From 504b194db22f8d945c85a6c9b319156d04a34c8f Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Jonathan Prieto-Cubides <jonathan.cubides@uib.no>
Date: Fri, 6 Jul 2018 00:43:04 +0200
Subject: [PATCH] Fix break verbatim

---
 src/plfa/Induction.lagda | 7 ++++---
 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)

diff --git a/src/plfa/Induction.lagda b/src/plfa/Induction.lagda
index c450df23..91389c36 100644
--- a/src/plfa/Induction.lagda
+++ b/src/plfa/Induction.lagda
@@ -497,9 +497,10 @@ time we are concerned with judgements asserting associativity.
 Now, we apply the rules to all the judgements we know about.  The base
 case tells us that `(zero + n) + p ≡ zero + (n + p)` for every natural
 `n` and `p`.  The inductive case tells us that if `(m + n) + p ≡ m +
-(n + p)` (on the day before today) then `(suc m + n) + p ≡ suc m + (n
-+ p)` (today).  We didn't know any judgments about associativity
-before today, so that rule doesn't give us any new judgments.
+(n + p)` (on the day before today) then
+`(suc m + n) + p ≡ suc m + (n + p)` (today).
+We didn't know any judgments about associativity before today, so that
+rule doesn't give us any new judgments.
 
     -- on the first day, we know about associativity of 0
     (0 + 0) + 0 ≡ 0 + (0 + 0)   ...   (0 + 4) + 5 ≡ 0 + (4 + 5)   ...