Negative Positive
Title: Math majors avoid
Review: If you are a math major, you don't want this book. Get Cutland.This book was written by philosophy professors and shows it. When philosophers write math, it is less concise, organized, and complete than when mathematicians do it. This was meant as an intermediate logic text for philosophy and math students, but it would try the patience of a math major. The explanations are wordy, sketchy, and poorly related to each other and to exterior topics.The contents fall into thirds: Turing machines, aspects of decidability, and a hodge podge of topics from other parts of logic. The 4e is 50 pages (17%) longer than the 3e. The changes were mainly adding exercises and making the chapters more independent. The authors were obviously trying hard to make a readable text, but I hated slogging through all that verbiage. You can see a lot of comment in the other reviews that the 3e was better, but I think even the 3e is poor compared to Cutland.
Is the review positive or negative? 