Menu
▾
▴
#18 preservesGenlsInArg extent
Assertions
(preservesGenlsInArg
SubcollectionOfWithRelationFromTypeFn 2)
and
(preservesGenlsInArg
SubcollectionOfWithRelationToTypeFn 2)
cannot be meaningful,
according to the comment for preservesGenlsInArg,
although there should be a more
complex rule wrt the second argument of these
functions: If between the second arguments does hold a
genlPreds relation, the other arguments are fixed, then
the corresponding function results are in a genls relation.
I do not see any rules which support the salient
semantics of preservesGenlsInArg.
