Discover Foundational Mathematics to Axioms and Set Theory

  • Context: Foundations 
  • Thread starter Thread starter archaic
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Introductory
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers around foundational mathematics, specifically axioms and set theory. Participants seek recommendations for textbooks and resources suitable for self-study, with a focus on both free and paid options. The conversation includes considerations of rigor in the study of these topics.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Homework-related

Main Points Raised

  • One participant inquires about foundational axioms and set theory, expressing a preference for freely available resources but is open to paid recommendations.
  • Another participant asks for clarification on the educational level of interest, suggesting Keith Devlin's book for undergraduates.
  • A participant mentions online courses, including one from MIT OCW and another from Eliademy, noting the informal teaching style and lack of rigor in the latter.
  • There is a reference to a comprehensive online source for set theory found on Quora, although its quality is not personally verified by the participant.
  • One participant shares their experience with a book that provided insights into the Axiom of Choice, emphasizing the subjective nature of teaching styles and learning preferences.
  • Another participant expresses a desire for rigorous study materials and reflects on their motivation for studying set theory, which is primarily for enjoyment and curiosity.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants do not reach a consensus on specific resources or the level of rigor desired, indicating that multiple competing views remain regarding the best approach to studying foundational mathematics and set theory.

Contextual Notes

Some participants express uncertainty about the rigor of suggested resources and the appropriateness of various teaching styles, highlighting the subjective nature of educational preferences.

archaic
Messages
688
Reaction score
214
Hello, I basically want to know more about the founding axioms, set theory and get a grasp of the foundations. Any suggestions?
Doing a quick search, I have found a free ebook by Kenneth Kunen, http://www.math.wisc.edu/~kunen/770.html, does anyone know of it?
Although I would very much prefer freely available (text)books, recommendations of paid ones are also welcome.
Thank you very much!
 
Physics news on Phys.org
There are several online courses like MIT OCW and I found this one from Eliademy:

https://eliademy.com/catalog/fundamentals-of-classical-set-theory.html
But I have not taken it and can’t say how good it is. The description mentions the instructors background and experience which pretty good. It looks to be an undergrad course without mathematical rigor, taught informally and there is a list of related courses at the bottom of the page to consider. Also it mentions its free to take although I don’t know if there are any catches later on.
 
jedishrfu said:
You could check it out as it looks pretty comprehensive.
It's on the website of a major British university, so you can't go wrong here. Whether it matches expectations is another question, but this is true for every lecture - some teaching styles fit better than others.
archaic said:
I'm an undergraduate, but I'm looking for something to self-study.
I once bought a book about a completely different topic, only to read the proofs of the various equivalent formulations of AC. Not a bad investment, as it turned out to be the best book about analysis I have, although not easy stuff.

My other encounters with set theory are constraint to a small paperback which dealt with the matter in an easy way, talking about the absurdities it creates and was more meant to be entertaining. A scientific approach probably leads to logic. I consider set theory as a part of logic, rather than a subject on its own. Logic, however, is a complicated area and dry as dust. Thus a qualified answer depends on your definition of "study". Personally, I would prefer a historic approach: Zermelo, Cantor, Russell, Gödel. I once found an original from Russell on the internet and, well, it was basically unreadable. The notation alone would have taken a month to learn. Hence my question what you meant by study, i.e. what for?
 
jedishrfu said:
mathematical rigor
I am actually looking for something rigorous. Maybe I should add that to the topic? I thought that it went without saying that the building blocks should be introduced with adequate rigor. Thank you very much for the recommendations thus far!
fresh_42 said:
Hence my question what you meant by study, i.e. what for?
Enjoyment, pretty much, and to satisfy some curiosity.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 64 ·
3
Replies
64
Views
3K
  • · Replies 31 ·
2
Replies
31
Views
6K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K