Subject: categories: on algebra of coreals

From: Dusko Pavlovic <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 31 Oct 2000 18:30:48 -0800

hi.

almost a year after peter freyd posted his version of the coalgebra of
real numbers (henceforth coreals), i finally tried to cash in on my
initial excitement with it, and spec out the coinductive programs for
addition and multiplication. however, i must report that i am a bit stuck.
since i am also guilty of not having tried to work this out in time, i'll
try to refresh things (at least for myself) by reporting in some detail.

the reason why i was excited, as i think i explained at the time, was that
peter seemed to be able to define the algebraic operations on his coreals
by a relatively simple *stream* coinduction. for the coreals vaughan pratt
and i had previously constructed, i only knew how to do this using the
*conway games*, ie cuts, which appeared to be the most inefficient way
imaginable.

let me clarify the context a little, and why any of this matters. first of
all, why another presentation of reals, when there are already so many
deep and beautiful presentations, left behind the centuries of analysis?
well, in spite of all that math, the CS students still learn that real
numbers must be truncated, because they are infinite, whereas the
computers are finite. as if computers are more finite than our heads, or
smaller than our calculus textbooks. so the task is to find a presentation
of the "real reals" suitable for computers. and the hypothesis is that
coinduction allows such presentations. and indeed, we have several
different coinductive implementations of the datatype of reals, and it has
also been shown that a lot of what people do in differential calculus
yields to coinduction.

but the problem is that coalgebraically implemented reals offer some
resistance to algebra: adding and multiplying computable reals may not be
computable. if each real number is represented irredundantly, say by a
unique stream of digits, then there will be numbers for which the entire
infinite streams of digits will need to be consumed before the first digit
of their sum, or product, can be determined. this observation is due to
brouwer, and has been mentioned in this thread several times, in one form
or another.

in any case, in order to implement coreal algebra, besides a
real coalgebra R, we also need a *redundant numeration system*,
a surjection

    D^N --->> R

mapping to each number the streams of D-digits representing it
(plus some structure saying this).

the coalgebras vaughan and i had constructed represent each number by a
unique stream, and didn't seem to have good numeration systems. (now i
think at least two of them have decent *generalized* numerations --- later
more.)

in contrast, peter's coalgebra represented reals as equivalence
classes of streams, and thus came equipped with natural
numerations! true, they were never mentioned explicitly,
probably because XvX was viewed as a subobject of XxX, in order
to allow splitting X--->XvX as a pair <d,u>. but viewing XvX as
the quotient of X+X = 2xX displays the final coalgebra I of XvX
as the quotient of the final coalgebra 2^N of 2xX. hence the
numeration

    2^N --->> I

corresponding to the standard binary expansion. of course, this
system is not fully redundant (i think andrej bauer pointed this

out), but the transition to the signed binary expansion

    3^N --->> I

where 3 = {-1,0,1}, is almost as well known... (ok, i only
learned of it from martin escardo's thesis, but the real
aritmeticists surely know all about it.)

in any case, it seemed reasonable to expect that freyd's elegant

derivations lift to the redundant numerations, viz the streams
lurking at the intuitive background of all constructions.

and indeed, the midpoint operation lifts to a coinductive
definition on 3^N. but nothing beyond that point works for me.
in particular, i don't know how to construct from the closed
interval *with a numeration system* a *coalgebra* of all reals,
*with the corresponding numeration*. neither of the reflection
of midpoint algebras in abelian groups, nor the extension of the
"yoneda" embedding of the interval in its endomorphism monoid
extends to the numeration systems. how do you enrich the
structure of abelian group by a numeration system? what should
the midpoint algebra homomorphisms lift on the attached
numerations?

the alternative that i keep pushing are the conway coreals.

the finite and infinite lists of 1 and -1 yield an irredundant
representation of the real line, extended with the infinity on
both ends. to get the real number corresponding to a list, sum
up the initial 1s or -1s, until the sign changes. this is the
integer part of the number. after that point, sum up the entries
of the list divided by increasing powers of 2. this is, of
course, gonshor's version of surreal numbers.

it is a retract of the conway's version. but conway's games can
be viewed as {L,R}-labelled hypersets. so they form a final
coalgebra. the addition, and the multiplication arise as
*eminently* coinductive operations. the addition happens to be
defined by a coalgebra similar to the one defining the product
of analytic functions, and the asynchronous product of
processes. conway's definitions of all algebraic operations are
very nice examples of coinductive programming.

the idea is now to use gonshor's version as the real coalgebra,
and conway's version as a generalized numeration system: instead
of streams of digits, use {L,R}-labelled graphs, viz hypersets.
gonshor's numbers correspond to the minimal representatives of
conway's numbers, so they embed canonically; whereas conway's
*simplicity theorem* yields the retraction.

in practice, given two real numbers, say to add, and the desired
precision of the result, you replace them by sufficiently small
binary intervals, ie the simplest binary numbers contained.
these lift to finite conway games, and easily add. finding the
simplest form is trivial. i am not sure whether i am missing
something, but with this approximation part, the algorithm does
not seem inefficient at all any more.

originally, this story was invented for the coalgebra of
alternating dyadics, which has appeared in my paper with vaughan
pratt. but alternating dyadics are easily seen to be just a
version of gonshor's representation. and just like alternating
dyadics/gonshor reals embed in conway's games, our coalgebra of
continued fractions embeds in contorted fractions, mentioned by
peter johnstone... one would expect that that numeration system
might be still a bit more efficient, or less inefficient, though
i didn't look at the details at all...

happy halloween,
-- dusko