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	wemaplem3 9501*	Lemma for wemapso 9504. 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 9502*	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 9503*	Lemma for wemapso 9504. (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 9504*	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 9505*	Lemma for wemapso2 9506. (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 9506*	An alternative to having a well-order on 𝑅 in wemapso 9504 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 9507*	The alternate definition of the cardinal of a set given in cardval2 9944 always gives a set, and indeed an ordinal. (Contributed by Mario Carneiro, 14-Jan-2013.)
⊢ {𝑥 ∈ On ∣ 𝑥 ≺ 𝐴} ∈ On
Theorem	card2inf 9508*	The alternate definition of the cardinal of a set given in cardval2 9944 has the curious property that for non-numerable sets (for which ndmfv 6893 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 9509	Class symbol for the Hartogs function.
class har
Definition	df-har 9510*	Define the Hartogs function as mapping a set to the class of ordinals it dominates. That class is an ordinal by hartogs 9497, which is used in harf 9511. The Hartogs number of a set is the least ordinal not dominated by that set. Theorem harval2 9950 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 9951. 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 9893. 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 9511	Functionality of the Hartogs function. (Contributed by Stefan O'Rear, 11-Feb-2015.)
⊢ har:V⟶On
Theorem	harcl 9512	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 9513*	Function value of the Hartogs function. (Contributed by Stefan O'Rear, 11-Feb-2015.)
⊢ (𝑋 ∈ 𝑉 → (har‘𝑋) = {𝑦 ∈ On ∣ 𝑦 ≼ 𝑋})
Theorem	elharval 9514	The Hartogs number of a set contains exactly the ordinals that set dominates. Combined with harcl 9512, 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 9515	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 9516	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 9517	Class symbol for the weak dominance relation.
class ≼*
Definition	df-wdom 9518*	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 8920) implies weak dominance (over ZF). The principle asserting the converse is known as the partition principle and is independent of ZF. Theorem fodom 10476 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 9519	Weak dominance is a relation. (Contributed by Stefan O'Rear, 11-Feb-2015.)
⊢ Rel ≼*
Theorem	brwdom 9520*	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 9521*	Property of weak dominance, forward direction only. (Contributed by Mario Carneiro, 5-May-2015.)
⊢ (𝑋 ≼* 𝑌 → (𝑋 = ∅ ∨ ∃𝑧 𝑧:𝑌–onto→𝑋))
Theorem	brwdomn0 9522*	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 9523	Any set weakly dominates the empty set. (Contributed by Stefan O'Rear, 11-Feb-2015.)
⊢ (𝑋 ∈ 𝑉 → ∅ ≼* 𝑋)
Theorem	fowdom 9524	An onto function implies weak dominance. (Contributed by Stefan O'Rear, 11-Feb-2015.)
⊢ ((𝐹 ∈ 𝑉 ∧ 𝐹:𝑌–onto→𝑋) → 𝑋 ≼* 𝑌)
Theorem	wdomref 9525	Reflexivity of weak dominance. (Contributed by Stefan O'Rear, 11-Feb-2015.)
⊢ (𝑋 ∈ 𝑉 → 𝑋 ≼* 𝑋)
Theorem	brwdom2 9526*	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 9527	Weak dominance is implied by dominance in the usual sense. (Contributed by Stefan O'Rear, 11-Feb-2015.)
⊢ (𝑋 ≼ 𝑌 → 𝑋 ≼* 𝑌)
Theorem	wdomtr 9528	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 9529	Equality-like theorem for equinumerosity and weak dominance. (Contributed by Mario Carneiro, 18-May-2015.)
⊢ (𝐴 ≈ 𝐵 → (𝐴 ≼* 𝐶 ↔ 𝐵 ≼* 𝐶))
Theorem	wdomen2 9530	Equality-like theorem for equinumerosity and weak dominance. (Contributed by Mario Carneiro, 18-May-2015.)
⊢ (𝐴 ≈ 𝐵 → (𝐶 ≼* 𝐴 ↔ 𝐶 ≼* 𝐵))
Theorem	wdompwdom 9531	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 9532	Cantor's Theorem, stated using weak dominance (this is actually a stronger statement than canth2 9094, equivalent to canth 7341). (Contributed by Mario Carneiro, 15-May-2015.)
⊢ ¬ 𝒫 𝐴 ≼* 𝐴
Theorem	wdom2d 9533*	Deduce weak dominance from an implicit onto function (stated in a way which avoids ax-rep 5234). (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 9534*	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 9535*	Condition for weak dominance with a condition reminiscent of wdomd 9534. (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 9536*	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 9537	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 9538	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 9539	A set is weakly dominant over its image under any function. This version of wdomimag 9540 is stated so as to avoid ax-rep 5234. (Contributed by Mario Carneiro, 25-Jun-2015.)
⊢ ((Fun 𝐹 ∧ 𝐴 ∈ 𝑉 ∧ (𝐹 “ 𝐴) ∈ 𝑊) → (𝐹 “ 𝐴) ≼* 𝐴)
Theorem	wdomimag 9540	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 9541	Lemma for unxpwdom 9542. (Contributed by Mario Carneiro, 15-May-2015.)
⊢ ((𝐴 × 𝐴) ≈ (𝐵 ∪ 𝐶) → (𝐴 ≼* 𝐵 ∨ 𝐴 ≼ 𝐶))
Theorem	unxpwdom 9542	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 9543*	Describe an onto function from the indexed cartesian product to the indexed union. Together with ixpssmapg 8901 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 9544	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 9497 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 9545*	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 9548) that every nonempty set contains a set disjoint from itself. One consequence is that it denies the existence of a set containing itself (elirrv 9549). A stronger version that works for proper classes is proved as zfregs 9685. (Contributed by NM, 14-Aug-1993.)
⊢ (∃𝑦 𝑦 ∈ 𝑥 → ∃𝑦(𝑦 ∈ 𝑥 ∧ ∀𝑧(𝑧 ∈ 𝑦 → ¬ 𝑧 ∈ 𝑥)))
Theorem	axreg2 9546*	Axiom of Regularity expressed more compactly. (Contributed by NM, 14-Aug-2003.)
⊢ (𝑥 ∈ 𝑦 → ∃𝑥(𝑥 ∈ 𝑦 ∧ ∀𝑧(𝑧 ∈ 𝑥 → ¬ 𝑧 ∈ 𝑦)))
Theorem	zfregcl 9547*	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 9548*	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 9685). (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 9549	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 9558 and efrirr 5618, but this proof is direct from the Axiom of Regularity.) (Contributed by NM, 19-Aug-1993.)
⊢ ¬ 𝑥 ∈ 𝑥
Theorem	elirr 9550	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 9551	A class is not equal to any of its elements. (Contributed by AV, 14-Jun-2022.)
⊢ (𝐴 ∈ 𝐵 → 𝐴 ≠ 𝐵)
Theorem	nelaneq 9552	A class is not an element of and equal to a class at the same time. Variant of elneq 9551 analogously to elnotel 9563 and en2lp 9559. (Proposed by BJ, 18-Jun-2022.) (Contributed by AV, 18-Jun-2022.)
⊢ ¬ (𝐴 ∈ 𝐵 ∧ 𝐴 = 𝐵)
Theorem	epinid0 9553	The membership relation and the identity relation are disjoint. Variable-free version of nelaneq 9552. (Proposed by BJ, 18-Jun-2022.) (Contributed by AV, 18-Jun-2022.)
⊢ ( E ∩ I ) = ∅
Theorem	sucprcreg 9554	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 9555	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 9556	Alternate proof of ru 3751, simplified using (indirectly) the Axiom of Regularity ax-reg 9545. (Contributed by Alan Sare, 4-Oct-2008.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) (New usage is discouraged.)
⊢ {𝑥 ∣ 𝑥 ∉ 𝑥} ∉ V
Theorem	disjcsn 9557	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 9558	The membership relation is well-founded on any class. (Contributed by NM, 26-Nov-1995.)
⊢ E Fr 𝐴
Theorem	en2lp 9559	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 9560	Two classes are not elements of each other simultaneously. This is just a rewriting of en2lp 9559 and serves as an example in the context of Godel codes, see elnanelprv 35416. (Contributed by AV, 5-Nov-2023.) (New usage is discouraged.)
⊢ (𝐴 ∈ 𝐵 ⊼ 𝐵 ∈ 𝐴)
Theorem	cnvepnep 9561	The membership (epsilon) relation and its converse are disjoint, i.e., E is an asymmetric relation. Variable-free version of en2lp 9559. (Proposed by BJ, 18-Jun-2022.) (Contributed by AV, 19-Jun-2022.)
⊢ (◡ E ∩ E ) = ∅
Theorem	epnsym 9562	The membership (epsilon) relation is not symmetric. (Contributed by AV, 18-Jun-2022.)
⊢ ◡ E ≠ E
Theorem	elnotel 9563	A class cannot be an element of one of its elements. (Contributed by AV, 14-Jun-2022.)
⊢ (𝐴 ∈ 𝐵 → ¬ 𝐵 ∈ 𝐴)
Theorem	elnel 9564	A class cannot be an element of one of its elements. (Contributed by AV, 14-Jun-2022.)
⊢ (𝐴 ∈ 𝐵 → 𝐵 ∉ 𝐴)
Theorem	en3lplem1 9565*	Lemma for en3lp 9567. (Contributed by Alan Sare, 28-Oct-2011.)
⊢ ((𝐴 ∈ 𝐵 ∧ 𝐵 ∈ 𝐶 ∧ 𝐶 ∈ 𝐴) → (𝑥 = 𝐴 → (𝑥 ∩ {𝐴, 𝐵, 𝐶}) ≠ ∅))
Theorem	en3lplem2 9566*	Lemma for en3lp 9567. (Contributed by Alan Sare, 28-Oct-2011.)
⊢ ((𝐴 ∈ 𝐵 ∧ 𝐵 ∈ 𝐶 ∧ 𝐶 ∈ 𝐴) → (𝑥 ∈ {𝐴, 𝐵, 𝐶} → (𝑥 ∩ {𝐴, 𝐵, 𝐶}) ≠ ∅))
Theorem	en3lp 9567	No class has 3-cycle membership loops. This proof was automatically generated from the virtual deduction proof en3lpVD 44834 using a translation program. (Contributed by Alan Sare, 24-Oct-2011.)
⊢ ¬ (𝐴 ∈ 𝐵 ∧ 𝐵 ∈ 𝐶 ∧ 𝐶 ∈ 𝐴)
Theorem	preleqg 9568	Equality of two unordered pairs when one member of each pair contains the other member. Closed form of preleq 9569. (Contributed by AV, 15-Jun-2022.)
⊢ (((𝐴 ∈ 𝐵 ∧ 𝐵 ∈ 𝑉 ∧ 𝐶 ∈ 𝐷) ∧ {𝐴, 𝐵} = {𝐶, 𝐷}) → (𝐴 = 𝐶 ∧ 𝐵 = 𝐷))
Theorem	preleq 9569	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 9570	Alternate proof of preleq 9569, not based on preleqg 9568: 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 9571	Theorem for alternate representation of ordered pairs, requiring the Axiom of Regularity ax-reg 9545 (via the preleq 9569 step). See df-op 4596 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 9572	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 9573*	Assuming ax-reg 9545, 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 9574*	Existence of ω implies our axiom of infinity ax-inf 9591. 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 9591. (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 9575	Variation of Axiom of Infinity (using zfinf 9592 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 9576*	Variation of Axiom of Infinity. There exists a nonempty set that is a subset of its union (using zfinf 9592 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 9577*	Lemma for our Axiom of Infinity => standard Axiom of Infinity. See inf3 9588 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 9578*	Lemma for our Axiom of Infinity => standard Axiom of Infinity. See inf3 9588 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 9579*	Lemma for our Axiom of Infinity => standard Axiom of Infinity. See inf3 9588 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 9580*	Lemma for our Axiom of Infinity => standard Axiom of Infinity. See inf3 9588 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 9581*	Lemma for our Axiom of Infinity => standard Axiom of Infinity. See inf3 9588 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 9582*	Lemma for our Axiom of Infinity => standard Axiom of Infinity. See inf3 9588 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 9583*	Lemma for our Axiom of Infinity => standard Axiom of Infinity. See inf3 9588 for detailed description. In the proof, we invoke the Axiom of Regularity in the form of zfreg 9548. (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 9584*	Lemma for our Axiom of Infinity => standard Axiom of Infinity. See inf3 9588 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 9585*	Lemma for our Axiom of Infinity => standard Axiom of Infinity. See inf3 9588 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 9586*	Lemma for our Axiom of Infinity => standard Axiom of Infinity. See inf3 9588 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 9587*	Lemma for our Axiom of Infinity => standard Axiom of Infinity. See inf3 9588 for detailed description. In the proof, we invoke the Axiom of Replacement in the form of f1dmex 7935. (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 9588	Our Axiom of Infinity ax-inf 9591 implies the standard Axiom of Infinity. The hypothesis is a variant of our Axiom of Infinity provided by inf2 9576, 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 9593 and zfinf2 9595.) The main proof is provided by inf3lema 9577 through inf3lem7 9587, and this final piece eliminates the auxiliary hypothesis of inf3lem7 9587. 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 9578.) F_n+1 = {y<X | y^X subset F_n} (See inf3lemc 9579.) 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 9581.) 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 9582.) 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 9583.) 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 9584.) Proof: Lemmas 1 and 3. Lemma 5. F_m proper_subset F_n, m < n. (See inf3lem5 9585.) 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 9586.) 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 9587.) Q.E.D. (Contributed by NM, 29-Oct-1996.)
⊢ ∃𝑥(𝑥 ≠ ∅ ∧ 𝑥 ⊆ ∪ 𝑥)    ⇒   ⊢ ω ∈ V
Theorem	infeq5i 9589	Half of infeq5 9590. (Contributed by Mario Carneiro, 16-Nov-2014.)
⊢ (ω ∈ V → ∃𝑥 𝑥 ⊊ ∪ 𝑥)
Theorem	infeq5 9590	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 9596.) 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 9591*	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 9575 and inf2 9576). More standard versions, which essentially state that there exists a set containing all the natural numbers, are shown as zfinf2 9595 and omex 9596 and are based on the (nontrivial) proof of inf3 9588. This version has the advantage that when expanded to primitives, it has fewer symbols than the standard version ax-inf2 9594. Theorem inf0 9574 shows the reverse derivation of our axiom from a standard one. Theorem inf5 9598 shows a very short way to state this axiom. The standard version of Infinity ax-inf2 9594 requires this axiom along with Regularity ax-reg 9545 for its derivation (as Theorem axinf2 9593 below). In order to more easily identify the normal uses of Regularity, we will usually reference ax-inf2 9594 instead of this one. The derivation of this axiom from ax-inf2 9594 is shown by Theorem axinf 9597. Proofs should normally use the standard version ax-inf2 9594 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 9592*	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 9593*	A standard version of Axiom of Infinity, expanded to primitives, derived from our version of Infinity ax-inf 9591 and Regularity ax-reg 9545. This theorem should not be referenced in any proof. Instead, use ax-inf2 9594 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)))))
Axiom	ax-inf2 9594*	A standard version of Axiom of Infinity of ZF set theory. In English, it says: there exists a set that contains the empty set and the successors of all of its members. Theorem zfinf2 9595 shows it converted to abbreviations. This axiom was derived as Theorem axinf2 9593 above, using our version of Infinity ax-inf 9591 and the Axiom of Regularity ax-reg 9545. We will reference ax-inf2 9594 instead of axinf2 9593 so that the ordinary uses of Regularity can be more easily identified. The reverse derivation of ax-inf 9591 from ax-inf2 9594 is shown by Theorem axinf 9597. (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)))))
Theorem	zfinf2 9595*	A standard version of the Axiom of Infinity, using definitions to abbreviate. Axiom Inf of [BellMachover] p. 472. (See ax-inf2 9594 for the unabbreviated version.) (Contributed by NM, 30-Aug-1993.)
⊢ ∃𝑥(∅ ∈ 𝑥 ∧ ∀𝑦 ∈ 𝑥 suc 𝑦 ∈ 𝑥)
2.6.2  Existence of omega (the set of natural numbers)
Theorem	omex 9596	The existence of omega (the class of natural numbers). Axiom 7 of [TakeutiZaring] p. 43. Remark 1.21 of [Schloeder] p. 3. This theorem is proved assuming the Axiom of Infinity and in fact is equivalent to it, as shown by the reverse derivation inf0 9574. A finitist (someone who doesn't believe in infinity) could, without contradiction, replace the Axiom of Infinity by its denial ¬ ω ∈ V; this would lead to ω = On by omon 7854 and Fin = V (the universe of all sets) by fineqv 9210. The finitist could still develop natural number, integer, and rational number arithmetic but would be denied the real numbers (as well as much of the rest of mathematics). In deference to the finitist, much of our development is done, when possible, without invoking the Axiom of Infinity; an example is Peano's axioms peano1 7865 through peano5 7869 (which many textbooks prove more easily assuming Infinity). (Contributed by NM, 6-Aug-1994.)
⊢ ω ∈ V
Theorem	axinf 9597*	The first version of the Axiom of Infinity ax-inf 9591 proved from the second version ax-inf2 9594. Note that we didn't use ax-reg 9545, unlike the other direction axinf2 9593. (Contributed by NM, 24-Apr-2009.)
⊢ ∃𝑦(𝑥 ∈ 𝑦 ∧ ∀𝑧(𝑧 ∈ 𝑦 → ∃𝑤(𝑧 ∈ 𝑤 ∧ 𝑤 ∈ 𝑦)))
Theorem	inf5 9598	The statement "there exists a set that is a proper subset of its union" is equivalent to the Axiom of Infinity (see Theorem infeq5 9590). This provides us with a very compact way to express the Axiom of Infinity using only elementary symbols. (Contributed by NM, 3-Jun-2005.)
⊢ ∃𝑥 𝑥 ⊊ ∪ 𝑥
Theorem	omelon 9599	Omega is an ordinal number. Theorem 1.22 of [Schloeder] p. 3. (Contributed by NM, 10-May-1998.) (Revised by Mario Carneiro, 30-Jan-2013.)
⊢ ω ∈ On
Theorem	dfom3 9600*	The class of natural numbers ω can be defined as the intersection of all inductive sets (which is the smallest inductive set, since inductive sets are closed under intersection), which is valid provided we assume the Axiom of Infinity. Definition 6.3 of [Eisenberg] p. 82. Definition 1.20 of [Schloeder] p. 3. (Contributed by NM, 6-Aug-1994.)
⊢ ω = ∩ {𝑥 ∣ (∅ ∈ 𝑥 ∧ ∀𝑦 ∈ 𝑥 suc 𝑦 ∈ 𝑥)}