| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |
|
|
|
|||||||
|
|||||||||
Erratum |
1 Center for Computational Science and
Engineering
University of California
Davis, California
95616
roshch{at}cse.ucdavis.edu
rundle{at}cse.ucdavis.edu
(R.S.,
J.B.R.)
2 Department of Geology
University
of California
Davis, California
95616
turcotte{at}geology.ucdavis.edu
(D.L.T.)
In Shcherbakov et al., 2006, material in the original manuscript was inadvertently altered during composition. We apologize for the errors introduced through no fault of the authors. The corrections are as follows.
On page S378, in the section titled "Scaling Studies of the Sequence," the sentence at the end of paragraph 2 should read: Their average value was [small b, macron] = 0.92 close to our value b = 0.89 for the entire aftershock sequence.
On page S379, there are two errors in the text following
equation 6. The text should read: where
.
A limiting case is obtained when ß = bp (
= 0). In
this
situation the initial rate 
is a constant for all magnitude
cutoffs mc, which implies that at the very beginning of the
sequence, on average, no small aftershocks occur. The ratio
of rates in equation (6) must also satisfy the condition r(0,
mc)/r(0, mc +
dm) 
1 from which it follows that
or bp ß for p > 1.
On page S379, the third line in the caption for Figure 3 should read: The value of c(mc = 2.5) has been obtained from the best fit of the modified Omori’s law, equation (2), to the data; this is shown as a solid curve.
On page S380, the sentence in the first column beginning at line 3 should read: We first fit equation (2) to the data in Figure 3 with the lower magnitude cutoff mc 2.5, which is higher than the completeness of the catalog. From the best fit of the equation (2) to the rates with the lower magnitude cutoff mc 2.5 using the nonlinear least-squares fitting procedure, we have obtained c(mc = 2.5) = 0.0095 ± 0.001 days and p = 1.09 ± 0.02.
On page S380, the sentence in the second column beginning
at line 39 should read: The probability distribution
function of the interoccurrence times between aftershocks
Pmc (
t) is given as a function of the
interoccurrence times
t in Figure 4, where each symbol corresponds to a different
magnitude cutoff mc.
On page S381, the sentence following equation (7)
should read: where 
r(u)du is the total number of
events during a time period T.
Manuscript received September 19, 2006
 |
References |
|---|
 Top References |
|---|
Shcherbakov, R., D. L. Turcotte, and J. B. Rundle
(2006). Scaling properties
of the Parkfield Aftershock Sequence, Bull. Seism. Soc.
Am. 96,
no. 4b, S376–S384, doi:10.1785/0120050815
.
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |
