Mathematics Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for people studying math at any level and professionals in related fields. It's 100% free, no registration required.

Sign up
Here's how it works:
  1. Anybody can ask a question
  2. Anybody can answer
  3. The best answers are voted up and rise to the top

On the sound of sounding ridiculous, but in the line of "There are no stupid quetsions": Is there a way to express $\omega_1$ (and in general $\omega_k$ with $k >= 1$ as a Conway game (that is $<L|R>$, with L and R the left and right options). And is there a way to do it such that addition, multiplication, etc. makes sense ?

I can express $\omega_1 = < {i}_{i\in\mathbb{R}} | >$, which is essential the same as $< f: \mathbb{R} \to \mathbb{R} |>$ where $f$ is increasing (${i}_{i\in\mathbb{R}} = f(i)$), which isn't exactly a Conway game notation. I think this also borders on an idea of Gonshor, to express the surreals as maps from initial segments of ordinals to a two-element set). In general, I have replaced the sequence $<0,1,2, ...|>$ from one of the forms of $\omega_0$ by an increasing "sequence" where the index is a positive real number.

Questions are:

  • The above question(s) ?
  • Is my idea correct or at leat in the right direction ?
  • Are there any other ways to do this ? (of course this is an open question if my idea is wrong in the first place).

And yes, I realize my question is little bit broad and I haven't an idea which model you should be work in (ZF, ZFC, NBG, etc), nor do I know how the answer varies with the choice of the model).

share|cite|improve this question
I've made an attempt to fix the LaTeX in your post, but I am not sure if I did it 100% to what you meant to write. I hope the changes I've made at least is enough for you to make whatever modifications you feel necessary. – Willie Wong Jan 25 '11 at 23:13
I just cleaned this up with a LaTeX editor on my PC, Thans – Willem Noorduin Jan 25 '11 at 23:24
Since you're speaking of LaTeX: it's better to use \langle and \rangle for angle brackets (not "less than" and "greater than", which are relational operators). – Hans Lundmark Jan 26 '11 at 7:07
up vote 3 down vote accepted

I should note that your expression for $\omega_1$ isn't actually correct; in part because the cardinality of the reals isn't necessarily $\aleph_1$ (this is just Cantor's Hypothesis, which of course Paul Cohen proved independent of ZF), but mostly because the surreal number you've given — $\langle i_{i\in\mathbb{R}}|\rangle$ — is actually equal to $\omega\stackrel{\mathrm{def}}{=}\omega_0$ (exercise: show that whoever plays first in $\langle i_{i\in\mathbb{R}}|\rangle - \omega$ loses). As JDH notes above, the standard way of defining the ordinals copies over into the surreals to give surreal definitions of $\omega_1$, $\omega_2,$ etc; On Numbers And Games even mentions this in passing, IIRC. That said, AFAIK the canonical arithmetic operations ($\sqrt{}$, etc) are relatively boring on ordinals of higher cardinality; in effect they suffer from (as I understand it - this isn't really my field!) predicativity issues. You might want to have a look at the Wikipedia page on (an) 'Ordinal collapsing function' - there's a pretty close tie between surreal definitions of various ordinal-related 'numbers' and the canonical ordinal notations discussed there.

share|cite|improve this answer

Every ordinal number $\alpha$ has a canonical copy as a surreal number $\hat\alpha$, whose left set has as members $\hat\beta$ for every $\beta\lt\alpha$, and whose right set is empty. Succinctly, $$\hat\alpha=\{\ \{\hat\beta\mathrel{:} \beta\lt\alpha\ \}\mathrel{|} \}.$$

One can prove by induction that $\alpha\mapsto\hat\alpha$ is isomorphism of the ordinals with their usual order and arithmetic to the corresponding suborder of the surreals.

For example, for the successor case, $\alpha+1$ is the next ordinal after $\alpha$, and $\hat(\alpha+1)=\{\hat\alpha\mid\}$ is the next surreal after $\hat\alpha$, or $\hat\alpha+1$ in the surreals.

In particular, $\omega_1$ would be represented by the surreal number $\hat\omega_1$, which I think is very different from the surreal numbers that you propose.

share|cite|improve this answer

Your Answer


By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.