FOM: As to a "naivete" of G.Cantor's set theory
Charles Silver
csilver at sophia.smith.edu
Mon Jan 25 14:24:26 EST 1999
On Sun, 24 Jan 1999, Alexander Zenkin wrote:
> can anyone to formulate explicite arguments why modern meta-mathematics
> calls the G.Cantor's set theory by a "naive" theory? What does that
> "naivete" consist in? And what does the "non-naivete" of the modern
> meta-mathematics consist in?
I think it was Halmos who popularized 'naive'. (I don't know
where it originated). For Halmos, 'naive' just meant 'informal' and
served as a contrast to 'axiomatic'. The preface of his book (_Naive Set
Theory_) ends on a strange note: "general set theory is pretty trivial
stuff really, but if you want to be a mathematician, you need some, and
here it is; read it, absorb it, and forget it." I've often wondered why
he'd take such a cavalier attitude about the subject, yet write an entire
(admittedly short) book on it.
Charlie
More information about the FOM
mailing list