![]() |
Intuitionistic Logic Explorer Theorem List (p. 44 of 156) | < Previous Next > |
Bad symbols? Try the
GIF version. |
||
Mirrors > Metamath Home Page > ILE Home Page > Theorem List Contents > Recent Proofs This page: Page List |
Type | Label | Description |
---|---|---|
Statement | ||
Theorem | opelopab2 4301* | Ordered pair membership in an ordered pair class abstraction. (Contributed by NM, 14-Oct-2007.) (Revised by Mario Carneiro, 19-Dec-2013.) |
⊢ (𝑥 = 𝐴 → (𝜑 ↔ 𝜓)) & ⊢ (𝑦 = 𝐵 → (𝜓 ↔ 𝜒)) ⇒ ⊢ ((𝐴 ∈ 𝐶 ∧ 𝐵 ∈ 𝐷) → (〈𝐴, 𝐵〉 ∈ {〈𝑥, 𝑦〉 ∣ ((𝑥 ∈ 𝐶 ∧ 𝑦 ∈ 𝐷) ∧ 𝜑)} ↔ 𝜒)) | ||
Theorem | opelopab 4302* | The law of concretion. Theorem 9.5 of [Quine] p. 61. (Contributed by NM, 16-May-1995.) |
⊢ 𝐴 ∈ V & ⊢ 𝐵 ∈ V & ⊢ (𝑥 = 𝐴 → (𝜑 ↔ 𝜓)) & ⊢ (𝑦 = 𝐵 → (𝜓 ↔ 𝜒)) ⇒ ⊢ (〈𝐴, 𝐵〉 ∈ {〈𝑥, 𝑦〉 ∣ 𝜑} ↔ 𝜒) | ||
Theorem | brab 4303* | The law of concretion for a binary relation. (Contributed by NM, 16-Aug-1999.) |
⊢ 𝐴 ∈ V & ⊢ 𝐵 ∈ V & ⊢ (𝑥 = 𝐴 → (𝜑 ↔ 𝜓)) & ⊢ (𝑦 = 𝐵 → (𝜓 ↔ 𝜒)) & ⊢ 𝑅 = {〈𝑥, 𝑦〉 ∣ 𝜑} ⇒ ⊢ (𝐴𝑅𝐵 ↔ 𝜒) | ||
Theorem | opelopabaf 4304* | The law of concretion. Theorem 9.5 of [Quine] p. 61. This version of opelopab 4302 uses bound-variable hypotheses in place of distinct variable conditions. (Contributed by Mario Carneiro, 19-Dec-2013.) (Proof shortened by Mario Carneiro, 18-Nov-2016.) |
⊢ Ⅎ𝑥𝜓 & ⊢ Ⅎ𝑦𝜓 & ⊢ 𝐴 ∈ V & ⊢ 𝐵 ∈ V & ⊢ ((𝑥 = 𝐴 ∧ 𝑦 = 𝐵) → (𝜑 ↔ 𝜓)) ⇒ ⊢ (〈𝐴, 𝐵〉 ∈ {〈𝑥, 𝑦〉 ∣ 𝜑} ↔ 𝜓) | ||
Theorem | opelopabf 4305* | The law of concretion. Theorem 9.5 of [Quine] p. 61. This version of opelopab 4302 uses bound-variable hypotheses in place of distinct variable conditions. (Contributed by NM, 19-Dec-2008.) |
⊢ Ⅎ𝑥𝜓 & ⊢ Ⅎ𝑦𝜒 & ⊢ 𝐴 ∈ V & ⊢ 𝐵 ∈ V & ⊢ (𝑥 = 𝐴 → (𝜑 ↔ 𝜓)) & ⊢ (𝑦 = 𝐵 → (𝜓 ↔ 𝜒)) ⇒ ⊢ (〈𝐴, 𝐵〉 ∈ {〈𝑥, 𝑦〉 ∣ 𝜑} ↔ 𝜒) | ||
Theorem | ssopab2 4306 | Equivalence of ordered pair abstraction subclass and implication. (Contributed by NM, 27-Dec-1996.) (Revised by Mario Carneiro, 19-May-2013.) |
⊢ (∀𝑥∀𝑦(𝜑 → 𝜓) → {〈𝑥, 𝑦〉 ∣ 𝜑} ⊆ {〈𝑥, 𝑦〉 ∣ 𝜓}) | ||
Theorem | ssopab2b 4307 | Equivalence of ordered pair abstraction subclass and implication. (Contributed by NM, 27-Dec-1996.) (Proof shortened by Mario Carneiro, 18-Nov-2016.) |
⊢ ({〈𝑥, 𝑦〉 ∣ 𝜑} ⊆ {〈𝑥, 𝑦〉 ∣ 𝜓} ↔ ∀𝑥∀𝑦(𝜑 → 𝜓)) | ||
Theorem | ssopab2i 4308 | Inference of ordered pair abstraction subclass from implication. (Contributed by NM, 5-Apr-1995.) |
⊢ (𝜑 → 𝜓) ⇒ ⊢ {〈𝑥, 𝑦〉 ∣ 𝜑} ⊆ {〈𝑥, 𝑦〉 ∣ 𝜓} | ||
Theorem | ssopab2dv 4309* | Inference of ordered pair abstraction subclass from implication. (Contributed by NM, 19-Jan-2014.) (Revised by Mario Carneiro, 24-Jun-2014.) |
⊢ (𝜑 → (𝜓 → 𝜒)) ⇒ ⊢ (𝜑 → {〈𝑥, 𝑦〉 ∣ 𝜓} ⊆ {〈𝑥, 𝑦〉 ∣ 𝜒}) | ||
Theorem | eqopab2b 4310 | Equivalence of ordered pair abstraction equality and biconditional. (Contributed by Mario Carneiro, 4-Jan-2017.) |
⊢ ({〈𝑥, 𝑦〉 ∣ 𝜑} = {〈𝑥, 𝑦〉 ∣ 𝜓} ↔ ∀𝑥∀𝑦(𝜑 ↔ 𝜓)) | ||
Theorem | opabm 4311* | Inhabited ordered pair class abstraction. (Contributed by Jim Kingdon, 29-Sep-2018.) |
⊢ (∃𝑧 𝑧 ∈ {〈𝑥, 𝑦〉 ∣ 𝜑} ↔ ∃𝑥∃𝑦𝜑) | ||
Theorem | iunopab 4312* | Move indexed union inside an ordered-pair abstraction. (Contributed by Stefan O'Rear, 20-Feb-2015.) |
⊢ ∪ 𝑧 ∈ 𝐴 {〈𝑥, 𝑦〉 ∣ 𝜑} = {〈𝑥, 𝑦〉 ∣ ∃𝑧 ∈ 𝐴 𝜑} | ||
Theorem | pwin 4313 | The power class of the intersection of two classes is the intersection of their power classes. Exercise 4.12(j) of [Mendelson] p. 235. (Contributed by NM, 23-Nov-2003.) |
⊢ 𝒫 (𝐴 ∩ 𝐵) = (𝒫 𝐴 ∩ 𝒫 𝐵) | ||
Theorem | pwunss 4314 | The power class of the union of two classes includes the union of their power classes. Exercise 4.12(k) of [Mendelson] p. 235. (Contributed by NM, 23-Nov-2003.) |
⊢ (𝒫 𝐴 ∪ 𝒫 𝐵) ⊆ 𝒫 (𝐴 ∪ 𝐵) | ||
Theorem | pwssunim 4315 | The power class of the union of two classes is a subset of the union of their power classes, if one class is a subclass of the other. One direction of Exercise 4.12(l) of [Mendelson] p. 235. (Contributed by Jim Kingdon, 30-Sep-2018.) |
⊢ ((𝐴 ⊆ 𝐵 ∨ 𝐵 ⊆ 𝐴) → 𝒫 (𝐴 ∪ 𝐵) ⊆ (𝒫 𝐴 ∪ 𝒫 𝐵)) | ||
Theorem | pwundifss 4316 | Break up the power class of a union into a union of smaller classes. (Contributed by Jim Kingdon, 30-Sep-2018.) |
⊢ ((𝒫 (𝐴 ∪ 𝐵) ∖ 𝒫 𝐴) ∪ 𝒫 𝐴) ⊆ 𝒫 (𝐴 ∪ 𝐵) | ||
Theorem | pwunim 4317 | The power class of the union of two classes equals the union of their power classes, iff one class is a subclass of the other. Part of Exercise 7(b) of [Enderton] p. 28. (Contributed by Jim Kingdon, 30-Sep-2018.) |
⊢ ((𝐴 ⊆ 𝐵 ∨ 𝐵 ⊆ 𝐴) → 𝒫 (𝐴 ∪ 𝐵) = (𝒫 𝐴 ∪ 𝒫 𝐵)) | ||
Syntax | cep 4318 | Extend class notation to include the epsilon relation. |
class E | ||
Syntax | cid 4319 | Extend the definition of a class to include identity relation. |
class I | ||
Definition | df-eprel 4320* | Define the epsilon relation. Similar to Definition 6.22 of [TakeutiZaring] p. 30. The epsilon relation and set membership are the same, that is, (𝐴 E 𝐵 ↔ 𝐴 ∈ 𝐵) when 𝐵 is a set by epelg 4321. Thus, 5 E { 1 , 5 }. (Contributed by NM, 13-Aug-1995.) |
⊢ E = {〈𝑥, 𝑦〉 ∣ 𝑥 ∈ 𝑦} | ||
Theorem | epelg 4321 | The epsilon relation and membership are the same. General version of epel 4323. (Contributed by Scott Fenton, 27-Mar-2011.) (Revised by Mario Carneiro, 28-Apr-2015.) |
⊢ (𝐵 ∈ 𝑉 → (𝐴 E 𝐵 ↔ 𝐴 ∈ 𝐵)) | ||
Theorem | epelc 4322 | The epsilon relationship and the membership relation are the same. (Contributed by Scott Fenton, 11-Apr-2012.) |
⊢ 𝐵 ∈ V ⇒ ⊢ (𝐴 E 𝐵 ↔ 𝐴 ∈ 𝐵) | ||
Theorem | epel 4323 | The epsilon relation and the membership relation are the same. (Contributed by NM, 13-Aug-1995.) |
⊢ (𝑥 E 𝑦 ↔ 𝑥 ∈ 𝑦) | ||
Definition | df-id 4324* | Define the identity relation. Definition 9.15 of [Quine] p. 64. For example, 5 I 5 and ¬ 4 I 5. (Contributed by NM, 13-Aug-1995.) |
⊢ I = {〈𝑥, 𝑦〉 ∣ 𝑥 = 𝑦} | ||
We have not yet defined relations (df-rel 4666), but here we introduce a few related notions we will use to develop ordinals. The class variable 𝑅 is no different from other class variables, but it reminds us that typically it represents what we will later call a "relation". | ||
Syntax | wpo 4325 | Extend wff notation to include the strict partial ordering predicate. Read: ' 𝑅 is a partial order on 𝐴.' |
wff 𝑅 Po 𝐴 | ||
Syntax | wor 4326 | Extend wff notation to include the strict linear ordering predicate. Read: ' 𝑅 orders 𝐴.' |
wff 𝑅 Or 𝐴 | ||
Definition | df-po 4327* | Define the strict partial order predicate. Definition of [Enderton] p. 168. The expression 𝑅 Po 𝐴 means 𝑅 is a partial order on 𝐴. (Contributed by NM, 16-Mar-1997.) |
⊢ (𝑅 Po 𝐴 ↔ ∀𝑥 ∈ 𝐴 ∀𝑦 ∈ 𝐴 ∀𝑧 ∈ 𝐴 (¬ 𝑥𝑅𝑥 ∧ ((𝑥𝑅𝑦 ∧ 𝑦𝑅𝑧) → 𝑥𝑅𝑧))) | ||
Definition | df-iso 4328* | Define the strict linear order predicate. The expression 𝑅 Or 𝐴 is true if relationship 𝑅 orders 𝐴. The property 𝑥𝑅𝑦 → (𝑥𝑅𝑧 ∨ 𝑧𝑅𝑦) is called weak linearity by Proposition 11.2.3 of [HoTT], p. (varies). If we assumed excluded middle, it would be equivalent to trichotomy, 𝑥𝑅𝑦 ∨ 𝑥 = 𝑦 ∨ 𝑦𝑅𝑥. (Contributed by NM, 21-Jan-1996.) (Revised by Jim Kingdon, 4-Oct-2018.) |
⊢ (𝑅 Or 𝐴 ↔ (𝑅 Po 𝐴 ∧ ∀𝑥 ∈ 𝐴 ∀𝑦 ∈ 𝐴 ∀𝑧 ∈ 𝐴 (𝑥𝑅𝑦 → (𝑥𝑅𝑧 ∨ 𝑧𝑅𝑦)))) | ||
Theorem | poss 4329 | Subset theorem for the partial ordering predicate. (Contributed by NM, 27-Mar-1997.) (Proof shortened by Mario Carneiro, 18-Nov-2016.) |
⊢ (𝐴 ⊆ 𝐵 → (𝑅 Po 𝐵 → 𝑅 Po 𝐴)) | ||
Theorem | poeq1 4330 | Equality theorem for partial ordering predicate. (Contributed by NM, 27-Mar-1997.) |
⊢ (𝑅 = 𝑆 → (𝑅 Po 𝐴 ↔ 𝑆 Po 𝐴)) | ||
Theorem | poeq2 4331 | Equality theorem for partial ordering predicate. (Contributed by NM, 27-Mar-1997.) |
⊢ (𝐴 = 𝐵 → (𝑅 Po 𝐴 ↔ 𝑅 Po 𝐵)) | ||
Theorem | nfpo 4332 | Bound-variable hypothesis builder for partial orders. (Contributed by Stefan O'Rear, 20-Jan-2015.) |
⊢ Ⅎ𝑥𝑅 & ⊢ Ⅎ𝑥𝐴 ⇒ ⊢ Ⅎ𝑥 𝑅 Po 𝐴 | ||
Theorem | nfso 4333 | Bound-variable hypothesis builder for total orders. (Contributed by Stefan O'Rear, 20-Jan-2015.) |
⊢ Ⅎ𝑥𝑅 & ⊢ Ⅎ𝑥𝐴 ⇒ ⊢ Ⅎ𝑥 𝑅 Or 𝐴 | ||
Theorem | pocl 4334 | Properties of partial order relation in class notation. (Contributed by NM, 27-Mar-1997.) |
⊢ (𝑅 Po 𝐴 → ((𝐵 ∈ 𝐴 ∧ 𝐶 ∈ 𝐴 ∧ 𝐷 ∈ 𝐴) → (¬ 𝐵𝑅𝐵 ∧ ((𝐵𝑅𝐶 ∧ 𝐶𝑅𝐷) → 𝐵𝑅𝐷)))) | ||
Theorem | ispod 4335* | Sufficient conditions for a partial order. (Contributed by NM, 9-Jul-2014.) |
⊢ ((𝜑 ∧ 𝑥 ∈ 𝐴) → ¬ 𝑥𝑅𝑥) & ⊢ ((𝜑 ∧ (𝑥 ∈ 𝐴 ∧ 𝑦 ∈ 𝐴 ∧ 𝑧 ∈ 𝐴)) → ((𝑥𝑅𝑦 ∧ 𝑦𝑅𝑧) → 𝑥𝑅𝑧)) ⇒ ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝑅 Po 𝐴) | ||
Theorem | swopolem 4336* | Perform the substitutions into the strict weak ordering law. (Contributed by Mario Carneiro, 31-Dec-2014.) |
⊢ ((𝜑 ∧ (𝑥 ∈ 𝐴 ∧ 𝑦 ∈ 𝐴 ∧ 𝑧 ∈ 𝐴)) → (𝑥𝑅𝑦 → (𝑥𝑅𝑧 ∨ 𝑧𝑅𝑦))) ⇒ ⊢ ((𝜑 ∧ (𝑋 ∈ 𝐴 ∧ 𝑌 ∈ 𝐴 ∧ 𝑍 ∈ 𝐴)) → (𝑋𝑅𝑌 → (𝑋𝑅𝑍 ∨ 𝑍𝑅𝑌))) | ||
Theorem | swopo 4337* | A strict weak order is a partial order. (Contributed by Mario Carneiro, 9-Jul-2014.) |
⊢ ((𝜑 ∧ (𝑦 ∈ 𝐴 ∧ 𝑧 ∈ 𝐴)) → (𝑦𝑅𝑧 → ¬ 𝑧𝑅𝑦)) & ⊢ ((𝜑 ∧ (𝑥 ∈ 𝐴 ∧ 𝑦 ∈ 𝐴 ∧ 𝑧 ∈ 𝐴)) → (𝑥𝑅𝑦 → (𝑥𝑅𝑧 ∨ 𝑧𝑅𝑦))) ⇒ ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝑅 Po 𝐴) | ||
Theorem | poirr 4338 | A partial order relation is irreflexive. (Contributed by NM, 27-Mar-1997.) |
⊢ ((𝑅 Po 𝐴 ∧ 𝐵 ∈ 𝐴) → ¬ 𝐵𝑅𝐵) | ||
Theorem | potr 4339 | A partial order relation is a transitive relation. (Contributed by NM, 27-Mar-1997.) |
⊢ ((𝑅 Po 𝐴 ∧ (𝐵 ∈ 𝐴 ∧ 𝐶 ∈ 𝐴 ∧ 𝐷 ∈ 𝐴)) → ((𝐵𝑅𝐶 ∧ 𝐶𝑅𝐷) → 𝐵𝑅𝐷)) | ||
Theorem | po2nr 4340 | A partial order relation has no 2-cycle loops. (Contributed by NM, 27-Mar-1997.) |
⊢ ((𝑅 Po 𝐴 ∧ (𝐵 ∈ 𝐴 ∧ 𝐶 ∈ 𝐴)) → ¬ (𝐵𝑅𝐶 ∧ 𝐶𝑅𝐵)) | ||
Theorem | po3nr 4341 | A partial order relation has no 3-cycle loops. (Contributed by NM, 27-Mar-1997.) |
⊢ ((𝑅 Po 𝐴 ∧ (𝐵 ∈ 𝐴 ∧ 𝐶 ∈ 𝐴 ∧ 𝐷 ∈ 𝐴)) → ¬ (𝐵𝑅𝐶 ∧ 𝐶𝑅𝐷 ∧ 𝐷𝑅𝐵)) | ||
Theorem | po0 4342 | Any relation is a partial ordering of the empty set. (Contributed by NM, 28-Mar-1997.) (Proof shortened by Andrew Salmon, 25-Jul-2011.) |
⊢ 𝑅 Po ∅ | ||
Theorem | pofun 4343* | A function preserves a partial order relation. (Contributed by Jeff Madsen, 18-Jun-2011.) |
⊢ 𝑆 = {〈𝑥, 𝑦〉 ∣ 𝑋𝑅𝑌} & ⊢ (𝑥 = 𝑦 → 𝑋 = 𝑌) ⇒ ⊢ ((𝑅 Po 𝐵 ∧ ∀𝑥 ∈ 𝐴 𝑋 ∈ 𝐵) → 𝑆 Po 𝐴) | ||
Theorem | sopo 4344 | A strict linear order is a strict partial order. (Contributed by NM, 28-Mar-1997.) |
⊢ (𝑅 Or 𝐴 → 𝑅 Po 𝐴) | ||
Theorem | soss 4345 | Subset theorem for the strict ordering predicate. (Contributed by NM, 16-Mar-1997.) (Proof shortened by Andrew Salmon, 25-Jul-2011.) |
⊢ (𝐴 ⊆ 𝐵 → (𝑅 Or 𝐵 → 𝑅 Or 𝐴)) | ||
Theorem | soeq1 4346 | Equality theorem for the strict ordering predicate. (Contributed by NM, 16-Mar-1997.) |
⊢ (𝑅 = 𝑆 → (𝑅 Or 𝐴 ↔ 𝑆 Or 𝐴)) | ||
Theorem | soeq2 4347 | Equality theorem for the strict ordering predicate. (Contributed by NM, 16-Mar-1997.) |
⊢ (𝐴 = 𝐵 → (𝑅 Or 𝐴 ↔ 𝑅 Or 𝐵)) | ||
Theorem | sonr 4348 | A strict order relation is irreflexive. (Contributed by NM, 24-Nov-1995.) |
⊢ ((𝑅 Or 𝐴 ∧ 𝐵 ∈ 𝐴) → ¬ 𝐵𝑅𝐵) | ||
Theorem | sotr 4349 | A strict order relation is a transitive relation. (Contributed by NM, 21-Jan-1996.) |
⊢ ((𝑅 Or 𝐴 ∧ (𝐵 ∈ 𝐴 ∧ 𝐶 ∈ 𝐴 ∧ 𝐷 ∈ 𝐴)) → ((𝐵𝑅𝐶 ∧ 𝐶𝑅𝐷) → 𝐵𝑅𝐷)) | ||
Theorem | issod 4350* | An irreflexive, transitive, trichotomous relation is a linear ordering (in the sense of df-iso 4328). (Contributed by NM, 21-Jan-1996.) (Revised by Mario Carneiro, 9-Jul-2014.) |
⊢ (𝜑 → 𝑅 Po 𝐴) & ⊢ ((𝜑 ∧ (𝑥 ∈ 𝐴 ∧ 𝑦 ∈ 𝐴)) → (𝑥𝑅𝑦 ∨ 𝑥 = 𝑦 ∨ 𝑦𝑅𝑥)) ⇒ ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝑅 Or 𝐴) | ||
Theorem | sowlin 4351 | A strict order relation satisfies weak linearity. (Contributed by Jim Kingdon, 6-Oct-2018.) |
⊢ ((𝑅 Or 𝐴 ∧ (𝐵 ∈ 𝐴 ∧ 𝐶 ∈ 𝐴 ∧ 𝐷 ∈ 𝐴)) → (𝐵𝑅𝐶 → (𝐵𝑅𝐷 ∨ 𝐷𝑅𝐶))) | ||
Theorem | so2nr 4352 | A strict order relation has no 2-cycle loops. (Contributed by NM, 21-Jan-1996.) |
⊢ ((𝑅 Or 𝐴 ∧ (𝐵 ∈ 𝐴 ∧ 𝐶 ∈ 𝐴)) → ¬ (𝐵𝑅𝐶 ∧ 𝐶𝑅𝐵)) | ||
Theorem | so3nr 4353 | A strict order relation has no 3-cycle loops. (Contributed by NM, 21-Jan-1996.) |
⊢ ((𝑅 Or 𝐴 ∧ (𝐵 ∈ 𝐴 ∧ 𝐶 ∈ 𝐴 ∧ 𝐷 ∈ 𝐴)) → ¬ (𝐵𝑅𝐶 ∧ 𝐶𝑅𝐷 ∧ 𝐷𝑅𝐵)) | ||
Theorem | sotricim 4354 | One direction of sotritric 4355 holds for all weakly linear orders. (Contributed by Jim Kingdon, 28-Sep-2019.) |
⊢ ((𝑅 Or 𝐴 ∧ (𝐵 ∈ 𝐴 ∧ 𝐶 ∈ 𝐴)) → (𝐵𝑅𝐶 → ¬ (𝐵 = 𝐶 ∨ 𝐶𝑅𝐵))) | ||
Theorem | sotritric 4355 | A trichotomy relationship, given a trichotomous order. (Contributed by Jim Kingdon, 28-Sep-2019.) |
⊢ 𝑅 Or 𝐴 & ⊢ ((𝐵 ∈ 𝐴 ∧ 𝐶 ∈ 𝐴) → (𝐵𝑅𝐶 ∨ 𝐵 = 𝐶 ∨ 𝐶𝑅𝐵)) ⇒ ⊢ ((𝐵 ∈ 𝐴 ∧ 𝐶 ∈ 𝐴) → (𝐵𝑅𝐶 ↔ ¬ (𝐵 = 𝐶 ∨ 𝐶𝑅𝐵))) | ||
Theorem | sotritrieq 4356 | A trichotomy relationship, given a trichotomous order. (Contributed by Jim Kingdon, 13-Dec-2019.) |
⊢ 𝑅 Or 𝐴 & ⊢ ((𝐵 ∈ 𝐴 ∧ 𝐶 ∈ 𝐴) → (𝐵𝑅𝐶 ∨ 𝐵 = 𝐶 ∨ 𝐶𝑅𝐵)) ⇒ ⊢ ((𝐵 ∈ 𝐴 ∧ 𝐶 ∈ 𝐴) → (𝐵 = 𝐶 ↔ ¬ (𝐵𝑅𝐶 ∨ 𝐶𝑅𝐵))) | ||
Theorem | so0 4357 | Any relation is a strict ordering of the empty set. (Contributed by NM, 16-Mar-1997.) (Proof shortened by Andrew Salmon, 25-Jul-2011.) |
⊢ 𝑅 Or ∅ | ||
Syntax | wfrfor 4358 | Extend wff notation to include the well-founded predicate. |
wff FrFor 𝑅𝐴𝑆 | ||
Syntax | wfr 4359 | Extend wff notation to include the well-founded predicate. Read: ' 𝑅 is a well-founded relation on 𝐴.' |
wff 𝑅 Fr 𝐴 | ||
Syntax | wse 4360 | Extend wff notation to include the set-like predicate. Read: ' 𝑅 is set-like on 𝐴.' |
wff 𝑅 Se 𝐴 | ||
Syntax | wwe 4361 | Extend wff notation to include the well-ordering predicate. Read: ' 𝑅 well-orders 𝐴.' |
wff 𝑅 We 𝐴 | ||
Definition | df-frfor 4362* | Define the well-founded relation predicate where 𝐴 might be a proper class. By passing in 𝑆 we allow it potentially to be a proper class rather than a set. (Contributed by Jim Kingdon and Mario Carneiro, 22-Sep-2021.) |
⊢ ( FrFor 𝑅𝐴𝑆 ↔ (∀𝑥 ∈ 𝐴 (∀𝑦 ∈ 𝐴 (𝑦𝑅𝑥 → 𝑦 ∈ 𝑆) → 𝑥 ∈ 𝑆) → 𝐴 ⊆ 𝑆)) | ||
Definition | df-frind 4363* | Define the well-founded relation predicate. In the presence of excluded middle, there are a variety of equivalent ways to define this. In our case, this definition, in terms of an inductive principle, works better than one along the lines of "there is an element which is minimal when A is ordered by R". Because 𝑠 is constrained to be a set (not a proper class) here, sometimes it may be necessary to use FrFor directly rather than via Fr. (Contributed by Jim Kingdon and Mario Carneiro, 21-Sep-2021.) |
⊢ (𝑅 Fr 𝐴 ↔ ∀𝑠 FrFor 𝑅𝐴𝑠) | ||
Definition | df-se 4364* | Define the set-like predicate. (Contributed by Mario Carneiro, 19-Nov-2014.) |
⊢ (𝑅 Se 𝐴 ↔ ∀𝑥 ∈ 𝐴 {𝑦 ∈ 𝐴 ∣ 𝑦𝑅𝑥} ∈ V) | ||
Definition | df-wetr 4365* | Define the well-ordering predicate. It is unusual to define "well-ordering" in the absence of excluded middle, but we mean an ordering which is like the ordering which we have for ordinals (for example, it does not entail trichotomy because ordinals do not have that as seen at ordtriexmid 4553). Given excluded middle, well-ordering is usually defined to require trichotomy (and the definition of Fr is typically also different). (Contributed by Mario Carneiro and Jim Kingdon, 23-Sep-2021.) |
⊢ (𝑅 We 𝐴 ↔ (𝑅 Fr 𝐴 ∧ ∀𝑥 ∈ 𝐴 ∀𝑦 ∈ 𝐴 ∀𝑧 ∈ 𝐴 ((𝑥𝑅𝑦 ∧ 𝑦𝑅𝑧) → 𝑥𝑅𝑧))) | ||
Theorem | seex 4366* | The 𝑅-preimage of an element of the base set in a set-like relation is a set. (Contributed by Mario Carneiro, 19-Nov-2014.) |
⊢ ((𝑅 Se 𝐴 ∧ 𝐵 ∈ 𝐴) → {𝑥 ∈ 𝐴 ∣ 𝑥𝑅𝐵} ∈ V) | ||
Theorem | exse 4367 | Any relation on a set is set-like on it. (Contributed by Mario Carneiro, 22-Jun-2015.) |
⊢ (𝐴 ∈ 𝑉 → 𝑅 Se 𝐴) | ||
Theorem | sess1 4368 | Subset theorem for the set-like predicate. (Contributed by Mario Carneiro, 24-Jun-2015.) |
⊢ (𝑅 ⊆ 𝑆 → (𝑆 Se 𝐴 → 𝑅 Se 𝐴)) | ||
Theorem | sess2 4369 | Subset theorem for the set-like predicate. (Contributed by Mario Carneiro, 24-Jun-2015.) |
⊢ (𝐴 ⊆ 𝐵 → (𝑅 Se 𝐵 → 𝑅 Se 𝐴)) | ||
Theorem | seeq1 4370 | Equality theorem for the set-like predicate. (Contributed by Mario Carneiro, 24-Jun-2015.) |
⊢ (𝑅 = 𝑆 → (𝑅 Se 𝐴 ↔ 𝑆 Se 𝐴)) | ||
Theorem | seeq2 4371 | Equality theorem for the set-like predicate. (Contributed by Mario Carneiro, 24-Jun-2015.) |
⊢ (𝐴 = 𝐵 → (𝑅 Se 𝐴 ↔ 𝑅 Se 𝐵)) | ||
Theorem | nfse 4372 | Bound-variable hypothesis builder for set-like relations. (Contributed by Mario Carneiro, 24-Jun-2015.) (Revised by Mario Carneiro, 14-Oct-2016.) |
⊢ Ⅎ𝑥𝑅 & ⊢ Ⅎ𝑥𝐴 ⇒ ⊢ Ⅎ𝑥 𝑅 Se 𝐴 | ||
Theorem | epse 4373 | The epsilon relation is set-like on any class. (This is the origin of the term "set-like": a set-like relation "acts like" the epsilon relation of sets and their elements.) (Contributed by Mario Carneiro, 22-Jun-2015.) |
⊢ E Se 𝐴 | ||
Theorem | frforeq1 4374 | Equality theorem for the well-founded predicate. (Contributed by Jim Kingdon, 22-Sep-2021.) |
⊢ (𝑅 = 𝑆 → ( FrFor 𝑅𝐴𝑇 ↔ FrFor 𝑆𝐴𝑇)) | ||
Theorem | freq1 4375 | Equality theorem for the well-founded predicate. (Contributed by NM, 9-Mar-1997.) |
⊢ (𝑅 = 𝑆 → (𝑅 Fr 𝐴 ↔ 𝑆 Fr 𝐴)) | ||
Theorem | frforeq2 4376 | Equality theorem for the well-founded predicate. (Contributed by Jim Kingdon, 22-Sep-2021.) |
⊢ (𝐴 = 𝐵 → ( FrFor 𝑅𝐴𝑇 ↔ FrFor 𝑅𝐵𝑇)) | ||
Theorem | freq2 4377 | Equality theorem for the well-founded predicate. (Contributed by NM, 3-Apr-1994.) |
⊢ (𝐴 = 𝐵 → (𝑅 Fr 𝐴 ↔ 𝑅 Fr 𝐵)) | ||
Theorem | frforeq3 4378 | Equality theorem for the well-founded predicate. (Contributed by Jim Kingdon, 22-Sep-2021.) |
⊢ (𝑆 = 𝑇 → ( FrFor 𝑅𝐴𝑆 ↔ FrFor 𝑅𝐴𝑇)) | ||
Theorem | nffrfor 4379 | Bound-variable hypothesis builder for well-founded relations. (Contributed by Stefan O'Rear, 20-Jan-2015.) (Revised by Mario Carneiro, 14-Oct-2016.) |
⊢ Ⅎ𝑥𝑅 & ⊢ Ⅎ𝑥𝐴 & ⊢ Ⅎ𝑥𝑆 ⇒ ⊢ Ⅎ𝑥 FrFor 𝑅𝐴𝑆 | ||
Theorem | nffr 4380 | Bound-variable hypothesis builder for well-founded relations. (Contributed by Stefan O'Rear, 20-Jan-2015.) (Revised by Mario Carneiro, 14-Oct-2016.) |
⊢ Ⅎ𝑥𝑅 & ⊢ Ⅎ𝑥𝐴 ⇒ ⊢ Ⅎ𝑥 𝑅 Fr 𝐴 | ||
Theorem | frirrg 4381 | A well-founded relation is irreflexive. This is the case where 𝐴 exists. (Contributed by Jim Kingdon, 21-Sep-2021.) |
⊢ ((𝑅 Fr 𝐴 ∧ 𝐴 ∈ 𝑉 ∧ 𝐵 ∈ 𝐴) → ¬ 𝐵𝑅𝐵) | ||
Theorem | fr0 4382 | Any relation is well-founded on the empty set. (Contributed by NM, 17-Sep-1993.) |
⊢ 𝑅 Fr ∅ | ||
Theorem | frind 4383* | Induction over a well-founded set. (Contributed by Jim Kingdon, 28-Sep-2021.) |
⊢ (𝑥 = 𝑦 → (𝜑 ↔ 𝜓)) & ⊢ ((𝜒 ∧ 𝑥 ∈ 𝐴) → (∀𝑦 ∈ 𝐴 (𝑦𝑅𝑥 → 𝜓) → 𝜑)) & ⊢ (𝜒 → 𝑅 Fr 𝐴) & ⊢ (𝜒 → 𝐴 ∈ 𝑉) ⇒ ⊢ ((𝜒 ∧ 𝑥 ∈ 𝐴) → 𝜑) | ||
Theorem | efrirr 4384 | Irreflexivity of the epsilon relation: a class founded by epsilon is not a member of itself. (Contributed by NM, 18-Apr-1994.) (Revised by Mario Carneiro, 22-Jun-2015.) |
⊢ ( E Fr 𝐴 → ¬ 𝐴 ∈ 𝐴) | ||
Theorem | tz7.2 4385 | Similar to Theorem 7.2 of [TakeutiZaring] p. 35, of except that the Axiom of Regularity is not required due to antecedent E Fr 𝐴. (Contributed by NM, 4-May-1994.) |
⊢ ((Tr 𝐴 ∧ E Fr 𝐴 ∧ 𝐵 ∈ 𝐴) → (𝐵 ⊆ 𝐴 ∧ 𝐵 ≠ 𝐴)) | ||
Theorem | nfwe 4386 | Bound-variable hypothesis builder for well-orderings. (Contributed by Stefan O'Rear, 20-Jan-2015.) (Revised by Mario Carneiro, 14-Oct-2016.) |
⊢ Ⅎ𝑥𝑅 & ⊢ Ⅎ𝑥𝐴 ⇒ ⊢ Ⅎ𝑥 𝑅 We 𝐴 | ||
Theorem | weeq1 4387 | Equality theorem for the well-ordering predicate. (Contributed by NM, 9-Mar-1997.) |
⊢ (𝑅 = 𝑆 → (𝑅 We 𝐴 ↔ 𝑆 We 𝐴)) | ||
Theorem | weeq2 4388 | Equality theorem for the well-ordering predicate. (Contributed by NM, 3-Apr-1994.) |
⊢ (𝐴 = 𝐵 → (𝑅 We 𝐴 ↔ 𝑅 We 𝐵)) | ||
Theorem | wefr 4389 | A well-ordering is well-founded. (Contributed by NM, 22-Apr-1994.) |
⊢ (𝑅 We 𝐴 → 𝑅 Fr 𝐴) | ||
Theorem | wepo 4390 | A well-ordering is a partial ordering. (Contributed by Jim Kingdon, 23-Sep-2021.) |
⊢ ((𝑅 We 𝐴 ∧ 𝐴 ∈ 𝑉) → 𝑅 Po 𝐴) | ||
Theorem | wetrep 4391* | An epsilon well-ordering is a transitive relation. (Contributed by NM, 22-Apr-1994.) |
⊢ (( E We 𝐴 ∧ (𝑥 ∈ 𝐴 ∧ 𝑦 ∈ 𝐴 ∧ 𝑧 ∈ 𝐴)) → ((𝑥 ∈ 𝑦 ∧ 𝑦 ∈ 𝑧) → 𝑥 ∈ 𝑧)) | ||
Theorem | we0 4392 | Any relation is a well-ordering of the empty set. (Contributed by NM, 16-Mar-1997.) |
⊢ 𝑅 We ∅ | ||
Syntax | word 4393 | Extend the definition of a wff to include the ordinal predicate. |
wff Ord 𝐴 | ||
Syntax | con0 4394 | Extend the definition of a class to include the class of all ordinal numbers. (The 0 in the name prevents creating a file called con.html, which causes problems in Windows.) |
class On | ||
Syntax | wlim 4395 | Extend the definition of a wff to include the limit ordinal predicate. |
wff Lim 𝐴 | ||
Syntax | csuc 4396 | Extend class notation to include the successor function. |
class suc 𝐴 | ||
Definition | df-iord 4397* |
Define the ordinal predicate, which is true for a class that is
transitive and whose elements are transitive. Definition of ordinal in
[Crosilla], p. "Set-theoretic
principles incompatible with
intuitionistic logic".
Some sources will define a notation for ordinal order corresponding to < and ≤ but we just use ∈ and ⊆ respectively. (Contributed by Jim Kingdon, 10-Oct-2018.) Use its alias dford3 4398 instead for naming consistency with set.mm. (New usage is discouraged.) |
⊢ (Ord 𝐴 ↔ (Tr 𝐴 ∧ ∀𝑥 ∈ 𝐴 Tr 𝑥)) | ||
Theorem | dford3 4398* | Alias for df-iord 4397. Use it instead of df-iord 4397 for naming consistency with set.mm. (Contributed by Jim Kingdon, 10-Oct-2018.) |
⊢ (Ord 𝐴 ↔ (Tr 𝐴 ∧ ∀𝑥 ∈ 𝐴 Tr 𝑥)) | ||
Definition | df-on 4399 | Define the class of all ordinal numbers. Definition 7.11 of [TakeutiZaring] p. 38. (Contributed by NM, 5-Jun-1994.) |
⊢ On = {𝑥 ∣ Ord 𝑥} | ||
Definition | df-ilim 4400 | Define the limit ordinal predicate, which is true for an ordinal that has the empty set as an element and is not a successor (i.e. that is the union of itself). Our definition combines the definition of Lim of [BellMachover] p. 471 and Exercise 1 of [TakeutiZaring] p. 42, and then changes 𝐴 ≠ ∅ to ∅ ∈ 𝐴 (which would be equivalent given the law of the excluded middle, but which is not for us). (Contributed by Jim Kingdon, 11-Nov-2018.) Use its alias dflim2 4401 instead for naming consistency with set.mm. (New usage is discouraged.) |
⊢ (Lim 𝐴 ↔ (Ord 𝐴 ∧ ∅ ∈ 𝐴 ∧ 𝐴 = ∪ 𝐴)) |
< Previous Next > |
Copyright terms: Public domain | < Previous Next > |