Is there an adjective to mean "sequential in ascending order" regardless of object type (word or number)? I need the word to imply "alphabetical" if the object is a word; or "numerical" if the object is a number.

  • Do you mean, a set of values that which could be sorted, because they have a kind of common-sense ordering, or a set which is in the sorted order already, right now?
    – Warren P
    Commented Apr 25, 2011 at 23:47
  • @Warren, I mean values that can be sorted (and where duplicates are possible), such as a set of names or random numbers.
    – tony19
    Commented Apr 26, 2011 at 3:12
  • "Serial" maybe.
    – SAH
    Commented Nov 1, 2016 at 20:49

5 Answers 5


"Collated" is a more general term that encompasses both alphabetical and numeric sorting.


The term sorted seems to cover both alphabetic and numeric.

  • To me something is sorted, if you put it into order. But it doesn't mean "the entities in question have the property of being sortable".
    – Warren P
    Commented Apr 25, 2011 at 23:43

"Enumerated" or "ordinal" come to mind.


If sorted isn’t the word you’re looking for, maybe consecutive is.

Sorted just means they’re in order; consecutive means “following, in succession, without interruption” (Wiktionary).

  • 3
    Consecutive means, nothing missing. consecutive years would mean, for example 1977, 1978, 1979 without skipping any years. Something could be ordered, but missing some years, and that would be sortable, but not complete. So in this case, consecutive doesn't fit.
    – Warren P
    Commented Apr 25, 2011 at 23:44
  • @Warren P: That is one of the things the word "sequential" in the question can mean. Commented Apr 26, 2011 at 14:13

Math people would speak of something being "well-ordered", and it's an adjective, but it's two words in common usage.

A set of values is well-ordered, if it has a least element, a greatest element, and all the elements in between have exactly one proper sorted position within that list. "Integers between 0 and 10" is a well-ordered finite set, for example. A set of symbols A,B,C,D where A=1, B and C both equal 2, and D=3 are NOT well ordered, because there is no way to decide whether B or C comes first. Infinite sized sets such as "all positive and negative Integers" are not considered formally "well ordered" because there is no "least element" or "greatest element".

If you are going to refer to finite sets of symbols, letters, and numbers, I would say "well-ordered", and I would speak of sets of those symbols being well-ordered.

Sometimes math people leave the dash out (Wellordered). Well-ordered in Merriam Webster dictionary is two words, but in some math papers it's one.

If your readers are not math-people you might find it valuable to use this term, and define it for them. If using a term your readers don't know, and definining it isn't possible, I'd use a long sentence description, and a close-enough-for-rock-and-roll word like Sortable. "These things that can be sorted, easily into exactly one order, I will call for our purposes, Sortable"

  • +1 for an interesting math view. My readers aren't math people, and in fact, they prefer sentences nice and short. Unfortunately, "well-ordered" might be too mathematical and perhaps overly complicated for my purposes.
    – tony19
    Commented Apr 26, 2011 at 3:27
  • Not quite so. A set is well-ordered if every non-empty subset has a lest element, so the definition does not require a greatest element. The set of natural numbers is well-ordered even if it doesn't have a greatest element. I'm a math guy... Commented Aug 23, 2011 at 17:36

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge you have read our privacy policy.

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