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!