expand Mappable Laws

[lambda.git] / topics / week3_what_is_computation.mdwn

diff --git a/topics/week3_what_is_computation.mdwn b/topics/week3_what_is_computation.mdwn
index b5c9d5b..48d231d 100644 (file)
--- a/topics/week3_what_is_computation.mdwn
+++ b/topics/week3_what_is_computation.mdwn
@@ -135,7 +135,7 @@ pathological examples where the results do not align so well:
     (\x. x x) (\x. x x) ~~> (\x. x x) (\x. x x) ~~> (\x. x x) (\x. x x) ~~> ...
 
 In this example, reduction returns the exact same lambda term.  There
-is no simplification at all. (As we mentioned in class, the term `(\x. x x)` is often referred to in these discussions as (little) <b>&omega;</b>, or sometimes **M**; and its self-application <code>&omega; &omega;</code>, displayed above, is called (big) <b>&Omega;</b>.)
+is no simplification at all. (As we mentioned in class, the term `(\x. x x)` is often referred to in these discussions as (little) <b>&omega;</b> or "omega", or sometimes **M**; and its self-application <code>&omega; &omega;</code>, displayed above, is called (big) <b>&Omega;</b> or "Omega".)
 
 Even worse, consider this term: