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

Definition df-op 4533
 Description: Definition of an ordered pair, equivalent to Kuratowski's definition {{𝐴}, {𝐴, 𝐵}} when the arguments are sets. Since the behavior of Kuratowski definition is not very useful for proper classes, we define it to be empty in this case (see opprc1 4791, opprc2 4792, and 0nelop 5360). For Kuratowski's actual definition when the arguments are sets, see dfop 4764. For the justifying theorem (for sets) see opth 5341. See dfopif 4761 for an equivalent formulation using the if operation. Definition 9.1 of [Quine] p. 58 defines an ordered pair unconditionally as ⟨𝐴, 𝐵⟩ = {{𝐴}, {𝐴, 𝐵}}, which has different behavior from our df-op 4533 when the arguments are proper classes. Ordinarily this difference is not important, since neither definition is meaningful in that case. Our df-op 4533 was chosen because it often makes proofs shorter by eliminating unnecessary sethood hypotheses. There are other ways to define ordered pairs. The basic requirement is that two ordered pairs are equal iff their respective members are equal. In 1914 Norbert Wiener gave the first successful definition ⟨𝐴, 𝐵⟩2 = {{{𝐴}, ∅}, {{𝐵}}}, justified by opthwiener 5378. This was simplified by Kazimierz Kuratowski in 1921 to our present definition. An even simpler definition ⟨𝐴, 𝐵⟩3 = {𝐴, {𝐴, 𝐵}} is justified by opthreg 9128, but it requires the Axiom of Regularity for its justification and is not commonly used. A definition that also works for proper classes is ⟨𝐴, 𝐵⟩4 = ((𝐴 × {∅}) ∪ (𝐵 × {{∅}})), justified by opthprc 5591. Nearly at the same time as Norbert Wiener, Felix Hausdorff proposed the following definition in "Grundzüge der Mengenlehre" ("Basics of Set Theory"), p. 32, in 1914: ⟨𝐴, 𝐵⟩5 = {{𝐴, 𝑂}, {𝐵, 𝑇}}. Hausdorff used 1 and 2 instead of 𝑂 and 𝑇, but actually any two different fixed sets will do (e.g., 𝑂 = ∅ and 𝑇 = {∅}, see 0nep0 5231). Furthermore, Hausdorff demanded that 𝑂 and 𝑇 are both different from 𝐴 as well as 𝐵, which is actually not necessary (at least not in full extent), see opthhausdorff0 5382 and opthhausdorff 5381. If we restrict our sets to nonnegative integers, an ordered pair definition that involves only elementary arithmetic is provided by nn0opthi 13694. An ordered pair of real numbers can also be represented by a complex number as shown by cru 11680. Kuratowski's ordered pair definition is standard for ZFC set theory, but it is very inconvenient to use in New Foundations theory because it is not type-level; a common alternate definition in New Foundations is the definition from [Rosser] p. 281. Since there are other ways to define ordered pairs, we discourage direct use of this definition so that most theorems won't depend on this particular construction; theorems will instead rely on dfopif 4761. (Contributed by NM, 28-May-1995.) (Revised by Mario Carneiro, 26-Apr-2015.) (Avoid depending on this detail.)
Assertion
Ref Expression
df-op 𝐴, 𝐵⟩ = {𝑥 ∣ (𝐴 ∈ V ∧ 𝐵 ∈ V ∧ 𝑥 ∈ {{𝐴}, {𝐴, 𝐵}})}
Distinct variable groups:   𝑥,𝐴   𝑥,𝐵

Detailed syntax breakdown of Definition df-op
StepHypRef Expression
1 cA . . 3 class 𝐴
2 cB . . 3 class 𝐵
31, 2cop 4532 . 2 class 𝐴, 𝐵
4 cvv 3410 . . . . 5 class V
51, 4wcel 2112 . . . 4 wff 𝐴 ∈ V
62, 4wcel 2112 . . . 4 wff 𝐵 ∈ V
7 vx . . . . . 6 setvar 𝑥
87cv 1538 . . . . 5 class 𝑥
91csn 4526 . . . . . 6 class {𝐴}
101, 2cpr 4528 . . . . . 6 class {𝐴, 𝐵}
119, 10cpr 4528 . . . . 5 class {{𝐴}, {𝐴, 𝐵}}
128, 11wcel 2112 . . . 4 wff 𝑥 ∈ {{𝐴}, {𝐴, 𝐵}}
135, 6, 12w3a 1085 . . 3 wff (𝐴 ∈ V ∧ 𝐵 ∈ V ∧ 𝑥 ∈ {{𝐴}, {𝐴, 𝐵}})
1413, 7cab 2736 . 2 class {𝑥 ∣ (𝐴 ∈ V ∧ 𝐵 ∈ V ∧ 𝑥 ∈ {{𝐴}, {𝐴, 𝐵}})}
153, 14wceq 1539 1 wff 𝐴, 𝐵⟩ = {𝑥 ∣ (𝐴 ∈ V ∧ 𝐵 ∈ V ∧ 𝑥 ∈ {{𝐴}, {𝐴, 𝐵}})}
 Colors of variables: wff setvar class This definition is referenced by:  dfopif  4761  dfopifOLD  4762  opeq1  4765  opeq2  4767
 Copyright terms: Public domain W3C validator