Mathematics Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for people studying math at any level and professionals in related fields. Join them; it only takes a minute:

Sign up
Here's how it works:
  1. Anybody can ask a question
  2. Anybody can answer
  3. The best answers are voted up and rise to the top

Is there a typographical error in the dover and God Created the Integers editions of Gödel's Incompleteness paper? Or is it correct?

Based on eq. 9 in part 2, I believe that there should be a negation sign over xB{17Genr} in equation 15. I know this is a esoteric, but if someone has a better translation (the translation in a source book on mathematical logic or Davies. Undecidability maybe) is it the same? Is it correct?

I should add that he merely says "by substituting p for y." And mere substitution shouldn't affect the negation in 9.

share|cite|improve this question

A scan of the German original can be found at Indeed the $xB_\varkappa\ldots$ is negated in equations 9 and 15 (on page 188).

share|cite|improve this answer
Thanks. :-) I'll be referring back to this. It's surprising that Dover and Running Press continue to republish this with the error. This error was easy to spot. Who knows how many errors I've missed. Unfortunately, I don't speak German and I'll be mainly relying on these terrible translations. – mathNotebook Jan 31 '12 at 17:24
@user23648: My Dover reprint of Meltzer's translation (1992, isbn 0-486-66980-7) does have the negation bar in equation 15, but it (and several others nearby) looks curiously hand-drawn, as if it was added in freehand to the film after the text was typeset. – Henning Makholm Feb 1 '12 at 1:42

Your Answer


By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.