# Errata for The Principles of Mathematics Revisited by Jaakko Hintikka

Jaakko Hintikka (Boston University, Philosopy Department).
The Principles of Mathematics Revisited.
Cambridge University Press, 1996, paperback edition 1998.
ISBN 0-521-49692-6 (1996 hardcover) [See this book at Amazon.com]
ISBN 0-521-62498-3 (1998 paperback) [See this book at Amazon.com]

## Errata

? p. ix, l. -15
This received': change This' to The'
p. 7, l. 3
it is very nearly looks': delete is' ?
p. 11, l. 11
descriptive function of logical is': change logical' to logic'
p. 17, l. 7
There is therrefore': change therrefore' to therefore'
p. 21, l. 14
might all it': change all' to call'
p. 25, l. 13
(G.E)': change to (R.E)'
p. 25, l. 16
(G.A)': change to (R.A)'
p. 28, l. -4
Diophantine games of number of': delete second of'
p. 34, l. 11
tobleau': change to tableau'
p. 40, l. 23
1923': change to 1922' ? (cf. References)
p. 43, l. 22
though are': insert there' after though'
p. 46, l. 9
fellow': insert a' before fellow'
p. 48, l. -14
gametheoretical': change to game-theoretical'
p. 50, l. -15
that in cuts off': change in' to it'
? p. 52, l. 16...19
Let S0 be a formula of ordinary first-order logic in negation normal form. A formula of IF first-order logic is obtained by any finite number of the following steps': After a single step, S0 is no longer a formula of ordinary first-order logic in negation normal form.
? p. 53, l. 18...22
Notation (x // Op): what if operator Op occurs more than once within the scope of the universal quantor? For example: (x // )(S1[x] S2[x] S3[x]) ?
p. 54, l. 6
an impotant unclarity': change impotant' to important'
p. 57, l. 18
indpendent': change to independent'
? p. 58, formula (3.24)
If x=z, then y=u and thus H(x, y) ~H(x, y), which is a contradiction!? Hence, (3.24) is simply false. This cannot be intended.
p. 60, l. -4
In results like (d)': change (d)' to (D)'
p. 63, l. -13
(vi) At this point': change (vi)' to (vii)'
p. 64, formula (3.48)
? p. 64, formulae (3.49)
Function g corresponds to h in (3.47). Its function value does not depend on its second argument, which makes it unsuitable as a counterexample.
? p. 74, formula (4.3)
Add conjunct (\epsilon0)' left of implication sign
p. 81, formula (4.17)
S1': change to S2'
p. 111, l. 19
etween': change to between'
? p. 113, l. -1
This relation will be called R(x, y)': Which relation gets named here? Furthermore, the name R is not used later on.
p. 117, l. -11
x=S2': change S2' to S1'. Cf. clause (f) on p. 115.
? p. 119, l. 19
to choose in quantifier moves': in' ? (delete?)
p. 135, formulae (7.3) to (7.5)
Add, e.g. after formula (7.5), where H(x, y) means x has hobby y'.'
* p. 135, l. -13...-12
, that is, that no two gentlemen have all their hobbies in common': This interpretation is incorrect; e.g. predicate (7.3) holds in the model with two gentlemen, both with the same two hobbies. Delete , that is, that ... common'.
p. 137, l. 1
(7.2)': change to (7.4)'
? p. 148, l. -13...-11
In other words, the symbol combination (x)¬ ... the symbol combination (x)¬': Change (x)¬' to ¬(x)', and change (x)¬' to ¬(x)' ?
p. 149, l. 1
semantical rules': change rules' to rule'
p. 149, l. 5
insider': change to inside'
p. 150, l. 3
two sentences that the true': change the' to are'
p. 150, l. -2
apply it to an open formula. ¬T[x]': delete .'
p. 171, l. 7
because on apparently could': change on' to one'
p. 174, l. 3
where n is the numeral representing n': change first n' to n'
p. 174, l. -17...-16
the truth-condition of only first-order sentence asserts': change sentence' to sentences'
p. 178, l. 15...16
If brief': change If' to In'
p. 180, l. 9
What will happen? if we now use instead of ': delete ?', and change second ' to '
p. 180, l. -18
~p(n)': change p' to P'
? p. 180, l. -18
is no abject that': abject' ?
p. 186, l. 17
If brief': change If' to In'
p. 186, formula (9.2)
(z)': change to (z)',
p. 186, formula (9.3)
Add interpretation that f and g are each other's inverse.
? p. 187, formulae (9.4) and (9.5)
Formula (9.4) does not match formula (3.48); zy' should be zu'? Formula (9.5) misses a conjunct corresponding to zy' in (9.4). I do not believe these formulae capture the intended interpretation.
? p. 188, formula (9.6)
I do not believe it captures the intended interpretation.
p. 201, l. 11
of historical example': insert a' after of'
p. 205, l. 17
In so far as such as': change rightmost as' to an'
p. 206, l. 8
the status of higher-order entities that have to do arise': delete that have to do'; possibly insert ,' (comma) after arise'
p. 206, l. 16
for-reaching': change to far-reaching'
p. 210, l. -6
By the theory of type 1 mean': change 1' to I'; possibly insert ,' (comma) after type'
p. 221, l. 17
is pre': change pre' to pre-'
p. 225, l. -18
Thus on the constructivistic interpretation': change on' to in'
p. 228, l. 20
to draw at least-': change least-' to least'
p. 231, l. -16
to ordinary truth-functional conditional': insert an' after to'
p. 231, l. -14
the analysis (10.13)': insert of' after analysis'

Page contents by Tom Verhoeff