A | B | C | D | E | F | G | H | I | J | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|

1 | Timestamp | Page # (or starting page #, if error spans multiple pages) | Description of error | Your name (for credit, will be public) | ||||||

2 | 12/1/2018 9:11:47 | iii | Typo in par 2: "mathematicl ideas" | Luke A. | ||||||

3 | 12/1/2018 11:00:31 | 3 | double word "there there" | David Furcy | ||||||

4 | 12/1/2018 12:39:46 | 21 | "it's degree" should read "its degree" | David Furcy | ||||||

5 | 12/1/2018 12:50:53 | 25 | "If any four of the daughters get[s]" extra 's' | David Furcy | ||||||

6 | 12/1/2018 13:04:46 | 27 | "Let y [is/be]" | David Furcy | ||||||

7 | 12/1/2018 13:06:01 | 27 | "your knowledge ... give[s]" | David Furcy | ||||||

8 | 12/1/2018 13:08:55 | 27 | "we [o]ften don’t say" | David Furcy | ||||||

9 | 12/1/2018 13:11:10 | 28 | "degree[-]3 polynomial" (dash missing) | David Furcy | ||||||

10 | 12/1/2018 13:14:04 | 29 | "product and sum ... [are] algebraic" | David Furcy | ||||||

11 | 12/1/2018 13:22:48 | 33 | "when evaluat[ing] f(x)" | David Furcy | ||||||

12 | 12/1/2018 15:11:06 | ii | increaseed` should be 'increased' (renewed and increased wisdom) | |||||||

13 | 12/1/2018 17:08:41 | 27 | Typo: “ften” should be “often” Found in preview of first pages--I didn’t actually purchase the book. | Seth Yastrov | ||||||

14 | 12/1/2018 19:17:47 | last line of page 39 | extra phrase? ", and the algorithm" | David Furcy | ||||||

15 | 12/1/2018 19:31:19 | 43 | "compltely" | David Furcy | ||||||

16 | 12/1/2018 19:33:19 | 44 | "conceputal" | David Furcy | ||||||

17 | 12/1/2018 19:36:35 | 44 | "a[n] injection" | David Furcy | ||||||

18 | 12/1/2018 19:39:42 | 45 | "a[n] surjection" | David Furcy | ||||||

19 | 12/1/2018 19:40:50 | 46 | "a[n] surjection" | David Furcy | ||||||

20 | 12/1/2018 19:47:31 | 46 | "a \in a" "should read "a \in A" | David Furcy | ||||||

21 | 12/1/2018 19:47:52 | 47 | "a[n] bijection" | David Furcy | ||||||

22 | 12/1/2018 20:03:39 | 50 | "in [and] of itself" | David Furcy | ||||||

23 | 12/1/2018 20:04:58 | 50 | "You could actually make the balls point[s] inside R^2 somewhere" | David Furcy | ||||||

24 | 12/1/2018 20:11:56 | 52 | "has a [a] bad reputation" | David Furcy | ||||||

25 | 12/1/2018 20:14:58 | 53 | "It works by assuming the opposite of what you want to prove i[t/s] true" | David Furcy | ||||||

26 | 12/1/2018 20:21:53 | 54 | "Realistic applications of this algorithm involve[s]"; also, maybe "involve" should read "include" | David Furcy | ||||||

27 | 12/1/2018 20:25:08 | 55 | "is called stable [if] there is no pair" | David Furcy | ||||||

28 | 12/1/2018 20:25:48 | 55 | "mathces" | David Furcy | ||||||

29 | 12/1/2018 20:34:07 | 57 | "the algorithm will terminate[s]" | David Furcy | ||||||

30 | 12/1/2018 20:38:40 | 58 | "tool [of/for] understanding" | David Furcy | ||||||

31 | 12/1/2018 20:42:16 | 59 | "Look [of/for] a description" | David Furcy | ||||||

32 | 12/2/2018 6:47:48 | 63 | apostrophe missing in "on each others toes" | David Furcy | ||||||

33 | 12/2/2018 6:52:27 | 65 | "behave like a natural number and a function" => "behave like a natural number or a function, respectively" | David Furcy | ||||||

34 | 12/2/2018 6:54:05 | 65 | "chee[r]ily" (I think) | David Furcy | ||||||

35 | 12/2/2018 6:58:53 | 20 | The proof starts with "Let (x_1,y_1),...,(x_n,y_n) be a list...". That means that there are n points, but then in the formula below, variable i in the sum operator iterates over 0..n (i.e over n+1 points). Maybe it should start as "Let (x_0,y_0),...,(x_n,y_n) be a list...". | Arman Yessenamanov | ||||||

36 | 12/2/2018 6:59:35 | 66 | "80[-]character names" | David Furcy | ||||||

37 | 12/2/2018 7:01:58 | 21 | "passing through the desired set of points (x_1,x_2),...,(x_n,y_n)" should be "(x_1,y_1),...,(x_n,y_n)" | Arman Yessenamanov | ||||||

38 | 12/2/2018 7:02:46 | 67 | "why wouldn’t the language designer just disallow [the other option] in the syntax?" | David Furcy | ||||||

39 | 12/2/2018 10:58:34 | 69 | "If you give me a bunch of “things” and a list of which things are “connected,” [and/then] the result is a graph." | David Furcy | ||||||

40 | 12/2/2018 11:03:19 | 70 | The crossing edges in Fig. 6.1 and 6.2 could easily be avoided, unless there is a reason for them crossing later on... | David Furcy | ||||||

41 | 12/2/2018 11:07:24 | 71 | "edges have l[e]bel ‘e’." | David Furcy | ||||||

42 | 12/2/2018 11:08:23 | 71 | "Vert[e]ces" | David Furcy (AKA DF) | ||||||

43 | 12/2/2018 11:12:21 | 71 | “trail” o[f/r] “walk” | DF | ||||||

44 | 12/2/2018 11:19:56 | 72 | "The guarantee of the [theorem/proposition] is useless." | DF | ||||||

45 | 12/2/2018 11:23:01 | 73 | the two nodes at the bottom of Fig 6.5 have the same color | DF | ||||||

46 | 12/2/2018 21:27:05 | 22 | Theorem 2.4 says degree n, but it should say degree at most n. There are some other mistakes of this form as well. In particular this applies to the *proof* of Theorem 2.4, which claims to prove that the constructed polynomial has degree n, when of course that needn't be the case. | Harry Altman | ||||||

47 | 12/3/2018 6:55:38 | 27 | ften => often | Michaël Defferrard | ||||||

48 | 12/3/2018 9:24:04 | 27 | Let y is the binary -> Let y be the binary | Wojciech Kryscinski | ||||||

49 | 12/3/2018 10:07:48 | iii | mathematical is misspelled. Look for "mathematicl" | Tyler Smith | ||||||

50 | 12/3/2018 20:11:20 | 78 | Lemma 6.9. Looks like $m\geq2$ should be required. Lemma does not seem to hold as stated for $K_1$ and $K_2$. | Fidel Barrera-Cruz | ||||||

51 | 12/3/2018 20:47:21 | 79 | Seems like $G'$ is obtained from $G$ by deleting $v$ and then merging $w_i$ and $w_j$, however this is not too clear when $G'$ is defined. | Fidel Barrera-Cruz | ||||||

52 | 12/3/2018 20:47:51 | 79 | all the vertices in $N(w_i)[\cap/\cup]N(w_j)$. | Fidel Barrera-Cruz | ||||||

53 | 12/4/2018 6:38:03 | 6 | "The degree of the polynomial is the integer n.", should be "The degree of the polynomial is the non-negative integer n." | Simon Skrede | ||||||

54 | 12/4/2018 7:48:29 | Page number 6 | The polynomial definition 2.1 show a(n <--- should be i instead of n)x^n | Bilal Karim Reffas | ||||||

55 | 12/4/2018 10:12:40 | diviseure | entier | j aime | ||||||

56 | 12/4/2018 18:19:32 | 77 | "whether [or not] it’s planar" | DF | ||||||

57 | 12/4/2018 18:22:31 | 77 | "the requirement [that] the graph [is/be] connected" | DF | ||||||

58 | 12/4/2018 21:51:48 | 29 | "contol points" -> "control points" | Don-Duong Quach | ||||||

59 | 12/5/2018 8:26:37 | ii | "increased" typo [..renewed and increaseed wisdom] | Ryan Troxler | ||||||

60 | 12/5/2018 9:23:53 | 23 | Copy says `singleTerm`, but code shows `single_term` | Dave | ||||||

61 | 12/5/2018 20:43:55 | 96 | "it[’]s steepness” (extra apostrophe) | DF | ||||||

62 | 12/5/2018 20:44:59 | 96 | "The difference ... correspond[s] to a vertical change" | DF | ||||||

63 | 12/5/2018 20:45:44 | 96 | The previous error is repeated on the following line. | DF | ||||||

64 | 12/5/2018 20:46:48 | 96 | "because [any choice of two points because any for any two choices of points] you can draw a right triangle" | DF | ||||||

65 | 12/5/2018 20:50:32 | 99 | "So x[,] and x′" (extra comma) | DF | ||||||

66 | 12/5/2018 20:53:22 | 99 | "drawing a line from x to some other x′" really from (x,f(x)) to (x',f(x')) | DF | ||||||

67 | 12/5/2018 20:54:39 | 101 | "would these approximate numbers [would] approach some concrete number" | DF | ||||||

68 | 12/5/2018 22:13:58 | 29-30 | Bezier should be spelled Bézier | Don-Duong Quach | ||||||

69 | 12/6/2018 8:04:57 | 15 | footnote 5 says to skip ahead to section 2.3 but is located in section 2.3 | Tim Wilkens | ||||||

70 | 12/6/2018 12:34:24 | 27 | s/ften/often/ | Konstantin Weitz | ||||||

71 | 12/6/2018 18:58:38 | 15 | In footnote 5, section 2.3 should be 2.4 | K. Alex Mills | ||||||

72 | 12/6/2018 19:00:55 | 22 | "let g(x) be another such polynomial" I get what you mean because of your longer proof. If am being pedantic, if you are referring to "another such" polynomial in the same way as f(x), all I have to go on for the definition of g(x) is the formula for f(x), which gives f = g immediately. I think "another such" may be too vague in context for this to be a formal proof. On the other hand, maybe this sort of informality is a cultural "mathy" thing you want to instill in your readers. | K. Alex Mills | ||||||

73 | 12/6/2018 19:01:17 | 27 | bottom, in list (2) "ften" -> "often" | K. Alex Mills | ||||||

74 | 12/6/2018 19:01:45 | 39 | bottom line: sentence seems to abruptly end with "and the algorithm" | K. Alex Mills | ||||||

75 | 12/6/2018 19:02:04 | 40 | footnote, "who really care" -> "who really cared". | K. Alex Mills | ||||||

76 | 12/6/2018 19:02:22 | 43 | s/compltely/completely/g | K. Alex Mills | ||||||

77 | 12/6/2018 19:02:43 | 44 | s/conceputal/conceptual/g | K. Alex Mills | ||||||

78 | 12/6/2018 19:04:06 | 47 | One can easily miss the definition of "inverse" before its first use in Proposition 4.11. The definition is in the body of the text on page 46, but this way of providing additional definitions is another "mathism". I think using this mathism is a good exposure to mathematical style, but perhaps attention should be drawn to its use as a footnote or an aside. | K. Alex Mills | ||||||

79 | 12/6/2018 19:04:25 | 48 | Footnote is amazing and you are awesome for including it. :D | K. Alex Mills | ||||||

80 | 12/6/2018 19:05:15 | 49 | Rephrasing at top of page. Some readers might appreciate an explicit nod to the surjection that is implicit in your statement "Then the image f(X) is the subset L..." | K. Alex Mills | ||||||

81 | 12/6/2018 19:06:06 | 52 | I LOVE the colloquial tone in this proof. You do switch pronouns between "we" and "I" though. This isn't a problem for me, but you may think otherwise so I am pointing it out. | K. Alex Mills | ||||||

82 | 12/6/2018 19:06:50 | 57 | "the algorithm will terminates" -> "will terminate" | K. Alex Mills | ||||||

83 | 12/6/2018 19:07:30 | 57 | "monotonic increasing" -> "monotonically increasing"? | K. Alex Mills | ||||||

84 | 12/6/2018 19:07:58 | 65 | "cheeily titled 'Algebra: Chapter o" -> cheekily or cheerily | K. Alex Mills | ||||||

85 | 12/6/2018 19:08:21 | 64 | "siphon out the window", did you mean "siphon money out the window?" | K. Alex Mills | ||||||

86 | 12/6/2018 19:11:27 | 69 | "still finds uses" -> "still finds use" -- seems idiomatically more correct to me. | K. Alex Mills | ||||||

87 | 12/6/2018 19:12:25 | 69 | "and the result is a graph." -> "the result is a graph" | K. Alex Mills | ||||||

88 | 12/6/2018 19:16:32 | 71 | Near top, maybe not start sentence with "I.e." as this capitalizes the I. Suggest "neighbors; i.e.," or just remove the "i.e." and say "That is," | K. Alex Mills | ||||||

89 | 12/6/2018 19:17:42 | 72 | "trail" of "walk" -> "trail" or "walk" | K. Alex Mills | ||||||

90 | 12/6/2018 19:26:21 | 74 | "Don't know of any provably correct that is significantly" --> "...any provably correct algorithm(?) that is..." | K. Alex Mills | ||||||

91 | 12/6/2018 19:27:44 | 71 | In footnote: "integer linear program [and] throw an" | K. Alex Mills | ||||||

92 | 12/6/2018 19:38:40 | 78 | It does not seem (to me) that the proof of Lemma 6.9 establishes the direction of the inequality. For this, we must appeal to the injection which you hint at only after the tombstone. | K. Alex Mills | ||||||

93 | 12/6/2018 19:45:20 | 79 | Tombstone falls off onto page 79 | K. Alex Mills | ||||||

94 | 12/6/2018 20:12:55 | 92 | "Even those working entirely within geometry having specific styles" -- this sentence does not parse for me. I don't think its subject has a verb. | K. Alex Mills | ||||||

95 | 12/7/2018 8:08:36 | 74 | Footnote 7 should be "you'd probably write it as a so-called integer linear program [and] throw..." | Tim Wilkens | ||||||

96 | 12/8/2018 8:53:45 | 110 | Top of page "facts" shouldn't be plural. Likely should be "... in favor of stating (what I believe is) the most important fact for applications. | Tim Wilkens | ||||||

97 | 12/9/2018 7:40:50 | 96 | "because if I move point B to D the ratios stay the same..." but you don't need to move the points to show the ratios are the same. | K. Alex Mills | ||||||

98 | 12/9/2018 7:56:07 | 103 | "In fact as close as the input..." do you want to be more precise and say "at least as close"? | K. Alex Mills | ||||||

99 | 12/9/2018 8:06:01 | 116 | The ending here needs some reworking "... we'd hope that this limit was also equal to f, and least close to x = 0". Perhaps "and [at] least close to x = 0"? | Tim Wilkens | ||||||

100 | 12/9/2018 8:08:03 | 116 | Footnote 11. "Saying what an 'open' set is [is] another can of worms..." | Tim Wilkens |

Loading...

Main menu