nLab
Hartog's number

The Hartog's number of a cardinal number κ is the number of ways to well-order a set of cardinality at most κ. Assuming the axiom of choice, it is the smallest ordinal number whose cardinality is greater than κ and therefore the successor of κ as a cardinal number. But even without the axiom of choice, it makes sense and is often an effective substitute for such a successor.

Definition

We will define the Hartog's number as a functorial operation from sets to well-ordered sets. The operation on numbers is just a round-about way of talking about the same thing.

So let S be a set. Without the axiom of choice (or more precisely, the well-ordering theorem), it may not be possible to well-order S itself, but we can certainly well-order some subsets of S. On the other hand, if we can well-order S (or a subset), then there may be many different ways to do so, even nonisomorphic ways. So to begin with, let us form the collection of all well-ordered subsets of S, that is the subset of

A:𝒫S𝒫(A×A),\coprod_{A: \mathcal{P}S} \mathcal{P}(A \times A) ,

where indicates disjoint union and 𝒫 indicates power set, consisting of those pairs (A,R) such that R is a well-ordering. Then form a quotient set by identifying all well-ordered subsets that are isomorphic as well-ordered sets. This gives a set of well-order types, or ordinal numbers, which can itself be well-orderd by the general theory of ordinal numbers.

The Hartog's number of S is this well-ordered set, the set of all order types of well-ordered subsets of S. If κ is the cardinality of S, then let κ + be the cardinality or ordinal rank (as desired) of the Hartog's number of S; this is called the Hartog's number of κ.

Properties

There is no injection to S from the Hartog's number of S; this theorem is to Cantor's theorem as Burali-Forti's paradox is to Russell's paradox. That is, using the usual ordering of cardinal numbers, κ +κ. So if this is a total order (a statement equivalent to the axiom of choice), we can say that κ +>κ.

Even without choice, however, we can say this: If α is an ordinal number such that ακ, then κ +α. (Notice that we've shifted our thinking of the Hartog's number from a cardinal to an ordinal.) That is, κ + is the smallest ordinal number whose cardinal number is not at most κ. This doesn't use any form of choice except for excluded middle; we only need choice to conclude that κ +>κ.

The axiom of choice also implies the well-ordering theorem, that any set can be well-ordered. Thus with choice, κ + is (now as a cardinal again) the smallest cardinal number greater than κ; this explains the notation κ +.

Examples

For n a natural number regarded as the cardinal number of a finite set, n + is the usual successor n+1. This result uses excluded middle; else we get the plump successor of n, which may be rather larger.

For 0 the cardinality of the set of all natural numbers, the Hartog's number 0 +=ω 1 is the smallest uncountable ordinal. Assuming the axiom of choice (countable choice and excluded middle are enough), we have 0 += 1 as a cardinal.

In general, we get a sequence ω α of infinite cardinalities of well-orderable sets; assuming excluded middle, every infinite well-orderable cardinality shows up in this sequence. Assuming the axiom of choice, every infinite cardinal shows up, and we have ω α= α. (Actually, there's no real need to begin with infinite cardinals; if we started with ω 0=0 instead of ω 0=N and 0=0 instead of 0=N, then absolutely every cardinality or well-orderable cardinality would appear.)