deletions | additions       diff --git a/The_equation_found_for_Single__.tex b/The_equation_found_for_Single__.tex  index 68c6f6e..5515334 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 new value from the fit using both peaks and dips is $5.34 \%$ and $9.59 \%$ different from the accepted value. Our previous values when we did not combine all of the data points onto one fit, 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.