Book Recommendation [Set Theory]

AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers around Paul Cohen's book "Set Theory and the Continuum Hypothesis" as an introductory text for set theory. Some participants recommend the book for its readability and clear explanations, noting that it can be appreciated by non-mathematicians. They emphasize that Cohen does not attempt to prove or disprove the Continuum Hypothesis, which adds to its appeal. However, others advise that readers should first familiarize themselves with basic set theory or logic through foundational texts, such as those by Hrbacek and Jech, to fully benefit from Cohen's work. Overall, while opinions vary, the book is generally regarded as interesting and accessible, albeit potentially more beneficial after prior study in the field.
Bachelier
Messages
375
Reaction score
0
Would you guys recommend the following Book By Paul Cohen as a good (and cheap) intro to set theory and the Continuum Hypothesis.

Set Theory and the Continuum Hypothesis (Dover Books on Mathematics)

Some reviewers attacked Mr. Cohen as being a poor logician. Maybe people were just mad because he tried to prove a beautiful hypothesis that is better (and more elegant) if left unproven.
 
Physics news on Phys.org


Yes, I would recommend it. I don't know what silly reviewers you got hold of, but Paul Cohen was a magnificent mathematician. He also explains well. Oh, and by the way, he is not trying to prove the Continuum Hypothesis. Or to disprove it, for that matter. But read the book and you'll find out more.
 


No, I wouldn't recommend the book. Don't get me wrong, it's a very interesting and good book. But I think you would benefit from first reading through some basic set theory or logic books. I highly recommend a book like the one from Hrbacek and Jech. Working through that book will get your comfortable with the basic philosophy of set theory. This will help you with reading Cohen.
 


micromass said:
No, I wouldn't recommend the book. Don't get me wrong, it's a very interesting and good book. But I think you would benefit from first reading through some basic set theory or logic books. I highly recommend a book like the one from Hrbacek and Jech. Working through that book will get your comfortable with the basic philosophy of set theory. This will help you with reading Cohen.

Got you. Thanks.

BTW the Hypothesis in your statement is impossible to prove no matter what logic we use if we consider the character of the originator of that statement. :-p
 


Bachelier said:
Got you. Thanks.

BTW the Hypothesis in your statement is impossible to prove no matter what logic we use if we consider the character of the originator of that statement. :-p

If we consider the originator of the statement, then we can easily conclude that it's false :biggrin:
 
It's very readable - like "Goedel, Escher Bach" or Spivak's "Calculus on Manifolds". So it can also be enjoyed by people who are not serious mathematicians. Most importantly for outsiders, it has a very clear point of view. In that sense it is a good introduction to logic, set theory and the continuum hypothesis.
 
The book is fascinating. If your education includes a typical math degree curriculum, with Lebesgue integration, functional analysis, etc, it teaches QFT with only a passing acquaintance of ordinary QM you would get at HS. However, I would read Lenny Susskind's book on QM first. Purchased a copy straight away, but it will not arrive until the end of December; however, Scribd has a PDF I am now studying. The first part introduces distribution theory (and other related concepts), which...
I've gone through the Standard turbulence textbooks such as Pope's Turbulent Flows and Wilcox' Turbulent modelling for CFD which mostly Covers RANS and the closure models. I want to jump more into DNS but most of the work i've been able to come across is too "practical" and not much explanation of the theory behind it. I wonder if there is a book that takes a theoretical approach to Turbulence starting from the full Navier Stokes Equations and developing from there, instead of jumping from...

Similar threads

Replies
6
Views
2K
Replies
6
Views
2K
Replies
4
Views
2K
Replies
5
Views
4K
Replies
4
Views
2K
Replies
9
Views
5K
Back
Top