Talk:Naive set theory

message: "In symbols, A ⊆ B means that A is a subset of B, and B ⊇ A means that B is a superset of A."
This seems wrong to me, since the direction of the symbol and the elements are transposed in the second phrase.  A⊆B is probably the same as B⊇A, but not the same as B⊆A or A⊇B.
Please Check!!!  Thanks ~~user:lenehey  
I think it is right now, but I think it is very confusing.  Could we change to something like:  "In symbols A ⊆ B means that A is a subset of B and B is a superset of A, whereas A ⊇ B means that A is a superset of B and B is a subset of A."  (Still me.) Lenehey (talk) 19:01, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: If those symbols appear identical to you, there's a mistake in your browser or your fontset.  How *do* they appear?  If they both look like a little box, or a question mark, or some nonspecific thing like that, it probably means you just don't have a font that can render them. --Trovatore (talk) 08:17, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please Verify: (08/06/08) 

message: In section 1 paragraph 3 of the article, "As it turned out, assuming that one can perform any operation on sets without restriction leads to paradoxes such as Russell's paradox and Berry's paradox.", shouldn't the "perform any operation on sets" be "define sets by unrestricted abstraction"? voidnature 08:48, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Change operation into abstraction? 

message: Am I the only person who thinks the motivation for this article existing is a little weak.  I mean couldn't we have a naive version of every mathematical area.  It just seems dumb to me.
128.187.97.19 (talk) 18:13, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: The motivation for this article is that there's something called naive set theory (e.g. ) and we're describing it.--Prosfilaes (talk) 22:49, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article Motivation 

message: In section "Unions, intersections, and relative complements", there is the sentence: "For any set A, the power set P(A) is a Boolean algebra under the operations of union and intersection."  
Evidently this relates to the "Boolean algebra" structure, a relatively advanced topic. Readers of the current article are likely only to be familiar with boolean algebra (as in the Boolean algebra article), which is not the topic of this sentence, and will find this sentence confusing and in any case not useful. I suggest removal.  Gwideman (talk) 00:24, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gratuitous mention of "Boolean algebra (structure)" 

message: == Revising Naive set theory ==
Thompson (Neil Thompson 'Resolving Insolubilia: Internal Inconsistency and the Reform of Naïve Set Comprehension' Philosophy Study 2012 (2) ( 6) 417-431)) has suggested a means of revising Naive set theory that limits set comprehension by excluding set comprehension of sets isomorphic to Russell's set. Thompson claims that all paradoxes (save for Burali-Forti's and Goldstein's set schema which are excluded directly as contradictory descriptions) can be resolved in this fashion. The result is claimed to offer an ontology nearly as rich as that of Naive set theory.
This section keeps getting added to the article. I feel it's undue weight on one article and that it's misrepresenting this attempt to work around Russell's paradox as something fundamentally different from Zermelo–Fraenkel set theory or Quine's New Foundations, which it's not.--Prosfilaes (talk) 01:26, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I also note that Philosophy Study is a journal found at http://www.davidpublishing.com/journals_info.asp?jId=680 , that the other articles posted in it are not mathematical articles, and that the publisher is not one of high repute; cf. http://chronicle.com/forums/index.php?topic=81342.0 . It's not a journal MIT gets, which brings up the question of whether anybody else does, and if anyone has seen it in the field to critique it.--Prosfilaes (talk) 01:49, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Thompson 

message: I just edited the article (see diff) and changed the date of the first usage of ∈ from 1888 to 1889 (found the later date here and in the book „Mengen – Relationen – Funktionen“ by Ingmar Lehmann and Wolfgang Schulz). The date 1888 was introduced with this edit 2003 by an IP. Is there any reference for the usage of ∈ before 1889? Greetings, Stephan Kulla (talk) 20:21, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Although probably not a reliable source, Earliest Uses of Symbols of Set Theory and Logic agrees with you on the date. It also claims the earliest date for the symbol ∉ is 1939 by Bourbaki. --Mark viking (talk) 20:47, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  First usage of ∈ – 1889 or 1888? 

message: This article often falls into the academic "we," which I don't believe is considered best practice on WP. If somebody wants to take the time and effort to clean that up, that'd be great.
129.237.189.235 (talk) 22:24, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, certainly. Are you that somebody? Then WP:SOFIXIT whenever they lift the semi-protection (or you get a real account). YohanN7 (talk) 23:04, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I've removed the "we" language where possible and appropriate in most of the article. I've tagged the "Paradoxes" section with , since it might need some editing beyond simple removal of the "we" language; altering the wording to something that is less discussion-like might be beneficial and also take care of that issue. --Kinu t/c 17:29, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I note that  refers to Wikipedia:Writing better articles which states at WP:TONE: As with many such guidelines, however, there are exceptions: for instance, in professional mathematics writing, use of the first person plural ("we") as "inclusive we" is widespread.  Deltahedron (talk) 09:05, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: It is widespread, even standard in mathematical writing. Whether our articles are mathematical writing, I don't know, but they are no textbooks by another WP:XYZ, and I personally think the "we" style doesn't sound encyclopedic, and it sounds very textbooky for sure. At any rate, mixing two styles in an article is a no-no. YohanN7 (talk) 10:36, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I've found in my own writing that removing "we", while sometimes challenging, often leads to better prose.  While it takes some effort, and while I feel no need to be dogmatic about "we"'s use, I do think it's best to avoid.  Ozob (talk) 14:40, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

text: I rewrote Paradoxes completely. YohanN7 (talk) 10:53, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Article Tone

message: Hi everybody, the text of the article is a little grating due to the use of "naïve". As "naive" is vastly more common in written English these days (both in British and American English), the use of "naïve" is just needless pedantry. It's like, "Hi, my name is 216.161.55.95 (talk) and I know what's a diaeresis!" In addition, the article describes a topic which was introduced by a book titled "Naive Set Theory", so to the extent that the term is a proper noun, it should be written the same way. What does anyone think about replacing all instances of "naïve" with "naive"? Have a great day, and all the best. 216.161.55.95 (talk) 18:55, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, it should be one or the other.  In some ways I'd prefer "naïve", which I think just looks nicer, but as long as we're not going to move the article to naïve set theory (and I assume we're not), we should probably go ahead and make it consistent in the text as well. --Trovatore (talk) 23:47, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposal to replace "naïve" with "naive" throughout