陶哲轩博客写数学问题时，通常先把对象定义清楚，再给直觉、反例和证明轮廓。把「Undecidable translational tilings with only two tiles, or one nonabelian tile」改写成可阅读的中文笔记，重点是：问题在问什么、已知到哪一步、下一步最容易走偏在哪。原站广告、分享条和导航已去掉。

问题在问什么

Rachel Greenfeld and I have just uploaded to the arXiv our preprint “ Undecidable translational tilings with only two tiles, or one nonabelian tile “. This paper studies the following question: given a finitely generated group , a (periodic) subset of , and finite sets in , is it possible to tile by translations of the tiles ? That is to say, is there a solution to the (translational) tiling equation

A bit more specifically, the paper studies the decidability of the above question. There are two slightly different types of decidability one could consider here:

已知结果和反例

Note that the notion of logical decidability is “pointwise” in the sense that it pertains to a single choice of data , whereas the notion of algorithmic decidability pertains instead to classes of data, and is only interesting when this class is infinite. Indeed, any tiling problem with a finite class of data is trivially decidable because one could simply code a Turing machine that is basically a lookup table that returns the correct answer for each choice of data in the cla

The two notions are related as follows: if a tiling problem (1) is algorithmically undecidable for some class of data, then the tiling equation must be logically undecidable for at least one choice of data for this class. For if this is not the case, one could algorithmically decide the tiling problem by searching for proofs or disproofs that the equation (1) is solvable for a given choice of data; the logical decidability of all such solvability questions will ensure that th

证明或构造的主线

One can use the Gödel completeness theorem to interpret logical decidability in terms of universes (also known as structures or models) of ZFC. In addition to the “standard” universe of sets that we believe satisfies the axioms of ZFC, there are also other “nonstandard” universes that also obey the axioms of ZFC. If the solvability of a tiling equation (1) is logically undecidable, this means that such a tiling exists in some universes of ZFC, but not in others.

(To continue the exam analogy, we thus see that a yes-no exam question is logically undecidable if the answer to the question is yes in some parallel universes, but not in others. A course syllabus is algorithmically undecidable if there is no way to prepare for the final exam for the course in a way that guarantees a perfect score (in the standard universe).)

阅读时建议盯住的点

Questions of decidability are also related to the notion of aperiodicity . For a given , a tiling equation (1) is said to be aperiodic if the equation (1) is solvable (in the standard universe of ZFC), but none of the solutions (in that universe) are completely periodic (i.e., there are no solutions where all of the are periodic). Perhaps the most well-known example of an aperiodic tiling (in the context of , and using rotations as well as translations) come from the Penrose

It was (essentially) observed by Hao Wang in the 1960s that if a tiling equation is logically undecidable, then it must necessarily be aperiodic. Indeed, if a tiling equation fails to be aperiodic, then (in the standard universe) either there is a periodic tiling, or there are no tilings whatsoever. In the former case, the periodic tiling can be used to give a finite proof that the tiling equation is solvable; in the latter case, the compactness theorem implies that there is

值得单独记下的条目

• (i) There exists a group of the form for some finite abelian , a subset of , and finite sets such that the tiling equation is logically undecidable (and hence also aperiodic).
• (ii) There exists a dimension , a periodic subset of , and finite sets such that tiling equation is logically undecidable (and hence also aperiodic).
• (iii) There exists a non-abelian finite group (with the group law still written additively), a subset of , and a finite set such that the nonabelian tiling equation is logically undecidable (and hence also aperiodic).

阅读和落地时建议先做的 5 件事

1. 用自己的语言重写定义和结论，不看原文能不能说清对象是什么。
2. 找一个最小反例或边界情形，确认假设少一条会怎样。
3. 把证明拆成可独立检验的引理，每步只保留一个新想法。
4. 若涉及计算或形式化，先写可复现的小例子，再谈一般情形。
5. 记下尚未解决的缺口：缺估计、缺构造，还是缺正确的范畴。

和智能体、形式化工具怎么接

龙虾PRO做 OpenClaw 落地时，数学笔记最有用的部分往往是「可检验的步骤」：定义、反例、引理边界。智能体适合帮忙展开计算和检索，不适合代替你决定哪条假设能扔。

本文侧重全链路风控方法论。落地时请用自身业务单据做回放验证，不要把示例阈值直接当生产策略。 相关：风控体检 · 方案资源