The ability to detect whether a species (or dimension) is zero in Chemical Reaction Networks (CRN), Vector Addition Systems, or Petri Nets is known to increase the power of these models - making them capable of universal computation. While this ability may appear in many forms, such as extending the models to allow transitions to be inhibited, prioritized, or synchronized, we present an extension that directly performs this zero checking. We introduce a new void genesis CRN variant with a simple design that merely increments the count of a specific species when any other species' count goes to zero. As with previous extensions, we show that the model is Turing Universal. We then analyze several other studied CRN variants and show that they are all equivalent through a polynomial simulation with the void genesis model, which does not merely follow from Turing-universality. Thus, inhibitor species, reactions that occur at different rates, being allowed to run reactions in parallel, or even being allowed to continually add more volume to the CRN, does not add additional simulation power beyond simply detecting if a species count becomes zero.

In this paper we focus on the intersection of tile assembling systems, edge-matching puzzles, combinatorial games, and knot construction and identity. As a basis, we utilize the game Celtic!, which is a 2-player board game where the goal of the game is to construct knots where one knot uses more of a player’s pieces than the other player over all knots. All pieces must build off an existing knot and a valid knot must be closed. We consider three variations: a 0-player self-assembly variation that deterministically places pieces to form a closed knot of some length, a 1-player puzzle variation where the goal is to form a closed knot of some length, and the original 2-player game with restricted pieces. We show these are P-complete, NP-complete (depending on the pieces), and PSPACE-complete (for a first-player win), respectively. We nearly fully characterize the hardness of the 1-player puzzle based on the pieces. We prove these results through standard hardness reductions and with constraint logic. Finally, we note some combinatorial game theory strategies to show certain configurations are a draw through strategy stealing.