Science  People  Locations  Timeline
Index: A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z

Home > Surreal number


 

The surreal numbers are an example of what is sometimes called a Field (with a capital F), meaning a proper class on which there is defined an addition, multiplication and multiplicative inverse which satisfy all of the axioms of a field except for the fact that the elements form a proper class but not a set. With that caveat they are an ordered field containing the real numbers as well as infinite and infinitesimal numbers, respectively larger or smaller in absolute value than any positive real number, and therefore the surreals are algebraically similiar to superreal numbers and hyperreal numbers. By limiting the construction to a Grothendieck universe, we obtain essentially the same construction as a set, not a class, and so as an honest field with cardinality some strongly inaccessible cardinal.

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.

1 Constructing Surreal Numbers

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:

Construction Rule: If L and R are two sets of surreal numbers and no member of R is less than or equal to any member of L then { L | R } is a surreal number.

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:

Comparison Rule: For a surreal number x = { XL | XR } and y = { YL | YR } it holds that xy if and only if y is less than or equal to no member of XL, and no member of YR is less than or equal to x.

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

x == y iffIn mathematics, philosophy, logic and technical fields that depend on them, iff is used as an abbreviation for if and only if . It is often, not always, written italicized: iff''. Although "P iff Q" is most standard, common alternative phrases include "P xy and yx.

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

{ | } ie: { {} | {} }

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

{ 0 | }, { | 0 } and { 0 | 0 }

The last number is however not a valid surreal number because 00. If we now consider the ordering of the valid surreal numbers we will see that

{ | 0 } < 0 < { 0 | }

where x < y denotes that not(yx). 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:

{ | 0 } < 0 < { 0 | }

or even

-1 < 0 < 1.

If we apply the construction rule once more we obtain the following ordered set:

{ | -1 } == { | -1, 0 } == { | -1, 1 } == { | -1, 0, 1 } <
{ | 0, 1 } == -1 <
{ -1 | 0 } == { -1 | 0, 1 } <
{ -1 | } == { | 1 } == { -1 | 1 } == 0 <
{ 0 | 1 } == { -1, 0 | 1 } <
{ -1, 0 | } == 1 <
{ 1 | } == { 0, 1 | } == { -1, 1 | } == { -1, 0, 1 | }

We can now make three observations:

  1. We have found four new equivalence classes: [{ | -1 }], [{ -1 | 0 }], [{ 0 | 1 }], and [{ 1 | }].
  2. All equivalence classes now contain more than one element.
  3. The equivalence class of a number depends only on the maximal element of its left set and the minimal element of the right set.

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

if [XL] = [YL] and [XR] = [YR] then [{ XL | XR }] = [{ YL | YR }]

where [X] denotes { [x] | x in X }. So the description of the ordered set that was found above can be rewritten to:

{ | -1 } == { | -1, 0 } == { | -1, 1 } == { | -1, 0, 1 } <
{ |0, 1 } == -1 <
{ -1 | 0 } == { -1| 0, 1 } <
{ -1 | } == { | 1 } == { -1 | 1 } == 0 <
{ 0 | 1 } == { -1, 0 | 1 } <
{ -1, 0 | } == 1 <
{ 1 | } == { 0, 1 | } == { -1, 1 | } == { -1, 0, 1 | }

which in turn can be rewritten as

-2 < -1 < -1/2 < 0 < 1/2 < 1 < 2.

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.



Read more »

Non User