deletions | additions       diff --git a/Discussion.tex b/Discussion.tex  index 49f1371..d0a34aa 100644  --- a/Discussion.tex  +++ b/Discussion.tex 
...
%{\left( \frac{M}{M_\odot} \right)} \simeq {\left( \frac{\nu_{\rm{max}}}{\nu_{\rm{max, \ \odot}}} \right)}^{3} {\left( \frac{\Delta \nu}{\Delta \nu_\odot} \right)}^{-4} {\left( \frac {T_{\rm{eff}}} {T_{\rm{eff, \ \odot}}} \right)}^{1.5}.  %\end{equation}  The asteroseismic masses and surface gravity match those deducted from light curve and radial velocities measurements within the error bars, while radii match only star 2. 2 (Table \ref{table2}).  As regards mean densities, none of the stars match the asteroseismic estimates, but star 2 is much closer than star 1. Therefore, asteroseismic values tend to indicate that the star that displays oscillations is star 2. However, we cannot definitely conclude on that matter by considering more in details temperatures dependence. From the G13 and G14 papers, asteroseismic masses and radii were reported to be $(1.7\pm0.3 M_\odot, 7.7\pm0.4 R_\odot)$ and $(2.06\pm0.13 M_\odot, 8.10\pm0.18 R_\odot)$, and now we have $(2.21\pm0.12 M_\odot, 8.30\pm0.16 R_\odot)$. In these three papers (including the present), $\nu_{\rm{max}}$ does not vary much (102.2, 106.4, and 106.4 $\mu$Hz respectively) while $\Delta\nu$ varies even less (8.3, 8.32, 8.31 $\mu$Hz), while the assumed temperature were 4699, 4857, and 5050 K. Even if temperature is the least influent parameter on stellar masses and radii from scaling relations, we are at a level of precision were errors on temperature dominate on the asteroseismic output. %It is important to note the strong temperature dependence of these relations. WRITE SOMETHING ABOUT NEW M AND R ESTIMATES WITH BETTER TEMPERATURE INPUTS HERE. COMPARE LOG G VALUES HERE TOO SINCE IT'S JUST TESTING NU-MAX AND NOT DELTA-NU.  We %We  find that the masses, radii, and surface gravities for both stars in KIC 9246715 are all consistent with the asteroseismic values, so we unfortunately cannot use KIC 9246715 to draw conclusions about the accuracy of the scaling relations. A comparison of key parameters determined from our different modeling techniques is in Table \ref{table2}. We speculate on which star is the oscillator and further explore the binary's co-evolutionary history in Section \ref{context}. DISCREPANCY %DISCREPANCY  WITH MESA RADIUS RESULTS?? $\rightarrow$ TO BE DISCUSSED IN THE MESA SECTION    
...