Home Intuitionistic Logic ExplorerTheorem List (p. 21 of 102) < Previous  Next > Bad symbols? Try the GIF version. Mirrors  >  Metamath Home Page  >  ILE Home Page  >  Theorem List Contents  >  Recent Proofs       This page: Page List

Theorem List for Intuitionistic Logic Explorer - 2001-2100   *Has distinct variable group(s)
TypeLabelDescription
Statement

Theoremferio 2001 "Ferio" ("Ferioque"), one of the syllogisms of Aristotelian logic. No 𝜑 is 𝜓, and some 𝜒 is 𝜑, therefore some 𝜒 is not 𝜓. (In Aristotelian notation, EIO-1: MeP and SiM therefore SoP.) For example, given "No homework is fun" and "Some reading is homework", therefore "Some reading is not fun". This is essentially a logical axiom in Aristotelian logic. Example from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syllogism. (Contributed by David A. Wheeler, 24-Aug-2016.) (Revised by David A. Wheeler, 2-Sep-2016.)
𝑥(𝜑 → ¬ 𝜓)    &   𝑥(𝜒𝜑)       𝑥(𝜒 ∧ ¬ 𝜓)

Theorembarbari 2002 "Barbari", one of the syllogisms of Aristotelian logic. All 𝜑 is 𝜓, all 𝜒 is 𝜑, and some 𝜒 exist, therefore some 𝜒 is 𝜓. (In Aristotelian notation, AAI-1: MaP and SaM therefore SiP.) For example, given "All men are mortal", "All Greeks are men", and "Greeks exist", therefore "Some Greeks are mortal". Note the existence hypothesis (to prove the "some" in the conclusion). Example from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syllogism. (Contributed by David A. Wheeler, 27-Aug-2016.) (Revised by David A. Wheeler, 30-Aug-2016.)
𝑥(𝜑𝜓)    &   𝑥(𝜒𝜑)    &   𝑥𝜒       𝑥(𝜒𝜓)

Theoremcelaront 2003 "Celaront", one of the syllogisms of Aristotelian logic. No 𝜑 is 𝜓, all 𝜒 is 𝜑, and some 𝜒 exist, therefore some 𝜒 is not 𝜓. (In Aristotelian notation, EAO-1: MeP and SaM therefore SoP.) For example, given "No reptiles have fur", "All snakes are reptiles.", and "Snakes exist.", prove "Some snakes have no fur". Note the existence hypothesis. Example from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syllogism. (Contributed by David A. Wheeler, 27-Aug-2016.) (Revised by David A. Wheeler, 2-Sep-2016.)
𝑥(𝜑 → ¬ 𝜓)    &   𝑥(𝜒𝜑)    &   𝑥𝜒       𝑥(𝜒 ∧ ¬ 𝜓)

Theoremcesare 2004 "Cesare", one of the syllogisms of Aristotelian logic. No 𝜑 is 𝜓, and all 𝜒 is 𝜓, therefore no 𝜒 is 𝜑. (In Aristotelian notation, EAE-2: PeM and SaM therefore SeP.) Related to celarent 1999. (Contributed by David A. Wheeler, 27-Aug-2016.) (Revised by David A. Wheeler, 13-Nov-2016.)
𝑥(𝜑 → ¬ 𝜓)    &   𝑥(𝜒𝜓)       𝑥(𝜒 → ¬ 𝜑)

Theoremcamestres 2005 "Camestres", one of the syllogisms of Aristotelian logic. All 𝜑 is 𝜓, and no 𝜒 is 𝜓, therefore no 𝜒 is 𝜑. (In Aristotelian notation, AEE-2: PaM and SeM therefore SeP.) (Contributed by David A. Wheeler, 28-Aug-2016.) (Revised by David A. Wheeler, 2-Sep-2016.)
𝑥(𝜑𝜓)    &   𝑥(𝜒 → ¬ 𝜓)       𝑥(𝜒 → ¬ 𝜑)

Theoremfestino 2006 "Festino", one of the syllogisms of Aristotelian logic. No 𝜑 is 𝜓, and some 𝜒 is 𝜓, therefore some 𝜒 is not 𝜑. (In Aristotelian notation, EIO-2: PeM and SiM therefore SoP.) (Contributed by David A. Wheeler, 25-Nov-2016.)
𝑥(𝜑 → ¬ 𝜓)    &   𝑥(𝜒𝜓)       𝑥(𝜒 ∧ ¬ 𝜑)

Theorembaroco 2007 "Baroco", one of the syllogisms of Aristotelian logic. All 𝜑 is 𝜓, and some 𝜒 is not 𝜓, therefore some 𝜒 is not 𝜑. (In Aristotelian notation, AOO-2: PaM and SoM therefore SoP.) For example, "All informative things are useful", "Some websites are not useful", therefore "Some websites are not informative." (Contributed by David A. Wheeler, 28-Aug-2016.)
𝑥(𝜑𝜓)    &   𝑥(𝜒 ∧ ¬ 𝜓)       𝑥(𝜒 ∧ ¬ 𝜑)

Theoremcesaro 2008 "Cesaro", one of the syllogisms of Aristotelian logic. No 𝜑 is 𝜓, all 𝜒 is 𝜓, and 𝜒 exist, therefore some 𝜒 is not 𝜑. (In Aristotelian notation, EAO-2: PeM and SaM therefore SoP.) (Contributed by David A. Wheeler, 28-Aug-2016.) (Revised by David A. Wheeler, 2-Sep-2016.)
𝑥(𝜑 → ¬ 𝜓)    &   𝑥(𝜒𝜓)    &   𝑥𝜒       𝑥(𝜒 ∧ ¬ 𝜑)

Theoremcamestros 2009 "Camestros", one of the syllogisms of Aristotelian logic. All 𝜑 is 𝜓, no 𝜒 is 𝜓, and 𝜒 exist, therefore some 𝜒 is not 𝜑. (In Aristotelian notation, AEO-2: PaM and SeM therefore SoP.) For example, "All horses have hooves", "No humans have hooves", and humans exist, therefore "Some humans are not horses". (Contributed by David A. Wheeler, 28-Aug-2016.) (Revised by David A. Wheeler, 2-Sep-2016.)
𝑥(𝜑𝜓)    &   𝑥(𝜒 → ¬ 𝜓)    &   𝑥𝜒       𝑥(𝜒 ∧ ¬ 𝜑)

Theoremdatisi 2010 "Datisi", one of the syllogisms of Aristotelian logic. All 𝜑 is 𝜓, and some 𝜑 is 𝜒, therefore some 𝜒 is 𝜓. (In Aristotelian notation, AII-3: MaP and MiS therefore SiP.) (Contributed by David A. Wheeler, 28-Aug-2016.)
𝑥(𝜑𝜓)    &   𝑥(𝜑𝜒)       𝑥(𝜒𝜓)

Theoremdisamis 2011 "Disamis", one of the syllogisms of Aristotelian logic. Some 𝜑 is 𝜓, and all 𝜑 is 𝜒, therefore some 𝜒 is 𝜓. (In Aristotelian notation, IAI-3: MiP and MaS therefore SiP.) (Contributed by David A. Wheeler, 28-Aug-2016.)
𝑥(𝜑𝜓)    &   𝑥(𝜑𝜒)       𝑥(𝜒𝜓)

Theoremferison 2012 "Ferison", one of the syllogisms of Aristotelian logic. No 𝜑 is 𝜓, and some 𝜑 is 𝜒, therefore some 𝜒 is not 𝜓. (In Aristotelian notation, EIO-3: MeP and MiS therefore SoP.) (Contributed by David A. Wheeler, 28-Aug-2016.) (Revised by David A. Wheeler, 2-Sep-2016.)
𝑥(𝜑 → ¬ 𝜓)    &   𝑥(𝜑𝜒)       𝑥(𝜒 ∧ ¬ 𝜓)

Theorembocardo 2013 "Bocardo", one of the syllogisms of Aristotelian logic. Some 𝜑 is not 𝜓, and all 𝜑 is 𝜒, therefore some 𝜒 is not 𝜓. (In Aristotelian notation, OAO-3: MoP and MaS therefore SoP.) For example, "Some cats have no tails", "All cats are mammals", therefore "Some mammals have no tails". A reorder of disamis 2011; prefer using that instead. (Contributed by David A. Wheeler, 28-Aug-2016.) (New usage is discouraged.)
𝑥(𝜑 ∧ ¬ 𝜓)    &   𝑥(𝜑𝜒)       𝑥(𝜒 ∧ ¬ 𝜓)

Theoremfelapton 2014 "Felapton", one of the syllogisms of Aristotelian logic. No 𝜑 is 𝜓, all 𝜑 is 𝜒, and some 𝜑 exist, therefore some 𝜒 is not 𝜓. (In Aristotelian notation, EAO-3: MeP and MaS therefore SoP.) For example, "No flowers are animals" and "All flowers are plants", therefore "Some plants are not animals". (Contributed by David A. Wheeler, 28-Aug-2016.) (Revised by David A. Wheeler, 2-Sep-2016.)
𝑥(𝜑 → ¬ 𝜓)    &   𝑥(𝜑𝜒)    &   𝑥𝜑       𝑥(𝜒 ∧ ¬ 𝜓)

Theoremdarapti 2015 "Darapti", one of the syllogisms of Aristotelian logic. All 𝜑 is 𝜓, all 𝜑 is 𝜒, and some 𝜑 exist, therefore some 𝜒 is 𝜓. (In Aristotelian notation, AAI-3: MaP and MaS therefore SiP.) For example, "All squares are rectangles" and "All squares are rhombuses", therefore "Some rhombuses are rectangles". (Contributed by David A. Wheeler, 28-Aug-2016.)
𝑥(𝜑𝜓)    &   𝑥(𝜑𝜒)    &   𝑥𝜑       𝑥(𝜒𝜓)

Theoremcalemes 2016 "Calemes", one of the syllogisms of Aristotelian logic. All 𝜑 is 𝜓, and no 𝜓 is 𝜒, therefore no 𝜒 is 𝜑. (In Aristotelian notation, AEE-4: PaM and MeS therefore SeP.) (Contributed by David A. Wheeler, 28-Aug-2016.) (Revised by David A. Wheeler, 2-Sep-2016.)
𝑥(𝜑𝜓)    &   𝑥(𝜓 → ¬ 𝜒)       𝑥(𝜒 → ¬ 𝜑)

Theoremdimatis 2017 "Dimatis", one of the syllogisms of Aristotelian logic. Some 𝜑 is 𝜓, and all 𝜓 is 𝜒, therefore some 𝜒 is 𝜑. (In Aristotelian notation, IAI-4: PiM and MaS therefore SiP.) For example, "Some pets are rabbits.", "All rabbits have fur", therefore "Some fur bearing animals are pets". Like darii 2000 with positions interchanged. (Contributed by David A. Wheeler, 28-Aug-2016.)
𝑥(𝜑𝜓)    &   𝑥(𝜓𝜒)       𝑥(𝜒𝜑)

Theoremfresison 2018 "Fresison", one of the syllogisms of Aristotelian logic. No 𝜑 is 𝜓 (PeM), and some 𝜓 is 𝜒 (MiS), therefore some 𝜒 is not 𝜑 (SoP). (In Aristotelian notation, EIO-4: PeM and MiS therefore SoP.) (Contributed by David A. Wheeler, 28-Aug-2016.) (Revised by David A. Wheeler, 2-Sep-2016.)
𝑥(𝜑 → ¬ 𝜓)    &   𝑥(𝜓𝜒)       𝑥(𝜒 ∧ ¬ 𝜑)

Theoremcalemos 2019 "Calemos", one of the syllogisms of Aristotelian logic. All 𝜑 is 𝜓 (PaM), no 𝜓 is 𝜒 (MeS), and 𝜒 exist, therefore some 𝜒 is not 𝜑 (SoP). (In Aristotelian notation, AEO-4: PaM and MeS therefore SoP.) (Contributed by David A. Wheeler, 28-Aug-2016.) (Revised by David A. Wheeler, 2-Sep-2016.)
𝑥(𝜑𝜓)    &   𝑥(𝜓 → ¬ 𝜒)    &   𝑥𝜒       𝑥(𝜒 ∧ ¬ 𝜑)

Theoremfesapo 2020 "Fesapo", one of the syllogisms of Aristotelian logic. No 𝜑 is 𝜓, all 𝜓 is 𝜒, and 𝜓 exist, therefore some 𝜒 is not 𝜑. (In Aristotelian notation, EAO-4: PeM and MaS therefore SoP.) (Contributed by David A. Wheeler, 28-Aug-2016.) (Revised by David A. Wheeler, 2-Sep-2016.)
𝑥(𝜑 → ¬ 𝜓)    &   𝑥(𝜓𝜒)    &   𝑥𝜓       𝑥(𝜒 ∧ ¬ 𝜑)

Theorembamalip 2021 "Bamalip", one of the syllogisms of Aristotelian logic. All 𝜑 is 𝜓, all 𝜓 is 𝜒, and 𝜑 exist, therefore some 𝜒 is 𝜑. (In Aristotelian notation, AAI-4: PaM and MaS therefore SiP.) Like barbari 2002. (Contributed by David A. Wheeler, 28-Aug-2016.)
𝑥(𝜑𝜓)    &   𝑥(𝜓𝜒)    &   𝑥𝜑       𝑥(𝜒𝜑)

PART 2  SET THEORY

Set theory uses the formalism of propositional and predicate calculus to assert properties of arbitrary mathematical objects called "sets." A set can be an element of another set, and this relationship is indicated by the symbol. Starting with the simplest mathematical object, called the empty set, set theory builds up more and more complex structures whose existence follows from the axioms, eventually resulting in extremely complicated sets that we identify with the real numbers and other familiar mathematical objects.

Here we develop set theory based on the Intuitionistic Zermelo-Fraenkel (IZF) system, mostly following the IZF axioms as laid out in [Crosilla]. Constructive Zermelo-Fraenkel (CZF), also described in Crosilla, is not as easy to formalize in metamath because the Axiom of Restricted Separation would require us to develop the ability to classify formulas as bounded formulas, similar to the machinery we have built up for asserting on whether variables are free in formulas.

2.1.1  Introduce the Axiom of Extensionality

Axiomax-ext 2022* Axiom of Extensionality. It states that two sets are identical if they contain the same elements. Axiom 1 of [Crosilla] p. "Axioms of CZF and IZF" (with unnecessary quantifiers removed).

Set theory can also be formulated with a single primitive predicate on top of traditional predicate calculus without equality. In that case the Axiom of Extensionality becomes (∀𝑤(𝑤𝑥𝑤𝑦) → (𝑥𝑧𝑦𝑧)), and equality 𝑥 = 𝑦 is defined as 𝑤(𝑤𝑥𝑤𝑦). All of the usual axioms of equality then become theorems of set theory. See, for example, Axiom 1 of [TakeutiZaring] p. 8.

To use the above "equality-free" version of Extensionality with Metamath's logical axioms, we would rewrite ax-8 1395 through ax-16 1695 with equality expanded according to the above definition. Some of those axioms could be proved from set theory and would be redundant. Not all of them are redundant, since our axioms of predicate calculus make essential use of equality for the proper substitution that is a primitive notion in traditional predicate calculus. A study of such an axiomatization would be an interesting project for someone exploring the foundations of logic.

It is important to understand that strictly speaking, all of our set theory axioms are really schemes that represent an infinite number of actual axioms. This is inherent in the design of Metamath ("metavariable math"), which manipulates only metavariables. For example, the metavariable 𝑥 in ax-ext 2022 can represent any actual variable v1, v2, v3,... . Distinct variable restrictions (\$d) prevent us from substituting say v1 for both 𝑥 and 𝑧. This is in contrast to typical textbook presentations that present actual axioms (except for axioms which involve wff metavariables). In practice, though, the theorems and proofs are essentially the same. The \$d restrictions make each of the infinite axioms generated by the ax-ext 2022 scheme exactly logically equivalent to each other and in particular to the actual axiom of the textbook version. (Contributed by NM, 5-Aug-1993.)

(∀𝑧(𝑧𝑥𝑧𝑦) → 𝑥 = 𝑦)

Theoremaxext3 2023* A generalization of the Axiom of Extensionality in which 𝑥 and 𝑦 need not be distinct. (Contributed by NM, 15-Sep-1993.) (Proof shortened by Andrew Salmon, 12-Aug-2011.)
(∀𝑧(𝑧𝑥𝑧𝑦) → 𝑥 = 𝑦)

Theoremaxext4 2024* A bidirectional version of Extensionality. Although this theorem "looks" like it is just a definition of equality, it requires the Axiom of Extensionality for its proof under our axiomatization. See the comments for ax-ext 2022. (Contributed by NM, 14-Nov-2008.)
(𝑥 = 𝑦 ↔ ∀𝑧(𝑧𝑥𝑧𝑦))

Theorembm1.1 2025* Any set defined by a property is the only set defined by that property. Theorem 1.1 of [BellMachover] p. 462. (Contributed by NM, 30-Jun-1994.)
𝑥𝜑       (∃𝑥𝑦(𝑦𝑥𝜑) → ∃!𝑥𝑦(𝑦𝑥𝜑))

2.1.2  Class abstractions (a.k.a. class builders)

Syntaxcab 2026 Introduce the class builder or class abstraction notation ("the class of sets 𝑥 such that 𝜑 is true"). Our class variables 𝐴, 𝐵, etc. range over class builders (sometimes implicitly). Note that a setvar variable can be expressed as a class builder per theorem cvjust 2035, justifying the assignment of setvar variables to class variables via the use of cv 1242.
class {𝑥𝜑}

Definitiondf-clab 2027 Define class abstraction notation (so-called by Quine), also called a "class builder" in the literature. 𝑥 and 𝑦 need not be distinct. Definition 2.1 of [Quine] p. 16. Typically, 𝜑 will have 𝑦 as a free variable, and "{𝑦𝜑} " is read "the class of all sets 𝑦 such that 𝜑(𝑦) is true." We do not define {𝑦𝜑} in isolation but only as part of an expression that extends or "overloads" the relationship.

This is our first use of the symbol to connect classes instead of sets. The syntax definition wcel 1393, which extends or "overloads" the wel 1394 definition connecting setvar variables, requires that both sides of be a class. In df-cleq 2033 and df-clel 2036, we introduce a new kind of variable (class variable) that can substituted with expressions such as {𝑦𝜑}. In the present definition, the 𝑥 on the left-hand side is a setvar variable. Syntax definition cv 1242 allows us to substitute a setvar variable 𝑥 for a class variable: all sets are classes by cvjust 2035 (but not necessarily vice-versa). For a full description of how classes are introduced and how to recover the primitive language, see the discussion in Quine (and under abeq2 2146 for a quick overview).

Because class variables can be substituted with compound expressions and setvar variables cannot, it is often useful to convert a theorem containing a free setvar variable to a more general version with a class variable.

This is called the "axiom of class comprehension" by [Levy] p. 338, who treats the theory of classes as an extralogical extension to our logic and set theory axioms. He calls the construction {𝑦𝜑} a "class term".

For a general discussion of the theory of classes, see http://us.metamath.org/mpeuni/mmset.html#class. (Contributed by NM, 5-Aug-1993.)

(𝑥 ∈ {𝑦𝜑} ↔ [𝑥 / 𝑦]𝜑)

Theoremabid 2028 Simplification of class abstraction notation when the free and bound variables are identical. (Contributed by NM, 5-Aug-1993.)
(𝑥 ∈ {𝑥𝜑} ↔ 𝜑)

Theoremhbab1 2029* Bound-variable hypothesis builder for a class abstraction. (Contributed by NM, 5-Aug-1993.)
(𝑦 ∈ {𝑥𝜑} → ∀𝑥 𝑦 ∈ {𝑥𝜑})

Theoremnfsab1 2030* Bound-variable hypothesis builder for a class abstraction. (Contributed by Mario Carneiro, 11-Aug-2016.)
𝑥 𝑦 ∈ {𝑥𝜑}

Theoremhbab 2031* Bound-variable hypothesis builder for a class abstraction. (Contributed by NM, 1-Mar-1995.)
(𝜑 → ∀𝑥𝜑)       (𝑧 ∈ {𝑦𝜑} → ∀𝑥 𝑧 ∈ {𝑦𝜑})

Theoremnfsab 2032* Bound-variable hypothesis builder for a class abstraction. (Contributed by Mario Carneiro, 11-Aug-2016.)
𝑥𝜑       𝑥 𝑧 ∈ {𝑦𝜑}

Definitiondf-cleq 2033* Define the equality connective between classes. Definition 2.7 of [Quine] p. 18. Also Definition 4.5 of [TakeutiZaring] p. 13; Chapter 4 provides its justification and methods for eliminating it. Note that its elimination will not necessarily result in a single wff in the original language but possibly a "scheme" of wffs.

This is an example of a somewhat "risky" definition, meaning that it has a more complex than usual soundness justification (outside of Metamath), because it "overloads" or reuses the existing equality symbol rather than introducing a new symbol. This allows us to make statements that may not hold for the original symbol. For example, it permits us to deduce 𝑦 = 𝑧 ↔ ∀𝑥(𝑥𝑦𝑥𝑧), which is not a theorem of logic but rather presupposes the Axiom of Extensionality (see theorem axext4 2024). We therefore include this axiom as a hypothesis, so that the use of Extensionality is properly indicated.

We could avoid this complication by introducing a new symbol, say =2, in place of =. This would also have the advantage of making elimination of the definition straightforward, so that we could eliminate Extensionality as a hypothesis. We would then also have the advantage of being able to identify in various proofs exactly where Extensionality truly comes into play rather than just being an artifact of a definition. One of our theorems would then be 𝑥 =2 𝑦𝑥 = 𝑦 by invoking Extensionality.

However, to conform to literature usage, we retain this overloaded definition. This also makes some proofs shorter and probably easier to read, without the constant switching between two kinds of equality.

In the form of dfcleq 2034, this is called the "axiom of extensionality" by [Levy] p. 338, who treats the theory of classes as an extralogical extension to our logic and set theory axioms.

For a general discussion of the theory of classes, see http://us.metamath.org/mpeuni/mmset.html#class. (Contributed by NM, 15-Sep-1993.)

(∀𝑥(𝑥𝑦𝑥𝑧) → 𝑦 = 𝑧)       (𝐴 = 𝐵 ↔ ∀𝑥(𝑥𝐴𝑥𝐵))

Theoremdfcleq 2034* The same as df-cleq 2033 with the hypothesis removed using the Axiom of Extensionality ax-ext 2022. (Contributed by NM, 15-Sep-1993.)
(𝐴 = 𝐵 ↔ ∀𝑥(𝑥𝐴𝑥𝐵))

Theoremcvjust 2035* Every set is a class. Proposition 4.9 of [TakeutiZaring] p. 13. This theorem shows that a setvar variable can be expressed as a class abstraction. This provides a motivation for the class syntax construction cv 1242, which allows us to substitute a setvar variable for a class variable. See also cab 2026 and df-clab 2027. Note that this is not a rigorous justification, because cv 1242 is used as part of the proof of this theorem, but a careful argument can be made outside of the formalism of Metamath, for example as is done in Chapter 4 of Takeuti and Zaring. See also the discussion under the definition of class in [Jech] p. 4 showing that "Every set can be considered to be a class." (Contributed by NM, 7-Nov-2006.)
𝑥 = {𝑦𝑦𝑥}

Definitiondf-clel 2036* Define the membership connective between classes. Theorem 6.3 of [Quine] p. 41, or Proposition 4.6 of [TakeutiZaring] p. 13, which we adopt as a definition. See these references for its metalogical justification. Note that like df-cleq 2033 it extends or "overloads" the use of the existing membership symbol, but unlike df-cleq 2033 it does not strengthen the set of valid wffs of logic when the class variables are replaced with setvar variables (see cleljust 1813), so we don't include any set theory axiom as a hypothesis. See also comments about the syntax under df-clab 2027.

This is called the "axiom of membership" by [Levy] p. 338, who treats the theory of classes as an extralogical extension to our logic and set theory axioms.

For a general discussion of the theory of classes, see http://us.metamath.org/mpeuni/mmset.html#class. (Contributed by NM, 5-Aug-1993.)

(𝐴𝐵 ↔ ∃𝑥(𝑥 = 𝐴𝑥𝐵))

Theoremeqriv 2037* Infer equality of classes from equivalence of membership. (Contributed by NM, 5-Aug-1993.)
(𝑥𝐴𝑥𝐵)       𝐴 = 𝐵

Theoremeqrdv 2038* Deduce equality of classes from equivalence of membership. (Contributed by NM, 17-Mar-1996.)
(𝜑 → (𝑥𝐴𝑥𝐵))       (𝜑𝐴 = 𝐵)

Theoremeqrdav 2039* Deduce equality of classes from an equivalence of membership that depends on the membership variable. (Contributed by NM, 7-Nov-2008.)
((𝜑𝑥𝐴) → 𝑥𝐶)    &   ((𝜑𝑥𝐵) → 𝑥𝐶)    &   ((𝜑𝑥𝐶) → (𝑥𝐴𝑥𝐵))       (𝜑𝐴 = 𝐵)

Theoremeqid 2040 Law of identity (reflexivity of class equality). Theorem 6.4 of [Quine] p. 41.

This law is thought to have originated with Aristotle (Metaphysics, Zeta, 17, 1041 a, 10-20). (Thanks to Stefan Allan and BJ for this information.) (Contributed by NM, 5-Aug-1993.) (Revised by BJ, 14-Oct-2017.)

𝐴 = 𝐴

Theoremeqidd 2041 Class identity law with antecedent. (Contributed by NM, 21-Aug-2008.)
(𝜑𝐴 = 𝐴)

Theoremeqcom 2042 Commutative law for class equality. Theorem 6.5 of [Quine] p. 41. (Contributed by NM, 5-Aug-1993.)
(𝐴 = 𝐵𝐵 = 𝐴)

Theoremeqcoms 2043 Inference applying commutative law for class equality to an antecedent. (Contributed by NM, 5-Aug-1993.)
(𝐴 = 𝐵𝜑)       (𝐵 = 𝐴𝜑)

Theoremeqcomi 2044 Inference from commutative law for class equality. (Contributed by NM, 5-Aug-1993.)
𝐴 = 𝐵       𝐵 = 𝐴

Theoremeqcomd 2045 Deduction from commutative law for class equality. (Contributed by NM, 15-Aug-1994.)
(𝜑𝐴 = 𝐵)       (𝜑𝐵 = 𝐴)

Theoremeqeq1 2046 Equality implies equivalence of equalities. (Contributed by NM, 5-Aug-1993.)
(𝐴 = 𝐵 → (𝐴 = 𝐶𝐵 = 𝐶))

Theoremeqeq1i 2047 Inference from equality to equivalence of equalities. (Contributed by NM, 5-Aug-1993.)
𝐴 = 𝐵       (𝐴 = 𝐶𝐵 = 𝐶)

Theoremeqeq1d 2048 Deduction from equality to equivalence of equalities. (Contributed by NM, 27-Dec-1993.)
(𝜑𝐴 = 𝐵)       (𝜑 → (𝐴 = 𝐶𝐵 = 𝐶))

Theoremeqeq2 2049 Equality implies equivalence of equalities. (Contributed by NM, 5-Aug-1993.)
(𝐴 = 𝐵 → (𝐶 = 𝐴𝐶 = 𝐵))

Theoremeqeq2i 2050 Inference from equality to equivalence of equalities. (Contributed by NM, 5-Aug-1993.)
𝐴 = 𝐵       (𝐶 = 𝐴𝐶 = 𝐵)

Theoremeqeq2d 2051 Deduction from equality to equivalence of equalities. (Contributed by NM, 27-Dec-1993.)
(𝜑𝐴 = 𝐵)       (𝜑 → (𝐶 = 𝐴𝐶 = 𝐵))

Theoremeqeq12 2052 Equality relationship among 4 classes. (Contributed by NM, 3-Aug-1994.)
((𝐴 = 𝐵𝐶 = 𝐷) → (𝐴 = 𝐶𝐵 = 𝐷))

Theoremeqeq12i 2053 A useful inference for substituting definitions into an equality. (Contributed by NM, 5-Aug-1993.) (Proof shortened by Andrew Salmon, 25-May-2011.)
𝐴 = 𝐵    &   𝐶 = 𝐷       (𝐴 = 𝐶𝐵 = 𝐷)

Theoremeqeq12d 2054 A useful inference for substituting definitions into an equality. (Contributed by NM, 5-Aug-1993.) (Proof shortened by Andrew Salmon, 25-May-2011.)
(𝜑𝐴 = 𝐵)    &   (𝜑𝐶 = 𝐷)       (𝜑 → (𝐴 = 𝐶𝐵 = 𝐷))

Theoremeqeqan12d 2055 A useful inference for substituting definitions into an equality. (Contributed by NM, 9-Aug-1994.) (Proof shortened by Andrew Salmon, 25-May-2011.)
(𝜑𝐴 = 𝐵)    &   (𝜓𝐶 = 𝐷)       ((𝜑𝜓) → (𝐴 = 𝐶𝐵 = 𝐷))

Theoremeqeqan12rd 2056 A useful inference for substituting definitions into an equality. (Contributed by NM, 9-Aug-1994.)
(𝜑𝐴 = 𝐵)    &   (𝜓𝐶 = 𝐷)       ((𝜓𝜑) → (𝐴 = 𝐶𝐵 = 𝐷))

Theoremeqtr 2057 Transitive law for class equality. Proposition 4.7(3) of [TakeutiZaring] p. 13. (Contributed by NM, 25-Jan-2004.)
((𝐴 = 𝐵𝐵 = 𝐶) → 𝐴 = 𝐶)

Theoremeqtr2 2058 A transitive law for class equality. (Contributed by NM, 20-May-2005.) (Proof shortened by Andrew Salmon, 25-May-2011.)
((𝐴 = 𝐵𝐴 = 𝐶) → 𝐵 = 𝐶)

Theoremeqtr3 2059 A transitive law for class equality. (Contributed by NM, 20-May-2005.)
((𝐴 = 𝐶𝐵 = 𝐶) → 𝐴 = 𝐵)

Theoremeqtri 2060 An equality transitivity inference. (Contributed by NM, 5-Aug-1993.)
𝐴 = 𝐵    &   𝐵 = 𝐶       𝐴 = 𝐶

Theoremeqtr2i 2061 An equality transitivity inference. (Contributed by NM, 21-Feb-1995.)
𝐴 = 𝐵    &   𝐵 = 𝐶       𝐶 = 𝐴

Theoremeqtr3i 2062 An equality transitivity inference. (Contributed by NM, 6-May-1994.)
𝐴 = 𝐵    &   𝐴 = 𝐶       𝐵 = 𝐶

Theoremeqtr4i 2063 An equality transitivity inference. (Contributed by NM, 5-Aug-1993.)
𝐴 = 𝐵    &   𝐶 = 𝐵       𝐴 = 𝐶

Theorem3eqtri 2064 An inference from three chained equalities. (Contributed by NM, 29-Aug-1993.)
𝐴 = 𝐵    &   𝐵 = 𝐶    &   𝐶 = 𝐷       𝐴 = 𝐷

Theorem3eqtrri 2065 An inference from three chained equalities. (Contributed by NM, 3-Aug-2006.) (Proof shortened by Andrew Salmon, 25-May-2011.)
𝐴 = 𝐵    &   𝐵 = 𝐶    &   𝐶 = 𝐷       𝐷 = 𝐴

Theorem3eqtr2i 2066 An inference from three chained equalities. (Contributed by NM, 3-Aug-2006.)
𝐴 = 𝐵    &   𝐶 = 𝐵    &   𝐶 = 𝐷       𝐴 = 𝐷

Theorem3eqtr2ri 2067 An inference from three chained equalities. (Contributed by NM, 3-Aug-2006.) (Proof shortened by Andrew Salmon, 25-May-2011.)
𝐴 = 𝐵    &   𝐶 = 𝐵    &   𝐶 = 𝐷       𝐷 = 𝐴

Theorem3eqtr3i 2068 An inference from three chained equalities. (Contributed by NM, 6-May-1994.) (Proof shortened by Andrew Salmon, 25-May-2011.)
𝐴 = 𝐵    &   𝐴 = 𝐶    &   𝐵 = 𝐷       𝐶 = 𝐷

Theorem3eqtr3ri 2069 An inference from three chained equalities. (Contributed by NM, 15-Aug-2004.)
𝐴 = 𝐵    &   𝐴 = 𝐶    &   𝐵 = 𝐷       𝐷 = 𝐶

Theorem3eqtr4i 2070 An inference from three chained equalities. (Contributed by NM, 5-Aug-1993.) (Proof shortened by Andrew Salmon, 25-May-2011.)
𝐴 = 𝐵    &   𝐶 = 𝐴    &   𝐷 = 𝐵       𝐶 = 𝐷

Theorem3eqtr4ri 2071 An inference from three chained equalities. (Contributed by NM, 2-Sep-1995.) (Proof shortened by Andrew Salmon, 25-May-2011.)
𝐴 = 𝐵    &   𝐶 = 𝐴    &   𝐷 = 𝐵       𝐷 = 𝐶

Theoremeqtrd 2072 An equality transitivity deduction. (Contributed by NM, 5-Aug-1993.)
(𝜑𝐴 = 𝐵)    &   (𝜑𝐵 = 𝐶)       (𝜑𝐴 = 𝐶)

Theoremeqtr2d 2073 An equality transitivity deduction. (Contributed by NM, 18-Oct-1999.)
(𝜑𝐴 = 𝐵)    &   (𝜑𝐵 = 𝐶)       (𝜑𝐶 = 𝐴)

Theoremeqtr3d 2074 An equality transitivity equality deduction. (Contributed by NM, 18-Jul-1995.)
(𝜑𝐴 = 𝐵)    &   (𝜑𝐴 = 𝐶)       (𝜑𝐵 = 𝐶)

Theoremeqtr4d 2075 An equality transitivity equality deduction. (Contributed by NM, 18-Jul-1995.)
(𝜑𝐴 = 𝐵)    &   (𝜑𝐶 = 𝐵)       (𝜑𝐴 = 𝐶)

Theorem3eqtrd 2076 A deduction from three chained equalities. (Contributed by NM, 29-Oct-1995.)
(𝜑𝐴 = 𝐵)    &   (𝜑𝐵 = 𝐶)    &   (𝜑𝐶 = 𝐷)       (𝜑𝐴 = 𝐷)

Theorem3eqtrrd 2077 A deduction from three chained equalities. (Contributed by NM, 4-Aug-2006.) (Proof shortened by Andrew Salmon, 25-May-2011.)
(𝜑𝐴 = 𝐵)    &   (𝜑𝐵 = 𝐶)    &   (𝜑𝐶 = 𝐷)       (𝜑𝐷 = 𝐴)

Theorem3eqtr2d 2078 A deduction from three chained equalities. (Contributed by NM, 4-Aug-2006.)
(𝜑𝐴 = 𝐵)    &   (𝜑𝐶 = 𝐵)    &   (𝜑𝐶 = 𝐷)       (𝜑𝐴 = 𝐷)

Theorem3eqtr2rd 2079 A deduction from three chained equalities. (Contributed by NM, 4-Aug-2006.)
(𝜑𝐴 = 𝐵)    &   (𝜑𝐶 = 𝐵)    &   (𝜑𝐶 = 𝐷)       (𝜑𝐷 = 𝐴)

Theorem3eqtr3d 2080 A deduction from three chained equalities. (Contributed by NM, 4-Aug-1995.) (Proof shortened by Andrew Salmon, 25-May-2011.)
(𝜑𝐴 = 𝐵)    &   (𝜑𝐴 = 𝐶)    &   (𝜑𝐵 = 𝐷)       (𝜑𝐶 = 𝐷)

Theorem3eqtr3rd 2081 A deduction from three chained equalities. (Contributed by NM, 14-Jan-2006.)
(𝜑𝐴 = 𝐵)    &   (𝜑𝐴 = 𝐶)    &   (𝜑𝐵 = 𝐷)       (𝜑𝐷 = 𝐶)

Theorem3eqtr4d 2082 A deduction from three chained equalities. (Contributed by NM, 4-Aug-1995.) (Proof shortened by Andrew Salmon, 25-May-2011.)
(𝜑𝐴 = 𝐵)    &   (𝜑𝐶 = 𝐴)    &   (𝜑𝐷 = 𝐵)       (𝜑𝐶 = 𝐷)

Theorem3eqtr4rd 2083 A deduction from three chained equalities. (Contributed by NM, 21-Sep-1995.)
(𝜑𝐴 = 𝐵)    &   (𝜑𝐶 = 𝐴)    &   (𝜑𝐷 = 𝐵)       (𝜑𝐷 = 𝐶)

Theoremsyl5eq 2084 An equality transitivity deduction. (Contributed by NM, 5-Aug-1993.)
𝐴 = 𝐵    &   (𝜑𝐵 = 𝐶)       (𝜑𝐴 = 𝐶)

Theoremsyl5req 2085 An equality transitivity deduction. (Contributed by NM, 29-Mar-1998.)
𝐴 = 𝐵    &   (𝜑𝐵 = 𝐶)       (𝜑𝐶 = 𝐴)

Theoremsyl5eqr 2086 An equality transitivity deduction. (Contributed by NM, 5-Aug-1993.)
𝐵 = 𝐴    &   (𝜑𝐵 = 𝐶)       (𝜑𝐴 = 𝐶)

Theoremsyl5reqr 2087 An equality transitivity deduction. (Contributed by NM, 29-Mar-1998.)
𝐵 = 𝐴    &   (𝜑𝐵 = 𝐶)       (𝜑𝐶 = 𝐴)

Theoremsyl6eq 2088 An equality transitivity deduction. (Contributed by NM, 5-Aug-1993.)
(𝜑𝐴 = 𝐵)    &   𝐵 = 𝐶       (𝜑𝐴 = 𝐶)

Theoremsyl6req 2089 An equality transitivity deduction. (Contributed by NM, 29-Mar-1998.)
(𝜑𝐴 = 𝐵)    &   𝐵 = 𝐶       (𝜑𝐶 = 𝐴)

Theoremsyl6eqr 2090 An equality transitivity deduction. (Contributed by NM, 5-Aug-1993.)
(𝜑𝐴 = 𝐵)    &   𝐶 = 𝐵       (𝜑𝐴 = 𝐶)

Theoremsyl6reqr 2091 An equality transitivity deduction. (Contributed by NM, 29-Mar-1998.)
(𝜑𝐴 = 𝐵)    &   𝐶 = 𝐵       (𝜑𝐶 = 𝐴)

Theoremsylan9eq 2092 An equality transitivity deduction. (Contributed by NM, 8-May-1994.) (Proof shortened by Andrew Salmon, 25-May-2011.)
(𝜑𝐴 = 𝐵)    &   (𝜓𝐵 = 𝐶)       ((𝜑𝜓) → 𝐴 = 𝐶)

Theoremsylan9req 2093 An equality transitivity deduction. (Contributed by NM, 23-Jun-2007.)
(𝜑𝐵 = 𝐴)    &   (𝜓𝐵 = 𝐶)       ((𝜑𝜓) → 𝐴 = 𝐶)

Theoremsylan9eqr 2094 An equality transitivity deduction. (Contributed by NM, 8-May-1994.)
(𝜑𝐴 = 𝐵)    &   (𝜓𝐵 = 𝐶)       ((𝜓𝜑) → 𝐴 = 𝐶)

Theorem3eqtr3g 2095 A chained equality inference, useful for converting from definitions. (Contributed by NM, 15-Nov-1994.)
(𝜑𝐴 = 𝐵)    &   𝐴 = 𝐶    &   𝐵 = 𝐷       (𝜑𝐶 = 𝐷)

Theorem3eqtr3a 2096 A chained equality inference, useful for converting from definitions. (Contributed by Mario Carneiro, 6-Nov-2015.)
𝐴 = 𝐵    &   (𝜑𝐴 = 𝐶)    &   (𝜑𝐵 = 𝐷)       (𝜑𝐶 = 𝐷)

Theorem3eqtr4g 2097 A chained equality inference, useful for converting to definitions. (Contributed by NM, 5-Aug-1993.)
(𝜑𝐴 = 𝐵)    &   𝐶 = 𝐴    &   𝐷 = 𝐵       (𝜑𝐶 = 𝐷)

Theorem3eqtr4a 2098 A chained equality inference, useful for converting to definitions. (Contributed by NM, 2-Feb-2007.) (Proof shortened by Andrew Salmon, 25-May-2011.)
𝐴 = 𝐵    &   (𝜑𝐶 = 𝐴)    &   (𝜑𝐷 = 𝐵)       (𝜑𝐶 = 𝐷)

Theoremeq2tri 2099 A compound transitive inference for class equality. (Contributed by NM, 22-Jan-2004.)
(𝐴 = 𝐶𝐷 = 𝐹)    &   (𝐵 = 𝐷𝐶 = 𝐺)       ((𝐴 = 𝐶𝐵 = 𝐹) ↔ (𝐵 = 𝐷𝐴 = 𝐺))

Theoremeleq1 2100 Equality implies equivalence of membership. (Contributed by NM, 5-Aug-1993.)
(𝐴 = 𝐵 → (𝐴𝐶𝐵𝐶))

Page List
Jump to page: Contents  1 1-100 2 101-200 3 201-300 4 301-400 5 401-500 6 501-600 7 601-700 8 701-800 9 801-900 10 901-1000 11 1001-1100 12 1101-1200 13 1201-1300 14 1301-1400 15 1401-1500 16 1501-1600 17 1601-1700 18 1701-1800 19 1801-1900 20 1901-2000 21 2001-2100 22 2101-2200 23 2201-2300 24 2301-2400 25 2401-2500 26 2501-2600 27 2601-2700 28 2701-2800 29 2801-2900 30 2901-3000 31 3001-3100 32 3101-3200 33 3201-3300 34 3301-3400 35 3401-3500 36 3501-3600 37 3601-3700 38 3701-3800 39 3801-3900 40 3901-4000 41 4001-4100 42 4101-4200 43 4201-4300 44 4301-4400 45 4401-4500 46 4501-4600 47 4601-4700 48 4701-4800 49 4801-4900 50 4901-5000 51 5001-5100 52 5101-5200 53 5201-5300 54 5301-5400 55 5401-5500 56 5501-5600 57 5601-5700 58 5701-5800 59 5801-5900 60 5901-6000 61 6001-6100 62 6101-6200 63 6201-6300 64 6301-6400 65 6401-6500 66 6501-6600 67 6601-6700 68 6701-6800 69 6801-6900 70 6901-7000 71 7001-7100 72 7101-7200 73 7201-7300 74 7301-7400 75 7401-7500 76 7501-7600 77 7601-7700 78 7701-7800 79 7801-7900 80 7901-8000 81 8001-8100 82 8101-8200 83 8201-8300 84 8301-8400 85 8401-8500 86 8501-8600 87 8601-8700 88 8701-8800 89 8801-8900 90 8901-9000 91 9001-9100 92 9101-9200 93 9201-9300 94 9301-9400 95 9401-9500 96 9501-9600 97 9601-9700 98 9701-9800 99 9801-9900 100 9901-10000 101 10001-10100 102 10101-10124
 Copyright terms: Public domain < Previous  Next >