Fix typos (#328)

* typo in 1.8/functoriality.tex line 30

fix #233

* Typo in Preface

fix #265

* Replace ... with \ldots{}

src/content/0.0/preface.tex

@@ -40,7 +40,7 @@
 definition of the category itself. And I will argue strongly that
 composition is the essence of programming. We've been composing things
 forever, long before some great engineer came up with the idea of a
-subroutine. Some time ago the principles of structural programming
+subroutine. Some time ago the principles of structured programming
 revolutionized programming because they made blocks of code composable.
 Then came object oriented programming, which is all about composing
 objects. Functional programming is not only about composing functions

src/content/1.8/functoriality.tex

@@ -27,7 +27,7 @@ \section{Bifunctors}
 morphisms, one from $\cat{C}$ and one from $\cat{D}$, to a morphism in $\cat{E}$.
 
 Again, a pair of morphisms is just a single morphism in the product
-category $\cat{C}\times{}\cat{D}$ to $\cat{E}$. We define a morphism in a Cartesian product of categories
+category $\cat{C}\times{}\cat{D}$. We define a morphism in a Cartesian product of categories
 as a pair of morphisms which goes from one pair of objects to another
 pair of objects. These pairs of morphisms can be composed in the obvious
 way:

src/content/3.14/lawvere-theories.tex

@@ -425,7 +425,7 @@ \section{Monads as Coends}
 $a$, namely (notice the direction):
 \[a^n \to a^m\]
 The lifting simply selects $m$ elements from a tuple of $n$ elements\\
-$(a_1, a_2,...a_n)$ (possibly with repetitions).
+$(a_1, a_2, \ldots{}, a_n)$ (possibly with repetitions).
 
 \begin{figure}[H]
   \centering
@@ -441,7 +441,7 @@ \section{Monads as Coends}
 Or let's take $f \Colon m \to 1$ --- a constant
 function that maps all $m$ elements to one. Its lifting is a function that
 takes a single element of $a$ and duplicates it $m$ times:
-\[\lambda{}x \to (\underbrace{x, x,\ ...\ , x}_{m})\]
+\[\lambda{}x \to (\underbrace{x, x, \ldots{}, x}_{m})\]
 You might notice that it's not immediately obvious that the profunctor
 in question is covariant in the second argument. The hom-functor
 $\cat{L}(m, 1)$ is actually contravariant in $m$. However, we