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

Theorem abid1 2873
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 2731. The proof does not rely on cvjust 2731, so cvjust 2731 could be proved as a special instance of it. Note however that abid1 2873 necessarily relies on df-clel 2812, whereas cvjust 2731 does not.

This theorem requires ax-ext 2709, df-clab 2716, df-cleq 2729, df-clel 2812, 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 1541, cab 2715, and statements corresponding to defined class constructors.

Note on the simultaneous presence in set.mm of this abid1 2873 and its commuted form abid2 2874: 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 2760 (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 12220 versus 1p1e2 12277. We do not need 1p1e2 12277, 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 12295, 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 2873 and abid2 2874 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 2872 1 𝐴 = {𝑥𝑥𝐴}
Colors of variables: wff setvar class
Syntax hints:   = wceq 1542  wcel 2114  {cab 2715
This theorem was proved from axioms:  ax-mp 5  ax-1 6  ax-2 7  ax-3 8  ax-gen 1797  ax-4 1811  ax-5 1912  ax-6 1969  ax-7 2010  ax-8 2116  ax-9 2124  ax-ext 2709
This theorem depends on definitions:  df-bi 207  df-an 396  df-tru 1545  df-ex 1782  df-sb 2069  df-clab 2716  df-cleq 2729  df-clel 2812
This theorem is referenced by:  abid2  2874  eqab  2875  eqabb  2876  abssdv  4021  inrab2  4271  nsgqusf1olem2  33506  disjdmqscossss  39151  riotaclbgBAD  39324  ssabdv  42586  aomclem4  43408  limexissupab  43634
  Copyright terms: Public domain W3C validator