Wang's tiles were introduced in the 1960s and have been an inexhaustible source of undecidable problems ever since. They are unit square tiles with colored edges and fixed orientation, which can be placed together provided they share the same color on their common edge. Many decision problems involving Wang tiles follow the same global structure: given a finite set of Wang tiles, is there an algorithm to determine if they tile a particular shape or subset of the infinite grid? If we look for a tiling of the whole grid, this is the domino problem which is known to be undecidable for Z2 and many other groups. In this talk we focus on infinite snake tilings. Originally the infinite snake problem asks is there exists a tiling of a self-avoiding bi-infinite path on the grid Z2. In this talk I present how to expand the scope of domino snake problems to finitely generated groups to understand how the underlying structure affects computability. This is joint work with Nicolás Bitar.[-]

Barmpalias and Lewis-Pye recently proved that if $\alpha$ and $\beta$ are (Martin-Löf) random left-c.e. reals with left-c.e. approximations $\{\alpha_s \}_{s \in\ omega}$ and $\{\beta_s \}_{s \in\ omega}$, then
\[
\begin{equation}
\frac{\partial\alpha}{\partial\beta} = \lim_{s\to\infty} \frac{\alpha-\alpha_s}{\beta-\beta_s}.
\end{equation}
\]
converges and is independent of the choice of approximations. Furthermore, they showed that $\partial\alpha/\partial\beta = 1$ if and only if $\alpha-\beta$ is nonrandom; $\partial\alpha/\partial\beta>1$ if and only if $\alpha-\beta$ is a random left-c.e. real; and $\partial\alpha/\partial\beta<1$ if and only if $\alpha-\beta$ is a random right-c.e. real.

We extend their results to the d.c.e. reals, which clarifies what is happening. The extension is straightforward. Fix a random left-c.e. real $\Omega$ with approximation $\{\Omega_s\}_{s\in\omega}$. If $\alpha$ is a d.c.e. real with d.c.e. approximation $\{\alpha_s\}_{s\in\omega}$, let
\[
\partial\alpha = \frac{\partial\alpha}{\partial\Omega} = \lim_{s\to\infty} \frac{\alpha-\alpha_s}{\Omega-\Omega_s}.
\]
As above, the limit exists and is independent of the choice of approximations. Now $\partial\alpha=0$ if and only if $\alpha$ is nonrandom; $\partial\alpha>0$ if and only if $\alpha$ is a random left-c.e. real; and $\partial\alpha<0$ if and only if $\alpha$ is a random right-c.e. real.

As we have telegraphed by our choice of notation, $\partial$ is a derivation on the field of d.c.e. reals. In other words, $\partial$ preserves addition and satisfies the Leibniz law:
\[
\partial(\alpha\beta) = \alpha\,\partial\beta + \beta\,\partial\alpha.
\]
(However, $\partial$ maps outside of the d.c.e. reals, so it does not make them a differential field.) We will see how the properties of $\partial$ encapsulate much of what we know about randomness in the left-c.e. and d.c.e. reals. We also show that if $f\colon\mathbb{R}\rightarrow\mathbb{R}$ is a computable function that is differentiable at $\alpha$, then $\partial f(\alpha) = f'(\alpha)\,\partial\alpha$. This allows us to apply basic identities from calculus, so for example, $\partial\alpha^n = n\alpha^{n-1}\,\partial\alpha$ and $\partial e^\alpha = e^\alpha\,\partial\alpha$. Since $\partial\Omega=1$, we have $\partial e^\Omega = e^\Omega$.

Given a derivation on a field, the elements that it maps to zero also form a field: the $ \textit {field of constants}$. In our case, these are the nonrandom d.c.e. reals. We show that, in fact, the nonrandom d.c.e. reals form a $ \textit {real closed field}$. Note that it was not even known that the nonrandom d.c.e. reals are closed under addition, and indeed, it is easy to prove the convergence of [1] from this fact. In contrast, it has long been known that the nonrandom left-c.e. reals are closed under addition (Demuth [2] and Downey, Hirschfeldt, and Nies [3]). While also nontrivial, this fact seems to be easier to prove. Towards understanding this difference, we show that the real closure of the nonrandom left-c.e. reals is strictly smaller than the field of nonrandom d.c.e. reals. In particular, there are nonrandom d.c.e. reals that cannot be written as the difference of nonrandom left-c.e. reals; despite being nonrandom, they carry some kind of intrinsic randomness.[-]