Qty:1
  • List Price: $72.95
  • Save: $11.67 (16%)
Only 2 left in stock (more on the way).
Ships from and sold by Amazon.com.
Gift-wrap available.
Elementary Logic has been added to your Cart
Used: Very Good | Details
Condition: Used: Very Good
Comment: SECOND EDITION. Book is great condition. Crisp and clean. No markings inside.
Access codes and supplements are not guaranteed with used items.
Have one to sell? Sell on Amazon
Flip to back Flip to front
Listen Playing... Paused   You're listening to a sample of the Audible audio edition.
Learn more
See this image

Elementary Logic Hardcover – January 6, 1972

ISBN-13: 978-0195014914 ISBN-10: 019501491X Edition: 2nd

Buy New
Price: $61.28
16 New from $48.68 28 Used from $3.23 1 Collectible from $49.46
Amazon Price New from Used from
Hardcover
"Please retry"
$61.28
$48.68 $3.23
Free%20Two-Day%20Shipping%20for%20College%20Students%20with%20Amazon%20Student


Frequently Bought Together

Elementary Logic + Godel's Proof
Price for both: $84.81

One of these items ships sooner than the other.

Buy the selected items together

NO_CONTENT_IN_FEATURE

Best Books of the Year
Best Books of 2014
Looking for something great to read? Browse our editors' picks for 2014's Best Books of the Year in fiction, nonfiction, mysteries, children's books, and much more.

Product Details

  • Hardcover: 256 pages
  • Publisher: Oxford University Press; 2nd edition (January 6, 1972)
  • Language: English
  • ISBN-10: 019501491X
  • ISBN-13: 978-0195014914
  • Product Dimensions: 9.3 x 0.7 x 6.2 inches
  • Shipping Weight: 1 pounds (View shipping rates and policies)
  • Average Customer Review: 2.7 out of 5 stars  See all reviews (6 customer reviews)
  • Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #863,685 in Books (See Top 100 in Books)

Editorial Reviews

About the Author

Benson Mates is at University of California, Berkeley.

More About the Author

Discover books, learn about writers, read author blogs, and more.

Customer Reviews

2.7 out of 5 stars
Share your thoughts with other customers

Most Helpful Customer Reviews

6 of 6 people found the following review helpful By Sam Adams on February 15, 2011
Format: Hardcover
The 1st edition of this was in 1964, the 2nd in 1972. Mates, a philosopher, is a very careful, exact, and clear writer. This is an admirable text as far as it goes, but it is not an introduction to logic for those with mathematical or metamathematical concerns. Although late in the book Mates discusses axiomatics and presents examples of axiomatic theories, and even provides a concise informative overview of the history of logic, his focus is on the meticulous set-up of the formal languages and the presentation of natural deduction techniques for theorem proving. It is the sort of text a philosophy department would use as an upper division introduction to logic, perhaps paired with Boolos and Jeffery's Computability and Logic. The corresponding math department text would be something like Enderton's A Mathematical Introduction to Logic paired with his recent Computability Theory: An Introduction to Recursion Theory. The computer science department would no doubt use something else entirely.
Comment Was this review helpful to you? Yes No Sending feedback...
Thank you for your feedback. If this review is inappropriate, please let us know.
Sorry, we failed to record your vote. Please try again
8 of 11 people found the following review helpful By A Customer on January 25, 2001
Format: Hardcover
There are so many textbooks of logic. It's just one of them. And it seems that it becomes (or has already become) out of date. But it has still the virtues that the author promised in its introduction. If we expect strictness and rigidity in the field of logic, it's the best textbook of that kind.
It is mainly written from the point of the natural deduction, but it doesn't forget the axiomatic method. It first deals with the propositional logic, and second, the first-order logic. And it contains some features of metalogics and the brief history of logic. It shows all the range of the real "Elemetary Logic" as its title says.
It is a standard (too standard, it maybe the only fault it has) textbook of logic. Of course, it doesn't deal with the informal or inductive logic. You need another book on that. But if you read this book with "The Computability and Logic" by Boolos and Jefferey, you would have already entered deep in this field of the formal logic. It's a good start. Although too hard or standard for lots of student, it's worth trying for.
Comment Was this review helpful to you? Yes No Sending feedback...
Thank you for your feedback. If this review is inappropriate, please let us know.
Sorry, we failed to record your vote. Please try again
1 of 3 people found the following review helpful By David Milliern on December 9, 2012
Format: Hardcover
Let me begin by saying that the basis of my review's perspective is one that assesses this text as a pedagogical tool. It was used in a graduate course in logic I took. The book has a major shortcoming, which simply boggles my mind, namely, that it seems to have been designed for someone who has some degree of knowledge of the material intended to be conveyed. By that I mean that the book is great for students reviewing the material, but, for students trying to learn the material, it is a nightmare and next to useless. The first thing that must be noted is that "Elementary Logic," as a title, is pretty misleading. (This was not a problem for me, because I knew the course I was taking and what, approximately, was expected.) The book is really a sprint through a primary on systems, but with an eye toward both natural language and mathematical logic. That is to say, the book is about metalogic, not so much "elementary logic." Being a technical book, I was absolutely astonished by the lack of rigor. Definitions are not clearly marked, propositions and properties in chapters have the same numberings as different ones from other chapters, and the sloppiness of how various ideas were stated (or presented) is abhorrent. The in suppositio formalis and in suppositio materialis (i.e. "use/mention" distinction) concepts were stressed in the early goings of the book, yet weren't treated with rigor when applicable, even in the chapter in which the notions were being discussed. As the book proceeds, it is as though Mates forgot about making the distinction clear at all. Again, this says to me that Mates is hoping everyone has the idea beforehand, because he certainly didn't maintain rigorous treatment, where applicable.Read more ›
Comment Was this review helpful to you? Yes No Sending feedback...
Thank you for your feedback. If this review is inappropriate, please let us know.
Sorry, we failed to record your vote. Please try again