| Metamath
Proof Explorer Theorem List (p. 392 of 504) | < Previous Next > | |
| Bad symbols? Try the
GIF version. |
||
|
Mirrors > Metamath Home Page > MPE Home Page > Theorem List Contents > Recent Proofs This page: Page List |
||
| Color key: | (1-31077) |
(31078-32600) |
(32601-50386) |
| Type | Label | Description |
|---|---|---|
| Statement | ||
| Theorem | symreleq 39101 | Equality theorem for symmetric relation. (Contributed by Peter Mazsa, 15-Apr-2019.) (Revised by Peter Mazsa, 23-Sep-2021.) |
| ⊢ (𝑅 = 𝑆 → ( SymRel 𝑅 ↔ SymRel 𝑆)) | ||
| Theorem | symrelim 39102 | Symmetric relation implies that the domain and the range are equal. (Contributed by Peter Mazsa, 29-Dec-2021.) |
| ⊢ ( SymRel 𝑅 → dom 𝑅 = ran 𝑅) | ||
| Theorem | symrelcoss 39103 | The class of cosets by 𝑅 is symmetric. (Contributed by Peter Mazsa, 20-Dec-2021.) |
| ⊢ SymRel ≀ 𝑅 | ||
| Theorem | idsymrel 39104 | The identity relation is symmetric. (Contributed by AV, 19-Jun-2022.) |
| ⊢ SymRel I | ||
| Theorem | epnsymrel 39105 | The membership (epsilon) relation is not symmetric. (Contributed by AV, 18-Jun-2022.) |
| ⊢ ¬ SymRel E | ||
| Theorem | symrefref2 39106 | Symmetry is a sufficient condition for the equivalence of two versions of the reflexive relation, see also symrefref3 39107. (Contributed by Peter Mazsa, 19-Jul-2018.) |
| ⊢ (◡𝑅 ⊆ 𝑅 → (( I ∩ (dom 𝑅 × ran 𝑅)) ⊆ 𝑅 ↔ ( I ↾ dom 𝑅) ⊆ 𝑅)) | ||
| Theorem | symrefref3 39107* | Symmetry is a sufficient condition for the equivalence of two versions of the reflexive relation, see also symrefref2 39106. (Contributed by Peter Mazsa, 23-Aug-2021.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) |
| ⊢ (∀𝑥∀𝑦(𝑥𝑅𝑦 → 𝑦𝑅𝑥) → (∀𝑥 ∈ dom 𝑅∀𝑦 ∈ ran 𝑅(𝑥 = 𝑦 → 𝑥𝑅𝑦) ↔ ∀𝑥 ∈ dom 𝑅 𝑥𝑅𝑥)) | ||
| Theorem | refsymrels2 39108 | Elements of the class of reflexive relations which are elements of the class of symmetric relations as well (like the elements of the class of equivalence relations dfeqvrels2 39131) can use the restricted version for their reflexive part (see below), not just the ( I ∩ (dom 𝑟 × ran 𝑟)) ⊆ 𝑟 version of dfrefrels2 39052, cf. the comment of dfrefrels2 39052. (Contributed by Peter Mazsa, 20-Jul-2019.) |
| ⊢ ( RefRels ∩ SymRels ) = {𝑟 ∈ Rels ∣ (( I ↾ dom 𝑟) ⊆ 𝑟 ∧ ◡𝑟 ⊆ 𝑟)} | ||
| Theorem | refsymrels3 39109* | Elements of the class of reflexive relations which are elements of the class of symmetric relations as well (like the elements of the class of equivalence relations dfeqvrels3 39132) can use the ∀𝑥 ∈ dom 𝑟𝑥𝑟𝑥 version for their reflexive part, not just the ∀𝑥 ∈ dom 𝑟∀𝑦 ∈ ran 𝑟(𝑥 = 𝑦 → 𝑥𝑟𝑦) version of dfrefrels3 39053, cf. the comment of dfrefrel3 39055. (Contributed by Peter Mazsa, 22-Jul-2019.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) |
| ⊢ ( RefRels ∩ SymRels ) = {𝑟 ∈ Rels ∣ (∀𝑥 ∈ dom 𝑟 𝑥𝑟𝑥 ∧ ∀𝑥∀𝑦(𝑥𝑟𝑦 → 𝑦𝑟𝑥))} | ||
| Theorem | refsymrel2 39110 | A relation which is reflexive and symmetric (like an equivalence relation) can use the restricted version for their reflexive part (see below), not just the ( I ∩ (dom 𝑅 × ran 𝑅)) ⊆ 𝑅 version of dfrefrel2 39054, cf. the comment of dfrefrels2 39052. (Contributed by Peter Mazsa, 23-Aug-2021.) |
| ⊢ (( RefRel 𝑅 ∧ SymRel 𝑅) ↔ ((( I ↾ dom 𝑅) ⊆ 𝑅 ∧ ◡𝑅 ⊆ 𝑅) ∧ Rel 𝑅)) | ||
| Theorem | refsymrel3 39111* | A relation which is reflexive and symmetric (like an equivalence relation) can use the ∀𝑥 ∈ dom 𝑅𝑥𝑅𝑥 version for its reflexive part, not just the ∀𝑥 ∈ dom 𝑅∀𝑦 ∈ ran 𝑅(𝑥 = 𝑦 → 𝑥𝑅𝑦) version of dfrefrel3 39055, cf. the comment of dfrefrel3 39055. (Contributed by Peter Mazsa, 23-Aug-2021.) |
| ⊢ (( RefRel 𝑅 ∧ SymRel 𝑅) ↔ ((∀𝑥 ∈ dom 𝑅 𝑥𝑅𝑥 ∧ ∀𝑥∀𝑦(𝑥𝑅𝑦 → 𝑦𝑅𝑥)) ∧ Rel 𝑅)) | ||
| Theorem | elrefsymrels2 39112 | Elements of the class of reflexive relations which are elements of the class of symmetric relations as well (like the elements of the class of equivalence relations dfeqvrels2 39131) can use the restricted version for their reflexive part (see below), not just the ( I ∩ (dom 𝑅 × ran 𝑅)) ⊆ 𝑅 version of dfrefrels2 39052, cf. the comment of dfrefrels2 39052. (Contributed by Peter Mazsa, 22-Jul-2019.) |
| ⊢ (𝑅 ∈ ( RefRels ∩ SymRels ) ↔ ((( I ↾ dom 𝑅) ⊆ 𝑅 ∧ ◡𝑅 ⊆ 𝑅) ∧ 𝑅 ∈ Rels )) | ||
| Theorem | elrefsymrels3 39113* | Elements of the class of reflexive relations which are elements of the class of symmetric relations as well (like the elements of the class of equivalence relations dfeqvrels3 39132) can use the ∀𝑥 ∈ dom 𝑅𝑥𝑅𝑥 version for their reflexive part, not just the ∀𝑥 ∈ dom 𝑅∀𝑦 ∈ ran 𝑅(𝑥 = 𝑦 → 𝑥𝑅𝑦) version of dfrefrels3 39053, cf. the comment of dfrefrel3 39055. (Contributed by Peter Mazsa, 22-Jul-2019.) (Proof modification is discouraged.) |
| ⊢ (𝑅 ∈ ( RefRels ∩ SymRels ) ↔ ((∀𝑥 ∈ dom 𝑅 𝑥𝑅𝑥 ∧ ∀𝑥∀𝑦(𝑥𝑅𝑦 → 𝑦𝑅𝑥)) ∧ 𝑅 ∈ Rels )) | ||
| Theorem | elrefsymrelsrel 39114 | For sets, being an element of the class of reflexive and symmetric relations is equivalent to satisfying the reflexive and symmetric relation predicates. (Contributed by Peter Mazsa, 23-Aug-2021.) |
| ⊢ (𝑅 ∈ 𝑉 → (𝑅 ∈ ( RefRels ∩ SymRels ) ↔ ( RefRel 𝑅 ∧ SymRel 𝑅))) | ||
| Definition | df-trs 39115 |
Define the class of all transitive sets (versus the transitive class
defined in df-tr 5205). It is used only by df-trrels 39116.
Note the similarity of the definitions of df-refs 39049, df-syms 39081 and df-trs 39115. (Contributed by Peter Mazsa, 17-Jul-2021.) |
| ⊢ Trs = {𝑥 ∣ ((𝑥 ∩ (dom 𝑥 × ran 𝑥)) ∘ (𝑥 ∩ (dom 𝑥 × ran 𝑥))) S (𝑥 ∩ (dom 𝑥 × ran 𝑥))} | ||
| Definition | df-trrels 39116 |
Define the class of transitive relations. For sets, being an element of
the class of transitive relations is equivalent to satisfying the
transitive relation predicate, see eltrrelsrel 39124. Alternate definitions
are dftrrels2 39118 and dftrrels3 39119.
This definition is similar to the definitions of the classes of reflexive (df-refrels 39050) and symmetric (df-symrels 39082) relations. (Contributed by Peter Mazsa, 7-Jul-2019.) |
| ⊢ TrRels = ( Trs ∩ Rels ) | ||
| Definition | df-trrel 39117 | Define the transitive relation predicate. (Read: 𝑅 is a transitive relation.) For sets, being an element of the class of transitive relations (df-trrels 39116) is equivalent to satisfying the transitive relation predicate, see eltrrelsrel 39124. Alternate definitions are dftrrel2 39120 and dftrrel3 39121. (Contributed by Peter Mazsa, 17-Jul-2021.) |
| ⊢ ( TrRel 𝑅 ↔ (((𝑅 ∩ (dom 𝑅 × ran 𝑅)) ∘ (𝑅 ∩ (dom 𝑅 × ran 𝑅))) ⊆ (𝑅 ∩ (dom 𝑅 × ran 𝑅)) ∧ Rel 𝑅)) | ||
| Theorem | dftrrels2 39118 |
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 5652 (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 38960 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.) |
| ⊢ TrRels = {𝑟 ∈ Rels ∣ (𝑟 ∘ 𝑟) ⊆ 𝑟} | ||
| Theorem | dftrrels3 39119* | Alternate definition of the class of transitive relations. (Contributed by Peter Mazsa, 22-Jul-2021.) |
| ⊢ TrRels = {𝑟 ∈ Rels ∣ ∀𝑥∀𝑦∀𝑧((𝑥𝑟𝑦 ∧ 𝑦𝑟𝑧) → 𝑥𝑟𝑧)} | ||
| Theorem | dftrrel2 39120 | Alternate definition of the transitive relation predicate. (Contributed by Peter Mazsa, 22-Aug-2021.) |
| ⊢ ( TrRel 𝑅 ↔ ((𝑅 ∘ 𝑅) ⊆ 𝑅 ∧ Rel 𝑅)) | ||
| Theorem | dftrrel3 39121* | Alternate definition of the transitive relation predicate. (Contributed by Peter Mazsa, 22-Aug-2021.) |
| ⊢ ( TrRel 𝑅 ↔ (∀𝑥∀𝑦∀𝑧((𝑥𝑅𝑦 ∧ 𝑦𝑅𝑧) → 𝑥𝑅𝑧) ∧ Rel 𝑅)) | ||
| Theorem | eltrrels2 39122 | Element of the class of transitive relations. (Contributed by Peter Mazsa, 22-Aug-2021.) |
| ⊢ (𝑅 ∈ TrRels ↔ ((𝑅 ∘ 𝑅) ⊆ 𝑅 ∧ 𝑅 ∈ Rels )) | ||
| Theorem | eltrrels3 39123* | Element of the class of transitive relations. (Contributed by Peter Mazsa, 22-Aug-2021.) |
| ⊢ (𝑅 ∈ TrRels ↔ (∀𝑥∀𝑦∀𝑧((𝑥𝑅𝑦 ∧ 𝑦𝑅𝑧) → 𝑥𝑅𝑧) ∧ 𝑅 ∈ Rels )) | ||
| Theorem | eltrrelsrel 39124 | For sets, being an element of the class of transitive relations is equivalent to satisfying the transitive relation predicate. (Contributed by Peter Mazsa, 22-Aug-2021.) |
| ⊢ (𝑅 ∈ 𝑉 → (𝑅 ∈ TrRels ↔ TrRel 𝑅)) | ||
| Theorem | trreleq 39125 | Equality theorem for the transitive relation predicate. (Contributed by Peter Mazsa, 15-Apr-2019.) (Revised by Peter Mazsa, 23-Sep-2021.) |
| ⊢ (𝑅 = 𝑆 → ( TrRel 𝑅 ↔ TrRel 𝑆)) | ||
| Theorem | trrelressn 39126 | Any class ' R ' restricted to the singleton of the class ' A ' (see ressn2 38991) is transitive. (Contributed by Peter Mazsa, 17-Jun-2024.) |
| ⊢ TrRel (𝑅 ↾ {𝐴}) | ||
| Definition | df-eqvrels 39127 | Define the class of equivalence relations. For sets, being an element of the class of equivalence relations is equivalent to satisfying the equivalence relation predicate, see eleqvrelsrel 39137. Alternate definitions are dfeqvrels2 39131 and dfeqvrels3 39132. (Contributed by Peter Mazsa, 7-Nov-2018.) |
| ⊢ EqvRels = (( RefRels ∩ SymRels ) ∩ TrRels ) | ||
| Definition | df-eqvrel 39128 | Define the equivalence relation predicate. (Read: 𝑅 is an equivalence relation.) For sets, being an element of the class of equivalence relations (df-eqvrels 39127) is equivalent to satisfying the equivalence relation predicate, see eleqvrelsrel 39137. Alternate definitions are dfeqvrel2 39133 and dfeqvrel3 39134. (Contributed by Peter Mazsa, 17-Apr-2019.) |
| ⊢ ( EqvRel 𝑅 ↔ ( RefRel 𝑅 ∧ SymRel 𝑅 ∧ TrRel 𝑅)) | ||
| Definition | df-coeleqvrels 39129 | Define the coelement equivalence relations class, the class of sets with coelement equivalence relations. For sets, being an element of the class of coelement equivalence relations is equivalent to satisfying the coelement equivalence relation predicate, see elcoeleqvrelsrel 39139. Alternate definition is dfcoeleqvrels 39164. (Contributed by Peter Mazsa, 28-Nov-2022.) |
| ⊢ CoElEqvRels = {𝑎 ∣ ≀ (◡ E ↾ 𝑎) ∈ EqvRels } | ||
| Definition | df-coeleqvrel 39130 | Define the coelement equivalence relation predicate. (Read: the coelement equivalence relation on 𝐴.) Alternate definition is dfcoeleqvrel 39165. For sets, being an element of the class of coelement equivalence relations is equivalent to satisfying the coelement equivalence relation predicate, see elcoeleqvrelsrel 39139. (Contributed by Peter Mazsa, 11-Dec-2021.) |
| ⊢ ( CoElEqvRel 𝐴 ↔ EqvRel ≀ (◡ E ↾ 𝐴)) | ||
| Theorem | dfeqvrels2 39131 | Alternate definition of the class of equivalence relations. (Contributed by Peter Mazsa, 2-Dec-2019.) |
| ⊢ EqvRels = {𝑟 ∈ Rels ∣ (( I ↾ dom 𝑟) ⊆ 𝑟 ∧ ◡𝑟 ⊆ 𝑟 ∧ (𝑟 ∘ 𝑟) ⊆ 𝑟)} | ||
| Theorem | dfeqvrels3 39132* | Alternate definition of the class of equivalence relations. (Contributed by Peter Mazsa, 2-Dec-2019.) |
| ⊢ EqvRels = {𝑟 ∈ Rels ∣ (∀𝑥 ∈ dom 𝑟 𝑥𝑟𝑥 ∧ ∀𝑥∀𝑦(𝑥𝑟𝑦 → 𝑦𝑟𝑥) ∧ ∀𝑥∀𝑦∀𝑧((𝑥𝑟𝑦 ∧ 𝑦𝑟𝑧) → 𝑥𝑟𝑧))} | ||
| Theorem | dfeqvrel2 39133 | Alternate definition of the equivalence relation predicate. (Contributed by Peter Mazsa, 22-Apr-2019.) |
| ⊢ ( EqvRel 𝑅 ↔ ((( I ↾ dom 𝑅) ⊆ 𝑅 ∧ ◡𝑅 ⊆ 𝑅 ∧ (𝑅 ∘ 𝑅) ⊆ 𝑅) ∧ Rel 𝑅)) | ||
| Theorem | dfeqvrel3 39134* | Alternate definition of the equivalence relation predicate. (Contributed by Peter Mazsa, 22-Apr-2019.) |
| ⊢ ( EqvRel 𝑅 ↔ ((∀𝑥 ∈ dom 𝑅 𝑥𝑅𝑥 ∧ ∀𝑥∀𝑦(𝑥𝑅𝑦 → 𝑦𝑅𝑥) ∧ ∀𝑥∀𝑦∀𝑧((𝑥𝑅𝑦 ∧ 𝑦𝑅𝑧) → 𝑥𝑅𝑧)) ∧ Rel 𝑅)) | ||
| Theorem | eleqvrels2 39135 | Element of the class of equivalence relations. (Contributed by Peter Mazsa, 24-Aug-2021.) |
| ⊢ (𝑅 ∈ EqvRels ↔ ((( I ↾ dom 𝑅) ⊆ 𝑅 ∧ ◡𝑅 ⊆ 𝑅 ∧ (𝑅 ∘ 𝑅) ⊆ 𝑅) ∧ 𝑅 ∈ Rels )) | ||
| Theorem | eleqvrels3 39136* | Element of the class of equivalence relations. (Contributed by Peter Mazsa, 24-Aug-2021.) |
| ⊢ (𝑅 ∈ EqvRels ↔ ((∀𝑥 ∈ dom 𝑅 𝑥𝑅𝑥 ∧ ∀𝑥∀𝑦(𝑥𝑅𝑦 → 𝑦𝑅𝑥) ∧ ∀𝑥∀𝑦∀𝑧((𝑥𝑅𝑦 ∧ 𝑦𝑅𝑧) → 𝑥𝑅𝑧)) ∧ 𝑅 ∈ Rels )) | ||
| Theorem | eleqvrelsrel 39137 | For sets, being an element of the class of equivalence relations is equivalent to satisfying the equivalence relation predicate. (Contributed by Peter Mazsa, 24-Aug-2021.) |
| ⊢ (𝑅 ∈ 𝑉 → (𝑅 ∈ EqvRels ↔ EqvRel 𝑅)) | ||
| Theorem | elcoeleqvrels 39138 | Elementhood in the coelement equivalence relations class. (Contributed by Peter Mazsa, 24-Jul-2023.) |
| ⊢ (𝐴 ∈ 𝑉 → (𝐴 ∈ CoElEqvRels ↔ ≀ (◡ E ↾ 𝐴) ∈ EqvRels )) | ||
| Theorem | elcoeleqvrelsrel 39139 | For sets, being an element of the class of coelement equivalence relations is equivalent to satisfying the coelement equivalence relation predicate. (Contributed by Peter Mazsa, 24-Jul-2023.) |
| ⊢ (𝐴 ∈ 𝑉 → (𝐴 ∈ CoElEqvRels ↔ CoElEqvRel 𝐴)) | ||
| Theorem | eqvrelrel 39140 | An equivalence relation is a relation. (Contributed by Peter Mazsa, 2-Jun-2019.) |
| ⊢ ( EqvRel 𝑅 → Rel 𝑅) | ||
| Theorem | eqvrelrefrel 39141 | An equivalence relation is reflexive. (Contributed by Peter Mazsa, 29-Dec-2021.) |
| ⊢ ( EqvRel 𝑅 → RefRel 𝑅) | ||
| Theorem | eqvrelsymrel 39142 | An equivalence relation is symmetric. (Contributed by Peter Mazsa, 29-Dec-2021.) |
| ⊢ ( EqvRel 𝑅 → SymRel 𝑅) | ||
| Theorem | eqvreltrrel 39143 | An equivalence relation is transitive. (Contributed by Peter Mazsa, 29-Dec-2021.) |
| ⊢ ( EqvRel 𝑅 → TrRel 𝑅) | ||
| Theorem | eqvrelim 39144 | Equivalence relation implies that the domain and the range are equal. (Contributed by Peter Mazsa, 29-Dec-2021.) |
| ⊢ ( EqvRel 𝑅 → dom 𝑅 = ran 𝑅) | ||
| Theorem | eqvreleq 39145 | Equality theorem for equivalence relation. (Contributed by Peter Mazsa, 19-Apr-2020.) (Revised by Peter Mazsa, 23-Sep-2021.) |
| ⊢ (𝑅 = 𝑆 → ( EqvRel 𝑅 ↔ EqvRel 𝑆)) | ||
| Theorem | eqvreleqi 39146 | Equality theorem for equivalence relation, inference version. (Contributed by Peter Mazsa, 23-Sep-2021.) |
| ⊢ 𝑅 = 𝑆 ⇒ ⊢ ( EqvRel 𝑅 ↔ EqvRel 𝑆) | ||
| Theorem | eqvreleqd 39147 | Equality theorem for equivalence relation, deduction version. (Contributed by Peter Mazsa, 23-Sep-2021.) |
| ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝑅 = 𝑆) ⇒ ⊢ (𝜑 → ( EqvRel 𝑅 ↔ EqvRel 𝑆)) | ||
| Theorem | eqvrelsym 39148 | An equivalence relation is symmetric. (Contributed by NM, 4-Jun-1995.) (Revised by Mario Carneiro, 12-Aug-2015.) (Revised by Peter Mazsa, 2-Jun-2019.) |
| ⊢ (𝜑 → EqvRel 𝑅) & ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝐴𝑅𝐵) ⇒ ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝐵𝑅𝐴) | ||
| Theorem | eqvrelsymb 39149 | An equivalence relation is symmetric. (Contributed by NM, 30-Jul-1995.) (Revised by Mario Carneiro, 12-Aug-2015.) (Revised and distinct variable conditions removed by Peter Mazsa, 2-Jun-2019.) |
| ⊢ (𝜑 → EqvRel 𝑅) ⇒ ⊢ (𝜑 → (𝐴𝑅𝐵 ↔ 𝐵𝑅𝐴)) | ||
| Theorem | eqvreltr 39150 | An equivalence relation is transitive. (Contributed by NM, 4-Jun-1995.) (Revised by Mario Carneiro, 12-Aug-2015.) (Revised by Peter Mazsa, 2-Jun-2019.) |
| ⊢ (𝜑 → EqvRel 𝑅) ⇒ ⊢ (𝜑 → ((𝐴𝑅𝐵 ∧ 𝐵𝑅𝐶) → 𝐴𝑅𝐶)) | ||
| Theorem | eqvreltrd 39151 | A transitivity relation for equivalences. (Contributed by Mario Carneiro, 9-Jul-2014.) (Revised by Peter Mazsa, 2-Jun-2019.) |
| ⊢ (𝜑 → EqvRel 𝑅) & ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝐴𝑅𝐵) & ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝐵𝑅𝐶) ⇒ ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝐴𝑅𝐶) | ||
| Theorem | eqvreltr4d 39152 | A transitivity relation for equivalences. (Contributed by Mario Carneiro, 9-Jul-2014.) (Revised by Peter Mazsa, 2-Jun-2019.) |
| ⊢ (𝜑 → EqvRel 𝑅) & ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝐴𝑅𝐵) & ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝐶𝑅𝐵) ⇒ ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝐴𝑅𝐶) | ||
| Theorem | eqvrelref 39153 | An equivalence relation is reflexive on its field. Compare Theorem 3M of [Enderton] p. 56. (Contributed by Mario Carneiro, 6-May-2013.) (Revised by Mario Carneiro, 12-Aug-2015.) (Revised by Peter Mazsa, 2-Jun-2019.) |
| ⊢ (𝜑 → EqvRel 𝑅) & ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝐴 ∈ dom 𝑅) ⇒ ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝐴𝑅𝐴) | ||
| Theorem | eqvrelth 39154 | Basic property of equivalence relations. Theorem 73 of [Suppes] p. 82. (Contributed by NM, 23-Jul-1995.) (Revised by Mario Carneiro, 6-Jul-2015.) (Revised by Peter Mazsa, 2-Jun-2019.) |
| ⊢ (𝜑 → EqvRel 𝑅) & ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝐴 ∈ dom 𝑅) ⇒ ⊢ (𝜑 → (𝐴𝑅𝐵 ↔ [𝐴]𝑅 = [𝐵]𝑅)) | ||
| Theorem | eqvrelcl 39155 | Elementhood in the field of an equivalence relation. (Contributed by Mario Carneiro, 12-Aug-2015.) (Revised by Peter Mazsa, 2-Jun-2019.) |
| ⊢ (𝜑 → EqvRel 𝑅) & ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝐴𝑅𝐵) ⇒ ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝐴 ∈ dom 𝑅) | ||
| Theorem | eqvrelthi 39156 | Basic property of equivalence relations. Part of Lemma 3N of [Enderton] p. 57. (Contributed by NM, 30-Jul-1995.) (Revised by Mario Carneiro, 9-Jul-2014.) (Revised by Peter Mazsa, 2-Jun-2019.) |
| ⊢ (𝜑 → EqvRel 𝑅) & ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝐴𝑅𝐵) ⇒ ⊢ (𝜑 → [𝐴]𝑅 = [𝐵]𝑅) | ||
| Theorem | eqvreldisj 39157 | Equivalence classes do not overlap. In other words, two equivalence classes are either equal or disjoint. Theorem 74 of [Suppes] p. 83. (Contributed by NM, 15-Jun-2004.) (Revised by Mario Carneiro, 9-Jul-2014.) (Revised by Peter Mazsa, 2-Jun-2019.) |
| ⊢ ( EqvRel 𝑅 → ([𝐴]𝑅 = [𝐵]𝑅 ∨ ([𝐴]𝑅 ∩ [𝐵]𝑅) = ∅)) | ||
| Theorem | qsdisjALTV 39158 | Elements of a quotient set do not overlap. (Contributed by Rodolfo Medina, 12-Oct-2010.) (Revised by Mario Carneiro, 11-Jul-2014.) (Revised by Peter Mazsa, 3-Jun-2019.) |
| ⊢ (𝜑 → EqvRel 𝑅) & ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝐵 ∈ (𝐴 / 𝑅)) & ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝐶 ∈ (𝐴 / 𝑅)) ⇒ ⊢ (𝜑 → (𝐵 = 𝐶 ∨ (𝐵 ∩ 𝐶) = ∅)) | ||
| Theorem | eqvrelqsel 39159 | If an element of a quotient set contains a given element, it is equal to the equivalence class of the element. (Contributed by Mario Carneiro, 12-Aug-2015.) (Revised by Peter Mazsa, 28-Dec-2019.) |
| ⊢ (( EqvRel 𝑅 ∧ 𝐵 ∈ (𝐴 / 𝑅) ∧ 𝐶 ∈ 𝐵) → 𝐵 = [𝐶]𝑅) | ||
| Theorem | eqvrelcoss 39160 | Two ways to express equivalent cosets. (Contributed by Peter Mazsa, 4-Jul-2020.) (Revised by Peter Mazsa, 20-Dec-2021.) |
| ⊢ ( EqvRel ≀ 𝑅 ↔ TrRel ≀ 𝑅) | ||
| Theorem | eqvrelcoss3 39161* | Two ways to express equivalent cosets. (Contributed by Peter Mazsa, 28-Apr-2019.) |
| ⊢ ( EqvRel ≀ 𝑅 ↔ ∀𝑥∀𝑦∀𝑧((𝑥 ≀ 𝑅𝑦 ∧ 𝑦 ≀ 𝑅𝑧) → 𝑥 ≀ 𝑅𝑧)) | ||
| Theorem | eqvrelcoss2 39162 | Two ways to express equivalent cosets. (Contributed by Peter Mazsa, 3-May-2019.) |
| ⊢ ( EqvRel ≀ 𝑅 ↔ ≀ ≀ 𝑅 ⊆ ≀ 𝑅) | ||
| Theorem | eqvrelcoss4 39163* | Two ways to express equivalent cosets. (Contributed by Peter Mazsa, 3-May-2019.) (Revised by Peter Mazsa, 30-Sep-2021.) |
| ⊢ ( EqvRel ≀ 𝑅 ↔ ∀𝑥∀𝑧(([𝑥] ≀ 𝑅 ∩ [𝑧] ≀ 𝑅) ≠ ∅ → ([𝑥]◡𝑅 ∩ [𝑧]◡𝑅) ≠ ∅)) | ||
| Theorem | dfcoeleqvrels 39164 | Alternate definition of the coelement equivalence relations class. Other alternate definitions should be based on eqvrelcoss2 39162, eqvrelcoss3 39161 and eqvrelcoss4 39163 when needed. (Contributed by Peter Mazsa, 28-Nov-2022.) |
| ⊢ CoElEqvRels = {𝑎 ∣ ∼ 𝑎 ∈ EqvRels } | ||
| Theorem | dfcoeleqvrel 39165 | Alternate definition of the coelement equivalence relation predicate: a coelement equivalence relation is an equivalence relation on coelements. Other alternate definitions should be based on eqvrelcoss2 39162, eqvrelcoss3 39161 and eqvrelcoss4 39163 when needed. (Contributed by Peter Mazsa, 28-Nov-2022.) |
| ⊢ ( CoElEqvRel 𝐴 ↔ EqvRel ∼ 𝐴) | ||
| Definition | df-redunds 39166* | Define the class of all redundant sets 𝑥 with respect to 𝑦 in 𝑧. For sets, binary relation on the class of all redundant sets (brredunds 39169) is equivalent to satisfying the redundancy predicate (df-redund 39167). (Contributed by Peter Mazsa, 23-Oct-2022.) |
| ⊢ Redunds = ◡{〈〈𝑦, 𝑧〉, 𝑥〉 ∣ (𝑥 ⊆ 𝑦 ∧ (𝑥 ∩ 𝑧) = (𝑦 ∩ 𝑧))} | ||
| Definition | df-redund 39167 | Define the redundancy predicate. Read: 𝐴 is redundant with respect to 𝐵 in 𝐶. For sets, binary relation on the class of all redundant sets (brredunds 39169) is equivalent to satisfying the redundancy predicate. (Contributed by Peter Mazsa, 23-Oct-2022.) |
| ⊢ (𝐴 Redund 〈𝐵, 𝐶〉 ↔ (𝐴 ⊆ 𝐵 ∧ (𝐴 ∩ 𝐶) = (𝐵 ∩ 𝐶))) | ||
| Definition | df-redundp 39168 | Define the redundancy operator for propositions, cf. df-redund 39167. (Contributed by Peter Mazsa, 23-Oct-2022.) |
| ⊢ ( redund (𝜑, 𝜓, 𝜒) ↔ ((𝜑 → 𝜓) ∧ ((𝜑 ∧ 𝜒) ↔ (𝜓 ∧ 𝜒)))) | ||
| Theorem | brredunds 39169 | Binary relation on the class of all redundant sets. (Contributed by Peter Mazsa, 25-Oct-2022.) |
| ⊢ ((𝐴 ∈ 𝑉 ∧ 𝐵 ∈ 𝑊 ∧ 𝐶 ∈ 𝑋) → (𝐴 Redunds 〈𝐵, 𝐶〉 ↔ (𝐴 ⊆ 𝐵 ∧ (𝐴 ∩ 𝐶) = (𝐵 ∩ 𝐶)))) | ||
| Theorem | brredundsredund 39170 | For sets, binary relation on the class of all redundant sets (brredunds 39169) is equivalent to satisfying the redundancy predicate (df-redund 39167). (Contributed by Peter Mazsa, 25-Oct-2022.) |
| ⊢ ((𝐴 ∈ 𝑉 ∧ 𝐵 ∈ 𝑊 ∧ 𝐶 ∈ 𝑋) → (𝐴 Redunds 〈𝐵, 𝐶〉 ↔ 𝐴 Redund 〈𝐵, 𝐶〉)) | ||
| Theorem | redundss3 39171 | Implication of redundancy predicate. (Contributed by Peter Mazsa, 26-Oct-2022.) |
| ⊢ 𝐷 ⊆ 𝐶 ⇒ ⊢ (𝐴 Redund 〈𝐵, 𝐶〉 → 𝐴 Redund 〈𝐵, 𝐷〉) | ||
| Theorem | redundeq1 39172 | Equivalence of redundancy predicates. (Contributed by Peter Mazsa, 26-Oct-2022.) |
| ⊢ 𝐴 = 𝐷 ⇒ ⊢ (𝐴 Redund 〈𝐵, 𝐶〉 ↔ 𝐷 Redund 〈𝐵, 𝐶〉) | ||
| Theorem | redundpim3 39173 | Implication of redundancy of proposition. (Contributed by Peter Mazsa, 26-Oct-2022.) |
| ⊢ (𝜃 → 𝜒) ⇒ ⊢ ( redund (𝜑, 𝜓, 𝜒) → redund (𝜑, 𝜓, 𝜃)) | ||
| Theorem | redundpbi1 39174 | Equivalence of redundancy of propositions. (Contributed by Peter Mazsa, 25-Oct-2022.) |
| ⊢ (𝜑 ↔ 𝜃) ⇒ ⊢ ( redund (𝜑, 𝜓, 𝜒) ↔ redund (𝜃, 𝜓, 𝜒)) | ||
| Theorem | refrelsredund4 39175 | The naive version of the class of reflexive relations is redundant with respect to the class of reflexive relations (see dfrefrels2 39052) if the relations are symmetric as well. (Contributed by Peter Mazsa, 26-Oct-2022.) |
| ⊢ {𝑟 ∈ Rels ∣ ( I ↾ dom 𝑟) ⊆ 𝑟} Redund 〈 RefRels , ( RefRels ∩ SymRels )〉 | ||
| Theorem | refrelsredund2 39176 | The naive version of the class of reflexive relations is redundant with respect to the class of reflexive relations (see dfrefrels2 39052) in the class of equivalence relations. (Contributed by Peter Mazsa, 26-Oct-2022.) |
| ⊢ {𝑟 ∈ Rels ∣ ( I ↾ dom 𝑟) ⊆ 𝑟} Redund 〈 RefRels , EqvRels 〉 | ||
| Theorem | refrelsredund3 39177* | The naive version of the class of reflexive relations {𝑟 ∈ Rels ∣ ∀𝑥 ∈ dom 𝑟𝑥𝑟𝑥} is redundant with respect to the class of reflexive relations (see dfrefrels3 39053) in the class of equivalence relations. (Contributed by Peter Mazsa, 26-Oct-2022.) |
| ⊢ {𝑟 ∈ Rels ∣ ∀𝑥 ∈ dom 𝑟 𝑥𝑟𝑥} Redund 〈 RefRels , EqvRels 〉 | ||
| Theorem | refrelredund4 39178 | The naive version of the definition of reflexive relation is redundant with respect to reflexive relation (see dfrefrel2 39054) if the relation is symmetric as well. (Contributed by Peter Mazsa, 26-Oct-2022.) |
| ⊢ redund ((( I ↾ dom 𝑅) ⊆ 𝑅 ∧ Rel 𝑅), RefRel 𝑅, ( RefRel 𝑅 ∧ SymRel 𝑅)) | ||
| Theorem | refrelredund2 39179 | The naive version of the definition of reflexive relation is redundant with respect to reflexive relation (see dfrefrel2 39054) in equivalence relation. (Contributed by Peter Mazsa, 25-Oct-2022.) |
| ⊢ redund ((( I ↾ dom 𝑅) ⊆ 𝑅 ∧ Rel 𝑅), RefRel 𝑅, EqvRel 𝑅) | ||
| Theorem | refrelredund3 39180* | The naive version of the definition of reflexive relation (∀𝑥 ∈ dom 𝑅𝑥𝑅𝑥 ∧ Rel 𝑅) is redundant with respect to reflexive relation (see dfrefrel3 39055) in equivalence relation. (Contributed by Peter Mazsa, 25-Oct-2022.) |
| ⊢ redund ((∀𝑥 ∈ dom 𝑅 𝑥𝑅𝑥 ∧ Rel 𝑅), RefRel 𝑅, EqvRel 𝑅) | ||
| Definition | df-dmqss 39181* | Define the class of domain quotients. Domain quotients are pairs of sets, typically a relation and a set, where the quotient (see df-qs 8677) of the relation on its domain is equal to the set. See comments of df-ers 39207 for the motivation for this definition. (Contributed by Peter Mazsa, 16-Apr-2019.) |
| ⊢ DomainQss = {〈𝑥, 𝑦〉 ∣ (dom 𝑥 / 𝑥) = 𝑦} | ||
| Definition | df-dmqs 39182 | Define the domain quotient predicate. (Read: the domain quotient of 𝑅 is 𝐴.) If 𝐴 and 𝑅 are sets, the domain quotient binary relation and the domain quotient predicate are the same, see brdmqssqs 39190. (Contributed by Peter Mazsa, 9-Aug-2021.) |
| ⊢ (𝑅 DomainQs 𝐴 ↔ (dom 𝑅 / 𝑅) = 𝐴) | ||
| Theorem | dmqseq 39183 | Equality theorem for domain quotient. (Contributed by Peter Mazsa, 17-Apr-2019.) |
| ⊢ (𝑅 = 𝑆 → (dom 𝑅 / 𝑅) = (dom 𝑆 / 𝑆)) | ||
| Theorem | dmqseqi 39184 | Equality theorem for domain quotient, inference version. (Contributed by Peter Mazsa, 26-Sep-2021.) |
| ⊢ 𝑅 = 𝑆 ⇒ ⊢ (dom 𝑅 / 𝑅) = (dom 𝑆 / 𝑆) | ||
| Theorem | dmqseqd 39185 | Equality theorem for domain quotient set, deduction version. (Contributed by Peter Mazsa, 23-Apr-2021.) |
| ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝑅 = 𝑆) ⇒ ⊢ (𝜑 → (dom 𝑅 / 𝑅) = (dom 𝑆 / 𝑆)) | ||
| Theorem | dmqseqeq1 39186 | Equality theorem for domain quotient. (Contributed by Peter Mazsa, 17-Apr-2019.) |
| ⊢ (𝑅 = 𝑆 → ((dom 𝑅 / 𝑅) = 𝐴 ↔ (dom 𝑆 / 𝑆) = 𝐴)) | ||
| Theorem | dmqseqeq1i 39187 | Equality theorem for domain quotient, inference version. (Contributed by Peter Mazsa, 26-Sep-2021.) |
| ⊢ 𝑅 = 𝑆 ⇒ ⊢ ((dom 𝑅 / 𝑅) = 𝐴 ↔ (dom 𝑆 / 𝑆) = 𝐴) | ||
| Theorem | dmqseqeq1d 39188 | Equality theorem for domain quotient set, deduction version. (Contributed by Peter Mazsa, 26-Sep-2021.) |
| ⊢ (𝜑 → 𝑅 = 𝑆) ⇒ ⊢ (𝜑 → ((dom 𝑅 / 𝑅) = 𝐴 ↔ (dom 𝑆 / 𝑆) = 𝐴)) | ||
| Theorem | brdmqss 39189 | The domain quotient binary relation. (Contributed by Peter Mazsa, 17-Apr-2019.) |
| ⊢ ((𝐴 ∈ 𝑉 ∧ 𝑅 ∈ 𝑊) → (𝑅 DomainQss 𝐴 ↔ (dom 𝑅 / 𝑅) = 𝐴)) | ||
| Theorem | brdmqssqs 39190 | If 𝐴 and 𝑅 are sets, the domain quotient binary relation and the domain quotient predicate are the same. (Contributed by Peter Mazsa, 14-Aug-2021.) |
| ⊢ ((𝐴 ∈ 𝑉 ∧ 𝑅 ∈ 𝑊) → (𝑅 DomainQss 𝐴 ↔ 𝑅 DomainQs 𝐴)) | ||
| Theorem | n0eldmqs 39191 | The empty set is not an element of a domain quotient. (Contributed by Peter Mazsa, 2-Mar-2018.) |
| ⊢ ¬ ∅ ∈ (dom 𝑅 / 𝑅) | ||
| Theorem | qseq 39192* |
The quotient set equal to a class.
This theorem is used when a class 𝐴 is identified with a quotient (dom 𝑅 / 𝑅). In such a situation, every element 𝑢 ∈ 𝐴 is an 𝑅-coset [𝑣]𝑅 for some 𝑣 ∈ dom 𝑅, but there is no requirement that the "witness" 𝑣 be equal to its own block [𝑣]𝑅. 𝐴 is a set of blocks (equivalence classes), not a set of raw witnesses. In particular, when (dom 𝑅 / 𝑅) = 𝐴 is read together with a partition hypothesis 𝑅 Part 𝐴 (defined as dfpart2 39331), 𝐴 is being treated as the set of blocks [𝑣]𝑅; it does not assert any fixed-point condition 𝑣 = [𝑣]𝑅 such as would arise from the mistaken reading 𝑢 ∈ 𝐴 ↔ 𝑢 = [𝑢]𝑅. Cf. dmqsblocks 39426. (Contributed by Peter Mazsa, 19-Oct-2018.) |
| ⊢ ((𝐵 / 𝑅) = 𝐴 ↔ ∀𝑢(𝑢 ∈ 𝐴 ↔ ∃𝑣 ∈ 𝐵 𝑢 = [𝑣]𝑅)) | ||
| Theorem | n0eldmqseq 39193 | The empty set is not an element of a domain quotient. (Contributed by Peter Mazsa, 3-Nov-2018.) |
| ⊢ ((dom 𝑅 / 𝑅) = 𝐴 → ¬ ∅ ∈ 𝐴) | ||
| Theorem | n0elim 39194 | Implication of that the empty set is not an element of a class. (Contributed by Peter Mazsa, 30-Dec-2024.) |
| ⊢ (¬ ∅ ∈ 𝐴 → (dom (◡ E ↾ 𝐴) / (◡ E ↾ 𝐴)) = 𝐴) | ||
| Theorem | n0el3 39195 | Two ways of expressing that the empty set is not an element of a class. (Contributed by Peter Mazsa, 27-May-2021.) |
| ⊢ (¬ ∅ ∈ 𝐴 ↔ (dom (◡ E ↾ 𝐴) / (◡ E ↾ 𝐴)) = 𝐴) | ||
| Theorem | cnvepresdmqss 39196 | The domain quotient binary relation of the restricted converse epsilon relation is equivalent to the negated elementhood of the empty set in the restriction. (Contributed by Peter Mazsa, 14-Aug-2021.) |
| ⊢ (𝐴 ∈ 𝑉 → ((◡ E ↾ 𝐴) DomainQss 𝐴 ↔ ¬ ∅ ∈ 𝐴)) | ||
| Theorem | cnvepresdmqs 39197 | The domain quotient predicate for the restricted converse epsilon relation is equivalent to the negated elementhood of the empty set in the restriction. (Contributed by Peter Mazsa, 14-Aug-2021.) |
| ⊢ ((◡ E ↾ 𝐴) DomainQs 𝐴 ↔ ¬ ∅ ∈ 𝐴) | ||
| Theorem | unidmqs 39198 | The range of a relation is equal to the union of the domain quotient. (Contributed by Peter Mazsa, 13-Oct-2018.) |
| ⊢ (𝑅 ∈ 𝑉 → (Rel 𝑅 → ∪ (dom 𝑅 / 𝑅) = ran 𝑅)) | ||
| Theorem | unidmqseq 39199 | The union of the domain quotient of a relation is equal to the class 𝐴 if and only if the range is equal to it as well. (Contributed by Peter Mazsa, 21-Apr-2019.) (Revised by Peter Mazsa, 28-Dec-2021.) |
| ⊢ (𝑅 ∈ 𝑉 → (Rel 𝑅 → (∪ (dom 𝑅 / 𝑅) = 𝐴 ↔ ran 𝑅 = 𝐴))) | ||
| Theorem | dmqseqim 39200 | If the domain quotient of a relation is equal to the class 𝐴, then the range of the relation is the union of the class. (Contributed by Peter Mazsa, 29-Dec-2021.) |
| ⊢ (𝑅 ∈ 𝑉 → (Rel 𝑅 → ((dom 𝑅 / 𝑅) = 𝐴 → ran 𝑅 = ∪ 𝐴))) | ||
| < Previous Next > |
| Copyright terms: Public domain | < Previous Next > |