P. 97 of Theorem List - Metamath Proof Explorer

Theorem List for Metamath Proof Explorer - 9601-9700   *Has distinct variable group(s)

Type	Label	Description
Statement
Theorem	elharval 9601	The Hartogs number of a set contains exactly the ordinals that set dominates. Combined with harcl 9599, 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 9602	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 9603	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 9604	Class symbol for the weak dominance relation.
class ≼*
Definition	df-wdom 9605*	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 8987) implies weak dominance (over ZF). The principle asserting the converse is known as the partition principle and is independent of ZF. Theorem fodom 10563 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 9606	Weak dominance is a relation. (Contributed by Stefan O'Rear, 11-Feb-2015.)
⊢ Rel ≼*
Theorem	brwdom 9607*	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 9608*	Property of weak dominance, forward direction only. (Contributed by Mario Carneiro, 5-May-2015.)
⊢ (𝑋 ≼* 𝑌 → (𝑋 = ∅ ∨ ∃𝑧 𝑧:𝑌–onto→𝑋))
Theorem	brwdomn0 9609*	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 9610	Any set weakly dominates the empty set. (Contributed by Stefan O'Rear, 11-Feb-2015.)
⊢ (𝑋 ∈ 𝑉 → ∅ ≼* 𝑋)
Theorem	fowdom 9611	An onto function implies weak dominance. (Contributed by Stefan O'Rear, 11-Feb-2015.)
⊢ ((𝐹 ∈ 𝑉 ∧ 𝐹:𝑌–onto→𝑋) → 𝑋 ≼* 𝑌)
Theorem	wdomref 9612	Reflexivity of weak dominance. (Contributed by Stefan O'Rear, 11-Feb-2015.)
⊢ (𝑋 ∈ 𝑉 → 𝑋 ≼* 𝑋)
Theorem	brwdom2 9613*	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 9614	Weak dominance is implied by dominance in the usual sense. (Contributed by Stefan O'Rear, 11-Feb-2015.)
⊢ (𝑋 ≼ 𝑌 → 𝑋 ≼* 𝑌)
Theorem	wdomtr 9615	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 9616	Equality-like theorem for equinumerosity and weak dominance. (Contributed by Mario Carneiro, 18-May-2015.)
⊢ (𝐴 ≈ 𝐵 → (𝐴 ≼* 𝐶 ↔ 𝐵 ≼* 𝐶))
Theorem	wdomen2 9617	Equality-like theorem for equinumerosity and weak dominance. (Contributed by Mario Carneiro, 18-May-2015.)
⊢ (𝐴 ≈ 𝐵 → (𝐶 ≼* 𝐴 ↔ 𝐶 ≼* 𝐵))
Theorem	wdompwdom 9618	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 9619	Cantor's Theorem, stated using weak dominance (this is actually a stronger statement than canth2 9170, equivalent to canth 7385). (Contributed by Mario Carneiro, 15-May-2015.)
⊢ ¬ 𝒫 𝐴 ≼* 𝐴
Theorem	wdom2d 9620*	Deduce weak dominance from an implicit onto function (stated in a way which avoids ax-rep 5279). (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 9621*	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 9622*	Condition for weak dominance with a condition reminiscent of wdomd 9621. (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 9623*	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 9624	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 9625	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 9626	A set is weakly dominant over its image under any function. This version of wdomimag 9627 is stated so as to avoid ax-rep 5279. (Contributed by Mario Carneiro, 25-Jun-2015.)
⊢ ((Fun 𝐹 ∧ 𝐴 ∈ 𝑉 ∧ (𝐹 “ 𝐴) ∈ 𝑊) → (𝐹 “ 𝐴) ≼* 𝐴)
Theorem	wdomimag 9627	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 9628	Lemma for unxpwdom 9629. (Contributed by Mario Carneiro, 15-May-2015.)
⊢ ((𝐴 × 𝐴) ≈ (𝐵 ∪ 𝐶) → (𝐴 ≼* 𝐵 ∨ 𝐴 ≼ 𝐶))
Theorem	unxpwdom 9629	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 9630*	Describe an onto function from the indexed cartesian product to the indexed union. Together with ixpssmapg 8968 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 9631	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 9584 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 9632*	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 9635) that every nonempty set contains a set disjoint from itself. One consequence is that it denies the existence of a set containing itself (elirrv 9636). A stronger version that works for proper classes is proved as zfregs 9772. (Contributed by NM, 14-Aug-1993.)
⊢ (∃𝑦 𝑦 ∈ 𝑥 → ∃𝑦(𝑦 ∈ 𝑥 ∧ ∀𝑧(𝑧 ∈ 𝑦 → ¬ 𝑧 ∈ 𝑥)))
Theorem	axreg2 9633*	Axiom of Regularity expressed more compactly. (Contributed by NM, 14-Aug-2003.)
⊢ (𝑥 ∈ 𝑦 → ∃𝑥(𝑥 ∈ 𝑦 ∧ ∀𝑧(𝑧 ∈ 𝑥 → ¬ 𝑧 ∈ 𝑦)))
Theorem	zfregcl 9634*	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 9635*	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 9772). (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 9636	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 9645 and efrirr 5665, but this proof is direct from the Axiom of Regularity.) (Contributed by NM, 19-Aug-1993.)
⊢ ¬ 𝑥 ∈ 𝑥
Theorem	elirr 9637	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 9638	A class is not equal to any of its elements. (Contributed by AV, 14-Jun-2022.)
⊢ (𝐴 ∈ 𝐵 → 𝐴 ≠ 𝐵)
Theorem	nelaneq 9639	A class is not an element of and equal to a class at the same time. Variant of elneq 9638 analogously to elnotel 9650 and en2lp 9646. (Proposed by BJ, 18-Jun-2022.) (Contributed by AV, 18-Jun-2022.)
⊢ ¬ (𝐴 ∈ 𝐵 ∧ 𝐴 = 𝐵)
Theorem	epinid0 9640	The membership relation and the identity relation are disjoint. Variable-free version of nelaneq 9639. (Proposed by BJ, 18-Jun-2022.) (Contributed by AV, 18-Jun-2022.)
⊢ ( E ∩ I ) = ∅
Theorem	sucprcreg 9641	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 9642	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 9643	Alternate proof of ru 3786, simplified using (indirectly) the Axiom of Regularity ax-reg 9632. (Contributed by Alan Sare, 4-Oct-2008.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) (New usage is discouraged.)
⊢ {𝑥 ∣ 𝑥 ∉ 𝑥} ∉ V
Theorem	disjcsn 9644	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 9645	The membership relation is well-founded on any class. (Contributed by NM, 26-Nov-1995.)
⊢ E Fr 𝐴
Theorem	en2lp 9646	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 9647	Two classes are not elements of each other simultaneously. This is just a rewriting of en2lp 9646 and serves as an example in the context of Godel codes, see elnanelprv 35434. (Contributed by AV, 5-Nov-2023.) (New usage is discouraged.)
⊢ (𝐴 ∈ 𝐵 ⊼ 𝐵 ∈ 𝐴)
Theorem	cnvepnep 9648	The membership (epsilon) relation and its converse are disjoint, i.e., E is an asymmetric relation. Variable-free version of en2lp 9646. (Proposed by BJ, 18-Jun-2022.) (Contributed by AV, 19-Jun-2022.)
⊢ (◡ E ∩ E ) = ∅
Theorem	epnsym 9649	The membership (epsilon) relation is not symmetric. (Contributed by AV, 18-Jun-2022.)
⊢ ◡ E ≠ E
Theorem	elnotel 9650	A class cannot be an element of one of its elements. (Contributed by AV, 14-Jun-2022.)
⊢ (𝐴 ∈ 𝐵 → ¬ 𝐵 ∈ 𝐴)
Theorem	elnel 9651	A class cannot be an element of one of its elements. (Contributed by AV, 14-Jun-2022.)
⊢ (𝐴 ∈ 𝐵 → 𝐵 ∉ 𝐴)
Theorem	en3lplem1 9652*	Lemma for en3lp 9654. (Contributed by Alan Sare, 28-Oct-2011.)
⊢ ((𝐴 ∈ 𝐵 ∧ 𝐵 ∈ 𝐶 ∧ 𝐶 ∈ 𝐴) → (𝑥 = 𝐴 → (𝑥 ∩ {𝐴, 𝐵, 𝐶}) ≠ ∅))
Theorem	en3lplem2 9653*	Lemma for en3lp 9654. (Contributed by Alan Sare, 28-Oct-2011.)
⊢ ((𝐴 ∈ 𝐵 ∧ 𝐵 ∈ 𝐶 ∧ 𝐶 ∈ 𝐴) → (𝑥 ∈ {𝐴, 𝐵, 𝐶} → (𝑥 ∩ {𝐴, 𝐵, 𝐶}) ≠ ∅))
Theorem	en3lp 9654	No class has 3-cycle membership loops. This proof was automatically generated from the virtual deduction proof en3lpVD 44865 using a translation program. (Contributed by Alan Sare, 24-Oct-2011.)
⊢ ¬ (𝐴 ∈ 𝐵 ∧ 𝐵 ∈ 𝐶 ∧ 𝐶 ∈ 𝐴)
Theorem	preleqg 9655	Equality of two unordered pairs when one member of each pair contains the other member. Closed form of preleq 9656. (Contributed by AV, 15-Jun-2022.)
⊢ (((𝐴 ∈ 𝐵 ∧ 𝐵 ∈ 𝑉 ∧ 𝐶 ∈ 𝐷) ∧ {𝐴, 𝐵} = {𝐶, 𝐷}) → (𝐴 = 𝐶 ∧ 𝐵 = 𝐷))
Theorem	preleq 9656	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 9657	Alternate proof of preleq 9656, not based on preleqg 9655: 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 9658	Theorem for alternate representation of ordered pairs, requiring the Axiom of Regularity ax-reg 9632 (via the preleq 9656 step). See df-op 4633 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 9659	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 9660*	Assuming ax-reg 9632, 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 9661*	Existence of ω implies our axiom of infinity ax-inf 9678. 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 9678. (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 9662	Variation of Axiom of Infinity (using zfinf 9679 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 9663*	Variation of Axiom of Infinity. There exists a nonempty set that is a subset of its union (using zfinf 9679 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 9664*	Lemma for our Axiom of Infinity => standard Axiom of Infinity. See inf3 9675 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 9665*	Lemma for our Axiom of Infinity => standard Axiom of Infinity. See inf3 9675 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 9666*	Lemma for our Axiom of Infinity => standard Axiom of Infinity. See inf3 9675 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 9667*	Lemma for our Axiom of Infinity => standard Axiom of Infinity. See inf3 9675 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 9668*	Lemma for our Axiom of Infinity => standard Axiom of Infinity. See inf3 9675 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 9669*	Lemma for our Axiom of Infinity => standard Axiom of Infinity. See inf3 9675 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 9670*	Lemma for our Axiom of Infinity => standard Axiom of Infinity. See inf3 9675 for detailed description. In the proof, we invoke the Axiom of Regularity in the form of zfreg 9635. (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 9671*	Lemma for our Axiom of Infinity => standard Axiom of Infinity. See inf3 9675 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 9672*	Lemma for our Axiom of Infinity => standard Axiom of Infinity. See inf3 9675 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 9673*	Lemma for our Axiom of Infinity => standard Axiom of Infinity. See inf3 9675 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 9674*	Lemma for our Axiom of Infinity => standard Axiom of Infinity. See inf3 9675 for detailed description. In the proof, we invoke the Axiom of Replacement in the form of f1dmex 7981. (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 9675	Our Axiom of Infinity ax-inf 9678 implies the standard Axiom of Infinity. The hypothesis is a variant of our Axiom of Infinity provided by inf2 9663, 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 9680 and zfinf2 9682.) The main proof is provided by inf3lema 9664 through inf3lem7 9674, and this final piece eliminates the auxiliary hypothesis of inf3lem7 9674. 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 9665.) F_n+1 = {y<X | y^X subset F_n} (See inf3lemc 9666.) 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 9668.) 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 9669.) 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 9670.) 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 9671.) Proof: Lemmas 1 and 3. Lemma 5. F_m proper_subset F_n, m < n. (See inf3lem5 9672.) 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 9673.) 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 9674.) Q.E.D. (Contributed by NM, 29-Oct-1996.)
⊢ ∃𝑥(𝑥 ≠ ∅ ∧ 𝑥 ⊆ ∪ 𝑥)    ⇒   ⊢ ω ∈ V
Theorem	infeq5i 9676	Half of infeq5 9677. (Contributed by Mario Carneiro, 16-Nov-2014.)
⊢ (ω ∈ V → ∃𝑥 𝑥 ⊊ ∪ 𝑥)
Theorem	infeq5 9677	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 9683.) 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 9678*	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 9662 and inf2 9663). More standard versions, which essentially state that there exists a set containing all the natural numbers, are shown as zfinf2 9682 and omex 9683 and are based on the (nontrivial) proof of inf3 9675. This version has the advantage that when expanded to primitives, it has fewer symbols than the standard version ax-inf2 9681. Theorem inf0 9661 shows the reverse derivation of our axiom from a standard one. Theorem inf5 9685 shows a very short way to state this axiom. The standard version of Infinity ax-inf2 9681 requires this axiom along with Regularity ax-reg 9632 for its derivation (as Theorem axinf2 9680 below). In order to more easily identify the normal uses of Regularity, we will usually reference ax-inf2 9681 instead of this one. The derivation of this axiom from ax-inf2 9681 is shown by Theorem axinf 9684. Proofs should normally use the standard version ax-inf2 9681 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 9679*	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 9680*	A standard version of Axiom of Infinity, expanded to primitives, derived from our version of Infinity ax-inf 9678 and Regularity ax-reg 9632. This theorem should not be referenced in any proof. Instead, use ax-inf2 9681 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 9681*	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 9682 shows it converted to abbreviations. This axiom was derived as Theorem axinf2 9680 above, using our version of Infinity ax-inf 9678 and the Axiom of Regularity ax-reg 9632. We will reference ax-inf2 9681 instead of axinf2 9680 so that the ordinary uses of Regularity can be more easily identified. The reverse derivation of ax-inf 9678 from ax-inf2 9681 is shown by Theorem axinf 9684. (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 9682*	A standard version of the Axiom of Infinity, using definitions to abbreviate. Axiom Inf of [BellMachover] p. 472. (See ax-inf2 9681 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 9683	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 9661. 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 7899 and Fin = V (the universe of all sets) by fineqv 9299. 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 7910 through peano5 7915 (which many textbooks prove more easily assuming Infinity). (Contributed by NM, 6-Aug-1994.)
⊢ ω ∈ V
Theorem	axinf 9684*	The first version of the Axiom of Infinity ax-inf 9678 proved from the second version ax-inf2 9681. Note that we didn't use ax-reg 9632, unlike the other direction axinf2 9680. (Contributed by NM, 24-Apr-2009.)
⊢ ∃𝑦(𝑥 ∈ 𝑦 ∧ ∀𝑧(𝑧 ∈ 𝑦 → ∃𝑤(𝑧 ∈ 𝑤 ∧ 𝑤 ∈ 𝑦)))
Theorem	inf5 9685	The statement "there exists a set that is a proper subset of its union" is equivalent to the Axiom of Infinity (see Theorem infeq5 9677). 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 9686	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 9687*	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)}
Theorem	elom3 9688*	A simplification of elom 7890 assuming the Axiom of Infinity. (Contributed by NM, 30-May-2003.)
⊢ (𝐴 ∈ ω ↔ ∀𝑥(Lim 𝑥 → 𝐴 ∈ 𝑥))
Theorem	dfom4 9689*	A simplification of df-om 7888 assuming the Axiom of Infinity. (Contributed by NM, 30-May-2003.)
⊢ ω = {𝑥 ∣ ∀𝑦(Lim 𝑦 → 𝑥 ∈ 𝑦)}
Theorem	dfom5 9690	ω is the smallest limit ordinal and can be defined as such (although the Axiom of Infinity is needed to ensure that at least one limit ordinal exists). Theorem 1.23 of [Schloeder] p. 4. (Contributed by FL, 22-Feb-2011.) (Revised by Mario Carneiro, 2-Feb-2013.)
⊢ ω = ∩ {𝑥 ∣ Lim 𝑥}
Theorem	oancom 9691	Ordinal addition is not commutative. This theorem shows a counterexample. Remark in [TakeutiZaring] p. 60. (Contributed by NM, 10-Dec-2004.)
⊢ (1o +o ω) ≠ (ω +o 1o)
Theorem	isfinite 9692	A set is finite iff it is strictly dominated by the class of natural number. Theorem 42 of [Suppes] p. 151. The Axiom of Infinity is used for the forward implication. (Contributed by FL, 16-Apr-2011.)
⊢ (𝐴 ∈ Fin ↔ 𝐴 ≺ ω)
Theorem	fict 9693	A finite set is countable (weaker version of isfinite 9692). (Contributed by Thierry Arnoux, 27-Mar-2018.)
⊢ (𝐴 ∈ Fin → 𝐴 ≼ ω)
Theorem	nnsdom 9694	A natural number is strictly dominated by the set of natural numbers. Example 3 of [Enderton] p. 146. (Contributed by NM, 28-Oct-2003.)
⊢ (𝐴 ∈ ω → 𝐴 ≺ ω)
Theorem	omenps 9695	Omega is equinumerous to a proper subset of itself. Example 13.2(4) of [Eisenberg] p. 216. (Contributed by NM, 30-Jul-2003.)
⊢ ω ≈ (ω ∖ {∅})
Theorem	omensuc 9696	The set of natural numbers is equinumerous to its successor. (Contributed by NM, 30-Oct-2003.)
⊢ ω ≈ suc ω
Theorem	infdifsn 9697	Removing a singleton from an infinite set does not change the cardinality of the set. (Contributed by Mario Carneiro, 30-Apr-2015.) (Revised by Mario Carneiro, 16-May-2015.)
⊢ (ω ≼ 𝐴 → (𝐴 ∖ {𝐵}) ≈ 𝐴)
Theorem	infdiffi 9698	Removing a finite set from an infinite set does not change the cardinality of the set. (Contributed by Mario Carneiro, 30-Apr-2015.)
⊢ ((ω ≼ 𝐴 ∧ 𝐵 ∈ Fin) → (𝐴 ∖ 𝐵) ≈ 𝐴)
Theorem	unbnn3 9699*	Any unbounded subset of natural numbers is equinumerous to the set of all natural numbers. This version of unbnn 9332 eliminates its hypothesis by assuming the Axiom of Infinity. (Contributed by NM, 4-May-2005.)
⊢ ((𝐴 ⊆ ω ∧ ∀𝑥 ∈ ω ∃𝑦 ∈ 𝐴 𝑥 ∈ 𝑦) → 𝐴 ≈ ω)
Theorem	noinfep 9700*	Using the Axiom of Regularity in the form zfregfr 9645, show that there are no infinite descending ∈-chains. Proposition 7.34 of [TakeutiZaring] p. 44. (Contributed by NM, 26-Jan-2006.) (Revised by Mario Carneiro, 22-Mar-2013.)
⊢ ∃𝑥 ∈ ω (𝐹‘suc 𝑥) ∉ (𝐹‘𝑥)