P. 481 of Theorem List - Metamath Proof Explorer

Theorem List for Metamath Proof Explorer - 48001-48100   *Has distinct variable group(s)

Type	Label	Description
Statement
Theorem	isthinc3 48001*	A thin category is a category in which, given a pair of objects 𝑥 and 𝑦 and any two morphisms 𝑓, 𝑔 from 𝑥 to 𝑦, the morphisms are equal. (Contributed by Zhi Wang, 17-Sep-2024.)
⊢ 𝐵 = (Base‘𝐶)    &   ⊢ 𝐻 = (Hom ‘𝐶)    ⇒   ⊢ (𝐶 ∈ ThinCat ↔ (𝐶 ∈ Cat ∧ ∀𝑥 ∈ 𝐵 ∀𝑦 ∈ 𝐵 ∀𝑓 ∈ (𝑥𝐻𝑦)∀𝑔 ∈ (𝑥𝐻𝑦)𝑓 = 𝑔))
Theorem	thincc 48002	A thin category is a category. (Contributed by Zhi Wang, 17-Sep-2024.)
⊢ (𝐶 ∈ ThinCat → 𝐶 ∈ Cat)
Theorem	thinccd 48003	A thin category is a category (deduction form). (Contributed by Zhi Wang, 24-Sep-2024.)
⊢ (𝜑 → 𝐶 ∈ ThinCat)    ⇒   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝐶 ∈ Cat)
Theorem	thincssc 48004	A thin category is a category. (Contributed by Zhi Wang, 17-Sep-2024.)
⊢ ThinCat ⊆ Cat
Theorem	isthincd2lem1 48005*	Lemma for isthincd2 48016 and thincmo2 48006. (Contributed by Zhi Wang, 17-Sep-2024.)
⊢ (𝜑 → 𝑋 ∈ 𝐵)    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝑌 ∈ 𝐵)    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝐹 ∈ (𝑋𝐻𝑌))    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝐺 ∈ (𝑋𝐻𝑌))    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → ∀𝑥 ∈ 𝐵 ∀𝑦 ∈ 𝐵 ∃*𝑓 𝑓 ∈ (𝑥𝐻𝑦))    ⇒   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝐹 = 𝐺)
Theorem	thincmo2 48006	Morphisms in the same hom-set are identical. (Contributed by Zhi Wang, 17-Sep-2024.)
⊢ (𝜑 → 𝑋 ∈ 𝐵)    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝑌 ∈ 𝐵)    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝐹 ∈ (𝑋𝐻𝑌))    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝐺 ∈ (𝑋𝐻𝑌))    &   ⊢ 𝐵 = (Base‘𝐶)    &   ⊢ 𝐻 = (Hom ‘𝐶)    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝐶 ∈ ThinCat)    ⇒   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝐹 = 𝐺)
Theorem	thincmo 48007*	There is at most one morphism in each hom-set. (Contributed by Zhi Wang, 21-Sep-2024.)
⊢ (𝜑 → 𝐶 ∈ ThinCat)    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝑋 ∈ 𝐵)    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝑌 ∈ 𝐵)    &   ⊢ 𝐵 = (Base‘𝐶)    &   ⊢ 𝐻 = (Hom ‘𝐶)    ⇒   ⊢ (𝜑 → ∃*𝑓 𝑓 ∈ (𝑋𝐻𝑌))
Theorem	thincmoALT 48008*	Alternate proof for thincmo 48007. (Contributed by Zhi Wang, 21-Sep-2024.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) (New usage is discouraged.)
⊢ (𝜑 → 𝐶 ∈ ThinCat)    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝑋 ∈ 𝐵)    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝑌 ∈ 𝐵)    &   ⊢ 𝐵 = (Base‘𝐶)    &   ⊢ 𝐻 = (Hom ‘𝐶)    ⇒   ⊢ (𝜑 → ∃*𝑓 𝑓 ∈ (𝑋𝐻𝑌))
Theorem	thincmod 48009*	At most one morphism in each hom-set (deduction form). (Contributed by Zhi Wang, 21-Sep-2024.)
⊢ (𝜑 → 𝐶 ∈ ThinCat)    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝑋 ∈ 𝐵)    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝑌 ∈ 𝐵)    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝐵 = (Base‘𝐶))    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝐻 = (Hom ‘𝐶))    ⇒   ⊢ (𝜑 → ∃*𝑓 𝑓 ∈ (𝑋𝐻𝑌))
Theorem	thincn0eu 48010*	In a thin category, a hom-set being non-empty is equivalent to having a unique element. (Contributed by Zhi Wang, 21-Sep-2024.)
⊢ (𝜑 → 𝐶 ∈ ThinCat)    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝑋 ∈ 𝐵)    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝑌 ∈ 𝐵)    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝐵 = (Base‘𝐶))    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝐻 = (Hom ‘𝐶))    ⇒   ⊢ (𝜑 → ((𝑋𝐻𝑌) ≠ ∅ ↔ ∃!𝑓 𝑓 ∈ (𝑋𝐻𝑌)))
Theorem	thincid 48011	In a thin category, a morphism from an object to itself is an identity morphism. (Contributed by Zhi Wang, 24-Sep-2024.)
⊢ (𝜑 → 𝐶 ∈ ThinCat)    &   ⊢ 𝐵 = (Base‘𝐶)    &   ⊢ 𝐻 = (Hom ‘𝐶)    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝑋 ∈ 𝐵)    &   ⊢ 1 = (Id‘𝐶)    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝐹 ∈ (𝑋𝐻𝑋))    ⇒   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝐹 = ( 1 ‘𝑋))
Theorem	thincmon 48012	In a thin category, all morphisms are monomorphisms. The converse does not hold. See grptcmon 48074. (Contributed by Zhi Wang, 24-Sep-2024.)
⊢ (𝜑 → 𝐶 ∈ ThinCat)    &   ⊢ 𝐵 = (Base‘𝐶)    &   ⊢ 𝐻 = (Hom ‘𝐶)    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝑋 ∈ 𝐵)    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝑌 ∈ 𝐵)    &   ⊢ 𝑀 = (Mono‘𝐶)    ⇒   ⊢ (𝜑 → (𝑋𝑀𝑌) = (𝑋𝐻𝑌))
Theorem	thincepi 48013	In a thin category, all morphisms are epimorphisms. The converse does not hold. See grptcepi 48075. (Contributed by Zhi Wang, 24-Sep-2024.)
⊢ (𝜑 → 𝐶 ∈ ThinCat)    &   ⊢ 𝐵 = (Base‘𝐶)    &   ⊢ 𝐻 = (Hom ‘𝐶)    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝑋 ∈ 𝐵)    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝑌 ∈ 𝐵)    &   ⊢ 𝐸 = (Epi‘𝐶)    ⇒   ⊢ (𝜑 → (𝑋𝐸𝑌) = (𝑋𝐻𝑌))
Theorem	isthincd2lem2 48014*	Lemma for isthincd2 48016. (Contributed by Zhi Wang, 17-Sep-2024.)
⊢ (𝜑 → 𝑋 ∈ 𝐵)    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝑌 ∈ 𝐵)    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝑍 ∈ 𝐵)    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝐹 ∈ (𝑋𝐻𝑌))    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝐺 ∈ (𝑌𝐻𝑍))    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → ∀𝑥 ∈ 𝐵 ∀𝑦 ∈ 𝐵 ∀𝑧 ∈ 𝐵 ∀𝑓 ∈ (𝑥𝐻𝑦)∀𝑔 ∈ (𝑦𝐻𝑧)(𝑔(⟨𝑥, 𝑦⟩ · 𝑧)𝑓) ∈ (𝑥𝐻𝑧))    ⇒   ⊢ (𝜑 → (𝐺(⟨𝑋, 𝑌⟩ · 𝑍)𝐹) ∈ (𝑋𝐻𝑍))
Theorem	isthincd 48015*	The predicate "is a thin category" (deduction form). (Contributed by Zhi Wang, 17-Sep-2024.)
⊢ (𝜑 → 𝐵 = (Base‘𝐶))    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝐻 = (Hom ‘𝐶))    &   ⊢ ((𝜑 ∧ (𝑥 ∈ 𝐵 ∧ 𝑦 ∈ 𝐵)) → ∃*𝑓 𝑓 ∈ (𝑥𝐻𝑦))    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝐶 ∈ Cat)    ⇒   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝐶 ∈ ThinCat)
Theorem	isthincd2 48016*	The predicate "𝐶 is a thin category" without knowing 𝐶 is a category (deduction form). The identity arrow operator is also provided as a byproduct. (Contributed by Zhi Wang, 17-Sep-2024.)
⊢ (𝜑 → 𝐵 = (Base‘𝐶))    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝐻 = (Hom ‘𝐶))    &   ⊢ ((𝜑 ∧ (𝑥 ∈ 𝐵 ∧ 𝑦 ∈ 𝐵)) → ∃*𝑓 𝑓 ∈ (𝑥𝐻𝑦))    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → · = (comp‘𝐶))    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝐶 ∈ 𝑉)    &   ⊢ (𝜓 ↔ ((𝑥 ∈ 𝐵 ∧ 𝑦 ∈ 𝐵 ∧ 𝑧 ∈ 𝐵) ∧ (𝑓 ∈ (𝑥𝐻𝑦) ∧ 𝑔 ∈ (𝑦𝐻𝑧))))    &   ⊢ ((𝜑 ∧ 𝑦 ∈ 𝐵) → 1 ∈ (𝑦𝐻𝑦))    &   ⊢ ((𝜑 ∧ 𝜓) → (𝑔(⟨𝑥, 𝑦⟩ · 𝑧)𝑓) ∈ (𝑥𝐻𝑧))    ⇒   ⊢ (𝜑 → (𝐶 ∈ ThinCat ∧ (Id‘𝐶) = (𝑦 ∈ 𝐵 ↦ 1 )))
Theorem	oppcthin 48017	The opposite category of a thin category is thin. (Contributed by Zhi Wang, 29-Sep-2024.)
⊢ 𝑂 = (oppCat‘𝐶)    ⇒   ⊢ (𝐶 ∈ ThinCat → 𝑂 ∈ ThinCat)
Theorem	subthinc 48018	A subcategory of a thin category is thin. (Contributed by Zhi Wang, 30-Sep-2024.)
⊢ 𝐷 = (𝐶 ↾cat 𝐽)    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝐽 ∈ (Subcat‘𝐶))    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝐶 ∈ ThinCat)    ⇒   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝐷 ∈ ThinCat)
Theorem	functhinclem1 48019*	Lemma for functhinc 48023. Given the object part, there is only one possible morphism part such that the mapped morphism is in its corresponding hom-set. (Contributed by Zhi Wang, 1-Oct-2024.)
⊢ 𝐵 = (Base‘𝐷)    &   ⊢ 𝐶 = (Base‘𝐸)    &   ⊢ 𝐻 = (Hom ‘𝐷)    &   ⊢ 𝐽 = (Hom ‘𝐸)    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝐸 ∈ ThinCat)    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝐹:𝐵⟶𝐶)    &   ⊢ 𝐾 = (𝑥 ∈ 𝐵, 𝑦 ∈ 𝐵 ↦ ((𝑥𝐻𝑦) × ((𝐹‘𝑥)𝐽(𝐹‘𝑦))))    &   ⊢ ((𝜑 ∧ (𝑧 ∈ 𝐵 ∧ 𝑤 ∈ 𝐵)) → (((𝐹‘𝑧)𝐽(𝐹‘𝑤)) = ∅ → (𝑧𝐻𝑤) = ∅))    ⇒   ⊢ (𝜑 → ((𝐺 ∈ V ∧ 𝐺 Fn (𝐵 × 𝐵) ∧ ∀𝑧 ∈ 𝐵 ∀𝑤 ∈ 𝐵 (𝑧𝐺𝑤):(𝑧𝐻𝑤)⟶((𝐹‘𝑧)𝐽(𝐹‘𝑤))) ↔ 𝐺 = 𝐾))
Theorem	functhinclem2 48020*	Lemma for functhinc 48023. (Contributed by Zhi Wang, 1-Oct-2024.)
⊢ (𝜑 → 𝑋 ∈ 𝐵)    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝑌 ∈ 𝐵)    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → ∀𝑥 ∈ 𝐵 ∀𝑦 ∈ 𝐵 (((𝐹‘𝑥)𝐽(𝐹‘𝑦)) = ∅ → (𝑥𝐻𝑦) = ∅))    ⇒   ⊢ (𝜑 → (((𝐹‘𝑋)𝐽(𝐹‘𝑌)) = ∅ → (𝑋𝐻𝑌) = ∅))
Theorem	functhinclem3 48021*	Lemma for functhinc 48023. The mapped morphism is in its corresponding hom-set. (Contributed by Zhi Wang, 1-Oct-2024.)
⊢ (𝜑 → 𝑋 ∈ 𝐵)    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝑌 ∈ 𝐵)    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝑀 ∈ (𝑋𝐻𝑌))    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝐺 = (𝑥 ∈ 𝐵, 𝑦 ∈ 𝐵 ↦ ((𝑥𝐻𝑦) × ((𝐹‘𝑥)𝐽(𝐹‘𝑦)))))    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → (((𝐹‘𝑋)𝐽(𝐹‘𝑌)) = ∅ → (𝑋𝐻𝑌) = ∅))    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → ∃*𝑛 𝑛 ∈ ((𝐹‘𝑋)𝐽(𝐹‘𝑌)))    ⇒   ⊢ (𝜑 → ((𝑋𝐺𝑌)‘𝑀) ∈ ((𝐹‘𝑋)𝐽(𝐹‘𝑌)))
Theorem	functhinclem4 48022*	Lemma for functhinc 48023. Other requirements on the morphism part are automatically satisfied. (Contributed by Zhi Wang, 1-Oct-2024.)
⊢ 𝐵 = (Base‘𝐷)    &   ⊢ 𝐶 = (Base‘𝐸)    &   ⊢ 𝐻 = (Hom ‘𝐷)    &   ⊢ 𝐽 = (Hom ‘𝐸)    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝐷 ∈ Cat)    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝐸 ∈ ThinCat)    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝐹:𝐵⟶𝐶)    &   ⊢ 𝐾 = (𝑥 ∈ 𝐵, 𝑦 ∈ 𝐵 ↦ ((𝑥𝐻𝑦) × ((𝐹‘𝑥)𝐽(𝐹‘𝑦))))    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → ∀𝑧 ∈ 𝐵 ∀𝑤 ∈ 𝐵 (((𝐹‘𝑧)𝐽(𝐹‘𝑤)) = ∅ → (𝑧𝐻𝑤) = ∅))    &   ⊢ 1 = (Id‘𝐷)    &   ⊢ 𝐼 = (Id‘𝐸)    &   ⊢ · = (comp‘𝐷)    &   ⊢ 𝑂 = (comp‘𝐸)    ⇒   ⊢ ((𝜑 ∧ 𝐺 = 𝐾) → ∀𝑎 ∈ 𝐵 (((𝑎𝐺𝑎)‘( 1 ‘𝑎)) = (𝐼‘(𝐹‘𝑎)) ∧ ∀𝑏 ∈ 𝐵 ∀𝑐 ∈ 𝐵 ∀𝑚 ∈ (𝑎𝐻𝑏)∀𝑛 ∈ (𝑏𝐻𝑐)((𝑎𝐺𝑐)‘(𝑛(⟨𝑎, 𝑏⟩ · 𝑐)𝑚)) = (((𝑏𝐺𝑐)‘𝑛)(⟨(𝐹‘𝑎), (𝐹‘𝑏)⟩𝑂(𝐹‘𝑐))((𝑎𝐺𝑏)‘𝑚))))
Theorem	functhinc 48023*	A functor to a thin category is determined entirely by the object part. The hypothesis "functhinc.1" is related to a monotone function if preorders induced by the categories are considered (catprs2 47990). (Contributed by Zhi Wang, 1-Oct-2024.)
⊢ 𝐵 = (Base‘𝐷)    &   ⊢ 𝐶 = (Base‘𝐸)    &   ⊢ 𝐻 = (Hom ‘𝐷)    &   ⊢ 𝐽 = (Hom ‘𝐸)    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝐷 ∈ Cat)    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝐸 ∈ ThinCat)    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝐹:𝐵⟶𝐶)    &   ⊢ 𝐾 = (𝑥 ∈ 𝐵, 𝑦 ∈ 𝐵 ↦ ((𝑥𝐻𝑦) × ((𝐹‘𝑥)𝐽(𝐹‘𝑦))))    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → ∀𝑧 ∈ 𝐵 ∀𝑤 ∈ 𝐵 (((𝐹‘𝑧)𝐽(𝐹‘𝑤)) = ∅ → (𝑧𝐻𝑤) = ∅))    ⇒   ⊢ (𝜑 → (𝐹(𝐷 Func 𝐸)𝐺 ↔ 𝐺 = 𝐾))
Theorem	fullthinc 48024*	A functor to a thin category is full iff empty hom-sets are mapped to empty hom-sets. (Contributed by Zhi Wang, 1-Oct-2024.)
⊢ 𝐵 = (Base‘𝐶)    &   ⊢ 𝐽 = (Hom ‘𝐷)    &   ⊢ 𝐻 = (Hom ‘𝐶)    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝐷 ∈ ThinCat)    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝐹(𝐶 Func 𝐷)𝐺)    ⇒   ⊢ (𝜑 → (𝐹(𝐶 Full 𝐷)𝐺 ↔ ∀𝑥 ∈ 𝐵 ∀𝑦 ∈ 𝐵 ((𝑥𝐻𝑦) = ∅ → ((𝐹‘𝑥)𝐽(𝐹‘𝑦)) = ∅)))
Theorem	fullthinc2 48025	A full functor to a thin category maps empty hom-sets to empty hom-sets. (Contributed by Zhi Wang, 1-Oct-2024.)
⊢ 𝐵 = (Base‘𝐶)    &   ⊢ 𝐽 = (Hom ‘𝐷)    &   ⊢ 𝐻 = (Hom ‘𝐶)    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝐷 ∈ ThinCat)    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝐹(𝐶 Full 𝐷)𝐺)    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝑋 ∈ 𝐵)    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝑌 ∈ 𝐵)    ⇒   ⊢ (𝜑 → ((𝑋𝐻𝑌) = ∅ ↔ ((𝐹‘𝑋)𝐽(𝐹‘𝑌)) = ∅))
Theorem	thincfth 48026	A functor from a thin category is faithful. (Contributed by Zhi Wang, 1-Oct-2024.)
⊢ (𝜑 → 𝐶 ∈ ThinCat)    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝐹(𝐶 Func 𝐷)𝐺)    ⇒   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝐹(𝐶 Faith 𝐷)𝐺)
Theorem	thincciso 48027*	Two thin categories are isomorphic iff the induced preorders are order-isomorphic. Example 3.26(2) of [Adamek] p. 33. (Contributed by Zhi Wang, 16-Oct-2024.)
⊢ 𝐶 = (CatCat‘𝑈)    &   ⊢ 𝐵 = (Base‘𝐶)    &   ⊢ 𝑅 = (Base‘𝑋)    &   ⊢ 𝑆 = (Base‘𝑌)    &   ⊢ 𝐻 = (Hom ‘𝑋)    &   ⊢ 𝐽 = (Hom ‘𝑌)    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝑈 ∈ 𝑉)    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝑋 ∈ 𝐵)    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝑌 ∈ 𝐵)    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝑋 ∈ ThinCat)    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝑌 ∈ ThinCat)    ⇒   ⊢ (𝜑 → (𝑋( ≃𝑐 ‘𝐶)𝑌 ↔ ∃𝑓(∀𝑥 ∈ 𝑅 ∀𝑦 ∈ 𝑅 ((𝑥𝐻𝑦) = ∅ ↔ ((𝑓‘𝑥)𝐽(𝑓‘𝑦)) = ∅) ∧ 𝑓:𝑅–1-1-onto→𝑆)))
Theorem	0thincg 48028	Any structure with an empty set of objects is a thin category. (Contributed by Zhi Wang, 17-Sep-2024.)
⊢ ((𝐶 ∈ 𝑉 ∧ ∅ = (Base‘𝐶)) → 𝐶 ∈ ThinCat)
Theorem	0thinc 48029	The empty category (see 0cat 17662) is thin. (Contributed by Zhi Wang, 17-Sep-2024.)
⊢ ∅ ∈ ThinCat
Theorem	indthinc 48030*	An indiscrete category in which all hom-sets have exactly one morphism is a thin category. Constructed here is an indiscrete category where all morphisms are ∅. This is a special case of prsthinc 48032, where ≤ = (𝐵 × 𝐵). This theorem also implies a functor from the category of sets to the category of small categories. (Contributed by Zhi Wang, 17-Sep-2024.) (Proof shortened by Zhi Wang, 19-Sep-2024.)
⊢ (𝜑 → 𝐵 = (Base‘𝐶))    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → ((𝐵 × 𝐵) × {1o}) = (Hom ‘𝐶))    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → ∅ = (comp‘𝐶))    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝐶 ∈ 𝑉)    ⇒   ⊢ (𝜑 → (𝐶 ∈ ThinCat ∧ (Id‘𝐶) = (𝑦 ∈ 𝐵 ↦ ∅)))
Theorem	indthincALT 48031*	An alternate proof for indthinc 48030 assuming more axioms including ax-pow 5359 and ax-un 7734. (Contributed by Zhi Wang, 17-Sep-2024.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) (New usage is discouraged.)
⊢ (𝜑 → 𝐵 = (Base‘𝐶))    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → ((𝐵 × 𝐵) × {1o}) = (Hom ‘𝐶))    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → ∅ = (comp‘𝐶))    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝐶 ∈ 𝑉)    ⇒   ⊢ (𝜑 → (𝐶 ∈ ThinCat ∧ (Id‘𝐶) = (𝑦 ∈ 𝐵 ↦ ∅)))
Theorem	prsthinc 48032*	Preordered sets as categories. Similar to example 3.3(4.d) of [Adamek] p. 24, but the hom-sets are not pairwise disjoint. One can define a functor from the category of prosets to the category of small thin categories. See catprs 47989 and catprs2 47990 for inducing a preorder from a category. Example 3.26(2) of [Adamek] p. 33 indicates that it induces a bijection from the equivalence class of isomorphic small thin categories to the equivalence class of order-isomorphic preordered sets. (Contributed by Zhi Wang, 18-Sep-2024.)
⊢ (𝜑 → 𝐵 = (Base‘𝐶))    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → ( ≤ × {1o}) = (Hom ‘𝐶))    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → ∅ = (comp‘𝐶))    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → ≤ = (le‘𝐶))    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝐶 ∈ Proset )    ⇒   ⊢ (𝜑 → (𝐶 ∈ ThinCat ∧ (Id‘𝐶) = (𝑦 ∈ 𝐵 ↦ ∅)))
Theorem	setcthin 48033*	A category of sets all of whose objects contain at most one element is thin. (Contributed by Zhi Wang, 20-Sep-2024.)
⊢ (𝜑 → 𝐶 = (SetCat‘𝑈))    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝑈 ∈ 𝑉)    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → ∀𝑥 ∈ 𝑈 ∃*𝑝 𝑝 ∈ 𝑥)    ⇒   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝐶 ∈ ThinCat)
Theorem	setc2othin 48034	The category (SetCat‘2o) is thin. A special case of setcthin 48033. (Contributed by Zhi Wang, 20-Sep-2024.)
⊢ (SetCat‘2o) ∈ ThinCat
Theorem	thincsect 48035	In a thin category, one morphism is a section of another iff they are pointing towards each other. (Contributed by Zhi Wang, 24-Sep-2024.)
⊢ (𝜑 → 𝐶 ∈ ThinCat)    &   ⊢ 𝐵 = (Base‘𝐶)    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝑋 ∈ 𝐵)    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝑌 ∈ 𝐵)    &   ⊢ 𝑆 = (Sect‘𝐶)    &   ⊢ 𝐻 = (Hom ‘𝐶)    ⇒   ⊢ (𝜑 → (𝐹(𝑋𝑆𝑌)𝐺 ↔ (𝐹 ∈ (𝑋𝐻𝑌) ∧ 𝐺 ∈ (𝑌𝐻𝑋))))
Theorem	thincsect2 48036	In a thin category, 𝐹 is a section of 𝐺 iff 𝐺 is a section of 𝐹. (Contributed by Zhi Wang, 24-Sep-2024.)
⊢ (𝜑 → 𝐶 ∈ ThinCat)    &   ⊢ 𝐵 = (Base‘𝐶)    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝑋 ∈ 𝐵)    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝑌 ∈ 𝐵)    &   ⊢ 𝑆 = (Sect‘𝐶)    ⇒   ⊢ (𝜑 → (𝐹(𝑋𝑆𝑌)𝐺 ↔ 𝐺(𝑌𝑆𝑋)𝐹))
Theorem	thincinv 48037	In a thin category, 𝐹 is an inverse of 𝐺 iff 𝐹 is a section of 𝐺 (Contributed by Zhi Wang, 24-Sep-2024.)
⊢ (𝜑 → 𝐶 ∈ ThinCat)    &   ⊢ 𝐵 = (Base‘𝐶)    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝑋 ∈ 𝐵)    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝑌 ∈ 𝐵)    &   ⊢ 𝑆 = (Sect‘𝐶)    &   ⊢ 𝑁 = (Inv‘𝐶)    ⇒   ⊢ (𝜑 → (𝐹(𝑋𝑁𝑌)𝐺 ↔ 𝐹(𝑋𝑆𝑌)𝐺))
Theorem	thinciso 48038	In a thin category, 𝐹:𝑋⟶𝑌 is an isomorphism iff there is a morphism from 𝑌 to 𝑋. (Contributed by Zhi Wang, 25-Sep-2024.)
⊢ (𝜑 → 𝐶 ∈ ThinCat)    &   ⊢ 𝐵 = (Base‘𝐶)    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝑋 ∈ 𝐵)    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝑌 ∈ 𝐵)    &   ⊢ 𝐻 = (Hom ‘𝐶)    &   ⊢ 𝐼 = (Iso‘𝐶)    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝐹 ∈ (𝑋𝐻𝑌))    ⇒   ⊢ (𝜑 → (𝐹 ∈ (𝑋𝐼𝑌) ↔ (𝑌𝐻𝑋) ≠ ∅))
Theorem	thinccic 48039	In a thin category, two objects are isomorphic iff there are morphisms between them in both directions. (Contributed by Zhi Wang, 25-Sep-2024.)
⊢ (𝜑 → 𝐶 ∈ ThinCat)    &   ⊢ 𝐵 = (Base‘𝐶)    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝑋 ∈ 𝐵)    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝑌 ∈ 𝐵)    &   ⊢ 𝐻 = (Hom ‘𝐶)    ⇒   ⊢ (𝜑 → (𝑋( ≃𝑐 ‘𝐶)𝑌 ↔ ((𝑋𝐻𝑌) ≠ ∅ ∧ (𝑌𝐻𝑋) ≠ ∅)))
21.46.13.2  Preordered sets as thin categories
Syntax	cprstc 48040	Class function defining preordered sets as categories.
class ProsetToCat
Definition	df-prstc 48041	Definition of the function converting a preordered set to a category. Justified by prsthinc 48032. This definition is somewhat arbitrary. Example 3.3(4.d) of [Adamek] p. 24 demonstrates an alternate definition with pairwise disjoint hom-sets. The behavior of the function is defined entirely, up to isomorphism, by prstcnid 48044, prstchom 48055, and prstcthin 48054. Other important properties include prstcbas 48045, prstcleval 48046, prstcle 48048, prstcocval 48049, prstcoc 48051, prstchom2 48056, and prstcprs 48053. Use those instead. Note that the defining property prstchom 48055 is equivalent to prstchom2 48056 given prstcthin 48054. See thincn0eu 48010 for justification. "ProsetToCat" was taken instead of "ProsetCat" because the latter might mean the category of preordered sets (classes). However, "ProsetToCat" seems too long. (Contributed by Zhi Wang, 20-Sep-2024.) (New usage is discouraged.)
⊢ ProsetToCat = (𝑘 ∈ Proset ↦ ((𝑘 sSet ⟨(Hom ‘ndx), ((le‘𝑘) × {1o})⟩) sSet ⟨(comp‘ndx), ∅⟩))
Theorem	prstcval 48042	Lemma for prstcnidlem 48043 and prstcthin 48054. (Contributed by Zhi Wang, 20-Sep-2024.) (New usage is discouraged.)
⊢ (𝜑 → 𝐶 = (ProsetToCat‘𝐾))    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝐾 ∈ Proset )    ⇒   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝐶 = ((𝐾 sSet ⟨(Hom ‘ndx), ((le‘𝐾) × {1o})⟩) sSet ⟨(comp‘ndx), ∅⟩))
Theorem	prstcnidlem 48043	Lemma for prstcnid 48044 and prstchomval 48052. (Contributed by Zhi Wang, 20-Sep-2024.) (New usage is discouraged.)
⊢ (𝜑 → 𝐶 = (ProsetToCat‘𝐾))    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝐾 ∈ Proset )    &   ⊢ 𝐸 = Slot (𝐸‘ndx)    &   ⊢ (𝐸‘ndx) ≠ (comp‘ndx)    ⇒   ⊢ (𝜑 → (𝐸‘𝐶) = (𝐸‘(𝐾 sSet ⟨(Hom ‘ndx), ((le‘𝐾) × {1o})⟩)))
Theorem	prstcnid 48044	Components other than Hom and comp are unchanged. (Contributed by Zhi Wang, 20-Sep-2024.)
⊢ (𝜑 → 𝐶 = (ProsetToCat‘𝐾))    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝐾 ∈ Proset )    &   ⊢ 𝐸 = Slot (𝐸‘ndx)    &   ⊢ (𝐸‘ndx) ≠ (comp‘ndx)    &   ⊢ (𝐸‘ndx) ≠ (Hom ‘ndx)    ⇒   ⊢ (𝜑 → (𝐸‘𝐾) = (𝐸‘𝐶))
Theorem	prstcbas 48045	The base set is unchanged. (Contributed by Zhi Wang, 20-Sep-2024.)
⊢ (𝜑 → 𝐶 = (ProsetToCat‘𝐾))    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝐾 ∈ Proset )    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝐵 = (Base‘𝐾))    ⇒   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝐵 = (Base‘𝐶))
Theorem	prstcleval 48046	Value of the less-than-or-equal-to relation is unchanged. (Contributed by Zhi Wang, 20-Sep-2024.) (Proof shortened by AV, 12-Nov-2024.)
⊢ (𝜑 → 𝐶 = (ProsetToCat‘𝐾))    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝐾 ∈ Proset )    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → ≤ = (le‘𝐾))    ⇒   ⊢ (𝜑 → ≤ = (le‘𝐶))
Theorem	prstclevalOLD 48047	Obsolete proof of prstcleval 48046 as of 12-Nov-2024. Value of the less-than-or-equal-to relation is unchanged. (Contributed by Zhi Wang, 20-Sep-2024.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) (New usage is discouraged.)
⊢ (𝜑 → 𝐶 = (ProsetToCat‘𝐾))    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝐾 ∈ Proset )    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → ≤ = (le‘𝐾))    ⇒   ⊢ (𝜑 → ≤ = (le‘𝐶))
Theorem	prstcle 48048	Value of the less-than-or-equal-to relation is unchanged. (Contributed by Zhi Wang, 20-Sep-2024.)
⊢ (𝜑 → 𝐶 = (ProsetToCat‘𝐾))    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝐾 ∈ Proset )    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → ≤ = (le‘𝐾))    ⇒   ⊢ (𝜑 → (𝑋 ≤ 𝑌 ↔ 𝑋(le‘𝐶)𝑌))
Theorem	prstcocval 48049	Orthocomplementation is unchanged. (Contributed by Zhi Wang, 20-Sep-2024.) (Proof shortened by AV, 12-Nov-2024.)
⊢ (𝜑 → 𝐶 = (ProsetToCat‘𝐾))    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝐾 ∈ Proset )    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → ⊥ = (oc‘𝐾))    ⇒   ⊢ (𝜑 → ⊥ = (oc‘𝐶))
Theorem	prstcocvalOLD 48050	Obsolete proof of prstcocval 48049 as of 12-Nov-2024. Orthocomplementation is unchanged. (Contributed by Zhi Wang, 20-Sep-2024.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) (New usage is discouraged.)
⊢ (𝜑 → 𝐶 = (ProsetToCat‘𝐾))    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝐾 ∈ Proset )    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → ⊥ = (oc‘𝐾))    ⇒   ⊢ (𝜑 → ⊥ = (oc‘𝐶))
Theorem	prstcoc 48051	Orthocomplementation is unchanged. (Contributed by Zhi Wang, 20-Sep-2024.)
⊢ (𝜑 → 𝐶 = (ProsetToCat‘𝐾))    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝐾 ∈ Proset )    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → ⊥ = (oc‘𝐾))    ⇒   ⊢ (𝜑 → ( ⊥ ‘𝑋) = ((oc‘𝐶)‘𝑋))
Theorem	prstchomval 48052	Hom-sets of the constructed category which depend on an arbitrary definition. (Contributed by Zhi Wang, 20-Sep-2024.) (New usage is discouraged.)
⊢ (𝜑 → 𝐶 = (ProsetToCat‘𝐾))    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝐾 ∈ Proset )    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → ≤ = (le‘𝐶))    ⇒   ⊢ (𝜑 → ( ≤ × {1o}) = (Hom ‘𝐶))
Theorem	prstcprs 48053	The category is a preordered set. (Contributed by Zhi Wang, 20-Sep-2024.)
⊢ (𝜑 → 𝐶 = (ProsetToCat‘𝐾))    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝐾 ∈ Proset )    ⇒   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝐶 ∈ Proset )
Theorem	prstcthin 48054	The preordered set is equipped with a thin category. (Contributed by Zhi Wang, 20-Sep-2024.)
⊢ (𝜑 → 𝐶 = (ProsetToCat‘𝐾))    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝐾 ∈ Proset )    ⇒   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝐶 ∈ ThinCat)
Theorem	prstchom 48055	Hom-sets of the constructed category are dependent on the preorder. Note that prstchom.x and prstchom.y are redundant here due to our definition of ProsetToCat. However, this should not be assumed as it is definition-dependent. Therefore, the two hypotheses are added for explicitness. (Contributed by Zhi Wang, 20-Sep-2024.)
⊢ (𝜑 → 𝐶 = (ProsetToCat‘𝐾))    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝐾 ∈ Proset )    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → ≤ = (le‘𝐶))    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝐻 = (Hom ‘𝐶))    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝑋 ∈ (Base‘𝐶))    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝑌 ∈ (Base‘𝐶))    ⇒   ⊢ (𝜑 → (𝑋 ≤ 𝑌 ↔ (𝑋𝐻𝑌) ≠ ∅))
Theorem	prstchom2 48056*	Hom-sets of the constructed category are dependent on the preorder. Note that prstchom.x and prstchom.y are redundant here due to our definition of ProsetToCat ( see prstchom2ALT 48057). However, this should not be assumed as it is definition-dependent. Therefore, the two hypotheses are added for explicitness. (Contributed by Zhi Wang, 21-Sep-2024.)
⊢ (𝜑 → 𝐶 = (ProsetToCat‘𝐾))    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝐾 ∈ Proset )    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → ≤ = (le‘𝐶))    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝐻 = (Hom ‘𝐶))    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝑋 ∈ (Base‘𝐶))    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝑌 ∈ (Base‘𝐶))    ⇒   ⊢ (𝜑 → (𝑋 ≤ 𝑌 ↔ ∃!𝑓 𝑓 ∈ (𝑋𝐻𝑌)))
Theorem	prstchom2ALT 48057*	Hom-sets of the constructed category are dependent on the preorder. This proof depends on the definition df-prstc 48041. See prstchom2 48056 for a version that does not depend on the definition. (Contributed by Zhi Wang, 20-Sep-2024.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) (New usage is discouraged.)
⊢ (𝜑 → 𝐶 = (ProsetToCat‘𝐾))    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝐾 ∈ Proset )    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → ≤ = (le‘𝐶))    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝐻 = (Hom ‘𝐶))    ⇒   ⊢ (𝜑 → (𝑋 ≤ 𝑌 ↔ ∃!𝑓 𝑓 ∈ (𝑋𝐻𝑌)))
Theorem	postcpos 48058	The converted category is a poset iff the original proset is a poset. (Contributed by Zhi Wang, 26-Sep-2024.)
⊢ (𝜑 → 𝐶 = (ProsetToCat‘𝐾))    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝐾 ∈ Proset )    ⇒   ⊢ (𝜑 → (𝐾 ∈ Poset ↔ 𝐶 ∈ Poset))
Theorem	postcposALT 48059	Alternate proof for postcpos 48058. (Contributed by Zhi Wang, 25-Sep-2024.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) (New usage is discouraged.)
⊢ (𝜑 → 𝐶 = (ProsetToCat‘𝐾))    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝐾 ∈ Proset )    ⇒   ⊢ (𝜑 → (𝐾 ∈ Poset ↔ 𝐶 ∈ Poset))
Theorem	postc 48060*	The converted category is a poset iff no distinct objects are isomorphic. (Contributed by Zhi Wang, 25-Sep-2024.)
⊢ (𝜑 → 𝐶 = (ProsetToCat‘𝐾))    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝐾 ∈ Proset )    &   ⊢ 𝐵 = (Base‘𝐶)    ⇒   ⊢ (𝜑 → (𝐶 ∈ Poset ↔ ∀𝑥 ∈ 𝐵 ∀𝑦 ∈ 𝐵 (𝑥( ≃𝑐 ‘𝐶)𝑦 → 𝑥 = 𝑦)))
21.46.13.3  Monoids as categories
Syntax	cmndtc 48061	Class function defining monoids as categories.
class MndToCat
Definition	df-mndtc 48062	Definition of the function converting a monoid to a category. Example 3.3(4.e) of [Adamek] p. 24. The definition of the base set is arbitrary. The whole extensible structure becomes the object here (see mndtcbasval 48064), instead of just the base set, as is the case in Example 3.3(4.e) of [Adamek] p. 24. The resulting category is defined entirely, up to isomorphism, by mndtcbas 48065, mndtchom 48068, mndtcco 48069. Use those instead. See example 3.26(3) of [Adamek] p. 33 for more on isomorphism. "MndToCat" was taken instead of "MndCat" because the latter might mean the category of monoids. (Contributed by Zhi Wang, 22-Sep-2024.) (New usage is discouraged.)
⊢ MndToCat = (𝑚 ∈ Mnd ↦ {⟨(Base‘ndx), {𝑚}⟩, ⟨(Hom ‘ndx), {⟨𝑚, 𝑚, (Base‘𝑚)⟩}⟩, ⟨(comp‘ndx), {⟨⟨𝑚, 𝑚, 𝑚⟩, (+g‘𝑚)⟩}⟩})
Theorem	mndtcval 48063	Value of the category built from a monoid. (Contributed by Zhi Wang, 22-Sep-2024.) (New usage is discouraged.)
⊢ (𝜑 → 𝐶 = (MndToCat‘𝑀))    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝑀 ∈ Mnd)    ⇒   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝐶 = {⟨(Base‘ndx), {𝑀}⟩, ⟨(Hom ‘ndx), {⟨𝑀, 𝑀, (Base‘𝑀)⟩}⟩, ⟨(comp‘ndx), {⟨⟨𝑀, 𝑀, 𝑀⟩, (+g‘𝑀)⟩}⟩})
Theorem	mndtcbasval 48064	The base set of the category built from a monoid. (Contributed by Zhi Wang, 22-Sep-2024.) (New usage is discouraged.)
⊢ (𝜑 → 𝐶 = (MndToCat‘𝑀))    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝑀 ∈ Mnd)    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝐵 = (Base‘𝐶))    ⇒   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝐵 = {𝑀})
Theorem	mndtcbas 48065*	The category built from a monoid contains precisely one object. (Contributed by Zhi Wang, 22-Sep-2024.)
⊢ (𝜑 → 𝐶 = (MndToCat‘𝑀))    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝑀 ∈ Mnd)    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝐵 = (Base‘𝐶))    ⇒   ⊢ (𝜑 → ∃!𝑥 𝑥 ∈ 𝐵)
Theorem	mndtcob 48066	Lemma for mndtchom 48068 and mndtcco 48069. (Contributed by Zhi Wang, 22-Sep-2024.) (New usage is discouraged.)
⊢ (𝜑 → 𝐶 = (MndToCat‘𝑀))    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝑀 ∈ Mnd)    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝐵 = (Base‘𝐶))    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝑋 ∈ 𝐵)    ⇒   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝑋 = 𝑀)
Theorem	mndtcbas2 48067	Two objects in a category built from a monoid are identical. (Contributed by Zhi Wang, 24-Sep-2024.)
⊢ (𝜑 → 𝐶 = (MndToCat‘𝑀))    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝑀 ∈ Mnd)    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝐵 = (Base‘𝐶))    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝑋 ∈ 𝐵)    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝑌 ∈ 𝐵)    ⇒   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝑋 = 𝑌)
Theorem	mndtchom 48068	The only hom-set of the category built from a monoid is the base set of the monoid. (Contributed by Zhi Wang, 22-Sep-2024.)
⊢ (𝜑 → 𝐶 = (MndToCat‘𝑀))    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝑀 ∈ Mnd)    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝐵 = (Base‘𝐶))    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝑋 ∈ 𝐵)    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝑌 ∈ 𝐵)    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝐻 = (Hom ‘𝐶))    ⇒   ⊢ (𝜑 → (𝑋𝐻𝑌) = (Base‘𝑀))
Theorem	mndtcco 48069	The composition of the category built from a monoid is the monoid operation. (Contributed by Zhi Wang, 22-Sep-2024.)
⊢ (𝜑 → 𝐶 = (MndToCat‘𝑀))    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝑀 ∈ Mnd)    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝐵 = (Base‘𝐶))    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝑋 ∈ 𝐵)    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝑌 ∈ 𝐵)    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝑍 ∈ 𝐵)    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → · = (comp‘𝐶))    ⇒   ⊢ (𝜑 → (⟨𝑋, 𝑌⟩ · 𝑍) = (+g‘𝑀))
Theorem	mndtcco2 48070	The composition of the category built from a monoid is the monoid operation. (Contributed by Zhi Wang, 22-Sep-2024.)
⊢ (𝜑 → 𝐶 = (MndToCat‘𝑀))    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝑀 ∈ Mnd)    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝐵 = (Base‘𝐶))    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝑋 ∈ 𝐵)    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝑌 ∈ 𝐵)    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝑍 ∈ 𝐵)    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → · = (comp‘𝐶))    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → ⚬ = (⟨𝑋, 𝑌⟩ · 𝑍))    ⇒   ⊢ (𝜑 → (𝐺 ⚬ 𝐹) = (𝐺(+g‘𝑀)𝐹))
Theorem	mndtccatid 48071*	Lemma for mndtccat 48072 and mndtcid 48073. (Contributed by Zhi Wang, 22-Sep-2024.)
⊢ (𝜑 → 𝐶 = (MndToCat‘𝑀))    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝑀 ∈ Mnd)    ⇒   ⊢ (𝜑 → (𝐶 ∈ Cat ∧ (Id‘𝐶) = (𝑦 ∈ (Base‘𝐶) ↦ (0g‘𝑀))))
Theorem	mndtccat 48072	The function value is a category. (Contributed by Zhi Wang, 22-Sep-2024.)
⊢ (𝜑 → 𝐶 = (MndToCat‘𝑀))    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝑀 ∈ Mnd)    ⇒   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝐶 ∈ Cat)
Theorem	mndtcid 48073	The identity morphism, or identity arrow, of the category built from a monoid is the identity element of the monoid. (Contributed by Zhi Wang, 22-Sep-2024.)
⊢ (𝜑 → 𝐶 = (MndToCat‘𝑀))    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝑀 ∈ Mnd)    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝐵 = (Base‘𝐶))    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝑋 ∈ 𝐵)    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → 1 = (Id‘𝐶))    ⇒   ⊢ (𝜑 → ( 1 ‘𝑋) = (0g‘𝑀))
Theorem	grptcmon 48074	All morphisms in a category converted from a group are monomorphisms. (Contributed by Zhi Wang, 23-Sep-2024.)
⊢ (𝜑 → 𝐶 = (MndToCat‘𝐺))    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝐺 ∈ Grp)    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝐵 = (Base‘𝐶))    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝑋 ∈ 𝐵)    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝑌 ∈ 𝐵)    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝐻 = (Hom ‘𝐶))    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝑀 = (Mono‘𝐶))    ⇒   ⊢ (𝜑 → (𝑋𝑀𝑌) = (𝑋𝐻𝑌))
Theorem	grptcepi 48075	All morphisms in a category converted from a group are epimorphisms. (Contributed by Zhi Wang, 23-Sep-2024.)
⊢ (𝜑 → 𝐶 = (MndToCat‘𝐺))    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝐺 ∈ Grp)    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝐵 = (Base‘𝐶))    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝑋 ∈ 𝐵)    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝑌 ∈ 𝐵)    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝐻 = (Hom ‘𝐶))    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝐸 = (Epi‘𝐶))    ⇒   ⊢ (𝜑 → (𝑋𝐸𝑌) = (𝑋𝐻𝑌))
21.47  Mathbox for Emmett Weisz
21.47.1  Miscellaneous Theorems Some of these theorems are used in the series of lemmas and theorems proving the defining properties of setrecs.
Theorem	nfintd 48076	Bound-variable hypothesis builder for intersection. (Contributed by Emmett Weisz, 16-Jan-2020.)
⊢ (𝜑 → Ⅎ𝑥𝐴)    ⇒   ⊢ (𝜑 → Ⅎ𝑥∩ 𝐴)
Theorem	nfiund 48077*	Bound-variable hypothesis builder for indexed union. (Contributed by Emmett Weisz, 6-Dec-2019.) Add disjoint variable condition to avoid ax-13 2366. See nfiundg 48078 for a less restrictive version requiring more axioms. (Revised by Gino Giotto, 20-Jan-2024.)
⊢ Ⅎ𝑥𝜑    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → Ⅎ𝑦𝐴)    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → Ⅎ𝑦𝐵)    ⇒   ⊢ (𝜑 → Ⅎ𝑦∪ 𝑥 ∈ 𝐴 𝐵)
Theorem	nfiundg 48078	Bound-variable hypothesis builder for indexed union. Usage of this theorem is discouraged because it depends on ax-13 2366, see nfiund 48077 for a weaker version that does not require it. (Contributed by Emmett Weisz, 6-Dec-2019.) (New usage is discouraged.)
⊢ Ⅎ𝑥𝜑    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → Ⅎ𝑦𝐴)    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → Ⅎ𝑦𝐵)    ⇒   ⊢ (𝜑 → Ⅎ𝑦∪ 𝑥 ∈ 𝐴 𝐵)
Theorem	iunord 48079*	The indexed union of a collection of ordinal numbers 𝐵(𝑥) is ordinal. This proof is based on the proof of ssorduni 7775, but does not use it directly, since ssorduni 7775 does not work when 𝐵 is a proper class. (Contributed by Emmett Weisz, 3-Nov-2019.)
⊢ (∀𝑥 ∈ 𝐴 Ord 𝐵 → Ord ∪ 𝑥 ∈ 𝐴 𝐵)
Theorem	iunordi 48080*	The indexed union of a collection of ordinal numbers 𝐵(𝑥) is ordinal. (Contributed by Emmett Weisz, 3-Nov-2019.)
⊢ Ord 𝐵    ⇒   ⊢ Ord ∪ 𝑥 ∈ 𝐴 𝐵
Theorem	spd 48081	Specialization deduction, using implicit substitution. Based on the proof of spimed 2382. (Contributed by Emmett Weisz, 17-Jan-2020.)
⊢ (𝜒 → Ⅎ𝑥𝜓)    &   ⊢ (𝑥 = 𝑦 → (𝜑 ↔ 𝜓))    ⇒   ⊢ (𝜒 → (∀𝑥𝜑 → 𝜓))
Theorem	spcdvw 48082*	A version of spcdv 3579 where 𝜓 and 𝜒 are direct substitutions of each other. This theorem is useful because it does not require 𝜑 and 𝑥 to be distinct variables. (Contributed by Emmett Weisz, 12-Apr-2020.)
⊢ (𝜑 → 𝐴 ∈ 𝐵)    &   ⊢ (𝑥 = 𝐴 → (𝜓 ↔ 𝜒))    ⇒   ⊢ (𝜑 → (∀𝑥𝜓 → 𝜒))
Theorem	tfis2d 48083*	Transfinite Induction Schema, using implicit substitution. (Contributed by Emmett Weisz, 3-May-2020.)
⊢ (𝜑 → (𝑥 = 𝑦 → (𝜓 ↔ 𝜒)))    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → (𝑥 ∈ On → (∀𝑦 ∈ 𝑥 𝜒 → 𝜓)))    ⇒   ⊢ (𝜑 → (𝑥 ∈ On → 𝜓))
Theorem	bnd2d 48084*	Deduction form of bnd2 9910. (Contributed by Emmett Weisz, 19-Jan-2021.)
⊢ (𝜑 → 𝐴 ∈ V)    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → ∀𝑥 ∈ 𝐴 ∃𝑦 ∈ 𝐵 𝜓)    ⇒   ⊢ (𝜑 → ∃𝑧(𝑧 ⊆ 𝐵 ∧ ∀𝑥 ∈ 𝐴 ∃𝑦 ∈ 𝑧 𝜓))
Theorem	dffun3f 48085*	Alternate definition of function, using bound-variable hypotheses instead of distinct variable conditions. (Contributed by Emmett Weisz, 14-Mar-2021.)
⊢ Ⅎ𝑥𝐴    &   ⊢ Ⅎ𝑦𝐴    &   ⊢ Ⅎ𝑧𝐴    ⇒   ⊢ (Fun 𝐴 ↔ (Rel 𝐴 ∧ ∀𝑥∃𝑧∀𝑦(𝑥𝐴𝑦 → 𝑦 = 𝑧)))
21.47.2  Set Recursion
21.47.2.1  Basic Properties of Set Recursion Symbols in this section: All the symbols used in the definition of setrecs(𝐹) are explained in the comment of df-setrecs 48087. The class 𝑌 is explained in the comment of setrec1lem1 48090. Glossaries of symbols used in individual proofs, or used differently in different proofs, are in the comments of those proofs.
Syntax	csetrecs 48086	Extend class notation to include a set defined by transfinite recursion.
class setrecs(𝐹)
Definition	df-setrecs 48087*	Define a class setrecs(𝐹) by transfinite recursion, where (𝐹‘𝑥) is the set of new elements to add to the class given the set 𝑥 of elements in the class so far. We do not need a base case, because we can start with the empty set, which is vacuously a subset of setrecs(𝐹). The goal of this definition is to construct a class fulfilling Theorems setrec1 48094 and setrec2v 48099, which give a more intuitive idea of the meaning of setrecs. Unlike wrecs, setrecs is well-defined for any 𝐹 and meaningful for any function 𝐹. For example, see Theorem onsetrec 48111 for how the class On is defined recursively using the successor function. The definition works by building subsets of the desired class and taking the union of those subsets. To find such a collection of subsets, consider an arbitrary set 𝑧, and consider the result when applying 𝐹 to any subset 𝑤 ⊆ 𝑧. Remember that 𝐹 can be any function, and in general we are interested in functions that give outputs that are larger than their inputs, so we have no reason to expect the outputs to be within 𝑧. However, if we restrict the domain of 𝐹 to a given set 𝑦, the resulting range will be a set. Therefore, with this restricted 𝐹, it makes sense to consider sets 𝑧 that are closed under 𝐹 applied to its subsets. Now we can test whether a given set 𝑦 is recursively generated by 𝐹. If every set 𝑧 that is closed under 𝐹 contains 𝑦, that means that every member of 𝑦 must eventually be generated by 𝐹. On the other hand, if some such 𝑧 does not contain a certain element of 𝑦, then that element can be avoided even if we apply 𝐹 in every possible way to previously generated elements. Note that such an omitted element might be eventually recursively generated by 𝐹, but not through the elements of 𝑦. In this case, 𝑦 would fail the condition in the definition, but the omitted element would still be included in some larger 𝑦. For example, if 𝐹 is the successor function, the set {∅, 2o} would fail the condition since 2o is not an element of the successor of ∅ or {∅}. Remember that we are applying 𝐹 to subsets of 𝑦, not elements of 𝑦. In fact, even the set {1o} fails the condition, since the only subset of previously generated elements is ∅, and suc ∅ does not have 1o as an element. However, we can let 𝑦 be any ordinal, since each of its elements is generated by starting with ∅ and repeatedly applying the successor function. A similar definition I initially used for setrecs(𝐹) was setrecs(𝐹) = ∪ ran recs((𝑔 ∈ V ↦ (𝐹‘∪ ran 𝑔))). I had initially tried and failed to find an elementary definition, and I had proven theorems analogous to setrec1 48094 and setrec2v 48099 using the old definition before I found the new one. I decided to change definitions for two reasons. First, as John Horton Conway noted in the Appendix to Part Zero of On Numbers and Games, mathematicians should not be caught up in any particular formalization, such as ZF set theory. Instead, they should work under whatever framework best suits the problem, and the formal bases used for different problems can be shown to be equivalent. Thus, Conway preferred defining surreal numbers as equivalence classes of surreal number forms, rather than sign-expansions. Although sign-expansions are easier to implement in ZF set theory, Conway argued that "formalisation within some particular axiomatic set theory is irrelevant". Furthermore, one of the most remarkable properties of the theory of surreal numbers is that it generates so much from almost nothing. Using sign-expansions as the formal definition destroys the beauty of surreal numbers, because ordinals are already built in. For this reason, I replaced the old definition of setrecs, which also relied heavily on ordinal numbers. On the other hand, both surreal numbers and the elementary definition of setrecs immediately generate the ordinal numbers from a (relatively) very simple set-theoretical basis. Second, although it is still complicated to formalize the theory of recursively generated sets within ZF set theory, it is actually simpler and more natural to do so with set theory directly than with the theory of ordinal numbers. As Conway wrote, indexing the "birthdays" of sets is and should be unnecessary. Using an elementary definition for setrecs removes the reliance on the previously developed theory of ordinal numbers, allowing proofs to be simpler and more direct. Formalizing surreal numbers within Metamath is probably still not in the spirit of Conway. He said that "attempts to force arbitrary theories into a single formal straitjacket... produce unnecessarily cumbrous and inelegant contortions." Nevertheless, Metamath has proven to be much more versatile than it seems at first, and I think the theory of surreal numbers can be natural while fitting well into the Metamath framework. The difficulty in writing a definition in Metamath for setrecs(𝐹) is that the necessary properties to prove are self-referential (see setrec1 48094 and setrec2v 48099), so we cannot simply write the properties we want inside a class abstraction as with most definitions. As noted in the comment of df-rdg 8424, this is not actually a requirement of the Metamath language, but we would like to be able to eliminate all definitions by direct mechanical substitution. We cannot define setrecs using a class abstraction directly, because nothing about its individual elements tells us whether they are in the set. We need to know about previous elements first. One way of getting around this problem without indexing is by defining setrecs(𝐹) as a union or intersection of suitable sets. Thus, instead of using a class abstraction for the elements of setrecs(𝐹), which seems to be impossible, we can use a class abstraction for supersets or subsets of setrecs(𝐹), which "know" about multiple individual elements at a time. Note that we cannot define setrecs(𝐹) as an intersection of sets, because in general it is a proper class, so any supersets would also be proper classes. However, a proper class can be a union of sets, as long as the collection of such sets is a proper class. Therefore, it is feasible to define setrecs(𝐹) as a union of a class abstraction. If setrecs(𝐹) = ∪ 𝐴, the elements of A must be subsets of setrecs(𝐹) which together include everything recursively generated by 𝐹. We can do this by letting 𝐴 be the class of sets 𝑥 whose elements are all recursively generated by 𝐹. One necessary condition is that each element of a given 𝑥 ∈ 𝐴 must be generated by 𝐹 when applied to a previous element 𝑦 ∈ 𝐴. In symbols, ∀𝑥 ∈ 𝐴∃𝑦 ∈ 𝐴(𝑦 ⊆ 𝑥 ∧ 𝑥 ⊆ (𝐹‘𝑦))}. However, this is not sufficient. All fixed points 𝑥 of 𝐹 will satisfy this condition whether they should be in setrecs(𝐹) or not. If we replace the subset relation with the proper subset relation, 𝑥 cannot be the empty set, even though the empty set should be in 𝐴. Therefore this condition cannot be used in the definition, even if we can find a way to avoid making it circular. A better strategy is to find a necessary and sufficient condition for all the elements of a set 𝑦 ∈ 𝐴 to be generated by 𝐹 when applied only to sets of previously generated elements within 𝑦. For example, taking 𝐹 to be the successor function, we can let 𝐴 = On rather than 𝒫 On, and we will still have ∪ 𝐴 = On as required. This gets rid of the circularity of the definition, since we should have a condition to test whether a given set 𝑦 is in 𝐴 without knowing about any of the other elements of 𝐴. The definition I ended up using accomplishes this using induction: 𝐴 is defined as the class of sets 𝑦 for which a sort of induction on the elements of 𝑦 holds. However, when creating a definition for setrecs that did not rely on ordinal numbers, I tried at first to write a definition using the well-founded relation predicate, Fr. I thought that this would be simple to do once I found a suitable definition using induction, just as the least- element principle is equivalent to induction on the positive integers. If we let 𝑅 = {⟨𝑎, 𝑏⟩ ∣ (𝐹‘𝑎) ⊆ 𝑏}, then (𝑅 Fr 𝐴 ↔ ∀𝑥((𝑥 ⊆ 𝐴 ∧ 𝑥 ≠ ∅) → ∃𝑦 ∈ 𝑥∀𝑧 ∈ 𝑥¬ (𝐹‘𝑧) ⊆ 𝑦)). On 22-Jul-2020 I came up with the following definition (Version 1) phrased in terms of induction: ∪ {𝑦 ∣ ∀𝑧 (∀𝑤(𝑤 ⊆ 𝑦 → (𝑤 ∈ 𝑧 → (𝐹‘𝑤) ∈ 𝑧)) → 𝑦 ∈ 𝑧)} In Aug-2020 I came up with an equivalent definition with the goal of phrasing it in terms of the relation Fr. It is the contrapositive of the previous one with 𝑧 replaced by its complement. ∪ {𝑦 ∣ ∀𝑧 (𝑦 ∈ 𝑧 → ∃𝑤(𝑤 ⊆ 𝑦 ∧ (𝐹‘𝑤) ∈ 𝑧 ∧ ¬ 𝑤 ∈ 𝑧))} These definitions didn't work because the induction didn't "get off the ground." If 𝑧 does not contain the empty set, the condition (∀𝑤...𝑦 ∈ 𝑧 fails, so 𝑦 = ∅ doesn't get included in 𝐴 even though it should. This could be fixed by adding the base case as a separate requirement, but the subtler problem would remain that rather than a set of "acceptable" sets, what we really need is a collection 𝑧 of all individuals that have been generated so far. So one approach is to replace every occurrence of ∈ 𝑧 with ⊆ 𝑧, making 𝑧 a set of individuals rather than a family of sets. That solves this problem, but it complicates the foundedness version of the definition, which looked cleaner in Version 1. There was another problem with Version 1. If we let 𝐹 be the power set function, then the induction in the inductive version works for 𝑧 being the class of transitive sets, restricted to subsets of 𝑦. Therefore, 𝑦 must be transitive by definition of 𝑧. This doesn't affect the union of all such 𝑦, but it may or may not be desirable. The problem is that 𝐹 is only applied to transitive sets, because of the strong requirement 𝑤 ∈ 𝑧, so the definition requires the additional constraint (𝑎 ⊆ 𝑏 → (𝐹‘𝑎) ⊆ (𝐹‘𝑏)) in order to work. This issue can also be avoided by replacing ∈ 𝑧 with ⊆ 𝑧. The induction version of the result is used in the final definition. Version 2: (18-Aug-2020) Induction: ∪ {𝑦 ∣ ∀𝑧 (∀𝑤(𝑤 ⊆ 𝑦 → (𝑤 ⊆ 𝑧 → (𝐹‘𝑤) ⊆ 𝑧)) → 𝑦 ⊆ 𝑧)} Foundedness: ∪ {𝑦 ∣ ∀𝑧(𝑦 ∩ 𝑧 ≠ ∅ → ∃𝑤(𝑤 ⊆ 𝑦 ∧ 𝑤 ∩ 𝑧 = ∅ ∧ (𝐹‘𝑤) ∩ 𝑧 ≠ ∅))} In the induction version, not only does 𝑧 include all the elements of 𝑦, but it must include the elements of (𝐹‘𝑤) for 𝑤 ⊆ (𝑦 ∩ 𝑧) even if those elements of (𝐹‘𝑤) are not in 𝑦. We shouldn't care about any of the elements of 𝑧 outside 𝑦, but this detail doesn't affect the correctness of the definition. If we replaced (𝐹‘𝑤) in the definition by ((𝐹‘𝑤) ∩ 𝑦), we would get the same class for setrecs(𝐹). Suppose we could find a 𝑧 for which the condition fails for a given 𝑦 under the changed definition. Then the antecedent would be true, but 𝑦 ⊆ 𝑧 would be false. We could then simply add all elements of (𝐹‘𝑤) outside of 𝑦 for any 𝑤 ⊆ 𝑦, which we can do because all the classes involved are sets. This is not trivial and requires the axioms of union, power set, and replacement. However, the expanded 𝑧 fails the condition under the Metamath definition. The other direction is easier. If a certain 𝑧 fails the Metamath definition, then all (𝐹‘𝑤) ⊆ 𝑧 for 𝑤 ⊆ (𝑦 ∩ 𝑧), and in particular ((𝐹‘𝑤) ∩ 𝑦) ⊆ 𝑧. The foundedness version is starting to look more like ax-reg 9609! We want to take advantage of the preexisting relation Fr, which seems closely related to our foundedness definition. Since we only care about the elements of 𝑧 which are subsets of 𝑦, we can restrict 𝑧 to 𝑦 in the foundedness definition. Furthermore, instead of quantifying over 𝑤, quantify over the elements 𝑣 ∈ 𝑧 overlapping with 𝑤. Versions 3, 4, and 5 are all equivalent to Version 2. Version 3 - Foundedness (5-Sep-2020): ∪ {𝑦 ∣ ∀𝑧((𝑧 ⊆ 𝑦 ∧ 𝑧 ≠ ∅) → ∃𝑣 ∈ 𝑧∃𝑤(𝑤 ⊆ 𝑦 ∧ 𝑤 ∩ 𝑧 = ∅ ∧ 𝑣 ∈ (𝐹‘𝑤)))} Now, if we replace (𝐹‘𝑤) by ((𝐹‘𝑤) ∩ 𝑦), we do not change the definition. We already know that 𝑣 ∈ 𝑦 since 𝑣 ∈ 𝑧 and 𝑧 ⊆ 𝑦. All we need to show in order to prove that this change leads to an equivalent definition is to find To make our definition look exactly like df-fr 5627, we add another variable 𝑢 representing the nonexistent element of 𝑤 in 𝑧. Version 4 - Foundedness (6-Sep-2020): ∪ {𝑦 ∣ ∀𝑧((𝑧 ⊆ 𝑦 ∧ 𝑧 ≠ ∅) → ∃𝑣 ∈ 𝑧∃𝑤∀𝑢 ∈ 𝑧(𝑤 ⊆ 𝑦 ∧ ¬ 𝑢 ∈ 𝑤 ∧ 𝑣 ∈ (𝐹‘𝑤)) This is so close to df-fr 5627; the only change needed is to switch ∃𝑤 with ∀𝑢 ∈ 𝑧. Unfortunately, I couldn't find any way to switch the quantifiers without interfering with the definition. Maybe there is a definition equivalent to this one that uses Fr, but I couldn't find one. Yet, we can still find a remarkable similarity between Foundedness Version 2 and ax-reg 9609. Rather than a disjoint element of 𝑧, there's a disjoint coverer of an element of 𝑧. Finally, here's a different dead end I followed: To clean up our foundedness definition, we keep 𝑧 as a family of sets 𝑦 but allow 𝑤 to be any subset of ∪ 𝑧 in the induction. With this stronger induction, we can also allow for the stronger requirement 𝒫 𝑦 ⊆ 𝑧 rather than only 𝑦 ∈ 𝑧. This will help improve the foundedness version. Version 1.1 (28-Aug-2020) Induction: ∪ {𝑦 ∣ ∀𝑧(∀𝑤 (𝑤 ⊆ 𝑦 → (𝑤 ⊆ ∪ 𝑧 → (𝐹‘𝑤) ∈ 𝑧)) → 𝒫 𝑦 ⊆ 𝑧)} Foundedness: ∪ {𝑦 ∣ ∀𝑧(∃𝑎(𝑎 ⊆ 𝑦 ∧ 𝑎 ∈ 𝑧) → ∃𝑤(𝑤 ⊆ 𝑦 ∧ 𝑤 ∩ ∩ 𝑧 = ∅ ∧ (𝐹‘𝑤) ∈ 𝑧))} ( Edit (Aug 31) - this isn't true! Nothing forces the subset of an element of 𝑧 to be in 𝑧. Version 2 does not have this issue. ) Similarly, we could allow 𝑤 to be any subset of any element of 𝑧 rather than any subset of ∪ 𝑧. I think this has the same problem. We want to take advantage of the preexisting relation Fr, which seems closely related to our foundedness definition. Since we only care about the elements of 𝑧 which are subsets of 𝑦, we can restrict 𝑧 to 𝒫 𝑦 in the foundedness definition: Version 1.2 (31-Aug-2020) Foundedness: ∪ {𝑦 ∣ ∀𝑧((𝑧 ⊆ 𝒫 𝑦 ∧ 𝑧 ≠ ∅) → ∃𝑤(𝑤 ∈ 𝒫 𝑦 ∧ 𝑤 ∩ ∩ 𝑧 = ∅ ∧ (𝐹‘𝑤) ∈ 𝑧))} Now this looks more like df-fr 5627! The last step necessary to be able to use Fr directly in our definition is to replace (𝐹‘𝑤) with its own setvar variable, corresponding to 𝑦 in df-fr 5627. This definition is incorrect, though, since there's nothing forcing the subset of an element of 𝑧 to be in 𝑧. Version 1.3 (31-Aug-2020) Induction: ∪ {𝑦 ∣ ∀𝑧(∀𝑤(𝑤 ⊆ 𝑦 → (𝑤 ⊆ ∪ 𝑧 → (𝑤 ∈ 𝑧 ∧ (𝐹‘𝑤) ∈ 𝑧))) → 𝒫 𝑦 ⊆ 𝑧)} Foundedness: ∪ {𝑦 ∣ ∀𝑧((𝑧 ⊆ 𝒫 𝑦 ∧ 𝑧 ≠ ∅) → ∃𝑤(𝑤 ∈ 𝒫 𝑦 ∧ 𝑤 ∩ ∩ 𝑧 = ∅ ∧ (𝑤 ∈ 𝑧 ∨ (𝐹‘𝑤) ∈ 𝑧)))} 𝑧 must contain the supersets of each of its elements in the foundedness version, and we can't make any restrictions on 𝑧 or 𝐹, so this doesn't work. Let's try letting R be the covering relation 𝑅 = {⟨𝑎, 𝑏⟩ ∣ 𝑏 ∈ (𝐹‘𝑎)} to solve the transitivity issue (i.e. that if 𝐹 is the power set relation, 𝐴 consists only of transitive sets). The set (𝐹‘𝑤) corresponds to the variable 𝑦 in df-fr 5627. Thus, in our case, df-fr 5627 is equivalent to (𝑅 Fr 𝐴 ↔ ∀𝑧((𝑧 ⊆ 𝐴 ∧ 𝑧 ≠ ∅) → ∃𝑤((𝐹‘𝑤) ∈ 𝑧 ∧ ¬ ∃𝑣 ∈ 𝑧𝑣𝑅(𝐹‘𝑤))). Substituting our relation 𝑅 gives (𝑅 Fr 𝐴 ↔ ∀𝑧((𝑧 ⊆ 𝐴 ∧ 𝑧 ≠ ∅) → ∃𝑤((𝐹‘𝑤) ∈ 𝑧 ∧ ¬ ∃𝑣 ∈ 𝑧(𝐹‘𝑤) ∈ (𝐹‘𝑣))) This doesn't work for non-injective 𝐹 because we need all 𝑧 to be straddlers, but we don't necessarily need all-straddlers; loops within z are fine for non-injective F. Consider the foundedness form of Version 1. We want to show ¬ 𝑤 ∈ 𝑧 ↔ ∀𝑣 ∈ 𝑧¬ 𝑣𝑅(𝐹‘𝑤) so we can replace one with the other. Negate both sides: 𝑤 ∈ 𝑧 ↔ ∃𝑣 ∈ 𝑧𝑣𝑅(𝐹‘𝑤) If 𝐹 is injective, then we should be able to pick a suitable R, being careful about the above problem for some F (for example z = transitivity) when changing the antecedent y e. z' to z =/= (/). If we're clever, we can get rid of the injectivity requirement. The forward direction of the above equivalence always holds, but the key is that although the backwards direction doesn't hold in general, we can always find some z' where it doesn't work for 𝑤 itself. If there exists a z' where the version with the w condition fails, then there exists a z' where the version with the v condition also fails. However, Version 1 is not a correct definition, so this doesn't work either. (Contributed by Emmett Weisz, 18-Aug-2020.) (New usage is discouraged.)
⊢ setrecs(𝐹) = ∪ {𝑦 ∣ ∀𝑧(∀𝑤(𝑤 ⊆ 𝑦 → (𝑤 ⊆ 𝑧 → (𝐹‘𝑤) ⊆ 𝑧)) → 𝑦 ⊆ 𝑧)}
Theorem	setrecseq 48088	Equality theorem for set recursion. (Contributed by Emmett Weisz, 17-Feb-2021.)
⊢ (𝐹 = 𝐺 → setrecs(𝐹) = setrecs(𝐺))
Theorem	nfsetrecs 48089	Bound-variable hypothesis builder for setrecs. (Contributed by Emmett Weisz, 21-Oct-2021.)
⊢ Ⅎ𝑥𝐹    ⇒   ⊢ Ⅎ𝑥setrecs(𝐹)
Theorem	setrec1lem1 48090*	Lemma for setrec1 48094. This is a utility theorem showing the equivalence of the statement 𝑋 ∈ 𝑌 and its expanded form. The proof uses elabg 3663 and equivalence theorems. Variable 𝑌 is the class of sets 𝑦 that are recursively generated by the function 𝐹. In other words, 𝑦 ∈ 𝑌 iff by starting with the empty set and repeatedly applying 𝐹 to subsets 𝑤 of our set, we will eventually generate all the elements of 𝑌. In this theorem, 𝑋 is any element of 𝑌, and 𝑉 is any class. (Contributed by Emmett Weisz, 16-Oct-2020.) (New usage is discouraged.)
⊢ 𝑌 = {𝑦 ∣ ∀𝑧(∀𝑤(𝑤 ⊆ 𝑦 → (𝑤 ⊆ 𝑧 → (𝐹‘𝑤) ⊆ 𝑧)) → 𝑦 ⊆ 𝑧)}    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝑋 ∈ 𝑉)    ⇒   ⊢ (𝜑 → (𝑋 ∈ 𝑌 ↔ ∀𝑧(∀𝑤(𝑤 ⊆ 𝑋 → (𝑤 ⊆ 𝑧 → (𝐹‘𝑤) ⊆ 𝑧)) → 𝑋 ⊆ 𝑧)))
Theorem	setrec1lem2 48091*	Lemma for setrec1 48094. If a family of sets are all recursively generated by 𝐹, so is their union. In this theorem, 𝑋 is a family of sets which are all elements of 𝑌, and 𝑉 is any class. Use dfss3 3966, equivalence and equality theorems, and unissb at the end. Sandwich with applications of setrec1lem1. (Contributed by Emmett Weisz, 24-Jan-2021.) (New usage is discouraged.)
⊢ 𝑌 = {𝑦 ∣ ∀𝑧(∀𝑤(𝑤 ⊆ 𝑦 → (𝑤 ⊆ 𝑧 → (𝐹‘𝑤) ⊆ 𝑧)) → 𝑦 ⊆ 𝑧)}    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝑋 ∈ 𝑉)    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝑋 ⊆ 𝑌)    ⇒   ⊢ (𝜑 → ∪ 𝑋 ∈ 𝑌)
Theorem	setrec1lem3 48092*	Lemma for setrec1 48094. If each element 𝑎 of 𝐴 is covered by a set 𝑥 recursively generated by 𝐹, then there is a single such set covering all of 𝐴. The set is constructed explicitly using setrec1lem2 48091. It turns out that 𝑥 = 𝐴 also works, i.e., given the hypotheses it is possible to prove that 𝐴 ∈ 𝑌. I don't know if proving this fact directly using setrec1lem1 48090 would be any easier than the current proof using setrec1lem2 48091, and it would only slightly simplify the proof of setrec1 48094. Other than the use of bnd2d 48084, this is a purely technical theorem for rearranging notation from that of setrec1lem2 48091 to that of setrec1 48094. (Contributed by Emmett Weisz, 20-Jan-2021.) (New usage is discouraged.)
⊢ 𝑌 = {𝑦 ∣ ∀𝑧(∀𝑤(𝑤 ⊆ 𝑦 → (𝑤 ⊆ 𝑧 → (𝐹‘𝑤) ⊆ 𝑧)) → 𝑦 ⊆ 𝑧)}    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝐴 ∈ V)    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → ∀𝑎 ∈ 𝐴 ∃𝑥(𝑎 ∈ 𝑥 ∧ 𝑥 ∈ 𝑌))    ⇒   ⊢ (𝜑 → ∃𝑥(𝐴 ⊆ 𝑥 ∧ 𝑥 ∈ 𝑌))
Theorem	setrec1lem4 48093*	Lemma for setrec1 48094. If 𝑋 is recursively generated by 𝐹, then so is 𝑋 ∪ (𝐹‘𝐴). In the proof of setrec1 48094, the following is substituted for this theorem's 𝜑: (𝜑 ∧ (𝐴 ⊆ 𝑥 ∧ 𝑥 ∈ {𝑦 ∣ ∀𝑧(∀𝑤 (𝑤 ⊆ 𝑦 → (𝑤 ⊆ 𝑧 → (𝐹‘𝑤) ⊆ 𝑧)) → 𝑦 ⊆ 𝑧)})) Therefore, we cannot declare 𝑧 to be a distinct variable from 𝜑, since we need it to appear as a bound variable in 𝜑. This theorem can be proven without the hypothesis Ⅎ𝑧𝜑, but the proof would be harder to read because theorems in deduction form would be interrupted by theorems like eximi 1830, making the antecedent of each line something more complicated than 𝜑. The proof of setrec1lem2 48091 could similarly be made easier to read by adding the hypothesis Ⅎ𝑧𝜑, but I had already finished the proof and decided to leave it as is. (Contributed by Emmett Weisz, 26-Nov-2020.) (New usage is discouraged.)
⊢ Ⅎ𝑧𝜑    &   ⊢ 𝑌 = {𝑦 ∣ ∀𝑧(∀𝑤(𝑤 ⊆ 𝑦 → (𝑤 ⊆ 𝑧 → (𝐹‘𝑤) ⊆ 𝑧)) → 𝑦 ⊆ 𝑧)}    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝐴 ∈ V)    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝐴 ⊆ 𝑋)    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝑋 ∈ 𝑌)    ⇒   ⊢ (𝜑 → (𝑋 ∪ (𝐹‘𝐴)) ∈ 𝑌)
Theorem	setrec1 48094	This is the first of two fundamental theorems about set recursion from which all other facts will be derived. It states that the class setrecs(𝐹) is closed under 𝐹. This effectively sets the actual value of setrecs(𝐹) as a lower bound for setrecs(𝐹), as it implies that any set generated by successive applications of 𝐹 is a member of 𝐵. This theorem "gets off the ground" because we can start by letting 𝐴 = ∅, and the hypotheses of the theorem will hold trivially. Variable 𝐵 represents an abbreviation of setrecs(𝐹) or another name of setrecs(𝐹) (for an example of the latter, see theorem setrecon). Proof summary: Assume that 𝐴 ⊆ 𝐵, meaning that all elements of 𝐴 are in some set recursively generated by 𝐹. Then by setrec1lem3 48092, 𝐴 is a subset of some set recursively generated by 𝐹. (It turns out that 𝐴 itself is recursively generated by 𝐹, but we don't need this fact. See the comment to setrec1lem3 48092.) Therefore, by setrec1lem4 48093, (𝐹‘𝐴) is a subset of some set recursively generated by 𝐹. Thus, by ssuni 4930, it is a subset of the union of all sets recursively generated by 𝐹. See df-setrecs 48087 for a detailed description of how the setrecs definition works. (Contributed by Emmett Weisz, 9-Oct-2020.)
⊢ 𝐵 = setrecs(𝐹)    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝐴 ∈ V)    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝐴 ⊆ 𝐵)    ⇒   ⊢ (𝜑 → (𝐹‘𝐴) ⊆ 𝐵)
Theorem	setrec2fun 48095*	This is the second of two fundamental theorems about set recursion from which all other facts will be derived. It states that the class setrecs(𝐹) is a subclass of all classes 𝐶 that are closed under 𝐹. Taken together, Theorems setrec1 48094 and setrec2v 48099 say that setrecs(𝐹) is the minimal class closed under 𝐹. We express this by saying that if 𝐹 respects the ⊆ relation and 𝐶 is closed under 𝐹, then 𝐵 ⊆ 𝐶. By substituting strategically constructed classes for 𝐶, we can easily prove many useful properties. Although this theorem cannot show equality between 𝐵 and 𝐶, if we intend to prove equality between 𝐵 and some particular class (such as On), we first apply this theorem, then the relevant induction theorem (such as tfi 7851) to the other class. (Contributed by Emmett Weisz, 15-Feb-2021.) (New usage is discouraged.)
⊢ Ⅎ𝑎𝐹    &   ⊢ 𝐵 = setrecs(𝐹)    &   ⊢ Fun 𝐹    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → ∀𝑎(𝑎 ⊆ 𝐶 → (𝐹‘𝑎) ⊆ 𝐶))    ⇒   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝐵 ⊆ 𝐶)
Theorem	setrec2lem1 48096*	Lemma for setrec2 48098. The functional part of 𝐹 has the same values as 𝐹. (Contributed by Emmett Weisz, 4-Mar-2021.) (New usage is discouraged.)
⊢ ((𝐹 ↾ {𝑥 ∣ ∃!𝑦 𝑥𝐹𝑦})‘𝑎) = (𝐹‘𝑎)
Theorem	setrec2lem2 48097*	Lemma for setrec2 48098. The functional part of 𝐹 is a function. (Contributed by Emmett Weisz, 6-Mar-2021.) (New usage is discouraged.)
⊢ Fun (𝐹 ↾ {𝑥 ∣ ∃!𝑦 𝑥𝐹𝑦})
Theorem	setrec2 48098*	This is the second of two fundamental theorems about set recursion from which all other facts will be derived. It states that the class setrecs(𝐹) is a subclass of all classes 𝐶 that are closed under 𝐹. Taken together, Theorems setrec1 48094 and setrec2v 48099 uniquely determine setrecs(𝐹) to be the minimal class closed under 𝐹. We express this by saying that if 𝐹 respects the ⊆ relation and 𝐶 is closed under 𝐹, then 𝐵 ⊆ 𝐶. By substituting strategically constructed classes for 𝐶, we can easily prove many useful properties. Although this theorem cannot show equality between 𝐵 and 𝐶, if we intend to prove equality between 𝐵 and some particular class (such as On), we first apply this theorem, then the relevant induction theorem (such as tfi 7851) to the other class. (Contributed by Emmett Weisz, 2-Sep-2021.)
⊢ Ⅎ𝑎𝐹    &   ⊢ 𝐵 = setrecs(𝐹)    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → ∀𝑎(𝑎 ⊆ 𝐶 → (𝐹‘𝑎) ⊆ 𝐶))    ⇒   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝐵 ⊆ 𝐶)
Theorem	setrec2v 48099*	Version of setrec2 48098 with a disjoint variable condition instead of a nonfreeness hypothesis. (Contributed by Emmett Weisz, 6-Mar-2021.)
⊢ 𝐵 = setrecs(𝐹)    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → ∀𝑎(𝑎 ⊆ 𝐶 → (𝐹‘𝑎) ⊆ 𝐶))    ⇒   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝐵 ⊆ 𝐶)
Theorem	setrec2mpt 48100*	Version of setrec2 48098 where 𝐹 is defined using maps-to notation. Deduction form is omitted in the second hypothesis for simplicity. In practice, nothing important is lost since we are only interested in one choice of 𝐴, 𝑆, and 𝑉 at a time. However, we are interested in what happens when 𝐶 varies, so deduction form is used in the third hypothesis. (Contributed by Emmett Weisz, 4-Jun-2024.)
⊢ 𝐵 = setrecs((𝑎 ∈ 𝐴 ↦ 𝑆))    &   ⊢ (𝑎 ∈ 𝐴 → 𝑆 ∈ 𝑉)    &   ⊢ (𝜑 → ∀𝑎(𝑎 ⊆ 𝐶 → 𝑆 ⊆ 𝐶))    ⇒   ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝐵 ⊆ 𝐶)