deletions | additions       diff --git a/Discussion.tex b/Discussion.tex  index 9b2c007..0c0855b 100644  --- a/Discussion.tex  +++ b/Discussion.tex 
...
\label{subsubsec_main_osc}  We now re-estimate $\nu_{\rm{max}}$ and $\Delta \nu$ for the oscillation spectrum in the same way as \citet{gau14}, but by using the whole \textit{Kepler} dataset (Q0--Q17). Differences with respect to previous estimates are negligible, as we find $\nu_{\rm{max}} = 106.4 \pm 0.8$ and $\Delta \nu = 8.31 \pm 0.01 \ \mu \rm{Hz}$. Because the ELC results yield $T_2/T_1=0.989$ (Table \ref{table1}) and the stellar atmosphere analysis gives $T_1 = 4990 \pm 90 \ \rm{K}$ and $T_2 = 5030 \pm 80 \ \rm{K}$ (Section \ref{parameters}), we assume an effective temperature $T_{\rm{eff}} = 5000 \pm 100 \ \rm{K}$ in the asteroseismic scaling equations. To determine mass, radius, surface gravity, and mean density, we use the scaling relations after correcting $\Delta \nu$ for the red giant regime \citep{mos13}\footnote{Other scaling relation corrections, such as those in \citet{cha11} or \citet{kal10}, lead to slightly larger corrected $\Delta \nu$ values, but \citet{mos13} specifically aims to account for the fact that oscillating red giants are not in the asymptotic regime.}. In essence, instead of directly plugging the observed $\Delta \nu_{\rm{obs}}$ into Equations \ref{density} and \ref{gravity}, we estimate the asymptotic large spacing via $\Delta \nu_{\rm{as}} = \Delta \nu_{\rm{obs}} (1 + \zeta)$, where $\zeta = 0.038$. With this correction of the large spacing, we obtain $M = 2.17 \pm 0.12 \ M_{\odot}$ and $R = 8.26 \pm 0.16 \ R_{\odot}$. In terms of mean density and surface gravity, which independently test the $\Delta \nu$ and $\nu_{\rm{max}}$ relations, respectively, we find $\bar{\rho}/\bar{\rho}_{\odot} = (3.862 \pm 0.009) \times 10 ^{-3}$ and $\log g = 2.942 \pm 0.007$. A comparison of key parameters determined from all our different modeling techniques is in Table \ref{table2}.  Based on the distribution of mixed modes, \citet{gau14} reported that the oscillation pattern period spacing was typical of that of a star from the secondary red clump, i.e., a core-He-burning star that has not experienced a helium flash. However, this conclusion was based on a period spacing of $\Delta \Pi \simeq 150 \ \rm{sec}$ (Mosser, private communication) which is difficult to measure robustly from a noisy oscillation spectrum. Red giant branch stars have smaller period spacings than red clump stars, and ($\Delta \Pi = 150 \ \rm{sec}$, $\Delta \nu = 8.31 \ \mu \rm{Hz}$) puts the oscillating star on the very edge of the asteroseismic parameter space that defines the secondary red clump \citep{mos14}. Therefore, while asteroseismology does indicate the oscillator in KIC 9246715 is a red clump star, there is a large uncertainty attached to the classification. This result is supported statistically by \citet{mig14}, who report it is more likely to find red clump stars than red giant branch stars in asteroseismic binaries in \emph{Kepler} data. This is largely due to the fact that evolved stars spend more time on the horizontal branch than the red giant branch. We note that due to the large noise level of the mixed modes, we are unable to measure a core rotation rate in the manner of \citet{bec12,mos12}. \citet{bec12} and \citet{mos12}.  \subsubsection{Identifying the oscillating star}  The asteroseismic mass and surface gravity are consistent with those from the ELC model for both stars, while the asteroseismic radius is only consistent with Star 2. Neither star's mean density agrees with the asteroseismic value, but Star 2 is much closer than Star 1. Overall, our asteroseismic analysis suggests the oscillating star is Star 2. However, we cannot definitely conclude this without considering the temperature dependence of the scaling relations. From \citet{gau13}, \citet{gau14}, and the present work, asteroseismic masses and radii were reported to be $(1.7 \pm 0.3 \ M_\odot, 7.7 \pm 0.4 \ R_\odot)$, $(2.06 \pm 0.13 \ M_\odot, 8.10 \pm 0.18 \ R_\odot)$, and $(2.17 \pm 0.12 \ M_\odot, 8.26 \pm 0.16 \ R_\odot)$, respectively. Among these, $\nu_{\rm{max}}$ does not vary much ($102.2, 106.4, 106.4 \ \mu\rm{Hz}$), and $\Delta \nu$ varies even less ($8.3, 8.32, 8.31 \ \mu\rm{Hz}$), while the assumed temperatures were 4699 K (from the KIC), 4857 K (from \citealt{hub14.2}), and 5000 K (this work). 
...