deletions | additions       diff --git a/subsubsection_Identifying_the_oscillating_star__.tex b/subsubsection_Identifying_the_oscillating_star__.tex  index 84d5821..c48348b 100644  --- a/subsubsection_Identifying_the_oscillating_star__.tex  +++ b/subsubsection_Identifying_the_oscillating_star__.tex 
...
Even if temperature is the least influential parameter on stellar masses and radii in the asteroseismic scalings, we are at a level of precision where errors on temperature dominate the global asteroseismic results. \revise{Since the scaling equations can be combined to give a mean density that is independent of temperature and $\nu_{\rm max}$ (Eq.~\ref{density}), one might naively expect a good asteroseismic estimation of this quantity compared to the surface gravity.} While a more in-depth ``peak-bagging'' analysis of individual oscillation modes is beyond the scope of this paper, we strongly suspect the oscillating star is Star 2.  \subsubsection{Surface gravity disagreement} disagreement}\label{gravity_compare}  The asteroseismic $\log g$ measurement nearly agrees with those from ELC, yet all three are some 0.3 dex lower than the spectroscopic $\log g$ values, as can be seen in Table \ref{table2}. This discrepancy is similar to the difference found for giant stars by \citet{hol15}. They investigate a large sample of stars from the ASPCAP (APOGEE Stellar Parameters and Chemical Abundances Pipeline) which have $\log g$ measured via spectroscopy and asteroseismology. They find that spectroscopic surface gravity measurements are roughly 0.2--0.3 dex too high for core-He-burning (red clump) stars and roughly 0.1--0.2 dex too high for shell-H-burning (red giant branch) stars. \citet{hol15} speculate the difference may be partially due to a lack of treatment of stellar rotation, and derive an empirical calibration relation for a ``correct'' $\log g$ for red giant branch stars only. However, the stars in KIC 9246715 do not rotate particularly fast ($v_{\rm{rot}} \sin i \lesssim 8 \ \rm{km \ s}^{-1}$, which includes a contribution from macroturbulence as discussed in Section \ref{parameters}), so we cannot dismiss this discrepancy so readily.