2 ms·
The stuff in that document is all very fundamental and basic, and doesn't seem that abstract at all to me. If you want to do mechanical theorem proving, you sho
by auggierose 8y ago
The stuff in that document is all very fundamental and basic, and doesn't seem that abstract at all to me. If you want to do mechanical theorem proving, you should be(come) familiar with that stuff. Personally I like set theory as a basis, because it is so simple and intuitiv.
Obviously, professional set theorists go way beyond what is described in this document, but to be honest, none of that more advanced stuff seems very useful to me in practical applications in technology.
- paintstudio 8y ago> The stuff in that document is all very fundamental and basic, and doesn't seem that abstract at all to me. I wondered the same thing. The first half of the linked paper is usually contained (if abridged) in the intro chapter of more or less any algebra/topology/analysis textbook. I don't remember Rudin's first book being an exception. Most of that material can be found in the first chapter of Rudin's "Principles" (3rd edition). I'd say the basic topology in R^n is much more abstract (the 2nd chapter of Rudin "Principles" [3rd ed]) and it's not treated in the linked doc.