Section 12.4: inner product linearity in the first vs. second argument

[AntonP84]

Page 348, equation 12.117 - is it valid for a complex scalar a? In the context of examples in the section 12.4. Wouldn't it be easier to reformulate as the linearity in the second argument instead?

I understand there might be different conventions for mathematicians and quantum mechanics practitioners. And pardon me, if I got lost in it.

[archaengel]

I ran into this, as well. The worked examples in section 12.4 use the the definition of the inner product <u, v> := u†v, which contradicts the properties you're asked to prove in exercises 12.120 (linearity in the first argument) and 12.121 (anti-linearity in the second argument).

[rmlarose]

Thank you @AntonP84 for noting this and @archaengel for adding in - it does seem there is a slight mixup in the book and this is being addressed! The heart of the issue, as you note, is where the dagger goes :-)

[fazouane-marouane]

Hello I also ran into this today. Although it didn't bother me too much, I wonder if you have a published errata somewhere ? Something that summarises known errors/typos to be aware of. Thanks