(copying my answer, something odd seems to have happened to the first post)

The first assumption ( A = B -> ( ps <-> ch ) ) is the idiomatic way to say
that ch is the result of substituting A for B in ps, and there are many
theorems that produce results of this form. The theorem is still true when
you only have a one-directional implication (in fact the first step of the
proof is to weaken it to one), but users of the theorem will normally have
the biconditional on hand so it is more convenient to write it that way to
make the theorems more interoperable.

This theorem is true in any classical logic, so it holds in both NF and
ZFC. (It does not hold in iset.mm, which uses intuitionistic logic, because
there is a case distinction on A = B in this theorem.) New Foundations is
an axiomatic system with a lot in common with ZFC, and basic theorems like
this will be true in both.

On Fri, Sep 29, 2023 at 11:46 PM [email protected] <[email protected]> wrote:

> Theorem pm2.61ne is the following:
>
> Hypotheses:
> pm2.61ne.1 |- ( A = B -> ( ps <-> ch ) )
> pm2.61ne.2 |- ( ( ph and A =/= B ) -> ps )
> pm2.61ne/3 |- ( ph -> ch )
>
> Assertion:
> pm2.61ne |- ( ph -> ps )
>
> Question 1. Why isn't the first hypothesis given in the weaker condition:
>
> pm2.61ne.1weaker |- ( A = B -> (  ch -> ps ) )
>
> Question 2. How does this "new foundations" fit in with metamath? It seems
> like "new foundations" is being mixed together with "zfc foundation". For
> example, Theorem msqge0 that asserts A in R -> 0 <= A * A uses pm2.61ne in
> its proof.
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Metamath" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to [email protected].
> To view this discussion on the web visit
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/metamath/4765307e-2a18-40aa-a754-7591522e4305n%40googlegroups.com
> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/metamath/4765307e-2a18-40aa-a754-7591522e4305n%40googlegroups.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>
> .
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Metamath" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to [email protected].
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/metamath/CAFXXJSs%3Dz1XsXK2AZs%3DD%3Dj-eg%2Bewt%3DyB%2B0pqDakKURFwrfHCrA%40mail.gmail.com.

Reply via email to