Past exam of the mathematics course of the University of Cambridge / 2006 / iii / Paper 25 / 3

Use rooted-tree homeomorphic embedding: edges may be stretched into downward paths, different child branches stay disjoint, and the source root may map to any target vertex. Write $S⪯T$ for this relation. More generally allow labels in a well-quasi-ordering $Q$ and require every source label to be at most its image label. We prove this labelled version, which includes the unlabelled case by taking one label.

First, every infinite sequence in a well-quasi-ordering has an infinite nondecreasing subsequence. In every infinite set of indices there is an index with infinitely many later successors above its value. Otherwise repeatedly discard the finitely many successors of each chosen index, obtaining a bad sequence. Applying this observation successively within the infinite successor set produces the required subsequence.

We also need the Higman lemma, and prove it here. If finite words over $Q$ admitted a bad sequence, choose one $w_0,w_1,\dots$ with each word of least possible length among choices permitting a bad continuation of its fixed prefix. No word is empty. Write $w_i=v_i{a}_i$, and extract indices $n_0<n_1<\cdots$ with $a_{n_0}\le a_{n_1}\le \cdots$. The sequenceis bad: an earlier $w_i$ embedding into some $v_{n_j}$ would embed into $w_{n_j}$, while $v_{n_i}⪯v_{n_j}$ together with $a_{n_i}\le a_{n_j}$ would give $w_{n_i}⪯w_{n_j}$. This contradicts the minimal length of $w_{n_0}$, since $v_{n_0}$ is shorter. Hence finite words are well-quasi-ordered under subsequence embedding with increased labels.

Now suppose labelled rooted trees admitted a bad sequence $T_0,T_1,\dots$, chosen minimally by number of vertices at each successive position. Let $B$ consist of all immediate child subtrees of all the $T_i$, with the inherited labels. We claim $B$ is a well-quasi-ordering. Otherwise take a bad sequence of members of $B$. Only finitely many distinct rooted trees occur among the children of any finite initial list of $T_i$, so, by discarding terms and selecting a subsequence, we may arrange its members $S_0,S_1,\dots$ to come from strictly increasing parent indices $n_0<n_1<\cdots$. Thenis bad. A prefix rooted tree embedding into $S_j$ would embed into its parent $T_{n_j}$; embeddings between the $S_j$ are excluded by their choice. But $S_0$ has fewer vertices than $T_{n_0}$, contradicting minimality. This proves the claim.

List the child subtrees of each $T_i$ in any order. By the Higman lemma these child lists are well-quasi-ordered. Extract an infinite subsequence with nondecreasing root labels, and then compare two child lists on that subsequence. Their subsequence embedding gives distinct target child branches into which the source child subtrees embed. Map the source root to the target root and join each embedded child root to it by the corresponding downward path. The paths are disjoint except at the root, and labels increase. Thus $T_i⪯T_j$ for some $i<j$, contradicting badness. This proves Kruskal's tree theorem and its labelled version. If root preservation is required, mark the root with a special label incomparable with all ordinary labels; the same proof then forces root to map to root.

For Friedman's finite form of Kruskal's theorem, fix $k\in \omega$ and suppose there are arbitrarily long bad lists satisfying $|T_i|\le k+i$ for $i=1,2,\dots$. Make a finite bad-sequence tree whose nodes are these lists, using one representative of each finite rooted-rooted tree isomorphism type. At each position only finitely many choices satisfy the size bound, so the rooted tree is finitely branching. An infinite path exists: at every stage choose a child having extensions of arbitrarily large length, which must exist because there are finitely many children. The path is an infinite bad sequence, contradicting Kruskal's tree theorem. ThereforeThe identical argument works with finitely many labels and any fixed finite size bound at each position.