Update arbitrum-docs/how-arbitrum-works/06-optimistic-rollup.mdx

Co-authored-by: Gaël Blanchemain <[email protected]>

arbitrum-docs/how-arbitrum-works/06-optimistic-rollup.mdx

@@ -59,7 +59,7 @@ We believe strongly that interactive proving is the superior approach, for the f
 
 **More efficient in the pessimistic case**: In case of a dispute, interactive proving requires the L1 referee contract only to check that Alice and Bob's actions "have the right shape". For example, that Alice has divided her `N`-step claim into two claims half as large. (The referee doesn't need to evaluate the correctness of Alice's claims--Bob does that off-chain.) Only one instruction needs to be re-executed. By contrast, re-execution requires the L1 referee to emulate the execution of an entire transaction.
 
-**Higher per-tx gas limit:** Interactive proving can escape from Ethereum's tight per-transaction gas limit. The gas limit isn't infinite, for obvious reasons, but it can be larger than on Ethereum. As far as Ethereum is concerned, the only downside of a gas-heavy Arbitrum transaction is that it may require an interactive <a data-quicklook-from="fraud-proof">fraud proof</a> with slightly more steps (and only if a fraud proof is actually needed; i.e., in the event of a dispute). By contrast, rerexecution must impose a _lower_ gas limit than Ethereum, because it must be possible to emulate execution of the transaction (which is more expensive than executing it directly) within a single Ethereum transaction.
+**Higher per-tx gas limit:** Interactive proving can escape Ethereum's tight per-transaction gas limit. The gas limit isn't infinite, for obvious reasons, but it can be larger than on Ethereum. As far as Ethereum is concerned, the only downside of a gas-heavy Arbitrum transaction is that it may require an interactive <a data-quicklook-from="fraud-proof">fraud proof</a> with slightly more steps (and only if a fraud proof is actually needed; i.e., in the event of a dispute). By contrast, re-execution must impose a _lower_ gas limit than Ethereum, because it must be possible to emulate the execution of the transaction (which is more expensive than executing it directly) within a single Ethereum transaction.
 
 **More implementation flexibility:** Interactive proving allows more flexibility in implementation. All that is necessary is the ability to verify a one-step proof on Ethereum. By contrast, rerexecution approaches are tethered to limitations of the EVM.