P. 18 of Theorem List - Metamath Proof Explorer

Theorem List for Metamath Proof Explorer - 1701-1800   *Has distinct variable group(s)

Type	Label	Description
Statement
Theorem	stoic3 1701	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 1702	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 1703 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 1703	Stoic logic Thema 4 version b. This is version b, which is with the phrase "or both". See stoic4a 1702 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 1737) 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 1705) 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 2053) of system S2 since [KalishMontague] shows it to be logically redundant (Lemma 9, p. 87, which we prove as theorem spw 1967 below). Theorem spw 1967 can be used to prove any instance of sp 2053 having mutually distinct setvar variables and no wff metavariables. However, it seems that sp 2053 in its general form cannot be derived from only Tarski's schemes. We do not include B5 i.e. sp 2053 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 2053 as theorem axc5 34178 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 1722, ax-4 1737, ax-5 1839, ax-6 1888, ax-7 1935, ax-8 1992, and ax-9 1999. 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 1935, ax-8 1992, and ax-9 1999 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 2053, even though (using spw 1967) 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 2019, ax-11 2034, ax-12 2047, and ax-13 2246 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 1481 for use by df-tru 1486. 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 1704	Extend wff definition to include the existential quantifier ("there exists").
wff ∃𝑥𝜑
Definition	df-ex 1705	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 1706	Theorem 19.7 of [Margaris] p. 89. (Contributed by NM, 12-Mar-1993.)
⊢ (∀𝑥 ¬ 𝜑 ↔ ¬ ∃𝑥𝜑)
Theorem	eximal 1707	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 1758. (Contributed by BJ, 12-May-2019.)
⊢ ((∃𝑥𝜑 → 𝜓) ↔ (¬ 𝜓 → ∀𝑥 ¬ 𝜑))
1.4.1.2  Non-freeness predicate
Syntax	wnf 1708	Extend wff definition to include the not-free predicate.
wff Ⅎ𝑥𝜑
Syntax	wnfOLD 1709	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 1710	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 2380). An example of where this is used is stdpc5 2076. See nf5 2116 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 1940), 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 1892. This predicate only applies to wffs. See df-nfc 2753 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 1711	Alternate definition of non-freeness. (Contributed by BJ, 16-Sep-2021.)
⊢ (Ⅎ𝑥𝜑 ↔ (∀𝑥𝜑 ∨ ¬ ∃𝑥𝜑))
Theorem	nf3 1712	Alternate definition of non-freeness. (Contributed by BJ, 16-Sep-2021.)
⊢ (Ⅎ𝑥𝜑 ↔ (∀𝑥𝜑 ∨ ∀𝑥 ¬ 𝜑))
Theorem	nf4 1713	Alternate definition of non-freeness. This definition uses only primitive symbols. (Contributed by BJ, 16-Sep-2021.)
⊢ (Ⅎ𝑥𝜑 ↔ (¬ ∀𝑥𝜑 → ∀𝑥 ¬ 𝜑))
Theorem	nfi 1714	Deduce that 𝑥 is not free in 𝜑 from the definition. (Contributed by Wolf Lammen, 15-Sep-2021.)
⊢ (∃𝑥𝜑 → ∀𝑥𝜑)    ⇒   ⊢ Ⅎ𝑥𝜑
Theorem	nfri 1715	Consequence of the definition of not-free. (Contributed by Wolf Lammen, 16-Sep-2021.)
⊢ Ⅎ𝑥𝜑    ⇒   ⊢ (∃𝑥𝜑 → ∀𝑥𝜑)
Theorem	nfd 1716	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 1717	Consequence of the definition of not-free in a context. (Contributed by Wolf Lammen, 15-Oct-2021.)
⊢ (𝜑 → Ⅎ𝑥𝜓)    ⇒   ⊢ (𝜑 → (∃𝑥𝜓 → ∀𝑥𝜓))
Theorem	nftht 1718	Closed form of nfth 1727. (Contributed by Wolf Lammen, 19-Aug-2018.) (Proof shortened by BJ, 16-Sep-2021.)
⊢ (∀𝑥𝜑 → Ⅎ𝑥𝜑)
Theorem	nfntht 1719	Closed form of nfnth 1728. (Contributed by BJ, 16-Sep-2021.)
⊢ (¬ ∃𝑥𝜑 → Ⅎ𝑥𝜑)
Theorem	nfntht2 1720	Closed form of nfnth 1728. (Contributed by BJ, 16-Sep-2021.)
⊢ (∀𝑥 ¬ 𝜑 → Ⅎ𝑥𝜑)
Definition	df-nfOLD 1721	Obsolete definition replaced by nf5 2116 as of 3-Oct-2021. This definition is less suitable than df-nf 1710 when ax-10 2019 and ax-12 2047 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 1722	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 32400 shows the special case ∀𝑥⊤. Theorem spi 2054 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 1723	Generalization applied twice. (Contributed by NM, 30-Apr-1998.)
⊢ 𝜑    ⇒   ⊢ ∀𝑥∀𝑦𝜑
Theorem	mpg 1724	Modus ponens combined with generalization. (Contributed by NM, 24-May-1994.)
⊢ (∀𝑥𝜑 → 𝜓)    &   ⊢ 𝜑    ⇒   ⊢ 𝜓
Theorem	mpgbi 1725	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 1726	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 1727	No variable is (effectively) free in a theorem. (Contributed by Mario Carneiro, 11-Aug-2016.) df-nf 1710 changed. (Revised by Wolf Lammen, 12-Sep-2021.)
⊢ 𝜑    ⇒   ⊢ Ⅎ𝑥𝜑
Theorem	nfnth 1728	No variable is (effectively) free in a non-theorem. (Contributed by Mario Carneiro, 6-Dec-2016.) df-nf 1710 changed. (Revised by Wolf Lammen, 12-Sep-2021.)
⊢ ¬ 𝜑    ⇒   ⊢ Ⅎ𝑥𝜑
Theorem	hbth 1729	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 1730	The true constant has no free variables. (This can also be proven in one step with nfv 1843, but this proof does not use ax-5 1839.) (Contributed by Mario Carneiro, 6-Oct-2016.)
⊢ Ⅎ𝑥⊤
Theorem	nex 1731	Generalization rule for negated wff. (Contributed by NM, 18-May-1994.)
⊢ ¬ 𝜑    ⇒   ⊢ ¬ ∃𝑥𝜑
Theorem	nffal 1732	The false constant has no free variables (see nftru 1730). (Contributed by BJ, 6-May-2019.)
⊢ Ⅎ𝑥⊥
Theorem	sptruw 1733	Version of sp 2053 when 𝜑 is true. Uses only Tarski's FOL axiom schemes. (Contributed by NM, 23-Apr-2017.)
⊢ 𝜑    ⇒   ⊢ (∀𝑥𝜑 → 𝜑)
Theorem	nfiOLD 1734	Obsolete proof of nf5i 2024 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 1735	Obsolete proof of nfth 1727 as of 5-Oct-2021. (Contributed by Mario Carneiro, 11-Aug-2016.) (New usage is discouraged.) (Proof modification is discouraged.)
⊢ 𝜑    ⇒   ⊢ Ⅎ𝑥𝜑
Theorem	nfnthOLD 1736	Obsolete proof of nfnth 1728 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 1737	Axiom of Quantified Implication. Axiom C4 of [Monk2] p. 105 and Theorem 19.20 of [Margaris] p. 90. It is restated as alim 1738 for labeling consistency. It should be used only by alim 1738. (Contributed by NM, 21-May-2008.) Use alim 1738 instead. (New usage is discouraged.)
⊢ (∀𝑥(𝜑 → 𝜓) → (∀𝑥𝜑 → ∀𝑥𝜓))
Theorem	alim 1738	Restatement of Axiom ax-4 1737, for labeling consistency. It should be the only theorem using ax-4 1737. (Contributed by NM, 10-Jan-1993.)
⊢ (∀𝑥(𝜑 → 𝜓) → (∀𝑥𝜑 → ∀𝑥𝜓))
Theorem	alimi 1739	Inference quantifying both antecedent and consequent. (Contributed by NM, 5-Jan-1993.)
⊢ (𝜑 → 𝜓)    ⇒   ⊢ (∀𝑥𝜑 → ∀𝑥𝜓)
Theorem	2alimi 1740	Inference doubly quantifying both antecedent and consequent. (Contributed by NM, 3-Feb-2005.)
⊢ (𝜑 → 𝜓)    ⇒   ⊢ (∀𝑥∀𝑦𝜑 → ∀𝑥∀𝑦𝜓)
Theorem	ala1 1741	Add an antecedent in a universally quantified formula. (Contributed by BJ, 6-Oct-2018.)
⊢ (∀𝑥𝜑 → ∀𝑥(𝜓 → 𝜑))
Theorem	al2im 1742	Closed form of al2imi 1743. Version of alim 1738 for a nested implication. (Contributed by Alan Sare, 31-Dec-2011.)
⊢ (∀𝑥(𝜑 → (𝜓 → 𝜒)) → (∀𝑥𝜑 → (∀𝑥𝜓 → ∀𝑥𝜒)))
Theorem	al2imi 1743	Inference quantifying antecedent, nested antecedent, and consequent. (Contributed by NM, 10-Jan-1993.)
⊢ (𝜑 → (𝜓 → 𝜒))    ⇒   ⊢ (∀𝑥𝜑 → (∀𝑥𝜓 → ∀𝑥𝜒))
Theorem	alanimi 1744	Variant of al2imi 1743 with conjunctive antecedent. (Contributed by Andrew Salmon, 8-Jun-2011.)
⊢ ((𝜑 ∧ 𝜓) → 𝜒)    ⇒   ⊢ ((∀𝑥𝜑 ∧ ∀𝑥𝜓) → ∀𝑥𝜒)
Theorem	alimdh 1745	Deduction form of Theorem 19.20 of [Margaris] p. 90, see alim 1738. (Contributed by NM, 4-Jan-2002.)
⊢ (𝜑 → ∀𝑥𝜑)    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → (𝜓 → 𝜒))    ⇒   ⊢ (𝜑 → (∀𝑥𝜓 → ∀𝑥𝜒))
Theorem	albi 1746	Theorem 19.15 of [Margaris] p. 90. (Contributed by NM, 24-Jan-1993.)
⊢ (∀𝑥(𝜑 ↔ 𝜓) → (∀𝑥𝜑 ↔ ∀𝑥𝜓))
Theorem	albii 1747	Inference adding universal quantifier to both sides of an equivalence. (Contributed by NM, 7-Aug-1994.)
⊢ (𝜑 ↔ 𝜓)    ⇒   ⊢ (∀𝑥𝜑 ↔ ∀𝑥𝜓)
Theorem	2albii 1748	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 1749	Closed form of sylg 1750. (Contributed by BJ, 2-May-2019.)
⊢ (∀𝑥(𝜓 → 𝜒) → ((𝜑 → ∀𝑥𝜓) → (𝜑 → ∀𝑥𝜒)))
Theorem	sylg 1750	A syllogism combined with generalization. Inference associated with sylgt 1749. General form of alrimih 1751. (Contributed by BJ, 4-Oct-2019.)
⊢ (𝜑 → ∀𝑥𝜓)    &   ⊢ (𝜓 → 𝜒)    ⇒   ⊢ (𝜑 → ∀𝑥𝜒)
Theorem	alrimih 1751	Inference form of Theorem 19.21 of [Margaris] p. 90. See 19.21 2075 and 19.21h 2121. Instance of sylg 1750. (Contributed by NM, 9-Jan-1993.) (Revised by BJ, 31-Mar-2021.)
⊢ (𝜑 → ∀𝑥𝜑)    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝜓)    ⇒   ⊢ (𝜑 → ∀𝑥𝜓)
Theorem	hbxfrbi 1752	A utility lemma to transfer a bound-variable hypothesis builder into a definition. See hbxfreq 2730 for equality version. (Contributed by Jonathan Ben-Naim, 3-Jun-2011.)
⊢ (𝜑 ↔ 𝜓)    &   ⊢ (𝜓 → ∀𝑥𝜓)    ⇒   ⊢ (𝜑 → ∀𝑥𝜑)
Theorem	alex 1753	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 1754	Theorem 19.14 of [Margaris] p. 90. (Contributed by NM, 12-Mar-1993.)
⊢ (∃𝑥 ¬ 𝜑 ↔ ¬ ∀𝑥𝜑)
Theorem	2nalexn 1755	Part of theorem *11.5 in [WhiteheadRussell] p. 164. (Contributed by Andrew Salmon, 24-May-2011.)
⊢ (¬ ∀𝑥∀𝑦𝜑 ↔ ∃𝑥∃𝑦 ¬ 𝜑)
Theorem	2exnaln 1756	Theorem *11.22 in [WhiteheadRussell] p. 160. (Contributed by Andrew Salmon, 24-May-2011.)
⊢ (∃𝑥∃𝑦𝜑 ↔ ¬ ∀𝑥∀𝑦 ¬ 𝜑)
Theorem	2nexaln 1757	Theorem *11.25 in [WhiteheadRussell] p. 160. (Contributed by Andrew Salmon, 24-May-2011.)
⊢ (¬ ∃𝑥∃𝑦𝜑 ↔ ∀𝑥∀𝑦 ¬ 𝜑)
Theorem	alimex 1758	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 1707. (Contributed by BJ, 12-May-2019.)
⊢ ((𝜑 → ∀𝑥𝜓) ↔ (∃𝑥 ¬ 𝜓 → ¬ 𝜑))
Theorem	aleximi 1759	A variant of al2imi 1743: instead of applying ∀𝑥 quantifiers to the final implication, replace them with ∃𝑥. A shorter proof is possible using nfa1 2028, sps 2055 and eximd 2085, but it depends on more axioms. (Contributed by Wolf Lammen, 18-Aug-2019.)
⊢ (𝜑 → (𝜓 → 𝜒))    ⇒   ⊢ (∀𝑥𝜑 → (∃𝑥𝜓 → ∃𝑥𝜒))
Theorem	alexbii 1760	Biconditional form of aleximi 1759. (Contributed by BJ, 16-Nov-2020.)
⊢ (𝜑 → (𝜓 ↔ 𝜒))    ⇒   ⊢ (∀𝑥𝜑 → (∃𝑥𝜓 ↔ ∃𝑥𝜒))
Theorem	exim 1761	Theorem 19.22 of [Margaris] p. 90. (Contributed by NM, 10-Jan-1993.) (Proof shortened by Wolf Lammen, 4-Jul-2014.)
⊢ (∀𝑥(𝜑 → 𝜓) → (∃𝑥𝜑 → ∃𝑥𝜓))
Theorem	eximi 1762	Inference adding existential quantifier to antecedent and consequent. (Contributed by NM, 10-Jan-1993.)
⊢ (𝜑 → 𝜓)    ⇒   ⊢ (∃𝑥𝜑 → ∃𝑥𝜓)
Theorem	2eximi 1763	Inference adding two existential quantifiers to antecedent and consequent. (Contributed by NM, 3-Feb-2005.)
⊢ (𝜑 → 𝜓)    ⇒   ⊢ (∃𝑥∃𝑦𝜑 → ∃𝑥∃𝑦𝜓)
Theorem	eximii 1764	Inference associated with eximi 1762. (Contributed by BJ, 3-Feb-2018.)
⊢ ∃𝑥𝜑    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝜓)    ⇒   ⊢ ∃𝑥𝜓
Theorem	exa1 1765	Add an antecedent in an existentially quantified formula. (Contributed by BJ, 6-Oct-2018.)
⊢ (∃𝑥𝜑 → ∃𝑥(𝜓 → 𝜑))
Theorem	19.38 1766	Theorem 19.38 of [Margaris] p. 90. The converse holds under non-freeness conditions, see 19.38a 1767 and 19.38b 1768. (Contributed by NM, 12-Mar-1993.) Allow a shortening of 19.21t 2073. (Revised by Wolf Lammen, 2-Jan-2018.)
⊢ ((∃𝑥𝜑 → ∀𝑥𝜓) → ∀𝑥(𝜑 → 𝜓))
Theorem	19.38a 1767	Under a non-freeness hypothesis, the implication 19.38 1766 can be strengthened to an equivalence. See also 19.38b 1768. (Contributed by BJ, 3-Nov-2021.)
⊢ (Ⅎ𝑥𝜑 → ((∃𝑥𝜑 → ∀𝑥𝜓) ↔ ∀𝑥(𝜑 → 𝜓)))
Theorem	19.38b 1768	Under a non-freeness hypothesis, the implication 19.38 1766 can be strengthened to an equivalence. See also 19.38a 1767. (Contributed by BJ, 3-Nov-2021.)
⊢ (Ⅎ𝑥𝜓 → ((∃𝑥𝜑 → ∀𝑥𝜓) ↔ ∀𝑥(𝜑 → 𝜓)))
Theorem	imnang 1769	Quantified implication in terms of quantified negation of conjunction. (Contributed by BJ, 16-Jul-2021.)
⊢ (∀𝑥(𝜑 → ¬ 𝜓) ↔ ∀𝑥 ¬ (𝜑 ∧ 𝜓))
Theorem	alinexa 1770	A transformation of quantifiers and logical connectives. (Contributed by NM, 19-Aug-1993.)
⊢ (∀𝑥(𝜑 → ¬ 𝜓) ↔ ¬ ∃𝑥(𝜑 ∧ 𝜓))
Theorem	alexn 1771	A relationship between two quantifiers and negation. (Contributed by NM, 18-Aug-1993.)
⊢ (∀𝑥∃𝑦 ¬ 𝜑 ↔ ¬ ∃𝑥∀𝑦𝜑)
Theorem	2exnexn 1772	Theorem *11.51 in [WhiteheadRussell] p. 164. (Contributed by Andrew Salmon, 24-May-2011.) (Proof shortened by Wolf Lammen, 25-Sep-2014.)
⊢ (∃𝑥∀𝑦𝜑 ↔ ¬ ∀𝑥∃𝑦 ¬ 𝜑)
Theorem	exbi 1773	Theorem 19.18 of [Margaris] p. 90. (Contributed by NM, 12-Mar-1993.)
⊢ (∀𝑥(𝜑 ↔ 𝜓) → (∃𝑥𝜑 ↔ ∃𝑥𝜓))
Theorem	exbii 1774	Inference adding existential quantifier to both sides of an equivalence. (Contributed by NM, 24-May-1994.)
⊢ (𝜑 ↔ 𝜓)    ⇒   ⊢ (∃𝑥𝜑 ↔ ∃𝑥𝜓)
Theorem	2exbii 1775	Inference adding two existential quantifiers to both sides of an equivalence. (Contributed by NM, 16-Mar-1995.)
⊢ (𝜑 ↔ 𝜓)    ⇒   ⊢ (∃𝑥∃𝑦𝜑 ↔ ∃𝑥∃𝑦𝜓)
Theorem	3exbii 1776	Inference adding three existential quantifiers to both sides of an equivalence. (Contributed by NM, 2-May-1995.)
⊢ (𝜑 ↔ 𝜓)    ⇒   ⊢ (∃𝑥∃𝑦∃𝑧𝜑 ↔ ∃𝑥∃𝑦∃𝑧𝜓)
Theorem	nfbiit 1777	Equivalence theorem for the non-freeness predicate. Closed form of nfbii 1778. (Contributed by BJ, 6-May-2019.)
⊢ (∀𝑥(𝜑 ↔ 𝜓) → (Ⅎ𝑥𝜑 ↔ Ⅎ𝑥𝜓))
Theorem	nfbii 1778	Equality theorem for the non-freeness predicate. (Contributed by Mario Carneiro, 11-Aug-2016.) df-nf 1710 changed. (Revised by Wolf Lammen, 12-Sep-2021.)
⊢ (𝜑 ↔ 𝜓)    ⇒   ⊢ (Ⅎ𝑥𝜑 ↔ Ⅎ𝑥𝜓)
Theorem	nfxfr 1779	A utility lemma to transfer a bound-variable hypothesis builder into a definition. (Contributed by Mario Carneiro, 11-Aug-2016.)
⊢ (𝜑 ↔ 𝜓)    &   ⊢ Ⅎ𝑥𝜓    ⇒   ⊢ Ⅎ𝑥𝜑
Theorem	nfxfrd 1780	A utility lemma to transfer a bound-variable hypothesis builder into a definition. (Contributed by Mario Carneiro, 24-Sep-2016.)
⊢ (𝜑 ↔ 𝜓)    &   ⊢ (𝜒 → Ⅎ𝑥𝜓)    ⇒   ⊢ (𝜒 → Ⅎ𝑥𝜑)
Theorem	nfnbi 1781	A variable is non-free in a proposition if and only if it is so in its negation. (Contributed by BJ, 6-May-2019.)
⊢ (Ⅎ𝑥𝜑 ↔ Ⅎ𝑥 ¬ 𝜑)
Theorem	nfnt 1782	If a variable is non-free in a proposition, then it is non-free in its negation. (Contributed by Mario Carneiro, 24-Sep-2016.) (Proof shortened by Wolf Lammen, 28-Dec-2017.) (Revised by BJ, 24-Jul-2019.) df-nf 1710 changed. (Revised by Wolf Lammen, 4-Oct-2021.)
⊢ (Ⅎ𝑥𝜑 → Ⅎ𝑥 ¬ 𝜑)
Theorem	nfntOLDOLD 1783	Obsolete proof of nfnt 1782 as of 3-Nov-2021. (Contributed by Mario Carneiro, 24-Sep-2016.) (Proof shortened by Wolf Lammen, 28-Dec-2017.) (Revised by BJ, 24-Jul-2019.) df-nf 1710 changed. (Revised by Wolf Lammen, 4-Oct-2021.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) (New usage is discouraged.)
⊢ (Ⅎ𝑥𝜑 → Ⅎ𝑥 ¬ 𝜑)
Theorem	nfn 1784	Inference associated with nfnt 1782. (Contributed by Mario Carneiro, 11-Aug-2016.) df-nf 1710 changed. (Revised by Wolf Lammen, 18-Sep-2021.)
⊢ Ⅎ𝑥𝜑    ⇒   ⊢ Ⅎ𝑥 ¬ 𝜑
Theorem	nfnd 1785	Deduction associated with nfnt 1782. (Contributed by Mario Carneiro, 24-Sep-2016.)
⊢ (𝜑 → Ⅎ𝑥𝜓)    ⇒   ⊢ (𝜑 → Ⅎ𝑥 ¬ 𝜓)
Theorem	exanali 1786	A transformation of quantifiers and logical connectives. (Contributed by NM, 25-Mar-1996.) (Proof shortened by Wolf Lammen, 4-Sep-2014.)
⊢ (∃𝑥(𝜑 ∧ ¬ 𝜓) ↔ ¬ ∀𝑥(𝜑 → 𝜓))
Theorem	exancom 1787	Commutation of conjunction inside an existential quantifier. (Contributed by NM, 18-Aug-1993.)
⊢ (∃𝑥(𝜑 ∧ 𝜓) ↔ ∃𝑥(𝜓 ∧ 𝜑))
Theorem	exan 1788	Place a conjunct in the scope of an existential quantifier. (Contributed by NM, 18-Aug-1993.) (Proof shortened by Andrew Salmon, 25-May-2011.) (Proof shortened by Wolf Lammen, 13-Jan-2018.) Reduce axiom dependencies. (Revised by BJ, 7-Jul-2021.) (Proof shortened by Wolf Lammen, 8-Oct-2021.)
⊢ (∃𝑥𝜑 ∧ 𝜓)    ⇒   ⊢ ∃𝑥(𝜑 ∧ 𝜓)
Theorem	exanOLD 1789	Obsolete proof of exan 1788 as of 8-Oct-2021. (Contributed by NM, 18-Aug-1993.) (Proof shortened by Andrew Salmon, 25-May-2011.) (Proof shortened by Wolf Lammen, 13-Jan-2018.) Reduce axiom dependencies. (Revised by BJ, 7-Jul-2021.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) (New usage is discouraged.)
⊢ (∃𝑥𝜑 ∧ 𝜓)    ⇒   ⊢ ∃𝑥(𝜑 ∧ 𝜓)
Theorem	alrimdh 1790	Deduction form of Theorem 19.21 of [Margaris] p. 90, see 19.21 2075 and 19.21h 2121. (Contributed by NM, 10-Feb-1997.) (Proof shortened by Andrew Salmon, 13-May-2011.)
⊢ (𝜑 → ∀𝑥𝜑)    &   ⊢ (𝜓 → ∀𝑥𝜓)    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → (𝜓 → 𝜒))    ⇒   ⊢ (𝜑 → (𝜓 → ∀𝑥𝜒))
Theorem	eximdh 1791	Deduction from Theorem 19.22 of [Margaris] p. 90. (Contributed by NM, 20-May-1996.)
⊢ (𝜑 → ∀𝑥𝜑)    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → (𝜓 → 𝜒))    ⇒   ⊢ (𝜑 → (∃𝑥𝜓 → ∃𝑥𝜒))
Theorem	nexdh 1792	Deduction for generalization rule for negated wff. (Contributed by NM, 2-Jan-2002.)
⊢ (𝜑 → ∀𝑥𝜑)    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → ¬ 𝜓)    ⇒   ⊢ (𝜑 → ¬ ∃𝑥𝜓)
Theorem	albidh 1793	Formula-building rule for universal quantifier (deduction rule). (Contributed by NM, 26-May-1993.)
⊢ (𝜑 → ∀𝑥𝜑)    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → (𝜓 ↔ 𝜒))    ⇒   ⊢ (𝜑 → (∀𝑥𝜓 ↔ ∀𝑥𝜒))
Theorem	exbidh 1794	Formula-building rule for existential quantifier (deduction rule). (Contributed by NM, 26-May-1993.)
⊢ (𝜑 → ∀𝑥𝜑)    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → (𝜓 ↔ 𝜒))    ⇒   ⊢ (𝜑 → (∃𝑥𝜓 ↔ ∃𝑥𝜒))
Theorem	exsimpl 1795	Simplification of an existentially quantified conjunction. (Contributed by Rodolfo Medina, 25-Sep-2010.) (Proof shortened by Andrew Salmon, 29-Jun-2011.)
⊢ (∃𝑥(𝜑 ∧ 𝜓) → ∃𝑥𝜑)
Theorem	exsimpr 1796	Simplification of an existentially quantified conjunction. (Contributed by Rodolfo Medina, 25-Sep-2010.) (Proof shortened by Andrew Salmon, 29-Jun-2011.)
⊢ (∃𝑥(𝜑 ∧ 𝜓) → ∃𝑥𝜓)
Theorem	19.40 1797	Theorem 19.40 of [Margaris] p. 90. (Contributed by NM, 26-May-1993.)
⊢ (∃𝑥(𝜑 ∧ 𝜓) → (∃𝑥𝜑 ∧ ∃𝑥𝜓))
Theorem	19.26 1798	Theorem 19.26 of [Margaris] p. 90. Also Theorem *10.22 of [WhiteheadRussell] p. 147. (Contributed by NM, 12-Mar-1993.) (Proof shortened by Wolf Lammen, 4-Jul-2014.)
⊢ (∀𝑥(𝜑 ∧ 𝜓) ↔ (∀𝑥𝜑 ∧ ∀𝑥𝜓))
Theorem	19.26-2 1799	Theorem 19.26 1798 with two quantifiers. (Contributed by NM, 3-Feb-2005.)
⊢ (∀𝑥∀𝑦(𝜑 ∧ 𝜓) ↔ (∀𝑥∀𝑦𝜑 ∧ ∀𝑥∀𝑦𝜓))
Theorem	19.26-3an 1800	Theorem 19.26 1798 with triple conjunction. (Contributed by NM, 13-Sep-2011.)
⊢ (∀𝑥(𝜑 ∧ 𝜓 ∧ 𝜒) ↔ (∀𝑥𝜑 ∧ ∀𝑥𝜓 ∧ ∀𝑥𝜒))