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]

**? 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
*S*_{0}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,*S*_{0}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*// )(*S*_{1}[*x*]*S*_{2}[*x*]*S*_{3}[*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)**- `S
_{1}': change to `S_{2}' **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*=*S*_{2}': change `*S*_{2}' to `*S*_{1}'. 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);
`
*z**y*' should be `*z**u*'? Formula (9.5) misses a conjunct corresponding to `*z**y*' 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.