Conjugacy of one-dimensional one-sided cellular automata is undecidable

Two cellular automata are strongly conjugate if there exists a shift-commuting conjugacy between them. We prove that the following two sets of pairs $(F,G)$ of one-dimensional one-sided cellular automata over a full shift are recursively inseparable: (i) pairs where $F$ has strictly larger topological entropy than $G$, and (ii) pairs that are strongly conjugate and have zero topological entropy. Because there is no factor map from a lower entropy system to a higher entropy one, and there is no embedding of a higher entropy system into a lower entropy system, we also get as corollaries that the following decision problems are undecidable: Given two one-dimensional one-sided cellular automata $F$ and $G$ over a full shift: Are $F$ and $G$ conjugate? Is $F$ a factor of $G$? Is $F$ a subsystem of $G$? All of these are undecidable in both strong and weak variants (whether the homomorphism is required to commute with the shift or not, respectively). It also immediately follows that these results hold for one-dimensional two-sided cellular automata.Comment: 12 pages, 2 figures, accepted for SOFSEM 201

Undecidable Properties of Limit Set Dynamics of Cellular Automata

Cellular Automata (CA) are discrete dynamical systems and an abstract model of parallel computation. The limit set of a cellular automaton is its maximal topological attractor. A well know result, due to Kari, says that all nontrivial properties of limit sets are undecidable. In this paper we consider properties of limit set dynamics, i.e. properties of the dynamics of Cellular Automata restricted to their limit sets. There can be no equivalent of Kari's Theorem for limit set dynamics. Anyway we show that there is a large class of undecidable properties of limit set dynamics, namely all properties of limit set dynamics which imply stability or the existence of a unique subshift attractor. As a consequence we have that it is undecidable whether the cellular automaton map restricted to the limit set is the identity, closing, injective, expansive, positively expansive, transitive

Multi-Head Finite Automata: Characterizations, Concepts and Open Problems

Multi-head finite automata were introduced in (Rabin, 1964) and (Rosenberg, 1966). Since that time, a vast literature on computational and descriptional complexity issues on multi-head finite automata documenting the importance of these devices has been developed. Although multi-head finite automata are a simple concept, their computational behavior can be already very complex and leads to undecidable or even non-semi-decidable problems on these devices such as, for example, emptiness, finiteness, universality, equivalence, etc. These strong negative results trigger the study of subclasses and alternative characterizations of multi-head finite automata for a better understanding of the nature of non-recursive trade-offs and, thus, the borderline between decidable and undecidable problems. In the present paper, we tour a fragment of this literature

Containment and equivalence of weighted automata: Probabilistic and max-plus cases

This paper surveys some results regarding decision problems for probabilistic and max-plus automata, such as containment and equivalence. Probabilistic and max-plus automata are part of the general family of weighted automata, whose semantics are maps from words to real values. Given two weighted automata, the equivalence problem asks whether their semantics are the same, and the containment problem whether one is point-wise smaller than the other one. These problems have been studied intensively and this paper will review some techniques used to show (un)decidability and state a list of open questions that still remain

Decidability and Universality in Symbolic Dynamical Systems

Many different definitions of computational universality for various types of dynamical systems have flourished since Turing's work. We propose a general definition of universality that applies to arbitrary discrete time symbolic dynamical systems. Universality of a system is defined as undecidability of a model-checking problem. For Turing machines, counter machines and tag systems, our definition coincides with the classical one. It yields, however, a new definition for cellular automata and subshifts. Our definition is robust with respect to initial condition, which is a desirable feature for physical realizability. We derive necessary conditions for undecidability and universality. For instance, a universal system must have a sensitive point and a proper subsystem. We conjecture that universal systems have infinite number of subsystems. We also discuss the thesis according to which computation should occur at the `edge of chaos' and we exhibit a universal chaotic system.Comment: 23 pages; a shorter version is submitted to conference MCU 2004 v2: minor orthographic changes v3: section 5.2 (collatz functions) mathematically improved v4: orthographic corrections, one reference added v5:27 pages. Important modifications. The formalism is strengthened: temporal logic replaced by finite automata. New results. Submitte

In the Maze of Data Languages

In data languages the positions of strings and trees carry a label from a finite alphabet and a data value from an infinite alphabet. Extensions of automata and logics over finite alphabets have been defined to recognize data languages, both in the string and tree cases. In this paper we describe and compare the complexity and expressiveness of such models to understand which ones are better candidates as regular models

Impartial games emulating one-dimensional cellular automata and undecidability

We study two-player \emph{take-away} games whose outcomes emulate two-state one-dimensional cellular automata, such as Wolfram's rules 60 and 110. Given an initial string consisting of a central data pattern and periodic left and right patterns, the rule 110 cellular automaton was recently proved Turing-complete by Matthew Cook. Hence, many questions regarding its behavior are algorithmically undecidable. We show that similar questions are undecidable for our \emph{rule 110} game.Comment: 22 pages, 11 figure