Fixed typo's

simmod/ass1/Makefile

@@ -21,7 +21,7 @@ speed: speed.c
 	touch $@
 
 pr: extra_precision.o
-	$(CC) $(FLAGS) -o $@ $^
+	$(CC) $(FLAGS) -mfpmath=387 -O2 -o $@ $^
 
 fp: floating_point.o
 	$(CC) $(FLAGS) -o $@ $^

simmod/ass1/report.tex

@@ -122,20 +122,20 @@ Type            & N              & Forward    & Backward \\
 
 \noindent \textbf{Observations}
 \begin{itemize}
-    \item Since the results for the \texttt{double} datatype are eaqual for both
+    \item Since the results for the \texttt{double} data type are equal for both
     the forward and backward summation approach, we can say that these are the
     correct results.
     \item For the \texttt{float} data type, we observe that the backward approach
     yields a higher result than the forward approach. This can be explained as
     follows. When using the forward approach, we start with a small $i$, thus
     with a large $1/i$. This means that the initial value of \texttt{sum} is
-    large. The value will keep growing untill the significance of $1/i$ is too
+    large. The value will keep growing until the significance of $1/i$ is too
     small to add to the result. From this point, no more $1/i$ will be added to
-    the result because the significane of the individual numbers is too small.
+    the result because the significance of the individual numbers is too small.
     However, the sum of the ignored numbers would be a large enough number to
     add to the result. This is why the backward approach yields a higher number:
     the sum of the ignored numbers is computed and later the larger numbers
-    are added. The remaining inprecision is probably due to rounding problems and
+    are added. The remaining imprecision is probably due to rounding problems and
     the fact that $1/10^8$ and a range of larger numbers are represented as
     zeroes in \texttt{float} representation and therefore not added to the
     result. This problem does not occur when using the \texttt{double} data type