deletions | additions       diff --git a/Discussion.tex b/Discussion.tex  index 87d5fbb..e70512d 100644  --- a/Discussion.tex  +++ b/Discussion.tex 
...
and  \begin{equation} \label{gravity}  {\frac{g}{g_{\odot}}} \simeq {\left( \frac{\nu_{\rm{max}}}{\nu_{\rm{max}, \ \odot}} \right)} {\left( \frac{T_{\rm{eff}}}{T_{\rm{eff}, \ \odot}} \right)}^{0.5}. \right)}^{1/2}.  \end{equation}  However, when \citet{gau13} and \citet{gau14} analyzed the oscillation modes to estimate global asteroseismic parameters, only one set of modes was found. Of the 15 oscillating red giants in eclipsing binaries in the \emph{Kepler} field, KIC 9246715 is the only one with a pair of giant stars (the rest are composed of a giant star and a main sequence star). The oscillation spectrum as well as its representation as an \'echelle diagram is shown in Figure \ref{fig:seismo} (I'LL SEND THE PLOTS). The mode amplitudes are quite  low ($A_{\rm{max}}(l=0) \simeq 15$ 14$  ppm, and not 6.6 as erroneously reported by \citealt{gau14}), and \citealt{gau14}) with respect to the 20 ppm we expect by supposing only one star oscillates, based on the mode amplitude scaling relations (CORSARO ET AL 2013). Besides,  the light curve displays a significant photometric relative variability as large as 2\% peak-to-peak. \citet{gau14} speculated that star spots may be responsible for inhibiting oscillations on the smaller star, as they observed on other five systems. Even though the star's oscillation was analyzed by \citet{gau14}, we reestimated $\nu_{\rm{max}}$ and $\Delta\nu$ in the same way, but by using the whole \textit{Kepler} dataset (Q0 to Q17). Differences with respect to previous estimates are minute but we keep the new ones as reference: $\nu_{\rm{max}} = 106.4 \pm 0.8$ and $\Delta\nu=8.31\pm0.01$. They also report $M = 2.06 \pm 0.13 \ M_{\odot}$ and $R = 8.10 \pm 0.18 \ R_{\odot}$ by assuming $T_{\rm{eff}} = 4857 \ \rm{K}$ and rearranging Equations \ref{density} and \ref{gravity} to yield \begin{equation} %\begin{equation}  \label{radeq} \left( %\left(  \frac{R}{R_\odot} \right) \simeq \left( \frac{\nu_{\rm{max}}}{\nu_{\rm{max, \ \odot}}} \right) \left( \frac{\Delta \nu}{\Delta \nu_\odot} \right)^{-2} {\left( \frac{T_{\rm{eff}}}{T_{\rm{eff, \ \odot}}} \right)}^{0.5} \end{equation} %\end{equation}  and %and  \begin{equation} %\begin{equation}  \label{masseq} {\left( %{\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} %\end{equation}  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. 
...