Ordinal number

en.wikipedia.org

This article is about the mathematical concept. For number words denoting a position in a sequence (rst, second,
third, etc.), see Ordinal number (linguistics).
In set theory, an ordinal number, or ordinal, is one generalization of the concept of a natural number that is used
to describe a way to arrange a collection of objects in order, one after another. Any nite collection of objects can
be put in order just by the process of counting: labeling the objects with distinct whole numbers. Ordinal numbers
are thus the labels needed to arrange collections of objects in order.
An ordinal number is used to describe the order type of a well ordered set (though this does not work for a well
ordered proper class). A well ordered set is a set with a relation > such that

(Trichotomy) For any elements x and y, exactly one of these statements is true

x>y
y=x
y>x

(Transitivity) For any elements x, y, z, if x > y and y > z, then x > z

(Well-foundedness) Every nonempty subset has a least element, that is, it has an element x such that there is
no other element y in the subset where x > y

Two well ordered sets have the same order type if and only if there is a bijection from one set to the other that converts
the relation in the rst set to the relation in the second set.
Whereas ordinals are useful for ordering the objects in a collection, they are distinct from cardinal numbers, which
are useful for saying how many objects are in a collection. Although the distinction between ordinals and cardinals is
not always apparent in nite sets (one can go from one to the other just by counting labels), dierent innite ordinals
can describe the same cardinal. Like other kinds of numbers, ordinals can be added, multiplied, and exponentiated,
although the addition and multiplication are not commutative.
Ordinals were introduced by Georg Cantor in 1883[1] to accommodate innite sequences and to classify derived sets,
which he had previously introduced in 1872 while studying the uniqueness of trigonometric series.[2]

1 Ordinals extend the natural numbers

A natural number (which, in this context, includes the number 0) can be used for two purposes: to describe the size
of a set, or to describe the position of an element in a sequence. When restricted to nite sets these two concepts
coincide, there is only one way to put a nite set into a linear sequence, up to isomorphism. When dealing with
innite sets one has to distinguish between the notion of size, which leads to cardinal numbers, and the notion of
position, which is generalized by the ordinal numbers described here. This is because while any set has only one size
(its cardinality), there are many nonisomorphic well-orderings of any innite set, as explained below.
Whereas the notion of cardinal number is associated with a set with no particular structure on it, the ordinals are
intimately linked with the special kind of sets that are called well-ordered (so intimately linked, in fact, that some
mathematicians make no distinction between the two concepts). A well-ordered set is a totally ordered set (given
any two elements one denes a smaller and a larger one in a coherent way) in which there is no innite decreasing
sequence (however, there may be innite increasing sequences); equivalently, every non-empty subset of the set has

1
2 1 ORDINALS EXTEND THE NATURAL NUMBERS

1
1
+

2
+
3
2
5

+
+1
2

+
4

3
3 3 + +

2 +

2
2
4
2+ 3
2
+

+1
2

2
5

Representation of the ordinal numbers up to . Each turn of the spiral represents one power of

a least element. Ordinals may be used to label the elements of any given well-ordered set (the smallest element being
labelled 0, the one after that 1, the next one 2, and so on) and to measure the length of the whole set by the least
ordinal that is not a label for an element of the set. This length is called the order type of the set.
Any ordinal is dened by the set of ordinals that precede it: in fact, the most common denition of ordinals identies
each ordinal as the set of ordinals that precede it. For example, the ordinal 42 is the order type of the ordinals less than
it, i.e., the ordinals from 0 (the smallest of all ordinals) to 41 (the immediate predecessor of 42), and it is generally
identied as the set {0,1,2,,41}. Conversely, any set (S) of ordinals that is downward-closedmeaning that for
any ordinal in S and any ordinal < , is also in Sis (or can be identied with) an ordinal.
There are innite ordinals as well: the smallest innite ordinal is , which is the order type of the natural numbers
(nite ordinals) and that can even be identied with the set of natural numbers (indeed, the set of natural numbers is
 3

well-orderedas is any set of ordinalsand since it is downward closed it can be identied with the ordinal associated
with it, which is exactly how is dened).

A graphical matchstick representation of the ordinal . Each stick corresponds to an ordinal of the form m+n where m and n
are natural numbers.

Perhaps a clearer intuition of ordinals can be formed by examining a rst few of them: as mentioned above, they
start with the natural numbers, 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, After all natural numbers comes the rst innite ordinal, , and
after that come +1, +2, +3, and so on. (Exactly what addition means will be dened later on: just consider
them as names.) After all of these come 2 (which is +), 2+1, 2+2, and so on, then 3, and then later on
4. Now the set of ordinals formed in this way (the m+n, where m and n are natural numbers) must itself have

an ordinal associated with it: and that is 2 . Further on, there will be 3 , then 4 , and so on, and , then ,

then later , and even later 0 (epsilon nought) (to give a few examples of relatively smallcountableordinals).
This can be continued indenitely far (indenitely far is exactly what ordinals are good at: basically every time one
says and so on when enumerating ordinals, it denes a larger ordinal). The smallest uncountable ordinal is the set
of all countable ordinals, expressed as 1 .

2 Denitions

2.1 Well-ordered sets

Further information: Ordered set

In a well-ordered set, every non-empty subset contains a distinct smallest element. Given the axiom of dependent
choice, this is equivalent to just saying that the set is totally ordered and there is no innite decreasing sequence,
something perhaps easier to visualize. In practice, the importance of well-ordering is justied by the possibility of
applying transnite induction, which says, essentially, that any property that passes on from the predecessors of an
element to that element itself must be true of all elements (of the given well-ordered set). If the states of a computation
4 2 DEFINITIONS

(computer program or game) can be well-ordered in such a way that each step is followed by a lower step, then the
computation will terminate.
It is inappropriate to distinguish between two well-ordered sets if they only dier in the labeling of their elements,
or more formally: if the elements of the rst set can be paired o with the elements of the second set such that if one
element is smaller than another in the rst set, then the partner of the rst element is smaller than the partner of the
second element in the second set, and vice versa. Such a one-to-one correspondence is called an order isomorphism
and the two well-ordered sets are said to be order-isomorphic, or similar (obviously this is an equivalence relation).
Provided there exists an order isomorphism between two well-ordered sets, the order isomorphism is unique: this
makes it quite justiable to consider the two sets as essentially identical, and to seek a canonical representative of
the isomorphism type (class). This is exactly what the ordinals provide, and it also provides a canonical labeling of
the elements of any well-ordered set. Formally, if a partial order < is dened on the set S, and a partial order <' is
dened on the set S' , then the posets (S,<) and (S' ,<') are order isomorphic if there is a bijection f that preserves
the ordering. That is, f(a) <' f(b) if and only if a < b. Every well-ordered set (S,<) is order isomorphic to the set of
ordinals less than one specic ordinal number [the order type of (S,<)] under their natural ordering.
Essentially, an ordinal is intended to be dened as an isomorphism class of well-ordered sets: that is, as an equivalence
class for the equivalence relation of being order-isomorphic. There is a technical diculty involved, however, in
the fact that the equivalence class is too large to be a set in the usual ZermeloFraenkel (ZF) formalization of set
theory. But this is not a serious diculty. The ordinal can be said to be the order type of any set in the class.

2.2 Denition of an ordinal as an equivalence class

The original denition of ordinal numbers, found for example in the Principia Mathematica, denes the order type
of a well-ordering as the set of all well-orderings similar (order-isomorphic) to that well-ordering: in other words, an
ordinal number is genuinely an equivalence class of well-ordered sets. This denition must be abandoned in ZF and
related systems of axiomatic set theory because these equivalence classes are too large to form a set. However, this
denition still can be used in type theory and in Quines axiomatic set theory New Foundations and related systems
(where it aords a rather surprising alternative solution to the Burali-Forti paradox of the largest ordinal).

2.3 Von Neumann denition of ordinals

Rather than dening an ordinal as an equivalence class of well-ordered sets, it will be dened as a particular well-
ordered set that (canonically) represents the class. Thus, an ordinal number will be a well-ordered set; and every
well-ordered set will be order-isomorphic to exactly one ordinal number.
The standard denition, suggested by John von Neumann, is: each ordinal is the well-ordered set of all smaller ordinals.
In symbols, = [0,).[3][4] Formally:

A set S is an ordinal if and only if S is strictly well-ordered with respect to set membership and every
element of S is also a subset of S.

The natural numbers are thus ordinals by this denition. For instance, 2 is an element of 4 = {0, 1, 2, 3}, and 2 is
equal to {0, 1} and so it is a subset of {0, 1, 2, 3}.
It can be shown by transnite induction that every well-ordered set is order-isomorphic to exactly one of these ordinals,
that is, there is an order preserving bijective function between them.
Furthermore, the elements of every ordinal are ordinals themselves. Given two ordinals S and T, S is an element of
T if and only if S is a proper subset of T. Moreover, either S is an element of T, or T is an element of S, or they are
equal. So every set of ordinals is totally ordered. Further, every set of ordinals is well-ordered. This generalizes the
fact that every set of natural numbers is well-ordered.
Consequently, every ordinal S is a set having as elements precisely the ordinals smaller than S. For example, every set
of ordinals has a supremum, the ordinal obtained by taking the union of all the ordinals in the set. This union exists
regardless of the sets size, by the axiom of union.
The class of all ordinals is not a set. If it were a set, one could show that it was an ordinal and thus a member of itself,
which would contradict its strict ordering by membership. This is the Burali-Forti paradox. The class of all ordinals
is variously called Ord, ON, or "".
2.4 Other denitions 5

An ordinal is nite if and only if the opposite order is also well-ordered, which is the case if and only if each of its
subsets has a maximum.

2.4 Other denitions

There are other modern formulations of the denition of ordinal. For example, assuming the axiom of regularity, the
following are equivalent for a set x:

x is an ordinal,
x is a transitive set, and set membership is trichotomous on x,
x is a transitive set totally ordered by set inclusion,
x is a transitive set of transitive sets.

These denitions cannot be used in non-well-founded set theories. In set theories with urelements, one has to further
make sure that the denition excludes urelements from appearing in ordinals.

3 Transnite sequence
If is a limit ordinal and X is a set, an -indexed sequence of elements of X is a function from to X. This concept,
a transnite sequence or ordinal-indexed sequence, is a generalization of the concept of a sequence. An ordinary
sequence corresponds to the case = .

4 Transnite induction
Main article: Transnite induction

Transnite induction holds in any well-ordered set, but it is so important in relation to ordinals that it is worth restating
here.

Any property that passes from the set of ordinals smaller than a given ordinal to itself, is true of all
ordinals.

That is, if P() is true whenever P() is true for all <, then P() is true for all . Or, more practically: in order to
prove a property P for all ordinals , one can assume that it is already known for all smaller <.

4.1 Transnite recursion

Transnite induction can be used not only to prove things, but also to dene them. Such a denition is normally
said to be by transnite recursion the proof that the result is well-dened uses transnite induction. Let F denote a
(class) function F to be dened on the ordinals. The idea now is that, in dening F() for an unspecied ordinal ,
one may assume that F() is already dened for all < and thus give a formula for F() in terms of these F(). It
then follows by transnite induction that there is one and only one function satisfying the recursion formula up to and
including .
Here is an example of denition by transnite recursion on the ordinals (more will be given later): dene function F
by letting F() be the smallest ordinal not in the set {F() | < }, that is, the set consisting of all F() for < .
This denition assumes the F() known in the very process of dening F; this apparent vicious circle is exactly what
denition by transnite recursion permits. In fact, F(0) makes sense since there is no ordinal < 0, and the set {F()
| < 0} is empty. So F(0) is equal to 0 (the smallest ordinal of all). Now that F(0) is known, the denition applied to
F(1) makes sense (it is the smallest ordinal not in the singleton set {F(0)} = {0}), and so on (the and so on is exactly
transnite induction). It turns out that this example is not very exciting, since provably F() = for all ordinals ,
which can be shown, precisely, by transnite induction.
6 4 TRANSFINITE INDUCTION

4.2 Successor and limit ordinals

Any nonzero ordinal has the minimum element, zero. It may or may not have a maximum element. For example, 42
has maximum 41 and +6 has maximum +5. On the other hand, does not have a maximum since there is no
largest natural number. If an ordinal has a maximum , then it is the next ordinal after , and it is called a successor
ordinal, namely the successor of , written +1. In the von Neumann denition of ordinals, the successor of is
{} since its elements are those of and itself.[3]
A nonzero ordinal that is not a successor is called a limit ordinal. One justication for this term is that a limit ordinal
is indeed the limit in a topological sense of all smaller ordinals (under the order topology).
When | < is an ordinal-indexed sequence, indexed by a limit and the sequence is increasing, i.e. <
whenever < ,its limit is dened the least upper bound of the set { | < },that is, the smallest ordinal (it always
exists) greater than any term of the sequence. In this sense, a limit ordinal is the limit of all smaller ordinals (indexed
by itself). Put more directly, it is the supremum of the set of smaller ordinals.
Another way of dening a limit ordinal is to say that is a limit ordinal if and only if:

There is an ordinal less than and whenever is an ordinal less than , then there exists an ordinal
such that < < .

So in the following sequence:

0, 1, 2, ... , , +1

is a limit ordinal because for any smaller ordinal (in this example, a natural number) there is another ordinal (natural
number) larger than it, but still less than .
Thus, every ordinal is either zero, or a successor (of a well-dened predecessor), or a limit. This distinction is
important, because many denitions by transnite induction rely upon it. Very often, when dening a function F by
transnite induction on all ordinals, one denes F(0), and F(+1) assuming F() is dened, and then, for limit ordinals
one denes F() as the limit of the F() for all < (either in the sense of ordinal limits, as previously explained,
or for some other notion of limit if F does not take ordinal values). Thus, the interesting step in the denition is the
successor step, not the limit ordinals. Such functions (especially for F nondecreasing and taking ordinal values) are
called continuous. Ordinal addition, multiplication and exponentiation are continuous as functions of their second
argument.

4.3 Indexing classes of ordinals

Any well-ordered set is similar (order-isomorphic) to a unique ordinal number , or, in other words, that its elements
can be indexed in increasing fashion by the ordinals less than . This applies, in particular, to any set of ordinals:
any set of ordinals is naturally indexed by the ordinals less than some . The same holds, with a slight modication,
for classes of ordinals (a collection of ordinals, possibly too large to form a set, dened by some property): any class
of ordinals can be indexed by ordinals (and, when the class is unbounded in the class of all ordinals, this puts it in
class-bijection with the class of all ordinals). So the -th element in the class (with the convention that the 0-th
is the smallest, the 1-st is the next smallest, and so on) can be freely spoken of. Formally, the denition is by
transnite induction: the -th element of the class is dened (provided it has already been dened for all < ), as
the smallest element greater than the -th element for all < .
This could be applied, for example, to the class of limit ordinals: the -th ordinal, which is either a limit or zero is
(see ordinal arithmetic for the denition of multiplication of ordinals). Similarly, one can consider additively
indecomposable ordinals (meaning a nonzero ordinal that is not the sum of two strictly smaller ordinals): the -th
additively indecomposable ordinal is indexed as . The technique of indexing classes of ordinals is often useful in
the context of xed points: for example, the -th ordinal such that = is written . These are called the
"epsilon numbers".

4.4 Closed unbounded sets and classes

A class C of ordinals is said to be unbounded, or conal, when given any ordinal , there is a in C such that <
(then the class must be a proper class, i.e., it cannot be a set). It is said to be closed when the limit of a sequence
 7

of ordinals in the class is again in the class: or, equivalently, when the indexing (class-)function F is continuous in
the sense that, for a limit ordinal, F () (the -th ordinal in the class) is the limit of all F () for < ; this is
also the same as being closed, in the topological sense, for the order topology (to avoid talking of topology on proper
classes, one can demand that the intersection of the class with any given ordinal is closed for the order topology on
that ordinal, this is again equivalent).
Of particular importance are those classes of ordinals that are closed and unbounded, sometimes called clubs. For
example, the class of all limit ordinals is closed and unbounded: this translates the fact that there is always a limit
ordinal greater than a given ordinal, and that a limit of limit ordinals is a limit ordinal (a fortunate fact if the termi-
nology is to make any sense at all!). The class of additively indecomposable ordinals, or the class of ordinals, or
the class of cardinals, are all closed unbounded; the set of regular cardinals, however, is unbounded but not closed,
and any nite set of ordinals is closed but not unbounded.
A class is stationary if it has a nonempty intersection with every closed unbounded class. All superclasses of closed
unbounded classes are stationary, and stationary classes are unbounded, but there are stationary classes that are not
closed and stationary classes that have no closed unbounded subclass (such as the class of all limit ordinals with
countable conality). Since the intersection of two closed unbounded classes is closed and unbounded, the intersection
of a stationary class and a closed unbounded class is stationary. But the intersection of two stationary classes may be
empty, e.g. the class of ordinals with conality with the class of ordinals with uncountable conality.
Rather than formulating these denitions for (proper) classes of ordinals, one can formulate them for sets of ordinals
below a given ordinal : A subset of a limit ordinal is said to be unbounded (or conal) under provided any
ordinal less than is less than some ordinal in the set. More generally, one can call a subset of any ordinal conal
in provided every ordinal less than is less than or equal to some ordinal in the set. The subset is said to be closed
under provided it is closed for the order topology in , i.e. a limit of ordinals in the set is either in the set or equal
to itself.

5 Arithmetic of ordinals
Main article: Ordinal arithmetic

There are three usual operations on ordinals: addition, multiplication, and (ordinal) exponentiation. Each can be
dened in essentially two dierent ways: either by constructing an explicit well-ordered set that represents the op-
eration or by using transnite recursion. The Cantor normal form provides a standardized way of writing ordinals.
It uniquely represents each ordinal as a nite sum of ordinal powers of . However, this cannot form the basis of a
universal ordinal notation due to such self-referential representations as 0 = 0 . The so-called natural arithmetical
operations retain commutativity at the expense of continuity.
Interpreted as nimbers, ordinals are also subject to nimber arithmetic operations.

6 Ordinals and cardinals

6.1 Initial ordinal of a cardinal

Each ordinal associates with one cardinal, its cardinality. If there is a bijection between two ordinals (e.g. =1+
and +1>), then they associate with the same cardinal. Any well-ordered set having an ordinal as its order-type
has the same cardinality as that ordinal. The least ordinal associated with a given cardinal is called the initial ordinal
of that cardinal. Every nite ordinal (natural number) is initial, and no other ordinal associates with its cardinal. But
most innite ordinals are not initial, as many innite ordinals associate with the same cardinal. The axiom of choice
is equivalent to the statement that every set can be well-ordered, i.e. that every cardinal has an initial ordinal. In
theories with the axiom of choice, the cardinal number of any set has an initial ordinal, and one may employ the Von
Neumann cardinal assignment as the cardinals representation. In set theories without the axiom of choice, a cardinal
may be represented by the set of sets with that cardinality having minimal rank.
The -th innite initial ordinal is written . Its cardinality is written . For example, the cardinality of 0 =
is 0 , which is also the cardinality of 2 or 0 (all are countable ordinals). So can be identied with 0 , except
that the notation 0 is used when writing cardinals, and when writing ordinals (this is important since, for example,
20 = 0 whereas 2 > ). Also, 1 is the smallest uncountable ordinal (to see that it exists, consider the set of
8 8 TOPOLOGY AND ORDINALS

equivalence classes of well-orderings of the natural numbers: each such well-ordering denes a countable ordinal,
and 1 is the order type of that set), 2 is the smallest ordinal whose cardinality is greater than 1 , and so on, and
is the limit of the n for natural numbers n (any limit of cardinals is a cardinal, so this limit is indeed the rst
cardinal after all the n ).

6.2 Conality

The conality of an ordinal is the smallest ordinal that is the order type of a conal subset of . Notice that a
number of authors dene conality or use it only for limit ordinals. The conality of a set of ordinals or any other
well-ordered set is the conality of the order type of that set.
Thus for a limit ordinal, there exists a -indexed strictly increasing sequence with limit . For example, the conality
of is , because the sequence m (where m ranges over the natural numbers) tends to ; but, more generally,
any countable limit ordinal has conality . An uncountable limit ordinal may have either conality as does or
an uncountable conality.
The conality of 0 is 0. And the conality of any successor ordinal is 1. The conality of any limit ordinal is at least
.
An ordinal that is equal to its conality is called regular and it is always an initial ordinal. Any limit of regular ordinals
is a limit of initial ordinals and thus is also initial even if it is not regular, which it usually is not. If the Axiom of
Choice, then +1 is regular for each . In this case, the ordinals 0, 1, , 1 , and 2 are regular, whereas 2, 3,
, and are initial ordinals that are not regular.
The conality of any ordinal is a regular ordinal, i.e. the conality of the conality of is the same as the conality
of . So the conality operation is idempotent.

7 Some large countable ordinals

For more details on this topic, see Large countable ordinal.

As mentioned above (see Cantor normal form) the ordinal 0 , which is the smallest satisfying the equation =

, so it is the limit of the sequence 0, 1, , , , etc. Many ordinals can be dened in such a manner as xed
points of certain ordinal functions (the -th ordinal such that = is called , then one could go on trying
to nd the -th ordinal such that = , and so on, but all the subtlety lies in the and so on). One could
try to do this systematically, but no matter what system is used to dene and construct ordinals, there is always an
ordinal that lies just above all the ordinals constructed by the system. Perhaps the most important ordinal that limits
a system of construction in this manner is the ChurchKleene ordinal, 1CK (despite the 1 in the name, this ordinal
is countable), which is the smallest ordinal that cannot in any way be represented by a computable function (this can
be made rigorous, of course). Considerably large ordinals can be dened below 1CK , however, which measure the
proof-theoretic strength of certain formal systems (for example, 0 measures the strength of Peano arithmetic).
Large ordinals can also be dened above the Church-Kleene ordinal, which are of interest in various parts of logic.

8 Topology and ordinals

For more details on this topic, see Order topology.

Any ordinal number can be made into a topological space by endowing it with the order topology; this topology is
discrete if and only if the ordinal is a countable cardinal, i.e. at most . A subset of + 1 is open in the order
topology if and only if either it is conite or it does not contain as an element.
See the Topology and ordinals section of the Order topology article.
 9

9 Downward closed sets of ordinals

A set is downward closed if anything less than an element of the set is also in the set. If a set of ordinals is downward
closed, then that set is an ordinalthe least ordinal not in the set.
Examples:

The set of ordinals less than 3 is 3 = { 0, 1, 2 }, the smallest ordinal not less than 3.
The set of nite ordinals is innite, the smallest innite ordinal: .
The set of countable ordinals is uncountable, the smallest uncountable ordinal: 1 .

10 History
The transnite ordinal numbers, which rst appeared in 1883,[5] originated in Cantors work with derived sets. If P
is a set of real numbers, the derived set P' is the set of limit points of P. In 1872, Cantor generated the sets P (n) by
applying the derived set operation n times to P. In 1880, he pointed out that these sets form the sequence P'
P (n) P (n + 1) , and he continued the derivation process by dening P () as the intersection of these sets. Then
he iterated the derived set operation and intersections to extend his sequence of sets into the innite: P () P ( + 1)
2
P ( + 2) P (2) P ( ) .[6] The superscripts containing are just indices dened by the derivation
process.[7]
Cantor used these sets in the theorems: (1) If P () = for some index , then P' is countable; (2) Conversely, if P'
is countable, then there is an index such that P () = . These theorems are proved by partitioning P' into pairwise
disjoint sets: P' = (P' P (2) ) (P (2) P (3) ) (P () P ( + 1) ) P () . For < : since P ( + 1) contains the
limit points of P () , the sets P () P ( + 1) have no limit points. Hence, they are discrete sets, so they are countable.
Proof of rst theorem: If P () = for some index , then P' is the countable union of countable sets. Therefore, P'
is countable.[8]
The second theorem requires proving the existence of an such that P () = . To prove this, Cantor considered the
set of all having countably many predecessors. To dene this set, he dened the transnite ordinal numbers and
transformed the innite indices into ordinals by replacing with , the rst transnite ordinal number. Cantor called
the set of nite ordinals the rst number class. The second number class is the set of ordinals whose predecessors
form a countably innite set. The set of all having countably many predecessorsthat is, the set of countable
ordinalsis the union of these two number classes. Cantor proved that the cardinality of the second number class is
the rst uncountable cardinality.[9]
Cantors second theorem becomes: If P' is countable, then there is a countable ordinal such that P () = . Its proof
uses proof by contradiction. Let P' be countable, and assume there is no such . This assumption produces two
cases.

Case 1: P () P ( + 1) is non-empty for all countable . Since there are uncountably many of these pairwise
disjoint sets, their union is uncountable. This union is a subset of P', so P' is uncountable.
Case 2: P () P ( + 1) is empty for some countable . Since P ( + 1) P () , this implies P ( + 1) = P () . Thus,
P () is a perfect set, so it is uncountable.[10] Since P () P', the set P' is uncountable.

In both cases, P' is uncountable, which contradicts P' being countable. Therefore, there is a countable ordinal
such that P () = . Cantors work with derived sets and ordinal numbers led to the Cantor-Bendixson theorem.[11]
Using successors, limits, and cardinality, Cantor generated an unbounded sequence of ordinal numbers and number
classes.[12] The ( + 1)-th number class is the set of ordinals whose predecessors form a set of the same cardinality
as the -th number class. The cardinality of the ( + 1)-th number class is the cardinality immediately following that
of the -th number class.[13] For a limit ordinal , the -th number class is the union of the -th number classes for
< .[14] Its cardinality is the limit of the cardinalities of these number classes.
If n is nite, the n-th number class has cardinality n1 . If , the -th number class has cardinality .[15]
Therefore, the cardinalities of the number classes correspond one-to-one with the aleph numbers. Also, the -th
number class consists of ordinals dierent from those in the preceding number classes if and only if is a non-limit
ordinal. Therefore, the non-limit number classes partition the ordinals into pairwise disjoint sets.
10 13 REFERENCES

11 See also
Counting
Ordinal space

12 Notes
[1] Thorough introductions are given by Levy (1979) and Jech (2003).

[2] Hallett, Michael (1979), Towards a theory of mathematical research programmes. I, The British Journal for the Philosophy
of Science, 30 (1): 125, MR 532548, doi:10.1093/bjps/30.1.1. See the footnote on p. 12.

[3] von Neumann 1923

[4] Levy (1979, p. 52) attributes the idea to unpublished work of Zermelo in 1916 and several papers by von Neumann the
1920s.

[5] Cantor 1883. English translation: Ewald 1996, pp. 881920.

[6] Ferreirs 1995, pp. 3435; Ferreirs 2007, pp. 159, 204205.

[7] Ferreirs 2007, p. 269.

[8] Ferreirs 1995, pp. 3536; Ferreirs 2007, p. 207.

[9] Ferreirs 1995, pp. 3637; Ferreirs 2007, p. 271.

[10] Dauben 1979, p. 111.

[11] Ferreirs 2007, pp. 207208.

[12] Dauben 1979, pp. 9798.

[13] Hallett 1986, pp. 6162.

[14] Tait 1997, p. 5 footnote.

[15] The rst number class has cardinality 0 . Mathematical induction proves that the n-th number class has cardinality n1 .
Since the -th number class is the union of the n-th number classes, its cardinality is , the limit of the n1 . Transnite
induction proves that if , the -th number class has cardinality .

13 References
Cantor, Georg (1883), Ueber unendliche, lineare Punktmannichfaltigkeiten. 5., Mathematische Annalen,
21 (4): 545591, doi:10.1007/bf01446819. Published separately as: Grundlagen einer allgemeinen Mannig-
faltigkeitslehre.
Cantor, Georg (1897), Beitrage zur Begrundung der transniten Mengenlehre. II (tr.: Contributions to the
Founding of the Theory of Transnite Numbers II), Mathematische Annalen 49, 207-246 English translation.
Conway, J. H. and Guy, R. K. Cantors Ordinal Numbers. In The Book of Numbers. New York: Springer-
Verlag, pp. 266267 and 274, 1996.
Dauben, Joseph (1979), Georg Cantor: His Mathematics and Philosophy of the Innite, Harvard University
Press, ISBN 0-674-34871-0.
Ewald, William B. (ed.) (1996), From Immanuel Kant to David Hilbert: A Source Book in the Foundations of
Mathematics, Volume 2, Oxford University Press, ISBN 0-19-850536-1.
Ferreirs, Jos (1995), "'What fermented in me for years: Cantors discovery of transnite numbers, Historia
Mathematica, 22: 3342, doi:10.1006/hmat.1995.1003.
Ferreirs, Jos (2007), Labyrinth of Thought: A History of Set Theory and Its Role in Mathematical Thought
(2nd revised ed.), Birkhuser, ISBN 3-7643-8349-6.
 11

Hallett, Michael (1986), Cantorian Set Theory and Limitation of Size, Oxford University Press, ISBN 0-19-
853283-0.
Hamilton, A. G. (1982), Numbers, Sets, and Axioms : the Apparatus of Mathematics, New York: Cambridge
University Press, ISBN 0-521-24509-5 See Ch. 6, Ordinal and cardinal numbers
Kanamori, A., Set Theory from Cantor to Cohen, to appear in: Andrew Irvine and John H. Woods (editors),
The Handbook of the Philosophy of Science, volume 4, Mathematics, Cambridge University Press.
Levy, A. (1979), Basic Set Theory, Berlin, New York: Springer-Verlag Reprinted 2002, Dover. ISBN 0-486-
42079-5
Jech, Thomas (2003), Set Theory, Springer Monographs in Mathematics, Berlin, New York: Springer-Verlag

Sierpiski, W. (1965). Cardinal and Ordinal Numbers (2nd ed.). Warszawa: Pastwowe Wydawnictwo
Naukowe. Also denes ordinal operations in terms of the Cantor Normal Form.

Suppes, P. (1960), Axiomatic Set Theory, D.Van Nostrand Company Inc., ISBN 0-486-61630-4

Tait, William W. (1997), Frege versus Cantor and Dedekind: On the Concept of Number (PDF), in William
W. Tait, Early Analytic Philosophy: Frege, Russell, Wittgenstein, Open Court Press, pp. 213248, ISBN 0-
8126-9344-2.
von Neumann, Johann (1923), Zur Einfhrung der transniten Zahlen, Acta litterarum ac scientiarum Ragiae
Universitatis Hungaricae Francisco-Josephinae, Sectio scientiarum mathematicarum, 1: 199208
von Neumann, John (January 2002) [1923], On the introduction of transnite numbers, in Jean van Hei-
jenoort, From Frege to Gdel: A Source Book in Mathematical Logic, 1879-1931 (3rd ed.), Harvard University
Press, pp. 346354, ISBN 0-674-32449-8 - English translation of von Neumann 1923.

14 External links
Hazewinkel, Michiel, ed. (2001) [1994], Ordinal number, Encyclopedia of Mathematics, Springer Sci-
ence+Business Media B.V. / Kluwer Academic Publishers, ISBN 978-1-55608-010-4

Weisstein, Eric W. Ordinal Number. MathWorld.

Ordinals at ProvenMath
Beitraege zur Begruendung der transniten Mengenlehre Cantors original paper published in Mathematische
Annalen 49(2), 1897
Ordinal calculator GPL'd free software for computing with ordinals and ordinal notations

Chapter 4 of Don Monks lecture notes on set theory is an introduction to ordinals.

12 15 TEXT AND IMAGE SOURCES, CONTRIBUTORS, AND LICENSES

15 Text and image sources, contributors, and licenses

15.1 Text
Ordinal number Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ordinal_number?oldid=800381797 Contributors: AxelBoldt, Mav, Bryan Derk-
sen, Zundark, The Anome, Iwnbap, LA2, Christian List, B4hand, Olivier, Stevertigo, Patrick, Michael Hardy, Llywrch, Jketola, Chinju,
TakuyaMurata, Karada, Docu, Vargenau, Revolver, Charles Matthews, Dysprosia, Malcohol, Owen, Rogper~enwiki, Hmackiernan, Bald-
hur, Adhemar, Fuelbottle, Tea2min, Giftlite, Markus Krtzsch, var Arnfjr Bjarmason, Lethe, Fropu, Gro-Tsen, Thattommyhall,
Jorend, Siroxo, Wmahan, Beland, Joeblakesley, Elroch, 4pq1injbok, Luqui, Silence, Paul August, EmilJ, Babomb, Randall Holmes, Wood
Thrush, Robotje, Blotwell, Crust, Jumbuck, Sligocki, SidP, DV8 2XL, Jim Slim, Oleg Alexandrov, Warbola, Linas, Miaow Miaow, Gra-
ham87, Grammarbot, Jorunn, Rjwilmsi, Bremen, OneWeirdDude, Salix alba, Mike Segal, R.e.b., FlaBot, Jak123, Chobot, Bgwhite,
YurikBot, Wavelength, RobotE, Hairy Dude, CanadianCaesar, Archelon, Gaius Cornelius, Trovatore, Crasshopper, DeadEyeArrow,
Pooryorick~enwiki, Hirak 99, Closedmouth, Arthur Rubin, PhS, GrinBot~enwiki, Brentt, Nicholas Jackson, SmackBot, Pokipsy76,
KocjoBot~enwiki, Bluebot, AlephNull~enwiki, Jiddisch~enwiki, Dreadstar, Mmehdi.g, Germandemat, Lambiam, Khazar, Minna Sora
no Shita, Bjankuloski06en~enwiki, 16@r, Loadmaster, Limaner, Quaeler, Jason.grossman, Joseph Solis in Australia, Easwaran, Zero
sharp, Tawkerbot2, JRSpriggs, Vaughan Pratt, CRGreathouse, CBM, Gregbard, FilipeS, HdZ, Pcu123456789, Lyondif02, Odoncaoa,
Jj137, Hannes Eder, Shlomi Hillel, JAnDbot, Agol, BrentG, Smartcat, Bongwarrior, Swpb, David Eppstein, Jondaman21, R'n'B, IPono-
marev, RockMFR, Fruits Monster, It Is Me Here, Policron, VolkovBot, Dommedagsprofet, Hotfeba, Je G., LokiClock, PMajer, Os-
hwah, Alphaios~enwiki, Cremepu222, Wikithesource, Arcfrk, SieBot, Mrw7, J-puppy, TheCatalyst31, ClueBot, DFRussia, DanielD-
eibler, DragonBot, Hans Adler, StevenDH, Lacce, Against the current, Dthomsen8, Addbot, Dyaa, Mathemens, Unzerlegbarkeit, Luckas-
bot, Yobot, Utvik old, THEN WHO WAS PHONE?, KamikazeBot, AnomieBOT, Angry bee, Citation bot, Nexx892, Twri, LilHelpa,
Xqbot, Freebirth Toad, Capricorn42, RJGray, GrouchoBot, VladimirReshetnikov, SassoBot, Citation bot 1, RedBot, Burritoburritobur-
rito, TheStrayCat, Raiden09, EmausBot, Fly by Night, Slawekb, Jens Blanck, SporkBot, ClueBot NG, Frietjes, Rezabot, Helpful Pixie
Bot, BG19bot, IkamusumeFan, Anthony.de.almeida.lopes, Stephan Kulla, Jochen Burghardt, Betaneptune, Mark viking, Pop-up cas-
ket, Jose Brox, The Horn Blower, Master of Time, Mathmensch, Blackbombchu, George8211, Dconman2, Leegrc, Gareld Gareld,
Lalaloopsy1234, SarahTehCat, SoSivr, Eth450, Neposner, Mircea BRT, Divad42, Smwrd, Wilsonator5000, MindcraftMax, Simplex-
ity22, Anareth, Bender the Bot, AB198891BA, Paul.io and Anonymous: 153

15.2 Images
File:Omega-exp-omega-labeled.svg Source: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e6/Omega-exp-omega-labeled.svg
License: CC0 Contributors: Own work Original artist: Pop-up casket (<a href='//commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Pop-up_casket'
title='User talk:Pop-up casket'>talk</a>); original by User:Fool
File:Ordinal_ww.svg Source: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/18/Ordinal_ww.svg License: CC BY-SA 4.0 Con-
tributors: Own work Original artist: IkamusumeFan
File:Venn_A_intersect_B.svg Source: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/6d/Venn_A_intersect_B.svg License: Pub-
lic domain Contributors: Own work Original artist: Cepheus
File:Wiktionary-logo-en-v2.svg Source: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/99/Wiktionary-logo-en-v2.svg License:
CC-BY-SA-3.0 Contributors: ? Original artist: ?

15.3 Content license

Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0