MPE Home Metamath Proof Explorer < Previous   Next >
Nearby theorems
Mirrors  >  Home  >  MPE Home  >  Th. List  >  abid1 Structured version   Visualization version   GIF version

Theorem abid1 2900
Description: Every class is equal to a class abstraction (the class of sets belonging to it). Theorem 5.2 of [Quine] p. 35. This is a generalization to classes of cvjust 2757. The proof does not rely on cvjust 2757, so cvjust 2757 could be proved as a special instance of it. Note however that abid1 2900 necessarily relies on df-clel 2839, whereas cvjust 2757 does not.

This theorem requires ax-ext 2735, df-clab 2742, df-cleq 2755, df-clel 2839, but to prove that any specific class term not containing class variables is a setvar or is equal to a class abstraction does not require these $a-statements. This last fact is a metatheorem, consequence of the fact that the only $a-statements with typecode class are cv 1569, cab 2741, and statements corresponding to defined class constructors.

Note on the simultaneous presence in set.mm of this abid1 2900 and its commuted form abid2 2901: It is rare that two forms so closely related both appear in set.mm. Indeed, such equalities are generally used in later proofs as parts of transitive inferences, and with the many variants of eqtri 2786 (search for *eqtr*), it would be rare that either one would shorten a proof compared to the other. There is typically a choice between what we call a "definitional form", where the shorter expression is on the LHS (left-hand side), and a "computational form", where the shorter expression is on the RHS (right-hand side). An example is df-2 12435 versus 1p1e2 12496. We do not need 1p1e2 12496, but because it occurs "naturally" in computations, it can be useful to have it directly, together with a uniform set of 1-digit operations like 1p2e3 12515, etc. In most cases, we do not need both a definitional and a computational forms. A definitional form would favor consistency with genuine definitions, while a computational form is often more natural. The situation is similar with biconditionals in propositional calculus: see for instance pm4.24 574 and anidm 575, while other biconditionals generally appear in a single form (either definitional, but more often computational). In the present case, the equality is important enough that both abid1 2900 and abid2 2901 are in set.mm.

(Contributed by NM, 26-Dec-1993.) (Revised by BJ, 10-Nov-2020.)

Assertion
Ref Expression
abid1 𝐴 = {𝑥 ∣ 𝑥 ∈ 𝐴}
Distinct variable group:   𝑥,𝐴

Proof of Theorem abid1
StepHypRef Expression
1 biid 264 . 2 (𝑥 ∈ 𝐴 ↔ 𝑥 ∈ 𝐴)
21eqabi 2899 1 𝐴 = {𝑥 ∣ 𝑥 ∈ 𝐴}
Colors of variables:    wff setvar class
This proof depends on syntax axioms:   = wceq 1570   ∈ wcel 2147  {cab 2741
This proof depends on axioms:  ax-mp 5  ax-1 6  ax-2 7  ax-3 8  ax-gen 1828  ax-4 1842  ax-5 1945  ax-6 2002  ax-7 2043  ax-8 2149  ax-9 2157  ax-ext 2735
This proof depends on definitions:  df-bi 210  df-an 402  df-tru 1573  df-ex 1813  df-sb 2102  df-clab 2742  df-cleq 2755  df-clel 2839
This theorem is used by:  abid2  2901  eqab  2902  eqabb  2903  abssdv  3995  inrab2  4265  nsgqusf1olem2  34049  disjdmqscossss  40041  riotaclbgBAD  40214  ssabdv  43478  aomclem4  44263  limexissupab  44488
  Copyright terms: Public domain W3C validator