deletions | additions       diff --git a/The_equation_found_for_Single__.tex b/The_equation_found_for_Single__.tex  index 01c00d8..fedf373 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, the intercept was found to be a value of $E_a = 4.418 \textrm{eV}$ at $n=0.5$. This value has been compared to the accepted value of $4.6674ev$ and $4.8865ev$ (cite), and the value extracted from the fitusing both peaks and dips  has a percent uncertainty of $5.34 \%$ and $9.59 \%$ different from the accepted value. Our previous values, when we did not combine all of the data points onto one fit \%$. The method used  (Figure 6), are 6) proved to () values  much closer closes  to the accepted value. I believe this means that, values. Thus it was concluded, that  although the valuefor $n=2$  of the dips $n=2$  is very off of not on  the line of best  fit, it using separate linear fits to approximate $\Delta E$ versus $n$  is amuch  better way to analyze the data and that the $n=2$ value does not contribute significantly to the error. method.