Three Puzzles on Mathematics, Computation, and Games

In this lecture I will talk about three mathematical puzzles involving mathematics and computation that have preoccupied me over the years. The first puzzle is to understand the amazing success of the simplex algorithm for linear programming. The second puzzle is about errors made when votes are counted during elections. The third puzzle is: are quantum computers possible?Comment: ICM 2018 plenary lecture, Rio de Janeiro, 36 pages, 7 Figure

Games, puzzles, and computation

Thesis (Ph. D.)--Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Dept. of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science, 2006.Includes bibliographical references (p. 147-153).There is a fundamental connection between the notions of game and of computation. At its most basic level, this is implied by any game complexity result, but the connection is deeper than this. One example is the concept of alternating nondeterminism, which is intimately connected with two-player games. In the first half of this thesis, I develop the idea of game as computation to a greater degree than has been done previously. I present a general family of games, called Constraint Logic, which is both mathematically simple and ideally suited for reductions to many actual board games. A deterministic version of Constraint Logic corresponds to a novel kind of logic circuit which is monotone and reversible. At the other end of the spectrum, I show that a multiplayer version of Constraint Logic is undecidable. That there are undecidable games using finite physical resources is philosophically important, and raises issues related to the Church-Turing thesis. In the second half of this thesis, I apply the Constraint Logic formalism to many actual games and puzzles, providing new hardness proofs. These applications include sliding-block puzzles, sliding-coin puzzles, plank puzzles, hinged polygon dissections, Amazons, Kohane, Cross Purposes, Tip over, and others.(cont.) Some of these have been well-known open problems for some time. For other games, including Minesweeper, the Warehouseman's Problem, Sokoban, and Rush Hour, I either strengthen existing results, or provide new, simpler hardness proofs than the original proofs.by Robert Aubrey Hearn.Ph.D

Getting the public involved in Quantum Error Correction

The Decodoku project seeks to let users get hands-on with cutting-edge quantum research through a set of simple puzzle games. The design of these games is explicitly based on the problem of decoding qudit variants of surface codes. This problem is presented such that it can be tackled by players with no prior knowledge of quantum information theory, or any other high-level physics or mathematics. Methods devised by the players to solve the puzzles can then directly be incorporated into decoding algorithms for quantum computation. In this paper we give a brief overview of the novel decoding methods devised by players, and provide short postmortem for Decodoku v1.0-v4.1.Comment: Extended version of article in the proceedings of the GSGS'17 conference (see https://gsgs.ch/gsgs17/

Push-Pull Block Puzzles are Hard

This paper proves that push-pull block puzzles in 3D are PSPACE-complete to solve, and push-pull block puzzles in 2D with thin walls are NP-hard to solve, settling an open question by Zubaran and Ritt. Push-pull block puzzles are a type of recreational motion planning problem, similar to Sokoban, that involve moving a `robot' on a square grid with $1 \times 1$ obstacles. The obstacles cannot be traversed by the robot, but some can be pushed and pulled by the robot into adjacent squares. Thin walls prevent movement between two adjacent squares. This work follows in a long line of algorithms and complexity work on similar problems. The 2D push-pull block puzzle shows up in the video games Pukoban as well as The Legend of Zelda: A Link to the Past, giving another proof of hardness for the latter. This variant of block-pushing puzzles is of particular interest because of its connections to reversibility, since any action (e.g., push or pull) can be inverted by another valid action (e.g., pull or push).Comment: Full version of CIAC 2017 paper. 17 page

Particle Computation: Complexity, Algorithms, and Logic

We investigate algorithmic control of a large swarm of mobile particles (such as robots, sensors, or building material) that move in a 2D workspace using a global input signal (such as gravity or a magnetic field). We show that a maze of obstacles to the environment can be used to create complex systems. We provide a wide range of results for a wide range of questions. These can be subdivided into external algorithmic problems, in which particle configurations serve as input for computations that are performed elsewhere, and internal logic problems, in which the particle configurations themselves are used for carrying out computations. For external algorithms, we give both negative and positive results. If we are given a set of stationary obstacles, we prove that it is NP-hard to decide whether a given initial configuration of unit-sized particles can be transformed into a desired target configuration. Moreover, we show that finding a control sequence of minimum length is PSPACE-complete. We also work on the inverse problem, providing constructive algorithms to design workspaces that efficiently implement arbitrary permutations between different configurations. For internal logic, we investigate how arbitrary computations can be implemented. We demonstrate how to encode dual-rail logic to build a universal logic gate that concurrently evaluates and, nand, nor, and or operations. Using many of these gates and appropriate interconnects, we can evaluate any logical expression. However, we establish that simulating the full range of complex interactions present in arbitrary digital circuits encounters a fundamental difficulty: a fan-out gate cannot be generated. We resolve this missing component with the help of 2x1 particles, which can create fan-out gates that produce multiple copies of the inputs. Using these gates we provide rules for replicating arbitrary digital circuits.Comment: 27 pages, 19 figures, full version that combines three previous conference article

Trainyard is NP-Hard

Recently, due to the widespread diffusion of smart-phones, mobile puzzle games have experienced a huge increase in their popularity. A successful puzzle has to be both captivating and challenging, and it has been suggested that this features are somehow related to their computational complexity \cite{Eppstein}. Indeed, many puzzle games --such as Mah-Jongg, Sokoban, Candy Crush, and 2048, to name a few-- are known to be NP-hard \cite{CondonFLS97, culberson1999sokoban, GualaLN14, Mehta14a}. In this paper we consider Trainyard: a popular mobile puzzle game whose goal is to get colored trains from their initial stations to suitable destination stations. We prove that the problem of determining whether there exists a solution to a given Trainyard level is NP-hard. We also \href{http://trainyard.isnphard.com}{provide} an implementation of our hardness reduction

Logic Programming Applications: What Are the Abstractions and Implementations?

This article presents an overview of applications of logic programming, classifying them based on the abstractions and implementations of logic languages that support the applications. The three key abstractions are join, recursion, and constraint. Their essential implementations are for-loops, fixed points, and backtracking, respectively. The corresponding kinds of applications are database queries, inductive analysis, and combinatorial search, respectively. We also discuss language extensions and programming paradigms, summarize example application problems by application areas, and touch on example systems that support variants of the abstractions with different implementations

Wolpert, Chaitin and Wittgenstein on impossibility, incompleteness, the liar paradox, theism, the limits of computation, a non-quantum mechanical uncertainty principle and the universe as computer—the ultimate theorem in Turing Machine Theory (revised 2019)

I have read many recent discussions of the limits of computation and the universe as computer, hoping to find some comments on the amazing work of polymath physicist and decision theorist David Wolpert but have not found a single citation and so I present this very brief summary. Wolpert proved some stunning impossibility or incompleteness theorems (1992 to 2008-see arxiv dot org) on the limits to inference (computation) that are so general they are independent of the device doing the computation, and even independent of the laws of physics, so they apply across computers, physics, and human behavior. They make use of Cantor's diagonalization, the liar paradox and worldlines to provide what may be the ultimate theorem in Turing Machine Theory, and seemingly provide insights into impossibility, incompleteness, the limits of computation, and the universe as computer, in all possible universes and all beings or mechanisms, generating, among other things, a non- quantum mechanical uncertainty principle and a proof of monotheism. There are obvious connections to the classic work of Chaitin, Solomonoff, Komolgarov and Wittgenstein and to the notion that no program (and thus no device) can generate a sequence (or device) with greater complexity than it possesses. One might say this body of work implies atheism since there cannot be any entity more complex than the physical universe and from the Wittgensteinian viewpoint, ‘more complex’ is meaningless (has no conditions of satisfaction, i.e., truth-maker or test). Even a ‘God’ (i.e., a ‘device’with limitless time/space and energy) cannot determine whether a given ‘number’ is ‘random’, nor find a certain way to show that a given ‘formula’, ‘theorem’ or ‘sentence’ or ‘device’ (all these being complex language games) is part of a particular ‘system’. Those wishing a comprehensive up to date framework for human behavior from the modern two systems view may consult my book ‘The Logical Structure of Philosophy, Psychology, Mind and Language in Ludwig Wittgenstein and John Searle’ 2nd ed (2019). Those interested in more of my writings may see ‘Talking Monkeys--Philosophy, Psychology, Science, Religion and Politics on a Doomed Planet--Articles and Reviews 2006-2019 2nd ed (2019) and Suicidal Utopian Delusions in the 21st Century 4th ed (2019