Errata

British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 2 (5):1-s-1 (1951)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

Professor P. Bernays has kindly drawn my attention to the fact that the assignment of Godel numbers to formulas described on page 295 of volume I of this Journal, is not correct. Under this assignment, different formulas may obtain the same Godel number and therefore the argument given on page 296 under (i) is not cogent. The correct assignment would give, for the formula considered as an example, the Godel number 28. 320. 514. 782 The correction to be made on page 294, L 20 is obvious.

Other Versions

No versions found

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 100,809

External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

Similar books and articles

Errata.E. W. Beth - 1951 - British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 1 (4):302-302.
Errata.[author unknown] - 1960 - British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 11 (42):149-149.
Errata.[author unknown] - 1964 - British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 15 (59):280-280.
Errata.[author unknown] - 1999 - Foundations of Science 4 (2):225-225.
Errata.Gerald Slevin - 1992 - The Chesterton Review 18 (4):641-643.
Errata.J. Agassi - 1959 - British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 10 (38):171-171.
Errata.J. J. C. Smart - 1953 - British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 4 (15):268-268.
Errata.[author unknown] - 1961 - British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 11 (44):352-352.
Errata. &Na - 2007 - Jona's Healthcare Law, Ethics, and Regulation 9 (3):86.

Analytics

Added to PP
2009-01-28

Downloads
122 (#177,467)

6 months
31 (#116,087)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Citations of this work

No citations found.

Add more citations

References found in this work

No references found.

Add more references