What are the Errata in Thomas' Calculus 11th Edition?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Jimmy Snyder
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Calculus
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around identifying and debating errata in the book "Thomas' Calculus Early Transcendentals Media Upgrade 11th edition." Participants focus on specific statements regarding the accuracy of approximations, particularly concerning the square root of 3 and the interpretation of decimal places versus significant digits.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Technical explanation

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants note an illustration on page 179 that may not be a photograph, suggesting it could be an artist's rendition.
  • On page 242, a statement claims that the linearization gives 2 as an approximation for \sqrt{3}, which is said to be inaccurate to one decimal place. Some participants argue that this is incorrect and that 2 is indeed accurate to one decimal place when compared to 1.9999999999999.
  • Others challenge the interpretation of accuracy, suggesting that accuracy should be measured in terms of significant digits rather than decimal places.
  • There is a discussion about how approximations like 2 for 1.9999999999999 and 2000 for 2001 relate to the concept of decimal places and significant digits.
  • Some participants assert that the author's statement about accuracy is misleading, while others defend it, leading to further debate on the definitions of accuracy in this context.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express conflicting views on the accuracy of the approximation of \sqrt{3} and the interpretation of the author's statements. There is no consensus on whether the author's claim about accuracy to one decimal place is correct or incorrect, and the discussion remains unresolved.

Contextual Notes

Participants highlight the ambiguity in the author's use of "decimal places" versus "significant digits," which contributes to the disagreement. The discussion also reflects varying interpretations of accuracy in mathematical approximations.

  • #31
I can't find that example in the book, what section is it in? In any case yeah a (ghost) minus
sign is factored out in front & put back in in the end, if you tell me the section I can check if
my version also forgot the minus sign.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #32
Page 297, section 4.4 Concavity and Curve Sketching, Example 8. I would appreciate confirmation. Even better would be if someone has the 12th edition to see if it is fixed.
 
  • #33
In my book they only go up to example 7 in that section, wonder why? :-p
 
  • #34
Here's another minor erratum. On page 306 in the solution to example 4, the 6th line on the page it refers to Figure 4.37. It should say Figure 4.39.
 
  • #35
I note that on page 327 in the table in the middle of the page, that 'Number of correct digits' is used as a measure of accuracy. This is in an approximation to the value of \sqrt{2}.
 
  • #36
Here is an obvious typo. On page 470 the first line of equations in the section entitled "The Differential Form", it has:

S = \int_{c}^{d}2\pi x\sqrt{(\frac{dx}{dy})^2} dy

it should be:

S = \int_{c}^{d}2\pi x\sqrt{1 + (\frac{dx}{dy})^2} dy
 
  • #37
Here's a good one. On page 860 in the discussion of torque, he writes:

Thomas' Calculus said:
When we turn a bolt by applying a force F to a wrench (Figure 12.32), the torque we produce acts along the axis of the bolt to drive the bolt forward.

The figure shows the torque vector presumably driving the bolt forward as if it were a force and the bolt presumably moving forward because it is threaded in such a way as to make the author's words seem reasonable. However, if the bolt had been threaded the other way, I suppose the torque would drive the bolt backwards, a rather difficult thing to explain.
 

Similar threads

Replies
2
Views
7K
  • · Replies 42 ·
2
Replies
42
Views
7K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 22 ·
Replies
22
Views
61K
  • · Replies 106 ·
4
Replies
106
Views
16K
  • · Replies 94 ·
4
Replies
94
Views
12K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
6K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
4K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
4K