Page X.
"Chapter~2, omitting Section~2.5, can be regarded as a collection of examples.” should read "Chapter~2, omitting Section~2.6, can be regarded as a collection of examples.” |
Page 5. Exercise 1.1.1.
It is better to use Italic font style for denoting aardvark. |
Page 13. Example 1.4.1.
The sentence “HH and input the string aba Then” should read “HH and input the string aba, then” |
Page 39. Example 2.4.4.
The last sentence: "It is now easy to draw the transition table of the required automaton” Transition table should read transition diagram. |
Page 43. Proof of Proposition
2.5.5.
"But this is equivalent to s0 ·x
∈ F and t0 ·x ∈ G,” The word `and' should be be
emphasised.
|
Page 71. Proof of Proposition
3.3.6.
"the strings u_1, (a_1u_2), . .
. , (a_{n−1} u_n) is accepted by L(A)”
should read "the strings u_1,
(a_1u_2), . . . , (a_{n−1} u_n) is accepted by A”
|
Page 72. The 4th equation of
Section 3.4.
“L(A) = I \cdot A^* \cap T \neq
\emptyset” should read “L(A) = \{ w \in A^* \mid I
\cdot w \cap T \neq \emptyset \}"
|
Page 89. Example 4.1.3.
“We calculate $\A$ for the
$\id$-automaton of …” should read “We calculate
$\A^s$ for the $\id$-automaton of …”
|
Page 92. The last sentence of
the proof of Theorem 4.2.1.
“It is easy to check that
$L({\bf B}) = L$” should read “It is easy to check
that $L({\bf D}) = L$”
|
Page 115. The second line.
"where $b$ and $c$ are known”
should read "where $a$, $b$ and $c$ are known”
|
Page 123 (middle). In the proof of
Theorem 5.4.9.
"By using the ith row of the
equation X = CX + R,” should read "By using the ith
row of the equation X' = C’X' + R’,"
|
Page 133. Example 6.1.7.
“given by the transition table
below:” should read “given by the transition diagram
below:”
|
Page 135. In the proof of
Theorem 6.2.1-(1).
"Finally, the set of terminal
states is defined to be $T$” should read
"Finally, the set of terminal states is defined to
be $T = T_1 \cup T_2$”
|
Page 137. The definition
of $F(r)$.
$F(r) = \{x \in A^{2} \colon \:
A^{\ast} \cap L(r) \neq \emptyset \}$ should read
$F(r) = \{x \in A^{2} \colon \: A^{\ast} x A^{\ast}
\cap L(r) \neq \emptyset \}$
|
Page 141, line 6. "As we shall
prove later in this section,’ should read "As
we shall prove later in this chapter,"
|
Page 150, Theorem 7. Forgot a
fullstop in the statement.
|
Page 155, in the proof of
Theorem 7.4.2. "Now B is reduced,” should read “Now
A and B are reduced,”
|
Page 163, Example 7.5.10, Item
(7). "By Proposition 7.5.4” should read “By
Proposition 7.5.3”
|
Page 168, Summary of Chapter 7,
about minimal automata. “reduced and connected”
should read “reduced and accessible”
|
Page 181, Algorithm 8.2.5. "By
construction, $| vw’ | < |w|$”. This is not true
because a relation can have words with same length.
“By construction, for the tree order $<$, $ vw’
< w $” is ok.
|
Page 192, Example 9.1.2. Forgot
fullstop before “Here”.
|
Page 201, Example 9.2.5.
"Proposition 9.2.4” should read “Theorem 9.2.4”
|
Page 206, 1st line (Example
9.2.14). There is missing notation here.
$\mathbb{Z}_{n}$ should be formally defined.
|
Page 209, in the proof of
Theorem 9.4.1. “Then $ i \cdot (uxv) \in L $” should
read “Then $ i \cdot (uxv) \in T $"
|
Page 214, Remarks on Chapter 9,
1st paragraph. The relation $\rho_\A$ is written as
$\rho$ twice.
|
Page 218, proof of Theorem
10.1.2. "$i, i+1, \ldots i +
(k-1)$" -> "$i, i+1, \ldots, i + (k-1)$”
(forgot a comma before $i+(k-1)$).
|
Page 222, 1st paragraph.
"$\pi_{1}, \pi_{2} \colon \: S \times T \rightarrow
S$” should read "$\pi_{1} \colon \: S \times T
\rightarrow S, \pi_{2} \colon \: S \times
T \rightarrow T$”
|
Page
222, Example 10.1.9. “Let
$S_{1},S_{3},S_{3}$” should read “Let
$S_{1},S_{2},S_{3}$”.
|
Page
230, proof of Proposition 10.2.11. "be
monoid homomorphisms such that and $L_{1} =
\alpha_{1}^{-1}(P_{1})$ and $L_{2} =
\alpha_{2}^{-1}(P_{2})$.”should read “be monoid
homomorphisms such that $L_{1} =
\alpha_{1}^{-1}(P_{1})$ and $L_{2} =
\alpha_{2}^{-1}(P_{2})$ holds for some
subsets \(P_{1} \subseteq M_{1}\) and \(P_{2}
\subseteq M_{2}\)."
|
Page
253, proof of Theorem 11.4.2. "If $r = s'$ then
$L(s)$ recognises $s'$ by Proposition~10.2.8(i);
in fact, in this case
$L(s)$ is also the syntactic monoid of $s’$.” should
read "If $r = s'$ then $M$ recognises $L(s’)$ by
Proposition~10.2.8(i);”
in
fact, in this case $M$ is also
the syntactic monoid of $L(s’)$."
|
Page
257, proof of Proposition 11.4.9, the last
sentence. "Thus $\phi (u) = n \phi(a)$,
where $n \phi(a)M = mM$. Thus $n = \phi (w) =
\phi(u)\phi(v) = n \phi(a)\phi(v) \in mM$.”
should read “Thus $\phi (u) = n' \phi(a)$, where $n'
\phi(a)M = mM$ for some $n’ \in M$ and $a \in A$. Thus $n = \phi
(w) = \phi(u)\phi(v) = n' \phi(a)\phi(v) \in mM$.”
|
Page 260, the last equation.
Forgotten a fullstop.
|
Page 267, Examples 12.1.3-(4).
"The proof of (VM2) follows from Lemma~11.2.13,”
should read "The proof of (VM2) follows from
Lemma~11.2.5,”.
|
Page 270, after proof of
Lemma 12.1.8. "The definition below is not an
obvious one, although it is partially motivated by
Lemma~12.1.7.”
should read "The
definition below is not an obvious one, although it
is partially motivated by Lemma~12.1.8.”
|
Page 274, first sentence. "We
shall now describe a method for describing
pseudovarieties of semigroups.” should read "We
shall now describe a method for describing
pseudovarieties of monoids” (pseudovariety of
semigroups has not yet been defined).
|
Page 274, before Example 12.2.3.
The notion “ultimately defined” has yet to have
been defined. Thus add the following sentence after
the definition of $\mathsf{M}’’$: “We say that
$\mathsf{M}''$ is {\em ultimately defined} by the
equations $(u_{n} = v_{n})_{n \geq 1}$.”
|
Page 274, Example 12.2.3. “By
Theorem 10.3.2,” should read “By Theorem 11.3.2,”
|
Page 275, proof of Theorem
12.2.4. "Put $A_{n} = \{a_{1}, \ldots a_{n} \}$.”
should read "Put $A_{n} = \{a_{1}, \ldots, a_{n}
\}$.”
|
Page 275, proof of Theorem
12.2.4, second paragraph. $A_n$ is written as $A$
twice.
|
Page 276, Remarks on Chapter 12.
"condition (VL1) is natural from
the point of view of the results we proved back in
Section~2.6;” should read "condition (VL1) is
natural from the point of view of the results we
proved back in Section~2.5;”
|