Add sitenote about arguments vs. inputs.

[matthijs/master-project/report.git] / Chapters / Normalization.tex

diff --git a/Chapters/Normalization.tex b/Chapters/Normalization.tex
index 433871013eced36c05be270707d14eceeed84646..d564d231405a00ab7f31622ef525b15f987c2218 100644 (file)
--- a/Chapters/Normalization.tex
+++ b/Chapters/Normalization.tex
@@ -2240,11 +2240,13 @@
     developed in the final part of the research, leaving no more time
     for verifying these properties. In fact, it is likely that the
     current transformation system still violates some of these
-    properties in some cases and should be improved (or extra conditions
-    on the input hardware descriptions should be formulated).
+    properties in some cases (see
+    \in{section}[sec:normalization:non-determinism] and
+    \in{section}[sec:normalization:stateproblems]) and should be improved (or
+    extra conditions on the input hardware descriptions should be formulated).
 
     This is most likely the case with the completeness and determinism
-    properties, perhaps als the termination property. The soundness
+    properties, perhaps also the termination property. The soundness
     property probably holds, since it is easier to manually verify (each
     transformation can be reviewed separately).
 
@@ -2441,7 +2443,7 @@
       each node in the normal set is also in the intended normal set.
       Reasoning about our intended normal set is easier, since we know
       how to generate it from its definition. \refdef{intended normal
-      form definition}.
+      form definition}
 
       Fortunately, we can also prove the complement (which is
       equivalent, since $A \subseteq B \Leftrightarrow \overline{B}