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	axpowndlem4 10601	Lemma for the Axiom of Power Sets with no distinct variable conditions. Usage of this theorem is discouraged because it depends on ax-13 2370. (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 10602	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 2370. (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 10603	Lemma for the Axiom of Regularity with no distinct variable conditions. Usage of this theorem is discouraged because it depends on ax-13 2370. (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 10604*	Lemma for the Axiom of Regularity with no distinct variable conditions. Usage of this theorem is discouraged because it depends on ax-13 2370. (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 10605	A version of the Axiom of Regularity with no distinct variable conditions. Usage of this theorem is discouraged because it depends on ax-13 2370. (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 10606*	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 10607	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 10608	Lemma for the Axiom of Choice with no distinct variable conditions. Usage of this theorem is discouraged because it depends on ax-13 2370. (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 10609	Lemma for the Axiom of Choice with no distinct variable conditions. Usage of this theorem is discouraged because it depends on ax-13 2370. (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 10610	Lemma for the Axiom of Choice with no distinct variable conditions. Usage of this theorem is discouraged because it depends on ax-13 2370. (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 10611*	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 10612*	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 10613	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 10614*	Axiom of Extensionality ax-ext 2702, reproved from conditionless ZFC version and predicate calculus. Usage of this theorem is discouraged because it depends on ax-13 2370. (Contributed by NM, 15-Aug-2003.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) (New usage is discouraged.)
⊢ (∀𝑧(𝑧 ∈ 𝑥 ↔ 𝑧 ∈ 𝑦) → 𝑥 = 𝑦)
Theorem	zfcndrep 10615*	Axiom of Replacement ax-rep 5285, reproved from conditionless ZFC axioms. Usage of this theorem is discouraged because it depends on ax-13 2370. (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 10616*	Axiom of Union ax-un 7729, reproved from conditionless ZFC axioms. Usage of this theorem is discouraged because it depends on ax-13 2370. (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 10617*	Axiom of Power Sets ax-pow 5363, reproved from conditionless ZFC axioms. The proof uses the "Axiom of Twoness" dtru 5436. Usage of this theorem is discouraged because it depends on ax-13 2370. (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 10618*	Axiom of Regularity ax-reg 9593, reproved from conditionless ZFC axioms. Usage of this theorem is discouraged because it depends on ax-13 2370. (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 10619*	Axiom of Infinity ax-inf 9639, reproved from conditionless ZFC axioms. Since we have already reproved Extensionality, Replacement, and Power Sets above, we are justified in referencing Theorem el 5437 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 10620*	Axiom of Choice ax-ac 10460, 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 10621	Extend class notation to include the collection of sets that satisfy the GCH.
class GCH
Definition	df-gch 10622*	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 10623*	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 10624	A finite set is a GCH-set. (Contributed by Mario Carneiro, 15-May-2015.)
⊢ Fin ⊆ GCH
Theorem	gchi 10625	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 10626	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 10627	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 10628	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 10629	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 10630	Under certain conditions, a GCH-set can demonstrate trichotomy of dominance. Lemma for gchac 10682. (Contributed by Mario Carneiro, 15-May-2015.)
⊢ ((𝐴 ∈ GCH ∧ (𝐴 ⊔ 𝐴) ≈ 𝐴 ∧ 𝐵 ≼ 𝒫 𝐴) → (𝐴 ≼ 𝐵 ∨ 𝐵 ≼ 𝐴))
Theorem	fpwwe2cbv 10631*	Lemma for fpwwe2 10644. (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 10632*	Lemma for fpwwe2 10644. (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 10633*	Lemma for fpwwe2 10644. (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 10634*	Lemma for fpwwe2 10644. (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 10635*	Lemma for fpwwe2 10644. (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 10636*	Lemma for fpwwe2 10644. (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 10637*	Lemma for fpwwe2 10644. (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 10638*	Lemma for fpwwe2 10644. 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 10639*	Lemma for fpwwe2 10644. 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 10640*	Lemma for fpwwe2 10644. 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 10641*	Lemma for fpwwe2 10644. (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 10642*	Lemma for fpwwe2 10644. (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 10643*	Lemma for fpwwe2 10644. (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 10644*	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 10031. 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 10645*	Lemma for fpwwe 10647. (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 10646*	Lemma for fpwwe 10647. (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 10647*	Given any function 𝐹 from the powerset of 𝐴 to 𝐴, canth2 9136 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 10031. 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 10648*	An "effective" form of Cantor's theorem canth 7365. 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 10649*	Lemma for canthnum 10650. (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 10650	The set of well-orderable subsets of a set 𝐴 strictly dominates 𝐴. A stronger form of canth2 9136. Corollary 1.4(a) of [KanamoriPincus] p. 417. (Contributed by Mario Carneiro, 19-May-2015.)
⊢ (𝐴 ∈ 𝑉 → 𝐴 ≺ (𝒫 𝐴 ∩ dom card))
Theorem	canthwelem 10651*	Lemma for canthwe 10652. (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 10652*	The set of well-orders of a set 𝐴 strictly dominates 𝐴. A stronger form of canth2 9136. 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 10653	Lemma for canthp1 10655. (Contributed by Mario Carneiro, 18-May-2015.)
⊢ (1o ≺ 𝐴 → (𝐴 ⊔ 2o) ≼ 𝒫 𝐴)
Theorem	canthp1lem2 10654*	Lemma for canthp1 10655. (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 10655	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 10656	The exclusion of finite sets from consideration in df-gch 10622 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 10657	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 10658	An infinite GCH-set is Dedekind-infinite. (Contributed by Mario Carneiro, 31-May-2015.)
⊢ ((𝐴 ∈ GCH ∧ ¬ 𝐴 ∈ Fin) → ω ≼ 𝐴)
Theorem	pwfseqlem1 10659*	Lemma for pwfseq 10665. 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 10660*	Lemma for pwfseq 10665. (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 10661*	Lemma for pwfseq 10665. Using the construction 𝐷 from pwfseqlem1 10659, 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 10662*	Lemma for pwfseqlem4 10663. (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 10663*	Lemma for pwfseq 10665. Derive a final contradiction from the function 𝐹 in pwfseqlem3 10661. Applying fpwwe2 10644 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 10664*	Lemma for pwfseq 10665. Although in some ways pwfseqlem4 10663 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 10028. 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 10015. 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 9707), which can be used to construct a pairing function explicitly using properties of the ordinal exponential (infxpenc 10019). (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 10665*	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 10666	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 10667	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 10668	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 10669	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 10670	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 10671	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 10672	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 10673	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 10674	If 𝐴 + ≈ 𝒫 𝐴, then 𝐴 is a GCH-set. The much simpler converse to gchhar 10680. (Contributed by Mario Carneiro, 2-Jun-2015.)
⊢ ((har‘𝐴) ≈ 𝒫 𝐴 → 𝐴 ∈ GCH)
Theorem	alephgch 10675	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 10676	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 10677	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 10678*	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 10582 to the successor aleph using enen2 9124. (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 10679	Lemma for gchac 10682 (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 10680	A "local" form of gchac 10682. 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 10681	A "local" form of gchac 10682. 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 10682	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 10824, 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 10685 and df-ina 10686 respectively ), Tarski classes (df-tsk 10750), and Grothendieck universes (df-gru 10792). We then introduce the Tarski's axiom ax-groth 10824 and prove various properties from that.
4.1  Inaccessibles
4.1.1  Weakly and strongly inaccessible cardinals
Syntax	cwina 10683	The class of weak inaccessibles.
class Inaccw
Syntax	cina 10684	The class of strong inaccessibles.
class Inacc
Definition	df-wina 10685*	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 10686*	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 10687*	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 10688*	Conditions of strong inaccessibility. (Contributed by Mario Carneiro, 22-Jun-2013.)
⊢ (𝐴 ∈ Inacc ↔ (𝐴 ≠ ∅ ∧ (cf‘𝐴) = 𝐴 ∧ ∀𝑥 ∈ 𝐴 𝒫 𝑥 ≺ 𝐴))
Theorem	winaon 10689	A weakly inaccessible cardinal is an ordinal. (Contributed by Mario Carneiro, 29-May-2014.)
⊢ (𝐴 ∈ Inaccw → 𝐴 ∈ On)
Theorem	inawinalem 10690*	Lemma for inawina 10691. (Contributed by Mario Carneiro, 8-Jun-2014.)
⊢ (𝐴 ∈ On → (∀𝑥 ∈ 𝐴 𝒫 𝑥 ≺ 𝐴 → ∀𝑥 ∈ 𝐴 ∃𝑦 ∈ 𝐴 𝑥 ≺ 𝑦))
Theorem	inawina 10691	Every strongly inaccessible cardinal is weakly inaccessible. (Contributed by Mario Carneiro, 29-May-2014.)
⊢ (𝐴 ∈ Inacc → 𝐴 ∈ Inaccw)
Theorem	omina 10692	ω is a strongly inaccessible cardinal. (Many definitions of "inaccessible" explicitly disallow ω as an inaccessible cardinal, but this choice allows to reuse our results for inaccessibles for ω.) (Contributed by Mario Carneiro, 29-May-2014.)
⊢ ω ∈ Inacc
Theorem	winacard 10693	A weakly inaccessible cardinal is a cardinal. (Contributed by Mario Carneiro, 29-May-2014.)
⊢ (𝐴 ∈ Inaccw → (card‘𝐴) = 𝐴)
Theorem	winainflem 10694*	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 10695	A weakly inaccessible cardinal is infinite. (Contributed by Mario Carneiro, 29-May-2014.)
⊢ (𝐴 ∈ Inaccw → ω ⊆ 𝐴)
Theorem	winalim 10696	A weakly inaccessible cardinal is a limit ordinal. (Contributed by Mario Carneiro, 29-May-2014.)
⊢ (𝐴 ∈ Inaccw → Lim 𝐴)
Theorem	winalim2 10697*	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 10698	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 10699	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 4586 to turn this type of statement into the closed form statement winafp 10698, but in this case, since it is consistent with ZFC that there are no nontrivial inaccessible cardinals, it is not possible to prove winafp 10698 using this theorem and dedth 4586, in ZFC. (You can prove this if you use ax-groth 10824, though.) (Contributed by Mario Carneiro, 28-May-2014.)
⊢ 𝐴 ∈ Inaccw    &   ⊢ 𝐴 ≠ ω    ⇒   ⊢ (ℵ‘𝐴) = 𝐴
Theorem	gchina 10700	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)