minor

draft/draft.tex

@@ -2186,7 +2186,7 @@ $\sigma$ is defined as below:
 \end{gather*}
 $R$ is symmetric, and $\sigma$ is a witness for $R$ to be an AM-simulation, but $R$ is not a bisimulation in the traditional sense because $(2,1)\in R$, and $2\to 3$, but $(3,1)$ or $(3,2)$ are not in $R$. It is easy to see that it is not an AM-bisimulation as well because we can not define a function that can serve as an evidence for it as $3$ does not appear in any pair in $R$, while it exists in $\alpha(2)$.
 
-This counter-example also works as a counter-example for Hughes-Jacobs definition of simulation. Actually, $\appr;(FR)^\dagger;\appr=\powf X\times \powf X$, so $R\subseteq \appr;(FR)^\dagger;\appr$ that means that $R$ is a simulation. Worth noting that they claim that their setting works for an arbitrary category. So, unlike their definition, in the context of the relator-based definitions that only work in $\Set$, this counter-example does not live.
+This counter-example also works as a counter-example for Hughes-Jacobs definition of simulation. Actually, $\appr\comp(FR)^\dagger\comp\appr=\powf X\times \powf X$, so $R\subseteq( \appr\comp(FR)^\dagger\comp\appr)$ that means that $R$ is a simulation. Worth noting that they claim that their setting works for an arbitrary category. So, unlike their definition, in the context of the relator-based definitions that only work in $\Set$, this counter-example does not live.
 
 The mentioned ordering is not liftable. Assuming $h\in\Hom(\nats,\powfi \nats)$, $g\c \nats\to \nats$, and $k\in\Hom(\nats,\powfi \nats)$, and they are defined for every $n$ in $\nats$ as $h(n)=\{2\times n\}$, $g(n)=3\times n$, and $k(n)=\{n\}$, then $|h(n)|=|\powfi g(k(n))|=1$ that means $h\appr\powfi g\comp k$ is satisfied, but there is no $k'$ that $h=\powfi g\comp k$ because we can never have $h(1)=\powfi g\comp k'(1)$, as assuming $k'(1)=\{n\}$, and $n$ must be a natural number, then we should have $2=3\times n$ that is impossible.
 \end{example}