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]
ISBN 0-521-62498-3 (1998 paperback) [See this book at]


? 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)
Add closing parenthesis at end.
? 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
Feedback on this page is welcome.