Namespaces
Variants
Actions

Difference between revisions of "D0L-sequence"

From Encyclopedia of Mathematics
Jump to: navigation, search
(Importing text file)
 
m (→‎References: latexify)
 
(6 intermediate revisions by one other user not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
[[L-systems|<img align="absmiddle" border="0" src="https://www.encyclopediaofmath.org/legacyimages/d/d120/d120010/d1200102.png" />-systems]] were introduced by A. Lindenmayer in the late 1960s to model (in discrete time) the development of filamentous organisms. A fundamental feature of these systems is that in each step each cell (represented by a symbol from a finite [[Alphabet|alphabet]]) has to be rewritten according to the developmental rules of the organism. This parallelism is the main difference between <img align="absmiddle" border="0" src="https://www.encyclopediaofmath.org/legacyimages/d/d120/d120010/d1200103.png" />-systems and the classical Chomsky grammars (cf. also [[Grammar, generative|Grammar, generative]]). In fact, soon after their introduction, <img align="absmiddle" border="0" src="https://www.encyclopediaofmath.org/legacyimages/d/d120/d120010/d1200104.png" />-systems constituted a significant part of [[Formal language|formal language]] theory, allowing one to compare parallel rewriting to a more classical sequential one, see [[#References|[a13]]].
+
[[L-systems|$L$-systems]] were introduced by A. Lindenmayer in the late 1960s to model (in discrete time) the development of filamentous organisms. A fundamental feature of these systems is that in each step each cell (represented by a symbol from a finite [[alphabet]]) has to be rewritten according to the developmental rules of the organism. This parallelism is the main difference between $L$-systems and the classical Chomsky grammars (cf. also [[Grammar, generative]]). In fact, soon after their introduction, $L$-systems constituted a significant part of [[formal language]] theory, allowing one to compare parallel rewriting to a more classical sequential one, see [[#References|[a13]]].
  
The simplest <img align="absmiddle" border="0" src="https://www.encyclopediaofmath.org/legacyimages/d/d120/d120010/d1200105.png" />-system is a so-called D<img align="absmiddle" border="0" src="https://www.encyclopediaofmath.org/legacyimages/d/d120/d120010/d1200106.png" />L-system, where the development starts from a single word and continues deterministically step by step in a context independent way, that is, the development of a symbol depends only on that symbol. (Here,  "D"  stands for determinism,  "0" for zero-sided interaction and  "L"  for Lindenmayer.) Formally, a D<img align="absmiddle" border="0" src="https://www.encyclopediaofmath.org/legacyimages/d/d120/d120010/d1200108.png" />L-system is a triple <img align="absmiddle" border="0" src="https://www.encyclopediaofmath.org/legacyimages/d/d120/d120010/d1200109.png" />, where <img align="absmiddle" border="0" src="https://www.encyclopediaofmath.org/legacyimages/d/d120/d120010/d12001010.png" /> is a finite alphabet, <img align="absmiddle" border="0" src="https://www.encyclopediaofmath.org/legacyimages/d/d120/d120010/d12001011.png" /> is an [[Endomorphism|endomorphism]] of the free monoid (cf. also [[Monoid|Monoid]]) generated by <img align="absmiddle" border="0" src="https://www.encyclopediaofmath.org/legacyimages/d/d120/d120010/d12001012.png" />, in symbols <img align="absmiddle" border="0" src="https://www.encyclopediaofmath.org/legacyimages/d/d120/d120010/d12001013.png" />, and <img align="absmiddle" border="0" src="https://www.encyclopediaofmath.org/legacyimages/d/d120/d120010/d12001014.png" /> is a starting word. The system <img align="absmiddle" border="0" src="https://www.encyclopediaofmath.org/legacyimages/d/d120/d120010/d12001015.png" /> defines the D<img align="absmiddle" border="0" src="https://www.encyclopediaofmath.org/legacyimages/d/d120/d120010/d12001017.png" />L-sequence
+
The simplest $L$-system is a so-called D$0$L-system, where the development starts from a single word and continues deterministically step by step in a context independent way, that is, the development of a symbol depends only on that symbol. (Here,  "D"  stands for determinism,  $0$ for zero-sided interaction and  "L"  for Lindenmayer.) Formally, a D$0$L-system is a triple $\mathcal{G} = (\Sigma,h,w)$, where $\Sigma$ is a finite alphabet, $h$ is an [[Endomorphism|endomorphism]] of the [[free monoid]] generated by $\Sigma$, in symbols $\Sigma^*$, and $w$ is a starting word. The system $\mathcal{G}$ defines the D$0$L-sequence
 +
$$
 +
S(\mathcal{G})\ : \ w,\,h(w),\,h^2(w),\,\ldots
 +
$$
 +
the D$0$L-growth sequence
 +
$$
 +
GS(\mathcal{G})\ : \ |w|,\,|h(w)|,\,|h^2(w)|,\,\ldots
 +
$$
 +
where $| \cdot |$ denotes the length of a word, and the D$0$L-language
 +
$$
 +
L(\mathcal{G}) = \{ h^i(w) : i \ge 0 \} \ .
 +
$$
  
<table class="eq" style="width:100%;"> <tr><td valign="top" style="width:94%;text-align:center;"><img align="absmiddle" border="0" src="https://www.encyclopediaofmath.org/legacyimages/d/d120/d120010/d12001018.png" /></td> <td valign="top" style="width:5%;text-align:right;">(a1)</td></tr></table>
+
It is not only the mathematical simplicity of the definitions, but rather the challenging mathematical problems connected with these notions, in particular with D$0$L-sequences, which made D$0$L-systems mathematically very fruitful. The most famous problem is the D$0$L-sequence equivalence problem, which asks for an algorithm to decide whether or not two D$0$L-sequences coincide. The impact of this nice problem is discussed in [[#References|[a11]]].
  
the D<img align="absmiddle" border="0" src="https://www.encyclopediaofmath.org/legacyimages/d/d120/d120010/d12001020.png" />L-growth sequence
+
D$0$L-languages emphasize a static nature of the systems and are more related to classical formal language theory. D$0$L-growth sequences, in turn, are closely connected to the theory of $\mathbf{N}$-rational [[formal power series]], and in fact allow one to reformulate certain classical problems, such as the algorithmic problem on the existence of a zero in a sequence defined by a linear recurrence, see [[#References|[a15]]]. Finally, D$0$L-sequences represent a dynamical feature of the systems. Moreover, such sequences are defined in a very simple and natural way: by iterating a morphism.
  
<table class="eq" style="width:100%;"> <tr><td valign="top" style="width:94%;text-align:center;"><img align="absmiddle" border="0" src="https://www.encyclopediaofmath.org/legacyimages/d/d120/d120010/d12001021.png" /></td> </tr></table>
+
The D$0$L-sequence equivalence problem was first shown to be algorithmically decidable in [[#References|[a4]]] (cf. also [[Proof theory]]). A simpler solution was found in [[#References|[a7]]], and finally a third completely different solution can be based on the validity of the [[Ehrenfeucht conjecture]] and Makanin's algorithm for the solvability of word equations over free monoids, as shown in [[#References|[a6]]]. It is interesting to note that only the third solution extends to a multi-dimensional variant of the D$0$L-problem, the so-called DT$0$L-sequence equivalence problem. In the latter problem, the word sequences of (a1) are replaced by $k$-ary trees obtained by iterating $k$ different morphisms in all possible ways.
  
where the vertical bars denote the length of a word, and the D<img align="absmiddle" border="0" src="https://www.encyclopediaofmath.org/legacyimages/d/d120/d120010/d12001023.png" />L-language
+
Despite the above solutions, an intriguing feature of the D$0$L-sequence equivalence problem remains. Indeed, none of the above solutions is practical. However, it has been conjectured that only the $2.\mathrm{card}(\Sigma)$ first elements of the sequences have to be compared in order to decide the equivalence. This $2n$-conjecture is known to hold when $\Sigma$ is binary, see [[#References|[a10]]], but no reasonable (even exponential) bound is known (1998) in the general case.
  
<table class="eq" style="width:100%;"> <tr><td valign="top" style="width:94%;text-align:center;"><img align="absmiddle" border="0" src="https://www.encyclopediaofmath.org/legacyimages/d/d120/d120010/d12001024.png" /></td> </tr></table>
+
As already hinted at, the major mathematical importance of D$0$L-systems lies in the fact that they (in particular, the research on the D$0$L-sequence equivalence problem) motivated a large amount of fundamental research on morphisms of free monoids. Below a few such examples are given.
  
It is not only the mathematical simplicity of the definitions, but rather the challenging mathematical problems connected with these notions, in particular with D<img align="absmiddle" border="0" src="https://www.encyclopediaofmath.org/legacyimages/d/d120/d120010/d12001025.png" />L-sequences, which made D<img align="absmiddle" border="0" src="https://www.encyclopediaofmath.org/legacyimages/d/d120/d120010/d12001026.png" />L-systems mathematically very fruitful. The most famous problem is the D<img align="absmiddle" border="0" src="https://www.encyclopediaofmath.org/legacyimages/d/d120/d120010/d12001028.png" />L-sequence equivalence problem, which asks for an algorithm to decide whether or not two D<img align="absmiddle" border="0" src="https://www.encyclopediaofmath.org/legacyimages/d/d120/d120010/d12001029.png" />L-sequences coincide. The impact of this nice problem is discussed in [[#References|[a11]]].
+
Consider a [[morphism]] $h : \Sigma^* \rightarrow \Sigma^*$ satisfying $h(a) = au$ for some $a \in \Sigma$ and $u \in \Sigma^{+}$. If $h$ is ''non-erasing'', i.e. $h(b) \neq 1$ for all $b \in \Sigma$, then there exists a unique infinite ''[[morphic word]]''
 +
$$
 +
w_h = \lim_{i \rightarrow \infty} h^i(a) \ .
 +
$$
  
D<img align="absmiddle" border="0" src="https://www.encyclopediaofmath.org/legacyimages/d/d120/d120010/d12001030.png" />L-languages emphasize a static nature of the systems and are more related to classical formal language theory. D<img align="absmiddle" border="0" src="https://www.encyclopediaofmath.org/legacyimages/d/d120/d120010/d12001031.png" />L-growth sequences, in turn, are closely connected to the theory of <img align="absmiddle" border="0" src="https://www.encyclopediaofmath.org/legacyimages/d/d120/d120010/d12001032.png" />-rational [[Formal power series|formal power series]], and in fact allow one to reformulate certain classical problems, such as the algorithmic problem on the existence of a zero in a sequence defined by a linear recurrence, see [[#References|[a15]]]. Finally, D<img align="absmiddle" border="0" src="https://www.encyclopediaofmath.org/legacyimages/d/d120/d120010/d12001033.png" />L-sequences represent a dynamical feature of the systems. Moreover, such sequences are defined in a very simple and natural way: by iterating a morphism.
+
Consequently, D$0$L-sequences can be used in a very natural way to define infinite words. Implicitly, A. Thue used this approach at the beginning of the 20th century in his seminal work on [[square-free]] and cube-free infinite words over a finite alphabet, see [[#References|[a16]]]. Since the early 1980s, such a research on non-repetitive words, revitalized by [[#References|[a2]]], has been a central topic in the combinatorics of words. Almost exclusively non-repetitive words are constructed by the above method of iterating a morphism.
  
The D<img align="absmiddle" border="0" src="https://www.encyclopediaofmath.org/legacyimages/d/d120/d120010/d12001034.png" />L-sequence equivalence problem was first shown to be algorithmically decidable in [[#References|[a4]]] (cf. also [[Proof theory|Proof theory]]). A simpler solution was found in [[#References|[a7]]], and finally a third completely different solution can be based on the validity of the [[Ehrenfeucht conjecture|Ehrenfeucht conjecture]] and Makanin's algorithm for the solvability of word equations over free monoids, as shown in [[#References|[a6]]]. It is interesting to note that only the third solution extends to a multi-dimensional variant of the D<img align="absmiddle" border="0" src="https://www.encyclopediaofmath.org/legacyimages/d/d120/d120010/d12001035.png" />L-problem, the so-called DT<img align="absmiddle" border="0" src="https://www.encyclopediaofmath.org/legacyimages/d/d120/d120010/d12001037.png" />L-sequence equivalence problem. In the latter problem, the word sequences of (a1) are replaced by <img align="absmiddle" border="0" src="https://www.encyclopediaofmath.org/legacyimages/d/d120/d120010/d12001038.png" />-ary trees obtained by iterating <img align="absmiddle" border="0" src="https://www.encyclopediaofmath.org/legacyimages/d/d120/d120010/d12001039.png" /> different morphisms in all possible ways.
+
The D$0$L-sequence equivalence problem asks whether or not two morphisms $f$ and $g$ agree on a D$0$L-language defined by one of the morphisms, that is, whether or not $f(x) = g(x)$ for all $x$ in $\{ h^i(a) : i \ge 0 \}$. This has motivated the consideration of so-called equality languages of two morphisms $f,g : \Sigma^* \rightarrow \Delta^*$:
 +
$$
 +
E(f,g) = \{ x \in \Sigma^* : f(x) = g(x) \} \ .
 +
$$
  
Despite the above solutions, an intriguing feature of the D<img align="absmiddle" border="0" src="https://www.encyclopediaofmath.org/legacyimages/d/d120/d120010/d12001040.png" />L-sequence equivalence problem remains. Indeed, none of the above solutions is practical. However, it has been conjectured that only the <img align="absmiddle" border="0" src="https://www.encyclopediaofmath.org/legacyimages/d/d120/d120010/d12001041.png" /> first elements of the sequences have to be compared in order to decide the equivalence. This <img align="absmiddle" border="0" src="https://www.encyclopediaofmath.org/legacyimages/d/d120/d120010/d12001044.png" />-conjecture is known to hold when <img align="absmiddle" border="0" src="https://www.encyclopediaofmath.org/legacyimages/d/d120/d120010/d12001045.png" /> is binary, see [[#References|[a10]]], but no reasonable (even exponential) bound is known (1998) in the general case.
+
Research on equality languages revealed amazing morphic characterizations of recursively enumerable languages, see [[#References|[a3]]], [[#References|[a8]]] and [[#References|[a14]]]. For example, each recursively enumerable language (cf. also [[Formal languages and automata]]) can be expressed in the form $L = \pi(E(f,g) \cap R)$, where $\pi$, $f$ and $g$ are morphisms and $R$ is a regular language (cf. also [[Grammar, regular]]). Furthermore, the fundamental [[Post correspondence problem]] can be formulated as a problem of deciding whether or not $E(f,g) = \{1\}$, where $1$ denotes the unit of the free monoid $\Sigma^*$.
  
As already hinted at, the major mathematical importance of D<img align="absmiddle" border="0" src="https://www.encyclopediaofmath.org/legacyimages/d/d120/d120010/d12001046.png" />L-systems lies in the fact that they (in particular, the research on the D<img align="absmiddle" border="0" src="https://www.encyclopediaofmath.org/legacyimages/d/d120/d120010/d12001047.png" />L-sequence equivalence problem) motivated a large amount of fundamental research on morphisms of free monoids. Below a few such examples are given.
+
A third, and apparently the most fundamental, consequence of research on D$0$L-systems was a discovery of a compactness property of free semi-groups: Each system of equations over a free monoid containing a finite number of variables is equivalent to some of its finite subsystems (cf. also [[Free semi-group]]). This property (often referred to as the Ehrenfeucht conjecture) was conjectured by A. Ehrenfeucht in the early 1970s (in a slightly different form) and later established in [[#References|[a1]]] and [[#References|[a9]]].
  
Consider a [[Morphism|morphism]] <img align="absmiddle" border="0" src="https://www.encyclopediaofmath.org/legacyimages/d/d120/d120010/d12001048.png" /> satisfying <img align="absmiddle" border="0" src="https://www.encyclopediaofmath.org/legacyimages/d/d120/d120010/d12001049.png" /> for some <img align="absmiddle" border="0" src="https://www.encyclopediaofmath.org/legacyimages/d/d120/d120010/d12001050.png" /> and <img align="absmiddle" border="0" src="https://www.encyclopediaofmath.org/legacyimages/d/d120/d120010/d12001051.png" />. If <img align="absmiddle" border="0" src="https://www.encyclopediaofmath.org/legacyimages/d/d120/d120010/d12001052.png" /> is non-erasing, i.e. <img align="absmiddle" border="0" src="https://www.encyclopediaofmath.org/legacyimages/d/d120/d120010/d12001053.png" /> for all <img align="absmiddle" border="0" src="https://www.encyclopediaofmath.org/legacyimages/d/d120/d120010/d12001054.png" />, then there exists a unique infinite word
+
Finally, it is worth mentioning that besides their mathematical inspiration, D$0$L-sequences have turned out to be useful in areas such as computer graphics and simulation of biological developments, see [[#References|[a5]]] and [[#References|[a12]]].
  
<table class="eq" style="width:100%;"> <tr><td valign="top" style="width:94%;text-align:center;"><img align="absmiddle" border="0" src="https://www.encyclopediaofmath.org/legacyimages/d/d120/d120010/d12001055.png" /></td> </tr></table>
+
====References====
 
+
<table>
Consequently, D<img align="absmiddle" border="0" src="https://www.encyclopediaofmath.org/legacyimages/d/d120/d120010/d12001056.png" />L-sequences can be used in a very natural way to define infinite words. Implicitly, A. Thue used this approach at the beginning of the 20th century in his seminal work on square- and cube-free infinite words over a finite alphabet, see [[#References|[a16]]]. Since the early 1980s, such a research on non-repetitive words, revitalized by [[#References|[a2]]], has been a central topic in the combinatorics of words. Almost exclusively non-repetitive words are constructed by the above method of iterating a morphism.
+
<TR><TD valign="top">[a1]</TD> <TD valign="top">  M. Albert,  J. Lawrence,  "A proof of Ehrenfeucht's conjecture" ''Theoret. Comput. Sci.'' , '''41'''  (1985)  pp. 121–123</TD></TR>
 
+
<TR><TD valign="top">[a2]</TD> <TD valign="top">  J. Bertel,  "Mots sans carré et morphismes itérés" ''Discrete Math.'' , '''29'''  (1979)  pp. 235–244</TD></TR>
The D<img align="absmiddle" border="0" src="https://www.encyclopediaofmath.org/legacyimages/d/d120/d120010/d12001058.png" />L-sequence equivalence problem asks whether or not two morphism <img align="absmiddle" border="0" src="https://www.encyclopediaofmath.org/legacyimages/d/d120/d120010/d12001059.png" /> and <img align="absmiddle" border="0" src="https://www.encyclopediaofmath.org/legacyimages/d/d120/d120010/d12001060.png" /> agree on a D<img align="absmiddle" border="0" src="https://www.encyclopediaofmath.org/legacyimages/d/d120/d120010/d12001061.png" />L-language defined by one of the morphisms, that is, whether or not <img align="absmiddle" border="0" src="https://www.encyclopediaofmath.org/legacyimages/d/d120/d120010/d12001062.png" /> for all <img align="absmiddle" border="0" src="https://www.encyclopediaofmath.org/legacyimages/d/d120/d120010/d12001063.png" /> in <img align="absmiddle" border="0" src="https://www.encyclopediaofmath.org/legacyimages/d/d120/d120010/d12001064.png" />. This has motivated the consideration of so-called equality languages of two morphisms <img align="absmiddle" border="0" src="https://www.encyclopediaofmath.org/legacyimages/d/d120/d120010/d12001065.png" />:
+
<TR><TD valign="top">[a3]</TD> <TD valign="top">  K. Culik II,  "A purely homomorphic characterization of recursively enumerable sets" ''J. Assoc. Comput. Mach.'' , '''26'''  (1979)  pp. 345–350</TD></TR>
 
+
<TR><TD valign="top">[a4]</TD> <TD valign="top">  K. Culik II,  I. Fris,  "The decidability of the equivalence problem for D0L-systems" ''Inform. Control'' , '''35'''  (1977)  pp. 20–39</TD></TR>
<table class="eq" style="width:100%;"> <tr><td valign="top" style="width:94%;text-align:center;"><img align="absmiddle" border="0" src="https://www.encyclopediaofmath.org/legacyimages/d/d120/d120010/d12001066.png" /></td> </tr></table>
+
<TR><TD valign="top">[a5]</TD> <TD valign="top">  K. Culik II,  J. Kari,  "On the power of L-systems in image generation"  G. Rozenberg (ed.)  A. Salomaa (ed.) , ''Developments in Language Theory'' , World Sci. (1994)  pp. 225–236</TD></TR>
 
+
<TR><TD valign="top">[a6]</TD> <TD valign="top">  K. Culik II,  J. Karhumäki,  "Systems of equations over a free monoid and Ehrenfeucht's Conjecture" ''Discrete Math.'' , '''43'''  (1983)  pp. 139–153</TD></TR>
Research on equality languages revealed amazing morphic characterizations of recursively enumerable languages, see [[#References|[a3]]], [[#References|[a8]]] and [[#References|[a14]]]. For example, each recursively enumerable language (cf. also [[Formal languages and automata|Formal languages and automata]]) can be expressed in the form <img align="absmiddle" border="0" src="https://www.encyclopediaofmath.org/legacyimages/d/d120/d120010/d12001067.png" />, where <img align="absmiddle" border="0" src="https://www.encyclopediaofmath.org/legacyimages/d/d120/d120010/d12001068.png" /> and <img align="absmiddle" border="0" src="https://www.encyclopediaofmath.org/legacyimages/d/d120/d120010/d12001069.png" /> are morphisms and <img align="absmiddle" border="0" src="https://www.encyclopediaofmath.org/legacyimages/d/d120/d120010/d12001070.png" /> is a regular language (cf. also [[Grammar, regular|Grammar, regular]]). Furthermore, the fundamental [[Post correspondence problem|Post correspondence problem]] can be formulated as a problem of deciding whether or not <img align="absmiddle" border="0" src="https://www.encyclopediaofmath.org/legacyimages/d/d120/d120010/d12001071.png" />, where <img align="absmiddle" border="0" src="https://www.encyclopediaofmath.org/legacyimages/d/d120/d120010/d12001072.png" /> denotes the unit of the free monoid <img align="absmiddle" border="0" src="https://www.encyclopediaofmath.org/legacyimages/d/d120/d120010/d12001073.png" />.
+
<TR><TD valign="top">[a7]</TD> <TD valign="top"> A. Ehrenfeucht,  G. Rozenberg,  "Elementary homomorphisms and a solution to D$0$L-sequence equivalence problem" ''Theoret. Comput. Sci.'' , '''7'''  (1978)  pp. 169–183</TD></TR>
 
+
<TR><TD valign="top">[a8]</TD> <TD valign="top"> J. Engelfriet,  G. Rozenberg,  "Fixed point languages, equality languages, and representation of recursively enumerable languages"  ''J. Assoc. Comput. Mach.'' , '''27'''  (1980)  pp. 499–518</TD></TR>
A third, and apparently the most fundamental, consequence of research on D<img align="absmiddle" border="0" src="https://www.encyclopediaofmath.org/legacyimages/d/d120/d120010/d12001074.png" />L-systems was a discovery of a compactness property of free semi-groups: Each system of equations over a free monoid containing a finite number of variables is equivalent to some of its finite subsystems (cf. also [[Free semi-group|Free semi-group]]). This property (often referred to as the Ehrenfeucht conjecture) was conjectured by A. Ehrenfeucht in the early 1970s (in a slightly different form) and later established in [[#References|[a1]]] and [[#References|[a9]]].
+
<TR><TD valign="top">[a9]</TD> <TD valign="top">  V.S. Guba,  "The equivalence of infinite systems of equations in free groups and semigroups with finite subsystems" ''Mat. Zametki'' , '''40'''  (1986)  pp. 321–324  (In Russian)</TD></TR>
 
+
<TR><TD valign="top">[a10]</TD> <TD valign="top">  J. Karhumäki,  "On the equivalence problem for binary D0L systems" ''Inform. Control'' , '''50'''  (1981)  pp. 276–284</TD></TR>
Finally, it is worth mentioning that besides their mathematical inspiration, D<img align="absmiddle" border="0" src="https://www.encyclopediaofmath.org/legacyimages/d/d120/d120010/d12001075.png" />L-sequences have turned out to be useful in areas such as computer graphics and simulation of biological developments, see [[#References|[a5]]] and [[#References|[a12]]].
+
<TR><TD valign="top">[a11]</TD> <TD valign="top">  J. Karhumäki,  "The impact of the D$0$L-problem" G. Rozenberg (ed.)  A. Salomaa (ed.) , ''Current Trends in Theoretical Computer Science. Essays and Tutorials'' , World Sci. (1993)  pp. 586–594</TD></TR>
 +
<TR><TD valign="top">[a12]</TD> <TD valign="top">  P. Prusinkiewicz,  M. Hammel,  J. Hanan,  R. Měch,  "Visual models of plant development" G. Rozenberg (ed.)  A. Salomaa (ed.) , ''Handbook of Formal Languages'' , '''III''' , Springer  (1997) pp. 535–597</TD></TR>
 +
<TR><TD valign="top">[a13]</TD> <TD valign="top">  G. Rozenberg,  A. Salomaa,  "The mathematical theory of $L$-systems" , Acad. Press  (1980)</TD></TR>
 +
<TR><TD valign="top">[a14]</TD> <TD valign="top">  A. Salomaa,  "Equality sets for homomorphisms of free monoids" ''Acta Cybernetica'' , '''4'''  (1978)  pp. 127–139</TD></TR>
 +
<TR><TD valign="top">[a15]</TD> <TD valign="top">  A. Salomaa,  M. Soittola,  "Automata-theoretic aspects of formal power series" , Springer  (1978)</TD></TR>
 +
<TR><TD valign="top">[a16]</TD> <TD valign="top">  A. Thue,  "Über unendliche Zeichereichen" ''Kra. Vidensk. Selsk. Skr. I. Mat.-Nat. Kl.'' , '''7'''  (1906)</TD></TR>
 +
</table>
  
====References====
+
{{TEX|done}}
<table><TR><TD valign="top">[a1]</TD> <TD valign="top">  M. Albert,  J. Lawrence,  "A proof of Ehrenfeucht's conjecture"  ''Theoret. Comput. Sci.'' , '''41'''  (1985)  pp. 121–123</TD></TR><TR><TD valign="top">[a2]</TD> <TD valign="top">  J. Bertel,  "Mots sans carré et morphismes itérés"  ''Discrete Math.'' , '''29'''  (1979)  pp. 235–244</TD></TR><TR><TD valign="top">[a3]</TD> <TD valign="top">  K. Culik II,  "A purely homomorphic characterization of recursively enumerable sets"  ''J. Assoc. Comput. Mach.'' , '''26'''  (1979)  pp. 345–350</TD></TR><TR><TD valign="top">[a4]</TD> <TD valign="top">  K. Culik II,  I. Fris,  "The decidability of the equivalence problem for D0L-systems"  ''Inform. Control'' , '''35'''  (1977)  pp. 20–39</TD></TR><TR><TD valign="top">[a5]</TD> <TD valign="top">  K. Culik II,  J. Kari,  "On the power of <img align="absmiddle" border="0" src="https://www.encyclopediaofmath.org/legacyimages/d/d120/d120010/d12001076.png" />-systems in image generation"  G. Rozenberg (ed.)  A. Salomaa (ed.) , ''Developments in Language Theory'' , World Sci.  (1994)  pp. 225–236</TD></TR><TR><TD valign="top">[a6]</TD> <TD valign="top">  K. Culik II,  J. Karhumäki,  "Systems of equations over a free monoid and Ehrenfeucht's Conjecture"  ''Discrete Math.'' , '''43'''  (1983)  pp. 139–153</TD></TR><TR><TD valign="top">[a7]</TD> <TD valign="top">  A. Ehrenfeucht,  G. Rozenberg,  "Elementary homomorphisms and a solution to D<img align="absmiddle" border="0" src="https://www.encyclopediaofmath.org/legacyimages/d/d120/d120010/d12001077.png" />L-sequence equivalence problem"  ''Theoret. Comput. Sci.'' , '''7'''  (1978)  pp. 169–183</TD></TR><TR><TD valign="top">[a8]</TD> <TD valign="top">  J. Engelfriet,  G. Rozenberg,  "Fixed point languages, equality languages, and representation of recursively enumerable languages"  ''J. Assoc. Comput. Mach.'' , '''27'''  (1980)  pp. 499–518</TD></TR><TR><TD valign="top">[a9]</TD> <TD valign="top">  V.S. Guba,  "The equivalence of infinite systems of equations in free groups and semigroups with finite subsystems"  ''Mat. Zametki'' , '''40'''  (1986)  pp. 321–324  (In Russian)</TD></TR><TR><TD valign="top">[a10]</TD> <TD valign="top">  J. Karhumäki,  "On the equivalence problem for binary D0L systems"  ''Inform. Control'' , '''50'''  (1981)  pp. 276–284</TD></TR><TR><TD valign="top">[a11]</TD> <TD valign="top">  J. Karhumäki,  "The impact of the D<img align="absmiddle" border="0" src="https://www.encyclopediaofmath.org/legacyimages/d/d120/d120010/d12001078.png" />L-problem"  G. Rozenberg (ed.)  A. Salomaa (ed.) , ''Current Trends in Theoretical Computer Science. Essays and Tutorials'' , World Sci.  (1993)  pp. 586–594</TD></TR><TR><TD valign="top">[a12]</TD> <TD valign="top">  P. Prusinkiewicz,  M. Hammel,  J. Hanan,  R. Měch,  "Visual models of plant development"  G. Rozenberg (ed.)  A. Salomaa (ed.) , ''Handbook of Formal Languages'' , '''III''' , Springer  (1997)  pp. 535–597</TD></TR><TR><TD valign="top">[a13]</TD> <TD valign="top">  G. Rozenberg,  A. Salomaa,  "The mathematical theory of <img align="absmiddle" border="0" src="https://www.encyclopediaofmath.org/legacyimages/d/d120/d120010/d12001079.png" /> systems" , Acad. Press  (1980)</TD></TR><TR><TD valign="top">[a14]</TD> <TD valign="top">  A. Salomaa,  "Equality sets for homomorphisms of free monoids"  ''Acta Cybernetica'' , '''4'''  (1978)  pp. 127–139</TD></TR><TR><TD valign="top">[a15]</TD> <TD valign="top">  A. Salomaa,  M. Soittola,  "Automata-theoretic aspects of formal power series" , Springer  (1978)</TD></TR><TR><TD valign="top">[a16]</TD> <TD valign="top">  A. Thue,  "Über unendliche Zeichereichen"  ''Kra. Vidensk. Selsk. Skr. I. Mat.-Nat. Kl.'' , '''7'''  (1906)</TD></TR></table>
 

Latest revision as of 11:21, 26 March 2023

$L$-systems were introduced by A. Lindenmayer in the late 1960s to model (in discrete time) the development of filamentous organisms. A fundamental feature of these systems is that in each step each cell (represented by a symbol from a finite alphabet) has to be rewritten according to the developmental rules of the organism. This parallelism is the main difference between $L$-systems and the classical Chomsky grammars (cf. also Grammar, generative). In fact, soon after their introduction, $L$-systems constituted a significant part of formal language theory, allowing one to compare parallel rewriting to a more classical sequential one, see [a13].

The simplest $L$-system is a so-called D$0$L-system, where the development starts from a single word and continues deterministically step by step in a context independent way, that is, the development of a symbol depends only on that symbol. (Here, "D" stands for determinism, $0$ for zero-sided interaction and "L" for Lindenmayer.) Formally, a D$0$L-system is a triple $\mathcal{G} = (\Sigma,h,w)$, where $\Sigma$ is a finite alphabet, $h$ is an endomorphism of the free monoid generated by $\Sigma$, in symbols $\Sigma^*$, and $w$ is a starting word. The system $\mathcal{G}$ defines the D$0$L-sequence $$ S(\mathcal{G})\ : \ w,\,h(w),\,h^2(w),\,\ldots $$ the D$0$L-growth sequence $$ GS(\mathcal{G})\ : \ |w|,\,|h(w)|,\,|h^2(w)|,\,\ldots $$ where $| \cdot |$ denotes the length of a word, and the D$0$L-language $$ L(\mathcal{G}) = \{ h^i(w) : i \ge 0 \} \ . $$

It is not only the mathematical simplicity of the definitions, but rather the challenging mathematical problems connected with these notions, in particular with D$0$L-sequences, which made D$0$L-systems mathematically very fruitful. The most famous problem is the D$0$L-sequence equivalence problem, which asks for an algorithm to decide whether or not two D$0$L-sequences coincide. The impact of this nice problem is discussed in [a11].

D$0$L-languages emphasize a static nature of the systems and are more related to classical formal language theory. D$0$L-growth sequences, in turn, are closely connected to the theory of $\mathbf{N}$-rational formal power series, and in fact allow one to reformulate certain classical problems, such as the algorithmic problem on the existence of a zero in a sequence defined by a linear recurrence, see [a15]. Finally, D$0$L-sequences represent a dynamical feature of the systems. Moreover, such sequences are defined in a very simple and natural way: by iterating a morphism.

The D$0$L-sequence equivalence problem was first shown to be algorithmically decidable in [a4] (cf. also Proof theory). A simpler solution was found in [a7], and finally a third completely different solution can be based on the validity of the Ehrenfeucht conjecture and Makanin's algorithm for the solvability of word equations over free monoids, as shown in [a6]. It is interesting to note that only the third solution extends to a multi-dimensional variant of the D$0$L-problem, the so-called DT$0$L-sequence equivalence problem. In the latter problem, the word sequences of (a1) are replaced by $k$-ary trees obtained by iterating $k$ different morphisms in all possible ways.

Despite the above solutions, an intriguing feature of the D$0$L-sequence equivalence problem remains. Indeed, none of the above solutions is practical. However, it has been conjectured that only the $2.\mathrm{card}(\Sigma)$ first elements of the sequences have to be compared in order to decide the equivalence. This $2n$-conjecture is known to hold when $\Sigma$ is binary, see [a10], but no reasonable (even exponential) bound is known (1998) in the general case.

As already hinted at, the major mathematical importance of D$0$L-systems lies in the fact that they (in particular, the research on the D$0$L-sequence equivalence problem) motivated a large amount of fundamental research on morphisms of free monoids. Below a few such examples are given.

Consider a morphism $h : \Sigma^* \rightarrow \Sigma^*$ satisfying $h(a) = au$ for some $a \in \Sigma$ and $u \in \Sigma^{+}$. If $h$ is non-erasing, i.e. $h(b) \neq 1$ for all $b \in \Sigma$, then there exists a unique infinite morphic word $$ w_h = \lim_{i \rightarrow \infty} h^i(a) \ . $$

Consequently, D$0$L-sequences can be used in a very natural way to define infinite words. Implicitly, A. Thue used this approach at the beginning of the 20th century in his seminal work on square-free and cube-free infinite words over a finite alphabet, see [a16]. Since the early 1980s, such a research on non-repetitive words, revitalized by [a2], has been a central topic in the combinatorics of words. Almost exclusively non-repetitive words are constructed by the above method of iterating a morphism.

The D$0$L-sequence equivalence problem asks whether or not two morphisms $f$ and $g$ agree on a D$0$L-language defined by one of the morphisms, that is, whether or not $f(x) = g(x)$ for all $x$ in $\{ h^i(a) : i \ge 0 \}$. This has motivated the consideration of so-called equality languages of two morphisms $f,g : \Sigma^* \rightarrow \Delta^*$: $$ E(f,g) = \{ x \in \Sigma^* : f(x) = g(x) \} \ . $$

Research on equality languages revealed amazing morphic characterizations of recursively enumerable languages, see [a3], [a8] and [a14]. For example, each recursively enumerable language (cf. also Formal languages and automata) can be expressed in the form $L = \pi(E(f,g) \cap R)$, where $\pi$, $f$ and $g$ are morphisms and $R$ is a regular language (cf. also Grammar, regular). Furthermore, the fundamental Post correspondence problem can be formulated as a problem of deciding whether or not $E(f,g) = \{1\}$, where $1$ denotes the unit of the free monoid $\Sigma^*$.

A third, and apparently the most fundamental, consequence of research on D$0$L-systems was a discovery of a compactness property of free semi-groups: Each system of equations over a free monoid containing a finite number of variables is equivalent to some of its finite subsystems (cf. also Free semi-group). This property (often referred to as the Ehrenfeucht conjecture) was conjectured by A. Ehrenfeucht in the early 1970s (in a slightly different form) and later established in [a1] and [a9].

Finally, it is worth mentioning that besides their mathematical inspiration, D$0$L-sequences have turned out to be useful in areas such as computer graphics and simulation of biological developments, see [a5] and [a12].

References

[a1] M. Albert, J. Lawrence, "A proof of Ehrenfeucht's conjecture" Theoret. Comput. Sci. , 41 (1985) pp. 121–123
[a2] J. Bertel, "Mots sans carré et morphismes itérés" Discrete Math. , 29 (1979) pp. 235–244
[a3] K. Culik II, "A purely homomorphic characterization of recursively enumerable sets" J. Assoc. Comput. Mach. , 26 (1979) pp. 345–350
[a4] K. Culik II, I. Fris, "The decidability of the equivalence problem for D0L-systems" Inform. Control , 35 (1977) pp. 20–39
[a5] K. Culik II, J. Kari, "On the power of L-systems in image generation" G. Rozenberg (ed.) A. Salomaa (ed.) , Developments in Language Theory , World Sci. (1994) pp. 225–236
[a6] K. Culik II, J. Karhumäki, "Systems of equations over a free monoid and Ehrenfeucht's Conjecture" Discrete Math. , 43 (1983) pp. 139–153
[a7] A. Ehrenfeucht, G. Rozenberg, "Elementary homomorphisms and a solution to D$0$L-sequence equivalence problem" Theoret. Comput. Sci. , 7 (1978) pp. 169–183
[a8] J. Engelfriet, G. Rozenberg, "Fixed point languages, equality languages, and representation of recursively enumerable languages" J. Assoc. Comput. Mach. , 27 (1980) pp. 499–518
[a9] V.S. Guba, "The equivalence of infinite systems of equations in free groups and semigroups with finite subsystems" Mat. Zametki , 40 (1986) pp. 321–324 (In Russian)
[a10] J. Karhumäki, "On the equivalence problem for binary D0L systems" Inform. Control , 50 (1981) pp. 276–284
[a11] J. Karhumäki, "The impact of the D$0$L-problem" G. Rozenberg (ed.) A. Salomaa (ed.) , Current Trends in Theoretical Computer Science. Essays and Tutorials , World Sci. (1993) pp. 586–594
[a12] P. Prusinkiewicz, M. Hammel, J. Hanan, R. Měch, "Visual models of plant development" G. Rozenberg (ed.) A. Salomaa (ed.) , Handbook of Formal Languages , III , Springer (1997) pp. 535–597
[a13] G. Rozenberg, A. Salomaa, "The mathematical theory of $L$-systems" , Acad. Press (1980)
[a14] A. Salomaa, "Equality sets for homomorphisms of free monoids" Acta Cybernetica , 4 (1978) pp. 127–139
[a15] A. Salomaa, M. Soittola, "Automata-theoretic aspects of formal power series" , Springer (1978)
[a16] A. Thue, "Über unendliche Zeichereichen" Kra. Vidensk. Selsk. Skr. I. Mat.-Nat. Kl. , 7 (1906)
How to Cite This Entry:
D0L-sequence. Encyclopedia of Mathematics. URL: http://encyclopediaofmath.org/index.php?title=D0L-sequence&oldid=15356
This article was adapted from an original article by J. Karhumäki (originator), which appeared in Encyclopedia of Mathematics - ISBN 1402006098. See original article