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: Nibar Dalar
Country: Madagascar
Language: English (Spanish)
Genre: Love
Published (Last): 12 January 2011
Pages: 259
PDF File Size: 4.96 Mb
ePub File Size: 10.69 Mb
ISBN: 389-4-56534-728-7
Downloads: 74524
Price: Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]
Uploader: Shagor

By using our site, you acknowledge that you have read and understand our Cookie PolicyPrivacy Policyand our Terms of Service. The s feel is definitely fun. I think Naive Set Theory wasn’t the optimal book for me at the stage I was. Getting tripped up about the “for some” and “for every” notation used by Halmos? It is so much more than a math textbook. I’ve long believed that math is a poor and inconsistent language.

Book Review: Naïve Set Theory (MIRI course list)

Is it a good book? Conversational and light hearted, it makes learning of the basics of set theory a joy. Sign up using Facebook. Want to Baive Currently Reading Read.

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

Most of these gripes are small compared to the amount of good data in the book. May 09, Meysam Ganji rated it it was amazing. The misbehavior of commutativity in arithmetic with ordinals tells us a natural fact about ordinals: Published January 16th by Springer first published Instead, Halmos lets you in on the motivation of why things proceed the way they do, even at the expense of formality. Complicated theories are explained with easy words.

  KBU 810 PDF

As a computer scientist, almost every collection of objects I deal with is finite; almost all of the rest are countable and pretty much all the rest are finite unions of real intervals. Start off by trying to understand “propositional logic” aka “boolean logic”. I found this book to be rather basic. Arda rated it really liked it Mar 31, Most useful was interacting with ordinal and cardinal numbers.

Jul 10, Santino Maguire rated it it was ok. Really nothing too “naive” about it. I will first refer you to Nate’s reviewwhich I found to be a lucid take on it.

The point is to give someone who wants to dig nwive advanced mathematics a foundation in set theory, as set theory is a fundamental tool used in a lot of mathematics.

What the heck is the author expressing here?

Naive Set Theory (book) – Wikipedia

Sign up or log in Sign up using Google. Set Theory and the Continuum Problem. Mar 30, Thebreeze Limprecht rated it really liked it Shelves: Read this chapter after Cardinal numbers. Oct 07, Julia rated it it was amazing Shelves: Refresh and try again.

  HONEYWELL M7284 PDF

My next review will take more time than did the previous four. Arithmetic The principle of mathematical induction is put to heavy use in order to define arithmetic.

Perspective of this review I will first refer you to Nate’s reviewwhich I found to be a lucid take on it. When finished the read should have a better understanding of Set Theory.

So, yes, I can just assume that everything I want to call a set is a set and has all the expected properties. I supplemented heavily with wikipedia, math. Halmos is using some dated terminology and is in my eyes a bit inconsistent here.

This follows from the axiom of choice. In general, if the book doesn’t offer you enough explanation on a subject, search the Internet.

The continuum hypothesis had not yet been proven unprovable in ZFC. So in conclusion, if you want to really dig into the subject, I’d recommend something more like Suppes’ Axiomatic Set Theory instead, though Naive Set Theory is certainly an excellent supplement.

I just don’t know what it is about it. Sep 20, Feier hallelujah rated it it was amazing.