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

Theorem abid1 2864
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 2723. The proof does not rely on cvjust 2723, so cvjust 2723 could be proved as a special instance of it. Note however that abid1 2864 necessarily relies on df-clel 2803, whereas cvjust 2723 does not.

This theorem requires ax-ext 2701, df-clab 2708, df-cleq 2721, df-clel 2803, 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 1539, cab 2707, and statements corresponding to defined class constructors.

Note on the simultaneous presence in set.mm of this abid1 2864 and its commuted form abid2 2865: 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 2752 (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 12249 versus 1p1e2 12306. We do not need 1p1e2 12306, 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 12324, 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 2864 and abid2 2865 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 2863 1 𝐴 = {𝑥𝑥𝐴}
Colors of variables: wff setvar class
Syntax hints:   = wceq 1540  wcel 2109  {cab 2707
This theorem was proved from axioms:  ax-mp 5  ax-1 6  ax-2 7  ax-3 8  ax-gen 1795  ax-4 1809  ax-5 1910  ax-6 1967  ax-7 2008  ax-8 2111  ax-9 2119  ax-ext 2701
This theorem depends on definitions:  df-bi 207  df-an 396  df-tru 1543  df-ex 1780  df-sb 2066  df-clab 2708  df-cleq 2721  df-clel 2803
This theorem is referenced by:  abid2  2865  eqab  2866  eqabb  2867  abssdv  4031  inrab2  4280  nsgqusf1olem2  33385  disjdmqscossss  38795  riotaclbgBAD  38947  ssabdv  42208  aomclem4  43046  limexissupab  43272
  Copyright terms: Public domain W3C validator