forked from metamath/set.mm
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 0
/
mmcomplex.raw.html
1000 lines (842 loc) · 36.9 KB
/
mmcomplex.raw.html
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
211
212
213
214
215
216
217
218
219
220
221
222
223
224
225
226
227
228
229
230
231
232
233
234
235
236
237
238
239
240
241
242
243
244
245
246
247
248
249
250
251
252
253
254
255
256
257
258
259
260
261
262
263
264
265
266
267
268
269
270
271
272
273
274
275
276
277
278
279
280
281
282
283
284
285
286
287
288
289
290
291
292
293
294
295
296
297
298
299
300
301
302
303
304
305
306
307
308
309
310
311
312
313
314
315
316
317
318
319
320
321
322
323
324
325
326
327
328
329
330
331
332
333
334
335
336
337
338
339
340
341
342
343
344
345
346
347
348
349
350
351
352
353
354
355
356
357
358
359
360
361
362
363
364
365
366
367
368
369
370
371
372
373
374
375
376
377
378
379
380
381
382
383
384
385
386
387
388
389
390
391
392
393
394
395
396
397
398
399
400
401
402
403
404
405
406
407
408
409
410
411
412
413
414
415
416
417
418
419
420
421
422
423
424
425
426
427
428
429
430
431
432
433
434
435
436
437
438
439
440
441
442
443
444
445
446
447
448
449
450
451
452
453
454
455
456
457
458
459
460
461
462
463
464
465
466
467
468
469
470
471
472
473
474
475
476
477
478
479
480
481
482
483
484
485
486
487
488
489
490
491
492
493
494
495
496
497
498
499
500
501
502
503
504
505
506
507
508
509
510
511
512
513
514
515
516
517
518
519
520
521
522
523
524
525
526
527
528
529
530
531
532
533
534
535
536
537
538
539
540
541
542
543
544
545
546
547
548
549
550
551
552
553
554
555
556
557
558
559
560
561
562
563
564
565
566
567
568
569
570
571
572
573
574
575
576
577
578
579
580
581
582
583
584
585
586
587
588
589
590
591
592
593
594
595
596
597
598
599
600
601
602
603
604
605
606
607
608
609
610
611
612
613
614
615
616
617
618
619
620
621
622
623
624
625
626
627
628
629
630
631
632
633
634
635
636
637
638
639
640
641
642
643
644
645
646
647
648
649
650
651
652
653
654
655
656
657
658
659
660
661
662
663
664
665
666
667
668
669
670
671
672
673
674
675
676
677
678
679
680
681
682
683
684
685
686
687
688
689
690
691
692
693
694
695
696
697
698
699
700
701
702
703
704
705
706
707
708
709
710
711
712
713
714
715
716
717
718
719
720
721
722
723
724
725
726
727
728
729
730
731
732
733
734
735
736
737
738
739
740
741
742
743
744
745
746
747
748
749
750
751
752
753
754
755
756
757
758
759
760
761
762
763
764
765
766
767
768
769
770
771
772
773
774
775
776
777
778
779
780
781
782
783
784
785
786
787
788
789
790
791
792
793
794
795
796
797
798
799
800
801
802
803
804
805
806
807
808
809
810
811
812
813
814
815
816
817
818
819
820
821
822
823
824
825
826
827
828
829
830
831
832
833
834
835
836
837
838
839
840
841
842
843
844
845
846
847
848
849
850
851
852
853
854
855
856
857
858
859
860
861
862
863
864
865
866
867
868
869
870
871
872
873
874
875
876
877
878
879
880
881
882
883
884
885
886
887
888
889
890
891
892
893
894
895
896
897
898
899
900
901
902
903
904
905
906
907
908
909
910
911
912
913
914
915
916
917
918
919
920
921
922
923
924
925
926
927
928
929
930
931
932
933
934
935
936
937
938
939
940
941
942
943
944
945
946
947
948
949
950
951
952
953
954
955
956
957
958
959
960
961
962
963
964
965
966
967
968
969
970
971
972
973
974
975
976
977
978
979
980
981
982
983
984
985
986
987
988
989
990
991
992
993
994
995
996
997
998
999
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN"
"http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/loose.dtd">
<HTML LANG="EN-US">
<HEAD>
<!-- improve mobile display -->
<META NAME="viewport" CONTENT="width=device-width, initial-scale=1.0">
<META HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type"
CONTENT="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
<TITLE>Real and Complex Numbers - Metamath Proof Explorer</TITLE>
<LINK REL="shortcut icon" HREF="favicon.ico" TYPE="image/x-icon">
<STYLE TYPE="text/css">
<!--
img { margin-bottom: -4px }
.r { font-family: "Arial Narrow";
font-size: x-small;
}
.i { font-family: "Arial Narrow";
font-size: x-small;
color: gray;
}
-->
</STYLE>
<STYLE TYPE="text/css">
<!--
.set { color: red; }
.wff { color: blue; }
.class { color: #C3C; }
.typecode { color: gray }
.hidden { color: gray }
@font-face {
font-family: XITSMath-Regular;
src: url(xits-math.woff);
}
.math { font-family: XITSMath-Regular }
-->
</STYLE>
<LINK href="mmset.css" title="mmset"
rel="stylesheet" type="text/css">
<LINK href="mmsetalt.css" title="mmsetalt"
rel="alternate stylesheet" type="text/css">
</HEAD>
<BODY BGCOLOR="#FFFFFF" STYLE="padding: 0px 8px">
<TABLE BORDER=0 CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 WIDTH="100%">
<TR>
<TD ALIGN=LEFT VALIGN=TOP><A HREF="mmset.html"><IMG SRC="mm.gif"
BORDER=0
ALT="Metamath Proof Explorer Home"
TITLE="Metamath Proof Explorer Home"
HEIGHT=32 WIDTH=32 ALIGN=TOP STYLE="margin-bottom:0px"> </A>
</TD>
<TD ALIGN=CENTER VALIGN=TOP><FONT SIZE="+3"
COLOR="#006633"><B>Metamath Proof Explorer</B></FONT><BR>
<FONT SIZE="+2" COLOR="#006633"><B>Real and Complex Numbers</B>
</FONT>
</TD>
<TD NOWRAP ALIGN=RIGHT VALIGN=TOP>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR>
<TD COLSPAN=3 ALIGN=LEFT VALIGN=TOP><FONT SIZE=-2
FACE=sans-serif>
<A HREF="../mm.html">Mirrors</A> >
<A HREF="../index.html">Home</A> >
<A HREF="mmset.html">MPE Home</A> >
Real and Complex Numbers
</FONT>
</TD>
</TR>
</TABLE>
<HR NOSHADE SIZE=1>
<TABLE WIDTH="100%" BORDER=0><TR><TD WIDTH="45%">
<B><FONT COLOR="#006633">Contents of this page</FONT></B>
<MENU>
<LI> <A HREF="#axioms">Axioms for Complex Numbers</A></LI>
<LI> <A HREF="#past-work">Past Work</A></LI>
<LI> <A HREF="#construction">Construction</A></LI>
<LI> <A HREF="#xr">The Extended Real Number System</A></LI>
<LI> <A HREF="#uncountable">The Real Numbers are Uncountable</A></LI>
</MENU>
</TD><TD WIDTH="2%"> </TD><TD ALIGN=right WIDTH="50%">
<FONT COLOR="#006633">
<!--
<I>
God made integers, all else is the work of man.
</I><BR>
—Leopold Kronecker
<BR>
<BR>
-->
<I>
...my daughters have been studying (chemistry) for several
semesters, think they have learned differential and integral calculus in
school, and yet even today don't know why </I>
<I>x</I> · <I>y</I> =
<I>y</I> · <I>x</I> <I>is true.</I>
<BR>
—Edmund Landau
</FONT>
</TD></TR></TABLE>
<HR NOSHADE SIZE=1>
<A NAME="axioms"></A>
<B><FONT COLOR="#006633">Axioms for Complex
Numbers</FONT></B> In the Metamath Proof Explorer (MPE) we
derive the postulates or axioms of complex arithmetic as
theorems of ZFC set theory. This page collects in one place these
results, providing a complete specification of the properties of complex
numbers.
<P>To derive the postulates as theorems, we define each of these objects
as specific sets, then derive their properties from the axioms of set
theory. The derivation is not easy, but the fact that it works is quite
remarkable and lends support to the idea that ZFC set theory is all we
need to provide a foundation for essentially all of mathematics.
<P>For convenience, after deriving the complex number postulates we
re-introduce them as new axioms on top of set theory.
This lets us easily identify which axioms are needed
for a particular complex number proof, without the obfuscation
of the set theory used to derive them.
To do this, we introduce two classes
` CC `
(set of complex numbers) and
` RR `
(set of real numbers); three constants
` 0 `
(zero),
` 1 `
(one), and
` _i `
(imaginary unit, that is, the square root of minus 1); two binary operations
` + `
(plus) and
` x. `
(times); and one binary relation
` <RR `
(less than for real numbers).
We then assert that these eight objects have the
properties specified by the axioms in the table below, as
extensions to ZFC set theory.
Note that the real number less-than relation
` <RR `
is the same as the traditional relation
` < ` , but
` <RR `
is limited to only comparing real numbers.
<A HREF="conventions.html">As always with proven axioms</A>,
each new axiom has a name in the form "ax-NAME",
and each corresponding proof has a name in the form "axNAME".
<P>
In some cases, an alias for an axiom is created so that its name
will follow other naming conventions.
In these cases, the alias is used from then on.
For example, the closure law for addition of complex numbers
(axiom 4 of 22) is proven in
<A HREF="axaddcl.html">axaddcl</A>,
restated as axiom <A HREF="ax-addcl.html">ax-addcl</A>,
and then aliased as <A HREF="addcl.html">addcl</A>
so its name follows closure naming conventions;
<A HREF="addcl.html">addcl</A> is used from then on.
In these cases the axiom's comment
is marked with "(New usage is discouraged.)"
and identifies its conventional alias.
This improves consistency by
encouraging proofs to use our conventional aliases.
<P>
Many other concepts are derived from the postulates.
For example,
<A HREF="df-sub.html">subtraction</A> and <A
HREF="df-div.html">division</A> are introduced later as definitions.
We later define <A HREF="df-n.html">natural numbers</A>, <A
HREF="df-z.html">integers</A>, and <A HREF="df-q.html">rational
numbers</A> as specific subsets of
` CC ` ,
leading to the nice <A HREF="nthruc.html">relationships</A>
` NN `
` C. `
` ZZ `
` C. `
` QQ `
` C. `
` RR `
` C. `
` CC ` .
We later define the set of extended reals
(real numbers, positive infinity, and negative infinity), and once those
are defined, we define
the traditional relation
<A HREF="ltxr.html">` < `
(less than)</A> over the extended reals by building on the
previously-defined relation
` <RR ` .
<P>Interestingly, <!-- because <I>i</I><SUP>2</SUP> = -1, --> we could
eliminate 0 as an axiomatic object by defining it as as ` ( ( _i x. _i ) + 1 ) `
and replacing it with this expression throughout the axioms. If this is
done, axiom <A HREF="ax-i2m1.html">ax-i2m1</A> becomes redundant.
However, the remaining axioms would become longer and less intuitive.
<P>
The following table presents the 22 axioms for complex numbers
in the Metamath Proof Explorer,
along with some commentary about them:
<P>
<CENTER><TABLE BORDER CELLSPACING=0 BGCOLOR="#EEFFFA"
SUMMARY="The 22 Axioms for Complex Numbers">
<CAPTION><B>The 22 Axioms for Complex Numbers
</B></CAPTION>
<TR><TH>#</TH><TH>Ref</TH><TH>Expression</TH></TR>
<TR ALIGN=LEFT><TD>1</TD><TD NOWRAP><A HREF="ax-resscn.html">ax-resscn</A></TD><TD>
` |- RR C_ CC ` </TD></TR>
<TR ALIGN=LEFT><TD>2</TD><TD NOWRAP><A HREF="ax-1cn.html">ax-1cn</A></TD><TD>
` |- 1 e. CC `
Weakened from earlier
` 1 e. RR ` by Eric Schmidt,
11-Apr-2007; see
theorem <A HREF="1re.html">1re</A>.
</TD></TR>
<TR ALIGN=LEFT><TD>3</TD><TD NOWRAP><A HREF="ax-icn.html">ax-icn</A></TD><TD>
` |- _i e. CC ` </TD></TR>
<TR ALIGN=LEFT><TD>4</TD><TD NOWRAP><A HREF="ax-addcl.html">ax-addcl</A></TD><TD>
` |- ( ( A e. CC /\ B e. CC ) -> ( A + B ) e. CC ) ` </TD></TR>
<TR ALIGN=LEFT><TD>5</TD><TD NOWRAP><A HREF="ax-addrcl.html">ax-addrcl</A></TD><TD>
` |- ( ( A e. RR /\ B e. RR ) -> ( A + B ) e. RR ) ` </TD></TR>
<TR ALIGN=LEFT><TD>6</TD><TD NOWRAP><A HREF="ax-mulcl.html">ax-mulcl</A></TD><TD>
` |- ( ( A e. CC /\ B e. CC ) -> ( A x. B ) e. CC ) ` </TD></TR>
<TR ALIGN=LEFT><TD>7</TD><TD NOWRAP><A HREF="ax-mulrcl.html">ax-mulrcl</A></TD><TD>
` |- ( ( A e. RR /\ B e. RR ) -> ( A x. B ) e. RR ) ` </TD></TR>
<TR ALIGN=LEFT><TD>8</TD><TD NOWRAP><A HREF="ax-mulcom.html">ax-mulcom</A></TD><TD>
` |- ( ( A e. CC /\ B e. CC ) -> ( A x. B ) = ( B x. A ) ) `
It is unknown if this can be derived from the other axioms.
</TD></TR>
<TR ALIGN=LEFT><TD>9</TD><TD NOWRAP><A HREF="ax-addass.html">ax-addass</A></TD><TD>
` |- ( ( A e. CC /\ B e. CC /\ C e. CC ) -> ( ( A + B ) + C ) = ( A + ( B + C ) ) ) ` </TD></TR>
<TR ALIGN=LEFT><TD>10</TD><TD NOWRAP><A HREF="ax-mulass.html">ax-mulass</A></TD><TD>
` |- ( ( A e. CC /\ B e. CC /\ C e. CC ) -> ( ( A x. B ) x. C ) = ( A x. ( B x. C ) ) ) ` </TD></TR>
<TR ALIGN=LEFT><TD>11</TD><TD NOWRAP><A HREF="ax-distr.html">ax-distr</A></TD><TD>
` |- ( ( A e. CC /\ B e. CC /\ C e. CC ) -> ( A x. ( B + C ) ) = ( ( A x. B ) + ( A x. C ) ) ) ` </TD></TR>
<TR ALIGN=LEFT><TD>12</TD><TD NOWRAP><A HREF="ax-i2m1.html">ax-i2m1</A></TD><TD>
` |- ( ( _i x. _i ) + 1 ) = 0 ` </TD></TR>
<TR ALIGN=LEFT><TD>13</TD><TD NOWRAP><A HREF="ax-1ne0.html">ax-1ne0</A></TD><TD>
` |- 1 =/= 0 ` </TD></TR>
<TR ALIGN=LEFT><TD>14</TD><TD NOWRAP><A HREF="ax-1rid.html">ax-1rid</A></TD><TD>
` |- ( A e. `
<!-- ` CC ` -->
` RR `
` -> ( A x. 1 ) = A ) `
Weakened from earlier
<A HREF="mulid1.html">ax1id (now mulid1)</A> by Eric Schmidt,
19-Jun-2012, with formalization by Scott Fenton, 4-Jan-2013
</TD></TR>
<TR ALIGN=LEFT><TD>15</TD><TD NOWRAP><A HREF="ax-rnegex.html">ax-rnegex</A></TD><TD>
` |- ( A e. `
` RR -> E. x e. RR ( A + x ) = 0 ) ` </TD></TR>
<TR ALIGN=LEFT><TD>16</TD><TD NOWRAP><A HREF="ax-rrecex.html">ax-rrecex</A></TD><TD>
` |- ( ( A e. RR /\ A =/= 0 ) -> E. x e. RR `
` ( A x. x ) = 1 ) ` </TD></TR>
<TR ALIGN=LEFT><TD>17</TD><TD NOWRAP><A HREF="ax-cnre.html">ax-cnre</A></TD><TD>
` |- ( A e. `
` CC -> E. x e. RR E. y e. `
` RR A = ( x + ( y x. _i ) ) ) ` </TD></TR>
<TR ALIGN=LEFT><TD>18</TD><TD NOWRAP><A HREF="ax-pre-lttri.html">ax-pre-lttri</A></TD><TD>
` |- ( ( A e. RR /\ B e. `
` RR ) -> ( A <RR B <-> `
` -. ( A = `
` B \/ B <RR A ) ) ) `
For extended reals see <A HREF="axlttri.html">axlttri</A>
</TD></TR>
<TR ALIGN=LEFT><TD>19</TD><TD NOWRAP><A HREF="ax-pre-lttrn.html">ax-pre-lttrn</A></TD><TD>
` |- ( ( A e. RR /\ B e. `
` RR /\ C e. RR ) -> ( ( A <RR B /\ B <RR C ) -> A <RR C ) ) `
For extended reals see <A HREF="axlttrn.html">axlttrn</A>
</TD></TR>
<TR ALIGN=LEFT><TD>20</TD><TD NOWRAP><A HREF="ax-pre-ltadd.html">ax-pre-ltadd</A></TD><TD>
` |- ( ( A e. RR /\ B e. `
` RR /\ C e. RR ) -> ( A <RR B -> ( C + `
` A ) <RR ( C + B ) ) ) `
For extended reals see <A HREF="axltadd.html">axltadd</A>
</TD></TR>
<TR ALIGN=LEFT><TD>21</TD><TD NOWRAP><A HREF="ax-pre-mulgt0.html">ax-pre-mulgt0</A></TD><TD>
` |- ( ( A e. RR /\ B e. `
` RR ) -> ( ( 0 <RR A /\ 0 <RR B ) -> 0 <RR ( A x. B ) ) ) `
For extended reals see <A HREF="axmulgt0.html">axmulgt0</A>
</TD></TR>
<TR ALIGN=LEFT><TD>22</TD><TD NOWRAP><A HREF="ax-pre-sup.html">ax-pre-sup</A></TD><TD>
` |- ( ( A C_ `
` RR /\ A =/= (/) /\ E. x e. RR A. y e. A y <RR x ) -> E. x e. RR ( A. y e. A -. x `
` <RR y /\ A. y e. RR ( y <RR x -> E. z e. A `
` y <RR z ) ) ) `
This means that a non-empty, bounded-above set of reals has a supremum.
For extended reals see <A HREF="axsup.html">axsup</A>
</TD></TR>
</TABLE></CENTER>
<FONT SIZE=-2 FACE=ARIAL>Colors of variables:
<FONT COLOR="#0000FF">wff</FONT> <FONT COLOR="#FF0000">set</FONT> <FONT
COLOR="#CC33CC">class</FONT></FONT>
<P>In case you are wondering: Why do we use (purple) class variables
for most postulates
instead of more conventional (red) setvar variables?
The answer is simply that it's more convenient.
In fact, we can equivalently state these
with setvar variables only (which would be more in keeping with
textbook notation), and then prove these class-variable versions from them.
You may want to do that if you want a nice conventional presentation of
these axioms for your classroom, book, etc. However, in our formalism,
the advantage of a class variable is that we can directly substitute it
with another class expression such as the number "2" or the term
"` ( ( _i x. `
` x ) + `
` B ) `".
A setvar variable would require some logic manipulations to do
this, using theorems such as <A HREF="vtoclg.html">vtoclg</A> (as used,
for example, to convert <A HREF="elirrv.html">elirrv</A> to
<A HREF="elirr.html">elirr</A>).
So for convenience we use class variables outright. On the other
hand, a class variable cannot be quantified with
` A. `
(for all)
and
` E. `
(there exists),
so for axioms with quantifiers, the setvar variables are unavoidable.
<P>The axioms and proven theorems that apply to all sets or classes
are not considered axioms for complex numbers, since they apply
in other situations as well.
<!-- E.g., "Axioms of Algebra" http://www.aaamath.com/ac11.htm -->
For example, there are many general theorems about equality
that apply to complex numbers.
We separately prove that
` A `
` = `
` A `
in <A HREF="eqid.html">eqid</A>.
If
` A `
` = `
` B ` ,
then
` B `
` = `
` A `
per <A HREF="eqcomi.html">eqcomi</A>,
` ( A F C ) = ( B F C ) `
per <A HREF="oveq1i.html">oveq1i</A>, and
` ( C F A ) = ( C F B ) `
per <A HREF="oveq2i.html">oveq2i</A>.
If
` A `
` = `
` B `
and
` B `
` = `
` C ` ,
then
` A `
` = `
` C ` per
<A HREF="eqtri.html">eqtri</A> (that is, equality is transitive).
Also note that
` ( ( A = B /\ C = `
` D ) -> ( A F C ) = ( B F D ) ) `
as proven in <A HREF="oveq12.html">oveq12</A>.
<P>
From these axioms many other statements can be proven.
For example,
` 0 `
` e. `
` CC `
is proven in <A HREF="0cn.html">0cn</A>.
<P><HR NOSHADE SIZE=1><A NAME="past-work"></A><B><FONT
COLOR="#006633">Past Work</FONT></B>
<P>Most analysis texts construct complex numbers as ordered pairs of
reals, leading to construction-dependent properties that satisfy these
axioms but are not usually stated as explicit axioms. Other texts state
simply that " ` RR `
is a complete ordered subfield of ` CC ` ," leading to redundant axioms when this phrase is
completely expanded out.
To our knowledge, the complete set of axioms in the
exact form given here has never been published before.
That said, Slawomir Kolodynski found a reference with
27 complex number axioms, similar in spirit to Metamath's axioms:
Edward V. Huntington, "The fundamental propositions of
algebra," <I>Monographs on Topics of Modern Mathematics Relevant to the
Elementary Field,</I> edited by I. W. A. Young, New York, 1911; see also
Trans. Amer. Math. Soc., vol. VI, 1905, pp. 209—229.]
<P>
The original list of complex number axioms was longer.
In 2012 Eric Schmidt released
"Reductions in Norman Megill's axiom system for complex numbers",
available as <A
HREF="../downloads/schmidt-cnaxioms.pdf">schmidt-cnaxioms.pdf</A> (<A
HREF="../downloads/schmidt-cnaxioms.tex">schmidt-cnaxioms.tex</A>).
This paper showed that several of the original axioms could be weakened
(as discussed above).
The paper also showed that several of the axioms of the time
were redundant (could be derived from the others), e.g., that
<A HREF="addcom.html">axaddcom (now addcom)</A> and
<A HREF="addid1.html">ax0id (now addid1)</A> are redundant.
Scott Fenton later formalized these results within Metamath itself
(as proofs of the redundant theorems).
Mario Carneiro on 18-Feb-2014 proved that <A HREF="cnex.html">cnex</A>
was redundant (it can be proven that the complex numbers are a set).
Eric Schmidt presented a proof that the remaining MPE complex number axioms,
with the possible exception of <A HREF="ax-mulcom.html">ax-mulcom</A>,
are independent of the others.
These independence proofs have not yet been formalized in Metamath.
It is currently an open question if <A HREF="ax-mulcom.html">ax-mulcom</A>
is independent of the others.
<P>
<CENTER><TABLE BORDER CELLSPACING=0 BGCOLOR="#EEFFFA"
SUMMARY="Former Axioms for Complex Numbers">
<CAPTION><B>Former Axioms for Complex Numbers
</B></CAPTION>
<TR><TH>Ref
</TH><TH>Expression</TH></TR>
<TR ALIGN=LEFT><TD><FONT COLOR=gray><STRIKE>axcnex</STRIKE></FONT><TD>
` |- CC e. _V `
Proved redundant by Mario Carneiro on 18-Feb-2014; see
theorem <A HREF="cnex.html">cnex</A>
</TD></TR>
<TR ALIGN=LEFT><TD><FONT COLOR=gray><STRIKE>axaddcom</STRIKE></FONT></TD><TD>
` |- ( ( A e. CC /\ B e. CC ) -> ( A + B ) = ( B + A ) ) `
Proved redundant by Eric Schmidt, 19-Jun-2012,
and formalized by Scott Fenton on 4-Jan-2013; see
theorem <A HREF="addcom.html">addcom</A>.
</TD></TR>
<TR ALIGN=LEFT><TD><FONT COLOR=gray><STRIKE>ax0id</STRIKE></FONT></TD><TD>
` |- ( A e. `
` CC -> ( A + 0 ) = A ) `
Proved redundant by Eric Schmidt, 19-Jun-2012,
and formalized by Scott Fenton on 4-Jan-2013; see
theorem <A HREF="addid1.html">addid1</A>
</TD></TR>
<TR ALIGN=LEFT><TD><FONT COLOR=gray><STRIKE>axnegex</STRIKE></FONT></TD><TD>
` |- ( A e. `
` CC -> E. x e. CC ( A + x ) = 0 ) `
Proved redundant by Eric Schmidt, 21-May-2007; see
theorem <A HREF="cnegex.html">cnegex</A>
</TD></TR>
<TR ALIGN=LEFT><TD><FONT COLOR=gray><STRIKE>axrecex</STRIKE></FONT>
</TD><TD> ` |- ( ( A e. CC /\ `
` A =/= 0 ) -> E. x e. CC ( A x. x ) = 1 ) `
Proved redundant by Eric Schmidt, 21-May-2007; see
theorem <A HREF="recex.html">recex</A>
<TR ALIGN=LEFT><TD><FONT COLOR=gray><STRIKE>ax0re</STRIKE></FONT></TD><TD>
` |- 0 e. RR `
Proved redundant on 19-Feb-2005; see
theorem <A HREF="0re.html">0re</A>
<!--
(
<- <A HREF="subid.html">subid</A>
<- <A HREF="negid.html">negid</A>
<- <A HREF="0cn.html">0cn</A>
<- <A HREF="axi2m1.html">axi2m1</A>)
-->
</TD></TR>
</TABLE></CENTER>
<FONT SIZE=-2 FACE=ARIAL>Colors of variables:
<FONT COLOR="#0000FF">wff</FONT> <FONT COLOR="#FF0000">set</FONT> <FONT
COLOR="#CC33CC">class</FONT></FONT>
<P><HR NOSHADE SIZE=1><A NAME="construction"></A><B><FONT
COLOR="#006633">Construction</FONT></B>
<P> To construct the complex numbers, we start with the <A
HREF="df-om.html">finite ordinals</A> (natural numbers) of set theory
and successively build <A HREF="df-ni.html">temporary positive
integers</A>, <A HREF="df-nq.html">temporary positive rationals</A>, <A
HREF="df-np.html">temporary positive reals</A> (based on Dedekind cuts),
<A HREF="df-nr.html">temporary signed reals</A>, and finally the actual
<A HREF="df-c.html">complex numbers</A>. ("Temporary" means they would
not normally be used outside of the construction.) Together with the
arithmetic operations and other auxilliary sets needed at each level,
there are a total of 36 temporary definitions involved. You can look at
the Statement List starting at <A HREF="cnpi.html">cnpi</A> (click on
its "Related theorems" link) to see the theorems used for the
construction, which total 254 (including the 22 that result in the final
axioms). These theorems are, in essence, the complete formalization of
an entire 136-page book, Landau's <I>Foundations of Analysis</I> (a.k.a.
<I>Grundlagen der Analysis</I>), although the approach we use is somewhat
more modern.
<P>In 2013 Mario Carneiro did a
major revision and cleanup of the construction. In particular, rather
than using equivalence classes as is customary for the construction
of the temporary rationals, he used only "reduced
fractions", so that the use of
the axiom of infinity is avoided until it becomes necessary for the
construction of the temporary reals.
<P>The construction is "portable" in the sense that the final axioms
hide how they are constructed, and another construction that
develops the same axioms could be used in place of it. For
example, another common construction is to define real numbers as Cauchy
sequences of rationals instead of the Dedekind cuts that we use.
<P><HR NOSHADE SIZE=1>
<A NAME="xr"></A> <B><FONT COLOR="#006633">The Extended Real Number
System</FONT></B> A convenient device used in most
analysis texts is an extension ` RR* ` of the real number system (see <A
HREF="df-xr.html">df-xr</A> and related theorems) that includes ` +oo ` and ` -oo ` .
<P>Analysis textbooks rarely if ever actually define ` +oo ` and ` -oo ` as concrete
objects. Instead, they just say that they are two "new" distinguished
elements. But we must choose specific sets in order to use set theory
to work with them. So we pick ` ~P U. CC `
(the power set of the union of the set of complex numbers) for
` +oo ` (<A
HREF="df-pnf.html">df-pnf</A>) and ` ~P +oo ` for ` -oo ` (<A HREF="df-mnf.html">df-mnf</A>), which we can
prove are different from each other and to not belong to ` RR ` (see theorems <A
HREF="pnfnemnf.html">pnfnemnf</A>, <A HREF="pnfnre.html">pnfnre</A>, and
<A HREF="mnfnre.html">mnfnre</A>). Many other choices are possible too.
<P>In spite of the seemingly awesome "size" of these two new members, they
are really nothing deeper than notational devices to make some proofs
shorter. Any theorems making use of them can be stated equivalently
without them. They provide a shorthand for saying, for example, "no
matter how large a number we pick, this series will eventually grow
larger than that number." These "infinities" have nothing to do with
the infinite cardinals of set theory—in fact one possible choice for
` -oo ` is ` { CC } ` , which is a singleton with cardinality 1!
(We didn't use this simpler choice because its justification requires
the Axiom of Regularity, whose use we prefer to avoid when possible.)
<!--
<P>These definitions were also chosen to be independent of any
particular construction of ` CC ` , and the Axiom of Regularity
<A HREF="ax-reg.html">ax-reg</A> ensures that they are
not equal to each other and are not members of ` RR ` . Actually, there appears to be
no way to define ` +oo ` and ` -oo ` in a construction-independent way without invoking
Regularity, which is interesting because it is generally thought that
Regularity is not important for "ordinary" mathematics (see the
comments after the Axiom of Regularity in [<A
HREF="mmset.html#Schechter">Schechter</A>] p. 31). In particular,
Regularity is not essential for the construction of ` CC ` itself.
-->
<P>Once the extended reals are defined, we can then define
the traditional less-than operation
` < ` using the
relation
` <RR `
(less than for real numbers) while
accounting for positive and negative infinity.
The full definition of
` < ` is given in
<A HREF="df-ltxr.html">df-ltxr</A>.
The complex number axioms, and this new definition, are then
used to prove variants of the axioms that can handle the full
set of the extended reals;
see <A HREF="axlttri.html">axlttri</A>,
<A HREF="axlttrn.html">axlttrn</A>,
<A HREF="axltadd.html">axltadd</A>,
<A HREF="axmulgt0.html">axmulgt0</A>,
and
<A HREF="axsup.html">axsup</A>.
<P><HR NOSHADE SIZE=1><A NAME="uncountable"></A><B><FONT
COLOR="#006633">The Real Numbers are Uncountable</FONT></B>
In mathematics, a countable set is a set with the same cardinality
(number of elements) as the set (or some subset) of the natural numbers.
A countable set may be infinite, but every element of the set can be
mapped to a unique natural number.
The natural numbers and the integers are countably infinite sets.
Even the rational numbers are a countably infinite set; see
<A HREF="qnnen.html">qnnen</A>.
In contrast, the real numbers are not a countable set, but instead,
they are an uncountable set.
This is a remarkable result.
The question is, how can this be proved in Metamath?
<!--
I thought it would be interesting to work out a formalization of <A
HREF="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diagonal_proof">Cantor's diagonal
argument</A> [external],
in part as one answer to certain web pages that
have expressed concerns about its correctness.
-->
<!--
<P>(Incidentally <A
HREF="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cantor%27s_first_uncountability_proof">Cantor's
first proof</A> [external] that the set of real numbers is uncountable
was considerably different and didn't mention decimal expansions at
all.)
-->
<P>Norman Megill's initial plan to prove that the
rational numbers are uncountable was to formalize <A
HREF="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diagonal_proof">Cantor's diagonal
argument</A> [external] using decimal (or possibly quaternary) expansions.
<!--
Base Name
2 binary
3 ternary
4 quaternary
5 quinary
6 senary
7 septenary
8 octal
9 nonary
10 decimal
11 undenary
12 duodecimal
16 hexadecimal
20 vigesimal
60 sexagesimal
mono, di, tri, tetra, penta, hexa, hepta, octa, ennea,
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
deca, hendeca, dodeca, triskaideca, tetrakaideca, ..., enneakaideca,
10 11 12 13 14 19
icosa, icosikaihena, icosikaidi, icosikaitri, ..., icosikaiennea,
20 21 22 23 29
triaconta, triacontakaihena, ..., triacontakaiennea, tetraconta, ...,
30 31 39 40
pentaconta, hexaconta, heptaconta, octaconta, enneaconta, hecta
50 60 70 80 90 100
80 octacontagon ...
90 enneacontagon ...
100 hectogon, hecatontagon
1000 chiliagon
10000 myriagon
-->
However, he ran into some technical complications, such as the fact that some
numbers have two equivalent decimal representations (e.g. <A
HREF="0.999....html">0.999... = 1.000...</A>), that would have made a
formal proof somewhat messy. So he chose another proof that is simpler
to formalize but which he believes is in the same spirit as Cantor's
diagonal proof, in the sense that it constructs a real number different
from all the numbers in a purported list of all real numbers.
<P>Even so, the "simpler" proof is still daunting when worked out in
complete formal detail, involving some 39 lemmas. Therefore we will
first give an informal description of the proof, then describe the key
formal lemmas that lead to the final result, which is theorem <A
HREF="ruc.html">ruc</A> (or equivalently <A
HREF="ruclem39.html">ruclem39</A>).
<P> <B><FONT COLOR="#006633">The informal
argument</FONT></B> We will start by claiming that we
can list all the reals, i.e. that there exists a function <I>f</I> from
` NN ` (natural
numbers) onto ` RR `
(the reals). We will then proceed to construct a real number that is
<I>not</I> in this purported list <I>f</I>(1), <I>f</I>(2),
<I>f</I>(3),... of all reals, thereby falsifying this claim.
<P>Here is how we construct this number. We construct, in parallel, two
auxiliary sequences <I>g</I>(1), <I>g</I>(2), <I>g</I>(3),... and
<I>h</I>(1), <I>h</I>(2), <I>h</I>(3),... derived from <I>f</I>(1),
<I>f</I>(2), <I>f</I>(3),...
<P>We start off by assigning:
<BLOCKQUOTE>
<I>g</I>(1) = <I>f</I>(1) + 1 <BR>
<I>h</I>(1) = <I>f</I>(1) + 2
</BLOCKQUOTE>
Given <I>g</I>(<I>i</I>) and <I>h</I>(<I>i</I>), we construct the next
value <I>g</I>(<I>i</I>+1) and <I>h</I>(<I>i</I>+1) as follows:
<BLOCKQUOTE>
If <I>g</I>(<I>i</I>) < <I>f</I>(<I>i</I>+1) < <I>h</I>(<I>i</I>),
then assign
<BLOCKQUOTE>
<I>g</I>(<I>i</I>+1) =
(2` x. ` <I>f</I>(<I>i</I>+1)
+ <I>h</I>(<I>i</I>)) / 3<BR>
<I>h</I>(<I>i</I>+1) = (<I>f</I>(<I>i</I>+1) +
2` x. ` <I>h</I>(<I>i</I>))
/ 3
</BLOCKQUOTE>
Otherwise, assign
<BLOCKQUOTE>
<I>g</I>(<I>i</I>+1) =
(2` x. ` <I>g</I>(<I>i</I>)
+ <I>h</I>(<I>i</I>)) / 3<BR>
<I>h</I>(<I>i</I>+1) = (<I>g</I>(<I>i</I>) +
2` x. ` <I>h</I>(<I>i</I>))
/ 3
</BLOCKQUOTE>
</BLOCKQUOTE>
In either case, <I>f</I>(<I>i</I>+1) will not fall
between <I>g</I>(<I>i</I>+1) and <I>h</I>(<I>i</I>+1).
<P>Now, using elementary algebra, you can check that <I>g</I>(1) <
<I>g</I>(2) < <I>g</I>(3) < ... < <I>h</I>(3) < <I>h</I>(2)
< <I>h</I>(1). In addition, for each <I>i</I>, the interval between
<I>g</I>(<I>i</I>) and <I>h</I>(<I>i</I>) does not contain any of the
numbers <I>f</I>(1), <I>f</I>(2), <I>f</I>(3), ..., <I>f</I>(<I>i</I>).
This interval keeps getting smaller and smaller as <I>i</I> grows,
avoiding all the <I>f</I>(<I>i</I>)'s up to that point. In effect we
are constructing an interval of real numbers that are different from all
<I>f</I>(<I>i</I>)'s. This is very much like the diagonal argument, but
it is much better suited to a formal proof. Just as happens when we add
more decimals in Cantor's proof, the sequence <I>g</I>(1), <I>g</I>(2),
<I>g</I>(3),... gets closer and closer (converges to) to a real number
that is not in the claimed complete listing.
<P>As <I>i</I> goes to infinity, the interval shrinks down to almost
nothing. What is left in this shrinking interval? Well,
<I>g</I>(<I>i</I>) and <I>h</I>(<I>i</I>) will converge towards each
other, from opposite directions, so the interval will shrink down either
to a single point or to an empty interval. It is tempting to think that
the interval will shrink down to exactly nothing, but in fact it will
not be empty, and the formal proof shows this. Specifically, it will
contain exactly one real number, which is the supremum (meaning "least
upper bound") of all values <I>g</I>(<I>i</I>). How do we know this?
Well, it results from one of the axioms for real numbers. This axiom,
shown as <A HREF="ax-sup.html">ax-sup</A> above, says that the supremum of
any bounded-above set of real numbers is a real number. And the set of
values <I>g</I>(<I>i</I>) is certainly bounded from above; in fact all
of them are less than <I>h</I>(1) in particular.
<P>Contrast this to the rational numbers, where the supremum axiom does
not hold. That is why this proof fails for the rational numbers, as it
should, since we <I>can</I> make a countable list of all rational numbers.
To give you a concrete feel for why the supremum axiom fails for
rationals, consider the infinite set of numbers 3, 3.1, 3.14, 3.141,
3.1415... Each of these numbers is a rational number. But the supremum
is pi, which is not a rational number.
<P>In Cantor's original diagonal proof, the supremum comes into play as
follows. As you go diagonally down the list of decimal expansions of
real numbers, mismatching the list digit by digit, at each point you
will have a new rational number with one more digit (that is different
from all numbers in the list up to that point). The supremum of this
list of new rational numbers is a real number (with an infinite number of
digits after the decimal point) that is not on the list. The statement
"all decimal expansions represent real numbers," which is often stated
casually and taken for granted, is actually somewhat deep and needs the
supremum axiom for its derivation.
<P> <B><FONT COLOR="#006633">The formal
proof</FONT></B>
The formal proof consists of 39 lemmas, <A
HREF="ruclem1.html">ruclem1</A> through <A
HREF="ruclem39.html">ruclem39</A>, and the final theorem <A
HREF="ruc.html">ruc</A>.
In the formal proof, the functions <I>f</I>, <I>g</I>, and <I>h</I>
above are called ` F ` , ` G ` ,
and ` H ` . A
function value such as <I>f</I>(1) is expressed ` ( F `` 1 ) ` . A
natural number index <I>i</I> is usually expressed as ` A ` ; you can tell by
the hypothesis ` A e. NN ` such as ruclem18.a in <A
HREF="ruclem26.html">ruclem26</A>.
<P> In the hypotheses for many of the lemmas, for example those for <A
HREF="ruclem14.html">ruclem14</A>, we let ` F ` be any function such that ` F : NN --> RR ` , meaning ` F ` can be any arbitrary mapping from ` NN ` <I>into</I> ` RR ` . We then derive additional
properties that ` F ` must
have. In particular, we will conclude that no matter what the
function ` F ` is, it
is impossible for it to map <I>onto</I> the set of all reals.
<P> We also have to
construct the functions ` G ` and ` H ` ,
and doing this formally is rather involved. The purpose of the majority
of the lemmas, in fact, is simply to work out that the hypotheses of <A
HREF="ruclem14.html">ruclem14</A> indeed result in functions ` G ` and ` H ` that have the
properties described in our informal argument section above.
<P> What makes it complicated is the fact that ` G ` and ` H ` depend not only on ` F ` but on each other as well. So, we
have to construct them in parallel, and we do this using a
"sequence builder" that you can see defined in <A
HREF="df-seq.html">df-seq</A>. The sequence builder takes in the
functions ` C ` and
` D ` defined in
hypotheses ruclem.1 and ruclem.2 of <A
HREF="ruclem14.html">ruclem14</A>, and uses them to construct a function
on ` NN ` whose
values are <I>ordered pairs</I>. The first member of each ordered pair
is the value of ` G `
and the second is the value of ` H ` . By using ordered pairs, the sequence builder can
make use of the previous values of both ` G ` and ` H ` simultaneously for its internal recursive
construction.
<P> The function ` C ` , which provides the second argument or "input
sequence" for the sequence builder ` seq ` , is constructed from ` F ` as follows. Its first value
(value at 1) is the ordered pair ` <. ( ( F `` 1 ) + 1 ) , ( ( F `` 1 ) + 2 ) >. ` . This provides the
"seed" for the sequence builder, corresponding to the initial
assignment to <I>g</I>(1) and <I>h</I>(1) in the informal argument
section above. The subsequent values at 2, 3,... are just the values of ` F ` , and these feed the
recursion part of the sequence builder to generate new ordered pairs for
the values of the sequence builder at 2, 3,....
<P>The two functions called ` 1st ` and ` 2nd ` in hypothesis ruclem.2 of <A
HREF="ruclem14.html">ruclem14</A> return the <A
HREF="op1st.html">first</A> and <A HREF="op2nd.html">second</A> members,
respectively, of an ordered pair. The ` if ` operation, defined by <A
HREF="df-if.html">df-if</A>, can be thought of as a conditional
expression operator analogous to those used by computer languages. The
expression ` if ( ph , A , B ) ` can be read "if
` ph ` is true
then the expression equals ` A ` else the expression equals ` B `".
<P>Hypotheses ruclem.3 and ruclem.4 of <A
HREF="ruclem14.html">ruclem14</A> extract the first and second
members from the ordered pair values of the sequence builder
finally giving us our desired auxiliary functions
` G ` ,
and ` H `
<P>Armed with this information, you should now compare the arithmetic
expressions in the hypothesis ruclem.2 of <A
HREF="ruclem14.html">ruclem14</A> to the ones in the informal argument
section above. Hopefully you will see a resemblance, if only a very
rough one, that will provide you with a clue should you want to study
the formal proof in more depth. By the way, the assertion (conclusion)
of <A HREF="ruclem14.html">ruclem14</A> shows the first value of the
sequence builder. You can see that the ordered pair entries match
<I>g</I>(1) and <I>h</I>(1) from the informal argument section above.
<P> Let us now look at the key lemmas for the uncountability proof.
Lemma <A HREF="ruclem26.html">ruclem26</A> shows that ` G ` has an ever-increasing set of
values, and <A HREF="ruclem27.html">ruclem27</A> shows that ` H ` has an
ever-decreasing set of values. In spite of this, the twain shall never
meet, as shown by <A HREF="ruclem32.html">ruclem32</A>. Lemma <A
HREF="ruclem34.html">ruclem34</A> defines the supremum ` S ` of the values of
` G `
(i.e. the supremum of its range) and shows that
the supremum is a real number. Lemma <A
HREF="ruclem35.html">ruclem35</A> shows that the supremum ` S ` is always sandwiched
between ` G ` and
` H ` , whereas <A
HREF="ruclem29.html">ruclem29</A> shows that this is not true for any
value of ` F ` .
Lemma <A HREF="ruclem36.html">ruclem36</A> uses these last two facts to
show that the supremum is not equal to any value of ` F ` and therefore not in the list of
real numbers provided by ` F ` . This means, as shown by <A
HREF="ruclem37.html">ruclem37</A>, that ` F ` cannot map onto the set of all reals.
<P> We are now in a position to get rid of most of the hypotheses (since
their variables are no longer referenced in the assertion). In <A
HREF="ruclem38.html">ruclem38</A> we eliminate all but one hypotheses of
<A HREF="ruclem37.html">ruclem37</A> by using instances of <A
HREF="eqid.html">eqid</A>. In <A HREF="ruclem39.html">ruclem39</A>
we get rid of the final hypothesis (using the
<A HREF="mmdeduction.html#quick">weak deduction theorem</A> <A
HREF="dedth.html">dedth</A>, involving a quite different application of
the ` if `
operator) to result in "there is no function mapping ` NN ` onto the
reals," and finally <A HREF="ruc.html">ruc</A> converts this to the
notation for a strict dominance relation.
<P>
There are several related interesting proofs.
There are at least
aleph-one reals (<A HREF="aleph1re.html">aleph1re</A>) and
irrationals (<A HREF="aleph1irr.html">aleph1irr</A>).
For another very different proof that the reals are uncountable, see <A
HREF="rucALT.html">rucALT</A>, which follows from the exact
computation of the cardinality of reals,
<A HREF="rpnnen.html">rpnnen</A>.
<HR NOSHADE SIZE=1>
<TABLE BORDER=0 WIDTH="100%"><TR>
<TD ALIGN=left VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="25%"><FONT SIZE=-2 FACE=sans-serif>
</FONT></TD>
<TD NOWRAP ALIGN=CENTER><I>This page was last updated on 21-Aug-2020.</I>
<BR><FONT SIZE=-2 FACE=ARIAL>
Copyright terms:
<A HREF="../copyright.html#pd">Public domain</A>
</FONT></TD>
<TD ALIGN=RIGHT VALIGN=BOTTOM WIDTH="25%">
<FONT FACE="ARIAL" SIZE=-2>
<A
HREF="http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=referer">W3C HTML validation</A>
[external]
</FONT>
</TD>
</TR></TABLE>
<!-- <SCRIPT SRC="http://www.google-analytics.com/urchin.js" TYPE="text/javascript">
</SCRIPT>
<SCRIPT TYPE="text/javascript">
_uacct = "UA-1862729-1";
urchinTracker();
</SCRIPT>
-->
</BODY></HTML>