
diff -r 4fbdc80076cb -r 412556272333 handouts/ho03.tex
--- a/handouts/ho03.tex	Thu Oct 24 14:39:29 2019 +0100
+++ b/handouts/ho03.tex	Fri Oct 25 14:55:31 2019 +0100
@@ -999,7 +999,7 @@
 the corresponding subset as \emph{the} starting state of the DFA.
 
 The accepting states in the DFA are given by all sets that contain a
-$2$, which is the only accpting state in this NFA. But again in
+$2$, which is the only accepting state in this NFA. But again in
 general if the subset contains any accepting state from the NFA, then
 the corresponding state in the DFA is accepting as well.  This
 completes the subset construction. The corresponding DFA for the NFA
@@ -1057,7 +1057,7 @@
 up in the number of states in the DFA is again bad news for how
 quickly you can decide whether a string is accepted by a DFA or
 not. So the caveat with DFAs is that they might make the task of
-finding the next state trival, but might require $2^n$ times as many
+finding the next state trivial, but might require $2^n$ times as many
 states then a NFA.\bigskip
 
 \noindent
@@ -1085,7 +1085,7 @@
 needs to produce the next state: this is the set of all NFA states
 that are reachable from each state in \texttt{qs}. The function
 \texttt{nexts} from the NFA class already calculates this for us. The
-accepting-states function for the DFA is true henevner at least one
+accepting-states function for the DFA is true whenever at least one
 state in the subset is accepting (that is true) in the NFA.\medskip
 
 \noindent
@@ -1256,7 +1256,7 @@
 
 
 By the way, we are not bothering with implementing the above
-minimisation algorith: while up to now all the transformations used
+minimisation algorithm: while up to now all the transformations used
 some clever composition of functions, the minimisation algorithm
 cannot be implemented by just composing some functions. For this we
 would require a more concrete representation of the transition




