diff --git a/chapter08.tex b/chapter08.tex
index f2ce867..1a3170c 100644
--- a/chapter08.tex
+++ b/chapter08.tex
@@ -11,10 +11,10 @@ and how many times the loops are performed.
 However, sometimes a straightforward analysis
 does not give a true picture of the efficiency of the algorithm.
 
-\key{Amortized analysis} can be used for analyzing
+\key{Amortized analysis} can be used to analyze
 algorithms that contain operations whose
 time complexity varies.
-The idea is to estimate the total time used for
+The idea is to estimate the total time used to
 all such operations during the
 execution of the algorithm, instead of focusing
 on individual operations.
@@ -24,23 +24,22 @@ on individual operations.
 \index{two pointers method}
 
 In the \key{two pointers method},
-two pointers are used for
-iterating through the elements in an array.
-Both pointers can move during the algorithm,
-but each pointer can move to one direction only.
-This restriction ensures that the algorithm works efficiently.
-
-We will next discuss two problems that can be solved
+two pointers are used to
+iterate through the array values.
+Both pointers can move to one direction only,
+which ensures that the algorithm works efficiently.
+Next we discuss two problems that can be solved
 using the two pointers method.
 
 \subsubsection{Subarray sum}
 
 As the first example,
-we consider a problem where we are
-given an array of $n$ positive numbers
+consider a problem where we are
+given an array of $n$ positive integers
 and a target sum $x$,
-and we should find a subarray whose sum is $x$
+and we want to find a subarray whose sum is $x$
 or report that there is no such subarray.
+
 For example, the array
 \begin{center}
 \begin{tikzpicture}[scale=0.7]
@@ -54,16 +53,6 @@ For example, the array
 \node at (5.5,0.5) {$1$};
 \node at (6.5,0.5) {$2$};
 \node at (7.5,0.5) {$3$};
-% 
-% \footnotesize
-% \node at (0.5,1.4) {$1$};
-% \node at (1.5,1.4) {$2$};
-% \node at (2.5,1.4) {$3$};
-% \node at (3.5,1.4) {$4$};
-% \node at (4.5,1.4) {$5$};
-% \node at (5.5,1.4) {$6$};
-% \node at (6.5,1.4) {$7$};
-% \node at (7.5,1.4) {$8$};
 \end{tikzpicture}
 \end{center}
 contains a subarray whose sum is 8:
@@ -80,32 +69,21 @@ contains a subarray whose sum is 8:
 \node at (5.5,0.5) {$1$};
 \node at (6.5,0.5) {$2$};
 \node at (7.5,0.5) {$3$};
-% 
-% \footnotesize
-% \node at (0.5,1.4) {$1$};
-% \node at (1.5,1.4) {$2$};
-% \node at (2.5,1.4) {$3$};
-% \node at (3.5,1.4) {$4$};
-% \node at (4.5,1.4) {$5$};
-% \node at (5.5,1.4) {$6$};
-% \node at (6.5,1.4) {$7$};
-% \node at (7.5,1.4) {$8$};
 \end{tikzpicture}
 \end{center}
 
-It turns out that the problem can be solved in
+This problem can be solved in
 $O(n)$ time by using the two pointers method.
-The idea is to use
-left and right pointers that indicate the
-first and last element of an subarray.
+The idea is maintain pointers that point to the
+first and last value of a subarray.
 On each turn, the left pointer moves one step
-forward, and the right pointer moves forward
-as long as the subarray sum is at most $x$.
+to the right, and the right pointer moves to the right
+as long as the resulting subarray sum is at most $x$.
 If the sum becomes exactly $x$,
 a solution has been found.
 
 As an example, consider the following array
-with target sum $x=8$:
+and a target sum $x=8$:
 \begin{center}
 \begin{tikzpicture}[scale=0.7]
 \draw (0,0) grid (8,1);
@@ -118,23 +96,11 @@ with target sum $x=8$:
 \node at (5.5,0.5) {$1$};
 \node at (6.5,0.5) {$2$};
 \node at (7.5,0.5) {$3$};
-% 
-% \footnotesize
-% \node at (0.5,1.4) {$1$};
-% \node at (1.5,1.4) {$2$};
-% \node at (2.5,1.4) {$3$};
-% \node at (3.5,1.4) {$4$};
-% \node at (4.5,1.4) {$5$};
-% \node at (5.5,1.4) {$6$};
-% \node at (6.5,1.4) {$7$};
-% \node at (7.5,1.4) {$8$};
 \end{tikzpicture}
 \end{center}
 
-Initially, the subarray contains the elements
-1, 3 and 2, and the sum of the subarray is 6.
-The subarray cannot be larger, because
-the next element 5 would make the sum larger than $x$.
+The initial subarray contains the values
+1, 3 and 2 whose sum is 6:
 
 \begin{center}
 \begin{tikzpicture}[scale=0.7]
@@ -152,22 +118,12 @@ the next element 5 would make the sum larger than $x$.
 
 \draw[thick,->] (0.5,-0.7) -- (0.5,-0.1);
 \draw[thick,->] (2.5,-0.7) -- (2.5,-0.1);
-% 
-% \footnotesize
-% \node at (0.5,1.4) {$1$};
-% \node at (1.5,1.4) {$2$};
-% \node at (2.5,1.4) {$3$};
-% \node at (3.5,1.4) {$4$};
-% \node at (4.5,1.4) {$5$};
-% \node at (5.5,1.4) {$6$};
-% \node at (6.5,1.4) {$7$};
-% \node at (7.5,1.4) {$8$};
 \end{tikzpicture}
 \end{center}
 
-Then, the left pointer moves one step forward.
+Then, the left pointer moves one step to the right.
 The right pointer does not move, because otherwise
-the sum would become too large.
+the subarray sum would exceed $x$.
 
 \begin{center}
 \begin{tikzpicture}[scale=0.7]
@@ -185,24 +141,14 @@ the sum would become too large.
 
 \draw[thick,->] (1.5,-0.7) -- (1.5,-0.1);
 \draw[thick,->] (2.5,-0.7) -- (2.5,-0.1);
-% 
-% \footnotesize
-% \node at (0.5,1.4) {$1$};
-% \node at (1.5,1.4) {$2$};
-% \node at (2.5,1.4) {$3$};
-% \node at (3.5,1.4) {$4$};
-% \node at (4.5,1.4) {$5$};
-% \node at (5.5,1.4) {$6$};
-% \node at (6.5,1.4) {$7$};
-% \node at (7.5,1.4) {$8$};
 \end{tikzpicture}
 \end{center}
 
-Again, the left pointer moves one step forward,
+Again, the left pointer moves one step to the right,
 and this time the right pointer moves three
-steps forward.
-The sum is $2+5+1=8$, so we have found a subarray
-where the sum of the elements is $x$.
+steps to the right.
+The subarray sum is $2+5+1=8$, so a subarray
+whose sum is $x$ has been found.
 
 \begin{center}
 \begin{tikzpicture}[scale=0.7]
@@ -220,30 +166,20 @@ where the sum of the elements is $x$.
 
 \draw[thick,->] (2.5,-0.7) -- (2.5,-0.1);
 \draw[thick,->] (4.5,-0.7) -- (4.5,-0.1);
-% 
-% \footnotesize
-% \node at (0.5,1.4) {$1$};
-% \node at (1.5,1.4) {$2$};
-% \node at (2.5,1.4) {$3$};
-% \node at (3.5,1.4) {$4$};
-% \node at (4.5,1.4) {$5$};
-% \node at (5.5,1.4) {$6$};
-% \node at (6.5,1.4) {$7$};
-% \node at (7.5,1.4) {$8$};
 \end{tikzpicture}
 \end{center}
 
-The time complexity of the algorithm depends on
+The running time of the algorithm depends on
 the number of steps the right pointer moves.
 There is no useful upper bound how many steps the
 pointer can move on a single turn.
 However, the pointer moves \emph{a total of}
 $O(n)$ steps during the algorithm,
-because it only moves forward.
+because it only moves to the right.
 
 Since both the left and right pointer
 move $O(n)$ steps during the algorithm,
-the time complexity is $O(n)$.
+the algorithm works in $O(n)$ time.
 
 \subsubsection{2SUM problem}
 
@@ -253,24 +189,24 @@ Another problem that can be solved using
 the two pointers method is the following problem,
 also known as the \key{2SUM problem}:
 we are given an array of $n$ numbers and
-a target sum $x$, and our task is to find two numbers
-in the array such that their sum is $x$,
-or report that no such numbers exist.
+a target sum $x$, and our task is to find
+two array values such that their sum is $x$,
+or report that no such values exist.
 
 To solve the problem, we first
-sort the numbers in the array in increasing order.
+sort the array values in increasing order.
 After that, we iterate through the array using
 two pointers.
-The left pointer starts at the first element
-and moves one step forward on each turn.
-The right pointer begins at the last element
-and always moves backward until the sum of the
-elements is at most $x$.
-If the sum of the elements is exactly $x$,
+The left pointer starts at the first value
+and moves one step to the right on each turn.
+The right pointer begins at the last value
+and always moves to the left until the sum of the
+left and right value is at most $x$.
+If the sum is exactly $x$,
 a solution has been found.
 
 For example, consider the following array
-with target sum $x=12$:
+and a target sum $x=12$:
 \begin{center}
 \begin{tikzpicture}[scale=0.7]
 \draw (0,0) grid (8,1);
@@ -283,22 +219,12 @@ with target sum $x=12$:
 \node at (5.5,0.5) {$9$};
 \node at (6.5,0.5) {$9$};
 \node at (7.5,0.5) {$10$};
-% 
-% \footnotesize
-% \node at (0.5,1.4) {$1$};
-% \node at (1.5,1.4) {$2$};
-% \node at (2.5,1.4) {$3$};
-% \node at (3.5,1.4) {$4$};
-% \node at (4.5,1.4) {$5$};
-% \node at (5.5,1.4) {$6$};
-% \node at (6.5,1.4) {$7$};
-% \node at (7.5,1.4) {$8$};
 \end{tikzpicture}
 \end{center}
 
 The initial positions of the pointers
 are as follows.
-The sum of the numbers is $1+10=11$
+The sum of the values is $1+10=11$
 that is smaller than $x$.
 
 \begin{center}
@@ -318,21 +244,11 @@ that is smaller than $x$.
 
 \draw[thick,->] (0.5,-0.7) -- (0.5,-0.1);
 \draw[thick,->] (7.5,-0.7) -- (7.5,-0.1);
-% 
-% \footnotesize
-% \node at (0.5,1.4) {$1$};
-% \node at (1.5,1.4) {$2$};
-% \node at (2.5,1.4) {$3$};
-% \node at (3.5,1.4) {$4$};
-% \node at (4.5,1.4) {$5$};
-% \node at (5.5,1.4) {$6$};
-% \node at (6.5,1.4) {$7$};
-% \node at (7.5,1.4) {$8$};
 \end{tikzpicture}
 \end{center}
 
-Then the left pointer moves one step forward.
-The right pointer moves three steps backward,
+Then the left pointer moves one step to the right.
+The right pointer moves three steps to the left,
 and the sum becomes $4+7=11$.
 
 \begin{center}
@@ -352,20 +268,10 @@ and the sum becomes $4+7=11$.
 
 \draw[thick,->] (1.5,-0.7) -- (1.5,-0.1);
 \draw[thick,->] (4.5,-0.7) -- (4.5,-0.1);
-% 
-% \footnotesize
-% \node at (0.5,1.4) {$1$};
-% \node at (1.5,1.4) {$2$};
-% \node at (2.5,1.4) {$3$};
-% \node at (3.5,1.4) {$4$};
-% \node at (4.5,1.4) {$5$};
-% \node at (5.5,1.4) {$6$};
-% \node at (6.5,1.4) {$7$};
-% \node at (7.5,1.4) {$8$};
 \end{tikzpicture}
 \end{center}
 
-After this, the left pointer moves one step forward again.
+After this, the left pointer moves one step to the right again.
 The right pointer does not move, and a solution
 $5+7=12$ has been found.
 
@@ -386,39 +292,27 @@ $5+7=12$ has been found.
 
 \draw[thick,->] (2.5,-0.7) -- (2.5,-0.1);
 \draw[thick,->] (4.5,-0.7) -- (4.5,-0.1);
-% 
-% \footnotesize
-% \node at (0.5,1.4) {$1$};
-% \node at (1.5,1.4) {$2$};
-% \node at (2.5,1.4) {$3$};
-% \node at (3.5,1.4) {$4$};
-% \node at (4.5,1.4) {$5$};
-% \node at (5.5,1.4) {$6$};
-% \node at (6.5,1.4) {$7$};
-% \node at (7.5,1.4) {$8$};
 \end{tikzpicture}
 \end{center}
 
-The algorithm consists of two phases:
-First, sorting the array takes $O(n \log n)$ time.
-After this, the left pointer moves $O(n)$ steps
-forward, and the right pointer moves $O(n)$ steps
-backward. Thus, the total time complexity
-of the algorithm is $O(n \log n)$.
+The running time of the algorithm is
+$O(n \log n)$, because it first sorts
+the array in $O(n \log n)$ time,
+and then both pointers move $O(n)$ steps.
 
 Note that it is possible to solve the problem
 in another way in $O(n \log n)$ time using binary search.
 In such a solution, we iterate through the array
-and for each number, we try to find another
-number such that the sum is $x$.
+and for each array value, we try to find another
+value that yields the sum $x$.
 This can be done by performing $n$ binary searches,
-and each search takes $O(\log n)$ time.
+each of which takes $O(\log n)$ time.
 
 \index{3SUM problem}
 A more difficult problem is 
 the \key{3SUM problem} that asks to
-find \emph{three} numbers in the array
-such that their sum is $x$.
+find \emph{three} array values
+whose sum is $x$.
 Using the idea of the above algorithm,
 this problem can be solved in $O(n^2)$ time\footnote{For a long time,
 it was thought that solving
@@ -432,8 +326,8 @@ Can you see how?
 
 \index{nearest smaller elements}
 
-Amortized analysis is often used for
-estimating the number of operations
+Amortized analysis is often used to
+estimate the number of operations
 performed on a data structure.
 The operations may be distributed unevenly so
 that most operations occur during a
@@ -441,28 +335,24 @@ certain phase of the algorithm, but the total
 number of the operations is limited.
 
 As an example, consider the problem
-of finding for each element
-of an array the
-\key{nearest smaller element}, i.e.,
-the first smaller element that precedes
-the element in the array.
+of finding the \key{nearest smaller element}
+of each array element, i.e.,
+the first smaller element that precedes the element
+in the array.
 It is possible that no such element exists,
 in which case the algorithm should report this.
-It turns out that the problem can be solved
-in $O(n)$ time using an appropriate data structure.
+Next we will see how the problem can be
+efficiently solved using a stack structure.
 
-An efficient solution to the problem is to
-iterate through the array from left to right
-and maintain a chain of elements where the
-first element is the current element
-and each following element is the nearest smaller
-element of the previous element.
-If the chain only contains one element,
-the current element does not have a nearest smaller element.
-At each step, elements are removed from the chain
-until the first element is smaller
-than the current element, or the chain is empty.
-After this, the current element is added to the chain.
+We go through the array from left to right
+and maintain a stack of array elements.
+At each array position, we remove elements from the stack
+until the top element is smaller than the
+current element, or the stack is empty.
+Then, we report that the top element is
+the nearest smaller element of the current element,
+or if the stack is empty, there is no such element.
+Finally, we add the current element to the stack.
 
 As an example, consider the following array:
 \begin{center}
@@ -477,21 +367,11 @@ As an example, consider the following array:
 \node at (5.5,0.5) {$3$};
 \node at (6.5,0.5) {$4$};
 \node at (7.5,0.5) {$2$};
-% 
-% \footnotesize
-% \node at (0.5,1.4) {$1$};
-% \node at (1.5,1.4) {$2$};
-% \node at (2.5,1.4) {$3$};
-% \node at (3.5,1.4) {$4$};
-% \node at (4.5,1.4) {$5$};
-% \node at (5.5,1.4) {$6$};
-% \node at (6.5,1.4) {$7$};
-% \node at (7.5,1.4) {$8$};
 \end{tikzpicture}
 \end{center}
 
-First, the numbers 1, 3 and 4 are added to the chain,
-because each number is larger than the previous number.
+First, the elements 1, 3 and 4 are added to the stack,
+because each element is larger than the previous element.
 Thus, the nearest smaller element of 4 is 3,
 and the nearest smaller element of 3 is 1.
 \begin{center}
@@ -508,25 +388,23 @@ and the nearest smaller element of 3 is 1.
 \node at (6.5,0.5) {$4$};
 \node at (7.5,0.5) {$2$};
 
-\draw[thick,->] (2.5,-0.25) .. controls (2.25,-1.00) and (1.75,-1.00) .. (1.6,-0.25);
-\draw[thick,->] (1.4,-0.25) .. controls (1.25,-1.00) and (0.75,-1.00) .. (0.5,-0.25);
-% 
-% \footnotesize
-% \node at (0.5,1.4) {$1$};
-% \node at (1.5,1.4) {$2$};
-% \node at (2.5,1.4) {$3$};
-% \node at (3.5,1.4) {$4$};
-% \node at (4.5,1.4) {$5$};
-% \node at (5.5,1.4) {$6$};
-% \node at (6.5,1.4) {$7$};
-% \node at (7.5,1.4) {$8$};
+\draw (0.2,0.2-1.2) rectangle (0.8,0.8-1.2);
+\draw (1.2,0.2-1.2) rectangle (1.8,0.8-1.2);
+\draw (2.2,0.2-1.2) rectangle (2.8,0.8-1.2);
+
+\node at (0.5,0.5-1.2) {$1$};
+\node at (1.5,0.5-1.2) {$3$};
+\node at (2.5,0.5-1.2) {$4$};
+
+\draw[->,thick] (0.8,0.5-1.2) -- (1.2,0.5-1.2);
+\draw[->,thick] (1.8,0.5-1.2) -- (2.2,0.5-1.2);
 \end{tikzpicture}
 \end{center}
 
-The next number 2 is smaller than the two first numbers in the chain.
-Thus, the numbers 4 and 3 are removed from the chain,
-and then the number 2
-is added to the chain.
+The next element 2 is smaller than the two top
+elements in the stack.
+Thus, the elements 3 and 4 are removed from the stack,
+and then the element 2 is added to the stack.
 Its nearest smaller element is 1:
 \begin{center}
 \begin{tikzpicture}[scale=0.7]
@@ -542,22 +420,18 @@ Its nearest smaller element is 1:
 \node at (6.5,0.5) {$4$};
 \node at (7.5,0.5) {$2$};
 
-\draw[thick,->] (3.5,-0.25) .. controls (3.00,-1.00) and (1.00,-1.00) .. (0.5,-0.25);
-% 
-% \footnotesize
-% \node at (0.5,1.4) {$1$};
-% \node at (1.5,1.4) {$2$};
-% \node at (2.5,1.4) {$3$};
-% \node at (3.5,1.4) {$4$};
-% \node at (4.5,1.4) {$5$};
-% \node at (5.5,1.4) {$6$};
-% \node at (6.5,1.4) {$7$};
-% \node at (7.5,1.4) {$8$};
+\draw (0.2,0.2-1.2) rectangle (0.8,0.8-1.2);
+\draw (3.2,0.2-1.2) rectangle (3.8,0.8-1.2);
+
+\node at (0.5,0.5-1.2) {$1$};
+\node at (3.5,0.5-1.2) {$2$};
+
+\draw[->,thick] (0.8,0.5-1.2) -- (3.2,0.5-1.2);
 \end{tikzpicture}
 \end{center}
 
-After this, the number 5 is larger than the number 2,
-so it will be added to the chain, and
+Then, the element 5 is larger than the element 2,
+so it will be added to the stack, and
 its nearest smaller element is 2:
 \begin{center}
 \begin{tikzpicture}[scale=0.7]
@@ -573,38 +447,90 @@ its nearest smaller element is 2:
 \node at (6.5,0.5) {$4$};
 \node at (7.5,0.5) {$2$};
 
-\draw[thick,->] (3.4,-0.25) .. controls (3.00,-1.00) and (1.00,-1.00) .. (0.5,-0.25);
-\draw[thick,->] (4.5,-0.25) .. controls (4.25,-1.00) and (3.75,-1.00) .. (3.6,-0.25);
-% 
-% \footnotesize
-% \node at (0.5,1.4) {$1$};
-% \node at (1.5,1.4) {$2$};
-% \node at (2.5,1.4) {$3$};
-% \node at (3.5,1.4) {$4$};
-% \node at (4.5,1.4) {$5$};
-% \node at (5.5,1.4) {$6$};
-% \node at (6.5,1.4) {$7$};
-% \node at (7.5,1.4) {$8$};
+\draw (0.2,0.2-1.2) rectangle (0.8,0.8-1.2);
+\draw (3.2,0.2-1.2) rectangle (3.8,0.8-1.2);
+\draw (4.2,0.2-1.2) rectangle (4.8,0.8-1.2);
+
+\node at (0.5,0.5-1.2) {$1$};
+\node at (3.5,0.5-1.2) {$2$};
+\node at (4.5,0.5-1.2) {$5$};
+
+\draw[->,thick] (0.8,0.5-1.2) -- (3.2,0.5-1.2);
+\draw[->,thick] (3.8,0.5-1.2) -- (4.2,0.5-1.2);
 \end{tikzpicture}
 \end{center}
 
-The algorithm continues in the same way
-and finds the nearest smaller element
-for each number in the array.
-But how efficient is the algorithm?
+After this, the element 5 is removed from the stack
+and the elements 3 and 4 are added to the stack:
+\begin{center}
+\begin{tikzpicture}[scale=0.7]
+\fill[color=lightgray] (6,0) rectangle (7,1);
+\draw (0,0) grid (8,1);
+
+\node at (0.5,0.5) {$1$};
+\node at (1.5,0.5) {$3$};
+\node at (2.5,0.5) {$4$};
+\node at (3.5,0.5) {$2$};
+\node at (4.5,0.5) {$5$};
+\node at (5.5,0.5) {$3$};
+\node at (6.5,0.5) {$4$};
+\node at (7.5,0.5) {$2$};
+
+\draw (0.2,0.2-1.2) rectangle (0.8,0.8-1.2);
+\draw (3.2,0.2-1.2) rectangle (3.8,0.8-1.2);
+\draw (5.2,0.2-1.2) rectangle (5.8,0.8-1.2);
+\draw (6.2,0.2-1.2) rectangle (6.8,0.8-1.2);
+
+\node at (0.5,0.5-1.2) {$1$};
+\node at (3.5,0.5-1.2) {$2$};
+\node at (5.5,0.5-1.2) {$3$};
+\node at (6.5,0.5-1.2) {$4$};
+
+\draw[->,thick] (0.8,0.5-1.2) -- (3.2,0.5-1.2);
+\draw[->,thick] (3.8,0.5-1.2) -- (5.2,0.5-1.2);
+\draw[->,thick] (5.8,0.5-1.2) -- (6.2,0.5-1.2);
+\end{tikzpicture}
+\end{center}
+
+Finally, all elements except 1 are removed
+from the stack and the last element 2
+is added to the stack:
+
+\begin{center}
+\begin{tikzpicture}[scale=0.7]
+\fill[color=lightgray] (7,0) rectangle (8,1);
+\draw (0,0) grid (8,1);
+
+\node at (0.5,0.5) {$1$};
+\node at (1.5,0.5) {$3$};
+\node at (2.5,0.5) {$4$};
+\node at (3.5,0.5) {$2$};
+\node at (4.5,0.5) {$5$};
+\node at (5.5,0.5) {$3$};
+\node at (6.5,0.5) {$4$};
+\node at (7.5,0.5) {$2$};
+
+\draw (0.2,0.2-1.2) rectangle (0.8,0.8-1.2);
+\draw (7.2,0.2-1.2) rectangle (7.8,0.8-1.2);
+
+\node at (0.5,0.5-1.2) {$1$};
+\node at (7.5,0.5-1.2) {$2$};
+
+\draw[->,thick] (0.8,0.5-1.2) -- (7.2,0.5-1.2);
+\end{tikzpicture}
+\end{center}
 
 The efficiency of the algorithm depends on
-the total time used for manipulating the chain.
-If an element is larger than the first
-element of the chain, it is directly added
-to the chain, which is efficient.
-However, sometimes the chain can contain several
+the total number of stack operations.
+If the current element is larger than
+the top element in the stack, it is directly
+added to the stack, which is efficient.
+However, sometimes the stack can contain several
 larger elements and it takes time to remove them.
-Still, each element is added exactly once to the chain
-and removed at most once from the chain.
-Thus, each element causes $O(1)$ chain operations,
-and the total time complexity
-of the algorithm is $O(n)$.
+Still, each element is added \emph{exactly once} to the stack
+and removed \emph{at most once} from the stack.
+Thus, each element causes $O(1)$ stack operations,
+and the algorithm works in $O(n)$ time.
 
 \section{Sliding window minimum}
 
@@ -612,30 +538,32 @@ of the algorithm is $O(n)$.
 \index{sliding window minimum}
 
 A \key{sliding window} is a constant-size subarray
-that moves through the array.
-At each position of the window,
+that moves from left to right through the array.
+At each window position,
 we want to calculate some information
 about the elements inside the window.
-An interesting problem is to maintain
-the \key{sliding window minimum},
-which means that at each position of the window,
-we should report the smallest element inside the window.
+In this section, we focus on the problem
+of maintaining the \key{sliding window minimum},
+which means that
+we should report the smallest value inside each window.
 
 The sliding window minimum can be calculated
-using the same idea that we used for calculating
+using a similar idea that we used to calculate
 the nearest smaller elements.
-We maintain a chain whose
-first element is always the last element in the window,
-and each element in the chain is smaller than the previous element.
-The last element in the chain is always the
-smallest element inside the window.
-When the sliding window moves forward and
-a new element appears, we remove from the chain
-all elements that are larger than the new element.
-After this, we add the new element to the chain.
-Finally, if the last element in the chain
-does not belong to the window anymore,
-it is removed from the chain.
+We maintain a queue
+where each element is larger than
+the previous element,
+and the first element
+always corresponds to the minimum element inside the window.
+After each window move,
+we remove elements from the end of the queue
+until the last queue element
+is smaller than the last window element,
+or the queue becomes empty.
+We also remove the first queue element
+if it is not inside the window anymore.
+Finally, we add the last window element
+to the end of the queue.
 
 As an example, consider the following array:
 
@@ -651,21 +579,11 @@ As an example, consider the following array:
 \node at (5.5,0.5) {$4$};
 \node at (6.5,0.5) {$1$};
 \node at (7.5,0.5) {$2$};
-% 
-% \footnotesize
-% \node at (0.5,1.4) {$1$};
-% \node at (1.5,1.4) {$2$};
-% \node at (2.5,1.4) {$3$};
-% \node at (3.5,1.4) {$4$};
-% \node at (4.5,1.4) {$5$};
-% \node at (5.5,1.4) {$6$};
-% \node at (6.5,1.4) {$7$};
-% \node at (7.5,1.4) {$8$};
 \end{tikzpicture}
 \end{center}
 
 Suppose that the size of the sliding window is 4.
-At the first window position, the smallest element is 1:
+At the first window position, the smallest value is 1:
 \begin{center}
 \begin{tikzpicture}[scale=0.7]
 \fill[color=lightgray] (0,0) rectangle (4,1);
@@ -679,29 +597,26 @@ At the first window position, the smallest element is 1:
 \node at (5.5,0.5) {$4$};
 \node at (6.5,0.5) {$1$};
 \node at (7.5,0.5) {$2$};
-% 
-% \footnotesize
-% \node at (0.5,1.4) {$1$};
-% \node at (1.5,1.4) {$2$};
-% \node at (2.5,1.4) {$3$};
-% \node at (3.5,1.4) {$4$};
-% \node at (4.5,1.4) {$5$};
-% \node at (5.5,1.4) {$6$};
-% \node at (6.5,1.4) {$7$};
-% \node at (7.5,1.4) {$8$};
 
-\draw[thick,->] (3.5,-0.25) .. controls (3.25,-1.00) and (2.75,-1.00) .. (2.6,-0.25);
-\draw[thick,->] (2.4,-0.25) .. controls (2.25,-1.00) and (1.75,-1.00) .. (1.5,-0.25);
+\draw (1.2,0.2-1.2) rectangle (1.8,0.8-1.2);
+\draw (2.2,0.2-1.2) rectangle (2.8,0.8-1.2);
+\draw (3.2,0.2-1.2) rectangle (3.8,0.8-1.2);
 
+\node at (1.5,0.5-1.2) {$1$};
+\node at (2.5,0.5-1.2) {$4$};
+\node at (3.5,0.5-1.2) {$5$};
+
+\draw[->,thick] (1.8,0.5-1.2) -- (2.2,0.5-1.2);
+\draw[->,thick] (2.8,0.5-1.2) -- (3.2,0.5-1.2);
 \end{tikzpicture}
 \end{center}
 
-Then the window moves one step forward.
-The new number 3 is smaller than the numbers
-5 and 4 in the chain, so the numbers 5 and 4
-are removed from the chain
-and the number 3 is added to the chain.
-The smallest element is still 1.
+Then the window moves one step right.
+The new element 3 is smaller than the elements
+4 and 5 in the queue, so the elements 4 and 5
+are removed from the queue
+and the element 3 is added to the queue.
+The smallest value is still 1.
 \begin{center}
 \begin{tikzpicture}[scale=0.7]
 \fill[color=lightgray] (1,0) rectangle (5,1);
@@ -715,28 +630,23 @@ The smallest element is still 1.
 \node at (5.5,0.5) {$4$};
 \node at (6.5,0.5) {$1$};
 \node at (7.5,0.5) {$2$};
-% 
-% \footnotesize
-% \node at (0.5,1.4) {$1$};
-% \node at (1.5,1.4) {$2$};
-% \node at (2.5,1.4) {$3$};
-% \node at (3.5,1.4) {$4$};
-% \node at (4.5,1.4) {$5$};
-% \node at (5.5,1.4) {$6$};
-% \node at (6.5,1.4) {$7$};
-% \node at (7.5,1.4) {$8$};
 
-\draw[thick,->] (4.5,-0.25) .. controls (4.25,-1.00) and (1.75,-1.00) .. (1.5,-0.25);
+\draw (1.2,0.2-1.2) rectangle (1.8,0.8-1.2);
+\draw (4.2,0.2-1.2) rectangle (4.8,0.8-1.2);
 
+\node at (1.5,0.5-1.2) {$1$};
+\node at (4.5,0.5-1.2) {$3$};
+
+\draw[->,thick] (1.8,0.5-1.2) -- (4.2,0.5-1.2);
 \end{tikzpicture}
 \end{center}
 
 After this, the window moves again,
 and the smallest element 1
 does not belong to the window anymore.
-Thus, it is removed from the chain and the smallest
-element is now 3. In addition, the new number 4
-is added to the chain.
+Thus, it is removed from the queue and the smallest
+value is now 3. Also the new element 4
+is added to the queue.
 \begin{center}
 \begin{tikzpicture}[scale=0.7]
 \fill[color=lightgray] (2,0) rectangle (6,1);
@@ -750,24 +660,20 @@ is added to the chain.
 \node at (5.5,0.5) {$4$};
 \node at (6.5,0.5) {$1$};
 \node at (7.5,0.5) {$2$};
-% 
-% \footnotesize
-% \node at (0.5,1.4) {$1$};
-% \node at (1.5,1.4) {$2$};
-% \node at (2.5,1.4) {$3$};
-% \node at (3.5,1.4) {$4$};
-% \node at (4.5,1.4) {$5$};
-% \node at (5.5,1.4) {$6$};
-% \node at (6.5,1.4) {$7$};
-% \node at (7.5,1.4) {$8$};
 
-\draw[thick,->] (5.5,-0.25) .. controls (5.25,-1.00) and (4.75,-1.00) .. (4.5,-0.25);
+\draw (4.2,0.2-1.2) rectangle (4.8,0.8-1.2);
+\draw (5.2,0.2-1.2) rectangle (5.8,0.8-1.2);
+
+\node at (4.5,0.5-1.2) {$3$};
+\node at (5.5,0.5-1.2) {$4$};
+
+\draw[->,thick] (4.8,0.5-1.2) -- (5.2,0.5-1.2);
 \end{tikzpicture}
 \end{center}
 
 The next new element 1 is smaller than all elements
-in the chain.
-Thus, all elements are removed from the chain
+in the queue.
+Thus, all elements are removed from the queue
 and it will only contain the element 1:
 \begin{center}
 \begin{tikzpicture}[scale=0.7]
@@ -782,26 +688,16 @@ and it will only contain the element 1:
 \node at (5.5,0.5) {$4$};
 \node at (6.5,0.5) {$1$};
 \node at (7.5,0.5) {$2$};
-% 
-% \footnotesize
-% \node at (0.5,1.4) {$1$};
-% \node at (1.5,1.4) {$2$};
-% \node at (2.5,1.4) {$3$};
-% \node at (3.5,1.4) {$4$};
-% \node at (4.5,1.4) {$5$};
-% \node at (5.5,1.4) {$6$};
-% \node at (6.5,1.4) {$7$};
-% \node at (7.5,1.4) {$8$};
 
-\fill[color=black] (6.5,-0.25) circle (0.1);
+\draw (6.2,0.2-1.2) rectangle (6.8,0.8-1.2);
 
-%\draw[thick,->] (5.5,-0.25) .. controls (5.25,-1.00) and (4.75,-1.00) .. (4.5,-0.25);
+\node at (6.5,0.5-1.2) {$1$};
 \end{tikzpicture}
 \end{center}
 
 Finally the window reaches its last position.
-The number 2 is added to the chain,
-but the smallest element inside the window
+The element 2 is added to the queue,
+but the smallest value inside the window
 is still 1.
 \begin{center}
 \begin{tikzpicture}[scale=0.7]
@@ -816,25 +712,21 @@ is still 1.
 \node at (5.5,0.5) {$4$};
 \node at (6.5,0.5) {$1$};
 \node at (7.5,0.5) {$2$};
-% 
-% \footnotesize
-% \node at (0.5,1.4) {$1$};
-% \node at (1.5,1.4) {$2$};
-% \node at (2.5,1.4) {$3$};
-% \node at (3.5,1.4) {$4$};
-% \node at (4.5,1.4) {$5$};
-% \node at (5.5,1.4) {$6$};
-% \node at (6.5,1.4) {$7$};
-% \node at (7.5,1.4) {$8$};
 
-\draw[thick,->] (7.5,-0.25) .. controls (7.25,-1.00) and (6.75,-1.00) .. (6.5,-0.25);
+\draw (6.2,0.2-1.2) rectangle (6.8,0.8-1.2);
+\draw (7.2,0.2-1.2) rectangle (7.8,0.8-1.2);
+
+\node at (6.5,0.5-1.2) {$1$};
+\node at (7.5,0.5-1.2) {$2$};
+
+\draw[->,thick] (6.8,0.5-1.2) -- (7.2,0.5-1.2);
 \end{tikzpicture}
 \end{center}
 
-Also in this algorithm, each element in the array
-is added to the chain exactly once and
-removed from the chain at most once.
-Thus, the total time complexity of the algorithm is $O(n)$.
+Since each array element
+is added to the queue exactly once and
+removed from the queue at most once,
+the algorithm works in $O(n)$ time.