Timeline for What are the properties of $\operatorname{No}[i]$?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
6 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Dec 6 at 23:21 | review | Suggested edits | |||
| Dec 7 at 1:26 | |||||
| Jul 20, 2023 at 20:39 | comment | added | Alec Rhea | @JoelDavidHamkins I trust your breadth of literature exposure; perhaps this is just a contrivance of mine, seeing the On and No duality and allowing my propensity for subscripts to take over. | |
| Jul 20, 2023 at 19:28 | comment | added | Joel David Hamkins | I don't think I've ever seen $O_n$ as a notation for the ordinals, although I have certainly seen On as well as Ord. I always took No as the notation for the surreals to consist of its inversion of On, as well as the fact that "No." is a common abbreviation for "Number". | |
| Jul 20, 2023 at 17:10 | comment | added | Alec Rhea | @LSpice I'm not sure where I first encountered this notation (maybe in 'Foundations of Surreal Analysis' by Alling?), but I believe it was a reversal of $O_n$ for the ordinals. | |
| Jul 20, 2023 at 15:24 | comment | added | LSpice | I'd always thought it was $\mathit{No}$ or $\mathrm{No}$, as in @JoelDavidHamkins's answer, for "nombre" or something like that, but viewing it as a particularly important characteristic-$0$ "field" does make sense of the notation $N_0$. Is that the usual notation? | |
| Jul 20, 2023 at 14:31 | history | answered | Alec Rhea | CC BY-SA 4.0 |