Notation guide (adapted from Metamath):

β€’ πœ‘, a metavariable standing for any logical formula, abbreviates the conjunction of all hypotheses listed for a given proposition; writing each line as ⊒ (πœ‘ β†’ …) puts the theorem in "deduction form," which can be easier to apply in #Metamath.

β€’ ⊒ πœ‘ asserts that πœ‘ is true; the turnstile is descended from #Frege's own Urteilsstrich (judgment stroke).

β€’ 𝐴𝑅𝐡 means the ordered pair ⟨𝐴, 𝐡⟩ is an element of 𝑅, or we could say 𝐡 immediately follows 𝐴

β€’ 𝐡 = (π‘…β€˜π΄) means 𝐡 is the unique set such that 𝐴𝑅𝐡 is true (when such a 𝐡 exists) which means 𝑅 is function-like when restricted to operating on the singleton {𝐴}

β€’ (𝑅”𝐴) is the image of 𝐴

β€’ dom 𝑅 is the domain of 𝑅, the class of all sets π‘₯ such that there is a set 𝑦 that would make π‘₯𝑅𝑦 true.

β€’ Fun 𝑅 is true when 𝑅 is function-like for all sets in its domain.

β€’ ◑𝑅 is the converse of 𝑅 so 𝐴◑𝑅𝐡 iff 𝐡𝑅𝐴

β€’ (tcβ€˜π‘…) is the #TransitiveClosure of 𝑅 (Metamath uses (t+β€˜π‘…) which can be awkward.) Whitehead and Russell use the term ancestral to describe how 𝐴(tcβ€˜π‘…)𝐡 means 𝐴 is some β€œancestor” of 𝐡. Alternately, we can say 𝐡 eventually follows 𝐴.

β€’ V is the universal class, every set is a member, and only sets may be members of any class. After Frege’s later work ran into Russell’s Paradox, it was discovered that not every class {π‘₯ | πœ‘} makes sense as a set and so we need the hypothesis ⊒ (πœ‘ β†’ 𝐴 ∈ V) before we can talk about the function value of 𝐴 or the ordered pair ⟨𝐴, 𝐡⟩ being an element of 𝑅. V is not italic because it is a constant symbol, like tc, dom, and Fun.

Begriffsschrift (1879), is one of the first manuscripts on #SymbolicLogic. As such, it literally invents a new language to describe the subjects the author, #GottlobFrege, wants to introduce. And this notation is very unlike what we see in math before or after this.

So I will list some theorems adapted (by me, circa 2020) from #Frege with proper set-theoretical bounds.

#SetTheory #Logic #Metamath

So, just double-checking how #Lean4 and #Mathlib work:

* Lean takes 3GiB of RAM and a minute to open Mathlib
* Lean requires about 10min to build itself in CI, only verifying required theorems
* Verifying all of Mathlib is measured in hours
* Lean's kernel is untrustworthy due to junk theorems

And yet I'm a clown for using #Metamath? At some point we ought to reconsider the type-theory fetish.

Every well-ordered set is isomorphic to an ordinal. Common notion, for example see Introduction to https://arxiv.org/abs/2409.07352

⊒((𝐴∈Vβˆ§π‘…We𝐴)β†”βˆƒπ‘“(domπ‘“βˆˆOnβˆ§π‘“IsomE,𝑅(dom𝑓,𝐴)))

\[ \vdash ( ( A \in \mathrm{V} \wedge R \mathrm{We} A ) \leftrightarrow \exists f ( \mathrm{dom} f \in \mathrm{On} \wedge f \mathrm{Isom} \mathrm{E} , R ( \mathrm{dom} f , A ) ) ) \]

Every well-ordered set is isomorphic to
a unique ordinal.

⊒((𝐴∈Vβˆ§π‘…We𝐴)β†”βˆƒ!π‘œβˆˆOnβˆƒπ‘“βˆˆ(π΄β†‘β‚˜π‘œ)𝑓IsomE,𝑅(π‘œ,𝐴))

\[ \vdash ( ( A \in \mathrm{V} \wedge R \mathrm{We} A ) \leftrightarrow \exists{!} o \in \mathrm{On} \exists f \in ( A \uparrow_\mathrm{m} o ) f \mathrm{Isom} \mathrm{E} , R ( o , A ) ) \]

We can phrase the Axiom of Choice as "Every set injects into an ordinal."

⊒(CHOICEβ†”βˆ€π‘₯βˆƒπ‘œβˆˆOnπ‘₯β‰Όπ‘œ)

\[ \vdash ( \mathrm{CHOICE} \leftrightarrow \forall x \exists o \in \mathrm{On} x \preccurlyeq o ) \]

#math #metamath #SetTheory #WellOrdering #OrdinalNumbers

@FishFace Update:

What I refer to as EScbO is usually called #LO the #LinearOrdering principle.

⊒ βˆƒy βˆ€a ∈ x βˆ€b ∈ x βˆ€c ∈ x (Β¬ aya ∧ ((ayb ∧ byc) β†’ ayc) ∧ (ayb ∨ a = b ∨ bya))
or using abbreviations in #Metamath
⊒ βˆƒy y Or x

I think AC implies LO, but LO is independent of DC and CC.

So we have { 1, 2 } ∈ Fin₁ βŠ† Fin₁ₐ βŠ† Finβ‚‚ βŠ† Fin₃ βŠ† Finβ‚„ βŠ† Finβ‚… βŠ† Fin₆ βŠ† Fin₇

If a set is in Fin₁ then it is considered finite by all the other definitions.

But since the axiom of choice is equivalent to saying every set can be well-ordered, if we accept it VII-finite sets are equinumerous with a finite ordinal and so Fin₇ βŠ† Fin₁ and so the differences between these definitions collapse and ZF becomes ZFC, which is a widely accepted basis for Set Theory.

My consultation with math resources was inspired by a blog post:

https://www.infinitelymore.xyz/p/what-is-the-infinite

#Metamath #ZFC #SetTheory #AxiomOfChoice #FiniteSet #Infinity

What is the infinite?

What does it mean, exactly, to say that a set is infinite? Can we provide precise mathematical definitions of the finite and the infinite?

Infinitely More

Also from #Metamath I learned #infinity is hard to think about.

A . LΓ©vy in "The independence of various definitions of finiteness" Fundamenta Mathematicae, 46:1-13 (1958) established 8 distinct set-theoretic definitions of a #finiteSet which in ZF cannot be equated without the #AxiomOfChoice

I-finite -- equinumerous with a finite ordinal. // i.e. admits a finite well-order (Numerically Finite) ⟺ the powerset of its powerset is Dedekind finite ⟺ every collection of its subsets has a maximum element ⟺ every collection of subsets has a minimal element

Ia-finite -- not the union of two sets which are not I-finite

II-finite -- every possible way of finding within the set a chain of nested subsets always contains a maximum element (Tarski finite) ⟺ equivalently every such chain contains its intersection ⟺ (Linearly Finite) ⟺ (StÀckel Finite)

|||-finite -- It's powerset is |V-finite finite, (weakly Dedekind finite) ⟺ cannot be mapped onto ordinal Ο‰ ⟺ doesn't contain a chain of subsets which can be placed in order with Ο‰

|V-finite -- doesn't have a proper subset which is equinumerous to itself. (Dedekind finite) ⟺ there is no 1-1 map from ordinal Ο‰ to it ⟺ it is strictly dominated by the disjoint sum of it and a singleton (acts finite under successor)

V-finite -- it is either empty or strictly dominated by the disjoint sum of it with itself (acts finite under addition)

VI-finite -- it is either empty, a singleton or strictly dominated by the Cartesian product of it with itself (acts finite under multiplication)

VII-finite -- it cannot be infinitely well-ordered (not equiinumerous with the ordinal Ο‰ or any larger ordinal)

Keeping busy with Sudoku, Wordle, Crosswords, and mining textbooks for statements to practice proving in #Metamath ...

Inspired by this video playlist on #RealAnalysis #Math

https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLYPU-RArkLZNwMZ55-y8FZZEeY7zCJX59

Which was created from https://www.jirka.org/ra/ _Basic Analysis:
Introduction to Real Analysis_ by JiΕ™Γ­ Lebl. #JiΕ™Γ­Lebl a #CreativeCommons (4.0) free #math #textbook

In Metamath's compressed format, my proofs of strong induction over the natural numbers took 316 bytes, well-ordering of the natural numbers: 376 bytes, 2ⁿ⁻¹ ≀ n! : 1204 bytes, formula for finite sum of geometric series: 2566 bytes. The last has 147 steps, some of which are reused and some of which depend on up to 8 prior steps and on a truncated library of 30477 statements of syntax, axioms, definitions, and theorems from the wider world of Metamath.

Readings shared October 29, 2025

The readings shared in Bluesky on 29 October 2025 are: Formalizing Schwartz functions and tempered distributions. ~ Moritz Doll. #ITP #LeanProver #Math 1000+ theorems (The spiritual successor of Free

Vestigium
1000+ theorems (The spiritual successor of Freek’s list of 100 theorems. Now with more than 1000 theorems!). ~ Katja Berčič et als. https://1000-plus.github.io/all #Math #ITP #IsabelleHOL #HOL_Light #Rocq #LeanProver #Metamath #Mizar
All theorems

Keeping track of formalizations of theorems from the Wikipedia’s List of theorems.

1000+ theorems