Typos in eof.md (#121)

Fix potential typos in eof.md.

Author: marioevz

spec/eof.md

@@ -326,7 +326,7 @@ During scanning, for each instruction:
       - for any other instruction `stack_height_min` must be at least the number of inputs required by instruction,
       - there is no additional check for terminating instructions other than `RETF` and `JUMPF`, this implies that extra items left on stack at instruction ending EVM execution are allowed.
    2. For `CALLF` and `JUMPF` check for possible stack overflow: if `stack_height_max > 1024 - types[target_section_index].max_stack_height + types[target_section_index].inputs`, validation fails.
-   3. Compute new stack `stack_height_main` and `stack_height_max` after the instruction execution, both heights are updated by the same value:
+   3. Compute new stack `stack_height_min` and `stack_height_max` after the instruction execution, both heights are updated by the same value:
       - for `CALLF`: `stack_height_min += types[target_section_index].outputs - types[target_section_index].inputs`, `stack_height_max += types[target_section_index].outputs - types[target_section_index].inputs`,
       - for any other non-terminating instruction: `stack_height_min += instruction_outputs - instruction_inputs`, `stack_height_max += instruction_outputs - instruction_inputs`,
       - terminating instructions do not need to update stack heights.
@@ -338,7 +338,7 @@ During scanning, for each instruction:
       - This implies that the last instruction may be a terminating instruction or `RJUMP`
    2. If the successor is reached via forwards jump or sequential flow from previous instruction:
       1. If the instruction does not have stack heights recorded (visited for the first time), record the instruction `stack_height_min` and `stack_height_max` equal to the value computed in 2.3.
-      2. Otherwise instruction was already visited (by previously seen forward jump). Update this instruction's recorded stack height bounds so that they contain the bounds computed in 2.3, i.e. `target_stack_min = min(target_stack_min, current_stack_min)` and `target_stack_max = max(target_stack_max, current_stack_min)`, where `(target_stack_min, target_stack_max)` are successor bounds and `(current_stack_min, current_stack_max)` are bounds computed in 2.3.
+      2. Otherwise instruction was already visited (by previously seen forward jump). Update this instruction's recorded stack height bounds so that they contain the bounds computed in 2.3, i.e. `target_stack_min = min(target_stack_min, current_stack_min)` and `target_stack_max = max(target_stack_max, current_stack_max)`, where `(target_stack_min, target_stack_max)` are successor bounds and `(current_stack_min, current_stack_max)` are bounds computed in 2.3.
    3. If the successor is reached via backwards jump, check if target bounds equal the value computed in 2.3, i.e. `target_stack_min == target_stack_max == current_stack_min`. Validation fails if they are not equal, i.e. we see backwards jump to a different stack height.
 
 - maximum data stack of a function must not exceed 1023