Home About Resources Errata Reviews Blog Contact
Amidst the many back and forth e-mails that characterize the  modern process of producing a book, we may have missed some  typos in this first printing. Thus, if you happen to find a  typographical error (or something you believe is an error) in  this first printing that is not listed below, please, let me know:  vigo@ohio.edu. Any typographical errors will be corrected in  the second printing.

Mathematical Principles of Human Conceptual Behavior

The Structural Nature of Conceptual Representation and Processing

1. Chapter 3, page no. 48, Figure 3.2. Correction: The DNF of f’ should read instead as follows: ab’c’+ab’c+abc’+abc. 2. Chapter 4, page no. 60, in Equation 4.4 (i.e., in Definition 4.2 of the L-norm) the numerator and denominator of the ratio expression to the right of the equal sign were switched. This is probably a “cut and paste” typo. Correction: The numerator and denominator should be switched back to their correct order. This was correct in the original, but mysteriously altered in production. Note that the proofs of the three propositions below Equation 4.4 (Propositions 4.1, 4.2, and 4.3) not only implement the correct form of Equation 4.4 (as do all derivations in the rest of the book) but also restate the correct form. Also note that, in Chapter 10, on page 182, Equation 4.4 is repeated in its correct form as Equation 10.7. 3. Chapter 4, page no. 73, line 27, the last sentence of the third paragraph has the additional string “/|C|” which does not make sense in that particular context. Correction: Delete the  string “/|C|” from “|C  Ti (C)|/|C|” so that we have “|C  Ti (C)|” instead. This was correct in the original, but perhaps due to a copy and paste error, was altered in production. 4. Chapter 4, page 56, first sentence of the last paragraph was altered from the original at the production stage. It should be corrected to read as follows:
 Note that the Boolean partial derivative is  somewhat  analogous to the partial derivative in calculus since  in both we evaluate   how the depend ent variable 1 (,,,,) in Fxxx  changes with respect to a change in  the independent variable   i x .
Author: Ronaldo Vigo Title: Mathematical Principles of Human Conceptual Behavior ISBN: 0415714362
5. Chapter 4, Page 66, At the end of definition 4.6, on the left hand side of the final equation, the greater than symbol “>” should be  the lexicographical order relation symbol “”. 6. Chapter 4, Page 69, top of page, in lines 1, 4, and 6, a capital psi (i.e.,  ) symbol occurs instead of capital phi (i.e.,  ).  This needs to be changed throughout equation 4.8 and in the first line of the page, where it incorrectly reads “Adding one to (F)...”. 7. Chapter 6, Page 94, Missing endnote, Item IV ends as follows: “degree of perceived categorical invariance”. But it should include at the end a reference to the following endnote: “The strong complexity reduction-rate principle states that the percentage change in degree of concept learning difficulty starting from  a particularly baseline is negatively proportional to the square of the degree of categorical invariance. Note that this is consistent  with the limited results of Experiment 3 in chapter 7. Geometrically, the squaring of the degree of categorical invariance makes  sense if we construe the 0 ideotype as being the source of a psychological field of structural equilibrium whose influence vanishes  as it projects out into ideotype psychological space. Alternatively, we can also use the strong version of the invariance-parsimony  principle to justify this principle.” 8. Chapter 6, Page 97, last paragraph, the “invariance-learnability principle” should be replaced by the “complexity reduction-rate principle”. These are two distinct names for the same principle, but the former was not used earlier in the chapter. 9. Chapter 6, Page 100, Missing endnote, Add endnote to the end of the sentence after Equation 6.9 that begins with “Some pundits…” The endnote follows: “Henceforth, unless stated otherwise, the expression that we refer to as the “invariance law” (or the GISTM) does not contain sensitivity weights and the assumed underlying psychological space is Euclidean (i.e., s=2 as in Equation 6.9). In other words, there are no free parameters in the GISTM other than the scaling parameter k and that is the standard from of the GISTM that is used to fit the data in chapter 7.” 10. Chapter 8, Equation 8.3 on page 152: the pair of parentheses in the denominator should not include +1. +1 should be outside the parentheses as in equation 8.4. 12. Chapter 10, page 188, Equation 10.26, the partial derivative symbol should NOT have a hat on top: the same goes for equation 10.27 on page 189. 13. Chapter 4, page 75, Figure 4.2, the large white flask on the third column of flask transformations should be black (not white). 14. Chapter 9, page 173, Equation 9.7, after the second equal sign, the second occurrence of the |F| in the nominator of the expression should be replaced for |F{a1,...,an}|, the same should be done for the only occurrence of |F| in the denominator of the expression.
 
-- End of Errata --
11. Chapter 9, page 163, the last sentence and the sentence right after it should be slightly altered to be consistent with Figure 3.1A. The two sentences should read instead as follows: “Figure 3.1A in Chapter 3 illustrates six sets of objects that are related in specific ways via their dimensional values. Note that we have included a logic formula known as the “concept function” to formally describe each set of objects in terms of the three constituent dimensions of color (black is represented by x' and white by x), shape (triangular is represented by y' and round by y), and size (large represented by z' and small by z).”