Parallel Communicating Grammar Systems (PCGS) were introduced as a language-theoretic treatment of concurrent systems. A PCGS extends the concept of a grammar to a structure that consists of several grammars working in parallel, communicating with each other, and so contributing to the generation of strings. PCGS are usually more powerful than a single grammar of the same type; PCGS with context-free components (CF-PCGS) in particular were shown to be Turing complete. However, this result only holds when a specific type of communication (which we call broadcast communication, as opposed to one-step communication) is used. We expand the original construction that showed Turing completeness so that broadcast communication is eliminated at the expense of introducing a significant number of additional, helper component grammars. We thus show that CF-PCGS with one-step communication are also Turing complete. We introduce in the process several techniques that may be usable in other constructions and may be capable of removing broadcast communication in general.
[1]S. D. Bruda M. S. R. Wilkin Parse trees for context-free parallel communicating grammar systems Proc. 13th International Conference on Automation and Information (ICAI 12) Iasi Romania June 2012 pp. 144-149. =M14
[2]E. Csuhaj-Varjú G. Păun G. Vaszil PC grammar systems with five context-free components generate all recursively enumerable languages. Theoretical Computer Science 299 (2003) 785-794. ⇒119 121 124 167 168
[3]E. Csuhaj-Varjú On size complexity of context-free returning parallel communicating grammar systems in: Where Mathematics Computer Scients Linguistics and Biology Meet (ed. C. Martin-Vide and V. Mitrana). Springer 2001 pp. 37- 49. ⇒119 121 124 167
[4]E. Csuhaj-Varjú G. Vaszil On the computational completeness of context-free parallel communicating grammar systems Theoretical Computer Science 215 (1999) 349-358. ⇒115 119 121 124 125 126 129 141 150 167 168
[5]E. Csuhaj-Varjú G. Vaszil On the size complexity of non-returning context- free PC grammar systems Proc. 11th International Workshop on Descńptional Complexity of Formal Systems (DCFS 2009) Magdeburg Germany. 2009 pp. 91-100. ⇒119 121 168
[6]E. Csuhaj-Varjú J. Dassow J. Kelemen G. Păun Grammar Systems: A Grammatical Approach to Distribution and Cooperation Gordon and Breach 1994. ⇒114 115 116 118 119 124
[7]J. Dassow G. Păun G. Rozenberg Grammar systems in: Handbook of Formal Languages - Volume 2. Linear Modeling: Background and Applications Springer 1997. pp. 155-213. ⇒119
[8]S. Diunitrescu Nonreturning PC grammar systems can be simulated by returning systems. Theoretical Computer Science 165 (1996) 463-474. ⇒ 114 121 168
[9]P. C. Fischer Turing machines with restricted memory access Information and Computation 9 (1966) 364-379. ⇒115 126
[10]M. R. Garey D. S. Johnson Computers and Intractability: A Guide to the Theory of NP-Completeness Macmillan Higher Education 1979. ⇒116
[11]V. Geffert Context-free-like forms for the phrase-structure grammars Mathematical Foundations of Computer Science Lecture Notes in Computer Science 324 (1988) 309-317. ⇒119
[12]G. Katsirelos S. Maneth N. Narodytska T. Walsh Restricted global grammar contraints Proc. Principles and Practice of Constraint Programming (CP 2009) Lecture Notes in Computer Science 5732 (2009) 501 508. ⇒116
[13]H. R. Lewis C. H. Papadimitriou Elements of the Theory of Computation Prentice Hall 2nd edition 1998. ⇒116
[14]N. Mandache On the computational power of context-free PC grammar systems Theoretical Computer Science 237 (2000) 135-148. ⇒114 121 168