Kruskal's tree theorem

In mathematics, Kruskal's tree theorem states that the set of finite trees over a well-quasi-ordered set of labels is itself well-quasi-ordered under homeomorphic embedding.

A finitary application of the theorem gives the existence of the fast-growing TREE function. TREE(3) is largely accepted to be one of the largest simply defined finite numbers, dwarfing other large numbers such as Graham's number and googolplex.^[1]

The theorem was conjectured by Andrew Vázsonyi and proved by Joseph Kruskal (1960); a short proof was given by Crispin Nash-Williams (1963). It has since become a prominent example in reverse mathematics as a statement that cannot be proved in ATR₀ (a second-order arithmetic theory with a form of arithmetical transfinite recursion).

In 2004, the result was generalized from trees to graphs as the Robertson–Seymour theorem, a result that has also proved important in reverse mathematics and leads to the even-faster-growing SSCG function, which dwarfs ${\displaystyle {\text{TREE}}(3)}$.

The version given here is that proven by Nash-Williams; Kruskal's formulation is somewhat stronger. All trees we consider are finite.

Given a tree T with a root, and given vertices v, w, call w a successor of v if the unique path from the root to w contains v, and call w an immediate successor of v if additionally the path from v to w contains no other vertex.

Take X to be a partially ordered set. If T₁, T₂ are rooted trees with vertices labeled in X, we say that T₁ is inf-embeddable in T₂ and write ${\displaystyle T_{1}\leq T_{2}}$ if there is an injective map F from the vertices of T₁ to the vertices of T₂ such that:

• For all vertices v of T₁, the label of v precedes the label of ${\displaystyle F(v)}$;
• If w is any successor of v in T₁, then ${\displaystyle F(w)}$ is a successor of ${\displaystyle F(v)}$; and
• If w₁, w₂ are any two distinct immediate successors of v, then the path from ${\displaystyle F(w_{1})}$ to ${\displaystyle F(w_{2})}$ in T₂ contains ${\displaystyle F(v)}$.

Kruskal's tree theorem then states:

If X is well-quasi-ordered, then the set of rooted trees with labels in X is well-quasi-ordered under the inf-embeddable order defined above. (That is to say, given any infinite sequence T₁, T₂, … of rooted trees labeled in X, there is some ${\displaystyle i<j}$ so that ${\displaystyle T_{i}\leq T_{j}}$.)

For a countable label set X, Kruskal's tree theorem can be expressed and proven using second-order arithmetic. However, like Goodstein's theorem or the Paris–Harrington theorem, some special cases and variants of the theorem can be expressed in subsystems of second-order arithmetic much weaker than the subsystems where they can be proved. This was first observed by Harvey Friedman in the early 1980s, an early success of the then-nascent field of reverse mathematics. In the case where the trees above are taken to be unlabeled (that is, in the case where X has size one), Friedman found that the result was unprovable in ATR₀,^[2] thus giving the first example of a predicative result with a provably impredicative proof.^[3] This case of the theorem is still provable by Π¹
₁-CA₀, but by adding a "gap condition"^[4] to the definition of the order on trees above, he found a natural variation of the theorem unprovable in this system.^[5][6] Much later, the Robertson–Seymour theorem would give another theorem unprovable by Π¹
₁-CA₀.

Ordinal analysis confirms the strength of Kruskal's theorem, with the proof-theoretic ordinal of the theorem equaling the small Veblen ordinal (sometimes confused with the smaller Ackermann ordinal).^[7]

Suppose that ${\displaystyle P(n)}$ is the statement:

There is some m such that if T₁, ..., T_m is a finite sequence of unlabeled rooted trees where T_i has ${\displaystyle i+n}$ vertices, then ${\displaystyle T_{i}\leq T_{j}}$ for some ${\displaystyle i<j}$.

All the statements ${\displaystyle P(n)}$ are true as a consequence of Kruskal's theorem and Kőnig's lemma. For each n, Peano arithmetic can prove that ${\displaystyle P(n)}$ is true, but Peano arithmetic cannot prove the statement "${\displaystyle P(n)}$ is true for all n".^[8] Moreover, the length of the shortest proof of ${\displaystyle P(n)}$ in Peano arithmetic grows phenomenally fast as a function of n, far faster than any primitive recursive function or the Ackermann function, for example.^{[citation needed]} The least m for which ${\displaystyle P(n)}$ holds similarly grows extremely quickly with n.

By incorporating labels, Friedman defined a far faster-growing function.^[9] For a positive integer n, take ${\displaystyle {\text{TREE}}(n)}$^[a] to be the largest m so that we have the following:

There is a sequence T₁, ..., T_m of rooted trees labelled from a set of n labels, where each T_i has at most i vertices, such that ${\displaystyle T_{i}\leq T_{j}}$ does not hold for any ${\displaystyle i<j\leq m}$.

The TREE sequence begins ${\displaystyle {\text{TREE}}(1)=1}$, ${\displaystyle {\text{TREE}}(2)=3}$, before ${\displaystyle {\text{TREE}}(3)}$ suddenly explodes to a value so large that many other "large" combinatorial constants, such as Friedman's ${\displaystyle n(4)}$, ${\displaystyle n^{n(5)}(5)}$, and Graham's number,^[b] are extremely small by comparison. A lower bound for ${\displaystyle n(4)}$, and, hence, an extremely weak lower bound for ${\displaystyle {\text{TREE}}(3)}$, is ${\displaystyle A^{A(187196)}(1)}$.^[c][10] Graham's number, for example, is much smaller than the lower bound ${\displaystyle A^{A(187196)}(1)}$, which is approximately ${\displaystyle g_{3\uparrow ^{187196}3}}$, where ${\displaystyle g_{x}}$ is Graham's function.

• Paris–Harrington theorem
• Kanamori–McAloon theorem
• Robertson–Seymour theorem

^{^ a} Friedman originally denoted this function by TR[n].

^{^ b} n(k) is defined as the length of the longest possible sequence that can be constructed with a k-letter alphabet such that no block of letters x_i,...,x_2i is a subsequence of any later block x_j,...,x_2j.^[11] ${\displaystyle n(1)=3,n(2)=11,\,{\textrm {and}}\,n(3)>2\uparrow ^{7197}158386}$.

^{^ c} A(x) taking one argument, is defined as A(x, x), where A(k, n), taking two arguments, is a particular version of Ackermann's function defined as: A(1, n) = 2n, A(k+1, 1) = A(k, 1), A(k+1, n+1) = A(k, A(k+1, n)).

Citations

Bibliography

• Friedman, Harvey M. (2002). "Internal finite tree embeddings". In Sieg, Wilfried; Feferman, Solomon (eds.). Reflections on the foundations of mathematics: essays in honor of Solomon Feferman. Lecture notes in logic. Vol. 15. Natick, Mass: AK Peters. pp. 60–91. ISBN 978-1-56881-170-3. MR 1943303.
• H. Gallier, Jean (September 1991). "What's so special about Kruskal's theorem and the ordinal Γ₀? A survey of some results in proof theory" (PDF). Annals of Pure and Applied Logic. 53 (3): 199–260. doi:10.1016/0168-0072(91)90022-E. MR 1129778.
• Kruskal, J. B. (May 1960). "Well-Quasi-Ordering, The Tree Theorem, and Vazsonyi's Conjecture" (PDF). Transactions of the American Mathematical Society. 95 (2). American Mathematical Society: 210–225. doi:10.2307/1993287. JSTOR 1993287. MR 0111704.
• Marcone, Alberto (2005). Simpson, Stephen G. (ed.). "WQO and BQO theory in subsystems of second order arithmetic" (PDF). Reverse Mathematics. Lecture Notes in Logic. 21. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press: 303–330. doi:10.1017/9781316755846.020. ISBN 978-1-316-75584-6.
• Nash-Williams, C. St. J. A. (October 1963). "On well-quasi-ordering finite trees" (PDF). Mathematical Proceedings of the Cambridge Philosophical Society. 59 (4): 833–835. Bibcode:1963PCPS...59..833N. doi:10.1017/S0305004100003844. ISSN 0305-0041. MR 0153601. S2CID 251095188.
• Rathjen, Michael; Weiermann, Andreas (February 1993). "Proof-theoretic investigations on Kruskal's theorem" (PDF). Annals of Pure and Applied Logic. 60 (1): 49–88. doi:10.1016/0168-0072(93)90192-G. MR 1212407.
• Simpson, Stephen G. (1985). "Nonprovability of certain combinatorial properties of finite trees". In Friedman, Harvey; Harrington, L. A.; Scedrov, A.; et al. (eds.). Harvey Friedman's research on the foundations of mathematics. Studies in logic and the foundations of mathematics. Amsterdam ; New York: North-Holland. pp. 87–117. ISBN 978-0-444-87834-2.
• Smith, Rick L. (1985). "The Consistency Strengths of Some Finite Forms of the Higman and Kruskal Theorems". In Friedman, Harvey; Harrington, L. A. (eds.). Harvey Friedman's research on the foundations of mathematics. Studies in logic and the foundations of mathematics. Vol. 117. Amsterdam ; New York: North-Holland. pp. 119–136. doi:10.1016/s0049-237x(09)70157-0. ISBN 978-0-444-87834-2.