Home | Metamath
Proof Explorer Theorem List (p. 53 of 450) | < 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: | Metamath Proof Explorer
(1-28697) |
Hilbert Space Explorer
(28698-30220) |
Users' Mathboxes
(30221-44913) |
Type | Label | Description |
---|---|---|
Statement | ||
Theorem | zfrep3cl 5201* | An inference based on the Axiom of Replacement. Typically, 𝜑 defines a function from 𝑥 to 𝑦. (Contributed by NM, 26-Nov-1995.) |
⊢ 𝐴 ∈ V & ⊢ (𝑥 ∈ 𝐴 → ∃𝑧∀𝑦(𝜑 → 𝑦 = 𝑧)) ⇒ ⊢ ∃𝑧∀𝑦(𝑦 ∈ 𝑧 ↔ ∃𝑥(𝑥 ∈ 𝐴 ∧ 𝜑)) | ||
Theorem | zfrep4 5202* | A version of Replacement using class abstractions. (Contributed by NM, 26-Nov-1995.) |
⊢ {𝑥 ∣ 𝜑} ∈ V & ⊢ (𝜑 → ∃𝑧∀𝑦(𝜓 → 𝑦 = 𝑧)) ⇒ ⊢ {𝑦 ∣ ∃𝑥(𝜑 ∧ 𝜓)} ∈ V | ||
Theorem | axsepgfromrep 5203* | A more general version axsepg 5206 of the axiom scheme of separation ax-sep 5205 derived from the axiom scheme of replacement ax-rep 5192 (and first-order logic). The extra generality consists in the absence of a disjoint variable condition on 𝑧, 𝜑 (that is, variable 𝑧 may occur in formula 𝜑). See linked statements for more information. (Contributed by NM, 11-Sep-2006.) Remove dependencies on ax-9 2124 to ax-13 2390. (Revised by SN, 25-Sep-2023.) Use ax-sep 5205 instead (or axsepg 5206 if the extra generality is needed). (New usage is discouraged.) |
⊢ ∃𝑦∀𝑥(𝑥 ∈ 𝑦 ↔ (𝑥 ∈ 𝑧 ∧ 𝜑)) | ||
Theorem | axsep 5204* | Axiom scheme of separation ax-sep 5205 derived from the axiom scheme of replacement ax-rep 5192. The statement is identical to that of ax-sep 5205, and therefore shows that ax-sep 5205 is redundant when ax-rep 5192 is allowed. See ax-sep 5205 for more information. (Contributed by NM, 11-Sep-2006.) Use ax-sep 5205 instead. (New usage is discouraged.) |
⊢ ∃𝑦∀𝑥(𝑥 ∈ 𝑦 ↔ (𝑥 ∈ 𝑧 ∧ 𝜑)) | ||
Axiom | ax-sep 5205* |
Axiom scheme of separation. This is an axiom scheme of Zermelo and
Zermelo-Fraenkel set theories.
It was derived as axsep 5204 above and is therefore redundant in ZF set theory, which contains ax-rep 5192 as an axiom (contrary to Zermelo set theory). We state it as a separate axiom here so that some of its uses can be identified more easily. Some textbooks present the axiom scheme of separation as a separate axiom scheme in order to show that much of set theory can be derived without the stronger axiom scheme of replacement (which is not part of Zermelo set theory). The axiom scheme of separation is a weak form of Frege's axiom scheme of (unrestricted) comprehension, in that it conditions it with the condition 𝑥 ∈ 𝑧, so that it asserts the existence of a collection only if it is smaller than some other collection 𝑧 that already exists. This prevents Russell's paradox ru 3773. In some texts, this scheme is called "Aussonderung" (German for "separation") or "Subset Axiom". The variable 𝑥 can occur in the formula 𝜑, which in textbooks is often written 𝜑(𝑥). To specify this in the Metamath language, we omit the distinct variable condition ($d) that 𝑥 not occur in 𝜑. For a version using a class variable, see zfauscl 5207, which requires the axiom of extensionality as well as the axiom scheme of separation for its derivation. If we omit the requirement that 𝑦 not occur in 𝜑, we can derive a contradiction, as notzfaus 5264 shows (showing the necessity of that condition in zfauscl 5207). Scheme Sep of [BellMachover] p. 463. (Contributed by NM, 11-Sep-2006.) |
⊢ ∃𝑦∀𝑥(𝑥 ∈ 𝑦 ↔ (𝑥 ∈ 𝑧 ∧ 𝜑)) | ||
Theorem | axsepg 5206* | A more general version of the axiom scheme of separation ax-sep 5205, where variable 𝑧 can also occur (in addition to 𝑥) in formula 𝜑, which can therefore be thought of as 𝜑(𝑥, 𝑧). This version is derived from the more restrictive ax-sep 5205 with no additional set theory axioms. Note that it was also derived from ax-rep 5192 but without ax-sep 5205 as axsepgfromrep 5203. (Contributed by NM, 10-Dec-2006.) (Proof shortened by Mario Carneiro, 17-Nov-2016.) Remove dependency on ax-12 2177 and ax-13 2390 and shorten proof. (Revised by BJ, 6-Oct-2019.) |
⊢ ∃𝑦∀𝑥(𝑥 ∈ 𝑦 ↔ (𝑥 ∈ 𝑧 ∧ 𝜑)) | ||
Theorem | zfauscl 5207* |
Separation Scheme (Aussonderung) using a class variable. To derive this
from ax-sep 5205, we invoke the Axiom of Extensionality
(indirectly via
vtocl 3561), which is needed for the justification of
class variable
notation.
If we omit the requirement that 𝑦 not occur in 𝜑, we can derive a contradiction, as notzfaus 5264 shows. (Contributed by NM, 21-Jun-1993.) |
⊢ 𝐴 ∈ V ⇒ ⊢ ∃𝑦∀𝑥(𝑥 ∈ 𝑦 ↔ (𝑥 ∈ 𝐴 ∧ 𝜑)) | ||
Theorem | bm1.3ii 5208* | Convert implication to equivalence using the Separation Scheme (Aussonderung) ax-sep 5205. Similar to Theorem 1.3(ii) of [BellMachover] p. 463. (Contributed by NM, 21-Jun-1993.) |
⊢ ∃𝑥∀𝑦(𝜑 → 𝑦 ∈ 𝑥) ⇒ ⊢ ∃𝑥∀𝑦(𝑦 ∈ 𝑥 ↔ 𝜑) | ||
Theorem | ax6vsep 5209* | Derive ax6v 1971 (a weakened version of ax-6 1970 where 𝑥 and 𝑦 must be distinct), from Separation ax-sep 5205 and Extensionality ax-ext 2795. See ax6 2402 for the derivation of ax-6 1970 from ax6v 1971. (Contributed by NM, 12-Nov-2013.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) (New usage is discouraged.) |
⊢ ¬ ∀𝑥 ¬ 𝑥 = 𝑦 | ||
Theorem | axnulALT 5210* | Alternate proof of axnul 5211, proved from propositional calculus, ax-gen 1796, ax-4 1810, sp 2182, and ax-rep 5192. To check this, replace sp 2182 with the obsolete axiom ax-c5 36021 in the proof of axnulALT 5210 and type the Metamath program "MM> SHOW TRACE_BACK axnulALT / AXIOMS" command. (Contributed by Jeff Hoffman, 3-Feb-2008.) (Proof shortened by Mario Carneiro, 17-Nov-2016.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) (New usage is discouraged.) |
⊢ ∃𝑥∀𝑦 ¬ 𝑦 ∈ 𝑥 | ||
Theorem | axnul 5211* |
The Null Set Axiom of ZF set theory: there exists a set with no
elements. Axiom of Empty Set of [Enderton] p. 18. In some textbooks,
this is presented as a separate axiom; here we show it can be derived
from Separation ax-sep 5205. This version of the Null Set Axiom tells us
that at least one empty set exists, but does not tell us that it is
unique - we need the Axiom of Extensionality to do that (see nulmo 2800).
This proof, suggested by Jeff Hoffman, uses only ax-4 1810 and ax-gen 1796 from predicate calculus, which are valid in "free logic" i.e. logic holding in an empty domain (see Axiom A5 and Rule R2 of [LeBlanc] p. 277). Thus, our ax-sep 5205 implies the existence of at least one set. Note that Kunen's version of ax-sep 5205 (Axiom 3 of [Kunen] p. 11) does not imply the existence of a set because his is universally closed, i.e., prefixed with universal quantifiers to eliminate all free variables. His existence is provided by a separate axiom stating ∃𝑥𝑥 = 𝑥 (Axiom 0 of [Kunen] p. 10). See axnulALT 5210 for a proof directly from ax-rep 5192. This theorem should not be referenced by any proof. Instead, use ax-nul 5212 below so that the uses of the Null Set Axiom can be more easily identified. (Contributed by Jeff Hoffman, 3-Feb-2008.) (Revised by NM, 4-Feb-2008.) (New usage is discouraged.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) |
⊢ ∃𝑥∀𝑦 ¬ 𝑦 ∈ 𝑥 | ||
Axiom | ax-nul 5212* | The Null Set Axiom of ZF set theory. It was derived as axnul 5211 above and is therefore redundant, but we state it as a separate axiom here so that its uses can be identified more easily. (Contributed by NM, 7-Aug-2003.) |
⊢ ∃𝑥∀𝑦 ¬ 𝑦 ∈ 𝑥 | ||
Theorem | 0ex 5213 | The Null Set Axiom of ZF set theory: the empty set exists. Corollary 5.16 of [TakeutiZaring] p. 20. For the unabbreviated version, see ax-nul 5212. (Contributed by NM, 21-Jun-1993.) (Proof shortened by Andrew Salmon, 9-Jul-2011.) |
⊢ ∅ ∈ V | ||
Theorem | al0ssb 5214* | The empty set is the unique class which is a subclass of any set. (Contributed by AV, 24-Aug-2022.) |
⊢ (∀𝑦 𝑋 ⊆ 𝑦 ↔ 𝑋 = ∅) | ||
Theorem | sseliALT 5215 | Alternate proof of sseli 3965 illustrating the use of the weak deduction theorem to prove it from the inference sselii 3966. (Contributed by NM, 24-Aug-2018.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) (New usage is discouraged.) |
⊢ 𝐴 ⊆ 𝐵 ⇒ ⊢ (𝐶 ∈ 𝐴 → 𝐶 ∈ 𝐵) | ||
Theorem | csbexg 5216 | The existence of proper substitution into a class. (Contributed by NM, 10-Nov-2005.) (Revised by NM, 17-Aug-2018.) |
⊢ (∀𝑥 𝐵 ∈ 𝑊 → ⦋𝐴 / 𝑥⦌𝐵 ∈ V) | ||
Theorem | csbex 5217 | The existence of proper substitution into a class. (Contributed by NM, 7-Aug-2007.) (Proof shortened by Andrew Salmon, 29-Jun-2011.) (Revised by NM, 17-Aug-2018.) |
⊢ 𝐵 ∈ V ⇒ ⊢ ⦋𝐴 / 𝑥⦌𝐵 ∈ V | ||
Theorem | unisn2 5218 | A version of unisn 4860 without the 𝐴 ∈ V hypothesis. (Contributed by Stefan Allan, 14-Mar-2006.) |
⊢ ∪ {𝐴} ∈ {∅, 𝐴} | ||
Theorem | nalset 5219* | No set contains all sets. Theorem 41 of [Suppes] p. 30. (Contributed by NM, 23-Aug-1993.) Remove use of ax-12 2177 and ax-13 2390. (Revised by BJ, 31-May-2019.) |
⊢ ¬ ∃𝑥∀𝑦 𝑦 ∈ 𝑥 | ||
Theorem | vnex 5220 | The universal class does not exist as a set. (Contributed by NM, 4-Jul-2005.) |
⊢ ¬ ∃𝑥 𝑥 = V | ||
Theorem | vprc 5221 | The universal class is not a member of itself (and thus is not a set). Proposition 5.21 of [TakeutiZaring] p. 21; our proof, however, does not depend on the Axiom of Regularity. (Contributed by NM, 23-Aug-1993.) |
⊢ ¬ V ∈ V | ||
Theorem | nvel 5222 | The universal class does not belong to any class. (Contributed by FL, 31-Dec-2006.) |
⊢ ¬ V ∈ 𝐴 | ||
Theorem | inex1 5223 | Separation Scheme (Aussonderung) using class notation. Compare Exercise 4 of [TakeutiZaring] p. 22. (Contributed by NM, 21-Jun-1993.) |
⊢ 𝐴 ∈ V ⇒ ⊢ (𝐴 ∩ 𝐵) ∈ V | ||
Theorem | inex2 5224 | Separation Scheme (Aussonderung) using class notation. (Contributed by NM, 27-Apr-1994.) |
⊢ 𝐴 ∈ V ⇒ ⊢ (𝐵 ∩ 𝐴) ∈ V | ||
Theorem | inex1g 5225 | Closed-form, generalized Separation Scheme. (Contributed by NM, 7-Apr-1995.) |
⊢ (𝐴 ∈ 𝑉 → (𝐴 ∩ 𝐵) ∈ V) | ||
Theorem | inex2g 5226 | Sufficient condition for an intersection to be a set. Commuted form of inex1g 5225. (Contributed by Peter Mazsa, 19-Dec-2018.) |
⊢ (𝐴 ∈ 𝑉 → (𝐵 ∩ 𝐴) ∈ V) | ||
Theorem | ssex 5227 | The subset of a set is also a set. Exercise 3 of [TakeutiZaring] p. 22. This is one way to express the Axiom of Separation ax-sep 5205 (a.k.a. Subset Axiom). (Contributed by NM, 27-Apr-1994.) |
⊢ 𝐵 ∈ V ⇒ ⊢ (𝐴 ⊆ 𝐵 → 𝐴 ∈ V) | ||
Theorem | ssexi 5228 | The subset of a set is also a set. (Contributed by NM, 9-Sep-1993.) |
⊢ 𝐵 ∈ V & ⊢ 𝐴 ⊆ 𝐵 ⇒ ⊢ 𝐴 ∈ V | ||
Theorem | ssexg 5229 | The subset of a set is also a set. Exercise 3 of [TakeutiZaring] p. 22 (generalized). (Contributed by NM, 14-Aug-1994.) |
⊢ ((𝐴 ⊆ 𝐵 ∧ 𝐵 ∈ 𝐶) → 𝐴 ∈ V) | ||
Theorem | ssexd 5230 | A subclass of a set is a set. Deduction form of ssexg 5229. (Contributed by David Moews, 1-May-2017.) |
⊢ (𝜑 → 𝐵 ∈ 𝐶) & ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝐴 ⊆ 𝐵) ⇒ ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝐴 ∈ V) | ||
Theorem | prcssprc 5231 | The superclass of a proper class is a proper class. (Contributed by AV, 27-Dec-2020.) |
⊢ ((𝐴 ⊆ 𝐵 ∧ 𝐴 ∉ V) → 𝐵 ∉ V) | ||
Theorem | sselpwd 5232 | Elementhood to a power set. (Contributed by Thierry Arnoux, 18-May-2020.) |
⊢ (𝜑 → 𝐵 ∈ 𝑉) & ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝐴 ⊆ 𝐵) ⇒ ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝐴 ∈ 𝒫 𝐵) | ||
Theorem | difexg 5233 | Existence of a difference. (Contributed by NM, 26-May-1998.) |
⊢ (𝐴 ∈ 𝑉 → (𝐴 ∖ 𝐵) ∈ V) | ||
Theorem | difexi 5234 | Existence of a difference, inference version of difexg 5233. (Contributed by Glauco Siliprandi, 3-Mar-2021.) (Revised by AV, 26-Mar-2021.) |
⊢ 𝐴 ∈ V ⇒ ⊢ (𝐴 ∖ 𝐵) ∈ V | ||
Theorem | zfausab 5235* | Separation Scheme (Aussonderung) in terms of a class abstraction. (Contributed by NM, 8-Jun-1994.) |
⊢ 𝐴 ∈ V ⇒ ⊢ {𝑥 ∣ (𝑥 ∈ 𝐴 ∧ 𝜑)} ∈ V | ||
Theorem | rabexg 5236* | Separation Scheme in terms of a restricted class abstraction. (Contributed by NM, 23-Oct-1999.) |
⊢ (𝐴 ∈ 𝑉 → {𝑥 ∈ 𝐴 ∣ 𝜑} ∈ V) | ||
Theorem | rabex 5237* | Separation Scheme in terms of a restricted class abstraction. (Contributed by NM, 19-Jul-1996.) |
⊢ 𝐴 ∈ V ⇒ ⊢ {𝑥 ∈ 𝐴 ∣ 𝜑} ∈ V | ||
Theorem | rabexd 5238* | Separation Scheme in terms of a restricted class abstraction, deduction form of rabex2 5239. (Contributed by AV, 16-Jul-2019.) |
⊢ 𝐵 = {𝑥 ∈ 𝐴 ∣ 𝜓} & ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝐴 ∈ 𝑉) ⇒ ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝐵 ∈ V) | ||
Theorem | rabex2 5239* | Separation Scheme in terms of a restricted class abstraction. (Contributed by AV, 16-Jul-2019.) (Revised by AV, 26-Mar-2021.) |
⊢ 𝐵 = {𝑥 ∈ 𝐴 ∣ 𝜓} & ⊢ 𝐴 ∈ V ⇒ ⊢ 𝐵 ∈ V | ||
Theorem | rab2ex 5240* | A class abstraction based on a class abstraction based on a set is a set. (Contributed by AV, 16-Jul-2019.) (Revised by AV, 26-Mar-2021.) |
⊢ 𝐵 = {𝑦 ∈ 𝐴 ∣ 𝜓} & ⊢ 𝐴 ∈ V ⇒ ⊢ {𝑥 ∈ 𝐵 ∣ 𝜑} ∈ V | ||
Theorem | elssabg 5241* | Membership in a class abstraction involving a subset. Unlike elabg 3668, 𝐴 does not have to be a set. (Contributed by NM, 29-Aug-2006.) |
⊢ (𝑥 = 𝐴 → (𝜑 ↔ 𝜓)) ⇒ ⊢ (𝐵 ∈ 𝑉 → (𝐴 ∈ {𝑥 ∣ (𝑥 ⊆ 𝐵 ∧ 𝜑)} ↔ (𝐴 ⊆ 𝐵 ∧ 𝜓))) | ||
Theorem | intex 5242 | The intersection of a nonempty class exists. Exercise 5 of [TakeutiZaring] p. 44 and its converse. (Contributed by NM, 13-Aug-2002.) |
⊢ (𝐴 ≠ ∅ ↔ ∩ 𝐴 ∈ V) | ||
Theorem | intnex 5243 | If a class intersection is not a set, it must be the universe. (Contributed by NM, 3-Jul-2005.) |
⊢ (¬ ∩ 𝐴 ∈ V ↔ ∩ 𝐴 = V) | ||
Theorem | intexab 5244 | The intersection of a nonempty class abstraction exists. (Contributed by NM, 21-Oct-2003.) |
⊢ (∃𝑥𝜑 ↔ ∩ {𝑥 ∣ 𝜑} ∈ V) | ||
Theorem | intexrab 5245 | The intersection of a nonempty restricted class abstraction exists. (Contributed by NM, 21-Oct-2003.) |
⊢ (∃𝑥 ∈ 𝐴 𝜑 ↔ ∩ {𝑥 ∈ 𝐴 ∣ 𝜑} ∈ V) | ||
Theorem | iinexg 5246* | The existence of a class intersection. 𝑥 is normally a free-variable parameter in 𝐵, which should be read 𝐵(𝑥). (Contributed by FL, 19-Sep-2011.) |
⊢ ((𝐴 ≠ ∅ ∧ ∀𝑥 ∈ 𝐴 𝐵 ∈ 𝐶) → ∩ 𝑥 ∈ 𝐴 𝐵 ∈ V) | ||
Theorem | intabs 5247* | Absorption of a redundant conjunct in the intersection of a class abstraction. (Contributed by NM, 3-Jul-2005.) |
⊢ (𝑥 = 𝑦 → (𝜑 ↔ 𝜓)) & ⊢ (𝑥 = ∩ {𝑦 ∣ 𝜓} → (𝜑 ↔ 𝜒)) & ⊢ (∩ {𝑦 ∣ 𝜓} ⊆ 𝐴 ∧ 𝜒) ⇒ ⊢ ∩ {𝑥 ∣ (𝑥 ⊆ 𝐴 ∧ 𝜑)} = ∩ {𝑥 ∣ 𝜑} | ||
Theorem | inuni 5248* | The intersection of a union ∪ 𝐴 with a class 𝐵 is equal to the union of the intersections of each element of 𝐴 with 𝐵. (Contributed by FL, 24-Mar-2007.) |
⊢ (∪ 𝐴 ∩ 𝐵) = ∪ {𝑥 ∣ ∃𝑦 ∈ 𝐴 𝑥 = (𝑦 ∩ 𝐵)} | ||
Theorem | elpw2g 5249 | Membership in a power class. Theorem 86 of [Suppes] p. 47. (Contributed by NM, 7-Aug-2000.) |
⊢ (𝐵 ∈ 𝑉 → (𝐴 ∈ 𝒫 𝐵 ↔ 𝐴 ⊆ 𝐵)) | ||
Theorem | elpw2 5250 | Membership in a power class. Theorem 86 of [Suppes] p. 47. (Contributed by NM, 11-Oct-2007.) |
⊢ 𝐵 ∈ V ⇒ ⊢ (𝐴 ∈ 𝒫 𝐵 ↔ 𝐴 ⊆ 𝐵) | ||
Theorem | elpwi2 5251 | Membership in a power class. (Contributed by Glauco Siliprandi, 3-Mar-2021.) |
⊢ 𝐵 ∈ 𝑉 & ⊢ 𝐴 ⊆ 𝐵 ⇒ ⊢ 𝐴 ∈ 𝒫 𝐵 | ||
Theorem | pwnss 5252 | The power set of a set is never a subset. (Contributed by Stefan O'Rear, 22-Feb-2015.) |
⊢ (𝐴 ∈ 𝑉 → ¬ 𝒫 𝐴 ⊆ 𝐴) | ||
Theorem | pwne 5253 | No set equals its power set. The sethood antecedent is necessary; compare pwv 4837. (Contributed by NM, 17-Nov-2008.) (Proof shortened by Mario Carneiro, 23-Dec-2016.) |
⊢ (𝐴 ∈ 𝑉 → 𝒫 𝐴 ≠ 𝐴) | ||
Theorem | difelpw 5254 | A difference is an element of the power set of its minuend. (Contributed by AV, 9-Oct-2023.) |
⊢ (𝐴 ∈ 𝑉 → (𝐴 ∖ 𝐵) ∈ 𝒫 𝐴) | ||
Theorem | rabelpw 5255* | A restricted class abstraction is an element of the power set of its restricting set. (Contributed by AV, 9-Oct-2023.) |
⊢ (𝐴 ∈ 𝑉 → {𝑥 ∈ 𝐴 ∣ 𝜑} ∈ 𝒫 𝐴) | ||
Theorem | class2set 5256* | Construct, from any class 𝐴, a set equal to it when the class exists and equal to the empty set when the class is proper. This theorem shows that the constructed set always exists. (Contributed by NM, 16-Oct-2003.) |
⊢ {𝑥 ∈ 𝐴 ∣ 𝐴 ∈ V} ∈ V | ||
Theorem | class2seteq 5257* | Equality theorem based on class2set 5256. (Contributed by NM, 13-Dec-2005.) (Proof shortened by Raph Levien, 30-Jun-2006.) |
⊢ (𝐴 ∈ 𝑉 → {𝑥 ∈ 𝐴 ∣ 𝐴 ∈ V} = 𝐴) | ||
Theorem | 0elpw 5258 | Every power class contains the empty set. (Contributed by NM, 25-Oct-2007.) |
⊢ ∅ ∈ 𝒫 𝐴 | ||
Theorem | pwne0 5259 | A power class is never empty. (Contributed by NM, 3-Sep-2018.) |
⊢ 𝒫 𝐴 ≠ ∅ | ||
Theorem | 0nep0 5260 | The empty set and its power set are not equal. (Contributed by NM, 23-Dec-1993.) |
⊢ ∅ ≠ {∅} | ||
Theorem | 0inp0 5261 | Something cannot be equal to both the null set and the power set of the null set. (Contributed by NM, 21-Jun-1993.) |
⊢ (𝐴 = ∅ → ¬ 𝐴 = {∅}) | ||
Theorem | unidif0 5262 | The removal of the empty set from a class does not affect its union. (Contributed by NM, 22-Mar-2004.) |
⊢ ∪ (𝐴 ∖ {∅}) = ∪ 𝐴 | ||
Theorem | iin0 5263* | An indexed intersection of the empty set, with a nonempty index set, is empty. (Contributed by NM, 20-Oct-2005.) |
⊢ (𝐴 ≠ ∅ ↔ ∩ 𝑥 ∈ 𝐴 ∅ = ∅) | ||
Theorem | notzfaus 5264* | In the Separation Scheme zfauscl 5207, we require that 𝑦 not occur in 𝜑 (which can be generalized to "not be free in"). Here we show special cases of 𝐴 and 𝜑 that result in a contradiction if that requirement is not met. (Contributed by NM, 8-Feb-2006.) (Proof shortened by BJ, 18-Nov-2023.) |
⊢ 𝐴 = {∅} & ⊢ (𝜑 ↔ ¬ 𝑥 ∈ 𝑦) ⇒ ⊢ ¬ ∃𝑦∀𝑥(𝑥 ∈ 𝑦 ↔ (𝑥 ∈ 𝐴 ∧ 𝜑)) | ||
Theorem | notzfausOLD 5265* | Obsolete proof of notzfaus 5264 as of 18-Nov-2023. (Contributed by NM, 8-Feb-2006.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) (New usage is discouraged.) |
⊢ 𝐴 = {∅} & ⊢ (𝜑 ↔ ¬ 𝑥 ∈ 𝑦) ⇒ ⊢ ¬ ∃𝑦∀𝑥(𝑥 ∈ 𝑦 ↔ (𝑥 ∈ 𝐴 ∧ 𝜑)) | ||
Theorem | intv 5266 | The intersection of the universal class is empty. (Contributed by NM, 11-Sep-2008.) |
⊢ ∩ V = ∅ | ||
Theorem | axpweq 5267* | Two equivalent ways to express the Power Set Axiom. Note that ax-pow 5268 is not used by the proof. When ax-pow 5268 is assumed and 𝐴 is a set, both sides of the biconditional hold. In ZF, both sides hold if and only if 𝐴 is a set (see pwexr 7489). (Contributed by NM, 22-Jun-2009.) |
⊢ (𝒫 𝐴 ∈ V ↔ ∃𝑥∀𝑦(∀𝑧(𝑧 ∈ 𝑦 → 𝑧 ∈ 𝐴) → 𝑦 ∈ 𝑥)) | ||
Axiom | ax-pow 5268* | Axiom of Power Sets. An axiom of Zermelo-Fraenkel set theory. It states that a set 𝑦 exists that includes the power set of a given set 𝑥 i.e. contains every subset of 𝑥. The variant axpow2 5270 uses explicit subset notation. A version using class notation is pwex 5283. (Contributed by NM, 21-Jun-1993.) |
⊢ ∃𝑦∀𝑧(∀𝑤(𝑤 ∈ 𝑧 → 𝑤 ∈ 𝑥) → 𝑧 ∈ 𝑦) | ||
Theorem | zfpow 5269* | Axiom of Power Sets expressed with the fewest number of different variables. (Contributed by NM, 14-Aug-2003.) |
⊢ ∃𝑥∀𝑦(∀𝑥(𝑥 ∈ 𝑦 → 𝑥 ∈ 𝑧) → 𝑦 ∈ 𝑥) | ||
Theorem | axpow2 5270* | A variant of the Axiom of Power Sets ax-pow 5268 using subset notation. Problem in [BellMachover] p. 466. (Contributed by NM, 4-Jun-2006.) |
⊢ ∃𝑦∀𝑧(𝑧 ⊆ 𝑥 → 𝑧 ∈ 𝑦) | ||
Theorem | axpow3 5271* | A variant of the Axiom of Power Sets ax-pow 5268. For any set 𝑥, there exists a set 𝑦 whose members are exactly the subsets of 𝑥 i.e. the power set of 𝑥. Axiom Pow of [BellMachover] p. 466. (Contributed by NM, 4-Jun-2006.) |
⊢ ∃𝑦∀𝑧(𝑧 ⊆ 𝑥 ↔ 𝑧 ∈ 𝑦) | ||
Theorem | el 5272* | Every set is an element of some other set. See elALT 5337 for a shorter proof using more axioms. (Contributed by NM, 4-Jan-2002.) (Proof shortened by Andrew Salmon, 25-Jul-2011.) |
⊢ ∃𝑦 𝑥 ∈ 𝑦 | ||
Theorem | dtru 5273* |
At least two sets exist (or in terms of first-order logic, the universe
of discourse has two or more objects). Note that we may not substitute
the same variable for both 𝑥 and 𝑦 (as indicated by the
distinct
variable requirement), for otherwise we would contradict stdpc6 2035.
This theorem is proved directly from set theory axioms (no set theory definitions) and does not use ax-ext 2795 or ax-sep 5205. See dtruALT 5291 for a shorter proof using these axioms. The proof makes use of dummy variables 𝑧 and 𝑤 which do not appear in the final theorem. They must be distinct from each other and from 𝑥 and 𝑦. In other words, if we were to substitute 𝑥 for 𝑧 throughout the proof, the proof would fail. (Contributed by NM, 7-Nov-2006.) Avoid ax-13 2390. (Revised by Gino Giotto, 5-Sep-2023.) |
⊢ ¬ ∀𝑥 𝑥 = 𝑦 | ||
Theorem | dtrucor 5274* | Corollary of dtru 5273. This example illustrates the danger of blindly trusting the standard Deduction Theorem without accounting for free variables: the theorem form of this deduction is not valid, as shown by dtrucor2 5275. (Contributed by NM, 27-Jun-2002.) |
⊢ 𝑥 = 𝑦 ⇒ ⊢ 𝑥 ≠ 𝑦 | ||
Theorem | dtrucor2 5275 | The theorem form of the deduction dtrucor 5274 leads to a contradiction, as mentioned in the "Wrong!" example at mmdeduction.html#bad 5274. Usage of this theorem is discouraged because it depends on ax-13 2390. (Contributed by NM, 20-Oct-2007.) (New usage is discouraged.) |
⊢ (𝑥 = 𝑦 → 𝑥 ≠ 𝑦) ⇒ ⊢ (𝜑 ∧ ¬ 𝜑) | ||
Theorem | dvdemo1 5276* |
Demonstration of a theorem that requires the setvar variables 𝑥 and
𝑦 to be disjoint (but without any other
disjointness conditions, and
in particular, none on 𝑧).
That theorem bundles the theorems (⊢ ∃𝑥(𝑥 = 𝑦 → 𝑧 ∈ 𝑥) with 𝑥, 𝑦, 𝑧 disjoint), often called its "principal instance", and the two "degenerate instances" (⊢ ∃𝑥(𝑥 = 𝑦 → 𝑥 ∈ 𝑥) with 𝑥, 𝑦 disjoint) and (⊢ ∃𝑥(𝑥 = 𝑦 → 𝑦 ∈ 𝑥) with 𝑥, 𝑦 disjoint). Compare with dvdemo2 5277, which has the same principal instance and one common degenerate instance but crucially differs in the other degenerate instance. See https://us.metamath.org/mpeuni/mmset.html#distinct 5277 for details on the "disjoint variable" mechanism. (The verb "bundle" to express this phenomenon was introduced by Raph Levien.) Note that dvdemo1 5276 is partially bundled, in that the pairs of setvar variables 𝑥, 𝑧 and 𝑦, 𝑧 need not be disjoint, and in spite of that, its proof does not require ax-11 2161 nor ax-13 2390. (Contributed by NM, 1-Dec-2006.) (Revised by BJ, 13-Jan-2024.) |
⊢ ∃𝑥(𝑥 = 𝑦 → 𝑧 ∈ 𝑥) | ||
Theorem | dvdemo2 5277* |
Demonstration of a theorem that requires the setvar variables 𝑥 and
𝑧 to be disjoint (but without any other
disjointness conditions, and
in particular, none on 𝑦).
That theorem bundles the theorems (⊢ ∃𝑥(𝑥 = 𝑦 → 𝑧 ∈ 𝑥) with 𝑥, 𝑦, 𝑧 disjoint), often called its "principal instance", and the two "degenerate instances" (⊢ ∃𝑥(𝑥 = 𝑥 → 𝑧 ∈ 𝑥) with 𝑥, 𝑧 disjoint) and (⊢ ∃𝑥(𝑥 = 𝑧 → 𝑧 ∈ 𝑥) with 𝑥, 𝑧 disjoint). Compare with dvdemo1 5276, which has the same principal instance and one common degenerate instance but crucially differs in the other degenerate instance. See https://us.metamath.org/mpeuni/mmset.html#distinct 5276 for details on the "disjoint variable" mechanism. Note that dvdemo2 5277 is partially bundled, in that the pairs of setvar variables 𝑥, 𝑦 and 𝑦, 𝑧 need not be disjoint, and in spite of that, its proof does not require any of the auxiliary axioms ax-10 2145, ax-11 2161, ax-12 2177, ax-13 2390. (Contributed by NM, 1-Dec-2006.) (Revised by BJ, 13-Jan-2024.) |
⊢ ∃𝑥(𝑥 = 𝑦 → 𝑧 ∈ 𝑥) | ||
Theorem | nfnid 5278 | A setvar variable is not free from itself. This theorem is not true in a one-element domain, as illustrated by the use of dtru 5273 in its proof. (Contributed by Mario Carneiro, 8-Oct-2016.) |
⊢ ¬ Ⅎ𝑥𝑥 | ||
Theorem | nfcvb 5279 | The "distinctor" expression ¬ ∀𝑥𝑥 = 𝑦, stating that 𝑥 and 𝑦 are not the same variable, can be written in terms of Ⅎ in the obvious way. This theorem is not true in a one-element domain, because then Ⅎ𝑥𝑦 and ∀𝑥𝑥 = 𝑦 will both be true. Usage of this theorem is discouraged because it depends on ax-13 2390. (Contributed by Mario Carneiro, 8-Oct-2016.) (New usage is discouraged.) |
⊢ (Ⅎ𝑥𝑦 ↔ ¬ ∀𝑥 𝑥 = 𝑦) | ||
Theorem | vpwex 5280 | Power set axiom: the powerclass of a set is a set. Axiom 4 of [TakeutiZaring] p. 17. (Contributed by NM, 30-Oct-2003.) (Proof shortened by Andrew Salmon, 25-Jul-2011.) Revised to prove pwexg 5281 from vpwex 5280. (Revised by BJ, 10-Aug-2022.) |
⊢ 𝒫 𝑥 ∈ V | ||
Theorem | pwexg 5281 | Power set axiom expressed in class notation, with the sethood requirement as an antecedent. (Contributed by NM, 30-Oct-2003.) |
⊢ (𝐴 ∈ 𝑉 → 𝒫 𝐴 ∈ V) | ||
Theorem | pwexd 5282 | Deduction version of the power set axiom. (Contributed by Glauco Siliprandi, 26-Jun-2021.) |
⊢ (𝜑 → 𝐴 ∈ 𝑉) ⇒ ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝒫 𝐴 ∈ V) | ||
Theorem | pwex 5283 | Power set axiom expressed in class notation. (Contributed by NM, 21-Jun-1993.) |
⊢ 𝐴 ∈ V ⇒ ⊢ 𝒫 𝐴 ∈ V | ||
Theorem | pwel 5284 | Quantitative version of pwexg 5281: the powerset of an element of a class is an element of the double powerclass of the union of that class. Exercise 10 of [Enderton] p. 26. (Contributed by NM, 13-Jan-2007.) Remove use of ax-nul 5212 and ax-pr 5332 and shorten proof. (Revised by BJ, 13-Apr-2024.) |
⊢ (𝐴 ∈ 𝐵 → 𝒫 𝐴 ∈ 𝒫 𝒫 ∪ 𝐵) | ||
Theorem | abssexg 5285* | Existence of a class of subsets. (Contributed by NM, 15-Jul-2006.) (Proof shortened by Andrew Salmon, 25-Jul-2011.) |
⊢ (𝐴 ∈ 𝑉 → {𝑥 ∣ (𝑥 ⊆ 𝐴 ∧ 𝜑)} ∈ V) | ||
Theorem | snexALT 5286 | Alternate proof of snex 5334 using Power Set (ax-pow 5268) instead of Pairing (ax-pr 5332). Unlike in the proof of zfpair 5324, Replacement (ax-rep 5192) is not needed. (Contributed by NM, 7-Aug-1994.) (Proof shortened by Andrew Salmon, 25-Jul-2011.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) (New usage is discouraged.) |
⊢ {𝐴} ∈ V | ||
Theorem | p0ex 5287 | The power set of the empty set (the ordinal 1) is a set. See also p0exALT 5288. (Contributed by NM, 23-Dec-1993.) |
⊢ {∅} ∈ V | ||
Theorem | p0exALT 5288 | Alternate proof of p0ex 5287 which is quite different and longer if snexALT 5286 is expanded. (Contributed by NM, 23-Dec-1993.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) (New usage is discouraged.) |
⊢ {∅} ∈ V | ||
Theorem | pp0ex 5289 | The power set of the power set of the empty set (the ordinal 2) is a set. (Contributed by NM, 24-Jun-1993.) |
⊢ {∅, {∅}} ∈ V | ||
Theorem | ord3ex 5290 | The ordinal number 3 is a set, proved without the Axiom of Union ax-un 7463. (Contributed by NM, 2-May-2009.) |
⊢ {∅, {∅}, {∅, {∅}}} ∈ V | ||
Theorem | dtruALT 5291* |
Alternate proof of dtru 5273 which requires more axioms but is shorter and
may be easier to understand.
Assuming that ZF set theory is consistent, we cannot prove this theorem unless we specify that 𝑥 and 𝑦 be distinct. Specifically, theorem spcev 3609 requires that 𝑥 must not occur in the subexpression ¬ 𝑦 = {∅} in step 4 nor in the subexpression ¬ 𝑦 = ∅ in step 9. The proof verifier will require that 𝑥 and 𝑦 be in a distinct variable group to ensure this. You can check this by deleting the $d statement in set.mm and rerunning the verifier, which will print a detailed explanation of the distinct variable violation. (Contributed by NM, 15-Jul-1994.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) (New usage is discouraged.) |
⊢ ¬ ∀𝑥 𝑥 = 𝑦 | ||
Theorem | axc16b 5292* | This theorem shows that axiom ax-c16 36030 is redundant in the presence of theorem dtru 5273, which states simply that at least two things exist. This justifies the remark at mmzfcnd.html#twoness 5273 (which links to this theorem). (Proof modification is discouraged.) (New usage is discouraged.) (Contributed by NM, 7-Nov-2006.) |
⊢ (∀𝑥 𝑥 = 𝑦 → (𝜑 → ∀𝑥𝜑)) | ||
Theorem | eunex 5293 | Existential uniqueness implies there is a value for which the wff argument is false. (Contributed by NM, 24-Oct-2010.) (Proof shortened by BJ, 2-Jan-2023.) |
⊢ (∃!𝑥𝜑 → ∃𝑥 ¬ 𝜑) | ||
Theorem | eusv1 5294* | Two ways to express single-valuedness of a class expression 𝐴(𝑥). (Contributed by NM, 14-Oct-2010.) |
⊢ (∃!𝑦∀𝑥 𝑦 = 𝐴 ↔ ∃𝑦∀𝑥 𝑦 = 𝐴) | ||
Theorem | eusvnf 5295* | Even if 𝑥 is free in 𝐴, it is effectively bound when 𝐴(𝑥) is single-valued. (Contributed by NM, 14-Oct-2010.) (Revised by Mario Carneiro, 14-Oct-2016.) |
⊢ (∃!𝑦∀𝑥 𝑦 = 𝐴 → Ⅎ𝑥𝐴) | ||
Theorem | eusvnfb 5296* | Two ways to say that 𝐴(𝑥) is a set expression that does not depend on 𝑥. (Contributed by Mario Carneiro, 18-Nov-2016.) |
⊢ (∃!𝑦∀𝑥 𝑦 = 𝐴 ↔ (Ⅎ𝑥𝐴 ∧ 𝐴 ∈ V)) | ||
Theorem | eusv2i 5297* | Two ways to express single-valuedness of a class expression 𝐴(𝑥). (Contributed by NM, 14-Oct-2010.) (Revised by Mario Carneiro, 18-Nov-2016.) |
⊢ (∃!𝑦∀𝑥 𝑦 = 𝐴 → ∃!𝑦∃𝑥 𝑦 = 𝐴) | ||
Theorem | eusv2nf 5298* | Two ways to express single-valuedness of a class expression 𝐴(𝑥). (Contributed by Mario Carneiro, 18-Nov-2016.) |
⊢ 𝐴 ∈ V ⇒ ⊢ (∃!𝑦∃𝑥 𝑦 = 𝐴 ↔ Ⅎ𝑥𝐴) | ||
Theorem | eusv2 5299* | Two ways to express single-valuedness of a class expression 𝐴(𝑥). (Contributed by NM, 15-Oct-2010.) (Proof shortened by Mario Carneiro, 18-Nov-2016.) |
⊢ 𝐴 ∈ V ⇒ ⊢ (∃!𝑦∃𝑥 𝑦 = 𝐴 ↔ ∃!𝑦∀𝑥 𝑦 = 𝐴) | ||
Theorem | reusv1 5300* | Two ways to express single-valuedness of a class expression 𝐶(𝑦). (Contributed by NM, 16-Dec-2012.) (Proof shortened by Mario Carneiro, 18-Nov-2016.) (Proof shortened by JJ, 7-Aug-2021.) |
⊢ (∃𝑦 ∈ 𝐵 𝜑 → (∃!𝑥 ∈ 𝐴 ∀𝑦 ∈ 𝐵 (𝜑 → 𝑥 = 𝐶) ↔ ∃𝑥 ∈ 𝐴 ∀𝑦 ∈ 𝐵 (𝜑 → 𝑥 = 𝐶))) |
< Previous Next > |
Copyright terms: Public domain | < Previous Next > |