What do you think?
Rate this book
Introduction to Set Theory
Hardcover
First published January 1, 1968
1 person is currently reading
4 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 of 1 review
August 25, 2023
Things I liked
* the book outlines an axiomatic approach to logic that doesn't rely upon set theory itself thereby answering a recurring question in math circles namely "Why does set theory seem to depend on logic and vice versa?"
* the book gives really clear set theory axioms formalized in first-order logic thereby avoiding any ambiguity for the reader
Things that didn't resonate with me
* it's fairly dry and lacks supplementary intuitive explanations of topics. i read this book concurrently with "A Book of Set Theory" by Charles Pinter and found the latter much more intuitive to read. for example, the latter defines "Relation" and "Function" with respect to the Cartesian Product of classes which is far more intuitive than this text which defines these concepts in a more generalized but ultimately far less intuitive manner. this means that Monk uses a concept of "field of relation" to work with his relations in a manner similar to Pinter's relations, which feels less intuitive
* the book outlines an axiomatic approach to logic that doesn't rely upon set theory itself thereby answering a recurring question in math circles namely "Why does set theory seem to depend on logic and vice versa?"
* the book gives really clear set theory axioms formalized in first-order logic thereby avoiding any ambiguity for the reader
Things that didn't resonate with me
* it's fairly dry and lacks supplementary intuitive explanations of topics. i read this book concurrently with "A Book of Set Theory" by Charles Pinter and found the latter much more intuitive to read. for example, the latter defines "Relation" and "Function" with respect to the Cartesian Product of classes which is far more intuitive than this text which defines these concepts in a more generalized but ultimately far less intuitive manner. this means that Monk uses a concept of "field of relation" to work with his relations in a manner similar to Pinter's relations, which feels less intuitive
Displaying 1 of 1 review