Customer Reviews

A Mathematical Introduction to Logic, Second Edition

5 star:		(6)
4 star:		(2)
3 star:		(4)
2 star:		(2)
1 star:		(1)

 

 

I review the classic FIRST EDITION. If you buy only one book on mathematical logic, get this one. It's by far the best logic book (see my other reviews) that is both 1)introductory and 2)sufficiently broad in scope and complete. The exposition is very clear and succinct- its suitable for beginners without getting wordy. Enderton always clearly explains what he's doing and why, keeping the reader focused on the big picture while going through the details. He helps to place topics in perspective, and has organized the book so readers can skip some of the more involved proofs and sections on the first reading.

Besides being easy to learn from, it's also the most rigorous introductory book I've seen- a rare combination. The proofs are detailed and complete, instead of the usual hand-waving or leaving everything as an exercise for the reader. There are some weak points in it, but overall you're not going to find a better book. It requires a little more 'mathematical sophistication' than most intro books- but if you've had some logic in a computer science course, or a little combinatorics or abstract algebra you'll be more than ready. Familiarity with automata/computability theory will help you in a few of the sections. Although Enderton is very good, it always helps to get several books on a subject- I'd recommend you pick up cheap copies of Boolos & Jeffrey's _Computability and Logic_ and Smullyan's _First-order logic_ as supplements.

Here is the complete table of contents for the first edition, c1972:

Chapter Zero - USEFUL FACTS ABOUT SETS . . . .1
Chapter One - SENTENTIAL LOGIC/ Informal Remarks on Formal Languages 14 /The Language of Sentential Logic 17/ Induction and Recursion 22/ Truth Assignments 30/ Unique Readability 39/ Sentential Connectives 44/ Switching Circuits 53/ Compactness and Effectiveness 58

Chapter Two - FIRST-ORDER LOGIC/ Preliminary Remarks 65/ First-Order Languages 67/ Truth and Models 79/ Unique Readability 97/ A Deductive Calculus 101/ Soundness and Completeness Theorems 124/ Models of Theories 140/ Interpretations between Theories 154/ Nonstandard Analysis 164

Chapter Three - UNDECIDABILITY/ Number Theory 174/ Natural Numbers with Successor 178/ Other Reducts of Number Theory 184/ A Subtheory of Number Theory 193/ Arithmetization of Syntax 217/ Incompleteness and Undecidability 227/ Applications to Set Theory 239/ Representing Exponentiation 245/ Recursive Functions 251

Chapter Four - SECOND-ORDER LOGIC/ Second-Order Languages 268/ Skolem Functions 274/ Many-Sorted Logic 277/ General Structures 281
Index 291

This is the most clear book on intermediate level logic that is available. I have many of the logic books that are on its level, and this one is perfect. It covers the most important, difficult concepts in the easiest way possible. It is above all clear (though very terse). It is easier than Mendelson's quasi-research-problem text but, in my opinion, as it pertains to First Order Logic and Computability Theory, one learns no more through Mendelson's approach.

Perhaps its only problem is that it might be just a bit too difficult without an understanding, helpful instructor (or TA) to guide one through the exercises. At any rate an effective progression up to the book might entail: Patty's "Foundations of Higher Mathematics", to Klenk's "Understanding Symbolic Logic", to "Logic, Sets, and Recursion" by Causey. Well, perhaps one might get by with just "Language, Proof, and Logic" by Barwise and Etchemendy. Nonetheless, only after equivalent material has been understood thoroughly can the more mathematical nature of Enderton's book be fully comprehended. And gone at alone on one's free time, such a progression will probably take 2 years, but maybe more.

I used this book for self study of Mathematical Logic with the aim of understanding Godel's incompleteness theorem. I also referred to other introductory Mathematical Logic books. In my opinion, this book is by far the best among them. Very readable and contains lots of carefully selected examples.

This is easily the BEST intro. logic book every written. (Yes, I sound horribly biased.) This books covers everything from Sentential Logic to 1st Order to Recursion to a bit of 2nd Order Logic. It's the only MATH book on logic out there that is easy to understand and yet formal enough to be considered "mathematical." Even the treatment of Sentential Calc. brings interesting tidbits (ternary connectives, completeness, compactness, etc). Truth and models (the heart of it) are treated incredibly clearly. Extra topics such as interpretations between theories and nonstandard analysis keep things exciting (for a math book). His treatment of undecidability is well-written and lucid. The second order stuff is fun.

I loved this book. As far as math teachers go, Enderton is top notch. Even someone as unacquainted with math as I was when I studied the book (and as I still am now, I guess) understood what was going on. To be honest though, I did have one advantage, I was a student of the master, Enderton, himself. I learned so much about logic (and math in general) from this great book. I was fortunate enough to study some more with Enderton throughout my years as a student. Of course, I went through his "Elements of Set Theory" which is also fantastic. Too bad he never wrote a book on model theory...But, you never know; maybe someday he will.

It tries to be a readable undergrad introduction and mostly succeeds. Explanations are generally not tight and memorable, proofs seem loose, there are sometimes gaps in the train of thought, and exercises often require a significant conceptual leap from the preceding text. It was particularly annoying the way he suddenly switched to Polish notation for a while and then just as suddenly dropped it, without any obvious benefit. However, it is more accessible than most mathematical logic texts. The main competition for this text would be Ebbinghaus, which I prefer. The benefits of Enderton over that book are that it covers a wider range of topics and has a lot more exercises.

It's very hard to review a book like this without letting personal interest in the subject bias you... but I'll try ;).

I used this book in my fourth year at Berkeley. Being a CS major, I found the chapter on sentential (aka boolean) logic very pedantic. I feel that most people are going to be able to easily navigate that part by sheer intuition.

On the other hand, first-order logic (the real meat of the course) comes with little motivation from Enderton. He simply dives into the syntax, as if the semmantics will be just as obvious as in sentential logic.

One of the main points of this class that I didn't understand until late in the semester, was that mathematical logic is merely an attempt to model (using symbols) the logic most mathematician use proofs, which are written in words. In turn, this gives us a framework to reason about mathematical logic itself, creating a whole new branch of mathematics in its own right (perhaps you can see why it took me a while to understand all this). The only attempt that Enderton makes to explain this is a poorly drawn diagram of "meta-theorems" on top, which are the results of mathematical logic, and theorems, which are the subjects of mathematical logic, on the bottom.

The oddest thing about this book was its treatment of algorithms, which is one of the most interesting aspects of this subject. Any (meta)theorems about those were marked with a star, because a precise definition of an algorithm is never given. I'm guessing most reviewers who praise the rigor of this book tend to overlook this weakness, because they come from math departments and not CS departments. If you take a course in computability and complexity theory, you'll see the two subjects are intimately intertwined.

This may be the best book on the subject, but I did not feel it guide me very much through the course, esp the later half about first-order logic.

Enderton's writing is the best I've seen in any introductory math textbook; he is lucid, well organised, comfortably paced but free of expository flab. The exercises (judging from chapters 2 and 3) are not terribly difficult, but quite useful in building one's intuition and connecting logic to other mathematics. I had the book for my Logic class as a first-semester sophomore with very little experience with proofs and no abstract algebra, and found it quite accessible. I guess the book starts off with an advantage, being about a subject as interesting as logic, but that does not seriously detract from its merit.

This is a great book as far as content goes. I would give the book five stars if it wasn't for the poor binding these books seem to have.

I purchased this book for a course in logic. When I cracked it open the first time, the binding from the spine of the book began to separate from the cover (along with the paper holding it in). I am not the only person experiencing this problem as well. Of two friends of mine in the course, similar issues have happened.

== Edit ==
I forgot to mention that I contacted Amazon and was offered either a 10% refund, or a replacement.

... contrary to what I read among the wealth of dithyrambic adjectives concerning that book !!!

FIRST : As I reached half the book it was already giving signs of a strong "desire" to fall apart, with the front pages almost ripped off and the next pages soon to follow... Academic Press/Elsevier should try to get a training in the UK on how to provide a decent structure for a book in that price range.

SECOND : impractical numbering of sections, theorems, subsections + no mention of sections at the top of the page, making the search difficult + a very dull layout ...

THIRD : A very peculiar way of proving theorems : quite a personal interpretation of induction and recursion (a way for Enderton to free himself from the burden of really getting at the bottom of things...). It seems like Enderton had enrolled in a marathonian effort to give tortuous proofs, often incomplete and based on fistulous definitions, which turn the reading into a continual second-guessing exercise, with its load of annotations...
Added to the annoying game of transferring part of the theory to a bunch of exercises.

FOURTH : Wiith a horrific set of notations, chapter 3 (on undecidability) is simply unreadable and I wish good luck to those who want to understand Gödel's theorems via such confused and confusing text...

FIFTH : I am perusing chapter 4 with the faint hope that it isn't a second-order magma...

I really wish that Peter Smith (his excellent "Introduction to Gödel's theorems", see my review) decide, one day, to write a book on mathemetical first- and second-order logic !!!

Maybe it's because I'm only in undergrad, but I found a lot of the proofs in this book to be incomplete and hard to penetrate. Sometimes he would simply write "induction" and be through with it. That being said, this book covers a lot more material than other logic books, and the majority of it is extremely interesting. Much of it is, again, hard to penetrate (section 2.7 almost made me want to give up), but I found it to be a very worthwhile read. It covers things other authors simply hand-wave away such as the proof for the recursion theorem and the unique-readability theorem. I would recommend this to anyone with suitable mathematical maturity, but don't expect an easy read. For someone at the undergrad level there are better places to start.

While he does make mention of some algebraic stuff in passing, I would say you don't really need any specific prerequisites to read this.