(colored entries after 12/04; earlier entries have been corrected in latest printing)
MistakeThanks to ...
Page x, 3rd line from bottom knows --> known Sergio Palomares-Ruiz
Page xii, next to last paragraph "previously" mis-spelled Bob Klauber
Page 7, Caption for Figure 1.5 Units on x-axis are wrong. The two tick marks should be 1Mpc and 2Mpc. I have no idea why the version of the plot I used has the units messed up. Chung-Pei Ma
Page 11, next to last line QSO stands for Quasi Stellar Object, distant point-like images first discovered in the 1960's. They are now understand to be at very great distances from us [the furthest quasar has a redshift greater than 6] Bob Klauber
Page 15, 4th line from bottom Word "do" is missing: "... a map and quite another to do quantitative tests ..." Sergio Palomares-Ruiz
Page 22 , Exercise 2b The integral can be done analytically [it is given in Kolb and Turner, Eq. 3.32; I missed it!]. The answer is:
Suharyo Sumowidagdo
Page 35, next to last paragraph, last line should read "in a flat universe, both with and without a cosmological constant." Bob Klauber
Page 40, Eq. 2.65 missing T on right hand side Suharyo Sumowidagdo, Bob Klauber
Page 42 Third line The baryon density in groups is 0.02, not 0.2. Jeremy Bernstein
Page 46 , Eq 2.79 There should be a factor of (2\pi)^3 in the denominator.
Page 47, 6th line "... only a third of the critical density." Sergio Palomares-Ruiz
Page 53 , Eq 2.91 in Exercise 2.2 The g_{11} component should be 1, not r. Suharyo Sumowidagdo, Mark Alan Peot, Alex Conley
Page 54, Exercise 3c The mass m does not appear in the equation Eunhwa Jeong
Page 55 , Eq 2.97 The last occurrence of the metric should be g_{jk,l}, not g_{jk,0}. Donghui Jeong
Page 56, Eq 2.101 In the denominator P_0 should be P^0 (superscripted instead of subscripted). It matters if you want to show that there are no factors of \Phi,\Psi in the stress energy tensor. Eduardo Rozo
Page 59, above Eq. 3.1 "Schematically" mis-spelled Bob Klauber
Page 64, first line of text should be above 0.1 Mev, not 0.01. me
Page 65 , Eq 3.18 Exponentials in the integrands in both numerator and denominator should have p^2, not p Suharyo Sumowidagdo
Page 66 , line above Eq 3.22 nequ_l should be n^(0)_l Bob Klauber
Page 69 Eq 3.34 and the figure Y_p was never defined. It's what I called X_4 on top of the page. Sergio Palomares-Ruiz
Page 73 3 lines above 3.47 "ionized" spelled wrong Sergio Palomares-Ruiz
Page 74 , 2 lines below Eq 3.51 Very high temperature corresponds to x << 1, not -- as I wrote -- x >> 1. Donghui Jeong, Alex Conley
Page 74 , 2 lines below the above correction For high x, the abundance becomes exponentially suppressed, not low x as currently written. Donghui Jeong
Pages 74-5 , Eq 3.52, 3.54 There should be a minus sign on the right in both eqns. This follows from 3.50 and the fact that dx/dt=+Hx Suharyo Sumowidagdo
Page 77 footnote 6 "be" is missing: "to be evaluated" Sergio Palomares-Ruiz
Page 77 Eq. (3.60) Argument of the exponent should be -37 not -39!
Note that the annihlation cross section -- of order 1/10 of a picobarn -- is quite a bit bigger than the elastic cross section off nuclei, shown in Fig. (3.6). This occurs naturally in most WIMP model
Daniel Vangheluwe
Page 79 , 3rd line from bottom naturally Bob Klauber
Page 81 Exercise 3b the *reciprocal* of tau is equal to the expression with the phase integral Roger O'Brient
Page 83 , Eq. 3.68 The units are wrong because I left out a factor of n_H [=(1-x_e)n_b under our assumptions] in the denominator. Needless to say, the Peebles paper I was [mis]quoting from got it right. Jim Fry and Sanghamitra Deb
Page 91,Eq 4.28 I didn't explain why (1-2\Psi) was set to one in the first term on the right [this is explained after the next equation]. This is of course the linear approximation. Also, there [in my edition] are two dots right after this equation. Weird. Sergio Palomares-Ruiz
Page 96, 4th line of last paragraph I neglected to explain why q/m \sim v_b. for some reason, this explanation appears later, on page 106. Sergio Palomares-Ruiz
Page 98, Eq 4.51 second line All the f's should have superscripts (0) Sergio Palomares-Ruiz
Page 101, footnote 4 "Euclidean" spelled wrong Sergio Palomares-Ruiz
Page 101, after 4.60 \vec k is parallel , not perpendicular, to the gradient Lorenzo Battarra
Page 106, 5th line "hierarchy" spelled wrong Sergio Palomares-Ruiz
Page 108 , 4 lines down "But this is obviously equal to the integral over f_e(q) f_p(Q)"; should be no primes on the momenta. I shouldn't have been so cocky about how obvious everything is. Donghui Jeong
Page 109, below Eq (4.96) Parenthetical comment should be "first term vanishes and third gives ..." Daniel Grin
Page 110, 6th line v_b should be a vector Bob Klauber
Page 114, Eq. (4.112) Two mistakes: first, all signs on the RHS should be positive; second, last term on LHS missing a factor of 2 Adrienne Erickcek
Page 123, 7 lines below Eq. (5.27) perturbations spelled wrong Chris D'Andrea
Page 123, 2nd line from bottom equated Feng Guo
Page 129, right before Eq. 5.62 There should be an a^3 in the denominator of the last term on the right: (\dot a/a^3) \dot h_+. Tong-Jie Zhang
Page 131, last paragraph of Section 5.3 "only modes with k\eta_0 greater than ..." should be "only modes with k\eta_0 less than ...". Olga Mena
Page 135, above Eq. 5.27 "Psi" should be Greek; i.e. I forgot the \ in TeX. Bob Klauber, Eduardo Rozo
Page 143 "smoothness" has toooo many ooo's Kate Land
Page 152 , Second line of second paragraph P+3rho should of course be the famous \rho + 3P Aravind Natarajan
Page 153 , 2 lines below Eq 6.28 and two lines below that The references should be to Eq. (6.19), not (6.20). Donghui Jeong
Page 153, 2nd line after 6.28 should read \rho^{1/2} = constant Sergio Palomares-Ruiz
Page 154 , Eq. (6.33) There is an extraneous \phi^{(0)} in the last term. Donghui Jeong
Page 158, Eqn 6.50 Last a should have a ^ on top Kate Land
Page 159, after 6.53 k^{-3} should be k^3 Sergio Palomares-Ruiz
Page 160 , 3 lines below Eq 6.57 The reference should be to Eq. (6.56), not (6.57). Donghui Jeong
Page 162, 4th line of section 6.5 ",however" --> ", however" Sergio Palomares-Ruiz
Page 164, after Eq. 6.72 "Compare this with Eq. (6.59)", not (6.57) Feng Guo
Page 165, 3rd line comma should be outside the quotes Sergio Palomares-Ruiz
Page 166, 1st line after 6.78 I should have pointed out that \delta T^0_i follows directly from Eq. 5.82. Sergio Palomares-Ruiz
Page 167, 4th line from bottom "stresses" spelled wrong Sergio Palomares-Ruiz
Page 175 (thanks to Chris Gordon for pointing out an error in this erratum!), part (e) of Exercise (2) Eq. (6.12) cannot be used to derive (6.110).
(6.12) was derived from (6.10), which in turn came by setting \Psi=-\Phi in Eq. (6.6).
In the text, we were content to ignore anisotropic stress, so this approximation is ok.
In the exercise, you are asked to go beyond this, so you must start again from (6.6)
maintaining the distinction between \Psi and \Phi.
Tristan Smith
Page 178, first line \eta --> \delta Tom Umeda
Page 178, Eq (6.116) RHS should be inverted Adrienne Erickcek
Page 182, 2nd line Should be "going through" Sergio Palomares-Ruiz
Page 183 "horizon crossing", not cossingAnais Rassat
Page 185 , 3rd line "bin of width dk", not k. Donghui Jeong
Page 190 "strategy" missing an r Kate Land
Page 195 , 5 lines below the head of section 7.3.1 Too many "in"s. Donghui Jeong
Page 201 , 5 lines below Eq 7.57 we actually recognize this as 3\delta/(2y+2)y. I.e., the y should be in the denominator not numerator. Donghui Jeong
Page 201 , Eq 7.60 The second term in brackets on the right should be 6y not 3y. Apparently this mistake does not propagate to later equations; the later ones are correct. Kiyona Mizukami
Page 203 , Eq 7.65 A \Phi_p is missing from the RHS: C_1 is proportional to \Phi_p. Donghui Jeong
Page 204, after Eq 7.70 "Asymptote" mis-spelled Takashi Horikoshi
Page 206, the fourth line of the paragraph between Eq. 7.73 and Eq. 7.74 coefficient of last term is "-3/2" not "3/2" Teeraparb Chantavat
Page 214, Exercise 9 after Eq. (7.84) The tophat filter should be normalized so that it integrates to unity, so it's equal to 1/V_R for x less than R, not 1. Here V_R is the volume of a sphere of radius R Simon DeDeo
Page 215, Exercise 9, part (c) monotonically mis-spelled and \sigma_R is a decreasing function of R Adrienne Erickcek
Page 215, Exercise 11 Eq. (7.77) for the growth factor cannot be used in a dark energy model with w different than -1. Jonathan Pritchard has written up a beautiful set of notes illustrating this. Jonathan Pritchard
Page 220 , Box Figure is missing. This should replace the words "includegraphics ..." Suharyo Sumowidagdo, James Dimech
Page 222, Caption of Figure "plane" mis-spelled Kate Land
Page 224, first line of 8.3.1 ionized --> free Tom Umeda
Page 227 3 more mis-spellings: "qualitative", "conclusions", and "advantage" Tom Umeda
Page 227, final paragraph principle mis-spelled Adrienne Erickcek
Page 231 , Eq 8.28 The coefficent of \Theta_2 should be 2/3 instead of 2/5. Donghui Jeong,Aravind Natarajan
Page 234 "infinitely" and "Multiplying" mis-spelled Tom Umeda
Page 245, Last paragraph "of" mis-spelled [that's a good trick!] Kate Land
Page 251, Label in Fig. 8.17 The exponent should be +1/2 not -1/2 Pedro Ferreira
Page 258, first line (8.86) \Delta should not be barred Tom Umeda
Page 258, first line (8.87) last two terms should be multiplied by \Phi(0) Tom Umeda
Page 258 Exercise 9 The right hand side is missing a factor of Y_{lm}. Roger O'Brient
Page 263, Eqn 9.6 The \delta_2's in the first line [which is on page 263] are Fourier transforms so should have \tilde's. Hong Sungwook
Page 283, 3 lines above Eqn 9.54 The units should be h^{-1} Mpc , not h Mpc^{-1}. Christopher Gordon
Page 307 , two lines after Eq 10.43 e^{iz\phi'} should be e^{iz\cos\phi'} 
Page 316 "polarization" mis-spelled Kate Land
Page 320, Above 10.65 Sentence has too many "to"'s and too many "In Chapter 4"'s Kate Land
Page 332, Eq. (10.102) has an extra factor of k^2 Daniel Grin
Page 353, after Eq. (11.64) the equation used is C.21 not C.17 Daniel Grin
Page 369, after Eq. (11.103) size of pixels in radians squared since the size of a pixel is an area Christopher Gordon
Page 371, Eqns 11.118-9 and the line just before them I believe that I've left out a factor of 1/(2\pi)^3 when computing the number of all Fourier vectors in a spherical shell. This missing factor shows up in the 2 eqns mentioned, so the Fisher matrix is smaller by this amount, and the error on the power spectrum larger by a factor of (2\pi)^{3/2}. It's a big mistake, and I came across it by comparing with the very interesting paper of Rimes & Hamilton. Please let me know if you disagree.  
Page 397, Exercise 12 "physical size" should replace "physical distance" Sergio Palomares-Ruiz
Page 399, Solution to Ex. 1, in between A.58 and A.59 The integral is \sqrt\pi/4, Not \sqrt\pi/2. This is apparently just a typo because A.59 as is is correct. Marja Annala via Petri Mutka
Page 400, A.66 and A.67 The V in GeV should be capitalized. Sergio Palomares-Ruiz
Page 416, k_B value extra "]," Mark Yashar
Page 428 Hollands & Wald reference is gr-qc/0205058, not astro-ph. Donghui Jeong
Page 429 Olgaroy reference is astro-ph/0204152, or published in Phys. Rev. Lett. 89, 061301 (2002) Suharyo Sumowidagdo
Page 423, 8th symbol \mu is also used as chemical potential, in Chapter 3 (1st use on page 38) Bob Klauber
Page 425, unit direction vector First used on 89, not 90 Bob Klauber