ancestors (9)

From: McIntosh Harold V.-UAP (mcintosh@redvax1.dgsca.unam.mx)
Date: Tue Jul 06 1993 - 04:18:43 UTC


Commentary related to Andrew Wuensche and Mike Lesser's book, 'The Global 
Dynamics of Cellular Automata.' Addison-Wesley, 1992 (ISBN 0-201-55740-1) 
continues. We have described a 'statistical Gershgorin theorem' which 
implies a maximum eigenvalue for a matrix related to an average row (or 
column) sum with an error term which may or may not be easy to estimate. 

Applied to (2,1) automata, it implies that the A and B matrices which 
have been introduced will have an eigenvalue between 1 and 2, namely n/4, 
where n is the least amongst number of ancestors of 0 (called a) or of 1 
(called b), respectively. The result is not too surprising, but also refers 
to the growth in the number of ancestors of a string of pure 0's or pure 1's. 
We want the rate of growth of mixtures, without knowing too much about 
the mix except maybe its percentage composition. 

Eigenvalue 1 means the number of ancestors remains constant as the length 
of the configuration grows; eigenvalue 2 means it doubles with each new 
cell. As we said, no surprise here. 

Turning to the pair matrix AxA+BxB, which is also the second moment matrix, 
the same reasoning gives us eigenvalues in the range 2 to 4, namely 
(a^2+b^2)/16. Whereas the average (first moment, computed from A+B), just 
doubles as the number of cells increments, the second moment AT LEAST 
doubles (when the ancestors are balanced) reaching a factor of 4, or 
quadrupling, in the cases of extreme unbalance in rules 0 or 255. 
 
In addition, numerical experiments show that (a^2+b^2)/16 is a good estimate 
of the rate of increase; for a given a the rate has an average close to the 
value in this formula with a small variance of its own (a variance in the 
variance, if you wish). 

Turning the second moment into variance and thence into standard deviation, 
there are still some approximations to be made. 

               sigma = sqrt (g^2(a^2+b^2)/32)^n - 4) 

the denominator 32 results from having to divide by 2^n, the number of 
configurations. The coefficient g is a correction due to the smaller 
eigenvalues of AxA+BxB, which interfere with the principal eigenvalue 
at first. Unless a=4, making us raise 1 to a power, subtracting 4 makes 
little difference. 

So, except for a factor, sigma is a number between 1 and 2, raised to the 
n/2 power (or, between 1 and 1.41 raised to the nth power). 

Is this result credible? Is it useful? Rule 0 in a ten-cell automaton 
shows 1023 configurations with 0 ancestors, 1 with 4096 ancestors. This 
works out to a standard deviation of about 128. At the other extreme, 
Rule 150 has 4 ancestors per configuration, and zero standard deviation. 
For Rule 22, we have (1.06)^(n/2), or about 3% increase for each additional 
cell. Six percent interest doubles your money in ten or twelve years, so we 
expect the standard deviation to double for each additional 20 to 25 cells 
in the configuration. The same would be expected for all the 112 (2,1) rules 
with unit imbalance, that is, ab=35. 

                       eigenvalue =     distance   
                ab      growth of       needed to
                         sigma^2        double sigma
                -----------------------------------------------
                08        2.0               2
                17        1.62              3
                26        1.25              6
                35        1.06             25
                44        1.00           infinite 

Here we have seen that the statistics of ancestors depends on the 
neighborhood count by states in two ways. First, the dominant eigenvalue 
of the de Bruijn fragments is a direct function of this count - a multiple, 
in fact. Consequently the rate of growth for the number of ancestors of 
a string of like cells depends on the fraction of neighborhoods leading to 
that state. The biggest fraction always wins, in accordance with the 
principle that 'them as has, gets.' Moreover, mixed strings predominate 
pretty much according to their mix of the dominant state. 

Such general statements are always subject to refinement and correction, 
but the overall principle is pretty well justified. 

The second aspect of the statistics of ancestors that has been discussed is 
their variance, which depends on the sum of squares of percentages - again, 
on Langton's parameter. Variance grows as the length of a string of cells 
grows, although never as fast as the number of configurations, the same which 
is true for the number of ancestors itself. Longer strings can have more 
(and less) ancestors than the average. The average is small, so much less 
is hard to come by; neverless the concept is interesting for reversible 
and 'almost reversible' automata. 

In applying this analysis to the Atlas, it should be borne in mind that, 
as a matter of statistics, there are only one quarter as many configurations 
satisfying periodic boundary conditions as there are without boundary 
conditions (and in turn one sixteenth as many which are 'quiescent at 
infinity'). Thus the average numbner of ancestors for periodic configurations 
would be 1, not 4. Also, quantities may fluctuate more drastically for short 
configurations as the boundary conditions become more stringent. 

In spite of this, growth factors apply equally for all kinds of boundary 
conditions. Moreover, once the powers of an irreducible matrix have come 
into equilibrium, fluctuations in the sizes of the matrix elements will 
also be immune to the boundary conditions, and they commence to dominate 
at the same stage as well. 

More commentary will follow. 

Harold V. McIntosh             |Depto. de Aplicaci'on de Microcomputadoras
mcintosh@redvax1.dgsca.unam.mx |Instituto de Ciencias/UAP
mcintosh@redvax1.bitnet        |Apdo. Postal 461
(+52+22)43-6330                |72000 Puebla, Pue., MEXICO


This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.7 : Tue Oct 14 2003 - 21:44:17 UTC