Merge pull request #1 from lf-lang/refine

Refine the tutorial materials.

Author: hokeun

01-actor-model.md

@@ -112,7 +112,7 @@ That's what we explore next.
 
 2. What would happen if TCP delivery were *not* guaranteed? How would the ACID 2.0 / CRDT properties need to change?
 
-3. Why does the CAL theorem (Consistency as Logical Monotonicity) apply here? What is the partial order?
+3. Why does the CAL theorem (Consistency vs. Availability under Latency constraints) apply here? What is the partial order? [[More Reading]](https://arxiv.org/abs/2301.08906)
 
 ---
 

02-inconsistency.md

@@ -44,7 +44,7 @@ reactor InconsistentGridManager {
 
 Here is what our system looks like:
 
-![DistributedPowerGrid2 Inonsistency](fig/DistributedPowerGrid2_Inonsistency.svg)
+![DistibutedPowerGrid2_Inconsistency](fig/DistibutedPowerGrid2_Inconsistency.svg)
 
 
 ---

sol/01-actor-model-ex-sol.md

@@ -6,7 +6,7 @@
  * Because the operation is commutative (addition), both managers will eventually agree on the same
  * balance regardless of message ordering — eventual consistency via CRDT properties.
  *
- * This is the "safe" design: no business logic that enforces limits. See Step 2 for what happens
+ * This is the "baseline" design: no business logic that enforces limits. See Step 2 for what happens
  * when we add real-world constraints.
  */
 target C {