# HG changeset patch
# User nipkow
# Date 1213278565 -7200
# Node ID 8236f13be95b42fd2b04421178be84b2517e8b74
# Parent  6477705ae3ade16781e4c06aa2626dd261281432
correction

diff -r 6477705ae3ad -r 8236f13be95b doc-src/TutorialI/Inductive/Star.thy
--- a/doc-src/TutorialI/Inductive/Star.thy	Thu Jun 12 14:46:15 2008 +0200
+++ b/doc-src/TutorialI/Inductive/Star.thy	Thu Jun 12 15:49:25 2008 +0200
@@ -84,7 +84,7 @@
 depend on its second parameter at all. The reason is that in our original
 goal, of the pair @{term"(x,y)"} only @{term x} appears also in the
 conclusion, but not @{term y}. Thus our induction statement is too
-weak. Fortunately, it can easily be strengthened:
+general. Fortunately, it can easily be specialized:
 transfer the additional premise @{prop"(y,z):r*"} into the conclusion:*}
 (*<*)oops(*>*)
 lemma rtc_trans[rule_format]: