Version 
Location 
Description 
Submitted By 
Date Submitted 
Date Corrected 
Printed 
Page Index
United States 
Omission of "error" and/or "residual error" from index. It is discussed as a topic in one specific occurrence on p.245.
Note from the Author or Editor: Add "error of prediction" and "residual error" to the index, with reference to page 245.

Brian Joseph 
Mar 23, 2014 

Printed 
Page index
United States 
DurbinWatson is not in the index. I looked up autocorrelation but the DW is not associated with it in the text. It is mentioned on pg. 203
Note from the Author or Editor: Add "DurbinWatson statistic" to the index, with a reference to page 203.

Brian Joseph 
Mar 23, 2014 

ePub 
Page 13
3rd paragraph 
My page number is relative to my font size, but in the "The Focus of This Book" you'll find: "Several things are necessary to be able in the process of thinking with numbers."
Note from the Author or Editor: please change sentence to read "Several things are necessary to be able to think with numbers."

Alfredo Delgado 
Nov 30, 2012 

PDF, ePub, Safari Books Online 
Page 54
Last two lines of "Independent and Dependent Variables" 
In the closing sentences of the last paragraph of the section "Independent and Dependent Variables" the words indepenent and dependent have been described exactly the other way  at least if it should be consistent with the rest of the paragraphs idea.
Note from the Author or Editor: on p. 54, the end of the last sentence of the paragraph beginning "Some researchers believe... " should read "thus, we will use "dependent variable" to identify the variables that reflect the outcome of a study and "independent variable" to mean the variables believed to influence the outcome."

Jakob Klein 
Nov 17, 2012 

Printed 
Page 69
United States 
In the first sentence of the 5th paragraph it reads...
"If we are evaluating the probability that the coin is fair.....give us strong evidence that it is fair.
Should read ...."gives us strong evidence that it is unfair."
Note from the Author or Editor: second paragraph fro the bottom, first sentence should end "that it is unfair"

Brian Joseph 
Mar 23, 2014 

Printed, PDF, ePub, Safari Books Online 
Page 91
First numbered list, item 3 
Inconsistent with the item 1 (correct ranking from smallest to largest) in the instructions to compute the percentiles, the item 3 reads: "the (j+1)th largest measurement" should be used, while correctly it should be the (j+1)th smallest measurement, or more unambiguous, "the measurement ranked (j+1)th".
Note from the Author or Editor: Affirmed; also notice plural for "observations":
for item 3 in the first list on p. 91 (printed edition), the sentence should read: If (nk)/100 is not an integer, the kth percentile of the observations is measurement ranked (j + 1)th, where j is the largest integer less than (nk)/100.

Jakob Klein 
May 26, 2013 

Printed, PDF, ePub, Safari Books Online 
Page 92
2nd paragraph below the heading "The Variance and Standard Deviation" 
The formula for the deviation is wrongly typeset, the index of x should be simply i and the subtraction should be on the first level (x_i  µ) instead of (x_{i  µ}).
Note from the Author or Editor: affirmedin the formula in parentheses at the end of the first line, beginning "The deviation from the mean...., the symbol mu should not be subscript

Jakob Klein 
May 26, 2013 

Printed 
Page 127
United States 
Fig 52
The chi square equation contains this product:
i th row x j th row
It should have:
i th row x j th column
Note from the Author or Editor: the numerator of the formula at the bottom of the page should read:
ith row total times jth column total

Brian L Joseph 
Sep 21, 2013 

Printed 
Page 134
3rd paragraph, 3rd sentence 
Fisher’s Exact Test for the data in Table 57 is 0.157.
should be read as
Fisher’s Exact Test for the data in Table 58 is 0.157.
Note from the Author or Editor: p 134, paragraph before "McNemar's" header, 5 lines from the bottom: "Table 57" should be "Table 58"

Toshiaki Kurokawa 
Jun 11, 2014 

Printed 
Page 138
2nd paragraph, 5th item in the formula explanateion 
x bar is the pooled proportion,
should be read as
p hat is the pooled proportion,
Note from the Author or Editor: p. 138, 5th line under Figure 512, should read:
"phat is the pooled proportion..."
(not "xbar is the pooled proportion")

Toshiaki Kurokawa 
Jun 11, 2014 

Printed 
Page 139
Figrue 515, denominator of the center 
360+400+70+690
should be read as
360x400x70x690
Note from the Author or Editor: p 139 Figure 515, denominator should be:
sqrt(360x400x70x690)
(replace + signs with multiplcation signs)

Toshiaki Kurokawa 
Jun 11, 2014 

PDF 
Page 141
Figure 519 
The definition of r_{pb} in Figure 519 (pointbiserial correlation coefficient) shows the numerator of the fraction as
\bar{X}_{1}\bar{X}_{0}\sqrt{p(1p)}
i.e. it indicates that only the X0 term is multiplied by sqrt{p(1p)}.
The example in Figure 5_20 indicates that the whole (X1  X0) term which should be multiplied by sqrt{p(1p)}. The definition in 5_19 could be amended to put brackets around the whole (X_1  X_0) term.
Note from the Author or Editor: For Figure 519 and F20, the Xbarsub1 minute Xbarsub0 term should be in parentheses

Anonymous 
Apr 05, 2014 

Printed 
Page 157
3rd item from the top 
s is the population standard deviation,
should be read as
s is the sample standard deviation,
Note from the Author or Editor: p 157, 3rd line from the top, should read: "s is the sample standard deviation" not "population standard deviation"

Toshiaki Kurokawa 
Jun 11, 2014 

Printed 
Page 157
3rd paragraph, 3rd sentence 
with α= 0.05, we use the column for 0.25.
should be read as
with α= 0.05, we use the column for 0.025.
Note from the Author or Editor: p 157, 2nd full paragraph, 7th line should read "we use the column for 0.025" not "for 0.25"

Toshiaki Kurokawa 
Jun 11, 2014 

Printed 
Page 158
last sentence from the top 
mathematically identical to the formula in Figure 64 but
should be read as
mathematically identical to the formula in Figure 65 but
Note from the Author or Editor: p. 158 2nd line from the bottom, "..to the formula in Figure 64" should be "to the formula in Figure 65"

Toshiaki Kurokawa 
Jun 11, 2014 

Printed 
Page 163
Figure 612 
In the 2nd edition of Statistics in a nutshell, p163, Figure 612:
The denominator's pooled variance reads 37.18 when it should read 31.78.
Note from the Author or Editor: In Figure 6.12, in the denominator following the first = sign, replace 37.18 with 31.78
(the rest of the equation is correct)

Anonymous 
Apr 23, 2014 

Printed 
Page 184
3rd item from the top 
SSxy is the sum of squares of x and y.
should be read as
SSxy is the sum of products of x and y.
Note from the Author or Editor: p 184 3rd line from top, should read "SSxy is the sum of crossproducts of x and y."

Toshiaki Kurokawa 
Jun 11, 2014 

Printed 
Page 205
Figure 88 
xaxis GIL
should be read as
GII
Note from the Author or Editor: p 205 Figure 88 the label for the yaxis should be "GII" not "GIL"

Toshiaki Kurokawa 
Jun 11, 2014 

PDF 
Page 248
Figure 103 
The label of the xaxis on Figure 103 appears to be incorrect/misleading. The label is "log_gni" (indicating that it is after a logarithmic transformation of GNI), but the graph title, and the explanatory text on page 247, indicate that Figure 103 is based on the raw GNI (i.e. before the logarithmic transformation), and that it is only Figure 104 which uses the logarithmic transformation. Consider relabelling the xaxis of Figure 103 as "gni" instead of "log_gni".
Note from the Author or Editor: for Figure 103 on page 248 of the PDF, the xaxis should be labeled as GNI not log_gni

Anonymous 
Apr 05, 2014 

Printed 
Page 255
United States 
"The DurbinWatson statistic for this model is 0.195 very close to the null value of 2".
Either the test statistic calculated is not the actual value which was calculated or the statement is incorrect based on the value of the stated test statistic.
Note from the Author or Editor: In the first full paragraph, the value of the DurbinWatson statistic should be 1.95, not 0.195.

Brian Joseph 
Mar 23, 2014 

Printed 
Page 255
United States 
Omission:
"We will evaluate the assumption of homoscedasticity....".
The definition is not explained where it is referenced. It can not be found in the glossary or the index.
The prior edition has the term in the index. It can be found on pg. 199
Note from the Author or Editor: Third paragraph from the bottom, sentence beginning "We will evaluate the assumption..." add "(homoscedasticity means the variance is similar across the range of the data)"
Add "homoscedasticity" to the index, referencing p. 255

Brian Joseph 
Mar 23, 2014 

PDF 
Page 256
Table 106 and preceding paragraph. 
The values in this table are not consistent, and the text on interpreting Tolerance and VIF appears to reverse the terms.
The text states that VIF = 1/tolerance, but the values appear to be approximately a factor of 10 out. (For example: in row "Log_gni", tolerance is 0.50 and VIF is 20.04, but 1/0.50 = 2.0, not 20.04.) Consider recalculating and correcting these.
The text above the table states "tolerance should not be greater than 10 or VIF lower than 0.10". This is not consistent with other sources, or with this text's interpretation of the values in the table: the table shows low tolerances and high VIF, but the text states that there is a problem with the data. Consider replacing "tolerance should not be greater than 10 or VIF lower than 0.10" with "VIF should not be greater than 10 or tolerance lower than 0.10".
Note from the Author or Editor: page 256, first paragraph, third sentence, second clause should be amended to read "one popular rules is that tolerance should not be less than 0.10 or VIF greater than 10."
In Table 106, the tolerance values should be: 0.05, 0.02, and 0.08

Anonymous 
Apr 05, 2014 

PDF 
Page 308
5th paragraph 
The word "Because" is misspelled as "Bacause".
Note from the Author or Editor: The sentence should read "Because there are both...

Duncan Aitken 
Dec 06, 2012 

Printed 
Page 357
1st line from the top 
Even though hospital 1 had more postsurgical infections in the period studied, these
should be read as
Even though hospital 1 had less postsurgical infections in the period studied, these
Note from the Author or Editor: p. 357 first line should begin "Even though hospital 2 had more..." (not "hospital 1 had more...")

Toshiaki Kurokawa 
Sep 28, 2014 

Printed 
Page 359
Paragraph after Table 155, 1st sentence 
The parenthesized part of
"Looking at the age distribution and agespecific rates for the employed versus unemployedă€€populations, we see that for each age group, the rates of arthritis areă€€somewhat higher in the unemployed group than in the employed group (the opposite
pattern from that seen when data from all the age categories is combined)." that is,
" (the opposite pattern from that seen when data from all the age categories is combined)" seems not true at the last row of Table 155.
Either this should be deleted or revised to be precise.
Note from the Author or Editor: p. 359 paragraph following Table 155, first sentence, should read "Looking at the age distribution and agespecific rates for the employed versus unemployed populations, we see that for each age group, the rates of arthritis are only slightly higher in the unemployed as compared to the employed group, with the exception of the 65+ group.

Toshiaki Kurokawa 
Sep 29, 2014 

Printed 
Page 397

Caption, Figure 1612. Calculating the coefficient of equivalence
should be read as
Figure 1612. Calculating the estimated reliability from the coefficient of equivalence
Note from the Author or Editor: p. 397 change caption for Figure 1612 to "Calculating the estimated reliability from the coefficient of equivalence"

Toshiaki Kurokawa 
Sep 23, 2014 

Printed 
Page 398
1st Figure 
Caption,
Figure 1613. An alternative formula for the coefficient of equivalence
should be read as
Figure 1613. An alternative formula for the estimate of reliability from the coefficient of equivalence
Note from the Author or Editor: p. 398 caption 1613 change to: " An alternative formula for the estimate of reliability from the coefficient of equivalence"

Toshiaki Kurokawa 
Sep 23, 2014 

Printed 
Page 400
3rd line from the top 
With the line,
is the total variance for the test (usually estimated by s2
x.
we need missing closing parenthesis,
and the right form for
s (subscript x) (superscript 2 meaning square of (sx))
Note from the Author or Editor: p. 400 3rd line from the top needs closing parenthesis just before the period, and the subscript x should be directly below the square sign (as in the sigmahatsubxsquared) at the beginning of this line)

Toshiaki Kurokawa 
Sep 24, 2014 

Printed 
Page 421
2nd paragraph, 3rd sentence or 7th line 
Something wrong with the sentence: "Value labels are assigned to variable labels but are assigned to the values of individual variables." Perhaps, it can read as "Value labels are assigned to the values of individual variables."
Note from the Author or Editor: p. 421 2nd paragraph 7th sentence from the top should read: "Value labels are assigned to the values of individual variables."

Toshiaki Kurokawa 
Sep 08, 2014 

Printed 
Page 422
String and Numeric Data, 1st paragraph, 4th sentence 
"the coding systems most commonly used are EBCDIC (Extended Binary Coded Decimal Interchange Code) and ASCII (American Standard Code for Information Interchange). " is misleading and/or obsolete.
We should include Unicode rather than EBCDIC, especially for PC and Web environments and places other than United States.
Note from the Author or Editor: p. 422 3nd paragraph edit the phrase in question as "the coding systems most commonly used are Unicode and ASCII (American Standard Code for Information Interchange)."

Toshiaki Kurokawa 
Sep 09, 2014 

Printed 
Page 474
United States 
3 + 5 + 8 3 + 5 = 8 should be 3 + 5 = 8, 3 + 5 = 8
3 + 5 = 2 3 + 5= 2 should be 3 + 5 = 2, 3 + 5 = 2
Note from the Author or Editor: p. 474, 4 lines from the bottom, indented, should read:
3 + 5 + 8 and 3 + 5 = 8
(add word "and" between 8 and 3)
p. 474, final line, indented, should read:
3 + 5 = 2 and 3 + 5 = 2
(add word "and" between 2 and 3)

Glen Leatherman 
Oct 06, 2013 

Printed 
Page 474
4th line from the bottom, or the 2nd formula from the bottom 
3 + 5 + 8 −3 + −5 = −8
should be read as
3 + 5 = 8, −3 + −5 = −8
Note from the Author or Editor: p. 474, 4th line from the bottom, should read:
3 + 5 = 8, 3 + 5 = 8
last line should read:
3 + 5 = 2, 3 + 5 = 2

Toshiaki Kurokawa 
Jun 10, 2014 

Printed 
Page 476
4th bullet from the bottom 
The multiplicative identity of 0: any number times 0 = 0:
should be read as
The zero element of 0: any number times 0 = 0:
Note from the Author or Editor: p. 476 5th bullet: change "the multiplicative identity of 0" to "the zero property of multiplication"

Toshiaki Kurokawa 
Jun 10, 2014 

PDF 
Page 479
4th bullet point 
"b^{log_b x} where x > 0" should read "b^{log_b x} = x where x > 0".
Note from the Author or Editor: The sentence should read:
"b^{log_b x} = x where x > 0"

Duncan Aitken 
Apr 24, 2013 

Printed 
Page 479
4th bullet 
b to the log base b of x where x > 0
should be
b to the log base b of x = x where x > 0
Add '= x'
Note from the Author or Editor: p. 479 4th bullet from the top: add "= 0" after "b to the log base b of x "

Glen Leatherman 
Oct 06, 2013 

Printed 
Page 479
last bullet in Solving Equations 
If c ≠0,
should be read as
If a= b and c ≠0,
Note from the Author or Editor: p. 479, 4th bullet under the header "Solving Equations" should begin: "If a = b and c NE 0, then a/c = b/c...
(use notequals sign for NE)

Toshiaki Kurokawa 
Jun 11, 2014 

Printed 
Page 481
6th paragraph 
Substitute this value into the first equation to solve for y:
should be read as
Substitute this value into the solution for y from the first equation:
the equation given is the value for y, not the first equation itself, so I changed the explanation. We can change the equation as well, though.
Note from the Author or Editor: p 481 6th paragraph, beginning "Substitute this value into the first..." should read "Substitute this value for x into the solution for y:"

Toshiaki Kurokawa 
Jun 11, 2014 

Printed 
Page 483
4th problem under Linear (In)equalities 
an equality for x
should be read as
an inequality for x
Note from the Author or Editor: On p. 493, the heading "Linear Equalities" 2/3 down the page should read "Linear Inequalities"
4th problem under this header should read "Solve down to an inequality for x" (not an equality for x)

Toshiaki Kurokawa 
Jun 11, 2014 

Printed 
Page 485
Figure A11 
= 3
should be read as
= 3
Note from the Author or Editor: p 485 equation A11; answer is 3 not 3

Toshiaki Kurokawa 
Jun 11, 2014 

Printed 
Page 485
Last formula 
−y1= 4 − 6 = −2 y1= 2
should be read as
−y1= 4 − 6 = −2, y1= 2
Note from the Author or Editor: the formula at the bottom of the page should read:
yy1=m(xx1); 6y1=2(64); y1=1286; y1=1; y1=2
(with subscripts for the 1 in y1 etc. and normal spacing for an equation)

Toshiaki Kurokawa 
Jun 11, 2014 

Printed 
Page 495
2nd subheading 
Exponents, Roots, and Logarithms
should be read as
Exponents and Roots
Note from the Author or Editor: p. 495 second header should read "Exponents and Roots"

Toshiaki Kurokawa 
Jun 11, 2014 

Printed 
Page 496
1st subheading 
Natural Logarithms
should be read as
Logarithms
Note from the Author or Editor: p. 496 1st heading should be "Logarithms" not "Natural Logarithms"

Toshiaki Kurokawa 
Jun 11, 2014 

Printed 
Page 497
1st subheading 
Linear Equalities
should be read as
Linear Inequalities
Note from the Author or Editor: p. 497 first heading should be "Linear Inequalities" not "Linear Equalities"

Toshiaki Kurokawa 
Jun 11, 2014 

Printed 
Page 510
1st paragraph, 3rd sentence of Microsoft Excel 
The link (http://www.daheiser.info/excel/frontpage.ht) does not have proper information. the link was changed or lost the information.
Note from the Author or Editor:
substitute the URL http://www.statisticalengineering.com/Weibull/excel.html
for http://www.daheiser.info/excel/frontpage.ht
on the 8th line of the first Excel paragraph, p. 510

Toshiaki Kurokawa 
Jun 14, 2014 

Printed 
Page 527
3rd paragraph, last sentence 
http://www.math.unb.ca/~knight/utility/
Not Found
the link maybe obsolete.
Note from the Author or Editor: at end of 3rd paragraph,in the final sentence, remove the text "and are available..." to the end of the sentence. (refers to Knight's website, which no longer exists)

Toshiaki Kurokawa 
Jun 16, 2014 

Printed 
Page 527
4th line from the bottom 
in a discrete distribution, a point (such as 2.00) has no area
should be read as
in a continuous distribution, a point (such as 2.00) has no area
Note from the Author or Editor: Sentence should read "in a continuous distribution" (not "discrete distribution")

Toshiaki Kurokawa 
Jun 17, 2014 

Printed 
Page 534
3rd paragraph, 3rd sentence 
http://www.math.unb.ca/~knight/utility/
Not Found
the link maybe obsolete.
Note from the Author or Editor: Remove the text "; the complete tables are available" to the end of the sentence.

Toshiaki Kurokawa 
Jun 17, 2014 

Printed 
Page 541
5th bullet from the top 
http://www.math.unb.ca/~knight/utility/
Not Found
the link maybe obsolete.
Note from the Author or Editor: remove this bullet point: the web page no longer exists

Toshiaki Kurokawa 
Jun 18, 2014 

PDF 
Page 543
Table F1, The Greek Alphabet 
The lowercase pi is incorrect. The text shows a lower case delta (δ) instead of a lower case pi (π).
Note from the Author or Editor: On p. 543, the lowercase letter for pi is incorrect. It should be π

Anonymous 
Oct 15, 2013 

ePub 
Page 1276
Last equation in Figure A15 
In a series of examples of dividing out common factors to simplify fractions, (4x^3y^2)/(2xy^3) is said to reduce to 2xy^1 instead of 2x^2y^1.
Note from the Author or Editor: the second equation in Figure A15 (p. 487 in the pdf) should solve to 2x^2y^1
in other words, it should be xsquared rather than x in the solution

Alfredo Delgado 
Dec 03, 2012 

ePub 
Page 9922
3rd paragraph 
3 + 5 + 8 − 3 + − 5 = − 8
should read 3+5=8, 3+5=8
Note from the Author or Editor: p. 474 in PDF, equations in 4th from last line, and last line, need commas to clarify, and 4th from last line subsitute an = for the 3rd +. They should read:
3 + 5 = 8, 3 + 5 = –8
–3 + 5 = 2, 3 + 5 = –2

David Graham 
Apr 04, 2014 

ePub 
Page 10167
Figure A13 
m = 60/02 = 6/2 = 3
should be m=60/02 = 6/2 = 3
Note from the Author or Editor: in PDF p. 485, Figure A11, answer should be 3 not 3

David Graham 
Apr 04, 2014 

ePub 
Page 10215
Figure A18 
4(x*3)(y**2) / 2(x)(y**3) = 2(x**2)(y**1)
Note from the Author or Editor: in PDF, p. 487 Figure A15, solution to second equation should be:
2x**2y**1
In other words, xsquared not x

David Graham 
Apr 04, 2014 
