-1993.) (Proof shortened by O'Cat, 28-Nov-2008.)
|- (ph -> (ph -> ps))   =>   |- (ph -> ps)
Theorem	pm2.43d 44	Deduction absorbing redundant antecedent. (Contributed by NM, 18-Aug-1993.) (Proof shortened by O'Cat, 28-Nov-2008.)
|- (ph -> (ps -> (ps -> ch)))   =>   |- (ph -> (ps -> ch))
Theorem	pm2.43a 45	Inference absorbing redundant antecedent. (Contributed by NM, 7-Nov-1995.) (Proof shortened by O'Cat, 28-Nov-2008.)
|- (ps -> (ph -> (ps -> ch)))   =>   |- (ps -> (ph -> ch))
Theorem	pm2.43b 46	Inference absorbing redundant antecedent. (Contributed by NM, 31-Oct-1995.)
|- (ps -> (ph -> (ps -> ch)))   =>   |- (ph -> (ps -> ch))
Theorem	pm2.43 47	Absorption of redundant antecedent. Also called the "Contraction" or "Hilbert" axiom. Theorem *2.43 of [WhiteheadRussell] p. 106. (Contributed by NM, 5-Aug-1993.) (Proof shortened by O'Cat, 15-Aug-2004.)
|- ((ph -> (ph -> ps)) -> (ph -> ps))
Theorem	imim2d 48	Deduction adding nested antecedents. (Contributed by NM, 5-Aug-1993.)
|- (ph -> (ps -> ch))   =>   |- (ph -> ((th -> ps) -> (th -> ch)))
Theorem	imim2 49	A closed form of syllogism (see syl 15). Theorem *2.05 of [WhiteheadRussell] p. 100. (Contributed by NM, 5-Aug-1993.) (Proof shortened by Wolf Lammen, 6-Sep-2012.)
|- ((ph -> ps) -> ((ch -> ph) -> (ch -> ps)))
Theorem	embantd 50	Deduction embedding an antecedent. (Contributed by Wolf Lammen, 4-Oct-2013.)
|- (ph -> ps)   &   |- (ph -> (ch -> th))   =>   |- (ph -> ((ps -> ch) -> th))
Theorem	3syld 51	Triple syllogism deduction. (Contributed by Jeff Hankins, 4-Aug-2009.)
|- (ph -> (ps -> ch))   &   |- (ph -> (ch -> th))   &   |- (ph -> (th -> ta))   =>   |- (ph -> (ps -> ta))
Theorem	sylsyld 52	Virtual deduction rule e12 without virtual deduction symbols. (Contributed by Alan Sare, 20-Apr-2011.)
|- (ph -> ps)   &   |- (ph -> (ch -> th))   &   |- (ps -> (th -> ta))   =>   |- (ph -> (ch -> ta))
Theorem	imim12i 53	Inference joining two implications. (Contributed by NM, 5-Aug-1993.) (Proof shortened by O'Cat, 29-Oct-2011.)
|- (ph -> ps)   &   |- (ch -> th)   =>   |- ((ps -> ch) -> (ph -> th))
Theorem	imim1i 54	Inference adding common consequents in an implication, thereby interchanging the original antecedent and consequent. (Contributed by NM, 5-Aug-1993.) (Proof shortened by Wolf Lammen, 4-Aug-2012.)
|- (ph -> ps)   =>   |- ((ps -> ch) -> (ph -> ch))
Theorem	imim3i 55	Inference adding three nested antecedents. (Contributed by NM, 19-Dec-2006.)
|- (ph -> (ps -> ch))   =>   |- ((th -> ph) -> ((th -> ps) -> (th -> ch)))
Theorem	sylc 56	A syllogism inference combined with contraction. (Contributed by NM, 4-May-1994.) (Revised by NM, 13-Jul-2013.)
|- (ph -> ps)   &   |- (ph -> ch)   &   |- (ps -> (ch -> th))   =>   |- (ph -> th)
Theorem	syl3c 57	A syllogism inference combined with contraction. e111 without virtual deductions. (Contributed by Alan Sare, 7-Jul-2011.)
|- (ph -> ps)   &   |- (ph -> ch)   &   |- (ph -> th)   &   |- (ps -> (ch -> (th -> ta)))   =>   |- (ph -> ta)
Theorem	syl6mpi 58	e20 without virtual deductions. (Contributed by Alan Sare, 8-Jul-2011.) (Proof shortened by Wolf Lammen, 13-Sep-2012.)
|- (ph -> (ps -> ch))   &   |- th   &   |- (ch -> (th -> ta))   =>   |- (ph -> (ps -> ta))
Theorem	mpsyl 59	Modus ponens combined with a syllogism inference. (Contributed by Alan Sare, 20-Apr-2011.)
|- ph   &   |- (ps -> ch)   &   |- (ph -> (ch -> th))   =>   |- (ps -> th)
Theorem	syl6c 60	Inference combining syl6 29 with contraction. (Contributed by Alan Sare, 2-May-2011.)
|- (ph -> (ps -> ch))   &   |- (ph -> (ps -> th))   &   |- (ch -> (th -> ta))   =>   |- (ph -> (ps -> ta))
Theorem	syldd 61	Nested syllogism deduction. (Contributed by NM, 12-Dec-2004.) (Proof shortened by Wolf Lammen, 11-May-2013.)
|- (ph -> (ps -> (ch -> th)))   &   |- (ph -> (ps -> (th -> ta)))   =>   |- (ph -> (ps -> (ch -> ta)))
Theorem	syl5d 62	A nested syllogism deduction. (Contributed by NM, 5-Aug-1993.) (Proof shortened by Josh Purinton, 29-Dec-2000.) (Proof shortened by O'Cat, 2-Feb-2006.)
|- (ph -> (ps -> ch))   &   |- (ph -> (th -> (ch -> ta)))   =>   |- (ph -> (th -> (ps -> ta)))
Theorem	syl7 63	A syllogism rule of inference. The first premise is used to replace the third antecedent of the second premise. (Contributed by NM, 5-Aug-1993.) (Proof shortened by Wolf Lammen, 3-Aug-2012.)
|- (ph -> ps)   &   |- (ch -> (th -> (ps -> ta)))   =>   |- (ch -> (th -> (ph -> ta)))
Theorem	syl6d 64	A nested syllogism deduction. (Contributed by NM, 5-Aug-1993.) (Proof shortened by Josh Purinton, 29-Dec-2000.) (Proof shortened by O'Cat, 2-Feb-2006.)
|- (ph -> (ps -> (ch -> th)))   &   |- (ph -> (th -> ta))   =>   |- (ph -> (ps -> (ch -> ta)))
Theorem	syl8 65	A syllogism rule of inference. The second premise is used to replace the consequent of the first premise. (Contributed by NM, 1-Aug-1994.) (Proof shortened by Wolf Lammen, 3-Aug-2012.)
|- (ph -> (ps -> (ch -> th)))   &   |- (th -> ta)   =>   |- (ph -> (ps -> (ch -> ta)))
Theorem	syl9 66	A nested syllogism inference with different antecedents. (Contributed by NM, 5-Aug-1993.) (Proof shortened by Josh Purinton, 29-Dec-2000.)
|- (ph -> (ps -> ch))   &   |- (th -> (ch -> ta))   =>   |- (ph -> (th -> (ps -> ta)))
Theorem	syl9r 67	A nested syllogism inference with different antecedents. (Contributed by NM, 5-Aug-1993.)
|- (ph -> (ps -> ch))   &   |- (th -> (ch -> ta))   =>   |- (th -> (ph -> (ps -> ta)))
Theorem	imim12d 68	Deduction combining antecedents and consequents. (Contributed by NM, 7-Aug-1994.) (Proof shortened by O'Cat, 30-Oct-2011.)
|- (ph -> (ps -> ch))   &   |- (ph -> (th -> ta))   =>   |- (ph -> ((ch -> th) -> (ps -> ta)))
Theorem	imim1d 69	Deduction adding nested consequents. (Contributed by NM, 3-Apr-1994.) (Proof shortened by Wolf Lammen, 12-Sep-2012.)
|- (ph -> (ps -> ch))   =>   |- (ph -> ((ch -> th) -> (ps -> th)))
Theorem	imim1 70	A closed form of syllogism (see syl 15). Theorem *2.06 of [WhiteheadRussell] p. 100. (Contributed by NM, 5-Aug-1993.) (Proof shortened by Wolf Lammen, 25-May-2013.)
|- ((ph -> ps) -> ((ps -> ch) -> (ph -> ch)))
Theorem	pm2.83 71	Theorem *2.83 of [WhiteheadRussell] p. 108. (Contributed by NM, 3-Jan-2005.)
|- ((ph -> (ps -> ch)) -> ((ph -> (ch -> th)) -> (ph -> (ps -> th))))
Theorem	com23 72	Commutation of antecedents. Swap 2nd and 3rd. (Contributed by NM, 5-Aug-1993.) (Proof shortened by Wolf Lammen, 4-Aug-2012.)
|- (ph -> (ps -> (ch -> th)))   =>   |- (ph -> (ch -> (ps -> th)))
Theorem	com3r 73	Commutation of antecedents. Rotate right. (Contributed by NM, 25-Apr-1994.)
|- (ph -> (ps -> (ch -> th)))   =>   |- (ch -> (ph -> (ps -> th)))
Theorem	com13 74	Commutation of antecedents. Swap 1st and 3rd. (Contributed by NM, 25-Apr-1994.) (Proof shortened by Wolf Lammen, 28-Jul-2012.)
|- (ph -> (ps -> (ch -> th)))   =>   |- (ch -> (ps -> (ph -> th)))
Theorem	com3l 75	Commutation of antecedents. Rotate left. (Contributed by NM, 25-Apr-1994.) (Proof shortened by Wolf Lammen, 28-Jul-2012.)
|- (ph -> (ps -> (ch -> th)))   =>   |- (ps -> (ch -> (ph -> th)))
Theorem	pm2.04 76	Swap antecedents. Theorem *2.04 of [WhiteheadRussell] p. 100. (Contributed by NM, 5-Aug-1993.) (Proof shortened by Wolf Lammen, 12-Sep-2012.)
|- ((ph -> (ps -> ch)) -> (ps -> (ph -> ch)))
Theorem	com34 77	Commutation of antecedents. Swap 3rd and 4th. (Contributed by NM, 25-Apr-1994.)
|- (ph -> (ps -> (ch -> (th -> ta))))   =>   |- (ph -> (ps -> (th -> (ch -> ta))))
Theorem	com4l 78	Commutation of antecedents. Rotate left. (Contributed by NM, 25-Apr-1994.) (Proof shortened by O'Cat, 15-Aug-2004.)
|- (ph -> (ps -> (ch -> (th -> ta))))   =>   |- (ps -> (ch -> (th -> (ph -> ta))))
Theorem	com4t 79	Commutation of antecedents. Rotate twice. (Contributed by NM, 25-Apr-1994.)
|- (ph -> (ps -> (ch -> (th -> ta))))   =>   |- (ch -> (th -> (ph -> (ps -> ta))))
Theorem	com4r 80	Commutation of antecedents. Rotate right. (Contributed by NM, 25-Apr-1994.)
|- (ph -> (ps -> (ch -> (th -> ta))))   =>   |- (th -> (ph -> (ps -> (ch -> ta))))
Theorem	com24 81	Commutation of antecedents. Swap 2nd and 4th. (Contributed by NM, 25-Apr-1994.) (Proof shortened by Wolf Lammen, 28-Jul-2012.)
|- (ph -> (ps -> (ch -> (th -> ta))))   =>   |- (ph -> (th -> (ch -> (ps -> ta))))
Theorem	com14 82	Commutation of antecedents. Swap 1st and 4th. (Contributed by NM, 25-Apr-1994.) (Proof shortened by Wolf Lammen, 28-Jul-2012.)
|- (ph -> (ps -> (ch -> (th -> ta))))   =>   |- (th -> (ps -> (ch -> (ph -> ta))))
Theorem	com45 83	Commutation of antecedents. Swap 4th and 5th. (Contributed by Jeff Hankins, 28-Jun-2009.)
|- (ph -> (ps -> (ch -> (th -> (ta -> et)))))   =>   |- (ph -> (ps -> (ch -> (ta -> (th -> et)))))
Theorem	com35 84	Commutation of antecedents. Swap 3rd and 5th. (Contributed by Jeff Hankins, 28-Jun-2009.)
|- (ph -> (ps -> (ch -> (th -> (ta -> et)))))   =>   |- (ph -> (ps -> (ta -> (th -> (ch -> et)))))
Theorem	com25 85	Commutation of antecedents. Swap 2nd and 5th. (Contributed by Jeff Hankins, 28-Jun-2009.)
|- (ph -> (ps -> (ch -> (th -> (ta -> et)))))   =>   |- (ph -> (ta -> (ch -> (th -> (ps -> et)))))
Theorem	com5l 86	Commutation of antecedents. Rotate left. (Contributed by Jeff Hankins, 28-Jun-2009.) (Proof shortened by Wolf Lammen, 29-Jul-2012.)
|- (ph -> (ps -> (ch -> (th -> (ta -> et)))))   =>   |- (ps -> (ch -> (th -> (ta -> (ph -> et)))))
Theorem	com15 87	Commutation of antecedents. Swap 1st and 5th. (Contributed by Jeff Hankins, 28-Jun-2009.) (Proof shortened by Wolf Lammen, 29-Jul-2012.)
|- (ph -> (ps -> (ch -> (th -> (ta -> et)))))   =>   |- (ta -> (ps -> (ch -> (th -> (ph -> et)))))
Theorem	com52l 88	Commutation of antecedents. Rotate left twice. (Contributed by Jeff Hankins, 28-Jun-2009.)
|- (ph -> (ps -> (ch -> (th -> (ta -> et)))))   =>   |- (ch -> (th -> (ta -> (ph -> (ps -> et)))))
Theorem	com52r 89	Commutation of antecedents. Rotate right twice. (Contributed by Jeff Hankins, 28-Jun-2009.)
|- (ph -> (ps -> (ch -> (th -> (ta -> et)))))   =>   |- (th -> (ta -> (ph -> (ps -> (ch -> et)))))
Theorem	com5r 90	Commutation of antecedents. Rotate right. (Contributed by Wolf Lammen, 29-Jul-2012.)
|- (ph -> (ps -> (ch -> (th -> (ta -> et)))))   =>   |- (ta -> (ph -> (ps -> (ch -> (th -> et)))))
Theorem	jarr 91	Elimination of a nested antecedent as a kind of reversal of inference ja 153. (Contributed by Wolf Lammen, 9-May-2013.)
|- (((ph -> ps) -> ch) -> (ps -> ch))
Theorem	pm2.86i 92	Inference based on pm2.86 94. (Contributed by NM, 5-Aug-1993.) (Proof shortened by Wolf Lammen, 3-Apr-2013.)
|- ((ph -> ps) -> (ph -> ch))   =>   |- (ph -> (ps -> ch))
Theorem	pm2.86d 93	Deduction based on pm2.86 94. (Contributed by NM, 29-Jun-1995.) (Proof shortened by Wolf Lammen, 3-Apr-2013.)
|- (ph -> ((ps -> ch) -> (ps -> th)))   =>   |- (ph -> (ps -> (ch -> th)))
Theorem	pm2.86 94	Converse of Axiom ax-2 7. Theorem *2.86 of [WhiteheadRussell] p. 108. (Contributed by NM, 25-Apr-1994.) (Proof shortened by Wolf Lammen, 3-Apr-2013.)
|- (((ph -> ps) -> (ph -> ch)) -> (ph -> (ps -> ch)))
Theorem	loolinALT 95	The Linearity Axiom of the infinite-valued sentential logic (L-infinity) of Lukasiewicz. This version of loolin 173 does not use ax-3 8, meaning that this theorem is intuitionistically valid. (Contributed by O'Cat, 12-Aug-2004.) (New usage is discouraged.) (Proof modification is discouraged.)
|- (((ph -> ps) -> (ps -> ph)) -> (ps -> ph))
Theorem	loowoz 96	An alternate for the Linearity Axiom of the infinite-valued sentential logic (L-infinity) of Lukasiewicz, due to Barbara Wozniakowska, Reports on Mathematical Logic 10, 129-137 (1978). (Contributed by O'Cat, 8-Aug-2004.)
|- (((ph -> ps) -> (ph -> ch)) -> ((ps -> ph) -> (ps -> ch)))
1.2.4  Logical negation This section makes our first use of the third axiom of propositional calculus, ax-3 8.
Theorem	con4d 97	Deduction derived from Axiom ax-3 8. (Contributed by NM, 26-Mar-1995.)
|- (ph -> (-. ps -> -. ch))   =>   |- (ph -> (ch -> ps))
Theorem	pm2.21d 98	A contradiction implies anything. Deduction from pm2.21 100. (Contributed by NM, 10-Feb-1996.)
|- (ph -> -. ps)   =>   |- (ph -> (ps -> ch))
Theorem	pm2.21dd 99	A contradiction implies anything. Deduction from pm2.21 100. (Contributed by Mario Carneiro, 9-Feb-2017.)
|- (ph -> ps)   &   |- (ph -> -. ps)   =>   |- (ph -> ch)
Theorem	pm2.21 100	From a wff and its negation, anything is true. Theorem *2.21 of [WhiteheadRussell] p. 104. Also called the Duns Scotus law. (Contributed by NM, 5-Aug-1993.) (Proof shortened by Wolf Lammen, 14-Sep-2012.)
|- (-. ph -> (ph -> ps))