Another typo

Signed-off-by: zeramorphic <[email protected]>

iii/lc/01_inaccessible_cardinals.tex

@@ -379,7 +379,7 @@ \subsection{The consistency strength hierarchy}
 Thus, if \( \mathsf{ZFC} + \neg\mathsf{IC} \) is consistent,
 \[ \mathsf{ZFC} + \neg\mathsf{IC} <_{\Con} \mathsf{ZFC} + \mathsf{IC} \]
 Observe that none of the proofs given in this section work for weakly inaccessible cardinals, so it is not clear that weakly inaccessible cardinals qualify as large cardinals.
-However, that under the generalised continuum hypothesis, we have \( \aleph_\alpha = \beth_\alpha \) and so the notions of weakly inaccessible cardinal and inaccessible cardinal coincide.
+However, under the generalised continuum hypothesis, we have \( \aleph_\alpha = \beth_\alpha \) and so the notions of weakly inaccessible cardinal and inaccessible cardinal coincide.
 In Part III Forcing and the Continuum Hypothesis, we see that if \( M \vDash \mathsf{ZFC} \), there is \( \mathrm{L} \subseteq M \) such that \( \mathrm{L} \) is transitive in \( M \), \( \mathrm{L} \) contains all the ordinals of \( M \), and \( \mathrm{L} \vDash \mathsf{ZFC} + \mathsf{GCH} \).
 Thus, given a model \( M \vDash \mathsf{ZFC} + \mathsf{WIC} \), we obtain \( \mathrm{L} \vDash \mathsf{ZFC} + \mathsf{IC} \), and thus the two axioms \( \mathsf{WIC} \) and \( \mathsf{IC} \) are equiconsistent.