Chapter 1, page 2:
One might call these surprised {\it generative effects}.
Should be:
One might call these surprises {\it generative effects}.
----
page 5:
A ≤ B in the poset if
seems to be a grammatical whoopsie.
Also, ``poset'' hasn't been defined at this point, which I suspect is not what the authors wanted, with this being a math book and all, although personally I rather like words being used before they're defined.
----
The existence of the generative effect,
however, is captured in the inequality
Φ(A) ∨ Φ(B) ≤ Φ(A ∨ B).
(1.3)
This can be a strict inequality ...
If I understand correctly, the formula only captures a generative effect if it IS a strict inequality (not just can be one).
----
page 5 again:
the map Φ preserves some structure but not others
should be:
the map Φ preserves some structures but not others
One might call these surprised {\it generative effects}.
Should be:
One might call these surprises {\it generative effects}.
----
page 5:
A ≤ B in the poset if
seems to be a grammatical whoopsie.
Also, ``poset'' hasn't been defined at this point, which I suspect is not what the authors wanted, with this being a math book and all, although personally I rather like words being used before they're defined.
----
The existence of the generative effect,
however, is captured in the inequality
Φ(A) ∨ Φ(B) ≤ Φ(A ∨ B).
(1.3)
This can be a strict inequality ...
If I understand correctly, the formula only captures a generative effect if it IS a strict inequality (not just can be one).
----
page 5 again:
the map Φ preserves some structure but not others
should be:
the map Φ preserves some structures but not others
Version 2.1.8p2
