Set Theory Book Reviews: Halmos Edition

Click For Summary
Halmos' book on set theory is praised for its clarity, though it may be terse. The Dover book by Patrick Suppes, "Axiomatic Set Theory," is noted as a cheaper alternative. Herbert B. Enderton's "Elements of Set Theory" is recommended for its accessible style and comprehensive coverage of both naive and axiomatic set theory, making it suitable for students with limited mathematical maturity. In contrast, Enderton's "A Mathematical Introduction to Logic" is considered more challenging, requiring a solid algebraic background, and is better suited for graduate students in mathematics. Overall, these resources offer valuable insights into set theory and mathematical logic for varying levels of expertise.
Reedeegi
Messages
97
Reaction score
0
I'm looking for a book on Set Theory, currently. I've found one by Halmos which looks good, but I'd like some input on it.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Halmos is superb, a little terse but very clear. Also good, and cheaper, is the Dover book by Patrick Suppes, Axiomatic set theory.
 
(1) "Elements of Set Theory" by Herbert B. Enderton
(2) "A Mathematical Introduction to Logic" by Herbert B. Enderton

(1) includes a naive set theory and an introduction of an axiomatic set theory. Enderton's expository style of (1) is accessible to students without having much mathematical maturity. I purchased a used book of (1) from Amazon.com and it has been a good reference for set theory so far.

Even though the title of (2) includes an "introduction", it was not an introductory text for me.
Exercises were challenging and the expository style is very terse in comparison to (1). The book requires some algebraic backgrounds (free group, automorphism, etc) as well.

If you are a graduate student of mathematics, I think the book (2) would be a nice choice for studying mathematical logic. If you are an undergraduate student of mathematics or a graduate student of other areas (physics, computer science, etc), this book would be a bit challenging to you. Anyhow, this book would be still worth reading if you skip some of tough sections and follow the sentential and first order logic part of the book, which is my approach to this book.
 
Last edited:
The standard _A " operator" maps a Null Hypothesis Ho into a decision set { Do not reject:=1 and reject :=0}. In this sense ( HA)_A , makes no sense. Since H0, HA aren't exhaustive, can we find an alternative operator, _A' , so that ( H_A)_A' makes sense? Isn't Pearson Neyman related to this? Hope I'm making sense. Edit: I was motivated by a superficial similarity of the idea with double transposition of matrices M, with ## (M^{T})^{T}=M##, and just wanted to see if it made sense to talk...

Similar threads

  • · Replies 18 ·
Replies
18
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
5K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
3K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
5K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K