P. 107 of Theorem List - Metamath Proof Explorer

Theorem List for Metamath Proof Explorer - 10601-10700   *Has distinct variable group(s)

Type	Label	Description
Statement
Theorem	pwcfsdom 10601*	A corollary of Konig's Theorem konigth 10587. 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 10602	A corollary of Konig's Theorem konigth 10587. 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 10603	From canth2 9148, 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 10587 (in the form of cfpwsdom 10602), (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 10604	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 10605	A lemma for proving conditionless ZFC axioms. Usage of this theorem is discouraged because it depends on ax-13 2365. (Contributed by NM, 1-Jan-2002.) (New usage is discouraged.)
⊢ (∀𝑥 𝑥 = 𝑦 → ¬ ∀𝑥 𝑦 ∈ 𝑧)
Theorem	nd2 10606	A lemma for proving conditionless ZFC axioms. Usage of this theorem is discouraged because it depends on ax-13 2365. (Contributed by NM, 1-Jan-2002.) (New usage is discouraged.)
⊢ (∀𝑥 𝑥 = 𝑦 → ¬ ∀𝑥 𝑧 ∈ 𝑦)
Theorem	nd3 10607	A lemma for proving conditionless ZFC axioms. (Contributed by NM, 2-Jan-2002.)
⊢ (∀𝑥 𝑥 = 𝑦 → ¬ ∀𝑧 𝑥 ∈ 𝑦)
Theorem	nd4 10608	A lemma for proving conditionless ZFC axioms. Usage of this theorem is discouraged because it depends on ax-13 2365. (Contributed by NM, 2-Jan-2002.) (New usage is discouraged.)
⊢ (∀𝑥 𝑥 = 𝑦 → ¬ ∀𝑧 𝑦 ∈ 𝑥)
Theorem	axextnd 10609	A version of the Axiom of Extensionality with no distinct variable conditions. Usage of this theorem is discouraged because it depends on ax-13 2365. (Contributed by NM, 14-Aug-2003.) (New usage is discouraged.)
⊢ ∃𝑥((𝑥 ∈ 𝑦 ↔ 𝑥 ∈ 𝑧) → 𝑦 = 𝑧)
Theorem	axrepndlem1 10610*	Lemma for the Axiom of Replacement with no distinct variable conditions. Usage of this theorem is discouraged because it depends on ax-13 2365. (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 10611	Lemma for the Axiom of Replacement with no distinct variable conditions. Usage of this theorem is discouraged because it depends on ax-13 2365. (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 10612	A version of the Axiom of Replacement with no distinct variable conditions. Usage of this theorem is discouraged because it depends on ax-13 2365. (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 10613*	Lemma for the Axiom of Union with no distinct variable conditions. Usage of this theorem is discouraged because it depends on ax-13 2365. (Contributed by NM, 2-Jan-2002.) (New usage is discouraged.)
⊢ ∃𝑥∀𝑦(∃𝑥(𝑦 ∈ 𝑥 ∧ 𝑥 ∈ 𝑧) → 𝑦 ∈ 𝑥)
Theorem	axunnd 10614	A version of the Axiom of Union with no distinct variable conditions. Usage of this theorem is discouraged because it depends on ax-13 2365. (Contributed by NM, 2-Jan-2002.) (New usage is discouraged.)
⊢ ∃𝑥∀𝑦(∃𝑥(𝑦 ∈ 𝑥 ∧ 𝑥 ∈ 𝑧) → 𝑦 ∈ 𝑥)
Theorem	axpowndlem1 10615	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 10616*	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 2365. (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 10617*	Lemma for the Axiom of Power Sets with no distinct variable conditions. Usage of this theorem is discouraged because it depends on ax-13 2365. (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 10618	Lemma for the Axiom of Power Sets with no distinct variable conditions. Usage of this theorem is discouraged because it depends on ax-13 2365. (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 10619	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 2365. (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 10620	Lemma for the Axiom of Regularity with no distinct variable conditions. Usage of this theorem is discouraged because it depends on ax-13 2365. (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 10621*	Lemma for the Axiom of Regularity with no distinct variable conditions. Usage of this theorem is discouraged because it depends on ax-13 2365. (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 10622	A version of the Axiom of Regularity with no distinct variable conditions. Usage of this theorem is discouraged because it depends on ax-13 2365. (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 10623*	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 10624	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 10625	Lemma for the Axiom of Choice with no distinct variable conditions. Usage of this theorem is discouraged because it depends on ax-13 2365. (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 10626	Lemma for the Axiom of Choice with no distinct variable conditions. Usage of this theorem is discouraged because it depends on ax-13 2365. (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 10627	Lemma for the Axiom of Choice with no distinct variable conditions. Usage of this theorem is discouraged because it depends on ax-13 2365. (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 10628*	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 10629*	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 10630	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 10631*	Axiom of Extensionality ax-ext 2696, reproved from conditionless ZFC version and predicate calculus. Usage of this theorem is discouraged because it depends on ax-13 2365. (Contributed by NM, 15-Aug-2003.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) (New usage is discouraged.)
⊢ (∀𝑧(𝑧 ∈ 𝑥 ↔ 𝑧 ∈ 𝑦) → 𝑥 = 𝑦)
Theorem	zfcndrep 10632*	Axiom of Replacement ax-rep 5281, reproved from conditionless ZFC axioms. Usage of this theorem is discouraged because it depends on ax-13 2365. (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 10633*	Axiom of Union ax-un 7735, reproved from conditionless ZFC axioms. Usage of this theorem is discouraged because it depends on ax-13 2365. (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 10634*	Axiom of Power Sets ax-pow 5360, reproved from conditionless ZFC axioms. The proof uses the "Axiom of Twoness" dtru 5433. Usage of this theorem is discouraged because it depends on ax-13 2365. (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 10635*	Axiom of Regularity ax-reg 9610, reproved from conditionless ZFC axioms. Usage of this theorem is discouraged because it depends on ax-13 2365. (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 10636*	Axiom of Infinity ax-inf 9656, reproved from conditionless ZFC axioms. Since we have already reproved Extensionality, Replacement, and Power Sets above, we are justified in referencing Theorem el 5434 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 10637*	Axiom of Choice ax-ac 10477, 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 10638	Extend class notation to include the collection of sets that satisfy the GCH.
class GCH
Definition	df-gch 10639*	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 10640*	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 10641	A finite set is a GCH-set. (Contributed by Mario Carneiro, 15-May-2015.)
⊢ Fin ⊆ GCH
Theorem	gchi 10642	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 10643	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 10644	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 10645	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 10646	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 10647	Under certain conditions, a GCH-set can demonstrate trichotomy of dominance. Lemma for gchac 10699. (Contributed by Mario Carneiro, 15-May-2015.)
⊢ ((𝐴 ∈ GCH ∧ (𝐴 ⊔ 𝐴) ≈ 𝐴 ∧ 𝐵 ≼ 𝒫 𝐴) → (𝐴 ≼ 𝐵 ∨ 𝐵 ≼ 𝐴))
Theorem	fpwwe2cbv 10648*	Lemma for fpwwe2 10661. (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 10649*	Lemma for fpwwe2 10661. (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 10650*	Lemma for fpwwe2 10661. (Contributed by Mario Carneiro, 19-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 → (𝑋𝑊𝑅 ↔ ((𝑋 ⊆ 𝐴 ∧ 𝑅 ⊆ (𝑋 × 𝑋)) ∧ (𝑅 We 𝑋 ∧ ∀𝑦 ∈ 𝑋 [(◡𝑅 “ {𝑦}) / 𝑢](𝑢𝐹(𝑅 ∩ (𝑢 × 𝑢))) = 𝑦))))
Theorem	fpwwe2lem3 10651*	Lemma for fpwwe2 10661. (Contributed by Mario Carneiro, 19-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 → 𝑋𝑊𝑅)    ⇒   ⊢ ((𝜑 ∧ 𝐵 ∈ 𝑋) → ((◡𝑅 “ {𝐵})𝐹(𝑅 ∩ ((◡𝑅 “ {𝐵}) × (◡𝑅 “ {𝐵})))) = 𝐵)
Theorem	fpwwe2lem4 10652*	Lemma for fpwwe2 10661. (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 ∧ (𝑋 ⊆ 𝐴 ∧ 𝑅 ⊆ (𝑋 × 𝑋) ∧ 𝑅 We 𝑋)) → (𝑋𝐹𝑅) ∈ 𝐴)
Theorem	fpwwe2lem5 10653*	Lemma for fpwwe2 10661. (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)) → (𝐶 ∈ 𝑋 ∧ 𝐶 ∈ 𝑌 ∧ (◡𝑀‘𝐶) = (◡𝑁‘𝐶)))
Theorem	fpwwe2lem6 10654*	Lemma for fpwwe2 10661. (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 10655*	Lemma for fpwwe2 10661. 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 10656*	Lemma for fpwwe2 10661. 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 10657*	Lemma for fpwwe2 10661. 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 10658*	Lemma for fpwwe2 10661. (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 10659*	Lemma for fpwwe2 10661. (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 10660*	Lemma for fpwwe2 10661. (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 10661*	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 10048. 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 10662*	Lemma for fpwwe 10664. (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 10663*	Lemma for fpwwe 10664. (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 10664*	Given any function 𝐹 from the powerset of 𝐴 to 𝐴, canth2 9148 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 10048. 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 10665*	An "effective" form of Cantor's theorem canth 7366. 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 10666*	Lemma for canthnum 10667. (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 10667	The set of well-orderable subsets of a set 𝐴 strictly dominates 𝐴. A stronger form of canth2 9148. Corollary 1.4(a) of [KanamoriPincus] p. 417. (Contributed by Mario Carneiro, 19-May-2015.)
⊢ (𝐴 ∈ 𝑉 → 𝐴 ≺ (𝒫 𝐴 ∩ dom card))
Theorem	canthwelem 10668*	Lemma for canthwe 10669. (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 10669*	The set of well-orders of a set 𝐴 strictly dominates 𝐴. A stronger form of canth2 9148. 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 10670	Lemma for canthp1 10672. (Contributed by Mario Carneiro, 18-May-2015.)
⊢ (1o ≺ 𝐴 → (𝐴 ⊔ 2o) ≼ 𝒫 𝐴)
Theorem	canthp1lem2 10671*	Lemma for canthp1 10672. (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 10672	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 10673	The exclusion of finite sets from consideration in df-gch 10639 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 10674	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 10675	An infinite GCH-set is Dedekind-infinite. (Contributed by Mario Carneiro, 31-May-2015.)
⊢ ((𝐴 ∈ GCH ∧ ¬ 𝐴 ∈ Fin) → ω ≼ 𝐴)
Theorem	pwfseqlem1 10676*	Lemma for pwfseq 10682. 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 10677*	Lemma for pwfseq 10682. (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 10678*	Lemma for pwfseq 10682. Using the construction 𝐷 from pwfseqlem1 10676, 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 10679*	Lemma for pwfseqlem4 10680. (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 10680*	Lemma for pwfseq 10682. Derive a final contradiction from the function 𝐹 in pwfseqlem3 10678. Applying fpwwe2 10661 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 10681*	Lemma for pwfseq 10682. Although in some ways pwfseqlem4 10680 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 10045. 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 10032. 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 9724), which can be used to construct a pairing function explicitly using properties of the ordinal exponential (infxpenc 10036). (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 10682*	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 10683	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 10684	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 10685	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 10686	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 10687	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 10688	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 10689	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 10690	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 10691	If 𝐴 + ≈ 𝒫 𝐴, then 𝐴 is a GCH-set. The much simpler converse to gchhar 10697. (Contributed by Mario Carneiro, 2-Jun-2015.)
⊢ ((har‘𝐴) ≈ 𝒫 𝐴 → 𝐴 ∈ GCH)
Theorem	alephgch 10692	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 10693	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 10694	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 10695*	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 10599 to the successor aleph using enen2 9136. (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 10696	Lemma for gchac 10699 (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 10697	A "local" form of gchac 10699. 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 10698	A "local" form of gchac 10699. 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 10699	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 10841, 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 10702 and df-ina 10703 respectively ), Tarski classes (df-tsk 10767), and Grothendieck universes (df-gru 10809). We then introduce the Tarski's axiom ax-groth 10841 and prove various properties from that.
4.1  Inaccessibles
4.1.1  Weakly and strongly inaccessible cardinals
Syntax	cwina 10700	The class of weak inaccessibles.
class Inaccw