P. 345 of Theorem List - Metamath Proof Explorer

Theorem List for Metamath Proof Explorer - 34401-34500   *Has distinct variable group(s)

Type	Label	Description
Statement
Definition	df-refrels 34401	Define the class of all reflexive relations. This is practically dfrefrels2 34403 (which reveals that RefRels can not include proper classes like I as is elements, cf. the comments of dfrefrels2 34403). Another alternative definition is dfrefrels3 34404. The element of this class and the reflexive relation predicate (df-refrel 34402) are the same, that is, (𝑅 ∈ RefRels ↔ RefRel 𝑅) when 𝐴 is a set, cf. elrefrelsrel 34409. This definition is similar to the definitions of the classes of all symmetric (df-symrels 34429) and transitive ( ~? df-trrels ) relations. (Contributed by Peter Mazsa, 7-Jul-2019.)
⊢ RefRels = ( Refs ∩ Rels )
Definition	df-refrel 34402	Define the reflexive relation predicate. (Read: 𝑅 is a reflexive relation.) This is a surprising definition, see the comment of dfrefrel3 34406. Alternate definitions are dfrefrel2 34405 and dfrefrel3 34406. The element of the class of all reflexive relations (df-refrels 34401) and this reflexive relation predicate are the same, that is (𝑅 ∈ RefRels ↔ RefRel 𝑅) when 𝑅 is a set, cf. elrefrelsrel 34409. (Contributed by Peter Mazsa, 16-Jul-2021.)
⊢ ( RefRel 𝑅 ↔ (( I ∩ (dom 𝑅 × ran 𝑅)) ⊆ (𝑅 ∩ (dom 𝑅 × ran 𝑅)) ∧ Rel 𝑅))
Theorem	dfrefrels2 34403	Alternate definition of the class of all reflexive relations. This is a 0-ary class constant, which is recommended for definitions (cf. the 1. Guideline at http://us.metamath.org/ileuni/mathbox.html). Proper classes (like I, cf. iprc 7143) are not elements of this (or any) class: if a class is an element of another class, it is not a proper class but a set, cf. elex 3243. So if we use 0-ary constant classes as our main definitions, they are valid only for sets, not for proper classes. For proper classes we use predicate-type definitions like df-refrel 34402. Cf. the comment of df-rels 34375. Note that while elementhood in the class of all relations cancels restriction of 𝑟 in dfrefrels2 34403, it keeps restriction of I: this is why the very similar definitions df-refs 34400, df-syms 34428 and ~? df-trs diverge when we switch from (general) sets to relations in dfrefrels2 34403, dfsymrels2 34431 and ~? dftrrels2 . (Contributed by Peter Mazsa, 20-Jul-2019.)
⊢ RefRels = {𝑟 ∈ Rels ∣ ( I ∩ (dom 𝑟 × ran 𝑟)) ⊆ 𝑟}
Theorem	dfrefrels3 34404*	Alternate definition of the class of all reflexive relations. (Contributed by Peter Mazsa, 8-Jul-2019.)
⊢ RefRels = {𝑟 ∈ Rels ∣ ∀𝑥 ∈ dom 𝑟∀𝑦 ∈ ran 𝑟(𝑥 = 𝑦 → 𝑥𝑟𝑦)}
Theorem	dfrefrel2 34405	Alternate definition of the reflexive relation predicate. (Contributed by Peter Mazsa, 25-Jul-2021.)
⊢ ( RefRel 𝑅 ↔ (( I ∩ (dom 𝑅 × ran 𝑅)) ⊆ 𝑅 ∧ Rel 𝑅))
Theorem	dfrefrel3 34406*	Alternate definition of the reflexive relation predicate. A relation is reflexive iff: for all elements on its domain and range, if an element of its domain is the same as an element of its range, then there is the relation between them. Note that this is definitely not the definition we are accustomed to, like e.g. issref 5544 or df-reflexive 42837 ⊢ (𝑅Reflexive𝐴 ↔ (𝑅 ⊆ (𝐴 × 𝐴) ∧ ∀𝑥 ∈ 𝐴𝑥𝑅𝑥)). It turns out that the not-surprising definition which contains ∀𝑥 ∈ dom 𝑟𝑥𝑟𝑥 needs symmetry as well, cf. refsymrels3 34450. Only when this symmetry condition holds, like in case of equivalence relations, cf. ~? dfeqvrels3 , can we write the traditional form ∀𝑥 ∈ dom 𝑟𝑥𝑟𝑥 for reflexive relations. For the special case with square Cartesian product when the two forms are equivalent cf. idinxpssinxp4 34232 where ⊢ (∀𝑥 ∈ 𝐴∀𝑦 ∈ 𝐴(𝑥 = 𝑦 → 𝑥𝑅𝑦) ↔ ∀𝑥 ∈ 𝐴𝑥𝑅𝑥). Cf. similar definition of the converse reflexive relations class dfcnvrefrel3 34419. (Contributed by Peter Mazsa, 8-Jul-2019.)
⊢ ( RefRel 𝑅 ↔ (∀𝑥 ∈ dom 𝑅∀𝑦 ∈ ran 𝑅(𝑥 = 𝑦 → 𝑥𝑅𝑦) ∧ Rel 𝑅))
Theorem	elrefrels2 34407	Element of the class of all reflexive relations. (Contributed by Peter Mazsa, 23-Jul-2019.)
⊢ (𝑅 ∈ RefRels ↔ (( I ∩ (dom 𝑅 × ran 𝑅)) ⊆ 𝑅 ∧ 𝑅 ∈ Rels ))
Theorem	elrefrels3 34408*	Element of the class of all reflexive relations. (Contributed by Peter Mazsa, 23-Jul-2019.)
⊢ (𝑅 ∈ RefRels ↔ (∀𝑥 ∈ dom 𝑅∀𝑦 ∈ ran 𝑅(𝑥 = 𝑦 → 𝑥𝑅𝑦) ∧ 𝑅 ∈ Rels ))
Theorem	elrefrelsrel 34409	The element of the class of all reflexive relations and the reflexive relation predicate are the same, that is (𝑅 ∈ RefRels ↔ RefRel 𝑅) when 𝑅 is a set. (Contributed by Peter Mazsa, 25-Jul-2021.)
⊢ (𝑅 ∈ 𝑉 → (𝑅 ∈ RefRels ↔ RefRel 𝑅))
Theorem	refreleq 34410	Equality theorem for reflexive relation. (Contributed by Peter Mazsa, 15-Apr-2019.) (Revised by Peter Mazsa, 23-Sep-2021.)
⊢ (𝑅 = 𝑆 → ( RefRel 𝑅 ↔ RefRel 𝑆))
Theorem	refrelid 34411	Identity relation is reflexive. (Contributed by Peter Mazsa, 25-Jul-2021.)
⊢ RefRel I
Theorem	refrelcoss 34412	The class of cosets by 𝑅 is reflexive. (Contributed by Peter Mazsa, 4-Jul-2020.)
⊢ RefRel ≀ 𝑅
20.21.8  Converse reflexivity
Definition	df-cnvrefs 34413	Define the class of all converse reflexive sets, cf. the comment of df-ssr 34388. It is used only by df-cnvrefrels 34414. (Contributed by Peter Mazsa, 22-Jul-2019.)
⊢ CnvRefs = {𝑥 ∣ ( I ∩ (dom 𝑥 × ran 𝑥))◡ S (𝑥 ∩ (dom 𝑥 × ran 𝑥))}
Definition	df-cnvrefrels 34414	Define the class of all converse reflexive relations. This is practically dfcnvrefrels2 34416 (which uses the traditional subclass relation ⊆) : we use converse subset relation (brcnvssr 34396) here to ensure the comparability to the definitions of the classes of all reflexive (df-ref 21356), symmetric (df-syms 34428) and transitive ( ~? df-trs ) sets. We use this concept to define functions ( ~? df-funsALTV , ~? df-funALTV ) and disjoints ( ~? df-disjs , ~? df-disjALTV ). The element of the class of all converse reflexive relations and the converse reflexive relation predicate are the same, that is (𝑅 ∈ RefRels ↔ RefRel 𝑅) when 𝑅 is a set, cf. elcnvrefrelsrel 34422. Alternate definitions are dfcnvrefrels2 34416 and dfcnvrefrels3 34417. (Contributed by Peter Mazsa, 7-Jul-2019.)
⊢ CnvRefRels = ( CnvRefs ∩ Rels )
Definition	df-cnvrefrel 34415	Define the converse reflexive relation predicate (read: 𝑅 is a converse reflexive relation), cf. the comment of dfcnvrefrel3 34419. Alternate definitions are dfcnvrefrel2 34418 and dfcnvrefrel3 34419. (Contributed by Peter Mazsa, 16-Jul-2021.)
⊢ ( CnvRefRel 𝑅 ↔ ((𝑅 ∩ (dom 𝑅 × ran 𝑅)) ⊆ ( I ∩ (dom 𝑅 × ran 𝑅)) ∧ Rel 𝑅))
Theorem	dfcnvrefrels2 34416	Alternate definition of the class of all converse reflexive relations. Cf. the comment of dfrefrels2 34403. (Contributed by Peter Mazsa, 21-Jul-2021.)
⊢ CnvRefRels = {𝑟 ∈ Rels ∣ 𝑟 ⊆ ( I ∩ (dom 𝑟 × ran 𝑟))}
Theorem	dfcnvrefrels3 34417*	Alternate definition of the class of all converse reflexive relations. (Contributed by Peter Mazsa, 22-Jul-2019.)
⊢ CnvRefRels = {𝑟 ∈ Rels ∣ ∀𝑥 ∈ dom 𝑟∀𝑦 ∈ ran 𝑟(𝑥𝑟𝑦 → 𝑥 = 𝑦)}
Theorem	dfcnvrefrel2 34418	Alternate definition of the converse reflexive relation predicate. (Contributed by Peter Mazsa, 24-Jul-2019.)
⊢ ( CnvRefRel 𝑅 ↔ (𝑅 ⊆ ( I ∩ (dom 𝑅 × ran 𝑅)) ∧ Rel 𝑅))
Theorem	dfcnvrefrel3 34419*	Alternate definition of the converse reflexive relation predicate. A relation is converse reflexive iff: for all elements on its domain and range, if for an element of its domain and for an element of its range there is the relation between them, then the two elements are the same, cf. the comment of dfrefrel3 34406. (Contributed by Peter Mazsa, 25-Jul-2021.)
⊢ ( CnvRefRel 𝑅 ↔ (∀𝑥 ∈ dom 𝑅∀𝑦 ∈ ran 𝑅(𝑥𝑅𝑦 → 𝑥 = 𝑦) ∧ Rel 𝑅))
Theorem	elcnvrefrels2 34420	Element of the class of all converse reflexive relations. (Contributed by Peter Mazsa, 25-Jul-2019.)
⊢ (𝑅 ∈ CnvRefRels ↔ (𝑅 ⊆ ( I ∩ (dom 𝑅 × ran 𝑅)) ∧ 𝑅 ∈ Rels ))
Theorem	elcnvrefrels3 34421*	Element of the class of all converse reflexive relations. (Contributed by Peter Mazsa, 30-Aug-2021.)
⊢ (𝑅 ∈ CnvRefRels ↔ (∀𝑥 ∈ dom 𝑅∀𝑦 ∈ ran 𝑅(𝑥𝑅𝑦 → 𝑥 = 𝑦) ∧ 𝑅 ∈ Rels ))
Theorem	elcnvrefrelsrel 34422	The element of the class of all converse reflexive relations and the converse reflexive relation predicate are the same, that is (𝑅 ∈ RefRels ↔ RefRel 𝑅) when 𝑅 is a set. (Contributed by Peter Mazsa, 25-Jul-2021.)
⊢ (𝑅 ∈ 𝑉 → (𝑅 ∈ CnvRefRels ↔ CnvRefRel 𝑅))
Theorem	cnvrefrelcoss2 34423	Necessary and sufficient condition for a coset relation to be a converse reflexive relation. (Contributed by Peter Mazsa, 27-Jul-2021.)
⊢ ( CnvRefRel ≀ 𝑅 ↔ ≀ 𝑅 ⊆ I )
Theorem	cosselcnvrefrels2 34424	Necessary and sufficient condition for a coset relation to be an element of the converse reflexive relation class. (Contributed by Peter Mazsa, 25-Aug-2021.)
⊢ ( ≀ 𝑅 ∈ CnvRefRels ↔ ( ≀ 𝑅 ⊆ I ∧ ≀ 𝑅 ∈ Rels ))
Theorem	cosselcnvrefrels3 34425*	Necessary and sufficient condition for a coset relation to be an element of the converse reflexive relation class. (Contributed by Peter Mazsa, 30-Aug-2021.)
⊢ ( ≀ 𝑅 ∈ CnvRefRels ↔ (∀𝑢∀𝑥∀𝑦((𝑢𝑅𝑥 ∧ 𝑢𝑅𝑦) → 𝑥 = 𝑦) ∧ ≀ 𝑅 ∈ Rels ))
Theorem	cosselcnvrefrels4 34426*	Necessary and sufficient condition for a coset relation to be an element of the converse reflexive relation class. (Contributed by Peter Mazsa, 31-Aug-2021.)
⊢ ( ≀ 𝑅 ∈ CnvRefRels ↔ (∀𝑢∃*𝑥 𝑢𝑅𝑥 ∧ ≀ 𝑅 ∈ Rels ))
Theorem	cosselcnvrefrels5 34427*	Necessary and sufficient condition for a coset relation to be an element of the converse reflexive relation class. (Contributed by Peter Mazsa, 5-Sep-2021.)
⊢ ( ≀ 𝑅 ∈ CnvRefRels ↔ (∀𝑥 ∈ ran 𝑅∀𝑦 ∈ ran 𝑅(𝑥 = 𝑦 ∨ ([𝑥]◡𝑅 ∩ [𝑦]◡𝑅) = ∅) ∧ ≀ 𝑅 ∈ Rels ))
20.21.9  Symmetry
Definition	df-syms 34428	Define the class of all symmetric sets. It is used only by df-symrels 34429. Note the similarity of the definitions df-refs 34400, df-syms 34428 and ~? df-trs , cf. the comment of dfrefrels2 34403. (Contributed by Peter Mazsa, 19-Jul-2019.)
⊢ Syms = {𝑥 ∣ ◡(𝑥 ∩ (dom 𝑥 × ran 𝑥)) S (𝑥 ∩ (dom 𝑥 × ran 𝑥))}
Definition	df-symrels 34429	Define the class of all symmetric relations. The element of the class of all symmetric relations and the symmetric relation predicate are the same when 𝑅 is a set, cf. elsymrelsrel 34443. Alternate definitions are dfsymrels2 34431, dfsymrels3 34432, dfsymrels4 34433 and dfsymrels5 34434. This definition is similar to the definitions of the classes of all reflexive (df-refrels 34401) and transitive ( ~? df-trrels ) relations. (Contributed by Peter Mazsa, 7-Jul-2019.)
⊢ SymRels = ( Syms ∩ Rels )
Definition	df-symrel 34430	Define the symmetric relation predicate. (Read: 𝑅 is a symmetric relation.) The element of the class of all symmetric relations and the symmetric relation predicate are the same when 𝑅 is a set, cf. elsymrelsrel 34443. Alternate definitions are dfsymrel2 34435 and dfsymrel3 34436. (Contributed by Peter Mazsa, 16-Jul-2021.)
⊢ ( SymRel 𝑅 ↔ (◡(𝑅 ∩ (dom 𝑅 × ran 𝑅)) ⊆ (𝑅 ∩ (dom 𝑅 × ran 𝑅)) ∧ Rel 𝑅))
Theorem	dfsymrels2 34431	Alternate definition of the class of all symmetric relations. Cf. the comment of dfrefrels2 34403. (Contributed by Peter Mazsa, 20-Jul-2019.)
⊢ SymRels = {𝑟 ∈ Rels ∣ ◡𝑟 ⊆ 𝑟}
Theorem	dfsymrels3 34432*	Alternate definition of the class of all symmetric relations. (Contributed by Peter Mazsa, 22-Jul-2021.)
⊢ SymRels = {𝑟 ∈ Rels ∣ ∀𝑥∀𝑦(𝑥𝑟𝑦 → 𝑦𝑟𝑥)}
Theorem	dfsymrels4 34433	Alternate definition of the class of all symmetric relations. (Contributed by Peter Mazsa, 20-Jul-2019.)
⊢ SymRels = {𝑟 ∈ Rels ∣ ◡𝑟 = 𝑟}
Theorem	dfsymrels5 34434*	Alternate definition of the class of all symmetric relations. (Contributed by Peter Mazsa, 22-Jul-2021.)
⊢ SymRels = {𝑟 ∈ Rels ∣ ∀𝑥∀𝑦(𝑥𝑟𝑦 ↔ 𝑦𝑟𝑥)}
Theorem	dfsymrel2 34435	Alternate definition of the symmetric relation predicate. (Contributed by Peter Mazsa, 19-Apr-2019.) (Revised by Peter Mazsa, 17-Aug-2021.)
⊢ ( SymRel 𝑅 ↔ (◡𝑅 ⊆ 𝑅 ∧ Rel 𝑅))
Theorem	dfsymrel3 34436*	Alternate definition of the symmetric relation predicate. (Contributed by Peter Mazsa, 21-Apr-2019.) (Revised by Peter Mazsa, 17-Aug-2021.)
⊢ ( SymRel 𝑅 ↔ (∀𝑥∀𝑦(𝑥𝑅𝑦 → 𝑦𝑅𝑥) ∧ Rel 𝑅))
Theorem	dfsymrel4 34437	Alternate definition of the symmetric relation predicate. (Contributed by Peter Mazsa, 17-Aug-2021.)
⊢ ( SymRel 𝑅 ↔ (◡𝑅 = 𝑅 ∧ Rel 𝑅))
Theorem	dfsymrel5 34438*	Alternate definition of the symmetric relation predicate. (Contributed by Peter Mazsa, 17-Aug-2021.)
⊢ ( SymRel 𝑅 ↔ (∀𝑥∀𝑦(𝑥𝑅𝑦 ↔ 𝑦𝑅𝑥) ∧ Rel 𝑅))
Theorem	elsymrels2 34439	Element of the class of all symmetric relations. (Contributed by Peter Mazsa, 17-Aug-2021.)
⊢ (𝑅 ∈ SymRels ↔ (◡𝑅 ⊆ 𝑅 ∧ 𝑅 ∈ Rels ))
Theorem	elsymrels3 34440*	Element of the class of all symmetric relations. (Contributed by Peter Mazsa, 17-Aug-2021.)
⊢ (𝑅 ∈ SymRels ↔ (∀𝑥∀𝑦(𝑥𝑅𝑦 → 𝑦𝑅𝑥) ∧ 𝑅 ∈ Rels ))
Theorem	elsymrels4 34441	Element of the class of all symmetric relations. (Contributed by Peter Mazsa, 17-Aug-2021.)
⊢ (𝑅 ∈ SymRels ↔ (◡𝑅 = 𝑅 ∧ 𝑅 ∈ Rels ))
Theorem	elsymrels5 34442*	Element of the class of all symmetric relations. (Contributed by Peter Mazsa, 17-Aug-2021.)
⊢ (𝑅 ∈ SymRels ↔ (∀𝑥∀𝑦(𝑥𝑅𝑦 ↔ 𝑦𝑅𝑥) ∧ 𝑅 ∈ Rels ))
Theorem	elsymrelsrel 34443	The element of the class of all symmetric relations and the symmetric relation predicate are the same when 𝑅 is a set. (Contributed by Peter Mazsa, 17-Aug-2021.)
⊢ (𝑅 ∈ 𝑉 → (𝑅 ∈ SymRels ↔ SymRel 𝑅))
Theorem	symreleq 34444	Equality theorem for symmetric relation. (Contributed by Peter Mazsa, 15-Apr-2019.) (Revised by Peter Mazsa, 23-Sep-2021.)
⊢ (𝑅 = 𝑆 → ( SymRel 𝑅 ↔ SymRel 𝑆))
Theorem	symrelim 34445	Symmetric relation implies that the domain and the range are equal. (Contributed by Peter Mazsa, 29-Dec-2021.)
⊢ ( SymRel 𝑅 → dom 𝑅 = ran 𝑅)
Theorem	symrelcoss 34446	The class of cosets by 𝑅 is symmetric. (Contributed by Peter Mazsa, 20-Dec-2021.)
⊢ SymRel ≀ 𝑅
20.21.10  Reflexivity and symmetry
Theorem	symrefref2 34447	Symmetry is a sufficient condition for the equivalence of two versions of the reflexive relation, cf. symrefref3 34448. (Contributed by Peter Mazsa, 19-Jul-2018.)
⊢ (◡𝑅 ⊆ 𝑅 → (( I ∩ (dom 𝑅 × ran 𝑅)) ⊆ 𝑅 ↔ ( I ↾ dom 𝑅) ⊆ 𝑅))
Theorem	symrefref3 34448*	Symmetry is a sufficient condition for the equivalence of two versions of the reflexive relation, cf. symrefref2 34447. (Contributed by Peter Mazsa, 23-Aug-2021.)
⊢ (∀𝑥∀𝑦(𝑥𝑅𝑦 → 𝑦𝑅𝑥) → (∀𝑥 ∈ dom 𝑅∀𝑦 ∈ ran 𝑅(𝑥 = 𝑦 → 𝑥𝑅𝑦) ↔ ∀𝑥 ∈ dom 𝑅 𝑥𝑅𝑥))
Theorem	refsymrels2 34449	Elements of the class of reflexive relations which are elements of the class of symmetric relations as well (like the elements of the class of equivalence relations ~? dfeqvrels2 ) can use the restricted version for their reflexive part (see below), not just the ( I ∩ (dom 𝑟 × ran 𝑟)) ⊆ 𝑟 version of dfrefrels2 34403, cf. the comment of dfrefrels2 34403. (Contributed by Peter Mazsa, 20-Jul-2019.)
⊢ ( RefRels ∩ SymRels ) = {𝑟 ∈ Rels ∣ (( I ↾ dom 𝑟) ⊆ 𝑟 ∧ ◡𝑟 ⊆ 𝑟)}
Theorem	refsymrels3 34450*	Elements of the class of reflexive relations which are elements of the class of symmetric relations as well (like the elements of the class of equivalence relations ~? dfeqvrels3 ) can use the ∀𝑥 ∈ dom 𝑟𝑥𝑟𝑥 version for their reflexive part, not just the ∀𝑥 ∈ dom 𝑟∀𝑦 ∈ ran 𝑟(𝑥 = 𝑦 → 𝑥𝑟𝑦) version of dfrefrels3 34404, cf. the comment of dfrefrels3 34404. (Contributed by Peter Mazsa, 22-Jul-2019.)
⊢ ( RefRels ∩ SymRels ) = {𝑟 ∈ Rels ∣ (∀𝑥 ∈ dom 𝑟 𝑥𝑟𝑥 ∧ ∀𝑥∀𝑦(𝑥𝑟𝑦 → 𝑦𝑟𝑥))}
Theorem	refsymrel2 34451	A relation which is reflexive and symmetric (like an equivalence relation) can use the restricted version for their reflexive part (see below), not just the ( I ∩ (dom 𝑅 × ran 𝑅)) ⊆ 𝑅 version of dfrefrel2 34405, cf. the comment of dfrefrels2 34403. (Contributed by Peter Mazsa, 23-Aug-2021.)
⊢ (( RefRel 𝑅 ∧ SymRel 𝑅) ↔ ((( I ↾ dom 𝑅) ⊆ 𝑅 ∧ ◡𝑅 ⊆ 𝑅) ∧ Rel 𝑅))
Theorem	refsymrel3 34452*	A relation which is reflexive and symmetric (like an equivalence relation) can use the ∀𝑥 ∈ dom 𝑅𝑥𝑅𝑥 version for its reflexive part, not just the ∀𝑥 ∈ dom 𝑅∀𝑦 ∈ ran 𝑅(𝑥 = 𝑦 → 𝑥𝑅𝑦) version of dfrefrel3 34406, cf. the comment of dfrefrel3 34406. (Contributed by Peter Mazsa, 23-Aug-2021.)
⊢ (( RefRel 𝑅 ∧ SymRel 𝑅) ↔ ((∀𝑥 ∈ dom 𝑅 𝑥𝑅𝑥 ∧ ∀𝑥∀𝑦(𝑥𝑅𝑦 → 𝑦𝑅𝑥)) ∧ Rel 𝑅))
Theorem	elrefsymrels2 34453	Elements of the class of reflexive relations which are elements of the class of symmetric relations as well (like the elements of the class of equivalence relations ~? dfeqvrels2 ) can use the restricted version for their reflexive part (see below), not just the ( I ∩ (dom 𝑅 × ran 𝑅)) ⊆ 𝑅 version of dfrefrels2 34403, cf. the comment of dfrefrels2 34403. (Contributed by Peter Mazsa, 22-Jul-2019.)
⊢ (𝑅 ∈ ( RefRels ∩ SymRels ) ↔ ((( I ↾ dom 𝑅) ⊆ 𝑅 ∧ ◡𝑅 ⊆ 𝑅) ∧ 𝑅 ∈ Rels ))
Theorem	elrefsymrels3 34454*	Elements of the class of reflexive relations which are elements of the class of symmetric relations as well (like the elements of the class of equivalence relations ~? dfeqvrels3 ) can use the ∀𝑥 ∈ dom 𝑅𝑥𝑅𝑥 version for their reflexive part, not just the ∀𝑥 ∈ dom 𝑅∀𝑦 ∈ ran 𝑅(𝑥 = 𝑦 → 𝑥𝑅𝑦) version of dfrefrels3 34404, cf. the comment of dfrefrels3 34404. (Contributed by Peter Mazsa, 22-Jul-2019.)
⊢ (𝑅 ∈ ( RefRels ∩ SymRels ) ↔ ((∀𝑥 ∈ dom 𝑅 𝑥𝑅𝑥 ∧ ∀𝑥∀𝑦(𝑥𝑅𝑦 → 𝑦𝑅𝑥)) ∧ 𝑅 ∈ Rels ))
Theorem	elrefsymrelsrel 34455	The element of the class of all reflexive and symmetric relations and the conjunction of the reflexive and symmetric relation predicates are the same when 𝑅 is a set. (Contributed by Peter Mazsa, 23-Aug-2021.)
⊢ (𝑅 ∈ 𝑉 → (𝑅 ∈ ( RefRels ∩ SymRels ) ↔ ( RefRel 𝑅 ∧ SymRel 𝑅)))
20.22  Mathbox for Rodolfo Medina
20.22.1  Partitions
Theorem	prtlem60 34456	Lemma for prter3 34486. (Contributed by Rodolfo Medina, 9-Oct-2010.)
⊢ (𝜑 → (𝜓 → (𝜒 → 𝜃)))    &   ⊢ (𝜓 → (𝜃 → 𝜏))    ⇒   ⊢ (𝜑 → (𝜓 → (𝜒 → 𝜏)))
Theorem	bicomdd 34457	Commute two sides of a biconditional in a deduction. (Contributed by Rodolfo Medina, 19-Oct-2010.) (Proof shortened by Andrew Salmon, 29-Jun-2011.)
⊢ (𝜑 → (𝜓 → (𝜒 ↔ 𝜃)))    ⇒   ⊢ (𝜑 → (𝜓 → (𝜃 ↔ 𝜒)))
Theorem	jca2r 34458	Inference conjoining the consequents of two implications. (Contributed by Rodolfo Medina, 17-Oct-2010.)
⊢ (𝜑 → (𝜓 → 𝜒))    &   ⊢ (𝜓 → 𝜃)    ⇒   ⊢ (𝜑 → (𝜓 → (𝜃 ∧ 𝜒)))
Theorem	jca3 34459	Inference conjoining the consequents of two implications. (Contributed by Rodolfo Medina, 14-Oct-2010.)
⊢ (𝜑 → (𝜓 → 𝜒))    &   ⊢ (𝜃 → 𝜏)    ⇒   ⊢ (𝜑 → (𝜓 → (𝜃 → (𝜒 ∧ 𝜏))))
Theorem	prtlem70 34460	Lemma for prter3 34486: a rearrangement of conjuncts. (Contributed by Rodolfo Medina, 20-Oct-2010.)
⊢ ((((𝜓 ∧ 𝜂) ∧ ((𝜑 ∧ 𝜃) ∧ (𝜒 ∧ 𝜏))) ∧ 𝜑) ↔ ((𝜑 ∧ (𝜓 ∧ (𝜒 ∧ (𝜃 ∧ 𝜏)))) ∧ 𝜂))
Theorem	ibdr 34461	Reverse of ibd 258. (Contributed by Rodolfo Medina, 30-Sep-2010.)
⊢ (𝜑 → (𝜒 → (𝜓 ↔ 𝜒)))    ⇒   ⊢ (𝜑 → (𝜒 → 𝜓))
Theorem	pm5.31r 34462	Variant of pm5.31 611. (Contributed by Rodolfo Medina, 15-Oct-2010.)
⊢ ((𝜒 ∧ (𝜑 → 𝜓)) → (𝜑 → (𝜒 ∧ 𝜓)))
Theorem	prtlem100 34463	Lemma for prter3 34486. (Contributed by Rodolfo Medina, 19-Oct-2010.)
⊢ (∃𝑥 ∈ 𝐴 (𝐵 ∈ 𝑥 ∧ 𝜑) ↔ ∃𝑥 ∈ (𝐴 ∖ {∅})(𝐵 ∈ 𝑥 ∧ 𝜑))
Theorem	prtlem5 34464*	Lemma for prter1 34483, prter2 34485, prter3 34486 and prtex 34484. (Contributed by Rodolfo Medina, 25-Sep-2010.) (Proof shortened by Mario Carneiro, 11-Dec-2016.)
⊢ ([𝑠 / 𝑣][𝑟 / 𝑢]∃𝑥 ∈ 𝐴 (𝑢 ∈ 𝑥 ∧ 𝑣 ∈ 𝑥) ↔ ∃𝑥 ∈ 𝐴 (𝑟 ∈ 𝑥 ∧ 𝑠 ∈ 𝑥))
Theorem	prtlem80 34465	Lemma for prter2 34485. (Contributed by Rodolfo Medina, 17-Oct-2010.)
⊢ (𝐴 ∈ 𝐵 → ¬ 𝐴 ∈ (𝐶 ∖ {𝐴}))
Theorem	brabsb2 34466*	A closed form of brabsb 5015. (Contributed by Rodolfo Medina, 13-Oct-2010.)
⊢ (𝑅 = {⟨𝑥, 𝑦⟩ ∣ 𝜑} → (𝑧𝑅𝑤 ↔ [𝑤 / 𝑦][𝑧 / 𝑥]𝜑))
Theorem	eqbrrdv2 34467*	Other version of eqbrrdiv 5252. (Contributed by Rodolfo Medina, 30-Sep-2010.)
⊢ (((Rel 𝐴 ∧ Rel 𝐵) ∧ 𝜑) → (𝑥𝐴𝑦 ↔ 𝑥𝐵𝑦))    ⇒   ⊢ (((Rel 𝐴 ∧ Rel 𝐵) ∧ 𝜑) → 𝐴 = 𝐵)
Theorem	prtlem9 34468*	Lemma for prter3 34486. (Contributed by Rodolfo Medina, 25-Sep-2010.)
⊢ (𝐴 ∈ 𝐵 → ∃𝑥 ∈ 𝐵 [𝑥] ∼ = [𝐴] ∼ )
Theorem	prtlem10 34469*	Lemma for prter3 34486. (Contributed by Rodolfo Medina, 14-Oct-2010.) (Revised by Mario Carneiro, 12-Aug-2015.)
⊢ ( ∼ Er 𝐴 → (𝑧 ∈ 𝐴 → (𝑧 ∼ 𝑤 ↔ ∃𝑣 ∈ 𝐴 (𝑧 ∈ [𝑣] ∼ ∧ 𝑤 ∈ [𝑣] ∼ ))))
Theorem	prtlem11 34470	Lemma for prter2 34485. (Contributed by Rodolfo Medina, 12-Oct-2010.)
⊢ (𝐵 ∈ 𝐷 → (𝐶 ∈ 𝐴 → (𝐵 = [𝐶] ∼ → 𝐵 ∈ (𝐴 / ∼ ))))
Theorem	prtlem12 34471*	Lemma for prtex 34484 and prter3 34486. (Contributed by Rodolfo Medina, 13-Oct-2010.)
⊢ ( ∼ = {⟨𝑥, 𝑦⟩ ∣ ∃𝑢 ∈ 𝐴 (𝑥 ∈ 𝑢 ∧ 𝑦 ∈ 𝑢)} → Rel ∼ )
Theorem	prtlem13 34472*	Lemma for prter1 34483, prter2 34485, prter3 34486 and prtex 34484. (Contributed by Rodolfo Medina, 13-Oct-2010.) (Revised by Mario Carneiro, 12-Aug-2015.)
⊢ ∼ = {⟨𝑥, 𝑦⟩ ∣ ∃𝑢 ∈ 𝐴 (𝑥 ∈ 𝑢 ∧ 𝑦 ∈ 𝑢)}    ⇒   ⊢ (𝑧 ∼ 𝑤 ↔ ∃𝑣 ∈ 𝐴 (𝑧 ∈ 𝑣 ∧ 𝑤 ∈ 𝑣))
Theorem	prtlem16 34473*	Lemma for prtex 34484, prter2 34485 and prter3 34486. (Contributed by Rodolfo Medina, 14-Oct-2010.) (Revised by Mario Carneiro, 12-Aug-2015.)
⊢ ∼ = {⟨𝑥, 𝑦⟩ ∣ ∃𝑢 ∈ 𝐴 (𝑥 ∈ 𝑢 ∧ 𝑦 ∈ 𝑢)}    ⇒   ⊢ dom ∼ = ∪ 𝐴
Theorem	prtlem400 34474*	Lemma for prter2 34485 and also a property of partitions . (Contributed by Rodolfo Medina, 15-Oct-2010.) (Revised by Mario Carneiro, 12-Aug-2015.)
⊢ ∼ = {⟨𝑥, 𝑦⟩ ∣ ∃𝑢 ∈ 𝐴 (𝑥 ∈ 𝑢 ∧ 𝑦 ∈ 𝑢)}    ⇒   ⊢ ¬ ∅ ∈ (∪ 𝐴 / ∼ )
Syntax	wprt 34475	Extend the definition of a wff to include the partition predicate.
wff Prt 𝐴
Definition	df-prt 34476*	Define the partition predicate. (Contributed by Rodolfo Medina, 13-Oct-2010.)
⊢ (Prt 𝐴 ↔ ∀𝑥 ∈ 𝐴 ∀𝑦 ∈ 𝐴 (𝑥 = 𝑦 ∨ (𝑥 ∩ 𝑦) = ∅))
Theorem	erprt 34477	The quotient set of an equivalence relation is a partition. (Contributed by Rodolfo Medina, 13-Oct-2010.)
⊢ ( ∼ Er 𝑋 → Prt (𝐴 / ∼ ))
Theorem	prtlem14 34478*	Lemma for prter1 34483, prter2 34485 and prtex 34484. (Contributed by Rodolfo Medina, 13-Oct-2010.)
⊢ (Prt 𝐴 → ((𝑥 ∈ 𝐴 ∧ 𝑦 ∈ 𝐴) → ((𝑤 ∈ 𝑥 ∧ 𝑤 ∈ 𝑦) → 𝑥 = 𝑦)))
Theorem	prtlem15 34479*	Lemma for prter1 34483 and prtex 34484. (Contributed by Rodolfo Medina, 13-Oct-2010.)
⊢ (Prt 𝐴 → (∃𝑥 ∈ 𝐴 ∃𝑦 ∈ 𝐴 ((𝑢 ∈ 𝑥 ∧ 𝑤 ∈ 𝑥) ∧ (𝑤 ∈ 𝑦 ∧ 𝑣 ∈ 𝑦)) → ∃𝑧 ∈ 𝐴 (𝑢 ∈ 𝑧 ∧ 𝑣 ∈ 𝑧)))
Theorem	prtlem17 34480*	Lemma for prter2 34485. (Contributed by Rodolfo Medina, 15-Oct-2010.)
⊢ (Prt 𝐴 → ((𝑥 ∈ 𝐴 ∧ 𝑧 ∈ 𝑥) → (∃𝑦 ∈ 𝐴 (𝑧 ∈ 𝑦 ∧ 𝑤 ∈ 𝑦) → 𝑤 ∈ 𝑥)))
Theorem	prtlem18 34481*	Lemma for prter2 34485. (Contributed by Rodolfo Medina, 15-Oct-2010.) (Revised by Mario Carneiro, 12-Aug-2015.)
⊢ ∼ = {⟨𝑥, 𝑦⟩ ∣ ∃𝑢 ∈ 𝐴 (𝑥 ∈ 𝑢 ∧ 𝑦 ∈ 𝑢)}    ⇒   ⊢ (Prt 𝐴 → ((𝑣 ∈ 𝐴 ∧ 𝑧 ∈ 𝑣) → (𝑤 ∈ 𝑣 ↔ 𝑧 ∼ 𝑤)))
Theorem	prtlem19 34482*	Lemma for prter2 34485. (Contributed by Rodolfo Medina, 15-Oct-2010.) (Revised by Mario Carneiro, 12-Aug-2015.)
⊢ ∼ = {⟨𝑥, 𝑦⟩ ∣ ∃𝑢 ∈ 𝐴 (𝑥 ∈ 𝑢 ∧ 𝑦 ∈ 𝑢)}    ⇒   ⊢ (Prt 𝐴 → ((𝑣 ∈ 𝐴 ∧ 𝑧 ∈ 𝑣) → 𝑣 = [𝑧] ∼ ))
Theorem	prter1 34483*	Every partition generates an equivalence relation. (Contributed by Rodolfo Medina, 13-Oct-2010.) (Revised by Mario Carneiro, 12-Aug-2015.)
⊢ ∼ = {⟨𝑥, 𝑦⟩ ∣ ∃𝑢 ∈ 𝐴 (𝑥 ∈ 𝑢 ∧ 𝑦 ∈ 𝑢)}    ⇒   ⊢ (Prt 𝐴 → ∼ Er ∪ 𝐴)
Theorem	prtex 34484*	The equivalence relation generated by a partition is a set if and only if the partition itself is a set. (Contributed by Rodolfo Medina, 15-Oct-2010.) (Revised by Mario Carneiro, 12-Aug-2015.)
⊢ ∼ = {⟨𝑥, 𝑦⟩ ∣ ∃𝑢 ∈ 𝐴 (𝑥 ∈ 𝑢 ∧ 𝑦 ∈ 𝑢)}    ⇒   ⊢ (Prt 𝐴 → ( ∼ ∈ V ↔ 𝐴 ∈ V))
Theorem	prter2 34485*	The quotient set of the equivalence relation generated by a partition equals the partition itself. (Contributed by Rodolfo Medina, 17-Oct-2010.)
⊢ ∼ = {⟨𝑥, 𝑦⟩ ∣ ∃𝑢 ∈ 𝐴 (𝑥 ∈ 𝑢 ∧ 𝑦 ∈ 𝑢)}    ⇒   ⊢ (Prt 𝐴 → (∪ 𝐴 / ∼ ) = (𝐴 ∖ {∅}))
Theorem	prter3 34486*	For every partition there exists a unique equivalence relation whose quotient set equals the partition. (Contributed by Rodolfo Medina, 19-Oct-2010.) (Proof shortened by Mario Carneiro, 12-Aug-2015.)
⊢ ∼ = {⟨𝑥, 𝑦⟩ ∣ ∃𝑢 ∈ 𝐴 (𝑥 ∈ 𝑢 ∧ 𝑦 ∈ 𝑢)}    ⇒   ⊢ ((𝑆 Er ∪ 𝐴 ∧ (∪ 𝐴 / 𝑆) = (𝐴 ∖ {∅})) → ∼ = 𝑆)
20.23  Mathbox for Norm Megill Note: A label suffixed with "N" (after the "Atoms..." section below), such as lshpnel2N 34590, means that the definition or theorem is not used for the derivation of hlathil 37570. This is a temporary renaming to assist cleaning up the theorems needed by hlathil 37570.
20.23.1  Obsolete schemes ax-c4,c5,c7,c10,c11,c11n,c15,c9,c14,c16 These older axiom schemes are obsolete and should not be used outside of this section. They are proved above as theorems axc4 , sp 2091, axc7 2170, axc10 2288, axc11 2347, axc11n 2342, axc15 2339, axc9 2338, axc14 2400, and axc16 2173.
Axiom	ax-c5 34487	Axiom of Specialization. A quantified wff implies the wff without a quantifier (i.e. an instance, or special case, of the generalized wff). In other words if something is true for all 𝑥, it is true for any specific 𝑥 (that would typically occur as a free variable in the wff substituted for 𝜑). (A free variable is one that does not occur in the scope of a quantifier: 𝑥 and 𝑦 are both free in 𝑥 = 𝑦, but only 𝑥 is free in ∀𝑦𝑥 = 𝑦.) Axiom scheme C5' in [Megill] p. 448 (p. 16 of the preprint). Also appears as Axiom B5 of [Tarski] p. 67 (under his system S2, defined in the last paragraph on p. 77). Note that the converse of this axiom does not hold in general, but a weaker inference form of the converse holds and is expressed as rule ax-gen 1762. Conditional forms of the converse are given by ax-13 2282, ax-c14 34495, ax-c16 34496, and ax-5 1879. Unlike the more general textbook Axiom of Specialization, we cannot choose a variable different from 𝑥 for the special case. For use, that requires the assistance of equality axioms, and we deal with it later after we introduce the definition of proper substitution - see stdpc4 2381. An interesting alternate axiomatization uses axc5c711 34522 and ax-c4 34488 in place of ax-c5 34487, ax-4 1777, ax-10 2059, and ax-11 2074. This axiom is obsolete and should no longer be used. It is proved above as theorem sp 2091. (Contributed by NM, 3-Jan-1993.) (New usage is discouraged.)
⊢ (∀𝑥𝜑 → 𝜑)
Axiom	ax-c4 34488	Axiom of Quantified Implication. This axiom moves a quantifier from outside to inside an implication, quantifying 𝜓. Notice that 𝑥 must not be a free variable in the antecedent of the quantified implication, and we express this by binding 𝜑 to "protect" the axiom from a 𝜑 containing a free 𝑥. Axiom scheme C4' in [Megill] p. 448 (p. 16 of the preprint). It is a special case of Lemma 5 of [Monk2] p. 108 and Axiom 5 of [Mendelson] p. 69. This axiom is obsolete and should no longer be used. It is proved above as theorem axc4 2168. (Contributed by NM, 3-Jan-1993.) (New usage is discouraged.)
⊢ (∀𝑥(∀𝑥𝜑 → 𝜓) → (∀𝑥𝜑 → ∀𝑥𝜓))
Axiom	ax-c7 34489	Axiom of Quantified Negation. This axiom is used to manipulate negated quantifiers. Equivalent to axiom scheme C7' in [Megill] p. 448 (p. 16 of the preprint). An alternate axiomatization could use axc5c711 34522 in place of ax-c5 34487, ax-c7 34489, and ax-11 2074. This axiom is obsolete and should no longer be used. It is proved above as theorem axc7 2170. (Contributed by NM, 10-Jan-1993.) (New usage is discouraged.)
⊢ (¬ ∀𝑥 ¬ ∀𝑥𝜑 → 𝜑)
Axiom	ax-c10 34490	A variant of ax6 2287. Axiom scheme C10' in [Megill] p. 448 (p. 16 of the preprint). This axiom is obsolete and should no longer be used. It is proved above as theorem axc10 2288. (Contributed by NM, 10-Jan-1993.) (New usage is discouraged.)
⊢ (∀𝑥(𝑥 = 𝑦 → ∀𝑥𝜑) → 𝜑)
Axiom	ax-c11 34491	Axiom ax-c11 34491 was the original version of ax-c11n 34492 ("n" for "new"), before it was discovered (in May 2008) that the shorter ax-c11n 34492 could replace it. It appears as Axiom scheme C11' in [Megill] p. 448 (p. 16 of the preprint). This axiom is obsolete and should no longer be used. It is proved above as theorem axc11 2347. (Contributed by NM, 10-May-1993.) (New usage is discouraged.)
⊢ (∀𝑥 𝑥 = 𝑦 → (∀𝑥𝜑 → ∀𝑦𝜑))
Axiom	ax-c11n 34492	Axiom of Quantifier Substitution. One of the equality and substitution axioms of predicate calculus with equality. Appears as Lemma L12 in [Megill] p. 445 (p. 12 of the preprint). The original version of this axiom was ax-c11 34491 and was replaced with this shorter ax-c11n 34492 ("n" for "new") in May 2008. The old axiom is proved from this one as theorem axc11 2347. Conversely, this axiom is proved from ax-c11 34491 as theorem axc11nfromc11 34530. This axiom was proved redundant in July 2015. See theorem axc11n 2342. This axiom is obsolete and should no longer be used. It is proved above as theorem axc11n 2342. (Contributed by NM, 16-May-2008.) (New usage is discouraged.)
⊢ (∀𝑥 𝑥 = 𝑦 → ∀𝑦 𝑦 = 𝑥)
Axiom	ax-c15 34493	Axiom ax-c15 34493 was the original version of ax-12 2087, before it was discovered (in Jan. 2007) that the shorter ax-12 2087 could replace it. It appears as Axiom scheme C15' in [Megill] p. 448 (p. 16 of the preprint). It is based on Lemma 16 of [Tarski] p. 70 and Axiom C8 of [Monk2] p. 105, from which it can be proved by cases. To understand this theorem more easily, think of "¬ ∀𝑥𝑥 = 𝑦 →..." as informally meaning "if 𝑥 and 𝑦 are distinct variables then..." The antecedent becomes false if the same variable is substituted for 𝑥 and 𝑦, ensuring the theorem is sound whenever this is the case. In some later theorems, we call an antecedent of the form ¬ ∀𝑥𝑥 = 𝑦 a "distinctor." Interestingly, if the wff expression substituted for 𝜑 contains no wff variables, the resulting statement can be proved without invoking this axiom. This means that even though this axiom is metalogically independent from the others, it is not logically independent. Specifically, we can prove any wff-variable-free instance of axiom ax-c15 34493 (from which the ax-12 2087 instance follows by theorem ax12 2340.) The proof is by induction on formula length, using ax12eq 34545 and ax12el 34546 for the basis steps and ax12indn 34547, ax12indi 34548, and ax12inda 34552 for the induction steps. (This paragraph is true provided we use ax-c11 34491 in place of ax-c11n 34492.) This axiom is obsolete and should no longer be used. It is proved above as theorem axc15 2339, which should be used instead. (Contributed by NM, 14-May-1993.) (New usage is discouraged.)
⊢ (¬ ∀𝑥 𝑥 = 𝑦 → (𝑥 = 𝑦 → (𝜑 → ∀𝑥(𝑥 = 𝑦 → 𝜑))))
Axiom	ax-c9 34494	Axiom of Quantifier Introduction. One of the equality and substitution axioms of predicate calculus with equality. Informally, it says that whenever 𝑧 is distinct from 𝑥 and 𝑦, and 𝑥 = 𝑦 is true, then 𝑥 = 𝑦 quantified with 𝑧 is also true. In other words, 𝑧 is irrelevant to the truth of 𝑥 = 𝑦. Axiom scheme C9' in [Megill] p. 448 (p. 16 of the preprint). It apparently does not otherwise appear in the literature but is easily proved from textbook predicate calculus by cases. This axiom is obsolete and should no longer be used. It is proved above as theorem axc9 2338. (Contributed by NM, 10-Jan-1993.) (New usage is discouraged.)
⊢ (¬ ∀𝑧 𝑧 = 𝑥 → (¬ ∀𝑧 𝑧 = 𝑦 → (𝑥 = 𝑦 → ∀𝑧 𝑥 = 𝑦)))
Axiom	ax-c14 34495	Axiom of Quantifier Introduction. One of the equality and substitution axioms for a non-logical predicate in our predicate calculus with equality. Axiom scheme C14' in [Megill] p. 448 (p. 16 of the preprint). It is redundant if we include ax-5 1879; see theorem axc14 2400. Alternately, ax-5 1879 becomes unnecessary in principle with this axiom, but we lose the more powerful metalogic afforded by ax-5 1879. We retain ax-c14 34495 here to provide completeness for systems with the simpler metalogic that results from omitting ax-5 1879, which might be easier to study for some theoretical purposes. This axiom is obsolete and should no longer be used. It is proved above as theorem axc14 2400. (Contributed by NM, 24-Jun-1993.) (New usage is discouraged.)
⊢ (¬ ∀𝑧 𝑧 = 𝑥 → (¬ ∀𝑧 𝑧 = 𝑦 → (𝑥 ∈ 𝑦 → ∀𝑧 𝑥 ∈ 𝑦)))
Axiom	ax-c16 34496*	Axiom of Distinct Variables. The only axiom of predicate calculus requiring that variables be distinct (if we consider ax-5 1879 to be a metatheorem and not an axiom). Axiom scheme C16' in [Megill] p. 448 (p. 16 of the preprint). It apparently does not otherwise appear in the literature but is easily proved from textbook predicate calculus by cases. It is a somewhat bizarre axiom since the antecedent is always false in set theory (see dtru 4887), but nonetheless it is technically necessary as you can see from its uses. This axiom is redundant if we include ax-5 1879; see theorem axc16 2173. Alternately, ax-5 1879 becomes logically redundant in the presence of this axiom, but without ax-5 1879 we lose the more powerful metalogic that results from being able to express the concept of a setvar variable not occurring in a wff (as opposed to just two setvar variables being distinct). We retain ax-c16 34496 here to provide logical completeness for systems with the simpler metalogic that results from omitting ax-5 1879, which might be easier to study for some theoretical purposes. This axiom is obsolete and should no longer be used. It is proved above as theorem axc16 2173. (Contributed by NM, 10-Jan-1993.) (New usage is discouraged.)
⊢ (∀𝑥 𝑥 = 𝑦 → (𝜑 → ∀𝑥𝜑))
20.23.2  Rederive new axioms ax-4, ax-10, ax-6, ax-12, ax-13 from old Theorems ax12fromc15 34509 and ax13fromc9 34510 require some intermediate theorems that are included in this section.
Theorem	axc5 34497	This theorem repeats sp 2091 under the name axc5 34497, so that the metamath program's "verify markup" command will check that it matches axiom scheme ax-c5 34487. It is preferred that references to this theorem use the name sp 2091. (Contributed by NM, 18-Aug-2017.) (New usage is discouraged.) (Proof modification is discouraged.)
⊢ (∀𝑥𝜑 → 𝜑)
Theorem	ax4fromc4 34498	Rederivation of axiom ax-4 1777 from ax-c4 34488, ax-c5 34487, ax-gen 1762 and minimal implicational calculus { ax-mp 5, ax-1 6, ax-2 7 }. See axc4 2168 for the derivation of ax-c4 34488 from ax-4 1777. (Contributed by NM, 23-May-2008.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) (New usage is discouraged.)
⊢ (∀𝑥(𝜑 → 𝜓) → (∀𝑥𝜑 → ∀𝑥𝜓))
Theorem	ax10fromc7 34499	Rederivation of axiom ax-10 2059 from ax-c7 34489, ax-c4 34488, ax-c5 34487, ax-gen 1762 and propositional calculus. See axc7 2170 for the derivation of ax-c7 34489 from ax-10 2059. (Contributed by NM, 23-May-2008.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) (New usage is discouraged.)
⊢ (¬ ∀𝑥𝜑 → ∀𝑥 ¬ ∀𝑥𝜑)
Theorem	ax6fromc10 34500	Rederivation of axiom ax-6 1945 from ax-c7 34489, ax-c10 34490, ax-gen 1762 and propositional calculus. See axc10 2288 for the derivation of ax-c10 34490 from ax-6 1945. Lemma L18 in [Megill] p. 446 (p. 14 of the preprint). (Contributed by NM, 14-May-1993.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) (New usage is discouraged.)
⊢ ¬ ∀𝑥 ¬ 𝑥 = 𝑦