Theorem dftrrels2 39349

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 5675 (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 39191 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 39347	. 2 ⊢ TrRels = ( Trs ∩ Rels )
2		df-trs 39346	. 2 ⊢ Trs = {𝑟 ∣ ((𝑟 ∩ (dom 𝑟 × ran 𝑟)) ∘ (𝑟 ∩ (dom 𝑟 × ran 𝑟))) S (𝑟 ∩ (dom 𝑟 × ran 𝑟))}
3		inex1g 5293	. . . . 5 ⊢ (𝑟 ∈ V → (𝑟 ∩ (dom 𝑟 × ran 𝑟)) ∈ V)
4	3	elv 3463	. . . 4 ⊢ (𝑟 ∩ (dom 𝑟 × ran 𝑟)) ∈ V
5		brssr 39271	. . . 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 39135	. . . . . . 7 ⊢ (𝑟 ∈ V → (𝑟 ∈ Rels ↔ (𝑟 ∩ (dom 𝑟 × ran 𝑟)) = 𝑟))
8	7	elv 3463	. . . . . 6 ⊢ (𝑟 ∈ Rels ↔ (𝑟 ∩ (dom 𝑟 × ran 𝑟)) = 𝑟)
9	8	biimpi 219	. . . . 5 ⊢ (𝑟 ∈ Rels → (𝑟 ∩ (dom 𝑟 × ran 𝑟)) = 𝑟)
10	9, 9	coeq12d 5855	. . . 4 ⊢ (𝑟 ∈ Rels → ((𝑟 ∩ (dom 𝑟 × ran 𝑟)) ∘ (𝑟 ∩ (dom 𝑟 × ran 𝑟))) = (𝑟 ∘ 𝑟))
11	10, 9	sseq12d 3973	. . 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 286	. 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 38945	1 ⊢ TrRels = {𝑟 ∈ Rels ∣ (𝑟 ∘ 𝑟) ⊆ 𝑟}

This proof depends on syntax axioms:   ↔ wb 209   = wceq 1570   ∈ wcel 2146  {crab 3419  Vcvv 3458   ∩ cin 3907   ⊆ wss 3908   class class class wbr 5114   × cxp 5664  dom cdm 5666  ran crn 5667   ∘ ccom 5670   Rels crels 38875   S cssr 38876   Trs ctrs 38886   TrRels ctrrels 38887

This proof depends on axioms:  ax-mp 5  ax-1 6  ax-2 7  ax-3 8  ax-gen 1828  ax-4 1842  ax-5 1943  ax-6 2000  ax-7 2041  ax-8 2148  ax-9 2156  ax-ext 2738  ax-sep 5262  ax-pr 5409

This proof depends on definitions:  df-bi 210  df-an 402  df-or 862  df-3an 1105  df-tru 1573  df-fal 1583  df-ex 1813  df-sb 2100  df-clab 2745  df-cleq 2758  df-clel 2841  df-ral 3083  df-rex 3093  df-rab 3420  df-v 3460  df-dif 3911  df-un 3913  df-in 3915  df-ss 3925  df-nul 4290  df-if 4493  df-pw 4569  df-sn 4595  df-pr 4597  df-op 4601  df-br 5115  df-opab 5179  df-xp 5672  df-rel 5673  df-cnv 5674  df-co 5675  df-dm 5676  df-rn 5677  df-res 5678  df-rels 39130  df-ssr 39268  df-trs 39346  df-trrels 39347

This theorem is used by:  dftrrels3  39350  eltrrels2  39353  dfeqvrels2  39362