PRINCIPIA MATHEMATICA BY ALFRED NORTH WHITEHEAD AND BERTRAND RUSSELL VOLUME II SECOND EDITION CAMBRIDGE AT THE UNIVERSITY PRESS 1927Published by the Syndics of the Cambridge University Press Bentley House, 200 Euston Road, London NWI 2DB American Branch: 32 East 57th Street, New York, N.Y. 10022 ISBN: 0 521 06791 X set of 3 vols. First published 1913 Second edition 1927 Reprinted 1950, 1957, 1960, 1963, 1968, 1973 First printed in Great Britain at the University Press, Cambridge Reprinted in Great Britain by Kingprint Limited, Richmond, Surrey NOTE Whilst every effort has been made to reproduce this book to the highest standard, the poor quality of the previous reprint is unavoidably reflected in this impression.CONTENTS OF VOLUME II PAGE PREFATORY STATEMENT OF SYMBOLIC CONVENTIONS . . «vii PART III, CARDINAL ARITHMETIC fbuinmary. of Pare [IEicceecisceseud ene aecs tenet anes gene eaanaaaes 3 Szorion A. Durryrriow anp Loctcan PRorerties oF CARDINAL NUMBERS 4 *100. Definition and elementary properties of cardinal numbers. 5 18 #101. On 0 and 1 and 2 : : : +102. On cardinal numbers of assigned types : toe BB +103. Homogeneous cardinals . eee eee eee cere 3b *104, Ascendingcardinls = | eet *105. Descending cardinle =. eee +106. Cardinals of relational types. 6 se eek Sxorron B, Apprtioy, Mutiriication AND EXPoNENTIATION. . . . 63 +110. : 2 x11. ty peteeerearea iene aBe +112. The arithmetical sum of a class of classes =: 08 +113. On the arithmetical product of two classes or of two cardinals =) 101 +114, The arithmetical product of a class of classes. . > lig +115. Multiplicative classes and arithmetical classes =... s 130 ¥116. Exponentiation =. wee 8B #117. Greater and less Siseeaeeetieae gees caaaeeaasAGy: General note on cardinal correlators 5 |) ] S18) . Finire ann Ixernire - oo. 181 . Avithmetical substitution and wniforin formal yume er . Subtraction. os 194 . Inductive cardinals: : 200 . Intervals. : See eee aes Pivcressions Reflexive classes and cardinals. «5 5 Fw eee 270 The axiom of infinity See eee ees aBn . On typically indefinite inductive cardinals =.) S385 PART IV, RELATION-ARITHMETIC Summary. of PartilVeg geese eeeeee eee ee 298 Szorton A. OnpinaL Sumtarrty ap Renation-Numpers . . .. (295 150. Internal transformation of a relation i eeeeree ae eeseeeeseeeE OOD) #151. Ordinal similarity . a a0) #162. Definition and elementary properties of relation, numbers ff B20 +163. The relation-numbers 0,, 2, and oo. 884 +154. Relation-numbers of assigned pa cae eae EERE EL EEO #155. Homogeneous relation-numbers ease 5 si + 4 334Srctron B. 160, #lTT. Szorion D. *180. +181. lt +184. #185. #186, CONTENTS Apprtion oF RELATIONS, AND THE PRODUCT OF TWO RELATIONS ‘The sum of two relations. . Addition of a term to a relation Tho sum of the relations of a field . | Relations of mutually exclusive relations . Double likeness. : . Relations of relations of couples . ‘The product of two relations . Tux PRINCIPLE or First DIFFERENCES, AND THE MULTIPLICATION AND EXPONENTIATION OF RELATIONS . On the relation of fst differences among the eubsdasef a given | ‘The principle of first differences (continued) « ‘The product of the relations of a Held. ‘The product of the relations of a field (coutinued) - ‘The associative law of relational multiplication Exponentiation ee Propositions connecting Par with products and powers . Arrrpmetic or RELATION-NUMBERS ‘The sum of two relation-numbers On the addition of unity to a relation-number On separated relations | ‘The stm of the relation-numbers of a field ‘Phe product of two relation-numbers — . ‘The product of the relation-numbers of & field Powers of relation-mum! zi PART V. SERIES Summary of Part V Section A. #200. #201. ¥202. Guyenat THxony oF SuRIES . Relations contained in diversity ‘Transitive relations Connected relations. Elementary properties of series . Maximum’and minimum points . Sequent points Limits The correlation of series | Ow Srortows, Seomnnts, SraeroHEs, AND DERIVATIVES Ou series of clases generated by the relation of inclusion On sections and segments ‘The series of segments . Sectional relations . Dedekindian relations . Stretches. : 3. Derivatives - ” On segments of sums and converses 1. Ow Covancency, AND THE Lpitrs oF FUNCTIONS . . On convergents | Limiting sections and ultimate oscillation of a function « Ou: the oscillation of a function as the he argument approsches a given limit . On the limits of functions Continuity of functions . 724PREFATORY STATEMENT OF SYMBOLIC CONVENTIONS Tue purpose of the following observations is to bring togetlier in one discussion various explanations which are required in applying the theory of types to cardinal arithmetic. It is convenient to collect these observations, since otherwise their dispersion throughout the several numbers of Part III makes it difficult to see what is their total effect. But although we have placed these observations at the beginning, they are to be read concurrently with the text of Part III, at least with so much of the text as consists of explanations of definitions, ‘The earlier portion of what follows is merely a résumé of previous explanations; it is only in the later portions that the application to cardinal arithmetic is made. I. General Observations on Types. Three different kinds of typical ambiguity are involved in our propositions, concerning: (1) the functional hierarchy, (2) the propositional hierarchy, (3) the extensional hierarchy. The relevance of these must be separately considered. We often speak as though the type represented by small Latin letters were not composed of functions. It is, however, compatible with all we have to say that it should be composed of functions, It is to be observed, further, that, given the number of individuals, there is nothing in our axioms to show how many predicative functions of individuals there are, ie their number is not a function of the number of individuals: we only know that their number > 2°*™", where “Indiv” stands for the class of individuals. In practice, we proceed along the extensional hierarchy after the early numbers of the book. If we have started from individuals, the result of this is to exclude functions wholly from our hierarchy; if we have started with fanetions of a given type, all functions of other types are excluded. Thus a fresh extensional hierarchy, wholly excluding every other, starts from each type of function. When we speak simply of “the extensional hierarchy,” we mean the one which starts from individuals. It is to be observed that when we have the assertion of a propositional function, say “t. ga,” the @ must be of some definite type, ie. we only assert that a is true whatever # may be within some one type. Thus eg. “k.a= 2” does not assert more than that this assertion holds for any @ of a given type. It is true that symbolically the same assertion holds in other types, but otherviii PREFATORY STATEMENT types cannot be included under one assertion-sign, because no variable can travel beyond its type. ‘The process of rendering the types of variables ambiguous is begun in #8 and #9, where we take the first step in regard to the propositional hierarchy. Before #8 and *9, our variables are elementary propositions. ‘These are such as contain no apparent variables. Hence the only functions that occur are matrices, and these only occur through their values. ‘The assumption involved in the transition from Section A to Section B (Part I) is that, given “t. fp,” where p isan elementary proposition, we may substitute for p “o! (q, y, 2, ...),” where ¢ is any matrix. Thus instead of “+. fp,” which contained one variable p of a given type, we have “F. {$1 (w, y, 2, ...)},” which contains several variables of several types (any finite number of variables and types is possible). This assumption involves some rather difficult points. It is to be remembered that no value of ¢ contains ¢ as a constituent, and therefore ¢ is not a constituent of fp even if p is a value of g. Thus we pass, above, from an assertion containing no function as a constituent to one containing one or more functions as constituents. The assertion “t . fp” concerns any elemen- tary proposition, whereas “Ff {$!(a, y, z, ...)}” concerns any of a certain set of elementary propositions, namely any of those that are values of ¢. Different types of functions give different sorts of ways of picking out elementary propositions. Having assumed or proved “F. fp,” where p is elomentary and therefore involves no ambiguity of type, we thus assert FF (bey. 2h where the types of the arguments and the number of them are wholly arbitrary, except that they must belong to the functional hierarchy including individuals. (The assumption that propositions are incomplete symbols excludes the possibility that the arguments to ¢ are propositions.) The note- worthy point is that we thus obtain an assertion in which there may be any finite number of variables and the variables have unlimited typical ambiguity, from an assertion containing one variable of a perfectly definite type. All this is presupposed before we embark on the propositional hierarchy. It should be observed that all elementary propositions are values of predicative functions of one individual, ie. of $12, where @ is individual. Thus we need not assume that elementary propositions form a type; we may replace p by “ta” in “F. fp.” In this way, propositions as variables wholly disappear. In extending statements concerning elementary propositions so as formally to apply to first-order propositions, we have to assume afresh the primitive proposition #1‘11 (#1-1 is never used), ie. given “F. pe” and “b, $e dpa,” we have “t. ya,” which is practically #912, This was asserted in #111 for any case in which gw and we are elementary propositions. There wasPREFATORY STATEMENT ix here already an ambiguity of type, owing to the fact that # need not be an individual, but might be a function of any order. Hg. we might use #1-11 to pass from “bi gta” and “b.pladgtd” to“h. pth,” where ¢ replaces the # of x1‘11, and $!a, $1 replace #@ and ya. Thus 1°11, even before its extension in #9, already states a fresh primitive propo- sition for each fresh type of functions considered. The novelty in *9 is that we allow ¢ and ¥ to contain one apparent variable. This may be of any funetional type (including Indiv); thus we get another set of symbolically identical primitive propositions. In passing, as indicated at the end of #9, to more than one apparent variable, we introduce a new batch of primitive propositions with each additional apparent variable. Similar remarks apply to the other primitive propositions of x9. What makes the above process legitimate is that nothing in the treat- ment of functions of order n presupposes functions of higher order. We can deal with each new type of functions as it arises, without having to take account of the fact that there are later types. From symbolic analogy we “see” that the process can be repeated indefinitely. This possibility rests upon two things: (1) A fresh interpretation of our constants—v, ~, !, («)., (qa) —at each fresh stage; (2) A fresh assumption, symbolically unchanged, of the primitive propo- sitions which we found sufficient at an earlier stage—the possibility of avoiding symbolic change being due to the fresh interpretation of our constants. The above remarks apply to the axiom of reducibility as well as to our other primitive propositions. If, at any stage, we wish to deal with a class defined by a function of the 30,000th type, we shall have to repeat our arguments and assumptions 30,000 times. But there is still no necessity to speak of the hierarchy as a whole, or to suppose that statements can be made about “all types.” We come now to the extensional hierarchy. This starts from some one point in the functional hierarchy. We usually suppose it to start from individuals, but any other starting-point is equally legitimate. Whatever type of functions (including Indiv) we start from, all higher types of functions are excluded from the extensional hierarchy, and also all lower types (if any), Some complications arise here. Suppose we start from Indiv. Then if 12 is any predicative function of individuals, 2($!z)=$!2. But if we adopt the theory of #20, as opposed to that suggested in the Introduction to the second edition, identity between a function and a class does not have the usual properties of identity ; in fact, though every function is identical with some class, and vice versa, the number of functions is likely to bex PREFATORY STATEMENT ater than the number of classes. ‘This is due to the fact that we may have B(plz)= pt? 2 (plz) =y!2 without having y!2=y 12. In the extensional hierarchy, we prove the extension from classes to classes of classes, and so on, without fresh primitive propositions (*20, 421) The primitive propositions involved are those concerning the functional hierarchy. From all these various modes of extension we “see” that whatever can be proved for lower types, whether functional or extensional, can also be proved for higher types*. Hence we assume that it is unnecessary to know the types of our variables, though they must always be confined within some one definite type. Now although everything that can be proved for lower types can be proved for higher types, the converse does not hold. In Vol. I only two propositions oceur which can be proved for higher but not for lower types. ‘These are q!2 and q!2,. These can be proved for any type except that of individuals. It is to be observed that we do not state that whatever is true for lower types is true for higher types, but only that whatever can be proved for lower types can be proved for higher types. If, for example, Ne‘Indiv =», then this proposition is false for any higher type; but this proposition, Ne‘Indiv=y, ia one which carmot be proved logically; in fact, it is only ascertainable by a census, not by logic. Thus among the propositions which can be proved by logic, there are some which can only be proved for higher types, but none which can only be proved for lower types. The propositions which can be proved in some types but not in others all are or depend upon existence-theorems for cardinals. We can prove q!0, q!1, universally, 12, except for Indiv, 13, q!4, except for Indiv, Cl‘Indiv, Ri‘Indiv; and so on. Exaetly similar remarks would apply to the functional hierarchy. In both cases, the possibility of proving these propositions depends upon the axiom of reducibility and the definition of identity. Suppose there is only one individual, 2 Then 9=2, 9 +2 are two different functions, which, by the axiom of reducibility, are equivalent to two different predicative functions. Hence there are at least two predicative functions of «, and at least two classes t‘2, A,. This argument fails both for classes and functions if either we deny the axiom of reducibility or we suppose that there may be two different individuals which agree in all their predicates, é.e. that the definition of identity is misleading. The statement that what can be proved for lower types can be proved for higher typos requires certain limitations, or rather, a more exact formulation. * But ef. next page for a more exact statement of this principle.PREFATORY STATEMENT xi Taking Indiv as a primitive idea, put Kl=Cl'Indiv Df, KP=ClKl Df, ete. Then consider the proposition Ne‘Kl= A. We can prove Ne‘Kl a tIndiv =A.q! No‘Kl a Kl. gq! Ne‘Kl a ‘Kl. ete. Thus Ne‘K1=A can be proved in the lowest type in which it is significant, and disproved in any other. The difficulty, however, is avoided if Indiv is replaced by a variable a, and Kl by Cl‘fa, ‘Then we have Ne‘Clitfanta=A, and this holds whatever the type of a may be. Thus in order that our principle about lower and higher types may be true, it is necessary that any relation there may be between two types occurring in a proposition should be preserved; in other words, when one constant type is defined in terms of another (as KI and Indiv), the definition must be restored before the type is varied, so that when one type is varied, so is the other. With this proviso, our principle about higher and lower types holds, With the above proviso, the truth of our statement is manifest. For we have shown that the same primitive propositions, symbolically, which hold for the lowest type concerned in our reasoning, hold also for subsequent types; and therefore all our proofs can be repeated symbolically unchanged. The importance of this lies in the fact that, when we have proved a proposition for the lowest significant type, we “see” that it holds in any other assigned significant type. Hence every proposition which is proved without the mention of any type is to be regarded as proved for the lowest significant type, and extended by analogy to any other significant type. By exactly similar considerations we “see” that a proposition which ean be proved for some type other than the lowest significant type must hold for any type in the direct descent from this, E.g. suppose we can prove a propo- sition (such as @!2) for the type Kl (where Kl=Cl‘Indiv); then merely writing Cl'‘Indiv for Kl, we have a proposition which is proved concerning Indiv, namely q!20 ¢‘ClIndiv, and here, by what was said before, Indiv may be replaced by any higher type. ‘Thus given a typically ambiguous relation R, such that, if 7 is a type, Rér is a type (Cl or Rl is such a relation), we “see” that, if we can prove $(R‘Indiv), we can also prove @(R‘r), where 7 is any type, and ¢ is composed of typically ambiguous symbols, Similarly if we can prove ¢ (Indiv, RIndiv), we can prove (7, R'r), where 7 is any type. But we cannot in general prove ¢ (Indiv, R‘r) or $(r, RIndiv), and these may be in fact untrue, Eg. we have g 1 Ne (Kl)‘Indiv . oq 1 Ne (KI KR, Thus more generally, when a proposition containing several ambiguities can be proved for the types R‘Indiv, S‘Indiy, ..., but not for lower types, itxii PREFATORY STATEMENT is to be regarded as‘a function of Indiv, and then it becomes true for any type; that is, given : ¢ (R'Indiv, S‘Indiy, ...), we shall also have $ (Rr, Sr, +), where 7 is any type. In this way, all demonstrable propositions are in the first instance about Indiv, and when so expressed remain true if any other type is substituted for Indiv. When a proposition containing typically ambiguous symbols can be proved to be true in the lowest significant type, and we can “see” that symbolically the same proof holds in any other assigried type, we say that the proposition has “permanent truth.” (We may also say, loosely, that it is “true in all types.”) When a proposition containing typically ambiguous symbols can be proved to be false in the lowest significant type, and we can “see” that it is false in any other assigned type, we say that it has “permanent falsehood.” Any other proposition containing typically ambiguous symbols is said to be “fluctuating,” or to have “fluctuating truth-value,” as opposed to “permanent truth-value,” which belongs to propositions that have either permanent truth or permanent falsehood. In what follows, ambiguities concerned with the propositional hierarchy will be ignored, since they never lead to fluctuating propositions. Thus dis- junction and negation and their derivatives will not receive explicit typical determination, but only such typical determination as results from assigning the types of the other typically ambiguous symbols involved. It is convenient to call the symbolic form of a propositional function simply a “symbolic form.” Thus, if a symbolic form contains symbols of ambiguous type it represents different propositional functions according as the types of its ambiguous symbols are differently adjusted, The adjustment is of course always limited by the necessity for the preservation of meaning. It is evident that the ideas of “permanent truth-value” and “fluctuating truth- value” apply in reality to symbolic forms and not to propositions or propo- sitional functions. Ambiguity of type can only exist in the process of determination of meaning. When the meaning has been assigned to a symbolic form and a propositional function thereby obtained, all ambiguity of type has vanished. ‘To “assert a symbolic form” is to assert each of the propositional functions arising for the set of possible typical determinations which are somewhere enumerated. We have in fact enumerated a — limited number of types starting from that of individuals, and we “sce” that this process can be indefinitely continued by analogy. The form is always asserted so far as the enumeration has arrived; and this is sufficient for all purposes, since it is essentially impossible to use a type which has not been arrived at by succes- sive enumeration from the lower types.PREFATORY STATEMENT xiii The only difficulties which arise in Cardinal Arithmetic in connection with the ambiguities of type of the symbols are those which enter through the use of the symbol sm, or of the symbol No, which is am, For it may happen that a class in one type has no class similar to it in some lower type (cf. #1027273), All fallacious reasoning in cardinal or ordinal arithmetic in connection with types, apart from that due to the mere absence of meaning in symbols, is due to this fact—in other words to the fact that in some types a!Ne‘a is true, and in other types q!Ne‘a may not be true. The fallacy consists in neglecting this latter possibility of the failure of q!Ne‘a for a limited number of types, that is, in taking the “fluctuating” form g!Ne‘a as though it possessed a “permanent” truth-value, A fluctuating form however often possesses what is here termed a “stable” truth-value, which is as important as the permanent truth-value of other forms. For example, anticipating our definitions of elementary arithmetic, consider 2+,3=5. There is no abstract logical proof that there are two individuals; so suppose 2 and 3 refer to classes of individuals, but 5 refers to classes of a high enough type, then with these determinations 2+,8=5 cannot be proved. But 2+,3=5 has a stable truth-value, since it can always be proved when all the types are high enough. In this case the fact that our empirical census of individuals (at least of the “relative” individuals of ordinary life) has outrun the capacity of logical proof, makes the fluctuation in the truth-value of the form to be entirely unimportant. In order to make this idea precise, it is necessary to have a convention as to the order in which the types of symbols in a symbolic form are assigned. The rule we adopt is that the types of the real variables are to be first assigned, and then those of the constant symbols. ‘The types of the apparent variables, if any, will then be completely determinate. A symbolic form has a stable truth-value if, after any assignment of types to the real variables, types can be assigned to the constant symbols so that the truth-value of the proposition thus obtained is the same as the truth-value of any proposition obtained by modifying it by the assignment of higher types to some or all of the constant symbols. This truth-value is the stable truth~ value, IL. Formal Numbers, The conventions, which we shall give below as to the assignment of types, practically restrict our interpretation of fuctuating symbolic forms to types in which the forms possess their stable truth-value. The assumption that these truth-values are stable never enters into the reasoning. But we judge a truth-value to be stable when any method of raising the types of the constant symbols by one step leaves it unaltered. In practice the fluctuation of truth-values only enters into our considera- tion through a limited number of symbols called “formal numbers,”xiv PREFATORY STATEMENT Formal numbers may be “constant” or “functional.” A constant formal number is any constant symbol for which there is a constant @ such that, in whatever type the constant symbol is determined, it is, in that type, identical with Ne‘a In other words if « be a constant symbol, then o is # formal number provided that “truth” is the permanent truth-value of o = Ne‘a, for some constant 4. The fusctional formal numbers are defined by enumeration; they are Nefa, Nee, TINete, sm“p, pte, wor MX, BY where in each formal number the symbols a, «, u, » occurring in it are called the arguments of the fanctional form even when they are complex symbols. The argument of Ne‘(a+ 8) is a+ 8, and those of p+,(v +_@) are w and v +93, and those of 1 +,2 are 1 and 2. Thus among the constant formal numbers are 0, 1, 2, vy No, Le 2 2x,Nos 2% The references which support this statement are 1 01-11-21°32 . 4123-36 . #11042. 113-23. «116-23. Among the functional formal numbers are Ne(a+), Bte(vtet), (wter) Xe, (Ut—r)” It will be observed that eg. 1+,2 is both a constant and a functional formal number, so that the two classes are not mutually exclusive. In fact they possess an indefinite number of members in common. All the formal numbers, with the exception of sma and p—,», are members of NC without any hypothesis [cf. *100°41:01°52 . #110°42 . #112101 . ¥113°23 . #1141 .«116°23, note to #119712, and *120°411]. A functional formal number consists of two parts, namely, its argument or arguments, and the constant “form.” An argument of a functional formal number may be a complex symbol, and may be constant or variable. Thus »+,v is an argument of (u+,v) +p, and of (u+,v) x, and of (u+ev¥; also 2+,3is an argument of (2 +, 3) x_1. ‘The constant form is constituted by the other symbols which are constants. Two occurrences of functional formal numbers are only ocvurrences of the same formal number if the arguments and also the constant forms are identical in symbolism. Thus two occurrences of Ne‘a are occurrences of the same formal nutnber, even if they are determined to be in different types; but Ne‘a and No‘ are different formal numbers. Also y and yx, 1 are different formal numbers because their “forms” are different, though the arzuments p and 1 are the same and (in the same type) the entity denoted is the same. Thus the distinction between formal numbers depends on the symbolism and not on the entity denoted, and in considering them it is symbolic analogy and not denotation which is to be taken into account. For example two differentPREPATORY STATEMENT a occurrences of the same formal number will not denote the same entity, if in the two occurrences the ambiguity of type is determined differently. The functional formal numbers are divided into three sets: (i) the primary set consisting of the forms Ne‘a, 2 Ne‘e, I Ne‘s, (ii) the argumental set consisting only of smp, (iii) the arithmetical set consisting of w+, v, B Xe», pY, and p—,v. A functional formal number has at most two arguments, But an argument of a functional formal number may itself be a functional formal number, and will accordingly possess either one or two arguments, which in their tum may be functional formal numbers, and so on, The whole set of arguments and of arguments of arguments, thus obtained, is called the set of components of the original formal number. Thus yz, v,p and +, are components of (4+, ) +5 p; and y, v and sm“ are components of v +,sm‘z; and w, a and Ne“a are com- ponents of 4 +,Ne‘a. The two arguments of (u +.) +,p are uw +_v and p, and those of » +,sm*‘u are v and sm“, and those of y+, Ne‘a are » and Ne‘a. Addition, multiplication, exponentiation, and subtraction will be called the arithmetical operations; and in p+,» “Xo, m”, #—o¥, w and » will each be said to be subjected to these respective operations. The arithmetical components of an arithmetical formal number (i.e. one belonging to the arithmetical set) consist of those of its components which do not appear in the capacity of components of a component which does not belong to the arithmetical set. Thus 4, », p, 4+,» are arithmetical components of (u+,v) +63 and » and sm“ are arithmetical components of vy +,smy, but ~ is not one; and y and Ne‘a are arithmetical components of y+, Ne‘a, but @ is not one} and » and sm‘(v +, p) are arithmetical components of p+,sm(»+,p), but »+,p and v and p are components of sm‘(v +,p) and are therefore not arith- metical components of u +,sm‘(v +,p). Only arithmetical formal numbers possess arithmetical components. A formal number of the arithmetical set having no components which are formal numbers of the argumental set is called a pure arithmetical formal number. For example » +,(” +, p)and y+, Ne‘a are pure, but » +,8m“(v +,p) and y+,smNo‘a are not pure. ‘There are many types involved in the consideration of a formal number. For example, in No‘a there is the type of Ne‘a and of a; in w +ay there is the type of w+», the type of u, and the type of v:; and sv on for more complex formal numbers. The type of a formal number as a whole in any occurrence is called its actual type. ‘This is the type of the entity which it then repre- sents, The other types involved in a formal number in any occurrence are called its subordinate types. The actual types are not indicated in the symbolism for the various formal numbers as stated above. They can be indicated relatively to the type of thexvi PREFATORY STATEMENT variable & by writing Ne (£)'a, smgy, (utev)e, (u Xar)e, (ure, (W —e¥)s, by the notation of #65, Even when the actual type of a complex formal number, such as fe +o(v-+_@), is settled—so for instance that we have {u+,(v +.%)};—the meaning of the symbol is not completely determined, for the type of v+,a remains ambiguous. It follows, however, from #100511 . «110-23 . #113-26 . *119°61-62, that the subordinate types make no difference to the value of a formal number, so long as the components are not null. We can therefore make a formal number definite as soon as its actual type is definite by securing that its components are not null. This is done by the convention ITT (below) combined with the definitions 4110-03-04 . #113-04-05 . #116-03-04. When the subordinate types are adjusted in accordance with these definitions and conventions, they will be said to be normally adjusted. But in order to state this convention IIT we require a definition of what is here called the adequacy of the actual type of a formal number. ‘The general idea of adequacy is simple enough, namely that, given the subordinate types of a, the actual type of o should be high enough to enable us logically to prove q!o when such a proof is possible for types which are not too low. For example, all types except the lowest for which it has meaning are adequate for the constant formal number 2. It is rather difficult however to state the meaning of adequacy with precision in a manner adapted to all formal numbers, Fortunately the definition of the lowest type which corresponds to this general idea of adequacy is not important for our purposes. It will be sufficient to define as adequate some types which certainly do have the property in question. The method of definition which we adopt is to replace the formal number o by another one o’ so related to o that with the same actual type for both we can prove q!o’.>.q!a, whenever a is not equal to A in all types. If o be functional, we need only consider its argument, or its two arguments, and can dismiss from consideration the other components; then we replace these arguments by others so that the o” has the required property. Thus: G) The actual types of Nea, ZNe‘e, IINe‘e, and sm‘y are adequate when we can logically prove GI Netfa, qi TNetie, qi UINet«, and gy lsm“h\p; Gi) The actual types of +9» 1a # Xqv, and p” are adequate when we can logically prove : GIN cp tN, Gi Nett«u—0n tir, IN chy XoNocthty, and qi Nyctt, pret, It will be noticed that aa, fo‘x, and fy are the greatest classes of the same type as a,x, and respectively, and that Nyc‘t‘y and N,c‘t,“v are the greatestPREFATORY STATEMENT xvii cardinal numbers of the same type as p and v respectively. These definitions hold even when any of a, «, 4, » are complex symbols, ‘The remaining formal numbers which are not functional must certainly be constant. The difficulty which arises here is that if « be such a formal number and &, occurs in its symbolism, we have no logical method of deciding as to the truth or falsehood of !X, in any type. But we replace 8, by Ne‘, which is the greatest existent cardinal-of the same type as N, in that occur- rence, Thus: (iii) If ¢ be a formal number which is not functional, an adequate actual type of @ is one for which we can logically prove g!’, where a’ is derived from o by replacing any occurrence of &, in « by N,c‘t,",. Accordingly if &y does not occur in , an adequate type is any actual type for which we can logically prove q!o. In the case of members of the primary and argumental groups we have substituted the V of the appropriate type in the place of each variable, When the actual type is adequate we have (a). INeta, (ce). q!ENo‘e, (x) GTINote, (u).qtemp. In the case of members of the arithmetical group (except in the case of ov), we have substituted for each argument the largest cardinal number which can be obtained in the type of that argument, namely the Ne‘V for the V of the appropriate type. Accordingly we are sure (except in the case of cv) that for all other values of the arguments which are existent cardinal numbers the formal number is not null. It will be noticed that normal adjustment only concerns the subordinate types. For example *110-03 secures that in Ne‘a +, the actual type of Ne‘a is adequate, and *110-23 shows that any adequate actual type of Ne‘a will do. But nothing is said about the actual type of Ne‘a+, 4. We make the following definition: When the subordinate types of a formal number are nornzally adjusted, and the actual type is adéquate, the types of the formal number are said to be arithmetically adjusted. We notice that for the primary set, the arithmetical adjustment of types means the same thing as the adequate adjustment of the actual type. Also if the arguments of a formal number of the arithmetical set are simple symbols, the two ideas come to the same thing. In the case of variable formal numbers of the primary set, it follows from 117-2282 that when their types are arithmetically adjusted they are not equal to A for any values of their variables. Also in the case of those variable formal numbers which are of the pure arithmetical set (excluding jg») it follows from #100°452-42 #119-23.4116:23 that, working from the ultimate components reached by successive analysis upwards, for all values of such ultimate components which are members ews axviii PREFATORY STATEMENT of NC—«‘A they can be reduced to the case of the formal numbers of the primary group; and that therefore they are not equal to A when their types are arithmetically adjusted. For example in +, {¥+e(p +o)}s Hs ¥s Ps o are these ultimate components; Ict them be existent cardinal numbers, Hence when the types are arithmetically adjusted, the actual type of p+ o is adequate and p+, is an existent cardinal; we can therefore substitute Nye‘a for it, By the same reasoning we can substitute N,o‘f for v +, N,o‘a, and again Nyety for w+. Nuc’B ‘A definite standard arithmetical adjustment of types for any formal number can always be found by making every use of sm, whether explicit or concealed jn Ne or in some other symbol, to be homogeneous. Proofs which apply to any arithmetical adjustment of types start by dealing with this standard type, and then by the use of *104'21 . *106-21-211-212-213 the extension is made to the adjacent higher classical and relational types. We then “see” that by the analogy of symbolism this extension can always be formally proved at each stage, so that we are dealing with the stable truth-value. For some constant formal numbers a lower existential type can be found than that indicated by this method. IIL. Classification of Occurrences of Formal Numbers. A symbolic form of any of the kinds [ef. 117-01-04°05-06] b> wy wey Wey is called an arithmetical inequality. These forms only arise when we are comparing cardinal numbers in respect to the relation of being “greater than” or “Jess than.” It might seem natural to include equations among these arithmetical inequalities. Their use however, even as between cardinal numbers, is not so exclusively arithmetical, and it is convenient to consider them separately under another heading during our preliminary investigations. In the arithmetical inequalities as above written, 4 and », or any symbols replacing 4 and », are called the opposed sides of the inequality, and either of por v is called a side of the inequality. Symbolic forms of the kinds o = « and o +x, where either o or « is a formal number, will be called equations and inequations respectively; and ¢ and « are called the opposed sides of the equation or inequation, and either of them is simply a side of the equation or inequation. When we reach the exclusively arithmetical point of view, it will be con- venient to put together equations, inequations and arithmetical inequalities as one sort of symbolic form. Their separation here is for the sake of investi- gations into the exceptions due to the failure of existence theorems in low types. It is unnecessary to consider arithmetical inequalities in this connection.PREFATORY STATEMENT xix ‘The ways in which a symbol o can occur in @ symbolic form are named as follows: The occurrence of « in smo is called an argumental occurrence, The occurrence of ¢ as an argument of an arithmetical formal number (which may be a component of another formal number) or as one side of an arithmetical inequality is called an arithmetical occurrence, The occurrence of o as one side of an equation is called an equational occurrence, The occurrence of ¢ in “Feo” is called an attributive occurrence, Any other occurrence of ¢ is calied a logical occurrence, so also is ¢ = A. It is obvious that a pair of opposed sides of an equation or inequation must be of the same type. Furthermore, if c be a formal number, and *20:18 is applied so as to give bho=e.dsf(c).=-f(e), the equational occurrence of « must be of the same type as its occurrence in f(a), otherwise the inference is fallacious. Accordingly substitution in arithmetical formulae can only be undertaken when the conventions as to the relations of ambiguous types secure this identity. This question is considered later in this prefatory statement, and the result appears in the text as *118-01. At this point some examples will be useful; they will also be referred to subsequently in connection with the conventions limiting ambiguities of type. ¥10035. Fi. q!Ne‘a.v.q!Ne Bid: Ne‘a=Ne'8.=.aeNci8.=.BeNe‘a.=.asmB Here the formal numbers are Ne‘a and Ne‘8, each of which has three occurrences. The first occurrence of Ne‘a is logical, its second is equational, and its third is attributive. 100-42 {in the demonstration). FiyveNC.g!nav.>.(qa,8)-p=Nefa.v=Neg. Nea=NeB Here Ne‘a and Ne‘ are the only formal numbers, and all their occurrences are equational. #100'44 (in the demonstration). bipeNC. qt Ne‘a.aepn.>.(q8).~=Ne'B. No‘a=Ne'B Here Ne‘a and Ne‘ are the only formal numbers; the first occurrence of No‘a is logical, its second is equational; both the occurrences of Ne‘@ are equational. #100511. F: gq! NcB.D.sm“Netg = NetB Here the formal numbers are Ne‘f and sm‘‘Ne‘f. The first occurrence of Ne is logical, the second is argumental, the third is equational; the only oceurrence of sm‘‘Ne‘@ is equational. be=x PREFATORY STATEMENT 100521. FrweNC.g tsmp.>. sms“ y= ye Here sm‘‘y and sm“sm‘y are the only formal numbers; sm“p has two occurrences, the first logical, the second argumental; sm‘‘sm‘y has one occur- rence, which is equational. ¥101-28 (in the demonstration). biyesm1.=.(qa).ael.ysma Here the formal numbers are 1 and sm‘1. ‘The first occurrence of 1 is argumental, the second is attributive; the occurrence of sm*1 is attributive. #10188. big !2.3.sCl"2=0uLu2 Here the formal numbers are 0, 1, and 2, and their occurrences are all logical. #11054. +. (Ne‘a+, Ne‘B) +, No“y =Ne‘(a+B +1) Here the formal numbers are Ne‘a, Ne‘, No‘y, No(a+8+y), Nea+,Ne'B, (Ne‘a+,No‘B) +, No‘y. The occurrence of Ne‘(a +8 +7) and that of (Ne‘a +, Ne‘) +, Ney are both equational, and they must be of the same type since they are opposed sides of the same equation. The occurrences of the other formal numbers are as arithmetical components of a more complex arithmetical formal number and are therefore arithmetical. #11663, bX a (rye ‘The formal numbers are v x, u’, w’%+, and (u’)®, Each formal number occurs once only. The occurrences of » x, and p? are arithmetical, and those of the other two are equational. #117108, + :. Noa > Ne‘@.=:Ne‘a> Ne'g.v.Ne‘a=Net@ The formal numbers are Ne‘a and Ne‘, each with three occurrences, The first two occurrences of each formal number are arithmetical, the last occurrence of each is equational. ¥120°53 (in the demonstration). biRaytd.G!8. Dd. =a xa Here the formal numbers are y +, 9, 0°, a’, a!,a” x,a!, Each formal number has one occurrence. Those of y +,8,a# and a” x,a? are equational, and those of ay and a? are arithmetical. ¥120'53 (in the demonstration). Fiat=ar. Bayt d.q!ae.d.a% ay x,ae Here the formal numbers are a, aY, a, aY x, a, y+,8, The first occurrence of af is equational, its second occurrence is logical; the first two occurrences of a are equational, its third occurrence is arithmetical; the only occurrence of a? is arithmetical; the only occurrences of a x, a° and of y +,8 are equational.PREFATORY STATEMENT xxi IV. The Conventions IT and IT. Two occurrences of a formal number with the same actual type are said to be bound to each other. The choice of types for formal numbers, when they are not made definite in terms of variables by the notation of *63, is limited by the following con- ventions, which enable us to dispense largely with the elaboration produced by the definition of types. IT. AU logical occurrences of the same formal number are in the same type; argumental occurrences are bound to logical and attributive occurrences ; and, of there are no urgumental occurrences, equational occurrences are bound to logical occurrences. This rule only applies, so far as meaning permits, to those types which remain ambiguous after the assignment of types to the real variables. It will be noticed that if there are no argumental or logical occurrences of a formal number, IT does not in any way apply to the assignment of types to the occurrences in the form of that formal number. The identification of types in argumental and attributive occurrences by I'T is rendered necessary to secure the use of the equivalence «(Ga@).aec.ysma, where ¢ is a formal number. Without the convention, this application of #37°1 would be fallacious. The only one of our examples to which this part of the convention applies is #101-28 (demonstration), where it secures that the two oceurrences of 1 are in the same type. It is relevant however to the symbolism in the demonstration of *100°521. It will be found in practice that this convention relates the types of occurrences in the same way as would naturally be done by anyone who was not thinking of the convention at all, To see how the convention works, we will run through the examples which have already been given above. yesmo In *100°35, IT directs the logical and equational occurrences of Ne‘a to be in the same type, and similarly for Ne‘g. Also “meaning” secures that the equational types of Ne‘a and Ne‘ are the same. Thus these four occurrences are all in one type, which has no necessary relation to the types of the attri- butive occurrences of Ne‘a and Ne‘8. Thus, using the notation of *65:04 to secure typical definiteness, #10035 is to mean big Ne (Ea.v.gq!Ne (£812: Ne (£)'a=Ne(£)'(8.=.aeNe(a)(8.=.8¢Ne(A)'a.=.asmB. The types of these attributive occurrences are settled by the necessity of “meaning.” In *100'42 (demonstration), since all the occurrences of formal numbers are equational, IT produces no limitation of types.xxii PREFATORY STATEMENT In 100-44 (demonstration), I'T secures that the two occurrences of Nefa are in the same type. Also we notice that the first occurrence of No‘ is really (cf. #6504) Ne (a)‘, since “ae” occurs, and thus “meaning” requires this relation of types, and the second occurrence of Ne‘g is in the type of the occurrences of No‘a. In *100511, IT directs that the logical and argumental occurrences are to have the same type. In *100°521, IT directs that the two occurrences of sm“p are to have the same type. In #101°28 both occurrences of 1 are to be in the same type. In *101°38, IT directs that all the occurrences of 2 are to have the same type. The convention IT in no way limits the types in *110°54, nor in «11663, nor in #117°108, In the first example from #120'58 (in the demonstration) convention IT has no application, In the second example from #120'58 (in the demonstration) convention IT directs that the two occurrences of a? shall be in the same type; and the necessity of “meaning” secures that the first occurrence of a” shall also be in this type. ‘The same necessity secures that y +, 5 shalll be in the same type as B; and it also secures that in “aY =a x,a°” the first occurrence of a? and that of a? xqa° shall have a common type, which is otherwise unfettered ; also nothing has been decided as to the types of a¥ and a? in a’ x, a°, We now come to conventions embodying the outcome of arithmetical ideas, The term “arithmetical” is here used to denote investigations in which the interest lies in the comparison of formal numbers in respect to equality or inequality, excluding the exceptional cases—whenever the cases are exceptional—due to the failure of existence in low types. The thorough- going arithmetical point of view, which we adopt later in the investigation on Ratio and Quantity and also in this volume in #117 and #126 and some earlier propositions, would sweep aside as uninteresting all investigation of the exact ways in which the failure of existence theorems is relevant to the truth of propositions, thus concentrating attention exclusively on stable truth- values. But the logical investigation has its own intrinsic interest among the principles of the subject. It is obvious however that it should be restrained to a consideration of the theorems of purely logical interest. In Practice this extrusion of uninteresting cases of the failure of arithmetical theorems, even amid the logical investigations of the first part of this volume, is effected by securing that all arithmetical occurrences of formal numbers have their actual types adequate. As far as formal numbers of the primary group, ie. Ne‘a, ENe‘«, IINe‘«, are concerned, the arithmetical adjustment of types is secured formally in the symbolism by the definitions *110-03-04 for addition, and *113:04-05 forPREFATORY STATRMENT xxiii multiplication, and #11608:04 for exponentiation, and *117-02-03 for arith- metical inequalities, and #119-02-03 for subtraction. We save the symbolic elaboration which would arise from the extension of similar definitions to other formal numbers by the following convention: TIT. Whenever a formal number o occurs, so that, if it were replaced by Ne‘a, the actual type of Ne“a would by definition have to be adequate, then the actual type of is also to be adequate. For example in #+,(v +, 2), if v+,@ were replaced by Ne“a, then by #110°04 the actual type of Ne‘a is adequate. Hence by IIT the actual type of v+,@ is to be adequate: accordingly so long as » and @ are simple variables and members of NC —¢‘A, we can always assume @ !(v +, @) for the type of the occurrence of y+, @ in w+,.(v +, 0). It is essential to notice that so long as the argument of an argumental formal number, or the arguments of an arithmetical formal number, are adjusted arithmetically, the exact types chosen make no difference. This follows for argumental formal numbers from #*102°862'87'88, for addition from *110'25, for multiplication from #113-26, for exponentiation from #11626, for subtraction from #119°61°62. Thus (remembering also #100°511) in any definite type a formal number has one definite meaning provided that any subordinate formal number which occurs in its symbolism is determined existentially. The convention IIT directs us always to take this definite meaning for any pure arithmetical formal number. The convention does not determine completely the meaning of an arith- metical formal number which is not pure. For example, p+,(v+ep) is a pure arithmetical formal number when y, », p are determined in type; and convention IIT direets that the type of (v-+,) is to be adequate. But p+_sm(v+,p) is an arithmetical formal number which is not pure, and convention IIT directs that the type of the domain of sm is to be adequate, but does not affect the type of v+,p. Thus it is easy to see that IIT secures the adequacy of the actual types of all arithmetical components of any arithmetical formal numbers which occur, but does not affect the actual type of a formal number which occurs as the argument of an argumental formal number. But in this case convention IT will bind the actual type of this occurrence of the argument to any logical or attributive occurrence of the saine formal number. For example, if q!v+_p and wy +,sm(v +, p) occur in the same form, then these two occurrences of » +,p must have the same actual type. In practice argumental formal numbers are useful as com- ponents of arithmetical formal numbers for the very purpose of avoiding the automatic adjustment of types directed by IIT. The meaning of ITT is best explained by examples, Among our previous examples we need only consider those in which arithmetical formal numbers occur.xxiv PREFATORY STATEMENT In ¥110°54 the convention or definitions direct us to determine the types of Ne‘a and Ne‘ adequately when forming Ne‘a +, Ne‘, also to determine Ne‘a+,Ne‘B and Ne‘y adequately when forming (Ne‘a +, Ne‘) +, Ne‘y. The convention does not apply to the types of (Ne‘a +, Ne‘8) +, Ne‘y and Ne‘(a+8+y). These types must be identical in order to secure meaning. In #11663 the convention directs us to adjust the types of v x,@ and pY adequately; it does not affect the types of 2”*** and (u")®, which must be identical to secure meaning, If we replace , », @ by formal numbers, by 2, No, and 1 for example, we get “fF . 28%«!=(2*).” The convention now directs that 1 is to be determined adequately. It so happens that any type is adequate for it, since q@!1 can be proved in any type. Then adequate types for Ny x, 1 and 2% are types for which we can prove 1 (Nyet‘Ny) Xe 1 and y!2Ne'%, ‘Thus if 7 is the type of &, in both cases, an adequate type for & x, 1 is 7, and for 2% is Cl‘r, In *117°108 we find arithmetical occurrences in arithmetical inequalities. Thus IIT directs us to take the first two occurrences of Ne‘a and the first two of No‘ with adequate actual types. The type of No‘a and Ne‘@ in Ne‘a=Ne‘f is not affected by it. It is evident that the conventions IT, IIT are not sufficient to secure the truth of this proposition as thus symbolized. It is essential that in the equation the type be adjusted adequately for both formal numbers. In fact the general arithmetical convention, that types of equational as well as of arithmetical occurrences are adjusted arithmetically, is here used. V. Some Important Principles. Principle of Arithmetical Substitution. In #120°53, the application of IIT needs a consideration of the whole question of arithmetical substitution. Consider the first of the two examples, We have FrB=y4,d.q18.d.a =a xear, It is obvious that unless we can pass with practical immediateness from “Bay t.d.a =08” to “at = ars” by #2018, arithmetic is made practically impossible by the theory of types, But a difficulty arises from the application of IIT. Suppose we assign the types of our real variables first. Then the types of a, 8, 7, 8 can be arbitrarily assigned, and there is no necessary connection between them which arises from the preservation of meaning. Thus 8 may be in a type which is not an adequate type for y+,5. Assume that this is the case, But the equational use of y+, 8 is in the same type as 8, and by IIT the arithmetical use of y+,8 in a+ is in an adequate type. Thus, on the face of it, the reasoning, appealing to «20°18, by which the substitution was justified, is fallacious; for the two occurrences of yt.8 in fact mean different things. Tn order to generalize our solution of this difficulty it is convenient to define the term “arithmetical equation.” An arithmetical equation is anPREFATORY STATEMENT XxV equation between purely arithmetical formal numbers whose actual types are both determined adequately. Then it is evident that from “o=7.f(r),” where o and 7 are formal numbers and 7 occurs arithmetically in f(r), we cannot infer f(¢) unless the equation o = is arithmetical. For otherwise the r in the equation cannot be identified with the 7 in f(r). When we have “@=7./(r),” where 7 is a formal number and @ is a number in a definite type, and wish to pass to “f(8),” or “B=. f(@)” and wish to pass to “f(r),” the occurrence of 7 in f(r) being arithmetical, the type of 8 may not be an adequate type for r. Accordingly the rin “@=7” cannot be identified with the + in f(r). The type of the 7 in the equation ought to be freed from dependence on that of 8. Accordingly the transition is only legitimate when we can write instead “B+ 0=7.f(t)” or “B+.0=7-f(8),” where in both cases the equation is arithmetical. For now all the symbols are subject to the same rules, If this modification can be made without altering the truth-value of the asserted propositions, the substitution is legitimate, otherwise it is not, It is obvious that in the above our immediate passage is to or from f(B+,0). But it is easy to see that, the occurrence of 8+,0 being arith- metical, we always have FB). = -F(B +00). In order to prove this, we have only to prove a+e(8 +.0)=ate8, aX_(B +,0)= 4x8, (a+, 0% =a, tO maf, and a>B+.0.5-.a>8.=.44+,0>8. The demonstration of the first of these propositions runs as follows: f.41104. Dh: @~ eNC.v.8=A:).B8+,0=A.at+B=A- [110-4] D.at,(B+,0)=A=a+-8 (1) F.aI104. Dba eNO.via=ArD.a+¢(8+50)=A=a+e8 (2) 41106. DF: 4, BeNC—UA.D.0+46(8 4.0) =a +-sm"B =a4+.8 (3) F.C). (2)-@)- DF tate(B +00) at 8 In the above demonstration the step to (8) is legitimate since by the hypothesis @ is a determination of sm‘g in an adequate type. Similar proofs hold for the other propositions, using #118'204 and #116204 and #11712 and *103:13. We must also consider the circumstances under which we can pass from “B=” to“B-+,0=7,” where the latter equation is arithmetical. In otherxvi PREFATORY STATEMENT words, using *65°01 we require the hypothesis necessary for Git, B=y.2-B+.0=%. We have f.#2018. Dh:B=%.3. 84.077 +.0 (1) b. #11085. Db rg tree! ty: Dee +e0= Ty +00 (2) b.(1).(2)- Dba gt rp ity Dt Bare D-B+.0=7, +50 (8) F. (3). DAGIP.min-ItB=7-D-B4,0=7, +0 (4) Now in (4) the occurrences of 6 +,0 and 7,+.0, which are in the same type, may be chosen to be in any type we like. Hence we deduce F.(4) #1106. DF: GIB. g!r,.D18=77.3.(B 4,0) =smeT, « [100511] 2-(B+.0)= 79 Hence q! is the requisite condition, Now since £ can be in any type, we can also choose it in any existential type for 7. Thus with IIT applying to the arithmetical occurrence of + in f(r), we have, where 7 is a formal number and f is a number in a definite type, (7) +2 F(8), -F(B)-2-F(7), bigto.c=r.f(r).2.f(o). In the last proposition by IT the equation o =7 is arithmetical These equations are summed up in *118:01. These three fundamental theorems embody the principle of arithmetical substitution, The hypothesis q!( is really less than is assumed in ordinary life, the usual tacit assumption being @e NC-t‘A. In fact unless Be NC, B= is necessarily false. Principle of Identification of Types. Suppose we have proved “br Hp.>.go” and “Fi g(o).>.p,” where o is a formal number whose occurrence in “F: Hp.D.do” is in an entirely ambiguous type, and o; is the same formal number o with its type related to that of & by *65-01. Then since the type of the ¢ in“: Hp.>.¢e” is ambiguous, we can write “bs Hp.>.@(o,),” and thence infer “Fp.” The principle is: An entirely undetermined type in an asserted symbolic form can be identified with any type ambiguous or otherwise in any other asserted symbolic form or in the same symbolic form. For example in 100-42 (demonstration) considered above, since ! pa» occurs, the first occurrences of Ne‘a and Ne‘ are of the same type, and so are their second occurrences in No‘a=No‘8. But the two types are not deter- mined by our conventions to have any necessary connection, In fact the type in Ne‘a = No'B is entirely arbitrary. Accordingly it can be identified with the other type, and thus the inference to the next line, viz. to “F: Hp..p=y,” is justified,PREFATORY STATEMENT xxvii In the case of arithmetical equations, it is important to notice that we have fF. #100°321'33. DF s.q 1 Ne (£)'a. D: Ne(£)‘a=Ne(£)'B.D. Nefa =Ne‘g. Hence if o and 7 are formal numbers, Figlop. Diqgen.D.cat Thus if we have “t:Hp.q!o.2.o=7” and “hi Hp'.o,=7,.D.p,” we can infer from the former proposition “Ft: Hp.q!o.3.o,=7,,” and from this and the latter proposition, we infer “F: Hp’. Hp.q!o-D.p,” s0 the general principle of identification can be employed when the $(c) in the frat proposition is an arithmetical equation. For example, in an example given above, #10044 (demonstration), viz. biweNC.m!Nea.aeu.>.(qA).p=Ne'B, Nefa=NekB, the equation Ne‘a= No‘ is arithmetical. Accordingly we are justified in asserting the propositional function FiweNC.m!Ne‘a.aep.>.(q8)- w= Neo(ay'A. No(a)‘a=Ne(a)‘g, where Ne(a)‘@ in “z= Ne (a)‘Q” has all along been presupposed by the neces- sity of meaning. Thus the inference follows, biweNC. qt Ne‘a.aew.>-Ne(aa=p. D.Nea=p. This proof loses its point when pis looked on as a variable with necessarily the same type throughout. For then the proposition collapses into Fi. eNC.D:aep.=.Ne(aya=p. But if 1 be a formal number necessarily a member of NC, the proposition is really big! Nea. D:aey.=.Nea=p With this presupposition we should have in the first line of the demon- stration “big! Nofa.Ne‘a=p.D.aep,” though with “p” a single variable, the line is formally correct as it stands in the text. Recognition of Particular Cases. It is important to notice the conditions under which do can be recognized as a particular case of g&, where € is a real variable and o is a formal number, In the first place obviously we must substitute o a 4€ for a, wherever it occurs in go, and thus obtain $ (an tf). Then we may find that by the application of our conventions, we can replace this by ¢o. For example we have 10042, FiwveNC.qlpav.d. wavxxviii PREFATORY, STATEMENT Now put Ne‘an ip for w, we obtain Fi Netant{y,veNC. gt (Nefan i{u)av.d.Nefan tia qd) +, (1). #10041, DtrveNC.qiNeantunv.d.Neantiu=v (2) Now by I'T, even when »v is a formal number, the identity of types of the two occurrences of Ne‘a is equally secured in kiveNC.qtNeanv.>.Ne‘a=v. Thus this is a particular case of #10042. Such deductions can be made in general without any explicit formal statement. Ambiguity of NC. It follows (cf. #10002 and *103‘02) from the typical ambiguity of Ne that NC is also typically ambiguous, Hence “weNC.ve NC” according to our methods of interpretation would not necessitate that « and » should be of the same type. We shall always interpret “y,ve NC” as standing for ““eNC.veNC” and therefore as not necessarily identifying the types of wand v. Similarly for N.C, NC induct, and NC ind. For example #110402, bs y,veN,C. Dd. gM (u ter) 0 t4(u Fv) Here the m and v need not be of the same type. Again WAL041. bipveNC.tpaty.d.q'uterv)aty Here the identification of the types of » and v requires the hypothesis “t= ty.” VL. Conventions AT and Infin T. General Arithmetical Convention. Conventions IT and IIT are always applied, but the following convention is not used at first. This convention limits the remaining ambiguity of type by sweeping away the exceptional cases in low types, due to the failure of existence theorems. The convention will be cited as AT. AT. All equations involving pure arithmetical formal numbers are to be arithmetical, We have seen that from an arithmetical equation the analogous equation in any other type can be deduced. Thus with AT all equations between formal numbers are so determined in type that their truth in “any type” is deducible. Thus in the few early propositions where AT is introduced, the fact is noted by stating that the equations hold “in any type.” These propositions are ¥103'16, #1107172. ‘The effect of applying ATT to other propositions in *100 is to render some of the hypotheses (usually logical forms affirming existence) unnecessary, but also materially to limit the scope of the propositions, Take for example #10085, big! Ne‘a.vigqtNe eid: Nofa= Ne‘®.=.aeNe‘8.=. Be Nea If we apply AT to this, wo can write tiNea=Ne(@.=.aeNe'B.=.8eNoa.=.asmp. asm pPREFATORY STATEMENT xxix For the equational occurrences of Ne‘a and Ne‘ are by AT and IIT to be with adequate actual types. But if a is a small class in a high type, an adequate actual type for Ne‘a will be a high type, whereas q1Ne‘a may hold in a low type. Thus with AT, for the sake of simplicity we abandon the statement of the minimum of hypothesis necessary for our propositions. The enunciation of no other proposition in #100 is affected, The enunciation of no proposition in: *101 is affected by AT, though it would unduly limit the scope of *101'34. In *110, AT would unduly limit the scope of such propositions as 110-22'23'24'25-251-252'3'31 32°33 1°34°35°35 1445154 and of many others, without altering their enunciations. There is no proposition in #110 whose enunciation it would alter. AT is already applied to *110‘71-72; if AT is removed from these propositions, then q!Ne‘a must be added as an hypothesis to both of them. The effect of AT on #113 and #116 is entirely analogous to that on ¥110; in neither of these two numbers is there any proposition to which AT is applied in the text. As regards #117, A'T is applied throughout, so that the propositions are all in the form suitable for subsequent investigations in which the interest is purely arithmetical. It is important however to analyse the effect of AT on the enunciations for the sake of logical investigations, especially in connection with #120. First, AT can only affect propositions in which equations or inequations occur, and among such propositions it does not affect the enuncia- tions of those in which both sides of the equations are not formal numbers, so that the equations are not arithmetical after the application of AT. These propositions are #*117-104'1424241-243'31'551. These propositions, which are characterized by the presence of a single letter on one side of any equation involved, can be recognized at a glance. The propositions involving arithmetical equations whose enunciations are unaltered by the removal of AT are *117-2154'592. Propositions involving inequations whose enuncia- tions are unaltered by the removal of AT are #1172627, Finally the only propositions of *117 whose enunciations are altered by the removal of AT are #117°108:211-23-25'3. In *118 and *119 AT is not used. In #120, which is devoted to those properties of inductive cardinals which are of logical interest, A'T is never used. None of the propositions #117'108-211-23'25'3 are cited in it, except #117-25 in the demonstration of #120°435 for a use where AT is not relevant. The application of AT to *120 would simplify the hypotheses of #120'31-41-451-53'55, and limit the scopes of the propositions. One other convention, which we will call “Infin T,” is required in certain propositions where the hypothesis implies that there are types in which everyXXX PREFATORY STATEMENT inductive cardinal exists, i.e. in which V is not an inductive class. Among such hypotheses are Infin ax, y! Prog, q@!N. (or typically definite forms of these hypotheses), or Re Prog or ae&. When such hypotheses occur, we shall assume that NC induct is, whenever significance permits, to be deter- mined in a type in which every inductive cardinal exists, ie. in which the axiom of infinity holds (cf. *120-03-04). The statement of this convention is as follows: Infin T. When the hypothesis of a proposition implies that there is a type in which every inductive cardinal exists, every occurrence of “NC induct” in this proposition is to be taken (if conditions of significance permit) in a sufficiently high type to insure the existence of every inductive cardinal. It is to be observed that this convention would be unnecessary if we confined ourselves to one extensional hierarchy, for in any one such hierarchy all types are inductive or all are non-inductive, so that if every inductive cardinal exists in one type in the hierarchy, the same holds for any other type in the hierarchy. But when we no longer confine ourselves to one extensional hierarchy, this result may not follow. For example, it may be the case that the number of individuals is inductive, but the number of predicative functions of individuals is not inductive; at any rate, no logical reason can be given against this possibility, which can only be rejected on empirical grounds, if at all. The way in which this convention is used may be illustrated by the demonstration of #122'33. In the second line of this demonstration, we show that the hypothesis implies Elyp.D.El(v to 1)p qa) where by *121-04 ve=R,.BR Df, and by *121-02 R,=89 {Ne‘R@Hy)=v4e_1} De It will be seen that these definitions do not suffice to determine the type of ». Hence in (1), the v on the left may not be of the same type as the v-+tel on the right. Now the use of *120-473, which occurs in the next line of the demonstration of #122°33, requires that the v on the left and the v+,1 on the right should be of the same type. This requires that the v should not be taken in a type in which we have q!v.vt+.1=A. Hence in order to apply ¥120-473, we must choose a type in which all inductive cardinals exist. Since “Re Prog” occurs in the hypothesis, we know that all inductive cardinals exist in the type of C'R. But it is unnecessary to restrict ourselves to the type of O'R, since any other type in which all inductive cardinals exist will equally secure the validity of the demonstration. Thus the convention Infin T secures the restriction required, and no more. The convention InfinT is often relevant when “Infinax” without any typical determination oceurs in the hypothesis. Whenever this is the case,PREFATORY STATEMENT xxxi if “NC induct” occurs in the proposition in a way which leaves its type undetermined so far as conditions of significance are concerned, it is to be taken in a type in which all its members exist. VIL Final Working Rule in Arithmetic, It is now (whenever AT is used, together with InfinT when necessary) possible finally to sweep aside all consideration of types in connection with inductive numbers. For by combining ¥126121-122 and 120-4232-4622, we see that it is always possible to take the type high enough so that no definitely determined inductive number shall be null (A), and that all the inductive reasoning can take place within this type. Furthermore we have already seen that the arithmetical operations are independent of the types of the components, so long as they are existential. Thus, as far as the ordinary arithmetic of finite numbers is concerned, all the conventions (including AT), and the necessity for hypotheses as to the existence of inductive numbers, are finally superseded by the following single rule: RuLe or Inperinire Numpers. The type assigned to any symbol which represents an inductive number is such that the symbol is not equal to A. We make the definition 4126-01. Ne ind =Ne induct—tf'A Df Wherever this symbol “Ne ind” for the class of “indefinite inductive cardinal numbers” is used, the above rule is adhered to. In other words, “peNCind” can always be replaced by “y= Ne‘a.ae Clsinduct,” where Nea is a homogeneous or ascending cardinal, and a is the appropriate constant, or is a variable, as the case may be. In the latter case, a symbolic form such as (#) -f(weNC ind, w) can be replaced by (4, 2). f (w= Nea. we Cls induct, 2). Furthermore by #1204622 it follows that with this rule the result of proceeding by induction in one type and then transforming to another type is the same as that of proceeding by induction in the latter type. Thus for example there is no advantage to be gained by discriminating between 2% and 2; for sm,2,=2,, smg2,=2p, pte 2p Ute Qa Xe MAM Xe My weap, 2h = 24, and p> %.=, wD 2,, and so on, Hence all discrimination of the types of indefinite inductive numbers may be dropped; and the types are entirely indefinite and irrelevant.PART IIT CARDINAL ARITHMETIC RawSUMMARY OF PART III In this Part, we shall be concerned, first, with the definition and general logical properties of cardinal numbers (Section A); then with the operations of addition, multiplication and exponentiation, of which the definitions and formal laws do not require any restriction to finite numbers (Section B); then with the theory of finite and infinite, which is rendered somewhat complicated by the fact that there are two different senses of “finite,” which cannot (so far as is known) be identified without assuming the multiplicative axiom. The theory of finite and infinite will be resumed, in connection with series, in Part V, Section E. It is in this Part that the theory of types first becomes practically relevant. It will be found that contradictions concerning the maximum cardinal are solved by this theory. We have therefore devoted our first section in this Part (with the exception of two numbers giving the most elementary properties of cardinals in general, and of 0 and 1 and 2, respectively) to the application of types to cardinals. Every cardinal is typically ambiguous, and we confer typical definiteness by the notations of #63, #64, and #65. It is especially where existence-theorems are concemed that the theory of types is essential. The chief importance of the propositions of the present part lies, not only, as throughout the book, in the hypotheses necessary to secure the conclusions, but also in the typical ambiguity which can be allowed to the symbols con- sistently with the truth of the propositions in all the cases thereby included,SECTION A DEFINITION AND LOGICAL PROPERTIES OF CARDINAL NUMBERS Summary of Section A. ‘The Cardinal Number of a class a, which we will denote by “Nota,” is defined as the class of all classes similar to a, ie. as A(@sma). This definition is due to Frege, and was first published in his Grundlagen der Arithmetik*; its symbolic expression and use are to be found in his Grundgesetze der Arithmetikt. The chief merits of this definition are (1) that the formal properties which we expect cardinal numbers to have result from it; (2) that unless we adopt this definition or some more complicated and practically equivalent definition, it is necessary to regard the cardinal number of a class as an indefinable. Hence the above definition avoids a useless indefinable with its attendant primitive propositions. It will be observed that, if « is any object, 1 is not the cardinal number of , but that of ua, This obviates a confusion which otherwise is liable to arise in dealing with classes. Suppose we have a class a consisting of many terms; we say, nevertheless, that it is one class. Thus it seems to be at once one and many. But in fact it is @ that is many, and ua that is one. In regard to zero, the analogous point is still clearer. Suppose we say “there are no Kings of France.” This is equivalent to “the class of Kings of France has no members,” or, in our language, “the class of Kings of France is a member of the class 0.” It is obvious that we cannot say “the King of France is a member of the class 0,” because there is no King of France. Thus in the case of 0 and 1, as more evidently in all other cases, a cardinal number appertains to a class, not to the members of the class, For the purposes of formal definition, we subject the formula Nefa= (8 sma) to some simplification. It will be seen that, according to this formula, “Ne” is a relation, namely the relation of a cardinal number to any class of which it is the number. Thus for example 1 has to ¢‘x the relation Nc; so has 2 to i culty, provided «+y. The relation Ne is, in fact, the relation sm; for Se za‘a= (8 sm a). Hence for formal purposes of definition we put Ne=sm Df * Breslau, 1884. Cf. especially pp. 79, 80. + Jena, Vol. 1. 1893, Vol. 11. 1908. Cf. Vol. 1, §§ 40—42, pp. 57,58. The grounds in favour of this definition will be found at length in Principles of Mathematics, Part II,SECTION A] LOGICAL PROPERTIES OF CARDINAL NUMBERS 5 The class of cardinal numbers is the class of objects which are the cardinal numbers of something or other, ze. of objects which, for some a, are equal to Ne‘a. We call the class of cardinal numbers NC; thus we have NC= {(qa). w= Ne‘a}. For purposes of formal definition, we replace this by the simpler formula NC=D‘Ne Df. In the present section, we shall be concerned with what we may call the purely logical properties of cardinal numbers, namely those which do not depend upon the arithmetical operations of addition, multiplication and exponentiation, nor upon the distinction of finite and infinite", The chief point to be dealt with, as regards both importance and difficulty, is the relation of a cardinal number in one type to the same or an associated cardinal number in another type. When a symbol is ambiguous as to type, we will call it typically ambiguous; when, either always or in a given context, it is un- ambiguous as to type, we will call it typically definite. Now the symbol “sm” is typically ambiguous; the only limitation on its type is that its domain and converse domain must both consist of classes. When we have asm, a and B need not be of the same type, in fact, in any type of classes, there are classes similar to some of the classes of any other type of classes. For example, we have tf«sm uy, whatever types # and y may belong to. This ambiguity of “sm” is derived from that of 1—>1, which in turn is derived from that of 1. We denote (cf. #65°01) by “1,” all the unit classes which are of the same type as a. Then (according to the definition *70‘01) 1.—> 1, will be the class of those one-one relations whose domain is of the same type as a and whose con- verse domain is of the same type as 8. Thus “1,->1,” is typically definite as soon as a and @ are given. Suppose now, instead of having merely ysm 8 we have (GR). Rel. 1p.D‘R=y.UR=8; then we know not only that sm 8, but also that y belongs to the same type as a, and 8 belongs to the same type as 8. When the ambiguous symbol “sm” is rendered typically definite by having its domain defined as being of the same type as a, and its converse domain defined as being of the same type as 8, we write it “sme,” because generally, in accordance with *65'1, if R is a typically ambiguous relation, we write Rj») for the typically definite relation that results when the domain of R is to consist of terms of the same type as @, and the converse domain is to consist of terms of the same type as B. Thus we have ysmas 8.=. (GR). Rel, lg.y=D'R.8=AR. Here everything is typically definite if a and 6 (or their types) are given. * Tho definitions of the arithmetical operations, and of finite and infinite, are really just as purely logical as what precedes them; but if we are to draw a line between logic and arithmetic somewhere, the arithmetical operations seem the natural point at which to place the beginning of arithmetic.6 CARDINAL ARITHMETIC (part nr Passing now to the relation “Ne,” it will be seen that it shares the typical ambiguity of “sm.” In order to render it typically definite, we must derive it from a typically definite “sm.” So long as nothing is added to give typical definiteness,“Ne‘y” will mean all the classes belonging to some one (unspecified) type and similar to y. Ifa is a member of the type to which these classes are to belong, then Ne'y is contained in the type of a. For this case, it is convenient to introduce the following two notations, already defined in *65. When a typically ambiguous relation R is to be rendered typically definite as to its domain only, by deciding that every member of the domain is to be contained in the type of a, we write “R(a)” in place of R. When we farther wish to determine R as having members of the converse domain contained in the type of 8, we write “R(a, 8)” in place of R; and when we wish members of the converse domain to be members of the type of 8, we write “(as)” in place of R, Thus sg‘{B,w} = {aR} (ae) (ef, x65), and in particular, since Ne = am, Ne (ag) = sg‘8t0 a, Thus “Ne(as)‘y” is only significant when ¥ is of the same type as 8, and then it means “classes of the same type as a and similar to ry (which is of the same type as 8).” “Ne(a)‘y” will mean “classes of the same type as a and similar to 9.” As soon as the types of a and y are known, this is a typically definite symbol, being in fact equal to Ne(a,)"y. Hence so long as we only wish to consider “Noy,” typical definiteness is secured by writing “Ne(a)” in place of “No” When we come to the consideration of NC, “Ne(a)” is no longer a sufficient determination, although it suffices to determine the type. Suppose we put NC#(a)=D‘Ne (ag) Df; we have also, in virtue of the definitions in #65, NC (a) = NCat%a=D'Ne (a). Thus NC (a) is definite as to type, but is the domain of a relation whose converse domain is ambiguous as to type; and it will appear that there are some propositions about NC(a) whose truth or falsehood depends upon the determination chosen for the converse domain of Ne(a). Hence if we wish to have a symbol which is completely definite, we must write “NC#(a).” This point is important in connection with the contradictions as to the maximum cardinal. The following remarks will illustrate it further. Cantor has shown that, if @ is any class, no class contained in @ is similar to CIB. Hence in particular if @ is a type, no class contained in @ is similarSECTION A] LOGICAL PROPERTIES OF CARDINAL NUMBERS 7 to Cl‘8, which is the next type above 8. Consequently, if @=au —a, where ais any class, we have ~(ay) -y Cau —a.ysm Cl(au a), Now (cf. #63) we put ta=av—a Df, and we have a= Cl(au—a), Thus we find ~ (dy) Gta. ysin Ha, Hence Ne(ay.)'ta= A. That is to say, no class of the same type as a has as many members as t“a has. Hence also AeNOM (a), But Cla. d.yeNe(a)'y «a! Ne (aa)*y, and “Ne (a4)'y” is only significant when y Chfa; hence weNC(@). veg ty and Awe NO*(a), Now the notation “NC (a)” will apply with equal justice to NC*(a) or to NO" (a); but we have just seen that in the first case we shall have Ar~eNC (a), and in the second we shall have AeNC(a). Consequently “NC (a)” has not sufficient definiteness to prevent practically important differences between the various determinations of which it is capable. A converse procedure to the above yields similar results. Let a be a class of classes; then s‘a is of lower type than a. Let us consider NC**(a), In accordance with #63, we write ta for the type containing s‘a, ie. for sfau—s'a. Then the greatest number in the class NC** (a) will be Ne (a)‘t,‘a; but neither this nor any lesser member of the class will be equal to Ne (a)‘t,“a, because, as before, (ay) 7 Chfa ey sm toa. Hence Ne (a)‘t,‘a, which is a member of NC* (a), is not a member of NC**(a); but NC=(a) and NO**(a) have an equal right to be called NC(a). Hence again “NC (@)” is a symbol not sufficiently definite for many of our purposes. The solution of the paradox concerning the maximum cardinal is evident in view of what has been said. This paradox is as follows: It results from a theorem of Cantor’s that there is no maximum cardinal, since, for all values of a, No‘Clfa > Ne‘a. But at first sight it would scem that the class which contains everything must be the greatest possible class, and must therefore contain the greatest possible number of terms. We bave seen, however, that a class a must always be contained within some one type; hence all that is proved is that there are greater classes in the next type, which is that of Cl‘. Since there is always a next higher type, we thus have a maximum cardinal in each type, without8 CARDINAL ARITHMETIC (PaRT UT having any absolutely maximum cardinal. The maximum cardinal in the type of « is Ne(a)(av—a). But if we take the corresponding cardinal in the next type, i.e. Ne (Clfa)"(a va), this is not as great as Ne (Clfa)‘Cl'(a v — a), and is therefore not the maximum cardinal of its type. This gives the complete solution of the paradox. For most purposes, what we wish to know in order to have a sufficient amount of typical definiteness is not the absolute types of a and 8, as above, but mezely what we may call their relative types. ‘Thus, for example, a and B may be of the same type; in that case, Ne (ag) and NC* (a) are respectively equal to Ne(a.) and NC*(a). We will call cardinals which, for some a, are members of the class NC* (a), homogeneous catdinals, because the “sm” from which they are derived is a homogeneous relation, We shall denote the homogeneous cardinal of a by “Nye‘a,” and we shall denote the class of homogeneous cardinals (in an unspecified type) by “NC”; thus we put Nyfa=Nefanta Df, NC=DNe De Almost all the properties of N.C are the same in different types. When further typical definiteness is required, it can be secured by writing Nye (a), NoC (a) in place of Nyc, N.C. For although Ne(a) and NC (a) were not wholly definite, Nyc (a) and N,C (a) are wholly definite. Apart from the fact of being of different types, the only property in which N,C (a) and N,C(8) differ when a and @ are of different types is in regard to the magnitude of the cardinals belonging to them, ‘Thus suppose the whole universe consisted (as monists aver) of a single individual, Let us call the type of this individual “Indiv.” Then N,C (Indiv) will consist of 0 and 1, ie. N,C (Indiv) = 110 ve‘, But in the next higher type, there will be two members, namely A and Indiv. Thus NC (t'Indiv) = 060 ve‘l ve. Similarly NC (Indiv) = 00 v1 uw 0'2 wi'3 wd, the members of #¢‘Indiv being A né‘Indiv, «A, “Indiv, «(A y eIndiv; and so on. (The greatest, cardinal in any except the lowest type is always a power of 2.) The maximum of N,C(a) is N,e‘h‘a; but apart from this difference of maximum and its consequences, N,C(a) and N,C() do not differ in any important properties. Hence for most purposes N.C and Nye have as much typical definiteness as is necessary. Among cardinals which are not homogeneous we shall consider three kinds. The first of these we shall call ascending cardinals. A cardinal NC* (a) isSECTION A] LOGICAL PROPERTIES OF CARDINAL NUMBERS 9 called an ascending cardinal if the type of @ is ta or ta or t*t*ta or ete, We write ta for t't‘a, t%a for t¢tfa, and so on. We put Niefa=Ne‘anitia Df Nefa=Nefantt*a Df Niefa =Ne‘an ta Df and so on, and NiG=DN'e Df NC = D‘Nee Df N'C=D‘N'e Df and so on. We then have obviously NIC (ta) CNC (ta). We also have (by what was said earlier) ' Nocttfave NIC (a). Hence INC (ta) — NIC (ta). The members of N,C(t‘a)—N'C(¢‘a) will be all cardinals which exceed Ne‘ty‘a but do not exceed Ne‘t‘a. Let us recur in illustration to our previous hypothesis of the universe consisting of a single individual. Then N'c‘Indiv will consist of those classes which are similar to “Indiv” but of the next higher type. These are tA and Indiv. In our case we had N,c‘Indiv=1. This leads to Nie‘Indiv = 1. N%e‘Indiv = 1 ete. or, introducing typical definiteness, N'e‘Indiv = 1 (Indiv) . N*c'‘Indiv = 1 (¢*Indiv) ete. We have then 1 (¢‘Indiv) e N'C (¢t‘Indiv). Also 1 (¢*Indiv) eN,C (t¢Indiv). And in the case supposed, 1 ({Indiv) is the maximum of N*C (¢*t‘Indiv), but 2(tIndiv) eN,C(tt‘Indiv), Hence N.C (t‘t‘Indiv) — N'C (¢*¢'Indiv) = «£2. Generalizing, we see that N'C(¢“a) consists of the same numbers as N,C (a) each raised one degree in type. Similar propositions hold of N*C (¢%a), NC ta) ete. It is often useful to have a notation for what we may call “the same cardinal in another type.” Suppose p is a typically definite cardinal; then we will denote by 4 the same cardinal in the next type, te. sm“pn tu. Note that, if » is a cardinal, sm“an p=; and whether p is a typically definite cardinal or not, sin’pa ta is a cardinal in a definite type. If m is typically definite, then smép 0 ta is wholly definite; if u is typically ambiguous, sm‘y n t‘a bas the same kind of10 CARDINAL ARITHMETIC [part UT indefiniteness as belongs to NC (a). The most important case is when # is typically definite and a has an assigned relation of type to «. We then put, as observed above, p=sm“untn Dé po asm“patp Df ete. If pw is an N.C, w® is an N'C and w® is an N*C and so on. N°C(¢‘a) will consist of all numbers which are of the form gz" for some » which is a member of N.C (a); te. NC (ta) = 8 {(qu)-weNC@).v =p}. The second kind of non-homogeneous cardinals to be considered is called the class of “descending cardinals.” These are such as go into a lower type; ie. Ne (a) is a descending cardinal if a is of a lower type than 8. We put Nycfa=Ne‘an t‘t,a Df Nicfa= Nefan t'tefa Df ete. N,C=DNc Df N,C=DN,c Df ete. py =sm“potiy Dé ww =sm“paty Df ete. We have obviously Nocfa = Nyotet“a. Hence N.C (a) CNC (a). Also yeNotS.>.Nio'S =Neoty, whence gEN cS. Node N.C, whence N,C-VA CNC. Since also Awe N,C (a), we find N,C=N,C-«'A, this proposition not requiring any further typical definiteness, since it holds however such definiteness may be introduced, remembering that such definite- ness is necessarily so introduced as to secure significance. Further, in virtue of the fact that no class contained in ta is similar to ta, we have AeN,O(a). Consequently N,C=N.C uta. We can prove in just the same way N,C=N,C uu‘a. Henee NC=N.C, and this result can obviously be extended to all descending cardinals. The third kind of non-homogeneous cardinals to be considered may be called “relational cardinals.” They are those applicable to classes of relations having a given relation of type toa given class. Consider for example Ne‘ea‘«. (We shall take this as the definition of the product of the numbers of theSECTION A] LOGICAL PROPERTIES OF CARDINAL NUMBERS ll members of x.) Suppose now that « consists of a single term: we want to be able to say Noteate = Nor. We have in this case, if «=t'a, ea'c= | ala, and we know that | a“asma. But if we put simply Net | a= Ne‘a, our proposition, though not mistaken, requires care in interpretation. Just as we put Uae Nic‘a, so we want a notation giving typical definiteness to the proposition | a‘aeNo‘a, ‘This is provided as follows. Using the notation of #64, put Nucfa=Nefantit,“a Df Nycfa = Nefan t'ta Df ete. NaC = D'Nuc De NC = D‘Nitc Df etc. Ho) =Sin*'w 9 to‘ Dé etc. Then we have, for example, Latac ia, ie, Lat aettia, Hence | a“ae N,'c‘a, where N,'cfa = Ne‘an ttf. Similarly ceta.d. | aaeNacia. Thus the above definitions give us what is required. In order to complete our notation for types, we should need to be able to express the type of the domain or converse domain of R, or of any relation whose domain and converse domain have respectively given relations of type to the domain and converse domain of K. Thus we might put ds R=4°D‘R Df bfR=t{0‘R Df (“b” appears here as “d” written backwards) dof R = (aR Fb“) De =tR aR = 49d, Rf b,'R) Df and so on. This notation would enable us to deal with descending relational cardinals. But it is not required in the present work, and is therefore not introduced among the numbered propositions. When a typically ambiguous symbol, such as “sm” or “No,” occurs more than once in a given context, it must not be assumed, unless required by the conditions of significance, that it is to receive the same typical determination in each case. Thus e.g. we shall write “asm@..8 sma,” although, if # and B are of different types, the two symbols “sm” must receive different typical determinations.12 CARDINAL ARITHMETIC {PART OT Formulae which are typically ambiguous, or only partially definite as to type, must not be admitted unless every significant interpretation is true. Thus for example we may admit “beaeNefa” because here “Ne” must mean “Ne (a,),” so that the only ambiguity remaining is as to the type of a, and the formula holds whatever type a may belong to, provided “Ne‘a” is significant, ie. provided a is a class. But we must not, from “ae Ne‘a,” allow ourselves to infer “gq tNofa.” For here the conditions of significance no longer demand that “Nc” should mean “Ne(a)”: it might just as well mean “Ne(Q,).” And as we saw, if B is a lower type than 4, and a is sufficiently large of its type, we may have Ne(B.)‘a= A, so that “q!Ne‘a” is not admissible without qualification, Nevertheless, as we shall see in #100, there are a certain number of propositions to be made about a wholly ambiguous Ne or NC.*100. DEFINITION AND ELEMENTARY PROPERTIES OF CARDINAL NUMBERS Summary of *100. In this number we shall be concerned only with such immediate conse- quences of the definition of cardinal numbers as do not require typical definite- ness, beyond what the inherent conditions of significance may bestow. We introduce here the fundamental definitions: Df D‘Ne Df The definition “Ne” is required chiefly for the sake of the descriptive function Nc‘e. We have : *1001. .Ne‘a=A(8sma)=A (asm 8) This may be stated in various equivalent forms, which are given at the beginning of this number (#100-1—16), After a few propositions on Ne as a relation, we proceed to the elementary properties of Ne‘a. We have #1003. F.aeNe‘a #10031, F:aeNc'8.=.8eNea.=.asmB #100321. | :asm 8.3. Ne‘a=Ne‘B #10033. Fig! Ne‘an Nef8.3.asm8 We proceed next to the elementary properties of NC. We have #1004. FrweNC.=.(qa).~=Nea #10042, Fip,veNC.qipav.d.pav #10045. biweNC.aeu.>.New=p #10051. F:iueNC.aen.>.sm“u=Ne‘a Observe that when we have such a hypothesis as “eNO,” the y, though it may be of any type, must be of some type; hence the » cannot have the typical ambiguity which belongs to Ne‘. If we put 4 =Noa, this will hold only in the type of y; but “sm” is a typically ambiguous symbol, which will represent in any type the “same” number as yu. Thus “sm“p=No‘a” is an equation which is applicable to all possible typical determinations of “sm” and “Ne,” #10052, FipeNC. qty. >.sm“peNC The hypothesis q!, is unnecessary, but we cannot prove this till later (#102). We end the number with some propositions (*100-6—64) stating that various classes (such as ta), which have already been proved to be similar toa, have Ne‘a members.14 CARDINAL ARITHMETIC (paRT U1 #10001, Ne=sm Df *10002. NC=D‘Ne Df #1001. F.Ne‘a=8(8sma)=A(asmB) [*3213.#73'31. (#10001)} *10011. +.Noa=A (qk). Rel —>1.D‘R=a.0‘R=8} (#1001. 4731] 10012, +. Nea=A (qh). Rel +1-aCD‘R. B= Reta} [*1001 .#73:11] < - #10013, +. Ne‘a=C“(1—1 a Dia) =D“(1 > 19 Ta) Dem. Fe #10011 #336. Dh. Neta= A {(GR).Rel 9 1.Re Dia. R= 8} [#22°38.437-6] = 01+ 10 D‘a) (ly F. #1001. #731. 43361. 1. Nota=f (qh). Rel +1. Rea. YR= 8} [#2238437 -6] =D“(1> 19 Ua) (2) F.(1).@). D4. Prop #10014. +. Ne‘a=8((qh).aCQ‘R. RPacl al. B= Ra} [#73°15 , #1001] #10015. .Nea@=A (qk): EM Ra: a,yea. Ra= Ry .Dzy.c=yi B= Ra} Dem. b.#74111.> FEW Rara,yea.Rw= Ry. rny.o~y:B=R are: Rfael Cls.aC O'R. Rf acl+1.g=Ra (1) b. (1) .471. #10014. 3. Prop #10016. F.Nefa=B (GR), yea-Dnyt Dem. Fe #7159. bita,yea.Dzyt Rom Ry .s.02y F.(1).#10014.3+. Prop #1002, FL EINefa [#3212.(#10001)] #10021. +.d‘Ne=Cls Dem. +. #37°76 . (#10001). 3. U‘NeC Cls qd) Fb. #33431. #1002. Dt. ClsC ‘Ne (2) b.(1).(2). 3. Prop ¥10022, F.Neel—+Cls [#72-12. (#10001) #1003. F.aeNo‘a [#733 . #1001] Note that it is fallacious to infer q!Nc‘a, for reasons explained in the introduction to the present section. Rfaclol.aCaR (ql)SECTION A] ELEMENTARY PROPERTIES OF CARDINAL NUMBERS 15 #10031, F:aeNeiB.=.GeNefa.z.asm@ [#3218. #7331. (#10001)] #10032, F:aeNe'8.@eNety.d.aeNe‘y [#10031 . #7332] #100321. t:asm8.>.Ne‘a=Ne‘8 Dem. + .¥73'37. +: Hp.D:ysma.=,.ysm At [#1001] 2: Nefa=Ne‘B:. DF. Prop Note that Ne‘a=Ne‘8.>.asm@ is not always true. We might be tempted to prove it as follows: + .¥1001.3F:.Nea=Ne@.s:ysma.=y.ysmp: [¥101] asma asm 8: [4733] Drasme But the use of #10+1 here is only legitimate when the “sm” concerned is a homogeneous relation. If Ne‘a, No‘@ are descending cardinals, we may have Ne‘a= A= Nef@ without having asm 2. #10033. Fig! Nofan Neg. d.asm@ Dem. F.*1001. 3h: Hp. >. (ay). ysma.ysm @. [x73°31] >. (qy).asmy.ysm B- [#7832] D-asm@:F. Prop Note that we do not always have asin B.>.q!Ne‘an Ne‘p. For if the Ne concerned is a descending Ne, and a and 8 are sufficiently great, No‘a and Ne‘@ may both be A. For example, we have Cl(au - a) sm Cla u —a). But Ne(a)'Cl(au —a) =A, so that wa te (a)Clf(au — a) 0 No(a)‘Cl(av—a). Thus “asm @..q ! Nea Ne‘Q” is not always true when itis significant. #10034. big! Nefan Ne‘@.>.Nea=Ne‘@ [#10033321] #10035, Fig !Nofa.v.gqtNotSid: Nefa=Ne'@.=.aeNe‘B.=.fe Ne.=.asmB Dem. Fb. 4225. Dh. Hp. 2: Nofa= Ne‘. >. q!Nefan Ne‘s. [¥100'33] D.asmé qa F.(1).#100921.9F:. Hp.3:Nefa=Ne'p F.(2). #10031. D+. Prop Thus the only case in which the implications in *100°321'33'34 cannot be turned into equivalences is the case in which Ne‘a and Ne‘ are both A. #10036. Fs. BeNe‘a.Iiqla.s.q!8 [410031 . #7336] #1004. F:weNC.=.(qa).p=Ne‘a [4387-78-79 (*100-02-01)] asm 8 Q)16 CARDINAL ARITHMETIC (parr 1 #10041. +.Ne‘aeNC [#100'4°2 . *14°204] #10042, FipveNC.giuav.d-w=y Dem. Fb. #1004. 3+: Hp..(qa,8)-#= Nefa.v=Ne‘B.q! Nefan Note. [#100°34] >. (qa, 8). w=Ne‘a.v=Ne(@.Nefa=Ne'p. [#1415] D.pavrdt.Prop 10043, + .NCeClstexel [100-42 #8411] #10044, Fi.weNC.gq!Nefa.diaep.=.Nea=p Dem. +. #1003.3+:Nea=p.D.aep qQ) F. #1024. Db: peNC. gt Nee.aew.d+ weNC.qtw.giNea.aepe [#1004] 9. (q8)-w=NeB.g! NeiB.qtNea.aeNotp. [10085] >. (q@)-p=Ne‘B.Ne‘a=Netg. [41415] 9. Nea=p Q) F.(1).(2). F. Prop #10045. FiweNC.aep.2.Ne‘a=p [#100-4'31°321] #1005. tiweNC.aBen.>.asme Dem. +. #1004. D+: Hp. d. (yy) p=Nety.a,BeNety. [#10031] 2. (ay) .asmy. Asm. [#73°31°32] D.asm@: Db. Prop #10051. FrweNC.aew.>.smMp=Ne‘a Dem. +. #1005. Fact. +: Hp.3:Rep.ysm8.>-asmB.ysmA. [¥78°31°32] Dasmy. [410031] D.yeNea a) F (1) .#10'11-21-28 487-1. : Hp. D. amy C Nea (2) +. #10031. DtiHp.diyeNee.d.ysma.aey. [#37-1] Deyesm“z (3) F.(2).(8). 3+. Prop #100511. F:q!Nc“B. >. smNe“@ = Nee Here the last “Ne‘g” may be of a different type from the others: the proposition holds however its type is determined, Dem. F.#100°51-41. DF sae NoMB. D.smNe“B =Nefa (#100'31°321] =Netp a) F. (1). #101123. F. PropSECTION A] ELEMENTARY PROPERTIES OF CARDINAL NUMBERS ly *10052. FiweNC.qty.d.sm“peNC [*10051-4] This proposition still holds when p= A, but the proof is more difficult, since it depends upon the proof that every null-class of classes is an NC, which in turn depends upon the proof that Clfa is not similar to @ or to any class contained in a. #100521, tiweNC.g!sm%p.>.sm‘sm“p =p Dem. + .#3729. Transp. Dt: Hp.diq!ps [¥100°52] Dism“peNC [#100°51.Hp] Diyesm'p.d.sm“sm“p = Novy a) b.a871.Fact. Ib: Hp.yesm“p.D.(qa)-aen.peNC.ysma. [#100-45:321] D. (qa). Nefa=p.Nety=Neta. [41317) D.Nety =p (2) F.(1).(2). Dh Hp. yesm“p.D.smsm“p=p 3) +. (8). #10°11-23'35 . DF. Prop 410083, Fi qipegiv.DIipeNC.v=sm“p Dem. + .#10052. Di. Hp.dtweNC.v=smu.d.veNC a) F.#100521.h:.Hp.d:veNC.y=sm%p..¢=sm (2) F.().(2). Dk Hp.DipeNC.v=sm%p.2.veNC.p=sm (8) veNC.p=smy ve +68) @) 28.3. Prop #1006. F.i“aeNefa [x73-41 .*10031] #10061. 1.8 [(qy) yea. Baw Uy} eNeota [#73-27 454-21 #10031] #10062, Fix] “aeNe'a [¥73-61 . #10031] #100621. +. | rae Ne‘a [#73°611 . #10031] #10063. + .ex4t'ae Nota [¥83-41 . #10031] 100631. +. Diea‘t'ae Nota [¥88°7 . 100°6] #10064. F: we Clstexcl. >. D'ea‘e C Ne‘x Dem. }.#843.#8014. 2: Hp. Reese. >. Relot.c=OR, [«73-2.410081] >.D'Re Nee: D+. Prop R&W 2#101, ON 0 AND 1 AND 2 Summary of #101. In the present number, we have to show that 0 and 1 and 2 as previously defined are cardinal numbers in the sense defined in #100, and to add a few elementary propositions to those already given concerning them. We prove (#101-12-241) that 0 and 1 are not null, which cannot be proved, with our axioms, for any other cardinal, except (in the case of finite cardinals) when the type is specified as a sufficiently high one. Thus we prove (#101'42-43) that Qo, and 2ne exist; this follows from A+V and A+V. We prove (*101-22'34) that 0 and 1 and 2 are all different from each other. We prove (#101°15-28) that sm0=0 and sm“1=1, but we cannot prove sm“2=2 unless we assume the existence of at least two individuals, or define the first 2 in “sm“2=2” as a 2 of some type other than 2naiy, where “Indiv” stands for the type of individuals. It should be observed that, since 0 and 1 and 2 are typically ambiguous, their properties are analogous to those of “Ne‘a” rather than to those of , where weNC. For example, we have #100511, big! Ne‘@.2.sm“Ne'B=Ne'B but we shall not have weNC sg !u. 2-sin“u = unless the “st” concerned is homogeneous, since in other cases the symbols do not express a significant proposition. But in #100°511 we may substitute 0 or 1 or 2, and the proposition remains significant and true. In fact we have (101-1231) b.O=NcfA.1= Netw. 2 = Ne(etfe vu tfA), where 0 and 1 and 2 have an ambiguity corresponding to that of “Ne.” #1011, +.0=NefA [#73-48 . 1001] #10111, +.0eNC [4101-1 . #100-4] #10112, FE. gto [451-161 . (#5401)] #10113. Fg 10m Cla. Ac0n Cla [451-16 . #603] #10114. Fi Nefy=0 Dem. Fe #101112. 3+: Nety=0.5.Nety=NefA.g!NetA. [¥13°194] =.Nofy=NefA. gq! NetA og! Nefy. [#10035] yeNefA. qt NefA.qt Nety. [#101 -1.#54'102] yaA.gINeA.gtNety. [#101-1-12.413-194] =A:DF. Prop syekSECTION A #10115. Dem. #10116. Dem. #10117. Dem. #1012. #10121. #10122. Dem. #10123. Dem. ¥101-24. Dem. ON 0 AND 1 AND 2 19 F.sm“0=0 b.aB71. DE ryesm“0.=.(Ga)-ae0.ysma, #54102] =.ysmA. 73°48] =.ye0:Dt. Prop kieweNC—U0.Diaeus Da Gla F.*10045. DhrpeNC.Acw.2.p=NefA 101-1] =0 qd) F.(1). Transp. DF: eNC—U0. 3: Anep: #24°63] Diaepw.D..qla: It. Prop Fi AeNo.=.Nefa=0.=.Nefa=NefA a=A F.#100°81921.9b: Ae Ne‘a.>.Nea= Ne‘A. #1011) >. Nefa=0 (1) F.1O113. DF: Nefa=0.>.A0eNe‘a (2) F.(1).(2). Di AeNe‘a.=.Neta=0. (3) #1011) Nea=Ne‘A. (4) #101:14] =.a=A (5) fF. (8). (4) .(8)« DF. Prop hel= Ne‘ [#7345 .#1001] HeleNC — [w101-2. 4100-4] b.1+0 b. #5221. #10118. +. Avel.AeO. [¥1314] Dr.140 F.1ln0=A b.m5221. Dhrael.D.atA. [#54'102] D.avred @ F. (1) 242489... Prop bigla.D.q!la Cle F 45222, 4606. Db i vea. Duel n Cla @ F. (1) .#10°11-28. >. Prop20 101-241, #10125. Dem. #10126. Dem. #10127. Dem. #10128. Dem. #10129. Dem. CARDINAL ARITHMETIC (part ut beg !] [45223] Frael.BCa.Bta.>.he0 + #5264. #22621. b1ae1.8Ca.d.Belv0 Q) Fa #5246. Dhia,Bel.BCa.d.B=ar [Transp] Dhiael.ACa.B+a.d.Brvel (2) F.(1).(2). D4. Prop F.sCl*1=0u1 F. *60°371 . 40°43. D+. sO“ COV1 qd) +. #60334. Dh. A eClula. we Cl ula. [#52:22.440°4] Dr. Nes Cl1. owe s'Cl1. [#51-2.452'1] DF.OCSCIA LC eC (2) F.(1). (2). DF. Prop b.1=8{(qa).cea.a—uwe0} F.#54102.> bi(qe).cea.a—Uee0.=.(qa).weaca—ve=h. [243] (q2).cea.aCue. [x51-2] (qa) .a= ie. [452-1] =.ael:>h. Prop Fesm1l=1 b.a871. Db yesm“1.=.(ga).ael.ysma. [#52'1]) «(qz).y sme. [#7345] =.yel:D+. Prop Prue Nefa.=.Ne@=l.=.Nea=Neie.=.ael F.*10031-321. DhreweNefa.d.Nefa=Newn. [101-2] D.Nefa=1 () F.452-92, Der Nefa=1..1we Nota (2) F.(2).(2). DerweNea.=.Ne‘a= (3) [#1012] =.Nea= (4) F. #1012. %591.3+rael.3.Nea=1 (5) +. #1003. Dr:Nea=1.d.ae1 (6) F .(3). (4). (5). (6). DF. PropSECTION A] ON 0 AND 1 AND 2 21 #1013. brody. d.2=NoM(uleur'y) Dem. F.#73°71'43 451-231. bs. Hp. ds 2$w.D. (2 u ew)sm (ie vty): [54101] D:Be2.d.Bsm(ue ity): [%10071] DIC Ne(ia vty) qa) f.45832. #71163. Db: Rel—+l.ayeMR.D. Rea uty) =UR GURY (2) +.¥7156. Transp. DH:Hp. Rel—vl.ayeMR.d.RetRy (3) F.(2).(3) #5426. bi. Hp.3:Rel—>l.xyeGR. B= Rou vty). d.Bedt [x10°11-21-28.451234]D : (qR). Rell. ceui'y COR. B=R“(uavrty). D.Be®: [#73'12.#100°1] DiNet(uu vty) C2 (4) F.(1). (4). F. Prop 101301. +. 2=8{(q2).wea.a—vwel} [4543] In comparing ¥101°31 with *101‘1-2°8, it should be observed that ee and A are both classes, whereas in #101'1-2°3 there was no typical limitation beyond what was imposed by the conditions of significance. 10131. b.2= NeM(uule vitA) Dem, F.xSL161. Dh.vetA () f.(1).¥101'3. 9. Prop #10132, £.2eNC [#10131 . #100°4) #10183, F:a,eleanB=A.d.auBe2 [5443] #10134, F.240.241 Dem. F.w10113. Dr. AcO q) +. *101°301. Dtrae2.D.qlar [424-63] Dh Ave? (2) F. (1). (2) #1314, Dh.240 (3) b 59-22, 45426 2256. DE. uyel.uyred. [418-14] Dh.1+2 4 F.(8).(4). DF. Prop #10135. F.2n0=A.2n1=A_ [¥100-42. Transp . *101°11:213234] #10136. Fiae2.@Ca.Bta.3.8e0ul Dem. b.x5442. Dhrac®.PCa.q!B-B+a-d.gel qd) F. #54102. DbrwvgqiB.d.Be0 (2) F.(1).(2). 34. Prop22 CARDINAL ARITHMETIC (part oT #10137. b.sCl“2CQuULU2 [454411] #10138, Fig 12.3. 9Cl2=0Ul U2 Dem, F.¥603. Dh: Hp.d.(gqa).ae2AeCla. [«40°4] D.AesCl"2. [¥51-2] 3.0CsCl2 Q) F604. DE. 2 stOle2 (2) 454101. Db: Hp.3s. (qa,y).edy [¥13°171.Transp] Ds. (qa, y)t (2)tekavectysn [#5426] Di (qa,y)n(e)reviwedviteullye®s [411-26.422°58) D:.(2) 5 (Ga, B)rae2.UzeCla.v. Be®uzeClBe [40-4] D(z). UzesCl"2:. [4521] Dn 1 CeCle2 (3) F. (1). (2). (8). #10137. DF. Prop 014 Fi: (qa,y). ody. Seg 2 Dem, Fb. 45426. Dhraky.D.ql2: [#111135] DH: (qa,y).oty.d.q!2 Q) b. #54101. Db ra62.3.(qa,y) ety [*1011-23] DE: 12.D.(qa,y).ady (2) .(1).@). 3+. Prop When we are considering the lowest type occurring in a context, our premisses do not suffice to prove (qa,y).a+y. For every other type, this can be proved. Thus A+V and A+V give the required result for classes and relations respectively. #10141, br (qa).vetV e.g 12 Dem. F. 42414. Transp. > bs (qa). uetV [#51715] [101-4] #10142, F124, 0A UV e Qony Dem, #2041 04241. 5b. A,VeCls.AtV qa) 1 .(1).#5426. Dh.cAvUVe? uA UUV CCl. [*63°371105] Dh. AU eV Qn tCls. [(#65-01)) DUA ULV e2q4. Db. Prop #10143, Fe! 2nq [Proof as in #10142]102. ON CARDINAL NUMBERS OF ASSIGNED TYPES Summary of #102. In this number, we shall consider a typically definite relation “Ne,” ie. we shall consider the relation, to a class 8 which is given as of the same type as B, of the class z of those classes y which are similar to 8 and of the same type asa. We shall then put B= Neo (ag), ye No(ag)‘8, 810, p) 8, and the class of all such numbers as for a given a and 8 we shall call NC? (a), so that NO (a) = D‘Ne (a). The notations here introduced for giving typical definiteness to “sm” and “No” are those defined in *65 for any typically ambiguous relation. By %63:01-02 we have, if a is a typically ambiguous symbol, bia, an te, F.a(e) = ante. Thus k.a(2)= ave. If we apply the definitions to 1, “1,” is meaningless unless 2 is a class; we therefore write a Greek letter in place of 2, and we have bilp=latB=la(upu—up). If we 8, we shall have uw=8.v.ua+ 8. Hence FiweB.d.twels. Similarly braneB.D. Uwe ly. Thus Fiwet(@.D.Uwelg. The converse implication also holds, so that Fiwet(A.=.twels. Thus 1, consists of all unit classes whose sole members « either are or are not members of , i.e. for which “ae 8” is significant. In “x et 8.2. tel,” the hypothesis renders explicit the condition of significance; thus “t‘ae 1,” is always true when significant, and always signi- ficant when «¢t,{8. On the interpretation of negative statements concerning types, see the note at the end of this number. It should be noted that all the constant relations introduced in this work are typically ambiguous. Consider eg. A, sg, D, s, &, Z, & ¢, Cl, Rl. These all have more or less typical ambiguity, though all of them have what we will call relative typical definiteness, i.e. when the type of the relatum is given, that of the referent is given also. (In regard to D, it is not true that, conversely24 CARDINAL ARITHMETIC [PART TIT when the type of the referent is given, that of the relatum is also given.) But «sm” and “Ne” have not even relative definiteness. When the type of the relatum is given, that of the referent becomes no more definite than before; the only restrictions are that the relatum for “sm” or “Nc” must be a class, that the referent for “sm” must be a class, and that the referent for “Ne” must be a class of classes. When a relation R has relative definiteness, it is enough to fix the type of the relatum; and if further Re1— Cls, so that B leads to a descriptive function, “Ry” has complete typical definiteness as soon as the type of y is given. Now the constant relations hitherto introduced, with the exception of “sm” and “V,” have all been one-many relations, and have been used almost exclusively in the form of descriptive functions. Hence no special notation has been required to give typical definiteness, since “Ry,” in these circumstances, has typical definiteness as soon as y is assigned. But with the consideration of “sm” and “Ne,” which do not have even relative definiteness, an explicit means of giving typical definiteness becomes necessary. It should be observed, however, that “Ne‘5” has typical definiteness, when 5 1s known, as soon as the domain of “Ne” has typical definiteness, since § must belong to the converse domain. It is for the sake of this and similar cases that we introduced the two definitions in *65, which only give typical definiteness to the domain. In virtue of the definitions in *65, if R is a typically ambiguous relation, and x is a referent, R becomes R,} if, further, y is a relatum, R becomes > > > Ruy. If @ is a referent for R, we have (qy).ve R'y, and R'yeD‘R. Thus ae D‘& has a member of the type next above that of «, ie. of the type of ua. Thus Fe sgi(R.) = BB) and Fo 88°(Ragu] = CB) (ay) as was proved in *65. Hence in particular F. 9g{smye,p} =Ne (as). It is chiefly for this reason that it is worth while to introduce the defini- tion of R (ay). We have, in virtue of the above, as will be proved in *102°46, Fryeta.det(B.ysm5.=.ye Ne(ag)'S. With regard to “Ne(a),” which is to be interpreted by #65°04, some caution is necessary. This will mean some one of those typically different relations called “Ne” which have their domains composed of terms of the same type as a. But it will not mean the logical sum of all such relations, because these relations are of different types according as their converse domains differ in type, and therefore their logical sum is meaningless. Thus for example if the type of @ is lower than or equal to that of a, we shall have bgt Ne (a),SECTION A] ON CARDINAL NUMBERS OF ASSIGNED TYPES 25 whence, if “Nc(a)” has its converse domain composed of terms of the same type as 8, Fe Awe D‘Ne (a). But if A is of higher type than a, we shall find F. Ae DNe(a). Thus “Ne (a)” is indeterminate in a way that makes a practical difference. Exactly similar remarks apply to NC (a). We have F.NC(@)=D‘Ne (a); thus “NC(a)” shares the ambiguity of “Ne(a).” The question whether Ae NC (a) depends upon the decision of this ambiguity. The difficulty is that “NC (a)” stands for the domain of any one determination of “Nc” which has its domain composed of objects of the type of ta; but it is the domain of only one such determination of “Ne,” because different determinations are of dif- ferent types,and therefore cannot be taken together, even when their domains are all of the same type. In consequence of this ambiguity, “NC (a)” isa symbol which is as a rule better avoided, and “Ne(a)” is not often useful except as a descriptive function, in which case the relatum supplies the requisite typical definiteness, The peculiarity of “NC(a)” is that it is typically definite, and yet is capable of different meanings: it is not wholly definite, being defined as the domain of a relation whose converse domain is typically ambiguous. It results that we cannot profitably make “NC” half-definite, as “NC (a)” does, but must make it completely definite, as we do by taking D‘Ne (ag). For this we adopt the notation NC#(a). We cannot adopt the notation NC (ag), because that would conflict with *65°11, nor NC(a)g, because that would conflict with 65-01, nor NC, (a), for the same reason. But NC*(a) has no previously defined meaning. We may if we like regard “NC?” as D‘(Ne[ tg). Then the required meaning of “NC*(a)” would result from *65:04. But as “NO*” so defined is not required, it is simpler to regard “NC#(a)” as a single symbol. We there- fore put #10201. NC*(a)=D‘Ne (a) Df The present number begins with various propositions (#102'°2—27) on a typically definite relation of similarity, ie. sm¢,q. We then have a set of propositions (#102°3—46) on “Ne (ag)‘6.” ‘This is only significant if 8 and 8 are of the same type; it then denotes the class of those classes which are similar to § and of the same type asa. We then have a set of propositions (*102'5—64) on NC#(a), tie, on cardinals consisting of classes of the same type as a which are similar to classes of the same type as &. We next prove (*102'71—75) that no sub-class of a is similar to Cl‘a, and therefore (substituting ta for a) no class of the same type as a is similar to ¢a, and therefore #10274, F. Ae NC“*(a)26 CARDINAL ARITHMETIC {parr 01 This proves that A is a cardinal, which is a proposition constantly required. The remaining propositions of *102 are concerned with sm‘‘p where p is a typically definite cardinal. The most useful propositions in this number (apart from *102°74) are #1028. Fr ysmay 5.=.yeNe(ap)'3 #10246, Frye No(ap)'8.2.8eNe(Ba)'y. =. ysmd.yeta. dete #1025. bi we NO* (a). . (8). = Ne(ap)S #1026. F. No(a)(B=Ne (ag)'8=4 (ysmB wy eta) =NeB nt'a #10272. b:@Ca.2.~(6 sm Cla) This is used in proving »eNC.>.2#> y, which is the proposition from which Cantor deduced that there is no greatest cardinal. (If ~=Ne‘a, = Ne‘Clfa, and thus there is a rise of type.) 10284. 1: (qy).ysma.yeta.dsmy.5.3sma #10285, fF. sm“unt'B=smp%p ¥10201. NC#(a)=D‘Ne(as) Df M0211. b: Rel31.9- Rey el (@) 1 (y) Here, if R is a real variable, the conditions of significance require R = Ry,y. But if RB is a typically ambiguous constant, such as J or A or sg, Riy is a typically definite constant. It is chiefly for such cases that propositions such as the above are useful. Dem. F .#37-402.. (#651). Db. D' Ru, y Cte. [33-15] Dh. {sg Rye Cte. [#635] DE. {sg Re, w}'z€ tt (1) F.(1)#71102. Dkr Hp.zeC' Rey .D- (sg Ru,y}eel atta. [(65-02)] D+ {sg Ray}zel(m) (2) Similarly brHp.weD‘Ryy+>-{gs'Rey}wel(y) (3) F.(2).(8)-#70°1. DF. Prop #10213, bi Rel1.3.Ree1(2)>1 [Proof as in #10211] #1022. biysmag 5.=.ysmS.yeta.det@ — [*35'102. (*65'1)] #10221, brysmeg 8.=.(qR).Relo1.DRetia. GURet@.D'Ray.GR=5 — [#102-2.*73-1] #10222, Frysm(o,y)8.=.ysmS.y Cte. SCty [x63 . (*65+12)] #10223, Frysm(w,y)5.=.(qR).Rel+1.D‘RCta. GRCty.DR=y.GR=5 [#102-22. #751]SECTION A] ON CARDINAL NUMBERS OF ASSIGNED TYPES Q7 #10224. Frysm(o,y)5.2.(qR).Rel(2)>1(y).DR=y.GR=5 Dem. F-10228 . #4055249 487-25. > an beeysm(a,y)5+=2(qR):RelaliweC'R. Dy. Rw Cer < reDR.D,. Re Cty: DR=y.CRas: ey [03°5] =1(qR): Rell. RURC ttc. RVR Cty, DR=y.0R=8: [a71-102.(46502)] = 1(qR).R“C'RC1(a).RD'RC1 (y).D' Ray. R=8: [701] (aR). Rel (a) 91). R= 7. 'R=8:. 9+. Prop #10225. bry sty. -=.(qR)- Rela lp. DR=y-CR=8 [Proof as in #10224] #10226. Fr ysmas) d.4/ sings 5-D.78Mia,0 7 Dem. F. #1022. D+: Hp.d.ysmd.9/smS.yy eta. [#78'32] D.ysmy’ yy eta. [#1022] D.ysm oe yt Db. Prop #10227, bry sme 5-9’smee5-D-78meey7’ [Proof as in #10226] #1023, Fry sm ag 5. =. Ne (ap)'S Dem. b. «3218.5 Fey fa,p) 56 = ory € {889M jo, ]43 + [65:2] ‘y¢ {(sg‘sm) (ap)}*S « [(*100-01)] ye No(ag)'3: DF. Prop #10231. +. Ne(a)'8-= Df a1 a R(DR eta. RB ett8. OR =8)} Dem. f. #102321. FsyeNe(ag)‘8 [#33°123.437-1] (qR).Rel1.D' Reta. Ret'B.DR=y.0R=8. yeD“(Loln RD Reta. CRet(B.R=d)}: DF. Prop #10232, F. No (ap)‘3=D* (1a 1p) 03} Dem. F .#102'3-25 . > bryeNe(a)8.5.(GR)- Rela ls-D'R=7.CR=3. [#3361] GR). Rel. lp ReTS.DR=y. [439-123.437-1] = «ye D'*{(1, > 1p) 9 O'S}: DF. Prop #10234, F. Ne (a, B)'S=D"{l ain R(D‘Reta. CRC. COR=S)} [Proof as in #10231]28 CARDINAL ARITHMETIC [parr IT yas 10235. +. Ne(a,8)'S=D"{{1,>1(8)} n U8] [Proof as in #102'32] 910236. FE! Ne(ag)3 [#10281 . #1421] This proposition is trae whenever it is significant, and is significant when- ever 5¢¢8, When 6 belongs to some other type, the above proposition is not significant. #102361. + E!Ne(a,@)8 [¥102'34. #1421] #10237. +.0‘Ne(as)= 8 Dem. } 437-402 . (W651). DE. ONe (ag) CB (1) f .#102°36 . #3343. Dt. (8). Se U*Ne(as). [63:14] DF. tU‘Ne (as) = ONe (as) @) F. (1). #63°21. Dh. tCNe (as) =t68 (3) b.(2).(8). DF. Prop #1024 bye Ne(ag)‘5.y’e No(ap)'S.D.yeNe (aa)'y [*102'326] #10241, bye Ne (ag)'B «ye No(a’g)'B.D.yeNe(au)‘y’ [¥1023-27] #10242, FeaeNe(a.)‘a [¥1023-2. #733. *63°103] 10243, F.g!Ne(a.)fa [6102-42] This inference is legitimate because, when a is given, “Ne (a,)'a” is typically definite. The inference from “ae Ne‘a” (which is true) to “q !Ne‘a” is not valid, because “gy ! Ne‘a” may hold only for some of the possible determinations of the ambiguity of “No.” #10244. Frasmf.=.ae Ne (ag); Dem. «Be Ne(B.)'a F, «63-102. Fr asm B.aeta.Pet(B qa) BF. "3.4. Prop #10245. tye Ne (ap). 3. ye Neo (a)'y Dem. b.#10232.3b:Hp.d.yetta qd) F.x733. 0 Dh.ysmy (2) k + (1). (2). 1023-2. D+. Prop ¥10246, Fs ye Ne (ap)'3.=.8eNe(B,)fy. =-ysm 8. eta. det [#10223 . #7331] 1025. Fs we NC*(a). =. (8). w= Ne (ap)'S [#100-22.471-41 .(4102-01)] In using propositions, such as those of #100, in which we have a typically ambiguous “Ne” or “NC,” any significant typical definiteness may be added, since, when a typically ambiguous proposition is asserted, that includes the assertion of every possible proposition resulting from determining the ambiguity.SECTION A] ON CARDINAL NUMBERS OF ASSIGNED TYPES 29 4102-501. +. Ne(ap)'SeNCA (a) [*102'5°36] 0251. bry eNe(ag)'B.D «Ne (as)'3 = Ne(a)%y« Ne (ap)‘5 « NC# (a). Ne (aa)‘y e NC* (a) Dem. + .#1023:2.D Fi Hp. Diysm8.yetta.detB: [«78°37.4473] D:£smd.=.Esmyifsms.=.£sms. dete: &smy Esmy.yetfar [422] DrEsm dh. Seth Esmy.yetta: [Fact] Dikoms. feta.de'B.=.Esmy. Feta.vetas [102-23] D:Ne(ag)‘S = Ne (aa)*y (1) k. (1).#102°501. 3. Prop 610252, Figg! Ne(ap)'3.D.No(ap)SeNC#(a) [102-51] #10253, . NO#(a)— ofA CNC*(a) Dem. F #10252. Dts w= Ne(ap\'S. qt wed. weNCr(a) ( F.(1).#1025. 2+. Prop #10254, 8 eNo(A,)y.D.Ne(ag)8=Ne(aa)sy [¥10251-46] 102541. Fr Ne (Ba)y.D« Ne (aa)‘y e NC (a) — 0A. Dem. f .#102'54°501 . DF: Be Ne(B,)'y. D « Ne (ata)*y € NC* (a) (1) b.10246°45. Dh: Se Ne(A.y. Ds yeNe(aa)*y [w10-24] Dem ENe (a.)éy (2) F.(1).(2).9 br 8eNe(A,)fy. >. Ne (aa)*y eNC# (a) ~ eA: DE. Prop #10255, Fi Awe NO*(@).. NC# (a) — A = NC* (a) Dem. + #1025. Fi Hp. Dip=Ne(By-Dny Eee [102541] Davy Ne (ata)*y e NCP (a) — eA [41023] Ds (qu). w= Ne (Ba)*y.D,-Ne (aa)*y eNC# (a) UA [102-36] D : (ry). Ne (aa)y e NC? (a) — 0A: [#13191] D:v=Ne(a)'y.D,,,.¥ @NC#(a)—UAt [1025] D:veNC*(a).3,.veNC#(a)—eA a b. (1). *102'53 . +. Prop The above proposition shows that, if every class of the same type as @ is similar to some class of the same type as a, then, given a class y of the same type as a, there is a class 8, of the same type as 8, such that the classes similar to & and of the same type as a are the same as the classes similar to y and of30 CARDINAL ARITHMETIC [par LIT the same type as a; and conversely, given any class 8, of the same type as 8, and similar to some class of the same type as a, then there is a class yy, of the same type as a, such that the classes similar to y and of the same type as a are the same as the classes similar to 5 and of the same type as a, We may express this by saying that, if the cardinals which go from the type of a to the type of A are never null, then those that go from the type of to the type of a, with the exception of A (if A is one of them), are the same as those that begin and end within the type of a. ‘The latter are what we call “homogeneous” cardinals. Thus our proposition is a step towards reducing the general study of cardinals to that of homogeneous cardinals, #1026. F. No(a)(8 = Ne(as)‘8=4(ysm B. yet'a)=NeBnita Dem. F.#B5'1. (#6504). > biw=Ne(ayB.=.n=NeB. pet a. [63:5] -woNeB.pCta. [x65°13] -paNetBatia. Q) [#100-1] (ysmB wyet a). Q) [463-103] (ysm B.yetfa. Bet). [#102-46] =. p=No(ap8 (3) F (1). (2). (8). #202. #1001. F. Prop #10261, 1: Set@.3.Ne(a)'S= Ne (ap)‘8 Dem. e473. 2b: Hp.d.4(ysmd.yetia)=9 (ysmd.yetta. det) [#102°46] = Ne (ag)‘8 (1) F.(1).#102°6. DF. Prop 10262, F.NC#(a)=Ne (a)t'e Dem. + 37-7 . (#10001). b.Ne(ayt8 = 2 {(q18). det8. w= Ne(a)'3} [¥102:61] jf {(8). 8et'B. w= Ne (ap)'3} [#102'37] D‘Ne (ap) [(#102-01)] =NC#(a). D+. Prop #10263. bip=Nefy.aen.d.p=Ne(a)'y Dem. F635. Db: Hp.d.p=Nety.pCtia. [x65-13] D.waNety ata. [102-6] D.p=Ne(a)y: Dt. Prop #10264. FrpeNC.q!y.>. (qa, 7). m=Ne(ayy [102-63 .*100-4] The following propositions are part of Cantor's proof that there is no greatest cardinal. They are inserted here in order to enable us to prove thatSECTION A} ON CARDINAL NUMBERS OF ASSIGNED TYPES 31 A is a cardinal, namely what we call a “descending” cardinal, ie. one whose corresponding “sm” goos from a higher to a lower type. #10271, bs ReCls1.D'RCa. MRC Ola. . qt Cla-aR Dem. b . 20°33 4°73. 3 tiHp.o=8(eeD‘R. ave Re). D2. zeD'R.Dg:eea.=.0ne Re: [45-18] Dinfecs.s. ce Ra}: [#20-43.Transp.#71164] 9,204 Ries. [#71-411. Transp] Ds ove CR @ F.420°83.. 43-26. : Hp(1)..c CDR. [Hp] D.oCa (2) F.(1).(2)-#18°191. > tr Hp.>.2(ceD‘R. ove Ra) eCla—~C‘R: +. Prop 10272, F:8Ca.D. (8 sm Clfa) Dem. F. #10271. F:.Hp.d: Rell. DR=6.0‘RCCla + Dae q!Cla—-G‘R: [4245542241]: Rel 1. D‘R=8.3_.0R4Cla: [#10°51] D:<(qR).Rel+1.D‘R=8.0'R= Cla: [x73-1] > :0(8 sm Clfa) st. Prop #10273, +. Ne(a)‘tfa=A Dem. F. #1026. DF. No (a)‘t'a= 9 (ysm ta. y eta) [¥63-65] = (sm Clif ry Cf) [#10272] =A.2b. Prop This proposition proves that no class of the same type as @ is similar to ta. Now ta is the greatest class of its type; thus there are classes of the type next above that of a which are too great to be similar to any class of the type of a. Thus (as will be explicitly proved later) the maximum cardinal in one type is less than that in the next higher type. Cantor's proposition that there is no maximum cardinal only holds when we are allowed to rise to con- tinually higher types: in each type, there is a maximum for that type, namely the number of members of the type. #10274. F. Ae NOM (a) Dem. #1026501. DE. Ne(a)‘tfae NC**(a) Q) F,(1).#10273. DF. Prop34 CARDINAL ARITHMETIC [parr oT t Note on negative statements concerning types. Statements such as “eve ty’ or “eve ty'a” are always false when they are significant. Hence when an object belongs to one type, there is no significant way of expressing what we mean when we say that it does not belong to some other type. The reason is that, when, for example, t“a and ta are said to be different, the statement is only significant if interpreted as applying to the symbols, i.e. as meaning to deny that the two symbols denote the same class. We cannot assert that they denote diferent classes, since “t*a+t,‘a” is not significant, but we can deny that they denote the same class. Owing to this peculiarity, propositions dealing with types acquire their importance largely from the fact that they can be interpreted as dealing with the symbols rather than directly with the objects denoted by the symbols. Another reason for the importance of typically definite propositions is that, when they are implications of which the hypothesis can be asserted, they can be used for inference, i.e. for the assertion of the conclusion. Where typically ambiguous symbols occur in implications, on the contrary, the conditions of significance may be different for the hypothesis and the conclusion, so that fallacies may arise from the use of such implications ininference. Eg. itis fallacy to infer “F . oq! Ne‘a” from the (true) propositions “braeNc'a.d.q!Ne‘a” and “t.aeNe‘a.” (The truth of the first of these two requires that “Ne‘a” should receive the same typical determination in both its occurrences.) For these two reasons hypotheticals concerning types are often useful, in spite of the fact that their hypotheses are always true when they are significant.*103. HOMOGENEOUS CARDINALS Summary of #108. In this number, we shall consider cardinals generated by a homogeneous relation of similarity. A “homogeneous” cardinal is to mean all the classes similiar to some class a and of the same type as a. The “homogeneous cardinal of a” will be defined as No‘an t‘a; we shall denote it by “Nea.” Then the class of homogeneous cardinals is the class of all such cardinals as “Nyc'a,” ie. it is DN,e; this we shall denote by “N,C.” ‘The symbol “Neca” is typically definite as soon as a is assigned; “N.C,” on the contrary, is typically ambiguous: it must be a Cls', but otherwise its type may vary in- definitely. Homogeneous cardinals have, however, many properties which do not require that the ambiguity of “NC” should be determined, and few which do require this. They are important also as being the simplest kind of cardinals, and as being a kind to which other kinds can usually be reduced. The chief advantage of homogeneous cardinals is that they are never null (#103'13°22), This enables us to avoid by their means the explicit exclusion of exceptional cases; thus throughout Section B we shall use homogeneous cardinals in defining the arithmetical operations: the arithmetical sum of Ne‘a and Ne‘, for example, will be defined by means of N,e‘a and Nic‘, in order to exclude such a determination of the typical ambiguity of Ne‘a and Ne‘ as would make either of them null. It is true that not only homogeneous cardinals, but also ascending cardinals (cf. #104), are never null. But homo- geneous cardinals are much the simplest kind of cardinals that are never null, and are therefore the most convenient. The fact that no homogeneous cardinal is null is derived from #10812. Few Noota Other important propositions in this number are the following: #1082, biweN.C.=.(qa)-p=Ne‘wntla.s.(qa).w=Neta #10326. Fi.weNC.Diaep.2.Nea=p The above proposition is used constantly. #10327, biw=Niea.s.peNC.acu Thus to say that w is the homogeneous cardinal of a is equivalent to saying that x is a cardinal of which a is a member. 103-301. | . NO (2) =N,C (a) #10384. b.NO-VvACNC #1034. sm Nyefa = Ne‘a 103-41. b sm“ Nie‘an {8 = No(8)a36 CARDINAL ARITHMETIC (PART 111 : #10301. Niefa=Ne‘anta Df *10302, N.C=D‘Nic DE #1031. . Nycfa=(Ne‘a), = Ne(a)fa=Ne(a,)fa [¥102°6 . (#108'01)] #10311. br BeNla.=.@sma.feta.=.PeNeta. Betta [103-1 . #102°6] #10312, F.aeNycfa [108-11 . #733. #63103] #10313. beg Nycfa [108-12 . #1024] This is a legitimate inference from #10312 because, when ais given, Nyc‘a is typically definite. #10314. +: Nefa= Nie§ saeNcB.=.BeN cca =.asmB.act'B b.¥103-11.3 be. Nca=Nic'B.=tysma.yela.sy.ysmB-vyetB: (1) [*10-1] Drasma.aeta.=.asmA.aclp: [a73'3.463'103] Drasm@.aetB (2) F #7332. #6317 Frasm@.aetB.ysma.yeta.d.ysmB.yelB (3) F.(3) BS ¥13-31 - #63°16.. > FrasmB.aetB.ysn8.yetB.d.ysma.ye tia (4) F.(8)-(4) (1). FrasmB.aet'B.>.Nea=NeB (5) b. (2). (5). #103°11 . #73°31 . #6316, +. Prop #10815, big! Nictan Nyoi@. 5. Neota=NeB Dem. #10813. Fs Nefa= Nog. d. qt Nctan Nocia qa b.#10B14. Dkr ye Necta.yeNetB. Dd. Nycta= Nooty NecsB = Necty. [¥14131-144] Dd. Noefa=NiclA: [x10-11-23] Dh sg! Nyefan Nicf@.d.Nocfa= Nec’ @) F.(1).(2). DF. Prop #10816. F:Nyoa=Ne'@.=.Nea=NeB In this proposition, the equation “Ne‘a= Ne‘Q” must be supposed to hold in any type for which it is significant. Otherwise, we might find a type for which Nefa =A =No‘g, without having Nye‘a= Ne‘. Dem. b. #10812. 9b: Nycfa=NeB.d.aeNeB. [«10031-321] >. Nefa=Netg a b .#22481.3h: Noa=Ne'B. 2.Ne‘anta=NeBntta. [65°18.(4103-01)] D.Necta= Ne (2) F. (1). (2). . PropSECTION A] HOMOGENEOUS CARDINALS 37 #1032. bipeN,C.=.(qa).p=Ne‘anta.=. (qa). w=Nyo [#TL-A1 . #10022 . (#108-01-02)] «103-21. +. Nicfae N.C. NyefaeNC [x103-2. #10024, #1428. x65°13] In adducing a proposition, such as #100°2, which is concerned with an “Ne” entirely undetermined in type, any degree of typical determination may be added to our “Ne,” since an asserted proposition containing an ambiguous “Ne” is only legitimate if it is true for every possible determination of the ambiguity. #10822, FrweNO.D.q tu [#103-13°2] #10323. f. Awe NC [#10322] #103:24. +. N,CeCls ex? excl [*100:48 . #103-23 . #8413] #10825. biwveNC.digtuav.s-p=v — [¥108-24. 484185] 10326. Fi. weNC.Diaen.s.Nea=p Dem. F. #10045. DbHp.I:aep.d.Nea=p q@ ba 63-22, Dhiwew. DI pCta (2) b. (1). (2). 422621. 0b. Hp. Diaew.d.Noanta=p. [(«108:01)] D.Nicta=p (3) +. «10312. DEIN ea=p.d.acp (4) F.(3).(4). DF. Prop 10327, tip=Ne‘a.s.peNC.aep Dem. +. *103-:26.Dh: weNC.p=Nicca « (1) .#108°21. +. Prop 103-28. + :(qa).ysma.p=Neta.s.qip.m=Ne'y Dem, b. «108-27. > F:(qa).ysna.p=Neela.=.(qa).ysma.peNC.aep. -weNC.aep ay as [#100°31] -peNC. gt paNe'y. [%100°42-41] =.peNC.q tpn Nety.p=Nety. [#100-41] =.qla.g=Noty: D+. Prop #1033, bs Beta. d.Nyc‘@=Ne (a)(B=Ne (a) =Ne'Bntia Dem, F.x6B16. 3: Hp. >. uate. [#22°481.(4108-01)] 3. Nie(B= Nei atta qd) [*102°6] = Ne(a)‘8 (2) [*10261] =Ne(m)‘B (3) fF .(1).(2). (3). DF. Prop38 CARDINAL ARITHMETIC [part it 103301. F. NO*(a) = N,C (a) Note that although “NC(a)” is not definite, “N,C(a)” is absolutely definite as soon as a is assigned. Dem. +. #1083. 3+: Beta.p=NeB.=.Betfa-p=Ne(a)2- [«102:37] =.p=Ne(aay'2 a b .x68°5 . (#108-01). > =NyelB.D:Reta.s.pet a 2 F F.C). (2). Db peta. p=Ne'B.=.p=Ne(a)B @) F (8) .#1011-281-35.. > bs pet a: (8). n= Nec + (G8). w= Ne(aa)'B- [x102°5] «we NC*(a) @) F. (4). #108°2. Db: pet an NC. =.peNC#(a) 6) F (5). (65°02). DF. Prop #10831, big! Ne (ap)... Ne (ap) e N,C (a) Dem. +. ¥10252. Dh: Hp. >. Ne (ag)Be NC*(a) . [¥103'301} D.Ne(ap)'8 e NC (a): DF. Prop #10332, +. NC#(a)— A CNC (a) Dem. F. #10831. Db w= Ne (a)8.q te. D. we NC (a) a) b. (1). #1025. D+. Prop In the above proposition, the “8” may be omitted, and we may write (cf. *103'33, below) F.NC (a) - A CN,C(a). For the @ is wholly arbitrary, so that any possible determination of NC (a) makes the above proposition true. We may proceed a step further, and write (#108'34, below) F.NC-VACNC But although we also have N,C C NC 1A, provided the “NO” on the right is suitably determined, we do not have this always. For example, if “NC” is determined as NC* (#a), and “N,C” as N,C (a), then Nye‘tae NyC— NO. 10833, F. NC(@) A CNC (a) Dem. es (*65°02).> Fi weNC(ay-iA. tmeNC. pet a.gqip: [#100-4.%63:5] G8). m=NeBipCta.gqhy: [¥65-18) Bn ttargips {#102'6] +(q8) «uw =Ne (as). qt [#103:31) Dt peN,C(@) st. PropSECTION A] HOMOGENEOUS CARDINALS 39 #10334, +.NC-VvACNC Dem. +. *100°31'321 . *63°5 . > bip=Nefa. Pep. dw=NeBatB [(103-01)] =Nee. [#103:2] D.weNC @ F. (1). *100°4, #11°11'35°54, D+. Prop ‘Thus every cardinal except A is a homogeneous cardinal in the appropriate type. Note that although of course every homogeneous cardinal is a cardinal, yet “N,C C NC” must not be asserted, because it is possible to determine the ambiguity of “NC” in such a way as to make this false. Hence we do not get NC-vA=NC. #10335. b:A~eNC*(8). >. NC# (a) — uA =N,C (a) [4102'55 . *103°301] The hypothesis of this proposition is satisfied, as will appear later, if the type of 8 is in what we may call the direct ascent from that of a, ie. if it can be reached from @ by a finite number of steps each of which takes us from a type to either Clr or R77). Thus in such a case the cardinals (other than A) which go from ¢*@ to ta are the same as those which begin and end within “a, Ié will also appear that in such a case A always is a member of NC# (a). If two cardinals which are not equal must always be one greater and the other less, then A ¢ NC® (a) is the condition for N,c‘t‘8 > Ne(8)ta. In that case, we shall have AeNC*(a).3.A~eNC#(8). But there is no known proof that of two different cardinals one must be the greater, except by assuming the multiplicative axiom and proving thence (by Zermelo’s theorem) that every class can be well-ordered (cf. #258). #1034. b. sm‘Nyofa= Nea Dem. F.«871.5 FrSesm“N,c'a.=.(qy)-ysma.yeta.dsmy. [#10284] 8sma:>t. Prop #10341. fF. sm“Nofan t(8 =Ne(8)a Dem. F. #1034. >+.sm“NieflantB=Nefant'e (102°6] =Ne(@)'a.3+. Prop #10342, t:@sma.=.Ne(8)a=Ne'8 Dem. +. #100321.3+:@sma.>.Ne‘a=Ne‘g. [422'481] >. NetaniipaNeBntB. [*102°6.(*103-01)] D.Ne(B)a=Ne'h da) #10312. +: Ne(@)'a=Nie'B.d. Be Ne(Ay'a- [*100°31] >.Bsma Q) F.().(2). 34. Prop40 CARDINAL ARITHMETIC (PART IIT + #10843, FrpeNC.>.sm“patéu=y Dem. +. 48729. Dkiw=A.d.sm“pntiw=A qa) #10827. Db: peNC.dep.d.p=Nola.tipata. [*103-41] Damp a hip= Ne (aya [¥108:3:27] a (2) F.(1).(2).F. Prop #10844, binyveNC.Iip=sm“y.= Dem. +.#10053. Dh gipeg!y.pveNC.d:p=smy.=.y—smip (1) b. #108272. bi Hp.>.qly.gqty.p,veNO (2) F.(1).(2). Db. Prop ¥1085. F.0eN,C Dem. F.HOLI112.3+.0eNC.q!0. [¥103°34] Dr.0eN,C.I+. Prop #10351. F.1eN,C Dem. + .#101-21-241.3b.1leNC.qll. [#10334] Db.LeN,C.3+. Prop 0 and 1 are the only cardinals of which the above property can be proved universally with our assumptions. If (as is possible so far as our assumptions go) the lowest type is a unit class, we shall have in that type (though in no other) 2= A, so that in that type 2~eN,C. v=amp#104. ASCENDING CARDINALS Summary of «104. In this number we have to consider cardinals derived from a relation of similarity which goes from the type of @ to that of ta, or to that of a, The propositions to be proved can be extended, bya mere repetition of the proofs, to ta, ta, etc. This extension must, however, be made afresh in each instance; we cannot prove that it can be made generally, because mathematical indue- tion cannot be applied to the series tifa, ta, ta, Oa, .... Ascending cardinals, though less important than homogeneous cardinals, yet have considerable importance in arithmetic, because Ne‘a x Ne‘@ and (Ne‘a)No* are defined as the cardinals of classes of higher types than those of a and 8, and the same applies to the product of the cardinals of members of a class of classes. In these cases, however, we also need cardinals of relational types, which will be dealt with in *106. We have to deal, in this number, with three different sets of notions, namely 10401. Nieta=Netant‘t'a Dé #10402, NIC=D‘Ne De #10408. p=om“pntty Df with similar definitions of N’e‘a, ete. Thus N'e‘« consists of all classes similar to abut of the next higher type, te, itis the cardinal number ofa in the type next above that of Nyc‘a; NC is the class of all such cardinals as Nic‘, and is a typically ambiguous symbol, though N'c‘a is typically definite when a is given; # (if wis a cardinal which is not null) is the “same” cardinal in the next higher type, so that, eg., if w is 1 determined as consisting of unit classes of individuals, 4°) will be 1 determined as consisting of unit classes of classes of individuals. (When uv is not an existent cardinal, . is unimportant.) The following are the most useful propositions in the present number: #10412. Be Nicta.yeNiB.D.yeNea 1042, bia Nioke #10421, beg t Nica #10424, rp = Nila. dD. p=Neta= Neh {(qy)-yea. B= uau ty} #10425, +. NCCN,C #10426, bip=Nota.d. pm =Neia= Neca 104-265. be p® omy42, CARDINA] ARITHMETIC [part mr #10427. Fi.peNC.dip=Nicia.=- hu = Niele #10435, +. NCCN'C. NC CNC #10443, br tfa=t'B.D.(qy,8).yeN'e'a. SeNeB.ynd=h #10401, Nicca=Ne‘antitfa Df This defines the cardinal number of « in the next type above that of N,c‘a; thus N%ofa consists of all classes similar to a and of the next type above that of a. #104011, Neca = Nefantta Df Similar definitions are to be assumed for N*c‘a, etc. #10402, NIC=DNic Df NIG, like N,C, is typically ambiguous; but N°C(q) is typically definite. #104021, N*C = D‘N’e Df Similar definitions are to be assumed for N®C, ete. #10408. uM =sm“pa tty DE Here, if 4 is a cardinal, »” is the same cardinal in the next higher type. For example, if w is couples of individuals, wis couples of classes of individuals, #104081. uw =sm“pne, Df Similar definitions are to be assumed for 2%, ete. 1041, Fr BeNio‘a.=.BeNow. Betit'a.=.BeNela. BC ta [63-5 . (#104-01)] #104101, t: Be No'a.=.Bsma.BCtia [#100°31 . x1041] #104102, +. Ni‘a= Ne(t'a)‘a= Ne {(ta).Ja [#1026 . (#10401)] wl0411, 1: BeNe'a.s.BeNo'a. Set"a.=.BeNe'a. BCH a [x6355 . (#104-:011)] #104111. 1: BeNita.s.Bsma.BCia — [¥100°31. «10411] #104112. +. Nica = Ne(ia)a=No {(ta)a}‘a [#102°6. (#104-011)] ¥10412, F: BeNicla.yeNic'g.d.ye Nea Dem. .4104¢1.3+:Hp.d.BeNeta.Betta.yeNeB.vett'B. [#100'32] D.veNeta. Betta. yetth. [63:16] Dye Noa. HB =tta.yettB. [a13-12] D.veNeta. yettta. [10411] D.yeNtefa: Dt. PropSECTION A] ASOENDING CARDINALS 43 #104121. Fs Be Nica. yeNiofa.d.yeNeB Dem. b.¥104102112. Db: Hp.d. Be Ne {(t'a)a}‘a.ye Ne {(t*a)a}‘a. [102-41] DiyeNe {(t*a)ua}“B @M F.#1041. Dr: Hp.d. Betta. [*63°16] 2. Bata. [(#65-11)] D. Ne {(t"a)yre} = Ne {(#8)5} 2) F .(1) (2). #104102... Prop #104122. F: Be N'c'a.D. Nie§@ = Ne‘a [#104°12'121] #104123, F Nyc(B=Niefa.d.Nic(G=Nie‘a [#104122 . #103-26] #10413, Five NC. 5. (qa). p=Niee [#10022 . #71-41 . (#104°02)] #10414 F2den%. =. (gy). yew dsmy.Setu. =. (ay) yews dsmy.8 Cty [87-1 . *63-22 . (#104-08)] wl04141. FiweNC.gqty.2.u%eNC [¥10052] When the hypothesis “q! 2” is omitted, this proposition is still true, but with a difference. #.g. let us put p= Ne (a)‘tea. Then p=A.p” =A. Thus p” +Ne(t‘a)‘t'a. But we still have py) = Ne (ta) ‘ta, Thus pe NC, but 4" is not the same cardinal as in a higher type, ie. there are classes whose cardinal in one type is wz, but whose cardinal in the next higher type is not p", 104142, Fr peNC.gty.d-p%eNC [10052] #10415. b:weN*C.=.(qa).p=Neova [410022 . #7141 . (x104021)] #1042. Fu ae Nica Dem. + #68621. Db: rea. DeeUeeta: [48761] Dh ea Cea Q@ F.(1). «1006 . #1041. >. Prop #104201. F: Be N,cfa.D.uBe Nie‘a. Niefa= Nie‘ Dem, F. #100°31:321.3+:Hp.>.Ne‘a=Ne‘p qd) b.#l0311. Dk:Hp.d.Peta. [63:16] D.ta=tB. [«80°37] D.tta=tp (2) 4 (1)- (2). (10401). DF. Nie‘a = NeefB (3) +. (8).#1042. >. Prop42 CARDINAL ARITHMETIC (part ur 10427, FreweNC.d:p=Nycla #10435. F.NCOCNIC.N*CCN,C #10443, Frtfa=tB.>.(qy,d).ve Nika. SeNo(B.yndah Bo = Nita #10401. Niefa=Neantta Df This defines the cardinal number of a in the next type above that of N,c‘a; thus N'c‘a consists of all classes similar to a and of the next type above that of a #104011. Neefa=Ne‘antta Df Similar definitions are to be assumed for N*c‘a, etc. #10402. N1C=D‘Nre De NC, like N,C, is typically ambiguous; but N'C (a) is typically definite. #104021, N°C = D‘N*c DE Similar definitions are to be assumed for N*C, etc. #10408, w=sm“paty Df Here, if is a cardinal, 0! is the same cardinal in the next higher type. For example, if » is couples of individuals, ~” is couples of classes of individuals. #104081, p =sm“pnt ym Df Similar definitions are to be assumed for 4, ete. #1041, +: BeNic‘a.=, eNom. Betitia.=.BeNea.BCta [63° . (#10401)] #104101, F: Be Nicka.=. Bema. BC tia [¥100°81 . #1041] #104102. F. Nic‘a=Ne(H'a)‘a=Ne {(t'a).}a [#1026 . (#10401)] MOLL. b:BeNio'a.=.BeNota. Betta.=.BeNoa.BCHa [x63°5 . (#104-011)] #04111. F:BeNefa.s.@sma.BCe%a — [¥10031. #10411] #104112. F . Niefa= Ne (e¥a)fa=No{(ea)a}‘a (#1026. (x104011)] ¥10412, +: Be Nota. yeN'e'g.d.ye Nia Dem. b.#1041.3+:Hp.d.BeNefa. Betta.yeNeB.vettB. [#10032] D.yeNeta.Petta.yett'B. [63:16] D.veNoka.tB=tta.yettB. [*13-12] D.yeNota.yettt'a. [10411] D.yeNtea: DF. PropSECTION A] ASCENDING CARDINALS 43 #104121. : Be Nema. ye Nea. D.ye Neh Dem. F.#104°102112. 3: Hp. >. Be Ne {(t4a)a}a.ye Ne {(t*a)a}‘a [102-42] D.yeNe {(ta)ea}(8 @M F.#LO41. Dri Hp.d. fetta. [+6316] D.Batita. [((65°11)] D. Ne {(#a)y,} = Ne {@B)s} (2) F.(1). (2). #104102. 34. Prop 4104122. F: Be Ncfa.D. Nie’ =Nre‘a [#10412-121] 9104123, F Nyc(B= Niefa.D.Nic(B= Nio‘a 104-122. #10326] #10413. Five NC (qa). p=Nefa [*100°22 . #7141 .(104:02)] ¥10414. 1: Sey. =. (gy). yeu. Samy det{n. =. (ay). yeu. Ssmy.dCty [437-1 . 463-22 . (4104°03)] 04141. FiweNC.gq!y.2.u%eNC [¥10052] When the hypothesis “q ! 2” is omitted, this proposition is still trae, but with a difference. E.g. let us put w= Ne (a)‘t*a, Then p= A.y =A. Thus wu +Ne(ta)‘t'a, But we still have lt = Ne (ta) ‘ta, Thus p eNC, but 4“ is not the same cardinal as in a higher type, ie. there are classes whose cardinal in one type is 4, but whose cardinal in the next higher type is not x. #104142, Fi peNC.g!a.D-u%eNC [¥10052] M0415, Fi weN?C.=.(qa).~=Neofa [¥100-22. #7141. (#104021)] #1042, Fb .tae Neca Dem. F.#68621. 2b :vem.Detwetiat [48761] DF. tata Q) F (1) «#1006. #1041. +. Prop #104201. Fs BeNscla.d.1(Be Neola. Neaa Nes Dem. +. #100°31'321.3+:Hp.>.Ne‘a= Nee qa) F. «103-11. Dr:Hp.>. feta. [68-16] D. tant. [30°37] D.ttaxttB (2) F. (1). (2). (#10401). F. Nefa= Note (3) b. (8). #1042. D+. Prop44 CARDINAL ARITHMETIC [PART I #10421. F.qtNicta [#1042] It follows from this proposition that ascending cardinals are never null. The proof has to be made separately for each kind of ascending cardinal, ie, NIC, N°C, ete. #104211. b. gt Nica Cll [#1042 . #523) #10423, F.AY(qy).yea.Bauau ity} e Nita Dem. b.45116. Dhiyea. D.yean(Uwevity). [x63'16] Ditie vityetfa Q) F.C). #101123. 94. Al(qy).yea.Bautwury} Cia (2) F. (2). #10061. #1041. 3+. Prop #104281, F : Neofa=Nie‘B. D. Noca=NoB Dem. F. #1042. D+: Hp.d.uBeNicta. [#104101] D.tGsma.u“BCta. [473410632164] 2.Bsma.tB=ta. [#10811.%6316] >. feNicfa. [#103-14] D.Nyeta= Nye(@: Dt. Prop 104-282, t: Nota= Nietg.=. Nyoka= Nog .=. Be Neeka [#104-231-201 . #103-14] #10424. Frp=Mela.d. p= Nota= Ne ((qy).y ea. B= Ue vy} [¥104-9-23 . #103'26] #10425, F.NICCNC [61042413] This proposition holds for each possible determination of the typical ambiguities, ie, for every a we have NC (ta) C N.C (#'a). We do not have N°C (a) = N.C (tfa), because Nye‘t'ae N.C (t/a) — N'C (t*a). #104251. F. Awe NC [#10425 . *103-23] 4104252. F. N'CeClsex*exel [4104/25 . #108°24 . #84'26] #10426. w= Neola. d. ll = Noetta= Ne'a Dem. b. #10414, #10341. bie Hp. 3: Seu”. =. (gy). ysma-vyeta.dsmy.dCty. (1) [478'32.46316] >.5sma.8Ctfa. [104-101] D.5eNieta @)SECTION A] ASCENDING CARDINALS 45 F. #104101. brBeNicfa, D.8sma.dCtfa. [¥73'3.463.103] Dasma. aetia-dsma.dCra, [10-24] D. (qq) vema.yeta.dsmy.5Cthy (3) +.(8).(). Dt: Hp. d:8eNie%a.2.deu" (4) + .(2).(4)-#10424. 9F. Prop #104261. Fi =Niea.d.~CN cw Dem. F .#10414101 «> Hp. D:(qy)eveu.dsmy.8C thy Ssma.5Cia: [1023] Di yew. Ssmy.8Cty.Dy,5.8sma.3Cita. [4-7] D,a-dsma.dsmy.8Cta.5 Cty. [W73-32.463+13] D,eeyema.vetfa. [¥103-11] D,ayeNeta Q) Fo (1). #10-23°35 . #104:101.> biHp. Diyew. qi Niety.d,-yeNoetat [¥10421] Ds yew. >,-yeNy‘as. IF. Prop #104262. b: we NC. pl =Nefa. Dd. p= Nea Dem. t.¥10421.2h:Hp.d.qtyl. [437-29.Transp] D.gqtn Q F. 4108-26. : Hp. yew. De p= Neoty (2) b. (1). (2). 2b: Hp. >. (ay). w=Noety. [¥10426.Hp] >. (ay). w= Nety. Niefa= Nioty. [*104281) >. (ay) - w= Necty Nota Neety« [¥13-172] D.w=Nocfa: Db. Prop #104263, Fiaep.D.taen™ Dem. b.a78-41 4871.9: Hp. d.uaesm .taet'p 2) F.(1)- (2). (#10408). 9 F. Prop #104264. Frgty.s.q tye Dem. F.#104:268. Dhigip-deqly” ay F.37-29. Transp . (#10408). DF: gq 1° .Degty 2) F.(1). (2). F. Prop 104265, Fey = smyfp [102-85 . (¥104-03)] 10427, FipeNO.d:p=Noofa.=-u=Nicfa [10426262] 10428. F:weNO-vfA.>. pe NIC [410426 . #108'34]46 CARDINAL ARITHMETIC [PaRT 101 410429. FiveNC.2. (gp). peNCev=p” Dem. be610426. Dhiw=Nefa.vapl.d.v= Mela: [#101128] Dh: (qa). poNefa.v=n.>.(qa).v=Niea: [¥108-2.410413]3 bt peN,C.v=p%.2.veNC qa) +. #10426. #103°2.> tive Nieto. p=Nea.d.v=pu.peNC 2) (2) 1011-28-35 . > =Nrefa: (qu). w= Nicfa:D.(qu).weNC.v=p" (3) (3) #100°2 #14204. rv=Niefa.d. (qu) weNC.v= po (4) = (4) «1011-23 . #10413. > rveNC.D. (qu). weN,C.v=p (5) -(1). (5). D4. Prop #1043, but ae Neko Dem. rrr F. #1042. 9b. uae Nota. uae Nichia. [¥10412] Dh. ueae Noa #10431, beg 1 Nea [#1043] #104311. F. Neofa=Nyettua=Nee'ta [1049-2 . ¥108-26] 410482. Frp=Noofa.d. ui = NycteHufas Nokia = Neca = {yl} © Dem. b. 410426. DF: Hp. D. {u}o = yoke (1) [104311] =Nee‘a (2) F . w108-11 . (#104081). > bi Hp.2:5en%.=.(qy)-ysma.yetta. Samy. dettty. [¥102°84.46316] =. Sema. deta. [¥10411} =.deNreca (3) F. (1). (2). (8)- #10424. DF. Prop #10483, bipeNO.d:y=Noota-= Dem. b.#10427.9h:. Hp. di y=Nieta p= Weta po = Niefa. [#10424] BY =Neta. [#10427°141.4103-13] {ut} = Nietia, [104-3224] pe? = Nea: DF. Prop #10434, FiaeN*C. 5. (sq). ve NC. = 0". =. (Gu). weN,C.o=p" Dem. b.#10432.3 From Nefau= Noa. d.c=n. peNC a)SECTION A] ASCENDING CARDINALS AT F. (1). #1002. #10°11-28-35 ..> F:(qa).o=Ni%la.d.(qu).peN,C.o=p® (2) b.10432. 0 Dhtp=Noefa.o=p".d.7=Neoa, [x10415.4103-2] DF i weN,C.e=n.2. aN (3) F.(2).(8). DkrweN*C.=.(qu).weNC.w=p", (4) [10432] -(qe)-peNC.o={u9}”, [¥13-195] «(Gu v) weNC.v= usa pe, [10429] = <(qv).veN'C.a=v" (6) #.(4).(5). 0. Prop #10436. 1. N*CCNIC.N'CCN,C [x104311-13:15) #10436. bi yeN*efa.ye Nicf@.d. Re Niefa. Nefa=Nets8 Dem. Fb. #104111. F:Hp.d.yeNeta. vette. yeNeoiB. ye tts [¥100-34.46816] >. Neta= NetB ta [x68°35-15] D>. Nefa= Nets. a= [(¥104:01.4103-01)] >. N'efa=Nie’B (Ql) F (1). #10812. 9+. Prop #10437. i Necfa= NickB Dem. Nefa=Nicf8 b.10421.F: Nefa= Nes .d. qi Nefan NickB. [#10436] 2. Nefa=Nie'B q@ F.(1). #104123. F. Prop The following propositions are concerned with the proof that, given any two cardinals « and », of the same type, we can find two mutually exclusive classes one of which has » terms while the other has v terms. The proof requires that we should raise the types of both » and v one degree above that in.which they were originally given, ie. that we should turn w and » into 4 and v®), Thus, for example, suppose the total number of individuals in the universe were finite (a supposition which is consistent with our primi- tive propositions), and suppose were this number, Then unless v=0, a class of y individuals will be an existent sub-class of the only class which consists of 4, individuals, and therefore we shall have wep. Bev.Dap-Glang. But if we consider classes of 2 classes and v classes, we shall always be able to find a y and a 8 such that yen Ser .yad=A. The existence of such a y and & is important in connection with the arithmetical operations, and is therefore proved here.48 CARDINAL ARITHMETIC (parr m *1044. bieweaoty.odz.y tet (w).ws80(a=vwulu):d. aaa) v ysee Nea n C2 Dem. +, «10061. Dh: Hp. >. af(a— ea) sm (a — ea) @ b 878-48. DhiHp.d.eyézem ee (2) F. 451-282. Transp. +: Hp. >. evey.ée (3) b .451-282. DbrHp.vea(a—Ua).D.cey (4) F.(8).(4). De: Hp.dykervew(a—ia). [51-211] Di at(a— in) avyée= A (6) F.451-21-211 Dhu (awe) nad (6) F.(1) (2) +(5) + (6)« #7371. #51221. D br Hp.D.a(a—va) ve'ytesma (7) b . #63-101-16 . #51-232-16. F:Hp. d.tw=ty.veayeyz.y Zea "(a— tx) Vly ic. [x68°53-2] D. ta = tla. ty = t6fa,(a— Ua) v yt} . Pa = Oy [L317] D. thar tof{ert(a~ efx) vty se}. [88105] D.a.(a— eke) vty te Ctl (8) b.a5426. DF: Hp.d. a(a—ule) very de C2 (9) F(T) «(8) (9). #104101. F. Prop w10441, Fs. fa=tB:(qe,y,2).ceaaty.cbz.y+z1d. (ay 8).yeNic'a. SeNB.ynd=A Dem. Fe #10442. ¥52°3.D br Hp. Hp#1044.3.(qz,y,2).a(a—a) uv v'yce Niokan Cl. UBeNefBaCl1. [413-22] D.(G0,y. 2,9, 8) y= ae(a— Ue) ULLY de. S=UB. yeNefan C2. 5eNe6Bn Cll. [#1155] D. (7.8) «ye Niefan C2. Se Niel n Cl @ F.(1). #10135. DF. Prop This proposition proves the desired conclusions provided q!a, and ta consists of at least three terms. The following propositions deal with the cases in which this hypothesis is not verified. #104411. brta=t'B.ae0.y=A..d=U'B.D.yeNefa.deNB.yndaA Dem. + #7347. Db:Hp.>.ysma q) #2248 . (65-01). DhiHp. dy Cea 2) b.(1)-(2)-#104101. DkiHp.d.yeNeta (3) f .(8). #1042. 424°23. DF. Prop #104412. Fs ta=t'B.a=Ua.y=lA,. b=U"B.>. yeNrela.deNeB.ynd=A Dem, F.#7343. Dt: Hp.>d.ysma qd) +. #6361103. 3+:Hp.D.aet*a (2)SECTION A] ASCENDING CARDINALS 49 F. #2243. (#6501). Dh:Hp. fey. 2p FCia. [x63°5] Defer a. [(2).«6313] De-Getfa (3) F.(1) (8). #104101. 3b: Hp. D.ye Nica (4) F. 101-23. DR:Hp.deynbaA (5) +. (4). (5). #1042. D4. Prop #104413, bi ta=tB.asceury.cty. y= UA vue uly). 8=U"B.D, yeNeta.deNeBiyad=A Dem. F.#54-26. DrrHp.d.vauutyer. Q [#10135] D.Adeulty. [454'26] DiAviU@urty)e?. [1013] DitA viM(Ula vityeNeM(ule vty) (2) F.#5L16. DtiHp.d.aey. [#63'5] Diy Cea (3) F.(2)-(8).#1041, Dh: Hp. dD. ye Nicka @) be x52213 Dh AvetB (5) be (1) 4523. a5425 DEP Hp. dD. eovuryre iB (8) F. (5). (6). DbiHp.d.yndaA (7) f(A) (7). #1042. F. Prop #10442, br tla=t'B.ae0V1v2.>.(qy7,8).yeWeta. deNiehB.ynd= A [#104-411°412-413 . ¥52°1 . #54101] 10443, brtfa= B.D. (qy,8).yeNicta. deNeiB.ynd=A Dem. b45456.3 FiHp.ave0vlu2.3.(qa,y2).ay.zeaaty.afe.ytes [#10441] D. (ay, 8)-yeNoa.SeNietB.ynd=A (1) F.(1) «#10442. F. Prop The above proposition gives the desired result. The following propositions re-state this result in other forms. #10444. bi pve NO. tut. >. (gy d)-yem-deveyndad [¥10413-43] #10445, Fi pv eNO tat. >. (7.8) -yen” Sev yn d=A [#104-20-44) #10446, Fi uveNO-UA ty atv. >. (ay d)+yeu Sev .ynd=A [#104-28-44] R&W It 4#105. DESCENDING CARDINALS Summary of #105. In this number, we consider cardinals generated by a relation of similarity which goes from a higher to a lower type, ie. given any class of classes x, we consider Ne‘« in the type of members of « (which we shall call N,e‘«) or in some lower type. Thus eg. we shall have Kala. D.ae Nickk, where *Nye‘x” means “classes similar to « but of the next lower type.” Similarly Kaa. Dae Nytr, and so on, We shall have generally BeNefa.=aeNeB, BeNe'a.zaeNx'p, and so on. The chief difference between ascending and descending cardinals is that A is one of the latter, but not one of the former. Otherwise the propositions of the present number are mostly analogous to corresponding propositions of *104, On the analogy of the definitions in ¥104, we put N,C=DNc Df, Boy =smpn tn Dé with similar definitions for N,C and pw. No proposition of the present number is ever referred to in the sequel, and the reader who is not interested in the subject may therefore omit it without detriment to what follows. The principal propositions proved are the following: #10525. +.N.C=N,C-1'A #105251. .N,C=N,C—1tA *105-26. +. Nictfa=A Thus N,C or N,C, in any given type, only differs from N,C in that type by the addition of A. #1053. bi w=Nycfa. Dd. pm =Nyeta 105322. Fi. qq 1 Nycfa. Ds Nicka= NickB. =. Necka=Ncke #10534 FieweNC.q! ug Dt uy =Nicka.=.p=Ncla #10535. bi.meNC.veN,C.d:p=0%.5 #10538. Fe {un} = pie Ma =vSECTION A] DESCENDING CARDINALS 51 #10501. Nicfa=Ne‘anttfa Df We might write Nefa=Neantéa Df, which would be equivalent to the above. But we choose the above form for the sake of uniformity. If s is any suffix, we put, provided t,{a has been de fined Nefa=Ne‘antt,a Df, and if ¢ is any index for which fa has been defined, we put Nicla=Ne‘an tia Df. Thus for the sake of uniformity it is better, in the above definition #10501 to write “t*t,‘a” rather than “t,‘a.” *106-011, N,cfa=Ne‘an ta Df #10502. N,C=D‘N,c Df #105021, N.C =D‘Nic DE #10503, wy =sm“un tip Df #105081. py =sm“pnifu Df #1051. F.Nicfa=Nefanifa [%63°383.(*10501)} #105101. F. Nicfa=Nefant ‘a [#63-41 . (#105-011)) #10511. +: Be Nyc‘a.=.BeNe‘a-Bet“a.=.fsma.Beta.=.Bsma.8 Cha [4105-1 . #100°31 . *63°51] *105°111. F: Be Nycia.=.8eNe‘a. Bet {a.=.8sma.Bet‘a.=.8sma.8 Cha [#105°101 . *100°31 . #63°52] #10512. 1: BeNycia BeNe‘a.aCte.=.Asma.aCtp.=.qeNep [¥105-11 . 63°51. #1041] #105121. +: Be Nika BeNefa.aCB.=.Asma.aCiB.=.aeN'R [4105-111 . 63°52. *104°11] #10513, +. Nyofa=No(t,‘a)a=Ne {(f‘a)e}fa [#102°6 . (#105°01)] #105181. +. Nyo'a= Ne (t)'a)‘a = Ne {(fa)a}‘a_ [#102°6 . (#105°011)] #LOB14. Fraet (8.2. Nyetf =Ne(a)'B=Ne(ap)‘8 Dem. +, #63-22.3+:Hp.>.ta=4°8- (105-1) D.NefB=Ne‘Bntfa qa) F. (1). #1026. D+. Prop #05141. trae t(@.2.Nici8=Ne(a)B=Ne(a)8 [Proof as in #10514] #105142. bs BC ta. D. NyofB=Ne(aXB=Ne(ap)'8 [*105-14. *63°51] #105148. F: 8CH%a.D. NickB =Ne(a)B=Ne(ap)8 [¥105-141 . #63°52] #10515. (qa). w= Nyota [100-22 . 471-41 . (4105'02)] #105151. (qa). w=Nicla +252 #10516. #1056161. CARDINAL ARITHMETIC [PART TIT F Sep += (Gy) yew damy.detip. (Gy) yeu. dsmy de tify. (Hy) oy ewe Ssmy oy CHS [BTL . x63'51 54] (Gy) «yep. Ssmy Seti. +(dy)-yew-dsmy. det fy. =. (Gy) eye pe Ssmy ey CHB [487-1 4635255] F:Seny = In what follows, propositions concerning N,c or N,C have proofs exactly analogous to those of the corresponding propositions concerning N,c or N,C. #1052, F.Nicfa= Nica Dem. b. #10512 .*1042. Db. ae N,oita. [*108-26} Dh. Nota = Nyetua 105-201. +. Nila = Nyot“eta #10521. +.N,CCN,C [#105:215) wLOB211. +. N,COCN.C 10522. brye NioS.D.NyoS=Necty [¥10326] #105221, bye Nyo'S..NyoS= Nye“y #10523, Fig INicS.D.NeSeNC [105-22] #105281, tq 1Ne‘3.D. Nyce NC #10524. +. N,O-vA CNC [¥105-23] #105241, +. N,C-A CNC ¥10525. +. N,C=N,C~0'A [¥105:21-24 . 4103-23] 105-261. F.N,C=N,C—0A #105252. Dem. *105°26, Dem. 105261. #10527. #105271. *105'28. ¥105-281. #10529. b.NyotB = NuotB F.x1l05111.DbraeN ct 2 sasmeB.aet ep. [m7 3°41.463°64'54] sasmB.aehia. [x105°11] =.aeN,c'8: D4. Prop b.Neta=A F. #105142. 3b. Nycttfa = Ne (a)‘t'a a) F. (1). #10273... Prop FL Nyc8eta = A. [#105:26-252] F.AeN,C [¥105-26] F.AeNC F.NC=NC uta [#105-25-27] F.NC=N,C=N,C vcr F -NCCN,C.NCCN,C [#105:281 . 103-34]SECTION A] DESCENDING CARDINALS 53 #1058. bip=Nyea.d.uq=Niota Dem. F, #1084. (410503). Dbiw=Nefa.D.my=Nefantiy (1) F. #10312. Dkip=Nea.d.aep. [¥63'105] Diaeh{pe [*63°54] D-ffaste (2) F.(1).(2). DerpHNeia.. uy =Nean tia. [105-1] D+ wa) = Niefaz Db. Prop #105301. Fra = Noa. d. wy =Nicfa f #10531. FiweNC.>. pm eC [#105315 . #1032] HOBS1L. F:peNC. «pe e N.C #105312. bi ye Nila. D.aeNievy. Nicty=Nycfa [4105-12 . 4103-26] f b b F #105318. bs yeNiela.D.ae Neo%y. Ney = Nee‘a ¥1O5814. bs Nita =Nyoty.D. Nocfa = Nity [#105:312 . #103'12] #105315. bs Niofa=Nyoty. D. Nycfa= Niowy #105316. Fig tNicfa. Niclas NiciB.D. Nicla= Nie'B Dem. F.#105812. Dr yeNyofa. Nefa=NyeiB.d. Niety= Nicola. Niefy = Noi. [#13171] D.Nota=Nete (1) f.(1).#1011-2333..3 +. Prop #105317, bi qt Nika. Nica=NyciB. 2. Neta=Nyc'B #10532. §: Nicfa=NiciB.d.Nicla= NickB Dem, + .¥103°41.+: Hp. >. No (t,4a)‘a= Ne(t,‘a)'8 @ #10314. 3F:Hp.>.Betia. [63:16:36] D.ta=t'8 (2) F. (1). (2).Dh: Hp. >. Ne (h‘a)fa=Ne (4{8)'8 + [#10513] D.Nycfa= Nyof8 sD +. Prop #105321. bs Nycfa=N 8.3. Nea=NickB #105322. Fr. qQ tNyefa. D: Nicla=Nyc'B .=.Neca=NiciB [410531632] #105398. bi gt Nila. Ds Nicta= Nos. =.Nea= Nets #105324. Fig t yw. D-qte [*37-29. (W105-03)] #105°325. bg! yo.2-qte54 105'326. Dem. 4105327. #10533. Dem. #105'331, #10534, 4105°341. #105'342, Dem. #105343. #105'344, Dem. #105°345. #105°35. Dem. CARDINAL, ARITHMETIC [paRT nr FrweNO. py =Neoty.d.p= Nery F. #10826. DbrHp-aew.d.p=Neota- qa [#105°3] D+ Wy = Nica. (Hp} D.Nica=Ncfy- [4105°314] D.Neota= Nicky. (a) Dd. p=Nety (2) b.(2)- 1011-23-35. Dt: Hp. gq! e.2-n=Nie'y (3) F. (3). #105324. «10313. 3. Prop FtpeNC. pe =Nooty. 3. p= Neety brpeNC.g! ay +H =Nieta.d.p=Nefa f. #10326. Db tye pa) «py = Nya. d.Nyoka= Neo'y. [#105314] >. Nea=Nety (1) fF. (1). #105'326 . > bryepa «wy =Nicla.weNC.d.p=Nela (2) b.(2).#10°11-23'35 . DF. Prop FrpeNC.g! py my = Niele. d.p=Nea be weNC.g! joo)-D2 mq =Niela.s.u=Ncla [#105333] b F tpeNC. gq!) Dime =Nea.s.p=Nema -weNC.>. py eNC 10834. Db: Hp.gqty.d.peNC. [#10531] Ds py NC a b. #105324. 3b: Hp.wgip. dwg! au. [*105-27] D+ Hae NC @) F.(1).(2). DF. Prop FrweNO.>. py eNC brmaNety. Dd. pay =Nooty be 10424. 5b: Hp. d.poNyctty. [¥105'3) D.pway =Nyeklry. [¥105:2] Dy) = Neely: DE. Prop br w=Niety. Dd. py =Necty FpeNC.veNC.:y=09.s.pqev + . #105326 . #104-26 . > brweNC.vaNyoty- py =v. D. m= Nicty. v= Nicty. [#13172] Depa aM + 104-26. Fact. bipeNC.v=Noty. pov .d.p=Nety.v=Ney-SECTION A] DESCENDING CARDINALS BB #105351. #105352. #105°353, #105354, #105°355. 105-356. ¥105°357. #10536. Dem. *105'361. Dem. #105362. #10537, #105371. Dem. [#105344] Ds oy = Necly v= Nyoty. [#13172] D+ Bo = (2) F.(1).(2).Db ss weNC.v=Nely-2:#=v9.5. yen (3) F. (8). 41082. >. Prop nweNC.veNC.d:p=79. Sep =v ne mveNC.gty.dip=v =. pu =v [#10535 . #103'34] b bE bem veNC.q iv. Diya v!. =. jy =v brveNC. qty. >. {v} y =o [*105'352] biveNO.gtv.d. {0%} @ =» brmeNC.g! my > {uu} =~ [#105'352] FrpeNC. qt py. {ual =e bi BeNcla.yeNciB.d.ye Neva F.«10511.3+:Hp.>.8sma.Betia.ysmB.yet'Bs [#78°32.%63-38] D.ysma.yetfa. [¥#105°111] D-veNea: D+. Prop b1BeNcla.yeNofa.d.yeNeB b.410511111.3+:Hp.>.fSsma. Beta. ysma.vet a. [#73°31°32] D.ysmB.Betia.ye tia q) b.n6S54. = Dh Betfa.Dd.h'B=ta (2) F.(1).(2). Dkr Hp.d.ysmB.yetif. [#105-11] D.yeNio(B: D+. Prop br BeNcla.d.NiciB=Niova [¥105:36-361] bi NiciB=Nicfa.d.Nic'B=Nee‘a [4105362 . #10912] brat ie Dat ew F. #63°381 . (#6305) .> brysma.aep.yet{u.d.ysma.aepty=hipe [#73-41.463°64] Di eltysm a. we je belly = tip» [63°57] D.thysma.acp. tity = hip. [+63:103] D.elysm ane pe yeh we [105-16] Die yepw [#1024] D.qlew @ £.(1).«1011-23.> b:(qa).ysma.aepeyetstu. dq! pu @) b.(2). #105161. Db rye mm -D- TlH a @) b.(8).#10°1123. DF. Prop56 CARDINAL ARITHMETIC [part or #105372. Ft yy) =A.D. py =A [¥105°371. Transp] #10538. +. (uu }u =o Dem. £.#105°16. Db: ye {uw }m «= +(GS)+ Bena «yam Bu yetsB« [#105:16] =.(qa,f)-aep-8sma.Betia,ysmP.yet{8. (1) [473'32.46338] >. (qa).aep.ysma.yetfa (2) F a73-41 . 463°6453:57 . > biaepeysma.yetia. dae pe iy sm ay sm My. ye tiety iy ehfa. (@)] Deve (orton @) (2). (8). DE tye {uu fa = + (Ga) aew.ysma.yet fa. [105-161] =e Hq i Db. Prop #1054. Frye Nycfa. eye Nyofa Dem. f.wlO5+111. «73°41 . #6364. Db: Hp. D.eysma. yet a.yetiity. [¥63°41'38316'55] Doty sma. tifa =t6uly. [463°34] Do Utysma. tty e tifa. [w10511] D.ufyeNicfa: DF. Prop w10541. Fig i Neta.d.qtNieta [4105-4] #10542, Fi Nio@=A.>d.Noa=A [#10541] 10543. Fs jay = Nica. D- wp = Neola Dem. b. 10511. DtrHp.Bepg-d.BeNclanhia. [¥68°54.4100°31'321] D.NeoP=NeMa.hiB=t'a. [#1051101] D.NiciB= Neck q) F. #1053 .¥108-26.b: Hp. Be my 2. Nic'B= (wal [4105-38] =e (2) F.(1).(2). Debt Hp. g! pq + D+ my =Niova (3) 10587242. Dh: Hp. py A.D. pw =A. Nea=A (4) +. (3). (4). Prop #10544. +. Nit a=A Dem. + .#10526. Db. Nitta=A. [4105-42] Dh. Nyct'ta= A.D. Prop#106. CARDINALS OF RELATIONAL TYPES Summary of *106. In this number we have to consider the cardinals whose members are classes of relations which have a given relation of type to some given class. For example, we have | easma, and | 2a has a given relation of type to when @ is given. Thus we want a notation for Nefanté | oa and all the associated ideas. In this number, we shall deal only with relations in which the referent and relatum have a relation, as to type, which can be expressed by the notations of *63, ie. roughly speaking, when, for suitable values of a, m, m, our relations are contained in Ema t ta or tia T tna or Ua T tne OF tm’ Pa. ‘Thus if t,,“a has been defined, we shall put Nucla=Neanttfa Df NwC=DN,,c DE, Eu, =smE ntt,,t— Dé, with analogous definitions for t#’‘a, ¢#‘a and #t,fa. Much the most important case is that of to‘a. For this case we have #1061. +: BeNacta BeNe‘a.Bettnia.=.8sma, Pett (that ta). =.Bsma.BCt(ata) Thus N,,c‘a will be the number of a class of relations whose fields are of the same type as a, provided this class of relations is similar toa. Hg. the number of terms such as x | x, where zea, will be Nucta. We have #10621. bg INucia. Nuciae N.C #106:22. frre Nefa Cnv“rAeNocka #10623. +:BeNiefa.d.N%ca=Nyc8 #10632, br tfa=t'8. >. (Hy 8) ye Nucta-SeNacBiynd=A #106-441-411. bs p= Nola. dD. pio = Nogeta « 2 = NUefa. pay =Nueta #10658. +. No(a)'tafa =A whence it follows that 106-54. . Nic*top'are NC58 CARDINAL ARITHMETIC [PART DIT The propositions of this number, except #106-21, are never referred to again (except in #154'25-251-262, which are themselves never used again), but they have a somewhat greater importance than the propositions of *105, owing to the fact that the arithmetical operations are defined by means of classes of relations, i.e. the sum of two cardinals (for instance) is defined as the cardinal number of a certain class of relations (cf. *110), #10601. Nycta=Ne‘ant'ty'a Df #106011. Neca=Ne‘antta Df 4106-012. Nucla=Ne‘an tifa Df ete. #10602, Nica=Ne‘ant'h"a Dfete. #106021, "Nioa=Ne‘antta Df ete. #10603. N,C=DNuc Df ete. 410604. yy =sm“pat tet Df 106-041. pu! =sm“pntOtsy Df etc. W061. br BeNucla.s.BeNota. fetta. Bama. Bett\(ifa fT tifa). Bema. BCi(ata) [#100-1 . (4106-01 . #64°01). #6411] #106101. Fi BeNucla.=.BeNola. Betta. Bsma. Bett(taf tia). =.@sma.PCt(tat fa) Similar propositions hold for any other double index mn for which ¢™™a has been defined. #0611. b: Be Nuacka BeNea.Bettyfa. Asma. Bett (taf ta). Asma. BCt(t fat ha) Similar propositions hold for any other double suffix mn for which tmn‘a has been defined. #10612, 1: BeNijo'a.=.BeNota.Betthia. Boma. Bett (tla tf). =. Bsma.BCt (état ta) BeNefa.Bettfa. Asma. Bett(tat ta). Bema. BCt (ta f ta) Similar propositions hold for any other index and suffix for which t,"“a or "tafa has been defined, #106138. bi peNyC.=.(qa).p=Necta (10022. #7141] Similar propositions hold for N"C*a ete. #106121. Fs BeINietaSECTION A] CARDINALS OF RELATIONAL TYPES 59 10614. F: Be pu. (qa) cep. Asma. Bett(hn thy), (Ga) acm. sma. Bettye. (qa).aew.8sma.8Ct(ata) [64-33-11] 106141. Bey). =. (qa).aeu. Asma. Petty t hy). -(Ga).aen. Rema. Betta. (qa). ae. Bsma.BCt(at ta) Similar propositions hold for Yo, 4, pn ete. #1062, Fiwetfa.d. J otacNcla. | ofaeNet | oa Dem. £.455°15.36:Relaota.d.DRCa.UR=Ua: [#63105] Dri. wetfa.d:Rel ca. Ig. DRCha.TRCia. moi [435-83] Dp Rta tifa. [*64-16-13] Da. Ret(ata): [422-1] Ds Laac Hata) qa) F.(1). #73611 . #1061. #10312. 3+. Prop #106201. +: Beta. Dd. | BaeNicma 106-202. F: Beta.d.| BMaeNota 106-203. F. | aac Nica [¥106-201] #106204. +. | (uMa)ae Neca [*106-202} #10621. bt Nucta. Nyctae NC [106-2 . #63-18] #UOBLIL. F. Awe NyC. NaC CNC. NyCeCls ex excl [#10621 . #10324] #106212. b. Awe NC. NIC CN,C.NjCeClsextexcl [%106-208] #106-213. b. Awe NYC. NGC CN,C.N,'Ce Cls ex*excl [#106204] #10622. Fire Nie. =.Cav'reNefa Dem. b.a7S-4. Db:Asma.=.Cav“Asma qd) F.x6416. Db ACH(Efa Pia). =: Red. Ip RG haf tar [35°84] edd RE Hat fa: [37-63] eCav"r, 3s. SC ta f afat [*64:16] Cav"rc t(ta tha) (2) F (1). (2). #10612.+. Prop The proof requires, in addition to #10619, its analogue for ‘N,e‘a. Such analogues will be assumed as required. 106-221. bre NJofa. =. Cnvr e*Niofa #106:222. |. A~we!N,C.'N,CCN,C.°N,CeClsexexcl [#1062222]60 CARDINAL ARITHMETIC [part tT #106223. t. Awe®N,C.*N,C CN,C.2N,C € Cls ex? exel Other propositions of the same kind as the above may be proved by observing that, if m and n are indices for which ¢™a and ta have been defined, we have Cia. BeNmcla. dD. | Bi eNela, of which the proof is direct and simple. Hence, since we always have gq! Nvcfa, we also always have qi Nea, whence NO CN,C.N™C e Cls ex*exel. We have in like manner ai Nymcfa. gq 1™N,cfa. But we do not always have GINancta. or qi N,cfa or qi™N, cha. #106-23. +: BeNica.d.Nica=N,c8 Dem. Fb. 6433 104-1. 463'5.Db: Hp. d. a= to8 F.(1).(#106:01-011) . #100321. DF. Prop #106231. t: BeN,cfa.. Nucta=Nyci8 [Proof as in ¥106-23] ¥106-24. :Nefa=Nct8.d.N%ca=Nyck8 [#10623] #106241, b: Nifa=Nyc'B. 3. Nucla=NacB The analogues of the above propositions for other indices or suffixes are similarly proved. #10625, +. Nc‘a=Nyctta [4106-23 . #1042] #106251. F. Nucla = Nica #10631. b:a,yeha.tia=hiB.cky.>. LoaeNycta.}yBeNucB. Laan la“Bod [m106-2 . 455-233] #106311. Fs. wetfa.tfa=thBia=A.v.f=Ar>d. J aMaeNgota. | oBe Nw!» | oan laBar [#1062 . 455:232 . Transp] #106312. b:tfa=ive.a=B=Ue.d. D u(t T UaeN cian tA t taeNgc'Bt(t fT laar(A Tue)=A lem. b.W7343. Db. (Uw Pur) om fe (A Poe) sm ve. [¥1312] Db: Hp. dia fete)sma.(Afe)smB (1) b.x6416. Db: Hp. Dice f ume tata. AP Uae tyia (2) B. (1). (2). #1061 451-161 . #24°54 . 455-202. DF. PropSECTION A] CARDINALS OF RELATIONAL TYPES 61 #10632. brhfa=tB.>.(qy,d).yeNacta.8eNucBuyndaA Dem. .#10631.3+:.Hp:(qa,y).a,yeta.oty:>. (a7.8) ye Nocta.BeNycB.ynd=A (1) bikS24. Dhin(Ga,y).a,yetfacey.I.tfacluia. [#63°18] D.ffael (2) F (2). #6038 . #63105 45246. DE rw (Ga.y).myetla.cty.qla.qiA.d. a=P=tia.tiael. [#106-312] D(a 8) ye Nyce. deNuctBoynd=A (3) . #106311 .463:18 > be. Hpin(q ta. gt §):>. (ay 8) -yeNyca-SeNuB.yad=A (4) F.(1).(8).(4). DF. Prop #1064, br y= Neca. D. poo = Notte Dem. F. #10614. 3h:: Hp. ds Be poe [643] (ay)-1e Nota. B amy. Betty : (ay) ve Necta. Bomy: Betta [#102'84] Bama. Bet taat [«106-1] = Be Neat: DF. Prop #106401. Fs = Nila. D. pig = NM cla Dem. F.410424.4106-4. Db: Hp. D. poy = Neola (106-25) = Nea: DF. Prop #106402. Fi =Noofaeqtw.>+ pu = Nuc’ Dem. +. #106231 . DrHp.Bep.d.Nyca=Noe's [#106-4.%*103-26] = Haw a) F. (1) .#1011-23-35. Db: Hp. gt wed. way =Nucla: DF. Prop #10641. Fi p=Nicfa. dD. pl = NXla Dem. 63°54 . (#106-041). #10327. > birHp.d:. Bem. =:(qy). yeNea.AsmytBett™hiat [#102'84.#64°32] Asma. Betta: [(*106-011)] BeN*cfar: D+. Prop #106411. bs p= Nica. >. nn =Nucta [Proof as in *106-41] #10648. br y,veN.C.ty=ty. >. (ay, 8)-7€ Mon SEV -y~adHA Dem. +. 4103-2. 5+:Hp.>.(qa,8)-4=Nefa.v=NeB. {*106-4] Ds (qa, B) + Boo = Noe! « Pa = NaetB + [¥106'32] D(a, 8) «17 € Men SEY —) yA 8=At Db. Prop #10644. bipjveNC.tu=tv.2.(qy,d)yem-dev.ynd=A [#10632]62 CARDINAL ARITHMETIC [Part TIT ‘The following propositions are analogous to *102°71 ff,, and similar remarks apply to them. #1065. +: ReCls31.D‘RCa. A‘ RCRM(ata). Wa 29 {a,yea.ve (Ray) .d. WreGR. WEata Dem. ley z beahT3. Dba Hp. diayea. InyroWy cal (Re) yt [¥5-18] Dnyt~(eWy.=.2(Rix)y} s [*10-1] Dewees Der (eWe. 2. a(x) a}. [421-43. Transp] >, -W+ Re: [Hp] D:.weD'R.2,.W4 Ries. [471-411.Transp] 32.W~eQ'R a F. 42183. (435-04). 2+: Hp.d.W Gata Q) F.(1).(2). +. Prop #10651. £:8Ca.d.~[8sm Ri(a fT a)} Dem. b.el065. Db: Hp.Rel1.D'R=8.0RCRMata).>. (qW).WeRiM(ata). WredR. [#19-14] >.GR+ RMafa) @ £.(1).#22-41. bi. Hp.d:Rel—+1.D'R=8.3_.CRERMata): [#10°51.473-1) Din{8sm Bah a)} DF. Prop #10652, bi BCtfa.d.BreNetyfa Dem. b.#106°51.3b: Hp. >.~{8sm Bitlet fa} « [#6454] D.~{8 sm tala} « [*100-1] D. Bre Ne“ty'a: Db. Prop 410653. F.Ne(a)%tfa= A [¥106-52. ¥102°6 . ¥63°371] #10654. +. Nyc'tofare NaC Dem. +. #10033 . #10315. 3 bi NuctB=Necfefa. D. 8 sin byt ay £. #10312 . (#106:01).> Fr NyefB = Neetts(at « D « tye tty’ B « [#63-16.(x6401)] —-D. Ht(éakaf fla) =tE(R TB) « [#63391] D.t(tofa T tof) = E(t F 468)» [*64'3.(*64-01)] D.ta=t68. [*63-105] 2. BC tifa (2) £.).@). Db: NucB=Nic'tafa.D-BeNetaa.BChia (8) fF. (8). Transp . #10652. D+ .(8). Nucl@ + Nocitea!a « (106-13. Transp] DEN etufaveN,C. Dt. Prop #10655. F.gINC-N,C [#10654]SECTION B ADDITION, MULTIPLICATION AND EXPONENTIATION Summary of Section B. In the present section, we have to consider the arithmetical operations as applied to cardinals, as well as the relation of greater and less between cardinals. Thus the topics to be dealt with in this section are the first that can properly be said to belong to Arithmetic. The treatment of addition, multiplication and exponentiation to be given in what follows is guided by the desire to secure the greatest possible generality. In the first place, everything to be said generally about the arithmetical operations must apply equally to finite and infinite classes or cardinals. In the second place, we desire such definitions as shall allow the number of summands in a sum or of factors in a product to be infinite, In the third place, we wish to be able to add or multiply two numbers which are not necessarily of the same type. In the fourth place, we wish our definitions to be such that the sum of the cardinal numbers of two or more classes shall depend only upon the cardinal numbers of those classes, and shall be the same when the classes overlap as when they are mutually exclusive; with similar conditions for the product. The desire to obtain definitions fulfilling all these conditions leads to somewhat more complicated definitions than would other- wise be required; but in the outcome, the result is simpler than if we started with simpler definitions, since we avoid vexatious exceptions. The above observations will become clearer through their applications. Let us begin with the case of arithmetical addition of two classes. If a and @ are mutually exclusive classes, the sum of their cardinal numbers will be the cardinal number of av. But in order that a and 8 may be mutually exclusive, they must have no common members, and this is only significant when they are of the same type. Hence, given two perfectly general classes a and 8, we require to find two classes which are mutually exclusive and are respectively similar to a and 8; if these two classes are called a’ and A’, then Ne“(a’ v #’) will be the sum of the cardinal numbers of aand 8. We note that Aaaand An indicate respectively the A’s of the same types as @ and 8, and accordingly we take as a and @’ the two classes 4 (Aa B)feKa and (Ana) | eB; these two classes are always of the same type, always mutually exclusive, and always similar to a and @ respectively. Hence we define at B=L(An Byiav(Ana |g Dt64 CARDINAL ARITHMETIC [Part IIT The som of the cardinal numbers of a and Q will then be the cardinal number of a+; hence we may call a+8 the arithmetical class-sum of two classes, in contradistinction to au @, which is the logical sum. It will be noted that a+, unlike au 8, does not require that a and 8 should be of the same type. Also a+a is not identical with a, but when a= A, a+ais also A, though in a different type. Thus the law of tautology does not hold of the arithmetical class-sum of two classes. If wand » are two cardinals of assigned types, we denote their arithmetical sum by +a. (As many kinds of arithmetical addition occur in our work, and as it is essential to our purpose to distinguish them, we effect the dis- tinction by suffixes to the sign of addition. It is, of course, only in dealing with principles that these different symbols are needed: we do not wish to suggest that they should be adopted in ordinary mathematics.) Now if y+.» is to have the properties which we commonly associate with the sum of two cardinals, it must be typically ambiguous, and must be the cardinal number of any class which can be divided into two mutually exclusive parts having terms and » terms respectively. Hence we are led to the following definition : pov =F {(qa,8).w=Neta.v=NeoB.£sm(a+8)} De In this definition, various points should be noted. In the first place, it doos not require that p and v should be of the same type; w+. is significant whenever yz and » are classes of classes. ‘Thus it is not necessary for signifi- cance that and v should be cardinals, though if they are not both cardinals, p+ v=A. If they are both cardinals, we find ptov=F (qa 8). cep. Bev. £sm(atA)}. Thus in this case ae. Bev. d.at+feptor Hence if neithe: nor » is null, and if @ has u terms and 8 has » terms, a+ isa member of p+,v. It easily follows that bip=Neta.v=Nyc8.d.ptov=Ne(a+ A). Hence when wand pare homogeneous cardinals (i.e. when they are cardinals other than A), their sum is the number of the arithmetical class-sum of any two classes having y terms and py terms respectively. A few words are necessary to explain why, in the definition, we put w=Nyca.v=Nic'@ rather than p=Ne‘a.»=NeB. The reason is this. Suppose either w or v, say w, is A. Then, by #102°73, « =Ne(£)‘t*s, if ¢ is of the appropriate type. Hence if we had put we +ov= 2 (qa, 8).p=Nefa.v=Netg.fsm(a+Q)} Dé where the ambiguities of type involved in Ne‘a and Ne‘ may be determined as we please, we should have v=NcB.d.tS+Bepter, te. v=Netg.d.th+ BeAtov.SECTION B] ADDITION, MULTIPLICATION AND EXPONENTIATION 65 We should also have t¢f4+@eA-+,v and so on. Thus A+,» would not have a definite value, ie, it would not merely have typical ambiguity, which it ought to have, but it would not have a definite value even when its type was assigned. Thus such a definition would be unsuitable. For the above reasons, we put p= Nycfa.y=N,e'f in the definition, and obtain the typical ambiguity which we desire by means of the typical ambiguity of the “sm” in “Esm(a+@).” It is always essential to right symbolism that the values of typically ambiguous symbols should be unique as soon as their type is assigned. The scope of these definitions and of the corresponding definitions for multiplication and exponentiation (#113:04'05 . *116-03°04) is extended by convention II T of the prefatory statement. The above definition of y+,v is designed for the case in which » and v are typically definite. But we must be able to speak of “ Ne“y +, Ne,” and this must be a definite cardinal, namely Ney +8). If we simply write Ne‘y, Ne‘ in place of yz, v in the definition of p+, », we find Nety +, No‘ = ((qa, 8). Ne‘y = Nyc‘a. NoS = Nye‘B . Esm (a+ f)}. But this will not always have a definite value when the type of Ne‘y +, NeS is assigned. To take a simple case, write ¢*{ for y and ty for &. Then Nott +, Note'y =F {(qqa, 8) Nett =Nyota. Ne‘t'y =Nyo'B. Esm (at B)I, whence we easily obtain Net*E-+, Netty =F \(qa). Nett =Nyo'a. Esm(a+U'y)}. If we determine the ambiguity of No‘t‘t to be N,o‘t*¢, we find No‘t'€+,Nety=A in all types; but if we determine the ambiguity to be Nyc't't, we have Net'E +, Ne‘u'y =Ne“(t'E-+e'y), and this exists in the type of t+ ty, if not in lower types. Hence the value of Net*£-+, Ne‘e‘y depends upon the determination of the ambiguity of Ne*t. It is obvious that we want our definition to yield Ne‘y +,Ne‘d=Ne“(y +8) in all types; but in order to insure that this shall hold even when, for some values of ¢, No(f)‘y=.A, we must introduce two new definitions, namely Ne‘a+,u¢=N,cfa+.u Df, pt Nea=p+,Neca Df, whence br Ne‘a+,Ne‘B = Nota +, No = Nea +8). This definition is to be applied when “Ney” and “No‘8” occur without any determination of type. On the other hand, if we have Ne ({)fy and Ne(n)‘8, we apply the definition of 4+,. We shall find that whenever Ne(£)‘y and Ne (n)‘8 both exist, Ne (f)¢y +4 No(n)'B = Noo'y +. Nee’S. Thus the above definition is only required in order to exclude values of £ or 7 for which either Ne (f)'y or Ne (n)*8 is A. R&W IL 5