…lots of motivations for introduced concepts, but moves somewhat slowly (introducing FOL in three stages, first propositional, then quantifier-free and then full FOL) - Leary & Kristiansen, "A Friendly Introduction to Mathematical Logic" (available online for free) - this moves somewhat faster and skips "lower" logics such as propositional logic and uses a different proof system. If you read up to Löwenheim-Skolem, you already have a…
……以及逻辑命题（语法 vs. 语义）。出于某种原因，这本书从命题逻辑过渡到一阶逻辑的过程让我看懵了，于是我开始看下面这本书。2. Christopher C Leary 和 Lars Kristiansen 的《A Friendly Introduction to Mathematical Logic》：这本书的前两章非常棒，能让你亲眼看到一个成熟的公理化一阶证明系统是如何运作的。他们在构建……方面做得很出色。
…and logical statements (syntax vs. semantics). For some reason, this book's transition from propositional logic to first order logic left me in a daze, so I started up on the book below. 2. A friendly Introduction to Mathematical Logic by Christopher C Leary and Lars Kristiansen: The first 2 chapters of this book were a great way to see a fully fledged axiomatic first order proof system in action. They do a great job of setting up a…
相关补充：E.J. Lemmon 在他的《Beginning Logic》一书中列出了一些重要的逻辑学书籍，并表示 Church 的《Introduction to Mathematical logic》第 0 章“值得‘所有’哲学家读上好几遍”。
Related: E.J. Lemmon, in his book Beginning Logic, lists some important logic books and says that Chapter 0 of Church's Introduction to Mathematical logic ``deserves to be read several times by /all/ philosophers''.
……与“塔尔斯基的真理定义”（Tarski's definition of truth）有关，但大家对这意味着什么似乎有不同的理解。虽然维基百科赞同你的看法，但我至少能指出一本畅销书（Richard E. Hodel 的《An Introduction to Mathematical Logic》），它直接把塔尔斯基真理等同于模型论真理（model theoretic truth）。顺便说一句，在你举的例子里我不会解雇那个分析师，因为责任在我：我本来就应该指明……
…something to do with "Tarski's definition of truth", but there seem to be different ideas around about what this means. While Wikipedia agrees with yours, I can point to at least one popular book ("An Introduction to Mathematical Logic" by Richard E. Hodel) that equates Tarski truth just with model theoretic truth. I wouldn't fire the analyst in your example, by the way, because the fault would be mine: I should have just specified…
……为引入的概念提供了很多动机，但推进有些慢（分三个阶段引入 FOL：先是命题逻辑，再是不含量词的，最后才是完整的 FOL）——Leary 和 Kristiansen 的《A Friendly Introduction to Mathematical Logic》（网上有免费版）——这本推进快一些，跳过了命题逻辑等“较低层”的逻辑，并使用了不同的证明系统。如果你读到勒文海姆-斯科伦定理（Löwenheim-Skolem），你其实就已经对……
…lots of motivations for introduced concepts, but moves somewhat slowly (introducing FOL in three stages, first propositional, then quantifier-free and then full FOL) - Leary & Kristiansen, "A Friendly Introduction to Mathematical Logic" (available online for free) - this moves somewhat faster and skips "lower" logics such as propositional logic and uses a different proof system. If you read up to Löwenheim-Skolem, you already have a…
……以及逻辑命题（语法 vs. 语义）。出于某种原因，这本书从命题逻辑过渡到一阶逻辑的过程让我看懵了，于是我开始看下面这本书。2. Christopher C Leary 和 Lars Kristiansen 的《A Friendly Introduction to Mathematical Logic》：这本书的前两章非常棒，能让你亲眼看到一个成熟的公理化一阶证明系统是如何运作的。他们在构建……方面做得很出色。
…and logical statements (syntax vs. semantics). For some reason, this book's transition from propositional logic to first order logic left me in a daze, so I started up on the book below. 2. A friendly Introduction to Mathematical Logic by Christopher C Leary and Lars Kristiansen: The first 2 chapters of this book were a great way to see a fully fledged axiomatic first order proof system in action. They do a great job of setting up a…
相关补充：E.J. Lemmon 在他的《Beginning Logic》一书中列出了一些重要的逻辑学书籍，并表示 Church 的《Introduction to Mathematical logic》第 0 章“值得‘所有’哲学家读上好几遍”。
Related: E.J. Lemmon, in his book Beginning Logic, lists some important logic books and says that Chapter 0 of Church's Introduction to Mathematical logic ``deserves to be read several times by /all/ philosophers''.
……与“塔尔斯基的真理定义”（Tarski's definition of truth）有关，但大家对这意味着什么似乎有不同的理解。虽然维基百科赞同你的看法，但我至少能指出一本畅销书（Richard E. Hodel 的《An Introduction to Mathematical Logic》），它直接把塔尔斯基真理等同于模型论真理（model theoretic truth）。顺便说一句，在你举的例子里我不会解雇那个分析师，因为责任在我：我本来就应该指明……
…something to do with "Tarski's definition of truth", but there seem to be different ideas around about what this means. While Wikipedia agrees with yours, I can point to at least one popular book ("An Introduction to Mathematical Logic" by Richard E. Hodel) that equates Tarski truth just with model theoretic truth. I wouldn't fire the analyst in your example, by the way, because the fault would be mine: I should have just specified…