fix misspelling above definition 2.1

This commit is contained in:
Sean Pollock 2017-11-12 16:19:32 -06:00
parent 5c84d06a59
commit 868ad9b180
2 changed files with 11 additions and 11 deletions

Binary file not shown.

View File

@ -130,7 +130,7 @@ The definition of ``protocol messages'' is parametric in a set of ``validator na
Protocol messages have three parts. An ``estimate'' (a $0$ or a $1$), a ``sender'' (a validator name), and a ``justification''. The justification is itself a set of protocol messages. Validators use these protocol messages to update each other on their current estimates. Further, the estimate values are not arbitrary because a protocol message is ``valid'' only if the ``estimate'' is the result of applying the estimator on the message's ``justification''. Protocol messages have three parts. An ``estimate'' (a $0$ or a $1$), a ``sender'' (a validator name), and a ``justification''. The justification is itself a set of protocol messages. Validators use these protocol messages to update each other on their current estimates. Further, the estimate values are not arbitrary because a protocol message is ``valid'' only if the ``estimate'' is the result of applying the estimator on the message's ``justification''.
The definitions of the estimator and of validity appear later. For now, we denote the set of all possible protocol messages in the binary consensus pwill rotocol as $\mathcal{M}$, and define it as follows: The definitions of the estimator and of validity appear later. For now, we denote the set of all possible protocol messages in the binary consensus protocol as $\mathcal{M}$, and define it as follows:
\begin{defn}[Protocol Messages, $\mathcal{M}$] \begin{defn}[Protocol Messages, $\mathcal{M}$]
\begin{equation*} \begin{equation*}