P. 19 of Theorem List - Metamath Proof Explorer

Theorem List for Metamath Proof Explorer - 1801-1900   *Has distinct variable group(s)

Type	Label	Description
Statement
Theorem	retbwax1 1801	tbw-ax1 1766 rederived from merco1 1779. This theorem, along with retbwax2 1782, retbwax3 1789, and retbwax4 1781, shows that merco1 1779 with ax-mp 5 can be used as a complete axiomatization of propositional calculus. (Contributed by Anthony Hart, 18-Sep-2011.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) (New usage is discouraged.)
⊢ ((𝜑 → 𝜓) → ((𝜓 → 𝜒) → (𝜑 → 𝜒)))
1.3.9  Derive the Tarski-Bernays-Wajsberg axioms from Meredith's Second CO Axiom
Theorem	merco2 1802	A single axiom for propositional calculus offered by Meredith. This axiom has 19 symbols, sans auxiliaries. See notes in merco1 1779. (Contributed by Anthony Hart, 7-Aug-2011.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) (New usage is discouraged.)
⊢ (((𝜑 → 𝜓) → ((⊥ → 𝜒) → 𝜃)) → ((𝜃 → 𝜑) → (𝜏 → (𝜂 → 𝜑))))
Theorem	mercolem1 1803	Used to rederive the Tarski-Bernays-Wajsberg axioms from merco2 1802. (Contributed by Anthony Hart, 16-Aug-2011.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) (New usage is discouraged.)
⊢ (((𝜑 → 𝜓) → 𝜒) → (𝜓 → (𝜃 → 𝜒)))
Theorem	mercolem2 1804	Used to rederive the Tarski-Bernays-Wajsberg axioms from merco2 1802. (Contributed by Anthony Hart, 16-Aug-2011.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) (New usage is discouraged.)
⊢ (((𝜑 → 𝜓) → 𝜑) → (𝜒 → (𝜃 → 𝜑)))
Theorem	mercolem3 1805	Used to rederive the Tarski-Bernays-Wajsberg axioms from merco2 1802. (Contributed by Anthony Hart, 16-Aug-2011.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) (New usage is discouraged.)
⊢ ((𝜓 → 𝜒) → (𝜓 → (𝜑 → 𝜒)))
Theorem	mercolem4 1806	Used to rederive the Tarski-Bernays-Wajsberg axioms from merco2 1802. (Contributed by Anthony Hart, 16-Aug-2011.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) (New usage is discouraged.)
⊢ ((𝜃 → (𝜂 → 𝜑)) → (((𝜃 → 𝜒) → 𝜑) → (𝜏 → (𝜂 → 𝜑))))
Theorem	mercolem5 1807	Used to rederive the Tarski-Bernays-Wajsberg axioms from merco2 1802. (Contributed by Anthony Hart, 16-Aug-2011.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) (New usage is discouraged.)
⊢ (𝜃 → ((𝜃 → 𝜑) → (𝜏 → (𝜒 → 𝜑))))
Theorem	mercolem6 1808	Used to rederive the Tarski-Bernays-Wajsberg axioms from merco2 1802. (Contributed by Anthony Hart, 16-Aug-2011.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) (New usage is discouraged.)
⊢ ((𝜑 → (𝜓 → (𝜑 → 𝜒))) → (𝜓 → (𝜑 → 𝜒)))
Theorem	mercolem7 1809	Used to rederive the Tarski-Bernays-Wajsberg axioms from merco2 1802. (Contributed by Anthony Hart, 16-Aug-2011.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) (New usage is discouraged.)
⊢ ((𝜑 → 𝜓) → (((𝜑 → 𝜒) → (𝜃 → 𝜓)) → (𝜃 → 𝜓)))
Theorem	mercolem8 1810	Used to rederive the Tarski-Bernays-Wajsberg axioms from merco2 1802. (Contributed by Anthony Hart, 16-Aug-2011.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) (New usage is discouraged.)
⊢ ((𝜑 → 𝜓) → ((𝜓 → (𝜑 → 𝜒)) → (𝜏 → (𝜃 → (𝜑 → 𝜒)))))
Theorem	re1tbw1 1811	tbw-ax1 1766 rederived from merco2 1802. (Contributed by Anthony Hart, 16-Aug-2011.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) (New usage is discouraged.)
⊢ ((𝜑 → 𝜓) → ((𝜓 → 𝜒) → (𝜑 → 𝜒)))
Theorem	re1tbw2 1812	tbw-ax2 1767 rederived from merco2 1802. (Contributed by Anthony Hart, 16-Aug-2011.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) (New usage is discouraged.)
⊢ (𝜑 → (𝜓 → 𝜑))
Theorem	re1tbw3 1813	tbw-ax3 1768 rederived from merco2 1802. (Contributed by Anthony Hart, 16-Aug-2011.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) (New usage is discouraged.)
⊢ (((𝜑 → 𝜓) → 𝜑) → 𝜑)
Theorem	re1tbw4 1814	tbw-ax4 1769 rederived from merco2 1802. This theorem, along with re1tbw1 1811, re1tbw2 1812, and re1tbw3 1813, shows that merco2 1802, along with ax-mp 5, can be used as a complete axiomatization of propositional calculus. (Contributed by Anthony Hart, 16-Aug-2011.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) (New usage is discouraged.)
⊢ (⊥ → 𝜑)
1.3.10  Derive the Lukasiewicz axioms from the Russell-Bernays Axioms
Theorem	rb-bijust 1815	Justification for rb-imdf 1816. (Contributed by Anthony Hart, 17-Aug-2011.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) (New usage is discouraged.)
⊢ ((𝜑 ↔ 𝜓) ↔ ¬ (¬ (¬ 𝜑 ∨ 𝜓) ∨ ¬ (¬ 𝜓 ∨ 𝜑)))
Theorem	rb-imdf 1816	The definition of implication, in terms of ∨ and ¬. (Contributed by Anthony Hart, 17-Aug-2011.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) (New usage is discouraged.)
⊢ ¬ (¬ (¬ (𝜑 → 𝜓) ∨ (¬ 𝜑 ∨ 𝜓)) ∨ ¬ (¬ (¬ 𝜑 ∨ 𝜓) ∨ (𝜑 → 𝜓)))
Theorem	anmp 1817	Modus ponens for ∨ ¬ axiom systems. (Contributed by Anthony Hart, 12-Aug-2011.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) (New usage is discouraged.)
⊢ 𝜑    &   ⊢ (¬ 𝜑 ∨ 𝜓)    ⇒   ⊢ 𝜓
Theorem	rb-ax1 1818	The first of four axioms in the Russell-Bernays axiom system. (Contributed by Anthony Hart, 13-Aug-2011.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) (New usage is discouraged.)
⊢ (¬ (¬ 𝜓 ∨ 𝜒) ∨ (¬ (𝜑 ∨ 𝜓) ∨ (𝜑 ∨ 𝜒)))
Theorem	rb-ax2 1819	The second of four axioms in the Russell-Bernays axiom system. (Contributed by Anthony Hart, 13-Aug-2011.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) (New usage is discouraged.)
⊢ (¬ (𝜑 ∨ 𝜓) ∨ (𝜓 ∨ 𝜑))
Theorem	rb-ax3 1820	The third of four axioms in the Russell-Bernays axiom system. (Contributed by Anthony Hart, 13-Aug-2011.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) (New usage is discouraged.)
⊢ (¬ 𝜑 ∨ (𝜓 ∨ 𝜑))
Theorem	rb-ax4 1821	The fourth of four axioms in the Russell-Bernays axiom system. (Contributed by Anthony Hart, 13-Aug-2011.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) (New usage is discouraged.)
⊢ (¬ (𝜑 ∨ 𝜑) ∨ 𝜑)
Theorem	rbsyl 1822	Used to rederive the Lukasiewicz axioms from Russell-Bernays'. (Contributed by Anthony Hart, 18-Aug-2011.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) (New usage is discouraged.)
⊢ (¬ 𝜓 ∨ 𝜒)    &   ⊢ (𝜑 ∨ 𝜓)    ⇒   ⊢ (𝜑 ∨ 𝜒)
Theorem	rblem1 1823	Used to rederive the Lukasiewicz axioms from Russell-Bernays'. (Contributed by Anthony Hart, 18-Aug-2011.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) (New usage is discouraged.)
⊢ (¬ 𝜑 ∨ 𝜓)    &   ⊢ (¬ 𝜒 ∨ 𝜃)    ⇒   ⊢ (¬ (𝜑 ∨ 𝜒) ∨ (𝜓 ∨ 𝜃))
Theorem	rblem2 1824	Used to rederive the Lukasiewicz axioms from Russell-Bernays'. (Contributed by Anthony Hart, 18-Aug-2011.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) (New usage is discouraged.)
⊢ (¬ (𝜒 ∨ 𝜑) ∨ (𝜒 ∨ (𝜑 ∨ 𝜓)))
Theorem	rblem3 1825	Used to rederive the Lukasiewicz axioms from Russell-Bernays'. (Contributed by Anthony Hart, 18-Aug-2011.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) (New usage is discouraged.)
⊢ (¬ (𝜒 ∨ 𝜑) ∨ ((𝜒 ∨ 𝜓) ∨ 𝜑))
Theorem	rblem4 1826	Used to rederive the Lukasiewicz axioms from Russell-Bernays'. (Contributed by Anthony Hart, 18-Aug-2011.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) (New usage is discouraged.)
⊢ (¬ 𝜑 ∨ 𝜃)    &   ⊢ (¬ 𝜓 ∨ 𝜏)    &   ⊢ (¬ 𝜒 ∨ 𝜂)    ⇒   ⊢ (¬ ((𝜑 ∨ 𝜓) ∨ 𝜒) ∨ ((𝜂 ∨ 𝜏) ∨ 𝜃))
Theorem	rblem5 1827	Used to rederive the Lukasiewicz axioms from Russell-Bernays'. (Contributed by Anthony Hart, 19-Aug-2011.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) (New usage is discouraged.)
⊢ (¬ (¬ ¬ 𝜑 ∨ 𝜓) ∨ (¬ ¬ 𝜓 ∨ 𝜑))
Theorem	rblem6 1828	Used to rederive the Lukasiewicz axioms from Russell-Bernays'. (Contributed by Anthony Hart, 19-Aug-2011.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) (New usage is discouraged.)
⊢ ¬ (¬ (¬ 𝜑 ∨ 𝜓) ∨ ¬ (¬ 𝜓 ∨ 𝜑))    ⇒   ⊢ (¬ 𝜑 ∨ 𝜓)
Theorem	rblem7 1829	Used to rederive the Lukasiewicz axioms from Russell-Bernays'. (Contributed by Anthony Hart, 19-Aug-2011.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) (New usage is discouraged.)
⊢ ¬ (¬ (¬ 𝜑 ∨ 𝜓) ∨ ¬ (¬ 𝜓 ∨ 𝜑))    ⇒   ⊢ (¬ 𝜓 ∨ 𝜑)
Theorem	re1axmp 1830	ax-mp 5 derived from Russell-Bernays'. (Contributed by Anthony Hart, 19-Aug-2011.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) (New usage is discouraged.)
⊢ 𝜑    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝜓)    ⇒   ⊢ 𝜓
Theorem	re2luk1 1831	luk-1 1721 derived from Russell-Bernays'. (Contributed by Anthony Hart, 19-Aug-2011.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) (New usage is discouraged.)
⊢ ((𝜑 → 𝜓) → ((𝜓 → 𝜒) → (𝜑 → 𝜒)))
Theorem	re2luk2 1832	luk-2 1722 derived from Russell-Bernays'. (Contributed by Anthony Hart, 19-Aug-2011.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) (New usage is discouraged.)
⊢ ((¬ 𝜑 → 𝜑) → 𝜑)
Theorem	re2luk3 1833	luk-3 1723 derived from Russell-Bernays'. This theorem, along with re1axmp 1830, re2luk1 1831, and re2luk2 1832 shows that rb-ax1 1818, rb-ax2 1819, rb-ax3 1820, and rb-ax4 1821, along with anmp 1817, can be used as a complete axiomatization of propositional calculus. (Contributed by Anthony Hart, 19-Aug-2011.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) (New usage is discouraged.)
⊢ (𝜑 → (¬ 𝜑 → 𝜓))
1.3.11  Stoic logic non-modal portion (Chrysippus of Soli) The Greek Stoics developed a system of logic called Stoic logic. The Stoic Chrysippus, in particular, was often considered one of the greatest logicians of antiquity. Stoic logic is different from Aristotle's system, since it focuses on propositional logic, though later thinkers did combine the systems of the Stoics with Aristotle. Jan Lukasiewicz reports, "For anybody familiar with mathematical logic it is self-evident that the Stoic dialectic is the ancient form of modern propositional logic" ( On the history of the logic of proposition by Jan Lukasiewicz (1934), translated in: Selected Works - Edited by Ludwik Borkowski - Amsterdam, North-Holland, 1970 pp. 197-217, referenced in "History of Logic" https://www.historyoflogic.com/logic-stoics.htm). In this section we show that the propositional logic system we use (which is non-modal) is at least as strong as the non-modal portion of Stoic logic. We show this by showing that our system assumes or proves all of key features of Stoic logic's non-modal portion (specifically the Stoic logic indemonstrables, themata, and principles). "In terms of contemporary logic, Stoic syllogistic is best understood as a substructural backwards-working Gentzen-style natural-deduction system that consists of five kinds of axiomatic arguments (the indemonstrables) and four inference rules, called themata. An argument is a syllogism precisely if it either is an indemonstrable or can be reduced to one by means of the themata (Diogenes Laertius (D. L. 7.78))." (Ancient Logic, Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/logic-ancient/). There are also a few "principles" that support logical reasoning, discussed below. For more information, see "Stoic Logic" by Susanne Bobzien, especially [Bobzien] p. 110-120, especially for a discussion about the themata (including how they were reconstructed and how they were used). There are differences in the systems we can only partly represent, for example, in Stoic logic "truth and falsehood are temporal properties of assertibles... They can belong to an assertible at one time but not at another" ([Bobzien] p. 87). Stoic logic also included various kinds of modalities, which we do not include here since our basic propositional logic does not include modalities. A key part of the Stoic logic system is a set of five "indemonstrables" assigned to Chrysippus of Soli by Diogenes Laertius, though in general it is difficult to assign specific ideas to specific thinkers. The indemonstrables are described in, for example, [Lopez-Astorga] p. 11 , [Sanford] p. 39, and [Hitchcock] p. 5. These indemonstrables are modus ponendo ponens (modus ponens) ax-mp 5, modus tollendo tollens (modus tollens) mto 188, modus ponendo tollens I mptnan 1834, modus ponendo tollens II mptxor 1835, and modus tollendo ponens (exclusive-or version) mtpxor 1837. The first is an axiom, the second is already proved; in this section we prove the other three. Note that modus tollendo ponens mtpxor 1837 originally used exclusive-or, but over time the name modus tollendo ponens has increasingly referred to an inclusive-or variation, which is proved in mtpor 1836. After we prove the indemonstratables, we then prove all the Stoic logic themata (the inference rules of Stoic logic; "thema" is singular). This is straightforward for thema 1 (stoic1a 1838 and stoic1b 1839) and thema 3 (stoic3 1842). However, while Stoic logic was once a leading logic system, most direct information about Stoic logic has since been lost, including the exact texts of thema 2 and thema 4. There are, however, enough references and specific examples to support reconstruction. Themata 2 and 4 have been reconstructed; see statements T2 and T4 in [Bobzien] p. 110-120 and our proofs of them in stoic2a 1840, stoic2b 1841, stoic4a 1843, and stoic4b 1844. Stoic logic also had a set of principles involving assertibles. Statements in [Bobzien] p. 99 express the known principles. The following paragraphs discuss these principles and our proofs of them. "A principle of double negation, expressed by saying that a double-negation (Not: not: p) is equivalent to the assertible that is doubly negated (p) (DL VII 69)." In other words, (𝜑 ↔ ¬ ¬ 𝜑) as proven in notnotb 304. "The principle that all conditionals that are formed by using the same assertible twice (like 'If p, p') are true (Cic. Acad. II 98)." In other words, (𝜑 → 𝜑) as proven in id 22. "The principle that all disjunctions formed by a contradiction (like 'Either p or not: p') are true (S. E. M VIII 282)". Remember that in Stoic logic, 'or' means 'exclusive or'. In other words, (𝜑 ⊻ ¬ 𝜑) as proven in xorexmid 1621. [Bobzien] p. 99 also suggests that Stoic logic may have dealt with commutativity (see xorcom 1608 and ancom 465) and the principle of contraposition (con4 112) (pointing to DL VII 194). In short, the non-modal propositional logic system we use is at least as strong as the non-modal portion of Stoic logic. For more about Aristotle's system, see barbara 2693 and related theorems.
Theorem	mptnan 1834	Modus ponendo tollens 1, one of the "indemonstrables" in Stoic logic. See rule 1 on [Lopez-Astorga] p. 12 , rule 1 on [Sanford] p. 40, and rule A3 in [Hitchcock] p. 5. Sanford describes this rule second (after mptxor 1835) as a "safer, and these days much more common" version of modus ponendo tollens because it avoids confusion between inclusive-or and exclusive-or. (Contributed by David A. Wheeler, 3-Jul-2016.)
⊢ 𝜑    &   ⊢ ¬ (𝜑 ∧ 𝜓)    ⇒   ⊢ ¬ 𝜓
Theorem	mptxor 1835	Modus ponendo tollens 2, one of the "indemonstrables" in Stoic logic. Note that this uses exclusive-or ⊻. See rule 2 on [Lopez-Astorga] p. 12 , rule 4 on [Sanford] p. 39 and rule A4 in [Hitchcock] p. 5 . (Contributed by David A. Wheeler, 3-Jul-2016.) (Proof shortened by Wolf Lammen, 12-Nov-2017.) (Proof shortened by BJ, 19-Apr-2019.)
⊢ 𝜑    &   ⊢ (𝜑 ⊻ 𝜓)    ⇒   ⊢ ¬ 𝜓
Theorem	mtpor 1836	Modus tollendo ponens (inclusive-or version), aka disjunctive syllogism. This is similar to mtpxor 1837, one of the five original "indemonstrables" in Stoic logic. However, in Stoic logic this rule used exclusive-or, while the name modus tollendo ponens often refers to a variant of the rule that uses inclusive-or instead. The rule says, "if 𝜑 is not true, and 𝜑 or 𝜓 (or both) are true, then 𝜓 must be true." An alternative phrasing is, "Once you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth." -- Sherlock Holmes (Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, 1890: The Sign of the Four, ch. 6). (Contributed by David A. Wheeler, 3-Jul-2016.) (Proof shortened by Wolf Lammen, 11-Nov-2017.)
⊢ ¬ 𝜑    &   ⊢ (𝜑 ∨ 𝜓)    ⇒   ⊢ 𝜓
Theorem	mtpxor 1837	Modus tollendo ponens (original exclusive-or version), aka disjunctive syllogism, similar to mtpor 1836, one of the five "indemonstrables" in Stoic logic. The rule says, "if 𝜑 is not true, and either 𝜑 or 𝜓 (exclusively) are true, then 𝜓 must be true." Today the name "modus tollendo ponens" often refers to a variant, the inclusive-or version as defined in mtpor 1836. See rule 3 on [Lopez-Astorga] p. 12 (note that the "or" is the same as mptxor 1835, that is, it is exclusive-or df-xor 1606), rule 3 of [Sanford] p. 39 (where it is not as clearly stated which kind of "or" is used but it appears to be in the same sense as mptxor 1835), and rule A5 in [Hitchcock] p. 5 (exclusive-or is expressly used). (Contributed by David A. Wheeler, 4-Jul-2016.) (Proof shortened by Wolf Lammen, 11-Nov-2017.) (Proof shortened by BJ, 19-Apr-2019.)
⊢ ¬ 𝜑    &   ⊢ (𝜑 ⊻ 𝜓)    ⇒   ⊢ 𝜓
Theorem	stoic1a 1838	Stoic logic Thema 1 (part a). The first thema of the four Stoic logic themata, in its basic form, was: "When from two (assertibles) a third follows, then from either of them together with the contradictory of the conclusion the contradictory of the other follows." (Apuleius Int. 209.9-14), see [Bobzien] p. 117 and https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/logic-ancient/ We will represent thema 1 as two very similar rules stoic1a 1838 and stoic1b 1839 to represent each side. (Contributed by David A. Wheeler, 16-Feb-2019.) (Proof shortened by Wolf Lammen, 21-May-2020.)
⊢ ((𝜑 ∧ 𝜓) → 𝜃)    ⇒   ⊢ ((𝜑 ∧ ¬ 𝜃) → ¬ 𝜓)
Theorem	stoic1b 1839	Stoic logic Thema 1 (part b). The other part of thema 1 of Stoic logic; see stoic1a 1838. (Contributed by David A. Wheeler, 16-Feb-2019.)
⊢ ((𝜑 ∧ 𝜓) → 𝜃)    ⇒   ⊢ ((𝜓 ∧ ¬ 𝜃) → ¬ 𝜑)
Theorem	stoic2a 1840	Stoic logic Thema 2 version a. Statement T2 of [Bobzien] p. 117 shows a reconstructed version of Stoic logic thema 2 as follows: "When from two assertibles a third follows, and from the third and one (or both) of the two another follows, then this other follows from the first two." Bobzien uses constructs such as 𝜑, 𝜓⊢ 𝜒; in Metamath we will represent that construct as 𝜑 ∧ 𝜓 → 𝜒. This version a is without the phrase "or both"; see stoic2b 1841 for the version with the phrase "or both". We already have this rule as syldan 488, so here we show the equivalence and discourage its use. (New usage is discouraged.) (Contributed by David A. Wheeler, 17-Feb-2019.)
⊢ ((𝜑 ∧ 𝜓) → 𝜒)    &   ⊢ ((𝜑 ∧ 𝜒) → 𝜃)    ⇒   ⊢ ((𝜑 ∧ 𝜓) → 𝜃)
Theorem	stoic2b 1841	Stoic logic Thema 2 version b. See stoic2a 1840. Version b is with the phrase "or both". We already have this rule as mpd3an3 1566, so here we prove the equivalence and discourage its use. (New usage is discouraged.) (Contributed by David A. Wheeler, 17-Feb-2019.)
⊢ ((𝜑 ∧ 𝜓) → 𝜒)    &   ⊢ ((𝜑 ∧ 𝜓 ∧ 𝜒) → 𝜃)    ⇒   ⊢ ((𝜑 ∧ 𝜓) → 𝜃)
Theorem	stoic3 1842	Stoic logic Thema 3. Statement T3 of [Bobzien] p. 116-117 discusses Stoic logic Thema 3. "When from two (assemblies) a third follows, and from the one that follows (i.e., the third) together with another, external assumption, another follows, then other follows from the first two and the externally co-assumed one. (Simp. Cael. 237.2-4)" (Contributed by David A. Wheeler, 17-Feb-2019.)
⊢ ((𝜑 ∧ 𝜓) → 𝜒)    &   ⊢ ((𝜒 ∧ 𝜃) → 𝜏)    ⇒   ⊢ ((𝜑 ∧ 𝜓 ∧ 𝜃) → 𝜏)
Theorem	stoic4a 1843	Stoic logic Thema 4 version a. Statement T4 of [Bobzien] p. 117 shows a reconstructed version of Stoic logic Thema 4: "When from two assertibles a third follows, and from the third and one (or both) of the two and one (or more) external assertible(s) another follows, then this other follows from the first two and the external(s)." We use 𝜃 to represent the "external" assertibles. This is version a, which is without the phrase "or both"; see stoic4b 1844 for the version with the phrase "or both". (Contributed by David A. Wheeler, 17-Feb-2019.)
⊢ ((𝜑 ∧ 𝜓) → 𝜒)    &   ⊢ ((𝜒 ∧ 𝜑 ∧ 𝜃) → 𝜏)    ⇒   ⊢ ((𝜑 ∧ 𝜓 ∧ 𝜃) → 𝜏)
Theorem	stoic4b 1844	Stoic logic Thema 4 version b. This is version b, which is with the phrase "or both". See stoic4a 1843 for more information. (Contributed by David A. Wheeler, 17-Feb-2019.)
⊢ ((𝜑 ∧ 𝜓) → 𝜒)    &   ⊢ (((𝜒 ∧ 𝜑 ∧ 𝜓) ∧ 𝜃) → 𝜏)    ⇒   ⊢ ((𝜑 ∧ 𝜓 ∧ 𝜃) → 𝜏)
1.4  Predicate calculus with equality: Tarski's system S2 (1 rule, 6 schemes) Here we extend the language of wffs with predicate calculus, which allows us to talk about individual objects in a domain of discussion (which for us will be the universe of all sets, so we call them "setvar variables") and make true/false statements about predicates, which are relationships between objects, such as whether or not two objects are equal. In addition, we introduce universal quantification ("for all", e.g. ax-4 1878) in order to make statements about whether a wff holds for every object in the domain of discussion. Later we introduce existential quantification ("there exists", df-ex 1846) which is defined in terms of universal quantification. Our axioms are really axiom schemes, and our wff and setvar variables are metavariables ranging over expressions in an underlying "object language." This is explained here: mmset.html#axiomnote. Our axiom system starts with the predicate calculus axiom schemes system S2 of Tarski defined in his 1965 paper, "A Simplified Formalization of Predicate Logic with Identity" [Tarski]. System S2 is defined in the last paragraph on p. 77, and repeated on p. 81 of [KalishMontague]. We do not include scheme B5 (our sp 2192) of system S2 since [KalishMontague] shows it to be logically redundant (Lemma 9, p. 87, which we prove as theorem spw 2110 below). Theorem spw 2110 can be used to prove any instance of sp 2192 having mutually distinct setvar variables and no wff metavariables. However, it seems that sp 2192 in its general form cannot be derived from only Tarski's schemes. We do not include B5 i.e. sp 2192 as part of what we call "Tarski's system" because we want it to be the smallest set of axioms that is logically complete with no redundancies. We later prove sp 2192 as theorem axc5 34674 using the auxiliary axiom schemes that make our system metalogically complete. Our version of Tarski's system S2 consists of propositional calculus (ax-mp 5, ax-1 6, ax-2 7, ax-3 8) plus ax-gen 1863, ax-4 1878, ax-5 1980, ax-6 2046, ax-7 2082, ax-8 2133, and ax-9 2140. The last three are equality axioms that represent three sub-schemes of Tarski's scheme B8. Due to its side-condition ("where 𝜑 is an atomic formula and 𝜓 is obtained by replacing an occurrence of the variable 𝑥 by the variable 𝑦"), we cannot represent his B8 directly without greatly complicating our scheme language, but the simpler schemes ax-7 2082, ax-8 2133, and ax-9 2140 are sufficient for set theory and much easier to work with. Tarski's system is exactly equivalent to the traditional axiom system in most logic textbooks but has the advantage of being easy to manipulate with a computer program, and its simpler metalogic (with no built-in notions of "free variable" and "proper substitution") is arguably easier for a non-logician human to follow step by step in a proof (where "follow" means being able to identify the substitutions that were made, without necessarily a higher-level understanding). In particular, it is logically complete in that it can derive all possible object-language theorems of predicate calculus with equality, i.e. the same theorems as the traditional system can derive. However, for efficiency (and indeed a key feature that makes Metamath successful), our system is designed to derive reusable theorem schemes (rather than object-language theorems) from other schemes. From this "metalogical" point of view, Tarski's S2 is not complete. For example, we cannot derive scheme sp 2192, even though (using spw 2110) we can derive all instances of it that don't involve wff metavariables or bundled setvar variables. (Two setvar variables are "bundled" if they can be substituted with the same setvar variable i.e. do not have a $d distinct variable proviso.) Later we will introduce auxiliary axiom schemes ax-10 2160, ax-11 2175, ax-12 2188, and ax-13 2383 that are metatheorems of Tarski's system (i.e. are logically redundant) but which give our system the property of "scheme completeness," allowing us to prove directly (instead of, say, by induction on formula length) all possible schemes that can be expressed in our language.
1.4.1  Universal quantifier (continued); define "exists" and "not free" The universal quantifier was introduced above in wal 1622 for use by df-tru 1627. See the comments in that section. In this section, we continue with the first "real" use of it.
1.4.1.1  Existential quantifier
Syntax	wex 1845	Extend wff definition to include the existential quantifier ("there exists").
wff ∃𝑥𝜑
Definition	df-ex 1846	Define existential quantification. ∃𝑥𝜑 means "there exists at least one set 𝑥 such that 𝜑 is true." Definition of [Margaris] p. 49. (Contributed by NM, 10-Jan-1993.)
⊢ (∃𝑥𝜑 ↔ ¬ ∀𝑥 ¬ 𝜑)
Theorem	alnex 1847	Theorem 19.7 of [Margaris] p. 89. (Contributed by NM, 12-Mar-1993.)
⊢ (∀𝑥 ¬ 𝜑 ↔ ¬ ∃𝑥𝜑)
Theorem	eximal 1848	A utility theorem. An interesting case is when the same formula is substituted for both 𝜑 and 𝜓, since then both implications express a type of non-freeness. See also alimex 1899. (Contributed by BJ, 12-May-2019.)
⊢ ((∃𝑥𝜑 → 𝜓) ↔ (¬ 𝜓 → ∀𝑥 ¬ 𝜑))
1.4.1.2  Non-freeness predicate
Syntax	wnf 1849	Extend wff definition to include the not-free predicate.
wff Ⅎ𝑥𝜑
Syntax	wnfOLD 1850	Extend wff definition to include the old not-free predicate. Obsolete as of 16-Sep-2021. (New usage is discouraged.)
wff Ⅎ𝑥𝜑
Definition	df-nf 1851	Define the not-free predicate for wffs. This is read "𝑥 is not free in 𝜑". Not-free means that the value of 𝑥 cannot affect the value of 𝜑, e.g., any occurrence of 𝑥 in 𝜑 is effectively bound by a "for all" or something that expands to one (such as "there exists"). In particular, substitution for a variable not free in a wff does not affect its value (sbf 2509). An example of where this is used is stdpc5 2215. See nf5 2255 for an alternate definition which involves nested quantifiers on the same variable. Not-free is a commonly used constraint, so it is useful to have a notation for it. Surprisingly, there is no common formal notation for it, so here we devise one. Our definition lets us work with the not-free notion within the logic itself rather than as a metalogical side condition. To be precise, our definition really means "effectively not free," because it is slightly less restrictive than the usual textbook definition for not-free (which only considers syntactic freedom). For example, 𝑥 is effectively not free in the formula 𝑥 = 𝑥 (see nfequid 2087), even though 𝑥 would be considered free in the usual textbook definition, because the value of 𝑥 in the formula 𝑥 = 𝑥 cannot affect the truth of that formula (and thus substitutions will not change the result). This definition of not-free tightly ties to the quantifier ∀𝑥. At this state (no axioms restricting quantifiers yet) 'non-free' appears quite arbitrary. Its intended semantics expresses single-valuedness (constness) across a parameter, but is only evolved as much as later axioms assign properties to quantifiers. It seems the definition here is best suited in situations, where axioms are only partially in effect. In particular, this definition more easily carries over to other logic models with weaker axiomization. The reverse implication of the definiens (the right hand side of the biconditional) always holds, see 19.2 2050. This predicate only applies to wffs. See df-nfc 2883 for a not-free predicate for class variables. (Contributed by Mario Carneiro, 24-Sep-2016.) Converted to definition. (Revised by BJ, 6-May-2019.)
⊢ (Ⅎ𝑥𝜑 ↔ (∃𝑥𝜑 → ∀𝑥𝜑))
Theorem	nf2 1852	Alternate definition of non-freeness. (Contributed by BJ, 16-Sep-2021.)
⊢ (Ⅎ𝑥𝜑 ↔ (∀𝑥𝜑 ∨ ¬ ∃𝑥𝜑))
Theorem	nf3 1853	Alternate definition of non-freeness. (Contributed by BJ, 16-Sep-2021.)
⊢ (Ⅎ𝑥𝜑 ↔ (∀𝑥𝜑 ∨ ∀𝑥 ¬ 𝜑))
Theorem	nf4 1854	Alternate definition of non-freeness. This definition uses only primitive symbols. (Contributed by BJ, 16-Sep-2021.)
⊢ (Ⅎ𝑥𝜑 ↔ (¬ ∀𝑥𝜑 → ∀𝑥 ¬ 𝜑))
Theorem	nfi 1855	Deduce that 𝑥 is not free in 𝜑 from the definition. (Contributed by Wolf Lammen, 15-Sep-2021.)
⊢ (∃𝑥𝜑 → ∀𝑥𝜑)    ⇒   ⊢ Ⅎ𝑥𝜑
Theorem	nfri 1856	Consequence of the definition of not-free. (Contributed by Wolf Lammen, 16-Sep-2021.)
⊢ Ⅎ𝑥𝜑    ⇒   ⊢ (∃𝑥𝜑 → ∀𝑥𝜑)
Theorem	nfd 1857	Deduce that 𝑥 is not free in 𝜓 in a context. (Contributed by Wolf Lammen, 16-Sep-2021.)
⊢ (𝜑 → (∃𝑥𝜓 → ∀𝑥𝜓))    ⇒   ⊢ (𝜑 → Ⅎ𝑥𝜓)
Theorem	nfrd 1858	Consequence of the definition of not-free in a context. (Contributed by Wolf Lammen, 15-Oct-2021.)
⊢ (𝜑 → Ⅎ𝑥𝜓)    ⇒   ⊢ (𝜑 → (∃𝑥𝜓 → ∀𝑥𝜓))
Theorem	nftht 1859	Closed form of nfth 1868. (Contributed by Wolf Lammen, 19-Aug-2018.) (Proof shortened by BJ, 16-Sep-2021.)
⊢ (∀𝑥𝜑 → Ⅎ𝑥𝜑)
Theorem	nfntht 1860	Closed form of nfnth 1869. (Contributed by BJ, 16-Sep-2021.)
⊢ (¬ ∃𝑥𝜑 → Ⅎ𝑥𝜑)
Theorem	nfntht2 1861	Closed form of nfnth 1869. (Contributed by BJ, 16-Sep-2021.)
⊢ (∀𝑥 ¬ 𝜑 → Ⅎ𝑥𝜑)
Definition	df-nfOLD 1862	Obsolete definition replaced by nf5 2255 as of 3-Oct-2021. This definition is less suitable than df-nf 1851 when ax-10 2160 and ax-12 2188 are not in effect. (Contributed by Mario Carneiro, 11-Aug-2016.) (New usage is discouraged.)
⊢ (Ⅎ𝑥𝜑 ↔ ∀𝑥(𝜑 → ∀𝑥𝜑))
1.4.2  Rule scheme ax-gen (Generalization)
Axiom	ax-gen 1863	Rule of Generalization. The postulated inference rule of predicate calculus. See e.g. Rule 2 of [Hamilton] p. 74. This rule says that if something is unconditionally true, then it is true for all values of a variable. For example, if we have proved 𝑥 = 𝑥, we can conclude ∀𝑥𝑥 = 𝑥 or even ∀𝑦𝑥 = 𝑥. Theorem allt 32698 shows the special case ∀𝑥⊤. Theorem spi 2193 shows we can go the other way also: in other words we can add or remove universal quantifiers from the beginning of any theorem as required. (Contributed by NM, 3-Jan-1993.)
⊢ 𝜑    ⇒   ⊢ ∀𝑥𝜑
Theorem	gen2 1864	Generalization applied twice. (Contributed by NM, 30-Apr-1998.)
⊢ 𝜑    ⇒   ⊢ ∀𝑥∀𝑦𝜑
Theorem	mpg 1865	Modus ponens combined with generalization. (Contributed by NM, 24-May-1994.)
⊢ (∀𝑥𝜑 → 𝜓)    &   ⊢ 𝜑    ⇒   ⊢ 𝜓
Theorem	mpgbi 1866	Modus ponens on biconditional combined with generalization. (Contributed by NM, 24-May-1994.) (Proof shortened by Stefan Allan, 28-Oct-2008.)
⊢ (∀𝑥𝜑 ↔ 𝜓)    &   ⊢ 𝜑    ⇒   ⊢ 𝜓
Theorem	mpgbir 1867	Modus ponens on biconditional combined with generalization. (Contributed by NM, 24-May-1994.) (Proof shortened by Stefan Allan, 28-Oct-2008.)
⊢ (𝜑 ↔ ∀𝑥𝜓)    &   ⊢ 𝜓    ⇒   ⊢ 𝜑
Theorem	nfth 1868	No variable is (effectively) free in a theorem. (Contributed by Mario Carneiro, 11-Aug-2016.) df-nf 1851 changed. (Revised by Wolf Lammen, 12-Sep-2021.)
⊢ 𝜑    ⇒   ⊢ Ⅎ𝑥𝜑
Theorem	nfnth 1869	No variable is (effectively) free in a non-theorem. (Contributed by Mario Carneiro, 6-Dec-2016.) df-nf 1851 changed. (Revised by Wolf Lammen, 12-Sep-2021.)
⊢ ¬ 𝜑    ⇒   ⊢ Ⅎ𝑥𝜑
Theorem	hbth 1870	No variable is (effectively) free in a theorem. This and later "hypothesis-building" lemmas, with labels starting "hb...", allow us to construct proofs of formulas of the form ⊢ (𝜑 → ∀𝑥𝜑) from smaller formulas of this form. These are useful for constructing hypotheses that state "𝑥 is (effectively) not free in 𝜑." (Contributed by NM, 11-May-1993.)
⊢ 𝜑    ⇒   ⊢ (𝜑 → ∀𝑥𝜑)
Theorem	nftru 1871	The true constant has no free variables. (This can also be proven in one step with nfv 1984, but this proof does not use ax-5 1980.) (Contributed by Mario Carneiro, 6-Oct-2016.)
⊢ Ⅎ𝑥⊤
Theorem	nex 1872	Generalization rule for negated wff. (Contributed by NM, 18-May-1994.)
⊢ ¬ 𝜑    ⇒   ⊢ ¬ ∃𝑥𝜑
Theorem	nffal 1873	The false constant has no free variables (see nftru 1871). (Contributed by BJ, 6-May-2019.)
⊢ Ⅎ𝑥⊥
Theorem	sptruw 1874	Version of sp 2192 when 𝜑 is true. Uses only Tarski's FOL axiom schemes. (Contributed by NM, 23-Apr-2017.)
⊢ 𝜑    ⇒   ⊢ (∀𝑥𝜑 → 𝜑)
Theorem	nfiOLD 1875	Obsolete proof of nf5i 2165 as of 5-Oct-2021. (Contributed by Mario Carneiro, 11-Aug-2016.) (New usage is discouraged.) (Proof modification is discouraged.)
⊢ (𝜑 → ∀𝑥𝜑)    ⇒   ⊢ Ⅎ𝑥𝜑
Theorem	nfthOLD 1876	Obsolete proof of nfth 1868 as of 5-Oct-2021. (Contributed by Mario Carneiro, 11-Aug-2016.) (New usage is discouraged.) (Proof modification is discouraged.)
⊢ 𝜑    ⇒   ⊢ Ⅎ𝑥𝜑
Theorem	nfnthOLD 1877	Obsolete proof of nfnth 1869 as of 6-Oct-2021. (Contributed by Mario Carneiro, 6-Dec-2016.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) (New usage is discouraged.)
⊢ ¬ 𝜑    ⇒   ⊢ Ⅎ𝑥𝜑
1.4.3  Axiom scheme ax-4 (Quantified Implication)
Axiom	ax-4 1878	Axiom of Quantified Implication. Axiom C4 of [Monk2] p. 105 and Theorem 19.20 of [Margaris] p. 90. It is restated as alim 1879 for labeling consistency. It should be used only by alim 1879. (Contributed by NM, 21-May-2008.) Use alim 1879 instead. (New usage is discouraged.)
⊢ (∀𝑥(𝜑 → 𝜓) → (∀𝑥𝜑 → ∀𝑥𝜓))
Theorem	alim 1879	Restatement of Axiom ax-4 1878, for labeling consistency. It should be the only theorem using ax-4 1878. (Contributed by NM, 10-Jan-1993.)
⊢ (∀𝑥(𝜑 → 𝜓) → (∀𝑥𝜑 → ∀𝑥𝜓))
Theorem	alimi 1880	Inference quantifying both antecedent and consequent. (Contributed by NM, 5-Jan-1993.)
⊢ (𝜑 → 𝜓)    ⇒   ⊢ (∀𝑥𝜑 → ∀𝑥𝜓)
Theorem	2alimi 1881	Inference doubly quantifying both antecedent and consequent. (Contributed by NM, 3-Feb-2005.)
⊢ (𝜑 → 𝜓)    ⇒   ⊢ (∀𝑥∀𝑦𝜑 → ∀𝑥∀𝑦𝜓)
Theorem	ala1 1882	Add an antecedent in a universally quantified formula. (Contributed by BJ, 6-Oct-2018.)
⊢ (∀𝑥𝜑 → ∀𝑥(𝜓 → 𝜑))
Theorem	al2im 1883	Closed form of al2imi 1884. Version of alim 1879 for a nested implication. (Contributed by Alan Sare, 31-Dec-2011.)
⊢ (∀𝑥(𝜑 → (𝜓 → 𝜒)) → (∀𝑥𝜑 → (∀𝑥𝜓 → ∀𝑥𝜒)))
Theorem	al2imi 1884	Inference quantifying antecedent, nested antecedent, and consequent. (Contributed by NM, 10-Jan-1993.)
⊢ (𝜑 → (𝜓 → 𝜒))    ⇒   ⊢ (∀𝑥𝜑 → (∀𝑥𝜓 → ∀𝑥𝜒))
Theorem	alanimi 1885	Variant of al2imi 1884 with conjunctive antecedent. (Contributed by Andrew Salmon, 8-Jun-2011.)
⊢ ((𝜑 ∧ 𝜓) → 𝜒)    ⇒   ⊢ ((∀𝑥𝜑 ∧ ∀𝑥𝜓) → ∀𝑥𝜒)
Theorem	alimdh 1886	Deduction form of Theorem 19.20 of [Margaris] p. 90, see alim 1879. (Contributed by NM, 4-Jan-2002.)
⊢ (𝜑 → ∀𝑥𝜑)    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → (𝜓 → 𝜒))    ⇒   ⊢ (𝜑 → (∀𝑥𝜓 → ∀𝑥𝜒))
Theorem	albi 1887	Theorem 19.15 of [Margaris] p. 90. (Contributed by NM, 24-Jan-1993.)
⊢ (∀𝑥(𝜑 ↔ 𝜓) → (∀𝑥𝜑 ↔ ∀𝑥𝜓))
Theorem	albii 1888	Inference adding universal quantifier to both sides of an equivalence. (Contributed by NM, 7-Aug-1994.)
⊢ (𝜑 ↔ 𝜓)    ⇒   ⊢ (∀𝑥𝜑 ↔ ∀𝑥𝜓)
Theorem	2albii 1889	Inference adding two universal quantifiers to both sides of an equivalence. (Contributed by NM, 9-Mar-1997.)
⊢ (𝜑 ↔ 𝜓)    ⇒   ⊢ (∀𝑥∀𝑦𝜑 ↔ ∀𝑥∀𝑦𝜓)
Theorem	sylgt 1890	Closed form of sylg 1891. (Contributed by BJ, 2-May-2019.)
⊢ (∀𝑥(𝜓 → 𝜒) → ((𝜑 → ∀𝑥𝜓) → (𝜑 → ∀𝑥𝜒)))
Theorem	sylg 1891	A syllogism combined with generalization. Inference associated with sylgt 1890. General form of alrimih 1892. (Contributed by BJ, 4-Oct-2019.)
⊢ (𝜑 → ∀𝑥𝜓)    &   ⊢ (𝜓 → 𝜒)    ⇒   ⊢ (𝜑 → ∀𝑥𝜒)
Theorem	alrimih 1892	Inference form of Theorem 19.21 of [Margaris] p. 90. See 19.21 2214 and 19.21h 2260. Instance of sylg 1891. (Contributed by NM, 9-Jan-1993.) (Revised by BJ, 31-Mar-2021.)
⊢ (𝜑 → ∀𝑥𝜑)    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝜓)    ⇒   ⊢ (𝜑 → ∀𝑥𝜓)
Theorem	hbxfrbi 1893	A utility lemma to transfer a bound-variable hypothesis builder into a definition. See hbxfreq 2860 for equality version. (Contributed by Jonathan Ben-Naim, 3-Jun-2011.)
⊢ (𝜑 ↔ 𝜓)    &   ⊢ (𝜓 → ∀𝑥𝜓)    ⇒   ⊢ (𝜑 → ∀𝑥𝜑)
Theorem	alex 1894	Universal quantifier in terms of existential quantifier and negation. Theorem 19.6 of [Margaris] p. 89. (Contributed by NM, 12-Mar-1993.)
⊢ (∀𝑥𝜑 ↔ ¬ ∃𝑥 ¬ 𝜑)
Theorem	exnal 1895	Theorem 19.14 of [Margaris] p. 90. (Contributed by NM, 12-Mar-1993.)
⊢ (∃𝑥 ¬ 𝜑 ↔ ¬ ∀𝑥𝜑)
Theorem	2nalexn 1896	Part of theorem *11.5 in [WhiteheadRussell] p. 164. (Contributed by Andrew Salmon, 24-May-2011.)
⊢ (¬ ∀𝑥∀𝑦𝜑 ↔ ∃𝑥∃𝑦 ¬ 𝜑)
Theorem	2exnaln 1897	Theorem *11.22 in [WhiteheadRussell] p. 160. (Contributed by Andrew Salmon, 24-May-2011.)
⊢ (∃𝑥∃𝑦𝜑 ↔ ¬ ∀𝑥∀𝑦 ¬ 𝜑)
Theorem	2nexaln 1898	Theorem *11.25 in [WhiteheadRussell] p. 160. (Contributed by Andrew Salmon, 24-May-2011.)
⊢ (¬ ∃𝑥∃𝑦𝜑 ↔ ∀𝑥∀𝑦 ¬ 𝜑)
Theorem	alimex 1899	A utility theorem. An interesting case is when the same formula is substituted for both 𝜑 and 𝜓, since then both implications express a type of non-freeness. See also eximal 1848. (Contributed by BJ, 12-May-2019.)
⊢ ((𝜑 → ∀𝑥𝜓) ↔ (∃𝑥 ¬ 𝜓 → ¬ 𝜑))
Theorem	aleximi 1900	A variant of al2imi 1884: instead of applying ∀𝑥 quantifiers to the final implication, replace them with ∃𝑥. A shorter proof is possible using nfa1 2169, sps 2194 and eximd 2224, but it depends on more axioms. (Contributed by Wolf Lammen, 18-Aug-2019.)
⊢ (𝜑 → (𝜓 → 𝜒))    ⇒   ⊢ (∀𝑥𝜑 → (∃𝑥𝜓 → ∃𝑥𝜒))