id
stringlengths
11
15
title
stringlengths
7
171
problem
stringlengths
9
4.33k
solution
stringlengths
6
19k
problem_wikitext
stringlengths
9
4.42k
solution_wikitext
stringlengths
7
19.1k
proof_title
stringlengths
9
171
theorem_url
stringlengths
34
198
proof_url
stringlengths
36
198
categories
listlengths
0
9
theorem_references
listlengths
0
36
proof_references
listlengths
0
253
proofwiki-6700
Self-Distributive Law for Conditional/Formulation 2
:$\vdash \paren {p \implies \paren {q \implies r} } \iff \paren {\paren {p \implies q} \implies \paren {p \implies r} }$
{{BeginTableau |\vdash \paren {\paren {p \implies q} \implies \paren {p \implies r} } \implies \paren {p \implies \paren {q \implies r} } }} {{Assumption|1|\paren {p \implies q} \implies \paren {p \implies r} }} {{Assumption|2|p}} {{Assumption|3|q}} {{SequentIntro|4|3|p \implies q|3|True Statement is implied by Every S...
:$\vdash \paren {p \implies \paren {q \implies r} } \iff \paren {\paren {p \implies q} \implies \paren {p \implies r} }$
{{BeginTableau |\vdash \paren {\paren {p \implies q} \implies \paren {p \implies r} } \implies \paren {p \implies \paren {q \implies r} } }} {{Assumption|1|\paren {p \implies q} \implies \paren {p \implies r} }} {{Assumption|2|p}} {{Assumption|3|q}} {{SequentIntro|4|3|p \implies q|3|[[True Statement is implied by Every...
Self-Distributive Law for Conditional/Formulation 2/Reverse Implication/Proof 2
https://proofwiki.org/wiki/Self-Distributive_Law_for_Conditional/Formulation_2
https://proofwiki.org/wiki/Self-Distributive_Law_for_Conditional/Formulation_2/Reverse_Implication/Proof_2
[ "Self-Distributive Law for Conditional" ]
[]
[ "True Statement is implied by Every Statement" ]
proofwiki-6701
Cauchy-Riemann Equations/Necessary Condition
Let $D \subseteq \C$ be an open subset of the set of complex numbers $\C$. Let $f: D \to \C$ be a complex function on $D$. Let $u, v: \set {\tuple {x, y} \in \R^2: x + i y = z \in D} \to \R$ be the two real-valued functions defined as: {{begin-eqn}} {{eqn | l = \map u {x, y} | r = \map \Re {\map f z} }} {{eqn | l...
Let $z = x + i y \in D$. The Epsilon-Function Complex Differentiability Condition shows that there exists $r \in \R_{>0}$ such that for all $t \in \map {B_r} 0 \setminus \set 0$: :$(\text a): \quad \map f {z + t} = \map f z + t \paren {\map {f'} z + \map \epsilon t}$ where: :$\map {B_r} 0$ denotes an open ball of $0$ :...
Let $D \subseteq \C$ be an [[Definition:Open Set (Complex Analysis)|open]] [[Definition:Subset|subset]] of the [[Definition:Set|set]] of [[Definition:Complex Number|complex numbers]] $\C$. Let $f: D \to \C$ be a [[Definition:Complex Function|complex function]] on $D$. Let $u, v: \set {\tuple {x, y} \in \R^2: x + i y...
Let $z = x + i y \in D$. The [[Epsilon-Function Complex Differentiability Condition]] shows that there exists $r \in \R_{>0}$ such that for all $t \in \map {B_r} 0 \setminus \set 0$: :$(\text a): \quad \map f {z + t} = \map f z + t \paren {\map {f'} z + \map \epsilon t}$ where: :$\map {B_r} 0$ denotes an [[Definitio...
Cauchy-Riemann Equations/Necessary Condition
https://proofwiki.org/wiki/Cauchy-Riemann_Equations/Necessary_Condition
https://proofwiki.org/wiki/Cauchy-Riemann_Equations/Necessary_Condition
[ "Cauchy-Riemann Equations" ]
[ "Definition:Open Set/Complex Analysis", "Definition:Subset", "Definition:Set", "Definition:Complex Number", "Definition:Complex Function", "Definition:Real-Valued Function", "Definition:Complex Number/Real Part", "Definition:Complex Number/Imaginary Part", "Definition:Differentiable Mapping/Complex ...
[ "Epsilon-Function Differentiability Condition/Complex Case", "Definition:Open Ball", "Definition:Complex Function", "Definition:Complex Number/Real Part", "Addition of Real and Imaginary Parts", "Multiplication of Real and Imaginary Parts", "Definition:Partial Derivative", "Definition:Complex Number/W...
proofwiki-6702
Self-Distributive Law for Conditional/Formulation 1
:$p \implies \paren {q \implies r} \dashv \vdash \paren {p \implies q} \implies \paren {p \implies r}$
{{BeginTableau|p \implies \paren {q \implies r} \vdash \paren {p \implies q} \implies \paren {p \implies r} }} {{Premise|1|p \implies \paren {q \implies r} }} {{Assumption|2|p \implies q}} {{Assumption|3|p}} {{ModusPonens|4|1, 3|q \implies r|1|3}} {{ModusPonens|5|2, 3|q|2|3}} {{ModusPonens|6|1, 2, 3|r|4|5}} {{Implicati...
:$p \implies \paren {q \implies r} \dashv \vdash \paren {p \implies q} \implies \paren {p \implies r}$
{{BeginTableau|p \implies \paren {q \implies r} \vdash \paren {p \implies q} \implies \paren {p \implies r} }} {{Premise|1|p \implies \paren {q \implies r} }} {{Assumption|2|p \implies q}} {{Assumption|3|p}} {{ModusPonens|4|1, 3|q \implies r|1|3}} {{ModusPonens|5|2, 3|q|2|3}} {{ModusPonens|6|1, 2, 3|r|4|5}} {{Implicati...
Self-Distributive Law for Conditional/Formulation 1/Forward Implication/Proof
https://proofwiki.org/wiki/Self-Distributive_Law_for_Conditional/Formulation_1
https://proofwiki.org/wiki/Self-Distributive_Law_for_Conditional/Formulation_1/Forward_Implication/Proof
[ "Self-Distributive Law for Conditional" ]
[]
[]
proofwiki-6703
Self-Distributive Law for Conditional/Formulation 1
:$p \implies \paren {q \implies r} \dashv \vdash \paren {p \implies q} \implies \paren {p \implies r}$
We apply the Method of Truth Tables to the proposition: $p \implies \paren {q \implies r} \dashv \vdash \paren {p \implies q} \implies \paren {p \implies r}$ As can be seen by inspection, the truth values under the main connectives match for all boolean interpretations. $\begin{array}{|ccccc||ccccccc|} \hline p & \impl...
:$p \implies \paren {q \implies r} \dashv \vdash \paren {p \implies q} \implies \paren {p \implies r}$
We apply the [[Method of Truth Tables]] to the proposition: $p \implies \paren {q \implies r} \dashv \vdash \paren {p \implies q} \implies \paren {p \implies r}$ As can be seen by inspection, the [[Definition:Truth Value|truth values]] under the [[Definition:Main Connective (Propositional Logic)|main connectives]] mat...
Self-Distributive Law for Conditional/Formulation 1/Proof by Truth Table
https://proofwiki.org/wiki/Self-Distributive_Law_for_Conditional/Formulation_1
https://proofwiki.org/wiki/Self-Distributive_Law_for_Conditional/Formulation_1/Proof_by_Truth_Table
[ "Self-Distributive Law for Conditional" ]
[]
[ "Method of Truth Tables", "Definition:Truth Value", "Definition:Main Connective/Propositional Logic", "Definition:Boolean Interpretation" ]
proofwiki-6704
Self-Distributive Law for Conditional/Formulation 1
:$p \implies \paren {q \implies r} \dashv \vdash \paren {p \implies q} \implies \paren {p \implies r}$
{{BeginTableau|\paren {p \implies q} \implies \paren {p \implies r} \vdash p \implies \paren {q \implies r} }} {{Premise|1|\paren {p \implies q} \implies \paren {p \implies r} }} {{Assumption|2|p}} {{Assumption|3|q}} {{SequentIntro|4|3|p \implies q|3|True Statement is implied by Every Statement}} {{ModusPonens|5|1, 3|p...
:$p \implies \paren {q \implies r} \dashv \vdash \paren {p \implies q} \implies \paren {p \implies r}$
{{BeginTableau|\paren {p \implies q} \implies \paren {p \implies r} \vdash p \implies \paren {q \implies r} }} {{Premise|1|\paren {p \implies q} \implies \paren {p \implies r} }} {{Assumption|2|p}} {{Assumption|3|q}} {{SequentIntro|4|3|p \implies q|3|[[True Statement is implied by Every Statement]]}} {{ModusPonens|5|1,...
Self-Distributive Law for Conditional/Formulation 1/Reverse Implication/Proof
https://proofwiki.org/wiki/Self-Distributive_Law_for_Conditional/Formulation_1
https://proofwiki.org/wiki/Self-Distributive_Law_for_Conditional/Formulation_1/Reverse_Implication/Proof
[ "Self-Distributive Law for Conditional" ]
[]
[ "True Statement is implied by Every Statement" ]
proofwiki-6705
Cauchy-Riemann Equations/Sufficient Condition
Let $D \subseteq \C$ be an open subset of the set of complex numbers $\C$. Let $f: D \to \C$ be a complex function on $D$. Let $u, v: \set {\paren {x, y} \in \R^2: x + i y = z \in D} \to \R$ be two real-valued functions defined as: :$\map u {x, y} = \map \Re {\map f z}$ :$\map v {x, y} = \map \Im {\map f z}$ where: :$\...
Suppose that the '''Cauchy-Riemann equations''' hold for $u$ and $v$ in their entire domain. Let $h, k \in \R \setminus \set 0$, and put $t = h + i k \in \C$. Let $\tuple {x, y} \in \R^2$ be a point in the domain of $u$ and $v$. Put: :$a = \map {\dfrac {\partial u} {\partial x} } {x, y} = \map {\dfrac {\partial v} {\pa...
Let $D \subseteq \C$ be an [[Definition:Open Set (Complex Analysis)|open]] [[Definition:Subset|subset]] of the [[Definition:Set|set]] of [[Definition:Complex Number|complex numbers]] $\C$. Let $f: D \to \C$ be a [[Definition:Complex Function|complex function]] on $D$. Let $u, v: \set {\paren {x, y} \in \R^2: x + i y...
Suppose that the '''Cauchy-Riemann equations''' hold for $u$ and $v$ in their entire [[Definition:Domain of Mapping|domain]]. Let $h, k \in \R \setminus \set 0$, and put $t = h + i k \in \C$. Let $\tuple {x, y} \in \R^2$ be a [[Definition:Point|point]] in the [[Definition:Domain of Mapping|domain]] of $u$ and $v$. P...
Cauchy-Riemann Equations/Sufficient Condition
https://proofwiki.org/wiki/Cauchy-Riemann_Equations/Sufficient_Condition
https://proofwiki.org/wiki/Cauchy-Riemann_Equations/Sufficient_Condition
[ "Cauchy-Riemann Equations" ]
[ "Definition:Open Set/Complex Analysis", "Definition:Subset", "Definition:Set", "Definition:Complex Number", "Definition:Complex Function", "Definition:Real-Valued Function", "Definition:Complex Number/Real Part", "Definition:Complex Number/Imaginary Part", "Definition:Differentiable Mapping/Real-Val...
[ "Definition:Domain (Set Theory)/Mapping", "Definition:Point", "Definition:Domain (Set Theory)/Mapping", "Epsilon-Function Differentiability Condition", "Definition:Real Function", "Definition:Convergent Mapping", "Definition:Partial Derivative", "Definition:Continuous Real Function", "Epsilon-Functi...
proofwiki-6706
Cauchy-Riemann Equations/Expression of Derivative
Let $D \subseteq \C$ be an open subset of the set of complex numbers $\C$. Let $f: D \to \C$ be a complex function on $D$. Let $u, v: \set {\tuple {x, y} \in \R^2: x + i y = z \in D} \to \R$ be two real-valued functions defined as: {{begin-eqn}} {{eqn | l = \map u {x, y} | r = \map \Re {\map f z} }} {{eqn | l = \...
Let $z = x + i y$. Then: {{begin-eqn}} {{eqn | l = \map {\dfrac {\partial f} {\partial x} } z | r = \map {\dfrac {\partial u} {\partial x} } {x, y} + i \map {\dfrac {\partial v} {\partial x} } {x, y} }} {{eqn | r = \map \Re {\map {f'} z} + i \, \map \Im {\map {f'} z} | c = from the last part of the proof fo...
Let $D \subseteq \C$ be an [[Definition:Open Set (Complex Analysis)|open]] [[Definition:Subset|subset]] of the [[Definition:Set|set]] of [[Definition:Complex Number|complex numbers]] $\C$. Let $f: D \to \C$ be a [[Definition:Complex Function|complex function]] on $D$. Let $u, v: \set {\tuple {x, y} \in \R^2: x + i y...
Let $z = x + i y$. Then: {{begin-eqn}} {{eqn | l = \map {\dfrac {\partial f} {\partial x} } z | r = \map {\dfrac {\partial u} {\partial x} } {x, y} + i \map {\dfrac {\partial v} {\partial x} } {x, y} }} {{eqn | r = \map \Re {\map {f'} z} + i \, \map \Im {\map {f'} z} | c = from the last part of the [[Cau...
Cauchy-Riemann Equations/Expression of Derivative
https://proofwiki.org/wiki/Cauchy-Riemann_Equations/Expression_of_Derivative
https://proofwiki.org/wiki/Cauchy-Riemann_Equations/Expression_of_Derivative
[ "Cauchy-Riemann Equations" ]
[ "Definition:Open Set/Complex Analysis", "Definition:Subset", "Definition:Set", "Definition:Complex Number", "Definition:Complex Function", "Definition:Real-Valued Function", "Definition:Complex Number/Real Part", "Definition:Complex Number/Imaginary Part", "Definition:Differentiable Mapping/Complex ...
[ "Cauchy-Riemann Equations/Sufficient Condition", "Cauchy-Riemann Equations/Sufficient Condition" ]
proofwiki-6707
Succeed is Dual to Precede
Let $\left({S, \preceq}\right)$ be an ordered set. Let $a, b \in S$. The following are dual statements: :$a$ succeeds $b$ :$a$ precedes $b$
By definition, $a$ succeeds $b$ {{iff}}: :$b \preceq a$ The dual of this statement is: :$a \preceq b$ by Dual Pairs (Order Theory). By definition, this means $a$ precedes $b$. The converse follows from Dual of Dual Statement (Order Theory). {{qed}}
Let $\left({S, \preceq}\right)$ be an [[Definition:Ordered Set|ordered set]]. Let $a, b \in S$. The following are [[Definition:Dual Statement (Order Theory)|dual statements]]: :$a$ [[Definition:Succeed|succeeds]] $b$ :$a$ [[Definition:Precede|precedes]] $b$
By definition, $a$ [[Definition:Succeed|succeeds]] $b$ {{iff}}: :$b \preceq a$ The [[Definition:Dual Statement (Order Theory)|dual]] of this statement is: :$a \preceq b$ by [[Dual Pairs (Order Theory)]]. By definition, this means $a$ [[Definition:Precede|precedes]] $b$. The converse follows from [[Dual of Dual ...
Succeed is Dual to Precede
https://proofwiki.org/wiki/Succeed_is_Dual_to_Precede
https://proofwiki.org/wiki/Succeed_is_Dual_to_Precede
[ "Dual Pairs (Order Theory)" ]
[ "Definition:Ordered Set", "Definition:Dual Statement (Order Theory)", "Definition:Succeed", "Definition:Precede" ]
[ "Definition:Succeed", "Definition:Dual Statement (Order Theory)", "Dual Pairs (Order Theory)", "Definition:Precede", "Dual of Dual Statement (Order Theory)" ]
proofwiki-6708
Strictly Succeed is Dual to Strictly Precede
Let $\struct {S, \preceq}$ be an ordered set. Let $a, b \in S$. The following are dual statements: :$a$ strictly succeeds $b$ :$a$ strictly precedes $b$
By definition, $a$ strictly succeeds $b$ {{iff}}: :$b \preceq a$ and $b \ne a$ The dual of this statement is: :$a \succeq b$ and $b \ne a$ by Dual Pairs (Order Theory). By definition, this means $a$ strictly precedes $b$. The converse follows from Dual of Dual Statement (Order Theory). {{qed}}
Let $\struct {S, \preceq}$ be an [[Definition:Ordered Set|ordered set]]. Let $a, b \in S$. The following are [[Definition:Dual Statement (Order Theory)|dual statements]]: :$a$ [[Definition:Strictly Succeed|strictly succeeds]] $b$ :$a$ [[Definition:Strictly Precede|strictly precedes]] $b$
By definition, $a$ [[Definition:Strictly Succeed|strictly succeeds]] $b$ {{iff}}: :$b \preceq a$ and $b \ne a$ The [[Definition:Dual Statement (Order Theory)|dual]] of this statement is: :$a \succeq b$ and $b \ne a$ by [[Dual Pairs (Order Theory)]]. By definition, this means $a$ [[Definition:Strictly Precede|stri...
Strictly Succeed is Dual to Strictly Precede
https://proofwiki.org/wiki/Strictly_Succeed_is_Dual_to_Strictly_Precede
https://proofwiki.org/wiki/Strictly_Succeed_is_Dual_to_Strictly_Precede
[ "Dual Pairs (Order Theory)" ]
[ "Definition:Ordered Set", "Definition:Dual Statement (Order Theory)", "Definition:Strictly Succeed", "Definition:Strictly Precede" ]
[ "Definition:Strictly Succeed", "Definition:Dual Statement (Order Theory)", "Dual Pairs (Order Theory)", "Definition:Strictly Precede", "Dual of Dual Statement (Order Theory)" ]
proofwiki-6709
Upper Bound is Dual to Lower Bound
Let $\struct {S, \preceq}$ be an ordered set. Let $a \in S$ and $T \subseteq S$. The following are dual statements: :$a$ is an upper bound for $T$ :$a$ is a lower bound for $T$
By definition, $a$ is an upper bound for $T$ {{iff}}: :$\forall t \in T: t \preceq a$ The dual of this statement is: :$\forall t \in T: a \preceq t$ by Dual Pairs (Order Theory). By definition, this means $a$ is a lower bound for $T$. The converse follows from Dual of Dual Statement (Order Theory). {{qed}}
Let $\struct {S, \preceq}$ be an [[Definition:Ordered Set|ordered set]]. Let $a \in S$ and $T \subseteq S$. The following are [[Definition:Dual Statement (Order Theory)|dual statements]]: :$a$ is an [[Definition:Upper Bound of Set|upper bound]] for $T$ :$a$ is a [[Definition:Lower Bound of Set|lower bound]] for $T$
By definition, $a$ is an [[Definition:Upper Bound of Set|upper bound]] for $T$ {{iff}}: :$\forall t \in T: t \preceq a$ The [[Definition:Dual Statement (Order Theory)|dual]] of this statement is: :$\forall t \in T: a \preceq t$ by [[Dual Pairs (Order Theory)]]. By definition, this means $a$ is a [[Definition:Lowe...
Upper Bound is Dual to Lower Bound
https://proofwiki.org/wiki/Upper_Bound_is_Dual_to_Lower_Bound
https://proofwiki.org/wiki/Upper_Bound_is_Dual_to_Lower_Bound
[ "Dual Pairs (Order Theory)" ]
[ "Definition:Ordered Set", "Definition:Dual Statement (Order Theory)", "Definition:Upper Bound of Set", "Definition:Lower Bound of Set" ]
[ "Definition:Upper Bound of Set", "Definition:Dual Statement (Order Theory)", "Dual Pairs (Order Theory)", "Definition:Lower Bound of Set", "Dual of Dual Statement (Order Theory)" ]
proofwiki-6710
Supremum is Dual to Infimum
Let $\struct {S, \preceq}$ be an ordered set. Let $a \in S$ and $T \subseteq S$. The following are dual statements: :$a$ is a supremum for $T$ :$a$ is an infimum for $T$
By definition, $a$ is a supremum for $T$ {{iff}}: :$a$ is an upper bound for $T$ :$a \preceq b$ for all upper bounds $b$ of $T$ The dual of this statement is: :$a$ is a lower bound for $T$ :$b \preceq a$ for all lower bounds $b$ of $T$ by Dual Pairs (Order Theory). By definition, this means $a$ is an infimum for $T$. T...
Let $\struct {S, \preceq}$ be an [[Definition:Ordered Set|ordered set]]. Let $a \in S$ and $T \subseteq S$. The following are [[Definition:Dual Statement (Order Theory)|dual statements]]: :$a$ is a [[Definition:Supremum of Set|supremum]] for $T$ :$a$ is an [[Definition:Infimum of Set|infimum]] for $T$
By definition, $a$ is a [[Definition:Supremum of Set|supremum]] for $T$ {{iff}}: :$a$ is an [[Definition:Upper Bound of Set|upper bound]] for $T$ :$a \preceq b$ for all [[Definition:Upper Bound of Set|upper bounds]] $b$ of $T$ The [[Definition:Dual Statement (Order Theory)|dual]] of this statement is: :$a$ is a [[De...
Supremum is Dual to Infimum
https://proofwiki.org/wiki/Supremum_is_Dual_to_Infimum
https://proofwiki.org/wiki/Supremum_is_Dual_to_Infimum
[ "Suprema", "Infima", "Dual Pairs (Order Theory)" ]
[ "Definition:Ordered Set", "Definition:Dual Statement (Order Theory)", "Definition:Supremum of Set", "Definition:Infimum of Set" ]
[ "Definition:Supremum of Set", "Definition:Upper Bound of Set", "Definition:Upper Bound of Set", "Definition:Dual Statement (Order Theory)", "Definition:Lower Bound of Set", "Definition:Lower Bound of Set", "Dual Pairs (Order Theory)", "Definition:Infimum of Set", "Dual of Dual Statement (Order Theor...
proofwiki-6711
Maximal Element is Dual to Minimal Element
Let $\struct {S, \preceq}$ be an ordered set. Let $T \subseteq S$, and $a \in T$. The following are dual statements: :$a$ is a maximal element of $T$ :$a$ is a minimal element of $T$
By definition, $a$ is a maximal element of $T$ {{iff}}: :$\forall t \in T: a \preceq t$ implies $a = t$ The dual of this statement is: :$\forall t \in T: t \preceq a$ implies $a = t$ by Dual Pairs (Order Theory). By definition, this means $a$ is a minimal element of $T$. The converse follows from Dual of Dual Statement...
Let $\struct {S, \preceq}$ be an [[Definition:Ordered Set|ordered set]]. Let $T \subseteq S$, and $a \in T$. The following are [[Definition:Dual Statement (Order Theory)|dual statements]]: :$a$ is a [[Definition:Maximal Element|maximal element]] of $T$ :$a$ is a [[Definition:Minimal Element|minimal element]] of $T$
By definition, $a$ is a [[Definition:Maximal Element|maximal element]] of $T$ {{iff}}: :$\forall t \in T: a \preceq t$ implies $a = t$ The [[Definition:Dual Statement (Order Theory)|dual]] of this statement is: :$\forall t \in T: t \preceq a$ implies $a = t$ by [[Dual Pairs (Order Theory)]]. By definition, this m...
Maximal Element is Dual to Minimal Element
https://proofwiki.org/wiki/Maximal_Element_is_Dual_to_Minimal_Element
https://proofwiki.org/wiki/Maximal_Element_is_Dual_to_Minimal_Element
[ "Maximal Elements", "Minimal Elements", "Dual Pairs (Order Theory)" ]
[ "Definition:Ordered Set", "Definition:Dual Statement (Order Theory)", "Definition:Maximal/Element", "Definition:Minimal/Element" ]
[ "Definition:Maximal/Element", "Definition:Dual Statement (Order Theory)", "Dual Pairs (Order Theory)", "Definition:Minimal/Element", "Dual of Dual Statement (Order Theory)" ]
proofwiki-6712
Greatest Element is Dual to Smallest Element
Let $\struct {S, \preceq}$ be an ordered set. Let $a \in S$. The following are dual statements: :$a$ is the greatest element of $S$ :$a$ is the smallest element of $S$
By definition, $a$ is the greatest element of $S$ {{iff}}: :$\forall b \in S: b \preceq a$ The dual of this statement is: :$\forall b \in S: a \preceq b$ by Dual Pairs (Order Theory). By definition, this means $a$ is the smallest element of $S$. The converse follows from Dual of Dual Statement (Order Theory). {{qed}}
Let $\struct {S, \preceq}$ be an [[Definition:Ordered Set|ordered set]]. Let $a \in S$. The following are [[Definition:Dual Statement (Order Theory)|dual statements]]: :$a$ is the [[Definition:Greatest Element|greatest element]] of $S$ :$a$ is the [[Definition:Smallest Element|smallest element]] of $S$
By definition, $a$ is the [[Definition:Greatest Element|greatest element]] of $S$ {{iff}}: :$\forall b \in S: b \preceq a$ The [[Definition:Dual Statement (Order Theory)|dual]] of this statement is: :$\forall b \in S: a \preceq b$ by [[Dual Pairs (Order Theory)]]. By definition, this means $a$ is the [[Definition...
Greatest Element is Dual to Smallest Element
https://proofwiki.org/wiki/Greatest_Element_is_Dual_to_Smallest_Element
https://proofwiki.org/wiki/Greatest_Element_is_Dual_to_Smallest_Element
[ "Greatest Elements", "Smallest Elements", "Dual Pairs (Order Theory)" ]
[ "Definition:Ordered Set", "Definition:Dual Statement (Order Theory)", "Definition:Greatest Element", "Definition:Smallest Element" ]
[ "Definition:Greatest Element", "Definition:Dual Statement (Order Theory)", "Dual Pairs (Order Theory)", "Definition:Smallest Element", "Dual of Dual Statement (Order Theory)" ]
proofwiki-6713
Lower Closure is Dual to Upper Closure
Let $\left({S, \preccurlyeq}\right)$ be an ordered set. Let $a, b \in S$. Let $T \subseteq S$ The following are pairs of dual statements: :$b \in a^\preccurlyeq$, the lower closure of $a$ :$b \in a^\succcurlyeq$, the upper closure of $a$ :$b \in T^\preccurlyeq$, the lower closure of $T$ :$b \in T^\succcurlyeq$, the upp...
=== Elements === By definition of lower closure, $b \in a^\preccurlyeq$ {{iff}}: :$b \preccurlyeq a$ The dual of this statement is: :$a \preccurlyeq b$ by Dual Pairs (Order Theory). By definition of upper closure, this means $b \in a^\succcurlyeq$. The converse follows from Dual of Dual Statement (Order Theory). {{qed|...
Let $\left({S, \preccurlyeq}\right)$ be an [[Definition:Ordered Set|ordered set]]. Let $a, b \in S$. Let $T \subseteq S$ The following are pairs of [[Definition:Dual Statement (Order Theory)|dual statements]]: :$b \in a^\preccurlyeq$, the [[Definition:Lower Closure of Element|lower closure]] of $a$ :$b \in a^\succ...
=== Elements === By definition of [[Definition:Lower Closure of Element|lower closure]], $b \in a^\preccurlyeq$ {{iff}}: :$b \preccurlyeq a$ The [[Definition:Dual Statement (Order Theory)|dual]] of this statement is: :$a \preccurlyeq b$ by [[Dual Pairs (Order Theory)]]. By definition of [[Definition:Upper Closur...
Lower Closure is Dual to Upper Closure
https://proofwiki.org/wiki/Lower_Closure_is_Dual_to_Upper_Closure
https://proofwiki.org/wiki/Lower_Closure_is_Dual_to_Upper_Closure
[ "Upper Closures", "Lower Closures", "Dual Pairs (Order Theory)" ]
[ "Definition:Ordered Set", "Definition:Dual Statement (Order Theory)", "Definition:Lower Closure/Element", "Definition:Upper Closure/Element", "Definition:Lower Closure/Set", "Definition:Upper Closure/Set" ]
[ "Definition:Lower Closure/Element", "Definition:Dual Statement (Order Theory)", "Dual Pairs (Order Theory)", "Definition:Upper Closure/Element", "Dual of Dual Statement (Order Theory)", "Definition:Dual Statement (Order Theory)", "Dual Pairs (Order Theory)" ]
proofwiki-6714
Strict Lower Closure is Dual to Strict Upper Closure
Let $\left({S, \preceq}\right)$ be an ordered set. Let $a, b \in S$. The following are dual statements: :$b \in a^\prec$, the strict lower closure of $a$ :$b \in a^\succ$, the strict upper closure of $a$
By definition of strict lower closure: :$b \in a^\prec$ {{iff}} :$b$ strictly precedes $a$ The dual of this statement is: :$b$ strictly succeeds $a$ by Dual Pairs (Order Theory). By definition of strict upper closure, this means: : $b \in a^\succ$ The converse follows from Dual of Dual Statement (Order Theory). {{qed}}
Let $\left({S, \preceq}\right)$ be an [[Definition:Ordered Set|ordered set]]. Let $a, b \in S$. The following are [[Definition:Dual Statement (Order Theory)|dual statements]]: :$b \in a^\prec$, the [[Definition:Strict Lower Closure of Element|strict lower closure]] of $a$ :$b \in a^\succ$, the [[Definition:Strict U...
By definition of [[Definition:Strict Lower Closure of Element|strict lower closure]]: :$b \in a^\prec$ {{iff}} :$b$ [[Definition:Strictly Precede|strictly precedes]] $a$ The [[Definition:Dual Statement (Order Theory)|dual]] of this statement is: :$b$ [[Definition:Strictly Succeed|strictly succeeds]] $a$ by [[Dual Pa...
Strict Lower Closure is Dual to Strict Upper Closure
https://proofwiki.org/wiki/Strict_Lower_Closure_is_Dual_to_Strict_Upper_Closure
https://proofwiki.org/wiki/Strict_Lower_Closure_is_Dual_to_Strict_Upper_Closure
[ "Lower Closures", "Upper Closures", "Dual Pairs (Order Theory)" ]
[ "Definition:Ordered Set", "Definition:Dual Statement (Order Theory)", "Definition:Strict Lower Closure/Element", "Definition:Strict Upper Closure/Element" ]
[ "Definition:Strict Lower Closure/Element", "Definition:Strictly Precede", "Definition:Dual Statement (Order Theory)", "Definition:Strictly Succeed", "Dual Pairs (Order Theory)", "Definition:Strict Upper Closure/Element", "Dual of Dual Statement (Order Theory)" ]
proofwiki-6715
Join is Dual to Meet
Let $\struct {S, \preceq}$ be an ordered set. Let $a, b, c \in S$. The following are dual statements: :$c = a \vee b$, the join of $a$ and $b$ :$c = a \wedge b$ the meet of $a$ and $b$
By definition of join, $c = a \vee b$ {{iff}}: :$c = \sup \set {a, b}$ where $\sup$ denotes supremum. The dual of this statement is: :$c = \inf \set {a, b}$ where $\inf$ denotes infimum, by Dual Pairs (Order Theory). By definition of meet, this means $c = a \wedge b$. {{qed}}
Let $\struct {S, \preceq}$ be an [[Definition:Ordered Set|ordered set]]. Let $a, b, c \in S$. The following are [[Definition:Dual Statement (Order Theory)|dual statements]]: :$c = a \vee b$, the [[Definition:Join (Order Theory)|join]] of $a$ and $b$ :$c = a \wedge b$ the [[Definition:Meet (Order Theory)|meet]] of $...
By definition of [[Definition:Join (Order Theory)|join]], $c = a \vee b$ {{iff}}: :$c = \sup \set {a, b}$ where $\sup$ denotes [[Definition:Supremum of Set|supremum]]. The [[Definition:Dual Statement (Order Theory)|dual]] of this statement is: :$c = \inf \set {a, b}$ where $\inf$ denotes [[Definition:Infimum of S...
Join is Dual to Meet
https://proofwiki.org/wiki/Join_is_Dual_to_Meet
https://proofwiki.org/wiki/Join_is_Dual_to_Meet
[ "Join and Meet", "Dual Pairs (Order Theory)" ]
[ "Definition:Ordered Set", "Definition:Dual Statement (Order Theory)", "Definition:Join (Order Theory)", "Definition:Meet (Order Theory)" ]
[ "Definition:Join (Order Theory)", "Definition:Supremum of Set", "Definition:Dual Statement (Order Theory)", "Definition:Infimum of Set", "Dual Pairs (Order Theory)", "Definition:Meet (Order Theory)" ]
proofwiki-6716
Self-Distributive Law for Conditional/Formulation 1/Forward Implication
:$p \implies \paren {q \implies r} \vdash \paren {p \implies q} \implies \paren {p \implies r}$
{{BeginTableau|p \implies \paren {q \implies r} \vdash \paren {p \implies q} \implies \paren {p \implies r} }} {{Premise|1|p \implies \paren {q \implies r} }} {{Assumption|2|p \implies q}} {{Assumption|3|p}} {{ModusPonens|4|1, 3|q \implies r|1|3}} {{ModusPonens|5|2, 3|q|2|3}} {{ModusPonens|6|1, 2, 3|r|4|5}} {{Implicati...
:$p \implies \paren {q \implies r} \vdash \paren {p \implies q} \implies \paren {p \implies r}$
{{BeginTableau|p \implies \paren {q \implies r} \vdash \paren {p \implies q} \implies \paren {p \implies r} }} {{Premise|1|p \implies \paren {q \implies r} }} {{Assumption|2|p \implies q}} {{Assumption|3|p}} {{ModusPonens|4|1, 3|q \implies r|1|3}} {{ModusPonens|5|2, 3|q|2|3}} {{ModusPonens|6|1, 2, 3|r|4|5}} {{Implicati...
Self-Distributive Law for Conditional/Formulation 1/Forward Implication/Proof
https://proofwiki.org/wiki/Self-Distributive_Law_for_Conditional/Formulation_1/Forward_Implication
https://proofwiki.org/wiki/Self-Distributive_Law_for_Conditional/Formulation_1/Forward_Implication/Proof
[ "Self-Distributive Law for Conditional" ]
[]
[]
proofwiki-6717
Self-Distributive Law for Conditional/Formulation 1/Reverse Implication
:$\paren {p \implies q} \implies \paren {p \implies r} \vdash p \implies \paren {q \implies r}$
{{BeginTableau|\paren {p \implies q} \implies \paren {p \implies r} \vdash p \implies \paren {q \implies r} }} {{Premise|1|\paren {p \implies q} \implies \paren {p \implies r} }} {{Assumption|2|p}} {{Assumption|3|q}} {{SequentIntro|4|3|p \implies q|3|True Statement is implied by Every Statement}} {{ModusPonens|5|1, 3|p...
:$\paren {p \implies q} \implies \paren {p \implies r} \vdash p \implies \paren {q \implies r}$
{{BeginTableau|\paren {p \implies q} \implies \paren {p \implies r} \vdash p \implies \paren {q \implies r} }} {{Premise|1|\paren {p \implies q} \implies \paren {p \implies r} }} {{Assumption|2|p}} {{Assumption|3|q}} {{SequentIntro|4|3|p \implies q|3|[[True Statement is implied by Every Statement]]}} {{ModusPonens|5|1,...
Self-Distributive Law for Conditional/Formulation 1/Reverse Implication/Proof
https://proofwiki.org/wiki/Self-Distributive_Law_for_Conditional/Formulation_1/Reverse_Implication
https://proofwiki.org/wiki/Self-Distributive_Law_for_Conditional/Formulation_1/Reverse_Implication/Proof
[ "Self-Distributive Law for Conditional" ]
[]
[ "True Statement is implied by Every Statement" ]
proofwiki-6718
Rule of Exportation/Formulation 1
:$\paren {p \land q} \implies r \dashv \vdash p \implies \paren {q \implies r}$
{{BeginTableau|\paren {p \land q} \implies r \vdash p \implies \paren {q \implies r} }} {{Premise|1|\paren {p \land q} \implies r}} {{Assumption|2|p}} {{Assumption|3|q}} {{Conjunction|4|2, 3|p \land q|2|3}} {{ModusPonens|5|1, 2, 3|r|1|4}} {{Implication|6|1, 2|q \implies r|3|5}} {{Implication|7|1|p \implies \paren {q \i...
:$\paren {p \land q} \implies r \dashv \vdash p \implies \paren {q \implies r}$
{{BeginTableau|\paren {p \land q} \implies r \vdash p \implies \paren {q \implies r} }} {{Premise|1|\paren {p \land q} \implies r}} {{Assumption|2|p}} {{Assumption|3|q}} {{Conjunction|4|2, 3|p \land q|2|3}} {{ModusPonens|5|1, 2, 3|r|1|4}} {{Implication|6|1, 2|q \implies r|3|5}} {{Implication|7|1|p \implies \paren {q \i...
Rule of Exportation/Formulation 1/Forward Implication/Proof
https://proofwiki.org/wiki/Rule_of_Exportation/Formulation_1
https://proofwiki.org/wiki/Rule_of_Exportation/Formulation_1/Forward_Implication/Proof
[ "Rule of Exportation" ]
[]
[]
proofwiki-6719
Rule of Exportation/Formulation 1
:$\paren {p \land q} \implies r \dashv \vdash p \implies \paren {q \implies r}$
=== Proof of Forward Implication === {{:Rule of Exportation/Formulation 1/Forward Implication/Proof}} === Proof of Reverse Implication === {{:Rule of Exportation/Formulation 1/Reverse Implication/Proof}}
:$\paren {p \land q} \implies r \dashv \vdash p \implies \paren {q \implies r}$
=== [[Rule of Exportation/Formulation 1/Forward Implication/Proof|Proof of Forward Implication]] === {{:Rule of Exportation/Formulation 1/Forward Implication/Proof}} === [[Rule of Exportation/Formulation 1/Reverse Implication/Proof|Proof of Reverse Implication]] === {{:Rule of Exportation/Formulation 1/Reverse Implica...
Rule of Exportation/Formulation 1/Proof 1
https://proofwiki.org/wiki/Rule_of_Exportation/Formulation_1
https://proofwiki.org/wiki/Rule_of_Exportation/Formulation_1/Proof_1
[ "Rule of Exportation" ]
[]
[ "Rule of Exportation/Formulation 1/Forward Implication/Proof", "Rule of Exportation/Formulation 1/Reverse Implication/Proof" ]
proofwiki-6720
Rule of Exportation/Formulation 1
:$\paren {p \land q} \implies r \dashv \vdash p \implies \paren {q \implies r}$
We apply the Method of Truth Tables to the proposition. As can be seen by inspection, the truth values under the main connectives match for all boolean interpretations. :<nowiki>$\begin{array}{|ccccc||ccccc|} \hline (p & \land & q) & \implies & r & p & \implies & (q & \implies & r) \\ \hline \F & \F & \F & \T & \F & \F...
:$\paren {p \land q} \implies r \dashv \vdash p \implies \paren {q \implies r}$
We apply the [[Method of Truth Tables]] to the proposition. As can be seen by inspection, the [[Definition:Truth Value|truth values]] under the [[Definition:Main Connective (Propositional Logic)|main connectives]] match for all [[Definition:Boolean Interpretation|boolean interpretations]]. :<nowiki>$\begin{array}{|c...
Rule of Exportation/Formulation 1/Proof by Truth Table
https://proofwiki.org/wiki/Rule_of_Exportation/Formulation_1
https://proofwiki.org/wiki/Rule_of_Exportation/Formulation_1/Proof_by_Truth_Table
[ "Rule of Exportation" ]
[]
[ "Method of Truth Tables", "Definition:Truth Value", "Definition:Main Connective/Propositional Logic", "Definition:Boolean Interpretation" ]
proofwiki-6721
Rule of Exportation/Formulation 1
:$\paren {p \land q} \implies r \dashv \vdash p \implies \paren {q \implies r}$
{{BeginTableau|p \implies \paren {q \implies r} \vdash \paren {p \land q} \implies r}} {{Premise|1|p \implies \paren {q \implies r} }} {{Assumption|2|p \land q}} {{Simplification|3|2|p|2|1}} {{Simplification|4|2|q|2|2}} {{ModusPonens|5|1, 2|q \implies r|1|3}} {{ModusPonens|6|1, 2|r|5|4}} {{Implication|7|1|\paren {p \la...
:$\paren {p \land q} \implies r \dashv \vdash p \implies \paren {q \implies r}$
{{BeginTableau|p \implies \paren {q \implies r} \vdash \paren {p \land q} \implies r}} {{Premise|1|p \implies \paren {q \implies r} }} {{Assumption|2|p \land q}} {{Simplification|3|2|p|2|1}} {{Simplification|4|2|q|2|2}} {{ModusPonens|5|1, 2|q \implies r|1|3}} {{ModusPonens|6|1, 2|r|5|4}} {{Implication|7|1|\paren {p \la...
Rule of Exportation/Formulation 1/Reverse Implication/Proof
https://proofwiki.org/wiki/Rule_of_Exportation/Formulation_1
https://proofwiki.org/wiki/Rule_of_Exportation/Formulation_1/Reverse_Implication/Proof
[ "Rule of Exportation" ]
[]
[]
proofwiki-6722
Square Matrix with Duplicate Columns has Zero Determinant
If two columns of a square matrix over a commutative ring $\struct {R, +, \circ}$ are identical, then its determinant is zero.
Let $\mathbf A$ be a square matrix over $R$ with two identical columns. Let $\mathbf A^\intercal$ denote the transpose of $\mathbf A$. Then $\mathbf A^\intercal$ has two identical rows. Then: {{begin-eqn}} {{eqn | l = \map \det {\mathbf A} | r = \map \det {\mathbf A^\intercal} | c = Determinant of Transpose...
If two [[Definition:Column of Matrix|columns]] of a [[Definition:Square Matrix|square matrix]] over a [[Definition:Commutative Ring|commutative ring]] $\struct {R, +, \circ}$ are identical, then its [[Definition:Determinant of Matrix|determinant]] is zero.
Let $\mathbf A$ be a [[Definition:Square Matrix|square matrix]] over $R$ with two identical [[Definition:Column of Matrix|columns]]. Let $\mathbf A^\intercal$ denote the [[Definition:Transpose of Matrix|transpose]] of $\mathbf A$. Then $\mathbf A^\intercal$ has two identical [[Definition:Row of Matrix|rows]]. Then: ...
Square Matrix with Duplicate Columns has Zero Determinant
https://proofwiki.org/wiki/Square_Matrix_with_Duplicate_Columns_has_Zero_Determinant
https://proofwiki.org/wiki/Square_Matrix_with_Duplicate_Columns_has_Zero_Determinant
[ "Square Matrix with Duplicate Columns has Zero Determinant", "Determinants", "Matrix Algebra" ]
[ "Definition:Matrix/Column", "Definition:Matrix/Square Matrix", "Definition:Commutative Ring", "Definition:Determinant/Matrix" ]
[ "Definition:Matrix/Square Matrix", "Definition:Matrix/Column", "Definition:Transpose of Matrix", "Definition:Matrix/Row", "Determinant of Transpose", "Square Matrix with Duplicate Rows has Zero Determinant" ]
proofwiki-6723
Inverses of Elements Related by Compatible Relation
:$\forall x, y \in G: x \mathrel \RR y \iff y^{-1} \mathrel \RR x^{-1}$
Let $e$ be the group identity of $G$. By Relation Compatible with Group Operation is Strongly Compatible: Corollary: :$(1): \quad x \mathrel \RR y \iff e \mathrel \RR y \circ x^{-1}$ By Relation Compatible with Group Operation is Strongly Compatible: Corollary, also: :$(2): \quad y^{-1} \mathrel \RR x^{-1} \iff e \math...
:$\forall x, y \in G: x \mathrel \RR y \iff y^{-1} \mathrel \RR x^{-1}$
Let $e$ be the [[Definition:Identity Element|group identity]] of $G$. By [[Relation Compatible with Group Operation is Strongly Compatible/Corollary|Relation Compatible with Group Operation is Strongly Compatible: Corollary]]: :$(1): \quad x \mathrel \RR y \iff e \mathrel \RR y \circ x^{-1}$ By [[Relation Compatible...
Inverses of Elements Related by Compatible Relation
https://proofwiki.org/wiki/Inverses_of_Elements_Related_by_Compatible_Relation
https://proofwiki.org/wiki/Inverses_of_Elements_Related_by_Compatible_Relation
[ "Relations Compatible with Group Operation" ]
[]
[ "Definition:Identity (Abstract Algebra)/Two-Sided Identity", "Relation Compatible with Group Operation is Strongly Compatible/Corollary", "Relation Compatible with Group Operation is Strongly Compatible/Corollary", "Inverse of Group Inverse", "Category:Relations Compatible with Group Operation" ]
proofwiki-6724
Ordering Induced by Join Semilattice
Let $\struct {S, \vee, \preceq}$ be a join semilattice. By Join Semilattice is Semilattice, $\struct {S, \vee}$ is a semilattice. By Semilattice Induces Ordering, $\struct {S, \vee}$ induces an ordering $\preceq'$ on $S$, by: :$a \preceq' b$ {{iff}} $a \vee b = b$ for all $a, b \in S$. The ordering $\preceq'$ coincides...
It is to be shown that, for all $a, b \in S$: :$a \preceq b$ {{iff}} $b = \sup \set {a, b}$ by definition of join. Here $\sup$ denotes supremum. Since any upper bound $c$ of $\set {a, b}$ must satisfy: :$b \preceq c$ it suffices to verify that: :$a \preceq b$ {{iff}} $b$ is an upper bound for $\set {a, b}$ Since $\prec...
Let $\struct {S, \vee, \preceq}$ be a [[Definition:Join Semilattice|join semilattice]]. By [[Join Semilattice is Semilattice]], $\struct {S, \vee}$ is a [[Definition:Semilattice|semilattice]]. By [[Semilattice Induces Ordering]], $\struct {S, \vee}$ induces an [[Definition:Ordering|ordering]] $\preceq'$ on $S$, by: ...
It is to be shown that, for all $a, b \in S$: :$a \preceq b$ {{iff}} $b = \sup \set {a, b}$ by definition of [[Definition:Join (Order Theory)|join]]. Here $\sup$ denotes [[Definition:Supremum of Set|supremum]]. Since any [[Definition:Upper Bound of Set|upper bound]] $c$ of $\set {a, b}$ must satisfy: :$b \preceq ...
Ordering Induced by Join Semilattice
https://proofwiki.org/wiki/Ordering_Induced_by_Join_Semilattice
https://proofwiki.org/wiki/Ordering_Induced_by_Join_Semilattice
[ "Order Theory", "Join Semilattices" ]
[ "Definition:Join Semilattice", "Join Semilattice is Semilattice", "Definition:Semilattice", "Semilattice Induces Ordering", "Definition:Ordering", "Definition:Ordering" ]
[ "Definition:Join (Order Theory)", "Definition:Supremum of Set", "Definition:Upper Bound of Set", "Definition:Upper Bound of Set", "Definition:Reflexive Relation", "Definition:Logical Equivalence", "Ordering Induced by Meet Semilattice", "Category:Order Theory", "Category:Join Semilattices" ]
proofwiki-6725
Combination Theorem for Complex Derivatives
Let $D$ be an open subset of the set of complex numbers $\C$. Let $f, g: D \to \C$ be complex-differentiable functions on $D$ Let $z \in D$. Let $w, c \in \C$ be arbitrary complex numbers. Then the following results hold: === Sum Rule === {{:Combination Theorem for Complex Derivatives/Sum Rule}} === Multiple Rule === {...
Define $k: D \to \C$ as the pointwise product of $f$ and $g$, so $k = fg$. Let $z_0 \in D$ be a point in $D$. {{begin-eqn}} {{eqn | l = \map {k'} {z_0} | r = \lim_{h \mathop \to 0} \frac {\map k {z_0 + h} - \map k {z_0} } h | c = }} {{eqn | r = \lim_{h \mathop \to 0} \frac {\map f {z_0 + h} \, \map g {z_0 +...
Let $D$ be an [[Definition:Open Set (Complex Analysis)|open]] [[Definition:Subset|subset]] of the [[Definition:Set|set]] of [[Definition:Complex Number|complex numbers]] $\C$. Let $f, g: D \to \C$ be [[Definition:Complex-Differentiable Function|complex-differentiable functions]] on $D$ Let $z \in D$. Let $w, c \in \...
Define $k: D \to \C$ as the [[Definition:Pointwise Multiplication of Complex-Valued Functions|pointwise product]] of $f$ and $g$, so $k = fg$. Let $z_0 \in D$ be a point in $D$. {{begin-eqn}} {{eqn | l = \map {k'} {z_0} | r = \lim_{h \mathop \to 0} \frac {\map k {z_0 + h} - \map k {z_0} } h | c = }} {{eqn...
Combination Theorem for Complex Derivatives/Product Rule/Proof 1
https://proofwiki.org/wiki/Combination_Theorem_for_Complex_Derivatives
https://proofwiki.org/wiki/Combination_Theorem_for_Complex_Derivatives/Product_Rule/Proof_1
[ "Combination Theorem for Complex Derivatives", "Complex Differential Calculus" ]
[ "Definition:Open Set/Complex Analysis", "Definition:Subset", "Definition:Set", "Definition:Complex Number", "Definition:Differentiable Mapping/Complex Function", "Definition:Complex Number", "Combination Theorem for Complex Derivatives/Sum Rule", "Combination Theorem for Complex Derivatives/Multiple R...
[ "Definition:Pointwise Multiplication of Complex-Valued Functions" ]
proofwiki-6726
Combination Theorem for Complex Derivatives
Let $D$ be an open subset of the set of complex numbers $\C$. Let $f, g: D \to \C$ be complex-differentiable functions on $D$ Let $z \in D$. Let $w, c \in \C$ be arbitrary complex numbers. Then the following results hold: === Sum Rule === {{:Combination Theorem for Complex Derivatives/Sum Rule}} === Multiple Rule === {...
Denote the open ball of $0$ by radius $r \in \R_{>0}$ as $\map {B_r} 0$. Let $z \in D$. By the Epsilon-Function Complex Differentiability Condition, it follows that there exists $r \in \R_{>0}$ such that for all $h \in \map {B_r} 0 \setminus \set 0$: :$\map f {z + h} = \map f z + \map h {\map {f'} z + \map {\epsilon_f}...
Let $D$ be an [[Definition:Open Set (Complex Analysis)|open]] [[Definition:Subset|subset]] of the [[Definition:Set|set]] of [[Definition:Complex Number|complex numbers]] $\C$. Let $f, g: D \to \C$ be [[Definition:Complex-Differentiable Function|complex-differentiable functions]] on $D$ Let $z \in D$. Let $w, c \in \...
Denote the [[Definition:Open Ball|open ball]] of $0$ by [[Definition:Radius of Open Ball|radius]] $r \in \R_{>0}$ as $\map {B_r} 0$. Let $z \in D$. By the [[Epsilon-Function Complex Differentiability Condition]], it follows that there exists $r \in \R_{>0}$ such that for all $h \in \map {B_r} 0 \setminus \set 0$: :$...
Combination Theorem for Complex Derivatives/Product Rule/Proof 2
https://proofwiki.org/wiki/Combination_Theorem_for_Complex_Derivatives
https://proofwiki.org/wiki/Combination_Theorem_for_Complex_Derivatives/Product_Rule/Proof_2
[ "Combination Theorem for Complex Derivatives", "Complex Differential Calculus" ]
[ "Definition:Open Set/Complex Analysis", "Definition:Subset", "Definition:Set", "Definition:Complex Number", "Definition:Differentiable Mapping/Complex Function", "Definition:Complex Number", "Combination Theorem for Complex Derivatives/Sum Rule", "Combination Theorem for Complex Derivatives/Multiple R...
[ "Definition:Open Ball", "Definition:Open Ball/Radius", "Epsilon-Function Differentiability Condition/Complex Case", "Definition:Complex Function", "Definition:Convergent Mapping/Complex Function", "Combination Theorem for Limits of Functions/Complex/Product Rule", "Combination Theorem for Limits of Func...
proofwiki-6727
Combination Theorem for Complex Derivatives
Let $D$ be an open subset of the set of complex numbers $\C$. Let $f, g: D \to \C$ be complex-differentiable functions on $D$ Let $z \in D$. Let $w, c \in \C$ be arbitrary complex numbers. Then the following results hold: === Sum Rule === {{:Combination Theorem for Complex Derivatives/Sum Rule}} === Multiple Rule === {...
Let $z_0 \in D$ be a point in $D$. Define $k : D \to \Z$ by $\map k {z_0} = \map f {z_0} + \map g {z_0}$. Then: {{begin-eqn}} {{eqn | l = \map { k' } {z_0} | r = \lim_{h \mathop \to 0} \frac {\map k {z_0 + h} - \map k {z_0} } h | c = {{Defof|Derivative of Complex Function}} }} {{eqn | r = \lim_{h \mathop \t...
Let $D$ be an [[Definition:Open Set (Complex Analysis)|open]] [[Definition:Subset|subset]] of the [[Definition:Set|set]] of [[Definition:Complex Number|complex numbers]] $\C$. Let $f, g: D \to \C$ be [[Definition:Complex-Differentiable Function|complex-differentiable functions]] on $D$ Let $z \in D$. Let $w, c \in \...
Let $z_0 \in D$ be a point in $D$. Define $k : D \to \Z$ by $\map k {z_0} = \map f {z_0} + \map g {z_0}$. Then: {{begin-eqn}} {{eqn | l = \map { k' } {z_0} | r = \lim_{h \mathop \to 0} \frac {\map k {z_0 + h} - \map k {z_0} } h | c = {{Defof|Derivative of Complex Function}} }} {{eqn | r = \lim_{h \mathop...
Combination Theorem for Complex Derivatives/Sum Rule/Proof 1
https://proofwiki.org/wiki/Combination_Theorem_for_Complex_Derivatives
https://proofwiki.org/wiki/Combination_Theorem_for_Complex_Derivatives/Sum_Rule/Proof_1
[ "Combination Theorem for Complex Derivatives", "Complex Differential Calculus" ]
[ "Definition:Open Set/Complex Analysis", "Definition:Subset", "Definition:Set", "Definition:Complex Number", "Definition:Differentiable Mapping/Complex Function", "Definition:Complex Number", "Combination Theorem for Complex Derivatives/Sum Rule", "Combination Theorem for Complex Derivatives/Multiple R...
[ "Complex Multiplication Distributes over Addition", "Combination Theorem for Limits of Functions/Complex/Sum Rule" ]
proofwiki-6728
Combination Theorem for Complex Derivatives
Let $D$ be an open subset of the set of complex numbers $\C$. Let $f, g: D \to \C$ be complex-differentiable functions on $D$ Let $z \in D$. Let $w, c \in \C$ be arbitrary complex numbers. Then the following results hold: === Sum Rule === {{:Combination Theorem for Complex Derivatives/Sum Rule}} === Multiple Rule === {...
Denote the open ball of $0$ with radius $r \in \R_{>0}$ as $\map {B_r} 0$. Let $z \in D$. By the Epsilon-Function Complex Differentiability Condition, it follows that there exists $r \in \R_{>0}$ such that for all $h \in \map {B_r} 0 \setminus \set 0$: :$\map f {z + h} = \map f z + h \paren {\map {f'} z + \map {\epsilo...
Let $D$ be an [[Definition:Open Set (Complex Analysis)|open]] [[Definition:Subset|subset]] of the [[Definition:Set|set]] of [[Definition:Complex Number|complex numbers]] $\C$. Let $f, g: D \to \C$ be [[Definition:Complex-Differentiable Function|complex-differentiable functions]] on $D$ Let $z \in D$. Let $w, c \in \...
Denote the [[Definition:Open Ball|open ball]] of $0$ with [[Definition:Radius of Open Ball|radius]] $r \in \R_{>0}$ as $\map {B_r} 0$. Let $z \in D$. By the [[Epsilon-Function Complex Differentiability Condition]], it follows that there exists $r \in \R_{>0}$ such that for all $h \in \map {B_r} 0 \setminus \set 0$: ...
Combination Theorem for Complex Derivatives/Sum Rule/Proof 2
https://proofwiki.org/wiki/Combination_Theorem_for_Complex_Derivatives
https://proofwiki.org/wiki/Combination_Theorem_for_Complex_Derivatives/Sum_Rule/Proof_2
[ "Combination Theorem for Complex Derivatives", "Complex Differential Calculus" ]
[ "Definition:Open Set/Complex Analysis", "Definition:Subset", "Definition:Set", "Definition:Complex Number", "Definition:Differentiable Mapping/Complex Function", "Definition:Complex Number", "Combination Theorem for Complex Derivatives/Sum Rule", "Combination Theorem for Complex Derivatives/Multiple R...
[ "Definition:Open Ball", "Definition:Open Ball/Radius", "Epsilon-Function Differentiability Condition/Complex Case", "Definition:Complex Function", "Definition:Convergent Mapping/Complex Function", "Combination Theorem for Limits of Functions/Complex/Sum Rule", "Epsilon-Function Differentiability Conditi...
proofwiki-6729
Combination Theorem for Complex Derivatives/Sum Rule
:$\map {\paren {f + g}'} z = \map {f'} z + \map {g'} z$
Let $z_0 \in D$ be a point in $D$. Define $k : D \to \Z$ by $\map k {z_0} = \map f {z_0} + \map g {z_0}$. Then: {{begin-eqn}} {{eqn | l = \map { k' } {z_0} | r = \lim_{h \mathop \to 0} \frac {\map k {z_0 + h} - \map k {z_0} } h | c = {{Defof|Derivative of Complex Function}} }} {{eqn | r = \lim_{h \mathop \t...
:$\map {\paren {f + g}'} z = \map {f'} z + \map {g'} z$
Let $z_0 \in D$ be a point in $D$. Define $k : D \to \Z$ by $\map k {z_0} = \map f {z_0} + \map g {z_0}$. Then: {{begin-eqn}} {{eqn | l = \map { k' } {z_0} | r = \lim_{h \mathop \to 0} \frac {\map k {z_0 + h} - \map k {z_0} } h | c = {{Defof|Derivative of Complex Function}} }} {{eqn | r = \lim_{h \mathop...
Combination Theorem for Complex Derivatives/Sum Rule/Proof 1
https://proofwiki.org/wiki/Combination_Theorem_for_Complex_Derivatives/Sum_Rule
https://proofwiki.org/wiki/Combination_Theorem_for_Complex_Derivatives/Sum_Rule/Proof_1
[ "Combination Theorem for Complex Derivatives" ]
[]
[ "Complex Multiplication Distributes over Addition", "Combination Theorem for Limits of Functions/Complex/Sum Rule" ]
proofwiki-6730
Combination Theorem for Complex Derivatives/Sum Rule
:$\map {\paren {f + g}'} z = \map {f'} z + \map {g'} z$
Denote the open ball of $0$ with radius $r \in \R_{>0}$ as $\map {B_r} 0$. Let $z \in D$. By the Epsilon-Function Complex Differentiability Condition, it follows that there exists $r \in \R_{>0}$ such that for all $h \in \map {B_r} 0 \setminus \set 0$: :$\map f {z + h} = \map f z + h \paren {\map {f'} z + \map {\epsilo...
:$\map {\paren {f + g}'} z = \map {f'} z + \map {g'} z$
Denote the [[Definition:Open Ball|open ball]] of $0$ with [[Definition:Radius of Open Ball|radius]] $r \in \R_{>0}$ as $\map {B_r} 0$. Let $z \in D$. By the [[Epsilon-Function Complex Differentiability Condition]], it follows that there exists $r \in \R_{>0}$ such that for all $h \in \map {B_r} 0 \setminus \set 0$: ...
Combination Theorem for Complex Derivatives/Sum Rule/Proof 2
https://proofwiki.org/wiki/Combination_Theorem_for_Complex_Derivatives/Sum_Rule
https://proofwiki.org/wiki/Combination_Theorem_for_Complex_Derivatives/Sum_Rule/Proof_2
[ "Combination Theorem for Complex Derivatives" ]
[]
[ "Definition:Open Ball", "Definition:Open Ball/Radius", "Epsilon-Function Differentiability Condition/Complex Case", "Definition:Complex Function", "Definition:Convergent Mapping/Complex Function", "Combination Theorem for Limits of Functions/Complex/Sum Rule", "Epsilon-Function Differentiability Conditi...
proofwiki-6731
Combination Theorem for Complex Derivatives/Multiple Rule
:$\map {\paren {w f}'} z = w \map {f'} z$
Denote the open ball of $0$ with radius $r \in \R_{>0}$ as $\map {B_r} 0$. Let $z \in D$. By the Epsilon-Function Complex Differentiability Condition, it follows that there exists $r \in \R_{>0}$ such that for all $h \in \map {B_r} 0 \setminus \set 0$: :$\map f {z + h} = \map f z + h \paren {\map {f'} z + \map \epsilon...
:$\map {\paren {w f}'} z = w \map {f'} z$
Denote the [[Definition:Open Ball|open ball]] of $0$ with [[Definition:Radius of Open Ball|radius]] $r \in \R_{>0}$ as $\map {B_r} 0$. Let $z \in D$. By the [[Epsilon-Function Complex Differentiability Condition]], it follows that there exists $r \in \R_{>0}$ such that for all $h \in \map {B_r} 0 \setminus \set 0$: ...
Combination Theorem for Complex Derivatives/Multiple Rule
https://proofwiki.org/wiki/Combination_Theorem_for_Complex_Derivatives/Multiple_Rule
https://proofwiki.org/wiki/Combination_Theorem_for_Complex_Derivatives/Multiple_Rule
[ "Combination Theorem for Complex Derivatives" ]
[]
[ "Definition:Open Ball", "Definition:Open Ball/Radius", "Epsilon-Function Differentiability Condition/Complex Case", "Definition:Complex Function", "Combination Theorem for Limits of Functions/Complex/Multiple Rule", "Epsilon-Function Differentiability Condition/Complex Case" ]
proofwiki-6732
Join Absorbs Meet
Let $\struct {S, \wedge, \preceq}$ be a meet semilattice. Let $\vee$ denote join. Then $\vee$ absorbs $\wedge$. That is, for all $a, b \in S$: :$a \vee \paren {a \wedge b} = a$
By Ordering in terms of Join, we have that: :$a \vee \paren {a \wedge b} = a$ {{iff}} $a \wedge b \preceq a$ The result thus follows from Meet Precedes Operands. {{qed}}
Let $\struct {S, \wedge, \preceq}$ be a [[Definition:Meet Semilattice|meet semilattice]]. Let $\vee$ denote [[Definition:Join (Order Theory)|join]]. Then $\vee$ [[Definition:Absorption Law|absorbs]] $\wedge$. That is, for all $a, b \in S$: :$a \vee \paren {a \wedge b} = a$
By [[Ordering in terms of Join]], we have that: :$a \vee \paren {a \wedge b} = a$ {{iff}} $a \wedge b \preceq a$ The result thus follows from [[Meet Precedes Operands]]. {{qed}}
Join Absorbs Meet
https://proofwiki.org/wiki/Join_Absorbs_Meet
https://proofwiki.org/wiki/Join_Absorbs_Meet
[ "Join and Meet", "Absorption Laws (Lattice Theory)" ]
[ "Definition:Meet Semilattice", "Definition:Join (Order Theory)", "Definition:Absorption Law" ]
[ "Ordering in terms of Join", "Meet Precedes Operands" ]
proofwiki-6733
Meet Absorbs Join
Let $\struct {S, \vee, \preceq}$ be a join semilattice. Let $\wedge$ denote meet. Then $\wedge$ absorbs $\vee$. That is, for all $a, b \in S$: :$a \wedge \paren {a \vee b} = a$
By Dual Pairs (Order Theory), we observe that the theorem statement is dual to that of Join Absorbs Meet. The result follows by the Global Duality Principle. {{qed}}
Let $\struct {S, \vee, \preceq}$ be a [[Definition:Join Semilattice|join semilattice]]. Let $\wedge$ denote [[Definition:Meet (Order Theory)|meet]]. Then $\wedge$ [[Definition:Absorption Law|absorbs]] $\vee$. That is, for all $a, b \in S$: :$a \wedge \paren {a \vee b} = a$
By [[Dual Pairs (Order Theory)]], we observe that the theorem statement is [[Definition:Dual Statement (Order Theory)|dual]] to that of [[Join Absorbs Meet]]. The result follows by the [[Duality Principle (Order Theory)/Global Duality|Global Duality Principle]]. {{qed}}
Meet Absorbs Join
https://proofwiki.org/wiki/Meet_Absorbs_Join
https://proofwiki.org/wiki/Meet_Absorbs_Join
[ "Join and Meet", "Absorption Laws (Lattice Theory)" ]
[ "Definition:Join Semilattice", "Definition:Meet (Order Theory)", "Definition:Absorption Law" ]
[ "Dual Pairs (Order Theory)", "Definition:Dual Statement (Order Theory)", "Join Absorbs Meet", "Duality Principle (Order Theory)/Global Duality" ]
proofwiki-6734
Rule of Exportation/Formulation 2
:$\vdash \paren {\paren {p \land q} \implies r} \iff \paren {p \implies \paren {q \implies r} }$
=== Proof of Forward Implication === {{:Rule of Exportation/Formulation 2/Forward Implication/Proof 1}}
:$\vdash \paren {\paren {p \land q} \implies r} \iff \paren {p \implies \paren {q \implies r} }$
=== [[Rule of Exportation/Formulation 2/Forward Implication/Proof 1|Proof of Forward Implication]] === {{:Rule of Exportation/Formulation 2/Forward Implication/Proof 1}}
Rule of Exportation/Formulation 2
https://proofwiki.org/wiki/Rule_of_Exportation/Formulation_2
https://proofwiki.org/wiki/Rule_of_Exportation/Formulation_2
[ "Rule of Exportation" ]
[]
[ "Rule of Exportation/Formulation 2/Forward Implication/Proof 1", "Rule of Exportation/Formulation 2/Forward Implication" ]
proofwiki-6735
Rule of Exportation/Formulation 2
:$\vdash \paren {\paren {p \land q} \implies r} \iff \paren {p \implies \paren {q \implies r} }$
{{BeginTableau|\vdash \paren {\paren {p \land q} \implies r} \implies \paren {p \implies \paren {q \implies r} } }} {{Assumption|1|\paren {p \land q} \implies r}} {{Assumption|2|p}} {{Assumption|3|q}} {{Conjunction|4|2, 3|p \land q|2|3}} {{ModusPonens|5|1, 2, 3|r|1|4}} {{Implication|6|1, 2|q \implies r|3|5}} {{Implicat...
:$\vdash \paren {\paren {p \land q} \implies r} \iff \paren {p \implies \paren {q \implies r} }$
{{BeginTableau|\vdash \paren {\paren {p \land q} \implies r} \implies \paren {p \implies \paren {q \implies r} } }} {{Assumption|1|\paren {p \land q} \implies r}} {{Assumption|2|p}} {{Assumption|3|q}} {{Conjunction|4|2, 3|p \land q|2|3}} {{ModusPonens|5|1, 2, 3|r|1|4}} {{Implication|6|1, 2|q \implies r|3|5}} {{Implicat...
Rule of Exportation/Formulation 2/Forward Implication/Proof 1
https://proofwiki.org/wiki/Rule_of_Exportation/Formulation_2
https://proofwiki.org/wiki/Rule_of_Exportation/Formulation_2/Forward_Implication/Proof_1
[ "Rule of Exportation" ]
[]
[]
proofwiki-6736
Rule of Exportation/Formulation 2
:$\vdash \paren {\paren {p \land q} \implies r} \iff \paren {p \implies \paren {q \implies r} }$
{{BeginTableau|\vdash \paren {\paren {p \land q} \implies r} \implies \paren {p \implies \paren {q \implies r} } }} {{Assumption|1|\paren {p \land q} \implies r}} {{SequentIntro|2|1|p \implies \paren {q \implies r}|1|Rule of Exportation: Formulation 1: Forward Implication}} {{Implication|3||\paren {\paren {p \land q} \...
:$\vdash \paren {\paren {p \land q} \implies r} \iff \paren {p \implies \paren {q \implies r} }$
{{BeginTableau|\vdash \paren {\paren {p \land q} \implies r} \implies \paren {p \implies \paren {q \implies r} } }} {{Assumption|1|\paren {p \land q} \implies r}} {{SequentIntro|2|1|p \implies \paren {q \implies r}|1|[[Rule of Exportation/Formulation 1/Forward Implication|Rule of Exportation: Formulation 1: Forward Imp...
Rule of Exportation/Formulation 2/Forward Implication/Proof 2
https://proofwiki.org/wiki/Rule_of_Exportation/Formulation_2
https://proofwiki.org/wiki/Rule_of_Exportation/Formulation_2/Forward_Implication/Proof_2
[ "Rule of Exportation" ]
[]
[ "Rule of Exportation/Formulation 1/Forward Implication" ]
proofwiki-6737
Rule of Exportation/Formulation 2
:$\vdash \paren {\paren {p \land q} \implies r} \iff \paren {p \implies \paren {q \implies r} }$
We apply the Method of Truth Tables to the proposition. As can be seen by inspection, the truth values under the main connective are true for all boolean interpretations. :<nowiki>$\begin{array}{|ccccc|c|ccccc|} \hline ((p & \land & q) & \implies & r) & \implies & (p & \implies & (q & \implies & r)) \\ \hline \F & \F &...
:$\vdash \paren {\paren {p \land q} \implies r} \iff \paren {p \implies \paren {q \implies r} }$
We apply the [[Method of Truth Tables]] to the proposition. As can be seen by inspection, the [[Definition:Truth Value|truth values]] under the [[Definition:Main Connective (Propositional Logic)|main connective]] are [[Definition:True|true]] for all [[Definition:Boolean Interpretation|boolean interpretations]]. :<now...
Rule of Exportation/Formulation 2/Forward Implication/Proof by Truth Table
https://proofwiki.org/wiki/Rule_of_Exportation/Formulation_2
https://proofwiki.org/wiki/Rule_of_Exportation/Formulation_2/Forward_Implication/Proof_by_Truth_Table
[ "Rule of Exportation" ]
[]
[ "Method of Truth Tables", "Definition:Truth Value", "Definition:Main Connective/Propositional Logic", "Definition:True", "Definition:Boolean Interpretation" ]
proofwiki-6738
Rule of Exportation/Formulation 2
:$\vdash \paren {\paren {p \land q} \implies r} \iff \paren {p \implies \paren {q \implies r} }$
{{BeginTableau|\vdash \paren {p \implies \paren {q \implies r} } \implies \paren {\paren {p \land q} \implies r} }} {{Assumption|1|p \implies \paren {q \implies r} }} {{Assumption|2|p \land q}} {{Simplification|3|2|p|2|1}} {{Simplification|4|2|q|2|2}} {{ModusPonens|5|1, 2|q \implies r|1|3}} {{ModusPonens|6|1, 2|r|5|4}}...
:$\vdash \paren {\paren {p \land q} \implies r} \iff \paren {p \implies \paren {q \implies r} }$
{{BeginTableau|\vdash \paren {p \implies \paren {q \implies r} } \implies \paren {\paren {p \land q} \implies r} }} {{Assumption|1|p \implies \paren {q \implies r} }} {{Assumption|2|p \land q}} {{Simplification|3|2|p|2|1}} {{Simplification|4|2|q|2|2}} {{ModusPonens|5|1, 2|q \implies r|1|3}} {{ModusPonens|6|1, 2|r|5|4}}...
Rule of Exportation/Formulation 2/Reverse Implication/Proof 1
https://proofwiki.org/wiki/Rule_of_Exportation/Formulation_2
https://proofwiki.org/wiki/Rule_of_Exportation/Formulation_2/Reverse_Implication/Proof_1
[ "Rule of Exportation" ]
[]
[]
proofwiki-6739
Rule of Exportation/Formulation 2
:$\vdash \paren {\paren {p \land q} \implies r} \iff \paren {p \implies \paren {q \implies r} }$
{{BeginTableau|\vdash \paren {p \implies \paren {q \implies r} } \implies \paren {\paren {p \land q} \implies r} }} {{Assumption|1|p \implies \paren {q \implies r} }} {{SequentIntro|2|1|\paren {p \land q} \implies r|1|Rule of Exportation: Formulation 1: Reverse Implication}} {{Implication|3||\paren {p \implies \paren {...
:$\vdash \paren {\paren {p \land q} \implies r} \iff \paren {p \implies \paren {q \implies r} }$
{{BeginTableau|\vdash \paren {p \implies \paren {q \implies r} } \implies \paren {\paren {p \land q} \implies r} }} {{Assumption|1|p \implies \paren {q \implies r} }} {{SequentIntro|2|1|\paren {p \land q} \implies r|1|[[Rule of Exportation/Formulation 1/Reverse Implication|Rule of Exportation: Formulation 1: Reverse Im...
Rule of Exportation/Formulation 2/Reverse Implication/Proof 2
https://proofwiki.org/wiki/Rule_of_Exportation/Formulation_2
https://proofwiki.org/wiki/Rule_of_Exportation/Formulation_2/Reverse_Implication/Proof_2
[ "Rule of Exportation" ]
[]
[ "Rule of Exportation/Formulation 1/Reverse Implication" ]
proofwiki-6740
Rule of Exportation/Formulation 2
:$\vdash \paren {\paren {p \land q} \implies r} \iff \paren {p \implies \paren {q \implies r} }$
We apply the Method of Truth Tables to the proposition. As can be seen by inspection, the truth values under the main connective are true for all boolean interpretations. :<nowiki>$\begin{array}{|ccccc|c|ccccc|} \hline (p & \implies & (q & \implies & r)) & \implies & ((p & \land & q) & \implies & r) \\ \hline \F & \T &...
:$\vdash \paren {\paren {p \land q} \implies r} \iff \paren {p \implies \paren {q \implies r} }$
We apply the [[Method of Truth Tables]] to the proposition. As can be seen by inspection, the [[Definition:Truth Value|truth values]] under the [[Definition:Main Connective (Propositional Logic)|main connective]] are [[Definition:True|true]] for all [[Definition:Boolean Interpretation|boolean interpretations]]. :<now...
Rule of Exportation/Formulation 2/Reverse Implication/Proof by Truth Table
https://proofwiki.org/wiki/Rule_of_Exportation/Formulation_2
https://proofwiki.org/wiki/Rule_of_Exportation/Formulation_2/Reverse_Implication/Proof_by_Truth_Table
[ "Rule of Exportation" ]
[]
[ "Method of Truth Tables", "Definition:Truth Value", "Definition:Main Connective/Propositional Logic", "Definition:True", "Definition:Boolean Interpretation" ]
proofwiki-6741
Rule of Exportation/Formulation 2/Forward Implication
:$\vdash \paren {\paren {p \land q} \implies r} \implies \paren {p \implies \paren {q \implies r} }$
{{BeginTableau|\vdash \paren {\paren {p \land q} \implies r} \implies \paren {p \implies \paren {q \implies r} } }} {{Assumption|1|\paren {p \land q} \implies r}} {{Assumption|2|p}} {{Assumption|3|q}} {{Conjunction|4|2, 3|p \land q|2|3}} {{ModusPonens|5|1, 2, 3|r|1|4}} {{Implication|6|1, 2|q \implies r|3|5}} {{Implicat...
:$\vdash \paren {\paren {p \land q} \implies r} \implies \paren {p \implies \paren {q \implies r} }$
{{BeginTableau|\vdash \paren {\paren {p \land q} \implies r} \implies \paren {p \implies \paren {q \implies r} } }} {{Assumption|1|\paren {p \land q} \implies r}} {{Assumption|2|p}} {{Assumption|3|q}} {{Conjunction|4|2, 3|p \land q|2|3}} {{ModusPonens|5|1, 2, 3|r|1|4}} {{Implication|6|1, 2|q \implies r|3|5}} {{Implicat...
Rule of Exportation/Formulation 2/Forward Implication/Proof 1
https://proofwiki.org/wiki/Rule_of_Exportation/Formulation_2/Forward_Implication
https://proofwiki.org/wiki/Rule_of_Exportation/Formulation_2/Forward_Implication/Proof_1
[ "Rule of Exportation" ]
[]
[]
proofwiki-6742
Rule of Exportation/Formulation 2/Forward Implication
:$\vdash \paren {\paren {p \land q} \implies r} \implies \paren {p \implies \paren {q \implies r} }$
{{BeginTableau|\vdash \paren {\paren {p \land q} \implies r} \implies \paren {p \implies \paren {q \implies r} } }} {{Assumption|1|\paren {p \land q} \implies r}} {{SequentIntro|2|1|p \implies \paren {q \implies r}|1|Rule of Exportation: Formulation 1: Forward Implication}} {{Implication|3||\paren {\paren {p \land q} \...
:$\vdash \paren {\paren {p \land q} \implies r} \implies \paren {p \implies \paren {q \implies r} }$
{{BeginTableau|\vdash \paren {\paren {p \land q} \implies r} \implies \paren {p \implies \paren {q \implies r} } }} {{Assumption|1|\paren {p \land q} \implies r}} {{SequentIntro|2|1|p \implies \paren {q \implies r}|1|[[Rule of Exportation/Formulation 1/Forward Implication|Rule of Exportation: Formulation 1: Forward Imp...
Rule of Exportation/Formulation 2/Forward Implication/Proof 2
https://proofwiki.org/wiki/Rule_of_Exportation/Formulation_2/Forward_Implication
https://proofwiki.org/wiki/Rule_of_Exportation/Formulation_2/Forward_Implication/Proof_2
[ "Rule of Exportation" ]
[]
[ "Rule of Exportation/Formulation 1/Forward Implication" ]
proofwiki-6743
Rule of Exportation/Formulation 2/Forward Implication
:$\vdash \paren {\paren {p \land q} \implies r} \implies \paren {p \implies \paren {q \implies r} }$
We apply the Method of Truth Tables to the proposition. As can be seen by inspection, the truth values under the main connective are true for all boolean interpretations. :<nowiki>$\begin{array}{|ccccc|c|ccccc|} \hline ((p & \land & q) & \implies & r) & \implies & (p & \implies & (q & \implies & r)) \\ \hline \F & \F &...
:$\vdash \paren {\paren {p \land q} \implies r} \implies \paren {p \implies \paren {q \implies r} }$
We apply the [[Method of Truth Tables]] to the proposition. As can be seen by inspection, the [[Definition:Truth Value|truth values]] under the [[Definition:Main Connective (Propositional Logic)|main connective]] are [[Definition:True|true]] for all [[Definition:Boolean Interpretation|boolean interpretations]]. :<now...
Rule of Exportation/Formulation 2/Forward Implication/Proof by Truth Table
https://proofwiki.org/wiki/Rule_of_Exportation/Formulation_2/Forward_Implication
https://proofwiki.org/wiki/Rule_of_Exportation/Formulation_2/Forward_Implication/Proof_by_Truth_Table
[ "Rule of Exportation" ]
[]
[ "Method of Truth Tables", "Definition:Truth Value", "Definition:Main Connective/Propositional Logic", "Definition:True", "Definition:Boolean Interpretation" ]
proofwiki-6744
Rule of Exportation/Formulation 2/Reverse Implication
:$\vdash \paren {p \implies \paren {q \implies r} } \implies \paren {\paren {p \land q} \implies r}$
{{BeginTableau|\vdash \paren {p \implies \paren {q \implies r} } \implies \paren {\paren {p \land q} \implies r} }} {{Assumption|1|p \implies \paren {q \implies r} }} {{Assumption|2|p \land q}} {{Simplification|3|2|p|2|1}} {{Simplification|4|2|q|2|2}} {{ModusPonens|5|1, 2|q \implies r|1|3}} {{ModusPonens|6|1, 2|r|5|4}}...
:$\vdash \paren {p \implies \paren {q \implies r} } \implies \paren {\paren {p \land q} \implies r}$
{{BeginTableau|\vdash \paren {p \implies \paren {q \implies r} } \implies \paren {\paren {p \land q} \implies r} }} {{Assumption|1|p \implies \paren {q \implies r} }} {{Assumption|2|p \land q}} {{Simplification|3|2|p|2|1}} {{Simplification|4|2|q|2|2}} {{ModusPonens|5|1, 2|q \implies r|1|3}} {{ModusPonens|6|1, 2|r|5|4}}...
Rule of Exportation/Formulation 2/Reverse Implication/Proof 1
https://proofwiki.org/wiki/Rule_of_Exportation/Formulation_2/Reverse_Implication
https://proofwiki.org/wiki/Rule_of_Exportation/Formulation_2/Reverse_Implication/Proof_1
[ "Rule of Exportation" ]
[]
[]
proofwiki-6745
Rule of Exportation/Formulation 2/Reverse Implication
:$\vdash \paren {p \implies \paren {q \implies r} } \implies \paren {\paren {p \land q} \implies r}$
{{BeginTableau|\vdash \paren {p \implies \paren {q \implies r} } \implies \paren {\paren {p \land q} \implies r} }} {{Assumption|1|p \implies \paren {q \implies r} }} {{SequentIntro|2|1|\paren {p \land q} \implies r|1|Rule of Exportation: Formulation 1: Reverse Implication}} {{Implication|3||\paren {p \implies \paren {...
:$\vdash \paren {p \implies \paren {q \implies r} } \implies \paren {\paren {p \land q} \implies r}$
{{BeginTableau|\vdash \paren {p \implies \paren {q \implies r} } \implies \paren {\paren {p \land q} \implies r} }} {{Assumption|1|p \implies \paren {q \implies r} }} {{SequentIntro|2|1|\paren {p \land q} \implies r|1|[[Rule of Exportation/Formulation 1/Reverse Implication|Rule of Exportation: Formulation 1: Reverse Im...
Rule of Exportation/Formulation 2/Reverse Implication/Proof 2
https://proofwiki.org/wiki/Rule_of_Exportation/Formulation_2/Reverse_Implication
https://proofwiki.org/wiki/Rule_of_Exportation/Formulation_2/Reverse_Implication/Proof_2
[ "Rule of Exportation" ]
[]
[ "Rule of Exportation/Formulation 1/Reverse Implication" ]
proofwiki-6746
Rule of Exportation/Formulation 2/Reverse Implication
:$\vdash \paren {p \implies \paren {q \implies r} } \implies \paren {\paren {p \land q} \implies r}$
We apply the Method of Truth Tables to the proposition. As can be seen by inspection, the truth values under the main connective are true for all boolean interpretations. :<nowiki>$\begin{array}{|ccccc|c|ccccc|} \hline (p & \implies & (q & \implies & r)) & \implies & ((p & \land & q) & \implies & r) \\ \hline \F & \T &...
:$\vdash \paren {p \implies \paren {q \implies r} } \implies \paren {\paren {p \land q} \implies r}$
We apply the [[Method of Truth Tables]] to the proposition. As can be seen by inspection, the [[Definition:Truth Value|truth values]] under the [[Definition:Main Connective (Propositional Logic)|main connective]] are [[Definition:True|true]] for all [[Definition:Boolean Interpretation|boolean interpretations]]. :<now...
Rule of Exportation/Formulation 2/Reverse Implication/Proof by Truth Table
https://proofwiki.org/wiki/Rule_of_Exportation/Formulation_2/Reverse_Implication
https://proofwiki.org/wiki/Rule_of_Exportation/Formulation_2/Reverse_Implication/Proof_by_Truth_Table
[ "Rule of Exportation" ]
[]
[ "Method of Truth Tables", "Definition:Truth Value", "Definition:Main Connective/Propositional Logic", "Definition:True", "Definition:Boolean Interpretation" ]
proofwiki-6747
Rule of Exportation/Formulation 1/Forward Implication
:$\paren {p \land q} \implies r \vdash p \implies \paren {q \implies r}$
{{BeginTableau|\paren {p \land q} \implies r \vdash p \implies \paren {q \implies r} }} {{Premise|1|\paren {p \land q} \implies r}} {{Assumption|2|p}} {{Assumption|3|q}} {{Conjunction|4|2, 3|p \land q|2|3}} {{ModusPonens|5|1, 2, 3|r|1|4}} {{Implication|6|1, 2|q \implies r|3|5}} {{Implication|7|1|p \implies \paren {q \i...
:$\paren {p \land q} \implies r \vdash p \implies \paren {q \implies r}$
{{BeginTableau|\paren {p \land q} \implies r \vdash p \implies \paren {q \implies r} }} {{Premise|1|\paren {p \land q} \implies r}} {{Assumption|2|p}} {{Assumption|3|q}} {{Conjunction|4|2, 3|p \land q|2|3}} {{ModusPonens|5|1, 2, 3|r|1|4}} {{Implication|6|1, 2|q \implies r|3|5}} {{Implication|7|1|p \implies \paren {q \i...
Rule of Exportation/Formulation 1/Forward Implication/Proof
https://proofwiki.org/wiki/Rule_of_Exportation/Formulation_1/Forward_Implication
https://proofwiki.org/wiki/Rule_of_Exportation/Formulation_1/Forward_Implication/Proof
[ "Rule of Exportation" ]
[]
[]
proofwiki-6748
Rule of Exportation/Formulation 1/Reverse Implication
:$p \implies \paren {q \implies r} \vdash \paren {p \land q} \implies r$
{{BeginTableau|p \implies \paren {q \implies r} \vdash \paren {p \land q} \implies r}} {{Premise|1|p \implies \paren {q \implies r} }} {{Assumption|2|p \land q}} {{Simplification|3|2|p|2|1}} {{Simplification|4|2|q|2|2}} {{ModusPonens|5|1, 2|q \implies r|1|3}} {{ModusPonens|6|1, 2|r|5|4}} {{Implication|7|1|\paren {p \la...
:$p \implies \paren {q \implies r} \vdash \paren {p \land q} \implies r$
{{BeginTableau|p \implies \paren {q \implies r} \vdash \paren {p \land q} \implies r}} {{Premise|1|p \implies \paren {q \implies r} }} {{Assumption|2|p \land q}} {{Simplification|3|2|p|2|1}} {{Simplification|4|2|q|2|2}} {{ModusPonens|5|1, 2|q \implies r|1|3}} {{ModusPonens|6|1, 2|r|5|4}} {{Implication|7|1|\paren {p \la...
Rule of Exportation/Formulation 1/Reverse Implication/Proof
https://proofwiki.org/wiki/Rule_of_Exportation/Formulation_1/Reverse_Implication
https://proofwiki.org/wiki/Rule_of_Exportation/Formulation_1/Reverse_Implication/Proof
[ "Rule of Exportation" ]
[]
[]
proofwiki-6749
Rule of Commutation/Conjunction/Formulation 1
:$p \land q \dashv \vdash q \land p$
{{BeginTableau|p \land q \vdash q \land p}} {{Premise|1|p \land q}} {{Simplification|2|1|p|1|1}} {{Simplification|3|1|q|1|2}} {{Conjunction|4|1|q \land p|3|2}} {{EndTableau}} {{qed|lemma}} {{BeginTableau|q \land p \vdash p \land q}} {{Premise|1|q \land p}} {{Simplification|2|1|q|1|1}} {{Simplification|3|1|p|1|2}} {{Con...
:$p \land q \dashv \vdash q \land p$
{{BeginTableau|p \land q \vdash q \land p}} {{Premise|1|p \land q}} {{Simplification|2|1|p|1|1}} {{Simplification|3|1|q|1|2}} {{Conjunction|4|1|q \land p|3|2}} {{EndTableau}} {{qed|lemma}} {{BeginTableau|q \land p \vdash p \land q}} {{Premise|1|q \land p}} {{Simplification|2|1|q|1|1}} {{Simplification|3|1|p|1|2}} {{C...
Rule of Commutation/Conjunction/Formulation 1/Proof 1
https://proofwiki.org/wiki/Rule_of_Commutation/Conjunction/Formulation_1
https://proofwiki.org/wiki/Rule_of_Commutation/Conjunction/Formulation_1/Proof_1
[ "Rule of Commutation" ]
[]
[]
proofwiki-6750
Rule of Commutation/Conjunction/Formulation 1
:$p \land q \dashv \vdash q \land p$
We apply the Method of Truth Tables. As can be seen by inspection, the truth values under the main connectives match for all boolean interpretations. $\begin{array}{|ccc||ccc|} \hline p & \land & q & q & \land & p \\ \hline \F & \F & \F & \F & \F & \F \\ \F & \F & \T & \T & \F & \F \\ \T & \F & \F & \F & \F & \T \\ \T ...
:$p \land q \dashv \vdash q \land p$
We apply the [[Method of Truth Tables]]. As can be seen by inspection, the [[Definition:Truth Value|truth values]] under the [[Definition:Main Connective (Propositional Logic)|main connectives]] match for all [[Definition:Boolean Interpretation|boolean interpretations]]. $\begin{array}{|ccc||ccc|} \hline p & \land & ...
Rule of Commutation/Conjunction/Formulation 1/Proof by Truth Table
https://proofwiki.org/wiki/Rule_of_Commutation/Conjunction/Formulation_1
https://proofwiki.org/wiki/Rule_of_Commutation/Conjunction/Formulation_1/Proof_by_Truth_Table
[ "Rule of Commutation" ]
[]
[ "Method of Truth Tables", "Definition:Truth Value", "Definition:Main Connective/Propositional Logic", "Definition:Boolean Interpretation" ]
proofwiki-6751
Rule of Commutation/Disjunction/Formulation 1
:$p \lor q \dashv \vdash q \lor p$
{{BeginTableau|p \lor q \vdash q \lor p}} {{Premise|1|p \lor q}} {{Assumption|2|p}} {{Addition|3|2|q \lor p|2|2}} {{Assumption|4|p}} {{Addition|5|4|q \lor p|4|1}} {{ProofByCases|6|1|q \lor p|1|2|3|4|5}} {{EndTableau}} {{qed}} {{BeginTableau|q \lor p \vdash p \lor q}} {{Premise|1|q \lor p}} {{Assumption|2|q}} {{Addition...
:$p \lor q \dashv \vdash q \lor p$
{{BeginTableau|p \lor q \vdash q \lor p}} {{Premise|1|p \lor q}} {{Assumption|2|p}} {{Addition|3|2|q \lor p|2|2}} {{Assumption|4|p}} {{Addition|5|4|q \lor p|4|1}} {{ProofByCases|6|1|q \lor p|1|2|3|4|5}} {{EndTableau}} {{qed}} {{BeginTableau|q \lor p \vdash p \lor q}} {{Premise|1|q \lor p}} {{Assumption|2|q}} {{Additi...
Rule of Commutation/Disjunction/Formulation 1/Proof 1
https://proofwiki.org/wiki/Rule_of_Commutation/Disjunction/Formulation_1
https://proofwiki.org/wiki/Rule_of_Commutation/Disjunction/Formulation_1/Proof_1
[ "Rule of Commutation" ]
[]
[]
proofwiki-6752
Rule of Commutation/Disjunction/Formulation 1
:$p \lor q \dashv \vdash q \lor p$
We apply the Method of Truth Tables. As can be seen by inspection, in both cases, the truth values under the main connectives match for all boolean interpretations. :<nowiki>$\begin{array}{|ccc||ccc|} \hline p & \lor & q & q & \lor & p \\ \hline \F & \F & \F & \F & \F & \F \\ \F & \T & \T & \T & \T & \F \\ \T & \T & \F...
:$p \lor q \dashv \vdash q \lor p$
We apply the [[Method of Truth Tables]]. As can be seen by inspection, in both cases, the [[Definition:Truth Value|truth values]] under the [[Definition:Main Connective (Propositional Logic)|main connectives]] match for all [[Definition:Boolean Interpretation|boolean interpretations]]. :<nowiki>$\begin{array}{|ccc||c...
Rule of Commutation/Disjunction/Formulation 1/Proof by Truth Table
https://proofwiki.org/wiki/Rule_of_Commutation/Disjunction/Formulation_1
https://proofwiki.org/wiki/Rule_of_Commutation/Disjunction/Formulation_1/Proof_by_Truth_Table
[ "Rule of Commutation" ]
[]
[ "Method of Truth Tables", "Definition:Truth Value", "Definition:Main Connective/Propositional Logic", "Definition:Boolean Interpretation" ]
proofwiki-6753
Rule of Commutation/Conjunction/Formulation 2
:$\vdash \paren {p \land q} \iff \paren {q \land p}$
{{BeginTableau|\vdash \paren {p \land q} \iff \paren {q \land p} }} {{Assumption |1|p \land q}} {{Commutation|2|1|q \land p|1|Conjunction}} {{Implication|3||\paren {p \land q} \implies \paren {q \land p}|1|2}} {{Assumption |4|q \land p}} {{Commutation|5|4|p \land q|4|Conjunction}} {{Implication|6||\paren {q \land p} \i...
:$\vdash \paren {p \land q} \iff \paren {q \land p}$
{{BeginTableau|\vdash \paren {p \land q} \iff \paren {q \land p} }} {{Assumption |1|p \land q}} {{Commutation|2|1|q \land p|1|Conjunction}} {{Implication|3||\paren {p \land q} \implies \paren {q \land p}|1|2}} {{Assumption |4|q \land p}} {{Commutation|5|4|p \land q|4|Conjunction}} {{Implication|6||\paren {q \land p} \i...
Rule of Commutation/Conjunction/Formulation 2/Proof 2
https://proofwiki.org/wiki/Rule_of_Commutation/Conjunction/Formulation_2
https://proofwiki.org/wiki/Rule_of_Commutation/Conjunction/Formulation_2/Proof_2
[ "Rule of Commutation" ]
[]
[]
proofwiki-6754
Rule of Commutation/Disjunction/Formulation 2
:$\vdash \paren {p \lor q} \iff \paren {q \lor p}$
{{BeginTableau|\vdash \paren {p \lor q} \iff \paren {q \lor p} }} {{Assumption|1|p \lor q}} {{Commutation|2|1|q \lor p|1|Disjunction}} {{Implication|3||\paren {p \lor q} \implies \paren {q \lor p}|1|2}} {{Assumption|4|q \lor p}} {{Commutation|5|4|p \lor q|4|Disjunction}} {{Implication|6||\paren {q \lor p} \implies \par...
:$\vdash \paren {p \lor q} \iff \paren {q \lor p}$
{{BeginTableau|\vdash \paren {p \lor q} \iff \paren {q \lor p} }} {{Assumption|1|p \lor q}} {{Commutation|2|1|q \lor p|1|Disjunction}} {{Implication|3||\paren {p \lor q} \implies \paren {q \lor p}|1|2}} {{Assumption|4|q \lor p}} {{Commutation|5|4|p \lor q|4|Disjunction}} {{Implication|6||\paren {q \lor p} \implies \par...
Rule of Commutation/Disjunction/Formulation 2/Proof 1
https://proofwiki.org/wiki/Rule_of_Commutation/Disjunction/Formulation_2
https://proofwiki.org/wiki/Rule_of_Commutation/Disjunction/Formulation_2/Proof_1
[ "Rule of Commutation" ]
[]
[]
proofwiki-6755
Rule of Commutation/Disjunction/Formulation 2
:$\vdash \paren {p \lor q} \iff \paren {q \lor p}$
We apply the Method of Truth Tables. As can be seen by inspection, the truth values under the main connective match for all boolean interpretations. :<nowiki>$\begin {array} {|ccc|c|ccc|} \hline (p & \lor & q) & \iff & (q & \lor & p) \\ \hline \F & \F & \F & \T & \F & \F & \F \\ \F & \T & \T & \T & \T & \T & \F \\ \T &...
:$\vdash \paren {p \lor q} \iff \paren {q \lor p}$
We apply the [[Method of Truth Tables]]. As can be seen by inspection, the [[Definition:Truth Value|truth values]] under the [[Definition:Main Connective (Propositional Logic)|main connective]] match for all [[Definition:Boolean Interpretation|boolean interpretations]]. :<nowiki>$\begin {array} {|ccc|c|ccc|} \hline (...
Rule of Commutation/Disjunction/Formulation 2/Proof by Truth Table
https://proofwiki.org/wiki/Rule_of_Commutation/Disjunction/Formulation_2
https://proofwiki.org/wiki/Rule_of_Commutation/Disjunction/Formulation_2/Proof_by_Truth_Table
[ "Rule of Commutation" ]
[]
[ "Method of Truth Tables", "Definition:Truth Value", "Definition:Main Connective/Propositional Logic", "Definition:Boolean Interpretation" ]
proofwiki-6756
Combination Theorem for Complex Derivatives/Product Rule
:$\map {\paren {f g}'} z = \map {f'} z \map g z + \map f z \map {g'} z$
Define $k: D \to \C$ as the pointwise product of $f$ and $g$, so $k = fg$. Let $z_0 \in D$ be a point in $D$. {{begin-eqn}} {{eqn | l = \map {k'} {z_0} | r = \lim_{h \mathop \to 0} \frac {\map k {z_0 + h} - \map k {z_0} } h | c = }} {{eqn | r = \lim_{h \mathop \to 0} \frac {\map f {z_0 + h} \, \map g {z_0 +...
:$\map {\paren {f g}'} z = \map {f'} z \map g z + \map f z \map {g'} z$
Define $k: D \to \C$ as the [[Definition:Pointwise Multiplication of Complex-Valued Functions|pointwise product]] of $f$ and $g$, so $k = fg$. Let $z_0 \in D$ be a point in $D$. {{begin-eqn}} {{eqn | l = \map {k'} {z_0} | r = \lim_{h \mathop \to 0} \frac {\map k {z_0 + h} - \map k {z_0} } h | c = }} {{eqn...
Combination Theorem for Complex Derivatives/Product Rule/Proof 1
https://proofwiki.org/wiki/Combination_Theorem_for_Complex_Derivatives/Product_Rule
https://proofwiki.org/wiki/Combination_Theorem_for_Complex_Derivatives/Product_Rule/Proof_1
[ "Combination Theorem for Complex Derivatives" ]
[]
[ "Definition:Pointwise Multiplication of Complex-Valued Functions" ]
proofwiki-6757
Combination Theorem for Complex Derivatives/Product Rule
:$\map {\paren {f g}'} z = \map {f'} z \map g z + \map f z \map {g'} z$
Denote the open ball of $0$ by radius $r \in \R_{>0}$ as $\map {B_r} 0$. Let $z \in D$. By the Epsilon-Function Complex Differentiability Condition, it follows that there exists $r \in \R_{>0}$ such that for all $h \in \map {B_r} 0 \setminus \set 0$: :$\map f {z + h} = \map f z + \map h {\map {f'} z + \map {\epsilon_f}...
:$\map {\paren {f g}'} z = \map {f'} z \map g z + \map f z \map {g'} z$
Denote the [[Definition:Open Ball|open ball]] of $0$ by [[Definition:Radius of Open Ball|radius]] $r \in \R_{>0}$ as $\map {B_r} 0$. Let $z \in D$. By the [[Epsilon-Function Complex Differentiability Condition]], it follows that there exists $r \in \R_{>0}$ such that for all $h \in \map {B_r} 0 \setminus \set 0$: :$...
Combination Theorem for Complex Derivatives/Product Rule/Proof 2
https://proofwiki.org/wiki/Combination_Theorem_for_Complex_Derivatives/Product_Rule
https://proofwiki.org/wiki/Combination_Theorem_for_Complex_Derivatives/Product_Rule/Proof_2
[ "Combination Theorem for Complex Derivatives" ]
[]
[ "Definition:Open Ball", "Definition:Open Ball/Radius", "Epsilon-Function Differentiability Condition/Complex Case", "Definition:Complex Function", "Definition:Convergent Mapping/Complex Function", "Combination Theorem for Limits of Functions/Complex/Product Rule", "Combination Theorem for Limits of Func...
proofwiki-6758
Dedekind Completion is Unique up to Isomorphism
Let $S$ be an ordered set. Let $\struct {X, f}$ and $\struct {Y, g}$ be Dedekind completions of $S$. Then there exists a unique order isomorphism $\phi: X \to Y$ such that $\phi \circ f = g$.
By assumption, $\struct {X, f}$ is a Dedekind completion of $S$. Also, $g: S \to Y$ is an order embedding and $Y$ is Dedekind complete. Hence by definition of Dedekind completion, there exists a unique $\phi: X \to Y$ such that: :$\phi \circ f = g$ It only remains to show that $\psi$ is an order isomorphism. By reversi...
Let $S$ be an [[Definition:Ordered Set|ordered set]]. Let $\struct {X, f}$ and $\struct {Y, g}$ be [[Definition:Dedekind Completion|Dedekind completions]] of $S$. Then there exists a [[Definition:Unique|unique]] [[Definition:Order Isomorphism|order isomorphism]] $\phi: X \to Y$ such that $\phi \circ f = g$.
By assumption, $\struct {X, f}$ is a [[Definition:Dedekind Completion|Dedekind completion]] of $S$. Also, $g: S \to Y$ is an [[Definition:Order Embedding|order embedding]] and $Y$ is [[Definition:Dedekind Complete|Dedekind complete]]. Hence by definition of [[Definition:Dedekind Completion|Dedekind completion]], the...
Dedekind Completion is Unique up to Isomorphism
https://proofwiki.org/wiki/Dedekind_Completion_is_Unique_up_to_Isomorphism
https://proofwiki.org/wiki/Dedekind_Completion_is_Unique_up_to_Isomorphism
[ "Order Theory" ]
[ "Definition:Ordered Set", "Definition:Dedekind Completion", "Definition:Unique", "Definition:Order Isomorphism" ]
[ "Definition:Dedekind Completion", "Definition:Order Embedding", "Definition:Dedekind Completeness Property", "Definition:Dedekind Completion", "Definition:Unique", "Definition:Order Isomorphism", "Definition:Unique", "Definition:Dedekind Completion", "Definition:Identity Mapping", "Definition:Orde...
proofwiki-6759
Combination Theorem for Complex Derivatives/Combined Sum Rule
Let $\map {\dfrac \d {\d z} } {c f + w g}$ denote the derivative of $c f + w g$. Then: :$\map {\map {\dfrac \d {\d z} } {c f + w g} } z = c \dfrac \d {\d z} \map f z + w \dfrac \d {\d z} \map g z$
{{begin-eqn}} {{eqn | l = c \dfrac \d {\d z} \map f z + w \dfrac \d {\d z} \map g z | r = \map {\map {\dfrac \d {\d z} } {c f} } z + \map {\map {\dfrac \d {\d z} } {w g} } z | c = Combination Theorem for Complex-Differentiable Functions: Multiple Rule }} {{eqn | r = \map {\map {\dfrac \d {\d z} } {c f + w g...
Let $\map {\dfrac \d {\d z} } {c f + w g}$ denote the [[Definition:Derivative of Complex Function|derivative]] of $c f + w g$. Then: :$\map {\map {\dfrac \d {\d z} } {c f + w g} } z = c \dfrac \d {\d z} \map f z + w \dfrac \d {\d z} \map g z$
{{begin-eqn}} {{eqn | l = c \dfrac \d {\d z} \map f z + w \dfrac \d {\d z} \map g z | r = \map {\map {\dfrac \d {\d z} } {c f} } z + \map {\map {\dfrac \d {\d z} } {w g} } z | c = [[Combination Theorem for Complex-Differentiable Functions/Multiple Rule|Combination Theorem for Complex-Differentiable Function...
Combination Theorem for Complex Derivatives/Combined Sum Rule
https://proofwiki.org/wiki/Combination_Theorem_for_Complex_Derivatives/Combined_Sum_Rule
https://proofwiki.org/wiki/Combination_Theorem_for_Complex_Derivatives/Combined_Sum_Rule
[ "Combination Theorem for Complex Derivatives" ]
[ "Definition:Derivative/Complex Function" ]
[ "Combination Theorem for Complex Derivatives/Multiple Rule", "Combination Theorem for Complex Derivatives/Sum Rule" ]
proofwiki-6760
Existence of Dedekind Completion
Let $\struct {S, \preceq}$ be an ordered set. Then there exists a Dedekind completion of $S$. That is, there exists a Dedekind complete ordered set $\tilde S$ and an order embedding $\phi: S \to \tilde S$ such that: :For all Dedekind complete ordered sets $X$, and for all order embeddings $f: S \to X$, there exists an ...
For all subsets $I \subseteq S$, define: :$\map {\operatorname U} I = \left\{{x \in S: x}\right.$ is an upper bound for $\left.{I}\right\}$ :$\map {\operatorname L} I = \left\{{x \in S: x}\right.$ is a lower bound for $\left.{I}\right\}$ Note that, for all $I, J \subseteq S$: :$I \subseteq \map {\operatorname {LU} } I$...
Let $\struct {S, \preceq}$ be an [[Definition:Ordered Set|ordered set]]. Then there exists a [[Definition:Dedekind Completion|Dedekind completion]] of $S$. That is, there exists a [[Definition:Dedekind Complete|Dedekind complete]] [[Definition:Ordered Set|ordered set]] $\tilde S$ and an [[Definition:Order Embedding...
For all [[Definition:Subset|subsets]] $I \subseteq S$, define: :$\map {\operatorname U} I = \left\{{x \in S: x}\right.$ is an [[Definition:Upper Bound of Set|upper bound]] for $\left.{I}\right\}$ :$\map {\operatorname L} I = \left\{{x \in S: x}\right.$ is a [[Definition:Lower Bound of Set|lower bound]] for $\left.{I}...
Existence of Dedekind Completion
https://proofwiki.org/wiki/Existence_of_Dedekind_Completion
https://proofwiki.org/wiki/Existence_of_Dedekind_Completion
[ "Order Theory" ]
[ "Definition:Ordered Set", "Definition:Dedekind Completion", "Definition:Dedekind Completeness Property", "Definition:Ordered Set", "Definition:Order Embedding", "Definition:Dedekind Completeness Property", "Definition:Ordered Set", "Definition:Order Embedding", "Definition:Order Embedding" ]
[ "Definition:Subset", "Definition:Upper Bound of Set", "Definition:Lower Bound of Set", "Definition:Non-Empty Set", "Definition:Bounded Above Set", "Subset Relation is Ordering", "Definition:Non-Empty Set", "Definition:Bounded Above Set", "Union is Smallest Superset/General Result", "Definition:Non...
proofwiki-6761
Reflexive Reduction of Transitive Antisymmetric Relation is Strict Ordering
Let $S$ be a set. Let $\RR$ be a transitive, antisymmetric relation on $S$. Let $\RR^\ne$ denote the reflexive reduction of $\RR$. Then $\RR^\ne$ is a strict ordering.
To show that $\RR^\ne$ is a strict ordering, it is sufficient to show that $\RR^\ne$ is antireflexive and transitive.
Let $S$ be a [[Definition:set|set]]. Let $\RR$ be a [[Definition:Transitive Relation|transitive]], [[Definition:Antisymmetric Relation|antisymmetric]] [[Definition:Endorelation|relation]] on $S$. Let $\RR^\ne$ denote the [[Definition:Reflexive Reduction|reflexive reduction]] of $\RR$. Then $\RR^\ne$ is a [[Definiti...
To show that $\RR^\ne$ is a [[Definition:Strict Ordering|strict ordering]], it is sufficient to show that $\RR^\ne$ is [[Definition:Antireflexive Relation|antireflexive]] and [[Definition:Transitive Relation|transitive]].
Reflexive Reduction of Transitive Antisymmetric Relation is Strict Ordering
https://proofwiki.org/wiki/Reflexive_Reduction_of_Transitive_Antisymmetric_Relation_is_Strict_Ordering
https://proofwiki.org/wiki/Reflexive_Reduction_of_Transitive_Antisymmetric_Relation_is_Strict_Ordering
[ "Reflexive Reductions", "Strict Orderings" ]
[ "Definition:set", "Definition:Transitive Relation", "Definition:Antisymmetric Relation", "Definition:Endorelation", "Definition:Reflexive Reduction", "Definition:Strict Ordering" ]
[ "Definition:Strict Ordering", "Definition:Antireflexive Relation", "Definition:Transitive Relation", "Definition:Transitive Relation" ]
proofwiki-6762
Reflexive Reduction of Antisymmetric Relation is Asymmetric
Let $S$ be a set. Let $\RR$ be an antisymmetric relation on $S$. Let $\RR^\ne$ be the reflexive reduction of $\RR$. Then $\RR^\ne$ is asymmetric.
{{AimForCont}} $\RR^\ne$ is not asymmetric. That is: :$\exists a, b \in S: a \mathrel {\RR^\ne} b$ and $b \mathrel {\RR^\ne} a$ Then by the definition of reflexive reduction: :$a \mathrel \RR b$, $b \mathrel \RR a$ and $a \ne b$. But this contradicts the antisymmetry of $\RR$. Thus, by definition, $\RR^\ne$ is an asymm...
Let $S$ be a [[Definition:Set|set]]. Let $\RR$ be an [[Definition:Antisymmetric Relation|antisymmetric relation]] on $S$. Let $\RR^\ne$ be the [[Definition:Reflexive Reduction|reflexive reduction]] of $\RR$. Then $\RR^\ne$ is [[Definition:Asymmetric Relation|asymmetric]].
{{AimForCont}} $\RR^\ne$ is not [[Definition:Asymmetric Relation|asymmetric]]. That is: :$\exists a, b \in S: a \mathrel {\RR^\ne} b$ and $b \mathrel {\RR^\ne} a$ Then by the definition of [[Definition:Reflexive Reduction|reflexive reduction]]: :$a \mathrel \RR b$, $b \mathrel \RR a$ and $a \ne b$. But this [[Proof ...
Reflexive Reduction of Antisymmetric Relation is Asymmetric
https://proofwiki.org/wiki/Reflexive_Reduction_of_Antisymmetric_Relation_is_Asymmetric
https://proofwiki.org/wiki/Reflexive_Reduction_of_Antisymmetric_Relation_is_Asymmetric
[ "Reflexive Reductions" ]
[ "Definition:Set", "Definition:Antisymmetric Relation", "Definition:Reflexive Reduction", "Definition:Asymmetric Relation" ]
[ "Definition:Asymmetric Relation", "Definition:Reflexive Reduction", "Proof by Contradiction", "Definition:Antisymmetric Relation", "Definition:Asymmetric Relation" ]
proofwiki-6763
Reductio ad Absurdum/Variant 1
:$\neg p \implies \bot \vdash p$
{{BeginTableau|\neg p \implies \bot \vdash p}} {{Premise|1|\neg p \implies \bot}} {{Assumption|2|\neg p}} {{ModusPonens|3|1, 2|\bot|1|2}} {{Contradiction|4|1|\neg \neg p|2|3}} {{DoubleNegElimination|5|1|p|4}} {{EndTableau|qed}}
:$\neg p \implies \bot \vdash p$
{{BeginTableau|\neg p \implies \bot \vdash p}} {{Premise|1|\neg p \implies \bot}} {{Assumption|2|\neg p}} {{ModusPonens|3|1, 2|\bot|1|2}} {{Contradiction|4|1|\neg \neg p|2|3}} {{DoubleNegElimination|5|1|p|4}} {{EndTableau|qed}}
Reductio ad Absurdum/Variant 1/Proof 1
https://proofwiki.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_Absurdum/Variant_1
https://proofwiki.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_Absurdum/Variant_1/Proof_1
[ "Reductio ad Absurdum" ]
[]
[]
proofwiki-6764
Reductio ad Absurdum/Variant 1
:$\neg p \implies \bot \vdash p$
As can be seen by inspection, the truth values under the main connectives match for all boolean interpretations. $\begin{array}{|cccc||c|} \hline \neg & p & \implies & \bot & p \\ \hline \T & \F & \F & \F & \F \\ \F & \T & \T & \F & \T \\ \hline \end{array}$ {{qed}}
:$\neg p \implies \bot \vdash p$
As can be seen by inspection, the [[Definition:Truth Value|truth values]] under the [[Definition:Main Connective (Propositional Logic)|main connectives]] match for all [[Definition:Boolean Interpretation|boolean interpretations]]. $\begin{array}{|cccc||c|} \hline \neg & p & \implies & \bot & p \\ \hline \T & \F & \F &...
Reductio ad Absurdum/Variant 1/Proof by Truth Table
https://proofwiki.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_Absurdum/Variant_1
https://proofwiki.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_Absurdum/Variant_1/Proof_by_Truth_Table
[ "Reductio ad Absurdum" ]
[]
[ "Definition:Truth Value", "Definition:Main Connective/Propositional Logic", "Definition:Boolean Interpretation" ]
proofwiki-6765
Reductio ad Absurdum/Variant 2
:$\neg p \implies \paren {q \land \neg q} \vdash p$
{{BeginTableau|\neg p \implies \left({q \land \neg q}\right) \vdash p}} {{Premise|1|\neg p \implies \left({q \land \neg q}\right)}} {{Assumption|2|\neg p}} {{ModusPonens|3|1, 2|q \land \neg q|1|2}} {{Simplification|4|1, 2|q|3|1}} {{Simplification|5|1, 2|\neg q|3|2}} {{NonContradiction|6|1, 2|4|5}} {{Contradiction|7|1|\...
:$\neg p \implies \paren {q \land \neg q} \vdash p$
{{BeginTableau|\neg p \implies \left({q \land \neg q}\right) \vdash p}} {{Premise|1|\neg p \implies \left({q \land \neg q}\right)}} {{Assumption|2|\neg p}} {{ModusPonens|3|1, 2|q \land \neg q|1|2}} {{Simplification|4|1, 2|q|3|1}} {{Simplification|5|1, 2|\neg q|3|2}} {{NonContradiction|6|1, 2|4|5}} {{Contradiction|7|1|\...
Reductio ad Absurdum/Variant 2/Proof 1
https://proofwiki.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_Absurdum/Variant_2
https://proofwiki.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_Absurdum/Variant_2/Proof_1
[ "Reductio ad Absurdum" ]
[]
[]
proofwiki-6766
Reductio ad Absurdum/Variant 2
:$\neg p \implies \paren {q \land \neg q} \vdash p$
As can be seen by inspection, the truth values under the main connectives match for all boolean interpretations. $\begin{array}{|ccccccc||c|} \hline \neg & p & \implies & (q & \land & \neg & q) & p \\ \hline \T & \F & \F & \F & \F & \T & \F & \F \\ \T & \F & \F & \T & \F & \F & \T & \F \\ \F & \T & \T & \F & \F & \T & ...
:$\neg p \implies \paren {q \land \neg q} \vdash p$
As can be seen by inspection, the [[Definition:Truth Value|truth values]] under the [[Definition:Main Connective (Propositional Logic)|main connectives]] match for all [[Definition:Boolean Interpretation|boolean interpretations]]. $\begin{array}{|ccccccc||c|} \hline \neg & p & \implies & (q & \land & \neg & q) & p \\ ...
Reductio ad Absurdum/Variant 2/Proof by Truth Table
https://proofwiki.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_Absurdum/Variant_2
https://proofwiki.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_Absurdum/Variant_2/Proof_by_Truth_Table
[ "Reductio ad Absurdum" ]
[]
[ "Definition:Truth Value", "Definition:Main Connective/Propositional Logic", "Definition:Boolean Interpretation" ]
proofwiki-6767
Proof by Contradiction/Variant 1
:$\paren {p \vdash \paren {q \land \neg q} } \vdash \neg p$
{{BeginTableau|\paren {p \vdash \paren {q \land \neg q} } \vdash \neg p}} {{Premise|1|p \vdash \paren {q \land \neg q} }} {{Assumption|2|p}} {{SequentIntro|3|1, 2|q \land \neg q|1, 2|{{hypothesis}} }} {{Simplification|4|1, 2|q|3|1}} {{Simplification|5|1, 2|\neg q|3|2}} {{NonContradiction|6|1, 2|4|5}} {{Contradiction|7|...
:$\paren {p \vdash \paren {q \land \neg q} } \vdash \neg p$
{{BeginTableau|\paren {p \vdash \paren {q \land \neg q} } \vdash \neg p}} {{Premise|1|p \vdash \paren {q \land \neg q} }} {{Assumption|2|p}} {{SequentIntro|3|1, 2|q \land \neg q|1, 2|{{hypothesis}} }} {{Simplification|4|1, 2|q|3|1}} {{Simplification|5|1, 2|\neg q|3|2}} {{NonContradiction|6|1, 2|4|5}} {{Contradiction|7|...
Proof by Contradiction/Variant 1
https://proofwiki.org/wiki/Proof_by_Contradiction/Variant_1
https://proofwiki.org/wiki/Proof_by_Contradiction/Variant_1
[ "Proof by Contradiction" ]
[]
[]
proofwiki-6768
Equivalence of Definitions of Topological Group
Let $\struct {G, \odot}$ be a group. On its underlying set $G$, let $\struct {G, \tau}$ be a topological space. {{TFAE|def = Topological Group}}
=== Definition 1 implies Definition 2 === Let $\struct {G, \odot, \tau}$ be a topological group by Definition 1. Let $\phi: \struct {G, \tau} \to \struct {G, \tau}$ be the mapping defined as: :$\forall x \in G: \map \phi x = x^{-1}$ By definition: :$\odot: \struct {G, \tau} \times \struct {G, \tau} \to \struct {G, \tau...
Let $\struct {G, \odot}$ be a [[Definition:Group|group]]. On its [[Definition:Underlying Set of Topological Space|underlying set]] $G$, let $\struct {G, \tau}$ be a [[Definition:Topological Space|topological space]]. {{TFAE|def = Topological Group}}
=== Definition 1 implies Definition 2 === Let $\struct {G, \odot, \tau}$ be a [[Definition:Topological Group/Definition 1|topological group by Definition 1]]. Let $\phi: \struct {G, \tau} \to \struct {G, \tau}$ be the [[Definition:Mapping|mapping]] defined as: :$\forall x \in G: \map \phi x = x^{-1}$ By definition:...
Equivalence of Definitions of Topological Group
https://proofwiki.org/wiki/Equivalence_of_Definitions_of_Topological_Group
https://proofwiki.org/wiki/Equivalence_of_Definitions_of_Topological_Group
[ "Topological Groups" ]
[ "Definition:Group", "Definition:Underlying Set/Topological Space", "Definition:Topological Space" ]
[ "Definition:Topological Group/Definition 1", "Definition:Mapping", "Definition:Continuous Mapping (Topology)", "Definition:Continuous Mapping (Topology)", "Definition:Continuous Mapping (Topology)", "Continuous Mapping to Product Space", "Definition:Continuous Mapping (Topology)", "Definition:Mapping"...
proofwiki-6769
Conditional is Left Distributive over Conjunction/Formulation 1/Forward Implication
:$p \implies \paren {q \land r} \vdash \paren {p \implies q} \land \paren {p \implies r}$
{{BeginTableau|p \implies \paren {q \land r} \vdash \paren {p \implies q} \land \paren {p \implies r} }} {{Premise|1|p \implies \paren {q \land r} }} {{Assumption|2|p}} {{ModusPonens|3|1, 2|q \land r|1|2}} {{Simplification|4|1, 2|q|3|1}} {{Simplification|5|1, 2|r|3|2}} {{Implication|6|1|p \implies q|2|4}} {{Implication...
:$p \implies \paren {q \land r} \vdash \paren {p \implies q} \land \paren {p \implies r}$
{{BeginTableau|p \implies \paren {q \land r} \vdash \paren {p \implies q} \land \paren {p \implies r} }} {{Premise|1|p \implies \paren {q \land r} }} {{Assumption|2|p}} {{ModusPonens|3|1, 2|q \land r|1|2}} {{Simplification|4|1, 2|q|3|1}} {{Simplification|5|1, 2|r|3|2}} {{Implication|6|1|p \implies q|2|4}} {{Implication...
Conditional is Left Distributive over Conjunction/Formulation 1/Forward Implication/Proof
https://proofwiki.org/wiki/Conditional_is_Left_Distributive_over_Conjunction/Formulation_1/Forward_Implication
https://proofwiki.org/wiki/Conditional_is_Left_Distributive_over_Conjunction/Formulation_1/Forward_Implication/Proof
[ "Conditional is Left Distributive over Conjunction" ]
[]
[]
proofwiki-6770
Conditional is Left Distributive over Conjunction/Formulation 1/Reverse Implication
:$\paren {p \implies q} \land \paren {p \implies r} \vdash p \implies \paren {q \land r}$
{{BeginTableau|\paren {p \implies q} \land \paren {p \implies r} \vdash p \implies \paren {q \land r} }} {{Premise|1|\paren {p \implies q} \land \paren {p \implies r} }} {{SequentIntro|2|1|\paren {p \land p} \implies \paren {q \land r}|1|Praeclarum Theorema}} {{Assumption|3|p}} {{Idempotence|4|3|p \land p|3|Conjunction...
:$\paren {p \implies q} \land \paren {p \implies r} \vdash p \implies \paren {q \land r}$
{{BeginTableau|\paren {p \implies q} \land \paren {p \implies r} \vdash p \implies \paren {q \land r} }} {{Premise|1|\paren {p \implies q} \land \paren {p \implies r} }} {{SequentIntro|2|1|\paren {p \land p} \implies \paren {q \land r}|1|[[Praeclarum Theorema]]}} {{Assumption|3|p}} {{Idempotence|4|3|p \land p|3|Conjunc...
Conditional is Left Distributive over Conjunction/Formulation 1/Reverse Implication/Proof
https://proofwiki.org/wiki/Conditional_is_Left_Distributive_over_Conjunction/Formulation_1/Reverse_Implication
https://proofwiki.org/wiki/Conditional_is_Left_Distributive_over_Conjunction/Formulation_1/Reverse_Implication/Proof
[ "Conditional is Left Distributive over Conjunction" ]
[]
[ "Praeclarum Theorema" ]
proofwiki-6771
Conditional is Left Distributive over Conjunction/Formulation 1
:$p \implies \paren {q \land r} \dashv \vdash \paren {p \implies q} \land \paren {p \implies r}$
{{BeginTableau|p \implies \paren {q \land r} \vdash \paren {p \implies q} \land \paren {p \implies r} }} {{Premise|1|p \implies \paren {q \land r} }} {{Assumption|2|p}} {{ModusPonens|3|1, 2|q \land r|1|2}} {{Simplification|4|1, 2|q|3|1}} {{Simplification|5|1, 2|r|3|2}} {{Implication|6|1|p \implies q|2|4}} {{Implication...
:$p \implies \paren {q \land r} \dashv \vdash \paren {p \implies q} \land \paren {p \implies r}$
{{BeginTableau|p \implies \paren {q \land r} \vdash \paren {p \implies q} \land \paren {p \implies r} }} {{Premise|1|p \implies \paren {q \land r} }} {{Assumption|2|p}} {{ModusPonens|3|1, 2|q \land r|1|2}} {{Simplification|4|1, 2|q|3|1}} {{Simplification|5|1, 2|r|3|2}} {{Implication|6|1|p \implies q|2|4}} {{Implication...
Conditional is Left Distributive over Conjunction/Formulation 1/Forward Implication/Proof
https://proofwiki.org/wiki/Conditional_is_Left_Distributive_over_Conjunction/Formulation_1
https://proofwiki.org/wiki/Conditional_is_Left_Distributive_over_Conjunction/Formulation_1/Forward_Implication/Proof
[ "Conditional is Left Distributive over Conjunction" ]
[]
[]
proofwiki-6772
Conditional is Left Distributive over Conjunction/Formulation 1
:$p \implies \paren {q \land r} \dashv \vdash \paren {p \implies q} \land \paren {p \implies r}$
=== Proof of Forward Implication === {{:Conditional is Left Distributive over Conjunction/Formulation 1/Forward Implication/Proof}} === Proof of Reverse Implication === {{:Conditional is Left Distributive over Conjunction/Formulation 1/Reverse Implication/Proof}}
:$p \implies \paren {q \land r} \dashv \vdash \paren {p \implies q} \land \paren {p \implies r}$
=== [[Conditional is Left Distributive over Conjunction/Formulation 1/Forward Implication/Proof|Proof of Forward Implication]] === {{:Conditional is Left Distributive over Conjunction/Formulation 1/Forward Implication/Proof}} === [[Conditional is Left Distributive over Conjunction/Formulation 1/Reverse Implication/Pro...
Conditional is Left Distributive over Conjunction/Formulation 1/Proof 1
https://proofwiki.org/wiki/Conditional_is_Left_Distributive_over_Conjunction/Formulation_1
https://proofwiki.org/wiki/Conditional_is_Left_Distributive_over_Conjunction/Formulation_1/Proof_1
[ "Conditional is Left Distributive over Conjunction" ]
[]
[ "Conditional is Left Distributive over Conjunction/Formulation 1/Forward Implication/Proof", "Conditional is Left Distributive over Conjunction/Formulation 1/Reverse Implication/Proof" ]
proofwiki-6773
Conditional is Left Distributive over Conjunction/Formulation 1
:$p \implies \paren {q \land r} \dashv \vdash \paren {p \implies q} \land \paren {p \implies r}$
We apply the Method of Truth Tables. As can be seen by inspection, the truth values under the main connectives match for all boolean interpretations. $\begin{array}{|ccccc||ccccccc|} \hline p & \implies & (q & \land & r) & (p & \implies & q) & \land & (p & \implies & r) \\ \hline \F & \T & \F & \F & \F & \F & \T & \F &...
:$p \implies \paren {q \land r} \dashv \vdash \paren {p \implies q} \land \paren {p \implies r}$
We apply the [[Method of Truth Tables]]. As can be seen by inspection, the [[Definition:Truth Value|truth values]] under the [[Definition:Main Connective (Propositional Logic)|main connectives]] match for all [[Definition:Boolean Interpretation|boolean interpretations]]. $\begin{array}{|ccccc||ccccccc|} \hline p & \i...
Conditional is Left Distributive over Conjunction/Formulation 1/Proof by Truth Table
https://proofwiki.org/wiki/Conditional_is_Left_Distributive_over_Conjunction/Formulation_1
https://proofwiki.org/wiki/Conditional_is_Left_Distributive_over_Conjunction/Formulation_1/Proof_by_Truth_Table
[ "Conditional is Left Distributive over Conjunction" ]
[]
[ "Method of Truth Tables", "Definition:Truth Value", "Definition:Main Connective/Propositional Logic", "Definition:Boolean Interpretation" ]
proofwiki-6774
Conditional is Left Distributive over Conjunction/Formulation 1
:$p \implies \paren {q \land r} \dashv \vdash \paren {p \implies q} \land \paren {p \implies r}$
{{BeginTableau|\paren {p \implies q} \land \paren {p \implies r} \vdash p \implies \paren {q \land r} }} {{Premise|1|\paren {p \implies q} \land \paren {p \implies r} }} {{SequentIntro|2|1|\paren {p \land p} \implies \paren {q \land r}|1|Praeclarum Theorema}} {{Assumption|3|p}} {{Idempotence|4|3|p \land p|3|Conjunction...
:$p \implies \paren {q \land r} \dashv \vdash \paren {p \implies q} \land \paren {p \implies r}$
{{BeginTableau|\paren {p \implies q} \land \paren {p \implies r} \vdash p \implies \paren {q \land r} }} {{Premise|1|\paren {p \implies q} \land \paren {p \implies r} }} {{SequentIntro|2|1|\paren {p \land p} \implies \paren {q \land r}|1|[[Praeclarum Theorema]]}} {{Assumption|3|p}} {{Idempotence|4|3|p \land p|3|Conjunc...
Conditional is Left Distributive over Conjunction/Formulation 1/Reverse Implication/Proof
https://proofwiki.org/wiki/Conditional_is_Left_Distributive_over_Conjunction/Formulation_1
https://proofwiki.org/wiki/Conditional_is_Left_Distributive_over_Conjunction/Formulation_1/Reverse_Implication/Proof
[ "Conditional is Left Distributive over Conjunction" ]
[]
[ "Praeclarum Theorema" ]
proofwiki-6775
Conditional is Left Distributive over Conjunction/Formulation 2/Forward Implication
:$\vdash \paren {p \implies \paren {q \land r} } \implies \paren {\paren {p \implies q} \land \paren {p \implies r} }$
Let us use the following abbreviations {{begin-eqn}} {{eqn | l = \phi | o = \text {for} | r = p \implies \paren {q \land r} | c = }} {{eqn | l = \psi | o = \text {for} | r = \paren {p \implies q} \land \paren {p \implies r} | c = }} {{end-eqn}} {{BeginTableau|\vdash \phi \implies \...
:$\vdash \paren {p \implies \paren {q \land r} } \implies \paren {\paren {p \implies q} \land \paren {p \implies r} }$
Let us use the following abbreviations {{begin-eqn}} {{eqn | l = \phi | o = \text {for} | r = p \implies \paren {q \land r} | c = }} {{eqn | l = \psi | o = \text {for} | r = \paren {p \implies q} \land \paren {p \implies r} | c = }} {{end-eqn}} {{BeginTableau|\vdash \phi \implie...
Conditional is Left Distributive over Conjunction/Formulation 2/Forward Implication/Proof 2
https://proofwiki.org/wiki/Conditional_is_Left_Distributive_over_Conjunction/Formulation_2/Forward_Implication
https://proofwiki.org/wiki/Conditional_is_Left_Distributive_over_Conjunction/Formulation_2/Forward_Implication/Proof_2
[ "Conditional is Left Distributive over Conjunction" ]
[]
[ "Conditional is Left Distributive over Conjunction/Formulation 1/Forward Implication" ]
proofwiki-6776
Conditional is Left Distributive over Conjunction/Formulation 2/Reverse Implication
:$\vdash \paren {\paren {p \implies q} \land \paren {p \implies r} } \implies \paren {p \implies \paren {q \land r} }$
Let us use the following abbreviations {{begin-eqn}} {{eqn | l = \phi | o = \text {for} | r = \paren {p \implies q} \land \paren {p \implies r} | c = }} {{eqn | l = \psi | o = \text {for} | r = p \implies \paren {q \land r} | c = }} {{end-eqn}} {{BeginTableau|\vdash \phi \implies \...
:$\vdash \paren {\paren {p \implies q} \land \paren {p \implies r} } \implies \paren {p \implies \paren {q \land r} }$
Let us use the following abbreviations {{begin-eqn}} {{eqn | l = \phi | o = \text {for} | r = \paren {p \implies q} \land \paren {p \implies r} | c = }} {{eqn | l = \psi | o = \text {for} | r = p \implies \paren {q \land r} | c = }} {{end-eqn}} {{BeginTableau|\vdash \phi \implie...
Conditional is Left Distributive over Conjunction/Formulation 2/Reverse Implication/Proof 2
https://proofwiki.org/wiki/Conditional_is_Left_Distributive_over_Conjunction/Formulation_2/Reverse_Implication
https://proofwiki.org/wiki/Conditional_is_Left_Distributive_over_Conjunction/Formulation_2/Reverse_Implication/Proof_2
[ "Conditional is Left Distributive over Conjunction" ]
[]
[ "Conditional is Left Distributive over Conjunction/Formulation 1/Reverse Implication" ]
proofwiki-6777
Conditional is Left Distributive over Conjunction/Formulation 2
:$\vdash \paren {p \implies \paren {q \land r} } \iff \paren {\paren {p \implies q} \land \paren {p \implies r} }$
Let us use the following abbreviations {{begin-eqn}} {{eqn | l = \phi | o = \text {for} | r = p \implies \paren {q \land r} | c = }} {{eqn | l = \psi | o = \text {for} | r = \paren {p \implies q} \land \paren {p \implies r} | c = }} {{end-eqn}} {{BeginTableau|\vdash \phi \implies \...
:$\vdash \paren {p \implies \paren {q \land r} } \iff \paren {\paren {p \implies q} \land \paren {p \implies r} }$
Let us use the following abbreviations {{begin-eqn}} {{eqn | l = \phi | o = \text {for} | r = p \implies \paren {q \land r} | c = }} {{eqn | l = \psi | o = \text {for} | r = \paren {p \implies q} \land \paren {p \implies r} | c = }} {{end-eqn}} {{BeginTableau|\vdash \phi \implie...
Conditional is Left Distributive over Conjunction/Formulation 2/Forward Implication/Proof 2
https://proofwiki.org/wiki/Conditional_is_Left_Distributive_over_Conjunction/Formulation_2
https://proofwiki.org/wiki/Conditional_is_Left_Distributive_over_Conjunction/Formulation_2/Forward_Implication/Proof_2
[ "Conditional is Left Distributive over Conjunction" ]
[]
[ "Conditional is Left Distributive over Conjunction/Formulation 1/Forward Implication" ]
proofwiki-6778
Conditional is Left Distributive over Conjunction/Formulation 2
:$\vdash \paren {p \implies \paren {q \land r} } \iff \paren {\paren {p \implies q} \land \paren {p \implies r} }$
=== Proof of Forward Implication === {{:Conditional is Left Distributive over Conjunction/Formulation 2/Forward Implication/Proof 1}} === Proof of Reverse Implication === {{:Conditional is Left Distributive over Conjunction/Formulation 2/Reverse Implication/Proof 1}} {{BeginTableau|\vdash \paren {p \implies \paren {q \...
:$\vdash \paren {p \implies \paren {q \land r} } \iff \paren {\paren {p \implies q} \land \paren {p \implies r} }$
=== [[Conditional is Left Distributive over Conjunction/Formulation 2/Forward Implication/Proof 1|Proof of Forward Implication]] === {{:Conditional is Left Distributive over Conjunction/Formulation 2/Forward Implication/Proof 1}} === [[Conditional is Left Distributive over Conjunction/Formulation 2/Reverse Implication...
Conditional is Left Distributive over Conjunction/Formulation 2/Proof 1
https://proofwiki.org/wiki/Conditional_is_Left_Distributive_over_Conjunction/Formulation_2
https://proofwiki.org/wiki/Conditional_is_Left_Distributive_over_Conjunction/Formulation_2/Proof_1
[ "Conditional is Left Distributive over Conjunction" ]
[]
[ "Conditional is Left Distributive over Conjunction/Formulation 2/Forward Implication/Proof 1", "Conditional is Left Distributive over Conjunction/Formulation 2/Reverse Implication/Proof 1", "Conditional is Left Distributive over Conjunction/Formulation 2/Forward Implication", "Conditional is Left Distributive...
proofwiki-6779
Conditional is Left Distributive over Conjunction/Formulation 2
:$\vdash \paren {p \implies \paren {q \land r} } \iff \paren {\paren {p \implies q} \land \paren {p \implies r} }$
We apply the Method of Truth Tables. As can be seen by inspection, the truth values under the main connective is true for all boolean interpretations. :<nowiki>$\begin{array}{|ccccc|c|ccccccc|} \hline (p & \implies & (q & \land & r)) & \iff & ((p & \implies & q) & \land & (p & \implies & r)) \\ \hline \F & \T & \F & \F...
:$\vdash \paren {p \implies \paren {q \land r} } \iff \paren {\paren {p \implies q} \land \paren {p \implies r} }$
We apply the [[Method of Truth Tables]]. As can be seen by inspection, the [[Definition:Truth Value|truth values]] under the [[Definition:Main Connective (Propositional Logic)|main connective]] is [[Definition:True|true]] for all [[Definition:Boolean Interpretation|boolean interpretations]]. :<nowiki>$\begin{array}{|...
Conditional is Left Distributive over Conjunction/Formulation 2/Proof by Truth Table
https://proofwiki.org/wiki/Conditional_is_Left_Distributive_over_Conjunction/Formulation_2
https://proofwiki.org/wiki/Conditional_is_Left_Distributive_over_Conjunction/Formulation_2/Proof_by_Truth_Table
[ "Conditional is Left Distributive over Conjunction" ]
[]
[ "Method of Truth Tables", "Definition:Truth Value", "Definition:Main Connective/Propositional Logic", "Definition:True", "Definition:Boolean Interpretation" ]
proofwiki-6780
Conditional is Left Distributive over Conjunction/Formulation 2
:$\vdash \paren {p \implies \paren {q \land r} } \iff \paren {\paren {p \implies q} \land \paren {p \implies r} }$
Let us use the following abbreviations {{begin-eqn}} {{eqn | l = \phi | o = \text {for} | r = \paren {p \implies q} \land \paren {p \implies r} | c = }} {{eqn | l = \psi | o = \text {for} | r = p \implies \paren {q \land r} | c = }} {{end-eqn}} {{BeginTableau|\vdash \phi \implies \...
:$\vdash \paren {p \implies \paren {q \land r} } \iff \paren {\paren {p \implies q} \land \paren {p \implies r} }$
Let us use the following abbreviations {{begin-eqn}} {{eqn | l = \phi | o = \text {for} | r = \paren {p \implies q} \land \paren {p \implies r} | c = }} {{eqn | l = \psi | o = \text {for} | r = p \implies \paren {q \land r} | c = }} {{end-eqn}} {{BeginTableau|\vdash \phi \implie...
Conditional is Left Distributive over Conjunction/Formulation 2/Reverse Implication/Proof 2
https://proofwiki.org/wiki/Conditional_is_Left_Distributive_over_Conjunction/Formulation_2
https://proofwiki.org/wiki/Conditional_is_Left_Distributive_over_Conjunction/Formulation_2/Reverse_Implication/Proof_2
[ "Conditional is Left Distributive over Conjunction" ]
[]
[ "Conditional is Left Distributive over Conjunction/Formulation 1/Reverse Implication" ]
proofwiki-6781
Criterion for Ring with Unity to be Topological Ring
Let $\struct {R, +, \circ}$ be a ring with unity. Let $\tau$ be a topology over $R$. Suppose that $+$ and $\circ$ are $\tau$-continuous mappings. Then $\struct {R, +, \circ, \tau}$ is a topological ring.
As we presume $\circ$ to be continuous, we need only prove that $\struct {R, +, \tau}$ is a topological group. As we presume $+$ to be continuous, we need only show that negation is continuous. As $\struct {R, \circ}$ is a semigroup and $\circ$ is continuous: :$\struct{R, \circ, \tau}$ is a topological semigroup. From ...
Let $\struct {R, +, \circ}$ be a [[Definition:Ring with Unity|ring with unity]]. Let $\tau$ be a [[Definition:Topology|topology]] over $R$. Suppose that $+$ and $\circ$ are $\tau$-[[Definition:Continuous Mapping|continuous mappings]]. Then $\struct {R, +, \circ, \tau}$ is a [[Definition:Topological Ring|topological...
As we presume $\circ$ to be [[Definition:Continuous Mapping|continuous]], we need only prove that $\struct {R, +, \tau}$ is a [[Definition:Topological Group|topological group]]. As we presume $+$ to be [[Definition:Continuous Mapping|continuous]], we need only show that negation is [[Definition:Continuous Mapping|cont...
Criterion for Ring with Unity to be Topological Ring
https://proofwiki.org/wiki/Criterion_for_Ring_with_Unity_to_be_Topological_Ring
https://proofwiki.org/wiki/Criterion_for_Ring_with_Unity_to_be_Topological_Ring
[]
[ "Definition:Ring with Unity", "Definition:Topology", "Definition:Continuous Mapping", "Definition:Topological Ring" ]
[ "Definition:Continuous Mapping", "Definition:Topological Group", "Definition:Continuous Mapping", "Definition:Continuous Mapping", "Definition:Semigroup", "Definition:Continuous Mapping", "Definition:Topological Group", "Identity Mapping is Homeomorphism", "Definition:Identity Mapping", "Definitio...
proofwiki-6782
Union of Relations is Relation
Let $S$ and $T$ be sets. Let $\FF$ be a family of relations from $S$ to $T$. Let $\ds \RR = \bigcup \FF$, the union of all the elements of $\FF$. Then $\RR$ is a relation from $S$ to $T$. {{expand|Binary case}}
By the definition of a relation from $S$ to $T$, each element of $\FF$ is a subset of $S \times T$. By Union of Subsets is Subset: Set of Sets: :$\RR \subseteq S \times T$ Therefore, by the definition of a relation from $S$ to $T$, $\RR$ is a relation from $S$ to $T$. {{qed}} Category:Relation Theory 703ie71rc52tci47k0...
Let $S$ and $T$ be [[Definition:Set|sets]]. Let $\FF$ be a family of [[Definition:Relation|relations]] from $S$ to $T$. Let $\ds \RR = \bigcup \FF$, the [[Definition:Union of Set of Sets|union]] of all the [[Definition:Element|elements]] of $\FF$. Then $\RR$ is a [[Definition:Relation|relation]] from $S$ to $T$. {...
By the definition of a [[Definition:Relation|relation]] from $S$ to $T$, each [[Definition:Element|element]] of $\FF$ is a [[Definition:Subset|subset]] of $S \times T$. By [[Union of Subsets is Subset/Set of Sets|Union of Subsets is Subset: Set of Sets]]: :$\RR \subseteq S \times T$ Therefore, by the definition of a...
Union of Relations is Relation
https://proofwiki.org/wiki/Union_of_Relations_is_Relation
https://proofwiki.org/wiki/Union_of_Relations_is_Relation
[ "Relation Theory" ]
[ "Definition:Set", "Definition:Relation", "Definition:Set Union/Set of Sets", "Definition:Element", "Definition:Relation" ]
[ "Definition:Relation", "Definition:Element", "Definition:Subset", "Union of Subsets is Subset/Set of Sets", "Definition:Relation", "Definition:Relation", "Category:Relation Theory" ]
proofwiki-6783
Combination Theorem for Complex Derivatives/Quotient Rule
For all $z \in D$ with $\map g z \ne 0$: :$\map {\paren {\dfrac f g}'} z = \dfrac {\map {f'} z \map g z - \map f z \map {g'} z} {\paren {\map g z}^2}$
Denote the open ball of $0$ with radius $r \in \R_{>0}$ as $\map {B_r} 0$. Let $z \in D \setminus \set {x \in D: \map g z = 0}$. By the Epsilon-Function Complex Differentiability Condition, it follows that there exists $r_0 \in \R_{>0}$ such that for all $h \in \map {B_{r_0} } 0 \setminus \set 0$: :$\map f {z + h} = \m...
For all $z \in D$ with $\map g z \ne 0$: :$\map {\paren {\dfrac f g}'} z = \dfrac {\map {f'} z \map g z - \map f z \map {g'} z} {\paren {\map g z}^2}$
Denote the [[Definition:Open Ball|open ball]] of $0$ with [[Definition:Radius of Open Ball|radius]] $r \in \R_{>0}$ as $\map {B_r} 0$. Let $z \in D \setminus \set {x \in D: \map g z = 0}$. By the [[Epsilon-Function Complex Differentiability Condition]], it follows that there exists $r_0 \in \R_{>0}$ such that for all...
Combination Theorem for Complex Derivatives/Quotient Rule
https://proofwiki.org/wiki/Combination_Theorem_for_Complex_Derivatives/Quotient_Rule
https://proofwiki.org/wiki/Combination_Theorem_for_Complex_Derivatives/Quotient_Rule
[ "Combination Theorem for Complex Derivatives" ]
[]
[ "Definition:Open Ball", "Definition:Open Ball/Radius", "Epsilon-Function Differentiability Condition/Complex Case", "Definition:Complex Function", "Definition:Convergent Complex Function ", "Complex-Differentiable Function is Continuous", "Definition:Continuous Complex Function", "Reverse Triangle Ine...
proofwiki-6784
Complex-Differentiable Function is Continuous
Let $f: D \to \C$ be a complex function, where $D \subseteq \C$ is an open set. Let $f$ be complex-differentiable at $a \in D$. Then $f$ is continuous at $a$.
Let $\map {N_r} 0$ denote the $r$-neighborhood of $0$ in $\C$. By the Epsilon-Function Complex Differentiability Condition, it follows that there exists $r \in \R_{>0}$ such that for all $h \in \map {N_r} 0 \setminus \set 0$: :$(1): \quad \map f {a + h} = \map f a + h \paren {\map {f'} a + \map \epsilon h}$ where $\eps...
Let $f: D \to \C$ be a [[Definition:Complex Function|complex function]], where $D \subseteq \C$ is an [[Definition:Open Set (Complex Analysis)|open set]]. Let $f$ be [[Definition:Complex-Differentiable Function|complex-differentiable]] at $a \in D$. Then $f$ is [[Definition:Continuous Complex Function|continuous]] a...
Let $\map {N_r} 0$ denote the [[Definition:Neighborhood (Complex Analysis)|$r$-neighborhood]] of $0$ in $\C$. By the [[Epsilon-Function Complex Differentiability Condition]], it follows that there exists $r \in \R_{>0}$ such that for all $h \in \map {N_r} 0 \setminus \set 0$: :$(1): \quad \map f {a + h} = \map f a + ...
Complex-Differentiable Function is Continuous/Proof 1
https://proofwiki.org/wiki/Complex-Differentiable_Function_is_Continuous
https://proofwiki.org/wiki/Complex-Differentiable_Function_is_Continuous/Proof_1
[ "Complex-Differentiable Function is Continuous", "Complex Differential Calculus", "Continuous Mappings" ]
[ "Definition:Complex Function", "Definition:Open Set/Complex Analysis", "Definition:Differentiable Mapping/Complex Function", "Definition:Continuous Complex Function" ]
[ "Definition:Neighborhood (Complex Analysis)", "Epsilon-Function Differentiability Condition/Complex Case", "Definition:Complex Function", "Combination Theorem for Limits of Functions/Complex", "Definition:Continuous Complex Function/Using Limit", "Definition:Continuous Complex Function" ]
proofwiki-6785
Complex-Differentiable Function is Continuous
Let $f: D \to \C$ be a complex function, where $D \subseteq \C$ is an open set. Let $f$ be complex-differentiable at $a \in D$. Then $f$ is continuous at $a$.
For each $z \in D$: {{begin-eqn}} {{eqn | l = \lim_{w \mathop \to z} \map f w | r = \map f z + \lim_{w \mathop \to z} \paren {\map f w - \map f z} | c = Sum Rule for Limits of Complex Functions }} {{eqn | r = \map f z + \lim_{w \mathop \to z} \paren {\frac {\map f w - \map f z} {w - z} \paren {w - z} } }} {...
Let $f: D \to \C$ be a [[Definition:Complex Function|complex function]], where $D \subseteq \C$ is an [[Definition:Open Set (Complex Analysis)|open set]]. Let $f$ be [[Definition:Complex-Differentiable Function|complex-differentiable]] at $a \in D$. Then $f$ is [[Definition:Continuous Complex Function|continuous]] a...
For each $z \in D$: {{begin-eqn}} {{eqn | l = \lim_{w \mathop \to z} \map f w | r = \map f z + \lim_{w \mathop \to z} \paren {\map f w - \map f z} | c = [[Sum Rule for Limits of Complex Functions]] }} {{eqn | r = \map f z + \lim_{w \mathop \to z} \paren {\frac {\map f w - \map f z} {w - z} \paren {w - z} } ...
Complex-Differentiable Function is Continuous/Proof 2
https://proofwiki.org/wiki/Complex-Differentiable_Function_is_Continuous
https://proofwiki.org/wiki/Complex-Differentiable_Function_is_Continuous/Proof_2
[ "Complex-Differentiable Function is Continuous", "Complex Differential Calculus", "Continuous Mappings" ]
[ "Definition:Complex Function", "Definition:Open Set/Complex Analysis", "Definition:Differentiable Mapping/Complex Function", "Definition:Continuous Complex Function" ]
[ "Combination Theorem for Limits of Functions/Complex/Sum Rule", "Combination Theorem for Limits of Functions/Complex/Product Rule" ]
proofwiki-6786
Proof by Cases/Formulation 1/Forward Implication/Proof 1
:$\paren {p \implies r} \land \paren {q \implies r} \vdash \paren {p \lor q} \implies r$
{{BeginTableau|\paren {p \implies r} \land \paren {q \implies r} \vdash \paren {p \lor q} \implies r}} {{Premise|1|\paren {p \implies r} \land \paren {q \implies r} }} {{Simplification|2|1|p \implies r|1|1}} {{Simplification|3|1|q \implies r|1|2}} {{SequentIntro|4|1|p \lor q \implies r \lor r|2, 3|Constructive Dilemma}...
:$\paren {p \implies r} \land \paren {q \implies r} \vdash \paren {p \lor q} \implies r$
{{BeginTableau|\paren {p \implies r} \land \paren {q \implies r} \vdash \paren {p \lor q} \implies r}} {{Premise|1|\paren {p \implies r} \land \paren {q \implies r} }} {{Simplification|2|1|p \implies r|1|1}} {{Simplification|3|1|q \implies r|1|2}} {{SequentIntro|4|1|p \lor q \implies r \lor r|2, 3|[[Constructive Dilemm...
Proof by Cases/Formulation 1/Forward Implication/Proof 1
https://proofwiki.org/wiki/Proof_by_Cases/Formulation_1/Forward_Implication/Proof_1
https://proofwiki.org/wiki/Proof_by_Cases/Formulation_1/Forward_Implication/Proof_1
[ "Proof by Cases" ]
[]
[ "Constructive Dilemma" ]
proofwiki-6787
Closed Ball in Euclidean Space is Compact
Let $x \in \R_n$ be a point in the Euclidean space $\R^n$. Let $\epsilon \in \R_{>0}$. Then the closed $\epsilon$-ball $\map {B_\epsilon^-} x$ is compact.
From Closed Ball is Closed in Metric Space, it follows that $\map {B_\epsilon^-} x$ is closed in $\R^n$. For all $a \in \map {B_\epsilon^-} x$ we have $\map d {x, a} \le \epsilon$, where $d$ denotes the Euclidean metric. Then $\map {B_\epsilon^-} x$ is bounded in $\R^n$. From the Heine-Borel Theorem, it follows that $\...
Let $x \in \R_n$ be a point in the [[Definition:Euclidean Space|Euclidean space]] $\R^n$. Let $\epsilon \in \R_{>0}$. Then the [[Definition:Closed Ball|closed $\epsilon$-ball]] $\map {B_\epsilon^-} x$ is [[Definition:Compact Subspace|compact]].
From [[Closed Ball is Closed in Metric Space]], it follows that $\map {B_\epsilon^-} x$ is [[Definition:Closed Set (Metric Space)|closed]] in $\R^n$. For all $a \in \map {B_\epsilon^-} x$ we have $\map d {x, a} \le \epsilon$, where $d$ denotes the [[Definition:Euclidean Metric on Real Vector Space|Euclidean metric]]. ...
Closed Ball in Euclidean Space is Compact
https://proofwiki.org/wiki/Closed_Ball_in_Euclidean_Space_is_Compact
https://proofwiki.org/wiki/Closed_Ball_in_Euclidean_Space_is_Compact
[ "Closed Balls", "Compact Topological Spaces", "Euclidean Spaces" ]
[ "Definition:Euclidean Space", "Definition:Closed Ball", "Definition:Compact Topological Space/Subspace" ]
[ "Closed Ball is Closed/Metric Space", "Definition:Closed Set/Metric Space", "Definition:Euclidean Metric/Real Vector Space", "Definition:Bounded Metric Space", "Heine-Borel Theorem/Euclidean Space", "Definition:Compact Topological Space/Subspace", "Category:Closed Balls", "Category:Compact Topological...
proofwiki-6788
Isometric Image of Cauchy Sequence is Cauchy Sequence
Let $\struct {S_1, d_1}$ and $\struct {S_2, d_2}$ be metric spaces. Let $f: S_1 \to S_2$ be an isometry. Let $\sequence {x_n}$ be a Cauchy sequence in $S_1$. Let $\sequence {y_n} = \sequence {\map f {x_n} }$ be the image of $\sequence {x_n}$ under $f$. Then $\sequence {y_n}$ is a Cauchy sequence.
Let $\epsilon \in \R_{>0}$. By the definition of Cauchy sequence, there is an $N \in \R$ such that: :$\paren{m > N} \land \paren {n > N} \implies \map {d_1} {x_m, x_n} < \epsilon$ Since $f$ is an isometry, $\map {d_2} {y_m , y_n} = \map {d_1} {x_m, x_n}$ for all $m$ and $n$. Thus: :$\paren {m > N} \land \paren {n > N} ...
Let $\struct {S_1, d_1}$ and $\struct {S_2, d_2}$ be [[Definition:Metric Space|metric spaces]]. Let $f: S_1 \to S_2$ be an [[Definition:Isometry (Metric Spaces)|isometry]]. Let $\sequence {x_n}$ be a [[Definition:Cauchy Sequence|Cauchy sequence]] in $S_1$. Let $\sequence {y_n} = \sequence {\map f {x_n} }$ be the ima...
Let $\epsilon \in \R_{>0}$. By the definition of [[Definition:Cauchy Sequence|Cauchy sequence]], there is an $N \in \R$ such that: :$\paren{m > N} \land \paren {n > N} \implies \map {d_1} {x_m, x_n} < \epsilon$ Since $f$ is an [[Definition:Isometry (Metric Spaces)|isometry]], $\map {d_2} {y_m , y_n} = \map {d_1} {x_...
Isometric Image of Cauchy Sequence is Cauchy Sequence
https://proofwiki.org/wiki/Isometric_Image_of_Cauchy_Sequence_is_Cauchy_Sequence
https://proofwiki.org/wiki/Isometric_Image_of_Cauchy_Sequence_is_Cauchy_Sequence
[ "Isometries (Metric Spaces)", "Cauchy Sequences" ]
[ "Definition:Metric Space", "Definition:Isometry (Metric Spaces)", "Definition:Cauchy Sequence", "Definition:Cauchy Sequence" ]
[ "Definition:Cauchy Sequence", "Definition:Isometry (Metric Spaces)", "Definition:Cauchy Sequence", "Category:Isometries (Metric Spaces)", "Category:Cauchy Sequences" ]
proofwiki-6789
Union of Subsets is Subset
Let $S_1$, $S_2$, and $T$ be sets. Let $S_1$ and $S_2$ both be subsets of $T$. Then: :$S_1 \cup S_2 \subseteq T$ That is: :$\paren {S_1 \subseteq T} \land \paren {S_2 \subseteq T} \implies \paren {S_1 \cup S_2} \subseteq T$
Let: :$\paren {S_1 \subseteq T} \land \paren {S_2 \subseteq T}$ Then: {{begin-eqn}} {{eqn | l = S_1 \cup S_2 | o = \subseteq | r = T \cup T | c = Set Union Preserves Subsets }} {{eqn | ll= \leadsto | l = S_1 \cup S_2 | o = \subseteq | r = T | c = Set Union is Idempotent }} {{en...
Let $S_1$, $S_2$, and $T$ be [[Definition:Set|sets]]. Let $S_1$ and $S_2$ both be [[Definition:Subset|subsets]] of $T$. Then: :$S_1 \cup S_2 \subseteq T$ That is: :$\paren {S_1 \subseteq T} \land \paren {S_2 \subseteq T} \implies \paren {S_1 \cup S_2} \subseteq T$
Let: :$\paren {S_1 \subseteq T} \land \paren {S_2 \subseteq T}$ Then: {{begin-eqn}} {{eqn | l = S_1 \cup S_2 | o = \subseteq | r = T \cup T | c = [[Set Union Preserves Subsets]] }} {{eqn | ll= \leadsto | l = S_1 \cup S_2 | o = \subseteq | r = T | c = [[Set Union is Idempotent...
Union of Subsets is Subset/Proof 1
https://proofwiki.org/wiki/Union_of_Subsets_is_Subset
https://proofwiki.org/wiki/Union_of_Subsets_is_Subset/Proof_1
[ "Set Union", "Subsets", "Union of Subsets is Subset" ]
[ "Definition:Set", "Definition:Subset" ]
[ "Set Union Preserves Subsets", "Set Union is Idempotent" ]
proofwiki-6790
Union of Subsets is Subset
Let $S_1$, $S_2$, and $T$ be sets. Let $S_1$ and $S_2$ both be subsets of $T$. Then: :$S_1 \cup S_2 \subseteq T$ That is: :$\paren {S_1 \subseteq T} \land \paren {S_2 \subseteq T} \implies \paren {S_1 \cup S_2} \subseteq T$
Let $x \in S_1 \cup S_2$. By the definition of union, either $x \in S_1$ or $x \in S_2$. By hypothesis, $S_1 \subseteq T$ and $S_2 \subseteq T$. By definition of subset: :$x \in S_1 \implies x \in T$ :$x \in S_2 \implies x \in T$ By Proof by Cases it follows that $x \in T$. Hence the result by definition of subset. {{q...
Let $S_1$, $S_2$, and $T$ be [[Definition:Set|sets]]. Let $S_1$ and $S_2$ both be [[Definition:Subset|subsets]] of $T$. Then: :$S_1 \cup S_2 \subseteq T$ That is: :$\paren {S_1 \subseteq T} \land \paren {S_2 \subseteq T} \implies \paren {S_1 \cup S_2} \subseteq T$
Let $x \in S_1 \cup S_2$. By the definition of [[Definition:Set Union|union]], either $x \in S_1$ or $x \in S_2$. [[Definition:By Hypothesis|By hypothesis]], $S_1 \subseteq T$ and $S_2 \subseteq T$. By definition of [[Definition:Subset|subset]]: :$x \in S_1 \implies x \in T$ :$x \in S_2 \implies x \in T$ By [[Proof...
Union of Subsets is Subset/Proof 2
https://proofwiki.org/wiki/Union_of_Subsets_is_Subset
https://proofwiki.org/wiki/Union_of_Subsets_is_Subset/Proof_2
[ "Set Union", "Subsets", "Union of Subsets is Subset" ]
[ "Definition:Set", "Definition:Subset" ]
[ "Definition:Set Union", "Definition:By Hypothesis", "Definition:Subset", "Proof by Cases", "Definition:Subset" ]
proofwiki-6791
Proof by Cases/Formulation 1/Forward Implication
:$\paren {p \implies r} \land \paren {q \implies r} \vdash \paren {p \lor q} \implies r$
{{BeginTableau|\paren {p \implies r} \land \paren {q \implies r} \vdash \paren {p \lor q} \implies r}} {{Premise|1|\paren {p \implies r} \land \paren {q \implies r} }} {{Simplification|2|1|p \implies r|1|1}} {{Simplification|3|1|q \implies r|1|2}} {{SequentIntro|4|1|p \lor q \implies r \lor r|2, 3|Constructive Dilemma}...
:$\paren {p \implies r} \land \paren {q \implies r} \vdash \paren {p \lor q} \implies r$
{{BeginTableau|\paren {p \implies r} \land \paren {q \implies r} \vdash \paren {p \lor q} \implies r}} {{Premise|1|\paren {p \implies r} \land \paren {q \implies r} }} {{Simplification|2|1|p \implies r|1|1}} {{Simplification|3|1|q \implies r|1|2}} {{SequentIntro|4|1|p \lor q \implies r \lor r|2, 3|[[Constructive Dilemm...
Proof by Cases/Formulation 1/Forward Implication/Proof 1
https://proofwiki.org/wiki/Proof_by_Cases/Formulation_1/Forward_Implication
https://proofwiki.org/wiki/Proof_by_Cases/Formulation_1/Forward_Implication/Proof_1
[ "Proof by Cases" ]
[]
[ "Constructive Dilemma" ]
proofwiki-6792
Proof by Cases/Formulation 1/Forward Implication
:$\paren {p \implies r} \land \paren {q \implies r} \vdash \paren {p \lor q} \implies r$
From the Constructive Dilemma we have: :$p \implies q, r \implies s \vdash p \lor r \implies q \lor s$ from which, changing the names of letters strategically: :$p \implies r, q \implies r \vdash p \lor q \implies r \lor r$ From the Rule of Idempotence we have: :$r \lor r \vdash r$ and the result follows by Hypothetica...
:$\paren {p \implies r} \land \paren {q \implies r} \vdash \paren {p \lor q} \implies r$
From the [[Constructive Dilemma]] we have: :$p \implies q, r \implies s \vdash p \lor r \implies q \lor s$ from which, changing the names of letters strategically: :$p \implies r, q \implies r \vdash p \lor q \implies r \lor r$ From the [[Rule of Idempotence]] we have: :$r \lor r \vdash r$ and the result follows by [[...
Proof by Cases/Formulation 1/Forward Implication/Proof 2
https://proofwiki.org/wiki/Proof_by_Cases/Formulation_1/Forward_Implication
https://proofwiki.org/wiki/Proof_by_Cases/Formulation_1/Forward_Implication/Proof_2
[ "Proof by Cases" ]
[]
[ "Constructive Dilemma", "Rule of Idempotence", "Hypothetical Syllogism" ]
proofwiki-6793
Proof by Cases/Formulation 1
:$\paren {p \implies r} \land \paren {q \implies r} \dashv \vdash \paren {p \lor q} \implies r$
{{BeginTableau|\paren {p \implies r} \land \paren {q \implies r} \vdash \paren {p \lor q} \implies r}} {{Premise|1|\paren {p \implies r} \land \paren {q \implies r} }} {{Simplification|2|1|p \implies r|1|1}} {{Simplification|3|1|q \implies r|1|2}} {{SequentIntro|4|1|p \lor q \implies r \lor r|2, 3|Constructive Dilemma}...
:$\paren {p \implies r} \land \paren {q \implies r} \dashv \vdash \paren {p \lor q} \implies r$
{{BeginTableau|\paren {p \implies r} \land \paren {q \implies r} \vdash \paren {p \lor q} \implies r}} {{Premise|1|\paren {p \implies r} \land \paren {q \implies r} }} {{Simplification|2|1|p \implies r|1|1}} {{Simplification|3|1|q \implies r|1|2}} {{SequentIntro|4|1|p \lor q \implies r \lor r|2, 3|[[Constructive Dilemm...
Proof by Cases/Formulation 1/Forward Implication/Proof 1
https://proofwiki.org/wiki/Proof_by_Cases/Formulation_1
https://proofwiki.org/wiki/Proof_by_Cases/Formulation_1/Forward_Implication/Proof_1
[ "Proof by Cases" ]
[]
[ "Constructive Dilemma" ]
proofwiki-6794
Proof by Cases/Formulation 1
:$\paren {p \implies r} \land \paren {q \implies r} \dashv \vdash \paren {p \lor q} \implies r$
From the Constructive Dilemma we have: :$p \implies q, r \implies s \vdash p \lor r \implies q \lor s$ from which, changing the names of letters strategically: :$p \implies r, q \implies r \vdash p \lor q \implies r \lor r$ From the Rule of Idempotence we have: :$r \lor r \vdash r$ and the result follows by Hypothetica...
:$\paren {p \implies r} \land \paren {q \implies r} \dashv \vdash \paren {p \lor q} \implies r$
From the [[Constructive Dilemma]] we have: :$p \implies q, r \implies s \vdash p \lor r \implies q \lor s$ from which, changing the names of letters strategically: :$p \implies r, q \implies r \vdash p \lor q \implies r \lor r$ From the [[Rule of Idempotence]] we have: :$r \lor r \vdash r$ and the result follows by [[...
Proof by Cases/Formulation 1/Forward Implication/Proof 2
https://proofwiki.org/wiki/Proof_by_Cases/Formulation_1
https://proofwiki.org/wiki/Proof_by_Cases/Formulation_1/Forward_Implication/Proof_2
[ "Proof by Cases" ]
[]
[ "Constructive Dilemma", "Rule of Idempotence", "Hypothetical Syllogism" ]
proofwiki-6795
Proof by Cases/Formulation 1
:$\paren {p \implies r} \land \paren {q \implies r} \dashv \vdash \paren {p \lor q} \implies r$
We apply the Method of Truth Tables. As can be seen by inspection, the truth values under the main connectives match for all boolean interpretations. :<nowiki>$\begin{array}{|ccccccc||ccccc|} \hline (p & \implies & r) & \land & (q & \implies & r) & (p & \lor & q) & \implies & r \\ \hline \F & \T & \F & \T & \F & \T & \...
:$\paren {p \implies r} \land \paren {q \implies r} \dashv \vdash \paren {p \lor q} \implies r$
We apply the [[Method of Truth Tables]]. As can be seen by inspection, the [[Definition:Truth Value|truth values]] under the [[Definition:Main Connective (Propositional Logic)|main connectives]] match for all [[Definition:Boolean Interpretation|boolean interpretations]]. :<nowiki>$\begin{array}{|ccccccc||ccccc|} \hli...
Proof by Cases/Formulation 1/Proof by Truth Table
https://proofwiki.org/wiki/Proof_by_Cases/Formulation_1
https://proofwiki.org/wiki/Proof_by_Cases/Formulation_1/Proof_by_Truth_Table
[ "Proof by Cases" ]
[]
[ "Method of Truth Tables", "Definition:Truth Value", "Definition:Main Connective/Propositional Logic", "Definition:Boolean Interpretation" ]
proofwiki-6796
Distance between Closed Sets in Euclidean Space
Let $S, T \subseteq \R^n$ be closed, non-empty subsets of the real Euclidean space $R^n$. Suppose that $S$ is bounded, and $S$ and $T$ are disjoint. Then there exists $x \in S$ and $y \in T$ such that: :$\map d {x, y} = \map d {S, T} > 0$ where: :$d$ denotes the Euclidean metric :$\map d {S, T}$ is the distance between...
By definition of distance from subset, we can for all $n \in \N$ find $x_n \in S, y_n \in T$ such that: :$\map d {S, T} \le \map d {x_n, y_n} < \map d {S, T} + \dfrac 1 n$ so: :$\ds \lim_{n \mathop \to \infty} \map d {x_n, y_n} = \map d {S, T}$ By definition of bounded space, there exists $a \in S$ and $K \in \R$ such ...
Let $S, T \subseteq \R^n$ be [[Definition:Closed Set of Metric Space|closed]], [[Definition:Non-Empty Set|non-empty]] [[Definition:Subset|subsets]] of the [[Definition:Real Euclidean Space|real Euclidean space]] $R^n$. Suppose that $S$ is [[Definition:Bounded Metric Space|bounded]], and $S$ and $T$ are [[Definition:D...
By definition of [[Definition:Distance from Subset|distance from subset]], we can for all $n \in \N$ find $x_n \in S, y_n \in T$ such that: :$\map d {S, T} \le \map d {x_n, y_n} < \map d {S, T} + \dfrac 1 n$ so: :$\ds \lim_{n \mathop \to \infty} \map d {x_n, y_n} = \map d {S, T}$ By definition of [[Definition:Bounde...
Distance between Closed Sets in Euclidean Space
https://proofwiki.org/wiki/Distance_between_Closed_Sets_in_Euclidean_Space
https://proofwiki.org/wiki/Distance_between_Closed_Sets_in_Euclidean_Space
[ "Real Euclidean Spaces" ]
[ "Definition:Closed Set/Metric Space", "Definition:Non-Empty Set", "Definition:Subset", "Definition:Euclidean Space/Real", "Definition:Bounded Metric Space", "Definition:Disjoint Sets", "Definition:Euclidean Metric/Real Vector Space", "Definition:Distance/Sets" ]
[ "Definition:Distance/Sets", "Definition:Bounded Metric Space", "Definition:Bounded Sequence", "Definition:Bounded Sequence", "Triangle Inequality/Vectors in Euclidean Space", "Definition:Sequence", "Minkowski's Inequality for Sums", "Bounded Sequence in Euclidean Space has Convergent Subsequence", "...
proofwiki-6797
Complement in Distributive Lattice is Unique
Let $\struct {S, \vee, \wedge, \preceq}$ be a bounded distributive lattice. Then every $a \in S$ admits at most one complement.
Let $a \in S$, and suppose that $b, c \in S$ are complements for $a$. Then: {{begin-eqn}} {{eqn | l = b | r = \top \wedge b | c = $\top$ is the identity for $\wedge$ }} {{eqn | r = \paren {c \vee a} \wedge b | c = $c$ is a complement for $a$ }} {{eqn | r = \paren {c \wedge b} \vee \paren {a \wedge b} ...
Let $\struct {S, \vee, \wedge, \preceq}$ be a [[Definition:Bounded Lattice|bounded]] [[Definition:Distributive Lattice|distributive lattice]]. Then every $a \in S$ admits at most one [[Definition:Complement (Lattice Theory)|complement]].
Let $a \in S$, and suppose that $b, c \in S$ are [[Definition:Complement (Lattice Theory)|complements]] for $a$. Then: {{begin-eqn}} {{eqn | l = b | r = \top \wedge b | c = $\top$ is the [[Definition:Identity Element|identity]] for $\wedge$ }} {{eqn | r = \paren {c \vee a} \wedge b | c = $c$ is a [[...
Complement in Distributive Lattice is Unique
https://proofwiki.org/wiki/Complement_in_Distributive_Lattice_is_Unique
https://proofwiki.org/wiki/Complement_in_Distributive_Lattice_is_Unique
[ "Distributive Lattices", "Bounded Lattices" ]
[ "Definition:Bounded Lattice", "Definition:Distributive Lattice", "Definition:Complement (Lattice Theory)" ]
[ "Definition:Complement (Lattice Theory)", "Definition:Identity (Abstract Algebra)/Two-Sided Identity", "Definition:Complement (Lattice Theory)", "Definition:Distributive Lattice", "Definition:Complement (Lattice Theory)", "Definition:Identity (Abstract Algebra)/Two-Sided Identity", "Category:Distributiv...
proofwiki-6798
Equivalence of Definitions of Top of Lattice
{{TFAE|def = Top of Lattice}} Let $\struct {S, \vee, \wedge, \preceq}$ be a lattice.
By definition, $\top$ is the greatest element of $S$ {{iff}} for all $a \in S$: :$a \preceq \top$ By Ordering in terms of Meet, this is equivalent to: :$a \wedge \top = a$ If this equality holds for all $a \in S$, then by definition $\top$ is an identity for $\wedge$. The result follows. {{qed}} Category:Top of Lattice...
{{TFAE|def = Top of Lattice}} Let $\struct {S, \vee, \wedge, \preceq}$ be a [[Definition:Lattice (Order Theory)|lattice]].
By definition, $\top$ is the [[Definition:Greatest Element|greatest element]] of $S$ {{iff}} for all $a \in S$: :$a \preceq \top$ By [[Ordering in terms of Meet]], this is equivalent to: :$a \wedge \top = a$ If this equality holds for all $a \in S$, then by definition $\top$ is an [[Definition:Identity Element|iden...
Equivalence of Definitions of Top of Lattice
https://proofwiki.org/wiki/Equivalence_of_Definitions_of_Top_of_Lattice
https://proofwiki.org/wiki/Equivalence_of_Definitions_of_Top_of_Lattice
[ "Top of Lattice" ]
[ "Definition:Lattice (Order Theory)" ]
[ "Definition:Greatest Element", "Ordering in terms of Meet", "Definition:Identity (Abstract Algebra)/Two-Sided Identity", "Category:Top of Lattice" ]
proofwiki-6799
Equivalence of Definitions of Bottom of Lattice
Let $\struct {S, \vee, \wedge, \preceq}$ be a lattice. Let $\bot$ be a bottom of $\struct {S, \vee, \wedge, \preceq}$. {{TFAE|def = Bottom of Lattice|view = Bottom|context = Lattice Theory}}
By definition, $\bot$ is the smallest element of $S$ {{iff}} for all $a \in S$: :$\bot \preceq a$ By Ordering in terms of Join, this is equivalent to: :$a \vee \bot = a$ If this equality holds for all $a \in S$, then by definition $\bot$ is an identity for $\vee$. The result follows. {{qed}} Category:Bottom of Lattice ...
Let $\struct {S, \vee, \wedge, \preceq}$ be a [[Definition:Lattice (Order Theory)|lattice]]. Let $\bot$ be a [[Definition:Bottom of Lattice|bottom]] of $\struct {S, \vee, \wedge, \preceq}$. {{TFAE|def = Bottom of Lattice|view = Bottom|context = Lattice Theory}}
By definition, $\bot$ is the [[Definition:Smallest Element|smallest element]] of $S$ {{iff}} for all $a \in S$: :$\bot \preceq a$ By [[Ordering in terms of Join]], this is equivalent to: :$a \vee \bot = a$ If this equality holds for all $a \in S$, then by definition $\bot$ is an [[Definition:Identity Element|identi...
Equivalence of Definitions of Bottom of Lattice
https://proofwiki.org/wiki/Equivalence_of_Definitions_of_Bottom_of_Lattice
https://proofwiki.org/wiki/Equivalence_of_Definitions_of_Bottom_of_Lattice
[ "Bottom of Lattice" ]
[ "Definition:Lattice (Order Theory)", "Definition:Bottom of Lattice" ]
[ "Definition:Smallest Element", "Ordering in terms of Join", "Definition:Identity (Abstract Algebra)/Two-Sided Identity", "Category:Bottom of Lattice" ]