Foundations Is Naive Set Theory by Paul Halmos a Must-Read for Math Enthusiasts?

AI Thread Summary
Paul Halmos's "Naive Set Theory" is praised for its superb writing style and effectiveness as a supplementary text for understanding basic set theory concepts. The book is noted for its lack of traditional exercises, with the entire text serving as an exercise in verifying claims and filling in details. While it does not develop set theory using Zermelo-Fraenkel set theory with the Axiom of Choice (ZFC), it provides a solid foundation for beginners. Readers appreciate its clarity in explaining fundamental concepts such as sets, relations, functions, and equivalence classes, as well as addressing topics like Russell's paradox. Halmos is recognized as an exceptional communicator, making the book a valuable resource for those looking to grasp the universal language of mathematics. It is available at an affordable price, making it accessible for students and enthusiasts alike.

For those who have used this book

  • Lightly don't Recommend

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Strongly don't Recommend

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    5
Physics news on Phys.org
I skimmed this book while reading the opening chapter in the book Topology by James Munkres. The writting style of Paul Halmos is superb. There are not many problems designated as exercises; however, as I believe the author points out, the entire book is essentially an exercise. Hence, you will have plenty to do (verifying claims, filling in details, etc.)

There are really no downsides to this text. Like I mentioned earlier, I used this book as a light supplement. But, I will say that carefully working through the opening chapter in Munkres provides a very solid foundation. I really did not need this book, but it did certainly have a refreshing style!
 
jmjlt88 said:
There are really no downsides to this text. Like I mentioned earlier, I used this book as a light supplement.
I guess one downside is that it doesn't develop set theory using ZFC IIRC.
 
WannabeNewton, yes, you are right! I should have said that there are no downsides to the book when used as a supplement. For those interested diving deep into Set Theory (and perhaps never surfacing), Jech's tome would certainly be one route to take. =)
 
jmjlt88 said:
For those interested diving deep into Set Theory (and perhaps never surfacing), Jech's tome would certainly be one route to take. =)
Warning: when he says you will never resurface, he isn't kidding.
 
Naive set theory is a book I read as a very young student, maybe in high school. You read it once, it gives you the universal language of mathematics and you never need to consult it again. I recommend it to anyone to learn the basic language of the subject. Nothing deep here, but everything is useful.
 
This remains one of my favourite math texts. It gives you the language of sets and relations, functions and cartesian products, equivalence classes and 'the axiom of choice', plus a little more advanced set theory, in an easily digested format. You'll also understand Russell's paradox in a new way.

Besides Halmos is a sublime communicator - one of the best in the business. You can pick up reprints up for $10-$15, and they're worth it purely for the example of crystal clear mathematical communication.
 

Similar threads

Replies
1
Views
3K
  • Poll Poll
Replies
1
Views
5K
  • Poll Poll
Replies
1
Views
3K
Replies
19
Views
5K
Replies
34
Views
5K
Replies
6
Views
5K
  • Poll Poll
Replies
3
Views
6K
Replies
5
Views
3K
Back
Top