Dickson's lemma explained
In mathematics, Dickson's lemma states that every set of
-tuples of
natural numbers has finitely many
minimal elements. This simple fact from
combinatorics has become attributed to the American algebraist
L. E. Dickson, who used it to
prove a result in
number theory about
perfect numbers. However, the
lemma was certainly known earlier, for example to
Paul Gordan in his research on
invariant theory.
[1] Example
Let
be a fixed natural number, and let
be the set of pairs of numbers whose product is at least
. When defined over the positive
real numbers,
has infinitely many minimal elements of the form
, one for each positive number
; this set of points forms one of the branches of a
hyperbola. The pairs on this hyperbola are minimal, because it is not possible for a different pair that belongs to
to be less than or equal to
in both of its coordinates. However, Dickson's lemma concerns only tuples of natural numbers, and over the natural numbers there are only finitely many minimal pairs. Every minimal pair
of natural numbers has
and
, for if
x were greater than
K then (
x − 1,
y) would also belong to
S, contradicting the minimality of (
x,
y), and symmetrically if
y were greater than
K then (
x,
y − 1) would also belong to
S. Therefore, over the natural numbers,
has at most
minimal elements, a finite number.
[2] Formal statement
Let
be the set of non-negative integers (
natural numbers), let
n be any fixed constant, and let
be the set of
-tuples of natural numbers. These tuples may be given a
pointwise partial order, the
product order, in which
(a1,a2,...,an)\le(b1,b2,...bn)
if and only if
for every
.The set of tuples that are greater than or equal to some particular tuple
forms a positive
orthant with its apex at the given tuple.
With this notation, Dickson's lemma may be stated in several equivalent forms:
of
there is at least one but no more than a finite number of elements that are
minimal elements of
for the pointwise partial order.
[3] - For every infinite sequence
of
-tuples of natural numbers, there exist two indices
such that
holds with respect to the pointwise order.
[4] - The partially ordered set
does not contain infinite
antichains nor infinite (strictly) descending sequences of
-tuples.
- The partially ordered set
is a
well partial order.
[5]
of
may be covered by a finite set of positive orthants, whose apexes all belong to
.
Generalizations and applications
Dickson used his lemma to prove that, for any given number
, there can exist only a finite number of
odd perfect numbers that have at most
prime factors.
[6] However, it remains open whether there exist any odd perfect numbers at all.
The divisibility relation among the P-smooth numbers, natural numbers whose prime factors all belong to the finite set P, gives these numbers the structure of a partially ordered set isomorphic to
. Thus, for any set
S of
P-smooth numbers, there is a finite subset of
S such that every element of
S is divisible by one of the numbers in this subset. This fact has been used, for instance, to show that there exists an
algorithm for classifying the winning and losing moves from the initial position in the game of
Sylver coinage, even though the algorithm itself remains unknown.
[7] The tuples
in
correspond one-for-one with the
monomials
over a set of
variables
. Under this correspondence, Dickson's lemma may be seen as a special case of
Hilbert's basis theorem stating that every
polynomial ideal has a finite basis, for the ideals generated by monomials. Indeed,
Paul Gordan used this restatement of Dickson's lemma in 1899 as part of a proof of Hilbert's basis theorem.
[1] See also
Notes and References
- .
- With more care, it is possible to show that one of
and
is at most
, and that there is at most one minimal pair for each choice of one of the coordinates, from which it follows that there are at most
minimal elements.
- Joseph Kruskal . Kruskal . Joseph B. . The theory of well-quasi-ordering: A frequently discovered concept . . Series A . 1972 . 13 . 298 . 10.1016/0097-3165(72)90063-5 . 3. free .
- .
- .
- .
- . See especially "Are outcomes computable", p. 630.