diff --git a/latex/thesis/chapters/analysis_of_results.tex b/latex/thesis/chapters/analysis_of_results.tex
index 37d3122..b83f781 100644
--- a/latex/thesis/chapters/analysis_of_results.tex
+++ b/latex/thesis/chapters/analysis_of_results.tex
@@ -36,7 +36,7 @@
 In this section, some similarities between the proximal decoding algorithm
 and \ac{LP} decoding using \ac{ADMM} are be pointed out.
 The two algorithms are compared and their different computational and decoding
-performance is explained on the basis of their theoretical structure.
+performance is interpreted on the basis of their theoretical structure.
 
 \ac{ADMM} and the proximal gradient method can both be expressed in terms of
 proximal operators.
@@ -129,7 +129,7 @@ subjected to.
 
 Their major differece is that while with proximal decoding the constraints
 are regarded in a global context, considering all parity checks at the same
-time in the second step, with \ac{ADMM} each parity check is
+time, with \ac{ADMM} each parity check is
 considered separately, in a more local context (line 4 in both algorithms).
 This difference means that while with proximal decoding the alternating
 minimization of the two parts of the objective function inevitably leads to