Are there any standout books on Set Theory and what research is left to be done?

AI Thread Summary
Standout books on set theory include "Set Theory and Logic" by Stoll and "The Joy of Sets" by Keith Devlin, with the latter praised for its clear explanations of Zermelo's axioms and the independence of certain propositions from ZFC. Readers express a preference for accessible texts over complex axiomatic approaches, emphasizing interest in topics like the axiom of choice. The discussion highlights that there are still avenues for research in set theory, as indicated by resources like the Handbook of Set Theory. Overall, the field remains active, with ongoing research opportunities available.
andytoh
Messages
357
Reaction score
3
Any books that really stand out? Currently, I'm reading "Set Theory and Logic" by Stoll. I'm not interested in the axiomatic type of set theory, like Godel's theory and all those unreadable symboic proofs. I'm more interested in stuff like the axiom of choice proofs and such. Also, is there any research left to do in set theory or is it a fully exhausted field?
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
I don't know about others, but I quite enjoyed Keith Devlin's "The Joy of Sets" (2nd Edition is much better). It gives a good justification of each of Zermelo's axioms and why they are there and has a very good explanation of the ordinals.
However the unique feature of this book is that it contains a good beginner's explanation of why 2^{\aleph_{0}} = \aleph_{1} is independant of ZFC and the attempts to resolve this by the addition of new axioms.
 
well there are plenty of good intro books on set theory.
At my school we're using jech and hrbaceck intro to set theory, after reading this intro I think the next step is reading jech's set theory text, which is more advanced.

As for research in the field, if you search for handbook of set theory in google you'll find a page with the articles from the handbook, they address there their research in the field, so yes there's research in the field.
 
I was reading documentation about the soundness and completeness of logic formal systems. Consider the following $$\vdash_S \phi$$ where ##S## is the proof-system making part the formal system and ##\phi## is a wff (well formed formula) of the formal language. Note the blank on left of the turnstile symbol ##\vdash_S##, as far as I can tell it actually represents the empty set. So what does it mean ? I guess it actually means ##\phi## is a theorem of the formal system, i.e. there is a...
Back
Top