P. 171 of Theorem List - Intuitionistic Logic Explorer

Theorem List for Intuitionistic Logic Explorer - 17001-17100   *Has distinct variable group(s)

Type	Label	Description
Statement
Theorem	bj-inf2vn2 17001*	A sufficient condition for ω to be a set; unbounded version of bj-inf2vn 17000. (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 17002*	Another axiom of infinity in a constructive setting (see ax-infvn 16967). (Contributed by BJ, 14-Nov-2019.) (New usage is discouraged.)
⊢ ∃𝑎∀𝑥(𝑥 ∈ 𝑎 ↔ (𝑥 = ∅ ∨ ∃𝑦 ∈ 𝑎 𝑥 = suc 𝑦))
Theorem	bj-omex2 17003	Using bounded set induction and the strong axiom of infinity, ω is a set, that is, we recover ax-infvn 16967 (see bj-2inf 16964 for the equivalence of the latter with bj-omex 16968). (Contributed by BJ, 8-Dec-2019.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) (New usage is discouraged.)
⊢ ω ∈ V
Theorem	bj-nn0sucALT 17004*	Alternate proof of bj-nn0suc 16990, also constructive but from ax-inf2 17002, hence requiring ax-bdsetind 16994. (Contributed by BJ, 8-Dec-2019.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) (New usage is discouraged.)
⊢ (𝐴 ∈ ω ↔ (𝐴 = ∅ ∨ ∃𝑥 ∈ ω 𝐴 = suc 𝑥))
14.3.11.2  Full induction In this section, using the axiom of set induction, we prove full induction on the set of natural numbers.
Theorem	bj-findis 17005*	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 16973 for a bounded version not requiring ax-setind 4684. See finds 4747 for a proof in IZF. From this version, it is easy to prove of finds 4747, finds2 4748, finds1 4749. (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 17006*	Version of bj-findis 17005 using a class term in the consequent. Constructive proof (from CZF). See the comment of bj-findis 17005 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 17007	Principle of induction, using explicit substitutions. Constructive proof (from CZF). See the comment of bj-findis 17005 for explanations. From this version, it is easy to prove findes 4750. (Contributed by BJ, 21-Nov-2019.) (Proof modification is discouraged.)
⊢ (([∅ / 𝑥]𝜑 ∧ ∀𝑥 ∈ ω (𝜑 → [suc 𝑥 / 𝑥]𝜑)) → ∀𝑥 ∈ ω 𝜑)
14.3.12  CZF: Strong collection In this section, we state the axiom scheme of strong collection, which is part of CZF set theory.
Axiom	ax-strcoll 17008*	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 4246. (Contributed by BJ, 5-Oct-2019.)
⊢ ∀𝑎(∀𝑥 ∈ 𝑎 ∃𝑦𝜑 → ∃𝑏(∀𝑥 ∈ 𝑎 ∃𝑦 ∈ 𝑏 𝜑 ∧ ∀𝑦 ∈ 𝑏 ∃𝑥 ∈ 𝑎 𝜑))
Theorem	strcoll2 17009*	Version of ax-strcoll 17008 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 17010*	Closed form of strcollnf 17011. (Contributed by BJ, 21-Oct-2019.)
⊢ (∀𝑥∀𝑦Ⅎ𝑏𝜑 → (∀𝑥 ∈ 𝑎 ∃𝑦𝜑 → ∃𝑏(∀𝑥 ∈ 𝑎 ∃𝑦 ∈ 𝑏 𝜑 ∧ ∀𝑦 ∈ 𝑏 ∃𝑥 ∈ 𝑎 𝜑)))
Theorem	strcollnf 17011*	Version of ax-strcoll 17008 with one disjoint variable condition removed, the other disjoint variable condition replaced with a nonfreeness hypothesis, and without initial universal quantifier. Version of strcoll2 17009 with the disjoint variable condition on 𝑏, 𝜑 replaced with a nonfreeness hypothesis. This proof aims to demonstrate a standard technique, but strcoll2 17009 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 17012*	Alternate proof of strcollnf 17011, not using strcollnft 17010. (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))
14.3.13  CZF: Subset collection In this section, we state the axiom scheme of subset collection, which is part of CZF set theory.
Axiom	ax-sscoll 17013*	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 17014*	Version of ax-sscoll 17013 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))
14.3.14  Real numbers
Axiom	ax-ddkcomp 17015	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 17015 should be used in place of construction specific results. In particular, axcaucvg 8267 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)))
14.4  Mathbox for Jim Kingdon
14.4.1  Propositional and predicate logic
Theorem	nnnotnotr 17016	Double negation of double negation elimination. Suggested by an online post by Martin Escardo. Although this statement resembles nnexmid 862, 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)
14.4.2  The sizes of sets
Theorem	ss1oel2o 17017	Any subset of ordinal one being an element of ordinal two is equivalent to excluded middle. A variation of exmid01 4335 which more directly illustrates the contrast with el2oss1o 6716. (Contributed by Jim Kingdon, 8-Aug-2022.)
⊢ (EXMID ↔ ∀𝑥(𝑥 ⊆ 1o → 𝑥 ∈ 2o))
Theorem	3dom 17018*	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 17019	Lemma for pw1ndom3 17020. (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 17020	The powerset of 1o does not dominate 3o. This is another way of saying that 𝒫 1o does not have three elements (like pwntru 4336). (Contributed by Steven Nguyen and Jim Kingdon, 14-Feb-2026.)
⊢ ¬ 3o ≼ 𝒫 1o
Theorem	pw1ninf 17021	The powerset of 1o is not infinite. Since we cannot prove it is finite (see pw1fin 7217), this provides a concrete example of a set which we cannot show to be finite or infinite, as seen another way at inffiexmid 7213. (Contributed by Jim Kingdon, 14-Feb-2026.)
⊢ ¬ ω ≼ 𝒫 1o
Theorem	nnti 17022	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 17023	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 17024	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	pw1map 17025*	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 17026	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)
14.4.3  The power set of a singleton
Theorem	pwtrufal 17027	A subset of the singleton {∅} cannot be anything other than ∅ or {∅}. Removing the double negation would change the meaning, as seen at exmid01 4335. If we view a subset of a singleton as a truth value (as seen in theorems like exmidexmid 4333), 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 17028*	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 17029*	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 17030*	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 17031*	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 17032*	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 17033*	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	rabid1o 17034*	Converting between propositions and corresponding subsets of a singleton. (Contributed by Jim Kingdon, 31-Jul-2026.)
⊢ ({𝑥 ∈ 1o ∣ 𝜑} = 1o ↔ 𝜑)
Theorem	pw1dceq 17035*	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)
Theorem	exmidnotnotr 17036	Excluded middle is equivalent to double negation elimination. Read an element of 𝒫 1o as being a truth value and 𝑥 = 1o being that 𝑥 is true. For a similar theorem, but expressed in terms of formulas rather than subsets of 1o, see dcfromnotnotr 1497. (Contributed by Jim Kingdon, 22-Apr-2026.)
⊢ (EXMID ↔ ∀𝑥 ∈ 𝒫 1o(¬ ¬ 𝑥 = 1o → 𝑥 = 1o))
Theorem	exmidcon 17037*	Excluded middle is equivalent to the form of contraposition which removes negation. Read an element of 𝒫 1o as being a truth value and 𝑥 = 1o being that 𝑥 is true. For a similar theorem, but expressed in terms of formulas rather than subsets of 1o, see dcfromcon 1498. (Contributed by Jim Kingdon, 22-Apr-2026.)
⊢ (EXMID ↔ ∀𝑥 ∈ 𝒫 1o∀𝑦 ∈ 𝒫 1o((¬ 𝑦 = 1o → ¬ 𝑥 = 1o) → (𝑥 = 1o → 𝑦 = 1o)))
Theorem	exmidpeirce 17038*	Excluded middle is equivalent to Peirce's law. Read an element of 𝒫 1o as being a truth value and 𝑥 = 1o being that 𝑥 is true. For a similar theorem, but expressed in terms of formulas rather than subsets of 1o, see dcfrompeirce 1499. (Contributed by Jim Kingdon, 23-Apr-2026.)
⊢ (EXMID ↔ ∀𝑥 ∈ 𝒫 1o∀𝑦 ∈ 𝒫 1o(((𝑥 = 1o → 𝑦 = 1o) → 𝑥 = 1o) → 𝑥 = 1o))
Theorem	stnot 17039*	A proposition is double negation stable if and only if it is equivalent to a negated proposition. Here by "proposition" we mean a subset of a singleton (which is a choice which allows us to quantify over them). Posed as an exercise online by Yannick Forster. (Contributed by Jim Kingdon, 24-Jul-2026.)
⊢ (𝐴 ∈ 𝒫 1o → ((¬ ¬ 𝐴 = 1o → 𝐴 = 1o) ↔ ∃𝑦 ∈ 𝒫 1o(𝐴 = 1o ↔ ¬ 𝑦 = 1o)))
14.4.4  Weak excluded middle
Syntax	wwem 17040	Formula for an abbreviation of weak excluded middle.
wff WEXMID
Definition	df-wexmid 17041	Weak excluded middle is the principle that any negated proposition is decidable. (Contributed by Jim Kingdon, 30-Jul-2026.)
⊢ (WEXMID ↔ ∀𝑝 ∈ 𝒫 1o(¬ 𝑝 = 1o ∨ ¬ ¬ 𝑝 = 1o))
Theorem	wexmiddc 17042	Weak excluded middle expressed using WEXMID implies decidability of a negated proposition. (Contributed by Jim Kingdon, 30-Jul-2026.)
⊢ (WEXMID → DECID ¬ 𝜑)
Theorem	wexmiddiffilem 17043*	Lemma for wexmiddiffi 17044. The reverse direction, using different notation. (Contributed by Jim Kingdon, 29-Jul-2026.)
⊢ (∀𝑥∀𝑦(𝑥 ∈ Fin → (𝑥 ∖ 𝑦) ∈ Fin) → (¬ 𝜑 ∨ ¬ ¬ 𝜑))
Theorem	wexmiddiffi 17044*	Being able to subtract an arbitrary set from a finite set and get a finite set is equivalent to weak excluded middle. By adding additional conditions we can get a theorem which does not need weak excluded middle, at diffifi 7198. (Contributed by Jim Kingdon, 29-Jul-2026.)
⊢ (WEXMID ↔ ∀𝑥∀𝑦(𝑥 ∈ Fin → (𝑥 ∖ 𝑦) ∈ Fin))
Theorem	wexmiddifxylem 17045*	Lemma for wexmiddifxylem 17045. Showing weak excluded middle given a suitable finite set. (Contributed by Jim Kingdon, 1-Aug-2026.)
⊢ (({1o} ∖ {{𝑥 ∈ 1o ∣ 𝜑}}) ∈ Fin → DECID ¬ 𝜑)
Theorem	wexmiddifxy 17046*	Being able to subtract an arbitrary finite set from a finite set and get a finite set is equivalent to weak excluded middle. By adding additional conditions we can get a theorem which does not need weak excluded middle, at diffifi 7198. (Contributed by Jim Kingdon, 1-Aug-2026.)
⊢ (WEXMID ↔ ∀𝑥∀𝑦((𝑥 ∈ Fin ∧ 𝑦 ∈ Fin) → (𝑥 ∖ 𝑦) ∈ Fin))
14.4.5  Omniscience of NN+oo
Theorem	0nninf 17047	The zero element of ℕ∞ (the constant sequence equal to ∅). (Contributed by Jim Kingdon, 14-Jul-2022.)
⊢ (ω × {∅}) ∈ ℕ∞
Theorem	nnsf 17048*	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 17049*	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 17050*	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 17051*	Lemma for nninfall 17052. (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 17052*	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 17053*	Lemma for nninfself 17056. 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 17054*	Lemma for nninfself 17056. (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 17055*	Lemma for nninfself 17056. (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 17056*	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 17057*	Lemma for nninfsel 17060. (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 17058*	Lemma for nninfsel 17060. (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 17059*	Lemma for nninfsel 17060. (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 17060*	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 17061*	Lemma for nninfomni 17062. (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 17062	ℕ∞ is omniscient. Corollary 3.7 of [PradicBrown2022], p. 5. (Contributed by Jim Kingdon, 10-Aug-2022.)
⊢ ℕ∞ ∈ Omni
Theorem	nninffeq 17063*	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 17064	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 17065*	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 17066*	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))
14.4.6  Schroeder-Bernstein Theorem
Theorem	exmidsbthrlem 17067*	Lemma for exmidsbthr 17068. (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 17068*	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 17069*	The Schroeder-Bernstein Theorem is equivalent to excluded middle. This is Metamath 100 proof #25. The forward direction (isbth 7284) 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 7284. The reverse direction (exmidsbthr 17068) 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 17070	Lemma for sbthom 17071. (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 17071	Schroeder-Bernstein is not possible even for ω. We know by exmidsbth 17069 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)
14.4.7  Real and complex numbers
Theorem	qdencn 17072*	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 11968 (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 17073*	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	repiecelem 17074*	Lemma for repiecele0 17075, repiecege0 17076, and repiecef 17077. The function 𝐻 is defined everywhere. (Contributed by Jim Kingdon, 27-Apr-2026.)
⊢ (𝜑 → 𝐹:(-∞(,]0)⟶ℝ)    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝐺:(0[,)+∞)⟶ℝ)    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → (𝐹‘0) = (𝐺‘0))    &   ⊢ 𝐻 = (𝑥 ∈ ℝ ↦ (((𝐹‘inf({𝑥, 0}, ℝ, < )) + (𝐺‘sup({𝑥, 0}, ℝ, < ))) − (𝐹‘0)))    ⇒   ⊢ ((𝜑 ∧ 𝐴 ∈ ℝ) → (((𝐹‘inf({𝐴, 0}, ℝ, < )) + (𝐺‘sup({𝐴, 0}, ℝ, < ))) − (𝐹‘0)) ∈ ℝ)
Theorem	repiecele0 17075*	Piecewise definition on the reals agrees with the nonpositive part of the definition. See repiecef 17077 for more on this construction. (Contributed by Jim Kingdon, 27-Apr-2026.)
⊢ (𝜑 → 𝐹:(-∞(,]0)⟶ℝ)    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝐺:(0[,)+∞)⟶ℝ)    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → (𝐹‘0) = (𝐺‘0))    &   ⊢ 𝐻 = (𝑥 ∈ ℝ ↦ (((𝐹‘inf({𝑥, 0}, ℝ, < )) + (𝐺‘sup({𝑥, 0}, ℝ, < ))) − (𝐹‘0)))    ⇒   ⊢ ((𝜑 ∧ 𝐴 ∈ ℝ ∧ 𝐴 ≤ 0) → (𝐻‘𝐴) = (𝐹‘𝐴))
Theorem	repiecege0 17076*	Piecewise definition on the reals agrees with the nonnegative part of the definition. See repiecef 17077 for more on this construction. (Contributed by Jim Kingdon, 27-Apr-2026.)
⊢ (𝜑 → 𝐹:(-∞(,]0)⟶ℝ)    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝐺:(0[,)+∞)⟶ℝ)    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → (𝐹‘0) = (𝐺‘0))    &   ⊢ 𝐻 = (𝑥 ∈ ℝ ↦ (((𝐹‘inf({𝑥, 0}, ℝ, < )) + (𝐺‘sup({𝑥, 0}, ℝ, < ))) − (𝐹‘0)))    ⇒   ⊢ ((𝜑 ∧ 𝐴 ∈ ℝ ∧ 0 ≤ 𝐴) → (𝐻‘𝐴) = (𝐺‘𝐴))
Theorem	repiecef 17077*	Piecewise definition on the reals yields a function. The function agrees with 𝐹 and 𝐺 on their respective parts of the real line; see repiecele0 17075 and repiecege0 17076. From an online post by James E Hanson. The construction was published in Martín Hötzel Escardó, "Effective and sequential definition by cases on the reals via infinite signed-digit numerals", Electronic Notes in Theoretical Computer Science 10 (1998), page 2, https://martinescardo.github.io/papers/lexnew.pdf. 17076 (Contributed by Jim Kingdon, 27-Apr-2026.)
⊢ (𝜑 → 𝐹:(-∞(,]0)⟶ℝ)    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝐺:(0[,)+∞)⟶ℝ)    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → (𝐹‘0) = (𝐺‘0))    &   ⊢ 𝐻 = (𝑥 ∈ ℝ ↦ (((𝐹‘inf({𝑥, 0}, ℝ, < )) + (𝐺‘sup({𝑥, 0}, ℝ, < ))) − (𝐹‘0)))    ⇒   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝐻:ℝ⟶ℝ)
Theorem	triap 17078	Two ways of stating real number trichotomy. See also cndcap 17109 which is similar but for complex number apartness. (Contributed by Jim Kingdon, 23-Aug-2023.)
⊢ ((𝐴 ∈ ℝ ∧ 𝐵 ∈ ℝ) → ((𝐴 < 𝐵 ∨ 𝐴 = 𝐵 ∨ 𝐵 < 𝐴) ↔ DECID 𝐴 # 𝐵))
Theorem	isomninnlem 17079*	Lemma for isomninn 17080. 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 17080*	Omniscience stated in terms of natural numbers. Similar to isomnimap 7477 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 17081*	Lemma for cvgcmp2n 17082. 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 17082*	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 17083	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 17084	An open interval is equinumerous to the real numbers. (Contributed by Jim Kingdon, 27-Jun-2024.)
⊢ (0(,)1) ≈ ℝ
14.4.8  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 7482), (1) the Limited Principle of Omniscience (LPO) is ω ∈ Omni (see df-omni 7475), (2) the Weak Limited Principle of Omniscience (WLPO) is ω ∈ WOmni (see df-womni 7504), (3) Markov's Principle (MP) is ω ∈ Markov (see df-markov 7492), (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 17092), (2) Analytic WLPO is decidability of real number equality, ∀𝑥 ∈ ℝ∀𝑦 ∈ ℝDECID 𝑥 = 𝑦 (see redcwlpo 17105), (3) Analytic MP is ∀𝑥 ∈ ℝ∀𝑦 ∈ ℝ(𝑥 ≠ 𝑦 → 𝑥 # 𝑦) (see neapmkv 17118), (4) Analytic LLPO is real number dichotomy, ∀𝑥 ∈ ℝ∀𝑦 ∈ ℝ(𝑥 ≤ 𝑦 ∨ 𝑦 ≤ 𝑥) (most relevant current theorem is maxclpr 11988).
Theorem	trilpolemclim 17085*	Lemma for trilpo 17092. 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 17086*	Lemma for trilpo 17092. 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 17087*	Lemma for trilpo 17092. 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 17088*	Lemma for trilpo 17092. 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 17089*	Lemma for trilpo 17092. 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 17090*	Lemma for trilpo 17092. 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 7480 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 17091*	Lemma for trilpo 17092. 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 17092*	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 17090 (which means the sequence contains a zero), trilpolemeq1 17089 (which means the sequence is all ones), and trilpolemgt1 17088 (which is not possible). Equivalent ways to state real number trichotomy (sometimes called "analytic LPO") include decidability of real number apartness (see triap 17078) or that the real numbers are a discrete field (see trirec0 17093). 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 10675 for real numbers. (Contributed by Jim Kingdon, 23-Aug-2023.)
⊢ (∀𝑥 ∈ ℝ ∀𝑦 ∈ ℝ (𝑥 < 𝑦 ∨ 𝑥 = 𝑦 ∨ 𝑦 < 𝑥) → ω ∈ Omni)
Theorem	trirec0 17093*	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 17092). (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 17094*	Version of trirec0 17093 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 17095	Lemma for apdiff 17097. 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 17096	Lemma for apdiff 17097. (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 17097*	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	qdiff 17098*	The rationals are exactly those reals for which there exist two distinct rationals that are the same distance from the original number. Similar to apdiff 17097 but by stating the result positively we can completely sidestep the issue of not equal versus apart in the statement of the result. From an online post by Ingo Blechschmidt. (Contributed by Jim Kingdon, 24-Apr-2026.)
⊢ (𝐴 ∈ ℝ → (𝐴 ∈ ℚ ↔ ∃𝑞 ∈ ℚ ∃𝑟 ∈ ℚ (𝑞 ≠ 𝑟 ∧ (abs‘(𝐴 − 𝑞)) = (abs‘(𝐴 − 𝑟)))))
Theorem	iswomninnlem 17099*	Lemma for iswomnimap 7506. 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 17100*	Weak omniscience stated in terms of natural numbers. Similar to iswomnimap 7506 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))