Past exam of the mathematics course of the University of Cambridge / 2002 / iii / Paper 21 / 1

We use rooted-tree homeomorphic embedding: an injective vertex map preserves ancestors and lowest common ancestors, while an edge may map to a longer path. The root may map below the host root. Write $T⪯U$ for this relation. The assertion of Kruskal's tree theorem is that finite rooted trees form a well-quasi-ordering: every infinite sequence has $i<j$ with $T_i⪯T_j$.

We first supply the word lemma needed in the proof. In a well-quasi-order $Q$, every sequence has an infinite nondecreasing subsequence. Indeed, if no term had infinitely many later terms above it, successive choices beyond the finite sets of later dominators would give a bad sequence. Some term therefore has infinitely many later dominators; repeat the argument inside that infinite subsequence, which is still well-quasi-ordered, to build a chain.

Now order finite words over $Q$ by subsequence embedding with coordinatewise increase. Suppose a bad word sequence exists and choose one $w_0,w_1,\dots$ minimally: at each position use a word of least length allowing a bad continuation of the fixed prefix. No word is empty. Write $w_i=v_i{a}_i$, removing its last letter. Choose indices $i_0<i_1<\cdots$ with $a_{i_0}\le a_{i_1}\le \cdots$. The sequencewould also be bad. An old word embedding into $v_{i_j}$ embeds into $w_{i_j}$, contrary to the original badness; and $v_{i_j}⪯v_{i_l}$ would extend, using the last-letter comparison, to $w_{i_j}⪯w_{i_l}$. But $v_{i_0}$ is shorter than $w_{i_0}$, contradicting minimality. This proves Higman lemma, including its empty-word case.

Suppose next that there is a bad sequence of finite rooted trees, and choose a minimal bad sequence $T_0,T_1,\dots$ by vertex count. Let $\mathcal{S}$ consist of all proper rooted subtrees hanging below vertices of the $T_i$. This collection is well-quasi-ordered. Otherwise choose a bad sequence $S_0,S_1,\dots$ in $\mathcal{S}$. Its containing-tree indices can be selected strictly increasing, say $S_j$ is a proper subtree of $T_{i_j}$: a finite initial collection of containing trees has only finitely many proper subtrees, and a bad sequence cannot repeat an isomorphism class. Thenis bad. No earlier $T_l$ can embed into $S_j$, because $S_j⪯T_{i_j}$ and this would contradict the original sequence. The new tail is bad by construction. Since $|S_0|<|T_{i_0}|$, this contradicts minimality.

List each tree's immediate root subtrees in any chosen order. These are finite words in the well-quasi-order $\mathcal{S}$, so the word lemma gives $i<j$ for which the child word of $T_i$ embeds into that of $T_j$. Send the root of $T_i$ to the root of $T_j$, and use the chosen embeddings inside the selected, distinct target branches. The connecting paths from the target root to the images of the source children have disjoint interiors; lowest common ancestors in different branches are preserved. This constructs $T_i⪯T_j$, the final contradiction. Thus finite rooted trees are well-quasi-ordered by homeomorphic embedding. If labels lie in an arbitrary well-quasi-order, the same proof uses label-monotone embeddings; compare root labels and child words in their product well-quasi-order. The product property follows by taking a nondecreasing subsequence in the first coordinate and a good pair in the second.

For Friedman's finite form of Kruskal's theorem, fix $k$. Consider all finite bad prefixes $(T_1,\dots ,T_l)$ satisfying $|T_i|\le k+i$, up to rooted-tree isomorphism. They form a prefix tree. At each node there are finitely many possible next trees, because there are only finitely many rooted-tree isomorphism types on at most $k+l+1$ vertices. If prefixes of arbitrary length existed, the König infinity lemma would give an infinite branch, hence an infinite bad sequence, contrary to what we proved. Its height is therefore bounded. ConsequentlyThe same finite-prefix argument works with a fixed finite label alphabet, and more generally with any prescribed size bound $b(i)$ having only finitely many possibilities at each position. These are finite existence statements; no numerical estimate on $N$ is needed for the conclusion.