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.
For every set the Hartogs number is a cardinal, and for every cardinal it is the least cardinal strictly above ; this is a theorem of ZF
Statement
Work in ZF; no choice principle is used. For a set let be its Hartogs number (Hartogs: an ordinal that does not inject into a given set), the least ordinal (Ordinal (von Neumann)) admitting no injection into . Then:
(a) is a cardinal (Cardinal (initial ordinal) and cardinality), for every set , well-orderable or not.
(b) If is a cardinal then , and every cardinal with satisfies . So is the least cardinal strictly above .
(c) If is an infinite cardinal then so is .
What this supplies, and what it does not. It gives a successor operation on cardinals in ZF alone: there is always a next one, and it is definable. It says nothing about how large the next cardinal is compared with ; that comparison is not decided by the axioms in use here.
Facts & Assumptions
Given: A set and a cardinal , in ZF, with no choice principle.
is an ordinal that does not inject into , and it is the least such; consequently every ordinal does inject into (Hartogs: an ordinal that does not inject into a given set).
An ordinal is a cardinal when no satisfies (Cardinal (initial ordinal) and cardinality, Equinumerous sets, and ).
For cardinals, if and only if there is an injection (claim (a) of Commutativity, associativity, distributivity and monotonicity of and , the unit laws, the two exponent laws, and if and only if injects into ).
Ordinals satisfy trichotomy, iff or , and every element of an ordinal is an ordinal (Trichotomy and well-ordering of the ordinals, Basic closure properties of ordinals).
A composition of an injection with a bijection is an injection, a subset inclusion is an injection, and the identity is a bijection (Injection, surjection, bijection).
For a well-orderable , when is a cardinal, and (A set equinumerous with some ordinal has a least such ordinal, that ordinal is a cardinal, and equinumerous sets get the same one; no choice principle is used).
Proof
Every injects into , and itself does not.
If is a cardinal with then does not inject into : an injection would give by [L3], contradicting and trichotomy.
Claim (a): if had , then composing a bijection with an injection supplied by step 1.1 would inject into , which step 1.1 forbids; so no element of is equinumerous with it and is a cardinal by [L2].
First half of claim (b): injects into by the identity, so by step 1.1; and is impossible, since then by [L4] and the inclusion would inject it into ; trichotomy leaves , that is .
Second half of claim (b) and claim (c): a cardinal with does not inject into by step 1.2, so by the minimality in [L1]; with step 2.2 and step 2.1 this makes the least cardinal strictly above ; and if then by step 2.2, so is infinite.
Remarks
Why claim (a) is stated for an arbitrary set. For a cardinal only the special case is needed here, but the general case costs the same two lines and is exactly what Tarski: the Axiom of Choice is equivalent to the statement that for every infinite set , so extending Hessenberg's theorem from the alephs to arbitrary sets is exactly as strong as choice uses: there, is an arbitrary infinite set that is not known to be well-orderable, and the argument needs to be an infinite cardinal before Hessenberg's theorem can be applied to it.
No power set is involved. Hartogs: an ordinal that does not inject into a given set builds from the well-ordered subsets of , so the successor cardinal is obtained without ever forming as a size. That separation is what makes the aleph hierarchy a ZF construction while the beth hierarchy is not.
The notation collides with the ordinal successor, and this page keeps them apart. is the ordinal successor (Ordinal (von Neumann)) and is almost never a cardinal: an infinite cardinal is a limit ordinal, so is not one. The cardinal successor is , which is much larger. Where an item on this page writes the superscript on an ordinal letter, as A set equinumerous with some ordinal has a least such ordinal, that ordinal is a cardinal, and equinumerous sets get the same one; no choice principle is used does with , it carries the published ordinal meaning . This item writes the cardinal successor as throughout; the abbreviation , on a cardinal letter only, is introduced later on this page, and the superscript on an ordinal letter keeps the ordinal meaning there too.
Depends on
- Hartogs: an ordinal that does not inject into a given set
- Cardinal (initial ordinal) and cardinality
- Ordinal (von Neumann)
- Basic closure properties of ordinals
- Trichotomy and well-ordering of the ordinals
- Equinumerous sets, $A \approx B$ and $A \preceq B$
- A set equinumerous with some ordinal has a least such ordinal, that ordinal is a cardinal, and equinumerous sets get the same one; no choice principle is used
- Commutativity, associativity, distributivity and monotonicity of $\oplus$ and $\otimes$, the unit laws, the two exponent laws, and $\kappa \le \lambda$ if and only if $\kappa$ injects into $\lambda$
- Injection, surjection, bijection
Used by
- The clauses at 0, at a successor and at a limit determine exactly one operation α ↦ ℵ_α, in ZF, and — assuming the Axiom of Choice — exactly one operation α ↦ ℶ_α; each value is an infinite cardinal, each is strictly increasing and continuous at limits, and α ≤ ℵ_α Corollary
- The successor cardinal κ⁺, the alephs ℵ_α, the beths ℶ_α, successor and limit cardinals, and the identifications ℵ₀ = ω and ℵ₁ = ω₁ Definition
- Assuming countable choice, cf(ℵ_ω₁) = ℵ₁, so singular does not mean of countable cofinality Example
- ℵ₀ ⊕ ℵ₀ = ℵ₀ ⊗ ℵ₀ = ℵ₀, ℵ₁ ⊕ ℵ₀ = ℵ₁ and 5 ⊕ ℵ₀ = ℵ₀, computed from absorption and, in the countable cases, independently from the published bijection ω × ω ≈ ω Example
- ℵ₁ ≤ 2^ℵ₀ under the Axiom of Choice, because 2^ℵ₀ is a cardinal strictly above ℵ₀ and ℵ₁ is the least such; so ω₁ injects into ℝ Example
- FALSE: κ < λ implies κ^μ < λ^μ False statement
- What each result on this page costs in choice, and where the continuum escapes what ZFC can decide Remark
- Every infinite cardinal is ℵ_α for exactly one ordinal α, in ZF; and, assuming the Axiom of Choice, every infinite set is equinumerous with exactly one aleph Theorem
- Tarski: the Axiom of Choice is equivalent to the statement that A × A ≈ A for every infinite set A, so extending Hessenberg's theorem from the alephs to arbitrary sets is exactly as strong as choice Theorem
- ℵ₀ is regular in ZF; assuming the Axiom of Choice every successor aleph ℵ_α+1 is regular; cf(ℵ_ω) = ℵ₀, so ℵ_ω is singular, and under choice it is the least singular infinite cardinal Theorem
Dependency tree · next 3 levels
Direct dependencies and their dependencies through the next three levels: 63 results over 25 levels. An arrow runs from a result to what uses it, and this result sits at the bottom with a heavier outline. Click the chart to enlarge it.
Sources
- P. Koellner, Set Theory: The Independence Phenomenon, Definition 3.8 (standard reference, not scraped)
- Hartogs number (Wikipedia) (standard reference, not scraped)
- Successor cardinal (Wikipedia) (standard reference, not scraped)