let X be set ; ex A being Ordinal st Tarski-Class X,A = Tarski-Class X,(succ A)
assume A1:
for A being Ordinal holds Tarski-Class X,A <> Tarski-Class X,(succ A)
; contradiction
defpred S1[ set ] means ex A being Ordinal st $1 in Tarski-Class X,A;
consider Z being set such that
A2:
for x being set holds
( x in Z iff ( x in Tarski-Class X & S1[x] ) )
from XBOOLE_0:sch 1();
defpred S2[ set , set ] means ex A being Ordinal st
( $2 = A & $1 in Tarski-Class X,(succ A) & not $1 in Tarski-Class X,A );
A3:
for x, y, z being set st S2[x,y] & S2[x,z] holds
y = z
proof
let x,
y,
z be
set ;
( S2[x,y] & S2[x,z] implies y = z )
given A being
Ordinal such that A4:
y = A
and A5:
x in Tarski-Class X,
(succ A)
and A6:
not
x in Tarski-Class X,
A
;
( not S2[x,z] or y = z )
given B being
Ordinal such that A7:
z = B
and A8:
x in Tarski-Class X,
(succ B)
and A9:
not
x in Tarski-Class X,
B
;
y = z
assume A10:
y <> z
;
contradiction
(
A c= B or
B c= A )
;
then A12:
(
A c< B or
B c< A )
by A4, A7, A10, XBOOLE_0:def 8;
then
B in A
by A12, ORDINAL1:21;
then
succ B c= A
by ORDINAL1:33;
then
Tarski-Class X,
(succ B) c= Tarski-Class X,
A
by Th19;
hence
contradiction
by A6, A8;
verum
end;
consider Y being set such that
A21:
for x being set holds
( x in Y iff ex y being set st
( y in Z & S2[y,x] ) )
from TARSKI:sch 1(A3);
now let A be
Ordinal;
A in YA23:
Tarski-Class X,
A <> Tarski-Class X,
(succ A)
by A1;
A24:
Tarski-Class X,
A c= Tarski-Class X,
(succ A)
by Th18;
consider x being
set such that A25:
( (
x in Tarski-Class X,
A & not
x in Tarski-Class X,
(succ A) ) or (
x in Tarski-Class X,
(succ A) & not
x in Tarski-Class X,
A ) )
by A23, TARSKI:2;
x in Z
by A2, A25;
hence
A in Y
by A21, A24, A25;
verum end;
hence
contradiction
by ORDINAL1:38; verum