Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

Sign up for GitHub

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Jump to bottom

More errata #226

Open
wants to merge 3 commits into
base: master
Choose a base branch
from
Open

More errata #226

Show file tree
Hide file tree
Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
3 commits
Select commit Hold shift + click to select a range
a7b761c
Fix many minor issues, mostly grammatical
amackay Aug 16, 2020
7cae10c
Errata.md: Duplicate output on page 103
amackay Aug 16, 2020
505b93b
Update errata.md to include recently fixed issues
amackay Aug 17, 2020
File filter

Filter by extension

Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
61 changes: 53 additions & 8 deletions errata.md
View file
Open in desktop
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
@@ -1,32 +1,71 @@
# Errata

The following are errata for the Metamath 2019 ("Second Edition") book
dated 2019-06-02:
dated 2019-06-02. Issues marked with an asterisk (*) have not yet been
fixed in the repository version of the book.

* Preface (page x) - "able follow a proof" should be "able to follow a proof".
* Preface (page xiv, Note on Bibliography and Index) - "find it in on" should
be "find it on".
* Preface (Note Added March 7, 2019) - Matamath --> Metamath
* Section 1.4.2 (page 32, paragraph 3) -
* Section 1.1.1 (page 4) - "allows you do" should be "allows you to do".
* Section 1.1.6 (page 20) - "may be correspond" should be "may correspond".
* Section 1.3.2 (page 27) - "a way that can not only able to" should be "a way
that is not only able to".
* Section 1.3.4 (page 28) - "is a mostly a proof verifier" should be "is mostly
a proof verifier".
* *Section 1.4.2 (page 32, paragraph 3) -
there's an extraneous ")" after the term set.mm.
* Section 2.4 (page 52) and further shows this text after some assign commands:
* Section 1.4.4 (page 34) - "making it is easy" should be "making it easy".
* Section 2.3 (page 49) - "You can could use" should be "You could use".
* *Section 2.4 (page 52) and further shows this text after some assign commands:
"To undo the assignment, DELETE STEP ... and INITIALIZE, UNIFY if needed."
This text is no longer shown.
When the first edition of the book was written, metamath.exe didn't have
the 'undo'/'redo' commands (added in 2013; see 'help undo'), so hints
were provided by some commands for how to undo them manually.
These hints are no longer displayed since they are no longer needed.
* Section 3.3.2 and 3.3.3 headings (page 71) - the headings go past
* Section 2.4 (page 53) - "examples where is it used" should be "examples
where it is used".
* Section 3.1 (page 60) - "allow us determine" should be "allow us to
determine". In the same paragraph, "allows to say" should be "allows us to
say".
* Section 3.2.2 (page 67) - "auxilliary" should be "auxiliary".
* Section 3.2.4 (page 70) - "Tarsky-Grothendieck" should be
"Tarski-Grothendieck".
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

It should also be an en-dash ("--" in LaTeX).

Copy link

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Wikipedia says it's Ok either way:

A distinction is often made between "simple" attributive compounds (written with a hyphen) and other subtypes (written with an en dash); at least one authority considers name pairs, where the paired elements carry equal weight, as in the Taft–Hartley Act to be "simple", while others consider an en dash appropriate in instances such as these to represent the parallel relationship, as in the McCain–Feingold bill or Bose–Einstein statistics. When an act of the U.S. Congress is named using the surnames of the senator and representative who sponsored it, the hyphen-minus is used in the short title; thus the short title of Public Law 111–203 is "The Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act", with a hyphen-minus rather than an en dash between "Dodd" and "Frank". However, there is a difference between something named for a parallel/coordinate relationship between two people (for example, Satyendra Nath Bose and Albert Einstein) and something named for a single person who had a compound surname, which may be written with a hyphen or a space but not an en dash (for example, the Lennard-Jones potential [hyphen] is named after one person (Mr. John Lennard-Jones), as are Bence Jones proteins and Hughlings Jackson syndrome). Copyeditors use dictionaries (general, medical, biographical, and geographical) to confirm the eponymity (and thus the styling) for specific terms, given that no one can know them all offhand.

Preference for an en dash instead of a hyphen in these coordinate/relationship/connection types of terms is a matter of style, not inherent orthographic "correctness"; both are equally "correct", and each is the preferred style in some style guides. For example, the American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, the AMA Manual of Style, and Dorland's medical reference works use hyphens, not en dashes, in coordinate terms (such as "blood-brain barrier"), in eponyms (such as "Cheyne-Stokes respiration", "Kaplan-Meier method"), and so on.

* *Section 3.3.2 and 3.3.3 headings (page 71) - the headings go past
the intended margin (though they're quite readable).
* Section 3.4.3 (page 82) - "Similar to definition on" should be "Similar
to the definition on".
* Section 3.9.3 (page 97) - "appraoch" should be "approach".
* Section 4.3 (page 138) - there is a superfluous comma:
"... option to hide, them, but today ...".
* *Section 3.10 (page 103 and 104) - the output of "show statement ax-1/full"
is shown twice (once at the end of page 103, and once at the top of
page 104).
* Section 3.10.1 (page 109) - "may be be slightly" should be "may be
slightly".
* Section 4.1.3 (page 114) - "scope nd" should be "scope and".
* Section 4.2.5 (page 127) - "are also valid class expression" should be "are
also valid class expressions".
* Section 4.3 (page 138) - "Historically `show proof` command did" should be
"Historically the `show proof` command did".
There is also a superfluous comma: "... option to hide, them, but today ...".
* Section 4.3.1 (page 139) - "used and that each $f hypothesis have"
should be "used, and each $f hypothesis must have".
* Section 4.4.1 (page 142) - "parenticals" should be "parentheticals".
* Section 4.4.2 (page 146) - "asked to product" should be "asked to produce",
"and another uses" should be "and another that uses", and "bibiographic"
should be "bibliographic".
* Section 4.5.3 (page 155) - "statemnets" should be "statements", and
"Every dummy variable in the definiendum are required to" should be
"All dummy variables in the definiendum are required to".
* Section 4.5.4 (page 155) - "Metmath" should be "Metamath".
* Chapter 5 mentions the minimize command, but does not describe it
* *Chapter 5 mentions the minimize command, but does not describe it
in detail. A future version of the book might describe it in more detail.
* Section 5.2.9 (page 161) - "lets you to change" should be "lets you change".
* Section 5.6 (page 168) - In "The undo command if very helpful",
the "if" should be "is".
* Section 5.6.3 `set empty_substitution` Command (page 171) -
there's a duplication and the first bracketed text could be removed.
there's a duplication and the second bracketed text could be removed.
It says:
"(An example where this must be on would
be a system that implements a Deduction Rule and in which deductions from
Expand All @@ -37,4 +76,10 @@ dated 2019-06-02:
a system needing empty substitutions; another example would be a system
that implements a Deduction Rule and in which deductions from empty
assumption lists would be permissible.)"
* Section 5.6.11 (page 174) - "and to do `save new_proof` frequently" should be
"and do `save new_proof` frequently".
* Appendix A (page 184) - Part of the description of the uniqueness quantifier
is "there is at least one x". It should be "there is exactly one x".
* Appendix C (page 192) - "declared to be say, a string" should be "declared
to be, say, a string".

Loading