# GetWiki

*ordinal number*

ARTICLE SUBJECTS

being →

database →

ethics →

fiction →

history →

internet →

language →

linux →

logic →

method →

news →

policy →

purpose →

religion →

science →

software →

truth →

unix →

wiki →

ARTICLE TYPES

essay →

feed →

help →

system →

wiki →

ARTICLE ORIGINS

critical →

forked →

imported →

original →

ordinal number

[ temporary import ]

**please note:**

- the content below is remote from Wikipedia

- it has been imported raw for GetWiki

**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 finite collection of objects can be put in order just by the process of counting: labeling the objects with distinct natural 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*

*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 finite sets (one can go from one to the other just by counting labels), different infinite 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 1883Thorough introductions are given by {{harv|Levy|1979}} and {{harv|Jech|2003}}. to accommodate infinite sequences and to classify derived sets, which he had previously introduced in 1872 while studying the uniqueness of trigonometric series.{{citation

| last = Hallett | first = Michael

| doi = 10.1093/bjps/30.1.1

| issue = 1

| journal = The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science

| mr = 532548

| pages = 1â€“25

| title = Towards a theory of mathematical research programmes. I

| volume = 30

| year = 1979}}. See the footnote on p. 12.

| doi = 10.1093/bjps/30.1.1

| issue = 1

| journal = The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science

| mr = 532548

| pages = 1â€“25

| title = Towards a theory of mathematical research programmes. I

| volume = 30

| year = 1979}}. See the footnote on p. 12.

## Ordinals extend the natural numbers

{{anchor|omega}}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 finite sets these two concepts coincide, there is only one way to put a finite set into a linear sequence, up to isomorphism. When dealing with infinite 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 infinite 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 defines a smaller and a larger one in a coherent way) in which there is no infinite

*decreasing*sequence (however, there may be infinite increasing sequences); equivalently, every non-empty subset of the set has 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 defined by the set of ordinals that precede it: in fact, the most common definition of ordinals

*identifies*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 identified as the set {{mset|0,1,2,â€¦,41}}. Conversely, any set

*S*of ordinals that is downward-closed — meaning that for any ordinal Î± in

*S*and any ordinal Î² < Î±, Î² is also in

*S*— is (or can be identified with) an ordinal.There are infinite ordinals as well: the smallest infinite ordinal is

**Ï‰**, which is the order type of the natural numbers (finite ordinals) and that can even be identified with the

*set*of natural numbers (indeed, the set of natural numbers is well-orderedâ€”as is any set of ordinalsâ€”and since it is downward closed it can be identified with the ordinal associated with it, which is exactly how Ï‰ is defined).(File:Ordinal ww.svg|thumb|right|256px|A graphical "matchstick" representation of the ordinal Ï‰Â². Each stick corresponds to an ordinal of the form Ï‰Â·

*m*+

*n*where

*m*and

*n*are natural numbers.)Perhaps a clearer intuition of ordinals can be formed by examining a first few of them: as mentioned above, they start with the natural numbers, 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, â€¦ After

*all*natural numbers comes the first infinite ordinal, Ï‰, and after that come Ï‰+1, Ï‰+2, Ï‰+3, and so on. (Exactly what addition means will be defined later on: just consider them as names.) After all of these come Ï‰Â·2 (which is Ï‰+Ï‰), Ï‰Â·2+1, Ï‰Â·2+2, and so on, then Ï‰Â·3, and then later on Ï‰Â·4. Now the set of ordinals formed in this way (the Ï‰Â·

*m*+

*n*, where

*m*and

*n*are natural numbers) must itself have an ordinal associated with it: and that is Ï‰2. Further on, there will be Ï‰3, then Ï‰4, and so on, and Ï‰Ï‰, then Ï‰Ï‰Ï‰, then later Ï‰Ï‰Ï‰Ï‰, and even later Îµ0 (epsilon nought) (to give a few examples of relatively smallâ€”countableâ€”ordinals). This can be continued indefinitely far ("indefinitely far" is exactly what ordinals are good at: every time one says "and so on" when enumerating ordinals, it defines a larger ordinal). The smallest uncountable ordinal is the set of all countable ordinals, expressed as Ï‰1.

## Definitions

### Well-ordered sets

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 infinite decreasing sequence, something perhaps easier to visualize. In practice, the importance of well-ordering is justified by the possibility of applying transfinite 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 (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 differ in the "labeling of their elements", or more formally: if the elements of the first set can be paired off with the elements of the second set such that if one element is smaller than another in the first set, then the partner of the first 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 justifiable 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 defined on the set

*S*, and a partial order

**- content above as imported from Wikipedia**

- "

- time: 1:27am EDT - Mon, Sep 23 2019

- "

__ordinal number__" does not exist on GetWiki (yet)- time: 1:27am EDT - Mon, Sep 23 2019

[ this remote article is provided by Wikipedia ]

LATEST EDITS [ see all ]

GETWIKI 09 JUL 2019

GETWIKI 09 MAY 2016

GETWIKI 18 OCT 2015

GETWIKI 20 AUG 2014

GETWIKI 19 AUG 2014

© 2019 M.R.M. PARROTT | ALL RIGHTS RESERVED