You are writing an excellent book. I have accumulated several small errata that I can overlook, but Page 33 Line 698 has a major error and should read "The the columns on augmented A that contain -1 as pivots ..." To be precise, remove ", which" and type "that" with no comma.
Explanation that you can verify with Max Morenberg's wonderful 'Doing Grammar' (2nd or 3rd edition):
The construction "Noun that" starts a restrictive relative clause, which takes a subset. Here's an example. Dogs that bite scare people. Of course, not all dogs bite so we use "that" to indicate the subset.
In contrast, the construction "Noun, which" starts a non-restrictive relative clause, which does NOT take a subset. Here's another doggy example. Dogs, which are canines, were domesticated tens of thousands of years ago.
Best,
Shawn
shawnberry121@gmail.com
twice scored 800 on GMAT-CAT, which includes Sentence Correction
;-)
Hello Authors/Editors,
You are writing an excellent book. I have accumulated several small errata that I can overlook, but Page 33 Line 698 has a major error and should read "The the columns on augmented A that contain -1 as pivots ..." To be precise, remove ", which" and type "that" with no comma.
Explanation that you can verify with Max Morenberg's wonderful 'Doing Grammar' (2nd or 3rd edition): The construction "Noun that" starts a restrictive relative clause, which takes a subset. Here's an example. Dogs that bite scare people. Of course, not all dogs bite so we use "that" to indicate the subset. In contrast, the construction "Noun, which" starts a non-restrictive relative clause, which does NOT take a subset. Here's another doggy example. Dogs, which are canines, were domesticated tens of thousands of years ago.
Best, Shawn shawnberry121@gmail.com twice scored 800 on GMAT-CAT, which includes Sentence Correction ;-)