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	wemapso 9501*	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 9502*	Lemma for wemapso2 9503. (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 9503*	An alternative to having a well-order on 𝑅 in wemapso 9501 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 9504*	The alternate definition of the cardinal of a set given in cardval2 9965 always gives a set, and indeed an ordinal. (Contributed by Mario Carneiro, 14-Jan-2013.)
⊢ {𝑥 ∈ On ∣ 𝑥 ≺ 𝐴} ∈ On
Theorem	card2inf 9505*	The alternate definition of the cardinal of a set given in cardval2 9965 has the curious property that for non-numerable sets (for which ndmfv 6903 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 9506	Class symbol for the Hartogs function.
class har
Definition	df-har 9507*	Define the Hartogs function as mapping a set to the class of ordinals it dominates. That class is an ordinal by hartogs 9494, which is used in harf 9508. The Hartogs number of a set is the least ordinal not dominated by that set. Theorem harval2 9971 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 9972. 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 9914. 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 9508	Functionality of the Hartogs function. (Contributed by Stefan O'Rear, 11-Feb-2015.)
⊢ har:V⟶On
Theorem	harcl 9509	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 9510*	Function value of the Hartogs function. (Contributed by Stefan O'Rear, 11-Feb-2015.)
⊢ (𝑋 ∈ 𝑉 → (har‘𝑋) = {𝑦 ∈ On ∣ 𝑦 ≼ 𝑋})
Theorem	elharval 9511	The Hartogs number of a set contains exactly the ordinals that set dominates. Combined with harcl 9509, 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 9512	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 9513	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 9514	Class symbol for the weak dominance relation.
class ≼*
Definition	df-wdom 9515*	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 8933) implies weak dominance (over ZF). The principle asserting the converse is known as the partition principle and is independent of ZF. Theorem fodom 10495 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 9516	Weak dominance is a relation. (Contributed by Stefan O'Rear, 11-Feb-2015.)
⊢ Rel ≼*
Theorem	brwdom 9517*	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 9518*	Property of weak dominance, forward direction only. (Contributed by Mario Carneiro, 5-May-2015.)
⊢ (𝑋 ≼* 𝑌 → (𝑋 = ∅ ∨ ∃𝑧 𝑧:𝑌–onto→𝑋))
Theorem	brwdomn0 9519*	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 9520	Any set weakly dominates the empty set. (Contributed by Stefan O'Rear, 11-Feb-2015.)
⊢ (𝑋 ∈ 𝑉 → ∅ ≼* 𝑋)
Theorem	fowdom 9521	An onto function implies weak dominance. (Contributed by Stefan O'Rear, 11-Feb-2015.)
⊢ ((𝐹 ∈ 𝑉 ∧ 𝐹:𝑌–onto→𝑋) → 𝑋 ≼* 𝑌)
Theorem	wdomref 9522	Reflexivity of weak dominance. (Contributed by Stefan O'Rear, 11-Feb-2015.)
⊢ (𝑋 ∈ 𝑉 → 𝑋 ≼* 𝑋)
Theorem	brwdom2 9523*	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 9524	Weak dominance is implied by dominance in the usual sense. (Contributed by Stefan O'Rear, 11-Feb-2015.)
⊢ (𝑋 ≼ 𝑌 → 𝑋 ≼* 𝑌)
Theorem	wdomtr 9525	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 9526	Equality-like theorem for equinumerosity and weak dominance. (Contributed by Mario Carneiro, 18-May-2015.)
⊢ (𝐴 ≈ 𝐵 → (𝐴 ≼* 𝐶 ↔ 𝐵 ≼* 𝐶))
Theorem	wdomen2 9527	Equality-like theorem for equinumerosity and weak dominance. (Contributed by Mario Carneiro, 18-May-2015.)
⊢ (𝐴 ≈ 𝐵 → (𝐶 ≼* 𝐴 ↔ 𝐶 ≼* 𝐵))
Theorem	wdompwdom 9528	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 9529	Cantor's Theorem, stated using weak dominance (this is actually a stronger statement than canth2 9106, equivalent to canth 7354). (Contributed by Mario Carneiro, 15-May-2015.)
⊢ ¬ 𝒫 𝐴 ≼* 𝐴
Theorem	wdom2d 9530*	Deduce weak dominance from an implicit onto function (stated in a way which avoids ax-rep 5232). (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 9531*	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 9532*	Condition for weak dominance with a condition reminiscent of wdomd 9531. (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 9533*	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 9534	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 9535	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 9536	A set is weakly dominant over its image under any function. This version of wdomimag 9537 is stated so as to avoid ax-rep 5232. (Contributed by Mario Carneiro, 25-Jun-2015.)
⊢ ((Fun 𝐹 ∧ 𝐴 ∈ 𝑉 ∧ (𝐹 “ 𝐴) ∈ 𝑊) → (𝐹 “ 𝐴) ≼* 𝐴)
Theorem	wdomimag 9537	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 9538	Lemma for unxpwdom 9539. (Contributed by Mario Carneiro, 15-May-2015.)
⊢ ((𝐴 × 𝐴) ≈ (𝐵 ∪ 𝐶) → (𝐴 ≼* 𝐵 ∨ 𝐴 ≼ 𝐶))
Theorem	unxpwdom 9539	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 9540*	Describe an onto function from the indexed cartesian product to the indexed union. Together with ixpssmapg 8914 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 9541	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 9494 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 9542*	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 9546) that every nonempty set contains a set disjoint from itself. One consequence is that it denies the existence of a set containing itself (elirrv 9547). A stronger version that works for proper classes is proved as zfregs 9689. (Contributed by NM, 14-Aug-1993.)
⊢ (∃𝑦 𝑦 ∈ 𝑥 → ∃𝑦(𝑦 ∈ 𝑥 ∧ ∀𝑧(𝑧 ∈ 𝑦 → ¬ 𝑧 ∈ 𝑥)))
Theorem	axreg2 9543*	Axiom of Regularity expressed more compactly. (Contributed by NM, 14-Aug-2003.)
⊢ (𝑥 ∈ 𝑦 → ∃𝑥(𝑥 ∈ 𝑦 ∧ ∀𝑧(𝑧 ∈ 𝑥 → ¬ 𝑧 ∈ 𝑦)))
Theorem	zfregcl 9544*	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.) Avoid ax-10 2178 and ax-12 2215. (Revised by TM, 31-Dec-2025.)
⊢ (𝐴 ∈ 𝑉 → (∃𝑥 𝑥 ∈ 𝐴 → ∃𝑥 ∈ 𝐴 ∀𝑦 ∈ 𝑥 ¬ 𝑦 ∈ 𝐴))
Theorem	zfregclOLD 9545*	Obsolete version of zfregcl 9544 as of 31-Dec-2025. (Contributed by NM, 5-Aug-1994.) Replace sethood hypothesis with sethood antecedent. (Revised by BJ, 27-Apr-2021.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) (New usage is discouraged.)
⊢ (𝐴 ∈ 𝑉 → (∃𝑥 𝑥 ∈ 𝐴 → ∃𝑥 ∈ 𝐴 ∀𝑦 ∈ 𝑥 ¬ 𝑦 ∈ 𝐴))
Theorem	zfreg 9546*	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 9689). (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 9547	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 9561 and efrirr 5632 (see elirrvALT 9562), but this proof is direct from ax-reg 9542. (Contributed by NM, 19-Aug-1993.) Reduce axiom dependencies and make use of ax-reg 9542 directly. (Revised by BTernaryTau, 27-Dec-2025.) Avoid ax-pr 5395. (Revised by BTernaryTau, 21-May-2026.) (Proof shortened by Matthew House, 23-May-2026.)
⊢ ¬ 𝑥 ∈ 𝑥
Theorem	elirrvOLD 9548	Obsolete version of elirrv 9547 as of 21-May-2026. (Contributed by NM, 19-Aug-1993.) Reduce axiom dependencies and make use of ax-reg 9542 directly. (Revised by BTernaryTau, 27-Dec-2025.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) (New usage is discouraged.)
⊢ ¬ 𝑥 ∈ 𝑥
Theorem	elirrvOLDOLD 9549	Obsolete version of elirrv 9547 as of 27-Dec-2025. (Contributed by NM, 19-Aug-1993.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) (New usage is discouraged.)
⊢ ¬ 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 9567 and en2lp 9563. (Proposed by BJ, 18-Jun-2022.) (Contributed by AV, 18-Jun-2022.) (Proof shortened by TM, 31-Dec-2025.) (Proof shortened by SN, 22-Apr-2026.)
⊢ ¬ (𝐴 ∈ 𝐵 ∧ 𝐴 = 𝐵)
Theorem	nelaneqOLD 9553	Obsolete version of nelaneq 9552 as of 22-Apr-2026. (Proposed by BJ, 18-Jun-2022.) (Contributed by AV, 18-Jun-2022.) (Proof shortened by TM, 31-Dec-2025.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) (New usage is discouraged.)
⊢ ¬ (𝐴 ∈ 𝐵 ∧ 𝐴 = 𝐵)
Theorem	nelaneqOLDOLD 9554	Obsolete version of nelaneq 9552 as of 31-Dec-2025. (Proposed by BJ, 18-Jun-2022.) (Contributed by AV, 18-Jun-2022.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) (New usage is discouraged.)
⊢ ¬ (𝐴 ∈ 𝐵 ∧ 𝐴 = 𝐵)
Theorem	epinid0 9555	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 9556	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.) (Proof shortened by SN, 22-Apr-2026.)
⊢ (¬ 𝐴 ∈ V ↔ suc 𝐴 = 𝐴)
Theorem	sucprcregOLD 9557	Obsolete version of sucprcreg 9556 as of 31-Dec-2025. (Contributed by NM, 9-Jul-2004.) (Proof shortened by BJ, 16-Apr-2019.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) (New usage is discouraged.)
⊢ (¬ 𝐴 ∈ V ↔ suc 𝐴 = 𝐴)
Theorem	ruv 9558	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 9559	Alternate proof of ru 3746, simplified using (indirectly) the Axiom of Regularity ax-reg 9542. (Contributed by Alan Sare, 4-Oct-2008.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) (New usage is discouraged.)
⊢ {𝑥 ∣ 𝑥 ∉ 𝑥} ∉ V
Theorem	disjcsn 9560	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 9561	The membership relation is well-founded on any class. (Contributed by NM, 26-Nov-1995.)
⊢ E Fr 𝐴
Theorem	elirrvALT 9562	Alternate proof of elirrv 9547, shorter but using more axioms. (Contributed by BTernaryTau, 28-Dec-2025.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) (New usage is discouraged.)
⊢ ¬ 𝑥 ∈ 𝑥
Theorem	en2lp 9563	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 9564	Two classes are not elements of each other simultaneously. This is just a rewriting of en2lp 9563 and serves as an example in the context of Godel codes, see elnanelprv 35792. (Contributed by AV, 5-Nov-2023.) (New usage is discouraged.)
⊢ (𝐴 ∈ 𝐵 ⊼ 𝐵 ∈ 𝐴)
Theorem	cnvepnep 9565	The membership (epsilon) relation and its converse are disjoint, i.e., E is an asymmetric relation. Variable-free version of en2lp 9563. (Proposed by BJ, 18-Jun-2022.) (Contributed by AV, 19-Jun-2022.)
⊢ (◡ E ∩ E ) = ∅
Theorem	epnsym 9566	The membership (epsilon) relation is not symmetric. (Contributed by AV, 18-Jun-2022.)
⊢ ◡ E ≠ E
Theorem	elnotel 9567	A class cannot be an element of one of its elements. (Contributed by AV, 14-Jun-2022.)
⊢ (𝐴 ∈ 𝐵 → ¬ 𝐵 ∈ 𝐴)
Theorem	elnel 9568	A class cannot be an element of one of its elements. (Contributed by AV, 14-Jun-2022.)
⊢ (𝐴 ∈ 𝐵 → 𝐵 ∉ 𝐴)
Theorem	en3lplem1 9569*	Lemma for en3lp 9571. (Contributed by Alan Sare, 28-Oct-2011.)
⊢ ((𝐴 ∈ 𝐵 ∧ 𝐵 ∈ 𝐶 ∧ 𝐶 ∈ 𝐴) → (𝑥 = 𝐴 → (𝑥 ∩ {𝐴, 𝐵, 𝐶}) ≠ ∅))
Theorem	en3lplem2 9570*	Lemma for en3lp 9571. (Contributed by Alan Sare, 28-Oct-2011.)
⊢ ((𝐴 ∈ 𝐵 ∧ 𝐵 ∈ 𝐶 ∧ 𝐶 ∈ 𝐴) → (𝑥 ∈ {𝐴, 𝐵, 𝐶} → (𝑥 ∩ {𝐴, 𝐵, 𝐶}) ≠ ∅))
Theorem	en3lp 9571	No class has 3-cycle membership loops. This proof was automatically generated from the virtual deduction proof en3lpVD 45418 using a translation program. (Contributed by Alan Sare, 24-Oct-2011.)
⊢ ¬ (𝐴 ∈ 𝐵 ∧ 𝐵 ∈ 𝐶 ∧ 𝐶 ∈ 𝐴)
Theorem	preleqg 9572	Equality of two unordered pairs when one member of each pair contains the other member. Closed form of preleq 9573. (Contributed by AV, 15-Jun-2022.)
⊢ (((𝐴 ∈ 𝐵 ∧ 𝐵 ∈ 𝑉 ∧ 𝐶 ∈ 𝐷) ∧ {𝐴, 𝐵} = {𝐶, 𝐷}) → (𝐴 = 𝐶 ∧ 𝐵 = 𝐷))
Theorem	preleq 9573	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 9574	Alternate proof of preleq 9573, not based on preleqg 9572: 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 9575	Theorem for alternate representation of ordered pairs, requiring the Axiom of Regularity ax-reg 9542 (via the preleq 9573 step). See df-op 4592 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 9576	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 9577*	Assuming ax-reg 9542, 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 9578*	Existence of ω implies our axiom of infinity ax-inf 9595. 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 9595. (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 9579	Variation of Axiom of Infinity (using zfinf 9596 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 9580*	Variation of Axiom of Infinity. There exists a nonempty set that is a subset of its union (using zfinf 9596 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 9581*	Lemma for our Axiom of Infinity => standard Axiom of Infinity. See inf3 9592 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 9582*	Lemma for our Axiom of Infinity => standard Axiom of Infinity. See inf3 9592 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 9583*	Lemma for our Axiom of Infinity => standard Axiom of Infinity. See inf3 9592 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 9584*	Lemma for our Axiom of Infinity => standard Axiom of Infinity. See inf3 9592 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 9585*	Lemma for our Axiom of Infinity => standard Axiom of Infinity. See inf3 9592 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 9586*	Lemma for our Axiom of Infinity => standard Axiom of Infinity. See inf3 9592 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 9587*	Lemma for our Axiom of Infinity => standard Axiom of Infinity. See inf3 9592 for detailed description. In the proof, we invoke the Axiom of Regularity in the form of zfreg 9546. (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 9588*	Lemma for our Axiom of Infinity => standard Axiom of Infinity. See inf3 9592 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 9589*	Lemma for our Axiom of Infinity => standard Axiom of Infinity. See inf3 9592 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 9590*	Lemma for our Axiom of Infinity => standard Axiom of Infinity. See inf3 9592 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 9591*	Lemma for our Axiom of Infinity => standard Axiom of Infinity. See inf3 9592 for detailed description. In the proof, we invoke the Axiom of Replacement in the form of f1dmex 7942. (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 9592	Our Axiom of Infinity ax-inf 9595 implies the standard Axiom of Infinity. The hypothesis is a variant of our Axiom of Infinity provided by inf2 9580, 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 9597 and zfinf2 9599.) The main proof is provided by inf3lema 9581 through inf3lem7 9591, and this final piece eliminates the auxiliary hypothesis of inf3lem7 9591. 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 9582.) F_n+1 = {y<X | y^X subset F_n} (See inf3lemc 9583.) 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 9585.) 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 9586.) 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 9587.) 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 9588.) Proof: Lemmas 1 and 3. Lemma 5. F_m proper_subset F_n, m < n. (See inf3lem5 9589.) 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 9590.) 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 9591.) Q.E.D. (Contributed by NM, 29-Oct-1996.)
⊢ ∃𝑥(𝑥 ≠ ∅ ∧ 𝑥 ⊆ ∪ 𝑥)    ⇒   ⊢ ω ∈ V
Theorem	infeq5i 9593	Half of infeq5 9594. (Contributed by Mario Carneiro, 16-Nov-2014.)
⊢ (ω ∈ V → ∃𝑥 𝑥 ⊊ ∪ 𝑥)
Theorem	infeq5 9594	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 9600.) 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 9595*	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 9579 and inf2 9580). More standard versions, which essentially state that there exists a set containing all the natural numbers, are shown as zfinf2 9599 and omex 9600 and are based on the (nontrivial) proof of inf3 9592. This version has the advantage that when expanded to primitives, it has fewer symbols than the standard version ax-inf2 9598. Theorem inf0 9578 shows the reverse derivation of our axiom from a standard one. Theorem inf5 9602 shows a very short way to state this axiom. The standard version of Infinity ax-inf2 9598 requires this axiom along with Regularity ax-reg 9542 for its derivation (as Theorem axinf2 9597 below). In order to more easily identify the normal uses of Regularity, we will usually reference ax-inf2 9598 instead of this one. The derivation of this axiom from ax-inf2 9598 is shown by Theorem axinf 9601. Proofs should normally use the standard version ax-inf2 9598 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 9596*	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 9597*	A standard version of Axiom of Infinity, expanded to primitives, derived from our version of Infinity ax-inf 9595 and Regularity ax-reg 9542. This theorem should not be referenced in any proof. Instead, use ax-inf2 9598 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 9598*	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 9599 shows it converted to abbreviations. This axiom was derived as Theorem axinf2 9597 above, using our version of Infinity ax-inf 9595 and the Axiom of Regularity ax-reg 9542. We will reference ax-inf2 9598 instead of axinf2 9597 so that the ordinary uses of Regularity can be more easily identified. The reverse derivation of ax-inf 9595 from ax-inf2 9598 is shown by Theorem axinf 9601. (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 9599*	A standard version of the Axiom of Infinity, using definitions to abbreviate. Axiom Inf of [BellMachover] p. 472. (See ax-inf2 9598 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 9600	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 9578. 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 7862 and Fin = V (the universe of all sets) by fineqv 9215. 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 7873 through peano5 7878 (which many textbooks prove more easily assuming Infinity). (Contributed by NM, 6-Aug-1994.)
⊢ ω ∈ V