Errata List for "The Algorithm Design Manual (2nd Edition)" by Steven Skiena

Last addition: March 20, 2015

Non-trivial errata are denoted with a (*). I include a separate section

at the end for commentaries -- additional suggestions / clarifications
suggested by readers which are not really errata.
============================================================================

Fresh Errata (now with Section descriptions for e-Book readers):

Page 6, paragraph 3, line 9 (Section 1.1) "...before returning at the

rightmost point." should be
"...before returning at the leftmost point."

Page 24, Figure 24 (Section 1.6) Adding commas between the digits would make
it clearer

Page 26, line 5 (Section 1.6) -- Replacing {2,3,4} by {2,4,5} might offer
a more direct connection to the reasoning underlying the caption of
figure 1.10. (which is updated in figure 1.11)

(*) Page 36, fifth and sixth expressions (Section 2.2) can be clarified

3n^2 - 100n + 6 is not \Omega(n^3) because because for any [positive] c I

choose 3n^2 - 100n + 6 < cn^3 for any n > 3/c+3;

3n^2 - 100n + 6 = \Omega(n) because I choose c = 1 and n < 3n^2 - 100n + 6

when n > 34;

Page 44, line 3 (Section 2.5.3) for p="Skiena." the period should be moved
outside the quotes.

Page 46, line -17 (Section 2.6): "this definition is the same" could be "this
equivalence is the same"

(*) Page 55, line -10 (Section 2.9.1) "a d-dimensional hypercube of length
n^(1/d) on each side has volume d." should be
"a d-dimensional hypercube of length n^(1/d) on each side has volume n."

Page 62, problem 2-36 (Section 2.10) - the output statement is improperly
indented.

Page 67, line -18 (Section 3.1) The $\lg n$s in the formula should be written
as $\lceil \lg n \rceil$.

(*) Page 67, line -18 (Section 3.1) This analysis can be looked at in a
different
way, which yields a simpler and more precise (though asymptotically identical)
answer. If we sum the number of copy operations as they are made, we get:
Sum from (i=1) to (log n) of n/(2^i)
instead of
Sum from (i=1) to (log n)-1 of [i*n/(2^(i-1))]
which is counting the number of elements which get copied i times, times i.
When n=2^j implied in the analysis, both summations are asymptotically the
same, approaching 2n.

(*) Page 70, delete_list/predecessor_list() subroutines -- A weird thing can

happen if you insert multiple elements with the same key. If you insert a
value, then insert a different one, finally inserting the same value as the
first insertion again (i.e. 1, 2, 1), when you try to delete the head node's
'1' value the delete_list() subroutine will locate the incorrect predecessor
node and basically break the program by setting the predecessor's 'next' value
to point to it's self and delete the wrong node.

This is why it is bad to insert two distinguishable elements with the the same
key in a data structure.

(*) Page 74, table -- Singly-linked deletion can be done in constant time by
copying the next value to over-write the key of the deleted node, then point
to the next next element and free what was originally the node after it.

function delete (list *elementToDelete)

copy elementToDelete->next's DATA into elementToDelete's DATA
set elementToDelete->next to point to elementToDelete->next->next
delete elementToDelete->next

Page 85, line 6 of the paragraph under the table (Section 3.5) -
"the minimum entry have" should be "the minimum entry we have".

Page 85, table, Delete-min row and Balanced tree column (Section 3.5) -- in
fact there is a way to do Delete-Min in O(1) time, but it is a little more
complicated than the method I describe.

(*) Page 105, line 10 (Section 4.1): "polygon of smallest area" should be
either "convex polygon of smallest area" or "polygon of smallest perimeter"

Page 113, line -1 (Section 4.3.3): Return type should be item_type, not int.

(*) Page 114 line -4 (Section 4.3.3): As implemented in the book, my heapsort
is not in-place, because it creates the priority queue in q, not s.

Page 116, part 2 of solution to the "Stop and Think" section": the last line
should read "since the top k levels have $2^k - 1$ elements"

Page 121, line -2 (Section 4.5) - "2^k pairs sorted list" should be "2^k pairs
of sorted lists".

Page 129, line 19 (Section 4.7): "We could sort sorting" should be "We could
sort"

Page 131, paragraph 3, line 3 (Section 4.8) - "getting the the data" should be
"getting the data".

Page 131, Line -7: (Section 4.8): The correct link to the sorting benchmark
is:
http://sortbenchmark.org/.

(*) Page 147 line -1: (Section 5.1): We confess that all implementations in
this
book are designed to work ONLY on simple graphs.
Page 152, lines 3 and 4 of the table (Section 5.2): "small" and "big" should
be "sparse" and dense.

Page 161, line 3 (Section 5.5) - "such printing" should be "such as printing".

(*) Page 164, line 4 (Section 5.6) -- this implementation sets

processed[v]=TRUE at the top of the while loop, where as the pseudocode does
so at the bottom.
Presuambly the bottom is the right choice, although it generally should not
matter.

Page 164, line 8 (Section 5.6) - there is a right parenthesis missing at the
end of this line.

Page 170, in the second bulleted paragraph (Section 5.8), the spelling
"descendents," which appears twice, should be "descendants."

(*) Page 177, line 3 (Section 5.9) - comment should be "is the parent of the
vertex the root of the DFS tree?".

(*) Page 180, second and third bullet points (Section 5.10) - the word
"completed" in both paragraphs should be "processed".

Page 183, line 3 (Section 5.10) - "edges that point vertices" should be "edges
that point to vertices".

(*) Page 188, line 4 of problem 5-20 (Section 5.11) - "is a subset of U"
should be "is a subset U".

Page 195, line -5 (Section 6.1) - "out of new tree vertex" should be "out of
each new tree vertex".

Page 197, last line, last word (Section 6.1.2) - "psuedocode" -> "pseudocode"

Page 199, line -3 (Section 6.1.3) - "The height ... stay the same" should be
"The heights ... stay the same"

Page 200, line 1 of unions_sets (Section 6.1.3) - the return type should not
be int, because the function returns nothing.

Page 201, line 3, 6 (first occurence) and 7 (Section 6.1.3) - "height-2" and
"height-3" should be "height 2" and "height 3" respectively.

Page 202, line 14 (Section 6.1.4) - "the highest degree node ... is small"
should be "the highest degree of a node ... is small".

Page 204, line 8 (Section 6.2) - "the right arm to visits" should be "the
right arm visits".

(*) Page 216, Figure 6.13 (Section 6.5.2): The graph showing the residual flow
R(G) has a directed edge from the center node to the top center node (with
weight 3), which should be undirected.

Page 231, section 7.1, second paragraph: "each one possible configuration" ==>
"each possible configuration"
(*) Page 232, backtrack code (Section 7.1) - the call to unmake_move() should
be before the if (finished) check, otherwise the finished solution will be
unmade.

Page 232, line -6 (Section 7.1) : "elements of vector a from a complete

solution" -> "elements of vector a form a complete solution".

(*) Page 237, line 8 of construct_candidates (Section 7.1.3) should be "for

(i=0; i<k; i++) in_sol[a[i]] = TRUE;".

(*) Page 240, line -6 of construct_candidates should be "for (i=1;

i<=DIMENSION; i++)".

Page 247, line -1 (Section 7.5) - "access" should be "assess".

Page 250, line -10 (Section 7.5.1) - "exactly how unordered pairs" should be
"exactly how many unordered pairs".

(*) Page 256, formula (Section 7.5.3): The external negative sign on the
equation reverses the condition.

It should be: e^((C(Si) - C(S[i+1]))/kT) >= r

(*) Page 258, line 13 (Section 7.5.3) should be "transition(s,t,i2,i1);

Page 263, Fig. 7.12 (Section 7.7): Prefix GA and suffix AA should yield GAAA
not GAAG.

Page 280, line 2, in comment (Section 8.1.4) - "computer" should be "compute".

Page 280, line 8 could be "for (i=2; i<=n; i++)". For i = 1, bc[1][0] and
bc[1][1] have already been evaluated in the lines above and the inner loop
will not even run.

(*) Page 291, table (Section 8.3) - the Length l_i indices should be "1 2 2 3
1 4 4 5 5".

Page 293, line 1 of first bullet point (Section 8.4) - "top run i to run
bottom j" should be "top run i to bottom run j".

Page 294, line -11 - "I, would volunteer" should be "I would volunteer".

(*) Page 297, line 1 below the figure (Section 8.5) - "p[j] - p[k]" should be
"p[j] - p[i-1]".

(*) Page 300, under the second min in the first formula - "i=k" should be
"k=i".

Page 302, line -6 (Section 8.7.1) - "we get are stuck" should be "we get
stuck".

Page 303, line 22 (Section 8.7.2) - "solution is entire" should be "solution

is the entire".

(*) Page 315, line 2 of problem 8-23 (Section 8.10) - "optimal worst case
cost" should be "optimal expected cost". Otherwise the probabilities are
irrelevant at least if they are all larger than 0.
(*) Page 320, line -3 (Section 9.2.2): the last step of the algorithm "Longest
Increasing Subsequence" has two costs "c_del" and no "c_sub", I think one of
the "c_del" should be changed to a "c_sub".

(*) Page 320, line 6 of paragraph 9.2.2 (Section 9.2.2): ", and substitution
(c_del)" -> ", and substitution (c_sub)".

Page 327, line 4 of the IndependentSet algorithm (Section 9.3.3) - "movie X to

I" should be "movie x to I".

Page 348, line 6 (Section 9.10.3) - "where seek to retain" should be "where we
seek to retain".

Page 399, line 3 (Section 13.2) - the closing bracket should be at the end of
the paragraph, before the full stop.

(*) Page 428, line 7, (Section 13.2) - "cheapest elements first" should be
"most valuable elements first".

(*) Page 428, line -12 (Section 13.10): a "b" is missing in the right hand
side of the formula.

Page 435, line 4 (Chapter 14 intro): "fasciles" -> "fascicles".

Page 450 (Section 14.4) one closing bracket is missed in both swap calls.
For example swap[a[i], a[Random[i, n]]; should be swap[a[i], a[Random[i, n]]];

Page 453, line 2 of the "Binary counting" bullet point (Section 14.5) - "is
defined by the items of that S are in S'" should be "is defined by the items
of S that are in S'".

(*) Page 457, line -12 (Section 14.6): "a_i <= 1 + max(a_1, ..., a_i)" should
be
"a_i <= 1 + max(a_1, ..., a_{i-1})".

(*) Page 491, shortest path in a DAG recurrence (Section 15.4): $(x,i)$ should
be $(i,j)$,
so it reads: $d(s, j) = \min_{(i, j) \in E} { d(s, i) + w(i, j) }$

Page 506, line -8 (Section 15.8): "minimizing the flow" should read
"maximizing the flow".

Page 552 lines 24 and 25 (Section 16.19): "... graph $h$ with the names of
vertices of graph $g$ ..." should be "... graph $H$ with the names of
vertices of graph $G$ ...".

Page 522, line 3 in Notes (Section 15.12): "Fary's" -> "Fry's"

Page 560, line 4 (Section 16.11) - "player should be at" should be "player
should beat".

(*) Page 573, line 14 (Section 17.3): The Delauney triangulation

"maximizes the minimum angle", *not* "minimizes the maximum angle".

Page 620, line 1 of the first bullet in the bullet list (Chapter 18 intro):
"To my taste, this remains is the best introduction to string algorithms."
should be "To my taste, this remains the best introduction to string
algorithms."

Page 658, line 8 (Section 19.1.1): "Max-Planck-Instutut" -> "Max-Planck-

Institut"

Page 659, second paragraph of 19.1.4 - "University of Augsberg" should

be "University of Augsburg".

Page 695, (Bibliography) [MV99]: "econometical" -> "econometric".

/* All errata below *should* have been corrected in the revised printing */

Page viii, line -3 -- add a space after http://www.cs.sunysb.edu/~algorith

Page 10, line -5 -- change "mutally" to "mutually"

(*) Page 14, line 5: "reducing the number of overlapped segments from four to
two" -->
"reducing the number of overlapped segments from five to two"

Page 17, line 12: "at the end this chapter" --> "at the end of this chapter"

Page 17, line 14: "Summation formula" --> "Summation formulae"

Page 17, line -5 -- change "We already encountered arithmetic progressions

when we saw" to "We will encounter the arithmetic progression"

(*) Page 17, line -8 - the pairing argument of the summation only works for
even values of $n$. It can be extended by computing twice the desired sum
as the middle sum, with the upper limit changed from n/2 to n =
twice the expression on the right, that is, n(n+1), and then follow this
with one more line of text: "so that (desired sum) = n(n+1)/2."

(*) Page 18 line 8 -- the sum of a geometric series should be "(a^(n+1) - 1)/
(a - 1)" instead of
"a*(a^(n+1) - 1)/(a - 1)"

Page 21, Figure 1.9: Permutations -- NOT an erratum!!

{4,1,5,2,3} -> 4 + {1,4,2,3} is supposed to capture the induced permutation
left after removing the head. {1,5,2,3} is not a permutation of 1 to 4.
Another example would be {3,1,5,4,2} -> 3 + {1,4,3,2}. Any permutation is
an arrangement of the number 1..n, so deleting the first element renumbers
the rest.

Page 27, line 3 - Change "Corman" to "Cormen".

Page 27, line -2 -- change the sentence to "That is, give an $S$ and $T$
where the algorithm does not find a solution which leaves the knapsack
completely full, even though a full-knapsack solution exists."

(* Kindle only) Page 35 -- The Kindle edition has certain >= signs turned into
equal sighns, as shown in http://www.nsds.net/adm_kindle_bugreport.htm
(*) Page 36, fifth inequality (Omega(n^3)) -- "because I choose c=3" should
be
"because I choose c=1"

(*) Page 43, line 3 - "S(n) = >=": extra = should be deleted.

(*) Page 45, code at bottom -- There is an inconsistency between the variable
names
x,y,z in the problem definition and the program fragment. The easiest
resolution
is to reverse the variable names y and z in the program fragment (lines -3 and
-5)

Page 47, caption of figure 2.7: "per node as d^h leaves": 'as' should be
'has'.

Page 49, last line of Figure 2.8 -- (Q) should be (S)

(*) Page 50, line -5 -- "dividing" should be "multiplying".

Page 54, line -5 - "Ackerman" should be "Ackermann"

Page 63, exercise 2-38 -- 26,397 should be 26,797.

Page 64, exercise 2-50: Perhaps Ramanujan numbers should be called "Ramanujan-
Hardy" numbers.

Page 64, line 18: The comma in the beginning of the line should be moved to
the end
of the preceding line.

Page 68, line 2: "declared at compiler time" --> "declared at compile time"

Page 68, line 4: "address (i.e. , pointer) of a particular variable" -->

"address of (i.e., pointer to) a particular variable"

Page 69, line -5: "the place pointed to l" --> "the place pointed to by l"

Page 70, line -13: The comment "splice out out list" should be "splice out of
list"

(*) Page 70, line 4 -- The error message is too strong a side-effect since
several applications (including delete_list) stumble upon it naturally.
Downgrade the error to a comment.

Page 73, line -3 -- "reveal" should be "reveals".

Page 73, line 6 -- "Prececessor(D, k) or Successor(D,k)" -->

"Prececessor(D, x) or Successor(D,x)"

Page 78, line -14 -- "uniquely identities" should be "uniquely identifies"

Page 81, line -13 -- "(p)" is unnecessary.

Page 83, problem part 3 -- we can drop "search" for the allowable operations.

(*) Page 85, line 4 -- the clause "followed by search" is unnecessary.

Page 98, line 3 of first para: "has to more" should be "has led to more"

(*) Page 101, line 2 -- change "less than $y$" to "less than $k$".

(*) Page 110, line -1 -- change $n/2$ to $k/2$

(*) Page 115, line -10 -- the loop could/should go from "q->n/2 to 1" instead
of "q->n to 1", although what is there works correctly.

Page 117, line 3 from top -- "if ((count <= 0) || ...": The opening
parenthesis of if() is
not closed.

Page 122 -- the code has a declaration of a "int i; /*counter*/" that

is actually never used there.

Page 126, line 7 -- "lies is in the center" should be "lies in the center"

Page 129, 3rd para lines 1-2:

"where a properly implemented quicksort is implemented well" should be
"when quicksort is implemented well"

(*) Page 138, in the diagram of Figure 4.9, the description of width at the
bottom of the diagram says: width = a^(logb(n)) = n^(logb(b))
It should say: width = a^(logb(n)) = n^(logb(a))

(*) Page 140, problem 4-9: "they appear more than once" should be "they appear
exactly once"

(*) Page 144, problem 4-45 -- change the second sentence to the following
with corrections within **'s: "You are given the index positions where these
words occur in **the document**, such as word1: (1,4,5), word2: (*3*,9,10),
and word3: (*2*,6, 15).

Page 156, line 10 -- change "handled better to regular" to "handled regular".

(*) Page 169-170, psuedocode -- the "time = time + 1" line should be before
the "entry[u] = time" one (as it is the case in the corresponding C code)

(*) Page 171, line -2 -- The dfs code has a bug, where each tree edge is
processed twice in undirected graphs. The test needs to be strengthed
to be:

else if (((!processed[y]) && (parent[v]!=y)) || (g->directed))

(*) Page 173, line 2 -- Delete the word "not", ie. "The issue is also easy
if y has *not* been completely processed" should be "The issue is also easy
if y has been completely processed".

(*) Page 173, process_edge procedure -- the correct test should be

if (discovered[y] && (parent[x] != y)) { /* found back edge */

Page 174, second to last line -- "vertices 2 and 6" should read "vertices 5
and 6"

(*) Page 175, line 13 -- it is clearer to say:

"denote the earliest reachable ancestor of vertex v, meaning the
oldest ancestor of v that we can reach from a descendant of $v$.
by using a back edge."

(*) Page 177, process-vertex-late code -- There is a problem with published

code when the root is of degree one, as in node 6 of Figure 5.12, because
no root testing is applied in the bridge cutnode case. A fix is:

root = (parent[parent[v]] < 1); /* test if parent[v] is root */

if (!root) {

if (reachable_ancestor[v] == parent[v]) {
printf("parent articulation vertex: %d \n",parent[v]);
}

if (reachable_ancestor[v] == v) {
printf("bridge articulation vertex: %d \n",parent[v]);

if (tree_out_degree[v] > 0) /* test if v is not a leaf */

printf("bridge articulation vertex: %d \n",v);
}
}

Page 177, last line -- "minor" should be "appropriate" and

"the reachable_ancestor function" should be "process_late_vertex".

Page 178, Figure 5.14 -- the upgoing cross edge on right cannot appear in
a DFS, but can in a BFS.

(*) Pg 179, line 4 of the DFS-Graph(G) algorithm:

The line "for each vertex $u \in V[G]$ do" should be indented left (to
align with the first for-loop line).

Page 182, line 6 -- "peal" should be "peel".

(*) Page 184, process-vertex-late code -- There is a problem with published

code when the component has to be popped at the root node, such as when
the root is of degree one. A fix is:

process_vertex_late(int v) {

/*printf("exit vertex %d at time %d\n",v, exit_time[v]);*/

if (low[v] == v) { /* edge (parent[v],v) cuts off scc */

/*printf("strong commonent started backtracking from %d\n",v);*/
pop_component(v);
}

if (parent[v] > 0) { /* only if v is not the root */

if (entry_time[low[v]] < entry_time[low[parent[v]]]) {
low[parent[v]] = low[v];
}
}
}
(*) Page 185, Exercise 5.2 -- this graph is not acyclic.
Reverse the edge (F,H).

(*) Pg 209, line 3: "For undirected graphs, this would be breadth-first search
tree":
"undirected" should be "unweighted".

(*) Pg 210, line 9 from bottom: "provided MAXINT is less than the diameter of
your graph":
"less than" should be "greater than".

(*) Page 227, exercise 6-11: The running time should be O(m + n \log k).

Page 250, line 14 from bottom: "there is a 1/n chance of getting": The 1/n
should be 1/(n-1).
Page 250, line 12 from bottom: "n times more often": Again, the n should be n-
1.

(*) Page 279. Figure 8.3. table on the right-hand side -- Cell [2][1]
must be 2 not 1. Also, should use n / k for consistancy instead of m / n.

Page 280, program -- should use n, k for consistancy instead of n,m.

(*) Page 282, program -- note that this routine uses the same index convention
reported on the top of Page 284.

Page 283, program -- Yes, the loops only through strlen(s)-1 times: recall
that
the strings have been prepended by blanks under the index convention above.

(*) Page 291, Table. The Li underneath Si 3 should be 2.

Page 297, top paragraph shouldn't be indented.

(*) Page 299, the big display after second para:

In the subscript for the second bigvee, the "i=k" should be "k=i".

Page 313, problem 8-14 -- "dynamic programming" should be "dynamic programming

algorithm".

Page 314, problem 8-20 -- maybe $k=12$ for standard phones today.

Page 317, line 13 -- "be called be tough" should be "be called tough"

(*) Page 317, line -10: the italic "problem" and "instance" should be swapped.

Page 319, before 9.2.1 Closest Pair subheading: "The overall running time is
the time needed to perform the reduction plus that (to) solve the b instance"

Page 326, "Output: Can a subset of at least k mutually nonoverlapping interval

sets (which can) be selected from I?"
Remove parenthetical words.
Page 327, before 9.3.3 Clique: "Thus, general movie scheduling must be (hard)
as hard as independent set, and hence NP-complete."
Remove parenthetical word.

Page 329, third paragraph: "Literally every top-notch algorithm expert in the
world (and countless lesser lights) have directly or indirectly tried to come
up with..."
have -> has

(*) Page 344, line 16 -- "hard to get close to the answer" should be
"hard to get the exact answer".

Page 344, line 17 -- "probably" should be "provably"

Page 381, line 10 -- "seems too be" should be "seems to be".

Page 401, line 10 -- "computes the product" should be "to compute the product"

(*) Page 401, line 16 -- "A[i, k] * A[k, j]" should be "A[i, k] * B[k, j]"

Page 431, Problem description -- a negative sign is missing before the 2 pi

in the exponent of the DFT definition.

(*) Page 528, Problem description -- "either x notin E or y notin E" should
be "either x notin S or y notin S". The whole description is clumsy -- for
no edge can both its endpoints be in the indepedent set S.

(*) Page 623, caption of Figure 18.1 --

"selecting subsets 1 and 3 or 2 and 4 (r)." should be
"selecting subsets 1 and 3 or 2 and 3 (r)."

Page 663, line -2, "it's" should be "its".

Page 686, Reference [HUW02] -- Add "Tech. Report AURORA TR2002-08, Vienna
University of Technology, 2002.".

Back cover, bullet -3 right -- change "Exercises points" to "Exercises point"

============================================================================

Errata since submitting the proofs for the corrected reprint:

(*) Page 110, line -12: "we will store the $2^l$ keys of the $l$th level"
should
be "we will store the $2^{l-1}$ keys of the $l$th level".

Page 199, Figure 6.5: It is more consistant with the implementation for the
zeros
in the right figure to be the index i, so the zeros should be replaced by 1,
3, and 4.

(*) Page 281, right before the code: The description for the formula D[i-1,j]
+1 should be the delete operation,
and the description for the formula D[i,j-1]+1 should be the insert operation.
The descriptions are inverted.
(*) Page 297, first line after the figure: the formula states that the
summation equals p[j]-p[k],
the equality should read p[j]-p[i-1]

Page 654 (right figure): The real shortest superstring is ADABRACADA, not
ABRACADABRA.

=================================================================

Commentaries
============

Page 72: Perhaps it would be more consistent to use capital letters for all
container
variables? Currently stacks and queues are lower-case, but dictionaries are
upper-case.
And to always put the container parameter first and the item/key parameter
second?
Currently stacks and queues are second in Push and Enqueue, while dictionaries
are first
in all their operations.

Page 76, last paragraph: There's really no need for an extra sweep over the
list to maintain
the pointer to the last item, as the deletion already requires that we get a
pointer to the
second to last item in order to un-link the last item.

Pg 111, the two C function definitions:

It might be nice to specify the function definitions that these
functions return 'int'.

Pg 199, figure 6.5 right:

Root nodes in this figure are indicated via "0", but in the algorithm
on the next page, the representation parent[x] = x is used. Perhaps
this figure could be changes to match up with that representation.

- p 397, line 10: an equally good reason to avoid inv(A) is that it

is less numerically stable. See Sec 14.1 of

http://www.maths.manchester.ac.uk/~higham/asna
@Book{Higham:2002:ASN,
author = "Nicholas J. Higham",
title = "Accuracy and Stability of Numerical Algorithms",
publisher = "Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics",
address = "Philadelphia, PA, USA",
edition = "Second",
year = "2002",
pages = "xxx+680",
ISBN = "0-89871-521-0"
}

- p 397, line 15: you can delete "apparently". It's indubitably true.

- p 402, third para from bottom. You should really refer to the
level 3 BLAS here, not LAPACK. I'm not sure that Alg 601 is used
nowadays. More recent is
http://www-users.cs.umn.edu/~saad/software/SPARSKIT/sparskit.html

- p 433: I'd suggest citing the classic book by Van Loan

@book{vanl92a,
author = "Van Loan, Charles F.",
title = "Computational Frameworks for the Fast {Fourier} Transform",
publisher = pub-SIAM,
address = pub-SIAM:adr,
year = 1992,
pages = "xiii+273",
isbn = "0-89871-285-8",
}
@String{pub-SIAM = "Society for Industrial and Applied
Mathematics"}
@String{pub-SIAM:adr = "Philadelphia, PA, USA"}