The Hartogs theorem says that for every set there is an ordinal that does not inject into . Indeed, the well-orderings of subsets of form a set, since each is a relation in . By replacement, their order types form a set of ordinals. Its supremum plus one cannot be the order type of a well-ordered subset of , and hence cannot inject into . The least such ordinal is the Hartogs ordinal .
Ordinal exponentiation is defined byfor nonzero limit . Fix and induct on . The zero case is immediate. If the identity holds at , thenAt a limit , continuity of exponentiation and right continuity of ordinal multiplication give
Put . The setis nonempty and bounded, so let . Continuity of multiplication in its right argument gives . There is a unique tail with . If , then
, contrary to maximality. Hence . If
with both remainders below and , thena contradiction. This proves existence and uniqueness in the division by an additively indecomposable ordinal.
, contrary to maximality. Hence . If
with both remainders below and , thena contradiction. This proves existence and uniqueness in the division by an additively indecomposable ordinal.
Now let be nonempty and well ordered. Its least element is not a limit point, so . Every derivative is itself a well-ordered subset. If were nonempty for every , then each differencewould be nonempty. Choosing its least member would inject into , since the nested successive differences are disjoint. This contradicts Hartogs' lemma. Thus some derivative is empty, as asserted by the derived-set iteration of a well-order.
For an ordinal , a point is a limit point exactly when it is a nonzero limit ordinal. Division by writes with ; this is a nonzero limit exactly when and . HenceWithin this derived set, is a limit point exactly when is a nonzero limit ordinal, equivalently for some . Therefore the derived sets of an ordinal satisfyFinally , so the index of is , while
and
, so the index of is .
and
, so the index of is .
Solved by gpt-5.6-sol high.
Codex Wiki