19
$\begingroup$

I've been working my way through Enderton's Elements of Set Theory for a while, and I feel I have a decent grasp on some of the basics of elementary set theory. My question is, where should I look to next in set theory? What is a good book for set theory that may be considered 'the next step up'?

If it helps any, my background knowledge consists of some basic abstract algebra, general topology, linear algebra, etc., but I'm not sure how often they are used in real set theory. Thanks.

$\endgroup$
15
$\begingroup$

I have not read it myself, however I got a good recommendation from one of my teachers -

Azriel Levy's Basic Set Theory.

Jech's Set Theory is a great book but I think it is indeed slightly too advanced, he writes that the first part contains full proofs (I only read chapters from the second parts, in which proofs are many times sketched out and the details are left for the reader). Once you've got the basic theorems down, one might also check The Handbook Of Set Theory written by an ensemble of competent writers, for more specific topics.

$\endgroup$
10
  • $\begingroup$ Agreed, both on the excellence of Levy, and the difficulty of Jech. $\endgroup$ – Flash Sheridan Mar 9 '11 at 17:43
  • $\begingroup$ Thanks Asaf, I flipped through some of Levy today, and it seems quite good. $\endgroup$ – yunone Mar 10 '11 at 3:28
  • $\begingroup$ When you recommend Jech's Set Theory, is this for his "Introduction to Set Theory" or what seems to be a bit different book by him titled just "Set Theory"? $\endgroup$ – Addem Aug 30 '16 at 23:43
  • $\begingroup$ @Addem: This is a recommendation for an intermediate book. If I had meant "Introduction to Set Theory" by Hrabeck and Jech, I'd have said so. $\endgroup$ – Asaf Karagila Aug 30 '16 at 23:47
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @H.R.: I haven't read it, but it did receive some reasonable recommendations from people I appreciate their opinion on the matter. I am not inclined to add information about that in my answer, since the question was about intermediate texts, and not introductory texts. That's a different question, and it has been asked before on the site. See math.stackexchange.com/a/251888/622, for example. $\endgroup$ – Asaf Karagila Nov 2 '16 at 10:51
10
$\begingroup$

While Jech's book (Leon's recommendation) certainly is an outstanding book, it may be a bit advanced. In my daily work, I find what's covered in Ciesielski's book Set theory for the working mathematician, LMS student texts 32, amply enough for my needs. It makes for an easy read and prepares the reader gently towards forcing. I don't know Enderton's book, but I imagine there's quite a bit of overlap in the beginning. Another book that's often recommended is Kunen's Set theory, an introduction to independence proofs, but I find it a bit hard on the casual reader. Concerning the philosophical background, I found the beginning of Fraenkel, Bar-Hillel, Levy, Foundations of set theory an exciting read (Fraenkel is the F in ZF: Zermelo-Fraenkel).

$\endgroup$
1
  • $\begingroup$ Thanks Theo, both those sound promising. $\endgroup$ – yunone Mar 8 '11 at 10:29
2
$\begingroup$

I've read only some chapters from these books, hopefully enough to be able to give some kind of opinion on them. I think they could be good texts for looking into more advanced set theory.

$\endgroup$
1
$\begingroup$

hmm, well I'm no expert, but you could try Jech's "Set Theory". I haven't read it, but I have glanced through it quite a lot, and it is a huge book, 700+ pages.

It covers basic as well as advanced (majority) set theory (+selected topics) and it starts from zero, although it doesn't teach logic. It is in no way a a foundation of mathematics (like Principia Mathematica), because it is reader friendly.

It is also (illegally) available as an ebook on the net.

$\endgroup$
-4
$\begingroup$

Paul Halmos Naive Set Theory is an Excellent text

$\endgroup$
3
  • $\begingroup$ I saw that book listed in a question on good introductory texts, so would you say it's a step up, or about on the same level? If you're not sure, I could try to browse through a copy somehow. $\endgroup$ – yunone Mar 8 '11 at 10:30
  • $\begingroup$ @Yuone: I would like you to have a look into and then decide it for yourself. Thats the best option. $\endgroup$ – anonymous Mar 8 '11 at 10:32
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ I'd consider this not a step up from Enderton. In fact, I used it alongside Enderton when I was teaching myself set theory (having minimal mathematical background) and found it much easier than the Enderton. That said, I certainly don't think it is a good intermediate option. $\endgroup$ – Dennis Nov 2 '13 at 6:48

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

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