deletions | additions       diff --git a/figures/fig_for_inclass_nova1/caption.tex b/figures/fig_for_inclass_nova1/caption.tex  index 187bd97..9ed431a 100644  --- a/figures/fig_for_inclass_nova1/caption.tex  +++ b/figures/fig_for_inclass_nova1/caption.tex 
...
\label{ref:lab_inclass}  Example of Figure supporting  an in-class exercise, carried out during the lab period. The students were asked to answer the following questions:  Consider the attached image of a nova observed with the millimeter telescope CARMA at   96 GHz (Panel A). Histograms of pixel values are shown in Panels B and C (Panel C is   just a zoom-in of a region on Panel B); these are just like the histograms you made in DS9's \verb|Scale Parameters|. The pixel values after calibration are   expressed as flux density per pixel (units of mJy/pixel). The plotted range ($-2$ to 36   mJy/pixel) includes all pixels in the image.  \noindent 1) Estimate the average background value ($\bar{S}$) and explain your reasoning.\\  \noindent 2) Estimate the standard deviation of the background ($\sigma$), and explain your reasoning.\\  \noindent 3) Estimate the peak flux density of the nova ($S_{\rm max}$), and explain your reasoning.\\  \noindent 4) Astronomers usually only take detections seriously if they are 5 or more   $\sigma$ significant---that is, if the detected source is at least five times brighter than the   standard deviation of the background. In other words, the source's peak flux should be $S_{\rm max} > (\bar{S} + 5 \sigma$). Estimate how many sigma the peak flux density   of the nova is, and show your reasoning. Would this detection be taken seriously by   other astronomers? \\