The book is Burhanuddin Baki’s Badiou’s Being and Event and the Mathematics of Set Theory (Bloomsbury 2015), and the review is here. Livingston has been arguing for some time that Badiou can bridge, via his formalism, some of the Continental/analytic divide, noting for example:
As Badiou’s formidable edifice of thought continues to be received and debated within increasingly broad discussions continuous with both the “analytic” and “continental” traditions, a good understanding of his formalisms will be increasingly necessary in order to assess its real implications for the issues at stake. This assessment may involve probing evidently close formal connections such as (as Baki points out) that between Badiou’s application of forcing and its role within Kripkean semantics for modal logic. But it is likely also to involve considering the bearing on Badiou’s argument of key problems and questions debated by analytic philosophers in recent decades.
I’m less convinced, not least because formalism has its limits, though I really enjoy Paul’s work and get much from it each time I read him, but also because unless I’m missing a vast ouevre out there on Badiou in analytic circles, his kind of wide ontological and metaphysical claims cut against the grain of those analytics particularly interested in formalistic enterprises.