We have the following indirect implication of form equivalence classes:
			
| Implication | Reference | 
|---|---|
| 2 \(\Rightarrow\) 3 | 
							 	On successors in cardinal arithmetic, Truss,  J. K. 1973c, Fund. Math.  | 
					
| 3 \(\Rightarrow\) 4 | 
							 	Russell's alternative to the axiom of choice, Howard,  P. 1992, Z. Math. Logik Grundlagen Math.  Cardinal addition and the axiom of choice, Howard, P. 1974, Bull. Amer. Math. Soc. note-27  | 
					
| 4 \(\Rightarrow\) 405 | clear | 
| 405 \(\Rightarrow\) 75 | clear | 
Here are the links and statements of the form equivalence classes referenced above:
| Howard-Rubin Number | Statement | 
|---|---|
| 2: | Existence of successor cardinals: For every cardinal \(m\) there is a cardinal \(n\) such that \(m < n\) and \((\forall p < n)(p \le m)\).  | 
					
| 3: | \(2m = m\): For all infinite cardinals \(m\), \(2m = m\). | 
| 4: | Every infinite set is the union of some disjoint family of denumerable subsets. (Denumerable means \(\cong \aleph_0\).)  | 
					
| 405: | Every infinite set can be partitioned into sets each of which is countable and has at least two elements.  | 
					
| 75: | If a set has at least two elements, then it can be partitioned into well orderable subsets, each of which has at least two elements.  | 
					
Comment: