
diff -r d847565d489a -r 83c1ec0aac1f text/appendixes/comparing_defs.tex
--- a/text/appendixes/comparing_defs.tex	Sun Mar 20 06:26:04 2011 -0700
+++ b/text/appendixes/comparing_defs.tex	Wed Mar 23 15:19:37 2011 -0700
@@ -118,12 +118,12 @@
 Each approach has advantages and disadvantages.
 For better or worse, we choose bigons here.
 
-Define the $k$-morphisms $C^k$ of $C$ to be $\cC(B^k)_E$, where $B^k$ denotes the standard
+Define the $k$-morphisms $C^k$ of $C$ to be $\cC(B^k) \trans E$, where $B^k$ denotes the standard
 $k$-ball, which we also think of as the standard bihedron (a.k.a.\ globe).
 (For $k=1$ this is an interval, and for $k=2$ it is a bigon.)
 Since we are thinking of $B^k$ as a bihedron, we have a standard decomposition of the $\bd B^k$
 into two copies of $B^{k-1}$ which intersect along the ``equator" $E \cong S^{k-2}$.
-Recall that the subscript in $\cC(B^k)_E$ means that we consider the subset of $\cC(B^k)$
+Recall that the subscript in $\cC(B^k) \trans E$ means that we consider the subset of $\cC(B^k)$
 whose boundary is splittable along $E$.
 This allows us to define the domain and range of morphisms of $C$ using
 boundary and restriction maps of $\cC$.




