Talk:Set/to do

From peer review:

As it stands, this article is extremely redundant with naive set theory, almost to the point of duplication.
This article is an appropriate place to discuss the philosophical questions associated with sets. For example, Penelope Maddy is widely rumored to have claimed that sets exist in some "physical sense".
There is no mention of extenstionality in the article, but this is one of the things that makes sets into sets. Like they say, there are no blue sets.
The concept of the cumulative hierarchy is missing.
Can a set be a member of itself? Of course the axiomatic treatment doesn't belong here, but some discussion does.
~~The sections on basic operations could be grouped together (union, intersection, relative complement).~~
There is no mention of Russell's paradox except as a "see also" link. This is, historically, an important step in the understanding of the technical limits of the natural language term "set".

There is very little detail on the history of sets, or their application to Mathematics in general except in the lead. A bit more background information (with references) would balance the article and provide a more well-rounded look; at the moment, it's more of a textbook than an encyclopaedia article.

FA and GA will whack you over lack of inline citations. Most of this stuff is trivially self-verifying, but when you add more background/history and more advanced material, make sure to add references where appropriate.
Images are prime candidates for SVG-ifying.

The union 'cup symbol' and intersection 'cap' symbols just appear as small tall rectangle. Guidance needed to improve it.Lifesize (talk) 12:27, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Automated peer review can be found here