let R be Relation; ( R is well-ordering implies for Z being set st ( for a being set st a in field R & R -Seg a c= Z holds
a in Z ) holds
field R c= Z )
assume A1:
R is well-ordering
; for Z being set st ( for a being set st a in field R & R -Seg a c= Z holds
a in Z ) holds
field R c= Z
then A2:
R is antisymmetric
by Def4;
let Z be set ; ( ( for a being set st a in field R & R -Seg a c= Z holds
a in Z ) implies field R c= Z )
assume A3:
for a being set st a in field R & R -Seg a c= Z holds
a in Z
; field R c= Z
given a being set such that A7:
( a in field R & not a in Z )
; TARSKI:def 3 contradiction
(field R) \ Z <> {}
by A7, XBOOLE_0:def 5;
then consider a being set such that
A8:
a in (field R) \ Z
and
A9:
for b being set st b in (field R) \ Z holds
[a,b] in R
by A1, Th10;
not a in Z
by A8, XBOOLE_0:def 5;
then consider b being set such that
A10:
[b,a] in R
and
A11:
b <> a
and
A12:
not b in Z
by A4, A8;
b in field R
by A10, RELAT_1:15;
then
b in (field R) \ Z
by A12, XBOOLE_0:def 5;
then
[a,b] in R
by A9;
hence
contradiction
by A2, A10, A11, Lm3; verum