I believe that profiles are (depending on the logic) more expressive
than textual-substitution-with-careful-handling-of-variables
definitions, but it doesn't look like defthm does use the concept of
profiles to me. (The defthm theorem is essentially only a
certification that any variables in your definition can be
alpha-renamed.)
> My question: Is 'defthm' also more expressive than (a corrected form of)
> 'def'? So are there conservative extensions that can be expressed with
> 'defthm', but not with 'def'?
I don't think so.
But profiles really are more expressive. For instance, in ZFC, the
axiom of choice says that certain sets exist, but there is no way to
name the sets; in Metamath's
set.mm, there is not necessarily a closed
class expression for a choice function over a particular set (say, the
power set of the reals, minus the empty set). However, with profiles
you could give a name to such a set.
Carl