Naive Set Theory by Paul R. Halmos

[agro]

I'm about to read "Naive Set Theory" by Paul R. Halmos. Amazon sells one published by Springer (1st edition, 1998) while my library (Universitas Gadjah Mada, Indonesia) has one published by Princeton (1st edition, 1960).

Is the content any different? If it is significantly different I'll try to get the 1998 one.

Thanks

 

[mathwonk]

in 40 years and more, the number of pages has remained at 104, so i doubt even one word has changed.

in my opinion also, in general for all math books, the earlier the edition, the better the book.

the author puts the most effort into the first edition and it contains exactly his/her vision of the subject as it should be. later ones often incorporate accomodations to the publisher or the fashions of the times.

even excellent revisions such as courant and john, made to incorporate more "rigor" and modern point set topology, have proved softer and less intuitive and less popular than courant's original masterpiece.


updates of van der waerdens great "modren algebra", which omit "elimination" theory", or old concrete arguments in favor of mroe abstract ones, are less useful for exactly that reason, as they become more similar to other books, and no longer sources for powerful but old fashioned arguments and methods.


in an introductory book to a subject that began with Cantor 100 years ago, there is no significant need for updated content.

I read halmos' book just after high school in about 1960, and have essentially never needed any other source for the same basic material.

As I recall, it is sort of an alphabet and grammar for reading modern math books.

 

[tacman]

The content of the two editions is essentially the same, as both editions cover the basic concepts and principles of naive set theory. However, there may be some differences in the organization and presentation of the material, as the 1998 edition may include some updates or revisions based on newer developments in the field.

If you are studying set theory for academic purposes, it would be best to consult with your professor or advisor to determine which edition is most suitable for your needs. If you are simply interested in learning about set theory, either edition should provide a comprehensive understanding of the subject.

In terms of availability, the 1998 edition may be more easily accessible as it is a more recent publication and may be available in a digital format. However, the 1960 edition may have a more traditional and classic approach to the topic.

Ultimately, either edition of "Naive Set Theory" by Paul R. Halmos should be a valuable resource for learning about this fundamental branch of mathematics. I hope this helps in your decision-making process. Happy reading!