p. 29: simple_coswave.c
should be coswave.c.
(Thanks to John Fry for pointing
this out.)
On page 35
the reader is referred to the file coswave_notes.txt on the CD-ROM, but no such file
exists.
(Thanks to
John Fry for pointing this out.)
p. 37, line 7: When
i = 1,
cos(i * arg)
is NOT 0.157.
(Thanks to
Burton
Rosner for pointing this out.) When
i
= 1,
cos(i *
arg) is 0.9563, times 32000 is just over 30601.
In Table 3.2 on page 56, the frequencies listed in the first two
columns
are half what they should be. E.g., 100 Hz should read 200
Hz, and so on. Otherwise they
don't
match the ratio in the third column. (Thanks to John Fry for pointing
this
out.)
p. 62, equation 3.4, second line should read
B = 2
epi w T cos (2 pi
f T).
(The book has a "/" instead of "
f").
(Thanks to Burton Rosner for pointing this out.)
p. 155, figure 5.19. Tibor Kiss (Sprachwissenschaftliches Institut -
Ruhr-Universität
Bochum) has pointed out to me that as well as centre-embedded
constructions,
this finite state transition network also admits or generates strings
such
as:
(1)
The malt that the rat that the cat ate that the cat ate ate lay in the house that Jack
built.
Prof.
Kiss
writes: "I am not sure whether you would like to have (1) and other
examples
included in
the language you describe (which should be something like an anbn language with a fixed n). The problem emerges since you
can
circle e.g. from state 6 to 4 to
5
... While
strings
like (1) can be mapped to anc*bn with fixed n, it is somewhat
distracting.
If you really want the strings in (5-4) to (5-8) and not ones like (1),
you
need to introduce additional states so that stepping in circles becomes
impossible."
p. 168, section 6.3. The file dtw.c
was accidentally omitted from the CD-ROM. It can be downloaded from here. (Thanks to Aman Tuladhar for pointing
this out to me.)
p. 180. The sum of squared differences in the two tables on this page
is 0.431258, not 0.008015. (One I spotted myself!)
p. 192, 16 lines up: "the previous item in the sequence
is
known as the Markov
assumption" (final
n in
known). (Thanks to David Deterding
for
pointing this out.)
p. 246, steps 7 and 8 are (wrongly) the same. (Thanks to David
Deterding
for pointing this out.) That part of the example derivation should read
as
follows:
Step 7.
|
Reconsider step 4.
N V DET ADJ* N? Still not right.
|
Step 8.
|
Reconsider step 4 again.
N V ADJ* N? Still not right.
|
Step 9.
|
etc.
|