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	smobeth 10601	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 10602	A lemma for proving conditionless ZFC axioms. Usage of this theorem is discouraged because it depends on ax-13 2366. (Contributed by NM, 1-Jan-2002.) (New usage is discouraged.)
⊢ (∀𝑥 𝑥 = 𝑦 → ¬ ∀𝑥 𝑦 ∈ 𝑧)
Theorem	nd2 10603	A lemma for proving conditionless ZFC axioms. Usage of this theorem is discouraged because it depends on ax-13 2366. (Contributed by NM, 1-Jan-2002.) (New usage is discouraged.)
⊢ (∀𝑥 𝑥 = 𝑦 → ¬ ∀𝑥 𝑧 ∈ 𝑦)
Theorem	nd3 10604	A lemma for proving conditionless ZFC axioms. (Contributed by NM, 2-Jan-2002.)
⊢ (∀𝑥 𝑥 = 𝑦 → ¬ ∀𝑧 𝑥 ∈ 𝑦)
Theorem	nd4 10605	A lemma for proving conditionless ZFC axioms. Usage of this theorem is discouraged because it depends on ax-13 2366. (Contributed by NM, 2-Jan-2002.) (New usage is discouraged.)
⊢ (∀𝑥 𝑥 = 𝑦 → ¬ ∀𝑧 𝑦 ∈ 𝑥)
Theorem	axextnd 10606	A version of the Axiom of Extensionality with no distinct variable conditions. Usage of this theorem is discouraged because it depends on ax-13 2366. (Contributed by NM, 14-Aug-2003.) (New usage is discouraged.)
⊢ ∃𝑥((𝑥 ∈ 𝑦 ↔ 𝑥 ∈ 𝑧) → 𝑦 = 𝑧)
Theorem	axrepndlem1 10607*	Lemma for the Axiom of Replacement with no distinct variable conditions. Usage of this theorem is discouraged because it depends on ax-13 2366. (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 10608	Lemma for the Axiom of Replacement with no distinct variable conditions. Usage of this theorem is discouraged because it depends on ax-13 2366. (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 10609	A version of the Axiom of Replacement with no distinct variable conditions. Usage of this theorem is discouraged because it depends on ax-13 2366. (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 10610*	Lemma for the Axiom of Union with no distinct variable conditions. Usage of this theorem is discouraged because it depends on ax-13 2366. (Contributed by NM, 2-Jan-2002.) (New usage is discouraged.)
⊢ ∃𝑥∀𝑦(∃𝑥(𝑦 ∈ 𝑥 ∧ 𝑥 ∈ 𝑧) → 𝑦 ∈ 𝑥)
Theorem	axunnd 10611	A version of the Axiom of Union with no distinct variable conditions. Usage of this theorem is discouraged because it depends on ax-13 2366. (Contributed by NM, 2-Jan-2002.) (New usage is discouraged.)
⊢ ∃𝑥∀𝑦(∃𝑥(𝑦 ∈ 𝑥 ∧ 𝑥 ∈ 𝑧) → 𝑦 ∈ 𝑥)
Theorem	axpowndlem1 10612	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 10613*	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 2366. (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 10614*	Lemma for the Axiom of Power Sets with no distinct variable conditions. Usage of this theorem is discouraged because it depends on ax-13 2366. (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 10615	Lemma for the Axiom of Power Sets with no distinct variable conditions. Usage of this theorem is discouraged because it depends on ax-13 2366. (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 10616	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 2366. (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 10617	Lemma for the Axiom of Regularity with no distinct variable conditions. Usage of this theorem is discouraged because it depends on ax-13 2366. (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 10618*	Lemma for the Axiom of Regularity with no distinct variable conditions. Usage of this theorem is discouraged because it depends on ax-13 2366. (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 10619	A version of the Axiom of Regularity with no distinct variable conditions. Usage of this theorem is discouraged because it depends on ax-13 2366. (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 10620*	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 10621	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 10622	Lemma for the Axiom of Choice with no distinct variable conditions. Usage of this theorem is discouraged because it depends on ax-13 2366. (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 10623	Lemma for the Axiom of Choice with no distinct variable conditions. Usage of this theorem is discouraged because it depends on ax-13 2366. (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 10624	Lemma for the Axiom of Choice with no distinct variable conditions. Usage of this theorem is discouraged because it depends on ax-13 2366. (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 10625*	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 10626*	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 10627	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 10628*	Axiom of Extensionality ax-ext 2698, reproved from conditionless ZFC version and predicate calculus. Usage of this theorem is discouraged because it depends on ax-13 2366. (Contributed by NM, 15-Aug-2003.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) (New usage is discouraged.)
⊢ (∀𝑧(𝑧 ∈ 𝑥 ↔ 𝑧 ∈ 𝑦) → 𝑥 = 𝑦)
Theorem	zfcndrep 10629*	Axiom of Replacement ax-rep 5279, reproved from conditionless ZFC axioms. Usage of this theorem is discouraged because it depends on ax-13 2366. (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 10630*	Axiom of Union ax-un 7734, reproved from conditionless ZFC axioms. Usage of this theorem is discouraged because it depends on ax-13 2366. (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 10631*	Axiom of Power Sets ax-pow 5359, reproved from conditionless ZFC axioms. The proof uses the "Axiom of Twoness" dtru 5432. Usage of this theorem is discouraged because it depends on ax-13 2366. (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 10632*	Axiom of Regularity ax-reg 9607, reproved from conditionless ZFC axioms. Usage of this theorem is discouraged because it depends on ax-13 2366. (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 10633*	Axiom of Infinity ax-inf 9653, reproved from conditionless ZFC axioms. Since we have already reproved Extensionality, Replacement, and Power Sets above, we are justified in referencing Theorem el 5433 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 10634*	Axiom of Choice ax-ac 10474, 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 10635	Extend class notation to include the collection of sets that satisfy the GCH.
class GCH
Definition	df-gch 10636*	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 10637*	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 10638	A finite set is a GCH-set. (Contributed by Mario Carneiro, 15-May-2015.)
⊢ Fin ⊆ GCH
Theorem	gchi 10639	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 10640	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 10641	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 10642	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 10643	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 10644	Under certain conditions, a GCH-set can demonstrate trichotomy of dominance. Lemma for gchac 10696. (Contributed by Mario Carneiro, 15-May-2015.)
⊢ ((𝐴 ∈ GCH ∧ (𝐴 ⊔ 𝐴) ≈ 𝐴 ∧ 𝐵 ≼ 𝒫 𝐴) → (𝐴 ≼ 𝐵 ∨ 𝐵 ≼ 𝐴))
Theorem	fpwwe2cbv 10645*	Lemma for fpwwe2 10658. (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 10646*	Lemma for fpwwe2 10658. (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 10647*	Lemma for fpwwe2 10658. (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 10648*	Lemma for fpwwe2 10658. (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 10649*	Lemma for fpwwe2 10658. (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 10650*	Lemma for fpwwe2 10658. (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 10651*	Lemma for fpwwe2 10658. (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 10652*	Lemma for fpwwe2 10658. 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 10653*	Lemma for fpwwe2 10658. 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 10654*	Lemma for fpwwe2 10658. 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 10655*	Lemma for fpwwe2 10658. (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 10656*	Lemma for fpwwe2 10658. (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 10657*	Lemma for fpwwe2 10658. (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 10658*	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 10045. 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 10659*	Lemma for fpwwe 10661. (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 10660*	Lemma for fpwwe 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 (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 10661*	Given any function 𝐹 from the powerset of 𝐴 to 𝐴, canth2 9146 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 10045. 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 10662*	An "effective" form of Cantor's theorem canth 7367. 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 10663*	Lemma for canthnum 10664. (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 10664	The set of well-orderable subsets of a set 𝐴 strictly dominates 𝐴. A stronger form of canth2 9146. Corollary 1.4(a) of [KanamoriPincus] p. 417. (Contributed by Mario Carneiro, 19-May-2015.)
⊢ (𝐴 ∈ 𝑉 → 𝐴 ≺ (𝒫 𝐴 ∩ dom card))
Theorem	canthwelem 10665*	Lemma for canthwe 10666. (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 10666*	The set of well-orders of a set 𝐴 strictly dominates 𝐴. A stronger form of canth2 9146. 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 10667	Lemma for canthp1 10669. (Contributed by Mario Carneiro, 18-May-2015.)
⊢ (1o ≺ 𝐴 → (𝐴 ⊔ 2o) ≼ 𝒫 𝐴)
Theorem	canthp1lem2 10668*	Lemma for canthp1 10669. (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 10669	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 10670	The exclusion of finite sets from consideration in df-gch 10636 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 10671	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 10672	An infinite GCH-set is Dedekind-infinite. (Contributed by Mario Carneiro, 31-May-2015.)
⊢ ((𝐴 ∈ GCH ∧ ¬ 𝐴 ∈ Fin) → ω ≼ 𝐴)
Theorem	pwfseqlem1 10673*	Lemma for pwfseq 10679. 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 10674*	Lemma for pwfseq 10679. (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 10675*	Lemma for pwfseq 10679. Using the construction 𝐷 from pwfseqlem1 10673, 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 10676*	Lemma for pwfseqlem4 10677. (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 10677*	Lemma for pwfseq 10679. Derive a final contradiction from the function 𝐹 in pwfseqlem3 10675. Applying fpwwe2 10658 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 10678*	Lemma for pwfseq 10679. Although in some ways pwfseqlem4 10677 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 10042. 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 10029. 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 9721), which can be used to construct a pairing function explicitly using properties of the ordinal exponential (infxpenc 10033). (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 10679*	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 10680	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 10681	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 10682	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 10683	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 10684	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 10685	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 10686	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 10687	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 10688	If 𝐴 + ≈ 𝒫 𝐴, then 𝐴 is a GCH-set. The much simpler converse to gchhar 10694. (Contributed by Mario Carneiro, 2-Jun-2015.)
⊢ ((har‘𝐴) ≈ 𝒫 𝐴 → 𝐴 ∈ GCH)
Theorem	alephgch 10689	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 10690	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 10691	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 10692*	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 10596 to the successor aleph using enen2 9134. (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 10693	Lemma for gchac 10696 (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 10694	A "local" form of gchac 10696. 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 10695	A "local" form of gchac 10696. 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 10696	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 10838, 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 10699 and df-ina 10700 respectively ), Tarski classes (df-tsk 10764), and Grothendieck universes (df-gru 10806). We then introduce the Tarski's axiom ax-groth 10838 and prove various properties from that.
4.1  Inaccessibles
4.1.1  Weakly and strongly inaccessible cardinals
Syntax	cwina 10697	The class of weak inaccessibles.
class Inaccw
Syntax	cina 10698	The class of strong inaccessibles.
class Inacc
Definition	df-wina 10699*	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 10700*	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)}