Following is a list of typos (more like questionable items) in the text: Numerical Optimization, by Jorge Nocedal, and Stephen Wright, 1999, Springer Verlag.
  1. On page 16, the definition of positive definite and positive semidefinite does not include B=BT whereas the definition in the appendix correctly does state that the matrix A is symmetric, see page 594.
  2. On page 24, in the equation above (2.15), the Hessian should be at xk rather than at xk+1, i.e. that is what follows from the Taylor series. Then the approximation is done for Bk+1.
    Alternatively, the Taylor series is approximated at xk+1 in the direction (xk-xk+1).
  3. Page 47, above (3.24), the gradient at xk changed notation to gk
  4. In problem 3.2 on Page 62: as stated, it is unclear whether the constants c1,c2 are given or are to be shown to exist. In fact, there exist functions for which any choice of constants 1>c1>c2>0 result in no (Wolfe) step lengths. However, there also exist functions where any choice of constants 1>c1>c2>0 result in (Wolfe) step. ( see comments)
  5. In problems 3.3 and 3.4 on Page 62, the term strongly convex quadratic is used. For a quadratic, strictly convex is equivalent. It is unsure that the terms are defined somewhere in the text. The definitions can be found e.g. at the Mathematical Programming glossary: http://carbon.cudenver.edu/~hgreenbe/glossary/S.html
  6. Page 69, paragraphing error in the middle of the page (due likely to missing end-center in latex)
  7. Page 133: In problem 5.4, the assumption that the vectors p_0 to p_{k-1} are linearly independent is missing. (These vectors were conjugate directions in previous questions.)
  8. Page 156: The comment about large-scale situations for trust-region subproblems has changed. There are now codes that will solve the large-scale case using a Lanczos approach, i.e. it is no longer necessary to sovle several linear systems per iteration, but rather employ a 'restarted' Lanczos eigenvalue routine. See e.g. the following references (and the references cited therein):
  9. Page 269, 3/4 of the way down: The sum is over i, but should be over j.
  10. Pages 320-322: The discussion here that derives a Lagrange multiplier condition does not assume a constraint qualification. The discussion seems to imply that the results are true without a constraint qualification, but this clear fails e.g. if \nabla c_1(x)=0 but \nabla f(x) \neq 0.
  11. Page 398, the equation above equation (14.7) has delta s and delta lambda out of order.
  12. Page 401, the equation (14.15) has rb and rc out of order.
  13. Page 406, extra comma in 3rd line from the bottom in the expression for RHS.
  14. Page 487, Problem 16.4: Remove the words at the start of the problem "Use Theorem 12.6". The problem asks to "show that the second-order sufficient conditions hold". But Theorem 12.6 uses the second-order conditions to prove optimality. Perhaps what is meant is: "show that the second-order sufficient conditions from Theorem 12.6 hold".