TAPL: Explanation and example(s) for satisfied This question arises from my reading of "Types and Programming Languages" (WorldCat) by Benjamin C. Pierce.

On page 36 is the definition for satisfied


  A rule is satisfied by a relation if, for each instance of the rule,
  either the conclusion is in the relation or one of the premises is
  not.


On page 36 is the definition for instance


  An instance of an inference rule is obtained by consistently replacing
  each metavariable by the same term in the rule's conclusion and all its
  premises (if any).
  
  For example 
  
  if true then true else (if false then false else false) -&gt; true
  
  is an instance of E-IFTRUE, where both occurrences of $t_2$ have been
  replaced by true and $t_3$ has been replaced by if false then false else
  false.


On page 15 is the definition for relataion


  An n-place relation on a collection of sets $S_1, S_2,..., S_n$ is a
  set $R\subseteq  S_1\times\;S_2\;\times\;...\;\times\;S_n$ of tuples
  of elements from $S_1$ through $S_n$. We say that the elements $s_1\in
&gt; S_1$ thorugh $s_n\in S_n$ are related by $R$ if $(s_1,...,s_n)$ is an
  element or $R$.


On page 36 is the definition for one-step evaluation relation ($\rightarrow $) 


  The one-step evaluation relation $\rightarrow $ is the smallest
  binary relation on terms satisfying the three rules of Figure 3-1.
  When the pair $(t,t')$ is in the evaluation relation,  we say that "the
  evaluation statement (or judgment) $t \rightarrow t'$ is derivable."


On page 34 are the three rules from Figure 3-1

E-IFTRUE


  \begin{equation}if\;true\;then\;t_2\;else\;t_3\;\rightarrow\;t_2\end{equation}


E-IFFALSE


  \begin{equation}if\;false\;then\;t_2\;else\;t_3\;\rightarrow\;t_2\end{equation}


E-IF


  \begin{equation}\frac{t_1\rightarrow\;t_1'}{if\;t_1\;then\;t_2\;else\;t_3\;\rightarrow\;if\;t_1'\;then\;t_2\;else\;t_3}\end{equation}


Can someone explain this definition and give an example for parts of the defintion.
1. The conclusion is in the relation.
2. One of the premises is not.  

Note: I am aware that there is a forum dedicated to questions for the book here.

Note: You can use Google Scholar to see more of the details to this question in context.

EDIT

To connect some of the dots about my comment regarding unification and term rewriting.

When I saw

$$(A\rightarrow B)\equiv (\neg A \vee B)$$

it reminded me of Horn claues from Prolog, that along with the example then connected with my understanding of term rewriting. Having the book "Term Rewriting and All That" (WorldCat) by Franz Baader and Tobias Nipkow, I quickly looked up satisfiability and found satisfiable on page 58. This is actually the start of whole chapter on Equational Problems; but it also covers unification. At that point I realized that the definition was dealing with Satisfiability and from there is was a topic I was already familiar. What threw me was the way Benjamin defined it. He used a very precise definition right up front in a manner I didn't associate with my knowledge.  

If you work through the code as I am and understand logic programming, then the definition makes perfect sense.
One way of reading the definition of satisfied that might help is to change


  A rule is satisfied by a relation if, for each instance of the rule, either the conclusion is in the relation or one of the premises is not.  


to the logically equivalent statement


  A rule is satisfied by a relation if, for each instance of the rule, if all the premises are in the relation, then the conclusion is in the relation.


Thus if  the rule says, for instance,

$$
\dfrac{A \to B \quad B\to C}
{A\to C}
$$

Then binary relation $R$ satisfies this rule whenever for each instance of the rule, such as

$$
\dfrac{a \to b \quad b\to c}
{a\to c}
$$

if $(a,b)\in R$ and $(b,c)\in R$, then $(a,c)\in R$.

Another way of stating this is that $R$ is closed by the rule (though this probably doesn't make it clearer).

Now let's return to the original statement. What


  A rule is satisfied by a relation if, for each instance of the rule, either the conclusion is in the relation or one of the premises is not.  


is saying is that is it okay to have $(a,c)$ in the relation without the premises, but if all of the premises are in the relation, then  $(a,c)$ must be. That is, it is okay to have not all of the premises in the relation, without imposing any additional constraint.

Personally, I think that thinking about this definition in terms of an implication is simpler, so I help this explanation helps.