deletions | additions       diff --git a/The_equation_found_for_Single__.tex b/The_equation_found_for_Single__.tex  index 86ef317..11e7f17 100644  --- a/The_equation_found_for_Single__.tex  +++ b/The_equation_found_for_Single__.tex 
...
E_n [eV] (fit) = (0.136\pm0.03)n + (4.35\pm0.16)  \end{equation}  Using the above equation, I found the intercept at $n=0.5$ to be a value of $E_a = 4.418 \textrm{eV}$. I compared this value to the accepted value of $4.6674ev$ and $4.8865ev$ (from the NIST AID data), and the value from the fit using both peaks and dips is $5.34 \%$ and $9.59 \%$ different from the accepted value. Our previous values values,  when we did not combine all of the data points onto one fit, fit and seen in Figure: Mercury Differences in Peaks and Dips,  are much closer to the accepted value. I believe this means that, although the value for $n=2$ of the dips is very off of the fit, it is a much better way to analyze the data and that the $n=2$ value does not contribute significantly to the error.