A question about something in Conway's “On Numbers and Games” The 2019 Stack Overflow Developer Survey Results Are In Announcing the arrival of Valued Associate #679: Cesar Manara Planned maintenance scheduled April 17/18, 2019 at 00:00UTC (8:00pm US/Eastern)Non-computable numbers and surrealsSurreal and ordinal numbersSurreal numbers without the axiom of infinitypseudo numbers and surreal numbersAre surreal numbers actually well-defined in ZFC?What's the difference between hyperreal and surreal numbers?Proof of Conway's “Simplicity Rule” for Surreal NumbersAlgorithm for Converting Rational Into Surreal NumberSurreal numbers in set theories other than ZFCAre all nimbers included in the surreals?Are the hyperreals emerging at some stage of the surreal construction?
Word for: a synonym with a positive connotation?
Why doesn't a hydraulic lever violate conservation of energy?
How to politely respond to generic emails requesting a PhD/job in my lab? Without wasting too much time
Did the new image of black hole confirm the general theory of relativity?
Is there a writing software that you can sort scenes like slides in PowerPoint?
What's the point in a preamp?
Can we generate random numbers using irrational numbers like π and e?
What force causes entropy to increase?
Why not take a picture of a closer black hole?
Accepted by European university, rejected by all American ones I applied to? Possible reasons?
How to handle characters who are more educated than the author?
should truth entail possible truth
What does Linus Torvalds mean when he says that Git "never ever" tracks a file?
Mortgage adviser recommends a longer term than necessary combined with overpayments
One-dimensional Japanese puzzle
Can a flute soloist sit?
What information about me do stores get via my credit card?
Simulating Exploding Dice
Identify 80s or 90s comics with ripped creatures (not dwarves)
Match Roman Numerals
Is this wall load bearing? Blueprints and photos attached
Make it rain characters
Can withdrawing asylum be illegal?
How did passengers keep warm on sail ships?
A question about something in Conway's “On Numbers and Games”
The 2019 Stack Overflow Developer Survey Results Are In
Announcing the arrival of Valued Associate #679: Cesar Manara
Planned maintenance scheduled April 17/18, 2019 at 00:00UTC (8:00pm US/Eastern)Non-computable numbers and surrealsSurreal and ordinal numbersSurreal numbers without the axiom of infinitypseudo numbers and surreal numbersAre surreal numbers actually well-defined in ZFC?What's the difference between hyperreal and surreal numbers?Proof of Conway's “Simplicity Rule” for Surreal NumbersAlgorithm for Converting Rational Into Surreal NumberSurreal numbers in set theories other than ZFCAre all nimbers included in the surreals?Are the hyperreals emerging at some stage of the surreal construction?
$begingroup$
In the book mentioned in the title, which deals with (among other things), Conway's "surreal numbers", there is a small section (pp. 37-38) where the "gaps" in the surreal number line are discussed. The gaps in the number line are formed by Dedekind cuts between whole proper classes of surreal numbers, in particular where we partition the surreal number line into two classes like the cut construction of the real numbers from the rational numbers. It is mentioned also that these gaps (presumably, since proper classes cannot be members in NBG set theory and/or the collection would be "too big") cannot be collected into a whole.
He mentions the existence of a gap "between 0 and all positive numbers", denoting it by $frac1mathbfOn$, where "$mathbfOn$" is the "gap at the end of the number line", given by the (improper?) Dedekind cut where the left class is all of $mathbfNo$ and the right class is empty. This is much like the points at infinity on the extended real number line, though Conway uses the symbol $infty$ for a different gap despite this analogy. But that is where I'm hung: how can there be a gap between 0 and all positive numbers? A Dedekind cut, as far as I can tell, represents a greatest lower or least upper bound of a set, or, in this case, of a (proper) class. Yet the class of "nonpositive surreal numbers" has supremum 0 and the class of "positive surreal numbers" has infimum 0. So the cut just corresponds to 0. So in this case there appears to be no true "gap", i.e. something missing, much less something missing between all positive and nonpositive surreals. Why does he say there is one?
number-systems combinatorial-game-theory surreal-numbers
edited Mar 31 at 6:46
Eric Wofsey
193k14220352
asked Jul 31 '13 at 1:58
The_SympathizerThe_Sympathizer
7,8002246
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
In the book mentioned in the title, which deals with (among other things), Conway's "surreal numbers", there is a small section (pp. 37-38) where the "gaps" in the surreal number line are discussed. The gaps in the number line are formed by Dedekind cuts between whole proper classes of surreal numbers, in particular where we partition the surreal number line into two classes like the cut construction of the real numbers from the rational numbers. It is mentioned also that these gaps (presumably, since proper classes cannot be members in NBG set theory and/or the collection would be "too big") cannot be collected into a whole.
He mentions the existence of a gap "between 0 and all positive numbers", denoting it by $frac1mathbfOn$, where "$mathbfOn$" is the "gap at the end of the number line", given by the (improper?) Dedekind cut where the left class is all of $mathbfNo$ and the right class is empty. This is much like the points at infinity on the extended real number line, though Conway uses the symbol $infty$ for a different gap despite this analogy. But that is where I'm hung: how can there be a gap between 0 and all positive numbers? A Dedekind cut, as far as I can tell, represents a greatest lower or least upper bound of a set, or, in this case, of a (proper) class. Yet the class of "nonpositive surreal numbers" has supremum 0 and the class of "positive surreal numbers" has infimum 0. So the cut just corresponds to 0. So in this case there appears to be no true "gap", i.e. something missing, much less something missing between all positive and nonpositive surreals. Why does he say there is one?
number-systems combinatorial-game-theory surreal-numbers
edited Mar 31 at 6:46
Eric Wofsey
193k14220352
asked Jul 31 '13 at 1:58
The_SympathizerThe_Sympathizer
7,8002246
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
Not entirely sure of the details but from what I remember from ONAG, you construct numbers by the $ * $ formalism, and you can basically put whatever you want on the left and the right, e.g. here $ text all x > 0 $. You have created a gap by creating this number -- unlike Dedekind, there's no sense of getting to 0 by getting infinitely close, since the two are different sets constructed differently.
$endgroup$
– Scaramouche
Jul 31 '13 at 2:10
1
$begingroup$
@Scaramouche This is asking about something else. On pp. 37–38 Conway, having constructed the totally ordered set $mathbfNo$, then constructs cuts of this set analogous to the way the reals are constructed from the totally ordered rationals by Dedekind cuts.
$endgroup$
– MJD
Jul 31 '13 at 3:06
add a comment |
$begingroup$
In the book mentioned in the title, which deals with (among other things), Conway's "surreal numbers", there is a small section (pp. 37-38) where the "gaps" in the surreal number line are discussed. The gaps in the number line are formed by Dedekind cuts between whole proper classes of surreal numbers, in particular where we partition the surreal number line into two classes like the cut construction of the real numbers from the rational numbers. It is mentioned also that these gaps (presumably, since proper classes cannot be members in NBG set theory and/or the collection would be "too big") cannot be collected into a whole.
He mentions the existence of a gap "between 0 and all positive numbers", denoting it by $frac1mathbfOn$, where "$mathbfOn$" is the "gap at the end of the number line", given by the (improper?) Dedekind cut where the left class is all of $mathbfNo$ and the right class is empty. This is much like the points at infinity on the extended real number line, though Conway uses the symbol $infty$ for a different gap despite this analogy. But that is where I'm hung: how can there be a gap between 0 and all positive numbers? A Dedekind cut, as far as I can tell, represents a greatest lower or least upper bound of a set, or, in this case, of a (proper) class. Yet the class of "nonpositive surreal numbers" has supremum 0 and the class of "positive surreal numbers" has infimum 0. So the cut just corresponds to 0. So in this case there appears to be no true "gap", i.e. something missing, much less something missing between all positive and nonpositive surreals. Why does he say there is one?
number-systems combinatorial-game-theory surreal-numbers
edited Mar 31 at 6:46
Eric Wofsey
193k14220352
asked Jul 31 '13 at 1:58
The_SympathizerThe_Sympathizer
7,8002246
$endgroup$
In the book mentioned in the title, which deals with (among other things), Conway's "surreal numbers", there is a small section (pp. 37-38) where the "gaps" in the surreal number line are discussed. The gaps in the number line are formed by Dedekind cuts between whole proper classes of surreal numbers, in particular where we partition the surreal number line into two classes like the cut construction of the real numbers from the rational numbers. It is mentioned also that these gaps (presumably, since proper classes cannot be members in NBG set theory and/or the collection would be "too big") cannot be collected into a whole.
He mentions the existence of a gap "between 0 and all positive numbers", denoting it by $frac1mathbfOn$, where "$mathbfOn$" is the "gap at the end of the number line", given by the (improper?) Dedekind cut where the left class is all of $mathbfNo$ and the right class is empty. This is much like the points at infinity on the extended real number line, though Conway uses the symbol $infty$ for a different gap despite this analogy. But that is where I'm hung: how can there be a gap between 0 and all positive numbers? A Dedekind cut, as far as I can tell, represents a greatest lower or least upper bound of a set, or, in this case, of a (proper) class. Yet the class of "nonpositive surreal numbers" has supremum 0 and the class of "positive surreal numbers" has infimum 0. So the cut just corresponds to 0. So in this case there appears to be no true "gap", i.e. something missing, much less something missing between all positive and nonpositive surreals. Why does he say there is one?
number-systems combinatorial-game-theory surreal-numbers
number-systems combinatorial-game-theory surreal-numbers
edited Mar 31 at 6:46
Eric Wofsey
193k14220352
asked Jul 31 '13 at 1:58
The_SympathizerThe_Sympathizer
7,8002246
edited Mar 31 at 6:46
Eric Wofsey
193k14220352
asked Jul 31 '13 at 1:58
The_SympathizerThe_Sympathizer
7,8002246
edited Mar 31 at 6:46
Eric Wofsey
193k14220352
edited Mar 31 at 6:46
Eric Wofsey
193k14220352
edited Mar 31 at 6:46
Eric Wofsey
193k14220352
193k14220352
asked Jul 31 '13 at 1:58
The_SympathizerThe_Sympathizer
7,8002246
asked Jul 31 '13 at 1:58
The_SympathizerThe_Sympathizer
7,8002246
asked Jul 31 '13 at 1:58
The_SympathizerThe_Sympathizer
7,8002246
7,8002246
$begingroup$
Not entirely sure of the details but from what I remember from ONAG, you construct numbers by the $ * $ formalism, and you can basically put whatever you want on the left and the right, e.g. here $ text all x > 0 $. You have created a gap by creating this number -- unlike Dedekind, there's no sense of getting to 0 by getting infinitely close, since the two are different sets constructed differently.
$endgroup$
– Scaramouche
Jul 31 '13 at 2:10
1
$begingroup$
@Scaramouche This is asking about something else. On pp. 37–38 Conway, having constructed the totally ordered set $mathbfNo$, then constructs cuts of this set analogous to the way the reals are constructed from the totally ordered rationals by Dedekind cuts.
$endgroup$
– MJD
Jul 31 '13 at 3:06
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Not entirely sure of the details but from what I remember from ONAG, you construct numbers by the $ * $ formalism, and you can basically put whatever you want on the left and the right, e.g. here $ text all x > 0 $. You have created a gap by creating this number -- unlike Dedekind, there's no sense of getting to 0 by getting infinitely close, since the two are different sets constructed differently.
$endgroup$
– Scaramouche
Jul 31 '13 at 2:10
1
$begingroup$
@Scaramouche This is asking about something else. On pp. 37–38 Conway, having constructed the totally ordered set $mathbfNo$, then constructs cuts of this set analogous to the way the reals are constructed from the totally ordered rationals by Dedekind cuts.
$endgroup$
– MJD
Jul 31 '13 at 3:06
$begingroup$
Not entirely sure of the details but from what I remember from ONAG, you construct numbers by the $ * $ formalism, and you can basically put whatever you want on the left and the right, e.g. here $ text all x > 0 $. You have created a gap by creating this number -- unlike Dedekind, there's no sense of getting to 0 by getting infinitely close, since the two are different sets constructed differently.
$endgroup$
– Scaramouche
Jul 31 '13 at 2:10
$begingroup$
Not entirely sure of the details but from what I remember from ONAG, you construct numbers by the $ * $ formalism, and you can basically put whatever you want on the left and the right, e.g. here $ text all x > 0 $. You have created a gap by creating this number -- unlike Dedekind, there's no sense of getting to 0 by getting infinitely close, since the two are different sets constructed differently.
$endgroup$
– Scaramouche
Jul 31 '13 at 2:10
1
1
$begingroup$
@Scaramouche This is asking about something else. On pp. 37–38 Conway, having constructed the totally ordered set $mathbfNo$, then constructs cuts of this set analogous to the way the reals are constructed from the totally ordered rationals by Dedekind cuts.
$endgroup$
– MJD
Jul 31 '13 at 3:06
$begingroup$
@Scaramouche This is asking about something else. On pp. 37–38 Conway, having constructed the totally ordered set $mathbfNo$, then constructs cuts of this set analogous to the way the reals are constructed from the totally ordered rationals by Dedekind cuts.
$endgroup$
– MJD
Jul 31 '13 at 3:06
add a comment |
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
Even though the infimum and supremum among numbers are equal, there are still games which are inside the gap. See Chapter 16 of ONAG (particularly, the section "Games in the Gaps").
For example, the games $+_alpha = -alpha$, where $alpha$ is any positive surreal number, lie in the gap $1/On$. We can check this. The game $+_alpha$ is positive because Left wins no matter who moves first. On the other hand, if $beta$ is any positive surreal number, consider the game $+_alpha - beta$. Since $beta$ is a number and $+_alpha$ is not, neither player wants to move in $beta$ (Number Avoidance Theorem), so we can just check moves in $+_alpha$. The component $+_alpha$ quickly reduces to 0, leaving $-beta$, which is a win for Right. Therefore, $+_alpha < beta$.
(The Number Avoidance Theorem is not explicitly stated as a theorem in ONAG, but is essentially the comment labelled "Summary" in Chapter 9, in the section "Stopping Positions".)
The same argument shows that any positive all-small game lies in the gap $1/On$. An all-small game is a game having the property that if one player has legal moves, then the other one does too. Equivalently, the only possible number that can be reached while playing the game is 0. (See Chapter 9 of ONAG.) Then the same argument as above applies.
answered Jul 31 '13 at 4:07
TedTed
22.2k13361
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
So if I get this right, Conway is apparently interpreting a Dedekind cut in a slightly different way than how it is interpreted when constructing the reals. In particular, interpreting it as always indicating a gap between the left and right class, even if the left or right class has a greatest or least (respectively) element. Is this right?
$endgroup$
– The_Sympathizer
Jul 31 '13 at 5:25
$begingroup$
@mike4ty4 I believe that is correct. But some gaps even do not have any games in it, as mentioned at the beginning of the "Games in the Gaps" section. I don't totally understand this but I think he's saying that in order for a gap to contain games, the left and right sections must be sets (as opposed to proper classes). Conway gives some examples of this on pp. 37-38.
$endgroup$
– Ted
Jul 31 '13 at 6:22
$begingroup$
Correct me if I'm wrong, but if the left and right sections are sets of surreals, and nothing in the right set is less than or equal to anything in the left set, then wouldn't you have a Surreal. I thought a gap was when you have a proper class...
$endgroup$
– Mark S.
Aug 2 '13 at 3:27
$begingroup$
@MarkS. You're right; I did not state that properly. The statement in ONAG is that in order for there to be games in a gap, the gap must be the "upper or lower bound of sets." I don't completely understand this, but if you look at Thm 56, this expresses the left and right sections of a game $G$ as the upper (resp., lower) of bound of sections of $G^L$ (resp., $G^R$), and $G^L$ and $G^R$ are sets of numbers. Whereas, if you take the example on p.38 of $sum_alpha omega^-alpha$ where $alpha$ ranges over all ordinals, then ...
$endgroup$
– Ted
Aug 2 '13 at 5:34
$begingroup$
it would only be the upper bound of all the partial sums $sum_beta<alpha omega^-beta$ (over all ordinals $alpha$), and there are too many such sums to be a set.
$endgroup$
– Ted
Aug 2 '13 at 5:36
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ready(function()
var channelOptions =
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "69"
;
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
createEditor();
);
else
createEditor();
);
function createEditor()
StackExchange.prepareEditor(
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: true,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: 10,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader:
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
,
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
);
);
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f456068%2fa-question-about-something-in-conways-on-numbers-and-games%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
Even though the infimum and supremum among numbers are equal, there are still games which are inside the gap. See Chapter 16 of ONAG (particularly, the section "Games in the Gaps").
For example, the games $+_alpha = -alpha$, where $alpha$ is any positive surreal number, lie in the gap $1/On$. We can check this. The game $+_alpha$ is positive because Left wins no matter who moves first. On the other hand, if $beta$ is any positive surreal number, consider the game $+_alpha - beta$. Since $beta$ is a number and $+_alpha$ is not, neither player wants to move in $beta$ (Number Avoidance Theorem), so we can just check moves in $+_alpha$. The component $+_alpha$ quickly reduces to 0, leaving $-beta$, which is a win for Right. Therefore, $+_alpha < beta$.
(The Number Avoidance Theorem is not explicitly stated as a theorem in ONAG, but is essentially the comment labelled "Summary" in Chapter 9, in the section "Stopping Positions".)
The same argument shows that any positive all-small game lies in the gap $1/On$. An all-small game is a game having the property that if one player has legal moves, then the other one does too. Equivalently, the only possible number that can be reached while playing the game is 0. (See Chapter 9 of ONAG.) Then the same argument as above applies.
answered Jul 31 '13 at 4:07
TedTed
22.2k13361
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
So if I get this right, Conway is apparently interpreting a Dedekind cut in a slightly different way than how it is interpreted when constructing the reals. In particular, interpreting it as always indicating a gap between the left and right class, even if the left or right class has a greatest or least (respectively) element. Is this right?
$endgroup$
– The_Sympathizer
Jul 31 '13 at 5:25
$begingroup$
@mike4ty4 I believe that is correct. But some gaps even do not have any games in it, as mentioned at the beginning of the "Games in the Gaps" section. I don't totally understand this but I think he's saying that in order for a gap to contain games, the left and right sections must be sets (as opposed to proper classes). Conway gives some examples of this on pp. 37-38.
$endgroup$
– Ted
Jul 31 '13 at 6:22
$begingroup$
Correct me if I'm wrong, but if the left and right sections are sets of surreals, and nothing in the right set is less than or equal to anything in the left set, then wouldn't you have a Surreal. I thought a gap was when you have a proper class...
$endgroup$
– Mark S.
Aug 2 '13 at 3:27
$begingroup$
@MarkS. You're right; I did not state that properly. The statement in ONAG is that in order for there to be games in a gap, the gap must be the "upper or lower bound of sets." I don't completely understand this, but if you look at Thm 56, this expresses the left and right sections of a game $G$ as the upper (resp., lower) of bound of sections of $G^L$ (resp., $G^R$), and $G^L$ and $G^R$ are sets of numbers. Whereas, if you take the example on p.38 of $sum_alpha omega^-alpha$ where $alpha$ ranges over all ordinals, then ...
$endgroup$
– Ted
Aug 2 '13 at 5:34
$begingroup$
it would only be the upper bound of all the partial sums $sum_beta<alpha omega^-beta$ (over all ordinals $alpha$), and there are too many such sums to be a set.
$endgroup$
– Ted
Aug 2 '13 at 5:36
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Even though the infimum and supremum among numbers are equal, there are still games which are inside the gap. See Chapter 16 of ONAG (particularly, the section "Games in the Gaps").
For example, the games $+_alpha = -alpha$, where $alpha$ is any positive surreal number, lie in the gap $1/On$. We can check this. The game $+_alpha$ is positive because Left wins no matter who moves first. On the other hand, if $beta$ is any positive surreal number, consider the game $+_alpha - beta$. Since $beta$ is a number and $+_alpha$ is not, neither player wants to move in $beta$ (Number Avoidance Theorem), so we can just check moves in $+_alpha$. The component $+_alpha$ quickly reduces to 0, leaving $-beta$, which is a win for Right. Therefore, $+_alpha < beta$.
(The Number Avoidance Theorem is not explicitly stated as a theorem in ONAG, but is essentially the comment labelled "Summary" in Chapter 9, in the section "Stopping Positions".)
The same argument shows that any positive all-small game lies in the gap $1/On$. An all-small game is a game having the property that if one player has legal moves, then the other one does too. Equivalently, the only possible number that can be reached while playing the game is 0. (See Chapter 9 of ONAG.) Then the same argument as above applies.
answered Jul 31 '13 at 4:07
TedTed
22.2k13361
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
So if I get this right, Conway is apparently interpreting a Dedekind cut in a slightly different way than how it is interpreted when constructing the reals. In particular, interpreting it as always indicating a gap between the left and right class, even if the left or right class has a greatest or least (respectively) element. Is this right?
$endgroup$
– The_Sympathizer
Jul 31 '13 at 5:25
$begingroup$
@mike4ty4 I believe that is correct. But some gaps even do not have any games in it, as mentioned at the beginning of the "Games in the Gaps" section. I don't totally understand this but I think he's saying that in order for a gap to contain games, the left and right sections must be sets (as opposed to proper classes). Conway gives some examples of this on pp. 37-38.
$endgroup$
– Ted
Jul 31 '13 at 6:22
$begingroup$
Correct me if I'm wrong, but if the left and right sections are sets of surreals, and nothing in the right set is less than or equal to anything in the left set, then wouldn't you have a Surreal. I thought a gap was when you have a proper class...
$endgroup$
– Mark S.
Aug 2 '13 at 3:27
$begingroup$
@MarkS. You're right; I did not state that properly. The statement in ONAG is that in order for there to be games in a gap, the gap must be the "upper or lower bound of sets." I don't completely understand this, but if you look at Thm 56, this expresses the left and right sections of a game $G$ as the upper (resp., lower) of bound of sections of $G^L$ (resp., $G^R$), and $G^L$ and $G^R$ are sets of numbers. Whereas, if you take the example on p.38 of $sum_alpha omega^-alpha$ where $alpha$ ranges over all ordinals, then ...
$endgroup$
– Ted
Aug 2 '13 at 5:34
$begingroup$
it would only be the upper bound of all the partial sums $sum_beta<alpha omega^-beta$ (over all ordinals $alpha$), and there are too many such sums to be a set.
$endgroup$
– Ted
Aug 2 '13 at 5:36
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Even though the infimum and supremum among numbers are equal, there are still games which are inside the gap. See Chapter 16 of ONAG (particularly, the section "Games in the Gaps").
For example, the games $+_alpha = -alpha$, where $alpha$ is any positive surreal number, lie in the gap $1/On$. We can check this. The game $+_alpha$ is positive because Left wins no matter who moves first. On the other hand, if $beta$ is any positive surreal number, consider the game $+_alpha - beta$. Since $beta$ is a number and $+_alpha$ is not, neither player wants to move in $beta$ (Number Avoidance Theorem), so we can just check moves in $+_alpha$. The component $+_alpha$ quickly reduces to 0, leaving $-beta$, which is a win for Right. Therefore, $+_alpha < beta$.
(The Number Avoidance Theorem is not explicitly stated as a theorem in ONAG, but is essentially the comment labelled "Summary" in Chapter 9, in the section "Stopping Positions".)
The same argument shows that any positive all-small game lies in the gap $1/On$. An all-small game is a game having the property that if one player has legal moves, then the other one does too. Equivalently, the only possible number that can be reached while playing the game is 0. (See Chapter 9 of ONAG.) Then the same argument as above applies.
answered Jul 31 '13 at 4:07
TedTed
22.2k13361
$endgroup$
Even though the infimum and supremum among numbers are equal, there are still games which are inside the gap. See Chapter 16 of ONAG (particularly, the section "Games in the Gaps").
For example, the games $+_alpha = -alpha$, where $alpha$ is any positive surreal number, lie in the gap $1/On$. We can check this. The game $+_alpha$ is positive because Left wins no matter who moves first. On the other hand, if $beta$ is any positive surreal number, consider the game $+_alpha - beta$. Since $beta$ is a number and $+_alpha$ is not, neither player wants to move in $beta$ (Number Avoidance Theorem), so we can just check moves in $+_alpha$. The component $+_alpha$ quickly reduces to 0, leaving $-beta$, which is a win for Right. Therefore, $+_alpha < beta$.
(The Number Avoidance Theorem is not explicitly stated as a theorem in ONAG, but is essentially the comment labelled "Summary" in Chapter 9, in the section "Stopping Positions".)
The same argument shows that any positive all-small game lies in the gap $1/On$. An all-small game is a game having the property that if one player has legal moves, then the other one does too. Equivalently, the only possible number that can be reached while playing the game is 0. (See Chapter 9 of ONAG.) Then the same argument as above applies.
answered Jul 31 '13 at 4:07
TedTed
22.2k13361
answered Jul 31 '13 at 4:07
TedTed
22.2k13361
answered Jul 31 '13 at 4:07
TedTed
22.2k13361
answered Jul 31 '13 at 4:07
TedTed
22.2k13361
22.2k13361
$begingroup$
So if I get this right, Conway is apparently interpreting a Dedekind cut in a slightly different way than how it is interpreted when constructing the reals. In particular, interpreting it as always indicating a gap between the left and right class, even if the left or right class has a greatest or least (respectively) element. Is this right?
$endgroup$
– The_Sympathizer
Jul 31 '13 at 5:25
$begingroup$
@mike4ty4 I believe that is correct. But some gaps even do not have any games in it, as mentioned at the beginning of the "Games in the Gaps" section. I don't totally understand this but I think he's saying that in order for a gap to contain games, the left and right sections must be sets (as opposed to proper classes). Conway gives some examples of this on pp. 37-38.
$endgroup$
– Ted
Jul 31 '13 at 6:22
$begingroup$
Correct me if I'm wrong, but if the left and right sections are sets of surreals, and nothing in the right set is less than or equal to anything in the left set, then wouldn't you have a Surreal. I thought a gap was when you have a proper class...
$endgroup$
– Mark S.
Aug 2 '13 at 3:27
$begingroup$
@MarkS. You're right; I did not state that properly. The statement in ONAG is that in order for there to be games in a gap, the gap must be the "upper or lower bound of sets." I don't completely understand this, but if you look at Thm 56, this expresses the left and right sections of a game $G$ as the upper (resp., lower) of bound of sections of $G^L$ (resp., $G^R$), and $G^L$ and $G^R$ are sets of numbers. Whereas, if you take the example on p.38 of $sum_alpha omega^-alpha$ where $alpha$ ranges over all ordinals, then ...
$endgroup$
– Ted
Aug 2 '13 at 5:34
$begingroup$
it would only be the upper bound of all the partial sums $sum_beta<alpha omega^-beta$ (over all ordinals $alpha$), and there are too many such sums to be a set.
$endgroup$
– Ted
Aug 2 '13 at 5:36
add a comment |
$begingroup$
So if I get this right, Conway is apparently interpreting a Dedekind cut in a slightly different way than how it is interpreted when constructing the reals. In particular, interpreting it as always indicating a gap between the left and right class, even if the left or right class has a greatest or least (respectively) element. Is this right?
$endgroup$
– The_Sympathizer
Jul 31 '13 at 5:25
$begingroup$
@mike4ty4 I believe that is correct. But some gaps even do not have any games in it, as mentioned at the beginning of the "Games in the Gaps" section. I don't totally understand this but I think he's saying that in order for a gap to contain games, the left and right sections must be sets (as opposed to proper classes). Conway gives some examples of this on pp. 37-38.
$endgroup$
– Ted
Jul 31 '13 at 6:22
$begingroup$
Correct me if I'm wrong, but if the left and right sections are sets of surreals, and nothing in the right set is less than or equal to anything in the left set, then wouldn't you have a Surreal. I thought a gap was when you have a proper class...
$endgroup$
– Mark S.
Aug 2 '13 at 3:27
$begingroup$
@MarkS. You're right; I did not state that properly. The statement in ONAG is that in order for there to be games in a gap, the gap must be the "upper or lower bound of sets." I don't completely understand this, but if you look at Thm 56, this expresses the left and right sections of a game $G$ as the upper (resp., lower) of bound of sections of $G^L$ (resp., $G^R$), and $G^L$ and $G^R$ are sets of numbers. Whereas, if you take the example on p.38 of $sum_alpha omega^-alpha$ where $alpha$ ranges over all ordinals, then ...
$endgroup$
– Ted
Aug 2 '13 at 5:34
$begingroup$
it would only be the upper bound of all the partial sums $sum_beta<alpha omega^-beta$ (over all ordinals $alpha$), and there are too many such sums to be a set.
$endgroup$
– Ted
Aug 2 '13 at 5:36
$begingroup$
So if I get this right, Conway is apparently interpreting a Dedekind cut in a slightly different way than how it is interpreted when constructing the reals. In particular, interpreting it as always indicating a gap between the left and right class, even if the left or right class has a greatest or least (respectively) element. Is this right?
$endgroup$
– The_Sympathizer
Jul 31 '13 at 5:25
$begingroup$
So if I get this right, Conway is apparently interpreting a Dedekind cut in a slightly different way than how it is interpreted when constructing the reals. In particular, interpreting it as always indicating a gap between the left and right class, even if the left or right class has a greatest or least (respectively) element. Is this right?
$endgroup$
– The_Sympathizer
Jul 31 '13 at 5:25
$begingroup$
@mike4ty4 I believe that is correct. But some gaps even do not have any games in it, as mentioned at the beginning of the "Games in the Gaps" section. I don't totally understand this but I think he's saying that in order for a gap to contain games, the left and right sections must be sets (as opposed to proper classes). Conway gives some examples of this on pp. 37-38.
$endgroup$
– Ted
Jul 31 '13 at 6:22
$begingroup$
@mike4ty4 I believe that is correct. But some gaps even do not have any games in it, as mentioned at the beginning of the "Games in the Gaps" section. I don't totally understand this but I think he's saying that in order for a gap to contain games, the left and right sections must be sets (as opposed to proper classes). Conway gives some examples of this on pp. 37-38.
$endgroup$
– Ted
Jul 31 '13 at 6:22
$begingroup$
Correct me if I'm wrong, but if the left and right sections are sets of surreals, and nothing in the right set is less than or equal to anything in the left set, then wouldn't you have a Surreal. I thought a gap was when you have a proper class...
$endgroup$
– Mark S.
Aug 2 '13 at 3:27
$begingroup$
Correct me if I'm wrong, but if the left and right sections are sets of surreals, and nothing in the right set is less than or equal to anything in the left set, then wouldn't you have a Surreal. I thought a gap was when you have a proper class...
$endgroup$
– Mark S.
Aug 2 '13 at 3:27
$begingroup$
@MarkS. You're right; I did not state that properly. The statement in ONAG is that in order for there to be games in a gap, the gap must be the "upper or lower bound of sets." I don't completely understand this, but if you look at Thm 56, this expresses the left and right sections of a game $G$ as the upper (resp., lower) of bound of sections of $G^L$ (resp., $G^R$), and $G^L$ and $G^R$ are sets of numbers. Whereas, if you take the example on p.38 of $sum_alpha omega^-alpha$ where $alpha$ ranges over all ordinals, then ...
$endgroup$
– Ted
Aug 2 '13 at 5:34
$begingroup$
@MarkS. You're right; I did not state that properly. The statement in ONAG is that in order for there to be games in a gap, the gap must be the "upper or lower bound of sets." I don't completely understand this, but if you look at Thm 56, this expresses the left and right sections of a game $G$ as the upper (resp., lower) of bound of sections of $G^L$ (resp., $G^R$), and $G^L$ and $G^R$ are sets of numbers. Whereas, if you take the example on p.38 of $sum_alpha omega^-alpha$ where $alpha$ ranges over all ordinals, then ...
$endgroup$
– Ted
Aug 2 '13 at 5:34
$begingroup$
it would only be the upper bound of all the partial sums $sum_beta<alpha omega^-beta$ (over all ordinals $alpha$), and there are too many such sums to be a set.
$endgroup$
– Ted
Aug 2 '13 at 5:36
$begingroup$
it would only be the upper bound of all the partial sums $sum_beta<alpha omega^-beta$ (over all ordinals $alpha$), and there are too many such sums to be a set.
$endgroup$
– Ted
Aug 2 '13 at 5:36
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to Mathematics Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f456068%2fa-question-about-something-in-conways-on-numbers-and-games%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
$begingroup$
Not entirely sure of the details but from what I remember from ONAG, you construct numbers by the $ * $ formalism, and you can basically put whatever you want on the left and the right, e.g. here $ text all x > 0 $. You have created a gap by creating this number -- unlike Dedekind, there's no sense of getting to 0 by getting infinitely close, since the two are different sets constructed differently.
$endgroup$
– Scaramouche
Jul 31 '13 at 2:10
1
$begingroup$
@Scaramouche This is asking about something else. On pp. 37–38 Conway, having constructed the totally ordered set $mathbfNo$, then constructs cuts of this set analogous to the way the reals are constructed from the totally ordered rationals by Dedekind cuts.
$endgroup$
– MJD
Jul 31 '13 at 3:06