For clarity, each is an ordered finite sequence. Its minimal walk along a club sequence is finite because its nodes strictly decrease until reaching , and an infinite strictly decreasing sequence of ordinals cannot exist. At a step from , unboundedness of supplies in .
Compare the two minimal walks along a club sequence to and to . As long as their current node is the same , their next nodes agree exactly when has no point in . At the first such point, the walk to moves towhereas the walk to stays at or above . If this does not occur before the second walk terminates, the first walk reaches with it and then makes its next step below .
Thus there is an index , possibly the terminal index of the walk to , withIt is unique: after this step the first walk stays below , so it can never again coincide with a node of the walk to . This is the first-divergence lemma for minimal walks.
Let be the common-prefix index from the first-divergence lemma for minimal walks. If , the walk to has followed the entire walk to and must make at least one further step, contradicting the assumed equality of lengths. Hence .
The current nodes agree, so put . Then is an initial segment of . It is proper because . ThereforeIn particular, each function is injective: equality of two trace sequences would give equal lengths and then contradict this proper-initial-segment conclusion.
There is a useful explicit reconstruction of a shorter trace from a longer one. Supposeand fix . Let be the first index with , if it exists. Before that index, the walk to follows the walk to . At index it moves to . ThusWhen , the appended trace is empty. If no such exists, the walk first reaches and then continues toward , givingBoth formulas depend only on the displayed sequence, , and the fixed club sequence. Equal traces consequently reconstruct the same trace at every . This proves the trace coherence lemma for minimal walks:
Articles by others on the same topic
There are currently no matching articles.