P. 105 of Theorem List - Metamath Proof Explorer

Theorem List for Metamath Proof Explorer - 10401-10500   *Has distinct variable group(s)

Type	Label	Description
Statement
Theorem	fpwwe2lem6 10401*	Lemma for fpwwe2 10408. (Contributed by Mario Carneiro, 18-May-2015.) (Revised by AV, 20-Jul-2024.)
⊢ 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	fpwwe2lem7 10402*	Lemma for fpwwe2 10408. 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.) (Revised by AV, 20-Jul-2024.)
⊢ 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	fpwwe2lem8 10403*	Lemma for fpwwe2 10408. 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.) (Revised by AV, 20-Jul-2024.)
⊢ 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	fpwwe2lem9 10404*	Lemma for fpwwe2 10408. 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.) (Revised by AV, 20-Jul-2024.)
⊢ 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	fpwwe2lem10 10405*	Lemma for fpwwe2 10408. (Contributed by Mario Carneiro, 15-May-2015.) (Revised by AV, 20-Jul-2024.)
⊢ 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	fpwwe2lem11 10406*	Lemma for fpwwe2 10408. (Contributed by Mario Carneiro, 18-May-2015.) (Proof shortened by Peter Mazsa, 23-Sep-2022.) (Revised by AV, 20-Jul-2024.)
⊢ 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	fpwwe2lem12 10407*	Lemma for fpwwe2 10408. (Contributed by Mario Carneiro, 18-May-2015.) (Revised by AV, 20-Jul-2024.)
⊢ 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 10408*	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 9795. Theorem 1.1 of [KanamoriPincus] p. 415. (Contributed by Mario Carneiro, 18-May-2015.) (Revised by AV, 20-Jul-2024.)
⊢ 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 10409*	Lemma for fpwwe 10411. (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 10410*	Lemma for fpwwe 10411. (Contributed by Mario Carneiro, 15-May-2015.) (Revised by AV, 20-Jul-2024.)
⊢ 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 10411*	Given any function 𝐹 from the powerset of 𝐴 to 𝐴, canth2 8926 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 9795. Theorem 1.1 of [KanamoriPincus] p. 415. (Contributed by Mario Carneiro, 18-May-2015.) (Revised by AV, 20-Jul-2024.)
⊢ 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 10412*	An "effective" form of Cantor's theorem canth 7238. 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 10413*	Lemma for canthnum 10414. (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 10414	The set of well-orderable subsets of a set 𝐴 strictly dominates 𝐴. A stronger form of canth2 8926. Corollary 1.4(a) of [KanamoriPincus] p. 417. (Contributed by Mario Carneiro, 19-May-2015.)
⊢ (𝐴 ∈ 𝑉 → 𝐴 ≺ (𝒫 𝐴 ∩ dom card))
Theorem	canthwelem 10415*	Lemma for canthwe 10416. (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 10416*	The set of well-orders of a set 𝐴 strictly dominates 𝐴. A stronger form of canth2 8926. 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 10417	Lemma for canthp1 10419. (Contributed by Mario Carneiro, 18-May-2015.)
⊢ (1o ≺ 𝐴 → (𝐴 ⊔ 2o) ≼ 𝒫 𝐴)
Theorem	canthp1lem2 10418*	Lemma for canthp1 10419. (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 10419	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 10420	The exclusion of finite sets from consideration in df-gch 10386 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 10421	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 10422	An infinite GCH-set is Dedekind-infinite. (Contributed by Mario Carneiro, 31-May-2015.)
⊢ ((𝐴 ∈ GCH ∧ ¬ 𝐴 ∈ Fin) → ω ≼ 𝐴)
Theorem	pwfseqlem1 10423*	Lemma for pwfseq 10429. 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 10424*	Lemma for pwfseq 10429. (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 10425*	Lemma for pwfseq 10429. Using the construction 𝐷 from pwfseqlem1 10423, 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 10426*	Lemma for pwfseqlem4 10427. (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 10427*	Lemma for pwfseq 10429. Derive a final contradiction from the function 𝐹 in pwfseqlem3 10425. Applying fpwwe2 10408 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 10428*	Lemma for pwfseq 10429. Although in some ways pwfseqlem4 10427 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 9792. 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 9779. 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 9473), which can be used to construct a pairing function explicitly using properties of the ordinal exponential (infxpenc 9783). (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 10429*	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 10430	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 10431	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 10432	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 10433	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 10434	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 10435	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 10436	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 10437	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 10438	If 𝐴 + ≈ 𝒫 𝐴, then 𝐴 is a GCH-set. The much simpler converse to gchhar 10444. (Contributed by Mario Carneiro, 2-Jun-2015.)
⊢ ((har‘𝐴) ≈ 𝒫 𝐴 → 𝐴 ∈ GCH)
Theorem	alephgch 10439	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 10440	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)
Theorem	gch3 10441	An equivalent formulation of the generalized continuum hypothesis. (Contributed by Mario Carneiro, 15-May-2015.)
⊢ (GCH = V ↔ ∀𝑥 ∈ On (ℵ‘suc 𝑥) ≈ 𝒫 (ℵ‘𝑥))
Theorem	gch-kn 10442*	The equivalence of two versions of the Generalized Continuum Hypothesis. The right-hand side is the standard version in the literature. The left-hand side is a version devised by Kannan Nambiar, which he calls the Axiom of Combinatorial Sets. For the notation and motivation behind this axiom, see his paper, "Derivation of Continuum Hypothesis from Axiom of Combinatorial Sets", available at http://www.e-atheneum.net/science/derivation_ch.pdf. The equivalence of the two sides provides a negative answer to Open Problem 2 in http://www.e-atheneum.net/science/open_problem_print.pdf. The key idea in the proof below is to equate both sides of alephexp2 10346 to the successor aleph using enen2 8914. (Contributed by NM, 1-Oct-2004.)
⊢ (𝐴 ∈ On → ((ℵ‘suc 𝐴) ≈ {𝑥 ∣ (𝑥 ⊆ (ℵ‘𝐴) ∧ 𝑥 ≈ (ℵ‘𝐴))} ↔ (ℵ‘suc 𝐴) ≈ (2o ↑m (ℵ‘𝐴))))
3.4.2  Derivation of the Axiom of Choice
Theorem	gchaclem 10443	Lemma for gchac 10446 (obsolete, used in Sierpiński's proof). (Contributed by Mario Carneiro, 15-May-2015.)
⊢ (𝜑 → ω ≼ 𝐴)    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝒫 𝐶 ∈ GCH)    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → (𝐴 ≼ 𝐶 ∧ (𝐵 ≼ 𝒫 𝐶 → 𝒫 𝐴 ≼ 𝐵)))    ⇒   ⊢ (𝜑 → (𝐴 ≼ 𝒫 𝐶 ∧ (𝐵 ≼ 𝒫 𝒫 𝐶 → 𝒫 𝐴 ≼ 𝐵)))
Theorem	gchhar 10444	A "local" form of gchac 10446. If 𝐴 and 𝒫 𝐴 are GCH-sets, then the Hartogs number of 𝐴 is 𝒫 𝐴 (so 𝒫 𝐴 and a fortiori 𝐴 are well-orderable). The proof is due to Specker. Theorem 2.1 of [KanamoriPincus] p. 419. (Contributed by Mario Carneiro, 31-May-2015.)
⊢ ((ω ≼ 𝐴 ∧ 𝐴 ∈ GCH ∧ 𝒫 𝐴 ∈ GCH) → (har‘𝐴) ≈ 𝒫 𝐴)
Theorem	gchacg 10445	A "local" form of gchac 10446. If 𝐴 and 𝒫 𝐴 are GCH-sets, then 𝒫 𝐴 is well-orderable. The proof is due to Specker. Theorem 2.1 of [KanamoriPincus] p. 419. (Contributed by Mario Carneiro, 15-May-2015.)
⊢ ((ω ≼ 𝐴 ∧ 𝐴 ∈ GCH ∧ 𝒫 𝐴 ∈ GCH) → 𝒫 𝐴 ∈ dom card)
Theorem	gchac 10446	The Generalized Continuum Hypothesis implies the Axiom of Choice. The original proof is due to Sierpiński (1947); we use a refinement of Sierpiński's result due to Specker. (Contributed by Mario Carneiro, 15-May-2015.)
⊢ (GCH = V → CHOICE)
PART 4  TG (TARSKI-GROTHENDIECK) SET THEORY Here we introduce Tarski-Grothendieck (TG) set theory, named after mathematicians Alfred Tarski and Alexander Grothendieck. TG theory extends ZFC with the TG Axiom ax-groth 10588, which states that for every set 𝑥 there is an inaccessible cardinal 𝑦 such that 𝑦 is not in 𝑥. The addition of this axiom to ZFC set theory provides a framework for category theory, thus for all practical purposes giving us a complete foundation for "all of mathematics". We first introduce the concept of inaccessibles, including weakly and strongly inaccessible cardinals (df-wina 10449 and df-ina 10450 respectively ), Tarski classes (df-tsk 10514), and Grothendieck universes (df-gru 10556). We then introduce the Tarski's axiom ax-groth 10588 and prove various properties from that.
4.1  Inaccessibles
4.1.1  Weakly and strongly inaccessible cardinals
Syntax	cwina 10447	The class of weak inaccessibles.
class Inaccw
Syntax	cina 10448	The class of strong inaccessibles.
class Inacc
Definition	df-wina 10449*	An ordinal is weakly inaccessible iff it is a regular limit cardinal. Note that our definition allows ω as a weakly inaccessible cardinal. (Contributed by Mario Carneiro, 22-Jun-2013.)
⊢ Inaccw = {𝑥 ∣ (𝑥 ≠ ∅ ∧ (cf‘𝑥) = 𝑥 ∧ ∀𝑦 ∈ 𝑥 ∃𝑧 ∈ 𝑥 𝑦 ≺ 𝑧)}
Definition	df-ina 10450*	An ordinal is strongly inaccessible iff it is a regular strong limit cardinal, which is to say that it dominates the powersets of every smaller ordinal. (Contributed by Mario Carneiro, 22-Jun-2013.)
⊢ Inacc = {𝑥 ∣ (𝑥 ≠ ∅ ∧ (cf‘𝑥) = 𝑥 ∧ ∀𝑦 ∈ 𝑥 𝒫 𝑦 ≺ 𝑥)}
Theorem	elwina 10451*	Conditions of weak inaccessibility. (Contributed by Mario Carneiro, 22-Jun-2013.)
⊢ (𝐴 ∈ Inaccw ↔ (𝐴 ≠ ∅ ∧ (cf‘𝐴) = 𝐴 ∧ ∀𝑥 ∈ 𝐴 ∃𝑦 ∈ 𝐴 𝑥 ≺ 𝑦))
Theorem	elina 10452*	Conditions of strong inaccessibility. (Contributed by Mario Carneiro, 22-Jun-2013.)
⊢ (𝐴 ∈ Inacc ↔ (𝐴 ≠ ∅ ∧ (cf‘𝐴) = 𝐴 ∧ ∀𝑥 ∈ 𝐴 𝒫 𝑥 ≺ 𝐴))
Theorem	winaon 10453	A weakly inaccessible cardinal is an ordinal. (Contributed by Mario Carneiro, 29-May-2014.)
⊢ (𝐴 ∈ Inaccw → 𝐴 ∈ On)
Theorem	inawinalem 10454*	Lemma for inawina 10455. (Contributed by Mario Carneiro, 8-Jun-2014.)
⊢ (𝐴 ∈ On → (∀𝑥 ∈ 𝐴 𝒫 𝑥 ≺ 𝐴 → ∀𝑥 ∈ 𝐴 ∃𝑦 ∈ 𝐴 𝑥 ≺ 𝑦))
Theorem	inawina 10455	Every strongly inaccessible cardinal is weakly inaccessible. (Contributed by Mario Carneiro, 29-May-2014.)
⊢ (𝐴 ∈ Inacc → 𝐴 ∈ Inaccw)
Theorem	omina 10456	ω is a strongly inaccessible cardinal. (Many definitions of "inaccessible" explicitly disallow ω as an inaccessible cardinal, but this choice allows us to reuse our results for inaccessibles for ω.) (Contributed by Mario Carneiro, 29-May-2014.)
⊢ ω ∈ Inacc
Theorem	winacard 10457	A weakly inaccessible cardinal is a cardinal. (Contributed by Mario Carneiro, 29-May-2014.)
⊢ (𝐴 ∈ Inaccw → (card‘𝐴) = 𝐴)
Theorem	winainflem 10458*	A weakly inaccessible cardinal is infinite. (Contributed by Mario Carneiro, 29-May-2014.)
⊢ ((𝐴 ≠ ∅ ∧ 𝐴 ∈ On ∧ ∀𝑥 ∈ 𝐴 ∃𝑦 ∈ 𝐴 𝑥 ≺ 𝑦) → ω ⊆ 𝐴)
Theorem	winainf 10459	A weakly inaccessible cardinal is infinite. (Contributed by Mario Carneiro, 29-May-2014.)
⊢ (𝐴 ∈ Inaccw → ω ⊆ 𝐴)
Theorem	winalim 10460	A weakly inaccessible cardinal is a limit ordinal. (Contributed by Mario Carneiro, 29-May-2014.)
⊢ (𝐴 ∈ Inaccw → Lim 𝐴)
Theorem	winalim2 10461*	A nontrivial weakly inaccessible cardinal is a limit aleph. (Contributed by Mario Carneiro, 29-May-2014.)
⊢ ((𝐴 ∈ Inaccw ∧ 𝐴 ≠ ω) → ∃𝑥((ℵ‘𝑥) = 𝐴 ∧ Lim 𝑥))
Theorem	winafp 10462	A nontrivial weakly inaccessible cardinal is a fixed point of the aleph function. (Contributed by Mario Carneiro, 29-May-2014.)
⊢ ((𝐴 ∈ Inaccw ∧ 𝐴 ≠ ω) → (ℵ‘𝐴) = 𝐴)
Theorem	winafpi 10463	This theorem, which states that a nontrivial inaccessible cardinal is its own aleph number, is stated here in inference form, where the assumptions are in the hypotheses rather than an antecedent. Often, we use dedth 4518 to turn this type of statement into the closed form statement winafp 10462, but in this case, since it is consistent with ZFC that there are no nontrivial inaccessible cardinals, it is not possible to prove winafp 10462 using this theorem and dedth 4518, in ZFC. (You can prove this if you use ax-groth 10588, though.) (Contributed by Mario Carneiro, 28-May-2014.)
⊢ 𝐴 ∈ Inaccw    &   ⊢ 𝐴 ≠ ω    ⇒   ⊢ (ℵ‘𝐴) = 𝐴
Theorem	gchina 10464	Assuming the GCH, weakly and strongly inaccessible cardinals coincide. Theorem 11.20 of [TakeutiZaring] p. 106. (Contributed by Mario Carneiro, 5-Jun-2015.)
⊢ (GCH = V → Inaccw = Inacc)
4.1.2  Weak universes
Syntax	cwun 10465	Extend class definition to include the class of all weak universes.
class WUni
Syntax	cwunm 10466	Extend class definition to include the map whose value is the smallest weak universe of which the given set is a subset.
class wUniCl
Definition	df-wun 10467*	The class of all weak universes. A weak universe is a nonempty transitive class closed under union, pairing, and powerset. The advantage of weak universes over Grothendieck universes is that one can prove that every set is contained in a weak universe in ZF (see uniwun 10505) whereas the analogue for Grothendieck universes requires ax-groth 10588 (see grothtsk 10600). (Contributed by Mario Carneiro, 2-Jan-2017.)
⊢ WUni = {𝑢 ∣ (Tr 𝑢 ∧ 𝑢 ≠ ∅ ∧ ∀𝑥 ∈ 𝑢 (∪ 𝑥 ∈ 𝑢 ∧ 𝒫 𝑥 ∈ 𝑢 ∧ ∀𝑦 ∈ 𝑢 {𝑥, 𝑦} ∈ 𝑢))}
Definition	df-wunc 10468*	A function that maps a set 𝑥 to the smallest weak universe that contains the elements of the set. (Contributed by Mario Carneiro, 2-Jan-2017.)
⊢ wUniCl = (𝑥 ∈ V ↦ ∩ {𝑢 ∈ WUni ∣ 𝑥 ⊆ 𝑢})
Theorem	iswun 10469*	Properties of a weak universe. (Contributed by Mario Carneiro, 2-Jan-2017.)
⊢ (𝑈 ∈ 𝑉 → (𝑈 ∈ WUni ↔ (Tr 𝑈 ∧ 𝑈 ≠ ∅ ∧ ∀𝑥 ∈ 𝑈 (∪ 𝑥 ∈ 𝑈 ∧ 𝒫 𝑥 ∈ 𝑈 ∧ ∀𝑦 ∈ 𝑈 {𝑥, 𝑦} ∈ 𝑈))))
Theorem	wuntr 10470	A weak universe is transitive. (Contributed by Mario Carneiro, 2-Jan-2017.)
⊢ (𝑈 ∈ WUni → Tr 𝑈)
Theorem	wununi 10471	A weak universe is closed under union. (Contributed by Mario Carneiro, 2-Jan-2017.)
⊢ (𝜑 → 𝑈 ∈ WUni)    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝐴 ∈ 𝑈)    ⇒   ⊢ (𝜑 → ∪ 𝐴 ∈ 𝑈)
Theorem	wunpw 10472	A weak universe is closed under powerset. (Contributed by Mario Carneiro, 2-Jan-2017.)
⊢ (𝜑 → 𝑈 ∈ WUni)    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝐴 ∈ 𝑈)    ⇒   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝒫 𝐴 ∈ 𝑈)
Theorem	wunelss 10473	The elements of a weak universe are also subsets of it. (Contributed by Mario Carneiro, 2-Jan-2017.)
⊢ (𝜑 → 𝑈 ∈ WUni)    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝐴 ∈ 𝑈)    ⇒   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝐴 ⊆ 𝑈)
Theorem	wunpr 10474	A weak universe is closed under pairing. (Contributed by Mario Carneiro, 2-Jan-2017.)
⊢ (𝜑 → 𝑈 ∈ WUni)    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝐴 ∈ 𝑈)    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝐵 ∈ 𝑈)    ⇒   ⊢ (𝜑 → {𝐴, 𝐵} ∈ 𝑈)
Theorem	wunun 10475	A weak universe is closed under binary union. (Contributed by Mario Carneiro, 2-Jan-2017.)
⊢ (𝜑 → 𝑈 ∈ WUni)    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝐴 ∈ 𝑈)    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝐵 ∈ 𝑈)    ⇒   ⊢ (𝜑 → (𝐴 ∪ 𝐵) ∈ 𝑈)
Theorem	wuntp 10476	A weak universe is closed under unordered triple. (Contributed by Mario Carneiro, 2-Jan-2017.)
⊢ (𝜑 → 𝑈 ∈ WUni)    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝐴 ∈ 𝑈)    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝐵 ∈ 𝑈)    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝐶 ∈ 𝑈)    ⇒   ⊢ (𝜑 → {𝐴, 𝐵, 𝐶} ∈ 𝑈)
Theorem	wunss 10477	A weak universe is closed under subsets. (Contributed by Mario Carneiro, 2-Jan-2017.)
⊢ (𝜑 → 𝑈 ∈ WUni)    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝐴 ∈ 𝑈)    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝐵 ⊆ 𝐴)    ⇒   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝐵 ∈ 𝑈)
Theorem	wunin 10478	A weak universe is closed under binary intersections. (Contributed by Mario Carneiro, 2-Jan-2017.)
⊢ (𝜑 → 𝑈 ∈ WUni)    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝐴 ∈ 𝑈)    ⇒   ⊢ (𝜑 → (𝐴 ∩ 𝐵) ∈ 𝑈)
Theorem	wundif 10479	A weak universe is closed under class difference. (Contributed by Mario Carneiro, 2-Jan-2017.)
⊢ (𝜑 → 𝑈 ∈ WUni)    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝐴 ∈ 𝑈)    ⇒   ⊢ (𝜑 → (𝐴 ∖ 𝐵) ∈ 𝑈)
Theorem	wunint 10480	A weak universe is closed under nonempty intersections. (Contributed by Mario Carneiro, 2-Jan-2017.)
⊢ (𝜑 → 𝑈 ∈ WUni)    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝐴 ∈ 𝑈)    ⇒   ⊢ ((𝜑 ∧ 𝐴 ≠ ∅) → ∩ 𝐴 ∈ 𝑈)
Theorem	wunsn 10481	A weak universe is closed under singletons. (Contributed by Mario Carneiro, 2-Jan-2017.)
⊢ (𝜑 → 𝑈 ∈ WUni)    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝐴 ∈ 𝑈)    ⇒   ⊢ (𝜑 → {𝐴} ∈ 𝑈)
Theorem	wunsuc 10482	A weak universe is closed under successors. (Contributed by Mario Carneiro, 2-Jan-2017.)
⊢ (𝜑 → 𝑈 ∈ WUni)    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝐴 ∈ 𝑈)    ⇒   ⊢ (𝜑 → suc 𝐴 ∈ 𝑈)
Theorem	wun0 10483	A weak universe contains the empty set. (Contributed by Mario Carneiro, 2-Jan-2017.)
⊢ (𝜑 → 𝑈 ∈ WUni)    ⇒   ⊢ (𝜑 → ∅ ∈ 𝑈)
Theorem	wunr1om 10484	A weak universe is infinite, because it contains all the finite levels of the cumulative hierarchy. (Contributed by Mario Carneiro, 2-Jan-2017.)
⊢ (𝜑 → 𝑈 ∈ WUni)    ⇒   ⊢ (𝜑 → (𝑅1 “ ω) ⊆ 𝑈)
Theorem	wunom 10485	A weak universe contains all the finite ordinals, and hence is infinite. (Contributed by Mario Carneiro, 2-Jan-2017.)
⊢ (𝜑 → 𝑈 ∈ WUni)    ⇒   ⊢ (𝜑 → ω ⊆ 𝑈)
Theorem	wunfi 10486	A weak universe contains all finite sets with elements drawn from the universe. (Contributed by Mario Carneiro, 2-Jan-2017.)
⊢ (𝜑 → 𝑈 ∈ WUni)    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝐴 ⊆ 𝑈)    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝐴 ∈ Fin)    ⇒   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝐴 ∈ 𝑈)
Theorem	wunop 10487	A weak universe is closed under ordered pairs. (Contributed by Mario Carneiro, 2-Jan-2017.)
⊢ (𝜑 → 𝑈 ∈ WUni)    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝐴 ∈ 𝑈)    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝐵 ∈ 𝑈)    ⇒   ⊢ (𝜑 → ⟨𝐴, 𝐵⟩ ∈ 𝑈)
Theorem	wunot 10488	A weak universe is closed under ordered triples. (Contributed by Mario Carneiro, 2-Jan-2017.)
⊢ (𝜑 → 𝑈 ∈ WUni)    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝐴 ∈ 𝑈)    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝐵 ∈ 𝑈)    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝐶 ∈ 𝑈)    ⇒   ⊢ (𝜑 → ⟨𝐴, 𝐵, 𝐶⟩ ∈ 𝑈)
Theorem	wunxp 10489	A weak universe is closed under cartesian products. (Contributed by Mario Carneiro, 2-Jan-2017.)
⊢ (𝜑 → 𝑈 ∈ WUni)    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝐴 ∈ 𝑈)    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝐵 ∈ 𝑈)    ⇒   ⊢ (𝜑 → (𝐴 × 𝐵) ∈ 𝑈)
Theorem	wunpm 10490	A weak universe is closed under partial mappings. (Contributed by Mario Carneiro, 2-Jan-2017.)
⊢ (𝜑 → 𝑈 ∈ WUni)    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝐴 ∈ 𝑈)    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝐵 ∈ 𝑈)    ⇒   ⊢ (𝜑 → (𝐴 ↑pm 𝐵) ∈ 𝑈)
Theorem	wunmap 10491	A weak universe is closed under mappings. (Contributed by Mario Carneiro, 2-Jan-2017.)
⊢ (𝜑 → 𝑈 ∈ WUni)    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝐴 ∈ 𝑈)    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝐵 ∈ 𝑈)    ⇒   ⊢ (𝜑 → (𝐴 ↑m 𝐵) ∈ 𝑈)
Theorem	wunf 10492	A weak universe is closed under functions with known domain and codomain. (Contributed by Mario Carneiro, 2-Jan-2017.)
⊢ (𝜑 → 𝑈 ∈ WUni)    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝐴 ∈ 𝑈)    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝐵 ∈ 𝑈)    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝐹:𝐴⟶𝐵)    ⇒   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝐹 ∈ 𝑈)
Theorem	wundm 10493	A weak universe is closed under the domain operator. (Contributed by Mario Carneiro, 2-Jan-2017.)
⊢ (𝜑 → 𝑈 ∈ WUni)    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝐴 ∈ 𝑈)    ⇒   ⊢ (𝜑 → dom 𝐴 ∈ 𝑈)
Theorem	wunrn 10494	A weak universe is closed under the range operator. (Contributed by Mario Carneiro, 2-Jan-2017.)
⊢ (𝜑 → 𝑈 ∈ WUni)    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝐴 ∈ 𝑈)    ⇒   ⊢ (𝜑 → ran 𝐴 ∈ 𝑈)
Theorem	wuncnv 10495	A weak universe is closed under the converse operator. (Contributed by Mario Carneiro, 2-Jan-2017.)
⊢ (𝜑 → 𝑈 ∈ WUni)    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝐴 ∈ 𝑈)    ⇒   ⊢ (𝜑 → ◡𝐴 ∈ 𝑈)
Theorem	wunres 10496	A weak universe is closed under restrictions. (Contributed by Mario Carneiro, 12-Jan-2017.)
⊢ (𝜑 → 𝑈 ∈ WUni)    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝐴 ∈ 𝑈)    ⇒   ⊢ (𝜑 → (𝐴 ↾ 𝐵) ∈ 𝑈)
Theorem	wunfv 10497	A weak universe is closed under the function value operator. (Contributed by Mario Carneiro, 3-Jan-2017.)
⊢ (𝜑 → 𝑈 ∈ WUni)    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝐴 ∈ 𝑈)    ⇒   ⊢ (𝜑 → (𝐴‘𝐵) ∈ 𝑈)
Theorem	wunco 10498	A weak universe is closed under composition. (Contributed by Mario Carneiro, 12-Jan-2017.)
⊢ (𝜑 → 𝑈 ∈ WUni)    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝐴 ∈ 𝑈)    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝐵 ∈ 𝑈)    ⇒   ⊢ (𝜑 → (𝐴 ∘ 𝐵) ∈ 𝑈)
Theorem	wuntpos 10499	A weak universe is closed under transposition. (Contributed by Mario Carneiro, 12-Jan-2017.)
⊢ (𝜑 → 𝑈 ∈ WUni)    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝐴 ∈ 𝑈)    ⇒   ⊢ (𝜑 → tpos 𝐴 ∈ 𝑈)
Theorem	intwun 10500	The intersection of a collection of weak universes is a weak universe. (Contributed by Mario Carneiro, 2-Jan-2017.)
⊢ ((𝐴 ⊆ WUni ∧ 𝐴 ≠ ∅) → ∩ 𝐴 ∈ WUni)