Home | Metamath
Proof ExplorerTheorem List
(p. 23 of 315)
| < Previous Next > |

Browser slow? Try the
Unicode version. |

Mirrors > Metamath Home Page > MPE Home Page > Theorem List Contents > Recent Proofs

Color key: | Metamath Proof Explorer
(1-21459) |
Hilbert Space Explorer
(21460-22982) |
Users' Mathboxes
(22983-31404) |

Type | Label | Description |
---|---|---|

Statement | ||

Theorem | 2eu4 2201* | This theorem provides us with a definition of double existential uniqueness ("exactly one and exactly one "). Naively one might think (incorrectly) that it could be defined by . See 2eu1 2198 for a condition under which the naive definition holds and 2exeu 2195 for a one-way implication. See 2eu5 2202 and 2eu8 2205 for alternate definitions. (Contributed by NM, 3-Dec-2001.) |

Theorem | 2eu5 2202* | An alternate definition of double existential uniqueness (see 2eu4 2201). A mistake sometimes made in the literature is to use to mean "exactly one and exactly one ." (For example, see Proposition 7.53 of [TakeutiZaring] p. 53.) It turns out that this is actually a weaker assertion, as can be seen by expanding out the formal definitions. This theorem shows that the erroneous definition can be repaired by conjoining as an additional condition. The correct definition apparently has never been published. ( means "exists at most one.") (Contributed by NM, 26-Oct-2003.) |

Theorem | 2eu6 2203* | Two equivalent expressions for double existential uniqueness. (Contributed by NM, 2-Feb-2005.) (Revised by Mario Carneiro, 17-Oct-2016.) |

Theorem | 2eu7 2204 | Two equivalent expressions for double existential uniqueness. (Contributed by NM, 19-Feb-2005.) |

Theorem | 2eu8 2205 | Two equivalent expressions for double existential uniqueness. Curiously, we can put on either of the internal conjuncts but not both. We can also commute using 2eu7 2204. (Contributed by NM, 20-Feb-2005.) |

Theorem | euequ1 2206* | Equality has existential uniqueness. Special case of eueq1 2913 proved using only predicate calculus. (Contributed by Stefan Allan, 4-Dec-2008.) |

Theorem | exists1 2207* | Two ways to express "only one thing exists." The left-hand side requires only one variable to express this. Both sides are false in set theory; see theorem dtru 4173. (Contributed by NM, 5-Apr-2004.) |

Theorem | exists2 2208 | A condition implying that at least two things exist. (Contributed by NM, 10-Apr-2004.) (Proof shortened by Andrew Salmon, 9-Jul-2011.) |

1.7 Other axiomatizations related to classical
predicate calculus | ||

1.7.1 Predicate calculus with all distinct
variables | ||

Axiom | ax-7d 2209* | Distinct varable version of ax-7 1535. (Contributed by Mario Carneiro, 14-Aug-2015.) |

Axiom | ax-8d 2210* | Distinct varable version of ax-8 1623. (Contributed by Mario Carneiro, 14-Aug-2015.) |

Axiom | ax-9d1 2211 | Distinct varable version of ax-9 1684, variables equal case. (Contributed by Mario Carneiro, 14-Aug-2015.) |

Axiom | ax-9d2 2212* | Distinct varable version of ax-9 1684, variables distinct case. (Contributed by Mario Carneiro, 14-Aug-2015.) |

Axiom | ax-10d 2213* | Distinct varable version of ax-10 1678. (Contributed by Mario Carneiro, 14-Aug-2015.) |

Axiom | ax-11d 2214* | Distinct varable version of ax-11 1624. (Contributed by Mario Carneiro, 14-Aug-2015.) |

1.7.2 Aristotelian logic: Assertic
syllogismsModel the Aristotelian assertic syllogisms using modern notation. This section shows that the Aristotelian assertic syllogisms can be proven with our axioms of logic, and also provides generally useful theorems.
In antiquity Aristotelian logic and Stoic logic
(see mpto1 1528) were the leading logical systems.
Aristotelian logic became the leading system in medieval Europe;
this section models this system (including later refinements to it).
Aristotle defined syllogisms very generally
("a discourse in which certain (specific) things having been supposed,
something different from the things supposed results of necessity
because these things are so")
Aristotle,
"There is a surprising amount of scholarly debate
about how best to formalize Aristotle's syllogisms..." according to
We instead translate each Aristotelian syllogism into an inference rule,
and each rule is defined using standard predicate logic notation and
predicates. The predicates are represented by wff variables
that may depend on the quantified variable .
Our translation is essentially identical to the one
use in Rini page 18, Table 2 "Non-Modal Syllogisms in
Lower Predicate Calculus (LPC)", which uses
standard predicate logic with predicates. Rini states,
"the crucial point is that we capture the meaning Aristotle intends,
and the method by which we represent that meaning is less important."
There are two differences: we make the existence criteria explicit, and
we use , , and in the order they
appear
(a common Metamath convention).
Patzig also uses standard predicate logic notation and predicates
(though he interprets them as conditional propositions, not as
inference rules); see
Gunther Patzig, Expressions of the form "no is " are consistently translated as . These can also be expressed as , per alinexa 1576. We translate "all is " to , "some is " to , and "some is not " to . It is traditional to use the singular verb "is", not the plural verb "are", in the generic expressions. By convention the major premise is listed first. In traditional Aristotelian syllogisms the predicates have a restricted form ("x is a ..."); those predicates could be modeled in modern notation by constructs such as , , or . Here we use wff variables instead of specialized restricted forms. This generalization makes the syllogisms more useful in more circumstances. In addition, these expressions make it clearer that the syllogisms of Aristolean logic are the forerunners of predicate calculus. If we used restricted forms like instead, we would not only unnecessarily limit their use, but we would also need to use set and class axioms, making their relationship to predicate calculus less clear.
There are some widespread misconceptions about the existential
assumptions made by Aristotle (aka "existential import").
Aristotle was not trying to develop something exactly corresponding
to modern logic. Aristotle devised "a companion-logic for science.
He relegates fictions like fairy godmothers and mermaids and unicorns to
the realms of poetry and literature. In his mind, they exist outside the
ambit of science. This is why he leaves no room for such non-existent
entities in his logic. This is a thoughtful choice, not an inadvertent
omission. Technically, Aristotelian science is a search for definitions,
where a definition is "a phrase signifying a thing's essence."
(Topics, I.5.102a37, Pickard-Cambridge.)...
Because non-existent entities cannot be anything, they do not, in
Aristotle's mind, possess an essence... This is why he leaves
no place for fictional entities like goat-stags (or unicorns)."
Source: Louis F. Groarke, "Aristotle: Logic",
section 7. (Existential Assumptions),
These are only the Aristotelean logic is essentially the forerunner of predicate calculus (as well as set theory since it discusses membership in groups), while Stoic logic is essentially the forerunner of propositional calculus. | ||

Theorem | barbara 2215 | "Barbara", one of the fundamental syllogisms of Aristotelian logic. All is , and all is , therefore all is . (In Aristotelian notation, AAA-1: MaP and SaM therefore SaP.) For example, given "All men are mortal" and "Socrates is a man", we can prove "Socrates is mortal". If H is the set of men, M is the set of mortal beings, and S is Socrates, these word phrases can be represented as (all men are mortal) and (Socrates is a man) therefore (Socrates is mortal). Russell and Whitehead note that the "syllogism in Barbara is derived..." from syl 17. (quote after Theorem *2.06 of [WhiteheadRussell] p. 101). Most of the proof is in alsyl 1617. There are a legion of sources for Barbara, including http://www.friesian.com/aristotl.htm, http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/aristotle-logic/, and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syllogism. (Contributed by David A. Wheeler, 24-Aug-2016.) |

Theorem | celarent 2216 | "Celarent", one of the syllogisms of Aristotelian logic. No is , and all is , therefore no is . (In Aristotelian notation, EAE-1: MeP and SaM therefore SeP.) For example, given the "No reptiles have fur" and "All snakes are reptiles", therefore "No snakes have fur". Example from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syllogism. (Contributed by David A. Wheeler, 24-Aug-2016.) (Revised by David A. Wheeler, 2-Sep-2016.) |

Theorem | darii 2217 | "Darii", one of the syllogisms of Aristotelian logic. All is , and some is , therefore some is . (In Aristotelian notation, AII-1: MaP and SiM therefore SiP.) For example, given "All rabbits have fur" and "Some pets are rabbits", therefore "Some pets have fur". Example from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syllogism. (Contributed by David A. Wheeler, 24-Aug-2016.) |

Theorem | ferio 2218 | "Ferio" ("Ferioque"), one of the syllogisms of Aristotelian logic. No is , and some is , therefore some is not . (In Aristotelian notation, EIO-1: MeP and SiM therefore SoP.) For example, given "No homework is fun" and "Some reading is homework", therefore "Some reading is not fun". This is essentially a logical axiom in Aristotelian logic. Example from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syllogism. (Contributed by David A. Wheeler, 24-Aug-2016.) (Revised by David A. Wheeler, 2-Sep-2016.) |

Theorem | barbari 2219 | "Barbari", one of the syllogisms of Aristotelian logic. All is , all is , and some exist, therefore some is . (In Aristotelian notation, AAI-1: MaP and SaM therefore SiP.) For example, given "All men are mortal", "All Greeks are men", and "Greeks exist", therefore "Some Greeks are mortal". Note the existence hypothesis (to prove the "some" in the conclusion). Example from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syllogism. (Contributed by David A. Wheeler, 27-Aug-2016.) (Revised by David A. Wheeler, 30-Aug-2016.) |

Theorem | celaront 2220 | "Celaront", one of the syllogisms of Aristotelian logic. No is , all is , and some exist, therefore some is not . (In Aristotelian notation, EAO-1: MeP and SaM therefore SoP.) For example, given "No reptiles have fur", "All snakes are reptiles.", and "Snakes exist.", prove "Some snakes have no fur". Note the existence hypothesis. Example from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syllogism. (Contributed by David A. Wheeler, 27-Aug-2016.) (Revised by David A. Wheeler, 2-Sep-2016.) |

Theorem | cesare 2221 | "Cesare", one of the syllogisms of Aristotelian logic. No is , and all is , therefore no is . (In Aristotelian notation, EAE-2: PeM and SaM therefore SeP.) Related to celarent 2216. (Contributed by David A. Wheeler, 27-Aug-2016.) (Revised by David A. Wheeler, 13-Nov-2016.) |

Theorem | camestres 2222 | "Camestres", one of the syllogisms of Aristotelian logic. All is , and no is , therefore no is . (In Aristotelian notation, AEE-2: PaM and SeM therefore SeP.) (Contributed by David A. Wheeler, 28-Aug-2016.) (Revised by David A. Wheeler, 2-Sep-2016.) |

Theorem | festino 2223 | "Festino", one of the syllogisms of Aristotelian logic. No is , and some is , therefore some is not . (In Aristotelian notation, EIO-2: PeM and SiM therefore SoP.) (Contributed by David A. Wheeler, 25-Nov-2016.) |

Theorem | baroco 2224 | "Baroco", one of the syllogisms of Aristotelian logic. All is , and some is not , therefore some is not . (In Aristotelian notation, AOO-2: PaM and SoM therefore SoP.) For example, "All informative things are useful", "Some websites are not useful", therefore "Some websites are not informative." (Contributed by David A. Wheeler, 28-Aug-2016.) |

Theorem | cesaro 2225 | "Cesaro", one of the syllogisms of Aristotelian logic. No is , all is , and exist, therefore some is not . (In Aristotelian notation, EAO-2: PeM and SaM therefore SoP.) (Contributed by David A. Wheeler, 28-Aug-2016.) (Revised by David A. Wheeler, 2-Sep-2016.) |

Theorem | camestros 2226 | "Camestros", one of the syllogisms of Aristotelian logic. All is , no is , and exist, therefore some is not . (In Aristotelian notation, AEO-2: PaM and SeM therefore SoP.) For example, "All horses have hooves", "No humans have hooves", and humans exist, therefore "Some humans are not horses". (Contributed by David A. Wheeler, 28-Aug-2016.) (Revised by David A. Wheeler, 2-Sep-2016.) |

Theorem | datisi 2227 | "Datisi", one of the syllogisms of Aristotelian logic. All is , and some is , therefore some is . (In Aristotelian notation, AII-3: MaP and MiS therefore SiP.) (Contributed by David A. Wheeler, 28-Aug-2016.) |

Theorem | disamis 2228 | "Disamis", one of the syllogisms of Aristotelian logic. Some is , and all is , therefore some is . (In Aristotelian notation, IAI-3: MiP and MaS therefore SiP.) (Contributed by David A. Wheeler, 28-Aug-2016.) |

Theorem | ferison 2229 | "Ferison", one of the syllogisms of Aristotelian logic. No is , and some is , therefore some is not . (In Aristotelian notation, EIO-3: MeP and MiS therefore SoP.) (Contributed by David A. Wheeler, 28-Aug-2016.) (Revised by David A. Wheeler, 2-Sep-2016.) |

Theorem | bocardo 2230 | "Bocardo", one of the syllogisms of Aristotelian logic. Some is not , and all is , therefore some is not . (In Aristotelian notation, OAO-3: MoP and MaS therefore SoP.) For example, "Some cats have no tails", "All cats are mammals", therefore "Some mammals have no tails". A reorder of disamis 2228; prefer using that instead. (Contributed by David A. Wheeler, 28-Aug-2016.) (New usage is discouraged.) |

Theorem | felapton 2231 | "Felapton", one of the syllogisms of Aristotelian logic. No is , all is , and some exist, therefore some is not . (In Aristotelian notation, EAO-3: MeP and MaS therefore SoP.) For example, "No flowers are animals" and "All flowers are plants", therefore "Some plants are not animals". (Contributed by David A. Wheeler, 28-Aug-2016.) (Revised by David A. Wheeler, 2-Sep-2016.) |

Theorem | darapti 2232 | "Darapti", one of the syllogisms of Aristotelian logic. All is , all is , and some exist, therefore some is . (In Aristotelian notation, AAI-3: MaP and MaS therefore SiP.) For example, "All squares are rectangles" and "All squares are rhombuses", therefore "Some rhombuses are rectangles". (Contributed by David A. Wheeler, 28-Aug-2016.) |

Theorem | calemes 2233 | "Calemes", one of the syllogisms of Aristotelian logic. All is , and no is , therefore no is . (In Aristotelian notation, AEE-4: PaM and MeS therefore SeP.) (Contributed by David A. Wheeler, 28-Aug-2016.) (Revised by David A. Wheeler, 2-Sep-2016.) |

Theorem | dimatis 2234 | "Dimatis", one of the syllogisms of Aristotelian logic. Some is , and all is , therefore some is . (In Aristotelian notation, IAI-4: PiM and MaS therefore SiP.) For example, "Some pets are rabbits.", "All rabbits have fur", therefore "Some fur bearing animals are pets". Like darii 2217 with positions interchanged. (Contributed by David A. Wheeler, 28-Aug-2016.) |

Theorem | fresison 2235 | "Fresison", one of the syllogisms of Aristotelian logic. No is (PeM), and some is (MiS), therefore some is not (SoP). (In Aristotelian notation, EIO-4: PeM and MiS therefore SoP.) (Contributed by David A. Wheeler, 28-Aug-2016.) (Revised by David A. Wheeler, 2-Sep-2016.) |

Theorem | calemos 2236 | "Calemos", one of the syllogisms of Aristotelian logic. All is (PaM), no is (MeS), and exist, therefore some is not (SoP). (In Aristotelian notation, AEO-4: PaM and MeS therefore SoP.) (Contributed by David A. Wheeler, 28-Aug-2016.) (Revised by David A. Wheeler, 2-Sep-2016.) |

Theorem | fesapo 2237 | "Fesapo", one of the syllogisms of Aristotelian logic. No is , all is , and exist, therefore some is not . (In Aristotelian notation, EAO-4: PeM and MaS therefore SoP.) (Contributed by David A. Wheeler, 28-Aug-2016.) (Revised by David A. Wheeler, 2-Sep-2016.) |

Theorem | bamalip 2238 | "Bamalip", one of the syllogisms of Aristotelian logic. All is , all is , and exist, therefore some is . (In Aristotelian notation, AAI-4: PaM and MaS therefore SiP.) Like barbari 2219. (Contributed by David A. Wheeler, 28-Aug-2016.) |

PART 2 ZF (ZERMELO-FRAENKEL) SET
THEORYSet theory uses the formalism of propositional and predicate calculus to assert properties of arbitrary mathematical objects called "sets." A set can be contained in another set, and this relationship is indicated by the symbol. Starting with the simplest mathematical object, called the empty set, set theory builds up more and more complex structures whose existence follows from the axioms, eventually resulting in extremely complicated sets that we identify with the real numbers and other familiar mathematical objects. A simplistic concept of sets, sometimes called "naive set theory", is vulnerable to a paradox called "Russell's paradox" (ru 2965), a discovery that revolutionized the foundations of mathematics and logic. Russell's Paradox spawned the development of set theories that countered the paradox, including the ZF set theory that is most widely used and is defined here. Except for Extensionality, the axioms basically say, "given an arbitrary set x (and, in the cases of Replacement and Regularity, provided that an antecedent is satisfied), there exists another set y based on or constructed from it, with the stated properties." (The axiom of Extensionality can also be restated this way as shown by axext2 2240.) The individual axiom links provide more detailed descriptions. We derive the redundant ZF axioms of Separation, Null Set, and Pairing from the others as theorems. | ||

2.1 ZF Set Theory - start with the Axiom of
Extensionality | ||

2.1.1 Introduce the Axiom of
Extensionality | ||

Axiom | ax-ext 2239* |
Axiom of Extensionality. An axiom of Zermelo-Fraenkel set theory. It
states that two sets are identical if they contain the same elements.
Axiom Ext of [BellMachover] p.
461.
Set theory can also be formulated with a To use the above "equality-free" version of Extensionality with Metamath's logical axioms, we would rewrite ax-8 1623 through ax-16 1927 with equality expanded according to the above definition. Some of those axioms could be proved from set theory and would be redundant. Not all of them are redundant, since our axioms of predicate calculus make essential use of equality for the proper substitution that is a primitive notion in traditional predicate calculus. A study of such an axiomatization would be an interesting project for someone exploring the foundations of logic.
It is important to understand that strictly speaking, all of our set
theory axioms are really schemes that represent an infinite number of
actual axioms. This is inherent in the design of Metamath
("metavariable math"), which manipulates only metavariables.
For
example, the metavariable in ax-ext 2239 can represent any actual
variable |

Theorem | axext2 2240* | The Axiom of Extensionality (ax-ext 2239) restated so that it postulates the existence of a set given two arbitrary sets and . This way to express it follows the general idea of the other ZFC axioms, which is to postulate the existence of sets given other sets. (Contributed by NM, 28-Sep-2003.) |

Theorem | axext3 2241* | A generalization of the Axiom of Extensionality in which and need not be distinct. (Contributed by NM, 15-Sep-1993.) (Proof shortened by Andrew Salmon, 12-Aug-2011.) |

Theorem | axext4 2242* | A bidirectional version of Extensionality. Although this theorem "looks" like it is just a definition of equality, it requires the Axiom of Extensionality for its proof under our axiomatization. See the comments for ax-ext 2239 and df-cleq 2251. (Contributed by NM, 14-Nov-2008.) |

Theorem | bm1.1 2243* | Any set defined by a property is the only set defined by that property. Theorem 1.1 of [BellMachover] p. 462. (Contributed by NM, 30-Jun-1994.) |

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

Syntax | cab 2244 | Introduce the class builder or class abstraction notation ("the class of sets such that is true"). Our class variables , , etc. range over class builders (implicitly in the case of defined class terms such as df-nul 3431). Note that a set variable can be expressed as a class builder per theorem cvjust 2253, justifying the assignment of set variables to class variables via the use of cv 1618. |

Definition | df-clab 2245 |
Define class abstraction notation (so-called by Quine), also called a
"class builder" in the literature. and need not be distinct.
Definition 2.1 of [Quine] p. 16.
Typically, will
have as a
free variable, and " " is read "the class of all sets
such that is true." We do not define in
isolation but only as part of an expression that extends or
"overloads"
the
relationship.
This is our first use of the symbol to connect classes instead of sets. The syntax definition wcel 1621, which extends or "overloads" the wel 1622 definition connecting set variables, requires that both sides of be a class. In df-cleq 2251 and df-clel 2254, we introduce a new kind of variable (class variable) that can substituted with expressions such as . In the present definition, the on the left-hand side is a set variable. Syntax definition cv 1618 allows us to substitute a set variable for a class variable: all sets are classes by cvjust 2253 (but not necessarily vice-versa). For a full description of how classes are introduced and how to recover the primitive language, see the discussion in Quine (and under abeq2 2363 for a quick overview). Because class variables can be substituted with compound expressions and set variables cannot, it is often useful to convert a theorem containing a free set variable to a more general version with a class variable. This is done with theorems such as vtoclg 2818 which is used, for example, to convert elirrv 7279 to elirr 7280. This is called the "axiom of class comprehension" by [Levy] p. 338, who treats the theory of classes as an extralogical extension to our logic and set theory axioms. He calls the construction a "class term". For a general discussion of the theory of classes, see http://us.metamath.org/mpegif/mmset.html#class. (Contributed by NM, 5-Aug-1993.) |

Theorem | abid 2246 | Simplification of class abstraction notation when the free and bound variables are identical. (Contributed by NM, 5-Aug-1993.) |

Theorem | hbab1 2247* | Bound-variable hypothesis builder for a class abstraction. (Contributed by NM, 5-Aug-1993.) |

Theorem | nfsab1 2248* | Bound-variable hypothesis builder for a class abstraction. (Contributed by Mario Carneiro, 11-Aug-2016.) |

Theorem | hbab 2249* | Bound-variable hypothesis builder for a class abstraction. (Contributed by NM, 1-Mar-1995.) |

Theorem | nfsab 2250* | Bound-variable hypothesis builder for a class abstraction. (Contributed by Mario Carneiro, 11-Aug-2016.) |

Definition | df-cleq 2251* |
Define the equality connective between classes. Definition 2.7 of
[Quine] p. 18. Also Definition 4.5 of
[TakeutiZaring] p. 13; Chapter 4
provides its justification and methods for eliminating it. Note that
its elimination will not necessarily result in a single wff in the
original language but possibly a "scheme" of wffs.
This is an example of a somewhat "risky" definition, meaning that it has a more complex than usual soundness justification (outside of Metamath), because it "overloads" or reuses the existing equality symbol rather than introducing a new symbol. This allows us to make statements that may not hold for the original symbol. For example, it permits us to deduce , which is not a theorem of logic but rather presupposes the Axiom of Extensionality (see theorem axext4 2242). We therefore include this axiom as a hypothesis, so that the use of Extensionality is properly indicated.
We could avoid this complication by introducing a new symbol, say
= However, to conform to literature usage, we retain this overloaded definition. This also makes some proofs shorter and probably easier to read, without the constant switching between two kinds of equality. See also comments under df-clab 2245, df-clel 2254, and abeq2 2363. In the form of dfcleq 2252, this is called the "axiom of extensionality" by [Levy] p. 338, who treats the theory of classes as an extralogical extension to our logic and set theory axioms. For a general discussion of the theory of classes, see http://us.metamath.org/mpegif/mmset.html#class. (Contributed by NM, 15-Sep-1993.) |

Theorem | dfcleq 2252* | The same as df-cleq 2251 with the hypothesis removed using the Axiom of Extensionality ax-ext 2239. (Contributed by NM, 15-Sep-1993.) |

Theorem | cvjust 2253* | Every set is a class. Proposition 4.9 of [TakeutiZaring] p. 13. This theorem shows that a set variable can be expressed as a class abstraction. This provides a motivation for the class syntax construction cv 1618, which allows us to substitute a set variable for a class variable. See also cab 2244 and df-clab 2245. Note that this is not a rigorous justification, because cv 1618 is used as part of the proof of this theorem, but a careful argument can be made outside of the formalism of Metamath, for example as is done in Chapter 4 of Takeuti and Zaring. See also the discussion under the definition of class in [Jech] p. 4 showing that "Every set can be considered to be a class." (Contributed by NM, 7-Nov-2006.) |

Definition | df-clel 2254* |
Define the membership connective between classes. Theorem 6.3 of
[Quine] p. 41, or Proposition 4.6 of [TakeutiZaring] p. 13, which we
adopt as a definition. See these references for its metalogical
justification. Note that like df-cleq 2251 it extends or "overloads" the
use of the existing membership symbol, but unlike df-cleq 2251 it does not
strengthen the set of valid wffs of logic when the class variables are
replaced with set variables (see cleljust 2063), so we don't include any
set theory axiom as a hypothesis. See also comments about the syntax
under df-clab 2245. Alternate definitions of
(but that require
either or to be a set) are shown by
clel2 2879, clel3 2881, and
clel4 2882.
This is called the "axiom of membership" by [Levy] p. 338, who treats the theory of classes as an extralogical extension to our logic and set theory axioms. For a general discussion of the theory of classes, see http://us.metamath.org/mpegif/mmset.html#class. (Contributed by NM, 5-Aug-1993.) |

Theorem | eqriv 2255* | Infer equality of classes from equivalence of membership. (Contributed by NM, 5-Aug-1993.) |

Theorem | eqrdv 2256* | Deduce equality of classes from equivalence of membership. (Contributed by NM, 17-Mar-1996.) |

Theorem | eqrdav 2257* | Deduce equality of classes from an equivalence of membership that depends on the membership variable. (Contributed by NM, 7-Nov-2008.) |

Theorem | eqid 2258 |
Law of identity (reflexivity of class equality). Theorem 6.4 of [Quine]
p. 41.
This law is thought to have originated with Aristotle
( |

Theorem | eqidd 2259 | Class identity law with antecedent. (Contributed by NM, 21-Aug-2008.) |

Theorem | eqcom 2260 | Commutative law for class equality. Theorem 6.5 of [Quine] p. 41. (Contributed by NM, 5-Aug-1993.) |

Theorem | eqcoms 2261 | Inference applying commutative law for class equality to an antecedent. (Contributed by NM, 5-Aug-1993.) |

Theorem | eqcomi 2262 | Inference from commutative law for class equality. (Contributed by NM, 5-Aug-1993.) |

Theorem | eqcomd 2263 | Deduction from commutative law for class equality. (Contributed by NM, 15-Aug-1994.) |

Theorem | eqeq1 2264 | Equality implies equivalence of equalities. (Contributed by NM, 5-Aug-1993.) |

Theorem | eqeq1i 2265 | Inference from equality to equivalence of equalities. (Contributed by NM, 5-Aug-1993.) |

Theorem | eqeq1d 2266 | Deduction from equality to equivalence of equalities. (Contributed by NM, 27-Dec-1993.) |

Theorem | eqeq2 2267 | Equality implies equivalence of equalities. (Contributed by NM, 5-Aug-1993.) |

Theorem | eqeq2i 2268 | Inference from equality to equivalence of equalities. (Contributed by NM, 5-Aug-1993.) |

Theorem | eqeq2d 2269 | Deduction from equality to equivalence of equalities. (Contributed by NM, 27-Dec-1993.) |

Theorem | eqeq12 2270 | Equality relationship among 4 classes. (Contributed by NM, 3-Aug-1994.) |

Theorem | eqeq12i 2271 | A useful inference for substituting definitions into an equality. (Contributed by NM, 5-Aug-1993.) (Proof shortened by Andrew Salmon, 25-May-2011.) |

Theorem | eqeq12d 2272 | A useful inference for substituting definitions into an equality. (Contributed by NM, 5-Aug-1993.) (Proof shortened by Andrew Salmon, 25-May-2011.) |

Theorem | eqeqan12d 2273 | A useful inference for substituting definitions into an equality. (Contributed by NM, 9-Aug-1994.) (Proof shortened by Andrew Salmon, 25-May-2011.) |

Theorem | eqeqan12rd 2274 | A useful inference for substituting definitions into an equality. (Contributed by NM, 9-Aug-1994.) |

Theorem | eqtr 2275 | Transitive law for class equality. Proposition 4.7(3) of [TakeutiZaring] p. 13. (Contributed by NM, 25-Jan-2004.) |

Theorem | eqtr2 2276 | A transitive law for class equality. (Contributed by NM, 20-May-2005.) (Proof shortened by Andrew Salmon, 25-May-2011.) |

Theorem | eqtr3 2277 | A transitive law for class equality. (Contributed by NM, 20-May-2005.) |

Theorem | eqtri 2278 | An equality transitivity inference. (Contributed by NM, 5-Aug-1993.) |

Theorem | eqtr2i 2279 | An equality transitivity inference. (Contributed by NM, 21-Feb-1995.) |

Theorem | eqtr3i 2280 | An equality transitivity inference. (Contributed by NM, 6-May-1994.) |

Theorem | eqtr4i 2281 | An equality transitivity inference. (Contributed by NM, 5-Aug-1993.) |

Theorem | 3eqtri 2282 | An inference from three chained equalities. (Contributed by NM, 29-Aug-1993.) |

Theorem | 3eqtrri 2283 | An inference from three chained equalities. (Contributed by NM, 3-Aug-2006.) (Proof shortened by Andrew Salmon, 25-May-2011.) |

Theorem | 3eqtr2i 2284 | An inference from three chained equalities. (Contributed by NM, 3-Aug-2006.) |

Theorem | 3eqtr2ri 2285 | An inference from three chained equalities. (Contributed by NM, 3-Aug-2006.) (Proof shortened by Andrew Salmon, 25-May-2011.) |

Theorem | 3eqtr3i 2286 | An inference from three chained equalities. (Contributed by NM, 6-May-1994.) (Proof shortened by Andrew Salmon, 25-May-2011.) |

Theorem | 3eqtr3ri 2287 | An inference from three chained equalities. (Contributed by NM, 15-Aug-2004.) |

Theorem | 3eqtr4i 2288 | An inference from three chained equalities. (Contributed by NM, 5-Aug-1993.) (Proof shortened by Andrew Salmon, 25-May-2011.) |

Theorem | 3eqtr4ri 2289 | An inference from three chained equalities. (Contributed by NM, 2-Sep-1995.) (Proof shortened by Andrew Salmon, 25-May-2011.) |

Theorem | eqtrd 2290 | An equality transitivity deduction. (Contributed by NM, 5-Aug-1993.) |

Theorem | eqtr2d 2291 | An equality transitivity deduction. (Contributed by NM, 18-Oct-1999.) |

Theorem | eqtr3d 2292 | An equality transitivity equality deduction. (Contributed by NM, 18-Jul-1995.) |

Theorem | eqtr4d 2293 | An equality transitivity equality deduction. (Contributed by NM, 18-Jul-1995.) |

Theorem | 3eqtrd 2294 | A deduction from three chained equalities. (Contributed by NM, 29-Oct-1995.) |

Theorem | 3eqtrrd 2295 | A deduction from three chained equalities. (Contributed by NM, 4-Aug-2006.) (Proof shortened by Andrew Salmon, 25-May-2011.) |

Theorem | 3eqtr2d 2296 | A deduction from three chained equalities. (Contributed by NM, 4-Aug-2006.) |

Theorem | 3eqtr2rd 2297 | A deduction from three chained equalities. (Contributed by NM, 4-Aug-2006.) |

Theorem | 3eqtr3d 2298 | A deduction from three chained equalities. (Contributed by NM, 4-Aug-1995.) (Proof shortened by Andrew Salmon, 25-May-2011.) |

Theorem | 3eqtr3rd 2299 | A deduction from three chained equalities. (Contributed by NM, 14-Jan-2006.) |

Theorem | 3eqtr4d 2300 | A deduction from three chained equalities. (Contributed by NM, 4-Aug-1995.) (Proof shortened by Andrew Salmon, 25-May-2011.) |

< Previous Next > |

Copyright terms: Public domain | < Previous Next > |