use 'and' not '&' for conjunction

diff --git a/topics/week1_order.mdwn b/topics/week1_order.mdwn
index 2a54503..f86ffd0 100644 (file)
--- a/topics/week1_order.mdwn
+++ b/topics/week1_order.mdwn
@@ -114,8 +114,8 @@ of the order of the premises.  Here is the meaning of one of the
 logical connectives of classical logic, expressed in the form of a
 standard truth table:
 
-    A   B   A&B
-    -----------
+    A   B  A and B
+    --------------
     T   T    T
     T   F    F
     F   T    F
@@ -144,8 +144,8 @@ to make.
 Given that a partial-function approach to presupposition failure is
 coherent, let's consider one way to extend classical conjunction:
 
-       p   q   p&q
-    --------------
+       p   q  p and q
+    -----------------
     a. T   T    T
     b. T   F    F
     c. F   T    F
@@ -170,7 +170,7 @@ course the conjunction as a whole will be undefined.
 So far, so good.  Nothing so far undermines the static view.  But now
 consider the two remaining possibilities, one by one, starting with
 line (h).  Here is a concrete sentence fitting the pattern addressed
-by line (h), `F&#`:
+by line (h), `F and #`:
 
     6. The sun is green and the King of France is bald.
 
@@ -202,8 +202,8 @@ conjunction as a whole, let the value of the left conjunct control the
 outcome.
 
 To be sure, it would also be coherent to choose a fully symmetric
-truth table by replacing line (h) with one that maps `F&#` to `#`, or
-by replacing line (i) with one that maps `#&F` to `F`.  With respect
+truth table by replacing line (h) with one that maps `F and #` to `#`, or
+by replacing line (i) with one that maps `# and F` to `F`.  With respect
 to natural language, of course, which truth table is a better match
 for a given natural language is an empirical question, and not one
 that can be settled by logical argument.  If native speakers behave as