How statement and proof provenance work
The first chip identifies the source of the statement or construction; the second identifies the source of its local proof or verification.
- Literature-sourced: the exact statement appears in a cited source; only wording and notation differ.
- AI-adapted: a semantically identical restatement of literature-sourced material, modulo indexing, notation, and boundary cases adopted by the library.
- AI-generated: a genuinely novel statement formulated by AI, with no source for the claim itself.
These labels describe origin, not correctness: citations and verification chips remain separate evidence.
Countable tree ranks and monotonicity under extension maps
Statement
In ZFC a tree on a countable alphabet is well-founded if and only if it has no infinite branch; every well-founded such tree has rank below . If between nonempty well-founded trees preserves proper extensions, then for every node s. For every there is a nonempty tree on of root rank .
Facts & Assumptions
The Polish space of trees and its well-founded rank specifies the child relation and ordinal rank equation.
Assuming countable choice: every at most countable subset of is bounded below , so no at most countable subset of is cofinal in it, and a supremum of at most countably many at most countable ordinals is at most countable bounds countable families of countable ordinals under countable choice.
Induction on well-founded setlike relations permits induction over a well-founded relation.
Transfinite induction permits induction over ordinals.
Assume The Axiom of Choice, including countable choice.
Proof
Given: Trees on a countable alphabet, coded injectively into when necessary.
A branch provides the set of all its prefixes, every member of which has a child in that set; hence the child relation is not well-founded. Conversely, if well-foundedness fails, take a nonempty set D of nodes with no child-minimal member. Starting with one node in D, recursively choose its least-coded child in D. Such a child exists by the defining failure of minimality. Their union, together with the initial node's prefixes in the tree, is an infinite branch. This proves both implications, also for an empty tree, whose relation is vacuously well-founded and whose body is empty.
Induct over the well-founded child relation by F3. If all child ranks are countable, their successors are countable ordinals. There are at most countably many children; pad the sequence by zero at unused alphabet codes. F2, licensed by A1, bounds the supremum of these successor ranks below . By F1 this supremum is the parent rank. Leaf ranks are the empty supremum zero, so the induction proves all node ranks countable, including the root; the empty-tree rank is zero by F1.
For an extension-preserving f, induct on the source child relation by F3. For each child u of s, induction gives . Since f(u) properly extends f(s), a finite chain of target child steps and F1 gives . Thus . Taking the supremum over all children proves , including a leaf whose rank is zero.
Fix and an injection . Let T consist of the root and the coordinatewise c-codes of finite strictly decreasing sequences of ordinals below . It is a tree. It has no infinite branch, since an infinite descending ordinal sequence would have a least value followed by a smaller value; hence it is well-founded by step 1.1. By F4, every node ending at has rank : its children end at exactly , whose ranks by induction are , and . The same formula at the root gives rank . For the tree is root-only and the supremum is zero. QED.
Depends on
- The Polish space of trees and its well-founded rank
- Assuming countable choice: every at most countable subset of $\omega_1$ is bounded below $\omega_1$, so no at most countable subset of $\omega_1$ is cofinal in it, and a supremum of at most countably many at most countable ordinals is at most countable
- Induction on well-founded setlike relations
- Transfinite induction
- The Axiom of Choice
Used by
Dependency tree · two levels
25 results within two dependency steps of this one, each drawn at its shortest distance from it. An arrow runs from a result to what uses it, so the chart reads left to right and ends at this result, which carries a heavier outline. Every node is a link to that result. Click elsewhere on the chart to enlarge it.
Sources
- Lemma 5.8, Exercise 5.9(b) and forward direction of Lemma 5.11, printed pp44–45 (standard reference, not scraped)