Errata for "A Programmer's Introduction to Mathematics" (Responses)
 Share
The version of the browser you are using is no longer supported. Please upgrade to a supported browser.Dismiss

 
View only
 
 
ABCDEFGHIJ
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 9:11:47iiiTypo in par 2: "mathematicl ideas"Luke A.
3
12/1/2018 11:00:313double word "there there"David Furcy
4
12/1/2018 12:39:4621"it's degree" should read "its degree"David Furcy
5
12/1/2018 12:50:5325"If any four of the daughters get[s]" extra 's'David Furcy
6
12/1/2018 13:04:4627"Let y [is/be]" David Furcy
7
12/1/2018 13:06:0127"your knowledge ... give[s]"David Furcy
8
12/1/2018 13:08:5527"we [o]ften don’t say"David Furcy
9
12/1/2018 13:11:1028"degree[-]3 polynomial" (dash missing)David Furcy
10
12/1/2018 13:14:0429"product and sum ... [are] algebraic"David Furcy
11
12/1/2018 13:22:4833"when evaluat[ing] f(x)"David Furcy
12
12/1/2018 15:11:06iiincreaseed` should be 'increased' (renewed and increased wisdom)
13
12/1/2018 17:08:4127Typo: “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 19:31:1943"compltely"David Furcy
16
12/1/2018 19:33:1944"conceputal"David Furcy
17
12/1/2018 19:36:3544"a[n] injection"David Furcy
18
12/1/2018 19:39:4245"a[n] surjection"David Furcy
19
12/1/2018 19:40:5046"a[n] surjection"David Furcy
20
12/1/2018 19:47:3146"a \in a" "should read "a \in A"David Furcy
21
12/1/2018 19:47:5247"a[n] bijection"David Furcy
22
12/1/2018 20:03:3950"in [and] of itself"David Furcy
23
12/1/2018 20:04:5850"You could actually make the balls point[s] inside R^2 somewhere"David Furcy
24
12/1/2018 20:11:5652"has a [a] bad reputation"David Furcy
25
12/1/2018 20:14:5853"It works by assuming the opposite of what you want to prove i[t/s] true"David Furcy
26
12/1/2018 20:21:5354"Realistic applications of this algorithm involve[s]"; also, maybe "involve" should read "include"David Furcy
27
12/1/2018 20:25:0855"is called stable [if] there is no pair"David Furcy
28
12/1/2018 20:25:4855"mathces"David Furcy
29
12/1/2018 20:34:0757"the algorithm will terminate[s]"David Furcy
30
12/1/2018 20:38:4058"tool [of/for] understanding"David Furcy
31
12/1/2018 20:42:1659"Look [of/for] a description"David Furcy
32
12/2/2018 6:47:4863apostrophe missing in "on each others toes"David Furcy
33
12/2/2018 6:52:2765"behave like a natural number and a function" => "behave like a natural number or a function, respectively"David Furcy
34
12/2/2018 6:54:0565"chee[r]ily" (I think)David Furcy
35
12/2/2018 6:58:5320The 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 6:59:3566"80[-]character names"David Furcy
37
12/2/2018 7:01:5821"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 7:02:4667"why wouldn’t the language designer just disallow [the other option] in the syntax?"David Furcy
39
12/2/2018 10:58:3469"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 11:03:1970The 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 11:07:2471"edges have l[e]bel ‘e’."David Furcy
42
12/2/2018 11:08:2371"Vert[e]ces"David Furcy (AKA DF)
43
12/2/2018 11:12:2171“trail” o[f/r] “walk”DF
44
12/2/2018 11:19:5672"The guarantee of the [theorem/proposition] is useless."DF
45
12/2/2018 11:23:0173the two nodes at the bottom of Fig 6.5 have the same colorDF
46
12/2/2018 21:27:0522Theorem 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 6:55:3827ften => oftenMichaël Defferrard
48
12/3/2018 9:24:0427
Let y is the binary -> Let y be the binary
Wojciech Kryscinski
49
12/3/2018 10:07:48iii
mathematical is misspelled. Look for "mathematicl"
Tyler Smith
50
12/3/2018 20:11:2078
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 20:47:2179
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 20:47:5179
all the vertices in $N(w_i)[\cap/\cup]N(w_j)$.
Fidel Barrera-Cruz
53
12/4/2018 6:38:036
"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 7:48:29Page 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 10:12:40diviseureentierj aime
56
12/4/2018 18:19:3277"whether [or not] it’s planar"DF
57
12/4/2018 18:22:3177
"the requirement [that] the graph [is/be] connected"
DF
58
12/4/2018 21:51:4829"contol points" -> "control points"Don-Duong Quach
59
12/5/2018 8:26:37ii
"increased" typo [..renewed and increaseed wisdom]
Ryan Troxler
60
12/5/2018 9:23:5323
Copy says `singleTerm`, but code shows `single_term`
Dave
61
12/5/2018 20:43:5596
"it[’]s steepness” (extra apostrophe)
DF
62
12/5/2018 20:44:5996
"The difference ... correspond[s] to a vertical change"
DF
63
12/5/2018 20:45:4496
The previous error is repeated on the following line.
DF
64
12/5/2018 20:46:4896
"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 20:50:3299"So x[,] and x′" (extra comma)DF
66
12/5/2018 20:53:2299
"drawing a line from x to some other x′" really from (x,f(x)) to (x',f(x'))
DF
67
12/5/2018 20:54:39101
"would these approximate numbers [would] approach some concrete number"
DF
68
12/5/2018 22:13:5829-30Bezier should be spelled BézierDon-Duong Quach
69
12/6/2018 8:04:5715
footnote 5 says to skip ahead to section 2.3 but is located in section 2.3
Tim Wilkens
70
12/6/2018 12:34:2427s/ften/often/Konstantin Weitz
71
12/6/2018 18:58:3815
In footnote 5, section 2.3 should be 2.4
K. Alex Mills
72
12/6/2018 19:00:5522
"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 19:01:1727bottom, in list (2) "ften" -> "often"K. Alex Mills
74
12/6/2018 19:01:4539
bottom line: sentence seems to abruptly end with "and the algorithm"
K. Alex Mills
75
12/6/2018 19:02:0440
footnote, "who really care" -> "who really cared".
K. Alex Mills
76
12/6/2018 19:02:2243s/compltely/completely/gK. Alex Mills
77
12/6/2018 19:02:4344s/conceputal/conceptual/gK. Alex Mills
78
12/6/2018 19:04:0647
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 19:04:2548
Footnote is amazing and you are awesome for including it. :D
K. Alex Mills
80
12/6/2018 19:05:1549
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 19:06:0652
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 19:06:5057
"the algorithm will terminates" -> "will terminate"
K. Alex Mills
83
12/6/2018 19:07:3057
"monotonic increasing" -> "monotonically increasing"?
K. Alex Mills
84
12/6/2018 19:07:5865
"cheeily titled 'Algebra: Chapter o" -> cheekily or cheerily
K. Alex Mills
85
12/6/2018 19:08:2164
"siphon out the window", did you mean "siphon money out the window?"
K. Alex Mills
86
12/6/2018 19:11:2769
"still finds uses" -> "still finds use" -- seems idiomatically more correct to me.
K. Alex Mills
87
12/6/2018 19:12:2569
"and the result is a graph." -> "the result is a graph"
K. Alex Mills
88
12/6/2018 19:16:3271
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 19:17:4272
"trail" of "walk" -> "trail" or "walk"
K. Alex Mills
90
12/6/2018 19:26:2174
"Don't know of any provably correct that is significantly" --> "...any provably correct algorithm(?) that is..."
K. Alex Mills
91
12/6/2018 19:27:4471
In footnote: "integer linear program [and] throw an"
K. Alex Mills
92
12/6/2018 19:38:4078
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 19:45:2079Tombstone falls off onto page 79K. Alex Mills
94
12/6/2018 20:12:5592
"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 8:08:3674
Footnote 7 should be "you'd probably write it as a so-called integer linear program [and] throw..."
Tim Wilkens
96
12/8/2018 8:53:45110
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 7:40:5096
"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 7:56:07103
"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 8:06:01116
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 8:08:03116
Footnote 11. "Saying what an 'open' set is [is] another can of worms..."
Tim Wilkens
Loading...
Main menu