Transcription from SQL to FOL (First Order Logic)

In summary, the conversation discusses how SQL queries are transcribed into FOL in the back end and how the models are returned as the answer to the query. There is a question about the transcription process for more complicated queries, such as joins, and whether product models are used or if the models are unioned to form new ones. The participants suggest that a join can be represented by a wff with free variables and the union can be represented by a wff with the corresponding number of free variables.
  • #1
WWGD
Science Advisor
Gold Member
7,019
10,579
Hi All,
When a query is made in SQL , it is transcribed into FOL in the back end , and, if the transcription is a wff , the models, if any, are returned as the answer to the query. I have an idea of how the transcription works for basic statements, but, does anyone know the actual " transcription map" for more complicated queries, such as, e.g., joins? Do we use product models in this case, or do we union the models to form new ones?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
I'll have a go at this, since nobody else has.

If a table in the database is represented by an atomic wff, and we have tables ##p,q## represented by the a ##m##-ary predicate ##P## and a ##n##-ary predicate ##Q## respectively, then I think the Inner Join of the two tables on the first ##r## arguments to both tables, in the same order, will be represented by the following wff with ##m+n-r## free variables:
$$P(x_1,...,x_m)\wedge Q(x_1,..x_r,x_{m+1},...,x_{m+n-r})$$
 
  • Like
Likes WWGD
  • #3
andrewkirk said:
I'll have a go at this, since nobody else has.

If a table in the database is represented by an atomic wff, and we have tables ##p,q## represented by the a ##m##-ary predicate ##P## and a ##n##-ary predicate ##Q## respectively, then I think the Inner Join of the two tables on the first ##r## arguments to both tables, in the same order, will be represented by the following wff with ##m+n-r## free variables:
$$P(x_1,...,x_m)\wedge Q(x_1,..x_r,x_{m+1},...,x_{m+n-r})$$
Thanks, Andrew, how would the model of the union then be defined, as just a set union of the two models ( the models of the two wffs)?
 
  • #4
WWGD said:
Thanks, Andrew, how would the model of the union then be defined, as just a set union of the two models ( the models of the two wffs)?
I think I'd try the following for
Code:
 select x1,x2,...,xr from p UNION select x1,x2,...,xr from q
$$\exists x_{r+1},x_{r+2},...,x_{m+n-r}:\ P(x_1,...,x_m)\vee Q(x_1,...,x_r,x_{m+1},...,x_{m+n-r})$$
This wff has ##r## free variables, corresponding to the ##r## columns in the tables ##p## and ##q## that match.
 

Related to Transcription from SQL to FOL (First Order Logic)

1. What is the purpose of transcription from SQL to FOL?

The purpose of transcription from SQL to FOL is to translate a database query written in SQL (Structured Query Language) into a logical representation in FOL (First Order Logic). This allows for more complex and precise querying of a database, as well as the ability to reason about the data using logical inference.

2. How is SQL translated into FOL?

SQL is translated into FOL by identifying the logical predicates, variables, and constants in the SQL query and representing them in FOL notation. This involves determining the logical operators (such as AND, OR, NOT) to use, as well as the appropriate quantifiers (such as FOR ALL or EXISTS) to represent the query accurately.

3. What are the benefits of using FOL for database querying?

Using FOL for database querying allows for more complex and precise queries to be written. It also enables reasoning about the data using logical inference, which can help identify patterns or inconsistencies in the data. Additionally, FOL provides a standardized and formalized way to represent and query data, making it easier to compare and combine different databases.

4. Are there any limitations to transcription from SQL to FOL?

One limitation of transcription from SQL to FOL is that not all SQL queries can be accurately translated into FOL. This is because SQL is a procedural language, while FOL is a declarative language. This means that in some cases, certain SQL features such as loops or conditional statements cannot be directly translated into FOL.

5. Can FOL be used for any type of database?

Yes, FOL can be used for any type of database as long as the data can be represented in a logical format. This includes relational databases, graph databases, and even unstructured data such as text or images. However, the process of transcription from SQL to FOL may differ slightly depending on the type of database being queried.

Similar threads

  • Set Theory, Logic, Probability, Statistics
Replies
26
Views
2K
  • Set Theory, Logic, Probability, Statistics
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • Programming and Computer Science
Replies
5
Views
1K
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • Set Theory, Logic, Probability, Statistics
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • Programming and Computer Science
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • Set Theory, Logic, Probability, Statistics
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • Set Theory, Logic, Probability, Statistics
Replies
7
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
916
  • Nuclear Engineering
Replies
1
Views
1K
Back
Top