deletions | additions       diff --git a/The_equation_found_for_Single__.tex b/The_equation_found_for_Single__.tex  index 174aeb8..5c9e7a7 100644  --- a/The_equation_found_for_Single__.tex  +++ b/The_equation_found_for_Single__.tex 
...
\begin{equation}  \begin{split}  E_a E_n  [eV] (fit) &= (0.136\pm0.03)n + (4.35\pm0.16)\\ E_a [eV] (fit) &=(0.136\pm0.04)(0.5) + (4.35\pm0.16)\\  E_a [eV] (fit) &=4.418\pm0.20 &=4.42\pm0.20  \end{split}  \end{equation}  Using the above equation, the intercept was found to be a value of $E_a = 4.418 4.418\pm0.20  \textrm{eV}$ at $n=0.5$. This value has been compared to does not match  the accepted value values  of $4.6674ev$ and $4.8865ev$ (cite), and the value extracted from the fit has a percent uncertainty of $5.34 \%$ and $9.59 \%$. (cite) within uncertainty.  The method used (Figure 6) proved to () values much closes to in  the accepted values. Thus analysis of Figure 6 had much more accurate results, 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.