deletions | additions       diff --git a/The_equation_found_for_Single__.tex b/The_equation_found_for_Single__.tex  index b9352dd..89a5b9b 100644  --- a/The_equation_found_for_Single__.tex  +++ b/The_equation_found_for_Single__.tex 
...
\begin{equation}  \begin{split}  E_n [eV] (fit) & = &=  (0.136\pm0.03)n + (4.35\pm0.16)\\ E_a [eV] (fit) & = (0.136\pm0.03)(0.5) &=(0.136\pm0.04)(0.5)  + (4.35\pm0.16)\\ E_a [eV] (fit) & = 4.42\pm.19\\ &=4.418\pm0.20  \end{split}  \end{equation}  Using the above equation, the intercept was found to be a value of $E_a = 4.42\pm.19 4.418  \textrm{eV}$ at $n=0.5$. This value does not agree with has been compared to  the accepted value of $4.6674ev$ and $4.8865ev$ within uncertainty (cite). Since (cite), and  the procedure value extracted from the fit has a percent uncertainty of $5.34 \%$ and $9.59 \%$. The method  used (Figure 6) proved  to analyze Figure 6 produced more accurate results, () values much closes to the accepted values. Thus  it was concluded that although the value of $n=2$ is not on the line of best fit, using separate linear fits to approximate $\Delta E$ versus $n$ is a better method.