Timeline for In theory, how would Oneiric numbers be defined?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
18 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Nov 18, 2023 at 20:36 | history | protected | Yemon Choi | ||
| Jun 9, 2021 at 8:12 | comment | added | Tom Kerruish | The only thought I have to add is that Oneiric numbers almost certainly involve proper classes. Note that "Oneiric" is capitalized, suggesting "On", the class of ordinals. Perhaps they even involve classes of classes, or higher iterations. | |
| S May 22, 2020 at 21:05 | history | bounty ended | user784623 | ||
| S May 22, 2020 at 21:05 | history | notice removed | user784623 | ||
| May 21, 2020 at 17:26 | comment | added | user784623 | Could @JoelDavidHamkins hypnagogic digraphs be a precursor to oneiric numbers? | |
| May 16, 2020 at 18:46 | answer | added | Jeffrey | timeline score: 13 | |
| S May 15, 2020 at 17:37 | history | bounty started | user784623 | ||
| S May 15, 2020 at 17:37 | history | notice added | user784623 | Authoritative reference needed | |
| May 14, 2020 at 17:03 | comment | added | Timothy Chow | It wouldn't surprise me if this were one of Conway's jokes; i.e., such a thing exists only in our dreams, or we can dream that one day someone might make sense of it. Note for example that Conway would sometimes say that something was "cohomology" when it wasn't literally cohomology; it was one of his jokes. | |
| May 14, 2020 at 16:38 | comment | added | user784623 | @MarkS. Amazing! | |
| May 14, 2020 at 11:17 | comment | added | Mark S. | I have reached out to Richard J. Nowakowski, the editor of More Games of No Chance (the collection where Conway's "More Infinite Games" appeared), to see if he has any insight or a lead. | |
| May 14, 2020 at 8:04 | comment | added | R.P. | @MarkS. +1. Fair enough. | |
| May 14, 2020 at 1:24 | comment | added | Mark S. | @RP_ I don't disagree, but division (arguably even multiplication) on games that aren't numbers or stars typically "causes the entire building to collapse", so I am curious as to what justification there is for writing $1/\uparrow$. | |
| May 13, 2020 at 22:33 | comment | added | R.P. | Naively, I would expect Conway's remark to mean that there is a way of treating $1/\uparrow$ as a symbol in a formal manner, admitting all the usual operations except those which would cause the entire building to collapse, and that the resulting calculus is what he means by Oneiric numbers (which I agree is an engaging name). Is there any reason to suppose that he had something bigger in mind? Sometimes a remark such as this (especially when a well-chosen neologism is involved) can be so suggestive that it leads one to expect grand things, while the reality is much more prosaic. | |
| May 13, 2020 at 17:53 | comment | added | user784623 | @Carl-FredrikNybergBrodda I couldn't agree more! | |
| May 13, 2020 at 17:41 | comment | added | Carl-Fredrik Nyberg Brodda | As a sidenote, the adjective "oneiric" (of or pertaining to dreams) is one of the most beautiful adjectives I've seen in front of a mathematical object, and perfectly captures what should come after "surreal". | |
| May 13, 2020 at 17:02 | review | First posts | |||
| May 13, 2020 at 17:37 | |||||
| May 13, 2020 at 16:58 | history | asked | user784623 | CC BY-SA 4.0 |