Hostname: page-component-74656f9884-c52kr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-07T03:34:58.127Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Topological conjugacy for sofic systems

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  19 September 2008

Masakazu Nasu
Masakazu Nasu
Affiliation:
Faculty of Engineering, Mie University, Tsu 514, Japan
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the 'Save PDF' action button.

We prove that any topological conjugacy between subshifts is decomposed into the product of‘bipartite codes’, and obtain a natural generalization of Williams' theorem to sofic systems: two sofic systems are topologically conjugate iff the ‘representation matrices’ of the right [left] Krieger covers for them are ‘strong shift equivalent’ within right [left] Krieger covers; a similar result with respect to Fischer covers holds for transitive sofic systems.

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Ergodic Theory and Dynamical Systems , Volume 6 , Issue 2 , June 1986 , pp. 265 - 280
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1986

References

REFERENCES

[1]Adler, R. L. & Marcus, B.. Topological entropy and equivalence of dynamical systems. Memoirs Amer. Math. Soc. 219 (1979).Google Scholar
[2]Boyle, M., Kitchens, B. & Marcus, B.. A note on minimal covers for sofic systems. Proc. Amer. Math. Soc. 95 (1985), 403–411.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[3]Fischer, R.. Graphs and symbolic dynamics. In Colloq. Math. Soc. János Bolyai 16, Topics in Information Theory. Keszthely, Hungary, 1975.Google Scholar
[4]Franks, J.. Homology and Dynamical Systems. C.B.M.S. Regional Conference Series in Math. No. 49. Amer. Math. Soc: Providence, R.I., 1982.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[5]Hamachi, T. & Nasu, M.. Topological conjugacy for 1-block factor maps of subshifts and sofic covers. Preprint.Google Scholar
[6]Harrison, M. A.. Introduction to Switching and Automata Theory. McGraw-Hill: New York, 1965.Google Scholar
[7]Hedlund, G. A.. Endomorphisms and automorphisms of the shift dynamical system. Math. Systems Theory 3 (1969), 320–375.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[8]Kitchens, B. & Tuncel, S.. Semi-groups and graphs for sofic systems. Israel J. Math. To appear.Google Scholar
[9]Krieger, W.. On sofic systems, I. Israeli J. Math. 48 (1984), 305–330.Google Scholar
[10]Krieger, W.. On sofic systems, II. Preprint, Institut für Angewandte Mathematik der Universitat Heidelberg.Google Scholar
[11]Nasu, M.. An invariant for bounded-to-one factor maps between transitive sofic subshifts. Ergod. Th. & Dynam. Sys. 5 (1985), 89–105.Google Scholar
[12]Weiss, B.. Subshifts of finite type and sofic systems. Monatsh. Math. 77 (1973), 462–474.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[13]Williams, R. F.. Classification of subshifts of finite type. Ann. of Math. 98 (1973), 120–153;Google Scholar
Errata: Ann. of Math. 99 (1974), 380–381.Google Scholar