P. 101 of Theorem List - Metamath Proof Explorer

Theorem List for Metamath Proof Explorer - 10001-10100   *Has distinct variable group(s)

Type	Label	Description
Statement
Theorem	infmap 10001*	An exponentiation law for infinite cardinals. Similar to Lemma 6.2 of [Jech] p. 43. (Contributed by NM, 1-Oct-2004.) (Proof shortened by Mario Carneiro, 30-Apr-2015.)
⊢ ((ω ≼ 𝐴 ∧ 𝐵 ≼ 𝐴) → (𝐴 ↑m 𝐵) ≈ {𝑥 ∣ (𝑥 ⊆ 𝐴 ∧ 𝑥 ≈ 𝐵)})
Theorem	alephadd 10002	The sum of two alephs is their maximum. Equation 6.1 of [Jech] p. 42. (Contributed by NM, 29-Sep-2004.) (Revised by Mario Carneiro, 30-Apr-2015.)
⊢ ((ℵ‘𝐴) ⊔ (ℵ‘𝐵)) ≈ ((ℵ‘𝐴) ∪ (ℵ‘𝐵))
Theorem	alephmul 10003	The product of two alephs is their maximum. Equation 6.1 of [Jech] p. 42. (Contributed by NM, 29-Sep-2004.) (Revised by Mario Carneiro, 30-Apr-2015.)
⊢ ((𝐴 ∈ On ∧ 𝐵 ∈ On) → ((ℵ‘𝐴) × (ℵ‘𝐵)) ≈ ((ℵ‘𝐴) ∪ (ℵ‘𝐵)))
Theorem	alephexp1 10004	An exponentiation law for alephs. Lemma 6.1 of [Jech] p. 42. (Contributed by NM, 29-Sep-2004.) (Revised by Mario Carneiro, 30-Apr-2015.)
⊢ (((𝐴 ∈ On ∧ 𝐵 ∈ On) ∧ 𝐴 ⊆ 𝐵) → ((ℵ‘𝐴) ↑m (ℵ‘𝐵)) ≈ (2o ↑m (ℵ‘𝐵)))
Theorem	alephsuc3 10005*	An alternate representation of a successor aleph. Compare alephsuc 9497 and alephsuc2 9509. Equality can be obtained by taking the card of the right-hand side then using alephcard 9499 and carden 9976. (Contributed by NM, 23-Oct-2004.)
⊢ (𝐴 ∈ On → (ℵ‘suc 𝐴) ≈ {𝑥 ∈ On ∣ 𝑥 ≈ (ℵ‘𝐴)})
Theorem	alephexp2 10006*	An expression equinumerous to 2 to an aleph power. The proof equates the two laws for cardinal exponentiation alephexp1 10004 (which works if the base is less than or equal to the exponent) and infmap 10001 (which works if the exponent is less than or equal to the base). They can be equated only when the base is equal to the exponent, and this is the result. (Contributed by NM, 23-Oct-2004.)
⊢ (𝐴 ∈ On → (2o ↑m (ℵ‘𝐴)) ≈ {𝑥 ∣ (𝑥 ⊆ (ℵ‘𝐴) ∧ 𝑥 ≈ (ℵ‘𝐴))})
3.2.5  Cofinality using the Axiom of Choice
Theorem	alephreg 10007	A successor aleph is regular. Theorem 11.15 of [TakeutiZaring] p. 103. (Contributed by Mario Carneiro, 9-Mar-2013.)
⊢ (cf‘(ℵ‘suc 𝐴)) = (ℵ‘suc 𝐴)
Theorem	pwcfsdom 10008*	A corollary of Konig's Theorem konigth 9994. Theorem 11.28 of [TakeutiZaring] p. 108. (Contributed by Mario Carneiro, 20-Mar-2013.)
⊢ 𝐻 = (𝑦 ∈ (cf‘(ℵ‘𝐴)) ↦ (har‘(𝑓‘𝑦)))    ⇒   ⊢ (ℵ‘𝐴) ≺ ((ℵ‘𝐴) ↑m (cf‘(ℵ‘𝐴)))
Theorem	cfpwsdom 10009	A corollary of Konig's Theorem konigth 9994. Theorem 11.29 of [TakeutiZaring] p. 108. (Contributed by Mario Carneiro, 20-Mar-2013.)
⊢ 𝐵 ∈ V    ⇒   ⊢ (2o ≼ 𝐵 → (ℵ‘𝐴) ≺ (cf‘(card‘(𝐵 ↑m (ℵ‘𝐴)))))
Theorem	alephom 10010	From canth2 8673, we know that (ℵ‘0) < (2↑ω), but we cannot prove that (2↑ω) = (ℵ‘1) (this is the Continuum Hypothesis), nor can we prove that it is less than any bound whatsoever (i.e. the statement (ℵ‘𝐴) < (2↑ω) is consistent for any ordinal 𝐴). However, we can prove that (2↑ω) is not equal to (ℵ‘ω), nor (ℵ‘(ℵ‘ω)), on cofinality grounds, because by Konig's Theorem konigth 9994 (in the form of cfpwsdom 10009), (2↑ω) has uncountable cofinality, which eliminates limit alephs like (ℵ‘ω). (The first limit aleph that is not eliminated is (ℵ‘(ℵ‘1)), which has cofinality (ℵ‘1).) (Contributed by Mario Carneiro, 21-Mar-2013.)
⊢ (card‘(2o ↑m ω)) ≠ (ℵ‘ω)
Theorem	smobeth 10011	The beth function is strictly monotone. This function is not strictly the beth function, but rather bethA is the same as (card‘(𝑅1‘(ω +o 𝐴))), since conventionally we start counting at the first infinite level, and ignore the finite levels. (Contributed by Mario Carneiro, 6-Jun-2013.) (Revised by Mario Carneiro, 2-Jun-2015.)
⊢ Smo (card ∘ 𝑅1)
3.3  ZFC Axioms with no distinct variable requirements
Theorem	nd1 10012	A lemma for proving conditionless ZFC axioms. Usage of this theorem is discouraged because it depends on ax-13 2389. (Contributed by NM, 1-Jan-2002.) (New usage is discouraged.)
⊢ (∀𝑥 𝑥 = 𝑦 → ¬ ∀𝑥 𝑦 ∈ 𝑧)
Theorem	nd2 10013	A lemma for proving conditionless ZFC axioms. Usage of this theorem is discouraged because it depends on ax-13 2389. (Contributed by NM, 1-Jan-2002.) (New usage is discouraged.)
⊢ (∀𝑥 𝑥 = 𝑦 → ¬ ∀𝑥 𝑧 ∈ 𝑦)
Theorem	nd3 10014	A lemma for proving conditionless ZFC axioms. (Contributed by NM, 2-Jan-2002.)
⊢ (∀𝑥 𝑥 = 𝑦 → ¬ ∀𝑧 𝑥 ∈ 𝑦)
Theorem	nd4 10015	A lemma for proving conditionless ZFC axioms. Usage of this theorem is discouraged because it depends on ax-13 2389. (Contributed by NM, 2-Jan-2002.) (New usage is discouraged.)
⊢ (∀𝑥 𝑥 = 𝑦 → ¬ ∀𝑧 𝑦 ∈ 𝑥)
Theorem	axextnd 10016	A version of the Axiom of Extensionality with no distinct variable conditions. Usage of this theorem is discouraged because it depends on ax-13 2389. (Contributed by NM, 14-Aug-2003.) (New usage is discouraged.)
⊢ ∃𝑥((𝑥 ∈ 𝑦 ↔ 𝑥 ∈ 𝑧) → 𝑦 = 𝑧)
Theorem	axrepndlem1 10017*	Lemma for the Axiom of Replacement with no distinct variable conditions. Usage of this theorem is discouraged because it depends on ax-13 2389. (Contributed by NM, 2-Jan-2002.) (New usage is discouraged.)
⊢ (¬ ∀𝑦 𝑦 = 𝑧 → ∃𝑥(∃𝑦∀𝑧(𝜑 → 𝑧 = 𝑦) → ∀𝑧(𝑧 ∈ 𝑥 ↔ ∃𝑥(𝑥 ∈ 𝑦 ∧ ∀𝑦𝜑))))
Theorem	axrepndlem2 10018	Lemma for the Axiom of Replacement with no distinct variable conditions. Usage of this theorem is discouraged because it depends on ax-13 2389. (Contributed by NM, 2-Jan-2002.) (Proof shortened by Mario Carneiro, 6-Dec-2016.) (New usage is discouraged.)
⊢ (((¬ ∀𝑥 𝑥 = 𝑦 ∧ ¬ ∀𝑥 𝑥 = 𝑧) ∧ ¬ ∀𝑦 𝑦 = 𝑧) → ∃𝑥(∃𝑦∀𝑧(𝜑 → 𝑧 = 𝑦) → ∀𝑧(𝑧 ∈ 𝑥 ↔ ∃𝑥(𝑥 ∈ 𝑦 ∧ ∀𝑦𝜑))))
Theorem	axrepnd 10019	A version of the Axiom of Replacement with no distinct variable conditions. Usage of this theorem is discouraged because it depends on ax-13 2389. (Contributed by NM, 2-Jan-2002.) (New usage is discouraged.)
⊢ ∃𝑥(∃𝑦∀𝑧(𝜑 → 𝑧 = 𝑦) → ∀𝑧(∀𝑦 𝑧 ∈ 𝑥 ↔ ∃𝑥(∀𝑧 𝑥 ∈ 𝑦 ∧ ∀𝑦𝜑)))
Theorem	axunndlem1 10020*	Lemma for the Axiom of Union with no distinct variable conditions. Usage of this theorem is discouraged because it depends on ax-13 2389. (Contributed by NM, 2-Jan-2002.) (New usage is discouraged.)
⊢ ∃𝑥∀𝑦(∃𝑥(𝑦 ∈ 𝑥 ∧ 𝑥 ∈ 𝑧) → 𝑦 ∈ 𝑥)
Theorem	axunnd 10021	A version of the Axiom of Union with no distinct variable conditions. Usage of this theorem is discouraged because it depends on ax-13 2389. (Contributed by NM, 2-Jan-2002.) (New usage is discouraged.)
⊢ ∃𝑥∀𝑦(∃𝑥(𝑦 ∈ 𝑥 ∧ 𝑥 ∈ 𝑧) → 𝑦 ∈ 𝑥)
Theorem	axpowndlem1 10022	Lemma for the Axiom of Power Sets with no distinct variable conditions. (Contributed by NM, 4-Jan-2002.)
⊢ (∀𝑥 𝑥 = 𝑦 → (¬ 𝑥 = 𝑦 → ∃𝑥∀𝑦(∀𝑥(∃𝑧 𝑥 ∈ 𝑦 → ∀𝑦 𝑥 ∈ 𝑧) → 𝑦 ∈ 𝑥)))
Theorem	axpowndlem2 10023*	Lemma for the Axiom of Power Sets with no distinct variable conditions. Revised to remove a redundant antecedent from the consequence. Usage of this theorem is discouraged because it depends on ax-13 2389. (Contributed by NM, 4-Jan-2002.) (Proof shortened by Mario Carneiro, 6-Dec-2016.) (Revised and shortened by Wolf Lammen, 9-Jun-2019.) (New usage is discouraged.)
⊢ (¬ ∀𝑥 𝑥 = 𝑦 → (¬ ∀𝑥 𝑥 = 𝑧 → ∃𝑥∀𝑦(∀𝑥(∃𝑧 𝑥 ∈ 𝑦 → ∀𝑦 𝑥 ∈ 𝑧) → 𝑦 ∈ 𝑥)))
Theorem	axpowndlem3 10024*	Lemma for the Axiom of Power Sets with no distinct variable conditions. Usage of this theorem is discouraged because it depends on ax-13 2389. (Contributed by NM, 4-Jan-2002.) (Revised by Mario Carneiro, 10-Dec-2016.) (Proof shortened by Wolf Lammen, 10-Jun-2019.) (New usage is discouraged.)
⊢ (¬ 𝑥 = 𝑦 → ∃𝑥∀𝑦(∀𝑥(∃𝑧 𝑥 ∈ 𝑦 → ∀𝑦 𝑥 ∈ 𝑧) → 𝑦 ∈ 𝑥))
Theorem	axpowndlem4 10025	Lemma for the Axiom of Power Sets with no distinct variable conditions. Usage of this theorem is discouraged because it depends on ax-13 2389. (Contributed by NM, 4-Jan-2002.) (Proof shortened by Mario Carneiro, 10-Dec-2016.) (New usage is discouraged.)
⊢ (¬ ∀𝑦 𝑦 = 𝑥 → (¬ ∀𝑦 𝑦 = 𝑧 → (¬ 𝑥 = 𝑦 → ∃𝑥∀𝑦(∀𝑥(∃𝑧 𝑥 ∈ 𝑦 → ∀𝑦 𝑥 ∈ 𝑧) → 𝑦 ∈ 𝑥))))
Theorem	axpownd 10026	A version of the Axiom of Power Sets with no distinct variable conditions. Usage of this theorem is discouraged because it depends on ax-13 2389. (Contributed by NM, 4-Jan-2002.) (New usage is discouraged.)
⊢ (¬ 𝑥 = 𝑦 → ∃𝑥∀𝑦(∀𝑥(∃𝑧 𝑥 ∈ 𝑦 → ∀𝑦 𝑥 ∈ 𝑧) → 𝑦 ∈ 𝑥))
Theorem	axregndlem1 10027	Lemma for the Axiom of Regularity with no distinct variable conditions. Usage of this theorem is discouraged because it depends on ax-13 2389. (Contributed by NM, 3-Jan-2002.) (New usage is discouraged.)
⊢ (∀𝑥 𝑥 = 𝑧 → (𝑥 ∈ 𝑦 → ∃𝑥(𝑥 ∈ 𝑦 ∧ ∀𝑧(𝑧 ∈ 𝑥 → ¬ 𝑧 ∈ 𝑦))))
Theorem	axregndlem2 10028*	Lemma for the Axiom of Regularity with no distinct variable conditions. Usage of this theorem is discouraged because it depends on ax-13 2389. (Contributed by NM, 3-Jan-2002.) (Proof shortened by Mario Carneiro, 10-Dec-2016.) (New usage is discouraged.)
⊢ (𝑥 ∈ 𝑦 → ∃𝑥(𝑥 ∈ 𝑦 ∧ ∀𝑧(𝑧 ∈ 𝑥 → ¬ 𝑧 ∈ 𝑦)))
Theorem	axregnd 10029	A version of the Axiom of Regularity with no distinct variable conditions. Usage of this theorem is discouraged because it depends on ax-13 2389. (Contributed by NM, 3-Jan-2002.) (Proof shortened by Wolf Lammen, 18-Aug-2019.) (New usage is discouraged.)
⊢ (𝑥 ∈ 𝑦 → ∃𝑥(𝑥 ∈ 𝑦 ∧ ∀𝑧(𝑧 ∈ 𝑥 → ¬ 𝑧 ∈ 𝑦)))
Theorem	axinfndlem1 10030*	Lemma for the Axiom of Infinity with no distinct variable conditions. (New usage is discouraged.) (Contributed by NM, 5-Jan-2002.)
⊢ (∀𝑥 𝑦 ∈ 𝑧 → ∃𝑥(𝑦 ∈ 𝑥 ∧ ∀𝑦(𝑦 ∈ 𝑥 → ∃𝑧(𝑦 ∈ 𝑧 ∧ 𝑧 ∈ 𝑥))))
Theorem	axinfnd 10031	A version of the Axiom of Infinity with no distinct variable conditions. (New usage is discouraged.) (Contributed by NM, 5-Jan-2002.)
⊢ ∃𝑥(𝑦 ∈ 𝑧 → (𝑦 ∈ 𝑥 ∧ ∀𝑦(𝑦 ∈ 𝑥 → ∃𝑧(𝑦 ∈ 𝑧 ∧ 𝑧 ∈ 𝑥))))
Theorem	axacndlem1 10032	Lemma for the Axiom of Choice with no distinct variable conditions. Usage of this theorem is discouraged because it depends on ax-13 2389. (Contributed by NM, 3-Jan-2002.) (New usage is discouraged.)
⊢ (∀𝑥 𝑥 = 𝑦 → ∃𝑥∀𝑦∀𝑧(∀𝑥(𝑦 ∈ 𝑧 ∧ 𝑧 ∈ 𝑤) → ∃𝑤∀𝑦(∃𝑤((𝑦 ∈ 𝑧 ∧ 𝑧 ∈ 𝑤) ∧ (𝑦 ∈ 𝑤 ∧ 𝑤 ∈ 𝑥)) ↔ 𝑦 = 𝑤)))
Theorem	axacndlem2 10033	Lemma for the Axiom of Choice with no distinct variable conditions. Usage of this theorem is discouraged because it depends on ax-13 2389. (Contributed by NM, 3-Jan-2002.) (New usage is discouraged.)
⊢ (∀𝑥 𝑥 = 𝑧 → ∃𝑥∀𝑦∀𝑧(∀𝑥(𝑦 ∈ 𝑧 ∧ 𝑧 ∈ 𝑤) → ∃𝑤∀𝑦(∃𝑤((𝑦 ∈ 𝑧 ∧ 𝑧 ∈ 𝑤) ∧ (𝑦 ∈ 𝑤 ∧ 𝑤 ∈ 𝑥)) ↔ 𝑦 = 𝑤)))
Theorem	axacndlem3 10034	Lemma for the Axiom of Choice with no distinct variable conditions. Usage of this theorem is discouraged because it depends on ax-13 2389. (Contributed by NM, 3-Jan-2002.) (New usage is discouraged.)
⊢ (∀𝑦 𝑦 = 𝑧 → ∃𝑥∀𝑦∀𝑧(∀𝑥(𝑦 ∈ 𝑧 ∧ 𝑧 ∈ 𝑤) → ∃𝑤∀𝑦(∃𝑤((𝑦 ∈ 𝑧 ∧ 𝑧 ∈ 𝑤) ∧ (𝑦 ∈ 𝑤 ∧ 𝑤 ∈ 𝑥)) ↔ 𝑦 = 𝑤)))
Theorem	axacndlem4 10035*	Lemma for the Axiom of Choice with no distinct variable conditions. (New usage is discouraged.) (Contributed by NM, 8-Jan-2002.) (Proof shortened by Mario Carneiro, 10-Dec-2016.)
⊢ ∃𝑥∀𝑦∀𝑧(∀𝑥(𝑦 ∈ 𝑧 ∧ 𝑧 ∈ 𝑤) → ∃𝑤∀𝑦(∃𝑤((𝑦 ∈ 𝑧 ∧ 𝑧 ∈ 𝑤) ∧ (𝑦 ∈ 𝑤 ∧ 𝑤 ∈ 𝑥)) ↔ 𝑦 = 𝑤))
Theorem	axacndlem5 10036*	Lemma for the Axiom of Choice with no distinct variable conditions. (New usage is discouraged.) (Contributed by NM, 3-Jan-2002.) (Proof shortened by Mario Carneiro, 10-Dec-2016.)
⊢ ∃𝑥∀𝑦∀𝑧(∀𝑥(𝑦 ∈ 𝑧 ∧ 𝑧 ∈ 𝑤) → ∃𝑤∀𝑦(∃𝑤((𝑦 ∈ 𝑧 ∧ 𝑧 ∈ 𝑤) ∧ (𝑦 ∈ 𝑤 ∧ 𝑤 ∈ 𝑥)) ↔ 𝑦 = 𝑤))
Theorem	axacnd 10037	A version of the Axiom of Choice with no distinct variable conditions. (New usage is discouraged.) (Contributed by NM, 3-Jan-2002.) (Proof shortened by Mario Carneiro, 10-Dec-2016.)
⊢ ∃𝑥∀𝑦∀𝑧(∀𝑥(𝑦 ∈ 𝑧 ∧ 𝑧 ∈ 𝑤) → ∃𝑤∀𝑦(∃𝑤((𝑦 ∈ 𝑧 ∧ 𝑧 ∈ 𝑤) ∧ (𝑦 ∈ 𝑤 ∧ 𝑤 ∈ 𝑥)) ↔ 𝑦 = 𝑤))
Theorem	zfcndext 10038*	Axiom of Extensionality ax-ext 2796, reproved from conditionless ZFC version and predicate calculus. Usage of this theorem is discouraged because it depends on ax-13 2389. (Contributed by NM, 15-Aug-2003.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) (New usage is discouraged.)
⊢ (∀𝑧(𝑧 ∈ 𝑥 ↔ 𝑧 ∈ 𝑦) → 𝑥 = 𝑦)
Theorem	zfcndrep 10039*	Axiom of Replacement ax-rep 5193, reproved from conditionless ZFC axioms. Usage of this theorem is discouraged because it depends on ax-13 2389. (Contributed by NM, 15-Aug-2003.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) (New usage is discouraged.)
⊢ (∀𝑤∃𝑦∀𝑧(∀𝑦𝜑 → 𝑧 = 𝑦) → ∃𝑦∀𝑧(𝑧 ∈ 𝑦 ↔ ∃𝑤(𝑤 ∈ 𝑥 ∧ ∀𝑦𝜑)))
Theorem	zfcndun 10040*	Axiom of Union ax-un 7464, reproved from conditionless ZFC axioms. Usage of this theorem is discouraged because it depends on ax-13 2389. (Contributed by NM, 15-Aug-2003.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) (New usage is discouraged.)
⊢ ∃𝑦∀𝑧(∃𝑤(𝑧 ∈ 𝑤 ∧ 𝑤 ∈ 𝑥) → 𝑧 ∈ 𝑦)
Theorem	zfcndpow 10041*	Axiom of Power Sets ax-pow 5269, reproved from conditionless ZFC axioms. The proof uses the "Axiom of Twoness" dtru 5274. Usage of this theorem is discouraged because it depends on ax-13 2389. (Contributed by NM, 15-Aug-2003.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) (New usage is discouraged.)
⊢ ∃𝑦∀𝑧(∀𝑤(𝑤 ∈ 𝑧 → 𝑤 ∈ 𝑥) → 𝑧 ∈ 𝑦)
Theorem	zfcndreg 10042*	Axiom of Regularity ax-reg 9059, reproved from conditionless ZFC axioms. Usage of this theorem is discouraged because it depends on ax-13 2389. (Contributed by NM, 15-Aug-2003.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) (New usage is discouraged.)
⊢ (∃𝑦 𝑦 ∈ 𝑥 → ∃𝑦(𝑦 ∈ 𝑥 ∧ ∀𝑧(𝑧 ∈ 𝑦 → ¬ 𝑧 ∈ 𝑥)))
Theorem	zfcndinf 10043*	Axiom of Infinity ax-inf 9104, reproved from conditionless ZFC axioms. Since we have already reproved Extensionality, Replacement, and Power Sets above, we are justified in referencing theorem el 5273 in the proof. (New usage is discouraged.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) (Contributed by NM, 15-Aug-2003.)
⊢ ∃𝑦(𝑥 ∈ 𝑦 ∧ ∀𝑧(𝑧 ∈ 𝑦 → ∃𝑤(𝑧 ∈ 𝑤 ∧ 𝑤 ∈ 𝑦)))
Theorem	zfcndac 10044*	Axiom of Choice ax-ac 9884, reproved from conditionless ZFC axioms. (Contributed by NM, 15-Aug-2003.) (New usage is discouraged.) (Proof modification is discouraged.)
⊢ ∃𝑦∀𝑧∀𝑤((𝑧 ∈ 𝑤 ∧ 𝑤 ∈ 𝑥) → ∃𝑣∀𝑢(∃𝑡((𝑢 ∈ 𝑤 ∧ 𝑤 ∈ 𝑡) ∧ (𝑢 ∈ 𝑡 ∧ 𝑡 ∈ 𝑦)) ↔ 𝑢 = 𝑣))
3.4  The Generalized Continuum Hypothesis
3.4.1  Sets satisfying the Generalized Continuum Hypothesis
Syntax	cgch 10045	Extend class notation to include the collection of sets that satisfy the GCH.
class GCH
Definition	df-gch 10046*	Define the collection of "GCH-sets", or sets for which the generalized continuum hypothesis holds. In this language the generalized continuum hypothesis can be expressed as GCH = V. A set 𝑥 satisfies the generalized continuum hypothesis if it is finite or there is no set 𝑦 strictly between 𝑥 and its powerset in cardinality. The continuum hypothesis is equivalent to ω ∈ GCH. (Contributed by Mario Carneiro, 15-May-2015.)
⊢ GCH = (Fin ∪ {𝑥 ∣ ∀𝑦 ¬ (𝑥 ≺ 𝑦 ∧ 𝑦 ≺ 𝒫 𝑥)})
Theorem	elgch 10047*	Elementhood in the collection of GCH-sets. (Contributed by Mario Carneiro, 15-May-2015.)
⊢ (𝐴 ∈ 𝑉 → (𝐴 ∈ GCH ↔ (𝐴 ∈ Fin ∨ ∀𝑥 ¬ (𝐴 ≺ 𝑥 ∧ 𝑥 ≺ 𝒫 𝐴))))
Theorem	fingch 10048	A finite set is a GCH-set. (Contributed by Mario Carneiro, 15-May-2015.)
⊢ Fin ⊆ GCH
Theorem	gchi 10049	The only GCH-sets which have other sets between it and its power set are finite sets. (Contributed by Mario Carneiro, 15-May-2015.)
⊢ ((𝐴 ∈ GCH ∧ 𝐴 ≺ 𝐵 ∧ 𝐵 ≺ 𝒫 𝐴) → 𝐴 ∈ Fin)
Theorem	gchen1 10050	If 𝐴 ≤ 𝐵 < 𝒫 𝐴, and 𝐴 is an infinite GCH-set, then 𝐴 = 𝐵 in cardinality. (Contributed by Mario Carneiro, 15-May-2015.)
⊢ (((𝐴 ∈ GCH ∧ ¬ 𝐴 ∈ Fin) ∧ (𝐴 ≼ 𝐵 ∧ 𝐵 ≺ 𝒫 𝐴)) → 𝐴 ≈ 𝐵)
Theorem	gchen2 10051	If 𝐴 < 𝐵 ≤ 𝒫 𝐴, and 𝐴 is an infinite GCH-set, then 𝐵 = 𝒫 𝐴 in cardinality. (Contributed by Mario Carneiro, 15-May-2015.)
⊢ (((𝐴 ∈ GCH ∧ ¬ 𝐴 ∈ Fin) ∧ (𝐴 ≺ 𝐵 ∧ 𝐵 ≼ 𝒫 𝐴)) → 𝐵 ≈ 𝒫 𝐴)
Theorem	gchor 10052	If 𝐴 ≤ 𝐵 ≤ 𝒫 𝐴, and 𝐴 is an infinite GCH-set, then either 𝐴 = 𝐵 or 𝐵 = 𝒫 𝐴 in cardinality. (Contributed by Mario Carneiro, 15-May-2015.)
⊢ (((𝐴 ∈ GCH ∧ ¬ 𝐴 ∈ Fin) ∧ (𝐴 ≼ 𝐵 ∧ 𝐵 ≼ 𝒫 𝐴)) → (𝐴 ≈ 𝐵 ∨ 𝐵 ≈ 𝒫 𝐴))
Theorem	engch 10053	The property of being a GCH-set is a cardinal invariant. (Contributed by Mario Carneiro, 15-May-2015.)
⊢ (𝐴 ≈ 𝐵 → (𝐴 ∈ GCH ↔ 𝐵 ∈ GCH))
Theorem	gchdomtri 10054	Under certain conditions, a GCH-set can demonstrate trichotomy of dominance. Lemma for gchac 10106. (Contributed by Mario Carneiro, 15-May-2015.)
⊢ ((𝐴 ∈ GCH ∧ (𝐴 ⊔ 𝐴) ≈ 𝐴 ∧ 𝐵 ≼ 𝒫 𝐴) → (𝐴 ≼ 𝐵 ∨ 𝐵 ≼ 𝐴))
Theorem	fpwwe2cbv 10055*	Lemma for fpwwe2 10068. (Contributed by Mario Carneiro, 3-Jun-2015.)
⊢ 𝑊 = {⟨𝑥, 𝑟⟩ ∣ ((𝑥 ⊆ 𝐴 ∧ 𝑟 ⊆ (𝑥 × 𝑥)) ∧ (𝑟 We 𝑥 ∧ ∀𝑦 ∈ 𝑥 [(◡𝑟 “ {𝑦}) / 𝑢](𝑢𝐹(𝑟 ∩ (𝑢 × 𝑢))) = 𝑦))}    ⇒   ⊢ 𝑊 = {⟨𝑎, 𝑠⟩ ∣ ((𝑎 ⊆ 𝐴 ∧ 𝑠 ⊆ (𝑎 × 𝑎)) ∧ (𝑠 We 𝑎 ∧ ∀𝑧 ∈ 𝑎 [(◡𝑠 “ {𝑧}) / 𝑣](𝑣𝐹(𝑠 ∩ (𝑣 × 𝑣))) = 𝑧))}
Theorem	fpwwe2lem1 10056*	Lemma for fpwwe2 10068. (Contributed by Mario Carneiro, 15-May-2015.)
⊢ 𝑊 = {⟨𝑥, 𝑟⟩ ∣ ((𝑥 ⊆ 𝐴 ∧ 𝑟 ⊆ (𝑥 × 𝑥)) ∧ (𝑟 We 𝑥 ∧ ∀𝑦 ∈ 𝑥 [(◡𝑟 “ {𝑦}) / 𝑢](𝑢𝐹(𝑟 ∩ (𝑢 × 𝑢))) = 𝑦))}    ⇒   ⊢ 𝑊 ⊆ (𝒫 𝐴 × 𝒫 (𝐴 × 𝐴))
Theorem	fpwwe2lem2 10057*	Lemma for fpwwe2 10068. (Contributed by Mario Carneiro, 19-May-2015.)
⊢ 𝑊 = {⟨𝑥, 𝑟⟩ ∣ ((𝑥 ⊆ 𝐴 ∧ 𝑟 ⊆ (𝑥 × 𝑥)) ∧ (𝑟 We 𝑥 ∧ ∀𝑦 ∈ 𝑥 [(◡𝑟 “ {𝑦}) / 𝑢](𝑢𝐹(𝑟 ∩ (𝑢 × 𝑢))) = 𝑦))}    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝐴 ∈ V)    ⇒   ⊢ (𝜑 → (𝑋𝑊𝑅 ↔ ((𝑋 ⊆ 𝐴 ∧ 𝑅 ⊆ (𝑋 × 𝑋)) ∧ (𝑅 We 𝑋 ∧ ∀𝑦 ∈ 𝑋 [(◡𝑅 “ {𝑦}) / 𝑢](𝑢𝐹(𝑅 ∩ (𝑢 × 𝑢))) = 𝑦))))
Theorem	fpwwe2lem3 10058*	Lemma for fpwwe2 10068. (Contributed by Mario Carneiro, 19-May-2015.)
⊢ 𝑊 = {⟨𝑥, 𝑟⟩ ∣ ((𝑥 ⊆ 𝐴 ∧ 𝑟 ⊆ (𝑥 × 𝑥)) ∧ (𝑟 We 𝑥 ∧ ∀𝑦 ∈ 𝑥 [(◡𝑟 “ {𝑦}) / 𝑢](𝑢𝐹(𝑟 ∩ (𝑢 × 𝑢))) = 𝑦))}    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝐴 ∈ V)    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝑋𝑊𝑅)    ⇒   ⊢ ((𝜑 ∧ 𝐵 ∈ 𝑋) → ((◡𝑅 “ {𝐵})𝐹(𝑅 ∩ ((◡𝑅 “ {𝐵}) × (◡𝑅 “ {𝐵})))) = 𝐵)
Theorem	fpwwe2lem5 10059*	Lemma for fpwwe2 10068. (Contributed by Mario Carneiro, 15-May-2015.)
⊢ 𝑊 = {⟨𝑥, 𝑟⟩ ∣ ((𝑥 ⊆ 𝐴 ∧ 𝑟 ⊆ (𝑥 × 𝑥)) ∧ (𝑟 We 𝑥 ∧ ∀𝑦 ∈ 𝑥 [(◡𝑟 “ {𝑦}) / 𝑢](𝑢𝐹(𝑟 ∩ (𝑢 × 𝑢))) = 𝑦))}    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝐴 ∈ V)    &   ⊢ ((𝜑 ∧ (𝑥 ⊆ 𝐴 ∧ 𝑟 ⊆ (𝑥 × 𝑥) ∧ 𝑟 We 𝑥)) → (𝑥𝐹𝑟) ∈ 𝐴)    ⇒   ⊢ ((𝜑 ∧ (𝑋 ⊆ 𝐴 ∧ 𝑅 ⊆ (𝑋 × 𝑋) ∧ 𝑅 We 𝑋)) → (𝑋𝐹𝑅) ∈ 𝐴)
Theorem	fpwwe2lem6 10060*	Lemma for fpwwe2 10068. (Contributed by Mario Carneiro, 18-May-2015.)
⊢ 𝑊 = {⟨𝑥, 𝑟⟩ ∣ ((𝑥 ⊆ 𝐴 ∧ 𝑟 ⊆ (𝑥 × 𝑥)) ∧ (𝑟 We 𝑥 ∧ ∀𝑦 ∈ 𝑥 [(◡𝑟 “ {𝑦}) / 𝑢](𝑢𝐹(𝑟 ∩ (𝑢 × 𝑢))) = 𝑦))}    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝐴 ∈ V)    &   ⊢ ((𝜑 ∧ (𝑥 ⊆ 𝐴 ∧ 𝑟 ⊆ (𝑥 × 𝑥) ∧ 𝑟 We 𝑥)) → (𝑥𝐹𝑟) ∈ 𝐴)    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝑋𝑊𝑅)    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝑌𝑊𝑆)    &   ⊢ 𝑀 = OrdIso(𝑅, 𝑋)    &   ⊢ 𝑁 = OrdIso(𝑆, 𝑌)    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝐵 ∈ dom 𝑀)    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝐵 ∈ dom 𝑁)    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → (𝑀 ↾ 𝐵) = (𝑁 ↾ 𝐵))    ⇒   ⊢ ((𝜑 ∧ 𝐶𝑅(𝑀‘𝐵)) → (𝐶 ∈ 𝑋 ∧ 𝐶 ∈ 𝑌 ∧ (◡𝑀‘𝐶) = (◡𝑁‘𝐶)))
Theorem	fpwwe2lem7 10061*	Lemma for fpwwe2 10068. (Contributed by Mario Carneiro, 18-May-2015.)
⊢ 𝑊 = {⟨𝑥, 𝑟⟩ ∣ ((𝑥 ⊆ 𝐴 ∧ 𝑟 ⊆ (𝑥 × 𝑥)) ∧ (𝑟 We 𝑥 ∧ ∀𝑦 ∈ 𝑥 [(◡𝑟 “ {𝑦}) / 𝑢](𝑢𝐹(𝑟 ∩ (𝑢 × 𝑢))) = 𝑦))}    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝐴 ∈ V)    &   ⊢ ((𝜑 ∧ (𝑥 ⊆ 𝐴 ∧ 𝑟 ⊆ (𝑥 × 𝑥) ∧ 𝑟 We 𝑥)) → (𝑥𝐹𝑟) ∈ 𝐴)    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝑋𝑊𝑅)    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝑌𝑊𝑆)    &   ⊢ 𝑀 = OrdIso(𝑅, 𝑋)    &   ⊢ 𝑁 = OrdIso(𝑆, 𝑌)    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝐵 ∈ dom 𝑀)    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝐵 ∈ dom 𝑁)    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → (𝑀 ↾ 𝐵) = (𝑁 ↾ 𝐵))    ⇒   ⊢ ((𝜑 ∧ 𝐶𝑅(𝑀‘𝐵)) → (𝐶𝑆(𝑁‘𝐵) ∧ (𝐷𝑅(𝑀‘𝐵) → (𝐶𝑅𝐷 ↔ 𝐶𝑆𝐷))))
Theorem	fpwwe2lem8 10062*	Lemma for fpwwe2 10068. Show by induction that the two isometries 𝑀 and 𝑁 agree on their common domain. (Contributed by Mario Carneiro, 15-May-2015.) (Proof shortened by Peter Mazsa, 23-Sep-2022.)
⊢ 𝑊 = {⟨𝑥, 𝑟⟩ ∣ ((𝑥 ⊆ 𝐴 ∧ 𝑟 ⊆ (𝑥 × 𝑥)) ∧ (𝑟 We 𝑥 ∧ ∀𝑦 ∈ 𝑥 [(◡𝑟 “ {𝑦}) / 𝑢](𝑢𝐹(𝑟 ∩ (𝑢 × 𝑢))) = 𝑦))}    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝐴 ∈ V)    &   ⊢ ((𝜑 ∧ (𝑥 ⊆ 𝐴 ∧ 𝑟 ⊆ (𝑥 × 𝑥) ∧ 𝑟 We 𝑥)) → (𝑥𝐹𝑟) ∈ 𝐴)    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝑋𝑊𝑅)    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝑌𝑊𝑆)    &   ⊢ 𝑀 = OrdIso(𝑅, 𝑋)    &   ⊢ 𝑁 = OrdIso(𝑆, 𝑌)    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → dom 𝑀 ⊆ dom 𝑁)    ⇒   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝑀 = (𝑁 ↾ dom 𝑀))
Theorem	fpwwe2lem9 10063*	Lemma for fpwwe2 10068. Given two well-orders ⟨𝑋, 𝑅⟩ and ⟨𝑌, 𝑆⟩ of parts of 𝐴, one is an initial segment of the other. (The 𝑂 ⊆ 𝑃 hypothesis is in order to break the symmetry of 𝑋 and 𝑌.) (Contributed by Mario Carneiro, 15-May-2015.) (Proof shortened by Peter Mazsa, 23-Sep-2022.)
⊢ 𝑊 = {⟨𝑥, 𝑟⟩ ∣ ((𝑥 ⊆ 𝐴 ∧ 𝑟 ⊆ (𝑥 × 𝑥)) ∧ (𝑟 We 𝑥 ∧ ∀𝑦 ∈ 𝑥 [(◡𝑟 “ {𝑦}) / 𝑢](𝑢𝐹(𝑟 ∩ (𝑢 × 𝑢))) = 𝑦))}    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝐴 ∈ V)    &   ⊢ ((𝜑 ∧ (𝑥 ⊆ 𝐴 ∧ 𝑟 ⊆ (𝑥 × 𝑥) ∧ 𝑟 We 𝑥)) → (𝑥𝐹𝑟) ∈ 𝐴)    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝑋𝑊𝑅)    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝑌𝑊𝑆)    &   ⊢ 𝑀 = OrdIso(𝑅, 𝑋)    &   ⊢ 𝑁 = OrdIso(𝑆, 𝑌)    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → dom 𝑀 ⊆ dom 𝑁)    ⇒   ⊢ (𝜑 → (𝑋 ⊆ 𝑌 ∧ 𝑅 = (𝑆 ∩ (𝑌 × 𝑋))))
Theorem	fpwwe2lem10 10064*	Lemma for fpwwe2 10068. Given two well-orders ⟨𝑋, 𝑅⟩ and ⟨𝑌, 𝑆⟩ of parts of 𝐴, one is an initial segment of the other. (Contributed by Mario Carneiro, 15-May-2015.)
⊢ 𝑊 = {⟨𝑥, 𝑟⟩ ∣ ((𝑥 ⊆ 𝐴 ∧ 𝑟 ⊆ (𝑥 × 𝑥)) ∧ (𝑟 We 𝑥 ∧ ∀𝑦 ∈ 𝑥 [(◡𝑟 “ {𝑦}) / 𝑢](𝑢𝐹(𝑟 ∩ (𝑢 × 𝑢))) = 𝑦))}    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝐴 ∈ V)    &   ⊢ ((𝜑 ∧ (𝑥 ⊆ 𝐴 ∧ 𝑟 ⊆ (𝑥 × 𝑥) ∧ 𝑟 We 𝑥)) → (𝑥𝐹𝑟) ∈ 𝐴)    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝑋𝑊𝑅)    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝑌𝑊𝑆)    ⇒   ⊢ (𝜑 → ((𝑋 ⊆ 𝑌 ∧ 𝑅 = (𝑆 ∩ (𝑌 × 𝑋))) ∨ (𝑌 ⊆ 𝑋 ∧ 𝑆 = (𝑅 ∩ (𝑋 × 𝑌)))))
Theorem	fpwwe2lem11 10065*	Lemma for fpwwe2 10068. (Contributed by Mario Carneiro, 15-May-2015.)
⊢ 𝑊 = {⟨𝑥, 𝑟⟩ ∣ ((𝑥 ⊆ 𝐴 ∧ 𝑟 ⊆ (𝑥 × 𝑥)) ∧ (𝑟 We 𝑥 ∧ ∀𝑦 ∈ 𝑥 [(◡𝑟 “ {𝑦}) / 𝑢](𝑢𝐹(𝑟 ∩ (𝑢 × 𝑢))) = 𝑦))}    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝐴 ∈ V)    &   ⊢ ((𝜑 ∧ (𝑥 ⊆ 𝐴 ∧ 𝑟 ⊆ (𝑥 × 𝑥) ∧ 𝑟 We 𝑥)) → (𝑥𝐹𝑟) ∈ 𝐴)    &   ⊢ 𝑋 = ∪ dom 𝑊    ⇒   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝑊:dom 𝑊⟶𝒫 (𝑋 × 𝑋))
Theorem	fpwwe2lem12 10066*	Lemma for fpwwe2 10068. (Contributed by Mario Carneiro, 18-May-2015.) (Proof shortened by Peter Mazsa, 23-Sep-2022.)
⊢ 𝑊 = {⟨𝑥, 𝑟⟩ ∣ ((𝑥 ⊆ 𝐴 ∧ 𝑟 ⊆ (𝑥 × 𝑥)) ∧ (𝑟 We 𝑥 ∧ ∀𝑦 ∈ 𝑥 [(◡𝑟 “ {𝑦}) / 𝑢](𝑢𝐹(𝑟 ∩ (𝑢 × 𝑢))) = 𝑦))}    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝐴 ∈ V)    &   ⊢ ((𝜑 ∧ (𝑥 ⊆ 𝐴 ∧ 𝑟 ⊆ (𝑥 × 𝑥) ∧ 𝑟 We 𝑥)) → (𝑥𝐹𝑟) ∈ 𝐴)    &   ⊢ 𝑋 = ∪ dom 𝑊    ⇒   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝑋 ∈ dom 𝑊)
Theorem	fpwwe2lem13 10067*	Lemma for fpwwe2 10068. (Contributed by Mario Carneiro, 18-May-2015.)
⊢ 𝑊 = {⟨𝑥, 𝑟⟩ ∣ ((𝑥 ⊆ 𝐴 ∧ 𝑟 ⊆ (𝑥 × 𝑥)) ∧ (𝑟 We 𝑥 ∧ ∀𝑦 ∈ 𝑥 [(◡𝑟 “ {𝑦}) / 𝑢](𝑢𝐹(𝑟 ∩ (𝑢 × 𝑢))) = 𝑦))}    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝐴 ∈ V)    &   ⊢ ((𝜑 ∧ (𝑥 ⊆ 𝐴 ∧ 𝑟 ⊆ (𝑥 × 𝑥) ∧ 𝑟 We 𝑥)) → (𝑥𝐹𝑟) ∈ 𝐴)    &   ⊢ 𝑋 = ∪ dom 𝑊    ⇒   ⊢ (𝜑 → (𝑋𝐹(𝑊‘𝑋)) ∈ 𝑋)
Theorem	fpwwe2 10068*	Given any function 𝐹 from well-orderings of subsets of 𝐴 to 𝐴, there is a unique well-ordered subset ⟨𝑋, (𝑊‘𝑋)⟩ which "agrees" with 𝐹 in the sense that each initial segment maps to its upper bound, and such that the entire set maps to an element of the set (so that it cannot be extended without losing the well-ordering). This theorem can be used to prove dfac8a 9459. Theorem 1.1 of [KanamoriPincus] p. 415. (Contributed by Mario Carneiro, 18-May-2015.)
⊢ 𝑊 = {⟨𝑥, 𝑟⟩ ∣ ((𝑥 ⊆ 𝐴 ∧ 𝑟 ⊆ (𝑥 × 𝑥)) ∧ (𝑟 We 𝑥 ∧ ∀𝑦 ∈ 𝑥 [(◡𝑟 “ {𝑦}) / 𝑢](𝑢𝐹(𝑟 ∩ (𝑢 × 𝑢))) = 𝑦))}    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝐴 ∈ V)    &   ⊢ ((𝜑 ∧ (𝑥 ⊆ 𝐴 ∧ 𝑟 ⊆ (𝑥 × 𝑥) ∧ 𝑟 We 𝑥)) → (𝑥𝐹𝑟) ∈ 𝐴)    &   ⊢ 𝑋 = ∪ dom 𝑊    ⇒   ⊢ (𝜑 → ((𝑌𝑊𝑅 ∧ (𝑌𝐹𝑅) ∈ 𝑌) ↔ (𝑌 = 𝑋 ∧ 𝑅 = (𝑊‘𝑋))))
Theorem	fpwwecbv 10069*	Lemma for fpwwe 10071. (Contributed by Mario Carneiro, 15-May-2015.)
⊢ 𝑊 = {⟨𝑥, 𝑟⟩ ∣ ((𝑥 ⊆ 𝐴 ∧ 𝑟 ⊆ (𝑥 × 𝑥)) ∧ (𝑟 We 𝑥 ∧ ∀𝑦 ∈ 𝑥 (𝐹‘(◡𝑟 “ {𝑦})) = 𝑦))}    ⇒   ⊢ 𝑊 = {⟨𝑎, 𝑠⟩ ∣ ((𝑎 ⊆ 𝐴 ∧ 𝑠 ⊆ (𝑎 × 𝑎)) ∧ (𝑠 We 𝑎 ∧ ∀𝑧 ∈ 𝑎 (𝐹‘(◡𝑠 “ {𝑧})) = 𝑧))}
Theorem	fpwwelem 10070*	Lemma for fpwwe 10071. (Contributed by Mario Carneiro, 15-May-2015.)
⊢ 𝑊 = {⟨𝑥, 𝑟⟩ ∣ ((𝑥 ⊆ 𝐴 ∧ 𝑟 ⊆ (𝑥 × 𝑥)) ∧ (𝑟 We 𝑥 ∧ ∀𝑦 ∈ 𝑥 (𝐹‘(◡𝑟 “ {𝑦})) = 𝑦))}    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝐴 ∈ V)    ⇒   ⊢ (𝜑 → (𝑋𝑊𝑅 ↔ ((𝑋 ⊆ 𝐴 ∧ 𝑅 ⊆ (𝑋 × 𝑋)) ∧ (𝑅 We 𝑋 ∧ ∀𝑦 ∈ 𝑋 (𝐹‘(◡𝑅 “ {𝑦})) = 𝑦))))
Theorem	fpwwe 10071*	Given any function 𝐹 from the powerset of 𝐴 to 𝐴, canth2 8673 gives that the function is not injective, but we can say rather more than that. There is a unique well-ordered subset ⟨𝑋, (𝑊‘𝑋)⟩ which "agrees" with 𝐹 in the sense that each initial segment maps to its upper bound, and such that the entire set maps to an element of the set (so that it cannot be extended without losing the well-ordering). This theorem can be used to prove dfac8a 9459. Theorem 1.1 of [KanamoriPincus] p. 415. (Contributed by Mario Carneiro, 18-May-2015.)
⊢ 𝑊 = {⟨𝑥, 𝑟⟩ ∣ ((𝑥 ⊆ 𝐴 ∧ 𝑟 ⊆ (𝑥 × 𝑥)) ∧ (𝑟 We 𝑥 ∧ ∀𝑦 ∈ 𝑥 (𝐹‘(◡𝑟 “ {𝑦})) = 𝑦))}    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝐴 ∈ V)    &   ⊢ ((𝜑 ∧ 𝑥 ∈ (𝒫 𝐴 ∩ dom card)) → (𝐹‘𝑥) ∈ 𝐴)    &   ⊢ 𝑋 = ∪ dom 𝑊    ⇒   ⊢ (𝜑 → ((𝑌𝑊𝑅 ∧ (𝐹‘𝑌) ∈ 𝑌) ↔ (𝑌 = 𝑋 ∧ 𝑅 = (𝑊‘𝑋))))
Theorem	canth4 10072*	An "effective" form of Cantor's theorem canth 7114. For any function 𝐹 from the powerset of 𝐴 to 𝐴, there are two definable sets 𝐵 and 𝐶 which witness non-injectivity of 𝐹. Corollary 1.3 of [KanamoriPincus] p. 416. (Contributed by Mario Carneiro, 18-May-2015.)
⊢ 𝑊 = {⟨𝑥, 𝑟⟩ ∣ ((𝑥 ⊆ 𝐴 ∧ 𝑟 ⊆ (𝑥 × 𝑥)) ∧ (𝑟 We 𝑥 ∧ ∀𝑦 ∈ 𝑥 (𝐹‘(◡𝑟 “ {𝑦})) = 𝑦))}    &   ⊢ 𝐵 = ∪ dom 𝑊    &   ⊢ 𝐶 = (◡(𝑊‘𝐵) “ {(𝐹‘𝐵)})    ⇒   ⊢ ((𝐴 ∈ 𝑉 ∧ 𝐹:𝐷⟶𝐴 ∧ (𝒫 𝐴 ∩ dom card) ⊆ 𝐷) → (𝐵 ⊆ 𝐴 ∧ 𝐶 ⊊ 𝐵 ∧ (𝐹‘𝐵) = (𝐹‘𝐶)))
Theorem	canthnumlem 10073*	Lemma for canthnum 10074. (Contributed by Mario Carneiro, 19-May-2015.)
⊢ 𝑊 = {⟨𝑥, 𝑟⟩ ∣ ((𝑥 ⊆ 𝐴 ∧ 𝑟 ⊆ (𝑥 × 𝑥)) ∧ (𝑟 We 𝑥 ∧ ∀𝑦 ∈ 𝑥 (𝐹‘(◡𝑟 “ {𝑦})) = 𝑦))}    &   ⊢ 𝐵 = ∪ dom 𝑊    &   ⊢ 𝐶 = (◡(𝑊‘𝐵) “ {(𝐹‘𝐵)})    ⇒   ⊢ (𝐴 ∈ 𝑉 → ¬ 𝐹:(𝒫 𝐴 ∩ dom card)–1-1→𝐴)
Theorem	canthnum 10074	The set of well-orderable subsets of a set 𝐴 strictly dominates 𝐴. A stronger form of canth2 8673. Corollary 1.4(a) of [KanamoriPincus] p. 417. (Contributed by Mario Carneiro, 19-May-2015.)
⊢ (𝐴 ∈ 𝑉 → 𝐴 ≺ (𝒫 𝐴 ∩ dom card))
Theorem	canthwelem 10075*	Lemma for canthwe 10076. (Contributed by Mario Carneiro, 31-May-2015.)
⊢ 𝑂 = {⟨𝑥, 𝑟⟩ ∣ (𝑥 ⊆ 𝐴 ∧ 𝑟 ⊆ (𝑥 × 𝑥) ∧ 𝑟 We 𝑥)}    &   ⊢ 𝑊 = {⟨𝑥, 𝑟⟩ ∣ ((𝑥 ⊆ 𝐴 ∧ 𝑟 ⊆ (𝑥 × 𝑥)) ∧ (𝑟 We 𝑥 ∧ ∀𝑦 ∈ 𝑥 [(◡𝑟 “ {𝑦}) / 𝑢](𝑢𝐹(𝑟 ∩ (𝑢 × 𝑢))) = 𝑦))}    &   ⊢ 𝐵 = ∪ dom 𝑊    &   ⊢ 𝐶 = (◡(𝑊‘𝐵) “ {(𝐵𝐹(𝑊‘𝐵))})    ⇒   ⊢ (𝐴 ∈ 𝑉 → ¬ 𝐹:𝑂–1-1→𝐴)
Theorem	canthwe 10076*	The set of well-orders of a set 𝐴 strictly dominates 𝐴. A stronger form of canth2 8673. Corollary 1.4(b) of [KanamoriPincus] p. 417. (Contributed by Mario Carneiro, 31-May-2015.)
⊢ 𝑂 = {⟨𝑥, 𝑟⟩ ∣ (𝑥 ⊆ 𝐴 ∧ 𝑟 ⊆ (𝑥 × 𝑥) ∧ 𝑟 We 𝑥)}    ⇒   ⊢ (𝐴 ∈ 𝑉 → 𝐴 ≺ 𝑂)
Theorem	canthp1lem1 10077	Lemma for canthp1 10079. (Contributed by Mario Carneiro, 18-May-2015.)
⊢ (1o ≺ 𝐴 → (𝐴 ⊔ 2o) ≼ 𝒫 𝐴)
Theorem	canthp1lem2 10078*	Lemma for canthp1 10079. (Contributed by Mario Carneiro, 18-May-2015.)
⊢ (𝜑 → 1o ≺ 𝐴)    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝐹:𝒫 𝐴–1-1-onto→(𝐴 ⊔ 1o))    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝐺:((𝐴 ⊔ 1o) ∖ {(𝐹‘𝐴)})–1-1-onto→𝐴)    &   ⊢ 𝐻 = ((𝐺 ∘ 𝐹) ∘ (𝑥 ∈ 𝒫 𝐴 ↦ if(𝑥 = 𝐴, ∅, 𝑥)))    &   ⊢ 𝑊 = {⟨𝑥, 𝑟⟩ ∣ ((𝑥 ⊆ 𝐴 ∧ 𝑟 ⊆ (𝑥 × 𝑥)) ∧ (𝑟 We 𝑥 ∧ ∀𝑦 ∈ 𝑥 (𝐻‘(◡𝑟 “ {𝑦})) = 𝑦))}    &   ⊢ 𝐵 = ∪ dom 𝑊    ⇒   ⊢ ¬ 𝜑
Theorem	canthp1 10079	A slightly stronger form of Cantor's theorem: For 1 < 𝑛, 𝑛 + 1 < 2↑𝑛. Corollary 1.6 of [KanamoriPincus] p. 417. (Contributed by Mario Carneiro, 18-May-2015.)
⊢ (1o ≺ 𝐴 → (𝐴 ⊔ 1o) ≺ 𝒫 𝐴)
Theorem	finngch 10080	The exclusion of finite sets from consideration in df-gch 10046 is necessary, because otherwise finite sets larger than a singleton would violate the GCH property. (Contributed by Mario Carneiro, 10-Jun-2015.)
⊢ ((𝐴 ∈ Fin ∧ 1o ≺ 𝐴) → (𝐴 ≺ (𝐴 ⊔ 1o) ∧ (𝐴 ⊔ 1o) ≺ 𝒫 𝐴))
Theorem	gchdju1 10081	An infinite GCH-set is idempotent under cardinal successor. (Contributed by Mario Carneiro, 18-May-2015.)
⊢ ((𝐴 ∈ GCH ∧ ¬ 𝐴 ∈ Fin) → (𝐴 ⊔ 1o) ≈ 𝐴)
Theorem	gchinf 10082	An infinite GCH-set is Dedekind-infinite. (Contributed by Mario Carneiro, 31-May-2015.)
⊢ ((𝐴 ∈ GCH ∧ ¬ 𝐴 ∈ Fin) → ω ≼ 𝐴)
Theorem	pwfseqlem1 10083*	Lemma for pwfseq 10089. Derive a contradiction by diagonalization. (Contributed by Mario Carneiro, 31-May-2015.)
⊢ (𝜑 → 𝐺:𝒫 𝐴–1-1→∪ 𝑛 ∈ ω (𝐴 ↑m 𝑛))    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝑋 ⊆ 𝐴)    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝐻:ω–1-1-onto→𝑋)    &   ⊢ (𝜓 ↔ ((𝑥 ⊆ 𝐴 ∧ 𝑟 ⊆ (𝑥 × 𝑥) ∧ 𝑟 We 𝑥) ∧ ω ≼ 𝑥))    &   ⊢ ((𝜑 ∧ 𝜓) → 𝐾:∪ 𝑛 ∈ ω (𝑥 ↑m 𝑛)–1-1→𝑥)    &   ⊢ 𝐷 = (𝐺‘{𝑤 ∈ 𝑥 ∣ ((◡𝐾‘𝑤) ∈ ran 𝐺 ∧ ¬ 𝑤 ∈ (◡𝐺‘(◡𝐾‘𝑤)))})    ⇒   ⊢ ((𝜑 ∧ 𝜓) → 𝐷 ∈ (∪ 𝑛 ∈ ω (𝐴 ↑m 𝑛) ∖ ∪ 𝑛 ∈ ω (𝑥 ↑m 𝑛)))
Theorem	pwfseqlem2 10084*	Lemma for pwfseq 10089. (Contributed by Mario Carneiro, 18-Nov-2014.) (Revised by AV, 18-Sep-2021.)
⊢ (𝜑 → 𝐺:𝒫 𝐴–1-1→∪ 𝑛 ∈ ω (𝐴 ↑m 𝑛))    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝑋 ⊆ 𝐴)    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝐻:ω–1-1-onto→𝑋)    &   ⊢ (𝜓 ↔ ((𝑥 ⊆ 𝐴 ∧ 𝑟 ⊆ (𝑥 × 𝑥) ∧ 𝑟 We 𝑥) ∧ ω ≼ 𝑥))    &   ⊢ ((𝜑 ∧ 𝜓) → 𝐾:∪ 𝑛 ∈ ω (𝑥 ↑m 𝑛)–1-1→𝑥)    &   ⊢ 𝐷 = (𝐺‘{𝑤 ∈ 𝑥 ∣ ((◡𝐾‘𝑤) ∈ ran 𝐺 ∧ ¬ 𝑤 ∈ (◡𝐺‘(◡𝐾‘𝑤)))})    &   ⊢ 𝐹 = (𝑥 ∈ V, 𝑟 ∈ V ↦ if(𝑥 ∈ Fin, (𝐻‘(card‘𝑥)), (𝐷‘∩ {𝑧 ∈ ω ∣ ¬ (𝐷‘𝑧) ∈ 𝑥})))    ⇒   ⊢ ((𝑌 ∈ Fin ∧ 𝑅 ∈ 𝑉) → (𝑌𝐹𝑅) = (𝐻‘(card‘𝑌)))
Theorem	pwfseqlem3 10085*	Lemma for pwfseq 10089. Using the construction 𝐷 from pwfseqlem1 10083, produce a function 𝐹 that maps any well-ordered infinite set to an element outside the set. (Contributed by Mario Carneiro, 31-May-2015.)
⊢ (𝜑 → 𝐺:𝒫 𝐴–1-1→∪ 𝑛 ∈ ω (𝐴 ↑m 𝑛))    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝑋 ⊆ 𝐴)    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝐻:ω–1-1-onto→𝑋)    &   ⊢ (𝜓 ↔ ((𝑥 ⊆ 𝐴 ∧ 𝑟 ⊆ (𝑥 × 𝑥) ∧ 𝑟 We 𝑥) ∧ ω ≼ 𝑥))    &   ⊢ ((𝜑 ∧ 𝜓) → 𝐾:∪ 𝑛 ∈ ω (𝑥 ↑m 𝑛)–1-1→𝑥)    &   ⊢ 𝐷 = (𝐺‘{𝑤 ∈ 𝑥 ∣ ((◡𝐾‘𝑤) ∈ ran 𝐺 ∧ ¬ 𝑤 ∈ (◡𝐺‘(◡𝐾‘𝑤)))})    &   ⊢ 𝐹 = (𝑥 ∈ V, 𝑟 ∈ V ↦ if(𝑥 ∈ Fin, (𝐻‘(card‘𝑥)), (𝐷‘∩ {𝑧 ∈ ω ∣ ¬ (𝐷‘𝑧) ∈ 𝑥})))    ⇒   ⊢ ((𝜑 ∧ 𝜓) → (𝑥𝐹𝑟) ∈ (𝐴 ∖ 𝑥))
Theorem	pwfseqlem4a 10086*	Lemma for pwfseqlem4 10087. (Contributed by Mario Carneiro, 7-Jun-2016.)
⊢ (𝜑 → 𝐺:𝒫 𝐴–1-1→∪ 𝑛 ∈ ω (𝐴 ↑m 𝑛))    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝑋 ⊆ 𝐴)    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝐻:ω–1-1-onto→𝑋)    &   ⊢ (𝜓 ↔ ((𝑥 ⊆ 𝐴 ∧ 𝑟 ⊆ (𝑥 × 𝑥) ∧ 𝑟 We 𝑥) ∧ ω ≼ 𝑥))    &   ⊢ ((𝜑 ∧ 𝜓) → 𝐾:∪ 𝑛 ∈ ω (𝑥 ↑m 𝑛)–1-1→𝑥)    &   ⊢ 𝐷 = (𝐺‘{𝑤 ∈ 𝑥 ∣ ((◡𝐾‘𝑤) ∈ ran 𝐺 ∧ ¬ 𝑤 ∈ (◡𝐺‘(◡𝐾‘𝑤)))})    &   ⊢ 𝐹 = (𝑥 ∈ V, 𝑟 ∈ V ↦ if(𝑥 ∈ Fin, (𝐻‘(card‘𝑥)), (𝐷‘∩ {𝑧 ∈ ω ∣ ¬ (𝐷‘𝑧) ∈ 𝑥})))    ⇒   ⊢ ((𝜑 ∧ (𝑎 ⊆ 𝐴 ∧ 𝑠 ⊆ (𝑎 × 𝑎) ∧ 𝑠 We 𝑎)) → (𝑎𝐹𝑠) ∈ 𝐴)
Theorem	pwfseqlem4 10087*	Lemma for pwfseq 10089. Derive a final contradiction from the function 𝐹 in pwfseqlem3 10085. Applying fpwwe2 10068 to it, we get a certain maximal well-ordered subset 𝑍, but the defining property (𝑍𝐹(𝑊‘𝑍)) ∈ 𝑍 contradicts our assumption on 𝐹, so we are reduced to the case of 𝑍 finite. This too is a contradiction, though, because 𝑍 and its preimage under (𝑊‘𝑍) are distinct sets of the same cardinality and in a subset relation, which is impossible for finite sets. (Contributed by Mario Carneiro, 31-May-2015.)
⊢ (𝜑 → 𝐺:𝒫 𝐴–1-1→∪ 𝑛 ∈ ω (𝐴 ↑m 𝑛))    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝑋 ⊆ 𝐴)    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝐻:ω–1-1-onto→𝑋)    &   ⊢ (𝜓 ↔ ((𝑥 ⊆ 𝐴 ∧ 𝑟 ⊆ (𝑥 × 𝑥) ∧ 𝑟 We 𝑥) ∧ ω ≼ 𝑥))    &   ⊢ ((𝜑 ∧ 𝜓) → 𝐾:∪ 𝑛 ∈ ω (𝑥 ↑m 𝑛)–1-1→𝑥)    &   ⊢ 𝐷 = (𝐺‘{𝑤 ∈ 𝑥 ∣ ((◡𝐾‘𝑤) ∈ ran 𝐺 ∧ ¬ 𝑤 ∈ (◡𝐺‘(◡𝐾‘𝑤)))})    &   ⊢ 𝐹 = (𝑥 ∈ V, 𝑟 ∈ V ↦ if(𝑥 ∈ Fin, (𝐻‘(card‘𝑥)), (𝐷‘∩ {𝑧 ∈ ω ∣ ¬ (𝐷‘𝑧) ∈ 𝑥})))    &   ⊢ 𝑊 = {⟨𝑎, 𝑠⟩ ∣ ((𝑎 ⊆ 𝐴 ∧ 𝑠 ⊆ (𝑎 × 𝑎)) ∧ (𝑠 We 𝑎 ∧ ∀𝑏 ∈ 𝑎 [(◡𝑠 “ {𝑏}) / 𝑣](𝑣𝐹(𝑠 ∩ (𝑣 × 𝑣))) = 𝑏))}    &   ⊢ 𝑍 = ∪ dom 𝑊    ⇒   ⊢ ¬ 𝜑
Theorem	pwfseqlem5 10088*	Lemma for pwfseq 10089. Although in some ways pwfseqlem4 10087 is the "main" part of the proof, one last aspect which makes up a remark in the original text is by far the hardest part to formalize. The main proof relies on the existence of an injection 𝐾 from the set of finite sequences on an infinite set 𝑥 to 𝑥. Now this alone would not be difficult to prove; this is mostly the claim of fseqen 9456. However, what is needed for the proof is a canonical injection on these sets, so we have to start from scratch pulling together explicit bijections from the lemmas. If one attempts such a program, it will mostly go through, but there is one key step which is inherently nonconstructive, namely the proof of infxpen 9443. The resolution is not obvious, but it turns out that reversing an infinite ordinal's Cantor normal form absorbs all the non-leading terms (cnfcom3c 9172), which can be used to construct a pairing function explicitly using properties of the ordinal exponential (infxpenc 9447). (Contributed by Mario Carneiro, 31-May-2015.)
⊢ (𝜑 → 𝐺:𝒫 𝐴–1-1→∪ 𝑛 ∈ ω (𝐴 ↑m 𝑛))    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝑋 ⊆ 𝐴)    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝐻:ω–1-1-onto→𝑋)    &   ⊢ (𝜓 ↔ ((𝑡 ⊆ 𝐴 ∧ 𝑟 ⊆ (𝑡 × 𝑡) ∧ 𝑟 We 𝑡) ∧ ω ≼ 𝑡))    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → ∀𝑏 ∈ (har‘𝒫 𝐴)(ω ⊆ 𝑏 → (𝑁‘𝑏):(𝑏 × 𝑏)–1-1-onto→𝑏))    &   ⊢ 𝑂 = OrdIso(𝑟, 𝑡)    &   ⊢ 𝑇 = (𝑢 ∈ dom 𝑂, 𝑣 ∈ dom 𝑂 ↦ ⟨(𝑂‘𝑢), (𝑂‘𝑣)⟩)    &   ⊢ 𝑃 = ((𝑂 ∘ (𝑁‘dom 𝑂)) ∘ ◡𝑇)    &   ⊢ 𝑆 = seqω((𝑘 ∈ V, 𝑓 ∈ V ↦ (𝑥 ∈ (𝑡 ↑m suc 𝑘) ↦ ((𝑓‘(𝑥 ↾ 𝑘))𝑃(𝑥‘𝑘)))), {⟨∅, (𝑂‘∅)⟩})    &   ⊢ 𝑄 = (𝑦 ∈ ∪ 𝑛 ∈ ω (𝑡 ↑m 𝑛) ↦ ⟨dom 𝑦, ((𝑆‘dom 𝑦)‘𝑦)⟩)    &   ⊢ 𝐼 = (𝑥 ∈ ω, 𝑦 ∈ 𝑡 ↦ ⟨(𝑂‘𝑥), 𝑦⟩)    &   ⊢ 𝐾 = ((𝑃 ∘ 𝐼) ∘ 𝑄)    ⇒   ⊢ ¬ 𝜑
Theorem	pwfseq 10089*	The powerset of a Dedekind-infinite set does not inject into the set of finite sequences. The proof is due to Halbeisen and Shelah. Proposition 1.7 of [KanamoriPincus] p. 418. (Contributed by Mario Carneiro, 31-May-2015.)
⊢ (ω ≼ 𝐴 → ¬ 𝒫 𝐴 ≼ ∪ 𝑛 ∈ ω (𝐴 ↑m 𝑛))
Theorem	pwxpndom2 10090	The powerset of a Dedekind-infinite set does not inject into its Cartesian product with itself. (Contributed by Mario Carneiro, 31-May-2015.) (Proof shortened by AV, 18-Jul-2022.)
⊢ (ω ≼ 𝐴 → ¬ 𝒫 𝐴 ≼ (𝐴 ⊔ (𝐴 × 𝐴)))
Theorem	pwxpndom 10091	The powerset of a Dedekind-infinite set does not inject into its Cartesian product with itself. (Contributed by Mario Carneiro, 31-May-2015.)
⊢ (ω ≼ 𝐴 → ¬ 𝒫 𝐴 ≼ (𝐴 × 𝐴))
Theorem	pwdjundom 10092	The powerset of a Dedekind-infinite set does not inject into its cardinal sum with itself. (Contributed by Mario Carneiro, 31-May-2015.)
⊢ (ω ≼ 𝐴 → ¬ 𝒫 𝐴 ≼ (𝐴 ⊔ 𝐴))
Theorem	gchdjuidm 10093	An infinite GCH-set is idempotent under cardinal sum. Part of Lemma 2.2 of [KanamoriPincus] p. 419. (Contributed by Mario Carneiro, 31-May-2015.)
⊢ ((𝐴 ∈ GCH ∧ ¬ 𝐴 ∈ Fin) → (𝐴 ⊔ 𝐴) ≈ 𝐴)
Theorem	gchxpidm 10094	An infinite GCH-set is idempotent under cardinal product. Part of Lemma 2.2 of [KanamoriPincus] p. 419. (Contributed by Mario Carneiro, 31-May-2015.)
⊢ ((𝐴 ∈ GCH ∧ ¬ 𝐴 ∈ Fin) → (𝐴 × 𝐴) ≈ 𝐴)
Theorem	gchpwdom 10095	A relationship between dominance over the powerset and strict dominance when the sets involved are infinite GCH-sets. Proposition 3.1 of [KanamoriPincus] p. 421. (Contributed by Mario Carneiro, 31-May-2015.)
⊢ ((ω ≼ 𝐴 ∧ 𝐴 ∈ GCH ∧ 𝐵 ∈ GCH) → (𝐴 ≺ 𝐵 ↔ 𝒫 𝐴 ≼ 𝐵))
Theorem	gchaleph 10096	If (ℵ‘𝐴) is a GCH-set and its powerset is well-orderable, then the successor aleph (ℵ‘suc 𝐴) is equinumerous to the powerset of (ℵ‘𝐴). (Contributed by Mario Carneiro, 15-May-2015.)
⊢ ((𝐴 ∈ On ∧ (ℵ‘𝐴) ∈ GCH ∧ 𝒫 (ℵ‘𝐴) ∈ dom card) → (ℵ‘suc 𝐴) ≈ 𝒫 (ℵ‘𝐴))
Theorem	gchaleph2 10097	If (ℵ‘𝐴) and (ℵ‘suc 𝐴) are GCH-sets, then the successor aleph (ℵ‘suc 𝐴) is equinumerous to the powerset of (ℵ‘𝐴). (Contributed by Mario Carneiro, 31-May-2015.)
⊢ ((𝐴 ∈ On ∧ (ℵ‘𝐴) ∈ GCH ∧ (ℵ‘suc 𝐴) ∈ GCH) → (ℵ‘suc 𝐴) ≈ 𝒫 (ℵ‘𝐴))
Theorem	hargch 10098	If 𝐴 + ≈ 𝒫 𝐴, then 𝐴 is a GCH-set. The much simpler converse to gchhar 10104. (Contributed by Mario Carneiro, 2-Jun-2015.)
⊢ ((har‘𝐴) ≈ 𝒫 𝐴 → 𝐴 ∈ GCH)
Theorem	alephgch 10099	If (ℵ‘suc 𝐴) is equinumerous to the powerset of (ℵ‘𝐴), then (ℵ‘𝐴) is a GCH-set. (Contributed by Mario Carneiro, 15-May-2015.)
⊢ ((ℵ‘suc 𝐴) ≈ 𝒫 (ℵ‘𝐴) → (ℵ‘𝐴) ∈ GCH)
Theorem	gch2 10100	It is sufficient to require that all alephs are GCH-sets to ensure the full generalized continuum hypothesis. (The proof uses the Axiom of Regularity.) (Contributed by Mario Carneiro, 15-May-2015.)
⊢ (GCH = V ↔ ran ℵ ⊆ GCH)