>>8940047>Set theory being at the foundation of most of mathematics still makes it the most "general".Set theory is based on first-order logic, which is in turn based on philosophy.
Yet you wouldn't advise anyone to read Jech or Kunen just because "set theory generalizes all of mathematics".
>And the basics of set theory is something every math student needs to know.Never disputed the essential truth of that, though I'd qualify that the more accurate statement would be
>And the basics of first-order logic is something every math student needs to knowwith the word "basic" strongly emphasized.
Yes, you need to know basic set theory to read a math book, but you also need to know basic English (or whatever language the book is written in). And just as English grammar isn't a prerequisite to mastering mathematics, studying set theory beyond the basic level is counterproductive unless you're interested in foundations of mathematics and model theory, which is certainly not a useless field but hardly something "every math student needs to know".
Set theory has only been around for what, 200 years tops? Yet that's never stopped Euclid, Euler and company from doing mathematics in any meaningful capacity, when first-order logic was all that they had.
