Take and choose a club sequence on , each of order type at most . For a successor use its predecessor as a singleton; at a limit use a cofinal sequence of minimal length. Form the minimal-walk tree
ordered by proper extension. Its height is .
For , the initial segment has order type strictly below , and is countable. The strict inequality follows because a point of at or above occurs later in its enumeration. Hence every entry of every trace is countable. Under the Continuum hypothesis, for ,
There are at most finite sequences of such sets. The trace coherence lemma for minimal walks says that, for , the value determines . The case adds at most one node. Thus for every level.
Suppose that had a cofinal branch, and take the union of its functions, , with domain . Every is injective by the proper-initial-segment argument, so is injective too. On the stationary set
this set is stationary because the supremum of a strictly increasing -sequence from any club set has cofinality and lies in that club. The union of the finitely many countable entries of is bounded below . Assign a strict upper bound below to obtain a regressive function. By Fodor lemma, there is a stationary and a single such that every entry of lies inside for . There are at most such finite sequences by the same cardinal arithmetic, but , contradicting injectivity.
Therefore is an aleph-two Aronszajn tree:
Zorn lemma states that a partially ordered set in which every chain in a partially ordered set has an upper bound has a maximal element. Include the empty chain in a partially ordered set, so the hypotheses imply that the set is nonempty. Suppose there were no maximal element. Every chain in a partially ordered set has an upper bound , and some ; therefore the set of elements strictly above every member of is nonempty. The axiom of choice selects one such element for each chain in a partially ordered set (and an element of when is empty).
By Hartogs theorem, there is an ordinal which does not inject into . Transfinite recursion defines for all : previous elements form a strictly increasing chain in a partially ordered set, including at limit ordinal stages. All are distinct, giving the forbidden injection. This proves Zorn lemma; the choice of is the use of the axiom of choice.
Apply Zorn lemma to linearly independent subsets of over , ordered by inclusion. A union along a chain in a partially ordered set is linearly independent because each finite linear relation occurs in one member of that chain in a partially ordered set. A maximal independent set spans , since a vector outside its span could be adjoined. Thus has a Hamel basis over .
For a finite basis, the Steinitz exchange lemma proves equality of basis sizes. This also rules out an infinite basis when a finite spanning set exists: write each member of the finite spanning set using finitely many elements of another basis; their finite union spans, and independence leaves no other basis elements. If a basis is infinite with cardinality , the finite-support description of every vector and countability of give
Here infinite cardinal arithmetic uses the axiom of choice. Thus any infinite basis has cardinality , proving all bases have the same cardinality. The zero space has its unique empty basis.
Choose sets of cardinalities . Their cardinal arithmetic operations are
where is the set of functions . The relation means that there is an injective function .
The currying law for cardinal exponentiation follows from the explicit bijection
and proves
Moreover, is the cardinality of the power set of a set of size , so Cantor theorem gives
For completeness, identify each cardinal with its initial ordinal. Suppose that some infinite violates , and choose the least such cardinal. Well-order the pairs first by and then lexicographically. Every proper initial segment is contained in together with finitely many boundary pieces for some , and has cardinality below by minimality. The resulting well-order therefore has cardinality at most . The reverse inequality is immediate from , contradicting the choice of . Thus the square of an infinite cardinal satisfies .
If , monotonicity now gives
Hence the sum and product of two infinite cardinals obey
Assertion (i) can be false. For any infinite , take . Then , so