| Metamath
Proof Explorer Theorem List (p. 476 of 504) | < Previous Next > | |
| Bad symbols? Try the
GIF version. |
||
|
Mirrors > Metamath Home Page > MPE Home Page > Theorem List Contents > Recent Proofs This page: Page List |
||
| Color key: | (1-31014) |
(31015-32537) |
(32538-50302) |
| Type | Label | Description |
|---|---|---|
| Statement | ||
| Theorem | opprb 47501 | Equality for unordered pairs corresponds to equality of unordered pairs with the same elements. (Contributed by AV, 9-Jul-2023.) |
| ⊢ (((𝐴 ∈ 𝑉 ∧ 𝐵 ∈ 𝑊) ∧ (𝐶 ∈ 𝑋 ∧ 𝐷 ∈ 𝑌)) → ({𝐴, 𝐵} = {𝐶, 𝐷} ↔ (〈𝐴, 𝐵〉 = 〈𝐶, 𝐷〉 ∨ 〈𝐴, 𝐵〉 = 〈𝐷, 𝐶〉))) | ||
| Theorem | or2expropbilem1 47502* | Lemma 1 for or2expropbi 47504 and ich2exprop 47953. (Contributed by AV, 16-Jul-2023.) |
| ⊢ ((𝐴 ∈ 𝑋 ∧ 𝐵 ∈ 𝑋) → ((𝐴 = 𝑎 ∧ 𝐵 = 𝑏) → (𝜑 → ∃𝑥∃𝑦(〈𝐴, 𝐵〉 = 〈𝑥, 𝑦〉 ∧ [𝑦 / 𝑏][𝑥 / 𝑎]𝜑)))) | ||
| Theorem | or2expropbilem2 47503* | Lemma 2 for or2expropbi 47504 and ich2exprop 47953. (Contributed by AV, 16-Jul-2023.) |
| ⊢ (∃𝑎∃𝑏(〈𝐴, 𝐵〉 = 〈𝑎, 𝑏〉 ∧ 𝜑) ↔ ∃𝑥∃𝑦(〈𝐴, 𝐵〉 = 〈𝑥, 𝑦〉 ∧ [𝑦 / 𝑏][𝑥 / 𝑎]𝜑)) | ||
| Theorem | or2expropbi 47504* | If two classes are strictly ordered, there is an ordered pair of both classes fulfilling a wff iff there is an unordered pair of both classes fulfilling the wff. (Contributed by AV, 26-Aug-2023.) |
| ⊢ (((𝑋 ∈ 𝑉 ∧ 𝑅 Or 𝑋) ∧ (𝐴 ∈ 𝑋 ∧ 𝐵 ∈ 𝑋 ∧ 𝐴𝑅𝐵)) → (∃𝑎∃𝑏({𝐴, 𝐵} = {𝑎, 𝑏} ∧ (𝑎𝑅𝑏 ∧ 𝜑)) ↔ ∃𝑎∃𝑏(〈𝐴, 𝐵〉 = 〈𝑎, 𝑏〉 ∧ (𝑎𝑅𝑏 ∧ 𝜑)))) | ||
| Theorem | eubrv 47505* | If there is a unique set which is related to a class, then the class must be a set. (Contributed by AV, 25-Aug-2022.) |
| ⊢ (∃!𝑏 𝐴𝑅𝑏 → 𝐴 ∈ V) | ||
| Theorem | eubrdm 47506* | If there is a unique set which is related to a class, then the class is an element of the domain of the relation. (Contributed by AV, 25-Aug-2022.) |
| ⊢ (∃!𝑏 𝐴𝑅𝑏 → 𝐴 ∈ dom 𝑅) | ||
| Theorem | eldmressn 47507 | Element of the domain of a restriction to a singleton. (Contributed by Alexander van der Vekens, 2-Jul-2017.) |
| ⊢ (𝐵 ∈ dom (𝐹 ↾ {𝐴}) → 𝐵 = 𝐴) | ||
| Theorem | iota0def 47508* | Example for a defined iota being the empty set, i.e., ∀𝑦𝑥 ⊆ 𝑦 is a wff satisfied by a unique value 𝑥, namely 𝑥 = ∅ (the empty set is the one and only set which is a subset of every set). (Contributed by AV, 24-Aug-2022.) |
| ⊢ (℩𝑥∀𝑦 𝑥 ⊆ 𝑦) = ∅ | ||
| Theorem | iota0ndef 47509* | Example for an undefined iota being the empty set, i.e., ∀𝑦𝑦 ∈ 𝑥 is a wff not satisfied by a (unique) value 𝑥 (there is no set, and therefore certainly no unique set, which contains every set). (Contributed by AV, 24-Aug-2022.) |
| ⊢ (℩𝑥∀𝑦 𝑦 ∈ 𝑥) = ∅ | ||
| Theorem | fveqvfvv 47510 | If a function's value at an argument is the universal class (which can never be the case because of fvex 6847), the function's value at this argument is any set (especially the empty set). In short "If a function's value is a proper class, it is a set", which sounds strange/contradictory, but which is a consequence of that a contradiction implies anything (see pm2.21i 119). (Contributed by Alexander van der Vekens, 26-May-2017.) |
| ⊢ ((𝐹‘𝐴) = V → (𝐹‘𝐴) = 𝐵) | ||
| Theorem | fnresfnco 47511 | Composition of two functions, similar to fnco 6610. (Contributed by Alexander van der Vekens, 25-Jul-2017.) |
| ⊢ (((𝐹 ↾ ran 𝐺) Fn ran 𝐺 ∧ 𝐺 Fn 𝐵) → (𝐹 ∘ 𝐺) Fn 𝐵) | ||
| Theorem | funcoressn 47512 | A composition restricted to a singleton is a function under certain conditions. (Contributed by Alexander van der Vekens, 25-Jul-2017.) |
| ⊢ ((((𝐺‘𝑋) ∈ dom 𝐹 ∧ Fun (𝐹 ↾ {(𝐺‘𝑋)})) ∧ (𝐺 Fn 𝐴 ∧ 𝑋 ∈ 𝐴)) → Fun ((𝐹 ∘ 𝐺) ↾ {𝑋})) | ||
| Theorem | funressnfv 47513 | A restriction to a singleton with a function value is a function under certain conditions. (Contributed by Alexander van der Vekens, 25-Jul-2017.) (Proof shortened by Peter Mazsa, 2-Oct-2022.) |
| ⊢ (((𝑋 ∈ dom (𝐹 ∘ 𝐺) ∧ Fun ((𝐹 ∘ 𝐺) ↾ {𝑋})) ∧ (𝐺 Fn 𝐴 ∧ 𝑋 ∈ 𝐴)) → Fun (𝐹 ↾ {(𝐺‘𝑋)})) | ||
| Theorem | funressndmfvrn 47514 | The value of a function 𝐹 at a set 𝐴 is in the range of the function 𝐹 if 𝐴 is in the domain of the function 𝐹. It is sufficient that 𝐹 is a function at 𝐴. (Contributed by AV, 1-Sep-2022.) |
| ⊢ ((Fun (𝐹 ↾ {𝐴}) ∧ 𝐴 ∈ dom 𝐹) → (𝐹‘𝐴) ∈ ran 𝐹) | ||
| Theorem | funressnvmo 47515* | A function restricted to a singleton has at most one value for the singleton element as argument. (Contributed by AV, 2-Sep-2022.) |
| ⊢ (Fun (𝐹 ↾ {𝑥}) → ∃*𝑦 𝑥𝐹𝑦) | ||
| Theorem | funressnmo 47516* | A function restricted to a singleton has at most one value for the singleton element as argument. (Contributed by AV, 2-Sep-2022.) |
| ⊢ ((𝐴 ∈ 𝑉 ∧ Fun (𝐹 ↾ {𝐴})) → ∃*𝑦 𝐴𝐹𝑦) | ||
| Theorem | funressneu 47517* | There is exactly one value of a class which is a function restricted to a singleton, analogous to funeu 6517. 𝐴 ∈ V is required because otherwise ∃!𝑦𝐴𝐹𝑦, see brprcneu 6824. (Contributed by AV, 7-Sep-2022.) |
| ⊢ (((𝐴 ∈ 𝑉 ∧ 𝐵 ∈ 𝑊) ∧ Fun (𝐹 ↾ {𝐴}) ∧ 𝐴𝐹𝐵) → ∃!𝑦 𝐴𝐹𝑦) | ||
| Theorem | fresfo 47518 | Conditions for a restriction to be an onto function. Part of fresf1o 32730. (Contributed by AV, 29-Sep-2024.) |
| ⊢ ((Fun 𝐹 ∧ 𝐶 ⊆ ran 𝐹) → (𝐹 ↾ (◡𝐹 “ 𝐶)):(◡𝐹 “ 𝐶)–onto→𝐶) | ||
| Theorem | fsetsniunop 47519* | The class of all functions from a (proper) singleton into 𝐵 is the union of all the singletons of (proper) ordered pairs over the elements of 𝐵 as second component. (Contributed by AV, 13-Sep-2024.) |
| ⊢ (𝑆 ∈ 𝑉 → {𝑓 ∣ 𝑓:{𝑆}⟶𝐵} = ∪ 𝑏 ∈ 𝐵 {{〈𝑆, 𝑏〉}}) | ||
| Theorem | fsetabsnop 47520* | The class of all functions from a (proper) singleton into 𝐵 is the class of all the singletons of (proper) ordered pairs over the elements of 𝐵 as second component. (Contributed by AV, 13-Sep-2024.) |
| ⊢ (𝑆 ∈ 𝑉 → {𝑓 ∣ 𝑓:{𝑆}⟶𝐵} = {𝑦 ∣ ∃𝑏 ∈ 𝐵 𝑦 = {〈𝑆, 𝑏〉}}) | ||
| Theorem | fsetsnf 47521* | The mapping of an element of a class to a singleton function is a function. (Contributed by AV, 13-Sep-2024.) |
| ⊢ 𝐴 = {𝑦 ∣ ∃𝑏 ∈ 𝐵 𝑦 = {〈𝑆, 𝑏〉}} & ⊢ 𝐹 = (𝑥 ∈ 𝐵 ↦ {〈𝑆, 𝑥〉}) ⇒ ⊢ (𝑆 ∈ 𝑉 → 𝐹:𝐵⟶𝐴) | ||
| Theorem | fsetsnf1 47522* | The mapping of an element of a class to a singleton function is an injection. (Contributed by AV, 13-Sep-2024.) |
| ⊢ 𝐴 = {𝑦 ∣ ∃𝑏 ∈ 𝐵 𝑦 = {〈𝑆, 𝑏〉}} & ⊢ 𝐹 = (𝑥 ∈ 𝐵 ↦ {〈𝑆, 𝑥〉}) ⇒ ⊢ (𝑆 ∈ 𝑉 → 𝐹:𝐵–1-1→𝐴) | ||
| Theorem | fsetsnfo 47523* | The mapping of an element of a class to a singleton function is a surjection. (Contributed by AV, 13-Sep-2024.) |
| ⊢ 𝐴 = {𝑦 ∣ ∃𝑏 ∈ 𝐵 𝑦 = {〈𝑆, 𝑏〉}} & ⊢ 𝐹 = (𝑥 ∈ 𝐵 ↦ {〈𝑆, 𝑥〉}) ⇒ ⊢ (𝑆 ∈ 𝑉 → 𝐹:𝐵–onto→𝐴) | ||
| Theorem | fsetsnf1o 47524* | The mapping of an element of a class to a singleton function is a bijection. (Contributed by AV, 13-Sep-2024.) |
| ⊢ 𝐴 = {𝑦 ∣ ∃𝑏 ∈ 𝐵 𝑦 = {〈𝑆, 𝑏〉}} & ⊢ 𝐹 = (𝑥 ∈ 𝐵 ↦ {〈𝑆, 𝑥〉}) ⇒ ⊢ (𝑆 ∈ 𝑉 → 𝐹:𝐵–1-1-onto→𝐴) | ||
| Theorem | fsetsnprcnex 47525* | The class of all functions from a (proper) singleton into a proper class 𝐵 is not a set. (Contributed by AV, 13-Sep-2024.) |
| ⊢ ((𝑆 ∈ 𝑉 ∧ 𝐵 ∉ V) → {𝑓 ∣ 𝑓:{𝑆}⟶𝐵} ∉ V) | ||
| Theorem | cfsetssfset 47526 | The class of constant functions is a subclass of the class of functions. (Contributed by AV, 13-Sep-2024.) |
| ⊢ 𝐹 = {𝑓 ∣ (𝑓:𝐴⟶𝐵 ∧ ∃𝑏 ∈ 𝐵 ∀𝑧 ∈ 𝐴 (𝑓‘𝑧) = 𝑏)} ⇒ ⊢ 𝐹 ⊆ {𝑓 ∣ 𝑓:𝐴⟶𝐵} | ||
| Theorem | cfsetsnfsetfv 47527* | The function value of the mapping of the class of singleton functions into the class of constant functions. (Contributed by AV, 13-Sep-2024.) |
| ⊢ 𝐹 = {𝑓 ∣ (𝑓:𝐴⟶𝐵 ∧ ∃𝑏 ∈ 𝐵 ∀𝑧 ∈ 𝐴 (𝑓‘𝑧) = 𝑏)} & ⊢ 𝐺 = {𝑥 ∣ 𝑥:{𝑌}⟶𝐵} & ⊢ 𝐻 = (𝑔 ∈ 𝐺 ↦ (𝑎 ∈ 𝐴 ↦ (𝑔‘𝑌))) ⇒ ⊢ ((𝐴 ∈ 𝑉 ∧ 𝑋 ∈ 𝐺) → (𝐻‘𝑋) = (𝑎 ∈ 𝐴 ↦ (𝑋‘𝑌))) | ||
| Theorem | cfsetsnfsetf 47528* | The mapping of the class of singleton functions into the class of constant functions is a function. (Contributed by AV, 14-Sep-2024.) |
| ⊢ 𝐹 = {𝑓 ∣ (𝑓:𝐴⟶𝐵 ∧ ∃𝑏 ∈ 𝐵 ∀𝑧 ∈ 𝐴 (𝑓‘𝑧) = 𝑏)} & ⊢ 𝐺 = {𝑥 ∣ 𝑥:{𝑌}⟶𝐵} & ⊢ 𝐻 = (𝑔 ∈ 𝐺 ↦ (𝑎 ∈ 𝐴 ↦ (𝑔‘𝑌))) ⇒ ⊢ ((𝐴 ∈ 𝑉 ∧ 𝑌 ∈ 𝐴) → 𝐻:𝐺⟶𝐹) | ||
| Theorem | cfsetsnfsetf1 47529* | The mapping of the class of singleton functions into the class of constant functions is an injection. (Contributed by AV, 14-Sep-2024.) |
| ⊢ 𝐹 = {𝑓 ∣ (𝑓:𝐴⟶𝐵 ∧ ∃𝑏 ∈ 𝐵 ∀𝑧 ∈ 𝐴 (𝑓‘𝑧) = 𝑏)} & ⊢ 𝐺 = {𝑥 ∣ 𝑥:{𝑌}⟶𝐵} & ⊢ 𝐻 = (𝑔 ∈ 𝐺 ↦ (𝑎 ∈ 𝐴 ↦ (𝑔‘𝑌))) ⇒ ⊢ ((𝐴 ∈ 𝑉 ∧ 𝑌 ∈ 𝐴) → 𝐻:𝐺–1-1→𝐹) | ||
| Theorem | cfsetsnfsetfo 47530* | The mapping of the class of singleton functions into the class of constant functions is a surjection. (Contributed by AV, 14-Sep-2024.) |
| ⊢ 𝐹 = {𝑓 ∣ (𝑓:𝐴⟶𝐵 ∧ ∃𝑏 ∈ 𝐵 ∀𝑧 ∈ 𝐴 (𝑓‘𝑧) = 𝑏)} & ⊢ 𝐺 = {𝑥 ∣ 𝑥:{𝑌}⟶𝐵} & ⊢ 𝐻 = (𝑔 ∈ 𝐺 ↦ (𝑎 ∈ 𝐴 ↦ (𝑔‘𝑌))) ⇒ ⊢ ((𝐴 ∈ 𝑉 ∧ 𝑌 ∈ 𝐴) → 𝐻:𝐺–onto→𝐹) | ||
| Theorem | cfsetsnfsetf1o 47531* | The mapping of the class of singleton functions into the class of constant functions is a bijection. (Contributed by AV, 14-Sep-2024.) |
| ⊢ 𝐹 = {𝑓 ∣ (𝑓:𝐴⟶𝐵 ∧ ∃𝑏 ∈ 𝐵 ∀𝑧 ∈ 𝐴 (𝑓‘𝑧) = 𝑏)} & ⊢ 𝐺 = {𝑥 ∣ 𝑥:{𝑌}⟶𝐵} & ⊢ 𝐻 = (𝑔 ∈ 𝐺 ↦ (𝑎 ∈ 𝐴 ↦ (𝑔‘𝑌))) ⇒ ⊢ ((𝐴 ∈ 𝑉 ∧ 𝑌 ∈ 𝐴) → 𝐻:𝐺–1-1-onto→𝐹) | ||
| Theorem | fsetprcnexALT 47532* | First version of proof for fsetprcnex 8806, which was much more complicated. (Contributed by AV, 14-Sep-2024.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) (New usage is discouraged.) |
| ⊢ (((𝐴 ∈ 𝑉 ∧ 𝐴 ≠ ∅) ∧ 𝐵 ∉ V) → {𝑓 ∣ 𝑓:𝐴⟶𝐵} ∉ V) | ||
| Theorem | fcoreslem1 47533 | Lemma 1 for fcores 47537. (Contributed by AV, 17-Sep-2024.) |
| ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝐹:𝐴⟶𝐵) & ⊢ 𝐸 = (ran 𝐹 ∩ 𝐶) & ⊢ 𝑃 = (◡𝐹 “ 𝐶) ⇒ ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝑃 = (◡𝐹 “ 𝐸)) | ||
| Theorem | fcoreslem2 47534 | Lemma 2 for fcores 47537. (Contributed by AV, 17-Sep-2024.) |
| ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝐹:𝐴⟶𝐵) & ⊢ 𝐸 = (ran 𝐹 ∩ 𝐶) & ⊢ 𝑃 = (◡𝐹 “ 𝐶) & ⊢ 𝑋 = (𝐹 ↾ 𝑃) ⇒ ⊢ (𝜑 → ran 𝑋 = 𝐸) | ||
| Theorem | fcoreslem3 47535 | Lemma 3 for fcores 47537. (Contributed by AV, 13-Sep-2024.) |
| ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝐹:𝐴⟶𝐵) & ⊢ 𝐸 = (ran 𝐹 ∩ 𝐶) & ⊢ 𝑃 = (◡𝐹 “ 𝐶) & ⊢ 𝑋 = (𝐹 ↾ 𝑃) ⇒ ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝑋:𝑃–onto→𝐸) | ||
| Theorem | fcoreslem4 47536 | Lemma 4 for fcores 47537. (Contributed by AV, 17-Sep-2024.) |
| ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝐹:𝐴⟶𝐵) & ⊢ 𝐸 = (ran 𝐹 ∩ 𝐶) & ⊢ 𝑃 = (◡𝐹 “ 𝐶) & ⊢ 𝑋 = (𝐹 ↾ 𝑃) & ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝐺:𝐶⟶𝐷) & ⊢ 𝑌 = (𝐺 ↾ 𝐸) ⇒ ⊢ (𝜑 → (𝑌 ∘ 𝑋) Fn 𝑃) | ||
| Theorem | fcores 47537 | Every composite function (𝐺 ∘ 𝐹) can be written as composition of restrictions of the composed functions (to their minimum domains). (Contributed by GL and AV, 17-Sep-2024.) |
| ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝐹:𝐴⟶𝐵) & ⊢ 𝐸 = (ran 𝐹 ∩ 𝐶) & ⊢ 𝑃 = (◡𝐹 “ 𝐶) & ⊢ 𝑋 = (𝐹 ↾ 𝑃) & ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝐺:𝐶⟶𝐷) & ⊢ 𝑌 = (𝐺 ↾ 𝐸) ⇒ ⊢ (𝜑 → (𝐺 ∘ 𝐹) = (𝑌 ∘ 𝑋)) | ||
| Theorem | fcoresf1lem 47538 | Lemma for fcoresf1 47539. (Contributed by AV, 18-Sep-2024.) |
| ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝐹:𝐴⟶𝐵) & ⊢ 𝐸 = (ran 𝐹 ∩ 𝐶) & ⊢ 𝑃 = (◡𝐹 “ 𝐶) & ⊢ 𝑋 = (𝐹 ↾ 𝑃) & ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝐺:𝐶⟶𝐷) & ⊢ 𝑌 = (𝐺 ↾ 𝐸) ⇒ ⊢ ((𝜑 ∧ 𝑍 ∈ 𝑃) → ((𝐺 ∘ 𝐹)‘𝑍) = (𝑌‘(𝑋‘𝑍))) | ||
| Theorem | fcoresf1 47539 | If a composition is injective, then the restrictions of its components to the minimum domains are injective. (Contributed by GL and AV, 18-Sep-2024.) (Revised by AV, 7-Oct-2024.) |
| ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝐹:𝐴⟶𝐵) & ⊢ 𝐸 = (ran 𝐹 ∩ 𝐶) & ⊢ 𝑃 = (◡𝐹 “ 𝐶) & ⊢ 𝑋 = (𝐹 ↾ 𝑃) & ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝐺:𝐶⟶𝐷) & ⊢ 𝑌 = (𝐺 ↾ 𝐸) & ⊢ (𝜑 → (𝐺 ∘ 𝐹):𝑃–1-1→𝐷) ⇒ ⊢ (𝜑 → (𝑋:𝑃–1-1→𝐸 ∧ 𝑌:𝐸–1-1→𝐷)) | ||
| Theorem | fcoresf1b 47540 | A composition is injective iff the restrictions of its components to the minimum domains are injective. (Contributed by GL and AV, 7-Oct-2024.) |
| ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝐹:𝐴⟶𝐵) & ⊢ 𝐸 = (ran 𝐹 ∩ 𝐶) & ⊢ 𝑃 = (◡𝐹 “ 𝐶) & ⊢ 𝑋 = (𝐹 ↾ 𝑃) & ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝐺:𝐶⟶𝐷) & ⊢ 𝑌 = (𝐺 ↾ 𝐸) ⇒ ⊢ (𝜑 → ((𝐺 ∘ 𝐹):𝑃–1-1→𝐷 ↔ (𝑋:𝑃–1-1→𝐸 ∧ 𝑌:𝐸–1-1→𝐷))) | ||
| Theorem | fcoresfo 47541 | If a composition is surjective, then the restriction of its first component to the minimum domain is surjective. (Contributed by AV, 17-Sep-2024.) |
| ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝐹:𝐴⟶𝐵) & ⊢ 𝐸 = (ran 𝐹 ∩ 𝐶) & ⊢ 𝑃 = (◡𝐹 “ 𝐶) & ⊢ 𝑋 = (𝐹 ↾ 𝑃) & ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝐺:𝐶⟶𝐷) & ⊢ 𝑌 = (𝐺 ↾ 𝐸) & ⊢ (𝜑 → (𝐺 ∘ 𝐹):𝑃–onto→𝐷) ⇒ ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝑌:𝐸–onto→𝐷) | ||
| Theorem | fcoresfob 47542 | A composition is surjective iff the restriction of its first component to the minimum domain is surjective. (Contributed by GL and AV, 7-Oct-2024.) |
| ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝐹:𝐴⟶𝐵) & ⊢ 𝐸 = (ran 𝐹 ∩ 𝐶) & ⊢ 𝑃 = (◡𝐹 “ 𝐶) & ⊢ 𝑋 = (𝐹 ↾ 𝑃) & ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝐺:𝐶⟶𝐷) & ⊢ 𝑌 = (𝐺 ↾ 𝐸) ⇒ ⊢ (𝜑 → ((𝐺 ∘ 𝐹):𝑃–onto→𝐷 ↔ 𝑌:𝐸–onto→𝐷)) | ||
| Theorem | fcoresf1ob 47543 | A composition is bijective iff the restriction of its first component to the minimum domain is bijective and the restriction of its second component to the minimum domain is injective. (Contributed by GL and AV, 7-Oct-2024.) |
| ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝐹:𝐴⟶𝐵) & ⊢ 𝐸 = (ran 𝐹 ∩ 𝐶) & ⊢ 𝑃 = (◡𝐹 “ 𝐶) & ⊢ 𝑋 = (𝐹 ↾ 𝑃) & ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝐺:𝐶⟶𝐷) & ⊢ 𝑌 = (𝐺 ↾ 𝐸) ⇒ ⊢ (𝜑 → ((𝐺 ∘ 𝐹):𝑃–1-1-onto→𝐷 ↔ (𝑋:𝑃–1-1→𝐸 ∧ 𝑌:𝐸–1-1-onto→𝐷))) | ||
| Theorem | f1cof1blem 47544 | Lemma for f1cof1b 47547 and focofob 47550. (Contributed by AV, 18-Sep-2024.) |
| ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝐹:𝐴⟶𝐵) & ⊢ 𝐸 = (ran 𝐹 ∩ 𝐶) & ⊢ 𝑃 = (◡𝐹 “ 𝐶) & ⊢ 𝑋 = (𝐹 ↾ 𝑃) & ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝐺:𝐶⟶𝐷) & ⊢ 𝑌 = (𝐺 ↾ 𝐸) & ⊢ (𝜑 → ran 𝐹 = 𝐶) ⇒ ⊢ (𝜑 → ((𝑃 = 𝐴 ∧ 𝐸 = 𝐶) ∧ (𝑋 = 𝐹 ∧ 𝑌 = 𝐺))) | ||
| Theorem | 3f1oss1 47545 | The composition of three bijections as bijection from the image of the domain onto the image of the range of the middle bijection. (Contributed by AV, 15-Aug-2025.) |
| ⊢ (((𝐹:𝐴–1-1-onto→𝐵 ∧ 𝐺:𝐶–1-1-onto→𝐷 ∧ 𝐻:𝐸–1-1-onto→𝐼) ∧ (𝐶 ⊆ 𝐴 ∧ 𝐷 ⊆ 𝐸)) → ((𝐻 ∘ 𝐺) ∘ ◡𝐹):(𝐹 “ 𝐶)–1-1-onto→(𝐻 “ 𝐷)) | ||
| Theorem | 3f1oss2 47546 | The composition of three bijections as bijection from the image of the converse of the domain onto the image of the converse of the range of the middle bijection. (Contributed by AV, 15-Aug-2025.) |
| ⊢ (((𝐹:𝐴–1-1-onto→𝐵 ∧ 𝐺:𝐶–1-1-onto→𝐷 ∧ 𝐻:𝐸–1-1-onto→𝐼) ∧ (𝐶 ⊆ 𝐵 ∧ 𝐷 ⊆ 𝐼)) → ((◡𝐻 ∘ 𝐺) ∘ 𝐹):(◡𝐹 “ 𝐶)–1-1-onto→(◡𝐻 “ 𝐷)) | ||
| Theorem | f1cof1b 47547 | If the range of 𝐹 equals the domain of 𝐺, then the composition (𝐺 ∘ 𝐹) is injective iff 𝐹 and 𝐺 are both injective. (Contributed by GL and AV, 19-Sep-2024.) |
| ⊢ ((𝐹:𝐴⟶𝐵 ∧ 𝐺:𝐶⟶𝐷 ∧ ran 𝐹 = 𝐶) → ((𝐺 ∘ 𝐹):𝐴–1-1→𝐷 ↔ (𝐹:𝐴–1-1→𝐵 ∧ 𝐺:𝐶–1-1→𝐷))) | ||
| Theorem | funfocofob 47548 | If the domain of a function 𝐺 is a subset of the range of a function 𝐹, then the composition (𝐺 ∘ 𝐹) is surjective iff 𝐺 is surjective. (Contributed by GL and AV, 29-Sep-2024.) |
| ⊢ ((Fun 𝐹 ∧ 𝐺:𝐴⟶𝐵 ∧ 𝐴 ⊆ ran 𝐹) → ((𝐺 ∘ 𝐹):(◡𝐹 “ 𝐴)–onto→𝐵 ↔ 𝐺:𝐴–onto→𝐵)) | ||
| Theorem | fnfocofob 47549 | If the domain of a function 𝐺 equals the range of a function 𝐹, then the composition (𝐺 ∘ 𝐹) is surjective iff 𝐺 is surjective. (Contributed by GL and AV, 29-Sep-2024.) |
| ⊢ ((𝐹 Fn 𝐴 ∧ 𝐺:𝐵⟶𝐶 ∧ ran 𝐹 = 𝐵) → ((𝐺 ∘ 𝐹):𝐴–onto→𝐶 ↔ 𝐺:𝐵–onto→𝐶)) | ||
| Theorem | focofob 47550 | If the domain of a function 𝐺 equals the range of a function 𝐹, then the composition (𝐺 ∘ 𝐹) is surjective iff 𝐺 and 𝐹 as function to the domain of 𝐺 are both surjective. Symmetric version of fnfocofob 47549 including the fact that 𝐹 is a surjection onto its range. (Contributed by GL and AV, 20-Sep-2024.) (Proof shortened by AV, 29-Sep-2024.) |
| ⊢ ((𝐹:𝐴⟶𝐵 ∧ 𝐺:𝐶⟶𝐷 ∧ ran 𝐹 = 𝐶) → ((𝐺 ∘ 𝐹):𝐴–onto→𝐷 ↔ (𝐹:𝐴–onto→𝐶 ∧ 𝐺:𝐶–onto→𝐷))) | ||
| Theorem | f1ocof1ob 47551 | If the range of 𝐹 equals the domain of 𝐺, then the composition (𝐺 ∘ 𝐹) is bijective iff 𝐹 and 𝐺 are both bijective. (Contributed by GL and AV, 7-Oct-2024.) |
| ⊢ ((𝐹:𝐴⟶𝐵 ∧ 𝐺:𝐶⟶𝐷 ∧ ran 𝐹 = 𝐶) → ((𝐺 ∘ 𝐹):𝐴–1-1-onto→𝐷 ↔ (𝐹:𝐴–1-1→𝐶 ∧ 𝐺:𝐶–1-1-onto→𝐷))) | ||
| Theorem | f1ocof1ob2 47552 | If the range of 𝐹 equals the domain of 𝐺, then the composition (𝐺 ∘ 𝐹) is bijective iff 𝐹 and 𝐺 are both bijective. Symmetric version of f1ocof1ob 47551 including the fact that 𝐹 is a surjection onto its range. (Contributed by GL and AV, 20-Sep-2024.) (Proof shortened by AV, 7-Oct-2024.) |
| ⊢ ((𝐹:𝐴⟶𝐵 ∧ 𝐺:𝐶⟶𝐷 ∧ ran 𝐹 = 𝐶) → ((𝐺 ∘ 𝐹):𝐴–1-1-onto→𝐷 ↔ (𝐹:𝐴–1-1-onto→𝐶 ∧ 𝐺:𝐶–1-1-onto→𝐷))) | ||
| Syntax | caiota 47553 | Extend class notation with an alternative for Russell's definition of a description binder (inverted iota). |
| class (℩'𝑥𝜑) | ||
| Theorem | aiotajust 47554* | Soundness justification theorem for df-aiota 47555. (Contributed by AV, 24-Aug-2022.) |
| ⊢ ∩ {𝑦 ∣ {𝑥 ∣ 𝜑} = {𝑦}} = ∩ {𝑧 ∣ {𝑥 ∣ 𝜑} = {𝑧}} | ||
| Definition | df-aiota 47555* |
Alternate version of Russell's definition of a description binder, which
can be read as "the unique 𝑥 such that 𝜑", where 𝜑
ordinarily contains 𝑥 as a free variable. Our definition
is
meaningful only when there is exactly one 𝑥 such that 𝜑 is true
(see aiotaval 47565); otherwise, it is not a set (see aiotaexb 47559), or even
more concrete, it is the universe V (see aiotavb 47560). Since this
is an alternative for df-iota 6448, we call this symbol ℩'
alternate iota in the following.
The advantage of this definition is the clear distinguishability of the defined and undefined cases: the alternate iota over a wff is defined iff it is a set (see aiotaexb 47559). With the original definition, there is no corresponding theorem (∃!𝑥𝜑 ↔ (℩𝑥𝜑) ≠ ∅), because ∅ can be a valid unique set satisfying a wff (see, for example, iota0def 47508). Only the right to left implication would hold, see (negated) iotanul 6472. For defined cases, however, both definitions df-iota 6448 and df-aiota 47555 are equivalent, see reuaiotaiota 47558. (Proposed by BJ, 13-Aug-2022.) (Contributed by AV, 24-Aug-2022.) |
| ⊢ (℩'𝑥𝜑) = ∩ {𝑦 ∣ {𝑥 ∣ 𝜑} = {𝑦}} | ||
| Theorem | dfaiota2 47556* | Alternate definition of the alternate version of Russell's definition of a description binder. Definition 8.18 in [Quine] p. 56. (Contributed by AV, 24-Aug-2022.) |
| ⊢ (℩'𝑥𝜑) = ∩ {𝑦 ∣ ∀𝑥(𝜑 ↔ 𝑥 = 𝑦)} | ||
| Theorem | reuabaiotaiota 47557* | The iota and the alternate iota over a wff 𝜑 are equal iff there is a unique satisfying value of {𝑥 ∣ 𝜑} = {𝑦}. (Contributed by AV, 25-Aug-2022.) |
| ⊢ (∃!𝑦{𝑥 ∣ 𝜑} = {𝑦} ↔ (℩𝑥𝜑) = (℩'𝑥𝜑)) | ||
| Theorem | reuaiotaiota 47558 | The iota and the alternate iota over a wff 𝜑 are equal iff there is a unique value 𝑥 satisfying 𝜑. (Contributed by AV, 25-Aug-2022.) |
| ⊢ (∃!𝑥𝜑 ↔ (℩𝑥𝜑) = (℩'𝑥𝜑)) | ||
| Theorem | aiotaexb 47559 | The alternate iota over a wff 𝜑 is a set iff there is a unique value 𝑥 satisfying 𝜑. (Contributed by AV, 25-Aug-2022.) |
| ⊢ (∃!𝑥𝜑 ↔ (℩'𝑥𝜑) ∈ V) | ||
| Theorem | aiotavb 47560 | The alternate iota over a wff 𝜑 is the universe iff there is no unique value 𝑥 satisfying 𝜑. (Contributed by AV, 25-Aug-2022.) |
| ⊢ (¬ ∃!𝑥𝜑 ↔ (℩'𝑥𝜑) = V) | ||
| Theorem | aiotaint 47561 | This is to df-aiota 47555 what iotauni 6469 is to df-iota 6448 (it uses intersection like df-aiota 47555, similar to iotauni 6469 using union like df-iota 6448; we could also prove an analogous result using union here too, in the same way that we have iotaint 6470). (Contributed by BJ, 31-Aug-2024.) |
| ⊢ (∃!𝑥𝜑 → (℩'𝑥𝜑) = ∩ {𝑥 ∣ 𝜑}) | ||
| Theorem | dfaiota3 47562 | Alternate definition of ℩', using the if operator: this is to df-aiota 47555 what dfiota4 6484 is to df-iota 6448. It is simpler than df-aiota 47555 and uses no dummy variables, so it would be the preferred definition if ℩' becomes the description binder used in set.mm. (Contributed by BJ, 31-Aug-2024.) |
| ⊢ (℩'𝑥𝜑) = if(∃!𝑥𝜑, ∩ {𝑥 ∣ 𝜑}, V) | ||
| Theorem | iotan0aiotaex 47563 | If the iota over a wff 𝜑 is not empty, the alternate iota over 𝜑 is a set. (Contributed by AV, 25-Aug-2022.) |
| ⊢ ((℩𝑥𝜑) ≠ ∅ → (℩'𝑥𝜑) ∈ V) | ||
| Theorem | aiotaexaiotaiota 47564 | The alternate iota over a wff 𝜑 is a set iff the iota and the alternate iota over 𝜑 are equal. (Contributed by AV, 25-Aug-2022.) |
| ⊢ ((℩'𝑥𝜑) ∈ V ↔ (℩𝑥𝜑) = (℩'𝑥𝜑)) | ||
| Theorem | aiotaval 47565* | Theorem 8.19 in [Quine] p. 57. This theorem is the fundamental property of (alternate) iota. (Contributed by AV, 24-Aug-2022.) |
| ⊢ (∀𝑥(𝜑 ↔ 𝑥 = 𝑦) → (℩'𝑥𝜑) = 𝑦) | ||
| Theorem | aiota0def 47566* | Example for a defined alternate iota being the empty set, i.e., ∀𝑦𝑥 ⊆ 𝑦 is a wff satisfied by a unique value 𝑥, namely 𝑥 = ∅ (the empty set is the one and only set which is a subset of every set). This corresponds to iota0def 47508. (Contributed by AV, 25-Aug-2022.) |
| ⊢ (℩'𝑥∀𝑦 𝑥 ⊆ 𝑦) = ∅ | ||
| Theorem | aiota0ndef 47567* | Example for an undefined alternate iota being no set, i.e., ∀𝑦𝑦 ∈ 𝑥 is a wff not satisfied by a (unique) value 𝑥 (there is no set, and therefore certainly no unique set, which contains every set). This is different from iota0ndef 47509, where the iota still is a set (the empty set). (Contributed by AV, 25-Aug-2022.) |
| ⊢ (℩'𝑥∀𝑦 𝑦 ∈ 𝑥) ∉ V | ||
| Theorem | r19.32 47568 | Theorem 19.32 of [Margaris] p. 90 with restricted quantifiers, analogous to r19.32v 3173. (Contributed by Alexander van der Vekens, 29-Jun-2017.) |
| ⊢ Ⅎ𝑥𝜑 ⇒ ⊢ (∀𝑥 ∈ 𝐴 (𝜑 ∨ 𝜓) ↔ (𝜑 ∨ ∀𝑥 ∈ 𝐴 𝜓)) | ||
| Theorem | rexsb 47569* | An equivalent expression for restricted existence, analogous to exsb 2367. (Contributed by Alexander van der Vekens, 1-Jul-2017.) |
| ⊢ (∃𝑥 ∈ 𝐴 𝜑 ↔ ∃𝑦 ∈ 𝐴 ∀𝑥(𝑥 = 𝑦 → 𝜑)) | ||
| Theorem | rexrsb 47570* | An equivalent expression for restricted existence, analogous to exsb 2367. (Contributed by Alexander van der Vekens, 1-Jul-2017.) |
| ⊢ (∃𝑥 ∈ 𝐴 𝜑 ↔ ∃𝑦 ∈ 𝐴 ∀𝑥 ∈ 𝐴 (𝑥 = 𝑦 → 𝜑)) | ||
| Theorem | 2rexsb 47571* | An equivalent expression for double restricted existence, analogous to rexsb 47569. (Contributed by Alexander van der Vekens, 1-Jul-2017.) |
| ⊢ (∃𝑥 ∈ 𝐴 ∃𝑦 ∈ 𝐵 𝜑 ↔ ∃𝑧 ∈ 𝐴 ∃𝑤 ∈ 𝐵 ∀𝑥∀𝑦((𝑥 = 𝑧 ∧ 𝑦 = 𝑤) → 𝜑)) | ||
| Theorem | 2rexrsb 47572* | An equivalent expression for double restricted existence, analogous to 2exsb 2368. (Contributed by Alexander van der Vekens, 1-Jul-2017.) |
| ⊢ (∃𝑥 ∈ 𝐴 ∃𝑦 ∈ 𝐵 𝜑 ↔ ∃𝑧 ∈ 𝐴 ∃𝑤 ∈ 𝐵 ∀𝑥 ∈ 𝐴 ∀𝑦 ∈ 𝐵 ((𝑥 = 𝑧 ∧ 𝑦 = 𝑤) → 𝜑)) | ||
| Theorem | cbvral2 47573* | Change bound variables of double restricted universal quantification, using implicit substitution, analogous to cbvral2v 3333. (Contributed by Alexander van der Vekens, 2-Jul-2017.) |
| ⊢ Ⅎ𝑧𝜑 & ⊢ Ⅎ𝑥𝜒 & ⊢ Ⅎ𝑤𝜒 & ⊢ Ⅎ𝑦𝜓 & ⊢ (𝑥 = 𝑧 → (𝜑 ↔ 𝜒)) & ⊢ (𝑦 = 𝑤 → (𝜒 ↔ 𝜓)) ⇒ ⊢ (∀𝑥 ∈ 𝐴 ∀𝑦 ∈ 𝐵 𝜑 ↔ ∀𝑧 ∈ 𝐴 ∀𝑤 ∈ 𝐵 𝜓) | ||
| Theorem | cbvrex2 47574* | Change bound variables of double restricted universal quantification, using implicit substitution, analogous to cbvrex2v 3334. (Contributed by Alexander van der Vekens, 2-Jul-2017.) |
| ⊢ Ⅎ𝑧𝜑 & ⊢ Ⅎ𝑥𝜒 & ⊢ Ⅎ𝑤𝜒 & ⊢ Ⅎ𝑦𝜓 & ⊢ (𝑥 = 𝑧 → (𝜑 ↔ 𝜒)) & ⊢ (𝑦 = 𝑤 → (𝜒 ↔ 𝜓)) ⇒ ⊢ (∃𝑥 ∈ 𝐴 ∃𝑦 ∈ 𝐵 𝜑 ↔ ∃𝑧 ∈ 𝐴 ∃𝑤 ∈ 𝐵 𝜓) | ||
| Theorem | ralndv1 47575 | Example for a theorem about a restricted universal quantification in which the restricting class depends on (actually is) the bound variable: All sets containing themselves contain the universal class. (Contributed by AV, 24-Jun-2023.) |
| ⊢ ∀𝑥 ∈ 𝑥 V ∈ 𝑥 | ||
| Theorem | ralndv2 47576 | Second example for a theorem about a restricted universal quantification in which the restricting class depends on the bound variable: all subsets of a set are sets. (Contributed by AV, 24-Jun-2023.) |
| ⊢ ∀𝑥 ∈ 𝒫 𝑥𝑥 ∈ V | ||
| Theorem | reuf1odnf 47577* | There is exactly one element in each of two isomorphic sets. Variant of reuf1od 47578 with no distinct variable condition for 𝜒. (Contributed by AV, 19-Mar-2023.) |
| ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝐹:𝐶–1-1-onto→𝐵) & ⊢ ((𝜑 ∧ 𝑥 = (𝐹‘𝑦)) → (𝜓 ↔ 𝜒)) & ⊢ (𝑥 = 𝑧 → (𝜓 ↔ 𝜃)) & ⊢ Ⅎ𝑥𝜒 ⇒ ⊢ (𝜑 → (∃!𝑥 ∈ 𝐵 𝜓 ↔ ∃!𝑦 ∈ 𝐶 𝜒)) | ||
| Theorem | reuf1od 47578* | There is exactly one element in each of two isomorphic sets. (Contributed by AV, 19-Mar-2023.) |
| ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝐹:𝐶–1-1-onto→𝐵) & ⊢ ((𝜑 ∧ 𝑥 = (𝐹‘𝑦)) → (𝜓 ↔ 𝜒)) ⇒ ⊢ (𝜑 → (∃!𝑥 ∈ 𝐵 𝜓 ↔ ∃!𝑦 ∈ 𝐶 𝜒)) | ||
| Theorem | euoreqb 47579* | There is a set which is equal to one of two other sets iff the other sets are equal. (Contributed by AV, 24-Jan-2023.) |
| ⊢ ((𝐴 ∈ 𝑉 ∧ 𝐵 ∈ 𝑉) → (∃!𝑥 ∈ 𝑉 (𝑥 = 𝐴 ∨ 𝑥 = 𝐵) ↔ 𝐴 = 𝐵)) | ||
| Theorem | 2reu3 47580* | Double restricted existential uniqueness, analogous to 2eu3 2658. (Contributed by Alexander van der Vekens, 29-Jun-2017.) |
| ⊢ (∀𝑥 ∈ 𝐴 ∀𝑦 ∈ 𝐵 (∃*𝑥 ∈ 𝐴 𝜑 ∨ ∃*𝑦 ∈ 𝐵 𝜑) → ((∃!𝑥 ∈ 𝐴 ∃!𝑦 ∈ 𝐵 𝜑 ∧ ∃!𝑦 ∈ 𝐵 ∃!𝑥 ∈ 𝐴 𝜑) ↔ (∃!𝑥 ∈ 𝐴 ∃𝑦 ∈ 𝐵 𝜑 ∧ ∃!𝑦 ∈ 𝐵 ∃𝑥 ∈ 𝐴 𝜑))) | ||
| Theorem | 2reu7 47581* | Two equivalent expressions for double restricted existential uniqueness, analogous to 2eu7 2662. (Contributed by Alexander van der Vekens, 2-Jul-2017.) |
| ⊢ ((∃!𝑥 ∈ 𝐴 ∃𝑦 ∈ 𝐵 𝜑 ∧ ∃!𝑦 ∈ 𝐵 ∃𝑥 ∈ 𝐴 𝜑) ↔ ∃!𝑥 ∈ 𝐴 ∃!𝑦 ∈ 𝐵 (∃𝑥 ∈ 𝐴 𝜑 ∧ ∃𝑦 ∈ 𝐵 𝜑)) | ||
| Theorem | 2reu8 47582* | Two equivalent expressions for double restricted existential uniqueness, analogous to 2eu8 2663. Curiously, we can put ∃! on either of the internal conjuncts but not both. We can also commute ∃!𝑥 ∈ 𝐴∃!𝑦 ∈ 𝐵 using 2reu7 47581. (Contributed by Alexander van der Vekens, 2-Jul-2017.) |
| ⊢ (∃!𝑥 ∈ 𝐴 ∃!𝑦 ∈ 𝐵 (∃𝑥 ∈ 𝐴 𝜑 ∧ ∃𝑦 ∈ 𝐵 𝜑) ↔ ∃!𝑥 ∈ 𝐴 ∃!𝑦 ∈ 𝐵 (∃!𝑥 ∈ 𝐴 𝜑 ∧ ∃𝑦 ∈ 𝐵 𝜑)) | ||
| Theorem | 2reu8i 47583* | Implication of a double restricted existential uniqueness in terms of restricted existential quantification and restricted universal quantification, see also 2reu8 47582. The involved wffs depend on the setvar variables as follows: ph(x,y), ta(v,y), ch(x,w), th(v,w), et(x,b), ps(a,b), ze(a,w). (Contributed by AV, 1-Apr-2023.) |
| ⊢ (𝑥 = 𝑣 → (𝜑 ↔ 𝜏)) & ⊢ (𝑥 = 𝑣 → (𝜒 ↔ 𝜃)) & ⊢ (𝑦 = 𝑤 → (𝜑 ↔ 𝜒)) & ⊢ (𝑦 = 𝑏 → (𝜑 ↔ 𝜂)) & ⊢ (𝑥 = 𝑎 → (𝜒 ↔ 𝜁)) & ⊢ (((𝜒 → 𝑦 = 𝑤) ∧ 𝜁) → 𝑦 = 𝑤) & ⊢ ((𝑥 = 𝑎 ∧ 𝑦 = 𝑏) → (𝜑 ↔ 𝜓)) ⇒ ⊢ (∃!𝑥 ∈ 𝐴 ∃!𝑦 ∈ 𝐵 𝜑 → ∃𝑥 ∈ 𝐴 ∃𝑦 ∈ 𝐵 (𝜑 ∧ ∀𝑎 ∈ 𝐴 ∀𝑏 ∈ 𝐵 (𝜂 → (𝑏 = 𝑦 ∧ (𝜓 → 𝑎 = 𝑥))))) | ||
| Theorem | 2reuimp0 47584* | Implication of a double restricted existential uniqueness in terms of restricted existential quantification and restricted universal quantification. The involved wffs depend on the setvar variables as follows: ph(a,b), th(a,c), ch(d,b), ta(d,c), et(a,e), ps(a,f) (Contributed by AV, 13-Mar-2023.) |
| ⊢ (𝑏 = 𝑐 → (𝜑 ↔ 𝜃)) & ⊢ (𝑎 = 𝑑 → (𝜑 ↔ 𝜒)) & ⊢ (𝑎 = 𝑑 → (𝜃 ↔ 𝜏)) & ⊢ (𝑏 = 𝑒 → (𝜑 ↔ 𝜂)) & ⊢ (𝑐 = 𝑓 → (𝜃 ↔ 𝜓)) ⇒ ⊢ (∃!𝑎 ∈ 𝑉 ∃!𝑏 ∈ 𝑉 𝜑 → ∃𝑎 ∈ 𝑉 ∀𝑑 ∈ 𝑉 ∀𝑏 ∈ 𝑉 ∃𝑒 ∈ 𝑉 ∀𝑓 ∈ 𝑉 ((𝜂 ∧ ((𝜒 ∧ ∀𝑐 ∈ 𝑉 (𝜏 → 𝑏 = 𝑐)) → 𝑎 = 𝑑)) ∧ (𝜓 → 𝑒 = 𝑓))) | ||
| Theorem | 2reuimp 47585* | Implication of a double restricted existential uniqueness in terms of restricted existential quantification and restricted universal quantification if the class of the quantified elements is not empty. (Contributed by AV, 13-Mar-2023.) |
| ⊢ (𝑏 = 𝑐 → (𝜑 ↔ 𝜃)) & ⊢ (𝑎 = 𝑑 → (𝜑 ↔ 𝜒)) & ⊢ (𝑎 = 𝑑 → (𝜃 ↔ 𝜏)) & ⊢ (𝑏 = 𝑒 → (𝜑 ↔ 𝜂)) & ⊢ (𝑐 = 𝑓 → (𝜃 ↔ 𝜓)) ⇒ ⊢ ((𝑉 ≠ ∅ ∧ ∃!𝑎 ∈ 𝑉 ∃!𝑏 ∈ 𝑉 𝜑) → ∃𝑎 ∈ 𝑉 ∀𝑑 ∈ 𝑉 ∀𝑏 ∈ 𝑉 ∃𝑒 ∈ 𝑉 ∀𝑓 ∈ 𝑉 ∃𝑐 ∈ 𝑉 ((𝜒 ∧ (𝜏 → 𝑏 = 𝑐)) → (𝜓 → (𝜂 ∧ (𝑎 = 𝑑 ∧ 𝑒 = 𝑓))))) | ||
The current definition of the value (𝐹‘𝐴) of a function 𝐹 at an argument 𝐴 (see df-fv 6500) assures that this value is always a set, see fex 7177. This is because this definition can be applied to any classes 𝐹 and 𝐴, and evaluates to the empty set when it is not meaningful (as shown by ndmfv 6866 and fvprc 6826). Although it is very convenient for many theorems on functions and their proofs, there are some cases in which from (𝐹‘𝐴) = ∅ alone it cannot be decided/derived whether (𝐹‘𝐴) is meaningful (𝐹 is actually a function which is defined for 𝐴 and really has the function value ∅ at 𝐴) or not. Therefore, additional assumptions are required, such as ∅ ∉ ran 𝐹, ∅ ∈ ran 𝐹 or Fun 𝐹 ∧ 𝐴 ∈ dom 𝐹 (see, for example, ndmfvrcl 6867). To avoid such an ambiguity, an alternative definition (𝐹'''𝐴) (see df-afv 47590) would be possible which evaluates to the universal class ((𝐹'''𝐴) = V) if it is not meaningful (see afvnfundmuv 47609, ndmafv 47610, afvprc 47614 and nfunsnafv 47612), and which corresponds to the current definition ((𝐹‘𝐴) = (𝐹'''𝐴)) if it is (see afvfundmfveq 47608). That means (𝐹'''𝐴) = V → (𝐹‘𝐴) = ∅ (see afvpcfv0 47616), but (𝐹‘𝐴) = ∅ → (𝐹'''𝐴) = V is not generally valid. In the theory of partial functions, it is a common case that 𝐹 is not defined at 𝐴, which also would result in (𝐹'''𝐴) = V. In this context we say (𝐹'''𝐴) "is not defined" instead of "is not meaningful". With this definition the following intuitive equivalence holds: (𝐹'''𝐴) ∈ V <-> "(𝐹'''𝐴) is meaningful/defined". An interesting question would be if (𝐹‘𝐴) could be replaced by (𝐹'''𝐴) in most of the theorems based on function values. If we look at the (currently 19) proofs using the definition df-fv 6500 of (𝐹‘𝐴), we see that analogues for the following 8 theorems can be proven using the alternative definition: fveq1 6833-> afveq1 47604, fveq2 6834-> afveq2 47605, nffv 6844-> nfafv 47606, csbfv12 6879-> csbafv12g , fvres 6853-> afvres 47642, rlimdm 15511-> rlimdmafv 47647, tz6.12-1 6857-> tz6.12-1-afv 47644, fveu 6823-> afveu 47623. Three theorems proved by directly using df-fv 6500 are within a mathbox (fvsb 44902) or not used (isumclim3 15719, avril1 30558). However, the remaining 8 theorems proved by directly using df-fv 6500 are used more or less often: * fvex 6847: used in about 1750 proofs. * tz6.12-1 6857: root theorem of many theorems which have not a strict analogue, and which are used many times: fvprc 6826 (used in about 127 proofs), tz6.12i 6860 (used - indirectly via fvbr0 6861 and fvrn0 6862- in 18 proofs, and in fvclss 7192 used in fvclex 7908 used in fvresex 7909, which is not used!), dcomex 10367 (used in 4 proofs), ndmfv 6866 (used in 86 proofs) and nfunsn 6873 (used by dffv2 6929 which is not used). * fv2 6829: only used by elfv 6832, which is only used by fv3 6852, which is not used. * dffv3 6830: used by dffv4 6831 (the previous "df-fv"), which now is only used in deprecated (usage discouraged) theorems or within mathboxes (csbfv12gALTVD 45349), by shftval 15034 (itself used in 9 proofs), by dffv5 36157 (mathbox) and by fvco2 6931, which has the analogue afvco2 47646. * fvopab5 6976: used only by ajval 30957 (not used) and by adjval 31986 (used - indirectly - in 9 proofs). * zsum 15678: used (via isum 15679, sum0 15681 and fsumsers 15688) in more than 90 proofs. * isumshft 15802: used in pserdv2 26420 and (via logtayl 26649) 4 other proofs. * ovtpos 8188: used in 14 proofs. As a result of this analysis we can say that the current definition of a function value is crucial for Metamath and cannot be exchanged easily with an alternative definition. While fv2 6829, dffv3 6830, fvopab5 6976, zsum 15678, isumshft 15802 and ovtpos 8188 are not critical or are, hopefully, also valid for the alternative definition, fvex 6847 and tz6.12-1 6857 (and the theorems based on them) are essential for the current definition of function values. With the same arguments, an alternative definition of operation values ((𝐴𝑂𝐵)) could be meaningful to avoid ambiguities, see df-aov 47591. For additional details, see https://groups.google.com/g/metamath/c/cteNUppB6A4 47591. | ||
| Syntax | wdfat 47586 | Extend the definition of a wff to include the "defined at" predicate. Read: "(the function) 𝐹 is defined at (the argument) 𝐴". In a previous version, the token "def@" was used. However, since the @ is used (informally) as a replacement for $ in commented out sections that may be deleted some day. While there is no violation of any standard to use the @ in a token, it could make the search for such commented-out sections slightly more difficult. (See remark of Norman Megill at https://groups.google.com/g/metamath/c/cteNUppB6A4). |
| wff 𝐹 defAt 𝐴 | ||
| Syntax | cafv 47587 | Extend the definition of a class to include the value of a function. Read: "the value of 𝐹 at 𝐴 " or "𝐹 of 𝐴". In a previous version, the symbol " ' " was used. However, since the similarity with the symbol ‘ used for the current definition of a function's value (see df-fv 6500), which, by the way, was intended to visualize that in many cases ‘ and " ' " are exchangeable, makes reading the theorems, especially those which use both definitions as dfafv2 47602, very difficult, 3 apostrophes ''' are used now so that it's easier to distinguish from df-fv 6500 and df-ima 5638. And not three backticks ( three times ‘) since that would be annoying to escape in a comment. (See remark of Norman Megill and Gerard Lang at https://groups.google.com/g/metamath/c/cteNUppB6A4 5638). |
| class (𝐹'''𝐴) | ||
| Syntax | caov 47588 | Extend class notation to include the value of an operation 𝐹 (such as +) for two arguments 𝐴 and 𝐵. Note that the syntax is simply three class symbols in a row surrounded by a pair of parentheses in contrast to the current definition, see df-ov 7366. |
| class ((𝐴𝐹𝐵)) | ||
| Definition | df-dfat 47589 | Definition of the predicate that determines if some class 𝐹 is defined as function for an argument 𝐴 or, in other words, if the function value for some class 𝐹 for an argument 𝐴 is defined. We say that 𝐹 is defined at 𝐴 if a 𝐹 is a function restricted to the member 𝐴 of its domain. (Contributed by Alexander van der Vekens, 25-May-2017.) |
| ⊢ (𝐹 defAt 𝐴 ↔ (𝐴 ∈ dom 𝐹 ∧ Fun (𝐹 ↾ {𝐴}))) | ||
| Definition | df-afv 47590* | Alternative definition of the value of a function, (𝐹'''𝐴), also known as function application. In contrast to (𝐹‘𝐴) = ∅ (see df-fv 6500 and ndmfv 6866), (𝐹'''𝐴) = V if F is not defined for A! (Contributed by Alexander van der Vekens, 25-May-2017.) (Revised by BJ/AV, 25-Aug-2022.) |
| ⊢ (𝐹'''𝐴) = (℩'𝑥𝐴𝐹𝑥) | ||
| Definition | df-aov 47591 | Define the value of an operation. In contrast to df-ov 7366, the alternative definition for a function value (see df-afv 47590) is used. By this, the value of the operation applied to two arguments is the universal class if the operation is not defined for these two arguments. There are still no restrictions of any kind on what those class expressions may be, although only certain kinds of class expressions - a binary operation 𝐹 and its arguments 𝐴 and 𝐵- will be useful for proving meaningful theorems. (Contributed by Alexander van der Vekens, 26-May-2017.) |
| ⊢ ((𝐴𝐹𝐵)) = (𝐹'''〈𝐴, 𝐵〉) | ||
| Theorem | ralbinrald 47592* | Elemination of a restricted universal quantification under certain conditions. (Contributed by Alexander van der Vekens, 2-Aug-2017.) |
| ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝑋 ∈ 𝐴) & ⊢ (𝑥 ∈ 𝐴 → 𝑥 = 𝑋) & ⊢ (𝑥 = 𝑋 → (𝜓 ↔ 𝜃)) ⇒ ⊢ (𝜑 → (∀𝑥 ∈ 𝐴 𝜓 ↔ 𝜃)) | ||
| Theorem | nvelim 47593 | If a class is the universal class it doesn't belong to any class, generalization of nvel 5248. (Contributed by Alexander van der Vekens, 26-May-2017.) |
| ⊢ (𝐴 = V → ¬ 𝐴 ∈ 𝐵) | ||
| Theorem | alneu 47594 | If a statement holds for all sets, there is not a unique set for which the statement holds. (Contributed by Alexander van der Vekens, 28-Nov-2017.) |
| ⊢ (∀𝑥𝜑 → ¬ ∃!𝑥𝜑) | ||
| Theorem | eu2ndop1stv 47595* | If there is a unique second component in an ordered pair contained in a given set, the first component must be a set. (Contributed by Alexander van der Vekens, 29-Nov-2017.) |
| ⊢ (∃!𝑦〈𝐴, 𝑦〉 ∈ 𝑉 → 𝐴 ∈ V) | ||
| Theorem | dfateq12d 47596 | Equality deduction for "defined at". (Contributed by Alexander van der Vekens, 26-May-2017.) |
| ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝐹 = 𝐺) & ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝐴 = 𝐵) ⇒ ⊢ (𝜑 → (𝐹 defAt 𝐴 ↔ 𝐺 defAt 𝐵)) | ||
| Theorem | nfdfat 47597 | Bound-variable hypothesis builder for "defined at". To prove a deduction version of this theorem is not easily possible because many deduction versions for bound-variable hypothesis builder for constructs the definition of "defined at" is based on are not available (e.g., for Fun/Rel, dom, ⊆, etc.). (Contributed by Alexander van der Vekens, 26-May-2017.) |
| ⊢ Ⅎ𝑥𝐹 & ⊢ Ⅎ𝑥𝐴 ⇒ ⊢ Ⅎ𝑥 𝐹 defAt 𝐴 | ||
| Theorem | dfdfat2 47598* | Alternate definition of the predicate "defined at" not using the Fun predicate. (Contributed by Alexander van der Vekens, 22-Jul-2017.) (Proof shortened by Peter Mazsa, 2-Oct-2022.) |
| ⊢ (𝐹 defAt 𝐴 ↔ (𝐴 ∈ dom 𝐹 ∧ ∃!𝑦 𝐴𝐹𝑦)) | ||
| Theorem | fundmdfat 47599 | A function is defined at any element of its domain. (Contributed by AV, 2-Sep-2022.) |
| ⊢ ((Fun 𝐹 ∧ 𝐴 ∈ dom 𝐹) → 𝐹 defAt 𝐴) | ||
| Theorem | dfatprc 47600 | A function is not defined at a proper class. (Contributed by AV, 1-Sep-2022.) |
| ⊢ (¬ 𝐴 ∈ V → ¬ 𝐹 defAt 𝐴) | ||
| < Previous Next > |
| Copyright terms: Public domain | < Previous Next > |