I feel the same way. Want to become a dumb and dumber duo? I believe you could be my friend.

I think it's just we don't have a way to say/write these numbers. So you make up a way to write them (-1 and 1) and continue.

The numbers don't matter and you could replace -1 and 1 with anything. It's just easier to begin your new fake number at - 1 and 1. Because position does matter.

(Apparently I was extremely unclear with this text. For clarity: if you want to actually understand surreal numbers, go and read On Numbers and Games, by Conway, which is a delightful book; or get an LLM to talk you through Wikipedia. Original text follows.)

It’s a terrible explanation. A surreal number is defined as a pair of sets of surreal numbers (where you fiddle around the recursion in that definition by defining them in waves, so strictly speaking you’re defining “the surreal numbers born at time T” for each individual T given access to the surreal numbers born at all earlier times, and then you “take the union across all times”, scare quotes because there are too many times for this to result in a set). Zero is a surreal number but the LLM is using the word “zero” to mean “the set containing just the surreal number 0”; “nothing” here is the LLM’s obtuse word for the empty set. Wikipedia may actually be easier to follow.

> I think I'm officially too dumb for math.

I'm hoping someone develops an interactive tutor that can teach any subject to any depth.

The tutor should optimize its pedagogy. It should use online RL to adapt to a learner's ideal learning style, model what the student understands and to what degree, and understand what the gaps and next steps are.

I'd subscribe in a heartbeat.

The image helped for me at least.

I think he just wrote it in a confusing way. The quote before says:

> (crucially, “to the left of all” and “to the right of all” also count as “gaps”)

So there are two "nothings" here, left of "all" - i.e. the zero - and right of it.

Though I'm not quite sure how you'd get infinite or irrational numbers by this procedure. Wouldn't you simply get the rational numbers by this?

(unless the "put a number" step is doing more work here than it seems. He doesn't really say which number to put there. In the examples, he mostly did "new number = (left number + right number) / 2", with special cases if any number is "nothing" - but he never actually wrote what the rules are here.)

Yeah I'm curious about the difference between "nothing" and "0", but I just decided to roll with it. Until the Greek letters made my head start to spin as they usually do.

I don't think this is your fault; the description isn't very explicit. Let me try to do a bit better. (I'll also try to go somewhat further, and you should not be discouraged if at some point it stops making sense.)

You can think of the "surreal numbers" as being built up step by step. We start out with no numbers at all, and then we repeatedly do a construction that makes some new numbers.

A surreal number is made from two sets of (pre-existing) surreal numbers. We typically call them L and R, for "left" and "right", and sometimes write it as L|R or {L|R} or something like that. The "left" numbers have to be smaller than the "right" numbers. The resulting number will turn out to be, in a certain sense, the "simplest" number in between all the left numbers and all the right numbers.

Now, as I said, we start out with no numbers at all. It might seem like that gives us no way to proceed, but it does: even given no numbers at all, we can still make a set of numbers, namely the empty set! So we can use that for both L and R, getting ∅|∅. Empty sets on both sides. We call this 0, and it will turn out to behave in the way you'd expect the number 0 to behave.

Now we suddenly have another set available, namely {0}, the set containing only zero. Which means that instead of being able to make one number, maybe we can make four: ∅|∅, ∅|{0}, {0}|∅, {0}|{0}. The first of these we already knew about. The last isn't actually admissible -- remember that the "left" numbers have to be smaller than the "right" numbers, which is "vacuously" true when one of those sets is empty (it means "if you have a number x in the left set, and a number y in the right set, then x<y", and if there are no numbers in the left set or no numbers in the right set then that's trivially true) but isn't true when both sets contain 0 because 0<0 is false.

So actually we get two new numbers: ∅|{0} and {0}|∅. The first fits into what OP calls the gap "between nothing and zero". The second first into what OP calls "the gap between zero and nothing". In both cases, "zero" means a number and "nothing" means a space where we don't yet have any numbers.

The number ∅|{0} is called -1 (it has to lie to the left of 0, and there's no constraint on its left, and -1 is "the simplest number less than 0") and the number {0}|∅ is called +1 (it has to lie to the right of 0, and there's no constraint on its right, and +1 is "the simplest number greater than 0").

I should explicitly acknowledge that I haven't defined what "less than" and "greater than" actually mean for these numbers, nor anything else about how they relate to one another that could possibly justify giving these things the specific names 0, -1, and +1. But there are definitions for "less than" and "greater than" and "plus" and "minus" and so forth, and the whole thing does turn out to work very nicely.

Anyway, once we've got these numbers we have eight possible sets that can go on the left or on the right. The requirement for left-things to be smaller than right-things reduces the possibilities somewhat, and the actual new numbers we get next time around are: ∅|{-1}, which turns out to be -2; {-1}|{0} which turns out to be -1/2; {0}|{+1} which turns out to be +1/2; {+1}|∅ which turns out to be +2. We also get some already-existing numbers in new ways; for instance, {-1}|{+1} is actually equal to 0 ("0 is the simplest number between -1 and +1"). Again, I should explicitly acknowlege that I haven't said anything about how you determine when two of these things are actually equal; again, it does all turn out to work properly.

If you keep going with this construction, you produce all the integers, two at a time, and also all the "dyadic rationals", meaning fractions where the denominator is a power of 2. And then, once you've got all those, at the next stage of construction you abruptly get all the real numbers -- e.g., the square root of 2 is L|R where L = {dyadic rational numbers that are negative or have a square smaller than 2} and R = {dyadic rational numbers that are positive and have a square larger than 2} -- and you also get {0,1,2,3,4,...}|∅, conventionally written as a lower-case Greek letter omega, which is an infinite number, larger than all the integers. (And its negation.) And {0}|{1,1/2,1/3,1/4,...} which is an infinitesimal number, positive but smaller than any ratio of positive integers. And you can then proceed further and construct a vast infinitude of numbers, including all the real numbers (which we've already made) and all of the so-called infinite ordinals (which you can kinda think of as being a sort of "infinite positive integer", though there's more to them than that) and much more, all in a system that lets you do arithmetic and suchlike. It's very elegant, if your brain has been twisted into the mathematician-y shape that finds such things elegant.

I made a picture, hope this helps: https://excalidraw.com/#json=zfKWWn1h7GzdFca6RDdXl,plr_WeaCt...

Sorry it was confusing.

What is stopping anyone from finding the value they would have found before?

He seems genuinely interested in Surreal numbers. Seems like he found value in exploring them and the Lean process, devoting time and interest to it and understanding what it's like to be a mathematician. I think a lot of people who go into Computer Science may have been mathematicians in the 30s before they became separate majors at the university level.

Nihilistic view

Every human has to go through this in modern times.

I got quite frustrated and disappointed when taking pictures because everyone was doing it and my picture of x was similiar to others taking picture of x.

Either you learn from it and accept that and still do it, or you don't.

But its not new

Yes, the timing of this post just after Gowers' post is fascinating. It is almost as if the marketing machine is well oiled.

> I genuinely invite a refutation.

> So, assuming my proof doesn’t rely on a Lean kernel bug, it’s likely to be legit too.

He lacks the understanding to verify his solution properly, and has to lean on those who do have the understanding to verify it, only being able to say himself that it's "likely" to be correct. (And what do those other mathematicians get for laboriously checking the generated proof? 40 grand?)

Seems to me problem solving is as dependent on understanding as ever.

Several of my coworkers — it’s not that unusual that if you can max out a couple accounts, the companies will obviously notice you (as a high cost customer), and sometimes offer more

ah, if it's anyone it'd be dan abramov