I've updated the pull request.

On 12/6/22 9:11 PM, John Cowan wrote:
>
> Thanks!
>
> On Tue, Dec 6, 2022 at 1:25 PM Bradley Lucier <xxxxxx@purdue.edu
> <mailto:xxxxxx@purdue.edu>> wrote:
>
>     On 12/5/22 12:50 AM, John Cowan wrote:
>      >
>      > Someone should cross-check division.txt against the SRFI text.
>     to make
>      > sure there are no other such accidental discrepancies.  Special
>     scrutiny
>      > should be given to the "balanced" procedures, which are not
>     present in
>      > division.txt, but correspond to the R6RS div0, mod0, and
>     div-and-mod0
>      > procedures.
>
>     I'm not a great proofreader, but I compared the SRFI document to
>     Taylor's original.
>
>     Typos:
>
>     1.  First paragraph of specification, change
>
>     "Each division operator pair is specified by defining the quotient q in
>     terms of the numerator a and the denominator n."
>
>     to
>
>     "Each division operator pair is specified by defining the quotient q in
>     terms of the numerator n and the denominator d."
>
>     2.  In discussion of ceiling/, etc., change <numerator> to italic
>     "numerator".
>
>     3.  In discussion of truncate/, etc., the sentence
>
>        However, by any non-unit denominator, the quotient of +1, 0, or
>     -1 is
>     0; that is, three contiguous numerators by a common denominator share a
>     common quotient.
>
>     is clumsy at best, confusing at worst.  Perhaps
>
>     With the truncate operator pair, the quotient of +1, 0, or -1 by any
>     non-unit denominator is 0; that is, three contiguous numerators divided
>     by a common denominator share a common quotient.
>
>     That's all I got.
>
>     Brad
>