Fixed typo

Author: ducky427

Chapter2_MorePyMC/MorePyMC.ipynb

@@ -833,7 +833,7 @@
       "\n",
       "We will use the binomial distribution to determine the frequency of students cheating during an exam. If we let $N$ be the total number of students who took the exam, and assuming each student is interviewed post-exam (answering without consequence), we will receive integer $X$ \"Yes I did cheat\" answers. We then find the posterior distribution of $p$, given $N$, some specified prior on $p$, and observed data $X$. \n",
       "\n",
-      "This is a completely absurd model. No student, even with a free-pass against punishment, would admit to cheating. What we need is a better *algorithm* to ask students if they had cheated. Ideally the algorithm should encourage individuals to be honest while preserving privacy. The following proposed algorithm is a solution I greatly admire for its enginuity and effectivness:\n",
+      "This is a completely absurd model. No student, even with a free-pass against punishment, would admit to cheating. What we need is a better *algorithm* to ask students if they had cheated. Ideally the algorithm should encourage individuals to be honest while preserving privacy. The following proposed algorithm is a solution I greatly admire for its ingenuity and effectiveness:\n",
       "\n",
       "> In the interview process for each student, the student flips a coin, hidden from the interviewer. The student agrees to answer honestly if the coin comes up heads. Otherwise, if the coin comes up tails, the student (secretly) flips the coin again, and answers \"Yes, I did cheat\" if the coin flip lands heads, and \"No, I did not cheat\", if the coin flip lands tails. This way, the interviewer does not know if a \"Yes\" was the result of a guilty plea, or a Heads on a second coin toss. Thus privacy is preserved and the researchers receive honest answers. \n",
       "\n",
@@ -2204,4 +2204,4 @@
    "metadata": {}
   }
  ]
-}
+}