The consistency implication needs more than the fact that the finite tree statement is unprovable in Peano arithmetic. Its mechanism is a concrete encoding of ordinal descent by bad finite-tree sequences, combined with the controlled-termination form of Gentzen ordinal reduction for arithmetic.
First define the natural-sum ordinal rank of a finite rooted tree. A leaf has rank zero, and a tree with immediate child subtrees has
where is Hessenberg natural sum. By induction every such rank is below epsilon zero. Conversely, if is in Cantor normal form, represent it by a root with copies of the recursively constructed tree for . The leaf represents zero. Denote the resulting canonical tree by and its vertex count by .
We claim that a rooted-tree homeomorphic embedding implies . If the roots match, the source child subtrees embed into distinct target branches. By induction their ranks do not decrease; exponentiation and Hessenberg natural sum preserve these comparisons, and additional target branches only increase the sum. If the source root maps below the host root, its entire image lies in an immediate subtree of . Induction gives , while
This also holds when . Thus the claim follows by induction on the host tree. In particular,
Consequently Friedman's finite form of Kruskal's theorem supplies slow well-ordering below epsilon zero: for each , descending ordinal sequences with have uniformly bounded length. Otherwise their canonical trees would be arbitrarily long admissible bad sequences. The notation system and its comparisons are primitive recursive, and there are only finitely many notations of bounded norm.
The proof-theoretic input is the following precise miniaturization lemma: for the standard effective Cantor normal form notation system below , slow well-ordering with linear norm control implies the formal consistency statement for Peano arithmetic. The Friedman–Smith controlled-termination theorem, stated in its general ordinal-analysis form in Section 2.2 of formal.hknu.ac.kr/Publi/kruskalJKMS.pdf , supplies this implication over arithmetical comprehension theory , whose first-order part is conservative over Peano arithmetic. This is an established proof-theoretic lemma, separate from the elementary tree-rank calculation above.
Here is why that lemma is a consistency result. Gentzen ordinal reduction for arithmetic assigns an alleged arithmetic contradiction an effective ordinal below . Reducing cuts and induction inferences preserves the contradictory end-sequent while strictly decreasing the assigned ordinal. A terminal normal derivation of a contradiction is excluded by inspection of the rules. The miniaturization argument converts this reduction/induction analysis into finite controlled descents: a contradictory proof would yield arbitrarily long descending notation sequences with a common initial allowance and linear norm control. Slow well-ordering excludes these. The control conversion is substantive; ordinary proof reductions must not simply be asserted to have linear-size growth. Gentzen's ordinal-reduction framework is discussed in math.stanford.edu/~feferman/papers/reductive.pdf .
Combining the coding with that precise termination lemma gives
Thus the finite combinatorial principle proves that no PA proof of a contradiction exists in the specified arithmetic metatheory. If consistent Peano arithmetic proved FFF, it would also prove its own formal consistency statement: the displayed implication is arithmetical and the first-order conservativity of transfers it to PA. This contradicts the Gödel second incompleteness theorem. It is the consistency implication, rather than unprovability by itself, that explains the strength of the finite tree principle.