Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-7cvxr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T04:28:31.768Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Ergodic aspects of cellular automata†

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  19 September 2008

Mike Hurley
Mike Hurley
Affiliation:
Department of Mathematics and Statistics, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio 44106, USA
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

This paper contains a study of attractors in cellular automata, particularly the minimal attractors as defined by J. Milnor. Milnor's definition of attractor uses a measure on the state space; the measures that we consider are Bernoulli product measures. Given a Bernoulli measure it is shown that a cellular automaton has at most one minimal attractor; when there is one, it is the omega-limit set of almost all points. Examples are given to show that the minimal attractor can change as the Bernoulli measure is varied. Other examples illustrate the difference between this result and the corresponding result that is obtained by replacing Milnor's definition of attractor by the purely topological definition used by C. Conley. The examples also show that certain invariant sets of cellular automata are less well-behaved than one might hope: for instance the periodic points are not necessarily dense in the nonwandering set.

Type
Research Article
Information
Ergodic Theory and Dynamical Systems , Volume 10 , Issue 4 , December 1990 , pp. 671 - 685
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1990

References

REFERENCES

[1]Billingsley, P.. Probability and Measure. John Wiley, New York (1979).Google Scholar
[2]Conley, C., Isolated invariant sets and the Morse Index. Amer. Math. Soc. (1978).Google Scholar
[3]Denker, M., Grillenberger, C. & Sigmund, K.. Ergodic Theory on Compact Spaces, Springer Led. Notes in Math. 527, Springer Verlag, New York (1976).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[4]Gilman, R. H.. Classes of linear automata. Ergod. Th. & Dynam. Sys. 7 (1987), 105–118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[5]Hedlund, G.. Endomorphisms and automorphisms of the shift dynamical system. Math. Sys. Th. 3 (1969), 320–375.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[6]Hurd, L. P.. PhD thesis, Princeton (1988).Google Scholar
[7]Hurd, L. P.. The nonwandering set of a CA map. Complex Systems 2 (1988), 549–554.Google Scholar
[8]Hurley, M.. Attractors in cellular automata. Ergod. Th. & Dynam. Sys., 10 (1990), 131–140.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[9]Lind, D.. Applications of ergodic theory and sofic systems to cellular automata. Physica 10D (1984), 36–44.Google Scholar
[10]Milnor, J.. On the concept of attractor. Comm. Math. Phys. 99 (1985), 177–195; Correction and remarks. 102 (1985), 517–519.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[11]Wolfram, S.. Statistical mechanics of cellular automata. Rev. Mod. Phys. 55 (1983), 601–644.CrossRefGoogle Scholar