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:
“The process of writing has something infinite about it. Even though it is interrupted each night, it is one single notation.”
—Elias Canetti (b. 1905)
“It is never the thing but the version of the thing:
The fragrance of the woman not her self,
Her self in her manner not the solid block,
The day in its color not perpending time,
Time in its weather, our most sovereign lord,
The weather in words and words in sounds of sound.”
—Wallace Stevens (1879–1955)
“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)
“God is a being of transcendent and unlimited perfections: his nature therefore is incomprehensible to finite spirits.”
—George Berkeley (1685–1753)