Theorem dftrrels2 39286

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 5672 (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 39128 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 39284	. 2 ⊢ TrRels = ( Trs ∩ Rels )
2		df-trs 39283	. 2 ⊢ Trs = {𝑟 ∣ ((𝑟 ∩ (dom 𝑟 × ran 𝑟)) ∘ (𝑟 ∩ (dom 𝑟 × ran 𝑟))) S (𝑟 ∩ (dom 𝑟 × ran 𝑟))}
3		inex1g 5289	. . . . 5 ⊢ (𝑟 ∈ V → (𝑟 ∩ (dom 𝑟 × ran 𝑟)) ∈ V)
4	3	elv 3460	. . . 4 ⊢ (𝑟 ∩ (dom 𝑟 × ran 𝑟)) ∈ V
5		brssr 39208	. . . 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 39072	. . . . . . 7 ⊢ (𝑟 ∈ V → (𝑟 ∈ Rels ↔ (𝑟 ∩ (dom 𝑟 × ran 𝑟)) = 𝑟))
8	7	elv 3460	. . . . . 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 5852	. . . 4 ⊢ (𝑟 ∈ Rels → ((𝑟 ∩ (dom 𝑟 × ran 𝑟)) ∘ (𝑟 ∩ (dom 𝑟 × ran 𝑟))) = (𝑟 ∘ 𝑟))
11	10, 9	sseq12d 3971	. . 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 38882	1 ⊢ TrRels = {𝑟 ∈ Rels ∣ (𝑟 ∘ 𝑟) ⊆ 𝑟}

Syntax hints:   ↔ wb 209   = wceq 1570   ∈ wcel 2143  {crab 3416  Vcvv 3455   ∩ cin 3905   ⊆ wss 3906   class class class wbr 5110   × cxp 5661  dom cdm 5663  ran crn 5664   ∘ ccom 5667   Rels crels 38812   S cssr 38813   Trs ctrs 38823   TrRels ctrrels 38824

This theorem was proved from axioms:  ax-mp 5  ax-1 6  ax-2 7  ax-3 8  ax-gen 1825  ax-4 1839  ax-5 1940  ax-6 1997  ax-7 2038  ax-8 2145  ax-9 2153  ax-ext 2735  ax-sep 5258  ax-pr 5406

This theorem depends on definitions:  df-bi 210  df-an 401  df-or 861  df-3an 1105  df-tru 1573  df-fal 1583  df-ex 1810  df-sb 2097  df-clab 2742  df-cleq 2755  df-clel 2838  df-ral 3080  df-rex 3090  df-rab 3417  df-v 3457  df-dif 3909  df-un 3911  df-in 3913  df-ss 3923  df-nul 4288  df-if 4489  df-pw 4565  df-sn 4591  df-pr 4593  df-op 4597  df-br 5111  df-opab 5175  df-xp 5669  df-rel 5670  df-cnv 5671  df-co 5672  df-dm 5673  df-rn 5674  df-res 5675  df-rels 39067  df-ssr 39205  df-trs 39283  df-trrels 39284

This theorem is referenced by:  dftrrels3  39287  eltrrels2  39290  dfeqvrels2  39299