-* Where Groenendijk and Stockhof and Veltman (GSV) say "peg", that translates in our terminology into a new "reference cell" or "location" in a store.
-* Where they represent pegs as natural numbers, that corresponds to our representing locations in a store by their indexes in the store.
+* Where Groenendijk, Stockhof and Veltman (GS&V) say "peg", that translates in our terminology into a new "reference cell" or "location" in a store.
-* Where they work with sets of blahs, you should generally think in terms of functions from blahs to bools.
+* Where they represent pegs as natural numbers, that corresponds to our representing locations in a store by their indexes in the store.
-* Where they say "reference system," which they use the leter `r` for, that corresponds to what we've been calling "assignments", and use the letter `g` for.
+* Where they say "reference system," which they use the leter `r` for, that corresponds to what we've been calling "assignments", and have been using the letter `g` for.
-* Where they say `r[x/n]`, that's our `g{x:=n}`.
+* Where they say `r[x/n]`, that's our `g{x:=n}`, or in OCaml, `fun v -> if v = 'x' then n else g v`.
* Their function `g`, which assigns objects from the domain to pegs, corresponds to our store function, which assigns entities to indexes.
-* What does their <code>∃x</code> correspond to in the framework we've been talking about?
+* At several places they talk about some things being *real extensions* of other things. This confused me at first, because they don't ever define a notion of "real extension." (They do define what they mean by "an extension.") At one point in the paper, it emerges that what they mean is what I'd call a *proper extension*: an extension which isn't identical to the original.
* [More hints](/hints/assignment_7_hint_2).