This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?

Vesa Halava

University of Turku, Department of Mathematics, FIN-20014 Turku, Finland vehalava@utu. Supported by the Academy of Finland under the grant 14047

Turku Centre for Computer Science TUCS Technical Report No 127 September 1997 ISBN 952-12-0059-6 ISSN 1239-1891

Abstract

This work is a survey on decidable and undecidable problems in matrix theory. The problems studied are simply formulated, however most of them are undecidable. The method to prove undecidabilities is the one found by Paterson Pat] in 1970 to prove that the mortality of nitely generated matrix monoids is undecidable. This method is based on the undecidability of the Post Correspondence Problem. We shall present a new proof to this mortality problem, which still uses the method of Paterson, but is a bit simpler.

Keywords: decidability, undecidability, matrix semigroups, mortality, freeness, niteness, zero in the right upper-corner, Skolem's problem

Contents

2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 2.5 2.6 2.7

1 Introduction 2 Preliminaries

Basics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Semigroups and monoids . . . . . . Matrix semigroups and monoids . . Decidability and undecidability . . Word monoids and morphisms . . . The Post Correspondence Problem The Mixed Modi cation of PCP . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . .

1 3

3 3 3 6 7 8 8

**3 Mortality of Matrix Monoids
**

3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4

The undecidability of the mortality problem . . . . . . The mortality of semigroups with two generators . . . The existence of the zero element in matrix semigroups The mortality problem in dimension two . . . . . . . .

11

11 15 17 18

4 Freeness of Matrix Semigroups

4.1 The undecidability of the freeness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 4.2 The freeness problem in dimension two . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 4.3 Common elements in semigroups . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 5.1 The decidability of the niteness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25

21 25

5 Finiteness of Matrix Semigroups 6 Zero in the Right Upper Corner 7 Skolem's Problem

6.1 The undecidability of the zero in the right upper corner . . . . 33 6.2 The two generator case . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35

33 37

7.1 Skolem's problem in dimension two . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37 7.2 Skolem's problem and the mortality problem . . . . . . . . . . 42 7.3 Skolem's problem for matrices over natural numbers . . . . . . 45

8 An In nite Number of Zeros in Skolem's Problem 9 Summary

8.1 Rational series . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46 8.2 Skolem's theorem . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51 8.3 Decidability of the in nite number of zeros . . . . . . . . . . . 58

46 60

the so called mortality problem. i. These and other basic de nitions. This result is from CHK].S. Our undecidability proofs are based on the fact that the so called Post Correspondence Problem is undecidable. using the same method than the original proof of Paterson. This undecidable problem was introduced by E. We are going to show that many simply formulated problems are actually undecidable. Paterson Pat] in 1970 provides a tool to prove other undecidability results for matrices.1 Introduction This thesis deals with decidable and undecidable problems in matrix theory. notations and properties are presented in the next chapter. The de nitions and proofs of such properties can be found from Gan]. 1 . but it turns out that many of these problems are algorithmically undecidable. This result is from CKa]. and throughout this work we shall use the very same method. Paterson used the Post Correspondence Problem in his proof. It follows that for many problems. In the third chapter we shall show that the method of Paterson does not suit for problems of 2 2 matrices. Post Pos] in 1946 and it is a very important problem in formal language theory. The matrices we consider are over integers. and the problems we study are simply formulated and elementary. We use mainly only basic properties of matrices. In the third chapter we study the existence of the zero matrix in matrix semigroups. Occasionally we need more advanced properties of matrices that are stated when they are needed.e. We shall also consider the special case where the semigroup is generated by two matrices. The proof of the undecidability of the mortality problem for 3 3 matrices by M. it is also suitable for our purposes in proving undecidability results. however. We shall present a shorter and simpli ed proof for the undecidability of the mortality problem. it is not known whether they are decidable or not. It turns out that also in this case the mortality problem is undecidable if the dimension of the matrices is at least 45. As we shall see. when we consider such matrices. which means that there exists no computer program to solve these problems.

We shall prove that this problem is undecidable for matrices with dimension at least 3. In the seventh and eighth chapters we study the existence of a zero in the right upper corner in a matrix semigroup generated by one matrix. In the eighth chapter we will prove that it is decidable. whether there is in nite number of zeros in the right upper corner in the powers of one matrix. especially for 2 2 matrices. The decidability of niteness helps us also to prove some other simple properties of matrix semigroups generated by one matrix. is elementary. Results in that chapter is mainly from CHK].In the fourth chapter we study the freeness of matrix semigroups. In the fth chapter we consider the niteness of matrix monoids. These results are mentioned at the end of the chapter. In the sixth chapter the existence of a zero in the right upper corner in a matrix semigroup is treated. but not simple and it uses the theory of rational series. The proof is based on so called Skolem's theorem. The proof we present is from Man]. Cassaigne Cas]. when the dimension of the matrices is at least 24. This problem is so called Skolem's problem. This proof. In the seventh chapter we will show that Skolem's problem is decidable for 2 2 matrices. This result is from CKa]. We shall summarize the results of this work in the tenth chapter where a table of decidable and undecidable matrix problems is presented. We shall also consider the case where semigroup is generated by two matrices and we prove that this problem is undecidable. 2 . due to Han]. We will prove that it is decidable whether a matrix semigroup of matrices over natural numbers is nite or not. Results of rational series in that chapter is from BeR]. This problem is important from the point of view of semigroup theory. The proof we present is from MaS]. The proof we present is based on ideas of J.

3 Matrix semigroups and monoids In this work we consider square matrices over integers. we denote ab = a b if no misunderstanding is possible.1 Basics We shall denote the set of natural numbers by N . if it has a neutral or identity element. 2. for all a. As 3 . 2. respectively. i. N = f0. i. A monoid M is said to be free.e. Q . R and C . real numbers and complex numbers are denoted by Z. if M nf1g is a free semigroup. b and c in S . if is a binary operation such that. ) is denoted simply by S . every element of S can be uniquely expressed as a product of elements of X . a b 2 S and (a b) c = a (b c): In other words is an associative operation in S . The sets of integers. 2. In this case the set X is called the free generating set.e. 1 a = a 1 = a: Form now on. and in this section we shall recall some basic notations and properties of these matrices. Usually the operation is called a product and the semigroup (S. i.2 Semigroups and monoids Let S be a set. It is assumed troughout this paper that zero is in N . rational numbers. 1.2 Preliminaries 2. A pair (S. : : : g. Semigroup S is called a monoid. there exists an element 1 in S such that for all a in S . ) is called a semigroup. A semigroup S is said to be freely generated and it is free if there exists subset X of S such that every element of S has a unique factorization over X .e.

a general reference for matrix theory we give F.P. Gantmacher's book The Theory of Matrices Gan]. The set of n n matrices over integers is denoted by Zn n, and n is called the dimension. Sometimes Z is replaced by N or by some other semiring. Recall that K is a semiring, if it has two operations, + and , satisfying the following properties: (i) (K; +) is a commutative monoid with 0 as its neutral element. (ii) (K nf0g; ) is a monoid with 1 as its neutral element. (iii) For all a; b; c in K , a(b + c) = ab + ac and (b + c)a = ba + ca. (iv) For all a in K , 0a = a0 = 0. Let A be a matrix in K m n . We denote the coe cient in the i'th row and on the j 'th column of matrix A by Aij , and, consequently, a matrix A is de ned to be (Aij )m n . It is clear that (Zn n; ) forms a monoid, where is the usual multiplication of matrices, i.e. if A and B are in Zn n, then (A B )ij = (AB )ij =

n X k=1

Aik Bkj ;

and the identity element is the identity matrix I (or In), 01 0 0 : : : 01 C B I = B0: : 1: : 0: : :: :: :: : :0C : @: : : :A 0 0 0 ::: 1 n n We will denote this monoid by Mn(Z). The above can be extended to other semirings than Z, and the matrix monoid of n n matrices over semiring K is denoted by Mn(K ). We call a matrix P in Mn(N ) a permutation matrix, if it is derived from In by mixing the rows (or columns) by some permutation. Clearly, if P is a permutation matrix, then each row and each column has 1 in exactly one position and in the other positions there are 0's. We denote ( 1; if i = j; ij = 0; otherwise: Clearly Iij = ij , and if is a permutation on the set f1; : : : ; ng, then P , for which Pij = i; (j), is a permutation matrix. It is also easy to see that P ?1 = (i);j . 4

For a square matrix A = (Aij )n n de ne the determinant of A by

A11 A12 : : : A1n det(A) = :A21: : :A22: : ::::::: : :A2:n: :: :: : An X1 An2 : : : Ann = sign(j1 ; j2 ; : : : ; jn)A1j1 A2j2

(2.1)

Anjn ;

where runs through the permutations on f1; 2; : : :; ng, = (j1 ; j2; : : : ; jn), and sign(j1 ; : : : ; jn) is the sign of the permutation , sign(j1 ; j2; : : : ; jn) = (?1)t( ) ; where t( ) is the number of inversions in , i.e the number of cases where jl > jk and l < k. Recall that in a permutation (j1 ; : : : ; jn) all ji's are di erent. There are also some other methods than the sum (2.1) to calculate the determinant, but we will use the one in the de nition. Let A be an element of Mn (Q ). If det A 6= 0, we say that A is invertible, and it has the unique inverse matrix A?1 in Mn (Q ) such that AA?1 = A?1A = I . Note that if A is an element of Zn n and det(A) 6= 0, then the inverse matrix of A is not necessarily an element of Zn n, but it is an element of Q n n . The eigenvalue in C and eigenvector x in C n , x 6= (0; : : : ; 0), of a matrix A in Mn (C ) satisfy the condition

Ax = x;

(2.2)

where C n denotes as usual the n dimensional vector space over the complex numbers. The vector x can be understood also as an n 1 matrix. From the equation (2.2) it follows that the eigenvalue of A satis es the equation det(A ? I ) = 0: This equation is called the characteristic equation of the matrix A. The left hand side of this equation is so called characteristic polynomial, which is denoted by

cA( ) = (?1)n( n ? c1

n?1 + ?

+ (?1)ncn):

5

This polynomial has degree n, if A is in C n n , and the coe cients ci are in C . If 0 is an eigenvalue of A, we know that cA ( 0 ) = 0. Therefore, if we let the eigenvalues of A be i, i = 1; : : : ; n, it follows that

**cA( ) = (?1)n( ? 1)( ? 2) ( ? n); where the i's need not be di erent. Now we see that cn =
**

n Y i=1 i = c(0) = det(A) and c1 = n X i=1 i:

We call the sum of i's the trace of the matrix A, and denote it by tr(A). Let p be a polynomial with coe cients in C , p(x) = c1xk +c2xk?1 + +c1. Then for a matrix A in Mn (Z) we de ne

p(A) = c1Ak + c2 Ak?1 + + c1 I: Next we present the so called Cayley{Hamilton theorem. We do not present a proof here, a detailed proof can be found for example from Gan]. Theorem 2.1. Let A be a square matrix and let cA be its characteristic

polynomial. Then

cA(A) = 0;

where 0 = (0)n n is the zero matrix. Note that since we are able to compute the determinant of a square matrix, we are also able to compute the characteristic polynomial of a square matrix. We end this section with a notation for the transpose matrix AT of A, T) = A . (A ij ji

**2.4 Decidability and undecidability
**

Let P be a well-de ned decision problem, i.e. a set of instances each of which either has or does not have a certain property. We say that the problem P is decidable, if there exists an algorithm, which for every correct input or an instance of P terminates and gives an answer \yes", if the input has the required property and answers \no" otherwise. If no such algorithm exists, then P is called undecidable. To prove that the problem P is decidable, we 6

The set + is a semigroup. then w1 w2 = a1 : : : anb1 : : : bm : The result of the catenation is clearly in + and it is an associative operation. or show that such an algorithm exists.must nd an algorithm which decides P . when the binary operation is de ned as the concatenation of words. in such reductions. These undecidable problems are introduced later in this chapter. the word semigroup. 2. The length of the word w is n. The usual method to prove the undecidability of a problem P is to reduce some already known undecidable problem Q to P . if there exists a word v in such that w = uv. then the instances q of the problem Q can be solved and therefore the problem Q is decidable. and we denote it by jwj = n. Then the word v is called a su x of w. A word u in is called a pre x of the word w. 7 . A subset of a word monoid is called a language. +. A mapping h from a monoid M1 to a monoid M2 is called a morphism if. It follows that if the problem P is decidable. we transform e ectively an arbitrary instance q of Q to some instance p of P . which means that. Let be the empty word and = + f g. Let w = a1 : : : an be a word in so ai is in for all 1 i n. A nite sequence of letters is called a word. the Post Correspondence Problem or one of its modi cations. Clearly is a free monoid generated by and is its identity element. We shall use a classical undecidable problem. This means that. We call an alphabet and its elements are called letters. which leads to a contradiction. for all u and v in M1 . so that the condition \p has the property of P " is equivalent with the condition \q has the property of Q". Next we de ne a few properties of words.5 Word monoids and morphisms Let be a nite set of symbols. Denote by + the set of all words over . h satis es the condition h(uv) = h(u)h(v): Note that in the right hand side of this equation the operation is the operation of the monoid M2 . if w1 = a1 : : : an and w2 = b1 : : : bm are in +.

This version of PCP is not the original version of the problem. then PCP(n) is decidable. The equality set of h and g is the set E (h. such that h1(a1 )h2 (a2) : : : hk (ak ) = g1(a1)g2(a2 ) : : : gk (ak ). (2. g : ! whether there exists a word w = a1 : : : ak with ai in and k 1. g) of MMPCP. The size of an instance (h. for example. hi and gi are in fh. The proof of the undecidability of PCP(7) can be found from MSe] and the proof of the decidability of PCP(n). from HaK]. We denote by PCP(n) the subproblem of PCP for instances of size at most n. for some j . The mixed modi cation of PCP. Let h and g be two morphisms from into . 2. but equivalent and more useful to our purposes. We shall next introduce one of these that is later used in the Chapter 4.7 The Mixed Modi cation of PCP There exists many modi cations of the Post Correspondence Problem. It is also known that if n 2. for each i. Elements in E (h. and it was rst proved by Post in Pos] in the general case. 8 . Post Pos] in 1946.e. The word w satisfying the equation (2. which have been proved to be undecidable. gg and.3) where. g) of PCP. MMPCP for short. and if n 7 then it is undecidable. g) whether or not E (h..2. g) = fw 2 + j h(w) = g(w)g: The Post Correspondence Problem asks to decide for a given pair (h. there does not exist any algorithm for solving all instances of PCP. PCP for short. g) are called solutions of the instance (h. i. The undecidability of PCP is a classical result in formal language theory. introduced by E. g) of PCP is de ned to be the cardinality of the alphabet .6 The Post Correspondence Problem We shall next study the Post Correspondence Problem. asks to determine for two given morphisms h. hj 6= gj . for n 2. can be found. For n greater than 2 and smaller than 7 the decidability status is open. g) = .3) is called a solution of the instance (h.

This follows from the equations ha(dwe) = cl(h(a))l(h(w))de = cl(h(aw))de and ga(dwe) = cdr(g(a))r(g(w))e = cdr(g(aw))e: Now. also HaK]. eg) by setting ha(x) = l(h(x)). ha (d) = cl(h(a)). Further.We show that MMPCP is undecidable. ha (e) = de. ga) of PCP has a solution. a1 = d and ak = e. Theorem 2.3). for each a in we de ne two morphisms ha . that is. g) of PCP has a solution aw. This requires to reduce PCP to MMPCP. Next we show that the instance (h. d. So assume that the pair (h. since the pair (ha . g : ! and that c. If (h. i. We use the method. ga). g) of PCP. The proof is from CHK]. Finally. if and only if the instance (ha . therefore the implication in one direction is clear. eg) ! ( fc. g) has a solution as an instance of PCP. the minimality of w implies that h1 6= g1 and hk 6= gk . cf. let mappings l. then it has a solution also as an instance of MMPCP.e. Proof. We claim that then also h(w) = g(w).2. mentioned earlier in this chapter. g : ! the instance (ha . ga) can only have solutions of the form dwe. so by the de nitions of h and g. as an instance of PCP. ga : ( fd. w in . ga (e) = e: for all x 2 . Finally we show that the pair (ha . ga) of PCP has a solution dwe. We see also that ai 9 . To simplify notation we denote h = ha and g = ga. we conclude that it is undecidable whether for given morphisms h. to prove the undecidability. In notations of (2. Let (h. r : ! ( fdg) be morphisms de ned as l(a) = da and r(a) = ad for all a in . has a solution if and only if the same pair has a solution as an instance of MMPCP. MMPCP is undecidable. d and e are new letters not in . g) has a solution as an instance of MMPCP and let w = a1 : : : ak be a solution of minimal length. w is a solution of instance (h. g) be an instance of PCP and assume that h. ga(x) = r(g(x)) ga(d) = cdr(g(a)). to transform an instance of PCP to that of MMPCP such that both of these have a solution simultaneously.

similarly. then there is a pre x which is in cd( d)+(d )+. : : : .3) matches with this pre x. because if hi 6= g for all i. This is a contradiction. and so there is a pre x in the right hand side of (2. because otherwise there would be a shorter solution than w.e. Then there must be the smallest t such that gt = h or ht = g. Consider the rst alternative. In the second alternative. i. k ? 1. But no pre x of the right hand side of (2. for which it suits very well. We may assume. : : : . because g(a1) : : : g(ak ) 2 cd( d)+. Then we have g(a1 : : : at?1 )h(at ) 2 cd( d)+(d )+. for some i. then h1(a1 ) : : : hk (ak ) 2 c(d )+. This contradiction proves the claim.is not d or e if i = 2. and if. Therefore we cannot have two consecutive letters of without having a factor dd rst. We shall use MMPCP in the proof of the undecidability of the freeness of matrix monoids. and if hi = g for some i. Therefore we do not get two d's without having two consecutive letters of rst.3) has a pre x that ends with two consecutive letters of . that h1 = h and g1 = g and we will show that hi = h and gi = g for all i = 1. 10 .3) matches with this pre x. the left hand side of (2. by symmetry. then there is a pre x which is in c(d )+ . But no pre x of the left hand side of (2. gi = h. Assume the contrary. k.3) that ends with dd. we get that h(a1 : : : at?1 )g(at) 2 c(d )+( d)+.

This result was rst proved by M. but our proof itself is simpler. 3. ang and de ne a function : ? ! N by (ai1 ai2 :::aik ) = k X j =1 ij nk?j and ( ) = 0: We see that. for all u and v in ? . We use the same method. vv0). : : : . Determine whether the zero matrix belongs to S . the product of matrices representing pairs (u. `Given' here means that we are given a nite generator set of S . In other words.S. He used clever coding techniques to make a reduction to PCP. (uv) = njvj (u) + (v): 11 (3. The basic idea of the proof is to reduce an instance of PCP to the mortality problem. the function gives the value which w represents as an n-adic number. Then.1 The undecidability of the mortality problem We prove that the mortality problem is undecidable for 3 3 matrices.1) . must be injective. First we de ne notions needed in the proof. :::. althought the idea remains the same.3 Mortality of Matrix Monoids Let S be a given nitely generated submonoid of n n matrices from Zn n. Mk in S such that M1 M2 Mk = 0. Let ? be an alphabet. M2. and because each natural number has a unique n-adic representation. a2. for each word w. determine whether there exists a sequence of matrices M1 . Let ? = fa1 . Paterson in 1970 Pat]. v) and (u0. We also note that. v0) represents pair the (uu0. In this section we consider the mortality problem. We use an injective morphism from ? ? into N 3 3 to represent a pair of words in the multiplicative monoid of matrices. Problem 1. of course. which is de ned next.

Now if i. v2)31 . 1)-entry of the matrix (w). v1 )31 = (u2. then v1 = v2. v) = @ 0 njvj 0A : (u) (v) 1 (3. : : : . Notice also that for the empty word we have ( . and if (u1. We are now ready to prove the undecidability result. Next we de ne a monoid morphism : ? ? ! N 3 3 . Theorem 3. ) = I3.Next de ne a mapping : ? ! N 2 2 by (ai) = n 0 . which means that. The mortality problem is undecidable for 3 3-matrices with integer entries. v2)32 . 0 njuj 0 01 (u. where two copies of is applied simultaneously in 3 3 matrices. j 2 f1. then u1 = u2. n. then juj 0 jvj 0 (u) (v) = n(u) 1 = n(v) 1 njujnjvj 0 (u)njvj + (v) 1 = = njuvj 0 = (uv): (uv) 1 is also injective. The morphism is also doubly injective. i 1 for all i = 1. and therefore jwj 0 (w) = n(w) 1 : This can be proved by induction. since if u and v are in ? . 12 . if (u1. 2. because is injective and (w) is the (2.2) The fact that is a morphism follows from the fact that is a morphism. ng.1. We note that is a morphism from ? into N 2 2 . :::. we get that (ai) (aj ) = n 0 i 1 2 = nin+ j n 0 j 1 0 = njai aj j 0 : 1 (ai aj ) 1 Clearly this can be extended for all w 2 ? . v1)32 = (u2.

we have AW1 A AW2A AWt A = 0: 13 . Assume now that 0 2 S . s) = @0 q and p. s2). s 0. s and r are integers. because A is an idempotent. t.Proof. q2 . s)A = (p + q ? s)A: Next we show that 0 2 S () 9W 2 L : AWA = 0: (3. q. r2.5) for some t 1 and Wj 2 L. Ak = A. Let L be a nitely generated submonoid of Y and S be the matrix monoid generated by fAg L. q. 0 pp 1 2 BC = @ 0 1 AW (p. there = must be product AW1 AW2A AWt A = 0 (3. If we assume that t > 1 and that t is minimal. then 0 0 r 0A . 01 A = @?1 1 0 1 0 ?1A : 0 0 0 1 Let Y be the set of matrices 0p W (p. s1r2 + s2 ). q1 .e. q. say B = W (p1. We notice that A2 = A. r. r > 0. A is an idempotent. then 0 2 S. i. s 1 If B and C are in Y . : : : . r. then. r. First de ne matrix A. Since also I is in Y . q1p2 + q2 .4) The reverse implication is trivial. because if AWA = 0 for some W 2 L. for all j = 1. 0 0 r1 r2 0A = W (p1p2 . and that for all W (p. r1r2 . s) in L. Since 0 2 L and for all k 1. q. where p. r1.3) (3. s1) and C = W (p2. Y is a monoid. q1p2 + q2 s1r2 + s2 1 then clearly BC is in Y . q.

such that AWA = 0. From the de nition (3. Assume that ? = fa1. equivalent to the equation v = a1 u.3) we have to analyse the condition 3juj + (u) ? (v) = 0: This is. 14 .Now by equation (3. if m = 0. and from the properties of the morphism . then AW1 A = 0. By (3. and if m 6= 0. so that n = 3. and this proves the claim.3) we get that. a3 g. Let L be the set of all matrices Wa and Wa0 . Because u = h(w) 2 and a1 2 .1) of . This is equivalent to the condition v = a1 g(w) = a1h(w): Therefore S is mortal if and only if the instance (h.6). (u) (v) 1 where u is in and v in ? . Next we reduce an instance of PCP to the mortality problem using mapping from ? ? into N 3 3 as de ned in (3. for some integer m. g : ! and = fa2.1 to get n n matrices. We just add zero columns to the right hand side and zero rows to the bottom of all matrices in the proof of Theorem 3. where a 2 . S is mortal if and only if there is a matrix W generated by matrices of L such that AWA = 0. Consider now a matrix monoid S generated by fAg L.6) for all a 2 . g(a)) and Wa0 = (h(a). Both of these cases lead to a contradiction with the minimality of t and therefore there exists W in L. Let (h. This proof works also for n n matrices where n > 3. where h. De ne the matrices Wa = (h(a). By the claim (3. a3g.2). Clearly. a1g(a)) (3. g) be an instance of PCP.4). The products of these new matrices depend only on product of original 3 3 matrices. these matrices Wa and Wa0 are in Y . it follows that W is of the form 0 3juj 0 01 W = @ 0 3jvj 0A . by the property (3. then t is not a minimal. we must have = 0 W = Ww1 Ww2 Wwn where wi's are in and w = w1 wn. mAW2 A AWt A = 0: Now we have two cases. a2 . g) of PCP has a solution.

Given two square matrices A and B with integer entries. We shall construct two matrices A and B of dimension nk such that the semigroup S generated by fA. 0 . also for T .2. Proof. by the choice of this A. where the semigroup is generated by only two matrices with integer entries. Also. The mortality problem is undecidable for n n matrices with 3. The proof is based on Theorem 3... As mentioned before the PCP(7) is proved to be undecidable in MSe]. Therefore the size of the alphabet in the proof can be set to be seven and therefore we need 15 matrices in that proof. We shall show that this problem is undecidable.1 is the same as in the original proof by Paterson.1 and on a simple trick to represent a matrix semigroup with k generators of dimension n in a semigroup with only two generators of dimension nk. . Corollary 3. . .integer entries and n 3. where k = 15.. . . using the matrices Mi.. this shows that the problem is undecidable.. As mentioned before.2 The mortality of semigroups with two generators In this section we consider the mortality problem in the case. it is undecidable whether the semigroup generated by fA. . . . 0 Mk 0 1 0 0 0 BI 0 . By Theorem 3. C A 0 I 0 1 . Theorem 3. A and B are de ned with n n blocks. . B @. 0A @ 0 15 0 I 0 0C C 0 0C C . We used only one special matrix A when Paterson had two of them. Since an algorithm to decide this property for S could then be turned into an algorithm for any nitely generated semigroup. B g contains the zero matrix. we managed to simplify some details in the proof.. : : : . The construction is quite simple. The proof of the following theorem is from CKa].. C B . B g contains the zero matrix if and only if T contains it.. . .. A is a block diagonal and B is a permutation matrix: 0M1 0 B 0 M2 A = B . .1 we know that the presence of the zero matrix is undecidable for a semigroup T generated by M1. the idea of the proof of Theorem 3.1. C B C and B = B0 I B. Mk with dimension n = 3.. the n n identity I and the n n zero. .

16 . .. the product D1 D2 Dk .. We shall prove next that for any index 1 i k. M1 . . . C C = B .. Now the left upper block of the product Ci1 Ci2 Cim is 0 = Mi1 Mi2 Mim . Then Ci+1 = B k?(i+1)+1 AB i+1?1 = B ?1CiB . We shall return to the question of the mortality of semigroups generated by two matrices in the Chapter 7. . B @ . but with the blocks circularly permuted.. . . . Conversely. if we assume that the zero matrix is in S . Using the relation B k = Ink . . 1 t i < n. we have Ci1 Ci2 Cim = 0.. First.. .It is quite clear that B ?1 = B k?1 = B T and that B k = Ink . . . . where the indices are taken modulo k. : : : . Assume now that there exists i such that the claim holds for all t. . . Let Dj = Ci1?j+1Ci2?j+1 Cim ?j+1 for 1 j k. assume that T contains the zero matrix and that Mi1 Mi2 Mim = 0.. which is an element of S . It follows from the previous theorem that the mortality problem is undecidable for semigroups generated by two matrices. if the dimension of the matrices is at least 3 15 = 45. Therefore. Mi+1 . then C1 = B k?1+1AB 1?1 = B k AI = IAI = A. : : : .. if i = 1. C C @ A 0 0 Mi?1 0 0Mi+1 0 01 B 0 Mi+2 . since B is invertible. Mk . is the zero matrix. 0 C : A 0 0 Mi So Ci+1 is of the required form. the element Ci = B k?i+1AB i?1 is a block diagonal like A. which means that the zero matrix is in T .... where this problem is shown to be decidable for 2 2 matrices. and 0 1 0 0 0 Mi BMi+1 0 0 0C B C B 0 Mi+2 0 ?1 C B = B T B 0C B i B . Therefore. . The matrix Dj is block diagonal and its j 'th diagonal block is Mi1 Mi2 Mim = 0. Mi?1. namely its diagonal is Mi. The proof is by induction on i. any element of the semigroup S can be written in the form B tCi1 Ci2 Cim with m 0.

3. Let (S. Then we can also decide whether the zero matrix is in S . and if there exists a zero element. Next theorem is obvious after the previous lemma. for all a in S . The checking is easy to do. then it has also a zero element. Assume that the matrices M1 . The zero element in a semigroup is unique.3 The existence of the zero element in matrix semigroups In the two previous sections we considered the existence of the zero matrix in a nitely generated matrix semigroup. Lemma 3. then the zero matrix is not in S either. we can decide whether S contains the zero matrix. This follows. For n 3. : : : .1. if a matrix semigroup S contains the zero matrix. Proof. a contradiction with Theorem 3. Clearly. the existence of an element x in a semigroup S such that. n matrices with integer entries contains the Proof. i. we check all the elements in S until we nd it. 17 . since X is a zero element if and only if M1X = = Mk X = X = XM1 = = XMk : Now when we nd the zero element. ) be a semigroup and to the contrary that S contains two zero elements. Hence. it is undecidable whether a given nitely generated matrix semigroup of n zero element. xa = ax = x. We shall show in this section that also the existence of the zero element is an undecidable property. we check if it is the zero matrix or not. Then by the de nition of a zero element x1 = x1 x2 = x2 . In this section we consider the existence of the zero element in a matrix semigroup. We begin with an easy semigroup theoretical lemma.e. Assume to the contrary that it is decidable whether S contains a zero element. since if there does not exist a zero element in S . Mk are the given generator matrices of the semigroup. say x1 and x2 . indeed.1.3. Theorem 3.

One thing we can say is that if the mortality problem for 2 2 matrices with arbitrary many generators is undecidable. Also (AB )21 = dg = ga = (BA)21 . This proof is presented in Chapter 7. Then (AB )12 = h af = fd = (BA)11 . The only possibility to have the zero matrix in S is that it is one of the generators. 1) Assume that B = g f and that AB = BA. What can we say about the problem for 2 2 matrices? Not much.4 The mortality problem in dimension two It is clear that for 1 1 matrices the mortality problem is decidable. Now we see that (AB )12 = af + bh = eb + fa = (BA)12 . We shall now prove this fact. These imply h that (AB )11 = ae + bg = ae = (BA)11 and therefore g = 0. since the other direction is obvious. then for all B 2 C 2 2 . and conversily. it can be proved decidable in two generator case. we prove a lemma concerning the commutation of certain special 2 2 matrices. because that proof was based on the injective morphism from into N 3 3 . AB = 0 e BA if and only if B = 0 f . The Jordan 18 . because it is not known whether the mortality problem is decidable or undecidable for 2 2 matrices in the case. Clearly also (AB )21 = 0 = (BA)21 and (AB )22 = ae = (BA)22 . where a 6= d. e 2) Assume that B = g f and that AB = BA. it follows that f = 0. Lemma 3. Let A be an upper triangular 2 2 matrix over C .2. then it must be proved with some other techniques than the undecidability for 3 3 matrices. so g = 0 and we are done. so h = e. where we have more than two generators. where b = 0.3. then for all matrices B 2 C 2 2 . and since a 6= d. This shows that if B commutes with A it is of the required form. e Proof. AB = BA if and 0 e 0 only if B = 0 h . As we mentioned before. The reason we need the previous lemma is that we use in the next proof the existence of so called Jordan normal form of square matrices. b 6 1) If A = a a . and 2 2 . e 0 2) If A = a d . but before there is no such morphism into N that.

Assume to the contrary that there is an injective morphism from S into C 2 2 . ). say and . The next theorem shows that there is no injective morphism from into C 2 2 . where is the empty word. which is in C 2 2 . For a matrix A in Z2 2. we can suppose that A is in the Jordan normal form. For the proof of these facts we refer to Gan]. ( . since ac = ca and ad = da in 19 . ). Proof. Suppose that A has two di erent eigenvalues. b = (1. There is no injective morphism : ! C2 2 for any alphabet with at least two elements. A = PJP ?1. To simplify the notations we set a = (0. 2) If A has only one eigenvalue. the Jordan normal form has two possibilities: 1) If A has two di erent eigenvalues.4. 0). since the eigenvalues are in C . ). D = (d). Since the conjugation by an invertible matrix does not in uence the injectivity. ). Theorem 3. In L = f(0. ( . and let A = (a). The diagonal of J consists of the eigenvalues of A. Actually we need this property only for morphisms into N 2 2 . the proof of it being from CHK]. and the matrices commuting with A are exactly the diagonal matrices by Lemma 3. d = ( . that is. say . 1) and e = ( . 1g. (1. Now we are ready for the theorem. but we use C 2 2 here. there exists an invertible matrix P in C n n such that. then then J = 0 0 or J= 0 1 . C = (c).2. It is su cient to prove the theorem in the case where this case the monoid S = has a generating set = f0. then J = 0 0 . c = ( . and E = (e). 1). 0).normal form J of a matrix A in Zn n is an upper triangular matrix. )g. because in the proof we need the Jordan normal form of matrices. B = (b). ). which is similar to A. Therefore C and D must be diagonal. Then A = 0 0 . ( .

by symmetry. but b and a do not commute in S .5. if a11 = a22 = 0. Then the zero matrix belongs to the semigroup generated by L if and only if there are matrices A and B in L such that Then AB = a110b11 a11 b12 + a12 b22 : a22 b22 We see that the product is also an upper triangular matrix. which yields a contradiction as above. So we have four cases. First. To get zeros to the diagonal. Both directions of the equivalence follow from this. The mortality of 2 2 matrices is also connected to other branches of mathematics. since c and d do not commute in S . Sch]. and then AB = 0. Let L be a set of 2 2 upper triangular matrices with integer A11 = 0 and B22 = 0: Proof. The second case is that a11 = b22 = 0. because then A = I commutes with all matrices. then AA = 0. especially with B . which contradicts the injectivity. We end this chapter by showing that the mortality problem is decidable for the 2 2 upper triangular matrices. The rst case is impossible. It follows that also matrices C and D commute. 11 a A = a0 a12 22 11 b and B = b0 b12 : 22 entries. cf. In the second case y A would commute only with the matrices of the form x x by Lemma 0 3. Let A and B be 2 2 upper triangular matrices. 20 . but. and they commute with each others.2.S . it is enough to consider only two of those. If A has only one eigenvalue. This special case is not very important and it does not say anything about the general case. then A = 0 0 or A = 0 1 . Theorem 3. necessarily either a11 or b11 equals with the zero and either a22 or b22 equals with the zero.

: : : . This result was rst proved by Klarner. Cassaigne. every element of S can be uniquely expressed as a product of elements of X . and therefore also for all n n matrices. In the nal section of this chapter we prove that it is undecidable. Assume that is an alphabet. Harju and J. matrices with non-negative integer entries is free? Problem 2. T. After that we consider the case of 2 2 matrices. Birget and Satter eld KBS] in 1990. but instead of an instance of PCP we will reduce an instance of MMPCP to this problem. 21 . we rst prove that this problem is undecidable for 3 3 matrices. whether two matrix semigroups have an equal element. This proof is shorter and also gives a better bound for the number of matrices. 4. Recall that a semigroup S is said to be free if there exists a subset X of S such that every element of S has a unique factorization over X . Karhumaki CHK]. because a monoid M is said to be free if M nf1g is a free semigroup. and let function : ! N correspond a value of word as an n-adic representation as in the mortality chapter. Next we de ne the freeness problem for square matrices. where n 3. i. Determine whether a given nitely generated semigroup of n n As in the case of the mortality problem.e. ang. The results in this chapter also concern monoids. = fa1 .1 The undecidability of the freeness We shall now prove that the freeness problem is undecidable for 3 3 matrices.4 Freeness of Matrix Semigroups In this chapter we concentrate on the freeness property of semigroups which is one of the fundamental properties of semigroups and monoids. but we will present a proof which was developed by J. The proof uses the same techniques than the proof of the mortality problem.

This is the rst reason that this proof is better than the proof of Klarner.3 : if and only if ( i1 : : : ip )1. g) of MMPCP has a solution.3 But this is equivalent to ai1 : : : aip = bj1 : : : bjq and hi1 (ai1 ) : : : hip (aip ) = gj1 (bj1 ) : : : gjq (bjq ) by the uniqueness of the n-adic representations. g(a)) j a 2 g and let S be the semigroup generated by M . Theorem 4. h(a)). jq be in M .We now de ne a mapping 1 : 1 (u. Let (h. with hit and gjs in fh. Birget and Satter eld KBS]. they are endomorphisms. q. 1(a. p 1 and s = 1.1.3 and ( i1 : : : ip )2. Hence the nonfreeness. Next de ne the set M = f 1(a. j1 . : : : . by the de nition of 1 (and ). gg and ait and bjs in . we may assume that h and g are morphism from into i. and so also the freeness. assuming that in the PCP we consider instances over 7 22 . We could have used also the morphism itself in the above proof but we prefered to formulate the result for upper triangular matrices. We have proved that S is nonfree if and only if the instance (h. it = 1(ait . The second reason is that they needed 29 matrices when we needed only 18. ip . : : : .e. Then. v ) = ( 0njuj 0 (u. gjs (bjs )). hit (ait )) and js = (bjs . : : : . Of course. : : : . is an undecidable property. g) be an instance of MMPCP. v))T = @ 0 njvj 0 0 ! N 3 3 by setting (u) (v)A . Let i1 . for t = 1.1. 1 1 where is the injective morphism de ned in Section 3. Proof. It is undecidable whether a semigroup generated by nite set of upper-triangular 3 3 matrices of non-negative integers is free. we have: i1 : : : ip = j1 : : : jq in S =( j1 : : : jq )2. Clearly also 1 is a doubly injective morphism.3 =( j1 : : : jq )1.

This problem seems to be very di cult. cf.letter domain alphabet. i.in the undecidability proof of the MMPCP we added two letters to this alphabet. cf. into N 2 2 . Another one is the embedding de ned in the chapter considering the mortality problem. a1.e. It is also known that every free semigroup + can be embedded into the semigroup of 2 2-matrices over k nonnegative integer. But. Such embeddings can be done in many di erent ways. where the semigroup is generated by two upper triangular 2 2 matrices over Q . whether the freeness problem is decidable for the 2 2 matrices over nonnegative integers. gular matrices with non-negative integer entries for any n 3 . in CHK] Cassaigne. This is due to Theorem 3. as can be done.1. In the theory of semigroups. MSe] . It is known that it is decidable whether a nite set of words is a free generating set. For example. Therefore it is natural to ask. it is not known whether the freeness problem is decidable or undecidable in the case of 2 2-matrices. where k is k the number of letters in the alphabet . The freeness problem is undecidable for n n upper trian- 4. then the morphism de ned by i ai 7! k 1 0 is one such embedding. 23 .e. Chapter 3. : : : . Corollary 4. it is known that every nitely generated free semigroup is isomorphic to some free word semigroup + . if k = fa0 .2 The freeness problem in dimension two As in the case of the mortality problem. BeP].4. Indeed. i. whether a semigroup generated by a nite set of words is free. but even in this case. it cannot be proved using a construction similar to the one used for 3 3-matrices. ak?1g. we know that if it is undecidable. Harju and Karhumaki considered a restricted case. The next corollary is clear by extending the matrices in the above proof in an obvious way. again. no general method for deciding the freeness was found.

Krom considered a variant of this problem in Kro]. He asked. where h and g are morphism from into . Proof. and the proof we present suits also for the variant of Krom. Assume that and let 1 be the morphism de ned in Section 4. Theorem 4. We shall prove that the problem of equal element is undecidable. but we present it here.2.1. Given two nitely generated subsemigroups of Mn(Z). determine whether there exists a matrix X . h(a)) and Ga = 1(a. g) be an instance of PCP. g(a)) for all a in . since in the proof of the undecidability we use the same mapping 1 as de ned earlier in this chapter. if n 3. whether there exists a matrix X in both M and N such that X is a product of equally many generators of both M and N . Since 1 is doubly injective. Clearly this proof works for the variant of Krom. Let (h.4. respectively. Here `given' means again that we are given the generators of M and N . Problem 3. It is undecidable whether two nitely generated subsemigroups of M3 (Z) have a common element. Now let SH and SG be two semigroups generated by the matrices Ha = 1(a. since in the proof neccessarily k = t. say M and N . The existence of a common element is actually an independent problem and it is not connected to the freeness problem. M. which is both in M and in N . we get that Ha1 if and only if Hak = Gb1 Gbt a1 : : : ak = b1 : : : bt and h(a1 ) : : : h(ak ) = g(b1) : : : g(bt ): Therefore the claim follows from the undecidability of the PCP.3 Common elements in semigroups In this section we consider the existence of a common element in two matrix semigroups. 24 .

Note that a matrix A from M (N ) is torsion if and only if there exists a natural number m. The proof we present is a combinatorial one. then S is a torsion semigroup (or a periodic semigroup). n. Also these extensions can be proved to be decidable. k) and every partition of k element subsets of X into m blocks. An element a of S is called a torsion (or periodic). Given natural numbers m. over any eld. At the end of this chapter we mention also some other results which give better upper bounds than the bound proved here. if ap = aq for some natural numbers p < q. such that all k element subsets of Y belong to the same block. Let S be a semigroup.1 The decidability of the niteness As mentioned above. we are given the generator matrices of S . Theorem 5. Natural extensions of the niteness problem are the ones considering semigroups of matrices over the rational numbers Q and. n. k) such that for every set X of cardinality at least R(m. cf. Determine whether the semigroup S is nite or not? We show that this problem is decidable by showing that. such that (Ar )ij m for all r. 25 . In this chapter we consider the problem which asks: Problem 4. n and k such that m 2 and n k 1. Mandel and I. which is a classical result of Ramsey Ram]. 5.1.e. If every element of S is a torsion. we shall show that there exists an upper bound for the cardinality of a nite subsemigroup of N n n . i. Simon in 1977. in general. MaS]. then there exist a natural number R(m. which depends on n and on the number of generators of the semigroup. First we need some new de nitions. if S is nite. Our proofs and notions are from the article MaS] by A. there exists a subset Y of X . then an upper bound of the cardinality of S can be computed.5 Finiteness of Matrix Semigroups We are given a nitely generated subsemigroup S of N n n . We need also the next theorem. with the cardinality n.

2. which is the sum of all labels of walks of length k + 1 from i to j . such that. ir ) in GA. We prove this by induction on r. Let A be a matrix in Mn(N ). EH ). For a given A in Mn(N ). cf. This means that for all i and j . For all r in N . we de ne a graph GA to have a vertex set V = n = f1. (b) GA contains neither a directed cycle with label at least 2.Ramsey's theorem has many equivalent formulations and there exists a branch in combinatorics. : : : . ng and an edge set E . there is a directed path (or walk) from i to j and from j to i. Assume that A is in Mn(N ). we denote its label by (e). E ). is called a strong component of G. H = (VH . Lemma 5. we de ne the label (T ) to be r=1 (ej ). Before our next lemma we de ne one more property of graphs.1. if for all i and j in VH . where V is the set of vertices and E is the set of directed edges. the claim holds. For an edge e. where VH V and EH E . Next we de ne a graph representation of a matrix in Mn(N ). then this is clear by the de nition of GA. where ij 's are vertices. G = (V. Now (Ak+1)ij = (A Ak )ij = k X h=1 Aih(Ak )hj . Then the following statements are equivalent: (a) A is a torsion. Then a subgraph H of G. namely The Ramsey Theory. nor two directed cycles which are connected by a path. For a walk T = (i0. GRS]. (Ar )ij is the sum of the labels of all walks from i to j of length r.1) 22 23 0 0 B33 26 . Proof. er . (5. If r = 1. which is based on this theorem. (c) There exists a permutation matrix P such that P ?1AP has the block form 0B B B 1 @ 011 B12 B13A . : : : . there is a directed edge from i to j in E with label Aij . and ei is an Q edge from ij?1 to ij . The next lemma follows from the above de nitions. Assume that for some k 1. e1 . Let G be a directed graph. Lemma 5. (Ar )ij is the sum of the labels of the length r walks from i to j in GA . i1. whenever r k. whenever Aij 6= 0. We say that j the length of T is r.

where some blocks might be empty.2) 8 i 2 Vk . 3. By Lemma 5. j 2 Vl : k < l =) (i) < (j ): (5.j .j from the left permutes the rows of A according to . (Alr )ii (T )r 2r . and then the permutation is de ned using (5. i.e.2). (5. it follows that G1 and G3 are acyclic. Therefore we are able to de ne total orders 1 and 3 on V1 and V3. 3. Assume that GA contains a cycle T with (T ) 2.3). Consider the following partition of the vertex set of GA: V2 = fi 2 n j i belongs to a nontrivial strong component of GAg. such that 8 i. Let lk be the length of Tk for k = 1. and hence A is not a torsion. then i k j . respectively. V1 = fi 2 nnV2 j there exists a path from i to some vertex in V2g.e. and so A is not a torsion. and assume also that i is a vertex in T . Because the vertices that are in some cycle of GA belong to V2. j 2 Vk .3) Such a permutation can be constructed in such a way that n is rst divided into three parts according to (5. Gk consists of all vertices of Vk and all edges between the vertices of Vk . Let Bij denote the restriction of the matrix P ?1AP to (Vi) (Vj ). clearly l 1. 3. respectively. 2.1. (P ?1A)ij = A (i). Now there exists a permutation of n. Then the matrix P ?1AP satis es the condition (P ?1AP )ij = A (i). Assume now that GA has two distinct cycles T1 and T2 through vertices i and j . let A be in Mn (N ) and let GA be its graph representation. i. such that if there is a edge from i to j in Gk . Because no vertices of V3 is connected 27 . i 6= j : (i) < (j ) () i <k j for k = 1.1. (Aml1 l2+l3 )ij m. Denote by l the length of T . Consider the walks of the form T1m1 l2 T3T2m2 l1 . Let P to be the permutation matrix de ned by Pij = i. and that there is a path T3 from i to j . B11 and B33 are upper triangular with zeros on the diagonals. If m = m1 + m2 . We say that a strong component of the graph GA is trivial if it contains no edges. then for all m in N we have at least m di erent paths from i to j of length ml1 l2 + l3. and the multiplication by P from the right permutes the columns of A (i)j according to . since the multiplication by P ?1 = (i). because there is m di erent ways to express m as a sum m1 + m2 . Next we show that (b) implies (c). (j) . Therefore by Lemma 5. 2. V3 = nn(V1 V2 ): Let Gk denote the subgraph of GA induced by Vk for k = 1. To show that (a) implies (b). (j). The length of such a walk is clearly (m1 + m2 )l1l2 + l3 . Proof. and B22 is a permutation matrix.

and because no two distinct cycles are joined by a path. the graph GA satis es the condition (b) of Lemma 5. then GA contains a cycle with a label at least 2. (the product of labels of a path is ). i. so n n B11 = B33 = 0. for a matrix A in Mn (N ). necessarily one of the edges on this cycle has a label at least 2. because there exists no path from the vertices of V2 to the vertices of V1. De ne a semiring N 2 = f0. 2g and let denote the set inclusion : Mn (N 2 ) ! Mn(N ). 2g and a b = minfab. Let : Mn(N ) ! Mn(N 2 ) be the monoid morphism given by (A)ij = minfAij . 2g. there are no edges. Therefore B22 is a permutation matrix. Also B21 is zero. only vice versa. since in GA. but rst we must set a few new de nitions. A is a torsion. As corollaries of the previous lemma we prove two lemmas. then so does G (A). G (A) has exactly the same edges than GA.3) that B31 and B32 are zero matrices.2) it also follows that they are upper triangular. it follows from (5. for a permutation matrix P there exists a natural number r such that P r = I .e. 2g N with the operations a b = minfa + b. Further since no element in V1 V3 belongs to any nontrivial strong component of GA. it follows that B11 and B33 have zeros on the diagonals: from (5. Let r be such a natural r number that B22 = I and r n. 1. Similarly. Note that. such that i and j belong to di erent strong components and there is a an edge from i to j in GA.2 if and only if the graph G (A) satis es it. Finally we show that (c) implies (a). if G (A) contains a cycle with a label 2. Clearly.to V1 or V2 (by de nition). and if GA has a cycle with a label at least 2. and in G (A) this label is exactly 2. Hence 00 B 0 B 0 B 0 1 12 12 23 0 B23 A P (P ?1AP )2r = P ?1A2r P = P ?1 @0 I 00 B00 B0 0B0 1 0 12 12 23 0 B23 A P: (P ?1AP )3r = P ?1A3r P = P ?1 @0 I 0 0 0 Therefore A2r = A3r . Now we have 00 B 0 B 0 1 12 13 0 (P ?1AP )r = P ?1Ar P = @0 I B23 A . 0 0 0 because B11 and B33 are upper triangular with zeros on the diagonals. 28 . Conditions (b) imply that the strong components of GA are cycles with label 1. Therefore.

if a2 = a. Indeed. Since (A) is idempotent in Mn (N 2 ) and is a morphism. from B22 = B22 it follows that B22 = I . if GA satis es Condition (b) of Lemma 5. Hence P ?1AP is of the form (5. then A2 = A3 . Let A and B be matrices of Mn(N ) such that (A) = (B ).1) of Lemma 5. 0 1 CE E A P: 0 1 So we have that P ?1A2P = P ?1A3P .2.3. Since B22 is a permutation 2 matrix and therefore invertible. and by multiplying this equation by P from the left and by P ?1 from the right we get that A2 = A3.We shall use these considerations as the nal conclusion in the proof of the next lemma. B11 and B33 must be zero matrices. If A 2 Mn(N ) is a torsion and (A) is an idempotent. Let P be a permutation matrix such that P ?1 AP has the form (5. Lemma 5. Because (A) = (B ). Proof. Recall that an element a of a semiring is called idempotent. ((P ?1AP )2) = (P ?1A2P ) = (P ?1AP ): Now since B11 and B33 are upper triangular with zeros on the diagonals. so does GB . then on each power the number of zero entries grows.2. if they are not zero matrices.4) where I is an identity matrix. graphs G (A) and G (B) are equal. Now 00 (P ?1AP )2 = P ?1A2 P = P ?1 @0 00 0 ?1 AP )3 = P ?1A3 P = P ?1 @0 (P C I 0 C I 0 0 CE E A P. 29 . The next lemma shows how the torsions of the monoid Mn (N ) are connected to the idempotents of the monoid Mn(N 2 ). Lemma 5. Therefore. Then A is a torsion if and only if B is a torsion. and there exists a permutation matrix P such that P ?1AP has a block form 00 C D1 @0 I E A .4. Proof.4). 0 0 0 (5.

4. By our assumption (b). there exists. we have that A = (y1y2) = (y1) (y2) = A2. and by Lemma 5. there is an epimorphism. fi2 . Denote the composition ( ) by . by Lemma 5. Proof. Let m = 3n2 = jMn(N 2 )j.1. it follows that (B ) = ( (A)). The following statement are equivalent: (a) S is nite. such that (x) = (y).3. say QA.5) Now. Let S be a subsemigroup of Mn (N ). Claim. Let us partition the 2-subsets of f1. then we can state an upper bound for cardinality of S . Theorem 5. Since fi1. Since B is a torsion. (c) jS j g(n. Let A in (S ) be idempotent and let B in S be such that (B ) = A.e. a set Y = fi1 . with jyj < jxj. with 1 i1 < i2 < i3 < i4 r. with xi 's in X . since A is idempotent. k) = p=0 ki. Since P and P ?1 are permutation matrices. rg into m blocks fQA j A 2 Mn(N 2 )g.4.4). i3g and fi3 . i.2. a surjective morphism. where X is the free word monoid generated by an alphabet X of cardinality k. i4g. Since A = ( (A)). if A is idempotent then (A)2 = (A)3 . i2. If x in X is a word of length jxj p. Since S is generated by k of its elements. such that all 2-subsets of Y belong to the same block. then there exists another word y in X . i3 . First we show that (a) implies (b). Without loss of generality we may assume i that S is a monoid. fi1 .4.e. Second we show thatP implies (c). Proof of the Claim. and by Lemma 5. because is a morphism (since and are). 3. 2. and let u and v in X be such that x = uy1y2y3v. It shows that if a nitely generated subsemigroup S of Mn (N ) is nite. Since S is nite. it is torsion. this implies that (A)2 = (A)3 . i. 2) and g(n. : X ! S . there exists a permutation matrix P such that P ?1 (A)P has a block form (5. j g j i < j and ( (xixi+1 : : : xj )) = Ag: Since r p. generated by k of its elements. i3g. : : : . i4g are in QA. by Theorem 5.We are ready for the main theorem of this section. by letting QA = ffi. (b) For all A 2 (S ). i2 g. A is an idempotent in (S ). Let yk = xik : : : xik+1 ?1 for k = 1. we have A = (y1) = (y2) = (y1y2) = (y3): (5. k) where g is a function depending only on n and k. Let r = jxj and let x = x1 x2 : : : xr . so is (A). it is clear that (P ) = P and 30 . p = (b) ?1 R(m. (A)2 = (A)3 . We continue by proving the next claim.

If we cannot nd that many di erent matrices. and it is di erent from the one we presented. 2). such that jzj < p. i. and by some of the authors already mentioned in this chapter. Hence by the de nition of and . Ja1] and Ja2]. (x) = (uy1y3v) and this completes the proof of the Claim. Weber and Seidl also mention in the appendix of WeS] that it can be decided in time O(n6 jH j). The previous theorem shows that we have to nd only g(n. but these Ramsey numbers are very large. It follows that (x) = (z) for some word z in X . Jacob. k) + 1 di erent matrices from S to see that S is in nite. 4.(P ?1) = P ?1. since jy2j > 0. then S is nite. 2. for k = 1. and it follows from (5. for example by G. Corollary 5. where e is the natural base of logarithms. It is clear that (c) implies (a).1.5) that P ?1 (A)P = (P ?1 (yk )P ). P ?1 (yk )P has the block form 00 C D 1 @0 Ik Ekk A : 0 0 0 This implies that 00 C C E 1 00 C D 1 1 1 2 3 3 (P ?1 (y1)P )(P ?1 (y2)P )(P ?1 (y3)P ) = @0 I E2 A @0 I E3 A 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 C C E 1 1 1 3 = @0 I E3 A = (P ?1 (y1)P )(P ?1 (y3)P ): 0 0 0 Now P ?1 (y1y2y3)P = P ?1 (y1y3)P . hence jS j g(n. (y1y2y3) = (y1y3). k). It is decidable whether a given nitely generated subsemigroup of Mn (N ) is nite. Thus.e. Seidl proved in WeS] that the number R(m. We mention that A. whether a subsemigroup of Mn (N ) generated by the set H is nite. 4. 3. There exists also many other papers concerning this upper bound and the exact algorithm. 31 . In our proof we had p = R(m. Their proof is based on the theory of automata. Proof. Weber and H. 2) can be replaced by the number de2 n!e? 1.

4. we check if one of these matrices is zero. and if the semigroup is nite. It is decidable whether a semigroup generated by one integer matrix is free. It is decidable whether some power of a given integer matrix is zero. and if it is. The next two theorems are corollaries of the result of Mandel and Simon for Mn(Q ). where F is an arbitrary eld. Proof. Proof. then it is not free. i. Theorem 5. Theorem 5. that there is an upper bound for the cardinality of the nite subsemigroups of Mn(Q ) and of Mn(F ).3. The same conclusion holds for the decidability of the existence of the identity matrix as a power of given matrix. 32 .e. We can decide whether the matrix semigroup generated by this matrix is nite or not.Mandel and Simon also proved in MaS]. and otherwise it is free. We can decide whether the semigroup generated by a given matrix is nite or not. It is also decidable. the mortality problem for the semigroup generated by one matrix is decidable.

and that for all u. v ) = @0 (v) 2jvj 0 0 33 (u) ? (v) 2juj ? 2jvj A : 2juj is injective.e. i. then the problem is undecidable. determine whether there exists In the rst section we shall show that if n 3.6 Zero in the Right Upper Corner The problem considered in this chapter is called the zero in the right upper corner. ? = fa1 . : ? ! N such that (ai1 ai2 :::aik ) = k X j =1 ij nk?j and (1) = 0: We recall that is injective. Let ? = fa1 . because . and it is also a 1 This mapping is clearly injective. 6. an M in the semigroup generated by these matrices such that M1n = 0. when the dimension of the matrices is large enough.e.1 The undecidability of the zero in the right upper corner We begin with some de nitions for the proof. a2. Problem 5. The method we use is the usual coding of pairs of words into 3 3 matrices. ang be an alphabet and let function be as in Chapter 2. :::. First we have to recall and introduce few notions and functions. i. For a given nite subset of Zn n. We shall prove that also in this case the problem is undecidable. In the latter part of this chapter we consider the above problem in the case where we have only two generators. and de ne a mapping 2 : ? ? ! Z3 3 by 01 2 (u. v in ? (uv) = (v) + njvj (u): (6.1) Assume now that n = 2. a2g.

since for all u1. as remarked before. Note that in the proof we needed 7 generators.W. (h(w)) = (g(w)).e. Corollary 6. g) be an instance of PCP. It is undecidable whether a nitely generated subsemigroup of M3 (Z) contains a matrix M with M13 = 0.morphism. u2. where w = a1 a2 : : : am . let h and g be morphisms from into ? . it must be proved with some other method than the one used in the proof of the previous theorem. M13 = 0 if and only if (h(a1)h(a2 ):::h(am )) = (g(a1)g(a2):::g(am)). v1 ) 2 (u2. Now. and de ne the matrices Ma = 2(h(a). v1. because 2 is morphism. g(a)) for all a in . We note again. Because we may add zero columns to the left and zero rows to the bottom of the matrices in the previous proof. The decidability of the existence of the zero in the right upper corner for 2 2 matrices is an open question. PCP(7) is undecidable. 34 . that if it is undecidable. we get the next corollary. Let (h. we get that M13 = 0 if and only if h(w) = g(w). Then. it is undecidable whether a nitely generated subsemigroup of Mn (Z) contains a matrix M with M1n = 0. Proof. If n 3. for a matrix M = Ma1 Ma2 Mam .1) @ 2ju1u2j ? 2jv1v2 j A = 2(u1u2. v1v2 ): = 0 2jv1v2 j 0 0 2ju1u2 j The next theorem is attributed to R. because is injective. v2 ) 01 (v ) (u ) ? (v )1 01 (v ) (u ) ? (v )1 1 1 1 2 2 2 = @0 2jv1j 2ju1j ? 2jv1j A @0 2jv2j 2ju2j ? 2jv2j A 0 0 2ju1j 0 0 2ju2j 01 (v ) + (v )2jv1j (u ) ? (v ) + (v )(2ju2j ? 2jv2j) 1 2 1 2 2 1 ju2 j ( (u1 ) ? (v1 )) B C +2 = B0 jv1 j 2jv2 j jv1 j (2ju2 j ? 2jv2 j ) + 2ju2 j (2ju1 j ? 2jv1 j )C @ A 2 2 ju1 j2ju2 j 0 01 (v v 0 (u u ) ? (v v )1 2 1 2) 1 2 1 2 (6. Floyd in Man]. 2 (u1 .1. since. i. Theorem 6. and the claim follows from the undecidability of PCP. v2 in ? .1.

.. B0C @A 1 so XMY is the entry in the right upper corner of M in Zn n.. We used the construction from matrices M1 . : : : .2. 35 . . Next de ne two vectors of dimension nk. .C U= B . The proof of the next theorem is from CKa]. .. . . .6. B 0g has an element such that it has a zero in the right upper corner. . 0A @ A 0 0 Mn 0 0 I 0 We cannot apply these matrices to the problem of the zero in the right upper corner. . Mk with dimension n into two matrices A and B with dimension nk such that 00 0 1 0 M1 0 0 I 01 BI 0 0 0C B C B 0 M2 . . C C and B = B0 I 0 A = B . .. 0 1 Y ?X : : : X and V = B 0 C : B. 0C C B B . where the semigroup is generated by two matrices. . . C . but we shall use them as blocks in the matrices with dimension nk +3. .. C C @... . Theorem 6. . First we de ne two vectors of dimension n. C @ A 0 Now we de ne the matrices A0 and B 0 with dimension nk + 3 to be 00 1 U 1 1 00 1 U 1 1 B B 0 1C 0 1C A0 = B0 0 A V C and B 0 = B0 1 B V C : A A @0 0 @0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Note the di erence in the second diagonal entry. and Y = B . . . . It is undecidable whether the semigroup generated by fA0. namely X = 1 0 ::: 0 ? 01 B0C . B . .2 The two generator case In Chapter 3 we considered the mortality problem in the case.

where Cij = B k?ij +1 AB ij ?1. and is 1. where 1 ij k. B C PC 0Q = B0 0 0 A @0 0 0 0 0 where the right upper corner entry is + UCV . the elements of the rst block column of Ci1 Ci2 Cim . B g. j k. and T be the semigroup generated by fM1 . we can write C = B t Ci1 Ci2 Cim . so the Ni1 's are also. 36 . if C 0 is power of B 0.1. Therefore the right upper corner entry of PC 0Q is XMY . If C 0 is a power of B 0 . the right upper corner entry of M .e. and 0 otherwise. by the proof of Theorem 6. Notice that dimension of A0 and B 0 is nk +3 and.2. and where 1 i. A @0 0 0 0 0 where 's represent the unimportant values. since it is undecidable for T . It can be written in the form PC 0Q. S 0 be the semigroup generated by fA0. If we now de ne the matrices Mi to be the matrices of the proof of Theorem 6. we may set n = 3 and k = 7.1. This is an obvious corollary of the previous theorem. then C is a power of B and = 1 and UCV = 0. Let C 0 be an element of S 0. Therefore we get that the problem of the zero in the right upper corner is undecidable in two generator semigroups. The product expands to 1 00 + UCV C. we get that for S 0 the existence of the zero in the right upper corner is undecidable. and one of them is M = Mi1 Mi2 Mim and the k ? 1 others are zero blocks. 00 1 U 1 1 00 1 U 1 1 B B 1C 1C P = B0 0 0 V C and Q = B0 0 0 V C . The initial B t permutes the lines only. As in the proof of Theorem i 3. B 0g. in a di erent order. = 0P if we divide C to n n blocks Nij . A @0 A @0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 and C 0 is an element of S 0. then UCV = k=1 XNi1Y . C is an element of S . Consider any element of S 0 other than the generators A0 and B 0. : : : . i. Let S be the semigroup generated by fA. hence the right upper entry of PC 0Q is 1. which can be any element of T . when the dimension of these matrices is at least 24. where P and Q are equal to A0 or B 0 . Otherwise. Mk g.Proof. Then 1 00 B 0 C C 0 = B0 0 C C .

1 which suits for deciding the existence of the zero in any entry of the powers of a given 2 2 matrix. Determine whether there exist a power k such that (M k )1n = 0? It is not known whether the Skolem's problem is decidable or not.1 Skolem's problem in dimension two We are now going to prove that the Skolem's problem is decidable in the case of 2 2 matrices.2) The next lemma has an elementary combinatorial proof.7 Skolem's Problem In this and next chapters we consider the so called Skolem's problem. when the semigroup is generated by two 2 2 matrices. Let M be a given matrix from Mn(Z).1) where ai's are in Q . and the decidability of the Skolem's problem is a corollary of that theorem. In the proof of the decidability of the Skolem's problem in dimension two we shall use Theorem 7. (7. de ned by constants u0 = c0. Let (un)1 be an integer sequence. We shall prove the decidability for case of dimension two in the rst section and the main result of the next chapter is that it is decidable. Problem 6. u1 = c1 n=1 and a formula un + a1 un?1 + a2 un?2 = 0. That theorem gives us also a way to prove the decidability of the mortality problem in the case. 7. whether there exists in nitely many powers k such that (M k )1n = 0. which we de ne next. 37 . Let and are the roots of the equation y2 + a1 y + a2 = 0: (7. It is related to the problem of the zero in the right upper corner in a way that in Skolem's problem we consider semigroups generated by one matrix. when n 3. This proof is presented in the second section of this chapter. which we give for the sake of completeness. To prove this we need certain properties of sequences.

(ii): Like in the previous case. Then we have two cases. 1 the claim holds. Then by the assumption (7. (ii) If = . where k 0. And if a and b are integers. If n = 0. where q = pn a with a and b in Z and p divides b neither a nor b. We prove the claim (ii) by induction.1) uk+2 = ?a1 (c(k + 1) + d) k+1 ? a2 (ck + d) k = k (?a1 c(k + 1) ? a1d ? a2 ck ? a2 d) = k (ck(?a1 ? a2) + d(?a1 ? a2) ? a1 c ) = k (ck 2 + d 2 ? (?2 )c ) = (c(k + 2) + d) k+2.1) uk+2 = ?a1 uk+1 ? a2uk = ?a1 (a k+1 + b k+1) ? a2 (a k + b k ) = ?a k (a1 + a2 ) ? b k (a1 + a2 ) = a k+2 + b k+1. 1. vp(b)g.2). we have un = a n + b n We assume that a and b are as above and prove the claim (i) by induction. where the last equation follows from the fact that and are roots of the equation (7. It is clear by the de nition of vp that vp(a + b) inf fvp(a). when n = 0. We de ne the p-adic valuation vp over Q by vp(0) = 1 and vp(q) = n. 38 a = c1 ? c0 and b = c1 ? c0 : ? ? . then we have that d = c0 and c = (c1 ? c0 )= . where k 0. Assume that it holds for all n k + 1. and therefore ? 2 = a1 + a2 and ? 2 = a1 + a2 . Then by the assumption (7. then by the equalities a + b = c0 and a + b = c1.2) and t2 + a1 t + a2 = (t ? )2. Clearly. we have a1 = ?2 . since is a root of equation (7. then the claim holds. Let p be a prime number.1. Let (un)1=0 be as above. Assume that claim holds for all n k +1. we can prove a stronger result for vp(a + b) as stated in the next lemma. then there exists constants c and d such that un = (cn + d) n Proof.Lemma 7. if the claim holds. then there exists constants a and b such that 6 for all n in N . (i): If the claim holds. namely: n (i) If = .

3 we know that cA(A) = A2 ? tA + dI = 0. then (xn)n 0 has exactly c one zero. Let t = tr(A) and d = det(A). Then by the case (ii) of Lemma 7. and if t 6= 0 and ? d in N .3) by uAn from the left and by vT from the right we get xn+2 = txn+1 ? dxn. the equation y2 ? ty + d = 0: (7. If vp(a) < A2 = tA ? dI: (7. Consider next the equation (7. then vp(a + b) = vp(a). then (xn)n 0 has in nitely many zeros. By multiplying the equation (7. and if vp(a + b) > n.1.2) for the sequence xn. The proof is modelled after the ideas of J.4) We know that the roots of this equation are of the form y = t t22 ?4d . We assume that this is not the case.vp(b). Otherwise it has no zeros. 2) > 0. We divide the proof into three cases: t 1) = 0.then (xn )n 0 has in nitely many zeros. If t = 0. Let = t2 ? 4d. Now we are ready for the main theorem of this section. We see that xn is de ned by x0 and x1 . where c and d are in Q . then 2 (?d) n x0 .e. Theorem 7. where vp(a1) = 0 and vp(b1 ) > 1. and if both of these are zero. Now if t = 0. Then a + b = pn(a1 + b1 ).Cassaigne Cas].5) If x0 or x1 is zero. i. and they are xed by x0 and x1 . Otherwise (xn)n 0 has no zeros. Let a and b be two integers and p a prime number. Let A be a 2 2 matrix over integers and assume that u and v are integer vectors of dimension 2. so we see that Lemma 7. Then it is decidable whether uAnvT = 0 for some n > 0. 39 .2. xn = ( 2 )n(cn + d). Now vp(a + b) = n = vp(a). Clearly vp(a + b) n. with n < k. xn = b n c x1 . and we have a contradiction. if n is even. then for all n. Proof. Proof. then a1 + b1 0 (mod p) and therefore a1 ?b1 0 (mod p). xn = 0. Also by Section 2. By Section 2. Assume that vp (a) = n and vp(b) = k.3) Consider the sequence (xn)n 0 = uAnvT .1.3 we know that the characteristic polynomial of A is cA( ) = 2 ? t + d. if n is odd: (?d) 2 p ( (7.

n x0n = t0 x0n1 ? d0x0n?2 = px?1 : n 40 p p . we have the case (7. t Then pn?1 divides xn . which means that there exist constants c and 2 n0 such that for all n n0 . As j j > 1.e. xn c d n . We assume that t 6= 0. Q p p t + t2 ? 4d n + b t ? t2 ? 4d n: xn = a 2 2 Now we get that p p t + t2 ? 4d n + b t ? t2 ? 4d n jxnj = a 2 p22 p2 n n a t + t ? 4d + b t ? t ? 4d 2 2 jaj jt + pt2 ? 4djn + jbj jt ? pt2 ? 4djn 2n 2n p p = j2anj jt + i 4d ? t2 jn + j2bnj jt ? i 4d ? t2jn p p n n = j2anj t2 + 4d ? t2 + j2bnj t2 + 4d ? t2 p n p n 2 2 2 = janj 4d + jbnj 4d = jajd n + jbjd n = d n (jaj + jbj). and it is easy to verify whether xn = 0 for some n. then we have case (i) in Lemma 7. and by setting t0 = p and d0 = pd2 .4) and a and b are in = fu + v j u. Now xn = 0 if and only if ( )n = ? a . Assume that > .1. it follows by the case (i) of Lemma 7.1. Since < 0. we can de ne an integer sequence (x0n )n 0 such that x00 = x0 . i. They can be e ectively computed by the same b proof. If t = 0. 2 2 2 2 and therefore xn (jaj + jbj)d n O(d n ). x01 = x1 and for n 2.If t 6= 0.1 that. a bound on n can be found and we are able to check whether (xn)n 0 has a zero or not. We know that d > 0 and we shall 2 prove rst that xn = O(d n ). 3) < 0. Assume that p is a prime number such that p divides t and p2 divides d.5). xn = a n + b n. for some constants a and b. v 2 Q g R by the proof of Lemma 7. where and (in R ) are the roots of the equation (7.

we know that u 2 ]wn divides xn . vp(xn+1) ? vp(xn) vp(w). which can be veri ed by simple calculations. we get that x13 = 36x1 . w) = 1. we see that d 2 f1.2 vp(xn+2) = vp(uvxn+1 + uwxn) = vp(xn+1 ): 41 . Therefore 2 2 u n ]wn xn = O(d n ). and for all n. Also vp(x2 ) inf fvp(tx1 ). So we may assume that there is no such prime p that p divides t and p2 divides d. we can prove that vp(xn ) n ]. then for some prime factor p of w and some n. necessarily w = 1. we denote. so by Lemma 7. it implies that wn divides xn. and similarly for n = 1. vp(dx0 )g 1 and the 2 induction step is vp(xn+1 ) inf fvp(uvxn). and t = uv. and jvj = 1 and u 2 f1. for n = 0 x12 = 3x11 ? 3x10 = 9x10 ? 9x9 ? 3x10 = 6x10 ? 9x9 = 18x9 ? 18x8 ? 9x9 = 9x9 ? 18x8 = 9x8 ? 27x7 = ?27x6 = ?81x5 + 81x4 = ?162x4 + 243x3 = ?243x3 + 486x2 = ?243x2 + 729x1 = 729x0 = 36 x0. Now = (uv)2 ? 4u < 0. if d = t = 3. By the above assumption about prime factors of t and d. 3g. 2. Now vp(xn+1 ) < vp(xn) + vp(w) = vp(uwxn). Assume now that for all prime factors p of w. 2. and the other cases can be proved similarly. w) = 1. This implies that xn 6= 0 for all n. u = gcd(t. We prove the equation by induction. All these cases lead to an equation xn+12 = d6xn. Now. The induction step is for n 2 x(n+1)+12 = 3xn+12 ? 3x(n?1)+12 = 3 36xn ? 3 36xn?1 = 36(3xn ? 3xn?1) = 36xn+1: This proves the case d = t = 3. vp(uwxn?1)g 1 + n?1 ] = n+1 ]: 2 2 n] This means that u 2 divides xn for all n 2. If this is not the case. so we get that uv2 < 4. and t = d or t = ?d. For example. 3g. again by induction. We can easily verify whether xn+12 = d6xn and t = d. Also since vp(w) n1. Let u be the greatest common divisor of t and d. and because d = uw > 0. since gcd(u. gcd(u. Then. then xn+2 = 3xn+1 ? 3xn. Since d = u. as usual. w) = gcd(v. First. d) > 0. d = uw for some integers v and w. vp(xn+1)?vp (xn ) < vp(w).Clearly x0n = 0 if and only if xn = 0 and therefore we may consider the sequence (x0n)n 0 instead of (xn )n 0. Assume that p is a prime factor of u.

Skolem's problem is decidable for 2 2 matrices over integers. 7.e. then the product uAnvT equals (An)22. First we consider some properties of 2 2 matrices over integers. There is no explicit bound for this loop of computation.2 Skolem's problem and the mortality problem We shall now return to the mortality problem. The loop terminates. we know that the rows and the columns of A are linearly dependent vectors. Corollary 7. when the rst pair p and n is found and then the only possibility for the zero in (xn )n 0 is found. since we evaluate this loop for all prime factors p of w at the same time. m k n + 1 (7. . We shall prove that this case is decidable. : : : . We restrict to the case when we are given two 2 2 matrices over integers. : : : .6) vp(xm+1 ) = vp(uvxm + uwxm?1 ) = inf fvp(xn+1 ).1. vk g of vectors from Zn is linearly dependent if the exists integers c1. The proof is based on Theorem 7. Note that p and n are not known at rst. 1 + vp(xn+1 )g = vp(xn+1): Clearly the only possible zero is xn where vp(xn+1 ) ? vp(xn ) < vp(w) for the rst time. (7. So we check whether this xn = 0. and we are done. 0) and v = (0. Set B = fv1. 1) in Theorem 7.1. If we set u = (1.By induction we prove that vp(xm ) = vp(xn+1 ) < 1 for all m n + 1: Assume that for some m. i. it terminates always. We have proved that there is a method in all cases of to solve whether there is n 0 such that uAnv = 0. Proof. We recall that det(AB ) = det(A) det(B ) and that if A is singular. ck such that c1 v1 = c2v2 + c3v3 + 42 + c k vk and at least for one i.1. det(A) = 0. but we can compute the values vp(xn+1) ? vp(xn) for all prime factors p of w until p and n are found. Otherwise B is called linearly independent.6) holds for all k. We check that one. Let A and B be elements of Zn n. ci 6= 0.

2. If ABC = 0. if rank(A) = 1. : : : . i. It follows that ABC = aT bcT deT f = (bcT )(deT )aT f. where bcT and deT is are integers. Theorem 7. so if A and B are both invertible. in the minimal-length zero product of S . then the zero matrix is not in the semigroup S generated by fA. B = cT d and C = eT f . Assume that either A or B is singular. so we may assume that this is not the case. Clearly. then clearly either bcT or deT is zero.e. then the claim obviously holds. It can be proved that the number of linearly independent columns is is also rank(A). then there exists vectors a and b in Zn such that A = aT b. then at least one of these matrices is singular. Since AB = aT bcT d = (bcT )aT d and BC = cT deT f = (deT )cT f. then either AB or BC is zero. If now ABC = 0. We have two possible cases: 43 .The number of linearly independent rows in A is called the rank of A and denoted by rank(A). B g. Proof. det(AB ) = det(A) det(B ) and det(0) = 0. As we mentioned earlier. Given two 2 2 matrices over integers. B and C three matrices with rank 1 from Zn n. i where ai and bi are vectors in Zn for i = 1. rank(A). the singular element can occur only as the rst and the last factor. If one of these matrices is zero.3. Let A. Proof. say A and B . Note that the rank of a matrix is also the dimension of the vectors space generated by the rows or the columns of the matrix. Then by Lemma 7. has determinant equal to zero. Let A be inZn n. Assume that A and B are non-zero. B g. Lemma 7.3. It is known that A can be presented in the form A= rank(A) X i=1 aT bi. Assume that A = aT b. the claim follows. It also follows that if the zero is in S . otherwise we are done. it is decidable whether the zero matrix is in the semigroup generated by fA.

7) Proof. 0)M k (0. Assume now that (7.1) If A and B are both singular. 0. Let A be an element of Zn n. There exists matrix M in Z(n+2) (n+2) such that for all integers k 1 uAk vT = (1. 44 .8) is obvious by the de nition. We shall prove by induction that 00 uAk+1 uAk vT 1 (7. undecidable or unknown. 2) If A is invertible and B is singular. then we have to check only the products AB .8) M k = @0 Ak Ak?1vT A 0 0 0 for all integers k 1. j > 1. The theorem in this section is based on Lemma 7. The decidability status of a problem is either decidable.3 and on next lemma.8) holds for all k j . : : : .7) clearly is the right upper corner element of M k . First. We shall next show that the decidability status of the Skolem's problem is equivalent with the decidability status of the certain instance of the mortality problem.1 this is decidable. 0. BA. then B can be written in form B = xT y. where x and y are vectors in Z2. Now BAk B = xT yAk xT y = (yAk xT )xT y = 0 if and only if yAk xT = 0. Lemma 7. 1)T : (7.4. and by Theorem 7. B 2 and A2 . u and v be in Zn. De ne M as block form 00 uA2 uAvT 1 M = @0 A vT A : 0 0 0 The right hand side of the equation (7. So 00 uAj+1 uAj vT 1 00 uAj+2 uAj+1vT 1 M j+1 = M j M = @0 Aj Aj?1vT A M = @0 Aj+1 Aj vT A : 0 0 0 0 0 0 This proves the lemma. for k = 1 (7. : : : .

This procedure terminates. t and k 1. : : : . Let A be in Mn (N ). There are 2n2 elements in Mn (B ). 1g. Mt and A in Zn n and rank(Mi ) = 1 for all i = 1. By Lemma 7. otherwise: We end this chapter with a simple theorem. since the number of elements in Mn (B ) is nite. Theorem 7.3 in I it is enough to study products Mi Mj and Mi Ak Mj . 7. Clearly (B k )1n = 0 if and only if (Ak )1n. and by Lemma 7. B = f0.3.Now we are ready for the next theorem. Assume that A is in Mn(N ) and de ne a mapping : Mn (N ) ! Mn (B ) by (A)ij = 0. Let B be the boolean semiring. and we can compute B k for all k. Proof. since rank Mi = 1 for all i = 1. Theorem 7. Let I be an instance of the mortality problem such that we are given matrices M1 . The products of the second form are actually of the form uAk vT . t. we have a simple decidable special case. It is decidable whether (Ak )1n = 0 for some k 1. It follows from the fact that if M is in Mn (N ) . i. Assume that B is in Mn (B ) and that B = (A). Note that the decidability status of instances I of the mortality problem is unknown.4. and stop if (B k )1n = 0 or if B k = B h for some h < k.3 Skolem's problem for matrices over natural numbers If we restrict in Skolem's problem to square matrices over natural numbers. Proof. where the operations are the usual product and addition of integers except that 1 + 1 = 1. t.4 these are equivalent with the Skolem's problem for matrices with dimension n + 2. : : : . The decidability status of instance I is equivalent with decidability status of Skolem's problem for matrix with dimension n + 2. j = 1. : : : . 1. then in M k we are only interested in whether (M k )1n is positive or zero. : : : . We have proved that there is a certain relation between the mortality problem and the Skolem's problem. 45 ( . if Aij = 0.

w) + (T. w) and their product by (ST. Reutenauer BeR]. w) and is called the coe cient of w in S . Then their sum is given by (S + T.1 Rational series Let X be a nite. Let K be a semiring and X an alphabet. nonempty alphabet and denote the empty word by . Our presentation on rational series follows the book Rational Series and Their Languages by J. The image of X under S is denoted by =(S ). the product is the concatenation of two words and with neutral element . w) = X uv=w (S.8 An In nite Number of Zeros in Skolem's Problem In this chapter we will show that it is decidable for a given matrix M from Mn(Z) whether there exist in nitely many k's such that (M k )1n = 0. Recall that X is a monoid. u)(T. A formal series (or formal power series) S is a function X ! K: The image of word w under S is denoted by (S. w) = (S. The proof uses the theory of rational series so we begin with the basics of these series. Berstel and C. 8. The support of S is the language supp(S ) = fw 2 X j (S. Let S and T be two formal series in K hhX ii. w) 6= 0g: The set of formal series over X with coe cients in K is denoted by K hhX ii. v): 46 .

for every word w in X . for example. w) = a(S. Assume that a is in K and S in K hhX ii. say (Si)i2I is called locally nite. xx) = 0. w) = 0. We note also that K hhX ii is a semiring under these operations. ) = 0.Note that here the sum is always nite. X is a unary alphabet. then the series aS and Sa are de ned by (aS. zx) = 2 and (S.e. that is (S. The identity element with respect to the product is the series 1 de ned by (1. Example 1. if jwj > n. (S. Let X = fx.called the 0the 1. w) and (Sa. that (S. A family of formal series. zg and consider the formal series in ZhhX ii de ned by S = xy + xxyz + 2zx. and itScan be proved that ne the plus of S . and the identity element with respect to the sum is the series 0 de ned by (0. w) = aw . Let S be proper formal series. Similarly we de P itSis . We get. (S. then we have the usual sets of formal power series K hhxii = K x]] and of polynomials K x] P A formal series S can also be written in the sum form S = aw w. there exists only a nite number of indicies i in I such that (Si. 0K otherwise. xy) = 1. w) = 0K . where w is in X and aw is the coe cient of w in K . w) 6= 0. If X = fxg. if. A formal series S in K hhX ii is called proper if the coe cient of the empty word vanishes.e. since for any word w. The set of polynomials is denoted by K hX i. S + = n Clearly S = the equations S = 1 + S + and S + = SS = S S 47 . We also de ne two external operations of K in K hhX ii. w) = 1K if w = . w) = (S. ( S = n 1 X n 0 Sn and star of . Then the family (S n)n 0 is locally nite. w)a: A formal series with a nite support is called a polynomial. i. The sum of this family is denoted by S . i. then (S n. y.

since it is a polynomial. A linear representation of a rational series S is called reduced. It was later extented by Schutzenberger Scb] to arbitrary semirings. then (S. We denote K m n . Note that if we de ne and as vectors in K n. It was rst proved by Kleene in 1956 for languages that are those series with coe cients in the Boolean semiring. A formal series S 2 K hhX ii is called recognizable if there exists an integer n 1. . ^ ^ Example 2. 48 . if its dimension is minimum among all linear representations of S . 1) = 0. w) = (w) : The triple ( . Theorem 8. ) is called a linear representation of S with dimension n. the product. since ^ (X. and a morphism of monoids : X ! K n n. into the multiplicative structure of K n n. A formal series is called rational if it is an element of the rational closure of K hX i.1. The smallest rationally closed subset of K hhX ii containing a subset E of K hhX ii is called the rational closure of E . it can be de ned using the polynomials K hX i and the rational operations.e. w) = (w) T : The next theorem is fundamental in the theory of rational series. X is proper. The rational operations in K hhX ii are the sum. (S. if it is closed under the rational operations. A formal series is recognizable if and only if it is rational. Denote by X the formal series Px2X x. as usual. and two matrices (or vectors) 2 K n 1 and 2 K 1 n such that for all words w.hold for proper formal series. The series X^ ^ X = Xn = n 0 X w2X w: is also rational. the two external products of K in K hhX ii and the star operation. and rational. i. the set of the m n matrices over K . The subset of K hhX ii is called rationally closed.

P for n 0. It is clear by the de nition of recognizable series that we can transform our problem of matrices into rational series quite nicely. These h rst elements are called the starting conditions. : : : . Next lemma gives a method to calculate a regular linear representation from a proper linear recurrence relation. . satis ed by rational series S = anxn in Z x]] is called a linear recurrence relation. There are also other ways to de ne regular series. . We denote the formal series S over X by X X S = anxn = anxn : n 0 A rational series is called regular. By the Cayley{Hamilton theorem we know that c( (x)) = (xk ) + c1 (xk?1) + + ck I = 0: If we multiply this equation from the left by (xn ) (n 2 N ) and from the right by . ) has invertible (x). A linear recurrence relation is called proper. ah?1 of the series S .The proof by Schutzenberger uses some properties of K -modules and it is quite long. It can be proved that for a regular series S . if it has a linear representations ( . ). any reduced linear representation ( . 49 . where ci's are in Z and k is the dimension of the linear representation ( . From now on we shall x the alphabet to be X = fxg. Then c( ) = (?1)k ( k + c1 k?1 + + ck ). if h 6= 0. ). and omitted here. a1. .1) The equation an+h + 1an+h?1 + + han = 0. ) such that (x) is an invertible matrix. and moreover that the characteristic polynomial of the matrix (x) in Zk k is c( ). we get an+k + c1an+k?1 + + ck an = 0: (8. Note that having a linear recurrence relation. every an for n h can be computed if we know the elements a0 . Assume that K = Z and that S is a rational series in Z x]] having a linear representation ( . .

if 0 j h ? 1. jn)A1j1 A2j2 Anjn . So we calculate ? 1 0 0 0 ? 1 0 . . where repsesents a permutation of the set f1. . . j2. 0 j < h.... . . then it is has a regular linear representation ( 1 .e. Therefore 1 1(xj ) 1 = aj . : : : . 0C B a1 C B. i. . . . . i + 50 . . i. . det( 1(x) ? I ) = . 1 = B . 1. are the starting conditions. Proof. . . we use the method mentioned before the lemma. To prove that an = 1 (xn ) 1 for all n 0. . It is easy to see that det( 1(x)) = h 6= 0. A A @ ah?1 h :::::::::::: 1 The matrix 1(x) is called the companion matrix. .. where the last equality follows from the de nition of the determinant in Section 2. : : : . . 1 ). 0 ? 1 :::::::::::: 1 ? h = h X i=1 (?1)i?1 i(? )h?i + (? )h. C .3: det((Aij )n n) = X sign(j1 . Now 1 1(xj ) gives the rst row of matrix 1(xj ). . Let Lemma 8. 1 (x) = B .. i ? 1. a linear representation satisfying det( 1 (x)) 6= 0. . . : : : . then the rst row of 1(xj ) has 1 in the j 'th entry and all the others are 0. 0). If 0 j h ? 1. and from the fact that only permutations with non-zero product are of the form (1.1. If rational series S 2 Z x]] satis es a proper linear recurrence an+h ? 1 an+h?1 ? ? han = 0 be a proper linear recurrence relation of S and assume that aj 's.. ng. Let 00 1 0 : 01 0 1 C B0 0 1 B a0 C B . . . . : : : . C : B 0 :::::::::::: 1C @ ... . 0.e.relation. we calculate the characteristic polynomial of 1(x) to get a linear recurrence relation. . C 1 = (1.

1 i rg: The integer N is called a period of A. Hansel proved the theorem for rational series with coe cients in the elds of characteristic 0.2. and the signs of these permutations are (?1)i?1. cf. 1. : : : . ? ? h): 8. The proof requires several de nitions and lemmas. These permutations have i ? 1 inversions. and then present a proof for all rational series with coe cients in Z. if there exists a natural number N and integers k1. i). Hansel in Han]. k2. : : : . Then the set fn 2 N j an = 0g is a union of a nite set and of a nite number of arithmetic progressions. Now det( 1(x) ? I ) = (?1)h = (?1)h( h X i=1 (?1)i?1?i 1 h?1 ? i h?1 + h Thus the rational series with linear representation ( 1. Let S = P anxn be a rational series with coe cients in Z. We use that proof up to that point. : : : . Note that one way to de ne the regular rational series is to use the fact that they satisfy a proper linear recurrence relation. N ? 1g such that A = fki + nN j n 2 N . h. namely a theorem proved by Skolem in 1934. : : : . 1.2 Skolem's theorem In this section we prove an important theorem concerning the zeros in rational series over fxg with coe cients in Z. 51 .1. A set A of natural numbers is called purely periodic. also BeR]. Therefore they are equal. A quasiperiodic set of period N is a subset of N that is a union of a nite set and a purely periodic set of period N. kr 2 f0. Theorem 8. The proof we give here is based on the proof by G. 1 ) satis es the same linear recurrence relation than S . h ? 1) and from the element 1 ? in the product. 1. The last term (? )h follows from the permutation (h. His rst step was to prove the claim for regular rational series with coe cients in Z.

we have that Lemma 8. First. and it is called the annihilator of S . which we shall use later. are dividable by p2 and so on. The intersection of a family of quasiperiodic sets of period N Proof. vp(qn)g. + qn ) inf fvp(q1 ).is a quasiperiodic set of period N . For all j 2 f0. Clearly the annihilator is the complement of the support de ned in the previous section. Our next Lemma states an inequality. Lemma 8. since bn=pc of the numbers 1. Let (Ai )i2I be a family of quasiperiodic sets. Recall rst that P vp(q1 and qn ) = n X i=1 vp(qi ) vp(q1 + where qi's are in Q . : : : . n n p?2 vp p ! = n ? vp(n!) n ? p ? 1 = n p ? 1 : n 52 .2. then n vp p ! n p ? 2 : n p?1 Proof. all having period N . Assume that S = anxn is a rational series. Clearly the same holds for (j + nN ) \ (\i2I Ai ) and therefore the intersection \Ai is quasiperiodic. If p is a prime number and n a natural number.3. the set (j + nN ) \ Ai is either nite or equal to (j + nN ). 1. N ? 1g and for all i in I . bn=p2c vp(n!) bn=pc + bn=p2c + : : : + bn=pk c + : : : n=p + n=p2 + : : : + n=pk + : : : n=(p ? 1): Therefore. Let vp be the p-adic valuation de ned in the previous chapter. : : : . We denote the set fn 2 N j an = 0g by ann(S ). n are dividable by p. : : : .

Let P and Q be two polynomials with rational coe cients such that P (x) = (x ? t)Q(x) for some t 2 Z. : : : . : : : . !k (Q) !k+1(P ): 53 . n aj = bj+1 + tbj+2 + + tn?j bn+1 : It follows that vp(aj ) !j+1(P ) for any j in N . let !k (P ) = inf fvp(aj ) j j kg: Clearly. !0(P ) !1(P ) : : : !k (P ) : : : and for k > n. Thus.Consider next an arbitrary polynomial P (x) = a0 + a1 x + : : : + anxn in Q x]. vp(antn)g for any integer t.2) Lemma 8. Then for all k 2 N !k+1(P ) !k (Q): Proof. and bn+1 = an. P (x) = b0 + b1 x + : : : + bn+1xn+1 : Then bj+1 = aj ? taj+1. Assume that Q(x) = a0 + a1 x + : : : + anxn . then vp(aj ) !j+1(P ) !k+1(P ). and therefore vp(P (t)) !0(P ): (8. for 0 j n ? 1. vp(a1 t). and consequently.4. !k (P ) = 1: Note also that vp(P (t)) inf fvp(a0 ). For any integer k 0. if j k. and therefore for j = 0. for any given k in N .

t2 . If bn = 0 for in nitely many indices n. Proof. (x ? tk )Q(x): The main argument in our proof of Skolem's theorem is the following lemma.3) p?2 !k (Rn) k p ? 1 : 54 . For n in N . tk are in Z and let P (x) = (x ? t1 )(x ? t2 ) Then !k (P ) !0 (Q).1. Let (dn)n2N be any sequence of integers and let (bn)n2N be the bn = n X n i i p di i=0 where p is an odd prime number. then the sequence bn vanishes. bn = 0 for all n in N .Our next corollary is a straightforward extension of the previous lemma. i. n X i=0 n n X dipi x(x ? 1) i!(x ? i + 1) : i=0 n (t ? i + 1) = X d pi t! i i! i!(t ? i)! i=0 Rn (t) = = and since dipi t(t ? 1) ?t i X t i i p di i=0 = 0 for i > t. n 0. and assume that t1 . (8. sequence de ned by Lemma 8. we show that for all k. it follows that bt = Rt(t) = Rn(t) for n t: Next.5. Let Q be a polynomial with rational coe cients. let Rn(x) = Then for t in N . Corollary 8.e. : : : .

So we get vp(Rn(t)) vp(Q(t)) !0(Q) !k (Rn): Finally.1 we know that !k (Rn) !0(Q). i which in turn shows that p?2 !k (Rn(x)) k p ? 1 : (8. i. for any integer k. by equation (8.4) that p?2 vp(bt ) k p ? 1 for all k 0. By Corollary 8. Rn(ti ) = bti = 0 for i = 1. Clearly each c(kn) is a linear comi bination.e k k+1 n c(kn) = ak dk p ! + ak+1dk+1 (kp+ 1)! + + andn p ! .3). : : : . and therefore it follows from equation (8. We shall see that.For this we write Rn(x) = n=0 c(in) xk . i i and so Lemma 8.3 implies that p?1 p?2 vp(c(kn)) k inf n i p ? 1 k p ? 2 . with integer coe cients.2). and by the equation (8. which means that bt = 0.4) Consider now any coe cient bt of the sequence (bn )n2N . i vp(c(kn) ) k inf n vp di p! . Consequently. of the numbers di pi!i . vp(bt ) = vp(Rn(t)). For this. Therefore P Rn(x) = (x ? t1)(x ? t2 ) (x ? tk )Q(x) for some polynomial Q(x) with integer coe cients. By equation (8. k.3). for indices i with k i n. This proves the claim. k n where aj 's are integers. 55 . Now vp(Rn(t)) vp(Q(t)). tk g. vp(Q(t)) !0(Q). let t1 < t2 < < tk be the rst k indices with bt1 = = btk = 0. p?2 vp(bt ) k p ? 1 . and let n maxft.

and de ne series bn = aj+nN . i. Let p be an odd prime not dividing det( (x)). 1. since it is a semiring and furthermore.e. Now there are pk2 di erent elements in Mk (Zp). 1. . such that (xN ) = I: This means that for the original matrix (x). N ? 1g. the annihilator ann(S ) is quasiperiodic of period at most pk2 . Since (x)2 has an inverse matrix. ) be a linear representation of S of minimal dimension k with integer coe cients. : : : .2 for regular rational series with coe cients in Z. Zp = f0. the matrix (x) has the inverse matrix in Mk (Zp). i 6= j . where the usual operations of the semiring Z are done modulo p. it follows that there exists an integer N . for a prime p. Since det( (x)) = det( (x)) 6= 0. there exists a matrix M with integer coe cients such that (xN ) = I + pM: Consider a xed integer j 2 f0. p ? 1g and n n (mod p). : : : . Let S = P anxn in Z x]] be a regular rational series and let ( .5) bn = since (xj+nN ) = (xj )(I + pM )n n X n i j i = i p (x )M . Zp is a ring. where n 0. i=0 (I + pM )n n n X n i i X n i I n?i = = i pM : i (pM ) i=0 i=0 56 . every element a of Zp has an inverse element a?1 in Zp such that a a?1 = 1. Let n 7! n be the canonical morphism from Z to Zp. and it can be calculated from the inverse matrix of (x) in Mk (Q ) by mapping every element to Zp. p ? 1g is the ring. Lemma 8. 1. Recall that. : : : . such that i j (x) = (x) . 0 N pk .We shall rst prove Theorem 8. Then (8. n is in f0. Proof.6. For any odd prime p not dividing det( (x)). therefore there exist some i and j in N .

The annihilator of S is not necessarily quasiperiodic. necessarily ck = 0. the sequence bn either vanishes or contains only nitely many vanishing terms.6) in the form an+k + c1 an+k?1 + + cm an+k?m = 0. P where 0 m < k and cm 6= 0. 1. : : : . If det( (x)) 6= 0. the equation an+k + c1an+k?1 + + ck an = 0. eh?1 = ak?1: Now T has a linear representation ( 1 . for n 0. 1) of Lemma 8. we obtain bn = n X n i i p di : i=0 Now by Lemma 8.6. and so by Lemma 8. P 57 . and we may write equation (8. ) be a linear representation of S = anxn in Z x]]. the annihilator of S is clearly a union of a nite set and of a nite number of arithmetic progressions. .By setting di = (xj )M i . (8.5) of series bn .1. and det( 1 ) = cm and T is regular. ann(S ) is quasiperiodic.6) where n 0. Let T = enxn be the rational series de ned by the (proper) linear recurrence relation en+h + c1en+h?1 + + cmen = 0. by de nition of the characteristic polynomial. Let ( . Therefore ann(S ) is quasiperiodic. is a linear recurrence relation satis ed by S .6. c( ) = (?1)k ( k + c1 k?1 + + ck ): As mentioned in the previous section.2. Proof of Theorem 8. ann(T ) is quasiperiodic. but since ann(S ) = fi j 0 i < k ? m. Let c( ) be the characteristic polynomial of (x). Thus the annihilator of S is a union of nite and purely periodic sets by de nition (8. e1 = ak?m+1.5. So we can assume that det( (x)) = 0. ai = 0g (ann(T ) + (k ? m)). Since c(0) = det( (x)). by Lemma 8. where ann(T ) + (k ? m) denotes the addition of (k ? m) to all elements of ann(T ). and let the starting conditions be e0 = ak?m.

Given a square matrix M in Mn (Z). Clearly this has an linear representation ( . where there exists an in nite number of natural numbers k such that (M k )1n = 0. : : : .3. Proof. Skolem's original proof and its extensions by Mahler to rational series with coe cients in algebraic number elds. is elementary. and therefore ann(S ) = ann(S 0 ). From the proof of Skolem's theorem we obtain a corollary for the rational series over rational numbers. This proof. coe cients in Z. : : : . Hansel. fn 2 N j an = 0g is a union of a nite set and of a nite number of arithmetic progressions. Let S = P anxn be a rational series with coe cients in Q . We construct a rational series S = ak xk .2. Then (q . as we saw.3 Decidability of the in nite number of zeros We end this chapter with a theorem the proof of which is based on the constructive ideas in previous section.e. (x) = M and 58 = (0. since we are looking for an algorithm to decide whether square a matrix M has in nitely many powers k such that (M k )1n = 0.Then the set Corollary 8. 0. i. Now S P As mentioned earlier the idea of the proof in this section is due to G. q ) is P linear representation of rational series S 0 with a 0 = q n+2 an xn . Let ( . M k has zero in the right upper corner. . The last extension to rational series with coe cients in a eld of characteristic 0 is referred to as Skolem{Mahler{Lech theorem. 0) 2 Z1 n. and by Lech to elds of characteristic 0. 1)T 2 Zn 1: . ). it is decidable whether Proof. Theorem 8. q . were much more di cult using p-adic analysis. P = (1. . The proofs in this section were also constructive. and let q be the common multiple of the denominators of coe cients in . and . 0. ) be a linear representation of S = anxn 2 Q x]]. where ak = (M k )1n . but not short. This is very nice from our point of view. 8.

and we can use the proof of Lemma 8. If not. By this proof we can compute the period N .e. and from the proof we also get linear representations satis ed by these series. ) is regular. i. whether the linear representation ( . . If some of these series vanish then there is in nitely many n such that (M k )1n = 0.First we decide whether (x) is invertible or not. Now we have a regular series to consider. and we then divide the rational series considered into series (bn)n 0. Finally we know that these series (bn)n 0 either vanish or have only nitely many nonzero elements. So we can compute linear recurrence relations satis ed by these series from the characteristic polynomials of their linear representations. otherwise none. We obtain N series.5. we consider the regular rational series T de ned in the proof of Skolem's theorem. 59 .

a method that was rst used by Paterson. Numbers n and k in the table present arbitrary values of these parameters and Skolem's problem is included in the problem of the zero in the right upper corner. 1) ( 3. (n. We have also seen that the Post Correspondence Problem is very useful in the proofs of the undecidability results in the matrix theory. We used combinatorics. 2). We shall now present the results proved in this work in the form of a table. For instance. 7) Table: Summary of decidable and undecidable matrix problems. We also notice that the proofs for the decidable cases are complicated. ( 24.9 Summary We have considered many simply formulated problems in matrix theory. Decidable Undecidable 60 . and need some backround from other branches of mathematics. 2) Freeness (n. Problem Mortality (2. but many problems are also left open. 2) Common element ( 3. k). 18) Finiteness (n. k) Zero in the right upper corner ( 2. They also used the same method. where matrices are over integers. We restrict to the cases. 1) ( 3. Some of them are proved to be decidable and some undecidable. graph theory and theory of rational series in these proofs. The entries are vectors of two parameters (n. the freeness and the mortality problem for 2 2 matrices and Skolem's problem for n n matrices. were such. ( 45. 7). 15). where n is the dimension of matrices and k the number of matrices. where n 3. Actually all undecidability results were based on the undecidability of PCP. 1) ( 3. coding of two independent words to matrices.

KBS] D. Theoret. R Rothschild and J. Comput. editors. Comput. 61 . Jacob. 335-337. HaK] T. Cas] J. I. Mathematical Theory of Computations. Birget and W. Sci. Int. Vol. Comput. Algebra Comp. 1990.A. 1997. TUCS Technical Report No 56. Rozenberg and A. 43 (1986). John Wiley & Sons. Theoret. On the undecidability of the freeness of the integer matrix semigroups. Simon. Springer-Verlag. J. Morphisms. GRS] R. 1974. Algebra 52 (1978). Graham. Cassaigne. Sci. Sci. Math. Reutenauer. Karhumaki. T. BeR] J. Handbook of Formal Languages. Hansel. In G. Gantmacher. McGraw-Hill. New York. 1986. 101-111. Harju and J. Rational Series and Their Languages. Jacob. An unsolvable problem with product of matrices. On nite semigroups of matrices. Theory of Codes. 1959. R. Academic Press. Krom. CHK] J. Examples of undecidable problems for 2-generator matrix semigroups. 223-226. Karhumaki. On the decidability of the freeness of matrix semigroups. J. Berstel and C. Perrin. 437-459.-C. 5 (1977). Manna. Gan] F. des demi groups de matrices. Cassaigne and J. Ramsey Theory. MaS] A. Cassaigne. Un algorithme calculant le cardinal. 1 (1991).References BeP] J. Une demonstration simple du theoreme de Skolem-MahlerLech. Karhumaki. Klarner. 5 (1977). Han] G. Ja2] G. Theoret. Satter eld. La nitude des representations lineaires des semi-groupes est decidable. CKa] J. TUCS Technical Report No 57. System Theory 14 (1981). personal communication. Harju and J. ni ou in ni. The Theory of Matrices. Chelsea Publishing Company. 1-10. Ja1] G. Spencer. Kro] M. Springer Verlag. 1984. Berstel and D. Mandel and I. Salomaa. Man] Z. J.

. Decision problems for semi Thue systems with a few rules. Math. Amer. Scb] M. On a problem of formal logic. 463-464. Schultz. Unsolvability in 3 3 matrices. London Math. 25 (1991). Math. Seidl.MSe] Y. On the de nition of a family of automata. Paterson. Theor. 30 (1930). Matiyasevich and G. 105-107. 1996. On nitely generated monoids of matrices with entries in N . 264-268. Schutzenberger. 264-286. Ram] F. Soc. Manuscript.S. Monthly 84 (1977). Weber and H.P. 49 (1970). 245-270. WeS] A. Ramsey. Pat] M. 2nd Ser. Post. Senizerques. 62 . Mortality of 2 2 matrices. A variant of a recursively unsolvable problem. Math. Bulletin of Amer.P. Information and Control 4 (1961). Soc. Studies in Appl. Pos] E. 52 (1946). 19-38. Proc. Sch] P. RAIRO Inform.

.

tucs.abo.Turku Centre for Computer Science Lemminkaisenkatu 14 FIN-20520 Turku Finland http://www. University of Turku Department of Mathematical Sciences Abo Akademi University Department of Computer Science Institute for Advanced Management Systems Research Turku School of Economics and Business Administration Institute of Information Systems Science .

- lxnvlnlhnv
- eksnlnslxnvlnlhnv
- kshflhkzfbhf
- sakbfkhsakhf
- thurslnflsaljljflaslllv lnasnfnlfl
- tuemonshfkhskfhkshf
- monshfkhskfhkshf
- SATDAYnewhfkbaslvbkvbolh
- We Day Inventory 2015
- National Income and Inflation Gdp
- New Final Report 2015
- dgjxjhckcjlc
- dgjxjhckcjlc.docx
- 1Segmentation.pptx
- US and India Business Style
- Lecture 18 (Execution TV) (2)
- Partial Equilibrium With Large Country
- Supply Chain Design sf
- Boo.com Case Study
- Media Stocks to Poll Dance on Higher Ad
- GA SBI Probationary Officers (PO) Written Exam General Awareness Sample Questio
- SBI Clerk Computer Knowledge Expected Solved Paper _ Way 2 Freshers
- List of Circulating Currencies - Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia
- Tips on Cloze Test
- SBICLERKSEXAM15-11-20091stShift

- ejercicio 8
- kokenIJCMS33-36-2008
- Proofs
- Pre-calculus / math notes (unit 18 of 22)
- Hadamard Product
- Non Singular
- 08Chap4
- 3.2 Properties of Determinants
- row reducing
- Determinants 3
- 2.2 Inverse of a Matrix Corrected
- Jordan
- Matrix
- The N-Queens Problem on a Symmetric Toeplitz Matrix (Paper)
- On Least Square, Minimum Norm Generalized Inverses of Bimatrices
- Peng
- Property of Determinants
- 1-Jonathan Spectral Graph Theory
- Spectral Mapping Theorem
- Aspects of Multivariate Statistical Theory - Robb Muirhead (Appendix)
- UNIT4 - Matrices
- KNT Linier Eq
- 1-s2.0-002437959190239S-main
- Chap 2
- Chapter 7
- Matrices AZ 2
- Elementary
- Mathematics_1_oneside.pdf
- Special Matrices
- linear algebra
- 10.1.1.31.5792

Are you sure?

This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?

We've moved you to where you read on your other device.

Get the full title to continue

Get the full title to continue reading from where you left off, or restart the preview.

scribd