Kruskal's Tree Theorem - Friedman's Finite Form

Friedman's Finite Form

Friedman (2002) observed that Kruskal's tree theorem has special cases that can be stated but not proved in first-order arithmetic (though they can easily be proved in second-order arithmetic). Another similar statement is the Paris–Harrington theorem, but Friedman's finite form of Kruskal's theorem needs a much stronger fragment of second-order arithmetic to prove than the Paris-Harrington principle.

Suppose that P(n) is the statement

There is some m such that if T1,...,Tm is a finite sequence of trees where Tk has k+n vertices, then TiTj for some i < j.

This is essentially a special case of Kruskal's theorem, where the size of the first tree is specified, and the trees are constrained to grow in size at the simplest non-trivial growth rate. For each n, Peano arithmetic can prove that P(n) is true, but Peano arithmetic cannot prove the statement "P(n) is true for all n". Moreover the shortest proof of P(n) in Peano arithmetic grows phenomenally fast as a function of n; far faster than any primitive recursive function or the Ackermann function for example.

Friedman also proved the following finite form of Kruskal's theorem for labelled trees with no order among siblings, parameterising on the size of the set of labels rather than on the size of the first tree in the sequence (and the homeomorphic embedding, ≤, now being inf- and label-preserving):

For every n, there is an m so large that if T1,...,Tm is a finite sequence of trees with vertices labelled from a set of n labels, where each Ti has at most i vertices, then TiTj for some i < j.

The latter theorem ensures the existence of a rapidly growing function that Friedman called TREE, such that TREE(n) is the length of a longest sequence of n-labelled trees T1,...,Tm in which each Ti has at most i vertices, and no tree is embeddable into a later tree.

The TREE sequence begins TREE(1) = 1, TREE(2) = 3, then suddenly TREE(3) explodes to a value so enormously large that many other "large" combinatorial constants, such as Friedman's n(4), are extremely small by comparison. A lower bound for n(4), and hence an extremely weak lower bound for TREE(3), is A(A(...A(1)...)), where the number of A's is A(187196), and A is a version of Ackermann's function: A(x) = 2↑x-1x in Knuth's up-arrow notation. Graham's number, for example, is approximately A64(4) which is much smaller than the lower bound AA(187196)(1). It can be shown that the growth-rate of the function TREE exceeds that of the function fΓ0 in the fast-growing hierarchy, where Γ0 is the Feferman–Schütte ordinal.

The ordinal measuring the strength of Kruskal's theorem is the small Veblen ordinal (sometimes confused with the smaller Ackermann ordinal).

Read more about this topic:  Kruskal's Tree Theorem

Famous quotes containing the words friedman, finite and/or form:

    Corporate America will likely be motivated to support child care when it can be shown to have positive effects on that which management is concerned about—recruitment, retention and productivity. Indeed, employers relate to child care as a way to provide growth fostering environments for young managers.
    —Dana E. Friedman (20th century)

    Are not all finite beings better pleased with motions relative than absolute?
    Henry David Thoreau (1817–1862)

    The man who is admired for the ingenuity of his larceny is almost always rediscovering some earlier form of fraud. The basic forms are all known, have all been practicised. The manners of capitalism improve. The morals may not.
    John Kenneth Galbraith (b. 1908)