Difference between revisions of "Set theory"
From Conservapedia
(too much history, not enough meat) |
(quoting the Stanford Encyc) |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
Set theory a branch of mathematics dealing with collections of objects. | Set theory a branch of mathematics dealing with collections of objects. | ||
| + | |||
| + | *The language of set theory is based on a single fundamental relation, called membership. We say that A is a member of B (in symbols A ∈ B), or that the set B contains A as its element. The understanding is that a set is determined by its elements; in other words, two sets are deemed equal if they have exactly the same elements. [http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/set-theory/] | ||
==History of set theory== | ==History of set theory== | ||
Revision as of 00:49, August 19, 2007
Set theory a branch of mathematics dealing with collections of objects.
- The language of set theory is based on a single fundamental relation, called membership. We say that A is a member of B (in symbols A ∈ B), or that the set B contains A as its element. The understanding is that a set is determined by its elements; in other words, two sets are deemed equal if they have exactly the same elements. [1]
History of set theory
It was developed in the late 1800s, primarly by the German mathematician Georg Cantor. This initial attempt became known as "naive set theory" because mathematicians found flaws in it. It was replaced by "axiomatic set theory" in the early 1900s.
One paradox in naive set theory was announced by Bertrand Russell in 1901, and is known as Russell's Paradox.
Kurt Godel ended the grand ambition of set theory in 1931 by showing that no one can ever prove that mathematics is entirely consistent (i.e., without internal contradiction) or complete (i.e., all math statements can be proven true or false).
