Theorem dfexdc 1430

Description: Defining ∃𝑥𝜑 given decidability. It is common in classical logic to define ∃𝑥𝜑 as ¬ ∀𝑥¬ 𝜑 but in intuitionistic logic without a decidability condition, that is only an implication not an equivalence, as seen at exalim 1431. (Contributed by Jim Kingdon, 15-Mar-2018.)

Assertion

Ref	Expression
dfexdc	⊢ (DECID ∃𝑥𝜑 → (∃𝑥𝜑 ↔ ¬ ∀𝑥 ¬ 𝜑))

Proof of Theorem dfexdc

Step	Hyp	Ref	Expression
1		alnex 1428	. . 3 ⊢ (∀𝑥 ¬ 𝜑 ↔ ¬ ∃𝑥𝜑)
2	1	a1i 9	. 2 ⊢ (DECID ∃𝑥𝜑 → (∀𝑥 ¬ 𝜑 ↔ ¬ ∃𝑥𝜑))
3	2	con2biidc 806	1 ⊢ (DECID ∃𝑥𝜑 → (∃𝑥𝜑 ↔ ¬ ∀𝑥 ¬ 𝜑))

Syntax hints:  ¬ wn 3   → wi 4   ↔ wb 103  DECID wdc 775  ∀wal 1282  ∃wex 1421

This theorem was proved from axioms:  ax-1 5  ax-2 6  ax-mp 7  ax-ia1 104  ax-ia2 105  ax-ia3 106  ax-in1 576  ax-in2 577  ax-io 662  ax-5 1376  ax-gen 1378  ax-ie2 1423

This theorem depends on definitions:  df-bi 115  df-dc 776  df-tru 1287  df-fal 1290

This theorem is referenced by: (None)