Advertisement

Generalized Tag Systems

  • Turlough NearyEmail author
  • Matthew Cook
Conference paper
  • 168 Downloads
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 11123)

Abstract

Tag systems and cyclic tag systems are forms of rewriting systems which, due to the simplicity of their rewrite rules, have become popular targets for reductions when proving universality/undecidability results. They have been used to prove such results for the smallest universal Turing machines, the elementary cellular automata Rule 110, for simple instances of the Post correspondence problem and related problems on simple matrix semi-groups, and many other simple systems. In this work we compare the computational power of tag systems, cyclic tag systems and a straightforward generalization of these two types of rewriting system. We explore the relationships between the various systems by showing that some variants simulate each other in linear time via simple encodings, and that linear time simulations between other variants are not possible using such simple encodings. We also give a cyclic tag system that has only four instructions and simulates repeated iteration of the Collatz function.

Keywords

Collatz Function Linear Time Simulation Small Universal Turing Machines Simple Encoding Dataword 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. 1.
    Baiocchi, C.: 3n+1, UTM e tag-system. Technical report Pubblicazione 98/38, Dipartimento di Matematico, Università di Roma (1998). (In Italian)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Baiocchi, C., Margenstern, M.: Cellular automata about the 3x+1 problem. In: Proceedings of LCCS 2001, Université Paris 12, pp. 37–45 (2001)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Cocke, J., Minsky, M.: Universality of tag systems with \({P} = 2\). J. ACM 11(1), 15–20 (1964)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Cook, M.: Universality in elementary cellular automata. Complex Syst. 15(1), 1–40 (2004)MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Cook, S.: The solvability of the derivability problem for one-normal systems. J. ACM 13(2), 223–225 (1966)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    De Mol, L.: Tag systems and Collatz-like functions. Theoret. Comput. Sci. 390(1), 92–101 (2008)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    De Mol, L.: Solvability of the halting and reachability problem for binary 2-tag systems. Fundamenta Informaticae 99(4), 435–471 (2010)MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Lagarias, J.C.: The Ultimate Challenge: The 3x+1 Problem. American Mathematical Society, Providence (2010)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Lagarias, J.C.: The 3x+1 problem: an annotated bibliography (1963–1999). Technical report arXiv:math/0309224v13 [math.NT], January 2011
  10. 10.
    Lagarias, J.C.: The 3x+1 problem: an annotated bibliography, ii (2000–2009). Technical report arXiv:math/0608208v6 [math.NT], February 2012
  11. 11.
    Margenstern, M.: Frontier between decidability and undecidability: a survey. Theoret. Comput. Sci. 231(2), 217–251 (2000)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Michel, P.: Busy beaver competition and Collatz-like problems. Archive Math. Logic 32(5), 351–367 (1993)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Michel, P.: Small Turing machines and the generalized busy beaver competition. Theoret. Comput. Sci. 326, 45–56 (2004)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Neary, T.: Small universal Turing machines. Ph.D. thesis, Department of Computer Science, National University of Ireland, Maynooth (2008)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Neary, T.: Undecidability in binary tag systems and the Post correspondence problem for five pairs of words. In: 32nd International Symposium on Theoretical Aspects of Computer Science, STACS. LIPIcs, vol. 30, pp. 649–661 (2015)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Neary, T., Woods, D.: P-completeness of cellular automaton Rule 110. In: Bugliesi, M., Preneel, B., Sassone, V., Wegener, I. (eds.) ICALP 2006. LNCS, vol. 4051, pp. 132–143. Springer, Heidelberg (2006).  https://doi.org/10.1007/11786986_13CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Post, E.: Formal reductions of the general combinatorial decision problem. Am. J. Math. 65(2), 197–215 (1943)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Wang, H.: Tag systems and lag systems. Math. Ann. 152(4), 65–74 (1963)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Woods, D., Neary, T.: On the time complexity of 2-tag systems and small universal Turing machines. In: 47th Annual IEEE Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science (FOCS), pp. 439–448, October 2006Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institute of NeuroinformaticsUniversity of Zürich and ETH ZürichZürichSwitzerland

Personalised recommendations