# HG changeset patch
# User blanchet
# Date 1288083617 -7200
# Node ID d170c322157ad96d524e51ac020005c3f8abd77f
# Parent  f2a14b6effcf8961b0c5479206c0a891e3db3d3e
improved English

diff -r f2a14b6effcf -r d170c322157a doc-src/Nitpick/nitpick.tex
--- a/doc-src/Nitpick/nitpick.tex	Tue Oct 26 10:59:28 2010 +0200
+++ b/doc-src/Nitpick/nitpick.tex	Tue Oct 26 11:00:17 2010 +0200
@@ -1751,7 +1751,7 @@
 {\slshape Nitpick ran out of time after checking 9 of 10 scopes.}
 \postw
 
-Furthermore, applying \textit{skew} or \textit{split} to a well-formed tree
+Furthermore, applying \textit{skew} or \textit{split} on a well-formed tree
 should not alter the tree:
 
 \prew
@@ -1802,10 +1802,10 @@
 \postw
 
 Nitpick's output reveals that the element $0$ was added as a left child of $1$,
-where both have a level of 1. This violates the second AA tree invariant, which
-states that a left child's level must be less than its parent's. This shouldn't
-come as a surprise, considering that we commented out the tree rebalancing code.
-Reintroducing the code seems to solve the problem:
+where both nodes have a level of 1. This violates the second AA tree invariant,
+which states that a left child's level must be less than its parent's. This
+shouldn't come as a surprise, considering that we commented out the tree
+rebalancing code. Reintroducing the code seems to solve the problem:
 
 \prew
 \textbf{theorem}~\textit{wf\_insort\/}:\kern.4em ``$\textit{wf}~t\,\Longrightarrow\, \textit{wf}~(\textit{insort}~t~x)$'' \\