gramatical mistake (i should've proofread)

README.md

@@ -5,7 +5,7 @@
 
 The usual omnidirectional antenna has a radiation pattern of:  
 <br>
-<img width="50%" style="margin-left:50%"  src="https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e1/L-over2-rad-pat-per.jpg"/>
+<img width="50%" style="margin-left:50%"  src="https://www.mpantenna.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/high-gain-omni-pattern-300x282.png"/>
 <br><br>
 The usual yagi antenna has a radiation pattern as shown in:  
  <br>  
@@ -14,7 +14,7 @@ The usual yagi antenna has a radiation pattern as shown in:
 <br>
 
   
-For the sake of brevity, let these simplifications of said radiation patterns be true(within the thought experiment).
+For the sake of simplicity, assume these simplifications of said radiation patterns to be true(within the thought experiment).
   
 
 <img width="45%" src="images/omni.png" style="margin:3.5%"  />  <img width="45%" src="images/yagi.png"/>
@@ -25,11 +25,11 @@ A radio signal generator is constantly transmitting from an unknown location and
 
 ### Omnidirectional Strategy(ODS)
 
-Let `A` be the antenna and the center of the reception circle. The reception circle's radius is 5 units. These units have an unknown real life equivalent; However that is rather irrelevant for the scope of the experiment. A can be moved around the plane freely.
+Let `A` be the antenna and the center of the reception circle. The reception circle's radius is 2 units. These units have an unknown real life equivalent(you can imagine it as gain); However that is rather irrelevant for the scope of the experiment. The point `A` can be moved around the plane freely.
 
 ### Yagi strategy(YS)
 
-Let `A,B,C` and `D` be individual directional antennas ordered in a rectangular formation. Each antenna has a vector with the length of 10, given that directional antennas are around two times better at receiving and transmitting signal than an omnidirectional, the cost being that the transceiving is limited to a certain direction. The formation must be composed in a way, such that there is always at least 2 vectors intersecting each other. These points are stationary, however their respective vectors could be rotated 360 degrees.
+Let `A,B,C` and `D` be individual directional antennas ordered in a rectangular formation. Each antenna has a vector with the length of 10, given that directional antennas usually have around 5 times higher gain when receiving and transmitting signal than omnidirectionals, the cost of that being that the transceiving is limited to a certain direction. The formation must be composed in a way, such that there is always at least 2 vectors intersecting each other. These points are stationary, however their respective vectors could be rotated 360 degrees.
 We know the distances between each of the points.
 
 ### Solution approach
@@ -43,7 +43,7 @@ When it comes to circles, however, the strategy is different. [Trilateration](ht
 <img style="margin-left:50%"  width="50%" src="https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Constantinos-Patsakis/publication/277077361/figure/fig1/AS:613444243968081@1523267913923/Trilateration-attack-with-exact-distances.png"/>
 
 ### Expected results
-YS is not as effective, however it is way more efficient than OMS on many levels. At least on paper. A list of all the theoretical pros of YS over OMS:
+YS is not as effective, however it is way more efficient than ODS on many levels. At least on paper. A list of all the theoretical pros of YS over ODS:
 
 ```
 1. Is not affected by temporary intermissions(like static and weather conditions) as much, given that all of the readings are taken simultaneously.
@@ -51,7 +51,7 @@ YS is not as effective, however it is way more efficient than OMS on many levels
 3. Result is certain, given that the point is within the rectangular formation.
 4. The math is way easier.
 ```
-That is not to say that OMS does not have pros:
+That is not to say that ODS does not have pros:
 
 ```
 1. Less investment when it comes to money/time in the scope of the setup(as you *could* build Yagi antennas yourself).
@@ -59,13 +59,34 @@ That is not to say that OMS does not have pros:
 3. Possibly more fun if you like complicated math.
 ```
 
+### Simulation results
+
+#### Small-scale simulations  
+
+Disclaimer: These simulations are **seriously** half-assed.
+
+##### Yagi simulation
+<img style="margin-left:50%"  width="50%" src="images/yagi.gif"/>  
+  
+This is the simulation of one of the aforementioned strategy. As shown, if the location we are looking for is inside of the area of the rectangle formed by connecting the antenna points, or even slightly outside - we will find it. I would say in a rather rapid manner(depending on the speed of spinning).
+
+##### Omnidirectional simulation
+<img style="margin-left:50%"  width="50%" src="images/omni.gif"/>  
+  
+Would you look at that. Fueled by pure pseudorandomness, this "algorithm" is blowing the competition away. Imagine if there was a real algorithm that got closer and closer! As you can see, it takes a lot less time(given you can teleport) to cover the entirety of the rectangular area we have. But what about, scaling things up a bit...  
+
+  
+<sub>(CLIFFHANGER WOOOOOOOOOOO((i'm gonna finish this later))).</sub>
+  
+
 ### Sources
 
 ##### Articles
-1.[Direction finding](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direction_finding)  
-2.[Trilateration](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trilateration)  
-3.[Triangulation](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triangulation)   
-
+1. [Direction finding](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direction_finding) 
+2. [Trilateration](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trilateration) 
+3. [Triangulation](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triangulation)   
+4. [Yagi-Uda antenna](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yagi%E2%80%93Uda_antenna)  
+5. [Omnidirectional antenna](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omnidirectional_antenna) 
 ##### Images
 1. Wikimedia
 2. Researchgate