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.
; and ; for a limit ordinal the value is an infinite cardinal with , so it is regular; and every cofinal subset of has cardinality at least , a value that is attained
Statement
Work in ZF; no choice principle is used. Let be the cofinality of Cofinality , and regular and singular cardinals. Then:
(a) for every ordinal (Ordinal (von Neumann));
(b) , and for every ordinal , where (Ordinal addition );
(c) for a limit ordinal (Successor and limit ordinals), is an infinite cardinal (Cardinal (initial ordinal) and cardinality) and , so is a regular cardinal;
(d) for a limit ordinal , every cofinal (Cofinal subset of an ordinal) satisfies , and some cofinal subset of has cardinality exactly .
Clause (c) is what discharges the naming obligation of Cofinality , and regular and singular cardinals: "regular" is defined through , and it is a theorem, not a convention, that of a limit ordinal is a cardinal at which the definition can be tested.
Facts & Assumptions
Given: ZF, with no choice principle. Throughout, a map is called cofinal when is cofinal in .
is the least ordinal admitting a cofinal ; for that a strictly increasing cofinal exists (Cofinality , and regular and singular cardinals, For every ordinal there is a least ordinal admitting a map with cofinal range, and that map may always be taken strictly increasing).
is cofinal when every has some with (Cofinal subset of an ordinal).
Ordinals: trichotomy; iff or ; ; every element of an ordinal is an ordinal; every set of ordinals is well ordered by (Trichotomy and well-ordering of the ordinals, Basic closure properties of ordinals, Well-order and well-ordered set).
Every ordinal is exactly one of , a successor, or a limit, and is the least limit ordinal (Successor and limit ordinals, is the least limit ordinal).
For a well-orderable : , the value is a cardinal, equinumerous sets receive the same one, and exactly when is a cardinal (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, Cardinal (initial ordinal) and cardinality).
For cardinals iff , and with both well-orderable gives (claim (a) of Commutativity, associativity, distributivity and monotonicity of and , the unit laws, the two exponent laws, and if and only if injects into ).
Every well-order has a unique order type, and the isomorphism onto it is a bijection (Every well-order has a unique order type, Order embedding and order isomorphism, Equinumerous sets, and ).
Precomposing a function with a bijection onto its domain leaves its range unchanged, since has image when is onto; a strictly increasing map of ordinals is injective, and satisfies , both by trichotomy (Injection, surjection, bijection, Trichotomy and well-ordering of the ordinals).
A cardinal is infinite exactly when (Cardinal sum , product and exponentiation , and why they are written apart from the ordinal operations).
Proof
Claim (a): the identity is cofinal by [L2], so the least length in [L1] is at most .
Claim (b): for the empty map is cofinal vacuously, so ; for the map is cofinal, since every satisfies by [L3], while the empty map into the nonempty is not, so .
Let be a limit ordinal, and strictly increasing and cofinal by [L1]; then is a limit ordinal, so by [L4]: because and the empty range is not cofinal, and is impossible, since then for all by [L8], so cofinality would give while gives , making a successor.
With , , as above, is a cardinal: if then a bijection makes a map with the same range as , hence cofinal, so the least length would be at most , contradicting ; so and [L5] applies.
Claim (c): is an infinite cardinal by steps 1.3, 1.4 and [L9]; and writing , step 1.1 gives , while a cofinal makes cofinal — given pick with , then with , and by [L8] — so and therefore .
Claim (d): a cofinal is a set of ordinals, well ordered by by [L3], with order type and an order isomorphism by [L7]; then is a cofinal map , so by [L1], and applying [L5] and [L6] gives using step 2.1; conversely is cofinal with , since is injective by [L8].
Claims (a), (b), (c) and (d) are established, in ZF.
Remarks
Why (c) is restricted to limit ordinals. At and at a successor the cofinality is or , neither of which is an infinite cardinal, and the regular/singular vocabulary is not applied there. Since every infinite cardinal is a limit ordinal, the restriction costs nothing where the notion is used.
What clause (d) is for. It converts a cofinality question into a counting question: to show it suffices to exhibit any cofinal subset of size , with no attention to its order type. That is how every cofinality on the companion page is computed, and the attainment half is what makes the bound sharp.
Where the strictly increasing witness is spent. Three times, and each time essentially: in step 1.3, to know that a witness of successor length would have a largest value; in step 2.1, to know that preserves , without which the composite need not be cofinal; and in step 3.1, to know that is injective, without which need not have cardinality . That is why For every ordinal there is a least ordinal admitting a map with cofinal range, and that map may always be taken strictly increasing proves claim (b) rather than stopping at the existence of a least length.
Depends on
- Cofinality $\operatorname{cf}(\alpha)$, and regular and singular cardinals
- For every ordinal $\alpha$ there is a least ordinal $\beta$ admitting a map $\beta \to \alpha$ with cofinal range, and that map may always be taken strictly increasing
- Cofinal subset of an ordinal
- Ordinal (von Neumann)
- Basic closure properties of ordinals
- Trichotomy and well-ordering of the ordinals
- Successor and limit ordinals
- Cardinal (initial ordinal) and cardinality
- $\omega$ is the least limit ordinal
- 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 $\lambda$
- Equinumerous sets, $A \approx B$ and $A \preceq B$
- Injection, surjection, bijection
- Ordinal addition $\alpha + \beta$
- Cardinal sum $\kappa \oplus \lambda$, product $\kappa \otimes \lambda$ and exponentiation $\kappa^{\lambda}$, and why they are written apart from the ordinal operations
- Every well-order has a unique order type
- Order embedding and order isomorphism
- Well-order and well-ordered set
Used by
- Assuming the Axiom of Choice: κ < κ^cf(κ) for every infinite cardinal κ, and cf(2^κ) > κ; in particular cf(2^ℵ₀) > ℵ₀ Corollary
- Countable choice makes omega-one regular Corollary
- The Feferman–Levy omega one has countable cofinality Corollary
- Balogh finite restriction data Definition
- Strong increase and bounding projections in countable ordinal products Definition
- A scale used in the Dowker subspace Example
- An ordinal α with ℵ_α = α, built as the supremum of the tower ℵ₀, ℵ_ℵ₀, ℵ_ℵ_ℵ₀, …, and its cofinality is ℵ₀ Example
- Assuming countable choice, cf(ℵ_ω₁) = ℵ₁, so singular does not mean of countable cofinality Example
- Assuming the Axiom of Choice: ℶ₀ = ℵ₀, ℶ₁ = 2^ℵ₀ = | ℝ |, ℶ₂ = | P(ℝ) |, and ℶ_ω has cofinality ℵ₀ Example
- cf(ℵ_ω) = ℵ₀, computed from the cofinal map n ↦ ℵₙ Example
- A long chain with club continuity below aleph omega Lemma
- Bounding projections produce an exact upper bound with large coordinate cofinalities Lemma
- Clopen boxes and the P-space property Lemma
- Closure points form a club Lemma
- Club continuity produces strongly increasing subsequences Lemma
- Club guessing at the double successor of an uncountable regular cardinal Lemma
- Cofinality and size of the scale subspace Lemma
- Directed progressive products have club continuous chains Lemma
- Disjoint box refinements in the ambient Rudin space Lemma
- Elementary hull transfer for bounded cofinality strata Lemma
- Generalized delta systems for small supports Lemma
- Neighborhoods of Rudin initial-top slices contain tails Lemma
- Normalizing a scale at existing least upper bounds Lemma
- Pcf cofinality ideals and cutoff conventions Lemma
- Progressive products and true cofinality transfers Lemma
- Strongly increasing subsequences force a bounding projection Lemma
- Tail suprema and normalized scales Lemma
- Tail suprema land in the scale subspace Lemma
- The scale subspace is closed Lemma
- Universal pcf sequences have strong increase and exact bounds Lemma
- What each result on this page costs in choice, and where the continuum escapes what ZFC can decide Remark
- An aleph omega plus one scale on an infinite set of successor alephs Theorem
- Chain conditions preserve high cofinalities and ccc preserves cardinals Theorem
- Clubs are ranges of normal enumerations Theorem
- Elementary initial segments form a club Theorem
- Every limit ordinal has cofinality omega in Gitik's model Theorem
- Every set is countable in the intermediate extension Theorem
- Fixed points of a normal function form a club Theorem
- Intersections of fewer than the cofinality many clubs Theorem
- Pcf cofinality ideals have single generators Theorem
…and 11 more results.
Cited to discharge well-definedness by Cofinality cf(α), and regular and singular cardinals.
Dependency tree · two levels
51 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
- UCL, Axiomatic Set Theory, Ch. 4: Cardinal Arithmetic (standard reference, not scraped)
- Cofinality (Wikipedia) (standard reference, not scraped)
- Regular cardinal (Wikipedia) (standard reference, not scraped)