Use the natural partial orderThe paper's shorthand specifies the join order: more formally, means for some , which is equivalent to the displayed condition by idempotence. Associativity, commutativity and idempotence make addition the join operation. Distributivity makes multiplication monotone, while absorption gives and .
Let generate the incline. Distributivity writes every element as a nonempty finite join of monomialsThere is no assumed multiplicative identity: an exponent zero means omit that factor, and at least one factor remains. If coordinatewise, absorption gives . If the two vectors are equal the conclusion is immediate; otherwise multiply by the additional factors and apply absorption. For a polynomial with finite exponent support , put , its upward closure. If , every monomial in is below some monomial in , and consequently the join represented by is below the join represented by .
We prove the reverse-inclusion well-quasi-ordering of monomial ideals, often called Maclagan's theorem, in the equivalent form that upward-closed subsets of are well-quasi-ordered by reverse inclusion. Include the empty subset. For , these are the tails and the empty set, corresponding to in its usual well-order.
Induct on . For an upward-closed , its slices increase with . Their union is upward closed and has finitely many minimal elements by the Dickson lemma; all those elements have appeared by some finite slice. Thus the slices eventually stabilize. Encode by the finite word of its pre-stabilization slices and its final stable slice. By the induction hypothesis, the slice order given by reverse inclusion is a well-quasi-ordering. The Higman lemma and finite product closure of well-quasi-orderings make these word-and-tail encodings well-quasi-ordered.
For a good pair of encodings , an increasing subsequence map satisfies at every pre-stabilization position of , and the final slice of contains the final slice of . Since and the slices increase, before stabilization. Afterwards the final-slice comparison also gives . Hence , proving the induction. The use of Higman lemma is essential: finite-subset reverse domination does not preserve an arbitrary well-quasi-order, as the Rado order shows.
Articles by others on the same topic
There are currently no matching articles.