Solving the parity problem in one-dimensional cellular automata
The parity problem is a well-known benchmark task in various areas of computer science. Here we consider its version for one-dimensional, binary cellular automata, with periodic boundary conditions: if the initial configuration contains an odd number of 1s, the lattice should converge to all 1s; otherwise, it should converge to all 0s. Since the problem is ill-defined for even-sized lattices (which, by definition, would never be able to converge to 1), it suffices to account for odd-sized lattices only. We are interested in determining the minimal neighbourhood size that allows the problem to be solvable for any arbitrary initial configuration. On the one hand, we show that radius 2 is not sufficient, proving that there exists no radius 2 rule that can solve the parity problem, even in the simpler case of prime-sized lattices. On the other hand, we design a radius 4 rule that converges correctly for any initial configuration and formally prove its correctness. Whether or not there exists a radius 3 rule that solves the parity problem remains an open problem; however, we review recent data against a solution in radius 3, thus providing strong empirical evidence that there may not exist a radius 3 solution even for prime-sized lattices only, contrary to a recent conjecture in the literature.
KeywordsElementary cellular automata Emergent computation Parity problem Density classification De Bruijn graphs
This work came out of a sabbatical period of P. P.B. de Oliveira at the University of Ottawa, thanks to a grant provided by MackPesquisa – Fundo Mackenzie de Pesquisa, and also benefitted from travel grant 2012/15804-5 provided to him by FAPESP – Fundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado de São Paulo. This work was also supported in part by the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada (Discovery Grant) and by Dr. Flocchini’s University Research Chair.
- Angluin D (1980) Local and global properties in networks of processors. In: Proceedings of the 28th Symposium on Theoretical Aspects of Computer Science (STACS), p 82–93Google Scholar
- Boccara N, Cheong K (1993) Automata network epidemic models. In Boccara N et al. (eds) Cellular automata and cooperative systems, vol. 396, Kluwer Academic, Dordrecht, p 29–44. Google Scholar
- Chaudhuri P, Chowdhury D, S SN, Chattopadhyay S (1997) Additive cellular automata: Theory and applications, vol. 1. IEEE Computer Society Press, Los AlamitosGoogle Scholar
- Fatès, N (2011) Stochastic cellular automata solve the density classification problem with an arbitrary precision. In: Proceedings of the 28th Symposium on Theoretical Aspects of Computer Science (STACS), p 284–295Google Scholar
- Griffeath D, Moore C (eds) (2003) New constructions in cellular automata, (Santa Fe institute Sstudies on the sciences of complexity). Oxford University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
- Haykin S (2008) Neural networks and learning machines. 3rd edn. Prentice Hall, Englewood CliffsGoogle Scholar
- Hopcroft J, Motwani R, Ullman J (2006) Introduction to Automata Theory, Languages, and Computation. 3rd edn. Addison-Wesley, ReadingGoogle Scholar
- Langton CG (1986) Studying artificial life with cellular automata. In: Evolution, Games, and Learning. North HollandGoogle Scholar
- Lee K, Xu H, Chau H (2001) Parity problem with a cellular automaton solution. Phys Rev E 64(2):026,702/1–026,702/4Google Scholar
- Lenzen C, Oswald Y, Wattenhofer R (2008) What can be approximated locally?: case study: dominating sets in planar graphs. In: Proc. 20th Annual ACM Symposium on Parallelism in Algorithms and Architectures (SPAA), p 46–54Google Scholar
- Peleg D (2000) Distributed computing: a locality-sensitive approach. SIAM Monographs on discrete mathematics and applicationsGoogle Scholar
- Voorhees B (2009) Additive cellular automata. In: Meyers R (ed.) Encyclopedia of Complexity and Systems Science. Elsevier, New York, p 101, 17Google Scholar