Better-quasi-ordering

From testwiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

In order theory a better-quasi-ordering or bqo is a quasi-ordering that does not admit a certain type of bad array. Every better-quasi-ordering is a well-quasi-ordering.

Motivation

Though well-quasi-ordering is an appealing notion, many important infinitary operations do not preserve well-quasi-orderedness. An example due to Richard Rado illustrates this.[1] In a 1965 paper Crispin Nash-Williams formulated the stronger notion of better-quasi-ordering in order to prove that the class of trees of height ω is well-quasi-ordered under the topological minor relation.[2] Since then, many quasi-orderings have been proven to be well-quasi-orderings by proving them to be better-quasi-orderings. For instance, Richard Laver established Laver's theorem (previously a conjecture of Roland Fraïssé) by proving that the class of scattered linear order types is better-quasi-ordered.[3] More recently, Carlos Martinez-Ranero has proven that, under the proper forcing axiom, the class of Aronszajn lines is better-quasi-ordered under the embeddability relation.[4]

Definition

It is common in better-quasi-ordering theory to write *x for the sequence x with the first term omitted. Write [ω]<ω for the set of finite, strictly increasing sequences with terms in ω, and define a relation on [ω]<ω as follows: st if there is u[ω]<ω such that s is a strict initial segment of u and t=*u. The relation is not transitive.

A block B is an infinite subset of [ω]<ω that contains an initial segmentTemplate:Clarify of every infinite subset of B. For a quasi-order Q, a Q-pattern is a function from some block B into Q. A Q-pattern f:BQ is said to be bad if f(s)Qf(t)Template:Clarify for every pair s,tB such that st; otherwise f is good. A quasi-ordering Q is called a better-quasi-ordering if there is no bad Q-pattern.

In order to make this definition easier to work with, Nash-Williams defines a barrier to be a block whose elements are pairwise incomparable under the inclusion relation . A Q-array is a Q-pattern whose domain is a barrier. By observing that every block contains a barrier, one sees that Q is a better-quasi-ordering if and only if there is no bad Q-array.

Simpson's alternative definition

Simpson introduced an alternative definition of better-quasi-ordering in terms of Borel functions [ω]ωQ, where [ω]ω, the set of infinite subsets of ω, is given the usual product topology.[5]

Let Q be a quasi-ordering and endow Q with the discrete topology. A Q-array is a Borel function [A]ωQ for some infinite subset A of ω. A Q-array f is bad if f(X)Qf(*X) for every X[A]ω; f is good otherwise. The quasi-ordering Q is a better-quasi-ordering if there is no bad Q-array in this sense.

Major theorems

Many major results in better-quasi-ordering theory are consequences of the Minimal Bad Array Lemma, which appears in Simpson's paper[5] as follows. See also Laver's paper,[6] where the Minimal Bad Array Lemma was first stated as a result. The technique was present in Nash-Williams' original 1965 paper.

Suppose (Q,Q) is a quasi-order.Template:Clarify A partial ranking of Q is a well-founded partial ordering of Q such that qrqQr. For bad Q-arrays (in the sense of Simpson) f:[A]ωQ and g:[B]ωQ, define:

g*f if BA and g(X)f(X) for every X[B]ω
g<*f if BA and g(X)<f(X) for every X[B]ω

We say a bad Q-array g is minimal bad (with respect to the partial ranking ) if there is no bad Q-array f such that f<*g. The definitions of * and < depend on a partial ranking of Q. The relation <* is not the strict part of the relation *.

Theorem (Minimal Bad Array Lemma). Let Q be a quasi-order equipped with a partial ranking and suppose f is a bad Q-array. Then there is a minimal bad Q-array g such that g*f.

See also

References

Template:Reflist

Template:Order theory

  1. Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named Rado54
  2. Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named Nash-Williams65
  3. Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named Laver71
  4. Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named Martinez-Ranero2011
  5. 5.0 5.1 Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named Simpson85
  6. Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named Laver78