- M9 page 29, "Lehmmens" should be "Lemmens". (Noted by Norihide Tokushige.)
- M22 page 88, concerning 2-connected graphs, for Lemma B we really
need
*vertex*2-connected graphs, while the property of every edge lying in a cycle is equivalent to*edge*2-connectedness. Thus, by 2-connected we mean a graph that remains connected after removing an arbitrary vertex. (Noted by Norihide Tokushige.) - M33 page 172, proof of the claim, the linear independence of the vectors v_1,...,v_d is written erroneously. Really we need that the d x d matrix V whose i-th row is v_i is nonsingular. One way seeing it is via the Vandermonde determinant. The trick with roots of a polynomial in the text can also be applied to the linear system Va=0, to show that the only solution is a=0 (but the linear system expressing the linear independence of the v_i directly is V^T a=0). (Noted by Norihide Tokushige.)

- M9 page 28 line 3: "more that" should be "more than" (Noted by Norihide Tokushige.)
- M9 page 28 line -7: all i,j. should be all j. (Noted by Norihide Tokushige.)
- M9 page 29 line -4: "The best upper bound" should be "The best lower bound" (Noted by Norihide Tokushige.)
- M14 page 49: bottom, the definitions of rho_1 and rho_2 should be swapped. (Noted by Norihide Tokushige.)
- M17 page 58: proof of the corollary: the denominator in the first identity is n-k+1, not n-k (but this doesn't influence the subsetquent estimates). (Noted by Norihide Tokushige.)
- M17 page 59 in the middle: "(ii) fA ..." should be "(ii) f_A ..." (Noted by Norihide Tokushige.)
- M21 page 82, 4th line of the proof of the corollary, spanning tree of G (instead of D). (Noted by Norihide Tokushige.)
- M22 page 87, displayed formula, \pi_2 should be \pi(2). (Noted by Martin J. Erickson.)
- M22 page 88, concerning 2-connected graphs, for Lemma B we really
need
*vertex*2-connected graphs, while the property of every edge lying in a cycle is equivalent to*edge*2-connectedness. Thus, by 2-connected we mean a graph that remains connected after removing an arbitrary vertex. (Noted by Norihide Tokushige.) - M24 page 110 line 2 page "a bipartite matching in a given graph" should be "a parfect matching in a given bipartite graph". (Noted by Norihide Tokushige.)
- M25 page 118, second line, the inequality dq^(n-1) \leq (q-1)q^n should be dq^(n-1) \leq (q-1)q^(n-1). (Noted by Nitesh Jha.)
- M28 page 136, line -5 in the proof: "v_1 in H_1, v_2 in H_2" should be "v_1 in V(H_1), v_2 in V(H_2)". (Noted by Norihide Tokushige.)
- M29 page 144, line 4, V(H) should be V(G). (Noted by Norihide Tokushige.)
- M30 page 149, 1st line in the 3rd pargraph: f_{d,1} should be f_{d,q}. (Noted by Norihide Tokushige.)
- M31, page 158, 3rd line: Fischer misspelled Fisher. (Noted by Norihide Tokushige.)
- M31, page 160: In the last line of the chain of inequalities, the final term should be (n/(2\sqrt 2))||w||.||u||, rather than (n/4)||u||^2. The latter is correct but it is not what one needs to derive inequality (30). (Noted by Torsten Sander.)
- M32, page 167: The final term in the inequality chain should have d/n under the root, not n/d. (Noted by Torsten Sander.) i
- M32, page 169 Yujobo misspelled (Yubojo). (Noted by Norihide Tokushige.)
- M33, page 174: The first line of the proof mentions the set {1,...,k}, but it should be {1,...,d}. (Noted by Torsten Sander.)
- M33, page 176: The summation at the top of the page should range to d, not n. (Noted by Torsten Sander.)
- M33, page 177, the second last line in the proof, the subscripts i should be j. (Noted by Norihide Tokushige.)

** Comments ** are greatly appreciated
(mistakes, missing references, passages that are confusing or difficult
to understand...). Please mail
your comments to "matousek" at the address "kam.mff.cuni.cz".