Difference between revisions of "Open Problems"

From self-assembly wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Line 10: Line 10:
 
<li>In <ref name = IUSA /> Doty et al. showed that the aTAM is [[Intrinsic universality of the aTAM | intrinsically universal]] for itself, but for [[Directed Tile Assembly Systems | directed]] systems the intrinsically universal tile set fundamentally relies on nondeterminism. Is the class of directed [[Abstract Tile Assembly Model (aTAM) | aTAM]] systems intrinsically universal for itself?</li>
 
<li>In <ref name = IUSA /> Doty et al. showed that the aTAM is [[Intrinsic universality of the aTAM | intrinsically universal]] for itself, but for [[Directed Tile Assembly Systems | directed]] systems the intrinsically universal tile set fundamentally relies on nondeterminism. Is the class of directed [[Abstract Tile Assembly Model (aTAM) | aTAM]] systems intrinsically universal for itself?</li>
  
<li>Is the [[STAM]] [[Intrinsic Universality in the 2HAM | intrinsically universal]] for itself?  In <ref name=STAMIU /> it was shown that the 3D aTAM is IU for a subset of the STAM, but it remains open whether or not adding negative strength glues allows the 3D aTAM to be IU for the full STAM.</li>
+
<li>Is the [[STAM]] [[Intrinsic Universality in the 2HAM | intrinsically universal]] for itself?  Also, in <ref name=STAMIU /> it was shown that the 3D aTAM is IU for a subset of the STAM, but it remains open whether or not adding negative strength glues allows the 3D aTAM to be IU for the full STAM.</li>
  
 
<li>Is the class of [[Abstract Tile Assembly Model (aTAM) | aTAM]] systems at temperature 1 [[Intrinsic universality of the aTAM | intrinsically universal]] for itself?</li>
 
<li>Is the class of [[Abstract Tile Assembly Model (aTAM) | aTAM]] systems at temperature 1 [[Intrinsic universality of the aTAM | intrinsically universal]] for itself?</li>
Line 16: Line 16:
 
<li>In his 1998 thesis <ref name=Winf98 />, Winfree introduced both the [[Abstract Tile Assembly Model (aTAM) | aTAM]] and its more practical counterpart the [[Kinetic Tile Assembly Model (kTAM) | kTAM]].  Currently, the 2HAM does not have a more realistic counterpart.  Formulate a "k2HAM" model which takes into account the size of assemblies binding together (the bigger the assemblies the less likely it is they will bind together) and the lack of rigidity when assemblies come together.</li>
 
<li>In his 1998 thesis <ref name=Winf98 />, Winfree introduced both the [[Abstract Tile Assembly Model (aTAM) | aTAM]] and its more practical counterpart the [[Kinetic Tile Assembly Model (kTAM) | kTAM]].  Currently, the 2HAM does not have a more realistic counterpart.  Formulate a "k2HAM" model which takes into account the size of assemblies binding together (the bigger the assemblies the less likely it is they will bind together) and the lack of rigidity when assemblies come together.</li>
  
<li>In [[Self-Assembly of Discrete Self-Similar Fractals]], Patitz and Summers proved several results about self-assembling discrete self-similar fractals, but it is still an open questions as to whether or not there exists a discrete self-similar fractal that can be self-assembled in the [[Abstract Tile Assembly Model (aTAM) | aTAM]].</li>
+
<li>In [[Self-Assembly of Discrete Self-Similar Fractals]], Patitz and Summers proved several results about self-assembling discrete self-similar fractals, but it is still an open questions as to whether or not there exists a discrete self-similar fractal that can be self-assembled in the [[Abstract Tile Assembly Model (aTAM) | aTAM]]. Also, are there discrete self-similar fractals which are not pinch-point fractals that are provably impossible to strictly self-assemble (e.g. the Sierpinski carpet)?</li>
  
  

Revision as of 18:01, 27 May 2014

The following are a list of open problems in self-assembly: