em dash; sentence case

quarto/ODEs/euler.qmd

@@ -184,7 +184,7 @@ plot(exp(-1/2)*exp(x^2/2), x0, 2)
 plot!(xs, ys)
 ```
 
-Not bad. We wouldn't expect this to be exact - due to the concavity of the solution, each step is an underestimate. However, we see it is an okay approximation and would likely be better with a smaller $h$. A topic we pursue in just a bit.
+Not bad. We wouldn't expect this to be exact---due to the concavity of the solution, each step is an underestimate. However, we see it is an okay approximation and would likely be better with a smaller $h$. A topic we pursue in just a bit.
 
 
 Rather than type in the above command each time, we wrap it all up in a function.  The inputs are $n$, $a=x_0$, $b=x_n$, $y_0$, and, most importantly, $F$. The output is massaged into a function through a call to `linterp`, rather than two vectors. The `linterp` function[^Interpolations] we define below just finds a function that linearly interpolates between the points and is `NaN` outside of the range of the $x$ values:
@@ -263,7 +263,7 @@ Each step introduces an error. The error in one step is known as the *local trun
 The total error, or more commonly, *global truncation error*, is the error between the actual answer and the approximate answer at the end of the process. It reflects an accumulation of these local errors. This error is *bounded* by a constant times $h$. Since it gets smaller as $h$ gets smaller in direct proportion, the Euler method is called *first order*.
 
 
-Other, somewhat more complicated, methods have global truncation errors that involve higher powers of $h$ - that is for the same size $h$, the error is smaller. In analogy is the fact that Riemann sums have error that depends on $h$, whereas other methods of approximating the integral have smaller errors. For example, Simpson's rule had error related to $h^4$. So, the Euler method may not be employed if there is concern about total resources (time, computer, ...), it is important for theoretical purposes in a manner similar to the role of the Riemann integral.
+Other, somewhat more complicated, methods have global truncation errors that involve higher powers of $h$---that is for the same size $h$, the error is smaller. In analogy is the fact that Riemann sums have error that depends on $h$, whereas other methods of approximating the integral have smaller errors. For example, Simpson's rule had error related to $h^4$. So, the Euler method may not be employed if there is concern about total resources (time, computer, ...), it is important for theoretical purposes in a manner similar to the role of the Riemann integral.
 
 
 In the examples, we will see that for many problems the simple Euler method is satisfactory, but not always so. The task of numerically solving differential equations is not a one-size-fits-all one. In the following, a few different modifications are presented to the basic Euler method, but this just scratches the surface of the topic.
@@ -648,7 +648,7 @@ plot(euler2(x0, xn, y0, yp0, 360), 0, 4T)
 plot!(x -> pi/4*cos(sqrt(g/l)*x), 0, 4T)
 ```
 
-Even now, we still see that something seems amiss, though the issue is not as dramatic as before. The oscillatory nature of the pendulum is seen, but in the Euler solution, the amplitude grows, which would necessarily mean energy is being put into the system.  A familiar instance of a pendulum would be a child on a swing. Without pumping the legs - putting energy in the system - the height of the swing's arc will not grow.  Though we now have oscillatory motion, this growth indicates the solution is still not quite right. The issue is likely due to each step mildly overcorrecting and resulting in an overall growth.  One of the questions pursues this a bit further.
+Even now, we still see that something seems amiss, though the issue is not as dramatic as before. The oscillatory nature of the pendulum is seen, but in the Euler solution, the amplitude grows, which would necessarily mean energy is being put into the system.  A familiar instance of a pendulum would be a child on a swing. Without pumping the legs---putting energy in the system---the height of the swing's arc will not grow.  Though we now have oscillatory motion, this growth indicates the solution is still not quite right. The issue is likely due to each step mildly overcorrecting and resulting in an overall growth.  One of the questions pursues this a bit further.
 
 
 ## Questions
@@ -794,7 +794,7 @@ Modify the `euler2` function to implement the Euler-Cromer method. What do you s
 #| hold: true
 #| echo: false
 choices = [
-"The same as before - the amplitude grows",
+"The same as before---the amplitude grows",
 "The solution is identical to that of the approximation found by linearization of the sine term",
 "The solution has a constant amplitude, but its period is slightly *shorter* than that of the approximate solution found by linearization",
 "The solution has a constant amplitude, but its period is slightly *longer* than that of the approximate solution found by linearization"]