X-Git-Url: http://lambda.jimpryor.net/git/gitweb.cgi?p=lambda.git;a=blobdiff_plain;f=week1.mdwn;h=815cdf342a3c772e3934d5e43085ace47ef03505;hp=1bc2309e1e9c79eea7118b9f6e72045a90b3317d;hb=96f5212fd701d7120b0ed5da19bc14830c17b1bc;hpb=46354da45e90d803a324be20b6613a8700349a1c

diff --git a/week1.mdwn b/week1.mdwn
index 1bc2309e..815cdf34 100644
--- a/week1.mdwn
+++ b/week1.mdwn
@@ -74,7 +74,7 @@ The lambda calculus has an associated proof theory. For now, we can regard the
 proof theory as having just one rule, called the rule of **beta-reduction** or
 "beta-contraction". Suppose you have some expression of the form:
 
-	((\ a M) N)
+	((\a M) N)
 
 that is, an application of an abstract to some other expression. This compound form is called a **redex**, meaning it's a "beta-reducible expression." `(\a M)` is called the **head** of the redex; `N` is called the **argument**, and `M` is called the **body**.
 
@@ -286,7 +286,6 @@ It's possible to enhance the lambda calculus so that functions do get identified
 It's often said that dynamic systems are distinguished because they are the ones in which **order matters**. However, there are many ways in which order can matter. If we have a trivalent boolean system, for example---easily had in a purely functional calculus---we might choose to give a truth-table like this for "and":
 
 	true and true   = true
-	true and true   = true
 	true and *      = *
 	true and false  = false
 	* and true      = *
@@ -539,7 +538,7 @@ Here's how it looks to say the same thing in various of these languages.
 
 		(let* [(bar (lambda (x) B))] M)
 
-	then wherever `bar` occurs in `M` (and isn't rebound by a more local "let" or "lambda"), it will be interpreted as the function `(lambda (x) B)`.
+	then wherever `bar` occurs in `M` (and isn't rebound by a more local `let` or `lambda`), it will be interpreted as the function `(lambda (x) B)`.
 
 	Similarly, in OCaml:
 
@@ -599,7 +598,7 @@ Here's how it looks to say the same thing in various of these languages.
 		let x = A;;
 		... rest of the file or interactive session ...
 
-	It's easy to be lulled into thinking this is a kind of imperative construction. *But it's not!* It's really just a shorthand for the compound "let"-expressions we've already been looking at, taking the maximum syntactically permissible scope. (Compare the "dot" convention in the lambda calculus, discussed above.)
+	It's easy to be lulled into thinking this is a kind of imperative construction. *But it's not!* It's really just a shorthand for the compound `let`-expressions we've already been looking at, taking the maximum syntactically permissible scope. (Compare the "dot" convention in the lambda calculus, discussed above.)
 
 9.	Some shorthand
 
@@ -749,7 +748,7 @@ Or even:
 	(define foo B)
 	(foo 2)
 
-don't involve any changes or sequencing in the sense we're trying to identify. As we said, these programs are just syntactic variants of (single) compound syntactic structures involving "let"s and "lambda"s.
+don't involve any changes or sequencing in the sense we're trying to identify. As we said, these programs are just syntactic variants of (single) compound syntactic structures involving `let`s and `lambda`s.
 
 Since Scheme and OCaml also do permit imperatival constructions, they do have syntax for genuine sequencing. In Scheme it looks like this:
 
@@ -790,18 +789,3 @@ We'll discuss this more as the seminar proceeds.
 
 
 
-1.	Declarative vs imperatival models of computation.
-2.	Variety of ways in which "order can matter."
-3.	Variety of meanings for "dynamic."
-4.	Schoenfinkel, Curry, Church: a brief history
-5.	Functions as "first-class values"
-6.	"Curried" functions
-
-1.	Beta reduction
-1.	Encoding pairs (and triples and ...)
-1.	Encoding booleans
-
-
-
-
-