Conversation started May 22, 2015 at 4:59.
Martin Sleziak
Martin Sleziak
May 22, 2015 04:59
-2
Q: "Notes on Set Theory" - Badly Written?

LukeI hope I'm not breaking any rules by asking this particular question, but I honestly can't think of a better place to inquire about this. A few days ago I managed to get my hands on "Notes on Set Theory" by Moschovakis. A true classic, or so I was told. Unfortunately, by the twentieth page a q...

reference-request book-recommendation
I have not read the whole book, I've seen some parts.
I am not a native English speaker, so nothing seemed odd to me from the point of language and literary quality. I can hardly be judge of that.
But the choice of topics seemed sometimes a bit unusual, compared to other books on the topic I have seen.
Of course, that is not necessarily a bad thing.
Martin Sleziak
Martin Sleziak
May 22, 2015 05:29
Although browsing through the book now I am not sure what struck me as unusual. (Maybe I should have written different.)
I see that Baire space and analytic sets are introduced in Chapter 10, trees are introduced in Chapter 9. Both of them before ordinals (but after well-orderings).
My guess is you do not see these topics often in introductory textbooks.
But it is not surprising that he is somewhat "biased" towards descriptive set theory.
BTW the question has 1 reopen votes, but users in the reopen review queue have already voted to leave it closed.
I'd guess chat would be more appropriate place to discuss it, should it be discussed on SE. Or some of other websites - there are many internet fora, which are suitable for discussions.
 
4 hours later…
Arthur Fischer
Arthur Fischer
May 22, 2015 09:36
@MartinSleziak You may be interested in Joel David Hamkins's review of Notes on Set Theory. (JDH doesn't appear to say anything about grammatic or typographic issues.)
Martin Sleziak
Martin Sleziak
May 22, 2015 09:58
Here is jstor link: jstor.org/stable/2275660
BTW there is also review by Hart and Kunen: jstor.org/stable/2975227
JDH wrote there: "The text is engaging, lively, and sophisticated; yet, I would like to point out some minor matters and make one serious criticism. ... Since there are also some editing failures and typographical errors, an errata sheet would be worthwhile."
In any case, reading both these reviews suggests that the book might be an interesting read.
 
Conversation ended May 22, 2015 at 10:07.