FOM: Reasons for letting set theory keep its MSC classification

[JOE SHIPMAN, BLOOMBERG/ SKILLMAN]

Steve asked why I thought it was a mistake to fold set theory under foundations.
Apart from the obvious turf issue (the more real estate we have in MSC the
better), I would be sorry to see this happen because set theory is such a nice
subject in its own right.  There are many other examples of closely related
fields which have separate classifications, and here the proximity of 03 and 04
also serves to highlight the close connections.  But set theory was a genuine
subject before its foundational importance became clear, and it has enough in
it that has nothing to do with foundations but is still valuable that it
deserves its own space.  The intersection of set theory with foundations
represents maybe 25% of foundations and the majority of set theory, but not
enough to justify its subsumption. -- JS