Take the 2-minute tour ×
Mathematics Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for people studying math at any level and professionals in related fields. It's 100% free, no registration required.

Possible Duplicate:
What is a good text in intermediate set theory?

I need a good book about Set Theory. As I was searching online I came across "Set Theory - Kenneth Kunen" which seems to be one of the bests. Does anyone have any other suggestions? Should I be concerned about reading something which is written recently or old texts are also good?

share|improve this question

marked as duplicate by Asaf Karagila, mixedmath, Arturo Magidin, t.b., Zhen Lin Feb 17 '12 at 21:44

This question has been asked before and already has an answer. If those answers do not fully address your question, please ask a new question.

    
Set Theory with Applications by T.Lin and F.Lin is an old one but is a good for start. –  B. S. Feb 17 '12 at 19:38
1  
Depending on your background, you might first consider going through the very good Naive Set Theory, by Halmos. –  André Nicolas Feb 17 '12 at 19:41
3  
@André: I don’t much care for Halmos: it’s a bit too old-fashioned. My recommendation for a serious beginner is Hrbacek & Jech, Introduction to Set Theory. –  Brian M. Scott Feb 17 '12 at 20:18
    
I second for Hrbacek & Jech's book too. –  Hardy Feb 17 '12 at 20:43
    
Me too (my review is on amazon). –  Michael Greinecker Feb 17 '12 at 22:03

1 Answer 1

The best book I've seen on set theory for the serious student is Yiannis Moschovakis' Notes on Set Theory . Deep, broad and beautifully written with lots of good exercises. It's the book I wish I'd known about when I was taking Russell Miller's set theory course at CUNY. The old standby which I actually did use for the course is Herbert Enderton's Elements of Set Theory. This book is also beautifully written, but is deeper in a number of respects and Enderton is sometimes confusing since he isn't clear sometimes on the distinction between a set, it's subsets and it's elements. (To be honest, though, this is not so much a failing of Enderton's book, but of axiomatic set theory in general when it is presented in natural language rather then mathematical logical language. But that's the great chicken-or-the-egg debate of axiomatic set theory: logic first or no logic?) There's a few others,but those are my faves.

share|improve this answer
    
OK,I AM BEGINNING TO LOSE MY TEMPER WITH PEOPLE DOWNVOTING MY POSTS JUST FOR KICKS AND ANONYMOUSLY AT THAT.I'M FILING A COMPLAINT WITH THE MODERATORS. –  Mathemagician1234 Apr 17 '12 at 18:24
6  
I did not down-vote (I was just looking at some closed questions), but I would imagine that the reason someone down-voted may be one of the following: namedropping ("Russell Miller's set theory course at CUNY...") is not only irrelevant but also is not considered in good form; your answer begins to ramble a bit (you begin to criticize set theory in an answer, which is not really related to OP's question). Like I said, I don't have a huge problem with this stuff, but that's probably why someone down-voted. Also, I prefer Enderton over Moschovaski, but I'm not a huge fan of set theory. =] –  james Apr 19 '12 at 16:25
1  
@james Personal recollections are part of the humanity of mathematics. Paul Halmos' I WANT TO BE A MATHEMATICIAN burned that into my psyche for life. Mathematics isn't just about number,functions and symbols-it's about the humans you learned it from. –  Mathemagician1234 May 4 at 20:43

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.