Undecidability and Nonperiodicity for Tilings of the Plane.
Undecidability of infinite post correspondence problem for instances of size 8
The infinite Post Correspondence Problem (ωPCP) was shown to be undecidable by Ruohonen (1985) in general. Blondel and Canterini [Theory Comput. Syst. 36 (2003) 231–245] showed that ωPCP is undecidable for domain alphabets of size 105, Halava and Harju [RAIRO–Theor. Inf. Appl. 40 (2006) 551–557] showed that ωPCP is undecidable for domain alphabets of size 9. By designing a special coding, we delete a letter from Halava and Harju’s construction. So we prove that ωPCP is undecidable for domain alphabets...
Undecidability of infinite post correspondence problem for instances of size 8
The infinite Post Correspondence Problem (ωPCP) was shown to be undecidable by Ruohonen (1985) in general. Blondel and Canterini [Theory Comput. Syst. 36 (2003) 231–245] showed that ωPCP is undecidable for domain alphabets of size 105, Halava and Harju [RAIRO–Theor. Inf. Appl. 40 (2006) 551–557] showed that ωPCP is undecidable for domain alphabets of size 9. By designing a special coding, we delete a letter from Halava and Harju’s construction. So we prove that ωPCP is undecidable for domain alphabets...
Undecidability of infinite post correspondence problem for instances of Size 9
In the infinite Post Correspondence Problem an instance (h,g) consists of two morphisms h and g, and the problem is to determine whether or not there exists an infinite word ω such that h(ω) = g(ω). This problem was shown to be undecidable by Ruohonen (1985) in general. Recently Blondel and Canterini (Theory Comput. Syst.36 (2003) 231–245) showed that this problem is undecidable for domain alphabets of size 105. Here we give a proof that the infinite Post Correspondence Problem is undecidable...
Undecidable Tiling Problems in the Hyperbolic Plane.