Given set $A, B$, $a\in A, b\in B$, we call
$$(a, b) = \{a, \{a, b\}\}.$$
How do we show naively that $$(a, b) =(c, d) \Rightarrow a =c , b=d?$$
The proof that I have in mind is the following:
Given $(a, b) = (c, d)$, so
$$\{a, \{a, b\}\} = \{ c, \{ c, d\}\}.$$
First of all $a \neq \{ a, b\}$, or this will give $a\in a$. Similarly $c\neq \{c, d\}$.
Now $a\in \{c, \{c, d\}\}$ so either $a = c$ or $a= \{c, d\}$.
If the latter is true, then we have
$$ c = \{ a, b\} = \{ \{ c, d\} , b\}$$
This implies
$$c \in \{ c, d\} \in c$$
and it is not allowed. Thus $a=c$. So
$$\{a, b\} = \{c, d\} = \{ a, d\}$$
and from there we can show also $b=d$.
Question: This results is stated in p.8 of this book, but they never mention that infinite chain is not allowed. So I was wondering if there is an even more naive way to prove the above assertion.
It is not possible to prove this without using the axiom of regularity. Indeed, suppose you have a set $a$ such that $a=\{\{a\},a\}$ but $a\neq \{a\}$ (the existence of such a set is consistent with all the axioms of ZFC except regularity; for instance, it follows from Boffa's anti-foundation axiom). Then $$(a,a)=\{a,\{a\}\}=a$$ and also $$(\{a\},a)=\{\{a\},\{\{a\},a\}\}=\{\{a\},a\}=a$$ so $(a,a)=(\{a\},a)$ even though $a\neq \{a\}$.