Who discovered the surreals?












36












$begingroup$


Common folklore dictates that the Surreals were discovered by John Conway as a lark while studying game theory in the early 1970's, and popularized by Donald Knuth in his 1974 novella.



Wikipedia disagrees; the page claims that Norman Alling gave a construction in 1962 which modified the notion of Hahn series fields to realize a field structure on Hausdorff's $eta_alpha$-sets, and that this construction yields the Surreals when considered over all ordinals -- the article pretty explicitly characterizes Conway's construction as a popularized rediscovery more than 10 years later (!).



The given reference links to a paper from 1962 (received by editors in 1960) which seems to fit the bill, however this paper gives no indication that Alling considered his construction extended to all ordinals nor does it contain mention of proper classes that I can find.




Is there any evidence indicating that Alling considered a proper class sized version of his construction almost a decade before Conway did?




Alling published a book in 1987 which constructs the Surreals in exactly this manner*, but this is (of course) more than a decade after Conway's construction was popularized. Was this construction known to Alling earlier and only written up in book form when he realized there was a more widespread interest, or were proper-class considerations in this arena genuinely not in play before Conway?



*This is incorrect, thanks to Philip Ehrlich for pointing out my mistake. Alling's 1987 book doesn't construct the surreals as modified formal power series in the fashion of his 1962 paper; the methods involved are more subtle. On January 3, 1983 and December 20, 1982, Norman Alling and Philip Ehrlich respectively submitted papers which constructed isomorphic copies of the surreals using modified versions of the constructions in Allings 1962 paper, and these submissions eventually lead to the publication of two papers to this effect. The 1987 book mentioned above contains expansions of these works in sections 4.02 and 4.03, respectively. (see Philip's excellent answer below for a better description of events)






ho.history-overview surreal-numbers







share|cite|improve this question











$endgroup$








  • 3




    $begingroup$
    It seems like the attribution to Alling resulted from the combination of two edits, about a year apart: en.wikipedia.org/w/… and: en.wikipedia.org/w/…
    $endgroup$
    – Robert Furber
    Feb 6 at 14:46






  • 3




    $begingroup$
    The title takes a bold philosophical stand.
    $endgroup$
    – Asaf Karagila
    Feb 7 at 10:42






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    @AsafKaragila I am glad you called me out on this - so be it! Hopefully we can agree (for example) that the electron was discovered and not invented. Perhaps we invented the name electron and the diagrammatic/equational understandings we have of them, but the piece of the universe we’ve labelled electron was discovered by J.J. Thomson during cathode ray tube experiments in 1897. I view mathematical entities in a similar fashion - they exist prior to us writing them up, and when our exploration reaches them is a function of what other tools we’ve already discovered.
    $endgroup$
    – Alec Rhea
    Feb 7 at 11:15








  • 1




    $begingroup$
    Your justifications for Platonism are circular. Math is discovered because we use tools that we already discovered to discover it. :)
    $endgroup$
    – Asaf Karagila
    Feb 7 at 11:30










  • $begingroup$
    @AsafKaragila I see your point, but I’ve taken my ambien for the night and I tend to get loopy after that, sometimes even circular ;).
    $endgroup$
    – Alec Rhea
    Feb 7 at 11:34


















36












$begingroup$


Common folklore dictates that the Surreals were discovered by John Conway as a lark while studying game theory in the early 1970's, and popularized by Donald Knuth in his 1974 novella.



Wikipedia disagrees; the page claims that Norman Alling gave a construction in 1962 which modified the notion of Hahn series fields to realize a field structure on Hausdorff's $eta_alpha$-sets, and that this construction yields the Surreals when considered over all ordinals -- the article pretty explicitly characterizes Conway's construction as a popularized rediscovery more than 10 years later (!).



The given reference links to a paper from 1962 (received by editors in 1960) which seems to fit the bill, however this paper gives no indication that Alling considered his construction extended to all ordinals nor does it contain mention of proper classes that I can find.




Is there any evidence indicating that Alling considered a proper class sized version of his construction almost a decade before Conway did?




Alling published a book in 1987 which constructs the Surreals in exactly this manner*, but this is (of course) more than a decade after Conway's construction was popularized. Was this construction known to Alling earlier and only written up in book form when he realized there was a more widespread interest, or were proper-class considerations in this arena genuinely not in play before Conway?



*This is incorrect, thanks to Philip Ehrlich for pointing out my mistake. Alling's 1987 book doesn't construct the surreals as modified formal power series in the fashion of his 1962 paper; the methods involved are more subtle. On January 3, 1983 and December 20, 1982, Norman Alling and Philip Ehrlich respectively submitted papers which constructed isomorphic copies of the surreals using modified versions of the constructions in Allings 1962 paper, and these submissions eventually lead to the publication of two papers to this effect. The 1987 book mentioned above contains expansions of these works in sections 4.02 and 4.03, respectively. (see Philip's excellent answer below for a better description of events)






ho.history-overview surreal-numbers







share|cite|improve this question











$endgroup$








  • 3




    $begingroup$
    It seems like the attribution to Alling resulted from the combination of two edits, about a year apart: en.wikipedia.org/w/… and: en.wikipedia.org/w/…
    $endgroup$
    – Robert Furber
    Feb 6 at 14:46






  • 3




    $begingroup$
    The title takes a bold philosophical stand.
    $endgroup$
    – Asaf Karagila
    Feb 7 at 10:42






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    @AsafKaragila I am glad you called me out on this - so be it! Hopefully we can agree (for example) that the electron was discovered and not invented. Perhaps we invented the name electron and the diagrammatic/equational understandings we have of them, but the piece of the universe we’ve labelled electron was discovered by J.J. Thomson during cathode ray tube experiments in 1897. I view mathematical entities in a similar fashion - they exist prior to us writing them up, and when our exploration reaches them is a function of what other tools we’ve already discovered.
    $endgroup$
    – Alec Rhea
    Feb 7 at 11:15








  • 1




    $begingroup$
    Your justifications for Platonism are circular. Math is discovered because we use tools that we already discovered to discover it. :)
    $endgroup$
    – Asaf Karagila
    Feb 7 at 11:30










  • $begingroup$
    @AsafKaragila I see your point, but I’ve taken my ambien for the night and I tend to get loopy after that, sometimes even circular ;).
    $endgroup$
    – Alec Rhea
    Feb 7 at 11:34
















36












36








36


3



$begingroup$


Common folklore dictates that the Surreals were discovered by John Conway as a lark while studying game theory in the early 1970's, and popularized by Donald Knuth in his 1974 novella.



Wikipedia disagrees; the page claims that Norman Alling gave a construction in 1962 which modified the notion of Hahn series fields to realize a field structure on Hausdorff's $eta_alpha$-sets, and that this construction yields the Surreals when considered over all ordinals -- the article pretty explicitly characterizes Conway's construction as a popularized rediscovery more than 10 years later (!).



The given reference links to a paper from 1962 (received by editors in 1960) which seems to fit the bill, however this paper gives no indication that Alling considered his construction extended to all ordinals nor does it contain mention of proper classes that I can find.




Is there any evidence indicating that Alling considered a proper class sized version of his construction almost a decade before Conway did?




Alling published a book in 1987 which constructs the Surreals in exactly this manner*, but this is (of course) more than a decade after Conway's construction was popularized. Was this construction known to Alling earlier and only written up in book form when he realized there was a more widespread interest, or were proper-class considerations in this arena genuinely not in play before Conway?



*This is incorrect, thanks to Philip Ehrlich for pointing out my mistake. Alling's 1987 book doesn't construct the surreals as modified formal power series in the fashion of his 1962 paper; the methods involved are more subtle. On January 3, 1983 and December 20, 1982, Norman Alling and Philip Ehrlich respectively submitted papers which constructed isomorphic copies of the surreals using modified versions of the constructions in Allings 1962 paper, and these submissions eventually lead to the publication of two papers to this effect. The 1987 book mentioned above contains expansions of these works in sections 4.02 and 4.03, respectively. (see Philip's excellent answer below for a better description of events)






ho.history-overview surreal-numbers







share|cite|improve this question











$endgroup$




Common folklore dictates that the Surreals were discovered by John Conway as a lark while studying game theory in the early 1970's, and popularized by Donald Knuth in his 1974 novella.



Wikipedia disagrees; the page claims that Norman Alling gave a construction in 1962 which modified the notion of Hahn series fields to realize a field structure on Hausdorff's $eta_alpha$-sets, and that this construction yields the Surreals when considered over all ordinals -- the article pretty explicitly characterizes Conway's construction as a popularized rediscovery more than 10 years later (!).



The given reference links to a paper from 1962 (received by editors in 1960) which seems to fit the bill, however this paper gives no indication that Alling considered his construction extended to all ordinals nor does it contain mention of proper classes that I can find.




Is there any evidence indicating that Alling considered a proper class sized version of his construction almost a decade before Conway did?




Alling published a book in 1987 which constructs the Surreals in exactly this manner*, but this is (of course) more than a decade after Conway's construction was popularized. Was this construction known to Alling earlier and only written up in book form when he realized there was a more widespread interest, or were proper-class considerations in this arena genuinely not in play before Conway?



*This is incorrect, thanks to Philip Ehrlich for pointing out my mistake. Alling's 1987 book doesn't construct the surreals as modified formal power series in the fashion of his 1962 paper; the methods involved are more subtle. On January 3, 1983 and December 20, 1982, Norman Alling and Philip Ehrlich respectively submitted papers which constructed isomorphic copies of the surreals using modified versions of the constructions in Allings 1962 paper, and these submissions eventually lead to the publication of two papers to this effect. The 1987 book mentioned above contains expansions of these works in sections 4.02 and 4.03, respectively. (see Philip's excellent answer below for a better description of events)






ho.history-overview surreal-numbers




ho.history-overview surreal-numbers






share|cite|improve this question















share|cite|improve this question













share|cite|improve this question




share|cite|improve this question








edited Feb 9 at 17:56







Alec Rhea

















asked Feb 6 at 6:41









Alec RheaAlec Rhea

1,3391819




1,3391819








  • 3




    $begingroup$
    It seems like the attribution to Alling resulted from the combination of two edits, about a year apart: en.wikipedia.org/w/… and: en.wikipedia.org/w/…
    $endgroup$
    – Robert Furber
    Feb 6 at 14:46






  • 3




    $begingroup$
    The title takes a bold philosophical stand.
    $endgroup$
    – Asaf Karagila
    Feb 7 at 10:42






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    @AsafKaragila I am glad you called me out on this - so be it! Hopefully we can agree (for example) that the electron was discovered and not invented. Perhaps we invented the name electron and the diagrammatic/equational understandings we have of them, but the piece of the universe we’ve labelled electron was discovered by J.J. Thomson during cathode ray tube experiments in 1897. I view mathematical entities in a similar fashion - they exist prior to us writing them up, and when our exploration reaches them is a function of what other tools we’ve already discovered.
    $endgroup$
    – Alec Rhea
    Feb 7 at 11:15








  • 1




    $begingroup$
    Your justifications for Platonism are circular. Math is discovered because we use tools that we already discovered to discover it. :)
    $endgroup$
    – Asaf Karagila
    Feb 7 at 11:30










  • $begingroup$
    @AsafKaragila I see your point, but I’ve taken my ambien for the night and I tend to get loopy after that, sometimes even circular ;).
    $endgroup$
    – Alec Rhea
    Feb 7 at 11:34
















  • 3




    $begingroup$
    It seems like the attribution to Alling resulted from the combination of two edits, about a year apart: en.wikipedia.org/w/… and: en.wikipedia.org/w/…
    $endgroup$
    – Robert Furber
    Feb 6 at 14:46






  • 3




    $begingroup$
    The title takes a bold philosophical stand.
    $endgroup$
    – Asaf Karagila
    Feb 7 at 10:42






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    @AsafKaragila I am glad you called me out on this - so be it! Hopefully we can agree (for example) that the electron was discovered and not invented. Perhaps we invented the name electron and the diagrammatic/equational understandings we have of them, but the piece of the universe we’ve labelled electron was discovered by J.J. Thomson during cathode ray tube experiments in 1897. I view mathematical entities in a similar fashion - they exist prior to us writing them up, and when our exploration reaches them is a function of what other tools we’ve already discovered.
    $endgroup$
    – Alec Rhea
    Feb 7 at 11:15








  • 1




    $begingroup$
    Your justifications for Platonism are circular. Math is discovered because we use tools that we already discovered to discover it. :)
    $endgroup$
    – Asaf Karagila
    Feb 7 at 11:30










  • $begingroup$
    @AsafKaragila I see your point, but I’ve taken my ambien for the night and I tend to get loopy after that, sometimes even circular ;).
    $endgroup$
    – Alec Rhea
    Feb 7 at 11:34










3




3




$begingroup$
It seems like the attribution to Alling resulted from the combination of two edits, about a year apart: en.wikipedia.org/w/… and: en.wikipedia.org/w/…
$endgroup$
– Robert Furber
Feb 6 at 14:46




$begingroup$
It seems like the attribution to Alling resulted from the combination of two edits, about a year apart: en.wikipedia.org/w/… and: en.wikipedia.org/w/…
$endgroup$
– Robert Furber
Feb 6 at 14:46




3




3




$begingroup$
The title takes a bold philosophical stand.
$endgroup$
– Asaf Karagila
Feb 7 at 10:42




$begingroup$
The title takes a bold philosophical stand.
$endgroup$
– Asaf Karagila
Feb 7 at 10:42




1




1




$begingroup$
@AsafKaragila I am glad you called me out on this - so be it! Hopefully we can agree (for example) that the electron was discovered and not invented. Perhaps we invented the name electron and the diagrammatic/equational understandings we have of them, but the piece of the universe we’ve labelled electron was discovered by J.J. Thomson during cathode ray tube experiments in 1897. I view mathematical entities in a similar fashion - they exist prior to us writing them up, and when our exploration reaches them is a function of what other tools we’ve already discovered.
$endgroup$
– Alec Rhea
Feb 7 at 11:15






$begingroup$
@AsafKaragila I am glad you called me out on this - so be it! Hopefully we can agree (for example) that the electron was discovered and not invented. Perhaps we invented the name electron and the diagrammatic/equational understandings we have of them, but the piece of the universe we’ve labelled electron was discovered by J.J. Thomson during cathode ray tube experiments in 1897. I view mathematical entities in a similar fashion - they exist prior to us writing them up, and when our exploration reaches them is a function of what other tools we’ve already discovered.
$endgroup$
– Alec Rhea
Feb 7 at 11:15






1




1




$begingroup$
Your justifications for Platonism are circular. Math is discovered because we use tools that we already discovered to discover it. :)
$endgroup$
– Asaf Karagila
Feb 7 at 11:30




$begingroup$
Your justifications for Platonism are circular. Math is discovered because we use tools that we already discovered to discover it. :)
$endgroup$
– Asaf Karagila
Feb 7 at 11:30












$begingroup$
@AsafKaragila I see your point, but I’ve taken my ambien for the night and I tend to get loopy after that, sometimes even circular ;).
$endgroup$
– Alec Rhea
Feb 7 at 11:34






$begingroup$
@AsafKaragila I see your point, but I’ve taken my ambien for the night and I tend to get loopy after that, sometimes even circular ;).
$endgroup$
– Alec Rhea
Feb 7 at 11:34












3 Answers
3






active

oldest

votes


















43












$begingroup$

Norman Alling's Conway's field of surreal numbers (1985) gives full credit to Conway:




Conway introduced the Field No of numbers, which Knuth has called
the surreal numbers. No is a proper class and a real-closed field,
with a very high level of density, which can be described by extending
Hausdorff's $eta_xi$ condition. In this paper the author applies a
century of research on ordered sets, groups, and fields to the study
of No.




References to Alling's own 1962 paper appear only in passing, on page 373 and 377–378. The 1987 book referred to in the OP follows up on this 1985 exposition, which makes it clear that Alling in no way claims independence from Conway.






share|cite|improve this answer











$endgroup$









  • 3




    $begingroup$
    Much appreciated, it's good to know this part of my life wasn't a lie :^).
    $endgroup$
    – Alec Rhea
    Feb 6 at 7:27






  • 9




    $begingroup$
    I've edited the WP article to reflect this answer.
    $endgroup$
    – Ben Crowell
    Feb 6 at 15:00










  • $begingroup$
    @BenCrowell Thank you, I was going to this morning but you’ve beaten me to it! I think comments reflecting Andreas’s answer are also in order, I’ll add them to your edits.
    $endgroup$
    – Alec Rhea
    Feb 6 at 17:41



















24












$begingroup$

If one thinks of the surreal numbers as just a proper-class sized saturated real-closed field, then I think Alling deserves much of the credit for the discovery or invention. He didn't deal with the proper-class sized case, but his hypotheses do cover the case of strongly inaccessible cardinals. A strongly inaccessible cardinal can be viewed as class-sized simply by cutting off the (cumulative hierarchy view of the) universe of sets one level after that cardinal. So I'm inclined to view the passage to proper-class size as no big deal.



But the field of surreal numbers has an important additional structure, namely what Conway calls "birthdays". In other words, this field has a very natural construction in terms of transfinitely iterated filling of Dedekind cuts. As far as I know, this construction and the fact that it produces a saturated real-closed field are entirely due to Conway.






share|cite|improve this answer









$endgroup$









  • 4




    $begingroup$
    I've always been perplexed by the insistence with which some people want to consider surreals in the class-sized variant. I mean, "class-sized" just means "the smallest cardinal my model of set theory can't handle" — well, if it can't handle it, pick a larger size! And no interesting property of the surreals depends on class-size-ness and can't be stated for a cardinal $kappa$ of large enough cofinality. So whence the class craze?
    $endgroup$
    – Gro-Tsen
    Feb 6 at 18:22






  • 3




    $begingroup$
    But anyway, to answer your question as to why I claim that any property of some class-sized object can be attained at some large enough ordinal, this is essentially the content of various reflection principles. Take your favorite property of the surreals, then by a reflection principle there are club-many $alpha$ such that the same is true in $V_alpha$, and the surreals in $V_alpha$ are essentially the surreals of that length.
    $endgroup$
    – Gro-Tsen
    Feb 6 at 21:40






  • 2




    $begingroup$
    Just to emphasize, much of what is interesting about the surreals comes from the extra structure beyond the Field structure (what I like to call the "L|R structure"). For example there is no way to distinguish ω from ω.2 using just the Field structure. Back in 1999, Steve Simpson made a rather big fuss on the Foundations of Mathematics mailing list about the surreals being "not new," but after some back-and-forth discussion, he clarified that he meant that the structure of the surreals qua ordered Field was already known, not that the L|R structure had been previously described.
    $endgroup$
    – Timothy Chow
    Feb 7 at 0:55






  • 3




    $begingroup$
    @AlecRhea : The dot represents ordinal multiplication. I guess maybe I phrased my comment unclearly. Conway's construction naturally gives rise to the ordinals, as as ordinals, ω and ω.2 are certainly distinguishable. However, if you throw away all the structure except the Field structure, then you can no longer reconstruct which element was ω and which element was ω.2
    $endgroup$
    – Timothy Chow
    Feb 7 at 3:19






  • 6




    $begingroup$
    @AlecRhea There is a field automorphism of the sureals that takes $omegacdot2$ to $omega$ (and $omega$ to $frac12omega$). You can tell apart $omega$ from $omegacdot2$ (in the sense that they are distinct elements, and $omega<omegacdot2$), but there is no way you can just look at the field structure, and point towards $omega$. All infinitely large elements have the same field-theoretic properties.
    $endgroup$
    – Emil Jeřábek
    Feb 7 at 8:03





















16












$begingroup$

Let me begin by adding my voice to those who have said that Conway is the sole originator of the theory of surreal numbers, the reasons given by Andreas being critical. Moreover, based on my conversations and correspondence with Norman (Alling), with whom I did the following joint work on the surreals in the 1980s, there is no question he would concur.



(i) An Alternative Construction of Conway's Surreal Numbers, C.R. Math. Rep. Acad. Sci. Canada VIII (1986), pp. 241-46.



(ii) An Abstract Characterization of a Full Class of Surreal Numbers, C.R. Math. Rep. Acad. Sci. Canada VIII (1986), pp. 303-8.



(iii) Sections 4.02 and 4.03 of Norman Alling’s Foundations of Analysis Over Surreal Number Fields, North-Holland Publishing Co., Amsterdam, 1987.



My principal reason for writing this answer is to help clarify the relation between Conway's (1976) work, Norman’s work of 1962, and some work Norman and I did independently in the early 1980s making use of Norman’s work of 1962, and to correct the mistaken characterization of the construction of the surreals contained in Norman’s book as described by Alec in his question.



In his paper of 1962, Norman proves the existence of a real-closed field that is an $eta_alpha$-set of power $aleph_alpha$, whenever $aleph_alpha$ is regular and satisfies another natural set-theoretic condition, thereby providing an affirmative answer to a question of Erdös, Gillman and Henriksen that arose from their work on rings of continuous functions. To prove the result, Norman employed a construction that is a marriage of Hahn’s (1907) celebrated construction of non-Archimedean ordered fields and Hausdorff’s (1907) equally celebrated construction of $eta_alpha$-sets obtained from transfinite sequences of 0s and 1s. In my opinion, Norman’s result is one of the genuinely important results of the 20th-century theory of ordered algebraic systems.



On January 3, 1983 and December 20, 1982, Norman and I respectively submitted papers for publication in which we show that an isomorphic copy of Conway’s ordered field $mathbf{No}$ could be obtained using Norman’s just-mentioned construction or simple variations thereof. Norman did this via the union of a chain $K_{alpha + 1}$, $alpha in mathbf{On}$, of real-closed fields that are $eta_{alpha + 1}$-sets (constructed with minor modifications as in his (1962)) and I did it more simply using Hahn’s construction in conjunction with Custa-Dutarti’s construction of successively filling in cuts (Algebra Ordinal, Rev. Acad. Ci Madrid 48 (1954), pp. 103-145), a construction Harzheim had shown leads to various $eta_alpha$-sets at various levels of recursion (Beiträge zur Theorie der Ordnungstypen, lnsbesondere der $eta_alpha$-Mengen, Math. Ann. 154 (1964), pp. 116-134). In our respective papers, we also introduced analogous constructions for families of isomorphic copies of distinguished subfields of ${bf{No}}$ that are real-closed fields that are $eta_alpha$-sets. Norman’s paper appeared as Conway’s Field of Surreal Numbers, Trans. Am. Math Soc. 287, (1985), pp. 365-386, and a portion of my paper, which was initially submitted to Fund. Math., eventually appeared six years later as An Alternative Construction of Conway's Ordered Field ${bf{No}}$, Algebra Universalis, 25 (1988), pp. 7-16. Another portion of that work appeared in my Absolutely Saturated Models, Fund. Math., 133 (1989), pp. 39-46. While I was waiting to hear back from the journal, I sent my paper to Norman, who I did not know at the time and who informed me that his paper (which I was unaware of) had been accepted for publication. Nevertheless, he believed my paper, which differed from his in various ways (including an emphasis on model theoretic connections, and the inclusion of the Custa-Dutarti cut construction which he was not familiar with), should be published, and he proposed we carry out joint work, which led to (i)-(iii) above. (i) is a treatment of the construction of the surreals based on the Custa-Dutarti cut construction, (ii) provides an axiomatiization of the surreals including its birthday structure, and (iii) is two subsections of Norman's book containing expansions of the just-said works.



As my characterization of (iii) suggests, Alec is mistaken when he asserts that in his (1987) Alling constructs the surreals as a field of formal power series (using techniques from his (1962)). What is true is that long after Norman and I introduce the surreals in that work using the Cuesta Dutari cut construction (pp. 121-127), with sums and products defined à la Conway, Norman points out (see pp. 246-247) that ${bf{No}}$ so constructed is isomorphic to a distinguished field of formal power series. It is worth noting that while Conway was not familiar with the historical background that Norman and I drew attention to in our papers from the 1980s, Conway was aware of the relation between ${bf{No}}$ and distinguished fields of formal power series (as is evident from Theorem 21 and the subsequent remarks from in his monograph On Numbers and Games). A simple proof of that relationship making use of ${bf{No}}$’s simplicity hierarchy is the proof of Theorem 16, p. 1249 of the present author’s Number Systems with Simplicity Hierarchies: A Generalization of Conway’s Theory of Surreal Numbers, J. of Sym. Log. 66 (2001), pp. 1231-1258.






share|cite|improve this answer











$endgroup$













  • $begingroup$
    Thank you for (again) catching one of my careless errors Philip, and thank you very much for the excellent references and history. I'll edit the question to fix the mistake.
    $endgroup$
    – Alec Rhea
    Feb 9 at 17:28










  • $begingroup$
    Happy to be of help, Alec.
    $endgroup$
    – Philip Ehrlich
    Feb 9 at 17:32












Your Answer





StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
});
});
}, "mathjax-editing");

StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "504"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});

function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: true,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: 10,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});


}
});














draft saved

draft discarded


















StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmathoverflow.net%2fquestions%2f322551%2fwho-discovered-the-surreals%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);

Post as a guest















Required, but never shown

























3 Answers
3






active

oldest

votes








3 Answers
3






active

oldest

votes









active

oldest

votes






active

oldest

votes









43












$begingroup$

Norman Alling's Conway's field of surreal numbers (1985) gives full credit to Conway:




Conway introduced the Field No of numbers, which Knuth has called
the surreal numbers. No is a proper class and a real-closed field,
with a very high level of density, which can be described by extending
Hausdorff's $eta_xi$ condition. In this paper the author applies a
century of research on ordered sets, groups, and fields to the study
of No.




References to Alling's own 1962 paper appear only in passing, on page 373 and 377–378. The 1987 book referred to in the OP follows up on this 1985 exposition, which makes it clear that Alling in no way claims independence from Conway.






share|cite|improve this answer











$endgroup$









  • 3




    $begingroup$
    Much appreciated, it's good to know this part of my life wasn't a lie :^).
    $endgroup$
    – Alec Rhea
    Feb 6 at 7:27






  • 9




    $begingroup$
    I've edited the WP article to reflect this answer.
    $endgroup$
    – Ben Crowell
    Feb 6 at 15:00










  • $begingroup$
    @BenCrowell Thank you, I was going to this morning but you’ve beaten me to it! I think comments reflecting Andreas’s answer are also in order, I’ll add them to your edits.
    $endgroup$
    – Alec Rhea
    Feb 6 at 17:41
















43












$begingroup$

Norman Alling's Conway's field of surreal numbers (1985) gives full credit to Conway:




Conway introduced the Field No of numbers, which Knuth has called
the surreal numbers. No is a proper class and a real-closed field,
with a very high level of density, which can be described by extending
Hausdorff's $eta_xi$ condition. In this paper the author applies a
century of research on ordered sets, groups, and fields to the study
of No.




References to Alling's own 1962 paper appear only in passing, on page 373 and 377–378. The 1987 book referred to in the OP follows up on this 1985 exposition, which makes it clear that Alling in no way claims independence from Conway.






share|cite|improve this answer











$endgroup$









  • 3




    $begingroup$
    Much appreciated, it's good to know this part of my life wasn't a lie :^).
    $endgroup$
    – Alec Rhea
    Feb 6 at 7:27






  • 9




    $begingroup$
    I've edited the WP article to reflect this answer.
    $endgroup$
    – Ben Crowell
    Feb 6 at 15:00










  • $begingroup$
    @BenCrowell Thank you, I was going to this morning but you’ve beaten me to it! I think comments reflecting Andreas’s answer are also in order, I’ll add them to your edits.
    $endgroup$
    – Alec Rhea
    Feb 6 at 17:41














43












43








43





$begingroup$

Norman Alling's Conway's field of surreal numbers (1985) gives full credit to Conway:




Conway introduced the Field No of numbers, which Knuth has called
the surreal numbers. No is a proper class and a real-closed field,
with a very high level of density, which can be described by extending
Hausdorff's $eta_xi$ condition. In this paper the author applies a
century of research on ordered sets, groups, and fields to the study
of No.




References to Alling's own 1962 paper appear only in passing, on page 373 and 377–378. The 1987 book referred to in the OP follows up on this 1985 exposition, which makes it clear that Alling in no way claims independence from Conway.






share|cite|improve this answer











$endgroup$



Norman Alling's Conway's field of surreal numbers (1985) gives full credit to Conway:




Conway introduced the Field No of numbers, which Knuth has called
the surreal numbers. No is a proper class and a real-closed field,
with a very high level of density, which can be described by extending
Hausdorff's $eta_xi$ condition. In this paper the author applies a
century of research on ordered sets, groups, and fields to the study
of No.




References to Alling's own 1962 paper appear only in passing, on page 373 and 377–378. The 1987 book referred to in the OP follows up on this 1985 exposition, which makes it clear that Alling in no way claims independence from Conway.







share|cite|improve this answer














share|cite|improve this answer



share|cite|improve this answer








edited Feb 7 at 7:22

























answered Feb 6 at 7:26









Carlo BeenakkerCarlo Beenakker

79.3k9187291




79.3k9187291








  • 3




    $begingroup$
    Much appreciated, it's good to know this part of my life wasn't a lie :^).
    $endgroup$
    – Alec Rhea
    Feb 6 at 7:27






  • 9




    $begingroup$
    I've edited the WP article to reflect this answer.
    $endgroup$
    – Ben Crowell
    Feb 6 at 15:00










  • $begingroup$
    @BenCrowell Thank you, I was going to this morning but you’ve beaten me to it! I think comments reflecting Andreas’s answer are also in order, I’ll add them to your edits.
    $endgroup$
    – Alec Rhea
    Feb 6 at 17:41














  • 3




    $begingroup$
    Much appreciated, it's good to know this part of my life wasn't a lie :^).
    $endgroup$
    – Alec Rhea
    Feb 6 at 7:27






  • 9




    $begingroup$
    I've edited the WP article to reflect this answer.
    $endgroup$
    – Ben Crowell
    Feb 6 at 15:00










  • $begingroup$
    @BenCrowell Thank you, I was going to this morning but you’ve beaten me to it! I think comments reflecting Andreas’s answer are also in order, I’ll add them to your edits.
    $endgroup$
    – Alec Rhea
    Feb 6 at 17:41








3




3




$begingroup$
Much appreciated, it's good to know this part of my life wasn't a lie :^).
$endgroup$
– Alec Rhea
Feb 6 at 7:27




$begingroup$
Much appreciated, it's good to know this part of my life wasn't a lie :^).
$endgroup$
– Alec Rhea
Feb 6 at 7:27




9




9




$begingroup$
I've edited the WP article to reflect this answer.
$endgroup$
– Ben Crowell
Feb 6 at 15:00




$begingroup$
I've edited the WP article to reflect this answer.
$endgroup$
– Ben Crowell
Feb 6 at 15:00












$begingroup$
@BenCrowell Thank you, I was going to this morning but you’ve beaten me to it! I think comments reflecting Andreas’s answer are also in order, I’ll add them to your edits.
$endgroup$
– Alec Rhea
Feb 6 at 17:41




$begingroup$
@BenCrowell Thank you, I was going to this morning but you’ve beaten me to it! I think comments reflecting Andreas’s answer are also in order, I’ll add them to your edits.
$endgroup$
– Alec Rhea
Feb 6 at 17:41











24












$begingroup$

If one thinks of the surreal numbers as just a proper-class sized saturated real-closed field, then I think Alling deserves much of the credit for the discovery or invention. He didn't deal with the proper-class sized case, but his hypotheses do cover the case of strongly inaccessible cardinals. A strongly inaccessible cardinal can be viewed as class-sized simply by cutting off the (cumulative hierarchy view of the) universe of sets one level after that cardinal. So I'm inclined to view the passage to proper-class size as no big deal.



But the field of surreal numbers has an important additional structure, namely what Conway calls "birthdays". In other words, this field has a very natural construction in terms of transfinitely iterated filling of Dedekind cuts. As far as I know, this construction and the fact that it produces a saturated real-closed field are entirely due to Conway.






share|cite|improve this answer









$endgroup$









  • 4




    $begingroup$
    I've always been perplexed by the insistence with which some people want to consider surreals in the class-sized variant. I mean, "class-sized" just means "the smallest cardinal my model of set theory can't handle" — well, if it can't handle it, pick a larger size! And no interesting property of the surreals depends on class-size-ness and can't be stated for a cardinal $kappa$ of large enough cofinality. So whence the class craze?
    $endgroup$
    – Gro-Tsen
    Feb 6 at 18:22






  • 3




    $begingroup$
    But anyway, to answer your question as to why I claim that any property of some class-sized object can be attained at some large enough ordinal, this is essentially the content of various reflection principles. Take your favorite property of the surreals, then by a reflection principle there are club-many $alpha$ such that the same is true in $V_alpha$, and the surreals in $V_alpha$ are essentially the surreals of that length.
    $endgroup$
    – Gro-Tsen
    Feb 6 at 21:40






  • 2




    $begingroup$
    Just to emphasize, much of what is interesting about the surreals comes from the extra structure beyond the Field structure (what I like to call the "L|R structure"). For example there is no way to distinguish ω from ω.2 using just the Field structure. Back in 1999, Steve Simpson made a rather big fuss on the Foundations of Mathematics mailing list about the surreals being "not new," but after some back-and-forth discussion, he clarified that he meant that the structure of the surreals qua ordered Field was already known, not that the L|R structure had been previously described.
    $endgroup$
    – Timothy Chow
    Feb 7 at 0:55






  • 3




    $begingroup$
    @AlecRhea : The dot represents ordinal multiplication. I guess maybe I phrased my comment unclearly. Conway's construction naturally gives rise to the ordinals, as as ordinals, ω and ω.2 are certainly distinguishable. However, if you throw away all the structure except the Field structure, then you can no longer reconstruct which element was ω and which element was ω.2
    $endgroup$
    – Timothy Chow
    Feb 7 at 3:19






  • 6




    $begingroup$
    @AlecRhea There is a field automorphism of the sureals that takes $omegacdot2$ to $omega$ (and $omega$ to $frac12omega$). You can tell apart $omega$ from $omegacdot2$ (in the sense that they are distinct elements, and $omega<omegacdot2$), but there is no way you can just look at the field structure, and point towards $omega$. All infinitely large elements have the same field-theoretic properties.
    $endgroup$
    – Emil Jeřábek
    Feb 7 at 8:03


















24












$begingroup$

If one thinks of the surreal numbers as just a proper-class sized saturated real-closed field, then I think Alling deserves much of the credit for the discovery or invention. He didn't deal with the proper-class sized case, but his hypotheses do cover the case of strongly inaccessible cardinals. A strongly inaccessible cardinal can be viewed as class-sized simply by cutting off the (cumulative hierarchy view of the) universe of sets one level after that cardinal. So I'm inclined to view the passage to proper-class size as no big deal.



But the field of surreal numbers has an important additional structure, namely what Conway calls "birthdays". In other words, this field has a very natural construction in terms of transfinitely iterated filling of Dedekind cuts. As far as I know, this construction and the fact that it produces a saturated real-closed field are entirely due to Conway.






share|cite|improve this answer









$endgroup$









  • 4




    $begingroup$
    I've always been perplexed by the insistence with which some people want to consider surreals in the class-sized variant. I mean, "class-sized" just means "the smallest cardinal my model of set theory can't handle" — well, if it can't handle it, pick a larger size! And no interesting property of the surreals depends on class-size-ness and can't be stated for a cardinal $kappa$ of large enough cofinality. So whence the class craze?
    $endgroup$
    – Gro-Tsen
    Feb 6 at 18:22






  • 3




    $begingroup$
    But anyway, to answer your question as to why I claim that any property of some class-sized object can be attained at some large enough ordinal, this is essentially the content of various reflection principles. Take your favorite property of the surreals, then by a reflection principle there are club-many $alpha$ such that the same is true in $V_alpha$, and the surreals in $V_alpha$ are essentially the surreals of that length.
    $endgroup$
    – Gro-Tsen
    Feb 6 at 21:40






  • 2




    $begingroup$
    Just to emphasize, much of what is interesting about the surreals comes from the extra structure beyond the Field structure (what I like to call the "L|R structure"). For example there is no way to distinguish ω from ω.2 using just the Field structure. Back in 1999, Steve Simpson made a rather big fuss on the Foundations of Mathematics mailing list about the surreals being "not new," but after some back-and-forth discussion, he clarified that he meant that the structure of the surreals qua ordered Field was already known, not that the L|R structure had been previously described.
    $endgroup$
    – Timothy Chow
    Feb 7 at 0:55






  • 3




    $begingroup$
    @AlecRhea : The dot represents ordinal multiplication. I guess maybe I phrased my comment unclearly. Conway's construction naturally gives rise to the ordinals, as as ordinals, ω and ω.2 are certainly distinguishable. However, if you throw away all the structure except the Field structure, then you can no longer reconstruct which element was ω and which element was ω.2
    $endgroup$
    – Timothy Chow
    Feb 7 at 3:19






  • 6




    $begingroup$
    @AlecRhea There is a field automorphism of the sureals that takes $omegacdot2$ to $omega$ (and $omega$ to $frac12omega$). You can tell apart $omega$ from $omegacdot2$ (in the sense that they are distinct elements, and $omega<omegacdot2$), but there is no way you can just look at the field structure, and point towards $omega$. All infinitely large elements have the same field-theoretic properties.
    $endgroup$
    – Emil Jeřábek
    Feb 7 at 8:03
















24












24








24





$begingroup$

If one thinks of the surreal numbers as just a proper-class sized saturated real-closed field, then I think Alling deserves much of the credit for the discovery or invention. He didn't deal with the proper-class sized case, but his hypotheses do cover the case of strongly inaccessible cardinals. A strongly inaccessible cardinal can be viewed as class-sized simply by cutting off the (cumulative hierarchy view of the) universe of sets one level after that cardinal. So I'm inclined to view the passage to proper-class size as no big deal.



But the field of surreal numbers has an important additional structure, namely what Conway calls "birthdays". In other words, this field has a very natural construction in terms of transfinitely iterated filling of Dedekind cuts. As far as I know, this construction and the fact that it produces a saturated real-closed field are entirely due to Conway.






share|cite|improve this answer









$endgroup$



If one thinks of the surreal numbers as just a proper-class sized saturated real-closed field, then I think Alling deserves much of the credit for the discovery or invention. He didn't deal with the proper-class sized case, but his hypotheses do cover the case of strongly inaccessible cardinals. A strongly inaccessible cardinal can be viewed as class-sized simply by cutting off the (cumulative hierarchy view of the) universe of sets one level after that cardinal. So I'm inclined to view the passage to proper-class size as no big deal.



But the field of surreal numbers has an important additional structure, namely what Conway calls "birthdays". In other words, this field has a very natural construction in terms of transfinitely iterated filling of Dedekind cuts. As far as I know, this construction and the fact that it produces a saturated real-closed field are entirely due to Conway.







share|cite|improve this answer












share|cite|improve this answer



share|cite|improve this answer










answered Feb 6 at 17:13









Andreas BlassAndreas Blass

58.4k7139225




58.4k7139225








  • 4




    $begingroup$
    I've always been perplexed by the insistence with which some people want to consider surreals in the class-sized variant. I mean, "class-sized" just means "the smallest cardinal my model of set theory can't handle" — well, if it can't handle it, pick a larger size! And no interesting property of the surreals depends on class-size-ness and can't be stated for a cardinal $kappa$ of large enough cofinality. So whence the class craze?
    $endgroup$
    – Gro-Tsen
    Feb 6 at 18:22






  • 3




    $begingroup$
    But anyway, to answer your question as to why I claim that any property of some class-sized object can be attained at some large enough ordinal, this is essentially the content of various reflection principles. Take your favorite property of the surreals, then by a reflection principle there are club-many $alpha$ such that the same is true in $V_alpha$, and the surreals in $V_alpha$ are essentially the surreals of that length.
    $endgroup$
    – Gro-Tsen
    Feb 6 at 21:40






  • 2




    $begingroup$
    Just to emphasize, much of what is interesting about the surreals comes from the extra structure beyond the Field structure (what I like to call the "L|R structure"). For example there is no way to distinguish ω from ω.2 using just the Field structure. Back in 1999, Steve Simpson made a rather big fuss on the Foundations of Mathematics mailing list about the surreals being "not new," but after some back-and-forth discussion, he clarified that he meant that the structure of the surreals qua ordered Field was already known, not that the L|R structure had been previously described.
    $endgroup$
    – Timothy Chow
    Feb 7 at 0:55






  • 3




    $begingroup$
    @AlecRhea : The dot represents ordinal multiplication. I guess maybe I phrased my comment unclearly. Conway's construction naturally gives rise to the ordinals, as as ordinals, ω and ω.2 are certainly distinguishable. However, if you throw away all the structure except the Field structure, then you can no longer reconstruct which element was ω and which element was ω.2
    $endgroup$
    – Timothy Chow
    Feb 7 at 3:19






  • 6




    $begingroup$
    @AlecRhea There is a field automorphism of the sureals that takes $omegacdot2$ to $omega$ (and $omega$ to $frac12omega$). You can tell apart $omega$ from $omegacdot2$ (in the sense that they are distinct elements, and $omega<omegacdot2$), but there is no way you can just look at the field structure, and point towards $omega$. All infinitely large elements have the same field-theoretic properties.
    $endgroup$
    – Emil Jeřábek
    Feb 7 at 8:03
















  • 4




    $begingroup$
    I've always been perplexed by the insistence with which some people want to consider surreals in the class-sized variant. I mean, "class-sized" just means "the smallest cardinal my model of set theory can't handle" — well, if it can't handle it, pick a larger size! And no interesting property of the surreals depends on class-size-ness and can't be stated for a cardinal $kappa$ of large enough cofinality. So whence the class craze?
    $endgroup$
    – Gro-Tsen
    Feb 6 at 18:22






  • 3




    $begingroup$
    But anyway, to answer your question as to why I claim that any property of some class-sized object can be attained at some large enough ordinal, this is essentially the content of various reflection principles. Take your favorite property of the surreals, then by a reflection principle there are club-many $alpha$ such that the same is true in $V_alpha$, and the surreals in $V_alpha$ are essentially the surreals of that length.
    $endgroup$
    – Gro-Tsen
    Feb 6 at 21:40






  • 2




    $begingroup$
    Just to emphasize, much of what is interesting about the surreals comes from the extra structure beyond the Field structure (what I like to call the "L|R structure"). For example there is no way to distinguish ω from ω.2 using just the Field structure. Back in 1999, Steve Simpson made a rather big fuss on the Foundations of Mathematics mailing list about the surreals being "not new," but after some back-and-forth discussion, he clarified that he meant that the structure of the surreals qua ordered Field was already known, not that the L|R structure had been previously described.
    $endgroup$
    – Timothy Chow
    Feb 7 at 0:55






  • 3




    $begingroup$
    @AlecRhea : The dot represents ordinal multiplication. I guess maybe I phrased my comment unclearly. Conway's construction naturally gives rise to the ordinals, as as ordinals, ω and ω.2 are certainly distinguishable. However, if you throw away all the structure except the Field structure, then you can no longer reconstruct which element was ω and which element was ω.2
    $endgroup$
    – Timothy Chow
    Feb 7 at 3:19






  • 6




    $begingroup$
    @AlecRhea There is a field automorphism of the sureals that takes $omegacdot2$ to $omega$ (and $omega$ to $frac12omega$). You can tell apart $omega$ from $omegacdot2$ (in the sense that they are distinct elements, and $omega<omegacdot2$), but there is no way you can just look at the field structure, and point towards $omega$. All infinitely large elements have the same field-theoretic properties.
    $endgroup$
    – Emil Jeřábek
    Feb 7 at 8:03










4




4




$begingroup$
I've always been perplexed by the insistence with which some people want to consider surreals in the class-sized variant. I mean, "class-sized" just means "the smallest cardinal my model of set theory can't handle" — well, if it can't handle it, pick a larger size! And no interesting property of the surreals depends on class-size-ness and can't be stated for a cardinal $kappa$ of large enough cofinality. So whence the class craze?
$endgroup$
– Gro-Tsen
Feb 6 at 18:22




$begingroup$
I've always been perplexed by the insistence with which some people want to consider surreals in the class-sized variant. I mean, "class-sized" just means "the smallest cardinal my model of set theory can't handle" — well, if it can't handle it, pick a larger size! And no interesting property of the surreals depends on class-size-ness and can't be stated for a cardinal $kappa$ of large enough cofinality. So whence the class craze?
$endgroup$
– Gro-Tsen
Feb 6 at 18:22




3




3




$begingroup$
But anyway, to answer your question as to why I claim that any property of some class-sized object can be attained at some large enough ordinal, this is essentially the content of various reflection principles. Take your favorite property of the surreals, then by a reflection principle there are club-many $alpha$ such that the same is true in $V_alpha$, and the surreals in $V_alpha$ are essentially the surreals of that length.
$endgroup$
– Gro-Tsen
Feb 6 at 21:40




$begingroup$
But anyway, to answer your question as to why I claim that any property of some class-sized object can be attained at some large enough ordinal, this is essentially the content of various reflection principles. Take your favorite property of the surreals, then by a reflection principle there are club-many $alpha$ such that the same is true in $V_alpha$, and the surreals in $V_alpha$ are essentially the surreals of that length.
$endgroup$
– Gro-Tsen
Feb 6 at 21:40




2




2




$begingroup$
Just to emphasize, much of what is interesting about the surreals comes from the extra structure beyond the Field structure (what I like to call the "L|R structure"). For example there is no way to distinguish ω from ω.2 using just the Field structure. Back in 1999, Steve Simpson made a rather big fuss on the Foundations of Mathematics mailing list about the surreals being "not new," but after some back-and-forth discussion, he clarified that he meant that the structure of the surreals qua ordered Field was already known, not that the L|R structure had been previously described.
$endgroup$
– Timothy Chow
Feb 7 at 0:55




$begingroup$
Just to emphasize, much of what is interesting about the surreals comes from the extra structure beyond the Field structure (what I like to call the "L|R structure"). For example there is no way to distinguish ω from ω.2 using just the Field structure. Back in 1999, Steve Simpson made a rather big fuss on the Foundations of Mathematics mailing list about the surreals being "not new," but after some back-and-forth discussion, he clarified that he meant that the structure of the surreals qua ordered Field was already known, not that the L|R structure had been previously described.
$endgroup$
– Timothy Chow
Feb 7 at 0:55




3




3




$begingroup$
@AlecRhea : The dot represents ordinal multiplication. I guess maybe I phrased my comment unclearly. Conway's construction naturally gives rise to the ordinals, as as ordinals, ω and ω.2 are certainly distinguishable. However, if you throw away all the structure except the Field structure, then you can no longer reconstruct which element was ω and which element was ω.2
$endgroup$
– Timothy Chow
Feb 7 at 3:19




$begingroup$
@AlecRhea : The dot represents ordinal multiplication. I guess maybe I phrased my comment unclearly. Conway's construction naturally gives rise to the ordinals, as as ordinals, ω and ω.2 are certainly distinguishable. However, if you throw away all the structure except the Field structure, then you can no longer reconstruct which element was ω and which element was ω.2
$endgroup$
– Timothy Chow
Feb 7 at 3:19




6




6




$begingroup$
@AlecRhea There is a field automorphism of the sureals that takes $omegacdot2$ to $omega$ (and $omega$ to $frac12omega$). You can tell apart $omega$ from $omegacdot2$ (in the sense that they are distinct elements, and $omega<omegacdot2$), but there is no way you can just look at the field structure, and point towards $omega$. All infinitely large elements have the same field-theoretic properties.
$endgroup$
– Emil Jeřábek
Feb 7 at 8:03






$begingroup$
@AlecRhea There is a field automorphism of the sureals that takes $omegacdot2$ to $omega$ (and $omega$ to $frac12omega$). You can tell apart $omega$ from $omegacdot2$ (in the sense that they are distinct elements, and $omega<omegacdot2$), but there is no way you can just look at the field structure, and point towards $omega$. All infinitely large elements have the same field-theoretic properties.
$endgroup$
– Emil Jeřábek
Feb 7 at 8:03













16












$begingroup$

Let me begin by adding my voice to those who have said that Conway is the sole originator of the theory of surreal numbers, the reasons given by Andreas being critical. Moreover, based on my conversations and correspondence with Norman (Alling), with whom I did the following joint work on the surreals in the 1980s, there is no question he would concur.



(i) An Alternative Construction of Conway's Surreal Numbers, C.R. Math. Rep. Acad. Sci. Canada VIII (1986), pp. 241-46.



(ii) An Abstract Characterization of a Full Class of Surreal Numbers, C.R. Math. Rep. Acad. Sci. Canada VIII (1986), pp. 303-8.



(iii) Sections 4.02 and 4.03 of Norman Alling’s Foundations of Analysis Over Surreal Number Fields, North-Holland Publishing Co., Amsterdam, 1987.



My principal reason for writing this answer is to help clarify the relation between Conway's (1976) work, Norman’s work of 1962, and some work Norman and I did independently in the early 1980s making use of Norman’s work of 1962, and to correct the mistaken characterization of the construction of the surreals contained in Norman’s book as described by Alec in his question.



In his paper of 1962, Norman proves the existence of a real-closed field that is an $eta_alpha$-set of power $aleph_alpha$, whenever $aleph_alpha$ is regular and satisfies another natural set-theoretic condition, thereby providing an affirmative answer to a question of Erdös, Gillman and Henriksen that arose from their work on rings of continuous functions. To prove the result, Norman employed a construction that is a marriage of Hahn’s (1907) celebrated construction of non-Archimedean ordered fields and Hausdorff’s (1907) equally celebrated construction of $eta_alpha$-sets obtained from transfinite sequences of 0s and 1s. In my opinion, Norman’s result is one of the genuinely important results of the 20th-century theory of ordered algebraic systems.



On January 3, 1983 and December 20, 1982, Norman and I respectively submitted papers for publication in which we show that an isomorphic copy of Conway’s ordered field $mathbf{No}$ could be obtained using Norman’s just-mentioned construction or simple variations thereof. Norman did this via the union of a chain $K_{alpha + 1}$, $alpha in mathbf{On}$, of real-closed fields that are $eta_{alpha + 1}$-sets (constructed with minor modifications as in his (1962)) and I did it more simply using Hahn’s construction in conjunction with Custa-Dutarti’s construction of successively filling in cuts (Algebra Ordinal, Rev. Acad. Ci Madrid 48 (1954), pp. 103-145), a construction Harzheim had shown leads to various $eta_alpha$-sets at various levels of recursion (Beiträge zur Theorie der Ordnungstypen, lnsbesondere der $eta_alpha$-Mengen, Math. Ann. 154 (1964), pp. 116-134). In our respective papers, we also introduced analogous constructions for families of isomorphic copies of distinguished subfields of ${bf{No}}$ that are real-closed fields that are $eta_alpha$-sets. Norman’s paper appeared as Conway’s Field of Surreal Numbers, Trans. Am. Math Soc. 287, (1985), pp. 365-386, and a portion of my paper, which was initially submitted to Fund. Math., eventually appeared six years later as An Alternative Construction of Conway's Ordered Field ${bf{No}}$, Algebra Universalis, 25 (1988), pp. 7-16. Another portion of that work appeared in my Absolutely Saturated Models, Fund. Math., 133 (1989), pp. 39-46. While I was waiting to hear back from the journal, I sent my paper to Norman, who I did not know at the time and who informed me that his paper (which I was unaware of) had been accepted for publication. Nevertheless, he believed my paper, which differed from his in various ways (including an emphasis on model theoretic connections, and the inclusion of the Custa-Dutarti cut construction which he was not familiar with), should be published, and he proposed we carry out joint work, which led to (i)-(iii) above. (i) is a treatment of the construction of the surreals based on the Custa-Dutarti cut construction, (ii) provides an axiomatiization of the surreals including its birthday structure, and (iii) is two subsections of Norman's book containing expansions of the just-said works.



As my characterization of (iii) suggests, Alec is mistaken when he asserts that in his (1987) Alling constructs the surreals as a field of formal power series (using techniques from his (1962)). What is true is that long after Norman and I introduce the surreals in that work using the Cuesta Dutari cut construction (pp. 121-127), with sums and products defined à la Conway, Norman points out (see pp. 246-247) that ${bf{No}}$ so constructed is isomorphic to a distinguished field of formal power series. It is worth noting that while Conway was not familiar with the historical background that Norman and I drew attention to in our papers from the 1980s, Conway was aware of the relation between ${bf{No}}$ and distinguished fields of formal power series (as is evident from Theorem 21 and the subsequent remarks from in his monograph On Numbers and Games). A simple proof of that relationship making use of ${bf{No}}$’s simplicity hierarchy is the proof of Theorem 16, p. 1249 of the present author’s Number Systems with Simplicity Hierarchies: A Generalization of Conway’s Theory of Surreal Numbers, J. of Sym. Log. 66 (2001), pp. 1231-1258.






share|cite|improve this answer











$endgroup$













  • $begingroup$
    Thank you for (again) catching one of my careless errors Philip, and thank you very much for the excellent references and history. I'll edit the question to fix the mistake.
    $endgroup$
    – Alec Rhea
    Feb 9 at 17:28










  • $begingroup$
    Happy to be of help, Alec.
    $endgroup$
    – Philip Ehrlich
    Feb 9 at 17:32
















16












$begingroup$

Let me begin by adding my voice to those who have said that Conway is the sole originator of the theory of surreal numbers, the reasons given by Andreas being critical. Moreover, based on my conversations and correspondence with Norman (Alling), with whom I did the following joint work on the surreals in the 1980s, there is no question he would concur.



(i) An Alternative Construction of Conway's Surreal Numbers, C.R. Math. Rep. Acad. Sci. Canada VIII (1986), pp. 241-46.



(ii) An Abstract Characterization of a Full Class of Surreal Numbers, C.R. Math. Rep. Acad. Sci. Canada VIII (1986), pp. 303-8.



(iii) Sections 4.02 and 4.03 of Norman Alling’s Foundations of Analysis Over Surreal Number Fields, North-Holland Publishing Co., Amsterdam, 1987.



My principal reason for writing this answer is to help clarify the relation between Conway's (1976) work, Norman’s work of 1962, and some work Norman and I did independently in the early 1980s making use of Norman’s work of 1962, and to correct the mistaken characterization of the construction of the surreals contained in Norman’s book as described by Alec in his question.



In his paper of 1962, Norman proves the existence of a real-closed field that is an $eta_alpha$-set of power $aleph_alpha$, whenever $aleph_alpha$ is regular and satisfies another natural set-theoretic condition, thereby providing an affirmative answer to a question of Erdös, Gillman and Henriksen that arose from their work on rings of continuous functions. To prove the result, Norman employed a construction that is a marriage of Hahn’s (1907) celebrated construction of non-Archimedean ordered fields and Hausdorff’s (1907) equally celebrated construction of $eta_alpha$-sets obtained from transfinite sequences of 0s and 1s. In my opinion, Norman’s result is one of the genuinely important results of the 20th-century theory of ordered algebraic systems.



On January 3, 1983 and December 20, 1982, Norman and I respectively submitted papers for publication in which we show that an isomorphic copy of Conway’s ordered field $mathbf{No}$ could be obtained using Norman’s just-mentioned construction or simple variations thereof. Norman did this via the union of a chain $K_{alpha + 1}$, $alpha in mathbf{On}$, of real-closed fields that are $eta_{alpha + 1}$-sets (constructed with minor modifications as in his (1962)) and I did it more simply using Hahn’s construction in conjunction with Custa-Dutarti’s construction of successively filling in cuts (Algebra Ordinal, Rev. Acad. Ci Madrid 48 (1954), pp. 103-145), a construction Harzheim had shown leads to various $eta_alpha$-sets at various levels of recursion (Beiträge zur Theorie der Ordnungstypen, lnsbesondere der $eta_alpha$-Mengen, Math. Ann. 154 (1964), pp. 116-134). In our respective papers, we also introduced analogous constructions for families of isomorphic copies of distinguished subfields of ${bf{No}}$ that are real-closed fields that are $eta_alpha$-sets. Norman’s paper appeared as Conway’s Field of Surreal Numbers, Trans. Am. Math Soc. 287, (1985), pp. 365-386, and a portion of my paper, which was initially submitted to Fund. Math., eventually appeared six years later as An Alternative Construction of Conway's Ordered Field ${bf{No}}$, Algebra Universalis, 25 (1988), pp. 7-16. Another portion of that work appeared in my Absolutely Saturated Models, Fund. Math., 133 (1989), pp. 39-46. While I was waiting to hear back from the journal, I sent my paper to Norman, who I did not know at the time and who informed me that his paper (which I was unaware of) had been accepted for publication. Nevertheless, he believed my paper, which differed from his in various ways (including an emphasis on model theoretic connections, and the inclusion of the Custa-Dutarti cut construction which he was not familiar with), should be published, and he proposed we carry out joint work, which led to (i)-(iii) above. (i) is a treatment of the construction of the surreals based on the Custa-Dutarti cut construction, (ii) provides an axiomatiization of the surreals including its birthday structure, and (iii) is two subsections of Norman's book containing expansions of the just-said works.



As my characterization of (iii) suggests, Alec is mistaken when he asserts that in his (1987) Alling constructs the surreals as a field of formal power series (using techniques from his (1962)). What is true is that long after Norman and I introduce the surreals in that work using the Cuesta Dutari cut construction (pp. 121-127), with sums and products defined à la Conway, Norman points out (see pp. 246-247) that ${bf{No}}$ so constructed is isomorphic to a distinguished field of formal power series. It is worth noting that while Conway was not familiar with the historical background that Norman and I drew attention to in our papers from the 1980s, Conway was aware of the relation between ${bf{No}}$ and distinguished fields of formal power series (as is evident from Theorem 21 and the subsequent remarks from in his monograph On Numbers and Games). A simple proof of that relationship making use of ${bf{No}}$’s simplicity hierarchy is the proof of Theorem 16, p. 1249 of the present author’s Number Systems with Simplicity Hierarchies: A Generalization of Conway’s Theory of Surreal Numbers, J. of Sym. Log. 66 (2001), pp. 1231-1258.






share|cite|improve this answer











$endgroup$













  • $begingroup$
    Thank you for (again) catching one of my careless errors Philip, and thank you very much for the excellent references and history. I'll edit the question to fix the mistake.
    $endgroup$
    – Alec Rhea
    Feb 9 at 17:28










  • $begingroup$
    Happy to be of help, Alec.
    $endgroup$
    – Philip Ehrlich
    Feb 9 at 17:32














16












16








16





$begingroup$

Let me begin by adding my voice to those who have said that Conway is the sole originator of the theory of surreal numbers, the reasons given by Andreas being critical. Moreover, based on my conversations and correspondence with Norman (Alling), with whom I did the following joint work on the surreals in the 1980s, there is no question he would concur.



(i) An Alternative Construction of Conway's Surreal Numbers, C.R. Math. Rep. Acad. Sci. Canada VIII (1986), pp. 241-46.



(ii) An Abstract Characterization of a Full Class of Surreal Numbers, C.R. Math. Rep. Acad. Sci. Canada VIII (1986), pp. 303-8.



(iii) Sections 4.02 and 4.03 of Norman Alling’s Foundations of Analysis Over Surreal Number Fields, North-Holland Publishing Co., Amsterdam, 1987.



My principal reason for writing this answer is to help clarify the relation between Conway's (1976) work, Norman’s work of 1962, and some work Norman and I did independently in the early 1980s making use of Norman’s work of 1962, and to correct the mistaken characterization of the construction of the surreals contained in Norman’s book as described by Alec in his question.



In his paper of 1962, Norman proves the existence of a real-closed field that is an $eta_alpha$-set of power $aleph_alpha$, whenever $aleph_alpha$ is regular and satisfies another natural set-theoretic condition, thereby providing an affirmative answer to a question of Erdös, Gillman and Henriksen that arose from their work on rings of continuous functions. To prove the result, Norman employed a construction that is a marriage of Hahn’s (1907) celebrated construction of non-Archimedean ordered fields and Hausdorff’s (1907) equally celebrated construction of $eta_alpha$-sets obtained from transfinite sequences of 0s and 1s. In my opinion, Norman’s result is one of the genuinely important results of the 20th-century theory of ordered algebraic systems.



On January 3, 1983 and December 20, 1982, Norman and I respectively submitted papers for publication in which we show that an isomorphic copy of Conway’s ordered field $mathbf{No}$ could be obtained using Norman’s just-mentioned construction or simple variations thereof. Norman did this via the union of a chain $K_{alpha + 1}$, $alpha in mathbf{On}$, of real-closed fields that are $eta_{alpha + 1}$-sets (constructed with minor modifications as in his (1962)) and I did it more simply using Hahn’s construction in conjunction with Custa-Dutarti’s construction of successively filling in cuts (Algebra Ordinal, Rev. Acad. Ci Madrid 48 (1954), pp. 103-145), a construction Harzheim had shown leads to various $eta_alpha$-sets at various levels of recursion (Beiträge zur Theorie der Ordnungstypen, lnsbesondere der $eta_alpha$-Mengen, Math. Ann. 154 (1964), pp. 116-134). In our respective papers, we also introduced analogous constructions for families of isomorphic copies of distinguished subfields of ${bf{No}}$ that are real-closed fields that are $eta_alpha$-sets. Norman’s paper appeared as Conway’s Field of Surreal Numbers, Trans. Am. Math Soc. 287, (1985), pp. 365-386, and a portion of my paper, which was initially submitted to Fund. Math., eventually appeared six years later as An Alternative Construction of Conway's Ordered Field ${bf{No}}$, Algebra Universalis, 25 (1988), pp. 7-16. Another portion of that work appeared in my Absolutely Saturated Models, Fund. Math., 133 (1989), pp. 39-46. While I was waiting to hear back from the journal, I sent my paper to Norman, who I did not know at the time and who informed me that his paper (which I was unaware of) had been accepted for publication. Nevertheless, he believed my paper, which differed from his in various ways (including an emphasis on model theoretic connections, and the inclusion of the Custa-Dutarti cut construction which he was not familiar with), should be published, and he proposed we carry out joint work, which led to (i)-(iii) above. (i) is a treatment of the construction of the surreals based on the Custa-Dutarti cut construction, (ii) provides an axiomatiization of the surreals including its birthday structure, and (iii) is two subsections of Norman's book containing expansions of the just-said works.



As my characterization of (iii) suggests, Alec is mistaken when he asserts that in his (1987) Alling constructs the surreals as a field of formal power series (using techniques from his (1962)). What is true is that long after Norman and I introduce the surreals in that work using the Cuesta Dutari cut construction (pp. 121-127), with sums and products defined à la Conway, Norman points out (see pp. 246-247) that ${bf{No}}$ so constructed is isomorphic to a distinguished field of formal power series. It is worth noting that while Conway was not familiar with the historical background that Norman and I drew attention to in our papers from the 1980s, Conway was aware of the relation between ${bf{No}}$ and distinguished fields of formal power series (as is evident from Theorem 21 and the subsequent remarks from in his monograph On Numbers and Games). A simple proof of that relationship making use of ${bf{No}}$’s simplicity hierarchy is the proof of Theorem 16, p. 1249 of the present author’s Number Systems with Simplicity Hierarchies: A Generalization of Conway’s Theory of Surreal Numbers, J. of Sym. Log. 66 (2001), pp. 1231-1258.






share|cite|improve this answer











$endgroup$



Let me begin by adding my voice to those who have said that Conway is the sole originator of the theory of surreal numbers, the reasons given by Andreas being critical. Moreover, based on my conversations and correspondence with Norman (Alling), with whom I did the following joint work on the surreals in the 1980s, there is no question he would concur.



(i) An Alternative Construction of Conway's Surreal Numbers, C.R. Math. Rep. Acad. Sci. Canada VIII (1986), pp. 241-46.



(ii) An Abstract Characterization of a Full Class of Surreal Numbers, C.R. Math. Rep. Acad. Sci. Canada VIII (1986), pp. 303-8.



(iii) Sections 4.02 and 4.03 of Norman Alling’s Foundations of Analysis Over Surreal Number Fields, North-Holland Publishing Co., Amsterdam, 1987.



My principal reason for writing this answer is to help clarify the relation between Conway's (1976) work, Norman’s work of 1962, and some work Norman and I did independently in the early 1980s making use of Norman’s work of 1962, and to correct the mistaken characterization of the construction of the surreals contained in Norman’s book as described by Alec in his question.



In his paper of 1962, Norman proves the existence of a real-closed field that is an $eta_alpha$-set of power $aleph_alpha$, whenever $aleph_alpha$ is regular and satisfies another natural set-theoretic condition, thereby providing an affirmative answer to a question of Erdös, Gillman and Henriksen that arose from their work on rings of continuous functions. To prove the result, Norman employed a construction that is a marriage of Hahn’s (1907) celebrated construction of non-Archimedean ordered fields and Hausdorff’s (1907) equally celebrated construction of $eta_alpha$-sets obtained from transfinite sequences of 0s and 1s. In my opinion, Norman’s result is one of the genuinely important results of the 20th-century theory of ordered algebraic systems.



On January 3, 1983 and December 20, 1982, Norman and I respectively submitted papers for publication in which we show that an isomorphic copy of Conway’s ordered field $mathbf{No}$ could be obtained using Norman’s just-mentioned construction or simple variations thereof. Norman did this via the union of a chain $K_{alpha + 1}$, $alpha in mathbf{On}$, of real-closed fields that are $eta_{alpha + 1}$-sets (constructed with minor modifications as in his (1962)) and I did it more simply using Hahn’s construction in conjunction with Custa-Dutarti’s construction of successively filling in cuts (Algebra Ordinal, Rev. Acad. Ci Madrid 48 (1954), pp. 103-145), a construction Harzheim had shown leads to various $eta_alpha$-sets at various levels of recursion (Beiträge zur Theorie der Ordnungstypen, lnsbesondere der $eta_alpha$-Mengen, Math. Ann. 154 (1964), pp. 116-134). In our respective papers, we also introduced analogous constructions for families of isomorphic copies of distinguished subfields of ${bf{No}}$ that are real-closed fields that are $eta_alpha$-sets. Norman’s paper appeared as Conway’s Field of Surreal Numbers, Trans. Am. Math Soc. 287, (1985), pp. 365-386, and a portion of my paper, which was initially submitted to Fund. Math., eventually appeared six years later as An Alternative Construction of Conway's Ordered Field ${bf{No}}$, Algebra Universalis, 25 (1988), pp. 7-16. Another portion of that work appeared in my Absolutely Saturated Models, Fund. Math., 133 (1989), pp. 39-46. While I was waiting to hear back from the journal, I sent my paper to Norman, who I did not know at the time and who informed me that his paper (which I was unaware of) had been accepted for publication. Nevertheless, he believed my paper, which differed from his in various ways (including an emphasis on model theoretic connections, and the inclusion of the Custa-Dutarti cut construction which he was not familiar with), should be published, and he proposed we carry out joint work, which led to (i)-(iii) above. (i) is a treatment of the construction of the surreals based on the Custa-Dutarti cut construction, (ii) provides an axiomatiization of the surreals including its birthday structure, and (iii) is two subsections of Norman's book containing expansions of the just-said works.



As my characterization of (iii) suggests, Alec is mistaken when he asserts that in his (1987) Alling constructs the surreals as a field of formal power series (using techniques from his (1962)). What is true is that long after Norman and I introduce the surreals in that work using the Cuesta Dutari cut construction (pp. 121-127), with sums and products defined à la Conway, Norman points out (see pp. 246-247) that ${bf{No}}$ so constructed is isomorphic to a distinguished field of formal power series. It is worth noting that while Conway was not familiar with the historical background that Norman and I drew attention to in our papers from the 1980s, Conway was aware of the relation between ${bf{No}}$ and distinguished fields of formal power series (as is evident from Theorem 21 and the subsequent remarks from in his monograph On Numbers and Games). A simple proof of that relationship making use of ${bf{No}}$’s simplicity hierarchy is the proof of Theorem 16, p. 1249 of the present author’s Number Systems with Simplicity Hierarchies: A Generalization of Conway’s Theory of Surreal Numbers, J. of Sym. Log. 66 (2001), pp. 1231-1258.







share|cite|improve this answer














share|cite|improve this answer



share|cite|improve this answer








edited Feb 9 at 18:26

























answered Feb 9 at 14:06









Philip EhrlichPhilip Ehrlich

3,01412121




3,01412121












  • $begingroup$
    Thank you for (again) catching one of my careless errors Philip, and thank you very much for the excellent references and history. I'll edit the question to fix the mistake.
    $endgroup$
    – Alec Rhea
    Feb 9 at 17:28










  • $begingroup$
    Happy to be of help, Alec.
    $endgroup$
    – Philip Ehrlich
    Feb 9 at 17:32


















  • $begingroup$
    Thank you for (again) catching one of my careless errors Philip, and thank you very much for the excellent references and history. I'll edit the question to fix the mistake.
    $endgroup$
    – Alec Rhea
    Feb 9 at 17:28










  • $begingroup$
    Happy to be of help, Alec.
    $endgroup$
    – Philip Ehrlich
    Feb 9 at 17:32
















$begingroup$
Thank you for (again) catching one of my careless errors Philip, and thank you very much for the excellent references and history. I'll edit the question to fix the mistake.
$endgroup$
– Alec Rhea
Feb 9 at 17:28




$begingroup$
Thank you for (again) catching one of my careless errors Philip, and thank you very much for the excellent references and history. I'll edit the question to fix the mistake.
$endgroup$
– Alec Rhea
Feb 9 at 17:28












$begingroup$
Happy to be of help, Alec.
$endgroup$
– Philip Ehrlich
Feb 9 at 17:32




$begingroup$
Happy to be of help, Alec.
$endgroup$
– Philip Ehrlich
Feb 9 at 17:32


















draft saved

draft discarded




















































Thanks for contributing an answer to MathOverflow!


  • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

But avoid …



  • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

  • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.


To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




draft saved


draft discarded














StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmathoverflow.net%2fquestions%2f322551%2fwho-discovered-the-surreals%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);

Post as a guest















Required, but never shown





















































Required, but never shown














Required, but never shown












Required, but never shown







Required, but never shown

































Required, but never shown














Required, but never shown












Required, but never shown







Required, but never shown







-

Popular posts from this blog

Human spaceflight

Image
Human spaceflight From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Jump to navigation Jump to search "Space traveler" redirects here. For other uses, see Space traveler (disambiguation). @media all and (max-width:720px){.mw-parser-output .tmulti>.thumbinner{width:100%!important;max-width:none!important}.mw-parser-output .tmulti .tsingle{float:none!important;max-width:none!important;width:100%!important;text-align:center}} Apollo 11 crewmember Buzz Aldrin on the Moon, 1969 International Space Station crewmember Tracy Caldwell Dyson views the Earth, 2010 Space Shuttle Discovery heads into space with a crew aboard, STS-121 in 2006 Inside a space suit on the Canadarm, 1993 Human spaceflight (also referred to as crewed spaceflight or manned spaceflight ) is space travel with a crew or passengers aboard the spacecraft. Spacecraft carrying people may be operated directly, by human crew, or it may be e
Read more

Can not write log (Is /dev/pts mounted?) - openpty in Ubuntu-on-Windows?

Image
0 1 What exactly does the error message beginning with E: mean? I assume it has to do with the file structure on Ubuntu-on-Windows, but what exactly? The following package was automatically installed and is no longer required: os-prober Use 'apt-get autoremove' to remove it. The following extra packages will be installed: libxslt1.1 The following NEW packages will be installed: libxslt1.1 xmlstarlet 0 upgraded, 2 newly installed, 0 to remove and 0 not upgraded. Need to get 435 kB of archives. After this operation, 1023 kB of additional disk space will be used. Get:1 http://archive.ubuntu.com/ubuntu/ trusty/main libxslt1.1 amd64 1.1.28-2build1 [145 kB] Get:2 http://archive.ubuntu.com/ubuntu/ trusty/universe xmlstarlet amd64 1.5.0-1 [290 kB]
Read more

File:DeusFollowingSea.jpg

Image
File:DeusFollowingSea.jpg From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Jump to navigation Jump to search File File history File usage No higher resolution available. DeusFollowingSea.jpg ‎ (238 × 211 pixels, file size: 12 KB, MIME type: image/jpeg ) Summary [ edit ] Media data and Non-free use rationale Description Cover art of the Deus CD Following Sea Author or copyright owner Deus Source (WP:NFCC#4) rocksucker.co.uk Date of publication 2012 Use in article (WP:NFCC#7) Following Sea Purpose of use in article (WP:NFCC#8) to serve as the primary means of visual identification at the top of the article dedicated to the work in question. Not replaceable with free media because (WP:NFCC#1) n.a. Minimal use (WP:NFCC#3) Low res image used in infobox of the article on the album Respect for commercial opportunities (WP:NFCC#2) n.a. Fair use Fair use of co
Read more