skip to main content
research-article

Abstract Geometrical Computation 10: An Intrinsically Universal Family of Signal Machines

Authors Info & Claims
Published:14 February 2021Publication History
Skip Abstract Section

Abstract

Signal machines form an abstract and idealized model of collision computing. Based on dimensionless signals moving on the real line, they model particle/signal dynamics in Cellular Automata. Each particle, or signal, moves at constant speed in continuous time and space. When signals meet, they get replaced by other signals. A signal machine defines the types of available signals, their speeds, and the rules for replacement in collision.

A signal machine A simulates another one B if all the space-time diagrams of B can be generated from space-time diagrams of A by removing some signals and renaming other signals according to local information. Given any finite set of speeds S we construct a signal machine that is able to simulate any signal machine whose speeds belong to S. Each signal is simulated by a macro-signal, a ray of parallel signals. Each macro-signal has a main signal located exactly where the simulated signal would be, as well as auxiliary signals that encode its id and the collision rules of the simulated machine.

The simulation of a collision, a macro-collision, consists of two phases. In the first phase, macro-signals are shrunk, and then the macro-signals involved in the collision are identified and it is ensured that no other macro-signal comes too close. If some do, the process is aborted and the macro-signals are shrunk, so that the correct macro-collision will eventually be restarted and successfully initiated. Otherwise, the second phase starts: the appropriate collision rule is found and new macro-signals are generated accordingly.

Considering all finite sets of speeds S and their corresponding simulators provides an intrinsically universal family of signal machines.

References

  1. Andrew Adamatzky (Ed.). 2002. Collision Based Computing. Springer.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. Jürgen Albert and Karel Čulik II. 1987. A simple universal cellular automaton and its one-way and totalistic version. Complex Systems 1 (1987), 1--16.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. Pablo Arrigh and Jonathan Grattage. 2012. Partitioned quantum cellular automata are intrinsically universal. Natural Computing 11, 1 (2012), 13--22. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1007/s11047-011-9277-6Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  4. Lenore Blum, Michael Shub, and Steve Smale. 1989. On a theory of computation and complexity over the real numbers: NP-completeness, recursive functions and universal machines. Bulletin of the American Mathematical Society 21, 1 (1989), 1--46.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  5. Nino Boccara, J. Nasser, and Michel Roger. 1991. Particle-like structures and interactions in spatio-temporal patterns generated by one-dimensional deterministic cellular automaton rules. Physical Review A 44, 2 (1991), 866--875.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  6. Matthew Cook. 2004. Universality in elementary cellular automata. Complex Systems 15 (2004), 1--40.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  7. Marianne Delorme and Jacques Mazoyer. 2002. Signals on cellular automata. In Collision-based Computing, Andrew Adamatzky (Ed.). Springer, 234--275.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  8. David Doty, Jack H. Lutz, Matthew J. Patitz, Robert T. Schweller, Scott M. Summers, and Damien Woods. 2012. The tile assembly model is intrinsically universal. In 53rd Annual IEEE Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science (FOCS’12). IEEE Computer Society, 302--310. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1109/FOCS.2012.76Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  9. David Doty, Jack H. Lutz, Matthew J. Patitz, Scott M. Summers, and Damien Woods. 2010. Intrinsic universality in self-assembly. In 27th International Symposium on Theoretical Aspects of Computer Science (STACS’10) (LIPIcs), Jean-Yves Marion and Thomas Schwentick (Eds.), Vol. 5. Schloss Dagstuhl-Leibniz-Zentrum fuer Informatik, 275--286. DOI:https://doi.org/10.4230/LIPIcs.STACS.2010.2461Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  10. Jérôme Durand-Lose. 1995. Reversible cellular automaton able to simulate any other reversible one using partitioning automata. In LATIN 1995 (LNCS). Springer, 230--244. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-59175-3_92Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  11. Jérôme Durand-Lose. 2006. Abstract geometrical computation 1: Embedding Black hole computations with rational numbers. Fundamenta Informaticae 74, 4 (2006), 491--510.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  12. Jérôme Durand-Lose. 2007. Abstract geometrical computation and the linear Blum, Shub and Smale model. In Computation and Logic in the Real World, 3rd Conference on Computability in Europe (CiE’07) (LNCS), Barry S. Cooper, Benedikt. Löwe, and Andrea Sorbi (Eds.). Springer, 238--247. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-73001-9_25Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  13. Jérôme Durand-Lose. 2008. The signal point of view: From cellular automata to signal machines. In Journées Automates Cellulaires (JAC’08), Bruno Durand (Ed.). 238--249.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  14. Jérôme Durand-Lose. 2009. Abstract geometrical computation 3: Black holes for classical and analog computing. Natural Computing 8, 3 (2009), 455--472. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1007/s11047-009-9117-0Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  15. Jérôme Durand-Lose. 2012. Abstract geometrical computation 6: A reversible, conservative and rational based model for black hole computation. International Journal of Unconventional Computing 8, 1 (2012), 33--46.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  16. Eric Goles Ch., Pierre-Etienne Meunier, Ivan Rapaport, and Guillaume Theyssier. 2011. Communication complexity and intrinsic universality in cellular automata. Theoretical Computer Science 412, 1--2 (2011), 2--21. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tcs.2010.10.005Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  17. Wim Hordijk, James P. Crutchfield, and Melanie Mitchell. 1998. Mechanisms of emergent computation in cellular automata. In Parallel Problem Solving from Nature - 5th Int. Conf. (PPSN V’98) (LNCS), A. E. Eiben, Thomas Bäck, Marc Schoenauer, and Hans-Paul Schwefel (Eds.), Vol. 1498. Springer, 613--622. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1007/BFb0056903Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  18. Mariusz H. Jakubowski, Kenneth Steiglitz, and Richard K. Squier. 1996. When can solitons compute? Complex Systems 10, 1 (1996), 1--21.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  19. Mariusz H. Jakubowski, Kenneth Steiglitz, and Richard K. Squier. 2000. Information transfer between solitary waves in the saturable Schrödinger equation. In Proceedings from the International Conference on Complex Systems on Unifying Themes in Complex Systems. Perseus Books, Cambridge, MA, 281--293. http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=331767.331919Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  20. Mariusz H. Jakubowski, Kenneth Steiglitz, and Richard K. Squier. 2017. Computing with classical soliton collisions. In Advances in Unconventional Computing vol. 2: Prototypes, Models and Algorithms, Andrew Adamatzky (Ed.). Emergence, Complexity and Computation, Vol. 23. Springer, 261--295. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-33921-4_12Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  21. Weifeng Jin and Fangyue Chen. 2016. Symbolic dynamics of glider guns for some one-dimensional cellular automata. Nonlinear Dynamics 86, 2 (Oct. 2016), 941--952. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1007/s11071-016-2935-6Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  22. Kristian Lindgren and Mats G. Nordahl. 1990. Universal computation in simple one-dimensional cellular automata. Complex Systems 4 (1990), 299--318.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  23. Simon Martiel and Bruno Martin. 2015. An intrinsically universal family of causal graph dynamics. In Machines, Computations, and Universality - 7th International Conference (MCU’15) (LNCS), Jérôme Durand-Lose and Benedek Nagy (Eds.), Vol. 9288. Springer, 129--148. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-23111-2_9Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  24. Jacques Mazoyer and Ivan Rapaport. 1998. Inducing an order on cellular automata by a grouping operation. In 15th Annual Symposium on Theoretical Aspects of Computer Science (STACS’98) (LNCS). Springer, 116--127.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  25. Jacques Mazoyer and Véronique Terrier. 1999. Signals in one-dimensional cellular automata. Theoretical Computer Science 217, 1 (1999), 53--80. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/S0304-3975(98)00150-9Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  26. Pierre-Etienne Meunier, Matthew J. Patitz, Scott M. Summers, Guillaume Theyssier, Andrew Winslow, and Damien Woods. 2014. Intrinsic universality in tile self-assembly requires cooperation. In 25th Annual ACM-SIAM Symposium on Discrete Algorithms (SODA’14), Chandra Chekuri (Ed.). SIAM, 752--771. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1137/1.9781611973402.56Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  27. Melanie Mitchell. 1996. Computation in cellular automata: A selected review. In Nonstandard Computation, T. Gramss, S. Bornholdt, M. Gross, M. Mitchell, and T. Pellizzari (Eds.). Weinheim: VCH Verlagsgesellschaft, 95--140.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  28. Nicolas Ollinger. 2001. Two-states bilinear intrinsically universal cellular automata. In Fundamentals of Computation Theory, 13th International Symposium (FCT’01) (LNCS). Springer, 369--399.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  29. Nicolas Ollinger. 2003. The intrinsic universality problem of one-dimensional cellular automata. In 20th Annual Symposium on Theoretical Aspects of Computer Science (STACS’03) (LNCS). Springer, 632--641.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  30. Pawel Siwak. 2001. Soliton-like dynamics of filtrons of cycle automata. Inverse Problems 17 (2001), 897--918.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  31. Victor I. Varshavsky, Vyacheslav B. Marakhovsky, and V. A. Peschansky. 1970. Synchronization of interacting automata. Mathematical System Theory 4, 3 (1970), 212--230.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  32. Damien Woods. 2013. Intrinsic universality and the computational power of self-assembly. In Proceedings of Machines, Computations and Universality 2013 (MCU’13) (EPTCS), Turlough Neary and Matthew Cook (Eds.), Vol. 128. 16--22. DOI:https://doi.org/10.4204/EPTCS.128.5Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  33. Jean-Baptiste Yunès. 2007. Simple new algorithms which solve the firing squad synchronization problem: A 7-states 4n-steps solution. In Machine, Computations and Universality (MCU’07) (LNCS), Jérôme Durand-Lose and Maurice Margenstern (Eds.). Springer, 316--324.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar

Index Terms

  1. Abstract Geometrical Computation 10: An Intrinsically Universal Family of Signal Machines

      Recommendations

      Comments

      Login options

      Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

      Sign in

      Full Access

      • Article Metrics

        • Downloads (Last 12 months)7
        • Downloads (Last 6 weeks)0

        Other Metrics

      PDF Format

      View or Download as a PDF file.

      PDF

      eReader

      View online with eReader.

      eReader

      HTML Format

      View this article in HTML Format .

      View HTML Format
      About Cookies On This Site

      We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website.

      Learn more

      Got it!