X-Git-Url: http://lambda.jimpryor.net/git/gitweb.cgi?p=lambda.git;a=blobdiff_plain;f=week1.mdwn;h=b4d584d4f7db1676ab42891b9e32f3d5980599f6;hp=e8154e3cdcf1fbe6c21828c266662113bc7f9971;hb=1a4c40836dc37109b086d47ee9fb27c2f9726e6b;hpb=1f97960ab1bdd7a1328fe64714e8b36b38bd7a1e

diff --git a/week1.mdwn b/week1.mdwn
index e8154e3c..b4d584d4 100644
--- a/week1.mdwn
+++ b/week1.mdwn
@@ -57,7 +57,7 @@ We'll tend to write <code>(&lambda;a M)</code> as just `(\a M)`, so we don't hav
 <strong>Application</strong>: <code>(M N)</code>
 </blockquote>
 
-Some authors reserve the term "term" for just variables and abstracts. We won't participate in that convention; we'll probably just say "term" and "expression" indiscriminately for expressions of any of these three forms.
+Some authors reserve the term "term" for just variables and abstracts. We'll probably just say "term" and "expression" indiscriminately for expressions of any of these three forms.
 
 Examples of expressions:
 
@@ -70,9 +70,11 @@ Examples of expressions:
 	(x (\x x))
 	((\x (x x)) (\x (x x)))
 
-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:
+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**.
 
@@ -601,7 +603,6 @@ Here's how it looks to say the same thing in various of these languages.
 
 	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
 
 	OCaml permits you to abbreviate:
@@ -672,9 +673,11 @@ Here's how it looks to say the same thing in various of these languages.
 
 	and there's no more mutation going on there than there is in:
 
+	<!--
 	<pre>
 	<code>&forall;x. (F x or &forall;x (not (F x)))</code>
 	</pre>
+	-->
 
 	When a previously-bound variable is rebound in the way we see here, that's called **shadowing**: the outer binding is shadowed during the scope of the inner binding.