MathOverflow is a question and answer site for professional mathematicians. Join them; it only takes a minute:

Sign up
Here's how it works:
  1. Anybody can ask a question
  2. Anybody can answer
  3. The best answers are voted up and rise to the top

Let $X$ be a set of ordinals.

If $X$ has no largest element, then \[ \sup X \notin X \subseteq \sup X, \] and $\sup X$ is the smallest ordinal $\alpha$ such that $X \subseteq \alpha$.

On the other hand, if $X$ has a largest element $\max X$, then \[ \max X = \sup X \in X \nsubseteq \sup X, \] and the smallest ordinal $\alpha$ such that $X \subseteq \alpha$ is $\sup X + 1$.

Is there any way to express "the smallest ordinal $\alpha$ such that $X \subseteq \alpha$" that works in both cases?

One possibility would be \[ \sup \{ \beta + 1 : \beta \in X \}, \] but I'm looking for something more concise or elegant than that.

share|cite|improve this question
I've seen $\mathrm{ssup}(X)$, the strict supremum of $X$. I'm not a fan though. – François G. Dorais Dec 26 '12 at 6:40
I have seen $\sup^+(X)$ used in this context. – Asaf Karagila Dec 26 '12 at 7:43
up vote 4 down vote accepted


share|cite|improve this answer
Wow. That's certainly concise and elegant! – Ari Brodsky Dec 26 '12 at 8:59
Very efficient, but, unlike the less efficient possibility in the question, this depends on the specific representation of ordinals by sets. It works for the usual von Neumann ordinals, but not for other possible representations. – Andreas Blass Dec 26 '12 at 16:42

Your Answer


By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.