(PROBABLY WRONG) if x is specialization of y,
then x inductively supports y
The above rule is probably wrong because inductive support requires more than specialization. A mere specialization may have nothing special about it and thus fail to support the concept that it specializes.
The situation is complex though. A given specialization in itself may not be significant. However, that specialization may contribute to a class of specializations to be interesting (because of its size, the nature of the instances that it contains, or else).
A similar issue arises concerning the following rule:
(PROBABLY WRONG) if x is a y,
then x inductively supports y
Check the following rule:
(PROBABLY WRONG) if x is specialization of y, then x inductively supports y
The above rule is probably wrong because inductive support requires more than specialization. A mere specialization may have nothing special about it and thus fail to support the concept that it specializes.
The situation is complex though. A given specialization in itself may not be significant. However, that specialization may contribute to a class of specializations to be interesting (because of its size, the nature of the instances that it contains, or else).
A similar issue arises concerning the following rule: (PROBABLY WRONG) if x is a y, then x inductively supports y