# Is the ordering of Brodmann areas arbitrary?

A single Brodmann area is defined based off cellular composition. Are the Brodmann areas ordinal, and if so for what reason? (e.g. is there something that makes Brodmann area 1 the "first one", and area 2 the "second one"?)

• Why do you assume that there is any meaningful ordinal relation at all? (Cardinal) Numbering can be a convenient way of naming and the sequence may just follow whatever sequence was convenient for Brodmann, even if it has no useful meaning afterwards. And I've never heard ordinal numbers applied to Brodmann's areas, only the cardinal numbering. – Livius Mar 6 '16 at 4:05
• I have no idea if the sequence is arbitrary or not, hence why I'm asking the question. – RECURSIVE FARTS Mar 6 '16 at 4:12
• I also just want to add on, If Brodmann areas are rooted in cytology, I don't see how they could express the cardinality of something in the brain--it would imply some sort of a numerical relation. So I guess the question is: are they being used in a nominal sense or a ordinal sense? Lemme know if I'm missing something here though :) – RECURSIVE FARTS Mar 6 '16 at 4:19
• The question you're asking presupposes that the sequence is not arbitrary ("what makes..."). If you don't wan that assumption, then the question should be "Is there something that that makes ...., and " if so, what is it?" or something similar. In linguistic use, "cardinal numbers" are simply one, two, three, etc. (what you refer to as nominal) and "ordinal numbers" are first, second, third, etc. This is somewhat different from (albeit deeply related to) the mathematical notion of cardinality of sets, which include such things as $\aleph_0$. – Livius Mar 6 '16 at 4:25
• Sure, I thought you were using cardinal in a set-theoretic sense, I'll update the title to be a bit more clear. – RECURSIVE FARTS Mar 6 '16 at 4:27