diff --git a/main.pdf b/main.pdf
index 0325679..d9b2de3 100644
Binary files a/main.pdf and b/main.pdf differ
diff --git a/main.tex b/main.tex
index 0148001..72d1b31 100644
--- a/main.tex
+++ b/main.tex
@@ -227,6 +227,9 @@ We have $-\lambda(b-B)\leq w(C\setminus F)-\lambda(b-c(F))$ for any cut $C$ and
 
 \note{It remains to show that the optimal solution at $\e$ guarantees $c(F)\leq b$? or maybe we don't need this for normalized mincut. I think normalized min-cut should not require $c(F)\leq b$. Further checks are needed. What we can guarantee is that $c(F)\leq B$.}
 
+\subsection{a fundamental difference}
+Consider $L(\lambda)$ for cut problem. One can see that the optimal $\lambda$ is clearly 0 since $L(\lambda)$ is pwl concave and the slope is negative at $\lambda=0$. What we are really interested in is the first segment on $L$. At the left end, $L(0)$ is exactly the weight of minimum cut. (the complementary slackness condition is satisfied.) At the right end, as we have shown in the previous paragraph, $\lambda$ equals to the value of the strength (which is the optimum of the linear relaxation of the cut IP). However, for cut interdiction problems $L(0)$ is not the optimum. Need to understand this better...
+
 \subsection{integrality gap}
 I guess the 2-approximate min-cut enumeration algorithm implies an integrality gap of 2 for cut interdiction problem.