Submitted:
21 November 2024
Posted:
22 November 2024
Read the latest preprint version here
Abstract
Using assembly theory of strings of any natural radix \(b\) we find some of their salient regularities. In particular, we show that the upper bound of the assembly index depends quantitatively on the radix \(b\) and the longest length \(N\) of a string that has the assembly index of \(N-k\) is given by \(N_{(N-1)}=b^2+b+1\) and by \(N_{(N-k)}=b^2+b+2k\) for $2 \le k \le 9$. We also provide particular forms of such strings. Knowing the latter bound, we conjecture that the maximum assembly index of a string of length \(N_{(N-2)} \le N \le N_{\text{max}}\) is given by \(a_{\text{max}}^{(N,b)} = \lfloor N/2 \rfloor + b(b+1)/2\), where \(N_{\text{max}} = 4b^4\) if \(b\) is even and \(N_{\text{max}} = 4(b^4+1)\) otherwise. For \(k=1\) such odd length strings are nearly balanced and there are four such different strings if \(b=2\) and seventy-two if \(b=3\). We also show that each \(k\) copies of an \(n\)-plet contained in a string decrease its assembly index at least by \(k(n-1) - a\), where \(a\) is the assembly index of this \(n\)-plet. We show that the minimum assembly depth satisfies \(d_{\text{min}}^{(N)} = \left\lceil \log_2(N) \right\rceil\), for all \(b\), and is the assembly depth of a maximum assembly index string. We define the depth index of a string (OEIS \href{https://oeis.org/A014701}{A014701} sequence) and conjecture that if it is equal to the minimum assembly index of this string then its assembly depth equals the minimum assembly depth, and otherwise equals the minimum assembly index. Since these results are also valid for \(b=1\), assembly theory subsumes information theory.
Keywords:
assembly theory
; information theory
; complexity measures
; information entropy
; mathematical physics
I. Introduction
Assembly theory (AT), formulated in 2017, introduced the concept of an initial pool [1].
Definition 1.
We call a set that contains different basic symbols c of unit length, the initial assembly pool (ASP).
The reader will find numerous results on AT in refs. [1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10], for example. Here, we extend the results of our previous study [9] concerning bitstrings to strings of any natural radix b. We consider the formation of strings of length N containing symbols from the initial assembly pool within the AT framework in consecutive assembly steps from basic symbols c and strings (doublets, triplets, quadruplets,…,n-plets) assembled in previous steps.
In fact, any embodiment of AT, with basic symbols representing LEGO® blocks, chemical bonds, graphs, monomers, etc. assembled in any n-dimensional space () [11] corresponds to the string AT version. This is because in AT an assembly step always consists in joining two parts only, which can be thought of as the left and right fragments of the newly formed string. The ancient Greek verb symbállein means putting only two things (“symbols”) together [12]. Put simply, AT explains and quantifies selection and evolution [7] but it is through the word (aka string or message), in particular a nucleotide sequence in the case of , all AT things come into existence [13].
Definition 2.
We call a set that contains basic symbols and strings assembled in previous steps the working ASP.
An assembly step s may consist of
where , , and . Using Definitions 1 and 2, the assembly index (ASI) of a string is the minimal achievable value of a difference between the cardinalities of the working and initial assembly pools (ASPs) leading to this string, since at each assembly step the cardinality of the working ASP increases by one.
II. Results
Theorems 1 and 2 were already stated in our previous study [9] for . We restate them here for clarity.
Theorem 1.
A quadruplet is the shortest string that allows for more than one ASI .
Proof.
provides available doublets with unit ASI. provides available triplets with ASI equal to two. Only provides quadruplets that include quadruplets with ASI equal to two, that is b quadruplets and quadruplets , while the ASI of the remaining quadruplets is three. □
For example, to assemble the quadruplet , we need to assemble the doublet and reuse it from the first step working ASP , while there is nothing available to reuse, in the case of the quadruplet .
Where the symbol value can be arbitrary, we write * assuming that it is the same within the string. If we allow for the possibility different from *, we write ★. Thus, , for example, is a placeholder for all b strings, while a placeholder for all strings. Furthermore, we consider the degenerate case of just one basic symbol ().
Theorem 2.
The minimum ASI as a function of N corresponds to the shortest addition chain for N (OEIS A003313) .
Proof.
Strings for which , can be formed in subsequent steps s by joining the longest string assembled so far with itself until is reached. Therefore, if , then . Only strings have such ASI if , including respectively b and strings
and the assembly pathway of each of the strings (2) is unique. At each assembly step, its length doubles.
An addition chain for having the shortest length (commonly denoted as ) is defined as a sequence of integers such that , for . Hence, and the first step in creating an addition chain for N is always , which is an equivalent of saying that the ASI of any doublet is one. The second step in creating an addition chain can be , , or . The case does not represent the shortest addition chain but the first step, the one corresponds to assembling a triplet based on the previously assembled doublet, and the one corresponds to assembling a minimum ASI quadruplet (2) from this doublet. Maximum ASI quadruplet can be assembled in a third step , which corresponds to joining a basic symbol to a triplet. Therefore, four is the smallest number achievable in two ways according to Theorem 1.
Thus, finding the shortest addition chain for N corresponds to finding the ASI of a string containing basic symbols and/or doublets and/or triplets containing these doublets for since due to Theorem 1 only they provide the same assembly indices with no internal repetitions. □
The assembly pathways of strings of length are not unique. For example, a string can be assembled in three steps from four working ASPs , , and .
We note in passing that any shortest addition chain for n starts with one, not zero, as zero is the neutral element of addition. For the same reason, two is considered the smallest prime, as one is the neutral element of multiplication. Hence, the fundamental theorem of arithmetic can be thought of as the shortest multiplication chain for n.
Theorem 3.
The strings can contain at most two distinct symbols if . Other minimum ASI strings of length can contain at most three distinct symbols if .
Proof.
Minimum ASI strings of length are formed by joining the newly assembled string to itself, where a clear or mixed doublet is created in the first step. Minimum ASI strings of other lengths admit a doublet and a triplet containing this doublet and an additional basic symbol.
To formally prove the first part, we can also use mathematical induction on the assembly step s. If , then the minimum ASI strings are doublets of the form , where . If , the string contains one distinct symbol, and if , the string contains two distinct symbols. In both cases, the string has a form (2) and the number of distinct symbols does not exceed two. Now assume that for some , all minimum ASI strings contain at most two distinct symbols. We must show that also contains at most two distinct symbols. We construct by joining two identical minimum ASI strings
with each other. By the inductive hypothesis, each contains at most two distinct symbols. Therefore, their concatenation also contains at most two distinct symbols. By induction, for all , the minimum ASI string contains at most two distinct symbols.
We will now show that other minimum ASI strings of length can contain at most three distinct symbols if . We provide the construction of minimum ASI strings with three symbols. In the first step , we create a doublet where and . Next, we join the existing doublet with a new symbol where . This forms a triplet , introducing a third distinct symbol and further increasing the ASI by 1. We continue assembling by joining the longest string formed so far with itself or with previously formed strings, maintaining the minimal ASI increase.
Assume a contrario that there exists a minimum ASI string of length that contains four or more distinct symbols. But, to incorporate a fourth symbol, at least one additional assembly step is required beyond what is needed for the three symbols. This additional step implies an increase in ASI, which contradicts the minimality of . Thus, Theorem 3 is proven. □
The strings having non-minimum ASI can contain all symbols. For example, the string [14]
has ASI and contains all five basic symbols .
Theorem 4.
A string containing the same three doublets has the same ASI as a string containing two pairs of the same doublets, provided that both strings have the same distributions of other repetitions and have the same lengths.
Proof.
Without loss of generality (w.l.o.g.), consider the following two strings of the same length with and the same distributions of other repetitions (if there are any other repetitions)
where . Creating a doublet takes one assembly step. Each appending of a doublet to an assembled string counts as another assembly step. Hence, in a general case (i.e., for strings , containing also other symbols), the string requires six additional assembly steps, the same as the string , which completes the proof. □
Theorem 5.
A string containing the same three doublets has the same ASI as a string containing the same two triplets, provided that both strings have the same distributions of other repetitions.
Proof.
W.l.o.g. consider the following two strings of the same length with the same distributions of other repetitions
Creating a triplet takes two assembly steps. Hence, in the general case, the string requires four additional assembly steps, the same as the string , which completes the proof. □
Theorem 6.
A string containing the same two triplets has the same ASI as a string containing two pairs of the same doublets, provided that both strings have the same distributions of other repetitions and have the same lengths.
Proof.
The proof stems from Theorems 4 and 5. □
Theorem 7.
A string containing the same two quadruplets of the minimum ASI has the same ASI as a string containing the same three triplets, provided that both strings have the same distributions of other repetitions and have the same lengths.
Proof.
W.l.o.g. consider the following two strings of the same length with the same distributions of other repetitions
Creating such a quadruplet takes two assembly steps. Hence, in a general case, the string requires five additional assembly steps, the same as the string , which completes the proof. □
Theorem 8.
A string containing the same two quadruplets of the maximum ASI has the same ASI as a string containing a doublet and the same two triplets based on this doublet, provided that both strings have the same distributions of other repetitions.
Proof.
W.l.o.g. consider the following two strings of the same length with the same distributions of other repetitions
Creating such a quadruplet takes three assembly steps. Hence, in a general case, the string requires five additional assembly steps, the same as the string , which completes the proof. □
Theorem 9.
A string containing the same two doublets and the same two triplets not based on this doublet has the same ASI as a string containing a doublet and the same two triplets based on this doublet, provided that both strings have the same distributions of other repetitions and have the same lengths.
Proof.
W.l.o.g. consider the following two strings of the same length with the same distributions of other repetitions
where . In a general case, the string requires seven additional assembly steps, the same as the string , which completes the proof. □
In general, Theorems 1-9 show that
- k copies of a doublet in a string decrease the ASI of this string at least by ;
- k copies of a triplet in a string decrease the ASI of this string at least by ;
- k copies of a minimum ASI quadruplet in a string decrease the ASI of this string at least by ;
- k copies of a maximum ASI quadruplet in a string decrease the ASI of this string at least by ;
where, the phrase "at least" is meant to indicate that other repetitions, such as e.g. doublets forming multiple quadruplets, etc. can further decrease the ASI of the string. This observation allows us to state the following theorem.
Theorem 10.
Each copies of an -plet contained in a string decrease its ASI at least by . That is
where R is the total number of repeated -plets.
Proof.
W.l.o.g. consider the following string
containing two copies of an n-plet . The n-plet can be assembled in at least steps and appended to the assembled string in one step. Consider that the ASI of the n-plet is , i.e. the n-plet does not have any repetitions that can be reused. Then one copy of this n-plet - as expected - does not decrease the ASI of the string , as , while more copies k decrease it by . On the other hand, if then even a single copy of this n-plet will decrease the ASI of . □
For example, due to the presence of three copies of a 5-plet , each with , in a string
its ASI amounts to . The relation (10) provides the upper bound on ASI as it does not describe a situation in which n-plet for is assembled based on a doublet also present in one copy in the string. For example, the string , while . We note that the maximum ASI decrease is provided by -plets of the minimum ASI and amounts to .
Another quantity quantifying the complexity of a string is the assembly depth (ASD) defined [15] as
where , and and are the ASDs of two substrings , of the string that were joined in step s. For , and if there are more assembly pathways with different depths leading to a string, which happens if at least two independent assembly steps are possible, the minimum pathway depth is the ASD of this string. Hence, the ASD captures the notion of an independent assembly step.
Theorem 11.
If a working ASP contains strings having the same ASD they were assembled in independent assembly steps.
Proof.
W.l.o.g. assume a contrario that the working ASP contains two strings , having the same ASD, i.e., , that were not assembled in independent assembly steps, i.e., that was used in the assembly of along with a basic symbol c in some previous step s. Then
which contradicts our assumption and completes the proof. □
In other words, if two strings , in the working ASP have the same ASD, their assembly pathways are unrelated to each other; by the defining equation (13) neither of them could have been used in the assembly pathway of the other. Here, we introduce the following definition, which is also related to the independent assembly step.
Definition 3.
We call the number of steps to reach 1 starting from and assigning if is odd and otherwise (OEIS A014701 sequence) the depth index (DPI).
Theorem 12.
The maximum length N of any string that can be assembled with the ASD (13), , satisfies
Proof.
Assume a contrario that . Then for , we have which is a contradiction as basic symbols c have unit length . □
Theorem 13.
The minimum ASI-independent ASD as a function of N, , satisfies
where denotes the ceiling function.
Proof.
follows from the relation (15). satisfies both the definition (13) and our hypothesis (16). Similarly . Using induction on length N, assume that for some , we can assemble a minimum ASD string with ASD (16). We need to show that for , we can assemble a string with the ASD satisfying
Since, by definition (13), the ASD as a function of N is monotonously nondecreasing and can increase at most by one between N and , we have
where we used relations (16) and (17). Solving the relation (18) for N yields
and completes the proof. □
The ASD does not have to be a monotonously nondecreasing function of the assembly step. For example
Theorem 14.
The ASI and the ASD of a minimum ASI string are equal to each other.
Proof.
We use mathematical induction on the length N of the string. For the base case (), the string consists of a single basic symbol . Hence, its ASI is and its ASD . Therefore, . Assume now that for all strings of length less than N, the ASD equals the minimum ASI, that is
For some integer s, we construct the minimum ASI string as follows. First, we assemble a doublet from two basic symbols:
Its ASI is and its ASD is . Then for each we have with the ASI and the ASD and we construct by joining two copies of
The ASI of the string is equal to
and, similarly, its ASD is equal to
Therefore, in this case. At any step, we assemble strings (2). The proof also follows from Theorems 2 and 13. □
Theorem 15.
The assembly pathways of strings having the same ASI and ASD cannot contain independent assembly steps.
Proof.
For the minimum ASI strings of length , the proof follows from the proof of Theorem 14, as no two assembly steps can be independent. Furthermore, the set of such strings contains the strings
of our previous study [9], which are constructed by adding -plet to a -plet assembled in a previous assembly step. The base case for describes the assembly of a triplet by joining a symbol to a doublet made in a previous assembly step, so that both the ASI and the ASD of this triplet increase by one. The case for describes the assembly of a 5-plet or 6-plet, again with unit increase of the ASI and the ASD, and so on. □
The assembly pathways of other minimum ASI strings can contain independent assembly steps. The first such case occurs for , where the pathway
results in a string having ma and , since both and were assembled from the doublet in two independent assembly steps at the same depth , which is congruent with Theorem 11.
Theorem 13 considers ASI-independent ASD, neglecting the working ASP, and hence also the AT principles. Similarly, the maximum achievable ASD would be , as a result of increasing the length of the string by one unit length symbol in steps. Hence, in general, we cannot consider the ASD apart from the ASI. For example, the ASD of a string is as
even though this string can be assembled with three larger pathway depths . Similarly, the ASD of a string is as
However, the non-maximum ASI string has only two doublets that can be assembled in independent steps. Hence, its ASI-dependent ASD cannot be decreased to
In general, the working ASP that contains a -plet at the ASD d can also contain -plets based on the substrings contained in the working ASP at the ASD .
Conjecture 16.
Conjecture 17.
If the DPI equals the minimum ASI of a string , then the ASD of this string equals the minimum ASI-independent ASD (16) as a function of N, , that is
Conjecture 18.
If the DPI is larger than the minimum ASI of a string , then the ASD of this string equals its minimum ASI, that is
and the ASD can be achieved in assembly steps.
For example, the DPI is larger than the ASI . Therefore, the ASD of any string having this ASI is , whereas the minimum ASI-independent ASD can be achieved with a string assembled in six assembly steps, which corresponds to the DPI of . Certain tuples satisfying the Conjecture 18 are listed in Table 1 and illustrated in Figure 1.
In general, Theorems 11-15 show that
- the working ASP of minimum ASI strings having ASI equal to DPI cannot contain strings assembled in independent assembly steps,
- the working ASPs of other minimum ASI strings can contain at least two such strings, and therefore
- the assembly pathway of a maximum ASI string will tend to maximize the number of strings assembled in independent assembly steps in the working ASP, taking into account the saturation of the working ASP as it cannot contain more than distinct n-plets, and hence to minimize the possible ASD.
As shown in Figure 2(c,d), the string has the ASI and the ASD , while the string has smaller ASI but larger ASD . On the other hand, the ASD of the strings (A21) and (2), shown in Figure 2(a,b), is the same.
Theorem 19.
The ASD of any maximum ASI string , for all b corresponds to the minimum ASI-independent ASD (16) of Theorem 13, that is
Proof.
Using the property of the ceiling function valid for , we have
The non-strict inequality (35) corresponds to the non-strict inequality (15) valid for any N and any ASD. Therefore, we need to prove that the strict inequality holds for all strings. Assume, for contradiction, that there exists a maximum ASI string such that
But this relation does not hold for the maximum ASI string . □
The seven-bit string is the longest string that can have the maximum ASI . There are four such bitstrings containing two clear triplets and the starting bit at the end or the ending bit at the start, that is
and their lengths cannot be increased without a repetition of a doublet, which keeps the ASI at the same level .
This observation and Theorem 2 motivated us to develop a general method to construct the longest possible string having the maximum ASI , as a function of the radix b. We denote the length of this string by or , and we call this string a string.
After a few groping try-outs, we eventually reached two stable methods (cf. Appendices, Methods A and B). In both methods, we start with an initial balanced string of length containing b clear triplets ordered as
The doublets that can be inserted into the initial string (38) can be arranged in a matrix
where the crossed out entries on a diagonal cannot be reused, as they would create repetitions in this string. If we assume that we shall not insert doublets between the clear triplets of the string (38), we can also cross out the entries in the first superdiagonal of the matrix (39). The strings of odd lengths generated by these general methods are not only the longest but also the most balanced. This can be stated in the following theorem.
Theorem 20.
The longest length of a string that has the ASI of is given by
(OEIS A353887) and this string is nearly balanced, that is
where is the number of occurrences of all but one symbol within the string, and its Shannon entropy is
The proof of Theorem 20 is given in Appendix D. A string must contain all clear triplets and all doublets and if it is generated by Method A or B it is terminated with 0 and has a form
Although the case for is degenerate, as no information can be conveyed using only one symbol ( in this case), nothing precludes the assembly of such defunct strings and the formula (40) yields the correct result; the string is the longest string with by Theorem 1, as for the upper and the lower bound on the ASI are the same, (OEIS A003313). This is the only case where the maximum ASI is not a monotonically nondecreasing function of N.
For , only two doublets can be introduced without repetitions into the initial string (38), leading to twelve unique strings of length
Finally, we have to multiply the cardinality of this set by to account for permutations. For example, the first string , is equivalent to five strings , , , , and . Hence, there are seventy-two different strings of length .
Subsequently, we considered other strings of length with the maximum ASI for .
Theorem 21.
For all and the longest length of a string that has the ASI of is given by
The proof of Theorem 21 is given in Appendix E. This result disproves our upper bound Conjecture 1 for stated in our previous study [9]. If the strings of Theorem 21 are based on strings generated by Method A or B, for they owe their properties to the following distributions of symbols
For the strings of the form (46) the fractions in the Shannon entropy are
where , if and , otherwise, as is inserted into , into and or otherwise. This leads to Shannon entropy
of any string having length , for .
The entropies (42) and (48) are shown in Figure 3. Radix is the smallest one at which the entropy (48) is a monotonically decreasing function of k. For there is a local entropy minimum for and for an additional local entropy minimum for . Perhaps, the entropy (48) has other local entropy minima for and for .
Conjecture 22.
If and then
or equivalently
where
In other words, if , then ASI increases by one, where N increases by two ( are triangular numbers, OEIS A000217).
First, we note that maximum ASI must rise. If it were constant for , then at some even larger N it would inevitably become lower than the minimum ASI bound 2 which also rises, and this would be a contradiction. W.l.o.g. we aim to prove this conjecture for . We note that inserting any doublet into a string (A19) at any position creates a triplet. Using the equation (10) of Theorem 10 we have
for any step s if only . Now, assume that , and , . Then
The proof of the Conjecture 22 must show the conditions for the equations (52) and (53) to hold. We note that the assumption used in the equation (53) is valid only for and . The bounds of Theorems 20 and 21 and Conjecture 22 are illustrated in Figure 1.
The results thus far led us to a simple method of determining the ASI of a maximum ASI and a minimum ASD string and strengthened our Conjectures 3 and 4 stated in the previous study [9]. The method is based on unique -plets and powers of two, as shown in Table 2. First, a maximum ASI string is sequenced, every two symbols to find the number of unique adjoining doublets . In particular, a string (A3) or (A4) contain the maximum of unique adjoining doublets, a string (A13) contains the maximum of unique adjoining doublets, and so on. In general, a string contains the maximum of
unique adjoining doublets, where is given by the relations (40) or (45), which is independent of k.
Subsequently, these doublets form unique adjoining quadruplets, quadruplets form unique adjoining octuples, and so on depending on the length of the string N and the radix b, as there can be at most unique -plets. The columns "last " indicate if the assembled string should be terminated with a single substring of length in descending order. The empty fields in the respective columns for indicate that a given substring can be interpreted as either a "regular" single substring or a last substring if . Furthermore, each step and all last steps are tantamount to one ASD level.
For example, the string (A20) of length for can be assembled as
Furthermore, for the method produces the DPI (OEIS A014701). For example, the string of length can be assembled in six steps as
where obviously . However, this is the exception for as the ASI of this string is five if it is assembled using doublet and triplet .
We further note that the method illustrated in Table 2 cannot be used to construct the maximum ASI string. For example, both the following two distributions of doublets for satisfy the distributions of Table 2. However, only the left one correctly reflects the maximum ASI of the assembled string.
as the right one can be assembled in four steps with . Similarly, only the top distribution of doublets below correctly reflects the maximum ASI of the assembled string for
as the bottom one can be assembled in six steps with . Furthermore, this method tends to exaggerate the estimated maximum ASI value, that is,
where is the ASI of a string determined by the method illustrated in Table 2. For example, the first six strings below contain four unique doublets instead of the required three. Therefore
Further research should consider researching the formula equivalent to (40) that captures a quadruplet repetition, similarly as captures a doublet repetition.
III. Discussion
Our study’s mathematical findings, especially the theorems concerning the ASI, DPI, and ASD, provide a framework for understanding the principles underlying the assembly of biological macromolecules such as DNA and proteins. For example, we show that DNA strand containing four nucleobases cannot represent a mininimum ASI string as it would violate Chargaff’s rules and Theorem 3 asserting that a mininimum ASI string can contain only at most two distinct symbols if and at most three, otherwise. We also show that maximum length strings without any substring repetitions, i.e., the maximum ASI strings having are necessarily the most balanced: all but one symbol occur times and one symbol occurs times within any string . However, longer maximum ASI strings become less balanced and their entropies (48) decrease. We have shown that the radix is the smallest one at which the entropy (48) is a monotonically decreasing function of k. Together with Theorem 3 this could be the reason nature has chosen four nucleobases to encode genetic information.
Despite the mathematical ideal of maximum entropy in balanced sequences, biological systems often tend to deviate from this balance. This deviation is evident in natural sequences, where certain nucleotides or amino acids occur more frequently than others, resulting in lower entropy. For example, the Shannon entropy of the SARS-CoV genome containing nucleobases decreased from to within two years after the Wuhan outbreak [9,16] (). If the length of a string is constant, it will tend to evolve to decrease the Shannon entropy [16,17] and, hence, to become less balanced.
The observed tendency of biological sequences to evolve toward lower entropy may be associated with energy minimization. According to thermodynamic principles, systems tend to move toward states of lower free energy. In the context of AT, the energy associated with assembling a sequence can be related to the number of assembly steps. Sequences that require fewer assembly steps (lower ASI) may be energetically favorable. Thus, more complex sequences (with higher ASIs) require more assembly steps and, consequently, more energy. As the energy of a black hole that can be thought of as a balanced bitstring [18] can be two times the energy of the entropy variation sphere that it generates [19], this tendency to imbalance seems to be associated with the minimum energy condition.
In essence, our theorems provide a mathematical underpinning for the observed patterns in biological sequences, offering explanations for phenomena such as the preference for radix in genetic encoding and the evolutionary trend toward lower entropy. The integration of AT into biological contexts opens avenues for a fundamental mathematical understanding of evolutionary processes, responding to the call for a precise and abstract mathematical theory of evolution [20].
Author Contributions
WB: first concept of a general method for constructing the string of length leading to Theorem 20; the concept of the doublet matrix (39); outline of the general Method A; proposition of Theorem 9; a string with exactly two copies of all doublets idea and the formula for its length; numerous clarity corrections and improvements; PM: outline of the general Method B; the hint for ASI combinatorics; creation of a software supporting Conjecture 22; creation of a string ; observation of the relation between OEIS A003313 and A014701 sequences in the context of ASI-dependent minimum ASD leading to the Conjecture 18; observation of the relation between Theorems 19 and 13; numerous clarity corrections and improvements; AT: formal proof of Theorem 3; proof that the Shannon entropy (42) can be approximated by for large b; proof of the Theorem 14; conceptualization of the proof of the Theorem 19 and equation (15); numerous clarity corrections and improvements; SŁ: The remaining part of the study.
Funding
This research received no external funding.
Data Availability Statement
The public repository for the code written in the MATLAB computational environment and C++ is given under the link https://github.com/szluk/Evolution_of_Information (accessed on 19 September 2024).
Acknowledgments
The authors thank Mariola Bala for her motivation and Rafał Winiarski for noting that the relation (10) is inequality. SŁ thanks his wife, Magdalena Bartocha, for her everlasting support, and his partner and friend, Renata Sobajda, for her prayers.
Conflicts of Interest
Authors Wawrzyniec Bieniawski and Piotr Masierak were employed by the company Łukaszyk Patent Attorneys. The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.
Appendix A. Method A for Generating C(N-1) String
Figure A1.
Doublet matrices for that illustrate the generation of strings according to Method A Colored doublets are appended to the initial string of clear triplets in the order indicated by arrows starting from the column or row. Finally, 0 is appended at the end, if b is even.
Figure A1.
Doublet matrices for that illustrate the generation of strings according to Method A Colored doublets are appended to the initial string of clear triplets in the order indicated by arrows starting from the column or row. Finally, 0 is appended at the end, if b is even.

We start with a string of clear triplets (38). In the step, we create a string containing doublets on the first subdiagonal of the matrix (39) starting with 10
and we append it to the string (38). With this step, we also eliminate the doublets on the second superdiagonal starting with the doublet 02, as well as the doublet . In the step, we create a string containing doublets on the third superdiagonal beginning with the doublet 03
and append it to the string created so far. With this step, we also remove the doublet and the middle part of the second subdiagonal containing . And so on. Finally, we append 0 if b is even. This process is illustrated in Figure A1 and for generates the following strings
Appendix B. Method B for Generating C(N-1) String
Figure A2.
Doublet matrices for that illustrate the generation of strings according to Method B. Colored doublets are appended to the initial string of clear triplets in the order indicated by arrows starting from the column or row. Finally, 0 is appended at the end, if b is even.
Figure A2.
Doublet matrices for that illustrate the generation of strings according to Method B. Colored doublets are appended to the initial string of clear triplets in the order indicated by arrows starting from the column or row. Finally, 0 is appended at the end, if b is even.

This method is similar to the Method A. We also start with a string of clear triplets (38) and the matrix of doublets (39) with a crossed diagonal and the first superdiagonal. In the first step, we append the doublet (top right doublet of the matrix of doublets (39)) at the end of the string (38). Next, we generally perform the following pairs of iterations:
- we check subsequent subdiagonals until we find one that does not contain a doublet present in the string created so far, we append it at the end of this string and proceed to step 2;
- we check subsequent superdiagonals until we find one that does not contain a doublet present in the string created so far, we append it at the end of this string and proceed to step 1.
Finally, we append 0 if b is even. The method is illustrated in Figure A2 and for generates the strings in the form
Appendix C. A String with Exactly Two Copies of All Doublets and No Repeated Triplets
A string that has exactly two copies of all doublets and no repeated triplets can have a form (for )
and has a length of
A suboptimal method for its generating (with repeated triplets) is illustrated in Figure A3.
Figure A3.
Doublet matrices for that illustrate the generation of strings containing exactly two copies of all doublets. Colored doublets are appended to the initial string of clear quadruplets in the order indicated by arrows starting from the column or row. Finally, is appended at the end. The superdiagonal is appended as .
Figure A3.
Doublet matrices for that illustrate the generation of strings containing exactly two copies of all doublets. Colored doublets are appended to the initial string of clear quadruplets in the order indicated by arrows starting from the column or row. Finally, is appended at the end. The superdiagonal is appended as .

Appendix D. Proof of C (N-1) String Theorem
The given by the formula (40) is an odd number for all b. The first element is the length of the initial string (38) containing b clear triplets and is the number of doublets available in the matrix (39) after crossing out b doublets on its diagonal and doublets on its superdiagonal that are present in the starting string (38). By definition, a string cannot have any repetitions. To be the longest, it must contain all doublets in the matrix (39) and all clear triplets. Furthermore, to be the most patternless, this string must maximize Shannon entropy; must be the most balanced. For the string of the form (41) the fractions in the Shannon entropy are
where w.l.o.g. we assume that the symbol occurring times within the string is . To see that the Shannon entropy (42) of a string can be approximated by for large b, first notice that and . Furthermore, , , which implies that the first term
Similarly the second term,
Hence, the entropy (42) can be approximated by the dominant contribution from the first term, which is
The strings given by the relation (40) are not the shortest possible ones. Strings satisfying the equation (41) and satisfying are given by (OEIS A002522). They can be constructed to contain all possible doublets but without any triplets, starting with an initial balanced string of length containing b clear doublets ordered from the main diagonal of the doublet matrix (39). Furthermore, their entropies are smaller than the entropies of the strings given by the equation (40). Namely
Appendix E. Proof of C(N-k) String Theorem
We start by noting that for , , as the ASI of is the same as the ASI of , , as the ASI of strings of seven and eight same symbols is three, there is no , and so on. Hence, Theorem 21 does not hold for .
A string contains all doublets. Hence, inserting any basic symbol into any position inevitably leads to a repetition of a doublet. W.l.o.g. we append it at the start of the string, obtaining a string
Another symbol can be introduced to this string without an additional doublet repetition provided that it adjoins the previously introduced symbol, which gives a string
leading to the repetition of the doublet or but not both of them (here we allow ). Hence, both the length and the ASI of this string increase by one. Finally, 0 can be appended at the start of this string without an additional doublet repetition provided that and and the string becomes
leading to the mutually exclusive repetition of the doublet , or 00, so that also both length and the ASI of this string increase by one. An insertion of another symbol into the string (A13) at any position will maintain or even decrease the ASI of this newly formed string. For example, appending 0 at the start of the string (A13), where
creates a 001 triplet based on 00 doublet leading to a decrease of the ASI of this longer string to as compared to of the string (A13).
string (A13) must contain only two copies of a doublet. Hence, a clear quadruplet () and a pattern binding different symbols adjoining this quadruplet, such as , , etc. must be present, so that any string contains only one pair of repeated doublets , , or (See also Appendix C). For example, for , sixteen bitstrings
(an additional eight are given by swapping 0 with 1) have the ASI , where the underlined string (A15) is the one that we created for . Each string (A15) contains three pairs of doublets , , and overlapped in such a way that only one pair can be reused from the ASP to decrease the maximum ASI by one.
Searching for a string, w.l.o.g. we append at the start of the string (A13)
If , we have the same three doublets 10. Otherwise, we have two pairs of the same doublets and 10. Both cases are equivalent by Theorem 4. An insertion of another symbol to this string may maintain or even decrease the ASI of this newly formed string. To maximize its ASI, another symbol must adjoin *. Hence, we append ★ at the start, where and , a string
has an increased length and ASI. W.l.o.g. for we have four bitstrings (A17), wherein three of them
have the same non-maximum ASI and only one have the maximum ASI
and cannot be further extended along with the increment of the ASI. Therefore
and the ASI of this newly formed string increases again. However, the insertion of another symbol into this string will maintain or even decrease the ASI of this newly formed string. Any string must contain only three copies of a doublet, two copies of a triplet, or two pairs of different doublets. W.l.o.g. we have found the following strings for and
which led us to the strings (46) for all . Thus, Theorem 21 is proven.
References
- S. M. Marshall, A. R. G. Murray, and L. Cronin, “A probabilistic framework for identifying biosignatures using Pathway Complexity,” Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences, vol. 375, p. 20160342, Dec. 2017. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsta.2016.0342.
- S. Imari Walker, L. Cronin, A. Drew, S. Domagal-Goldman, T. Fisher, and M. Line, “Probabilistic biosignature frameworks,” in Planetary Astrobiology (V. Meadows, G. Arney, B. Schmidt, and D. J. Des Marais, eds.), pp. 1–1, University of Arizona Press, 2019.
- V. S. Meadows, G. N. Arney, B. E. Schmidt, and D. J. Des Marais, eds., Planetary astrobiology. University of Arizona space science series, Tucson: The University of Arizona Press ; Houston : Lunar and Planetary Institute, 2020. OCLC: 1151198948.
- Y. Liu, C. Mathis, M. D. Bajczyk, S. M. Marshall, L. Wilbraham, and L. Cronin, “Exploring and mapping chemical space with molecular assembly trees,” Science Advances, vol. 7, p. eabj2465, Sept. 2021. https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.abj2465.
- S. M. Marshall, C. Mathis, E. Carrick, G. Keenan, G. J. T. Cooper, H. Graham, M. Craven, P. S. Gromski, D. G. Moore, S. I. Walker, and L. Cronin, “Identifying molecules as biosignatures with assembly theory and mass spectrometry,” Nature Communications, vol. 12, p. 3033, May 2021. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-021-23258-x.
- S. M. Marshall, D. G. Moore, A. R. G. Murray, S. I. Walker, and L. Cronin, “Formalising the Pathways to Life Using Assembly Spaces,” Entropy, vol. 24, p. 884, June 2022. https://doi.org/10.3390/e24070884.
- A. Sharma, D. Czégel, M. Lachmann, C. P. Kempes, S. I. Walker, and L. Cronin, “Assembly theory explains and quantifies selection and evolution,” Nature, vol. 622, pp. 321–328, Oct 2023. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-023-06600-9.
- M. Jirasek, A. Sharma, J. R. Bame, S. H. M. Mehr, N. Bell, S. M. Marshall, C. Mathis, A. MacLeod, G. J. T. Cooper, M. Swart, R. Mollfulleda, and L. Cronin, “Investigating and Quantifying Molecular Complexity Using Assembly Theory and Spectroscopy,” ACS Central Science, vol. 10, pp. 1054–1064, May 2024. https://doi.org/10.1021/acscentsci.4c00120.
- S. Łukaszyk and W. Bieniawski, “Assembly Theory of Binary Messages,” Mathematics, vol. 12, p. 1600, May 2024. https://doi.org/10.3390/math12101600.
- S. Raubitzek, A. Schatten, P. König, E. Marica, S. Eresheim, and K. Mallinger, “Autocatalytic Sets and Assembly Theory: A Toy Model Perspective,” Entropy, vol. 26, p. 808, Sept. 2024. https://doi.org/10.3390/e26090808.
- S. Łukaszyk and A. Tomski, “Omnidimensional Convex Polytopes,” Symmetry, vol. 15, mar 2023. https://doi.org/10.3390/sym15030755.
- P. Francis, “Dilexit nos: Encyclical letter on the human and divine love of the heart of jesus christ,” 2024. Accessed: 2024-11-01.
- “Book of John [1.3],” c90.
- L. Cronin, “Exploring assembly index of strings is a good way to show why assembly & entropy are intrinsically different.” https://x.com/leecronin/status/1850289225935257665, 2024. Accessed: 2024-11-01.
- S. Pagel, A. S. Pagel, A. Sharma, and L. Cronin, “Mapping Evolution of Molecules Across Biochemistry with Assembly Theory,” 2024.
- M. M. Vopson, “The second law of infodynamics and its implications for the simulated universe hypothesis,” AIP Advances, vol. 13, p. 105308, Oct. 2023. https://doi.org/10.1063/5.0173278.
- S. Łukaszyk, “Shannon entropy of chemical elements,” European Journal of Applied Sciences, vol. 11, p. 443–458, Jan. 2024.
- S. Łukaszyk, Black Hole Horizons as Patternless Binary Messages and Markers of Dimensionality, ch. 15, pp. 317–374. Nova Science Publishers, 2023.
- S. Łukaszyk, “Life as the explanation of the measurement problem,” Journal of Physics: Conference Series, vol. 2701, p. 012124, Feb 2024. https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/2701/1/012124.
- G. Chaitin, Proving Darwin: Making Biology Mathematical. Knopf Doubleday Publishing Group, 2013.
Figure 1.
Lower assembly index bound (OEIS A003313, red), (red, dash-dot), lower assembly depth bound (blue), depth index (OEIS A014701, cyan), and upper assembly index bounds (green) for and .
Figure 1.
Lower assembly index bound (OEIS A003313, red), (red, dash-dot), lower assembly depth bound (blue), depth index (OEIS A014701, cyan), and upper assembly index bounds (green) for and .

Figure 2.
Illustration of the assembly of the bitstring (a, c) and (b, d) for (a, b) and (c, d), where the assembly index is a number in a string and the assembly depth corresponds to the level. For , . In general, for , the assembly depth . The distributions of n-plets in strings is shown in Table 2.
Figure 2.
Illustration of the assembly of the bitstring (a, c) and (b, d) for (a, b) and (c, d), where the assembly index is a number in a string and the assembly depth corresponds to the level. For , . In general, for , the assembly depth . The distributions of n-plets in strings is shown in Table 2.

Figure 3.
Shannon entropies for and .

Table 1.
Minimum assembly index at the assembly depth ; minimum assembly depth at the depth index .
| N | N | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 15 | 5 | 5 | 4 | 6 | 30 | 6 | 6 | 5 | 7 |
| 23 | 6 | 6 | 5 | 7 | 31 | 7 | 7 | 5 | 8 |
| 27 | 6 | 6 | 5 | 7 | 39 | 7 | 7 | 6 | 8 |
Table 2.
Distributions of n-plets in strings of maximum ASI.
| N | last | last | last | last | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | N | N | N | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |
| 2 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | N | N | N | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | |
| 3 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | N | N | Y | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | |
| 4 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | N | N | N | 2 | 3 | 3 | 3 | |
| 5 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | N | N | Y | 3 | 4 | 4 | 4 | |
| 6 | 1 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | N | Y | N | 3 | 5 | 5 | 5 | |
| 7 | 1 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | N | Y | Y | 4 | 6 | 6 | 6 | |
| 8 | 1 | 3 | 4 | 4 | 2 | 1 | 0 | 0 | N | N | N | 3 | 6 | 7 | 7 | |
| 9 | 1 | 3 | 4 | 4 | 2 | 1 | 0 | 0 | N | N | Y | 4 | 7 | 8 | 8 | |
| 10 | 1 | 4 | 5 | 5 | 2 | 1 | 0 | 0 | N | Y | N | 4 | 8 | 9 | 9 | |
| 11 | 1 | 3 | 5 | 5 | 2 | 1 | 0 | 0 | N | Y | Y | 5 | 8 | 10 | 10 | |
| 12 | 1 | 4 | 6 | 6 | 3 | 1 | 0 | 0 | Y | N | N | 4 | 9 | 11 | 11 | |
| 13 | 1 | 3 | 6 | 6 | 3 | 1 | 0 | 0 | Y | N | Y | 5 | 9 | 12 | 12 | |
| 14 | 1 | 4 | 6 | 7 | 3 | 1 | 0 | 0 | Y | Y | N | 5 | 10 | 12 | 13 | |
| 15 | 1 | 3 | 6 | 7 | 3 | 1 | 0 | 0 | Y | Y | Y | 6 | 10 | 13 | 14 | |
| 16 | 1 | 4 | 7 | 8 | 4 | 2 | 1 | 0 | N | N | N | N | 4 | 11 | 14 | 15 |
| 17 | 1 | 3 | 6 | 8 | 4 | 2 | 1 | 0 | N | N | N | Y | 5 | 11 | 14 | 16 |
| 18 | 1 | 4 | 7 | 9 | 4 | 2 | 1 | 0 | N | N | Y | N | 5 | 12 | 15 | 17 |
| 19 | 1 | 3 | 6 | 9 | 4 | 2 | 1 | 0 | N | N | Y | Y | 6 | 12 | 15 | 18 |
| 20 | 1 | 4 | 7 | 10 | 5 | 2 | 1 | 0 | N | Y | N | N | 5 | 13 | 16 | 19 |
| 21 | 1 | 3 | 6 | 10 | 5 | 2 | 1 | 0 | N | Y | N | Y | 6 | 13 | 16 | 20 |
| 22 | 1 | 4 | 7 | 10 | 5 | 2 | 1 | 0 | N | Y | Y | N | 6 | 14 | 17 | 20 |
| 23 | 1 | 3 | 6 | 10 | 5 | 2 | 1 | 0 | N | Y | Y | Y | 7 | 14 | 17 | 21 |
| 24 | 1 | 4 | 7 | 11 | 6 | 3 | 1 | 0 | Y | N | N | N | 5 | 15 | 18 | 22 |
| 25 | 1 | 3 | 6 | 10 | 6 | 3 | 1 | 0 | Y | N | N | Y | 6 | 15 | 18 | 22 |
| 26 | 1 | 4 | 7 | 11 | 6 | 3 | 1 | 0 | Y | N | Y | N | 6 | 16 | 19 | 23 |
| 27 | 1 | 3 | 6 | 10 | 6 | 3 | 1 | 0 | Y | N | Y | Y | 7 | 16 | 19 | 23 |
| 28 | 1 | 4 | 7 | 11 | 7 | 3 | 1 | 0 | Y | Y | N | N | 6 | 17 | 20 | 24 |
| 29 | 1 | 3 | 6 | 10 | 7 | 3 | 1 | 0 | Y | Y | N | Y | 7 | 17 | 20 | 24 |
| 30 | 1 | 4 | 7 | 11 | 7 | 3 | 1 | 0 | Y | Y | Y | N | 7 | 18 | 21 | 25 |
| 31 | 1 | 3 | 6 | 11 | 7 | 3 | 1 | 0 | Y | Y | Y | Y | 8 | 18 | 21 | 25 |
| 32 | 1 | 4 | 7 | 11 | 8 | 4 | 2 | 1 | N | N | N | N | 5 | 19 | 22 | 26 |
| 33 | 1 | 3 | 6 | 11 | 8 | 4 | 2 | 1 | N | N | N | Y | 6 | 19 | 22 | 26 |
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2024 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Copyright: This open access article is published under a Creative Commons CC BY 4.0 license, which permit the free download, distribution, and reuse, provided that the author and preprint are cited in any reuse.