I agree. The inaccuracies listed are like, once every few pages the author makes a statement like "P implies Q" without mentioning some minor condition, like, "only if you assume the axiom of choice". Yes, this is annoying for mathematicians, but there's just a fundamental compromise that has to be made. If you spell out every single detail then you will create a book that is not engaging enough to read straight through.
I think you will really enjoy this book if, like me, you:
1. Enjoy David Foster Wallace's literary style
2. Have a good mathematical understanding of set theory
Unfortunately, the intersection of these two conditions might make for a very small target audience!
That’s why you don’t have to explicitly add it as a qualifier at every instance in which it’s implied in your work of non fiction for a general audience.
I think if you aren't deeply concerned with the axiom of choice in your work about infinity for a general audience, then the entire affair is rather farcical. Most of the "weird" stuff about infinity derives from the axiom, after all. A book about infinity, for the lay person in particular, must be in large part a book about the axiom of choice.
I think you will really enjoy this book if, like me, you:
1. Enjoy David Foster Wallace's literary style
2. Have a good mathematical understanding of set theory
Unfortunately, the intersection of these two conditions might make for a very small target audience!