Advertisement

Natural Computing

, Volume 9, Issue 1, pp 135–172 | Cite as

Self-assembly of discrete self-similar fractals

  • Matthew J. Patitz
  • Scott M. Summers
Article

Abstract

In this paper, we search for theoretical limitations of the Tile Assembly Model (TAM), along with techniques to work around such limitations. Specifically, we investigate the self-assembly of fractal shapes in the TAM. We prove that no self-similar fractal weakly self-assembles at temperature 1 in a locally deterministic tile assembly system, and that certain kinds of discrete self-similar fractals do not strictly self-assemble at any temperature. Additionally, we extend the fiber construction of Lathrop et al. (2009) to show that any discrete self-similar fractal belonging to a particular class of “nice” discrete self-similar fractals has a fibered version that strictly self-assembles in the TAM.

Keywords

Self-assembly Self-similar fractal Local determinism Tile Assembly Model 

Notes

Acknowledgments

We thank David Doty, Jim Lathrop, Jack Lutz, and Aaron Sterling for useful discussions. We would especially like to thank an anonymous reviewer whose detailed comments have substantially improved the final version of this paper.

References

  1. Adleman LM, Cheng Q, Goel A, Huang M-D, Kempe D, de Espanés PM, Rothemund PWK (2002) Combinatorial optimization problems in self-assembly. In: Proceedings of the thirty-fourth annual ACM symposium on theory of computing, pp 23–32Google Scholar
  2. Adleman LM, Kari J, Kari L, Reishus D (2002) On the decidability of self-assembly of infinite ribbons. In: Proceedings of the 43rd annual IEEE symposium on foundations of computer science, pp 530–537Google Scholar
  3. Aggarwal G, Goldwasser MH, Kau M-Y, Schweller RT (2004) Complexities for generalized models of self-assembly. In: Proceedings of ACM-SIAM symposium on discrete algorithmsGoogle Scholar
  4. Doty D, Gu X, Lutz JH, Mayordomo E, Moser P (2005) Zeta-dimension. In: Proceedings of the thirtieth international symposium on mathematical foundations of computer science, Springer-Verlag, NY, pp 283–294Google Scholar
  5. Graham RL, Knuth DE, Patashnik O (1994) Concrete mathematics. Addison-Wesley, ReadingGoogle Scholar
  6. Kao M-Y, Schweller RT (2007) Reducing tile complexity for self-assembly through temperature programming. In: Proceedings of the 17th annual ACM-SIAM symposium on discrete algorithms (SODA 2006), Miami, Florida, Jan 2006, pp 571–580Google Scholar
  7. Kao M-Y, Schweller RT (2008) Randomized self-assembly for approximate shapes, International Colloqium on Automata, Languages, and Programming (ICALP) In: Aceto L, Damgård I, Goldberg LA, Halldórsson MM, Ingólfsdóttir A, Walukiewicz I (eds) Lecture notes in computer science, vol 5125. Springer, Berlin, pp 370–384Google Scholar
  8. Kautz SM, Lathrop JI (2009) Self-assembly of the Sierpinski carpet and related fractals. In: Proceedings of the fifteenth international meeting on DNA computing and molecular programming, Fayetteville, Arkansas, USA, 8–11 June 2009 (to appear)Google Scholar
  9. Lathrop JI, Lutz JH, Patitz Matthew J, Summers SM (2008) Computability and complexity in self-assembly. In: Proceedings of the fourth conference on computability in Europe Athens, Greece, 15–20 June 2008Google Scholar
  10. Lathrop JI, Lutz JH, Summers SM (2009) Strict self-assembly of discrete Sierpinski triangles. Theor Comp Sci 410:384–405MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  11. Majumder U, LaBean TH, and Reif JH (2007) Activatable tiles for compact error-resilient directional assembly. In: Thirteenth international meeting on DNA computing (DNA 13), Memphis, Tennessee, 4–8 June 2007Google Scholar
  12. Rothemund PWK (2001) Theory and experiments in algorithmic self-assembly. Ph.D. thesis, University of Southern California, DecemberGoogle Scholar
  13. Rothemund PWK, Winfree E (2000) The program-size complexity of self-assembled squares (extended abstract), STOC ’00. In: Proceedings of the thirty-second annual ACM symposium on theory of computing, New York, USA, ACM, pp 459–468Google Scholar
  14. Seeman NC (1982) Nucleic-acid junctions and lattices. J Theor Biol 99:237–247CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Soloveichik D, Winfree E (2007) Complexity of self-assembled shapes. SIAM J Comp 36(6):1544–1569MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  16. Wang H (1961) Proving theorems by pattern recognition—II. Bell Syst Tech J XL(1):1–41Google Scholar
  17. Wang H (1963) Dominoes and the AEA case of the decision problem. In: Proceedings of the symposium on mathematical theory of automata, New York, 1962, Polytechnic Press of Polytechnic Institute of Brooklyn, Brooklyn, NY, pp 23–55Google Scholar
  18. Winfree E (1998) Algorithmic self-assembly of DNA. Ph.D. thesis, California Institute of Technology, JuneGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Computer ScienceIowa State UniversityAmesUSA

Personalised recommendations