P. 342 of Theorem List - Metamath Proof Explorer

Theorem List for Metamath Proof Explorer - 34101-34200   *Has distinct variable group(s)

Type	Label	Description
Statement
Theorem	uniqsALTV 34101	The union of a quotient set: a weaker version of uniqs 7807. (Contributed by Peter Mazsa, 20-Jun-2019.)
⊢ ((𝑅 ↾ 𝐴) ∈ 𝑉 → ∪ (𝐴 / 𝑅) = (𝑅 “ 𝐴))
Theorem	rnresequniqs 34102	The range of a restriction is equal to the union of the quotient set. (Contributed by Peter Mazsa, 19-May-2018.)
⊢ ((𝑅 ↾ 𝐴) ∈ 𝑉 → ran (𝑅 ↾ 𝐴) = ∪ (𝐴 / 𝑅))
Theorem	n0el2 34103	Two ways of expressing that the empty set is not an element of a class. (Contributed by Peter Mazsa, 31-Jan-2018.)
⊢ (¬ ∅ ∈ 𝐴 ↔ dom (◡ E ↾ 𝐴) = 𝐴)
Theorem	cnvepresex 34104	Sethood condition for the restricted converse epsilon relation. (Contributed by Peter Mazsa, 24-Sep-2018.)
⊢ (𝐴 ∈ 𝑉 → (◡ E ↾ 𝐴) ∈ V)
Theorem	inex2ALTV 34105	Sethood condition for the intersection relation, cf. inex1g 4801. (Contributed by Peter Mazsa, 19-Dec-2018.)
⊢ (𝐴 ∈ 𝑉 → (𝐵 ∩ 𝐴) ∈ V)
Theorem	inex3 34106	More general sethood condition for the intersection relation. (Contributed by Peter Mazsa, 24-Nov-2019.)
⊢ ((𝐴 ∈ 𝑉 ∨ 𝐵 ∈ 𝑊) → (𝐴 ∩ 𝐵) ∈ V)
Theorem	inxpex 34107	Sethood condition for the intersection with a Cartesian product. (Contributed by Peter Mazsa, 10-May-2019.)
⊢ ((𝑅 ∈ 𝑊 ∨ (𝐴 ∈ 𝑈 ∧ 𝐵 ∈ 𝑉)) → (𝑅 ∩ (𝐴 × 𝐵)) ∈ V)
Theorem	eqres 34108	Converting a class constant definition by restriction (like ~? df-ers or ~? df-parts ) into a binary relation. (Contributed by Peter Mazsa, 1-Oct-2018.)
⊢ 𝑅 = (𝑆 ↾ 𝐶)    ⇒   ⊢ (𝐵 ∈ 𝑉 → (𝐴𝑅𝐵 ↔ (𝐴 ∈ 𝐶 ∧ 𝐴𝑆𝐵)))
Theorem	opidORIG 34109	Please delete when opidg 41297 moves from a Mathbox to the main set.mm . (Contributed by Peter Mazsa, 22-Jul-2019.)
⊢ (𝐴 ∈ 𝑉 → ⟨𝐴, 𝐴⟩ = {{𝐴}})
Theorem	opideq 34110	Equality conditions for ordered pairs ⟨𝐴, 𝐴⟩ and ⟨𝐵, 𝐵⟩. (Contributed by Peter Mazsa, 22-Jul-2019.)
⊢ ((𝐴 ∈ 𝑉 ∧ 𝐵 ∈ 𝑊) → (⟨𝐴, 𝐴⟩ = ⟨𝐵, 𝐵⟩ ↔ 𝐴 = 𝐵))
Theorem	opelinxp 34111	Ordered pair element in an intersection with Cartesian product. (Contributed by Peter Mazsa, 21-Jul-2019.)
⊢ (⟨𝐶, 𝐷⟩ ∈ (𝑅 ∩ (𝐴 × 𝐵)) ↔ ((𝐶 ∈ 𝐴 ∧ 𝐷 ∈ 𝐵) ∧ ⟨𝐶, 𝐷⟩ ∈ 𝑅))
Theorem	iss2 34112	A subclass of the identity relation is the intersection of identity relation with Cartesian product of the domain and range of the class. (Contributed by Peter Mazsa, 22-Jul-2019.)
⊢ (𝐴 ⊆ I ↔ 𝐴 = ( I ∩ (dom 𝐴 × ran 𝐴)))
Theorem	eldmcnv 34113*	Elementhood in a domain of a converse. (Contributed by Peter Mazsa, 25-May-2018.)
⊢ (𝐴 ∈ 𝑉 → (𝐴 ∈ dom ◡𝑅 ↔ ∃𝑢 𝑢𝑅𝐴))
Theorem	dfrel5 34114	Alternate definition of the relation predicate. (Contributed by Peter Mazsa, 6-Nov-2018.)
⊢ (Rel 𝑅 ↔ (𝑅 ↾ dom 𝑅) = 𝑅)
Theorem	dfrel6 34115	Alternate definition of the relation predicate. (Contributed by Peter Mazsa, 14-Mar-2019.)
⊢ (Rel 𝑅 ↔ (𝑅 ∩ (dom 𝑅 × ran 𝑅)) = 𝑅)
Theorem	cnvresrn 34116	Converse restricted to range is converse. (Contributed by Peter Mazsa, 3-Sep-2021.)
⊢ (◡𝑅 ↾ ran 𝑅) = ◡𝑅
Theorem	ecin0 34117*	Two ways of saying that the coset of 𝐴 and the coset of 𝐵 have no elements in common. (Contributed by Peter Mazsa, 1-Dec-2018.)
⊢ ((𝐴 ∈ 𝑉 ∧ 𝐵 ∈ 𝑊) → (([𝐴]𝑅 ∩ [𝐵]𝑅) = ∅ ↔ ∀𝑥(𝐴𝑅𝑥 → ¬ 𝐵𝑅𝑥)))
Theorem	ecinn0 34118*	Two ways of saying that the coset of 𝐴 and the coset of 𝐵 have some elements in common. (Contributed by Peter Mazsa, 23-Jan-2019.)
⊢ ((𝐴 ∈ 𝑉 ∧ 𝐵 ∈ 𝑊) → (([𝐴]𝑅 ∩ [𝐵]𝑅) ≠ ∅ ↔ ∃𝑥(𝐴𝑅𝑥 ∧ 𝐵𝑅𝑥)))
Theorem	ineleq 34119*	Lemma for inecmo 34120. (Contributed by Peter Mazsa, 29-May-2018.)
⊢ (∀𝑥 ∈ 𝐴 ∀𝑦 ∈ 𝐵 (𝑥 = 𝑦 ∨ (𝐶 ∩ 𝐷) = ∅) ↔ ∀𝑥 ∈ 𝐴 ∀𝑧∀𝑦 ∈ 𝐵 ((𝑧 ∈ 𝐶 ∧ 𝑧 ∈ 𝐷) → 𝑥 = 𝑦))
Theorem	inecmo 34120*	Lemma for ~? dfeldisj5 (via inecmo2 34121), ~? dfdisjs5 , ~? dfdisjALTV5 , ~? eldisjs5 (via inecmo3 34126, ~? cosscnvssid5 ), ~? dffunsALTV5 (via ineccnvmo 34122, ineccnvmo2 34125), and ~? dffunALTV5 (via ~? cossssid5 ). (Contributed by Peter Mazsa, 29-May-2018.)
⊢ (𝑥 = 𝑦 → 𝐵 = 𝐶)    ⇒   ⊢ (Rel 𝑅 → (∀𝑥 ∈ 𝐴 ∀𝑦 ∈ 𝐴 (𝑥 = 𝑦 ∨ ([𝐵]𝑅 ∩ [𝐶]𝑅) = ∅) ↔ ∀𝑧∃*𝑥 ∈ 𝐴 𝐵𝑅𝑧))
Theorem	inecmo2 34121*	Lemma for ~? dfeldisj5 , and for ~? dfdisjs5 , ~? dfdisjALTV5 , ~? eldisjs5 (via inecmo3 34126, ~? cosscnvssid5 ). (Contributed by Peter Mazsa, 29-May-2018.) (Revised by Peter Mazsa, 2-Sep-2021.)
⊢ ((∀𝑢 ∈ 𝐴 ∀𝑣 ∈ 𝐴 (𝑢 = 𝑣 ∨ ([𝑢]𝑅 ∩ [𝑣]𝑅) = ∅) ∧ Rel 𝑅) ↔ (∀𝑥∃*𝑢 ∈ 𝐴 𝑢𝑅𝑥 ∧ Rel 𝑅))
Theorem	ineccnvmo 34122*	Lemma for ineccnvmo2 34125. (Contributed by Peter Mazsa, 2-Sep-2021.)
⊢ (∀𝑦 ∈ 𝐵 ∀𝑧 ∈ 𝐵 (𝑦 = 𝑧 ∨ ([𝑦]◡𝐹 ∩ [𝑧]◡𝐹) = ∅) ↔ ∀𝑥∃*𝑦 ∈ 𝐵 𝑥𝐹𝑦)
Theorem	alrmomo 34123	Lemma for ineccnvmo2 34125. (Contributed by Peter Mazsa, 3-Sep-2021.)
⊢ (∀𝑥∃*𝑦 ∈ ran 𝑅 𝑥𝑅𝑦 ↔ ∀𝑥∃*𝑦 𝑥𝑅𝑦)
Theorem	alrmomo2 34124*	Lemma for inecmo3 34126. (Contributed by Peter Mazsa, 5-Sep-2021.)
⊢ (Rel 𝑅 → (∀𝑥∃*𝑢 ∈ dom 𝑅 𝑢𝑅𝑥 ↔ ∀𝑥∃*𝑢 𝑢𝑅𝑥))
Theorem	ineccnvmo2 34125*	Lemma for ~? dffunsALTV5 and ~? dffunALTV5 (via ~? cossssid5 ). (Contributed by Peter Mazsa, 4-Sep-2021.)
⊢ (∀𝑥 ∈ ran 𝐹∀𝑦 ∈ ran 𝐹(𝑥 = 𝑦 ∨ ([𝑥]◡𝐹 ∩ [𝑦]◡𝐹) = ∅) ↔ ∀𝑢∃*𝑥 𝑢𝐹𝑥)
Theorem	inecmo3 34126*	Lemma for ~? dfdisjs5 , ~? dfdisjALTV5 , ~? eldisjs5 (via ~? cosscnvssid5 ). (Contributed by Peter Mazsa, 5-Sep-2021.)
⊢ ((∀𝑢 ∈ dom 𝑅∀𝑣 ∈ dom 𝑅(𝑢 = 𝑣 ∨ ([𝑢]𝑅 ∩ [𝑣]𝑅) = ∅) ∧ Rel 𝑅) ↔ (∀𝑥∃*𝑢 𝑢𝑅𝑥 ∧ Rel 𝑅))
Theorem	motr 34127	Lemma for ~? trcoss . (Contributed by Peter Mazsa, 2-Oct-2018.)
⊢ (∃*𝑥𝜓 → ((∃𝑥(𝜑 ∧ 𝜓) ∧ ∃𝑥(𝜓 ∧ 𝜒)) → ∃𝑥(𝜑 ∧ 𝜒)))
Theorem	bropabid 34128	Lemma for ~? inxptxp . (Contributed by Peter Mazsa, 24-Nov-2018.)
⊢ 𝑅 = {⟨𝑥, 𝑦⟩ ∣ 𝜑}    ⇒   ⊢ (𝑥𝑅𝑦 ↔ 𝜑)
Theorem	inxp2 34129*	Intersection with a Cartesian product. (Contributed by Peter Mazsa, 18-Jul-2019.)
⊢ (𝑅 ∩ (𝐴 × 𝐵)) = {⟨𝑥, 𝑦⟩ ∣ ((𝑥 ∈ 𝐴 ∧ 𝑦 ∈ 𝐵) ∧ 𝑥𝑅𝑦)}
Theorem	opabssi 34130*	Lemma for opabf 34131. (Contributed by Peter Mazsa, 21-Oct-2019.)
⊢ (𝜑 → ⟨𝑥, 𝑦⟩ ∈ 𝐴)    ⇒   ⊢ (Rel 𝐴 → {⟨𝑥, 𝑦⟩ ∣ 𝜑} ⊆ 𝐴)
Theorem	opabf 34131*	A class abstraction of a collection of ordered pairs with a negated wff is the empty set. (Contributed by Peter Mazsa, 21-Oct-2019.)
⊢ ¬ 𝜑    ⇒   ⊢ {⟨𝑥, 𝑦⟩ ∣ 𝜑} = ∅
Theorem	ec0 34132	The empty-coset of a class is the empty set. (Contributed by Peter Mazsa, 19-May-2019.)
⊢ [𝐴]∅ = ∅
Theorem	0qs 34133	Quotient set with the empty set. (Contributed by Peter Mazsa, 14-Sep-2019.)
⊢ (∅ / 𝑅) = ∅
20.21.3  Range Cartesian product
Definition	df-xrn 34134	Define the range Cartesian product, or range cross of two classes. Definition from [Holmes] p. 40. Membership in this class is defined by xrnss3v 34135 and ~? brxrn . This is Scott Fenton's df-txp 31961 with different symbols, cf. https://github.com/metamath/set.mm/issues/2469 . (Contributed by Scott Fenton, 31-Mar-2012.)
⊢ (𝐴 ⋉ 𝐵) = ((◡(1st ↾ (V × V)) ∘ 𝐴) ∩ (◡(2nd ↾ (V × V)) ∘ 𝐵))
Theorem	xrnss3v 34135	A range Cartesian product is a subset of the class of ordered triples. This is Scott Fenton's txpss3v 31985 with different symbols, cf. https://github.com/metamath/set.mm/issues/2469 . (Contributed by Scott Fenton, 31-Mar-2012.)
⊢ (𝐴 ⋉ 𝐵) ⊆ (V × (V × V))
Theorem	xrnrel 34136	A range Cartesian product is a relation. This is Scott Fenton's txprel 31986 with different symbols, cf. https://github.com/metamath/set.mm/issues/2469 . (Contributed by Scott Fenton, 31-Mar-2012.)
⊢ Rel (𝐴 ⋉ 𝐵)
20.22  Mathbox for Rodolfo Medina
20.22.1  Partitions
Theorem	prtlem60 34137	Lemma for prter3 34167. (Contributed by Rodolfo Medina, 9-Oct-2010.)
⊢ (𝜑 → (𝜓 → (𝜒 → 𝜃)))    &   ⊢ (𝜓 → (𝜃 → 𝜏))    ⇒   ⊢ (𝜑 → (𝜓 → (𝜒 → 𝜏)))
Theorem	bicomdd 34138	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 34139	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 34140	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 34141	Lemma for prter3 34167: 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 34142	Reverse of ibd 258. (Contributed by Rodolfo Medina, 30-Sep-2010.)
⊢ (𝜑 → (𝜒 → (𝜓 ↔ 𝜒)))    ⇒   ⊢ (𝜑 → (𝜒 → 𝜓))
Theorem	pm5.31r 34143	Variant of pm5.31 612. (Contributed by Rodolfo Medina, 15-Oct-2010.)
⊢ ((𝜒 ∧ (𝜑 → 𝜓)) → (𝜑 → (𝜒 ∧ 𝜓)))
Theorem	prtlem100 34144	Lemma for prter3 34167. (Contributed by Rodolfo Medina, 19-Oct-2010.)
⊢ (∃𝑥 ∈ 𝐴 (𝐵 ∈ 𝑥 ∧ 𝜑) ↔ ∃𝑥 ∈ (𝐴 ∖ {∅})(𝐵 ∈ 𝑥 ∧ 𝜑))
Theorem	prtlem5 34145*	Lemma for prter1 34164, prter2 34166, prter3 34167 and prtex 34165. (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 34146	Lemma for prter2 34166. (Contributed by Rodolfo Medina, 17-Oct-2010.)
⊢ (𝐴 ∈ 𝐵 → ¬ 𝐴 ∈ (𝐶 ∖ {𝐴}))
Theorem	brabsb2 34147*	A closed form of brabsb 4986. (Contributed by Rodolfo Medina, 13-Oct-2010.)
⊢ (𝑅 = {⟨𝑥, 𝑦⟩ ∣ 𝜑} → (𝑧𝑅𝑤 ↔ [𝑤 / 𝑦][𝑧 / 𝑥]𝜑))
Theorem	eqbrrdv2 34148*	Other version of eqbrrdiv 5218. (Contributed by Rodolfo Medina, 30-Sep-2010.)
⊢ (((Rel 𝐴 ∧ Rel 𝐵) ∧ 𝜑) → (𝑥𝐴𝑦 ↔ 𝑥𝐵𝑦))    ⇒   ⊢ (((Rel 𝐴 ∧ Rel 𝐵) ∧ 𝜑) → 𝐴 = 𝐵)
Theorem	prtlem9 34149*	Lemma for prter3 34167. (Contributed by Rodolfo Medina, 25-Sep-2010.)
⊢ (𝐴 ∈ 𝐵 → ∃𝑥 ∈ 𝐵 [𝑥] ∼ = [𝐴] ∼ )
Theorem	prtlem10 34150*	Lemma for prter3 34167. (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 34151	Lemma for prter2 34166. (Contributed by Rodolfo Medina, 12-Oct-2010.)
⊢ (𝐵 ∈ 𝐷 → (𝐶 ∈ 𝐴 → (𝐵 = [𝐶] ∼ → 𝐵 ∈ (𝐴 / ∼ ))))
Theorem	prtlem12 34152*	Lemma for prtex 34165 and prter3 34167. (Contributed by Rodolfo Medina, 13-Oct-2010.)
⊢ ( ∼ = {⟨𝑥, 𝑦⟩ ∣ ∃𝑢 ∈ 𝐴 (𝑥 ∈ 𝑢 ∧ 𝑦 ∈ 𝑢)} → Rel ∼ )
Theorem	prtlem13 34153*	Lemma for prter1 34164, prter2 34166, prter3 34167 and prtex 34165. (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 34154*	Lemma for prtex 34165, prter2 34166 and prter3 34167. (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 34155*	Lemma for prter2 34166 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 34156	Extend the definition of a wff to include the partition predicate.
wff Prt 𝐴
Definition	df-prt 34157*	Define the partition predicate. (Contributed by Rodolfo Medina, 13-Oct-2010.)
⊢ (Prt 𝐴 ↔ ∀𝑥 ∈ 𝐴 ∀𝑦 ∈ 𝐴 (𝑥 = 𝑦 ∨ (𝑥 ∩ 𝑦) = ∅))
Theorem	erprt 34158	The quotient set of an equivalence relation is a partition. (Contributed by Rodolfo Medina, 13-Oct-2010.)
⊢ ( ∼ Er 𝑋 → Prt (𝐴 / ∼ ))
Theorem	prtlem14 34159*	Lemma for prter1 34164, prter2 34166 and prtex 34165. (Contributed by Rodolfo Medina, 13-Oct-2010.)
⊢ (Prt 𝐴 → ((𝑥 ∈ 𝐴 ∧ 𝑦 ∈ 𝐴) → ((𝑤 ∈ 𝑥 ∧ 𝑤 ∈ 𝑦) → 𝑥 = 𝑦)))
Theorem	prtlem15 34160*	Lemma for prter1 34164 and prtex 34165. (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 34161*	Lemma for prter2 34166. (Contributed by Rodolfo Medina, 15-Oct-2010.)
⊢ (Prt 𝐴 → ((𝑥 ∈ 𝐴 ∧ 𝑧 ∈ 𝑥) → (∃𝑦 ∈ 𝐴 (𝑧 ∈ 𝑦 ∧ 𝑤 ∈ 𝑦) → 𝑤 ∈ 𝑥)))
Theorem	prtlem18 34162*	Lemma for prter2 34166. (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 34163*	Lemma for prter2 34166. (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 34164*	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 34165*	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 34166*	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 34167*	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 34272, means that the definition or theorem is not used for the derivation of hlathil 37253. This is a temporary renaming to assist cleaning up the theorems needed by hlathil 37253.
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 2053, axc7 2132, axc10 2252, axc11 2314, axc11n 2307, axc15 2303, axc9 2302, axc14 2372, and axc16 2135.
Axiom	ax-c5 34168	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 1722. Conditional forms of the converse are given by ax-13 2246, ax-c14 34176, ax-c16 34177, and ax-5 1839. 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 2353. An interesting alternate axiomatization uses axc5c711 34203 and ax-c4 34169 in place of ax-c5 34168, ax-4 1737, ax-10 2019, and ax-11 2034. This axiom is obsolete and should no longer be used. It is proved above as theorem sp 2053. (Contributed by NM, 3-Jan-1993.) (New usage is discouraged.)
⊢ (∀𝑥𝜑 → 𝜑)
Axiom	ax-c4 34169	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 2130. (Contributed by NM, 3-Jan-1993.) (New usage is discouraged.)
⊢ (∀𝑥(∀𝑥𝜑 → 𝜓) → (∀𝑥𝜑 → ∀𝑥𝜓))
Axiom	ax-c7 34170	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 34203 in place of ax-c5 34168, ax-c7 34170, and ax-11 2034. This axiom is obsolete and should no longer be used. It is proved above as theorem axc7 2132. (Contributed by NM, 10-Jan-1993.) (New usage is discouraged.)
⊢ (¬ ∀𝑥 ¬ ∀𝑥𝜑 → 𝜑)
Axiom	ax-c10 34171	A variant of ax6 2251. 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 2252. (Contributed by NM, 10-Jan-1993.) (New usage is discouraged.)
⊢ (∀𝑥(𝑥 = 𝑦 → ∀𝑥𝜑) → 𝜑)
Axiom	ax-c11 34172	Axiom ax-c11 34172 was the original version of ax-c11n 34173 ("n" for "new"), before it was discovered (in May 2008) that the shorter ax-c11n 34173 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 2314. (Contributed by NM, 10-May-1993.) (New usage is discouraged.)
⊢ (∀𝑥 𝑥 = 𝑦 → (∀𝑥𝜑 → ∀𝑦𝜑))
Axiom	ax-c11n 34173	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 34172 and was replaced with this shorter ax-c11n 34173 ("n" for "new") in May 2008. The old axiom is proved from this one as theorem axc11 2314. Conversely, this axiom is proved from ax-c11 34172 as theorem axc11nfromc11 34211. This axiom was proved redundant in July 2015. See theorem axc11n 2307. This axiom is obsolete and should no longer be used. It is proved above as theorem axc11n 2307. (Contributed by NM, 16-May-2008.) (New usage is discouraged.)
⊢ (∀𝑥 𝑥 = 𝑦 → ∀𝑦 𝑦 = 𝑥)
Axiom	ax-c15 34174	Axiom ax-c15 34174 was the original version of ax-12 2047, before it was discovered (in Jan. 2007) that the shorter ax-12 2047 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 34174 (from which the ax-12 2047 instance follows by theorem ax12 2304.) The proof is by induction on formula length, using ax12eq 34226 and ax12el 34227 for the basis steps and ax12indn 34228, ax12indi 34229, and ax12inda 34233 for the induction steps. (This paragraph is true provided we use ax-c11 34172 in place of ax-c11n 34173.) This axiom is obsolete and should no longer be used. It is proved above as theorem axc15 2303, 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 34175	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 2302. (Contributed by NM, 10-Jan-1993.) (New usage is discouraged.)
⊢ (¬ ∀𝑧 𝑧 = 𝑥 → (¬ ∀𝑧 𝑧 = 𝑦 → (𝑥 = 𝑦 → ∀𝑧 𝑥 = 𝑦)))
Axiom	ax-c14 34176	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 1839; see theorem axc14 2372. Alternately, ax-5 1839 becomes unnecessary in principle with this axiom, but we lose the more powerful metalogic afforded by ax-5 1839. We retain ax-c14 34176 here to provide completeness for systems with the simpler metalogic that results from omitting ax-5 1839, 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 2372. (Contributed by NM, 24-Jun-1993.) (New usage is discouraged.)
⊢ (¬ ∀𝑧 𝑧 = 𝑥 → (¬ ∀𝑧 𝑧 = 𝑦 → (𝑥 ∈ 𝑦 → ∀𝑧 𝑥 ∈ 𝑦)))
Axiom	ax-c16 34177*	Axiom of Distinct Variables. The only axiom of predicate calculus requiring that variables be distinct (if we consider ax-5 1839 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 4857), but nonetheless it is technically necessary as you can see from its uses. This axiom is redundant if we include ax-5 1839; see theorem axc16 2135. Alternately, ax-5 1839 becomes logically redundant in the presence of this axiom, but without ax-5 1839 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 34177 here to provide logical completeness for systems with the simpler metalogic that results from omitting ax-5 1839, 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 2135. (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 34190 and ax13fromc9 34191 require some intermediate theorems that are included in this section.
Theorem	axc5 34178	This theorem repeats sp 2053 under the name axc5 34178, so that the metamath program's "verify markup" command will check that it matches axiom scheme ax-c5 34168. It is preferred that references to this theorem use the name sp 2053. (Contributed by NM, 18-Aug-2017.) (New usage is discouraged.) (Proof modification is discouraged.)
⊢ (∀𝑥𝜑 → 𝜑)
Theorem	ax4fromc4 34179	Rederivation of axiom ax-4 1737 from ax-c4 34169, ax-c5 34168, ax-gen 1722 and minimal implicational calculus { ax-mp 5, ax-1 6, ax-2 7 }. See axc4 2130 for the derivation of ax-c4 34169 from ax-4 1737. (Contributed by NM, 23-May-2008.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) (New usage is discouraged.)
⊢ (∀𝑥(𝜑 → 𝜓) → (∀𝑥𝜑 → ∀𝑥𝜓))
Theorem	ax10fromc7 34180	Rederivation of axiom ax-10 2019 from ax-c7 34170, ax-c4 34169, ax-c5 34168, ax-gen 1722 and propositional calculus. See axc7 2132 for the derivation of ax-c7 34170 from ax-10 2019. (Contributed by NM, 23-May-2008.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) (New usage is discouraged.)
⊢ (¬ ∀𝑥𝜑 → ∀𝑥 ¬ ∀𝑥𝜑)
Theorem	ax6fromc10 34181	Rederivation of axiom ax-6 1888 from ax-c7 34170, ax-c10 34171, ax-gen 1722 and propositional calculus. See axc10 2252 for the derivation of ax-c10 34171 from ax-6 1888. 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
Theorem	hba1-o 34182	The setvar 𝑥 is not free in ∀𝑥𝜑. Example in Appendix in [Megill] p. 450 (p. 19 of the preprint). Also Lemma 22 of [Monk2] p. 114. (Contributed by NM, 24-Jan-1993.) (New usage is discouraged.)
⊢ (∀𝑥𝜑 → ∀𝑥∀𝑥𝜑)
Theorem	axc4i-o 34183	Inference version of ax-c4 34169. (Contributed by NM, 3-Jan-1993.) (New usage is discouraged.)
⊢ (∀𝑥𝜑 → 𝜓)    ⇒   ⊢ (∀𝑥𝜑 → ∀𝑥𝜓)
Theorem	equid1 34184	Proof of equid 1939 from our older axioms. This is often an axiom of equality in textbook systems, but we don't need it as an axiom since it can be proved from our other axioms (although the proof, as you can see below, is not as obvious as you might think). This proof uses only axioms without distinct variable conditions and requires no dummy variables. A simpler proof, similar to Tarski's, is possible if we make use of ax-5 1839; see the proof of equid 1939. See equid1ALT 34210 for an alternate proof. (Contributed by NM, 10-Jan-1993.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) (New usage is discouraged.)
⊢ 𝑥 = 𝑥
Theorem	equcomi1 34185	Proof of equcomi 1944 from equid1 34184, avoiding use of ax-5 1839 (the only use of ax-5 1839 is via ax7 1943, so using ax-7 1935 instead would remove dependency on ax-5 1839). (Contributed by BJ, 8-Jul-2021.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) (New usage is discouraged.)
⊢ (𝑥 = 𝑦 → 𝑦 = 𝑥)
Theorem	aecom-o 34186	Commutation law for identical variable specifiers. The antecedent and consequent are true when 𝑥 and 𝑦 are substituted with the same variable. Lemma L12 in [Megill] p. 445 (p. 12 of the preprint). Version of aecom 2311 using ax-c11 34172. Unlike axc11nfromc11 34211, this version does not require ax-5 1839 (see comment of equcomi1 34185). (Contributed by NM, 10-May-1993.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) (New usage is discouraged.)
⊢ (∀𝑥 𝑥 = 𝑦 → ∀𝑦 𝑦 = 𝑥)
Theorem	aecoms-o 34187	A commutation rule for identical variable specifiers. Version of aecoms 2312 using ax-c11 34172. (Contributed by NM, 10-May-1993.) (New usage is discouraged.)
⊢ (∀𝑥 𝑥 = 𝑦 → 𝜑)    ⇒   ⊢ (∀𝑦 𝑦 = 𝑥 → 𝜑)
Theorem	hbae-o 34188	All variables are effectively bound in an identical variable specifier. Version of hbae 2315 using ax-c11 34172. (Contributed by NM, 13-May-1993.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) (New usage is discouraged.)
⊢ (∀𝑥 𝑥 = 𝑦 → ∀𝑧∀𝑥 𝑥 = 𝑦)
Theorem	dral1-o 34189	Formula-building lemma for use with the Distinctor Reduction Theorem. Part of Theorem 9.4 of [Megill] p. 448 (p. 16 of preprint). Version of dral1 2325 using ax-c11 34172. (Contributed by NM, 24-Nov-1994.) (New usage is discouraged.)
⊢ (∀𝑥 𝑥 = 𝑦 → (𝜑 ↔ 𝜓))    ⇒   ⊢ (∀𝑥 𝑥 = 𝑦 → (∀𝑥𝜑 ↔ ∀𝑦𝜓))
Theorem	ax12fromc15 34190	Rederivation of axiom ax-12 2047 from ax-c15 34174, ax-c11 34172 (used through dral1-o 34189), and other older axioms. See theorem axc15 2303 for the derivation of ax-c15 34174 from ax-12 2047. An open problem is whether we can prove this using ax-c11n 34173 instead of ax-c11 34172. This proof uses newer axioms ax-4 1737 and ax-6 1888, but since these are proved from the older axioms above, this is acceptable and lets us avoid having to reprove several earlier theorems to use ax-c4 34169 and ax-c10 34171. (Contributed by NM, 22-Jan-2007.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) (New usage is discouraged.)
⊢ (𝑥 = 𝑦 → (∀𝑦𝜑 → ∀𝑥(𝑥 = 𝑦 → 𝜑)))
Theorem	ax13fromc9 34191	Derive ax-13 2246 from ax-c9 34175 and other older axioms. This proof uses newer axioms ax-4 1737 and ax-6 1888, but since these are proved from the older axioms above, this is acceptable and lets us avoid having to reprove several earlier theorems to use ax-c4 34169 and ax-c10 34171. (Contributed by NM, 21-Dec-2015.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) (New usage is discouraged.)
⊢ (¬ 𝑥 = 𝑦 → (𝑦 = 𝑧 → ∀𝑥 𝑦 = 𝑧))
20.23.3  Legacy theorems using obsolete axioms These theorems were mostly intended to study properties of the older axiom schemes and are not useful outside of this section. They should not be used outside of this section. They may be deleted when they are deemed to no longer be of interest.
Theorem	ax5ALT 34192*	Axiom to quantify a variable over a formula in which it does not occur. Axiom C5 in [Megill] p. 444 (p. 11 of the preprint). Also appears as Axiom B6 (p. 75) of system S2 of [Tarski] p. 77 and Axiom C5-1 of [Monk2] p. 113. (This theorem simply repeats ax-5 1839 so that we can include the following note, which applies only to the obsolete axiomatization.) This axiom is logically redundant in the (logically complete) predicate calculus axiom system consisting of ax-gen 1722, ax-c4 34169, ax-c5 34168, ax-11 2034, ax-c7 34170, ax-7 1935, ax-c9 34175, ax-c10 34171, ax-c11 34172, ax-8 1992, ax-9 1999, ax-c14 34176, ax-c15 34174, and ax-c16 34177: in that system, we can derive any instance of ax-5 1839 not containing wff variables by induction on formula length, using ax5eq 34217 and ax5el 34222 for the basis together with hbn 2146, hbal 2036, and hbim 2127. However, if we omit this axiom, our development would be quite inconvenient since we could work only with specific instances of wffs containing no wff variables - this axiom introduces the concept of a setvar variable not occurring in a wff (as opposed to just two setvar variables being distinct). (Contributed by NM, 19-Aug-2017.) (New usage is discouraged.) (Proof modification is discouraged.)
⊢ (𝜑 → ∀𝑥𝜑)
Theorem	sps-o 34193	Generalization of antecedent. (Contributed by NM, 5-Jan-1993.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) (New usage is discouraged.)
⊢ (𝜑 → 𝜓)    ⇒   ⊢ (∀𝑥𝜑 → 𝜓)
Theorem	hbequid 34194	Bound-variable hypothesis builder for 𝑥 = 𝑥. This theorem tells us that any variable, including 𝑥, is effectively not free in 𝑥 = 𝑥, even though 𝑥 is technically free according to the traditional definition of free variable. (The proof does not use ax-c10 34171.) (Contributed by NM, 13-Jan-2011.) (Proof shortened by Wolf Lammen, 23-Mar-2014.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) (New usage is discouraged.)
⊢ (𝑥 = 𝑥 → ∀𝑦 𝑥 = 𝑥)
Theorem	nfequid-o 34195	Bound-variable hypothesis builder for 𝑥 = 𝑥. This theorem tells us that any variable, including 𝑥, is effectively not free in 𝑥 = 𝑥, even though 𝑥 is technically free according to the traditional definition of free variable. (The proof uses only ax-4 1737, ax-7 1935, ax-c9 34175, and ax-gen 1722. This shows that this can be proved without ax6 2251, even though the theorem equid 1939 cannot be. A shorter proof using ax6 2251 is obtainable from equid 1939 and hbth 1729.) Remark added 2-Dec-2015 NM: This proof does implicitly use ax6v 1889, which is used for the derivation of axc9 2302, unless we consider ax-c9 34175 the starting axiom rather than ax-13 2246. (Contributed by NM, 13-Jan-2011.) (Revised by Mario Carneiro, 12-Oct-2016.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) (New usage is discouraged.)
⊢ Ⅎ𝑦 𝑥 = 𝑥
Theorem	axc5c7 34196	Proof of a single axiom that can replace ax-c5 34168 and ax-c7 34170. See axc5c7toc5 34197 and axc5c7toc7 34198 for the rederivation of those axioms. (Contributed by Scott Fenton, 12-Sep-2005.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) (New usage is discouraged.)
⊢ ((∀𝑥 ¬ ∀𝑥𝜑 → ∀𝑥𝜑) → 𝜑)
Theorem	axc5c7toc5 34197	Rederivation of ax-c5 34168 from axc5c7 34196. Only propositional calculus is used for the rederivation. (Contributed by Scott Fenton, 12-Sep-2005.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) (New usage is discouraged.)
⊢ (∀𝑥𝜑 → 𝜑)
Theorem	axc5c7toc7 34198	Rederivation of ax-c7 34170 from axc5c7 34196. Only propositional calculus is used for the rederivation. (Contributed by Scott Fenton, 12-Sep-2005.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) (New usage is discouraged.)
⊢ (¬ ∀𝑥 ¬ ∀𝑥𝜑 → 𝜑)
Theorem	axc711 34199	Proof of a single axiom that can replace both ax-c7 34170 and ax-11 2034. See axc711toc7 34201 and axc711to11 34202 for the rederivation of those axioms. (Contributed by NM, 18-Nov-2006.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) (New usage is discouraged.)
⊢ (¬ ∀𝑥 ¬ ∀𝑦∀𝑥𝜑 → ∀𝑦𝜑)
Theorem	nfa1-o 34200	𝑥 is not free in ∀𝑥𝜑. (Contributed by Mario Carneiro, 11-Aug-2016.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) (New usage is discouraged.)
⊢ Ⅎ𝑥∀𝑥𝜑