1: \begin{abstract}

2: In 1976 S. Eilenberg and M.-P. Sch\"{u}tzenberger posed the following

3: diabolical

4: question: if $\m a$ is a finite algebraic structure,

5: $\Sigma$ is the set of all identities true in $\m a$,

6: and there exists a finite subset $F$ of $\Sigma$ such that $F$ and $\Sigma$

7: have exactly the same \emph{finite} models, must there also exist

8: a finite subset $F'$ of $\Sigma$ such that $F'$ and $\Sigma$ have exactly

9: the same \emph{finite and infinite} models?  (That is, must the identities of

10: $\m a$ be ``finitely based"?)

11: % and the identities

12: %true in the pseudovariety

13: %generated by $\m a$ are finitely based [bad wording: change], does it follow that the identitites

14: %true in the full variety generated by $\m a$ are also finitely based?

15: It is known that any counter-example to their question (if one exists)

16: must fail to be

17: finitely based in a particularly strange way.  In this paper we show that 

18: the ``inherently nonfinitely based" algebras constructed by 

19: Lawrence and Willard from group actions

20: %to answer two questions from logic

21: %of A. Wro\'{n}ski and D. Pigozzi 

22: do \emph{not} fail to be finitely based in this

23: particularly strange way, and so do not provide a counter-example to the

24: question of Eilenberg and Sch\"{u}tzenberger.  

25: As a corollary, we give the first known examples of inherently nonfinitely based ``automatic algebras" constructed from group actions.

26: \end{abstract}

27: