arxiv: v2 [cs.cc] 10 Apr 2013

Transcription

1 Intrinsic universality in tile self-assembly requires cooperation arxiv: v2 [cs.cc] 10 Apr 2013 Pierre-Etienne Meunier Mattew J. Patitz cott M. ummers Guillaume eyssier Andrew Winslow Damien Woods Abstract We prove a negative result on te power of a model of algoritmic self-assembly for wic it as been notoriously difficult to find general tecniques and results. pecifically, we prove tat Winfree s abstract ile Assembly Model, wen restricted to use noncooperative tile binding, is not intrinsically universal. is stands in stark contrast to te recent result tat, via cooperative binding, te abstract ile Assembly Model is indeed intrinsically universal. Noncooperative self-assembly, also known as temperature 1, is were tiles bind to eac oter if tey matc on one or more sides, wereas cooperative binding requires binding on multiple sides. Our result sows tat te cange from single- to multi-sided binding qualitatively improves te kinds of dynamics and beavior tat tese models of nanoscale self-assembly are capable of. Our lower bound on simulation power olds in bot two and tree dimensions; te latter being quite surprising given tat tree-dimensional noncooperative tile assembly systems simulate uring macines. On te positive side, we exibit a tree-dimensional noncooperative self-assembly tile set capable of simulating any two-dimensional noncooperative self-assembly system. Our negative result can be interpreted to mean tat uring universal algoritmic beavior in self-assembly does not imply te ability to simulate arbitrary algoritmic self-assembly processes. LAMA, Université de avoie. pierreetienne.meunier@univ-savoie.fr. Department of Computer cience and Computer Engineering, University of Arkansas, patitz@uark.edu upported in part by National cience Foundation Grant CCF Department of Computer cience and oftware Engineering, University of Wisconsin Platteville, Platteville, WI 53818, UA. summerss@uwplatt.edu. LAMA, CNR and Université de avoie, guillaume.teyssier@univ-savoie.fr upported in part by grant Agence Nationale de la Recerce ANR-09-BLAN-0164 Department of Computer cience, ufts University, awinslow@cs.tufts.edu. upported in part by National cience Foundation grants CCF and CBE Computer cience, California Institute of ecnology, woods@caltec.edu. upported by National cience Foundation grants (e Molecular Programming Project), CCF , and CCF

2 1 Introduction elf-assembly is te process troug wic unorganized, simple, components automatically coalesce according to simple local rules to form some kind of target structure. It sounds simple, but te end result can be extraordinary. For example, researcers ave been able to self-assemble a wide variety of structures experimentally at te nanoscale, suc as regular arrays [47], fractal structures [21, 39], smiling faces [38, 44], DNA tweezers [48], logic circuits [34, 40], neural networks [35], and molecular robots [27]. ese examples are fundamental because tey demonstrate tat self-assembly can, in principle, be used to manufacture specialized geometrical, mecanical and computational objects at te nanoscale. Potential future applications of nanoscale self-assembly include te production of smaller, more efficient microprocessors and medical tecnologies tat are capable of diagnosing and even treating disease at te cellular level. Controlling nanoscale self-assembly for te purposes of manufacturing atomically precise components will require a bottom-up, ands-off strategy. In oter words, te self-assembling units temselves will ave to be programmed to direct temselves to do te rigt ting efficiently and correctly. Molecular self-assembly is rapidly becoming a ubiquitous engineering paradigm, and we need to develop a teory to inform us of its algoritmic capabilities and ultimate limitations. In 1998, Erik Winfree [45] introduced te abstract ile Assembly Model (aam), an over-simplified discrete matematical model of algoritmic DNA nanoscale self-assembly pioneered by eeman [41]. e aam is an asyncronous nondeterministic cellular automaton, tat models crystal growt processes. Put anoter way, te aam essentially augments classical Wang tiling [43] wit a mecanism for sequential growt of a tiling (in Wang tiling, only te existence of a valid, mismatc-free tiling is considered and not te order of tile placement). In te aam, te fundamental components are un-rotatable, but translatable square or cube tile types wose sides are labeled wit glue colors and integer strengts. wo tiles tat are placed next to eac oter interact if te glue colors on teir abutting sides matc, and tey bind if te strengts on teir abutting sides matc and sum to at least a certain (integer) temperature. elf-assembly starts from a seed tile type and proceeds nondeterministically and asyncronously as tiles bind to te seed-containing-assembly. Despite its deliberate over-simplification, te aam is a computationally expressive model. For example, by using cooperative binding (tat is, binding of tiles on two or more sides), Winfree [45] proved tat it is uring universal, wic implies tat self-assembly can be directed by a computer program. Here, we study noncooperative binding. ile self-assembly in wic tiles may be placed in a noncooperative fasion is colloquially referred to as temperature-1 self-assembly. Despite te 2

3 esoteric name, tis is a fundamental and ubiquitous form of growt: it refers to growt from growing and brancing tips in Euclidian space were eac new tile is added if it can matc on at least one side. It as been known for some time tat a more general form of growt were some of te tiles must matc on two or more sides, i.e. cooperative growt, leads to igly non-trivial beavior: arbitrary uring macine simulation [25, 37], efficient production of n n squares and oter simple sapes using Θ(log n/ log log n) tile types [1], efficient production of arbitrary finite connected sapes using a number of tile types tat is witin a log factor of te Kolmogorov complexity of te sape [42], and even intrinsic universality: te existence of a single tile set tat simulates arbitrary tile assembly systems [17]. Until now, it was not known weter or not two-dimensional noncooperative binding as tese capabilities witout possibility of error, altoug in all cases te answer as been conjectured to be negative [11, 12, 20, 28, 32, 37]. Our main result is suc a negative result. imply put, tere is no noncooperative tile set tat simulates all oter tile assembly systems. e topic of intrinsic universality, wit its tigt notion of simulation, as given rise to a ric teory in te field of cellular automata [5,13,14,30], and indeed as also been studied in Wang tiling [22 24] and tile self-assembly [16 18]. Recently, te aam as been sown to be intrinsically universal [17], meaning tat tere is a single set of tiles U tat works at temperature 2, and wen appropriately initialized, is capable of simulating te beavior of an arbitrary aam tile assembly system. Modulo rescaling, tis single tile set U represents te full power and expressivity of te entire aam model, at any temperature. Indeed, Demaine et al [15] apply tis to sow tat tere is a single (rotatable, translatable) polygonal tile tat can simulate any tile assembly system or Wang plane tiling system. e restricted locally consistent aam also exibits intrinsic universality [18]. More recently, it as been sown tat te two-anded model of self-assembly (were large assemblies of tiles may come togeter in a single step) is not intrinsically universal [16]. However, te same paper sows tat for eac temperature τ {2, 3, 4,...} tere is a tileset tat is intrinsically universal for te class of two-anded systems tat work at temperature τ [16], and tat tere is an infinite ierarcy of classes of systems wit eac level strictly more powerful tan te one below. As as been done for cellular automata, intrinsic universality in self-assembly, wit its well-defined and powerful notion of simulation, is becoming a new tool by wic we can tease apart te computational power of self-assembly systems. 1.1 Results We give an overview of our results, altoug a number of terms ave not yet been formally defined. For definitions, see ection 2. Our main result states tat in te standard noncooperative model (i.e. temperature-1 aam in 2D) tere is no intrinsically universal tile set. e proof is contained in ection 3. 3

4 eorem 1.1. ere is no tile set U suc tat U is intrinsically universal at temperature 1 for te class of all aam tile assembly systems. Our main result stands in stark contrast to te fact tat if we permit cooperative binding (tat is, temperature 2) ten tere is a universal tile set for te aam: eorem (Doty, Lutz, Patitz, cweller, ummers, Woods [17]). ere is a tile set U suc tat U is intrinsically universal at temperature 2 for te class of all aam tile assembly systems. is proves tat noncooperative systems can not simulate cooperative systems, and sows tat temperature 1 systems are provably weaker tan temperature 2 systems in terms of teir ability to simulate structure and dynamics. e same proof from ection 3 also works in 3D: eorem 1.2. ere is no 3D tile set U suc tat U is intrinsically universal at temperature 1 for te class of all aam tile assembly systems. e latter negative result is interesting in ow it stands in contrast to te known result tat 3D temperature 1 can indeed simulate arbitrary algoritms: eorem (Cook, Fu, cweller [12]). For eac uring macine M and input x tere exists a 3D temperature 1 tile assembly system M,x tat simulates te computation of M on x. o, te process of tile assembly can be simulated by a (uring macine) algoritm, and 3D temperature-1 can simulate arbitrary algoritms, yet 3D temperature-1 can not simulate self-assembly in a way tat preserves structure and dynamics. is result essentially says tat in a noncooperative growtbased setting, te ability to simulate arbitrary algoritms does not confer te ability to simulate arbitrary algoritmic tile-based growt dynamics Positive results Our negative results sould be contrasted wit our positive result, wic is proved in ection 4. We find tat 3D noncooperative tile assembly can in fact simulate 2D noncooperative tile assembly, in oter words, 3D temperature-1 simulates 2D temperature-1. eorem 1.3. ere is a 3D tile set U suc tat U is intrinsically universal at temperature 1 for te class of all 2D aam tile assembly systems. Finally, we conjecture te following: Conjecture 1.4. ere is no 2D tile set U suc tat U is intrinsically universal at temperature 1 for te class of all 2D aam temperature 1 tile assembly systems. 4

5 1.1.2 Oter results e proof of eorems 1.1 and 1.2, also olds for te restricted class of locally consistent aam systems [18]. In [18] it was sown tat tere is a locally consistent tile set tat is intrinsically universal at temperature 2 for all locally constant systems. Here we sow tat temperature 1 can not even simulate tis restricted class of systems (proof: te A sown to be un-simulatable at temperature 1 in te proof of eorem 1.1 is locally consistent): eorem 1.5. ere is no tile set U suc tat U is intrinsically universal at temperature 1 for te class of all locally consistent aam tile assembly systems. Intrinisic universality uses a strong notion of simulation were te simulator is a single tile set tat simulates all tile assembly systems from some class. A weaker form of simulation is were for eac tile assembly system from some class, tere exists a simulator tile assembly system (from anoter class), tat simulates (see, e.g., [2, 8, 15]). Our proof sows tat even tis weaker form of simulation of temperature-2 is impossible at temperature 1: eorem 1.6. ere is a 2D temperature-2 tile assembly system tat can not be simulated by any 2D, nor any 3D, temperature 1 tile assembly system. e proof of tis is te same as te proofs of eorem 1.2, and given in ection Key tecnical ideas and metods One of te main callenges wit proving negative results about 2D temperature 1 self-assembly comes from te intuition tat, altoug te assemblies produced at temperature-1 often look obviously simple (tey are a collection of simple pats, possibly wit repeating tile types), it seems extremely difficult to prove tis. is is because it is easy to overlook geometry and quickly become seduced into believing tat, as a result of te noncooperative nature of temperature-1 self-assembly, it must always be possible to indefinitely repeat (or pump ) sub-pats of tiles tat begin and end wit te same tile type. However, it is easy to construct an example of a 2D temperature-1 selfassembly system tat uniquely produces a final structure, wic contains at least one sub-pat tat begins and ends wit te same tile type but te subpat can not be pumped indefinitely because it gets blocked by previous portions of te pat. Could a long growt pat tat blocks itself, but brances just before doing so, simulate meaningful computation? urprisingly, bot te te 2D low-error, and 3D no-error, temperature-1 uring macine simulations 1 o see tat te same proof applies, note tat ection 3 defines a specific temperature 2 tile assembly system, and sows tat tere is no temperature-1 simulator for. 5

6 in [12] iterate exactly tis idea, over and over, along wit some clever geometric tricks. Our result ere sows tat neiter tis, nor any trick, will suffice to sow tat 2D nor 3D temperature-1 simulates aam tile self-assembly. o sow tis limitation on temperature-1, we first prove Lemma 3.3 tat gives a sufficient condition for taking any two assemblies, at any temperature 1, and splicing tem togeter to create a new valid assembly. is gives a kind of strong pumping lemma for self-assembly. is lemma generalizes eorem 3.1 of [3], wic was (a) proven for a more restrictive scenario were te assemblies are contained in long and tin rectangles, and (b) works only for pumping a positive number of times ours works for negative pumping (i.e. srinking/splicing out) also. Armed wit tis lemma, we ten give an example, very simple, temperature 2 tile assembly system tat uses cooperative binding (binding on 2 sides) in exactly one tile position, wit all oter bonds being noncooperative. We sow tat any claimed temperature-1 simulation of tis system must fail, and te place it fails is at te location were it sould simulate cooperative binding. Any claimed simulator tile set is free to coose to use arbitrary scaling and a complicated-looking seed assembly, and may ave a large (but constant) number of tile types; neverteless we can use our pumping lemma to splice out parts of te simulation and trick it into exposing its inability to simulate cooperation. e proof is given in ection 3: it works in bot 2D and 3D wic gives eorems 1.1 and 1.2. In te proof, since is locally consistent, we get also eorem 1.5, and since we exibited a specific tat can not be simulated we get eorem 1.6. In ection 4 we sow tat te 3D temperature-1 aam can indeed simulate te 2D temperature-1 aam. e construction makes extensive use of te fact tat in 3D, a closed curve does not necessarily partition te space into two parts. It repeatedly uses te tird dimension as a means of sidestepping te limitations of planarity, and for stepping up and over locations reserved for future growt, ten stepping down to place blocking tiles wic will later block specific pats, and ten returning to continue growt along a pat wic will eventually read tis geometric blocking information. imilar blocking was used by Cook, Fu, and cweller [12]. However, teir construction consists of one single non-blocked pat, wit many tiny blocked brances. Our construction simulates te multiple, often independent, pats of te simulated system by using many pats, eac of wic as many tiny brances tat all get blocked, except for one. is forces te construction to correctly andle a variety of timing issues related to te growt of te assembly, always ensuring tat any needed blocking tiles must be placed before te pat wic will read tem cane form, and also to correctly deal wit all possible situations were divergent pats (i.e. tose simulating te independent additions of separate tiles) may later converge on a location. is is dealt wit using a competition sceme similar to tat in [18] and [17]. 6

7 1.3 Prior work on noncooperative binding Many examples (referenced above) testify tat cooperative binding in tile selfassembly is sufficient for te self-assembly of computationally and geometrically interesting sapes and patterns. But is it necessary? In oter words, is cooperative binding more powerful tan noncooperative binding? Unfortunately and frustratingly, few general tecniques exist for proving lower bounds in 2D temperature-1 self-assembly. However, tere are some nice examples tat begin to expose its te limitations. For instance, Rotemund and Winfree [37] proved tat te number of unique tile types required to uniquely self-assemble a fully-connected n n square in 2D at temperature-1 is n 2 and conjectured tat, in general, 2n 1 unique tile types are necessary to uniquely self-assemble n n squares at temperature-1. Manuc et al. [28] proved tat te minimum number of unique tile types required to uniquely selfassemble an n n square in 2D, at temperature-1, wit no glue mismatces, is 2n 1. Note tat te latter result does not assume a fully-connected terminal structure, wereas te former does. Doty, Patitz and ummers [20] formalized a notion of pumpability in temperature-1 self-assembly: a 2D temperature-1 self-assembly system tat uniquely produces an infinite structure is pumpable, if for every sufficiently long pat of tiles, it is always possible to find at least one infinitely repeatable sub-pat of tiles along tis pat (altoug not every sub-pat tat begins and ends wit te same tile type may be infinitely repeatable). ey conjecture tat all 2D temperature- 1 tile systems tat uniquely produce some final structure are pumpable, and under te assumption of pumpbility tey prove tat te sape or pattern it produced is necessarily simple in te sense of Presburger aritmetic [33]. However, teir conjecture remains unproven. 1.4 Prior work on intrinsic universality Intrinsic universality uses a strict notion of simulation, were te simulator preserves te dynamics of te simulated system, modulo a constant-sized (block) rescaling. In particular, an intrinsically universal cellular automata is one were its space-time diagrams contain (via a representation function) tose of any simulated cellular automaton: were (in 1D) a single cell in te simulated automaton is represented by an m t block in te simulator. Despite tis strong requirement, intrinsically universal cellular automata were sown to be very common in some natural classes of rules [6] and tere are examples wit very small programs (rules) [31]. e idea tat intrinsic universality could facilitate te finding of lower bounds and negative results was conjectured, for example in [31], and a general metod was proposed in [9]. ince ten, intrinsic universality, and in particular communication complexity teory, ave been used as general tools to sow negative results on cellular automata [7, 9, 10, 29]. 7

8 e notion of simulation we use can be tougt of as a reduction between systems, owever it is stronger tan usual reductions defined via algoritmic resource constraints (time, space, even constant circuit dept, etc.). For computational models it is often difficult to prove negative results separating computational power, owever, our strict notion of simulation sifts te difficulty from proving ardness results to proving simulation (or completeness) results. However, now tat we ave examples of intrinsically universal tile sets U [16 18] we know tat arbitrary tile programs can be written, analyzed and compiled into suc U; it captures everyting (modulo rescaling). Not only tat, we claim tat our notion of simulation is a powerful tool because we ave gained te ability to prove lower bounds and impossibility results, as tis paper sows 2 Preliminaries 2.1 Informal description of te abstract ile Assembly Model is section gives a brief informal sketc of te abstract ile Assembly Model (aam). ee ection 2.2 for a formal definition of te aam. In tis section, we define te 2D aam, wereas in ection 2.2 we formulate te d-dimensional aam. For purposes of notational convenience, trougout tis paper we will use te term aam will refer to te 2D aam. A tile type is a unit square wit four sides, eac consisting of a glue label, often represented as a finite string, and a nonnegative integer strengt. A glue g tat appears on multiple tiles (or sides) always as te same strengt s g. ere are a finite set of tile types, but an infinite number of copies of eac tile type, wit eac copy being referred to as a tile. An assembly is a positioning of tiles on te integer lattice Z 2, described formally as a partial function α : Z 2. Let A denote te set of all assemblies of tiles from, and let A < denote te set of finite assemblies of tiles from. We write α β to denote tat α is a subassembly of β, wic means tat dom α dom β and α(p) = β(p) for all points p dom α. wo adjacent tiles in an assembly interact, or are attaced, if te glue labels on teir abutting sides are equal and ave positive strengt. Eac assembly induces a binding grap, a grid grap wose vertices are tiles, wit an edge between two tiles if tey interact. e assembly is τ-stable if every cut of its binding grap as strengt at least τ, were te strengt of a cut is te sum of all of te individual glue strengts in te cut. A tile assembly system (A) is a triple = (, σ, τ), were is a finite set of tile types, σ : Z 2 is a finite, τ-stable seed assembly, and τ is te temperature. An assembly α is producible if eiter α = σ or if β is a producible assembly and α can be obtained from β by te stable binding of a single tile. In tis case we write β 1 α (to mean α is producible from β by te attacment 8

9 of one tile), and we write β α if β 1 α (to mean α is producible from β by te attacment of zero or more tiles). Wen is clear from context, we may write 1 and instead. We let A[ ] denote te set of producible assemblies of. An assembly is terminal if no tile can be τ-stably attaced to it. We let A [ ] A[ ] denote te set of producible, terminal assemblies of. A A is directed if A [ ] = 1. Hence, altoug a directed system may be nondeterministic in terms of te order of tile placements, it is deterministic in te sense tat exactly one terminal assembly is producible (tis is analogous to te notion of confluence in rewriting systems). ince te beavior of a A = (, σ, τ) is uncanged if every glue wit strengt greater tan τ is canged to ave strengt exactly τ, we assume tat all glue strengts are in te set {0, 1,..., τ}. 2.2 Formal description of te abstract ile Assembly Model is section gives a formal definition of te abstract ile Assembly Model (aam) [46]. For readers unfamiliar wit te aam, ection 2.1 contains a less formal overview and [37] gives an excellent introduction to te model. Fix an alpabet Σ. Σ is te set of finite strings over Σ. Z, Z +, and N denote te set of integers, positive integers, and nonnegative integers, respectively. Let d {2, 3}. Given V Z d, te full grid grap of V is te undirected grap G f V = (V, E), and for all x = (x 0,..., x d 1 ), y = (y 0,..., y d 1 ) V, { x, y} E x y = 1; i.e., if and only if x and y are adjacent on te d-dimensional integer Cartesian space. A d-dimensional tile type is a tuple t (Σ N) 2d ; e.g., a unit square (or cube) wit four (or six) sides listed in some standardized order, eac side aving a glue g Σ N consisting of a finite string label and nonnegative integer strengt. From tis point on, a tile will refer to eiter a 2D square or 3D cube tile type. We assume a finite set of tile types, but an infinite number of copies of eac tile type, eac copy referred to as a tile. A d-dimensional tile set is a set of d-dimensional tile types and is written as d-. A tile set is a set of d-dimensional tile types for some d {2, 3}. A d-configuration is a (possibly empty) arrangement of tiles on te integer lattice Z d, i.e., a partial function α : Z d. A configuration α is a d-configuration for some d {2, 3}. A d-assembly is a connected non-empty configuration, i.e., a partial function α : Z d suc tat G f dom α is connected and dom α. An assembly is a d-assembly for some d {2, 3}. Let A denote te set of all assemblies of tiles from, and let A < denote te set of finite assemblies of tiles from. e sape α Z d of α is dom α. wo adjacent tiles in an assembly interact, or are attaced, if te glues on teir abutting sides are equal (in bot label and strengt) and ave positive strengt. Eac assembly α induces a binding grap G b α, a grid grap wose vertices are positions occupied by tiles, wit an edge between two vertices if te tiles at tose vertices interact. Given τ Z +, α is τ-stable if every cut 9

10 of G b α as weigt at least τ, were te weigt of an edge is te strengt of te glue it represents. Wen τ is clear from context, we say α is stable. Given two assemblies α, β, we say α is a subassembly of β, and we write α β, if α β and, for all points p α, α(p) = β(p). A d-dimensional tile assembly system (d-a) is a triple d- = (d-, σ, τ), were d- is a finite set of d-dimensional tile types, σ : Z d is te finite, τ-stable, d-dimensional seed assembly, and τ Z + is te temperature. e triple = (, σ, τ) is a A if it is is a d-a for some d {2, 3}. Given two τ- stable assemblies α, β, we write α 1 β if α β and β \ α = 1. In tis case we say α -produces β in one step. If α 1 β, β \ α = {p}, and t = β(p), we write β = α + (p t). e -frontier of α is te set α = α 1 β β \ α, te set of empty locations at wic a tile could stably attac to α. e t-frontier t α α of α is te set { p α α 1 β and β(p) = t }. A sequence of k Z + { } assemblies α 0, α 1,... over A is a -assembly sequence if, for all 1 i < k, α i 1 1 α i. e result of an assembly sequence is te unique limiting assembly (for a finite sequence, tis is te final assembly in te sequence). We write α β, and we say α -produces β (in 0 or more steps) if tere is a -assembly sequence α 0, α 1,... of lengt k = β \ α + 1 suc tat 1. α = α 0, 2. β = 0 i<k α i, and 3. for all 0 i < k, α i β. If k is finite ten it is routine to verify tat β = α k 1. We say α is -producible if σ α, and we write A[ ] to denote te set of -producible assemblies. e relation is a partial order on A[ ] [26, 36]. An assembly α is -terminal if α is τ-stable and α =. We write A [ ] A[ ] to denote te set of -producible, -terminal assemblies. If A [ ] = 1 ten is said to be directed. Wen is clear from context, we may omit from te notation above and instead write 1,, α, assembly sequence, produces, producible, and terminal. 2.3 imulation definition o state our main result, we must formally define wat it means for one A to simulate anoter. e following definitions improve te presentation of tose in [17], and correct a subtle error tere. 2 2 Rougly speaking, Definition 2.3 uses an existential quantifier, wereas te version in [17] used a universal quantifier. is correction still captures te intention in [17], and it actually strengtens our main results (i.e. our negative results: eorems 1.1, 1.2, 1.5, and 1.6) witout invalidating te positive result ere (eorem 1.3) nor tat in [17]. 10

11 From tis point on, let be a d-dimensional tile set, and let m Z +. An m-block supertile over is a partial function α : Z d m, were Z m = {0, 1,..., m 1}. Note tat te dimension of te m-block is implicitly defined by te dimension of. Let Bm be te set of all m-block supertiles over. e m-block wit no domain is said to be empty. For a general assembly α : Z d and (x 0,... x d 1 ) Z d, define αx m 0,...x d 1 to be te m-block supertile defined by αx m 0,...,x d 1 (i 0,..., i d 1 ) = α(mx 0 + i 0,..., mx d 1 + i d 1 ) for 0 i 0,..., i d 1 < m. For some tile set of dimension d d, a partial function R : Bm is said to be a valid m-block supertile representation from to if for any α, β Bm suc tat α β and α dom R, ten R(α) = R(β). Let d {2, 3} and d {d 1, d }. Let f : Z d Z d, were f(x 0,..., x d 1) = (x 0,..., x d 1) if d = d and f(x 0,..., x d 1) = (x 0,..., x d 1, 0) if d = d 1, and undefined oterwise. For a given valid m-block supertile representation function R from tile set to tile set, define te assembly representation function 3 R : A ) A suc tat R (α ) = α if and only if α(x 0,..., x d 1 ) = R (α x m 0,...,xd 1 for all (x 0,... x d 1) Z d 1. For an assembly α A suc tat R(α ) = α, α is said to map cleanly to α A under R if for all non empty blocks α m x 0,...,x d 1, (f(x 0,..., x d 1) + f(u 0,..., u d 1)) dom α for some u 0,..., u d 1 { 1, 0, 1} suc tat u u2 d 1 1, or if α as at most one non-empty m-block α m 0,...,0. In oter words, α may ave tiles on supertile blocks representing empty space in α, but only if tat position is adjacent to a tile in α. We call suc growt around te edges of α fuzz and tus restrict it to be adjacent to only valid supertiles, but not diagonally adjacent (i.e. we do not permit diagonal fuzz). In te following definitions, let = (, σ, τ ) be a d-a for d {2, 3}, let = (, σ, τ ) be a d -A for d d, and let R be an m-block representation function R : B m. Definition 2.1. We say tat and ave equivalent productions (under R), and we write if te following conditions old: 1. {R (α ) α A[]} = A[ ]. 2. {R (α ) α A []} = A [ ]. 3. For all α A[], α maps cleanly to R (α ). Definition 2.2. We say tat follows (under R), and we write R if α β, for some α, β A[], implies tat R (α ) R (β ). Definition 2.3. We say tat models (under R), and we write = R, if for every α A[ ], tere exists Π A[] were R (α ) = α for all α Π, 3 Note tat R is a total function since every assembly of represents some assembly of ; te functions R and α are partial to allow undefined points to represent empty space. 11

12 suc tat, for every β A[ ] were α β, (1) for every α Π tere exists β A[] were R (β ) = β and α β, and (2) for every α A[] were α β, β A[], R (α ) = α, and R (β ) = β, tere exists α Π suc tat α α. e previous definition essentially specifies tat every time simulates an assembly α A[ ], tere must be at least one valid growt pat in for eac of te possible next steps tat could make from α wic results in an assembly in tat maps to tat next step. Definition 2.4. We say tat simulates (under R) if R (equivalent productions), R and = R (equivalent dynamics). Let REPR denote te set of all supertile representation functions (i.e., m-block supertile representation functions for some m Z + ). For some d {2, 3}, let C be a class of d-dimensional tile assembly systems, and let U be a d - dimensional tile set for d d. Note tat every element of C, REPR, and A U < is a finite object, ence can be represented in a suitable format for computation in some formal system suc as uring macines. We say U is intrinsically universal for C at temperature τ Z + if tere are computable functions R : C REPR and : C A U < suc tat, for eac = (, σ, τ) C, tere is a constant m N suc tat, letting R = R( ), σ = ( ), and U = (U, σ, τ ), U simulates at scale m and using supertile representation function R. at is, R( ) outputs a representation function tat interprets assemblies of U as assemblies of, and ( ) outputs te seed assembly used to program tiles from U to represent te seed assembly of. We say tat U is intrinsically universal for C if it is intrinsically universal for C at some temperature τ Z +. 3 emperature 1 self-assembly is not intrinsically universal for te aam In tis section we prove eorem 1.2 wic is restated below. e proof is for 3D systems, and so as an immediate corollary we get our main teorem, wic is for standard 2D systems: eorem 1.1. In te proof, our cosen temperature 2 tile assembly system (tat breaks any claimed simulator) is locally consistent, so we also get eorem 1.5. Finally, since in te proof we exibit a specific tat can not be simulated, we also get eorem 1.6. eorem 1.2 ere is no 3D tile set U suc tat U is intrinsically universal at temperature 1 for te class of all aam tile assembly systems. 3.1 Proof overview of eorem 1.2 We prove eorem 1.2 by contradiction. We suppose tat tere exists a universal tile set U at temperature 1. We ten coose a particular temperature 2 12

13 tile assembly system and sow tat any simulation of by U must build erroneous assemblies, failing to simulate bot dynamics and production in Definition 2.4. e tile assembly system is illustrated in Figure 4. A seed tile grows two arms, eac of arbitrary lengt, tese arms eac grow a finger and ten try to cooperatively touc teir fingers: if tey appened to coose arms of equal lengt te fingers can cooperatively place a keystone tile wic leads to flagpole and flag tiles, if not growt stops. Clearly, is a very simple temperature 2 tile assembly system. 4 Recall tat given, te simulator ten gets to coose an arbitrary scale factor m N and seed assembly σ for te simulation. Growing from te seed, te universal tile set U simulates a tile assembly system if and only if it simulates every possible sequence of tile additions producing a terminal assembly of (at some m-scale blowup). is includes all non-deterministic brances of assembly, suc as te various lengts of te arms of. Our approac is to take a valid simulation tat simulates te placing of te keystone, and use it to sow tat te simulator must also produce anoter assembly tat is invalid, i.e. it is not a simulation of as defined in Definition 2.2. In particular, wen simulating te placing of te keystone, bot arms sould be te same lengt, owever we sow tat U must also construct keystone-placing assemblies tat ave arms of unequal lengts and so are not valid simulations. In order to construct te invalid assembly, we prove a lemma (called te window movie lemma, Lemma 3.3) tat describes an operation for taking two producible assemblies, and combining tem to create two new producible assemblies. e lemma is rater general, and it applies to As of any temperature producing arbitrary (possibly infinite) assemblies. e window movie lemma can be used as a pumping lemma (generalizing te tecnique used in te proof of eorem 3.1 of [3, 4]), or used to splice arbitrary assemblies togeter. e proof finises by invoking te fact tat U is a temperature 1 system at one key step: te placement of a specific tile by te simulator in (or near) te simulated keystone region. At tis point we apply te window movie lemma to te assembly sequence and splice togeter pieces of te valid assembly to produce a second, invalid assembly, essentially exposing te temperature 1 simulator as a carlatan tat is (poorly) faking cooperation. Our proof avoids te use of overly complicated case analyses tat often arise wen working wit temperature 1 systems. 3.2 Windows In order to prove U produces invalid assemblies wen simulating te aforementioned system, we develop a tecnique called window movies for constructing additional producible assemblies of a tile set (U) and seed σ, given a some 4 In fact, is locally consistent [18]. 13

14 initial producible assembly. Window movies sare some similarities wit te proof of eorem 3.1 in [3], wic sows tat tin rectangular assemblies can be pumped to create new producible assemblies of arbitrary lengt. We strengten te tecnique in [3] so tat assemblies can also be pumped down, generating producible assemblies smaller tan te original assembly. Besides being useful for eorem 1.1, tis lemma gives a general metod to combine assemblies togeter wic migt be useful elsewere. Definition 3.1. A window w is a set of edges forming a cut-set in te infinite grid grap. Given a window w and an assembly α, a window tat intersects α is a partioning of α into two configurations (i.e. after being split into two parts, eac part may or may not be disconnected). In tis case we say tat te window w cuts te assembly α into two configurations α L and α R, were α = α L α R. Given a window w, its translation by a vector c, written w + c is simply te translation of eac of w s elements (edges) by c. Examples of windows are sown in Figure 1. Figure 1: ree examples of windows, sown as tick segments. Eac window partitions an assembly into two (not necessarily connected) configurations. For a window w and an assembly sequence α, we define a window movie M to be te order of placement, position and glue type for eac glue tat appears along te window w in an assembly sequence α. Definition 3.2. Given an assembly sequence α and a window w, te associated window movie is te maximal sequence M α,w = (v 0, g 0 ), (v 1, g 1 ), (v 2, g 2 ),... of pairs of grid grap vertices v i and glues g i, given by te order of te appearance of te glues along window w in te assembly sequence α. Furtermore, if k glues appear along w at te same instant (tis appens upon placement of a tile wic as multiple sides toucing w) ten tese k glues appear contiguously and are listed in lexicograpical order of te unit vectors describing teir orientation in M α,w. An example of a window movie is sown in Figure 2. 14

15 Figure 2: op: A window (tick line) and an assembly sequence along te window. Bottom: e unique induced window movie. Lemma 3.3 (Window movie lemma). Let α = (α i 0 i < l) and β = (β i 0 i < m), wit l, m Z + { }, be assembly sequences in wit results α and β, respectively. Let w be a window tat partitions α into two configurations α L and α R, and w = w + c be a translation of w tat partitions β into two configurations β L and β R. Furtermore, define M α,w, M β,w to be te respective window movies for α, w and β, w, and define α L, β L to be te subconfigurations of α and β containing te seed tiles of α and β, respectively. en if M α,w = M β,w, it is te case tat te following two assemblies are also producible: (1) te assembly α L β R = α L β R and (2) te assembly β L α R = β L α R, were β L = β L c and β R = β R c. Before proceeding, we first define some notation tat will be useful for tis section of te paper. For an assembly sequence α = (α i 0 i < l), we write α = l (note tat if α is infinite, ten l = ). We write α[i] to denote x t, were x and t are suc tat α i+1 = α i + ( x t), i.e., α[i] is te placement of tile type t at position x, assuming tat x t α i. We define α = α + ( x t) = (α i 0 i < k + 1), were α k = α k 1 + ( x t) if x τ t α i and undefined oterwise, assuming α > 0. Oterwise, if α = 0, ten α = α + ( x t) = (α 0 ), were α 0 is te assembly suc tat α 0 ( x) = t and is undefined at all oter positions. is is our notation for appending steps to te assembly sequence α: to do so, we must specify a tile type t to be placed at a given location x t α i 1. If α i+1 = α i + ( x t), ten we write P os ( α[i]) = x and ile ( α[i]) = t. For a movie window M = (v 0, g 0 ), (v 1, g 1 ),..., we write M[k] to be te pair (v k 1, g k 1 ) in te enumeration of M and P os (M[k]) = v k 1, were v k 1 is a vertex of a grid grap. Proof. We give a constructive proof by giving an algoritm for constructing an assembly sequence yielding α L β R. Let α and β be te assembly sequences of α and β, respectively. Intuitively, te algoritm performs a lossy merge of α and β, ignoring assembly sequence steps of α (respectively, β) tat place tiles in α R (β L ). Witout loss of generality, and for notational simplicity, let w be a window suc tat M α,w = M β,w. In oter words, te common 15

16 Initialize i, j, k = 0 and γ to be empty wile i < α or j < β do if P os(m[k]) dom α L ten wile i < α and P os( α[i]) P os(m[k]) do if P os( α[i]) dom α L ten γ = γ + α[i] i = i + 1 if i < α ten γ = γ + α[i] i = i + 1 else if P os(m[k]) dom β R ten wile j < β and P os( β[j]) P os(m[k]) do if P os( β[j]) dom β R ten γ = γ + β[j] j = j + 1 if j < β ten γ = γ + β[j] j = j + 1 else if k M ten if i < α ten γ = γ + α[i] i = i + 1 if j < β ten γ = γ + β[j] j = j + 1 k = k + 1 return γ Figure 3: e algoritm to produce a valid assembly sequence γ. window movie of α and β occur at te same location in te plane, and tus since c = 0, β L = β L and β R = β R. Let M be te sequence of steps in te window movie M α,w. e algoritm in Figure 3 describes ow to produce a new valid assembly sequence γ. If we assume tat te assembly sequence γ ultimately produced by te algoritm is valid, ten te result of γ is indeed α L β R, since for every tile in α L and β R, te algoritm adds a step to te sequence γ involving te addition of tis tile to te assembly. However, we need to prove tat te assembly sequence γ is valid, it may be te case tat eiter: 1. tere is insufficient bond strengt between te tile to be placed and te existing neigboring tiles, or 2. a tile is already present at tis location. Case 2 is a non-issue, as locations in α L and β L only ave tiles from α L placed in tem, and locations in α R and β R only ave tiles from β R placed in tem. Case 1 is more difficult, and is were te remainder of te proof is spent. 16

17 Formally, we claim te following: at eac step of te algoritm, te current version of γ at tis step is a valid assembly sequence wose result is a producible subassembly of α L β R. Note tat te outer loop of te algoritm iterates troug all steps of α and β, suc tat at any point of adding α[i] (or β[j]) to γ, all steps of te window movie occurring before α[i] ( β[j]) in α ( β) ave occurred. imilarly, all tiles in α L (or β R ) added to α (β) before step i (j) in te assembly sequence ave occurred. o if te ile ( α[i]) tat is added to te subassembly of α produced after i 1 steps, can bond at a location in α L to form a τ-stable assembly, te same tile added to te producible assembly of γ must also bond to te same location in γ, as te neigboring glues consist of (i) an identical set of glues from tiles in te subassembly of α L and (ii) glues on te side of te window movie containing α R. imilarly, te tiles of β R must also be able to bind. o te assembly sequence of γ is valid, i.e. every addition to γ adds a tile to te assembly to form a new producible assembly. ince we ave a valid assembly sequence, as argued above, te finised producible assembly is α L β R. In te proof, we used te two identical window movies to ensure eac step in te constructed assembly sequence was valid, i.e. te proposed tile could attac at te specified location. However, if a pair of incident glues in te window movie are not identical, ten tey are never used to ensure a proposed tile can attac. Using tis observation, we define a restricted form of window movie, called a bond-forming submovie, wic consists of only tose steps of te window movie tat place glues tat eventually form positivestrengt bonds in te assembly. Every window movie M as a unique bondforming submovie B(M), and Lemma 3.3 can be strengtened by relaxing te requirement tat te window movies M α,w = M β,w matc: Corollary 3.4. e statement of Lemma 3.3 olds if te window movies M α,w and M β,w are replaced by teir bond-forming submovies B ( ) M α,w and ( ) B M β,w. Proof. e matcing window movies M α,w and M β,w in te proof of Lemma 3.3 are used only to prove tat for eac step (tile addition) of α or β tat is appended to te sequence γ, te tile can attac at te new proposed location. For eac step of M α,w = M β,w, eiter te step is in B ( ) ) M α,w = B (M β,w or not. If so, te proof is uncanged. Oterwise, if not, te tile will not form a bond wit any glue (i.e. tile) on te oter side of te window, since te step is not in B ( ) M α,w. Furtermore, te set of glues incident to P os( α[i]) (respectively, P os( β[j])) and forming positive strengt bonds is identical to te set wen α[i] ( β[j]) is added to γ in te proof of Lemma 3.3, as all elements of α ( β) preceeding α[i] ( β[j]) ave already been added to γ. 17

18 3.3 e simulated tile set Here we describe te tile assembly system = (, σ, 2) to be simulated by te claimed simulator tile set U. e tile set consists of a small constant number of tile types as seen in Figure 4: te seed σ, eigt arm tiles, six finger tiles, a keystone tile, a flagpole tile, and a flag tile. Of te infinite set of terminal assemblies formed, eac assembly eiter contains bot te keystone and flag tile types or does not (see Figure 4). top arm g 4 g 3 g 4 g 4 g 4 g 4 g 9 seed keystone flagpole top finger flag bottom finger g 2 g 1 g 5 g 6 g 10 g 11 g 14 g 15 g 16 g 13 bottom arm (a) g 7 g 8 g 8 g 8 g 8 g 8 g 12 (b) (c) (d) Figure 4: (a) An overview of te tile assembly system = (, σ, 2). runs at temperature 2 and its tile set consists of 18 tiles. (b) e glues used in te tileset. Glues g 11 and g 14 are strengt 1, all oter glues are strengt 2. us te keystone tile binds wit two cooperative strengt 1 glues. Growt begins from te pink seed tile σ: te top and bottom arms are one tile wide and grow to arbitrary, nondeterministically cosen, lengts. wo blue figures grow as sown. (c) If te fingers appen to meet ten te keystone, flagpole and flag tiles are placed, (d) if te fingers do not meet ten growt terminates at te finger tips : te keystone, flagpole and flag tiles are not placed. e glues in te various tiles are all unique wit te exception of te common east-west glue type used witin eac arm to induce non-deterministic and independent arm lengts. Glues are sown in part (b) of Figure 4. Note tat cooperative binding appens at most once during growt, wen attacing te keystone tile to two arms of identical lengt. All oter binding events are noncooperative and all glues are strengt-2 except for g 11, g 14 wic are strengt-1. Recall tat a universal tile set U simulating carries out te simulation 18

19 by creating m m supertiles tat represent te tiles of, and tat are placed wit te same dynamics (i.e. tile placement ordering, modulo rescaling) as. In particular, U must simulate te creation of a terminal assembly wit a flag by placing all of te supertiles in bot arms first, ten te keystone supertile, flagpole supertile, and finally flag supertile. oug U is permitted to place tiles in fuzz supertile regions (i.e. adjacent to supertile regions wit a nonempty represented tile type), U cannot put tiles in te flag supertile region before placing tiles tat represent te flagpole tile. at is, any assembly sequence of U placing a tile in te flag supertile region must ave already simulated an assembly sequence placing te flagpole tile, wic in turn must ave already simulated an assembly sequence placing te keystone tile, and so on. 3.4 Invalid simulation of In tis section we give te main proof argument for eorem 1.2 by sowing tat te tile set U does not simulate. Let g be te number of glues in te tile set U and let m be te scale factor cosen for. For te remainder of te proof, we only consider te simulation by U of in te case tat grows an assembly γ wit a pair of arms of identical orizontal lengt ((g +1) 6m (6m)!+1) 3+6. is lengt is justified as follows. By Definition 2.3, tere exists γ A[U] suc tat R (γ ) = γ, were U = (U, σ, 1) is te simulator tile assembly system using tile set U, seed assembly σ, and temperature 1. e simulator uses scale m, terefore because te definition of cleanly maps to (see ection 2.3) permit one-supertile wide fuzz (i.e. te placement of tiles in locations adjacent to supertiles but wic don t map to a tile in ), te vertical eigt of an arm is at most 3m. Any window tat cuts te bottom arm of te simulation α vertically, as one of (g + 1) 6m sets of glues corresponding to 6m locations tat glues can appear at and te g + 1 distinct coices for eac glue (including te null glue). o any window movie tat vertically cuts te bottom arm of te assembly as suc a glue set, and one of at most (6m)! possible orderings for tese glues to appear in te movie. en by te pigeonole principle, examining ((g+1) 6m (6m)!+1) suc vertical cuts ensures some set of 6m glues and teir ordering occurs twice. If te arm as lengt ((g + 1) 6m (6m)! + 1) 3 + 6, examining one vertical cut of te bottom arm in every tird supertile of te simulation, ignoring te first and last tree supertiles in te arm, also finds a set of 6m glues and teir ordering tat occurs twice. We now sow ow to combine tis fact wit Corollary 3.4 to construct an assembly, producible by te simulator, but tat is not a simulation of any assembly produced by. Let γ = (γ i 0 i < k) be suc tat te result of γ = γ. Consider te first step i of te assembly sequence γ tat places a tile t at some location x, i.e., γ i = γ i 1 + ( x t), satisfying one of te 19

20 w γ i 1 Figure 5: e assembly γ i 1 and a window w formed from (i) a vertical cut of te bottom arm and (ii) a pat troug te keystone region tat does not cross any bond in te keystone region nor in te fuzz ( region ) to te west of te keystone region. e bond-forming submovie B M γ i 1,w as no glues in te keystone region of γ i 1, since no pat in γ i 1 from te top finger to te bottom finger troug te keystone region exists. following two conditions: (1) te placement of tile t completes a pat between te top finger and bottom finger troug te keystone supertile, and possibly also troug te m m region of fuzz immediately to te west of te keystone supertile; (2) te placement of tile t is in te flagpole supertile. Now, step backwards in te assembly process by one step and consider γ i 1, i.e., te assembly at step i 1 of γ. ince condition (1) as not occurred, tere exists a pat p along te edges of te grid grap starting from te m m region tat is distance 2m west from te keystone supertile, wic travels eastward, treading troug te m m region west of te keystone supertile, ten continues treading troug te keystone supertile, and ten past te east extent of γ i 1, suc tat no edge of p crosses an edge sared by matcing 20

21 Figure 6: plicing two identical window movies togeter to produce anoter valid assembly sequence and terminal assembly by invoking Corollary 3.4 wit vertical windows. glues in γ i 1 (see Figure 5). o for any vertical cut of te bottom arm of γ i 1, one can extend te vertical cut into a window suc tat te bond-forming submovie of te window only as glues in te vertical cut of te bottom arm of γ i 1 (again, see Figure 5). en by te previous counting argument, one can find two suc windows w, w wit identical bond-forming submovies, as tese windows only ave glues forming bonds in te vertical cut of te bottom arm (see te left part of Figure 6). Moreover, te two windows ave vertical cuts separated orizontally by distance d 3m and not occurring in te first or last tree supertiles of te arm. is last property is key, as it follows w and w can be modified to follow te same pat troug te keystone supertile or te fuzz immediately west by selecting a pat troug tese supertiles and duplicating tis pat twice on bot w and w. e two occurrences of tis subpat sould be separated orizontally by distance d. en w = w + (d, 0). At tis point, we ave two assemblies α = γ i 1, β = γ i 1, wit assembly sequences α = β = ( γ 0,..., i 1) γ and two identical bond-forming submovies B ( ) ) M α,w, B (M β,w for te assembly sequences of α and β (see Figure 7). en by Corollary 3.4, te assembly formed by taking te union of te assemblies consisting of 1. te part of γ i 1 partitioned by w and containing te seed (α L ), and 2. te part of γ i 1 partitioned by w and not containing te seed (β R ), denoted as α L β R, is also a producible assembly of te simulation, i.e., α L β R A[U]. is assembly as a top arm of lengt ((g + 1) 6m (6m)! + 1) supertiles and a bottom arm of lengt at least 6 and at most ((g + 1) 6m (6m)! + 1) supertiles. Finally, we use information about wic condition occurs in step i of te simulation to construct an invalid assembly. From conditions (1) and (2) above we know tat t binds to one of α L or β R. Let ˆγ = α L β R + (( x (d, 0)) t), i.e., te addition of t to α L β R at te relevant location. If condition (2) olds (flagpole), ten t is placed in a region in wic no tile sould exist in a simulation wit arms not aligned (fuzz in tis region is not permitted, by te definition of (diagonal) fuzz in ection 2.3). If condition (1) 21