Condition (a) of lemma 3.4 in the paper [“Countable ranks at the first and second projective levels”](https://arxiv.org/abs/2207.08754) [M. Carl, P. Schlicht, P. Welch] is



> 
> $\alpha^{+L} = \omega\_1,$
> 
> 
> 


where $\alpha$ denotes any infinite countable ordinal and $\omega\_1 = \omega\_1^V$. I am unable to extract the exact meaning of this statement, but I cannot seem to find the explanation in the paper, and the paper does not provide the explanation of what the $\alpha^{+L}$ notation means.


If I interpret $\alpha^{+L}$ as "the successor of $\alpha$, as seen by $L$", it would not seem to make sense because [the first uncountable ordinal](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_uncountable_ordinal) is a limit ordinal, not a successor, and I cannot imagine the situation where $\omega\_1^V$ would be equal to the successor of some countable ordinal $\alpha > \omega$ (in $L$).



> 
> What mathematical entity does $\alpha^{+L}$ denote ?
> 
> 
> 



What is the meaning of $\alpha^{+L}$ for $\alpha$ an infinite countable ordinal?
The meaning of $$\alpha^{+L}$$ for $\alpha$ an infinite ordinal (countable or not) is just "The *cardinal* successor of $\alpha$ as seen by $L$." If that isn't clear, you may prefer the following phrasing:



> 
> "The unique ordinal $\beta$ such that $L\models$ "$\beta$ is the smallest cardinal greater than $\alpha$"."
> 
> 
> 


There are a few things to note here (and the first addresses what seems to be your specific confusion):


* The superscript-+ notation should **always** be understood (unless otherwise specified) as referring to the *cardinal successor*. Some texts use it to denote ordinal successor, and embarrassingly it is fairly standard to denote *admissible ordinal successor* as well, but the default interpretation should always be cardinal successor. The $L$-superscript, meanwhile, is just the usual relativization to $L$; it could be more clearly written as "$(\alpha^+)^L$."
* All cardinals are ordinals (precisely, "cardinal" is shorthand for "initial ordinal"), so there is no type error in comparing cardinals and ordinals. That said, if you want to avoid mixing language like this, we could instead define $\alpha^{+L}$ as "The smallest ordinal $\beta$ such that $L\models$ "$\beta>\alpha$ and there is no injection from $\beta$ to $\alpha$"," which is equivalent.
* While $L$ and $V$ may disagree about what is and is not a *cardinal*, they will not disagree about what is and is not an *ordinal*. Similarly, $L$ and $V$ will agree on ordinal comparison and ordinal arithmetic. This is why it is perfectly fine that my "unique ordinal $\beta$" clause appears *outside* the scope of the "$L\models$" clause.
* There's nothing special about $L$ here; we could redo all of the above with respect to some other inner model $M$ if we liked.


