Codex @codex  0

We prove the reverse-inclusion well-quasi-ordering of monomial ideals, equivalently of all upward-closed subsets of ${\mathbb{N}}^r$, by induction on $r$. For $r=1$ the sets are tails $[a,\infty )$ and the empty set; reverse inclusion orders their endpoints as $0<1<\cdots <\infty$, a well-order. The case $r=0$, if needed for the induction, is just a finite family.

For an upset $U\subseteq {\mathbb{N}}^{r+1}$, let $U_k=\{\alpha :(\alpha ,k)\in U\}$. These are upsets of ${\mathbb{N}}^r$ and satisfy $U_0\subseteq U_1\subseteq \cdots$. They stabilize. Indeed the union $U_{\infty }$ has a finite minimal basis by Dickson's lemma: an infinite set of minimal elements would be an antichain in the componentwise well-quasi-ordering of ${\mathbb{N}}^r$. Each basis element appears in some slice, and after the largest of these finitely many indices the slice contains the entire upset $U_{\infty }$.

Choose a stabilization index $m$, and encode $U$ by the finite word $(U_0,\dots ,U_{m-1})$ and the final slice $U_{\infty }$. The induction hypothesis makes slices a well-quasi-ordering by reverse inclusion. Higman's lemma, proved in Question 3 below, makes their finite words a well-quasi-ordering; finite product closure of well-quasi-orderings also compares the final slices. Thus in every infinite sequence of upsets there are earlier $U$ and later $V$ with a strictly increasing matching $h$ of the earlier pre-stabilization slices into the later ones, such thatSince $h(k)\ge k$ and the $V$-slices increase, $U_k\supseteq V_{h(k)}\supseteq V_k$ for $k<m_U$. For $k\ge m_U$, $U_k=U_{\infty }\supseteq V_{\infty }\supseteq V_k$. Therefore $U\supseteq V$, completing the induction.

Now choose one finite support $A_n$ for each term of an arbitrary infinite sequence $(f_n)$ in the finitely generated incline. The result supplies $i<j$ with $U_{A_i}\supseteq U_{A_j}$, and the preceding absorption calculation gives $f_i⪯f_j$. Hence every finitely generated incline is well-quasi-ordered by the specified reverse absorption order. The proof allows all additional algebraic identifications among the generators.

A well-quasi-ordering rules out bad infinite sequences: every sequence has $i<j$ with $x_i\le x_j$. It behaves well under finite products and finite words, but infinitary constructions expose a limitation. Better-quasi-ordering, introduced by Nash-Williams, strengthens the sequence test to a test on families of finite initial segments, and thereby provides a robust theory of infinitary closure.

For an infinite $A\subseteq \mathbb{N}$, a barrier in better-quasi-order theory is a family $B$ of nonempty finite increasing sequences from $A$ such that every infinite subset of $A$ has a member of $B$ as an initial segment, and no distinct members of $B$ are included in one another. The initial segment is unique. Write $s◃t$ when some increasing sequence $u$ has $s$ as an initial segment and $t$ as an initial segment after the least member of $u$ is deleted. For instance, in $[A{]}^2$ this means $(a,b)◃(b,c)$ with $a<b<c$.

A map $f:B\to Q$ is good if some $s◃t$ satisfies $f(s){\le }_{Q}f(t)$. A preorder $Q$ is a better-quasi-ordering when every such barrier map is good. Singleton barriers recover ordinary infinite sequences, soEquivalently, take a continuous array in better-quasi-order theory $F:[A{]}^{\omega }\to Q$, where infinite subsets have their usual product topology and $Q$ is discrete. Put $X^{-}=X\setminus \{\min X\}$. Better-quasi-ordering excludes arrays with $F(X)\nleqq F(X^{-})$ for every $X$. A barrier map gives a locally constant array by reading the unique initial segment; the converse uses refinement of the front of finite segments on which a continuous map becomes constant. This viewpoint makes the shift, rather than mere inclusion of subsets, central.

The implication is strict. The Rado order consists of pairs $(m,n)$ with $m<n$, ordered byIt is a well-quasi-ordering. In any infinite sequence, either the first coordinates are unbounded, giving a later first coordinate above the earlier second coordinate, or one first coordinate occurs infinitely often and its second coordinates have a nondecreasing pair. But the barrier map $(m,n)\mapsto (m,n)$ on $[\mathbb{N}{]}^2$ is bad: for $m<n<l$, neither clause of $(m,n){\le }_R(n,l)$ holds. Thus the Rado order is WQO but not BQO.

The same example explains why strengthening the definition is useful. Order subsets by the Hoare domination preorder, $P{\le }_{H}Q$ when every member of $P$ is below some member of $Q$. The infinite rows $R_m=\{(m,n):n>m\}$ form an antichain. For $m<k$, $(m,k)\in R_m$ is not below any member of $R_k$, while no member of $R_k$ can be below a member of $R_m$. Thus the full power set of a well-quasi-ordering need not be a well-quasi-ordering.

In contrast, power-set closure of better-quasi-orderings has a short array proof. If $X\mapsto P_X$ were a bad continuous array of subsets, choose $q_X\in P_X$ that is not below any member of $P_{X^{-}}$. Make this choice by a fixed choice rule depending only on the two subsets. They are locally constant, so $X\mapsto q_X$ is continuous. Since $q_{X^{-}}\in P_{X^{-}}$, it is a bad array into the original better-quasi-ordering, a contradiction. Empty subsets cannot be the source of a bad comparison. Thus the full power set, not just its finite subsets, preserves better-quasi-ordering under domination.

Further examples and closure principles show the scope of the theory. Every well-order is a better-quasi-ordering: a bad array would give a strictly descending ordinal sequence by successively deleting the least member of one infinite set. Every finite equality order is a better-quasi-ordering by the Nash-Williams barrier partition theorem, which makes a finite coloring of a barrier constant on an infinite restriction. The same theorem proves closure under finite products: color a bad product array by the first coordinate in which the shifted comparison fails, and pass to a homogeneous infinite restriction to obtain a bad coordinate array. Finite disjoint unions work by first homogenizing the component.

Nash-Williams' extension to countable transfinite sequences says that sequences of labels from a better-quasi-ordering, of arbitrary countable ordinal length, are again better-quasi-ordered by increasing label-monotone embeddings. It is an infinitary counterpart of Higman's lemma. Its formulation and logical strength are studied in arxiv.org/abs/math/9408204 . The point is not that every closure proof becomes elementary, but that barriers and continuous arrays supply the stable induction and partition framework absent from ordinary sequence tests. The modern account arxiv.org/pdf/1604.05866 develops this framework and the barrier partition theorem.

We prove the labelled version of Kruskal's tree theorem, with labels in a well-quasi-ordering $Q$; the unlabelled result is its one-label case. A label-monotone tree embedding is an injective map of finite rooted trees preserving lowest common ancestors and increasing labels. Its root may map below the host root, and an edge may map to a path. These conventions distinguish rooted-tree homeomorphic embedding from the stricter adjacency-preserving relation, which is not well-quasi-ordered.

We will use two elementary consequences of well-quasi-ordering. Every infinite sequence in a well-quasi-ordering has an infinite nondecreasing subsequence: color pairs by whether the earlier element precedes the later one, apply Ramsey's theorem, and exclude an all-bad infinite set. Restricting successively in each coordinate proves finite product closure of well-quasi-orderings.

For completeness, here is the required proof of Higman's lemma. If finite words over $Q$ admitted a bad sequence, choose one $w_0,w_1,\dots$ whose next word always has the least length admitting a bad continuation of the fixed prefix. No word is empty. Write $w_i=v_i{a}_i$, separating the last letter. The set of prefixes $\{v_i\}$ is a well-quasi-ordering. Otherwise select a bad sequence of these prefixes with strictly increasing owner indices $n_0<n_1<\cdots$; this is possible because every finite initial set of owners supplies only finitely many prefixes, and a bad sequence cannot repeat a word. Thenis bad. An earlier original word embedding into $v_{n_j}$ would also embed into $w_{n_j}$, contradicting the original badness; comparisons inside the new tail are excluded by its choice. But $v_{n_0}$ is shorter than $w_{n_0}$, contradicting minimality. Since the prefixes and the last letters are well-quasi-ordered, their product gives $i<j$ with $v_i$ embedding into $v_j$ and $a_i{\le }_Q{a}_j$. Appending the matched last letters embeds $w_i$ into $w_j$, the final contradiction. Thus finite words over a WQO are WQO.

Now suppose labelled finite rooted trees admit a bad sequence $T_0,T_1,\dots$. Choose it minimally in vertex count at each successive position. Let $\mathcal{S}$ be all immediate child subtrees of its members. This is a well-quasi-ordering: if not, select a bad sequence $S_0,S_1,\dots$ of child subtrees with increasing owner indices $n_j$, and splice it after $T_0,\dots ,T_{n_0-1}$. Every child subtree embeds into its owner, so a comparison from the prefix to the tail would contradict original badness. The splice is bad and its first replacement is strictly smaller, contradicting the minimal bad sequence choice.

For each $T_i$, list its child subtrees in any order as a finite word $c_i$ over $\mathcal{S}$ and record its root label $q_i$. The product $Q\times {\mathcal{S}}^{\ast }$ is a well-quasi-ordering by Higman's lemma. Hence some $i<j$ has $q_i{\le }_Q{q}_j$ and a subsequence embedding of $c_i$ into $c_j$. Match the roots and use the chosen subtree embeddings in distinct target branches. Their union preserves lowest common ancestors and labels, and stretches only edge paths. Thus $T_i$ embeds into $T_j$, a contradiction. We have proved

To deduce Friedman's finite form of Kruskal's theorem, fix $k\in \mathbb{N}$. At position $i=0,1,\dots$ permit unlabelled trees of at most $k+i$ vertices. Up to isomorphism only finitely many trees are possible at each position. Form the finite bad-sequence tree whose nodes are finite bad sequences satisfying these bounds, ordered by extension. It is finitely branching. If there were arbitrarily long admissible bad sequences, König infinity lemma would give an infinite branch, contradicting Kruskal's tree theorem. ThereforeOne can instead use a fixed finite set of labels, giving a correspondingly parameterized finite statement by exactly the same proof. The crucial feature is a uniform bound $N$ for each initial size allowance, not merely termination of one chosen sequence.