Must sign expansion definition of surreal addition use induction on the natural sum?

103 Views Asked by At

In Gonshor surreals and their arithmatic are defined using sign expansions. Addition of surreals $a,b$ is defined inductively by

$a+b = (a_L+b,a+b_L)\mid (a_R+b,a+b_R) $

Where the induction is on the ordinal $\alpha $ in $dom (a)\oplus dom (b)<\alpha $ and $\oplus $ is the natural/Hessenberg sum.

My question is why can't we use normal ordinal addition in the induction. Gonshor seems to imply that using the natural sum "permits" the definition to work?

1

There are 1 best solutions below

1
On BEST ANSWER

$\DeclareMathOperator{\Noo}{\mathbf{No}}$For $a' \in a_L$, $l(a') + l(b)$ might not be strictly smaller than $l(a) + l(b)$ (for instance if $l(a) = 2$ and $l(b) = \omega$), whereas $l(a') \oplus l(b) < l(a) \oplus l(b)$: this is why Hessenberg sum is preferred.


The choice of considering Hessenberg sums is still somewhat arbitrary: the smallest well-founded order on $\Noo^2$ that works for most of those proofs is $(a,b) \prec_0 (c,d)$ iff $(a \triangleleft c$ and $b \trianglelefteq d$) or $(a \trianglelefteq c$ and $b \triangleleft d$) where $\triangleleft$ denotes the simplicity relation.

If one wants to deal only with length, then the natural order would be $(a,b) \prec_1 (c,d)$ iff $(l(a) < l(c)$ and $l(b) \leq l(d)$) or $(l(a) \leq l(c)$ and $l(b) < l(d)$).

Both of these are contained in $(a,b) \prec_2 (c,d)$ iff $l(a) \oplus l(b) < l(c) \oplus l(d)$.

So in a way, the last one is a more powerful tool for induction: most of the time one has to deal with elements $(a',b), (a,b')$ and so on, those are $\prec_0$ strictly smaller than $(a,b)$, and thus $\prec_1$ and $\prec_2$ strictly smaller than $(a,b)$, which allows induction on $(\Noo^2,\prec_2)$.

As to why $\prec_2$ is broader: for example one could prove that $a\star b:= (a_{LL}\star(b+1),(a+1)\star b_{LL}) \ | \ (a_{RR} \star(b+1),(a+1)\star b_{RR})$ is commutative (here for instance $x_{LL}$ denotes the set of surreals $z \in y_L$ for some $y \in x_L$) with $\prec_2$ when neither $\prec_0$ nor $\prec_1$ would apply.

So my guess is Gonshor (and Conway) chose $\prec_2$ for its versatility, probably for the sake of concision.