- p. 67 In the proof of 2.29, the roles of K and N are transposed
in the course of the proof.
Spotted by
**Richard Puttock**R.Puttock@hefce.ac.uk of the University of Bath. - p. 71 First displayed equation. The ``denominator''
of the left side should be A(B cap C) and not A(B cap D).
Spotted by
**Derek Holt**dfh@maths.warwick.ac.uk of the University of Warwick. - p. 79, Qu 2.16. Replace ``Question 1'' by ``Question 2.15'').
- p. 110 l. 3 insert space before `and'
- p. 113 The term `maximal subgroup' is used in the proof of Theorem 3.3 but is not formally defined until p. 123 to which you should refer. Perhaps the meaning is clear from the context. However, we should be explicit: A and B are supposed to be largest possible proper subgroups of G where comparison is made via inclusion.
- p. 123 The bottom line should read S <= M < G and not
S <= S < G (thanks to
**Richard Puttock**). - p. 133 5! = 120 and not 60, but the argument stands (half-way up).
Later in the page, when addressing the non-simplicity of groups of order 63,
it is much easier to note that there must be a normal subgroup
of order 7.(thanks to
**Richard Puttock**) - p. 126 (d) The reference should be to Exercise 3.11, p. 120.
Spotted by
**Kurt Ewald**kurt.ewald@balbec.de. - p. 159 Proposition 5.1 parts (c) and (d) should be labelled
``Hall's formulas'' (and this should appear in the index).
(thanks to
**Richard Puttock**) - p 163 l. 9 should read p. 46 not p. 45.
Spotted by
**Kurt Ewald.** - p. 170 Lemma 5.17 The statement should read `proper subgroup of G'.
(thanks to
**Richard Puttock**) - pp. 170, 270 and 271. The solutions to questions 5.8, 5.9 and 5.10
are permuted. (thanks to
**Richard Puttock**) - p. 184 Proposition 5.41 proof. The displayed equation
should read 1 = H_0 <= H_1 etc.
(thanks to
**Richard Puttock**) - p. 191 Italicized remark 9 lines up. For G please read F.
- p/ 196 Definition 6.4 hangs in the void. In needs to be completed
with ``= (xy)phi''.
(thanks to
**Richard Puttock**) - p. 230 Three lines up. both letters of TR should be subscripts.
Spotted by
**Donald Palahnuk**palahnuk@mkl.com - p. 231 Qu 8.3 should read `surely we can deduce (b) from
(c) and (d). Spotted by
**Donald Palahnuk**. - p. 237 Statement Zorn's lemma: you need to assume that the set Omega is not-empty, else the empty set equipped with the empty ordering is a counter-example.
- p. 247 Penultimate line of the answer to 3.8: for `fo' please read `of'.
- p. 248 the word rightarrow should be replaced by the symbol right
arrow. (thanks to
**Richard Puttock**).

Go to the Topics in Group Theory home page.