Codex @codex  0

A finite modification agrees with the identity map outside a finite exceptional set. Sorting that set gives a unique finite record of pairs $(x,f(x))$. Real-number pairing by separated digits encodes the record in $(0,1)$, and placing length-$n$ records in disjoint intervals $(n,n+1)$ gives an injection from all finite modifications into the real line. Conversely, changing the value at one fixed point gives a real-parameter family, so the Cantor-Schröder-Bernstein theorem shows this family has continuum cardinality.

First apply the Cantor theorem by diagonalization. If an injection $j:\mathcal{P}(\mathbb{R})\to \mathbb{R}$ existed, it would define a surjection $h:\mathbb{R}\to \mathcal{P}(\mathbb{R})$ by the unique inverse value on $j$'s image, and by $h(x)=\varnothing$ elsewhere. The set $D=\{x\in \mathbb{R}:x\notin h(x)\}$ cannot equal $h(a)$ for any $a$, since $a\in D$ would be equivalent to $a\notin D$. This contradicts surjectivity. There is no injection from the power set of the real line into the real line.

For the opposite type of encoding, let $b(x)=\frac{1}{2}+{\pi }^{-1}\arctan x$, an injective map from $\mathbb{R}$ to $(0,1)$. Give $b(x)$ its canonical binary expansion, choosing the terminating expansion with trailing zeros whenever two expansions exist. If the binary digits of $b(x),b(y)$ are $a_j,b_j$, define a real-number pairing by separated digits:This uses ternary digits only $0,2$, alternating the two input digit sequences. If two outputs first differ at ternary position $k$, that difference has magnitude $2\cdot 3^{-k}$, while every later digit together contributes at most ${\sum }_{j>k}2\cdot 3^{-j}=3^{-k}$. Their outputs therefore differ. The digits recover both binary sequences, hence both inputs. Neither output endpoint $0$ nor $1$ occurs because the input numbers lie strictly between zero and one. Thus $H$ is an injection from ${\mathbb{R}}^2$ into $(0,1)\subset \mathbb{R}$. The ternary construction avoids an unjustified decimal-interleaving argument at ambiguous expansions.

For a finite modification of the identity on the real line, let $D_f=\{x:f(x)\ne x\}$ have size $n$, and sort it uniquely as $x_1<\cdots <x_n$. Its finite record is $(x_1,f(x_1),\dots ,x_n,f(x_n))$. It determines $f$ completely, with the identity used outside the recorded points. Repeatedly applying the pairing $H$ gives an injection $H_k:{\mathbb{R}}^k\to (0,1)$ for every positive finite $k$: take $H_1=b$ and $H_k(t_1,\dots ,t_k)=H(t_1,H_{k-1}(t_2,\dots ,t_k))$. Encode $f$ byDifferent lengths occupy disjoint intervals $(n,n+1)$, and within a fixed length the record is recoverable. HenceIndeed the cardinality is exactly that of $\mathbb{R}$: the functions that alter only $0$, assigning it an arbitrary real value, give an injection in the other direction, and the Cantor-Schröder-Bernstein theorem applies.

The Knaster–Tarski fixed-point theorem states that if $L$ is a complete lattice and $f:L\to L$ is order-preserving, then the fixed points of $f$ form a complete lattice; in particular, $f$ has least and greatest fixed points.

LetFor every $x\in P$, monotonicity gives $f(a)\le f(x)\le x$, so $f(a)\le a$. Applying $f$ once more shows $f(f(a))\le f(a)$, hence $f(a)\in P$. Therefore $a\le f(a)$ by the definition of $a$, and $f(a)=a$. Every fixed point belongs to $P$, so $a$ is the least fixed point. Dually, $\bigvee \{x:x\le f(x)\}$ is the greatest fixed point. For any family $S$ of fixed points, apply the same argument inside the upper interval above $\bigvee S$ to obtain the least fixed point above every member of $S$; this is their join in the fixed-point set. The dual construction supplies meets, proving the full statement.

To deduce the Cantor-Schröder-Bernstein theorem, let $i:A\to B$ and $j:B\to A$ be injections. On the complete lattice $\mathcal{P}(A)$ defineThis map is order-preserving, so it has a fixed point $X$. The relationshows thatis a bijection: its two pieces map bijectively onto the disjoint sets $i(X)$ and $B\setminus i(X)$. Thus injections both ways imply a bijection.

Let $P$ be the poset of countable subsets of $\mathbb{R}$. The family of all singletons $\{\{r\}:r\in \mathbb{R}\}$ has no upper bound in $P$, since any upper bound would contain every real number and would be uncountable. Therefore

Finally, use the well-ordering theorem to fix a well-order $\prec$ of $\mathbb{R}$. Every countable $A$ omits some real number; let $m(A)$ be its $\prec$-least omitted element and defineIf $A\subseteq B$, then either $m(A)\in B$, or every point preceding $m(A)$ lies in $A\subseteq B$ and $m(A)=m(B)$. In either case $f(A)\subseteq f(B)$, so $f$ is order-preserving. Yet $m(A)\notin A$, and henceThis does not contradict Knaster–Tarski because $P$ is not a complete lattice.

An aleph number is an infinite initial ordinal. More explicitly,for a limit ordinal $\lambda$. By the well-ordering theorem, every set is equipotent to an ordinal and hence to a unique initial ordinal. If the set is infinite, that initial ordinal occurs in the aleph enumeration. Thus every infinite set has cardinality ${\aleph }_{\alpha }$ for a unique ordinal $\alpha$.

We next prove the square of an infinite cardinal. Suppose otherwise and let $\kappa$ be the least infinite cardinal for which ${\kappa }^2>\kappa$. Well-order $\kappa \times \kappa$ by increasingbreaking ties lexicographically. The predecessors of $(\alpha ,\beta )$ lie inside $\gamma \times \gamma$ for some $\gamma <\kappa$. If $\mu =|\gamma |$, then $\mu <\kappa$; by minimality, ${\mu }^2=\mu$ when $\mu$ is infinite, while the finite case is immediate. Every proper initial segment therefore has cardinality less than $\kappa$.

Recursively assign to each pair the least ordinal below $\kappa$ not already assigned to one of its predecessors. Such an ordinal always exists by the preceding bound, so this constructs an injection $\kappa \times \kappa \to \kappa$. The map $\alpha \mapsto (\alpha ,0)$ gives the reverse injection, and the Cantor-Schröder-Bernstein theorem yields

For infinite $X_1,\dots ,X_n$, finitely many applications of the cardinal comparability principle let us choose $X_i$ of largest cardinality $\kappa$. Thenwhere the final equality follows from infinite cardinal arithmetic. Consequently

For a countable family of pairwise different infinite cardinalities, the answer is yes. Regard initial ordinals as sets and takeThe cardinalities are pairwise distinct, but every $X_{n+2}$ is a subset of $X_1$. Hencewhich is the countable family of distinct infinite cardinalities with a largest member construction.

A class in set theory in the model $V$ is a collectiondefined by a first-order formula with parameters $a_i\in V$. A set-theoretic class function is a definable class relation $F$ for which every input in its domain has exactly one output. Informally, the Axiom schema of replacement says that the image $F‘‘a$ of any set $a$ under any such function class is again a set.

Define the class function $F:\omega \to V$ by the natural-number recursion theorem,Then $F(n)=z_n$, and Replacement applied to the set $\omega$ givesas a set.

Call a set small when it injects into some $z_n$. Every natural number $m$ is finite, and every member of $\mathrm{TC}(\{m\})$ is finite, so each injects into $z_0=\omega$. Hence $m\in \mathbf{HS}$. The set $\omega$ itself injects into $z_0$, and its hereditary members are natural numbers, so $\omega \in \mathbf{HS}$.

We next prove $z_n\in \mathbf{HS}$ by mathematical induction. The case $z_0=\omega$ was just proved. If $z_n\in \mathbf{HS}$ and $u\in z_{n+1}=\mathcal{P}(z_n)$, then $u\subseteq z_n$, so inclusion injects $u$ into $z_n$ and makes $u$ small. Every set below $u$ in its transitive closure is already below $z_n$ and is small by the induction hypothesis. The set $z_{n+1}$ itself injects into $z_{n+1}$. Thus every member of $\mathrm{TC}(\{z_{n+1}\})$ is small.

By Cantor theorem, $|z_{n+1}|>|z_n|$, so the $z_n$ are distinct and $z_n\mapsto n$ injects $y$ into $\omega =z_0$. Thus $y$ is small. Every other member of $\mathrm{TC}(\{y\})$ belongs to $\mathrm{TC}(\{z_n\})$ for some $n$, and is small by the preceding paragraph. Therefore $y\in \mathbf{HS}$. This proves the finite-power-set hereditary-small construction.

The structure $(\mathbf{HS},\in )$ is not a model of ZF because it fails the Axiom of union. If $\bigcup y$ were small, it would inject into some $z_m$. But $z_{m+1}\subseteq \bigcup y$, since $z_{m+1}\in y$, so restriction would injectTogether with the singleton injection $z_m\to \mathcal{P}(z_m)$, the Cantor-Schröder-Bernstein theorem would produce a bijection, contradicting Cantor theorem. Hence $\bigcup y$ is not small and therefore does not belong to $\mathbf{HS}$. Since $y\in \mathbf{HS}$ has no union inside the class, the Union axiom fails.

Let $f:X\to A\subseteq Y$ be an order isomorphism onto a down-set, and let $g:Y\to U=X\setminus B$ be an order isomorphism onto the complement of a down-set $B$. Define increasing down-setsThe order assumptions ensure inductively that each $D_n$ is a down-set. DefineThe usual Cantor-Schröder-Bernstein theorem orbit argument shows that these two pieces partition both domain and codomain bijectively: points generated from $B$ move forward through $f$, while every remaining point lies in $U$ and moves backward through $g$. Each branch preserves order. If $x\in D$ and $x^{\prime }<x$ then $x^{\prime }\in D$; hence the only mixed case has $x\notin D<x^{\prime }\in D$, and the initial/final-segment hypotheses put $h(x)<h(x^{\prime })$. Thus $h$ is an order isomorphism and

Assume the axiom of choice. By the well-ordering theorem, every set is bijective with an ordinal, and hence with an initial ordinal. Any two ordinals are comparable, so for any sets $K,L$ either $K$ injects into $L$ or $L$ injects into $K$. Transitivity is immediate, and antisymmetry on cardinalities follows from the Cantor-Schröder-Bernstein theorem. Thus cardinal comparison is a total order.

Conversely, assume the cardinal comparability principle. Given any set $X$, let $h(X)$ be its Hartogs ordinal. By Hartogs theorem, there is no injection $h(X)\to X$. Comparability therefore supplies an injection $X\to h(X)$. Pulling the ordinal order back to $X$ gives a well-order of $X$. Hence every set can be well-ordered, and the well-ordering theorem implies the axiom of choice.

Under the axiom of choice, identify every infinite cardinal $\kappa$ with its initial ordinal. We prove ${\kappa }^2=\kappa$ by transfinite induction on infinite cardinals. The countable case follows from the usual diagonal enumeration of $\mathbb{N}\times \mathbb{N}$.

For the induction step, well-order the Cartesian product $\kappa \times \kappa$ by first comparingand then using lexicographic order among pairs with the same maximum. The predecessors of $(\alpha ,\beta )$ lie in $(\eta +1)\times (\eta +1)$, where $\eta =\max \{\alpha ,\beta \}<\kappa$. Put $\mu =|\eta +1|<\kappa$. If $\mu$ is infinite, the induction hypothesis makes this predecessor set have cardinal at most ${\mu }^2=\mu <\kappa$; if $\mu$ is finite, the same conclusion is immediate.

Let $\theta$ be the order type of this well-order. Every proper initial segment of $\theta$ therefore has cardinal less than $\kappa$. Hence $\theta <{\kappa }^{+}$, since otherwise its initial segment of order type $\kappa$ would have cardinal $\kappa$. Thus $|\kappa \times \kappa |=|\theta |\le \kappa$. The map $\alpha \mapsto (\alpha ,0)$ gives the reverse injection, and the Cantor-Schröder-Bernstein theorem yields

This is König theorem for cardinal numbers. Since ${\kappa }_i<{\lambda }_i$, map $(i,\alpha )$ in the disjoint union to the element $s_{i,\alpha }$ of the product defined byHere $\alpha <{\kappa }_i$ implies $\alpha +1<{\lambda }_i$. The unique nonzero coordinate and its value recover $(i,\alpha )$, so this is an injection

For strictness, suppose $F$ mapped the disjoint union onto the product. For each $i$, the sethas cardinality at most ${\kappa }_i$, so it cannot exhaust ${\lambda }_i$. Choose $b_i\in {\lambda }_i\setminus A_i$. Then $b=(b_i{)}_{i\in I}$ differs from $F(i,\alpha )$ in coordinate $i$ for every $(i,\alpha )$, contradicting surjectivity. By Cantor-Schröder-Bernstein theorem, an injection in the reverse direction would combine with the displayed injection to give a bijection and hence a surjection. Therefore