Good books in Set theory and Mathematical Logic

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around recommendations for books on mathematical logic, particularly those that require minimal prior knowledge of set theory. Participants explore various texts and their prerequisites, as well as the relationship between set theory and mathematical logic.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant seeks a book on mathematical logic that assumes only basic knowledge of set theory, specifically mentioning familiarity with concepts like power sets, relations, and functions.
  • Another participant asserts that mathematical logic, as presented in Quine's work, does not require any prior knowledge of set theory.
  • A different viewpoint suggests that modern mathematical logic is fundamentally based on set theory, citing an example from Monk's book to illustrate this point.
  • One participant offers two types of recommendations: for a less formal introduction to logic, they suggest Graham Priest's "Logic: A Very Short Introduction," and for mathematical logic, they recommend Ebbinghaus, Flum, and Thomas's "Mathematical Logic" and Schoenfield's "Mathematical Logic," noting the latter's focus on model theory.
  • A participant expresses their decision to pick up Ebbinghaus's book, indicating prior knowledge of Quine's work and their plans for future graduate-level courses in mathematical logic.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the necessity of set theory for understanding mathematical logic, with some asserting it is essential while others believe it is not required. The discussion remains unresolved regarding the adequacy of specific texts mentioned.

Contextual Notes

There is an indication of varying levels of familiarity with set theory among participants, which may influence their recommendations and perspectives on the relationship between set theory and mathematical logic.

Who May Find This Useful

This discussion may be useful for individuals seeking introductory resources in mathematical logic, particularly those with limited background in set theory, as well as for those interested in the interplay between set theory and logic in academic contexts.

Bourbaki1123
Messages
326
Reaction score
0
I am more precisely looking for a book on mathematical logic which presupposes only minimal exposure to set theory. Preferably something which includes an introductory chapter delineating relevant set theoretic principals.

I am familiar with only basic set theory. More precisely this means that I understand the following concepts:Power sets, relations, functions, classes, union, intersection, ordered tuples. I know some group, ring and field theory.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
as far as i know, mathematical logic, such as espoused in the book of say W.v.O.Quine, does not presuppose any set theory at all.
 
I don't know if Quine's book is adequate. It seems that modern mathematical logic not only requires set theory, but is built entirely upon it. This is exemplified by an example from J.D.Monk's book on the subject (I picked it up in the small library in my uni's math building):A first order language is defined to be a quadruple 'L'(fancy cursive L)= (L,v,O,R) with the following properties:
(i)L,v,O and R are functions such that RngL, Rng v(range of v), Dmn(domain)O, and Dmn R are pairwise disjoint.
(ii)DmnL=5,and L is one-one, L0 is the negation symbol of 'L',L1 is the disjunctive symbol of 'L',L2 the conjunctive symbol and L4 the equality symbol. Ect...
 
Since it isn't stated what the OP wants to learn of logic here are two sorts of answers.

1) To learn some of the ideas of logic in a less formal manner perhaps consider Graham Priest's "Logic: A Very Short Introduction".

2) To learn mathematical logic, then reasonable set theory texts are Lawvere "Sets for Mathematics"; and Suppes "Axiomatic Set Theory". For mathematical logic the two texts that I have found most useful are Ebbinghaus, Flum and Thomas "Mathematical Logic" (a Springer undergraduate text). The other text is a bit more advanced, J. R. Schoenfield "Mathematical Logic" more on model theory and first-order theories, not so much proof theory. Even though Schoenfield was first published in 1967 it is still quite fresh. Quine on the other hand is a bit dated.
 
Thanks, I decided to pick up eddinghaus already. I already know all of the material in Quine's Methods of Logic and had assumed Quine's treatment would be a bit dated. I am hopefully going to take a grad level sequence mathematical logic courses my junior and senior years. I suspect that since there is not an undergraduate course offered at the school, it will be more like an undergrad course.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
4K
Replies
13
Views
3K
  • · Replies 19 ·
Replies
19
Views
5K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
5K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
9K
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
5K