I started tutoring IGCSE Mathematics. In preparation for just a 1 hour class for 1 student, I noticed at least 3 mistakes (confirmed with their replies to me) in Chapter 21 of the Haese 0607 book (quadratic equations and functions). I even noticed a mistake in the errata (last updated almost 2 years ago though I found the 3 mistakes in just 1 day) for a different chapter (probability).

Dumb question: How are these mistakes going to be disseminated?

I mean if I've noticed these mistakes, I wonder about all the other readers on Earth (students, teachers, tutors, parents, etc) who notice mistakes. I think it would be tiresome for both the authors to reply to the same mistakes and the readers to type up emails instead of having some dynamic errata (forum i guess).

  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Did you already contact "www.igcsecentre.com"? $\endgroup$ – Dominique Nov 3 '17 at 12:15
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @Dominique For what exactly please? Also IGCSE is just an example. $\endgroup$ – BCLC Nov 3 '17 at 12:22
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ I'm just curious. Could you provide at least one of the mistakes you found? $\endgroup$ – Joel Reyes Noche Nov 3 '17 at 13:24
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @JoelReyesNoche 1. Equates zero probability to impossibility 2. Left out $a \ne 0$, 3. Says 'the quadratic function' instead of 'any/a quadratic function' 4. Doesn't state properties of parabolas but expects students to know them (because while they say all graphs of quadratic functions are parabolas, there is no indication that all parabolas are graphs of quadratic functions) 5. (not sure) Vertical stretch rephrasing $\endgroup$ – BCLC Nov 3 '17 at 16:42
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Thanks. You ask "How are these mistakes going to be disseminated?" and then you link to an official errata document, so it seems you have an answer to your question. (By the way, the link to the errata in your post above doesn't work for me, but the link to the errata in your other question works for me.) $\endgroup$ – Joel Reyes Noche Nov 4 '17 at 0:56

I think contacting the author is the way to go. I was self-studying a text in the oil business (very recently for a consulting engagement). I kept a simple excel file with two tabs (one for mistakes and one for questions). The questions I mostly got resolved as I read further or looked up on the web.

I sent the file to the publisher and he sent it to the author who fixed the issues in next edition and sent me a warm note in thanks.

I really don't see it as much extra work. Actually reading that text and working the problems one by one was vastly more time spent than the time spent to document the issues and send the file. If anything doing this sort of fit into the whole conscientious self study mode I had.

So, I would definitely just do a point to point email. Who knows maybe it leads to collaboration or the like in future.


Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.