deletions | additions       diff --git a/subsection_Stellar_evolution_and_tidal__.tex b/subsection_Stellar_evolution_and_tidal__.tex  index d06209f..5732dd0 100644  --- a/subsection_Stellar_evolution_and_tidal__.tex  +++ b/subsection_Stellar_evolution_and_tidal__.tex 
...
\subsection{Stellar evolution and tidal forces}\label{tides}  Over the course of KIC 9246715's life, both stars have evolved in tandem to reach the configuration we see today. We quantify this with simple stellar evolution models created using the Modules for Experiments in Stellar Astrophysics (MESA) code \citep{pax11,pax13,pax15}. Figure \ref{fig:mesa} presents a suite of models with various initial stellar masses. All the models include overshooting and assume no mass loss. Recall that the masses and radii of each star are $M_1 = 2.16 \pm 0.04\ M_{\odot}$, $M_2 = 2.14 \pm 0.03\ M_{\odot}$, $R_1 = 7.90 \pm 0.04 \ R_{\odot}$, and  $R_2 = 8.33 \pm 0.04 \ R_{\odot}$. The stage of each star's life as it ages in Figure \ref{fig:mesa} is color-coded, and two lines of constant radii (corresponding to Star 1 and Star 2) are shown. From this, we conclude that both stars are indeed coeval, are both presently on the red giant branch, and are too small by $\sim 1 \ R_\odot$ to have evolved past this stage onto the red clump. We explore several possibilities to explain why these stars' nearly identical evolutionary histories appear to place them on the red giant branch while the asteroseismic period spacing suggests they are on the red clump:  \begin{itemize} 
...
\item The noisy period spacing estimate ($\Delta \Pi \simeq 150 \ \rm{sec}$) may not be measuring what we expect due to rotational splitting of mixed oscillation modes. If the true period spacing is closer to $\Delta \Pi \simeq 80 \ \rm{sec}$, this would explain the disagreement. A detailed discussion of rotational splitting behavior in slowly rotating red giants is beyond the scope of this paper, but is explored in \citet{gou13}.  \end{itemize}