I have two Alloy facts:

我有两个合金事实：

fact A5 {
  all a, b : Filler, s, t : Slot |
    (b in s.slot_of and s in a.fills and a in t.slot_of) implies b in t.slot_of 
}
fact A6 {
  all a, b : Filler, s, t : Slot | ((b in s.slot_of  and s in a.fills) and
      (a in t.slot_of and t in b.fills)) implies a = b
}

As I noticed that relation calculus style seems more efficient than predicate calculus style (less variables and clauses generated), I wanted to rewrite them using relation calculus style.

因为我注意到关系演算风格似乎比谓词演算风格更有效(生成的变量和子句更少)，所以我想用关系演算风格重写它们。

For A5, I have this:

对于A5，我有这样的想法：

fact A5 { slot_of.fills.slot_of in slot_of }

which works well and is, if I correctly understand the styles, in relation calculus style.

它工作得很好，如果我正确理解了风格的话，那就是关系微积分风格。

But for A6, I didn’t achieve to rewrite it. For now, I got this:

但对于A6，我没有实现重写。目前，我得到了这样的结论：

fact A6 {
  all a, b : Filler | (a->b in fills.slot_of and b->a in fills.slot_of) implies a = b
}

which is more efficient, but I think it is still in predicate calculus style. So I have some questions: is my current A6 in predicate calculus style? is it possible to rewrite it in relation calculus style? if so, how?

哪个更高效，但我认为它仍然是谓词演算的风格。所以我有一些问题：我现在的A6是不是采用了谓词演算的风格？有没有可能用关系微积分的方式重写？如果是这样的话，是如何做到的？

It's still in predicate calculus style because you're using the all quantifier. To be relational, it can't use any quantifiers.

它仍然是谓词演算风格，因为您使用的是ALL量词。要成为关系型，它不能使用任何量词。

I think your intended fact is "the only symmetric relations are reflexive ones". The set of all reflexive relations is iden and the set of all symmetric relations in r is r & ~r. So if you want to make A6 fully relational, you'd write fills.slot_of & ~(fills.slot_of) in iden.

我认为你想要的事实是“唯一的对称关系是反身性的”。所有自反关系的集合是iden，r中所有对称关系的集合是r&~r。因此，如果您想使A6完全关系，您可以在iden中写成fils.lot_of&~(fuls.lot_of)。