From 3b85d113f01db2ee25a119a54919c6a1b34c038b Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Douglas Rumbaugh <dbr4@psu.edu>
Date: Mon, 23 Jun 2025 16:58:05 -0400
Subject: update

---
 chapters/dynamization.tex | 4 ++--
 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)

(limited to 'chapters/dynamization.tex')

diff --git a/chapters/dynamization.tex b/chapters/dynamization.tex
index c48a781..12b3a2b 100644
--- a/chapters/dynamization.tex
+++ b/chapters/dynamization.tex
@@ -405,7 +405,7 @@ large part of the reason why $C(n)$-decomposability is not particularly
 desirable compared to standard decomposability, where $C(n) \in \Theta(1)$
 and thus falls out of the cost function.
 
-\section{Decomposition Methods}
+\section{Decomposition-based Dynamization for Half-dynamic Structures}
 
 The previous discussion reveals the basic tension that exists
 within decomposition based techniques: larger block sizes result
@@ -709,7 +709,7 @@ time. Additionally, if $B(n) \in \Omega(n^{1 + \epsilon})$ for $\epsilon
 > 0$, then the bottom level dominates the reconstruction cost, and the
 worst-case bound drops to $I(n) \in \Theta(\frac{B(n)}{n})$.
  
-\section{Delete Support}
+\section{Decomposition-based Dynamization for Full-dynamic Structures}
 \label{ssec:dyn-deletes}
 
 Classical dynamization techniques have also been developed with
-- 
cgit v1.2.3

