Theorem dftrrels2 38904

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 5641 (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 38746 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 38902	. 2 ⊢ TrRels = ( Trs ∩ Rels )
2		df-trs 38901	. 2 ⊢ Trs = {𝑟 ∣ ((𝑟 ∩ (dom 𝑟 × ran 𝑟)) ∘ (𝑟 ∩ (dom 𝑟 × ran 𝑟))) S (𝑟 ∩ (dom 𝑟 × ran 𝑟))}
3		inex1g 5266	. . . . 5 ⊢ (𝑟 ∈ V → (𝑟 ∩ (dom 𝑟 × ran 𝑟)) ∈ V)
4	3	elv 3447	. . . 4 ⊢ (𝑟 ∩ (dom 𝑟 × ran 𝑟)) ∈ V
5		brssr 38826	. . . 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 38690	. . . . . . 7 ⊢ (𝑟 ∈ V → (𝑟 ∈ Rels ↔ (𝑟 ∩ (dom 𝑟 × ran 𝑟)) = 𝑟))
8	7	elv 3447	. . . . . 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 5821	. . . 4 ⊢ (𝑟 ∈ Rels → ((𝑟 ∩ (dom 𝑟 × ran 𝑟)) ∘ (𝑟 ∩ (dom 𝑟 × ran 𝑟))) = (𝑟 ∘ 𝑟))
11	10, 9	sseq12d 3969	. . 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 38500	1 ⊢ TrRels = {𝑟 ∈ Rels ∣ (𝑟 ∘ 𝑟) ⊆ 𝑟}

Syntax hints:   ↔ wb 206   = wceq 1542   ∈ wcel 2114  {crab 3401  Vcvv 3442   ∩ cin 3902   ⊆ wss 3903   class class class wbr 5100   × cxp 5630  dom cdm 5632  ran crn 5633   ∘ ccom 5636   Rels crels 38430   S cssr 38431   Trs ctrs 38441   TrRels ctrrels 38442

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 2709  ax-sep 5243  ax-pr 5379

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 2716  df-cleq 2729  df-clel 2812  df-ral 3053  df-rex 3063  df-rab 3402  df-v 3444  df-dif 3906  df-un 3908  df-in 3910  df-ss 3920  df-nul 4288  df-if 4482  df-pw 4558  df-sn 4583  df-pr 4585  df-op 4589  df-br 5101  df-opab 5163  df-xp 5638  df-rel 5639  df-cnv 5640  df-co 5641  df-dm 5642  df-rn 5643  df-res 5644  df-rels 38685  df-ssr 38823  df-trs 38901  df-trrels 38902

This theorem is referenced by:  dftrrels3  38905  eltrrels2  38908  dfeqvrels2  38917