Index: doc/theses/mike_brooks_MMath/list.tex
===================================================================
--- doc/theses/mike_brooks_MMath/list.tex	(revision e50b65cbd987ee55216acc085c9ea31dd7c924b6)
+++ doc/theses/mike_brooks_MMath/list.tex	(revision 39ffa5e134a180ed0450785d9712d55c8f10036a)
@@ -696,5 +696,5 @@
 \item[lq-list]  The @list@ type of LQ from glibc of gcc.
 \item[lq-tailq] The @tailq@ type of the same.
-\item[upp-upp]  \uC provided @uSequence@
+\item[upp-upp]  \uCpp provided @uSequence@
 \item[cfa-cfa]  \CFA's @dlist@
 \end{description}
@@ -854,6 +854,6 @@
 For this experiment, the results flipped in my favour when running on the server.
 New CPU architectures are now amazingly good at branch prediction and micro-parallelism in the pipelines.
-Specifically, on the PC, my \CFA and companion \uC lists are slower than lq-tail and lq-list by 10\% to 20\%.
-On the server, \CFA and \uC lists are can be fast by up to 100\%.
+Specifically, on the PC, my \CFA and companion \uCpp lists are slower than lq-tail and lq-list by 10\% to 20\%.
+On the server, \CFA and \uCpp lists are can be fast by up to 100\%.
 Overall, LQ-tailq does the best at short lengths but loses out above a dozen elements.