Practical Geostatistics 2000
Contact Isobel Clark with new errata or errors
We would like to thank everyone who provided feedback.
Errata from First Edition and First reprint of PG2000 may be found on the original errata page
Errata in later reprints of Practical Geostatistics 2000 click here
New: Pierre Mousset-Jones at
Large number of corrections courtesy of Kathy Flanders
Remember that these are only potential answers not divinely inspired solutions!!
Remember also that hand calculated answers will differ (sometimes significantly) from answers shown in screen dumps from software. In Chapter 2, especially, where we are dividing statistics by n instead of n-1 answers can be very different, depending on the size of n (obviously?). Less than that and it is probably calculator, PC or spreadsheet precision.
Table of Contents
Chapter 1 Introduction
Page 48: calculation of confidence for the standard deviation at the top of page should read:
Page 49: Last paragraph at bottom of page should read: That is, our best estimate for μ is 16.941 %Ash and we can be 95% confident that the true mean lies between 16.345 and 17.537 %Ash
Page 58: half way down the page, calculation should be:
Page 85: the two lines below the figure for Q11 should read:
We will continue the exercise on the (erroneous) assumption of Normality. For a central 95% confidence interval on the true unknown population mean:
Page 120: tables at the top of the page should look like this:
Page 120: Fourth paragraph of text should read . has a mean of zero and a standard deviation of 1, .
Page 154: the final answer to question 3, should be:
There appears to be some confusion between the subscripts on the sample statistics and those on the degrees of freedom for the F test. It is necessary to divide the larger variance by the smaller to use Table 5(a) and (b). However, degrees of freedom ν1 refers to the degrees of freedom attached to the top line of the ratio not to the first set of samples. Similarly ν2 refers to the degrees of freedom relevant to the bottom line of the ration, not necessarily to the second set of samples. Sorry about this, standard notation!
Page 171: Table of t values in the centre of the page should read:
Page 173: answer for t statistic should be 6.313.
Chapter 8 The Spatial aspect
Page 206: horrific spreadsheet calculation error on Isobels part!!! Table and paragraph at the bottom of the page should read:
Chapter 12 Other kriging approaches
Table 1 has been mislabelled. Headings for probability column should read F not f. Apologies for all confusion.