A primitive associated to the Cantor-Bendixson derivative on the real line

Abstract: We consider the class of compact countable subsets of the real numbers $\mathbb{R}$. By using an appropriate partition, up to homeomorphism, of this class we give a detailed proof of a result shown by S. Mazurkiewicz and W. Sierpinski related to the cardinality of this partition. Furthermore, for any compact subset of $\mathbb{R}$, we show the existence of a "primitive" related to its Cantor-Bendixson derivative.

\section{Introduction}
The earliest ideas of limit point and derived set in the space of the real numbers
were both introduced and investigated by Georg Cantor since 1872
(see also \cite{Cantor1872, Cantor1879, Cantor1880, Cantor1882, Cantor1883})
to analyze the convergence set of a trigonometric series.  These two concepts
have been generalized to the case of any arbitrary topological space.  Thus,  let $X$
be a topological space and let $A$ be a subset of $X$, we write $A'$ to denote
the derived set of $A$, that is, the set of all limit points of $A$.  The next
definition extends the process of taking the derivative of a set for any ordinal
number.

\begin{Definition}[Cantor-Bendixson's derivative]\label{def:D_CB}
Let $A$ be a subset of a topological space. For a given ordinal number $\alpha$, we
define, using Transfinite Recursion, the  \emph{$\alpha$-th derivative} of $A$,
written $A^{(\alpha)}$, as follows:
\begin{itemize}
  \item $A^{(0)}=A$,
  \item $A^{(\beta+1)}=(A^{(\beta)})'$, for all ordinal $\beta$,
  \item $\displaystyle A^{(\lambda)}=\bigcap_{\gamma<\lambda} A^{(\gamma)}$,
	for all limit ordinal $\lambda\neq 0$.
\end{itemize}
\end{Definition}

In this paper, we are initially concerned with the Cantor-Bendixson
derivative of compact countable subsets of the real numbers, where
a countable set is either a finite set or a countably infinite set.
Thus, we consider the set
\begin{equation}\label{setK}
    \mathcal{K}=\{K\subset \mathbb{R}:K\text{ is compact and countable}\}.
\end{equation}
Moreover, for all $K_1, K_2\in\mathcal{K}$, we define the relation
\begin{equation}\label{relation1}
    K_1 \sim K_2 \Longleftrightarrow
		\text{ there exists } f\colon K_1 \longmapsto K_2\text{ continuous and bijective.}
\end{equation}
It is not hard to see that $\sim$ is an equivalence relation on the set $\mathcal{K}$
and since the elements of $\mathcal{K}$ are compact sets, we have that for all
$K_1, K_2\in\mathcal{K}$
\begin{equation}\label{relation2}
    K_1 \sim K_2 \Longleftrightarrow
		\text{ there exists } f\colon K_1 \longmapsto K_2\text{ homeomorphism.}
\end{equation}
Therefore, there is a partition of the set $\mathcal{K}$, and we denote by
\begin{equation}\label{partition}
    \mathscr{K}= {\Large\nicefrac{\mathcal{K}}{\sim}}
\end{equation}
the set of all equivalence classes of $\mathcal{K}$.

In 1920, S. Mazurkiewicz and W. Sierpinski \cite{Sierpinski} showed that the
cardinality of $\mathscr{K}$ is $\aleph_1$.  In Section 2, we show in detail
that for any countable ordinal number $\alpha$, and
for any $p \in \omega$, there is a set $K \in \mathcal{K}$ such that
$K^{(\alpha)}$ has exactly $p$ elements.  This last fact was first
briefly mentioned by Cantor in \cite{Cantor1880}.  The results shown
in Section 2 allow us to prove, in Theorem \ref{Thcardinality}, that the
cardinality of $\mathscr{K}$ is greater than or equal to $\aleph_1$.
On the other hand, the cardinality of $\mathscr{K}$ is smaller than or equal to
$\aleph_1$ as a consequence of Theorem \ref{Th3}.

Section 3 considers Cantor-Bendixson's characteristic, denoted by $\mathcal{CB}$.
First, we show that for any element $K \in \mathcal{K}$ with
$\mathcal{CB}(K)=(\alpha,p)$, we get $p=0$ if and only if $K=\varnothing$. Moreover,
we use Lemma \ref{Lem5} to prove Theorem \ref{Th3}, where the injectivity
of function $\mathcal{\widetilde{CB}}$, defined in \eqref{eq:CBtilde}, is shown.
These two last results were first mentioned in \cite{Sierpinski}; however, for
the sake of completeness, we include here their detailed proofs.  Finally,
Theorem \ref{Thprimitive} shows that for any compact subset of the reals,
there exists a primitive-like set connected with its
Cantor-Bendixson derivative.

We recall that if $F$ is a closed subset of $\mathbb{R}$, then
$(F^{(\alpha)})_{\alpha\in\mathbf{OR}}$ is a decreasing family of closed
subsets of the real line. Furthermore,  if $K\in\mathcal{K}$, then
$(K^{(\alpha)})_{\alpha\in\mathbf{OR}}$ is a decreasing family of
elements of $\mathcal{K}$.

We denote by $\mathbf{OR}$, the class of all ordinal numbers.  Moreover,
$\omega$ is used to designate the set of all natural numbers and $\Omega$
represents the set of all countable ordinal numbers.  In addition, the
cardinality of a set $B$ is denoted by $|B|$.

\section{A family of elements in $\mathcal{K}$ having a Cantor-Bendixson's
derivative with any given finite number of elements}\label{Sectfam}

First, we remark that any finite subset of $\mathbb{R}$ is an element
of $\mathcal{K}$ with empty derived  set.  Thus, a set of
this kind satisfies the property that its Cantor-Bendixson's derivative is
empty for all ordinal number greater than or equal to 1.  The following theorem
let us find some elements belonging to $\mathcal{K}$ not satisfying this
last property.  The main idea of the next result was given in \cite{Cantor1880},
for completeness, we present below its proof in detail.

\begin{Theorem}\label{Th1}
For any countable ordinal number $\alpha \in \Omega$, and for all
$a,b\in\mathbb{R}$ such that $a<b$, there is a set $K \in \mathcal{K}$
such that $K \subset (a,b]$ and $K^{(\alpha)}=\{b\}$.
\end{Theorem}
\begin{proof}
We will use Transfinite Induction.
\begin{enumerate}[leftmargin=*]
\item[(a)]
First, we consider the case $\alpha=0$.  For any $a,b\in\mathbb{R}$ such that
$a<b$, the result follows by taking the set $K=\{b\} \in \mathcal{K}$.
\item[(b)]
Now, we suppose that for a given countable ordinal number $\alpha \in \Omega$,
and for all  $c,d\in\mathbb{R}$ such that $c<d$, there is a set
$\widetilde{K}\in \mathcal{K}$ such that $\widetilde{K}\subset (c,d]$
and $\widetilde{K}^{(\alpha)}=\{d\}$.  Let $a,b\in\mathbb{R}$ be such
that $a<b$. We take a strictly increasing sequence, $(x_n)_{n\in\omega}$, in
$(a,b]$ such that $x_n \rightarrow b$ as $n \rightarrow +\infty$. Defining
$x_{-1}:=a$ and applying the hypothesis to the real numbers $x_{m-1} < x_m$,
$m\in\omega$, it follows that there exists a sequence of sets
$(K_m)_{m\in\omega}$ such that for all $m\in\omega$, $K_m\in \mathcal{K}$,
$K_m\subset (x_{m-1},x_m]$ and $K_m^{(\alpha)}=\{x_m\}$.  Now, we define the set
  \begin{equation}\label{eq:02}
    K:=\biguplus_{m\in\omega} K_m \uplus\{b\}.
  \end{equation}
The set $K$, given in \eqref{eq:02}, satisfies the following properties:
\begin{itemize}
\item $K\subset (a,b]$, since $K_m\subset (x_{m-1},x_m] \subset (a,b]$, for all
$m\in\omega$.
\item $K$ is countable, since it is the countable union of countable sets.
\item $K$ is compact.  In fact, given $(A_i)_{i\in I}$ an open cover of $K$,
there is a $j\in I$ such that $b\in A_j$. Since $A_j$ is an open set and
$(x_n)_{n\in\omega}$ is a strictly increasing sequence that converges to $b$,
there exists $N_1\in\omega$ such that $K_n\subset A_j$ for all $n \in \omega$ with
$n>N_1$. On the other hand, the set $C := \biguplus_{n=0}^{N_1} K_n$ is compact,
since it is the finite union of compact sets.  Thus, $C$ has a finite open
subcover $(A_i)_{i\in J}$. Then, $(A_i)_{i\in J \cup \{j\}}$ is a finite open
subcover of $K$.
\item For all ordinal number $\beta$ with $\beta\leq\alpha$,
  \begin{equation} \label{eq:03}
        K^{(\beta)}=\biguplus_{m\in\omega}K_m^{(\beta)}\uplus\{b\}.
  \end{equation}
Last expression is obtained by using Transfinite Induction on $\beta$.  In fact,
the case $\beta=0$ is immediate from \eqref{eq:02}. Now, we suppose that
for a given ordinal number $\beta<\alpha$,~\eqref{eq:03} holds. Since $\beta+1\leq \alpha$,
we have that $K_m^{(\alpha)} \subset K^{(\alpha)} \subset K^{(\beta+1)}$,
for all $m\in\omega$.  Moreover, since $x_m\in K_m^{(\alpha)} \subset K^{(\beta+1)}$,
for all $m\in\omega$, and $x_m \rightarrow b$ as $m \rightarrow +\infty$, we
see that $b\in K^{(\beta+1)}$.  Therefore,
    \begin{equation} \label{eq:03a}
        \biguplus_{m\in\omega}K_m^{(\beta+1)}\uplus\{b\}
				\subset K^{(\beta+1)}.
    \end{equation}
In order to prove the other inclusion, let $x\in K^{(\beta+1)}$. Using the
induction hypothesis, we see that
    \begin{equation*}
        K^{(\beta+1)}\subset K^{(\beta)}= \biguplus_{m\in\omega}
				K_m^{(\beta)}\uplus\{b\}.
    \end{equation*}
Therefore, either $x=b$ or $x\in K_m^{(\beta)}$ for some $m\in\omega$. If $x = b$, then
there is nothing else to prove.  If $x\neq b$, there exists $M\in\omega$ such that
    \begin{equation*}
        x\in K_M^{(\beta)}\subset K_M \subset (x_{M-1},x_M].
    \end{equation*}
We claim that $x\in K_M^{(\beta+1)}$.  To prove the last assertion, we suppose, by
contradiction, that $x\notin K_M^{(\beta+1)}$.  Thus, $x$ is an isolated point of
$K_M^{(\beta)}$.  However, we know that $\{x_M\} =  K_M^{(\alpha)}\subset K_M^{(\beta+1)}$.
Then, $x\neq x_M$.  Thus, there exists $\epsilon>0$ such that
$(x-\epsilon,x+\epsilon)\subset (x_{M-1},x_M)$ and
    \begin{equation*}
        (x-\epsilon,x+\epsilon)\cap K_M^{(\beta)}=\{x\}.
    \end{equation*}
Moreover, since $(x-\epsilon,x+\epsilon)\subset (x_{M-1},x_M)$, we conclude that
for all $m\in\omega \smallsetminus \{M\}$,
    \begin{equation*}
        (x-\epsilon,x+\epsilon)\cap K_m^{(\beta)}=\varnothing.
    \end{equation*}
Hence,
    \begin{align*}
       \{x\}&=(x-\epsilon,x+\epsilon)\cap
			 \left(\biguplus_{m\in\omega}K_m^{(\beta)}\uplus\{b\}\right)\\[3pt]
       &=(x-\epsilon,x+\epsilon)\cap K^{(\beta)},
    \end{align*}
where in the last equality we have used the assumption that~\eqref{eq:03}
holds for $\beta$.  Even so, this last expression is a contradiction
with the fact that $x\in K^{(\beta+1)}$. Then, $x\in K_M^{(\beta+1)}$. Thus,
    \begin{equation} \label{eq:03b}
        K^{(\beta+1)}\subset \biguplus_{m\in\omega}K_m^{(\beta+1)}
				\uplus\{b\}.
    \end{equation}
Using~\eqref{eq:03a} and~\eqref{eq:03b}, we get
    \begin{equation*}
        K^{(\beta+1)} = \biguplus_{m\in\omega}K_m^{(\beta+1)}
				\uplus\{b\}.
    \end{equation*}
Finally, let $\gamma\neq 0$ be a limit ordinal such that $\gamma\leq\alpha$
and suppose that
    \begin{equation} \label{eq:03c}
        K^{(\delta)}= \biguplus_{m\in\omega}K_m^{(\delta)}
				\uplus\{b\},
    \end{equation}
for all ordinal number $\delta$ such that $\delta<\gamma$.  Following a
similar procedure to the one performed above to obtain~\eqref{eq:03a},
we have that
    \begin{equation} \label{eq:03d}
        \biguplus_{m\in\omega}K_m^{(\gamma)}
				\uplus\{b\}\subset K^{(\gamma)}.
    \end{equation}
To obtain the other inclusion, let $x\in K^{(\gamma)}$. Using the induction
hypothesis~\eqref{eq:03c}, we see that
    \begin{equation*}
        K^{(\gamma)} := \bigcap_{\delta<\gamma}  K^{(\delta)} =
				\bigcap_{\delta<\gamma}\left(\biguplus_{m\in\omega}K_m^{(\delta)}
				\uplus\{b\}\right).
    \end{equation*}
Then, either $x=b$ or for all ordinal number $\delta$ such that
$\delta<\gamma$, there exists $m\in\omega$ such that
$x\in K_m^{(\delta)}$. If $x=b$, then there is nothing left to prove.  If
$x\neq b$, there  exists $M\in\omega$ such that
$x\in K_M^{(0)}=K_M\subset (x_{M-1},x_M]$.  We claim now that for all ordinal
number $\delta$ such that $\delta<\gamma$, $x \in K_M^{(\delta)}$. In fact,
we suppose, by contradiction, that there is an ordinal number $\delta_0$ with
$\delta_0<\gamma$ and such that $x \notin K_M^{(\delta_0)}$.  However, we know
that there exists $m_0\in\omega$ with $m_0 \neq M$ such that
$x\in K_{m_0}^{(\delta_0)} \subset K_{m_0} \subset (x_{m_0-1},x_{m_0}]$.  Since
$m_0 \neq M$, we get $(x_{m_0-1},x_{m_0}] \cap (x_{M-1},x_M] = \varnothing$, which is
a contradiction with the fact that $x \in (x_{m_0-1},x_{m_0}] \cap (x_{M-1},x_M]$.
Therefore,
    \begin{equation*}
        x\in\bigcap_{\delta<\gamma}K_M^{(\delta)}=:K_M^{(\gamma)}
				\subset \biguplus_{m\in\omega}K_m^{(\gamma)}.
    \end{equation*}
Then,
    \begin{equation} \label{eq:03e}
        K^{(\gamma)}\subset\biguplus_{m\in\omega}K_m^{(\gamma)}\uplus\{b\}.
    \end{equation}
By~\eqref{eq:03d} and~\eqref{eq:03e}, we have that
    \begin{equation*}
        K^{(\gamma)}=\biguplus_{m\in\omega}K_m^{(\gamma)}\uplus\{b\}.
    \end{equation*}
Hence,~\eqref{eq:03} holds for all ordinal number $\beta$ such that
$\beta\leq\alpha$.
\end{itemize}
Applying now~\eqref{eq:03} to the ordinal number $\alpha$, and since
$K_m^{(\alpha)}=\{x_m\}$, for all $m\in\omega$, we conclude that
    \begin{align*}
        K^{(\alpha)}&= \biguplus_{m\in\omega}K_m^{(\alpha)}\uplus\{b\}\\
            &=\biguplus_{m\in\omega}\{x_m\}\uplus\{b\}\\
            &=\{x_m:m\in\omega\}\uplus\{b\}.
    \end{align*}
Therefore,
    \begin{equation*}
        K^{(\alpha+1)}=(K^{(\alpha)})'=\{b\}.
    \end{equation*}
\item[(c)]
Finally, let $\lambda\neq 0$ be a countable limit ordinal number.  We suppose
that for all ordinal number $\rho$ such that $\rho<\lambda$ and for
all $c,d\in\mathbb{R}$ such that $c<d$, there is a set
$\widetilde{K}\in \mathcal{K}$ such that $\widetilde{K}\subset (c,d]$
and $\widetilde{K}^{(\rho)}=\{d\}$.  Since $\lambda$ is a countable limit
ordinal number, there exits a strictly increasing sequence
$(\rho_n)_{n\in\omega}$ in $\Omega$ such that $\rho_n<\lambda$,
for all $n\in\omega$, and $\sup\{\rho_n:n\in \omega\}=\lambda$.  Let
$a,b\in\mathbb{R}$ be such that $a<b$. We take a strictly increasing
sequence, $(x_n)_{n\in\omega}$, in $(a,b]$ such that $x_n \rightarrow b$
as $n \rightarrow +\infty$. Defining again $x_{-1}=a$ and applying the
hypothesis to the real numbers $x_{m-1} < x_m$,  and the ordinal
number $\rho_m$, $m\in\omega$, it follows that there exists a sequence
of sets $(K_m)_{m\in\omega}$ such that for all $m\in\omega$,
$K_m\in \mathcal{K}$, $K_m\subset (x_{m-1},x_m]$ and
$K_m^{(\rho_m)}=\{x_m\}$.  We also define, as in the previous case, the set
  \begin{equation} \label{eq:04}
    K:=\biguplus_{m\in\omega} K_m \uplus\{b\}.
  \end{equation}
It can be shown, similarly to the case (b) above, that the set $K$,
defined in~\eqref{eq:04}, satisfies the following properties:
\begin{itemize}
  \item $K\subset (a,b]$.
  \item $K$ is countable.
  \item $K$ is compact.
  \item For all ordinal number $\rho$ with $\rho\leq\lambda$,
    \begin{equation} \label{eq:04a}
          K^{(\rho)}=\biguplus_{m\in\omega}K_m^{(\rho)}\uplus\{b\}.
    \end{equation}
Last expression is obtained by using Transfinite Induction on $\rho$.
In fact, the case $\rho=0$ is immediate from \eqref{eq:04}. Now, we suppose
that for a given ordinal number $\rho<\lambda$,~\eqref{eq:04a} holds.
Since $\lambda$ is a limit ordinal, we have that $\rho+1<\lambda$, and then
there exists $N\in\omega$ such that $\rho+1<\rho_m$ for all $m \in \omega$
with $m>N$. Therefore,
$x_m\in K_m^{(\rho_m)} \subset K_m^{(\rho+1)} \subset K^{(\rho+1)}$,
for all $m \in \omega$ with $m>N$, and since $x_m \rightarrow b$ as
$m \rightarrow +\infty$, we see that $b\in K^{(\rho+1)}$. Then,
    \begin{equation} \label{eq:04b}
        \biguplus_{m\in\omega}K_m^{(\rho+1)}\uplus\{b\}\subset K^{(\rho+1)}.
    \end{equation}
In order to prove the other inclusion, let $x\in K^{(\rho+1)}$. Using
the induction hypothesis, we see that
    \begin{equation*}
        K^{(\rho+1)}\subset K^{(\rho)}=
				\biguplus_{m\in\omega}K_m^{(\rho)}\uplus\{b\}.
    \end{equation*}
Therefore, either $x=b$ or $x\in K_m^{(\rho)}$ for some $m\in\omega$.
If $x = b$, then there is nothing else to prove.  If $x\neq b$, there
exists $M\in\omega$ such that
    \begin{equation*}
        x\in K_M^{(\rho)}\subset K_M \subset (x_{M-1},x_M].
    \end{equation*}
Since $K_M^{(\rho_M+1)}=\varnothing$, we have that $\rho< \rho_M+1$,
that is $\rho\leq\rho_M$. We claim that $x\in K_M^{(\rho+1)}$. To prove
the last assertion, we suppose, by contradiction, that $x\notin K_M^{(\rho+1)}$.
Thus, $x$ is an isolated point of $K_M^{(\rho)}$. However, we know
that $K_M\cap K_{M+1}=\varnothing$, then $x\notin K_{M+1}$.  Hence,
$x\notin K_{M+1}^{(\rho)}$. Thus, there exists $\epsilon>0$ such that
$(x-\epsilon,x+\epsilon)\subset (x_{M-1},x_{M+1})$,
$(x-\epsilon,x+\epsilon)\cap K_{M+1}^{(\rho)}=\varnothing$ and
    \begin{equation*}
        (x-\epsilon,x+\epsilon)\cap K_M^{(\rho)}=\{x\},
    \end{equation*}
where in the second expression above we have used the fact that
$K_{M+1}^{(\rho)}$ is a closed subset of $\mathbb{R}$.	 Moreover,
since $(x-\epsilon,x+\epsilon)\subset (x_{M-1},x_{M+1})$, we
conclude that for all $m\in\omega \smallsetminus \{M\}$,
    \begin{equation*}
        (x-\epsilon,x+\epsilon)\cap K_m^{(\rho)}=\varnothing.
    \end{equation*}
Hence,
    \begin{align*}
    \{x\}&=(x-\epsilon,x+\epsilon)\cap
		\left(\biguplus_{m\in\omega}K_m^{(\rho)}\uplus\{b\}\right)\\[3pt]
    &=(x-\epsilon,x+\epsilon)\cap K^{(\rho)},
    \end{align*}
where in the last equality we have used the assumption
that~\eqref{eq:04a} holds for $\rho$. Nevertheless, this last
expression is a contradiction with the fact that $x\in K^{(\rho+1)}$.
Then, $x\in K_M^{(\rho+1)}$.  Thus,
    \begin{equation} \label{eq:04c}
        K^{(\rho+1)}\subset \biguplus_{m\in\omega}K_m^{(\rho+1)}
				\uplus\{b\}.
    \end{equation}
Using~\eqref{eq:04b} and~\eqref{eq:04c}, we get
    \begin{equation*}
        K^{(\rho+1)} = \biguplus_{m\in\omega}K_m^{(\rho+1)}
				\uplus\{b\}.
    \end{equation*}
Finally, let $\gamma\neq 0$ be a limit ordinal such that
$\gamma\leq\lambda$ and suppose that
    \begin{equation} \label{eq:04d}
        K^{(\delta)}= \biguplus_{m\in\omega}K_m^{(\delta)}
				\uplus\{b\},
    \end{equation}
for all ordinal number $\delta$ such that $\delta<\gamma$. We have,
using~\eqref{eq:04d}, that
    \begin{align}
        \biguplus_{m\in\omega}K_m^{(\gamma)}\uplus\{b\}
        &=  \biguplus_{m\in\omega}\left(\bigcap_{\delta<\gamma}
				    K_m^{(\delta)}\right)\uplus\{b\}\notag\\
        &\subset  \bigcap_{\delta<\gamma}\left(\biguplus_{m\in\omega}
				    K_m^{(\delta)}\right)\uplus\{b\}\notag\\
        &=  \bigcap_{\delta<\gamma}\left(\biguplus_{m\in\omega}
				    K_m^{(\delta)}\uplus\{b\}\right)\notag\\
        &=\bigcap_{\delta<\gamma}K^{(\delta)}\notag\\
        &= K^{(\gamma)}.\label{eq:04e}
    \end{align}
To get the other inclusion, we can follow a similar procedure to the one
performed above to obtain~\eqref{eq:03e}.  Thus, we have that
	\begin{equation}\label{eq:04f}
	   K^{(\gamma)}\subset \biguplus_{m\in\omega}K_m^{(\gamma)}
	   \uplus\{b\}.
	\end{equation}
By~\eqref{eq:04e} and~\eqref{eq:04f}, we obtain
    \begin{equation*}
        K^{(\gamma)}=\biguplus_{m\in\omega}K_m^{(\gamma)}
				\uplus\{b\}.
    \end{equation*}
Consequently,~\eqref{eq:04a} holds for all ordinal number $\rho$
such that $\rho\leq\lambda$.
\end{itemize}
Furthermore, since for all $m\in\omega$, $\rho_m+1<\lambda$, it follows
that for all $m\in\omega$
    \begin{equation*}
        K_m^{(\lambda)}\subset K_m^{(\rho_m+1)}
				=(K_m^{(\rho_m)})'=(\{x_m\})'=\varnothing.
    \end{equation*}
Therefore,
    \begin{equation*}
        K^{(\lambda)}=\biguplus_{m\in\omega}K_m^{(\lambda)}
				\uplus\{b\}=\{b\}.
    \end{equation*}
\end{enumerate}
From (a), (b) and (c), the theorem is proved.
\end{proof}
The next lemma will be used in the proof of Corollary~\ref{Cor1}
below.
\begin{Lemma}\label{Lemtech0}
Suppose that $n\in \omega$. Let $F_1, F_2, \ldots, F_n$ be closed subsets
of $\mathbb{R}$.  Then, for all ordinal number
$\alpha \in \mathbf{OR}$, we have that
\begin{equation*}
	\left(\bigcup_{k=1}^n F_k\right)^{(\alpha)}
	= \bigcup_{k=1}^n F_k^{(\alpha)}.
\end{equation*}
\end{Lemma}
\begin{proof}
The general case, $n\in \omega$, is a consequence of the result
for $n=2$ and the Principle of Finite Induction.  Thus,
we suppose that $n=2$. We will now use Transfinite Induction.
\begin{enumerate}[label=(\alph*),leftmargin=*]
\item
If $\alpha = 0$, then there is nothing else to prove.
\item
We now suppose that for a given ordinal number $\alpha\in\mathbf{OR}$,
$(F_1\cup F_2)^{(\alpha)} = F_1^{(\alpha)}\cup F_2^{(\alpha)}$.
Therefore,
\begin{equation*}
	(F_1\cup F_2)^{(\alpha+1)} = \big((F_1\cup F_2)^{(\alpha)}\big)'
	=\big(F_1^{(\alpha)}\cup F_2^{(\alpha)}\big)'
	=F_1^{(\alpha+1)}\cup F_2^{(\alpha+1)},
\end{equation*}
where in the last equation we have used the fact that the derived set of a
finite union of subsets of a metric space equals the union of their derived sets.
\item
Finally, let $\lambda\neq 0$ be a limit ordinal number. We suppose that for all
$\beta\in\mathbf{OR}$ such that $\beta<\lambda$,
$(F_1\cup F_2)^{(\beta)} = F_1^{(\beta)}\cup F_2^{(\beta)}$. Then,
\begin{align*}
  F_1^{(\lambda)}\cup F_2^{(\lambda)}
	  & = \bigcap_{\beta<\lambda} F_1^{(\beta)} \cup \bigcap_{\beta<\lambda} F_2^{(\beta)}\\
	  & \subset \bigcap_{\beta<\lambda} (F_1^{(\beta)} \cup  F_2^{(\beta)})\\
	  & = \bigcap_{\beta<\lambda} (F_1 \cup  F_2)^{(\beta)}\\
	  & = (F_1 \cup  F_2)^{(\lambda)}.
\end{align*}
In order to prove the other inclusion, we take $x\in (F_1 \cup  F_2)^{(\lambda)}$.
We suppose, for the sake of contradiction, that $x\not\in F_1^{(\lambda)}$ and
$x\not\in F_2^{(\lambda)}$.  Thus, there exist $\beta_1, \beta_2 \in \mathbf{OR}$,
with $\beta_1<\lambda$ and $\beta_2<\lambda$, such that $x\not\in F_1^{(\beta_1)}$ and
$x\not\in F_2^{(\beta_2)}$. If $\beta_1\leq \beta_2$, then
$F_1^{(\beta_2)}\subset F_1^{(\beta_1)}$.  Hence,
$x\not\in F_1^{(\beta_2)}\cup F_2^{(\beta_2)}=(F_1\cup F_2)^{(\beta_2)}$,
which contradicts the fact that
$x\in (F_1 \cup  F_2)^{(\lambda)}=\bigcap_{\beta<\lambda} (F_1 \cup  F_2)^{(\beta)}$.
The proof of the other case, $\beta_2 < \beta_1$, is similar.  Therefore,
\begin{equation*}
	(F_1 \cup  F_2)^{(\lambda)} = F_1^{(\lambda)}\cup F_2^{(\lambda)}.
\end{equation*}
\end{enumerate}
Consequently, the lemma is proved.
\end{proof}
The following result is a generalization of Theorem~\ref{Th1}.
\begin{Corollary}\label{Cor1}
Given any countable ordinal number $\alpha$ and given any $p\in\omega$,
there exists $K\in \mathcal{K}$ such that $|K^{(\alpha)}|=p$.
\end{Corollary}
\begin{proof}
Let $\alpha \in \Omega$. If $p=0$, we take $K=\varnothing$.
If $p\in\omega \smallsetminus\{0\}$, it is enough to apply
Theorem~\ref{Th1} to a collection of $p$ pairwise disjoint intervals.  Thus,
for all $k \in \{1,\ldots, p\}$, there exists $K_k\in\mathcal{K}$, such that
$K_k^{(\alpha)}$ has only one element, and $K_i \cap K_j = \varnothing$ for
$i, j \in \{1, \ldots, p\}$ with $i \neq j$. We now define
\begin{equation*}
	K:=\biguplus_{k=1}^p K_k.
\end{equation*}
Hence, $K\in \mathcal{K}$ and, using Lemma~\ref{Lemtech0}, we get
\begin{equation*}
	K^{(\alpha)}=\biguplus_{k=1}^p K_k^{(\alpha)}.
\end{equation*}
Therefore, $K^{(\alpha)}$ has exactly $p$ elements.
\end{proof}
\begin{Remark}
Even though the proofs of~\eqref{eq:03} and~\eqref{eq:04a} are similar, it is worth
mentioning that they are not identical.  In fact, to prove~\eqref{eq:03} we have that
$\alpha \in \Omega$ and for all $m \in \omega$, $K_m^{(\alpha)}=\{x_m\}$.  On
the other hand, to obtain~\eqref{eq:04a} we consider $\lambda \neq 0$ a
countable limit ordinal and a strictly increasing sequence
$(\rho_m)_{m\in\omega}$ in $\Omega$, with $\sup\{\rho_m:m\in \omega\}=\lambda$,
such that for all $m \in \omega$, $\rho_m<\lambda$ and $K_m^{(\rho_m)}=\{x_m\}$, where
$\rho_m$ depends on $m$. \\
In addition, we point out that the process developed to obtain~\eqref{eq:04e}
can also be used to get~\eqref{eq:03a}, \eqref{eq:03d} and~\eqref{eq:04b}.
\end{Remark}

\section{Some results concerning Cantor-Bendixson's derivative}

It is a well-known fact that, for all $K\in\mathcal{K}$,
$(K^{(\alpha)})_{\alpha\in\mathbf{OR}}$ is a decreasing family of
elements of $\mathcal{K}$.  The following two results were first
proved by G. Cantor in~\cite{Cantor1883s} and they
imply that for all $K\in\mathcal{K}$,
$(K^{(\alpha)})_{\alpha\in\mathbf{OR}}$ is in fact a strictly
decreasing family of sets in $\mathcal{K}$ up to a countable
ordinal number and such that all of its subsequent derivative
sets are empty.
\begin{Lemma}
If $K\in\mathcal{K}$ and $K\neq\varnothing$, then $K'\neq K$.
\end{Lemma}
The above lemma implies the following theorem.
\begin{Theorem}
If $K\in \mathcal{K}$, then there exists a countable ordinal
number $\beta$ such that $K^{(\beta)}$ is finite.
\end{Theorem}
Since $\Omega$ is a well-ordered set, by the previous theorem, we see that
for all $K\in\mathcal{K}$, there exists the smallest countable ordinal
number $\alpha$ such that $K^{(\alpha)}$ is finite.   We can now
give the next definition.
\begin{Definition}[Cantor-Bendixson's characteristic]
Let $K\in \mathcal{K}$.  We say that $(\alpha,p)\in \Omega\times\omega$
is the \emph{Cantor-Bendixson characteristic} of $K$ if $\alpha$ is
the smallest countable ordinal number such that $K^{(\alpha)}$ is
finite and $|K^{(\alpha)}|=p$. In this case, we write
$\mathcal{CB}(K)=(\alpha,p)$.
\end{Definition}
By Theorem~\ref{Th1}, for all countable ordinal number $\alpha$, there
exists a set $K \in \mathcal{K}$ having Cantor-Bendixson's characteristic
$(\alpha,1)$. Furthermore, by Corollary~\ref{Cor1}, we have that
for all $p\in\omega\smallsetminus\{0\}$ and for all $\alpha \in \Omega$,
there exists $K\in \mathcal{K}$ such that $\mathcal{CB}(K)=(\alpha,p)$.
In addition, we obviously see that $\mathcal{CB}(\varnothing)=(0,0)$.
Moreover, we have the next result concerning the empty set.
\begin{Proposition}\label{Prop1}
Let $K\in\mathcal{K}$ be such that
$\mathcal{CB}(K)=(\alpha,p) \in \Omega \times \omega$. Then, $p= 0$
if and only if $K=\varnothing$.
\end{Proposition}
\begin{proof}
If $K=\varnothing$, then $\mathcal{CB}(K)=(0,0)$, and thus the result holds.
\noindent
Now, we suppose that $K\neq\varnothing$. We consider three cases.
\begin{itemize}
\item If $\alpha=0$, then $K=K^{(0)}$ is finite.  Since
      $K\neq\varnothing$, we have that $|K^{(0)}|\neq 0$. Hence, $p\neq0$.
\item We suppose now that $\alpha$ is a nonzero limit ordinal.  Then,
      for all  $\beta \in \Omega$ such that $\beta <\alpha$, $K^{(\beta)}$
			is infinite.  Therefore, $(K^{(\beta)})_{\beta<\alpha}$ is a decreasing
			nested family of nonempty compact subsets of $\mathbb{R}$. By using
			the Cantor Intersection Theorem, we obtain
       \begin{equation*}
           K^{(\alpha)}=\bigcap_{\beta<\alpha}K^{(\beta)}\neq\varnothing.
       \end{equation*}
      Then, $|K^{(\alpha)}|\neq 0$, and so $p\neq0$.
\item Finally, we assume that $\alpha$ is a successor ordinal.  Thus, there
      exists an ordinal $\beta \in \Omega$  such that $\beta+1=\alpha$. Since
			$\beta<\alpha$, it follows that $K^{(\beta)}$ is infinite.  Then,
       \begin{equation*}
           K^{(\alpha)}=K^{(\beta+1)}=(K^{(\beta)})'\neq\varnothing.
       \end{equation*}
    Therefore, $|K^{(\alpha)}|\neq 0$.  Hence, $p\neq0$.\qedhere
\end{itemize}
\end{proof}
\subsection{Partition of $\mathcal{K}$}
In this subsection, we show some general results concerning the
equivalence relation $\sim$ defined on the set $\mathcal{K}$
by \eqref{relation1}.
\begin{Proposition}
Let $K_1, K_2\in \mathcal{K}$ be such that $K_1\sim K_2$. Then,
$K'_1\sim K'_2$. More precisely, if $f$ is a homeomorphism
of $K_1$ onto $K_2$, then $f|_{K'_1}$ is also a homeomorphism
of $K_1'$ onto $K_2'$.
\end{Proposition}
\begin{proof}
Since the image of a limit point, under a homeomorphism, is also a limit
point, we see that $f(K'_1)=K'_2$. Hence,
$f|_{K'_1}\colon K'_1 \longmapsto K'_2$ is a homeomorphism. Therefore,
$K'_1\sim K'_2$.
\end{proof}
By using Transfinite Induction, we get the following result.
\begin{Corollary}
Let $K_1,K_2\in \mathcal{K}$ be such that $K_1\sim K_2$, and
let $\alpha$ be any ordinal number.  Then,
$K^{(\alpha)}_1\sim K^{(\alpha)}_2$.  More precisely, if $f$ is
a homeomorphism of $K_1$ onto $K_2$, then $f|_{K^{(\alpha)}_1}$
is also a homeomorphism of $K^{(\alpha)}_1$ onto $K^{(\alpha)}_2$.
\end{Corollary}
It follows from the last corollary that if $K_1,K_2\in \mathcal{K}$,
$K_1\sim K_2$ and $\mathcal{CB}(K_1)=(\alpha,p) \in \Omega \times \omega$,
then there exists a bijective function of $K^{(\alpha)}_1$ onto
$K^{(\alpha)}_2$.  Therefore, $|K_2^{(\alpha)}|=|K_1^{(\alpha)}|=p$.
Hence,  $\mathcal{CB}(K_2)=(\alpha,p)$. This last result about the
Cantor-Bendixson characteristic, which was given by
S. Mazurkiewicz and W. Sierpinski in~\cite{Sierpinski},
is expressed in the following theorem.
\begin{Theorem}\label{Th2}
If $K_1,K_2\in \mathcal{K}$ and $K_1\sim K_2$, then
$\mathcal{CB}(K_1)=\mathcal{CB}(K_2)$.
\end{Theorem}
The above theorem shows that the Cantor-Bendixson characteristic is
preserved for equivalent elements of $\mathcal{K}$, i.e., given
$K\in\mathcal{K}$, we have that $\mathcal{CB}(K_1)=\mathcal{CB}(K)$,
for all $K_1\in [K]$, where $[K]$ denotes the equivalence class of $K$.
The reciprocal of Theorem \ref{Th2}, which was likewise given by
S. Mazurkiewicz and W. Sierpinski in~\cite{Sierpinski}, is also true,
and for completeness we give a more explicit proof of this fact
in Theorem \ref{Th3} below. In the following, we consider any ordinal
number as a topological space with the order topology.  Lemmas \ref{Lem2}
to \ref{Lem5} will be used in the proof of Theorem \ref{Th3}.
\begin{Lemma}\label{Lem2}
Let $K\in\mathcal{K}$ be such that $\mathcal{CB}(K)=(1,1)$. Then,
there exists a homeomorphism of $K$ onto $\omega+1$.
\end{Lemma}
\begin{proof}
There is an $x\in \mathbb{R}$ such that  $K'=\{x\}$. The set
$K\smallsetminus K'$ is infinite and countable. Therefore, there
exists a bijective function $g$ of $K\smallsetminus K'$ onto $\omega$.
Now, we define
\begin{equation*}
    \funcion{f}{K}{\omega+1}{z}{f(z)=\begin{cases}
    g(z),& \text{if }z\neq x,\\
    \omega,& \text{if }z= x.
    \end{cases}}
\end{equation*}
We see that $f$ is a bijective function.  Furthermore, since
$\omega + 1$ is a compact topological space, $(\omega+1)' = \{\omega\}$,
$f$ is an injective function, and $f(K') = f(\{x\}) = \{\omega\}$,
we have that $f$ is a continuous function.  Moreover,
since $\omega+1$ is a Hausdorff space, it follows that
$f$ is in fact a homeomorphism.
\end{proof}
\begin{Lemma}\label{Lem3}
Let $\alpha$ be a countable ordinal number such that $\alpha>1$. Suppose
that for all ordinal number $\beta$ such that $0<\beta<\alpha$ and for all
$\widetilde{K}\in\mathcal{K}$ such that
$\mathcal{CB}(\widetilde{K})=(\beta,p)
\in \Omega \times (\omega \smallsetminus \{0\})$, there
exists a homeomorphism $\widetilde{f}$ of $\widetilde{K}$ onto
$\omega^\beta\cdot p+1$. Then, for all
$K\in\mathcal{K}$ such that $\mathcal{CB}(K)=(\alpha,1)$, there
exists a homeomorphism of $K$ onto $\omega^\alpha+1$.
\end{Lemma}
\begin{proof}
Let $K\in\mathcal{K}$ be such that $\mathcal{CB}(K)=(\alpha,1)$.
Then, there exists an $x \in K$ such that  $K^{(\alpha)}=\{x\}$. We have
that $x\in K^{(\alpha)}\subset K''$. Thus, $x$ is a limit point of $K'$.
Hence, there exists a strictly increasing or strictly decreasing
sequence $(x_n)_{n\in\omega}$ in $K' $ such that it converges to $x$.
We suppose that $(x_n)_{n\in\omega}$ is an strictly increasing sequence
in $K'$, the other case is similar. \\
We claim that for all $n\in\omega$, we can take $ r_n>0$ such that
$x_n<x- r_n<x_{n+1}$ and $x- r_n, x+ r_n \notin K$.
In fact, if we suppose the contrary, then there exists $l \in \omega$
such that
\begin{equation*}
   [x_l-x,x_{l+1}-x]\subset \{ r\in \mathbb{R}:
   x- r\in K\text{ or }x+ r\in K\}.
\end{equation*}
However, the set on the right-hand side of the last inclusion is
countable, which is a contradiction.  Hence, the claim is proved.
We remark that the sequence $( r_n)_{n\in\omega}$
converges to 0 as $n$ goes to infinity.  We now define the sets
\begin{align}\label{eq:sets}
  K_0  &=K\cap \big((-\infty,x- r_0]\cup[x+ r_0,+\infty)\big),
	\nonumber \\
  K_{k}&=K\cap \big([x- r_{k-1},x- r_{k}]
	      \cup [x+ r_{k},x+ r_{k-1}]\big),
				\; \; k \in \omega \smallsetminus \{0\}.
\end{align}
We see that for all $k \in \omega$, $x_k \in K_k$.  In addition,
the sequence of sets $(K_k)_{k\in\omega}$ satisfies the
following properties.
\begin{itemize}
 \item $K_k\subset K$, for all $k\in\omega$.
 \item $K_k\in \mathcal{K}$, for all $k\in\omega$, since they are countable
       closed subsets of $K$.
 \item $x_k \in K_k'\neq\varnothing$, for all $k\in\omega$.  In fact,
       let $\varepsilon >0$.  First, we consider the case
			 $k\in\omega \smallsetminus \{0\}$.  We now take
			 $\hat\varepsilon := \min \{\varepsilon, x_k-x +  r_{k-1},
			  x- r_k-x_k\}>0$.  Since $x_k \in K'$, there exists
			 $z \in [(x_k-\hat\varepsilon, x_k+\hat\varepsilon) \smallsetminus \{x_k\}] \cap K$.
			 Thus, $z \in [(x_k-\varepsilon, x_k+\varepsilon) \smallsetminus \{x_k\}] \cap K_k$.
			 Hence, $x_k \in K_k'$.  For the case $k=0$, by taking
			 $\hat\varepsilon := \min \{\varepsilon, x- r_0-x_0\}>0$, and proceeding in a
			 similar way as in the previous case, we see that $x_0 \in K_0'$.
 \item $(K_k)_{k\in\omega}$ is a pairwise disjoint sequence in $\mathcal{K}$.
 \item $\displaystyle \biguplus_{k\in\omega} K_k\uplus\{x\}=K$.  The fact that
       $\displaystyle \biguplus_{k\in\omega} K_k\uplus\{x\} \subset K$ follows directly
			 from \eqref{eq:sets}.  In order to prove the reverse inclusion, we take $z \in K$.
			 If $z = x$, there is nothing else to show.  Now, we suppose that $z\neq x$.  Since
			 $ r_n \to 0$ as $n \to +\infty$, we can choose the smallest natural number
			 $N \in \omega$ such that $ r_N < |x-z|$.  Then, $z \in K_N$.
\end{itemize}
Moreover, from \eqref{eq:sets} we see that for all $k\in\omega$,
$x\not\in K_k^{(\alpha)}\subset\{x\}$. Therefore, for all $k \in \omega$,
$K_k^{(\alpha)}=\varnothing$.
Thus, for all $k \in \omega$,
$\mathcal{CB}(K_k)=(\beta_k,p_k) \in \Omega \times \omega$ implies
that $0<\beta_k<\alpha$.  We remark that for all $k \in \omega$,
$K_k \neq \varnothing$ implies that
$p_k \in \omega \smallsetminus \{ 0\}$.
 Using the hypothesis, we conclude that for all
$k\in\omega$, there exists a homeomorphism $f_k$ of $K_k$ onto
$\omega^{\beta_k}\cdot p_k+1$. We now define the function
\begin{equation*}
		\funcion{f}{K}{\tau+1}{z}
		{f(z)=\begin{cases}
		   f_0(z), & \text{if }z\in K_0,\\[2mm]
			 \displaystyle
		   \sum_{j=0}^{k-1}\omega^{\beta_j}\cdot p_j+1+f_k(z),
			 & \text{if }z\in K_k, \;
			 k \in \omega\smallsetminus\{0\}, \\[2mm]
			 \tau,  & \text{if }z=x,
		\end{cases}}
\end{equation*}
where
\begin{equation*}
  \tau:=\sum_{k\in\omega}\omega^{\beta_k}\cdot p_k
	:=\sup\left\{\sum_{k=0}^n\omega^{\beta_k}\cdot p_k:n
	\in\omega\right\}.
\end{equation*}
\begin{enumerate}[label=(\alph*),leftmargin=*]
\item
First, we remark that $f$ is an injective function.  In fact,
let $u, v \in K$ be such that $f(u)=f(v)$.  If $u=x$ and
$v \in K_q$, for some $q \in \omega$, then
$f(v) \le \sum_{k=0}^{q} \omega^{\beta_k} \cdot p_k < \tau =f(u)$,
which is a contradiction.  Thus, there exists $r \in \omega$
such that $u \in K_r$.  We suppose, by contradiction, that
$q \neq r$.  Without loss of generality, we may assume that $q < r$.
Then,
\begin{align*}
  f(v) &\le \sum_{k=0}^q \omega^{\beta_k} \cdot p_k
        \le \sum_{k=0}^{r-1} \omega^{\beta_k} \cdot p_k \\
			 &< \sum_{k=0}^{r-1} \omega^{\beta_k} \cdot p_k +1
			    + f_r(u)
			  = f(u),
\end{align*}
which is not possible.  Hence, $q=r$.  Thus,
\begin{equation*}
  \sum_{k=0}^{q-1} \omega^{\beta_k} \cdot p_k +1+f_q(u) = f(u)
	= f(v) = \sum_{k=0}^{q-1} \omega^{\beta_k} \cdot p_k +1+f_q(v),
\end{equation*}
implies that $f_q(u) = f_q(v)$.  Using the fact that $f_q$ is
an injective function, it follows that $u=v$.
\item
We will now show that $f$ is onto.  In fact, let $\gamma \le \tau$.
If $\gamma = \tau$, we have that $f(x) = \tau =\gamma$.  If
$\gamma < \tau$, we take
$M:= \min \{n \in \omega : \gamma \le
\sum_{k=0}^n \omega^{\beta_k} \cdot p_k\}$.
In case $M=0$, $\gamma \le \omega^{\beta_0} \cdot p_0$.  Since, $f_0$
is onto, there exists $z \in K_0 \subset K$ such that $f(z)= f_0(z)= \gamma$.
We now assume that $M \in \omega \smallsetminus \{ 0 \}$.  Then,
\begin{equation*}
 \sum_{k=0}^{M-1} \omega^{\beta_k} \cdot p_k +1 \le \gamma
 \le \sum_{k=0}^{M} \omega^{\beta_k} \cdot p_k.
\end{equation*}
Thus, there exists an ordinal number $\mu$ such that
\begin{equation*}
 \sum_{k=0}^{M-1} \omega^{\beta_k} \cdot p_k +1 + \mu = \gamma
 \le \sum_{k=0}^{M-1} \omega^{\beta_k} \cdot p_k
 +\omega^{\beta_M} \cdot p_M.
\end{equation*}
Then, $\mu \le \omega^{\beta_M} \cdot p_M$.  Since $f_M$ is onto,
there exists $z \in K_M \subset K$ such that $f_M(z) = \mu$.  So,
$f(z)= \sum_{k=0}^{M-1} \omega^{\beta_k} \cdot p_k +1+f_{M}(z)
=\gamma$.
\item
Moreover, for all $k \in \omega$, $f|_{K_k}$ equals an ordinal number, i.e.
a constant function,  plus a continuous function.  Thus, for
all $k \in \omega$, $f|_{K_k}$ is a continuous function. In addition,
since $(K_k)_{k\in\omega}$ is a pairwise disjoint sequence of open
subsets in $K$, it follows that $f$ is a continuous function
at any element of $\biguplus_{k\in\omega} K_k$. Furthermore, $f$ is also
continuous at the point $x \in K$.  If fact, let $\mu$ be an ordinal
number such that $\mu < \tau$.  There exists $m \in \omega$ such that
$\mu < \sum_{j=0}^m \omega^{\beta_j} \cdot p_j$.  We claim that
\begin{equation}\label{eq:continuityx}
  f((x- r_m, x+ r_m) \cap K) \subset (\mu, \tau +1).
\end{equation}
Let $y \in (x- r_m, x+ r_m) \cap K$.  If $y=x$, then
$f(y)=f(x)=\tau \in (\mu, \tau +1)$.  We now suppose that
$y \neq x$.  Then, there is $i \in \omega$ such that
$y \in K_i$. Since $( r_n)_{n \in \omega}$ is a
strictly decreasing sequence of positive numbers, we conclude
that $i > m$.  Then,
\begin{equation}\label{eq:cont1}
  f(y) = \sum_{j=0}^{i-1} \omega^{\beta_j} \cdot p_j + 1 + f_i(y)
	     \ge \sum_{j=0}^{m} \omega^{\beta_j} \cdot p_j
			 > \mu.
\end{equation}
Moreover,
\begin{align}\label{eq:cont2}
  f(y) & = \sum_{j=0}^{i-1} \omega^{\beta_j} \cdot p_j + 1 + f_i(y)
	       \le \sum_{j=0}^{i-1} \omega^{\beta_j} \cdot p_j + 1
			     + \omega^{\beta_i} \cdot p_i  \nonumber \\
			 & = \sum_{j=0}^{i} \omega^{\beta_j} \cdot p_j \le \tau
			   < \tau +1.
\end{align}
From \eqref{eq:cont1} and \eqref{eq:cont2}, we see that
$f(y) \in (\mu, \tau+1)$.  Thus, \eqref{eq:continuityx}
follows.  Hence, $f$ is continuous at the point $x$.
\end{enumerate}
By (a) and (b), $f$ is a bijective function.  In addition, by (c),
$f$ is a continuous function of $K$ onto $\tau+1$.  \\
We will now prove that $\tau=\omega^\alpha$. In order to get
this, let
$\widetilde{\alpha}:=\sup\{\beta_k:k\in\omega\} \in \mathbf{OR}$.
We see that $\widetilde{\alpha}\leq \alpha$.
\begin{enumerate}[label= (\roman*)]
\item
First, we consider the case $\widetilde{\alpha}< \alpha$.  Then,
$\widetilde{\alpha} +1 \le \alpha$.  Thus, for all $k \in \omega$,
$K_k^{(\widetilde{\alpha}+1)}=\varnothing$.  Using
Transfinite Induction, and proceeding as in the proof
of \eqref{eq:03}, we get
\begin{equation*}
  K^{(\widetilde{\alpha}+1)}
	= \biguplus_{k \in \omega} K_k^{(\widetilde{\alpha}+1)}
	  \uplus \{x\} = \{x\}.
\end{equation*}
Then, $\widetilde{\alpha}+1 = \alpha$. Since for all
$k \in \omega$,
$\omega^{\beta_k} \cdot p_k \le \omega^{\widetilde{\alpha}} \cdot p_k$,
we see that
\begin{equation}\label{eq:tau1}
  \tau = \sum_{k \in \omega}\omega^{\beta_k} \cdot p_k
  \le  \omega^{\widetilde{\alpha}}  \cdot
	\left(\sum_{k \in \omega} p_k\right)
  = \omega^{\widetilde{\alpha}} \cdot \omega
  = \omega^{\widetilde{\alpha}+1} = \omega^{\alpha}.
\end{equation}
On the other hand, we claim that
\begin{equation}\label{eq:cardset}
   |\{ n \in \omega : \beta_n = \widetilde{\alpha} \}|
	 = \aleph_0.
\end{equation}
In order to prove \eqref{eq:cardset}, we first suppose, by
contradiction, that for all $n \in \omega$,
$\beta_n < \widetilde{\alpha}$.  Thus, for all $n \in \omega$,
$\beta_n+1 \le \widetilde{\alpha}$, and we get
$K_n^{(\widetilde{\alpha})} \subset K_n^{(\beta_n+1)} = \varnothing$.
Moreover, we see that
$K^{(\widetilde{\alpha})} = \biguplus_{k \in \omega}
K_k^{(\widetilde{\alpha})} \uplus \{x\} = \{x\}$.  Then,
$\widetilde{\alpha} = \alpha$, which is a contradiction.  Hence,
there exists at least one $n\in \omega$ such that
$\beta_n = \widetilde{\alpha}$.  We now suppose, again by contradiction,
that the set
$\{ n \in \omega : \beta_n = \widetilde{\alpha} \} \neq \varnothing$
is finite.  Let
$N := \max \{n \in \omega : \beta_n = \widetilde{\alpha} \} \in \omega$.
We have that for all $k \in \omega$ such that $k>N$,
$\beta_k < \widetilde{\alpha}$.  Then,
\begin{equation*}
  K^{(\widetilde{\alpha})} = \biguplus_{k \in \omega}
  K_k^{(\widetilde{\alpha})} \uplus \{x\}
	= \biguplus_{k=0}^N
  K_k^{(\widetilde{\alpha})} \uplus \{x\}.
\end{equation*}
It follows that,  $K^{(\widetilde{\alpha})}$ is a finite set.  Hence,
$K^{(\alpha)} = K^{(\widetilde{\alpha} +1)} = \varnothing$,
which is a contradiction with the fact that
$K^{(\alpha)} = \{x\}$.  Therefore, \eqref{eq:cardset} is proved.
We now define, for all $n \in \omega$,
\begin{equation*}
  m_n := |\{k \in \omega : k \le n \text{ and }
	\beta_k = \widetilde{\alpha}  \}| \in \omega.
\end{equation*}
Then, for all $n \in \omega$, we have that
\begin{equation*}
  \sum_{k=0}^n \omega^{\beta_k} \cdot p_k
	\ge \omega^{\widetilde{\alpha}} \cdot m_n.
\end{equation*}
For this reason,
\begin{align}\label{eq:tau2}
	\tau & = \sum_{k\in\omega}\omega^{\beta_k}\cdot p_k
	       \ge \omega^{\widetilde{\alpha}}
	           \cdot \sup \{m_n : n\in \omega \} \nonumber \\
			 & = \omega^{\widetilde{\alpha}} \cdot \omega
			   = \omega^{\widetilde{\alpha}+1}
         = \omega^\alpha.
\end{align}
Using \eqref{eq:tau1} and \eqref{eq:tau2}, we conclude that
$\tau = \omega^\alpha$.
\item
We now consider the case $\widetilde{\alpha} = \alpha$. We claim that
for all $k \in \omega$, $\beta_k < \widetilde{\alpha}$.  In fact,
if there exists $l \in \omega$ such that $\beta_l = \widetilde{\alpha}$,
then
\begin{equation*}
  K_l^{(\beta_l)} \uplus \{x\} \subset
	\biguplus_{i\in \omega} K_i^{(\beta_l)} \uplus \{x\}
	= K^{(\beta_l)} = K^{(\alpha)} = \{x\},
\end{equation*}
contradicting the fact that $|K_l^{(\beta_l)}|=p_l>0$. We now
remark that $\alpha$ is a limit ordinal.  In order to prove
the last assertion, we suppose, for the sake of contradiction,
that $\alpha$ is a successor ordinal. Then, there exists an ordinal
number $\lambda$ such that $\alpha = \lambda +1$.  Thus, for all $k \in \omega$,
$\beta_k \le \lambda < \alpha= \widetilde{\alpha}$, which is a
contradiction with the definition of $\widetilde{\alpha}$.
On the other hand, since for all $k \in \omega$,
$\omega^{\beta_k} \le \omega^{\beta_k} \cdot p_k \le \tau$, it
follows that
\begin{equation}\label{eq:tau3}
  \omega^{\alpha} = \omega^{\widetilde{\alpha}}
	=\sup \{\omega^{\beta_k} : k \in \omega \} \le \tau.
\end{equation}
We now define, for all $n \in \omega$,
\begin{align*}
  \beta_{k_n} & := \max \{\beta_k : k=0,1,\ldots,n \}, \\
	p_{k_n}     & := \max \{ p_k : k=0,1,\ldots,n \}.
\end{align*}
Then, for all $n \in \omega$, we see that
\begin{equation*}
  \sum_{k=0}^n \omega^{\beta_k} \cdot p_k
	\le \omega^{\beta_{k_n}} \cdot p_{k_n} \cdot  n
	< \omega^{\beta_{k_n}+1} \le \omega^\alpha,
\end{equation*}
where in the last inequality we have used the fact
that $\beta_{k_n}<\beta_{k_n}+1 \le \alpha$.  In
consequence,
\begin{equation}\label{eq:tau4}
   \tau = \sum_{k\in\omega}\omega^{\beta_k}\cdot p_k
	 \le \omega^\alpha.
\end{equation}
Equations \eqref{eq:tau3} and  \eqref{eq:tau4} imply that
$\tau = \omega^\alpha$.
\end{enumerate}
Therefore, $f$ is a bijective and continuous function
of $K$ onto $\tau+1=\omega^{\alpha}+1$.
In addition, since $\omega^{\alpha}+1$ is a Hausdorff space,
we conclude that $f$ is a homeomorphism of $K$
onto $\omega^\alpha+1$.
\end{proof}
\begin{Lemma}\label{Lemtech}
Suppose that $K$ and $F$ are closed subsets of $\mathbb{R}$ such
that $K \cap F$ = $K \cap \accentset{\circ}{F}$, where
$\accentset{\circ}{F}$ is the set of all interior points of $F$.
Then, for all $\alpha \in \mathbf{OR}$, we have that
\begin{equation}\label{eq:lemtech}
  (K \cap F)^{(\alpha)} = K^{(\alpha)} \cap F.
\end{equation}
\end{Lemma}
\begin{proof}
We proceed by Transfinite Induction.
\begin{itemize}[leftmargin=*]
\item
The case $\alpha = 0$ is immediate.
\item
We now suppose that the result is true for $\alpha \in \mathbf{OR}$.  Then,
\begin{equation*}
  (K \cap F)^{(\alpha +1)} = \left( (K \cap F)^{(\alpha)} \right)'
	                         = ( K^{(\alpha)} \cap F )'
													 \subset ( K^{(\alpha)} )' \cap F'
													 \subset K^{(\alpha +1)} \cap F,
\end{equation*}
where in the last expression we have used the induction hypothesis and
the fact that $F$ is closed.  In order to prove the reverse inclusion,
let $x \in K^{(\alpha +1)} \cap F$.  Since $K$ is closed,
$x \in K \cap F = K \cap \accentset{\circ}{F}$.  Thus, there exists $ r>0$ such
that $(x- r, x+ r) \subset F$.  Let $\varepsilon >0$.  We now take
$\tilde{\varepsilon}:= \min \{ \varepsilon,  r\} >0$.  Then,
\begin{align*}
  \varnothing & \neq \big( (x-\tilde{\varepsilon}, x+\tilde{\varepsilon})
	              \smallsetminus \{ x\} \big) \cap K^{(\alpha)}
							 =\big( (x-\tilde{\varepsilon}, x+\tilde{\varepsilon})
							  \smallsetminus \{ x\} \big) \cap K^{(\alpha)} \cap F \\
							& \subset \big( (x- \varepsilon, x+\varepsilon)
							  \smallsetminus \{ x\} \big) \cap (K \cap F)^{(\alpha)}.
 \end{align*}
Hence, $x \in (K \cap F)^{(\alpha +1)}$.  Therefore,
$(K \cap F)^{(\alpha +1)} = K^{(\alpha +1)} \cap F$.
\item
Finally, let $\lambda \neq 0$ be a limit ordinal number.  We suppose that
for all $\beta \in \mathbf{OR}$ such that $\beta < \lambda$,
$(K \cap F)^{(\beta)} = K^{(\beta)} \cap F$.  Then,
\begin{equation*}
  (K \cap F)^{(\lambda)} = \bigcap_{\beta < \lambda} (K \cap F)^{(\beta)}
	                       = \bigcap_{\beta < \lambda} (K^{(\beta)} \cap F)
												 = \bigcap_{\beta < \lambda} K^{(\beta)} \cap F
												 = K^{(\lambda)} \cap F.
\end{equation*}
\end{itemize}
This concludes the proof.
\end{proof}
\begin{Lemma}\label{Lem4}
Let $\alpha$ be a countable ordinal number such that $\alpha>0$.
Let $p\in\omega \smallsetminus \{0\}$.  Suppose that
for all $\widetilde{K}\in\mathcal{K}$ such that
$\mathcal{CB}(\widetilde{K})=(\alpha,1)$, there exists a
homeomorphism of $\widetilde{K}$ onto $\omega^\alpha+1$.
Then, for all $K\in\mathcal{K}$ such that
$\mathcal{CB}(K)=(\alpha,p)$, there exists a homeomorphism
of $K$ onto $\omega^\alpha\cdot p+1$.
\end{Lemma}
\begin{proof}
Let $K\in\mathcal{K}$ be such that
$\mathcal{CB}(K)=(\alpha,p) \in  \Omega \times \omega$. We write
$K^{(\alpha)}=\{x_1,x_2,\ldots,x_p\}$, where $x_i < x_j$, for
all $i, j \in I:= \{1, \ldots, p\}$ with $i < j$. We see that
for all $k \in \{1,\ldots,p-1\}$, there exists
$z_k \in (x_k, x_{k+1})$ such that $z_k \notin K$. We now consider
the sets
\begin{align}\label{eq:sets1}
  K_1  &= K\cap (-\infty,z_1], \nonumber\\
  K_{k}&= K\cap [z_{k-1},z_{k}],
				  \; \; k \in \{2, \ldots, p-1\}, \nonumber \\
	K_p  &= K\cap [z_{p-1}, +\infty).
\end{align}
Proceeding as in the proof of Lemma \ref{Lem3},
it is possible to show that the finite family $(K_k)_{k\in I}$
satisfies the following properties:
\begin{itemize}
  \item $K_k\subset K$, for all $k\in I$.
  \item $K_k\in \mathcal{K}$, for all $k\in I$.
  \item $x_k\in K_k' \neq \varnothing$, for all $k\in I$.
  \item $(K_k)_{k\in I}$ is a pairwise disjoint finite
	      sequence in $\mathcal{K}$.
  \item $\displaystyle \biguplus_{k\in I} K_k=K$.
\end{itemize}
By using Lemma \ref{Lemtech}, we have that for all $k\in I$,
$K_k^{(\alpha)}=\{x_k\}$. Therefore, for all $k\in I$,
$\mathcal{CB}(K_k)=(\alpha,1)$. Thus, for all $k \in I$, there
exists a homeomorphism $f_k$ of $K_k$ onto $\omega^\alpha+1$. We now
define the function $f$ given by
\begin{equation*}
    \funcion{f}{K}{\tau+1}{z}
    {f(z)=
		\begin{cases}
		f_1(z), & \text{if } z \in K_1, \\[2mm]
		\displaystyle \sum_{j=1}^{k-1}\omega^{\alpha}+1+f_k(z), &
    \text{if }z\in K_k, \text{ for some } k \in I \smallsetminus \{1\},
		\end{cases}}
\end{equation*}
where
\begin{equation*}
    \tau:=\sum_{j=1}^{p}\omega^{\alpha}=\omega^{\alpha} \cdot
		\sum_{j=1}^{p} 1=\omega^{\alpha}\cdot p.
\end{equation*}
Proceeding in a similar fashion as in the items (a), (b) and (c) in the
proof of Lemma \ref{Lem3}, we obtain that $f$ is a homeomorphism of
$K$ onto $\omega^\alpha\cdot p+1$.
\end{proof}
\begin{Lemma}\label{Lem5}
Let $\alpha$ be a countable ordinal number such that $\alpha>0$.
Let $p\in\omega \smallsetminus \{0\}$.  Then, for all $K\in\mathcal{K}$
such that $\mathcal{CB}(K)=(\alpha,p)$, there exists a homeomorphism
of $K$ onto $\omega^\alpha\cdot p+1$.
\end{Lemma}
\begin{proof}
We will use Strong Transfinite Induction.  By Lemmas~\ref{Lem2}
and~\ref{Lem4}, the result holds for $\alpha=1$. We now consider
$\alpha \in \Omega$ such that $\alpha>1$, and we suppose that
the result is true for all ordinal number $\beta$ such that
$0<\beta<\alpha$. Lemmas~\ref{Lem3} and~\ref{Lem4} imply the
result for $\alpha$. Hence, the lemma is proved.
\end{proof}
Next result contains the reciprocal of Theorem~\ref{Th2}.
\begin{Theorem}\label{Th3}
If $K_1,K_2\in \mathcal{K}$ and $\mathcal{CB}(K_1)=\mathcal{CB}(K_2)$,
then $K_1\sim K_2$.
\end{Theorem}
\begin{proof}
If $\mathcal{CB}(K_1)=\mathcal{CB}(K_2)=(0,p) \in \Omega \times \omega$,
we get $|K_1|=|K_2|=p$.  Then, $K_1\sim K_2$. \\
We now suppose that $\mathcal{CB}(K_1)=\mathcal{CB}(K_2)=(\alpha,p)$,
with $\alpha>0$.  By Proposition~\ref{Prop1},
$p \in \omega \smallsetminus \{0\}$. By Lemma~\ref{Lem5}, there exist two
homeomorphisms, $g$ of $K_1$ onto $\omega^\alpha\cdot p+1$
and $h$ of $K_2$ onto $\omega^\alpha\cdot p+1$. Therefore,
$ {f=h^{-1}\circ g}\colon{K_1}\longmapsto{K_2}$ is a homeomorphism of
$K_1$ onto $K_2$. Hence, $K_1 \sim K_2$.
\end{proof}
Theorems~\ref{Th2} and \ref{Th3} fully characterize the partition of
$\mathcal{K}$ by the Cantor-Bendixson characteristic.
\subsection{Cardinality of the set $\mathscr{K}$}
Combining the previous results we obtain the cardinality of $\mathscr{K}$.
\begin{Theorem}\label{Thcardinality}
The set $\mathscr{K}$, given by \eqref{partition}, has cardinality $\aleph_1$.
\end{Theorem}
\begin{proof}
We define the function
\begin{equation}\label{eq:CBtilde}
    \funcion{\mathcal{\widetilde{CB}}}
		{\mathscr{K}}{\big(\Omega\times(\omega\smallsetminus\{0\})\big)\cup(0,0)}
		{[K]}{\mathcal{\widetilde{CB}}([K])=\mathcal{CB}(K)=(\alpha,p).}
\end{equation}
By Theorem~\ref{Th2} and Proposition~\ref{Prop1}, we see that
$\mathcal{\widetilde{CB}}$ is well-defined. Moreover, Corollary~\ref{Cor1}
implies that $\mathcal{\widetilde{CB}}$ is a surjective function. Furthermore, by
Theorem~\ref{Th3}, $\mathcal{\widetilde{CB}}$ is an injective function.
Then,
\begin{equation*}
    |\mathscr{K}|=|\big(\Omega\times(\omega\smallsetminus\{0\})\big)\cup(0,0)|
		= |\Omega\times\omega|=|\Omega|=\aleph_1.\qedhere
\end{equation*}
\end{proof}
Last theorem shows that
\begin{equation*}
    \aleph_0< \aleph_1 = |\mathscr{K}|\leq 2^{\aleph_0} = \mathfrak{c},
\end{equation*}
where $\mathfrak{c}$ is the cardinality of $\mathbb{R}$.
\subsection{A ``primitive'' related to the Cantor-Bendixson derivative
of compact subsets of the real line}
We end this paper with a last theorem that we can view as
a generalization of Theorem \ref{Th1} and Corollary \ref{Cor1}
given in Section \ref{Sectfam}.  The next result shows that
for any compact subset of the reals, there is a primitive-like
set associated to its Cantor-Bendixson derivative.
\begin{Theorem}\label{Thprimitive}
Suppose that $\alpha\in\Omega$. Let $F$ be a compact subset of $\mathbb{R}$.
Then, there exists a compact set $\mathcal{F} \subset \mathbb{R}$
such that $\mathcal{F}^{(\alpha)}=F$.
\end{Theorem}
\begin{proof}
If $\alpha=0$, we define $\mathcal{F}=F$ and the result holds. \\
From now on, we suppose that $\alpha>0$.  There are two cases. First, if $F$
is perfect, i.e. $F=F'$, we can take $\mathcal{F} = F$, and the result
follows.\\
We now assume that $F\neq F'$.  Since $F\smallsetminus F'$ is the
set of all isolated points of $F$, we have that
$F\smallsetminus F' \neq \varnothing$ is countable.
Hence, $F\smallsetminus F'=\{x_n:n\in I\}$, where
$\varnothing \neq I\subset \omega$, and $x_n\neq x_m$, for all
$n,m\in I$ with $n\neq m$.  Furthermore, for all $n\in I$, there
exists $ r_n\in (0,\frac{1}{n+1})$ such that
$(x_n- r_n,x_n+ r_n)\cap F=\{x_n\}$. By Theorem~\ref{Th1}, we see that
for all $n \in I$, there exits $K_n\in\mathcal{K}$ such that
$K_n\subset (x_n- r_n,x_n]$ and $K_n^{(\alpha)}=\{x_n\}$. Since
$\left( {(x_n-r_n, x_n]} \right)_{n \in I}$ is a pairwise disjoint
sequence of intervals, we see that $(K_n)_{n \in I}$ is a
pairwise disjoint sequence in $\mathcal{K}$.  We now define the set
$\mathcal{F} \subset \mathbb{R}$ given by
\begin{equation}\label{eq:primitive1}
    \mathcal{F}:= \biguplus_{n\in I} K_n \cup F.
\end{equation}
\paragraph{\underline{Claim 1}} $\mathcal{F}$ is a compact subset of $\mathbb{R}$. \\
In fact, let $(z_k)_{k\in\omega}$ be a sequence in $\mathcal{F}$
such that $z_k\to z \in \mathbb{R}$ when $k\to+\infty$.  There are three
cases.
\begin{enumerate}[label=(\roman*),leftmargin=*]
\item
If $\{k\in\omega: z_k\in F\}$ is infinite, there exists a subsequence
$(z_{\phi(k)})_{k\in\omega}$ in $F$, where $\phi:\omega \longmapsto \omega$ is a
strictly increasing function.  Since $F$ is closed, we conclude that
$z\in F\subset \mathcal{F}$.
\item
We now suppose that there exists $m\in I$ such that
$\{k\in\omega: z_k\in K_m\}$ is infinite. Similarly as in the previous
case, we obtain that $z\in K_m \subset \mathcal{F}$.
\item
Finally, we assume that for all $n\in I$,  $\{k\in\omega: z_k\in K_n\}$
is a finite set and $\{k\in\omega: z_k\in F\}$ is also finite. Thus, there exists
a subsequence $(z_{\psi(k)})_{k\in\omega}$, where $\psi:\omega \longmapsto \omega$
is a strictly increasing function, and there is also a strictly increasing function
$\sigma: \omega \longmapsto I$ such that for all $k\in\omega$
\begin{equation}\label{eq:primitive2}
	z_{\psi(k)}\in K_{\sigma(k)}\subset (x_{\sigma(k)}-r_{\sigma(k)},x_{\sigma(k)}].
\end{equation}
In order to prove the last assertion, we see that there exists $n_0 \in I$ such that
$\{k \in \omega : z_k \in K_{n_0}\} \neq\varnothing$.  Then, there is
$k_0 \in \omega$ with $z_{k_0} \in K_{n_0}$.  We thus define
$\psi(0):=k_0$ and $\sigma(0):=n_0$.  We now get $n_1 \in I$ with $n_1>n_0$ and
such that $\{k \in \omega: z_k \in K_{n_1}, k> k_0\} \neq \varnothing$.  So, there
exists $k_1 \in \omega$ with $k_1>k_0$ and such that $z_{k_1} \in K_{n_1}$.  We define
$\psi(1):=k_1$ and $\sigma(1):=n_1$. By continuing this process, functions
$\psi$ and $\sigma$ are recursively obtained.  From~\eqref{eq:primitive2}, we have that
for all $k \in \omega$, $|x_{\sigma(k)}-z_{\psi(k)}|<r_{\sigma(k)}<\frac{1}{\sigma(k)+1}$.
As $(z_{\psi(k)})_{k\in\omega}$ converges to $z$, it follows that
$(x_{\sigma(k)})_{k\in\omega}$ also converges to $z$. Since, the elements of the last
sequence belong to $F$, and $F$ is closed, we conclude that $z\in F\subset\mathcal{F}$.
\end{enumerate}
From (i), (ii) and (iii), $\mathcal{F}$ is a closed subset of $\mathbb{R}$.  Moreover,
since $F$ is bounded, there exist $a,b\in\mathbb{R}$, with $a<b$,
such that $F\subset [a,b]$. Then, $\mathcal{F}\subset [a-1,b]$, i.e.,
$\mathcal{F}$ is bounded. Hence, $\mathcal{F}$ is a compact subset
of $\mathbb{R}$. \\
\paragraph{\underline{Claim 2}} $\mathcal{F}^{(\alpha)} = F$.  \\
Actually, we will show  the following more general result:
for all countable ordinal number $\beta\in\Omega$ such that $\beta\le \alpha$
\begin{equation}\label{eq:primitive3}
    \mathcal{F}^{(\beta)}= \biguplus_{n\in I} K_n^{(\beta)}\cup F.
\end{equation}
In order to prove~\eqref{eq:primitive3}, we proceed by Transfinite Induction
as in Theorem~\ref{Th1}.
\begin{enumerate}[label=(\alph*),leftmargin=*]
\item
If $\beta=0$, then the result holds immediately.
\item
We now suppose that~\eqref{eq:primitive3} is true for a given $\beta \in \Omega$
such that $\beta<\alpha$. We note that for all $n \in I$,
$K_n^{(\beta+1)}\subset \mathcal{F}^{(\beta+1)}$.  Then,
\begin{equation*}
	\biguplus_{n\in I} K_n^{(\beta+1)}\subset \mathcal{F}^{(\beta+1)}.
\end{equation*}
Furthermore, by the induction hypothesis, $F \subset \mathcal{F}^{(\beta)}$.  Then,
$F' \subset \mathcal{F}^{(\beta+1)}$. Moreover,
\begin{equation*}
	F\smallsetminus F' = \biguplus_{n \in I} \{x_n\}
	  = \biguplus_{n\in I} K_n^{(\alpha)}
		\subset \biguplus_{n\in I} K_n^{(\beta+1)}
		\subset \mathcal{F}^{(\beta+1)}.
\end{equation*}
Hence,
\begin{equation}\label{eq:primitive4}
	\biguplus_{n\in I}K_n^{(\beta+1)} \cup F \subset \mathcal{F}^{(\beta+1)}.
\end{equation}
In order to show the reverse inclusion, we take $x\in \mathcal{F}^{(\beta+1)}$.
Using the induction hypothesis, we see that
\begin{equation*}
	x\in \mathcal{F}^{(\beta+1)} = (\mathcal{F}^{(\beta)})'
		=\left(\biguplus_{n\in I}K_n^{(\beta)} \cup F \right)'
		= \left(\biguplus_{n\in I}K_n^{(\beta)} \right)' \cup F'.
\end{equation*}
Using now Claim 1, we have that $\mathcal{F}$ is closed.  Then,
\begin{equation*}
	x\in \mathcal{F}^{(\beta+1)} \subset \mathcal{F}^{(\beta)}
		=\biguplus_{n\in I}K_n^{(\beta)} \cup F.
\end{equation*}
If $x\in F$, there is nothing left to show. On the other hand, if $x\not\in F$,
there exists $m\in I$ such that $x\in K_m^{(\beta)}\subset (x_m-r_m,x_m]$. We now
assume, by contradiction, that $x\notin K_m^{(\beta+1)}$. Then, $x$ is an isolated
point of $K_m^{(\beta)}$. Since $x\neq x_m \in F$, there is
$0<\varepsilon<\min\{x-x_m+r_m, x_m-x\}$ such that
\begin{equation*}
	 (x-\varepsilon,x+\varepsilon)\cap K_m^{(\beta)} = \{x\}.
\end{equation*}
Moreover, as $(x-\varepsilon,x+\varepsilon)\subset (x_m-r_m,x_m)$, we conclude that
for all $n \in I$ with $n\neq m$,
\begin{equation*}
	(x-\varepsilon,x+\varepsilon) \cap  K_n^{(\beta)} = \varnothing.
\end{equation*}
Then,
\begin{equation*}
	(x-\varepsilon,x+\varepsilon)\cap \biguplus_{n\in I} K_n^{(\beta)} = \{x\}.
\end{equation*}
Therefore, $x$ is an isolated point of $\biguplus_{n\in I} K_n^{(\beta)}$.  Since
$x\not\in F$, and $F$ is closed, we see that $x\not\in F'$.  Hence,
$x \in \left(\biguplus_{n\in I} K_n^{(\beta)}\right)'$, which is contradictory.
In consequence,
\begin{equation*}
	x\in K_m^{(\beta+1)} \subset \biguplus_{n\in I}K_n^{(\beta+1)}.
\end{equation*}
Thus, summarizing, we can conclude that
\begin{equation}\label{eq:primitive5}
	\mathcal{F}^{(\beta+1)} \subset \biguplus_{n\in I}K_n^{(\beta+1)} \cup F.
\end{equation}
From~\eqref{eq:primitive4} and~\eqref{eq:primitive5}, we get
\begin{equation*}
	\mathcal{F}^{(\beta+1)} = \biguplus_{n\in I}K_n^{(\beta+1)} \cup F.
\end{equation*}
\item
Finally, let $\gamma \neq 0$ be a limit ordinal such that $\gamma \le \alpha$ and
we assume that for all ordinal number $\delta$ such that $\delta<\gamma$,
\begin{equation} \label{eq:primitive6}
    \mathcal{F}^{(\delta)}= \biguplus_{n\in I}K_n^{(\delta)} \cup F.
\end{equation}
Using~\eqref{eq:primitive6}, we obtain
\begin{align}
   \biguplus_{n\in I}K_n^{(\gamma)}\cup F
   &=  \biguplus_{n\in I}\left(\bigcap_{\delta<\gamma}
		   K_n^{(\delta)}\right)\cup F\notag\\
   &\subset  \bigcap_{\delta<\gamma}\left(\biguplus_{n\in I}
		   K_n^{(\delta)}\right)\cup F\notag\\
   &=  \bigcap_{\delta<\gamma}\left(\biguplus_{n\in I}
		   K_n^{(\delta)}\cup F\right)\notag\\
   &=\bigcap_{\delta<\gamma}\mathcal{F}^{(\delta)}\notag\\
   &= \mathcal{F}^{(\gamma)}.\label{eq:primitive7}
\end{align}
In order to show the other inclusion, we take $x\in \mathcal{F}^{(\gamma)}$. Using
the induction hypothesis~\eqref{eq:primitive6}, we see that
\begin{equation*}
   \mathcal{F}^{(\gamma)} = \bigcap_{\delta<\gamma}  \mathcal{F}^{(\delta)} =
	\bigcap_{\delta<\gamma}\left(\biguplus_{n\in I}K_n^{(\delta)}
	\cup F\right).
\end{equation*}
Then, either $x\in F$ or for all ordinal number $\delta$ such that
$\delta<\gamma$, there exists $n\in I$ such that
$x\in K_n^{(\delta)}$. If $x\in F$, then there is nothing else to be done.  If
$x\notin F$, there  is $N\in I$ such that $x\in K_N^{(0)}=K_N$.  We now assume,
to get a contradiction, that there is an ordinal number $\delta_0$ with
$\delta_0<\gamma$ and such that $x \notin K_N^{(\delta_0)}$.  Since there is
$l\in I$ with $l \neq N$ such that $x\in K_l^{(\delta_0)} \subset K_l$, we
obtain a contradiction with the fact that $K_l \cap K_N = \varnothing$.  Hence,
for all ordinal number $\delta$ such that $\delta<\gamma$, $x \in K_N^{(\delta)}$.
In consequence,
\begin{equation*}
    x\in\bigcap_{\delta<\gamma}K_N^{(\delta)}=K_N^{(\gamma)}
		\subset \biguplus_{n\in I}K_n^{(\gamma)}.
\end{equation*}
Thus,
\begin{equation} \label{eq:primitive8}
   \mathcal{F}^{(\gamma)}\subset\biguplus_{n\in I}K_n^{(\gamma)} \cup F.
\end{equation}
From~\eqref{eq:primitive7} and~\eqref{eq:primitive8}, we have that
\begin{equation*}
   \mathcal{F}^{(\gamma)}=\biguplus_{n\in I}K_n^{(\gamma)}\cup F.
\end{equation*}
\end{enumerate}
By (a), (b) and (c), we obtain~\eqref{eq:primitive3} for all countable
ordinal number $\beta$ such that $\beta\le\alpha$.  Finally,
using~\eqref{eq:primitive3} with $\alpha$, we get
\begin{equation*}
    \mathcal{F}^{(\alpha)}=\biguplus_{n\in I}
		K_n^{(\alpha)}\cup F= \biguplus_{n\in I}
		\{x_n\}\cup F=F,
\end{equation*}
which finishes the proof. \qedhere
\end{proof}
\bibliographystyle{siam}


Position Vectors of Numerical Semigroups

Abstract: We provide a new way to represent numerical semigroups by showing that the position of every Apéry set of a numerical semigroup $S$ in the enumeration of the elements of $S$ is unique, and that $S$ can be re-constructed from this "position vector." We extend the discussion to more general objects called numerical sets, and show that there is a one-to-one correspondence between $m$-tuples of positive integers and the position vectors of numerical sets closed under addition by $m+1$. We consider the problem of determining which position vectors correspond to numerical semigroups.

\section{Introduction}\label{sec: intro}
We let $\mathbb{N}$ and $\mathbb{N}_0$ denote the positive and nonnegative integers, respectively. A {\em numerical semigroup} $S$ is a subsemigroup of $\mathbb{N}_0$ that contains 0 and has finite complement in $\mathbb{N}_0$. For two elements $u$ and $u'$ in $S$, $u \preceq_S u'$ if there exists an $s\in S$ such that $u+s = u'$. This defines a partial ordering on $S$. The minimal elements in $S\setminus\{0\}$ with respect to this ordering form a unique minimal set of generators for $S$, which is denoted by $\{a_1,a_2,\dots, a_\nu\}$ where $a_1<a_2<\dots<a_\nu$. The semigroup $S=\{\sum_{i=1}^{\nu} c_ia_i : c_i\ge 0\}$ is represented using the notation $S=\langle a_1,...,a_\nu \rangle$. Since the minimal generators of $S$ are distinct modulo $a_1$, the set of minimal generators is finite. Furthermore, having finite complement in $\mathbb{N}_0$ is equivalent to $\gcd\{a_i : 1\le i\le \nu\} = 1$.

The number of minimal generators of a semigroup $S$ is called the {\em embedding dimension of $S$}, and is denoted by $\nu=\nu(S)$. The element $a_1$ is called the {\em multiplicity} of $S$, and is also denoted by $e_0(S)$. When $S\ne \mathbb{N}_0$, we always have $2\le \nu(S)\le e_0(S)$.

For $0\ne n\in S$, the {\em Ap\'ery set} of $S$ with respect to  $n$ is the set $$\Ap(S,n) =\{w\in S : w-n\not\in S\}.$$ Every numerical semigroup containing $n$ has a unique Ap\'ery set with respect to $n$ from which much can be gleaned. Indeed, in \cite{GR} the Ap\'ery set is described as the most versatile tool in numerical semigroup theory.

We take the representation by an Ap\'ery set a step further. Consider the semigroup $S=\langle 4,7,9\rangle$. We have $\Ap(S,4) = \{0,7,9,14\}$. If we enumerate the elements of $S$ so that $S=\{\lambda_0, \lambda_1,\lambda_2,\dots\}$, where $\lambda_i<\lambda_j$ whenever $i<j$, then $\Ap(S,4)=\{\lambda_0, \lambda_2,\lambda_4,\lambda_8\}$. We can say that the position of the Ap\'ery set in the enumeration is given by $(0,2,4,8)$. It will be convenient to remove 0 from this vector and consider the difference of the components. For example, we represent $S=\langle 4,7,9\rangle$ (as a semigroup containing $4$) with the vector $(2,2,4)$ instead of $(0,2,4,8)$. This new vector has nonnegative integer components and stores equivalent information about the semigroup. We make the following definition.

\begin{defn}
Let $S = \{\lambda_0, \lambda_1, \lambda_2,\dots\}$ be a numerical semigroup containing $n\ne0$ such that $\lambda_i<\lambda_j$ whenever $i<j$. If $\Ap(S,n) = \{\lambda_0, \lambda_{x_1}, \lambda_{x_2},\dots,\lambda_{x_{n-1}}\}$, then the $(n-1)$-tuple $(x_1,x_2-x_1, x_3-x_2,\dots,x_{n-1}-x_{n-2})$ is called the {\em position vector} of $S$ with respect to $n$, and is denoted by $\mathrm{pv}_n(S)$.
\end{defn}

We show in Corollary~\ref{cor: ideal and vector} that if $S$ and $T$ are semigroups containing $n\ne0$, then $S=T$ if and only if $\pv_n(S) = \pv_n(T)$. Thus, a position vector is a representation of the semigroup. This is a rather remarkable fact. Consider the semigroup $\langle 4,7,9\rangle$. Since the position vector is $(2,2,4)$ (which means that the elements of $\Ap(\langle 4,7,9\rangle,4)$ are in positions $0$, $2$, $4$, and $8$ in the enumeration), no other semigroup can have an Ap\'ery set with elements in those same positions. This is certainly not true for minimal generating sets: the position of the minimal generators of $\langle 4,7,9\rangle$ and $\langle 4,6,9\rangle$ are the same, namely the first, second, and fourth elements in the enumeration. Nonetheless, the position vectors are $(2,2,4)$ and $(2,2,5)$ respectively.

Not every vector of positive integers is the position vector of a numerical semigroup. In Section~\ref{sec: fc and pv} we extend our consideration to more general objects than numerical semigroups, which we call numerical sets, and show that there is a one-to-one correspondence between elements of $\mathbb{N}^{n-1}$ and the position vectors of numerical sets closed under addition by $n$. Although we do not stress the fact in this paper, a numerical set $I$ can always be interpreted as a relative ideal of a semigroup contained in $I$, and so, in a sense, we have not extended beyond the theory of numerical semigroups.

Among the position vectors of numerical sets, we examine the problem of determining which represent numerical semigroups in Section~\ref{pv and ns}.

\section{Position vectors of numerical sets}\label{sec: fc and pv}

As stated in the introduction, we need to work with objects more general than numerical semigroups.

\begin{defn}
A {\em numerical set} $I$ is a subset of $\mathbb{N}_0$ that contains $0$ and has finite complement in $\mathbb{N}_0$.
\end{defn}

\begin{rmk}
A numerical set $I$ is closed under addition if and only if it is a numerical semigroup. When $I$ is not closed under addition, it is a relative ideal of the numerical semigroup $I-I$. Thus, we can think of the numerical sets as a certain collection of relative ideals which includes numerical semigroups. See \cite{BDF} for information on relative ideals and \cite{MM,PT} for numerical sets.
\end{rmk}

We need to define the position vector of a numerical set as we did for numerical semigroups in the introduction. We begin with a preliminary definition.

\begin{defn}
For $n\ne 0$, let $\Gamma_n$ be the collection of numerical sets $I$ such that $n + i \in I$ for all $i\in I$.
\end{defn}

For $I\in \Gamma_n$, we can define the Ap\'ery set with respect to $n$ as $$\Ap(I,n) = \{w\in I : w-n \not\in I\}.$$ As with numerical semigroups, it is not difficult to see that $\Ap(I,n)$ contains exactly $n$ elements of $I$ including $0$. Now we can define the position vector of the numerical set.

\begin{defn}
Let $I = \{\lambda_0, \lambda_1, \lambda_2,\dots\}$ be in $\Gamma_n$ such that $\lambda_i<\lambda_j$ whenever $i<j$. If $\Ap(I,n) = \{\lambda_0, \lambda_{x_1}, \lambda_{x_2},\dots,\lambda_{x_{n-1}}\}$, the $(n-1)$-tuple $(x_1,x_2-x_1, x_3-x_2,\dots,x_{n-1}-x_{n-2})$ is called the {\em position vector} of $I$ with respect to $n$, and is denoted by $\mathrm{pv}_n(I)$.
\end{defn}

A numerical set has multiple position vectors, but no two can have the same length. Therefore, $f: \Gamma_n \mapsto \mathbb{N}^{n-1}$ such that $f(I) = \mathrm{pv}_n(I)$ is a well-defined function. The goal of this section is to prove that $f$ is a one-to-one correspondence, which is proven in Theorem~\ref{thm: ideal and vector}.

We first establish Proposition~\ref{prop: permutation 1-1 conversion}, which contains a result about permutations on the set $1, 2, \dots, m$.

\begin{defn}\label{defn: conversion}
Let $\pi = [\pi_1\cdots\pi_{m}]$ be a permutation of the set $\{1,\dots,m\}$. Then the {\em conversion vector} of $\pi$ is $r = (r_1,\dots,r_m)$, where $r_i= | \{j : j<i$ and $\pi_j < \pi_i\}|$.
\end{defn}

Notice that in Definition~\ref{defn: conversion}, we have $0\le r_i \le i-1$ for all $1\le i\le m$. Moreover, Proposition~\ref{prop: permutation 1-1 conversion} reveals that every vector $(r_1,\dots,r_m)$ with this restriction is the conversion vector of a unique permutation. This result is similar to a well-known result about inversion vectors of permutations, see \cite{PS,T}.

\begin{prop}\label{prop: permutation 1-1 conversion}
For a fixed integer $m\ge 1$, let $r=(r_1,r_2,\dots,r_m)$ be a vector such that $0\le r_i\le i-1$, for $1\le i\le m$. Then there is a unique permutation $\pi$ of the set $\{1,\dots,m\}$ for which $r$ is its conversion vector.
\end{prop}

\begin{proof}
Since there are exactly $m!$ such vectors and $m!$ permutation of length $m$, it suffices to show that each vector is the conversion vector of some permutation. The uniqueness follows by counting.

We will proceed by induction on $m$. If $m=1$, then $r=(0)$ and $\pi = [1]$ has $r$ as its conversion vector. Now assume that $m\ge2$ and that there is a permutation $\sigma = [\sigma_1\sigma_2\cdots\sigma_{m-1}]$ with the conversion vector $(r_1,r_2,\dots,r_{m-1})$. For each $1\le i\le m-1$, define $$\delta_i = \begin{cases} 1 &\mbox{if } \sigma_i > r_m\\ 0 &\mbox{otherwise}.\end{cases}$$ Let $\pi = [(\sigma_1+\delta_1)(\sigma_2+\delta_2)\cdots(\sigma_{m-1}+\delta_{m-1})(r_m+1)].$ It is not difficult to see that $\pi$ is a permutation, and that $(\sigma_i+\delta_i) < (\sigma_j+\delta_j)$ if and only if $\sigma_i < \sigma_j$, for $1\le i\le m-1$. Thus the conversion vector of $\pi$ is $r$.
\end{proof}

\begin{ex}\label{ex: permutation and conversion}
Consider the permutation $[42351]$. We can directly observe that the conversion vector is $(0,0,1,3,0)$. Conversely, since the proof in Proposition~\ref{prop: permutation 1-1 conversion} is constructive, we can recursively recover the permutation as follows:
\begin{eqnarray*}
[(0+1)] &=& [1]\\
\ [(1+1)(0+1)] &=& [21]\\
\ [(2+1)(1+0)(1+1)] &=& [312]\\
\ [(3+0)(1+0)(2+0)(3+1)] &=& [3124]\\
\ [(3+1)(1+1)(2+1)(4+1)(0+1)] &=& [42351].
\end{eqnarray*}
\end{ex}

If the elements of the Ap\'ery set of a numerical set $I$ are known, the position vector can be determined without considering the enumeration of all the elements of $I$. To see this, let $\Ap(I,n) = \{\lambda_{x_0},\lambda_{x_1},\dots,\lambda_{x_{n-1}}\}$. We write $\lambda_{x_i} = nk_i + \pi_i$, where $0\le \pi_i <n$. Notice that the elements of $\Ap(I,n)$ form a complete residue system modulo $n$ and $\pi_0 = 0$. Thus, $\pi = [\pi_1\cdots\pi_{n-1}]$ is a permutation of the set $\{1,\dots,n-1\}$ with a corresponding conversion vector $r = (r_1,r_2,\dots,r_{n-1})$.

\begin{thm}\label{thm: from ap to v}
Let $I\in \Gamma_n$ and $\Ap(I,n)=\{w_0,w_1,\dots,w_{n-1}\}$, where $w_i < w_j$ whenever $i<j$. We write $w_i = nk_i + \pi_i$, with $0\le \pi_i <n$. Let $r= (r_1,\dots,r_{n-1})$ be the conversion vector of $\pi = [\pi_1\pi_2\cdots\pi_{n-1}]$. Then $\pv_n(I) = (v_1,v_2,\dots,v_{n-1})$, where $v_1 = k_1+1$ and $v_i = i(k_i - k_{i-1}) + (r_i - r_{i-1})$, for $2\le i\le n-1$.
\end{thm}

\begin{proof}
Let $I = \{\lambda_0,\lambda_1,\dots\}$ and $w_i = \lambda_{x_i}$. Since $0=w_0= \lambda_{x_0}$, we have $x_0=0$. Next we show that $x_i = ik_i - \sum_{j=0}^{i-1} k_j +r_i+1$, for $1\le i\le n-1$. To do this, we compute the number of elements in $I$ that are strictly less than $nk_i$ for $1\le i\le n-1$. The sequence $(k_0,k_1,\dots,k_{n-1})$ is non-decreasing, and we set $l$ to be the largest index such that $k_i = k_l$. Now $s\in I$ and $nk_l \le s \le nk_l +(n-1)$ if and only if $s = \lambda_{x_j} + n(k_l - k_j)$ for some $0\le j \le l$. Thus \begin{eqnarray}
|\{0,1,2,\dots,nk_i -1\} \cap I | &=& |\{0,1,2,\dots,nk_l -1\} \cap I |\nonumber\\
&=& \sum_{j=0}^{l} (k_l - k_j ) \nonumber\\
&=& \sum_{j=0}^{i-1} (k_i - k_j )\nonumber\\
&=& ik_i - \sum_{j=0}^{i-1} k_j. \nonumber
\end{eqnarray} Next, $s\in I$ and $nk_i \le s < \lambda_{x_i}$ if and only if $s = \lambda_{x_j} + n(k_i - k_j) = nk_i + \pi_j,$ for some $0\le j < i$ and $\pi_j < \pi_i$. There are $r_i+1$ such elements. Therefore, we have
\begin{eqnarray}
x_i &=& |\{\lambda_0,\lambda_1,\dots,\lambda_{x_i-1}\}|\nonumber\\
&=& ik_i - \sum_{j=0}^{i-1} k_j +r_i+1\nonumber
\end{eqnarray} Recall that, by definition, $v_i = x_i - x_{i-1}$. Thus, the result now follows.
\end{proof}

Now we show that $f: \Gamma_n \mapsto \mathbb{N}^{n-1}$ such that $f(I) = \pv_n(I)$ is a one-to-one correspondence by constructing the inverse map.

\begin{setup}\label{setup: v to I}
Let $v=(v_1,v_2,\dots,v_{n-1}) \in \mathbb{N}^{n-1}$. We will define two recursive sequences as follows:
\begin{enumerate}
\item $t_1 = 0$ and $t_i = (v_i+t_{i-1}) \bmod i,$ for $2\le i\le n-1$.
\item $l_1 = v_1 -1$ and $l_i = l_{i-1} + \frac{v_i + t_{i-1} - t_i}{i},$ for $2\le i\le n-1$.
\end{enumerate}

\noindent Notice that $0\le t_i\le i-1$ for $1\le i\le n-1$. Thus, $(t_1,t_2,\dots,t_{n-1})$ is the conversion vector of a permutation $\sigma =[\sigma_1\sigma_2\cdots\sigma_{n-1}]$ according to Proposition~\ref{prop: permutation 1-1 conversion}. Now let $$ \mathcal A_v = \{0\} \cup \{nl_i + \sigma_i : 1 \le i\le n-1\}.$$ Since $\sigma$ is a permutation on the set $\{1,\dots,n-1\}$, $\mathcal A_v$ is a complete residue system modulo $n$ that contains $0$. Thus, $\mathcal A_v$ generates a numerical set $I(\mathcal A_v) = \{w + kn : w\in A_v, k\ge 0\}$ in $\Gamma_n$. We set $g: \mathbb{N}^{n-1} \mapsto \Gamma_n$ such that $g(v) = I(\mathcal A_v)$.
\end{setup}

\begin{thm}\label{thm: ideal and vector}
The functions $f : \Gamma_n \mapsto \mathbb{N}^{n-1}$ given by $f(I) = pv_n(I)$ and $g: \mathbb{N}^{n-1} \mapsto \Gamma_n$ by $g(v) = I(\mathcal A_v)$ are inverse functions. Therefore, the function $f$ is a one-to-one correspondence between numerical sets closed under addition by the element $n$ and ($n-1$)-tuples of positive integers.
\end{thm}

\begin{proof}
Let $I\in \Gamma_n$ with $\Ap(I,n) = \{0,w_1,\dots,w_{n-1}\}$, and write $w_i =nk_i + \pi_i$, where $0\le \pi_i <n$. Also let $v = \pv_n(I)$ and $\mathcal A_v =\{0\} \cup \{nl_i + \sigma_i : 0\le i\le n-1\}$ as defined in Setup~\ref{setup: v to I}. It suffices to show that $\pi_i = \sigma_i$ and $k_i=l_i$ for all $1\le i\le n-1$.

As noted before, $[\pi_1\pi_2\cdots\pi_{n-1}]$ is a permutation, and let $r=(r_1,r_2,\dots,r_{n-1})$ be its conversion vector. By Theorem~\ref{thm: from ap to v}, $r_1 = 0$, and $ r_i = (v_i + r_{i-1}) - i(k_i-k_{i-1}). $ Since $0\le r_i \le i-1$, it follows that $r_i = (v_i + r_{i-1}) \bmod i,$ for $1\le i\le n-1$. Referring to Setup~\ref{setup: v to I}, we find that $r_i = t_i$, for $1\le i\le n-1$. Thus, $r$ is the conversion vector of both $[\pi_1\pi_2\cdots\pi_{n-1}]$ and $[\sigma_1\sigma_2\cdots\sigma_{n-1}]$, and we conclude the two permutations are equal.

Again, by Theorem~\ref{thm: from ap to v} and Setup~\ref{setup: v to I}, $k_1 = v_1 - 1 = l_1$, and for $2\le i\le n-1$,
\begin{eqnarray*}
k_i -k_{i-1} &=&  \frac{v_i+r_{i-1}- r_i}{i}\\
&=& \frac{v_i+t_{i-1}- t_i}{i}\\
&=& l_i - l_{i-1}
\end{eqnarray*}
We conclude that $k_i = l_i$, for $1\le i\le n-1$. This shows that $g\circ f = id_{\Gamma_n}$, and similarly, we obtain that $f\circ g = id_{\mathbb{N}^{n-1}}$. Therefore, the function $f$ is a one-to-one correspondence.
\end{proof}

The next corollary is really a restatement of Theorem~\ref{thm: ideal and vector}.

\begin{cor}\label{cor: ideal and vector}
Every numerical set closed under addition by the element $n\in \mathbb{N}$ has a unique position vector of length $n-1$. In particular, no two numerical semigroups have the same position vector. Moreover, every vector of length $n-1$ with entries in $\mathbb{N}$ is the position vector of a numerical set closed under addition by the element $n$.
\end{cor}

The next example demonstrates what we have developed in this section.

\begin{ex}  Let $S = \langle 6, 16,20,21,29\rangle$. This is a numerical semigroup containing $6$, and hence $S\in \Gamma_6$. We can compute $$\Ap(S,6) = \{0, 16, 20, 21, 29, 37\} = \{0, 6(2) + 4, 6(3) + 2, 6(3)+3, 6(4)+5, 6(6)+1\}.$$ The permutation $[42351]$ has conversion vector $(0,0,1,3,0)$. Thus,
\begin{eqnarray*}
v_1 &=& 2+1 = 3\\
v_2 &=& 2(3-2) + (0-0) = 2\\
v_3 &=& 3(3-3) + (1-0) = 1\\
v_4 &=& 4(4-3) + (3-1) = 6\\
v_5 &=& 5(6-4) + (0-3) = 7.\\
\end{eqnarray*}
So, we have $\pv_6(S) = (3,2,1,6,7)$.

Conversely, suppose we start with $v=(3,2,1,6,7) \in \mathbb{N}^{5}$. According to Setup~\ref{setup: v to I} and Theorem~\ref{thm: ideal and vector}
, the $r_i$'s are $(0,0,1,3,0)$ and the $k_i$'s $(2,3,3,4,6)$. From the conversion vector $(0,0,1,3,0)$, we construct the corresponding permutation $[42351]$ (see Example~\ref{ex: permutation and conversion}). Now,
\begin{eqnarray*}
w_0 &=&  0\\
w_1 &=& 6(2)+ 4 = 16\\
w_2 &=& 6(3)+ 2 = 20\\
w_3 &=& 6(3)+ 3 = 21\\
w_4 &=& 6(4)+ 5 = 29\\
w_5 &=& 6(6)+ 1 = 37.\\
\end{eqnarray*}
Thus, $S = \{w_i + c_in : c_i \ge 0\} =\langle 6, 16,20,21,29\rangle$.
\end{ex}

\section{Position vectors of numerical semigroups}\label{pv and ns}

Now that we have a one-to-one correspondence between $\mathbb{N}^{n-1}$ and numerical sets closed under addition by $n$ established in the previous section, we want to know which position vectors correspond to semigroups. We provide a method for solving this problem and give an explicit answer for semigroups containing small numbers.

We begin with a necessary and sufficient condition for a complete residue system modulo $n$ that contains 0 to be the Ap\'ery set of a numerical semigroup. This result is similar to others contained in \cite{BGGR,K}, and the proof is omitted.

\begin{lem}\label{lem: crs and ns}
Let $\mathcal A =\{w_0,w_1,\dots,w_{n-1}\}$ be a complete residue system modulo $n$ that contains $0$, where $w_0<w_1<\cdots< w_{n-1}$. Then, $I(\mathcal A) = \{w + kn : w\in \mathcal A, k\ge 0\}$ is a numerical semigroup if and only if $w_i+w_j \ge w_l$ whenever $w_i+w_j \equiv w_l \bmod n$ with $0<i\le j < l$.
\end{lem}

We can now translate Lemma~\ref{lem: crs and ns} into a condition concerning the position vector, but first we need a few preliminary results.

\begin{lem}\label{lem: gamma guy}
Let $I \in \Gamma_n$ be a numerical set with Ap\'ery set $\Ap(I,n)=\{w_0,w_1,\dots,w_{n-1}\}$, where $w_0<w_i<\dots<w_{n-1}$. We set $w_i=nk_i+\pi_i$ for $0\le i\le n-1$. If $v=(v_1,\dots,v_{n-1})$ is the position vector of $I$, then $k_1 = v_1-1$ and $$k_i-k_{i-1} = \left\lfloor\frac{v_i-1}{i}\right\rfloor +\gamma_i,$$ where $\gamma_1=0$ and $$\gamma_i = \begin{cases}
      0 & \textrm{ if $\pi_{i-1} < \pi_i$} \\
      1 & \textrm{ if $\pi_{i-1} > \pi_i$} \\
   \end{cases},$$ for $2\le i\le n-1$.
\end{lem}

\begin{proof}
It follows from Theorem~\ref{thm: from ap to v} that $k_1 = v_1-1$ and $v_i = i(k_i-k_{i-1}) +(r_i-r_{i-1}),$ for $2\le i\le n-1$, where $r=(r_1,\dots,r_{n-1})$ is the conversion vector of $\pi = [\pi_1\cdots\pi_{n-1}]$. We rewrite this as $v_i-1 = i(k_i-k_{i-1}-\gamma_i) +(i\gamma_i+r_i-r_{i-1}-1)$. If we show that $0\le i\gamma_i+r_i-r_{i-1}-1<i$ whenever $2\le i\le n-1$, then it follows that $$k_i-k_{i-1} = \left\lfloor\frac{v_i-1}{i}\right\rfloor +\gamma_i.$$ First suppose that $r_i > r_{i-1}$. By the definition of the conversion vector, we have $\pi_{i-1}< \pi_i $ and recall that $0\le r_j\le j-1$ for all $1\le j\le n-1$. Thus, $\gamma_i=0$ and $0\le r_i-r_{i-1}-1 \le i-2$. Next, suppose that $r_i \le r_{i-1}$ so that $\pi_{i-1} > \pi_i$. Then $\gamma_i=1$ and $1\le i +r_i-r_{i-1}-1\le i-1$, which completes the proof.
\end{proof}

The next proposition will lead to a convenient equivalence relation on the elements of $\mathbb{N}^{n-1}$, i.e., the position vectors of numerical sets in $\Gamma_n$.

\begin{prop}\label{prop: perm class}
Let $v = (v_1,\dots,v_m)$ and $z = (z_1,\dots,z_m)$ be two position vectors with associated conversion vectors and permutations denoted by $r$ and $\pi$ for $v$, and $s$ and $\sigma$ for $z$. Then the following are equivalent:
\begin{enumerate}
\item $v_i \equiv z_i \bmod i$ for all $1\le i\le m$
\item $r = s$
\item $\pi = \sigma$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{prop}

\begin{proof}
For (1) implies (2), by Setup~\ref{setup: v to I}, the conversion vector depends on the position vector modulo $i$ for the $i$-th entry. The equivalence of (2) and (3) follows from Proposition~\ref{prop: permutation 1-1 conversion}. Lastly, (2) implies (1) since, according to Theorem~\ref{thm: from ap to v}, $v_i \equiv r_i -r_{i-1} \bmod i$.
\end{proof}

\begin{defn}
We say two elements $v=(v_1,\dots,v_m)$ and $z=(z_1,\dots,z_m)$ of $\mathbb{N}^m$ are {\em congruent}, denoted by $v \sim z$, if $v_i\equiv z_i \bmod i$ for all $1\le i\le m$. In this case, $v$ and $z$ have the same associated permutation $\pi$ and are said to be in the {\em permutation class} defined by $\pi$.
\end{defn}

We can now present the main result of this section.

\begin{thm}\label{thm: pv for ns}
Let $(v_1,v_2,\dots,v_m)$ be a vector of positive integers in the permutation class defined by $[\pi_1\pi_2\cdots\pi_m]$. Also set $\gamma_i$ as in Lemma~\ref{lem: gamma guy} and $$ u_i = \left\lfloor\frac{v_i-1}{i}\right\rfloor.$$ Then $(v_1,v_2,\dots,v_m)$ is the position vector of a numerical semigroup if and only if $$\sum_{x=1}^i (u_x+\gamma_x) + \frac{\pi_i+\pi_j-\pi_l}{m+1} \ge \sum_{x=j+1}^l (u_x+\gamma_x),$$ whenever $0<i\le j<l$ and $\pi_i+\pi_j \equiv \pi_l \bmod (m+1)$.
\end{thm}

\begin{proof}
Let $(v_1,v_2,\dots,v_m)$ be the position vector of a numerical semigroup $S$ with Ap\'ery set $\Ap(S,m+1)=\{w_0,\dots,w_{m}\}$, where $w_i = (m+1)k_i+\pi_i$ for $1\le i\le m$. If $0<i\le j<l$ and $\pi_i+\pi_j \equiv \pi_l \bmod (m+1)$, then $w_i+w_j \equiv w_l \bmod (m+1)$ and by Lemma~\ref{lem: crs and ns}, we have $w_i+w_j \ge w_l$. Thus,
\begin{eqnarray*}
w_i+w_j &\ge& w_l\\
k_i  +\frac{\pi_i +\pi_j-\pi_l}{m+1} &\ge& k_l-k_j\\
\sum_{x=1}^i (k_x-k_{x-1}) + \frac{\pi_i+\pi_j-\pi_l}{m+1} &\ge& \sum_{x=j+1}^l (k_x-k_{x-1})\\
\sum_{x=1}^i (u_x+\gamma_x) + \frac{\pi_i+\pi_j-\pi_l}{m+1} &\ge& \sum_{x=j+1}^l (u_x+\gamma_x).
\end{eqnarray*}
Essentially reversing these steps provides the converse argument and finishes the proof.
\end{proof}

The next example applies Theorem~\ref{thm: pv for ns} to numerical semigroups containing 3.

\begin{ex}\label{ex: pv for e3}
Every numerical set closed under addition by 3 belongs to one of two permutation classes, namely one defined by permutation $[12]$ or the permutation $[21]$. We consider these two cases separately:
\begin{enumerate}
\item For the permutation $[12]$, we have $\pi_1+\pi_1\equiv \pi_2\bmod 3$, $\gamma_1=0$, and $\gamma_2=0$. Thus,
\begin{eqnarray*}
u_1 + \frac{1+1-2}{3} &\ge& u_2\\
u_1 &\ge& u_2.
\end{eqnarray*}
\item For the permutation $[21]$, we have $\pi_1+\pi_1\equiv \pi_2\bmod 3$, $\gamma_1=0$, and $\gamma_2=1$. Thus,
\begin{eqnarray*}
u_1 + \frac{2+2-1}{3} &\ge& u_2+1\\
u_1 &\ge& u_2.
\end{eqnarray*}
\end{enumerate}
We conclude that the vector $(v_1,v_2)$ corresponds to a numerical semigroup if and only if $u_1\ge u_2$, or equivalently, $$v_1-1 \ge \left\lfloor\frac{v_2-1}{2}\right\rfloor.$$
\end{ex}

Using the method derived from Theorem~\ref{thm: pv for ns} and demonstrated in Example~\ref{ex: pv for e3}, we summarize the computational results for semigroups containing $n$ where $2\le n\le 5$. We omit the details.

\begin{thm}\label{thm: pv for e3 e4} Let $(v_1,v_2,\dots,v_{n-1})$ be an $(n-1)$-tuple of positive integers and set $$ u_i = \left\lfloor\frac{v_i-1}{i}\right\rfloor.$$ The following is a list necessary and sufficient conditions for $v$ to be the position vector of the a numerical semigroup containing $n$, for $2\le n\le 5$.
\begin{itemize}
\item n=2: $(v_1)$ with no restriction
\item n=3: $(v_1,v_2)$ such that $u_1\ge u_2$.
\item n=4: $(v_1,v_2,v_3)$ with restrictions given in Table~1
\begin{table}[htdp]\label{tab: table1}
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{|c|c|} \hline
$\sim$ to one of & satisfying \\ \hline
$(1,1,1)$,  $(1,2,3)$ & $u_1\ge u_2$ and $u_1\ge u_3$ \\ \hline
$(1,1,2)$, $(1,2,2)$ &$u_1\ge u_3$ \\ \hline
$(1,2,1)$ & $u_1\ge u_2+u_3$ \\ \hline
$(1,1,3)$ & $u_1\ge u_2+u_3+1$\\\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{center}\caption{Restrictions for a 3-tuple to represent a semigroup}
\end{table}

\item n=5: $(v_1,v_2,v_3,v_4)$ with restrictions given in Table~2
\begin{table}[htdp]
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{|c|c|} \hline
$\sim$ to one of & satisfying \\ \hline

$(1,1,1,1)$,  $(1,1,2,2)$,  & $u_1\ge u_2$, $u_1\ge u_3$, $u_1\ge u_4$,  \\
$(1,2,2,3)$, $(1,2,3,4)$ & and $u_1+u_2\ge u_3+u_4$ \\ \hline

$(1,2,1,2)$, $(1,2,3,1)$ & $u_1\ge u_2$ and $u_1 \ge u_3 + u_4$ \\ \hline

$(1,1,3,3)$, $(1,1,1,4)$ & $u_1\ge u_2$ and $u_1 \ge u_3 + u_4+1$ \\ \hline

$(1,1,1,2)$, $(1,2,1,4)$ & $u_1\ge u_2+u_3$, $u_1 \ge u_4$, \\
& and $u_1+u_2\ge u_3+u_4$ \\ \hline

$(1,2,3,3)$, $(1,1,3,1)$ & $u_1\ge u_2+u_3+1$, $u_1 \ge u_4$, \\
& and $u_1+u_2\ge u_3+u_4$ \\ \hline

$(1,1,1,3)$,  $(1,2,3,2)$,  & $u_1\ge u_2+u_3+u_4+1$  \\
$(1,2,2,1)$, $(1,1,2,4)$, & \\
 $(1,1,2,3)$, $(1,2,2,2)$ &\\ \hline

 $(1,1,3,4)$  & $u_1\ge u_2+u_3+u_4+2$ \\ \hline

  $(1,2,1,1)$  & $u_1\ge u_2+u_3+u_4$ \\ \hline

$(1,1,2,1)$, $(1,2,1,3)$ & $u_1\ge u_2+u_3$ and $u_1 \ge u_3 + u_4$ \\ \hline

$(1,2,2,4)$, $(1,1,3,2)$ & $u_1\ge u_2+u_3+1$ and $u_1 \ge u_3 + u_4+1$ \\ \hline

\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{center}\caption{Restrictions for a 4-tuple to represent a semigroup}
\end{table}
\end{itemize}
\end{thm}

In Theorem~\ref{thm: pv for e3 e4}, $n$ is an element of the semigroup. By adding an extra restriction, we can force $n$ to be the multiplicity.

\begin{prop}
Let $S$ be a semigroup containing $n$ with position vector $(v_1,v_2,\dots,v_{n-1})$. Then $n$ is the multiplicity of $S$ if and only if $v_1>1$.
\end{prop}

\begin{proof}
We always have $v_1\ge 1$. If $v_1> 1$, then the first nonzero element of $S$ is not in $\Ap(S,n)$. Thus the first nonzero element of $S$ cannot be smaller than $n$, and so $n$ is the multiplicity of $S$. If $v_1 = 1$, then the first nonzero element of $S$ is in $\Ap(S,n)$. Thus the first nonzero element of $S$ is smaller than $n$, and $n$ is not the multiplicity of $S$.
\end{proof}

\begin{rmk}\label{rmk: res. to semigroups}
It follows that in Theorem~\ref{thm: pv for e3 e4}, we can add the restriction $u_1>0$ to ensure that $n$ is the multiplicity of $S$.
\end{rmk}