edits

[lambda.git] / topics / _week10_gsv.mdwn

diff --git a/topics/_week10_gsv.mdwn b/topics/_week10_gsv.mdwn
index d617594..f033612 100644 (file)
--- a/topics/_week10_gsv.mdwn
+++ b/topics/_week10_gsv.mdwn
@@ -60,7 +60,7 @@ On the epistemic side, GSV aim to account for asymmetries such as
     It might be raining.  It's not raining.
     #It's not raining.  It might be raining.
 
-## Basics
+## Two-part assignment functions
 
 There are a lot of formal details in the paper in advance of the
 empirical discussion.  Here are the ones that matter for our purposes:
@@ -328,7 +328,7 @@ that asserting *might* requires that the prejacent be undecided, you
 will have to consider an update rule for the diamond on which update
 with the prejacent and its negation must both be non-empty.
 
-## Binding
+## Order and binding
 
 The GSV fragment differs from the DPL and the DMG dynamic semantics in
 important details.  Nevertheless, it has more or less the same things
@@ -578,7 +578,7 @@ object that it can refer to.  Here is what GSV say:
     A term is an identifier per se if no mattter what the information
     state is, it cannot fail to decie what the denotation of the term is.
 
-## Why articulate the mapping from variables to objects into two parts?
+## Why have a two-part assignment function?
 
 In the current system, variables are associated with values in two
 steps.