Site Overlay


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.

Author: Goltijinn Tukora
Country: Ghana
Language: English (Spanish)
Genre: Spiritual
Published (Last): 15 June 2014
Pages: 115
PDF File Size: 16.1 Mb
ePub File Size: 13.32 Mb
ISBN: 389-5-17229-496-4
Downloads: 51449
Price: Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]
Uploader: Shakarisar

Book Review: Naive Set Theory (MIRI research guide)

So, yes, I can just assume that everything I want to call halmo set is a set and has all the expected properties. Which is to say, the book won’t dig to the depths of formality or philosophy, it focuses on getting you productive with set theory. But then again I am not really a math person.

My only suggestion is that you swap chapter 25 and Lists with This Book. It was nice to examine the actual structure of each type of number in set theory and deepen my previously-superficial knowledge of the distinction. I’m only pointing out that “those weird properties” might not be so weird, and that you need to understand a bit more than the minimal use, in order to make good use.

Thfory is one of my favorite books, ever, even among nonmathematical books.


Oct 15, David Lindelof rated it it was amazing. This book is tiny, containing about pages. I don’t want to be redundant and repeat the good points made there, so I want to focus this review on the perspective of someone with a bit weaker background in math, and try to give some help to prospective readers with parts I found tricky in the book.

Product Description Product Details This classic by one of the twentieth century’s most prominent mathematicians offers a concise introduction to set theory. My tentative suggestion is that you should find a more modern but similarly nnaive introductory textbook and read that instead.

Naive Set Theory by Paul R. Halmos

Yes, I’m assuming sett of those things. I see now that even things with a smiley face at the end are taken seriously. Derek Goldrei, Classic set theorybut some “practice” with mathematical and logic symbolism is needed If you tack on an element at the end, the set now has a last element and is thus not order isomorphic to what you started with.

I have no point of comparison here. Why does this matter?

Book Review: Naïve Set Theory (MIRI course list)

Group theory and information theory come to mind, if you’re looking for a good time. The question is poorly formed.

Welcome to the club: But that’s a small complaint on an excellent document. The book has a terse presentation which makes it tough to digest if you aren’t already familiar with propositional logic, perhaps set theory to some extent already and a bit of advanced mathematics in general.

A book on set theory probably isn’t the right place to be looking. Everything is a set.


Zorn’s Lemma states that if all chains in a theort have an upper bound, then the set has a maximal element. After thatI would suggest you to pick up Rosen — wonderful book with lots of problems: There are plenty of other books that can get you started there. However, I dropped out of all math classes very early to focus on biology. Sign up using Email and Password.

Naive Set Theory by Halmos is confusing to a layman like me – Mathematics Stack Exchange

Jan 01, Vincent Russo rated it really liked it Shelves: Nov thepry, Shibajee Samaddar rated it it was amazing. 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 new here.

If anyone is interested, I could post my impressions of other mathematical books I read.

For example, he spends the second last chapter giving you the rules of cardinal number arithmetic before even defining them in the last chapter — that comes in the last chapter, but not before he explains why we chose that definition among other alternatives.