Internal set theory (IST) is a mathematical theory of sets developed by Edward Nelson that provides an axiomatic basis for a portion of the nonstandard analysis introduced by Abraham Robinson. Instead of adding new elements to the real numbers, Nelson's approach modifies the axiomatic foundations through syntactic enrichment. Thus, the axioms introduce a new term, "standard", which can be used to make discriminations not possible under the conventional ZFC axioms for sets. Thus, IST is an enrichment of ZFC: all axioms of ZFC are satisfied for all classical predicates, while the new unary predicate "standard" satisfies three additional axioms I, S, and T. In particular, suitable nonstandard elements within the set of real numbers can be shown to have properties that correspond to the properties of infinitesimal and unlimited elements. Nelson's formulation is made more accessible for the lay-mathematician by leaving out many of the complexities of meta-mathematical logic that were initially required to justify rigorously the consistency of number systems containing infinitesimal elements. Intuitive justification Whilst IST has a perfectly formal axiomatic scheme, described below, an intuitive justification of the meaning of the term standard is desirable. This is not part of the formal theory, but is a pedagogical device that might help the student interpret the formalism. The essential distinction, similar to the concept of definable numbers, contrasts the finiteness of the domain of concepts that we can specify and discuss, with the unbounded infinity of the set of numbers; compare finitism. The number of symbols one writes with is finite. The number of mathematical symbols on any given page is finite. The number of pages of mathematics a single mathematician can produce in a lifetime is finite. Any workable mathematical definition is necessarily finite. There are only a finite number of distinct objects a mathematician can define in a lifetime. There will only be a finite number of mathematicians in the course of our (presumably finite) civilization. Hence there is only a finite set of whole numbers our civilization can discuss in its allotted lifespan. What that limit actually is, is unknowable to us, being contingent on many accidental cultural factors. This limitation is not in itself susceptible to mathematical scrutiny, but that there is such a limit, whilst the set of whole numbers continues forever without bound, is a mathematical truth. The term standard is therefore intuitively taken to correspond to some necessarily finite portion of