Infinite Version Implies The Finite
It is possible to deduce the finite Ramsey theorem from the infinite version by a proof by contradiction. Suppose the finite Ramsey theorem is false. Then there exist integers such that for every integer, there exists a -colouring of without a monochromatic set of size . Let denote the -colourings of without a monochromatic set of size .
For any k, the restriction of a colouring in to (by ignoring the colour of all sets containing ) is a colouring in . Define to be the colourings in which are restrictions of colourings in . Since is not empty, neither is .
Similarly, the restriction of any colouring in is in, allowing one to define as the set of all such restrictions, a non-empty set. Continuing so, define for all integers .
Now, for any integer, and each set is non-empty. Furthermore, is finite as . It follows that the intersection of all of these sets is non-empty, and let . Then every colouring in is the restriction of a colouring in . Therefore, by unrestricting a colouring in to a colouring in, and continuing doing so, one constructs a colouring of without any monochromatic set of size . This contradicts the infinite Ramsey theorem.
If a suitable topological viewpoint is taken, this argument becomes a standard compactness argument showing that the infinite version of the theorem implies the finite version.
Read more about this topic: Ramsey's Theorem
Famous quotes containing the words infinite, version, implies and/or finite:
“In nature’s infinite book of secrecy
A little I can read.”
—William Shakespeare (1564–1616)
“Exercise is the yuppie version of bulimia.”
—Barbara Ehrenreich (b. 1941)
“Nothing is demonstrable, unless the contrary implies a contradiction. Nothing, that is distinctly conceivable, implies a contradiction. Whatever we conceive as existent, we can also conceive as non-existent. There is no being, therefore, whose non-existence implies a contradiction. Consequently there is no being, whose existence is demonstrable.”
—David Hume (1711–1776)
“Put shortly, these are the two views, then. One, that man is intrinsically good, spoilt by circumstance; and the other that he is intrinsically limited, but disciplined by order and tradition to something fairly decent. To the one party man’s nature is like a well, to the other like a bucket. The view which regards him like a well, a reservoir full of possibilities, I call the romantic; the one which regards him as a very finite and fixed creature, I call the classical.”
—Thomas Ernest Hulme (1883–1917)