Thanks. The review is confused about a number of issues, e.g.: > Gödel proved that if a statement in first-order logic is well formed (that is to say, it foll

Thanks. The review is confused about a number of issues, e.g.: > Gödel proved that if a statement in first-order logic is well formed (that is to say, it follows the syntactic rules for the formal language correctly), then there is a formal proof of it. That refers to Gödel's completeness theorem, which actually says something quite different (that a sentence is provable iff it is true in every models of the axioms). The way it is written, even if limited only to true sentences, it contradicts the incompleteness theorem that Gödel proved a few years later. So I don't think the review reflects a really informed reading of the book. That's another Gödel biography by Rebecca Goldstein, which apparently does a good job describing Gödel's life and personality, but is full of terrible mathematical errors in the part that tries to describe Gödel's work. I haven't read that one but might someday, if the opportunity comes up. Gödel besides being a great mathematician unfortunately also suffered from serious mental illness, but I don't think we gain anything from sensationalism about that aspect of his history. I'd rather read a biography that gets the math right first.