| • Science | • People | • Locations | • Timeline |
The definition and construction of the surreals is due to John Conway, and exemplifies Conway's characteristic notational cleverness and originality. They were introduced in Donald Knuth's 1974 book Surreal Numbers: How Two Ex-Students Turned on to Pure Mathematics and Found Total Happiness. This book is a mathematical novelette, and is notable as one of the rare cases where a new mathematical idea was first presented in a work of fiction. In his book, which takes the form of a dialogue, Knuth coined the term surreal numbers for what Conway had simply called numbers originally. Conway liked the new name, and later adopted it himself. Conway then described the surreal numbers and used them for analyzing games in his 1976 book On Numbers and Games.
The basic idea behind the construction of surreal numbers is similar to Dedekind cuts. We construct new numbers by representing them with two sets of numbers, L and R, that approximate the new number; the set L contains a set of numbers below the new number and the set R contains a set of numbers above the new number. We will write such an approximation as { L | R }. We will pose no restrictions upon L and R except that each of the numbers in L should be smaller than any number in R. For example, { {1, 2} | {5, 8} } is a valid construction of a certain number between 2 and 5. (Which number exactly and why will be explained later on.) The sets are explicitly allowed to be empty. The informal interpretation of a pair { L | {} } will be "a number higher than any number in L", and of { {} | R } "a number lower than any number in R". This leads to the following construction rule:
Given a surreal number x = { XL | XR } the sets XL and XR are called the left set of x and right set of x respectively. To avoid lots of brackets we will write { {a, b, ... } | { x, y, ... } } simply as { a, b, ... | x, y, ... } and { {a} | {} } as { a | } and { {} | {a} } as { | a }.
In order for the generated numbers to actually qualify as numbers there has to be a "less than or equal to" relation (here written as ≤) defined on them. This is supplied by the following rule:
The two rules are recursive, so we need some form of induction to put them to work. An obvious candidiate would be finite induction, i.e., generate all numbers that can be constructed by applying the construction rule a finite number of times, but, as will be explained later on, things get really interesting if we also allow transfinite induction, i.e., apply the rule more often than that. If we want the generated numbers to represent numbers then the ordering that is defined upon them should be a total order. However, the relation ≤ defines only a total preorderIn the mathematical area of order theory, a total preorder over a set X is a preorder ≤ over X that is total that is, for all a and b in X it holds that a ≤ b or b ≤ a''. The difference between a total preorder and a total order is that a total p, i.e., it is not antisymmetricIn mathematics, a binary relation R over a set X is antisymmetric if it holds for all a and b in X that if a is related to b and b is related to a then a b''. In notation, this is: : Strict inequality is antisymmetric; since a < b and b < a is impossible,. To remedy this we define the binary relationIn mathematics, the concept of binary relation is exemplified by such ideas as "is greater than" and "is equal to" in arithmetic, or "is congruent to" in geometry, or "is an element of" or "is a subset of" in set theory. Definition Formally, a binary rela == over the generated surreal numbers such that
Since this defines an equivalence relationIn mathematics, an equivalence relation on a set X is a binary relation on X that is reflexive symmetric and transitive i. if the relation is written as ~ it holds for all a b and c in X that # (Reflexivity) a ~ a # (Symmetry) if a ~ b then b ~ a # (Trans the ordering on the equivalence classIn mathematics, given a set X and an equivalence relation ~ on X the equivalence class of an element a in X is the subset of all elements in X which are equivalent to a :[a] { x in X | x ~ a } The notion of equivalence classes is useful for constructing ses implied by ≤ will be a total order. The interpretation of this will be that if x and y are in the same equivalence class then they actually represent the same number. The equivalence classes to which x and y belong are denoted as [x] and [y] respectively. So if x and y belong to the same equivalence class then [x] = [y].
Let us now consider some examples and see how they behave under the ordering. The most simple example is of course
which can be constructed without any induction at all. We will call this number 0 and the equivalence class [0] will be written as 0. By applying the construction rule we can consider the following three numbers
The last number is however not a valid surreal number because 0 ≤ 0. If we now consider the ordering of the valid surreal numbers we will see that
where x < y denotes that not(y ≤ x). We will refer to { | 0 } and { 0 | } as -1 and 1 respectively, and the corresponding equivalence classes as simply -1 and 1, respectively. Since every equivalence class contains only one element that has so far been defined, we can replace in statements about ordering the surreal numbers with their equivalence classes without the risk of ambiguity. For example, the statement above could also have been written as:
or even
If we apply the construction rule once more we obtain the following ordered set:
We can now make three observations:
The first observation raises the question of the interpretation of these new equivalence classes. Since the informal interpretation of { | -1 } is "the number just before -1" we will call it number -2 and denote its equivalence class as -2. For a similar reason we will call { 1 | } number 2 and its equivalence class 2. The number { -1 | 0 } is a number between -1 and 0 and we will call it -1/2 and its equivalence class -1/2. Finally we will call { 0 | 1 } the number 1/2 and its equivalence class 1/2. More justification for these names will be given once we have defined addition and multiplication.
The second observation raises the question if we can still replace the surreal numbers with their equivalence classes. Fortunately the answer is yes because it can be shown that
where [X] denotes { [x] | x in X }. So the description of the ordered set that was found above can be rewritten to:
which in turn can be rewritten as
The third observation extends to all surreal numbers with finite left and right sets. For infinite left or right set, this is valid in an altered form, since infinite sets might not contain a maximal or minimal element. The number { {1, 2} | {5, 8} } therefore is equivalent to { 2 | 5 }, which will be exactly calculated later.