I'm trying to understand analogies and disanalogies between ${\Bbb R}$, the reals numbers, and ${\bf No}$, the surreal numbers.

${\Bbb R}$ admits countable dense sets such as the rationals. This leads me to wonder whether ${\bf No}$ might contain a dense subclass somehow smaller than the whole.

On one hand, any sub-set of ${\bf No}$ must be closed in the interval "topology" since every element of ${\bf No}$ lies in a nest of shrinking intervals ordered like ${\bf On}$, the class of ordinals. So that makes any dense subclass a proper class.

On the other hand, ${\bf ZFC}$ doesn't entail a well-ordering of the whole universe (right?) so that means one might (consistently) regard the proper class ${\bf On}$ as small compared with the class of all sets.

${\bf Question}$: Can we also regard ${\bf No}$ as a larger proper class than ${\bf On}$, in the sense that there does not exist any surjection from ${\bf On}$ to ${\bf No}$?

In other words, might ${\bf ZFC}$ not guarantee any well-ordering of all of ${\bf No}$. (This despite a well-ordered class of birthdays and well-orderings for all elements with any set of birthdays).

It nevertheless seems reasonable to wonder whether ${\bf ZFC}$, or even ${\bf ZF}$, entails a dense subclass of ${\bf No}$ that admits a well-ordering hence my main

${\bf Question}$: Does there exists a (definable) map from all the ordinals to the surreal numbers that has a dense image?

As with my last question, I confess uneasiness about working with proper classes, so please feel free to correct any misconception that underlies the formulation of my question. In particular, please tell me if I need to change set theories to get a better question.

  • $\begingroup$ I think this might be relevant to your first question: mathoverflow.net/questions/44303/cardinality-of-classes $\endgroup$ – Michael Greinecker Apr 8 '12 at 1:44
  • $\begingroup$ Thanks Michael Greinecker, but I think the answer there just says that global choice moots my question, as I suggested already. Gonshor's book defines a notation of surreal integer and proves every element of No equals the quotient of two integers. But his class of integers doesn't admit any obvious well-ordering. It seems not entirely unreasonable that some narrower concept of integer might lead to a definably well-ordered class and merely a dense set of quotients. So I think I have a real question about the surreals and not just about classes. $\endgroup$ – David Feldman Apr 8 '12 at 3:53
  • $\begingroup$ While not directly related to this question, this m.SE thread might be helpful in understanding a bit how the surreals work in a small scale: math.stackexchange.com/q/77992/622 $\endgroup$ – Asaf Karagila Apr 8 '12 at 12:13

The answer is that the existence of a definable class embedding like that is independent of ZFC. In fact, it is equivalent to the axiom V=HOD.

Theorem. The following are equivalent.

  1. There is a definable bijection from Ord to No.

  2. There is a definable surjection from Ord to No.

  3. There is a definable map from Ord to No with dense image.

  4. V=HOD.

Proof. If V=HOD holds, then there is definable bijection between the class of ordinals and the entire universe $V$, and from such an embedding one can construct a definable bijection between Ord and No. So 4 implies 1, which implies 2, which implies 3.

Convesely, suppose that V=HOD fails. Since in ZFC every set is coded by a set of ordinals, it follows that there must be some $\alpha$-length binary sequence $s$ that is not in HOD, which means that $s$ is not definable from ordinals, and neither therefore is any longer sequence than $s$. But the binary sequence $s$ determines a certain interval in No, by following the digits of $s$ left-and-right through the tree representation of the surreal numbers. If there were a definable map from Ord to No with dense image, then there would be OD element of No in this interval. Suppose that the $\beta^{\rm th}$ element was in that interval. It follows that $s$ would be definable from $\beta$ and $\alpha$ as the $\alpha$ length sequence describing the interval at that level of the tree inside of which the $\beta$-th surreal was to be found. So $s$ would be ordinal definable, a contradiction. So 3 implies 4. QED

The standard way to force $V\neq \text{HOD}$ is to add a Cohen real $V[c]$. This forcing is almost homogeneous, which implies that every ordinal definable object in the extension $V[c]$ is already in the ground model. In particular, in the extension $c$ itself is not ordinal definable, but it still determines an interval in the surreals, which no ordinal definable element can fill.

A generalization of the argument will handle the case that one might allow parameters in the definition. This is because by class forcing one can ensure that $V\neq HOD(A)$ for any fixed set $A$. In this case, there wouldn't even be a map from Ord to No with dense image, which was definable from parameters.

Meanwhile, I paste below the answer I had posted on math.SE to a similar question, concerning surjections from Ord to No.

From my answer to Willem Norduin's question on math.SE

The existence of a bijection between the class of ordinals $On$ and the class of surreal numbers $No$ is independent of the axioms of set theory. There are several interesting possibilities:

  • If ZFC is consistent, then there is a model of ZFC in which there is a definable such bijection. This is true in Goedel's constructible universe $L$, for example, for in $L$ there is a definable well-ordering of the universe, and we can use this well-ordering to well-order the surreals, which provides the desired bijection.

  • More generally, there is a first-order definable bijection between $On$ and $No$ if and only if the axiom known as $V=HOD$ holds. For the one direction, if $V=HOD$ holds, then there is a definable well-ordering of the universe and hence in particular a definable well-ordering of the surreals. Conversely, under ZFC if there is a definable bijection between $On$ and $No$, then there is a definable well-ordering of $No$. This allows us to construct a definable well-ordering of the class of sets of ordinals, since any set of ordinals determines a transfinite binary sequence of some ordinal length, and we can interpret this sequence as a $\pm 1$ sequence, which determines a unique surreal number by climbing through the tree of left-right cuts. Thus, we can well-order the class of sets of ordinals. But in ZFC every set is coded by a set of ordinals, and so we can construct a well-ordering of the entire universe, by looking for the least ordinal mapping to a surreal whose $\pm 1$ representation codes that set. So in this case, V=HOD holds.

  • Another way to summarize this argument is to say that if you can well-order $No$---and this is what your bijection to $On$ amounts to---then you can well-order every class.

  • If you drop the requirement that the bijection be definable, then we should move to the Goedel-Bernays context, in order to treat classes. The assertion that there is a bijection between $On$ and $No$ is equivalent over ZFC+GB to the axiom of Global Choice, which asserts that there is a well-ordering of the universe. This is by the same argument as above. (Note, we need AC for sets in order to make the last step of the argument; the class bijection in effect allows us to sew the set sized well-orderings together into a class well-ordering.) Thus, the theory ZFC+GB+(your bijection) is equivalent to GBC.

  • Because of this, if ZFC is consistent, then there are models of ZFC that have no bijection between $On$ and $No$, either definable or definable-from-parameters or otherwise. This is because it is known that ZFC does not imply global choice. One can construct such models by performing a class forcing iteration, adding a Cohen subset to every regular cardinal.

  • Meanwhile, every model of ZFC has a class forcing extension in which there is a class well-ordering of the universe, simply by forcing to add a global well-ordering, and this forcing extension adds no new sets, only classes. In this sense, it is compatible with every model of ZFC set theory to have the desired bijection as a class, without adding any new sets.

  • Further, every model of ZFC has a class forcing extension in which there is a definable bijection between $On$ and $No$, since we can force $V=HOD$. (This forcing, however, does add new sets.)

Lastly, upon reading your question again, I see that you asked for a surjection from $On$ onto $No$, rather than a bijection. But these are equivalent, since if there is a surjection, then we can remove the redundant ordinals from the domain by only using the least ordinal that maps to a given surreal, and this gives a bijection from a proper class of ordinals to $No$. But every proper class of ordinals is bijection with $On$ simply by collapsing to the order type of the predecessors.

| cite | improve this answer | |
  • $\begingroup$ I think your argument may settle a related question I posted recently, but I'm not sure. See mathoverflow.net/questions/188430/… $\endgroup$ – Jesse Elliott Dec 1 '14 at 0:24
  • $\begingroup$ @JesseElliott My argument here is really only about the equinumerosity relation on those classes, and not about the algebraic structure. So I don't think that this answer actually has much bearing on your other question. $\endgroup$ – Joel David Hamkins Dec 1 '14 at 1:17
  • $\begingroup$ One point is confusing me about `coding' sets as sets of ordinals. Is there a definable bijection $No \longrightarrow V$ in ZFC, or is that, too, equivalent to $V = HOD$? $\endgroup$ – Jesse Elliott Dec 8 '14 at 2:06
  • $\begingroup$ @JesseElliott Good Question! That statement isn't provable in ZFC alone, since this would imply that there is a definable linear order of $V$, but it is consistent with ZFC that there is no definable linear order of the universe. But I don't see without further thought whether it implies V=HOD, and I'm inclined to think it doesn't, but I'd need to think more about it. Why not post a question? $\endgroup$ – Joel David Hamkins Dec 8 '14 at 2:17
  • $\begingroup$ OK. mathoverflow.net/questions/189165/… $\endgroup$ – Jesse Elliott Dec 8 '14 at 3:34

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

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