P. 166 of Theorem List - Intuitionistic Logic Explorer

Theorem List for Intuitionistic Logic Explorer - 16501-16600   *Has distinct variable group(s)

Type	Label	Description
Statement
Theorem	bj-inf2vnlem1 16501*	Lemma for bj-inf2vn 16505. Remark: unoptimized proof (have to use more deduction style). (Contributed by BJ, 8-Dec-2019.) (Proof modification is discouraged.)
⊢ (∀𝑥(𝑥 ∈ 𝐴 ↔ (𝑥 = ∅ ∨ ∃𝑦 ∈ 𝐴 𝑥 = suc 𝑦)) → Ind 𝐴)
Theorem	bj-inf2vnlem2 16502*	Lemma for bj-inf2vnlem3 16503 and bj-inf2vnlem4 16504. Remark: unoptimized proof (have to use more deduction style). (Contributed by BJ, 8-Dec-2019.) (Proof modification is discouraged.)
⊢ (∀𝑥 ∈ 𝐴 (𝑥 = ∅ ∨ ∃𝑦 ∈ 𝐴 𝑥 = suc 𝑦) → (Ind 𝑍 → ∀𝑢(∀𝑡 ∈ 𝑢 (𝑡 ∈ 𝐴 → 𝑡 ∈ 𝑍) → (𝑢 ∈ 𝐴 → 𝑢 ∈ 𝑍))))
Theorem	bj-inf2vnlem3 16503*	Lemma for bj-inf2vn 16505. (Contributed by BJ, 8-Dec-2019.) (Proof modification is discouraged.)
⊢ BOUNDED 𝐴    &   ⊢ BOUNDED 𝑍    ⇒   ⊢ (∀𝑥 ∈ 𝐴 (𝑥 = ∅ ∨ ∃𝑦 ∈ 𝐴 𝑥 = suc 𝑦) → (Ind 𝑍 → 𝐴 ⊆ 𝑍))
Theorem	bj-inf2vnlem4 16504*	Lemma for bj-inf2vn2 16506. (Contributed by BJ, 8-Dec-2019.) (Proof modification is discouraged.)
⊢ (∀𝑥 ∈ 𝐴 (𝑥 = ∅ ∨ ∃𝑦 ∈ 𝐴 𝑥 = suc 𝑦) → (Ind 𝑍 → 𝐴 ⊆ 𝑍))
Theorem	bj-inf2vn 16505*	A sufficient condition for ω to be a set. See bj-inf2vn2 16506 for the unbounded version from full set induction. (Contributed by BJ, 8-Dec-2019.) (Proof modification is discouraged.)
⊢ BOUNDED 𝐴    ⇒   ⊢ (𝐴 ∈ 𝑉 → (∀𝑥(𝑥 ∈ 𝐴 ↔ (𝑥 = ∅ ∨ ∃𝑦 ∈ 𝐴 𝑥 = suc 𝑦)) → 𝐴 = ω))
Theorem	bj-inf2vn2 16506*	A sufficient condition for ω to be a set; unbounded version of bj-inf2vn 16505. (Contributed by BJ, 8-Dec-2019.) (Proof modification is discouraged.)
⊢ (𝐴 ∈ 𝑉 → (∀𝑥(𝑥 ∈ 𝐴 ↔ (𝑥 = ∅ ∨ ∃𝑦 ∈ 𝐴 𝑥 = suc 𝑦)) → 𝐴 = ω))
Axiom	ax-inf2 16507*	Another axiom of infinity in a constructive setting (see ax-infvn 16472). (Contributed by BJ, 14-Nov-2019.) (New usage is discouraged.)
⊢ ∃𝑎∀𝑥(𝑥 ∈ 𝑎 ↔ (𝑥 = ∅ ∨ ∃𝑦 ∈ 𝑎 𝑥 = suc 𝑦))
Theorem	bj-omex2 16508	Using bounded set induction and the strong axiom of infinity, ω is a set, that is, we recover ax-infvn 16472 (see bj-2inf 16469 for the equivalence of the latter with bj-omex 16473). (Contributed by BJ, 8-Dec-2019.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) (New usage is discouraged.)
⊢ ω ∈ V
Theorem	bj-nn0sucALT 16509*	Alternate proof of bj-nn0suc 16495, also constructive but from ax-inf2 16507, hence requiring ax-bdsetind 16499. (Contributed by BJ, 8-Dec-2019.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) (New usage is discouraged.)
⊢ (𝐴 ∈ ω ↔ (𝐴 = ∅ ∨ ∃𝑥 ∈ ω 𝐴 = suc 𝑥))
14.2.11.2  Full induction In this section, using the axiom of set induction, we prove full induction on the set of natural numbers.
Theorem	bj-findis 16510*	Principle of induction, using implicit substitutions (the biconditional versions of the hypotheses are implicit substitutions, and we have weakened them to implications). Constructive proof (from CZF). See bj-bdfindis 16478 for a bounded version not requiring ax-setind 4633. See finds 4696 for a proof in IZF. From this version, it is easy to prove of finds 4696, finds2 4697, finds1 4698. (Contributed by BJ, 22-Dec-2019.) (Proof modification is discouraged.)
⊢ Ⅎ𝑥𝜓    &   ⊢ Ⅎ𝑥𝜒    &   ⊢ Ⅎ𝑥𝜃    &   ⊢ (𝑥 = ∅ → (𝜓 → 𝜑))    &   ⊢ (𝑥 = 𝑦 → (𝜑 → 𝜒))    &   ⊢ (𝑥 = suc 𝑦 → (𝜃 → 𝜑))    ⇒   ⊢ ((𝜓 ∧ ∀𝑦 ∈ ω (𝜒 → 𝜃)) → ∀𝑥 ∈ ω 𝜑)
Theorem	bj-findisg 16511*	Version of bj-findis 16510 using a class term in the consequent. Constructive proof (from CZF). See the comment of bj-findis 16510 for explanations. (Contributed by BJ, 21-Nov-2019.) (Proof modification is discouraged.)
⊢ Ⅎ𝑥𝜓    &   ⊢ Ⅎ𝑥𝜒    &   ⊢ Ⅎ𝑥𝜃    &   ⊢ (𝑥 = ∅ → (𝜓 → 𝜑))    &   ⊢ (𝑥 = 𝑦 → (𝜑 → 𝜒))    &   ⊢ (𝑥 = suc 𝑦 → (𝜃 → 𝜑))    &   ⊢ Ⅎ𝑥𝐴    &   ⊢ Ⅎ𝑥𝜏    &   ⊢ (𝑥 = 𝐴 → (𝜑 → 𝜏))    ⇒   ⊢ ((𝜓 ∧ ∀𝑦 ∈ ω (𝜒 → 𝜃)) → (𝐴 ∈ ω → 𝜏))
Theorem	bj-findes 16512	Principle of induction, using explicit substitutions. Constructive proof (from CZF). See the comment of bj-findis 16510 for explanations. From this version, it is easy to prove findes 4699. (Contributed by BJ, 21-Nov-2019.) (Proof modification is discouraged.)
⊢ (([∅ / 𝑥]𝜑 ∧ ∀𝑥 ∈ ω (𝜑 → [suc 𝑥 / 𝑥]𝜑)) → ∀𝑥 ∈ ω 𝜑)
14.2.12  CZF: Strong collection In this section, we state the axiom scheme of strong collection, which is part of CZF set theory.
Axiom	ax-strcoll 16513*	Axiom scheme of strong collection. It is stated with all possible disjoint variable conditions, to show that this weak form is sufficient. The antecedent means that 𝜑 represents a multivalued function on 𝑎, or equivalently a collection of nonempty classes indexed by 𝑎, and the axiom asserts the existence of a set 𝑏 which "collects" at least one element in the image of each 𝑥 ∈ 𝑎 and which is made only of such elements. That second conjunct is what makes it "strong", compared to the axiom scheme of collection ax-coll 4202. (Contributed by BJ, 5-Oct-2019.)
⊢ ∀𝑎(∀𝑥 ∈ 𝑎 ∃𝑦𝜑 → ∃𝑏(∀𝑥 ∈ 𝑎 ∃𝑦 ∈ 𝑏 𝜑 ∧ ∀𝑦 ∈ 𝑏 ∃𝑥 ∈ 𝑎 𝜑))
Theorem	strcoll2 16514*	Version of ax-strcoll 16513 with one disjoint variable condition removed and without initial universal quantifier. (Contributed by BJ, 5-Oct-2019.)
⊢ (∀𝑥 ∈ 𝑎 ∃𝑦𝜑 → ∃𝑏(∀𝑥 ∈ 𝑎 ∃𝑦 ∈ 𝑏 𝜑 ∧ ∀𝑦 ∈ 𝑏 ∃𝑥 ∈ 𝑎 𝜑))
Theorem	strcollnft 16515*	Closed form of strcollnf 16516. (Contributed by BJ, 21-Oct-2019.)
⊢ (∀𝑥∀𝑦Ⅎ𝑏𝜑 → (∀𝑥 ∈ 𝑎 ∃𝑦𝜑 → ∃𝑏(∀𝑥 ∈ 𝑎 ∃𝑦 ∈ 𝑏 𝜑 ∧ ∀𝑦 ∈ 𝑏 ∃𝑥 ∈ 𝑎 𝜑)))
Theorem	strcollnf 16516*	Version of ax-strcoll 16513 with one disjoint variable condition removed, the other disjoint variable condition replaced with a nonfreeness hypothesis, and without initial universal quantifier. Version of strcoll2 16514 with the disjoint variable condition on 𝑏, 𝜑 replaced with a nonfreeness hypothesis. This proof aims to demonstrate a standard technique, but strcoll2 16514 will generally suffice: since the theorem asserts the existence of a set 𝑏, supposing that that setvar does not occur in the already defined 𝜑 is not a big constraint. (Contributed by BJ, 21-Oct-2019.)
⊢ Ⅎ𝑏𝜑    ⇒   ⊢ (∀𝑥 ∈ 𝑎 ∃𝑦𝜑 → ∃𝑏(∀𝑥 ∈ 𝑎 ∃𝑦 ∈ 𝑏 𝜑 ∧ ∀𝑦 ∈ 𝑏 ∃𝑥 ∈ 𝑎 𝜑))
Theorem	strcollnfALT 16517*	Alternate proof of strcollnf 16516, not using strcollnft 16515. (Contributed by BJ, 5-Oct-2019.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) (New usage is discouraged.)
⊢ Ⅎ𝑏𝜑    ⇒   ⊢ (∀𝑥 ∈ 𝑎 ∃𝑦𝜑 → ∃𝑏(∀𝑥 ∈ 𝑎 ∃𝑦 ∈ 𝑏 𝜑 ∧ ∀𝑦 ∈ 𝑏 ∃𝑥 ∈ 𝑎 𝜑))
14.2.13  CZF: Subset collection In this section, we state the axiom scheme of subset collection, which is part of CZF set theory.
Axiom	ax-sscoll 16518*	Axiom scheme of subset collection. It is stated with all possible disjoint variable conditions, to show that this weak form is sufficient. The antecedent means that 𝜑 represents a multivalued function from 𝑎 to 𝑏, or equivalently a collection of nonempty subsets of 𝑏 indexed by 𝑎, and the consequent asserts the existence of a subset of 𝑐 which "collects" at least one element in the image of each 𝑥 ∈ 𝑎 and which is made only of such elements. The axiom asserts the existence, for any sets 𝑎, 𝑏, of a set 𝑐 such that that implication holds for any value of the parameter 𝑧 of 𝜑. (Contributed by BJ, 5-Oct-2019.)
⊢ ∀𝑎∀𝑏∃𝑐∀𝑧(∀𝑥 ∈ 𝑎 ∃𝑦 ∈ 𝑏 𝜑 → ∃𝑑 ∈ 𝑐 (∀𝑥 ∈ 𝑎 ∃𝑦 ∈ 𝑑 𝜑 ∧ ∀𝑦 ∈ 𝑑 ∃𝑥 ∈ 𝑎 𝜑))
Theorem	sscoll2 16519*	Version of ax-sscoll 16518 with two disjoint variable conditions removed and without initial universal quantifiers. (Contributed by BJ, 5-Oct-2019.)
⊢ ∃𝑐∀𝑧(∀𝑥 ∈ 𝑎 ∃𝑦 ∈ 𝑏 𝜑 → ∃𝑑 ∈ 𝑐 (∀𝑥 ∈ 𝑎 ∃𝑦 ∈ 𝑑 𝜑 ∧ ∀𝑦 ∈ 𝑑 ∃𝑥 ∈ 𝑎 𝜑))
14.2.14  Real numbers
Axiom	ax-ddkcomp 16520	Axiom of Dedekind completeness for Dedekind real numbers: every inhabited upper-bounded located set of reals has a real upper bound. Ideally, this axiom should be "proved" as "axddkcomp" for the real numbers constructed from IZF, and then Axiom ax-ddkcomp 16520 should be used in place of construction specific results. In particular, axcaucvg 8110 should be proved from it. (Contributed by BJ, 24-Oct-2021.)
⊢ (((𝐴 ⊆ ℝ ∧ ∃𝑥 𝑥 ∈ 𝐴) ∧ ∃𝑥 ∈ ℝ ∀𝑦 ∈ 𝐴 𝑦 < 𝑥 ∧ ∀𝑥 ∈ ℝ ∀𝑦 ∈ ℝ (𝑥 < 𝑦 → (∃𝑧 ∈ 𝐴 𝑥 < 𝑧 ∨ ∀𝑧 ∈ 𝐴 𝑧 < 𝑦))) → ∃𝑥 ∈ ℝ (∀𝑦 ∈ 𝐴 𝑦 ≤ 𝑥 ∧ ((𝐵 ∈ 𝑅 ∧ ∀𝑦 ∈ 𝐴 𝑦 ≤ 𝐵) → 𝑥 ≤ 𝐵)))
14.3  Mathbox for Jim Kingdon
14.3.1  Propositional and predicate logic
Theorem	nnnotnotr 16521	Double negation of double negation elimination. Suggested by an online post by Martin Escardo. Although this statement resembles nnexmid 855, it can be proved with reference only to implication and negation (that is, without use of disjunction). (Contributed by Jim Kingdon, 21-Oct-2024.)
⊢ ¬ ¬ (¬ ¬ 𝜑 → 𝜑)
14.3.2  The sizes of sets
Theorem	ss1oel2o 16522	Any subset of ordinal one being an element of ordinal two is equivalent to excluded middle. A variation of exmid01 4286 which more directly illustrates the contrast with el2oss1o 6606. (Contributed by Jim Kingdon, 8-Aug-2022.)
⊢ (EXMID ↔ ∀𝑥(𝑥 ⊆ 1o → 𝑥 ∈ 2o))
Theorem	3dom 16523*	A set that dominates ordinal 3 has at least 3 different members. (Contributed by Jim Kingdon, 12-Feb-2026.)
⊢ (3o ≼ 𝐴 → ∃𝑥 ∈ 𝐴 ∃𝑦 ∈ 𝐴 ∃𝑧 ∈ 𝐴 (𝑥 ≠ 𝑦 ∧ 𝑥 ≠ 𝑧 ∧ 𝑦 ≠ 𝑧))
Theorem	pw1ndom3lem 16524	Lemma for pw1ndom3 16525. (Contributed by Jim Kingdon, 14-Feb-2026.)
⊢ (𝜑 → 𝑋 ∈ 𝒫 1o)    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝑌 ∈ 𝒫 1o)    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝑍 ∈ 𝒫 1o)    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝑋 ≠ 𝑌)    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝑋 ≠ 𝑍)    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝑌 ≠ 𝑍)    ⇒   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝑋 = ∅)
Theorem	pw1ndom3 16525	The powerset of 1o does not dominate 3o. This is another way of saying that 𝒫 1o does not have three elements (like pwntru 4287). (Contributed by Steven Nguyen and Jim Kingdon, 14-Feb-2026.)
⊢ ¬ 3o ≼ 𝒫 1o
Theorem	pw1ninf 16526	The powerset of 1o is not infinite. Since we cannot prove it is finite (see pw1fin 7095), this provides a concrete example of a set which we cannot show to be finite or infinite, as seen another way at inffiexmid 7091. (Contributed by Jim Kingdon, 14-Feb-2026.)
⊢ ¬ ω ≼ 𝒫 1o
Theorem	nnti 16527	Ordering on a natural number generates a tight apartness. (Contributed by Jim Kingdon, 7-Aug-2022.)
⊢ (𝜑 → 𝐴 ∈ ω)    ⇒   ⊢ ((𝜑 ∧ (𝑢 ∈ 𝐴 ∧ 𝑣 ∈ 𝐴)) → (𝑢 = 𝑣 ↔ (¬ 𝑢 E 𝑣 ∧ ¬ 𝑣 E 𝑢)))
Theorem	012of 16528	Mapping zero and one between ℕ0 and ω style integers. (Contributed by Jim Kingdon, 28-Jun-2024.)
⊢ 𝐺 = frec((𝑥 ∈ ℤ ↦ (𝑥 + 1)), 0)    ⇒   ⊢ (◡𝐺 ↾ {0, 1}):{0, 1}⟶2o
Theorem	2o01f 16529	Mapping zero and one between ω and ℕ0 style integers. (Contributed by Jim Kingdon, 28-Jun-2024.)
⊢ 𝐺 = frec((𝑥 ∈ ℤ ↦ (𝑥 + 1)), 0)    ⇒   ⊢ (𝐺 ↾ 2o):2o⟶{0, 1}
Theorem	2omap 16530*	Mapping between (2o ↑𝑚 𝐴) and decidable subsets of 𝐴. (Contributed by Jim Kingdon, 12-Nov-2025.)
⊢ 𝐹 = (𝑠 ∈ (2o ↑𝑚 𝐴) ↦ {𝑧 ∈ 𝐴 ∣ (𝑠‘𝑧) = 1o})    ⇒   ⊢ (𝐴 ∈ 𝑉 → 𝐹:(2o ↑𝑚 𝐴)–1-1-onto→{𝑥 ∈ 𝒫 𝐴 ∣ ∀𝑦 ∈ 𝐴 DECID 𝑦 ∈ 𝑥})
Theorem	2omapen 16531*	Equinumerosity of (2o ↑𝑚 𝐴) and the set of decidable subsets of 𝐴. (Contributed by Jim Kingdon, 14-Nov-2025.)
⊢ (𝐴 ∈ 𝑉 → (2o ↑𝑚 𝐴) ≈ {𝑥 ∈ 𝒫 𝐴 ∣ ∀𝑦 ∈ 𝐴 DECID 𝑦 ∈ 𝑥})
Theorem	pw1map 16532*	Mapping between (𝒫 1o ↑𝑚 𝐴) and subsets of 𝐴. (Contributed by Jim Kingdon, 9-Jan-2026.)
⊢ 𝐹 = (𝑠 ∈ (𝒫 1o ↑𝑚 𝐴) ↦ {𝑧 ∈ 𝐴 ∣ (𝑠‘𝑧) = 1o})    ⇒   ⊢ (𝐴 ∈ 𝑉 → 𝐹:(𝒫 1o ↑𝑚 𝐴)–1-1-onto→𝒫 𝐴)
Theorem	pw1mapen 16533	Equinumerosity of (𝒫 1o ↑𝑚 𝐴) and the set of subsets of 𝐴. (Contributed by Jim Kingdon, 10-Jan-2026.)
⊢ (𝐴 ∈ 𝑉 → (𝒫 1o ↑𝑚 𝐴) ≈ 𝒫 𝐴)
14.3.3  The power set of a singleton
Theorem	pwtrufal 16534	A subset of the singleton {∅} cannot be anything other than ∅ or {∅}. Removing the double negation would change the meaning, as seen at exmid01 4286. If we view a subset of a singleton as a truth value (as seen in theorems like exmidexmid 4284), then this theorem states there are no truth values other than true and false, as described in section 1.1 of [Bauer], p. 481. (Contributed by Mario Carneiro and Jim Kingdon, 11-Sep-2023.)
⊢ (𝐴 ⊆ {∅} → ¬ ¬ (𝐴 = ∅ ∨ 𝐴 = {∅}))
Theorem	pwle2 16535*	An exercise related to 𝑁 copies of a singleton and the power set of a singleton (where the latter can also be thought of as representing truth values). Posed as an exercise by Martin Escardo online. (Contributed by Jim Kingdon, 3-Sep-2023.)
⊢ 𝑇 = ∪ 𝑥 ∈ 𝑁 ({𝑥} × 1o)    ⇒   ⊢ ((𝑁 ∈ ω ∧ 𝐺:𝑇–1-1→𝒫 1o) → 𝑁 ⊆ 2o)
Theorem	pwf1oexmid 16536*	An exercise related to 𝑁 copies of a singleton and the power set of a singleton (where the latter can also be thought of as representing truth values). Posed as an exercise by Martin Escardo online. (Contributed by Jim Kingdon, 3-Sep-2023.)
⊢ 𝑇 = ∪ 𝑥 ∈ 𝑁 ({𝑥} × 1o)    ⇒   ⊢ ((𝑁 ∈ ω ∧ 𝐺:𝑇–1-1→𝒫 1o) → (ran 𝐺 = 𝒫 1o ↔ (𝑁 = 2o ∧ EXMID)))
Theorem	subctctexmid 16537*	If every subcountable set is countable and Markov's principle holds, excluded middle follows. Proposition 2.6 of [BauerSwan], p. 14:4. The proof is taken from that paper. (Contributed by Jim Kingdon, 29-Nov-2023.)
⊢ (𝜑 → ∀𝑥(∃𝑠(𝑠 ⊆ ω ∧ ∃𝑓 𝑓:𝑠–onto→𝑥) → ∃𝑔 𝑔:ω–onto→(𝑥 ⊔ 1o)))    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → ω ∈ Markov)    ⇒   ⊢ (𝜑 → EXMID)
Theorem	domomsubct 16538*	A set dominated by ω is subcountable. (Contributed by Jim Kingdon, 11-Nov-2025.)
⊢ (𝐴 ≼ ω → ∃𝑠(𝑠 ⊆ ω ∧ ∃𝑓 𝑓:𝑠–onto→𝐴))
Theorem	sssneq 16539*	Any two elements of a subset of a singleton are equal. (Contributed by Jim Kingdon, 28-May-2024.)
⊢ (𝐴 ⊆ {𝐵} → ∀𝑦 ∈ 𝐴 ∀𝑧 ∈ 𝐴 𝑦 = 𝑧)
Theorem	pw1nct 16540*	A condition which ensures that the powerset of a singleton is not countable. The antecedent here can be referred to as the uniformity principle. Based on Mastodon posts by Andrej Bauer and Rahul Chhabra. (Contributed by Jim Kingdon, 29-May-2024.)
⊢ (∀𝑟(𝑟 ⊆ (𝒫 1o × ω) → (∀𝑝 ∈ 𝒫 1o∃𝑛 ∈ ω 𝑝𝑟𝑛 → ∃𝑚 ∈ ω ∀𝑞 ∈ 𝒫 1o𝑞𝑟𝑚)) → ¬ ∃𝑓 𝑓:ω–onto→(𝒫 1o ⊔ 1o))
Theorem	pw1dceq 16541*	The powerset of 1o having decidable equality is equivalent to excluded middle. (Contributed by Jim Kingdon, 12-Feb-2026.)
⊢ (EXMID ↔ ∀𝑥 ∈ 𝒫 1o∀𝑦 ∈ 𝒫 1oDECID 𝑥 = 𝑦)
14.3.4  Omniscience of NN+oo
Theorem	0nninf 16542	The zero element of ℕ∞ (the constant sequence equal to ∅). (Contributed by Jim Kingdon, 14-Jul-2022.)
⊢ (ω × {∅}) ∈ ℕ∞
Theorem	nnsf 16543*	Domain and range of 𝑆. Part of Definition 3.3 of [PradicBrown2022], p. 5. (Contributed by Jim Kingdon, 30-Jul-2022.)
⊢ 𝑆 = (𝑝 ∈ ℕ∞ ↦ (𝑖 ∈ ω ↦ if(𝑖 = ∅, 1o, (𝑝‘∪ 𝑖))))    ⇒   ⊢ 𝑆:ℕ∞⟶ℕ∞
Theorem	peano4nninf 16544*	The successor function on ℕ∞ is one to one. Half of Lemma 3.4 of [PradicBrown2022], p. 5. (Contributed by Jim Kingdon, 31-Jul-2022.)
⊢ 𝑆 = (𝑝 ∈ ℕ∞ ↦ (𝑖 ∈ ω ↦ if(𝑖 = ∅, 1o, (𝑝‘∪ 𝑖))))    ⇒   ⊢ 𝑆:ℕ∞–1-1→ℕ∞
Theorem	peano3nninf 16545*	The successor function on ℕ∞ is never zero. Half of Lemma 3.4 of [PradicBrown2022], p. 5. (Contributed by Jim Kingdon, 1-Aug-2022.)
⊢ 𝑆 = (𝑝 ∈ ℕ∞ ↦ (𝑖 ∈ ω ↦ if(𝑖 = ∅, 1o, (𝑝‘∪ 𝑖))))    ⇒   ⊢ (𝐴 ∈ ℕ∞ → (𝑆‘𝐴) ≠ (𝑥 ∈ ω ↦ ∅))
Theorem	nninfalllem1 16546*	Lemma for nninfall 16547. (Contributed by Jim Kingdon, 1-Aug-2022.)
⊢ (𝜑 → 𝑄 ∈ (2o ↑𝑚 ℕ∞))    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → (𝑄‘(𝑥 ∈ ω ↦ 1o)) = 1o)    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → ∀𝑛 ∈ ω (𝑄‘(𝑖 ∈ ω ↦ if(𝑖 ∈ 𝑛, 1o, ∅))) = 1o)    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝑃 ∈ ℕ∞)    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → (𝑄‘𝑃) = ∅)    ⇒   ⊢ (𝜑 → ∀𝑛 ∈ ω (𝑃‘𝑛) = 1o)
Theorem	nninfall 16547*	Given a decidable predicate on ℕ∞, showing it holds for natural numbers and the point at infinity suffices to show it holds everywhere. The sense in which 𝑄 is a decidable predicate is that it assigns a value of either ∅ or 1o (which can be thought of as false and true) to every element of ℕ∞. Lemma 3.5 of [PradicBrown2022], p. 5. (Contributed by Jim Kingdon, 1-Aug-2022.)
⊢ (𝜑 → 𝑄 ∈ (2o ↑𝑚 ℕ∞))    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → (𝑄‘(𝑥 ∈ ω ↦ 1o)) = 1o)    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → ∀𝑛 ∈ ω (𝑄‘(𝑖 ∈ ω ↦ if(𝑖 ∈ 𝑛, 1o, ∅))) = 1o)    ⇒   ⊢ (𝜑 → ∀𝑝 ∈ ℕ∞ (𝑄‘𝑝) = 1o)
Theorem	nninfsellemdc 16548*	Lemma for nninfself 16551. Showing that the selection function is well defined. (Contributed by Jim Kingdon, 8-Aug-2022.)
⊢ ((𝑄 ∈ (2o ↑𝑚 ℕ∞) ∧ 𝑁 ∈ ω) → DECID ∀𝑘 ∈ suc 𝑁(𝑄‘(𝑖 ∈ ω ↦ if(𝑖 ∈ 𝑘, 1o, ∅))) = 1o)
Theorem	nninfsellemcl 16549*	Lemma for nninfself 16551. (Contributed by Jim Kingdon, 8-Aug-2022.)
⊢ ((𝑄 ∈ (2o ↑𝑚 ℕ∞) ∧ 𝑁 ∈ ω) → if(∀𝑘 ∈ suc 𝑁(𝑄‘(𝑖 ∈ ω ↦ if(𝑖 ∈ 𝑘, 1o, ∅))) = 1o, 1o, ∅) ∈ 2o)
Theorem	nninfsellemsuc 16550*	Lemma for nninfself 16551. (Contributed by Jim Kingdon, 6-Aug-2022.)
⊢ ((𝑄 ∈ (2o ↑𝑚 ℕ∞) ∧ 𝐽 ∈ ω) → if(∀𝑘 ∈ suc suc 𝐽(𝑄‘(𝑖 ∈ ω ↦ if(𝑖 ∈ 𝑘, 1o, ∅))) = 1o, 1o, ∅) ⊆ if(∀𝑘 ∈ suc 𝐽(𝑄‘(𝑖 ∈ ω ↦ if(𝑖 ∈ 𝑘, 1o, ∅))) = 1o, 1o, ∅))
Theorem	nninfself 16551*	Domain and range of the selection function for ℕ∞. (Contributed by Jim Kingdon, 6-Aug-2022.)
⊢ 𝐸 = (𝑞 ∈ (2o ↑𝑚 ℕ∞) ↦ (𝑛 ∈ ω ↦ if(∀𝑘 ∈ suc 𝑛(𝑞‘(𝑖 ∈ ω ↦ if(𝑖 ∈ 𝑘, 1o, ∅))) = 1o, 1o, ∅)))    ⇒   ⊢ 𝐸:(2o ↑𝑚 ℕ∞)⟶ℕ∞
Theorem	nninfsellemeq 16552*	Lemma for nninfsel 16555. (Contributed by Jim Kingdon, 9-Aug-2022.)
⊢ 𝐸 = (𝑞 ∈ (2o ↑𝑚 ℕ∞) ↦ (𝑛 ∈ ω ↦ if(∀𝑘 ∈ suc 𝑛(𝑞‘(𝑖 ∈ ω ↦ if(𝑖 ∈ 𝑘, 1o, ∅))) = 1o, 1o, ∅)))    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝑄 ∈ (2o ↑𝑚 ℕ∞))    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → (𝑄‘(𝐸‘𝑄)) = 1o)    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝑁 ∈ ω)    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → ∀𝑘 ∈ 𝑁 (𝑄‘(𝑖 ∈ ω ↦ if(𝑖 ∈ 𝑘, 1o, ∅))) = 1o)    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → (𝑄‘(𝑖 ∈ ω ↦ if(𝑖 ∈ 𝑁, 1o, ∅))) = ∅)    ⇒   ⊢ (𝜑 → (𝐸‘𝑄) = (𝑖 ∈ ω ↦ if(𝑖 ∈ 𝑁, 1o, ∅)))
Theorem	nninfsellemqall 16553*	Lemma for nninfsel 16555. (Contributed by Jim Kingdon, 9-Aug-2022.)
⊢ 𝐸 = (𝑞 ∈ (2o ↑𝑚 ℕ∞) ↦ (𝑛 ∈ ω ↦ if(∀𝑘 ∈ suc 𝑛(𝑞‘(𝑖 ∈ ω ↦ if(𝑖 ∈ 𝑘, 1o, ∅))) = 1o, 1o, ∅)))    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝑄 ∈ (2o ↑𝑚 ℕ∞))    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → (𝑄‘(𝐸‘𝑄)) = 1o)    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝑁 ∈ ω)    ⇒   ⊢ (𝜑 → (𝑄‘(𝑖 ∈ ω ↦ if(𝑖 ∈ 𝑁, 1o, ∅))) = 1o)
Theorem	nninfsellemeqinf 16554*	Lemma for nninfsel 16555. (Contributed by Jim Kingdon, 9-Aug-2022.)
⊢ 𝐸 = (𝑞 ∈ (2o ↑𝑚 ℕ∞) ↦ (𝑛 ∈ ω ↦ if(∀𝑘 ∈ suc 𝑛(𝑞‘(𝑖 ∈ ω ↦ if(𝑖 ∈ 𝑘, 1o, ∅))) = 1o, 1o, ∅)))    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝑄 ∈ (2o ↑𝑚 ℕ∞))    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → (𝑄‘(𝐸‘𝑄)) = 1o)    ⇒   ⊢ (𝜑 → (𝐸‘𝑄) = (𝑖 ∈ ω ↦ 1o))
Theorem	nninfsel 16555*	𝐸 is a selection function for ℕ∞. Theorem 3.6 of [PradicBrown2022], p. 5. (Contributed by Jim Kingdon, 9-Aug-2022.)
⊢ 𝐸 = (𝑞 ∈ (2o ↑𝑚 ℕ∞) ↦ (𝑛 ∈ ω ↦ if(∀𝑘 ∈ suc 𝑛(𝑞‘(𝑖 ∈ ω ↦ if(𝑖 ∈ 𝑘, 1o, ∅))) = 1o, 1o, ∅)))    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝑄 ∈ (2o ↑𝑚 ℕ∞))    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → (𝑄‘(𝐸‘𝑄)) = 1o)    ⇒   ⊢ (𝜑 → ∀𝑝 ∈ ℕ∞ (𝑄‘𝑝) = 1o)
Theorem	nninfomnilem 16556*	Lemma for nninfomni 16557. (Contributed by Jim Kingdon, 10-Aug-2022.)
⊢ 𝐸 = (𝑞 ∈ (2o ↑𝑚 ℕ∞) ↦ (𝑛 ∈ ω ↦ if(∀𝑘 ∈ suc 𝑛(𝑞‘(𝑖 ∈ ω ↦ if(𝑖 ∈ 𝑘, 1o, ∅))) = 1o, 1o, ∅)))    ⇒   ⊢ ℕ∞ ∈ Omni
Theorem	nninfomni 16557	ℕ∞ is omniscient. Corollary 3.7 of [PradicBrown2022], p. 5. (Contributed by Jim Kingdon, 10-Aug-2022.)
⊢ ℕ∞ ∈ Omni
Theorem	nninffeq 16558*	Equality of two functions on ℕ∞ which agree at every integer and at the point at infinity. From an online post by Martin Escardo. Remark: the last two hypotheses can be grouped into one, ⊢ (𝜑 → ∀𝑛 ∈ suc ω...). (Contributed by Jim Kingdon, 4-Aug-2023.)
⊢ (𝜑 → 𝐹:ℕ∞⟶ℕ0)    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝐺:ℕ∞⟶ℕ0)    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → (𝐹‘(𝑥 ∈ ω ↦ 1o)) = (𝐺‘(𝑥 ∈ ω ↦ 1o)))    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → ∀𝑛 ∈ ω (𝐹‘(𝑖 ∈ ω ↦ if(𝑖 ∈ 𝑛, 1o, ∅))) = (𝐺‘(𝑖 ∈ ω ↦ if(𝑖 ∈ 𝑛, 1o, ∅))))    ⇒   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝐹 = 𝐺)
Theorem	nnnninfen 16559	Equinumerosity of the natural numbers and ℕ∞ is equivalent to the Limited Principle of Omniscience (LPO). Remark in Section 1.1 of [Pradic2025], p. 2. (Contributed by Jim Kingdon, 8-Jul-2025.)
⊢ (ω ≈ ℕ∞ ↔ ω ∈ Omni)
Theorem	nnnninfex 16560*	If an element of ℕ∞ has a value of zero somewhere, then it is the mapping of a natural number. (Contributed by Jim Kingdon, 4-Aug-2022.)
⊢ (𝜑 → 𝑃 ∈ ℕ∞)    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝑁 ∈ ω)    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → (𝑃‘𝑁) = ∅)    ⇒   ⊢ (𝜑 → ∃𝑛 ∈ ω 𝑃 = (𝑖 ∈ ω ↦ if(𝑖 ∈ 𝑛, 1o, ∅)))
Theorem	nninfnfiinf 16561*	An element of ℕ∞ which is not finite is infinite. (Contributed by Jim Kingdon, 30-Nov-2025.)
⊢ ((𝐴 ∈ ℕ∞ ∧ ¬ ∃𝑛 ∈ ω 𝐴 = (𝑖 ∈ ω ↦ if(𝑖 ∈ 𝑛, 1o, ∅))) → 𝐴 = (𝑖 ∈ ω ↦ 1o))
14.3.5  Schroeder-Bernstein Theorem
Theorem	exmidsbthrlem 16562*	Lemma for exmidsbthr 16563. (Contributed by Jim Kingdon, 11-Aug-2022.)
⊢ 𝑆 = (𝑝 ∈ ℕ∞ ↦ (𝑖 ∈ ω ↦ if(𝑖 = ∅, 1o, (𝑝‘∪ 𝑖))))    ⇒   ⊢ (∀𝑥∀𝑦((𝑥 ≼ 𝑦 ∧ 𝑦 ≼ 𝑥) → 𝑥 ≈ 𝑦) → EXMID)
Theorem	exmidsbthr 16563*	The Schroeder-Bernstein Theorem implies excluded middle. Theorem 1 of [PradicBrown2022], p. 1. (Contributed by Jim Kingdon, 11-Aug-2022.)
⊢ (∀𝑥∀𝑦((𝑥 ≼ 𝑦 ∧ 𝑦 ≼ 𝑥) → 𝑥 ≈ 𝑦) → EXMID)
Theorem	exmidsbth 16564*	The Schroeder-Bernstein Theorem is equivalent to excluded middle. This is Metamath 100 proof #25. The forward direction (isbth 7157) is the proof of the Schroeder-Bernstein Theorem from the Metamath Proof Explorer database (in which excluded middle holds), but adapted to use EXMID as an antecedent rather than being unconditionally true, as in the non-intuitionistic proof at https://us.metamath.org/mpeuni/sbth.html 7157. The reverse direction (exmidsbthr 16563) is the one which establishes that Schroeder-Bernstein implies excluded middle. This resolves the question of whether we will be able to prove Schroeder-Bernstein from our axioms in the negative. (Contributed by Jim Kingdon, 13-Aug-2022.)
⊢ (EXMID ↔ ∀𝑥∀𝑦((𝑥 ≼ 𝑦 ∧ 𝑦 ≼ 𝑥) → 𝑥 ≈ 𝑦))
Theorem	sbthomlem 16565	Lemma for sbthom 16566. (Contributed by Mario Carneiro and Jim Kingdon, 13-Jul-2023.)
⊢ (𝜑 → ω ∈ Omni)    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝑌 ⊆ {∅})    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝐹:ω–1-1-onto→(𝑌 ⊔ ω))    ⇒   ⊢ (𝜑 → (𝑌 = ∅ ∨ 𝑌 = {∅}))
Theorem	sbthom 16566	Schroeder-Bernstein is not possible even for ω. We know by exmidsbth 16564 that full Schroeder-Bernstein will not be provable but what about the case where one of the sets is ω? That case plus the Limited Principle of Omniscience (LPO) implies excluded middle, so we will not be able to prove it. (Contributed by Mario Carneiro and Jim Kingdon, 10-Jul-2023.)
⊢ ((∀𝑥((𝑥 ≼ ω ∧ ω ≼ 𝑥) → 𝑥 ≈ ω) ∧ ω ∈ Omni) → EXMID)
14.3.6  Real and complex numbers
Theorem	qdencn 16567*	The set of complex numbers whose real and imaginary parts are rational is dense in the complex plane. This is a two dimensional analogue to qdenre 11753 (and also would hold for ℝ × ℝ with the usual metric; this is not about complex numbers in particular). (Contributed by Jim Kingdon, 18-Oct-2021.)
⊢ 𝑄 = {𝑧 ∈ ℂ ∣ ((ℜ‘𝑧) ∈ ℚ ∧ (ℑ‘𝑧) ∈ ℚ)}    ⇒   ⊢ ((𝐴 ∈ ℂ ∧ 𝐵 ∈ ℝ+) → ∃𝑥 ∈ 𝑄 (abs‘(𝑥 − 𝐴)) < 𝐵)
Theorem	refeq 16568*	Equality of two real functions which agree at negative numbers, positive numbers, and zero. This holds even without real trichotomy. From an online post by Martin Escardo. (Contributed by Jim Kingdon, 9-Jul-2023.)
⊢ (𝜑 → 𝐹:ℝ⟶ℝ)    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝐺:ℝ⟶ℝ)    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → ∀𝑥 ∈ ℝ (𝑥 < 0 → (𝐹‘𝑥) = (𝐺‘𝑥)))    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → ∀𝑥 ∈ ℝ (0 < 𝑥 → (𝐹‘𝑥) = (𝐺‘𝑥)))    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → (𝐹‘0) = (𝐺‘0))    ⇒   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝐹 = 𝐺)
Theorem	triap 16569	Two ways of stating real number trichotomy. (Contributed by Jim Kingdon, 23-Aug-2023.)
⊢ ((𝐴 ∈ ℝ ∧ 𝐵 ∈ ℝ) → ((𝐴 < 𝐵 ∨ 𝐴 = 𝐵 ∨ 𝐵 < 𝐴) ↔ DECID 𝐴 # 𝐵))
Theorem	isomninnlem 16570*	Lemma for isomninn 16571. The result, with a hypothesis to provide a convenient notation. (Contributed by Jim Kingdon, 30-Aug-2023.)
⊢ 𝐺 = frec((𝑥 ∈ ℤ ↦ (𝑥 + 1)), 0)    ⇒   ⊢ (𝐴 ∈ 𝑉 → (𝐴 ∈ Omni ↔ ∀𝑓 ∈ ({0, 1} ↑𝑚 𝐴)(∃𝑥 ∈ 𝐴 (𝑓‘𝑥) = 0 ∨ ∀𝑥 ∈ 𝐴 (𝑓‘𝑥) = 1)))
Theorem	isomninn 16571*	Omniscience stated in terms of natural numbers. Similar to isomnimap 7327 but it will sometimes be more convenient to use 0 and 1 rather than ∅ and 1o. (Contributed by Jim Kingdon, 30-Aug-2023.)
⊢ (𝐴 ∈ 𝑉 → (𝐴 ∈ Omni ↔ ∀𝑓 ∈ ({0, 1} ↑𝑚 𝐴)(∃𝑥 ∈ 𝐴 (𝑓‘𝑥) = 0 ∨ ∀𝑥 ∈ 𝐴 (𝑓‘𝑥) = 1)))
Theorem	cvgcmp2nlemabs 16572*	Lemma for cvgcmp2n 16573. The partial sums get closer to each other as we go further out. The proof proceeds by rewriting (seq1( + , 𝐺)‘𝑁) as the sum of (seq1( + , 𝐺)‘𝑀) and a term which gets smaller as 𝑀 gets large. (Contributed by Jim Kingdon, 25-Aug-2023.)
⊢ ((𝜑 ∧ 𝑘 ∈ ℕ) → (𝐺‘𝑘) ∈ ℝ)    &   ⊢ ((𝜑 ∧ 𝑘 ∈ ℕ) → 0 ≤ (𝐺‘𝑘))    &   ⊢ ((𝜑 ∧ 𝑘 ∈ ℕ) → (𝐺‘𝑘) ≤ (1 / (2↑𝑘)))    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝑀 ∈ ℕ)    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝑁 ∈ (ℤ≥‘𝑀))    ⇒   ⊢ (𝜑 → (abs‘((seq1( + , 𝐺)‘𝑁) − (seq1( + , 𝐺)‘𝑀))) < (2 / 𝑀))
Theorem	cvgcmp2n 16573*	A comparison test for convergence of a real infinite series. (Contributed by Jim Kingdon, 25-Aug-2023.)
⊢ ((𝜑 ∧ 𝑘 ∈ ℕ) → (𝐺‘𝑘) ∈ ℝ)    &   ⊢ ((𝜑 ∧ 𝑘 ∈ ℕ) → 0 ≤ (𝐺‘𝑘))    &   ⊢ ((𝜑 ∧ 𝑘 ∈ ℕ) → (𝐺‘𝑘) ≤ (1 / (2↑𝑘)))    ⇒   ⊢ (𝜑 → seq1( + , 𝐺) ∈ dom ⇝ )
Theorem	iooref1o 16574	A one-to-one mapping from the real numbers onto the open unit interval. (Contributed by Jim Kingdon, 27-Jun-2024.)
⊢ 𝐹 = (𝑥 ∈ ℝ ↦ (1 / (1 + (exp‘𝑥))))    ⇒   ⊢ 𝐹:ℝ–1-1-onto→(0(,)1)
Theorem	iooreen 16575	An open interval is equinumerous to the real numbers. (Contributed by Jim Kingdon, 27-Jun-2024.)
⊢ (0(,)1) ≈ ℝ
14.3.7  Analytic omniscience principles Omniscience principles refer to several propositions, most of them weaker than full excluded middle, which do not follow from the axioms of IZF set theory. They are: (0) the Principle of Omniscience (PO), which is another name for excluded middle (see exmidomni 7332), (1) the Limited Principle of Omniscience (LPO) is ω ∈ Omni (see df-omni 7325), (2) the Weak Limited Principle of Omniscience (WLPO) is ω ∈ WOmni (see df-womni 7354), (3) Markov's Principle (MP) is ω ∈ Markov (see df-markov 7342), (4) the Lesser Limited Principle of Omniscience (LLPO) is not yet defined in iset.mm. They also have analytic counterparts each of which follows from the corresponding omniscience principle: (1) Analytic LPO is real number trichotomy, ∀𝑥 ∈ ℝ∀𝑦 ∈ ℝ(𝑥 < 𝑦 ∨ 𝑥 = 𝑦 ∨ 𝑦 < 𝑥) (see trilpo 16583), (2) Analytic WLPO is decidability of real number equality, ∀𝑥 ∈ ℝ∀𝑦 ∈ ℝDECID 𝑥 = 𝑦 (see redcwlpo 16595), (3) Analytic MP is ∀𝑥 ∈ ℝ∀𝑦 ∈ ℝ(𝑥 ≠ 𝑦 → 𝑥 # 𝑦) (see neapmkv 16608), (4) Analytic LLPO is real number dichotomy, ∀𝑥 ∈ ℝ∀𝑦 ∈ ℝ(𝑥 ≤ 𝑦 ∨ 𝑦 ≤ 𝑥) (most relevant current theorem is maxclpr 11773).
Theorem	trilpolemclim 16576*	Lemma for trilpo 16583. Convergence of the series. (Contributed by Jim Kingdon, 24-Aug-2023.)
⊢ (𝜑 → 𝐹:ℕ⟶{0, 1})    &   ⊢ 𝐺 = (𝑛 ∈ ℕ ↦ ((1 / (2↑𝑛)) · (𝐹‘𝑛)))    ⇒   ⊢ (𝜑 → seq1( + , 𝐺) ∈ dom ⇝ )
Theorem	trilpolemcl 16577*	Lemma for trilpo 16583. The sum exists. (Contributed by Jim Kingdon, 23-Aug-2023.)
⊢ (𝜑 → 𝐹:ℕ⟶{0, 1})    &   ⊢ 𝐴 = Σ𝑖 ∈ ℕ ((1 / (2↑𝑖)) · (𝐹‘𝑖))    ⇒   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝐴 ∈ ℝ)
Theorem	trilpolemisumle 16578*	Lemma for trilpo 16583. An upper bound for the sum of the digits beyond a certain point. (Contributed by Jim Kingdon, 28-Aug-2023.)
⊢ (𝜑 → 𝐹:ℕ⟶{0, 1})    &   ⊢ 𝐴 = Σ𝑖 ∈ ℕ ((1 / (2↑𝑖)) · (𝐹‘𝑖))    &   ⊢ 𝑍 = (ℤ≥‘𝑀)    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝑀 ∈ ℕ)    ⇒   ⊢ (𝜑 → Σ𝑖 ∈ 𝑍 ((1 / (2↑𝑖)) · (𝐹‘𝑖)) ≤ Σ𝑖 ∈ 𝑍 (1 / (2↑𝑖)))
Theorem	trilpolemgt1 16579*	Lemma for trilpo 16583. The 1 < 𝐴 case. (Contributed by Jim Kingdon, 23-Aug-2023.)
⊢ (𝜑 → 𝐹:ℕ⟶{0, 1})    &   ⊢ 𝐴 = Σ𝑖 ∈ ℕ ((1 / (2↑𝑖)) · (𝐹‘𝑖))    ⇒   ⊢ (𝜑 → ¬ 1 < 𝐴)
Theorem	trilpolemeq1 16580*	Lemma for trilpo 16583. The 𝐴 = 1 case. This is proved by noting that if any (𝐹‘𝑥) is zero, then the infinite sum 𝐴 is less than one based on the term which is zero. We are using the fact that the 𝐹 sequence is decidable (in the sense that each element is either zero or one). (Contributed by Jim Kingdon, 23-Aug-2023.)
⊢ (𝜑 → 𝐹:ℕ⟶{0, 1})    &   ⊢ 𝐴 = Σ𝑖 ∈ ℕ ((1 / (2↑𝑖)) · (𝐹‘𝑖))    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝐴 = 1)    ⇒   ⊢ (𝜑 → ∀𝑥 ∈ ℕ (𝐹‘𝑥) = 1)
Theorem	trilpolemlt1 16581*	Lemma for trilpo 16583. The 𝐴 < 1 case. We can use the distance between 𝐴 and one (that is, 1 − 𝐴) to find a position in the sequence 𝑛 where terms after that point will not add up to as much as 1 − 𝐴. By finomni 7330 we know the terms up to 𝑛 either contain a zero or are all one. But if they are all one that contradicts the way we constructed 𝑛, so we know that the sequence contains a zero. (Contributed by Jim Kingdon, 23-Aug-2023.)
⊢ (𝜑 → 𝐹:ℕ⟶{0, 1})    &   ⊢ 𝐴 = Σ𝑖 ∈ ℕ ((1 / (2↑𝑖)) · (𝐹‘𝑖))    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝐴 < 1)    ⇒   ⊢ (𝜑 → ∃𝑥 ∈ ℕ (𝐹‘𝑥) = 0)
Theorem	trilpolemres 16582*	Lemma for trilpo 16583. The result. (Contributed by Jim Kingdon, 23-Aug-2023.)
⊢ (𝜑 → 𝐹:ℕ⟶{0, 1})    &   ⊢ 𝐴 = Σ𝑖 ∈ ℕ ((1 / (2↑𝑖)) · (𝐹‘𝑖))    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → (𝐴 < 1 ∨ 𝐴 = 1 ∨ 1 < 𝐴))    ⇒   ⊢ (𝜑 → (∃𝑥 ∈ ℕ (𝐹‘𝑥) = 0 ∨ ∀𝑥 ∈ ℕ (𝐹‘𝑥) = 1))
Theorem	trilpo 16583*	Real number trichotomy implies the Limited Principle of Omniscience (LPO). We expect that we'd need some form of countable choice to prove the converse. Here's the outline of the proof. Given an infinite sequence F of zeroes and ones, we need to show the sequence contains a zero or it is all ones. Construct a real number A whose representation in base two consists of a zero, a decimal point, and then the numbers of the sequence. Compare it with one using trichotomy. The three cases from trichotomy are trilpolemlt1 16581 (which means the sequence contains a zero), trilpolemeq1 16580 (which means the sequence is all ones), and trilpolemgt1 16579 (which is not possible). Equivalent ways to state real number trichotomy (sometimes called "analytic LPO") include decidability of real number apartness (see triap 16569) or that the real numbers are a discrete field (see trirec0 16584). LPO is known to not be provable in IZF (and most constructive foundations), so this theorem establishes that we will be unable to prove an analogue to qtri3or 10490 for real numbers. (Contributed by Jim Kingdon, 23-Aug-2023.)
⊢ (∀𝑥 ∈ ℝ ∀𝑦 ∈ ℝ (𝑥 < 𝑦 ∨ 𝑥 = 𝑦 ∨ 𝑦 < 𝑥) → ω ∈ Omni)
Theorem	trirec0 16584*	Every real number having a reciprocal or equaling zero is equivalent to real number trichotomy. This is the key part of the definition of what is known as a discrete field, so "the real numbers are a discrete field" can be taken as an equivalent way to state real trichotomy (see further discussion at trilpo 16583). (Contributed by Jim Kingdon, 10-Jun-2024.)
⊢ (∀𝑥 ∈ ℝ ∀𝑦 ∈ ℝ (𝑥 < 𝑦 ∨ 𝑥 = 𝑦 ∨ 𝑦 < 𝑥) ↔ ∀𝑥 ∈ ℝ (∃𝑧 ∈ ℝ (𝑥 · 𝑧) = 1 ∨ 𝑥 = 0))
Theorem	trirec0xor 16585*	Version of trirec0 16584 with exclusive-or. The definition of a discrete field is sometimes stated in terms of exclusive-or but as proved here, this is equivalent to inclusive-or because the two disjuncts cannot be simultaneously true. (Contributed by Jim Kingdon, 10-Jun-2024.)
⊢ (∀𝑥 ∈ ℝ ∀𝑦 ∈ ℝ (𝑥 < 𝑦 ∨ 𝑥 = 𝑦 ∨ 𝑦 < 𝑥) ↔ ∀𝑥 ∈ ℝ (∃𝑧 ∈ ℝ (𝑥 · 𝑧) = 1 ⊻ 𝑥 = 0))
Theorem	apdifflemf 16586	Lemma for apdiff 16588. Being apart from the point halfway between 𝑄 and 𝑅 suffices for 𝐴 to be a different distance from 𝑄 and from 𝑅. (Contributed by Jim Kingdon, 18-May-2024.)
⊢ (𝜑 → 𝐴 ∈ ℝ)    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝑄 ∈ ℚ)    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝑅 ∈ ℚ)    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝑄 < 𝑅)    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → ((𝑄 + 𝑅) / 2) # 𝐴)    ⇒   ⊢ (𝜑 → (abs‘(𝐴 − 𝑄)) # (abs‘(𝐴 − 𝑅)))
Theorem	apdifflemr 16587	Lemma for apdiff 16588. (Contributed by Jim Kingdon, 19-May-2024.)
⊢ (𝜑 → 𝐴 ∈ ℝ)    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝑆 ∈ ℚ)    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → (abs‘(𝐴 − -1)) # (abs‘(𝐴 − 1)))    &   ⊢ ((𝜑 ∧ 𝑆 ≠ 0) → (abs‘(𝐴 − 0)) # (abs‘(𝐴 − (2 · 𝑆))))    ⇒   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝐴 # 𝑆)
Theorem	apdiff 16588*	The irrationals (reals apart from any rational) are exactly those reals that are a different distance from every rational. (Contributed by Jim Kingdon, 17-May-2024.)
⊢ (𝐴 ∈ ℝ → (∀𝑞 ∈ ℚ 𝐴 # 𝑞 ↔ ∀𝑞 ∈ ℚ ∀𝑟 ∈ ℚ (𝑞 ≠ 𝑟 → (abs‘(𝐴 − 𝑞)) # (abs‘(𝐴 − 𝑟)))))
Theorem	iswomninnlem 16589*	Lemma for iswomnimap 7356. The result, with a hypothesis for convenience. (Contributed by Jim Kingdon, 20-Jun-2024.)
⊢ 𝐺 = frec((𝑥 ∈ ℤ ↦ (𝑥 + 1)), 0)    ⇒   ⊢ (𝐴 ∈ 𝑉 → (𝐴 ∈ WOmni ↔ ∀𝑓 ∈ ({0, 1} ↑𝑚 𝐴)DECID ∀𝑥 ∈ 𝐴 (𝑓‘𝑥) = 1))
Theorem	iswomninn 16590*	Weak omniscience stated in terms of natural numbers. Similar to iswomnimap 7356 but it will sometimes be more convenient to use 0 and 1 rather than ∅ and 1o. (Contributed by Jim Kingdon, 20-Jun-2024.)
⊢ (𝐴 ∈ 𝑉 → (𝐴 ∈ WOmni ↔ ∀𝑓 ∈ ({0, 1} ↑𝑚 𝐴)DECID ∀𝑥 ∈ 𝐴 (𝑓‘𝑥) = 1))
Theorem	iswomni0 16591*	Weak omniscience stated in terms of equality with 0. Like iswomninn 16590 but with zero in place of one. (Contributed by Jim Kingdon, 24-Jul-2024.)
⊢ (𝐴 ∈ 𝑉 → (𝐴 ∈ WOmni ↔ ∀𝑓 ∈ ({0, 1} ↑𝑚 𝐴)DECID ∀𝑥 ∈ 𝐴 (𝑓‘𝑥) = 0))
Theorem	ismkvnnlem 16592*	Lemma for ismkvnn 16593. The result, with a hypothesis to give a name to an expression for convenience. (Contributed by Jim Kingdon, 25-Jun-2024.)
⊢ 𝐺 = frec((𝑥 ∈ ℤ ↦ (𝑥 + 1)), 0)    ⇒   ⊢ (𝐴 ∈ 𝑉 → (𝐴 ∈ Markov ↔ ∀𝑓 ∈ ({0, 1} ↑𝑚 𝐴)(¬ ∀𝑥 ∈ 𝐴 (𝑓‘𝑥) = 1 → ∃𝑥 ∈ 𝐴 (𝑓‘𝑥) = 0)))
Theorem	ismkvnn 16593*	The predicate of being Markov stated in terms of set exponentiation. (Contributed by Jim Kingdon, 25-Jun-2024.)
⊢ (𝐴 ∈ 𝑉 → (𝐴 ∈ Markov ↔ ∀𝑓 ∈ ({0, 1} ↑𝑚 𝐴)(¬ ∀𝑥 ∈ 𝐴 (𝑓‘𝑥) = 1 → ∃𝑥 ∈ 𝐴 (𝑓‘𝑥) = 0)))
Theorem	redcwlpolemeq1 16594*	Lemma for redcwlpo 16595. A biconditionalized version of trilpolemeq1 16580. (Contributed by Jim Kingdon, 21-Jun-2024.)
⊢ (𝜑 → 𝐹:ℕ⟶{0, 1})    &   ⊢ 𝐴 = Σ𝑖 ∈ ℕ ((1 / (2↑𝑖)) · (𝐹‘𝑖))    ⇒   ⊢ (𝜑 → (𝐴 = 1 ↔ ∀𝑥 ∈ ℕ (𝐹‘𝑥) = 1))
Theorem	redcwlpo 16595*	Decidability of real number equality implies the Weak Limited Principle of Omniscience (WLPO). We expect that we'd need some form of countable choice to prove the converse. Here's the outline of the proof. Given an infinite sequence F of zeroes and ones, we need to show the sequence is all ones or it is not. Construct a real number A whose representation in base two consists of a zero, a decimal point, and then the numbers of the sequence. This real number will equal one if and only if the sequence is all ones (redcwlpolemeq1 16594). Therefore decidability of real number equality would imply decidability of whether the sequence is all ones. Because of this theorem, decidability of real number equality is sometimes called "analytic WLPO". WLPO is known to not be provable in IZF (and most constructive foundations), so this theorem establishes that we will be unable to prove an analogue to qdceq 10494 for real numbers. (Contributed by Jim Kingdon, 20-Jun-2024.)
⊢ (∀𝑥 ∈ ℝ ∀𝑦 ∈ ℝ DECID 𝑥 = 𝑦 → ω ∈ WOmni)
Theorem	tridceq 16596*	Real trichotomy implies decidability of real number equality. Or in other words, analytic LPO implies analytic WLPO (see trilpo 16583 and redcwlpo 16595). Thus, this is an analytic analogue to lpowlpo 7358. (Contributed by Jim Kingdon, 24-Jul-2024.)
⊢ (∀𝑥 ∈ ℝ ∀𝑦 ∈ ℝ (𝑥 < 𝑦 ∨ 𝑥 = 𝑦 ∨ 𝑦 < 𝑥) → ∀𝑥 ∈ ℝ ∀𝑦 ∈ ℝ DECID 𝑥 = 𝑦)
Theorem	redc0 16597*	Two ways to express decidability of real number equality. (Contributed by Jim Kingdon, 23-Jul-2024.)
⊢ (∀𝑥 ∈ ℝ ∀𝑦 ∈ ℝ DECID 𝑥 = 𝑦 ↔ ∀𝑧 ∈ ℝ DECID 𝑧 = 0)
Theorem	reap0 16598*	Real number trichotomy is equivalent to decidability of apartness from zero. (Contributed by Jim Kingdon, 27-Jul-2024.)
⊢ (∀𝑥 ∈ ℝ ∀𝑦 ∈ ℝ (𝑥 < 𝑦 ∨ 𝑥 = 𝑦 ∨ 𝑦 < 𝑥) ↔ ∀𝑧 ∈ ℝ DECID 𝑧 # 0)
Theorem	cndcap 16599*	Real number trichotomy is equivalent to decidability of complex number apartness. (Contributed by Jim Kingdon, 10-Apr-2025.)
⊢ (∀𝑥 ∈ ℝ ∀𝑦 ∈ ℝ (𝑥 < 𝑦 ∨ 𝑥 = 𝑦 ∨ 𝑦 < 𝑥) ↔ ∀𝑧 ∈ ℂ ∀𝑤 ∈ ℂ DECID 𝑧 # 𝑤)
Theorem	dceqnconst 16600*	Decidability of real number equality implies the existence of a certain non-constant function from real numbers to integers. Variation of Exercise 11.6(i) of [HoTT], p. (varies). See redcwlpo 16595 for more discussion of decidability of real number equality. (Contributed by BJ and Jim Kingdon, 24-Jun-2024.) (Revised by Jim Kingdon, 23-Jul-2024.)
⊢ (∀𝑥 ∈ ℝ DECID 𝑥 = 0 → ∃𝑓(𝑓:ℝ⟶ℤ ∧ (𝑓‘0) = 0 ∧ ∀𝑥 ∈ ℝ+ (𝑓‘𝑥) ≠ 0))