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):||11 October 2018|
|PDF File Size:||11.75 Mb|
|ePub File Size:||17.76 Mb|
|Price:||Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]|
Why does this matter? A Book of Set Theory.
Naive Set Theory (book) – Wikipedia
It was nice nave examine the actual structure of each type of number in set theory and deepen my previously-superficial knowledge of the distinction. Does it help me understand ‘naive set theory’ better?
Cardinal numbers Read this chapter before Cardinal arithmetic. Mar 16, Basel Al-Dagen rated it it was amazing. Open Preview See a Problem? The axiom of unions allows one to create a new set that contains all the members of the original sets.
See in particular this article: Each section is only about 2 pages, but manages to cover a good amount of intuition. To build a solid foundation in proofs, I will now go through one or two books about mathematical proofs. Start by Googling terms like “introduction to propositional logic. Halmod that you don’t have to use set-builder notation to express yourself unambiguously. Families are an alternative way of talking about sets.
The first interpretation is ridiculous. Since you have found your way into Stack Exchange, then you have access to quality help when your brain starts melting due to overload. None of this is bad, per se. There are plenty of other books that can get you started there. Oct 05, Curtis Penner rated it really liked it. It’s seemed very fundamental but school never gave me a good opportunity to learn it.
I want to be able to express set notations fluently in math naivs used in machine learning. At two points, I laid down the book in order to finish two other books. A bit into the book, I started struggling with the exercises.
Naive Set Theory
Excellent Thsory to Set Theory. A family of sets means a collection of sets, with an index and a function in the background. The axiom of choice is embraced wholeheartedly with no discussion of weaker variants. Your phrasing in point 4 is very convoluted. Equivalence relations and equivalence classes are important concepts in mathematics.
Naive Set Theory Halmos Naive Set Theory is a classic and dense little book on axiomatic set theory, from a “naive” perspective. I think Halmos’ Naive Set Theory is primarily concerned with set theory as a foundation 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.
I do recommend that you get acquainted with the fundamentals of logic and boolean algebra first. Complements and powers The axiom of powers allows one to, out of one set, create a set containing all hapmos different possible subsets of the original set.
Naive Set Theory by Paul R. Halmos
I wouldn’t be surprised if it’s not, but I don’t know. He can even be quite humorous at times — I laughed out loud reading a passage on page You will gain an insight into how to use principles like Pigeonhole Principle without any fuss.
Sign up or log in Sign up using Google. Again, comments are welcome. The misbehavior of commutativity in arithmetic with ordinals tells us a natural fact about ordinals: Getting tripped up about the “for some” and “for every” notation used by Halmos?
Mar 30, Thebreeze Limprecht rated it really liked it Shelves: Should I read this book? I will first refer you to Nate’s reviewwhich I found to be a lucid take on it. This extra condition is useful when working with infinite sets. Sets are the same if they contain the same elements. This book contains my answer to that question. My tentative suggestion is that you should find a more modern but similarly terse introductory textbook and read that instead. Derek Goldrei, Classic set theorybut some “practice” with mathematical and logic symbolism is needed No trivia or quizzes yet.