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

Theorem abid1 2872
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 2730. The proof does not rely on cvjust 2730, so cvjust 2730 could be proved as a special instance of it. Note however that abid1 2872 necessarily relies on df-clel 2811, whereas cvjust 2730 does not.

This theorem requires ax-ext 2708, df-clab 2715, df-cleq 2728, df-clel 2811, 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 1540, cab 2714, and statements corresponding to defined class constructors.

Note on the simultaneous presence in set.mm of this abid1 2872 and its commuted form abid2 2873: 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 2759 (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 12208 versus 1p1e2 12265. We do not need 1p1e2 12265, 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 12283, 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 pm4.24 563 and anidm 564, 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 2872 and abid2 2873 are in set.mm.

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

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

Proof of Theorem abid1
StepHypRef Expression
1 biid 261 . 2 (𝑥𝐴𝑥𝐴)
21eqabi 2871 1 𝐴 = {𝑥𝑥𝐴}
Colors of variables: wff setvar class
Syntax hints:   = wceq 1541  wcel 2113  {cab 2714
This theorem was proved from axioms:  ax-mp 5  ax-1 6  ax-2 7  ax-3 8  ax-gen 1796  ax-4 1810  ax-5 1911  ax-6 1968  ax-7 2009  ax-8 2115  ax-9 2123  ax-ext 2708
This theorem depends on definitions:  df-bi 207  df-an 396  df-tru 1544  df-ex 1781  df-sb 2068  df-clab 2715  df-cleq 2728  df-clel 2811
This theorem is referenced by:  abid2  2873  eqab  2874  eqabb  2875  abssdv  4019  inrab2  4269  nsgqusf1olem2  33495  disjdmqscossss  39058  riotaclbgBAD  39210  ssabdv  42472  aomclem4  43295  limexissupab  43521
  Copyright terms: Public domain W3C validator