MHB Notes & Texts on Sets, Relations and Functions

AI Thread Summary
The discussion revolves around the need for comprehensive resources on sets and functions, particularly focusing on inverse images and indexed families of sets. The original poster expresses difficulty in finding texts that cover these topics in sufficient depth. Recommendations include "Naive Set Theory" by Halmos for its informal approach and "Axiomatic Set Theory" by Suppes for a more formal treatment. The Halmos book is noted to include indexed sets, while the Suppes book is recognized as a standard reference, though its coverage of indexed sets is uncertain. Additionally, online resources like Wikipedia, Wolfram MathWorld, and the Springer Encyclopedia of Mathematics are suggested for supplementary information. The conversation emphasizes the importance of understanding foundational concepts in set theory and functions to advance in mathematical studies.
Math Amateur
Gold Member
MHB
Messages
3,920
Reaction score
48
On a post involving the proof of the Fourth Isomorphism Theorem for vector spaces (in which I was immeasurably helped by Deveno) I have become aware that my knowledge of sets and functions was not all it should be when it comes to things like inverse images, left and right inverses and the like ...

However, I have had some difficulties in sourcing a good text that covers sets and functions in sufficient depth and detail ... many texts leave off at the point where my knowledge gets a bit suspect ...

Another area where I would like a clear and detailed exposition is indexed families of sets ... ...

Can anyone help with good texts or online notes covering these topics in some depth?

Peter
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
You're probably best off with Naive Set Theory, by Halmos, or Axiomatic Set Theory, by Suppes. The Halmos book is more informal, while the Suppes book is very formal. I know the Halmos book has indexed sets; I can't remember off-hand whether Suppes does or not. My copy is at work. I would guess that it probably does - Suppes is usually the standard reference whenever just about anything comes up.
 
My guess is that at your level consulting Wikipedia is sufficient. It's not like the inverse function is a completely new concept to you, you probably just need to verify some details, such as if it is true that every injective function has an inverse (no). There is also an article about indexed families. If Wikipedia is not sufficiently strict, you can consult Wolfram MathWorld, Springer Encyclopedia of Mathematics and PlanetMath.org (you may need to search it using Google as in "inverse function site:planetmath.org").

I think that naive set theory is mostly common sense. I have never studied it formally. And axiomatic set theory has a different concern: to show what can be done starting from specific axioms. Thus, axiomatic set theory is not necessarily used in the rest of mathematics.
 
Ackbach said:
You're probably best off with Naive Set Theory, by Halmos, or Axiomatic Set Theory, by Suppes. The Halmos book is more informal, while the Suppes book is very formal. I know the Halmos book has indexed sets; I can't remember off-hand whether Suppes does or not. My copy is at work. I would guess that it probably does - Suppes is usually the standard reference whenever just about anything comes up.

Thanks Ackbach ... Appreciate the help ... Will get a copy of Suppes, I think ...

Peter

- - - Updated - - -

Evgeny.Makarov said:
My guess is that at your level consulting Wikipedia is sufficient. It's not like the inverse function is a completely new concept to you, you probably just need to verify some details, such as if it is true that every injective function has an inverse (no). There is also an article about indexed families. If Wikipedia is not sufficiently strict, you can consult Wolfram MathWorld, Springer Encyclopedia of Mathematics and PlanetMath.org (you may need to search it using Google as in "inverse function site:planetmath.org").

I think that naive set theory is mostly common sense. I have never studied it formally. And axiomatic set theory has a different concern: to show what can be done starting from specific axioms. Thus, axiomatic set theory is not necessarily used in the rest of mathematics.

Thanks Evgeny ... Appreciate your thoughts on this matter ...

Peter
 
The book is fascinating. If your education includes a typical math degree curriculum, with Lebesgue integration, functional analysis, etc, it teaches QFT with only a passing acquaintance of ordinary QM you would get at HS. However, I would read Lenny Susskind's book on QM first. Purchased a copy straight away, but it will not arrive until the end of December; however, Scribd has a PDF I am now studying. The first part introduces distribution theory (and other related concepts), which...
I've gone through the Standard turbulence textbooks such as Pope's Turbulent Flows and Wilcox' Turbulent modelling for CFD which mostly Covers RANS and the closure models. I want to jump more into DNS but most of the work i've been able to come across is too "practical" and not much explanation of the theory behind it. I wonder if there is a book that takes a theoretical approach to Turbulence starting from the full Navier Stokes Equations and developing from there, instead of jumping from...
Back
Top