typos reported by W24 PHIL679 students

content/counterfactuals/minimal-change-semantics/antecedent-strengthening.tex

@@ -19,7 +19,7 @@
 light this match in outer space, it would light. So the following
 inference is invalid:
 \begin{quote}
-  I the match were struck, it would light.
+  If the match were struck, it would light.
 
   Therefore, if the match were struck in outer space, it would light.
 \end{quote}

content/intuitionistic-logic/introduction/natural-deduction.tex

@@ -246,7 +246,7 @@ \subsection{Examples of \usetoken{P}{derivation}}
 \end{proof}
 
 \begin{prob}
-  Give !!{derivation}s in intuitionistic logic of the following !!{formulas}:
+  Give !!{derivation}s in intuitionistic logic of the following !!{formula}s:
   \begin{enumerate}
     \item $(\lnot !A \lor !B) \lif (!A \lif !B)$
     \item $\lnot\lnot\lnot !A \lif \lnot !A$

content/normal-modal-logic/filtrations/examples-of-filtrations.tex

@@ -139,7 +139,7 @@
   i.e., $\{p, \Box p, \Box p \lif p\}$. $p$ is true at all and only
   the even numbers, $\Box p$ is true at all and only the odd numbers,
   so $\Box p \lif p$ is true at all and only the even numbers. In
-  other words, every odd number makes $\Box p$ true and $p$ and $\Box
+  other words, every odd number makes $\Box p$ true but $p$ and $\Box
   p \lif p$ false; every even number makes $p$ and $\Box p \lif p$
   true, but $\Box p$ false. So $W^* = \{ [1], [2] \}$, where $[1] =
   \{1, 3, 5, \dots\}$ and $[2] = \{2, 4, 6, \dots\}$. Since $2 \in

content/normal-modal-logic/filtrations/introduction.tex

@@ -45,7 +45,7 @@
 stop looking. If the !!{formula} has a finite countermodel, our procedure will
 find it. But if it has no finite countermodel, we won't get an
 answer. The !!{formula} may be valid (no countermodels at all), or it
-have only an infinite countermodel, which we'll never look at. This
+may have only an infinite countermodel, which we'll never look at. This
 problem can be overcome if we can show that every !!{formula} that has
 a countermodel has a finite countermodel. If this is the case we say
 the logic has the \emph{finite model property}.
@@ -70,11 +70,12 @@
 finite structures is that of ``identifying'' !!{element}s of the
 structure which behave the same way in relevant respects. If there are
 infinitely many worlds in~$\mModel{M}$ that behave the same in
-relevant respects, then we might hope that there are only finitely
-many ``classes'' of such worlds. In other words, we partition the set
-of worlds in the right way. Each partition contains infinitely many
-worlds, but there are only finitely many partitions. Then we define a
-new model~$\mModel{M^*}$ where the worlds are the partitions. Finitely
+relevant respects, then we may be able to collect \emph{all} worlds in
+finitely many (possibly infinite) ``classes'' of such worlds. In other
+words, we should partition the set of worlds in the right way, i.e.,
+in such a way that each partition contains infinitely many worlds, but
+there are only finitely many partitions. Then we define a new
+model~$\mModel{M^*}$ where the worlds are the partitions. Finitely
 many partitions in the old model give us finitely many worlds in the
 new model, i.e., a finite model. Let's call the partition a world~$w$
 is in $[w]$. We'll want it to be the case that $\mSat{M}{!A}[w]$ iff

content/normal-modal-logic/syntax-and-semantics/schemas.tex

@@ -48,7 +48,7 @@
   We need to show that all instances of the schema are true at every
   world in every model. So let $\mModel{M} = \tuple{W,R,V}$ and $w \in
   W$ be arbitrary. To show that a conditional is true at a world we
-  assume the antecedent is true to show that consequent is true as
+  assume the antecedent is true to show that the consequent is true as
   well. In this case, let $\mSat{M}{\Box(!A \lif !B)}[w]$ and
   $\mSat{M}{\Box !A}[w]$. We need to show $\mSat{M}{\Box !B}[w]$. So let
   $w'$ be arbitrary such that $Rww'$. Then by the first assumption