Home | Metamath
Proof Explorer Theorem List (p. 91 of 449) | < Previous Next > |
Bad symbols? Try the
GIF version. |
||
Mirrors > Metamath Home Page > MPE Home Page > Theorem List Contents > Recent Proofs This page: Page List |
Color key: | Metamath Proof Explorer
(1-28622) |
Hilbert Space Explorer
(28623-30145) |
Users' Mathboxes
(30146-44834) |
Type | Label | Description |
---|---|---|
Statement | ||
Theorem | wemappo 9001* |
Construct lexicographic order on a function space based on a
well-ordering of the indices and a total ordering of the values.
Without totality on the values or least differing indices, the best we can prove here is a partial order. (Contributed by Stefan O'Rear, 18-Jan-2015.) |
⊢ 𝑇 = {〈𝑥, 𝑦〉 ∣ ∃𝑧 ∈ 𝐴 ((𝑥‘𝑧)𝑆(𝑦‘𝑧) ∧ ∀𝑤 ∈ 𝐴 (𝑤𝑅𝑧 → (𝑥‘𝑤) = (𝑦‘𝑤)))} ⇒ ⊢ ((𝐴 ∈ 𝑉 ∧ 𝑅 Or 𝐴 ∧ 𝑆 Po 𝐵) → 𝑇 Po (𝐵 ↑m 𝐴)) | ||
Theorem | wemapsolem 9002* | Lemma for wemapso 9003. (Contributed by Stefan O'Rear, 18-Jan-2015.) (Revised by Mario Carneiro, 8-Feb-2015.) |
⊢ 𝑇 = {〈𝑥, 𝑦〉 ∣ ∃𝑧 ∈ 𝐴 ((𝑥‘𝑧)𝑆(𝑦‘𝑧) ∧ ∀𝑤 ∈ 𝐴 (𝑤𝑅𝑧 → (𝑥‘𝑤) = (𝑦‘𝑤)))} & ⊢ 𝑈 ⊆ (𝐵 ↑m 𝐴) & ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝐴 ∈ V) & ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝑅 Or 𝐴) & ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝑆 Or 𝐵) & ⊢ ((𝜑 ∧ ((𝑎 ∈ 𝑈 ∧ 𝑏 ∈ 𝑈) ∧ 𝑎 ≠ 𝑏)) → ∃𝑐 ∈ dom (𝑎 ∖ 𝑏)∀𝑑 ∈ dom (𝑎 ∖ 𝑏) ¬ 𝑑𝑅𝑐) ⇒ ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝑇 Or 𝑈) | ||
Theorem | wemapso 9003* | Construct lexicographic order on a function space based on a well-ordering of the indices and a total ordering of the values. (Contributed by Stefan O'Rear, 18-Jan-2015.) (Revised by Mario Carneiro, 8-Feb-2015.) |
⊢ 𝑇 = {〈𝑥, 𝑦〉 ∣ ∃𝑧 ∈ 𝐴 ((𝑥‘𝑧)𝑆(𝑦‘𝑧) ∧ ∀𝑤 ∈ 𝐴 (𝑤𝑅𝑧 → (𝑥‘𝑤) = (𝑦‘𝑤)))} ⇒ ⊢ ((𝐴 ∈ 𝑉 ∧ 𝑅 We 𝐴 ∧ 𝑆 Or 𝐵) → 𝑇 Or (𝐵 ↑m 𝐴)) | ||
Theorem | wemapso2lem 9004* | Lemma for wemapso2 9005. (Contributed by Mario Carneiro, 8-Feb-2015.) (Revised by AV, 1-Jul-2019.) |
⊢ 𝑇 = {〈𝑥, 𝑦〉 ∣ ∃𝑧 ∈ 𝐴 ((𝑥‘𝑧)𝑆(𝑦‘𝑧) ∧ ∀𝑤 ∈ 𝐴 (𝑤𝑅𝑧 → (𝑥‘𝑤) = (𝑦‘𝑤)))} & ⊢ 𝑈 = {𝑥 ∈ (𝐵 ↑m 𝐴) ∣ 𝑥 finSupp 𝑍} ⇒ ⊢ (((𝐴 ∈ 𝑉 ∧ 𝑅 Or 𝐴 ∧ 𝑆 Or 𝐵) ∧ 𝑍 ∈ 𝑊) → 𝑇 Or 𝑈) | ||
Theorem | wemapso2 9005* | An alternative to having a well-order on 𝑅 in wemapso 9003 is to restrict the function set to finitely-supported functions. (Contributed by Mario Carneiro, 8-Feb-2015.) (Revised by AV, 1-Jul-2019.) |
⊢ 𝑇 = {〈𝑥, 𝑦〉 ∣ ∃𝑧 ∈ 𝐴 ((𝑥‘𝑧)𝑆(𝑦‘𝑧) ∧ ∀𝑤 ∈ 𝐴 (𝑤𝑅𝑧 → (𝑥‘𝑤) = (𝑦‘𝑤)))} & ⊢ 𝑈 = {𝑥 ∈ (𝐵 ↑m 𝐴) ∣ 𝑥 finSupp 𝑍} ⇒ ⊢ ((𝐴 ∈ 𝑉 ∧ 𝑅 Or 𝐴 ∧ 𝑆 Or 𝐵) → 𝑇 Or 𝑈) | ||
Theorem | card2on 9006* | The alternate definition of the cardinal of a set given in cardval2 9408 always gives a set, and indeed an ordinal. (Contributed by Mario Carneiro, 14-Jan-2013.) |
⊢ {𝑥 ∈ On ∣ 𝑥 ≺ 𝐴} ∈ On | ||
Theorem | card2inf 9007* | The alternate definition of the cardinal of a set given in cardval2 9408 has the curious property that for non-numerable sets (for which ndmfv 6693 yields ∅), it still evaluates to a nonempty set, and indeed it contains ω. (Contributed by Mario Carneiro, 15-Jan-2013.) (Revised by Mario Carneiro, 27-Apr-2015.) |
⊢ 𝐴 ∈ V ⇒ ⊢ (¬ ∃𝑦 ∈ On 𝑦 ≈ 𝐴 → ω ⊆ {𝑥 ∈ On ∣ 𝑥 ≺ 𝐴}) | ||
Syntax | char 9008 | Class symbol for the Hartogs/cardinal successor function. |
class har | ||
Syntax | cwdom 9009 | Class symbol for the weak dominance relation. |
class ≼* | ||
Definition | df-har 9010* |
Define the Hartogs function , which maps all sets to the smallest
ordinal that cannot be injected into the given set. In the important
special case where 𝑥 is an ordinal, this is the
cardinal successor
operation.
Traditionally, the Hartogs number of a set is written ℵ(𝑋) and the cardinal successor 𝑋 +; we use functional notation for this, and cannot use the aleph symbol because it is taken for the enumerating function of the infinite initial ordinals df-aleph 9357. Some authors define the Hartogs number of a set to be the least *infinite* ordinal which does not inject into it, thus causing the range to consist only of alephs. We use the simpler definition where the value can be any successor cardinal. (Contributed by Stefan O'Rear, 11-Feb-2015.) |
⊢ har = (𝑥 ∈ V ↦ {𝑦 ∈ On ∣ 𝑦 ≼ 𝑥}) | ||
Definition | df-wdom 9011* | A set is weakly dominated by a "larger" set iff the "larger" set can be mapped onto the "smaller" set or the smaller set is empty; equivalently if the smaller set can be placed into bijection with some partition of the larger set. When choice is assumed (as fodom 9932), this coincides with the 1-1 definition df-dom 8499; however, it is not known whether this is a choice-equivalent or a strictly weaker form. Some discussion of this question can be found at http://boolesrings.org/asafk/2014/on-the-partition-principle/ 8499. (Contributed by Stefan O'Rear, 11-Feb-2015.) |
⊢ ≼* = {〈𝑥, 𝑦〉 ∣ (𝑥 = ∅ ∨ ∃𝑧 𝑧:𝑦–onto→𝑥)} | ||
Theorem | harf 9012 | Functionality of the Hartogs function. (Contributed by Stefan O'Rear, 11-Feb-2015.) |
⊢ har:V⟶On | ||
Theorem | harcl 9013 | Closure of the Hartogs function in the ordinals. (Contributed by Stefan O'Rear, 11-Feb-2015.) |
⊢ (har‘𝑋) ∈ On | ||
Theorem | harval 9014* | Function value of the Hartogs function. (Contributed by Stefan O'Rear, 11-Feb-2015.) |
⊢ (𝑋 ∈ 𝑉 → (har‘𝑋) = {𝑦 ∈ On ∣ 𝑦 ≼ 𝑋}) | ||
Theorem | elharval 9015 | The Hartogs number of a set is greater than all ordinals which inject into it. (Contributed by Stefan O'Rear, 11-Feb-2015.) (Revised by Mario Carneiro, 15-May-2015.) |
⊢ (𝑌 ∈ (har‘𝑋) ↔ (𝑌 ∈ On ∧ 𝑌 ≼ 𝑋)) | ||
Theorem | harndom 9016 | The Hartogs number of a set does not inject into that set. (Contributed by Stefan O'Rear, 11-Feb-2015.) (Revised by Mario Carneiro, 15-May-2015.) |
⊢ ¬ (har‘𝑋) ≼ 𝑋 | ||
Theorem | harword 9017 | Weak ordering property of the Hartogs function. (Contributed by Stefan O'Rear, 14-Feb-2015.) |
⊢ (𝑋 ≼ 𝑌 → (har‘𝑋) ⊆ (har‘𝑌)) | ||
Theorem | relwdom 9018 | Weak dominance is a relation. (Contributed by Stefan O'Rear, 11-Feb-2015.) |
⊢ Rel ≼* | ||
Theorem | brwdom 9019* | Property of weak dominance (definitional form). (Contributed by Stefan O'Rear, 11-Feb-2015.) |
⊢ (𝑌 ∈ 𝑉 → (𝑋 ≼* 𝑌 ↔ (𝑋 = ∅ ∨ ∃𝑧 𝑧:𝑌–onto→𝑋))) | ||
Theorem | brwdomi 9020* | Property of weak dominance, forward direction only. (Contributed by Mario Carneiro, 5-May-2015.) |
⊢ (𝑋 ≼* 𝑌 → (𝑋 = ∅ ∨ ∃𝑧 𝑧:𝑌–onto→𝑋)) | ||
Theorem | brwdomn0 9021* | Weak dominance over nonempty sets. (Contributed by Stefan O'Rear, 11-Feb-2015.) (Revised by Mario Carneiro, 5-May-2015.) |
⊢ (𝑋 ≠ ∅ → (𝑋 ≼* 𝑌 ↔ ∃𝑧 𝑧:𝑌–onto→𝑋)) | ||
Theorem | 0wdom 9022 | Any set weakly dominates the empty set. (Contributed by Stefan O'Rear, 11-Feb-2015.) |
⊢ (𝑋 ∈ 𝑉 → ∅ ≼* 𝑋) | ||
Theorem | fowdom 9023 | An onto function implies weak dominance. (Contributed by Stefan O'Rear, 11-Feb-2015.) |
⊢ ((𝐹 ∈ 𝑉 ∧ 𝐹:𝑌–onto→𝑋) → 𝑋 ≼* 𝑌) | ||
Theorem | wdomref 9024 | Reflexivity of weak dominance. (Contributed by Stefan O'Rear, 11-Feb-2015.) |
⊢ (𝑋 ∈ 𝑉 → 𝑋 ≼* 𝑋) | ||
Theorem | brwdom2 9025* | Alternate characterization of the weak dominance predicate which does not require special treatment of the empty set. (Contributed by Stefan O'Rear, 11-Feb-2015.) |
⊢ (𝑌 ∈ 𝑉 → (𝑋 ≼* 𝑌 ↔ ∃𝑦 ∈ 𝒫 𝑌∃𝑧 𝑧:𝑦–onto→𝑋)) | ||
Theorem | domwdom 9026 | Weak dominance is implied by dominance in the usual sense. (Contributed by Stefan O'Rear, 11-Feb-2015.) |
⊢ (𝑋 ≼ 𝑌 → 𝑋 ≼* 𝑌) | ||
Theorem | wdomtr 9027 | Transitivity of weak dominance. (Contributed by Stefan O'Rear, 11-Feb-2015.) (Revised by Mario Carneiro, 5-May-2015.) |
⊢ ((𝑋 ≼* 𝑌 ∧ 𝑌 ≼* 𝑍) → 𝑋 ≼* 𝑍) | ||
Theorem | wdomen1 9028 | Equality-like theorem for equinumerosity and weak dominance. (Contributed by Mario Carneiro, 18-May-2015.) |
⊢ (𝐴 ≈ 𝐵 → (𝐴 ≼* 𝐶 ↔ 𝐵 ≼* 𝐶)) | ||
Theorem | wdomen2 9029 | Equality-like theorem for equinumerosity and weak dominance. (Contributed by Mario Carneiro, 18-May-2015.) |
⊢ (𝐴 ≈ 𝐵 → (𝐶 ≼* 𝐴 ↔ 𝐶 ≼* 𝐵)) | ||
Theorem | wdompwdom 9030 | Weak dominance strengthens to usual dominance on the power sets. (Contributed by Stefan O'Rear, 11-Feb-2015.) (Revised by Mario Carneiro, 5-May-2015.) |
⊢ (𝑋 ≼* 𝑌 → 𝒫 𝑋 ≼ 𝒫 𝑌) | ||
Theorem | canthwdom 9031 | Cantor's Theorem, stated using weak dominance (this is actually a stronger statement than canth2 8658, equivalent to canth 7100). (Contributed by Mario Carneiro, 15-May-2015.) |
⊢ ¬ 𝒫 𝐴 ≼* 𝐴 | ||
Theorem | wdom2d 9032* | Deduce weak dominance from an implicit onto function (stated in a way which avoids ax-rep 5181). (Contributed by Stefan O'Rear, 13-Feb-2015.) |
⊢ (𝜑 → 𝐴 ∈ 𝑉) & ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝐵 ∈ 𝑊) & ⊢ ((𝜑 ∧ 𝑥 ∈ 𝐴) → ∃𝑦 ∈ 𝐵 𝑥 = 𝑋) ⇒ ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝐴 ≼* 𝐵) | ||
Theorem | wdomd 9033* | Deduce weak dominance from an implicit onto function. (Contributed by Stefan O'Rear, 13-Feb-2015.) |
⊢ (𝜑 → 𝐵 ∈ 𝑊) & ⊢ ((𝜑 ∧ 𝑥 ∈ 𝐴) → ∃𝑦 ∈ 𝐵 𝑥 = 𝑋) ⇒ ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝐴 ≼* 𝐵) | ||
Theorem | brwdom3 9034* | Condition for weak dominance with a condition reminiscent of wdomd 9033. (Contributed by Stefan O'Rear, 13-Feb-2015.) (Revised by Mario Carneiro, 25-Jun-2015.) |
⊢ ((𝑋 ∈ 𝑉 ∧ 𝑌 ∈ 𝑊) → (𝑋 ≼* 𝑌 ↔ ∃𝑓∀𝑥 ∈ 𝑋 ∃𝑦 ∈ 𝑌 𝑥 = (𝑓‘𝑦))) | ||
Theorem | brwdom3i 9035* | Weak dominance implies existence of a covering function. (Contributed by Stefan O'Rear, 13-Feb-2015.) |
⊢ (𝑋 ≼* 𝑌 → ∃𝑓∀𝑥 ∈ 𝑋 ∃𝑦 ∈ 𝑌 𝑥 = (𝑓‘𝑦)) | ||
Theorem | unwdomg 9036 | Weak dominance of a (disjoint) union. (Contributed by Stefan O'Rear, 13-Feb-2015.) (Revised by Mario Carneiro, 25-Jun-2015.) |
⊢ ((𝐴 ≼* 𝐵 ∧ 𝐶 ≼* 𝐷 ∧ (𝐵 ∩ 𝐷) = ∅) → (𝐴 ∪ 𝐶) ≼* (𝐵 ∪ 𝐷)) | ||
Theorem | xpwdomg 9037 | Weak dominance of a Cartesian product. (Contributed by Stefan O'Rear, 13-Feb-2015.) (Revised by Mario Carneiro, 25-Jun-2015.) |
⊢ ((𝐴 ≼* 𝐵 ∧ 𝐶 ≼* 𝐷) → (𝐴 × 𝐶) ≼* (𝐵 × 𝐷)) | ||
Theorem | wdomima2g 9038 | A set is weakly dominant over its image under any function. This version of wdomimag 9039 is stated so as to avoid ax-rep 5181. (Contributed by Mario Carneiro, 25-Jun-2015.) |
⊢ ((Fun 𝐹 ∧ 𝐴 ∈ 𝑉 ∧ (𝐹 “ 𝐴) ∈ 𝑊) → (𝐹 “ 𝐴) ≼* 𝐴) | ||
Theorem | wdomimag 9039 | A set is weakly dominant over its image under any function. (Contributed by Stefan O'Rear, 14-Feb-2015.) (Revised by Mario Carneiro, 25-Jun-2015.) |
⊢ ((Fun 𝐹 ∧ 𝐴 ∈ 𝑉) → (𝐹 “ 𝐴) ≼* 𝐴) | ||
Theorem | unxpwdom2 9040 | Lemma for unxpwdom 9041. (Contributed by Mario Carneiro, 15-May-2015.) |
⊢ ((𝐴 × 𝐴) ≈ (𝐵 ∪ 𝐶) → (𝐴 ≼* 𝐵 ∨ 𝐴 ≼ 𝐶)) | ||
Theorem | unxpwdom 9041 | If a Cartesian product is dominated by a union, then the base set is either weakly dominated by one factor of the union or dominated by the other. Extracted from Lemma 2.3 of [KanamoriPincus] p. 420. (Contributed by Mario Carneiro, 15-May-2015.) |
⊢ ((𝐴 × 𝐴) ≼ (𝐵 ∪ 𝐶) → (𝐴 ≼* 𝐵 ∨ 𝐴 ≼ 𝐶)) | ||
Theorem | harwdom 9042 | The Hartogs function is weakly dominated by 𝒫 (𝑋 × 𝑋). This follows from a more precise analysis of the bound used in hartogs 8996 to prove that (har‘𝑋) is a set. (Contributed by Mario Carneiro, 15-May-2015.) |
⊢ (𝑋 ∈ 𝑉 → (har‘𝑋) ≼* 𝒫 (𝑋 × 𝑋)) | ||
Theorem | ixpiunwdom 9043* | Describe an onto function from the indexed cartesian product to the indexed union. Together with ixpssmapg 8480 this shows that ∪ 𝑥 ∈ 𝐴𝐵 and X𝑥 ∈ 𝐴𝐵 have closely linked cardinalities. (Contributed by Mario Carneiro, 27-Aug-2015.) |
⊢ ((𝐴 ∈ 𝑉 ∧ ∪ 𝑥 ∈ 𝐴 𝐵 ∈ 𝑊 ∧ X𝑥 ∈ 𝐴 𝐵 ≠ ∅) → ∪ 𝑥 ∈ 𝐴 𝐵 ≼* (X𝑥 ∈ 𝐴 𝐵 × 𝐴)) | ||
Axiom | ax-reg 9044* | Axiom of Regularity. An axiom of Zermelo-Fraenkel set theory. Also called the Axiom of Foundation. A rather non-intuitive axiom that denies more than it asserts, it states (in the form of zfreg 9047) that every nonempty set contains a set disjoint from itself. One consequence is that it denies the existence of a set containing itself (elirrv 9048). A stronger version that works for proper classes is proved as zfregs 9162. (Contributed by NM, 14-Aug-1993.) |
⊢ (∃𝑦 𝑦 ∈ 𝑥 → ∃𝑦(𝑦 ∈ 𝑥 ∧ ∀𝑧(𝑧 ∈ 𝑦 → ¬ 𝑧 ∈ 𝑥))) | ||
Theorem | axreg2 9045* | Axiom of Regularity expressed more compactly. (Contributed by NM, 14-Aug-2003.) |
⊢ (𝑥 ∈ 𝑦 → ∃𝑥(𝑥 ∈ 𝑦 ∧ ∀𝑧(𝑧 ∈ 𝑥 → ¬ 𝑧 ∈ 𝑦))) | ||
Theorem | zfregcl 9046* | The Axiom of Regularity with class variables. (Contributed by NM, 5-Aug-1994.) Replace sethood hypothesis with sethood antecedent. (Revised by BJ, 27-Apr-2021.) |
⊢ (𝐴 ∈ 𝑉 → (∃𝑥 𝑥 ∈ 𝐴 → ∃𝑥 ∈ 𝐴 ∀𝑦 ∈ 𝑥 ¬ 𝑦 ∈ 𝐴)) | ||
Theorem | zfreg 9047* | The Axiom of Regularity using abbreviations. Axiom 6 of [TakeutiZaring] p. 21. This is called the "weak form". Axiom Reg of [BellMachover] p. 480. There is also a "strong form", not requiring that 𝐴 be a set, that can be proved with more difficulty (see zfregs 9162). (Contributed by NM, 26-Nov-1995.) Replace sethood hypothesis with sethood antecedent. (Revised by BJ, 27-Apr-2021.) |
⊢ ((𝐴 ∈ 𝑉 ∧ 𝐴 ≠ ∅) → ∃𝑥 ∈ 𝐴 (𝑥 ∩ 𝐴) = ∅) | ||
Theorem | elirrv 9048 | The membership relation is irreflexive: no set is a member of itself. Theorem 105 of [Suppes] p. 54. (This is trivial to prove from zfregfr 9056 and efrirr 5529, but this proof is direct from the Axiom of Regularity.) (Contributed by NM, 19-Aug-1993.) |
⊢ ¬ 𝑥 ∈ 𝑥 | ||
Theorem | elirr 9049 | No class is a member of itself. Exercise 6 of [TakeutiZaring] p. 22. (Contributed by NM, 7-Aug-1994.) (Proof shortened by Andrew Salmon, 9-Jul-2011.) |
⊢ ¬ 𝐴 ∈ 𝐴 | ||
Theorem | elneq 9050 | A class is not equal to any of its elements. (Contributed by AV, 14-Jun-2022.) |
⊢ (𝐴 ∈ 𝐵 → 𝐴 ≠ 𝐵) | ||
Theorem | nelaneq 9051 | A class is not an element of and equal to a class at the same time. Variant of elneq 9050 analogously to elnotel 9061 and en2lp 9057. (Proposed by BJ, 18-Jun-2022.) (Contributed by AV, 18-Jun-2022.) |
⊢ ¬ (𝐴 ∈ 𝐵 ∧ 𝐴 = 𝐵) | ||
Theorem | epinid0 9052 | The membership (epsilon) relation and the identity relation are disjoint. Variable-free version of nelaneq 9051. (Proposed by BJ, 18-Jun-2022.) (Contributed by AV, 18-Jun-2022.) |
⊢ ( E ∩ I ) = ∅ | ||
Theorem | sucprcreg 9053 | A class is equal to its successor iff it is a proper class (assuming the Axiom of Regularity). (Contributed by NM, 9-Jul-2004.) (Proof shortened by BJ, 16-Apr-2019.) |
⊢ (¬ 𝐴 ∈ V ↔ suc 𝐴 = 𝐴) | ||
Theorem | ruv 9054 | The Russell class is equal to the universe V. Exercise 5 of [TakeutiZaring] p. 22. (Contributed by Alan Sare, 4-Oct-2008.) |
⊢ {𝑥 ∣ 𝑥 ∉ 𝑥} = V | ||
Theorem | ruALT 9055 | Alternate proof of ru 3768, simplified using (indirectly) the Axiom of Regularity ax-reg 9044. (Contributed by Alan Sare, 4-Oct-2008.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) (New usage is discouraged.) |
⊢ {𝑥 ∣ 𝑥 ∉ 𝑥} ∉ V | ||
Theorem | zfregfr 9056 | The membership relation is well-founded on any class. (Contributed by NM, 26-Nov-1995.) |
⊢ E Fr 𝐴 | ||
Theorem | en2lp 9057 | No class has 2-cycle membership loops. Theorem 7X(b) of [Enderton] p. 206. (Contributed by NM, 16-Oct-1996.) (Revised by Mario Carneiro, 25-Jun-2015.) |
⊢ ¬ (𝐴 ∈ 𝐵 ∧ 𝐵 ∈ 𝐴) | ||
Theorem | elnanel 9058 | Two classes are not elements of each other simultaneously. This is just a rewriting of en2lp 9057 and serves as an example in the context of Godel codes, see elnanelprv 32573. (Contributed by AV, 5-Nov-2023.) (New usage is discouraged.) |
⊢ (𝐴 ∈ 𝐵 ⊼ 𝐵 ∈ 𝐴) | ||
Theorem | cnvepnep 9059 | The membership (epsilon) relation and its converse are disjoint, i.e., E is an asymmetric relation. Variable-free version of en2lp 9057. (Proposed by BJ, 18-Jun-2022.) (Contributed by AV, 19-Jun-2022.) |
⊢ (◡ E ∩ E ) = ∅ | ||
Theorem | epnsym 9060 | The membership (epsilon) relation is not symmetric. (Contributed by AV, 18-Jun-2022.) |
⊢ ◡ E ≠ E | ||
Theorem | elnotel 9061 | A class cannot be an element of one of its elements. (Contributed by AV, 14-Jun-2022.) |
⊢ (𝐴 ∈ 𝐵 → ¬ 𝐵 ∈ 𝐴) | ||
Theorem | elnel 9062 | A class cannot be an element of one of its elements. (Contributed by AV, 14-Jun-2022.) |
⊢ (𝐴 ∈ 𝐵 → 𝐵 ∉ 𝐴) | ||
Theorem | en3lplem1 9063* | Lemma for en3lp 9065. (Contributed by Alan Sare, 28-Oct-2011.) |
⊢ ((𝐴 ∈ 𝐵 ∧ 𝐵 ∈ 𝐶 ∧ 𝐶 ∈ 𝐴) → (𝑥 = 𝐴 → (𝑥 ∩ {𝐴, 𝐵, 𝐶}) ≠ ∅)) | ||
Theorem | en3lplem2 9064* | Lemma for en3lp 9065. (Contributed by Alan Sare, 28-Oct-2011.) |
⊢ ((𝐴 ∈ 𝐵 ∧ 𝐵 ∈ 𝐶 ∧ 𝐶 ∈ 𝐴) → (𝑥 ∈ {𝐴, 𝐵, 𝐶} → (𝑥 ∩ {𝐴, 𝐵, 𝐶}) ≠ ∅)) | ||
Theorem | en3lp 9065 | No class has 3-cycle membership loops. This proof was automatically generated from the virtual deduction proof en3lpVD 41056 using a translation program. (Contributed by Alan Sare, 24-Oct-2011.) |
⊢ ¬ (𝐴 ∈ 𝐵 ∧ 𝐵 ∈ 𝐶 ∧ 𝐶 ∈ 𝐴) | ||
Theorem | preleqg 9066 | Equality of two unordered pairs when one member of each pair contains the other member. Closed form of preleq 9067. (Contributed by AV, 15-Jun-2022.) |
⊢ (((𝐴 ∈ 𝐵 ∧ 𝐵 ∈ 𝑉 ∧ 𝐶 ∈ 𝐷) ∧ {𝐴, 𝐵} = {𝐶, 𝐷}) → (𝐴 = 𝐶 ∧ 𝐵 = 𝐷)) | ||
Theorem | preleq 9067 | Equality of two unordered pairs when one member of each pair contains the other member. (Contributed by NM, 16-Oct-1996.) (Revised by AV, 15-Jun-2022.) |
⊢ 𝐵 ∈ V ⇒ ⊢ (((𝐴 ∈ 𝐵 ∧ 𝐶 ∈ 𝐷) ∧ {𝐴, 𝐵} = {𝐶, 𝐷}) → (𝐴 = 𝐶 ∧ 𝐵 = 𝐷)) | ||
Theorem | preleqALT 9068 | Alternate proof of preleq 9067, not based on preleqg 9066: Equality of two unordered pairs when one member of each pair contains the other member. (Contributed by NM, 16-Oct-1996.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) (New usage is discouraged.) |
⊢ 𝐵 ∈ V & ⊢ 𝐷 ∈ V ⇒ ⊢ (((𝐴 ∈ 𝐵 ∧ 𝐶 ∈ 𝐷) ∧ {𝐴, 𝐵} = {𝐶, 𝐷}) → (𝐴 = 𝐶 ∧ 𝐵 = 𝐷)) | ||
Theorem | opthreg 9069 | Theorem for alternate representation of ordered pairs, requiring the Axiom of Regularity ax-reg 9044 (via the preleq 9067 step). See df-op 4564 for a description of other ordered pair representations. Exercise 34 of [Enderton] p. 207. (Contributed by NM, 16-Oct-1996.) (Proof shortened by AV, 15-Jun-2022.) |
⊢ 𝐴 ∈ V & ⊢ 𝐵 ∈ V & ⊢ 𝐶 ∈ V & ⊢ 𝐷 ∈ V ⇒ ⊢ ({𝐴, {𝐴, 𝐵}} = {𝐶, {𝐶, 𝐷}} ↔ (𝐴 = 𝐶 ∧ 𝐵 = 𝐷)) | ||
Theorem | suc11reg 9070 | The successor operation behaves like a one-to-one function (assuming the Axiom of Regularity). Exercise 35 of [Enderton] p. 208 and its converse. (Contributed by NM, 25-Oct-2003.) |
⊢ (suc 𝐴 = suc 𝐵 ↔ 𝐴 = 𝐵) | ||
Theorem | dford2 9071* | Assuming ax-reg 9044, an ordinal is a transitive class on which inclusion satisfies trichotomy. (Contributed by Scott Fenton, 27-Oct-2010.) |
⊢ (Ord 𝐴 ↔ (Tr 𝐴 ∧ ∀𝑥 ∈ 𝐴 ∀𝑦 ∈ 𝐴 (𝑥 ∈ 𝑦 ∨ 𝑥 = 𝑦 ∨ 𝑦 ∈ 𝑥))) | ||
Theorem | inf0 9072* | Our Axiom of Infinity derived from existence of omega. The proof shows that the especially contrived class "ran (rec((𝑣 ∈ V ↦ suc 𝑣), 𝑥) ↾ ω) " exists, is a subset of its union, and contains a given set 𝑥 (and thus is nonempty). Thus, it provides an example demonstrating that a set 𝑦 exists with the necessary properties demanded by ax-inf 9089. (Contributed by NM, 15-Oct-1996.) |
⊢ ω ∈ V ⇒ ⊢ ∃𝑦(𝑥 ∈ 𝑦 ∧ ∀𝑧(𝑧 ∈ 𝑦 → ∃𝑤(𝑧 ∈ 𝑤 ∧ 𝑤 ∈ 𝑦))) | ||
Theorem | inf1 9073 | Variation of Axiom of Infinity (using zfinf 9090 as a hypothesis). Axiom of Infinity in [FreydScedrov] p. 283. (Contributed by NM, 14-Oct-1996.) (Revised by David Abernethy, 1-Oct-2013.) |
⊢ ∃𝑥(𝑦 ∈ 𝑥 ∧ ∀𝑦(𝑦 ∈ 𝑥 → ∃𝑧(𝑦 ∈ 𝑧 ∧ 𝑧 ∈ 𝑥))) ⇒ ⊢ ∃𝑥(𝑥 ≠ ∅ ∧ ∀𝑦(𝑦 ∈ 𝑥 → ∃𝑧(𝑦 ∈ 𝑧 ∧ 𝑧 ∈ 𝑥))) | ||
Theorem | inf2 9074* | Variation of Axiom of Infinity. There exists a nonempty set that is a subset of its union (using zfinf 9090 as a hypothesis). Abbreviated version of the Axiom of Infinity in [FreydScedrov] p. 283. (Contributed by NM, 28-Oct-1996.) |
⊢ ∃𝑥(𝑦 ∈ 𝑥 ∧ ∀𝑦(𝑦 ∈ 𝑥 → ∃𝑧(𝑦 ∈ 𝑧 ∧ 𝑧 ∈ 𝑥))) ⇒ ⊢ ∃𝑥(𝑥 ≠ ∅ ∧ 𝑥 ⊆ ∪ 𝑥) | ||
Theorem | inf3lema 9075* | Lemma for our Axiom of Infinity => standard Axiom of Infinity. See inf3 9086 for detailed description. (Contributed by NM, 28-Oct-1996.) |
⊢ 𝐺 = (𝑦 ∈ V ↦ {𝑤 ∈ 𝑥 ∣ (𝑤 ∩ 𝑥) ⊆ 𝑦}) & ⊢ 𝐹 = (rec(𝐺, ∅) ↾ ω) & ⊢ 𝐴 ∈ V & ⊢ 𝐵 ∈ V ⇒ ⊢ (𝐴 ∈ (𝐺‘𝐵) ↔ (𝐴 ∈ 𝑥 ∧ (𝐴 ∩ 𝑥) ⊆ 𝐵)) | ||
Theorem | inf3lemb 9076* | Lemma for our Axiom of Infinity => standard Axiom of Infinity. See inf3 9086 for detailed description. (Contributed by NM, 28-Oct-1996.) |
⊢ 𝐺 = (𝑦 ∈ V ↦ {𝑤 ∈ 𝑥 ∣ (𝑤 ∩ 𝑥) ⊆ 𝑦}) & ⊢ 𝐹 = (rec(𝐺, ∅) ↾ ω) & ⊢ 𝐴 ∈ V & ⊢ 𝐵 ∈ V ⇒ ⊢ (𝐹‘∅) = ∅ | ||
Theorem | inf3lemc 9077* | Lemma for our Axiom of Infinity => standard Axiom of Infinity. See inf3 9086 for detailed description. (Contributed by NM, 28-Oct-1996.) |
⊢ 𝐺 = (𝑦 ∈ V ↦ {𝑤 ∈ 𝑥 ∣ (𝑤 ∩ 𝑥) ⊆ 𝑦}) & ⊢ 𝐹 = (rec(𝐺, ∅) ↾ ω) & ⊢ 𝐴 ∈ V & ⊢ 𝐵 ∈ V ⇒ ⊢ (𝐴 ∈ ω → (𝐹‘suc 𝐴) = (𝐺‘(𝐹‘𝐴))) | ||
Theorem | inf3lemd 9078* | Lemma for our Axiom of Infinity => standard Axiom of Infinity. See inf3 9086 for detailed description. (Contributed by NM, 28-Oct-1996.) |
⊢ 𝐺 = (𝑦 ∈ V ↦ {𝑤 ∈ 𝑥 ∣ (𝑤 ∩ 𝑥) ⊆ 𝑦}) & ⊢ 𝐹 = (rec(𝐺, ∅) ↾ ω) & ⊢ 𝐴 ∈ V & ⊢ 𝐵 ∈ V ⇒ ⊢ (𝐴 ∈ ω → (𝐹‘𝐴) ⊆ 𝑥) | ||
Theorem | inf3lem1 9079* | Lemma for our Axiom of Infinity => standard Axiom of Infinity. See inf3 9086 for detailed description. (Contributed by NM, 28-Oct-1996.) |
⊢ 𝐺 = (𝑦 ∈ V ↦ {𝑤 ∈ 𝑥 ∣ (𝑤 ∩ 𝑥) ⊆ 𝑦}) & ⊢ 𝐹 = (rec(𝐺, ∅) ↾ ω) & ⊢ 𝐴 ∈ V & ⊢ 𝐵 ∈ V ⇒ ⊢ (𝐴 ∈ ω → (𝐹‘𝐴) ⊆ (𝐹‘suc 𝐴)) | ||
Theorem | inf3lem2 9080* | Lemma for our Axiom of Infinity => standard Axiom of Infinity. See inf3 9086 for detailed description. (Contributed by NM, 28-Oct-1996.) |
⊢ 𝐺 = (𝑦 ∈ V ↦ {𝑤 ∈ 𝑥 ∣ (𝑤 ∩ 𝑥) ⊆ 𝑦}) & ⊢ 𝐹 = (rec(𝐺, ∅) ↾ ω) & ⊢ 𝐴 ∈ V & ⊢ 𝐵 ∈ V ⇒ ⊢ ((𝑥 ≠ ∅ ∧ 𝑥 ⊆ ∪ 𝑥) → (𝐴 ∈ ω → (𝐹‘𝐴) ≠ 𝑥)) | ||
Theorem | inf3lem3 9081* | Lemma for our Axiom of Infinity => standard Axiom of Infinity. See inf3 9086 for detailed description. In the proof, we invoke the Axiom of Regularity in the form of zfreg 9047. (Contributed by NM, 29-Oct-1996.) |
⊢ 𝐺 = (𝑦 ∈ V ↦ {𝑤 ∈ 𝑥 ∣ (𝑤 ∩ 𝑥) ⊆ 𝑦}) & ⊢ 𝐹 = (rec(𝐺, ∅) ↾ ω) & ⊢ 𝐴 ∈ V & ⊢ 𝐵 ∈ V ⇒ ⊢ ((𝑥 ≠ ∅ ∧ 𝑥 ⊆ ∪ 𝑥) → (𝐴 ∈ ω → (𝐹‘𝐴) ≠ (𝐹‘suc 𝐴))) | ||
Theorem | inf3lem4 9082* | Lemma for our Axiom of Infinity => standard Axiom of Infinity. See inf3 9086 for detailed description. (Contributed by NM, 29-Oct-1996.) |
⊢ 𝐺 = (𝑦 ∈ V ↦ {𝑤 ∈ 𝑥 ∣ (𝑤 ∩ 𝑥) ⊆ 𝑦}) & ⊢ 𝐹 = (rec(𝐺, ∅) ↾ ω) & ⊢ 𝐴 ∈ V & ⊢ 𝐵 ∈ V ⇒ ⊢ ((𝑥 ≠ ∅ ∧ 𝑥 ⊆ ∪ 𝑥) → (𝐴 ∈ ω → (𝐹‘𝐴) ⊊ (𝐹‘suc 𝐴))) | ||
Theorem | inf3lem5 9083* | Lemma for our Axiom of Infinity => standard Axiom of Infinity. See inf3 9086 for detailed description. (Contributed by NM, 29-Oct-1996.) |
⊢ 𝐺 = (𝑦 ∈ V ↦ {𝑤 ∈ 𝑥 ∣ (𝑤 ∩ 𝑥) ⊆ 𝑦}) & ⊢ 𝐹 = (rec(𝐺, ∅) ↾ ω) & ⊢ 𝐴 ∈ V & ⊢ 𝐵 ∈ V ⇒ ⊢ ((𝑥 ≠ ∅ ∧ 𝑥 ⊆ ∪ 𝑥) → ((𝐴 ∈ ω ∧ 𝐵 ∈ 𝐴) → (𝐹‘𝐵) ⊊ (𝐹‘𝐴))) | ||
Theorem | inf3lem6 9084* | Lemma for our Axiom of Infinity => standard Axiom of Infinity. See inf3 9086 for detailed description. (Contributed by NM, 29-Oct-1996.) |
⊢ 𝐺 = (𝑦 ∈ V ↦ {𝑤 ∈ 𝑥 ∣ (𝑤 ∩ 𝑥) ⊆ 𝑦}) & ⊢ 𝐹 = (rec(𝐺, ∅) ↾ ω) & ⊢ 𝐴 ∈ V & ⊢ 𝐵 ∈ V ⇒ ⊢ ((𝑥 ≠ ∅ ∧ 𝑥 ⊆ ∪ 𝑥) → 𝐹:ω–1-1→𝒫 𝑥) | ||
Theorem | inf3lem7 9085* | Lemma for our Axiom of Infinity => standard Axiom of Infinity. See inf3 9086 for detailed description. In the proof, we invoke the Axiom of Replacement in the form of f1dmex 7647. (Contributed by NM, 29-Oct-1996.) (Proof shortened by Mario Carneiro, 19-Jan-2013.) |
⊢ 𝐺 = (𝑦 ∈ V ↦ {𝑤 ∈ 𝑥 ∣ (𝑤 ∩ 𝑥) ⊆ 𝑦}) & ⊢ 𝐹 = (rec(𝐺, ∅) ↾ ω) & ⊢ 𝐴 ∈ V & ⊢ 𝐵 ∈ V ⇒ ⊢ ((𝑥 ≠ ∅ ∧ 𝑥 ⊆ ∪ 𝑥) → ω ∈ V) | ||
Theorem | inf3 9086 |
Our Axiom of Infinity ax-inf 9089 implies the standard Axiom of Infinity.
The hypothesis is a variant of our Axiom of Infinity provided by
inf2 9074, and the conclusion is the version of the Axiom of Infinity
shown as Axiom 7 in [TakeutiZaring] p. 43. (Other standard versions are
proved later as axinf2 9091 and zfinf2 9093.) The main proof is provided by
inf3lema 9075 through inf3lem7 9085, and this final piece eliminates the
auxiliary hypothesis of inf3lem7 9085. This proof is due to
Ian Sutherland, Richard Heck, and Norman Megill and was posted
on Usenet as shown below. Although the result is not new, the authors
were unable to find a published proof.
(As posted to sci.logic on 30-Oct-1996, with annotations added.) Theorem: The statement "There exists a nonempty set that is a subset of its union" implies the Axiom of Infinity. Proof: Let X be a nonempty set which is a subset of its union; the latter property is equivalent to saying that for any y in X, there exists a z in X such that y is in z. Define by finite recursion a function F:omega-->(power X) such that F_0 = 0 (See inf3lemb 9076.) F_n+1 = {y<X | y^X subset F_n} (See inf3lemc 9077.) Note: ^ means intersect, < means \in ("element of"). (Finite recursion as typically done requires the existence of omega; to avoid this we can just use transfinite recursion restricted to omega. F is a class-term that is not necessarily a set at this point.) Lemma 1. F_n subset F_n+1. (See inf3lem1 9079.) Proof: By induction: F_0 subset F_1. If y < F_n+1, then y^X subset F_n, so if F_n subset F_n+1, then y^X subset F_n+1, so y < F_n+2. Lemma 2. F_n =/= X. (See inf3lem2 9080.) Proof: By induction: F_0 =/= X because X is not empty. Assume F_n =/= X. Then there is a y in X that is not in F_n. By definition of X, there is a z in X that contains y. Suppose F_n+1 = X. Then z is in F_n+1, and z^X contains y, so z^X is not a subset of F_n, contrary to the definition of F_n+1. Lemma 3. F_n =/= F_n+1. (See inf3lem3 9081.) Proof: Using the identity y^X subset F_n <-> y^(X-F_n) = 0, we have F_n+1 = {y<X | y^(X-F_n) = 0}. Let q = {y<X-F_n | y^(X-F_n) = 0}. Then q subset F_n+1. Since X-F_n is not empty by Lemma 2 and q is the set of \in-minimal elements of X-F_n, by Foundation q is not empty, so q and therefore F_n+1 have an element not in F_n. Lemma 4. F_n proper_subset F_n+1. (See inf3lem4 9082.) Proof: Lemmas 1 and 3. Lemma 5. F_m proper_subset F_n, m < n. (See inf3lem5 9083.) Proof: Fix m and use induction on n > m. Basis: F_m proper_subset F_m+1 by Lemma 4. Induction: Assume F_m proper_subset F_n. Then since F_n proper_subset F_n+1, F_m proper_subset F_n+1 by transitivity of proper subset. By Lemma 5, F_m =/= F_n for m =/= n, so F is 1-1. (See inf3lem6 9084.) Thus, the inverse of F is a function with range omega and domain a subset of power X, so omega exists by Replacement. (See inf3lem7 9085.) Q.E.D.(Contributed by NM, 29-Oct-1996.) |
⊢ ∃𝑥(𝑥 ≠ ∅ ∧ 𝑥 ⊆ ∪ 𝑥) ⇒ ⊢ ω ∈ V | ||
Theorem | infeq5i 9087 | Half of infeq5 9088. (Contributed by Mario Carneiro, 16-Nov-2014.) |
⊢ (ω ∈ V → ∃𝑥 𝑥 ⊊ ∪ 𝑥) | ||
Theorem | infeq5 9088 | The statement "there exists a set that is a proper subset of its union" is equivalent to the Axiom of Infinity (shown on the right-hand side in the form of omex 9094.) The left-hand side provides us with a very short way to express the Axiom of Infinity using only elementary symbols. This proof of equivalence does not depend on the Axiom of Infinity. (Contributed by NM, 23-Mar-2004.) (Revised by Mario Carneiro, 16-Nov-2014.) |
⊢ (∃𝑥 𝑥 ⊊ ∪ 𝑥 ↔ ω ∈ V) | ||
Axiom | ax-inf 9089* |
Axiom of Infinity. An axiom of Zermelo-Fraenkel set theory. This axiom
is the gateway to "Cantor's paradise" (an expression coined by
Hilbert).
It asserts that given a starting set 𝑥, an infinite set 𝑦 built
from it exists. Although our version is apparently not given in the
literature, it is similar to, but slightly shorter than, the Axiom of
Infinity in [FreydScedrov] p. 283
(see inf1 9073 and inf2 9074). More
standard versions, which essentially state that there exists a set
containing all the natural numbers, are shown as zfinf2 9093 and omex 9094 and
are based on the (nontrivial) proof of inf3 9086.
This version has the
advantage that when expanded to primitives, it has fewer symbols than
the standard version ax-inf2 9092. Theorem inf0 9072
shows the reverse
derivation of our axiom from a standard one. Theorem inf5 9096
shows a
very short way to state this axiom.
The standard version of Infinity ax-inf2 9092 requires this axiom along with Regularity ax-reg 9044 for its derivation (as theorem axinf2 9091 below). In order to more easily identify the normal uses of Regularity, we will usually reference ax-inf2 9092 instead of this one. The derivation of this axiom from ax-inf2 9092 is shown by theorem axinf 9095. Proofs should normally use the standard version ax-inf2 9092 instead of this axiom. (New usage is discouraged.) (Contributed by NM, 16-Aug-1993.) |
⊢ ∃𝑦(𝑥 ∈ 𝑦 ∧ ∀𝑧(𝑧 ∈ 𝑦 → ∃𝑤(𝑧 ∈ 𝑤 ∧ 𝑤 ∈ 𝑦))) | ||
Theorem | zfinf 9090* | Axiom of Infinity expressed with the fewest number of different variables. (New usage is discouraged.) (Contributed by NM, 14-Aug-2003.) |
⊢ ∃𝑥(𝑦 ∈ 𝑥 ∧ ∀𝑦(𝑦 ∈ 𝑥 → ∃𝑧(𝑦 ∈ 𝑧 ∧ 𝑧 ∈ 𝑥))) | ||
Theorem | axinf2 9091* |
A standard version of Axiom of Infinity, expanded to primitives, derived
from our version of Infinity ax-inf 9089 and Regularity ax-reg 9044.
This theorem should not be referenced in any proof. Instead, use ax-inf2 9092 below so that the ordinary uses of Regularity can be more easily identified. (New usage is discouraged.) (Contributed by NM, 3-Nov-1996.) |
⊢ ∃𝑥(∃𝑦(𝑦 ∈ 𝑥 ∧ ∀𝑧 ¬ 𝑧 ∈ 𝑦) ∧ ∀𝑦(𝑦 ∈ 𝑥 → ∃𝑧(𝑧 ∈ 𝑥 ∧ ∀𝑤(𝑤 ∈ 𝑧 ↔ (𝑤 ∈ 𝑦 ∨ 𝑤 = 𝑦))))) | ||
Axiom | ax-inf2 9092* | A standard version of Axiom of Infinity of ZF set theory. In English, it says: there exists a set that contains the empty set and the successors of all of its members. Theorem zfinf2 9093 shows it converted to abbreviations. This axiom was derived as theorem axinf2 9091 above, using our version of Infinity ax-inf 9089 and the Axiom of Regularity ax-reg 9044. We will reference ax-inf2 9092 instead of axinf2 9091 so that the ordinary uses of Regularity can be more easily identified. The reverse derivation of ax-inf 9089 from ax-inf2 9092 is shown by theorem axinf 9095. (Contributed by NM, 3-Nov-1996.) |
⊢ ∃𝑥(∃𝑦(𝑦 ∈ 𝑥 ∧ ∀𝑧 ¬ 𝑧 ∈ 𝑦) ∧ ∀𝑦(𝑦 ∈ 𝑥 → ∃𝑧(𝑧 ∈ 𝑥 ∧ ∀𝑤(𝑤 ∈ 𝑧 ↔ (𝑤 ∈ 𝑦 ∨ 𝑤 = 𝑦))))) | ||
Theorem | zfinf2 9093* | A standard version of the Axiom of Infinity, using definitions to abbreviate. Axiom Inf of [BellMachover] p. 472. (See ax-inf2 9092 for the unabbreviated version.) (Contributed by NM, 30-Aug-1993.) |
⊢ ∃𝑥(∅ ∈ 𝑥 ∧ ∀𝑦 ∈ 𝑥 suc 𝑦 ∈ 𝑥) | ||
Theorem | omex 9094 |
The existence of omega (the class of natural numbers). Axiom 7 of
[TakeutiZaring] p. 43. This
theorem is proved assuming the Axiom of
Infinity and in fact is equivalent to it, as shown by the reverse
derivation inf0 9072.
A finitist (someone who doesn't believe in infinity) could, without contradiction, replace the Axiom of Infinity by its denial ¬ ω ∈ V; this would lead to ω = On by omon 7580 and Fin = V (the universe of all sets) by fineqv 8721. The finitist could still develop natural number, integer, and rational number arithmetic but would be denied the real numbers (as well as much of the rest of mathematics). In deference to the finitist, much of our development is done, when possible, without invoking the Axiom of Infinity; an example is Peano's axioms peano1 7590 through peano5 7594 (which many textbooks prove more easily assuming Infinity). (Contributed by NM, 6-Aug-1994.) |
⊢ ω ∈ V | ||
Theorem | axinf 9095* | The first version of the Axiom of Infinity ax-inf 9089 proved from the second version ax-inf2 9092. Note that we didn't use ax-reg 9044, unlike the other direction axinf2 9091. (Contributed by NM, 24-Apr-2009.) |
⊢ ∃𝑦(𝑥 ∈ 𝑦 ∧ ∀𝑧(𝑧 ∈ 𝑦 → ∃𝑤(𝑧 ∈ 𝑤 ∧ 𝑤 ∈ 𝑦))) | ||
Theorem | inf5 9096 | The statement "there exists a set that is a proper subset of its union" is equivalent to the Axiom of Infinity (see theorem infeq5 9088). This provides us with a very compact way to express the Axiom of Infinity using only elementary symbols. (Contributed by NM, 3-Jun-2005.) |
⊢ ∃𝑥 𝑥 ⊊ ∪ 𝑥 | ||
Theorem | omelon 9097 | Omega is an ordinal number. (Contributed by NM, 10-May-1998.) (Revised by Mario Carneiro, 30-Jan-2013.) |
⊢ ω ∈ On | ||
Theorem | dfom3 9098* | The class of natural numbers ω can be defined as the intersection of all inductive sets (which is the smallest inductive set, since inductive sets are closed under intersection), which is valid provided we assume the Axiom of Infinity. Definition 6.3 of [Eisenberg] p. 82. (Contributed by NM, 6-Aug-1994.) |
⊢ ω = ∩ {𝑥 ∣ (∅ ∈ 𝑥 ∧ ∀𝑦 ∈ 𝑥 suc 𝑦 ∈ 𝑥)} | ||
Theorem | elom3 9099* | A simplification of elom 7572 assuming the Axiom of Infinity. (Contributed by NM, 30-May-2003.) |
⊢ (𝐴 ∈ ω ↔ ∀𝑥(Lim 𝑥 → 𝐴 ∈ 𝑥)) | ||
Theorem | dfom4 9100* | A simplification of df-om 7570 assuming the Axiom of Infinity. (Contributed by NM, 30-May-2003.) |
⊢ ω = {𝑥 ∣ ∀𝑦(Lim 𝑦 → 𝑥 ∈ 𝑦)} |
< Previous Next > |
Copyright terms: Public domain | < Previous Next > |