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: Zololabar Ninos
Country: Kosovo
Language: English (Spanish)
Genre: Science
Published (Last): 1 September 2009
Pages: 128
PDF File Size: 3.49 Mb
ePub File Size: 4.53 Mb
ISBN: 148-5-67421-386-9
Downloads: 43289
Price: Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]
Uploader: Vukus

The principle of sef induction means that if the presence of all strict predecessors of an element always implies the presence of the element itself, then the set must contain everything. The authors often remark on syntax that was not yet standard which is now commonplace. At two points, I laid down the book in order to finish two other books. Set Theory and Logic.

You can try with: How does it fit in to the larger subject of mathematics? When finished the read should have a better understanding of Set Theory.

Naive Set Theory

Start off by trying to understand “propositional logic” aka “boolean logic”. Partial orders, total orders, well orders — are powerful mathematical ste and are used extensively.

If you seek to get into a new field, know the prerequisites. The s feel is definitely fun. On pagesI encountered if and only if and had to go to Wikipediato actually understand it. Fred Conrad rated it really liked it Jan 14, Want to Read saving…. If you get stuck, do try playing around with examples of sets on paper or in a text file. In those areas, set theory works in just the way you’d expect it to.


As to set theory applied to machine learning, it may be that what is needed differs from the content of Halmos’ book.

A bit into the book, I started struggling with the exercises. It’s a very rudimentary treatment on set theory that is more verbose than other books on the topic. HiMinskydiscrete math is going to teach you logicset theoryfunctionsa spattering of number theorycombinatoricsgraphstreesautomata theoryprimarily. I can imagine that that would require some actual set theory. To ask other readers questions about Naive Set Theoryplease sign up.

The continuum hypothesis asserts that there is no cardinal number between that of the natural numbers and that of the reals. Suitable for advanced undergraduates and graduate students in mathematics, it employs the language and notation of informal mathematics. Though for all I know, that’s the normal way for mathematicians to use that phrase.

It is also useful to the professional mathematician who knew these underpinnings at one time but has now forgotten exactly how they go. Relations Equivalence relations and equivalence classes are important concepts in mathematics.


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

Bijective is the combination of being both injective and surjective. An Historical Introduction to Cantor’s Paradise. If a comparably short-and-sweet textbook written in the last twenty years can be found, I recommend updating the suggestion on the MIRI course list.

Sign up using Facebook. I think Halmos’ Naive Set Theory is primarily concerned with set theory as a thory on top of which mathematics is built, but the word “naive”, if I understand correctly, just means he’s viewing the concept of a set concretely as a collection of things rather than axiomatically as being whatever satisfies the axioms.

Naive Set Theory

Does ‘how to prove it’ by velleman teach all I need to know? I’m reviewing the books on the MIRI course list.

The best part was the minor bits of contextual information. I rushed through and missed a lot of subtleties. Sets are the same if they contain the same elements. I’m extremely surprised you never came across it before given that you’ve taken courses in, e. The question is poorly formed. Does it help me understand ‘naive set theory’ better?