Theorem dftrrels2 38980

Description: Alternate definition of the class of transitive relations.

I'd prefer to define the class of transitive relations by using the definition of composition by [Suppes] p. 63. df-coSUP (𝐴 ∘ 𝐵) = {⟨𝑥, 𝑦⟩ ∣ ∃𝑢(𝑥𝐴𝑢 ∧ 𝑢𝐵𝑦)} as opposed to the present definition of composition df-co 5640 (𝐴 ∘ 𝐵) = {⟨𝑥, 𝑦⟩ ∣ ∃𝑢(𝑥𝐵𝑢 ∧ 𝑢𝐴𝑦)} because the Suppes definition keeps the order of 𝐴, 𝐵, 𝐶, 𝑅, 𝑆, 𝑇 by default in trsinxpSUP (((𝑅 ∩ (𝐴 × 𝐵)) ∘ (𝑆 ∩ (𝐵 × 𝐶))) ⊆ (𝑇 ∩ (𝐴 × 𝐶)) ↔ ∀𝑥 ∈ 𝐴∀𝑦 ∈ 𝐵∀ 𝑧 ∈ 𝐶((𝑥𝑅𝑦 ∧ 𝑦𝑆𝑧) → 𝑥𝑇𝑧)) while the present definition of composition disarranges them: trsinxp (((𝑆 ∩ (𝐵 × 𝐶)) ∘ (𝑅 ∩ (𝐴 × 𝐵))) ⊆ (𝑇 ∩ (𝐴 × 𝐶 )) ↔ ∀𝑥 ∈ 𝐴∀𝑦 ∈ 𝐵∀𝑧 ∈ 𝐶((𝑥𝑅𝑦 ∧ 𝑦𝑆𝑧) → 𝑥𝑇𝑧) ). This is not mission critical to me, the implication of the Suppes definition is just more aesthetic, at least in the above case.

If we swap to the Suppes definition of class composition, I would define the present class of all transitive sets as df-trsSUP and I would consider to switch the definition of the class of cosets by 𝑅 from the present df-coss 38822 to a df-cossSUP. But perhaps there is a mathematical reason to keep the present definition of composition. (Contributed by Peter Mazsa, 21-Jul-2021.)

Assertion

Ref	Expression
dftrrels2	⊢ TrRels = {𝑟 ∈ Rels ∣ (𝑟 ∘ 𝑟) ⊆ 𝑟}

Proof of Theorem dftrrels2

Step	Hyp	Ref	Expression
1		df-trrels 38978	. 2 ⊢ TrRels = ( Trs ∩ Rels )
2		df-trs 38977	. 2 ⊢ Trs = {𝑟 ∣ ((𝑟 ∩ (dom 𝑟 × ran 𝑟)) ∘ (𝑟 ∩ (dom 𝑟 × ran 𝑟))) S (𝑟 ∩ (dom 𝑟 × ran 𝑟))}
3		inex1g 5260	. . . . 5 ⊢ (𝑟 ∈ V → (𝑟 ∩ (dom 𝑟 × ran 𝑟)) ∈ V)
4	3	elv 3434	. . . 4 ⊢ (𝑟 ∩ (dom 𝑟 × ran 𝑟)) ∈ V
5		brssr 38902	. . . 4 ⊢ ((𝑟 ∩ (dom 𝑟 × ran 𝑟)) ∈ V → (((𝑟 ∩ (dom 𝑟 × ran 𝑟)) ∘ (𝑟 ∩ (dom 𝑟 × ran 𝑟))) S (𝑟 ∩ (dom 𝑟 × ran 𝑟)) ↔ ((𝑟 ∩ (dom 𝑟 × ran 𝑟)) ∘ (𝑟 ∩ (dom 𝑟 × ran 𝑟))) ⊆ (𝑟 ∩ (dom 𝑟 × ran 𝑟))))
6	4, 5	ax-mp 5	. . 3 ⊢ (((𝑟 ∩ (dom 𝑟 × ran 𝑟)) ∘ (𝑟 ∩ (dom 𝑟 × ran 𝑟))) S (𝑟 ∩ (dom 𝑟 × ran 𝑟)) ↔ ((𝑟 ∩ (dom 𝑟 × ran 𝑟)) ∘ (𝑟 ∩ (dom 𝑟 × ran 𝑟))) ⊆ (𝑟 ∩ (dom 𝑟 × ran 𝑟)))
7		elrels6 38766	. . . . . . 7 ⊢ (𝑟 ∈ V → (𝑟 ∈ Rels ↔ (𝑟 ∩ (dom 𝑟 × ran 𝑟)) = 𝑟))
8	7	elv 3434	. . . . . 6 ⊢ (𝑟 ∈ Rels ↔ (𝑟 ∩ (dom 𝑟 × ran 𝑟)) = 𝑟)
9	8	biimpi 216	. . . . 5 ⊢ (𝑟 ∈ Rels → (𝑟 ∩ (dom 𝑟 × ran 𝑟)) = 𝑟)
10	9, 9	coeq12d 5819	. . . 4 ⊢ (𝑟 ∈ Rels → ((𝑟 ∩ (dom 𝑟 × ran 𝑟)) ∘ (𝑟 ∩ (dom 𝑟 × ran 𝑟))) = (𝑟 ∘ 𝑟))
11	10, 9	sseq12d 3955	. . 3 ⊢ (𝑟 ∈ Rels → (((𝑟 ∩ (dom 𝑟 × ran 𝑟)) ∘ (𝑟 ∩ (dom 𝑟 × ran 𝑟))) ⊆ (𝑟 ∩ (dom 𝑟 × ran 𝑟)) ↔ (𝑟 ∘ 𝑟) ⊆ 𝑟))
12	6, 11	bitrid 283	. 2 ⊢ (𝑟 ∈ Rels → (((𝑟 ∩ (dom 𝑟 × ran 𝑟)) ∘ (𝑟 ∩ (dom 𝑟 × ran 𝑟))) S (𝑟 ∩ (dom 𝑟 × ran 𝑟)) ↔ (𝑟 ∘ 𝑟) ⊆ 𝑟))
13	1, 2, 12	abeqinbi 38576	1 ⊢ TrRels = {𝑟 ∈ Rels ∣ (𝑟 ∘ 𝑟) ⊆ 𝑟}

Syntax hints:   ↔ wb 206   = wceq 1542   ∈ wcel 2114  {crab 3389  Vcvv 3429   ∩ cin 3888   ⊆ wss 3889   class class class wbr 5085   × cxp 5629  dom cdm 5631  ran crn 5632   ∘ ccom 5635   Rels crels 38506   S cssr 38507   Trs ctrs 38517   TrRels ctrrels 38518

This theorem was proved from axioms:  ax-mp 5  ax-1 6  ax-2 7  ax-3 8  ax-gen 1797  ax-4 1811  ax-5 1912  ax-6 1969  ax-7 2010  ax-8 2116  ax-9 2124  ax-ext 2708  ax-sep 5231  ax-pr 5375

This theorem depends on definitions:  df-bi 207  df-an 396  df-or 849  df-3an 1089  df-tru 1545  df-fal 1555  df-ex 1782  df-sb 2069  df-clab 2715  df-cleq 2728  df-clel 2811  df-ral 3052  df-rex 3062  df-rab 3390  df-v 3431  df-dif 3892  df-un 3894  df-in 3896  df-ss 3906  df-nul 4274  df-if 4467  df-pw 4543  df-sn 4568  df-pr 4570  df-op 4574  df-br 5086  df-opab 5148  df-xp 5637  df-rel 5638  df-cnv 5639  df-co 5640  df-dm 5641  df-rn 5642  df-res 5643  df-rels 38761  df-ssr 38899  df-trs 38977  df-trrels 38978

This theorem is referenced by:  dftrrels3  38981  eltrrels2  38984  dfeqvrels2  38993