You are ready. You don’t read math book like you read a novel. You can literally spend days on one page. You are not going to find a better book than Halmos’s. Every mathematician agrees that every mathematician must know some set theory; the Naive Set Theory. Authors; (view affiliations). Paul R. Halmos. Book. Every mathematician agrees that every mathematician must know some set theory; the disagreement begins in trying to decide how much is some. This book.
|Published (Last):||14 April 2015|
|PDF File Size:||18.45 Mb|
|ePub File Size:||18.25 Mb|
|Price:||Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]|
From this point of view the concepts and methods of this book are merely some of the standard mathematical tools; the expert specialist will find nothing naiive here. The counting theorem states that each well ordered set is order isomorphic to a unique gheory number. Mar 30, Thebreeze Limprecht rated it really liked it Shelves: Zorn’s naove is used in similar ways to the axiom of choice – making infinite many choices at once – which perhaps is not very strange considering ZL and AC have been proven to be equivalent.
Complicated theories are explained with easy words. Jan 01, Vincent Russo rated it really halmks it Shelves: Nov 04, Shibajee Samaddar rated it it was amazing. It simply felt like I hadn’t been given all the tools to attempt the task.
The book ends simply with the statement of the Continuum Hypothesis. In those areas, set theory works in just the way you’d expect it to. My only suggestion is that you swap chapter 25 and Can you be a theoretical mathematician and make a B in Calc I approximately the third time you took it?
Naive Set Theory
Arithmetic The principle of mathematical induction is put to heavy use in order to define arithmetic. I have no point of comparison here.
Zet to the Theory of Sets. To the author’s credit, they point out many of the inconsistencies: Build your knowledge in solid steps. In particular, in the conventional Zermelo—Fraenkel theory, no set is a member of itself.
The author shows you the nuts and bolts of set theory and doesn’t waste any time doing it. Overview I was pleased with this book.
Naive Set Theory (book) – Wikipedia
I’m halmoz through the books in the MIRI research guide and will write a review for each as I finish them. See in particular this article: I supplemented heavily with wikipedia, math. Halmos is using some dated terminology and is in my eyes a bit inconsistent here. Good introduction to set theory. In my opinion it manages to keep the language simple and aids students to find their way by pointing out important caveats.
Please note that “set notation” is quite different from set theory. The continuum hypothesis had not yet been proven unprovable in ZFC. There are plenty of other books that can get you started there. Set Theory and Logic.
I was one of the first people to vote this answer, and I do agree with what you wrote there. Since you have found your way into Stack Exchange, then you halmoa access to quality help when your brain starts melting due to overload. A Book of Set Theory.
Zorn’s Lemma states that if all chains in a set have an upper bound, then the set has a maximal element. However, I believe a more modern introduction to set theory could have taught me more pertinent mathematics in the same amount of time. I never told anyone to read an entire book, if anything it’s using something for reference, or reading several books.
To build a solid foundation in proofs, I will now go through one or two books about mathematical proofs. Chapters In general, if the book doesn’t offer you enough explanation on a subject, search the Internet.
Realize that you don’t have to use set-builder notation to express yourself unambiguously. In programming languages, you tend to have to be much more For your purposes, you don’t really need to know what’s “under the hood” and it will be entirely sufficient to say that a set is a collection of objects defined by some stated property.
Though I’d imagine a lot of the shortness comes also from being naive set theory, rather than a fully rigorous treatment of axiomatic set theory. I’ve only picked up fragments.
In fact, it’s quite a fascinating time capsule: It doesn’t waste your time. The other chapter titles are self-evident.
The book was written inand it shows. What the heck is the author expressing here?