From c1654d14808dc13695f5ac74717e8c16e29ca225 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: smol-ninja Date: Sat, 5 Oct 2024 11:46:24 +0100 Subject: [PATCH] docs: fix latex --- PRECISION-ISSUE.md | 6 +++--- 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) diff --git a/PRECISION-ISSUE.md b/PRECISION-ISSUE.md index e8c450ff..4567c5c6 100644 --- a/PRECISION-ISSUE.md +++ b/PRECISION-ISSUE.md @@ -197,7 +197,7 @@ def find_unlock_timestamp(rps, elt): ``` For `rps = 0.000000011574e18` and `elt = 300`, it returns three subsequent -timestamps $\{st + 87, st + 173, st + 260\}$ at which tokens are unlocked, where $st$ is the timestamp when last +timestamps $(st + 87), (st + 173), (st + 260)$ at which tokens are unlocked, where $st$ is the timestamp when last snapshot was taken. ### Understanding delay with a concrete example @@ -215,8 +215,8 @@ For [this example](#unlock-interval-results), the first set of timestamps for co $[st + 87, st + 172]$ and the second set would be $[st + 173, st + 259]$. The unlock intervals for these two sets are: ```math - ui_{solidity_1} = (st + 172 + 1) - (st + 87) = 86 \\ - ui_{solidity_2} = (st + 259 + 1) - (st + 173) = 87 +ui_{solidity_1} = (st + 172 + 1) - (st + 87) = 86 \\ +ui_{solidity_2} = (st + 259 + 1) - (st + 173) = 87 ``` #### Case 1: when $t = st + 87$