11
$\begingroup$

In On Numbers And Games, Conway uses the term "genetic" for definitions of operations on surreal numbers that are inductive in terms of their options. His definitions of addition and multiplication are genetic, and he also gives genetic definitions of division and square roots, though the latter are more complicated because the options of each result are inductively defined separately from the overall induction over surreals.

Conway also shows that the surreal numbers are a real-closed field, i.e. that every polynomial of odd degree with surreal coefficients has a surreal root. However, this proof is not genetic, but relies on convergence of infinite series.

My question is: is there a genetic proof of the real-closure of the surreal numbers? That is, given a surreal polynomial of odd degree, can I define a root of that polynomial in terms of its options, by surreal induction on the options of the coefficients (and presumably also some kind of "inner" induction in the options, as in the case of division and square roots)? Note that division and square roots are particular instances of roots of polynomials, namely $a x = 1$ and $x^2 = a$.

(One might initially guess that this is unlikely because a given polynomial of odd degree will generally have many roots with no obvious way to canonically choose one, so there couldn't be a completely canonical construction of a root. However, the construction doesn't have to be completely canonical; it could involve an arbitrary "initial value" choice, such as the first input to Newton's method, after which the "inner" inductive definition of the options successively "converges" to some root determined by the initial value. So it doesn't seem impossible to me that such a genetic construction could exist.)

$\endgroup$
8
  • $\begingroup$ Sturm sequences might be suitable for such genetic approach maybe... $\endgroup$ Commented Jul 29, 2018 at 5:01
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ This is an interesting question. To my knowledge, little is known about genetic definitions and what can be defined in this way. You may find more information and context regarding genetic definitions in the work of Antongiulio Fornasiero, e.g. [here][1]. [1]: dm.unipi.it/~fornasiero/articles/surreals.pdf $\endgroup$
    – nombre
    Commented Jul 29, 2018 at 7:35
  • $\begingroup$ Regarding your parenthetical final paragraph: As the surreals are totally ordered, and polynomials only have finitely many roots, we can canonically choose the smallest root of a polynomial (or the largest). $\endgroup$ Commented Jul 30, 2018 at 23:09
  • $\begingroup$ In a conversation I had with Conway at the University of Chicago in 1885, he referred to the desirability of such a "zeroth proof" of the real closed nature of No, but regretted that such a proof had eluded him. To my knowledge, at present there is no such "zeroth proof". $\endgroup$ Commented Jul 31, 2018 at 4:46
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @Mike Shulman. You are most welcome; and, yes, I meant 1985. I agree, it is a bit surprising that something so fundamental has been largely ignored. In Section 4 of his thesis "Integration on Surreal Numbers" (2004), Antongiulio Fornasiero provides genetic definitions of polynomials. While it might not be precisely what you are looking for, it might help. Other discussions of this are contained in some of his unpublished papers on the surreals, like the one referred to by Nombre. If you contact me at Ohio University, I'll send you a copy of the thesis. I'm sure Antongiulio would not mind. $\endgroup$ Commented Jul 31, 2018 at 16:34

0

You must log in to answer this question.

Browse other questions tagged .