There doesn’t seem to be any standard adjective to describe the property of a pair of sets having the same cardinality. Some authors use ‘equivalent’, but this adjective could be used for any equivalence relation; it might be useful to reserve it for the equivalence relation which is currently most prominent in the context. Other use ‘equinumerous’, and I guess that’s fine. There’s a natural counterpart of this adjective for the property of one set having cardinality less than or equal to the other, too, viz. ‘subnumerous’, although I don’t know if anyone actually uses this term. Anyway, if I was going to write a textbook on set theory, I think I would go for the adjective ‘isomorphic’. Consider the definition of a structure in abstract algebra, which can be stated as follows.

**Definition 1**. **Structures** are ordered tuples of the form , where is a set called the **underlying set** of the structure, and for every natural number such that , there is a natural number , called the **arity** of , such that is a subset of the Cartesian product . is called the th **relation** of the structure.

A set can be seen as a degenerate structure with no relations. Now, consider the definition of a homomorphism:

**Definition 2**. For every pair of structures and with the same number of relations and with the property that for every natural number such that , and have the same arity, **homomorphisms** are mappings from to such that for every natural number such that and every -tuple of members , , … and of (where is the common arity of and ), if and only if .

In the trivial case where the two structures have no relations, a homomorphism between the structures is simply a function between their underlying sets. Accordingly, an isomorphism between the structures is simply a bijection between their underlying sets. Since we say that two structures are isomorphic if and only if there is an isomorphism between them, two sets are isomorphic if and only if there is a bijection between them, i.e. they have the same cardinality. That’s the reasoning behind using the adjective ‘isomorphic’. Since injective homomorphisms are sometimes called monomorphisms, and surjective homomorphisms are sometimes called epimorphisms, for every pair of sets and , we can also say that is monomorphic to if and only if and is epimorphic to if and only if . The only problem I can see with this terminology is that since structures are often referred to by their underlying set when it is clear from context which relations should be taken as part of the structure; for example, people might speak of the ring of integers and the ring of rational numbers. So the statement that and are isomorphic might be taken to mean the rings and are isomorphic, which is false. Of course, this problem can be resolved just by saying ‘the sets and are isomorphic’ or ‘ and are isomorphic as sets’.