transfinite arithmetic, cardinal arithmetic, ordinal arithmetic
prime field, p-adic integer, p-adic rational number, p-adic complex number
arithmetic geometry, function field analogy
The ordinal numbers (or just ordinals) constitute a generalisation of a natural numbers to numbers of possibly infinite magnitudes. Specifically, ordinal numbers generalise the concept of ‘the next number after …’ or ‘the index of the next item after …’. In particular, the next number after the natural numbers is the first infinite ordinal number.
Naïvely, an ordinal number should be an isomorphism class of well-ordered sets, and the ordinal rank of a well-ordered set $S$ would be its isomorphism class. That is:
Then a finite ordinal is the ordinal rank of a finite set, while an infinite ordinal or transfinite ordinal is the ordinal rank of an infinite set. (If you interpret both terms in the strictest sense, then there may be ordinals that are neither finite nor infinite, without some form of the axiom of choice).
Taking this definition literally in material set theory, each ordinal is then a proper class (so one could not make further sets using them as elements). For this reason, in axiomatic set theory one usually defines an ordinal number as a particular representative of this equivalence class. One particularly slick definition is due to von Neumann:
These pure sets are the von Neumann ordinals. In the presence of the axiom of foundation, $\in$ is automatically a well-founded relation, so it suffices to require that $\in$ be a transitive relation on $X^+ = X \cup \{X\}$.
From the perspective of structural set theory, it breaks the principle of equivalence to care about distinctions between isomorphic objects, and unnecessary to insist on a canonical choice of representatives for isomorphism classes. Therefore, from this point of view it is natural to simply say:
Madeleine Birchfield: Wouldn’t an ordinal number be an object of the decategorification of the category of well-ordered sets, just as a natural number is an object of the decategorification of the category FinSet?
However, one still may need sets of ordinals, that is sets that serve as the target of an ordinal rank function satisfying (1–3) on any (small) collection of well-ordered sets. One can construct this as a quotient set of that collection.
The class of ordinals is itself well-ordered. There are many equivalent ways to define this ordering. One is that $\alpha\lt\beta$ iff $\alpha$ is isomorphic to a proper initial segment of $\beta$ (that is, a subset $S\subsetneq \beta$ such that $b\in S$ and $a\lt b$ imply $a\in S$). With the von Neumann definition, this is equivalent to simply saying that $\alpha\in\beta$.
Every ordinal $\alpha$ has a successor $\alpha^+$, which in the von Neumann definition is simply $\alpha^+ = \alpha \cup \{\alpha\}$. A limit ordinal is any ordinal which is not a successor of any other ordinal.
In the presence of the axiom of choice, a cardinal number can be defined as a special ordinal number, specifically an ordinal which is not equipollent (isomorphic as a set) to any smaller ordinal.
One important use of ordinals is to index transfinite constructions, such as:
Last revised on October 4, 2021 at 09:23:53. See the history of this page for a list of all contributions to it.