P. 464 of Theorem List - Metamath Proof Explorer

Theorem List for Metamath Proof Explorer - 46301-46400   *Has distinct variable group(s)

Type	Label	Description
Statement
Definition	df-thinc 46301*	Definition of the class of thin categories, or posetal categories, whose hom-sets each contain at most one morphism. Example 3.26(2) of [Adamek] p. 33. "ThinCat" was taken instead of "PosCat" because the latter might mean the category of posets. (Contributed by Zhi Wang, 17-Sep-2024.)
⊢ ThinCat = {𝑐 ∈ Cat ∣ [(Base‘𝑐) / 𝑏][(Hom ‘𝑐) / ℎ]∀𝑥 ∈ 𝑏 ∀𝑦 ∈ 𝑏 ∃*𝑓 𝑓 ∈ (𝑥ℎ𝑦)}
Theorem	isthinc 46302*	The predicate "is a thin category". (Contributed by Zhi Wang, 17-Sep-2024.)
⊢ 𝐵 = (Base‘𝐶)    &   ⊢ 𝐻 = (Hom ‘𝐶)    ⇒   ⊢ (𝐶 ∈ ThinCat ↔ (𝐶 ∈ Cat ∧ ∀𝑥 ∈ 𝐵 ∀𝑦 ∈ 𝐵 ∃*𝑓 𝑓 ∈ (𝑥𝐻𝑦)))
Theorem	isthinc2 46303*	A thin category is a category in which all hom-sets have cardinality less than or equal to the cardinality of 1o. (Contributed by Zhi Wang, 17-Sep-2024.)
⊢ 𝐵 = (Base‘𝐶)    &   ⊢ 𝐻 = (Hom ‘𝐶)    ⇒   ⊢ (𝐶 ∈ ThinCat ↔ (𝐶 ∈ Cat ∧ ∀𝑥 ∈ 𝐵 ∀𝑦 ∈ 𝐵 (𝑥𝐻𝑦) ≼ 1o))
Theorem	isthinc3 46304*	A thin category is a category in which, given a pair of objects 𝑥 and 𝑦 and any two morphisms 𝑓, 𝑔 from 𝑥 to 𝑦, the morphisms are equal. (Contributed by Zhi Wang, 17-Sep-2024.)
⊢ 𝐵 = (Base‘𝐶)    &   ⊢ 𝐻 = (Hom ‘𝐶)    ⇒   ⊢ (𝐶 ∈ ThinCat ↔ (𝐶 ∈ Cat ∧ ∀𝑥 ∈ 𝐵 ∀𝑦 ∈ 𝐵 ∀𝑓 ∈ (𝑥𝐻𝑦)∀𝑔 ∈ (𝑥𝐻𝑦)𝑓 = 𝑔))
Theorem	thincc 46305	A thin category is a category. (Contributed by Zhi Wang, 17-Sep-2024.)
⊢ (𝐶 ∈ ThinCat → 𝐶 ∈ Cat)
Theorem	thinccd 46306	A thin category is a category (deduction form). (Contributed by Zhi Wang, 24-Sep-2024.)
⊢ (𝜑 → 𝐶 ∈ ThinCat)    ⇒   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝐶 ∈ Cat)
Theorem	thincssc 46307	A thin category is a category. (Contributed by Zhi Wang, 17-Sep-2024.)
⊢ ThinCat ⊆ Cat
Theorem	isthincd2lem1 46308*	Lemma for isthincd2 46319 and thincmo2 46309. (Contributed by Zhi Wang, 17-Sep-2024.)
⊢ (𝜑 → 𝑋 ∈ 𝐵)    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝑌 ∈ 𝐵)    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝐹 ∈ (𝑋𝐻𝑌))    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝐺 ∈ (𝑋𝐻𝑌))    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → ∀𝑥 ∈ 𝐵 ∀𝑦 ∈ 𝐵 ∃*𝑓 𝑓 ∈ (𝑥𝐻𝑦))    ⇒   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝐹 = 𝐺)
Theorem	thincmo2 46309	Morphisms in the same hom-set are identical. (Contributed by Zhi Wang, 17-Sep-2024.)
⊢ (𝜑 → 𝑋 ∈ 𝐵)    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝑌 ∈ 𝐵)    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝐹 ∈ (𝑋𝐻𝑌))    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝐺 ∈ (𝑋𝐻𝑌))    &   ⊢ 𝐵 = (Base‘𝐶)    &   ⊢ 𝐻 = (Hom ‘𝐶)    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝐶 ∈ ThinCat)    ⇒   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝐹 = 𝐺)
Theorem	thincmo 46310*	There is at most one morphism in each hom-set. (Contributed by Zhi Wang, 21-Sep-2024.)
⊢ (𝜑 → 𝐶 ∈ ThinCat)    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝑋 ∈ 𝐵)    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝑌 ∈ 𝐵)    &   ⊢ 𝐵 = (Base‘𝐶)    &   ⊢ 𝐻 = (Hom ‘𝐶)    ⇒   ⊢ (𝜑 → ∃*𝑓 𝑓 ∈ (𝑋𝐻𝑌))
Theorem	thincmoALT 46311*	Alternate proof for thincmo 46310. (Contributed by Zhi Wang, 21-Sep-2024.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) (New usage is discouraged.)
⊢ (𝜑 → 𝐶 ∈ ThinCat)    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝑋 ∈ 𝐵)    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝑌 ∈ 𝐵)    &   ⊢ 𝐵 = (Base‘𝐶)    &   ⊢ 𝐻 = (Hom ‘𝐶)    ⇒   ⊢ (𝜑 → ∃*𝑓 𝑓 ∈ (𝑋𝐻𝑌))
Theorem	thincmod 46312*	At most one morphism in each hom-set (deduction form). (Contributed by Zhi Wang, 21-Sep-2024.)
⊢ (𝜑 → 𝐶 ∈ ThinCat)    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝑋 ∈ 𝐵)    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝑌 ∈ 𝐵)    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝐵 = (Base‘𝐶))    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝐻 = (Hom ‘𝐶))    ⇒   ⊢ (𝜑 → ∃*𝑓 𝑓 ∈ (𝑋𝐻𝑌))
Theorem	thincn0eu 46313*	In a thin category, a hom-set being non-empty is equivalent to having a unique element. (Contributed by Zhi Wang, 21-Sep-2024.)
⊢ (𝜑 → 𝐶 ∈ ThinCat)    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝑋 ∈ 𝐵)    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝑌 ∈ 𝐵)    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝐵 = (Base‘𝐶))    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝐻 = (Hom ‘𝐶))    ⇒   ⊢ (𝜑 → ((𝑋𝐻𝑌) ≠ ∅ ↔ ∃!𝑓 𝑓 ∈ (𝑋𝐻𝑌)))
Theorem	thincid 46314	In a thin category, a morphism from an object to itself is an identity morphism. (Contributed by Zhi Wang, 24-Sep-2024.)
⊢ (𝜑 → 𝐶 ∈ ThinCat)    &   ⊢ 𝐵 = (Base‘𝐶)    &   ⊢ 𝐻 = (Hom ‘𝐶)    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝑋 ∈ 𝐵)    &   ⊢ 1 = (Id‘𝐶)    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝐹 ∈ (𝑋𝐻𝑋))    ⇒   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝐹 = ( 1 ‘𝑋))
Theorem	thincmon 46315	In a thin category, all morphisms are monomorphisms. The converse does not hold. See grptcmon 46377. (Contributed by Zhi Wang, 24-Sep-2024.)
⊢ (𝜑 → 𝐶 ∈ ThinCat)    &   ⊢ 𝐵 = (Base‘𝐶)    &   ⊢ 𝐻 = (Hom ‘𝐶)    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝑋 ∈ 𝐵)    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝑌 ∈ 𝐵)    &   ⊢ 𝑀 = (Mono‘𝐶)    ⇒   ⊢ (𝜑 → (𝑋𝑀𝑌) = (𝑋𝐻𝑌))
Theorem	thincepi 46316	In a thin category, all morphisms are epimorphisms. The converse does not hold. See grptcepi 46378. (Contributed by Zhi Wang, 24-Sep-2024.)
⊢ (𝜑 → 𝐶 ∈ ThinCat)    &   ⊢ 𝐵 = (Base‘𝐶)    &   ⊢ 𝐻 = (Hom ‘𝐶)    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝑋 ∈ 𝐵)    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝑌 ∈ 𝐵)    &   ⊢ 𝐸 = (Epi‘𝐶)    ⇒   ⊢ (𝜑 → (𝑋𝐸𝑌) = (𝑋𝐻𝑌))
Theorem	isthincd2lem2 46317*	Lemma for isthincd2 46319. (Contributed by Zhi Wang, 17-Sep-2024.)
⊢ (𝜑 → 𝑋 ∈ 𝐵)    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝑌 ∈ 𝐵)    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝑍 ∈ 𝐵)    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝐹 ∈ (𝑋𝐻𝑌))    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝐺 ∈ (𝑌𝐻𝑍))    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → ∀𝑥 ∈ 𝐵 ∀𝑦 ∈ 𝐵 ∀𝑧 ∈ 𝐵 ∀𝑓 ∈ (𝑥𝐻𝑦)∀𝑔 ∈ (𝑦𝐻𝑧)(𝑔(⟨𝑥, 𝑦⟩ · 𝑧)𝑓) ∈ (𝑥𝐻𝑧))    ⇒   ⊢ (𝜑 → (𝐺(⟨𝑋, 𝑌⟩ · 𝑍)𝐹) ∈ (𝑋𝐻𝑍))
Theorem	isthincd 46318*	The predicate "is a thin category" (deduction form). (Contributed by Zhi Wang, 17-Sep-2024.)
⊢ (𝜑 → 𝐵 = (Base‘𝐶))    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝐻 = (Hom ‘𝐶))    &   ⊢ ((𝜑 ∧ (𝑥 ∈ 𝐵 ∧ 𝑦 ∈ 𝐵)) → ∃*𝑓 𝑓 ∈ (𝑥𝐻𝑦))    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝐶 ∈ Cat)    ⇒   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝐶 ∈ ThinCat)
Theorem	isthincd2 46319*	The predicate "𝐶 is a thin category" without knowing 𝐶 is a category (deduction form). The identity arrow operator is also provided as a byproduct. (Contributed by Zhi Wang, 17-Sep-2024.)
⊢ (𝜑 → 𝐵 = (Base‘𝐶))    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝐻 = (Hom ‘𝐶))    &   ⊢ ((𝜑 ∧ (𝑥 ∈ 𝐵 ∧ 𝑦 ∈ 𝐵)) → ∃*𝑓 𝑓 ∈ (𝑥𝐻𝑦))    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → · = (comp‘𝐶))    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝐶 ∈ 𝑉)    &   ⊢ (𝜓 ↔ ((𝑥 ∈ 𝐵 ∧ 𝑦 ∈ 𝐵 ∧ 𝑧 ∈ 𝐵) ∧ (𝑓 ∈ (𝑥𝐻𝑦) ∧ 𝑔 ∈ (𝑦𝐻𝑧))))    &   ⊢ ((𝜑 ∧ 𝑦 ∈ 𝐵) → 1 ∈ (𝑦𝐻𝑦))    &   ⊢ ((𝜑 ∧ 𝜓) → (𝑔(⟨𝑥, 𝑦⟩ · 𝑧)𝑓) ∈ (𝑥𝐻𝑧))    ⇒   ⊢ (𝜑 → (𝐶 ∈ ThinCat ∧ (Id‘𝐶) = (𝑦 ∈ 𝐵 ↦ 1 )))
Theorem	oppcthin 46320	The opposite category of a thin category is thin. (Contributed by Zhi Wang, 29-Sep-2024.)
⊢ 𝑂 = (oppCat‘𝐶)    ⇒   ⊢ (𝐶 ∈ ThinCat → 𝑂 ∈ ThinCat)
Theorem	subthinc 46321	A subcategory of a thin category is thin. (Contributed by Zhi Wang, 30-Sep-2024.)
⊢ 𝐷 = (𝐶 ↾cat 𝐽)    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝐽 ∈ (Subcat‘𝐶))    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝐶 ∈ ThinCat)    ⇒   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝐷 ∈ ThinCat)
Theorem	functhinclem1 46322*	Lemma for functhinc 46326. Given the object part, there is only one possible morphism part such that the mapped morphism is in its corresponding hom-set. (Contributed by Zhi Wang, 1-Oct-2024.)
⊢ 𝐵 = (Base‘𝐷)    &   ⊢ 𝐶 = (Base‘𝐸)    &   ⊢ 𝐻 = (Hom ‘𝐷)    &   ⊢ 𝐽 = (Hom ‘𝐸)    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝐸 ∈ ThinCat)    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝐹:𝐵⟶𝐶)    &   ⊢ 𝐾 = (𝑥 ∈ 𝐵, 𝑦 ∈ 𝐵 ↦ ((𝑥𝐻𝑦) × ((𝐹‘𝑥)𝐽(𝐹‘𝑦))))    &   ⊢ ((𝜑 ∧ (𝑧 ∈ 𝐵 ∧ 𝑤 ∈ 𝐵)) → (((𝐹‘𝑧)𝐽(𝐹‘𝑤)) = ∅ → (𝑧𝐻𝑤) = ∅))    ⇒   ⊢ (𝜑 → ((𝐺 ∈ V ∧ 𝐺 Fn (𝐵 × 𝐵) ∧ ∀𝑧 ∈ 𝐵 ∀𝑤 ∈ 𝐵 (𝑧𝐺𝑤):(𝑧𝐻𝑤)⟶((𝐹‘𝑧)𝐽(𝐹‘𝑤))) ↔ 𝐺 = 𝐾))
Theorem	functhinclem2 46323*	Lemma for functhinc 46326. (Contributed by Zhi Wang, 1-Oct-2024.)
⊢ (𝜑 → 𝑋 ∈ 𝐵)    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝑌 ∈ 𝐵)    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → ∀𝑥 ∈ 𝐵 ∀𝑦 ∈ 𝐵 (((𝐹‘𝑥)𝐽(𝐹‘𝑦)) = ∅ → (𝑥𝐻𝑦) = ∅))    ⇒   ⊢ (𝜑 → (((𝐹‘𝑋)𝐽(𝐹‘𝑌)) = ∅ → (𝑋𝐻𝑌) = ∅))
Theorem	functhinclem3 46324*	Lemma for functhinc 46326. The mapped morphism is in its corresponding hom-set. (Contributed by Zhi Wang, 1-Oct-2024.)
⊢ (𝜑 → 𝑋 ∈ 𝐵)    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝑌 ∈ 𝐵)    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝑀 ∈ (𝑋𝐻𝑌))    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝐺 = (𝑥 ∈ 𝐵, 𝑦 ∈ 𝐵 ↦ ((𝑥𝐻𝑦) × ((𝐹‘𝑥)𝐽(𝐹‘𝑦)))))    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → (((𝐹‘𝑋)𝐽(𝐹‘𝑌)) = ∅ → (𝑋𝐻𝑌) = ∅))    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → ∃*𝑛 𝑛 ∈ ((𝐹‘𝑋)𝐽(𝐹‘𝑌)))    ⇒   ⊢ (𝜑 → ((𝑋𝐺𝑌)‘𝑀) ∈ ((𝐹‘𝑋)𝐽(𝐹‘𝑌)))
Theorem	functhinclem4 46325*	Lemma for functhinc 46326. Other requirements on the morphism part are automatically satisfied. (Contributed by Zhi Wang, 1-Oct-2024.)
⊢ 𝐵 = (Base‘𝐷)    &   ⊢ 𝐶 = (Base‘𝐸)    &   ⊢ 𝐻 = (Hom ‘𝐷)    &   ⊢ 𝐽 = (Hom ‘𝐸)    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝐷 ∈ Cat)    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝐸 ∈ ThinCat)    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝐹:𝐵⟶𝐶)    &   ⊢ 𝐾 = (𝑥 ∈ 𝐵, 𝑦 ∈ 𝐵 ↦ ((𝑥𝐻𝑦) × ((𝐹‘𝑥)𝐽(𝐹‘𝑦))))    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → ∀𝑧 ∈ 𝐵 ∀𝑤 ∈ 𝐵 (((𝐹‘𝑧)𝐽(𝐹‘𝑤)) = ∅ → (𝑧𝐻𝑤) = ∅))    &   ⊢ 1 = (Id‘𝐷)    &   ⊢ 𝐼 = (Id‘𝐸)    &   ⊢ · = (comp‘𝐷)    &   ⊢ 𝑂 = (comp‘𝐸)    ⇒   ⊢ ((𝜑 ∧ 𝐺 = 𝐾) → ∀𝑎 ∈ 𝐵 (((𝑎𝐺𝑎)‘( 1 ‘𝑎)) = (𝐼‘(𝐹‘𝑎)) ∧ ∀𝑏 ∈ 𝐵 ∀𝑐 ∈ 𝐵 ∀𝑚 ∈ (𝑎𝐻𝑏)∀𝑛 ∈ (𝑏𝐻𝑐)((𝑎𝐺𝑐)‘(𝑛(⟨𝑎, 𝑏⟩ · 𝑐)𝑚)) = (((𝑏𝐺𝑐)‘𝑛)(⟨(𝐹‘𝑎), (𝐹‘𝑏)⟩𝑂(𝐹‘𝑐))((𝑎𝐺𝑏)‘𝑚))))
Theorem	functhinc 46326*	A functor to a thin category is determined entirely by the object part. The hypothesis "functhinc.1" is related to a monotone function if preorders induced by the categories are considered (catprs2 46293). (Contributed by Zhi Wang, 1-Oct-2024.)
⊢ 𝐵 = (Base‘𝐷)    &   ⊢ 𝐶 = (Base‘𝐸)    &   ⊢ 𝐻 = (Hom ‘𝐷)    &   ⊢ 𝐽 = (Hom ‘𝐸)    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝐷 ∈ Cat)    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝐸 ∈ ThinCat)    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝐹:𝐵⟶𝐶)    &   ⊢ 𝐾 = (𝑥 ∈ 𝐵, 𝑦 ∈ 𝐵 ↦ ((𝑥𝐻𝑦) × ((𝐹‘𝑥)𝐽(𝐹‘𝑦))))    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → ∀𝑧 ∈ 𝐵 ∀𝑤 ∈ 𝐵 (((𝐹‘𝑧)𝐽(𝐹‘𝑤)) = ∅ → (𝑧𝐻𝑤) = ∅))    ⇒   ⊢ (𝜑 → (𝐹(𝐷 Func 𝐸)𝐺 ↔ 𝐺 = 𝐾))
Theorem	fullthinc 46327*	A functor to a thin category is full iff empty hom-sets are mapped to empty hom-sets. (Contributed by Zhi Wang, 1-Oct-2024.)
⊢ 𝐵 = (Base‘𝐶)    &   ⊢ 𝐽 = (Hom ‘𝐷)    &   ⊢ 𝐻 = (Hom ‘𝐶)    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝐷 ∈ ThinCat)    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝐹(𝐶 Func 𝐷)𝐺)    ⇒   ⊢ (𝜑 → (𝐹(𝐶 Full 𝐷)𝐺 ↔ ∀𝑥 ∈ 𝐵 ∀𝑦 ∈ 𝐵 ((𝑥𝐻𝑦) = ∅ → ((𝐹‘𝑥)𝐽(𝐹‘𝑦)) = ∅)))
Theorem	fullthinc2 46328	A full functor to a thin category maps empty hom-sets to empty hom-sets. (Contributed by Zhi Wang, 1-Oct-2024.)
⊢ 𝐵 = (Base‘𝐶)    &   ⊢ 𝐽 = (Hom ‘𝐷)    &   ⊢ 𝐻 = (Hom ‘𝐶)    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝐷 ∈ ThinCat)    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝐹(𝐶 Full 𝐷)𝐺)    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝑋 ∈ 𝐵)    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝑌 ∈ 𝐵)    ⇒   ⊢ (𝜑 → ((𝑋𝐻𝑌) = ∅ ↔ ((𝐹‘𝑋)𝐽(𝐹‘𝑌)) = ∅))
Theorem	thincfth 46329	A functor from a thin category is faithful. (Contributed by Zhi Wang, 1-Oct-2024.)
⊢ (𝜑 → 𝐶 ∈ ThinCat)    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝐹(𝐶 Func 𝐷)𝐺)    ⇒   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝐹(𝐶 Faith 𝐷)𝐺)
Theorem	thincciso 46330*	Two thin categories are isomorphic iff the induced preorders are order-isomorphic. Example 3.26(2) of [Adamek] p. 33. (Contributed by Zhi Wang, 16-Oct-2024.)
⊢ 𝐶 = (CatCat‘𝑈)    &   ⊢ 𝐵 = (Base‘𝐶)    &   ⊢ 𝑅 = (Base‘𝑋)    &   ⊢ 𝑆 = (Base‘𝑌)    &   ⊢ 𝐻 = (Hom ‘𝑋)    &   ⊢ 𝐽 = (Hom ‘𝑌)    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝑈 ∈ 𝑉)    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝑋 ∈ 𝐵)    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝑌 ∈ 𝐵)    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝑋 ∈ ThinCat)    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝑌 ∈ ThinCat)    ⇒   ⊢ (𝜑 → (𝑋( ≃𝑐 ‘𝐶)𝑌 ↔ ∃𝑓(∀𝑥 ∈ 𝑅 ∀𝑦 ∈ 𝑅 ((𝑥𝐻𝑦) = ∅ ↔ ((𝑓‘𝑥)𝐽(𝑓‘𝑦)) = ∅) ∧ 𝑓:𝑅–1-1-onto→𝑆)))
Theorem	0thincg 46331	Any structure with an empty set of objects is a thin category. (Contributed by Zhi Wang, 17-Sep-2024.)
⊢ ((𝐶 ∈ 𝑉 ∧ ∅ = (Base‘𝐶)) → 𝐶 ∈ ThinCat)
Theorem	0thinc 46332	The empty category (see 0cat 17398) is thin. (Contributed by Zhi Wang, 17-Sep-2024.)
⊢ ∅ ∈ ThinCat
Theorem	indthinc 46333*	An indiscrete category in which all hom-sets have exactly one morphism is a thin category. Constructed here is an indiscrete category where all morphisms are ∅. This is a special case of prsthinc 46335, where ≤ = (𝐵 × 𝐵). This theorem also implies a functor from the category of sets to the category of small categories. (Contributed by Zhi Wang, 17-Sep-2024.) (Proof shortened by Zhi Wang, 19-Sep-2024.)
⊢ (𝜑 → 𝐵 = (Base‘𝐶))    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → ((𝐵 × 𝐵) × {1o}) = (Hom ‘𝐶))    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → ∅ = (comp‘𝐶))    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝐶 ∈ 𝑉)    ⇒   ⊢ (𝜑 → (𝐶 ∈ ThinCat ∧ (Id‘𝐶) = (𝑦 ∈ 𝐵 ↦ ∅)))
Theorem	indthincALT 46334*	An alternate proof for indthinc 46333 assuming more axioms including ax-pow 5288 and ax-un 7588. (Contributed by Zhi Wang, 17-Sep-2024.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) (New usage is discouraged.)
⊢ (𝜑 → 𝐵 = (Base‘𝐶))    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → ((𝐵 × 𝐵) × {1o}) = (Hom ‘𝐶))    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → ∅ = (comp‘𝐶))    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝐶 ∈ 𝑉)    ⇒   ⊢ (𝜑 → (𝐶 ∈ ThinCat ∧ (Id‘𝐶) = (𝑦 ∈ 𝐵 ↦ ∅)))
Theorem	prsthinc 46335*	Preordered sets as categories. Similar to example 3.3(4.d) of [Adamek] p. 24, but the hom-sets are not pairwise disjoint. One can define a functor from the category of prosets to the category of small thin categories. See catprs 46292 and catprs2 46293 for inducing a preorder from a category. Example 3.26(2) of [Adamek] p. 33 indicates that it induces a bijection from the equivalence class of isomorphic small thin categories to the equivalence class of order-isomorphic preordered sets. (Contributed by Zhi Wang, 18-Sep-2024.)
⊢ (𝜑 → 𝐵 = (Base‘𝐶))    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → ( ≤ × {1o}) = (Hom ‘𝐶))    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → ∅ = (comp‘𝐶))    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → ≤ = (le‘𝐶))    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝐶 ∈ Proset )    ⇒   ⊢ (𝜑 → (𝐶 ∈ ThinCat ∧ (Id‘𝐶) = (𝑦 ∈ 𝐵 ↦ ∅)))
Theorem	setcthin 46336*	A category of sets all of whose objects contain at most one element is thin. (Contributed by Zhi Wang, 20-Sep-2024.)
⊢ (𝜑 → 𝐶 = (SetCat‘𝑈))    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝑈 ∈ 𝑉)    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → ∀𝑥 ∈ 𝑈 ∃*𝑝 𝑝 ∈ 𝑥)    ⇒   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝐶 ∈ ThinCat)
Theorem	setc2othin 46337	The category (SetCat‘2o) is thin. A special case of setcthin 46336. (Contributed by Zhi Wang, 20-Sep-2024.)
⊢ (SetCat‘2o) ∈ ThinCat
Theorem	thincsect 46338	In a thin category, one morphism is a section of another iff they are pointing towards each other. (Contributed by Zhi Wang, 24-Sep-2024.)
⊢ (𝜑 → 𝐶 ∈ ThinCat)    &   ⊢ 𝐵 = (Base‘𝐶)    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝑋 ∈ 𝐵)    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝑌 ∈ 𝐵)    &   ⊢ 𝑆 = (Sect‘𝐶)    &   ⊢ 𝐻 = (Hom ‘𝐶)    ⇒   ⊢ (𝜑 → (𝐹(𝑋𝑆𝑌)𝐺 ↔ (𝐹 ∈ (𝑋𝐻𝑌) ∧ 𝐺 ∈ (𝑌𝐻𝑋))))
Theorem	thincsect2 46339	In a thin category, 𝐹 is a section of 𝐺 iff 𝐺 is a section of 𝐹. (Contributed by Zhi Wang, 24-Sep-2024.)
⊢ (𝜑 → 𝐶 ∈ ThinCat)    &   ⊢ 𝐵 = (Base‘𝐶)    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝑋 ∈ 𝐵)    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝑌 ∈ 𝐵)    &   ⊢ 𝑆 = (Sect‘𝐶)    ⇒   ⊢ (𝜑 → (𝐹(𝑋𝑆𝑌)𝐺 ↔ 𝐺(𝑌𝑆𝑋)𝐹))
Theorem	thincinv 46340	In a thin category, 𝐹 is an inverse of 𝐺 iff 𝐹 is a section of 𝐺 (Contributed by Zhi Wang, 24-Sep-2024.)
⊢ (𝜑 → 𝐶 ∈ ThinCat)    &   ⊢ 𝐵 = (Base‘𝐶)    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝑋 ∈ 𝐵)    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝑌 ∈ 𝐵)    &   ⊢ 𝑆 = (Sect‘𝐶)    &   ⊢ 𝑁 = (Inv‘𝐶)    ⇒   ⊢ (𝜑 → (𝐹(𝑋𝑁𝑌)𝐺 ↔ 𝐹(𝑋𝑆𝑌)𝐺))
Theorem	thinciso 46341	In a thin category, 𝐹:𝑋⟶𝑌 is an isomorphism iff there is a morphism from 𝑌 to 𝑋. (Contributed by Zhi Wang, 25-Sep-2024.)
⊢ (𝜑 → 𝐶 ∈ ThinCat)    &   ⊢ 𝐵 = (Base‘𝐶)    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝑋 ∈ 𝐵)    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝑌 ∈ 𝐵)    &   ⊢ 𝐻 = (Hom ‘𝐶)    &   ⊢ 𝐼 = (Iso‘𝐶)    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝐹 ∈ (𝑋𝐻𝑌))    ⇒   ⊢ (𝜑 → (𝐹 ∈ (𝑋𝐼𝑌) ↔ (𝑌𝐻𝑋) ≠ ∅))
Theorem	thinccic 46342	In a thin category, two objects are isomorphic iff there are morphisms between them in both directions. (Contributed by Zhi Wang, 25-Sep-2024.)
⊢ (𝜑 → 𝐶 ∈ ThinCat)    &   ⊢ 𝐵 = (Base‘𝐶)    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝑋 ∈ 𝐵)    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝑌 ∈ 𝐵)    &   ⊢ 𝐻 = (Hom ‘𝐶)    ⇒   ⊢ (𝜑 → (𝑋( ≃𝑐 ‘𝐶)𝑌 ↔ ((𝑋𝐻𝑌) ≠ ∅ ∧ (𝑌𝐻𝑋) ≠ ∅)))
20.42.13.2  Preordered sets as thin categories
Syntax	cprstc 46343	Class function defining preordered sets as categories.
class ProsetToCat
Definition	df-prstc 46344	Definition of the function converting a preordered set to a category. Justified by prsthinc 46335. This definition is somewhat arbitrary. Example 3.3(4.d) of [Adamek] p. 24 demonstrates an alternate definition with pairwise disjoint hom-sets. The behavior of the function is defined entirely, up to isomorphism, by prstcnid 46347, prstchom 46358, and prstcthin 46357. Other important properties include prstcbas 46348, prstcleval 46349, prstcle 46351, prstcocval 46352, prstcoc 46354, prstchom2 46359, and prstcprs 46356. Use those instead. Note that the defining property prstchom 46358 is equivalent to prstchom2 46359 given prstcthin 46357. See thincn0eu 46313 for justification. "ProsetToCat" was taken instead of "ProsetCat" because the latter might mean the category of preordered sets (classes). However, "ProsetToCat" seems too long. (Contributed by Zhi Wang, 20-Sep-2024.) (New usage is discouraged.)
⊢ ProsetToCat = (𝑘 ∈ Proset ↦ ((𝑘 sSet ⟨(Hom ‘ndx), ((le‘𝑘) × {1o})⟩) sSet ⟨(comp‘ndx), ∅⟩))
Theorem	prstcval 46345	Lemma for prstcnidlem 46346 and prstcthin 46357. (Contributed by Zhi Wang, 20-Sep-2024.) (New usage is discouraged.)
⊢ (𝜑 → 𝐶 = (ProsetToCat‘𝐾))    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝐾 ∈ Proset )    ⇒   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝐶 = ((𝐾 sSet ⟨(Hom ‘ndx), ((le‘𝐾) × {1o})⟩) sSet ⟨(comp‘ndx), ∅⟩))
Theorem	prstcnidlem 46346	Lemma for prstcnid 46347 and prstchomval 46355. (Contributed by Zhi Wang, 20-Sep-2024.) (New usage is discouraged.)
⊢ (𝜑 → 𝐶 = (ProsetToCat‘𝐾))    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝐾 ∈ Proset )    &   ⊢ 𝐸 = Slot (𝐸‘ndx)    &   ⊢ (𝐸‘ndx) ≠ (comp‘ndx)    ⇒   ⊢ (𝜑 → (𝐸‘𝐶) = (𝐸‘(𝐾 sSet ⟨(Hom ‘ndx), ((le‘𝐾) × {1o})⟩)))
Theorem	prstcnid 46347	Components other than Hom and comp are unchanged. (Contributed by Zhi Wang, 20-Sep-2024.)
⊢ (𝜑 → 𝐶 = (ProsetToCat‘𝐾))    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝐾 ∈ Proset )    &   ⊢ 𝐸 = Slot (𝐸‘ndx)    &   ⊢ (𝐸‘ndx) ≠ (comp‘ndx)    &   ⊢ (𝐸‘ndx) ≠ (Hom ‘ndx)    ⇒   ⊢ (𝜑 → (𝐸‘𝐾) = (𝐸‘𝐶))
Theorem	prstcbas 46348	The base set is unchanged. (Contributed by Zhi Wang, 20-Sep-2024.)
⊢ (𝜑 → 𝐶 = (ProsetToCat‘𝐾))    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝐾 ∈ Proset )    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝐵 = (Base‘𝐾))    ⇒   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝐵 = (Base‘𝐶))
Theorem	prstcleval 46349	Value of the less-than-or-equal-to relation is unchanged. (Contributed by Zhi Wang, 20-Sep-2024.) (Proof shortened by AV, 12-Nov-2024.)
⊢ (𝜑 → 𝐶 = (ProsetToCat‘𝐾))    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝐾 ∈ Proset )    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → ≤ = (le‘𝐾))    ⇒   ⊢ (𝜑 → ≤ = (le‘𝐶))
Theorem	prstclevalOLD 46350	Obsolete proof of prstcleval 46349 as of 12-Nov-2024. Value of the less-than-or-equal-to relation is unchanged. (Contributed by Zhi Wang, 20-Sep-2024.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) (New usage is discouraged.)
⊢ (𝜑 → 𝐶 = (ProsetToCat‘𝐾))    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝐾 ∈ Proset )    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → ≤ = (le‘𝐾))    ⇒   ⊢ (𝜑 → ≤ = (le‘𝐶))
Theorem	prstcle 46351	Value of the less-than-or-equal-to relation is unchanged. (Contributed by Zhi Wang, 20-Sep-2024.)
⊢ (𝜑 → 𝐶 = (ProsetToCat‘𝐾))    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝐾 ∈ Proset )    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → ≤ = (le‘𝐾))    ⇒   ⊢ (𝜑 → (𝑋 ≤ 𝑌 ↔ 𝑋(le‘𝐶)𝑌))
Theorem	prstcocval 46352	Orthocomplementation is unchanged. (Contributed by Zhi Wang, 20-Sep-2024.) (Proof shortened by AV, 12-Nov-2024.)
⊢ (𝜑 → 𝐶 = (ProsetToCat‘𝐾))    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝐾 ∈ Proset )    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → ⊥ = (oc‘𝐾))    ⇒   ⊢ (𝜑 → ⊥ = (oc‘𝐶))
Theorem	prstcocvalOLD 46353	Obsolete proof of prstcocval 46352 as of 12-Nov-2024. Orthocomplementation is unchanged. (Contributed by Zhi Wang, 20-Sep-2024.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) (New usage is discouraged.)
⊢ (𝜑 → 𝐶 = (ProsetToCat‘𝐾))    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝐾 ∈ Proset )    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → ⊥ = (oc‘𝐾))    ⇒   ⊢ (𝜑 → ⊥ = (oc‘𝐶))
Theorem	prstcoc 46354	Orthocomplementation is unchanged. (Contributed by Zhi Wang, 20-Sep-2024.)
⊢ (𝜑 → 𝐶 = (ProsetToCat‘𝐾))    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝐾 ∈ Proset )    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → ⊥ = (oc‘𝐾))    ⇒   ⊢ (𝜑 → ( ⊥ ‘𝑋) = ((oc‘𝐶)‘𝑋))
Theorem	prstchomval 46355	Hom-sets of the constructed category which depend on an arbitrary definition. (Contributed by Zhi Wang, 20-Sep-2024.) (New usage is discouraged.)
⊢ (𝜑 → 𝐶 = (ProsetToCat‘𝐾))    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝐾 ∈ Proset )    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → ≤ = (le‘𝐶))    ⇒   ⊢ (𝜑 → ( ≤ × {1o}) = (Hom ‘𝐶))
Theorem	prstcprs 46356	The category is a preordered set. (Contributed by Zhi Wang, 20-Sep-2024.)
⊢ (𝜑 → 𝐶 = (ProsetToCat‘𝐾))    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝐾 ∈ Proset )    ⇒   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝐶 ∈ Proset )
Theorem	prstcthin 46357	The preordered set is equipped with a thin category. (Contributed by Zhi Wang, 20-Sep-2024.)
⊢ (𝜑 → 𝐶 = (ProsetToCat‘𝐾))    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝐾 ∈ Proset )    ⇒   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝐶 ∈ ThinCat)
Theorem	prstchom 46358	Hom-sets of the constructed category are dependent on the preorder. Note that prstchom.x and prstchom.y are redundant here due to our definition of ProsetToCat. However, this should not be assumed as it is definition-dependent. Therefore, the two hypotheses are added for explicitness. (Contributed by Zhi Wang, 20-Sep-2024.)
⊢ (𝜑 → 𝐶 = (ProsetToCat‘𝐾))    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝐾 ∈ Proset )    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → ≤ = (le‘𝐶))    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝐻 = (Hom ‘𝐶))    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝑋 ∈ (Base‘𝐶))    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝑌 ∈ (Base‘𝐶))    ⇒   ⊢ (𝜑 → (𝑋 ≤ 𝑌 ↔ (𝑋𝐻𝑌) ≠ ∅))
Theorem	prstchom2 46359*	Hom-sets of the constructed category are dependent on the preorder. Note that prstchom.x and prstchom.y are redundant here due to our definition of ProsetToCat ( see prstchom2ALT 46360). However, this should not be assumed as it is definition-dependent. Therefore, the two hypotheses are added for explicitness. (Contributed by Zhi Wang, 21-Sep-2024.)
⊢ (𝜑 → 𝐶 = (ProsetToCat‘𝐾))    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝐾 ∈ Proset )    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → ≤ = (le‘𝐶))    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝐻 = (Hom ‘𝐶))    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝑋 ∈ (Base‘𝐶))    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝑌 ∈ (Base‘𝐶))    ⇒   ⊢ (𝜑 → (𝑋 ≤ 𝑌 ↔ ∃!𝑓 𝑓 ∈ (𝑋𝐻𝑌)))
Theorem	prstchom2ALT 46360*	Hom-sets of the constructed category are dependent on the preorder. This proof depends on the definition df-prstc 46344. See prstchom2 46359 for a version that does not depend on the definition. (Contributed by Zhi Wang, 20-Sep-2024.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) (New usage is discouraged.)
⊢ (𝜑 → 𝐶 = (ProsetToCat‘𝐾))    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝐾 ∈ Proset )    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → ≤ = (le‘𝐶))    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝐻 = (Hom ‘𝐶))    ⇒   ⊢ (𝜑 → (𝑋 ≤ 𝑌 ↔ ∃!𝑓 𝑓 ∈ (𝑋𝐻𝑌)))
Theorem	postcpos 46361	The converted category is a poset iff the original proset is a poset. (Contributed by Zhi Wang, 26-Sep-2024.)
⊢ (𝜑 → 𝐶 = (ProsetToCat‘𝐾))    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝐾 ∈ Proset )    ⇒   ⊢ (𝜑 → (𝐾 ∈ Poset ↔ 𝐶 ∈ Poset))
Theorem	postcposALT 46362	Alternate proof for postcpos 46361. (Contributed by Zhi Wang, 25-Sep-2024.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) (New usage is discouraged.)
⊢ (𝜑 → 𝐶 = (ProsetToCat‘𝐾))    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝐾 ∈ Proset )    ⇒   ⊢ (𝜑 → (𝐾 ∈ Poset ↔ 𝐶 ∈ Poset))
Theorem	postc 46363*	The converted category is a poset iff no distinct objects are isomorphic. (Contributed by Zhi Wang, 25-Sep-2024.)
⊢ (𝜑 → 𝐶 = (ProsetToCat‘𝐾))    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝐾 ∈ Proset )    &   ⊢ 𝐵 = (Base‘𝐶)    ⇒   ⊢ (𝜑 → (𝐶 ∈ Poset ↔ ∀𝑥 ∈ 𝐵 ∀𝑦 ∈ 𝐵 (𝑥( ≃𝑐 ‘𝐶)𝑦 → 𝑥 = 𝑦)))
20.42.13.3  Monoids as categories
Syntax	cmndtc 46364	Class function defining monoids as categories.
class MndToCat
Definition	df-mndtc 46365	Definition of the function converting a monoid to a category. Example 3.3(4.e) of [Adamek] p. 24. The definition of the base set is arbitrary. The whole extensible structure becomes the object here (see mndtcbasval 46367) , instead of just the base set, as is the case in Example 3.3(4.e) of [Adamek] p. 24. The resulting category is defined entirely, up to isomorphism, by mndtcbas 46368, mndtchom 46371, mndtcco 46372. Use those instead. See example 3.26(3) of [Adamek] p. 33 for more on isomorphism. "MndToCat" was taken instead of "MndCat" because the latter might mean the category of monoids. (Contributed by Zhi Wang, 22-Sep-2024.) (New usage is discouraged.)
⊢ MndToCat = (𝑚 ∈ Mnd ↦ {⟨(Base‘ndx), {𝑚}⟩, ⟨(Hom ‘ndx), {⟨𝑚, 𝑚, (Base‘𝑚)⟩}⟩, ⟨(comp‘ndx), {⟨⟨𝑚, 𝑚, 𝑚⟩, (+g‘𝑚)⟩}⟩})
Theorem	mndtcval 46366	Value of the category built from a monoid. (Contributed by Zhi Wang, 22-Sep-2024.) (New usage is discouraged.)
⊢ (𝜑 → 𝐶 = (MndToCat‘𝑀))    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝑀 ∈ Mnd)    ⇒   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝐶 = {⟨(Base‘ndx), {𝑀}⟩, ⟨(Hom ‘ndx), {⟨𝑀, 𝑀, (Base‘𝑀)⟩}⟩, ⟨(comp‘ndx), {⟨⟨𝑀, 𝑀, 𝑀⟩, (+g‘𝑀)⟩}⟩})
Theorem	mndtcbasval 46367	The base set of the category built from a monoid. (Contributed by Zhi Wang, 22-Sep-2024.) (New usage is discouraged.)
⊢ (𝜑 → 𝐶 = (MndToCat‘𝑀))    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝑀 ∈ Mnd)    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝐵 = (Base‘𝐶))    ⇒   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝐵 = {𝑀})
Theorem	mndtcbas 46368*	The category built from a monoid contains precisely one object. (Contributed by Zhi Wang, 22-Sep-2024.)
⊢ (𝜑 → 𝐶 = (MndToCat‘𝑀))    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝑀 ∈ Mnd)    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝐵 = (Base‘𝐶))    ⇒   ⊢ (𝜑 → ∃!𝑥 𝑥 ∈ 𝐵)
Theorem	mndtcob 46369	Lemma for mndtchom 46371 and mndtcco 46372. (Contributed by Zhi Wang, 22-Sep-2024.) (New usage is discouraged.)
⊢ (𝜑 → 𝐶 = (MndToCat‘𝑀))    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝑀 ∈ Mnd)    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝐵 = (Base‘𝐶))    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝑋 ∈ 𝐵)    ⇒   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝑋 = 𝑀)
Theorem	mndtcbas2 46370	Two objects in a category built from a monoid are identical. (Contributed by Zhi Wang, 24-Sep-2024.)
⊢ (𝜑 → 𝐶 = (MndToCat‘𝑀))    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝑀 ∈ Mnd)    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝐵 = (Base‘𝐶))    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝑋 ∈ 𝐵)    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝑌 ∈ 𝐵)    ⇒   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝑋 = 𝑌)
Theorem	mndtchom 46371	The only hom-set of the category built from a monoid is the base set of the monoid. (Contributed by Zhi Wang, 22-Sep-2024.)
⊢ (𝜑 → 𝐶 = (MndToCat‘𝑀))    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝑀 ∈ Mnd)    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝐵 = (Base‘𝐶))    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝑋 ∈ 𝐵)    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝑌 ∈ 𝐵)    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝐻 = (Hom ‘𝐶))    ⇒   ⊢ (𝜑 → (𝑋𝐻𝑌) = (Base‘𝑀))
Theorem	mndtcco 46372	The composition of the category built from a monoid is the monoid operation. (Contributed by Zhi Wang, 22-Sep-2024.)
⊢ (𝜑 → 𝐶 = (MndToCat‘𝑀))    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝑀 ∈ Mnd)    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝐵 = (Base‘𝐶))    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝑋 ∈ 𝐵)    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝑌 ∈ 𝐵)    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝑍 ∈ 𝐵)    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → · = (comp‘𝐶))    ⇒   ⊢ (𝜑 → (⟨𝑋, 𝑌⟩ · 𝑍) = (+g‘𝑀))
Theorem	mndtcco2 46373	The composition of the category built from a monoid is the monoid operation. (Contributed by Zhi Wang, 22-Sep-2024.)
⊢ (𝜑 → 𝐶 = (MndToCat‘𝑀))    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝑀 ∈ Mnd)    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝐵 = (Base‘𝐶))    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝑋 ∈ 𝐵)    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝑌 ∈ 𝐵)    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝑍 ∈ 𝐵)    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → · = (comp‘𝐶))    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → ⚬ = (⟨𝑋, 𝑌⟩ · 𝑍))    ⇒   ⊢ (𝜑 → (𝐺 ⚬ 𝐹) = (𝐺(+g‘𝑀)𝐹))
Theorem	mndtccatid 46374*	Lemma for mndtccat 46375 and mndtcid 46376. (Contributed by Zhi Wang, 22-Sep-2024.)
⊢ (𝜑 → 𝐶 = (MndToCat‘𝑀))    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝑀 ∈ Mnd)    ⇒   ⊢ (𝜑 → (𝐶 ∈ Cat ∧ (Id‘𝐶) = (𝑦 ∈ (Base‘𝐶) ↦ (0g‘𝑀))))
Theorem	mndtccat 46375	The function value is a category. (Contributed by Zhi Wang, 22-Sep-2024.)
⊢ (𝜑 → 𝐶 = (MndToCat‘𝑀))    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝑀 ∈ Mnd)    ⇒   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝐶 ∈ Cat)
Theorem	mndtcid 46376	The identity morphism, or identity arrow, of the category built from a monoid is the identity element of the monoid. (Contributed by Zhi Wang, 22-Sep-2024.)
⊢ (𝜑 → 𝐶 = (MndToCat‘𝑀))    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝑀 ∈ Mnd)    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝐵 = (Base‘𝐶))    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝑋 ∈ 𝐵)    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → 1 = (Id‘𝐶))    ⇒   ⊢ (𝜑 → ( 1 ‘𝑋) = (0g‘𝑀))
Theorem	grptcmon 46377	All morphisms in a category converted from a group are monomorphisms. (Contributed by Zhi Wang, 23-Sep-2024.)
⊢ (𝜑 → 𝐶 = (MndToCat‘𝐺))    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝐺 ∈ Grp)    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝐵 = (Base‘𝐶))    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝑋 ∈ 𝐵)    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝑌 ∈ 𝐵)    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝐻 = (Hom ‘𝐶))    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝑀 = (Mono‘𝐶))    ⇒   ⊢ (𝜑 → (𝑋𝑀𝑌) = (𝑋𝐻𝑌))
Theorem	grptcepi 46378	All morphisms in a category converted from a group are epimorphisms. (Contributed by Zhi Wang, 23-Sep-2024.)
⊢ (𝜑 → 𝐶 = (MndToCat‘𝐺))    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝐺 ∈ Grp)    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝐵 = (Base‘𝐶))    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝑋 ∈ 𝐵)    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝑌 ∈ 𝐵)    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝐻 = (Hom ‘𝐶))    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝐸 = (Epi‘𝐶))    ⇒   ⊢ (𝜑 → (𝑋𝐸𝑌) = (𝑋𝐻𝑌))
20.43  Mathbox for Emmett Weisz
20.43.1  Miscellaneous Theorems Some of these theorems are used in the series of lemmas and theorems proving the defining properties of setrecs.
Theorem	nfintd 46379	Bound-variable hypothesis builder for intersection. (Contributed by Emmett Weisz, 16-Jan-2020.)
⊢ (𝜑 → Ⅎ𝑥𝐴)    ⇒   ⊢ (𝜑 → Ⅎ𝑥∩ 𝐴)
Theorem	nfiund 46380*	Bound-variable hypothesis builder for indexed union. (Contributed by Emmett Weisz, 6-Dec-2019.) Add disjoint variable condition to avoid ax-13 2372. See nfiundg 46381 for a less restrictive version requiring more axioms. (Revised by Gino Giotto, 20-Jan-2024.)
⊢ Ⅎ𝑥𝜑    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → Ⅎ𝑦𝐴)    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → Ⅎ𝑦𝐵)    ⇒   ⊢ (𝜑 → Ⅎ𝑦∪ 𝑥 ∈ 𝐴 𝐵)
Theorem	nfiundg 46381	Bound-variable hypothesis builder for indexed union. Usage of this theorem is discouraged because it depends on ax-13 2372, see nfiund 46380 for a weaker version that does not require it. (Contributed by Emmett Weisz, 6-Dec-2019.) (New usage is discouraged.)
⊢ Ⅎ𝑥𝜑    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → Ⅎ𝑦𝐴)    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → Ⅎ𝑦𝐵)    ⇒   ⊢ (𝜑 → Ⅎ𝑦∪ 𝑥 ∈ 𝐴 𝐵)
Theorem	iunord 46382*	The indexed union of a collection of ordinal numbers 𝐵(𝑥) is ordinal. This proof is based on the proof of ssorduni 7629, but does not use it directly, since ssorduni 7629 does not work when 𝐵 is a proper class. (Contributed by Emmett Weisz, 3-Nov-2019.)
⊢ (∀𝑥 ∈ 𝐴 Ord 𝐵 → Ord ∪ 𝑥 ∈ 𝐴 𝐵)
Theorem	iunordi 46383*	The indexed union of a collection of ordinal numbers 𝐵(𝑥) is ordinal. (Contributed by Emmett Weisz, 3-Nov-2019.)
⊢ Ord 𝐵    ⇒   ⊢ Ord ∪ 𝑥 ∈ 𝐴 𝐵
Theorem	spd 46384	Specialization deduction, using implicit substitution. Based on the proof of spimed 2388. (Contributed by Emmett Weisz, 17-Jan-2020.)
⊢ (𝜒 → Ⅎ𝑥𝜓)    &   ⊢ (𝑥 = 𝑦 → (𝜑 ↔ 𝜓))    ⇒   ⊢ (𝜒 → (∀𝑥𝜑 → 𝜓))
Theorem	spcdvw 46385*	A version of spcdv 3533 where 𝜓 and 𝜒 are direct substitutions of each other. This theorem is useful because it does not require 𝜑 and 𝑥 to be distinct variables. (Contributed by Emmett Weisz, 12-Apr-2020.)
⊢ (𝜑 → 𝐴 ∈ 𝐵)    &   ⊢ (𝑥 = 𝐴 → (𝜓 ↔ 𝜒))    ⇒   ⊢ (𝜑 → (∀𝑥𝜓 → 𝜒))
Theorem	tfis2d 46386*	Transfinite Induction Schema, using implicit substitution. (Contributed by Emmett Weisz, 3-May-2020.)
⊢ (𝜑 → (𝑥 = 𝑦 → (𝜓 ↔ 𝜒)))    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → (𝑥 ∈ On → (∀𝑦 ∈ 𝑥 𝜒 → 𝜓)))    ⇒   ⊢ (𝜑 → (𝑥 ∈ On → 𝜓))
Theorem	bnd2d 46387*	Deduction form of bnd2 9651. (Contributed by Emmett Weisz, 19-Jan-2021.)
⊢ (𝜑 → 𝐴 ∈ V)    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → ∀𝑥 ∈ 𝐴 ∃𝑦 ∈ 𝐵 𝜓)    ⇒   ⊢ (𝜑 → ∃𝑧(𝑧 ⊆ 𝐵 ∧ ∀𝑥 ∈ 𝐴 ∃𝑦 ∈ 𝑧 𝜓))
Theorem	dffun3f 46388*	Alternate definition of function, using bound-variable hypotheses instead of distinct variable conditions. (Contributed by Emmett Weisz, 14-Mar-2021.)
⊢ Ⅎ𝑥𝐴    &   ⊢ Ⅎ𝑦𝐴    &   ⊢ Ⅎ𝑧𝐴    ⇒   ⊢ (Fun 𝐴 ↔ (Rel 𝐴 ∧ ∀𝑥∃𝑧∀𝑦(𝑥𝐴𝑦 → 𝑦 = 𝑧)))
20.43.2  Set Recursion
20.43.2.1  Basic Properties of Set Recursion Symbols in this section: All the symbols used in the definition of setrecs(𝐹) are explained in the comment of df-setrecs 46390. The class 𝑌 is explained in the comment of setrec1lem1 46393. Glossaries of symbols used in individual proofs, or used differently in different proofs, are in the comments of those proofs.
Syntax	csetrecs 46389	Extend class notation to include a set defined by transfinite recursion.
class setrecs(𝐹)
Definition	df-setrecs 46390*	Define a class setrecs(𝐹) by transfinite recursion, where (𝐹‘𝑥) is the set of new elements to add to the class given the set 𝑥 of elements in the class so far. We do not need a base case, because we can start with the empty set, which is vacuously a subset of setrecs(𝐹). The goal of this definition is to construct a class fulfilling Theorems setrec1 46397 and setrec2v 46402, which give a more intuitive idea of the meaning of setrecs. Unlike wrecs, setrecs is well-defined for any 𝐹 and meaningful for any function 𝐹. For example, see Theorem onsetrec 46413 for how the class On is defined recursively using the successor function. The definition works by building subsets of the desired class and taking the union of those subsets. To find such a collection of subsets, consider an arbitrary set 𝑧, and consider the result when applying 𝐹 to any subset 𝑤 ⊆ 𝑧. Remember that 𝐹 can be any function, and in general we are interested in functions that give outputs that are larger than their inputs, so we have no reason to expect the outputs to be within 𝑧. However, if we restrict the domain of 𝐹 to a given set 𝑦, the resulting range will be a set. Therefore, with this restricted 𝐹, it makes sense to consider sets 𝑧 that are closed under 𝐹 applied to its subsets. Now we can test whether a given set 𝑦 is recursively generated by 𝐹. If every set 𝑧 that is closed under 𝐹 contains 𝑦, that means that every member of 𝑦 must eventually be generated by 𝐹. On the other hand, if some such 𝑧 does not contain a certain element of 𝑦, then that element can be avoided even if we apply 𝐹 in every possible way to previously generated elements. Note that such an omitted element might be eventually recursively generated by 𝐹, but not through the elements of 𝑦. In this case, 𝑦 would fail the condition in the definition, but the omitted element would still be included in some larger 𝑦. For example, if 𝐹 is the successor function, the set {∅, 2o} would fail the condition since 2o is not an element of the successor of ∅ or {∅}. Remember that we are applying 𝐹 to subsets of 𝑦, not elements of 𝑦. In fact, even the set {1o} fails the condition, since the only subset of previously generated elements is ∅, and suc ∅ does not have 1o as an element. However, we can let 𝑦 be any ordinal, since each of its elements is generated by starting with ∅ and repeatedly applying the successor function. A similar definition I initially used for setrecs(𝐹) was setrecs(𝐹) = ∪ ran recs((𝑔 ∈ V ↦ (𝐹‘∪ ran 𝑔))). I had initially tried and failed to find an elementary definition, and I had proven theorems analogous to setrec1 46397 and setrec2v 46402 using the old definition before I found the new one. I decided to change definitions for two reasons. First, as John Horton Conway noted in the Appendix to Part Zero of On Numbers and Games, mathematicians should not be caught up in any particular formalization, such as ZF set theory. Instead, they should work under whatever framework best suits the problem, and the formal bases used for different problems can be shown to be equivalent. Thus, Conway preferred defining surreal numbers as equivalence classes of surreal number forms, rather than sign-expansions. Although sign-expansions are easier to implement in ZF set theory, Conway argued that "formalisation within some particular axiomatic set theory is irrelevant". Furthermore, one of the most remarkable properties of the theory of surreal numbers is that it generates so much from almost nothing. Using sign-expansions as the formal definition destroys the beauty of surreal numbers, because ordinals are already built in. For this reason, I replaced the old definition of setrecs, which also relied heavily on ordinal numbers. On the other hand, both surreal numbers and the elementary definition of setrecs immediately generate the ordinal numbers from a (relatively) very simple set-theoretical basis. Second, although it is still complicated to formalize the theory of recursively generated sets within ZF set theory, it is actually simpler and more natural to do so with set theory directly than with the theory of ordinal numbers. As Conway wrote, indexing the "birthdays" of sets is and should be unnecessary. Using an elementary definition for setrecs removes the reliance on the previously developed theory of ordinal numbers, allowing proofs to be simpler and more direct. Formalizing surreal numbers within Metamath is probably still not in the spirit of Conway. He said that "attempts to force arbitrary theories into a single formal straitjacket... produce unnecessarily cumbrous and inelegant contortions." Nevertheless, Metamath has proven to be much more versatile than it seems at first, and I think the theory of surreal numbers can be natural while fitting well into the Metamath framework. The difficulty in writing a definition in Metamath for setrecs(𝐹) is that the necessary properties to prove are self-referential (see setrec1 46397 and setrec2v 46402), so we cannot simply write the properties we want inside a class abstraction as with most definitions. As noted in the comment of df-rdg 8241, this is not actually a requirement of the Metamath language, but we would like to be able to eliminate all definitions by direct mechanical substitution. We cannot define setrecs using a class abstraction directly, because nothing about its individual elements tells us whether they are in the set. We need to know about previous elements first. One way of getting around this problem without indexing is by defining setrecs(𝐹) as a union or intersection of suitable sets. Thus, instead of using a class abstraction for the elements of setrecs(𝐹), which seems to be impossible, we can use a class abstraction for supersets or subsets of setrecs(𝐹), which "know" about multiple individual elements at a time. Note that we cannot define setrecs(𝐹) as an intersection of sets, because in general it is a proper class, so any supersets would also be proper classes. However, a proper class can be a union of sets, as long as the collection of such sets is a proper class. Therefore, it is feasible to define setrecs(𝐹) as a union of a class abstraction. If setrecs(𝐹) = ∪ 𝐴, the elements of A must be subsets of setrecs(𝐹) which together include everything recursively generated by 𝐹. We can do this by letting 𝐴 be the class of sets 𝑥 whose elements are all recursively generated by 𝐹. One necessary condition is that each element of a given 𝑥 ∈ 𝐴 must be generated by 𝐹 when applied to a previous element 𝑦 ∈ 𝐴. In symbols, ∀𝑥 ∈ 𝐴∃𝑦 ∈ 𝐴(𝑦 ⊆ 𝑥 ∧ 𝑥 ⊆ (𝐹‘𝑦))}. However, this is not sufficient. All fixed points 𝑥 of 𝐹 will satisfy this condition whether they should be in setrecs(𝐹) or not. If we replace the subset relation with the proper subset relation, 𝑥 cannot be the empty set, even though the empty set should be in 𝐴. Therefore this condition cannot be used in the definition, even if we can find a way to avoid making it circular. A better strategy is to find a necessary and sufficient condition for all the elements of a set 𝑦 ∈ 𝐴 to be generated by 𝐹 when applied only to sets of previously generated elements within 𝑦. For example, taking 𝐹 to be the successor function, we can let 𝐴 = On rather than 𝒫 On, and we will still have ∪ 𝐴 = On as required. This gets rid of the circularity of the definition, since we should have a condition to test whether a given set 𝑦 is in 𝐴 without knowing about any of the other elements of 𝐴. The definition I ended up using accomplishes this using induction: 𝐴 is defined as the class of sets 𝑦 for which a sort of induction on the elements of 𝑦 holds. However, when creating a definition for setrecs that did not rely on ordinal numbers, I tried at first to write a definition using the well-founded relation predicate, Fr. I thought that this would be simple to do once I found a suitable definition using induction, just as the least- element principle is equivalent to induction on the positive integers. If we let 𝑅 = {⟨𝑎, 𝑏⟩ ∣ (𝐹‘𝑎) ⊆ 𝑏}, then (𝑅 Fr 𝐴 ↔ ∀𝑥((𝑥 ⊆ 𝐴 ∧ 𝑥 ≠ ∅) → ∃𝑦 ∈ 𝑥∀𝑧 ∈ 𝑥¬ (𝐹‘𝑧) ⊆ 𝑦)). On 22-Jul-2020 I came up with the following definition (Version 1) phrased in terms of induction: ∪ {𝑦 ∣ ∀𝑧 (∀𝑤(𝑤 ⊆ 𝑦 → (𝑤 ∈ 𝑧 → (𝐹‘𝑤) ∈ 𝑧)) → 𝑦 ∈ 𝑧)} In Aug-2020 I came up with an equivalent definition with the goal of phrasing it in terms of the relation Fr. It is the contrapositive of the previous one with 𝑧 replaced by its complement. ∪ {𝑦 ∣ ∀𝑧 (𝑦 ∈ 𝑧 → ∃𝑤(𝑤 ⊆ 𝑦 ∧ (𝐹‘𝑤) ∈ 𝑧 ∧ ¬ 𝑤 ∈ 𝑧))} These definitions didn't work because the induction didn't "get off the ground." If 𝑧 does not contain the empty set, the condition (∀𝑤...𝑦 ∈ 𝑧 fails, so 𝑦 = ∅ doesn't get included in 𝐴 even though it should. This could be fixed by adding the base case as a separate requirement, but the subtler problem would remain that rather than a set of "acceptable" sets, what we really need is a collection 𝑧 of all individuals that have been generated so far. So one approach is to replace every occurrence of ∈ 𝑧 with ⊆ 𝑧, making 𝑧 a set of individuals rather than a family of sets. That solves this problem, but it complicates the foundedness version of the definition, which looked cleaner in Version 1. There was another problem with Version 1. If we let 𝐹 be the power set function, then the induction in the inductive version works for 𝑧 being the class of transitive sets, restricted to subsets of 𝑦. Therefore, 𝑦 must be transitive by definition of 𝑧. This doesn't affect the union of all such 𝑦, but it may or may not be desirable. The problem is that 𝐹 is only applied to transitive sets, because of the strong requirement 𝑤 ∈ 𝑧, so the definition requires the additional constraint (𝑎 ⊆ 𝑏 → (𝐹‘𝑎) ⊆ (𝐹‘𝑏)) in order to work. This issue can also be avoided by replacing ∈ 𝑧 with ⊆ 𝑧. The induction version of the result is used in the final definition. Version 2: (18-Aug-2020) Induction: ∪ {𝑦 ∣ ∀𝑧 (∀𝑤(𝑤 ⊆ 𝑦 → (𝑤 ⊆ 𝑧 → (𝐹‘𝑤) ⊆ 𝑧)) → 𝑦 ⊆ 𝑧)} Foundedness: ∪ {𝑦 ∣ ∀𝑧(𝑦 ∩ 𝑧 ≠ ∅ → ∃𝑤(𝑤 ⊆ 𝑦 ∧ 𝑤 ∩ 𝑧 = ∅ ∧ (𝐹‘𝑤) ∩ 𝑧 ≠ ∅))} In the induction version, not only does 𝑧 include all the elements of 𝑦, but it must include the elements of (𝐹‘𝑤) for 𝑤 ⊆ (𝑦 ∩ 𝑧) even if those elements of (𝐹‘𝑤) are not in 𝑦. We shouldn't care about any of the elements of 𝑧 outside 𝑦, but this detail doesn't affect the correctness of the definition. If we replaced (𝐹‘𝑤) in the definition by ((𝐹‘𝑤) ∩ 𝑦), we would get the same class for setrecs(𝐹). Suppose we could find a 𝑧 for which the condition fails for a given 𝑦 under the changed definition. Then the antecedent would be true, but 𝑦 ⊆ 𝑧 would be false. We could then simply add all elements of (𝐹‘𝑤) outside of 𝑦 for any 𝑤 ⊆ 𝑦, which we can do because all the classes involved are sets. This is not trivial and requires the axioms of union, power set, and replacement. However, the expanded 𝑧 fails the condition under the Metamath definition. The other direction is easier. If a certain 𝑧 fails the Metamath definition, then all (𝐹‘𝑤) ⊆ 𝑧 for 𝑤 ⊆ (𝑦 ∩ 𝑧), and in particular ((𝐹‘𝑤) ∩ 𝑦) ⊆ 𝑧. The foundedness version is starting to look more like ax-reg 9351! We want to take advantage of the preexisting relation Fr, which seems closely related to our foundedness definition. Since we only care about the elements of 𝑧 which are subsets of 𝑦, we can restrict 𝑧 to 𝑦 in the foundedness definition. Furthermore, instead of quantifying over 𝑤, quantify over the elements 𝑣 ∈ 𝑧 overlapping with 𝑤. Versions 3, 4, and 5 are all equivalent to Version 2. Version 3 - Foundedness (5-Sep-2020): ∪ {𝑦 ∣ ∀𝑧((𝑧 ⊆ 𝑦 ∧ 𝑧 ≠ ∅) → ∃𝑣 ∈ 𝑧∃𝑤(𝑤 ⊆ 𝑦 ∧ 𝑤 ∩ 𝑧 = ∅ ∧ 𝑣 ∈ (𝐹‘𝑤)))} Now, if we replace (𝐹‘𝑤) by ((𝐹‘𝑤) ∩ 𝑦), we do not change the definition. We already know that 𝑣 ∈ 𝑦 since 𝑣 ∈ 𝑧 and 𝑧 ⊆ 𝑦. All we need to show in order to prove that this change leads to an equivalent definition is to find To make our definition look exactly like df-fr 5544, we add another variable 𝑢 representing the nonexistent element of 𝑤 in 𝑧. Version 4 - Foundedness (6-Sep-2020): ∪ {𝑦 ∣ ∀𝑧((𝑧 ⊆ 𝑦 ∧ 𝑧 ≠ ∅) → ∃𝑣 ∈ 𝑧∃𝑤∀𝑢 ∈ 𝑧(𝑤 ⊆ 𝑦 ∧ ¬ 𝑢 ∈ 𝑤 ∧ 𝑣 ∈ (𝐹‘𝑤)) This is so close to df-fr 5544; the only change needed is to switch ∃𝑤 with ∀𝑢 ∈ 𝑧. Unfortunately, I couldn't find any way to switch the quantifiers without interfering with the definition. Maybe there is a definition equivalent to this one that uses Fr, but I couldn't find one. Yet, we can still find a remarkable similarity between Foundedness Version 2 and ax-reg 9351. Rather than a disjoint element of 𝑧, there's a disjoint coverer of an element of 𝑧. Finally, here's a different dead end I followed: To clean up our foundedness definition, we keep 𝑧 as a family of sets 𝑦 but allow 𝑤 to be any subset of ∪ 𝑧 in the induction. With this stronger induction, we can also allow for the stronger requirement 𝒫 𝑦 ⊆ 𝑧 rather than only 𝑦 ∈ 𝑧. This will help improve the foundedness version. Version 1.1 (28-Aug-2020) Induction: ∪ {𝑦 ∣ ∀𝑧(∀𝑤 (𝑤 ⊆ 𝑦 → (𝑤 ⊆ ∪ 𝑧 → (𝐹‘𝑤) ∈ 𝑧)) → 𝒫 𝑦 ⊆ 𝑧)} Foundedness: ∪ {𝑦 ∣ ∀𝑧(∃𝑎(𝑎 ⊆ 𝑦 ∧ 𝑎 ∈ 𝑧) → ∃𝑤(𝑤 ⊆ 𝑦 ∧ 𝑤 ∩ ∩ 𝑧 = ∅ ∧ (𝐹‘𝑤) ∈ 𝑧))} ( Edit (Aug 31) - this isn't true! Nothing forces the subset of an element of 𝑧 to be in 𝑧. Version 2 does not have this issue. ) Similarly, we could allow 𝑤 to be any subset of any element of 𝑧 rather than any subset of ∪ 𝑧. I think this has the same problem. We want to take advantage of the preexisting relation Fr, which seems closely related to our foundedness definition. Since we only care about the elements of 𝑧 which are subsets of 𝑦, we can restrict 𝑧 to 𝒫 𝑦 in the foundedness definition: Version 1.2 (31-Aug-2020) Foundedness: ∪ {𝑦 ∣ ∀𝑧((𝑧 ⊆ 𝒫 𝑦 ∧ 𝑧 ≠ ∅) → ∃𝑤(𝑤 ∈ 𝒫 𝑦 ∧ 𝑤 ∩ ∩ 𝑧 = ∅ ∧ (𝐹‘𝑤) ∈ 𝑧))} Now this looks more like df-fr 5544! The last step necessary to be able to use Fr directly in our definition is to replace (𝐹‘𝑤) with its own setvar variable, corresponding to 𝑦 in df-fr 5544. This definition is incorrect, though, since there's nothing forcing the subset of an element of 𝑧 to be in 𝑧. Version 1.3 (31-Aug-2020) Induction: ∪ {𝑦 ∣ ∀𝑧(∀𝑤(𝑤 ⊆ 𝑦 → (𝑤 ⊆ ∪ 𝑧 → (𝑤 ∈ 𝑧 ∧ (𝐹‘𝑤) ∈ 𝑧))) → 𝒫 𝑦 ⊆ 𝑧)} Foundedness: ∪ {𝑦 ∣ ∀𝑧((𝑧 ⊆ 𝒫 𝑦 ∧ 𝑧 ≠ ∅) → ∃𝑤(𝑤 ∈ 𝒫 𝑦 ∧ 𝑤 ∩ ∩ 𝑧 = ∅ ∧ (𝑤 ∈ 𝑧 ∨ (𝐹‘𝑤) ∈ 𝑧)))} 𝑧 must contain the supersets of each of its elements in the foundedness version, and we can't make any restrictions on 𝑧 or 𝐹, so this doesn't work. Let's try letting R be the covering relation 𝑅 = {⟨𝑎, 𝑏⟩ ∣ 𝑏 ∈ (𝐹‘𝑎)} to solve the transitivity issue (i.e. that if 𝐹 is the power set relation, 𝐴 consists only of transitive sets). The set (𝐹‘𝑤) corresponds to the variable 𝑦 in df-fr 5544. Thus, in our case, df-fr 5544 is equivalent to (𝑅 Fr 𝐴 ↔ ∀𝑧((𝑧 ⊆ 𝐴 ∧ 𝑧 ≠ ∅) → ∃𝑤((𝐹‘𝑤) ∈ 𝑧 ∧ ¬ ∃𝑣 ∈ 𝑧𝑣𝑅(𝐹‘𝑤))). Substituting our relation 𝑅 gives (𝑅 Fr 𝐴 ↔ ∀𝑧((𝑧 ⊆ 𝐴 ∧ 𝑧 ≠ ∅) → ∃𝑤((𝐹‘𝑤) ∈ 𝑧 ∧ ¬ ∃𝑣 ∈ 𝑧(𝐹‘𝑤) ∈ (𝐹‘𝑣))) This doesn't work for non-injective 𝐹 because we need all 𝑧 to be straddlers, but we don't necessarily need all-straddlers; loops within z are fine for non-injective F. Consider the foundedness form of Version 1. We want to show ¬ 𝑤 ∈ 𝑧 ↔ ∀𝑣 ∈ 𝑧¬ 𝑣𝑅(𝐹‘𝑤) so we can replace one with the other. Negate both sides: 𝑤 ∈ 𝑧 ↔ ∃𝑣 ∈ 𝑧𝑣𝑅(𝐹‘𝑤) If 𝐹 is injective, then we should be able to pick a suitable R, being careful about the above problem for some F (for example z = transitivity) when changing the antecedent y e. z' to z =/= (/). If we're clever, we can get rid of the injectivity requirement. The forward direction of the above equivalence always holds, but the key is that although the backwards direction doesn't hold in general, we can always find some z' where it doesn't work for 𝑤 itself. If there exists a z' where the version with the w condition fails, then there exists a z' where the version with the v condition also fails. However, Version 1 is not a correct definition, so this doesn't work either. (Contributed by Emmett Weisz, 18-Aug-2020.) (New usage is discouraged.)
⊢ setrecs(𝐹) = ∪ {𝑦 ∣ ∀𝑧(∀𝑤(𝑤 ⊆ 𝑦 → (𝑤 ⊆ 𝑧 → (𝐹‘𝑤) ⊆ 𝑧)) → 𝑦 ⊆ 𝑧)}
Theorem	setrecseq 46391	Equality theorem for set recursion. (Contributed by Emmett Weisz, 17-Feb-2021.)
⊢ (𝐹 = 𝐺 → setrecs(𝐹) = setrecs(𝐺))
Theorem	nfsetrecs 46392	Bound-variable hypothesis builder for setrecs. (Contributed by Emmett Weisz, 21-Oct-2021.)
⊢ Ⅎ𝑥𝐹    ⇒   ⊢ Ⅎ𝑥setrecs(𝐹)
Theorem	setrec1lem1 46393*	Lemma for setrec1 46397. This is a utility theorem showing the equivalence of the statement 𝑋 ∈ 𝑌 and its expanded form. The proof uses elabg 3607 and equivalence theorems. Variable 𝑌 is the class of sets 𝑦 that are recursively generated by the function 𝐹. In other words, 𝑦 ∈ 𝑌 iff by starting with the empty set and repeatedly applying 𝐹 to subsets 𝑤 of our set, we will eventually generate all the elements of 𝑌. In this theorem, 𝑋 is any element of 𝑌, and 𝑉 is any class. (Contributed by Emmett Weisz, 16-Oct-2020.) (New usage is discouraged.)
⊢ 𝑌 = {𝑦 ∣ ∀𝑧(∀𝑤(𝑤 ⊆ 𝑦 → (𝑤 ⊆ 𝑧 → (𝐹‘𝑤) ⊆ 𝑧)) → 𝑦 ⊆ 𝑧)}    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝑋 ∈ 𝑉)    ⇒   ⊢ (𝜑 → (𝑋 ∈ 𝑌 ↔ ∀𝑧(∀𝑤(𝑤 ⊆ 𝑋 → (𝑤 ⊆ 𝑧 → (𝐹‘𝑤) ⊆ 𝑧)) → 𝑋 ⊆ 𝑧)))
Theorem	setrec1lem2 46394*	Lemma for setrec1 46397. If a family of sets are all recursively generated by 𝐹, so is their union. In this theorem, 𝑋 is a family of sets which are all elements of 𝑌, and 𝑉 is any class. Use dfss3 3909, equivalence and equality theorems, and unissb at the end. Sandwich with applications of setrec1lem1. (Contributed by Emmett Weisz, 24-Jan-2021.) (New usage is discouraged.)
⊢ 𝑌 = {𝑦 ∣ ∀𝑧(∀𝑤(𝑤 ⊆ 𝑦 → (𝑤 ⊆ 𝑧 → (𝐹‘𝑤) ⊆ 𝑧)) → 𝑦 ⊆ 𝑧)}    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝑋 ∈ 𝑉)    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝑋 ⊆ 𝑌)    ⇒   ⊢ (𝜑 → ∪ 𝑋 ∈ 𝑌)
Theorem	setrec1lem3 46395*	Lemma for setrec1 46397. If each element 𝑎 of 𝐴 is covered by a set 𝑥 recursively generated by 𝐹, then there is a single such set covering all of 𝐴. The set is constructed explicitly using setrec1lem2 46394. It turns out that 𝑥 = 𝐴 also works, i.e., given the hypotheses it is possible to prove that 𝐴 ∈ 𝑌. I don't know if proving this fact directly using setrec1lem1 46393 would be any easier than the current proof using setrec1lem2 46394, and it would only slightly simplify the proof of setrec1 46397. Other than the use of bnd2d 46387, this is a purely technical theorem for rearranging notation from that of setrec1lem2 46394 to that of setrec1 46397. (Contributed by Emmett Weisz, 20-Jan-2021.) (New usage is discouraged.)
⊢ 𝑌 = {𝑦 ∣ ∀𝑧(∀𝑤(𝑤 ⊆ 𝑦 → (𝑤 ⊆ 𝑧 → (𝐹‘𝑤) ⊆ 𝑧)) → 𝑦 ⊆ 𝑧)}    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝐴 ∈ V)    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → ∀𝑎 ∈ 𝐴 ∃𝑥(𝑎 ∈ 𝑥 ∧ 𝑥 ∈ 𝑌))    ⇒   ⊢ (𝜑 → ∃𝑥(𝐴 ⊆ 𝑥 ∧ 𝑥 ∈ 𝑌))
Theorem	setrec1lem4 46396*	Lemma for setrec1 46397. If 𝑋 is recursively generated by 𝐹, then so is 𝑋 ∪ (𝐹‘𝐴). In the proof of setrec1 46397, the following is substituted for this theorem's 𝜑: (𝜑 ∧ (𝐴 ⊆ 𝑥 ∧ 𝑥 ∈ {𝑦 ∣ ∀𝑧(∀𝑤 (𝑤 ⊆ 𝑦 → (𝑤 ⊆ 𝑧 → (𝐹‘𝑤) ⊆ 𝑧)) → 𝑦 ⊆ 𝑧)})) Therefore, we cannot declare 𝑧 to be a distinct variable from 𝜑, since we need it to appear as a bound variable in 𝜑. This theorem can be proven without the hypothesis Ⅎ𝑧𝜑, but the proof would be harder to read because theorems in deduction form would be interrupted by theorems like eximi 1837, making the antecedent of each line something more complicated than 𝜑. The proof of setrec1lem2 46394 could similarly be made easier to read by adding the hypothesis Ⅎ𝑧𝜑, but I had already finished the proof and decided to leave it as is. (Contributed by Emmett Weisz, 26-Nov-2020.) (New usage is discouraged.)
⊢ Ⅎ𝑧𝜑    &   ⊢ 𝑌 = {𝑦 ∣ ∀𝑧(∀𝑤(𝑤 ⊆ 𝑦 → (𝑤 ⊆ 𝑧 → (𝐹‘𝑤) ⊆ 𝑧)) → 𝑦 ⊆ 𝑧)}    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝐴 ∈ V)    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝐴 ⊆ 𝑋)    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝑋 ∈ 𝑌)    ⇒   ⊢ (𝜑 → (𝑋 ∪ (𝐹‘𝐴)) ∈ 𝑌)
Theorem	setrec1 46397	This is the first of two fundamental theorems about set recursion from which all other facts will be derived. It states that the class setrecs(𝐹) is closed under 𝐹. This effectively sets the actual value of setrecs(𝐹) as a lower bound for setrecs(𝐹), as it implies that any set generated by successive applications of 𝐹 is a member of 𝐵. This theorem "gets off the ground" because we can start by letting 𝐴 = ∅, and the hypotheses of the theorem will hold trivially. Variable 𝐵 represents an abbreviation of setrecs(𝐹) or another name of setrecs(𝐹) (for an example of the latter, see theorem setrecon). Proof summary: Assume that 𝐴 ⊆ 𝐵, meaning that all elements of 𝐴 are in some set recursively generated by 𝐹. Then by setrec1lem3 46395, 𝐴 is a subset of some set recursively generated by 𝐹. (It turns out that 𝐴 itself is recursively generated by 𝐹, but we don't need this fact. See the comment to setrec1lem3 46395.) Therefore, by setrec1lem4 46396, (𝐹‘𝐴) is a subset of some set recursively generated by 𝐹. Thus, by ssuni 4866, it is a subset of the union of all sets recursively generated by 𝐹. See df-setrecs 46390 for a detailed description of how the setrecs definition works. (Contributed by Emmett Weisz, 9-Oct-2020.)
⊢ 𝐵 = setrecs(𝐹)    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝐴 ∈ V)    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝐴 ⊆ 𝐵)    ⇒   ⊢ (𝜑 → (𝐹‘𝐴) ⊆ 𝐵)
Theorem	setrec2fun 46398*	This is the second of two fundamental theorems about set recursion from which all other facts will be derived. It states that the class setrecs(𝐹) is a subclass of all classes 𝐶 that are closed under 𝐹. Taken together, Theorems setrec1 46397 and setrec2v 46402 say that setrecs(𝐹) is the minimal class closed under 𝐹. We express this by saying that if 𝐹 respects the ⊆ relation and 𝐶 is closed under 𝐹, then 𝐵 ⊆ 𝐶. By substituting strategically constructed classes for 𝐶, we can easily prove many useful properties. Although this theorem cannot show equality between 𝐵 and 𝐶, if we intend to prove equality between 𝐵 and some particular class (such as On), we first apply this theorem, then the relevant induction theorem (such as tfi 7700) to the other class. (Contributed by Emmett Weisz, 15-Feb-2021.) (New usage is discouraged.)
⊢ Ⅎ𝑎𝐹    &   ⊢ 𝐵 = setrecs(𝐹)    &   ⊢ Fun 𝐹    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → ∀𝑎(𝑎 ⊆ 𝐶 → (𝐹‘𝑎) ⊆ 𝐶))    ⇒   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝐵 ⊆ 𝐶)
Theorem	setrec2lem1 46399*	Lemma for setrec2 46401. The functional part of 𝐹 has the same values as 𝐹. (Contributed by Emmett Weisz, 4-Mar-2021.) (New usage is discouraged.)
⊢ ((𝐹 ↾ {𝑥 ∣ ∃!𝑦 𝑥𝐹𝑦})‘𝑎) = (𝐹‘𝑎)
Theorem	setrec2lem2 46400*	Lemma for setrec2 46401. The functional part of 𝐹 is a function. (Contributed by Emmett Weisz, 6-Mar-2021.) (New usage is discouraged.)
⊢ Fun (𝐹 ↾ {𝑥 ∣ ∃!𝑦 𝑥𝐹𝑦})