P. 96 of Theorem List - Metamath Proof Explorer

Theorem List for Metamath Proof Explorer - 9501-9600   *Has distinct variable group(s)

Type	Label	Description
Statement
Theorem	oiid 9501	The order type of an ordinal under the ∈ order is itself, and the order isomorphism is the identity function. (Contributed by Mario Carneiro, 26-Jun-2015.)
⊢ (Ord 𝐴 → OrdIso( E , 𝐴) = ( I ↾ 𝐴))
Theorem	hartogslem1 9502*	Lemma for hartogs 9504. (Contributed by Mario Carneiro, 14-Jan-2013.) (Revised by Mario Carneiro, 15-May-2015.)
⊢ 𝐹 = {⟨𝑟, 𝑦⟩ ∣ (((dom 𝑟 ⊆ 𝐴 ∧ ( I ↾ dom 𝑟) ⊆ 𝑟 ∧ 𝑟 ⊆ (dom 𝑟 × dom 𝑟)) ∧ (𝑟 ∖ I ) We dom 𝑟) ∧ 𝑦 = dom OrdIso((𝑟 ∖ I ), dom 𝑟))}    &   ⊢ 𝑅 = {⟨𝑠, 𝑡⟩ ∣ ∃𝑤 ∈ 𝑦 ∃𝑧 ∈ 𝑦 ((𝑠 = (𝑓‘𝑤) ∧ 𝑡 = (𝑓‘𝑧)) ∧ 𝑤 E 𝑧)}    ⇒   ⊢ (dom 𝐹 ⊆ 𝒫 (𝐴 × 𝐴) ∧ Fun 𝐹 ∧ (𝐴 ∈ 𝑉 → ran 𝐹 = {𝑥 ∈ On ∣ 𝑥 ≼ 𝐴}))
Theorem	hartogslem2 9503*	Lemma for hartogs 9504. (Contributed by Mario Carneiro, 14-Jan-2013.)
⊢ 𝐹 = {⟨𝑟, 𝑦⟩ ∣ (((dom 𝑟 ⊆ 𝐴 ∧ ( I ↾ dom 𝑟) ⊆ 𝑟 ∧ 𝑟 ⊆ (dom 𝑟 × dom 𝑟)) ∧ (𝑟 ∖ I ) We dom 𝑟) ∧ 𝑦 = dom OrdIso((𝑟 ∖ I ), dom 𝑟))}    &   ⊢ 𝑅 = {⟨𝑠, 𝑡⟩ ∣ ∃𝑤 ∈ 𝑦 ∃𝑧 ∈ 𝑦 ((𝑠 = (𝑓‘𝑤) ∧ 𝑡 = (𝑓‘𝑧)) ∧ 𝑤 E 𝑧)}    ⇒   ⊢ (𝐴 ∈ 𝑉 → {𝑥 ∈ On ∣ 𝑥 ≼ 𝐴} ∈ V)
Theorem	hartogs 9504*	The class of ordinals dominated by a given set is an ordinal. A shorter (when taking into account lemmas hartogslem1 9502 and hartogslem2 9503) proof can be given using the axiom of choice, see ondomon 10523. As its label indicates, this result is used to justify the definition of the Hartogs function df-har 9517. (Contributed by Jeff Hankins, 22-Oct-2009.) (Revised by Mario Carneiro, 15-May-2015.)
⊢ (𝐴 ∈ 𝑉 → {𝑥 ∈ On ∣ 𝑥 ≼ 𝐴} ∈ On)
Theorem	wofib 9505	The only sets which are well-ordered forwards and backwards are finite sets. (Contributed by Mario Carneiro, 30-Jan-2014.) (Revised by Mario Carneiro, 23-May-2015.)
⊢ 𝐴 ∈ V    ⇒   ⊢ ((𝑅 Or 𝐴 ∧ 𝐴 ∈ Fin) ↔ (𝑅 We 𝐴 ∧ ◡𝑅 We 𝐴))
Theorem	wemaplem1 9506*	Value of the lexicographic order on a sequence space. (Contributed by Stefan O'Rear, 18-Jan-2015.)
⊢ 𝑇 = {⟨𝑥, 𝑦⟩ ∣ ∃𝑧 ∈ 𝐴 ((𝑥‘𝑧)𝑆(𝑦‘𝑧) ∧ ∀𝑤 ∈ 𝐴 (𝑤𝑅𝑧 → (𝑥‘𝑤) = (𝑦‘𝑤)))}    ⇒   ⊢ ((𝑃 ∈ 𝑉 ∧ 𝑄 ∈ 𝑊) → (𝑃𝑇𝑄 ↔ ∃𝑎 ∈ 𝐴 ((𝑃‘𝑎)𝑆(𝑄‘𝑎) ∧ ∀𝑏 ∈ 𝐴 (𝑏𝑅𝑎 → (𝑃‘𝑏) = (𝑄‘𝑏)))))
Theorem	wemaplem2 9507*	Lemma for wemapso 9511. Transitivity. (Contributed by Stefan O'Rear, 17-Jan-2015.) (Revised by AV, 21-Jul-2024.)
⊢ 𝑇 = {⟨𝑥, 𝑦⟩ ∣ ∃𝑧 ∈ 𝐴 ((𝑥‘𝑧)𝑆(𝑦‘𝑧) ∧ ∀𝑤 ∈ 𝐴 (𝑤𝑅𝑧 → (𝑥‘𝑤) = (𝑦‘𝑤)))}    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝑃 ∈ (𝐵 ↑m 𝐴))    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝑋 ∈ (𝐵 ↑m 𝐴))    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝑄 ∈ (𝐵 ↑m 𝐴))    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝑅 Or 𝐴)    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝑆 Po 𝐵)    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝑎 ∈ 𝐴)    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → (𝑃‘𝑎)𝑆(𝑋‘𝑎))    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → ∀𝑐 ∈ 𝐴 (𝑐𝑅𝑎 → (𝑃‘𝑐) = (𝑋‘𝑐)))    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝑏 ∈ 𝐴)    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → (𝑋‘𝑏)𝑆(𝑄‘𝑏))    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → ∀𝑐 ∈ 𝐴 (𝑐𝑅𝑏 → (𝑋‘𝑐) = (𝑄‘𝑐)))    ⇒   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝑃𝑇𝑄)
Theorem	wemaplem3 9508*	Lemma for wemapso 9511. Transitivity. (Contributed by Stefan O'Rear, 17-Jan-2015.) (Revised by AV, 21-Jul-2024.)
⊢ 𝑇 = {⟨𝑥, 𝑦⟩ ∣ ∃𝑧 ∈ 𝐴 ((𝑥‘𝑧)𝑆(𝑦‘𝑧) ∧ ∀𝑤 ∈ 𝐴 (𝑤𝑅𝑧 → (𝑥‘𝑤) = (𝑦‘𝑤)))}    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝑃 ∈ (𝐵 ↑m 𝐴))    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝑋 ∈ (𝐵 ↑m 𝐴))    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝑄 ∈ (𝐵 ↑m 𝐴))    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝑅 Or 𝐴)    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝑆 Po 𝐵)    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝑃𝑇𝑋)    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝑋𝑇𝑄)    ⇒   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝑃𝑇𝑄)
Theorem	wemappo 9509*	Construct lexicographic order on a function space based on a well-ordering of the indices and a total ordering of the values. Without totality on the values or least differing indices, the best we can prove here is a partial order. (Contributed by Stefan O'Rear, 18-Jan-2015.) (Revised by AV, 21-Jul-2024.)
⊢ 𝑇 = {⟨𝑥, 𝑦⟩ ∣ ∃𝑧 ∈ 𝐴 ((𝑥‘𝑧)𝑆(𝑦‘𝑧) ∧ ∀𝑤 ∈ 𝐴 (𝑤𝑅𝑧 → (𝑥‘𝑤) = (𝑦‘𝑤)))}    ⇒   ⊢ ((𝑅 Or 𝐴 ∧ 𝑆 Po 𝐵) → 𝑇 Po (𝐵 ↑m 𝐴))
Theorem	wemapsolem 9510*	Lemma for wemapso 9511. (Contributed by Stefan O'Rear, 18-Jan-2015.) (Revised by Mario Carneiro, 8-Feb-2015.) (Revised by AV, 21-Jul-2024.)
⊢ 𝑇 = {⟨𝑥, 𝑦⟩ ∣ ∃𝑧 ∈ 𝐴 ((𝑥‘𝑧)𝑆(𝑦‘𝑧) ∧ ∀𝑤 ∈ 𝐴 (𝑤𝑅𝑧 → (𝑥‘𝑤) = (𝑦‘𝑤)))}    &   ⊢ 𝑈 ⊆ (𝐵 ↑m 𝐴)    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝑅 Or 𝐴)    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝑆 Or 𝐵)    &   ⊢ ((𝜑 ∧ ((𝑎 ∈ 𝑈 ∧ 𝑏 ∈ 𝑈) ∧ 𝑎 ≠ 𝑏)) → ∃𝑐 ∈ dom (𝑎 ∖ 𝑏)∀𝑑 ∈ dom (𝑎 ∖ 𝑏) ¬ 𝑑𝑅𝑐)    ⇒   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝑇 Or 𝑈)
Theorem	wemapso 9511*	Construct lexicographic order on a function space based on a well-ordering of the indices and a total ordering of the values. (Contributed by Stefan O'Rear, 18-Jan-2015.) (Revised by Mario Carneiro, 8-Feb-2015.) (Revised by AV, 21-Jul-2024.)
⊢ 𝑇 = {⟨𝑥, 𝑦⟩ ∣ ∃𝑧 ∈ 𝐴 ((𝑥‘𝑧)𝑆(𝑦‘𝑧) ∧ ∀𝑤 ∈ 𝐴 (𝑤𝑅𝑧 → (𝑥‘𝑤) = (𝑦‘𝑤)))}    ⇒   ⊢ ((𝑅 We 𝐴 ∧ 𝑆 Or 𝐵) → 𝑇 Or (𝐵 ↑m 𝐴))
Theorem	wemapso2lem 9512*	Lemma for wemapso2 9513. (Contributed by Mario Carneiro, 8-Feb-2015.) (Revised by AV, 1-Jul-2019.)
⊢ 𝑇 = {⟨𝑥, 𝑦⟩ ∣ ∃𝑧 ∈ 𝐴 ((𝑥‘𝑧)𝑆(𝑦‘𝑧) ∧ ∀𝑤 ∈ 𝐴 (𝑤𝑅𝑧 → (𝑥‘𝑤) = (𝑦‘𝑤)))}    &   ⊢ 𝑈 = {𝑥 ∈ (𝐵 ↑m 𝐴) ∣ 𝑥 finSupp 𝑍}    ⇒   ⊢ (((𝐴 ∈ 𝑉 ∧ 𝑅 Or 𝐴 ∧ 𝑆 Or 𝐵) ∧ 𝑍 ∈ 𝑊) → 𝑇 Or 𝑈)
Theorem	wemapso2 9513*	An alternative to having a well-order on 𝑅 in wemapso 9511 is to restrict the function set to finitely-supported functions. (Contributed by Mario Carneiro, 8-Feb-2015.) (Revised by AV, 1-Jul-2019.)
⊢ 𝑇 = {⟨𝑥, 𝑦⟩ ∣ ∃𝑧 ∈ 𝐴 ((𝑥‘𝑧)𝑆(𝑦‘𝑧) ∧ ∀𝑤 ∈ 𝐴 (𝑤𝑅𝑧 → (𝑥‘𝑤) = (𝑦‘𝑤)))}    &   ⊢ 𝑈 = {𝑥 ∈ (𝐵 ↑m 𝐴) ∣ 𝑥 finSupp 𝑍}    ⇒   ⊢ ((𝐴 ∈ 𝑉 ∧ 𝑅 Or 𝐴 ∧ 𝑆 Or 𝐵) → 𝑇 Or 𝑈)
Theorem	card2on 9514*	The alternate definition of the cardinal of a set given in cardval2 9951 always gives a set, and indeed an ordinal. (Contributed by Mario Carneiro, 14-Jan-2013.)
⊢ {𝑥 ∈ On ∣ 𝑥 ≺ 𝐴} ∈ On
Theorem	card2inf 9515*	The alternate definition of the cardinal of a set given in cardval2 9951 has the curious property that for non-numerable sets (for which ndmfv 6896 yields ∅), it still evaluates to a nonempty set, and indeed it contains ω. (Contributed by Mario Carneiro, 15-Jan-2013.) (Revised by Mario Carneiro, 27-Apr-2015.)
⊢ 𝐴 ∈ V    ⇒   ⊢ (¬ ∃𝑦 ∈ On 𝑦 ≈ 𝐴 → ω ⊆ {𝑥 ∈ On ∣ 𝑥 ≺ 𝐴})
2.4.40  Hartogs function
Syntax	char 9516	Class symbol for the Hartogs function.
class har
Definition	df-har 9517*	Define the Hartogs function as mapping a set to the class of ordinals it dominates. That class is an ordinal by hartogs 9504, which is used in harf 9518. The Hartogs number of a set is the least ordinal not dominated by that set. Theorem harval2 9957 proves that the Hartogs function actually gives the Hartogs number for well-orderable sets. The Hartogs number of an ordinal is its cardinal successor. This is proved for finite ordinal in harsucnn 9958. Traditionally, the Hartogs number of a set 𝑋 is written ℵ(𝑋), and its cardinal successor, 𝑋 +; we use functional notation for this, and cannot use the aleph symbol because it is taken for the enumerating function of the infinite initial ordinals df-aleph 9900. Some authors define the Hartogs number of a set to be the least *infinite* ordinal which does not inject into it, thus causing the range to consist only of alephs. We use the simpler definition where the value can be any successor cardinal. (Contributed by Stefan O'Rear, 11-Feb-2015.)
⊢ har = (𝑥 ∈ V ↦ {𝑦 ∈ On ∣ 𝑦 ≼ 𝑥})
Theorem	harf 9518	Functionality of the Hartogs function. (Contributed by Stefan O'Rear, 11-Feb-2015.)
⊢ har:V⟶On
Theorem	harcl 9519	Values of the Hartogs function are ordinals (closure of the Hartogs function in the ordinals). (Contributed by Stefan O'Rear, 11-Feb-2015.)
⊢ (har‘𝑋) ∈ On
Theorem	harval 9520*	Function value of the Hartogs function. (Contributed by Stefan O'Rear, 11-Feb-2015.)
⊢ (𝑋 ∈ 𝑉 → (har‘𝑋) = {𝑦 ∈ On ∣ 𝑦 ≼ 𝑋})
Theorem	elharval 9521	The Hartogs number of a set contains exactly the ordinals that set dominates. Combined with harcl 9519, this implies that the Hartogs number of a set is greater than all ordinals that set dominates. (Contributed by Stefan O'Rear, 11-Feb-2015.) (Revised by Mario Carneiro, 15-May-2015.)
⊢ (𝑌 ∈ (har‘𝑋) ↔ (𝑌 ∈ On ∧ 𝑌 ≼ 𝑋))
Theorem	harndom 9522	The Hartogs number of a set does not inject into that set. (Contributed by Stefan O'Rear, 11-Feb-2015.) (Revised by Mario Carneiro, 15-May-2015.)
⊢ ¬ (har‘𝑋) ≼ 𝑋
Theorem	harword 9523	Weak ordering property of the Hartogs function. (Contributed by Stefan O'Rear, 14-Feb-2015.)
⊢ (𝑋 ≼ 𝑌 → (har‘𝑋) ⊆ (har‘𝑌))
2.4.41  Weak dominance
Syntax	cwdom 9524	Class symbol for the weak dominance relation.
class ≼*
Definition	df-wdom 9525*	A set is weakly dominated by a "larger" set if the "larger" set can be mapped onto the "smaller" set or the smaller set is empty, or equivalently, if the smaller set can be placed into bijection with some partition of the larger set. Dominance (df-dom 8923) implies weak dominance (over ZF). The principle asserting the converse is known as the partition principle and is independent of ZF. Theorem fodom 10483 proves that the axiom of choice implies the partition principle (over ZF). It is not known whether the partition principle is equivalent to the axiom of choice (over ZF), although it is know to imply dependent choice. (Contributed by Stefan O'Rear, 11-Feb-2015.)
⊢ ≼* = {⟨𝑥, 𝑦⟩ ∣ (𝑥 = ∅ ∨ ∃𝑧 𝑧:𝑦–onto→𝑥)}
Theorem	relwdom 9526	Weak dominance is a relation. (Contributed by Stefan O'Rear, 11-Feb-2015.)
⊢ Rel ≼*
Theorem	brwdom 9527*	Property of weak dominance (definitional form). (Contributed by Stefan O'Rear, 11-Feb-2015.)
⊢ (𝑌 ∈ 𝑉 → (𝑋 ≼* 𝑌 ↔ (𝑋 = ∅ ∨ ∃𝑧 𝑧:𝑌–onto→𝑋)))
Theorem	brwdomi 9528*	Property of weak dominance, forward direction only. (Contributed by Mario Carneiro, 5-May-2015.)
⊢ (𝑋 ≼* 𝑌 → (𝑋 = ∅ ∨ ∃𝑧 𝑧:𝑌–onto→𝑋))
Theorem	brwdomn0 9529*	Weak dominance over nonempty sets. (Contributed by Stefan O'Rear, 11-Feb-2015.) (Revised by Mario Carneiro, 5-May-2015.)
⊢ (𝑋 ≠ ∅ → (𝑋 ≼* 𝑌 ↔ ∃𝑧 𝑧:𝑌–onto→𝑋))
Theorem	0wdom 9530	Any set weakly dominates the empty set. (Contributed by Stefan O'Rear, 11-Feb-2015.)
⊢ (𝑋 ∈ 𝑉 → ∅ ≼* 𝑋)
Theorem	fowdom 9531	An onto function implies weak dominance. (Contributed by Stefan O'Rear, 11-Feb-2015.)
⊢ ((𝐹 ∈ 𝑉 ∧ 𝐹:𝑌–onto→𝑋) → 𝑋 ≼* 𝑌)
Theorem	wdomref 9532	Reflexivity of weak dominance. (Contributed by Stefan O'Rear, 11-Feb-2015.)
⊢ (𝑋 ∈ 𝑉 → 𝑋 ≼* 𝑋)
Theorem	brwdom2 9533*	Alternate characterization of the weak dominance predicate which does not require special treatment of the empty set. (Contributed by Stefan O'Rear, 11-Feb-2015.)
⊢ (𝑌 ∈ 𝑉 → (𝑋 ≼* 𝑌 ↔ ∃𝑦 ∈ 𝒫 𝑌∃𝑧 𝑧:𝑦–onto→𝑋))
Theorem	domwdom 9534	Weak dominance is implied by dominance in the usual sense. (Contributed by Stefan O'Rear, 11-Feb-2015.)
⊢ (𝑋 ≼ 𝑌 → 𝑋 ≼* 𝑌)
Theorem	wdomtr 9535	Transitivity of weak dominance. (Contributed by Stefan O'Rear, 11-Feb-2015.) (Revised by Mario Carneiro, 5-May-2015.)
⊢ ((𝑋 ≼* 𝑌 ∧ 𝑌 ≼* 𝑍) → 𝑋 ≼* 𝑍)
Theorem	wdomen1 9536	Equality-like theorem for equinumerosity and weak dominance. (Contributed by Mario Carneiro, 18-May-2015.)
⊢ (𝐴 ≈ 𝐵 → (𝐴 ≼* 𝐶 ↔ 𝐵 ≼* 𝐶))
Theorem	wdomen2 9537	Equality-like theorem for equinumerosity and weak dominance. (Contributed by Mario Carneiro, 18-May-2015.)
⊢ (𝐴 ≈ 𝐵 → (𝐶 ≼* 𝐴 ↔ 𝐶 ≼* 𝐵))
Theorem	wdompwdom 9538	Weak dominance strengthens to usual dominance on the power sets. (Contributed by Stefan O'Rear, 11-Feb-2015.) (Revised by Mario Carneiro, 5-May-2015.)
⊢ (𝑋 ≼* 𝑌 → 𝒫 𝑋 ≼ 𝒫 𝑌)
Theorem	canthwdom 9539	Cantor's Theorem, stated using weak dominance (this is actually a stronger statement than canth2 9100, equivalent to canth 7344). (Contributed by Mario Carneiro, 15-May-2015.)
⊢ ¬ 𝒫 𝐴 ≼* 𝐴
Theorem	wdom2d 9540*	Deduce weak dominance from an implicit onto function (stated in a way which avoids ax-rep 5237). (Contributed by Stefan O'Rear, 13-Feb-2015.)
⊢ (𝜑 → 𝐴 ∈ 𝑉)    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝐵 ∈ 𝑊)    &   ⊢ ((𝜑 ∧ 𝑥 ∈ 𝐴) → ∃𝑦 ∈ 𝐵 𝑥 = 𝑋)    ⇒   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝐴 ≼* 𝐵)
Theorem	wdomd 9541*	Deduce weak dominance from an implicit onto function. (Contributed by Stefan O'Rear, 13-Feb-2015.)
⊢ (𝜑 → 𝐵 ∈ 𝑊)    &   ⊢ ((𝜑 ∧ 𝑥 ∈ 𝐴) → ∃𝑦 ∈ 𝐵 𝑥 = 𝑋)    ⇒   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝐴 ≼* 𝐵)
Theorem	brwdom3 9542*	Condition for weak dominance with a condition reminiscent of wdomd 9541. (Contributed by Stefan O'Rear, 13-Feb-2015.) (Revised by Mario Carneiro, 25-Jun-2015.)
⊢ ((𝑋 ∈ 𝑉 ∧ 𝑌 ∈ 𝑊) → (𝑋 ≼* 𝑌 ↔ ∃𝑓∀𝑥 ∈ 𝑋 ∃𝑦 ∈ 𝑌 𝑥 = (𝑓‘𝑦)))
Theorem	brwdom3i 9543*	Weak dominance implies existence of a covering function. (Contributed by Stefan O'Rear, 13-Feb-2015.)
⊢ (𝑋 ≼* 𝑌 → ∃𝑓∀𝑥 ∈ 𝑋 ∃𝑦 ∈ 𝑌 𝑥 = (𝑓‘𝑦))
Theorem	unwdomg 9544	Weak dominance of a (disjoint) union. (Contributed by Stefan O'Rear, 13-Feb-2015.) (Revised by Mario Carneiro, 25-Jun-2015.)
⊢ ((𝐴 ≼* 𝐵 ∧ 𝐶 ≼* 𝐷 ∧ (𝐵 ∩ 𝐷) = ∅) → (𝐴 ∪ 𝐶) ≼* (𝐵 ∪ 𝐷))
Theorem	xpwdomg 9545	Weak dominance of a Cartesian product. (Contributed by Stefan O'Rear, 13-Feb-2015.) (Revised by Mario Carneiro, 25-Jun-2015.)
⊢ ((𝐴 ≼* 𝐵 ∧ 𝐶 ≼* 𝐷) → (𝐴 × 𝐶) ≼* (𝐵 × 𝐷))
Theorem	wdomima2g 9546	A set is weakly dominant over its image under any function. This version of wdomimag 9547 is stated so as to avoid ax-rep 5237. (Contributed by Mario Carneiro, 25-Jun-2015.)
⊢ ((Fun 𝐹 ∧ 𝐴 ∈ 𝑉 ∧ (𝐹 “ 𝐴) ∈ 𝑊) → (𝐹 “ 𝐴) ≼* 𝐴)
Theorem	wdomimag 9547	A set is weakly dominant over its image under any function. (Contributed by Stefan O'Rear, 14-Feb-2015.) (Revised by Mario Carneiro, 25-Jun-2015.)
⊢ ((Fun 𝐹 ∧ 𝐴 ∈ 𝑉) → (𝐹 “ 𝐴) ≼* 𝐴)
Theorem	unxpwdom2 9548	Lemma for unxpwdom 9549. (Contributed by Mario Carneiro, 15-May-2015.)
⊢ ((𝐴 × 𝐴) ≈ (𝐵 ∪ 𝐶) → (𝐴 ≼* 𝐵 ∨ 𝐴 ≼ 𝐶))
Theorem	unxpwdom 9549	If a Cartesian product is dominated by a union, then the base set is either weakly dominated by one factor of the union or dominated by the other. Extracted from Lemma 2.3 of [KanamoriPincus] p. 420. (Contributed by Mario Carneiro, 15-May-2015.)
⊢ ((𝐴 × 𝐴) ≼ (𝐵 ∪ 𝐶) → (𝐴 ≼* 𝐵 ∨ 𝐴 ≼ 𝐶))
Theorem	ixpiunwdom 9550*	Describe an onto function from the indexed cartesian product to the indexed union. Together with ixpssmapg 8904 this shows that ∪ 𝑥 ∈ 𝐴𝐵 and X𝑥 ∈ 𝐴𝐵 have closely linked cardinalities. (Contributed by Mario Carneiro, 27-Aug-2015.)
⊢ ((𝐴 ∈ 𝑉 ∧ ∪ 𝑥 ∈ 𝐴 𝐵 ∈ 𝑊 ∧ X𝑥 ∈ 𝐴 𝐵 ≠ ∅) → ∪ 𝑥 ∈ 𝐴 𝐵 ≼* (X𝑥 ∈ 𝐴 𝐵 × 𝐴))
Theorem	harwdom 9551	The value of the Hartogs function at a set 𝑋 is weakly dominated by 𝒫 (𝑋 × 𝑋). This follows from a more precise analysis of the bound used in hartogs 9504 to prove that (har‘𝑋) is an ordinal. (Contributed by Mario Carneiro, 15-May-2015.)
⊢ (𝑋 ∈ 𝑉 → (har‘𝑋) ≼* 𝒫 (𝑋 × 𝑋))
2.5  ZF Set Theory - add the Axiom of Regularity
2.5.1  Introduce the Axiom of Regularity
Axiom	ax-reg 9552*	Axiom of Regularity. An axiom of Zermelo-Fraenkel set theory. Also called the Axiom of Foundation. A rather non-intuitive axiom that denies more than it asserts, it states (in the form of zfreg 9555) that every nonempty set contains a set disjoint from itself. One consequence is that it denies the existence of a set containing itself (elirrv 9556). A stronger version that works for proper classes is proved as zfregs 9692. (Contributed by NM, 14-Aug-1993.)
⊢ (∃𝑦 𝑦 ∈ 𝑥 → ∃𝑦(𝑦 ∈ 𝑥 ∧ ∀𝑧(𝑧 ∈ 𝑦 → ¬ 𝑧 ∈ 𝑥)))
Theorem	axreg2 9553*	Axiom of Regularity expressed more compactly. (Contributed by NM, 14-Aug-2003.)
⊢ (𝑥 ∈ 𝑦 → ∃𝑥(𝑥 ∈ 𝑦 ∧ ∀𝑧(𝑧 ∈ 𝑥 → ¬ 𝑧 ∈ 𝑦)))
Theorem	zfregcl 9554*	The Axiom of Regularity with class variables. (Contributed by NM, 5-Aug-1994.) Replace sethood hypothesis with sethood antecedent. (Revised by BJ, 27-Apr-2021.)
⊢ (𝐴 ∈ 𝑉 → (∃𝑥 𝑥 ∈ 𝐴 → ∃𝑥 ∈ 𝐴 ∀𝑦 ∈ 𝑥 ¬ 𝑦 ∈ 𝐴))
Theorem	zfreg 9555*	The Axiom of Regularity using abbreviations. Axiom 6 of [TakeutiZaring] p. 21. This is called the "weak form". Axiom Reg of [BellMachover] p. 480. There is also a "strong form", not requiring that 𝐴 be a set, that can be proved with more difficulty (see zfregs 9692). (Contributed by NM, 26-Nov-1995.) Replace sethood hypothesis with sethood antecedent. (Revised by BJ, 27-Apr-2021.)
⊢ ((𝐴 ∈ 𝑉 ∧ 𝐴 ≠ ∅) → ∃𝑥 ∈ 𝐴 (𝑥 ∩ 𝐴) = ∅)
Theorem	elirrv 9556	The membership relation is irreflexive: no set is a member of itself. Theorem 105 of [Suppes] p. 54. (This is trivial to prove from zfregfr 9565 and efrirr 5621, but this proof is direct from the Axiom of Regularity.) (Contributed by NM, 19-Aug-1993.)
⊢ ¬ 𝑥 ∈ 𝑥
Theorem	elirr 9557	No class is a member of itself. Exercise 6 of [TakeutiZaring] p. 22. Theorem 1.9(i) of [Schloeder] p. 1. (Contributed by NM, 7-Aug-1994.) (Proof shortened by Andrew Salmon, 9-Jul-2011.)
⊢ ¬ 𝐴 ∈ 𝐴
Theorem	elneq 9558	A class is not equal to any of its elements. (Contributed by AV, 14-Jun-2022.)
⊢ (𝐴 ∈ 𝐵 → 𝐴 ≠ 𝐵)
Theorem	nelaneq 9559	A class is not an element of and equal to a class at the same time. Variant of elneq 9558 analogously to elnotel 9570 and en2lp 9566. (Proposed by BJ, 18-Jun-2022.) (Contributed by AV, 18-Jun-2022.)
⊢ ¬ (𝐴 ∈ 𝐵 ∧ 𝐴 = 𝐵)
Theorem	epinid0 9560	The membership relation and the identity relation are disjoint. Variable-free version of nelaneq 9559. (Proposed by BJ, 18-Jun-2022.) (Contributed by AV, 18-Jun-2022.)
⊢ ( E ∩ I ) = ∅
Theorem	sucprcreg 9561	A class is equal to its successor iff it is a proper class (assuming the Axiom of Regularity). (Contributed by NM, 9-Jul-2004.) (Proof shortened by BJ, 16-Apr-2019.)
⊢ (¬ 𝐴 ∈ V ↔ suc 𝐴 = 𝐴)
Theorem	ruv 9562	The Russell class is equal to the universe V. Exercise 5 of [TakeutiZaring] p. 22. (Contributed by Alan Sare, 4-Oct-2008.)
⊢ {𝑥 ∣ 𝑥 ∉ 𝑥} = V
Theorem	ruALT 9563	Alternate proof of ru 3754, simplified using (indirectly) the Axiom of Regularity ax-reg 9552. (Contributed by Alan Sare, 4-Oct-2008.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) (New usage is discouraged.)
⊢ {𝑥 ∣ 𝑥 ∉ 𝑥} ∉ V
Theorem	disjcsn 9564	A class is disjoint from its singleton. A consequence of regularity. (Contributed by Jonathan Ben-Naim, 3-Jun-2011.) (Revised by BJ, 4-Apr-2019.)
⊢ (𝐴 ∩ {𝐴}) = ∅
Theorem	zfregfr 9565	The membership relation is well-founded on any class. (Contributed by NM, 26-Nov-1995.)
⊢ E Fr 𝐴
Theorem	en2lp 9566	No class has 2-cycle membership loops. Theorem 7X(b) of [Enderton] p. 206. (Contributed by NM, 16-Oct-1996.) (Revised by Mario Carneiro, 25-Jun-2015.)
⊢ ¬ (𝐴 ∈ 𝐵 ∧ 𝐵 ∈ 𝐴)
Theorem	elnanel 9567	Two classes are not elements of each other simultaneously. This is just a rewriting of en2lp 9566 and serves as an example in the context of Godel codes, see elnanelprv 35423. (Contributed by AV, 5-Nov-2023.) (New usage is discouraged.)
⊢ (𝐴 ∈ 𝐵 ⊼ 𝐵 ∈ 𝐴)
Theorem	cnvepnep 9568	The membership (epsilon) relation and its converse are disjoint, i.e., E is an asymmetric relation. Variable-free version of en2lp 9566. (Proposed by BJ, 18-Jun-2022.) (Contributed by AV, 19-Jun-2022.)
⊢ (◡ E ∩ E ) = ∅
Theorem	epnsym 9569	The membership (epsilon) relation is not symmetric. (Contributed by AV, 18-Jun-2022.)
⊢ ◡ E ≠ E
Theorem	elnotel 9570	A class cannot be an element of one of its elements. (Contributed by AV, 14-Jun-2022.)
⊢ (𝐴 ∈ 𝐵 → ¬ 𝐵 ∈ 𝐴)
Theorem	elnel 9571	A class cannot be an element of one of its elements. (Contributed by AV, 14-Jun-2022.)
⊢ (𝐴 ∈ 𝐵 → 𝐵 ∉ 𝐴)
Theorem	en3lplem1 9572*	Lemma for en3lp 9574. (Contributed by Alan Sare, 28-Oct-2011.)
⊢ ((𝐴 ∈ 𝐵 ∧ 𝐵 ∈ 𝐶 ∧ 𝐶 ∈ 𝐴) → (𝑥 = 𝐴 → (𝑥 ∩ {𝐴, 𝐵, 𝐶}) ≠ ∅))
Theorem	en3lplem2 9573*	Lemma for en3lp 9574. (Contributed by Alan Sare, 28-Oct-2011.)
⊢ ((𝐴 ∈ 𝐵 ∧ 𝐵 ∈ 𝐶 ∧ 𝐶 ∈ 𝐴) → (𝑥 ∈ {𝐴, 𝐵, 𝐶} → (𝑥 ∩ {𝐴, 𝐵, 𝐶}) ≠ ∅))
Theorem	en3lp 9574	No class has 3-cycle membership loops. This proof was automatically generated from the virtual deduction proof en3lpVD 44841 using a translation program. (Contributed by Alan Sare, 24-Oct-2011.)
⊢ ¬ (𝐴 ∈ 𝐵 ∧ 𝐵 ∈ 𝐶 ∧ 𝐶 ∈ 𝐴)
Theorem	preleqg 9575	Equality of two unordered pairs when one member of each pair contains the other member. Closed form of preleq 9576. (Contributed by AV, 15-Jun-2022.)
⊢ (((𝐴 ∈ 𝐵 ∧ 𝐵 ∈ 𝑉 ∧ 𝐶 ∈ 𝐷) ∧ {𝐴, 𝐵} = {𝐶, 𝐷}) → (𝐴 = 𝐶 ∧ 𝐵 = 𝐷))
Theorem	preleq 9576	Equality of two unordered pairs when one member of each pair contains the other member. (Contributed by NM, 16-Oct-1996.) (Revised by AV, 15-Jun-2022.)
⊢ 𝐵 ∈ V    ⇒   ⊢ (((𝐴 ∈ 𝐵 ∧ 𝐶 ∈ 𝐷) ∧ {𝐴, 𝐵} = {𝐶, 𝐷}) → (𝐴 = 𝐶 ∧ 𝐵 = 𝐷))
Theorem	preleqALT 9577	Alternate proof of preleq 9576, not based on preleqg 9575: Equality of two unordered pairs when one member of each pair contains the other member. (Contributed by NM, 16-Oct-1996.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) (New usage is discouraged.)
⊢ 𝐵 ∈ V    &   ⊢ 𝐷 ∈ V    ⇒   ⊢ (((𝐴 ∈ 𝐵 ∧ 𝐶 ∈ 𝐷) ∧ {𝐴, 𝐵} = {𝐶, 𝐷}) → (𝐴 = 𝐶 ∧ 𝐵 = 𝐷))
Theorem	opthreg 9578	Theorem for alternate representation of ordered pairs, requiring the Axiom of Regularity ax-reg 9552 (via the preleq 9576 step). See df-op 4599 for a description of other ordered pair representations. Exercise 34 of [Enderton] p. 207. (Contributed by NM, 16-Oct-1996.) (Proof shortened by AV, 15-Jun-2022.)
⊢ 𝐴 ∈ V    &   ⊢ 𝐵 ∈ V    &   ⊢ 𝐶 ∈ V    &   ⊢ 𝐷 ∈ V    ⇒   ⊢ ({𝐴, {𝐴, 𝐵}} = {𝐶, {𝐶, 𝐷}} ↔ (𝐴 = 𝐶 ∧ 𝐵 = 𝐷))
Theorem	suc11reg 9579	The successor operation behaves like a one-to-one function (assuming the Axiom of Regularity). Exercise 35 of [Enderton] p. 208 and its converse. (Contributed by NM, 25-Oct-2003.)
⊢ (suc 𝐴 = suc 𝐵 ↔ 𝐴 = 𝐵)
Theorem	dford2 9580*	Assuming ax-reg 9552, an ordinal is a transitive class on which inclusion satisfies trichotomy. (Contributed by Scott Fenton, 27-Oct-2010.)
⊢ (Ord 𝐴 ↔ (Tr 𝐴 ∧ ∀𝑥 ∈ 𝐴 ∀𝑦 ∈ 𝐴 (𝑥 ∈ 𝑦 ∨ 𝑥 = 𝑦 ∨ 𝑦 ∈ 𝑥)))
2.5.2  Axiom of Infinity equivalents
Theorem	inf0 9581*	Existence of ω implies our axiom of infinity ax-inf 9598. The proof shows that the especially contrived class "ran (rec((𝑣 ∈ V ↦ suc 𝑣), 𝑥) ↾ ω) " exists, is a subset of its union, and contains a given set 𝑥 (and thus is nonempty). Thus, it provides an example demonstrating that a set 𝑦 exists with the necessary properties demanded by ax-inf 9598. (Contributed by NM, 15-Oct-1996.) Revised to closed form. (Revised by BJ, 20-May-2024.)
⊢ (ω ∈ 𝑉 → ∃𝑦(𝑥 ∈ 𝑦 ∧ ∀𝑧(𝑧 ∈ 𝑦 → ∃𝑤(𝑧 ∈ 𝑤 ∧ 𝑤 ∈ 𝑦))))
Theorem	inf1 9582	Variation of Axiom of Infinity (using zfinf 9599 as a hypothesis). Axiom of Infinity in [FreydScedrov] p. 283. (Contributed by NM, 14-Oct-1996.) (Revised by David Abernethy, 1-Oct-2013.)
⊢ ∃𝑥(𝑦 ∈ 𝑥 ∧ ∀𝑦(𝑦 ∈ 𝑥 → ∃𝑧(𝑦 ∈ 𝑧 ∧ 𝑧 ∈ 𝑥)))    ⇒   ⊢ ∃𝑥(𝑥 ≠ ∅ ∧ ∀𝑦(𝑦 ∈ 𝑥 → ∃𝑧(𝑦 ∈ 𝑧 ∧ 𝑧 ∈ 𝑥)))
Theorem	inf2 9583*	Variation of Axiom of Infinity. There exists a nonempty set that is a subset of its union (using zfinf 9599 as a hypothesis). Abbreviated version of the Axiom of Infinity in [FreydScedrov] p. 283. (Contributed by NM, 28-Oct-1996.)
⊢ ∃𝑥(𝑦 ∈ 𝑥 ∧ ∀𝑦(𝑦 ∈ 𝑥 → ∃𝑧(𝑦 ∈ 𝑧 ∧ 𝑧 ∈ 𝑥)))    ⇒   ⊢ ∃𝑥(𝑥 ≠ ∅ ∧ 𝑥 ⊆ ∪ 𝑥)
Theorem	inf3lema 9584*	Lemma for our Axiom of Infinity => standard Axiom of Infinity. See inf3 9595 for detailed description. (Contributed by NM, 28-Oct-1996.)
⊢ 𝐺 = (𝑦 ∈ V ↦ {𝑤 ∈ 𝑥 ∣ (𝑤 ∩ 𝑥) ⊆ 𝑦})    &   ⊢ 𝐹 = (rec(𝐺, ∅) ↾ ω)    &   ⊢ 𝐴 ∈ V    &   ⊢ 𝐵 ∈ V    ⇒   ⊢ (𝐴 ∈ (𝐺‘𝐵) ↔ (𝐴 ∈ 𝑥 ∧ (𝐴 ∩ 𝑥) ⊆ 𝐵))
Theorem	inf3lemb 9585*	Lemma for our Axiom of Infinity => standard Axiom of Infinity. See inf3 9595 for detailed description. (Contributed by NM, 28-Oct-1996.)
⊢ 𝐺 = (𝑦 ∈ V ↦ {𝑤 ∈ 𝑥 ∣ (𝑤 ∩ 𝑥) ⊆ 𝑦})    &   ⊢ 𝐹 = (rec(𝐺, ∅) ↾ ω)    &   ⊢ 𝐴 ∈ V    &   ⊢ 𝐵 ∈ V    ⇒   ⊢ (𝐹‘∅) = ∅
Theorem	inf3lemc 9586*	Lemma for our Axiom of Infinity => standard Axiom of Infinity. See inf3 9595 for detailed description. (Contributed by NM, 28-Oct-1996.)
⊢ 𝐺 = (𝑦 ∈ V ↦ {𝑤 ∈ 𝑥 ∣ (𝑤 ∩ 𝑥) ⊆ 𝑦})    &   ⊢ 𝐹 = (rec(𝐺, ∅) ↾ ω)    &   ⊢ 𝐴 ∈ V    &   ⊢ 𝐵 ∈ V    ⇒   ⊢ (𝐴 ∈ ω → (𝐹‘suc 𝐴) = (𝐺‘(𝐹‘𝐴)))
Theorem	inf3lemd 9587*	Lemma for our Axiom of Infinity => standard Axiom of Infinity. See inf3 9595 for detailed description. (Contributed by NM, 28-Oct-1996.)
⊢ 𝐺 = (𝑦 ∈ V ↦ {𝑤 ∈ 𝑥 ∣ (𝑤 ∩ 𝑥) ⊆ 𝑦})    &   ⊢ 𝐹 = (rec(𝐺, ∅) ↾ ω)    &   ⊢ 𝐴 ∈ V    &   ⊢ 𝐵 ∈ V    ⇒   ⊢ (𝐴 ∈ ω → (𝐹‘𝐴) ⊆ 𝑥)
Theorem	inf3lem1 9588*	Lemma for our Axiom of Infinity => standard Axiom of Infinity. See inf3 9595 for detailed description. (Contributed by NM, 28-Oct-1996.)
⊢ 𝐺 = (𝑦 ∈ V ↦ {𝑤 ∈ 𝑥 ∣ (𝑤 ∩ 𝑥) ⊆ 𝑦})    &   ⊢ 𝐹 = (rec(𝐺, ∅) ↾ ω)    &   ⊢ 𝐴 ∈ V    &   ⊢ 𝐵 ∈ V    ⇒   ⊢ (𝐴 ∈ ω → (𝐹‘𝐴) ⊆ (𝐹‘suc 𝐴))
Theorem	inf3lem2 9589*	Lemma for our Axiom of Infinity => standard Axiom of Infinity. See inf3 9595 for detailed description. (Contributed by NM, 28-Oct-1996.)
⊢ 𝐺 = (𝑦 ∈ V ↦ {𝑤 ∈ 𝑥 ∣ (𝑤 ∩ 𝑥) ⊆ 𝑦})    &   ⊢ 𝐹 = (rec(𝐺, ∅) ↾ ω)    &   ⊢ 𝐴 ∈ V    &   ⊢ 𝐵 ∈ V    ⇒   ⊢ ((𝑥 ≠ ∅ ∧ 𝑥 ⊆ ∪ 𝑥) → (𝐴 ∈ ω → (𝐹‘𝐴) ≠ 𝑥))
Theorem	inf3lem3 9590*	Lemma for our Axiom of Infinity => standard Axiom of Infinity. See inf3 9595 for detailed description. In the proof, we invoke the Axiom of Regularity in the form of zfreg 9555. (Contributed by NM, 29-Oct-1996.)
⊢ 𝐺 = (𝑦 ∈ V ↦ {𝑤 ∈ 𝑥 ∣ (𝑤 ∩ 𝑥) ⊆ 𝑦})    &   ⊢ 𝐹 = (rec(𝐺, ∅) ↾ ω)    &   ⊢ 𝐴 ∈ V    &   ⊢ 𝐵 ∈ V    ⇒   ⊢ ((𝑥 ≠ ∅ ∧ 𝑥 ⊆ ∪ 𝑥) → (𝐴 ∈ ω → (𝐹‘𝐴) ≠ (𝐹‘suc 𝐴)))
Theorem	inf3lem4 9591*	Lemma for our Axiom of Infinity => standard Axiom of Infinity. See inf3 9595 for detailed description. (Contributed by NM, 29-Oct-1996.)
⊢ 𝐺 = (𝑦 ∈ V ↦ {𝑤 ∈ 𝑥 ∣ (𝑤 ∩ 𝑥) ⊆ 𝑦})    &   ⊢ 𝐹 = (rec(𝐺, ∅) ↾ ω)    &   ⊢ 𝐴 ∈ V    &   ⊢ 𝐵 ∈ V    ⇒   ⊢ ((𝑥 ≠ ∅ ∧ 𝑥 ⊆ ∪ 𝑥) → (𝐴 ∈ ω → (𝐹‘𝐴) ⊊ (𝐹‘suc 𝐴)))
Theorem	inf3lem5 9592*	Lemma for our Axiom of Infinity => standard Axiom of Infinity. See inf3 9595 for detailed description. (Contributed by NM, 29-Oct-1996.)
⊢ 𝐺 = (𝑦 ∈ V ↦ {𝑤 ∈ 𝑥 ∣ (𝑤 ∩ 𝑥) ⊆ 𝑦})    &   ⊢ 𝐹 = (rec(𝐺, ∅) ↾ ω)    &   ⊢ 𝐴 ∈ V    &   ⊢ 𝐵 ∈ V    ⇒   ⊢ ((𝑥 ≠ ∅ ∧ 𝑥 ⊆ ∪ 𝑥) → ((𝐴 ∈ ω ∧ 𝐵 ∈ 𝐴) → (𝐹‘𝐵) ⊊ (𝐹‘𝐴)))
Theorem	inf3lem6 9593*	Lemma for our Axiom of Infinity => standard Axiom of Infinity. See inf3 9595 for detailed description. (Contributed by NM, 29-Oct-1996.)
⊢ 𝐺 = (𝑦 ∈ V ↦ {𝑤 ∈ 𝑥 ∣ (𝑤 ∩ 𝑥) ⊆ 𝑦})    &   ⊢ 𝐹 = (rec(𝐺, ∅) ↾ ω)    &   ⊢ 𝐴 ∈ V    &   ⊢ 𝐵 ∈ V    ⇒   ⊢ ((𝑥 ≠ ∅ ∧ 𝑥 ⊆ ∪ 𝑥) → 𝐹:ω–1-1→𝒫 𝑥)
Theorem	inf3lem7 9594*	Lemma for our Axiom of Infinity => standard Axiom of Infinity. See inf3 9595 for detailed description. In the proof, we invoke the Axiom of Replacement in the form of f1dmex 7938. (Contributed by NM, 29-Oct-1996.) (Proof shortened by Mario Carneiro, 19-Jan-2013.)
⊢ 𝐺 = (𝑦 ∈ V ↦ {𝑤 ∈ 𝑥 ∣ (𝑤 ∩ 𝑥) ⊆ 𝑦})    &   ⊢ 𝐹 = (rec(𝐺, ∅) ↾ ω)    &   ⊢ 𝐴 ∈ V    &   ⊢ 𝐵 ∈ V    ⇒   ⊢ ((𝑥 ≠ ∅ ∧ 𝑥 ⊆ ∪ 𝑥) → ω ∈ V)
Theorem	inf3 9595	Our Axiom of Infinity ax-inf 9598 implies the standard Axiom of Infinity. The hypothesis is a variant of our Axiom of Infinity provided by inf2 9583, and the conclusion is the version of the Axiom of Infinity shown as Axiom 7 in [TakeutiZaring] p. 43. (Other standard versions are proved later as axinf2 9600 and zfinf2 9602.) The main proof is provided by inf3lema 9584 through inf3lem7 9594, and this final piece eliminates the auxiliary hypothesis of inf3lem7 9594. This proof is due to Ian Sutherland, Richard Heck, and Norman Megill and was posted on Usenet as shown below. Although the result is not new, the authors were unable to find a published proof. (As posted to sci.logic on 30-Oct-1996, with annotations added.) Theorem: The statement "There exists a nonempty set that is a subset of its union" implies the Axiom of Infinity. Proof: Let X be a nonempty set which is a subset of its union; the latter property is equivalent to saying that for any y in X, there exists a z in X such that y is in z. Define by finite recursion a function F:omega-->(power X) such that F_0 = 0 (See inf3lemb 9585.) F_n+1 = {y<X | y^X subset F_n} (See inf3lemc 9586.) Note: ^ means intersect, < means \in ("element of"). (Finite recursion as typically done requires the existence of omega; to avoid this we can just use transfinite recursion restricted to omega. F is a class-term that is not necessarily a set at this point.) Lemma 1. F_n subset F_n+1. (See inf3lem1 9588.) Proof: By induction: F_0 subset F_1. If y < F_n+1, then y^X subset F_n, so if F_n subset F_n+1, then y^X subset F_n+1, so y < F_n+2. Lemma 2. F_n =/= X. (See inf3lem2 9589.) Proof: By induction: F_0 =/= X because X is not empty. Assume F_n =/= X. Then there is a y in X that is not in F_n. By definition of X, there is a z in X that contains y. Suppose F_n+1 = X. Then z is in F_n+1, and z^X contains y, so z^X is not a subset of F_n, contrary to the definition of F_n+1. Lemma 3. F_n =/= F_n+1. (See inf3lem3 9590.) Proof: Using the identity y^X subset F_n <-> y^(X-F_n) = 0, we have F_n+1 = {y<X | y^(X-F_n) = 0}. Let q = {y<X-F_n | y^(X-F_n) = 0}. Then q subset F_n+1. Since X-F_n is not empty by Lemma 2 and q is the set of \in-minimal elements of X-F_n, by Foundation q is not empty, so q and therefore F_n+1 have an element not in F_n. Lemma 4. F_n proper_subset F_n+1. (See inf3lem4 9591.) Proof: Lemmas 1 and 3. Lemma 5. F_m proper_subset F_n, m < n. (See inf3lem5 9592.) Proof: Fix m and use induction on n > m. Basis: F_m proper_subset F_m+1 by Lemma 4. Induction: Assume F_m proper_subset F_n. Then since F_n proper_subset F_n+1, F_m proper_subset F_n+1 by transitivity of proper subset. By Lemma 5, F_m =/= F_n for m =/= n, so F is 1-1. (See inf3lem6 9593.) Thus, the inverse of F is a function with range omega and domain a subset of power X, so omega exists by Replacement. (See inf3lem7 9594.) Q.E.D. (Contributed by NM, 29-Oct-1996.)
⊢ ∃𝑥(𝑥 ≠ ∅ ∧ 𝑥 ⊆ ∪ 𝑥)    ⇒   ⊢ ω ∈ V
Theorem	infeq5i 9596	Half of infeq5 9597. (Contributed by Mario Carneiro, 16-Nov-2014.)
⊢ (ω ∈ V → ∃𝑥 𝑥 ⊊ ∪ 𝑥)
Theorem	infeq5 9597	The statement "there exists a set that is a proper subset of its union" is equivalent to the Axiom of Infinity (shown on the right-hand side in the form of omex 9603.) The left-hand side provides us with a very short way to express the Axiom of Infinity using only elementary symbols. This proof of equivalence does not depend on the Axiom of Infinity. (Contributed by NM, 23-Mar-2004.) (Revised by Mario Carneiro, 16-Nov-2014.)
⊢ (∃𝑥 𝑥 ⊊ ∪ 𝑥 ↔ ω ∈ V)
2.6  ZF Set Theory - add the Axiom of Infinity
2.6.1  Introduce the Axiom of Infinity
Axiom	ax-inf 9598*	Axiom of Infinity. An axiom of Zermelo-Fraenkel set theory. This axiom is the gateway to "Cantor's paradise" (an expression coined by Hilbert). It asserts that given a starting set 𝑥, an infinite set 𝑦 built from it exists. Although our version is apparently not given in the literature, it is similar to, but slightly shorter than, the Axiom of Infinity in [FreydScedrov] p. 283 (see inf1 9582 and inf2 9583). More standard versions, which essentially state that there exists a set containing all the natural numbers, are shown as zfinf2 9602 and omex 9603 and are based on the (nontrivial) proof of inf3 9595. This version has the advantage that when expanded to primitives, it has fewer symbols than the standard version ax-inf2 9601. Theorem inf0 9581 shows the reverse derivation of our axiom from a standard one. Theorem inf5 9605 shows a very short way to state this axiom. The standard version of Infinity ax-inf2 9601 requires this axiom along with Regularity ax-reg 9552 for its derivation (as Theorem axinf2 9600 below). In order to more easily identify the normal uses of Regularity, we will usually reference ax-inf2 9601 instead of this one. The derivation of this axiom from ax-inf2 9601 is shown by Theorem axinf 9604. Proofs should normally use the standard version ax-inf2 9601 instead of this axiom. (New usage is discouraged.) (Contributed by NM, 16-Aug-1993.)
⊢ ∃𝑦(𝑥 ∈ 𝑦 ∧ ∀𝑧(𝑧 ∈ 𝑦 → ∃𝑤(𝑧 ∈ 𝑤 ∧ 𝑤 ∈ 𝑦)))
Theorem	zfinf 9599*	Axiom of Infinity expressed with the fewest number of different variables. (New usage is discouraged.) (Contributed by NM, 14-Aug-2003.)
⊢ ∃𝑥(𝑦 ∈ 𝑥 ∧ ∀𝑦(𝑦 ∈ 𝑥 → ∃𝑧(𝑦 ∈ 𝑧 ∧ 𝑧 ∈ 𝑥)))
Theorem	axinf2 9600*	A standard version of Axiom of Infinity, expanded to primitives, derived from our version of Infinity ax-inf 9598 and Regularity ax-reg 9552. This theorem should not be referenced in any proof. Instead, use ax-inf2 9601 below so that the ordinary uses of Regularity can be more easily identified. (New usage is discouraged.) (Contributed by NM, 3-Nov-1996.)
⊢ ∃𝑥(∃𝑦(𝑦 ∈ 𝑥 ∧ ∀𝑧 ¬ 𝑧 ∈ 𝑦) ∧ ∀𝑦(𝑦 ∈ 𝑥 → ∃𝑧(𝑧 ∈ 𝑥 ∧ ∀𝑤(𝑤 ∈ 𝑧 ↔ (𝑤 ∈ 𝑦 ∨ 𝑤 = 𝑦)))))