1: % Upper Bound on the Products of Particle Interactions

2: % in Cellular Automata

3: 

4: % Updated: 11/13/99 wh

5: % Updated: 6/17/00 jpc

6: % Updated: crs 26 June 2000

7: % Updated: 7/11/00 jpc

8: % Updated (partial): crs 14--15 July 2000

9: % Updated: crs 21 Aug 2000

10: % Updated: crs 22 Aug 2000

11: % Updated: crs 15 Sept 2000

12: % Resubmitted to LANL, 26 Sept. 2000

13: % Updated to include referee comments, convert to Elsevier style file,

14: % crs, 27 Jan. 2001

15: % Updated to include Wim's comments, 30 Jan. 2001 by CRS

16: 

17: 

18: % NOTE: Surrounding figure environments with a minipage environment keeps

19: % figure and caption on the same page, but tends to suppress the spacing

20: % between caption and maintext, which is ugly, and harder to read.  Ditto

21: % tables.  Minipaging can also induce weirdness in how the text is

22: % distributed over columns, etc.  Use sparingly.  (CRS)

23: 

24: \documentstyle[multicol,aps,epsfig,amsbsy]{revtex}

25: 

26: \newcommand{\lcm}{{\rm lcm}}

27: 

28: \newtheorem{definition}{Definition}

29: \newtheorem{theorem}{Theorem}

30: \newtheorem{proposition}{Proposition}

31: \newtheorem{lemma}{Lemma}

32: \newtheorem{corollary}{Corollary}

33: \newtheorem{conjecture}{Conjecture}

34: 

35: % \renewcommand{\baselinestretch}{2}

36: 

37: \begin{document}

38: 

39: \title{Upper Bound on the Products of\\

40: Particle Interactions in Cellular Automata}

41: \author{Wim Hordijk,

42: Cosma Rohilla Shalizi,\thanks{Permanent address: Physics Department,

43: University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI 53706.} and James P. Crutchfield}

44: \address{Santa Fe Institute, 1399 Hyde Park Road, Santa Fe, NM 87501\\

45: Electronic address: \{wim,shalizi,chaos\}@santafe.edu}

46: \date{30 January 2001}

47: \maketitle

48: 

49: 

50: \begin{abstract}

51: Particle-like objects are observed to propagate and interact in many spatially

52: extended dynamical systems. For one of the simplest classes of such systems,

53: one-dimensional cellular automata, we establish a rigorous upper bound on the

54: number of distinct products that these interactions can generate.  The upper

55: bound is controlled by the structural complexity of the interacting

56: particles---a quantity which is defined here and which measures the amount of

57: spatio-temporal information that a particle stores. Along the way we establish

58: a number of properties of domains and particles that follow from the

59: computational mechanics analysis of cellular automata; thereby elucidating why

60: that approach is of general utility. The upper bound is tested against several

61: relatively complex domain-particle cellular automata and found to be tight.

62: 

63: 

64: Keywords: Cellular automata, Particles, Gliders, Domains, Particle interactions, Domain transducer

65: 

66: PACS:  45.70.Qj, 05.45, 05.65+b

67: 

68: \end{abstract}

69: 

70: \begin{multicols}{2}

71: 

72: \tableofcontents

73: 

74: \section{Introduction}

75: 

76: Persistent, localized, propagating structures---particles---have long been

77: observed and constructed in cellular automata (CAs)

78: \cite{Burks-essays,Winning-Ways,Peyrard-Kruskal,Grassberger-diffusion,Boccara-Nasser-Roger-particle-like,Boccara-Roger-block-transformations,Boccara-transformations,Aizawa-Nishikawa-Kaneko-soliton-turbulence,Park-Steiglitz-Thurston-soliton,Wolfram-theory-and-applications,Wolfram-CA-and-complexity,Lindgren-Nordahl-universal-computation,JPC-MM-PNAS,Yunes-firing-squad,Eloranta-partially-permutive,Eloranta-defect-ensembles,Eloranta-Nummelin-random-walk,Cellular-Automata-and-Modeling,Andre-Bennett-Koza,Attractor-basin-portrait,Hanson-thesis,Comp-mech-of-CA-example}.

79: A review of the literature suggests that particles are widely felt to be some

80: of the more interesting phenomena displayed by those systems

81: \cite{Eppstein-glider-rule-database}. They are analogous to the ``defects'' or

82: ``coherent structures'' of pattern formation processes in condensed matter

83: physics

84: \cite{Grassberger-diffusion,Boccara-Nasser-Roger-particle-like,Aizawa-Nishikawa-Kaneko-soliton-turbulence,Park-Steiglitz-Thurston-soliton,Eloranta-defect-ensembles,Cellular-Automata-and-Modeling}.

85: In fact, in cellular automata used to model pattern formation processes, the

86: particles model defects and vice versa

87: \cite{Manneville-dissipative-structures,Cross-Hohenberg,Winfree-geometry,Winfree-time-breaks-down}. A

88: different analogy to condensed matter physics (specifically, hydrodynamics

89: \cite{Infeld-Rowlands}) gives them the name ``solitons''

90: \cite{Aizawa-Nishikawa-Kaneko-soliton-turbulence,Park-Steiglitz-Thurston-soliton}.

91: They are also known as {\em gliders}, {\em glider-like objects}, or {\em

92: spaceships} particularly, but not exclusively, in the context of the Game of

93: Life two-dimensional CA \cite{Winning-Ways,Poundstone-recursive}.  The name

94: ``particle'', while inspired by an analogy to field theory in physics, is used

95: here merely for the sake of uniform terminology and neutrality of

96: associations.\footnote{ To avoid confusion, we should say that a ``particle''

97: in our sense is \textit{not} the same as a particle in the sense of interacting

98: particle systems (IPSs)

99: \cite{Griffeath-particle-systems,Liggett-particle-systems} or lattice gases

100: \cite{Rothman-Zaleski-text}. The particles of an IPS or the coherent structures

101: that emerge in lattice gases \textit{may} be particles in our sense; we hope to

102: explore these and related issues elsewhere.}

103: 

104: CA particles, like their physical counterparts, interact via collision, and

105: these interactions are well known to play a crucial role in the dynamics of

106: their underlying cellular automaton. The construction of computational devices

107: in CAs, for instance, is almost always accomplished through engineering the

108: proper interactions among particles

109: \cite{Burks-essays,Lindgren-Nordahl-universal-computation,JPC-MM-PNAS,Steiglitz-Kamal-Watson,Griffeath-Moore-LwoD,Moore-majority-vote,Moore-Nordahl-lattice-gases,Das-MM-JPC-discovery-of-particles,Wim-MM-JPC-mechanisms,Margolus-crystalline,Das-thesis,Wim-thesis}. Indeed,

110: it was even at one time conjectured by Wolfram

111: \cite{Wolfram-universality-and-complexity} that the presence of particles in a

112: CA was tantamount to its being computation-universal.  It is therefore of

113: considerable interest to know what interactions a CA's particles may

114: have. Acquiring that knowledge is significantly simplified if we can place a

115: bound on the number of different interactions between any pair of

116: particles. The first successful attempt to do so was an expression given in

117: \cite{Park-Steiglitz-Thurston-soliton} for particles interacting on a

118: completely uniform, quiescent background. It has been appreciated for some

119: time, however, that many CAs display patterned or textured

120: backgrounds---sometimes called ``domains''. Here we substantially generalize

121: the original formula to accommodate a large class of domains and prove the

122: generalization using elementary automata and number theory.

123: 

124: The outline of the paper is as follows.  First, we fix basic notation relating

125: to cellular automata, regular languages, and finite-state transducers. We then

126: define domains, in particular periodic domains, and prove some basic results

127: about them.  We next define particles as a particular kind of interface between

128: domains, and define interactions between particles.  After establishing some

129: auxiliary number-theoretic results, we prove the upper bound formula that

130: generalizes the main theorem of \cite{Park-Steiglitz-Thurston-soliton} to

131: arbitrary periodic domains. Result in hand, we show how it applies to the

132: analysis of several CAs encountered in applications, and how it simplifies the

133: analysis of their particle dynamics.  We close with a summary of the results

134: and a list of open questions.  An appendix gives the details of the proof of an

135: auxiliary result on domains.

136: 

137: The present work is motivated by and bears on several larger issues. Of

138: particular relevance is the notion of an ``object'' or ``coherent structure''

139: that spontaneously emerges in the space-time behavior of a process

140: \cite{Anything-ever-new,Holland-emergence}. The particles analyzed here are

141: arguably one of the simplest kinds of such emergent structures. Despite this

142: interest, we do {\em not} define ``particle'' from first principles. Like our

143: predecessors we take the existence of particles as a given and assume we know

144: how to recognize them in the space-time behavior.  Nonetheless, the results and

145: their proofs do elucidate some of the component concepts that we feel will be

146: useful in a theory of emergent structures in spatial processes.\footnote{For

147: two approaches to the automatic discovery of particles, see

148: \cite{Wuesnche-glider-finding} and

149: \cite{Eppstein-searching-for-spaceships}.}

150: 

151: \section{Cellular Automata, Formal Languages, and Transducers}

152: 

153: A {\em cellular automaton} (CA) is a discrete dynamical system consisting of a

154: regular lattice of identical {\em cells}. At each time step $t$, each of these

155: cells is in one of a number $k$ of states $\Sigma$. The {\em state} of cell

156: $i$ at time $t$ is denoted $s^i_t \in \Sigma \equiv \{0,1,\ldots,k-1\}$. The

157: {\em global state}

158: ${\bf s}_t$ of a one-dimensional CA at time $t$ is the {\em configuration} of

159: the entire lattice; i.e.,

160: ${\bf s}_t = (s^0_t,s^1_t,\ldots,s^{N-1}_t) \in \Sigma^N$, where $N$ is the

161: lattice size. One often sees CA phenomenology studied where $\Sigma = \{0,1\}$

162: and with periodic boundary conditions: $s^{N+i}_t = s^i_t$. The main results

163: reported below do not depend on these restrictions, however.

164: 

165: At each next time step $t+1$, the cells in the lattice update their states

166: simultaneously according to a local update rule $\phi$. This {\em update rule}

167: $\phi$ takes as input the current local neighborhood configuration $\eta^i_t =

168: (s^{i-r}_t,\ldots,s^i_t,\ldots,s^{i+r}_t)$ of cell $i$ and returns the next

169: state $s^i_{t+1}$; $r$ is the CA's {\em radius}. Thus, the CA {\em equations of

170: motion} are given by

171: \begin{equation}

172: s^i_{t+1} = \phi(\eta^i_t) ~.

173: \end{equation}

174: The {\em global update rule} $\Phi : \Sigma^N \rightarrow \Sigma^N$ applies

175: $\phi$ in parallel (simultaneously) to all cells in the CA lattice; i.e.,

176: \begin{eqnarray}

177: {\bf s}_{t+1} & = & \Phi({\bf s}_t)\\

178: & = & \left(\phi(\eta^0_t),\phi(\eta^1_t), \ldots \phi(\eta^{N-1}_t)\right) ~.

179: \end{eqnarray}

180: 

181: Binary $(k=2)$ local state, $r=1$ CAs are referred to as {\em elementary} CAs (ECAs) \cite{Wolfram-stat-mech-CA}.

182: 

183: An ensemble operator $\boldsymbol{\Phi}$ can be defined

184: \cite{Attractor-basin-portrait,Wolfram-computation}

185: that operates on sets of lattice configurations $\Omega_t = \{{\bf s}_t\}$:

186: \begin{equation}

187: \Omega_{t+1} = \boldsymbol{\Phi}\Omega_t ~,

188: \end{equation}

189: such that

190: \begin{equation}

191: \Omega_{t+1} = \{ {\bf s}_{t+1} : {\bf s}_{t+1} = \Phi({\bf s}_t), ~

192:   {\bf s}_t \in \Omega_t \} ~.

193: \end{equation}

194: 

195: It is often informative to describe CA configurations as one or another type

196: of formal language. A {\em formal language} $\mathcal L$ over the alphabet $\Sigma$

197: is a subset of $\Sigma^*$---the set of all possible words, or strings, made up

198: of symbols from $\Sigma$. A {\em regular} language is a formal language whose words can

199: be generated or recognized by a device with finite memory; sometimes called

200: a {\em finite automaton}. Regular languages are the simplest class of formal

201: languages in a hierarchy (the Chomsky hierarchy) of language classes of

202: increasing complexity \cite{Hopcroft-Ullman}.

203: 

204: A {\em deterministic finite automaton} (DFA) $M$ is defined as a 5-tuple:

205: \begin{equation}

206: M = \{Q,\Sigma,\delta,q_0,F\} ~,

207: \end{equation}

208: where $Q$ is a finite set of {\em states}, $\Sigma$ is an {\em alphabet},

209: $q_0 \in Q$ is the {\em initial} state, $F \subseteq Q$ is a set of {\em final}

210: states, and $\delta : Q \times \Sigma \rightarrow Q$ is a

211: {\em transition function}: $\delta(q,a) = q'$, where

212: $q,q' \in Q$ and $a \in \Sigma$.

213: 

214: A DFA can be used to read, or scan, words $w = w_1 \ldots w_L$ over the

215: alphabet $\Sigma$. Starting in the initial state $q_0$, the DFA reads the

216: first symbol $w_1$ of the word $w$. It then makes a transition to another

217: state $q' = \delta(q_0,w_1)$. The DFA then reads the next symbol $w_2$ and

218: makes a transition to $q'' = \delta(q',w_2)$, and so on until all symbols in

219: $w$ have been read or until an undefined transition is encountered. If,

220: after reading $w$, the DFA ends in a final state $q \in F$, $M$ {\em accepts}

221: $w$; otherwise $M$ {\em rejects} it.

222: 

223: A regular language $\mathcal L$ is a formal language for which there exists a DFA

224: that accepts all words in $\mathcal L$ and rejects all words not in $\mathcal L$.  If

225: there is one such DFA, there are generally many of them, but there is a unique

226: minimal DFA for ${\mathcal L}$, which we write $M({\mathcal L})$.  Similarly, for every

227: DFA $M$ there is a corresponding regular language ${\mathcal L}(M)$ consisting of

228: all and only the words that are accepted by $M$. The {\em regular process

229: languages} are a subset of the regular languages: those containing all

230: subwords of words in the language. All states of the corresponding DFA---the

231: {\em process graph}---are both initial and accepting states

232: \cite{Attractor-basin-portrait}.

233: 

234: Finally, a {\em finite-state transducer} (FST) is a finite automaton with

235: two kinds of symbol associated with each transition: inputs and outputs.

236: Formally, an FST $R$ is defined as a 7-tuple:

237: \begin{equation}

238: R = \{Q,\Sigma_{in},\Sigma_{out},\delta,\lambda,q_0,F\} ~,

239: \end{equation}

240: where $Q,\delta,q_0,$ and $F$ are as in a DFA, $\Sigma_{in}$ is the 

241: {\em input alphabet}, $\Sigma_{out}$ is the {\em output alphabet}, and

242: $\lambda : Q \times \Sigma_{in} \rightarrow \Sigma_{out}$ is the

243: {\em observation function}:

244: $\lambda(q,a) = b$ where $q \in Q$, $a \in \Sigma_{in}$, and $b \in

245: \Sigma_{out}$. An FST effectively implements a mapping $f_R$ from one language

246: over $\Sigma_{in}$ to another language over $\Sigma_{out}$. In other words, it

247: reads a word $w \in \Sigma_{in}^*$ and transforms it to another word $w' \in

248: \Sigma_{out}^*$ by mapping each symbol $w_i \in \Sigma_{in}$ to a symbol $w_i'

249: \in \Sigma_{out}$ such that $w_i' = \lambda(q,w_i)$, where $q \in Q$ is the

250: current state of $R$ when reading $w_i$.

251: 

252: In formal language theory, languages and automata play the role of

253: sets and transducers the role of functions.

254: 

255: \section{Domains}

256: 

257: We are now ready to review the computational mechanics analysis of

258: emergent structures in CAs \cite{Attractor-basin-portrait,Inferring-stat-compl}.

259: 

260: A {\it regular domain} $\Lambda$ of a CA $\Phi$ is a process language,

261: representing a set of spatial lattice configurations, with the following

262: properties:

263: \begin{enumerate}

264: \item {\it Temporal invariance (or periodicity)}: $\Lambda$ is mapped onto itself

265: 	by the CA dynamic; i.e., $\boldsymbol{\Phi}^p \Lambda = \Lambda$ for some

266: 	finite $p$.  (Recall that $\mathbf{\Phi}$ takes sets of lattice

267: 	configurations into sets of configurations and that a formal language,

268: 	such as $\Lambda$, {\it is} a set of configurations.)

269: \item {\it Spatial homogeneity}: The {\em process graph} of each temporal

270: 	iterate of $\Lambda$ is strongly connected. That is, there is a path

271: 	between every pair of states in $M( \Phi^l \Lambda )$ for all $l$.

272: 	(Recall that $M({\mathcal L})$ is the minimal DFA which recognizes the

273: 	language $\mathcal L$.)

274: \end{enumerate}

275: The set of all domains of a CA $\Phi$ is denoted

276: $\boldsymbol{\Lambda} = \{ \Lambda^0, \Lambda^1, \dots, \Lambda^{m-1}\}$,

277: where $m = |\boldsymbol{\Lambda}|$.

278: 

279: According to the first property---temporal invariance or periodicity---a

280: particular domain $\Lambda^i$ consists of $p$ temporal phases for some $p \geq

281: 1$; i.e., $\Lambda^i = \{ \Lambda_0^i, \Lambda_1^i, \ldots, \Lambda_{p-1}^i\}$,

282: such that $\boldsymbol{\Phi}^l \Lambda_j^i = \Lambda_{(j+l) \bmod p}^i$. Here

283: $p$ is the {\it temporal periodicity} of the domain $\Lambda^i$;

284: which we denote by $T(\Lambda^i)$.

285: 

286: Each of the temporal phases $\Lambda_j^i$ of a domain $\Lambda^i$ is

287: represented by a process graph $M(\Lambda^i_j)$ which, according to the second

288: property (spatial homogeneity), is strongly connected. Each of these process

289: graphs consists of a finite number of states. We denote the ${k}^{\mathrm th}$

290: state of the ${j}^{\mathrm th}$ phase of $\Lambda^i$ by $\Lambda_{j,k}^i$,

291: intentionally suppressing the $M( \cdot )$ notation for conciseness. We write

292: the number of states in a given phase as $S(\Lambda_j^i)$.

293: 

294: The process graphs of all temporal phases $\Lambda^i_j$ of all domains

295: $\Lambda^i$ can be connected together and transformed into a finite-state

296: transducer, called the {\it domain transducer}, that reads in a spatial

297: configuration and outputs various kinds of information about the sites.  (The

298: construction is given in, for example, \cite{Turbulent-pattern-bases}.)

299: Variations on this transducer can do useful recognition tasks. For example, all

300: transitions that were in domain $\Lambda^i_j$'s process graph are assigned

301: output symbol $D$, indicating that the input symbol being read is

302: ``participating'' in a domain. All other transitions in the transducer indicate

303: deviations from the sites being in a domain. They can be assigned a unique

304: output (``wall'') symbol $w \in \{ W^i_j \}$ that labels the kind of domain

305: violation that has occurred. The resulting domain transducer can now be used to

306: {\em filter} CA lattice configuration, mapping all domain {\it regularities} to

307: $D$ and mapping all domain {\it violations} to output symbols $w$ that indicate

308: {\em domain walls} of various kinds.

309: 

310: We say that a phase of a domain is (spatially) {\em periodic} when the

311: process graph consists of a periodic chain of states, with a single transition

312: between successive states in the chain.  That is, as one moves from state to

313: state, an exactly periodic sequence of states is encountered and an exactly

314: periodic sequence of symbols from $\Sigma$ is encountered on the transitions.

315: The \textit{spatial periodicity} of a periodic phase is simply $S(\Lambda^i)$.

316: We say that a domain is periodic when all its phases are periodic.  Almost all

317: of our attention in the sequel will be confined to periodic domains, for the

318: following reason.  It turns out that for such domains all of the spatial

319: periodicities $S(\Lambda_j^i)$ at each temporal phase are equal. Thus, we can

320: speak of {\it the} spatial periodicity $S(\Lambda^i)$ of a periodic domain

321: $\Lambda^i$.  This property, in turn, is central to our proof of the upper

322: bound on the number of particle interaction products.

323: 

324: \begin{lemma}

325: If a domain $\Lambda^i$ has a periodic phase, then the domain is periodic, and

326: the spatial periodicities $S(\Lambda^i_j)$ of all its phases $\Lambda^i_j, j =

327: 0, \ldots, p-1,$ are equal.

328: \label{PROPSPATIALPERIODICITY}

329: %\label{PropSpatialPeriodicity}

330: \end{lemma}

331: 

332: {\it Proof.} See the Appendix.\hfill$\Box$

333: 

334: Thus, the number of states in the process graph representing a particular

335: temporal phase $\Lambda^i_j$ is the same for all $j \in \{ 1, \ldots,

336: T(\Lambda^i) \}$, and it is, in fact, $S(\Lambda^i)$.

337: 

338: Finally, there is a larger class of {\em cyclic domains} whose process graphs

339: consist of a periodic chain of states: as one moves from state to state an

340: exactly periodic sequence of {\em states} is seen.  Note that this class

341: includes more than periodic domains, which are obviously cyclic. It includes

342: domains in which between two successive states in the chain there are multiple

343: transitions over $\Sigma$. (See \cite{Turbulent-pattern-bases} for a CA

344: exhibiting two such cyclic domains.) Based on our experience we conjecture that

345: Prop.~\ref{PROPSPATIALPERIODICITY} also holds for cyclic domains. If this is

346: so, most of the following results, and in particular the upper bound theorem,

347: would hold for this large class.

348: 

349: \begin{conjecture}

350: For any cyclic domain $\Lambda^i$, the spatial periodicities $S(\Lambda^i_j)$

351: of all its phases $\Lambda^i_j, j = 0, \ldots, p-1,$ are equal.

352: \end{conjecture}

353: 

354: \section{Particles}

355: 

356: When domain violations form a spatially localized (finite width), temporally

357: periodic boundary between two adjacent domains, they are called {\it

358: particles}.

359: 

360: \begin{definition}

361: A particle $\alpha$ is a set $\{ \alpha^0, \alpha^1, \ldots, \alpha^{p-1}\}$ of

362: finite-width words $\alpha^j$ over $\Sigma^*$, called {\rm wedges}, such that

363: \begin{equation}

364: {\boldsymbol \Phi} (\Lambda \alpha^{i} \Lambda^\prime)

365:   = \Lambda \alpha^{(i+1) \bmod p} \Lambda^\prime ~,

366: \label{PeriodicityCondition}

367: \end{equation}

368: for some finite $p$ and $\Lambda$ and $\Lambda^\prime \in \boldsymbol{\Lambda}$.

369: \end{definition}

370: 

371: Since a particle is a bounded structure, it does not have a spatial

372: periodicity.  In the following, the ``periodicity of a particle'' therefore

373: refers to temporal periodicity.

374: 

375: Since these particles are temporally periodic, we view the appearance of wedge

376: $\alpha^j$ as the particle being in it's $j$th {\em phase}. The $k$th symbol in

377: the wedge's word is denoted $\alpha^j_k$. The state in which the domain

378: transducer finds itself after reading the $k$th symbol $\alpha^j_k$ in the

379: wedge $\alpha^j$ is denoted $q(\alpha^j_k)$.

380: 

381: We now introduce an important but subtle distinction. The particle period $p$

382: referred to above---the {\em surface periodicity}---is associated with the

383: repetition over time of the wedge words as observed in the raw space-time

384: behavior ${\boldsymbol s}_0, {\boldsymbol s}_1, {\boldsymbol s}_2, \ldots$.  It

385: turns out, as will become clear, that particles have an internal periodicity

386: that may be some multiple of the surface periodicity $p$. The internal

387: periodicity---the one of actual interest here---though, is the periodicity seen

388: by the various phases of the bordering domains.

389: 

390: \begin{definition}

391: A particle $\alpha$'s {\rm intrinsic periodicity} $P(\alpha)$ is the

392: periodicity of the set of transducer-state sequences generated when reading

393: a particle's wedges. For wedge $\alpha^j = \alpha^j_0 \ldots \alpha^j_n$ the state sequence

394: $q(\alpha^j_0) \ldots q(\alpha^j_n)$ is generated in the transducer. We denote

395: this state sequence by $q(\alpha^j)$. $P(\alpha)$, then, is the number of

396: iterations over which the sequence $q(\alpha^j)$ reappears.

397: \end{definition}

398: 

399: {\em Remark 1.}

400: $P(\alpha)$ is an integer multiple of $\alpha$'s apparent periodicity.

401: 

402: {\em Remark 2.}

403: A simple illustration of the need for intrinsic, as opposed to merely surface,

404: periodicity is provided by the $\gamma$ particles of ECA 54.  See

405: Fig.~\ref{ECA54GammasFiltered}(b) and the accompanying text in

406: Sec.~\ref{subsection:ECA54}.

407: 

408: After one period $P(\alpha)$, a particle $\alpha$ will have moved a number

409: $d_\alpha$ of sites in the CA lattice. This shift $d_\alpha$ in space after

410: one period is called the particle's {\it displacement}.  $d_\alpha$ is

411: negative for displacements to the left and positive for displacements to the

412: right. From the particle's periodicity $P(\alpha)$ and displacement $d_\alpha$,

413: its average velocity is simply $v_\alpha = d_\alpha / P(\alpha)$.

414: 

415: Note that the above remarks hold whether we are looking at the wedges or at

416: the transducer-state labeled wedges: one obtains the same velocity.

417: 

418: The set of all particles $\alpha, \beta, \ldots$ of a CA $\Phi$

419: is denoted by $\bf P$.

420: 

421: {\it Remark 3.} Here we defined temporally periodic particles. There are

422: particles in CAs, such as in ECA 18, which are temporally aperiodic.

423: In this case, one replaces the periodicity condition Eq.

424: (\ref{PeriodicityCondition}) by one using the ensemble operator; viz.,

425: \begin{equation}  

426: \boldsymbol{\Phi}^p (\Lambda \alpha \Lambda^\prime)

427:   = \Lambda \alpha \Lambda^\prime ~.

428: \end{equation}

429: 

430: 

431: 

432: \subsection{Structural Complexity of a Particle}

433: 

434: The preceding definitions and discussion suggest that one can think of

435: particles as having an internal clock or, in the more general case that

436: includes aperiodic particles, an internal state, much as the solitary-wave

437: solutions of continuum envelope equations have internal states

438: \cite{Infeld-Rowlands}.  One can ask about how much information a particle

439: stores in its states. This is the amount of information that a particle

440: transports across space and time and brings to interactions. These

441: considerations lead one to a natural measure of the amount of structural

442: complexity associated with individual particles.

443: 

444: \begin{definition}

445: The {\rm structural complexity} $C(\alpha)$ of a particle $\alpha$ is defined

446: to be

447: \begin{equation}

448: C(\alpha) = - \sum_{j=0}^{p-1} {\rm Pr} (q(\alpha^j))

449:   \log_2{{\rm Pr} (q(\alpha^j))} ~,

450: \end{equation}

451: \end{definition}

452: where $p$ is $\alpha$'s period and ${\rm Pr} (q(\alpha^j))$ is the probability

453: of $\alpha$ being in phase $\alpha^j$ with the state-sequence $q(\alpha^j)$.

454: 

455: {\em Remark 1.} For the straightforward case of periodic particles, in which

456: the wedges and so their associated state sequences are equally probable,

457: we have

458: \begin{equation}

459: C(\alpha) = \log_2{P(\alpha)}~.

460: \end{equation}

461: 

462: {\em Remark 2.}

463: The information available to be processed in particle interactions is

464: upper-bounded by the sum of the individual particle complexities, since

465: this sum assumes independence of the particles. As we will see shortly,

466: the relative information---that information in one particle, conditioned

467: on the other's phase (via the constraints imposed by the mediating domain)

468: and suitably averaged---determines the information available for processing

469: by interactions.

470: 

471: \subsection{Domain Transducer View of Particle Phases}

472: 

473: A particle is bounded on either side by two patches of domain. (They could

474: be patches of the same or different domains.) Consider what happens to the

475: domain transducer as it scans across the part of the lattice containing the

476: bounding domains ($\Lambda^i$ and $\Lambda^{i^\prime}$) and the particle

477: ($\alpha$).  It begins by cycling through the states of the process graph

478: of a phase ($j$) of the first bounding domain ($\Lambda^i$). It then

479: encounters a symbol that does not belong to the language of that domain phase,

480: and this then causes a transition out of that process graph. Each successive

481: symbol of the particle wedge leads to additional transitions in the transducer.

482: Finally, the transducer reaches cells at the beginning of the other bounding

483: domain ($\Lambda^{i^\prime}$), whereupon it begins to follow the process graph

484: of $\Lambda^{i^\prime}_{j^\prime}$ at some appropriate phase $j^\prime$. In

485: this way, a particle wedge $\alpha^j$ corresponds to a sequence $q(\alpha^j)$

486: of transducer states.

487: 

488: More formally, the transducer maps a particle wedge $\alpha^j$, bordered by

489: $\Lambda^i_j$ and $\Lambda^{i^\prime}_{j^\prime}$, to an ordered $n-$tuple

490: ($n = |\alpha^j|+2$) of states

491: \begin{eqnarray}

492: Q(\alpha^j) & =  &

493: \left< q(\Lambda^i_{j,k}), q(\alpha^j),

494:   q(\Lambda^{i^\prime}_{j^\prime,k^\prime}) \right> ~,

495: \end{eqnarray}

496: where $q(\Lambda^i_{j,k})$ is the transducer state reach on

497: reading symbol $\Lambda^i_{j,k}$.

498: Since the transducer-state sequence is determined by the bounding domain

499: phases and the actual wedge $\alpha^j$, it follows that the mapping from

500: particle wedges to state sequences is 1-1. If two particle wedges correspond to

501: the same sequence of states, then they are the same phase of the same

502: particle, and vice versa.

503: 

504: This representation of particle phases will prove very handy below.

505: 

506: \section{Interactions}

507: 

508: In many CAs, when two or more particles collide they create another set of

509: particles or mutually annihilate. Such {\it particle interactions} are denoted

510: $\alpha + \beta \rightarrow \gamma$, for example. This means that the collision

511: of an $\alpha$ particle on the left and a $\beta$ particle on the right leads

512: to the creation of a $\gamma$ particle. Particle annihilation is denoted

513: $\alpha + \beta \rightarrow \emptyset$. For completeness we note that there

514: are also {\em unstable} walls that can spontaneously decay into particles.

515: This is denoted $\alpha \rightarrow \beta + \gamma$, for example.

516: 

517: Often, the actual product of a particle interaction depends on the phases

518: $\alpha^j$ and $\beta^k$ in which the interacting particles are at the time

519: of collision. In such a case, there can be more than one interaction product

520: for a particular collision: e.g., both $\alpha + \beta \rightarrow \gamma$

521: and $\alpha + \beta \rightarrow \emptyset$ can be observed.

522: 

523: The set of a CA's possible particle interactions is denoted $\bf I$. The

524: complete information about a CA's domains $\boldsymbol{\Lambda}$, particles

525: $\bf P$, and particle interactions $\bf I$ can be summarized in a {\it particle

526: catalog}. The catalog forms a high-level description of the CA's dynamics. It

527: is high-level in the sense of capturing the dynamics of emergent structures.

528: The latter are objects on a more abstract level than the original equations

529: of motion and raw (uninterpreted) spatial configurations of site values.

530: 

531: \section{Bounding the Number of Interaction Products}

532: 

533: Restricting ourselves to particle interactions with just two colliding

534: particles---$\alpha$ and $\beta$, say---we now give an upper bound on the

535: number $n_{\alpha,\beta}$ of possible interaction products from a collision

536: between them. (See Fig.~\ref{InteractionRegion} for the interaction

537: geometry.) In terms of the quantities

538: just defined, the upper bound, stated as Thm.~\ref{ThmUpperBound} below, is:

539: \begin{equation}

540: n_{\alpha,\beta} \leq

541: 	\frac{P(\alpha) P(\beta) \Delta v}{T(\Lambda^i) S(\Lambda^i)} ~,

542: \label{UpperBound}

543: \end{equation}

544: where $\Delta v = v_\alpha - v_\beta > 0$ and $\Lambda^i$ is the domain in

545: between the two particles before they collide.

546: Note that if $\Delta v = 0$, then $n_{\alpha,\beta} = 0$ trivially.

547: 

548: For simplicity, in the rest of the development we assume that

549: $\Delta v = v_{\alpha} - v_{\beta} \geq 0$. This simply means that particle

550: $\alpha$ lies to the left of $\beta$ and they move closer to each other over

551: time, as in Fig. \ref{InteractionRegion}.

552: 

553: \begin{figure}

554: \epsfxsize=3.5in

555: \begin{center}

556: \leavevmode

557: \epsffile{InteractionRegion.ps}

558: \end{center}

559: \caption{Interactions between an $\alpha$ and a $\beta$ particle with

560:   domain $\Lambda$ lying between.

561:   }

562: \label{InteractionRegion}

563: \end{figure}

564: 

565: This section proves that Eq. (\ref{UpperBound}) is indeed a proper upper

566: bound. The next section gives a number of examples, of both simple and

567: complicated CAs, that show the bound is and is not attained. These highlight

568: an important distinction between the number of possible interactions (i.e.,

569: what can enter the interaction region) and the number of unique interaction

570: products (i.e., what actually leaves the interaction region).

571: 

572: To establish the bound, we collect several intermediate facts. The first

573: three lemmas come from elementary number theory. Recall that the {\it least

574: common multiple} $\lcm (a,b)$ of two integers $a$ and $b$ is the

575: smallest number $c$ that is a multiple of both $a$ and $b$. Similarly, the

576: {\it greatest common divisor} $\gcd (a,b)$ of two integers $a$ and $b$

577: is the largest number $c$ that divides both $a$ and $b$.

578: 

579: \begin{lemma}

580: $\gcd(ca,cb) = c \; \gcd(a,b),\;c > 0$.

581: \label{lemma:cgcd}

582: \end{lemma}

583: {\it Proof.} See Thm. 2.7 in \cite{Burton-number-theory}.\hfill$\Box$

584: 

585: \begin{lemma}

586: $\gcd(a,b) \; \lcm(a,b) = ab$.

587: \label{lemma:gcdlcm}

588: \end{lemma}

589: {\it Proof.} See Thm. 2.8 in \cite{Burton-number-theory}.\hfill$\Box$

590: 

591: \begin{lemma}

592: $\lcm(ca,cb) = c \; \lcm(a,b),\;c > 0$.

593: \label{lemma:clcm}

594: \end{lemma}

595: {\it Proof.} Using Lemmas \ref{lemma:cgcd} and \ref{lemma:gcdlcm}, it

596: follows that

597: \begin{eqnarray}

598: \lcm(ca,cb) & = & \frac{cacb}{\gcd(ca,cb)} \\ \nonumber

599: 				  & = & c \frac{ab}{\gcd(a,b)} \\ \nonumber

600:                   & = & c \; \lcm(a,b) ~.

601: \end{eqnarray}

602: \hfill$\Box$

603: 

604: Now we are ready to begin building an analysis of particles and particle

605: interactions.

606: 

607: \begin{lemma}

608: The intrinsic periodicity $P(\alpha)$ of a particle $\alpha$ is a multiple

609: of the temporal periodicity $T(\Lambda^i)$ of either domain $\Lambda^i$

610: for which $\alpha$ is a boundary. That is,

611: \begin{equation}

612: P(\alpha) = m_{\alpha i} T(\Lambda^i) ~,

613: \end{equation}

614: for some positive integer $m_{\alpha i}$ that depends on $\alpha$ and

615: $\Lambda^i$.

616: \label{lemma:mp_lambda}

617: \end{lemma}

618: {\it Proof.}

619: At any given time, a configuration containing the particle $\alpha$ consists of

620: a patch of the domain $\Lambda^i$, a wedge belonging to $\alpha$, and

621: then a patch of $\Lambda^{i^\prime}$, in that order from left to right.  (Or

622: right to left, if that is the chosen scan direction.)  Fix the phase of $\alpha$ to be

623: whatever we like --- $\alpha^l$, say.  This determines the phases of

624: $\Lambda^i$, for the following reason. Recall that, being a phase of a

625: particle, $\alpha^l$ corresponds to a unique sequence $Q(\alpha^l)$ of

626: transitions in the domain transducer. That sequence starts in a particular

627: domain-phase state $\Lambda^i_{j, k}$ and ends in another domain-phase state

628: $\Lambda^{i^\prime}_{j^\prime, k^\prime}$. So, the particle phase $\alpha^l$

629: occurs only at those times when $\Lambda^i$ is in its $j^{\rm th}$ phase. Thus,

630: the temporal periodicity of $\alpha$ must be an integer multiple of the

631: temporal periodicity of $\Lambda^i$. By symmetry, the same is also true for the

632: domain $\Lambda^{{i}^{\prime}}$ to the right of the wedge.\hfill$\Box$

633: 

634: \begin{corollary}

635: Given that the domain $\Lambda^i$ is in phase $\Lambda^i_j$ at some time step,

636: a particle $\alpha$ forming a boundary of $\Lambda^i$ can only be in a fraction

637: $1/T(\Lambda^i)$ of its $P(\alpha)$ phases at that time.

638: \label{cor:phase-restriction}

639: \end{corollary}

640: 

641: {\it Proof.} This follows directly from Lemma \ref{lemma:mp_lambda}.

642: 

643: {\it Remark.}  Here is the first part of the promised restriction on the

644: information in multiple particles.  Consider two particles $\alpha$ and

645: $\beta$, separated by a domain $\Lambda^0$.  Naively, we expect $\alpha$ to

646: contain $\log_2{P(\alpha)}$ bits of information and $\beta$, $\log_2{P(\beta)}$

647: bits.  Given the phase of $\alpha$, however, the phase of $\Lambda^0$ is fixed,

648: and therefore the number of possible phases for $\beta$ is reduced by a factor

649: of $1/T(\Lambda^0)$.  Thus the number of bits of information in the

650: $\alpha$-$\beta$ pair is at most

651: \begin{equation}

652: \log_2{P(\alpha)} + \log_2{P(\beta)} - \log_2{T(\Lambda^0)} =

653: \log_2{\frac{P(\alpha)P(\beta)}{T(\Lambda^0)}} ~.

654: \end{equation}

655: The argument works equally well starting from $\beta$.

656: 

657: \begin{lemma}

658: For any two particles $\alpha$ and $\beta$, the quantity $\lcm(P(\alpha),P(\beta))\Delta v$ is a non-negative integer.

659: \label{lemma:integer-displacement}

660: \end{lemma}

661: {\it Proof.}  We know that the quantity is non-negative, since the least common

662: multiple always is and $\Delta v$ is so by construction. It remains to show

663: that their product is an integer.  Let ${k_\alpha} = {\lcm(P(\alpha),P(\beta))

664: / P(\alpha)}$ and ${k_\beta} = {\lcm(P(\alpha),P(\beta)) / P(\beta)}$; these

665: are integers.  Then

666: \begin{eqnarray*}

667: \Delta v & \equiv & \frac{d_\alpha}{P(\alpha)} - \frac{d_\beta}{P(\beta)} \\

668: & = & \frac{{k_\alpha}{d_\alpha} - {k_\beta}{d_\beta}}{\lcm(P(\alpha),P(\beta))} ~.

669: \end{eqnarray*}

670: When multiplied by $\lcm(P(\alpha),P(\beta))$ this is just

671: ${k_\alpha}{d_\alpha} - {k_\beta}{d_\beta}$, which is an integer.

672: \hfill$\Box$

673: \begin{lemma}

674: When the distance $d$ between two approaching particles $\alpha$ and $\beta$,

675: in phases $\alpha^j$ and $\beta^{j^\prime}$, respectively, is increased by

676: $\lcm(P(\alpha), P(\beta))\Delta v$ sites, the original

677: configuration---distance $d$ and phases $\alpha^j$ and $\beta^{j^\prime}$---recurs

678: after $\lcm (P(\alpha), P(\beta))$ time steps.

679: \label{lemma:space_shift}

680: \end{lemma}

681: {\it Proof.} From the definition of $\lcm(a,b)$ it follows directly that

682: $\lcm(P(\alpha),P(\beta))$ is a multiple of $P(\alpha)$.  Thus,

683: \begin{equation}

684: \alpha^{(j+ \lcm(P(\alpha),P(\beta))) \bmod P(\alpha)} = \alpha^j ~,

685: \end{equation}

686: and the $\alpha$

687: particle has returned to its original phase.  Exactly parallel reasoning holds

688: for the $\beta$ particle.  So, after $\lcm(P(\alpha), P(\beta))$ time steps

689: both $\alpha$ and $\beta$ are in the same phases $\alpha^j$ and

690: $\beta^{j^\prime}$ again. Furthermore, in the same amount of time the distance

691: between the two particles has decreased by $\lcm(p_\alpha,p_\beta)\Delta v$,

692: which is the amount by which the original distance $d$ was increased. (By Lemma

693: \ref{lemma:integer-displacement}, that distance is an integer, and so we can

694: meaningfully increase the particles' separation by this amount.)  Thus, after

695: $\lcm( P(\alpha), P(\beta) )$ time steps the original configuration is

696: restored.\hfill$\Box$

697: 

698: \begin{lemma}

699: If $\Lambda^i$ is the domain lying between two particles $\alpha$ and $\beta$,

700: then the ratio

701: \begin{equation}

702: r = \frac{ \lcm(P(\alpha),P(\beta))\Delta v }{ S(\Lambda^i)}

703: \end{equation}

704: is an integer.

705: \label{lemma:integer_value}

706: \end{lemma}

707: {\it Proof.} Suppose, without loss of generality, that the particles begin in

708: phases $\alpha^0$ and $\beta^0$, at some substantial distance from each other.

709: We know from the previous lemma that after a time $\lcm(P(\alpha),P(\beta))$

710: they will have returned to those phases and narrowed the distance between each

711: other by $\lcm(P(\alpha),P(\beta))\Delta v$ cells.  What the lemma asserts is

712: that this displacement is some integer multiple of the spatial periodicity of

713: the intervening domain $\Lambda^i$.  Call the final distance between the

714: particles $d$. Note that the following does not depend on what $d$ happens to

715: be.

716: 

717: Each phase of each particle corresponds to a particular sequence of transducer

718: states---those associated with reading the particle's wedge for that phase.

719: Reading this wedge from left to right (say), we know that 

720: $Q(\alpha^0)$ must end in some phase-state of the domain $\Lambda^i$; call it

721: $\Lambda^i_{0, 0}$. Similarly, $Q(\beta^0)$

722: must {\it begin} with a phase-state of $\Lambda^i$, but, since every part

723: of the intervening domain is in the same phase, this must be a state of

724: the {\it same} phase $\Lambda^i_0$; call it $\Lambda^i_{0, k}$. In particular,

725: consistency requires that $k$ be the distance between the particles modulo

726: $S(\Lambda^i)$.  But this is true both in the final configuration, when the

727: separation between the particles is $d$, and in the initial configuration, when

728: it is $d + \lcm(P(\alpha),P(\beta))\Delta v $.  Therefore

729: \begin{eqnarray*}

730: d + \lcm(P(\alpha),P(\beta))\Delta v & = & d \pmod{S(\Lambda^i)} \\

731: \lcm(P(\alpha),P(\beta))\Delta v  & = & 0 \pmod{S(\Lambda^i)}~.

732: \end{eqnarray*}

733: Thus, $\lcm(P(\alpha),P(\beta))\Delta v$ is an integer multiple of the spatial

734: period $S(\Lambda^i)$ of the intervening domain $\Lambda^i$.\hfill$\Box$

735: 

736: {\it Remark.}  It is possible that $\lcm(P(\alpha),P(\beta))\Delta v = 0$,

737: but this does not affect the subsequent argument.  Note that if this is the

738: case, then, since the least common multiple of the periods is at least $1$,

739: we have $\Delta v = 0$. This, in turn, implies that the particles do not,

740: in fact, collide and interact, and so the number of interaction products is

741: simply zero. The formula gives the proper result in this case.

742: 

743: The next result follows easily from Lemmas \ref{lemma:cgcd} and

744: \ref{lemma:mp_lambda}.

745: 

746: \begin{lemma}

747: If $\Lambda^i$ is the domain lying between particles $\alpha$ and $\beta$, then

748: \begin{equation}

749: \gcd(P(\alpha), P(\beta))

750:   = T(\Lambda^i) \gcd(m_{\alpha i},m_{\beta i}) ~.

751: \end{equation}

752: \label{lemma:p_lambdagcd}

753: \end{lemma}

754: {\it Proof.}

755: We apply Lemma \ref{lemma:clcm}:

756: \begin{eqnarray*}

757: \gcd(P(\alpha), P(\beta))

758: &   = & \gcd(m_{\alpha i}T(\Lambda^i), m_{\beta i}T(\Lambda^i) \\

759: &  =  & T(\Lambda^i) \gcd(m_{\alpha i}, m_{\beta i}). 

760: \end{eqnarray*}

761: 

762: \hfill$\Box$

763: 

764: With the above lemmas the following theorem can be proved, establishing

765: an upper bound on the number of possible particle interaction products.

766: 

767: \begin{theorem}

768: The number $n_{\alpha,\beta}$ of products of an interaction between two

769: approaching particles $\alpha$ and $\beta$ with a domain $\Lambda^i$

770: lying between is at most

771: \begin{equation}

772: n_{\alpha,\beta} \leq

773:   \frac{P(\alpha) P(\beta) \Delta v} {T(\Lambda^i) S(\Lambda^i)} ~.

774: \end{equation}

775: \label{ThmUpperBound}

776: \end{theorem}

777: {\it Proof.} First, we show that this quantity is an integer. We use Lemma 

778: \ref{lemma:gcdlcm} to note that

779: \begin{equation}

780: \frac{P(\alpha) P(\beta)\Delta v}{T(\Lambda^i) S(\Lambda^i)}

781:  = \frac{\gcd(P(\alpha), P(\beta))\lcm(P(\alpha), P(\beta))\Delta v}{T(\Lambda^i) S(\Lambda^i)} ~,

782: \end{equation}

783: and then Lemma \ref{lemma:integer_value} to find that

784: \begin{equation}

785: \frac{P(\alpha) P(\beta)\Delta v}{T(\Lambda^i) S(\Lambda^i)}

786: = \frac{\gcd(P(\alpha), P(\beta))r}{T(\Lambda^i)} ~,

787: \end{equation}

788: and finally Lemma \ref{lemma:p_lambdagcd} to show that

789: \begin{eqnarray}

790: \nonumber

791: \frac{P(\alpha) P(\beta)\Delta v}{T(\Lambda^i) S(\Lambda^i)}

792:  & = & \frac{T(\Lambda^i) \gcd(m_{\alpha i},m_{\beta i}) r}{T(\Lambda^i)} \\

793: & = &r \gcd(m_{\alpha i},m_{\beta i}) ~,

794: \end{eqnarray}

795: which is an integer.

796: 

797: Second, assume that, at some initial time $t$, the two particles are in some

798: arbitrary phases $\alpha^j$ and $\beta^{j^\prime}$, respectively, and that the

799: distance between them is $d$ cells. This configuration gives rise to a

800: particular particle-phase combination at the time of collision. Since the

801: global update function is deterministic, the combination, in turn, gives one

802: and only one interaction result. Now, increase the distance between the two

803: particles, at time $t$, by one cell, while keeping their phases fixed. This

804: gives rise to a different particle-phase combination at the time of collision

805: and, thus, possibly to a different interaction result.  We can repeat this

806: operation of increasing the distance by one cell

807: $\lcm(P(\alpha),P(\beta))\Delta v$ times. At that point, however, we know from

808: Lemma $\ref{lemma:space_shift}$ that after $\lcm(P(\alpha),P(\beta))$ time

809: steps the particles find themselves again in phases

810: $\alpha^j$ and $\beta^{j^\prime}$ at

811: a separation of $d$. That is, they are in exactly the original configuration

812: and their interaction will therefore also produce the original product,

813: whatever it was.

814: 

815: Starting the two particles in phases $\alpha^j$ and $\beta^{j^\prime}$, the

816: particles go through a fraction $1 / \gcd(P(\alpha), P(\beta))$ of the possible

817: $P(\alpha)P(\beta)$ phase combinations, over $\lcm(p_{\alpha},p_{\beta})$ time

818: steps, before they start repeating their phases again. So, the operation of

819: increasing the distance between the two particles by one cell at a time needs

820: to be repeated for $\gcd(P(\alpha), P(\beta))$ different initial phase

821: combinations. This way all possible phase combinations with all possible

822: distances (modulo $\lcm(P(\alpha),P(\beta))\Delta v$) are encountered. Each of

823: these can give rise to a different interaction result.

824: 

825: From this one sees that there are at most

826: \begin{equation}

827: \gcd(P(\alpha), P(\beta))\lcm(P(\alpha), P(\beta)) \Delta v

828:   = P(\alpha)P(\beta)\Delta v

829: \end{equation}

830: unique particle-domain-particle configurations. And so, there are at most this

831: many different particle interaction products, given that $\Phi$ is many-to-one.

832: (Restricted to the homogeneous, quiescent ($\Lambda = 0^*$) domain which has

833: $T(\Lambda) = 1$ and $S(\Lambda) = 1$, this is the result, though not the

834: argument, of \cite{Park-Steiglitz-Thurston-soliton}.)

835: 

836: However, given the phases $\alpha^j$ and $\beta^{j^\prime}$, the distance

837: between the two particles cannot always be increased by an arbitrary number of

838: cells.  Keeping the particle phases $\alpha^j$ and $\beta^{j^\prime}$ fixed,

839: the amount $\Delta d$ by which the distance between the two particles can be

840: increased or decreased is a multiple of the spatial periodicity $S(\Lambda^i)$

841: of the intervening domain. The argument for this is similar to that in the

842: proof of Lemma \ref{lemma:integer_value}. Consequently, of the $\lcm(P(\alpha),

843: P(\beta)) \Delta v$ increases in distance between the two particles, only a

844: fraction $1 / S(\Lambda^i)$ are actually possible.

845: 

846: Furthermore, and similarly, not all arbitrary particle-phase combinations are

847: allowed. Choosing a phase $\alpha^j$ for the $\alpha$ particle subsequently

848: determines the phase $\Lambda^i_j$ of the domain $\Lambda^i$ for which $\alpha$

849: forms one boundary. From Corollary \ref{cor:phase-restriction} it then follows

850: that only a fraction $1 / T(\Lambda^i)$ of the $P(\beta)$ phases are possible

851: for the $\beta$ particle which forms the other boundary of $\Lambda^i$.

852: 

853: Adjusting the number of possible particle-domain-particle configurations

854: that can give rise to different interaction products according to the above

855: two observations results in a total number

856: \begin{equation}

857: \frac{P(\alpha) P(\beta) \Delta v} {T(\Lambda^i) S(\Lambda^i)}

858: \end{equation}

859: of different particle-phase combinations and distances between two particles

860: $\alpha$ and $\beta$. Putting the pieces together, then, this number is an

861: upper bound on the number $n_{\alpha,\beta}$ of different interaction products.

862: \hfill$\Box$

863: 

864: {\it Remark 1.}  As we shall see in the examples, on the one hand, the upper

865: bound is strict, since it is saturated by some interactions. On the other

866: hand, there are also interactions that do not saturate it.

867: 

868: {\it Remark 2.} We have seen (Corollary \ref{cor:phase-restriction}, Remark)

869: that the information in a pair of particles $\alpha$ and $\beta$, separated by

870: a patch of domain $\Lambda^i$, is at most

871: \begin{equation}

872: \log_2{\frac{P(\alpha)P(\beta)}{T(\Lambda^i)}}

873: \end{equation}

874: bits.  In fact, the theorem implies a stronger restriction.  The amount of

875: information the interaction carries about its inputs is, at most,

876: $\log_2{n_{\alpha,\beta}}$ bits, since there are only $n_{\alpha,\beta}$

877: configurations of the particles that can lead to distinct outcomes.  If the

878: number of outcomes is less than $n_{\alpha,\beta}$, the interaction effectively

879: performs an irreversible logical operation on the information contained in the

880: input particle phases.

881: 

882: \section{Examples}

883: 

884: \subsection{ECA 54 and Intrinsic Periodicity}

885: \label{subsection:ECA54}

886: 

887: Figure~\ref{ECA54SpTmRawFiltered} shows the raw and domain-transducer filtered

888: space-time diagrams of ECA 54, starting from a random initial configuration.

889: We first review the results of \cite{Comp-mech-of-CA-example} for ECA 54's

890: particle dynamics.

891: 

892: Figure~\ref{ECA54DomainFilter} shows a space-time patch of ECA 54's

893: dominant domain $\Lambda$, along with the domain transducer constructed

894: to recognize and filter it out, as was done to produce

895: Fig.~\ref{ECA54SpTmRawFiltered}(b).

896: 

897: Examining Fig. \ref{ECA54SpTmRawFiltered} shows that there are four particles;

898: we label these $\alpha$, $\beta$, $\gamma^+$, and $\gamma^-$. The first two

899: have zero velocity; they are the larger particles seen in

900: Fig. \ref{ECA54SpTmRawFiltered}(b). The $\gamma$ particles have velocities $1$

901: and $-1$, respectively. They are seen in the figure as the diagonally moving

902: ``light'' particles that mediate between the ``heavy'' $\alpha$ and $\beta$

903: particles.

904: 

905: \begin{figure}

906: \begin{center}

907: \epsfig{file=ECA54SpTmRawFiltered.ps,width=3.3in}

908: \end{center}

909: \caption{(a) Raw space-time diagram and (b) filtered space-time diagram of

910:   ECA 54 behavior starting from an arbitrary initial configuration.

911:   After \protect\cite{Comp-mech-of-CA-example}.

912:   }

913: \label{ECA54SpTmRawFiltered}

914: \end{figure}

915: 

916: \begin{figure}

917: \begin{center}

918: \epsfig{file=ECA54DomainFilter.ps,width=3.3in}

919: \end{center}

920: \caption{(a) Space-Time patch of ECA54's primary domain $\Lambda$.

921:   (b) The transducer that recognizes $\Lambda$ and deviations from it.

922:   After \protect\cite{Comp-mech-of-CA-example}.

923:   }

924: \label{ECA54DomainFilter}

925: \end{figure}

926: 

927: The analysis in \cite{Comp-mech-of-CA-example} identified $7$ dominant two- and

928: three-particle interactions. We now analyze just one: the $\gamma^+ + \gamma^-

929: \rightarrow \beta$ interaction to illustrate the importance of a particle's

930: intrinsic periodicity.

931: 

932: Naive analysis would simply look at the space-time diagram, either the raw or

933: filtered ones in Fig. \ref{ECA54SpTmRawFiltered}, and conclude that these

934: particles had periodicities $P(\gamma^+) = P(\gamma^-) = 1$.  Plugging this and

935: the other data---$T(\Lambda) = 2$, $S(\Lambda) = 4$, and $\Delta v =

936: 2$---leads to upper bound $n_{\alpha,\beta} = 1/4$!  This is patently wrong;

937: it's not even an integer.

938: 

939: Figure~\ref{ECA54GammasFiltered} gives the transducer-filtered space-time

940: diagram for the $\gamma^+$ and $\gamma^-$ particles. The domain $\Lambda$ is

941: filtered out, as above. In the filtered diagrams the transducer state reached

942: on scanning the particle wedge cells is indicated.

943: 

944: \begin{figure}

945: \begin{center}

946: \epsfig{file=ECA54GammasFiltered.ps,width=3.3in}

947: \end{center}

948: \caption{The transducer-filtered space-time diagrams for the $\gamma^+$

949:   and $\gamma^-$ particles. (a) The raw space-time patches containing

950:   the particles. (b) The same patches with the $\Lambda$ filtered out.

951:   The cells not in $\Lambda$ are denoted in black; those in $\Lambda$

952:   in white. In the filtered diagrams the transducer state reached on

953:   scanning the particle wedge cells is indicated.

954:   After \protect\cite{Comp-mech-of-CA-example}.

955:   }

956: \label{ECA54GammasFiltered}

957: \end{figure}

958: 

959: From the space-time diagrams of Fig. \ref{ECA54GammasFiltered}(b) one notes that

960: the transducer-state labeled wedges for each particle indicate that their

961: intrinsic periodicities are $P(\gamma^+) = 2$ and $P(\gamma^-) = 2$. Then, from

962: Thm.~\ref{ThmUpperBound} we have that $n_{\alpha,\beta} = 1$. That is, there is

963: at most one product of these particles' interaction.

964: 

965: Fig.~\ref{ECA54GammaInteraction} gives the transducer-filtered space-time

966: diagram for the $\gamma^+ + \gamma^- \rightarrow \beta$ interaction.  A

967: complete survey of all possible $\gamma^+$-$\Lambda$-$\gamma^-$ initial

968: particle configurations shows that this is the only interaction for these

969: particles. Thus, the upper bound is saturated.

970: 

971: \begin{figure}

972: \begin{center}

973: \epsfig{file=ECA54GammaInteraction.ps,width=2.0in}

974: \end{center}

975: \caption{The transducer-filtered space-time diagrams for the

976:   $\gamma^+ + \gamma^- \rightarrow \beta$ interaction.

977:   After \protect\cite{Comp-mech-of-CA-example}.

978:   }

979: \label{ECA54GammaInteraction}

980: \end{figure}

981: 

982: \subsection{An Evolved CA}

983: 

984: The second example for which we test the upper bound is a CA that was

985: evolved by a genetic algorithm to perform a class of spatial

986: computations: from all random initial configurations, synchronize

987: within a specified number of iterations. This CA is $\phi_{sync_1}$

988: of \cite{Wim-MM-JPC-mechanisms}: a binary, radius-$3$ CA. The

989: $128$-bit look-up table for $\phi_{sync_1}$ is given

990: in Table \ref{Table:PhiLUTs}.

991: 

992: Here we are only interested in locally analyzing the various pairwise particle

993: interactions observed in $\phi_{sync_1}$. It turned out that this CA used a

994: relatively simple set of domains, particles, and interactions. Its particle

995: catalog is given in Table \ref{table:sync1_catalog}.

996: 

997: As one example, the two particles $\alpha$ and $\beta$ and the

998: intervening domain $\Lambda$ have the properties given in Table

999: \ref{table:sync1_catalog}. From this data, Thm.~\ref{ThmUpperBound}

1000: tells us that there is at most one interaction product:

1001: \begin{equation}

1002: n_{\alpha,\beta} = \frac{4 \cdot 2 \cdot \frac{1}{4}}{2 \cdot 1} = 1 ~.

1003: \end{equation}

1004: 

1005: \begin{table}

1006: \begin{center}

1007: \begin{tabular}{cc}

1008:   $\phi$ & Look-up Table (hexadecimal) \\

1009: \hline

1010:   $\phi_{sync_1}$ & {\tt F8A19CE6B65848EA} \\

1011:                   & {\tt D26CB24AEB51C4A0} \\

1012: \hline

1013:   $\phi_{parent}$ & {\tt CEB2EF28C68D2A04} \\

1014:                   & {\tt E341FAE2E7187AE8} \\

1015: \end{tabular}

1016: \end{center}

1017: \caption{Lookup tables (in hexadecimal) for $\phi_{sync_1}$ and

1018:   $\phi_{parent}$. To recover the 128-bit string giving the CA look-up

1019:   table output bits $s_{t+1}$, expand each hexadecimal digit (the

1020:   first row followed by the second row) to binary.  The output bits

1021:   $s_{t+1}$ are then given in lexicographic order starting from the

1022:   all-$0$s neighborhood at the leftmost bit in the 128-bit

1023:   string.}

1024:   \label{Table:PhiLUTs}

1025: \end{table}

1026: 

1027: %\medskip

1028: 

1029: % LUT Phi_sync_1 binary:

1030: % 11111000101000011001110011100110101101100101100001001000111010101101001001101100101100100100101011101011010100011100010010100000

1031: % LUT Phi_sync_1 hex:

1032: % F8A19CE6B65848EAD26CB24AEB51C4A0

1033: 

1034: The single observed interaction between the $\alpha$ and $\beta$ particles

1035: is shown in Fig. \ref{figure:example1}. As this space-time

1036: diagram shows, the interaction creates another $\beta$ particle, i.e.,

1037: $\alpha+\beta \rightarrow \beta$. An exhaustive survey of the $8$

1038: ($= 4 \times 2$) possible particle-phase configurations shows that this is

1039: the only interaction for these two particles. Thus, in this case, we see that

1040: Thm.~\ref{ThmUpperBound} again gives a tight bound; it cannot be reduced.

1041: 

1042: %%

1043: %% Particle catalog of phi_sync_1.

1044: %%

1045: \begin{table}

1046:   \begin{center}

1047:   \begin{tabular}{ccccc}

1048:   \multicolumn{5}{c}{\bf $\phi_{sync_1}$ Particle Catalog} \\

1049:   \hline

1050:   \multicolumn{5}{c}{\bf Domains ${\boldsymbol{\Lambda}}$} \\

1051:   \hline

1052:   Name & \multicolumn{2}{c}{Regular language} & $T(\Lambda)$ & $S(\Lambda)$ \\

1053:   \hline

1054:   $\Lambda$    & \multicolumn{2}{c}{$0^40^*$, $1^41^*$} & 2 & 1 \\

1055:   \hline

1056:   \multicolumn{5}{c}{\bf Particles P} \\

1057:   \hline

1058:   Name     & Wall                         & $P$ & $d$ & $v$ \\

1059:   \hline

1060:   $\alpha$ & $\Lambda_j \Lambda_j$     &   4 &  -1 &-1/4 \\

1061:   $\beta$  & $\Lambda_j \Lambda_{1-j}$ &   2 &  -1 &-1/2 \\

1062:   $\gamma$ & $\Lambda_j \Lambda_j$     &   8 &  -1 &-1/8 \\

1063:   $\delta$ & $\Lambda_j \Lambda_j$     &   2 &   0 &   0 \\

1064:   \hline

1065:   \multicolumn{5}{c}{\bf Interactions I} \\

1066:   \hline

1067:   Type & \multicolumn{2}{c}{Interaction} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{Interaction} \\

1068:   \hline

1069:   React & \multicolumn{2}{c}{$\alpha + \beta \rightarrow \beta$}

1070:     & \multicolumn{2}{c}{$\gamma+\beta \rightarrow \beta$} \\

1071:   React & \multicolumn{2}{c}{$\delta+\beta \rightarrow \beta$}

1072:     & \multicolumn{2}{c}{$\gamma+\alpha \rightarrow \alpha$} \\

1073:   React & \multicolumn{2}{c}{$\delta+\alpha \rightarrow \alpha$}

1074:     & \multicolumn{2}{c}{$\delta+\gamma \rightarrow \alpha$} \\

1075:   \end{tabular}

1076:   \end{center}

1077:   \caption{The particle catalog of $\phi_{sync_1}$. $\Lambda_j$,

1078:   $j \in \{0,1\}$, indicates the two temporal phases of domain $\Lambda$.}

1079:   \label{table:sync1_catalog}

1080: \end{table}

1081: 

1082: \begin{figure}

1083: \begin{center}

1084: \epsfig{file=example1.ps,width=3.3in}

1085: \end{center}

1086: \caption{The interaction between an $\alpha$ and a $\beta$ particle

1087:   in $\phi_{sync_1}$.}

1088: \label{figure:example1}

1089: \end{figure}

1090: 

1091: \subsection{Another Evolved CA}

1092: 

1093: The third, more complicated example is also a CA that was evolved by a

1094: genetic algorithm to synchronize. This CA is $\phi_{parent}$ of

1095: \cite{JPC-Wim-MM-performance}. It too is a binary radius-3 CA. The

1096: $128$-bit look-up table for $\phi_{parent}$ was given in Table

1097: \ref{Table:PhiLUTs}.

1098: 

1099: % LUT phi_parent binary:

1100: %11001110101100101110111100101000110001101000110100101010000001001110001101000001111110101110001011100111000110000111101011101000

1101: % LUT phi_parent hex:

1102: % CEB2EF28C68D2A04E341FAE2E7187AE8

1103: 

1104: Here the two particles $\alpha$ and $\beta$ and the intervening domain

1105: $\Lambda$ have the properties given in Table \ref{table:PhiParentProperties}.

1106: Note that this is the same domain as in the preceding example.

1107: 

1108: \begin{table}

1109:   \begin{center} 

1110:   \begin{tabular}{cccc} 

1111:   \multicolumn{4}{c}{\bf $\phi_{parent}$ Particle Properties} \\

1112:   \hline

1113:   Domain    & $T$ & $S$ & \\ 

1114:   \hline 

1115:   $\Lambda$ &  2  &  1  & \\ 

1116:   \hline

1117:   Particle  & $P$ & $d$ &  $v$ \\ 

1118:   \hline 

1119:   $\alpha$  &  8  &  2  &  1/4 \\ 

1120:   \hline 

1121:   $\beta$   &  2  & -3  & -3/2 \\ 

1122:   \end{tabular} 

1123:   \end{center} 

1124:   \caption{Properties of two of $\phi_{parent}$'s particles.} 

1125:   \label{table:PhiParentProperties} 

1126: \end{table}

1127: 

1128: From this data, Thm.~\ref{ThmUpperBound} now says that there are at most:

1129: \begin{equation}

1130: n_{\alpha,\beta} = \frac{8 \cdot 2 \cdot \frac{7}{4}}{2 \cdot 1} = 14

1131: \end{equation}

1132: interactions.

1133: 

1134: Of these 14 input configurations, it turns out several give rise to the same

1135: products. From a complete survey of $\alpha$-$\Lambda$-$\beta$ configurations,

1136: the result is that there are actually only $4$ different products from the

1137: $\alpha+\beta$ interaction; these are:

1138: \begin{eqnarray*}

1139: \alpha + \beta & \rightarrow & \emptyset \\

1140: \alpha + \beta & \rightarrow & \gamma \\

1141: \alpha + \beta & \rightarrow & 2\beta \\

1142: \alpha + \beta & \rightarrow & \beta +\alpha \\

1143: \end{eqnarray*}

1144: They are shown in Fig.~\ref{figure:example2}.

1145: 

1146: This example serves to highlight the distinction between the maximum number

1147: of interaction configurations, as bounded by Thm.~\ref{ThmUpperBound},

1148: and the actual number of unique products of the interaction. We shall return

1149: to this distinction later on.

1150: 

1151: \end{multicols}

1152: 

1153: \begin{figure}

1154: \begin{center}

1155: \epsfig{file=example2.ps,width=5.0in}

1156: \end{center}

1157: \caption{The four different (out of 14 possible) interaction products

1158:   for the $\alpha+\beta$ interaction.}

1159: \label{figure:example2}

1160: \end{figure}

1161: 

1162: \begin{multicols}{2}

1163: 

1164: \subsection{ECA 110}

1165: 

1166: In the next example, we test Thm.~\ref{ThmUpperBound} on one of the

1167: long-appreciated ``complex'' CA, elementary CA 110.  As long ago as 1986,

1168: Wolfram \cite[Appendix 15]{Wolfram-theory-and-applications} conjectured that

1169: this rule is able to support universal, Turing-equivalent computation

1170: (replacing an earlier dictum

1171: \cite[p.~31]{Wolfram-universality-and-complexity} that all elementary CA are

1172: ``too simple to support universal computation'').  While this conjecture

1173: initially excited little interest, in the last few years it has won increasing

1174: acceptance in the CA research community.  Though to date there is no published

1175: proof of universality, there are studies of its unusually rich variety of

1176: domains and particles, one of the most noteworthy of which is McIntosh's work

1177: on their tiling and tessellation properties \cite{McIntosh-on-110}.  Because of

1178: this CA's behavioral richness, we do not present its complete particle catalog

1179: and computational-mechanical analysis here; rather see

1180: \cite{JPC-CRS-intrinsic-comp}. Instead, we confine ourselves to a single type

1181: of reaction where the utility of our upper bound theorem is particularly

1182: notable.

1183: 

1184: We consider one domain, labeled $\Lambda^0$, and two particles that move

1185: through it, called $\beta$ and $\kappa$ \cite{JPC-CRS-intrinsic-comp}. (This

1186: $\beta$ particle is not to be confused with the $\beta$ of our previous

1187: examples.)  $\Lambda^0$ is ECA 110's ``true vacuum'': the domain that is stable

1188: and overwhelmingly the most prominent in space-time diagrams generated from

1189: random samples of initial configurations. It has a temporal period

1190: $T(\Lambda^0) = 1$, but a spatial period $S(\Lambda^0) = 14$. The $\beta$

1191: particle has a period $P(\beta) = 15$, during the course of which it moves four

1192: steps to the left: $d_\beta = 4$. The $\kappa$ particle, finally, has a period

1193: $P(\kappa) = 42$, and moves $d_\kappa = 14$ steps to the left during its

1194: cycle. This data gives the $\beta$ particle a velocity of $v_\beta = -4/15$ and

1195: the $\kappa$ particle $v_\kappa = -1/3$.

1196: 

1197: \begin{figure}

1198: \begin{center}

1199: \epsfig{file=BetaTwoCycles.ps,width=3.3in}

1200: \end{center}

1201: \caption{The particle $\beta$ of ECA 110: The space-time patch shows two

1202:   complete cycles of particle phase.}

1203: \label{figure:BetaUnfiltered}

1204: \end{figure}

1205: 

1206: Naively, one would expect to have to examine $630$

1207: ($= P(\beta) P(\kappa) = 15 \times 42$) different particle-phase configurations

1208: to exhaust all possible interactions. Theorem \ref{ThmUpperBound}, however,

1209: tells us that all but

1210: \begin{equation}

1211: {(15)(42)({-4 \over 15} - {-1 \over 3}) \over (14)(1)} = 3

1212: \end{equation}

1213: of those initial configurations are redundant. In fact, an exhaustive search

1214: shows that there are exactly three distinct interactions:

1215: \begin{eqnarray*}

1216: \beta + \kappa & \rightarrow & \alpha + 3w_{right} ~, \\

1217: \beta + \kappa & \rightarrow & \beta + 4 w_{right} ~, \\

1218: \beta + \kappa & \rightarrow & \eta ~.

1219: \end{eqnarray*}

1220: Here, $\alpha$, $w_{right}$, and $\eta$ are additional particles generated by

1221: ECA 110. These interactions are depicted, respectively, in Figures

1222: \ref{figure:example3}, \ref{figure:example4}, and \ref{figure:example5}.

1223: 

1224: We should note that the $w_{right}$ particle is somewhat unusual in that

1225: several can propagate side by side, or even constitute a domain of their own.

1226: There are a number of such ``extensible'' particle families in ECA 110

1227: \cite{JPC-CRS-intrinsic-comp}.

1228: 

1229: \begin{figure}

1230: \begin{center}

1231: \epsfig{file=KappaOneCycle.ps,width=3.3in}

1232: \end{center}

1233: \caption{The particle $\kappa$ of ECA 110: The space-time diagram shows

1234:   one complete cycle of particle phase.}

1235: \label{figure:KappaUnfiltered}

1236: \end{figure}

1237: 

1238: 

1239: 

1240: \begin{figure}

1241: \begin{center}

1242: \epsfig{figure=BetaKappaToBeta+4w_right.ps,width=3.3in}

1243: \end{center}

1244: \caption{The reaction $\beta + \kappa \rightarrow \beta + 4w_{right}$ in

1245:   ECA 110.}

1246: \label{figure:example4}

1247: \end{figure}

1248: 

1249: \begin{figure}

1250: \begin{center}

1251: \epsfig{figure=BetaKappaToAlpha+3w_right.ps,width=3.3in}

1252: \end{center}

1253: \caption{The reaction $\beta + \kappa \rightarrow \alpha + 3w_{right}$ in

1254:   ECA 110.}

1255: \label{figure:example3}

1256: \end{figure}

1257: We again see, in this complex case, that the bound of Thm.~\ref{ThmUpperBound}

1258: is attained.

1259: 

1260: \section{Conclusion}

1261: 

1262: \subsection{Summary}

1263: 

1264: The original interaction product formula of

1265: \cite{Park-Steiglitz-Thurston-soliton} is limited to particles propagating in a

1266: completely uniform background; i.e., to a domain whose spatial and temporal

1267: periods are both $1$. When compared to the rich diversity of domains generated

1268: by CAs, this is a considerable restriction, and so the formula does not help in

1269: analyzing many CAs. We have generalized the original result and along the way

1270: established a number of properties of domains and particles---structures

1271: defined by CA computational mechanics.  The examples showed that the upper

1272: bound is tight and that, in complex CAs, particle interactions are

1273: substantially less complicated than they look at first blush. Moreover, in

1274: developing the bound for complex domains, the analysis elucidated the somewhat

1275: subtle notion of a particle's intrinsic periodicity---a property not apparent

1276: from the CA's raw space-time behavior: it requires rather an explicit

1277: representation of the bordering domains' structure.

1278: 

1279: \begin{figure}[t]

1280: \begin{center}

1281: \epsfig{figure=BetaKappaToEta.ps,width=3.3in}

1282: \end{center}

1283: \caption{The reaction $ \beta + \kappa \rightarrow \eta$ in ECA 110.}

1284: \label{figure:example5}

1285: \end{figure}

1286: 

1287: Understanding the detailed structure of particles and their interactions moves

1288: us closer to an engineering discipline that would tell one how to design CA to

1289: perform a wide range of spatial computations using various particle types,

1290: interactions, and geometries. In a complementary way, it also brings us closer

1291: to scientific methods for analyzing the intrinsic computation of spatially

1292: extended systems \cite{JPC-CRS-intrinsic-comp}.

1293: 

1294: \subsection{Open Problems}

1295: 

1296: The foregoing analysis merely scratches the surface of a detailed analytical

1297: approach to CA particle ``physics'': Each CA update rule specifies a

1298: microphysics of local (cell-to-cell) space and time interactions for its

1299: universe; the goal is to discover and analyze those emergent structures that

1300: control the macroscopic behavior.  For now, we can only list a few of the open,

1301: but seemingly accessible, questions our results suggest.

1302: 

1303: It would be preferable to directly calculate the number of products coming out

1304: of the interaction region, rather than (as here) the number of distinct

1305: particle-domain-particle configurations coming into the interaction region.  We

1306: believe this is eminently achievable, given the detailed representations of

1307: domain and particles that are entailed by a computational mechanics analysis of

1308: CAs.

1309: 

1310: Two very desirable extensions of these results suggest themselves. The first is

1311: to go from strictly periodic domains to cyclic (periodic and ``chaotic'')

1312: domains and then to general domains. The principle difficulty here is that

1313: Prop.~\ref{PROPSPATIALPERIODICITY} plays a crucial role in our current proof,

1314: but we do not yet see how to generalize its proof to chaotic (positive entropy

1315: density) domains. The second extension would be to incorporate aperiodic

1316: particles, such as the simple one exhibited by ECA 18

1317: \cite{Attractor-Vicinity-Decay}.  We suspect this will prove considerably more

1318: difficult than the extension to cyclic domains: it is not obvious how to apply

1319: notions like ``particle period'' and ``velocity'' to these defects.  A third

1320: extension, perhaps more tractable than the last, is to interactions of more

1321: than two particles.  The geometry and combinatorics will be more complicated

1322: than in the two-particle case, but we conjecture that it will be possible to

1323: establish an upper bound on the number of interaction products for $n-$particle

1324: interactions via induction.

1325: 

1326: Does there exist an analogous lower bound on the number of interactions?  If

1327: so, when do the upper and lower bounds coincide?

1328: 

1329: In solitonic interactions the particle number is preserved

1330: \cite{Peyrard-Kruskal,Aizawa-Nishikawa-Kaneko-soliton-turbulence,Park-Steiglitz-Thurston-soliton,Steiglitz-Kamal-Watson,Ablowitz-Kruskal-Ladik}. What

1331: are the conditions on the interaction structure that characterize solitonic

1332: interactions?  The class of soliton-like particles studied in

1333: \cite{Park-Steiglitz-Thurston-soliton} possess a rich ``thermodynamics''

1334: closely analogous to ordinary thermodynamics, explored in detailed in

1335: \cite{Goldberg-parity-filter-automata}.  Do these results generalize to the

1336: broader class of domains and particles, as the original upper bound of

1337: \cite{Park-Steiglitz-Thurston-soliton} does?

1338: 

1339: While the particle catalog for ECA 110 is not yet {\it provably} complete, for

1340: every known pair of particles the number of distinct interaction products is

1341: exactly equal to the upper bound given by our theorem.  This is not generally

1342: true of most of the CAs we have analyzed and is especially suggestive in light

1343: of the widely-accepted conjecture that the rule is computation universal.  We

1344: suspect that ECA 110's fullness or behavioral flexibility is connected to its

1345: computational power. (Cf. Remark 2 to Thm.~\ref{ThmUpperBound}.)  However, we

1346: have yet to examine other, computation universal CA to see whether they, too,

1347: saturate the bound of our theorem.  One approach to this question would be to

1348: characterize the computational power of systems employing different kinds of

1349: interactions, as is done in \cite{Jakubowski-Steiglitz-Squier} for computers

1350: built from interacting (continuum) solitary waves.

1351: 

1352: \section*{Acknowledgments}

1353: This work was partially supported under the SFI Computation, Dynamics, and

1354: Learning Program by AFOSR via NSF grant PHY-9970158 and by DARPA under

1355: contract F30602-00-2-0583.

1356: 

1357: \begin{appendix}

1358: 

1359: \section*{Proof of Lemma \ref{PROPSPATIALPERIODICITY}}

1360: %\section{Proof of Lemma \ref{PropSpatialPeriodicity}}

1361: 

1362: \setcounter{lemma}{0}

1363: % Without the set counter, what comes next gets called Proposition 2, even

1364: % though it's identical to Proposition 1!

1365: 

1366: \begin{lemma}

1367: If a domain $\Lambda^i$ has a periodic phase, then the domain is periodic, and

1368: the spatial periodicities $S(\Lambda^i_j)$ of all its phases $\Lambda^i_j, j =

1369: 0, \ldots, p-1,$ are equal.

1370: \end{lemma}

1371: 

1372: {\it Proof.} The proof consists of two parts. First, and most importantly, it

1373: is proved that the spatial periodicities of the temporal phases of a periodic

1374: domain $\Lambda^i$ cannot increase and that the periodicity of one

1375: phase implies the periodicity of all its successors. Then it follows

1376: straightforwardly that the spatial periodicities have to be equal for all

1377: temporal phases and that they all must be periodic.

1378: 

1379: Our proof employs the update transducer $T_{\phi}$, which is simply the FST

1380: which scans across a lattice configuration and outputs the effect of applying

1381: the CA update rule $\phi$ to it.  For reasons of space, we refrain from giving

1382: full details on this operator---see rather \cite{Hanson-thesis}.  Here we need

1383: the following results.  If $\phi$ is a binary, radius-$r$ CA, the update

1384: transducer has $2^{2r}$ states, representing the $2^{2r}$ distinct contexts

1385: (words of previously read symbols) in which $T_{\phi}$ scans new sites, and we

1386: customarily label the states by these context words. The effect of applying the

1387: CA $\phi$ to a set of lattice configuration represented by the DFA $M$ is a new

1388: machine, given by $T_{\phi}M$---the ``direct product'' of the machines $M$ and

1389: $T_{\phi}$.  Once again, for reasons of space, we will not explain how this

1390: direct product works in the general case.  We are interested merely in the

1391: special case where $M = \Lambda^i_j$, the $j^{th}$, periodic phase of a domain,

1392: with spatial period $n$. The next phase of the domain, $\Lambda^i_{j+1}$, is

1393: the composed automaton $T_{\phi}M$, \textit{once the latter has been

1394: minimized}. Before the latter step $T_{\phi}M$ consists of $n$ ``copies'' of

1395: the FST $T_{\phi}$, one for each of $\Lambda^i_j$'s $n$ states. There are no

1396: transitions within a copy.  Transitions from copy $k$ to copy $k^\prime$ occur

1397: only if $k^\prime = k + 1$ ($\bmod ~ n$). In total, there are $n{2}^{2r}$

1398: states in the direct composition.

1399: 

1400: $T_{\phi}M$ is finite and deterministic, but far from minimal. We are

1401: interested in its minimal equivalent machine, since that is what we have

1402: defined as the representative of the next phase of the domain.  The key to our

1403: proof is an unproblematic part of the minimization, namely, removing states

1404: that have no predecessors (i.e., no incoming transitions) and so are never

1405: reached. (Recall that, by hypothesis, we are examining successive phases of a

1406: domain, all represented by strongly connected process graphs.) It can be shown,

1407: using the techniques in \cite{Hanson-thesis}, that if the transition from state

1408: $k$ in $\Lambda^i_j$ to state $k+1$ occurs on a $0$ (respectively, on a $1$),

1409: then in the composed machine, the transitions from copy $k$ of $T_{\phi}$ only

1410: go to those states in copy $k+1$ whose context string ends in a $0$

1411: (respectively, in a $1$). Since states in copy $k+1$ can be reached only from

1412: states in copy $k$, it follows that half of the states in each copy cannot be

1413: reached at all, and so they can be eliminated without loss.

1414: 

1415: Now, this procedure of eliminating states without direct predecessors in turn

1416: leaves some states in copy $k+2$ without predecessors. So we can re-apply the

1417: procedure, and once again, it will remove half of the remaining states.  This

1418: is because applying it twice is the same as removing those states in copy $k+2$

1419: for which the last two symbols in the context word differ from the symbols

1420: connecting state $k$ to state $k+1$ and state $k+1$ to state $k+2$ in the

1421: original domain machine $\Lambda^i_j$.

1422: 

1423: What this procedure does is exploit the fact that, in a domain, every state is

1424: encountered only in a unique update-scanning context; we are eliminating

1425: combinations of domain-state and update-transducer-state that simply cannot be

1426: reached.  Observe that we can apply this procedure exactly $2r$ times, since

1427: that suffices to establish the complete scanning context, and each time we do

1428: so, we eliminate half the remaining states. We are left then with

1429: $n{2}^{2r}/2^{2r} = n$ states after this process of successive halvings.

1430: Further observe that, since each state $k$ of the original domain machine

1431: $\Lambda^i_j$ occurs in \textit{some} scanning context, we will never eliminate

1432: \textit{all} the states in copy $k$.  Since each of the $n$ copies has at least

1433: one state left in it, and there are only $n$ states remaining after the

1434: halvings are done, it follows that each copy contains exactly one state, which

1435: has one incoming transition, from the previous copy, and one outgoing

1436: transition, to the next copy.  The result of eliminating unreachable states,

1437: therefore, is a machine of $n$ states which is not just deterministic but (as

1438: we have defined the term) periodic.  Note, however, that this is not

1439: \textit{necessarily} the minimal machine, since we have not gone through a

1440: complete minimization procedure, merely the easy part of one.

1441: $\Lambda^i_{j+1}$ thus might have fewer than $n$ states, but certainly no more.

1442: 

1443: To sum up: We have established that, if $\Lambda^i_j$ is a periodic domain

1444: phase, then $\Lambda^i_{j+1}$ is also periodic and

1445: $S(\Lambda^i_{j+1}) \leq S(\Lambda^i_j)$. Thus, for any $t$,

1446: $S( \boldsymbol{\Phi}^t \Lambda^i_j) \leq S(\Lambda^i_j)$. But

1447: $\boldsymbol{\Phi}^t \Lambda^i_j) = \Lambda^i_{(j+t) \bmod p}$

1448: and if $t = p$, we have

1449: $\Lambda^i_{(j+t) \bmod p} = \Lambda^i_{(j+p)\bmod p} = \Lambda^i_j$.

1450: Putting these together we have

1451: \begin{equation}

1452: S(\Lambda^i_{j+1}) \leq S(\Lambda^i_j)

1453:   \Rightarrow S(\Lambda^i_{j+1}) = S(\Lambda^i_j) ~,

1454: \end{equation}

1455: for $j = 0, 1, \ldots, p-1$.  This implies that the spatial period is the same,

1456: namely $n$, for all phases of the domain. And this proves the proposition when

1457: the CA alphabet is binary.

1458: 

1459: The reader may easily check that a completely parallel argument holds if the CA

1460: alphabet is not binary but $m-$ary, substituting $m$ for 2 and $(m-1)/m$ for

1461: $1/2$ in the appropriate places.  We omit it here for reasons of space and

1462: notational complexity. \hfill$\Box$

1463: 

1464: \end{appendix}

1465: 

1466: \bibliography{locusts}

1467: \bibliographystyle{elsart-num}

1468: 

1469: \end{multicols}

1470: 

1471: \end{document}

1472: