Re: Good Introduction to Analysis Book?

On Oct 5, 11:24 am, "Dave L. Renfro" <renfr...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
quasi wrote:
Kaplansky is one of my all-time favorite authors.

My first exposure to set theory (beyond things like
the countability of the rationals and the uncountability
of the reals) was his "Set Theory and Metric Spaces".

Dave L. Renfro

Kaplansky himself refers to this book as "Super-naive set theory".
Kind of precursor to Halmos.

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Skolems Paradox and why is math the way it is?
    ... interpretation takes anything seriously at all. ... > believing the axioms are correct in some sense or something like that. ... Set theory was billed to me as the type-free be-all theory, ... It still doesn't mean that the reals ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: naive question from a non-mathematician
    ... modern mathematicians define everything in terms of sets and set theory. ... the rationals usually either by Dedekind sections, or by some quotient ... You could, for instance, define the reals ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: Does the Calculus rest on Euclid?
    ... Pi is not a member of the set of rationals. ... of two reals and then multipliy that number by itself you ... set theory is symbolic logic _plus_ some axioms. ... Perhaps 'boolean algebra' may not be the best term to use. ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: Why? [was Re: Cantor`s powerset theorem is false?]
    ... there is no bijection between the reals and the naturals. ... a measure of size is not very useful in constructive mathematics. ... the infinitesimals and infinities were immensely easier to work with. ... Frege set theory, which was inconsistent. ...
    (sci.logic)
  • Re: Skolems Paradox and why is math the way it is?
    ... > The axioms of set theory are a late comer to the scene. ... > Mathematicians were using real numbers long before they studied set ... > If you jump to a non-standard model (such as countable model of set ... > reals. ...
    (sci.math)
Quantcast