| Intuitionistic Logic Explorer Theorem List (p. 45 of 166) | < 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 | po2nr 4401 | 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 4402 | 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 4403 | 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 4404* | 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 4405 | A strict linear order is a strict partial order. (Contributed by NM, 28-Mar-1997.) |
| ⊢ (𝑅 Or 𝐴 → 𝑅 Po 𝐴) | ||
| Theorem | soss 4406 | 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 4407 | Equality theorem for the strict ordering predicate. (Contributed by NM, 16-Mar-1997.) |
| ⊢ (𝑅 = 𝑆 → (𝑅 Or 𝐴 ↔ 𝑆 Or 𝐴)) | ||
| Theorem | soeq2 4408 | Equality theorem for the strict ordering predicate. (Contributed by NM, 16-Mar-1997.) |
| ⊢ (𝐴 = 𝐵 → (𝑅 Or 𝐴 ↔ 𝑅 Or 𝐵)) | ||
| Theorem | sonr 4409 | A strict order relation is irreflexive. (Contributed by NM, 24-Nov-1995.) |
| ⊢ ((𝑅 Or 𝐴 ∧ 𝐵 ∈ 𝐴) → ¬ 𝐵𝑅𝐵) | ||
| Theorem | sotr 4410 | 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 4411* | An irreflexive, transitive, trichotomous relation is a linear ordering (in the sense of df-iso 4389). (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 4412 | 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 4413 | 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 4414 | 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 4415 | One direction of sotritric 4416 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 4416 | 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 4417 | 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 4418 | 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 4419 | Extend wff notation to include the well-founded predicate. |
| wff FrFor 𝑅𝐴𝑆 | ||
| Syntax | wfr 4420 | Extend wff notation to include the well-founded predicate. Read: ' 𝑅 is a well-founded relation on 𝐴.' |
| wff 𝑅 Fr 𝐴 | ||
| Syntax | wse 4421 | Extend wff notation to include the set-like predicate. Read: ' 𝑅 is set-like on 𝐴.' |
| wff 𝑅 Se 𝐴 | ||
| Syntax | wwe 4422 | Extend wff notation to include the well-ordering predicate. Read: ' 𝑅 well-orders 𝐴.' |
| wff 𝑅 We 𝐴 | ||
| Definition | df-frfor 4423* | 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 4424* | 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 4425* | Define the set-like predicate. (Contributed by Mario Carneiro, 19-Nov-2014.) |
| ⊢ (𝑅 Se 𝐴 ↔ ∀𝑥 ∈ 𝐴 {𝑦 ∈ 𝐴 ∣ 𝑦𝑅𝑥} ∈ V) | ||
| Definition | df-wetr 4426* | 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 4614). 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 4427* | 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 4428 | Any relation on a set is set-like on it. (Contributed by Mario Carneiro, 22-Jun-2015.) |
| ⊢ (𝐴 ∈ 𝑉 → 𝑅 Se 𝐴) | ||
| Theorem | sess1 4429 | Subset theorem for the set-like predicate. (Contributed by Mario Carneiro, 24-Jun-2015.) |
| ⊢ (𝑅 ⊆ 𝑆 → (𝑆 Se 𝐴 → 𝑅 Se 𝐴)) | ||
| Theorem | sess2 4430 | Subset theorem for the set-like predicate. (Contributed by Mario Carneiro, 24-Jun-2015.) |
| ⊢ (𝐴 ⊆ 𝐵 → (𝑅 Se 𝐵 → 𝑅 Se 𝐴)) | ||
| Theorem | seeq1 4431 | Equality theorem for the set-like predicate. (Contributed by Mario Carneiro, 24-Jun-2015.) |
| ⊢ (𝑅 = 𝑆 → (𝑅 Se 𝐴 ↔ 𝑆 Se 𝐴)) | ||
| Theorem | seeq2 4432 | Equality theorem for the set-like predicate. (Contributed by Mario Carneiro, 24-Jun-2015.) |
| ⊢ (𝐴 = 𝐵 → (𝑅 Se 𝐴 ↔ 𝑅 Se 𝐵)) | ||
| Theorem | nfse 4433 | 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 4434 | 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 4435 | Equality theorem for the well-founded predicate. (Contributed by Jim Kingdon, 22-Sep-2021.) |
| ⊢ (𝑅 = 𝑆 → ( FrFor 𝑅𝐴𝑇 ↔ FrFor 𝑆𝐴𝑇)) | ||
| Theorem | freq1 4436 | Equality theorem for the well-founded predicate. (Contributed by NM, 9-Mar-1997.) |
| ⊢ (𝑅 = 𝑆 → (𝑅 Fr 𝐴 ↔ 𝑆 Fr 𝐴)) | ||
| Theorem | frforeq2 4437 | Equality theorem for the well-founded predicate. (Contributed by Jim Kingdon, 22-Sep-2021.) |
| ⊢ (𝐴 = 𝐵 → ( FrFor 𝑅𝐴𝑇 ↔ FrFor 𝑅𝐵𝑇)) | ||
| Theorem | freq2 4438 | Equality theorem for the well-founded predicate. (Contributed by NM, 3-Apr-1994.) |
| ⊢ (𝐴 = 𝐵 → (𝑅 Fr 𝐴 ↔ 𝑅 Fr 𝐵)) | ||
| Theorem | frforeq3 4439 | Equality theorem for the well-founded predicate. (Contributed by Jim Kingdon, 22-Sep-2021.) |
| ⊢ (𝑆 = 𝑇 → ( FrFor 𝑅𝐴𝑆 ↔ FrFor 𝑅𝐴𝑇)) | ||
| Theorem | nffrfor 4440 | 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 4441 | 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 4442 | 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 4443 | Any relation is well-founded on the empty set. (Contributed by NM, 17-Sep-1993.) |
| ⊢ 𝑅 Fr ∅ | ||
| Theorem | frind 4444* | 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 4445 | 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 4446 | 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 4447 | 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 4448 | Equality theorem for the well-ordering predicate. (Contributed by NM, 9-Mar-1997.) |
| ⊢ (𝑅 = 𝑆 → (𝑅 We 𝐴 ↔ 𝑆 We 𝐴)) | ||
| Theorem | weeq2 4449 | Equality theorem for the well-ordering predicate. (Contributed by NM, 3-Apr-1994.) |
| ⊢ (𝐴 = 𝐵 → (𝑅 We 𝐴 ↔ 𝑅 We 𝐵)) | ||
| Theorem | wefr 4450 | A well-ordering is well-founded. (Contributed by NM, 22-Apr-1994.) |
| ⊢ (𝑅 We 𝐴 → 𝑅 Fr 𝐴) | ||
| Theorem | wepo 4451 | A well-ordering is a partial ordering. (Contributed by Jim Kingdon, 23-Sep-2021.) |
| ⊢ ((𝑅 We 𝐴 ∧ 𝐴 ∈ 𝑉) → 𝑅 Po 𝐴) | ||
| Theorem | wetrep 4452* | 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 4453 | Any relation is a well-ordering of the empty set. (Contributed by NM, 16-Mar-1997.) |
| ⊢ 𝑅 We ∅ | ||
| Syntax | word 4454 | Extend the definition of a wff to include the ordinal predicate. |
| wff Ord 𝐴 | ||
| Syntax | con0 4455 | 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 4456 | Extend the definition of a wff to include the limit ordinal predicate. |
| wff Lim 𝐴 | ||
| Syntax | csuc 4457 | Extend class notation to include the successor function. |
| class suc 𝐴 | ||
| Definition | df-iord 4458* |
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 4459 instead for naming consistency with set.mm. (New usage is discouraged.) |
| ⊢ (Ord 𝐴 ↔ (Tr 𝐴 ∧ ∀𝑥 ∈ 𝐴 Tr 𝑥)) | ||
| Theorem | dford3 4459* | Alias for df-iord 4458. Use it instead of df-iord 4458 for naming consistency with set.mm. (Contributed by Jim Kingdon, 10-Oct-2018.) |
| ⊢ (Ord 𝐴 ↔ (Tr 𝐴 ∧ ∀𝑥 ∈ 𝐴 Tr 𝑥)) | ||
| Definition | df-on 4460 | 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 4461 | 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 4462 instead for naming consistency with set.mm. (New usage is discouraged.) |
| ⊢ (Lim 𝐴 ↔ (Ord 𝐴 ∧ ∅ ∈ 𝐴 ∧ 𝐴 = ∪ 𝐴)) | ||
| Theorem | dflim2 4462 | Alias for df-ilim 4461. Use it instead of df-ilim 4461 for naming consistency with set.mm. (Contributed by NM, 4-Nov-2004.) |
| ⊢ (Lim 𝐴 ↔ (Ord 𝐴 ∧ ∅ ∈ 𝐴 ∧ 𝐴 = ∪ 𝐴)) | ||
| Definition | df-suc 4463 | Define the successor of a class. When applied to an ordinal number, the successor means the same thing as "plus 1". Definition 7.22 of [TakeutiZaring] p. 41, who use "+ 1" to denote this function. Our definition is a generalization to classes. Although it is not conventional to use it with proper classes, it has no effect on a proper class (sucprc 4504). Some authors denote the successor operation with a prime (apostrophe-like) symbol, such as Definition 6 of [Suppes] p. 134 and the definition of successor in [Mendelson] p. 246 (who uses the symbol "Suc" as a predicate to mean "is a successor ordinal"). The definition of successor of [Enderton] p. 68 denotes the operation with a plus-sign superscript. (Contributed by NM, 30-Aug-1993.) |
| ⊢ suc 𝐴 = (𝐴 ∪ {𝐴}) | ||
| Theorem | ordeq 4464 | Equality theorem for the ordinal predicate. (Contributed by NM, 17-Sep-1993.) |
| ⊢ (𝐴 = 𝐵 → (Ord 𝐴 ↔ Ord 𝐵)) | ||
| Theorem | elong 4465 | An ordinal number is an ordinal set. (Contributed by NM, 5-Jun-1994.) |
| ⊢ (𝐴 ∈ 𝑉 → (𝐴 ∈ On ↔ Ord 𝐴)) | ||
| Theorem | elon 4466 | An ordinal number is an ordinal set. (Contributed by NM, 5-Jun-1994.) |
| ⊢ 𝐴 ∈ V ⇒ ⊢ (𝐴 ∈ On ↔ Ord 𝐴) | ||
| Theorem | eloni 4467 | An ordinal number has the ordinal property. (Contributed by NM, 5-Jun-1994.) |
| ⊢ (𝐴 ∈ On → Ord 𝐴) | ||
| Theorem | elon2 4468 | An ordinal number is an ordinal set. (Contributed by NM, 8-Feb-2004.) |
| ⊢ (𝐴 ∈ On ↔ (Ord 𝐴 ∧ 𝐴 ∈ V)) | ||
| Theorem | limeq 4469 | Equality theorem for the limit predicate. (Contributed by NM, 22-Apr-1994.) (Proof shortened by Andrew Salmon, 25-Jul-2011.) |
| ⊢ (𝐴 = 𝐵 → (Lim 𝐴 ↔ Lim 𝐵)) | ||
| Theorem | ordtr 4470 | An ordinal class is transitive. (Contributed by NM, 3-Apr-1994.) |
| ⊢ (Ord 𝐴 → Tr 𝐴) | ||
| Theorem | ordelss 4471 | An element of an ordinal class is a subset of it. (Contributed by NM, 30-May-1994.) |
| ⊢ ((Ord 𝐴 ∧ 𝐵 ∈ 𝐴) → 𝐵 ⊆ 𝐴) | ||
| Theorem | trssord 4472 | A transitive subclass of an ordinal class is ordinal. (Contributed by NM, 29-May-1994.) |
| ⊢ ((Tr 𝐴 ∧ 𝐴 ⊆ 𝐵 ∧ Ord 𝐵) → Ord 𝐴) | ||
| Theorem | ordelord 4473 | An element of an ordinal class is ordinal. Proposition 7.6 of [TakeutiZaring] p. 36. (Contributed by NM, 23-Apr-1994.) |
| ⊢ ((Ord 𝐴 ∧ 𝐵 ∈ 𝐴) → Ord 𝐵) | ||
| Theorem | tron 4474 | The class of all ordinal numbers is transitive. (Contributed by NM, 4-May-2009.) |
| ⊢ Tr On | ||
| Theorem | ordelon 4475 | An element of an ordinal class is an ordinal number. (Contributed by NM, 26-Oct-2003.) |
| ⊢ ((Ord 𝐴 ∧ 𝐵 ∈ 𝐴) → 𝐵 ∈ On) | ||
| Theorem | onelon 4476 | An element of an ordinal number is an ordinal number. Theorem 2.2(iii) of [BellMachover] p. 469. (Contributed by NM, 26-Oct-2003.) |
| ⊢ ((𝐴 ∈ On ∧ 𝐵 ∈ 𝐴) → 𝐵 ∈ On) | ||
| Theorem | ordin 4477 | The intersection of two ordinal classes is ordinal. Proposition 7.9 of [TakeutiZaring] p. 37. (Contributed by NM, 9-May-1994.) |
| ⊢ ((Ord 𝐴 ∧ Ord 𝐵) → Ord (𝐴 ∩ 𝐵)) | ||
| Theorem | onin 4478 | The intersection of two ordinal numbers is an ordinal number. (Contributed by NM, 7-Apr-1995.) |
| ⊢ ((𝐴 ∈ On ∧ 𝐵 ∈ On) → (𝐴 ∩ 𝐵) ∈ On) | ||
| Theorem | onelss 4479 | An element of an ordinal number is a subset of the number. (Contributed by NM, 5-Jun-1994.) (Proof shortened by Andrew Salmon, 25-Jul-2011.) |
| ⊢ (𝐴 ∈ On → (𝐵 ∈ 𝐴 → 𝐵 ⊆ 𝐴)) | ||
| Theorem | ordtr1 4480 | Transitive law for ordinal classes. (Contributed by NM, 12-Dec-2004.) |
| ⊢ (Ord 𝐶 → ((𝐴 ∈ 𝐵 ∧ 𝐵 ∈ 𝐶) → 𝐴 ∈ 𝐶)) | ||
| Theorem | ontr1 4481 | Transitive law for ordinal numbers. Theorem 7M(b) of [Enderton] p. 192. (Contributed by NM, 11-Aug-1994.) |
| ⊢ (𝐶 ∈ On → ((𝐴 ∈ 𝐵 ∧ 𝐵 ∈ 𝐶) → 𝐴 ∈ 𝐶)) | ||
| Theorem | onintss 4482* | If a property is true for an ordinal number, then the minimum ordinal number for which it is true is smaller or equal. Theorem Schema 61 of [Suppes] p. 228. (Contributed by NM, 3-Oct-2003.) |
| ⊢ (𝑥 = 𝐴 → (𝜑 ↔ 𝜓)) ⇒ ⊢ (𝐴 ∈ On → (𝜓 → ∩ {𝑥 ∈ On ∣ 𝜑} ⊆ 𝐴)) | ||
| Theorem | ord0 4483 | The empty set is an ordinal class. (Contributed by NM, 11-May-1994.) |
| ⊢ Ord ∅ | ||
| Theorem | 0elon 4484 | The empty set is an ordinal number. Corollary 7N(b) of [Enderton] p. 193. (Contributed by NM, 17-Sep-1993.) |
| ⊢ ∅ ∈ On | ||
| Theorem | inton 4485 | The intersection of the class of ordinal numbers is the empty set. (Contributed by NM, 20-Oct-2003.) |
| ⊢ ∩ On = ∅ | ||
| Theorem | nlim0 4486 | The empty set is not a limit ordinal. (Contributed by NM, 24-Mar-1995.) (Proof shortened by Andrew Salmon, 25-Jul-2011.) |
| ⊢ ¬ Lim ∅ | ||
| Theorem | limord 4487 | A limit ordinal is ordinal. (Contributed by NM, 4-May-1995.) |
| ⊢ (Lim 𝐴 → Ord 𝐴) | ||
| Theorem | limuni 4488 | A limit ordinal is its own supremum (union). (Contributed by NM, 4-May-1995.) |
| ⊢ (Lim 𝐴 → 𝐴 = ∪ 𝐴) | ||
| Theorem | limuni2 4489 | The union of a limit ordinal is a limit ordinal. (Contributed by NM, 19-Sep-2006.) |
| ⊢ (Lim 𝐴 → Lim ∪ 𝐴) | ||
| Theorem | 0ellim 4490 | A limit ordinal contains the empty set. (Contributed by NM, 15-May-1994.) |
| ⊢ (Lim 𝐴 → ∅ ∈ 𝐴) | ||
| Theorem | limelon 4491 | A limit ordinal class that is also a set is an ordinal number. (Contributed by NM, 26-Apr-2004.) |
| ⊢ ((𝐴 ∈ 𝐵 ∧ Lim 𝐴) → 𝐴 ∈ On) | ||
| Theorem | onn0 4492 | The class of all ordinal numbers is not empty. (Contributed by NM, 17-Sep-1995.) |
| ⊢ On ≠ ∅ | ||
| Theorem | onm 4493 | The class of all ordinal numbers is inhabited. (Contributed by Jim Kingdon, 6-Mar-2019.) |
| ⊢ ∃𝑥 𝑥 ∈ On | ||
| Theorem | suceq 4494 | Equality of successors. (Contributed by NM, 30-Aug-1993.) (Proof shortened by Andrew Salmon, 25-Jul-2011.) |
| ⊢ (𝐴 = 𝐵 → suc 𝐴 = suc 𝐵) | ||
| Theorem | elsuci 4495 | Membership in a successor. This one-way implication does not require that either 𝐴 or 𝐵 be sets. (Contributed by NM, 6-Jun-1994.) |
| ⊢ (𝐴 ∈ suc 𝐵 → (𝐴 ∈ 𝐵 ∨ 𝐴 = 𝐵)) | ||
| Theorem | elsucg 4496 | Membership in a successor. Exercise 5 of [TakeutiZaring] p. 17. (Contributed by NM, 15-Sep-1995.) |
| ⊢ (𝐴 ∈ 𝑉 → (𝐴 ∈ suc 𝐵 ↔ (𝐴 ∈ 𝐵 ∨ 𝐴 = 𝐵))) | ||
| Theorem | elsuc2g 4497 | Variant of membership in a successor, requiring that 𝐵 rather than 𝐴 be a set. (Contributed by NM, 28-Oct-2003.) |
| ⊢ (𝐵 ∈ 𝑉 → (𝐴 ∈ suc 𝐵 ↔ (𝐴 ∈ 𝐵 ∨ 𝐴 = 𝐵))) | ||
| Theorem | elsuc 4498 | Membership in a successor. Exercise 5 of [TakeutiZaring] p. 17. (Contributed by NM, 15-Sep-2003.) |
| ⊢ 𝐴 ∈ V ⇒ ⊢ (𝐴 ∈ suc 𝐵 ↔ (𝐴 ∈ 𝐵 ∨ 𝐴 = 𝐵)) | ||
| Theorem | elsuc2 4499 | Membership in a successor. (Contributed by NM, 15-Sep-2003.) |
| ⊢ 𝐴 ∈ V ⇒ ⊢ (𝐵 ∈ suc 𝐴 ↔ (𝐵 ∈ 𝐴 ∨ 𝐵 = 𝐴)) | ||
| Theorem | nfsuc 4500 | Bound-variable hypothesis builder for successor. (Contributed by NM, 15-Sep-2003.) |
| ⊢ Ⅎ𝑥𝐴 ⇒ ⊢ Ⅎ𝑥 suc 𝐴 | ||
| < Previous Next > |
| Copyright terms: Public domain | < Previous Next > |