diff src/Match.v @ 465:4320c1a967c2

Spell check
author Adam Chlipala <adam@chlipala.net>
date Wed, 29 Aug 2012 18:26:26 -0400
parents 38549f152568
children 1fd4109f7b31
line wrap: on
line diff
--- a/src/Match.v	Wed Aug 29 17:17:17 2012 -0400
+++ b/src/Match.v	Wed Aug 29 18:26:26 2012 -0400
@@ -673,7 +673,7 @@
   imp.
 Qed.
 
-(** We will also want a "base case" lemma for finishing proofs where cancelation has removed every constituent of the conclusion. *)
+(** We will also want a "base case" lemma for finishing proofs where cancellation has removed every constituent of the conclusion. *)
 
 Theorem imp_True : forall P,
   P --> True.
@@ -751,7 +751,7 @@
 
 (** A final useful ingredient in tactic crafting is the ability to allocate new unification variables explicitly.  Tactics like [eauto] introduce unification variables internally to support flexible proof search.  While [eauto] and its relatives do _backward_ reasoning, we often want to do similar _forward_ reasoning, where unification variables can be useful for similar reasons.
 
-   For example, we can write a tactic that instantiates the quantifiers of a universally quantified hypothesis.  The tactic should not need to know what the appropriate instantiantiations are; rather, we want these choices filled with placeholders.  We hope that, when we apply the specialized hypothesis later, syntactic unification will determine concrete values.
+   For example, we can write a tactic that instantiates the quantifiers of a universally quantified hypothesis.  The tactic should not need to know what the appropriate instantiations are; rather, we want these choices filled with placeholders.  We hope that, when we apply the specialized hypothesis later, syntactic unification will determine concrete values.
 
    Before we are ready to write a tactic, we can try out its ingredients one at a time. *)