- p56, Proposition 6.1.56: the reference should be to Exercise 94 (Kyle Jao)
- p56, last paragraph: the reference should be to Exercise 96 (Kyle Jao)
- p75, Example 6.2.10: the description of the cover relation in the
dominance order is in fact incorrect; that condition is necessary but not
sufficient. The correct characterization is that
*d*covers*d'*if and only if they are equal except at two indices*r*and*s*, with*c_r=a_r-1*and*c_s=a_s+1*, where*s=r+1*or*c_r=c_s*. This will be proved as a lemma in the next printing. (Sasha Kostochka) - p82, Example 6.2.21: in the first line, "
*G=K*" should be "_{k+1}*H=K*" (Sasha Kostochka)_{k+1} - p84, Theorem 6.2.24: "the large clique have degree
*a*" should be "the_{1}*a*-clique have degree_{1}*a*" (Kyle Jao)_{2} - p103, before Definition 6.3.29: the mentioned result by Lovasz is about edge-reconstructibility, not reconstructibility (Kyle Jao)
- p104, Theorem 6.3.30: in the second paragraph, three instances of
"
*s*" should be "_{Q}*s'*". Also the proof is unclear. The key, if_{Q}*G'*is an alternative edge-reconstruction of*G*, is to compute "*s'*" and "_{G}(G)*s'*", each by the PIE computation. The terms in the sum for proper subgraphs_{G'}(G)*F*are equal, and for*F=G*and*F=G'*they are both 0. Hence there can only be one edge-reconstruction from the edge-deck. (Sasha Kostochka) - p104, before Theorem 6.3.32: The Nash-Williams result yields the Lovasz
result when the number of edges of
*G*is even. Otherwise, one can consider*R*with one edge, but now the argument requires*G*to have at least two more edges than its complement. - p110, Exercise 6.3.21: this exercise is incorrect and has been deleted (Sasha Kostochka)
- p135, after Theorem 7.1.9: "
*\kappa(H)=\delta(G)*" should be "*\kappa(H)=\delta(H)*" (Kyle Jao) (In the next sentence, "the equality can be weak" should be "the bound can be weak") - p156, Theorem 7.1.54: with this method of proof, the basis should be
*m=1*, and the case*mK*needs special mention. To incorporate it in the final case, note that when_{2}*F*is a forest of stars one can delete the vertices of a component of*F*without reducing the minimum degree by much. (Sasha Kostochka) - p158, Remark 7.1.57: "average degree at least
*5k*" should be "average degree at least*10k*" (Sasha Kostochka) - p201, Example 7.3.15: at the end, the phrase "for all
*i*" should be "for all*j*" (Kyle Jao) - p318, Lemma 8.2.47: in the statement of the lemma, "
*f(w)*" should be "*f(u)*" (Seog-Jin Kim) - p319, Theorem 8.2.48: in the display, the numerator
"
*(2t-1)(d(v)-3)+(t+1)*" should be "(*2t-1)(d(v)-3)-(t+1)*" (Seog-Jin Kim)

- p79, Theorem 6.2.16: Step 2 of the proof of sufficiency of the Erdos-Gallai
conditions is simplified for the next printing by moving a unit to
*d*from below instead of moving a unit away from_{s}*d*_{j} - p153, after Theorem 7.1.48: "Exercise @" should be "Exercise 65" (Kyle Jao)
- p156, Remark 7.1.55: The first "??" should be Theorem 6.1.6. The second should be Exercise 66.
- p202, Example 7.3.18: It should be stated more clearly that Chvatal's Condition implies Las Vergnas' Condition, and therefore Corollary 7.3.17 implies Theorem 7.3.14. This will become an exercise.
- p214, Theorem 7.3.40: When
*n=m*, the claim holds vacuously, since the hypothesis is impossible to satisfy (as is the conclusion). The proof becomes slightly simpler by using*n=m*as the basis for the induction instead of*n=m+1*. Also, it seems that the condition*\dlt(G) > m/2*is not needed for the proof of the induction step. (Sasha Kostochka)