Being a geophysicist, I got sucked into this by the mention of the Fourier Transform. I found this paper to be very wordy and littered with mathematics that wa

Being a geophysicist, I got sucked into this by the mention of the Fourier Transform. I found this paper to be very wordy and littered with mathematics that was at times impenetrable. Thank God for the Appendix to help decipher some of the non-geophysical industry symbology. I'm familiar with the derivations of the equations used but it's been several decades since I had taken differential equations so there is a lot left for me to absorb. I understand this is an old paper but I am cursed with an eye for detail and some of the little things ended up grabbing my attention more than they should have. I found myself wondering if, prior to publication, anyone had bothered reading the full text with an eye for identifying simple spelling errors or whether they had used a spell checker or other tool to maintain consistency of spelling of uncommon words or terms. I think not. Just in my own reading these things popped out at me: p. 92 in the sentence just after Figure 6.1 sock is used instead of stock. p. 153 just after Eq 9.8 is defined Meron is used instead of Merton. p. 166 the page has all but one mention of Black-Sholes spelled as Black-Shoels. p. 244 the third sentence uses Bronwian instead of Brownian. Also, they made a typical math funny on pages 190-191. On p.190 the second sentence reads: >Because the CF of VG process cannot be obtained by simply substituting 0 α = in (11.23), we need to do this step-by-step. So now they promise me some interesting step-by-step derivations in their algebra. Instead I get the standard upper-level math statement on p. 191 after Eq. 11.28: >After tedious algebra: You're almost to the appendix and you find the first mention that some of the math got hairy. Fun stuff. I expected the last page to read "This page intentionally left blank."