P. 43 of Theorem List - Intuitionistic Logic Explorer

Theorem List for Intuitionistic Logic Explorer - 4201-4300   *Has distinct variable group(s)

Type	Label	Description
Statement
Theorem	triun 4201*	The indexed union of a class of transitive sets is transitive. (Contributed by Mario Carneiro, 16-Nov-2014.)
⊢ (∀𝑥 ∈ 𝐴 Tr 𝐵 → Tr ∪ 𝑥 ∈ 𝐴 𝐵)
Theorem	truni 4202*	The union of a class of transitive sets is transitive. Exercise 5(a) of [Enderton] p. 73. (Contributed by Scott Fenton, 21-Feb-2011.) (Proof shortened by Mario Carneiro, 26-Apr-2014.)
⊢ (∀𝑥 ∈ 𝐴 Tr 𝑥 → Tr ∪ 𝐴)
Theorem	trint 4203*	The intersection of a class of transitive sets is transitive. Exercise 5(b) of [Enderton] p. 73. (Contributed by Scott Fenton, 25-Feb-2011.)
⊢ (∀𝑥 ∈ 𝐴 Tr 𝑥 → Tr ∩ 𝐴)
Theorem	trintssm 4204*	Any inhabited transitive class includes its intersection. Similar to Exercise 3 in [TakeutiZaring] p. 44 (which mistakenly does not include the inhabitedness hypothesis). (Contributed by Jim Kingdon, 22-Aug-2018.)
⊢ ((Tr 𝐴 ∧ ∃𝑥 𝑥 ∈ 𝐴) → ∩ 𝐴 ⊆ 𝐴)
2.2  IZF Set Theory - add the Axioms of Collection and Separation
2.2.1  Introduce the Axiom of Collection
Axiom	ax-coll 4205*	Axiom of Collection. Axiom 7 of [Crosilla], p. "Axioms of CZF and IZF" (with unnecessary quantifier removed). It is similar to bnd 4264 but uses a freeness hypothesis in place of one of the distinct variable conditions. (Contributed by Jim Kingdon, 23-Aug-2018.)
⊢ Ⅎ𝑏𝜑    ⇒   ⊢ (∀𝑥 ∈ 𝑎 ∃𝑦𝜑 → ∃𝑏∀𝑥 ∈ 𝑎 ∃𝑦 ∈ 𝑏 𝜑)
Theorem	repizf 4206*	Axiom of Replacement. Axiom 7' of [Crosilla], p. "Axioms of CZF and IZF" (with unnecessary quantifier removed). In our context this is not an axiom, but a theorem proved from ax-coll 4205. It is identical to zfrep6 4207 except for the choice of a freeness hypothesis rather than a disjoint variable condition between 𝑏 and 𝜑. (Contributed by Jim Kingdon, 23-Aug-2018.)
⊢ Ⅎ𝑏𝜑    ⇒   ⊢ (∀𝑥 ∈ 𝑎 ∃!𝑦𝜑 → ∃𝑏∀𝑥 ∈ 𝑎 ∃𝑦 ∈ 𝑏 𝜑)
Theorem	zfrep6 4207*	A version of the Axiom of Replacement. Normally 𝜑 would have free variables 𝑥 and 𝑦. Axiom 6 of [Kunen] p. 12. The Separation Scheme ax-sep 4208 cannot be derived from this version and must be stated as a separate axiom in an axiom system (such as Kunen's) that uses this version. (Contributed by NM, 10-Oct-2003.)
⊢ (∀𝑥 ∈ 𝑧 ∃!𝑦𝜑 → ∃𝑤∀𝑥 ∈ 𝑧 ∃𝑦 ∈ 𝑤 𝜑)
2.2.2  Introduce the Axiom of Separation
Axiom	ax-sep 4208*	The Axiom of Separation of IZF set theory. Axiom 6 of [Crosilla], p. "Axioms of CZF and IZF" (with unnecessary quantifier removed, and with a Ⅎ𝑦𝜑 condition replaced by a disjoint variable condition between 𝑦 and 𝜑). The Separation Scheme is a weak form of Frege's Axiom of Comprehension, conditioning it (with 𝑥 ∈ 𝑧) so that it asserts the existence of a collection only if it is smaller than some other collection 𝑧 that already exists. This prevents Russell's paradox ru 3029. In some texts, this scheme is called "Aussonderung" or the Subset Axiom. (Contributed by NM, 11-Sep-2006.)
⊢ ∃𝑦∀𝑥(𝑥 ∈ 𝑦 ↔ (𝑥 ∈ 𝑧 ∧ 𝜑))
Theorem	axsep2 4209*	A less restrictive version of the Separation Scheme ax-sep 4208, where variables 𝑥 and 𝑧 can both appear free in the wff 𝜑, which can therefore be thought of as 𝜑(𝑥, 𝑧). This version was derived from the more restrictive ax-sep 4208 with no additional set theory axioms. (Contributed by NM, 10-Dec-2006.) (Proof shortened by Mario Carneiro, 17-Nov-2016.)
⊢ ∃𝑦∀𝑥(𝑥 ∈ 𝑦 ↔ (𝑥 ∈ 𝑧 ∧ 𝜑))
Theorem	zfauscl 4210*	Separation Scheme (Aussonderung) using a class variable. To derive this from ax-sep 4208, we invoke the Axiom of Extensionality (indirectly via vtocl 2857), which is needed for the justification of class variable notation. (Contributed by NM, 5-Aug-1993.)
⊢ 𝐴 ∈ V    ⇒   ⊢ ∃𝑦∀𝑥(𝑥 ∈ 𝑦 ↔ (𝑥 ∈ 𝐴 ∧ 𝜑))
Theorem	bm1.3ii 4211*	Convert implication to equivalence using the Separation Scheme (Aussonderung) ax-sep 4208. Similar to Theorem 1.3ii of [BellMachover] p. 463. (Contributed by NM, 5-Aug-1993.)
⊢ ∃𝑥∀𝑦(𝜑 → 𝑦 ∈ 𝑥)    ⇒   ⊢ ∃𝑥∀𝑦(𝑦 ∈ 𝑥 ↔ 𝜑)
Theorem	a9evsep 4212*	Derive a weakened version of ax-i9 1578, where 𝑥 and 𝑦 must be distinct, from Separation ax-sep 4208 and Extensionality ax-ext 2212. The theorem ¬ ∀𝑥¬ 𝑥 = 𝑦 also holds (ax9vsep 4213), but in intuitionistic logic ∃𝑥𝑥 = 𝑦 is stronger. (Contributed by Jim Kingdon, 25-Aug-2018.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) (New usage is discouraged.)
⊢ ∃𝑥 𝑥 = 𝑦
Theorem	ax9vsep 4213*	Derive a weakened version of ax-9 1579, where 𝑥 and 𝑦 must be distinct, from Separation ax-sep 4208 and Extensionality ax-ext 2212. In intuitionistic logic a9evsep 4212 is stronger and also holds. (Contributed by NM, 12-Nov-2013.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) (New usage is discouraged.)
⊢ ¬ ∀𝑥 ¬ 𝑥 = 𝑦
2.2.3  Derive the Null Set Axiom
Theorem	zfnuleu 4214*	Show the uniqueness of the empty set (using the Axiom of Extensionality via bm1.1 2215 to strengthen the hypothesis in the form of axnul 4215). (Contributed by NM, 22-Dec-2007.)
⊢ ∃𝑥∀𝑦 ¬ 𝑦 ∈ 𝑥    ⇒   ⊢ ∃!𝑥∀𝑦 ¬ 𝑦 ∈ 𝑥
Theorem	axnul 4215*	The Null Set Axiom of ZF set theory: there exists a set with no elements. Axiom of Empty Set of [Enderton] p. 18. In some textbooks, this is presented as a separate axiom; here we show it can be derived from Separation ax-sep 4208. This version of the Null Set Axiom tells us that at least one empty set exists, but does not tell us that it is unique - we need the Axiom of Extensionality to do that (see zfnuleu 4214). This theorem should not be referenced by any proof. Instead, use ax-nul 4216 below so that the uses of the Null Set Axiom can be more easily identified. (Contributed by Jeff Hoffman, 3-Feb-2008.) (Revised by NM, 4-Feb-2008.) (New usage is discouraged.) (Proof modification is discouraged.)
⊢ ∃𝑥∀𝑦 ¬ 𝑦 ∈ 𝑥
Axiom	ax-nul 4216*	The Null Set Axiom of IZF set theory. It was derived as axnul 4215 above and is therefore redundant, but we state it as a separate axiom here so that its uses can be identified more easily. Axiom 4 of [Crosilla] p. "Axioms of CZF and IZF". (Contributed by NM, 7-Aug-2003.)
⊢ ∃𝑥∀𝑦 ¬ 𝑦 ∈ 𝑥
Theorem	0ex 4217	The Null Set Axiom of ZF set theory: the empty set exists. Corollary 5.16 of [TakeutiZaring] p. 20. For the unabbreviated version, see ax-nul 4216. (Contributed by NM, 5-Aug-1993.) (Proof shortened by Andrew Salmon, 9-Jul-2011.)
⊢ ∅ ∈ V
Theorem	csbexga 4218	The existence of proper substitution into a class. (Contributed by NM, 10-Nov-2005.)
⊢ ((𝐴 ∈ 𝑉 ∧ ∀𝑥 𝐵 ∈ 𝑊) → ⦋𝐴 / 𝑥⦌𝐵 ∈ V)
Theorem	csbexa 4219	The existence of proper substitution into a class. (Contributed by NM, 7-Aug-2007.) (Proof shortened by Andrew Salmon, 29-Jun-2011.)
⊢ 𝐴 ∈ V    &   ⊢ 𝐵 ∈ V    ⇒   ⊢ ⦋𝐴 / 𝑥⦌𝐵 ∈ V
2.2.4  Theorems requiring subset and intersection existence
Theorem	nalset 4220*	No set contains all sets. Theorem 41 of [Suppes] p. 30. (Contributed by NM, 23-Aug-1993.)
⊢ ¬ ∃𝑥∀𝑦 𝑦 ∈ 𝑥
Theorem	vnex 4221	The universal class does not exist as a set. (Contributed by NM, 4-Jul-2005.)
⊢ ¬ ∃𝑥 𝑥 = V
Theorem	vprc 4222	The universal class is not a member of itself (and thus is not a set). Proposition 5.21 of [TakeutiZaring] p. 21; our proof, however, does not depend on the Axiom of Regularity. (Contributed by NM, 23-Aug-1993.)
⊢ ¬ V ∈ V
Theorem	nvel 4223	The universal class does not belong to any class. (Contributed by FL, 31-Dec-2006.)
⊢ ¬ V ∈ 𝐴
Theorem	inex1 4224	Separation Scheme (Aussonderung) using class notation. Compare Exercise 4 of [TakeutiZaring] p. 22. (Contributed by NM, 5-Aug-1993.)
⊢ 𝐴 ∈ V    ⇒   ⊢ (𝐴 ∩ 𝐵) ∈ V
Theorem	inex2 4225	Separation Scheme (Aussonderung) using class notation. (Contributed by NM, 27-Apr-1994.)
⊢ 𝐴 ∈ V    ⇒   ⊢ (𝐵 ∩ 𝐴) ∈ V
Theorem	inex1g 4226	Closed-form, generalized Separation Scheme. (Contributed by NM, 7-Apr-1995.)
⊢ (𝐴 ∈ 𝑉 → (𝐴 ∩ 𝐵) ∈ V)
Theorem	ssex 4227	The subset of a set is also a set. Exercise 3 of [TakeutiZaring] p. 22. This is one way to express the Axiom of Separation ax-sep 4208 (a.k.a. Subset Axiom). (Contributed by NM, 27-Apr-1994.)
⊢ 𝐵 ∈ V    ⇒   ⊢ (𝐴 ⊆ 𝐵 → 𝐴 ∈ V)
Theorem	ssexi 4228	The subset of a set is also a set. (Contributed by NM, 9-Sep-1993.)
⊢ 𝐵 ∈ V    &   ⊢ 𝐴 ⊆ 𝐵    ⇒   ⊢ 𝐴 ∈ V
Theorem	ssexg 4229	The subset of a set is also a set. Exercise 3 of [TakeutiZaring] p. 22 (generalized). (Contributed by NM, 14-Aug-1994.)
⊢ ((𝐴 ⊆ 𝐵 ∧ 𝐵 ∈ 𝐶) → 𝐴 ∈ V)
Theorem	ssexd 4230	A subclass of a set is a set. Deduction form of ssexg 4229. (Contributed by David Moews, 1-May-2017.)
⊢ (𝜑 → 𝐵 ∈ 𝐶)    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝐴 ⊆ 𝐵)    ⇒   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝐴 ∈ V)
Theorem	prcssprc 4231	The superclass of a proper class is a proper class. (Contributed by AV, 27-Dec-2020.)
⊢ ((𝐴 ⊆ 𝐵 ∧ 𝐴 ∉ V) → 𝐵 ∉ V)
Theorem	difexg 4232	Existence of a difference. (Contributed by NM, 26-May-1998.)
⊢ (𝐴 ∈ 𝑉 → (𝐴 ∖ 𝐵) ∈ V)
Theorem	zfausab 4233*	Separation Scheme (Aussonderung) in terms of a class abstraction. (Contributed by NM, 8-Jun-1994.)
⊢ 𝐴 ∈ V    ⇒   ⊢ {𝑥 ∣ (𝑥 ∈ 𝐴 ∧ 𝜑)} ∈ V
Theorem	rabexg 4234*	Separation Scheme in terms of a restricted class abstraction. (Contributed by NM, 23-Oct-1999.)
⊢ (𝐴 ∈ 𝑉 → {𝑥 ∈ 𝐴 ∣ 𝜑} ∈ V)
Theorem	rabex 4235*	Separation Scheme in terms of a restricted class abstraction. (Contributed by NM, 19-Jul-1996.)
⊢ 𝐴 ∈ V    ⇒   ⊢ {𝑥 ∈ 𝐴 ∣ 𝜑} ∈ V
Theorem	rabexd 4236*	Separation Scheme in terms of a restricted class abstraction, deduction form of rabex2 4237. (Contributed by AV, 16-Jul-2019.)
⊢ 𝐵 = {𝑥 ∈ 𝐴 ∣ 𝜓}    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝐴 ∈ 𝑉)    ⇒   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝐵 ∈ V)
Theorem	rabex2 4237*	Separation Scheme in terms of a restricted class abstraction. (Contributed by AV, 16-Jul-2019.) (Revised by AV, 26-Mar-2021.)
⊢ 𝐵 = {𝑥 ∈ 𝐴 ∣ 𝜓}    &   ⊢ 𝐴 ∈ V    ⇒   ⊢ 𝐵 ∈ V
Theorem	rab2ex 4238*	A class abstraction based on a class abstraction based on a set is a set. (Contributed by AV, 16-Jul-2019.) (Revised by AV, 26-Mar-2021.)
⊢ 𝐵 = {𝑦 ∈ 𝐴 ∣ 𝜓}    &   ⊢ 𝐴 ∈ V    ⇒   ⊢ {𝑥 ∈ 𝐵 ∣ 𝜑} ∈ V
Theorem	elssabg 4239*	Membership in a class abstraction involving a subset. Unlike elabg 2951, 𝐴 does not have to be a set. (Contributed by NM, 29-Aug-2006.)
⊢ (𝑥 = 𝐴 → (𝜑 ↔ 𝜓))    ⇒   ⊢ (𝐵 ∈ 𝑉 → (𝐴 ∈ {𝑥 ∣ (𝑥 ⊆ 𝐵 ∧ 𝜑)} ↔ (𝐴 ⊆ 𝐵 ∧ 𝜓)))
Theorem	inteximm 4240*	The intersection of an inhabited class exists. (Contributed by Jim Kingdon, 27-Aug-2018.)
⊢ (∃𝑥 𝑥 ∈ 𝐴 → ∩ 𝐴 ∈ V)
Theorem	intexr 4241	If the intersection of a class exists, the class is nonempty. (Contributed by Jim Kingdon, 27-Aug-2018.)
⊢ (∩ 𝐴 ∈ V → 𝐴 ≠ ∅)
Theorem	intnexr 4242	If a class intersection is the universe, it is not a set. In classical logic this would be an equivalence. (Contributed by Jim Kingdon, 27-Aug-2018.)
⊢ (∩ 𝐴 = V → ¬ ∩ 𝐴 ∈ V)
Theorem	intexabim 4243	The intersection of an inhabited class abstraction exists. (Contributed by Jim Kingdon, 27-Aug-2018.)
⊢ (∃𝑥𝜑 → ∩ {𝑥 ∣ 𝜑} ∈ V)
Theorem	intexrabim 4244	The intersection of an inhabited restricted class abstraction exists. (Contributed by Jim Kingdon, 27-Aug-2018.)
⊢ (∃𝑥 ∈ 𝐴 𝜑 → ∩ {𝑥 ∈ 𝐴 ∣ 𝜑} ∈ V)
Theorem	iinexgm 4245*	The existence of an indexed union. 𝑥 is normally a free-variable parameter in 𝐵, which should be read 𝐵(𝑥). (Contributed by Jim Kingdon, 28-Aug-2018.)
⊢ ((∃𝑥 𝑥 ∈ 𝐴 ∧ ∀𝑥 ∈ 𝐴 𝐵 ∈ 𝐶) → ∩ 𝑥 ∈ 𝐴 𝐵 ∈ V)
Theorem	inuni 4246*	The intersection of a union ∪ 𝐴 with a class 𝐵 is equal to the union of the intersections of each element of 𝐴 with 𝐵. (Contributed by FL, 24-Mar-2007.)
⊢ (∪ 𝐴 ∩ 𝐵) = ∪ {𝑥 ∣ ∃𝑦 ∈ 𝐴 𝑥 = (𝑦 ∩ 𝐵)}
Theorem	elpw2g 4247	Membership in a power class. Theorem 86 of [Suppes] p. 47. (Contributed by NM, 7-Aug-2000.)
⊢ (𝐵 ∈ 𝑉 → (𝐴 ∈ 𝒫 𝐵 ↔ 𝐴 ⊆ 𝐵))
Theorem	elpw2 4248	Membership in a power class. Theorem 86 of [Suppes] p. 47. (Contributed by NM, 11-Oct-2007.)
⊢ 𝐵 ∈ V    ⇒   ⊢ (𝐴 ∈ 𝒫 𝐵 ↔ 𝐴 ⊆ 𝐵)
Theorem	elpwi2 4249	Membership in a power class. (Contributed by Glauco Siliprandi, 3-Mar-2021.) (Proof shortened by Wolf Lammen, 26-May-2024.)
⊢ 𝐵 ∈ 𝑉    &   ⊢ 𝐴 ⊆ 𝐵    ⇒   ⊢ 𝐴 ∈ 𝒫 𝐵
Theorem	if0elpw 4250	A conditional class with the False alternative being sent to the empty class is an element of the powerset of the class corresponding to the True alternative when that class is a set. This statement requires fewer axioms than the general case ifelpwung 4580. (Contributed by BJ, 5-May-2026.)
⊢ (𝐴 ∈ 𝑉 → if(𝜑, 𝐴, ∅) ∈ 𝒫 𝐴)
Theorem	pwnss 4251	The power set of a set is never a subset. (Contributed by Stefan O'Rear, 22-Feb-2015.)
⊢ (𝐴 ∈ 𝑉 → ¬ 𝒫 𝐴 ⊆ 𝐴)
Theorem	pwne 4252	No set equals its power set. The sethood antecedent is necessary; compare pwv 3893. (Contributed by NM, 17-Nov-2008.) (Proof shortened by Mario Carneiro, 23-Dec-2016.)
⊢ (𝐴 ∈ 𝑉 → 𝒫 𝐴 ≠ 𝐴)
Theorem	repizf2lem 4253	Lemma for repizf2 4254. If we have a function-like proposition which provides at most one value of 𝑦 for each 𝑥 in a set 𝑤, we can change "at most one" to "exactly one" by restricting the values of 𝑥 to those values for which the proposition provides a value of 𝑦. (Contributed by Jim Kingdon, 7-Sep-2018.)
⊢ (∀𝑥 ∈ 𝑤 ∃*𝑦𝜑 ↔ ∀𝑥 ∈ {𝑥 ∈ 𝑤 ∣ ∃𝑦𝜑}∃!𝑦𝜑)
Theorem	repizf2 4254*	Replacement. This version of replacement is stronger than repizf 4206 in the sense that 𝜑 does not need to map all values of 𝑥 in 𝑤 to a value of 𝑦. The resulting set contains those elements for which there is a value of 𝑦 and in that sense, this theorem combines repizf 4206 with ax-sep 4208. Another variation would be ∀𝑥 ∈ 𝑤∃*𝑦𝜑 → {𝑦 ∣ ∃𝑥(𝑥 ∈ 𝑤 ∧ 𝜑)} ∈ V but we don't have a proof of that yet. (Contributed by Jim Kingdon, 7-Sep-2018.)
⊢ Ⅎ𝑧𝜑    ⇒   ⊢ (∀𝑥 ∈ 𝑤 ∃*𝑦𝜑 → ∃𝑧∀𝑥 ∈ {𝑥 ∈ 𝑤 ∣ ∃𝑦𝜑}∃𝑦 ∈ 𝑧 𝜑)
2.2.5  Theorems requiring empty set existence
Theorem	class2seteq 4255*	Equality theorem for classes and sets . (Contributed by NM, 13-Dec-2005.) (Proof shortened by Raph Levien, 30-Jun-2006.)
⊢ (𝐴 ∈ 𝑉 → {𝑥 ∈ 𝐴 ∣ 𝐴 ∈ V} = 𝐴)
Theorem	0elpw 4256	Every power class contains the empty set. (Contributed by NM, 25-Oct-2007.)
⊢ ∅ ∈ 𝒫 𝐴
Theorem	0nep0 4257	The empty set and its power set are not equal. (Contributed by NM, 23-Dec-1993.)
⊢ ∅ ≠ {∅}
Theorem	0inp0 4258	Something cannot be equal to both the null set and the power set of the null set. (Contributed by NM, 30-Sep-2003.)
⊢ (𝐴 = ∅ → ¬ 𝐴 = {∅})
Theorem	unidif0 4259	The removal of the empty set from a class does not affect its union. (Contributed by NM, 22-Mar-2004.)
⊢ ∪ (𝐴 ∖ {∅}) = ∪ 𝐴
Theorem	iin0imm 4260*	An indexed intersection of the empty set, with an inhabited index set, is empty. (Contributed by Jim Kingdon, 29-Aug-2018.)
⊢ (∃𝑦 𝑦 ∈ 𝐴 → ∩ 𝑥 ∈ 𝐴 ∅ = ∅)
Theorem	iin0r 4261*	If an indexed intersection of the empty set is empty, the index set is nonempty. (Contributed by Jim Kingdon, 29-Aug-2018.)
⊢ (∩ 𝑥 ∈ 𝐴 ∅ = ∅ → 𝐴 ≠ ∅)
Theorem	intv 4262	The intersection of the universal class is empty. (Contributed by NM, 11-Sep-2008.)
⊢ ∩ V = ∅
Theorem	axpweq 4263*	Two equivalent ways to express the Power Set Axiom. Note that ax-pow 4266 is not used by the proof. (Contributed by NM, 22-Jun-2009.)
⊢ 𝐴 ∈ V    ⇒   ⊢ (𝒫 𝐴 ∈ V ↔ ∃𝑥∀𝑦(∀𝑧(𝑧 ∈ 𝑦 → 𝑧 ∈ 𝐴) → 𝑦 ∈ 𝑥))
2.2.6  Collection principle
Theorem	bnd 4264*	A very strong generalization of the Axiom of Replacement (compare zfrep6 4207). Its strength lies in the rather profound fact that 𝜑(𝑥, 𝑦) does not have to be a "function-like" wff, as it does in the standard Axiom of Replacement. This theorem is sometimes called the Boundedness Axiom. In the context of IZF, it is just a slight variation of ax-coll 4205. (Contributed by NM, 17-Oct-2004.)
⊢ (∀𝑥 ∈ 𝑧 ∃𝑦𝜑 → ∃𝑤∀𝑥 ∈ 𝑧 ∃𝑦 ∈ 𝑤 𝜑)
Theorem	bnd2 4265*	A variant of the Boundedness Axiom bnd 4264 that picks a subset 𝑧 out of a possibly proper class 𝐵 in which a property is true. (Contributed by NM, 4-Feb-2004.)
⊢ 𝐴 ∈ V    ⇒   ⊢ (∀𝑥 ∈ 𝐴 ∃𝑦 ∈ 𝐵 𝜑 → ∃𝑧(𝑧 ⊆ 𝐵 ∧ ∀𝑥 ∈ 𝐴 ∃𝑦 ∈ 𝑧 𝜑))
2.3  IZF Set Theory - add the Axioms of Power Sets and Pairing
2.3.1  Introduce the Axiom of Power Sets
Axiom	ax-pow 4266*	Axiom of Power Sets. An axiom of Intuitionistic Zermelo-Fraenkel set theory. It states that a set 𝑦 exists that includes the power set of a given set 𝑥 i.e. contains every subset of 𝑥. This is Axiom 8 of [Crosilla] p. "Axioms of CZF and IZF" except (a) unnecessary quantifiers are removed, and (b) Crosilla has a biconditional rather than an implication (but the two are equivalent by bm1.3ii 4211). The variant axpow2 4268 uses explicit subset notation. A version using class notation is pwex 4275. (Contributed by NM, 5-Aug-1993.)
⊢ ∃𝑦∀𝑧(∀𝑤(𝑤 ∈ 𝑧 → 𝑤 ∈ 𝑥) → 𝑧 ∈ 𝑦)
Theorem	zfpow 4267*	Axiom of Power Sets expressed with the fewest number of different variables. (Contributed by NM, 14-Aug-2003.)
⊢ ∃𝑥∀𝑦(∀𝑥(𝑥 ∈ 𝑦 → 𝑥 ∈ 𝑧) → 𝑦 ∈ 𝑥)
Theorem	axpow2 4268*	A variant of the Axiom of Power Sets ax-pow 4266 using subset notation. Problem in {BellMachover] p. 466. (Contributed by NM, 4-Jun-2006.)
⊢ ∃𝑦∀𝑧(𝑧 ⊆ 𝑥 → 𝑧 ∈ 𝑦)
Theorem	axpow3 4269*	A variant of the Axiom of Power Sets ax-pow 4266. For any set 𝑥, there exists a set 𝑦 whose members are exactly the subsets of 𝑥 i.e. the power set of 𝑥. Axiom Pow of [BellMachover] p. 466. (Contributed by NM, 4-Jun-2006.)
⊢ ∃𝑦∀𝑧(𝑧 ⊆ 𝑥 ↔ 𝑧 ∈ 𝑦)
Theorem	el 4270*	Every set is an element of some other set. (Contributed by NM, 4-Jan-2002.) (Proof shortened by Andrew Salmon, 25-Jul-2011.)
⊢ ∃𝑦 𝑥 ∈ 𝑦
Theorem	vpwex 4271	Power set axiom: the powerclass of a set is a set. Axiom 4 of [TakeutiZaring] p. 17. (Contributed by NM, 30-Oct-2003.) (Proof shortened by Andrew Salmon, 25-Jul-2011.) Revised to prove pwexg 4272 from vpwex 4271. (Revised by BJ, 10-Aug-2022.)
⊢ 𝒫 𝑥 ∈ V
Theorem	pwexg 4272	Power set axiom expressed in class notation, with the sethood requirement as an antecedent. (Contributed by NM, 30-Oct-2003.)
⊢ (𝐴 ∈ 𝑉 → 𝒫 𝐴 ∈ V)
Theorem	pwexd 4273	Deduction version of the power set axiom. (Contributed by Glauco Siliprandi, 26-Jun-2021.)
⊢ (𝜑 → 𝐴 ∈ 𝑉)    ⇒   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝒫 𝐴 ∈ V)
Theorem	abssexg 4274*	Existence of a class of subsets. (Contributed by NM, 15-Jul-2006.) (Proof shortened by Andrew Salmon, 25-Jul-2011.)
⊢ (𝐴 ∈ 𝑉 → {𝑥 ∣ (𝑥 ⊆ 𝐴 ∧ 𝜑)} ∈ V)
Theorem	pwex 4275	Power set axiom expressed in class notation. (Contributed by NM, 21-Jun-1993.)
⊢ 𝐴 ∈ V    ⇒   ⊢ 𝒫 𝐴 ∈ V
Theorem	snexg 4276	A singleton whose element exists is a set. The 𝐴 ∈ V case of Theorem 7.12 of [Quine] p. 51, proved using only Extensionality, Power Set, and Separation. Replacement is not needed. (Contributed by Jim Kingdon, 1-Sep-2018.)
⊢ (𝐴 ∈ 𝑉 → {𝐴} ∈ V)
Theorem	snex 4277	A singleton whose element exists is a set. (Contributed by NM, 7-Aug-1994.) (Revised by Mario Carneiro, 24-May-2019.)
⊢ 𝐴 ∈ V    ⇒   ⊢ {𝐴} ∈ V
Theorem	snexprc 4278	A singleton whose element is a proper class is a set. The ¬ 𝐴 ∈ V case of Theorem 7.12 of [Quine] p. 51, proved using only Extensionality, Power Set, and Separation. Replacement is not needed. (Contributed by Jim Kingdon, 1-Sep-2018.)
⊢ (¬ 𝐴 ∈ V → {𝐴} ∈ V)
Theorem	notnotsnex 4279	A singleton is never a proper class. (Contributed by Mario Carneiro and Jim Kingdon, 3-Jul-2022.)
⊢ ¬ ¬ {𝐴} ∈ V
Theorem	p0ex 4280	The power set of the empty set (the ordinal 1) is a set. (Contributed by NM, 23-Dec-1993.)
⊢ {∅} ∈ V
Theorem	pp0ex 4281	{∅, {∅}} (the ordinal 2) is a set. (Contributed by NM, 5-Aug-1993.)
⊢ {∅, {∅}} ∈ V
Theorem	ord3ex 4282	The ordinal number 3 is a set, proved without the Axiom of Union. (Contributed by NM, 2-May-2009.)
⊢ {∅, {∅}, {∅, {∅}}} ∈ V
Theorem	dtruarb 4283*	At least two sets exist (or in terms of first-order logic, the universe of discourse has two or more objects). This theorem asserts the existence of two sets which do not equal each other; compare with dtruex 4659 in which we are given a set 𝑦 and go from there to a set 𝑥 which is not equal to it. (Contributed by Jim Kingdon, 2-Sep-2018.)
⊢ ∃𝑥∃𝑦 ¬ 𝑥 = 𝑦
Theorem	pwuni 4284	A class is a subclass of the power class of its union. Exercise 6(b) of [Enderton] p. 38. (Contributed by NM, 14-Oct-1996.)
⊢ 𝐴 ⊆ 𝒫 ∪ 𝐴
Theorem	undifexmid 4285*	Union of complementary parts producing the whole and excluded middle. Although special cases such as undifss 3574 and undifdcss 7120 are provable, the full statement implies excluded middle as shown here. (Contributed by Jim Kingdon, 16-Jun-2022.)
⊢ (𝑥 ⊆ 𝑦 ↔ (𝑥 ∪ (𝑦 ∖ 𝑥)) = 𝑦)    ⇒   ⊢ (𝜑 ∨ ¬ 𝜑)
2.3.2  A notation for excluded middle
Syntax	wem 4286	Formula for an abbreviation of excluded middle.
wff EXMID
Definition	df-exmid 4287	The expression EXMID will be used as a readable shorthand for any form of the law of the excluded middle; this is a useful shorthand largely because it hides statements of the form "for any proposition" in a system which can only quantify over sets, not propositions. To see how this compares with other ways of expressing excluded middle, compare undifexmid 4285 with exmidundif 4298. The former may be more recognizable as excluded middle because it is in terms of propositions, and the proof may be easier to follow for much the same reason (it just has to show 𝜑 and ¬ 𝜑 in the the relevant parts of the proof). The latter, however, has the key advantage of being able to prove both directions of the biconditional. To state that excluded middle implies a proposition is hard to do gracefully without EXMID, because there is no way to write a hypothesis 𝜑 ∨ ¬ 𝜑 for an arbitrary proposition; instead the hypothesis would need to be the particular instance of excluded middle which that proof needs. Or to say it another way, EXMID implies DECID 𝜑 by exmidexmid 4288 but there is no good way to express the converse. This definition and how we use it is easiest to understand (and most appropriate to assign the name "excluded middle" to) if we assume ax-sep 4208, in which case EXMID means that all propositions are decidable (see exmidexmid 4288 and notice that it relies on ax-sep 4208). If we instead work with ax-bdsep 16539, EXMID as defined here means that all bounded propositions are decidable. (Contributed by Mario Carneiro and Jim Kingdon, 18-Jun-2022.)
⊢ (EXMID ↔ ∀𝑥(𝑥 ⊆ {∅} → DECID ∅ ∈ 𝑥))
Theorem	exmidexmid 4288	EXMID implies that an arbitrary proposition is decidable. That is, EXMID captures the usual meaning of excluded middle when stated in terms of propositions. To get other propositional statements which are equivalent to excluded middle, combine this with notnotrdc 850, peircedc 921, or condc 860. (Contributed by Jim Kingdon, 18-Jun-2022.)
⊢ (EXMID → DECID 𝜑)
Theorem	ss1o0el1 4289	A subclass of {∅} contains the empty set if and only if it equals {∅}. (Contributed by BJ and Jim Kingdon, 9-Aug-2024.)
⊢ (𝐴 ⊆ {∅} → (∅ ∈ 𝐴 ↔ 𝐴 = {∅}))
Theorem	exmid01 4290	Excluded middle is equivalent to saying any subset of {∅} is either ∅ or {∅}. (Contributed by BJ and Jim Kingdon, 18-Jun-2022.)
⊢ (EXMID ↔ ∀𝑥(𝑥 ⊆ {∅} → (𝑥 = ∅ ∨ 𝑥 = {∅})))
Theorem	pwntru 4291	A slight strengthening of pwtrufal 16658. (Contributed by Mario Carneiro and Jim Kingdon, 12-Sep-2023.)
⊢ ((𝐴 ⊆ {∅} ∧ 𝐴 ≠ {∅}) → 𝐴 = ∅)
Theorem	exmid1dc 4292*	A convenience theorem for proving that something implies EXMID. Think of this as an alternative to using a proposition, as in proofs like undifexmid 4285 or ordtriexmid 4621. In this context 𝑥 = {∅} can be thought of as "x is true". (Contributed by Jim Kingdon, 21-Nov-2023.)
⊢ ((𝜑 ∧ 𝑥 ⊆ {∅}) → DECID 𝑥 = {∅})    ⇒   ⊢ (𝜑 → EXMID)
Theorem	exmidn0m 4293*	Excluded middle is equivalent to any set being empty or inhabited. (Contributed by Jim Kingdon, 5-Mar-2023.)
⊢ (EXMID ↔ ∀𝑥(𝑥 = ∅ ∨ ∃𝑦 𝑦 ∈ 𝑥))
Theorem	exmidsssn 4294*	Excluded middle is equivalent to the biconditionalized version of sssnr 3837 for sets. (Contributed by Jim Kingdon, 5-Mar-2023.)
⊢ (EXMID ↔ ∀𝑥∀𝑦(𝑥 ⊆ {𝑦} ↔ (𝑥 = ∅ ∨ 𝑥 = {𝑦})))
Theorem	exmidsssnc 4295*	Excluded middle in terms of subsets of a singleton. This is similar to exmid01 4290 but lets you choose any set as the element of the singleton rather than just ∅. It is similar to exmidsssn 4294 but for a particular set 𝐵 rather than all sets. (Contributed by Jim Kingdon, 29-Jul-2023.)
⊢ (𝐵 ∈ 𝑉 → (EXMID ↔ ∀𝑥(𝑥 ⊆ {𝐵} → (𝑥 = ∅ ∨ 𝑥 = {𝐵}))))
Theorem	exmid0el 4296	Excluded middle is equivalent to decidability of ∅ being an element of an arbitrary set. (Contributed by Jim Kingdon, 18-Jun-2022.)
⊢ (EXMID ↔ ∀𝑥DECID ∅ ∈ 𝑥)
Theorem	exmidel 4297*	Excluded middle is equivalent to decidability of membership for two arbitrary sets. (Contributed by Jim Kingdon, 18-Jun-2022.)
⊢ (EXMID ↔ ∀𝑥∀𝑦DECID 𝑥 ∈ 𝑦)
Theorem	exmidundif 4298*	Excluded middle is equivalent to every subset having a complement. That is, the union of a subset and its relative complement being the whole set. Although special cases such as undifss 3574 and undifdcss 7120 are provable, the full statement is equivalent to excluded middle as shown here. (Contributed by Jim Kingdon, 18-Jun-2022.)
⊢ (EXMID ↔ ∀𝑥∀𝑦(𝑥 ⊆ 𝑦 ↔ (𝑥 ∪ (𝑦 ∖ 𝑥)) = 𝑦))
Theorem	exmidundifim 4299*	Excluded middle is equivalent to every subset having a complement. Variation of exmidundif 4298 with an implication rather than a biconditional. (Contributed by Jim Kingdon, 16-Feb-2023.)
⊢ (EXMID ↔ ∀𝑥∀𝑦(𝑥 ⊆ 𝑦 → (𝑥 ∪ (𝑦 ∖ 𝑥)) = 𝑦))
Theorem	exmid1stab 4300*	If every proposition is stable, excluded middle follows. We are thinking of 𝑥 as a proposition and 𝑥 = {∅} as "𝑥 is true". (Contributed by Jim Kingdon, 28-Nov-2023.)
⊢ ((𝜑 ∧ 𝑥 ⊆ {∅}) → STAB 𝑥 = {∅})    ⇒   ⊢ (𝜑 → EXMID)