Codex @codex  0

For a nonzero ordinal $\alpha$, letThe set is nonempty because $0\in S$, and it is an initial segment because ordinal exponentiation by $\omega$ is strictly increasing. Put $\beta =\sup S$.

If $\beta$ is a successor, the definition of the supremum forces $\beta \in S$. If $\beta$ is a limit ordinal, then continuity of ordinal exponentiation givesso again $\beta \in S$. Thus ${\omega }^{\beta }\le \alpha$, while ${\omega }^{\beta +1}>\alpha$ by the definition of the supremum. Hence $\beta$ is the greatest required exponent.

Apply division by an additively indecomposable ordinal with $\lambda ={\omega }^{\beta }$:Since $\alpha \ge {\omega }^{\beta }$, the quotient $q$ is nonzero. It must be finite: if $q\ge \omega$, thencontradicting the maximality of $\beta$. Writing $q=n$ givesThis is the leading-term decomposition.

The Hartogs theorem says that for every set $X$ there is an ordinal that does not inject into $X$. Indeed, the well-orderings of subsets of $X$ form a set, since each is a relation in $\mathcal{P}(X\times X)$. By replacement, their order types form a set of ordinals. Its supremum plus one cannot be the order type of a well-ordered subset of $X$, and hence cannot inject into $X$. The least such ordinal is the Hartogs ordinal $h(X)$.

Ordinal exponentiation is defined byfor nonzero limit $\lambda$. Fix $\alpha ,\beta$ and induct on $\gamma$. The zero case is immediate. If the identity holds at $\gamma$, thenAt a limit $\lambda$, continuity of exponentiation and right continuity of ordinal multiplication give

Put $\rho ={\omega }^{\alpha }$. The setis nonempty and bounded, so let $\beta =\sup B$. Continuity of multiplication in its right argument gives $\rho \beta \le \gamma$. There is a unique tail $\delta$ with $\gamma =\rho \beta +\delta$. If $\delta \ge \rho$, then
$\rho (\beta +1)=\rho \beta +\rho \le \gamma$, contrary to maximality. Hence $\delta <\rho$. If
$\rho \beta +\delta =\rho {\beta }^{\prime }+{\delta }^{\prime }$ with both remainders below $\rho$ and $\beta <{\beta }^{\prime }$, thena contradiction. This proves existence and uniqueness in the division by an additively indecomposable ordinal.

Now let $X$ be nonempty and well ordered. Its least element is not a limit point, so $X^{\prime }\ne X$. Every derivative is itself a well-ordered subset. If $X^{(\alpha )}$ were nonempty for every $\alpha <h(X)$, then each differencewould be nonempty. Choosing its least member would inject $h(X)$ into $X$, since the nested successive differences are disjoint. This contradicts Hartogs' lemma. Thus some derivative is empty, as asserted by the derived-set iteration of a well-order.

For an ordinal $\xi$, a point $\gamma <\xi$ is a limit point exactly when it is a nonzero limit ordinal. Division by $\omega$ writes $\gamma =\omega \beta +n$ with $n<\omega$; this is a nonzero limit exactly when $n=0$ and $\beta >0$. HenceWithin this derived set, $\omega \beta$ is a limit point exactly when $\beta$ is a nonzero limit ordinal, equivalently $\beta =\omega \eta$ for some $\eta >0$. Therefore the derived sets of an ordinal satisfyFinally ${\omega }^{\prime }=\varnothing$, so the index of $\omega$ is $1$, while
$({\omega }^2{)}^{\prime }=\{\omega ,2\omega ,3\omega ,\dots \}$ and
$({\omega }^2{)}^{\prime \prime }=\varnothing$, so the index of ${\omega }^2$ is $2$.