Set theory

Set theory is t he branch of mat hemat ical logic t hat st udies set s, which can be informally
described as collect ions of object s. Alt hough object s of any kind can be collect ed int o a set , set
t heory — as a branch of mat hemat ics — is most ly concerned wit h t hose t hat are relevant t o
mat hemat ics as a whole.

A Venn diagram illustrating the

intersection of two sets

The modern st udy of set t heory was init iat ed by t he German mat hemat icians Richard Dedekind
and Georg Cant or in t he 1870s. In part icular, Georg Cant or is commonly considered t he founder of
set t heory. The non-formalized syst ems invest igat ed during t his early st age go under t he name
of naive set theory. Aft er t he discovery of paradoxes wit hin naive set t heory (such as Russell's
paradox, Cant or's paradox and t he Burali-Fort i paradox), various axiomat ic syst ems were proposed
in t he early t went iet h cent ury, of which Zermelo–Fraenkel set t heory (wit h or wit hout t he axiom
of choice) is st ill t he best -known and most st udied.

Set t heory is commonly employed as a foundat ional syst em for t he whole of mat hemat ics,
part icularly in t he form of Zermelo–Fraenkel set t heory wit h t he axiom of choice. Besides it s
foundat ional role, set t heory also provides t he framework t o develop a mat hemat ical t heory of
infinit y, and has various applicat ions in comput er science (such as in t he t heory of relat ional
algebra), philosophy, formal semant ics, and evolut ionary dynamics. It s foundat ional appeal,
t oget her wit h it s paradoxes, it s implicat ions for t he concept of infinit y and it s mult iple
applicat ions, have made set t heory an area of major int erest for logicians and philosophers of
mat hemat ics. Cont emporary research int o set t heory covers a vast array of t opics, ranging from
t he st ruct ure of t he real number line t o t he st udy of t he consist ency of large cardinals.
History

Georg Cantor

Mat hemat ical t opics t ypically emerge and evolve t hrough int eract ions among many researchers.
Set t heory, however, was founded by a single paper in 1874 by Georg Cant or: "On a Propert y of
t he Collect ion of All Real Algebraic Numbers".[1][2]

Since t he 5t h cent ury BC, beginning wit h Greek mat hemat ician Zeno of Elea in t he West and early
Indian mat hemat icians in t he East , mat hemat icians had st ruggled wit h t he concept of infinit y.
Especially not able is t he work of Bernard Bolzano in t he first half of t he 19t h cent ury.[3] Modern
underst anding of infinit y began in 1870–1874, and was mot ivat ed by Cant or's work in real
analysis.[4]

Basic concepts and notation

Set t heory begins wit h a fundament al binary relat ion bet ween an object o and a set A. If o is a
member (or element) of A, t he not at ion o ∈ A is used. A set is described by list ing element s
separat ed by commas, or by a charact erizing propert y of it s element s, wit hin braces { }.[5] Since
set s are object s, t he membership relat ion can relat e set s as well.

A derived binary relat ion bet ween t wo set s is t he subset relat ion, also called set inclusion. If all
t he members of set A are also members of set B, t hen A is a subset of B, denot ed A ⊆ B. For
example, {1, 2} is a subset of {1, 2, 3}, and so is {2} but {1, 4} is not . As implied by t his definit ion,
a set is a subset of it self. For cases where t his possibilit y is unsuit able or would make sense t o
be reject ed, t he t erm proper subset is defined. A is called a proper subset of B if and only if A is a
subset of B, but A is not equal t o B. Also, 1, 2, and 3 are members (element s) of t he set {1, 2, 3},
but are not subset s of it ; and in t urn, t he subset s, such as {1}, are not members of t he set
{1, 2, 3}.

Just as arit hmet ic feat ures binary operat ions on numbers, set t heory feat ures binary operat ions
on set s.[6] The following is a part ial list of t hem:

Union of t he set s A and B, denot ed A ∪ B, is t he set of all object s t hat are a member of A, or
B, or bot h.[7] For example, t he union of {1, 2, 3} and {2, 3, 4} is t he set {1, 2, 3, 4}.

Intersection of t he set s A and B, denot ed A ∩ B, is t he set of all object s t hat are members of
bot h A and B. For example, t he int ersect ion of {1, 2, 3} and {2, 3, 4} is t he set {2, 3}.

Set difference of U and A, denot ed U \ A, is t he set of all members of U t hat are not members
of A. The set difference {1, 2, 3} \ {2, 3, 4} is {1}, while conversely, t he set difference
{2, 3, 4} \ {1, 2, 3} is {4}. When A is a subset of U, t he set difference U \ A is also called t he
complement of A in U. In t his case, if t he choice of U is clear from t he cont ext , t he not at ion Ac
is somet imes used inst ead of U \ A, part icularly if U is a universal set as in t he st udy of Venn
diagrams.

Symmetric difference of set s A and B, denot ed A △ B or A ⊖ B, is t he set of all object s t hat

are a member of exact ly one of A and B (element s which are in one of t he set s, but not in
bot h). For inst ance, for t he set s {1, 2, 3} and {2, 3, 4}, t he symmet ric difference set is {1, 4}. It
is t he set difference of t he union and t he int ersect ion, (A ∪ B) \ (A ∩ B) or (A \ B) ∪ (B \ A).

Cartesian product of A and B, denot ed A × B, is t he set whose members are all possible
ordered pairs (a, b), where a is a member of A and b is a member of B. For example, t he
Cart esian product of {1, 2} and {red, whit e} is {(1, red), (1, whit e), (2, red), (2, whit e)}.

Power set of a set A, denot ed , is t he set whose members are all of t he possible
subset s of A. For example, t he power set of {1, 2} is { {}, {1}, {2}, {1, 2} }.

Some basic set s of cent ral import ance are t he set of nat ural numbers, t he set of real numbers
and t he empt y set —t he unique set cont aining no element s. The empt y set is also occasionally
called t he null set,[8] t hough t his name is ambiguous and can lead t o several int erpret at ions.
Ontology

An initial segment of the von Neumann hierarchy

A set is pure if all of it s members are set s, all members of it s members are set s, and so on. For
example, t he set cont aining only t he empt y set is a nonempt y pure set . In modern set t heory, it is
common t o rest rict at t ent ion t o t he von Neumann universe of pure set s, and many syst ems of
axiomat ic set t heory are designed t o axiomat ize t he pure set s only. There are many t echnical
advant ages t o t his rest rict ion, and lit t le generalit y is lost , because essent ially all mat hemat ical
concept s can be modeled by pure set s. Set s in t he von Neumann universe are organized int o a
cumulat ive hierarchy, based on how deeply t heir members, members of members, et c. are nest ed.
Each set in t his hierarchy is assigned (by t ransfinit e recursion) an ordinal number , known as it s
rank. The rank of a pure set is defined t o be t he least ordinal t hat is st rict ly great er t han t he
rank of any of it s element s. For example, t he empt y set is assigned rank 0, while t he set {{}}
cont aining only t he empt y set is assigned rank 1. For each ordinal , t he set is defined t o
consist of all pure set s wit h rank less t han . The ent ire von Neumann universe is denot ed .

Formalized set theory

Element ary set t heory can be st udied informally and int uit ively, and so can be t aught in primary
schools using Venn diagrams. The int uit ive approach t acit ly assumes t hat a set may be formed
from t he class of all object s sat isfying any part icular defining condit ion. This assumpt ion gives
rise t o paradoxes, t he simplest and best known of which are Russell's paradox and t he Burali-Fort i
paradox. Axiomatic set theory was originally devised t o rid set t heory of such paradoxes.[note 1]

The most widely st udied syst ems of axiomat ic set t heory imply t hat all set s form a cumulat ive
hierarchy. Such syst ems come in t wo flavors, t hose whose ont ology consist s of:
 Sets alone. This includes t he most common axiomat ic set t heory, Z ermelo–Fraenkel set
t heory wit h t he axiom of c hoice (ZFC). Fragment s of ZFC include:
Zermelo set t heory, which replaces t he axiom schema of replacement wit h t hat of
separat ion;

General set t heory, a small fragment of Zermelo set t heory sufficient for t he Peano
axioms and finit e set s;

Kripke–Plat ek set t heory, which omit s t he axioms of infinit y, powerset , and choice, and
weakens t he axiom schemat a of separat ion and replacement .

Sets and proper classes . These include Von Neumann–Bernays–Gödel set t heory, which has
t he same st rengt h as ZFC for t heorems about set s alone, and Morse–Kelley set t heory and
Tarski–Grot hendieck set t heory, bot h of which are st ronger t han ZFC.

The above syst ems can be modified t o allow urelements , object s t hat can be members of set s
but t hat are not t hemselves set s and do not have any members.

The New Foundations syst ems of NFU (allowing urelement s) and NF (lacking t hem), associat e
wit h Willard Van Orman Quine, are not based on a cumulat ive hierarchy. NF and NFU include a "set
of everyt hing", relat ive t o which every set has a complement . In t hese syst ems urelement s
mat t er, because NF, but not NFU, produces set s for which t he axiom of choice does not hold.
Despit e NF's ont ology not reflect ing t he t radit ional cumulat ive hierarchy and violat ing well-
foundedness, Thomas Forst er has argued t hat it does reflect an it erat ive concept ion of set .[9]

Syst ems of const ruct ive set t heory, such as CST, CZF, and IZF, embed t heir set axioms in
int uit ionist ic inst ead of classical logic. Yet ot her syst ems accept classical logic but feat ure a
nonst andard membership relat ion. These include rough set t heory and fuzzy set t heory, in which
t he value of an at omic formula embodying t he membership relat ion is not simply True or False .
The Boolean-valued models of ZFC are a relat ed subject .

An enrichment of ZFC called int ernal set t heory was proposed by Edward Nelson in 1977.[10]

Applications

Many mat hemat ical concept s can be defined precisely using only set t heoret ic concept s. For
example, mat hemat ical st ruct ures as diverse as graphs, manifolds, rings, vect or spaces, and
relat ional algebras can all be defined as set s sat isfying various (axiomat ic) propert ies.
Equivalence and order relat ions are ubiquit ous in mat hemat ics, and t he t heory of mat hemat ical
relat ions can be described in set t heory.[11][12]

Set t heory is also a promising foundat ional syst em for much of mat hemat ics. Since t he
publicat ion of t he first volume of Principia Mathematica , it has been claimed t hat most (or even
all) mat hemat ical t heorems can be derived using an apt ly designed set of axioms for set t heory,
augment ed wit h many definit ions, using first or second-order logic. For example, propert ies of t he
nat ural and real numbers can be derived wit hin set t heory, as each of t hese number syst ems can
be defined by represent ing t heir element s as set s of specific forms.[13]

Set t heory as a foundat ion for mat hemat ical analysis, t opology, abst ract algebra, and discret e
mat hemat ics is likewise uncont roversial; mat hemat icians accept (in principle) t hat t heorems in
t hese areas can be derived from t he relevant definit ions and t he axioms of set t heory. However,
it remains t hat few full derivat ions of complex mat hemat ical t heorems from set t heory have
been formally verified, since such formal derivat ions are oft en much longer t han t he nat ural
language proofs mat hemat icians commonly present . One verificat ion project , Met amat h, includes
human-writ t en, comput er-verified derivat ions of more t han 12,000 t heorems st art ing from ZFC
set t heory, first -order logic and proposit ional logic.[14] ZFC and t he Axiom of Choice have recent ly
seen applicat ions in evolut ionary dynamics,[15] enhancing t he underst anding of well-est ablished
models of evolut ion and int eract ion.

Areas of study

Set t heory is a major area of research in mat hemat ics, wit h many int errelat ed subfields.

Combinatorial set theory

Combinatorial set theory concerns ext ensions of finit e combinat orics t o infinit e set s. This
includes t he st udy of cardinal arit hmet ic and t he st udy of ext ensions of Ramsey's t heorem such
as t he Erdős–Rado t heorem.

Descriptive set theory

Descriptive set theory is t he st udy of subset s of t he real line and, more generally, subset s of
Polish spaces. It begins wit h t he st udy of point classes in t he Borel hierarchy and ext ends t o t he
st udy of more complex hierarchies such as t he project ive hierarchy and t he Wadge hierarchy.
Many propert ies of Borel set s can be est ablished in ZFC, but proving t hese propert ies hold for
more complicat ed set s requires addit ional axioms relat ed t o det erminacy and large cardinals.

The field of effect ive descript ive set t heory is bet ween set t heory and recursion t heory. It
includes t he st udy of light face point classes, and is closely relat ed t o hyperarit hmet ical t heory. In
many cases, result s of classical descript ive set t heory have effect ive versions; in some cases,
new result s are obt ained by proving t he effect ive version first and t hen ext ending ("relat ivizing")
it t o make it more broadly applicable.
A recent area of research concerns Borel equivalence relat ions and more complicat ed definable
equivalence relat ions. This has import ant applicat ions t o t he st udy of invariant s in many fields of
mat hemat ics.

Fuzzy set theory

In set t heory as Cant or defined and Zermelo and Fraenkel axiomat ized, an object is eit her a
member of a set or not . In fuzzy set theory t his condit ion was relaxed by Lot fi A. Zadeh so an
object has a degree of membership in a set , a number bet ween 0 and 1. For example, t he degree
of membership of a person in t he set of "t all people" is more flexible t han a simple yes or no
answer and can be a real number such as 0.75.

Inner model theory

An inner model of Zermelo–Fraenkel set t heory (ZF) is a t ransit ive class t hat includes all t he
ordinals and sat isfies all t he axioms of ZF. The canonical example is t he const ruct ible universe L
developed by Gödel. One reason t hat t he st udy of inner models is of int erest is t hat it can be
used t o prove consist ency result s. For example, it can be shown t hat regardless of whet her a
model V of ZF sat isfies t he cont inuum hypot hesis or t he axiom of choice, t he inner model L
const ruct ed inside t he original model will sat isfy bot h t he generalized cont inuum hypot hesis and
t he axiom of choice. Thus t he assumpt ion t hat ZF is consist ent (has at least one model) implies
t hat ZF t oget her wit h t hese t wo principles is consist ent .

The st udy of inner models is common in t he st udy of det erminacy and large cardinals, especially
when considering axioms such as t he axiom of det erminacy t hat cont radict t he axiom of choice.
Even if a fixed model of set t heory sat isfies t he axiom of choice, it is possible for an inner model
t o fail t o sat isfy t he axiom of choice. For example, t he exist ence of sufficient ly large cardinals
implies t hat t here is an inner model sat isfying t he axiom of det erminacy (and t hus not sat isfying
t he axiom of choice).[16]

Large cardinals

A large cardinal is a cardinal number wit h an ext ra propert y. Many such propert ies are st udied,
including inaccessible cardinals, measurable cardinals, and many more. These propert ies t ypically
imply t he cardinal number must be very large, wit h t he exist ence of a cardinal wit h t he specified
propert y unprovable in Zermelo–Fraenkel set t heory.
Determinacy

Determinacy refers t o t he fact t hat , under appropriat e assumpt ions, cert ain t wo-player games of
perfect informat ion are det ermined from t he st art in t he sense t hat one player must have a
winning st rat egy. The exist ence of t hese st rat egies has import ant consequences in descript ive
set t heory, as t he assumpt ion t hat a broader class of games is det ermined oft en implies t hat a
broader class of set s will have a t opological propert y. The axiom of det erminacy (AD) is an
import ant object of st udy; alt hough incompat ible wit h t he axiom of choice, AD implies t hat all
subset s of t he real line are well behaved (in part icular, measurable and wit h t he perfect set
propert y). AD can be used t o prove t hat t he Wadge degrees have an elegant st ruct ure.

Forcing

Paul Cohen invent ed t he met hod of forcing while searching for a model of ZFC in which t he
cont inuum hypot hesis fails, or a model of ZF in which t he axiom of choice fails. Forcing adjoins t o
some given model of set t heory addit ional set s in order t o creat e a larger model wit h propert ies
det ermined (i.e. "forced") by t he const ruct ion and t he original model. For example, Cohen's
const ruct ion adjoins addit ional subset s of t he nat ural numbers wit hout changing any of t he
cardinal numbers of t he original model. Forcing is also one of t wo met hods for proving relat ive
consist ency by finit ist ic met hods, t he ot her met hod being Boolean-valued models.

Cardinal invariants

A cardinal invariant is a propert y of t he real line measured by a cardinal number. For example, a
well-st udied invariant is t he smallest cardinalit y of a collect ion of meagre set s of reals whose
union is t he ent ire real line. These are invariant s in t he sense t hat any t wo isomorphic models of
set t heory must give t he same cardinal for each invariant . Many cardinal invariant s have been
st udied, and t he relat ionships bet ween t hem are oft en complex and relat ed t o axioms of set
t heory.

Set-theoretic topology

Set-theoretic topology st udies quest ions of general t opology t hat are set -t heoret ic in nat ure or
t hat require advanced met hods of set t heory for t heir solut ion. Many of t hese t heorems are
independent of ZFC, requiring st ronger axioms for t heir proof. A famous problem is t he normal
Moore space quest ion, a quest ion in general t opology t hat was t he subject of int ense research.
The answer t o t he normal Moore space quest ion was event ually proved t o be independent of
ZFC.
Objections to set theory

From set t heory's incept ion, some mat hemat icians have object ed t o it as a foundat ion for
mat hemat ics: see Cont roversy over Cant or's t heory. The most common object ion t o set t heory,
one Kronecker voiced in set t heory's earliest years, st art s from t he const ruct ivist view t hat
mat hemat ics is loosely relat ed t o comput at ion. If t his view is grant ed, t hen t he t reat ment of
infinit e set s, bot h in naive and in axiomat ic set t heory, int roduces int o mat hemat ics met hods and
object s t hat are not comput able even in principle. The feasibilit y of const ruct ivism as a
subst it ut e foundat ion for mat hemat ics was great ly increased by Erret t Bishop's influent ial book
Foundations of Constructive Analysis .[17]

A different object ion put fort h by Henri Poincaré is t hat defining set s using t he axiom schemas of
specificat ion and replacement , as well as t he axiom of power set , int roduces impredicat ivit y, a
t ype of circularit y, int o t he definit ions of mat hemat ical object s. The scope of predicat ively
founded mat hemat ics, while less t han t hat of t he commonly accept ed Zermelo–Fraenkel t heory,
is much great er t han t hat of const ruct ive mat hemat ics, t o t he point t hat Solomon Feferman has
said t hat "all of scient ifically applicable analysis can be developed [using predicat ive
met hods]".[18]

Ludwig Wit t genst ein condemned set t heory philosophically for it s connot at ions of mat hemat ical
plat onism.[19] He wrot e t hat "set t heory is wrong", since it builds on t he "nonsense" of fict it ious
symbolism, has "pernicious idioms", and t hat it is nonsensical t o t alk about "all numbers".[20]
Wit t genst ein ident ified mat hemat ics wit h algorit hmic human deduct ion;[21] t he need for a secure
foundat ion for mat hemat ics seemed, t o him, nonsensical.[22] Moreover, since human effort is
necessarily finit e, Wit t genst ein's philosophy required an ont ological commit ment t o radical
const ruct ivism and finit ism. Met a-mat hemat ical st at ement s — which, for Wit t genst ein, included
any st at ement quant ifying over infinit e domains, and t hus almost all modern set t heory — are not
mat hemat ics.[23] Few modern philosophers have adopt ed Wit t genst ein's views aft er a
spect acular blunder in Remarks on the Foundations of Mathematics : Wit t genst ein at t empt ed t o
refut e Gödel's incomplet eness t heorems aft er having only read t he abst ract . As reviewers
Kreisel, Bernays, Dummet t , and Goodst ein all point ed out , many of his crit iques did not apply t o
t he paper in full. Only recent ly have philosophers such as Crispin Wright begun t o rehabilit at e
Wit t genst ein's argument s.[24]

Cat egory t heorist s have proposed t opos t heory as an alt ernat ive t o t radit ional axiomat ic set
t heory. Topos t heory can int erpret various alt ernat ives t o t hat t heory, such as const ruct ivism,
finit e set t heory, and comput able set t heory.[25][26] Topoi also give a nat ural set t ing for forcing
and discussions of t he independence of choice from ZF, as well as providing t he framework for
point less t opology and St one spaces.[27]
An act ive area of research is t he univalent foundat ions and relat ed t o it homot opy t ype t heory.
Wit hin homot opy t ype t heory, a set may be regarded as a homot opy 0-t ype, wit h universal
propert ies of set s arising from t he induct ive and recursive propert ies of higher induct ive t ypes.
Principles such as t he axiom of choice and t he law of t he excluded middle can be formulat ed in a
manner corresponding t o t he classical formulat ion in set t heory or perhaps in a spect rum of
dist inct ways unique t o t ype t heory. Some of t hese principles may be proven t o be a
consequence of ot her principles. The variet y of formulat ions of t hese axiomat ic principles allows
for a det ailed analysis of t he formulat ions required in order t o derive various mat hemat ical
result s.[28][29]

Set theory in mathematical education

As set t heory gained popularit y as a foundat ion for modern mat hemat ics, t here has been support
for t he idea of int roducing t he basics of naive set t heory early in mat hemat ics educat ion.

In t he US in t he 1960s, t he New Mat h experiment aimed t o t each basic set t heory, among ot her
abst ract concept s, t o primary school st udent s, but was met wit h much crit icism. The mat h
syllabus in European schools followed t his t rend, and current ly includes t he subject at different
levels in all grades. Venn diagrams are widely employed t o explain basic set -t heoret ic
relat ionships t o primary school st udent s (even t hough John Venn originally devised t hem as part
of a procedure t o assess t he validit y of inferences in t erm logic).

Set t heory is used t o int roduce st udent s t o logical operat ors (NOT, AND, OR), and semant ic or
rule descript ion (t echnically int ensional definit ion[30]) of set s (e.g. "mont hs st art ing wit h t he let t er
A"), which may be useful when learning comput er programming, since Boolean logic is used in
various programming languages. Likewise, set s and ot her collect ion-like object s, such as
mult iset s and list s, are common dat at ypes in comput er science and programming.

In addit ion t o t hat , set s are commonly referred t o in mat hemat ical t eaching when t alking about
different t ypes of numbers (t he set s of nat ural numbers, of int egers, of real numbers,
et c.), and when defining a mat hemat ical funct ion as a relat ion from one set (t he domain) t o
anot her set (t he range).

See also

Mathematics portal

Glossary of set t heory

Class (set t heory)

List of set t heory t opics

 Relat ional model – borrows from set t heory

Venn diagram

Notes

1. In his 1925 paper ""An Axiomatization of Set Theory", John von Neumann observed that "set
theory in its first, "naive" version, due to Cantor, led to contradictions. These are the well-known
antinomies of the set of all sets that do not contain themselves (Russell), of the set of all
transfinite ordinal numbers (Burali-Forti), and the set of all finitely definable real numbers
(Richard)." He goes on to observe that two "tendencies" were attempting to "rehabilitate" set
theory. Of the first effort, exemplified by Bertrand Russell, Julius König, Hermann Weyl and L. E. J.
Brouwer, von Neumann called the "overall effect of their activity . . . devastating". With regards to
the axiomatic method employed by second group composed of Zermelo, Fraenkel and
Schoenflies, von Neumann worried that "We see only that the known modes of inference leading
to the antinomies fail, but who knows where there are not others?" and he set to the task, "in the
spirit of the second group", to "produce, by means of a finite number of purely formal operations .
. . all the sets that we want to see formed" but not allow for the antinomies. (All quotes from von
Neumann 1925 reprinted in van Heijenoort, Jean (1967, third printing 1976), From Frege to Gödel: A
Source Book in Mathematical Logic, 1879–1931, Harvard University Press, Cambridge MA, ISBN 0-
674-32449-8 (pbk). A synopsis of the history, written by van Heijenoort, can be found in the
comments that precede von Neumann's 1925 paper.

References

1. Cantor, Georg (1874), "Ueber eine Eigenschaft des Inbegriffes aller reellen algebraischen Zahlen" (ht
tp://www.digizeitschriften.de/main/dms/img/?PPN=GDZPPN002155583) , Journal für die reine und
angewandte Mathematik (in German), 1874 (77): 258–262, doi:10.1515/crll.1874.77.258 (https://doi.or
g/10.1515%2Fcrll.1874.77.258) , S2CID 199545885 (https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:1995
45885)

2. Johnson, Philip (1972), A History of Set Theory (https://archive.org/details/mathematicalcirc0000ev

es_ x3z6) , Prindle, Weber & Schmidt, ISBN 0-87150-154-6

3. Bolzano, Bernard (1975), Berg, Jan (ed.), Einleitung zur Größenlehre und erste Begriffe der allgemeinen
Größenlehre, Bernard-Bolzano-Gesamtausgabe, edited by Eduard Winter et al., vol. II, A, 7, Stuttgart,
Bad Cannstatt: Friedrich Frommann Verlag, p. 152, ISBN 3-7728-0466-7

4. Dauben, Joseph (1979), Georg Cantor: His Mathematics and Philosophy of the Infinite, Harvard
University Press, pp. 30–54, ISBN 0-674-34871-0.

5. "Introduction to Sets" (https://www.mathsisfun.com/sets/sets-introduction.html) ,

www.mathsisfun.com, retrieved 2020-08-20
 6. Kolmogorov, A.N.; Fomin, S.V. (1970), Introductory Real Analysis (https://archive.org/details/introduc
toryreal00kolm_ 0/page/2) (Rev. English ed.), New York: Dover Publications, pp. 2–3 (https://archiv
e.org/details/introductoryreal00kolm_ 0/page/2) , ISBN 0486612260, OCLC 1527264 (https://www.
worldcat.org/oclc/1527264)

7. "set theory | Basics, Examples, & Formulas" (https://www.britannica.com/science/set-theory) ,

Encyclopedia Britannica , retrieved 2020-08-20

8. Bagaria, Joan (2020), "Set Theory" (https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2020/entries/set-theor

y/) , in Zalta, Edward N. (ed.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Spring 2020 ed.),
Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University, retrieved 2020-08-20

9. Forster, T. E. (2008), "The iterative conception of set" (https://www.dpmms.cam.ac.uk/~tf/iterative

conception.pdf) (PDF), The Review of Symbolic Logic , 1: 97–110, doi:10.1017/S1755020308080064
(https://doi.org/10.1017%2FS1755020308080064) , S2CID 15231169 (https://api.semanticscholar.o
rg/CorpusID:15231169)

10. Nelson, Edward (November 1977), "Internal Set Theory: a New Approach to Nonstandard Analysis"
(https://doi.org/10.1090%2FS0002-9904-1977-14398-X) , Bulletin of the American Mathematical
Society , 83 (6): 1165, doi:10.1090/S0002-9904-1977-14398-X (https://doi.org/10.1090%2FS0002-990
4-1977-14398-X)

11. "6.3: Equivalence Relations and Partitions" (https://math.libretexts.org/Courses/Monroe_ Communit

y_ College/MTH_ 220_ Discrete_ Math/6%3A_ Relations/6.3%3A_ Equivalence_ Relations_ and_ Partitio
ns) , Mathematics LibreTexts , 2019-11-25, retrieved 2022-07-27

12. "Order Relations and Functions" (https://web.stanford.edu/class/archive/cs/cs103/cs103.1132/lec

tures/06/Slides06.pdf) (PDF), Web.stanford.edu, retrieved 2022-07-29

13. Mendelson, Elliott (1973), Number Systems and the Foundations of Analysis , Academic Press,
MR 0357694 (https://mathscinet.ams.org/mathscinet-getitem?mr=0357694) , Zbl 0268.26001 (htt
ps://zbmath.org/?format=complete&q=an:0268.26001)

14. "A PARTITION CALCULUS IN SET THEORY" (https://www.ams.org/bull/1956-62-05/S0002-9904-1956

-10036-0/S0002-9904-1956-10036-0.pdf) (PDF), Ams.org, retrieved 2022-07-29

15. Berkemeier, Francisco; Page, Karen M. (2023-09-29), "Unifying evolutionary dynamics: a set theory
exploration of symmetry and interaction" (https://dx.doi.org/10.1101/2023.09.27.559729) ,
dx.doi.org, doi:10.1101/2023.09.27.559729 (https://doi.org/10.1101%2F2023.09.27.559729) ,
retrieved 2023-12-07

16. Jech, Thomas (2003), Set Theory (https://books.google.com/books?id=CZb-CAAAQBAJ&pg=PA64

2) , Springer Monographs in Mathematics (Third Millennium ed.), Berlin, New York: Springer-Verlag,
p. 642, ISBN 978-3-540-44085-7, Zbl 1007.03002 (https://zbmath.org/?format=complete&q=an:100
7.03002)

17. Bishop, Errett (1967), Foundations of Constructive Analysis (https://books.google.com/books?id=o

2mmAAAAIAAJ) , New York: Academic Press, ISBN 4-87187-714-0

18. Feferman, Solomon (1998), In the Light of Logic (https://books.google.com/books?id=1rjnCwAAQB

AJ) , New York: Oxford University Press, pp. 280–283, 293–294, ISBN 0-195-08030-0
19. Rodych, Victor (Jan 31, 2018), "Wittgenstein's Philosophy of Mathematics" (https://plato.stanford.
edu/entries/wittgenstein-mathematics/) , in Zalta, Edward N. (ed.), Stanford Encyclopedia of
Philosophy (Spring 2018 ed.)

20. Wittgenstein, Ludwig (1975), Philosophical Remarks, §129, §174, Oxford: Basil Blackwell, ISBN 0-
631-19130-5

21. Rodych 2018, §2.1 (https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/wittgenstein-mathematics/#WittInteConsF

orm) : "When we prove a theorem or decide a proposition, we operate in a purely formal,
syntactical manner. In doing mathematics, we do not discover pre-existing truths that were
'already there without one knowing' (PG 481)—we invent mathematics, bit-by-little-bit." Note,
however, that Wittgenstein does not identify such deduction with philosophical logic; c.f. Rodych
§1 (https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/wittgenstein-mathematics/#WittMathTrac) , paras. 7-12.

22. Rodych 2018, §3.4 (https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/wittgenstein-mathematics/#WittLateCritSet

TheoNonEnumVsNonDenu) : "Given that mathematics is a 'motley of techniques of proof' (RFM
III, §46), it does not require a foundation (RFM VII, §16) and it cannot be given a self-evident
foundation (PR §160; WVC 34 & 62; RFM IV, §3). Since set theory was invented to provide
mathematics with a foundation, it is, minimally, unnecessary."

23. Rodych 2018, §2.2 (https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/wittgenstein-mathematics/#WittInteFini) :

"An expression quantifying over an infinite domain is never a meaningful proposition, not even
when we have proved, for instance, that a particular number n has a particular property."

24. Rodych 2018, §3.6 (https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/wittgenstein-mathematics/#WittGodeUnde

MathProp) .

25. Ferro, Alfredo; Omodeo, Eugenio G.; Schwartz, Jacob T. (September 1980), "Decision Procedures
for Elementary Sublanguages of Set Theory. I. Multi-Level Syllogistic and Some Extensions",
Communications on Pure and Applied Mathematics , 33 (5): 599–608, doi:10.1002/cpa.3160330503 (h
ttps://doi.org/10.1002%2Fcpa.3160330503)

26. Cantone, Domenico; Ferro, Alfredo; Omodeo, Eugenio G. (1989), Computable Set Theory (https://arch
ive.org/details/computablesetthe00cant/page/) , International Series of Monographs on
Computer Science, Oxford Science Publications, Oxford, UK: Clarendon Press, pp. xii, 347 (https://ar
chive.org/details/computablesetthe00cant/page/) , ISBN 0-198-53807-3

27. Mac Lane, Saunders; Moerdijk, leke (1992), Sheaves in Geometry and Logic: A First Introduction to
Topos Theory (https://books.google.com/books?id=SGwwDerbEowC) , Springer-Verlag, ISBN 978-
0-387-97710-2

28. homotopy type theory (https://ncatlab.org/nlab/show/homotopy+type+theory) at the nLab

29. Homotopy Type Theory: Univalent Foundations of Mathematics (http://homotopytypetheory.org/boo

k/) . The Univalent Foundations Program. Institute for Advanced Study.

30. Frank Ruda (6 October 2011), Hegel's Rabble: An Investigation into Hegel's Philosophy of Right (http
s://books.google.com/books?id=VV0SBwAAQBAJ&pg=PA151) , Bloomsbury Publishing, p. 151,
ISBN 978-1-4411-7413-0
 Kunen, Kenneth (1980), Set Theory: An Introduction to Independence Proofs , North-Holland, ISBN 0-444-
85401-0

Johnson, Philip (1972), A History of Set Theory (https://archive.org/details/mathematicalcirc0000eves

_ x3z6) , Prindle, Weber & Schmidt, ISBN 0-87150-154-6

Further reading

Devlin, Keit h (1993), The Joy of Sets: Fundamentals of Contemporary Set Theory,
Undergraduat e Text s in Mat hemat ics (2nd ed.), Springer Verlag, doi:10.1007/978-1-4612-0903-
4 (ht t ps://doi.org/10.1007%2F978-1-4612-0903-4) , ISBN 0-387-94094-4

Ferreirós, Jose (2001), Labyrinth of Thought: A History of Set Theory and Its Role in Modern
Mathematics (ht t ps://books.google.com/books?id=DITy0nsYQQoC) , Berlin: Springer,
ISBN 978-3-7643-5749-8

Monk, J. Donald (1969), Introduction to Set Theory (ht t ps://archive.org/det ails/int roduct iont ose
0000monk/page/n5/mode/2up) , McGraw-Hill Book Company, ISBN 978-0-898-74006-6

Pot t er, Michael (2004), Set Theory and Its Philosophy: A Critical Introduction (ht t ps://books.go
ogle.com/books?id=FxRoPuPbGgUC) , Oxford Universit y Press, ISBN 978-0-191-55643-2

Smullyan, Raymond M.; Fit t ing, Melvin (2010), Set Theory and the Continuum Problem, Dover
Publicat ions, ISBN 978-0-486-47484-7

Tiles, Mary (2004), The Philosophy of Set Theory: An Historical Introduction to Cantor's
Paradise (ht t ps://books.google.com/books?id=02ASV8VB4gYC) , Dover Publicat ions,
ISBN 978-0-486-43520-6

External links
[hide]
Se t the ory
at Wikipedia's sister projects

Definitions from Wiktionary

Media from Commons

Quotations from Wikiquote

Textbooks from Wikibooks

Resources from Wikiversity

Wikibooks has a book on the topic of: Discrete mathematics/Set theory

Daniel Cunningham, Set Theory (ht t p://www.iep.ut m.edu/set -t heo/) art icle in t he Internet
Encyclopedia of Philosophy.

Jose Ferreiros, "The Early Development of Set Theory" (ht t ps://plat o.st anford.edu/ent ries/set
t heory-early/) art icle in t he [Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy].

Foreman, Mat t hew, Akihiro Kanamori, eds. Handbook of Set Theory (http://handbook.assafrinot.
com/) . 3 vols., 2010. Each chapt er surveys some aspect of cont emporary research in set
t heory. Does not cover est ablished element ary set t heory, on which see Devlin (1993).

"Axiomat ic set t heory" (ht t ps://www.encyclopediaofmat h.org/index.php?t it le=Axiomat ic_ set _ t

heory) , Encyclopedia of Mathematics , EMS Press, 2001 [1994]

"Set t heory" (ht t ps://www.encyclopediaofmat h.org/index.php?t it le=Set _ t heory) ,

Encyclopedia of Mathematics , EMS Press, 2001 [1994]

Schoenflies, Art hur (1898). Mengenlehre (ht t ps://archive.org/st ream/encyklomat h101encyrich

#page/n229) in Klein's encyclopedia.

Online books (ht t ps://ft l.t oolforge.org/cgi-bin/ft l?st =&su=Set +t heory&library=OLBP) , and
library resources in your library (ht t ps://ft l.t oolforge.org/cgi-bin/ft l?st =&su=Set +t heory) and
in ot her libraries (ht t ps://ft l.t oolforge.org/cgi-bin/ft l?st =&su=Set +t heory&library=0CHOOSE
0) about set t heory

Rudin, Walt er B. (April 6, 1990), "Set Theory: An Offspring of Analysis" (ht t ps://www.yout ube.co
m/wat ch?v=hBcWRZMP6xs&list =PLvAAmIFroksMKHv5O4lwpJJzfmUL0cQ7A&index=3) ,
Marden Lecture in Mathematics , Universit y of Wisconsin-Milwaukee, archived (ht t ps://ghost arc
hive.org/varchive/yout ube/20211031/hBcWRZMP6xs) from t he original on 2021-10-31 – via
YouTube