How to quote passage with literal error that changes the meaning? I have the following problem:

I want to write an indirect citation of a passage in a specific book. The problem is that there is a literal error. Normally this would not be much of a problem (if I would quote it directly I could also write [sic!] to tag it as an error).

But the thing is that the literal error changes the whole meaning of the sentence.

To provide an example of what I mean (obtained from [1, p. 497]):


  Nonpolynomial approaches, like dispatching, may not work well.


The thing is that dispatching is a polynomial and not a nonpolynomial approach.
Two pages before it is even described as a polynomial approach (obtained from [1, p. 495]):


  For comparison, we now consider problems that do not grow
  exponentially. These are called polynomial problems because [...]. As
  a specific example, consider the job dispatching problem [...].


What would be the proper way to handle this?



Edit:

Because some made the valid supposition, that this is just a bad wording: As it was ascertained in the comments below this question, it is indeed a literal error.
The error was not documented in the Errata of the 2nd edition (can be found here). But in the subsequent edition (the 3rd edition) on page 525 the sentence was changed to:


  Polynomial approaches, like dispatching, may not work well.


So the example above is indeed a literal error.



[1] Wallace J. Hopp and Mark L. Spearman. Factory physics; foundations of manufacturing management. 2. ed. McGraw-Hill international editions: Management &amp; organization series. Boston, Mass. [et al.]: Irwin McGraw-Hill, 2001. ISBN: 0-256-24795-1.
If the purpose of quoting the text is to discuss the error, then quote the error. However, in this case, it seems that your purpose is to discuss the real situation. Quoting the error just makes things confusing.  Instead, I suggest something like:


  Wallace et al. [1, p.497] say that polynomial approaches, such as dispatching, "do not work well."1
  
  1 [1, p.497] erroneously described dispatching as nonpolynomial; compare [1,p.495].


The footnote explains that the literal quote from the source is incorrect but attempts to downplay this. The point of the footnote is only to stop the reader being confused if they look up the quote, not to criticize the authors for the mistake. You might be able to phrase the footnote better than I have, to make this point more effectively.

But be sure that it really is an error. The phrasing "Nonpolynomial approaches, like dispatching, may not work well" is ambiguous and could mean any of the following things:


"Nonpolynomial approaches, such as dispatching, may not work well."  (That is, nonpolynomial approaches may not work well; dispatching is an example of a nonpolynomial approach. This is the interpretation that you've used.)
"Nonpolynomial approaches that resemble dispatching may not work well" (That is, among the nonpolynomial approaches, those that resemble dispatching may not work well; other nonpoly approaches might be fine.)
"Nonpolynomial approaches, which resemble dispatching, may not work well." (That is, nonpoly approaches resemble dispatching; nonpoly approaches may not work well.)
"Like dispatching, nonpolynomial approaches may not work well." (That is, dispatching may not work well. Nonpoly approaches have the following commonality with dispatching: they also may not work well."


Also, as dan1111 points out in his answer, you need to be sure that your correction (changing "nonpolynomial" to "polynomial") fixes the error.