diff --git a/Concurrent Systems/notes/6 - Atomicity.md b/Concurrent Systems/notes/6 - Atomicity.md
index 9a7d052..1552a13 100644
--- a/Concurrent Systems/notes/6 - Atomicity.md	
+++ b/Concurrent Systems/notes/6 - Atomicity.md	
@@ -52,8 +52,12 @@ We now show that $\to$ is acyclic.
 		- adjacent edges cannot belong to the same order (e.g. not both $\to_X$), otw. the cycle would be shortable, because of transitivity of the total order!
 		- adjacent edges cannot belong to orders on different objects
 			- this would mean that an operation is involved in both $\to_X$ and $\to_Y$ but it is not possible of course
-		- Hence, at least one $\to_X$ exists and it must be between two $\to_H$ i.e.: $$op1 \to_H op2 \to_X op3 \to_H op4$$
+		- Hence, at least one $\to_X$ exists and it must be between two $\to_H$ i.e.: $$op1 \to_H op2 \to_X op3 \to_H op4$$, with op1 = op4
 		- can this be a cycle?
+			- $op1 \to_H op2$ means that $res(op1) <_H inv(op2)$
+			-  $op2 \to_X op3$ entails that $inv(op2) <_H res(op3)$
+				- if not, as is a total order, we would have that $res(op3) <_H inv(op2)$, but we then would have a cycle of lenght 2...
+			-  $op2 \to_H op3$ entails that $inv(op2) <_H res(op3)$
 
 
 > [!PDF|red] class 6, p.6>  we would have a cycle of length