Errata

Statistics in a Nutshell

Errata for Statistics in a Nutshell, Second Edition

Submit your own errata for this product.

The errata list is a list of errors and their corrections that were found after the product was released. If the error was corrected in a later version or reprint the date of the correction will be displayed in the column titled "Date Corrected".

The following errata were submitted by our customers and approved as valid errors by the author or editor.

Color key: Serious technical mistake Minor technical mistake Language or formatting error Typo Question Note Update

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  Dec 19, 2014
Printed
Page index
United States



Durbin-Watson is not in the index. I looked up autocorrelation but the D-W is not associated with it in the text. It is mentioned on pg. 203

Note from the Author or Editor:
Add "Durbin-Watson statistic" to the index, with a reference to page 203.

Brian Joseph  Mar 23, 2014  Dec 19, 2014
Printed
Page p344
1st paragraph

Text states: "The idea behind the Six Sigma program is to reduce variability sufficiently that output in the range of ±3 sigma will still be acceptable to the customer." That is incorrect.

The idea behind Six Sigma is to reduce variabiliby sufficiently such that output in the range of ±6 (not ±3) sigma will still be acceptable to
the customer.

Output in the range of ±3 sigma would still produce an out of specification condition on average about once of every 370 times/parts. This is considered unacceptable in high-volume production. At ±6 sigma, the out of specificaiton conditions are measured in defects per million opprotunities (DPMO).

See: https://web.archive.org/web/20060203042658/http://www.motorola.com/content/0,,3088,00.html

...and...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Six_Sigma#Etymology_of_.22six_sigma_process.22

...as well as numerous printed references (e.g. Tennant, "SIX SIGMA: SPC and TQM in Manufacturing and Services")

Note from the Author or Editor:
p. 344 1st pargraph 2nd sentence replace the "3 in "+- 3 sigma" with a "6" so it reads "output in the range of +- 6 sigma…"

Darren Finck  Dec 15, 2014  Dec 19, 2014
Printed
Page 5
3rd line from the top

It should be noted that although many physical measurements are interval-level,

should be read as

It should be noted that although many physical measurements are ratio-level,

Note from the Author or Editor:
p. 5, 1st sentence of first complete paragraph should begin "It should be noted that although many physical measurements are ratio-level..."

Toshiaki Kurokawa  Oct 19, 2014  Dec 19, 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  Dec 19, 2014
Printed
Page 22
1st Bullet in the last paragraph

• xis the number whose mean we are calculating.

should be read as

• xis the set of numbers whose mean we are calculating.

Note from the Author or Editor:
p. 22 fist bullet point following Figure 2-1 should read: "x is the set of numbers whose mean we are calculating."

(with "x" in italics)

Toshiaki Kurokawa  Oct 16, 2014  Dec 19, 2014
Printed
Page 35
Figure 2-13 numbers in denominators

[(0.95)(0.010]+(0.01)(0.99)]
should be read as
[(0.95)(0.010]+[(0.01)(0.99)]

0.0095+.00099
should be read as
0.0095+0.0099

Note from the Author or Editor:
p. 35 Figure 2-13 first denominator is missing a square bracket and should read "[(0.95)(0.010]+[(0.01)(0.99)]"

second denominator is missing a leading zero and should read:
"0.0095+0.0099"

Toshiaki Kurokawa  Jan 05, 2015 
Printed
Page 36
Figure 2-14 two denominators

[(0.95)(0.005]+(0.01)(0.995)]
should be read as
[(0.95)(0.005]+[(0.01)(0.995)]


0.00475+.00995
should be read as
0.00475+0.00995

Note from the Author or Editor:
p. 36 first denominators is missing a square bracket and should read: "[(0.95)(0.005]+[(0.01)(0.995)]"

second denominator is missing a leading zero and should read:
"0.00475+0.00995"

Toshiaki Kurokawa  Jan 05, 2015 
Printed
Page 38
2nd Problem, Solution 3

E = (E = 1) ∪(E = 2∪(E = 3) ∪(E = 4)
should be read as
E = (E = 1) ∪(E = 2) ∪(E = 3) ∪(E = 4)

Note from the Author or Editor:
p. 38 3rd solution to the problem beginning "If I roll a die once..." there is a parenthesis missing following the 2; the formula following "that is," should read: "E = (E = 1) U(E = 2) U(E = 3) U(E = 4)"

U is the symbol for union (not a capital U)

Toshiaki Kurokawa  Jan 05, 2015 
Printed
Page 48
Figure 3-2

This figure is drawn incorrectly. The vertical divisions between the regions do not align with the markings on the horizontal axis. This is most evident at the "1 sigma" mark (the division in the area above is noticably to the left), and the ""2 sigma" mark (the division above is even further to the left). The figures given (cumulative propabilities between integer mutiples of the standard deviation) are correct only for the markings along the horizontal axis; not for the incorrectly aligned shaded areas.

Note from the Author or Editor:
p. 48 figure 3-2 horizontal axis does not align with breaks in shaded figure, particularly on the positive side of 0 , particularly for 1-sigma and 2-sigma labels

Darren Finck  Dec 12, 2014  Dec 19, 2014
Printed
Page 49
line 8 from the top, and then caption of page 50 throughout the page

notation for Normal distribution, x ~ N (100, 5) is used throughout the page,
however, in strictly speaking, this should be read as
x ~ N (100, 5^2) 2 is superscript

Note from the Author or Editor:
p. 49 Following 8th line from the top (ending "as shown in Figure 3-4.") add "Note that some texts use the mean and variance (rather than standard deviation) to describe normal distributions, in which case we would write "x ~ N (100, 25)" in this case."

Toshiaki Kurokawa  Jan 05, 2015 
Printed
Page 49
line 9 from the bottom

about 2.5%
should be read as
about 2.3%

Note from the Author or Editor:
p. 49 9 lines from the bottom change "about 2.5% of the population" to "about 2.3% of the population"

Toshiaki Kurokawa  Jan 05, 2015 
Printed
Page 49
line 7-8 from the bottom

less than half of 1%

should be read as
less than 0.14%

because the precise number is 0.00135

Note from the Author or Editor:
p. 49 next to last paragraph, last sentence (beginning "A score of 100 is more unusual"): change "less than half of 1% of the population" to "less than 0.14% of the population"

Toshiaki Kurokawa  Jan 05, 2015 
Printed
Page 52
Figure 3-9

This figure depicts the binomial distribution as continuous. The binomial distribution is only defined for integer values of k, as non-integer numbers of "sucessful trials" is not meaningful. Thus, the binomial distribution is best depicted as a series of points (at integer values of k) rather than as a continuous curve.

Also, the horizontal axis on the graph should be labeled as "k". (The vertical axis might be labeled as "probability" to improve clarity.)

Note from the Author or Editor:
p. 52 Figure 3-9 add a note "Note that the binomial distribution is discrete, not continuous--this graph just illustrates the general shape of the distribution for different values of n and p"

Darren Finck  Dec 12, 2014  Dec 19, 2014
Printed
Page 52
between 1t and 2nd paragraphs

The line "np = 40(0.5) = 20 n (1 - p) = 40(1 - 0.5) = 20" appears as one long equation/calculation. However, it should be two clearly seperated equations/calculations, such as: "np = 40(0.5) = 20, and n(1 - p) = 40(1 - 0.5) = 20.

Note from the Author or Editor:
p. 52 formula after the first paragraph: insert "and" after the first 20 so it reads:

np = 40(0.5) = 20 and n(1 - p) = 40(1 - 0.5) = 20

also remove space between n and (1 - p) following the "and"

Darren Finck  Dec 12, 2014  Dec 19, 2014
PDF, ePub,
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  Dec 19, 2014
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  Dec 19, 2014
Printed
Page 78
4th formula from the top

P(k ≥= 3) = 1 − P(k ≤= 2) = 1 − (0.11 + 0.27 + 0.30) = 0.32

should be read as

P(k ≥ 3) = 1 − P(k ≤ 2) = 1 − (0.11 + 0.27 + 0.30) = 0.32

Note from the Author or Editor:
p. 78 4th formula from top should read:
P(k ≥ 3) = 1 − P(k ≤ 2) = 1 − (0.11 + 0.27 + 0.30) = 0.32

(i.e., take extra equals sign out of "P(k ≥= 3)")

Toshiaki Kurokawa  Nov 13, 2014  Dec 19, 2014
Printed
Page 78
3rd paragraph

Text reads: "...the table probability of b(2; 10; 0.5) is 0.67780;..."

For this example, p=0.2, not 0.5.

The text should read: "...the table probability of b(2; 10; 0.2) is 0.67780;..."

Note from the Author or Editor:
p. 78 third paragraph (beginning "Using Figure D-9), following comma should read "...the table probability of b(2; 10; 0.2) is 0.67780…" (third value in the parentheses, it should be 0.2 not 0.5)

Darren Finck  Dec 12, 2014  Dec 19, 2014
Printed, PDF, ePub,
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  Dec 19, 2014
Printed, PDF, ePub,
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 - �) instead of (x_{i - �}).

Note from the Author or Editor:
affirmed--in 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  Dec 19, 2014
Printed
Page 109
1st Paragraph, last sentence

The x-axis (vertical axis) in a histogram

should be read as

The x-axis (horizontal axis) in a histogram

Note from the Author or Editor:
p. 109 paragraph 1 last sentence should begin "The x-axis (horizontal axis) in a histogram…"

Toshiaki Kurokawa  Nov 03, 2014  Dec 19, 2014
Printed
Page 116
Last paragraph, 4th line

"would be 7-34" should change to "would be 4-34"

Note from the Author or Editor:
p. 116 last paragraph 4th line change "the scale would be 7-34" to "the scale would be presented as in Figure 4-34…"

Alexei Nekrassov  Dec 01, 2014  Dec 19, 2014
Printed
Page 116
Figure 4-36, bottom number of Percent Obese

the bottom number of Percent Obese 10 should be read as 0
as described in the sentence below the figure (05-100%)

Note from the Author or Editor:
p. 116 Figure 4-36 on the Y-axis, the lowest number should be 0, not 10

Toshiaki Kurokawa  Dec 13, 2014  Dec 19, 2014
Printed
Page 117
2nd paragraph Under Exercise, last sentence

see the references on Excel in Appendix C for more on this.

should be read as

see the references on Excel in Appendix B for more on this.

There are no specific references on Excel in Appendix C.

Note from the Author or Editor:
p. 117 2nd paragraph after "Exercises" next to last sentence following semicolon should read "see the references on Excel in Appendix B for more on this."

Toshiaki Kurokawa  Nov 03, 2014  Dec 19, 2014
Printed
Page 123
Table 5-1

"18-35 Years" row label should be "18-39 Years"

Alexei Nekrassov  Dec 01, 2014  Dec 19, 2014
Printed
Page 127
United States

Fig 5-2

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  Dec 19, 2014
Printed
Page 128
Table 5-4

The example subscript in the lower right cell is incorrect. It should be Cell22 instead of Cell21

Note from the Author or Editor:
For table 5-4, change subscript of fourth cell (row 2, column 2) to 22 (not 21)

Janek Bogucki  Jan 05, 2017 
Printed
Page 134
3rd paragraph, 3rd sentence

Fisher�s Exact Test for the data in Table 5-7 is 0.157.
should be read as
Fisher�s Exact Test for the data in Table 5-8 is 0.157.

Note from the Author or Editor:
p 134, paragraph before "McNemar's" header, 5 lines from the bottom: "Table 5-7" should be "Table 5-8"

Toshiaki Kurokawa  Jun 11, 2014  Dec 19, 2014
Printed
Page 136
2nd paragraph

Text states: "I also determined from a computer analysis that the exact probability of getting a chi-squared stastic with one degree of freedom at least as extreme as 6.43 is 0.017..."

I have attempted to duplicate that result without success. Using R I get a p-value of 0.01123. R session follows:

> A<-array(c(15,10,25,20),c(2,2))
> mcnemar.test(A, correct=F)

McNemar's Chi-squared test

data: A
McNemar's chi-squared = 6.4286, df = 1, p-value = 0.01123

Similarly, using MS Excel: "=CHISQ.DIST.RT(6.43,1)" returns approximately 0.01123.

Perhaps the text should read: "...as extreme as 6.43 is 0.011..."

Note from the Author or Editor:
p. 136 1st paragraph third line from the bottom change 0.017 to 0.011 ("at least as extreme as 6.43 is 0.011…"

Darren Finck  Dec 09, 2014  Dec 19, 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 5-12, should read:
"p-hat is the pooled proportion..."

(not "x-bar is the pooled proportion")

Toshiaki Kurokawa  Jun 11, 2014  Dec 19, 2014
Printed
Page 139
Figrue 5-15, denominator of the center

360+400+70+690
should be read as
360x400x70x690

Note from the Author or Editor:
p 139 Figure 5-15, denominator should be:

sqrt(360x400x70x690)

(replace + signs with multiplcation signs)

Toshiaki Kurokawa  Jun 11, 2014  Dec 19, 2014
PDF
Page 141
Figure 5-19

The definition of r_{pb} in Figure 5-19 (point-biserial correlation coefficient) shows the numerator of the fraction as
\bar{X}_{1}-\bar{X}_{0}\sqrt{p(1-p)}
i.e. it indicates that only the X0 term is multiplied by sqrt{p(1-p)}.

The example in Figure 5_20 indicates that the whole (X1 - X0) term which should be multiplied by sqrt{p(1-p)}. 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 5-19 and F-20, the X-bar-sub1 minute X-bar-sub0 term should be in parentheses

Anonymous  Apr 05, 2014  Dec 19, 2014
Printed
Page 141
Figure 5-19 and 5-20

In both formulae, not only a parenthesis is missing (confirmed errata, already) but also the font of X0 and X1 are different from the explanation,

In this formula, x1= the mean height for females and x0=the mean height for
males

they should be the same, so the fonts should be changed.

Note from the Author or Editor:
p. 141 Figures 5-19 and 5-20: The x-bar-0 and x-bar-1 should be lower case letters (not upper-case as they are currently

Toshiaki Kurokawa  Nov 14, 2014  Dec 19, 2014
Printed
Page 143
Caption of Table 5-16

The caption of Table 5-16 is:
Example data to calculate gamma

This is not appropriate, because at this step, the data is introduced only as
Is there a strong relationship between weight and blood pressure in
the data set shown in Table 5-16?

Gamma calculation starts from the following paragraph.

Example data on BMI amd B;ppd pressure (which will be used to calculate gamma)
should be more appropriate for the reader.

Note from the Author or Editor:
p. 143 caption for Table 5-16 should read:

"Example data for BMI and blood pressure"

Toshiaki Kurokawa  Nov 14, 2014  Dec 19, 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  Dec 19, 2014
Printed
Page 157
3rd paragraph, 3rd sentence

with &#945;= 0.05, we use the column for 0.25.
should be read as
with &#945;= 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  Dec 19, 2014
Printed
Page 158
last sentence from the top

mathematically identical to the formula in Figure 6-4 but
should be read as
mathematically identical to the formula in Figure 6-5 but

Note from the Author or Editor:
p. 158 2nd line from the bottom, "..to the formula in Figure 6-4" should be "to the formula in Figure 6-5"

Toshiaki Kurokawa  Jun 11, 2014  Dec 19, 2014
Printed
Page 163
Figure 6-12

In the 2nd edition of Statistics in a nutshell, p163, Figure 6-12:
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  Dec 19, 2014
Printed
Page 163
Figure 6-12

Prior errata states:
"In Figure 6.12, in the denominator following the first = sign, replace 37.18 with 31.78 (the rest of the equation is correct)"

No, the rest of the equation is not all correct. The corrected value (31.78 vice 37.18) results in a value 2.52 (not 2.73) in the intermediate denominator result. Finally, 2.76/2.52 results in a t-stastic of 1.10 (following the rounding conventions utilized in the text).

Note from the Author or Editor:
p. 163 Figure 6-12 intermediate result (following second equals sign) should be 2.76/2.52

final result should be 1.10

Darren Finck  Dec 09, 2014  Dec 19, 2014
Printed
Page 163-164
bottom of p163, top of p164

The bullet point at the bottom of p163 appears to have a portion of its text orphaned to the next page, reducing readability.

In addition, the typesetting for the t sub(alpha/2,df) appears incorrect, with the subscript appearing raised rather than lowered. An example of this same text, correctly typeset, can be seen Figure 6-13 (near the top center of the figure).

Note from the Author or Editor:
bottom of p. 163 and top of p. 164: bullet point should not be split over two pages

top of p. 164: the alpha/2,df should be a subscript to the t (as in Figure 6-13, following the +- symbol

Darren Finck  Dec 09, 2014  Dec 19, 2014
Printed
Page 164
Figure 6-14

This is a sequela of the error in Figure 6-12, already discussed in the errata. The same incorrect "2.73" denominator value from Figure 6-12 (which resulted from the use of 37.18 vice 31.78 for the pooled variance) was used again here, in Figure 6-14.

"...(2.10)(2.73) = (-2.97,8.49)" should instead read: "...(2.10)(2.52) = (-2.53, 8.05)".

Note from the Author or Editor:
p. 164 Figure 6-14 following plus/minus symbol should read:
(2.10)(2.52) = (-2.53, 8.05)

Darren Finck  Dec 09, 2014  Dec 19, 2014
Printed
Page 177, 178, 179, 181
Figure 7-2, 7-3, 7-4, 7-5, 7-7and 7-10

The listed figures are in a section entitled "Relationships Between Continuous Variables". In addition, almost all bear titles starting with "Graph of the model y=...". As such, they would certainly be clearer if depicted as (continous) line graphs rather than graphs of discreet points (e.g. "data" points). To graph them as points, as they are, gives the incorrect implication that only integer values of x are valid.

If, for some other reason(s), a graph of discreet points is insisted upon, I see no reason that the x=0 points should be omitted, as they are in these six Figures (including the y=0 point in Figure 7-5). Its omission gives the impression that there's something special about the x=0 (or y=0) value, when there isn't.

Note from the Author or Editor:
p. 177 1st paragraph add sentence "Note that Figure 7-2 through 7-5 are depicted as a series of points on a line, but could also be depicted by a solid line."

Darren Finck  Dec 15, 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 cross-products of x and y."

Toshiaki Kurokawa  Jun 11, 2014  Dec 19, 2014
Printed
Page 185
Captions of Figure 7-18 and 7-19

the sum of squares of x and y

should be read as

the sum of cross-products of x and y

as with page 184 errata correction

Note from the Author or Editor:
p. 185 caption for figure 7-18 should be "Calculating the sum of cross-products of x and y"

and for figure 7-19 should read "Computational formula for calculation the sum of cross-products of x and y"

Toshiaki Kurokawa  Nov 15, 2014  Dec 19, 2014
Printed
Page 185
Captions of Figure 7-18 and 7-19; Line 1 between figures

sum of squares

should be read as

sum of cross-products

Note from the Author or Editor:
p. 185 first paragraph beginning "There is also a computation formula..." (after Figure 7-18): change "sum of squares" to "sum of cross-products"

Toshiaki Kurokawa  Dec 25, 2014 
Printed
Page 186
2nd equation from top of page

The value for the 2nd summation (of the yi terms) reads "5,790" and should be "5,970".

(Note that on the previous page, for the summation of the xi terms, the total is correctly given as "5,790". The two sums happen add up to values with two digits transcribed)

Note from the Author or Editor:
p. 186 2nd equation from top: replace "5,790" with "5,970" (for sum of yi terms)

Darren Finck  Dec 09, 2014  Dec 19, 2014
Printed
Page 205
Figure 8-8

x-axis GIL
should be read as
GII

Note from the Author or Editor:
p 205 Figure 8-8 the label for the y-axis should be "GII" not "GIL"

Toshiaki Kurokawa  Jun 11, 2014 
Printed
Page 216
Table 8-10

-0.663 is placed under t column, it should be placed under Beta column.

Note from the Author or Editor:
p. 216 table 8-10 headers are left-aligned and values are right-aligned. This is misleading because the column "standardized coefficients" is so wide that the value for "Bet"a (-0.663) appears to be in the column for "t". Could the headers be left-aligned or that column made narrower, perhaps by using two lines for "Standardized coefficients" so it is clear that the value is in the "Beta" column?

Toshi Kurokawa  Jun 22, 2016 
Printed
Page 218
3rd line from the top of Problem paragraph (2nd line from the bottom)

(p − .001)
should be read as
(p = 0.001)

Note from the Author or Editor:
p. 218 2nd line from the bottom, value in parentheses should be:
" (p = 0.001)"

Toshiaki Kurokawa  Dec 14, 2014  Dec 19, 2014
Printed
Page 227
2 hypothesis on the top under Main effect for alcohol

H0: there is no difference in grip strength between men and women.
H1: there is a difference in grip strength between men and women.

should be read as

H0: there is no difference in grip strength between different alcohol consumption.
H1: there is a difference in grip strength between different alcohol consumption.

You can say
Alcohol consumption affects (does not affect) grip strength
as well.

Note from the Author or Editor:
p. 227 top of page, after heading "Main effect for alcohol" the two hypotheses should read:

"H0: there is no difference in grip strength between people with different levels of alcohol consumption.
H1: there is a difference in grip strength between people with different levels of alcohol consumption."

Toshiaki Kurokawa  Dec 14, 2014  Dec 19, 2014
Printed
Page 242
4th row of Table 9-11

Strength train

should be spelled out as

Strength training

to avoid any confusion (to think of special kind of train, for example.)

Note from the Author or Editor:
p. 242 Table 9-11 4th row should be "Strength training"

Toshiaki Kurokawa  Nov 16, 2014  Dec 19, 2014
PDF
Page 248
Figure 10-3

The label of the x-axis on Figure 10-3 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 10-3 is based on the raw GNI (i.e. before the logarithmic transformation), and that it is only Figure 10-4 which uses the logarithmic transformation. Consider relabelling the x-axis of Figure 10-3 as "gni" instead of "log_gni".

Note from the Author or Editor:
for Figure 10-3 on page 248 of the PDF, the x-axis should be labeled as GNI not log_gni

Anonymous  Apr 05, 2014 
Printed
Page 254
Caption of Figure 10-7

Figure 10-7. Means for the natural log of the adolescent fertility rate for low, medium, and high levels of the log of per capita national income and expected years of schooling

should be read as
Figure 10-7. Means for the natural log of the adolescent fertility rate to the log of per capita national income with the low, medium, and high levels of expected years of schooling

Note from the Author or Editor:
p. 254 caption for Figure 10-7 should read "Means for the natural log of the adolescent fertility rate for low, medium, and high levels of the log of per capita national income and low, medium and high levels of expected years of schooling"

Toshiaki Kurokawa  Dec 14, 2014  Dec 19, 2014
Printed
Page 255
United States

"The Durbin-Watson 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 Durbin-Watson statistic should be 1.95, not 0.195.

Brian Joseph  Mar 23, 2014  Dec 19, 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  Dec 19, 2014
PDF
Page 256
Table 10-6 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 10-6, the tolerance values should be: 0.05, 0.02, and 0.08

Anonymous  Apr 05, 2014  Dec 19, 2014
Printed
Page 257
Figure 10-10, caption

Figure 10-10. Histogram of standardized residuals for model 3

should be read as
Figure 10-10. Scatterplot of standardized residuals for model 3

Note from the Author or Editor:
p. 257 Figure 10-10 caption should be "Scatterplot of standardized residuals for model 3"

Toshiaki Kurokawa  Oct 12, 2014  Dec 19, 2014
Printed
Page 269
United States

Insert "to" between "study" and "see" in the sentence that reads: "The manager wants to know whether to spend money on more training ... you decide to conduct a study see which ...."

Note from the Author or Editor:
p. 269 next to last paragraph, last sentence beginning "The manager wants to know..." add the word "to" between "a study" and "see" so it readings "you decide to conduct a study to see which variable..."

Nathaniel Herz  Jan 14, 2015 
Printed
Page 271
4th line from the bottom

The medium-sized scanner (4 cm) showed no improve-

should be read as

The medium-sized scanner (4 sq cm) showed no improve

Note from the Author or Editor:
p. 271 4th line from the bottom, following period sentence should begin "The medium-sized scanner (4 sq cm) showed…"

Toshiaki Kurokawa  Oct 25, 2014  Dec 19, 2014
Printed
Page 277
Table 11-4 rightmost two columns labels

In Table 11-4, the rightmost two columns' labels are:
Lower Upper.

This is a bit misleading, and they should be read as
Lower Bound Upper Bound

as was in Table 11-8, page 281 for clarification.

Note from the Author or Editor:
p. 277 Table 11-4 two columns furthest right should be labeled "Lower Bound" and "Upper Bound" [add "Bound"]

Toshiaki Kurokawa  Oct 08, 2014  Dec 19, 2014
Printed
Page 278
21st line from the top, or 3rd line of 3rd paragraph

(1.018, 1.014)

should be read as
(1.018, 1.054)
following the data in Table 11-4

Note from the Author or Editor:
p. 278 3rd line of 3rd paragraph, beginning "and the 95%…": the second number in the parenthesis should be 1.054 (not 1.014)

Toshiaki Kurokawa  Jan 05, 2015 
Printed
Page 281
Table 11-8, 2nd Column from left

Male=1 should be read as Male (3 occurrences)

Note from the Author or Editor:
p. 281 Table 11-8 2nd column change "Male = 1" to "Male" (occurs 3 times)

Toshiaki Kurokawa  Oct 08, 2014  Dec 19, 2014
Printed
Page 284
1st sentence after Table 11-9

For the linear model Y= β0+ β1X1 + e, where Y is performance and x is caffeine,

should be read as

For the linear model Y= β0+ β1X1 + e, where Y is performance and X1(subscript) is caffeine,

Note from the Author or Editor:
p. 284 first sentence following Table 11-9, following comma, should read "where Y is performance and X1 is caffeine..."

The 1 should be subscript to the capital X

Toshiaki Kurokawa  Oct 08, 2014  Dec 19, 2014
Printed
Page 286
Table 11-12 1st line

The label, "Parameter estimates" should locate at the rightmost four columns,
not the column with "Sig." which belongs to "Model Summary."

Note from the Author or Editor:
p. 286 Table 11-12 top line: "Parameter Estimates" should be located over the "Constant" column (not the "Sig" column)

Toshiaki Kurokawa  Oct 08, 2014  Dec 19, 2014
Printed
Page 288
Table 11-13 rightmost two columns labels

In Table 11-13, the rightmost two columns' labels are:
Lower Upper.

This is a bit misleading, and they should be read as
Lower Bound Upper Bound

as was in Table 11-8, page 281 for clarification.

Note from the Author or Editor:
p. 288 Table 11-13 final two columns on right should be labeled "Lower Bound" and "Upper Bound" [add "Bound"]

Toshiaki Kurokawa  Oct 08, 2014  Dec 19, 2014
Printed
Page 304
Table 12-20

Some information are missing in this table:

1) function numbers are not put on two functions. the row of 1 2 should be added under the row Cluster number of case and function.

2) No information are given to the cluster numbers.
1 (Reading, Verbal, Spelling) 2 (Arithmetic, Geometry) 3 (Music, Sports)

3) Explanation for the value is missing. It would be better to add such as:
The value is the distance of the cluster centroid from discrimination functions as represented as a line

Note from the Author or Editor:
p. 304 Table 12-20 several edits

1. add a row following the gray heading over the second and 3rd columns, with numbers 1 (over 4.804) and 2 (over -0.169)

2. In column 1, identify the clusters as follows:

1 Reading, Verbal Spelling
2. Arithmetic, Geometry
3. Music, Sports


3. add a line below the table including the explanation: "The value is the distance of the cluster centroid from discrimination functions as represented as a line."

Toshiaki Kurokawa  Nov 19, 2014  Dec 19, 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  Dec 19, 2014
Printed
Page 312
1st Paragraph, 1st sentence, between Fig. 13-4 and Fig. 13-5

In this formula, W is the smaller of the two rank sums, µW is the expected sum of
ranks as calculated previously, and σW is the standard error, calculated as shown in Figure 13-5.

should be read as

In this formula, W is the smaller of the two rank sums, µW is the expected sum of
ranks as calculated previously, and σW is the standard deviation, calculated as shown in Figure 13-5.

Note from the Author or Editor:
P. 312 sentence following Figure 13-4, should read as follows:

"In this formula, W is the smaller of the two rank sums, µW is the expected sum of
ranks as calculated previously, and σW is the standard deviation, calculated as shown in Figure 13-5."

Toshiaki Kurokawa  Oct 05, 2014  Dec 19, 2014
Printed
Page 317
3rd paragraph 3rd sentence (From the bottom, 2nd paragraph, 2nd sentence)

The measurement of interest in this particular study is a 100-point measure of mood state in which 0 is very low affect, and 10 is very high affect.

should be read as
The measurement of interest in this particular study is a 100-point measure of mood state in which 0 is very low affect, and 100 is very high affect.

The scale is 100 instead of 10.

Note from the Author or Editor:
p. 317 3rd sentence of 3rd paragraph, beginning "The measurement of interest" the end should read "and 100 is very high affect." (not "and 10 is very high affect").

Toshiaki Kurokawa  Oct 05, 2014  Dec 19, 2014
Printed
Page 341
Last paragraph, 1st sentence

No particular pattern in the data is presented in Figure 14-14

should be read as

No particular pattern in the data is presented in Figure 14-13

Note from the Author or Editor:
p. 341 last paragraph, change reference to Figure as follows:

"No particular pattern in the data is presented in Figure 14-13..."

Toshiaki Kurokawa  Oct 04, 2014  Dec 19, 2014
Printed
Page 341
Caption of Figure 14-13

The caption of Figure 14-13
Figure 14-13. Control chart of weight in ounces for 40 screws (individual values) with a process mean of 3.0

should be read as
Figure 14-13. Run chart of weight in ounces for 40 screws (individual values) with a process mean of 3.0

as the preceding sentence describes "Both features are displayed in the hypothetical run chart in Figure 14-13." and the chart is not a control chart which needs control lines as in Figures 14-24 and 14-25.

Note from the Author or Editor:
p. 341 Figure 14-13 caption replace "Control chart" with "Run chart" so it reads "Run chart of weight in ounces…"

Toshiaki Kurokawa  Jan 06, 2015 
Printed
Page 349-350
bottom of page 349 and Figure 14-25 on page 350

In the solution to this example, list item #3 indicates a violation: "Six points in a row in the same direction (rule 3)".

First, this is an subtly incorrect simplification of the rule, which is more correctly stated on p345 as "If 6 consecutive points fall in the same direction, that is, all increasing or all decreasing".

In the charts (Figures 14-24 & 14-25), point 28 decreases from point 27. The subsequent 5 points (numbers 29-33, inclusive) each "fall in the same direction" (i.e. all increase). Finally, the next point, #34, decreases. Thus, only 5 points (29-33) "fall in the same direction", not 6, and this series of points is NOT a rule violation.

An example of an actual violation of Nelson's control chart rule #3 is shown at:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nelson_rules

Specifically, this graphic image:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nelson_rules#mediaviewer/File:Rule_3_-_Control_Charts_for_Nelson_Rules.svg

Note from the Author or Editor:
p. 349 next to last sentence (numbered 3): reword as:

"Not a rule violation, but close: five consecutive point in the same direction"

Darren Finck  Dec 12, 2014  Dec 19, 2014
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  Dec 19, 2014
Printed
Page 359
Paragraph after Table 15-5, 1st sentence

The parenthesized part of
"Looking at the age distribution and age-specific rates for the employed versus unemployed populations, we see that for each age group, the rates of arthritis are 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 15-5.
Either this should be deleted or revised to be precise.

Note from the Author or Editor:
p. 359 paragraph following Table 15-5, first sentence, should read "Looking at the age distribution and age-specific 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  Dec 19, 2014
Printed
Page 359
Table 15-5

The total persons with arthritis for the Employed category does not sum correctly. 127 + 260 + 105 = 492, not 387 that is printed.

Note from the Author or Editor:
p. 359 table 15.5 3rd column "Persons with arthritis" under "Employed": total (bottom line) should be 492 no 387. For that same line, rate/1000 should be 49.2 not 38.7.

Same page, table 15-4, row "Employed" column "Persons with arthritis should be 492 and "rate per 1,000" should be 49.2.

Michael Wallington  Apr 09, 2015 
Printed
Page 360
Figure 15-11

Caption for Figure 15-11 reads "Expected cases for the employed, age 25-44, category". This category does not exist. The caption should read "Expected cases for the employed, age 18-44, category".

Note from the Author or Editor:
p. 360 figure 15-11 change caption to read "Expected cases for the employed, age 18-44, category"

Michael Wallington  Apr 09, 2015 
Printed
Page 369
2nd paragraph of column Odds, the 2nd formula

Probability = odds (1 + odds)

should be read as

Probability = odds / (1 + odds)

Note from the Author or Editor:
p. 369 in box "Odds" , 9 lines from the bottom, second formula (following comma) is missing slash, should read:

"Probability = odds/(1 + odds)

Toshiaki Kurokawa  Jan 05, 2015 
Printed
Page 370
Figure 15-34, rightmost fraction

the rightmost fraction
p1(1-p1) / p2(1-p2)

should be read as
p1(1-p2) / p2(1-p1)

Note from the Author or Editor:
numerator should be: p1(1-p2)

denominator should be: p2(1-p1)

(the 1 and 2 in p1 and p2 are subscripts)

Toshiaki Kurokawa  Jan 05, 2015 
Printed
Page 388
10 lines from the bottom

about 66% of the scores will be within one standard deviation of the mean

should be read as

about 68% of the scores will be within one standard deviation of the mean

Note from the Author or Editor:
p. 388 10 lines from bottom, change "about 66% of the scores will be...to "about 68% of the scores will be..."

Toshiaki Kurokawa  Dec 25, 2014 
Printed
Page 397

Caption, Figure 16-12. Calculating the coefficient of equivalence
should be read as
Figure 16-12. Calculating the estimated reliability from the coefficient of equivalence

Note from the Author or Editor:
p. 397 change caption for Figure 16-12 to "Calculating the estimated reliability from the coefficient of equivalence"

Toshiaki Kurokawa  Sep 23, 2014  Dec 19, 2014
Printed
Page 397
Explanation to Figure 16-11, just following the figure

In this formula, ρ XX’ is the estimated reliability of the full-length test,

should be read as

In this formula, ρ(hat) XX’ is the estimated reliability of the full-length test,

hat is missing for the ρ

Note from the Author or Editor:
p. 397 following Figure 16-11: change rho to rho-hat so the sentence begins 'In this formula, rho-hatXX' is the ….'

The rho-hatXX' in the sentence should look the same as in the formula in Figure 16-11

Toshiaki Kurokawa  Oct 29, 2014  Dec 19, 2014
Printed
Page 398
1st Figure

Caption,
Figure 16-13. An alternative formula for the coefficient of equivalence

should be read as

Figure 16-13. An alternative formula for the estimate of reliability from the coefficient of equivalence

Note from the Author or Editor:
p. 398 caption 16-13 change to: " An alternative formula for the estimate of reliability from the coefficient of equivalence"

Toshiaki Kurokawa  Sep 23, 2014  Dec 19, 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 sigma-hat-sub-x-squared) at the beginning of this line)

Toshiaki Kurokawa  Sep 24, 2014  Dec 19, 2014
Printed
Page 402
1st formula, 1st line

D= pu − ftpl

should be typeset as

D= pu − p(subscript l)

Note from the Author or Editor:
p. 402 first line: second term in the formula should read:

D= pu − p(subscript l)

where p(subscript l) is italicized p with the subscript l as in the third line of the text

Toshiaki Kurokawa  Oct 29, 2014  Dec 19, 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  Dec 19, 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  Dec 19, 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  Dec 19, 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  Dec 19, 2014
Printed
Page 477
bullet for Zero exponent, 17 lines from the bottom

−8^0 = 1

should be read as

(−8)^0 = 1

Note from the Author or Editor:
p. 477 middle of page, following bullet point for Zero exponent": put parentheses around "-8" so it reads (-8)**0 = 1"

(** means the 0 should be an exponent, i.e., superscript)

Toshiaki Kurokawa  Dec 25, 2014 
Printed
Page 478
Figure A-3 comment

when both a and b >= 0

should be read as

when a>=0 and b > 0
because b is a denominator and should not be 0

Note from the Author or Editor:
p. 478 Figure A-4 end should read "when a >= 0 and b > 0"

Toshiaki Kurokawa  Nov 05, 2014  Dec 19, 2014
Printed
Page 478
Page 478, Figure A-4 (located below the box it describes)

The limitation on values in the formula is:
"when both a and b >= 0".

There is no "b" in the formula.

Is the reference to "b" for Figure A-4 correct?
Is the "b" supposed to be one of the other elements? Like "n"?

(I am reading the section for math review.)

Thank you.

Note from the Author or Editor:
p. 478 figure A-4: remove reference to b, so it reads "when a >= 0

Anonymous  Dec 16, 2016 
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  Dec 19, 2014
Printed
Page 479
last bullet in Solving Equations

If c &#8800;0,
should be read as
If a= b and c &#8800;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 not-equals sign for NE)

Toshiaki Kurokawa  Jun 11, 2014  Dec 19, 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  Dec 19, 2014
Printed
Page 482
Figure A-6

The two equations are typeset as a fraction, with one equation as the numerator and the other as the denominator, with a plus sign aligned with the viniculum.

I presume what was meant was to show columnar addition, with a horizontal line below the lower equation, and the plus sign to the left of the lower equation.

Note from the Author or Editor:
p. 482 Figure A-6 remove the horizontal line between 4x + 2y = 12 and 3x - 2y = 16

Darren Finck  Dec 12, 2014  Dec 19, 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  Dec 19, 2014
Printed
Page 485
Figure A-11

= 3
should be read as
= -3

Note from the Author or Editor:
p 485 equation A-11; answer is -3 not 3

Toshiaki Kurokawa  Jun 11, 2014  Dec 19, 2014
Printed
Page 485
Last formula

&#8722;y1= 4 &#8722; 6 = &#8722;2 y1= 2
should be read as
&#8722;y1= 4 &#8722; 6 = &#8722;2, y1= 2

Note from the Author or Editor:
the formula at the bottom of the page should read:

y-y1=m(x-x1); 6-y1=2(6-4); -y1=12-8-6; -y1=-1; y1=2

(with subscripts for the 1 in y1 etc. and normal spacing for an equation)

Toshiaki Kurokawa  Jun 11, 2014  Dec 19, 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  Dec 19, 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  Dec 19, 2014
Printed
Page 496
solution of Logarithms, 5.

ln3 = 3

should be read as
ln e(superscritpt 3) = 3

Note from the Author or Editor:
p. 496 #5 under "Natural Logarithms" should read:

ln e**3 = 3

[the 3 following the e is a superscript)

Toshiaki Kurokawa  Dec 16, 2014  Dec 19, 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  Dec 19, 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  Dec 19, 2014
Printed
Page 510
last paragraph, 1st sentence

In Figure B-13, you can see a worksheet (Sheet3, as you can tell from the lower tab

should be read as

In Figure B-13, you can see a worksheet (Sheet1, as you can tell from the lower tab

Note from the Author or Editor:
p. 510 last paragraph first sentence should refer to Sheet1, not Sheet3 (…"Sheet1, as you can tell from the lower tab)."

Toshiaki Kurokawa  Nov 18, 2014  Dec 19, 2014
Printed
Page 523
1st bullet

Two websites run by the experienced SPSS programmer Raynald Levesque; both are loaded with tips, tricks, and sample code.

should be read as

The website run by the experienced SPSS programmer Raynald Levesque; it is loaded with tips, tricks, and sample code.

There is only one website by Raynald.

Note from the Author or Editor:
p. 523 first bullet point following url should begin "The website run...

Toshiaki Kurokawa  Nov 05, 2014  Dec 19, 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  Dec 19, 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  Dec 19, 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  Dec 19, 2014
Printed
Page 540
1st bullet

Delete the first bullet that is now the following:

StatLib: Data, Software and News from the Statistics Community (http://lib.stat
.cmu.edu/index.php)
A website dedicated to distributing statistical software, data sets, and information, maintained on the website of Carnegie Mellon University.

Because the site is not accessible, and the whole CMU Statistics site is not available.

Note from the Author or Editor:
p. 540 replace first bullet point with:

Consortium for the Advancement of Undergraduate Statistics Education (https://www.causeweb.org)

The website of CAUSEweb, a national organization supporting advanced undergraduate statistics education, with links to research, resources, professional development opportunities, etc., mainly of interest to teachers of statistics.

Toshiaki Kurokawa  Nov 06, 2014  Dec 19, 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  Dec 19, 2014
PDF
Page 543
Table F-1, The Greek Alphabet

The lowercase pi is incorrect. The text shows a lower case delta (&#948;) instead of a lower case pi (&#960;).

Note from the Author or Editor:
On p. 543, the lowercase letter for pi is incorrect. It should be &#960;

Anonymous  Oct 15, 2013  Dec 19, 2014
Printed
Page 545
line 10 from top to line 14 from top

when you look at the followings:

Qit Quantity of product i for time t (business statistics)
Pit Price of product i for time t (business statistics)
Tt Secular trend (time series)
Ct Cyclical effect (time series)
St Seasonal effect (time series)
Rt Residual or error effect trend (time series)

you would notice the subscirpt (of subscript) are not properly typeset as in the page 329, 331 and 332.

The typeset should follow in the Chapter 14.

Note from the Author or Editor:
p. 545 lines 10-14:
Qit: the "i" should be subscript and the "t" double subscript (as in Figure 14-6 p. 239)
Pit: the "i" should be subscript and the "t" double subscript (as in Figure 14-6 p. 239)
Tt: the "t" should be subscript
Ct: the "t should be subscript
St: the "t" should be subscript
Rt: the "t" should be subscript

Toshiaki Kurokawa  Dec 20, 2014 
Printed
Page 547
line 13 from the bottom, definition of "Interaction variable"

The definition of "Interaction variable",
A variable for which the relationships between two other variables are different,
depending on the level of the interaction variable.

looks cyclic. It should be read as
A variable for which the relationships between two other variables are different,
depending on the level of this variable.

Note from the Author or Editor:
p. 547 definition for "Interaction variable" should read: "A variable for which the relationship between two other variables differs depending on the level of this variable. For instance, if the relationship of variables A and B differs depending on the level of variable C, then variable C is an interaction variable for variables A and B."

Toshiaki Kurokawa  Dec 20, 2014 
Printed
Page 558
Top (1st index entry on page)

Index refers to EBCDIC, pointing to Page 422, but the referenced page does not refer to that encoding, just to Unicode and ASCII (probably updated from 1st edition).

Note from the Author or Editor:
Remove references to EBCDIC in index. There are two: p. 558 "EBCDIC" and p 559 "Extended Binary Coded Decimal Interchange Code".

Roger Winchester  Mar 16, 2017 
ePub
Page 1276
Last equation in Figure A-15

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 A-15 (p. 487 in the pdf) should solve to 2x^2y^-1

in other words, it should be x-squared rather than x in the solution

Alfredo Delgado  Dec 03, 2012  Dec 19, 2014
ePub
Page 9922
3rd paragraph

3 + 5 + 8 &#8722; 3 + &#8722; 5 = &#8722; 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  Dec 19, 2014