Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gxg78 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T22:41:32.607Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Using groups for investigating rewrite systems

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 December 2008

PATRICK DEHORNOY  and
VINCENT VAN OOSTROM
PATRICK DEHORNOY
Affiliation:
Laboratoire de Mathématiques Nicolas Oresme, Université de Caen, 14032 Caen, France Email: dehornoy@math.unicaen.fr Website: www.math.unicaen.fr/ dehornoy
VINCENT VAN OOSTROM
Affiliation:
Universiteit Utrecht, Heidelberglaan 6, 3584CS Utrecht, Netherlands Email: Vincent.vanOostrom@phil.uu.nl Website: www.phil.uu.nl/ oostrom
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

We describe several technical tools that prove to be efficient for investigating the rewrite systems associated with an equational specification. These tools consist of introducing a monoid of partial maps, listing the monoid relations corresponding to the local confluence diagrams of the rewrite system, introducing the group presented by these relations, and, finally, replacing the initial rewrite system with an internal process entirely sitting in this group. When the approach can be completed, one typically obtains a practical method for constructing algebras satisfying prescribed equations and for solving the associated word problem. The above techniques have been developed by the first author in a context of general algebra. The goal of this paper is to bring them to the attention of the rewrite system community. We hope that these techniques may be useful for more general rewrite systems.

Type
Paper
Information
Mathematical Structures in Computer Science , Volume 18 , Issue 6 , December 2008 , pp. 1133 - 1167
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2008

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Bertling, H. and Ganzinger, (1989) Completion-time optimization of rewrite-time goal solving. Springer-Verlag Lecture Notes in Computer Science 355 45–58.Google Scholar
Baader, F. and Nipkow, T. (1998) Term Rewriting and All That, Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Book, R. (1987) Thue systems as rewriting systems. J. Symb. Comput. 3 39–68.Google Scholar
Brin, M. (2004) The algebra of strand splitting: I. A braided version of Thompson's group V. arXiv math.GR/040642.Google Scholar
Brin, M. (2006) The algebra of strand splitting: II. A presentation for the braid group on one strand. Intern. J. of Algebra and Computation 16 203–219.Google Scholar
Cannon, J. W., Floyd, W. J. and Parry, W. R. (1996) Introductory notes on Richard Thompson's groups. Ens. Math. 42 215–257.Google Scholar
Clifford, A. H. and Preston, G. B. (1961) The Algebraic Theory of Semigroups, volume 1. AMS Surveys 7.Google Scholar
Dehornoy, P. (1993) Structural monoids associated to equational varieties. Proc. Amer. Math. Soc. 117 (2)293–304.Google Scholar
Dehornoy, P. (1996) The structure group for the associativity identity. J. Pure Appl. Algebra 111 59–82.Google Scholar
Dehornoy, P. (2000) Braids and Self-Distributivity. Progress in Math. 192, Birkhäuser.Google Scholar
Dehornoy, P. (2002) Study of an identity. Alg. Universalis 48 223–248.Google Scholar
Dehornoy, P. (2003) Complete positive group presentations. J. of Algebra 268 156–197.Google Scholar
Dehornoy, P. (2005) Geometric presentations of Thompson's groups. J. Pure Appl. Algebra 203 1–44.Google Scholar
Dehornoy, P. (2006) The group of parenthesized braids. Advances in Math. 205 354–409.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dehornoy, P. (2007) Free augmented LD-systems. J. Algebra and Appl. 6-1 173–187.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dershowitz, N. and Jouannaud, J. P. (1994) Rewrite Systems. In: vanLeeuwen, J. Leeuwen, J. (ed.) Handbook of Theor. Comp. Sc. volume B, Elsevier.Google Scholar
Huet, G. (1980) Confluent reductions: Abstract properties and applications to term rewriting systems. Journal of the ACM 27 797–821.Google Scholar
Jedlicka, P. (2008) Geometry monoid of left distributivity and left idempotency. J. Algebra and Discrete Math. (to appear).Google Scholar
Larue, D. (1994) Left-distributive and left-distributive idempotent algebras, Ph.D. Thesis, University of Colorado, Boulder.Google Scholar
Mac Lane, S. (1963) Natural associativity and commutativity. Rice Univ. Studies 49 28–46.Google Scholar
McKenzie, R. and Thompson, R. (1973) An elementary construction of unsolvable word problems in group theory. In: Boone et al. (eds.) Word Problems. Studies in Logic 71, North Holland.Google Scholar
Melliès, P. A. (2002) Axiomatic rewriting theory VI: residual theory revisited. Proceedings of RTA'02. Springer-Verlag Lecture Notes in Computer Science 2378 23–50.Google Scholar
Paterson, A. (1998) Groupoids, inverse semigroups, and their operator algebras. Progress in Math. 170, Birkhäuser.Google Scholar
Robinson, J. (1963) A machine-oriented logic based on the resolution principle. J. of the ACM 10 163–174.Google Scholar
Smullyan, R. (1995) To mock a mocking bird, and other logic puzzles including combinatory logic, Knopf, New York.Google Scholar
Sprenger, M. and Wymann-Böni, M. (1993) How to decide the lark. Theor. Comp. Sc. 110 419–432.Google Scholar
Terese (2003) Term Rewriting Systems, Cambridge Tracts in Theoretical Computer Science 55, Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Thompson, R. J. (1980) Embeddings into finitely generated simple groups which preserve the word problem. In: Adjan, S. I. et al. (eds.) Word problems II: The Oxford book. Studies in Logic 95, North Holland401–440.Google Scholar