Theorem wl-cleq-4 37478

Description:
Disclaimer: The material presented here is just my (WL's) personal perception. I am not an expert in this field, so some or all of the text here can be misleading, or outright wrong. This text should be read as an exploration rather than as definite statements, open to doubt, alternatives, and reinterpretation.

Introducing a New Concept: Classes

In wl-cleq-3 37477 we examined how the basic notion of a well-formed formula is introduced in set.mm. A similar process is used to add the notion of a class to Metamath. This process is somewhat more involved, since two parallel variants are established: sets and the broader notion of classes, which include sets (see 3a. below).

In Zermelo-Fraenkel set theory (ZF) classes will serve as a convenient shorthand that simplifies formulas and proofs. Ultimately, only sets - a part of all classes - are intended to exist as actual objects.

In the First Order Logic (FOL) portion of set.mm objects themselves are not used - only variables representing them. It is not even assumed that objects must be sets at all. In principle, the universe of discourse could consist of anything - vegetables, text strings, and so on. For this reason, the type code "setvar", used for object variables, is somewhat of a misnomer. Its final meaning - and the name that goes with it - becomes justified only in later developments.

We will now revisit the four basic steps presented in wl-cleq-3 37477, this time focusing on object variables and paying special attention to the additional complexities that arise from extending sets to classes.

1. Introduce type codes

1a. Reserve a type code for classes, specifically the grammar constant "class". Initially, this type code applies to class variables and will later, beyond these four steps, also be assigned to formulas that define specific classes, i.e. instances.

1b. Reserve a type code for set variables, represented by the grammar constant "setvar". The name itself indicates that this type code will never be assigned to a formula describing a specific set, but only to variables containing such objects.

2. Introduce variables

2a. Use variables with unique names such as 𝐴, 𝐵, ..., to represent classes. These class variables are assigned the type code "class", ensuring that only formulas of type "class" can be substituted for them during proofs.

2b. Use variables with unique names such as 𝑎, 𝑏 , ..., to represent sets. These variables are assigned the type code "setvar". During a substitution in a proof, a variable of type "setvar" may only be replaced with another variable of this type. No specific formula, or object, of this type exists.

3. Add primitive formulas

3a. Add the rewrite rule cv 1539 to set.mm, allowing variables of type "setvar" to also aquire type "class". In this way, a variable of "setvar" type can serve as a substitute for a class variable.

3b. Add the rewrite rules wcel 2108 and wceq 1540 to set.mm, making the formulas 𝐴 ∈ 𝐵 and 𝐴 = 𝐵 valid well-formed formulas (wff). Since variables of type "setvar" can be substituted for class variables, 𝑥 ∈ 𝑦 and 𝑥 = 𝑦 are also provably valid wff.

In the FOL part of set.mm, only these specific formulas play a role and are therefore treated as primitive there. The underlying universe may not contain sets, and the notion of a class is not even be required.

Additional mixed-type formulas, such as 𝑥 ∈ 𝐴, 𝐴 ∈ 𝑥, 𝑥 = 𝐴, and 𝐴 = 𝑥 exist. When the theory is later refined to distinguish between sets and classes, the results from FOL remain valid and naturally extend to these mixed cases. These cases will occasionally be examined individually in subsequent discussions.

4. Specify the properties of primitive formulas

In FOL in set.mm, the formulas 𝑥 = 𝑦 and 𝑥 ∈ 𝑦 cannot be derived from earlier material, and therefore cannot be defined. Instead, their fundamental properties are established through axioms, namely ax-6 1967 through ax-9 2118, ax-13 2376, and ax-ext 2707.

Similarly, axioms establish the properties of the primitive formulas 𝐴 = 𝐵 and 𝐴 ∈ 𝐵, ensuring that they extend the FOL counterparts 𝑥 = 𝑦 and 𝑥 ∈ 𝑦 in a consistent and meaningful way.

At the same time, a criterion must be developed to distinguish sets from classes. Since set variables can only be substituted by other set variables, equality must permit the assignment of class terms known to represent sets to those variables.

(Contributed by Wolf Lammen, 25-Aug-2025.)

Assertion

Ref	Expression
wl-cleq-4	⊢ (𝐴 = 𝐵 ↔ ∀𝑥(𝑥 ∈ 𝐴 ↔ 𝑥 ∈ 𝐵))

Distinct variable groups:   𝑥,𝐴   𝑥,𝐵

Proof of Theorem wl-cleq-4

Step	Hyp	Ref	Expression
1		dfcleq 2729	1 ⊢ (𝐴 = 𝐵 ↔ ∀𝑥(𝑥 ∈ 𝐴 ↔ 𝑥 ∈ 𝐵))

Syntax hints:   ↔ wb 206  ∀wal 1538   = wceq 1540   ∈ wcel 2108

This theorem was proved from axioms:  ax-mp 5  ax-1 6  ax-2 7  ax-3 8  ax-gen 1795  ax-4 1809  ax-5 1910  ax-6 1967  ax-7 2007  ax-9 2118  ax-ext 2707

This theorem depends on definitions:  df-bi 207  df-an 396  df-ex 1780  df-cleq 2728

This theorem is referenced by: (None)