I was trying to write a piece about why Elisabeth Brauß’s playing is so extraordinary, but rather failing. So I must return instead to a more familiar theme here (which regular readers will be as tired of as I am!). But with many thanks to those who e-mailed in last-minute comments and corrections, I’ve one last time gone through a complete version of Beginning Mathematical Logic: A Study Guide, making many corrections. You can download a final, final, draft version here (all x + 184 pages of it). I hope you like the wise addition to the very last page …
There are no major changes since the previous online version, but there’s been a fair amount of minor tinkering at the level of changing punctuation, adding a very few more footnotes, etc. It made a remarkable difference having a printed proof copy in book form to work from: all kinds of minor glitches hit the eye in a way they don’t onscreen or even in a stack of print-out.
So the plan is that I send off to get another proof copy for a final typographical check. And then, all being well, we are good to go, and there should be another Big Red Logic Book to buy by the end of next week. Start saving your pennies.
And if you’ve been meaning to let me know about some error you spotted in a previous version, do let me know if it is still there in this current version. But don’t delay!
Added Jan 28 Refresh your browser to download a version which has got the index linking corrected.
Added Jan 29 Half a dozen misleading internal links removed (see comments), and one typo corrected. Keep ’em coming …
Added Jan 30 Today’s version has improved handling of internal links; and silly thinko about cumulative hierarchy corrected.
Added Jan 31 Some tiny changes to make a few pagebreaks in Chapter 12 fall more nicely. One additional reading added to end of Chapter 9. And at this point, unless some egregious error is pointed out, I’m calling a halt to further tinkering. Famous last words.
p 126, footnote 2: when clicked, the ‘§3.2(e)’ link takes me to the start of §3.2 rather than to (e).
It (was) two links in fact, to §3.2 and then to subsection (e). Not ideal I agree. I’ve dived into the hyperref manual, and found that there is a command \ref* which produces a non-live link. You live and learn. So now in §3.2(e) only (e) is in blue; a rather small link target, but probably on balance an improvement. I’ve made similar changes in six other cases
Is there no way to have one link but with ‘§3.2(e)’ as its text?
I’ve not used hyperref, so this could be quite wrong, but it looks to me like you can specify the text separately from the target.
Yes, this should work. The subsection itself would need a label like \label{sec:32c} and the string ‘§3.2(e)’ in the footnote would need something like \hyperref[sec:32c]{§3.2(e)}.
Is there are nice hyperref way of getting reference to a subsection to automatically return section-number-plus-subsection label. Possibly, but I find the hyperref manual a bit impenetrable.
So the solution I’ve come up with is this. Suppose the relevant section §3.2 is labelled seclabel and the relevant subsection (b) is labelled subseclabel. Then
\hyperref[subseclabel]{\ref*{seclabel}\ref*{subseclabel}}
gives a live link to the subsection, with text §3.2(b). This is better than putting fixed text in the hyperref command, as it will accommodate later changes in section or subsection numbering.
P. 119 should be: “Let me add one more recommendation…”
Thanks!
One more tiny remark on your entry on Ebbinghaus: Your reader links him in the Index of authors to page 165 while you are discussing his book on page 164.
Hell’s bells! But ahah, all the index entries are out by one after a certain point. Fixed by regenerated the index. Phew. Will be corrected online shortly. But thanks for spotting that! And will remember to triple check the index is in sync before hitting the “paperback this version” button on Amazon! :)